The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1910-06-13
BOTH FILE BRIEFS.
Continued from Rage one,

CONTINUED from Page One,
sin of Mr.. Ballinger which Mr.. Kerby
could name"
Nothing Has Been Proven.
| Mr.. Vertrees 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.. 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
reputation of a member of the cabinet.
It is no idle thing to assail the char
acter of a member of the cabinet. He
is one of the advisers of the president
and dishonorable conduct on his part
not only brings disgrace to him as an
individual, but reproach upon the gov
ernmeUt itself. Consequently such an
accuse ton ought not to be lightly
brought There ought surely to be
substantial grounds. Here, it may be
asserted, 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 conser-
walton, 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 impropriety committed
by him as a lawyer, not as an official,
but when in private life.
Defending Mr.. Ballinger's conserva-
Nv Vert rites
cases in support of his contention that
former Secretary Garfield was wrong in
his view that the secretary of the IN
terror, in dealing with the public lands,
had authority to do that which he may
conceive advisable and for the pubhc
good, unless it be forbidden by some
statute, and this necessarily without re-
gard to the usage of the past.
Water Power Sites.
Mr.. Ballinger'S position with regard
to the exercise of the So-called super
visory power with respect to the with
drawal of water power sites, on Wnach
question he also differed from Mr.. Car
field, is defined as follows: That when
congress had, by law, said that the
public lands should be open to entry
that is, entry under the homestead,
lniriingand desert land laWs-it is beyond
the power of any administration officer
to withdraw by executive order the
lands which congress has thus stated
shall be open to entry Numerous cases
also are cited in support of this view:
Discussing the Carried policy or IS
suing cooperative certificates" where
by reclamation projects could be ex-
handed and extended, the brief says
Mr.. Balhngers view that those certlb-
Gates were illegal was fully sustained
by the attorney generals opinions,
which held the certlilcafes lnVal!u paseQ
upon the fundamental proposition that
an executive officer could not enter into
any contract unless it was authorized
by some act Of congress and that the
reclamation act did not confer authority
upon the secretary OF the interior 10
enter into such agreements.
Another of the Garfield policies" re-
yersed by Mr. Ballinger, was the co
operative agreement" between the IN
terror and agricultural departments
whereby the control Of certain employees
of the Indian bureau was gwen over 20
the forestry hureau.=ssIhe BRIEF -reeltas-
that Acting Secretary OF the Interior
Pierce decided that inasmIlch as the
cooperative agreement provided that
all men employed in forest work on
Indian reservations should constitute
part of the force OF the forest service,
responsible directly and only thereto,
it was an unwarTanted attempt to sur
render the duties imposed upon the In
terror department by the act making an
appr opriation of 100000 for the Indian
bureaus use.
Merely Difference of Opinion.
''Thus it appears that these policies
were matters about which there was a
very earnest and sincere difference OF
opinion" says Mr.. Vertrees. Mr.. Gar
field and Mr.. Pinchot entertained one
view, and that view is described as the
Garfield policy Mr.. Balinger enter
tanned 1. different view, and the result
was, coming in. as he did, as the sue
cessor of Mr.. Garfield. he and Mr.. Pin
chot regarded, or affect to regard, him
as an enemy to conservation and to re
clamation, and all because he did not
concur in the policies which they had
pursued. AS already shown, or pri1ci-
pie, ON a fair and proper construction
of the acts involved, the decisions of
judges. the departmental decisions. and
the opinion of the law advisers of the
secretary, the view which he entertain
ed was correct, and the doubts which, he
entertained were well founded.
THE suggestion now to be made, it
would seem, ought to dispose of the in
CURRY SO far as the supervisory power
and the questions involved hereunder
are concerned. I submit that it is en-
tirely beyond the authority or jurisdic-