Note: this interesting document is a transcription of the congressional discussion of the "Resurvey Act of 1918." It provides interesting insight into the rational for the act as relates to Public Land Surveys in the United States. Those who do not study history are doomed to repeat it.... return with us now to those glorious days of yesteryear.....

CONGRESSIONAL RECORD -HOUSE
SIXTY-FIFTH CONGRESS.
SESSION II
1918, pps. 4689, 9149-9153
[H.R. 8004]
[Public No.216]

RESURVEY OF LAND HERETOFORE SURVEYED

The next business sent on the Calendar for Unanimous Conas the bill (H.R. 8004) authorizing the resurvey or retracement of lands heretofore returned as surveyed public lands of the United States under certain conditions.

The clerk read the title of the bill.

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Is there objection?

MR. WINGO.

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Is there objection?

MR. WINGO.
Mr. Speaker, who has charge of this bill?

MR. STAFFORD.
Reserving the right to object?

MR. FOSTER.
I want to reserve the right to object to this.

MR. KINKAID.
This bill was reported by the gentleman from Colorado [Mr. TIMBERLAKE]. I defer to him if he wishes to reserve the right to object?

MR. WINGO.
I reserve the right to object. I want some statement about the bill.

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
I want to say with reference to this bill that we who have lived in the west know the necessity for its enactment, by reason of the fact that there are certain townships in many parts of the west where the government markings have been raised. There are many whole townships where there is not a government cornerstone to be found. These townships have been settled up by actual settlers, and the earlier arrivals have arranged their locations according to information received from some source, and they have built permanent improvements. Yet later arrivals are, in many instances, contesting these boundaries, and trouble in consequence is of frequent occurrence. To obviate this condition, these lands should be resurveyed, and many petitions have been filed with the department for this purpose. These in all cases have been denied where more than 50 percent of the lands had passed to patent or alienated.

MR. WINGO.
Will the gentleman yield right there? What is to prevent them from doing like I thought was the custom everywhere -- it is the custom in my state -- going and employing a public surveyor and paying him to do the work, to rerun his lines, if he has any doubt about the correctness of his locations?

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
There is this reason: These people believe they are entitled to a government survey upon which they can rely in locating their lands.

MR. WINGO.
They have it already.

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
And the further reason that serious trouble has resulted in neighborhoods by reason of having it left to a local authority to determine; whereas, if it was settled definitely by the Federal authorities, this trouble would pass away, and all would abide by a survey made by the General Government.

MR. WINGO.
But, if the gentleman will permit me right there, this is the information I want to get. There is nothing undetermined at present. The survey that the United States Government has made of these Government lands is fixed and unquestioned. Now, if there is any dispute about the recorded survey and the records that are in the Surveyor General's office, You already have ample authority of law to cover that.

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
What is it?

MR. WINGO.
I do not remember the details of it, but I have a hazy recollection of calling upon the Surveyor Genera;'s office and furnishing to one of our surveyors all the information that they had in the office here, If there is an error in it, then I think the Surveyor General has authority to complete his records and correct any errors that there may be in the record. But why should you go, at the expenses of the government of the United States, and rerun the United States survey, unless it be in a case where you can show that there is some error in the old survey?

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
This bill carries no expense to the General Government, for this resurvey for private lands is borne by the owners of these lands. and the Government would only pay for the public lands.

MR. WINGO.
Who is going to pay it?

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
It provides that upon petition of three-fourths of the residents of the locality where the resurvey is desired, when they accompany that petition with the full cost of the resurvey, in so far as the private lands are concerned.

MR. WINGO.
That is the resurvey of private lands. Who is going to pay for the resurvey of the public lands?

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
The ruling of the department in relation to resurveys is that they will make a resurvey of a township where less than one-fifth or one-half has passed to private ownership. They use the appropriation made by Congress in making a resurvey under those circumstances. But they also hold that where more than 50 percent has passed to patent they cannot apply the funds appropriated by congress, and refuse to make the resurvey. It is only to care for this class that this bill is asked. They pay for it themselves, which they are perfectly willing to do, but they want the Government back of that survey instead of a local survey by the county surveyor.

