PART III.

COMMUNICATIONS TO THE PRESIDENT AND REPLIES THERETO, AND OTHER CORRESPONDENCE AND PAPERS RELATING GENERALLY TO THE SO-CALLED BALLINGER-PINCHOT CONTROVERSY.

1160

[Extract from address of President Taft in October, 1908, at Chicago.]

Conservation is the use of intelligent common sense and ordinary business foresight in dealing with our natural resources, which are the foundations of our prosperity. Ten years ago conservation was unheard of, and we gloried in what we were pleased to call our unlimited and inexhaustible natural resources. During this year 1908, following the suggestion of the great conference of governors held at the White House last May, we have begun to take stock of these resources. Most of us are now ready to face the issue courageously as our forefathers faced the untrodden wilderness and begin to conserve the natural sources of our prosperity. As a people, we have the problem of making our forests outlast this generation, our iron outlast this century, and our coal the next; not merely as a matter of convenience or comfort, but as a matter of stern natural necessity.

At the conference of governors some of the ways in which we may conserve our coal, iron, and timber were suggested. The most promising means proposed was the cause which has brought together the development of water transportation on the Mississippi and the other inland waterways of the country. So the great object for which we are here, inland navigation, one of the greatest objects that ever inspired a convention or awakened a nation, is necessary not only for the sake of the vast benefits which it will confer directly on all the consumers of transported merchandise, as already described, but as equally necessary as one of the central features of the great policy of conservation, on which our whole future depends.

1222

STATEMENT OF THE PRESIDENT, SEPTEMBER 25, 1909.

In view of the published statements that the letter of the President to Secretary Ballinger was to be considered in some way a reflection on Mr. Pinchot, the President to-day authorized the publication of the following: That at the time that he wrote the letter to Secretary Ballinger he also wrote a letter to Mr. Pinchot, assuring him that the conclusions stated therein were not intended in any way to reflect on him; that the President deemed Mr. Pinchot's continuance in the public service as of the utmost value; that he expected to continue the Roosevelt policies as to the conservation of resources, including the reclamation of arid lands and preservation of our forests and the proper restrictions in respect to the use of coal lands and water-power sites, as well as the improvement of our waterways, and to ask Con

gress for such confirmatory and enabling legislation as would put the execu1223 tion of these policies on the firmest basis; and that he would deem it a great loss if in respect to the matters with which Mr. Pinchot had been concerned the administration should be denied the benefit of his further service.

The President held a long conference with Mr. Pinchot at the Knutzford Hotel after the banquet given by the Fifteenth Infantry.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, September 25, 1909.

(27)

STATEMENT Of gifford pinCHOT OF SEPTEMBER 25, 1909.

At the suggestion of the President I make public the following extracts from his letter to me, mentioned in the statement he has just authorized:

*

* I wish you to know that I have the utmost confidence in your conscientious desire to serve the Government and the public, in the intensity of your purpose to achieve success in the matter of conservation of national resources, and in the immense value of what you have done and propose to do with reference to forestry and kindred methods of conservation, and that I am thoroughly in sympathy with all of these policies and propose to do everything that I can to maintain them, insisting only that the action for which I become responsible, or for which my administration becomes responsible, shall be within the law. * * I should consider it

*

one of the greatest losses that my administration could sustain if you were to leave it, and I sincerely hope that you will not think that my action in writing the inclosed letter to Secretary Ballinger is reason for your taking a step of this character."

These expressions by the President, which are most kind toward me and most favorable toward my work, as well as the statement authorized by him, define his attitude toward the conservation policies with convincing clearness.

I shall not resign, but shall remain in the government service. I shall give my best efforts in the future, as in the past, to promote the conservation and development of our forests, waters, lands, and minerals and to defend the conservation policies whenever the need arises. Especially I shall continue to advocate the control of water-power monopoly in the public interest and the use of our institutions, laws, and natural resources for the benefit of the plain people. I believe in equality of opportunity and the Roosevelt policies, and I propose to stand for them as long as I have the strength to stand for anything.

SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, September 25, 1909.

GIFFORD PINCHOT.

NOVEMBER 4, 1909.

