Mr. GARFIELD. I did not know who drafted the Cale bill. Mr. PEPPER. Where did you go on March 2, 1908? Mr. GARFIELD. I was in Columbus, Ohio, at a meeting of the state convention. Mr. PEPPER. And thereafter you returned to Washington, about when? Mr. GARFIELD. I think about the 5th of March. Mr. PEPPER. And did you receive shortly thereafter a letter from Mr. Ballinger? Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, sir. Mr. PEPPER. Is that the letter dated April 8 ? Mr. GARFIELD. Yes, sir; it has already been introduced in evidence, I believe. The CHAIRMAN. Can you give us a reference to that, Mr. Pepper? Mr. PEPPER. I speak subject to correction, but I think it has not actually been printed in the record. It is, in point of fact, Exhibit D; if you will pardon me for a moment I will verify my recollection. The CHAIRMAN. If it is printed in the record will you kindly give us a reference to it. Mr. PEPPER. I will refer to it. My thought was that it had not been printed. I find that my recollection is correct. The document was, in point of fact, Exhibit D in Mr. Ballinger's letter to the President of November 15, 1909. Mr. Ballinger's letter is in the record, and the exhibit has been referred to but not yet offered. The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to that? Senator PURCELL. What is the page of Mr. Ballinger's letter? The CHAIRMAN. It is not in the record. The chair hears no objection; it is admitted. Mr. BRANDEIS. The letter is in the record. Senator PURCELL. What page is that on? Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Ballinger's letter of November 15 is on page 1234 and following pages of the record. Mr. JAMES. Is this letter that you are now going to introduce in the record? Mr. PEPPER. It is not in the record, but it was, or a copy of it. It constituted an exhibit to that letter which was inclosed with it by Mr. Ballinger to the President and passed on to Mr. Pinchot. The CHAIRMAN. Do you desire to have it read? Mr. PEPPER. I will leave that to Mr. Vertrees. It ought to be read sooner or later. Mr. VERTREES. I think it ought to be read. Mr. PEPPER. Will you be kind enough to read it, Mr. Garfield? Mr. Garfield then read letter of April 8, 1908, of Mr. Ballinger to Secretary Garfield. This letter in full appears hereafter as part of Exhibit D to Secretary Ballinger's letter to the President of November 15, 1909. Mr. MCCALL. Is there a reply to that letter? Mr. PEPPER. Yes, sir; I was going to offer it. Senator ROOT. What was the exhibit number of that? Mr. PEPPER. That was Exhibit D in the letter of November 15, 1909, of Mr. Ballinger to the President. Senator Roor. I do not see any reference to Exhibit D in the record. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Chairman, when the letter of November 15, 1909, was read by Mr. Pinchot I, perhaps, made the mistake of ques tioning Mr. Pinchot respecting each individual section of it, after that section had been read, and before passing to a consideration of the next section. I think the stenographer found it impossible afterwards to print the letter consecutively and the comments independent of the section to which they related. Perhaps it would simplify the situation if the whole letter of November 15 were at this point printed in the record in its entirety. Of course it will involve duplication, but as it is at present it perhaps does not do justice to the letter of November 15 to have it in the shape in which it is. Senator ROOT. Is that letter finished in the record? I have run along over the record and do not find it. Mr. PEPPER. On 1261, Senator Root, I think the letter is finished. You will notice a section there which begins, "Referring further to the Cunningham claims," and then a paragraph that refers to Exhibit C-I am referring now to page 1261 of the testimonyand then he refers to the particular exhibit that we are now discussing, the Exhibit D, and then a few lines below he refers to Exhibit E, and then appears the Secretary's signature. Senator ROOT. I see it now. The CHAIRMAN. Your suggestion is to have the entire letter printed in the record? Mr. PEPPER. To have the entire letter printed at this point. Mr. PEPPER. Yes, sir. Senator ROOT. I think that should be done, Mr. Chairman, because this letter appears in fragments. Mr. PEPPER. I am taking the responsibility for it, because it had to be cut in such a way that was helpful in the examination, but it is misleading when you read the record. Mr. JAMES. It had been agreed that it should be printed in its entirety before. Mr. PEPPER. The reporter came to find out that without the comments it would have been unintelligible. Mr. JAMES. I thought so at the time. The CHAIRMAN. You had better read the other letter. I understood that you were about to introduce the reply from the Secretary. Mr. PEPPER. I have just introduced the letter of April 8 from Mr. Ballinger to Mr. Garfield, and I now introduce Mr. Garfield's reply of April 16, which is the reply to this. The CHAIRMAN. To this letter which has just been read? Mr. PEPPER. Yes, sir, as well as Exhibit D to the letter of November 15. The CHAIRMAN. They will all be printed. Senator ROOT. The letter of November 15 and the exhibits? The CHAIRMAN. The letter of November 15 and all the exhibits. (The letter of November 15 and its exhibits are as follows:) [PERSONAL.] THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, SIR: