Senator LENROOT (continuing reading):

But there is nothing in this that can help the company. The agent's report was made in another connection, and was not considered by the Land Officers when they approved the selection. It did not relieve the company from showing that the lands selected were not mineral.

You do not know in what case or connection that report was made? Mr. HAMEL. No; I have forgotten now what that was. I recall some circumstance of that kind, but what it was I have forgotten. Senator LENROOT. That is all.

Senator WALSH. I have one further question. Did you have a good many of these cases or proceedings in which the Government was claiming the land, and some one was in possession and taking out the oil?

Mr. HAMEL. Unpatented lands, yes; we had quite a large number of cases. I think perhaps in the neighborhood of 60 cases. Senator WALSH. Well, of course, in each one of those it was desirable to get the thing determined as speedily as possible?

Mr. HAMEL. Oh, yes.

Senator WALSH. In that respect how did they differ from this controversy with reference to 36?

Mr. HAMEL. Well, many of those cases were cases where applications for patents had not even yet been made. Others were in the process of hearing.

Senator WALSH. Well, what I mean is that so far as the necessity for expedition in the determining of the question of the mineral character of 36 was concerned, that case was exactly parrallel with 50 or 60 other cases, wasn't it?

Mr. HAMEL. Well, this was a comparatively simple matter in connection with the school section here. The questions involved in the withdrawal cases were exceedingly complicated, complicated not only as to the fact, but some very complicated questions of law, or at least they were being very strenuously contested.

Senator WALSH. Yes, that is within the withdrawn areas?
Mr. HAMEL. Yes.

Senator WALSH. But so far as the expedition was concerned, there was the same reason for desiring expedition in all cases, wasn't there? Mr. HAMEL. Yes, yes; certainly, and everyone was going ahead just as expeditiously as possible.

Senator WALSH. In the ordinary course of procedure in this matter, the hearing having been ordered by the Commissioner of the General Land Office, the testimony would be taken for and against the Government's contention, and then the matter would come before the local land officers, and they would make a recommendation in the matter?

Mr. HAMEL. That would be the ordinary case.

Senator WALSH. And the testimony so taken would come up to the Commissioner of the General Land Office?

Mr. HAMEL. Yes.

Senator WALSH. And he would review the testimony taken?

Mr. HAMEL. Yes.

Senator WALSH. And he would determine the matter accordingly? Mr. HAMEL. Yes.

Senator WALSH. And then the claimant, if defeated, would have the right to appeal from the decision of the General Land Office to the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. HAMEL. Yes.

Senator WALSH. Instead of doing that the Secretary of the Interior, without taking any testimony at all, without any hearing before the General Land Office or before the Commissioner of the General Land Office, summarily dismissed the proceedings, isn't that the case?

Mr. HAMEL. Well, he took action here which was not the ordinary action.

The CHAIRMAN. You don't know but what the Secretary had ample evidence there in the department to justify him to take that position, do you?

Mr. HAMEL. No, sir, I don't know what the Secretary had at all. The CHAIRMAN. Were the 60 cases producing oil on school lands? Mr. HAMEL. Oh, no, I refer to the so-called withdrawn oil land

cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, and there was quite a difference between the questions involved on school lands and public lands?

Mr. HAMEL. Oh, yes, indeed; yes. This just involved one point. The CHAIRMAN. You may be excused.

(Witness excused.)

Senator LENROOT. I should like to ask Mr. Garnett a question. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Garnett, will you come to the stand.

FURTHER TESTIMONY OF MR. LESLIE C. GARNETT, MILLS BUILDING, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Senator LENROOT. Mr. Garnett, when did you say this matter first came to your attention?

Mr. GARNETT. My recollection is that it first came to my attention on my trip to California in early February. Mr. Hamel testified that he was back in Washington in January, and it was possible that I discussed it with him, although I do not now recall that discussion. It first came to my attention when I went there and discussed it with Mr. May, and I think Mr. Hamel.

