The Indianapolis times., 1927-10-27
BAR sinclair
Senate story
AS EVIDENCE
Judge Holds Testimony to
Committee Can't Be Used
in Trial.
TRACE TRAIL OF BONDS
Falls Son-in-Law Waits
to Go on Stand to Give
Light on Oil Deal.

BU UHited Press
WASHINGTON, Oct. 27.-Harry
Sinclair's Senate Oil COMMITTEES
testimony that IT went to Three
Rivers to see Fall (then secretary
OF the interior), about leasing Tea.
pot Dome" Jan. l, 1922, was barred
as testimony against him in the
Fall-Sinclair oil conspiracy trial
here today.
Justice SiddonS made the decision.
which is expected to govern a dozen
other quotations from statements
made by the oil magnate and for
mer Secretary Albert B. Fall to the
Senate Committee, which the Gov
ernment prosecutors have planned
to introduce.
Defense lawyers asserted Sinclair
was given immunity from having
his Senate testimony used against
MN, by a special statute applying
TO witnesses who later were tried
on criminal charges.
Testified Under Summons
Prosecutor Owen Roberts held the
law was not blanket immunity"
and that Sinclair, in order to be-
protected, must have asserted bis
claim to immunity at the time ne
testified.
The Government won in the Fall
Doheny conspiracy trial 6 year ago
on similar point, but e. L. Do
henys statement to the Senate COM
mlttee was voluntary one, not
made under committee summons as
Sinclair's was.
The decision came after a week
and half of the trial Of Fall and
Sinclair on charges of conspiring to
defraud the Government through
Fails lease of the Teapot naval re-
serve to Sinclair April 7, 1922.
Everhart to Be Quizzed
While The justice read his de-
cision, M. W. Everhart Falls ranch
foreman and son-in~law. appeared
In court ready to be summoned by
the Government as a witness. The
Government hoped-if he did not
claim immunity-to gather from
him important details of the $780,
500 in Liberty bonds which it claims
were indirectly given Fall from an
oil deal to influence him in leasing
Teapot Dome to Sinclair.
Justice Siddons said Sinclair. in
his appearance before the Senate
Teapot Dome committee, was sworn
as a witness. He emphasized the
constitutional and statutory i'm
munities of congressional witnesses
in his orty-flve-minute decision.
The justice recalled that oil COM
mittee evidence of E. L. Doheny.
admitted against that oil magnate
in the Fall-Doheny trial a year
ago, was given voluntarily, and not
under order>of the committee. This
placed his testimony on a different
footing from Sinclair's.
Blow to Prosecutor
Siddons held it was not necessary
for congressional witness to make
his immunity claim at the time he
testified, to protect himself against
any prosecution as a result of the
testimony.
The judges ruling generally was
considered a blow for the prosecu-
ton, though Government attorneys
previously had suggested they could
establish their desired points with
out aid of the Senate committee tes-
timony. -
Siddons did, however, admit one
piece of Sinclair Senate testimony,
given voluntarily and not under oath
on Oct. 20. The facts attested tc
by Sinclair on that occasion wer
relatively unimportant and merely
led up to the more important but
barred testimony Of the Dec. 4 ses-
sion of the Teapot Dome commits
tee.
The Oct. 20 testimony above re-
ferred to was concerned largely
with the question of claims to Tea
pot Dome area, for which Sinclair
then testified he had agreed to pay
$l,000,000. Incidentally that days
testimony revealed him as campaign
contributor to both the Republican
and Democratic parties. Sinclair
was also quoted as estimating
around $1000O0,00O as the value OF
Teapot Dome.