The Clarksburg telegram. [volume] (Clarksburg, W. Va.) 1874-1926, 1910-06-16


nation with view to contemplated
railroad enterprise, Mr.. yertrees says:
This 10 the only sin Mr.. Baillnger,
which Mr.. Kerby could name.y
Mr.. yertrees calls attention to the
rigid scrutiny and examination the
Interior Department has been under
during the inquiry and says nothing
has been revealed which reflects upon
the loyalty, the integrity. the good
faith. the sense of duty of any man
therein"
THE only persons who can be crit
icised," continues Mr.. Nertrees, ARE
those who have been discharged, and
have arrayed themselves against the
secretary and the Department Of the
Interior. This Enquiry involves the
good name OF gentleman and the
reputation OF member Of the
cabinet. It is no idle thing to assali
the character of a member of the
cabinet. He Is one OF the advisers Of
the President and dishonora1le con-
duct on his part not only bIGngs dis
grace to him as an aindividual, hut
reproach upon the government Itself.
Consequently such an accusation
ought not 10 he lightly brought There
ought surely to HE substantial grounds.
Here 1T may be asserted. there are
absolutely none The prosecution is
cruel and 1T is baseless.'
MIR. Nertrees says the accusasons
against Mr.. Ballinger relate, officially,
to his policies with respect to conser-
walton. water sites and reclamation
and to his course with respect to the
Cunningham claims; and. personally.
to certain acts OF alleged professional
fmpropriety committed by him as a
lawyer. not as an official, but when in
private life
Defending Mr.. Ballinger's conser-
Walton policy, Mr.. vertrees cites num-
erous cases in support of his conten-
ton that former Secretary Garfield
was wrong in his view that the secre-
tary OF the interior, in dealing with
the public lands, had authority to do
that which he may conceive advisable
and for the public good, unless 1t be
forbidden by some statute, and this
necessarily without regard to the
usage of the past.
Mr. Ballinger's position with regard
to the exercise of the so-called SUI
pervisory power with respect to the
withdrawal of water power sites, on
(which question he also differed with
Mr.. Garfield, is defined as follows
When Congress had. by law, said
that the public lands should be open
Ito entry. that is, entry under the
homestead, mining and desert lands
laws, It is beyond the power OF any
administrative officer to withdraw by
executive order the lands which Con-
gress has thus stated shall he open to
entry. Numerous cases also are cit
ed I'm support on this view.
Discussing the Garfield policy OF
issuing cooperative certificates
whereby reclamation projects could he
expanded and extended. the brief says
MIR. Bailinger's view that those eertif-
llcates were illegal was fully sustained
by the attorney generals opinion,
which held the certificates invalid
based upon the fundamental propo-
sition that an executive officer could
not enter into any contract unlsss it
was authorized by some act of Con-
gress and that the Reclamation act
did not confer authority upon the sec
lretary of the interior to enter into
such agreements.
Another of the Garfield policies"
reversed by Mr.. Ballinger, was the
"co-operative agreement between the
interior and agricultural 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
Interior Pierce decided that mas
much as the cooperative agreement
provided that all men employed in
forest work on indian reservations
should constitute a part of the force
of the forest service. responsible di-
tCSAlg anu bIly SlleISkbs IL WAS All III
warranted attempt to surrender the
duties imposed upon the Interior
Department ny the act making an ap-
preparation of 100000 for the Indian
Bureaus use.
Thus it appears that these policies
were matters about which there was a
very earnest and sincere difference of
opinion" says Mr.. Vertrees "Mr,
Garfield and Mr.. Plnchot entertained
one view. and that view is described
as the Garfield policy" Mr. Ballin-
ger entertained different view, and
the result was, coming in, as he did,
as the successor of Mr. Garfield. he
and Mr.. Pinehot regarded or affect
to regard, him as an enemy to conser-
walton and to reclamation, and all
because he did not concur In the pol
icies which they had pursued. As al
ready shown, on principle, on a fair
and proper construction OF the acts
involved, the decision OF Judges. the
departmental decisions. and the opin-
ion OF the law advisers OF the secre-
tary, the view which he entertained