and 1882, but other people-will come there and undertake to make homestead entries and put them to a great deal of expense. My complete answer to that is this: That Louisiana has a very rigid law against trespassers. All they are required to do is to put a notice in the newspaper warning said trespassers from coming on their lands, and then have these crews that go around and cut settlers' timber go around on their own land and post up notices here and there warning trespassers of the fact, and if somebody comes all they have got to do is to go to the nearest justice of the peace. have a warrant issued for him in a criminal proceeding that does not cost them a cent, and go to the district attorney of the parish-my son is one of them—and he will have the grand jury indict them and prosecute them under a very rigorous law. The difficulty that the mill people will have in invoking that law is that they have been violators of all laws. They have gone by force upon these lands where these poor people are living and are raising their families and by force cut their timber, as they undertook to cut old John West's timber-and I myself tried that caseand the court would say to them when they undertook to prosecute a trespasser, "When you come into court you must come with clean hands or else you desecrate the sanctity of justice." I am much obliged to you, gentlemen. Mr. ASWELL. Will you please tell us what effect, in your opinion, this bill will have on vested rights? Mr. HUNTER. I have read the cases in the Supreme Court-I have studied the decisions of the United States Supreme Court-and have cited them in my brief to the effect that the railroad company did not and could not acquire vested rights against the homesteader, whose rights were protected in the act. The CHAIRMAN. Now, gentlemen, the arrangement, as I understand it, is that after the colonel is through opponents of the bill are to be heard. Is that correct? Mr. HUNTER. Yes, sir; that is my understanding. The CHAIRMAN. Who is to be heard for the opponents? Mr. HUDSON. I appear for them. STATEMENT OF MR. FREDERICK GRAY HUDSON, JR., OF HUDSON, POTTS & BURNSTEIN, OF MONROE, LA., APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE HOLDERS UNDER THE RAILROAD PATENTS. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hudson, will you give your full name and address and whom you represent? Mr. HUDSON. I have already given that to the reporter. The CHAIRMAN. Will you state for the benefit of the record and for the benefit of the committee just whom you represent, what interests you represent here, so that we will have your full statement of that. Mr. HUDSON. I have just dictated it to the stenographer. The REPORTER (reading): Mr. Frederick Gray Hudson, jr., of Hudson, Potts & Bernstein, Monroe, La., appearing on behalf of the holders under the railroad patents. Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, our firm represents the heirs of Jay Gould. The CHAIRMAN. Your firm represents the Gould heirs? Mr. HUDSON. Yes, sir; but at a meeting on yesterday, where there were about a dozen persons, representing various interests, in order to save the time of the committee we discussed the matter and agreed that two of us would present the case of all the holders under the patents. Mr. RAKER. Just state the names of those who are interested? That is what we would like to know. Mr. HUDSON. You mean all the holders under the patents? Mr. RAKER. No; not the individuals, possibly, but the railroad companies and lumber companies. Just state that so that we will have it in the record. Mr. HUDSON. We will supply that. The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, I will ask that the reporter will insert that in the record at this point. (The list of appearances referred is as follows:) REPRESENTATIVES AND OWNERS PRESENT JANUARY 26 AND 27, 1914, BEFORE THE PUBLIC LANDS COMMITTEE AND OPPOSING THE ASWELL BILL. J. P. Underwood, Chicago, Ill., owner. Heirs of Caroline Underwood, Chicago, Ill, owner. Florien Giauque, Cincinnati, Ohio, owner. Ernest F. Wesche, New Orleans, La., owner. George R. Nicholson, Cleveland, Ohio, owner. Henry Bernstein, Monroe, La.; F. G. Hudson, jr., Monroe, La.; David D. Taylor, New. York City. (Representing heirs of Jay Gould.) J. B. Roberts, Colfax, La. (Representing J. F. Ball & Bro. Lumber Co. (Ltd.), Alexandria, La.) Mark Norris, Grand Rapids, Mich. (Representing Blodgett Co. (Ltd.), Grand Rapids, Mich.; Wright Blodgett Co. (Ltd.), Saginaw, Mich.; Southwestern Lumber Co., Chicago, Ill.; Industrial Lumber Co., Louisiana.) Joe Lane, Davenport, Iowa. (Representing Southland Lumber Co., Louisiana.) W. W. Whittington, jr., Alexandria, La. (Representing Bentley Lumber Co., of Louisiana; Enterprise Lumber Co., of Louisiana.) R. F. White, Alexandria, La. (Representing Grant Timber & Manufacturing Co.; Trout Creek Lumber Co.; Good Pine Lumber Co.; Tall Timber Lumber Co.; Badeau Lumber Co., Louisiana; William Buchanan, Texarkana, Ark.; and Charles L. Pack, Lakewood, N. J.) John Evans, Alexandria, La. (Representing Crowell Spencer Lumber Co., of Louisiana.) The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Hudson. Mr. HUDSON. Mr. Chairman, in our agreement to present this matter briefly, it was understood that I would take up first the historical part and present to the