NW. 4 NW.4 sec. 24.
NE. 4 NW. 4 sec. 24.
NE. 4 sec. 26-

S. 1⁄2 NE. 4 sec. 36..
NE. 4 NE. 4 sec. 36.
NE. 4 SW. 4 sec. 5.
N. 1⁄2 SW. 4 sec. 10..
SW. SW. 4 sec. 28.
NW. 4 sec. 4..
SW. 4 SW.4 sec. 3..
S. 1⁄2 NE. 4 sec. 24..
S. 2 NW. 4 sec. 24..
SE. SE. 4 sec. 15.
NW. 4 NW. 4 sec. 29.
SE. 4 sec. 30...

S. 1⁄2 NE. 4 sec. 22..
NW. 4 NW. 4 sec. 14, E.
sec. 11, and E. 21⁄2 NÉ.
NE. 4 sec. 19.

NW. 4 SE. 4 sec. 11.
NE. 4 SE. 4 sec. 26.
E. 2 SW. 4 sec. 28..
S. 2 SE. 4 sec. 5..
NE. 4 sec. 33.
SW. SW. 1⁄4 sec. 25.
W. 4 NW. 1⁄2 sec. 2..
N. 2 NE. 4 sec. 10..
E. 1⁄2 NW. 4 sec. 2..
NE. SE. 4 sec. 9..

1⁄2 SW. SW.
NE. 4 sec. 15.

Trusting that this information will answer your purposes, I remain,
Very respectfully,

9

666

455

GEO. R. WICKHAM, Assistant Commissioner.

8

8

[From report of Commissioner of General Land Office]

The following is a partial list of other patented ranchos in which irregular proceedings have been had, and an immense quantity of public land has wrongfully been embraced within the patented lines of the same:

Lomas de Santiago, granted for 4 square leagues but patented for 47,236.61

acres.

Saiyon de Santa Rita, granted for 11 square leagues and patented for the same quantity, has been located 4 miles north of the fixed boundaries in the grant. Buena Vista, in Monterey County, was granted for 2 square leagues, but has been confirmed for twice the quantity under two names.

Milpitas, in Monterey County, if granted at all to the Indian pastor, was confirmed and the amended survey thereof made final by C. Delano, which survey contained only 12,291.20 acres, but has been patented for 43,280.90 acres.

Buri-Buri, granted within certain boundaries, has been enlarged to the north because the said boundary, which is a straight line from the Rincon of San Bruno to the southerly point of the Laguna Alta on the summit of the San Pedro Range, has been ignored.

Las Pulgas, granted for 17,753 acres, has been increased to 35,240.27 acres. Buena Vista, San Diego County, granted for one-fourth of 1 square league, has been surveyed four different times, and although the natural objects mentioned are immovable landmarks the quantity embraced in the said surveys has varied from 2,219.25 acres to 4,269 acres. This grant was made clearly for one-quarter of a league, because the square mentioned in the title papers and decree of confirmation is only 2,500 varas on a side, and consequently can not contain more than 1,109.67 acres of land.

NEW MEXICO

During the past year I have submitted to the Secretary of the Interior for transmittal to Congress reports of the surveyor general of New Mexico in the following cases:

REEXAMINATIONS

No. 49. Bernabi M. Montano et al. Preliminary survey, 151,056.90 acres; area granted to 12 persons, 7 square leagues, or about 31,000 acres. Grant to this extent believed to be valid. Recommended for confirmation, to the extent of 7 square leagues, to the heirs and legal representatives of the 12 original grantees.

No. 50.-Antonio Sedillo; Cañada de los Apaches. Preliminary survey in 1877 for 88,079.78 acres. Claim recommended for rejection for want of compliance with conditions of grant. Preliminary survey pronounced fraudulent as to location and quantity, if grant were valid.

No. 51.-Ojo del Medio; Francisco Chaves, present claimant. Area claimed, 3,546.06 acres. Claimant fails to connect himself with the alleged grant. No valid grant made. No evidence that original claimed grantees ever occupied or in any way reduced to possession the tract claimed under the invalid grant. Claim recommended for rejection.

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR,

In re: Homestead application 035363.

Mr. BEN MCLENDON,

New Ebbitt Hotel, Washington, D. C.

GENERAL LAND OFFICE, Washington, December 19, 1922.

MY DEAR SIR: This office acknowledges receipt of your letter dated December 19, 1922, relative to homestead application Los Angeles 035363 filed October 23, 1922.

In reply you are advised that no action has been taken in this case but the same is now before the division having charge of the adjudication of such cases, and a decision will be made in conformity with the facts in the case in the very near future.

Very respectfully,

GEO. R. WICKHAM, Assistant Commissioner.

WASHINGTON, D. C., September 6, 1922.

DEAR MCC.: Have not received Joe's address. Wrote for it again to-day. Will send it soon as I get it.

Don't forget to send me brief and a copy of your speech on international law. I also wish you would send me a copy of that document. How do you expect to get away from the inclosed decisions?

Yours truly,

BEN MCLENDON, Esq.,

116 Lanewood Avenue, Alhambra, Calif. DEAR FRIEND: I have your very good letter of May 6, and thank you for the good wishes and expressions of regard which you conveyed.

Your friend has been in to see me and I have learned through him what has been going on. It hardly seems possible that a Government such as ours could be guilty of lending itself to such proceedings. However, there is no doubt as to the ultimate outcome.

