Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs

Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs - 1885

Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs 1885
R. D. HUNTER. The examination of Mr. Hunter continued. Mr. Harrison. Mr. Hunter, you may now make your answer as to the stipulations contained in the lease. The Witness. I see that there is no such stipulation. I thought there was, but I find that I am mistaken. Question. Then no security is given for your rental at all?—Answer. Yes, sir; our stock is responsible for the whole thing. Q. Well, sir, while this stock becomes responsible, there is no lien or mortgage on .the stock to prevent these parties from driving them off?—A. We pay our rental in advance. Q. But the lease does not stipulate for payment in advance? —A. No, sir; I do not think it does; in fact, I know it does not. The only stipulations in favor of the Indians are that they shall have certain rights. Q. They may take this rent in cattle or in money, just as they desire it?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Then, practically, you said to the Indians that whatever property you had should be liable for your rent?—A. Yes, sir. By the Chairman: Q. What is the practical value of a lien on a wild Texas steer?—A. Well, sir, we have advanced a good deal of money, a good many hundred thousand dollars on the wild Texas steers. Gentlemen, as far as I am concerned myself, I did not take that into consideration at all. I went into this business expecting that tie strict letter of the law would be enforced in case we did not carry out our part of the agreement. Q. But is it not a fact that there is really no security offered in the lease, in regard to the lease itself?—A. I was not there when the leases were made, and did not see them until after they were made. In the first place, we offered in our application to give good and sufficient bond for the faithful fulfillment of everything in connection with the lease, but the Secretary did not see proper to enter into negotiations with us to lease the land, and directed us to go and make our negotiations with the Indians themselves. By Mr.Harrison: Q. Your voluntary proposition was that you should give a bond for the faithful execution of your contract?—A. Yes, sir; we proposed to do that. Q. But in this lease, prepared by the agent, which the Department declined to approve or disapprove, there is no stipulation of that kind?—A. It seems so, sir. Q. Only that your stock should become responsible for the rental?—A. Yes, air. Q. The trouble would be that there are no courts there; and, if so, the Indians would have doubtful access to them. So it would have been a question whether, at last, if the lessee refused to pay, he could not get his herd together and drive them off?—A. No, sir; there would be no legal redress. But I suppose the agent took under consideration that be knew the men well and felt perfectly satisfied that they were reliable parties. Q. I understand you to say that the agent sent you your lease?—A. Well, sir, Captain Evans went to receive the lease, but, as I said, he did not wait for it, and it was sent to us. Q. You also said that Miles wrote to you, saying that he had reserved a portion of the reservation for you?—A. Yes, sir. Q. This was before the execution of the lease?—A. Yes, sir; we had before this an application on file for the lease. This application was made long before anybody else made one. Q. Was this application made to the agent or to the Secretary?—A. It was here at the Department. I had many talks with the agent, and had notified him of my application through the Secretary of the Interior. Q. Where were you when the agent notified you that a portion of the reservation had been reserved for your occupation?—A. I was in Washington. Q. Did he notify you here?—A. No, sir; he notified us at Saint Louis. Q. Was it by letter or by telegram?—A. I was by letter, I think. Q. Was it sent here?—A. It was sent to Mr. Evans at Saint Louis, and I think be wired me here that the agent had notified him he had reserved a portion of the reservation for us. He asked me if I could go there, but I advised him to go. Q. Did you bring that to the attention of the Secretary after receiving the message?—A. I do not think that it was done immediately. Q. Was it done while you were here?—A. I cannot remember; I cannot say whether it was before or after I left here. Q. But you did call attention to the fact that the agent had advised you of a portion of the reservation being set apart for you?—A. Yes, sir; I do not remember whether I told him before or after receiving the lease. Q. When did you first communicate this matter to the Department orally or in writing?—A. In November, 1883. Q. Did I not understand that it was in 1879?—A. Well, sir; I made my application then. Q. Did you make a written application then?—A. No, sir; a verbal one. Q. When did you first come in contact with the Secretary orally or in writing?—A. I think it was some time in November, 1883; rather 1882. Q. Did you write to him or did you see him?—A. I saw him first. Q. What time in 1882 was that?—A. It was in November. Q. Who came with you?