MR. WINGO.
What good would that do?

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
They are more apt to abide by the result.

MR. WINGO.
Will not the court abide by the decision of the survey of the official surveyor of the county or state? Can the gentleman tell me a single court that has refused to abide by the lines run by the official surveyor of the state?

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
I do not think I can cite any individual case, but I do know that there have been many disagreements with local surveys that have been made.

MR. KINKAID.
Will the gentleman yield?

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
I will yield to the gentleman from Nebraska [MR. KINKAID], who introduced the bill, which was at the suggestion of the Department. and in full accord with what it thought was necessary to bring relief to a very large number of people seriously affected by the rules under which the department was working in connection with these cases.

MR. KINKAID.
Mr. speaker, I introduced this bill. I did not prepare it. I have been working for the enactment of such a measure for about 10 Years, or a measure which would cover the exigency that exists for such legislation. Now, after seeking for this kind of legislation for years. after presenting it to the Commissioners of the General Land Office and the Secretaries of the Interior who have come and gone, and to the present able incumbents, the Commissioner of the General Land Office and the Secretary of the Interior finally after much experience in administering the law in existence in regard to surveys and resurveys of public lands and private lands, came to conclusion that just such an act as this was actually necessary--even expedient. Now, it is very conservative and inexpensive concession made to a long-felt demand. The commissioner of the General Land Office volunteered the information that he had come to the conclusion that a bill should be prepared, and he ordered it prepared in his office, without a single suggestion having been made by me for more than a year previous. He told me that there had been other members, representing western states, who had come to his office seeking some such legislation. Now, why is it that this work can not be done by the county surveyor or the State surveyor? It is because this work is of a peculiar character. It requires long experience, and skill resulting from long experience to perform the work so that it will be of value and so that it will carry conviction to those interested that it is right. As long as the conviction shall not be established that the work done is correct there will be no peace in the particular neighborhood. There has been talk all along here about war measures; this is a war measure in the sense that it is sought to secure peace in the neighborhood, because riots occur, shootings occur, killings may occur in disputes over these lines. we all know about the bitter feuds that have been engendered by disputes over boundary lines of farms in our various states.

MR FOSTER.
That does not happen in Nebraska, does it?

MR. KINKAID.
Yes.

MR. MONDELL.
Some in Illinois.

MR. KINKAID.
It costs the Government nothing at all. The settlers were entitled to have these lands surveyed in the first place. They do not have the land unless they have the lines; their claims or entries can not be identified without corners and lines.

MR. WALSH.
Will the gentlemen yield?

MR. KINKAID.
Yes; with pleasure.

MR. WALSH.
What do they riot about?

MR. KINKAID.
In disputes over the lines. Now, here is a letter from the Secretary of the Interior justifying this legislation. He says they have no tangible survey. That means that there is no survey on the ground. It means that there is a survey in the General Land Office on paper. It means that in some cases there was a survey originally, but prairie fires and sand storms have obliterated it. In some cases there was never any survey made on the ground because 40, 50, or 60 years ago there were no examinations made by special agents of the department of the work done before the contract was adopted and paid for. Now, in these times, there is an inspection made unless the survey is by the Government surveyor, and there is a strict supervision by the Government, and the surveys are correct, but that was not the case when these surveys were made.

MR. WINGO.
Will the gentleman yield?

MR. KINKAID.
Yes; with pleasure.

MR. WINGO.
Will the gentleman explain the present law with reference to surveys where you show the department that the survey was never made?

MR. KINKAID.
That will not apply to these cases.

MR. WINGO.
Perhaps the gentleman did not catch my question. If you make a showing that no survey was ever made, does not the law provide for a survey?

MR. KINKAID.
No; not in such a case as this. It does where not more than half of the lands of a township has passed to patent.

MR. WINGO.
That is the resurvey, but I mean where there never was any survey made.

MR. KINKAID.
These are places where a survey was made and recorded, and you could not prove in these cases beyond cavil that no survey was ever made. Generally here and there are to be found evidences of surveys. They did not make some corners, perhaps township corners.

MR. WINGO.
These record surveys contain the regular calls.

