The Birmingham age-herald., 1910-02-15

T | first of the Alaskan claimants to pay ul on their claims and that in numerica order they were entitled to first con l sideration in any Investigation
 Glavis said he wrote the article whicl on November 13 appeared in week., paper entitled "The Whitewashing o Ballinger--Are the Guggenheims in Charg' of the Department of the lnteriorF pu l that he was not responsible for the word | ing of the sub-heads explaining the par agraphs.
 Did you receive anything for that ar ticle?"
 Not a cent" -Four testimony before the committee then, makes the statements of the facts as you Know them?" "Yes, sir.'
 But you have made no direct accusa' | tions?"
 'No, sir"
 Gfavis said he had presented the facts to let the people draw their own i1er. ences.
 "Did you intentionally refrain from making any charger" ''Yes, sir"
 What did you think the facts showed ?' Not in Safe Hands.
 ''rhey proved to me that l didn't think the interior department was in safe hands"
 T do not want your conclusions. but what definite misconduct on the part oi anyone did the facts show?'
 There is no charge of criminallty, replied Glavis 'you have to take all the facts together and form your own con clusion. You couldn't take any one fact and form a right conclusion.
 What officers did you think were not protecting the peoples interests?'
 'Ballinger and Dennet. And Pierce, too, rendered that decision Interpreting the act of May 30, 1soS Schwartz took some action I could not understand
 "You thought the facts established offi- cial misconduct on the part of Ballinger and Dennet?'
 "YeS
 Anybody else?"
 "Conclusively as to those two men; I had not formed an opinion as to the others"
 "Who did you want to accuse?'
 MT. Ballinger and MT. Dennet.'
 "You say Ballinger and Dennet and Pierce were guilty of misconduct, but you make no charge of corruptness?"
 Charge of Corruptness.
 'If I had thought the facts warranted charge of corruptness I would have gone to the grand jury instead of the President"
 '"Then you did not believe there were any corrupt motives or conduct?'
 "No"
 Did you think it was error of judg- ment, their not protecting the interests of the people"'
 'No: the facts showed it was inten- tional'
 "Yet you say it was not corrupt?''
 Perhaps you and I don't have, the same view of the meaning of corrupt I think when a man acts corruptly he acts criminally. tThere are no charges of criminality here.'
 In the list of names of eleven land office people who have been mentioned in the case Glavis said he exonerated everyone of misconduct except Bailinger, Pierce and Dennet. Glavis said he be- leved any wrong done by Schwartz had been due to thoughtlessness or under or ders of his superior Of Pierce he said: said:
 q want to make a correction about MT. Ps..rce I think he was erroneous in his construction of the law and not that he was guilty of any willful wrong-doing.''
 'sThen you make no attack upon his official integrity?'
 NO, sir.
 And this leaves us only MT. Dennet and MT. Ballinger under accusations Of wrong-doing?
 Yes"
 At this point the luncheon recess was ordered Representative Graham, demo- crar declared the attorney was cutting the witness off in the middle of his an- swers as Glavis speech was so slow as to amount almost to defect. MT. Yer trees apoogized and said he had only meant to interrupt the witness when his answers were going farther than the question warranted.
 Committee in Uproar.
 MT. Schwartz was present at the after noon session. Glavis continued under cross-ey ! nation. He repeated that part of his / rect testimony in which he thought Mir Dennet's actions at Seattle were crooked on account of the funny letters Dennet was writing He said Dem net denied one day that he knew MT Behrens, one of the coal claimants. and the next day the two lunched together and appeared to be old friends.
 Glavis said he became convinced that Dennet was simply the tool of Baninger and would do anything Ballinger told him"
 Summing up what he said were the facts convincing him that Secretary Bal finger was unfit for his office and un- faithful to his trust" Glavis said: 'The
  Ban.nger in the WilsoA coal cases. While that was a long time ago and people may have looked at things differently, his action or participation in the draw 1 ing up of an escrow agreement to turn over claims that had not been proved up as d matter of fact, was criminal But 1 the status of limitations has run and the evidence is not quite clear. The record speaks for itself. ~ Helping Claimants. "Another thing was Mir. Ballinger's ex- penses in the summer of 1907 to Special Agent Jones when he knew there had been violations of the coal lands laws his statements that he was coming to Washington to see what Congress could do to help the claimants get patents.
 Most Important Action.
 His next action-one of the most i'm portant going to show thathe is not honest to his trust and faithful to the people was this one: | After giving me the full right and in structions to make a full and complete investigation of all the coal cases. hs personally took up an old report by Spe | cial Agent Love a few days afterward | and deliberately ordered the Cunningham claims to proceed to patent. The Love report to my mind. and have action on 2 thousand or more reports, did not in It. self warrant favorable recommenda. tion It showed there had been an under stnrding among the claimants and sug gested fraud rather than a complianc' | Nitl the law.
 Another evidence that MT. Ballinge was not trying to protect the peorle' rights was his appearance before tn