—A. Major Pollard, my attorney. Q. Where does Mr. Pollard reside?—A. He resides at Saint Louis, Mo. Q. How long were you here?—A. Three or four days. Q. Did you come here on that business?—A. We came here on that business and other business also. Q. How many interviews did you have?—A. Three or four, I think. Q. Will you fix the date?—A. I cannot fix the date exactly, but it was some time in November, 1882 Q. What was the result of those interviews?—A. The result was that the Secretary declined to take any action himself by way of approving or granting a lease. Q. Did he tell you that if you made a lease with the Indians he would protect you as far as he could?—A. Yes, sir; that was my understanding. At first he did not seem to understand the matter and did not want to talk about it. Q. When did you go to see him next?—A. It was later on. Q. Was it later on in 1882?—A. It was in the winter of 1882 and 1883. Q. When was your lease made?—A. Our lease was made some time in January, 1883. Q. Were not these leases made in December 1882?—A. No, sir; they were made in 1883, I think, but it may have been December, 1882 —no, it was in 1883. Q. Well, after leaving here, did you see him again, before you got the lease?—A. No, sir. Q. In 1883, when you came here, you had the lease with you?—A. I did not present it. Q. I did not ask that. Did you have it here?—A. No, sir; I do not think I had. The others had been presented and he refused to approve them. Our lease was afterwards sent by Major Pollard, some time in the winter or spring of 1883, after the leases were made. Q. Were you not here at that time?— A. No, sir. Q. Let me understand you. When you saw him in 1882, he positively refused to approve the lease. He told you he had no authority to do that?—A. He told us he did not think he had any authority. Q. And he declined to approve them?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Subsequently you made a lease which stipulated that the rent should not commence until approved by the Secretary of the Interior?—A. Yes, sir. Q. You sent that lease to the Secretary of the Interior and he refused to approve it?—A. Well, sir, when the other leases were presented to him, previous to ours, he issued a letter to Mr. Fenlon, stating the views of the Department upon the subject, and that is what we have worked under. Q. Was it not after this letter was written that you asked the Secretary to approve the lease?—A. Yes, sir. Q. Was not the price 2 cents per acre, supposing the lessees to have had a legal and binding contract and protection from the Government, was it not very low?—A. It might be considered so now, but it was all the land was worth then. It was as much as we paid for other land at the time. Texas lands were leasing for no more, but, of course, we could not lease them in such large bodies as this. But we could lease water fronts, which gave us the control of a good deal of land without having to pay any rent for it, while we rented this Indian Territory land in solid blocks.; The railroad leases in Texas were necessarily narrow strips, and we could lease only in alternate sections. Q. You could only lease every other section; so your leases would be in patches like a checker-board?—A. Yes, sir; every alternate section was set apart for the railroad. Q. Given the same quality of land and grass, and the name facilities as to water, would not a tract of 500,000 acres, with one fence, be worth more per acre than land where you could get a right to only every alternate section?—A. I think so, sir, if we had proper protection. Q. When you leased this land at 2 cents an acre, did you not take into consideration your uncertain hold upon it?—A. We felt that 2 cents was its full value. Q. Do I understand you to say, as a business man, that there is no difference between a lease which you hold without any authority of law and without the approval of the Indian Department and one where you had that authority?—A. When we took our lease the Secretary said that if we did what we agreed to do we should not be molested; that we should be protected against other parties, which was equal to a confirmation of our lease. Q. Do you mean that it was equal to a confirmation of it by law?—A. Well, we did not suppose we would be interfered with. Q. Did you not understand that to be a mere oral declaration, and that it did not bind the present Secretary or his successor, and as valid as if made under the public law binding for its full term?—A. We did not go into that question. We understood that we would not be interfered with during the term of the lease. We felt that the Indians were getting a good deal for land they got nothing for before, and that they would not interfere with us. Q. You took the chances?—A. Yes, sir; from the very first moment that we proposed to lease this land and pay a fair price for it everybody has thought, it seems, that we have a bonanza, and has pitched into us. I have heard a good deal about the value of this land, but I will do this : If any gentleman thinks we have a bonanza we will turn over everything to him at cost, improvements, cattle, and all. Q. Would you make the same proposition if there was a public law authorizing such lease and the lease had been signed and duly delivered?