MR. KINKAID.
They contain the record.

MR. WINGO.
They contain the regular calls that any state surveyor can take and locate.

MR. KINKAID.
Oh, no. In these cases they only make it where surveyors not experienced and skilled can not find the corners at all, and the Government owes it to these people that a survey be made, for these are all homestead lands. It is a legal fraud on entrymen that there are no corners to be found. They are ready to pay for work to be performed by experienced Government surveyors. I mean experienced in precisely this kind of work.

MR. WINGO.
Does the gentleman mean to say that you have not any surveyors out there who can take the field notes in the surveyor general's office and take the calls of those notes and locate the corners of a given section?

MR. KINKAID.
It requires great skill, and it is only the Government surveyors, with few exceptions, who have had large experience with such work whereby they have qualified themselves to perform the work to satisfaction, and the Secretary's letter states that is the fact. and he states that the Government surveyors have the time to do it; and that it will be done at the expense of those asking the relief in this case. They deposit the money in advance. If it is ordered by the court, they deposit the money in the court, and if it is not ordered by a court. they deposit it in the General Land Office and the Government is at no expense. They are doing the Government's work which the Government years ago paid for but did not have done. They are going to do the work at their own expense and have the work performed this time.

MR. WALSH.
Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

MR. KINKAID.
Yes, certainly.

MR. WALSH.
I am very much impressed by the statement the gentleman is making, and I know he is familiar with that sort of legislation and the situation out there; but what I want to ascertain is how he will, having these surveys made, dispense with the necessity for having riots out there. will not the same disputes arise as to the location of the survey?

MR. KINKAID.
On, no. Long experience has proved that the people acquiesce in it; they bow tot eh auspices of the General Government in the work performed by the Government surveyors.

MR. WALSH.
They evidently do not bow to the law of the United States that they shall not kill one another.

MR. WINGO.
Mr. chairman, I withdraw myself from the controversy, and I am satisfied with the statement of the gentleman from Nebraska [MR. KINKAID]. He has convinced me of the merit of the bill.

The SPEAKER
Is there objection?

MR. STAFFORD.
Mr. Speaker, reserving the rights to object, I wish to inquire of the gentleman from Nebraska in respect to a suppositional case, where 90 percent of the lands is in private ownership and only three-fourths make application for this resurvey, and the three-fourths contribute their proportionate part. In that case who pays the expense, under the bill introduced by the gentleman, of these privately owned lands, that are resurveyed in the township for persons who have not petitioned for a resurvey?

MR. KINKAID.
Those who put up the money in the first place: the three-fourths have to put up the money.

MR. STAFFORD.
I question whether the bill is broad enough to compel them to pay the expense of the lands resurveyed for those who have not petitioned for it.

MR. KINKAID.
It covers that completely.

MR. STAFFORD.
Will the gentleman point that language out? I have read the bill, and I do not find the language.

MR. KINKAID.
I think it covers it--I am sure it covers it very fully--with the greatest deference to the diligence of the gentleman from Wisconsin.

MR. STAFFORD.
Let us take the first section of the bill: That upon the application of the owners of three-fourths of the privately owned lands in any township covered by public land surveys, more than 50 percent of the area of which townships is privately owned, accompanied by a deposit with the United States surveyor general for the proper State, or if there be no surveyor general of such State, then with the commissioner of the General Land Office, of the proportionate estimated cost, inclusive of the necessary work, of the resurvey or retracement of all the privately owned lands in said township, the Commissioner of the General Land Office, subject to the supervisory authority of the Secretary of the Interior, shall be authorized --- and so forth. The proportionate estimated cost of what?

MR. MONDELL.
Of all privately owned land.

MR. STAFFORD.
That is not stated here. The proportionate estimated cost refers to the three-fourths of the petitioners, or such as portion of the land as is owned by the petitioners.

MR. KINKAID.
No; there are other lands there. They are Government lands; and it is contemplated that the Government will pay itself for the resurvey of the Government lands, and this in proportion to the cost of paying for the survey of the Government lands. The Secretary of the Interior recognized the justice of the Government paying for the resurvey of the Government lands. That is the relation in which the word "proportionate" is employed.

