The Beginning Of Knoxville Below is a sketch of WHITE'S FORT, built by James White HOW KNOXVILLE STARTED-How'd you like to have lived in Knoxville when it was no more than James White's Fort, built about 1785? Gen. White, Knoxville's founder, first built his cabin, shown at lower left, and later erected three other cabins to house visitors. He built the stockade as defense against possible Indian attacks. Today the City Association of Women's Clubs is heading a movement to restore the cabin and fort on an E. Main Ave. site adjacent to the James White Memorial Auditorium. Betty Mitchell, Knoxville artist, did this sketch. JAMES WHITE, PIONEER In 1786, James White, his wife and children came across the mountains from North Carolina, down the French Broad and Holston Rivers, to become Knoxville's first settlers. Finding a spot where a large creek flowed into the winding Tennessee River, James White followed the creek a few hundred yards upstream and built a cabin for his family on a wooded hill above it. In order to build this cabin, trees had to be felled and shaped with hand tools to form square logs. This was such hard work that James White would certainly have been forgiven if he had built the simplest possible structure. However, the house he built was very elaborate under the circumstances, having dimensions of 20 by 30 feet, and being a story and a half in height. Through land grants from the State of North Carolina, James White owned all the land on which the city of Knoxville would later be built. It required great courage for his family to come to this wilderness spot, however beautiful it was, for they knew that the lands directly across the river had been reserved by law for the Cherokee Indians, and Cherokee towns on the Little Tennessee River were only 25 miles away. By the following year, settlers were beginning to pour into the Tennessee country. Many of them found it convenient to visit the Whites for a few days before going on to take up land of their own. James White was a kindly and hospitable man, so he rebuilt his original home into a fort for the protection of his family, their neighbors, and their visitors, and he built a small tub mill across the creek from the fort to grind the corn which was the settlers' staple crop. The fort that he built was a simple one. Using his own house as one corner of it, he built three smaller cabins to form a square. Between the cabins, a stockade of pointed posts was constructed, with a large gate on the side that was near a clear spring. In 1791, William Blount of North Carolina had been appointed Governor of a new Federal territory, called the Territory South of the River Ohio. White's Fort was selected by William Blount as the spot for an important meeting with the Cherokee chieftains at which the Treaty of Holston was signed. PLANNING THE TOWN Because this treaty meeting was so important and successful, William Blount chose White's Fort as the site of the Territory South of the River Ohio, and planned a town to be built there. Of course, James White owned all the land on which Blount planned to build the capital city, but he agreed to sell the necessary ground, reserving certain portions of it for his own use. White's son-in-law, Charles McClung, surveyed the land, and then divided it into 16 blocks containing 64 lots. On October 1, 1791, the new town was christened Knoxville, in honor of Maj. Gen. Henry Knox, who, as Secretary of War, was William Blount's superior in the Department of Indian Affairs. James White had retained eight lots for himself, and of these he gave one to the town to be used for a church. People who knew James White considered it typical of the man that the lot given for church use was the very one which he had first cleared and on which he had planted his first crop of turnips. This lot, at the corner of State and Church Streets, is still occupied by the First Presbyterian Church, whose churchyard was Knoxville's first cemetery. It seems particularly fitting that James White, who gave the land, and William Blount, who envisioned the city, both are buried there. James White was a man of wealth and prominence as the wilderness area he had first settled was becoming the capital of the territory south of the River Ohio and the first capital of the State of Tennessee. He was appointed major general of militia, and was called Gen. James White, but he also served as one of the first trustees of Blount College (chartered in 1794, now the University of Tennessee) and as a member of the State legislature, being elected speaker of the State senate. Knoxville is fortunate in having such a man of character and accomplishment as her founder. Many years ago, James White's loghouse was about to be torn down to make way for business. There was not, at that time, much interest in saving it as a historic shrine. Mr. Isaac Ford, however, felt that the house must be saved; he bought it himself, and had it moved to its present location on Woodlawn Pike. Now the City Association of Women's Clubs has purchased the house, and it is to be moved back to downtown Knoxville, to a spot near where it was originally built. This location, close to the new city auditorium which has been named for Gen. James White, will be both appropriate and convenient. Plans are to reconstruct the other cabins of White's Fort and the stockade that joined them, and then to refurnish the buildings with furniture and tools of the period. This will be a tremendously interesting thing for all of us who live in Knoxville, and also for visitors to our city. Where else is there a city that is able to show the actual house that was the first one built within its borders? In 1961, James White's house will be 175 years old. We hope that its restoration, and the reconstruction of White's Fort, will be complete by this birthday. JAMES WHITE AND WHITE'S FORT At the request of the James White's Fort Association, Inc., I am making this statement concerning the place of James White and White's Fort in our national history. After purchasing a large tract of land from North Carolina, James White was in the vanguard of a considerable migration of settlers into a region which was Indian country according to the Federal Treaty of Hopewell of 1785 with the Cherokee Indians. Consequently, his log cabin, constructed in 1786 at the site of Knoxville, Tenn., soon