393050-1.

UNITED STATES LAND OFFICE, New Orleans, La., December 5th, 1892.

Honorable COMMISSIONER GENERAL LAND OFFICE,

Washington, D. C.

SIR: Referring to your letter "F." dated October 17th, 1892, directing this office to give public notice in two newspapers, one published in each of the parishes of Saint Landry and Rapides, to the effect that a list of certain lands, situated in said parishes and claimed by the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company and embracing 75,529.08 acres had been submitted to the department for approval as a basis for patent to the said railway company and advising all settlers thereon of the contemplated action, looking to the patenting thereof, also asking such settlers to assert any claimed rights within the period of publication, we have the honor to report, that pursuant to such instructions, this office caused the notices to be published for a period of twenty (20) days, in the Saint Landry Clarion and the Alexandria Town Talk-two papers having general circulation in the vicinity of the lands in question, the first mentioned one being published at Opelousas, Saint Landry Parish, and the other at Alexandria, Paris of Rapides.

Both publications were ordered by this office on the 26th of October last, the notice in the St. Landry Clarion appearing for the first time in its issue of October 29th, and that in the Town Talk on November 5th. Various typographical errors in the description of the tracts involved having been discovered in the first notice as published by the Clarion, an additional publication was required in said paper. The notice in the Town Talk was found correct

and hence, no supplemental publication in said paper was called for. In accordance with your request, we enclose herewith copies of each paper containing the notice, being the issues of the Clarion of October 29th, November 5th, November 12th, November 19th, and November 26th, and of the Town Talk of November 5th, November 12th, November 19th, and November 26th, respectively.

As a result of the notice, the following settlers filed their applications in due form and the New Orleans Pacific Railway Company having been notified of the fact of the filing of such adverse claims, and finding upon examination of the lands through their representative that the parties were entitled thereto, under the provisions of the 2nd section of the act of February 8th, 1887, they having settled thereon prior to the date of the definite location of the road and being still in possession thereof, the company filed a relinquishment of all its right, title, and interest in and to the lands in question in favor of the settlers, to wit:

31, Tp. 2 S., R. 1 E.

Mary E. Robert, North West
George Randle, North West 5, Tp. 3 S., R. 1 E.

Jessie Cole, N. 1 of SE. † and S. of NE. 17, Tp. 3 S., R. 1 E.

Eli Clark S. of SW. sec. 29 and S. of SE. sec. 31, Tp. 3 S., R. 1 E. Samuel Mallett, E. of SW. and W. of SE. sec. 9, Tp. 1 S., R. 2 W. Willis Cooper, S. of NE. and N. of SE. sec. 15, Tp. 1 S., R. 2 W. Phoebe Randle, N. of NE. and N. of NW. sec. 13, Tp. 3 S., R. 1 W. Theodore Campbell, E. of SW. and W. of SE. sec. 35, Tp. 1 N., R. 2 W. Henry Stanley, SE. sec. 19, Tp. 1 N., R. 3 W. The following lands embraced in the notice are found to be involved in contests between alleged settlers and the railway company, which are now pending before this office and were initiated prior to the date of the notice but have as yet not advanced far enough for decision by this office, and report to yours and these tracts should, in our opinion, be, therefore, excepted from the list submitted for patenting, to wit:

SW. sec. 7, Tp. 3 S., R. 1 E., claimed by Willis Elliot.

SE. sec. 31, Tp. S., R. 2 W., is claimed by Mendsley C. Gunter.

NE. SW. E. of NW. and NW. of NE. sec. 9, Tp. 2 S., R. 2 W. is claimed by David W. Elliott.

S. of SW. NW. of SW. and SW. of NW. sec. 9, Tp. 2 S., R. 2 W. is claimed by William D. Elliott (portions of both the described tracts being State lands).

E. of NE. NE. of SE. and NW. of NE. sec. 27, Tp. 1 S., R. 2 W. claimed by Lewis Melder.

NW. sec. 29, Th 2 S., R. 1 E. claimed by Stephen Deville.

SW. sec. 29, Tp. 2 S., R. 1 E. claimed by Andrew J. Carpenter.
Attention is also called to the claim of William R. Bemount, SW.

sec. 5, Tp. 1 S., R. 2 W., the papers in which case were transmitted to your office by letter from this office dated November 22, 1892.

We also beg leave to call attention to the following discrepancies in the list forwarded with your letter above referred to, in accordance with which the publication was had, to wit:

66

NE.sec. 23, Tp. 1 S., R. 1 W., selection of company cancelled and land awarded to Adolph Johnson, settler, by G. L. O. “ F.,” dated September 12, 1892. SE. of NE. E. of SE. sec. 3, Tp. 2 S., R. 3 W. is embraced in homestead entry No. 13984, F. C. No. 4229, of Mrs. Nancy V. Eldred, the railway company having relinquished its claim to said tracts.

