Evening star., 1926-12-06

cause it was partly owned British
concern.
I In reply to other questioning by Rob.
erts, who frequently refreshed Robi-
sons memory by reading from the
records of the Los Angeles trial and
the Senate hearings, the witness ad-
mitted that he knew the Standard Oil
Co. would not bid on the construction.
Roberts then asked the witness
about conferences he had had with
Fall regarding the cost plus matter
when invitations to bids were issued
in February. He again refreshed Rob-
ison's memory by showing from the
records the naval officer not only had
conferred with Fall, but also with
Balm. Robson added that he might
have talked the matter over with the
chief of operations.
Conferences With DOheny.
The cross-examination diverted then
to conference that Robson had had
with the elder Doheny in New York
at he home of young Doh any. Rob-
son recollected that he had discussed
the circumstances of what he termed
the Navy's necessity and reasons for
wanting to accomplish the Pearl Har-
bor work.
And Doheny told you then that he
was still going to make bid" Rob-
erts prompted.
II don't think so,'' the witness re-
piled.
At this point Robson recalled an
other time he had seen the elder Do
; heny in New York.
"Once l took dinner with Mr.. Do
heny in New York; it was either
Christmas or New Year, in 1921" he
said. "At any rate, it was at tn
Ritz Hotel. because 1 recollect l did
not have to pay the bill. 1 can re-
member that, because Doheny had to
pay a big tip to the waiter"
He said he did not discuss any
naval oil matters with Doheny at
this party.
Before Fall went to New Mexico in
April 1922, he told Robson he was
afraid he would not get any satisfac-
tory bids, to which Robson replied he
knew lone good bid' would be re-
ceivad from Doheny, according to the
latter's promise.
Roberts then referred to Falls let
ter to the Navy Department of April
13, 1922, suggesting an attempt be
made to get congressional authorize
ton whereby naval royalty oil could
be sold for cash and the funds EN-.
ployed in constructing the tanks. The
letter added that Fall was holding up
the bids" pending a reply from the
Navy.
Quiets Falls Remarks.
How could he hold up the bids
when they had not been received, or
| were not due to come in until April
1872" asked Roberts.
| The witness only explanation was
| EalJ oh have hoon MIA nnjn o.
to hold them up.
When the bids were opened and
DENLY was shown the Pan-American
proposal, Robson said, he made this
| remark: This doesn't mean any
| thing" and added that if that pro
posal cannot be consummated public
competition could be entered into"
Then followed discussion between
[ the witness and Mr.. Roberts on the
preferential hight to No. 1 reserve
| which Doheny had asked in return for
constructing the tanks. The witness
| became confused more than once, and
| confessed: II didn't know much about
| that preferential right business. y
However, at the time he recalled hav
! ing said the Doheny proposition look
i ed good to the Navy, When Jo-
seph J. Cotter attorney for the
| Doheny company, remarked it was
not so very important to his concern,
/ DR.. H. Foster Bains of the Bureau OF
Mines, and who played a prominent
! part in the contract and leases, "joshed
him" for taking such a stand, Robi-
son testified.
Roberts pressed the witness regard
ing various changes suggested during
the negotiations before F'inney ac-
cepted proposal 'B' of the December
IL contract.
when was it put up to you that
, Cotter wanted a lease on the whole
| reserves?" Roberts asked.
Robson replied that it was that
week of December II and was EN-
bodied in the supplemental bid.
In April" said Roberts, II under
stood you to say that you did not un-
Gerstand the real value of the prefer.
entail right privilege
Il did not them" Robson replied.
and you don't now" Roberts
snapped.
Proposition Agreed To.
The witness said that DR.. Balm be.
lieved the preferential right clause
would be of value to the Government
worth about $235, 900, the difference
between the two bids. Neither Balm
nor Finney mentioned dollars and
cents to him, he said, but both agreed
to the proposition in order to accepl
| the lower bid
IF any one offered you bonus of
100000 tor that preferential right
would you have accepted it?" Roberts
asked.
Yes, / would" Robson replied.
He declared he estimated it in
volved gross saving to the Govern
ment of $500,000.
Roberts referred to the Fall memo
randum of October, 1922. in which
the Interior Secretary said he was
favorably disposed toward the pref
orential rights agreement. He read
from the record testimony of Robi