| OCR Text |
Show "Mr. Ballinger before this Inquiry began." be-gan." The brief deals at great length with the evidence before the committee relative to the Cunningham claims In defense of Mr. Balllnijer's connection with them as a government official. Theu his conduct while out of ofiiee la discussed, particularly his preparation prepara-tion and presentation of the Cunningham Cunning-ham affidavit to interior department olflclala In September, 19ux. In answer ans-wer to criticisms of Mr. Ballinger conduct in this matter, Mr. Vertrees says: "First of all, as has already been shown, there was no Information of a secret character in the land office, which Mr- Dalllnger could have used. The reports on llle are favorable to the claims. The affidavit on fib-were fib-were well known lo the affiants themselves. them-selves. The only evidence thai had been procured, not contained In the reports or the affidavits of the affiants affi-ants was a copy of the Cunningham Journal, the original of which Cunningham Cun-ningham himself had. This Journal was from the ofifce of the commissioner. commis-sioner. Moreover, this wa.. performed perform-ed fix months after ho had left the office were secondary if it be assumed assum-ed that Dalllnger, In a matter In which lie had no Interest, had chanced t retain In memory a recollection of the status of the claims and the records with respect thereto. The faet Is that there was nothing for hlni to remember remem-ber or recall. It was not possible for him, therefore, to have used Information Informa-tion obtained by hlrn as commissioner. Tbe objection that the performance of a service of this character was forbidden for-bidden by la.v is equally unfounded." Mr. Vertrees cites rules and regulation regu-lation of the department as well as decisions of the department, the attorney at-torney general and the supreme court, which he sajs supports Mr. lUlli 'Igor's view that there Is no legal department depart-ment Inhibition agalnvt the practicing practic-ing before the department by a former for-mer employe In land cases within two years after his separation from the service. The Inhibition applies, he says, only In cases Involving money claims. VERTREES IN DEFENSE. (Continued From rage One.) ter of a member of the cabinet. He ! one of the advisers of the president an ddishonorable conduct on his part not only brings disgrace to him as an individual, but reproach upon the government Itself. Consequently such an accusation ought not to bo lightly brought. There ought surely to be substantial grounds. Here, It may be asserted, there are absolutely none. This prosecution Is cruel and it Is baseless." Mr. Vertrees says the accusations against Mr. Ballinger relate, officially official-ly to his policies, with respect to conservation con-servation , water power sites -and reclamation and to his course with respect to the Cunningham claims, and personally, to certain acts of alleged al-leged professional Impropriety committed com-mitted by hlpi as a lawyer, not as an official, hut "'when jn private life. Defending Mr. Bafllnger's conservation conserva-tion policy, Mr. Vertrees cites numerous nu-merous cases in support ot his contention con-tention that Former Secretary Garfield Gar-field was wrong in hla view that the secretary of the interior, in dealing with the public lands, had authority to do that which ho mav conceive advisable ad-visable and for the public good, in-less in-less It bo forbidden by some statute, and this necessarily without regard to the usriKe of the past. Mr. Balllnger's position with regard to the exercise of the so called supervisory su-pervisory power with respect to the withdrawal of water power sites, on which quentlon he alto differed with Mr. OarfUld. is defined as follows: "That when congress, had, by law, said that the public lands should be open to entry tahat Is, entry under the homestead, mining and desert land laws, it is beyond the power of any administrative officer to withdraw with-draw by executive order the lands which congress has thus stated shall be, open to entry. Numerous cases are offered in support of this view. Discussing the Garfield policy of Issuing Is-suing "co-operative certificates," whereby reclamation projects could be expanded and extended, the brief says Mr. Bulllnger's view that those certificates wore Illegal, was fully sustained by the attorney general's opinions, which held the certificates Invalid, upon the fundamental proposition proposi-tion that an executive officer could not enter luto any contract unless It was authorized by some act of congress con-gress and that the reclamation act did not coufer authority upon the sec retary of the Interior to enter Into such agreements. Another .f the "Garfield policies' reversed by Mr. Ballinger was the "co-operative agreement" between the interior and agricultural departments whereby the control of certain employes em-ployes of the Indian bureau was given over lo the forestry bureau. The brlff recites that Acting Sec-rt-tary of the Interior Pierce decided that, inasmuch as the co-oerat.lvo agreement provided that all men employed em-ployed in foiest work on Indian reservations, reser-vations, should constitute a part ot the force of the forest service, re-. sponsible dlroctly and only thereto. It was an unwarranted attempt to surrender the duties imposed upon the Interior department by the acl making an appropriation of $10i),000 fer the Indian bureau's use. "Thus it appears that these policies poli-cies were matters about which thero was a very earnest and sincere difference dif-ference of opinion." says Mr. Vertrees Ver-trees "Mr. Garfield and Mr. Pin-chot Pin-chot entertained one view and that view is described as the 'Garfield policy.' Mr. Ballinger entertained a differeut view, and the result was, coming In as he did, as the successor Of Mr r.:irflf.ll ha i- r.i-i. 1 uu.i .ill. 1 1UIIIUI regarded, or affected to regard him as an enemy to conservation and to reclamation, and all because be did not concur In the pedicles which they had pursued. As already shown, on principle, on a fair and proper construction con-struction of the acts involved, the decisions de-cisions of judges, tho departmental decision, and the opinion of the law advlKera of the secretary, the view which he entertained was correct and the doubts which he entertained were well founded. The suggestion now to be made, It would seem, ought to dispose of the Inquiry so far as the supervisory power and the questions Involved thereunder, are c-uiccrneil. I submit that it is entirely beyond the authority author-ity or jurisdiction of a committee of the congress or of the congress Itself, It-self, to censure the secretary of the Interior, u cabinet officer, because of his views in matters of departmental department-al policy, . "However, there Is another consideration consid-eration by which the Inquiry ls effectively ef-fectively disposed of, and that ls this: "The views. which Ur. ir'alllnger entertained, en-tertained, and the policies which he has pursued, are the opinions and the iewp o the president hltnsell- es and opinion eiprvirned by biiu lo |
