Los Angeles herald., 1910-03-11
GARFIELD SAYS
TAFT BETRAYED
AYERS BALLINGER ALLOWED
DECEPTION
Testimony of Former Secretary of ln-
terror Has EIectrifying Effect on
Committee Hearing Pin
chot Controversy
CONTINUED from Page onel

to prevent their being acquired as dS-
ricultural or timber lands.
Mr.. Vertrees and the witness spent
some time discussing between them
selves the aims and object of the con-
serVation movement. The attorney
elected this response from Mr. Gar
field:
No Dog in Manger
in all this conservation movement,
Mr. Vertrees, there has been no dog
in the manger' business. We believe
in present day use of the resources so
far as they are needed, but we do not
believe in unregulated and unrestricted
monopoly"
Mr.. Vertrees had read to the witness
n statement made b. George Otis
Smith. director of the geological sur
vey, that valuable data in the survey
had not been used by the reclamation
service when Secretary Garfield ordered
the wholesale withdrawal of water
power sites.
Mr.. Garfield said he had told Mr..
Smith this was an unfair statement
and he felt 1t was intended to discredit
the former administration. Mr.. Smith,
he said, stood by the statement, but
denied any intention of discrediting
anyone.
Mr.. Vertrees: "Mr. Garfield, in your
letter to President Taft, dated Noyem-
Der last, which letter, you say, was
called for to correct what you believed
to be the presidents misinformation,
didn't YOU say it was the restorations
made by Mr.. Ballinger, that the chief
difference between the Withdrawals
made by you and the reWithdraWals
made by Secretary Ballinger was that
all private lands were eliminated by
him by specific description and by your
general exception"
Was Difference
"And didn't you say that there was
no material difference between the
amount of lands withdrawn by you
and those withdrawn by Mr.. Ballinger
after the proper deductions were
made?"
"Yes."
"And does not Director Smith say,
while these private lands did enter
into the matter, the greater part of the
differences between the Withdrawals
made by you and by Mr.. Ballinger
was the elimination by Mr.. Ballinger
of lands that in no way could be con-
sidered available for power sites?"
1T was that statement which l con-
sidered unfair"
Mr. Garfield said that at Mentor
Ohio, when Mr.. Ballinger visited him
and presented the Cunningham af-
fidavit, the subject of conversation be-
tween himself and Mr.. Ballinger was
mainly politics.
Affidavit Recalled
On redirect examination by Mr..
Brandeis Mr.. Garfields attention was
called to the fact that the Cunning
ham affidavits of March 6, 1908, and
! September 4, 190S-the latter having
been turned over to Mr.. Garfield by
Mr.. Ballinger-asserted that the Gug-
genheim syndicate had no interest
whatever in the Cunningham claims,
whereas the record shows that an op-
tion to purchase a half interest in the
claim was given the Guggenheims De-
cember Z, 1907. The witness was asked
if he considerd these facts incon-
sistent.
Il certainly do" he replied.
Senator Fletcher-"When was the
first order made clear-listing the Cum
ningham claims?"
Attorney Brandeis-"December &C.
1907, Immediately after the acceptance
of the Guggenheim option"
Representative James" Mr.. Gar
field, you say these statements are in
consistent AS a matter of fact, the
record shows that Cunningham's state
ment was false. wasn't it?'
Mr.. Garfield--"I think So"