This property, as I say, was a home place, occupied as the home of this family, and it even had the family cemetery on it.

So she did not wish to sell the property, but at that particular time, you know, we were going to war, and the Government was put in the position of condemning a great deal of property wherever they needed land for military installations.

So with the understanding that this property would be reconveyed to her and to her coowners, when and if the Army had no more use for it, in order to avoid condemnation proceedings she and the heirs agreed to sell this property in 1941.

To make a long story short, she never did have the opportunity to reacquire this property, because others higher on the priority list, namely the Department of Agriculture, for the U.S. Forest Service, exercised the priority which ranked above the priority given by statute to former owners.

So the title to this property is now held by the Government through the Department of Agriculture and the U.S. Forest Service.

There is an unfavorable report to this bill by the Department of Agriculture which points out briefly that the property was adequately paid for in 1942, $2,500 was the price, for the 160 acres.

It further states that the land is now worth $15,000 and thatthis tract is located well within a large acreage of almost solid national forest ownership in the Kisatchi National Forest. It is within an area of about 15,000 acres within the forest administered as the Evangeline Wildlife Management Area. Except for 200 acres owned by the State of Lousiana, all of this wildlife management area is owned by the United States.

I will show you a map in a minute of this area.
The report further says that-

The transfer of this tract to private ownership would be deterimental to the most efficient administration of the area.

Mr. Chairman, let me just say that I feel that that certainly is of interest and benefit to all of us in this Nation, because that is an interest which must be balanced against the interest of this family, and in the interest of the obligation that all of us have toward owners of property which subsequently has gone into the hands of the Government for one purpose, namely a war effort service, and which is now in the hands of another agency of the Government with no connection at all between the original purchase for which the property was acquired by the Government.

Let me show you, if I may, a map of this section. It is this area in Louisiana [indicating] wherein the subject property is located. This will help you to visualize the physical location of this property. Alexandria would be in this area up here [indicating] and the subject property, the 160 acres in the form of a square, is here [indicating]. That is a piece of property owned privately.

All of this land in white is owned privately.

Obviously it would be beneficial to the Government in connection. with this to own all of this land.

However, I think that the interests of these former landowners is paramount to the general interest of our Government to have a complete block in this area.

Mr. BASS. Is all of this that is in the blue enclosure on the mapwas that at one time a part of the military reservation?

Mr. MCSWEEN. Actually, this is not a part of the

Mr. DELANEY. If there is any question that I could answer, I shall be glad to.

Mr. MCSWEEN. This is not a part confined to Camp Claiborneadjacent to it-is that right?

Mr. DELANEY. That 160-acre tract was acquired as a part of the northern limits, the safety zone of the rifle range for Camp Claiborne, La.

Mr. BASS. What is this zone marked out in blue? Is that the division that you are talking about?

Mr. MCSWEEN. That is supposed to be

Mr. DELANEY. If I may, sir, I might be of help.

This block represents the National Forest Service area of prime responsibility. That is the basic forest ownership tract.

Outside of it was acquired after the basic purchase.

Mr. JONES. Is this lower part outside still part of the national forest?

Mr. DELANEY. Everything in green is in the national forest.

Mr. Bass. Is that part of it, to acquire that land in the enclosureis that not in the interests of the national forest to acquire that? Mr. DELANEY. I know there has been an attempt in the past. What the current outlook is, I do not know, sir.

Mr. BASS. How long has this legislation been pending?

Mr. DELANEY. Affecting the national forests since 1930, it has been in their possession.

Mr. MCSWEEN. Here is the actual main camp area.

Let me make a reference to another area of land in the vicinity to illustrate this. This piece of property is also in my district, in this general area, which is just below another area of that forest.

This area in red is generally known as the Breezy Hills area. It is used as an artillery range, that is, it was during the war, for the Army.

Mr. BASS. I used to use that. Did we not have maneuvers down in that area?

Mr. MCSWEEN. Yes, we did. It was acquired as an artillery range. Subsequently, it was acquired by the Department of Agriculture, the same as the subject property was acquired.

