The Washington herald., 1910-03-11

The Ballinger-Pinchot investigate
terday turned again to the slles -
tivity OF Mr. Baninger IN behalf q sas
Cunningham coal claimants.
When the committee adjourned for
the day. Louis Brandeis. counsel for
Claws, had introduced in evidence in
chronological order testimony intended
to closely connect Mr.. Ballinger with
the several steps taken by the claimants
with view to getting their claims
| clear-listed-
The Cunningham affidavits. placed in
evidence alongside Of the evidence given
before the Senate Committee on Terri
| tories by the representatives Of the
| Aorgan-Guggenhe syndicate. drew
from Representative Madison the state
ment that If the affidavit was not q vio-
iations of rfe laws of the United States.
It was high time that a new perjury
statute was framed.
Former Secretary Garfield was OF the
witness stand throughout a greater part
of the day.
Attorney Pepper, counsel for Clifford
Pinchot, finished his direct examination
before the noon recess Mr. Brzndeis
took up the direct examination IN so
far as 1t related to Alaska, and Mr.. Yer
trees. counsel for Secretary Bsllinger,
concluded Ais cross-examination shortly
before O'Clock.
COMMITTEES Adjoins.
A. P Davis, chief engineer Of the
Reclamation Service, was called to the
stand at S O'Clock by Mr.. Pepper. but
when the committee adjourned. half an
hour later. he had not finished descrip-
tion of the work done by the service.
i Mir. Garfields testimony on cross-ex-
animation was eniivened from time TO
time with tits with Mr.. Vertrees After
pursuing a line Of questions. Mr. Yer
trees invariably wound up by expressing
his own conclusions in the form Of a
question. TO which Mr. Garfield replied
in almost every instance:
'sThe facts are quite to the contrary
With Mr.. Garfield acting as the mouth :
piece, Mr. Brandeis had read into the
record either in the form Of direct testi-
mony of the witness or by reading from
documents, a significant story of the
connection of the Cunningham claims
with the Morgan-Guggenheim syndicate.
Summary of Evidence.
A summary of the evidence as It was
presented to the committee by Mr. Bran
deis shows that the Cunninghams first
gave an option of their coal claims to
the Morgan-Guggenheim syndicate on
July 90 1907; that the option was ac-
cepted on December Z. 1907; that the coal
claims were cleaT-listed on December IF.
1907. although the clear-listing was sus-
pended in January upon receipt of a tele-
gram of protest from CLAWS; that a sec
ond affidavit was prepared by the Cum
ninghams on September 4. 1908, and that
this affidavit was presented TO Secretary
Garfield on September u, 1908.
This is the affidavit which was amended
by Ar Ballinger in order TO overcome the
objections to a prior adffiavit taken by
CLAWS. which read:
| We have an understanding that when the nai-
| er,s had besn secured We would form a company
! for the Development Of the cal fields butt none
/ Of the cialms were taken up for the benefit Of
| corporation, but merely with the IDEA that when
| titles were secured We would combine
claims md work the coal fields for ourselves.
AS amended the afidavit presented TO
Mr. Garfield read:
That no combination or joint interest lg way
| Of corporate interests or otherwise was contem-
F. plated which would result either directly or IN
directly in parting With title OF ary interest in
any Il said ea-ries-
Option Had Been Given.
Mr.. Brandeis then had portion OF the
testimony before the Senate Committee on
Territories to the effect that at the time
the above affidavit was drawn an option
had been given and accepted by Daniel
Guggenheim. on behalf OF the Morgan
Guggenheim syndicate.
When Cunningham swore that there
was no option on these claims, that was
la false statement, was it not?f asked
Representative James.
Il think So replied Mr.. Garfield.
IF that is not perjury under our stat
utes." remarked Mr.. Madison. then We
ought TO have statutes which would make
it perjury"
The amended affidavit according to Mr..
Garfield, was presented 10 him at his
home at Mentor. Ohio. by Mr. Ballinger
The papers to which il was attached had
printed upon them the name OF Mr. Bal
| fingers law firm.
Did Not Make 1t Clear.
when Mr.. Ballinger presented that az
! idavit did he tell you that he had drawn
| It up or suggested amendments TO t?''
asked Mr. Brandeis.
HE did not answered Mr.. Garfield.
Il did not know about it until 1 read
the Senate document now before the com
mittee."
Mr.. Garfield declared that the anidavit
: presented to him was inconsistent with
the contract entered into with the Nor
| gan n-Guggenheim syndicate.
The cross-examination by aEr. vertrees
developed the fact that Baliinger and
Garfield had been intimate personal
! Continued on Page 8, Column 3.