The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-06-13

~~~oU~-~~-~~~~~~-~~~-~~
ton that an executive officer could not
enter into any contract unless it was
authorized by some act of congress and
that the reclamation act did not con-
fer authority upon the secretary Of the
interior to enter into such agreements.
Another of the Garfield policies" re-
versed by Mr.. Ballinger, was the Co
operative agreement" between the in
terror and agriculture departments
whereby the control of certain en-
ployes of the Indian bureau was given
over to the forestry bureau. The brief
recites that Acting Secretary of the In
terror Pierce decided that inasmuch as
the cooperative agreement provided
that all men employed in forest work
on Indian reservations should consti-
tute a part of the force of the forest
service, responsible directly and only
thereto, it was an unwarranted attempt
to surrender the duties imposed upon
the interior department by the act
making an appropriation of 100000 for
the Indian bureaus use.
THUS 1t appears that these policies
were matters about which there was
very earnest and sincere difference of
opinion" says Mr.. Vertrees. "Mr. Gar
field and Mr.. Pinchot entertained one
view, and that view is described as the
Garfield policy" Mr.. Ballinger enter
tained a different view, and the result
was, coming in, as he did, as the sue
cessor of Mr.. Garfield, he and Mr.. Pin
chot regarded or affect to regard, him
as an enemy to conservation and to
reclamation, and all because he did not
concur in the policies which they had
pursued. AS already shown, on princi-
pie, on a fair and proper construction
of the acts involved, the decision of
judges, the departmental decisions, and
the opinion of the law advices of the
secretary, the view which he entertain
ed was correct, and the doubts which
he entertained were we'll founded.
'"The suggestion now to be made, it
would seem, ought to dispose Of the
inquiry so far as the supervisory pow
err and the questions involved there
under are concerned. l submit that
it is entirely beyond the authority or
jurisdiction of a committee Of the con-
gress, or of the congress itself, to CEN
sure the secretary of the interior, a
cabinet officer, because of his views in
matters of departmental policy.
However there is another consid-
Grafton which the inquiry is effectively
disposed of. and that is this: The
views which Mr.. Ballinger entertained,
and the policies which he has pursued
are the opinions and the views of the
president himself-views and opinions
expressed by him to Mr.. Ballinger be-
fore this inquiry began"
The brief deals at great length with
the evidence before the committee rel
alive to the Cunningham claims in de-
Tense of Mr.. Ballinger's connection
with them as a government official
Then his conduct while out of office is
discussed particularly his preparation.
and presentation OF the Cunningham
affidavit to interior department officials
in September 1908. In answer to criti-
cisms of Mr.. BalIinger's conduct in this
matter, Mr.. Vertrees says:
First of all, as has already been
shown there was no information of a
secret character in the landoffice which
Mr.. Ballinger could have used. The
reports on file are favorable to the
claims. The affidavits on file were well
known to the atlantis themselves. The
only evidence that had been procured
not contained in the reports or the af-
fidavits of the atlantis was a copy of
the Cunningham journal, the original
Of which Cunningham himself had. This
journal was not obtained or filed until
after Mr.. Ballinger had retired from
the office of commissioner Moreover,
the services were performed six months
after he had left the office were sec
ondary, if it be assumed that Mr.. Bal
linger in a matter in which he had no
interest had CHANGED to retain in mem
DRY a recollection of the status of
these claims and the records with re-
spect thereto. The fact is that there
was nothing for him to remember or
recall. It was not possible for him,
therefore, to have used information OBJ
tanned by him as commissioners. The
objection that the performance Of d
service of this character was forbidden
by law is equally unfounded."
Mr.. Vertrees cites rules and reguIa-
tions of the department as well as de-
cisions of the department, the attorney
general and the supreme court which
he says supports Mr.. Bal1inger's view
that there is no legal departmental in
hibition against the practicing before
the department by a former employ in
land cases within two years after his
separation from the service. The inhi-
bition applies, he says. only In cases
involving money claims.