You will notice that a lot of this is in white. That means that it is privately owned.

Now, all of it at one time was owned by the Government here for the use of this artillery range.

It is my information that the way that this got back into private hands, this property in white here, was that when these former property owners, after the cessation of hostilities, received notice that it was going to be returned they had a meeting back in the year 1946, was it not?

Mr. DELANEY. Yes, sir, that is correct.

Mr. MCSWEEN. A group of the former landowners, thinking that they would not be able to exercise their priority because they were fourth on the list, got together and they contacted one of my predecessors in office, Mr. Allen, to prevail upon authorities here not to exercise their priority, so that these former landowners could exercise their option.

That is what they did and they reacquired their property from the Government.

This is, also, in the forest area maintained by the Forest Service. The same arguments that applied to the area south of Alexandria apply north of it. We are dealing with a case, probably, is the most extreme of the many cases that could be brought before Congress dealing with property owned formerly by private owners and now in the hands of the Government as the result of transfer from the War Department to another branch of the Government for a purpose different from that for which it was acquired originally. And I am asking this committee to give particular consideration to the merits of this case in view of the unusual circumstances, with particular attention being paid to the fact that this family's cemetery is there; and even had their property not been willingly sold, there is some question as to whether the Government, under condemnation proceedings, would have been given the right by the Federal court to a permanent title to this property containing the cemetery.

I think the committee is familiar with other cases where cemeteries are involved. And you know the delicate situation that that brings forth, and the many careful provisions that the Government takes with regard to land whereon there is a cemetery.

I appreciate very much that the committee is here.

One of the persons who has an interest in this property as a former coowner is Mr. Charles Delaney, and he has a statement that he would like to give to you. I think that he can give you in detail many of the facts that I have glossed over.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. JONES. Thank you, Congressman McSween. We will be glad to hear from Mr. Delaney now.

STATEMENT OF CHARLES FRANKLIN DELANEY, JR.

Mr. DELANEY. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am most grateful to have this opportunity to testify on behalf of my mother, Mrs. Sophronia Smiley Delaney, and my two brothers, Jack and James Scott.

I am very regretful that it was not possible to have my mother appear along with my two brothers but my mother is at present in the hospital, the Baptist Hospital, in New Orleans at this time. So I am here at my own expense to present this case of what we feel, and have felt for years, is an extreme injustice done our family by the U.S. Government following the completion of World War II

emergency.

We have for over 11 years tried to correct this injustice without success. H.R. 2953 and S. 6 will, if given favorable action, correct the injustice done my family. Countless hours and great expense have gone into our efforts to regain our property.

I am aware of the fact that the U.S. Forest Service, Department of Agriculture, is involved in this case. And, of course, their side of the case will be presented to you no doubt this morning.

I would like to say at this time, just as a matter of information, that I myself am now a professional forester and I have an intense interest in all forestry efforts, not only those of Louisiana but of this Nation.

My father started the first pine tree nursery in Louisiana. He and Mr. Harter, I believe you will learn if you go into Louisiana forest history, are responsible, I am proud to say, for the forestry program, not only in the State of Louisiana but, perhaps, over the South.

At this time I am going to give you some of the details of this case and request that you give them your earnest consideration.

This land was acquired by the War Department in the fall of 1941 only after threats of condemnation proceedings, for use as a safety zone for rifle range, Camp Claiborne, La.

This land was not willingly sold to the War Department.

My mother was contacted by two officers of the Quartermaster Corps of the U.S. Army 2 months following my father's death, July 12, 1940, and at that time they told my mother that this property, these 160 acres, which had been in my family for over 100 years, was necessary in the national interest as a rifle range, a safety zone for Camp Claiborne, La.

They further told her that failure to secure the land for the United States of America would result in condemnation proceedings to sell it to the United States.

