Evening star., 1928-02-07
Continued from First Pagc.)

Continued from FIRST PagcD
What rule OF law Is there that gives a
witness the right to say I know what
became of these bonds. but l won't tell
yOu?"
"Who was he to set himself up as
one who could pass upon the relevancy
of the questions put to him? He puts
himself in the position that the Senate
had no right to conduct the invcstlga-
ton.
..He did not refuse on the ground
that his testimony might incrlrllnafe
him. He said this was matter on
which he would have to testify before
another tribunal and was not mattc!
for Senate inquiry"
The demand for the return to Senate
custody of Stewart was contained In
motion for dismissal OF the writ OF
habeas corpus which Stewart obtained
Al, the moment the Senate was prepar-
ing to punish him for refusing to an
swcr questions OF the oil committee.
The motion set forth that Stewart
was arrested pursuant to resolution
of the Senate, adopted last Friday after
Stewart had persisted IN his refusal to
reply to committee queries. and wound
up with this prayer to Justice Jennings
Bailey of District Supreme Court the
trial Judge:
Wherefore the respondents pray
that the writ of habeas corpus be dis
charged the petition dismissed and the
petitioner be rcmanded to the custody
or either of them under the warrant
above mentioned"
The petition was formally presented
by District Attorney Gordon. who APP
pcared with George w. Wickcrsham.
former Attorney General and special
counsel for the Senate in this case. as
he was In that Of Nal S. Daugherty,
whose arrest in 1924 as Senate wit
ness was upheld by. the United States
Supreme Court
Adkins, who opened the argument for
Stewart. called attention that Stewart
was under subpoena OF the Senate
committee and that his arrest for the
purpose OF hailing him before the bar
Of the Senate was Illegal.
Adkins COntcndcd that the questions
asked related TO "a purely private mat
ter in which the Senate could have no
concern and that the answers could
not possibly assist that body in any
matter of legislation.
Adkins Argument.
Adkins argued that legislator had
no greater power than court. and
that the law held the court cannot
order the arrest of a witness until he
has refused to obey subpoena.
Suppose witness on the stand in a
court refused to answer question. do
you contend that he could not be ar
| rested?" asked Justice Bailey.
| In that case the witness would be
adiudgcd in contempt of court before
arrest Adkins replied adding that
| this was not the situation In Stewart S
without any charge laid against him
Concluding his argument Stewart s
attorney asserted that the founders Of
the Government never intended To
lodge such tremendous powers in a
| legislative institution He argued that
it was the duty of citizen 10 protect
| himself not only for himself. but for
the benefit OF all other citizens.
| The lawyer contcnded that the resolu-
| ton under which the oil committee was
proceeding was not designed to elicit
information for the purpose Of legisla-
| ton. but was purely for the purpose OF
| inouiring into the private affairs OF
| citizens
Judge Interrupts Argument.
Adkins renewed ms argument, now
ever. on the point that the questions
| asked Stewart were not relevant OF
| pertinent TO any subject upon which
the Senate might legislate
Justice Bailey interrupted at one time
to say that 1t seemed 10 him that the
questions were relevant If the Senate
had any authority at all to make the
investigation into the affairs of the
Continental Co He added however
that he was not expressing final opin-
ion on the subject.
Taber Tells Of Deal
Harry r, Sinclair and Robert W
Stewart. major witnesses In the Teapot
Dome oil lcaS" cases. were present nj
the meeting In Chicago at which the
directors Of the Sinclair Crude Oh Pur-
chasing Co approved thc much dis