2

OPENING LANDS RESTORED FROM RESERVATION OR WITHDRAWAL. sulting in confusion, contests, and long-drawn litigation between claimants for the same tracts. Since 1901 a radically different method has obtained with respect to the opening to disposition by acts of Congress of lands formerly embraced within Indian reservations. Various acts, such as those of March 3, 1901, March 2, 1907, and May 30, 1908 (31 Stat., 1093; 34 Stat., 1230; and 35 Stat., 558), have specifically authorized the President to open such lands to settlement and entry in such manner as he may deem advisable. Under this authority the lands have been opened by means of a drawing under which the applicants to enter are registered. Cards or envelopes representing each of the applicants are placed in a common receptacle, shuffled, and drawn by a disinterested person, numbered in the order of drawing, 1, 2, 3, etc., and those whose numbers are first drawn accorded the first right to select and enter a tract within the restored area. This method has proven more satisfactory than any other ever tried by the Land Department for restoring to disposition large tracts of public lands and has largely eliminated the struggles and controversies incident to other methods of land openings.

At present no such authority exists in the Executive with respect to the class of restorations hereinabove described, but H. R. 8364 will confer such authority. If enacted it will permit the President, in his discretion, to provide for the opening of such lands by settlement in advance of entry, by drawing, or by such other method as he may deem best, taking into consideration the area, character, and condition of the land to be opened, as will secure equal opportunity to the public and avoid, so far as possible, conflicts and contests.

Section 2 of the bill gives the Secretary of the Interior similar authority in those instances where he is specifically authorized by existing laws to make restorations. This at present applies particularly to restorations of lands withdrawn under the reclamation act but no longer needed for reclamation purposes.

While the disposition of lands through registration and drawing has proven well adapted to the opening of large areas, there may be instances where small areas are to be restored or where the character or conditions of the land may render other methods more suitable. H. R. 8364 is so drawn as to vest discretion as to the form and manner of the opening in the Executive, so that he may in each instance apply what is, in his judgment, the best plan applicable to the lands involved in the interest of equal opportunity to all settlers and claimants.

As I stated to the committee at the hearing on H. R. 8081, a longer measure designed to confer the same authority, this bill-H. R. 8364-is entirely satisfactory to the department. It is sufficient to meet the emergency now existing and I trust that it will be passed as introduced.

Very truly, yours,

A. A. JONES, Acting Secretary.

MEMORANDUM OF METHODS HERETOFORE ADOPTED IN THE RESTORATION OF

LANDS TO DISPOSITION.

From time to time areas of public lands otherwise subject to disposal under certain or all of the public-land laws have been temporarily or permanently withdrawn for Indian, military, forest, or other reservations for irrigation under the Federal reclamation act of June 17, 1902 (32 Stat., 388); under the Carey Act of August 18, 1894 (28 Stat., 372), for classification or other purpose under the act of June 25, 1910 (36 Stat., 847). Subsequently, the purpose of the reservation having been accomplished or the lands proven to be unsuited for the use for which withdrawn, or because of other reasons warranting their restoration, such withdrawn areas have been returned to the public domain for disposition under applicable land laws.

In some instances, notably Indian or military reservations, Congress has, by acts specially applicable, prescribed the form and manner of restoration, but in many other instances the Executive is charged with the duty of restoring the lands to disposition, though not vested with specific authority to prescribe the manner in which the lands so restored shall be opened to settlement or entry.

During the last 18 or 20 years various methods of opening the lands to disposition have been tried; some of which have proved unsatisfactory and productive of confusion and litigation, while others have resulted in general satisfaction both to the executive officers and the public. Herewith is a brief historical statement of methods of land openings tried since 1885; also, a statement as to what, in the opinion of this department, should be the authority given the Executive with respect to future land openings.

OPENING LANDS RESTORED FROM RESERVATION OR WITHDRAWAL. 3

METHODS OF LAND OPENINGS TRIED SINCE 1885.

PRESENTATION OF APPLICATIONS TO LAND OFFICES.

