THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, SIR: I beg to acknowledge receipt of your letter of the 7th instant transmitting a memorandum of papers desired by your committee, as follows: "All copies and drafts now existing in the files of the Reclamation Service of a letter finally sent by the Secretary of the Interior to Governor Herrick, on or about April 10, 1909." In compliance with the request contained in said letter, I have the honor to forward herewith letter of March 31, 1909, from Mr. Herrick to the department; copy of acknowledgment dated April 2, 1909; copy of letter dated March 25 from Mr. Bennett to Mr. Herrick; draft of proposed reply to Mr. Herrick, dated April 10, not sent; and copy of letter dated April 10, 1909, from the department to Mr. Herrick. Very respectfully, Hon. KNUTE NELSON, R. A. BALLINGER, Secretary. Chairman, Joint Investigating Committee, United States Senate. THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR, SIR: In compliance with the request contained in your letter of the 28th ultimo for "All documents and correspondence relating to the conduct of the Chicago office of the Reclamation Service by Agent Perkins (from the files of the Interior Department, Reclamation Service, or elsewhere)," I have the honor to forward herewith copies of departmental files, as follows: Reclamation Service. Office quarters. Chicago, Ill. No. 8 23 (parts 1 and 2). Reclamation Service. Publicity department. No. 8 47 (parts 1 and 2). Also documents and correspondence furnished by the Reclamation Service relating to the conduct and management of said office, including monthly reports from September, 1907, to January, 1910, inclusive. Very respectfully, Hon. KNUTE NELSON, R. A. BALLINGER, Secretary. Chairman Joint Committee of Congress, United States Senate. The CHAIRMAN. It is now half past 5 o'clock and the committee will stand adjourned until to-morrow. (Accordingly at 5 o'clock and 35 minutes p. m. the committee adjourned until to-morrow, Friday, March 11, 1910, at 10 o'clock a. m.) FRIDAY, MARCH 11, 1910. JOINT COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THE INTERIOR Washington, March 11, 1910. The Joint Committee to Investigate the Interior Department and Forestry Service met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 a. m. Present, Senators Nelson (chairman), Sutherland, Root, Fletcher, and Purcell; Representatives McCall, Olmsted, Madison, and Graham; Mr. Paul Sleman, secretary; also Mr. Louis D. Brandeis and Mr. Joseph P. Cotton, jr., representing Mr. Louis R. Glavis; also Mr. George Wharton Pepper, representing Mr. Gifford Pinchot; also Messrs. John J. Vertrees and Carl Rasch, representing Secretary Ballinger; also Mr. E. C. Finney. The CHAIRMAN. A quorum is present. The committee will please come to order. The examination will proceed. Mr. BRANDEIS. Before Mr. Davis proceeds with his examination I would like to call attention to a document which was not available yesterday and which I desired to introduce in connection with Mr. Garfield's examination. The CHAIRMAN. What document is that? Mr. BRANDEIS. You remember that Senator Root asked a question, which appears on page 1562 of the record in yesterday's proceedings. Senator Root asked Mr. Garfield: Senator RooT. Mr. Garfield a question was put to you about the importance of this matter. I have observed that there has been a growing appreciation of the importance or a growing estimate of value of these coal lands. I think I am right about that. Is it not a fact that there was a gradual progressive increase in the estimate of the value and importance of the coal in Alaska? In connection with Senator Root's question I want to put in evidence the sketches or plats of the Cunningham group which were sent to Mr. Garfield by M. K. Rogers in connection with the letter that I put in evidence, but I did not then have the sketches. The CHAIRMAN. Is that from the files of the department? Mr. BRANDEIS. That is from the files of the department. It has been furnished since by the department. The CHAIRMAN. Is there any objection to that, Mr. Vertrees? The CHAIRMAN. If there is no objection they will be admitted. Mr. BRANDEIS. You will find the letter in the record at page 168, the letter of April 8, 1908, our own record of testimony. There are two sketches, and I would like to refer to them. The CHAIRMAN. What is the date of the letter? Mr. BRANDEIS. The letter is dated April 8, 1908. The letter of Rogers to Secretary Garfield, and the sketch is the first sketch, sketch 1. This letter was in the original Senate document, but the sketches were not in that document. These sketches are, the first, "Cunningham group, 33 claims, 21,000 acres, 65,000,000 to 90,000,000 tons of coal above tunnel levels." The CHAIRMAN. Well, that will go into the record. Mr. BRANDEIS. "Estimated tons of the entire field, 500,000,000 tons." And then there is sketch No. 2, "Controller Bay coal field, Alaska. Section across Mammoth coal vein, Cunningham group, Trout Creek." That is the coal vein which is 66 feet of clean coal. The CHAIRMAN. That is admitted. Mr. BRANDEIS. I will then hand these to the stenographer. (The plats in question will be found on pages 1676 and 1677. Mr. BRANDEIS. I also desire to call attention in connection with the discussion of the committee, particularly Senator Fletcher and Mr. James, to the perjury statute in the