« 上一頁繼續 »
with the approval of the committee, I would like to have an opportunity at this place to supplement the statements I am making now with any additional argument I might have which I consider necessary or advisable to incorporate in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it will be so ordered.
Mr. GARBER. May the other members of the delegation have the same privilege, Mr. Chairman?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes. All members of the delegation whose names have been signed to the brief and who are Members of Congress.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM D. McKEOWN, REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM OKLAHOMA
Mr. MCKEOWN. I am not in position to give you any facts in this matter which you have not already received, as I was 21 years old before I knew lands were surveyed by sections and quarter-sections. I am heartily in favor of this bill; and I am sure the committee will give it careful consideration and do my State justice.
Mr. GARBER. Our next witness, Mr. Chairman, is Mr. Horace A. Andrews, for a long time treasurer of the Agricultural and Mechanical College of the State of Oklahoma, who has given much study to this problem and is prepared to make a full statement of its history to you. The CHAIRMAN. We will be glad to hear Mr. Andrews.
STATEMENT OF HORACE A. ANDREWS, TREASURER OF THE OKLAHOMA AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE
Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the information on this land grant act of 1862 is so voluminous that naturally there must be a little repetition in the studies which are presented to you by three or four different persons.
This case has been so well argued by Mr. McClintic, Mr. Garber and Mr. Hastings and other members of the Oklahoma delegation that it hardly needs further elaboration. However, we went into this matter and for the last five years we have carefully studied it. It was first brought to our attention by our president, Doctor Knapp, who had had a great deal of experience in other States.
Mr. SMITH. When was it brought to your attention?
Mr. ANDREWS. About five years ago. He immediately asked what the land grant act was. We told him we hadn't it in the cities of our State. He asked why. He immediately began a study and from that study comes much of the information you gentlemen have heard this morning, and I have it in concrete from and with your permission I will now present it.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, we wish to present to this committee the relationship of the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College to the land grant act of 1862, and we desire to present the following information:
First. The existence of a grant of land made by the United States Government to the several States commonly known as the land grant act of 1862, together with the amendments to this act of 1864, 1866, and 1883.
Second. That Oklahoma has never received the benefits of said act. Third. That Oklahoma has complied with the provisions of the land grant act of 1862–1866.
Fourth. That Oklahoma is eligible to receive the benefits of the land grant act of 1862-1866.
Fifth. A discussion of House bill 11133, introduced in the House of Representatives March 26, 1930, by Mr. Garber, of Oklahoma.
In support of the first paragraph above, we set forth a copy of the land grant act of July 2, 1862, 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," which copy is attached hereto, marked "Exhibit A."
In support of the second paragraph above, it is the contention of the State of Oklahoma and of the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College that they have never received the benefits of the land grant act of 1862 as amended, and we offer in support of this contention:
First, the report of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, Bulletin No. 13, 1929, for the year ending June 30, 1928, and refer this committee to Table No. 9, on page 40 of that report, which will show that Oklahoma does not report any receipts or disbursements of the land-grant fund of 1862.
Also, we wish to present Bulletin No. 14, 1928, of the Department of the Interior, Bureau of Education, for the year ending June 30, 1927, and refer you to Table No. 10, on page 36, which will show that Oklahoma does not report any receipts of disbursements under the land grant act of 1862.
Furthermore, in an opinion given by the Secretary of the Interior under date of April 4, 1916, that—
The grants of land to Oklahoma by its enabling act of June 16, 1906 (34 Stat. 267) for the benefit of agricultural and mechanical colleges, was not in lieu of the benefits of the acts of 1862 and 1866, but, in view of the department's opinion that the measure of the grant is undetermined and undeterminable, it is unnecessary to pass upon this question. If this be true it is a matter wholly within the discretion of Congress to say whether Oklahoma shall hereafter receive the benefits of said acts, and calls for no expression of opinion by this department at the present time.
Section 8 of the enabling act of the State of Oklahoma, approved by the Congress of the United States and signed by the President of the United States January 16, 1906, gave to the State of Oklahoma a grant of land for the use and benefit of institutions of higher learning within the State of Oklahoma.
Section 12 of the enabling act gave Oklahoma grant of land for the use and benefit of institutions of higher learning within the State of Oklahoma in lieu of internal improvements and swamp-land grants, and these two Federal grants were accepted by the State of Oklahoma in its constitution under Article II, section 1, and are the grants that the above opinion, written by the Department of the Interior, refers to. In a study of the hearings of the enabling act for Oklahoma nothing is found that would indicate that either of these Federal grants were lands granted under the acts of 1862-1866 or were lands granted in lieu of the aforementioned acts.
