New-York tribune., 1911-01-19
THE CUNNINGHAM CLAIMS
Reply to Lafollette s" and University
President.

IIeSluSlL.
To the Editor OF Tho Tribune.
Sir: In re the Cunningham Alaska coa'
ciaims. on December II, 1910, Laoi-
lettes' quoted from the president OF the
University of Wisconsin TO the effect that
Secretary Balllnger was seeking TO shirk
his duty I'm his advocacy of a law trans
ferring jurisdiction 10 determine the va
lidity Of sad claims from his office 10 the
law courts of the land. and that IL there
was any doubt Of the validity Of said
claims the Secretary should reject them
and let tie claimants thereafter go into
court TO vindicate their claims and obtain
justice in accordance with the practice OF
n hundred years. "Lafollette's" indorsed
the foregoing and indorsed the author as
one Of the big men" in the conservation
movement. IT was Immediately pointed out
TO "Lafolette's' that the said university
presidents proposal was unsound and cal
culated to mislead. in this. viz:
The Cunningham claims, consisting of
entries of lands allowed and accepted on
full proofs and money payments, are
prima face valid and entitled 10 patent.
They are vested rights Under the law
and practice Of many times one hundred
years the claims cannot he rejected on
suspicion, nor on doubt. however reason
able. but only after sufficient charges
made. notice given. trial had and legal evil
Gence in support Of the charges and prov
ing them by a preponderance thereof.
This is the rule Of justice as old as the
common law.
If the claims are rejected the title TO
the lands involved remaining in the gov
ernment, under the law and practice or
more than one hundred wears, the claim
ants cannot resort TO any court for vim
dication or relief. They cannot compel
the issuance Of patents to them. The
judicial branch of the government has no
Jurisdiction or power directly TO review.
supervise or correct tho acts of the Sec
retBry. be they never so erroneous and
unjust. And the government can hold and
enjoy the lands forever. even though the
claimant might be unques tionably entitled
10 them. See Oregon agt Hitchcock. 2O2
L. $. 80 and cases cited. on the con-
trary, II the claims are upheld by the
Secretary and by reason Of fraud or mis-
take Of tho law held valid when they are
not, ard patents issued thereon, the gov
ernment can Immediately bring suit in the
federal courts 10 have said patents set
aside FOR such fraud or mistake by the
Secretary, and. proving tie same. secure
decree accordingly and undo what the Sec
retary has done. Scn Fermania Iron Com
pany agt. United state. So l.. S 379, and
cases cited. These legal aspects OF the
case are. Of course. not generally known.
Hence tho fallacy and dclusiyeness Of the
worthy university presidents proposal
1t was further pointed out to "Lafol
lette'S" that IN view OF the intense public
interest aroused in the subject Cand large
lv because Of discussion wherein. as in the
proposal aforesaid. public sentiment vas
being persuaded to depart from the settled
and safe principles Of law and justice in
dealing with said claims). IL might be
wise and just 10 place the Cunningham
claimants on an equal footing with the
government and open TO them the courts,
20 which the government already has ac-
cess. The people would have confidence
in the courts determination, be IL what il
may. while many Will now dstrust the
Secrstary's. II not unfayorablc to the
claims.
"Lafollette's" has failed and so refused
10 note in its columns the foregoing criti- |
csm OF the worthy university presidents !
proposal. though it was requested 10 do |
so. that its readers might not be deceived /
Those who assume 10 set up as teachers of !
the masses are taking on heavy RESPONSE !
bilities, and none more so than that they 4
Shall not further false impressions. in !
spirc unjust suspicious, disseminate error I
Dr suppress truth No political ends can I
Justify putting forth error for truth. And I
7 submit that even "Lafollettes' cannot /
afford to fail to convey 10 its readers a .
true understanding of the proposal Of the /
president of the University Of Wisconsin, |
which IL indorses. in the matter of the |
claims. Respectfully
G. VI. BOCRQUIN.
Rutte Mont Ian 10 1911