committee the facts as we think they have been established. Mr. Norris will state the law and its construction in its particular application to these matters. I mention that_because it may be desired to question me in regard to the law, and as Mr. Norris will present those features of the case such questions had best be reserved for him, and with that statement I think we will get along better than if we were to put it the other way around. Before going into a recital of the facts of the history of this grant, I would like to make one statement in answer to something Mr. Hunter said in response to a question by Mr. Aswell, and that is that this bill is limited to some 450 settlers who were on these lands prior to the date of definite location of this railroad; and so far as the interests that I individually represent as attorney, I would be willing to say that if this bill, Mr. Chairman, was limited to the settlers who were on the land prior to 1882 when the railroad was definitely located, who remained on that land until the act of 1887, February 8, when the grant was confirmed to the railroad company, and whose heirs or assigns of record are on there to-day, I see no objection to the chief aims desired by the bill-none whatever. But that is not the idea, Mr. Chairman, and that is not the purpose of the bill, and the most complete answer I know of to that argument and to the contention that there are only 450 of them is that in the last 3 years there have been between 7,000 and 9,000 applications to enter these lands filed with the Interior Department. And that is the proposition, Mr. Chairman, that furnishes the basis for our objection to this bill. Mr. ASWELL. Will the gentleman permit me to make a statement? Mr. HUDSON. Yes, sir. Mr. ASWELL. I stated that the purpose of this bill was to cover those who were actual settlers at that time-1882--and I stated also that there would be others and have been many others that tried to enter, but this bill does not touch any of those. Mr. HUDSON. It touches, Mr. Aswell, their heirs and assigns. There is no method of assignment laid down, and my personal experience and the experience of every man who has ever dealt with these lands is that they will come in and swear that they bought it for 50 bushels of potatoes or 50 bushels of corn, and there is no assignment on record. I think I have not seen one written assignment of a settler's rights, and your act leaves it open as to who their assigns are, and leaves the door wide open, and we start where we started in 1871. Mr. GRAHAM. That would be a commission of perjury, would it not? Mr. HUDSON. Yes, sir; if it could be proven. Mr. ASWELL. You would not suggest that you would not accept the affidavit of a majority of the people of Louisiana, would you? You would not say you would not trust the affidavit of the majority of the people of Louisiana? Mr. HUDSON. I would say this, that in our experience in the matter we have seen so much of that that I am not so sure but that we would say that as to these squatters. However, the act of 1871, Mr. Chairman, that initiated this grant, was an act to incorporate the Texas & Pacific Railroad Co., approved March 3 (16 Stat., 573). Section 22 of that act provides: That the New Orleans, Baton Rouge and Vicksburg Railroad Company, chartered by the State of Louisiana, shall have the right to connect by the most eligible route, to be selected by said company, with the said Texas and Pacific Railroad at its eastern terminus Which would be Shreveport and shall have the right of way through the public land to the same extent granted hereby to the said Texas and Pacific Railroad Company; and in aid of its construction from New Orleans to Baton Rouge, thence by way of Alexandria, in said State, to connect with said Texas and Pacific Railroad Company at its eastern terminus. there is hereby granted to said company, its successors and assigns, the same number of alternate sections of public land per mile in the State of Louisiana as are by this Act granted in the State of California to said Texas and Pacific Company. And by referring to section 9 of the act you find that the lands granted to the Texas and Pacific Railroad Company were every alternate section of the public lands, not mineral, designated by odd number to the amount of twenty alternate sections per mile on either side of said railroad, as said land may be adapted to said company, through the Territories of the United States and ten alternate sections of land per mile on each side of said railroad in California. In other words, the primary limits were 20 miles on either side of the track, and the indemnity limits extended 10 miles farther, making the total limits of the grant 30 miles on either side of the track. The New Orleans, Baton Rouge & Vicksburg Railroad Co. did not build the road; they did not comply with the conditions subsequent to their grant. The Supreme Court has held in so many cases, that I take it to be needless to cite them here, that the words "there be, and is hereby, granted," vests a present title; that said grants in those terms are grants in presenti, although a definition of the route is necessary to give precision to it and attach it to any particular tract. That general principle of law is so well established that I do not think it needs any