ÆäÀÌÁö À̹ÌÁö
PDF
ePub

porations, which corporations had made improvements on these lands and had occupied them for a great number of years. The court found that the title to the lands was in the United States, but decided that on account of the fact that they had through this great number of years been allowed to make improvements on the sites that they should be paid a reasonable amount for such improvements, and the court so ordered.

Mr. SISSON. What court did that?

Col. SHERRILL. The Supreme Court of the District of Columbia. Mr. SISSON. And the Government did not appeal that case to the Supreme Court of the United States?

The CHAIRMAN. Is there time for an appeal?

Col. SHERRILL. This was December 12, 1916.

Mr. SISSON. And the Government attorneys did not appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States?

Col. SHERRILL. They did not; at least, I have no record of any appeal.

Mr. SISSON. So the Government must hire a lot of watchers to see that people are not building on the vast public domain and that somebody does not squat on a corner of the Capitol? That seems to be the principle established there. I am not blaming you, but I am just wondering who the attorney was representing the United States Government.

The CHAIRMAN. You say this happened in 1916. Why was not this brought to the attention of Congress before, if it was in 1916 that this judgment was rendered?

Col. SHERRILL. This was brought to the attention of the chairman of the Appropriations Committee in a letter addressed to the chairman December 19, 1920.

Mr. SISSON. I want to say to you now that I am utterly opposed to that, notwithstanding the fact that it is a judgment. I think it is wrong. In other words, if that principle is sound, the Government of the United States must be continually sending people out to report who is squatting on every foot of land the Government owns The CHAIRMAN. I do not see why we should pay a lot of people who were squatters.

Mr. SISSON. They are in the nature of trespassers.

The CHAIRMAN. What good are these improvements to the Government after it pays for them, if it should pay for them?

Col. SHERRILL. I do not think they would be of any value; at least, the decision was not made on the basis of that at all.

The CHAIRMAN. On what was the decision based?

Col. SHERRILL. I have a copy of the decision.

The CHAIRMAN. Why do you submit these things to us at all?

Col. SHERRILL. I submit this as the result of a letter from the clerk

of the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia or, I should say, the Assistant Attorney General.

The CHAIRMAN. Who is he?

Col. SHERRILL. Frank R. Nebeker.

Mr. SISSON. When was the judgment rendered?

The CHAIRMAN. He says in 1916.

Mr. BYRNS. Do you know how long these parties occupied the lands? Do you know anything about the facts?

Col. SHERRILL. I know relatively little about the history of the

case.

Mr. BYRNS. Do you know whether there was any question as to the Government's title?

Col. SHERRILL. Yes.

Mr. BYRNS. In other words, these parties went on the lands and occupied them. Did they do so with the idea that they owned them? Col. SHERRILL. Whether they had the idea that they owned the lands or not I do not know; I think they considered they owned the lands, but how honest they were in their claims I do not know.

Mr. BYRNS. You know there is a statute in every State which provides that where there is a question about title and a party goes on land and occupies it openly, notoriously, and adversely for 20 years he gets the title to it, and it may be that some such element of fact entered into this case.

Mr. SISSON. But that is not the law with reference to the sovereign. The statute of limitations runs against an individual and a corporation but never against the Government or the sovereign, because there is nobody to watch for the Government.

Col. SHERRILL. I am not familiar with all the facts leading up to this decision; but I know where this area is, and it seems to me quite probable that nobody ever assumed that this belonged to the Government.

Mr. SISSON. The whole proposition is whether these lands belong to the State or the Federal Government.

Col. SHERRILL. It would depend entirely on where the high-water line was.

Mr. SISSON. The State or Government has title to every piece of land. If it is old States, like Virginia and Maryland, it would be the State of Virginia or the State of Maryland, but all the public domain is United States Government property. Every man is presumed to know his title. I suppose there are lots of cases where men have squatted on Government land and built themselves houses; but if anybody buys from them, they do it at their own peril, because the records of the courts are available for the purpose of showing title.

