San Antonio light. [volume] (San Antonio, Tex.) 1911-1993, 1924-03-25
|[AW OFFICERS
| Of j. s. GIVEN
SINCLAIR CASE
Certificate Of Contempt
Proceedings Goes to Dis
trict Attorney
LEGAL FIGHT LOOMS
Supreme Court Has Been
Appealed To in Two
Similar Cases. y
LEGAL FIGHT LOOMS

Washington, ID. c., March 25.-The
certificate in the Senate contempt
proceeding against Harry +. Sinclair,
as signed today and forwarded to the
district attorney is as follows:
TO the Honorable, the District At
torney of the District Of Columbia
Take Notice: That one Harry +.
Sinclair, appearing pursuant TO its
subpoena before the committee on
public lands and surveys Of the United
States Senate on the 22nd day of
March, 1924, refused to answer ques-
tons pertinent to the question under
inquiry before the said committee un-
der Senate resolution 147 and that
his refusal SO to answer and his fail
ure to try, and the facts jim relation
thereto have been reported to the
Senate, all of which will more fully
appear before the report of the said
committee made TO the Senate on the
oath day of March, 1924, a copy of
which is hereto attached and made a
part thereof.
"Given under my hand and the seal
of the United States Senate, this 25th
day of March. 1924.
GEORGE. II. MOSES"
"Acting President of the United
States Senate"
Attest: r.
GEORGE A. SANDERSON.
Secretary Of the United States
Senate ~.
Delay Appears Certain.
1t 10 uncertain whether the case
can be presented to the grand jury in
the immediate futures The present
grand jury goes out of existence on
March 81 and is occupied with hear
ing evidence in the cases against mem-
bers of Congress accused of bribery.
Once the contempt proceeding is
reached it appears likely that the
powerful army of counsel retained by
Sinclair will contest the case at every
point and that the broad legal ques-
tions involved will be carried to the
Supreme Court.
The highest court-has been appealed
TO in at least two previous congress
sional contempt cases.
Elverton r. Chapman, New York
stock broker, was cited by the Senate
in 1904 for refusing to testify before
a committee. He served Jail sem
tence of 80 days after the Supreme
Court had refused a review. Henry
q. Havemeyer Of the American Sugar
Refining company and John Il.
Searles Of New York, indicted with
him, were acquitted by a trial court
which ruled that questions propound-
+, ed to them about certain senator's
dealings in sugar stocks, while the
sugar tariff was under debate. were
not pertinent.
Questioned Senate's Jurisdiction.
Chapman attacked the validity of
Section 102 of the revised statutes I'M
der which the Sinclair action will be
taken. and questioned the jurisdietisn
of the Senate to, inquire into his pri-
vate affairs, but his contentious lost
through the lower courts and the Su-
preme Court held it had no right TO
review the court of appeals in crimi-
nal cases. The court of appeals
stressed three points for considera-
tion-the validity of the statute. the
power of the Senate to conduct the
inquiry, and the pertinency of the
question involved and held the power
; OF Congress to punish for contempt
was inherent.
In two previous cases the House
had meted punishment to recalcitrant
witnesses. In one of these man
named Irwin refused to answer ques-
tons. and the other Hallet Kilbourne.
who in 1876 was committed to prison
for refusing to obey a subpoena ducas
tecum and declining to answer a ques-
ton. later brought suit against the
sergeant-at-anns for false imprison-
ment and recovered verdict for SlO,-
600.
The Supreme Court held the House
order declaring Kilbourne in contempt
was void. Specifically, it ruled that
there existed no power in Congress to
compel witness to testify in the par
ticular case in question which in
volycd a bankrupt real estate firm.