Mr. MILLER. I think so, that is why I said earlier in this record that I think the record shows all that in there.

Senator DALE. There is one little point for the record that I want to have made clear. Mr. Wheeler takes the position that he has been unable to get evidence and to get witnesses here. Now, Mr. Wheeler has had all the rights of counsel who have appeared for anyone and yet he puts the responsibility of his inability to get certain evidence from witnesses onto the committee.

Mr. WHEELER. But if I may say, Senator, I am not the investigating body. I am merely trying to help the homesteaders in presenting what I know of their case.

Senator DALE. Yes; but do you think the committee has been remiss in that they have not drawn out testimony from the witnesses?

Mr. WHEELER. No; I do not mean it that way. What I mean, Senator, is that I believe the committee and the chairman realize that the record that is in right now will show the facts necessary to settle this question, and I believe they will.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I will agree with you. I think there is in the record at this time all the facts that are necessary to settle this question in so far as this committee is concerned.

Mr. WHEELER. That is what I think.

The CHAIRMAN. This committee came here anticipating and expecting that there was going to be laid before it evidence and testimony, including record evidence, that would convince the committee that the grossest kind of fraud was being perpetrated out here in keeping homesteaders from exercising their rights; it was going to be disclosed that agents of the Federal Government and agents of investment corporations were all threatening all sorts of dire things for those who persisted in exercising their rights as American citizens upon the public domain. And, quite to the contrary, we have had laid before us no such evidence.

I want to say at this point that when this matter came before the committee, a matter of a year or two years ago, and was presented by Judge Summers, I felt, as did all other members of the committee, that here was a very serious problem. I believe now that it is a question and a very serious one, a problem that ought to be straightened out so quickly as the Congress of the United States could do it, if it could do anything in that direction at all. I had the greatest confidence in Judge Summers. That confidence, while not completely destroyed, has been very materially shaken, I must say, by the failure of the witnesses, as recited by Judge Summers, who would testify to this thing and who would testify to that thing, who, when they have been called to the stand and heard in this hearing, have substantiated nothing, absolutely nothing that was charged before the committee there in Washington.

Now, then, I say that my confidence has been shaken. It has not been shaken to that degree that I feel that Judge Summers ought to be foreclosed against any opportunity to present his case before the committee. It is exceedingly unfortunate that he could not be here for this hearing, and I want him to have that chance, but I do not want him to take a matter of months or a matter of years to avail himself of that opportunity. There is a limited time in which this committee is authorized by the Congress, by the Senate, to study the matter and to make its report, and we want to make

that report as quickly as we can, after giving every reasonable opportunity to Judge Summers, or to anyone else, to lay before this committee anything more than already has been laid before the committee as the result of the hearing here and of the hearing held in Washington.

Now, then, I hope there is going to be no misunderstanding regarding the purpose of this committee. We have come here with the sincere and serious intention of ferreting out the facts, yet it has not been our purpose and it is not our duty to go out here as police officers and endeavor to show where there has been fraud or where there has been any measure of scandal involved at all, and particularly does that cease to be our duty when we were assured that this was all ready to be laid before us, and none of it has been laid before us.

Mr. WHEELER. It is fair to Mr. Summers that he should have that opportunity.

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

Mr. WHEELER. Then he should have opportunity to do that thing. The CHAIRMAN. And let it be understood that he is going to have that opportunity.

Mr. WHEELER. That is all I ask.

The CHAIRMAN. Unless there seems to be unnecessary delay in further presentation of the case to the committee. Now, we are going to adjourn in a few moments until to-morrow, and if there is anyone here who feels that they have any information that the committee should properly have before it before it passes judgment upon this matter, they will be heard. You had not finished your statement, Mr. Miller?

Mr. MILLER. I would like to suggest that Mr. Lawler or some of the other counsel here be afforded opportunity to present the valid. authority that Pico had to dispose of these lands.

Mr. HARTKE. Let me answer that in one word, Mr. Chairman, without going into any details. We have all the respect in the world for the decisions of the Supreme Court and for the decisions of courts below that. They have decided this matter many times, once and for all, and we think there is nothing further that we can say in the matter.

