The representative., 1900-10-18

we got anything to do with it.
g. But in 1887 you located upon the
land, did you?
"a. Yes sir; located my brother on it.
have no homestead right myself.
@. That is what you called scripted
right, I suppose. A. Yes, SIR
%. Now, Mr.. Helmer, in so doing were
you acting alone, or in connection with
other parties?
"A. In connection with lawyer
%. Will you be kind enough to give us
his name?
"a. R. NJ Marble was the attorney, and
also an interested party. You have heard
of Mr.. Marble: he was my attorney. and
an interested party in the case.
20. Well, was there anybody else had an
interest in that? Not directly; no, sir
20. Were any of the Merritts interested
in it?
GA, No, sir; only through advice; used
to consult with ALI. Merritt about a. great
many things, and the way I come to, after
l looked the land over and see that it had
a very good prospect.
20. Prospect for what?
"a. OF iron. There was no timber on it
Of any account. and l went to Mr. Merritt
and told him about it, but it was l. S. L.,
and so he said he would look the matter
up carefully and see what could be done
about it. In the meantime I consulted Mr..
Marble, and he said he thought there was
a possible way to get 1t.
". lie SalQ ne thought IucTe WAS pOS-
sible way to get it? A. Yes, sir.
20. Get it from the state?
ATTACKS THE TITLE.
"a. Yes; Mr.. Merritt informed me later
that he had discovered that the states title
was faulty, and II We would file an appli-
cation the chances were that we would
get it, but the filing was rejected by the
local office, and we took an appeal, and in
the meantime he had some correspondence
with the state officials down here.
20. Who did this?
GA Mr. Marble. And in a short while
the land was relinquished; SO we went on
with 1t.
20. When you went on it you knew it
was state land?
"a. Oh, yes; we knew it was state land.
20. Well, after the state relinQuished
it, who took the title then? A. My brother
Joshua. I done all the work-he wasn't
acquainted with wood matters or land mat
ters generally and I have been an explorer
since 1888, and 1 done the negotiations.
20. What became of the title to the land
GA He relinqushed it to the government
again.
90 Who took it again? A. Mr.. Mer-
ritt had a man come up there with soldiers
additional script, and he took it up.
Co. What were you paid for relinquish-
ing it? .,,.u..,o, :. .,s ooo
60 That wasn't paid? A. Yes, sir; it
wasn't paid in money, but in different
things.
20 What year was that in? A. Well,
am not sure but think in 1889.
60 What was the interest that Mr..
Marble had in it?
"a. He was supposed to have one
| third interest In it. You see we had two
pieces of land there-there was another
piece in connection with this that was re-
linquished at the same time. piece in
section 33.
%. Iron land? A. 1t was prospected
for iron, but nothing developed.
20. Were those relinQuished also for
this consideration? A. Mr.. Marble got an
| other man to file on that, but that fellow
relinquished it to somebody else without
his knowledge, and he lost track of 1t. 1t
was filed by John G. Brown, and he proved
up on it.
90 Who suggested to you first that you
should go on the land? A. It was Mr..
Marble. l told him, You know that the
land has good indications of iron on it,
And 1 showed him lots of specimens-I have
some at home now-have got some iron ore
that we found at that time. And I told
him that the prospects were good. I want
ed to know if he knew Of some way to get
hold of it; os he told me he thought there
was way, and he commenced correspond
ing with the state officials. l think with
the attorney general.
20. Mr.. Clapp? A. I think the corre-
spondence was with Mr. Childs.
%. Your correspondence? A. No, it
was his correspondence.
%. (By Mr.. Greer) He was deputy
attorney at that time? A. Yes, l think
that he was.
% Mr.. Helmer, did your brother or
any one OF you who were holding this claim
make application to the state auditor? A.
No, sir not directly.
APPLIED TO THE AUDITOR.
%. Did you indirectly? A. Mr.. Marble
CIJnn cod tn hov AArn <ho{ o1<h
l never see the correspondence-he was sup
posed to correspond with the attorney gen.
eral and the state auditor both; and he
told me he had done so, although l never
see the correspondence
%. Can you remember the date of that
cOrrespOndence-was it soon after you went
on? A. You see, we never went on the land
until quite while after we got the filing
on it. We had examined the land.
%. When was that? A. In 1887.
%. Was it soon after this that Mr. Mar
BILE had the negotiations with the state Of
ficials?
"a. Directly after that.
%. Then it was in the fall of 1887?
"a. believe it was
%. Was it Mr.. Marble that said to you
title? A. Mr.. Marble said that he thought
there was way for us to get the title;
and ALT Merritt said that he thought there
was way, but he done nothing so far as
I know, to further the thing.
@. Well, what induced you to make
your filing upon lands that you knew had
already been known as indemnity school
lands? A. 1t was the statement of Mr.
Marble-he said the land could be got in his
opinion, and, OF course, we didn't require
much encouragement to attack anything
then that had an iron prospect.
%. How long was it after you and
your brother parted with your interest in it
before Mr.. Rockefeller appeared on the
scene? A. Quite while: it must have
been two years.
%. Well, who was the gentleman who
took the land and paid you the SIS, 5,OO0 and
you relinQuished the title?,
"a. I don't know his name; have seen
the man.
%. From St. Louis? A. Couldn't say
somewhere in the South: have seen him
Nhe was there the day we relinquished.
@. And 1t was your impression that he
represented Mr.. Merritt? A. 1 know he
was there for that purpose"
Now, / want to read the findings Of
this committee, found on page 10 of this re-
pert.
FINDINGS OF COMMITTEE.
"In conclusion, your committee find:
Il. That the lands In controversy be-
came in 1884 the property of the state as
part of the school lands of the state. -...
'2. That the state could not have been
divested of its title to the same, in the
manner attempted, II at ALL
3. That the state auditor and state
land commits sioner had no right to reIin-
quish these lands on behalf of the.s state.
and that any such attempted relinquishment
was null and void.
~. That there was evidence produced
before your committee which tended to
show that when such attempted relinquish-
ment was Clade It had been brought.