99, IN RE CLAIM OF HARVEY M. DICKSON, WILLIAM 
 C 5 U 4 T. MASON; THE I)ICKSOi>( - MASON LUMBER 
 ■""^ ' COMPANY, AND D. L. BOYD, AGAINST 
 
 THE UNITED STATES 
 
 EVIDENCE BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. li, OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
 CLAIMS, OF THE HOCSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ON HOUSE BILL 10749 
 
 SIXTIETH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 
 
 FOR THE RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON, WILLIAM 
 
 T. MASON, THE DICKSON-MASON LUMBER 
 
 COMPANY, AND D. L. BOYD 
 
 February 28 and 29, 1908 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE CLAIMANTS, STATEMENT RELATING TO 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CHEROKEES, 
 
 EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF WITNESSES 
 
 AND CLAIMANTS, WITH EXHIBITS 
 
 Subcommittee No. 6: Messrs. KITCHIN, FULTON, and MILLER 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 lit 8 
 
Qass b Q^ ^ 
 
IN RE CLAIM OF HARVEY M. DICKSON, WILLIAM 
 T. MASON, THE DICKSON MASON LUMBER 
 
 COMPANY, AND D. L. BOYD, AGAINST '^v^ 
 THE UNITED STATES 
 
 EVIDENCE BEFORE SUBCOMMITTEE NO. (J, OF THE COMMITTEE 
 CLAIMS, OF THE^ HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 
 
 ON HOUSE BILL 10749 
 
 SIXTIETH CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 
 
 FOR THE RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON, WILLIAM 
 
 T. MASON, THE DICKSON-MASON LUMBER 
 
 COMPANY, AND D. L. BOYD 
 
 Februaky 28 AND 29, 1908 
 
 MEMORIAL OF THE CLAIMANTS, STATEMENT RELATING TO 
 
 THE HISTORY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CHER0KEE8, 
 
 EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF WITNESSES 
 
 AND CLAIMANTS, WITH EXHIBITS, 
 
 Subcommittee No. 6: Messrs. KITCHIN, FULTON, and MILLER 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1908 
 

 mp:mbers of committee on claims. 
 
 JAMES M. MILLER, Kansas, Chairman. 
 CHARLES Q. TIRRELL, Massachusetts. HENRY M. GOLDFOGLE, New York 
 
 JOSEPH HOWELL, Utah. CLAUDE KITCHIN, North Carolina. 
 
 WILLIAM H. GRAHAM, Peiuisylvania. EZEKIEL S. CANDLER, Jr. 
 
 GEORGE E. WALDO, New York. DORSEY W. SlIACKLEFORD, Missouri. 
 
 GRANT E. MOUSER, Ohio. JAMES O. PATTERSON, South CaroUna. 
 
 GEORGE L. LILLEY, Connecticut. JOHN A. M. ADAIR, Indiana. 
 
 CHARLES A. LINDBERGH, Minnesota. ELMER L. FULTON, Oklahoma. 
 
 WILLIS C. HAWLEY, Oregon. 
 
 A. P. MYERS, Clerk. 
 
 D.OFDk 
 WAR 27 1908 
 
[H. R. 10749, Sixtieth Congress, first session.] 
 
 A BILL For the reliefof H. M. Dickson, William T. Mason, the Dickson-Mason Lumber Company, 
 and D. L. Boyd. 
 
 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
 in Congress assembled, That the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States of 
 America be, and he is hereby, directed to pay, out of any money in the Treasury not 
 otherwise appropriated, the sum of twenty-seven thousand eight hundred and seventy- 
 three dollars and fifty-five cents to H. M. Dickson, William T. Mason, and the Dick- 
 son-Mason Lumber Comi)any, in satisfaction for claim against the United States for 
 damages sustained on account of a certain injunction suit brought against said H. M. 
 Dickson, William T. Mason, and Dickson-Mason Lumber Company, and D. L. Boyd 
 by the United States in the United States circuit court at Asheville, North Carolina. 
 
DICKSON-MASON LUMBER CO. ET AL. VS. THE UNITED STATES. 
 
 The three hearings in this matter were held February 2S and 29, 
 1908, before subcommittee No. 6 of the Committee on Claims, House 
 of Representatives. 
 
 The Memorial. 
 
 The undersigned, citizehs and residents of the State of North Caro- 
 lina, respectfully petition and show unto the Congress of the United 
 States as follows: • 
 
 The Eastern band of Cherokee Indians, a remnant of the Cherokee 
 Nation of Indians, have for many years owmed and occupied and do 
 now own and occuj)y large tracts of land in Jackson, Swain, Cherokee, 
 and Graham counties, N. C, a considerable portion of which consists 
 of wild mountain timber lands. 
 
 These Indian lands are known as the ''Qualla boundary," and 
 within the Qualla boundary there is a large tract of land belonging to 
 the Indians, containing about 30,000 acres, and which is well known 
 as the Cathcart tract. 
 
 In September, 1893, your petitioner D. L. Boyd bought the tim- 
 ber trees of certain sizes on the Cathcart tract from the Eastern 
 band of Cherokee Indians at an agreed price, and the Eastern band 
 of Cherokee Indians, purporting to act as a corporation of the State 
 of North Carolina b}^ virtue of chapter 211 of the Private Laws of 
 1889, attempted to make your petitioner D. L. Boyd a conveyance 
 of said timber trees. 
 
 Your petitioner Boyd accepted said conveyance of said corpora- 
 tion in good faith and relying absolutely upon its validity, though 
 he well knew at the time that it had never received the sanction 
 of the Interior Department of the United States nor of the Indian 
 Office nor of the President, conveyed or attempted to convey all 
 his interest in said timber trees to his copetitioners, Ilarvey M. 
 Dickson and W. T. ]\Iason, and paid to the Eastern band of Chero- 
 kee Indians the sum in cash agreed to be paid and in all other 
 respects proceeded to carry out in good faith liis contract with said 
 Indian band, regarding and treating them as a corporation under 
 the laws of the State of North CaroHna and individually and col- 
 lectively as citizens of said State and fully competent and quali- 
 fied to "make contracts with respect to their property to the same 
 extent as other citizens. Your petitioner Boyd was advised by 
 counsel learned in the law that the individual members of this 
 band of Indians were citizens of the State and not tribal Indians 
 over whom the United States Government' had jurisdiction and con- 
 
6 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 trol. Acting in good faith on the hke advice and behef, your peti- 
 tioners Dickson and Mason bought said timber trees of petitioner 
 Boyd and proceeded to pay large sums of money on account of the 
 purchase price and in other respects to carry out the terms of the 
 Boyd contract and conveyance, subject to wliich they had bought. 
 Your petitioners Dickson and Mason bought said timber trees for 
 the bona fide purpose of entering upon the lands and felling the tim- 
 ber trees and manufacturing same into lumber for the markets of the 
 world. Your petitioners were advised that the United States Gov- 
 ernment held certain funds belonging to the Eastern band of Chero- 
 kee Indians and maintained a school for the benefit of the Indians 
 at a place called Yellow Hill in the Qualla boundary; that the super- 
 intendent of said school was provided and appointed by the United 
 States Government; and that because of this mterest on the part of 
 the Government there was some likelihood of interference on its part 
 in case your petitioners entered upon said lands for the purpose of 
 removing the timber above described. Not wishing to incur the 
 displeasure of the United States Government nor to invite litigation 
 witii it, your petitioners, though advised that the members of the 
 Eastern band of Cherokee Indians were citizens of the State of North 
 Carolina and fully competent to make contracts with respect to their 
 property as other citizens, made an attempt to have the Secretary 
 of Interior approve the contract between your petitioner Boyd and 
 the Eastern band of Cherokee Indians upon the ground that the 
 contract was fair, free from fraud, and to the advantage of the Indians 
 as well as to the purchasers, but tliis attempt was unsuccessful. 
 Your petitioners verily believe, and allege, on information and belief, 
 that said contract would have been approved b}^ the Interior Depart- 
 ment at this time had the officials thereof been fully cognizant of 
 the facts of the case. Your petitioners believe, however, that said 
 officials were misled in the matter by the misrepresentations of 
 parties who were at the time interested in the matter adversely to 
 your petitioners and who, by reason of a close relation with the 
 Interior Department, were more influential with the officials thereof 
 than were your petitioners or their friends. 
 
 This adverse action by the Interior Department upon the applica- 
 tion of your petitioners for the approval of the Bo}^! contract raised 
 an issue that liad to be met and settled and for which your petitioners 
 do not feel that they were in any wise responsible beyond the mere 
 fact that they had bought, or had attempted to buy, the timber afore- 
 said only after being advised by counsel that the Indians could sell 
 same. Thereupon, your petitioners, in order to bring about a speedy 
 settlement of the issue thus raised, put a few men into the ])()undary 
 of land containing the timber aforementioned and, in a modest way 
 and with a prudent regard to the interests of all concerned so that no 
 unnecessary damages might be inflicted or suffered by any party to 
 the controversy, began to fell trees and to cut tl\em into logs suitable 
 for manufacture into lumber. Your petitioners, with the same pru- 
 dent regard to the interests of all concerned, forthwith acquainted the 
 agents of the United States Government with their acts and doings in 
 the premises, to the end that the Government might promptly take 
 such action as might be deemed proper to protect its own and the 
 interests of its so-called wards, the Eastern Cherokees. 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 7 
 
 This anticipatetl action was some time thereafter taken hv the 
 Government and a suit instituted against your petitioners in wliich 
 the Government sought an injunction perpetually restraining them 
 from entering upon the boundary containing said timber or irom in 
 any manner interfering with or removino same from said boundary. 
 Your petitioners were making ready to defend said suit and eouhl have 
 done so at tliat time without any great damage, because tlieir expend- 
 itures were then small in anticipation of action on the part of the 
 Government; but the United States district attorney for tlie western 
 district of North Carolina at the next succeeding term of the United 
 States circuit court at Asheville, N. C, acting, as your petitioners are 
 reliably informed and believe and aver, under instructions from the 
 Department of Justice at Washington, and particularly from the then 
 Attorney-General of the United States, Hon. Richard Olney, came 
 into court and voluntarily took a nonsuit in said cause. The purchase 
 of the timber in the Cathcart tract by W. T. Mason and Ilarvey M. 
 Dickson (who afterwards formed the Dickson-Mason lAunber Com- 
 pany for its development, and to which corporation said Mason and 
 Dickson, in turn, subsequently conveyed their interests) was made 
 about December 23, 1893. Practically nothing was done by them 
 toward the development of the property until after the latter part of 
 November, 1894, when the nonsuit hereinbefore mentioned was 
 entered or taken by the United vStates Government in the said suit 
 against these petitioners as hereinbefore descril)e(l. 
 
 The action of the Government in taking a nonsuit in said cause, as 
 above stated, led your petitioners to believe that tlie Government had 
 abandoned its contention that the Eastern Band of Cherokees were 
 tribal Indians and incompetent to make contracts with respect to 
 their property except by authority of the United States Government. 
 This belief became conviction when your petitioners le'arned of a 
 letter dated October 22, 1894, addressed by the Attorney-General of 
 the United States to the Secretary of the Interior, in wliich the 
 Attorney-General expressed the opinion that the United States 
 GoA^ernment had no authority to interfere in any way with the 
 Cherokee Indians of North Carolina any more than with other citi- 
 zens of said State, and that it was no part of the duty of the United 
 States to maintain the above-mentioned injunction suit against these 
 petitioners to restrain them from entering upon and removing timber 
 from the Cathcart boundary under the Boyd contract. 
 
 After the entry of said nonsuit and after your petitioners had 
 learned of this opinion of the Attorney-General of the United States, 
 your petitioners Mason, Dickson, and the Dickson-Mason Lumber 
 Company commenced operations upon a large scale for the cutting of 
 the timber from the Cathcart tract and for the removal and marketing 
 of the lumber manufactured therefrom. 
 
 Said petitioners Mason, Dickson, and the Dickson-Mason Lumber 
 Company in the course of the development of said property, built 
 roads, tramroads, bought tram-car rails, and a large band sawmill of 
 20,000 feet capacity per da}^, and other machinery; they spent large 
 sums of money in felling timber trees, to an amount alx.ut 1,500,000 
 feet of the very best quality, and in many other ways said ])(>titioners 
 last above mentioned spent other large sums of money in nreparntions 
 to develop said timber pro|)erty iip^n a large scale; said petitioners 
 
8 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 all the wliile relying not upon the strength of their title but also upon 
 the purpose of nonintervention on the part of the National Govern- 
 ment not only declared in the opinion of the United vStates Attorney- 
 General, but also indicated very clearly in the failure to prosecute the 
 suit for an injunction against your petitioners and the taking of a 
 nonsuit therein, as aforesaid. 
 
 Your petitioners Mason, Dickson, and the Dickson-Mason Lumber 
 Company thereafter continued to make their preparations for the 
 development of the property and in tliis behalf to expend large sums 
 of money as hereinbefore and hereinafter more specifically detailed 
 until the 8th day of March, 1895, when the United States Government 
 served another injunction upon them of like purport and effect and 
 based upon like grounds as the injunction first hereinbefore mentioned. 
 
 This injunction at once stopped all the operations of the Dickson- 
 Mason Lumber Company, to which corporation Mason and Dickson 
 had at that time conveyed all their interest and property in said 
 Cathcart timber. The bill upon whicli said last injunction was 
 issued contained allegations of fi'aud and unfair dealing with the 
 Eastern band of Cherokees on the part of your petitioners, it being 
 charged that the Indians through their ignorance and want of business 
 knowledge were overreached in said transaction. It was also 
 charged in said bill that the Boyd contract for said timber was 
 "most vmjust and iniquitous itself, and doubly so in respect to the 
 ignorance of the council" (meaning Indian council) "and the influ- 
 ence of their advisers," 
 
 Your petitioners in due course of time fully answered the bill of 
 the United States praying for the injunction as above set forth, and in 
 due course the cause came on for hearing before the judge of the 
 United States circuit court at Asheville, N. C. The answers of your 
 petitioners denied all charges of fraud, and contended that the Indians 
 of the Eastern band of Cherokee Indians were citizens of the State of 
 North Carolina, and in no sense tribal Indians under the control and 
 care of the United States Government. And thereupon your peti- 
 tioners moved to dismiss the bill, for that it appeared upon its face 
 that the controversy was one between citizens of the State of North 
 Carolina and over which the Federal courts had no jurisdiction. 
 
 The decision of the circuit court was adverse to your petitioners 
 upon the question of jurisdiction, Judge Simonton holding that the 
 Cherokee Indians had never been naturalized or admitted into citizen- 
 ship of the United States, although they had ceased to be tribal In- 
 dians. Says Judge Simonton in his opinion : 
 
 But the Indians (North Carolina Cherokees) held these lands to no such purpose. 
 Their realty can be alienated, but the contract is reviewable by the Government for 
 one purpose only — to protect them from fraud or wrong. 
 
 Judge Simonton in a supplemental decree said in this connection: 
 
 But this conclusion does not dispose of the case. The United States having come 
 into this jurisdiction and having invoked the aid of the court, stands as any other 
 suitor, and the defendants who have been impleaded by the United States have the 
 same rights to have their defenses examined as they would have in the case of any 
 other suitor. The answers and defenses set up to the bill of the United States raise 
 issues of fact important to the defendants and to the i^ublic. These facts should be 
 investigated and their truth or falsity established. 
 
 Accordingly the judge proceeded to investigate the issue of fraud 
 that had been raised in the pleadings through the then standing 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 9 
 
 master in equity, Hon. R. M. Douglas, now on the supreme court 
 of North Carohna. His report in full upon. this point was as follows: 
 
 Report-of Standing Master. 
 
 In the circuit court of the United States for the western district of North Carolina, 
 at Asheville, fourth circuit. In equity. 
 
 The United States of America et al. v. D. L. Boyd et al., Defendants. 
 
 REPORT OF standing MASTER. 
 
 To the honorable the judges of the circuit court: 
 
 The undersigned, standing master in chancery, respectfully reports: 
 
 That this cause having been referred to me by a decretal order filed on the 14th 
 day of August, 1895, I proceeded, after due notice and upon agreement of parties, 
 to execute the said reference at Waynesville, N. C, on the 17th day of September, 
 1895, when and where all parties were present or represented by counsel. The agreed 
 facts and testimony then and there taken down by me are herewith filed. From 
 said facts and testimony I find as facts: 
 
 First. That the sum of $15,000 is and was a fair and adequate price for the timber 
 on the Cathcart tract belonging to the Indians and described in the deed of the East- 
 ern band of Cherokee Indians to the defendant D. L. Boyd. 
 
 Second. That there was no fraud or unfair dealing, in the making of said contract 
 between the said Indians and the said Boyd. 
 
 It appears in evidence that "By pre\dous contract with the Eastern Band of Cher- 
 okee Indians, H. G. Ewart was to receive 20 per cent of the amount realized from 
 the timber, and that he recovered judgment in "the superior court of Henderson County, 
 N. C, for $3,000; that Ewarts' contract was made October, 1891, and Boyd's 
 contract with Indians September 28, 1893, and that the sum of $1,000 has been paid 
 by the Indians out of the funds received from Mason and Dickson on the Ewart judg- 
 ment." It does not appear what services, if any. were rendered by the said Ewart 
 in consideration of receiving the 20 per cent, or that there was any other considera- 
 tion for the said contract between him and the said Indians. As the said Ewart is 
 'not a party to this suit, and the validity of this claim is apparently not here called 
 in question, I do not deem it proper to report upon its validity; but as a copy of the 
 judgment rendered in his favor has been filed with me, I would respectfully call 
 it to the attention of the court. Being in the nature of a "judgment quando," and 
 not of immediate operation, it appears to be void. 
 
 Respectfully submitted this 11th day of November, 1895. 
 
 Ro. M. Douglas, 
 Standing Master in Chancery. 
 
 Upon the coming in of the foregoing report of the standing master, 
 the same was confirmed and the injunction theretofore issued against 
 your petitioners was dissolved and a decree entered permitting the 
 parties to the Boyd contract to carry same out pursuant to tlie 
 terms thereof. Said decree is as follows: 
 
 The United States of America, western district of North Carolina, fourth circuit. 
 
 In equity. 
 
 The United States et al i'. D. T. Boyd et al. 
 
 This case now comes up upon the report of the standing master in chancery, who 
 was instructed by an order of 14th August, 1895, to " inqure into all the facts connected 
 with the contract in issue and the circumstances under which it was made: the ade- 
 quacy of the consideration thereof, the existence of any fraud or unfair dealing therein, 
 and into any other facts pertaining to the issues involved, concerning which any 
 party to this cause may offer testimony, and that he report the same with all con- 
 venient speed to this court." The facts as developed in the testiiuonv, reported by 
 the master, show that the sum of $15,000, oontracted to be paid to the Indians for 
 the timber, was a fair and adequate price for it: that there was no fraud or unfair 
 dealing in the making of the said contract between the .«aid Indians and Boyd, the 
 defendant. 
 
