Evening star., 1927-03-10
LEGAL SNARL PUTS
Off SINCLAIR TRIAL
FOR REST. OF WEEK
Court AdjournS Case Until
Monday Upon Agreement
by Both Sides.
DEFENSE OCCUPIES
ALL MORNING SESSION
Jury Excluded as Counsel for Oil
Magnate Present Testimony to
Refute Contempt Charge.

Bound in a legal tangle that began
shortly before noon yesterday, the
trial of Harry F. Sinclair, New York
oil magnate. charged with contempt
OF the Senate, was unable to extricate
itself today and the case went over
until Monday morning, at which time
Justice William Hitz. presiding in
Criminal Division 2. is expected to
announce a ruling on whether or not
the questions Sinclair refused to an
swer before the Senate oil committee
were pertinent to- the inquiry OF the
body.
The statute under which Sinclair Is
indicted provides that any witness re-
fusing to answer any question per
tinent to the question under inquiry"
before either House of Congress shall
be guilty of ii misdeamenor.
The entire morning session was oc-
cupied by the defense. which, with the
jury excluded, presented to Justice
Hitz evidence and testimony In sup
port of it's contention that the ques-
tions asked of Sinclair were not per-
tinent to the naval oil lease question
being considered by the Senate oil
committee on March %, 1923.
Sinclair Statement Read.
TO this end, all of the committee
proceedings on that date, including a
statement read by Sinclair, in which
he declined to answer questions. first
on the ground that the committee had
no jurisdiction, and, second. that the
oil lease question already was in the
District Court of Wyoming. were read
from the printed record of the hearing.
Martin w. Littleton of defense coun-
sci then took the stand and under ex-
animation by George r. Hoover. his
associate counsel. testified that he ad-
vised Sinclair not to answer the ques-
tions propounded to him because they
did not pertain to legislation and were
concerned solely with the oil leases
which then were in litigation.
The evidence was offered to Justice
| Hitz, first 10 assist him in arriving at
| a conclusion as TO the pertinency Of
| the questions, and second, what part
of 1t should go to the jury. no matter
| which way the court decides. Should
Justice Hitz conclude that the ques-
tions were pertinent, he would then
so inform the jury, and charge 1t with
establishing other necessary elements
of the offense.
Questions for Jury.
If the. court decides the questions
were not pertinent to the inquiry, then
the jury would be instructed to return
a verdict of not guilty. The other
necessary elements" OF the offense
for the jurors to determine from the
evidence are: Whether Sinclair was
summoned and appeared before the
committee: whether he was asked GER
tain questions. and whether he re-
fused to answer them.
Ne session of the court will be held
tomorrow and on Monday the defense
will move for the court to direct the
jury to return verdict of not guilty.
This motion will be followed by extern
sive arguments which, defense coun-
sci declare, will bring out once more
the principal points Of the case. Be-
cause they did not want a break in
the proceedings once the argument
began, both sides agreed to the post
ponement until Monday. This action
blasted the hopes which both sides
held at the opening of the case that
the jury would be called upon for a
decision tomorrow.
Littleton read to the court the col
loquy OF members of the Senate oil
committee when the session opened
on March %, setting forth opposition
to questioning Sinclair on matters
pertaining to the oil leases and also
the final view of the committee that
he should be asked on that subject.
The Sinclair statement then follow
ed, explaining that on March Is, or
week previous to that session, suit
had been filed in the District Court
OF wyoming for a receiver for the
Teapot Dome lease entered into By
Sinclair with the Government.
Jurisdiction Disputed.
Because of this fact, Sinclair stated
the committee was without Jurisdiction
to examine him and that all matters
pertaining to the leases had been ref
erred to the courts where he would
discuss them. Mr.. Hoover then Of
fered a certified copy of the bill of
complaint drawn by the United States
against Sinclair's oil companies, show
ing the date of filing as being March
IS. 1924 and the order of the court on
the same date appointing a receiver.
Hoover read one or two paragraphs OF
the bill to show that Sinclair was men,
toned personally even though the
action was against companies of which
he was the head.
Mr.. Littleton then took the stand
after testifying that he served ono
lcIIl III tuS IlOuScs WHiCl COuCluueI
in 1918. during which time he made
a study of the rights of congressional
committees to question witnesses. He
stated he appeared with Sinclair
before the oil committee on March %.
The statement Sinclair read was pre-
pared i'm accordance with his advice
as a lawyer and after an examination
into the proceedings and authority
of the committee.
Certain questions were pro-
Continued on Page 2. Column g.