The Black Hills union and western stock review. [volume] (Rapid City, S.D.) 1904-19??, 1911-02-17
LA FOLLE1TE'S QUESTIONS
no PRESIDENT TAFT

no PRESIDENT TAFT.
Madison, Wis, Feb. Ia After
assuming the responsibility of pat
enting or withholding from patent
N the Cunningham entries, do you
now wish to be relieved of it?
is it your desire that, at the
eleventh hour, congress should take
from your hands the jurisdiction of
the Casa jurisdiction you volun-
tarlly and publicly assumed? If so,
upon what grounds Of public policy
or of public benefit9"
These pertinent questions are ad-
dressed to President Taft in an open
letter to the nations chief executive
in La Follette's Weekly magazine to-
day. The complete letter, nearly
two thousand words in length, gives
the entire history of the Cunning
ham case and the great harm which
might come to the nation if two
bills, introduced on January 9Th, by
Senator Nelson are passed.
You have yourself assumed all
responsibility for the disposal of
this case. You have taken it out of
the hands of the Interior depart
ment. There is in this case, there
fore, no so-called vicious circle" of
investigation and ADJUDICATION by Of
ficers of the same department. 1t
is matter solely of executive duty,
OF executive responsibility.
'sThis being the case, it is proper
and important that congress know
the executive attitude toward these
bills. 1t is, in this particular in
stance, quite as important that the
public know it,
The first is a special bill for the
transfer of the decision of the Cum
bingham case from your hands to
the Court of Appeals of the District
Of Columbia, says the letter in
speaking of the two bills introduced
by Senator Nelson. "The second is
a general bill providing for the trans
fer of the decision of all land cases
from the executive to the courts and
authorizing a retrial denovo in the
cases which have already been heard
before the Interior Department.
Under either bill the decision Of
the Cunningham case may be taken
fro ha y INV,
the Court of Appeals of this district.
"You, yourself, have stated in a
published letter that the RESPONSE
bility for the executive act of pat
enting or Withholding patents in land
cases lies with the executive. Since
1886, the executive branch of the
government has disposed Of all such
cases and the Supreme court of the
United States has upheld it's author
ity SO to do.
'You have, either directly or indi-
rectly, given the country to under
stand it was your fixed purpose to
make a personal disposition of the
Cunningham case.
''But now that you have assumed
the responsibility of the decision,
there appears no reason why the
extraordinary step Of seeking legis-
lation to wrest the case from your
hands should be taken-a step which
will effectually postpone the cancel
lation of the Cunningham claims for
an indefinite period.
eff the first bill passes there will
result the protracted delay and great
expense of additional hearings. The
fraudulent character of the claims is
already proven. Yet, if this bill
should become law the claimants
will be given one more chance of
making one more effort to defeat
the governments case.
eff the second bill passes, the
claimants will be given the hither-
to unknown privilege of having the
case tried over again denovo.
"The government has already
proven the claims fraudulent. If
the case is tried over again, the gov
eminent will be in the position Of
being obliged to prove them fraudu-
lent second time before they are
cancelled.
"Never before in the history of
the land office has such a burden
been placed on the government as
is now recommended by the bill pro-
posed in behalf of the secretary.
"No such stumbling block to
prompt disposal of land cases was
ever devised until the Cunningham
claims were pending before you for
adjudication.
Moreover, if either bill becomes
law, in the second consideration of
this case the claimants will have the
extraordinary advantage Of knowing
in advance the exact lines of attack
of the government, both as shown by
the record of the hearings already