of the committee, Mr. Laughlin, it was decided to report it as a substitute for House Bill No. 33, as introduced by Thos. Smith, and so advance it on the calendar.

The bill as finally prepared and introduced by the chairman, Mr. Laughlin, on Oct. 12th, was quite lengthy, embracing 33 sections. Its main features were, the classification of all state lands, the requiring of proof of settlement and good faith, as well as priority of settlement. That where swamp lands were settled upon by parties in good faith, that their claims should prevail over that of other applicants. It also limited the amount that any one person could purchase to 320 acres for actual settlers or 160 for non-settlers of swamp lands of first class and of the 500,000-acre grant; it required public easements on all section lines where the same entered navigable streams or lakes to prevent the monopoly of water for range purposes. It also provided for settling controversies over state lands, for loaning the school funds derived from sale of state lands, and the early converting of the swamp lands that were worthless in the present condition, into a revenue producing asset for the state.

On the motion to place this bill on the calendar as a substitute for House Bill No. 33, Mr. Smith made a violent attack on the writer, impugning his motives, and declaring him unqualified to vote as a member of the committee, on account of personal interest in the matter before the House. (He evidently forgot the thousands of dollars in swamp land certificates he was holding for redemption that his bill would secure, or else was aware that the writer did not know of the fact.)

As Mr. Smith had circulated numerous letters among the members of both houses, from Q. A. Brooks, A. Langell and others warning them that I was a dangerous agitator, and that I was trying to cheat the state out of some of its swamp lands; and as some of the members had brought the letters to me to read, I saw an opportunity to bring the matter up on a question of personal privilege. I therefore demanded that a certain letter from Q. A. Brooks to Mr. Smith, making these charges against me, be produced and read by the clerk of the House; after which I arose to give a history of the land troubles in Lake County, that had forced the people to unite in sending a man to the Legislature to secure redress. I also gave a brief history of Q. A. Brooks' career, his authorship of the swamp land law, and his activities as a state attorney in prosecuting claims against the settlers in which he was the real party in interest, and his co-partner, and brother-in-law was sitting in the capacity of judge. As the House had enacted a five minute rule, to cut off windy debaters, a few days previous, I had scarcely commenced my "explanation" when Mr. Smith called me to time. I immediately sat down, but the interest and curiosity of the members were aroused, and the motion that I be given all the time needed was quickly passed, and the House got from me a pretty full, if brief, account of the working of the state land laws, and the need for remedial legislation.

After my talk was over, the motion to adopt the majority report of the committee (my bill) was put, and after various and many attempts to substitute, re-submit, lay on table, and otherwise defeat, was carried by the vote of 43 to 9,-eight members being absent. Representative Geo. E. Chamberlain (now senator) supported Mr. Smith and voted against every measure in aid of settlers, or to curb the land grabbing then prevalent.

The bill was then read by title the first and second times and referred to committee on Public Lands with leave to report at any time, and 150 copies were ordered printed.

On October 16th the committee, by majority vote, reported back the bill; it was passed by the vote of 37 to 13, with 10 absent members, not voting. Among the nays, was the Speaker, as well as Chamberlain.

The bill then went to the Senate where no action on it was ever taken, there being so strong an opposition to it that it was impossible to bring it before that body.

Another measure, "Senate Bill No. 38," introduced Sept. 16th by Senator Wright, "was read the first time and passed to second reading without a question." It was cleverly entitled "An act to regulate the price of state lands belonging to a class known as a part of the five hundred thousand acre grant and to repeal certain sections, etc."

The first section read as follows: "That all the lands of this state which belong to the class of state lands known as a part of the 500,000-acre grant shall hereafter be sold as now provided by law in quantities to suit purchaser. not exceeding six hundred and forty acres, to any one person at a price not less than one dollar per acre.'

Any person making application should make affidavit before notary or clerk, that they were 18 years of age, a citizen of the United States, or had declared intention of becoming such, and was also a citizen of this state.

The bill carried an emergency clause, that it should take effect immediately from and after its signature by the governor.

On Sept. 28th Senate Bill No. 38, was read a second time by title and on motion of Senator Wright, its author or sponsor, it was referred to the committee on Public Lands who reported it back on the 8th of October with the recommendation that that part, requiring the applicants to purchase be required to swear they were citizens of the state, be stricken out, which was done, and the bill was finally passed on the 16th of October, by a vote of 23 to 6.

It was sent to the House and referred to the Public Lands Committee and a strong lobby pressure brought to bear to have it immediately reported to the House for passage.

As it bore on its face the stamp of a big graft, or steal, of the remaining state lands of that class, which were largely located in my county, and which embraced some of the best farming and timber lands in the state, I was vitally interested in seeing that its objectionable features become well known to the members before voting.

The bill was passed to second reading by title the day of its reception by a vote of 42 to 13.

On October 22nd the House by a vote of 43 to 6 suspended the rules to enable our committee to report on the bill, as extreme pressure had been brought to bear on members, and even threats had been made by notorious lobbyists that if our committee did not immediately report the Senate Bill 38 favorably, they the Senate would defeat my Bill 138 which was then in the hands of the Public Lands Committee of the Senate.

But we had our report ready; that is Mr. Laughlin and myself; it here fol lows as I wrote it: