The Washington times., 1911-05-13
SYNDICATE" LABEL
ON ALASKA CLAIMS
Startling Revelation Made That Judge J. W. Witten of
Land Office, Years Ago Had Hearsay Evidence Reflect
ing on Validity of Cunningham Land Entries
BY JUDSoN c. WELLIvER.

clerk of the General Land Office. as
long ago as 1903 learned in Alaska that
Clarence Cunningham was prospecting
coal lands in behalf Of IAN uuincorlo-
rated syndicate"
Judge Witten so reported in an official
report written that year.
If ne was correct, tie Cunn!I CHAM
claimants have no right to patents for
their lands.
Bet Judge Witten has never testified
in any Ct the various inqT:"Ics and IN
designations that have been held on this
sIt iect
He has been In the Interior Depart
rneht service ever since.
But he never gave testimony on this.
the crucial point iG the case of the
Government against the CunninGhaIn
claimants.
WHY?
Because. Judge Witten explains. what
he heard in Alaska was mere hearsay.
Called It Syndicate.
Volumes of hearsay-libraries of it
have been written into the vast records
growing out of inquiries into the Cum
ningham claims.
A year after Witten carefully report
| ed that Cunningham was backed by
| syndicate" that syndicate" made its
! coal entries.
Those entries have been piessed for
patent ever since. The syndicate's rec
ords, in part. have been found. The
syndicate's claims have been sold to the
Guggenheims. The great case Whlch
will determine whether the Guggen-
helms shall get these fabulously rich
lands is about to be DECIDED.
Judge Witten sits on the court that
will decide. With him sit the Secretary
of the Interior and the Commissioner
of the General Land Office.
Yet from the beginning, Judge Wltten
has never testified that. year before
the Cunningham claims were entered. ne
knew there was Cunningham synol-
Judge Witten was chief law clerk
under the Ballinger regime, ana con-
tinues in that position under the
Fisher administration; He was
loyal supporter of Ballinger, but thus
far has been so satisfactory to Secre-
tary Fisher that he has been retained
in his position.
tributed a bit of testimony, just
brought to light, bearing on the one
big issue in the Cunningham case;
In order to get an understanding
of this delayed evidence, it is neces-
rounding the Cunningham claims.
Clarence Cunningham acted as agent
for various persons, in prospecting
the coal regions. In their oenal1 ne
was perfectly regular and within the
law.
Anti Monopoly Provision.
But the law contemplates that per-
sons thus taking coal claims shall
take them for their own use and
benefit, and not to be consolidated
together into one huge holding that
may become a monopoly.
claims were taken, there was an un-
derstanding that they were to be
syndicated; If the purpose of such
syndicating existed in the minds of
then the claims were illegal and the
claimants were not entitled to pat
ents
Were the Cunningham claimants
syndicate?
Did they intend to consolidate their
holdings?
If so, their entries were fraudulent
and patents should not issue to them.
The evidence contained in the cele-
brated notebook of Clarence Cunning
ham indicated strongly that these
claimants were in fact a syndicate;
that they intended to handle their
holdings as a single block of prop
erty; that this was their purpose from
the beginning.
Additional color of probability was
given TO this theory by the fact, which
the Guggenheim lawyers admitted be-
'Ore the Senate Committee on Terri
ham claims were optioned IN one solid
body, by the claimants. to the Gug-
genheim syndicate
The evidence shows that Cunningham
was the agent in entering the claims,
that the tinances for the whole enter
prise were consolidated and managed
bv Cunningham: the claims were op-
toned en- bloc to the Gv;ggenbetms; but
all this. in the legal mind Of the Inter
Tor Department, does not conclusively
prove that the purpose~of syndicating
the properties was in the mind of these
claimants. before the claims were ac-
trallv entered. or when they were en-
tered.
Workings of the Law.
To get back to the Intellectual pro-
ccsses of these thirtv-four or thirtyfive
men. at that period and prove their
initial purpose Of syndCating, has been
the Governments problem, if it would
protect these lands.
It is a curious law. If ten men en-
ter ten claims today, with no thought
of syndicating, their entries are good.
Tomorrow. they may enter an agree
ment to syndicate. and it is harmless
But If they had that agrcep1ent when
they entered. 1t invalidates their claims
So. then. we find the Government try
irc to ascertain whether there was
SyndiCating agreement smong these
claimants or such anterior date as
would invalidate their right to patents.
Long Investigations have heen held, and
within the last few days the cases have
been argued ny able counsel before the
Commissioner Of the General Land Of
flee. SeCretarv of the Interior Fisher,
ard Judge Witten. 1t is generally re-
garied as a close question whether the
necessary legal nroof has been furnish