which Mr. Carter especially referred to. Of course, we do not believe that the United States Government had the right to exempt those lands from taxation after the Government had disposed of the lands without compensating the State for loss of revenue. Of course, as long as they are public lands, or lands belonging to the Government, it is a well-recognized proposition that the States can not tax them, because they are property of the United States, but after the United States Government parts with these lands, and when the title goes out of the Government and into the hands of private individuals, then those lands should be subject to State taxation; and, as is shown by all of the enabling acts of the early States, the National Government recognized that right of the State, and wherever the National Government had disposed of lands and exempted them from taxation for a period of years, the States were compensated.

I think there were about a dozen States to which those special grants were made to compensate them for the loss of taxes. In the case of Oklahoma, the United States Government conveyed those public lands to the Indians, and exempted the lands from taxation, leaving the State of Oklahoma to bear all of that burden. Now, I submit that the Indian problem, so far as it is a problem, is a problem for the Nation. It is a burden that 100,000,000 people should carry, and should not be left for a few Western States to carry. For instance, take a State like Colorado, or a State like North or South Dakota, or, for that matter, most of the Western States, and you will see that many millions of acres of land have been exempted from taxation for many years, and the local authorities and State authorities lose that revenue. That loss of revenue, of course, means an additional tax burden upon other property; so that I contend that if the United States Government exempts property from taxation and places it beyond the taxing power of the State, the loss which the State incurs and the extra expense which is imposed upon property belonging to others by reason of such tax exemption, should be borne by the Nation. I contend that that is a burden that should be borne by the Nation, or by the entire 100,000,000 people, and not thrown upon the people of a single State. There is no doubt but what the revenue lost by reason of these nontaxable Indian lands, which the Government conveyed to the Indians to discharge a national debt, would amount to from fifty to seventy-five million dollars. I have not been able to figure it out entirely, but there are 20,000,000 acres of land not subject to taxation.

I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have the privilege of revising and extending my remarks.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. You will have that opportunity. There is a call of the House, and we will have to suspend now.

(Thereupon at 11.10 o'clock a. m., the subcommittee adjourned.)

SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC LANDS,

Monday, May 22, 1916.

The subcommittee this day met, Hon. James V. McClintic (chairman) presiding.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. Gentlemen of the committee, I desire to state that Congressman McLemore was called to Texas, and he telephoned me

Saturday night that he would not be able to serve on this committee. This being the case, I brought it to the attention of the chairman of the Public Lands Committee, and he asked Congressman Gandy to serve, and I understand that he will be present a little later.

Congressman Ferris, of Oklahoma, a member of the delegation, desires to make some remarks upon this bill, and if there is no objection the committee will be glad to hear from him.

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT FERRIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA.

Mr. FERRIS. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the subcommittee, I think our State is entitled under the law and without any stretching of the law to what it asks in this case, and my reason for thinking that is a careful reading of the act of July 2, 1862, found in the Twelfth Statutes at Large, page 503, and in addition to that the act of July 23, 1866.

Both acts in substance provide I could read them and go into details, but I think I can state it-that for each State admitted thereafter there shall be donated 30,000 acres of land for each Representative in Congress and Senator, provided that the legislature accept the terms of the grant within three years after its admission into the Union. These acts have never been repealed; they are still in full force and effect. Our State legislature, by appropriate joint resolution, did accept within the three-year term the terms of these two grants and asked for the land. Neither the State nor our delegation, I think, have been tardy in prosecuting this matter. Our attorney general brought it to the attention of the Interior Department, and they have been considering it, going over it, and dealing with it. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. What has prevented the department from taking action?

Mr. FERRIS. I was coming right to that point.

The Commissioner of the General Land Office had the matter presented to him fully and he was of the opinion that the department could not automatically make this grant without legislation. The decision will be in the record and I may refer to it later myself. From that an appeal was taken to the Secretary of the Interior, and First Assistant Secretary Jones, in quite a lengthy opinion, which they have attached to the report on this bill, seems to think that the department does not feel justified in acting, and passes it up to Congress. Later there was an opinion by Secretary Lane, and a copy of that decision has been presented, which it might be a good idea to read.

Mr. MCCLINTIC. That opinion has already been inserted in the record?

