Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1925-05-21
Editorial Comment
Why the Delay?
Boston Herald)


Whose fault Is 1t that the statute
Of limitations now may interpose its
barrier to the advantage of the Do
henys in the bribery cases brought
against them by the United States
government? Who will be to blame
If the little black satchel, which once
contained a precious burden of cash
in the sum of 100000. shall never
appear in court as one of the ex-
hibits in the criminal prosecution Of
Albert B. Fall?
There was laundering somewhere,
or there has been mysterious delay
which requires explanation.
A special grand jury in Washing
ton began work on these oil leasing
cases on April 80, 1924. The jury re-
turned criminal indictments against
Fall, Sinclair, and the two Dohenys
on June 80. The chief counsel for
the Dohenys on July Z filed a. motion
for Quashing the indictments on the
ground that the law provides that no
person not connected with a case
may appear before the jury and that
such person did so appear in this
instance. Thus: Congress provided
that these cases should be prosecut-
ed not by the department of justice
but by special counsel appointed by
the President. These appointees were
Owen j. Roberts of Philadelphia and
former Senator Atlee Pomerene of
Ohio. Therefore the department of
justice could not properly have any
thing to do with the grand jury pro-
ceedings. Yet one or more persons
connected with that department were
present in the grand jury room and
they may have influenced the action
of the jury. And on April 3, 1925,
the chief justice of the District of
Columbia supreme court threw out
the indictments on the ground that
an assistant attorney general APP
peared before the grand jury that
investigated the cases.
Now that satchel containing $780,
900 for Albert &. Fall was carried
from New York to Washington by
Edward l.. Doheny, Jr., on Nov. 80.
1921. The statute of limitations i'm
poses a three-year time limit in
criminal proceedings. The delay in
the decision on that technicality COW
cred nine full months. 1t may have
been necessary, but If SO the public
has right to know what the neces-
sity was. There may have been a
blunder somewhere, and if so, the
public ought to know the identity of
the blunderer. When the Dohenys
counsel last July first brought for
ward that argument could, or should
the special counsel for the federal
government have begun instantly on
the task of preparing new indict-
ments? The three-year limit expired
nearly five months after the Doheny
counsel filed his motion. Four months
after that the indictments were
quashed.
This seems to us to be just the
kind of delay which Chief Justice
Taft has criticised from time to time.
To be sure Mr.. Roberts and Mr..
Pomerene have appealed in the hope
that higher authority may overturn
this decision. and as a matter of
course the governments special
counsel have started work on pro-
curing new indictments. But if the
old indictments do not stand the new
Will have to be based not on the
bribery charge but on the charge of
conspiracy, and the statute says that
the limit of time in conspiracy cases
against the United States shall be
six years. Not a single point vet
has been won by the Dohenys. Sim
clair or Fail, on the merits of the
issue. They have benefited solely by
technicalities brought forward by a
battalion of clever lawyers. Will
these attorneys be able to delay and
protract final decision over the six
year limit?
The quashing of these indictments
has been pronounced an unfortunate
thing by many; it seems to us that
the term unfortunate" is too mild
a word.