In support of the third paragraph above, we wish to present the fact that Oklahoma, by Joint Resolution No. 3, approved February 3, 1910, accepted the provisions of the act of 1862 as amended, and obligated itself to comply therewith.
We wish also to bring to your attention the fact that the Oklahoma Agricultural and Mechanical College opened its doors to students in the fall of 1891 and also that the First Legislature of the Territory of
Oklahoma on December 25, 1890, adopted a resolution accepting the conditions of the second Morrill Act of 1890 and establishing an agricultural and mechanical college in Stillwater, Payne County. By the acceptance of the land grant act of 1862 by the Oklahoma State Legislature and the establishment of an institution for the teaching of agriculture and the mechanic arts, it is our contention that Oklahoma has complied with the provisions of the land grant act of 1862 as amended.
In support of the fourth paragraph above, the act of July 2, 1862, supra, provides, in part, as follows:
That there be granted to the several States, for the purposes hereinafter mentioned an amount of public land, to be apportioned to each State a quantity equal to thirty thousand acres for each Senator and Representative in Congress to which the States are respectively entitled by the apportionment under the census of eighteen hundred and sixty. That all moneys derived from the sale of the lands aforesaid by the States to which the lands are apportioned and from the sale of land scrip hereinafter provided for, shall be invested in stocks of the United States, or of the States, or some other safe stocks, yielding not less than five per centum upon the par value of said stocks; and that the moneys so invested shall constitute a perpetual fund, the capital of which shall remain forever undiminished (except so far as may be provided in section fifth of this act), and the interest of which shall be inviolably appropriated, by each State which may take and claim the benefit of this act, to the endowment, support, and maintenance of at least one college where the leading object shall be, without excluding other scientific and classical studies, and including military tactics, to teach such branches of learning as are related to agriculture and the mechanic arts.
By the act of February 14, 1864 (13 Stat. 47), the time for the acceptance of the provisions of the act of 1862 was extended, and it is provided "That any State or Territory may accept and shall be entitled to the benefits of the act of 1862."
Although the caption of the act of 1862 refers to lands donated to Territories as well as States, and, notwithstanding the provisions of the act of 1864, the grant was not construed by the General Land Office to have been made to Territories. See memorial of the Assembly of Washington Territory to Congress, dated December 21, 1865, which appears on page 1875 of the Congressional Globe, Thirty-ninth Congress, first session.
The act of 1862 was amended by the act of July 23, 1866, supra, which is in part as follows:
That when any Territory shall become a State and be admitted into the Union, such new State shall be entitled to the benefits of the said act of July two, eighteen hundred and sixty-two, by expressing the acceptance therein required within three years from the date of its admission into the Union, and providing the college or colleges within five years after such acceptance, as prescribed in this act.
By the act of March 2, 1887 (24 Stat. 440) appropriation was made for the benefit of agricultural experiment stations which might be established in connection with agricultural and mechanical colleges, established under the act of 1862. And by act of August 30, 1890 (26 Stat., 417), certain additional appropriations were made "for the more complete endowment and maintenance of colleges for the benefit of Agriculture and the mechanic arts," established in accordance with the act of 1862; such appropriation to be paid upon certificate of the Secretary of the Interior as to each State and Territory entitled to receive same.
Oklahoma, by Senate Joint Resolution No. 3, approved February 23, 1910, accepted the provisions of the act of 1862, as amended, and obligated itself to comply therewith, and now contends that it is entitled to receive under the acts of 1862-1866, 30,000 acres of land for each of its Senators and Representatives in Congress at the time of its admission to the Union.
Reading together those parts of the acts of 1862 and 1866 which are important in the consideration of this case, the same provide that when any Territory shall become a State and be admitted to the Union there be granted to such new State an amount of public land, to be apportioned to it, equal to 30,000 acres for each Senator and Representative in Congress to which such new State is entitled by the apportionment under the census of 1860. No other measure of the grant is prescribed, and as Oklahoma was not entitled to representation in Congress by the apportionment under the census of 1860, it is impossible for this department to say how many acres it is entitled to receive without reading into the act something that is not there and reading out of the same something that is there.
