Evening star., 1925-06-20
Two Courts Disagree.

Two Federal judges have rendered
decisions on the civil cases In the oil
leases litigation, one in Los Angeles
ruling on the California or Doheny
lease in favor OF the Government that
the contract was founded In fraud and
corruption. another in Cheyenne rul.
ing on the Sinclair lease in Wyoming
in favor Of the lessor that the contract
was valid. with no proof Of corrupt re-
Iationship or influence. The court in
California held that the President had
no authority under the law to trans.
fer jurisdiction over the oil reserves
from the Navy to the Interior Depart
nnent. The court in Wyoming held
that the President had full authority
50 to transfer. The California court
held that the secrecy maintained in
respect to the leases was for the pur-
pose Of keep ng Congress and the pub.
lie from knowing what was in prog
ress. The Wyoming court held that
the secrecy was for military purposes
and was jusifiahle. Judge McCor.
mick, at Los Angeles. ruled that the
Secretary of the Navy was merely a
passive instrument in the transaction,
unaware OF the nature Of the contracts
ard leases signed by him. Judge Ken
nedy, at Cheyenne, holds that the Sec
retary of the Navy directed the entire
naval oil lease policy. Judge McCor'
mick, in California. held that the In.
terror and Navy Departments should
have gone hack to Congress for specific
auth ,rity to laasc the oil reserves.
Judge Kennedy. In Wyoming. holds
that there was no necessity for them
to seek such authority.
While there are differences in de-.
tail and to some extent In principle In
the two cases. they are. In the public
view. virtually identical. They are
phases Of the same general transac.
ton. The validity OF these leases Is
challenged by the Government on the
ground, first, Of lack OF presidential
authority to transfer jurisdiction from
department to department.: second, on
the ground CT public policy wrongly
interpreted by the head of the Interior
Department. and finally OH the ground
Of fraudulent conspiracy leading to
the departure from proper public
policy. The two essential questions
are. first. the authority Of the Presi.
dent to transfer the jurisdiction. and.
next, the inducements causing the Sec.
retary of the Interior to make the
contracts and leases. Judge McCor-
srnment's contentious on both these
grounds, will Judge Kennedy. In
Wyoming. rejected them.
Tie Sp, ct2cle T two courts differing z
diametric&ll. on the same set OF facts
and tce Interpretation OF the same
laws is not uniIue. Courts have diff.
fered from time imnemorial. II has
rarely occurred. however, that they
have differed almost simultaneously in
different jIriHit"tio1s upon virtually
identical cases and sets Of fact and
law principles. In this instance the
public interest l. to knener because
CT the n toriety + T." cases caused by
tie scandal rrersCi IN disclosure Of
the circumstance IN which the leases
were granted Ii Is unfortunate that
these cases should have been tried in
different courts, thus producing the
anomalous condition OF diametrically.
divergent judgments. Public confidence
In the capacity Of the courts to rule
correctly is undoubtedly weakened by
this spectacle.
Now the cases will go to the United
States Sup'>m Court for final dc.
ciston, with the Government both ap-
pellant and appellee. That that court
will consider them together Is a logical
essum 1tion. Its decision may not be
unanimous. The nine members Of that
court may divide in opinion, as have
the two Judges who have already rem.
dered judgment. But a decision will
be given. 1t Is to be hoped. for the
sake of the prestige of the law and OF
the Judicial branch Of this Govern.
ment. that the highest court will rem
Ger it's decision speedily and unani-
mousiy. The spectacle CT a fivc.to-four
decision on this case. preceded by
totally divergent rulings by the courts
principles CT law, would be most unfor-
tun2te.
Chicago is big town, containing all
~ l~ a<