New-York tribune., 1910-08-12

To the Editor of The Tribune
Sir: sYou begin your editorial in this
mornings Tribune on the Cunningham
claims with the statement that so much
untruth has been printed about the Gun
nngham claims to Alaska coal lands that,
as the time approaches for decision on
their validity it is pertinent to set forth
the actual facts"
Your editorial then proceeds to put about
as much untruth as could be packed in so
short space in such way that the un-
informed reader would be entirely misled
as to the issue between the government
and the Cunningham claimants.
"a You assert that the validity of the
Cunningham claims depends upon whether
the agreement between the Morgan-Gugsen-
helm syndicate and the Cunningham claim
ants is or is not binding. You say: IF
the Cunningbams can establish the fact
that the Guggenheim option was never
completed, or that it does not now exist
it will be difficult for the Secretary to find
any legal ground on which to reject the
claim" This is altogether wrong. No
body has ever suggested that the agree
ment with the Guggenheim syndicate in
validated the claims, since that agreement
was made after entry. when the claimants
were at liberty to make any agreement
with regard to their claims which they
chose. The charge against the Cunning
ham claims is that the claimants, in Vio-
lation of law, had an agreement among
themselves when they located their thirty
three adjacent claims, that after getting
patents they would work or dispose of them
in block and as unit, and that they Sc
cured their entries by fraudUlently conceal
ing this illegal agreement.
(D You say that the agreement with the
Guggenheim syndicate would, according
to the opinion of the Attorney General, in
validate the claims if it was made prior
to location, but would not invalidate them
if made after location, but before entry
This is nonsense The Attorney Generals
opinion has no application to the Cunning
ham claims The Cunningham claimants
are demanding patents under the ACT OF
1901. The Attorney Generals opinion re-
lates to an entirely separate act oil l9es-
(s) You state that CLAWS presented evil
deuce of the agreement with the Gusgen-
helm syndicate This is not true. The ex-
istence Of this agreement was unknown
until the representatives of the syndicate
disclosed it last winter after the Balilnscr
investigation had begun
contract with the syndicate is quite in
accurate. For example, the contract CON
tains no provision for the establishment of
A port at stipulated point.
During the whole of the Ballinger inYeS-
tigation The Tribune has been delivering
opinions with the authority of cne whose
information is complete Now 1t appears
that at this late date The Tribune is still
ignorant of what the issue between the
government and the Cunningham claimants
is and of what the evidence was which
CLAWS secured against the claimants
In view of the muddle of mistakes to
which | have called attention above, the
erroneous statement i'll the first paragraph
of YOUR editorial that Agent Love made a
favorable report on the claims, and the
omission to mention the three unfavorable
reports which Agent Jones made after the
date of the alleged favorable report by
Love, may charitably be ascribed to The
Tribune's ignorance rather than to intent
to nislead.
Where does The Tribune get its actual
facts? NORMAN HAfGooD.
New York. Aug. II, 1910