Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-06-24
NORRIS CONDEMNS J.
US. LAW SYSTEM
Flaws TechnicaIitieS and De-
lays in Statement Based
on Oil Cases.


ator Norris, Republican, of Nebraska,
issued statement last night citing the
history of the Naval oil lease cases. To-
gethsr with lengthy reference TO the re-
cent acQuittal of Robert w. stewart,
chairman of the board of the Standard
Oil Co. of Indiana, Of the charge OF
contempt for refusing to answer queS-
tloI7S before Senate committee.
Before referring TO particular cases
Senator Norris, III general mtroduc-
ton, found fault with what he termed
technicalitieS and delays adding:
Our procedure. particularly in our
criminal courts, has not kept pace with
the advancing civilization of the world V
In referring to the oil reserve litiga-
lion. Senator Norris called attention to
the outcome of the civil suits. in which
the United States Supreme Court cam
eeled the Doheny Elk Hills lease and
the Sinclair Teapot Dome lease. the
property being restored to the Govern
n,ent He compared those decisions
With the criminal proceedings growing
cut Of the leases. in which E. L. Do
heny and Albert B. Fall and also Harry
F. Sinclair have been declared innocent
81 the charge of conspiring to defraud
the Government
Stewart an Example"
Stewart, the NebraSkan characterized
The case as of minor Importance ana
valuable only 10 illustrate the general
rule. He said he wanted TO use this
case las an illustration OF how the
criminal procedure of our country has
broken down"
In several of his references to the
Stewart case Senator Norris evidently
intended TO reply TO statements OF
Frank j. Hogan, counsel for Mr.. Stew
art, and OF Erwin B. Mcintyre, a mem
hsr Of the jury, both of whom had
scored previous criticism by Norris, al
though the Senator Gid not refer to
them by name.
In his statement Senator Norris said.
In part:
The only questions involved in the
Stewart case were: Had he testified as
q witness before the committee? Were
The questions asked him, and did he
refuse to answer? There is no dispute
about any of these propositions Mr..
Stewart admits and has never denied
that the questions were asked him and
that he refused to answer. The court
held that the questions were pertinent,
and. therefore. under the undisputed
evidence. as far as the evidence was
material in the case, the jury had
nothing TO do except to return verdict
Of guilty.
Cost Thousands"
As a matter of fact. however, this
Cese consumed more than 10 days of
the time Of the court. It cost
the taxpayers of the country many
thousands of dollars. It prevented the
court and the jury from considering
other cases of importance and merit
that were held in allegiance during this
tedious delay. The able lawyers for the
defense were able to confuse
the minds Of the jury and lead them
entirely away from the only material
matter involved in the case A
poor man. or one who did not have
rich friends who were able and Will-
ing TO employ an array of expensive
attorneys would never have been able
10 make this defense If Mr. Stewart
had been a laborer in the streets OF
Washington, he would have been on his
way 10 jail within two hours after the
jury was inlpaneled.'
In another part Of his statement
Senator Norris continued:
II must be observed that in the
statements made, ] made no charge
against the court. ] did not impugn
the honest motives Of the jury. l did
met even criticize the defendant himself
or his able attorney, who has gone out
Of his way to heap abuse upon me. I
have no fault to find even with these
attorneys for taking every technical
advantage that the Law affords. They
have no doubt had many laugh over
the way In which they fooled the jury
In this case The attorneys for
1Ir. Stewart not only deceived the Jury
as TO what they were called upon to de-
eide. but they deceived them further
by leading them to believe that was
making an attack upon their honesty.
ard several Of these jurors who have
aired their views IN the newspapers
have joined with the attorney In his
condemnation of me Tor this statement
made in regard to the verdict.
One Of these jurymen says that the
jury. in its deliberations. gave no con-
sideration TO the wealth or lack of
wealth Of the defendant. / have never
doubted that, and yet It is absolutely
true that unless the defendant had the
money, OF some one supplied him with
the money, to hire these five or six very
able attorneys, he would never have
found It possible, through the techni-
calittes Of the law, to put before the
jury the vast amount of immateriaI and
Irrelevant evidence which led them
astray
This juryman said. in this news
paper article, The jury found hfr.
Stewart not guilty because we were inn
pressed By the slipshod methods fol-
lived by the Senate committee and the
Senate itself In the name OF COM
mon sense. what had the Jury to do
with the gIipshod methods Of the Senate
Or the slipshod methods of the commit
tees Did these methods throw any light
upon whether Mr.. Stewart was sworn
as witness and whether he refused 10
answer the questions that were SUBJ
5natted? This turynan says also that
the Jury did not believe quorum Of
the committee was present when these
particular questions were asked and,
further. that the examination Of Mr.
Stewart before the committee could
very well have been postponed until
after the Sinclair trial, where Mr..
Stewart was summoned as a witness.
and which was given as a reason why
Mr.. Stewart did refuse 10 answer the
questions submitted by the committee.
Does any one who is intelligent believe
for a moment that these things had
anything 10 do with the guilt or the
fnuocence Of the defendant who was
tried for refusing 10 answer q question
submitted By the committee, the asking
Of which and the refusal to answer be-
ing both admitted by him?"
Hogan Answer In.
In closing his statement. Senator
Norris said:
"The Stewart trial is only an Illus
syation Of many. Unimportant as It is,
II illustrates a general rule, and no man
dare openly or publicly criticize such
procedure without being followed,
through the means Of the public press
.wffh denunciatiOn and condemnation
for any suggestion Of any reform or any
scs,suge In our out-of-date system OF
Jurisprudence.
Il Ten days ago Attorney Hogan and
mr. MCINTYRE answered the comment
made At that time by Senator Norris
Concerning the verdict Of acquittal. Mr..
Hogan declared al that time that
ss.s,e, - memorable men and women had