10 RELIEF OF H, M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Hearing the tesliinony and the argument ol' counsel tliereon, and upon due con- 
 sideration thereof, it is ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the injunction and 
 restraining order heretofore made in this cause be dissolved, and that the parties to 
 the contract have leave to carry out the same pursuant to the terms thereof. 
 
 It having been stated in open court that George H. Smathers, esc^., present thereat, 
 is the custodian of funds received and to be received under the contract aforesaid 
 from the purcliasi rs ihcreunder, it is ordered that he be, and is hereby, appointed 
 receiver in that lirhalf. subject to the orders of this court. That he do, within ten 
 days from the date hereof, enter into bond, with sureties, to be approved by a com- 
 missioner of this court, in the sum of $20,000 foi- the faithful performance of his trust. 
 That he invest the funds in his hands, or coming into his hands, from time to time in 
 public securities or in first-mortgage bonds, secured by real estate otherwise unin- 
 cumbered, the sum loaned not to exceed one-half the actual value of such real estate, 
 interest at 6 per cent per annum, payable annually or semiannually. That beyond 
 this he make no disposition of any funds in his hands, except under further order of 
 this court. 
 
 The master having bi-ought to the attention of the court that Hon. H. G. Ewart 
 has a claim on these funds, leave is hereby given to the said H. G. Ewart to intei'vene 
 in this suit as he may be advised. 
 
 ('h.\rles H. Simoxton, Circuit Judge. 
 
 February 11, 189G. 
 
 The Government appealed from so much of this decree as hekl that 
 the court had the power to permit the parties to carry out the con- 
 tract according to its terms, the contention of the Government being 
 that the contract was wholly void on the ground that these Indians 
 were 'tribal Indians and embraced within the terms of the Congres- 
 sional enactments for the protection of tribal Indians. This conten- 
 tion of the Government was sustained on appeal, the United States 
 circuit court of appeals at Richmond holding that the North Carolina 
 Cherokees were tribal Indians and incompetent to contract witliout 
 the consent of the Government. 
 
 The opinion of the court in this case can be found in United wStates- 
 V. Boyd et al. (83 Fed. Rep., 547 et seq.). 
 
 Attention is specially called to the fact that in this case no refer- 
 ence is made by the court to the decision of the United States Supreme 
 Court in the case of Eastern band of Cherokee Indians v. United 
 States and Cherokee Nation (117 U. S. R., 288; 29 L. Ed., 880) 
 where the whole subject of the North Carolina Cherokees and their 
 status is discussed and where on page 309, the court says: 
 
 The Cherokees in North Carolina dissolved their connection with their nation when 
 they refused to accompany the body of it on its removal, and they have had no political 
 organization since. Whatever union they have had among themselves has been 
 merely a social or business one. It was formed in 1868 at the suggestion of an officer 
 of the Indian Office, for the purpose of enabling them to transact business with the 
 Government with greater convenience. Although its articles are drawn in the form 
 of a constitution for a separate civil government, they have never been recognized by 
 the United States; no treaty has been made with them; they can pass no laws; they 
 are citizens of that State and bound by its laws. 
 
 The case from which this quotation is made w^as the one mainly 
 relied upon in the circuit court of appeals by your petitioners who 
 were contending that the North Carolina Cherokees were citizens of 
 North Carolina and it is strange, to say the least, that the court did 
 not even refer to it in their opinion. 
 
 An appeal from this decision of the circuit court of appeals to the 
 United States Supreme Court was duly taken in apt time by your 
 petitioners, but shortly thereaffer the" Interior Department of the 
 United States reinvestigated the contract and the circumstances 
 under which it was made and confirmed said contract. 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 11 
 
 There had been a change of achiiinistration and the hostile and 
 interested influences in tlie Department of the Interior which, as 
 hereinbefore set out, had accompHshed the defeat of every effort by 
 your petitioners to have the Boyd contract confirmed, were removed. 
 
 In partial proof of the facts hereinbefore set forth and in partial 
 confirmation of the allegations of your petitioners herein, a copy of 
 the transcript of the record on appeal in the case of "United States 
 V. Boyd et al." is herewith submitted, attached hereto, and respect- 
 fully asked to be taken as part of this memorial. The other facts and 
 allegations not supported by this record, because not covered thereby, 
 your petitioners are ready, willing, able, and anxious to verify when- 
 ever tliej may be given an opportunity so to do by the Congress. 
 Your petitioners also send herewith a brief of one of the solicitors 
 representing your petitioners when Boyd's case was argued in the cir- 
 cuit court of appeals in verification and support of the allegation that 
 the case of the Eastern Band v. United States et al., decided by the 
 Supreme Court of the United States as above stated was mainly relied 
 on by your petitioners, and the opinion of the court in the case of 
 United States v. Bo^^d, supra, is cited to sustain the allegation that 
 the court of appeals did not even refer to this decision of the United 
 States Supreme Court. 
 
 By reason of the action of the United States Government in suing 
 out and prosecuting the injunction against your petitioners, your 
 petitioners have been greatly damaged, as hereinafter itemized and 
 set forth, separately, and your petitioners pray the Congress of the 
 United States to reimburse them for the damages so sustained, and 
 respectfully ask to be allowed to introduce further evidence of the 
 facts alleged by them, if in the opinion of the Congress further evi- 
 dence thereof is necessary. 
 
 ARGUMENT. 
 
 Your petitioners respectfully contend that they are entitled to the 
 relief herein prayed for in any aspect of the case, that is to say : 
 
 1. If the North Carolina Cherokees are citizens of that State and 
 of the United States, as your petitioners claim, then the court which 
 issued the injunction in the suit against your petitioners was without 
 jurisdiction and every consideration of justice, right, and fair deahng 
 would require a great antl i)owerful sovereign to repair the damage 
 done to the fullest extent. This ^proposition your petitioners regard 
 as so self-evident as not to require any argument in its support. 
 
 2. But if the North Carolina Cherokees are regarded by your 
 honorable body as tribal Indians and wards of the United States your 
 petitioners respectfully contend that they are still entitled to the 
 relief sought herein for the following reasons: 
 
 It is considered that the sole object of the statutes of the United 
 States regulating intercom-se between citizens of the United States 
 and tribal Indians within the jurisdiction of the United States is to 
 protect the Indians against fraud, oppression, undue influence, or 
 unfair dealing on the part of those who are more intelligent and more 
 alert to their own interests. Of -course, difl'erent considerations 
 govern the relations existing between foreigners and tribal Indians 
 and the spirit of the laws applical)le to such cases is entirely did'erent. 
 The spirit of the United States statutes in the case of dealings between 
 
12 TIELTEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 citizens of the United States and tribal Indians does not forbid that 
 class of contracts which are to the advantage of the Indians and pro- 
 mote their well-being. Such a construction would shock the sense 
 of justice ot any guardian and, if carried to its logical conclusion, 
 would absolutely undermine all the law^ controlling the relation of 
 guardian and ward. In this last class of cases falls the Boyd con- 
 tract, on account of which your petitioners have been heavily damaged. 
 The standing master in equity of the United States court in which 
 the Boyd case was tried, after investigation, so found; this finding 
 was made with the consent of the United States district attorney 
 who prosecuted the suit for the Government and was approved ))y 
 Judge Charles H. Simonton, of the United States circuit court, who 
 tried the case below. The Interior Department of the United States, 
 after a full and fair investigation, has so decided and has approved 
 the contract. There is no responsible or disinterested person who 
 impugns the transaction, and every dollar due the Eastern Cherokees 
 under the Boyd contract has been paid to them. The great body of 
 the Indians themselves, appreciating the advantages of the contract 
 to them, joined with your petitioners in the ensuing litigation and 
 fought side by side with them and against the United States Govern- 
 ment, their so-called guardian, through the circuit court of am^eals, 
 and even joined in the appeal to the United States Supreme Court. 
 These Indians have accepted all the advantages of the Boyd con- 
 tract. It is impossible for your petitioners to be put on an equality 
 in this respect with said Indians unless and until all damages inflicted 
 by the action of the United States Government in the Boyd suit has 
 been paid to your petitioners. 
 
 These damages sufl'ered by each interest herein represented are 
 itemized and set forth separately on two sheets hereto attached and 
 asked to be considered as a portion of this memorial. 
 
 And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray, etc. 
 
 D. L. Boyd.' 
 
 Harvey M. Dickson. 
 
 W. T. Mason. 
 
 The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company, 
 By, Harvey M. Dickson, [seal] 
 
 President. 
 
 The damages of Harvey M. Dickson, W. T. Mason, and the Dickson- 
 Mason Lumber Company mentioned in the attached memorial are 
 itemized as follows: 
 
 Interest on purchase price |25,000 for about four and one-half years or until 
 date of confirmation of contract by Government, less $1,200 rebate allowed 
 
 by Indians .' $5, 738. 00 
 
 Expense two trips to look after work, etc., at Soco, spring, 1894 120. 00 
 
 February 23, 1895, paid D. L. Boyd making roads 200. 00 
 
 Expenses of H. M. D. to Asheville and Soco from Mattoon and return 110. 87 
 
 W. T. Mason's two trips to Washington, one in June and one in July, 1894. 100. 00 
 
 Two trips in September, 1894, from Mattoon and return 120. 00 
 
 Loss of H. M. D.'s time from March 1 until the orgauization, January 15, 1895. 1, 750. 00 
 
 W. T. Mason's lost time during the year 1894 833. 35 
 
 Interest on railroad equipment $2,650 for nine months 119. 25 
 
 Paid Indians on lease of ground ' 60. 00 
 
 Interest on cost of improvements, timber, etc., 148,000 feet at $6, three 
 
 years $888 _ 159. 84 
 
 Interest on mouev paid for improvements previous to the injunction, 
 
 $1 ,500, lln-cc and one-half years 315. 00 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 13 
 
 Money paid hands employed in March, April, May, and June, 1895 $121. 02 
 
 Eiglit months feed of horse, at $10 per month 80. 00 
 
 Damage to logs, 1,500 feet " approximate, " on account of not being sawed . . 4. 50o! 00 
 Loss to the company for January 15, 1895, to September 15, 1895, salaries for 
 
 eight months 2, 666. 66 
 
 Loss of expense making first attempt at work which led to first injunction, 
 
 cutting export logs ' 150. OO 
 
 J. N. Capps's loss, actual cash paid as damages 1, 491. oo 
 
 Interest on Capps's loss ' 1 78. 81 
 
 Expense of H. M. D.'s to Cincinnati to change mills 50. 00 
 
 Interest for three years three months on $50, at 6 per cent 9 75 
 
 Attorney's fees : 1_ oOo! 00 
 
 Loss on account of salaries paid, office rent, clerk hire, etc., from January 15, 
 
 1895, until date of confirmation, August, 1898 7, 500. 00 
 
 Total 27, 873. 55 
 
 City of Washington, 
 
 District of Columbia, ss : 
 
 Harvey M. Dickson and W. T. Mason, being first duly sworn, say, each for himself: 
 
 That he has read the foregoing memorial and knows the contents thereof; that the 
 
 saine is true of his own knowledge except as to the matters and things therein alleged 
 
 on information and belief, and as to those matters and things he believes it to be true. 
 
 Harvey M. Dickson. 
 W. T. Mason. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before the undersigned, a notary public of the District of 
 Columbia, this the 28th dav of February, 1908. 
 [seal.] E. C. Owen, 
 
 Notary Public of the District of Columbia. 
 
 STATEMENT OF ME. LOUIS M. BOURNE, RELATING TO THE 
 HISTORY OF THE NORTH CAROLINA CHEROKEES. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Prior to the treaty of New Echota between the 
 Cherokee Nation of Indians and the United States in 1835, that 
 nation inhabited parts of Nortli CaroHna, Georgia, Alabama, and 
 Tennessee, and was a constant source and cause of trouble between 
 some of these States and the United States Government. This 
 friction made the National Government extremely anxious to secure 
 their removal to lands west of the Mississippi Kiver. The oppor- 
 tunity for doing it was afforded when the treaty of New Echota was 
 negotiated. Accordingly, this treaty provided for the removal of 
 the entire nation, the only exceptions made being in the cases of 
 individual Indians who desired to separate themselves from their 
 tribe and become citizens of the States in which they lived, as the 
 following quotations will show. Governor William Carroll, of Nash- 
 ville, Tenn., and Rev. J. F. Schermerhorn, of Utica, N. Y., were the 
 United States commissioners appointed to negotiate the treaty of 
 New Echota on the part of the United States. General Jackson 
 was President and Hon. Lewis Cass Secretary of War. The fourth 
 instruction to the commissioners, issued by the Secretary of War 
 under the direction of the President, was in these words: 
 
 The great object being to insure the entire removal of the tribe, no reservations will 
 be granted. If individuals are desirous of remaining, they must purchase residences 
 for themselves, like white persons, and must be left to the care of the laws of the States 
 within which they reside. (S. Ex. Doc. No. 120, p. 102, 2d sess. 25th Cong.) 
 
 Commissioner Schermerhorn, acting under these instructions, Gov- 
 ernor Carroll being absent on account of sickness, proceeded to Kim- 
 nine: Waters Council Ground, and there addressed the Indian (H)im('il 
 
14 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 in explanation of each article of the treaty. He explained the fonr- 
 teenth article of the original draft (afterwards the twelfth in the 
 draft adopted, the address being made on July 25, 1835, and the 
 treaty ratified finally by the Cherokee people on December 29 follow- 
 ing), as follows: 
 
 Article 14 makes provision for such Cherokees as do not wish to remove west of the 
 Mississippi, and wish to become citizens of the States where they live, and are qualified 
 in the opinion of the agent to take care of themselves. They will have paid to them 
 here all that is due them for their claims, improvements, ferries, per capita allowance, 
 removal, and subsistence; but they must buy their own lands, like other citizens, and 
 settle where they please, subjects of the laws of the country where thev live. (S. Doc. 
 No. 120, 25th Cong., 2d sess., p. 459.) 
 
 Thus it appears that the President of the United States, the Secre- 
 tary of War, and the treaty commissioners on the part of the United 
 States all concurred in the view that no Indian should remain unless 
 he should do so as a citizen, and this explanation was made to the 
 Indians in no uncertain terms. The Indians were given two years 
 within which to remove under the terms of this treaty. After its 
 ratification by the Senate, steps were taken to insure its execution 
 on the part of the Indians. Acting Assistant Commissary-General of 
 Subsistence J. H. Hook, in a letter dated July 28, 1836, to B. F. 
 Currey, esq., superintendent of Cherokee removal, uses this language: 
 
 Nine enrolling books w411 be prepared, in which will be entered the substance of the 
 treaty recently formed, and a clause shall then be added signifying the choice of the 
 signers as to the time of removing under the treaty or whether they would prefer to 
 become citizens. The captain of the enrolling books shall provide that the enr, 11- 
 ment be a relinquishment of all right to occupancy in and to the country east of the 
 Mississippi, and a surrender of all their rights in the same, to take effect whenever the 
 proper agents shall signify their readiness to remove them after the period designated 
 by themselves for removal, if prior to the latest period fixed therefor by treaty. At 
 tlie expiration of which period, all who have not removed or registered, and not been 
 admitted to citizenship, will be expected to remove. 
 
 It must be stated in this connection that, in spite of all the attempts 
 to induce the Cherokees to comply with the portion of their treaty 
 that required the removal of all the nation, except those who became 
 citizens, only a very few of the Indians had removed at the expiration 
 of the time limited therefor. 
 
 As a result, the President became impatient and determined to 
 compel them to execute their treaty obligations, but not more so than 
 the people of the States in which they remained. 
 
 The President therefore sent Gen. Winfield Scott, with a portion 
 of the United States Army, to the Cherokee country to effect their 
 removal. 
 
 General Scott issued an address to the Indians, explaining the ob- 
 ject of his visit, in the course of which he used the following language: 
 
 ('herokees: The President of the United States has sent me. with a powerful army, 
 to cause you, in obedience of the treaty of 1835, to join that part of your people who 
 are already established in prosperity on the other side of the Mississippi. Unhappily, 
 the two years which were allowed for the purpose you have suffered to pass away 
 without following, and without making any preparation to follow, and now, or by 
 the time that this solemn address shall reach your distant settlements, the emigration 
 must l)e commenced in haste, but, I hope, without disorder. 1 have no power, by 
 granting a further delay, to correct the error that you have committed. The full 
 moon of May is already on the wane, and before another shall have passed away eve ry 
 Cherokee man, woman, and child in those States must W in motion to join their 
 l)rethren in the>Far West. 
 
RELIEF OF H. M, DICKSON KT AL. 15 
 
 My Friend: This is no sudden determination on the part of the President, whom 
 you and I must now obey. By the tivaty the cmiLrration was to liave been compk'ted 
 on or before the 2:kl of this month, and llic I'n'sident lias coiistautly kept you warned, 
 during the two years allowed, through all his officers and agents in this country, that 
 the treaty would be enforced. 
 
 I am come to carry out that determination. My troops already occupy many posi- 
 tions that you are to abandon, and thousands and thousands are approaching from 
 every quarter to render assistance and escape alike hopeless. All those troops, regu- 
 lar and militia, are your friends. Receive them and confide in themes such: obey 
 them when they tell you that vou can remain no longer in this countrv. etc. (1 Scott's 
 Autobiography, pp. 323-324.)' 
 
 These transactions, acts, instructions, and addresses, conteni|)ora- 
 neous with the treaty of 1835 and really part of the res gestte of 
 this important historical occurrence, shed a flood of light ui)()7i the 
 twelfth article, which can not be obscured, though it niaYl)e dimmed, 
 by the lapse of two generations since their happening. 
 
 The purpose of the United iStates Government to \\-ithdraw from 
 the States mentioned all tribal Indians over whom there might be a 
 conflict of jurisdiction had manifested itself in treaties long [irior to 
 the treaty of 1835. The pohcy of encouraging the Cherokees to go 
 West distinctly appears in the promises of President Jefferson to a 
 deputation of the tribe who waited on him in 1808, as contained in 
 his answer to them dated January 9, 1809. Those who cared to 
 remove West were allowed to do so, but those who chose to remain 
 were to be unmolested and secured in their rights. The choice of 
 going or remaining was left to the Cherokees themselves at this time. 
 This freedom of choice was continued in the treaty of July 8, 1817. 
 The treaty of 1819 provided, reserved, and secured certain other rights 
 to such as chose to become citizens of the United States ''in the 
 manner stipulated in the treaty," except those enrolled at the time 
 for the Arkansas. 
 
 It will be seen from even a casual reading of the treaties that the 
 United States always pursued a progressive j)olicy of acquisition of 
 their lands and citizenation toward the Eastern Cherokees, until 
 this policy finally culminated in the treaty of 1835, under which, it 
 was doubtless supposed, the last excuse for a conflict of jiu'isdiction 
 between the States in which the Cherokees lived and the United 
 States on account of the presence within those States of tribal Indians, 
 over M^hich the United States claimed control, had been eliminated. 
 
