the 508 acres there is not 20 acres of original woods on it, but plenty of old barren fields and gullies, and really is not worth one-third the money he got for it.

"The foregoing is a fair history of the whole concern, hastily thrown together, which you can cull and fix up for him (Bates) and his ring in the proper light. It is a work that needs doing and I am glad you propose doing it, and relieving me of the undertaking, as I had contemplated engaging in it.

Yours, with great respect,

"The above figures compose only, I suppose, a small fraud, compared to others by the same parties. The extraordinary price paid for the land is comparatively tolerable, when compared with the systematic combinations of the ring to pay them a bounty for rascality. Instead of the government paying $12,517, $5,409 should have been the highest cash price.

"Yours, truly,

Question. What was the name of this gentleman?

Answer. 'Squire Sloan?

"J. F. SLOAN."

Question. Did 'Squire Sloan know that you were writing to him in the character of a member of a committee?

Answer. He knew I was writing to him to get all the information I could on these lands.

Question. As a committec man?

Answer. I suppose so. That was my object and intention. I asked him for information as to the settlement on the places, and the probability of having them settled, &c. Mr. Bates reported in his testimony that there were some seven or eight or nine settlements on the places that had been made, and that arrangements were likely to be made for the settlement of the balance.

By Mr. STEVENSON:

Question. What is the date of this letter?
Answer. May 15, 1871.

Question. What were the dates of the sale?

Answer. I do not remember the dates of the sale. It was last winter it occurred. Since the session of the legislature, I was looking out for information on this land question, being on that committee.

Question. The sum of the matter is, that there were about 2,000 acres sold for about $12,000?

Answer. Yes, sir; the land commissioner's report states the amount. Mr. Bates, in his testimony, could not remember exactly the amount he got for it; but he said he thought it was about $12,000 that he sold it for, but that he got $10,000.

Question. Of course there was some good land and some poor land on it?

Answer. I do not think that is a settlement for very fine lands. There may be some very fair land, but it cannot be called really good land.

Question. How far is it from the railroad?

Answer. The railroad passes through a part of it, I think. I don't know about that. It runs through Bates's farm.

Question. Did you examine any other vendors of these lands?

Answer. Yes, sir; Mr. Biggers, of the Clarendon district. He had sold, I don't know how much, but he had been buying and selling land. I am inclined to think-but I cannot say positively-that he was a man who came down from Ohio, and was acquainted with Governor Scott, and engaged in buying lands and selling them to the government.

Question. He acted as an agent, I suppose, for I do not find his name among the vendors.

Answer Yes, sir; you will find his name there occasionally.

Question. How many of the vendors did you examine?
Answer. I think, twenty-five or thirty; perhaps thirty.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. Do you mean twenty-five or thirty witnesses altogether?

Answer. Yes, sir; witnesses altogether. Some few of them were not vendors. We didn't have time. If we had commenced early, and sent for the men, we could; but we thought we would catch them about Columbia, coming in from different parts of the State-business men. We caught up a good many and examined them. There did not seem to be a great deal of interest taken in the matter by the committee. The chairman was rarely present.

Question. You took an interest in it, did you not?

Answer. I was requested to take the chair and act. Dr. Hayes was absent. Dr. Hayes came in once or twice afterwards when I was in the chair; he may have come in several times. I offered him the chair each time, but he did not take it.

Question. You prosecuted the investigation?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. You are a democrat, are you not?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. You examined twenty-five or thirty witnesses?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Nearly all of whom were men who had sold land to the State?

Answer. Yes, sir; bought and sold lands. Some of them were agents of the land commissioner, who had purchased land for the land commission.

Question. But I am speaking now of the vendors. The great majority of these witnesses were vendors to the State?

Answer. Yes, sir; and a good many of them had sold land to the State. Let me run over them: We examined Bigger. I don't remember whether he was an agent or a purchaser a seller of land to the State.

Question. He is entered there as a vendor?

Answer. I did not examine Mr. F. J. Moses, jr., but he was concerned in some land. Question. Who is he?

Answer. He is speaker of the house of representatives. We did not examine him. We put off this thing until too late to go through with it, owing to the difficulty of getting the committee together, unless they were determined to have some investigation of the matter. The land commissioner thought it was important that it should be done, and urged me to go on with it. Sometimes some members of the committee were in there, and at other times they were not.

Question. But you proceeded?

Answer. I proceeded for a while-nearly to the close of the session-and turned over the papers to the chairman of the committee, or directed that to be done. Here is Mr. Cochran, bought a good deal of land in Anderson and Pickens. We did not examine him, but examined the surveyor with reference to a great deal of this land lying in Pickens and Anderson. Some of them were purchased in Oconee, and I do not remember of any information from these lands.

Question. State whether you found in any other cases any evidence of improper practices in the purchase or sale of these lands?

Answer. In the case of Dr. Lunney, from Darlington, formerly a senator-
Question. When was he a senator?

Answer. He was defeated at the last election. He was not elected, but I don't know that he was a candidate. He was a senator in Whittemore's place, and Whittemore was reëlected from that county.

Question. Who is Lunney?

Answer. He is a carpet-bagger, I understand.

