Abbildungen der Seite
PDF
EPUB
[blocks in formation]

39564

MARCH 30, 31, APRIL 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, AND 11, 1925

Printed for the use of the

Joint Congressional Committee on the Investigation of
the Northern Pacific Railroad Land Grants

PART 3

WASHINGTON

GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

1925

JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD LAND GRANT

N. J. SINNOTT, Oregon, Chairman

ROBERT N. STANFIELD, Oregon.
PETER NORBECK, South Dakota.
SELDEN P. SPENCER, Missouri.
JOHN B. KENDRICK, Wyoming.
HENRY F. ASHURST, Arizona.

II

WILLIAM N. VAILE, Colorado.
ARTHUR B. WILLIAMS, Michigan.
JOHN E. RAKER, California.
WILLIAM J. DRIVER, Arkansas.

GEO. A. HOSSICK, Secretary

03-5-41 LS

[blocks in formation]

1361

Letters from Commissioner General Land Office to surveyor general,
Helena, Mont., dated July 30, 1897, and October 6, 1902‒‒‒‒‒‒‒

Application for survey of lands dated March 14, 1903---

Letter from Land Commissioner to surveyor general, Helena, Mont.,

dated November 9, 1903:

Hoffman, Mr. B. E., Portland, Oreg-.

1661, 1695

[merged small][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small][merged small]
[blocks in formation]

N. P. Ry. Co. v. De Lacey (174 U. S. 622)) – 1239, 1243, 1249, 1271, 1327, 1334, 1340 U. S. v. N. P. Ry. Co. (193 U. S. 1).

(247 U. S. 310, 316).
S. 435)

U. S. v. Freight Association (166 U. S. 290).
U. S. v. St. P., Minn. & Man. Ry. Co.
U. S. v. Nor. Pac. R. R. Co. (177 U.
O. & C. case (238 U. S. 393)
Act of June 9, 1916 (39 Stat. p. 218).
Heath v. Nor. Pac. (38 L. D. 77)-
Act of March 3, 1871 (16 Stat. 573).
Act of July 27, 1866 (14 Stat. 292)
Doherty v. N. P. Ry. Co. (177 U. S. 421).
Mon. Nav. Co. v. U. S. (148 U. S. 312) --

At. & Pac. R. R. Co. v. Mingus (165 U. S. 413).
Act of March 3, 1891 (26 Stat. 1095, 1097).
Act of March 20, 1862 (12 Stat. p. 392) –
People v. N. Y. C. R. R. Co. (25 Bar. 199, 201)
Joint resolution of April 10, 1869 (16 Stat. 557).
Sinking Fund cases (99 U. S. 700).

Nor. Pac. R. R. Co. v. McRae (6 L. D. 400)
O. & C. R. R. Co. v. U. S. (243 U. S. 549, 559-8).
Nor. Pac. R. R. Co. v. Miller (7 L. D. 100)
Act of August 20, 1912 (37 Stat. 320).

U. S. v. Tenn. & Coosa R. R. Co. (176 U. S. 250).
Shields v. Ohio (95 U. S. 24)_.

Burfenning v. C., St. P., M. & O. R. R. Co---.
Act of July 1, 1898 (30 Stat. ch. 546, pp. 620-21).
Goodhue v. Town of Beloit (21 Wis. 636, 642).

Schulenberger v. Harriman (21 Wal. 44).

1239, 1243, 1249, 1340

1245, 1272 1246, 1250

1247, 1366, 1521, 1540, 1543 1274, 1276, 1282, 1377, 1387 1277

1279, 1287, 1321, 1326, 1369

1283

1283

1294

1301, 1351, 1494

1318, 1320, 1481, 1532

1321

1326

1328

1347

1352, 1487, 1500

1376

1378

1382

1388

1492, 1499

1498

1512

1517

1535

1535, 1542

1538

1543, 1585

1555, 1634

1656

1659

1578

1585

1587

1588

1651

1652

[blocks in formation]

Santa Fe R. R. Co. v. Secretary of Interior (244 U. S. 492).

[blocks in formation]

THE NORTHERN PACIFIC LAND GRANTS

JOINT CONGRESSIONAL COMMITTEE ON THE INVESTIGATION OF THE NORTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD LAND GRANTS, Washington, D. C., Monday, March 30, 1925. The committee met at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. N. J. Sinnott (chairman) presiding.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order. You may proceed, Mr. Kerr.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. KERR-Resumed

Mr. KERR. When we concluded on Saturday we were discussing the Laramie treaty of 1851. I had undertaken to demonstrate that the only agreement in that treaty on the part of the United States was to pay certain annuities. The agreement with respect to Indian territory was to establish, as between the Indians, a division of what had previously been declared Indian territory

Mr. WILLIAMS (interposing). Mr. Kerr, are you going to discuss further the treaty of 1868?

Mr. KERR. Yes; I am just coming to that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I had particularly in mind the question as to whether the treaty of 1868 was ratified and accepted by both parties. I do not think that has been put into the record.

Mr. KERR. I think that is conceded on all sides. Is that not true, Mr. McGowan, the treaty of 1868 was ratified by both parties? We have here produced by Judge Patterson, of the Interior Department, a certified copy from the State Department of the proclamation of the President promulgating the treaty of May 7, 1868.

Mr. WILLIAMS. And may I inquire, Mr. Chairman, at what point in the record the treaty of 1851 and the treaty of 1868, with other documents pertaining thereto, will go into the record? Will it go in in this connection, or do you propose to have a separate place for it? The CHAIRMAN. It might go into a separate place with a number of these exhibits. Perhaps that would be more convenient.

Mr. WILLIAMS. It will go in?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; it will go in. (This information may be found in part 1a, pp. 858-863.)

Mr. KERR. Recurring, then, to article 5 of the treaty of September 17, 1851, the so-called Laramie treaty, the language is that "the aforesaid Indian Nations do hereby recognize and acknowledge the following tracts of country included within the metes and boundaries hereinafter designated as their respective territories, to wit." Then follow the various descriptions.

1099

« ZurückWeiter »