DEAR MR. PRESIDENT: Your most appreciative letter of September 13 reached me in California. In it you inclosed a copy of your letter of the same date to Secretary Ballinger concerning the report of Mr. Glavis, and were so kind as to express your friendly desire that I should not find in it a reason for resigning. Your letter to Secretary Ballinger, besides stating your conclusion as to the Glavis report, also gave your approval of his action in certain matters involving the conservation of natural resources, in which I am deeply interested.

1224

When Mr. Glavis laid before me his statements and documents in Spokane, I advised him to put the whole matter in your hands without delay. It was my duty to do so, because the issues involved were very large and included questions of public policy which could be handled by no one but yourself. As I wrote you at the time, "this is clearly a matter for your personal attention, and my function ends with seeing that it reaches you."

When I saw you at Salt Lake City in September, little mention was made of the Glavis matter, but we discussed the recent relations of the Interior Department to conservation at some length. I expressed the belief that you had been misinformed as to certain of these relations, and my fear that later on, when the present intense public interest has subsided, unwise tendencies might reappear, and the public welfare might suffer. I said also that while I should not resign, my course otherwise was still undetermined, and I might find it necessary to make public my opinion as to these relations, even if it should involve separation from my official position. It was agreed between us that I should write you this letter describing the facts as I understand them. You then gave an authorized statement to the press, and I also made a short statement, which I first submitted to you, to the effect that I should continue unchanged my efforts to promote and defend the conservation policies, especially as to the control of water-power monopoly, and the use of our institutions, laws, and natural resources for the benefit of the people. After this I left for Washington.

Your own purpose to support the conservation policies you have declared so clearly that all men must now understand it. It goes without saying that I understand and accept it, and that nothing in this letter questions that purpose.

The conservation policies extend far beyond my province as Chief of the Forest Service. But since your inauguration I have come to you freely upon questions concerning them, because of your expressed desire that I should do so, and because I remain by your wish chairman of the National Conservation Commission. The same reasons justify this letter. I realize that without your willingness that I should write it, this letter would have been a serious official impropriety.

The Secretary of the Interior has wider responsibilities than any other Cabinet officer in the conservation of natural resources. His attitude is of larger importance to the conservation movement than that of any other man except the President. It necessarily gives direction to a multitude of decisions, both by himself and by his subordinates, only a few of which may involve by themselves serious injury to the conservation movement, but which taken together may promote or retard it in a most vital way. The following are illustrations of what I believe to be Secretary Ballinger's unfriendly attitude toward conservation:

COAL CLAIMS.

The Cunningham coal claims lie in part in the Chugach National Forest in Alaska. There has been marked failure to cooperate with the Forest Service in its effort to secure full examination of the validity of these claims. Notice was not given to the Forest Service that hearings to determine their validity had been ordered, as was necessary before either the Forest Service or the Land Office could do its duty. When the fact had nevertheless been ascertained, an officer of the service was refused access to the records of the Cunningham claims in the General Land Office, and it was only after vigorous protest that the records could be consulted in part. This refusal was afterwards denied in a published interview. These claims were considered fraudulent by the last Secretary, and in accordance with his recommendation pending legislation (60th Cong., Senate bill 6805) authorizing the consolidation of coal claims in Alaska was amended so as to apply only to persons who have in good faith made locations of coal land in the Territory of Alaska in their own interest. Yet a special decision of the present First Assistant Secretary, rendered May 19, 1909, would have validated them without regard to whether they were so located or not if it had not been overruled by the Attorney-General's opinion of June 12, 1909 (27 op., 412). The application of the First Assistant Secretary's decision to these claims was afterwards denied in a published interview.

FOREST RANGER STATIONS.

Immediately upon taking office Secretary Ballinger took the new position that the Secretary of the Interior could not legally withdraw ranger stations from private entry. After careful consideration both Secretary Hitchcock and Secretary Garfield had done so. Without these ranger stations the care and protection of the national forests directed by law is not practicable. Unless such withdrawals are made any

man who at any time in the future can find mineral on a ranger station may locate 1225 a mining claim and take for his own use public buildings put up at the public expense for public purposes. Secretary Ballinger's refusal to make them has seriously retarded the work of forest protection and increased its difficulties. Secretary Ballinger accompanied his refusal by a demand that the requests of Secretary Wilson for ranger station withdrawals in cases where no legal objection existed "should be accompanied by a statement showing clearly the necessity for the use of the lands proposed to be withdrawn to the uses indicated." This is notice that Secretary Wilson's word will not be accepted as to the needs of his own department.

