New-York tribune., 1911-01-02
MAKE APPEAL
Urge President Taft to Cancel
Cunningham Claims.
SAY THEY ARE FRAUDULENT
Oppose Ballinger's Recommend
alton to Refer Them to Court
State Their Contentious.

State Their Contentious.
Washington, Jan. 1.-Gifford Pinchot'
formerly Chief Forester OF the United
States, and his brother. Amos Pinchot, III
voluminous brief, made public to-day
urge President Taft TO cancel the Cunning
ham coal claims In Alaska Immediately
without further hearing. They contend
that the record "abundantly proves that
the claims are Illegal, and that from the
beginning the claimants have conspired to
defraud the government"
mo resort to a court or a rehearing or
the case is necessary TO secure justice and
protect the peoples property" the brief
says. The case against the claimants Is
already conclusive We believe the duty
OF the Executive In regard 10 the claims Is
obvious and immediate. The claims should
be cancelled by the President forthwith"
Against Reference to Court.
They oppose the recommendation made
by Secretary Ballinger to Congress in his
annual report that the Cunningham cases
be referred TO the Court OF Appeals OF the
District Of Columbia for adjudication, on
account OF the wide discussion and popu-
lar interest they have provoked. largely
owing to their alleged value and method
of attempted acquisition" These cases
have been pending before the General Land
Office for several years.
NO transfer OF the Cunningham cases
TO a court for a decision upon the present
record would relieve the executive depart
ment Of responsibility for failure to have
the case against the claimants fully pre-
sented by attorneys OF experience and
ability and for omitting TO produce all the
evidence Of fraud available" the Pinchots
say, after charging that "in spite OF the
clearness OF the existing proof. We believe
il 10 be our public duty 10 point out that
the whole OF the case against the claim
ants has not been presented"
The charge is also made that evidence of
conspiracy was suppressed by agents of the
land oflce, that available evidence in ex-
isting documents was not produced, and
that the governments case was 'inade-
quately presented by counsel" The brief
continues:
The evidence in this case goes much
further than TO establish the fraud Of at
tempting by subterfuge TO acquire from
the government more coal land than the
law allows. 1t shows that from the begin
ming the claimants acted with the definite
and sustained intention Of defeating tho
primary purpose and essential spirit OF the
law-the spirit and purpose to prevent
monopoly and secure competitive develop
ment OF the nations resources. The law
under which patents for these claims are
asked is defective in that Il contains no
provision to prevent combination after
titles are secured. This fact makes 1t even
more imperative to enforce strictly the
nrnNiCfnnG fnrhiHdinu n
bine made before patents are issued. Only
thus can monopoly be prevented.
AIIese Monopoly in Alaska.
Regarding the effect Of monopoly in
Alaska the brief says:
IL is evident that an enormous saving
can be made to the people of Alaska, to
the whole Northwest and to the United
States navy IL only these coal mines are
. The industries Of Alaska have been
for years largely I'm the hands OF a great
and oppressive monopoly, the Guggenheim
syndicate, which has kept out other cap
ital. throttled competition and held Alaska
at standstll.
The brief recites that the case for the
government is supported by FIVE main lines
Of evidence, as follows:
Flrst-The history of the operations of
t1e CunHl05IldIH PHlIN IIltu III AldShd, dS
derived from their own records and state
ments. shows that from beginning TO end
they we're all members of a single associa-
tion engaged in acquiring joint property
and that the claimants never owned these
claims separately
Second-The book of accounts OF the Cum
ningham group and the reports made by
its agents are all evidently based on the
assumption that all the claims are one
property owned by one association
Thrd-From first TO last the subscribers
took no interest whatever in the situation
or value of the particular claims entered
only for the value of the claims as a whole
Fourth-Within the shortest practicable
time after final certificates were issued
(whereupon it became legal to combine
provided there had been no prior agree
menO, the Cunningham associates took
steps TO turn over their claims to a cor
poration on basis of equal shares. al
though they knew their claims were OF un-
equal value.
Fifth-More than one-half Of the claim
ants have admitted In aftidavits that they
had always acted with a mutual under
standing that they would combine their
so confessed at the hearings.
Suppression of Evidence Charged.
Discussing the charge that important evil
dence against the claimants was suppressed
by land Office agents, the brief says:
John W. Dudley Register OF the Land
Office at juneau. Alaska one of these
agents went so far as to advise Cunning
ham specifically how one OF the claimants,
who had told the truth I'm his affidavit
should change his statement so as to
strike out evidence of fraud and avoid in
Nestigation which will at least involve an
IN n'erminabe delay.
In support OF their contention that the
case was inadequately pre-
sented at the hearings. the Pinchots as
sert that James s Sheridan, who was as
signed to the work had no grasp OF the
case against the claimants" and that his
manifests itself through the
record" They declare that he had been
graduated just thirteen months from law
school and that he had never tried case
in court. Opposed to him in the case
they say. were eminent counsel retained
by the claimants