Evening star., 1928-01-31
MOVE TOD|SM|SS
CONTEMPT CHARGE
Counsel Attacks Testimony
as First Step Toward Hav-
ing Case Dropped.
Defense counsel trained their heaviest

since the opening OH December as
nreliminarv step to motion to dis
miss the charges of jury tamprrng
brought against Harry F. Sinclair, wa,
liam ]. Burns, Henry Mason Day ana
the other three respondents.
Mai. Peyton Gordon. unlteo states
attorney. paved the way for the cfuclaI
test early In the morning by reStlng
the Governments case. FROM tile OUT
set 1t was evident that the motioli W
dismiss the charges, which Will lead 10
Ienothv argument. would hardly be
reached before court adjournS this eve
ming. ...<,
The principal fight today was staged
bv George p. Hoover, OF counsel 1or
Sinclair. who sought to have the court
strike out the record Of the original re-
ports filed by the Burns operatives on
their Jury surveillance activities from
which edited" copies We're transmitted
to Mr.. Day. who was SinclairS agent
Justice Frederick L. Siddons overrnled
the motion and ordered these orlglnal
comics to remain on the record.
Court Faces Stiff Task.
Tn view of the five thousand and
eight hundred pages OF accunlu!ateu
testimony and the many ob)ecllohS
cited by defense attorneys to vital
noints a long and tedious day was
ahead of the court. All this testimony
in cispute had been admitted as SUD-
iect to a motion to strike II out aItei
the Government had concluded lts case:
Testimony by Daniel r. Jackson OF
the Department of Justice. VINO nau
made INQUIRIES on behalf Of counsel 1or
Albert b. Fall former Secretary OF lne
Interior. regarding Horace X. Lamp
was eliminated by order OF the court
Government counsel succeeoeo ~
blocking attempts TO striKe out tne
identification by Franz NJ. DENT. w
lice sergeant. of OperatiFc Aaniel Mei
rift who was seen in the nelgnoornooo
of jurors home The conversation
whcih took place between the TWO men,
however. was retained in the record.
An early struggle took place over TWO
oages of testimony given by Edward .;
K;dwell. the "talkative juror, VINO hao
told about receiving mysterious teie-
nI,one call at his place Of business MAJ.
Gordon contended that the Burns op.
oratives. on several occasions nao useo
"nretexts" which had make kidwe,l
s,Isnicious that he was being shadoWed.
Mr. Hoover argued. however. there was
no evidence connecting the telephone
cali with any one of the respondents
and the court agreed with linn.
Plea for Clark and Day.
In asking that the original reports
of the Burns operatives be stricken out,
Nr Hoover spoke also in behalf OF
Sheldon Clark and Mr.. Day the
original reports from which the edited
copies were made were sent to w Sner-
man Burns and were admitted aga,nSt
him only.
evidence tending TO establish charges
of Jury tampering, intimidation. con.
tact. or attempts to influence The OIL
trial jurors. Mr. Hoover declared.
Joining in his motion, Charles a.
Douglas. attorney for the Burns
Agency, declared that SO far as Sher--
man Burns is concerned the original
reports were not received by him until
October 81. the day the jury's sur
veiIlance ceased Evidence in TIE case.
he declared. show that William J.
Burns in no way participated in the
i,irv surveillance or did c. l.. Vietsch.
manager of the Baltimore agency. who
also is a respondent. Veitsch's only
connection with the case. Douglas
claimed. was to transmit expense money
from Baltimore.
Says Motives Revealed.
Neil Burkinshaw, assistant United
States attorney, declared 1t was the
contention OF the Government that the
shadowing by Burns operatives was
done I'm pursuance OF instructions from
Mr.. Day, who acted for Mr.. Sinclair.
The original reports, he claimed. shed
light on the shadowing operations, be-
cause each was made at the conclu-
sion OF the days work.
He cited the incident Of Frank J.
OReily. one OF the operatives. who
reported to Charles E. Ruddy. his chief,
on his visits TO the home Of Juror
Kidweil. and the barber shop OF the
Jurors father. OReilly made verbal
report to Ruddy In the presence OF MIR.
Day. he declared. and this and other
original reports shed light on the mo-
tives of the entire enterprise.
Mr.. Hoover disputed Days connection
with the O'Reilly report. declaring the
Sinclair official merely happeried 10 be
In the room at the time the detective
saw his chief Il submit the Govern
ment has not offered a scintila OF evi-
dence even tending TO support this
charge Of bribery. tampering, influenc-
ing or intimidating the juror" Mr.
Hoover declared. "On the contrary. the
testimony of the Government. which Is
that these men came here 10 shadow
the Jury"
Refuses Motion.
Justice Siddons in overruling the mo-
ton 10 strike out these original reports.
held ne could not do so merely because
MFR. Day had not seen them. The tes-
timony. the court pointed out. showed
that Mr. Day took decided interest
in seeing that the reports were made
promptly and at one time put Ruddy
on the carpet" for the slowness In
which they were being delivered. lie
also cited the fact that Ruddy was To
take orders from Mr. Day. who had
authority over the jury surveillance.
When court recessed for luncheon
Mr.. Hoover had moved 70 strike out
testimony given by Juror Kidweli re-
garding conversations he had with Mrs
Amelia l.. Bailey and Miss Bernce K
Heaton. the two woman members of
the Jury In an anteroom of the court
house II was during this incident
that Kidwell said he had returned To
the courthouse earlier than usual In
order 10 keep out OF trouble"
rNII TTTE RNTC