Evening star., 1927-12-05
CONTINUED from First Page.)

anu business lliG.
Moreover. the return concluded. "it
was manifest to respondent that at
least a portion of the public press.
having a large and extensive circula'
tion in the District of Columbia. with
out awaiting the facts which might
be developed during the course of the
trial, published news articles which
were calculated to prejudice and bias
the community in said District against
this respondent"
Denies Clark Was Involved.
The oil millionaire fatty denied that
his business associate and friend,
Sheldon Clark, vice president OF the
Sinclair Refining Company, had any
part whatever in developments lead
ing up to the employment OF the
Burns agency by Day at Sinclair $
request. Clark, in his own return.
professed no knowledge whatever OF
any of the Governments allegations.
He is under S10.0o9 bond on com
plant signed by Assistant United
States Attorney Neil Burkinshaw ana
a hearing was scheduled today before
United States Commissioner Needham
c. Turnaee Owing to the conflict OF
the, two procedures. the Clark hearing
was postponed Indefinitely.
Burns, who, with his son, w. Sher'
man Burns. secretary-treasurer OF me
agency, and Charles l.. Nietsch, man.
ager Of the Baltimore branch, con-
stitute the Burns group in the case
Informed the court his first knowledge
that the agency was shadowlng the
furv reached him October 81, when
newspaper man informed him the
headouarters Of the operatives had
been raided in Washington. He fol-
Lowell this statement with the deciara- :
tion that had his advice been sought
upon the subject of employing the de-
tect;ves in the work he would "un-
hesitatinglv have advised that sue n
was a perfectly lawful and proper
one"
He added that the practice of jury
shadowing frequently is followed ny
the Department of Justices Bureau
of Investigation. Sherman Burns m
formed the court that after being en-
ployed by Day for the jury shadow
ing work he gave explicit instruc-
tions that the operatives were in no
way to talk with, approach or other
wise cause the jurors 10 believe they
were being followed, with the threat
that If his instructions were violated
immediate dismissal from the agency
would follow. He added he has every
reason to believe his instructions were
carried out to the letter and had Day
urged that contact be established with
the Jurors he would have refused the
employment.
Veitsch's return was as brief as
the charge against him that he
brought 1,500 to Washington from
Baltimore after a conference there
with the Burns manager in charge OF
the detail here. Veitsch declared the
money was for salary and expenses
of the agents and every penny was
applied for that purpose.
Sinclair's Return.
Sinclair's return. presented by his
attorneys, Martin w. Littleton, George
p. Hoover and G.. T. Stanford, took
cognizance of the allegations against
the Burns group, as well as himself.
He said he has no sufficient knowledge
to admit or deny the allegations con-
cerning the Burns agents in particu-
lar of the activities of William j..
Burns and other similar charges. He
denied, however, that either the senior
or junior Burns in furtherance of any
design with him procured the making
Of any false affidavit respecting De-
conversation with Juror Norman L..
Glascock while the trial was in
progress.
This respondent" the return con-
tinues, denies each and every alle-
CATION in said petition contained that
he did anything or authorized the do
ing of anything having for its object
the bribery. molesting, intimidating
or influencing of said jurors or any
of them. Or the doing of anything cal
culated to interfere with or impede"
the jurors during their consideration
of the case.
When the jurors. after being select
ed, were not ordered to be kept to-
gether in the custody of the United
States marshal during the recesses of
the court, Sinclair declared he author
lied the employment of the agency
for the reason already stated by him.
He directed Day. he said, that the OPP
eratives should receive strict and per-
emptory instructions that they should
not come In contact with. approach or
converse with any juror.
Having in mind the matters and
things herein set forth and believing
that in cases involving great public
interest the Government from time to
time had kept the jurors under sur
veillance during the time of such
trials" continued the return, "and en-
tertaining such belief that the Gov
ernment OF the United States had ex-
ercised such right and privilege, he
believed that he, as citizen of the
United States, had the same right and
privilege"
Makes Motion to Dismiss.
Day, through his attorneys, John
w. H. Grim, former assistant attor-
ney general. and Daniel Thew Wright.
former associate justice of the Dis.
trict Supreme Court, included a mo-
tion to dismiss the petition of the
Government and discharge the rule to
show cause, in his return to the
courts contempt order. Then he took
up in detail the allegations by the
Government. He admitted that on
October Is, 1927, the day after the
Teapot Dome trial opened, he was d.
rected by Sinclair to engage the serv-
ices Of the Burns agency, that he was
to supervise the activities and receive
reports from the operatives and for
ward them to Sinclair if he thought
it necessary or advisable to do so.
'"The respondent and Harry F. Sim
clalr, at the time, SAID Day return,
''had reason to believe and did believe
that during the trial of the said cause
attempttwould be made during the re.
cesses % court and while the jurors
were separated and out Of the pres
ence of the court TO unlawfully in
fiuence and tamper with the members
OF the jury for the purpose of pro-
during an unjust verdict.
LAS the representative, friend and
business associate of Harry F. Sim
clair, this respondent, after consulta :
ton with him and instructions from
him, did take part in the employ
ment of the Burns Agency and gave
instructions to the representatives In
charge of operation to observe as
far as they lawfully could what per-
wzZzZZZZNZ|ZZZzgZZIZZNZEZZZNSM