Mr. LAWLER. Perhaps it might satisfy the gentlemen to quote the language of Justice Fields, which is exactly in line with what Senator Bratton has called attention to in the first case, that is, the authority of Pio Pico to do these things, which goes back to the grant and after the confirmation and many years following that confirmation:

2. The invalidity of grants issued by the Mexican Governor of California, after the 13th of May, 1846, is asserted upon the declaration of Mexico, through her commissioner, who negotiated the treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, that no such grants were issued subsequent to that date. It is true that such declaration was made and embodied in the project of the treaty originally submitted to our Government. But as the clause containing it was stricken out by the Senate, it can not be affirmed that the treaty was assented to by the United States on the faith of the declaration. Even if the case were different, and the treaty had been concluded in reliance upon the truth of the declaration, that fact could not affect the rights of parties, who, subsequent to the 13th of May, 1846, obtained grants from the governors of California, whilst their authority and jurisdiction in the country continued. The rights, asserted by the inhabitants of the Territory to their property, depend upon the con

cessions made by the officers of the former government having at the time the requisite authority to alienate the public domain, and not upon any subsequent declaration of Mexican commissioners on the subject.

The authority and jurisdiction of Mexican officials are regarded as terminating on the 7th of July, 1846; on that day the forces of the United States took possession of Monterey, an important town in California, and within a few weeks afterwards occupied the principal portions of the country, and the military occupation continued until the treaty of peace.

The political department of the Government, at least, appears to have designated that day as the period when the conquest of California was completed, and the Mexican officials were displaced; and in this respect the judiciary follows the action of the political department. (U. S. v. Yorba (1864), 68 U. S. 412, 17 L. Ed. 635, 636, 637.)

I might say, for the benefit of Mr. Miller, that in that particular case the authority of Pio Pico to make the grant of the rancho Lomas de Santiago was directly assailed and that was the answer that Judge Fields made to the complaint.

Senator BRATTON. You said a while ago that there were two grants that had not been investigated. I understood yesterday, when I was asking for your record proof, that you said that you had no more record proof.

Mr. MILLER. I had reference to the San Fernando case. I understood we were taking them up one at a time.

Senator BRATTON. Do you now have any record proof as to the other grants?

Mr. MILLER. The attorney in charge of the Boca de Santa Monica case, and who knows the details of that case I think he may be here, or else he is in court-is Mr. Fred T. Mansur.

Senator BRATTON. Has he record evidence?

Mr. MILLER. What do you mean by that?

Senator BRATTON. Copies from the records, record evidence; deeds, emoluments of title?

Mr. MILLER. I can not answer for him.

Senator BRATTON. Well, do you have any record evidence regarding any grant that you desire to offer?

Mr. MILLER. Indeed, I think, Senator, that there is in the record right now the letter of August 18, 1824, from Mexico, in relation to all the grants, and the United States Supreme Court decision, with all due respect to Mr. Lawler, that I believe will settle the

'case.

Senator BRATTON. That was our understanding on yesterday, but I understood you to say a moment ago that there were two grantsMr. MILLER. That are not in.

Senator BRATTON. That we did not investigate at all.

Mr. MILLER. That is right, but when you do investigate them, or the hearing ever comes up, the evidence there will settle them. Senator BRATTON. This evidence that is all in

Mr. MILLER. Personally, I am agreeable right this minute to saying that I was through.

Senator BRATTON. We want to be certain of it now, because we do not want you to say hereafter that you had evidence that was not received by the committee.

Mr. MILLER. I think I will say right now-I will say also that there is sufficient in there to prove the case, and as you said yesterday we do not need to clutter up the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anyone in the chamber who has record evidence that they would like to offer for this hearing? Is there anyone in the room who wishes to be heard further in connection with this matter?

Mr. MITCHELL. I asked the committee if they wanted a photostatic copy of the entire record in respect to the Malibu ranch.

Mr. WHEELER. Pardon me, I asked Mr. Favorite if the record that he would produce would cover the entire proceedings before the Board of Land Commissioners and the district court, and he said they would.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; he said they would.

Mr. MITCHELL. Then it is not necessary for me to furnish that. The CHAIRMAN. No; thank you.

