Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1926-12-21
FALL AND SINCLAIR
PLEA TAKENU UNDER
COURT AMUSEMENT
Justice Bailey to Rule Thurs
day on Motion to QuaSh
Indictment.
BOTH DEFENDANTS
APPEAR AT HEARING
Arguments by Counsel for Both
Sides Consume Hour and Half
in Teapot Dome Case.

Justice jennings Bailey in Criminal
Division today took under advise
ment until Thursday the motions OF
Albert i. Fall, former Secretary OF
the Interior, and Harry r. Sinclair
oil magnate of New York, to quash
the indictment for alleged conspiracy
in connection with the lease of the
Teapot Dome naval reserve in Wyo
ming. The court listened for an hour
and a half to arguments of counsel
on both sides and then announced
that he would rule Thursday morn
ing at the opening of court.
Both defendants We're in court,
ready to plead to the indictment in
the event that the court should over
rule the motions of their counsel.
Frank j. Hogan. counsel in the DO
heny case, was present in court, but
said he had no connection with the
present case. Edward B. Mclean,
close friend of former Secretary Fail,
also was present.
Martin w. Littleton of New York
opened the argument for Mr.. Sinclair
and without mentioning Senator
Hefiin by name spoke in scathing
terms of recent Senate discussions of
the result of the Fall-Doheny trial.
Assails Senate Attacks.
Just as we come here ready for
trial." said Mr.. Littleton, Eve are
met with the argument coming from
the United States Senate-a denun-
citation of another branch of this
court-in keeping with all the pro-
ceedings which have emanated from
the Senate.
"At last, when defendants are
ready for trial, we find ourselves
confronted from the Senate with
criticism which flows like lava from
this senatorial Vesuvius, dripping
down on this community and be-
sn1irching everything it touches. If
we say that we are ready for trial,
we are charged with attempting to
delay trial and are told that we have
arranged for an acquittal. So the
community is being saturated day
after day, last night andSeNen. agsin
today"
Mr.. Littleton said he did not wish
to be understood as criticising Con-
gress as body, for which he said he
had the highest respect, but he added
that the criticisms of the Fall-Doheny
verdict now coming almost daily from
the Senate could not help but be
detrimental to his client and to mill.
tate against permitting a fair trial in
q community where the Senate criti-
cisins are necessarily given SO much
public prominence.
Both Attorneys Littleton and
George p Hoover of Washington in.
sisted that the indictments should
be thrown out because Congress, in
singing out the oil cases by selecting
special prosecutors. had deprived the
accused of the equal protection of the
law.
Charges Further Infringement
The action of the Congress taking
away the jurisdiction from the Court
of Appeals to hear special appeals in
criminal cases and the granting to the
Government authority to serve sum
monses on Americans residing outside
the United States through the Amer
lean consuls further infringed their
constitutional rights, they claimed
Attorney Levi Cooke followed in be
half of Mr.. Fall and pointed out that
while his client had not raised the
question of law at The Fall-Doheny
trial. he now considered that it was
proper to point out that the Congress
had singled him out by name in the
joint resolution and had deprived him
of the due process of the law which
is extended to the lowlest citizen
charged with the most heinous crime
The right to be prosecuted by the
United States attorney, and not
by special counsel, had been infringed
counsel said. Attorney William f
Leahy appeared in court for the first
time as counsel for Mr.. Fall, but did
not make an argument.
Roberts Opposes Motion.
Owen j. Roberts and Atlee Pome-
rene, as special prosecutor in the oil
cases, opposed the motion and sub
mitted to the court a brief in opposi-
tion to the quaShinE of the indict-
ment. They contended that the mo-
ton is without merit, and that it is
dilatory and comes too late, accord.
ing to decisions of the United States
Supreme Court.
In their brief, Government counsel
asserted that the first IL reasons as
signed by counsel for the accused are
based on the alleged Unconstitutional
ity of the Senate joint resolution, No.
%, approved February 8. 1924, pur.
Suant to which special counsel ap.
pointed by President Coolidge and con.
iirmed by the Senate, have conducted
and are conducting the cases. 1t is
pointed out that no suggestion is
made that the Indictment was not
duly and regularly presented by a
grand jury duly empaneled and sworn
ard after consideration of evidence
properly presented.
The mere fact that the law officers
presenting the testimony We're called
by some other name than district at
torney can certainly be of no legal
importance, it is claimed Congress
has power to authorize others than
the United States attorney to go be
fore grand Juries, and the right OF
special ASSISTANTS to the Attorney
General to present evidence to grand
Jurors has long been recognized it is
stated.
Taking up the ground about tn,
summoning of witnesses for the Gov
ernment beyond the Jurisdiction, tn,
brief of the special prosecutor reads:
1.-The last ground is a claim tha
the act Of July. 3. 1926, relating I,
the service of subpoena upon a wit
ness desired by the. Government, VIII,
is a citizen of the United States, bu
beyond its jurisdiction, and providin,
a penalty for the failure of such wit
ness TO appear if so summoned, ha:
not been construed by any court
However, it SO obviously does not al
Continued on Page 4. Column 81