The San Francisco call., 1910-01-07

linger by CLAWS August IS, reviews the
status of the Cunningham group of
coal land claims in Alaska, states Bal
! lingers relations with the claimants,
cites the laws bearing on the case,
quotes many letters written by CLAWS
and others in regard TO the claims and
the resultant controversy, and draws
the following conclusions:
The conclusions. which in my opin-
ion. are very clearly established by
these papers, are as follows:
The inSinuationS or charges of i'm
! proper action on the part OF Secretary
Ballinger, First Assistant Secretary
Pierce, Commissioner bennett or Chief
OF Field Division Schwartz are in my
opinion entirely disproved. So far
from taking any action to favor the
Cunningham claimants, the record
clearly shows that Secretary Ballfnger
was scrupulously careful not in any
respect TO act upon these claims for
the reason that during the summer of
l90S while he was in no manner con-
nected with the government he had
been consulted by some of sthe claim
ants with respect to the issuance of
patents, and had called upon Secre-
tary Garfield for the purpose of ascer
| thereon
Neither his action nor any of his
written or spoken expressions were ia
vorable TO these claimants. The ut
most he did was to instruct the land
office to investigate promptly all pend
ing cases.
zSecond-The suggestion that it was
unla Wful for Ballinge to have any pro-
| fessional relation with these claimants.
because of his previous incumbency of
the Office of commissioner of the land
office, is, in my opinion, unsound.
Third-The Cunningham locations
All but three of them proceeded to
/ entry prior to May l. 1907 and the
remaining three in October 1907, pay
ments aggregating $52,S00 being made
and covered into the treasury.
/ Fourth-Glavis claim that he pre-
/ vented the government from being de-
! frauded by procuring a reference TO the
attorney general of questions of law
! involved and the overruling by him of
an opinion written by Assistant Sec
abled the Cunningham claimants to
procure patents on their claims, is alb
soIHtseIy disproved by the record.
Ffth-The intervention by forestry
bureau, procured by CLAWS. is shown
by the record to have been entirely
unnecessary to the protection of the
! interests of the United States.
Sixth-Glavis' report and summary
abound in contradiction and misstate-
ments They omit to a degree that
ters telegrams ano other documents.
some of which We're in his possession
and others which were available to him
and which completely refute differences
! he seeks to have drawn from those
/ which he does submit.
DEFENSE OF OFFIC ERS
/ Seventh-The action of each and
every official of the land Office referred
/ been inspired by the perfectly proper
/ desire to bring to a conclusion an in
vestigation which was prolonged be-
yond all reason and which if 1t had
! been prosecuted with due diligence and
/ if CLAWS had properly availed him
! self of the assistance placed at his
| been completed and ready for trial not
| later than the autumn of 1903
The claimants were entitled to have
! the objection to their claims formu-
| lated and brought to hearing with rea-
sonable promptness and the interests of
/ the government did not require and
were not advanced by the prolonged de-
| lays and inaction of Special Agent
! CLAWS
! In this connection It may be pointed
| out, as an example of CLAWS habitual
| procrastination, that although pursuant
| to his request of April IL. 1905 to for
ward to him all original papers relating
to Alaska coal entries and declaratory
| statements upon his representation that
/ the statute of limitations would pre-
! vent criminal prosecutions after the
| following October and the cases must
| therefore be presented during the
| month of May, all such original papers
! and documents were, by direction of
! the general land Office. Immediately
/ transmitted to him by the juneau of
| fee. No proceeding wha tever was
taken by him to brin gthese criminal
prosecutions, or to take any steps in
connection Herewith.
! CENSURE FOR CLAWS
CLAWS appears at all times to have
| been prolific in criticism and fault find
| ing of other officials of his department
/ desirous of increasing his jurisdiction
! ready with reasons for delay, but neve
! ready to complete anything he under
took
! His action in appealing to the for
! estry bureau of the department of ag-
! riculture to intervene in these cases
without consulting any of his official
1 superiors, was a breach of ali proper
/ discipline, which is peculiarly aggra-
waited because taken on the very day
! when he complained to Secretary Bal
| linger in person that he was being
! forced to a hearing before ready with
! necessary evidence and was referred by
| the secrtary to Chif of Field Service
J Schwartz.
This species of maga1omania has
! finelly led him to submit to you charges
/ of improper motives and conduct
! against his official superior, which in
my opinion, are so unjust and unfound-
| ed as to merit his immediate suspension
| from the service.