Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1909-11-08
POWER SITES PROTECTED
Lands Not Needed Afterward Re-
stored to Settlement.
NO FILINGS DURING INTERIM
Declares His Predecessor, Secretary
Garfield, Would Have Done Same
Thing Under Circumstances.


of the Interior made long statement
yesterday defending himself from criu-
cism to which he has be- subjected in
recent months in connection with the
conservation policy of his administration
of the department.
At the outset he declares that Secretary
Garfield, his predecessor, would have
done precisely what he did-ascertain
where the power sites were actually To-
Gated, issue a new order withdrawing
them from settlement. and restoring to
entry all lands not needed for that pur-
pose.
He asserts that not single power site
passed out of the possession of the gov
eminent during this administration. but
that. a matter of fact, 30 per cent
more power sites were protected by his
withdra walls than were conserved by the
Garfield order
He states that not single filing was
made on a power site in the interim be-
tween his restoration OF the lands TO
entry and their revithdrawal He con-
tends that on the other hand the reStora
ton OF. over million acres OF land to
settlement allayed discomfort over the
conservation policy of the government.
He expresses the opinion that much of
the criticism of the department was due
TO sensational and unfriendly statements
statement, in part, follows:
Promotive, Not Subversive.
my cancellation of the Garfield with
Lrawal of a million and half acres and
the substitution therefor of a withdrawal
order, Withholding from settlement, loca-
ton or entry 100000 acres. was wholly
promotive-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 a blanket withdrawal,
issued 10 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 possible there
after these sites be located and the lands
not needed to protect them be restored to
entry.
AS a matter of fact the Withdrawals
ordered by me protected 20 per cent more
power sites than were conserved by the
Garfield order. This implies, understand,
no criticism of the Garfield order. 1t
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 soon he could acquire
the data on which to base them. 1 speak
of Withdrawals because there were a
number of them. My 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 en- |
tries are temporarily suspended
No Filings Made.
LAS a matter OF fact, there was not 4 |
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 discon- |
tent. and thus avoided unnecessarily MAX |
ing enemies for the conservation policy. |
In view of the fact that we are depend |
ent on Congress for the legislation need |
ed permanently to protect the power |
sites. IL must be obvious that II is highly |
important for this department to handle |
the matter with tact and make as few
enemies possible. Since June 10 |
have made twenty-five additional with |
drawals in entirely new territory"
THAT the Garfield withdrawal was a |
tentative and emergency order is OBJ |
vious from some of the facts connected |
with it,. continued the Secretary. For
example, there were a number of in /,
stances where land thirty and thirty-six |
miles from the streams was withdrawn
from settlement under that order. Again, |
portions of the streams were not with |
drawn at all. Take the case Of the Owy-
hee river. in Oregon: Forty miles OF il |
was skipped entirely. while another thir- |
~ miles where the stream is almost level
and no water power could be developed
was included.
The Logical Deduction.
Then, again. many thousands Of 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 Gar
field 10 assume that he would not have
done precisely what i did. ascertain as
soon as 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
The Withdrawal OF more than 100 OcO !
acres not needed TO conserve the power
sites raised a storm of protest On in |
vesusation L found these protests were
warranted. i found, further that by |
utilizing the geological survey, instead OF
the reclamation service. which had been
employed by my predecessor. l could Sc
cure accurate Information as 10 the To-
cation OF the power sites. On consul |
tation with the legal officers of nv de- |
partment found could make Withdraw
al orders retroactive-that Is that l could
issue withdrawal orders later which
would efYectually 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 loca-
ton Of power sites. reported they did
not possess any, and recommended that
the lands withdrawn be opened to entry
without the usual notice. as the lands
had been withdrawn only a short time
Omission of the notice is optional with
the Secretary. and not legal require
ment The retroactive provision of the
subsequent Withdrawals operated COM
pletely TO conserve the sites. even during
The interim. AS have said before not
a single power site has passed out of the
possession Of the government during this
administration
Garfield Declines to Comment.
cLEN ELAND. Ohio November 6
Discussing Mr.. Bsllinger's statements, for
mer Secretary James r Garfield said last
night that he would not comment on his
successors. action or attempt to criticise
them.
las for Mr.. Ballinger's statement that
] would in all likelihood have done the
same ne and issued a new order had
i remained In Office, ! can venture no
opinion he said. 81 could tell better IL
j knew just what land he refers TO in his
statement AS do not know, / cannot
say what ! might have done AS there
were over six million acres withdrawn
from settlement. IL would be but guess