Evening times-Republican. [volume] (Marshalltown, Iowa) 1890-1923, 1910-07-19
More BaIIineer.
(CoIlier'S Weeklyl.

The letter printed below so complete
ly tells its own story that we shall en-
cumber it as little a s possible with ex-
traneous facts. 1t is nece ssary, how
ever, to give this much of the setting:
The letter was written by one of Sec
rotary Ballinger's subordinates, an Off
cial of the interior department, who
has charge of the land office at Occur
a. Alene, Idaho. (Parer thetically he is
a nephew of United StSates Senator
Heyburn). AS an incident Of his Of
fee. he has the giving out of certain
amount Of advertising patronage to the
newspapers in his district The letter
is sent to an editor in the district who
formerly received this patronage. but
who ceased to receive it last November,
about the time the Ballinger case be-
came acute. The editor endured the
loss of patronage until April, when he
protested, and this letter is the official
explanation why the interior depart
ment advertising was withdrawn from
him:
George R. Barker. Esk., Standpoint,
Idaho.
Dear SRI have your letter of the
18th, and have also received your prev
ious letters, but have not had al OPP
portunity to answer them. / will now
take an opportunity to explain my pos
ition on the matter of notices sent out
from this office to the newspapers as
related to the situation at Standpoint.
1T has long been the practice in the
department for the register of the land
office to designate the paper in which
certain notices shall be published. Nat
urally, under a republican administra-
ton such notices go to the republican
papers"
So far this is comparatively harm
less statement of the principle that "to
the victors belongs the spoils' But
read on:
when ] assumed my duties as regis
ter Of the land office at Occur d'Alene,
Idaho, there was but one controversy
as between newspapers, and that was
at Standpoint between the North Idaho
News and the Pend d'Areille Review
The editors of both these papers con-
suited me, as did their friends, and
reasons were given pro and con as to
patronage being extended to each paper.
/ decided al that time that I would d.
vide such patronage equally between
them.
Il had on different occasions con-
suited with both editors and given
them to understand. that this arrange
ment would continue only so long as
they continued to conduct their papers
properly in accordance with republic
can principles"
Within memory more than usually
familiar with the literature Of politt-
cal intimidation, there is no equal OF
this in neutrality-suspicious.. But there
is more:
Thereafter / had occasion to observe
that your paper was not in sympathy
with the republican party. In order
that you may understand this fully I
will cite you to the specific instances in
which your paper, in my opinion. has
not shown itself entitled to present
consideration in this matter:
81. At the time Of tho hearing Of the
case against the Washington Water
Power Company, the 'Spokesman-Re-
view published an editorial In which
the gnnd faith of Secretary RallinRer.
Senator Il. and myself was ques-
toned in connection with that case.
This same editorial was copied (ver-
batfm, beneve) by your paper"
! In other words. merely to reprint