Evening star., 1927-12-06
KING AND AKERS
NAMED IN COURT
Oil Case Defense Asks Why
Two Who Talked to Juror
Were Not Accused.

United States Attorney Peyton Cor
don today was called on for the sec
ond time by defense counsel in the
Sinclair Burns contempt case to an
swer why Don T. King. local reporter
and J. Ray Akers We're not cited for
contempt in approaching Edward j.
kidwell, jr., teapot Dome juror. in
making this demand, f. c. Branden-
burg, attorney for Sheldon Clark, one
of the six respondents, declared the
real basis for discharging the trial
jury in the Teapot Dome case was
the contact formed with kidwell.
Instead of fighting the parties re-
sponsible for this offense," said Bran.
denburg, I'VE are brought into this
court to answer charges against per-
sons absolutely innocent OF forming
any contact with a single juror"
Holds Contact Unnecessary
"It was evident to the Defense" Mr..
Brandenburg declared, that the
United States Attorneys office had
brought in the Burns operatives as an
afterthought and a dragnet to proceed
against these defendants"
Brandenburg brought up the kidwell
affidavit by stating that the United
States felt and believed that the
foundation of discharging the jury
fas that Kidwell had been approached.
WAS it the Burns operatives who
approached him." the attorney de-
manded He questioned the motive of
King and Akers who interviewed Kid
well as set forth in the Government s
affidavit during the criminal trial. 1t
would have been sufficient if the re-
porter alone had formed the contact
with kidwell, the attorney declared,
but a second person was brought in
to substantiate the fact.
Declaring that the United SttaeS at
torney, he believed. would bring in a
rule dismissing the charge against
Clark, who, he said, had no part in
the jury shadOwing, Brandenburg told
the court it was common knowledge
that when the United States was a
party in trial it orders a surveillance
of the jury. 1T stretches forth it's
long arm with all the power that the
Government can hand it and puts its
inspectors on the track of the jurors"
said Brandenburg.
Says Prosecution Did Same Thing.
"Then why is it wrong for these
defendants to do this when it is not
wrong for the Governments" he de.
manded.
Brandenburg charged deliberately
that the Government itself had taken
part in shadowing the jurors through
William J. McMullen, the former
Burns detective. whose testimony
will be used in the contempt case to
support the charge that he was in
duced to swear to a false afndaVlt
regarding the shadowing of one OF
the jurors.
"Is it not a case of one detective
following another" declared Brand
enburg.
The attorneys for Clerk reiterated.
what others had declared previ.
ously, that no contempt of court
had been committed by the acts OF
the operatives in trailing the trial
Jury. This surveillance, he declared,
did not violate the dignity of the
court, nor obstruct the adminlstra-
ton of justice.
Gordon Opens Argument.
Brandenburg was the last of the de.
fense attorneys to argue for dlsmlssai
of the charges, and when he conciuded
George B. Hoover, one or the counsei
for Harry +. Sinclair, arose to tell the
court that Martin w. Littleton would
prove for the defense that the United
States attorney had concluded. Coun'
sci for Sinclair, he stated, adopted the
arguments of Daniel Thew Wright,
Douglas and Brandenburg as their
own.
When Brandenburg had concluded,
Mai. Gordon opened his arguments
for the prosecution. and this will in
clude practically all the time of the
afternoon session of the court.
He was in the concluding stages OF
his argument against the motions OF
the respondents that the petition be
dismissed and the rule discharged
this afternoon. Referring to that por-
ton of the respondents motion that
the petition does not allege facts ade-
ouate to constitute an offense. Maj.
Gordon reiterated his charges that
the Burns detectives were employed
for the purpose of spying. bribing and
intimidating the jurors to the end
that a mistrial or verdict for the de.
fendant in the Teapot Dome trial
might be gained.
Cites False Affidavit.
care not these things contempt"
he asked, and then he declared: rs 1t
not contempt to present false affi.
davit to the court that one of the
jurors was communicated with by per-
sons Of the Government? l have an
CONTINUED on Page 4, Column g.