 Hon. T. Hartley Crawford, head of the Indian Bureau at that 
 time, in a report to the Secretary of War under date of F'ebruary 22, 
 1844, referred to the different classes of Cherokees who had been 
 allowed to remain east as ''citizens of the State of North Carolina." 
 As additional evidence that these Indians have considered them- 
 selves citizens and have been so regarded by the State of North 
 Carolina, it might be mentioned that they vote, pay taxes, work the 
 public roads, and perform all the other duties of citizens, and in 
 partial recognition of the right of North Carolina to require the jxm- 
 formance of these duties the United States have often made ap|)ro- 
 priations of the Cherokee funds, a large portion of which th(\v still 
 retain, to discharge the lien of these taxes assessed by the State 
 or to redeem their lands when sold for taxes, all of which w ill app(>ar 
 by reference to the history of the protracted North Carolina Cherokee 
 litigation as contained in Executive Document No. 196, House of 
 Representatives, Forty-seventh Ccagress, first session, and Executive 
 
16 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Document No. 128, House of Representatives, Fifty-third Congress; 
 second session. 
 
 A careful study of the Congressional Statutes between these periods 
 fails to disclose any attempt of the United States between 1838 and 
 1868 to assume control of the North Carohna Cherokees or to review 
 their contracts. The United States retained a large sum of money 
 belonging to the North Carohna Cherokees under the treaty of New 
 Echota hereinbefore mentioned, and the United States withheld this 
 money until the civil war. 
 
 The possession of this fund belonging to the North Carohna Cher- 
 okees by the United States, the lapse of time, the coming on of the 
 civil war, and the participation therein of these Indians on the side 
 of the Confederacy as loyal citizens of North Carohna, all tended to 
 breed confusion in the minds of those in charge at Washington as to 
 their true status. This confusion grew until it culminated in the 
 act of Congress of 1868, passed July 27, in which the Secretary of the 
 Interior is directed to "cause a new roll or census to be made of the 
 North Carohna or Eastern Cherokees, which shall be the roll upon 
 wliich payments due said Indians shall be made," and to "cause the 
 Commissioners of Indian Affairs to take the same supervisory charge 
 of the Eastern or North Carolina Cherokees as of other tribes of 
 Indians." (Act 40th Cong., 2d sess., ch. 259.) 
 
 It may be said of this act of Congress, whatever its purpose, that 
 it could not make the North Carohna Cherokees a tribe of Indians 
 if the twelfth article of the New Echota treaty made them citizens; 
 certainly not without their consent, and probably not without con- 
 sent of North Carohna. 
 
 But this act of Congress has been passed upon by the United States 
 Supreme Court. In Eastern Banff of Cherokee Indians v. United 
 States and Cherokee Nation (117 U. S. S. R., 288, affirming the deci- 
 sion of the Court of Claims in the same case, 20 C. Cls., 449), 
 reference is made to the effect of the statute of 1868, and in dis- 
 cussing the same, and the status of these Indians, the court says, on 
 page 309: 
 
 The Cherokees in North Carolina dissolved their connection with their nation when 
 they refused to accompany the body of it on its removal, and they have had no polit- 
 ical organization since. Whatever organization they have had among themselves has 
 been merely a social or business one. It was formed in 1868, at the suggestions of an 
 officer of tlie Indian Office, for the purpose of enabling them to transact business 
 with the Government with greater convenience. Although its articles are drawn in 
 the form of a constitution for a separate civil government, they have never been recog- 
 nized as a separate nation by the United States; no treaty has been made with them; 
 they can pass no laws; they are citizens of that State and bound by its laws. * * * 
 
 and on page 310: 
 
 Nor is the band, organized as it now is, the successor of any organization recognized 
 by any treaty or law of the United States. Individual Indians who refused to remove 
 west, and preferred to remain and become citizens of tlie States in which they resided, 
 were promised certain moneys, etc. 
 
 The entire history of the Cherokee Nation and of the Eastern Band 
 of Cherokee Indians, or North Carolina Cherokees, is contained in the 
 above-mentioned report of the case by the Court of Claims, and also 
 in the case as reported in the United States Supreme Court Reports, 
 supra, to both of which reports reference is hereby made for fuller 
 particulars. 
 
EELTEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 17 
 
 The Evidence.- 
 
 rroceedings of first session of our committee. 
 
 Subcommittee No. 6, Committee on Claims, 
 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Friday, February S8, 1908. 
 The subcommittee met this day at 4.45 o'clock p. m., Hon. 
 Claude Kitchin, chairman subcommittee, in the chair. 
 
 There appeared before the conmiittee JVIr. Harvey M. Dickson, of 
 Norfolk, Va., and Mr.W.T. Mason, of Asheville, N. C., and their legal 
 representative, Mr. L. M. Bourne, of Asheville, N. C, in the claim of 
 Harvey M. Dickson, W. T. Mason, and the Dickson-Mason Lumber 
 Company. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Now you may proceed. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. L. M. BOURNE, OF ASHEVILLE, N. C, COUNSEL 
 OF THE DICKSON-MASON LUMBER COMPANY. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I want to call attention to an afhdavit submitted by 
 W. S. Hyatt, which relates to certain items of damage. He was 
 superintendent for claimants. 
 
 The affidavit is as follows: 
 
 W. S. Hyatt, being first duly sworn, says: 
 
 That he was, and is, fully acquainted with the purchase of the Cathcart boundary 
 of timber by H. M. Dickson and W. T. Mason about the 1st of January, 1894, and of 
 the subsequent transfer of th^ same liy said piu-chasers to the Dickson-Mason Lumber 
 Company, a corporation organized by themselves: that he began to work for the said 
 Mason and Dickson and the Dickson-Mason LumbtM- Company sliortly after the pur- 
 chase of said lands by them, and has c-ontinued to work for them and their successors 
 in interest ever since; that his duties were those of general manager of the cutting of 
 the timber, the sawing of the same into lumber, and of the delivery of the hunber 
 to the railroad for shipment: that in this way he was thoroughly acquainted with 
 the quantity and quality of timber that was cut by Mason and Dickson and the 
 Dickson-Mason Lumber Company after the taking of the nonsuit by the United 
 States Government at the regular term of the Federal court in November, 1894, at 
 Asheville, and before the institution of the new suit and the serving of the injunc- 
 tion on March 8, 1895: that this affiant knows that the said Dickson and Mason and 
 the Dickson-Mason Lumber Company from the time of their purchase until the 
 United States Government submitted to a judgment of nonsuit at the Novembei 
 term, 1894, were very prudent and economical in their outlays of money, because 
 they did not wish to waste any money or to risk any considerable expenditure after 
 the beginning of the first injunction suit by the Government until their title to said 
 boundary of timber should be finally settled. That this afliant knows that -said 
 Dickson and Mason, and the Dickson-Mason Lumber Company regarded tlie volun- 
 tary action of the representatives of the Government in coming into court and sub- 
 mitting to a judgment .of nonsuit as tantamount to a settlenu'ut of the question of 
 title in their favor, and that they at once began the expenditure of large sums of 
 money and the development of said property upon a huge scale, in fact, upon a 
 scale never before attempted in the dcA'eloi)ment of timber properties in western 
 North Carolina, so far as this affiant's knowledge or information extends, felling tim- 
 ber trees, preparing to l)uild tramroads, l)uying tram cars, engiiu', and steel rails, 
 and shipping of said engine, steel i-ails, and other supplies to the nearest railroad 
 station to said Cathcart tract of timl)er; that affiant knows that said parties entered 
 into a contract with one J. M. Capps. who was to install a band sawmill of a daily 
 capacity of not less than 20.000 feet of lumber: and that said Ca})ps. in accordance 
 with the terms of said contract, actualh- puichased said mill, and tliat said parties 
 rented land from the Indians and built" houses thereon for their tenants and work- 
 men, and made other contracts for sawing in additifm to the contract with said J. N. 
 Capps. 
 
 34540—08 -2 
 
18 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 That affiant knows that after said nonsuit was entered at November term, 1894, of the 
 Federal court, at Asheville, N. C, and after tliese large expenditures on the part of 
 Dickson and Mason, and the Dickson-Mason Lumber Company, to wit, on the 8th day 
 of March, 1895, that the representatives of the United States Government renewed their 
 action for injimction against said parties; that said injunction was actually issued in 
 said action and served upon said parties, and that all their operations were suspended 
 from and after said 8th day of March. 1895; that affiant further knows that by reason of 
 said injunction most of the expenditures hereinbefore detailed were wasted and proved 
 of no benefit or advantage to said parties, or to any of them; that the timber trees that 
 had been felled prior to the service of said last-mentioned injunction were permitted 
 to lie exposed to the summer sun and were greatly damaged tliereby; tliat affiant 
 knows that said timber trees, instead of containing 1,500,000 feet of lumber, as set forth 
 in the memorial address to the Congress of the United States by said Dickson and 
 Mason and the Dickson-Mason Lumber Company, afterward actually sawed out over 
 2,000,000 feet of lumber, all of which proved to be badly damaged; that in addition to 
 this item of damage, affiant knows that these trees were largely poplar trees among the 
 very best on the Cathcart tract and the most accessible; that in addition to this item of 
 damage, affiant knows that all of the hickory, buckeye, and lynn that had been felled 
 prior to the service of said last-mentioned injunction had to be left in the woods and 
 proved a total loss and that all of this was due to the action of the Government in sus- 
 pending the operations of said parties by the issuance and service of said injunction. 
 
 That this affiant knows that said Mason and Dickson and the Dickson-Mason Lum- 
 ber Company were compelled to dispose of their railway equipment and supplies at 
 considerable loss to themselves, and were compelled to enter into a settlement with 
 said J. N. Capps, as set forth in the memorial addressed by them to tlie Congress of the 
 United States, and that said settlement was not only reasonable, but decidedly favor- 
 able, under the circumstances, to the said Dickson and Mason and the Dickson-Mason 
 Lumber Company. 
 
 That affiant knows further that the said parties were greatly hampered and hindered 
 in their operations by the issuance of the said injunction and that they could not fell 
 the timber trees upon said boundary of land, saw the same into lumber and market 
 the same, with any regularity or continuity of operation, but were compelled to market 
 their products most irregularly and after repeated and cousiunt interruptions, thus 
 entailing great loss in operation, how much it is almost imiiossiMc for this affiant, 
 or any one else, to estimate in dollars and cents; that affiant furlhcr knows that the 
 last period of the suspension of the lumber operations of said Mason and Dickson, and 
 the Dickson-Mason Lumber Company continued from said March 5, 1895, to about 
 the middle of August, 1898, and that during said period the said parties were not per- 
 mitted to develop their said property or to manufacture any timber into lumber, save 
 and except a portion of the 2,000,000 feet of timber trees, hereinbefore set forth, and 
 that only after the same had been greatly damaged as hereinbefore set forth; and that 
 during this period said parties were constantly engaged in litigation with the Gov rn- 
 ment of the United States over the title to said boundary of timber lands. 
 
 That affiant further knows that at the end of said period the entire business of said 
 parties was completely demoralized and disorganized, and that they had to begin 
 over again just as if nothing had ever been done, making new contracts, organizing 
 the business and starting in every way afresh; that affiant knows that during the sus- 
 pension of the operations of the said Dickson and Mason and the Dickson-Mason Lum- 
 ber Company for the causes aforesaid, that said parties maintained an office in Ashe- 
 ville, N. C, and had men employed on the boundary of timber as superintendents, 
 watchers, and inspectors, all at a loss to said parties. 
 
 That affiant knows that the roads said parties had gone to great pains and expense to 
 build were rendered absolutely worthless by nonuse and washouts and had to be 
 almost entirely rebuilt, and affiant further knows that as a result of the litigation here- 
 inbefore set fortn, said yjarties could not have marketed any lumber during the j)eriod 
 thereof save at a considerable loss to themselves, because of being hampered, inter- 
 rupted, and embarrassed in their operations as aforesaid. 
 
 W. S. Hyatt. 
 North Carolina, Jackson County. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before the undersigned, a notarv public in and for Jackson 
 County, N. C, this the 19th day of February, 1908. 
 
 [seal.] " W. J. Miller, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires August 21, 1908. 
 
 Now in the next place I want to call your attention to some affi- 
 davits as to the character of these gentlemen. I file herewith affi- 
 davits of T. S. Morrison, C. J. Harris, F. R. Hewitt, J. P. Sawyer, 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 19 
 
 W. W. Rollins, postmaster; John A. Campbell, mayor; R. M. Fitz- 
 patrick, Marcus Erwin, W. B. Williamson, C. T. Rawls, and J. E. 
 Rankin, Governor R. B. Glenn, and Judge Fred Moore, which, 
 respectively, are as follows: 
 
 Affidavits. 
 
 T. S. Morrison, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of 
 Buncombe County, N. C, and chairman of the executive committee of the Wacho- 
 via Loan and Trust Company, Asheville Branch; that he knows W. T. Mason and 
 Harvey M. Dickson, and has known them for eight years past; that afliant knows that 
 each of said parties is a man of the higliest character and trustworthy in every respect, 
 and affiant verily believes that any statement made by them, or either of them, 
 whether under oath or not, would l)e entitled to the fullest credit and confidence. 
 
 T. S. Morrison. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of February, 
 1908. 
 
 [seal.] W. Scott Radeker, A'otary Public. 
 
 My commission expires November 14, 1909. 
 
 C. J. Harris, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of Jack- 
 son County, N. C, and first vice-president of the American National Bank of Ashe- 
 ville, N. C.; that he knows W. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, and has known 
 them for fifteen years past : that affiant knows that each of said parties is a man of the 
 highest character and trustworthy in every respect, and affiant verily believes that 
 any statement made by them, or either of them, whether under oath or not, would 
 be entitled to the fullest credit and confidence. 
 
 C. J. Harris. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of February, 1908. 
 [seal.] S. W. Enloe, Notary Public. 
 
 F. B-. Hewitt, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of Bun- 
 combe County, N. C, and vice-president of the Asheville Board of Trade; that he 
 knows W. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, and has known them for ten years past; 
 that affiant knows that each of said parties is a man of the highest character and trust- 
 worthy in every respect, and affiant verily believes that any statement made by them, 
 or either of them, whether under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest credit 
 and confidence. 
 
 F. R. Hewitt. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of February, 1908. 
 fsEAL.l Joe W. Sluder, 
 
 Notary Public. 
 My commission expires December 14, 1909. 
 
 James P. Sawyer, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of 
 Buncombe County, N. C, and is president of the Battery Park Bank; that he knows 
 W. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, and has known them for ten years past; that 
 affiant knows that each of said parties is a man of the highest character and trust- 
 worthy in every respect, and affiant verily believes that any statement made by 
 them or either of them, whether under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest 
 credit and confidence. „ ^ 
 
 James P. Sawyer. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of February, 
 
 [seal.] J- B. Robertson, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires February 3, 1910. 
 
20 EELIEF OF H. M, DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 W. W. Rollins, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of 
 Buncombe County, N. C., and postmaster of Asheville; that he knows W. T. Mason 
 and Harvey M. Dickson,' and has known them for ten years past; that affiant knows 
 that each of said parties is a man of the highest character and trustworthy in every 
 respect, and affiant verily believes that any statement made by them, or either of 
 them, whether under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest credit and con- 
 fidence. 
 
 W. W. Rollins. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of February, 1908. 
 [seal.] W. Scott Radeker, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires November 14, 1909. 
 
 John A. Campbell, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen 
 of Buncombe County, N. C, and is mayor of Asheville, and cashier of the Citizens 
 Trust and Savings Bank; that he knows W. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, and 
 has known them for ten years past; that affiant knows that each of said parties is a 
 man of the highest character and trustworthy in every respect, and affiant verily 
 believes that any statement made by them, or either of them, whether under oath 
 or not, would be" entitled to the fullest credit and confidence. 
 
 Jno. a. Campbell. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of February, 1908. 
 
 [seal.] W. Scott Radeker, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires November 14, 1909. 
 
 Rupo M. Fitzpatrick, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of 
 Buncombe County, N. C., and cashier of the American National Bank; that he knows 
 W. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, and has known them for five years past; that 
 affiant knows that each of said parties is a man of the highest character and trustworthy 
 in every respect, and affiant verily believes that any statement made by them, or 
 either of them, whether under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest credit 
 and confidence. 
 
 R. M. Fitzpatrick. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of February, 1908. 
 [seal.] W. Scott Radeker, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires November 14, 1909. 
 
 Marcus Erwin, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of 
 Buncombe County, N. C., and clerk of the superior court of said county; that he 
 knows \V. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, and has known them for ten years past; 
 that affiant knows that each of said parties is a man of the highest character and trust- 
 worthy in every respect, and affiant verily believes that any statement made by them, 
 or either of them, whether under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest credit and 
 confidence. 
 
 Marcus Erwin. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of February, 
 1908. 
 [seal.] W. Scott Radeker, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires November 14, 1909. 
 
 W. B. Williamson, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of 
 Buncombe County, N. C, and cashier of the Wachovia Loan and Trust Company; 
 that he knows W. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, and has known them for twelve 
 years past; that affiant knows that each of said parties is a man of the highest character 
 and trustworthy in cAcry respect, and aflSant verily believes that any statement made 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 21 
 
 by them, or either of them, whether under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest 
 credit and confidence. 
 
 \V. B. Williamson. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of Fe))ruary, 1908. 
 
 [seal.] W. Scott Radeker, Xolary Public. 
 
 My commission expires November 14, 1909. 
 
 C. T. Rawls, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen f)f Bun- 
 combe County, N. C, and former mayor of Asheville, N. C, and head of the firm 
 of Aston, Rawls & Co.; that he knows W. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, 
 and has known them for twelve years past; that affiant knows that each of said parties 
 is a man of the highest character and trustworthy in every respect, and affiant verily 
 believes that any statement made by them, or either of them, whether under oath or 
 not, would be entitled to the fullest credit and confidence. 
 
 C. T. Rawls. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 20th day of February, 1908. 
 [seal.] W. Scott R.kueker, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires November 14, 1908. 
 
 J. E. Rankin, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of 
 Buncombe County, N. C, and is cashier of the Battery Park Bank; that he knows 
 W. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, and has known them for ten years past; that 
 afllant knows that each of said parties is a man of the highest character and trustworthy 
 in every respect, and affiant verily believes that any statement made by them, or 
 either of them, whether under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest credit and 
 confidence. 
 
 J. E. Rankin. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 14th day of February, 1908. 
 
 [seal.] W. Scott Radeker, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires November 14, 1909. 
 
 R. B. Glenn, being first duly sworn, says that he is at present governor of the State 
 of North Carolina; that he knows the general character of W. T. Mason and Har^-ey M. 
 Dickson, and has known it for twelve years; that their general character and reputa- 
 tion is good, as being men of character and trustworthy in every respect, and affiant 
 believes that any statement made by them, or either of them, would be entitled to 
 the fullest credit and confidence both in the court-house or in a private transaction. 
 
