Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1927-12-16

mony sought by the defense fa-;1.----.
Frank J. O'Reilly, one of the Burns de-
tectiVes engaged in surveillance of the
Teapot Dome jurors, relative to con-
versations he had with the mother and
father of Juror Edward j. Kidwell, jr.
Defense counsel had resorted to prac-
tically a fun day of argument yester-
day in efforts to put the conversation
into the record.
Nerves that were kept continuously
jumping under suspense during the
protracted period of the contempt pro-
ceedings, found temporary relief at
noon when O'Reilly stepped from the
witness stand after two and half
days of grueling examination.
Another Verbal Clash.
The end of the ordeal did not come,
however, until after defense counsel
and James j. O'Leary, the persever-
ing Government prosecutor, had en-
gagged IN final verbal clash.
Before O'Rielly was excused for the
time being at least, prosecutor O'Leary
had appealed to the court at one time
during an argument by the defense
to put an end to this nonsense"
George p Hoover of counsel for
Harry F. Sinclair jumped to his feet.
his face flushing angrily. He protest
ed to the court against some such
language.
81 won't tolerate it," Mr.. Hoover
declared.
Il appeal to the court to have Mr.
OLeary stop making such remarks. 4"
The controversy subsidized as quick
Iy as it arose. Shortly thereafter
OIeary said he was through with
his redirect examination of the wit
ness. but requested that the witness
remain within calling of the court as
further testimony from him was de-
sired.
During his testimony this morning
O'Reilly denied emphatically that he
had ever "shadowed' Juror Kidwell.
his father or bis mother. The Burns
detective also disclosed that not one of
the operatives had ever reported hav-
ing been burnt up" the term applied
when a subject realizes he Is being
Swallowed.
Query Draws Sharp Reply.
OLeary drew another sharp denial
from the witness when he asked
O'Reilly about statement said to
have been made by Charles G. Rudvly,
chief Of the Burns operations here, on
October 19. The Government prose
cutor asked whether Rudy had told
him that if any of the operatives
identities were discovered, for God S
sake don't disclose who they are"
The question elected from O'Reilly a
sweeping and indignant denial.
The next witness called was Barton
Stewart. operative ST., who told about
motoring to Washington with two
other Burns men to report for duty In
connection with the jury surveillance.
He was accompanied on this trip by
William J. McMullin. "alais Long,"
and a man named Belmont. the latter
having taken the next train back TO
Philadelphia.
When O'Reilly concluded testifying
1t was a'signal for Mr.. OLeary to drop
temporarily out of the case. Examina-
ton of witnesses then was taken up
by another for the Government by
United States Attorney Peyton G. Cor
don.
Conversations Barred.
Testimony bearing on conversations
between O'ReiIly and the mother and
was barred by Justice Siddons after
the sessions were resumed this morn
ing.
The courts ruling came as a clean
cut victory for the relentless Govern.
ment prosecutor, who had held his
ground throughout a bitter legal ar
gument that started early yesterday
and still continued when court had
adjourned for the day.
O'Leary contended throughout the
argument that the rule of evidence
which prevented the introduction of
new matter in cross-examination held
good in this instance.
Testimony Slipped in.
Justice Siddons in his ruling pointed
out that If anything was clear in the
record it was the fact that the pros
ecutor had gone to great lengths in
cautioning the witness not to mention
word of the conversation that took
place between him and Kidwell. De-
spite this warning, the judge pointed
out, the witness introduced voluntarily
fragment of the conversation rela'
tive to the fact that KidwelPs father
had a barber shop in the Myrtle Hotel.
This fragment Of conversation,
which was slipped into the record, was
used by defense counsel in contention
that they were entirely within the
scope of cross-examination and ques'
tioning the witness about what was
said at the time.
| Justice Siddons held that since the
fragment of conversation was put
| into the answer made by the witness
| it his duty to hold that this particular
matter was beyond the scope of cross
examination by the defense.
Passes Over Defense Charges.
! Arraigned yesterday by defense
counsel on charges of brow-beatine
witnesses and seeking to deceive the
court suppressing evidence, O'Leary
| only referred to these charges casual
| ly in his closing argument this morn
| ing. He told the court that he was
not seeking to close the mouth of the
witness and added that the defense
could call O'Reilly as their own wit
mes when the time comes, a point
which the court reiterated in making
known it's ruling of the question.
There has been much mounting
pickering, tweedle.de-dums and tweedle
de-dee about the sacred rights of the
respondents in this case" O'Leary told
| the court, but reminded it that the
public had some rights, too. He ex.
planned that he had sat silent through
lot of "hokum and bunkum" involv
| ing charges against the District At
| torney's office because he did not
think it worthwhile to make any
| answer.
Justice Siddons' ruling today ended
| the longest and the bitterest clash
! between counsel that has ensued since
| the opening of the contempt trial
Scarcely half an hour was devoted
Yesterday to the taking of testimony
| the remainder of the time being de-
voted solely to legal argument.
Suppression Charged.
The defense contended that it was
more concerned with the effect OF
the Governments suppression of evil
dence" and treatment Of witnesses in
It's direct examination than 1t was
with the blocking of testimony re-