Mr. BUNN. I think it was about the time of these decrees of foreclosure in the spring of 1896. It would not be far from that time, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Does not that statement rather confirm what Mr. Donnelly told us?

Mr. BUNN. What statement of Mr. Donnelly's have you in mind? The CHAIRMAN. About the identity of stockholders.

Mr. BUNN. No, I don't think it does at all, and I told you yester day that I think quite differently from what Mr. Donnelly-or what you understood Mr. Donnelly to say, at least, and have undertaken to show you the facts.

The CHAIRMAN. And you will show that?

Mr. BUNN. Yes, sir. I know, for instance, Mr. Chairman, of $25,000,000 or more of new interest that came right into the company and never had had any connection with it prior to 1896, and I will find more when I go to the records.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what in reality is the difference between identity of stock ownership and control?

Mr. BUNN. I don't think I understand what you mean to ask me. What is the difference between what?

The CHAIRMAN. Between identity of stock ownership in two companies and the control of one company over the other?

Mr. BUNN. Well, the difference between them speaks for itself. We bought, I confess and allege, in 1896 a very large majority of the stock of the Federal corporation and we still own it. But that is quite a different question from whether the people interested in our company are the same people that were interested in the former company.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if the same stockholders own corporation A and corporation B, there is very little difference between that and the ownership by corporation A of the stock in corporation B.

Mr. BUNN. But, Mr. Chairman, if you are trying to get me to admit that since 1896 there has been identity of interest, why yes. of course, you are quite right. There is no difference in that respect between stock ownership and control. We control that company since 1896. But what I understood you were trying to find out from Mr. Donnelly is quite a different thing; that is, whether, prior to this purchase at the foreclosure sale, there was an identity of interest. You had in mind-somebody did that it was not a real foreclosure. that is, that the new people were just the same as the old, and that is the proposition that I am going to try to give you some light on. The CHAIRMAN. But there has been an identity of interest since 1896?

Mr. BUNN. There has been exactly what I say, Mr. Chairman. We hold a large majority of the stock in the Federal corporation. The CHAIRMAN. Now, did your corporation itself own the stock? Mr. BUNN. Yes; the Northern Pacific Railway Co.

The CHAIRMAN. It stands in the name of the Northern Pacific Railway Co.?

Mr. BUNN. I can't tell you how it stands on the stock books. They will show for themselves, but the ownership is in the Northern Pacific Railway Co.

The CHAIRMAN. The actual beneficial ownership?

Mr. BUNN. Yes, sir.

Mr. RAKER. Is that of any value?

Mr. BUNN. Well, we don't think it is worth the paper it is written

on; no.

Mr. RAKER. Mr. Bunn, I want to ask you-I think you answered before, but I am not sure except the first mortgage, there never has been any mortgage on any of the land or right of way or franchise east of the Missouri River?

Mr. BUNN. No; you are not right about that. What I said was that the foreclosed mortgages, the three mortgages foreclosed in 1896 did not cover the land grant in Minnesota or that part of North Dakota east of the Missouri River.

Mr. RAKER. I got that. What I want to know now is, there has never been any mortgage on any of the lands or right of way except the first mortgage which we have been talking about, that was foreclosed, we will say, in New York, on any of that land east of the Missouri River?

Mr. BUNN. I think there was.

Mr. RAKER. Will you look that up and be sure?

Mr. BUNN. I can be sure right here. I think the so-called general first mortgage was one of the liens on the property in 1896 that was not foreclosed covering the lands east of the Missouri River.

Mr. RAKER. So there was the first mortgage, the foreclosure of which we have spoken of, on all the lands east of the Missouri River, and then a mortgage, second mortgage, following that on the land east of the Missouri River?

Mr. BUNN. Oh, no; I have not said anything like that.

Mr. RAKER. That is what I am trying to get at. Let me put it

this way

Mr. BUNN (interposing). I will tell you over again-perhaps that is the best way-just what was against those lands.

