(The subject considered in this work has never been treate...)
The subject considered in this work has never been treated with any view to a thorough and exhaustive presentation of the principles upon which it is founded, or the enunciation of the courts thereon. The system being an outgrowth of customs and laws entire! foreign, and to some extent antagonistic to common law principles, necessarily fills the mind of one cultured under English jurisprudence with many doubts and perplexities. The community system of property rights as existing in the States of the Union, has seemed to me to be of sufficient importance to merit a separate treatise thereon. The present work, therefore, has been undertaken with a view of removing, so far as is in my power, such uncertainties as shroud the primitive principles underlying this system, and with the further purpose of giving to the profession a harmonious and succinct statement of the doctrines applicable to the community system existing in the several States. There has, also, been present throughout its preparation a desire to make this work a safe and intelligent guide to lead the practitioner arid the courts into a clear and full understanding of the -real import of this system of property rights, to the ultimate end that its principles may be crystallized into a perfect and clearly defined branch of our jurisprudence. (Typographical errors above are due to OCR software and don't occur in the book.) About the Publisher Forgotten Books is a publisher of historical writings, such as: Philosophy, Classics, Science, Religion, History, Folklore and Mythology. Forgotten Books' Classic Reprint Series utilizes the latest technology to regenerate facsimiles of historically important writings. Careful attention has been made to accurately preserve the original format of each page whilst digitally enhancing the aged text.
https://www.amazon.com/Treatise-Property-Husband-Community-Ganancial/dp/B008TYSR40?SubscriptionId=AKIAJRRWTH346WSPOAFQ&tag=prabook-20&linkCode=sp1&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=B008TYSR40
He came of American stock, his father, Richard H. Ballinger of Kentucky, having read law in the office of Abraham Lincoln and commanded a regiment of colored infantry in the Civil War; and his forebears having served in both the War of 1812 and the American Revolution.
His mother was Mary E. Norton of New York.
He was graduated at Williams College in 1884, then went into a law office, and was admitted to the bar in 1886.
The legal career of Ballinger took him to the Northwest at the moment when the new State of Washington (admitted in 1890) was in process of formation. Living first at Port Townsend, he soon became identified with Seattle. He was superior judge in Jefferson County in 1894, and reform mayor of Seattle in 1904-06. He became an expert in mining law, wrote A Treatise on the Property Rights of Husband and Wife under the Community or Ganancial System (1895), codified the statutes of his young state, and carried on a practise which brought him into close contact with every aspect of land law respecting the public domain. In March 1907 he was appointed commissioner of the General Land Office by Garfield, who at the same time became secretary of the interior in the cabinet of President Roosevelt. Ballinger served at this post for only a year, returning in 1908 to his law business; whence he was summoned by President Taft to become secretary of the interior in 1909. There had been many hopes and much talk of continuing J. R. Garfield at this post, since it was here that the battle for conservation was to be fought. The interests of the United States in the lands, minerals, timber, and water-rights still remaining on the public domain, were at stake; and President Roosevelt had formulated a program of conservation, depending at every point upon the advice of Garfield in the Interior Department and Gifford Pinchot, chief of the Bureau of Forestry in the Department of Agriculture. They had interpreted every obscure point of law in the interest of the new policy. The task, difficult at best, was made heavier by the unscientific organization of the government, whereby the Land Office was in one department and the Forestry Service in another; while the Bureau of Mines was not even formed until 1910. It was further complicated because of real doubts as to the legal authority of the United States, in the absence of proper conservation laws. The failure of President Taft to retain Garfield was irritating to many enthusiastic friends of conservation, who took sides readily when Louis R. Glavis, a field man of the Land Office, complained over the head of his chief to the President, that Secretary Ballinger was impeding the examinations which were likely to show that a group of coal-land claims in Alaska, filed by one Clarence Cunningham and his associates, were fraudulent. The protest of Glavis was dated a week after President Taft had approved the Payne-Aldrich Tariff, incurring thereby the criticism of the insurgent element in the Republican party. It followed also a conference which Glavis had held with Pinchot at a western conservation meeting.
On September 13, 1909, President Taft authorized Secretary Ballinger to dismiss Glavis from the service, on the ground of insubordination; and then and later he upheld the character and disinterestedness of Ballinger's service. Glavis, meanwhile, received the encouragement of many conservationists and insurgents, and retorted with "The Whitewashing of Ballinger, " in Collier's Weekly (Nov. 13, 1909), a crusading journal which had already declared editorially "Ballinger should go" (Aug. 28, 1909). With this beginning the controversy became a public trial of the conservation policies of the Taft administration. The fight was carried into Congress at its next session, where a joint committee was appointed to investigate the departments under fire. This committee, presided over by Senator Knute Nelson of Minnesota, took much testimony in the spring of 1910, with Glavis represented by Louis D. Brandeis, and Pinchot by George Wharton Pepper.
It was charged by the complainants, among other things, that Ballinger was out of sympathy with conservation, and that he interpreted the law in the interest of the claimant wherever possible; it was even charged by the less restrained of the conservationists that he was corruptly guilty of having served the Cunningham claimants in the interval between his terms as commissioner of the General Land Office and as secretary of the interior, and that he would have advanced and allowed the Cunningham claims had it not been for the patriotic intervention of Glavis.
he majority of the committee, in its final Report, declared that "Neither any fact proved nor all the facts put together exhibit Mr. Ballinger as being anything but a competent and honorable gentleman, honestly and faithfully performing the duties of his office with a single eye to the public interest. " The decision of the committee was unsatisfactory to the critics, who were now set upon preventing the renomination of President Taft in 1912. The controversy continued, bringing the policies of the administration under general attack. The usefulness of Ballinger in the cabinet was destroyed by the clash of opinion, and he resigned in March 1911, being succeeded by Walter Fisher, of Chicago. He returned to his law business in Seattle, where he died June 6, 1922.
(The subject considered in this work has never been treate...)
The protest of Glavis was dated a week after President Taft had approved the Payne-Aldrich Tariff, incurring thereby the criticism of the insurgent element in the Republican party.
He was married in 1886 to Julia A. Bradley and was survived by two sons.
