Tulsa daily world. [volume] (Tulsa, Indian Territory [Okla.]) 1905-1919, 1910-11-16


recommendation Of the Interior depart
meut a. patent or not 20 patent the
claims doubtless win be made before
l,nR There Is reason 90 npprehcnd
thar this recommendation win bee faV-
a. able 60 the Cunningham claimants
rUd adverse 10 the Interests Of the pco
Ilo of the United states The attorney
Tor Mr. Bnllingcr IN the printed hrlof
sobmittcd in bchalt Of the secretary
~ the interior said,
Moreover, an examination of the
record OF the Cunningham hearings,
oud which Is a part of the record In
this case, reveals not only that the
statements Of the Cunningham are
true but that the Cunningham claims
are not fraudulent hut honest claims,
This is not stated for the purpose of
having this committee consider the
question Of the honesty or good l1ith
Of these claims for the purpose of
decision or determination, II Is stated
solely that the committee see that no
Lcrmry could be committed by Gun
uingham and that Mr., Ballingor by no
possibility could have Understood these
Claims 10 be fraudulent, for the reason
that as matter OF fact, they were
not fraudulent, but good and valid
claims. rho evidence of an the claim
pnts except one who is dead, has been
taken in the Cunningham hearings
'Nud is now on file. II shows conclus-
ely that none Of the claimants enter
ed into an agreement prior to location
,r prior to the initiation of entry for
consolidation Of their claims
Thinks IL Balli0ger's Opinion.
ut is difficult 10 avoid tho conclus-
ion that these deliberate assertions,
made by the attorney for Mr., Balln-
yer, represent the opinion of the lat
ter. reached after the evidence was all
In, chat the claims arc valid and should
b, patented.
1T IL true that Mr.. BallinRcr has
re used to act himself in behalf of the
government, on the ground that he
formerly represented the Cunningham
claimants, and accordingly has turned
over all responsibility to his assis-
arts Nevertheless this unqualified in
dCrsement Of the validity Of the
claims through his attorney can scarce
.N fail to have great moral weight with
lis suhordnntes. For them to render
"a decision adverse to the claims would
tot only lend support to criticisms
heretofore made against the depart
lnont, but would amount to taking di-
rect issue with their chief on the ar
Gumcnt made for him by his personal
counsel
In view Of these facts II is IN
Fortunately impossible to look with
confidence 70 officials of the interior
ter rtmont for an unbiased judgment
If the decision Of the interior depart
ment should be to patent the Cum
ningham claims, no appeals to the
courts would he possible.
sees Loss of Millions TO People.
' According to the testimony of rep
resentatives of the -Guggcn-
heina syndicate, who have long assert
ed half interest in the Cunningham
claims, their ultimate value Is in the
nelghborhood of $25, 900, 900 But the
lass to the people Of the United States
that would follow the issue of patents
IT, by no means limited to any such
sum. Although the government would
receive but little more than $4,000
for claims worth many millions a de-
cisiCn favorable TO the Cunningham
claimants would not merely result in
ION unjustifnble loss to the public at
large. 1t would also establish n pre-
cedcnt which might admit to patent
ether Illegal claims outside Of the
Cunningham group to the additional
value Of many millions Of dollars.
Says Fraud Was Shown.
we are advised by counsel retained
tor the purpose of reporting on the
Cunningham record that the testimony
! Of the claimants themselves shows
abundantly and conclusiyely that the
claims are fraudulent and that they
were made in violation of the statute
! designed to prevent monopoly. Among
the recent indictments found against
claimants for coal lands in Alaska
there is none relating to claims in the
Cunningham group.
THE record Is volumnous. The case
against the claimants consists in a
ruass of documentary evidence corro-
horated by facts ELECTED from the
ants themselves The record indicates
TINT the force OF certain important
Ines of evidence was not grasped by
the attorneys for tn government. We
/ elieye that briel givin" due con-
lsideration to such evidence would be
iof material assistance in reaching a
judicial determination on all the
points involved in the case.
I'VE respectfully request that in
case the interior department should
reach a decision in favor of patenting
the claims you will allow us to submit
fer your consideration a brief before
making a decision as to whether or
not YOU will permit your signature to
lc affixed to the patents.
Clifford Pinchot
Amos Pinchot