Los Angeles herald., 1910-01-04
ALASKAN SCANDAL
~ ONT is added to the passage of
the Alaska coal bill of 1908, which

ONT t is added ed, to % the % pasSasS 5eos ,s of
n gave away a vast fortune in
coal to a private syndicate, composed
Of politicians and business men, by
the fact Congressman McLachlan of
California, a claim holder, voted for
the bill.
self to any shrewd plotting business
rascal, organizing a loot syndicate, is
to manage affairs in such a way that
some of the judges of the cause will
have an interest in it. In case of an
ordinary litigation involving possess
sion of a huge fortune, it would be
scandalous if q claimant for the for
tune were to be one OF the Judges, yet
that is exactly what happened in the
case of the Alaska fortune.
Mr.. Lathrop and Mr.. Turner, who
made a thorough investigation of the
scandal before publishing a report in
the form of a magazine article, write:
1T was no longer necessary for
Alaskan coal claimants to show-as
all other claimants in the United
States must do-that they had intend
ed up to the time of the nnal entry
of the land, to take it for their own
use. All that was necessary was to
prove that they intended to take it for
their individual use when they found
it and drove four stakes at its four
corners. This PERMISSION to abrogate
the coal law in part was secured SIM
ply by the continued representation
that the hardy prospector of Alaska
was interested in the bill, when as
matter of fact not five per cent of
those interested in the coal claims had
ever seen the mines, -. having lost
their fight to secure from congress leg
islation that would validate all claims
in Alaska regardless of what had been
done before, the coal claimants were
now primarily interested in one thing
a loose Interpretation of the Alaska
coal law"
The writer's proceed to show that
when the land claim cases were
brought to trial the land Office was
under a considerable disadvantage"
This is one of the most notorious and
suspicious conditions observable in the
Alaskan affair. Uncle Sam is not hard
up for good lawyers.
There were many men of great abili-
ty and experience on whom the gov
ernment could have called. BUT: 1.-THE
case was put in charge of young law
yer without a very definite koWledge of
the evidence or the coal laws Against
him were pitted two of the most adroit
and clever lawyers of the northwest,
one of whom, j. p. Gray, had the ad-
vantage of having followed the case
since he first made out the affidavits
for the Cunningham claimants as SEN
ator Heyburn's law associate in the
fall of 1904. And in addition, MEM
bers of the land office field service,
sympathizing with Mr.. CLAWS, were,
during the progress of the trial, re-
signing or threatening to resign from
the Offices employment.
"The Importance of the Alaskan
cases to the nation is apparent. The
discerning may see they involve the
American principle of equal oppor-
tunity for all, special privileges for
nome"
The magazine reviewers of the
Alaskan case end their statement
with a paragraph that might well be
regarded as somewhat sinister were
it not for the fact it is the unavoid-
able conclusion of the whole matter,
unless the entire American system is
to be reduced to an absurdity. This
ominous paragraph we quote:
Modern government is more and
more devoted to economic questions.
It is business, speaking in the largest
and best sense of that term. There
has been a great deal of sentiment in
discussing the resources of this coun-
try. This is not necessary The Unit
ed States now holds property of in