Evening star., 1927-12-05
SINCLAIR AND BURNS DEFEND
SHADOWING OF OIL JURYMEN

sons. in any. came in contact with
| the said jurors during the recesses
| of court and TO detect. so far as IT
was lawfully possible so TO do
whether any person or persons en-
deavored or undertook Improperly
and unlawfully to approach ana com
municate with any of said jurors LOT
the purpose of improperly influencing
them in the decision of the SAID
cause"
Instructions to Agency.
DAYS return said the Burns
agency had been instructed by MN
a.; follows: Under no circumstances
was any juror To be addressed or
communicated with. no juror shoulu
he approa ched in such proximity as
that he would know or suspect that
he was being observed. and that tae
doingS of the Burns international
Detective Agency and its operatives
and employees should be conhned
utterly and solely TO efforts to dls-
cover the identity so far as ii could
lawfully he done, of such persons,
if any. as approached them or ad-
dressed them during the recesses OF
court on the streets or any other
public places"
Dar declared he had no knowledge
about the alleged false affidavit made
hv William J. McMullin. who, under
the name of William V. Long. worked
as Burns detective and at the same
time kept the Government informed
of the jury shadowers' activities. Day
likewise declared he has no knowledge
except hearsay whether any of the
operatives investigated membranes
upon rhe home of Juror Kern, as the
Government alleges in the petition
and he further denied that any report
ever was submitted 10 him with ref
erence to the statement that efforts
would he made TO ascertain the names
of those holding trust notes secured
upon Juror Kern's home. Day ad
mits. however. that the operative re.
ported to him in writing their investi-
cation Of the brother and father of
Juror kidwell. These reports stated
that Kidwell's "brother's or fathers
place of business was located on ques-
tionahle premises and that racing
sheets We're found in the trash thrown
out of said premises" according to
the Governments petition for the con-
tempt rule.
Report ON Glascock.
Day declares that certain of the
operatives reported that Juror Nor
man l.. Glascock was seen in confer
ence with a person at a remote place
outside of the city of Washington for
a period of Is or 20 minutes and has
no knowledge that such report was
false. although McMulin has de-
clared that he was induced by the
Burns agents to make the false re.
port.
Day made a sweeping denial of the
governments allegation that he en-.
ployed the Burns agency for the pur-
pose of bribing, intimidating or infin-
encing the jurors or doing anything
to prevent due administration of jus.
tice. He maintains that he did moth
ing unlawful and believes that none
OF the Burns agents or officials did
or contemplated doing anything i'm.
proper
Clark, like Day, filed motion to
dismiss in his return which was pre-.
sented by Attorneys Edwin o. Bran
yer, and Morgan II. Beach, former AS.
sistant Attorney General Clark de.
MED fatty the governments charge
that he came to Washington for the
purpose of engaging the Burns
agency and declared that he never re-
ceived any instructions either directly
or indirectly from Sinclair with ref.
erence to the employment of the
Burns agency.
Further, Clark stated, he has no
knowledge whatsoever of how the
Burns agency was employed at whose
direction or at whose instance except
such as he has obtained from hearsay.
The return then takes up in detail
all the allegations of the Government
with reference to the other respond
ents and in each instance he de.
clared he had no knowledge of the ac.
tions of those respondents, as charged
by the Government.
States Purpose of Visit.
Clark admitted, however, that he
came to Washington to attend the
Fall-Sinclair trial for the purpose of
testifying as character witness for
Sinclair. After reaching Washington
he did not remain continuously
throughout the trial, but on one oc-
casion because of business matters,
entirely foreign to the issues here
involved" he was obliged to leave
the city. Clark explained "he had no
purpose plan or design to wrongfully
influence the trial nor did he advise
the doing of anything unlawful or
calculated to interfere with the admin.
istration of Justice
For the purpose of preserving his
rights" Clark moved that the contempt
rule against him be dismissed on sew
eral grounds, among them that the
allegations in the petition are INSULT.
cient in law and in fact to charge
him with contempt.
The senior Burns in his return filed
by his attorney, Charles A. Douglas.
declared he is not an officer or direc-
tor of the Burns Agency and his only
connection with the concern is in an
advisory capacity. He maintained he
did not know the agency had been
employed to keep the jury under sur
veillance until October 81, at which
time he was informed by a newspaper
man in New York of the seizure OF
the Burns reports at the Wardman
Park Hotel.
But this respondent says" the re.
turn declares. that had his advice
been sought upon the subject he would
unhesitatingly have advised that such