Mr. MCCLINTIC. Oil; Oklahoma gets none. The CHAIRMAN. She gets 37 per cent. Mr. MCCLINTIC. Of the oil produced? The CHAIRMAN. Of the royalty. Mr. MCCLINTIC. Oh, of the royalty-oh, yes; of the royalty-but that is not quite as good as if we had all of it. Mr. LARSEN. Are there any producing wells in the river bed? Mr. MCCLINTIC. There may be some on the north side of the medial line, but so far as I know there is none on the north bank of Red River. What do you say with regard to that, Mr. Festerman; do they have producing wells on the north bank of Red River? Mr. BURTNESS. North of the medial line; north of the river bed? Mr. TESTERMAN. No. Mr. DYAR. If I may make a statement, I think what I have to say would be of interest to the committee, and that is this: Oklahoma, because of another provision of Congress, it is thoroughly understood that the mineral laws do not apply to Oklahoma, and Oklahoma got the enumerated school sections which were mineral and did not that somewhat balance up as against this? Mr. MCCLINTIC. No, sir. We were given some money because we did not have any taxable land in the Indian Territory, and only one-fourth of our land was taxable when the State was created. Mr. DYAR. What I am making out is this, that you probably got the school sections, some of which were mineral lands. In other words, when school sections were found to be mineral lands, in other States, they selected other lands, if available, new series; but in Oklahoma you got the mineral lands and provision was made that you should not sell them for 10 years, but might lease them. Did you not get a lot of good oil lands in Oklahoma? Mr. MCCLINTIC. No, sir. The hearings will give an answer to all or to any questions you might ask relating to that particular subject. Mr. DYAR. I think in view of the very valuable oil lands, that that might raise a question. Mr. MCCLINTIC. We have lost an awful lot of money by not having this land at the beginning, and we are hoping now that inasmuch as everyone who has passed upon this question, has decided that our claim is just and right, that we can put this bill through and satisfy the Government, the various claimants and the State of Oklahoma. The CHAIRMAN. You were given $5,000,000, were you not? Mr. MCCLINTIC. Yes, we were given $5,000,000. The CHAIRMAN. In lieu of section 13? Mr. MCCLINTIC. In lieu of sections 16 and 36 in the Indian Territory, but that had no reference to the act of 1862 and the act of 1866. Mr. DYAR. You got your 32's and 36's in the western part of Oklahoma? Mr. MCCLINTIC. I believe in old Greer County. Mr. DYAR. Sixteen and 36? Mr. MCCLINTIC. Sixteen and 36. Mr. BURTNESS. Then, how much was appropriated by the bill reported by the committee some six years ago? Mr. MCCLINTIC. That was based upon $1.25 an acre. Now, we did not get the land. And, of course, that bill never at any time was considered by the House. It merely went up on the calendar, and was never passed on by any Congress. We decided that we would just wait until possibly something should turn up, which would give us the proper opportunity so that we could come forward and ask for a full settlement of this obligation; then the Supreme Court decided this land was available, so we have recognized that now is the time for us to come in with this act and ask for a faithful adjudication of this whole matter. Mr. BURTNESS. With what The CHAIRMAN (interposing). You got $5,000,000 in the enabling act? The CHAIRMAN. And in addition, 1,050,000 acres of land? Mr. MCCLINTIC. We got something like 1,200,000 acres of land, but that is less than any other State received, which was admitted into the Union under the same laws. In other words, we got a less allotment than any other State has gotten that has been admitted into the Union since 1862, and we are the only State that did not get something in lieu of this grant. Mr. DYAR (interposing). Inasmuch as the Indians were there, I suppose The CHAIRMAN. Did you ever make a comparison as to the value of the lands that you received when you were admitted into the Union and the value of the lands at the time of their admission the other States received? Mr. MCCLINTIC. I do not think that any compilation has been made as to that. There were 24,979,200 acres in old Oklahoma and 19,840,000 in Indian Territory, making a total of 44,819,200 acres. Only about one-fourth was subject to taxation. The CHAIRMAN. What I am getting at is the actual value of the land granted you and the actual value granted to other States at the time you were admitted. Mr. MCCLINTIC. No; all I can say on that is that I was a homesteader at the beginning, prior to the time that Oklahoma became a State, in the old Territory days, and our land was not very valuable. In other words, you could buy a claim for $150 to $200. However, I do not know of any compilation that has been made relative to the value of the land in the various States. The only thing that you could go back to is the amount of taxable land, or the percentage of taxable land based upon the total number of acres. The CHAIRMAN. In my State, for instance, 20 years after the Territory became a State they were begging people to buy their land at $1.25 per acre. Mr. MCCLINTIC. Well, we had 44,000,000 acres of land, and there were only 10,000,000 acres taxable; that is, ten million and some odd thousands. This testimony was presented at the hearings, which were held six years ago. Now, Mr. Chairman, I will be very thankful to the committee if they will hear Judge Merritt, who represents the land department of the State of Oklahoma. I also desire to have printed in the record a copy of the bill I have introduced relating to this subject. H. R. 13932, Sixty-seventh Congress, fourth session.] A BILL Granting to the State of Oklahoma the south one-half of the Red River bed throughout its entire length within the State of Oklahoma, in lieu of the two hundred and ten thousand acres of land which the State of Oklahoma is entitled to receive under the act approved July 2, 1862, and amended by the act of July 23, 1866, and providing for a preferential lease to the pioneers who have made improvements prior to January 1, 1920. