Evening star., 1926-11-29
Plea to Bar Statements of Oil
Man and Fall Before
Senate Is Denied.
JURY IS BROUGHT BACK
AND TESTIMONY is READ
Gordon and Roberts Present Letter
and Evidence of Accused Pair
Concerning Loan.

The story of the little black satchel
and the 100000 transaction between
Edward L. Doheny, millionaire oil
magnate. and Albert B. Fall. former
Secretary of the Interior, as placed
before the Senate oil investigating
committee three years ago. was admit
ted as evidence at their trial on a
charge of conspiracy in Criminal Divi-
sion No. l of District Supreme
Court this morning by Justice Adolph
Hoehling, who held that the argu-
ment of the defense to bar this was
neither appealing. convincing nor
legally sound"
In a 22-page decision which had
been pending sincej Justice Hoehling
took the case under advisement Fri
day. after lengthy argument. the court
said the law which forbids the use
in any criminal proceeding of testi-
mony given before a committee of
Congress confers a personal right of
immunity which must be invoked and
may be waived and Is not a bar to
the court from receiving testimony
voluntarily given. In consequence
the testimony of Doheny before the
oil committee and the letter of Fall to
the committee were allowed to be read
to the jury.
In declaring the arguments Of coun-
sci of defense against the admissi-
bility of this testimony under section
So9 of the Revised Statutes neither
appealing. convincing nor legally
sound" the court referred to the de-
cision on similar statutes providing
immunity under the interstate com
merce act, the Federal Trade Commits
sion act and the bankruptcy laws, and
declared: THE court. however, does
not feel that a detailed reference to
or an extended discussion of such
cases is at all necessary: since when
the basic and real question is reduced
to its final analysis. the legal barriers
suggested by counsel for the defense
become. in the opinion of the court,
more imaginary than real. No case
has been brought to the attention of
the court by counsel on either side nor
has the court itself. in It's own investi.
cation of the question, found any case
which has held that any witness, In
any judicial proceedings. or before
any investigating body, may not freely
waive immunity provision or protec-
ton which may have been created In
his favor: and that thereafter he will
be bound by the action taken by him
in that regard"
Statements Held Voluntary.
The court in referring to the letter
of Fall to the committee, which stated
the 100000 loan was advanced by
Edward B. Mclean and that he had
not received one cent from Doheny
or H. F. Sinclair. another oil man, put
the query. How can 1t be properly
said that communication was the
legal equivalent of testimony given
by the witness before the Senate COM
mittee? If it be testimony. then the
giver OF 1t, If any of it's material
Atatements be untrue, would remain
subject to a prosecution for perjury
under section $50. Is it conceivable
that prosecution for perjury could
be successfully maintained against
the writer Of that communication
under the provision Of section $50 or
United States? An answer to the
question seems unnecessary"
Since no perjury prosecution could
lie, the letter could not be considered
as testimony. suggested the court, but
Is only voluntary statement. Equally
voluntary, as shown by the record.
was the testimony, the court finds.
given by Mr.. Doheny before the com.
mittee In which he admitted having
loaned Mr.. Fall 800. 900 and during
which he submitted to the committee
the mutilated note given by Fall to
secure the loan.
Immediately after the decision was
read, Attorney Frank j. Hogan for
Mr.: Doheny, noted exceptions to the
ruling or the court, in allowing the
introduction Of the Senate commit
tees record.
Jury Brought Back.
Wilton ]. Lambert. attorney for
former Secretary Fall, noted excep.
ton to the admission of the letter
written by his client. The Jury was
then brought to the courtroom and
occupied the box from which II has
been absent since last Wednesday
afternoon during the argument Of
counsel on the motions to suppress
the proffered testimony and the re-
cess taken by the court for the prep.
aration Of his opinion.
In sharp contrast with the last few
days of the trial. the courtroom this
morning was crowded with spectators.
a dozen or more persons being lined
up along the walls. Fall and Doheny.
the persons most vitality affected by
the courts ruling, listened intently
during the so minutes which II took
Justice Hoehling to read his opinion.
Fall Arrives Late.
Mr.. Doheny was at his accustomed
seat several minutes before court con.
vened. but Fall was nowhere in sight.
A few minutes after Justice Hoehling
began the former cabinet officer came
In the courtroom and took a seat at
the extreme right of the counseps
bench, next to Mr.. Lambert. his chief
attorney.
Neither Fall nor Doheny betrayed
any sign of emotion. Only once or
twice did Mr.. Fall make a gesture at
some critical point in the opinion.
Otherwise he sat with hands folded
in his lap.
The sweeping conclusion of the
court in holding that the testimony
of Doheny and the letter written by
Fall were admissible appeared to have
little or no effect on either defendant.
Fall received 1t in utter silence.
Doheny, on the other hand, perked
up. Turning his head In the direction
of his family, who sat at one side
among the spectators, the diminutive
oil man smiled cheerfully and waved
his hand to them in encouragement.
After the reading Of the opinion and
the noting Of exceptions to the ruling
by Mr. Hogan and Mr.. Lambert. the
jury hled into court.
Without any preliminaries. Distric.