The enterprise. [volume] (Harlem, Mont.) 1899-1926, 1910-04-20
BRAND|ES WANTS
TO SEE PAPERS
PROTESTS AGAINST DELAY OF IN.
TERROR DEPARTMENT IN FUR.
NIsHING DOCUMENTS.
THINKS DEPT. WITHHOLDS THEM
Pierce Resumes Stand At Inquiry-Al.
leges Cunningham Claimants
Maintained a Lobby In
Washington In 1907.

Washington, Apr. 16.-Frank Pierce
hrst assistant secretary of the inte
rior, who began his service under Sec
rotary Garfield and was continued in
office by Secretary Ballinger, was q
witnesses before the Ballinger-Pinchot
committee of inquiry. Mr.. Pierce, af.
ter detailing at length the multitudin.
Gus duties of the secretary of the inte-
ror, declared that Mr.. Ballinger soon
after taking office turned over to him
everything in connection with the Cum
bingham coal claims. Just as adjourn.
ment was taken last Saturday, Mr..
Pierce testified that Mr.. Ballinger had
not at any time attempted to interfere
with his direction of the case or inter-
fere with his action.
Before Mr.. Pierce resumed the stand
Attorney Brandeis made lengthy
statement to the committee in which
he charged that the interior depart
ment had failed to furnish certain cor
respondence called for by him in a let
ter to the committee dated Jan. 27.
Mr.. Bandeis said the correspondence
desired related to the statement Of At
torney General Wickersham that Gla-
Wis had been guilty of "habitual pro-
crastination" in failing to institute suits
against claimants of Alaskan lands.
He said he expected to show by this
correspondence that CLAWS had not
been negligent in this matter.
Vertrees Makes Denial.
Chairman Nelson told Mr.. Brandeis
to write a letter enumerating the pa
pers needed and he would see that
they were forthcoming from the de-
partment. Mr.. Brandeis said all he
could do would be to repeat his re-
quest of Jan. q. Attorney Vertrees
said he resented the imputation of op-
posing counsel that papers had been
withheld by the department. The
committee then adopted a motion that |
the department be asked to produce |
the correspondence demanded by Mr..
Brandeis, and Mr.. Pierce resumed his |
testimony.
Mr.. Pierce denied that he had told
former Governor Moore, one of the
claimants, that he could
have his patents without an examina-
ton under the new law of May %.
1908 He said Land Commissioner
bennett had construed the law differ
emily and had told Moore he could
have his patents without hearing.
During the winter of 1907, Mr.. Pierce
said the Cunningham claimants had
maintained a strong lobby in Wash
lngton and had exerted powerful in
duence on Secretary Garfield and con-
gress to secure their patents.
Mr.. Pierce said he stipulated with
John P. Gray, one of the counsel for
the Cunningham claimants, that the
cases could not be heard before the
Juneau registrar and receiver, who
ordinarily would have had jurisdiction
because the receiver was one of the
claimants and because he realized that
he same influence would be eXerted
with these officers as was apparent in
washington. He thought these influ-
ences might warp their judgment.
No Appeal From Decision.
The committee questioned Mr.
Pierce along lines regarding the status
II the Cunningham claims and as to
whether he would be, in effect, the
court of last resort in deciding whether ;
he claimants were entitled to their
patents. The witness replied that
leither the claimants nor the govern.
nent would have an appeal from his s
lecision Is
Representatives Graham and James
10th sought to secure an admission
rom the witness that his decision in
my case would be subject to review
# the secretary himself. Mr.. Pierce
laid he supposed the secretary would
nave legal right to do so, but he
could not recall any case where the
'ecretary had reversed or revised a ,
lecision of one of his assistants.
Il want to say right here" ex. s
blamed Mr.. Pierce, "that no decision {
will be announced in these Cunning
lam claims until all the TWENTY-FIVE :
awyers in my department have made !
n exhaustive examination of the rec j.
rds. Then when this is done | shall +
end the record to the department of
ustice and ask for similar careful at 6
ention at the hands of the large force 7
f lawyers there" ,
"Is this extraordinary care which r
GU propose to give to these cases due r
D the magnitude of the claims or to
he publicity which they have attract. 6
d." asked Mr.. James. '
Both retorted the witness. f