Mr. NELSON. I would not be prepared to say what is the average. The lowest is 79 cents, and the highest is $1.70.

Mr. LUDLOW. That 79 cents is a very low figure.

Mr. NELSON. Yes, sir. We have had possession of that building for a long time. It is not a commercially desirable structure. Mr. WOODRUM. We thank you for your statements.

(NOTE. The following testimony for pay of special assistant attorneys held in connection with, and the appropriation discussed herein carried in, H. J. Res. 415 (Public Res. 45)).

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1937.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

PAY OF SPECIAL ASSISTANT ATTORNEYS UNITED STATES COURTS

STATEMENT OF S. A. ANDRETTA, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATIVE

ASSISTANT

TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM APPROPRIATION FOR FEES OF JURORS AND WITNESSES

Mr. WOODRUM. Will you give us your revised estimate for the item of special attorneys at United States courts? It was $35,000, I think. Mr. ANDRETTA. Since that was made, we have gone over it again and find that amount will be inadequate. We will require $40,000. We thought that the railroad bills for travel were all in but, when they came in, they amounted to around $5,000. We have had to figure it down to the last penny, and we find now that we will need the sum of $39,949.33 to carry us through the balance of this fiscal year. It is made in the form of a transfer from the appropriation for the jurors and witness fees, where we have a balance of $124,617.

Mr. TABER. There will be $40,000 of that appropriation that you will not use?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir; there will be $124,000 balance in the appropriation for fees of jurors and witnesses. We will have that much left, and out of that we could transfer $40,000 to this particular item.

Mr. WOODRUM. Are there any further questions?

Mr. ANDRETTA. All of the facts are stated in the hearings on the second deficiency bill.

Mr. WOODRUM. I do not think it will be necessary to go further into this.

Mr. ANDRETTA. We have done everything we could to cut it down. We have furloughed a number of people.

Mr. WOODRUM. What would happen if you did not get this money? Mr. ANDRETTA. It would mean that 88 people on this roll would not receive their compensation from June 16 to the first of the fiscal year.

Mr. MCMILLAN. To the 1st of July.

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes, sir. On the last pay day of this year, we would be unable to meet it.

Mr. TABER. If it takes $39,000 plus to meet the salary roll, that will average

Mr. ANDRETTA (interposing). No, sir; we have vouchers in already for travel expense. We are expecting vouchers for the railroad bills

and other expenses incurred during the year. Some of them have not yet submitted their vouchers. Your inquiry as to the $40,000 applied only to the salary roll.

Mr. MCMILLAN. You want to transfer this $40,000 from the appropriation for fees of jurors and witnesses.

Mr. ANDRETTA. Yes, sir. We have plenty of money there. We have figured it conservatively, and it will take care of it very nicely. Mr. TABER. You will not have a deficiency in the appropriation for jurors and witnesses next year, will you?

Mr. ANDRETTA. No, sir.

Mr. WOODRUM. We have before us in House Document No. 273 an estimate of $85,000 for salaries and expenses in the case of the Northern Pacific Railway Co. and others.

This will go into the third deficiency bill, but in order to have the benefit of a statement from Mr. Littell the committee will hear him briefly this morning, preceding the meeting of the full committee, and he will have the privilege of extending his statement in the record. Will you tell us about the case and the necessity for this appropriation?

Mr. LITTELL. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that adequate statements have been made to this committee in the past, which appear in the record, as to the history of the case and the division of the litigation into its various component parts, and how it is being handled. One step of the case, and the final step, is the appraisal of those lands which are found justly to have been due to the railroad under the granting acts.

Mr. WOODRUM. Tell us very briefly what the case is.

Mr. LITTELL. This litigation arose from the land grants of 1864 and 1870 to the Northern Pacific Railroad Co. Numerous alleged violations of the granting acts by the Railroad Co. resulted in a congressional investigation in which hearings extended from 1924 to 1929. Congress then passed the act of June 25, 1929, (1) forfeiting or terminating all rights of the railroad in indemnity lands claimed by it and authorizing payment of compensation therefor, if the company was legally entitled thereto, (2) creating special jurisdiction in a United States District Court to hear this case, and (3) requiring the Attorney General to institute an action against the company to settle all controversies between parties.

This suit resulted. Reputed to be the largest and one of the most complex in the history of the United States Government, the suit brought to issue a great variety of controversies but primarily two questions: (1) To what lands within the indemnity limits of the grants was the railroad entitled under the law, if any, and (2) what is the value of these lands to be paid to the company as compensation for their retention by the Government?

Involved in the first question are the so-called land-adjustment issues. Approximately 2,800,000 acres of land, scattered from the end of Lake Superior to Puget Sound, are in controversy. Suit was filed July 31, 1930. Motions to strike allegations of the complaint and numerous issues thereby raised were disposed of after extended arguments by the first decree of the district court entered October 3, 1935. The hearing of testimony by the special master respecting the many legal issues involved in this land adjustment has continued at intervals from April 1936 to March 1937, resulting in several thousand pages of testimony inclusive of several hundred voluminous exhibits. The final report of the special master, concluding this first phase of the case, is expected in the fall of 1937.

Respecting the second question as to the value of the lands, the areas involved are embraced within (a) 22 national forests, (b) over 65,000 acres under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior, and are scattered from Wisconsin to Puget Sound, primarily in Montana, Idaho, and Washington. Values must be proved for timberlands, water-power sites, recreational sites, and agricultural lands. The work to be done may be summarized as follows:

LAND ADJUSTMENT ISSUES-COMPLETION OF TRIAL AND APPEAL

A great burden of legal work will rest upon the Department of Justice in completing the land-adjustment phase of the case now pending before a special master in the district court at Spokane, Wash. This work involves (a) further argument before the special master and settlement of the special master's report; (b) preparation, presentation, and argument of exceptions to the special master's report before the district court in Spokane; (c) preparation of appeal of the case to the United States Supreme Court; (d) preparation of briefs and argument of appeal in the United States Supreme Court; (e) recasting of land adjustment pursuant to law as laid down by the United States Supreme Court decision.

