New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1910-04-15
MIR. GARFIELD'S POSITION.
He Declared Pending Public Land
LEGISLATION Unnecessary.

To the Editor Of The Tribune.
Sir; In a Washington dispatch in your
issue of March 90 discussing the bill au-
thorizinx the withdrawal Of public lands, 1t
* stated that "ex-Secretary Garfield ap-
peared before the Public Lands Committee
% the Senate and opposed the legislation
asked by the President. and ex-FOrcster
Pinchot has opposed it I'm public addresses"
am sure that you wish to represent 20
your readers the facts as they are, and
therefore inclOse two circulars issued BY
Mr.. Pinchot as president Of the National
Conservation AssOciat ton. dated February 8,
1910 and March II. 1910. earnestly advO-
eating the withdrawal bill. both because
OF its intrinsic Importance 70 the COnser-
walton movement and because Il IS under
stood 10 have been selected by the Presi-
dent as the only part of the original con-
servation programme which the admnistra-
tion will insist upon at this session. IN
stead OF opposing the bill. Mr.. PinChOt has
advocated II. Mr.. Garfield also advocated
the bill before the Senate Committee on
Public Lands. and there submitted a brief
on the executive power Of withdrawal, argu-
ing for the principles subsequently en-
bodied in the committees favorable report
on the bill. Your correspondents fncOrrec-
statement 10 the contrary Is therefore IN
just both TO Mr. Garfield and Mr.. Pincho;.
and, what is more important, damaging 70
the conservation cause.
PHILIP p WELLS
Washington, April S, 1910.
IEx-Secretary Garfield appeared before
the Senate Committee on Public Lands
on January -, 1910. as the representa-
81.
citation. Of which Clifford Pinchot is now
president. and there testified as follows.
regarding the withdrawal bill:
LAS to the particular question Of the
withdrawal by the Executive of lands
under the laws Of the United states.
am of the opinion that ample
power now rests with the Executive. and
therefore 1 feel that It is not necessary
for the purpose Of continuance Of the
exercise of that power to pass the meas
ure that has been suggested" And again:
81 believe this bill is unnecessary, because
the power IS now inherent in the Ex-
ecutive 10 do the very thing suggested
by this bill. and in so doing IT he is. Of
course. bound by existing statutes rel
dliNt " lllt ulSDtSlliOu OF TIE DuDiiC
domain. Therefore. have felt that
what Congress should do is to enact a
law requiring the President to make re-
port to Congress of every withdrawal
every suspension" Mr.. Pinchot ex-
pressed similar views in the earlier
stages Of the discussion.
In Mr.. Garfield's testimony before the
Ballinger- Pinchot committee he reiter-
ated these views. and the President,
when urging members Of Congress to
enact the withdrawal bill at this session,
was so often confronted with the citation
Of Mr.. Garfelds view that such leeisla-
ton was unnecessary that he finally felt
it necessary to explain the fear enter
tanned by himself and by the Attorney
General that we're the existing with
draval orders. made TO conserve power
sites. contested IN the courts they would
be pronounced invalid and such sites
open to entry. which is precisely what
was asserted in The TTibune's dispatch.
I