The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1909-11-08
Richard a, Ballinger, secre-
tary Of Interior, Discusses
His Action in Cancelling the
Garfield Land Withdrawal.
DECLARES HIS ORDER
WAS WHOLLY PR0M0TIVE
Cabinet Officer SAYS That His
Withdrawals Protected Fifty
Per Cent More Power Sites
Than GarfieId'S Action.
.BLAMES CORRESPONDENTS

Washington, Nov. my cancel
lation Of the Garfield withdrawal of
a million and half acres and the
substitution therefor of a withdrawal
order Withholding from settlement,
location or entry of 100000 acres
was wholly promotive-not subVer-
sive-Of the conservation policy. It
was the next logical step in the prose-
cution 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 with
dTawal, issued to meet an emergency
and without taking time to ascertain Just
where the power sites were located. In
telligent prosecution Of the policy de-
manded that as soon as possible there
after these sites be located and the lands
not needed to protect them be restored
This statement was made today BY
Judge r. A. Ballingers secretary of the in
terror, when asked for an explanation Of
his widely discussed revocation OF the
Garfield 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 example,
there were a number Of instances where
land thirty and rhIrty-six miles from the
streams was withdrawn from settlement
under that order. Again portions Of the
streams were not withdrawn at all. Take
the case Of the OWyhee river, in oregon;
forty miles Of it was skipped entirely
while another thirty miles where the
ST m il a nn mat nr
could be developed was included. Then
again, many thousands CT acres which
had been patented-that IS, had passed
completely from the possession Of the
government-were included. You must
see, therefore, that 1t would be an I'M
warranted reflection on Secretary Car
field to assume that he would not have
done precisely what did, ascertain as
soon as practicable where the power sites
were actually located, and issue new
order Withdrawing them from settlement
and restoring 10 entry all lands not need
ed for that purpose"
Question ls Put.
! 'Mr. Secretary, It is asserted that you
I first revoked the Garfield order, about
/ April Z, and did not issue your new order
until May (, and that opportunity was
/ thus afforded TO those who would secure
/ possession Of the water sites to do so in
| the interim. Is that cOTrect?'
THAT is only partly correct. The with
/ drawal of more than million acres not
| needed to con serve the power sites raised
/ a storm of protest. On investigation, I
/ found that these protests we're warrant
| ed found further, that by utilizing the
| geological survey, instead Of the reclama-
/ tiOa Service which had been employed
/ by nv predecessor I could secure accu-
/ rate information as to the location OF
! the power sites. On consultation with the
/ legal officers Of my department I found
| that I could make withdrawal orders ret
/ roactive that is. that / could issue with
| drawai orders later which would effectu-
/ aIlv 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 location of power sites, reported
| that they did not possess any and recon-
mended that the lands Withdrawn be
onened to entry without the usual notice
| as the lands had been withdrawn only a
/ short time Omission of the notice is Op-
| tionaI with the secretary, end not legal
/ requirement The retroactive provision or
the subsequent Withdrawals operated
lcou1DleteIv to conserve the sites, even dur
ing the interim. AS ] have said before.
not a single power site has passed out OF
the possession Of the government during
. this administration.
1 Gas a matter of fact. the Withdrawals
ordered by me protected 30 per cent more
/ power sites than We're conserved by the
Garfield order This implies, understand. no
criticism Of the Garfield order. 1t merely
shows conclusively that the Garfield
order was tentative and one which any
Continued on Page 2.