MR. STAFFORD.
I wish to ask the gentleman another question. In the original act providing for the resurvey, where more than 50 percent in the township was public lands, there was a provision, which is found in the letter of the Secretary of the Interior recommending this bill, providing that no such resurvey or retirement shall be so executed as to impair the bona fide rights or claims of any claimant, entryman, or owner of lands affected by such resurvey or retracement?. There is no such provision in the bill under consideration. I wish to inquire whether it is the purpose, by reason of the resurvey, to bar the rights of those who do not join in the petition for the resurvey in case their lines are found to be different from what they claimed were their boundary lines.

MR. KINKAID.
Where the title has passed it is incompetent for the Congress to legislate so as to bar any rights. We do not pretend to do that, but this resurveying carries acquiescence and satisfaction to these communities, so that there is no trouble afterwards at all when the Government performs the work.

MR. STAFFORD.
Why should not such provision be carried in the bill, so as to protect the rights of those who do not petition for the resurvey?

MR. KINKAID.
It would be regarded as superfluous, and it would be; the courts recognize this, the department recognizes it, and the Constitution preserves the right---

MR. STAFFORD.
Which right?

MR. KINKAID.
That is the constitutional right that a man's property can not be taken by legislative act in this way without due compensation, and so forth.

MR. SINNOTT.
Will the gentleman yield?

MR. KINKAID.
I will, of course.

MR. SINNOTT.
What effect will this act have upon the claim of a person for the period of the statute of limitation on a mistaken boundary? Suppose the statute has run for the 10-year period, and there is a claim to a mistaken line, will this bill have any effect upon that? Suppose the statute of limitation-is 10 years, and there is a claim to a mistaken line ---

MR. KINKAID.
Yes; but the statutes differ in the different states. And this bill does not change that in any way.

MR. SINNOTT.
He would still retain his right to set up the statute of limitation as a claim of title?

MR. KINKAID.
Yes; under the State law, whatever it is.

MR. STAFFORD.
One further question, if the gentlemen will permit. I notice that the bill has not incorporated the amendment suggested by the Secretary of the Interior.

MR. KINKAID.
That is, correctly. It has the amendment suggested by the Secretary of the Interior, but it is put in line 15 instead of in line 17. and I shall ask to correct that.

MR. STAFFORD.
Where is the amendment now incorporated?

MR. KINKAID.
The amendment suggested by the secretary of the Interior is found in the bill in line 15, and it should be in line 17. The mistake was made in the letter written by the Secretary of the Interior, on page 3, third paragraph.

MR. STAFFORD.
The amendment is not incorporated in the bill as reported to the House.

MR. KINKAID.
That is by clerical omission in the printing of the bill.

MR. STAFFORD.
So the gentleman intends to move to incorporate that amendment?

MR. KINKAID.
Precisely that which was asked by the Secretary of the Interior except in a different line, to place it in the right line.

MR. STAFFORD.
Can the gentleman give any information as to how much additional expense will arise by reason of the Government paying its proportionate part of the resurvey of public lands included in these townships?

MR. KINKAID.
That would be very speculative and would be very presumptuous in me to guess at it, and it would not be good faith to undertake to make any estimate without information. The Secretary says there are means to do this, that this will be all right, and there is no trouble about paying the expense. The expense is very negligible as compared with the appropriations made for surveys and resurveys.

MR. STAFFORD.
How general does the gentlemen contemplate this act will be availed of if it is enacted?

MR. KINKAID.
It is only in rare cases of a township here and there in a few Western States where the surveys are, as in my State, none younger than 45 or so years old.

MR. STAFFORD.
I withdraw the reservation of the right to object.

MR. MONDELL.
Mr. speaker, reserving the right to object, and I certainly shall not object, but, in order to have their record straight. Let me suggest that this bill becomes necessary not by reason of any law by reason of a regulations.

MR. KINKAID.
That is right.

MR. MONDELL.
And regulations under our Government become the laws of the Medes and Persians, and in order to get around a regulation you must pass a law.

MR. FOSTER.
Will the gentlemen tell us about that? I am anxious to know.

