New-York tribune., 1910-03-11
BACKS UP PlNCHOT
GARFIELD AIDS HIN
Ballinger and Cunningham
Clnims-.Against d Bond Issue.
1rrnm &c rritnne Rereau. J

From The Trituue Brreau
Washington March l0.-James - 'H'
field. formre Secretary Of the Inte''ot' "''
! tshed his testimony before the fa'liiee
/ Pinchot committee late this afternoon aou
was followed on the stand by ATlhui
Davis, chief engineer Of the Tecldl""''V
service. Mr.. Davis who was called pE t"e
attorneys for Mr.. Pinchot said he pre-
ferred not o testify unless instructed 10
do so by the committee. Senator Nelson
explained that the committee was UE'"s
to get all the facts end directed Mr. DAVIS
10 proceed.
Much of the TESTIMONY Of Mr.. Garfield 90
day was in the nature of an ampIhcatlo'
OF his views respecting the policy OF cor
servation. He spoke highly OF Louis ~
CLAWS. aging he had always regarded him
as one of the ablest and cleanest men IN
the service. In the cross-examinatioh II
was brought out that Mr.. Garfield and
Secretary Ballnger were fellow students at
Williams College. Mr. BalIinger heing III
the class just ahead of Mr.. Garfield. MT
Garfield ssid that his relations with Sec
retary BaIIinger had been very Intimate
unit! about a year ago. He said he recon-
mended NJ. Ballngsr's appointment as
Commissioner OF the General Land Office
They knew each other as Dick and
Jim
The attorneys for Mr.. Tiuchot dlreeted
special attention 70 TIE interview between
Mr.. Rallinger ard Mr.. Garfield held at the
home Of the latter in Ohio in the fall OF
1905 Al that time Mr.. BaIlinger was prac-
tisnc law at Seattle and Mr.. Garfield was
Secretary OF tho Interior. Mr.. Bailinger
stopped in Ohio on his way home from
an afternoon a
Mr. Garfield The had a shart talk about
the Cunningham coal cases, and Mr.. Gar
Aeld said he regarded the claims as illegal.
Mr. RaIIinger submitted an affidavit made
on September g. 1908. by Clarence Cunning
ham in which Cunningham said that the
claimants had no contract with the GuS-
genheilns or any other syndicate. Mr.. Car
field said he read over this affidavit ana
told Mr. Bailingcr that he did not think IL
would make any difference in the status
of the claims Mr.. BaIlingeT said he had
been requested to submit it ''for what II
was WORTH" and Mr.. Garfield said he would
send il TO Washington for filing with the
other pspers. He did not know at that
time. he said. that Mr.. Ballinser was one
of the attorneys TOR tie Cunningharns He
admitted however. that the affidavit sub
mitted by Mr.. Ballinger bore an indorse-
ment showing that Mr.. Ballingers nrTn
represented the Cunninshams.
The Gusgenhen' Option.
Mr.. Rrandeis directed special attention 70
that portion OF the affidavit In which MI
Cunningham said that no contract had
been made with the Guggenheims. whereas
the representatives of the Guggenhefns IN
recent testimony before the Senate Com
mittee on Territories declared they had an
option bearing date Of December {, 1907, 10
take over the Cunningham properties.
Judge Vertress did not cross-examine Mr..
Garfield on this point. It is understood,
( however, thst in the rebuttal attention viii
ne called 10 the fact that when Mr. Bal
Iinger returned TO Seattle he told the Gun
ninghams that both Secretary Garfield and
Commissioner bennett had practically de-
cided to hold their claims illegal and ad-
vised them to file under the act Of May IS.
1905. Inasmuch as this law contained
stringent anti-monopoly provision. II will
he asserted by friends of Mr.. Ballinger
that il he had known OF the alleged Gug-
genhem option he would not have advised
his clients 70 file under that law. There is
a dispute, also. as TO whether an option
was given 10 the Guggenheims, and ques-
tion will ne raised as 10 whether the state
nent made in Clarence Cunniugham's affi-
davit was was not a fact. The Gus-
Senheirns insist there was an option. while
the Cunningham claimants say that moth
ing except a tentative agreement was
reached, which agreement had been re-
scinded at the time Clarence Cunningham
made the affidavit which Mr.. Bsllinger sub
mitted to Secretary Garfield.
Against Bond Issue.
Mr. Garfield was asked if the $50 ono 600
issue OF bonds. recommended by President
Taft. was not made necessary to relieve
hardshps growln., out of the cooperative
plan. He declared that the proposed issue
of bonds would cover a much wider field of
reclamation than that begun under his ad-
ministraton OF the interior Department
In fact declared Mr Garfield. much 10
the surprise of the committee, II don't be-
lieve it is necessary TO issue any bonds at
all
/ But aren't there hardships growing out
of the present status OF the project -
asked Senator Sutherland.
In individual cases. YES They arise
from a failure on the part OF entrymen to
appreciate the difficulties of developing
irrigated lands and from their going on the
land long before the projects could be COM
Tleted and water turned on. They were
t
went at. their own haznrd. The govern
ment is not responsible for their plight"
Mr.. Nertrees and the witness spent some
time discussing the aims and ObjGcts of the
conservation moy ement One of tns Ques-
tions elected this response from Mr.. Gar
! field
In all this conservation movement. MIR.
Nertrees. there has been no dog in the
manser' business. We believe IN present
day use Of the resources. SO far as Trey are
needed. but DO not believe in unregulated
and unrestricted monopoly"
Mr.. Vertrees Garfield. in .Jgr letter
/ 10 President Taft. dated Novembe' : last.
which letter, You say. vas called f"t 10 cor
rect what YOU believed 10 be the Presidents
misinformation, didn't you say in connection
with III" restorations made by Mr.. Ealltnger
! that the chief difference between the with
drawals made by YOU and the rewithdrawals
made by Secretary BalIinger was that all
! private lands were eliminated o. him by
- r sSl4HxaHRsENuA