 R. B. Glenn. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 27th day of February, 1908. 
 
 [seal.] p. B. Fleming, Notary Public. 
 
 Commission expires October, 1908. 
 
 Fred Moore, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citi/.en of Bun- 
 combe County, N. C, and judge of the superior court of the fifteenth judicial district; 
 that he knows W. T. Mason and Harvey M. Dickson, and has known them for thirteen 
 years past; that affiant knows that each of said parties is a man of high character and 
 m his opinion trustworthy in every respect, and affiant verily believes that any state- 
 ment made by them, or either of them, would be entitled to full credit and confidence. 
 
 Fred. Moore. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, the clerk of the superior court of Gaston County, 
 N. C, this the 27th day of February, 1908. In witness whereof I have hereunto set 
 my hand and affixed my official seal at my office in Dallas. 
 
 [seal.] Chas. C. Cornwell, 
 
 Clerk of the Superior Court. 
 
.22 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Then I have affidavits here as to Mr. Dickson's 
 character, made by Mr. W. F. Best and Nathaniel Beaman, of Norfolk, 
 Va., and Lewis L. Lohman, of Mattoon, 111. The individual claim- 
 ants came from Mattoon, 111., to Asheville, N. C. The affidavits men- 
 tioned read as follows : 
 
 Mr. W. F. Best, being first duly sworu, says tliat lie is a resident and citizen of Nor- 
 folk, Norfolk County, Va., and is secretary of the Ferd. Brenner Lumber Company; that 
 he knows Harvey M. Dickson, and has known him for the past five years; that affiant 
 knows that the said Harvey M. Dickson is a man of the highest character and trust- 
 worthy in every respect, and affiant believes that any statement made by him, whether 
 under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest credit and confidence. 
 
 W. F. Best. 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 26th day of February, 1908. 
 
 Edward Spalding, 
 Notary Public, Norfolk City, Va. 
 
 Nathaniel Beaman, being first duly sworn, says that he is a resident, a citizen, of 
 Norfolk, Norfolk County, Va., and is president of the National Bank of Commerce; 
 that he knows Harvey M. Dickson, and has known him for the past five years; that 
 affiant knows that the said Harvey M. Dickson is a man of the highest character and 
 trustworthy in every respect, and affiant believes that any statement made by him, 
 whether under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest credit and confidence. 
 
 Nathaniel Beaman. 
 
 Sworn and subscribed to before me, a notary public, this 26th day of February, 1908. 
 
 F. A. Porter, Notary Public. 
 
 My commission expires June 11, 1908. 
 
 Lewis L. Lehman, being fo-st duly sworn, says that he is a resident and citizen of 
 Mattoon, Coles County, 111., and is president of the First National Bank; that he 
 knows Harvey M. Dickson and has known him for the past twenty years; that affiant 
 knows that the said Harvey M. Dickson is a man of the highest character and is trust- 
 worthy in every respect, and affiant believes that any statement made by him, whether 
 under oath or not, would be entitled to the fullest credit and confidence. 
 
 Lewis L. Lehman. 
 
 Subscribed and sworn to before me, a notary public, this 24th day of February, 1908. 
 
 [seal.] W. T. Osborne, Notary Public. 
 
 STATEMENT BY MR. BOURNE BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON 
 CLAIMS FOR CLAIMANTS. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I desire to submit a statement in which the facts 
 connected with this claim are set out in chronological order, so that 
 you gentlemen will have no trouble in following or undertsanding 
 them. 
 
 Mr. Bourne then dictated the following statement: 
 
 "In the matter of the claim of Dickson, Mason, and the Dickson- 
 Mason Lumber Company for damages against the United States 
 Government : 
 
 "D. L. Boyd bought the timber trees above certain sizes on the 
 Cathcart tract of land in the Qualla boundary from the Eastern 
 band of Cherokee Indians in September, 1893. The Indians con- 
 veyed as a corporation, having been incorporated by chapter 211 of 
 the private laws of North Carolina of 1889, after a decision of the 
 United States wSupreme Court declaring them citizens of North Caro- 
 lina in 1886." 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 28 
 
 Mr. Fulton. It seems to me that we know generally, Mr. Kitchin 
 and I, the nature of the claim, and now if you will get into shape a 
 full and complete statement, I think it would he serviceahle. I 
 would suggest that it all ought to he in one paper, in one statement, 
 setting out the history of the Indians, following up with your tran.s- 
 actions step by step, and then all we will have to do is to read tiiat 
 to the committee, and then we will take the evidence here as to the 
 damages. Leave out the argument entirely in regard to these 
 Indians. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. As to their citizenship^ 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Yes; and state exactly the facts. If ymi \\an1 t<» (ile 
 a brief in addition, you can do that. 
 
 Mr. KiTCiiiN. The memorial sets out all the facts ^ 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. If there is anything in your statement that is not 
 included in the memorial, attach that to the memorial. 
 
 Mr. Fui^TON. Our time is so limited to-night that I do not think you 
 should take up time in dictating the statement. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. In the memorial you can put in any additional facts 
 that may occur to you that would throw light on the case in addition 
 to the facts there set out. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. My statement will give the exact dates. That is the 
 only difference between that and the memorial. You see, I collated 
 certain facts in this matter not to submit to the committee, but really 
 as a basis of my statement to you. I expected as we went along that 
 you would ask questions if anything w^as not clear. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Very well. 
 
 Mr. Bourne (resumino; his dictation) : 
 
 "D. L. Boyd bought the timber trees, as before mentioned, on the 
 Cathcart tract of land in the Qualla boundary from the Eastern Band 
 of Cherokee Indians in September, 189.3. The Indians conveyetl as a 
 corporation, having been incorporated by Chapter 211 of the private 
 laws of North Carolina of 1889, after a decision of the United States 
 Supreme Court, declaring them citizens of North Caiolina in 1886." 
 
 Mr. Bourne. The Indians conveyed as a corporation, having been 
 incorporated by chapter 211 of the private laws of North Carolina of 
 1889, after a decision of the United States Supreme Court in the case 
 entitled "The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians against The ITnited 
 States and the Cherokee Nation" (117 U. S., 288), in which decision 
 they were declared citizens of North Carolina, said decision being 
 rendered in 1886. Dickson and Mason bought from Boyd in January, 
 1894, paying for said timber trees S25,000. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What was the general nature of that suit i AVhat 
 point was involved in that suit ? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. The Eastern band, the Government, and Cherokee 
 Nation sued for part of the national funds, alleging that it had never 
 gotten its proportion of the funds belonging to the Cherokee Nation, 
 when the individuals belonging to the Eastern band separated them- 
 selves from the nation after the treaty of New Echota in 1835. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Was the question of citizenship of the State directly 
 involved ? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I think it was. That is my construction of the case. 
 It was necessary to the decision of the case. The case originated in 
 the Court of Claims, and that court decided this very question. 
 
24 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. FuLTOX. In that case there was not any question as to their 
 power to acquire and dispose of property? 
 
 Mr. Boi RNE. No, except as an incident of citizenship. The que.s- 
 tion was directly involved whether they were tribal Indians and mem- 
 bers of the Cherokee Nation. 
 
 Mr. Fn.TON. And the courts held that they were not? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. That they Avere not tribal Indians. The Dick- 
 son-Mason Lumber Company was organized in January, 1895. 
 It was composed of H. M. Dickson, W. T. Mason, and one or two 
 nominal incorporators, and this property was conveyed to the 
 company 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Does that pa])er state the name under which these 
 Indians were incorporated? What was the name they went by? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. The Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians. 
 
 Mr. Fn.TON. That was their corporate name? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes, sir. 
 
 This property was conveyed to the Dickson-Mason company for 
 the purposes of development in January, 1895. In this connection 
 I had better state that the lands uj)on which these timber trees were 
 located were wild mountain lands, from 10 to 22 miles from the rail- 
 road, and these gentlemen — Dickson and Mason — knew when they 
 purchased them that it would require the expenditure of large sums 
 of money in order to make the timber proposition commercially 
 valuable. The property was not only a great distance from the rail- 
 road, })ut it was in a very rough and difHcult country. There was 
 very little capital in western North Carolina at the time, and in the 
 opinion of a great many experts this timber proposition was not a 
 commercial proposition at that time. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Were these men among the first timber men that 
 went into that section for the manufacture of timber? 
 
 Mr. B(nRNE. They were the first men who ever went in there to 
 develoj) timber interests on a large scale, so far as I know. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What kind of timber was that? 
 
 Mr. Dickson (interrupting). Hardwood — ash, oak, and so on. A 
 great deal of the timber had been cut close to the lines of the railroad, 
 within 2 and 3 and 4 miles back, but nobody had gone back into that 
 section such a distance as this was, over such a rough country. There 
 had been several river propositions, where the timber adjacent to 
 flowing streams had been taken up away from the railroad, but there 
 was no such proposition here. The nearest mill site we could get 
 on the property was 9^^ or 10 miles. We called it 10 miles, and that 
 lumber there had to be railroaded out of there or wagoned out. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. What county is that? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. In Swain County, and a little in Jackson County. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. We will likely get to that on the question of damages? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes. 
 
 It was feared by the purchasers, because they had been so advised, 
 that the Government might claim some right of control over these 
 lands, or over the Indians, and might interfere with the purchasers' 
 operations, though the latter were, also, advised that the Government 
 had no legal rights in the premises. Accordingly Boyd was put to 
 work to induce the Government to assert any authority it might 
 claim in order to have the matter settled, though no expenditure 
 amounting to anything was made at this time, for obvious reasons. 
 
BELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 25 
 
 This action was also taken on account of repeated demands of the 
 Indians that work begin. They expected to do part of the work, and 
 they actually received a good deal of employment later. 
 
 Boyd's work produced the desired result, and an injunction was 
 served upon the purchasers early in the fall of 1894. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What was the title of that action^ 
 
 Mr. Bourne. That action was entitled ''The United States of 
 America against D. L. Boyd, Harvey M. Dickson, W. T. Mason, and 
 the Dickson-Mason Lumber Company" — no, the company had not 
 been organized yet — "and the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians." 
 Now, it is possible that one or two Indians wlio dissented fi'om the 
 contract joined with the Government, and an invitation to partici- 
 pate as plaintiffs in that suit was extended to others of the Indians 
 to come in and make themselves parties plaintiff; but none of them 
 came. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. When was that action brought ^ 
 
 Mr. Bourne. It was brought in the United States circuit court at 
 Asheville, N. C, or really, I believe, it originatetl at Greensboro. It 
 was in the United States* circuit court for the western district of North 
 Carolina. Boyd's work produced the desired resu.lt, and an injunc- 
 tion was served upon the purchasers early in tlie fall of 1S94. Work 
 was then suspended until the matter could ])e judicially determined. 
 
 The defendants in the case were the claimants here and the Eastern 
 Band of Cherokee Indians, as a corporation or community. The 
 great body of the Indians throughout the entire controversy fought 
 side by side with the purchasers and souglit to sustain the Boyd 
 contract . 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. In that suit what did the Government allege as 
 grounds for the action ? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. They alleged that these Indians, according to my 
 recollection — the two suits were practically identical — that these In- 
 dians were tribal Indians, subject to the control and guardianship 
 of the United States Government, and that a fraud had been com- 
 mitted upon them, and they had been overreached in this trade. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. And they based the real rights, however, to maintain 
 the action on the ground that the Indians were not capable of enter- 
 ing into a contract i 
 
 Mr. Bourne. That subsequently became their main ground. At 
 first it was the allegation of fraud that they seemed mainly to rely on. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. That was the right that the Government had to 
 step in to prevent fraud ? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes. 
 
 The conduct of the suit was evidently committetl to the Depart- 
 ment of Justice, which took the matter up and considered the same, 
 with the result that on the 22d day of October, 1894, Hon. Richard 
 Olney, then Attorney-General of the United States, wrote a letter to 
 the Secretary of the Interior 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Will you file a copy of this letter? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I have it right here. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Say "a copy of which I herewith file with my 
 statement." 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Give it to the stenographer, and he can attach it 
 and mark it "Exhibit A." 
 
26 BELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes. He wrote a letter to the Secretary of the In- 
 terior upon the subject of the status of the Eastern Band of Cherokee 
 Indians and their right to make contracts, a copy of which letter is 
 marked "Exhibit A" and herewith submitted as a part of this state- 
 ment. J 
 Exhibit A. 
 
 Department of Justice, 
 Washington, D. C, October 22, 1894- 
 The Secretary of the Interior. 
 
 Sir: In compromising the litigation concerning the lands oi the Eastern Band of 
 Cherokees in North Carolina, I have caused a decree to be entered, a copy of which 
 is inclosed, together with a copy of a report of the master in chancery in regard to it. 
 This decree concerns lands within what is called the "Qvialla boundary." 
 
 Other lands lie without that boundary, and to these a deed was made by one Johnson 
 to the Commissioner of Indian Affairs and his successors forever for the use and benefit 
 of the Eastern Band of Cherokees. The full text of this deed is given in Executive 
 Document 128, Fifty-third Congress, second session. 
 
 It is deemed advisable, notwithstanding our opinion that the Commissioner of 
 Indian Affairs has taken no title under that deed as well on account of the nature of 
 the proposed grantee as by reason of the attempt to pass an unalienable title con- 
 traty to the policy of the law of North Carolina, that the present Commissioner should 
 remove the cloud upon the title of the Indians by making a conveyance to the heirs 
 of Johnston, who stands ready to convey to the corporation known as the Eastern 
 Band of Cherokee Indians. (Private Laws of North Carolina, 1889, ch. 211.) It is 
 also proposed to make the Commissioner a party to the litigation, and cause his deed 
 to be ordered and confirmed by the court. In considering the compromise it has 
 appeared to me that the legal status of the Indians in question is that of citizens of 
 North Carolina; that they have been in all respects citizens since the date of or soon 
 after the treaty with the Cherokees of 1835, and this with the consent of the United 
 States expressed in that treaty, by the election of the Indians and the consent of 
 North Carolina. They have voted at all elections for half a century, and are citizens 
 of the United States. It seems clear that Congress could not, by the act of July 27, 
 1868, or otherwise (if such was the intention) make of them an Indian tribe or place 
 them under the control of the United States as Indians any more effectually than if 
 they had been white citizens of Massachusetts or Georgia. (Eastern Band of Cherokee 
 Indians v. The United States and Cherokee Nation, 117 U. S., 288). Neither could 
 such citizens of North Carolina make themselves a tribe of Indians within that State. 
 
 Accordingly the suit, which was recently instituted by this Department at the 
 request of yours against D. L. Boyd and others on account of timber trespass alleged 
 to have been committed ])y them in pursuance of a contract not approved by the 
 Commissioner of Indian Affairs, seems to be one which it is no part of the duty of the 
 United States to maintain. If these views meet with your approval, I shall direct 
 the dismissal of that suit, and also withdraw the direction given to the United States 
 attorney for the district to enter his appearance in defense of another suit brought 
 against one H. G. Ewart for fees claimed for executing a contract with the said Boyd, 
 which appearance was likewise at the instance of your Department. If, however, 
 my views do not meet your approval, I shall be pleased to hear any suggestions you 
 may desire to offer. 
 
 I inclose a copy of a letter from the United States attorney for the district, dated 
 the 10th instant, in which you will find mention of the suit against Boyd and others. 
 
 I am very desirous of closing at once this business of the compromise, and should 
 therefore be pleased to have an answer at your earliest convenience. 
 Respectfully, 
 
 R. Oln'ey, Attorney-General. 
 
 In that letter he held that the Government hatl nothing to do with 
 the Indians. In that letter, as will appear therefrom, the Attorney- 
 General held and advised the Department of the Interior that these 
 Indians were citizens of the State of North Carolina and had the 
 right to make contracts just as other citizens of a State. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. And the Government ought not to maintain the 
 suit i 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes, and that the suit should be (Usmissed. That is 
 the language that he used. 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL, 27 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. What became of that suit? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. That is what I am going to take up now. 
 
 Following this letter, at the next regular term of the Federal court 
 at Ashville, N. C, in November, 1894, the Government came into 
 court and took a nonsuit in said case. A copy of the letter of the 
 Attorney-General above referred to was filed among the records of 
 said case, and claimants and their attorneys became aware of its 
 contents. They thought, and I respectfully submit that they had a 
 right to think, m view of this letter and of the action of the Govern- 
 ment in taking the nonsuit, that the Government would no longer 
 claim any right to interfere in so far as the Boyd contract affected 
 the Indians and their property. This was generally understood by 
 all the interested parties at the time. Accordingly the purchasers 
 immediately began to make the large expenditures necessary for the 
 proper development of their property 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Immediately the purchasers moved to the State of 
 North Carolina. You see, we had incurred practically no expense 
 prior to that time, and had lived in Illinois. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Well, immediately the purchasers moved from Mat- 
 toon, 111., their then place of residence, to Asheville, N. C, and began 
 to make the large expenditures necessary for the proper develop- 
 ment of this property, and in addition to the S25,000 purchase 
 price they probably expended in cash as much as $25,000 more, 
 besides making contracts which called for the expenditure of large 
 sums later. In fact, the private fortunes of both the individual 
 claimants were practically involved in this purchase and develop- 
 ment. 
 
 It turned out later that the Department of the Interior was not 
 satisfied with the position of the Department of Justice on the 
 subject of the status of the North Carolina Cherokees, and had the 
 Department of Justice, in March, 1895, to institute another injunc- 
 tion suit, alleging that the Indians had been led into making the 
 Boyd contract by fraud and had been overreached in the transac- 
 tion. The allegations of this bill were practically the same as those 
 of the first bill. . 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What attorney brouglit this second action for the 
 Government ? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. The United States attorney for the western district 
 of North Carolina, Hon. R. B. Glenn, who is now the governor of 
 the State. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. The same one that brought the first action? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes, sir. This matter came on for hearing upon 
 bill and answer, the defendants denying the fraud or undue influence, 
 and Judge Charles H. Simonton, United States circuit judge, ren- 
 dered the opinion set out in the case of ' ' The United States against 
 Boyd" (68 Fed. Rep., 577), in substance holding that the Eastern 
 Band of Cherokees were tribal Indians and wards of the Government, 
 and that the Government of the United States, like any other guard- 
 ian, had the right to interfere in that transaction but for one purpose 
 only, to protect said wards from fraud and to see that any contract 
 made by them was for their benefit and not to their detriment. 
 Accordingly he referred the matters of controversy upon the bill and 
 answer to the standing master, Hon. R. M. Douglas, of Greensboro, 
 N. C, who afterwards served eight years on the supreme bench of 
 
28 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 North Carolina. Judge Douglas reported that the transaction was 
 free from fraud or undue influence and that the trade was to the 
 advantage of the Indians. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. His report is set out in the memorial? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. It will be filed with the committee. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. This report was made by the direction of the then 
 United States district attorney for the western district of North Caro- 
 lina, Hon. R. B. Glenn. This report was also made on the testimony 
 of the Government's witnesses and without the introduction of any 
 testimony on behalf of the defendants. 
 
