Evening star., 1927-10-28
S|DDONS SUSTA|NS
EvERHART REFUSAL
Of OIL TESTIMONY
Second Blow Dealt Govern
ment in Attempt to Prove
Conspiracy.
CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS
is BASIS OF DECISION
Fall Heaves Sigh of Relief as Court
Announces It's
Findings.

holding Falls son-in-law, NJ. I. Ever
hart, in his refusal to tell the jury
from whom he had received the $3.50.
500 in Liberty bonds which he had
sold and placed in safe deposit oox
in the name of "A. b. Fall"
The courts decision came as
stunning blow to the prosecution
which charges that the bonds were
given to Everhart, a partner OF Faiii
hv the defendant Sinclair as brlpe
10 the former Secretary of the Interior
in return for the leasing of Teapot
Dome.
Evsrhart had previously admitted
on the witness stand that he had Solo
fhe bonds to the NJ. ID. Thatcher es
tate and delivered the cash 10 l.: =
Rule. assistant cashier oil lhe L fHs'
National Bank of Pueblo Coio', ~ ue
denosited to the credit of his fatner
inlaw.
Second Blow to Government.
To forge the last link in the chain
of evidence involving the bond trans
action. which the Government alleges
nassed between Fall and Sinclair, the
Government needed only a statemeh,
from Everhart that he had received
the bonds from the oil magnate Oh
the occasion of his visit to New iorh
-, Mav 1922. after the lease had been
executed. :.so
Ar one time during the intense
legal argument on the validity oil tne
witness refusal to answer the ques
4ion propounded to him by owen >,
Roberts. Government counsel Justice
Siddons vigorously pounded ms oesh
The court declared emphaticaiiy:
.''rhis witness must be accofded ms
full constitutional privilege. lie Is
going TO get It in this court he -
entitled to it"
THE courts ruling, which brought
4o a climax the proceedings in the
case. was the second decisive ueIed.
sustained by the Government IN as
many davs. II followed the barrins
of senate testimony given by Slhciair
tn the effect that he had gone 70
Tbroa Rivers. X. Mex. to discuss with
Eall the leasing of Teapot Dome, IN
The ruling of the court was received
epfbrsiastically by defense counsel
Trormer Secretary Fall, who had listen
ed anxiously to the arguments, heaVeo
q sigh of relief. His son-ln-iaw' seat
ed in the spectators stand win MIS-
Fall and her daughter, Mrs. y. y
chase. appeared visibly relieved
For Everhart, the moment was q
irving one. Had Justice Slanons
swent aside his constitutional claim
of immunity and had he refused to
answer the question. ne Wouio have
faced contempt charges and prop
able Jail sentence.
Sinclair sat motionless during the
long discussion. keeping up the non
chalance he has maintained ever since
! the bond transaction entered into the
case.
EmuI,asizes Witness Right.
Tn unfolding the witness refusal to
testify. Justice Siddons at one time IN
terrnpted proceedings TO remark; IL
is a pretty onerous burden to put OF
a law witness to decide that what ne
would reveal may come wltnn the
range of the conspiracy.
THE court followed up this remark
xSith its contention that the witness
must be accorded his full constitu
tional privilege against giving testl
mony which would incriminate him.
Justice Siddons asked Mr.. Roberts
II he had understood the Government
attorney to say in his argument tha'
If Everhart had got the bonds IRON
the very hands of Sinclair himself ht
would not necessarily be a party to the
conspiracy?" Roberts replied that the
court had understood him correctly.
The Government counsel ther
brought to the attention OF the cour'
that Edward l.. Doheny. Jr., had given
his father a check for Sl0o.0oO. Whlcn
his father in turn had caSneu ano
given 70 former Secretary Fall. Yet
the Government, he contended, had
never charged Doheny, Jr., with neins
a party to the conspiracy involving
the leasing of the California Oil re
serves.
Justice Siddons stated in his ruling
that he found it difficult to believe
that if the witness Everhart an
swered the question concerning the
bonds in the affirmative it would moi
proNe a link in the chain of evidence
which would lead up to participation
in the conspiracy by the witness, not
withstanding he had never heard OF
the lease.
Cites Possible Questions.
"What would he the next inquiry?'
the court asked.
Justice Siddons said these questions
naturally would follow:
Why he got the bonds? Did Fal
send YOU? Did Sinclair send for you
to Gomez"
If the witness answered that Fal
had sent him, the court said he woult
be asked:
Nv hat QlU + ali tel Ou'
''What instructions did he give
c,.- ne tell you what further contrac
N,puld be made between the Govern
ueur and the Mammoth Oil Co.?
"One can imagine without an,
straining at all before the interrosa
tiop is ended" said Justice Siddons
s';t would show despite the statement
of the witness that he knew noth1n:
of the negotiat tiotns leading up to tn
lease. that this witness, this reiatV
of Fall, with close business relation
shin. one of the three directors am
officers of the cattle company. had, IN
deed. a knowledge of what was goinl
3D."
TT rs difficult for me to see tina
close questioning would not expos
this man to the danger of being here
after charged with being consplI
ator." Justice Siddons added. IN
Government may for the first tim
learn of the relationship of the wit
ness TO the alleged conspiracy and n
would be charged as a conspiratOr.
II think / must sustain the obJet
tion." the court concluded.
Immediately after J istice Siddons
decision, Eyerhart was called to IN
stand and refused to answer fv
questions propounded 70 him by NJ
tCcas.nued On Page 4 Column 81