In compliance with your direction, I herewith furnish you the facts requested respecting the matters covered by the letter of Hon. James R. Garfield, dated Cleveland, Ohio, November 6, 1909, addressed to you, and the letter of Hon. Gifford Pinchot, dated Washington, D. C., November 4, 1909, also addressed to you. First: As to Mr. Garfield's letter. It is apparent that there is an irreconcilable difference between his views of the law governing an administrative officer and those entertained by me, and nothing is gained by their repetition here. I am, however, convinced since reading these letters that the real animus against me lies in the fact that I have had to treat so many of my predecessor's acts as unsupported by law. In this particular I have taken no step which, in my judgment, was not the imperative duty of a conscientious official and required by my oath. Regarding the assertions of Mr. Garfield respecting my conduct on the subject of water-power withdrawals, he is correctly informed that I regarded his blanket withdrawals, under the guise of reclamation withdrawals, where, in fact, they were not for reclamation purposes, as illegal. In working it out I could find no other solution except by way of restoration and rewithdrawal in the manner in which it was handled, and that to have the matter intelligently presented to Congress it was necessary to make new withdrawals, with sufficient data to determine what they were withdrawn for. The only error I made in the whole affair was in not having the restorations and rewithdrawals made concurrently, which I would have done had I been as conversant with the facts then as I am now. The history, however, of this entire matter when fairly judged leaves no room for impugning my motives or of indulging in the opinion that I was coerced into the rewithdrawals. In all these particulars Mr. Garfield has been, by some officer or officers of the Reclamation Service, erroneously advised and an unfair and in some respects untruthful coloring given my relations to the same. In further confirmation of my statements in this respect I append for your examination copies of all the correspondence between the Reclamation Service and my office on this subject, as well as copies of the restorations recommended by Acting Director Davis and approved by me. (See Exhibit A hereto attached.) The act of June 17, 1902, known as the "reclamation act," in terms provides for the withdrawal of public lands for the following purposes only: "SEC. 3. That the Secretary of the Interior shall, before giving the public notice provided for in section 4 of this act, withdraw from public entry the lands required for any irrigation works contemplated under the provisions of this act, and shall restore to public entry any of the lands so withdrawn when, in his judgment, such lands are not required for the purposes of this act; and the Secretary of the Interior is hereby authorized, at or immediately prior to the time of beginning the surveys for any contemplated irrigation works, to withdraw from entry, except under the homestead laws, any public lands believed to be susceptible of irrigation from said works. * * Assuming Mr. Garfield's doctrine of the supervisory authority of the Secretary of the Interior to suspend the public-land laws by executive withdrawals to be sound, which I do not admit, proper administration would not warrant the use of the Reclamation Service for a purpose in no manner related to the functions of that bureau and not within this act, as there is an implied prohibition against withdrawing lands thereunder except for the purposes specified. Furthermore, any expenditure of reclamation moneys in investigation of these withdrawals must be conceded by all as totally unwarranted, a fact which has since been demonstrated by the inability to procure (and properly so) through the Reclamation Bureau information concerning the status of Carey Act irrigation projects in the various States, the reason advanced by the acting director being that the bureau was not authorized to apply its funds to such purposes. The fact that another bureau of this department had an appropriation for this purpose and had data under which intelligent withdrawals could be made was another adequate reason for transferring to the Geological Survey the full authority in the premises and cleaning up the matter so far as the Reclamation Bureau was concerned. When this subject was under consideration in the department, you will recall the fact that I took it up with you, and I am not aware of not giving you a full and "frank statement of facts" in this as in all other matters presented by me to you. I have heretofore reported to you the method adopted by the Geological Survey in obtaining the necessary facts to support its withdrawals. This method refutes the further statement made by Mr. Garfield to the effect that the Geological Survey acted upon the "same kind of information as was used by the Reclamation Service," for the Geological Survey drew its information from data which had been acquired from several years of field investigation of land and water resources and data which it is continually acquiring on this subject. Also, the maps and other data heretofore exhibited to you demonstrate the inaccuracy of Mr. Garfield's assertion that the difference in quantity between the area of land withdrawn by him and