—A. No; because we should then consider that we had protection against everybody, both outsiders and Indians. Q. That is what we want to get at. Would not that be more valuable?—A. Certainly. Q. How much more valuable?—A. Well, sir,I could not say exactly. Q. But you could afford to give 4 cents, coud you not ?—A. I think we are paying more than 4 cents now. Q. I understand what you mean; but suppose you had a lease authorized by the public law of the United States and signed by the Secretary of the Interior, and absolutely binding for the period of ten years, could you not afford to pay 4 cents?—A. Well, sir, I think you are correct. Q. Has not the uncertainty in regard to the leasing of these lands resulted in their being rented at one-half of their value?—A. Well, sir, before our lease was made the greater portion of this land was occupied by men who paid no rental. When the leases were made the lessees understood that 2 cents an acre was a good fair price, and we understood that we would have some protection against those who were occupying the land for grazing purposes and paying nothing. By the Chairman : Q. Where were you going to get the protection?—A. The Secretary told me he would protect us against outsiders and intruders and all parties who interfered with us, if we made a fair bargain and stood up to our contract with the Indians. By Mr.. Harrison : Q. How much land do you estimate to the steer?—A. Twenty acres. Q. Is not that pretty liberal?—A. No, sir; I think not. Q. That would be 40 cents a year and $1.60 to feed a 4-year old steer ready for the market?—A. Yes, sir; but you must take into consideration the cost of our fences and other expenses. Q. I am simply taking the annual cost of grazing. Mr. Hunter, you understand there have been some charges of corruption, which makes it our duty, as members of this committee, to ask questions to get at them. Therefore, I want to ask you was there not some joint expense account of these people who got these leases. Was there not some expense account to which the different holders of leases in the Cheyenne and Arapahoe country contributed to ?—A. Well, we formed an association in which each of us put so much money for general expenses, attorneys’ fees, and other matters. Q. Well, I want to go into the expense account. What are the details of that account?—A. I do not know, sir. We formed an association, called the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Live Stock Association, the purpose of which is to arrange for our round ups, and for the protection and gathering together of our cattle. Q. But, Mr. Hunter, you do not have a common round up when you have fences?—A. Yes, sir. Our fences are liable to get broken down, and do get broken down. Q. I suppose that if another man’s cattle was found in your range you would separate them?—Yes, sir; that is so. Q. Then you do not have a common round up now?—A. Yes, sir; we do. By Mr. Slater: Q. Is it a fact that members of Congress have any interest in this cattle upon these ranges?—A. I do not know, sir. [Laughter.] Mr. Harrison. If I have any interest there somebody has my branding. iron. The Witness. If you send your branding-iron, I will see that your calves on our range are rounded up. Q. What was the first amount of money you paid into the expense account of this association?—A. I do not remember. I cannot tell the exact amount. Q. What would be the aggregate amount of money paid for legal expenses up to this time?—A. Well, sir, for legal expenses I estimate the amount at from $12,000 to $15,000. That is for our association. I do not know of any more. Q. You do not know of anything else being paid.—A. Well, air, I do not keep the expense account. I know that we have been sued in the United States circuit court and we have been obliged to employ legal counsel. Q. Who keeps the account?—A. Mr. Hood. Q. Who is he?—A. He is the secretary of the association. Q. Is he your attorney at law? —A. Yes, sir. Q. Where does he reside?—A. He is a banker and a cattleman, and lives at Emporia. Q. Is he here?—A. No, sir. The only attorneys here are Messrs. Pollard and Peck. Q. You do not know what the aggregate of the expense account is?—A. No, sir; I simply have given my opinion upon the matter. Q. How much has your firm paid into the general treasury?—A. I could not tell without referring to the books. Q. Do you know of any one connected with the Interior Department, or any other Department of the Government, who has any interest in any of these leases, or in the cattle upon the leases of your association, or in the Indian Territory anywhere?—A. No, sir; I do not. Q. I will extend my question to any reports you have heard. It will direct us towards any evidence on this point. Have you heard of any person connected with the Government being interested in these leases?—A. No, sir; except through the newspaper reports. Q. What newspaper reports have you heard?—A. I have seen reports that this Senator and that Senator was interested in leases there. Q. What newspapers did you see these reports in?