Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-03-16
Deliberations Are Limited to
Questions of Fact by
Hitz Directions.
JUSTICE DENIES STAND
OF DEFENSE ATTORNEY
Asserts Guilty Verdict Would Not
Brand Accused Oil Magnate
as "a Felon."

Justice William Hitz at 1856 pm.
today gave the case of Harry F. Sin
clair, charged with contempt OF the
Senate, to the jury In Criminal Divi
sion following a brief charge In
which ne called upon the jurors TO
decide only whether the defendant was
summoned before the Senate oil com
mittee nearly three years ago. whether
he appeared, whether he was sworn.
whether he was asked any questions
and refused to answer.
The court told the jury If 1t found
from the evidence that the foregoing
points were correct facts. then 1t is
your duty under the law to find the
defendant guilty"
isn't the Situation"
The reasons which prompted Sin.
clair not to answer the questions are
not to be considered by the jury. the
court said. and the fact that he may
have referred to a lawyer or decided
himself about answering indicates
that he agreed to take the conse-
quences, Justice Hitz said.
Referring to the closing argument
of one of the defense counsel, in
which it was stated that a verdict of
guilty would brand Sinclair "a felon."
Justice Hitz declared that isn't the
situation" The court said If a verdict
of guilty Is returned that does not
mean the defendant Is felon, and the
punishment that follows is not that
given to a felon. The court said the
defendant was charged with a mis-
demeanor.
Advice Of Counsel.
Referring to one point Of the de-
A~ Ixxs1
Of counsel the court said:
1T is possible for a man to follow
the advice of learned and competent
counsen and land in Jail. just the same
as 1t is for a man to follow the ad
vice of learned and competent ply
sicians and land In the cemetery"
The jury was instructed not to hold
any prejudices or sympathies with re
gard to the defendant. and the fact
that Sinclair,s name has been men
toned in a so-called oil scandal has
no connection with the case.
The court read two prayers granted
! the defense on the presumption of in
nocence until overcome by the evil
dence, and the purpose OF the indict-
ment. which is not evidence. The court
then read three instructions he had
prepared himself. one on reasonable
doubt and the others on the points to
be considered by the Jury.
Preceding the charge United States
Attorney Peyton Gordon, in charge
of the case. opened for the Gov
ernment and was followed by
George p. Hoover. who opened for
Sinclair. and Martin w. Littleton,
who closed for the defendant. AL
though the Government was at lib
erty to use one hour of its remaining
allotted time, Owen ]. Roberts, spe-
cial Government prosecutor, closed
FOR the Government in a rapid Is.
minute address.
View OF Gordon.
Gordon emphasized to the jury that
its sole duty was to find that Sinclair
was summoned before the Senate COM
mittee on public lands and surveys on
March %, 1924; that he appeared. that
he was questioned and refused to an
swer. Hoover and Littleton attacked
the Governments evidence on these
points, declaring that an examination
OF the Government case by the
jurors would convince them it was
faulty and therefore their verdict of
not guilty should be returned.
Roberts, making his third public
utterance since the trial began, de-
clared the only thing left for the de-
fendant. which he could give to the
jury, was argument of his counsel.
You might think the way this case
has been argued here that there was
a charge of murder or arson" said
Roberts. "The statute under which
the defendant is tried does not mean
he is a crook"
Question of Subpoena.
Gordon told the jury the indict-
ment charges that Sinclair com
mitted the offense in that he was
summoned, appeared was sworn,
was questioned and declined or re-
fused to answer.
"They are the matters you gentle
men are to decide" Gordon said.
'"they are the facts. and all the facts.
for you to decide"
The district attorney said Sinclair
brought with him to the hearing the
original summons to which was at
tached a return by the United States
marshal for the southern district OF
New York. He asked IL there could
be any question of reasonable doubt
that the subpoena was issued and
served upon him.
The next question for the jurors.
Gordon said. was to determine II he
appeared, and about that there is
no controversy. Likewise. there is no
question that he was not sworn and
when questions were asked him. the
evidence shows he refused to answer
"The court will tell you." he con
tinued, they are the only facts for
this jury to determine. Is there any
way that you can find any reasonable
or any other sort of doubt that these
things happened? The court will
charge you that the pertinency OF
these questions Is a matter OF law and
not a question of fact for the jury to
determine. The court win also tell
you that 1t is not a defense of this
charge that a person refused to an
swer that he thought he did not have
to answer, that the questions were
not pertinent, that the committee ex-
ceeded its authority or that he act.
ed on advice of counsel"
Sees Duty Clear.
~ shall expect you gentlemen TO
perform your duty--it Is a clear
duty: there can be no question or no
doubt that the facts have been proven
to you. and respectfully submit that
on your oath you cannot return a
verdict other than guilty as indicted
on the four counts"
Taking up the points referred to by
Gordon, Hoover said that by the Gov
Continued on Page Q. columi -