that withdrawn during my administration is due to the elimination from the latter of entered lands. (Copies of these tables and maps are attached, marked "Exhibit B.") The withdrawals made by Mr. Garfield were generally in pursuit of a theory that the Executive was vested with a power to do any and all things which in his judgment might be proper to be done in the absence of specific constitutional or legislative prohibition, and did not truthfully show what they were made for; whereas the withdrawals which have been made during my incumbency have shown what they were Fuade for, and have been accompanied by the express declaration that they were for e purpose of enabling Congress to adopt legislation in regard thereto. I have not adopted any subterfuge in this respect. The question as to the issuance of patents to persons who have made entries of lands during the interval between restoration and withdrawal has been repeatedly passed upon by the courts. Such withdrawals, if legal, will prevent the effectiveness of inchoate rights. Aside from this, however, after three careful searches of the Land Office records, no such entries have been found, and the question is largely academic. As regards the issuance of cooperative certificates in work under reclamation projects, the Attorney-General has rendered two separate opinions declaring their issuance unauthorized by law, of which you are fully advised. The comptroller has likewise ruled on their invalidity. Mr. Garfield has, so far as I know, made no effort to learn the real facts relating to any of these matters or to justly estimate my motives in connection therewith, which I very much regret, in view of our long friendship and in view of the fact that upon my retirement from the General Land Office he expressed to me in writing his appreciation of my services to the Government, and at which time he evidently believed that my motives in all matters affecting the public service were of the highest character. I attribute the change of spirit to the influence of others who have poisoned his mind with untruths. I have consistently endeavored in my official acts to avoid anything that would appear to be a reflection upon my predecessor, except where legal and administrative action seemed necessary. As regards the letter of Mr. Pinchot above referred to, the illustrations which he sets forth as a demonstration of my unfriendly attitude toward the policy of conservation are easily refuted. In the matter of his claim that there has been a failure of cooperation on the part of the General Land Office with the Forest Service in the efforts of the latter to secure full examination of the validity of the Cunningham coal claims and that there had been a refusal to grant the Forest Service access to the records of said claims in the General Land Office, a full and complete statement has been heretofore presented you by Mr. Schwartz, Chief of Field Service. If any such failure of cooperation existed, no complaint thereof has ever been made by the Agricultural Department to the responsible head of the Interior Department. Manifestly, ordinary proprieties would have required some such direct communication and that an opportunity be given to investigate and act thereon before a charge would be justified that I sympathized therewith and was responsible therefor. The inference deducible from Mr. Pinchot's statement that the former Secretary considered the Cunningham claims fraudulent and recommended amendatory legislation is not justified by the facts. In the report of the former Secretary to Congress, of date April 20, 1908, recommending amendatory legislation, he in terms advised a confirmation of unlawful entries, as appeared in the proposed bill in he following language: "SEC. 9. That any persons, associations, or corporations who have obtained prior to the passage of this act claim or title to any coal lands of the United States by alleged unlawful means shall, upon proof to the satisfaction of the Secretary of the Interior that the full coal-land price of such land as classified by said Secretary under authority of law has been paid to the United States, may have their patents confirmed for not to exceed two thousand five hundred and sixty acres of such coal lands, if patents have issued, or if patents have not issued shall receive patents for not to exceed said area. * * This goes further than I ever suggested. It has never been contended, so far as I am aware, that any actual, as distinguished from constructive, fraud was practiced by the Cunningham entrymen, the criticism of said claims being that the locators had through an unauthorized association or community of interest undertaken to secure patents to lands in excess of the legal limitation. Hence, had the recommendation of the former Secretary been adopted their patents could not have been withheld. A reference to my annual report as Commissioner of the General Land Office of 1907 and the hearing before the Public Land Committee of the House, both of which have been reported by me to you, show the falsity of the statement that I was not in accord with legislation seeking to protect coal lands from monopolistic control. There is grave danger in the furor that is being raised respecting the protection of the rights of the public in the public domain of doing injustice to persons who have initiated rights under existing laws, in