Evening star., 1926-11-26
COURT ADJOURNS TO STUDY
DOT1ENY TESTIMONY ISSUE
Continued from First Page.)

Continued from First Page)
had been given him by Fall in return
for the loan.
'Tt is perfectly evident that Doheny
came voluntarily on this matter.
said Mr.. Roberts. He added that
Doheny had said he wished not only
to inform the committee Of these
facts but to put the matter before the
whole public.
NO broader voluntary statement
could have been made than that"
said Roberts I'VE contend that no
public policy. that no existing law
protects such a statement in either
criminal or civil court"
As a result Of this voluntary state
ment on the part Of Doheny. Govern
ment counsel told the court, every
human being in the country was in a
position to know about the transac-
ton between Fall and Doheny.
Section $50 Of the Revised Statutes.
the chief bone of contention between
the Government and the defense over
the admissability Of Doheny's testi-
mony, reads as follows:
Text of Section 859.
mo testimony given by a witness
before either House or before any
committee of either House of Con-
gress. shall he used as evidence in
any criminal proceeding against him
in any court except on a prosecution
for perjury committed in giving such
testimony. But an official paper or
record produced by him is not within
such privilege"
Roberts cited numerous Supreme
Court and other records TO back up
, ~, axe ut
henv. had waived his privilege of i'm
munity under the fifth amendment of
the Constitution, which protects a
person from giving discriminating evil
dence against himself under compul-
sion
Tracing the various stages of the
law defining the rights OF witnesses
before congressional committees. the
Government counsel declared that the
statute was directed to compel at
tendance without violating the Con-
stitution.
'It never has been applied before TO
voluntary testimony" he added. !.
Roberts contended that this const1-
tutional privilege was not intended to
be thrust upon any man unless he de-
sired 1t.
.'It has been held without excep-
ton that when a witness has volun-
teered testimony he does not buy the
privilege of immunity" the attorney
told the court
Argument Summed Up.
Mr. Roberts summed up his argu-
nent with the declaration that con-
stitutional projections against IN
crimination are not considered as con-
ferring immunity upon volunteers
who would rush into committees OF
commissions and thereby prevent tnelr
testimony from being used in criminal
cases. He then read letter dateo
December 27, 1923, from Fall to the
senate oil investigation committee IN
which the former Interior secretary
declared that his private affairs mad
no place in the scope OF the com
mittee's investigation ana requested
that. owing to his illness, the com
munication be inserted in the record.
Mr.. Roberts pointed to that letter as
being a voluntary statement or tesll-
,nonv adduced without compulslon.
The Government counsel concluded
his argument at 1890 o'clock and Mr.
Hogan began his reply Immediately.
The Doheny counsel read from
nrinted reports of the oil committee
hea rings that on December 3, l923,
Mr.. Doheny took the stand and was
sworn at the request Of Senator
walsh. The explanatory note in the
ranort of testimony said the witness
was duly sworn by the chairman
and after his appearance on the stano
was excused"
Mr.. Hogan then turned to another
volume Of testimony and read tnat on
January 23. 1924, Mr.. Doheny had
testified and that the committee ad-
iourned subject to the call OF the
chairman. Then on the foilowins
day-January 24-the printed near
ings showed the committee met at the
call OF the chairman, Hogan reclted,
and then he quoted Senator Walsh as
saying:
Emphasizes Word Resumed"
az asked the committee to meet, as
was Informed Mr.. Doheny would
like to make a statement. ME-.
Hogan then read from the record the
subhcad in the report. Testimony Re,
surned." with emphasis on the second
word. Then Mr.. Hogan read that
Senator Walsh had asked Mr.. Doheny
If he had been sworn when he ap-
neared before, and on receiving an ar
flrmative reply the witness was told
to proceed.
The record showed, according to Mr..
Hogan, that Mr. Doheny testified un-
der oath administered at previous
meeting" Mr.. Hogan declared that
the testimony Of January "a was a
Of testimony given when
he was under a subpoena For that