MR. MONDELL.
The law in regard to resurveys--and I am quite well acquainted with it, because I introduced the bill in its present form--provides that resurveys and retracements may be made whenever, in the opinion of the Secretary of the Interior necessary to determine the boundaries of the public land remaining undisposed of.

MR. FOSTER.
I understand that; but as to the regulation?

MR. MONDELL.
Under that law if there were a single public land line in a township the establishment of which thoroughly and definitely was necessary in order to make clear the boundary of the public-land, that boundary could be retraced under the law, and if there were a sufficient number of those lines in a township, the entire township could be retraced; but the Secretary of the Interior, in order to save himself--not the present Secretary, but a former Secretary--made a ruling, hard, fast, and arbitrary, to the effect that if 50 percent in a township has passed to private ownership would be ordered. It is only a rule. The result of that is that in many cases where resurveys are absolutely essential in order to establish the boundaries of the public lands remaining undisposed of they will not be executed, because more than 50 percent of the lands of the township have passed to private ownership. Now, the Secretary declines to waive that rule, with the result that, while appropriations have been had for years for resurveys and retracements, they are only made where more than half of the land in the township is still public land, and then the entire township is retraced

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
Will the gentleman yield?

MR. MONDELL.
I will yield.

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
I agree with the statement I understood the gentleman from Wyoming to make, that it was a department ruling rather than any law that determined them in refusing to make resurveys of a township where more than half had passed to patent. I see in the Secretary's letter, however, he says that the 50 percent restriction originally

MR. MONDELL.
It was originally placed in a bill which I introduced for some specific resurveys, because we could not get the bill through without putting that restriction in, because the Secretary of the Interior insisted upon it, and then the Secretary comes back and says that the provision which a Secretary insisted upon having become the law, therefore, a later Secretary was justified in continuing the rule after it ceased to be the law.

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
That was the act of 1908?

MR. MONDELL.
Yes. But later, in order to cure that situation, I introduced another bill with regard to retracements, under which the Secretary was given the authority, which he now has, to execute retracements anywhere that he believes they are necessary to establish the boundaries of public lands undisposed of. But he declines to do it because of his hard-and-fast rule of 50 percent. Now, the situation is this: In some of the public land states there are townships where, as a matter of fact, some of the lines were never run in the field. They were assumed to be run and a beautiful plat was brought in, but no surveys or marks were made in the field. Those were some of the cases. Other cases are where the surveys were made 30 or 40 years ago, and with the buffalo and domestic stock, and the winds and the storms, and the prairie fires burning wooden posts, the boundaries have been completely obliterated, so that it is necessary to have a retracement. Many retracements are made by local surveyors, but in a great many cases the people decline to accept the judgment of a local surveyor. He is generally employed by one of the parties in interest, and the other party very frequently declines to accept his judgment and opinion.

MR. FOSTER.
Do you not have the county surveyor?

MR. MONDELL.
We have. I was referring to the county surveyor. In a great many cases if the county surveyor tries to make a retracement under the rule and according to the manual, some of the parties other than those who employed him, even some of those who employed him possibly, decline to accept his judgment and decision if it is not entirely satisfactory. Now, our experience is that in nine cases out of ten people will accept the judgment of a Government surveyor. They know he is entirely unbiased, and that if he makes a mistake it will be entirely unintentional, and that his orders are not t run a new line but find the old line if possible--to retrace it. While in my state, I presume, the Government surveyors have resurveyed a hundred townships, I do not know of a single case where anyone has carried a controversy to the courts. Eventually the people have generally agreed to the lines as retraced, and they will do that in the great majority of cases. Now, nothing is necessary in this bill to reserve the right of the landowner to go into court and attempt to prove that the retracement as made under this bill is not in fact an accurate retracement of the original survey: and if he can prove that is true and can prove in the court what would be a proper retracement, of course that governs rather than the retracement that is made. And there is not one case in a thousand, I imagine, where any question of that kind would be raised. So this legislation, now answering another question propounded by the gentleman from Wisconsin, in all probability will reduce the expenditure of the Federal Government, assuming that the Secretary of the Interior were to follow the law rather than his rule. Of course, as the Secretary of the Interior has laid down the hard-and-fast rule of 50 percent, this does lay a slight added burden on the Federal Government. which would not otherwise be laid, because it would bring about the survey of some of the townships were more than 50 percent of the land is in private ownership. The cost in the running of the years would be comparatively small, would amount perhaps to a few thousand dollars per year, but the benefits would be very great indeed, and settle a great many land controversies which have been brewing for a long time.