Senator LENROOT. And you were familiar at that time with the production of oil in 36?

Mr. GARNETT. The only

Senator LENROOT. In a general way, I mean.

Mr. GARNETT. At that time I do not know that I was at all. I think the files show the production, which was mentioned in my memorandum.

Senator LENROOT. Well, when did you first really take hold to get the facts and information concerning this?

Mr. GARNETT. I can't say that I took hold to get those facts or that information particularly at all. Mr. May mentioned the discovery of this report of the special agent to the Land Office, and the fact that the Land Office had referred the matter to the local land office for adverse hearing; that, the report had come to light, and that they had made some investigation of the facts and were convinced that the land was of known mineral character at the time of the

approval of the survey; and that I would probably hear from the department.

Senator LENROOT. That is, they had made investigation just about the time that you were there?

Mr. GARNETT. Yes. And I did not recall, until Mr. Riter's letter was read there, that Mr. May wrote the Department of Justice a formal letter on the subject, and that I referred that letter in the usual course to the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of the Navy for such recommendations as they thought proper.

Senator LENROOT. You stated inasmuch as the new administration was coming in in the near future you did not feel as though there should be action by the administration then in power?

Mr. GARNETT. Yes. Ordinarily it would have been sent to Mr. May for appropriate action.

Senator LENROOT. In your letter to the Attorney General calling his attention to this you stated that millions of barrels of oil, I think, were being taken.

Mr. GARNETT. Well, I don't know that that was the statement. I think I have a copy of it here. I said millions of dollars had been taken.

Senator LENROOT. Perhaps it was millions of dollars instead of millions of barrels.

Mr. GARNETT. I either got that from the files, or from Mr. May or Mr. Hamel, Senator. I don't know which.

Senator LENROOT. Well, if you believed, Mr. Garnett, that the Government was losing these millions of dollars, do you think that you were justified in withholding action under the last administration? Mr. GARNETT. Well, the action was recommended in the usual way by the Secretary of the Interior, reaching me on March 3. I went out of office on March 4.

Senator LENROOT. I thought you said this came to your attention in January or February?

Mr. GARNETT. Yes; but the Department of Justice only acts upon the recommendation of the Interior Department in matters of that character. I was waiting for the formal recommendation of the Interior Department, which reached me on March 3.

Senator LENROOT. Who brought this matter to the attention of the Interior Department that led up to this action?

Mr. GARNETT. I don't know whether Mr. May directly communicated with the Interior Department, or whether the special agent communicated it, or whether it arose from the letter which Mr. Riter says Mr. May wrote to the Department of Justice, and which I forwarded to the Secretary of the Interior. I don't know. But any one of those ways, undoubtedly.

Senator LENROOT. You made no examination yourself as to the records in the Interior Department?

Mr. GARNETT. Nothing except the file which was sent, which was quite a voluminous one, to the Department of Justice from the Department of the Interior.

Senator LENROOT. And did that purport to be the entire file?

Mr. GARNETT. I assumed that was all the information they had on it at that time.

Senator LENROOT. Did you find in that file the order for adverse proceedings?

Mr. GARNETT. Well, I can't recall now that I did, but I rather think that I did. I will assume that I did. I know that that was mentioned.

Senator LENROOT. Yes, and found no other action or referecne to the matter other than that order?

Mr. GARNETT. Well, I would not like to commit myself on that proposition, Senator, because

Senator LENROOT. Well, did you find anything in the file that accounted for this long delay of nearly six years?

Mr. GARNETT. Nothing in the world, sir.

Senator LENROOT. And you can not account for why it was delayed so long?

Mr. GARNETT. I would have to speculate.

Senator LENROOT. That is, you don't know whether it was through any influence of the Standard Oil Co. or otherwise, of course?

