The Fargo forum and daily republican. [volume] (Fargo, N.D.) 1894-1957, 1910-06-13
final word
DEFENSE Of
BALLINGER
Continued From Page one.

/
field and former Forester Pinchot, to
secure his removal from Office.
First of ALL it is to be borne in
mind that Mr.. Ballinger neither direct
ly nor indirectly at any time was in
terested in any coal lands in Alaska
says Mr.. Vertrees. He was not coun-
sci for the Cunningham claimants ana
others as Mr.. CLAWS said. At the time
he became secretary he was counsel for
not one of them. The only connection
he had ever had with the Cunningham
claimants was the preparation of the
affidavit in September, 1908. He had
not been counsel heretofore; he was
not counsel thereafter; he entered the
Office of secretary without interests or
any kind. Indeed, as expressed by him,
he dissolved his firm, disengaged him
self and burned his bridges behind
him"
Defending Mr.. Ballinger's "clear-list-
ing" of the Cunningham claims as COM
missioner of the land office, Mr.. Ver-
trees says the action was upon recon-
mendation of Chief of Field Division
Schwartz, the official upon whom he
relied to be advised. IF that order was
erroneous" continues Mr.. Vertrees,
clearly the secretary would be eXcus-
ed, but it was not erroneous. 1t was
proper and right as the record stood"
He says that Mr.. Ballinger Immediately
revoked the order when CLAWS suggest
ed that the claims should not have been
clearlisted and that the claims had re-
manned in "chancery'' to this day.
Mr.. Vertrees points out that through
tout the entire time CLAWS had been
kept in charge and was the one man
relied upon to investigate all Alaskan
| claims. He says Ballinger defended
CLAWS, asserting that the criticisms
which Ex-Governor Moore had passed
upon him because of the delay in pat
enting the Cunningham claims was un-
| deserved.
1T must be borne in mind also that
no question of injury to the government
is involved" suggested Mr. Vertrees.
'The patents did not issue and the
question of the legality Of the claims is
now being tried. Finally it should be
stated that the evidence of Stenogra-
pher Frederick M. Kerby alone is con-
elusive as to the rectitude of Mr.. Bal
fingers course. Kerby was his conf
dental stenographer and clerk and in
were anything improper or corrupt to
be known, it would be known to him.
He was eager to speak. He wished
with all his soul to be called before
the committee as he was called. We
called him. The committee will re-
member his eagerness and zeal. He
was pressed to state what he knew
against his chief. Again and again he
was asked to state anything that in
his opinion reflected upon the secre-
tary of the interior. Not an act, not
| a transaction, not a thing, could be
stated by him. He asserted that there
was one thing, and that was that Mr..
Ballinger intended with full knowledge
of his unfitness, to appoint r H. Thorn
son, to be director Of the reclamation
service.
Referring to Kerby's testimony that
he regarded Thomson as unfit because
Mr.. Ballinger thought he was the man
to go to Alaska to Advise j. P. Morgan
& Co. whom his friend, George w. Per-
kins, of that firm, asked him to recon-
mend a western engineer to make an
examination with view to a contem-
plated railroad enterprise, Mr.. Vertrees
says: This is the only sin of Mr..
Ballinger which Mr.. Kerby could
name"
Mr.. Vertrees calls attention to the
rigid scrutiny and examination the in
terror department has been under dur
ing the inquiry and says nothing has
been revealed which reflects upon the
loyalty, the integrity, the good faith,
the sense of duty and of any man
therein"
THE only persons who can be crit
icised," continued Mr.. Vertrees, "are
those who have been discharged, and
have arrayed themselves against the
secretary and the department of the
interior. This inquiry involves the GOOD
name of a gentleman and the reputa-
ton of the member of the cabinet. II
is no idle thing to assail the character
of member of the cabinet. He is one
of the advisors of the president and
dishonorable conduct on has part not
only brings disgrace to him as an in
dividual, but reproach upon the govern
ment itself. Consequently such an ac-
! cusation ought not to be lightly
brought. There ought surely to be sub,
stantial grounds. Here, it may be as
serted, there are absolutely none. The
prosecution is cruel and it is baseless.
Mr.. Vertrees says the accusations
| against Mr.. Ballinger relate. officially.
to his policies with respect to con-
servation, water power sites and re-
clamation and to his course with re-
spect to the Cunningham claims. and
personally, to certain acts of alleged
professional improperly committed by
him as a lawyer, not as an official, but
/ when in private life.
Defending Mr.. Ballingers conserva-
ton policy, Mr.. Vertrees cites numer-
Gus cases in support of his contention
that former Secretary Garfield was
wrong, in his view that the secretary
of the interior, in dealing with the pub
lie lands, had authority to do that
which he may conceive advisable ana
for the public good, unless it be for
hidden by some statute, and this neces-
sarily without regard to the usage OF
the past.
Mr.. Ballinger's position with regard
to the exercise of the so-called super
yisory power with respect to the with
drawal Of water power sites, on which
question he also differed with Mr..
Garfield, is defined as follows: That
when congress had. by law, said that
the public lands should be open to en-
try-that is. entry under the homestead,
mining and desert land laws--it is be-
yond the power of any administrative
officer to withdraw by executive order
the lands which congress has thus
stated shall be open to entry. Numer-