NE. sec. 9, Tp. 4 S., R. 1 E., homestead entry No. 14138, of François G. Ardoin, to whom the land was awarded by the department.

SW. sec. 9, Tp. 4 S., R. 1 E., homestead entry No. 13988, of Achille L. Guillory, successful contestant against the claim of the railway company.

Lots Nos. 1 and 2 sec. 3, Tp. 5 S., R. 1 E., awarded to Honoré A. Fuselier, settler, by G. L. O. " F.," dated October 27, 1892.

It is therefore recommended that the last above-described tracts, which were evidently erroneously inserted in the list, be eliminated therefrom.

The nine relinquishments by the railway company of the tracts occupied by actual settlers, as hereinbefore described, are herewith transmitted for your consideration and our report thus closed.

As will be observed, one of the surprising features of the proceeding is the extremely small number of filings or applications by actual settlers received in response to the notice. It proves that the number of such settlers was by no means as large as expected; but this may be explained by the fact that the greater portion of the land involved is timbered and not very desirable for settlement or agricultural purposes.

Hoping that our statement and report on this matter may prove satisfactory, We remain, very respectfully,

393650-9.

Enclosure No. 4 filed with 10-9040 Wood.

CHAS. C. PALFREY, Register.
A. S. JACKSON, Receiver.

U. S. General Land Office, received Dec. 9, 1892. 138757. 9-8205.

U. S. LAND OFFICE, New Orleans, La., Dec'r. 5th, 1892.

R. and R. make report on publication of notice to settlers on N. O. Pacific Ry. grant had under instructions contained in letter "F.," dated October 17th, 1892.

Reference is had to letter B.
No ans. reqd.

MARY MARX.

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID H. TAYLOR, REPRESENTING THE GOULD INTERESTS, OF 161 BROADWAY, NEW YORK CITY.

Mr. TAYLOR. In reply to a question a few moments ago about the ownership of stock of the New Orleans Pacific Railroad, I overlooked the fact, which I believe to be true, that the entire stock of that railroad company was held by the American Railway Improvement Co., of New York. Now, I will endeavor to find out exactly what proportion of the stock of that American Railway Improvement Co., of New York, belongs to the Gould heirs, if it is relevant in any way before this committee.

The CHAIRMAN. I think you had better do that.

Mr. TAYLOR. And I will endeavor, also, to find out whether any of the Gould heirs were directors in the New Orleans Pacific and give you any information I have in this connection, and I will do it as soon as I get back to New York. My impression is, however,

our records are all in New Orleans, and I will have to refer to Judge Hudson, the president of the Texas Pacific, to give me this information for you.

Mr. SINNOTT. Is this gentleman in any way connected with the Gould interest?

Mr. TAYLOR. Ball?

Mr. SINNOTT. Yes.

Mr. TAYLOR. Ball, who purchased Henderson's title, contracted with the Goulds to purchase their lands 10 or 15 years ago.

Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Ball bought absolutely that land 18 years ago from the Goulds. Subsequent to that time, in 1907, Ball has made another contract, not to purchase this land, but a contract to purchase certain other lands, and has nothing to do with Henderson's claim. That was a fee simple title, passed 18 years ago.

Mr. BERNSTEIN. And Mr. Ball, after buying Henderson's interest, bought the contending interests.

STATEMENT OF MR. D. O. LANE, REPRESENTING THE SOUTHLAND LUMBER CO., OF DAVENPORT, IOWA.

Mr. LANE. I merely want to make a short statement of facts in relation to the position of the Southland Lumber Co. and their interests. They purchased their holdings in Lousiana in 1902, at a time when the statute of 1896, while its effect may have been in full force. They bought about 150,000 acres of land. We believed we had a right to rely upon the statutes as they existed at the time of the purchase. Of course, we realized that as to persons who were in actual occupancy of any of these lands we would have notice of whatever rights they really might have by the fact of notice of the occupancy. It turned out, after being advised of suit 16, and thereafter in making an investigation, that the only occupants of any part of that land that could be discovered by inspection comprised altogether about 600 acres parties claiming 600 acres. All of these parties were involved and their lands specified in suit 16, and all of these parties had made their application to the Land Office as homesteaders and had had their claims allowed by the Land Office, except one. He was turned down by the Land Office on the facts, and his land involved 80 acres of these 600, but he was still there. An inspection further showed these facts: That of these 600 a portion of the parties, or some of the parties who had made their claims and had them approved in the Land Office had been gone for years. There was nothing left to show that they ever were there, in the way of improvements. There were indications, by the lack of trees and those things, you will see, that some one had been there at some time, and we do not dispute they were there at the time they proved it. There is no question raised about that; but they had abandoned, left, and deserted.

