New Britain herald., 1924-03-25
SINCLAIR'S CASE IS
 GIVEN PROSECUTOR
Senate Acts Promptly on Its Con- tempt of Court Charges

fifcate in the senate contempt pro- eeeding against Harry F. Sinclair. as signed today and forwarded to the district attorney. is as follows:
 ITO the honorable. the district at torney of Columbia:
 'Take notice: That one Harry F. Sinclair. appearing pursuant to its subpoena before the committee on public lands and surveys of the Unit cd States senate on the 22nd day of March. 1924, refused to answer ques- tions pertinent to the question under inquiry before the said committee un- der senate resolution 147, and that his refusal so to answer and his failure to testify. and the facts in relation thereto have been reported to the Es nate all of which will more fully appear ny the report of the said com mittee made to the senate on the 24th day Of March. 1924. a copy of which Is hereto attached and made a part hereof.
 Given under by hand and the seal of the United States senate, this 25th day Of March. 1924.
 GEORGE II. MOSES, "Aetins president of the United States
 Senate.
 sAttest:
 GEORGE A. SANDERSON,
 Secretary of the United States
 Senate"
 It Is uncertain whether the case can be presented to the grand jury in the immediate future, The present grand jury goes out of existence on March sl, and is occupied with hear ing evidence in the cases against members of congress accused of bri- bery.
 Once the contempt proceeding is reached, it appears likely that the powerful array Of counsel retained by Sinclair will contest ihe case at every point and that the legal questions in- solyed will be carried to the supreme court
 The highest court has been appeal cd to ih at least two previous con- gresslonal contempt cases
 Elvefton E Chapman, New York stock broker. was cited by the senate in 1894 for refusing to testify before a committed. He served jail sen tence of go days after the supreme court had refused To review. llan- " Q. Havomeyer of the American Su- gar Refining company and John F.. Eearles Of New York. indicted with him, were acquitted by trial court which ruled tn, questions proponnd- cd to them about certain senator's dealings In sugar stocks while the sl- gar tariff was under debate were not pertinent.
 Chapman attacked the validity of section 102 of the revised statutes un- dtr which the Sinclair action will h. taken. and questioned the Jurisdiction of tho senate to inquire into his pri- sats affairs. but his contentious lost through the lower courts sud the sn- pretne court held il had no right 10 rsiew tn. court Of appeals in erim- inai cascs. The court Of appeals t,russnd three points for considern- tlon--the validity Of the statute, the power of the senate 10 conduct the Inquiry, and tho pertinsncy Of tho questions involved, and held the pow sr Of congress 10 punish for contempt was inherent.
 In two previous cases the house had mcted punishment to recalcitrhnt witnesses. In one Of these man named Irwin refused to answer l1cs- tlons and in the other Hallett kil- tourns, who in 1876 was committed 10 prison for refusing to obey a sub- poena duces tecum and dccling 10 an- suer question later brought suit against the sergeanteat-artns for false Imprisonment and recovered vordict for ti6,00n.
 The supreme court held the house sTder declaring kilbourne in contempt was void. Specifically. 1t ruled that there existed no power in congress to