if we do not show that in this particular instance that the Commissioner has a share of the profits, and that his Deputy, and that his clerks have shared in the profits that have been derived in this way. Then the party who looks at the lands loses his expenses, and the lands are withheld from the market until they are sold in that way.

We expect to be able to show to you a case just like this, where a gentleman applied for certain school lands last July. He had had the lands inspected, and sent in his application for the lands, and he received a notice that those lands were sold; that afterwards he came to the office, and he found the lands were not patented; that there were simply written upon the description, in pencil, the initials " C. H."

66

We expect to show that an application was filed on the 6th of July last for the school lands, in which the applicant states that he applied for the purchase of these lands, and that he withheld the issuing of the patent until he ascertains the given name of the party that desires to purchase. He also deposits at the same time his check, drawn upon a bank, in which he was a party, payable to his own order, but the check is not indorsed, and no order appears upon it. The check lies in the office to-day, the lands have not been patented, neither has there been any certificate issued to C. H, Neither has there been anything further done. You are aware that the law provides that the Commissioner, when lands are purchased, shall at once issue his certificate, and the certificate shall provide that if the party does not pay according to the certificate, or does not pay the interest which is due upon the first day of March, or within sixty days after the first day of March, the certificate shall be forfeited. Now, while there has been no certificate issued, there has been no interest, there have been no taxes on the land, there has been no forfeiture sixty days after the first day of March, although there would have been if the Commissioner had done his duty in regard to this mat

ter. And we expect to show, in this very case, that the gentleman who applied for these lands received this notice applied in relation to the same lands. There was two hundred acres of the land, which would be two hundred dollars. That he was informed that since these proceedings have been in progress, in the face and eyes of this proceeding, he has been told that this gentleman, marked C. H., had on deposit there a check for two hundred dollars, and he would allow him to select out of this, the part wanted in payment for his check. Now, we shall claim that if the lands are actually applied for by a bona fide purchaser, and the money paid into the State Treasury, that every citizen has a right to purchase these lands, and that there shall be no preferences shown, and that it is a fraud upon the State Treasury to hold these lands in this way. This is one of the cases we expect to show under this same article.

Under the second article we shall claim that if we show what is called for under the first article

Mr. Shipman-If the gentleman will allow me, I will make this request, that the Manager be as specific as possible, instead of being general, and state, as far as he can, all the facts he complains of, as we are not now advised and wish to get them all.

Mr. Manager Huston-I have only one objection to complying with the request of the gentleman, and that is this: to be specific, and state what we expect to prove by every witness, in every instance, would, I think, take up unnecessary time; and my object in making the statement at all is, to call tho attention of the Senate to the weight of the testimony, and the general tenor of the facts that we expect to prove. I have no objection to being specific so far as can be consistent with the time.

I am satisfied that the Senate is already wearied by the long speeches they have listened to, and are anxious to get at these facts, for this is the main thing to be tried.

Mr. Shipman-I do not ask for details, but so far as the gen

tleman can, to refer to the facts, so that we will know the facts in the same general way.

Mr. Manager Huston-Mr. President, claiming as we do that the Commissioner is the responsible head of this office, and that he is responsible for the acts of his clerks and his Deputy, we shall claim a right, as a matter of course, to introduce proof in regard to the official misconduct of the clerks and the Deputy, as well as that of the Commissioner, and under this second charge we expect to be able to prove that the Deputy Commissioner has been in the constant habit, almost, of dealing in lands; and I wish right here, as I do not desire to take up the time unnecessarily,—I had the different statutes of the State upon a piece of paper to refer to, but I will not read them unless it is called for,-I desire to state what I understand the law to be in regard to the Commissioner of the Land Office and his clerks dealing in lands, either directly or indirectly, that are held by the State for sale..

The Presiding Officer-Is the Honorable Manager speaking of the second article?

Mr. Manager Huston-Of the second article, and that is, that the statute prohibits the Commissioner or his Deputy from dealing in land while in office, or for three months after the discontinuance of the office.

We expect to show that Mr. Barnard, the Deputy Commissioner, who had been a clerk in this office for five years before he was made Deputy, had been in the habit of violating that provision frequently, and that the Commissioner knew it, and we expect to show that Mr. Barnard has to-day, in his name, in violation of the law,-although not in his own name, over two thousand acres of the lands of this State. That he holds this land in the name of a third party, because he knows he cannot hold them in his own name, which would be in violation of the laws of the State. And that he has had men engaged in looking up lands, which he has withheld from sale since the time the present Commissioner has been in office.

We expect to be able to show that other clerks have been engaged in similar transactions under this charge.

Now I will pass to Article III. This third article refers to the law in regard to the selection of homesteads,-homesteads that are licensed to actual settlers. And I desire to read section 3978 of the 1st Vol. Compiled Laws of 1871:

"That the Commissioner of the Land Office is hereby required to issue a certificate of purchase to every settler or occupant of swamp lands belonging to the State, in the proper legal subdivision, for eighty acres of said land, whenever it shall be made to appear to said Commissioner that such settler or occupant has actually resided upon such eighty acres of land for the period of five continuous years, and that he has also drained the same so as to comply with the provisions of the act of Congress, approved September twenty-eight, eighteen hundred and fifty, by which said lands were conveyed to this State."

Now, under that section the Commissioner is authorized to issue a certificate after the party has been in possession of his land for five years. The second section provides that the settler shall file an application and the license shall be issued to him; and section four of the act of 1859, as amended by the act of 1861, provides for the filing of certain proofs within three months of the settlement; and the act of 1865, that I desire to call your attention to, provides:

"That any swamp land licensed under and by virtue of act number two hundred and twenty-nine of the Session Laws of eighteen hundred and fifty-nine, and all acts amendatory thereto, from and after the expiration of five years from the date of the license, may be sold by the Commissioner of the State Land Office the same as other swamp lands are now sold: Provided, It shall appear from the affidavit of the supervisor, or two responsible citizens of the township in which such lands are situated, that no settlement has been made by the original licensee, as contemplated in the act licensing the same; that said licensee has no valuable improvements thereon;

also, that said licensee cannot claim exemption under the provisions of section eighty-seven of act number sixteen of the Session Laws of eighteen hundred and sixty-two."

Which, I believe, refers to the fact of their being held back by persons in the military services.

"Any person holding a license for the settlement of State swamp lands under and by virtue of act number one hundred and eight of the Session Laws of eighteen hundred and sixtyone, who shall abandon and not reside upon the lands described in his license, for two years, shall forfeit his license; and upon the filing with said Commissioner the affidavit of the supervisor or two responsible citizens of the township in which the said lands are situated, that any licensee has abandoned said land, and has not resided upon the same for two years last past, said Commissioner shall declare said license void, and may sell the said swamp lands the same as other swamp lands are sold: Provided, That no such licensee shall be deemed to have abandoned his land by reason of being engaged in the military or naval service of the United States."

So you will see that under that act there are two kinds of proof required before the lands could be sold. One is termed "proof of non-occupation," and the other of abandonment.

Now, we expect to prove under this article that the Commissioner knew this to be the fact; that there were all through our northern counties, wherever there are swamp lands, large parcels of land that were settled by parties, living upon them five years and upwards, who did not file the certificate with the supervisor, and the affidavit that they had entered into possession three months after date of their license; and that was a fact that the Commissioner had full knowledge of. That Mr. Barnard had knowledge of that, and that it was well understood in the office. So that it was understood that throughout the northern counties, if the parties did not file their affidavit within three months of settlement, and the certificate of the supervisor, showing the date of the settlement, and if they did not file