Evening star., 1927-10-27

Ritas ca.
An entry of May q. 1872. showed
a paid-in surplus of $l01,17l.l2 in
payment of outstanding notes.
What does this entry represent"
Roberts asked.
1t represents the cancellation Of
this Indebtedness. apparently by some
deposit in cash" Rule answered.
"Whcrc is that deposit in cash
shown" Roberts asked.
Rule replied that he presumed il
was a caSh transaction made To the
holders of the notes. Upon Roberts
insiStenca Rule admitted that it WAS
his ''rccollcction that it was some Eond
transaction in which the notes were
lqujdated."
"Ou,side Of the S90.ooo in bords?'
Roberts asked.
Yes" Rule replied.
Rule did not know who bought
these bonds. but he stated the amount
was approximately $l40.o00.
When court opened this morning
Roberts called his first Witness. bur
Justice Siddons interrupted, explaining
he wanted TO dispose Of Il legal Ques
tion. He asked The jury to retire and
began an oral statement ON the entire
question as laid before him Friday
hy counsel for both sides. Monday
when it was thought the court would
settle the question. Justice Siddons
called for all The facts and circum-
stances leading up to Sinciair's ap'
p"aIancc before the committee, which
he declared were necessary before
action could be taken. Since that
time counsel had furnished the court
with facts which the court read in
substance as follows:
On October %, 1928 both sidos
agree that the defendant Sinclair ap.
pcared before the Senate committee
on public lands and surveys in com
pliance with notice. When he ap.
peared Senator Walsh democrat
Montanal asked him to take the
stard. but. Sinclair was not sworn
He was questioned and excused
Thereafter the committee notified Sin
clair to appear on December 4, 1923
lie appeared. was sworn by the chair.
man and after being sworn was ques.
toned and excused.
Justice Siddons said by this stipula-
ton the Governments offer was en-.
larged to include the testimony of
October %.
The court then cited the objection
said was based largely on the language
Of section $50 of the Revised Statutes.
which provides that no testimony
given before a committee of Congress
by witness after he had been duly
summoned to appear shall be used
against him in any subsequent
criminal proceedings
Justice Siddons then reviewed the
history of this provision, compared il
with similar laws enacted by congress
governing it's conduct of Investigations
and relating to evidence before *. He
then read at length from Il Supreme
Court decision referring 20 eVitienc"
obtained from witness before a
judicial proceeding" which cannot be
used against him in any criminal pro
ceedinss and left the inference that
the Senate investigation vas not a
Judicial one. y
Defendant Not Summoned.
From the stipulation, Justice Sid.
dons said, it was clear that the defend.
ant was not under summons. but was
notified to appear. Congress, the
court continued, in enacting section
$50 had in mind the amendments to
the Constitution, which provide that
timony against himself in any crimi-
nal prosecution. The section. in the
court opinion. laid "A prohibition on
the courts from receiving testimony
previously given by Il witness before
any committee of Congress.
The wording of the statute that mo
such testimony shall be used" means
no such testimony shall he received
by the court as evidence against the
person who gave it. the court eX-
planned. Justice Siddons added, how
ever, that IA defendant might waive
this prohibition against the use of his
testimony If he desires it be used. But
the prohibition was intended for the
personal protection of the witness,
Justice SiddOns explained.
Referring to Justice Iloehlings de-
cision in the Fall-Dohcny trial last
year, Justice Siddons said. that case
and the statements offered in evidence
presents, in the opinion of the cotlrt,
a very different case" He explained
that the evidence offered against Fail
consisted of a letter he had voluntarily
sent TO the Senate committee with the
request that it be included in the
record. Justice Iioehling admitted
it on the ground of purely voluntary
matter" said the court. With refer
ence TO Edward l.. Doheny's state
ment, the court said it was made
after application had been made to
the committee for meeting in order
that Doheny might appear and be
heard. Nothing could be more
voluntary" explained Justice Siddons.
Justice lf0ehling ruled that the testi-
mony was not made under compulsion,
the court explained. That's not this
case in my opinion" Justice Siddons
declared.
Decision IIeases Sinclair.
When Sinclair appeared before the
committee after being notified, was
called by the chairman, directed to
take the stand and sworn, the court
asked We're not his subsequent state
ments evidence and testimony. and
on October 90, when he was before The
committee upon notification. but was
not sworn, We're his statements teeti.
mony? Could he have been prosa-
cd for in,sN.pp