Evening star., 1927-10-31

tors of the Sinclair Crude oil Co.. he
| said. bat his action WAS ratified at
the August >. 1923, meeting of the
! ltcud.
Neither Sinclair nor Il. W. Stewart
president Of the Standard OH Co. of
! ll.di;;na, which is half owner Uf the
Sin"lHir Crude Oil Co, We're members
! OF the beard of directors Of the latter
04 ar,ration at the time Of the exc
cution of the November Il resale con
/ tract. Ihili,'.s testified. The resale
contract wac signed for the Sinclair
j 90. bT George III. Tabcr, then prcsi-
dent.
i Former Senator Charles s. ThomaS
! Of Colorado. Aas recalled to the stand
when court was resumed today to
complete his recital of the conferences
at the Vanderbilt Hotel in New York
/ City on November 16. 1921. at which
were drawn up two contracts covering
! the sale OF enormous quantities of oil
! in this country. The continental
Trading Go. Of Canada was II party
to one cf these and stooG to make
! profits running into the millions.
The contention Of the Government
| is that Sinclair shared in these profits
! and that $23o.100 in Liberty bonds
| which once were held by the conti-
Fa!l.
At the outset today. Justice Sid
dons rendered decision favorable
to the defense which made it impos-
sib!e for Roberts to connect Sinclair
directly with the bonds.
When the trial recessed Friday aft
ernoon Roberts had asked Senator
r.. las what names he had inserted
in a skeleton draft of the contract in
y h!ch the Continental co. later had
been named as the ven.-e. Roberts
repeated this question this morning
and Littleton. for the defense, inn
mediately renewed his objection.
Roberts had asked directly if the
name of James T.. O'Neill. who was
president of the Prairie Oil & Gas Co..
had been in the preliminary draft.
The Government counsel insisted he
wanted to show all the facts and cir
cum>tances relating To the Continental
deal. Littleton objected that what
| Thomas had presumed upon could not
he admitted as evidence. Before max
| ing his ruling. Justice Siddons dis
cussed the situation fully. 1t had
been shown by previous testimony
| that after Thomas had presumed" to
| insert names in the skeleton draft. he
| had been told by Blackmar that the
vendee. In a discussion that followed
| both Blackmar and Sinclair had
agreed to be co-guarantors in the deal,
the name Of the Continental Co
being inserted in the final draft.
The court upheld the objection Of
defense attorneys and Roberts lost his
opportunity. lie sought in various
other questions To obtain an answer,
but objection was upheld. Finally
Roberts asked il as a result of dis
cuSsions changes had been made in
the preliminary draft. Thomas admit
led that was so after "indiscriminate
discussion"
By another question Roberts e'icitnd
from the witness that the vendee of
the contract would be the Con
tinental co.
Contract Is Signed.
again / ask what names were
put into the preliminary draft" Rob
erts deman ndcd.
LittIeton blocked the question.
'Was final draft submitted%' Rob.
erts continued
Thomas replied that the final draft
was submitted the next morning No
vember u. at the same place, in
BbfdtniHeI room III ine NdnGeTDllI
Hotel. There were present on this
, occasion. he said. Col Humphreys
Blackmer. O'Neil. Sinclair, ii. S.
Osler and r. W. Stewart
The contract was signed that
morning." asked Roberts.
Yes. sir" Thomas replied.
Government counsel then called for
the original contract, which was pro-
diced and identified by the witness
IT was between Col Humphreys
company, the MeXia, and the Cont.
! mental 90. as vendee.
Thomas related that Osler took the
| seal OF the contine ntal Go. from his
| pocket and afiiXed it 10 the contract
! after he had signed il.
Thomas was shown two legal docf.
; mentS. which he identified AZ having
! figured in the oil sale conference as
/ being guarantee by Sinclair and
/ o'Ntil for the performance Of the
! Continental co.'S contract and an
/ agreement 10 resell the oil to Sinclair's $
and O'Nell's compa ncs.