Evening star., 1924-01-30
No Time for Resigning.

The separate and distinct issues in
the oil lease wrangle ought not to be
confused. The first question is: HAS
there been bribery or other criminal
offense to taint any of the oil leases?"
The disclosures bearing on the ques-
ton of official corruption have in
famed public sentiment to white
heat of righteous indignation. There
Is partisan and personal competition
to expose. convict and punish the
guilty. If any one now in an office
related in any way to the oil leases is
discovered 10 be tainted with oil lessee's
money he will be pilloried instantly in
public opinion. The conviction and
condemnation of the guilty, whether
in or out of office. will be decreed by
public sentiment. long in advance of
the intliction of statutory penalties by
the courts. And this intense public
Indignation over moral delinquencies
is wholesome and reassuring.
The second question is: Did the
law permit the transfer by executive
order OF leasing power over the naval
reserve oil TO the Interior Depart
ment?' This is a question ultimately
for the courts. 1t is not to be safely
answered in the heat of excited parti-
san debate in the Senate or House.
The third question is: Assuming
that the law permits the oil leases to
be made in the manner in which they
were made and that no taint OF
bribery or other official corruption is
fastened upon any one now in office. is
il sound public policy TO lease the
naval oil reserves to Individuals"
This question involves the problem of
wise conservation of national re-
sources. to be solved by the people
ultimately al the polls.
In the excitement of partisan con-
troversy these three distinct ques-
tions are sometimes intermingled, and
the same denunciation is visited upon
men accused of Incorrectly constituting
q law with no suggestion of moral tur-
pitude and upon men accused of being
on the wrong side of one phase of the
vitally important issue of conserva-
ton of national resources as is hurled
with vehemence against men who If
found guilty Of that of which they
are accused are likely to go to the
penftentiary.
Let us make single concrete appli-
cation of these generalities. Without
this confusion OF issues no one can at
this time ask Secretary Denby's resig-
nation. He is not accused or suspect
ed of participation in any official cor
ruption. He is accused of believing
that the policy of leasing the Oil re-
serves to private persons or corpora
tions was sound and in the national
interest; of holding that the transfer
OF the power of leasing from the Navy
Department to the Interior Depart
ment was permitted by law, and Of
formally signing such leases, negotiat-
ed by the interior Department, with
out due consideration.
It is conceivable that the oil-leasing
policy of the Harding administration
might at some time be so repudiated
by the Coolidge administration or by
Congress as TO render Secretary Den
by's position untenable. But it is in-
conceivable that there should be such
a reputation and such resignation
now.
Public opinion is at this time in
tensely concerned in the Indications of
moral delinquency and official corrup-
ton that have been disclosed, and is
pressing for united, concentrated ef-
fort to transform indications and evi-
dences into proof, conviction and pun
ishment.
To punish publicly any official now
is to class him in public opinion among
those guilty of moral delinquency.
This is no time for a resignation to be
asked Or given that is based upon
advocacy of an alleged unsound public
POLICY.
; 1t will diminish the deserved pres
tige of those who have the credit of
uncovering indications of official cor
ruption if they turn aside from the
task of exposing, convicting and pun
ishing all of the guilty to assail and
bespatter for partisan advantage par
tisan opponents who are not accused
Of guilt.