The Salt Lake herald-Republican. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1909-1918, 1910-04-16
SALTLAKE MANS
EXCELLENT WITNESS
FOR HIS SUPERIOR
Continued from Page one.)

AOOUAtDdC0 lFO0H TG9G OHGst
uary 27. Mr.. Brandeis said the cor
respondence related to the statement
of Attorney General Wickersham that
CLAWS had been guilty of "habitual
procrastination" 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.
| Chairman Nelson told MIR Brandeis
| to write a letter enumerating the
papers 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 January 81.
Attorney Vertrees said he resented
the imputation of opposing counsel that
papers had been withheld by the de-
partment THAT is not true. There is
not a word OF truth in it." said Mr..
Vertrees. The committee then adopted
motion that the department be asked
to produce the correspondence de-
manded by Mr.. Brandeis, and Mr.. Pierce
resumed his testimony.
Mr.. Pierce denied that he had told
Ex-Governor Moore, one of the Cum
bingham claimants. that he could have
his patents without an examination
under the new law of May 2s, 1908.
He said Land Commissioner bennett
had construed the law differently, and
had told Moore he could have his
patents without a hearing.
During the winter of 1907, Mr.. Pierce
said, the Cunningham claimants had
maintained a strong lobby in Washing
ton, and had exerted powerful tnflu-
ences on Secretary Garfield and Con-
gress to secure their patents.
Afraid of Certain Influences.
Mr.. Pierce said he stipulated with
John P Gray. one of the counsel for
the Cunningham claimants, that the
cases should not be heard before the
Juneau register and receiver, who Ordi-
narily would have had jurisdiction, be-
cause the receivers son was one of the
claimants and because he realized that the
same influence would be exerted with
these officers as was apparent in Wash
lngton. He thought these influences
might warp their Judgment.
The committee questioned Mr.. Pierce
along lines regarding the Cunningham
claims and as to whether he would be,
in effect, the court of last resort in de-
Gliding whether the claimants were en-
titled to their patents. The witness replied
that neither the claimants nor the gov
ernment would have an appeal from his
decision.
How do you reconcile your Judicial
function with that of prosecutor" in
quired Senator Root.
That is a question which has bothered
me great DEAL" replied Mr.. Pierce.
Ifb CAplCSoCQ the UDtilDu lildl lll6 pICSc-
cution of land cases should rest with
the department Of justice. He explained,
however, that when any officials Of the
general land office appeared before him
in the role of prosecutors he considered
them as such. and did not allow the fact
that they were government officers to liz
fluence his decision.
Could Not Trap Pierce.
Representatives Graham and James
l n an he
witness that his administration in any
case would be subject to review by the
secretary. Mr.. Pierce said he supposed
the secretary would have a legal right
to do SO, but he could not recall any
case where the secretary had reversed
or revised q decision of one of his as
sstants
Il want to say right here" exclaimed
Mr.. Pierce, that no decision will be an
nounced in these Cunningham claims I'M
til every one Of the twenty-five lawyers
IN my department have made an. exhaus-
tive examination of the record. When
this is done 1 shall send the record to
the department of agriculture and ask
for similar careful examination at the
hands of the large force of lawyers
there"
rs this extraordinary care which you
propose TO give to these cases due to
the magnitude Of the claims or the pub
licity which they have attracted?' asked
Mr.. James.
Both, retorted the witness
A controversy between Attorneys Bran
deis and Vertrees was precipitated soon
after the committee convened for the aft
ernoon session. Mr.. Pierce had concluded
his direct examination and Mr. Verrees
had turned the witness over to Mr.. Bran
deis when the latter announced:
Il don't desire TO cross-eXamine Mr..
Pierce until after I have had an oppor-
tunity to examine Secretary Ballinger-"
Mr.. Vertrees was on his feet In an in
slant. Il objectT' he shouted. 81 don't
think opposing counsel should be allowed
to employ such dilatOry tactics"
An Unusual Request.
Representative Mccall. who was in the
chair said the committee should decide
the point at issue when Mr.. Pierce was
recalled for crOss-examination after Mr..
Ballinger had been heard.
ut strikes me that Mr.. Brandeis
makes an unusual request" said Sena-
tor Sutherland IF Mr.. Brandeis desires
to waive cross-examinatiOn all right, but
if he does not. l object to Mr.. Brandeis
5 "a SrxE<