The Washington times., 1911-05-13

| had been entered. But Witten found
| that Cunningham was there in behalf Of
a syndicate. For on page eighty-three
of his pretty little book he reported
| that:
| THE most promising (coaD fields yet
| discovered in Alaska are in the vicinity
of Controller bay. not far from the
| mouth Of Copper river. Exten-
| sive prospecting and development work
was going on there last summer. The
Alaska Development Company, backed
| by English capital, were operating with
| forty or fifty men, the Alaska Petroleum
| and Coal Company with five or six men,
AID MR.. CLARENCE CUNNINGHAM,
| REPRESENTING AN UNINCORPO-
RATED SYNDICATE, with about
| twenty or twenty-five men,"
Representing an unincorporated syn
dicate,' wrote Judge Witten. Appar-
| emily. he had no difficulty at that time
| in learning that the Cunningham crowd
| constituted syndicate" He jhst wrote
| 1t into his little book, and went blithely
along to tell what fine coal was going
| to be dug. and discuss its chemical
analysis.
Apparently, in 1908, Judge Witten knew
| the very facts the Government has since
been trying to prove.
Validity Of Claims.
Judge Witten's testimony in explana-
| tion of the foregoing excerpt from his
works might have been most interesting
But the judge was acting as lawyer for
the Government-not giving testimony.
II Judge Witten was right. and If the
Cunningham outfit was a syndicate"
than the claims taken in behalf of this
syndicate are void.
Judge Witten was asked about the
case at his home last evening. He said
that In 1893 he went to Alaska and found
much prospecting in progress. The Gun
ningham claims now in controversy
were not entered till 1904.
is 1t a correct statement OF the laws
substance, to say that IL these claims
were taken with the intent of syndica-
ting them. then they are void?'
Yes. that Is the substance of it."
THE case Of involving these claims
has been argued and submitted, has II
not ?"
Yes, 1t will be decided, presumably,
as soon as the record can be made up.'
You sat with the Secretary and the
Landoffice Commissioner, and will par
ticipate with them in the decision Of
the case ?''
That is correct"
And the crucial question is wheth-
er there was intent to syndicate the
properties -
That is the question"
Recalls Book He Wrote.
DO you recollect writing a little book
on Alaska. back in 1903 %
Yes. ! recall It,"
'On page eighty-three you wrote that
Mr.. Clarence Cunningham, representing
an unincorporated syndicate, with about
twenty or twenty-five men was pros
pecting in the region where the Cum
ningham claims were afterward enter
ed. How Id you know then that Cum
ningham represented a syndicate ?''
''Oh, 1 wrote that on the basis OF the
common report In Alaska. 1t was gen.
orally understood that he had some sort
of syndicate back Of him."
Have you ever testified to the fact
that that was the common information
in Alaska at that time -
No, l have not"
Ever been summoned to testify as
to what was the Information on which
you based that statement ?"
Il have not. 1t would not be admis-
sible as evidence. being merely common
report, and not my personal knowl-
edge"
No Answer to Question. ..
But, Judge Witten, are not the vol
umes of testimony which were taken
at the Ballinger-Pinchot investigation,
filled with the same kind of hearsay
and common report %
To this there was no answer The
telephone at Judge Wittens end of the
line was heard to click back into its
socket
Thomas R: shopp, secretary of the
which Clifford Pinchot is president,
when told of the discovery Of Judge
Witten's anterior knowledge of the
Cunningham plans, said:
The whole case of the Government
has been to prove that there was
prior intent to handle these claims to-
gether. 1t is Of the highest significance
that common report in Alaska, a year
before the claims were taken up. should
have accepted Cunningham as the agent
of syndicate.
The fact that Judge Witten officially
reported such thing has never been
brought out in any of the inquiries or
Investigations, so far as I know. and
The fact that it did not come out.
though Judge Witten was an officer of
the Land Office, is, of course, of espe-
cial interest"
Inquiry Was Possible.
It has been pointed out by people in
terested in the Cunningham cases that
even though Judge Witten's information
on this crucial point were mere heresay.
the different Investigators might have
traced 1t back to some definite, legal
evidence If they had only been notified
of this fact People who were in Alas
ka as early as 1908 might have been
found who could have produced the
legal evidence.
But the search for such evidence was
never inspired by any announcement
from Judge Witten, because he never
testified to what he had heard.
Today these highly significant facts
come to light after the case Is closed
and awaiting decision.