 Upon the coming in of the master's report it was confu'med and 
 the trade with the Indians was ordered ratified by the court, the court 
 holding that it had the power to ratify said contract. This decision 
 is reported under the title of ''The United States v. Boyd" (68 Fed. 
 Rep., 577), both Judge Simonton and Judge Dick delivering opinions. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. To the same effect were the opinions? 
 
 Ml'. Bourne. Yes. They agreed. The Government was dis- 
 satisfied with this decision and appealed to the chcuit court of appeals 
 for the fourth cu'cuit. In November, 1897, this court decided that 
 these Indians were tribal Indians and the Boyd contract absolutely 
 void, the opinion therein beino; delivered by Judge Goff. 
 
 Mr. KiTCiiTN. What report is that in? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I will give it to you in a minute. This case is re- 
 ported under the title of "United States v. Boyd" (27 C. C. A., 592; 
 83 Fed. Rep., 547). After this decision the clamiants and the Eastern 
 band of Cherokee Indians appealed to the United States Supreme 
 Court. Pending that appeal the Interior Department itself con- 
 firmed the Boyd contract in the latter part of August, 1898, and, so 
 far as the clamiants were concerned, there was nothing to be decided 
 by the United States Supreme Court, and the appeal was not further 
 prosBcuted. 
 
 It may be remarked in passing that Judge Goff in his decision 
 never referred to the case of The Eastern Band of Cherokees against 
 The United States and The Cherokee Nation, reported in the Twentieth 
 Court of Claims Report, page 449, nor to the same case in 117 United 
 States, 288, where the decision of the Court of Claims was affirmed and 
 the whole matter, of the status of these Cherokees is discussed. 
 
 As to the present view of the Department of the Interior, based 
 upon all of the decisions herein mentioned, see the report of the 
 Commissioner of Indian Affairs to the Secretary of the Interior for 
 the fiscal year ending June 30, 1903, from pages 97 to 103. I would 
 just like to call your attention to liis conclusions, after reviewing 
 these decisions. It is very short [reads]: 
 
 The general assembly of the State of North Carolina in 1889 (private laws, chap. 
 211), passed an act incorporating the Eastern band of Cherokee Indians in North 
 Carolina, and the said band is now a corporation duly organized under the laws of that 
 State, wnth power to sue and be sued. Being governed by the above decisions and 
 legislation, this Office in its administrative capacity holds that this band of Cherokee 
 Indians, holding their lands in fee, can alienate the same, but the contract is review- 
 able by the Government for one purpose only, to protect them from fraud or wrong, 
 and that having been incorporated as a body politic, with the power of suing and being 
 sued, the acts of this band are reviewable only to protect them from fraud or wrong. 
 
 It was in 1903 that this report was written. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You say the Interior Department stepped in and 
 voluntarily affirmed that contract ? 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 29 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. When was that? 
 
 Mr. BoLTiNE. That was in August. We received notice of it in 
 August, 1898. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. A\liat did the Department do? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Mr. Smathers, you see, was representing the Eastern 
 band of Cherokee Indians, and they wanted the contract confirmed, 
 and we had already filed an application to have it confirmed before 
 the first suit. We did not want a suit. We had made application 
 to have it confirmed, so as to remove any trouble. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. They made application before the first suit? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What action was then taken by the Department? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. It was turned down. Mr. Crawford was in Congress 
 at the time and he was acting for Boyd^ not for Mason and Dickson. 
 That was before these latter gentlemen had anything to do with it. 
 When we were discussing the question of title and the right of the 
 Indians to convey, Boyd was assuring the prospective purchasers 
 that even if the Government could interfere there would be no 
 trouble; that he expected a telegram at any moment that the con- 
 tract had been confirmed. Mr. Smathers, who represented the 
 Indians, was also working for confirmation all the time. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. But in the meantime the Department of Justice 
 stepped in and the Attorney-General rendered liis opinion? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes; before ]\Iason and Dickson did a thing in the 
 way of expending money or making contracts. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You say the Interior Department at first refused to 
 confirm or ratify the agreement? 
 
 Mr. Bourne.*^ Yes. It dechned to do it. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Did they give any reason why? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I do not remember. 
 
 Mr. Mason. A party by the name of W. C. Smith, of south Georgia, 
 had made a previous contract almost in the exact terms with the 
 contract that Boyd made afterwards, after it had expired; but he 
 was up here in the Department trying to get liis contract confirmed. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. His contract had already expired. 
 
 Mr. Mason. Before the Indians macle the contract with Boyd, 
 Smith's contract had expired, and they made a contract with Boyd. 
 Those two contracts came up here for confirmation. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. The Indians did not go back on the prior contract. 
 
 Mr. Mason. No, but his time had expired, and they made a new 
 contract with Boyd. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I had forgotten about Smith's connection with it. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The Commissioner of Indian Affairs in a letter — 
 we may have it in the files somewhere — said he would not confirm 
 either contract, but that if he confirmed either one, it would be the 
 Smith contract, because of its priority. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. After they refused to confirm the contract — that is, 
 the Interior Department — did the Attorney-General render this 
 opinion, after the first suit was brought to test it? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. With the result detailed in the statement I have 
 made. 
 
30 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Now, I think it very clear that we should be allowed all such 
 damages as claimants, sustained by reason of the first injunction suit, 
 because the Government voluntarily allowed judgment to go against 
 it in that case. In other words, it lost the case and should be charge- 
 able with the damages accruing therein, like an individual. 
 
 proceedings of second session of subcommittee. 
 
 Committee on Claims, 
 
 Saturday, February 29, 1908. 
 
 The subcommittee met this day at 10.30 o'clock a. m., Hon. 
 Claude Kitchin, chairman of subcommittee, in the chair. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Well, Mr. Bourne, suppose you begin with those 
 items of damages. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Very well, Mr. Kitchin. Do you want Mr. Dickson 
 to be sworn? 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. No; as the memorial is sworn to, it is unnecessary. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. The memorial is sworn to, anyhow. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Did you file a statement of damages with the me- 
 morial ? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Yes. The memorial, including statement of dam- 
 ages attached thereto, is verified by each of the individual claimants. 
 Now, Mr. Dickson. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HARVEY M. DICKSON, OF NORFOLK, VA. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The first item, gentlemen, is ''Interest on purchase 
 price, $25,000," for about four and one-half years. 
 
 Mr. Mason. It is a little more than that, is it not? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; it is a little more than that. I was not, of 
 course, figuring to the day. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Is that the time that you were not permitted to do 
 any work or cut any of the timber, after the first injunction until it 
 was settled? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Go ahead and explain it, and answer the cpiestions, 
 Mr. Dickson. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I made up this statement a good while ago. Some 
 of it is not as fresh as it was when I made it. This first item is 
 "Interest on the purchase price, $25,000," for four and one-half 
 years, or until the date of confirmation of contract by the Govern- 
 ment, less $1,200 rebate allowed by the Indians. We got the Indians 
 to allow $1,200 of interest on some deferred payments. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. My c|uestion w^as. Was your plant idle and your entire 
 operations suspendecl during those four and one-half years, so that 
 you could not cut any of the standing timber — idle by virtue of the 
 injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, our whole operations were suspended. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. On what ground do you charge that against the 
 Government ? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Explain what the item is, what it means. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Was idle by virtue of the injunction. This item 
 was not for the plant, however. This was simply for the interest 
 on the purchase price of the property that we had either paid or 
 were paying interest on during that time. 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 31 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Now, Air. Dickson, were you payino; the Indians 
 any interest durincr this period when your operations were suspended 
 by this injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We were. 
 
 Mr. Kitchen. You were forbidden by that injunction to cut any 
 of the standing timber during the four and one-half years for which 
 you charge interest? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir. 
 
 IVIr. Bourne. And does that item represent interest that you 
 actuahy paid or lost on account of the purchase price during the 
 period wlien your operations were suspended ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. It represented interest on notes for part of pur- 
 chase money that were lield by the Indians at that time, or interest 
 01 money that had been paid in cash on account of the purchase 
 price of this timber. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. In addition to this item you have charged against the 
 Government all that you lost from not being able to run the plant, 
 have you not, and loss of lumber? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, we have not. You will find that we have to 
 make an equitable bill. We have not charged up all we lost b}^ any 
 means in this matter. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. The reason I ask the question is this: That it seemed 
 to me that if you had charged the Government up what you lost from 
 not operating the plant that would include your damages, and you 
 would not be entitled to interest. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Each element of damage is stated there, Mr. Fulton. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What is the amount of the item? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The net amount of the item is $5,738. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Mr. Dickson, in that amount is there included any 
 item of interest on your claim from the time when the contract was 
 confirmed by the Interior Department — that is, for the past ten 
 years, from 1898 to 1908? 
 
 Air. Dickson. No, sir. In fact tliis item reads, ''Until date of 
 confirmation by the Government, less $1,200 rebate allowed by the 
 Indians." 
 
 Mr. Fulton. In order that I may have the matter fully in mind as 
 w^e go along, $25,000 was the purchase price? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That was the purchase price? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. And the other expenditures you made were in the 
 way of improvements and supplies? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. We took the purchase price of the property 
 that we were either paying during the time we were hung up by the 
 injunction — either that which w^e paid to the Indians or had previously 
 paid, and in order to be perfectly fair and equitable in the matter 
 we allowed from this $1 ,200, which, as I said, we succeeded in getting 
 the Indians to allow us in consequence of our paying two notes, a 
 balance on one note and another note, according to our contention, 
 that was not due, because we had been suspended all this time and 
 because of the fact that this interest had been accruing, and we got 
 a $1,200 rebate allowed off the interest charge. 
 
 Then the next item is "Expense of two trips to look at work, and so 
 forth, at Soco, $120." 
 
 Mr. Fulton. ^¥liat was that for? What was the occasion or neces- 
 sity of it ? 
 
32 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. You see, we were on the ground in Deceni])er, and 
 we bought the property in January and went back to llHnois, and 
 this was one trip when I came down when the Indians insisted on 
 being put to work, doing something. The Indians were backing us 
 and wanted tliis contract confirmed, and were anxious to go to work. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. That was really an expense that grew out of the 
 litigation ^ 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Expense in going about to see about building roads, 
 and generally looking after the property. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Would you have been at that expense if there had 
 been no litigation? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Was this item you charge for after the second 
 injunction ? * 
 
 Mr. Dickson. After the first injunction. No, it was before the 
 first injunction, in the spring of 1894. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Would you have had to go down there, whether there 
 was any injunction or not ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. There had been no injunction at that time. I went 
 down and set the Indians to work to see whether the Government 
 would interfere. There had been threats of an injunction. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. On what ground do you justify that claim against 
 the Government ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. On the ground that if we had been permitted to go 
 on with our work; if we had had the confirmation 
 
 Mr. Fulton. As I understand it, Mr. Dickson, a,t the time of tliis 
 expenditure there was some doubt possibly existing in your mind 
 whether the Government was going to interfere ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. But at that time it had not interfered, and whether 
 it would have interfered or not you would likely have had to go to 
 that expense, woukl you not? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Probably; but we would have been operating the 
 property and would have gotten the benefit of it. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Then on what ground do you base that claim against 
 the Government ? What had it done up to that time ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Nothing; but it had failed to confirm the contract. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. The Government had not stopped it yet. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Let me make this statement right in that connection. 
 I think I understand the contention. This expenditure was a total 
 loss by reason of the subsequent action of the Government, whereas 
 it would not have been a total loss if it had not been for the subse- 
 quent action of the Government. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Then the expense would not have been a total loss, 
 but the work that was done or ordered by reason of going down 
 there would have been a total loss, and would not the proper charge 
 have been for the work done there? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The expense itself was really a total loss. The 
 other charge as to work done is a separate item. The expenditures 
 were absolutely useless by reason of the subsequent action of the 
 Government. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Go ahead with the next item. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. "Paid D. L. Boyd for making roads, $200." 
 
 Mr. Fulton. When was that, and how much? 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL, 33 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That was on the 23d day of Februarj', 1895. The 
 settlement was made then. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. When was the contract made? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. You mean the contract with Boyd? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. There was really no contract with him. As I said 
 before, the Indians insisted on our going to work down there, and in 
 order to satisfy- the Indians and keep the matter moving right along 
 we went to work building roads and preparing to cut the timber. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. When did you employ this man? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Sometime during the summer or fall of 1894, as 
 I remember. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Before the first injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Before the first injunction. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Wliat w^as the amount of that work? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Two hundred dollars. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What did he do? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. He built roads and cut roads through the timber 
 and graded roads. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. How far distant were they? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I think the roads were started in three different 
 places. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. How long was the time of the work? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I do not know the exact time. He rendered a bill 
 against us of seven hundred and some odd dollars for the roads, but 
 we refused to pay it. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. After this last injunction was dissolved or the matter 
 had been settled, did you not make use of these roads afterwards? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Wliy? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Because they had been washed away. As you will 
 understand, J\Ir. Kitchin, mountain roads wash away very soon. They 
 were practically valueless to us. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. After four years those roads were washed up and 
 became practically useless? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. We went right on and built them over again. 
 We put in, for instance, culverts over runways, over little streams. 
 We put in logs on low side of roads to keep them from washing away. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. These roads are built temporarily, just to last long 
 enough to get out the timber? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You could not tell just how long Boyd was employed 
 and how many men he had to help him, so as to get at the foundation 
 of the reasonableness of the thing? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I suppose he was employed in there about sixty or 
 ninetv days. I know I went down there, and there would have been 
 a great deal larger bill, but I saw that what he was doing might be 
 aw^ay from where we wanted the roads, and I thought he was spending 
 too much money, and I stopped him. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. How many men had he employed? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I think he had tw^elve when I went down there. 
 Of course that is a good while ago. They were all Indians that he had 
 employed, you understand. 
 34540—08 .3 
 
84 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You do not know luns' much su])plies he furnished in 
 the way of tools? 
 
 Air. Dickson. Hammers, and axes, and nails, and things like that? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Yes. How much for that? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That would be a matter of memory. I think I paid 
 the bill myself, and I think we paid about twenty some odd dollars, 
 I think $22 and something, for shovels and picks and tools. That is 
 not in tliis $200 item at all, 3^ou understand. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Tliis claim, then, includes simply claims for labor? 
 It does not include anything for supplies? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No. The supplies we furnished ourselves. We 
 bought and paid for them. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You think that was a reasonable charge for the work 
 that was done ( 
 
 Mr. Dickson. It was really more than reasonable, and as I tell 3"ou, 
 Air. Boyd's bill was seven hundred and odd dollars, and we threatened 
 to let him sue for his bill, because when this bill was paid we were hung 
 up with the injunction and did not know whether we would ever get 
 the property at all. He came in and said, "I expended this money 
 under your direction," and he had a bill of seven hundred and some 
 odd dollars against us, and finally we compromised it at $200 and gave 
 him a check for it. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Now, Air. Dickson, did you and Air. Alason thoroughly 
 investigate this work of Air. Boyd's before you arrived at this settle- 
 ment with him? 
 
 Air. Dickson. We looked it over; yes. 
 
 Air. Bourne. Did you satisfy 3^ourselves that that was a reasonable 
 and fair settlement with Boj^d? 
 
 Air. Dickson. I can not say about Air. Alason, but I satisfied myself 
 that it was. 
 
 Air. KiTCHiN. What did Boyd j)ay to the Indians for that land? 
 
 Air. Dickson. Fifteen thousand dollars. 
 
 Air. KiTCHiN. What did you pay? 
 
 Air. Dickson. Twenty-five thousand dollars. He bought it on the 
 29th of September, 1893, and we closed the trade for it on the 12th 
 day of January, 1894. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I will ask you, Air. Dickson, if this property had not 
 been advertised before it was ever sold to Boyd — advertised in 
 different lumber papers ? 
 
 Air. Dickson. I have been so informed. I never saw the adver- 
 tisements. 
 
 Air. Fulton. You had no dealing, then, with the Indians in the 
 purchase ? 
 
 Air. Dickson. Not direct; no, sir. 
 
 Air. Bourne. Except that Mr. Smathers represented the Eastern 
 Band of Cherokee Indians and was much interested in selling the 
 proj^erty. They sold it to Boyd and were rather interested in sus- 
 taining their title and contract. 
 
 Air. Fulton. As I understand, you simply purchased the standing 
 timber, and not the ground? 
 
 Air. Dickson. Yes; the standing timber, and not the ground. 
 
 Air. Fui.TON. How many acres of land were there? 
 ' Air. Dickson. About 30,000. 
 
 Air. Fulton. Have vou ever estimated the amount of timber? 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 85 
 
 Air. Dickson. We never put any other experts on it, but both Mr. 
 Mason and myself, who have had years of experience in the timber 
 blisiness, rode in there for three days, with some other parties. We 
 examined the property critically, and we estimated that the timber 
 would cut 1,000 feet per acre. It was fi'om 9^ to 20 miles away from 
 the railroad, but it was not all such timber as could be marketed 
 at a profit: it was like all this mountain timber. 
 
 Mr. FirLTON. Was the timber thick or scattered? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. It was very much scattered, of course. Just in an 
 offhand way we made an estimate that there would be 1,000 feet per 
 acre, or that we would get 30,000,000 — I think I made that state- 
 ment. There was a little tract up in the corner we called 4,000 
 acres. We included that, and there has been cut from the tract 
 up to the present time about 14,000,000 feet. Instead of cutting, 
 as I estimated, 1,000 feet to the acre, it is going to develop, when the 
 contract is finished, which is now within a few months of expiration — 
 it is going to develop that the propertv will have produced about 
 16,000,000 feet, instead of 30,000,000. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. You mean 16,000,000 of merchantable lumber? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I mean what has been cut or marketed. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Does that mean what you have cut and sold in the 
 markets? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. It is going to run somewhere between 16,000,000 
 and 16,500,000 for the entire tract. 
 
 Mr. KiTciiiN. The only thing that let you out is the increase in the 
 value of the timber? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Did this tract lie so that the timber on it could be cut 
 and logged to one point? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You would have to move around from place to place? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We intended to make one setting, one mill setting, 
 on Soco, and planned to put in a large band mill there and railroad 
 our logs down to the mill. Before we got into this trouble and after 
 cutting olT that watershed we intended to go up the Ocona Lufty 
 country, another branch that came around back of the mountain, 
 you understand, and have two or three mill sites up that river. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. This tract of land was mountainous, was it? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; it was right in the Great Smoky Mountains. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Were there any restrictions in the contract as to the 
 size and kintl of trees you were permitted to cut ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. There were. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Please state what they were. 
 
 Air. Dickson. I do not know that I can remember, Mr. Bourne. 
 I will say this, however, that the Indians' interests were guarded very 
 closely in that matter, and only trees of certain size were to be cut. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Wlio owns those lands ? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. This corporation — the Eastern Band of Cherokees. 
 