became one corner of a small fort which was built for defense against the Indians. The large migration made necessary the negotiation of a new treaty with the Cherokee to acquire possession of the lands settled. This was done in 1791 at White's Fort by Gov. William Blount of the Territory of the United States South of the River Ohio, which had been created in 1790 after North Carolina had ceded the Tennessee country to the United States. Governor Blount then selected White's settlement for the territorial capital and named it Knoxville in honor of Secretary of War Henry Knox. White's Fort was then supplemented by a Federal barracks, or blockhouse, garrisoned by Federal troops. As major and then colonel of the territorial militia White was in charge of the defense of the Knoxville area, and he was of great assistance to Governor Blount in his efforts to sustain peace between the Indians and hot-headed settlers. Before coming to Tennessee James White had been a captain of North Carolina troops in the American Revolution. After moving west he was Speaker of the Senate of the "Lost State of Franklin"; and after this State collapsed he was elected to the North Carolina legislature and to the convention which ratified the U.S. Constitution. After the Tennessee country became a Federal territory and Knoxville (White's Fort) the territorial capital, White was elected a member of the Territory's House of Representatives, the first legislative body created in accordance with the provisions of the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. He was also a delegate to the convention of 1796 which drafted Tennessee's first State constitution as a part of the procedure by which Tennessee became the first State admitted to the Union after having been a Federal territory. White became speaker of the Tennessee Senate but resigned in 1798 in order that William Blount, who had been expelled from the U.S. Senate, might be elected to fill the vacancy. Another reason for White's resignation was to accept an appointment as a commissioner to represent Tennessee at the negotiation of the Treaty of Tellico, by which Federal commissioners acquired more land from the Cherokee Indians. Before 1800 White had become a brigadier general of the Tennessee militia, and when called into Federal service in the War of 1812 he served with distinction, especially in the campaigns against the Creek Indians. Finally, it should be pointed out that the White cabin and fort, which the association is planning to restore, was the boyhood home of Hugh Lawson White, the son of James White and one of the most distinguished Senators from Tennessee and a presidential candidate in 1836. Respectfully submitted. STANEY J. FOLMSBEE, Professor of History, University of Tennessee. Senator CLARK. Mr. Dwight Townsend, director of the Washington office of the Cooperative League of the United States. Senator SPARKMAN. Mr. Townsend, before you begin, I am going to have to leave. I regret I shall not be able to stay here for your testimony. I will read it most carefully as, usually, you and Mr. Campbell bring some good suggestions for a program which, as you know, I have long believed in and have strongly supported. I just apologize to you for not being able to be here. Senator CLARK. Mr. Townsend, Senator Williams asked me to express to you his regret in not being able to attend. He is presiding at hearings of another committee right at this point. He is going to try to get here before you get through. I have had him called to tell him you have started your testimony. Sit down and proceed in your own way. STATEMENT OF DWIGHT TOWNSEND, DIRECTOR, WASHINGTON OFFICE, COOPERATIVE LEAGUE OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; ACCOMPANIED BY WALLACE CAMPBELL Mr. TOWNSEND. I have with me Mr. Wallace Campbell, my predecessor, who is now director of public affairs, National Insurance Co., Columbus, Ohio. I am pleased to present testimony and express our support for both the Clark bill, S. 3509, and the Williams bill, S. 3512, on housing legislation. Also we support H.R. 10213, which has passed the House and is now pending before this committee. I want especially to urge favorable action on the proposed cooperative housing amendments to the National Housing Act. These are contained in the Williams bill. The Cooperative League is a federation of consumer, purchasing, and service cooperatives owned by 14 million family members across the Nation. These people are members of cooperatives that serve their own interest as consumers. They operate in fields of farm supplies, insurance, credit, petroleum, electric energy, medical care, home supplies, housing, and others. The Cooperative League embraces the largest organized group of consumers, as such, in the country. The interest of the Cooperative League in housing legislation predates the enactment of section 213 when your chairman introduced S. 2246 in 1950 as a middle-income housing bill. It was the loss of this bill by a very few votes that encouraged the addition of section 213 to the National Housing Act. The interest of the Cooperative League consistently has been a matter of record since that time. I am authorized by the resolutions of the league congress and its board of directors to present testimony for legislation to give impetus to the cooperative housing program. ~ The Williams bill, S. 3512, gives this kind of encouragement. With my statement I would like to file a digest explaining and justifying the provisions of the Williams bill, section by section, with permission of the chairman to include it as part of the record. Senator CLARK. The digest will be received and admitted at this point as part of the record. (The material referred to follows:) EXPLANATION OF THE WILLIAMS BILL, S. 3512, RELATING TO HOUSING COOPERATIVES I. FHA AMENDMENTS Section 1. An amendment is proposed that, when FHA receives a request from a local public agency or consumer cooperative to purchase a project acquired by FHA as a result of default, the Commissioner should give first preference to the sale of the project to the local public agency or consumer cooperative, at a price representing the fair market value of the property as determined by FHA. As a practical matter, competitive bidding procedures have precluded such sales. It would be a good policy for the FHA to give such