The Washington herald., 1909-11-08
BALLINGER MAKES
REPLY TO CRITICS
Continued from Page One.

Continued from Page One.
ton, or entry 100000 acres was wholly
promouve-not subversive-of the conser-
walton policy.
1T was the next logical step in the
prosecution OF the policy Of conserving
the water power on the Federal domain,
and one which Secretary Garfield must
have taken had he remained in office.
The first order was blanket withdrawal,
issued to meet an emergency. and with
out taking time TO ascertain just where
the power sites were located
Intelligent prosecution Of the policy
demanded that as soon as possible there
/ after these sites be located and the lands
not needed to protect them be restored
TO entry
This statement was made yesterday by
Judge Ballinger. Secretary OF the Interior.
when asked for an explanation OF his
widely discussed revocation Of the Gar
field order"
THAT the Garfield withdrawal was a
tentative and emergency order is obvious
from some OF the facts connected with
it," continued the Secretary. For eX-
ample. there were a number Of instances
where land thirty and thirty-siN miles
from the streams was withdrawn from
settlement under that order, Again, por-
| tions Of the streams were not withdrawn
at all. Take the case of the Owyhee
River. in Oregon: Forty miles Of IL
was skipped entirely, while another thirty
miles where the stream Is almost level
and no water power could be developed,
was included.
Then, again. many thousands Of acres
which had been patented-that Is. had
passed completely from the possession OF
the governmont-were included. You must
See therefore that it would be an un-
warranted reflection on Secretary Car
! field 90 assume that he would not have
done precisely what / did. ascertain as
soon az practicable where the power
sites were actually located. and issue "a
new order Withdrawing them from settle
ment and restoring to entry all lands
not needed for that purpose"
Only Partially Correct.
Mr.. Secretary. It is asserted you first
revoked the Garfield order about April Z
and did not issue your new order until
May 4. and the opportunity was thus af-
forded 70 those who would secure posses
sion Of the water sites 20 do so IN the
interim. Is that correct?"
That is only partly correct. The with
| drawal Of more than 10000 acres not
needed 10 conserve the power sites raised
a storm OF protest On Investigation /
/ found these protests were warranted. !
/ found. further that by utilizing the
Geological Survey, Instead OF the Rec
/ lsmation Service which had been em-
| ployed by my predecessor. could secure
accurate information as 90 the location
Of the power sites. on consultation with
| the legal officers Of my department I
found / could make withdrawal orders
| retroactive-that is. that I could issue
| withdrawal orders later, which would
| effectualiy protect any power sites within
any entries which might have been made
/ in the interim
! The Reclamation Service. when called
on for information as TO the actual Iocs-
/ ton Of power sites. reported they did
! not possess any, and recommended that
/ the lands Withdrawn oe opened TO entry
without the usual notice. as the lands
/ had been withdrawn only a short time
Omission Of the notice is optional with
I the Secretary and not a legal require
mcn". The retroactive provision Of the
subsequent Withdrawals operated com
pletely 10 conserve the sites. even during
the interim. AS I have said before. not
a single power site has passed out Of the
possession OF the government during this
administration.
AS a matter of fact. the Withdrawals
ordered by me protected 20 per cent more
power sites than we're conserved by the
/ Garfield order This implies, understand,
4 no criticism OF the Garfield order Ii
merely shows conclusively that the Gar
| field order was tentative. and one which
! any friend Of the conservation policy
must have replaced with more intelligent
/ Withdrawals as soon as he could acquire
| the data on which TO base them. I
speak OF Withdrawals because there wero
a number OF them. Ny first withdrawal
order was dated May 4 1909, and the
last, which included any of the lands
| formerly withdrawn, June 10. 1909. but
each Of these orders contained the Ian
guage all existing claims filings. and
/ entries are temporarily suspended
Not IA Single Filing.
AS a matter Of fact there was not a
single filing made on a power site during
/ the interim On the other hand. the
| restoration TO entry Of over a million
/ acres Of land not needed to protect the
power sites allayed widespread dlscon-
| tent. and thus avoided unnecessarily MAX
| ing enemies for the conservation policy.
] In view Of the fact that we are dependent
/ on Congress for the legislation needed
| permanently TO protect the power sites, it
must be obvious that IL IS highly impor-
/ tant for this department TO handle the
matter with tact and make as few enc
/ mics as possible Since June 10 I have
made twenty-five additional Withdrawals
/ IN entirely new territory"
In the light Of your explanation, Mr..
/ Secretary. II seems extraordinary that
/ your course should have been so widely
misunderstood and so extensively misrep-
resented. To what do you ascribe the
/ misunderstanding?
There were a number of factors which
/ contributed to that end, some OF which
am not at liberty 20 discuss. I cannot.
| however, hold some representatives Of
| the moss entirelY hlarnaless and candnr