Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1962-06-27


usually in two parcels.
The contract, it was ex-
lplained, provided for no down
payment and only an initial
payment after one year.
1t provided that Estes would
lease the land and pay $50 per
acre Of allotment rent imme-
diately. The contract also pro-
vided that. if the first of four
annual payments was not met,
then the land land the allot-
ment) would revert TO Billie
Sol Estes.
Thus. at the end of the year
the displaced farmer would
have $50 per acre of allotment,
and unless the first payment
was made Estes had the land
and the allotment" Mr.. Kam-
erick related. with this con-
tract it seems clear that neither
buyer nor seller was in good
faith and neither of them could
truly consider this a real
change Of ownership. The
allotments therefore should not
have been transferred"
The test of legality of a
transfer, Mr.. Kamerick said,
was in whether there was a
real change of ownership in
land. 80,
Mr.. Kamerick noted that all.
the land that Estes purported
to be selling was incumbered
and Estes knew he was not
passing clear title"
Mr.. Kamerick testified that
none of the farmers who par
ticipated in the Estes deal met
the first annual payment due
on the land they supposedly
bought. He said that Estes
granted them years extension
before the expiration of the
first year.
Texas Unit Warned
Mr.. Kamerict: said that on
December 20, 1861, H. L. Man.
waring, then deputy admins
traitor of production adjust
Iment, sent a memorandum to
the Texas Sterilization Com
mittee saying that the Estes
contracts appeared to be a
scheme to sell allotments and
such contracts should not be
approved.
This memorandum, Mr..
Kamerick said he was advised
by department officials, should
have halted any transfers of
the type in which Billie Sol
was involved. and should have
been circulated to the county
committees for their guidance.
Certain county committees,
Mr.. Kamerick testified, denied
ever having received the mem
orandum. There is no record |
in existence which clearly re-
flutes these denials," Mr.. Cam
erick added. However, there
are other features and cir
cumstances which raise seri- |
Gus doubts concerning these
denials."
He related that a meeting
was held in Dallas, Tex, on
January Is, 1861. at which time
it was explained that the trans
fer of allotments depended on
the good faith Of the trans
fer of ownership Of the land.
He said that in addition, if
there were any doubts in the
Of Pecos and Reeves
County committees in West
Texas where Billie Sol operated.
it should have been removed
by a news item on the front
page of the Pecos Independent
on April 20, 1861.
Offer Turned Down
This item, he said, stated
that applications Of Alabama
producers who were allegedly
buying land from Billie Sol
had been turned down by the
department because it appeared
that the transfers of owner
ship were not in good faith. |
Mr.. Kamerick testified that
Estes planted cotton in 1861 in
anticipation of receiving the
Alabama allotmentS. Since
they were not approved the !
Pecos operator was assessed a
penalty of $47,968.
The penalty was imposed last
October when the department
was investigating Estes cotton
operations. Early last month.
Estes was assessed penalties
totaling $554,000 on Cancelled
allotments of more than 5000
acres Of the 1861 cotton crop.
The department held that the
allotment transfers were illegal.
Mr.. Kamerick related the cir
cumstances of an investigation
conducted by the department
of the Estes cotton allotment
starting in July. 1861. He noted
that on October 18 Estes and
his attorney visited the depart
ment and objected strenuously
to the investigation. mo record
was made Of what transpired
during this visit by anyone
in the Agriculture Department
who participated" Mr.. Kam-
.erick said.
The report on the investiga-
ton was completed October 81,
1861. 1t showed that Agricul-
ture Department Investigators,
as it has been disclosed pre-
viouSly, interviewed 81 of 116I
persons who allegedly purchased
land from Billie Sol and only
five of them, Mr.. Kamerick
pointed out, claimed that the
sale was legitimate.
On December is, 1861, Mr.. |
Kamerick said, the depart
ment's general counsel, John
Bagwell, recommended in AM
opinion sent to UnderSecretary
Murphy, the cancellation of