the matter of securing a calm and dispassionate disposition of their rights, such as should be accorded all persons dealing with the Government; and the attacks made on public officers in connection with the administration of these affairs tend to cause them to act under such restraint of judgment as to frequently be guilty of injustice to the individuals dealt with, where there is any possibility of adverse criticism. The extreme solicitude for the general public is thereby often unjustly visited on the innocent entryman. Mr. Pinchot's statement that a special decision of the present First Assistant Secretary, rendered on May 19, 1909, would have validated the Cunningham claims without regard to whether they were located in good faith or not is not true, and the lack of foundation therefor could have been readily ascertained by inquiry directed to the Attorney-General. Primarily, that decision had absolutely no reference whatever to the Cunningham claims. The parties interested therein had announced their unwillingness and absolute refusal to proceed under the act of 1908, and it was a construction of the latter act only which was attempted in the Pierce opinion, afterwards reviewed by the Attorney-General. The latter does not overrule, but, on the contrary, is in entire accord with the opinion of the First Assistant Secretary. * * * and, In the matter of my attitude toward withdrawals for so-called administrative sites, the facts are, that, responsive to a request for such withdrawal of lands outside of the Pike National Forest, in the State of Colorado, I called attention to the act of Congress providing "that no forest shall be created, nor any additions made to one heretofore created, within the limits of the States of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, Montana, Colorado, or Wyoming, except by act of Congress," and determined that "a withdrawal as suggested would be, in effect, an extension of the forest reservation consequently, in the face of the legislative prohibition." Simultaneously, responsive to a request for withdrawal of an area 2 miles square (1,280 acres) within the Chelan Forest, Washington, attention was called to the legislative declaration that nothing in the act authorizing the setting apart of forest reservations should "prohibit any person from * * *prospecting, locating, and developing the mineral resources" of the lands included therein, and stated that a withdrawal as requested would have the effect of suspending the operation of the mineralland laws of the lands affected thereby, and was therefore unauthorized. It was further suggested that if the lands proposed to be withdrawn were nonmineral in character, the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture was already complete. These requests for withdrawals simply stated that the lands were desired for "administrative sites," giving no declaration of necessity therefor. It was known to me, and admitted by forest officers, that some of the former withdrawals for administrative sites had been made for the sole purpose of controlling water-power sites and without any intention of using them for administrative purposes, and Secretary Wilson announced at a Cabinet meeting that further withdrawals for such purposes would not be requested. My action in reference to the two requests for withdrawals of administrative sites just referred to was based upon opinions transmitted to me by Assistant Attorney-General Lawler of the Interior Department; upon question being raised as to the soundness of said opinion the entire matter was referred to the AttorneyGeneral, who will no doubt in due time give us the benefit of his views with reference thereto. With reference to my letter to the Secretary of Agriculture that requests for withdrawals be accompanied by a showing of the necessity for the devotion of the lands to public use being a reflection upon the Secretary of Agriculture, it need only be stated that the relations between that official and myself are now, as they have always been, of the most cordial nature. I am satisfied that if he entertained any feeling that my communication had subjected him to an "indignity" he would have very properly called the same to my attention, and would have received a very prompt and complete disavowal of any such intention; that he has not done so is to me a complete demonstration that any such idea was as foreign to his own conception as it was to mine. As to the propriety of requiring such a showing, I believed that the same would be beneficial to both departments, there having been withdrawn under the mere designation "administrative sites" over 600,000 acres of the public lands, much of which is outside of forest reserves, and within those States where extension of reserves is prohibited by law. This has aroused serious criticism and charges to the effect that the practice of making such withdrawals was being indulged in for the purpose of circumventing the legislative prohibition. Manifestly, if a record were made showing the necessity for the use of the land specially withdrawn, an effective answer would plainly appear to such criticism and there would be less doubt as to the legal justification for the withdrawals. In the matter of the withdrawals for water-power purposes made shortly prior to the 4th of March last and the restoration of the lands covered thereby shortly after that |