The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1910-09-16
BALLNGER AND THE PRESI-
DENT.

The question as to whether Secre-
taTy Ballinger is guilty OF not guilty
OF the charges brought against him by
former Forester Pinchot and others is
orershadowed, in our opinion, by the
greater one: is his retention IN the
office Of Secretary Of the Interior a
source of embarrassment 20 the Ad-
ministration of President Taft, OF does
it add strength TO that Administration
and inspire confidence on the part of
the people in the character Of its
professions2 ,"
To this question there can be, we
think, but one answer
We have no desire either to an
ticipate the report Of the committee
of Congress which investigated the
matter, OF to PREJUDICE Secretary Bal
linger. What the nature Of that re
port will be, no one can doubt who Is
at all familiar with the reasoning
processes by which members of such
committees belonging to one party
reach diametricaIly opposite views from
those reached by members belonging
to the other party. Indeed, the com
mittee has already put itself on record
as being divided on party lines In
other words, the report itself, by the
time it Is made public, VIII have lost
all import and significance It will
prove Of interest only TO very limited
circle as a document IN the archives
OF the Ballinger family
Meanwhile, It Is at least coneeiv-
able that President Taft would feel
intense relief were Secretary Ballinger
TO hand in his resignation He has not
said 50, TO be sure, bul, we repeat, it
Is at least conceivable that Secretary
BaIlinger's retirement would take a
load of the shoulders Of the Ad
ministration Granted that this IS the
case. that President Taft feels en-
barrassed by Secretary BaIlinger's evil
dent determination 10 resist being dis
lodged, except at the request Of his
chief, why IS it President Taft does
not make that requests
One reason probably is that he Is
President Taft; another is that no
President that we can recall has ever
vet ventured TO break up the circle
OF his official family by demanding the
resignation of one Of its members. Nc
KinIey, under great provocation, did
not call for Ayers resignation Grover
Cleveland, whom no one could justly
charge with lack Of moral courage,
under even greater PTovocation than
that confronting Mckinley, declined
to ask Garland, his Attorney General,
to step aside, though repeatedly urged
to do so by his most intimate political
friends. Even General Grant was UR-
willing to be rid Of his Secretary Of
War, until BeIknap resigned vOluE
tarily-
The example of General BeIknap Is
one which Secretary BaIlingeI might
well follow. Those who recall the
| Belknap case viii remember that he
himself was absolutely innocent of
having eorruptly dealt in appoint
ments to post-tradershiPs- But it was
member of his family who had; and
General Belknap rightly considered
I that his usefulness as s member of
/ President Grants Cabinet ceased when
the disclosure Of corruption so near
- ~, -vAa r,aHa
Would Secretary Ballinger's resig-
nation now be considered by any fair
minded person as an admission of
guilt? 1t should not be so considered,
and 1t seems to US that with his resig-
nation Mr. Ballinger might issue a
statement that his act was voluntary
/ one, taken with a view to relieving
the Administration Of any further
/ embarrassment.
We repeat that We have no knowl
! edge looking to the belief that PTesi-
dent Taft would welcome Mr.. Bal
fingers resignation. 1t might well be
that he would strenuously object to
it. But whatever may be the Presi-
dents attitude in this matter, it Is
/ perfectly obvious that such TecriH1i-
nations arc not the best thing for the
interests Of the department over which
Mr.. Baliinger now Presides, and not
the best thing for Mr. Taft and his
party.
We wish to add that this expression
u carries no reflection on the Secretary
of the Interior The purpose of the
! rresent discussion IS not TO sfle witt