received only a little over 3,000,000 acres, and because of the large number of acres in the grants made to Arizona and New Mexico those States were exempted from the benefits of the acts of 1862 and 1866, as was stated in their enabling acts, but no such langauge as that is contained in the enabling act of the State of Oklahoma. Congressman Carter, we will be glad to hear any statement you desire to make.

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES D. CARTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

Mr. CARTER. Mr. Chairman, I have been so busy with other matters that I have not had time to keep up with this matter as closely as I would like. The question as to the legal right of our State to this land has been so thoroughly covered by the gentlemen who have preceded me as to need no further justification at my hands. I do want to say something, however, about the equitable and moral right of the State of Oklahoma to the recognition of all of her just claims against the Federal Government. I will not detain the committee long, but it will be necessary for me to state briefly the condition of the State of Oklahoma at the time she was admitted into the Union. When we were admitted into the Union we had no territorial form of government on the Indian Territory side of the State, which embraced about half of what is the present State of Oklahoma. The east side of the State, then known as Indian Territory, was occupied by the Five Civilized Tribes, and every acre of the land belonging to the Five Civilized Tribes was inalienable, and by former treaties made nontaxable. The part that has been purchased by white people, which was a small portion in the little towns, was nontaxable until all of the payments had been made upon the land. The other part, which was the major portion of it, was allotted to the Indians and made nontaxable for 21 years. Therefore, we had this condition in our State. The entire eastern half of Oklahoma, composing some 19,500,000 acres of land, was nontaxable. There were something more than 20,000,000 acres on the western, or old Oklahoma Territory side, and much of that was also allotted to Indians and made nontaxable. From Indian Territory side 40 counties were created from a solid mass of contiguous territory averaging about 150 miles east and west and almost 250 miles north and south, containing a population at that time exceeding 700,000 and not embracing one single foot of taxable land.

Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Without 1 foot of taxable land?

Mr. CARTER. Without 1 foot of taxable land.

Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I understood you to say that about 19,500,000 acres of it was exempt from taxation?

Mr. CARTER. We have 40,000,000 acres of land in the entire State, and about 19,500,000 acres of that is in the Indian Territory, or on the east side of the State, embracing about 40 counties, and not 1 acre in those 40 counties was taxable. Much of the land on the west or old Oklahoma side is also nontaxable, but conditions over there are not quite so deplorable.

Mr. DAVENPORT. Outside of cities and towns.

Mr. CARTER. No, sir; the purchasers did not get deeds or titles to town lots until all the payments were made, and the land could not

be taxed until deeds were finally made to the land. The patents were not executed until some time after statehood, so all of it was nontaxable. There was not an acre of taxable land there.

In addition to that we had no public improvements in the State; we had no county courthouses; and we had no county jails; we had no provision whatever for public schools, and there was not a public school in those 40 counties. We had no improved roads and there was no way of improving the roads; there were no bridges; and no internal improvements of any kind. The State of Oklahoma has struggled along and the east side of that State has done the best it could with this 19,500,000 acres of nontaxable land. It is true that we had $5,000,000 paid to the State of Oklahoma for common-school purposes, but that was in lieu of sections 16 and 36. Therefore we came into the Union under a greater handicap than even any of the 13 original States. It has been a great burden to the people, on the east side of the State especially, to carry on their county governments, maintain education, and make necessary internal improvements under these conditions. Therefore we need every dollar that is coming to the State, and especially that part of the State, in order to carry on our county and State governments, and to make those internal improvements that are necessary in every civilized community.

I hope this subcommittee will bear these facts in mind when it comes to make its report on this bill and will take into consideration the dire circumstances that exist with reference to taxation on that side of the State.

I thank you.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. We will be glad to hear from Mr. Morgan next. STATEMENT OF HON. DICK T. MORGAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

Mr. MORGAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I confess that I have not made any thorough study of the legal propositions involved in this bill. I did, however, go before the Secretary of the Interior and the Assistant Secretary and heard the argument of Mr. Teehee, and I think I can say that I was profoundly impressed with that argument. From a purely legal standpoint, to my mind, there is no question but that Oklahoma is entitled to this relief. It will only be a question as to whether or not Congress may think that Oklahoma has already been well taken care of, and whether or not, under all the circumstances, we are able to get along without it.

Now, I would like, if the committee will give me that privilege, to file a supplemental argument, or rather to extend my remarks in the record, because I am not fully prepared to present a few things that I would like to present to the committee.

