Montgomery County sentinel. [volume] (Rockville, Md.) 1855-1974, 1928-03-09
More Filth

Jenefsls shOSs IN MS own tesum0ny that
be grossly and Aasrsntly deceived the
Walsh investigating committee in It's Sea-
sion in 1924. on the eve Of the Coolidge
campaign. There can. then. be no ass1r-
snce that Hays 10 not deceivins the Walsh
committee now. on the eve Of the 1928
campaign. And the simple fact Is that no
intelligent person can read Hays testimony
given on Thursday and believe that he told
the whole truth.
10 1928 Hays obtsined $3.50. 900 from
Harry Sinclair. oil mssnste and cosrup-
tiOnists. Hays says that Of this $4,000
was direct donation. The other $685.
900. be tells the committee. was q loan
OF that loan $4,000 went to the late
Fred Uphsm. then treasurer Of the commit
tee $4,000 went TO the late John w.
Weeks. $4,000 went to the late John 7.
Pratt. a member Of Standard Oil family.
and $50 900 apparently. remained in Hays
possession. All Of these sums. Hays claims.
were to be used 10 relieving the pressure
Of the debt situation.
Let US see What happened 10 these sums.
The 100000 Of the loan which Hays
says went to Uphsm for use in relieving
the pressure" Of the debt situation never
came back. Neither did the $4,000 Of
''the loan" which Hays says vent TO Weeks
Therefore. Hays claims. he felt compelled
personally to raise the money TO cover up
these items and repay Sinclair $4,000.
And this he did. 80 he says. but Sinclair
after some months decided that il would
be unfair and unjust for this loss 10 fall
upon Hays as an Individual. and hence
Sinclair returned the $4,000. Thus the
use Of the original loans" BY Uphsm and
Weeks finally appeared as contribution
from Sinclair.
A pretty tale Sinclair the helpful: Hays
the scrup0lous. paying out $S5.000 Of his
own money to make good q moral oblisa-
ton to Sinclair. although be says he had
suffered financial feyefses. But in connec-
ton with this pretty tale We are asked to
believe that Hays put up his own SIS. 900
TO repay Sinclair. although he had not the
fsintest knowledge Of the manner 10 which
Upham and Weeks used the money. and
made no attempt to ascertain. The most
persistent questioning BY Senator Walsh
failed to evoke from Hays the fsintest
knouledee Of the manner in which the
money had been used. An was blank.
More than that. Hays had failed even to
keep recOrd Of the delivery 10 Upham
and Weeks Of the bonds. for which he felt
personally responsible.
All that Hays really knows about these
loan" is that he got bonds from Sinclair,
passed them out veritable babe 10 the
wood. and no questions asked or informa-
tion given. then assumes personal response.
bility for the $65.000 and was proyiden-
tally rescued. embarrassed as he was
financially. by Sinclairis noble generosity.
which was the child Of what Hays calls
Sinclsir's patriotism. Now see what we
are expected 10 believe about the $l00. 900
that remained. There was $4,000 that
Hays did NOT wave into anyone's hands.
This $50. 900 was not needed. and 90 Hays
says he sent II back to Sinclair-just when
is not clear. The other $4,000 went to
John 7. Pratt. and we ere assured that
Pratt was to hold this $50. 900 Of Sinclair's
bonds as security for loan of like amount
from Pratt to the National Committee
Again there is extraordinary mystery.
Why was the third party. Pratt. brought
into the situationi II the Sinclair bonds
were to be used to relieve the debt pres
sure" ofthe National Committee. why were
they not sent direct TO the committed The
most rigid questioning by Senator Walsh
failed to produce any save the most am
bignous replies. There was an entire lack
Of memory or record on Hays part as to
the details Of the transaction. All that 10
clear 10 that. under the rule Of personal
responsibility Hays says he set up for him
self in the Upham and Weeks incidents.
he would have been accountable to Sin
clair II Pratt had kept the $4,000 Of
Sinclairs bonds. But. very fortunately.
Pratt decided TO make his loan to the CON-
mittee gift and hence released the bonds
held as security. and they were returned
TO Sinclair
All Ia all. the Hays story gags one. In
deed. his want Of candor is more sienifi-
cant than his revelations" IL Is a great
pity tina, Upham. Weeks and Pratt are
dead. II alive. their memories might be
better. or they might have kept records Of
their part in these transactions and might
have cast more light on the uses and the
manner Of uses Of the Sinclair money. Of
which we now really know only that il was
sought and obtained. But this Is to be said
In justice to Hays. He does not deserve
the entire blame Of these transactions He
was not operating In vacuum. When he
obtained and used money from Sinclair
part in the Teapot Dome corruption. he
was acting on behalf Of the Republican
party. And It's responsible leaders were
beneficiafies Of his acts.
Benehcisries as they were and are. will
Ing benehciaries. innocent OF the least effort
TO restrain Hays or to uncover and punish
his dealings with Sinclair. they bear before
the people Of this country their share Of
the isnominy that has been piled up by
the pestilential Harding campaign Of 1920
and the corruption that has persistently
followed to this very day its unholy success.
Free Tree Distribntiou.