 Mr. Mason. The restriction on sizes of timber to be cut under ou^ 
 contract was 22 inches in poplar, 20 inches in chestnut, 15 inches in 
 oak, and for ash and all woods except box elder and hickory 12 
 inches. The box elder is what they call acacia wood, the wood 
 that the ark was built out of. There is very little of it. There has 
 been onlv about two carloads cut on the tract. 
 
36 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I think those are the correct sizes. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. You were to cut no timber under those sizes? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No. We could not cut timber under those sizes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Now let us get to the next item. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The next item is "Expenses of H. M. Dickson to 
 Asheville and return to Mattoon, $110.87." 
 
 Mr. Fulton. That was before the first injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. And that was something like the first item? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. All right. Now give us the next one. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. W. T. Mason, ''Expenses of W. T. Mason, two trips 
 to Washington, one in June and one in July, 1894.'' That was m 
 the same action before the Department, and looking after our fences 
 in the matter. That was before the first injunction. That was $100. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. The next. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. "Loss of H. M. Dickson's time from the first of 
 March, 1894, until the organization, January 15, 1895, $1,750." 
 
 Mr. Fulton. That was followed by the first injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. You see, this first injunction was filed against us — 
 when? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. In October, 1894. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. A part of the period covered by this item was before 
 the first injunction, in October, 1894, and a part of it after the injunc- 
 tion. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. How much before? That ought to be fixed in some 
 way. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Seven and a half months before and three months 
 after. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Mr. Dickson, was 'this loss of your time accounted a 
 loss by reason of the fact that the Government afterwards interfered 
 with you, and the work that you ditl at this time was absolutely worth- 
 less? I mean, did it turn out to be of no benefit to you in this trans- 
 action ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. A large portion of it, yes; but I can not answer that 
 positively from the fact that I do not know. Some of the work I did 
 during that time might have had to be done later. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I will ask you what your time was reasonably worth? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. My time was reasonably worth $2,500 a year. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Did you charge anything like that in the itemized 
 statement of damages? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, .sir. I have only charged $1,750. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What were you doing during that time? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Nothing. You see, I was suspended between heaven 
 and earth during most of that time, out of business in Illinois, and 
 waiting to move my family, and on expense. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What position did you occupy in this company? 
 Was it a corporation or a company ? 
 
 , Mr. Dickson. At this time it was a company, Mr. Mason and I 
 together; and afterwards we incorporated the Dickson-Mason Lumber 
 Company. 
 
 Mr. Fi'LTON. What was your position in it and salary? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Mr. Mason and I, owning the entire capital stock, 
 we said we would consider $1,800 a year apiece the salary account. 
 
BELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 37 
 
 Of course we charged what we needed to Hve on, and charged it to 
 ourselves individually. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Was it understood, and did you give your entire 
 time, both of you, to this work ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. You will find in the next item, Mr. Kitchin, that 
 Mr. Mason did not give his whole time, and, consequently, he is given 
 only a portion of his salary; but I did give my entire time. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Was it understood that you would give your time, 
 and did you give your time ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; I did no other business that entire year. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. After the injunction was dissolved, or rather, after 
 the contract was approved by the Secretary of the Interior, then you 
 went to work operating this plant ? 
 
 Mt. Dickson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. About when was that? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. It was approved in the latter part of August, 1898. 
 The period covered by this salary item, you understand, Mr. Fulton, 
 was way prior to this time. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You did not charge for your time during all that 
 period ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir.. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Why not? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I suppose because we were too modest, Mr. Fulton. 
 A later item will fully explain how I charged for my time, in estimat- 
 ing damages on that account. If you will wait a moment until 
 we come to that item, you will find the matter fully explained. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. All right. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The next item is " W. T. Mason's lost time during the 
 year, 1894, at S833.35." 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Was this before the first injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; this item was before the first injunction. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. When you went back to the operation of your plant 
 and the cutting of the timber after the ratification of the contract 
 by the Interior Department, did not your company get the benefit 
 of your services rendered before the first injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I do not think so, Mr. Kitchin. It was absolutely 
 a loss of the whole thing. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. During that time for which he makes claim for eight 
 hundred and some odd dollars, he was doing nothing at all ? 
 
 ^Ir. Dickson. He was attending to his business in Illinois a por- 
 tion of the time and that is why he did not put in for full time. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. How much time did he spend in this timber business 
 in Buncombe County? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I suppose about half of his time. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. In other words, you are not charging so much for 
 his services as you are for the loss of what he did do? In other 
 words, he must have done some work there wh?n the injunction 
 came up, and you lost the benefit of that work? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. \Vliat is the nature of that work? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. A little of everything, Mr. Fulton. I do not know 
 that I can specify just what it was. Mr. Mason was a partner. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. I understood a while ago that your services charged 
 there were rendered after the first injunction and during the time 
 vou were thrown out of work then. 
 
38 EELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No; you are mistaken. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. It was before? 
 
 j\[r. DiCKwSON. Yes; it was before and after. 
 
 Mr. BouENE. It was partly before and })artly after. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The reason it was put in in this way, .ii;entlemen, is 
 the fact that we incorporated at that time, January 15, 1895, whereas 
 v,e had been operating as a partnersliip prior to that time. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. In order to clear this matter up, let me interpose 
 right there and say that this item covering not only the services 
 rendered before the first injunction, but also services rendered after 
 this injunction — this item includes an allowance for salaries up to 
 January, 1895? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; to January 15, 1895. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. And the first injunction was served in October, 1894? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. And it includes services rendered both before and 
 after the service of the first injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. During the time for which you charged for services, 
 what did you do ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I had general management of the business. I went 
 down there, back and forth, and spent probably half of my time. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Outside of all buildings and overseeing the building 
 of these temporary roads and ways, what, if anything else, was done 
 by you or any member of your company? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I had the general management of our business. 
 Mason and I were perfecting its organization on a large scale, in 
 order to develop this property to the best advantage, making con- 
 tracts for logging and sawing, buying supplies, and doing everything 
 to promote the business. We were doing this during a part of this 
 period. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. You had some of the temporary buildings put up? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, and we were preparing for other buildings also. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. I understand you are not charging your salary dur- 
 ing the time you were working at your other business ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. But you are charging for the work or services which 
 you rendered from which you had no benefit afterwards ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Now, I am trying to find out what 3^011 did that you 
 lost; what you did at that time which was of benefit to your com- 
 pany and which afterwards you were unable to avail yourselves of 
 by reason of this injunction? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Mr. Dickson, do you recall when the first injunction 
 was dissolved? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. It was in November, 1894. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Now, Mr. Dickson, I would hke to know if that 
 period you charge for there does not cover from November until 
 the middle of January, and if you were not constantly engaged in 
 making contracts for the development of tliis property, and the pur- 
 chase of macliinery and supplies of all sorts, and getting ready for 
 this development? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, sure. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. What became of this machinery? Did you use 
 that machinerv afterwards? 
 
RETJEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 39 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We used some of it. Some of it we had to sell, 
 and some of it we had to lose. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHix. Did you have to sell it at a loss? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. He charges up the loss. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The point I wanted to get to on Mr. Fultons ques- 
 tion was this: You see, from the time the injunction was dissolved 
 until January 15, was the time we got into this trouble, because w^e 
 had then spread ourselves out over the entire country, expecting 
 to go right to work. Those w^ere the most active months in our 
 whole organization. That was after the first injunction was dis- 
 solved, and we thought we w^ere free and clear, and I immediately 
 packed my goods and with my family moved to Asheville, and 
 went on the property and began operations. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. And made contracts? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; and not only made contracts, but cut down 
 timber for all the construction work for all our buildings, and the 
 tramroads, and all that kind of thing. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Now^, the next item. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The next item is ''Interest on railroad e((uipment, 
 $2,650 for nine months, $119.25." 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Explain that. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. After this first injunction was dissolved I bought 
 this railroad equipment — locomotives, cars, and rails — expecting t(i 
 operate my tramroad in the woods there. The equipment arrived 
 on the sidetrack after the Government had stopped our work. It 
 was paid for. It la}^ there for nine months. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Where did it come from? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. From Bay City, Mich. After nine months' Ijang 
 there we succeeded in disposing of the railroad equipment at $2,650, 
 and charged nine months' interest on that $2,650. 
 
 Mr. Fltlton. What w^as the original cost of the railroad equipment? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We practicall}' got cost for it. Two thousand six 
 hundred and fifty dollars was practically what it cost us. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Wliat are you out? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The interest for nine months. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Did you make any profit on it when you sold it? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Not a dollar. 
 
 Mr. Flti.ton. In other words, you were charging for wdiat would 
 have been the probable benefit for you if you had gone on? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Exactly. 
 
 Mr. BoLHiNE, You sold the rails? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; the whole thing for $2,650. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Does that itemized statement include any cost you 
 w^ere put to in going to Bay City to make this purchase? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Does it include the freight? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. I paid $1,000 for the engine at Bay City, 
 Mich. I remember the engine; I do not remember amount paid for 
 the cars. The engine was the only thing we got out on. The freight 
 bill was enormous. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. The total amount was $2,650? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir; and nothing was charged for looking it up, 
 or purchasing it, or anything of that kind. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Now, the next item. 
 
40 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The next item is, "Paid Indians on leased ground, 
 $60." That was a total loss. We had an Indian tear down his 
 shack where we were going to put this mill, and we paid him $20 a 
 year for this ground where we were going to put the sawmill. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. What was that leased for? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. For the purpose of erecting a sawmill and commis- 
 sary building? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. In this contract did you have the right to use the 
 ground for the erection of buildings? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. You see, the Indians owned or claimed to own, or 
 had been allotted out of the corporation, certain Httle pieces of land 
 for their individual use. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. That piece of land was not included in your con- 
 tract ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Our contract provided that if we should damage 
 any of these little cropping places that the Indians had, that was a 
 matter that we had to adjust between ourselves and them. We had 
 no possible way of locating our mill at the advantageous point we 
 wanted to locate it without getting this old Indian out of the way, 
 so that we had to buy him out. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You paid him $60 ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; we paid him $60. 
 
 The next is " Interest on improvements, timber, and so forth, 
 ^148,000 feet at $6 per 1,000 for three years." 
 
 Mr. Fl'lton. What is the total? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. One hundred and fifty-nine dollars and eighty-four 
 cents. When the original injunction was dissolved, we immecliately 
 entered into a contract for the purchase of a large band mill in Cin- 
 cinnati, and I immediately let a contract with a party to saw the 
 necessary framing timber out of hemlock for the erection of all our 
 buildings and for the erection of this band sawmill. The small 
 sawmill that I had the man under contract with to saw material 
 for the building had gotten well under way, and he had got out 
 148,000 feet of lumber for our various bliildings, and after we were 
 permitted to go on with our work again we made use of this 148,000 
 feet of timber in our buildings and improvements there, so that 
 we thought it was only fair to charge for the interest on what we 
 -bad put into that for that length of time and no charge for the 
 material itself. 
 
 Mr. P\tlton. I understand. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The next is ''Money paid hands in March, April, 
 May, and June, 1895." 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Explain that. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Was that after the injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That was after the first injunction was dissolved. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. This injunction was dissolved in November, 1894? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, but this work was done in March, April, May, 
 and June. It was while the second injunction was pending, I think, 
 and it was money that we had to expend to take care of stuff that we 
 had on the ground. For instance, as I tell you, we had this mill 
 down there that cut this lumber, and we had a commissary building 
 two-thirds completed and lumber scattered all around for that. It 
 was money we paid out protecting the property we had in there 
 during these months. 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL, 41 
 
 Mr. Fulton. How much was it^ 
 
 Mr. Dickson. One hiintlred and twenty-one dollars and two cents. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Would jou not have had to have this service per- 
 formed whether the injunction was granted or not? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. We were not allowed to do a thing. We 
 could not do any work. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. In what way ditl you protect it — getting it together? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Getting it together, and keeping some men there 
 watching it, and all such things as that. We could not do any con- 
 struction work at all. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. And this expenditure would not have been necessary 
 otherwise ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No. We would not have had it at all. 
 
 The next item is "Eight months' horse feed at $10 a month, $80." 
 We had a horse doWn there that we boarded at $10 a month. There 
 was eight months' time the horse did not do any service at all. 
 It was simply kept in the barn and fed. I used the horse in riding 
 back and forth from the mill, and used him on the tram car and in 
 riding around over the property. 
 
 The next item is "Damage to logs, 1,500,000 feet, approximately, 
 on account of not being sawed, $4,500." 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Now tell us about that. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Well, when the first injunction was nonsuited we 
 immediately put a large gang of men to work cutting timber, because 
 it was then in the winter months, and we wanted to get the timber 
 felled. ^ 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. You s&j it was in the winter months, and you 
 wanted to get the timber felled. Is that the proper time to cut 
 timber? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. They do not now pay much attention in western 
 North Carolina to the time when they cut it. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. It makes a great deal of difference in my country. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. They cut it right along. That is in the hard woods. 
 We had been held up for a year, and we were very anxious, as our time 
 was expiring. We had fifteen years in which to cut the timber off. 
 The moment we were released from the first injunction I put every 
 man to work that we could handle, and we cut this timber down 
 right and left. We had a superintendent, this man Hyatt, and he 
 kept a log book, by which he gave us at the close of the month the 
 number of logs, the size of the logs, and whether they were chestnut, 
 oak, maple, or what not; the kind of timber that was in the logs. 
 That is where we get these figures. That log book figured up about 
 practically 1,500,000 feet. That was not timber felled alone, but it 
 was also timber felled and cut into log lengths. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. That was during the time from the dissolution of 
 the first up until the granting of the second injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. I understand you had a gang of men along, cutting 
 trees down, and another gang cutting them up into logs? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Ml'. Kitchin. And the men going on before and cutting the trees 
 down cut a great many more thousand feet than tlie other fellows 
 could cut into lengths? 
 
42 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; more than the other fellows; and tliis explains 
 how we failed to put in a claim for any damage to timber in excess of 
 1,500,000 feet. Hyatt's log book showed only this amount of timber 
 trees felled and cut into logs. We entirely overlooked the fact that 
 a great many timber trees had been cut down, but not cut into logs, 
 and that these would not appear in Hyatt's log book. Our itemized 
 statement of damages only covers what appears in Hyatt's log book. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What did you do with that timber when you went in 
 there, this million and a half feet ^ 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We cut it up. We figured out $3 per thousand feet 
 damages. 
 
 Mr. BouRXE. I want to ask you at this point if that stuff was not 
 exposed to the suns of two summers? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; I think it was. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What was the market ])rice of that timber, that mill- 
 ion and a half feet, at the time the second injunction was granted? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Do you mean timber or the lumber? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Lumber. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That is impossible to answer, because various kinds 
 will bring various prices, you understand. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. What would it average, per thousand feet, sawed, if 
 it had not stayed out in the weather, if you could have sawed it at a 
 proper time after it had been cut? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I can only give you an estimate. I should say it 
 would be worth from $12 to -114 dollars, log run, delivered at the 
 railroad. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. What was it worth in the condition it was? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We estimated it would be worth S3 a thousand feet 
 less on account of the damage. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What did you receive for this million and a half feet 
 after it was sawed ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I do not know\ 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. What would it average in value per thousand feet? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Why don't you know? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. For the reason that it w^as not kept as a separate 
 item on our books. It was run right along with some lumber that we 
 were buying that came into Whittier, ancl was not kept separate. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I will ask you in that connection if 3^ou could have 
 sold this damaged lumber by itself and made any profit out of it? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. By using it with other good timber, did that bring 
 down the general price of the whole, the good and that, too? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. It would have that effect; yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You say you had a million and a half feet in log 
 measurement ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; log scale. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. C^an you tell the number of feet of lumber these same 
 logs produced? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The superintendent, Mr. Hyatt, says there were 
 about 2,000,000 feet, board measure, which he sawed out, but we 
 only mention in our statement of damages a million and a half of the 
 timber that was cut into logs. Now, the cutters had gone far ahead 
 and cut thousands of logs that were not included in this at all. We 
 have done nothing with that other, except Mr. Hyatt says this stuff 
 
KKLTEF OK H. M. DICKSON ET AL, 43 
 
 sawed out amounted to 2,000,000 feet. We could care only for 
 what was on the ground. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What did that amount to that was felled and not cut 
 into logs? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Our log book shovved a million and a half feet cut 
 into logs. There was a lot of it that was so worm-eaten that we never 
 moved it off the ground; but notwithstanding that fact Mr. Hyatt 
 says there were about two millions of that product, so that the residue 
 must have been in the neighborhood of three-quarters of a million 
 feet. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Let us follow down this million and a half feet of 
 logs. You say Mr. Hyatt says that cut about 2,000,000 feet of 
 lumber? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, out of that felled timber. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Does that include both the logs and what was cut 
 down, but not in log lengths? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You think you had, of fallen timber that was not cut 
 into logs, from half to three-quarters of a million feet that was a total 
 loss? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, not a total loss; a partial loss. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Into how much will the log scale saw out on the 
 lumber scale ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I w^ould say it would shrink about 10 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You got about 2,000,000 feet of lumber? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Is there any w^ay to estimate the amount of this 
 timber which was cut down but which was not cut into logs at the 
 time the second injunction was served? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. It is impossible to estimate it exactly. But our 
 log book showed a million and a half feet of timber that had been felled 
 and cut into logs at that time, and as Mr. Hyatt shows in his affidavit 
 that we actually sawed out 2,000,000 feet of lumber from the timber 
 trees that had' been cut down at the time, I estimate that of the 
 timber trees that had been felled but not cut into logs at the time of 
 the second injunction we must have used about 700,000 or 750,000 
 feet. This estimate allows for shrinkage under log scale of about 10 
 per cent. Now, of course, while we used the lumber produced from 
 this timber, it was badly damaged. In addition to the foregoing 
 elements of damage to timber or lumber, there must have been 
 about 500,000 feet of timber trees that were cut down and left in the 
 woods — a total loss. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. But which you used? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We used some of them. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Can you estimate how much was left there in trees 
 cut down which was a total loss? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We can not estimate them definitely; about 500,000 
 feet. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Do you know as a fact that there were many of 
 them ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. There were thousands of feet of them. -I went over 
 there myself, and practically every ash log we had cut was ruined 
 The worms had gone into them and ruined them. In a great many 
 of the poplar logs, the bark being on the logs and the logs being on the 
 
44 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 ground, the worms had begun working on the underside of the logs. 
 The hickory we never moved a tree of. The worms ate that all up. 
 As to the lynwood or basswood — if you are conversant with that, Mr, 
 Fulton — it is a very soft, punky wood, and the sawmill men some- 
 times say it will rot overnight. The buckeye wood is worse than the 
 basswood. That was practically ruined. I can not give the percent- 
 age to save my life. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Make an estimate from your investigations there of 
 what was the number of feet of timber that was lost 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Or absolutely lost 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Cut down and lost. 
 