There is an impression, I think, or at least I have observed it since I have been here in Congress, that Oklahoma really received a greater endowment from the National Government than the average State received when it was brought into the Union.

Mr. TIMBERLAKE. I would like to know what some of those considerations were.

Mr. MORGAN. That impression grows largely out of the fact that the enabling act, as has been stated here, granted to Oklahoma $5,000,000 for public school purposes in lieu of sections 16 and 36 in

the east half of the State, or in what is known as Indian Territory, or what was included in the territory occupied by the Five Civilized Tribes. In that part of the State the Government had long prior to the admission of Oklahoma to statehood disposed of sections 16 and 36, and hence it could not grant sections 16 and 36 to the State for public school purposes.

Mr. TIMBERLAK. Did they think that $5,000,000 was equivalent in value to sections 16 and 36 at the Government price for such land?

Mr. MORGAN. I suppose Congress thought that $5,000,000 was fair compensation for sections 16 and 36, which the United States had already disposed of, and I think there was some general impression in the committee that that was more than we should have been granted in cash in lieu of those sections.

Mr. DAVENPORT. That was a compromise that was made at that time in order to equalize both parts of the State so far as commonschool funds were concerned, the western side of the State having had sections 16 and 36 granted to it. This was a compromise made in an effort to equalize the two parts of the State.

Mr. MORGAN. Of course, the State at large was interested, because we have all come into the State, but the eastern half of the State, of course, on a larger scale than the western half of the State. Of course, the committee knows that from the beginning, away back in 1802, when Ohio was admitted into the Union, Congress has always granted to the States, first, section 16, and then sections 16 and 36 for public-school purposes. That practice went on until finally, in some of the Western States, they granted four sections in each township for public-school purposes. Now, as I have said, there is an impression that we received our full share, but I think if the committee understood thoroughly just what we have received from this grant as compared with other States, that it might help the committee in deciding whether or not this allowance should be made.

I think we have a clear legal right to this relief. For instance, take the grant of land for public-school purposes made to the States of Utah, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado, Oregon, Wyoming, Idaho, Kansas, South Dakota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Washington, and Oklahoma, and you will find that the grant of land to Utah for public-school purposes amounted to over 6,000,000 acres, Montana received over 5,000,000 acres, New Mexico received over 4,000,000 acres, Arizona received over 4,000,000 acres, Nevada received nearly 4,00,000 acres, Colorado received 3.715,555 acres, Oregon received 3.387.520 acres, Wyoming received 3,368,924 acres, Idaho received 3,063,271 acres, Kansas received 2,876,124 acres, South Dakota received 2,813,511 acres, Nebraska received 2,637,155 acres, North Dakota received 2,531,200 acres, Washington received 2,448,675 acres, while Oklahoma received 1.276.204 acres. Now, we received only 1,276,204 acres, while the other States received from 2,448,675 acres in the case of Washington to 6.007,182 acres in the case of Utah. Now, taking the grant of lands for public-school purposes to these States per capita of population, and you will find that Utah received 16 acres per capita; Montana, 13.5 acres per capita; New Mexico, 13.4 acres per capita; Arizona, 28.8 acres per capita; Nevada, 48.6 acres per capita; Colorado, 4.6 acres per capita; Oregon, 5.03 acres per capita; Wyoming, 23.6 acres per capita; Idaho, 9.4 acres per capita; Kansas, 1.7 acres per capita; South Dakota, 4.8 acres per

capita; Nebraska, 2.2 acres per capita; North Dakota, 4.3 acres per capita; Washington, 2.1 acres per capita; while Oklahoma received 0.77 of an acre per capita, or about three-fourths of an acre. The other States, as you will see, range as high as 48 acres per capita granted for public-school purposes.

Now, I can not go into that fully, but you will see that our grant for public-school purposes, so far as acreage is concerned, was insignificant as compared with the grants to other States. As has been stated, we received $5,000,000 in lieu of lands for public-school purposes. Now, I contend that we were entitled to those lands or their value, and there were about 1,100,000 acres of public-school lands that we should have had that we did not get. The Government allowed us $5,000,000 in lieu of those lands, which was a little less than $5 per acre. It was $4.50 per acre, which, of course, I contend was probably not one-fourth of the value of those lands. In other words, $5,000,000 was not compensation to us for the lands lost to us for public-school purposes.

