76 



A. The Hurd proposition was not filed in our office. 



Q. My question embraces not only those filed in your offic 

 those sent to your office from the Comptroller's office for your a 



A. I find only one here. 



Q. Only one? ^ 



A. That is all; I have got to qualify that answer. 



Q. I want all the propofitions filed in the office that went fro 

 Comptroller's office to yours ? 



A. There were three as the record shows. 



Q. Only three? 



A. That is all it shows here. 



Q. Is there a proposition from John M. Peck, of Albany, on 

 list, to exchange lands ? 



A None that I can see. 



Q. Only three in that time ? 



A. That is all the record I see here. 



Q. "What inquiry was returned to these persons making the ] 

 sitions ? 



A. That is more than I can remember at this date; the propoi 

 as they were filed were read before the board, and the board di 

 certain answers to be given; What those answers were I don't rem* 



Q. Did they direct the same answer to be given qs in Mr. ] 

 case? 



A. I should judge so. 



Q. What explanation can you make to the committee upo 

 subject — why are the Everton company favored by the commisi 

 September, 1890, a month after the Beaver Eiver compan 

 formed, while from 1887 to 1890, all the rest of the applicants 

 refused ? 



A. The answer to that is, that that was the first propositio 

 seemed in any way favorable to the State, that was made aft 

 message of the Governor to the Legislature and the agitation 

 State park; before that time there was nothing said, no talk 

 setting aside a park particularly, and my recollection is that the 

 of exchange were simply for parcels within the forest presei 

 parcels that were within the forest preserve, and as such didn'1 

 us favorably. 



Q. "Was not the land offered by the Everton company just ae 

 in the park, or in the preserve rather, as any of the other ? 



A. It was in the preserve. 



Q. There never yet has been any park? 



A; No, sir. 