a first preference to the sale of projects to local public agencies or consumer cooperatives, since this will accomplish the sound objective of providing housing at lower costs through nonprofit operations; also where a cooperative purchases, this will enable residents to become cooperative homeowners. The proposed dispositions will better secure the future success of projects which have previously failed as rental properties. Section 2(1). Section 221 provides for cost certification by the investor-sponsor upon the completion of the physical improvements on the mortgaged property and prior to final endorsement of the investor's mortgage. However, in the completion of the contemplated transaction under section 213, there is a second transaction involving the sale of the project to the cooperative. The Housing Act now limits the price to certified cost, but does not provide for a second cost certification by the investor-sponsor which reflects total project costs as of the date of the sale to the cooperative. A clarifying amendment is proposed which provides for such a cost certification at the time of the sale to the cooperative. Section 2(2). This amendment would exclude exterior land improvements from the FHA statutory dollar limitations applicable to those portions of the project which are attributable to dwelling use. This amendment merely applies to section 213, a provision which is already in the law on projects under section 220. Section 2 (3) and (4). This amendment would conform the definition of replacement cost appearing in section 213 to the definition in section 220 on projects in renewal areas, including the following amendments which are also being currently proposed for sections 220 and 207 : First, the amendment would include in the estimate of project replacement cost interest, taxes, and miscellaneous approved charges (such as premiums for mortgage and hazard insurance) during a period following completion of the project which FHA determines is necessary before a project reaches a point of "break-even income." This is the period required to permit such percentage of the dwelilng units in the project to be sold and occupied as is necessary to produce enough income to meet operating costs and debt service. Currently it requires from 15 to 24 months (depending upon size and types) to complete the construction of a multifamily project. It also requires 1 to 2 years after completion for the sale and occupancy of a sufficient number of units to produce enough project income to pay operating expenses and debt service. Section 213 recognizes that an investor-sponsor has 2 years after completion to consummate a sale of a project to a cooperative after it has achieved a sufficient percentage of sales and occupancy to enable the cooperative to meet its operating expenses and debt service. Thus, it is recognized that it may take this additional period before a project will reach the point of "break-even income" (i.e., sufficient project income to pay operating cost and debt service, but without any return or recovery on the sponsor's investment). It is, therefore, proper that the replacement cost should include interest, taxes, mortgage, and hazard insurance premiums up to the estimated date of "break-down" operations. This is customary in the financing of revenue-producing public improvements (such as waterworks), where the bonds are payable solely from the income produced by the project. FHA will require a full accounting of all project income until the date principal amortization starts, with any net income to be applied to the reduction of the mortgage loan. Second, the amendment would clarify the fact that the value of land to be included in the estimated project replacement cost is its fair market value, taking into account such off-site improvements as FHA requires in connection with the project. The cost of off-site improvements outside the boundaries of the property are not included in the estimated project replacement cost and no part of their cost is paid from mortgage proceeds. The sponsor must pay all such costs and deposit the cash required for their construction in an escrow account. This amendment would clarify the fact that these costs for off-site improvements are taken into account in determining the fair market value of the land. Section 2(5). There are communities where there will be a market for a cooperative project because it will serve families of more moderate incomes; yet, in the same community, there may not be a market for the same project at the higher charges required by rental operation for profit. Since the project is being undertaken with a statutory requirement for sale to a cooperative by the investor within 2 years after project completion, this is the only purpose and market which should be considered in processing the project. A clarifying amendment is proposed which provides that the sole test of the feasibility of such a project should be the need for it at the monthly charges applicable under its continued use as a cooperative. Section 2(6). As a matter of sound and effective administration, it is necessary to restore the position of Assistant Commissioner for Cooperative Housing. In recognition of the public interest involved in this program and its need for special attention and assistance, Congress established this position by law. It later repealed this mandatory provision with the understanding that, without it, the administration of the program would continue to be encouraged and assisted. From past experience it is clear that the program received better assistance and support during the period when it was handled by someone with the status and responsibility of an Assistant Commissioner. An amendment is proposed which would restore that position. Section 2(7). An amendment is proposed to authorize the FHA Commissioner to refuse, for such period as he deems appropriate, to insure any additional 213 investor sponsor mortgages where any of the stockholders were identified with a project which failed to become a cooperative. This amendment is more fair and workable than the present provisions. Section 2(8). An amendment is proposed to permit cooperative projects which are undertaken separately to be combined in one cooperative with the same mortgagor. This will avoid the expense and problems of separate cooperative |