Evening star., 1926-12-06
WAR SCARE DEFENSE AT OIL
TRIAL IS ATTACKED BY u. S

also tried to get from Robson the
date Of his appointment as a rear
admiral Mr.. Lambert's methods were
directed at bringing out the fact that
the appointment had been made In
1924. ~
Tells of Talks With Fall.
The questioning then reverted to
conversations which the witness had
with Secretary Fall about procuring
oil for the Navy. Robson said he
had talked with Fall about having
oil turned over to the Navy, mas
much as various Government agents,
such as the Shipping Board, were
receiving oil from the Interior Depart
ment.
Won could not see why the Navy
couldn't get oil as well as the, Ship
ping Board?" asked Lambert.
Yes" was the reply.
"You knew then that the Shipping
Board had the contract with the In.
terror Department. in which 1t got
oil lower than the market price!'
Lambert asked.
yes" Robson replied. Il wanted
that right for the Navy also.
Mr. Lambert bad no further ques-
t;ons to ask and Robson was turned
over to Mr. Roberts OF the Govern
ment counsel for cross-examinatlon.
Roberts began his oss-examlnatlon
from the date Robson was appol1teo
chief of the Bureau OF Englneerl,iS
and questioned him about his femarkS
to Fall on how the Navy coulo ses
money from it's oil reserves instead
pnhorfC nrO0CC6O
tho Los Angeles civil suit testimony
of the witness, which quoted Robson
as saving Fall likewise was anxious
20 Ston the money running into the
Treausrv. and that Fall had rererreo
tn a plan that he had for tankage
oorstr,,ction. Robson declared this
was not the first time he had heard
of the plan.
Letter to DENLY Produced.
Roberts produced a letter Robson
had written to- DENLY and Whlch the
former had showed to Fall before II
was dispatched. This letter suggested
the NAVY would obtain larger royalties
On its oil by putting the storage plan
into competition "or otherwise" the
last two quoted words were suggested
bv Fall. the witness said, but stoutly
maintained they were not put IN SO
that nublic competition could be done
away with.
The letter also stated that all leases
and contracts would be arranged and
conslmmated by the Interior Depart
ment. and copies would be sent to the
Navy Department as means OF rec
ord only.
At this time, late in 1921, Roberts
demanded of the witness If Fall told
him a hid was expected from Doheny,
but in denying this Robson recalled
that Fall said he could get figures on
the cost of the tankage from IAN old
friend of his"
It was agreed that the plan be kept
secret merely as a matter of public
policy and not because it was felt Con-
gress should be consulted about the
disposition of the reserves, the wit
ness maintained, although Roberts
took the opposite stand on the matter.
Fall did not express doubt as to the
legality of the bids, Robson said, but
he did express doubt "as to the gen.
eral belief in their legality" which
might have the effect Of decreasing
the bids.
Doheny Letter Read.
Dohenys letter of November 2S,
1921, giving an estimate of the cost,
was referred to by Robson at a meet
ing Of the Navy council few days
later, to the effect that all he would
have to do would be to approve the
contents land we can get the tanks
built" This was read to the witness
by Roberts from the stenographic re-
port of the council after Robson
failed to recall whether he took the
letter there or not. The letter was
nj Cd hx, Ea11 which
said the Government would have to
turn over additional leases for the
work. Capt. Robson volunteered the
information that he did not approve
the letter with his initials.
While this matter was being dis
cusseG at the council Roberts read
from the notes that DENLY stated
that Fall told him IF we don't tackle
it now we won't get any three months
from. now. They are getting 1000
barrels a day from the wells now"
Robson did not recall DENLY say ing
this at that or any time and added,
1T wasn't true so far as the reserve
oil is concerned"
Over the repeated rapid-fire ques-
tioning of Roberts that the DOheny
letter Of November % clearly sug-
gested a bid at that time from the
Pan-American Co. the witness insisted
with emphasis that he did not regard
the communication as conveying that
impression to him.
Likewise, the witness denied having
told Fall that Doheny would submit
a bid prior to his conference with
the oil magnate iE the middle of De-
cember, 1921. at which time an agree
ment to submit figures was reached.
Then Roberts asked the witness if,
asking Doheny to submit bid, he
had taken the matter up with Con-
gress, with the naval affairs com
mittee, or any other person, to which
the witness replied he had not.
Ilonh1r nd D0hpnX