—A. I could not tell you, sir. There has been so much said in the last year or two that I could not tell you what particular papers I saw these reports in. I did not pay much attention to the matter. I do not not know much in regard to the matter, because what I heard was only general talk and rumor. Q. Have you heard anything as coming from any one interested in these leases?—A. No, sir; I have not. Outside of our own company I do not know the members of any other company except a very few. Q. Have you and your partners at any time been called upon to pay any assessment or money, or to pay anything of value in any way that looked toward reimbursing anybody for services rendered in connection with obtaining these leases?—A. No, sir. If money has been paid except for legal expenses I do not know it. Q. Did I understand you to say that you do not know, and have no reason to believe, that any money or anything of value, has been used with any one connected with the Government in any Department to secure or protect these leases?—A. That is just what you understood me to say. By Mr. Bowen : Q. Now, Mr. Hunter, I want to ask you one question in connection with the price these parties seem to be paying. I find a clause in the lease which provides that at the expiration of the lease the Indians shall own the improvements.—A. Well, sir, our fences have cost us $200 a mile, and we have over 100 miles of fence; besides this we have other improvements, such as the cabins, corrals, &c. Q. What has been the total cost of these improvements?—A. I suppose some $40,000. Q. These improvements are left to the Indians at the expiration of the lease?—A. Yes, sir; everything is left to the Indians at the expiration of the lease. Q. So that, in point of fact, you pay the Indians 2 cents an acre besides the value of these improvements. By Mr. Slater: Q. Is there any provision in the lease by which you are required to keep up the improvements in good order until the expiration of the lease. Now, understand, if your lease runs for ten years, are you required to keep up your improvements until the expiration of that time?—A. Well, we have put in the fence posts that will stand for twenty years. Q. I would also like to ask whether you employed your attorney for a stipulated sum of money, or did you pay him for special services?—A. We pay one by the year, but the others we pay for special services. Q. Now, please state if, in the payment of these annual or special payments for services, you include anything for outside expenses these attorneys may be put to in connection with the lease?—A. No, sir; none whatever. Q. In what year was this lease executed?—A. It was executed in January, 1883. Q. What was the price of your attorney by the year, including the year in which the lease was contracted and executed?—A. I do not think we had employed an attorney then by the year. .Taylor and Pollard were our attorneys then, and we were paying them for special services. Since that time we have employed an attorney by the year, and his salary has been $5,000 and expenses. Q. What were your attorney and legal fees in connection with obtaining the lease 7—A. I think some $350 or $400, that we paid Major Pollard during the time he was here in Washington trying to get the lease. Q. Do you know of any arrangement whereby any benefits are to accrue to any person other than yourself and partners by reason of the execution of this lease?—A. I do not. Q. Do you know of any persons who are directly or indirectly interested in the benefits to be derived from this lease?—A. No, sir. Q. You know of no persons in the Interior Department who are directly or indirectly interested?—A. No, sir; none whatever. Q. Of any person in the Senate or House of Representatives?—A. No, sir; in one nor the other. By Mr. Walker: Q. This rental is paid directly to the Indians?—A. Yes, sir. Q. What Indians did you say they were ?—A. The Cheyenne and Arapahoe. Q. Why was the money not covered in the Treasury under the act of March 8, 1883?—A. Well, sir, we were advised by the Department that it would be best paid directly to the Indians. Q. You were not apprised of the existence of the statute at the time?—A. No, sir; I presume that was the case. Q. Well then, in making your payments you have not complied with the statute?—A. We were advised by the Department to pay directly to the Indians. By the Chairman: Q. The lease expressly stipulates that the rent shall not be paid until after the lease is approved by the Department. Now, is there any possible.way of enforcing the payment of the rent until after the lease is actually approved by the Department?—A. I presume not. Q. Can the Indians exact this rent?—A. It is to our own interest to pay it. Q. I mean, can they enforce this payment if you should decline to pay it ?—A. I do not think there is any law to force us to pay it. Q. Then it is entirely voluntary with you to pay the rent or not?—A. Yes, sir; according to your interpretation it is. Return To Testimony Index.
This site may be freely linked, but not duplicated without consent. All rights reserved. Commercial use of material within this site is prohibited. The copyright (s) on this page must appear on all copied and/or printed material. © 2024 by C.S.L.S.A. Site Coordinator

