The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-11-08
|BAll|NGER TELLS
Of WITHDRAWALS
Explains He Cancelled the Gar
field Orders and Made His
Own Substitute.
SAYS THAT POWER SITES
HAVE BEEN PROTECTED
BIameS Both Himself and the
Press for Much of Existing
Misunderstanding.
Special to The Tribune.


II WASHINGTON, Nov. - My can
F relation of the Garfield withdrawal of
a million and half acres and the sub
stitution thereof for withdrawal order
Withholding FROM settlement, location
or entry three hundred thousand acres
Twas wholly promotive-not subyerslve-
T of the conservative policy. 1t was the
next logical step in the prosecution of
I The policy OF conserving the water pow
er on the federal domain and one which
\ Secretary Garfield must have taken
had he remained in office. The first
N order was blanket withdrawal, issued
TO meet an emergency, and without TAX
Linz time TO ascertain Just where the
mower sites were located. Intelligent
Iprosecution of the nolicy demanded that
rs soon rs possible thereafter these
sites be located and the lands not need
ed to protect them 10 be restored TO
Eentrv.' This statement was made to
day By Judge Ballinger. Secretary Of
Nihe Interior, when asked for an eXplana-
Eiion of his widely discussed revocation
4 of ''the Garfield order.
III Withdrawal Was Tentative.
v "That the Garfield withdrawal was
tentative and emergency order is OBJ
sious from some OF the facts connected
lfwith IL, " continued the secretary. - For
Example, there were number of IN
stances where land thirty and thirty
Esx miles from the streams was with"
drawn from settlement under that order.
I|Again, portions OF the streams were not
: Withdrawn at all, Take the case of
1.-The 0wvhee river. in Oregon; forty
miles of il was skipped entirely while
another thirty miles where the stream
lis almost level and no water power
Z 1I,ould be developed was included, Then
E|again. many thousands of acres which
I had been patented-that is had passed
deompletely from the possession OF the
iroycrumen,-wcre included. You must
See. therefore, that it would be an un"
Ifwarranted reflection on Secretary Gar
|Ificd TO assume that he would not have
Idonc precisely what | did. ascertain as
'vSoon as practicable whore the power
mites werc actually located, and issue
= new order withdrawing them from set
lG|tlement. and restoring TO entry all lands
hot needed for that purpose.
"Mr. Secretary il is asceftalned that
NIyou first revoked the Garfield order,
Tnew order until Nav T. and that oppor-
AtuDitv was thus afforded to those who
< would secure possession of the wafer
!. Bites 70 do so in the interim. is that
= forrectl
Individual Protests.
Al "That is only partly correct. The
hEitbdrawal of more than u million acres
, moi needed to conserve the power sites
1fnised q storm Of protest On lnyestl-
= Raton found that these protests were
: Warranted. ] found, further. that by
f-phliziug the geological survey. lustcad
pf the reclamation service which had
D peen employed bv my predecessor, |
\ Uould secure accurate information as 10
1Ifhe location of the power sites, On
Nj lUIfonsultati0u with the legal officers of
VWy. department found that | could
mako withdrawal orders retroactive.
fhat is. that ] could issue withdrawal
Nllprders later which would cffcctually
~Potcct anv power sites within any en-
Eies which might have been made in
DInfhe lncrinf The reclamation service
p'e When called on for information as TO
(Jfne actual location of power sites re-
W ported that they did not possess any
e nd recommended that the lands with
n pfawn be opened tc entry without the
tsnal notice, as the lands had been with
3 'urawn only short time. Omission OF
H Epe notice is optional with the secrc-
wFr7' and not lepal requirement, The
" Ietroactlvc provision of the subsequent
s pkltbdrawals operated completely to con
tsf'efyc The sites, even during the in
cz4Erin Is | have said before, not n
nug'c power site has passed out Of
M Iue possession Of the government dur.
III ~ 'his administration.
More Sites Protected
wv As matter Of fact. The withdrawal
pfaercd by me protected 30 per cent
<Vcre power sites than were conserved
sg the Garfield order. This implies,
no criticism of The Gar
E'a order II merely shows conclusive
Id mat the Garfield order was tcnta.
lplbPe and one which any friend Of the
policy must have replaced
llN,t''h more intelligent Withdrawals as
pDn as ne could acquire the data on
&N 3n'ch 10 base them. ! speak Of with
4 ~li'1nIs Nus because there We're q number
80, ,'hrm. Ny first withdrawal order
10 Slhs dated Nav 4. 1909. and tho last,
IA fmyn nciudcd any OF the lands for
: ,ssAEa,,v withdrawn. June 10, 1909, but
u % toose orders contained the
" EySudg', all existing Claims, filings
~ 'hiflcS are temporarily suspended.
9 "A In,,s y ma,t"r or fact, there was not
-: n,;, 1uhg made ON a power site
w Hphg ilc interim. OM the other hand
N 4esloratiun TO entry of over a mil.
H. uereS OF land not needed TO pro.
lEse ,no power sites allaycd widespread
W,;lp,n and thus avoided unueccs.
Ill., mah,ng entries for the cunscrVa.
pohey. In view OF the fac, that
eisla,; Iie dependent ON congress for the
cttph ct ,t" needed permanently Ia pro
.,nio 'he power sites. IL must lac OBJ
NQs>fSnS That IT is highly important for
H. department. 10 handle the matter
,,o[Shss;t'Iact t'act aud make as few enemies as
bVl Esn,,' Since June 10 ! have made
olVot;ss, hSe additional Withdrawals III
llUlefnsrreiy now territory -
,;ktrolsrt,en, OF your explanation, Mr..
a spt ,bur my, IL seems extraordinary that
: Sm,igf course should have been so wide.
!, ~ iir,ae,,sunderstood aud So extensively
s,s ,pIesenfcd. To what DO YOU ascribc
sprvT 'hisunderstaudinc!''
st .r Why Not Understood
a Iheh were number of factors
AP wb, contributed TO that end. some
uphI ""''h am not AT liberty to dis.
Hv Continued on Psgo Twc