Mr. GARNETT. From the history of the oil suit I would not put it beyond them, but I would not say for a minute that it was true. Senator LENROOT. Now of course in recommending this action you were not recommending an action for the recovery of these lands? Mr. GARNETT. Well, yes; I was recommending an action to quiet title to these lands in the Government of the United States, and an injunction in an ancillary proceeding. I will say right here that I had not been treating with the Standard Oil Co. at the time I wrote this letter to the Attorney General and asked how the suits should be conducted. The ordinary procedure in those oil cases was to institute suits, ask for the injunction and receivership, and then stipulate with such responsible defendants as the Standard Oil Co. as to how the oil field should be managed.

Senator LENROOT. Had the Department of Justice passed on the question of fact involved?

Mr. GARNETT. No; but prior to the decision of the question of fact

Senator LENROOT. All you would have would be an injunction to maintain the status quo?

Mr. GARNETT. Yes; that the Government might not be guilty of any further laches, in order that they might be put on notice and that in order that no further drilling should be done without the knowledge and consent of the Government as well as the oil company.

Senator LENROOT. Then if the Interior Department had found against the Government upon the question of fact

Mr. GARNETT (interposing). We would have lost the suit.

Senator LENROOT (continuing). The suit would have had to be dismissed?

Mr. GARNETT. Undoubtedly.

Senator LENROOT. And the expense of the receivership, and the expense of the

Mr. GARNETT. I do not anticipate there would have been a receiver, nor do I anticipate there would have been an injunction.

Senator LENROOT. You do not?

Mr. GARNETT. No; because I think they would have agreed, just as they did do with the Department of Justice, that a receivership should be unnecessary, and they would not drill any more.

Senator LENROOT. So you approved what finally was done?

Mr. GARNETT. Absolutely. My testimony was stopped yesterday at a point where

Senator LENROOT. You certainly left it at a point where it seemed that there was implied criticism of the Department of Justice.

Mr. GARNETT. Well, the implied criticism of the Department of Justice that could be gathered from my statement was that I made a good many efforts to see the Attorney General, and didn't see him, and the only communication I had with him was through Mr. Loomis of the Standard Oil Co. As to the subsequent action of the Department of Justice in this matter, as I had gotten from information I had no criticism of it whatever.

Senator LENROOT. Very well, that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. At that time the Attorney General was just taking office?

Mr. GARNETT. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You knew very well that not only his room was crowded at the time, but the hallway was crowded as well?

Mr. GARNETT. I saw quite a gathering there, Senator, usually, black and white.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I was there many times, but I don't know that I saw many blacks, with the exception of the people that were showing them in the office.

Senator LENROOT. When did you first know of this subsequent proceeding?

Mr. GARNETT. Oh, I don't know, Senator. I kept in touch with the proceedings more or less, just through mere rumor from the department, as they went on, and I heard of the summary dismissal of the matter by the Secretary of the Interior.

Senator LENROOT. Did you know anything about the arrangement that had been made with the Standard Oil Co., or anything of the sort?

Mr. GARNETT. No; I did not. I did not know it at the time I testified. I have never seen these files, and frankly, I rather refrained from discussing what goes on in the Department of Justice with the old men who were under me at the time, because it is none of my business. And what I have known I have just gathered from the outside.

Senator LENROOT. Did you know when you testified yesterday of the action by the department?

Mr. GARNETT. I knew of the action by the Interior Department;

yes.

Senator LENROOT. Well, but you did not tell us anything about it. Mr. GARNETT. Well, on closing my testimony you will remember, Senator, I said the rest of my information is from hearsay, and I stopped there, and the committee adjourned. I was perfectly prepared to tell you about it.

Senator LENROOT. All right: that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. The correspondence that you received on March 3, was it from the Commissioner of the Land Office, or was it from the Secretary of the Interior?

Mr. GARNETT. That correspondence usually came from the Secretary of the Interior, signed by one of the Assistant Secretaries, and I assume that that came in that manner.