Evening star., 1924-04-09
Sinclair Indictment Meets
With Approval of Editors

When Harry F. Sinclair was indicted
and turned over TO the Supreme Court
of the District of Columbia because
he refused ito answer questions he
challenged the Senate committees
authority. This raises an interesting
question concerning the measure Of
power in the hands of Senate COM
mittee Most of the editors who have
discussed the question agree that the
Senate took the proper and only
course open to it if the dignity of the
Senate and the right of that body to
summon witnesses are to be upheld.
In the opinion of the Springfield
Republican public attention should
be called to the fact that the public
lands committee of the Senate was
unanimous in its decision that Mr.
Sinclair was without right to refuse
to answer questions, even on the ad-
vice of counsel. The Senate has
pursued the only possible course to
protect it's own dignity and safe
guard the public interest" Although n
the right of Congress to summon and
! question might easily be abused, the
Knoxville Sentinel maintains that
"denying it the authority to summon
would undoubtedly hamper any
ting the facts of service to the
public welfare. Nobody but those
whose hair has been singed doubts
that even though the questions at
times did seem to go afeld, the
revelations in the various inquiries
have been helpful to the public in
exposing admittedly bad conditions" p"
The Grand Rapids Press does not
doubt that the Supreme Court VIII
in a general way uphold the estab-
| lished tradition that Congress may
carry on such INVESTIGATIONS and
subDeona witnesses. To deny this
right would be to withdraw from the
peopIe a vital provision for aggres-
sive action in the support of public
interest.
The Scranton Republican points out
that while 1.-The right of Congress
to question witnesses and punish
| those who refuse to answer is beyond
cayiI. a new element is introduced
when a witness bases his refusal on
the ground that the government has
already begun proceedings against
him in another jurisdiction" And
while Sinclair will attack the statute
1 unconstitutional eillo Se'Ai
! the Supreme Court, the wichita
! Eagle feels there is a big chance
that the Senate will lose out and SIN
! clair win. The Senate has its own
i process for Furnishing contumacious
Witnesses and it missed a bet when
! if didn't use it on Sinclair instead
| of referring the case to the courts
AS the Louisville Courier-Journai
sees it Sinclair seems to have reacn-
| "a the, point at which he is willing to
| resort to an expedient that will con-
| vince the country of his guilt pro-
yided he may thus escape the legal
consequences of guilt.
| IF seems to the Birmingham News
| that the questions Sinclair is evading
are moral questions involving the
! American commonwealth" and 1T be-
! Iieves that every legal means should
he used to compel Mr.. Sinclair to
make every revelation concerning the
| matters that are of vital importance
| TO the nation" And if he has no fur
/ ther information, the Cleveland Plain
! Dealer thinks .'he should not hesitate
to submit to questioning, but if he
/ has information of value he should
he compelled to answer" The Sioux
| City journal agrees that the Senate
| has the right idea in appealing tt
! the courts to force him to tell what
he knows. His is a case made more
fragrant by what has gone before
and his impudence now is such as t.