Mr. FERRIS. Yes, sir; it is in the record. Therefore I better not cumber the record by reading it, but it is adverse to us, so far as the department would go independent of legislation; but I believe a fair reading of it will show that it is not adverse to having Congress take such action, but our State has only approximately 42,000 acres of Government land left, and it would necessitate the issuance of scrip or the payment of $1.25 per acre for the residue sufficient to make up our 210,000 acres, as provided for in this act of 1862.

There are three States which were admitted between 1862 and the admission of our State. One of them is West Virginia, and they gave West Virginia the benefit of the law, without regard to the fact that it never had been a Territory. It was carved out of old Virginia. Every other State, so far as I have been able to discern, has received this grant of land and in some instances a great deal more. They have gotten, the enabling acts recite, even a larger area than provided for in the Morrill Act, so called. That is set out quite fully in this decision, and also in the brief already filed by the delegation, prepared largely by the chairman of the subcommittee and Mr. Teehee. For instance:

Colorado was the first State admitted into the Union subsequent to the extending act of 1866, under the enabling act of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat., 474). No grants were made for agricultural-college purposes by this act, nor was any reference made to the grant of 1862 and 1866. Her congressional representation was fixed at three. She accepted the grant of 1862 and 1866 by legislative enactment, approved January 27, 1879 (Stat. L., 1879, p. 174). Section 3 of the act of Congress of April 2, 1884 (23 Stat., 10), in part provides as follows:

"The State of Colorado, in selecting lands for agricultural-college purposes under the acts of July 2, 1864, and July 23, 1866, may select an amount of land equal to 30,000 acres for each Senator and Representative which said State is entitled to in Congress."

It bore that provision.

Thereunder she received 90,000 acres. In referring to the case of Colorado, the honorable Commissioner of the Land Office, in denying the application of the State of Oklahoma, said:

"The enabling act of Colorado of March 3, 1875 (18 Stat.. 474), made no grant of land for agricultural college purposes, and it was ruled by this office (see Public Domain, p. 229) that the grant made by the act of 1862 inures to a new State without further legislation."

That is their contention. Our contention is that inasmuch as the acts of 1862 and 1866 specifically provided that every State admitted should be entitled to 30,000 acres of land for each Representative and each Senator, and our State having accepted that within the threeyear term, we were of the opinion, and we are still of the opinion, that the Interior Department ought to issue us land to the amount of 42,000 acres in our State and additional land scrip to make up 210,000 acres, which is the 30,000 acres for the five Representatives and two Senators that we were allotted at the time of admission. Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Their action in regard to Colorado would be a precedent?

Mr. FERRIS. Yes, sir.

Evidently the honorable commissioner had reference to further legislation on the part of the United States. Then he proceeded thus:

"This decision was evidently based upon the fact, as in the State of Nebraska, that there was no other grant of lands for the same purpose and the enabling act contained no words that were inconsistent with or repugnant to the grant of 1862."

I will pause long enough to say that in our enabling act there is not a word or a letter that excepts such a grant or that relieves the Government from this act. You will, of course, remember that our State is composed of the twin Territories, as we call it. The Indian Territory, which is the eastern half of our State, and is just about half, was originally the Indian Territory. The Indians were removed from all over the United States and settled there by treaty

44116-16- -3

with the Indians, the Indians surrendering the lands in other States. There was no Government land in that part of the State at all; there never was any; at least at the time of the admission of the State it had all been ceded to the Indians in one form or another. We had no regular school sections at all. In the eastern half of the State we did not even have sections 16 and 36. So on the admission of the State Congress provided an appropriation of $5,000,000 to offset our loss of the regular school sections for the fact that we received no school lands at all in the eastern half of the State.

Mr. TIMBERLAKE. Was not the State given the right to make lieu selections for sections 16 and 36?

Mr. FERRIS. No, sir; and neither have they ever been given that right by any subsequent legislation.

Mr. TILLMAN. There was nothing said when the appropriation of $5,000,000 was made that that was to be in lieu of this other property? Mr. FERRIS. No, sir.

We may run down some of these other States:

The States of North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington were admitted into the Union under the enabling act of February 22, 1889 (25 Stat., 676). Section 16 of this act is as follows:

"That 90,000 acres of land, to be selected and located as provided in section 10 of this act, are hereby granted to each of said States, except to the State of South Dakota, to which 120,000 acres are granted, for the use and support of agricultural colleges in said States, as provided in the acts of Congress making donations of lands for such purposes."

