Twice-a-week plain dealer. (Cresco, Howard County, Iowa) 1895-1913, 1911-01-06
PI,a.lI!OTS ATTACK
CUNNINGHAM CASE
SUBMIT BRIEF TO PRESIDENT.
REVIEWING FAMOUS
LITIGATION.
DEMAND PATENTS BE REFUSED
Charge Gross lrreouIarity and Con-
spiracy to Defraud the Public
and Create Coal Monopoly
In Alaska.

In Alaska.
Washington, Jan. 2.-Gifford Pin
chot, former chief forester, and Amos
Pinchot have submitted to President
Taft their brief concerning the Gun
ningham coal claims in Alaska, in &C
cordance with the permission granted
them by the president some weeks
ago. The document is long and ex
haustive argument against the grant.
ing of the claims, based on the charge
that they are made in pursuance OF
fraudulent plan to acquire for sin.
gle association public coal lands
greatly in excess Of the amount al.
lowed by law.
The Pinchots say, in brief.
The Charge.
The charge against the Cunning
ham entries is that they were made
IN pursuance of a fraudulent plan to
acquire for single association public
coal lands in Alaska greatly in excess
of the amount allowed by law. The
law allowed an individual to take not
more than 160 acres and an associa.
ton not more than $40 acres. The
area embraced by the Cunningham
claims is approximately $3.50 acres.
The device employed was to have
each member of the association enter
a claim in his own name, and make
oath that he did so for his own sole
use and benefit, whereas in fact all
the members were acting under an
agreement that when titles were Sc.
cured the claims should be consolidate.
ed into one property and operated so1
the joint benefit of all in equal shares.
Effort to Secure Monopoly.
"The evidence in this case goes
much farther than to establish the
fraud Of attempting by subterfuge to
acquire from the Government more
coal land than the law allows. It
shows that from the beginning the
claimants acted with the definite and
sustained intention of defeating the
primary purpose and essential spirit
OF the law-the spirit and purpose to
prevent monopoly and secure com.
petitive development of the nations
resources.
The Cunningham coal claims cover
. nearly rectangular area running
about four miles cast and west, by
two miles north and south. Theil
value has been ccnscrvatively csti
mated at S25,00O,O0O. That the Gun
ningham claimants, if tley secure pat
ents, will be in position to establish,
Company and the Guggenheim Ex
rlora ton Company, a virtual monopo
ly of coal production in Alaska, is
clear from a consideration Of actual
conditions as they exist in Alaska.
'The only other large coal field in
Alaska of present importance is in the
Matanuska district, where the coal is |
less valuable and much less accessible
to tidewater. Furthermore, the Gun,
ningham claims are the only ones that
have gone to final entry and are in
any likelihood of securing patent II
is generally conceded that practically
all of the other locations in Alaska to
day are fraudulent. So strong is the
presumption Of fraud against them
that no claimant outside of the Gun
bingham group has seen fit to carr!
his claim beyond the initial step and
to pay his final entry fee to the Gov
eminent, or has ventured to repeat
The oath made in his location" pa
rers, that his claim is for his own ex
elusive use. The fact that indict
ments have recently been found
against several groups of claimants .
upon charges of conspiracy to defraud
The Government makes the opening OF
coal properties in Alaska by others
han the Cunninghams still more re.
note.
The Result Of Monopoly in Alaska.
To-day, the people of Alaska are
paying from twelve to fourteen dol
ars ton for coal inferior to that in
he Cunningham claims. The United
States Navy in the North Pacific is
paying about seven dollars a ton fol
,oal imported from the East. At San
the average price OF good
'team coal is over S. ton.
"Mr. Hawkins. The expert of the
claimants. who esti
mated only on the central portion OF
heir claims, reported finding over
ixty million tons net (after deduct
ng the usual onc-third for loss liz
nining) of high grade merchantable
oal, which can be delivered at tide
water in amounts OF 1000 tons day
It cost of $3.50 per ton. If the
,laims fall into the hands of the
planned by the claimants
he price Of coal can undoubtedly be
,ept at such figure that he benefi,
O the people will be comparatively !
mall, and practically the whole ad q
antage from the sale and develop v
nent Of these public coal lands vii. r
% into the pockets of the syndicate. '
The Issue Of Fact. !
"The Issue of fact in this case Is h
nipple.
"The Government contends that al e
br astsp association. and that tho ?
fEsa recorded iii separate names 9
lerely as a device to evade the law. h
The claimants contend tiat eac
,nl ,ic loi ootiroly for hic NV;