Col. SHERRILL. I can cite a case similar to this. I had a case some time ago farther up that Rock Creek Valley, where there was unquestioned title to a certain piece of land extending down to high wateryou see, that belonged to a private party, and it was properly subject to private ownership, but in one of the transfers that was made of this property there was a great deal of doubt as to exactly how far out the high-water line went. Now, it might well have been that this case was similar to that case. You see, they might have had a certain amount of private property abutting upon United States property.

Mr. SISSON. But certainly there would be some title to show ownership.

Col. SHERRILL. But suppose the high-water line is not known at all? Mr. SISSON. A man who buys land with the high-water line not legally fixed buys at his own peril.

The CHAIRMAN. Did these people own adjoining land?

Col. SHERRILL. I am not sure.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know anything about it?

Col. SHERRILL. I do not know anything back of the decision of the

court.

The CHAIRMAN. You do not know anything about the case at all? Col. SHERRILL. Not the facts; no.

Mr. BYRNS. Undoubtedly the statute of limitations would not run against the Government; but I assume there must have been some question, such as you indicate, involved in this case, or certainly any United States district attorney would have taken an appeal.

Col. SHERRILL. If the committee wishes, I would be very glad to look up the actual facts leading up to this decision.

Mr. SISSON. I think that would be wise, because I can not conceive of any case where the Government loses any of its rights to its title. Col. SHERRILL. I have the decision here if you would like to hear it. The decision might be a matter of interest, but it does not give all the facts.

Mr. SISSON. I want to know the facts, because up to date I repudiate that law.

Col. SHERRILL. The decision reads:

First. That the claims set forth in the answers of the defendants, Littlefield, Alvord & Co., a corporation; Christian Heurich; and the Cranford Paving Co., in or to the land, water, and land under water, including the shores and submerged or partly submerged land, as well as to the bed of the Potomac River and also the upland immediately adjacent thereto, including made land, as described in the bill of complaint, and within the boundaries and limits in the bill of complaint set forth, are hereby held and declared to be invalid, void, and of no effect.

Second. That the claims of each and all of said defendants to any rights, titles, and interests, easements, privileges, appurtenances, riparian or otherwise, improvements, wharves, wharf or water rights and privileges in the said described land, water, and land under water, or any portion thereof (except as to the compensation for improvements specifically provided for in the fourth paragraph hereof) are hereby held and declared to be invalid, void, and of none effect.

The CHAIRMAN. Under that decision I do no think there is anything to these claims.

Mr. SISSON. I do not think so. I can not conceive of that, because if that principle were followed it would destroy the Government: that is, if men could perpetuate those things.

Col. SHERRILL. The decision clearly sets forth that they have no right to the lands but that they do have to the improvements. The CHAIRMAN. They could have taken the improvements off. I guess that is all as to this item.

TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 21, 1922.

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES-CLERK'S OFFICE.

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM TYLER PAGE, CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

CONTINGENT EXPENSES.

The CHAIRMAN. For miscellaneous items and expenses of special committees, exclusive of labor, unless specifically ordered by the House of Representatives, you have an estimate of $151,370.39. What is that for?

Mr. PAGE. The original appropriation for this purpose was $75,000, and there was a supplemental appropriation of $15,000, making a total of $90,000. The latter appropriation, it was understood, was for salaries alone.

The CHAIRMAN. For 1917 this appropriation was $162,000; for 1918. $120,000; for 1919, $238,827.25; for 1920, $425,325; and for 1921, so far, $90,000, and you are asking $151,307.39 more.

Mr. PAGE. Yes, sir. I will say that the average for the last 10 years has been $190,000.

The CHAIRMAN. If this amount is allowed, you will have had for 1921 $241,370.

Mr. PAGE. Yes, sir.

Mr. SISSON. That average has been brought up to that amount in the last year or two, has it not?

Mr. PAGE. No, sir; that is the average for the last 10 years.

The CHAIRMAN. For 1912 it was $190,000; for 1913, $210,375; for 1914, $157,000; for 1915, $115,000; for 1916, $82,500; for 1917, $162,000; for 1918, $120,000; for 1919, $238,827.21; for 1920, $425,325.76; for 1921, $235,000; and for this year there has been appropriated so far $90,000, and if this is allowed the appropriation for 1922 will be $241,370.39.

