The Ogden standard. [volume] (Ogden City, Utah) 1902-1910, 1910-06-13
VERTREES IN DEFENSE.
CONTINUED From Page One)

ter of a member OF the cabinet He Is
one of the advisers Of the president
an ddishonorable conduct on his part
not only brings disgrace TO him as
an individual, but reproach upon the
government Itself Consequently
such an accusation ought not to be
lightly brought There ought surely
to- be substantial grounds. Here. 1t
may be asserted, there are absolutely
none. This prosecution is cruel and It
is baseloss"
Mr.. Vertrees says the accusations
against Mr.. Ballinger relate, official.
ly to his policies, with respect to con
serVation water power sites and
reclamation and to his course with
respect to the Cunningham claims.
and personally, to certain acts of al
legged professional impropriety com
mitted by him as lawyer. not as an
official, but when I'm private life.
Defending Mr.. Ballinger's conserYa-
tion policy. Mr. Vertrces cites Du-
merous cases in support of his con-
tention that Former Secretary Car
field was wrong In his view that the
secretary of the interior. in dealing
with the public lands. had authority
to do that which he NAV conceive ad-
visable and for the public good. un-
less II be forbidden by some statute,
and this necessarily without regard
TO the usage of the past
Mr.. Ballingers position with regard
to the exercise OF the so ocalled SUI
pervIsory power with respect to the
withdrawal of water power sites. on
which question he also differed with
Mr., Garfisld. Is defined as follows:
That when congress. had. by law.
said that the public lands should be
open to entry-tahat Is, entry under
the homestead. mining and desert
land laws, 1t Is beyond the power OF
any administrative officer to with
draw by executive order the lands
which congress has thus stated shall
be. open to entry Numerous cases
are offered in support OF this view,
Discussing the Garfield policy of Is
suing cooperative certificates" ="
whereby reclamation projects could
be expanded and extended. the brief
says Mr.. Ballinger's view that those
certificates were illegal, was fully
sustained by the attorney general 5
opinions. which held the certificates
Invalid, upon the fundamental PROPOSE
ton that an executive officer could
not enter into any contract unless 1t
was authorized by some act OF con
greSs and that the reclamation act
did not confer authority upon the sec,
retary of the interior TO enter into
such agreements.
Another of the Garfield policies
reversed by Mr.. Ballinger was the
cooperative agreement between the
interior and agricultural departments
whereby the control of certain en-
ployes of the Indian bureau was given
over 10 the forestry bureau.
The brief recites that Acting Sec
retary OF the Interior Pierce decided
that inasmuch as the cooperative
agreement provided that all men en-
ployed in forest work on Indian reser-
Vations. should constitute a part of
the force of the forest service re.
sponsible directly and only thereto,
1t was an unwarranted attempt To
surrender the duties imposed upon
the interior department by the acs
making an appropriation OF 100000
for the Indian bureaus use.
Thus 1t appears that these poll
cies were matters about which there
was very earnest and sincere diff
ference of opinion" says Mr.. Yer
trees. Mr.. Garfield and Mr. Pin
chot entertained one view and that
view is described as the Garfield
policy Mr., Ballinger entertained a
different view. and the result was.
coming in as he did. as the successor
OF Dir, Garfield, he and Mr. Pinchot
regarded, OF affected to regard him
as an enemy TO conservation and to
reclamation. and all because he did
not concur in the policies which thew
had pursued. As already shown, on
principle. on fair and proper con
Structlon OF the acts involved, the de-
cislons OF judges, the departmental
decision. and the opinion OF the law
advisers OF the secretary the view
which he entertained was correct and
the doubts which he entertained were
well founded.
The suggestion now to be made. Il
would seem, ought TO dispose OF the
inquiry so far as the supervisory
power and the questions involved
hereunder. are concerned. / submit
that st is entirely beyond the author
ity or jurisdiction of a committee OF
the congress or Of the congress IT,
self. TO censure the secretary of the
Interior. cabinet officer. because OF
his views in matters OF department.
al policy
However. there Is another consid-
Grafton by which the inquiry Is Of
fectivcly disposed Of, and that is this:
The Views which Br. Balliager en-
tertained, and the policies which he
has pursued. are the opinions and tho
views OF tho president himselt-yiews
and opinions expressed by him TO