Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-03-17
In Contempt.

Inc senate be damned attltuQe
or certain witnesses before commit
tees of that body received a rude jolt
yesterday. Recalcitrant witnesses, If
the verdict of the jury in the case of
Harry F. Sinclair stands, will be in
danger of spending from one month
to a year in Jail and of being fined
from 500 to 81 900
The verdict of the jury in the Dis
trict Supreme Court did not go to
the question of guilt at issue in
the Teapot Dome naval oil reserve
lease. Under the charge given the
jury by Justice Hitz, the question
merely was whether Mr.. Sinclair had
appeared before the Senate commit
tee and refused to answer questions
put him by Senator Thomas j. Walsh
of Montana, the chief inquisitor of
that committee. The jury decided in
the affirmative.
The contempt case will be carried
to the Supreme Court of the United
States, it is confidently expected.
That tribunal in it's recent decision
in the Nal Daugherty case upheld
the powers of the committees of the
Senate and House to summon wit
nesses. If the Senate committee has
power to compel the attendance Of
witnesses, has it not also the power
to compel them to answer questions
touching the public business? The
mere power to compel the appearance
of witnesses would be an idle power
IL the congressional committees were
not also empowered to obtain In
formation from those witnesses.
The verdict of the jury in the Sim
clair case has a direct bearing upon
the cases of Samuel insult, Chicago
public utility magnate; his attorney,
Daniel j. Schuyler. and Thomas w.
Cunningham OF Philadelphia, treas
urer of the Republican State COM
mittee of Pennsylvania during the
Ware campaign. The Reed slush fund
committee has cited them to the
Senate for contempt. They failed to
respond to certain questions regard
ing the Illinois and Pennsylvania
senatorial primary elections last
year. In the filibuster which wrecked
the close of the last session of Con-
gress, however, the citations for con-
tempt were never completed by the
Senate itself. In consequence their
cases go over until December. 1t is
regarded here as foregone conclu
sion that the Senate at that time
will cite all three of these men for
contempt of it's committee. and that
their cases will take the same course
as that against Sinclair. They will
go through the Supreme Court Of
the District.
With his appeal to the Court of
Appeals of the District of Columbia.
row expected. and an appeal from
the decision of that court to the
Supreme Court of the United States,
the Sinclair contempt case may hang
in the balance for a year or more. II
is three years now since the alleged
contempt was ny ESlu
clair. But, Notwithstanding the slow
process. Ii appears now that there is
to be a final judicial determination
of the powers of congressional com
mittees. Such a decision Is of par
ticular importance in view of the in
creasing number of Investigations
undertaken by Senate and House
through their standing or select
committees.
A Government by inquisition is
scarcely to be desired But, on the
other hand, secrecy with regard to
public business, which may well in
clude such leases of Government
property as that made Of Teapot
Dome to Sinclair and contributions
to elections, primary or general, Is ne
more desirable. The dealings of the
individual with his Governments: both
for his own protection and that Of
the people represented by the Gov
eminent, should be an open book. Il
II is determined that congressional
committees are empowered TO force
witnesses to testify, then there shoult
be a proper definition of that power
and of the limits within which it mus
he restricted.