I have the honor to serve under Secretary Wilson; I am proud to be one of his men; and I respect him as I do few men living. Therefore I can not refrain from calling your attention to the character of such a reflection upon him. Secretary Ballinger could not detract, nor could I add, by anything he or I might say, one whit to the high confidence and affectionate esteem Secretary Wilson universally commands. His membership in the cabinets of three Presidents, his great achievements for the public good as Secretary of Agriculture, his high sense of public duty, and his timetried character and services have established his place permanently in the public mind and should have been sufficient to protect him from indignity.

WATER POWER.

On March 20, 1909, Secretary Ballinger began to restore to public entry, without advertisement, lands withdrawn by Secretary Garfield at President Roosevelt's direction, to protect the public against unregulated monopoly of water power. Secretary Ballinger considered these withdrawals illegal and inexpedient. On my return from the West early in April I explained to you the danger to the public interest caused by these restorations, and urged that the policy then being followed should be reversed. You expressed great concern lest the public interest might suffer, and said that the restorations had been mentioned to you by Secretary Ballinger, but that he had not told you what they meant, and that you would see him about them.

Thereupon the policy of restoration was reversed; what had been considered illegal and inexpedient was seen to be necessary and within the law, and the rewithdrawals began. According to the letter of the printed forms, it is technically true that the Reclamation Service recommended the restorations. As a matter of essential fact, it is not true, for Director Newell and Chief Engineer Davis protested repeatedly against the restorations to Secretary Ballinger in person, and only made the recommendations at his direct and repeated order and after a fruitless attempt to get that order in writing. In an official letter of April 10 to the Secretary of the Interior the Reclamation Service declined to accept responsibility for the restorations.

INDIAN FORESTS.

The forests on Indian reservations have long been grossly mismanaged. On January 22, 1908, a cooperative agreement was approved by Secretary Wilson and Secretary Garfield, under which the trained experts of the Forest Service became available to care for these Indian forests. This agreement saved the Indians hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of dollars, set new standards of fire prevention, honestly enforced the logging contracts, and established effective protection and clean-cut business management wherever it operated.

The agreement accomplished its purpose until March 4, 1909. Then increasingly serious delays intervened. Even when the Interior Department was notified that immediate action was required to extinguish forest fires actually burning, nothing was done and the fires continued to burn. On July 20 the agreement was formally terminated by the Interior Department. This means a return to the old conditions, with loss to the Indians and injury to their forests.

Your letter of September 13 to Secretary Ballinger says: "Your declination to carry out the contract was made necessary by the ruling of the comptroller, whose ruling is final and without appeal even to the President, that such an agreement is a delegation of responsibility and authority for the expenditure of money, which the appropriation by Congress for the Indian Bureau did not authorize. While I agree that it would avoid. wasteful duplication in organization to authorize the Forestry Bureau of the Agricultural Department to take care of and develop the forests on Indian reservations, because the Forestry Bureau is much better able with its trained men to do the work with efficiency and economy, it is plainly necessary, in view of the comptroller's ruling, to secure congressional sanction for such cooperation." The information supplied to you was not accurate. The comptroller never ruled upon this agreement, but had said in a decision sent to the Secretary of Agriculture on May 27, 1907, concerning similar cooperation between the Forest Service and the Geological Survey:

1226

"The performance of work by one bureau for another in the same department or by one department for another, and the transfer of supplies and other articles from one to another, and the reimbursement of the appropriation from which payment therefor was originally made by a transfer of moneys from the appropriation applicable to the procurement of the work or the purchase of the supplies or articles under control of the bureau or department benefiting by or receiving the same, has been recognized by long practice and is often economical and advantageous. I see no legal objection to this practice.

The auditor, who is under the immediate supervision of the comptroller, and governed by his rulings, approved the accounts under it with the agreement before him. Finally, the letter which terminated the agreement contained no reference to any ruling of the comptroller, nor did the conferences which led up to it.

RECLAMATION.

