Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-03-30
ARGUMENTS HEARD
IN SINCLAIR CASE.
Justice Hitz Takes Plea tor
New Trial Under
Amusement.

Justice William Hitz in Criminal
Division today heard arguments OF
counsel on the motion or Harry r..
Sinclair, oil magnate of New YORK
for a new trial of the indictment
which charges him with contempt or
the United States Senate in refusing
70 answer certain questions PROFOUND
ed 10 him during the inquiry into the
oil scandals. The court took the mat
ter under advisement. Sinclair was
not present during the argument.
Attorney George =. Hoover opened
the argument for Sinclair, laying
stress on his allegation of the denial
of q. trial by Jury, guaranteed by the
Constitution in all criminal prosecu-
tions. He contended that the action
of the court in taking away from the
consideration Of the Jury the question
Of the "pertinency" Of the inquiries
asked of Sinclair deprived the jury
Of the right to pass on one OF the
essential features Of the atlegeu
offense. Pertinency, he contended, IL
at best a mixed question or law ana
fact, and should not have been dealt
with by the court as question OF law
only.
He held that the Chapman case did
not hamper the right of the trial
Judge to submit to the jury the Ques-
ton Of pertinency.
Chapman Case Question.
The Court of Appeals. he said, Qua
not decide the question in the Chap
man case In such manner as TO be
binding on the action or Justlce
Eitz. The decision of Justice Hoehlns
on the demurrer in the Sinclair case
Hoover urged does not mean that the
question of pertinency is pure ques-
ton of law but when that Juslice
used the term judicial question ne
was distinguishing 1t from "leglsla-
tive" question and holding that II was
not for Congress to say what was per
tinent but that matter should be trieo
ont in a judicial proceeding. A judicial
proceeding. the lawyer claimed, IS
one conducted in a court OF law ana
does not mean a. matter to be decided
by the Judge alone. Hoover dWelt on
the other phases of the 20 reasons
assigned why his client should nave
another trial.
limited States Attorney Gordon ap-
neared alone in opposition to the grant
ing of the motion. Attorneys owen );
Roberts and ARee Pomerene. speciai
counsel in the oil prosecutions, VINO
assisted him during the trial, were not
present. Mai. Gordon defended the
action Of the court in holding that per
tinency was a question for the triaI
Justice and properly was excluded
from the consideration Of the jury.
Committee Legality Argued.
Martin W. Littleton, chief counsel
for Sinclair, closed the argument. he
devoted much Of his argument TO the
question Of the legality OF the commit
tee at the time when Sinclair was De
fore the committee and Declined TO an
swer the questions in controversy.
He pointed out that the resolution
containing the activities OF the COM
Ynittee was defective and claimed that
the accused could not be In contempt
Of the committee If this committee was
not properly constituted and continued
IN authority. He questioned whether
the evidence disclosed that Sinclair
had been sworn and thus brought I'M
der the inhibitions OF the statute,
which makes it misdemeanor for a
witness duly sworn to refuse to an
swer pertinent questions. The mat
tiers concerning which he was being
asked, counsel said, had been sent by
the Senate TO the courts.
Should Justice Hitz override the mo-
ton for a new trial, Sinclair will be
called into court and sentenced for a
term Of imprisonment in Jail, in addi-
ton to @ fine. The act provides fine
of not less than 800 and Imprisonment
Of not less than 80 days, with maxi.
mum OF $500 fine and imprisonment
for one year.