 Mr. Mason. We have not put any of that timber in. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I can onW give you an estimate of this, because I 
 have no possible way to get down to the facts and figures of it. My 
 best judgment would be that there was at least 500,000 feet of logs 
 that were a total loss. 
 
 Mr. KiTCiiiN. Have you put that in? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir; not a dollar of it; for the reasons herein- 
 before given in connection with Neyatt's log book. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. At that time what would be the reasonable value of 
 that 500,000 feet? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. xYt that time the reasonable value per thousand feet, 
 as they lay there, cut down, I would say $3 a thousand. The timber 
 cost us, as we have demonstrated it by having operated the prop- 
 erty, — the standing timber cost over SI. 50 a thousand feet, to say 
 nothing about cutting it into logs. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Now how much was this 2,000,000 feet of lumber 
 worth at the time you sawed it? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. About $12 per 1,000 feet at the railroad track. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. What was it worth at that time, in your judgment, 
 per thovisand feet in the condition in which it was ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. About .112 per 1,000 feet at the railroad track. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. After it had been damaged? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. What proportion of the logs would you lose — 10,' or 
 15, or 20 per cent? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I think safely 15 per cent. That is, of logs that we 
 took in in a damaged condition. I do not mean stuff that we left 
 in the woods and which did not come in at all. The lumbermen in 
 certain localities are in the habit of putting logs in the river, these 
 logs being in the stream for two or three years, waiting high water 
 to bring them down; and they consider that such .logs lose their sap, 
 and it is estimated that they lose 15 per cent of their product. That 
 is the way I get at it. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. The measure of damages is the difference between 
 the fair market value of this property at the time you stopped work 
 and what it was when. you resumed it? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. You can see fi-om what I have told you, Mr. Fulton, 
 that we are very conservative when we say $3 less a thousand on a 
 million and a half feet. I feel the same as though I was on the wit- 
 ness stand under oath, and I do not want to make any statements at 
 random in the matter. 
 
 Mr. FuLTox. What T was trying to get at is this: Your testimony 
 is really a conclusion. It would be clearer if it could be put into such 
 
RELIEF OP H. M. DICKSON ET AL, 45 
 
 shape that the committee could draw its own conclusion. If you 
 give the value at one time and the value at another time, then we 
 could estimate the damages. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Say $3 a thousand feet on the 2,000,000 feet, 
 mentioned by W. S. Hyatt. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. He wants you to give what that stuff was worth, 
 the fair market value of it, if you had been permitted to saw it out, 
 and then what it was worth, say, on the average, per thousand feet 
 in its damaged condition. That is, under your theory it would be 
 $3 less than its original value. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I say it would have been worth $15 a thousand if it 
 had been sawetl in its natural condition, and it was only worth $12 
 a thousand in the shape it came in; a difi'erence of $3 a thousand feet. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. That would be $3 difference? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Where is Mr. Hyatt? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. He is working for Mr. Mason 3^et. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Has he given an afiidavit in this matter? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 proceedings of third session of subcommittee. 
 
 Committee on Claims, 
 House of Representatives, 
 
 Saturday, February 29, 1908. 
 The subconnnittee met at 3 o'clock p. m., Hon. Claude Kitchin in 
 the chair. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. HARVEY M. DICKSON— Continued. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. I want to ask j^ou one question before you go on. 
 How did it come about that you went back in there to get that timber 
 after the Government had gotten out an injunction, and when was it? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The court, with the consent of the Government, 
 allowed us to go in there under bond in order to save the felled timber. 
 Both realized that they were jeopardizing this by letting it lie there 
 rotting, and after something over a year, when the case came up in 
 Asheville, they permitted us, under a $2,500 bond, to go in and take 
 up this down timber that w^e had cut ; that is what we went in there 
 for, pending the final settlement. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. You do not remember the amount of the bond? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I think it was $2,500; I am quite sure of it. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. They would not let you go in there until after a year? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I think it was something over a 3^ear, Mr. Kitchin; I 
 am not positive about that. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. That is my recollection of it, but the amount of that 
 bond I do not recollect. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I think it was $2,500, but I do not recall the exact 
 amount. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. If they had so much timber on there — 2,000,000 feet 
 of timber — why did they require such a little bond ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I do not know that they knew that there was so 
 much down there. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. Twenty-five hundred dollars would probably cover 
 the stumpage as it stood? 
 
46 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. DiCKSOx. I suppose that was what they were figuring on. I 
 can not tell you why the bond was placed at that sum. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. I presume that was only to cover the stumpage that 
 you had already cut. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I know the bond was made m Asheville, and I think 
 it was $2,500. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. My own impression is it was $3,000. Mr. Bourne 
 found by examining the record on appeal in case of United States v. 
 Boyd, attached to the memorial, that this bond was in the sum of 
 $3,000. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. It is a matter of some years ago, and something I 
 have not thought of. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. I just wanted to know why you went on there at all, 
 and if you went on, when you went on? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. He explained that this morning. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. We tried to go on the boundary before, but the 
 court and Government would not let us. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The next item is, "Loss of expense making first 
 attempt at work which led to first injunction, cutting export logs, 
 $150." 
 
 Mr. Bourne. How many feet ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. As near as I can remember there were from 25,000 
 to 30,000 feet of logs cut. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Is that included in your list? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. These logs were cut at entirely difi^erent 
 places, just where we could pick out an export tree. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. 'V\Tiat was done with them? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. There was nothing done with them. We got one 
 log to the railroad when the injunction was served. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. What was the nature of the timber? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. All poplar. We got one log to the railroad, and if 
 it has not been split for firewood, it is there to-day. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Was that timber a difl'erent class of timber from the 
 other timber you cut ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; in that it was higher grade timber on account 
 of it being large export logs. These logs, j'ou understand, were not to 
 be sawed up but were to be shipped as logs. You see we had no mill 
 at that time; we did not want to go to any great expense; we had 
 gone to the expense of making some roads, and therefore we decided 
 that we wovild take out a few thousand feet of poplar logs for export, 
 and that is really what caused the Government to begin its suit; they 
 did not stop us from building roads. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Were these export logs that were cut just left lying 
 there ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Just left lying there, yes, sir; and this item covers 
 simply the expense incurred in the cutting of the logs and not the 
 value of the logs themselves. The logs, a great many of them, were 
 hewed octagon shape. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. What was the value of these logs in tlieir condition 
 at this time ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Ten dollars per thousand feet, I should say. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. And you got nothing for them? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Nothing: whatever. I think thev were all lost. 
 
BELIEF OF H. M, DICKSON ET AL. 47 
 
 The next item we have is entitled "J. N. Capps' loss, actual cash 
 paid as damages, $1,491." 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Why should the Government be held responsible for 
 that? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Because it is a direct damage. After the first injunc- 
 tion was dissolved we bought a $10,000 band mill in Cincinnati. We 
 entered into a contract immediately, then, after the first injunction 
 was dissolved, with a man by the name of J. N. Capps, in which he was 
 to supply a 20,000 foot band mill, or rather we were to assist him in 
 getting a band mill, and he was to cut these logs into lumber at .$2.50 
 per thousand feet : that was the contract between us. Of course you 
 well know that a band mill is not a movable mill, not a portable mill; 
 it is a permanent mill. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Why did you get a band mill I 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Because there is a saving of about. 20 per cent. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. And you expected to develop this property on a 
 large scale? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, we intended to develop this property on a 
 large scale, and there is a saving of about 20 per cent l)etween a band 
 and a circular mill; and we bought this mill, or rather Mr. Capps 
 bought this mill with our assistance, in Cincinnati. The Govern- 
 ment begun its second injunction suit against us, after this mill had 
 been prepared for shipment, and just when we were on the point ot 
 having it shipped to North Carolina. We were under contract to 
 take the mill, and hence we had to go to Cincinnati, where the mill 
 was all boxed read}' for shipment. I think there was a thousand 
 dollars paid on the mill. We had to go to Cincinnati and make a 
 tleal with those people by which we could get a small, portable mill, 
 and this $1,491 item of damages consists of $1,000 paid to Capps by 
 us, for loss of time under his contract with us and of $491 which we 
 paid the Cincinnati people for boxing and holding the band mill and 
 to release Capps and ourselves from the contract to take it. We had 
 to agree to pay these sums, and we paid them, in order to get Capps 
 to release us from his claim for damages against us, on account of the 
 breach on our part of our sawing contract with ham. This breagh was 
 due directly and solely to the action of the Government. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. How long did that band mill stay boxed up and 
 hung up in Cincinnati, after it was boxed up ready for shipment? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Seven or eight months. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Did you enter into a contract with the Cincinnati 
 company for the purchase of this mill, or did Mr. Capps? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Mr. Capps. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Mr. Capps entered into the contract? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, but we were parties to the contract. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Was the contract in writing? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. It was a regular sawmill-machinery contract, such 
 as the sawmill people issue. This is my recollection. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Did your company sign the order? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No; we had no company at that time. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Yon just liad a verbal understanding l>etween you 
 and ^Ir. Capps? 
 
 Mr. Dici :iON. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KiTv HiN. That you would buv a mill for him? 
 
48 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, he was not able to carry it alone; that is, he 
 was not able to put that niill in alone, and we had to assist him, and 
 he was to pay us back for the mill. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. You were to pay for it yourselves, were you ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. If he did not. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. How much was the purchase price of the mill? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The original price of the band mill, I think, was 
 $10,000. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. And your agreement with Mr. Capps was that you 
 were to advance the money for the mill or to stand good for him? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We were to stand good this way; we had to guar- 
 antee the payments for the mill. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Was any cash paid ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; I think it was $1,000. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. You had an agreement that he was to saw the 
 lumber for you ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, at $2.50 per thousand feet. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. You paid him |1 ,000 because you were compelled 
 to cancel that contract? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Rather than have a lawsuit with Mr. Capps we com- 
 promised the matter; he, of course, was hung up by this injunction 
 as well as we were. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Here is the original paper. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Why not file tliat original as a part of your remarks? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I will file this contract of settlement between Mr. 
 Capps and Mr. Mason and myself, marked ''Exhibit B," as a part 
 of my testimony. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. There was no contract in writing between you people 
 and Capps? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Not at that time; no, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Was there any at any time? 
 
 Mr. BoiTRNE. For the sawing? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Yes; in regard to his sawing lumber, which was the 
 cause of your having to pay him this thousand dollars? 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Was that in writing? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What I want to know is tliis: The question might 
 come up, Did Capps have such a contract that could be enforced 
 against these people? I am not satisfied with the evidence yet, that 
 there is any evidence in here to justify you paying this man that 
 thousand dollars. The fact that you did pay it is plain, but there 
 is not anything here to show that you had to pay it. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Mr. Dickson, did you make a contract with Mr. J. 
 N. Capps in regard to sawing this timber, or any part of it, after the 
 dissolution of the first injunction? Just answer categorically, yes 
 or no. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes. 
 
 Mr. BouRNE. Wliat were the terms of the contract? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The terms of the contract were that he was to put 
 in a band mill that would cut 25,000 feet of lumber per day, we guar- 
 anteeing to give him 25,000 feet of logs per day to cut; that we were 
 to take the lumber from the tail of the mill and pay him $2.50 per 
 thousand for converting the logs into the lumber and delivering it at 
 the tail of the mill. 
 
RELIEF OF H. M, DICKSON ET AL. 49 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Do yovi know whether that contract was in writing 
 or not ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I can noli say positively, but I am under the impres- 
 sion that there is correspondence in the files that shows that, if not a 
 contract drawn by an attorney, it was a contract in writing between 
 us. T -think it can be found in the files. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Are the terms of that contract set out in this con- 
 tract of settlement? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I think they are. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. The substance of it. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I have not looked at it for ten years. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I will state that under the laws of North Carolina 
 there is no requirement that such a contract as that mentioned by 
 Mr. Dickson sliall be in writing, and it is enforceable whether in writ- 
 ing or not if made for a valuable consideration. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. You asked me a question, Mr. Kitchin, whether this 
 settlement sets forth the contract. I see it does; it recites almost 
 exactly what I have said to you. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Now, Mr. Dickson, was that the best possible settle- 
 ment that you could get out of Mr. Capps ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. How long were you negotiating with him for a settle- 
 ment of this claim, if you recall '( 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Perhaps three months. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Who finally did your sawing after you got to going? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Mr. Capps. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Did he use the same mill? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. He used the small mill, which was substituted for the 
 band sawmill. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. How long did he do your sawing? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Mr. Capps did it until he fell down, until he could 
 not perform any longer. I have forgotten when he went out of there. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Then you employed other people? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Then we employed other people. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. How long was it from the time of this second injunc- 
 tion until you were able to start to work ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. You mean from the filing of the second injunction? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Yes. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Something over a year, as I remember it. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I do not tliink j^ou "understood Mr. Fulton. [To Mr. 
 Fulton.] Do you mean when he was fuially allowed to go ahead after 
 confirmation of the contract by the Interior Department or when he 
 was allowed just to saw out the small portion of timber that had 
 been cut down? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. No; take the whole thing. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. The injunction was dated the 8th day of March, 1895. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. I remember that. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. They were permitted to go ahead on the 26th day 
 of August, 1898. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Betw^een three and four years. 
 
 Mr. Kitchin. That is, in full operation? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, in full operation; we were given the property 
 at that time. 
 
 34540—08 4 
 
50 RELIEF OP H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What was the $491 for, now? 
 '^♦^,. Mr. Dickson. That was a dilTerence that had to be paid the people 
 in Cincinnati as the cost of boxing and getting ready for shipment 
 the band mill tliat had been bought and was, as I told you, boxed 
 ready for shipment. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. And they charged you .$491 for boxing it? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. For boxing it and holding it the length of time they 
 did, and to release us from the contract to take it. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. That is something you had to give them to get them 
 to cancel the contract? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That is the actual cash we paid them for the can- 
 cellation of the contract. Otherwise they could have forced us to 
 perform on this big band contract, which we were in no position to do. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Did you ever afterwards put in the band mill? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Did you make a direct guaranty to the Cincinnati 
 people that you would pay this? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We did pay it. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. I mean pay the price of that band mill; was an}' 
 contract existing between you and the Cincinnati people? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Only as guarantors. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Did you make this guaranty to them, or did you 
 make it to this man Capps? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We made it to them for this man Capps's benefit. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Then, in other words, you paid Capps $491? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Exactly, just as it appears here; that it was $491 
 loss on the Capps transaction, and we had to pay it, because we had 
 guaranteed the band-mill contract and, besides, we w^re liable to 
 Capps on our contract with Mm. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. I just wanted to see whether there was any contract 
 existing between vou and the manufacturer; that is all. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The interest on the $1,491 is $178.81. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. How does that come in in the damages; for how 
 long is that ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That is up to the date of the confirmation, until we 
 got the propert}'. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. He was out the interest on that money he had paid 
 out. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. That is your grounds for claiming it? 
 
 Mr. Fulton. In other words, if you had had that money all the 
 time, up until you bought another mill, the use of that money would 
 have been worth that much? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Six per cent interest, or $178.81. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. You see, he did not have the use of any mill at all, 
 and he absolutely lost the interest on his payment; he did not have 
 the money or the use of the mill either. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The next is ''Expense of H. M. D." — that is my- 
 self — "to Cincinnati to change mills, $50." 
 
 Mr. Fulton. That was on this same matter? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The same proposition, exactly. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. How much is that interest? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Nine dollars and seventy-five cents interest. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Nine dollars and seventy-five cents on the $50? 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 51 
 
 Mr. Dickson. On the S50 for the length of time it stood. 
 
 "Attorney's fees, $1,500." Mr. Bourne can tell you more about 
 that than I can. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. All I can say is they were very reasonable. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Have you actually paid out $1,500 for attorney's 
 fees ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir; a great deal more than that. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. You see, this matter was in the United States circuit 
 court. We had to travel from States ville to AsheviJle and from 
 Asheville to Greensboro, or anywhere the other side wanted to take 
 it up. The United States attorney was going around to the courts 
 of tlie district, and whenever he wanted to take it up at one point 
 we had to go there, and that includes not one cent of the expenses of 
 his attorney. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. So you say you have actually paid out $1,500 by 
 virtue of these injunction suits of the Government for lawyers' fees? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. More than that. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Exclusive of expenses? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Of course all of that will be a question with the 
 committee, whether they will allow any of these. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. It is all a matter of grace; we can not have a legal 
 claim against the sovereign ; there is no such thing, but the allowance 
 of anything is a matter of grace on the part of the Government. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The last item on the list is "Loss on account of 
 salaries paid, office rent, clerk hire, etc., from January 15, 1895, until 
 date of confirmation, August, 1898, $7,500." I want to make an 
 explanation there, Mr. Fulton. The actual salaries and expenses, 
 office rent, and one man, whom we kept under contract in the office, 
 hired by the year, would have and did amount to about $15,000 
 during those years ; but we did not put in all of those expenses, for the 
 reason that we attempted to do some business outside while we were 
 himg up during this time. We would buy and sell lumber, and we 
 made a portion of our expenses, though our capital was completely 
 tied up, you understand, in this proposition. We could not do much 
 business; we could not buy large stocks or handle large stocks, but 
 we could buy from hand to mouth a few carloads of lumber here and 
 there and sell them, and consequently we were able to make only about 
 half the expenses for that period of time. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. How much did you have actually invested in cash 
 from the time of the granting of the second injunction up till August, 
 1898? That is, what was the total sum that you had? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We had forty-six thousand and some odd dollars. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. And during that time did it earn you anything? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir; it was tied up; we did not make a living. 
 The facts are actually stated. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. At the time this second injunction was granted, in 
 March, 1895, what was the extent of the arrangements that you had 
 made for the purpose of cutting and sawing this timber; that is, what 
 capacity, how much could you cut out, say, a day or a month, with 
 the force that you had employed at that time ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Twenty-five thousand feet per day; that was our 
 contract with this man Capps — to produce 25,000 feet. 
 
52 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. FuLTOX. And you had the material and the machinery and 
 everything installed there in March, 1895, so you could have pro- 
 duced it? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We did not have it all there; we had it on the way 
 there. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. How much did you have there? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We had our engine and cars, rails, and our commis- 
 sary goods, and the machinery ready to come forward from Cincinnati. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. You had not really commenced sawing? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No; though we had already logged on to the yard 
 several thousand feet of logs. But in order to make this advanta- 
 geous contract with Mr. Capps, for sawing at S2.50 per thousand and 
 dehvering the lumber at the tail of the mill, we had to make him a 
 guarantee that w^e would give him 25,000 feet of logs per day, and I 
 tliink this is all pertinent. I had gone — I say ''I" because I went 
 there before Mr. Mason did — and made contracts with four separate 
 and distinct logging contractors, so that the four combined contracts, 
 you understand, would supply us with our 25,000 feet of logs per day. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What was the nature of the contracts you made with 
 these logging companies? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We had cut the timber ourselves, you understand, 
 or felled the trees ourselves, and cut the trees into logs. They fur- 
 nished their own stock and supphes, and we paid them various 
 prices, according to the distance that they had to haul the logs. 
 
