The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1910-04-16
STRONG LOBBY
OF INTERESTS
Continued From Page One.

Continued From Page One.
on Secretary Garfield and congress to
secure their patents.
Mr.. Pierce said he stipulated with
John P Gray, one of the counsel for the
Cunningham claimants, that the cases
should not be heard before the Juneau
register and receiver, who ordinarily
would have had jurisdiction, because
the receiver S son was one of the
claimants and because he realized that
the same influence would be cXertcd
with these officers as WAS apparent IN
Washington. He thought these influ-
ences might warp their Judgment.
The committee questioned Mr.. Pierce
along lines regarding the Cunningham
claims and as 10 whether he would be,
in effect. the court OF last resort in dc.
Gliding whether the claimants were entl.
| fled TO their patents. The witness re.
phed that neither the claimants nor the
government would have an appeal from
| his decision.
''How do you reconcile your judicial
| function with thai of prosecutorfN in.
quired Senator Root.
Evades Direct Answer.
".That is question which has both.
cred ME great DEAL, replied Mr..
| Pierce.
|
prosecution of land cases should rest
| with the department of pusticc, He cx-
planned, however, that when officials
| Of the general land Office appeared be
| fore him in the role of prosecutors he
considered them as such and did not al
low the fact that they were government
| officers TO influence his decision,
Representatives Graham and James
sought TO obtain an admission from the
witness that his administration in any
case would he subject to review by the
secretary. Mr., Pierce said he supposed
the secretary would have a legal right
10 do so. but he could not recall any
case where the secretary had reversed
or revised a decision of one OF his as
sistants
II want to say right here exclaimed
Mr.. Pierce that no decision Will be
announced in these Cunningham claims
until every one of the twenty-five law
yers in my department has made an cx-
haustive examination of the record.
When this is done l shall send the rec
ord TO the department of agriculture and
ask for similar careful examination at
the hands or the large force of lawyers
there"
"Is this extraordinary care which you
propose TO give 10 these cases due to
the magnitude OF the claims or 10 the
publicity which they have attracted?"
asked Mr.. James.
Both" retorted the witness.
The luncheon recess was taken at this
time.
Wrangle Of Attorneys.
A controversy between Attorneys
BrandeIs and Vertrees was precipltated
soon after the committee convened for
The afternoon session. Mr.. Pierce had
concluded his direct examination and Mr.
Vcrtrees had turndd the witness over to
Mr., Brandeis, when the latter an
nounced:
Il don't desire TO cross examine Mr.
Pierce until after ] have had an op-
portunity 10 examine Secretary Bal
llnger."
Mr.. Vertrees was on his feet in an In
stant.
opposing counsel should be allowed to
employ such dictatory tactics
Representative Mccall. who was in the
chair. said the committee should decide
the point Mt issue. when Mr.. Pierce was
recalled FOR cross-eXamination after Mr.
Ballineer had been heard.
1T strikes me that Mr.. Brandes makes
an unusual request" said Senator 9uth-
erand. III Mr.. Brandeis desires TO waive
cross" examination. all right. but If he
does not, j object 10 Mr.. Brandels be-
ing allowed to cross examine Mr.. Pierce
later"
III have made an unusual request it
must be remembered that | have been
placed in an unusual situation" said Mr.
Brandeis. He then related how he had
been denied the privilege Of calling Mr.
Ballinger. He did not want 10 waive
cross-cXamination of Mr. Pierce, but his
position was that he did not want 10
waste his questions on subordinates be-
fore he had an opportunity TO put them
10 Mr.. Ballingcr.
The shallowness of the pretense is
apparent" protested Mr.. Vertrees
There is no good reason why counsel
should not proceed with. -examina-
tion now, This hearing has already
dragged along through several weeks. and
II Mr.. Brahdeis is allowed to have his
way in this matter il will cause much
unnecessary delay.
Senator Purcell moved that the mat
ter be deferred until tomorrow when
there was expected to be q fuller at
ton prevailed. after there had been an
extended discussion between Vertrees and
members of the committee relative to the
rights of counsel
Francis a Clements. assistant law Of
ficer in the interior department. was the
next witness called.
Still More Delay.
Mr.. Clements related n conversation
WITH Claws regarding the construction of
inc inc, law OF May 2S 1908. He said Claws
llnger had expressed his Intention. as
Claws testified. OF asking the attorney
for an opinion regarding the construction
he was turned over to Mr. RranseIs
for ross-examinatlon soon after he took
the stand. but the attorney said as thn
testimony related TO a conversation with
CLAWS, and as CLAWS had been compelled
70 go to Oregon. he desired to forward
Mr.. Clements's testimony to Claws for
MS perusal before cross examining the
witness.
The witness was then excused and Ed
Win G.. Finney, assistant to the secre-
tary Of the Interior. was called to the
stand.
Mr.. Finney's testimony was largely
corroborativo OF that Of Pierce and
Siements lie said he was present AT
GlaNls's meeting with Clements. and that
The former had said nothing about the
secretary having Intended TO seek an
opinion from the attorney general regard
Ing the law OF May 2S 1905.
Attorney lertrees questioned the wit
sponse TO inquiries from Senator La Fol
lette as TO Secretary Balungers policy
on restoring TO entry, wafer power sites
Withdrawn by Secretary Garfield, In
those letters, Mr.. Ballinger was quoted
as saving the withdrawal of water power
sites mad been restored on recommenda-
t!on of the reclamation service
The prosecution" put on Director
Newell and Chief Engineer Davis OF the