MR. SINNOTT.
Is not there this added advantage, that if there are any public lands involved the survey by the county officials would not be binding on the Land Office, but the survey by the Federal officials would be binding on the Government?

MR. MONDELL.
That is true, though a survey by a county official, if he follows the manual, is binding on everybody as much as any resurvey is binding on anyone, until you have a judicial decision, if a controversy arises. The trouble is that in a great many cases the people will not accept the judgment of the county surveyor.

MR. SINNOTT.
If the survey conflicts with the monument, the monument would prevail?

MR. MONDELL.
Certainly.

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
Is there objection? [After a pause].The Chair hears none.

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that this bill be considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole.

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
The gentleman from Colorado asks unanimous consent that the bill considered in the House as in the Committee of the Whole. Is there objection? [After a pause.] The Chair hears none. The clerk will read the bill.

The clerk read as follows:

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.

MR. KINKAID.
Mr. speaker, I want to offer an amendment. The committee has an amendment, but it is asked for in the wrong line.

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
There is no amendment on the bill.

MR. KINKAID.
Not on the bill, but it is in the report. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be made in accordance with the recommendation of the committee, accept that it be placed in line 17, page 2, after the word "lands" and before the semicolon following the word "lands."

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
The clerk will report the amendment.

MR. KINKAID.
Line 17, page 2, that the amendment be made between the work "lands" and the semicolon following the work "lands." The clerk read as follows:

Committee amendment: Page 2, line 17, after the word "lands," insert the words "in addition to the portion of such appropriation otherwise allowed by law for resurveys and retracements"

MR. MONDELL.
Mr. Speaker, I shall not object to the amendment, but it is entirely unnecessary, and I do not know that it is entirely wise. The object of the secretary in recommending this amendment is to increase his appropriation for this class of work. Under the current law not to exceed 20 percent of the survey funds may be used for resurveys and retracements. The Secretary evidently wants a fund for this class of work in addition to that 20 percent, and separate from it. Of course, if such an appropriation-is make it would serve to separate these expenditures from the other resurvey expenditures, but the effect of the amendment would be to prevent any surveys under this bill during the present fiscal year unless there was an additional appropriation made. There is not any reason why the 20 percent of the survey fund that may be allotted for resurvey and retracements should not be used for this class of retracements as well as other classes of retracements. There is not any reason why the two classes of resurveys or retracements should be kept separate as an item of appropriation.

MR. FOSTER.
If this bill becomes a law without this amendment they would simply use this 20 percent that they now have?

MR. MONDELL.
Yes.

MR. FOSTER.
If this were adopted----

MR. MONDELL.
It would be necessary to make another appropriation for this particular work.

MR. WALSH.
Mr. speaker, will the gentleman yield?

MR. KINKAID.
Yes.

MR. WALSH.
I would like to ask the gentlemen from Wyoming a question. If this amendment was not adopted, he knows--as, of course, he does know, as he has expressed the opinion--that the expenses of these resurveys will consume entirely the available fund, leaving nothing with which to meet the Government's share as a supplement to the settler's deposit for resurveying townships where the 50 percent mark is exceeded?

MR. MONDELL.
I am of the opinion that the 20 percent is more than will be used for all classes of resurveys. There is now 20 percent of $400.000. That is $80,000. That is available at this time for resurveys and retracements, and in my opinion it is entirely sufficient for resurveys and retracements for this year, both for this sort of retracements and the ordinary retracements. In that case why should be hold up that sort of retracements until we can make appropriations at the beginning of the next fiscal year?

MR. FOSTER.
The Government does now make these resurveys and retracements under the law?