Mr. WALTON. Mr. Chairman, I was called on yesterday and was supposed to have been here at 3 o'clock.

The CHAIRMAN. Was he one of your witnesses, Mr. Wheeler?

Mr. WHEELER. Mr. Wilhelm made a statement that Mr. Walton had told him that he had paid me $500 in retainer fee and I just wanted to refute that testimony. Mr. Walton can testify that he did not.

The CHAIRMAN. Then if he did that Mr. Wilhelm would want to cross-examine Mr. Walton.

Mr. WILHELM. No, Mr. Chairman. It makes no difference. If there was a mistake made as to the fees paid I am willing to correct it.

Mr. MILLS. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this. I hate to be classed in the category of persons who are part of an association that have filed homesteads, but I have filed a homestead on the Palos Verdes, and my reason for filing a homestead was that I read carefully the act that took place at the inception of the receipt of this land by the United States from Mexico, and the limited way in which any act should be recognized, and based upon the fact that this grant was filed at a time subsequent to that date in the treaty, I felt I had a right to file and did file.

At that time I felt just as some of the gentlemen who have spoken here have said, that if there was a violation of the treaty agreement by Congress or anybody else, of the treaty that was entered into by the United States with another nation, that it could only be corrected by a getting together of those two nations to correct it. Also, the Congress itself or the law of the country can not correct a title that in its inception was void. That was the basis upon which I have filed and I filed in perfectly good faith. In answer to Senator Bratton's statement in that regard, I think that the Senator asked what was to happen to the other people. It has been my experience all through my life, and for a good many years, that if by any error I had received a title that was defective, that at the time that title was found to be defective, that I thereby became the loser through that title and had redress through the people that have insured the title, if I had had it insured. I have had one or two such experiences. There is another thing I want to say. I do not have anything to say that is a reflection upon anyone, but I notice that the ex-service man said that he was an American citizen, and since he has mentioned the fact, while I am not an ex-service man, I have two sons who were, and I want to say that I am an American citizen and

always have been an American citizen and proud of that fact; but nevertheless I feel positive that there should be an investigation as to whether we did legally receive the Palos Verde grant and several of these other grants.

Mr. HARRIS. I would just like to make a suggestion

The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to submit a brief to the committee? Mr. HARRIS. What I want to get at is this, that one of the filers on a homestead has suggested what he thinks the committee should do to satisfy them.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be very interesting.

Mr. HARRIS. We will, first, have to consider the Mexican land laws as a whole, under which the grants were made; next, the rights of Pio Pico, the governor, in making the grants on his own resources and on his own responsibility.

The CHAIRMAN. I think the Supreme Court decision, which has been read here this morning, passed upon the right of Pico.

Mr. HARRIS. And then, also consider whether or not the commission not only acted within the powers that they were given, but whether there was fraud practiced there and they did not do their duty as representatives of the Government. Whether or not they were subject to undue influence in making the decisions they did make, and then determine the question with regard to the title and trust companies, whether they thoroughly investigated titles or whether they simply bluffed the public because the public can not go behind them.

The CHAIRMAN. All of those points will have the most serious consideration of the committee before we submit any report upon the question at all.

Miss CALDWELL. Mr. Chairman, I understand my name appears in the record in connection with Mr. Summers.

The CHAIRMAN. It does.

Miss CALDWELL. And in connection with the investigation which took place.

The CHAIRMAN. It does.

Miss CALDWELL. I also understand that my name was called here on a previous occasion when I was not in the room.

The CHAIRMAN. It was.

Miss CALDWELL. I will be available when called to render any assistance that I can.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be available to-morrow morning?
Miss CALDWELL. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Then the committee will recess at this time until 9.30 tomorrow morning, when we will hear Miss Caldwell. With respect to the depositions that we were planning to take to-morrow morning, instead of taking them in the form of depositions we will ask the witnesses to be here at that time.

Mr. WICKHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for a subpoena duces tecum or a certified copy of the plat of the Lomas de Santiago that I gave as Assistant Land Commissioner, when I was serving as Assistant Land Commisisoner in 1922.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not quite catch your statement, Mr. Wickham.