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That there is hereby granted to the State of Oklahoma the south one-half of the Red River bed throughout its entire length within the State of Oklahoma in lieu of two hundred and ten thousand acres of land due to said State under the provisions of the act of July 2, 1862, and entitled “An act donating public lands to the several States and Territories which may provide colleges for the benefit of agriculture and the mechanic arts" (Twelfth Statutes, page 502), as amended by the act of July 23, 1866 (Fourteenth Statutes, page 208): Provided, That where pioneers have made improvements prior to January 1, 1920, the State of Oklahoma shall determine the person or persons entitled to priority and grant to such person or persons a lease covering such lands upon which such pioneers have made improvements prior to January 1, 1920, under the same terms and conditions as leases are granted by the Secretary of the Interior: And provided further, That the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized and directed to take such legal steps as may be necessary and proper to collect from any person or persons a net amount equal to the value of all products produced by him or them from any of said lands prior to the inclusion of said property in the receivership. STATEMENT OF MR. G. E. MERRITT, OKLAHOMA CITY, OKLA., REP RESENTING THE STATE LAND DEPARTMENT OF THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA. The CHAIRMAN. Judge, may I inquire how long you expect to be in making your address? The reason I ask that is that there will be a roll call some time this afternoon. Mr. MERRITT. Well, I think probably in half an hour I can put in all we have, and I may be able to do it in less time than that. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Give your name to the reporter, please. Mr. MERRITT. G. E. Merritt, and my address is State capitol, Oklahona City. The CHAIRMAN. Are you a State official, Judge? Mr. MERRITT. I am connected with the State land office as an attorney of that department. However, I was not connected with the suits in the Supreme Court relative to this piece of land, but I am acquainted with all of them, and I knew what was going on at the time. I want to say that I think that Oklahoma came into this, even with its attempt to declare the Red River a navigable stream, with clean hands, for the reason that Oklahoma was informed by the Department of the Interior that they had only 42,000 acres of public lands in Oklahoma, and that the department had declared that they had no interest in this Red River bed before the suit was brought and before the Department of Justice got into it, and we believed that we had a right, as a State, the same as our sister State to our north (Kansas) had, to declare the rivers in our State navigable streams, which was upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States. On that basis we proceeded to make that declaration, both by statute and by decision of our supreme court. Our supreme court in a case held that the Arkansas River was navigable throughout the extent of the State, based upon the decision of the Arkansas Supreme Court in which they held that the Kansas River and the Arkansas River were navigable from Topeka to the boundary of Oklahoma, and we thought if at its source, or along its middle, that it was navigable, it ought to be at its mouth where it flows into the Mississippi, and where it passed along through us. But just recently the Supreme Court of the United States held that it was not navigable, and I might add here that the Indians in Oklahoma have their rights, and that their rights have entered a great deal into the decisions of our supreme court in these matters. In the case on the Arkansas River, the Osage Indians-and that case was finally decided upon the treaty made with the Osage Indians, in which it was held that under that treaty the Osage Indians were entitled to hold to the middle of the stream. In effect, that precluded Oklahoma from declaring that a navigable stream. The court said that we would not go back of that treaty and take away from that tribe something that Congress had given it by an act of Congress. Then, we passed an act in 1919, when this became valuable down there, and just like everybody else and I might say that I do not believe that the United States would have had very much in Red River either, if Oklahoma had not started. They did not do anything in Texas after all. Our attorney general believed from the start that they were trying to throw a bluff into us. There has always been an abiding faith, in Oklahoma, that our boundary ran to the south banks, We based that upon the Greer County case and the policy which was established there. This land being in our territory, we concluded that we would proceed to declare it taxable, and that we ought to have the land that the pioneers did not claim. Now, the only question in our mind at that time was the possibility of the riparian owners on the Oklahoma side going out across the stream. They believed that the decision of the Supreme Court of the United States would be to the effect that this land belonged to Oklahoma. We did not think in the beginning that the United States had any right in there at all; but so far as that is concerned the Supreme Court of the United States has rendered its decision and that is final and Oklahoma is willing to abide by that decision, and we do not want to attempt to show this committee that that court is wrong. It is the greatest court in the world. So far as legal questions are concerned in the United States, when it speaks once, we must all abide by that decision, and Oklahoma is willing to do that. Then, we come to you and we ask this Congress to grant to us this south half of the river in the place of what we wère entitled to under the law of 1892, as amended by the act of 1866. Now, it has been suggested here that possibly some of the other land granted to the State of Oklahoma at the time was granted in lieu of this land. Now, that is not the case. We were granted 1,200,000 acres, or 1,250,000 acres of land in lieu of swamp lands and interior improved lands; but there is no reference in the act at all to the 