I shall be delighted to see you if you come this way.

Mrs. Hamel joins me in good wishes to you, Mrs. McLendon, and your daughter.

Faithfully yours,

CHARLES D. HAMEL.

Mr. GUY MASON. Mr. Chairman, I am associated with Judge Summers in representing these homesteaders, and I should like to know whether it would be proper if I might ask him a question now and then in order to bring out something that occurs to me that might be of interest to you, or would you prefer that the members of the committee should do that?

The CHAIRMAN. You might ask a question or two if you desire.. Senator NYE. I think, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Mason wants to bring out some of the points that might not be made clear by Mr. Summers, and that might not occur to the members of the committee. Mr. MASON. That is what I have in mind, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection, Mr. Mason may ask questions.

Senator NYE. Of course, if Mr. Summers has no objection.

Mr. SUMMERS. Any member of the committee, or anyone who wishes to ask any questions of me, may do so; it is all right with I assure you that it will not disturb me at all.

me.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Now you may go ahead, Mr. Summers. Mr. SUMMERS. Not only did they give McLendon this information and give him this report of 1887, but they assured him that they would prepare and send forward to him a list of the lands, the townships, the sections, the quarter-sections, the eighties, and the forties that were open to homestead entry; and that if they would file upon those lands, the homestead applications would be received and the homesteads would be allowed.

Shortly thereafter, in keeping with that promise, this communication, over the signature of the Commissioner of the General Land Office, that is referred to in this memorandum, as set out at length here, was transmitted to Mr. McLendon over the signature of Mr. Wickham, the assistant commissioner.

In keeping with this communication received from the Land Department, McLendon and a number of his friends filed applications for homesteads on these lands. No application was filed, however, that was not filed on lands that were in the inclosure designated by the Commissioner of the General Land Office as public lands, and no filing was made except on lands described in the communication furnished by the Land Department.

When those applications were filed, and it became known, the man who is in possession of what is known as the Irvine Ranch

Senator CAMERON (interposing). Who is that man?

Mr. SUMMERS. James Irvine, who claims to own and is in possession of this interstitial space, in possession of the San Joaquin and the Lomas de Santiago, and a part of two other so-called grants; the man Irvine then stated that he had bought a bunch of men on two or three occasions before, and it seemed necessary for him to get out his check book and buy some more.

Shortly thereafter he declared that he had secured control of the officials of the Land Department, and that these applications to homesteads would be rejected. And thereafter they were rejected, and McLendon and his associates were notified

Mr. MASON (interposing). Rejected by whom?

Mr. SUMMERS. Rejected by the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

Mr. MASON. And rejected at the local land office, at Los Angeles?

36388-27-2

Mr. SUMMERS. Yes, sir; rejected by the local office, and then by the Commissioner of the General Land Office.

Senator ASHURST. What local land office?

Mr. SUMMERS. In Los Angeles. Then it was made known that Irvine had secured control; and the applicants were notified that unless they filed relinquishments, as they stated, got off these lands, that all kinds of punishment would be inflicted. And failing to do this Irvine stated that he was in control of the United States attorney's office, and that he would have these homesteaders indicted and sent to the Federal prison; that the punishment to be inflicted would be, to use his expression, so damn severe that nobody would ever have the temerity to file on any of these lands again.

When it was known that these homesteaders would be presented to the grand jury, they went to the United States attorney and asked to be heard. But there they were notified by the United States attorney that he did not want a hearing, that what he wanted was an indictment.

Senator CAMERON. Mr. Summers, who was the United States attorney at that time?

Mr. ŠUMMERS. Joseph Burke. He formerly had represented Mr. Irvine in a good many things, and, as Irvine stated, he had secured his appointment.

Mr. MASON. To whom did the United States attorney make the statement that it was not a hearing he wanted but indictments?

Mr. SUMMERS. He made the statement to Clinton Johnson and Gertrude M. Caldwell.

Mr. MASON. Who is she?

Mr. SUMMERS. She is a woman in Los Angeles, who is a grandmother, and she is also a member of the bar. She went to Mr. Burke, the United States attorney, and said: "I filed on lands the numbers of which were given to me to file on by the Land Department. I want to tell the grand jury this." The United States attorney said, "You can not be heard before the grand jury.'

Then Mr. Johnson and others arranged to have an attorney call on Mr. Burke, the United States attorney, and tell him that they had knowledge, the material he was delivering to the grand jury, and upon which he was relying to secure indictments, was purchased and paid for, and was a part of the deal to put the case before the grand jury, and these affidavits had been secured by money that was delivered to the parties making the affidavit by an agent of the Land Department. This information was ignored. Thereafter indictments were returned.

Mr. MASON. Returned against whom?

Mr. SUMMERS. Against McLendon, Johnson, Caldwell, and others. Senator ASHURST. In what district?

Mr. SUMMERS. In the United States Court for the Southern District of California, at Los Angeles.

Senator NYE. Indictments were returned, did you say?

Mr. SUMMERS. Yes, sir.

Senator NYE. What was the charge in the indictment?

Mr. SUMMERS. They were charged with using the United States mails in a scheme to defraud. And the basis of the charge was that they had caused the United States mails to be used; in other words, they had made it necessary for the local land office where the applica