At the opening of the Santee-Sioux Indian Reservation the register and receiver of the Land Office were on May 8, 1885 (3 L. D., 534), advised that parties desiring to make entry should be present in person at the local land office on a given date with their applications duly prepared and the register was required to announce by sections the lands upon which he would receive applications. Where there were a number of applications for the same tract they were to be treated as simultaneous, and the tract awarded to the highest bidder.

At the opening of certain lands formerly embraced in the Uintah Indian Reservation it was provided in instructions issued October 16, 1909 (34 Stat., 176), that the register and receiver should note the number of persons in line before the local office and act upon their applications in the order of presentation, and that after the applications of those who were before the office at 9 a. m. on the day of opening had been disposed of applications received through the mails should be considered and acted upon in the order in which they were opened by the register and receiver. In other instances lines of applicants formed in front of the local land office and the order in which applicants arrived have been recognized. In some such instances, I am informed people have remained in the lines as long as three weeks.

RESTORATION TO SETTLEMENT AT A GIVEN HOUR.

The act of Congress of March 2, 1889 (25 Stat., 1004), providing for the opening of lands in Oklahoma, provided that the lands should be opened for settlement by the proclamation of the President, and that no person should be permitted to enter thereon prior to such opening on penalty of disqualification. The proclamation subsequently issued directed the lands to be opened to settlement at 12 o'clock noon April 22, 1889. Thousands of people assembled on the surrounding territory and at noon on April 22 made a rush or run for the lands. A somewhat similar method was adopted in opening to settlement lands in the Cherokee Outlet, act of Congress March 3, 1893 (27 Stat, 612). In both of the above-described instances and in others where similar methods have obtained the choice tracts were acquired by those possessed of the swiftest horses, or, in some instances, by people who had in disobedience of the proclamation entered upon the lands prior to the time fixed for opening. An immense number of contests between conflicting claimants arose and the litigation resulting therefrom extended over a long period of years and entailed great expense, both to contestants and the Government.

OPENING TO SETTLEMENT FOR A SPECIFIED PERIOD IN ADVANCE OF ENTRY.

Under the act of June 4, 1897 (30 Stat., 34 and 36), the President of the United States is authorized to restore lands theretofore included within the limits of national forests, but is not specifically authorized to adopt any particular method of restoration. A number of orders have been issued with respect to such restoration, opening the lands to settlement on a fixed date and to entry 30 days thereafter, the object being to give a preference to those who actually made settlement upon the lands. This method has been found not free from objection in that it also resulted in a race for the choicer tracts of land on the day and at the hour that same are opened to settlement. Similar methods have been followed in restoring to the public domain lands withdrawn under the provisions of the reclamation act of June 17, 1902, but no longer needed for the purpose of withdrawal and restored to the public domain by the Secretary of the Interior, as directed by section 3 of the act.

RESTORATION THROUGH REGISTRATION OR DRAWING.

This method has been pursued since 1901 with respect to the opening to settlement and disposition of lands formerly embraced within Indian reservations, and in each instance the authority for so doing has been conferred in general terms by Congress in the act providing for the opening of the lands; that is to say, the acts have substantially provided that the President may by proclamation prescribe the manner in which the lands may be settled upon, occupied, and entered by qualified persons. Among the restorations had under this authority may be mentioned that of the Kiowa, Comanche, and Apache lands of Oklahoma, act of March 3, 1901 (31 Stat., 1093); the Flathead Indian Reservation in Oklahoma, act of April 23, 1904 (33 Stat., 302); the Rosebud Indian Reservation in South Dakota, act of March 2, 1907 (34 Stat.,

4 OPENING LANDS RESTORED FROM BESERVATION OR WITHDRAWAL.

1230); and the Fort Peck Indian Reservation, Montana, act of May 30, 1908 (35 Stat., 558).

The method generally followed under the acts last-above cited, and acts conferring similar authority, has been to permit all qualified applicants to register at a given place or places prior to the time of opening, the application in which the party is required to give data identifying himself and showing his qualifications being inclosed in a blank envelope and with others placed in a common receptacle, thoroughly mixed, and drawn out one at a time by a disinterested person, the first envelope drawn being numbered 1, the second 2, etc., the order in which drawn determining the order in which the right of entry for the lands may be exercised. This method affords equal opportunity to all qualified applicants without regard to order of registration, physical strength, or other qualifications than those prescribed by the applicable land laws. It eliminates contests and conflicts and has proven generally satisfactory to the people and to the department.