Mr. RAKER. No: I want to know, Judge, just east of the Missouri River, if there was more than the one first mortgage on the lands, right of way, etc., east of the Missouri River?

Mr. BUNN. When you say "first mortgage" you refer to the mortgage that was foreclosed in 1875?

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Mr. BUNN. That was on all of the lands-that is, there was nothing when that mortgage was made, practically, except the right to earn land. There wasn't much land-very little. That was paid off. Then in 1881, when the company's big construction and development went ahead again, there was what is called the "general first mortgage." That was put on all the land grant of the company.

Mr. RAKER. And that would cover the lands and rights to land east of the Missouri River?

Mr. BUNN. Yes; but that never was foreclosed. That again was paid off later.

Mr. RAKER. Yes: I get you there. So that on the lands east of the Missouri River there was, first, the mortgage that was foreclosed in New York in 1875, and a second general mortgage which covered again the whole right of way and all the lands and rights under it from Lake Superior to Puget Sound?

Mr. BUNN. You are right.

Mr. RAKER. Now, let me ask you this: Why have you not sold all this land within this grant at $2.50 an acre?

Mr. BUNN. Why have we not?

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Mr. BUNN. Principally because we never dreamed that we were under any obligation in the world to do that. Another answer is that it would have been practically impossible to do it. We have been a great many years trying to settle this contest of the land grant, and the Land Commissioner tells me we have received an average to date of about $3 an acre.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you deduct the taxes from that?
Mr. HUGHES. Yes; all the expenses come out of that.
Mr. BUNN. The expenses of administration.

The CHAIRMAN. That is $3 net?

Mr. BUNN. The expenses of administration and taxes come out of that, and I understand about $3 will be net.

Mr. VAILE. I understand $3 is the gross, and from that they deduct the expenses.

Mr. KERR. No; it is $3 net.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you get gross?

Mr. BUNN. Now, I don't know anything about such things as that. Mr. Hughes is going to stay here and will tell you that. The CHAIRMAN. He will go into that?

Mr. BUNN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Bunn, I have just one more question. When did the railway company first secure stock in the railroad company? Mr. BUNN. I intended to answer that. My statement was that to the best of my belief it was about the time of these foreclosure decrees in the spring and summer of 1896. We got it, Mr. Chairman, all through this reorganization. We never had any before.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you get any before the decree?

Mr. BUNN. Well, we got it about that time. I can't give the date. The CHAIRMAN. It might have been obtained before the decree was entered?

Mr. BUNN. I don't think so.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, was it afterwards?

Mr. BUNN. You see, I can't tell you the date.

The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us the facts regarding that before we conclude?

Mr. BUNN. That is part of what we have agreed to furnish in submitting to you the plan of reorganization. That will be all included in that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Just one more question. Mr. Bunn, I suppose that among other questions affecting the foreclosure of 1875 one was the question of whether the New York court had jurisdiction or not? Mr. BUNN. There is no question about that.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Did it have?

Mr. BUNN. There is no question about it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. No question but what it did have or did not have? Mr. BUNN. There is no question, I think, but what it did have. I have argued that question and briefed it, and I feel as well informed about it as almost anything. The courts in this country have held, and the courts in England have always held, that they have jurisdic

tion in all kinds of equity suits, although they affect land beyond the territory in which the court sits.

The CHAIRMAN. Was that question raised in this suit?

Mr. BUNN. In New York?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. BUNN. No; I think not. I don't think there was any question about it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. What property of the railroad at that time was within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court in New York?

Mr. BUNN. I can't tell you. I don't know anything about the railroad company.

Mr. WILLIAMS. You don't know whether there was any property there?

Mr. BUNN. Yes; I know there was property, but what it was I don't know.

Mr. RAKER. Well, there wasn't any real property in New York subject to the mortgage, was there?

Mr. BUNN. Yes, there was property subject to the mortgage.
Mr. RAKER. Situated in New York?

Mr. BUNN. Oh yes, indeed.

Mr. RAKER. And it is described in the sale?

Mr. KERR. He said real property.