Testimony taken by the Committee on Indian Affairs
1885

R. D. HUNTER.

The examination of Mr. Hunter continued.

Mr. Harrison. Mr. Hunter, you may now make your answer as to the stipulations contained in the lease.
The Witness. I see that there is no such stipulation. I thought there was, but I find that I am mistaken.
Question. Then no security is given for your rental at all?—Answer. Yes, sir; our stock is responsible for the whole thing.
Q. Well, sir, while this stock becomes responsible, there is no lien or mortgage on .the stock to prevent these parties from driving them off?—A. We pay our rental in advance.
Q. But the lease does not stipulate for payment in advance? —A. No, sir; I do not think it does; in fact, I know it does not. The only stipulations in favor of the Indians are that they shall have certain rights.
Q. They may take this rent in cattle or in money, just as they desire it?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then, practically, you said to the Indians that whatever property you had should be liable for your rent?—A. Yes, sir.

By the Chairman:

Q. What is the practical value of a lien on a wild Texas steer?—A. Well, sir, we have advanced a good deal of money, a good many hundred thousand dollars on the wild Texas steers. Gentlemen, as far as I am concerned myself, I did not take that into consideration at all. I went into this business expecting that tie strict letter of the law would be enforced in case we did not carry out our part of the agreement.
Q. But is it not a fact that there is really no security offered in the lease, in regard to the lease itself?—A. I was not there when the leases were made, and did not see them until after they were made. In the first place, we offered in our application to give good and sufficient bond for the faithful fulfillment of everything in connection with the lease, but the Secretary did not see proper to enter into negotiations with us to lease the land, and directed us to go and make our negotiations with the Indians themselves.

By Mr.Harrison:

Q. Your voluntary proposition was that you should give a bond for the faithful execution of your contract?—A. Yes, sir; we proposed to do that.
Q. But in this lease, prepared by the agent, which the Department declined to approve or disapprove, there is no stipulation of that kind?—A. It seems so, sir.
Q. Only that your stock should become responsible for the rental?—A. Yes, air.
Q. The trouble would be that there are no courts there; and, if so, the Indians would have doubtful access to them. So it would have been a question whether, at last, if the lessee refused to pay, he could not get his herd together and drive them off?—A. No, sir; there would be no legal redress. But I suppose the agent took under consideration that be knew the men well and felt perfectly satisfied that they were reliable parties.
Q. I understand you to say that the agent sent you your lease?—A. Well, sir, Captain Evans went to receive the lease, but, as I said, he did not wait for it, and it was sent to us.
Q. You also said that Miles wrote to you, saying that he had reserved a portion of the reservation for you?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. This was before the execution of the lease?—A. Yes, sir; we had before this an application on file for the lease. This application was made long before anybody else made one.
Q. Was this application made to the agent or to the Secretary?—A. It was here at the Department. I had many talks with the agent, and had notified him of my application through the Secretary of the Interior.
Q. Where were you when the agent notified you that a portion of the reservation had been reserved for your occupation?—A. I was in Washington.
Q. Did he notify you here?—A. No, sir; he notified us at Saint Louis.
Q. Was it by letter or by telegram?—A. I was by letter, I think.
Q. Was it sent here?—A. It was sent to Mr. Evans at Saint Louis, and I think be wired me here that the agent had notified him he had reserved a portion of the reservation for us. He asked me if I could go there, but I advised him to go.
Q. Did you bring that to the attention of the Secretary after receiving the message?—A. I do not think that it was done immediately.
Q. Was it done while you were here?—A. I cannot remember; I cannot say whether it was before or after I left here.
Q. But you did call attention to the fact that the agent had advised you of a portion of the reservation being set apart for you?—A. Yes, sir; I do not remember whether I told him before or after receiving the lease.
Q. When did you first communicate this matter to the Department orally or in writing?—A. In November, 1883.
Q. Did I not understand that it was in 1879?—A. Well, sir; I made my application then.
Q. Did you make a written application then?—A. No, sir; a verbal one.
Q. When did you first come in contact with the Secretary orally or in writing?—A. I think it was some time in November, 1883; rather 1882.
Q. Did you write to him or did you see him?—A. I saw him first.
Q. What time in 1882 was that?—A. It was in November.
Q. Who came with you?—A. Major Pollard, my attorney.
Q. Where does Mr. Pollard reside?—A. He resides at Saint Louis, Mo.
Q. How long were you here?—A. Three or four days.
Q. Did you come here on that business?—A. We came here on that business and other business also.
Q. How many interviews did you have?—A. Three or four, I think.
Q. Will you fix the date?—A. I cannot fix the date exactly, but it was some time in November, 1882
Q. What was the result of those interviews?—A. The result was that the Secretary declined to take any action himself by way of approving or granting a lease.
Q. Did he tell you that if you made a lease with the Indians he would protect you as far as he could?—A. Yes, sir; that was my understanding. At first he did not seem to understand the matter and did not want to talk about it.
Q. When did you go to see him next?—A. It was later on.
Q. Was it later on in 1882?—A. It was in the winter of 1882 and 1883.
Q. When was your lease made?—A. Our lease was made some time in January, 1883.
Q. Were not these leases made in December 1882?—A. No, sir; they were made in 1883, I think, but it may have been December, 1882 —no, it was in 1883.
Q. Well, after leaving here, did you see him again, before you got the lease?—A. No, sir.
Q. In 1883, when you came here, you had the lease with you?—A. I did not present it.
Q. I did not ask that. Did you have it here?—A. No, sir; I do not think I had. The others had been presented and he refused to approve them. Our lease was afterwards sent by Major Pollard, some time in the winter or spring of 1883, after the leases were made.
Q. Were you not here at that time?— A. No, sir.
Q. Let me understand you. When you saw him in 1882, he positively refused to approve the lease. He told you he had no authority to do that?—A. He told us he did not think he had any authority.
Q. And he declined to approve them?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Subsequently you made a lease which stipulated that the rent should not commence until approved by the Secretary of the Interior?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. You sent that lease to the Secretary of the Interior and he refused to approve it?—A. Well, sir, when the other leases were presented to him, previous to ours, he issued a letter to Mr. Fenlon, stating the views of the Department upon the subject, and that is what we have worked under.
Q. Was it not after this letter was written that you asked the Secretary to approve the lease?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was not the price 2 cents per acre, supposing the lessees to have had a legal and binding contract and protection from the Government, was it not very low?—A. It might be considered so now, but it was all the land was worth then. It was as much as we paid for other land at the time. Texas lands were leasing for no more, but, of course, we could not lease them in such large bodies as this. But we could lease water fronts, which gave us the control of a good deal of land without having to pay any rent for it, while we rented this Indian Territory land in solid blocks.; The railroad leases in Texas were necessarily narrow strips, and we could lease only in alternate sections.
Q. You could only lease every other section; so your leases would be in patches like a checker-board?—A. Yes, sir; every alternate section was set apart for the railroad.
Q. Given the same quality of land and grass, and the name facilities as to water, would not a tract of 500,000 acres, with one fence, be worth more per acre than land where you could get a right to only every alternate section?—A. I think so, sir, if we had proper protection.
Q. When you leased this land at 2 cents an acre, did you not take into consideration your uncertain hold upon it?—A. We felt that 2 cents was its full value.
Q. Do I understand you to say, as a business man, that there is no difference between a lease which you hold without any authority of law and without the approval of the Indian Department and one where you had that authority?—A. When we took our lease the Secretary said that if we did what we agreed to do we should not be molested; that we should be protected against other parties, which was equal to a confirmation of our lease.
Q. Do you mean that it was equal to a confirmation of it by law?—A. Well, we did not suppose we would be interfered with.
Q. Did you not understand that to be a mere oral declaration, and that it did not bind the present Secretary or his successor, and as valid as if made under the public law binding for its full term?—A. We did not go into that question. We understood that we would not be interfered with during the term of the lease. We felt that the Indians were getting a good deal for land they got nothing for before, and that they would not interfere with us.
Q. You took the chances?—A. Yes, sir; from the very first moment that we proposed to lease this land and pay a fair price for it everybody has thought, it seems, that we have a bonanza, and has pitched into us. I have heard a good deal about the value of this land, but I will do this : If any gentleman thinks we have a bonanza we will turn over everything to him at cost, improvements, cattle, and all.
Q. Would you make the same proposition if there was a public law authorizing such lease and the lease had been signed and duly delivered?—A. No; because we should then consider that we had protection against everybody, both outsiders and Indians.
Q. That is what we want to get at. Would not that be more valuable?—A. Certainly.
Q. How much more valuable?—A. Well, sir,I could not say exactly.
Q. But you could afford to give 4 cents, coud you not ?—A. I think we are paying more than 4 cents now.
Q. I understand what you mean; but suppose you had a lease authorized by the public law of the United States and signed by the Secretary of the Interior, and absolutely binding for the period of ten years, could you not afford to pay 4 cents?—A. Well, sir, I think you are correct.
Q. Has not the uncertainty in regard to the leasing of these lands resulted in their being rented at one-half of their value?—A. Well, sir, before our lease was made the greater portion of this land was occupied by men who paid no rental. When the leases were made the lessees understood that 2 cents an acre was a good fair price, and we understood that we would have some protection against those who were occupying the land for grazing purposes and paying nothing.