Each new State admitted to the Union since the passage of the act of 1862 that has received the benefits of that act has received the same by subsequent legislation prescribing the number of acres. to which it was entitled. Such action by Congress is tantamount to a legislative construction of the acts under consideration as a pledge and not a grant to new States not entitled to representation in Congress by the apportionment under the census of 1860, and demonstrates beyond doubt the necessity of further legislation in order to determine the number of acres such States are entitled to receive.
Between the dates of the passage of the original act of 1862 and the amendatory act of 1866, enabling acts were passed providing for the admission of the States of West Virginia, December 31, 1862 (12 Stat. 633), which never occupied the status of a Territory; Nevada, March 21, 1864 (13 Stat. 30), Nebraska, April 19, 1864 (13 Stat. 47). West Virginia was given the benefits of the act of 1862 on April 14, 1864 (13 Stat. 47). Nevada, by act of July 4, 1866 (14 Stat. 85), and Nebraska, by the act of March 30, 1867 (15 Stat. 13); the latter's grant of land having been made by the act of 1864.
North Dakota, South Dakota, Montana, and Washington were admitted pursuant to act of February 22, 1889 (25 Stat. 676), section 16 of which prescribed the number of acres these States were entitled to receive under the act of 1862, Said section 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.
The acts of Congress referred to are those of 1862 and 1866. Opposite this reference is printed in small type: "Vol. 12, p. 503," which is the volume and page of the Statutes at Large containing the act of 1862.
The same is true of Idaho, section 10, of the act of July 3, 1890 (26 Stat. 215); and Wyoming, section 10, of the act of July 10, 1890 (26 Stat. 224.) The Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Wyoming Agricultural College v. Irvine (206 U. S. 278), held that
the grant to Wyoming of 90,000 acres, by section 10 of the act last. mentioned, was pursuant to the act of 1862.
* * *
The act of July 16, 1894, supra, for the admission of Utah, is worded somewhat differently from the other acts. Section 8 provides that in addition to certain other lands granted to the State, there shall be granted to it "one hundred and ten thousand acres of land, to be selected and located as provided in the foregoing section of this act, and including all saline lands in said State for the use of said university, and two hundred thousand acres for the use of an agricultural college therein. That the proceeds of the sale of said lands, or any portion thereof, shall constitute permanent funds, to be safely invested and held by said State, and the income thereof to be used exclusively for the purposes of such university and agricultural college, respectively."
While no reference is made to the fact that this grant is in accordance with previous acts of Congress, the grant of 200,000 acres is made for the same purpose as provided in the act of 1862, and, as provided in that act, the proceeds of the whole of the granted lands are to constitute a permanent fund, the income thereof to be used exclusively for the purposes of such agricultural college.
There is no doubt that this grant was made in fulfillment of the pledge contained in the acts of 1862-1866, and that it was so understood and received by the State of Utah clearly appears from the catalogue of the agricultural college of that State for 1901-2 wherein, under the head of "Foundation and endowment," the act of July 2, 1862, is referred to as the act by which the college was founded; and, in speaking of the endowment thereof, the grant of 200,000 acres of land is referred to as having been made under the aforesaid act.
In making grants of land to agricultural and mechanical colleges in new States, under the acts of 1862-1866, Congress has not adopted any uniform rule with reference to the number of acres such States were entitled to receive. South Dakota, while entitled to two Senators and two Representatives in Congress at the time of its admission to the Union, received 160,000 acres for agricultural and mechanical college purposes; and Montana, which was entitled to two Senators and one Representative, received 140,000 acres (secs. 17 and 19, act of February 22, 1889, supra). Utah was entitled to two Senators and one Representative, but as has been seen, received 200,000 acres, pursuant to the acts of 1862-1866.
It is argued on behalf of the State of Oklahoma that to place a different construction upon the act of 1866 than that contended for would be to hold that Congress did a vain and useless thing when it extended the provisions of the act of 1862 to new States. This would by no means follow, as it must be remembered that the census of 1860 continued to be the guide under which the apportionment of Representatives in Congress was made, for some years after the passage of the act of 1866, and new States admitted thereafter might have been entitled to representation in Congress by the apportionment under the census of 1860, in which event they would receive the benefits of the grant-the number of acres being readily ascertainable-in the absence of legislation to the contrary (sec. 20, R. S.).
On the whole it would appear that, as to new States, not entitled to representation in Congress by the apportionment under the census of 1860, the amendment of 1866 was intended by Congress as a