Mr. TIMBERLAKE. What did the State lands bring? What did they bring to the State?

Mr. MCCLINTIC. They are not all sold.

Mr. MORGAN. They are not all sold, but I think they are appraised at probably $15 per acre. Much of that was in the western half of the State, where land on an average would not be worth as much as lands in the eastern part of the State, where those lands were lost.

Now, then, there is another proposition: If you take the amount of these grants per capita of school population you will find that the same discrepancy exists. Oklahoma received in school lands only 2.2 acres per capita of school population, while the other States received acreages running as high as 247 acres per capita of school population in Nevada, 49.6 acres per capita of school population in Utah, 54.4 acres per capita of school population in Montana, 40.8 acres per capita of school population in New Mexico, 17.2 acres per capita of school population in Colorado, and so on. That was the amount of the grant per capita of school population at the time of the admission of those States to statehood.

Now, there is another proposition that I want to consider briefly: The committee will remember, going back to 1802, at the first admission of a Territory to statehood, the National Government granted to each State an amount of money equal to 5 per cent of all the proceeds of the sale of public lands; that is to say, 5 per cent of the amount realized from the sale of public lands in the State was given to the State. That was done, as is shown by the enabling acts of those States, in lieu of or to compensate the State for the loss of revenues from the Government lands which had been sold by the Government and that were to remain nontaxable for a period of, say, five years. That special grant was made specifically in the enabling act to compensate the State for that loss of revenue from the lands which the Government had deeded to certain soldiers and other persons and had exempted from taxation for a period of five years. In order to compensate them, the Government granted them 5 per cent. of the amount realized from the sale of public lands in those States. I have here a list of 28 States that received under that grant an average of over $500,000 from the United States. For instance, Alabama received $1,000,000 and over, California received over $1,000,000,

Illinois received over $1,000,000, Indiana received in excess of $1,000,000, Kansas received $1,125,469.41, Mississippi received $1,069,926.62, Missouri received $1,060,430.61, while Oklahoma, under that act, up until 1913 had received only $59,000.

Mr. TIMBERLAKE. What did Colorado receive?

Mr. MORGAN. Colorado received $460,748.30; Arkansas received $324,911, or not quite the average. Colorado received about the average. Now, the reason for that, in the first place, was that the United States had conveyed to the Indians all of the public lands in the east half of the State, so that none of those lands were sold. The public lands were given to the Indians. As a matter of fact, they were not given to the Indians, because in reality the United States received a consideration for them. In other words, the Indians gave the United States lands in other States and agreed to remove. It was not a gift to the Indians in Oklahoma, but the United States sold those public lands in order to discharge the debt they owed the Indians, because of the release by the Indians of their claim to lands in other States. Therefore it was a national obligation or a national debt, and not a mere gift to the Indians. Then, in the western half of the State, where most of the lands were disposed of under the public-land laws, they were practically all disposed of before statehood, so that when statehood came there were practically no public lands to be sold. Consequently there is nothing that we can get 5 per cent on. There was only a limited amount of land to be sold afterwards.

Now, in Nebraska and in one other State-I think, perhaps, it was Arizona-they have given the States 5 per cent of the amount realized from the sale of public lands from the time of the organization of the Territories, and not from the time of their admission to statehood. California was admitted to statehood in 1850 without getting this grant. It went along that way until 1906, when Congress passed an act a special act-making this grant to California, and California has received in recent years over $1,000,000 under this grant. Now, I contend, of course, that Oklahoma should have been granted this 5 per cent of the proceeds arising from the sale of public lands from the inception of the Territory. That would have equalized our grant with those of the other States. We have received only about $50,000 or $60,000, while the average State out of the 28 having this grant has received over $500,000. Many of those States have received $1,000,000 each. Now, there is at least $500,000 that Oklahoma should have received. Oklahoma has been discriminated against to that amount at least.

Now, then, I point out these things to the committee to show that, after a thorough investigation of the various grants that were made. to Oklahoma under the enabling act, as you will see, Oklahoma, as a matter of fact, has not received the average of the amounts that other States have received when they were admitted to statehood. I think I can show with absolute clearness that instead of having received more than the other States, we have not been given the average. Now, I think Mr. Teehee can show the committee that we have an absolute legal and statutory right to these lands if we really have not been granted that what we should have been allowed. You have had presented the question involved in the nontaxable Indian lands,