OBJECTIONS TO RESTORING THE LANDS TO GENERAL DISPOSITION AT A GIVEN DATE.

While it may seem that the simpler method may be to provide that the restored lands should be subject to settlement or entry under applicable land laws, at a given hour, upon a fixed date, many objections exist to such a procedure. Speculators, through telegraphic advice from agent in Washington, might place dummy representatives on the land before the general public had information as to the restoration; or they might place dummy applicants in line before the land office with scrip or other paper by which large areas of public land may be acquired; or in any event, even if neither of the foregoing objections exist, it would result in a general rush both to the lands and to the local land offices, with the result that one might settle upon a tract of land while another was in the act of entering same at the local land office. It would unquestionably result in conflict and controversy.

Drawing or registration, while best adapted to the restoration of large areas, would be too cumbersome and expensive for the opening of small tracts, and some discretion should be vested in the Executive as to the form and manner of restoration.

LEGAL AUTHORITY NECESSARY.

In order that the Executive may be vested with such authority and discretion as to enable him to restore withdrawn lands to disposition in such manner as will best secure equal opportunity to all, there should be enacted a law authorizing him to provide for the opening of lands by settlement in advance of entry, by drawing or by such other method as he may deem advisable in the interest of equal opportunity and good administration; and in order that speculators may be prevented from acquiring large and choice tracts of land by the filing of scrip to the detriment of intending settlers, authority should be given to subdivide irrigable lands into farm units prior to opening, and to open any agricultural areas restored from withdrawal to homestead and desert-land entry only for a limited period prior to their restoration to general disposition.

H. R. 8081, introduced September 12, 1913, will cover the entire field and vest in the Executive just the authority he needs to make the numerous and varied restorations which from time to time will occur. It does not change the public-land laws now applicable to such lands, but simply vests him with authority to prescribe the time and manner of the restorations in such a way as according to his judgment is best adapted to the area and character of the lands to be restored and as will accord equal opportunity to all prospective settlers and entrymen.

SEPTEMBER 15, 1913.

Acting Secretary of the Interior A. A. Jones appeared in person before the committee and explained in detail the necessity of this matter being passed upon at once. The committee was unanimous in its belief that legislation covering this situation should be enacted at the present session of Congress.

Respectfully submitted.

63D CONGRESS, 1st Session.

} HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. {

REPORT
No. 79.

UNITED STATES COURTS IN ARIZONA.

SEPTEMBER 22, 1913.-Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed.

Mr. WEBB, from the Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the

following

REPORT.

[To accompany S. 99.]

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration the bill (S. 99) fixing the times and places for holding the district court for the district of Arizona, report the same back with the recommendation that the bill be amended as follows, and that as amended the bill do pass:

Strike out all of section 2 down to and including the word "December" in line 11, page 1, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

SEC. 2. That terms of the district court shall be held in Tucson on the first Mondays in May and November; at Phoenix on the first Mondays in April and October; at Prescott on the first Mondays in March and September, and at Globe on the first Mondays in June and December.

This bill, which passed the Senate May 5, 1913, seeks to organize the Federal judiciary system for the State of Arizona. Your committee is of opinion that it proposes proper legislation. The amendment, which is recommended by your committee, involves changes in the times and places of holding the United States district court which are recommended by the judge of the United States District Court for Arizona and agreed upon by the bar and others interested. The merits of the bill and the reason for the amendment are fully set forth in a letter addressed by the judge to the Attorney General under date of September 6, 1913, which has been transmitted to the chairman of your committee.

Hon. H. D. CLAYTON,

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,

OFFICE OF THE Attorney General,
Washington, D. C., September 19, 1913.

Chairman Judiciary Committee, House of Representatives.

MY DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: Please permit me to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of September 9 inclosing copy of S. 99 and asking for any comment or criticism which I might deem appropriate to make thereon.