Under Mr. F. H. Newell, as director, the United States Reclamation Service has become an organization of exceptional efficiency. It contains many engineers of high character and standing, who are engaged on its projects at a fraction of what they could earn elsewhere. During the spring I became greatly concerned because it was coming to be generally believed in the Reclamation Service that the director had lost the support of Secretary Ballinger. Some of the best engineers were resigning and others were considering the same step. The situation demanded prompt action. Accordingly, in the hope of preventing further loss to one of the most important branches of practical conservation, I laid the matter before you. You assured me that the Reclamation Service would be protected. No one can doubt your own purpose in this matter. Yet I recognize with regret that the unfortunate situation to which I called your attention still exists. If it is allowed to continue, the Reclamation Service must inevitably disintegrate.

These examples leave no doubt in my mind that Secretary Ballinger has shown himself actively hostile to the conservation policies. But whether or not they are sufficient to establish the fact of active hostility beyong a reasonable doubt, as I believe they do, is not the whole question. Under our form of government the Secretary of the Interior is more directly responsible for conserving the natural resources than any other public officer. Unless he is vigorously friendly to the conservation policies and prompt to defend our natural resources against the unending aggression of private interests, the public interest must suffer. If he does not defend it in certain matters, no one else can. In these matters indifference and hostility differ little in their final results.

The effect of Secretary Ballinger's action in the instances cited was actively harmful to the public interest in the most critical and far-reaching problem this nation has faced since the civil war. Both because of his attitude and of what he did, I am forced to regard him as the most effective opponent the conservation policies have yet had.

1232

Very respectfully,

MY DEAR MR. PRESIDENT:

[GIFFORD PINCHOT].

NOVEMBER 6, 1909.

On thinking over your published letter of September 13 to Secretary Ballinger, and after examining the facts, it has seemed to me necessary to write you on certain points raised regarding acts of my administration, since silence on my part would naturally imply acquiescence in the statements relating thereto.

I do not desire to discuss differences of interpretation of laws. Claims that I acted illegally will be found to rest upon a fundamental difference in policy between Secretary Ballinger's administration and mine. I took such action as I believed proper and necessary to safeguard the public welfare, unless there was some specific prohibition in law to prevent action, thus exercising the supervisory power and executive discretion vested in a cabinet officer. Secretary Ballinger seems to take the position that he will not act, even though action be in the interest of the people, unless there is specific permissive or mandatory law. Such difference in policy arises from totally different conceptions of executive duty, and leads to widely divergent administrative action.

It is to facts that I call attention, believing that you were misinformed about some of the matters dealt with in your letter.

First, as to the withdrawal of lands for the protection of water-power sites.

The question of how best to deal with water-power development and regulation was most carefully considered by President Roosevelt and presented for the consideration of Congress directly when he vetoed the Rainey River dam bill.

For the purpose of carrying out the policy adopted, I directed, in June, 1908, the engineers of the Reclamation Service to make report of available power sites upon

the public lands, it being my purpose to withdraw such areas from entry in 1233 order to prevent their acquisition by private interests for merely speculative or monopolistic purposes, and thus, give the National Government a chance to enact laws and adopt regulations under which the public interests could be safeguarded.

During the fall of 1908 the reports were tabulated by Mr. Newell and Mr. Davis, of the Reclamation Service. No men in the public service are better qualified by training and experience to do such work.

When determining the amount of land in any withdrawal I resolved doubts in favor of the public interest, knowing that land found unnecessary could readily be restored. The withdrawn areas were described by township and sections, and, of course, did not affect private lands or existing legal entries.

In accordance with the general practice of the department these withdrawals were to be followed by detailed field and office examinations and lands not needed were to be restored. The first of these withdrawals was made in October, 1908, and others followed when reported by the Reclamation Service.

Within a few days after Secretary Ballinger assumed office he stated, in conversation with officers of the Reclamation Service, that these withdrawals were made in direct violation of law. He gave no other reason for objecting to them. He directed the Reclamation Service to prepare lists for restoring the withdrawn lands, but to do so slowly in order not to attract public attention.

The officers of the Reclamation Service explained to Secretary Ballinger the reason for the withdrawals and the methods used and urged that the Reclamation Service be permitted to carry out the original plan of restoring only such lands as might be found