comment. In all railroad grants, Mr. Chairman-you doubtless are more familiar with them than I-you know that there were conditions subsequent attached, but for failure to comply with those conditions subsequent the grant was not forfeited. But the Supreme Court has also held in so many cases that it is hardly necessary to refer to them in detail, that lands granted to aid in the construction of railroads do not revert after the condition is broken until the forfeiture has been asserted by the Government. I merely cite those authorities in answer to the proposition that Mr. Hunter intimated, though he did not press, that this railroad company was in bad faith; that this railroad company had not complied with the conditions of the grant, but that we had gotten something that we were not entitled to. The facts are to the contrary, Mr. Chairman. We got but one-third of what we were entitled to. I say "we," speaking collectively, although I have nothing to do with the New Orleans Pacific. The grant-and the records of the Land Office will bear me out in this-was intended to convey 3,250,000 acres of land, but it ran through the central section of Louisiana, along the Red and Mississippi Rivers, where a great many old Spanish and French grants had been located, and under the policy adopted by our Government those grants were recognized as valid, and in the place of the limits of this grant there were not sufficient lands to come anywhere near giving the land granted. Mr. RAKER. If I am right there, Mr. Hudson, it was asserted by some gentlemen down here that the grant purported to convey between 900,000 and 1,000,000 acres. I believe your statement was, at the same time, that 3,250,000 acres was attempted to be granted, and I would like to get what are the facts in regard to that. Mr. HUDSON. That is the fact. Mr. RAKER. That is the fact? Mr. HUDSON. That is the fact. Mr. RAKER. You did receive about 1,000,000 acres? Mr. HUDSON. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. And the amount attempted to be granted was about 3,250,000? Mr. HUDSON. The amount attempted to be granted was about 3,250,000 acres. There were not enough lands in the indemnity limits to supply the deficiency; but you will find from these grants, which are on record and on file in the Land Office, that a large portion of the land obtained was within the indemnity limits. Mr. LENROOT. A portion of this land was within the indemnity limits? Mr. HUDSON. I should say that approximately one-third of the whole land that the company got was within the indemnity limits. Mr. LENROOT. And the lands in question here were in part within the indemnity limits? Mr. HUDSON. Yes, sir. Mr. RAKER. In the original limits and in the indemnity limits there were only a million acres. There is not any act of Congress or any attempt by Congress in any of these grants to grant to any of these companies any definite number of acres of land, is there? Mr. HUDSON. No; there was not any attempt to grant any definite number of acres, but there was an estimate made. Mr. RAKER. Is it not a fact that the railroad had to take its chances on the number of acres that it might only get 100,000 acres, when, as a matter of fact, if there had been no reservations that would have kept the railroad out, there might have been 10,000,000? Is not that the reason? Mr. HUDSON. That is true; yes, sir. I do not cite the deficiency to show equity, for there is no reason why we should be entitled to special treatment. I merely cite it to show that we are not in bad faith; that we did not get something for nothing or more than was proper, as was contended by Mr. Hunter. The New Orleans, Baton Rouge & Vicksburg Railroad Co. did not build its line of road, and the grant was not then forfeited, and in January, 1881, they assigned their rights under the grant to the New Orleans Pacific Railroad Co. There had been no forfeiture declared, nothing to divest them of their rights under the grant. They assigned whatever rights they might have in the grant to the New Orleans Pacific Co. That company built the line of road. There was no question of fraud, there was no question of defeasance, or anything of that kind that enters into this controversy. So I will make no defense of it, because it is not the fact-there was none. They built the line of railroad, Mr. Chairman, and, according to my interpretation of the law, they could have gone ahead and done nothing else than call for their patents and obtain them. However, at that time it was sought to have it confirmed by Congress, and when they attempted to do so they met with opposition from Representative Blanchard and Representative Robertson, who at that time represented that district of Louisiana in Congress. As a result of that opposition the railroad company agreed with Messrs. Blanchard and Robertson as to the methods that they would pursue in order to protect the rights of these settlers. And what was the agreement, Mr. Chairman? If you will permit me, I will read it. To the Hon. E. W. ROBERTSON and N. C. BLANCHARD, Representatives in Congress from Louisiana. GENTLEMEN: In consideration of the withdrawal by you of the protest and objection filed by you with the Department of the Interior against the recognition of the claims urged by the New Orleans Pacific Railroad Co. to the land |