Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1909-11-08
WHY GARFIELD
ORDER WAS
REVOKED
SECRETARY BALL|NGER
EXPLAINS HIS ACTION
Declares More Power Sites
Were Protected by Revised
Withdrawal Order Than by
ORIGINAL Blanket Injunction,

fBy Morning journal Special Lsnsed wtre1
Washington, Nov. Z. Secretary
palinger's widely discussed revoca-
tion of the famous Garfield order, y
u.ithdrawine from settlement a mil
ion and a half acres of public lands
and the substitution therefore of Il
u,ithdraWal order Withholding from
settlement three hundred thousand
acres. today was declared by Mr.. Bal
lineer to have been wholly promotiVe
NOT subseryive--of the conserVa-
ton policy.
lengthy explanation of his cam
collation. of the Garfield withdrawal
was given to the press by Mr.. Balm
ger. who asserted that it was logical
eten in the prosecution of the policy
of conserving the water power on the
federal domain and one which Mr..
Garfield must have taken himself had
he remained in office.
"The first order was blanket
withdrawal issued to meet an emer-
gency and without taking time to as
certain where the power sites were
located," Secretary Ballinger said. IN
telligent prosecution of the policy
demanded that so soon as possible
thereafter, these sites be located ana
the lands not needed to protect them,
he restored to entry. 1t would be an
unwarranted reflection on secretary
Garfield to assume that he would not
have done precisely what l did, as
certain as soon as practicable, Where
the mower sites were actually located
and issue a new order WithdraWinS
them from settlement and restoring
to entry all lands not needed Tor tnat
purpose.
II found that by utilizing the geo
logical survey, instead of the reciama-
ton service, which had been employed
by my predecessor, | could obtain ac-
curate information as to the loca-
ton with legal officers of my de-
tion of the power sites. On consulta-
partment, / found that / could make
with lrawal orders retroactive. that IS,
that / could issue withdrawal orders
later that would effectually protect
any power sites within any entries
which might have been made in the
interim. The retroactive provision
of the subsequent Withdrawals oper-
ated completely to conserve the SITES
mot single power site has passed
out of the possession of the govern
ment in this administration. AS
matter of fact the Withdrawals or
dered by me protected fifty per cent
more power sites than were con-
served by the Garfield order. This
implies no criticism of the Garfield
order and merely shows that the Gar
field order was tentative.
my first withdrawal order was
dated May 4, 1909. and the last, which
included many of the lands formerly
withdrawn, June 10. 1909, but each
of these orders contained the langu-
age all existing claims, filings ana
entries are temporarily suspended AS
a matter of fact there was not sin
gle filing made on a power site in
the interim. on the other hand, the
restoration to entry Of more than a
million acres of land not needed 10
protect the power sites allayed wide
spread discomfort and thus avoided
unnecessarily making enemies for the
conservation policy. Since June 10, |
have made twenty-five additional
witdrawals in entirely new territory
Secretary Ballinger stated that his
orders of withdrawal did not protect
power sites within forest reservations
and added in explanation, that preVi-
ously he had offered to include
power sites on forest sereservations,
but that the offer was declined on
the ground that the forest service
could take care of such sites. the
secretary asserted that a numbtr OF
factors caused his course to be mis-
understood and that it was misrepre-
sented. but some of these he was not
at liberty to discuss.