The Marion daily mirror. (Marion, Ohio) 1892-1912, 1910-02-26

ON STAND
Continued from pace One ,

/
made easy and often in practice in
evitable.
The imperative duty before this
country is not merely to get rid of
the unfaithful public servant. A far
more important duty Is to bring
about fundamental change I'm the
law and the practice toward con-
servation, TO prevent for the future
what has been in the past almost
Inevitable sacrifice of 1.-The public
welfare. and to make possible here
after the utilization of the natural
resources and the natural adyant-
age Tor the benefit of all of the
people instead of merely for the pro-
1T of a few.
When this story has been told
and the witnesses whom / shall ask
you to call have been heard Won
VIII realze that the interests of the
people are not safe in Mr.. Baling-
ers hands and that the country will
demand of this committee verdict
In harmmony with the general con-
viction that the secretary of the in
terror has been unfaithful both TO
the public, whose property he has
endangered and to the president
whom he has deceived"
The letter of November 4 10 presi-
dent Taft referred to by Pinchot re-
Siewes the entire conversation. Pin
chot said in the letter he had advis-
ed CLAWS to lay the Alaska coal lands
matter before the president. It wa,
his duty to do so because there was
involved question of public policy
that could be handled only by the
president.
Pinchot declared further In the let
ter that Ballinger had not given the
forestry bureau notice that appllco
tlon had been made TO patent the
Cunningham claims, although part OIL
them lay in the forest reserves. When
the fact was discovered forestry men
were denied access to the records IN
the case.
Ballinger said he could not legally
Withdraw ranger stations from mineral
entry although Secretaries Hitchcock
and Garfield had exercised that power
Afterwards he reflected upon Secre.
tary of Agriculture Wilson by de-
manding u statement as to the abso-
lutte necessity for the use of land ap-
piled for by him for range stations.
On March 20, 1909, Secretary BaIling-
er the letter sta began to restore to
public entry without advertisement
lands Withdrawn by Garfield at Roose-
velt's direction, to protect the public
against unregulated waterpower. "You
(the presldenD" continues the letter,
said the reopening had been men
toned to you by Ballinger, but that
he had not told you what IL meant
and you would see him about It,
Thereupon the policy of conservation
was reversed, what had been declared
to be illegal was seen TO be within the
law and Withdrawals began"
Ballinger's unfrendly attitude to-
ward the reclamation service. Pnchor
charged in the letter, would II con
tinued, dislntegrate that service.
when l saw you in Salt Lake
city In September, Pinchot says In
his letter, little mention was made
of the CLAWS matter, but we dis
cussed the recent relations of the in
terror department. to conservation at
some length. | expressed the belief
that you had been misinformed as to
certain of these relations and my |
fear that later on, when the present |
intense public attention had subsided, |
unwise tendencies might reappear
and the public interest might suffer |
said also that while ! should not
resign, my course otherwise was still |
undetermined, and | might find 1t |
necessary to make public my opinion
as to these relations. even If II should |
involve my official position"
The above paragraph Is especially |
interesting in view OF the fact that |
later Pinchot sent mis- now famous
letter to Senator Dolliver, i'm which |
he attacked Secretary Ballinger and |
which precipitated his dismissal at
the hands or President Taft.
Further along. after citing various |
activities construed by Pinchot as in
imical to the public interest, the writ
er says of Secretary Ballnger:
",rhese examples leave no doubt In |
my mind that Secretary Ballinger has
shown himself actively hostile to the |
conservation policy.
Whether or not they are sufficient |
to establish the fact of active hostil-
ity beyond reasonable doubt, as |
believe they do, is not the whole
question. Under our form of govern
more directly responsible for conser- |
vation of the natural resources than
other public officers Unless he Is
vigorously friendly to the conserya-
ton policies and prompt to defend |
our natural resources against the un- |
ending aggression of private inter- |
ests, the public interest must suffer. |
If he does not defend II in certain |
matters no one else can. In these |
matters indifference differs little |
from hostility la its final results"
Tht letter concludes:
"The effect of Secretary Balling |
er's action In the instances cited was
actively harmful to the public inter-
est In the most critical and far reach
ing attitude and of what he did, am
forced TO regard him as the most eff |