Evening star., 1927-12-06
be construed as being contempt of

De construed as being contempt OF
court.
In support Of this contention,
Douglas presented his results of a
far-reachnig study of the precedents
on contempt and emphasized that I'm.
less the due administration OF Justice
had been impaired or impeded, there
could be no contempt. He presented
cases where respondents had been ad.
judged in contempt beca use the court
or jury had been aware of efforts to
influence or otherwise affect their &C.
tions In the present case. the attor-
ney emphasized. there is no evidence
whatever that any one or more of
the Teapot Dome jurors was ap-
preached by the detectives of the
Burns agency or was even aware of
the fact that their movements were
being watched.
Will Not Ask Jury Trial.
1t has been a practice, Douglass ex.
planned, for the Government to keep
juries under surveillance in important
case and. he added, this practice has
been followed in the District of Co
lumbia for many years.
The petition of the Government ask
ing for the contempt rule, the lawyer
declared, refers to improper surveil-
lance" OF this Douglas asked the
Government counsel IL surveillance
were a crime there was no use in
placing the word improper" before
this. IIe argued this point from the
standpoint that the petition was i'm
properly drawn.
ANY indications that the responda nts
would seek to have a trial by Jury in
the event the court ruled the proof
should he heard was dissipated with
the emphatic declaration by Douglas
that his clients and the other three
responda nts would not seek such a
procedure.
Defends Jury Surveillance
Tn his concluding arguments Doug.
las defended the surveillance of the
jury and the alleged false affidavit
prepared by McMulen at the insist
ence of the Burns officials.
lie declared that the Government s
charges lead to the conclusion that
Jury surveillance is Illegal and that
it is IN to the defense to prove that
surveillance Is not crime.
For a century the United States
Government has put jurors under
surveillance. he charged, and told the
court that he himself had been shad
owed at times. "ShadoWing NAV be
a good thing he said: lit helps tC
keep us straight. But is ii something
that you can indict a man for?"
Cites Previous Gases.
In cases where courts have held thai
surveillance of jury had been illega
or in contempt, he declared. n contact
had always been proved. In the exist
ing case he emphasized that not g
single juror knew he was under sur
veillance. nor does the Government
furnish any proof to show that any OF
the operatives had bribed or ap
preached a juror. When there is nc
attempt to influence or approach q
juror. he declared. the act does moi
constitute contempt of court.
The affidavit which figures in the
case, Mr.. Douglas pointed out, was
never used during the trial. and had
been presented to Justice Siddons only
after the court had CLOSED the stable
door after the horse was gone"
Assuming that the two Burns
knew the affidavit was false. Douglas
argued. it was not filed during the
trial, never used and could not have
been calculated to obstruct justice.
There is no foundation whatever in
the Governments charges. Douglas
pointed out, to find his client guilty
OF criminal contempt so far as the
matter of surveillance is concerned.