By the Chairman :

Q. Where were you going to get the protection?—A. The Secretary told me he would protect us against outsiders and intruders and all parties who interfered with us, if we made a fair bargain and stood up to our contract with the Indians.

By Mr.. Harrison :

Q. How much land do you estimate to the steer?—A. Twenty acres.
Q. Is not that pretty liberal?—A. No, sir; I think not.
Q. That would be 40 cents a year and $1.60 to feed a 4-year old steer ready for the market?—A. Yes, sir; but you must take into consideration the cost of our fences and other expenses.
Q. I am simply taking the annual cost of grazing. Mr. Hunter, you understand there have been some charges of corruption, which makes it our duty, as members of this committee, to ask questions to get at them. Therefore, I want to ask you was there not some joint expense account of these people who got these leases. Was there not some expense account to which the different holders of leases in the Cheyenne and Arapahoe country contributed to ?—A. Well, we formed an association in which each of us put so much money for general expenses, attorneys’ fees, and other matters.
Q. Well, I want to go into the expense account. What are the details of that account?—A. I do not know, sir. We formed an association, called the Cheyenne and Arapahoe Live Stock Association, the purpose of which is to arrange for our round ups, and for the protection and gathering together of our cattle.
Q. But, Mr. Hunter, you do not have a common round up when you have fences?—A. Yes, sir. Our fences are liable to get broken down, and do get broken down.
Q. I suppose that if another man’s cattle was found in your range you would separate them?—Yes, sir; that is so.
Q. Then you do not have a common round up now?—A. Yes, sir; we do.

By Mr. Slater:

Q. Is it a fact that members of Congress have any interest in this cattle upon these ranges?—A. I do not know, sir. [Laughter.]
Mr. Harrison. If I have any interest there somebody has my branding. iron.
The Witness. If you send your branding-iron, I will see that your calves on our range are rounded up.
Q. What was the first amount of money you paid into the expense account of this association?—A. I do not remember. I cannot tell the exact amount.
Q. What would be the aggregate amount of money paid for legal expenses up to this time?—A. Well, sir, for legal expenses I estimate the amount at from $12,000 to $15,000. That is for our association. I do not know of any more.
Q. You do not know of anything else being paid.—A. Well, air, I do not keep the expense account. I know that we have been sued in the United States circuit court and we have been obliged to employ legal counsel.
Q. Who keeps the account?—A. Mr. Hood.
Q. Who is he?—A. He is the secretary of the association.
Q. Is he your attorney at law? —A. Yes, sir.
Q. Where does he reside?—A. He is a banker and a cattleman, and lives at Emporia.
Q. Is he here?—A. No, sir. The only attorneys here are Messrs. Pollard and Peck.
Q. You do not know what the aggregate of the expense account is?—A. No, sir; I simply have given my opinion upon the matter.
Q. How much has your firm paid into the general treasury?—A. I could not tell without referring to the books.
Q. Do you know of any one connected with the Interior Department, or any other Department of the Government, who has any interest in any of these leases, or in the cattle upon the leases of your association, or in the Indian Territory anywhere?—A. No, sir; I do not.
Q. I will extend my question to any reports you have heard. It will direct us towards any evidence on this point. Have you heard of any person connected with the Government being interested in these leases?—A. No, sir; except through the newspaper reports.
Q. What newspaper reports have you heard?—A. I have seen reports that this Senator and that Senator was interested in leases there.
Q. What newspapers did you see these reports in?—A. I could not tell you, sir. There has been so much said in the last year or two that I could not tell you what particular papers I saw these reports in. I did not pay much attention to the matter. I do not not know much in regard to the matter, because what I heard was only general talk and rumor.
Q. Have you heard anything as coming from any one interested in these leases?—A. No, sir; I have not. Outside of our own company I do not know the members of any other company except a very few.
Q. Have you and your partners at any time been called upon to pay any assessment or money, or to pay anything of value in any way that looked toward reimbursing anybody for services rendered in connection with obtaining these leases?—A. No, sir. If money has been paid except for legal expenses I do not know it.
Q. Did I understand you to say that you do not know, and have no reason to believe, that any money or anything of value, has been used with any one connected with the Government in any Department to secure or protect these leases?—A. That is just what you understood me to say.