MR. MONDELL.
Yes; where there is only 50 percent of the land in private ownership.

MR. FOSTER.
And this would only add another class in which now they are prohibited from doing it?

MR. MONDELL.
They are not prohibited; but if there be more than 50 percent in private ownership, they are not executed. But the moment we pass this law the appropriation for retracements becomes available for this work.

MR. STAFFORD.
Mr. speaker, I wish to be recognized in favor of the amendment. There is 20 percent of the general fund now available for retracements and resurveys of public lands. It was the intention that there should be available at all times 20 percent of the general amount voted for resurveys that could be utilized for retracements and resurveys on the public lands where the Government directly was concerned. This bill is one for the benefit of private owners.

MR. MONDELL.
All resurveys are for the benefit of private owners.

MR. STAFFORD.
No; not all resurveys. The direct benefit under the present law is an aid to the Government to relocate the lines of the public lands. This law here is for this benefit of the private owners, and Congress should determine how much we should spend yearly for the benefit of those private owners in the way of resurveys of public lands in these townships where more than 50 percent of the land is privately owned.

MR. FOSTER.
Let me get it clear in my head. This law, as I understand, simply raises the amount of privately owned land in certain townships where they make the surveys. Now, they do this very thing, as I understand from the gentleman from Wyoming, under the present law.

MR. MONDELL.
Let me illustrate: As I have just stated, under the law the secretary has the authority to resurvey if 50 percent of the lands have passed in private ownership. He has fixed an arbitrary 50 percent. That is a rule; not the law. Now, assuming a township with 50 percent of the land in private ownership. It may now be retraced and the government pays all the cost. Under this law if 51 percent of that township were in private ownership, then the private owners would pay for the 51 percent and the Government would only pay for the 49 percent. The Government under the present law pays for the resurvey of private lands as well as of public lands. Under this bill the Government pays for nothing but the resurvey of the public lands, and there is not any reason why those two classes of retracement should be under separate provisions of appropriations. This is a much more satisfactory piece of legislation from the standpoint of the guardians of the Public Treasury than the general law, because under this we pay for nothing except for the survey of Uncle Sam's land, while under the present law we pay for surveying both Uncle Sam's land and the private owner's land.

MR. STAFFORD.
This bill is for the benefit of the private owner of formerly Government-owned land. Now, where more than 50 percent is in private ownership it is proposed that the Government should undertake this work, but the expense should be borne by the private owners, so far as the private owned land is concerned, and by the Government so far as the remainder is concerned. The Government ought to control as to how much should be voted for the resurveys from time to time. We can not tell how much shall be demanded, but we should always know how much shall be voted for that purpose rather than allow the 20 percent to be controlled always for the benefit of the private owners.

MR. KINKAID.
I only wish to say that I hope the amendment will be agreed to, in order to keep faith with the Secretary of the Interior.

MR. WALSH.
Mr. speaker, will the gentleman yield?

MR. KINKAID.
Yes.

MR. WALSH.
The gentleman is a member of this committee?

MR. KINKAID.
No.

MR. WALSH.
I thought the gentleman was.

MR. KINKAID.
I regret to say I am not on that very find and active committee.

MR. WALSH.
I understood the gentlemen to say that he was offering a committee amendment.

MR. KINKAID.
I said this was a committee amendment.

MR. WALSH.
Then I should like to ask the gentleman who reported the bill from the committee whether or not the recommendation of the Secretary of the Interior was given consideration by the committee?

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
It was; and when the report was handed in it was an oversight that a copy of the amended bill was not handed in.

MR. WALSH.
It is true that the committee saw no objection to this amendment?

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
The committee saw no objection to it, and recommended a favorable report of the bill with that understanding.

MR. KINKAID.
Unanimously.

MR. TIMBERLAKE.
Yes.

The SPEAKER pro tempore.
The question is on the amendment. The amendment was agreed to.

The bill as amended was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time and was accordingly read the third time and passed. On motion of Mr. Timberlake, a motion to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed was lain on the table.

(this document reconstructed by jlw 10/02/92)


Cadastral Home | Cadastral Papers

converted to html 08/10/96
jl-wahl@access.digex.net