Now, we feel and we believe that our title to those lands which we purchased there, under the ordinary doctrine of a good-faith purchaser, entitles us to claim successfully all of those lands, except in so far as our title may be affected or our right by the fact that these parties claiming these 600 acres were in possession, and the fact that as evidence of their possession or their right to possession they had

made it a matter of record. Now, nearly all of these parties, possibly all those who had run away or abandoned or left or deserted, we do not know where to--all of them were settled with by my client, whom I represent, in a satisfactory manner to the parties themselves and the company, deeds exchanged, and title to the land conveyed to the parties and arrangements made between the parties and the company in relation to what they should pay them for the timber. Most of those were approved; some of them have not been approved in the department. They got in between the change of administrations. At one time the department seemed to approve of adjustments of that kind, and then all at once they changed their minds. But the transactions were effected for all except 280 acres, and those parties are still in suit 16, and their rights have been proved up and recognized by the Government.

Now, it seems to me that this bill does not go to protect people who were bona fide claimants under the meaning of all these acts, and who had done anything in the world to show they were claimants making a filing. Those people do not need anything. In my judgment, no legislation can help them; but the thing that this bill will do, if it does anything, will be that it will open the field of contest and litigation between the owners of patent titles and all of these 7,000 or 8,000 filings that were made last year or year before, and as many more as want to be made. Now, on the lands we represent or own, the lands my clients own, there were filings covering 3,500 or 4,000 acres of land in 1911 under no pretense in the world that they ever had anything to do with any actual settler. They are coming in on the theory that they are open domain, and they attempt to make them open domain by establishing the fact or trying to establish the fact that at the time of the location there was some fellow who was actually in the occupancy of the land and never made any claim to it, and went there and never did a thing.

Mr. SINNOTT. Would not that have made an open domain?
Mr. LANE. No, sir; it certainly would not.

Mr. SINNOTT. If the land was occupied?

Mr. ASWELL. May I ask who purchased the grant?

Mr. LANE. We purchased the grant from the railroad people.

Mr. ASWELL. Could you furnish the committee with a sample of the deed your received?

Mr. LANE. Certainly; we would be glad to do so.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that a deed without warranty?
Mr. LANE. No, sir.

Mr. SINNOTT. But the provision in section 2 was:

Provided, That all said lands occupied by actual settlers at the date of the definite location of said road, and still remaining in their possession or in possession of their heirs or assigns, shall be held and deemed excepted from said grant, and shall be subject to entry under the public-land laws of the United States

And that for all purposes.

Mr. LANE. Yes; but if they were not occupied and proved up under the land laws, and the Government conveyed the land to somebody else, they had a right to do it, and a perfect right to do it; and when we bought they had conveyed, and no one was contesting any claim to this land except these people who had these 600 acres.

Mr. RAKER. Why don't you chute one of these cases through the courts and get it to the Supreme Court of the United States and settle this question once for all?

Mr. LANE. We have never had any trouble with anybody who was on our land.

Mr. RAKER. You have not?

Mr. LANE. No, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Were there any trespassers on it?

Mr. LANE. No, sir; there were no trespassers until for some reason, right out of a clear sky, everybody got a notion down there that they could file on anything whether within the limitations of this grant or

not.

Mr. ASWELL. Do your clients claim those lands which have been deserted?

Mr. LANE. We certainly do. There is nobody else claiming them. Mr. ASWELL. I understood from the gentleman who argued your case this morning that they would be public lands if settlers were on them in 1882, unless the settler secured title.

Mr. LANE. I do not know of such a statement having been made, but if he did make it I do not agree with him in it, I will tell you that.

Now, what I wanted to do was to emphasize this fact, gentlemen of this committee, by stating what I know, because I do not know about these other claims everybody is talking about, but I do know the history of the titles and the occupancy and the claims on my own clients' land. Now, I want you to see the force and effect of any legislation such as lies in this bill. It not only would protect these actual settlers in giving them some right, but it opens the door to anybody and everybody. Now, let me show you what happens down there, to illustrate. I do not ask you to put this into the record, but I want to leave it with you and you can see just exactly why, as this gentleman, Mr. Fuqua, stated here, the land is not worth very much; the timber is worth a good deal and we are after the timber. What is he after? The land is worth nothing. He is going after the timber, and that is what all these fellows are doing that are filing-they are after the timber.

Mr. FUQUA. Mr. Chairman, I challenge that statement.
Mr. LANE. Challenge it! You made it yourself.

The CHAIRMAN. Your statement will appear correctly in the record. Mr. LANE. Yes; I do not want to misstate anything, but that is the way I understood your statement, and I think everybody else. Now, here is an application that will show what they are after and what it is going to open up. This land here is indemnity land [indicating on plat]. There are the filings [indicating on plat]. They will show that on the same piece of land there are as many as 12 different filings that were made in 1911 by 12 different people in the same quarter section. What are they after? The land? Oh, no; they are after the timber; that is all they are after, and they are asking you to allow them to get a chance at it on the plea they are protecting the settler. They are really protecting the speculator.

The CHAIRMAN. It is fair to say the proponents of the bill say they do not care to have any particular bill passed.

Mr. LANE. I understand they say that, but I am asserting the bill will give them something else.