Question. I find that he purchased a tract of land, as stated in his testimony, at sheriff's sale, for the land commissioner, Mr. Leslie, and he went to the land commission and told them he had made this purchase, and required them to pay him $1,000 down, and in the event that the whole amount was not paid against such a time, not a remote time, against the month, I think it was, that the $1,000 that was paid should be forfeited.

Question. Forfeited by the government?

Answer. Yes, sir. I suppose that the governor, having a good deal to look after, one thing_and_another, paid but little attention to the time, and he got in with that R. J. Donaldson to furnish him a part of the capital. He was speculating a good deal in lands, and might have furnished it all-I am certain of a part-to pay up the money at the time it was to be paid, and he claimed the land then as his own purchase, and claimed the forfeiture. So the testimony runs. He sold the land then to the government, or to the State, for some five or six thousand dollars more than he was to give for it at the sheriff's sale. That appears in the testimony of Mr. Lunney.

By Mr. STEVENSON:

Question. Which tract is that?

Answer. I don't know.

it was.

I do not see his name here. I do not remember what tract Mr. Leslie had him sent for from Charleston to give the testimony in that case.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. Then Lunney got the thousand dollars forfeiture, and five or six thousand dollars advance besides?

Answer. Yes, sir; that is my impression from his testimony. There was a large margin. He claimed the forfeiture and the land as the money was not paid at the time.

Question. Was there, at the time, a commissioner under Leslie, to attend to this land?

Answer. I think Lunney was authorized by Mr. Leslie to make this purchase. I am not positive, but I think so. I think he was authorized by Mr. Leslie, the land commissioner, to make this purchase at the sheriff's sale for the benefit of the State.

Question. If that was not the fact, then there was some other person who was a land commissioner for that county?

Answer. I don't know whether there was or not.

Question. Was it not universal that there was a special commissioner in each county of the State, whose duty it was to attend the sheriff's sale?

Answer. There may have been, but I cannot swear to it.

By Mr. STEVENSON:

Question. I find here, under the name of John Lunney, Darlington, two tracts, one of 637 acres, and another of 861 acres, for the aggregate sum of $11,603 25?

Answer. Yes, sir; those were the tracts, I suppose. He told me this. He said in his testimony that he had offered the land to the Government at precisely the figures that

it cost him.

Question. And on the terms, time of payment, and all?

Answer. Yes, sir; that was my understanding of the matter, and the government paid him $1,000, which was to be forfeited. That testimony, I believe, has already been noted. It was to be forfeited in the event that the money was not paid within a month-I think it was a month-and if paid within a month this was to be the government's land at cost. But the money was not paid. He claimed the land as his own, and then sold it to the government afterward for that price.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. That price as stated in the report?

Answer. Yes, sir; and that was about five or six thousand dollars more than he gave for the land at the sheriff's sale.

By Mr. STEVENSON :

Question. He made a good speculation on that?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Did it appear in the testimony that the land commissioner received any part of the money?

Answer. I don't think that the land commissioner received any margin at all; that is, that Leslie received any margin at all. We examined only one single case under De Large's administration. That was General Bates's. The resolution authorized us to examine the past and present land commissioner. I don't think he received any margin at all; but it does not appear in any testimony taken that there was any margin at all in his favor.

Question. You refer to the first land commissioner?

Answer. Yes, sir.

By the CHAIRMAN:

Question. Do you mean that with reference to one case or all the cases?

Answer. With reference to all the cases. He had the right, I suppose, to go and buy land and sell it to the land commission, except he was an agent. I do not think an agent ought to have done that, but at the same time I think persons who went out to

buy land had the right, perhaps, to sell these lands for as much as they could get for them by proper means.

By Mr. STEVENSON:

Question. You think that Lunney pressed a hard bargain?
Answer. I think he did, and Mr. Leslie thought so too.

Question. Had the land commissioner authority to make such a contingent bargain as that; were there any limits on his powers of contracting?

Answer. I do not think there was any limit. I think he had the privilege of purchasing to the best advantage, but subject to the advisory board.

Question. Captain Parker, the treasurer, stated in his testimony-who was he? Answer. He was one of the advisory board. Captain Parker said that he purchased of Mr. Oakes the land called Hell-Hole Swamp, on the Manigault land. I think the Manigault land, and I am pretty certain of it from the fact that he said he paid to Mr. Oakes, of Charleston, a broker. He said he purchased this land of Mr. Oakes, thinking $3 an acre was cheap for land represented to be good. He had no doubt then that, as Mr. Oakes was a broker, there was a considerable margin; he didn't say how much. Question. This is the 12,000 acres of Manigault land?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. And that he bought it at $3 an acre, and considered it cheap, comparing the price being paid for lands. What was actually paid for Hell-Hole Swamp was $36,000? Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. For 12,000 acres?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Do you know anything about that tract of land?

Answer. I understand that a great deal of that land is in swamp, and Captain Parker said that if drained it would be very valuable land-rich land; but I suppose it will be expensive to drain them. It is flat, and a good deal of these lands are pine lands and some very valuable lands are upon that place. It is represented as being too sickly to be inhabited, except by those who are acclimated.