Mr. PAGE. Yes, sir.

SPECIAL AND SELECT COMMITTEES.

The CHAIRMAN. Tell us what is the necessity for this?

Mr. PAGE. That is all set forth in the letter to you of February 15. For special and select committees, the estimate is $14,724.37. The CHAIRMAN. What committees are they?

Mr. PAGE. The Committee on the Reorganization of the Administrative Branches of the Government, the so-called Bergdoll investigating committee, the Joint Committee on the Reclassification of Army and Navy Pay, and the Committee on Ways and Means. Under a resolution of the House the Ways and Means Committee is treated as a special committee for this purpose, and then there is the Joint Committee on Agricultural Inquiry.

The CHAIRMAN. What does each one of those committees cost?

Mr. PAGE. At the present time the Joint Committee on Agricultural Inquiry is spending the most money. They are now about at the peak of their expenditures. Their life has been extended twice and possibly three times, and I understand that they will probably conclude their work about the middle of April. However, inasmuch as they have had these extensions, I have made this estimate up to and including the 30th of June. I think your colleague on the committee, Mr. Anderson, chairman of that committee, may want to say something about that. The Committee on the Reorganization of the Administrative Branches of the Government, like this Committee on Agricultural Inquiry, is paid for, half and half, by the Senate and the House. Our portion of their expenditures is somewhere around $3,000 per month. Then, there is the Committee on the Reclassification of Army and Navy Pay.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that a joint committee?

91019-22-33

Mr. PAGE. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are their expenses paid on the half-and-half basis?

Mr. PAGE. Yes, sir. They have spent very little, because they are functioning right here on the ground. I am not advised as to what they have outstanding, but so far they have spent less than $100, of which we have been officially advised.

Mr. SISSON. Will you tell me why the expenses of the Joint Agricultural Committee are so great, or $6,000 per month? Mr. PAGE. They have been very active.

Mr. SISSON. What does the expense consist of chiefly?
Mr. PAGE. Chiefly of clerical and expert assistance.
The CHAIRMAN. They have made a report?

Mr. PAGE. Several reports.

Mr. KELLEY. They have employed expert economists.

Mr. SISSON. If that is the case, I marvel at their moderation.

STATIONERY ALLOWANCE FOR MEMBERS.

The CHAIRMAN. What about this item of $250 for stationery? Mr. PAGE. That should be for the first session of the Sixty-seventh Congress. Mr. Good, of Iowa, resigned, and his successor, Mr. Cole, came in during that session, and did not have any allowance. Then, Mr. Andrew, of Massachusetts, succeeded Mr. Lufkin during the extra session.

The CHAIRMAN. That should be for the first session of the Sixtyseventh Congress?

Mr. PAGE. Yes, sir; and not for the fiscal year 1922.

The CHAIRMAN. That is for the stationery allowance of these two extra men?

Mr. PAGE. Yes, sir; they came in during that session, and the allowances had been exhausted by their predecessors.

COMPILING THE LIST OF REPORTS.

The CHAIRMAN. What about this item of $5,000 for assistance rendered during the Sixty-seventh Congress in compiling the list of reports to be made to Congress by public officials, etc.?

Mr. PAGE. That estimate comes over to this committee from the legislative subcommittee, because it was considered to be a matter more within the purview of the deficiency subcommittee. It is $3,000 less than the appropriation in the Sixty-sixth Congress.

The CHAIRMAN. What does it mean? It reads, "For the assistance rendered during the Sixty-seventh Congress in compiling the list of reports to be made to Congress by public officials," etc.

Mr. PAGE. The various activities are set forth there in my letter and also in the item itself.

The CHAIRMAN. Suppose you read that.

Mr. PAGE. It consists of compiling the list of reports to be made to Congress by public officials, compiling copy, and revising proof for the House portion of the Official Register; preparing and indexing the statistical reports of the Clerk of the House: compiling the telephone and Members' directories; preparing and indexing the daily calendars of business; preparing the official statement of Mem

« ÀÌÀü°è¼Ó »