This whole situation is fully reviewed and considered in a letter written to the department at its request for his views on the subject, by the present judge of the

United States District Court for the District of Arizona, a copy of which is hereto attached.

It would seem from the considerations presented in this letter and from information received by the department from other sources that the public interest would be better served by making certain changes in S. 99, and I respectfully recommend that the same be amended as follows:

Amend by striking out all of section 2 down to and including the word "December" in line 11, page 1, and insert in lieu thereof the following:

"SEC. 2. That terms of the district court shall be held in Tucson on the first Mondays in May and November; at Phoenix on the first Mondays in April and October; at Prescott on the first Mondays in March and September, and at Globe on the first Mondays in June and December."

All of which is respectfully submitted.
Most truly, yours,

The ATTORNEY GENERAL

Department of Justice, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SIR: Complying with the request of Mr. Graham, Assistant Attorney General, that I write the Department of Justice in regard to the bill now pending before the Judiciary Committee of the House, fixing the times and places of holding district court for the district of Arizona, I beg to submit the following report:

Arizona is a very large State and is at present inadequately provided with railroad facilities for reaching Phoenix, the capital and place designated in the enabling act for holding the United States district court.__ The State is traversed from east to west by two parallel lines of railroad, the Santa Fe in the north and the Southern Pacific in the south. A branch line of the Santa Fe extends southward from Ash Fork, through Prescott, the principal town in the northern part of the State, to Phoenix. A branch line of the Southern Pacific extends from Maricopa Station, on the main line, northward to Phoenix. From the eastern central portion of the State Phoenix can be reached only by railroad by taking the Arizona Eastern Railroad, which extends from Globe, in Gila County, to Bowie on the main line of the Southern Pacific, and there taking the Southern Pacific to Maricopa, passing thus through Tucson on the way to Maricopa and at Maricopa taking the branch line of the Southern Pacific, to Phoenix; or by taking the New Mexico & Arizona Railroad, which runs from Clifton and Morenci, in Greenlee County, to Lordsburg, N. Mex., on the main line of the Southern Pacific, there taking the Southern Pacific through Tucson to Maricopa, and there taking the branch line of the Southern Pacific to Phoenix. The El Paso & Southwestern Railroad, which is a branch line of the Rock Island system, extends from El Paso, Tex., through Douglas and Bisbee, in Cochise County, Ariz.. to Tucson, the present terminus of the line. The Tucson & Nogales Railroad, a branch line of the Southern Pacific, extends from Tucson southward to Nogales, Santa Cruz County, Ariz., and thence into the State of Sonora, Mexico, to Guaymas, and thence southward, its ultimate destination to be the City of Mexico, the road in Mexico being known as the West Coast Line.

From this statement it appears that in order to reach Phoenix by railroad from the northern tier of counties of the State it is necessary to go by way of Prescott, over the Santa Fe road. The distance from Prescott to Phoenix by railroad is 196 miles.

To reach Phoenix by rail from any of the eastern, central, or southern counties of he State, it is necessary to pass through Tucson, which is 122 miles from Phoenix. Phoenix is reached by rail from Yuma County over the Southern Pacific main and branch lines from Yuma to Maricopa and Phoenix.

As above stated, under the enabling act, Phoenix is the sole place designated for holding the United States District Court for Arizona. There are two terms of the court there each year, the April and October terms, beginning on the first Mondays of April and October, respectively, At the last two terms of the court there were approximately 150 criminal cases on the calendar at each term. Of these 150 cases about one-third were cases originating at Tucson, and one-third were cases originating at Globe. Fully one-third of the witnesses at these terms of court were brought from Tucson, and one-third were brought from Globe, at great cost to the Government. The grand jurors and trial jurors were summoned from all parts of the State, many of them from remote places, at large cost to the United States.

If the terms of the court were held in the larger towns in the sections of the State where the business of the court originates, a large saving to the Government would result in the mileage and per diems of the jurors and witnesses and in the transportation of prisoners. Thus, in cases originating in Tucson, the trial of these cases in