It will be remembered that those States were admitted with each two Senators and one Representative, and so 90,000 acres, 30,000 for each would be a rough estimate of the amount that each State was entitled to.

The congressional representation of each of these States was three, except as to South Dakota, which was four.

You see they raised her to 120,000 as distinguished from 90,000, provided for in the Morrill Act of 1862.

Take another State. Here is Idaho:

Idaho was admitted into the Union directly by the act of July 3, 1890 (26 Stat., 215), with her congressional representation fixed at three. Section 10 of this act provided as follows:

"That 90,000 acres of land, to be selected and located as provided in section 4 of this act, are hereby granted to said State for the use and support of an agricultural college in said State as provided in the acts of Congress making donations of lands for such purposes."

The only acts they could have referred to and the only ones which could be construed are the acts of 1862 and 1866. The act of 1862 gave the original grant, and the act of 1866 is an amendment to it which gives them three years instead of two years to accept, the original act providing that the State must accept in two years and the act of 1866 making it three years.

Idaho also received lands in lieu of the internal improvement grant.

Those were independent grants. I do not think that it is important. Some States may have been given more and a great many have, but so far as our State is concerned, we were neither given lieu lands nor other grants except the $5,000,000 for the east sidenothing at all for this purpose.

Let us drop down to Wyoming.

Wyoming followed the course of Idaho and was admitted into the Union by act of July 10, 1890 (26 Stat., 222). In so far as the question under consideration is concerned, the same provisions were enacted. She also accepted the grants made by the Federal Government by the act approved January 10, 1891. She received her quota of land under the same acts.

Utah was admitted into the Union under the enabling act of July 16, 1894 (28 Stat., 107). Her congressional representation was fixed at three. For agricultural college purposes she received a grant of 200,000 acres, under section 8, without reference to her congressional representation. She also received lands in lieu of the internal improvement grant.

They went way beyond what she was entitled to. She was entitled to 90.000 acres and was given 200,000 acres, specifically provided for, and in doing so they put in this provision:

The said State of Utah shall not be entitled to any further or other grants of land for any purpose than as expressly provided in this act.

They gave her 200,000 acres and expressly said that she would not have any more land, because where she was only entitled to 90,000 acres they gave her 200,000 acres. No such language is to be found in our enabling act.

Oklahoma was admitted into the Union under the enabling act of June 16, 1906 (34 Stat., 267).

I have the enabling act here.

Her congressional representation was fixed at seven, five Congressmen and two Senators. We were entitled to a great deal more. Although Congress had had no recent census and guessed it off at five, and that immediately upon taking a census it was found that we were entitled to eight, all that we lay claim to is exactly the number that Congress gave us at the time of admission, although the population entitled us to a great deal more than that number. For instance, my own congressional district, which was made by Congress, had 386,000 people in it, almost enough for two Congressmen, and while we only ask for 30,000 acres for each of the five Congressmen and the two Senator, just exactly as provided a strict construction would entitle us to more.

Section 8 made a grant of all lands described as section 13 in certain Indian reservations therein named for educational purposes and made an allotment of one-third thereof for the use and benefit of an agricultural and mechanical college. No language is employed to indicate that this grant is in lieu of any other grants theretofore made by Congress to new States.

That has reference to the western half of the State, because there never was a single acre given us in the eastern part of the State for school purposes.

Section 12 also makes a grant of lands for educational purposes whereunder Oklahoma received 250,000 acres for the use and benefit of an agricultural and mechanical college, the granting part of which is as follows:

"That in lieu of the grant of lands for purposes of internal improvement made to new States by the eighth section of the act of September 4, 1841, which section is hereby repealed as to said State, and in lieu of any claim or demand of the State of Oklahoma under the act of September 28, 1850, and section 2479 of the Revised Statutes, making a grant of swanp and overflowed lands, which grant it is hereby declared is not extended to the State of Oklahoma, the following grant of land is hereby made to said State for public lands of the United States within said State for the purposes indicated, namely," etc.

That specifically refers to the swamp-land grant, but says nothing as to the Morrill Act, and we think we are right in assuming that