By Mr. Bowen :

Q. Now, Mr. Hunter, I want to ask you one question in connection with the price these parties seem to be paying. I find a clause in the lease which provides that at the expiration of the lease the Indians shall own the improvements.—A. Well, sir, our fences have cost us $200 a mile, and we have over 100 miles of fence; besides this we have other improvements, such as the cabins, corrals, &c.
Q. What has been the total cost of these improvements?—A. I suppose some $40,000.
Q. These improvements are left to the Indians at the expiration of the lease?—A. Yes, sir; everything is left to the Indians at the expiration of the lease.
Q. So that, in point of fact, you pay the Indians 2 cents an acre besides the value of these improvements.

By Mr. Slater:

Q. Is there any provision in the lease by which you are required to keep up the improvements in good order until the expiration of the lease. Now, understand, if your lease runs for ten years, are you required to keep up your improvements until the expiration of that time?—A. Well, we have put in the fence posts that will stand for twenty years.
Q. I would also like to ask whether you employed your attorney for a stipulated sum of money, or did you pay him for special services?—A. We pay one by the year, but the others we pay for special services.
Q. Now, please state if, in the payment of these annual or special payments for services, you include anything for outside expenses these attorneys may be put to in connection with the lease?—A. No, sir; none whatever.
Q. In what year was this lease executed?—A. It was executed in January, 1883.
Q. What was the price of your attorney by the year, including the year in which the lease was contracted and executed?—A. I do not think we had employed an attorney then by the year. .Taylor and Pollard were our attorneys then, and we were paying them for special services. Since that time we have employed an attorney by the year, and his salary has been $5,000 and expenses.
Q. What were your attorney and legal fees in connection with obtaining the lease 7—A. I think some $350 or $400, that we paid Major Pollard during the time he was here in Washington trying to get the lease.
Q. Do you know of any arrangement whereby any benefits are to accrue to any person other than yourself and partners by reason of the execution of this lease?—A. I do not.
Q. Do you know of any persons who are directly or indirectly interested in the benefits to be derived from this lease?—A. No, sir.
Q. You know of no persons in the Interior Department who are directly or indirectly interested?—A. No, sir; none whatever.
Q. Of any person in the Senate or House of Representatives?—A. No, sir; in one nor the other.

By Mr. Walker:

Q. This rental is paid directly to the Indians?—A. Yes, sir.
Q. What Indians did you say they were ?—A. The Cheyenne and Arapahoe.
Q. Why was the money not covered in the Treasury under the act of March 8, 1883?—A. Well, sir, we were advised by the Department that it would be best paid directly to the Indians.
Q. You were not apprised of the existence of the statute at the time?—A. No, sir; I presume that was the case.
Q. Well then, in making your payments you have not complied with the statute?—A. We were advised by the Department to pay directly to the Indians.

By the Chairman:

Q. The lease expressly stipulates that the rent shall not be paid until after the lease is approved by the Department. Now, is there any possible.way of enforcing the payment of the rent until after the lease is actually approved by the Department?—A. I presume not.
Q. Can the Indians exact this rent?—A. It is to our own interest to pay it.
Q. I mean, can they enforce this payment if you should decline to pay it ?—A. I do not think there is any law to force us to pay it.
Q. Then it is entirely voluntary with you to pay the rent or not?—A. Yes, sir; according to your interpretation it is.

Return To Testimony Index.

This site may be freely linked, but not duplicated without consent.
All rights reserved. Commercial use of material within this site is prohibited.
The copyright (s) on this page must appear on all copied and/or printed material.
© 2024 by C.S.L.S.A. Site Coordinator