Mr. RAKER. Yes, real property.

Mr. BUNN. Oh, I doubt if they had any real property.

Mr. RAKER. How is that: Mr. Kerr?

Mr. KERR. I don't know. I think they had. some personal property.

Mr. RAKER. I mean real property.

Mr. BUNN. No, I know nothing about that.

Mr. RAKER. How can we find that out? Will some of you gentlemen look it up and tell us when you come back Monday?

Mr. BUNN. I don't see how we can look it up. I think you can assume that the Northern Pacific Railroad Co. did not own real property in New York in 1875.

Mr. RAKER. I would rather not have the assumption if we can get the positive fact if they did or did not.

Mr. BUNN. You have got to examine the titles in the city of New York to get the facts. We haven't anybody living who was there at that time. I will tell you this, that the Northern Pacific had an organization and an office and leased property there at that time in New York.

Mr. RAKER. I know, Judge, but you have given me such a taskI am not a good abstractor. It would take quite a while to examine all the property in New York, and I thought maybe you people had it on your books.

Mr. KERR. Let me make this suggestion. You were referring yesterday to the annual reports of the Northern Pacific Railroad Co. made to the Commissioner of Railroads.

Mr. RAKER. Yes.

Mr. KERR. Possibly those might show what they had at that time. Mr. RAKER. Now, one other question just to get the judge's view before he leaves the stand: From your long experience and knowledge of the railroad grants, and this grant in particular, the object

and purpose and intent of Congress in making these grants, and the further assumption that Congress believed, and it was the policy in those days for the railroad company only to own its right of way, its stations, rolling stock, and sufficient building space and buildings to operate successfully its road, with full equipment, that the ownership of lands for speculation or holding was not within the mind of Congress, but to the contrary; and therefore they provided in their acts, most of them, and particularly in this one, that they fixed the price of the Government land at $2.50 and then fixed the railroad rights to land at $2.50 per acre, and it was the object and view of Congress and the intent that the railroad company should sell as rapidly as it could its land that was patented at $2.50 an acre, or any other amount that it wanted to sell it for-I will put it that way, any amount that it wanted to sell it for-and that any land included within a mortgage should be sold after a certain length of time and the credit given to the railroad company to apply on the mortgage, and the mortgage thus reduced for the purpose of developing the country and expediting its development; that the Congress placed those provisions in the grant and the railroad company accepted them with the distinct purpose in view that there should be no holding of lands by the railroad company but that they should be disposed of. Was not that the policy then presented by the railroad company and the Congress and so understood by the people? Mr. BUNN. The act speaks for itself, Judge Raker.

Mr. RAKER. I think that is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Which act are you referring to?

Mr. RAKER. I am referring to the Northern Pacific grant and the provision that relates to the $2.50 per acre, with the idea, carrying out Judge Strong's view in the Platt case, as well as all the legislation, that it was so arranged in these grants that the railroad company-the land should be sold and disposed of to actual settlers, and they even went so far as to say that if you did not sell it, we will let the people go in and take it themselves, giving you credit for the land taken. So there would be no land in the ownership of the railroad company save and except its right of way, terminals, and yards.

The CHAIRMAN. Judge Bunn says that the act speaks for itself. What act did the judge have in mind? We have two.

Mr. BUNN. The act of 1864 and 1870.

The CHAIRMAN. Both of them?

Mr. BUNN. Both of them; yes.

Senator KENDRICK. There was no provision in the law under which the Northern Pacific Railroad Co., or railway company, as it happened to be, had a price fixed per acre on the land that was taken by settlement or otherwise, was there? It was simply a case of exchanging that for other acres of land? Any land that they lost must be replaced with more acres?

Mr. BUNN. By the same number of acres. That is what we say. Mr. RAKER. I made my question based upon the general theory and matters growing out of the Oregon-California grant case, and particularly the dissenting opinion of three of the most able judges that ever sat on the bench of the Supreme Court, analyzing that act as stated, as specifying the method of disposing of the land and handling of the mortgage.