Revised Statutes. The CHAIRMAN. Is not that a matter of argument that can be put in when you come to sum up the case? Mr. BRANDEIS. I thought the committee would be glad to have a reference to the Revised Statutes which deal with the question of perjury, as it was suggested that the law ought to be changed if it is not now sufficient. Senator FLETCHER. I would be glad to have it in. Mr. JAMES. I think that it ought to be put in. Mr. BRANDEIS. The first reference is section The CHAIRMAN. Give the sections, and then the stenographer can copy them from the statutes. There is no need to take up time reading them if they are incorporated in the record. Mr. BRANDEIS. Revised Statutes 183, section 183. Mr. BRANDEIS. Of the Revised Statutes; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now the stenographer will copy that in full right here. Mr. BRANDEIS. And section 5392. The CHAIRMAN. That will be copied in the record. Map of Tunnel and Drift on Trout Creek. Coal Vein as opened up. Mr. BRANDEIS. And section 5393. The CHAIRMAN. And that will be copied. Mr. BRANDEIS. These are the statutes that deal with perjury and subornation of perjury. (The sections of the statutes are as follows:) SEC. 183. Any officer or clerk of any of the departments lawfully detailed to investigate frauds or attempts to defraud on the Government, or any irregularity or miscon Dump, noyi duct of any officer or agent of the United States, shall have authority to administer an oath to any witness attending to testify or depose in the course of such investigation. SEC. 5392. Every person who, having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him subscribed is true, willfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true, is guilty of perjury, and shall be punished by a fine Controller Bay Coal Field, Alaska. Section Cunningham Group, Trout Creek. Coal arranged according to number. Section on Line A-B Fig 1, also Analyses of Sketch 2. of not more than two thousand dollars, and by imprisonment at hard labor not more than five years; and shall, moreover, thereafter be incapable of giving testimony in any court of the United States until such time as the judgment against him is reversed. SEC. 5393. Every person who procures another to commit any perjury is guilty of subornation of perjury, and punishable as in the preceding section prescribed. The CHAIRMAN. The examination in chief will now proceed. TESTIMONY OF ARTHUR P. DAVIS—Resumed. Mr. PEPPER. Mr. Davis, at the time of the adjournment yesterday I was questioning you respecting the relation, if any, between withdrawals connected with reclamation projects and withdrawals under the so-called supervisory power. I had asked you whether there was an antithesis between these two. You stated there was not. Mr. DAVIS. No, sir. Mr. PEPPER. Would you, before going to the next point, just develop that thought a little more fully; that is to say, is it a possible thing that a power site might be useful primarily for reclamation purposes and secondarily for commercial power development? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. They are nearly always conjoined or can be. A power withdrawal may or may not be for reclamation purposes, and it is largely a matter of conjecture what will be the chief use of almost any power in the West when developed. The major portion of the power sites that we are talking about throughout are not to-day of practical utility. It is looking into the future to hold these power sites. A portion of them are to-day in demand, and they are being acquired rapidly, or have been in the past, on account of a prospective value, and those values in almost any case can be for either one or the other purpose; that is, irrigation or other commercial use, and generally both. The CHAIRMAN. Will you allow me a question here? Mr. PEPPER. Certainly. The CHAIRMAN. Referring to page 86 of this Senate Document 248, Mr. Davis, I notice there the withdrawals are put into two classes? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Were those the classes that were made through your Bureau of Reclamation? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. So that you seem to have made a distinction between one class and the other there, have you not? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is you had two classes of withdrawals, one purely for reclamation purposes and the other for what is termed there at the head of the list "power sites?" Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That is all. Mr. PEPPER. And did I rightly understand you to say that those there classified as reclamation withdrawals were withdrawn in the belief that they were or might become available for the use of the United States in connection with reclamation projects? Mr. DAVIS. Yes, sir; they have two relations to reclamation. One is the possible use of the power for pumping purposes, either for underground waters or from streams for irrigation purposes, and the other is that they are all located upon streams in which the United States is interested in the water rights by having a project already on those same streams. Mr. PEPPER. Now, is it or is it not the fact that for a number of years withdrawals of land from entry had been made on the recommendation of your service in connection with reclamation projects actually existing or immediately contemplated? Mr. DAVIS. They have. |