30,000 acres that every State is entitled to, based on the number of representatives it has in the Congress; 30,000 acres for each Senator and each Member of the Congress. Mr. BURTNESS. The lands that were granted were for the benefit of the common schools of the State? Mr. MERRITT. We were granted 1,000,000 and somewhere near 400,000 acres of land for the common schools; that is, 16 and 36 on the west side. We were granted, I think, $5,000,000 I presume to offset or in lieu of 16 and 36 on the east side of the State. Now, some suggestions have been made as to the value of the land and as to comparisons as to the value of lands in other States. Now, gentlemen, I do not believe that that is a matter that enters into it at all. The question is simply this: That if all of these should be public lands lying in other States that could be granted by Congress to the State of Oklahoma, the State would receive sections 16 and 36 in every township in the whole State, but because of our Indian population, who are wards of the Government, and whom the Government guards and protects and rightly so, but who are in addition citizens of Oklahoma and of like privileges as the citizens in the State, get the benefit of our courts, benefit of our laws and of our schools, yet their lands are not taxable, and we could not obtain sections 16 and 36, so we were deprived of that. Mr. BURTNESS. Well, now, your contention is that you should have had sections 16 and 36 and also 210,000 acres in addition; is that, briefly, what your contention is, in order to be on a parity with other States? Mr. MERRITT. If we had received sections 16 and 36 throughout the entire State of Oklahoma, we would still have been entitled to 210,000 acres additional, because every State in the Union, not only those that have come into the Union since, but those that were in the Union prior to the time of the passage of the act of 1866, have received either lands or script or money, in place of that, based upon the representation in Congress, 30,000 acres for each Senator and Representative. The CHAIRMAN. Were they given that by their enabling acts or by separate acts? Mr. MERRITT. No; they were given that under the act of 1862. I have a list of them here somewhere. Mr. BURTNESS. Now, take my State, and I think North Dakota, Washington, Montana, and South Dakota were all admitted at the same time, under the same act, same enabling act-I plead ignorance, but I suppose that their common school systems were simply given sections 16 and 36. Now, do you have any record that indicates or shows what those States received, those four States which were admitted in 1889 received, for comparative purposes? Mr. MERRITT. North Dakota, under the act of 1862, received 90,000 acres. in with two Senators and one Representative. It came South Dakota, under the same act, received 120,000 acres, coming in with two Senators and two Representatives. West Virginia received 150,000 acres in script. Mr. DYAR. How did they get the script-in Western States, is that what they got? Mr. MERRITT. As I understand it, the script entitled them to take up public land elsewhere. Mr. DYAR. Yes. Mr. MERRITT. West Virginia got 150,000; Nevada, 90,000; Nebraska, 90,000; Colorado, 90,000; North Dakota, 90,000; South Dakota, 120,000; Montana, 90,000; Washington, 90,000: Idaho, 90,000; Wyoming, 90,000; Utah, 200,000, specially exempted; and Arizona and New Mexico, which were admitted after Oklahoma, did not receive this grant, but were granted other lands in lieu thereof. Now, they were specifically mentioned in the act, in the enabling act of these two States, while in Oklahoma there is no mention at all of any of these lands being in lieu of the 30,000 acres for each Representative. Now, to go back just a little bit, I want to show you what Oklahoma lost by not receiving this land. Mr. LARSEN. Judge, before you go into that, could I interrupt you to get you to answer this question: There were a great many other States that were granted those lands, and that received sections 16 and 36 and sold those lands. I saw a statement, I think, somewhere as to what a majority of the States got for those lands. Have you such a statement or are you able to tell the committee what the other States received for their lands? Mr. MERRITT. For what lands? Mr. LARSEN. The lands they sold. Mr. MERRITT. No; I could not tell you that. I do not have that statement. Mr. LARSEN. What I want to know is what the States sold their sections 16 and 36 for? Mr. MERRITT. Practically all of them have sold their land. I believe that your State still has some land. Mr. LARSEN. No; I do not think so. Mr. MERRITT. You did until recent years. Mr. LARSEN. Yes; we had some, but I do not think that we have any now. not sure about it, but I do not believe that we have any now. I am Mr. MERRITT. Now, we came into the Union with 44,000,000 acres of land, in 1907. We had 44,819,200 acres, and of that, 19,840,000, cr approximately 20,000,000 acres of that land was on the east side in the old Indian Territory and practically all of it was Indian land, except the little towns that were cut out here and there which did not amount to very much. This land was not taxable. At our entrance into the Union, we had less than 25 per cent of the land in our State that was subject to taxation. So that on that consideration, it seems to me that we are entitled to a great deal of consideration. Now, as to the value of our lands and their being more valuable or less valuable than other States, as stated before, I do not think that ought to enter into the question. We are entitled to the benefit of the policy of the Government, to sections 16 and 36, in all townships in the State. On the west side we received practically 1,375,000 acres, or something like that, close to that figure. This land we have sold or a great deal of it, and we have now, I understand, $10,500,000 to be collected from the land. It was sold on a 40-year payment plan. We have out on first mortgages $7,500,000, and at the time this statement was made, we had about $250,000 cash. We estimate the value of the land unsold to be about $4,000,000. That makes a total value of $23,000,000 from the west side. |