PREPARATION OF APPRAISAL EVIDENCE

Concurrently with the above work will be the supervision and preparation of further evidence on the appraisal of lands in controversy. The appraisal of all lands, with the exception only of a portion which the Government feels confident of winning, must go forward without awaiting the outcome of the Supreme Court decision on the land adjustment issues, because (a) the railroad attorneys have given notice that they will proceed with the presentation of proof in the appraisal of lands immediately upon settlement of the adjustment issues by the Supreme Court. The Government must be prepared to resist excessive claims; (b) were the appraisal deferred until the Supreme Court decision is handed down, the completion of the case would be postponed several years awaiting the preparation and then the presentation of appraisal evidence; (c) administratively, it is more economical and advantageous to complete the appraisal while the personnel is organized for progressive and consecutive work, particularly in the United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service; and (d) it is impossible in an appraisal task of this magnitude, estimated to be one of the largest ones ever undertaken in the United States courts, to anticipate with strict accuracy the duration of the period of preparation, and it is, therefore, necessary to get in hand the basic appraisal data at as early a date as possible.

Mr. WIGGLESWORTH. How long will the second aspect of the case take-that is, the valuation?

Mr. LITTELL. It is impossible to say, in a suit of this magnitude. Let me show you evidence of what the appraisal problems are, and then you can draw your own conclusions as well as I can.

I have here a map of Montana and Idaho [indicating map]. Every one of those colors is a national forest [indicating]. Within each color you will see there are these black lines lindicating]. These lines embrace the indemnity areas at issue in this case. The railroad runs through the middle of the whole area, and about 40 miles out on either side of it to the north and to the south of the railroad are the lands at issue. All of those areas within the black lines [indicating] have been divided into units for the purposes of appraisal.

To give you the entire geographical picture, here is a map showing lands at issue in the State of Washington, located in the Wenatchee and Snoqualmie National Forests.

Mr. TABER. Where does the railroad come?

Mr. LITTELL. The railroad comes from Portland to Tacoma, and from Pasco, in eastern Washington, to Tacoma. These are the outlying reaches of the indemnity limits [indicating on map].

This area [indicating on map] contains, in the Olympic National Forest, very find stands of Douglas fir. Here is the remaining area in the State of Washington [indicating on map], in the Columbia and Rainier National Forests. This entire area between the two mountain ranges [indicating on map] is divided into units.

It

Now, gentlemen, the statements made at your previous hearings in this matter do not adequately comprehend the appraisal problem which I am trying to outline to you in a most summary manner. was thought here that the appropriation made in 1936 might be enough to cover the whole cost of appraisal.

The work which I am showing you has largely been done since April 1936; it has been carried on in the far Northwest, and none of the men here has been personally acquainted with it. They could not be expected to make a statement in respect to the appraisal which would show you the true picture.

We have summarized the work of preparing appraisal evidence last year into the briefest possible statements. In this tabulation covering the area in the first map I have shown you (Idaho and Montana), there is a summary on each unit of each forest, showing the work done by the United States Forest Service.

Mr. LUDLOW. How is this land evaluated, by the acre or by the timber content?

Mr. LITTELL. The timber is evaluated by board feet, where the timber value is the predominant value. Every unit presents a different problem. It may have grazing value, it may have timber value, it may have water-power value, it may have recreational value, or it may have no value at all.

Mr. WOODRUM. Tell us about the need for this money.

Mr. LITTELL. The money is needed to prepare basic data, or evidence of value, where this has not been done. The amount of detail in connection with this work is enormous. We estimated a

total of $60,000 for this branch of the work for the fiscal year 1938. Mr. WOODRUM. You consider that necessary to carry on the work which you have outlined?

Mr. LITTELL. Absolutely necessary.

Mr. TABER. How long will this last?

Mr. LITTELL. The duration of appraisal work will depend on how much of these areas we win or lose in the adjustment hearing which is being concluded.

Mr. TABER. In other words, you have a legal question as to whom the title is in, with reference to certain property.

Mr. LITTELL. That is substantially correct.

Mr. TABER. Then you have another question as to the value of certain land that is in dispute, some of which you know you have to value and some of which you do not know about; is that right? Mr. LITTELL. That is right.

Mr. TABER. You cannot tell exactly as to what you have to value, how much you are going to cover in connection with it, until after the Supreme Court passes on the title question?

Mr. LITTELL. That is right.

Mr. TABER. It may be several years, or it may be cleaned up rather quickly, depending on the decision.

Mr. LITTELL. Depending on the decision, it might go on for 3 or 4 years, or it might be cleaned up soon. But the master goes on with the appraisal as soon as the Supreme Court hearing is concluded and the adjustment agreed to. No clear or conclusive statement can be made as to the duration of the appraisal work in view of the foregoing and other contingencies.

DISTRIBUTION OF ESTIMATE

Mr. TABER. Will you give us a break-down for the record of all of these moneys that you expect to spend, showing how you expect to spend them?

Mr. LITTELL. Yes; we will put that statement in the record. (The statement above referred to is as follows:)

Itemization of estimated expenses through fiscal year 1938 in Northern Pacific Ry.

Personal services:

Professional:

land-grant case