My mother at that time begged the War Department officials to lease and have full use of this property for use in the war emergency so that the property would not change title to the United States of America. However, the two Quartermaster Corps officers, whose names the Department of Defense states they cannot find in the records-they state they cannot find the names in the records, that is, of any officers or officials involved in land acquisition, which I really cannot understand-these officers stated that the War Department's policy at that time would not permit the leasing of land for war purposes in this instance and that the title of the land would necessarily have to pass to the United States of America.

At that time no action was taken. Several months later-in fact about 6 months later-it looked like-in fact we had thought that probably the land would not be needed-the officers came back again and stated that the land definitely was needed and that the property had to be acquired. And at that time they drew up tutorship proceedings, because of the fact that my two brothers and myself were minor children at the time--I was 12, Jack was 10, and Jimmy was 8-they drew up the tutorship proceedings of which I have a copy, and which I would like to read a portion of to you.

It states that the said minors are the owners of certain undivided interests in and to the following described property; to wit, a certain piece, parcel, or lot of ground located in the parish of Rapides, State of Louisiana, and being more particularly described as the south half of the northeast one-quarter and the north half of the southeast onequarter of section 8, township 2, north range 2, west, Louisiana meridían, containing 160 acres, more or less together with all buildings and improvements thereon, and all rights, ways, and privileges thereto belonging.

It goes on to state that the United States of America is desirous of purchasing this entire tract of land above described for the sum of $2,500 cash, that this sum represents a cash consideration to each of the said minors of $416.66 for the transfer of an undivided onesixth interest each of the said minors.

It goes on here to state that the property had been appraised in these proceedings as having an actual cash value of $800, said appraisement having been made on August 9, 1940, by two appraisers appointed by this honorable court.

Gentlemen, I would like to touch on that one statement right there. In Louisiana, as Congressman McSween can tell you-I am sorry, I will correct myself-I refer to these as condemnation proceedingsthese are the tutorship proceedings that I am quoting from. I would like to bring out a point from the paragraph that I just read, in Louisiana, as Congressman McSween certainly will tell you, land in Louisiana is appraised on the assessment rolls, not up to its real value; it is only appraised at a fraction of its real value. Is that not right? Mr. MCSWEEN. That is correct.

Mr. DELANEY. That land on the assessment rolls was appraised at $5 per acre. So, therefore, that is where the United States of America got the figure of $800 which they used in these tutorship proceedings as the value of the property.

I would like to state here that these proceedings were drawn up by representatives of the Service, of the War Department. The lawyer that was working with them drew up these papers and brought them to my mother to have them signed.

And it states here, pursuant to an order of this honorable court, dated August 9, 1940, your petitioner has already sold all of the timber on the said property for the sum of $800 cash.

Gentlemen, I am a professional forester at this time and I state this to you as a professional forester: The timber that is on that tract now ranges over 40 acres of it in poles and other material and is 40 to 60 years of age.

The reason that I point that out is that some timber was sold off the property in 1940, to be exact, August 8, of 1940, a month after my father's death to help pay off some claims, some debts. But all of the timber was not sold off of that property, or else that property would have far less value now than the Forest Service stated in the adverse report, because they have not planted any trees. They have added no seedlings. They have added nothing to the property.

So this statement in the tutorship proceedings that they drew up, to say the least, is inaccurate.

I would like to read this next paragraph: It is believed that it is to the advantage of the said minors to sell their undivided interest in the said property at private sale to the United States of America on the price and terms above set forth for the reason that the said price is well in excess of the appraised value of said property and for the further reason that the property will be acquired by the United States of America through condemnation proceedings which would be costly to said minors unless a sale is made on the above terms.

Gentlemen, I think that proves without question that the land was acquired by the United States by a threat of condemnation proceedings. It was acquired from my mother for a cash value of $2,500. That included the old house that was on the place as was pointed out here in the beginning. And the reason that the $2,500 figure was setand I am sure that the U.S. Government did not intend to purchase it, and I know it is not the policy-was to try to purchase any land for less than its fair value. My mother stated that she would accept that sum in lieu of the fact that they promised-they told her at that time,