The Yakima herald. [volume] (North Yakima, W.T. [Wash.]) 1889-1914, 1910-01-05


hands off these claims. but actually
follow them closely and have his sub
ordinates, bennett and Pierce, work
for them all the time, keeping him or
his secretary, Carr constantly ad-
vised as to their progress? Did he
state to the president that they were
the only Alaska claims which he had
ever technically represented? Has he
been working for the claimants
against the government up to the pres
ent moment, by keeping the agents
who understand the case, and have
the evidence, out - the Seattle hear
ings, and putting those hearings in
charge of a man who has no knowl-
edge of the situation and no knowl-
edge of the law? Why did Mr.. Sheri-
dan refuse to call the only two men
who were familiar with the govern
ment's side of the case? Did the gov
eminent file all of it's own affidavitS,
unnecessarily at the beginning, and
this give every advantage to the claim
ants? Is it not fact that hearings
are entirely irregular, Illegal, and not
in accordance with statutory provis-
ions; that no punishment can there
WITNESSES are consequently giving tes-
timony in direct conflict with their
previous affidavits?
2. Why were various water sites
released from withdrawal for a short
space of time? Was Mr.. Ballinger re-
quested by letter to make the release
by Hepburn and Mondel? Was he
then frightened by a storm of protest
from the reclamation service, from the
forest service and from the outside
Did Mr.. Ballinger inject into the Taft
letter an explanation of this proceed
ing which is wholly at variance with
the facts? Why did Mr.. Balinger first
| state, as his reason for releasing these
sites from withdrawal, that the with
drawals were illegal? Why did he
subsequently drop this reason and
state that Secretary Garfield had re-
ceived his information concerning the
! power sites from the reclamation serv-
ice instead Of from the geological sur
vey? Was this subsequent excuse
suggested to him by George Otis
Smith of the Geological survey?
| Why Misrepresentation?
| 3. Did Mr. Ballinger read tho
presidents statement at Spokane be-
| fore it was delivered, to the effect tina,
the government was without the power
to regulate the occupancy of water
sites on the public domain? DID ne
know very well, at the time of so stat
ing to the president, that the act OF
February Is, 1901, gave full author
ity? Did Mr.. Ballinger lead the presi-
dent to misstate the facts about Mr.
| Garfield's conduct of his office, in the
following part of the letter of Septem-
| Der IS?
"Under the Withdrawals made ny
your department from time to tive
beginning in May last, there are "
withheld from settlement, awaiting IL
action of congress- fifty per cent more
water-power sites than under pre-
vious Withdrawals, this has been eff
fected by a withdrawal from settle
ment of only one-fifth of the amount
of land"
A. In regard to the Indian office
the president stated:
Your declination to carry out the
contract was made necessary by 8
ruling of the comptroller"
Did the secretary make such g
statement to the president? Was no
| the cooperative agreement before the
comptroller at that time, and does ne
even suggest that it was invalid
Moreover, had not the accounts of the
cooperation been passed upon by tn,
treasury for months? Why was MOI
the question at least submitted to the
comptroller before the agreement
which was of great benefit to the In
dams, was abrogated?
5. Did Ballinger act properly in the
Des Chutes River railroad matter?
6. Did Ballinger, on September 30
1909, withdraw from location under
the mining laws about three million
acres of petroleum lands in California .
and is there Southern Pacific deal in
this?
| Z. A recent newspaper despatch
printed in Idaho says that e. L. Mar.
vim, said to be a former Weyerhaeus-
er employee, is hurrying to Washing
| ton ito confer with Secretary Balm.
ger as to his acceptance of an offered
appointment as Chief of Forest Re-
serves within Indian Reservations
Is this despatch true? Is Weyer-
haeuser, the lumber king, also doing
business with Ballinger?
8. Has Frank Pierce, Ballinger's
appointee and assistant, made him
self rich out of lands and mines?
In addition to tract books of the
land office and other documents, WI
suggest, as a few among the availa-
attorney James w. Sheridan, Hor.
| T ~
Moore, James r. Garfield, John P
Gray, Fred bennett, Joseph G. Can
non, George Woodruff, e. C. Finney
Morris Bien, H. H. Schwartz Scott
Smith, Donald r. Mckenzie, A. c
Shaw, Frank Pierce, C. R. Pierce
Frederick Newell, Overton w. Price
Frank Hitchcock, w. G. Whorf, M
A. Green, John w. Dudley Walter
NJ. French. Richard S. Ryan, Jack
Ballinger. Webster Ballinger and
, Richard A. Ballinger. To indicate
the difficulty of securing an depend
ent committee, remembering that
| Cannon would appoint a special COM
mittee in the house. read Mr.. Con-
nolly's article in this issue, and add
to what is told there the fact that
Cannon appointed Mondell chairman
of the House Committee on Public
Lands after Mondell while a member
of congress, had located fraudulent
homestead entry on coal lands in wy
| oming.
Hitchcock and Mondcll.
The same Mondell, in a state OF
moral fever, made a speech in con-
gress on December 20 last defending
Ballinger. speaking for state con-