Question. Is it on the coast?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. Was it a plantation before the war?

Answer. I think so. It was the Manigault place. I think it was a plantation. Question. State generally whether you found any evidence that any other of these transactions were questionable or objectionable.

;

Answer. There was some evidence-I don't know that I recollect it distinctly enough to tell it now-that showed a little; I don't remember the name. It was a small place, however, and only involved about $100 margin; I don't remember it. I think most of these lands were sold at a pretty considerable margin to the land commissioner and the advisory board.

Question. To whom did that margin go?

Answer. To the vendors of the land. That is all I could find out.

Question. To some agent?

Answer. No, sir; to those who sold land to the State. They may have been agents, or may not have been.

Question. I don't understand you.

Answer. I don't know who were the agents-all the agents. I know some were called agents.

Question. I am speaking of this $100 margin.

Answer. I don't know whether he was an agent or not. There are many people, for Instance Mr. Leslie, who say this thing was conducted in this way: Where the members of the legislature recommended the purchase of land in a county as land suitable for settlement, and they brought on the proper number of acres and vouchers as to the quality, enough to satisfy him as to the quality of the land, amount, and so on, that he generally purchased upon their recommendation for the benefit of the people of that county; so Mr. Leslie said.

Question. Who is Mr. Schley?

Answer. I am not acquainted with Mr. Schley.

Question. Is he an old citizen?

Answer. I don't know.

Question. What did you find as to the sellers generally? Were they old citizens of the State or not?

Answer. We found from those who were sworn; for instance, there were useless lands sold by the marshals of Abbeville, who were old settlers. There was a lot of land sold to the land commission. They were citizens. I have not investigated the prices. There was a great deal of land bought by the agents and others, offered by different parties; for instance, I do not think that General Bates was an agent, but he offered his lands for sale. He desired to sell them.

[The hour of 6 o'clock having arrived, the committee rose and postponed the fur

ther examination of this witness until the following morning, July 14, 1871, at 9 o'clock, when it was resumed as follows:]

The WITNESS. I wish to state that after General Bates's testimony was read in the senate, where it was introduced, having been called for by Mr. Leslie, the land commissioner, these charges appeared that General Bates had made against De Large, and he was informed of the fact. He (De Large) was in Columbia at that time, I think, suffering from a gunshot wound in the hand. He sent a letter into the senate denying these charges in very positive terms.

By Mr. STEVENSON :

Question. That has never been tried or determined?
Answer. No, sir. There it stands.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. What was the charge?

Answer. The charge was that he had made advances or propositions to De Large to complete the land trade with him; that he had employed a man who had some influence; to use his-to use his expression, he had understood that they "needed greasing down there," and he employed a man who had some influence with him, for $500, to assist him in making a sale. That he had offered $500, and advanced from time to time until it reached $1,500, making $2,000 actually received less than the amount for which he had really sold the land.

By Mr. STEVENSON :

Question. If I understand you correctly, De Large was land commissioner?
Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. And he could buy only with the consent of the board?

Answer. That is true.

Question. As I understand it, the board had sent a surveyor or an inspector to examine these lands, and agreed to take them, but there was some difficulty in getting De Large to close the transaction?

Answer. I don't know about sending an inspector. The lands were surveyed, I think, by Mr. Quin Camp, of this place, after they were purchased.

Question. You mean the agreement was made, but not consummated?

Answer. The deeds were drawn up, I suppose. I don't know.

Question. Am I right as to this point, that the arrangement had been made, or the agreement with the board, and that De Large being the officer who was to conclude it, delayed and seemed indifferent or reluctant about it; and according to Mr. Bates's statement, he found it necessary to give him this bonus to get him to close the matter up?

Answer. Yes, sir; that was my impression; and that De Large denies.

By Mr. VAN TRUMP:

Question. Did Mr. Bates himself make the charge?

Answer. Yes, sir; in his testimony. He said that was how he had effected the sale of these lands.

By Mr. STEVENSON:

Question. He excused himself, by saying he found it necessary in order to get the matter concluded?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. This Hell-Hole Swamp, I understand you to say, is the property sold by Mr. Schley, and called the Manigault tract?

Answer. Yes, sir; that was my understanding of it.

Question. Does that include the whole of the land sold by Mr. Schley?

Answer. Captain Parker, the treasurer, informed me that there was a body of this land sold, naming the number of acres, (but I do not remember it without referring,) at $3 an acre. He agreed to give it to Mr. Oakes (he told me) for this land, a broker of Charleston.

Question. That was the 12,000-acre lot?

Answer. Yes, sir, I think so.

Question. Is this document the last report of the land commissioner? [Submitting a document.]

Answer. That is the last I have seen. Mr. Leslie never made a report, I think. Question. That is the report of Mr. R. C. De Large as land commissioner, and is dated February 5, 1871 ?

Answer. Yes, sir.

Question. This purports to give in Schedules A and B, the amount of land purchased for the State by Mr. De Large and his predecessor, Mr. Leslie, the first land commissioner, with the names of the vendors, the number of acres, the amount paid, and the names of the counties in which they were situated, as well as the names of the tracts?