Evening star., 1927-10-19

the two of them went over 1t line by
line. DENLY signed 1t with fuli under
standing" !. -,a.
Reyerts to Prior Claims.
Mr.. Littleton then reverted to the
prior claims held by oil companies on
lands in Teapot Dome and explained
that the Pioneer Co. had come into
possession of these claims when the
Sinclair lease was being negotiated.
At that very moment, he claimed. the
Pioneer Co. was presenting these
claims to the Government.
The Pioneer Co. in August. 1920. had
filled application of four producing
wells and had laid claim to 5000 acres
in Teapot Dome Before the Govern
ment could lease Teapot Dome, MIR.
Littleton pointed out. it was necessary
to quiet these claims. Sinclair was
directed to do so. He was successful
in this and turned over to the Govern
ment the quit-claim lease of the Pio-
neer Co.
Referring to the so-called secrecy
in the case. Mr.. Littleton declared
that not a single applicant for lease
had expressed any willingness to build
pipe line without cost to the Govern.
ment as Sinclair had agreed to do.
The defense will prove, he declared.
that this pipe line was burdensome
thing upon the Sinclair Co. costing
millions Of dollars without a cent of
cost to the Government. In addition,
under the lease, the Government was
to get between 1914 and so per cent
Of the oil. 1--WE will show these
corrupt lease. disadvantageous to the
Government" Mr.. Littleton said.
Mr.. Littleton then turned to that
part of the indictment which alleges
that. on about May 8. 1922. Sinclair
delivered or caused to be delivered,
and Fall received or caused to be re.
ceived from him, large amounts Of
bonds with par value of S230.500.
He read verbatim from the indictment
and referred to the story of the al
legged occurrence as given yesterday
by Mr.. Roberts in his opening state
ment for the government and then
| followed with the defendants knowl.
edge Of the charge. Mr.. Littleton's
version. which he declared the jury
would receive from witnesses and evi.
dence. "and which will not be doubt
ed" in substance, was:
Blackmer Negotiations Cited.
Blackmer. new living in Europe
after refusing to respond to two
| subpoenas issued for his appear
ance in this case had been negotiating
for some time with a man named
Humphreys, who had large amount,
| of oil in Texas. On November IA.
1921, Humphreys met Blackmer at 60
Broadway In the Office of Humphreys,
consulting engineer. Negotiations
were virtually concluded for the sale
| of 30.000.000 barrels of oil to Black
| mer. who then was chairman of the
board Of the Midwest Refining Co.
On November II in Blackmer's hotel
room in New York the following
gathered: James O'Neil. president of
the Praries Oil & Gas Co. (who like.
wise has been in Europe and cannot
be found to answer subpoena); Robert
Stewart Of the Standard Oil Co. of
Indiana; Mr.. Sinclair, representing the
Sinclair Consolidated Co.. which owned
one half OF the Sinclair Crude Oil Pur-
chasing Co., while the Standard Oil
of Indiana owned the other half: Mr..
Humphreys and former Senator
Thomas OF Colorado, attorney for
Humphreys.
The matter before these men was
to consummate the contract between
Humphreys and Blackmer. Blackmer
said he wanted the contract to be
made In the name of the Continental
Trading Co.. to which Mr.. Thomas
replied he had never heard of it..
Sinclair Co. were going to buy the
oil from the purchaser of it. from
Humphreys, and those two companies
would guarantee the contract. where
upon. Humphreys consented to the
deal.
Contract Drawn Up.
The contract was drawn up in favor
of the Continental Trading Co. and
the oil was sold at $3.50 barrel. Sim
clair, and Stewart acted on behalf of
the Sinclair Crude Oil Purchasing
Co. and O'Neil on behalf Of the Prairie
OIL and Gas Co. in guaranteeing the
contract.
Another contract was made between
these two companies to take the re-
manning oil from Humphreys Oil fields
after the Continental Trading Co. 3
oil had been run off.
III concluding his version OF the
story. Littieton declared that the only
connection Sinclair had with the sale
and transa ction was as representative
| of the Sinclair Crude Oil Purchasing
| Co.. along with Stewart N guarantee
ing that the Continental Trading Co.
would pay Humphreys because they
were to buy Oil later. Their interest
was III their respective companies to
| obtain oil from the Continental Co.
Nothing will appear in the evidence
| to indicate Mr.. Sinclair had the slight
est interest in the Continental Trad
ing Co.." declared Littleton. "He never
had q bond that the company had or
| passed a bond that the company had
and it will be made clear he never had
anything to do with a bond Of the de-
scription mentioned by the Govern.
ment, and he never passed a bond to
Fall or any one in behalf Of Fall.
Starts Last Chapter.
In what he called the last chapter"
of the defense. Mr.. Littleton told the
jury the story of Falls receipt of
$25.0O0 In Liberty bonds from Sim
clair following the Interior Secretary's
retirement in the Spring of 1923. This
he gave in effect as follows:
Sinclair was interested in oil con-
cessions in Russia, and he desired Fall
to go with him as his counsel. Fall
explained he could not go with Sim
clair at the time, but he would go
later, and he told Zevely before he
could accept the post of counsel for
Sinclair he desired to visit Washing.
ton and see IL the administration had
any objection because of his close as
sociation with it and the strained re.
lations between the United States and
Russia.
Zevely said Fall would require some
expense money in advance and Sin
clair authorized his secretary before
leaving to give $4,000 on demand of
Zevely, which the latter would pass on
to Fall. Sinclair went to Europe and
Zevely went to Three Rivers, N. Mex,
Fairs home, and made arrangements