New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-06-14

! IL - contemplated railroad enterprise, Mr.
EcGir.cs says: This is the only sin OF
Mr.. Ballinge- which Mr.. KERRY could
name
Mr.. yert-ees calls attention 10 the rigid
scrutiny and examination the Interior De-
partment has been under during the in
quiry and says nothing has been re-
vesled which reflects upon the loyalty, the
| integrity. the good faith, the sense of duty
| OF any man therein.
The only persons who can he criticised
continues Mr.. Tertrees. ARE those VINO
have been discharged. and have arrayed
themselves against the Secretary and the
Department of the Interior. This inquiry
involves the good name of a gentleman
and the reputation of a member OF the
Cabinet. IT is no Idle thing 10 assail the
character of a member Of the Cabinet. lie
is one of the advisers OF the President ana
dishcnorabIe conduct on his part not only
brings disgrace TO him an individual
but reproach upon the government itself
/ Consequently. such an accusation ought
not TO be lightly brought. There ought
surely 10 he substantial grounds. Here, it
may he asserted. there are absolutely none
The prosecution is cruel and it is baseless
Defending Mr. Ballinger's conservation
policy. Mr.. Vertrees cites numerous cases
in support of his contention that former
Secretary Garfield was wrong in his view
that. the Secretary of the Interior. in deal
ing with the public lands, had authority 10
do that which he may conceive advisable
and for the public good, unless it be for
hidden by some statute. and this necessarily
without regard 10 the usage of the past.
Mr.. Balinger's position with regard to
the exercise of the so-called supervisory
power with respect to the withdrawal OF
water power sites on which question he also
differed with Mr.. Garfield. is defined fol-
lows: That when Congress had. by law,
said that the public lands should be open
TO entry-that is entry under the home
stead, mining and desert land laws-it is
beyond the power of any administrative
officer TO withdraw by executive order the
lands which Congress has thus stated shall
be open to entry. Numerous cases also are
cited in support of this view.
The brief deals at great length with the
evidence before the committee relative to
the Cunningham claims in defence of Mr.
Ballinger's connection with them as a gov
eminent official. Then his conduct while
out OF office is discussed, particularly his
preparation and presentation of the Cum
bingham affidavit TO Interior Department
officials in September, 1905. In answer to
criticisms of Mr.. Ballinger's conduct in this
matter, Mr.. NerIrees says:
First of all. as has already been shown,
there was no information of a secret char
acter tn the Land Office which Mr. Balm
ger could have used. The reports on file
are favorable to the claims. The afidavits
on file were we'll known to the atlantis
themselves. The only evidence that had
been procured not contained in the re-
ports or the affidavits of the atlantis was
copy OF the Cunningham journal, the
original of which Cunning ham himself had.
This journal was not obtained or filed until
after Mr. Ballinger had retired from the
office of Commissioner. Moreover, the SER
vices We're performed six months after he
had left the office, were secondary, if il be
assumed that Mr.. BaIlinger in a matter in
which he had no interest had CHANGED to
retain in memory recollection of the
status of these claims and the records
with respect thereto. The fact is that
there was nothing for him to remember or
recall 1t was not possible for him. there
fore TO have used information obtained by
him as Commissioner. The objection that
the performance of a service of this char
acter was forbidden by law is equally un-
founded"