 Mr. FuLTQN. They were the people who did the cutting? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. They never did any cutting? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Did they ever hold you for any damages? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir; because we held them off and gave them 
 back their contracts, when we were released, to go ahead again. 
 Those contracts ranged from $6 to $4.50 per thousand feet. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. To haul the logs to the sawmill? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Logs, yes; but no cutting. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Had you gone to any expense in the wav of building 
 there? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Oh, yes. You will notice a charge of 148,000 feet; 
 I went over that. We had gone to the expense of installing a small 
 mill to saw the lumber for these buildings. It was a perfectl}^ 
 barren waste, and we had to put every building up for the men we 
 employed, from the boarding house to the sawmill, and I might say 
 we had these buildings nearly completed when this injunction was 
 laid on us. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Wliat is the amount of your claim? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. $27,873.55. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Wliat is the legal rate of interest in your State? 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Six per cent; at that time the contract rate was 8 
 per cent. The legal rate was 6, but that was changed in 1895. 
 
 Mr. KiTCiiiN. I do not understand exactly about that $7,000 you 
 had to pay there to servants and labor during that time. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. That includes their own salaries. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. How much of that last item was for your salaries and 
 how nmch was for salaries of other people; can you figure that out? 
 
RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 53 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; I can tell you very closely. There was $1,800 
 a year to each of us, Mr. Mason and myself, or $3,600 a year. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. That was for three 3'ears, was it not? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That was for about three and one-half years. The 
 man we had employed by the year got $900 a year, our office rent was 
 $150 a year, so that brought it up to $4,650 a year. There were 
 three and one-half years, making $16,275. This contains no inci- 
 dentals, such as telephone rent, and so forth. We simply claim in this 
 item $7,500, while the actual expense per annum that we were 
 under was $4,650 for Mr. Mason, myself, office rent, and one clerk. 
 
 ]\Ir. KiTCHiN. That includes, then, these items for the three and 
 one-half years ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. The whole sum total does; yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. The sum total for three and one-half years would 
 be how much? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Sixteen thousand two hundred and seventy-five 
 dollars, and we have claimed for only $7,500, so it is less than half, 
 and this allows Mr. Mason and me less than half salary. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. In fact, you cut your salaries about half in the claim 
 as presented; why did you cut them in half? Were you doing any- 
 thing else ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Just what I explained — that we were trying to do 
 something outside during that time, and did do some little business. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Did it take you half your time to do that outside 
 work? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No ; we were not employed half the time ; in fact, we 
 lay idle 90 per cent of the time ; we were tied, hand and foot ; we had 
 no money to do anything with. 
 
 Mr. Mason. Let me call your attention to the fact that we were 
 getting out this 2,000,000 feet of lumber at that time. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Was it necessarv for vou to keep this $900 clerk 
 there? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Even if vou did not have any other kind of business; 
 why? 
 
 ^Ir. Dickson. Because we had him liired by the year. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Why was it necessary, if you were not doing any- 
 thing else, to keep him two years? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Mr. Kitchin, we were expecting every minute to have 
 this thing settled and to go ahead with our business. He was very 
 capable and was a competent man in every respect, and a man we had 
 drilled up to the point, and we thought that we could not replace him, 
 and as an evidence that we could not replace him, we kept him up 
 to witliin a year of our separation. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Then you had him at $900 for three and one-half 
 years ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; we had him for three and one-half years; 
 but we charged half of his salary to outside business. 
 
 ^Ir. FuTLTON. \^Tiat other expenses were there to keep up during 
 this time you were idle ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. There was a large expense that is not charged up 
 in our itemized statement. We kept this man Hyatt, whose affi- 
 davit is there, on pay, I tliink, at $40 a month. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. WTiat were his duties? 
 
54 BELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We had to have somebody there to watch over our 
 stuff. We had this lumber scattered, that was bemg cut; we had 
 the mill and other buildings partially completed; and a mill sawing 
 the damaged logs, all of which was looked after by him. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Could not the clerk do that? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. JVIr. Fulton, this was 60 miles away from our office; 
 our office was in Asheville and our plant was on Soco Creek, in Jackson 
 County. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. Were there any other expenses? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. As I say, we made no charge whatever for Mr. 
 Hyatt's time. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. As I understand, this plant lay practically idle for 
 three years and you got nothing out of it ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That is exactly it. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. In addition to this watchman and this clerk, tell 
 what expense you were out in necessarily keeping up the plant during 
 that time, if there are any. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Of course, there are always expenses in a case of that 
 kind. There was a big item of expense for this man Hyatt. We had 
 him employed constantly at $40 per month. After we were allowed 
 to go in temporarily and saw up the logs and felled trees we made a 
 settlement with Mr. Hyatt, and he did not charge us full time. I 
 think he charged us on the basis of about $30 a month instead of $40. 
 I know there was a little came back to us out of that. 
 
 Mr. Boltrne. You mentioned that you had a commissary and a 
 stock of goods down there on this property. I would like to know if 
 you made the purchase of these goods after the dissolution of the first 
 injunction and before the service of the second? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I did. 
 
 ■Mr. BoL^RNE. How much did you have invested? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. In round numbers, $3,500. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Were you able to dispose of that stock of goods there 
 after the service of the second injunction? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We were not. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. ^A^iy? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We did not have the men, sufficient men employed, 
 to use it. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. You did not have any men employed? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Only while we were cutting out this down timber. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Wliat disposition did you make of that stock of 
 goods ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. We sold what we could of them. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. How much loss did you suffer because' of the fact 
 that you could not sell them? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I do not know. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Can you approximate? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, "I do not think I can, 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Wliat per cent on the dollar did you get for them 
 when you did sell them? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. They were not all there; we had sold what goods we 
 could. We moved the goods out there just the same as though we 
 were going to stay there forever. We sold what we could, and I 
 remember one item of shoes particularly. We had a very big bill of 
 shoes; I think it was $1,200. It was a big item, because that is a 
 
RELIEF OF H, M. DICKSON ET AL. 55 
 
 rough country and they wear out shoes very fast and it was simply 
 impossible for us to dispose of those in the short operation we had 
 there, and we made a general clean-up of them when we got through 
 and took them to Black Mountain and I sold the whole bunch for less 
 than $100. I do not know whether it was 10 cents on the dollar or 5 
 cents on the dollar. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. What do jou think that quantity of shoes, which you 
 sold for less than $100, was worth, if there had been a market for 
 them ? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I think it would be a very conservative statement to 
 say that we did not loose less than $1,500 on our stock of goods and 
 commissary. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Have you included that in your items? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Fulton. I think that is a good measure of damages. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. That was certainly a loss. We did not include 
 that in the statement at all. 
 
 Mr. KiTciiiN. You might say that there were incidental damages 
 that you did not put in. 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Dozens of them. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. This was really direct damage. These gentlemen 
 made the itemized statement up as best they could fi"om their papers 
 and fi'om their books, and they could not think of all the items. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. In vour examination this morning you said that 
 you made up that 1,500,000 or 2,000,000 feet fi-om your log book; 
 where is that log book? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. I do not know whether it is in Asheville or not. It 
 was a book about that long [indicating], a Mhite book. I had it in 
 my desk at Black Mountain, and saw it once there in my desk. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Have you ever looked for the book to bring it here? 
 
 Ml'. Dickson. No, I have not. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. By whom was that book kept? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. By W. S. Hyatt. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Is he the gentleman who has submitted an affidavit 
 here ? 
 
 Ml-. Dickson. He is the man who submitted an affidavit. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. And the affidavit relates to this very point? 
 
 Mr. Dickson. Yes; and no one made a figure in that book but Mr. 
 Hyatt. We simply took the book at the close of the month and 
 footed it up for this purpose — not that we knew anything was coming, 
 but for the reason that we were anticipating getting our tiniber cut 
 at 50 cents a thousand feet, the cutting it down and putting it in logs. 
 I do not mean moving it to the yard, but I mean the felling of the 
 trees and putting the timber in logs was estimated at 50 cents a thou- 
 sand feet, we were told if we could contract it; but the trouble in 
 doing that was tluit the cutters would not cut to our advantage. 
 You see, we had a long haul to the railroad and we wanted nothing 
 but good logs and good timber ; we could not afford to haul the poor 
 stuff; and we figured that if we afiowed our loggers to go in and cut it 
 into logs and bring it in that they would bring in stuff that we did not 
 want and lengths of logs we did not want; so we put this force of 
 men in there t^^ cut our own timber, which all practical lumbermen will 
 tell you is a profitable thing to do, and we wanted to see that we were 
 cutting it within the bounds of 50 cents a thousand feet. We kept 
 
56 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 the log book to determine whether we were paying too nnich or too 
 Httle, and it finally developed that we were paying too nmch. Hav- 
 ing established this point as to cost of cutting logs the book was of 
 no further use to us and we were not interested in preserving it. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I would like to do this: I would like to know if it 
 would not be proper for me here to say that the claimants request 
 the Committee on Claims, including the subcommittee, of course, if 
 they find from the evidence or the testimony that has been sub- 
 mitted, that there are any elements of damages not covered in the 
 itemized statement attached to the memorial, that they be consid- 
 ered, notwithstanding the fact that they are not included in said 
 statement. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Anything that is in the testimony would be included. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I would like to make that statement for the reason 
 that you gentlemen can understand that nobody knows, in a claim 
 of this sort, just exactly what the committee is going to take as the 
 measure of damages, and it was impossible until these gentlemen 
 got under cross-examination for them to recall every element of 
 damage. You can understand how difficult that is. This statement 
 was prepared in 1903, and that was five years after the confirmation 
 of the contract by the Interior Department. We put Mr. Dickson 
 on the stand because he had charge of this particular operation down 
 there on Soco at that time. 
 
 STATEMENT OF MR. W. T. MASON. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. Mr. Mason, have you anything to state to the 
 committee ? 
 
 Mr. Mason. Mr. Dickson said that we had forty-six thousand and 
 some odd dollars invested, but that $46,000 included the cost of the 
 timber, leaving twenty-one thousand and something as money that 
 had been actually put into the plant. 
 
 Mr. KiTCHiN. In excess of the purchase price of the timber? 
 
 Mr. Mason. Yes. There is no interest computed on that at all, 
 but the interest was computed on the value of the timber only. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Mr. Mason, did you hear Mr. Dickson testify in this 
 matter ? 
 
 Mr. Mason. Yes, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Do you know whether his testimony was substan- 
 tially true or not? 
 
 Mr. Mason. Yes, sir; it is. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. Is there any correction that you desire to make to 
 any part of it? 
 
 Mr. Mason. No, sir. 
 
 Mr. Bourne. I will ask you if you did not verify this memorial and 
 the items in the statements of damages attached to it? 
 
 Mr. Mason. Yes, sir. 
 
 (Thereupon, at 4 o'clock p. m., the subcommittee adjourned.) 
 
 (The contract between H. M. Dickson and W. T. Mason and J. X. 
 Capps,-and the memorial to the Congress are annexed hereto, marked, 
 respectively, "Exhibit A" and "Exhibit B.") 
 
BELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 57 
 
 Exhibit B. 
 
 AsHEViLLE, N. C, June 10, 1897. 
 
 This indentui'e witnessetli a full and final settlement between H. M. Dickson, 
 W. T. Mason, and The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company, of Asheville, N. C, parties 
 of the first part and J. N. Capps, of Effingham, 111., party of the second part, as to all 
 damages sustained by him in consequence of a certain injunction and suit in equity 
 by the United States Government against said parties of the first part, in consequence 
 of which default was made on a contract for sawing which the said party of the second 
 part had made with parties of the first part; the closing up and abrogating of all agree- 
 ments heretofore made by said parties of the first part with party of the second part; 
 as to sawing lumber on the lands on the Cathcart tract in Jackson County, N. C, being 
 the lands to which the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company has the timber 
 right; the amount due and unpaid the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company 
 upon a contract to purchase a mill now owned by the said company and now located 
 on above described land, by party of the second part, together with the method of 
 payment of the balance due the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company from the 
 said J. N. Capps: and further sets forth the contract as to sawing in the future, and all 
 agreements connected therewith. 
 
 First. Whereas the parties of the first part entered into a contract with the said party 
 of the second part to saw a certain amount of lumber on their lands in Jackson County, 
 N. C, under certain conditions, and whereas on account of the above described injunc- 
 tion and the suit in equity they were prevented fi-oni carrying out the above contract, 
 and whereas in consequence thereof said party of the second part was damaged, it is 
 agreed and settled that the damages amount to fourteen hundred and ninety-one 
 dollars ($1,491), being loss on mcahinery, loss of time and loss of interest on invest- 
 ment, and it is therefore agreed that this amount is to be credited to the said J. N. 
 Capps as part payment upon the contract to purchase mill above described, and the 
 said The Dickson-Mason Luml^er Company is liereby released from all claims, of 
 whatsoever nature, growing out of the above described default, and receipt is hereby 
 acknowledged by the said J. N. Capps for the amount of the said credit, and it is hereby 
 agreed that all agreements made or existing under the above described contract, for 
 sawing, are null and void . 
 
 Second. Whereas in pursuance of the former operations, under the above described 
 contract, the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company purchased a certain sawmill 
 of the Smith, Meyer & Schnier pattern and brought it onto the above described lands, 
 where it is now located, and whereas they made a contract with the said J. N. Capps to 
 sell him this above described mill under the following conditions, to wit: 
 
 That the said J. N. Capps was to have possession of the mill for the purpose of sawing 
 and was to saw for the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company and receive therefor 
 two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) per thousand feet measured lumber; one dollar and 
 fifty cents ($1.50) in cash or its equivalent and one dollar to be retained by the said 
 comjjany in payment on said contract until such time as the one dollar ($1) per thou- 
 sand retained shall amount to the purchase price of the mill, the purchase price being 
 two thousand nine hundred and thirty-eight dollars and seven cents ($2,938.07), and 
 whereas the a1)0ve-described damage amounting to fourteen hundred and ninety-one 
 dollars ($1,491) has been placed to Mr. Capps' credit, it leaves a balance of fourteen 
 hundred and forty-seven dollars ($1,447.07), which is to be paid in sawing, by the reten- 
 tion of one dollar ($1) per thousand feet out of saw bill, until the sum is paid, when the 
 title of the mill shall pass from the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company to the 
 said J.N. Capps, and they shall make him a release for all claims on account of purchase 
 money. 
 
 Third. And whereas it is desired by the parties to this paper that sawing shall con- 
 tinue, it is hereby agreed that it shall be done upon the following conditions, to wit: 
 
 (A) The said J. N. Capps is to saw and deliver, at the tail of the mill, all logs deliv- 
 ered by the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company into the mill yard, at the 
 present site, (as convenient to the mill as practicable) at two dollars and fifty cents 
 ($2.50) per thousand feet lumljer measure; the lumber to be measured at the tail of 
 the mill honestly and fairly, each party to bear one-half of the expense of said meas- 
 uring. The al)ove described payment of two dollars and fifty cents ($2.50) per thou- 
 sand feet to be paid, one dollar and fifty cents ($1.50) in cash monthly and one dollar 
 (11) by the above described retention for the pajinent of the balance due on the present 
 purchase price of the mill as above described. 
 
 (B) It is agreed that the lumber shall be sawed in such a way as the said The Dick- 
 son-Mason Limiber Company may direct, in an economical and workmanlike manner, 
 to be trimmed and edged to get the highest grades practicable from the logs. 
 
 (C) All boards not suitable for merchantable lumber, made in straightening logs in 
 sawing, and all shprt pieces from trimmer, and such pieces of the edgings as may be 
 
58 RELIEF OF H. M. DICKSON ET AL. 
 
 cut off by the cut-off saw, which shall be of use to the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber 
 Company, but which would otherwise go into the slab i:)ile, shall be taken and taken 
 care of by the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company without charge for sawing, 
 the said J. N. Capps being at no expense for said care in any way whatever. 
 . (D) It is agreed that no pay for sawing is to be made for missawed stock of mer- 
 chantable lumber above 2 per cent thereof. 
 
 (E) A complete tally of lumber sawed shall be delivered to the said J. N. Capps at 
 least once a week. 
 
 (F) The said J. N. Capps is to have the preference in sawing such yards of logs as 
 the said The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company may elect to make at other places, 
 than the present site, on the waters of Soco Creek, within the Cathcart tract of land 
 in Jackson County, N. C, on the same conditions above stated; and in case the said 
 J. N. Capps does not choose, or does not saw such yards when offered by the said The 
 Dickson-Mason Lumber Company, he shall have the right of refusal, and the said The 
 Dickson-Mason Lumber Company shall have the privilege of getting the yards sawed 
 out by other parties. 
 
 In witness whereof we have hereunto set our hands and seals this day and date 
 above written. 
 
 The Dickson-Mason Lumber Company, [seal.] 
 Per W. T. Mason, Seartary and Treasurer. 
 
 J. N. Capps. [seal.] 
 
 Witness: 
 
 P. V. Shoe. 
 
 State of North Carolina, 
 
 Buncombe County: 
 I, J. L. Cathy, clerk of the superior court, do hereby certify that the execution of 
 the annexed instrument was this day proven before me, by the oath and examination 
 of P. V. Shoe, the subscribing witness thereto. 
 
 Therefore let the same, with this certificate, be registered. 
 
 Witness my hand and official seal, this 3d day of December, A. D. 1897. 
 
 J. L. Cathy, 
 Clerk Superior Court. 
 North Carolina, 
 
 Buncombe County: 
 Before me, Haywood Parker, a notary public in and for Buncombe County, N. C, 
 came P. V. Shoe, the subscribing -witness to the foregoing instrument, to me person- 
 ally known, who, being by me first duly sworn, doth duly prove the execution thereof, 
 for the purposes therein expressed. 
 
 In witness whereof I have hereunto signed my name and affixed my notarial seal 
 this the 10th day of September, 1897. 
 [seal.] Haywood Pahker, 
 
 Notary Public in and for Buncombe County, N. C. 
 North Carolina, 
 
 Jachson County: 
 The foregoing certificate, Haywood Parker, notary public in and for the county 
 of Buncoml)e and State of North Carolina, with his notarial seal attached, having 
 been exhibited before me, is adjudged to be correct and sufficient. Therefore let 
 the instrument with the certificates be registered. 
 Witness my hand and seal this September 11, 1897. 
 
 H. C. Cowan, 
 Clerk Superior Court, Jackson County, N. C. 
 The within instrument was this, the 11th day of September, 1897, duly registered 
 in Book V, Record of Deeds for Jackson County, N. C, on pages 550 to 553, inclusiA^e. 
 
 John R. Long, 
 Register of Deeds. 
 
 Registered December 3, 1897, at 3.35 o'clock ]). n)., in I'ook of Deeds No. 103, at 
 pages 413 et seq., of Buncombe County Records. 
 
 W. J. Beaciiboard, 
 
 Register of Deeds of Buncombe County, N. C. 
 
 o 
 
> 
 
LEJa'09. 
 
'^Jf^