Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1928-02-09
CLARK ACQUITTED
-
IN OIL. CONTEMPT =.
OF COURT HEARING
Continued from First Page,

Continued from First Pasea
hand, declared that CLARK was In the
room when Day protested to Rudy
about the lack of alacrity' in which
the reports were bcirg made out and
emphasized that Clark was fully aware
of what was being done by the Burns
agents. He was in this general enter.
prise just as much as Harry r. Sinclair
Henry Mason Day and the Others" Mr.
Burkinshaw declared.
Morgan Beach. co-counssl for Clark.
shared In the victory for his client He
declared that Clark was not being tried
for conspiracy" and remarked that
the court had been called upon to take
rather large order"
Mr.. Douglas undertook the question
ing of Current, the defense concentrat-
ing their attack in an effort to impeach
testimony given by McMullin involving
the Burns agency In scheme to bring
about a YiaiStrial in the oil case.
The penitentiary ofiicial testified that
McNfullin had served 10 months on the
forgery charge. eight months having
been spent In prison and tbs remainder
OF the time in the prison brick yard.
He had bsen paroled then on what Is
called mo release of count" with the
warning that If he ever returned to
Ohio he would have to serve the re.
mainder OF the sentence. ranging from
/ to 20 years.
Victory for Government.
Justice ..Siddons' decision yesterday
in overruling the motion TO dismiss the
contempt charges won for the Gov
eminent the most important victory II
has yet scored in the contempt pro-
ceedings, and upheld the contention OF
District Attorney Gordon and his as
sistants that shadowing alone consti-
tutcd' an oiYense against the court. At
the same time, he rendered his decision
Justice Siddons made It plain that It
had to do only with the motion 10 dis
miss and not with the main issues In
the case. namely. whether the acts
done constituted contempt.
The decision came at the end OF q
2-hour review of the case By Justice
Siddons He recalled the defense's con-
tention that they had q right to shadow
the jury rs long a. no Juror was APP
preached or knew Of the surveillance.
Il cannot escape the conviction that
the claim that there Is right to do
this thing does not exist In the law"
he held. THE Supreme Court Of the
United States has said So" t'
To employ detectives. as was done
by Sinclair. to shadow q Criminal Court
jury. Justice Siddons asserted Is -
tendency to 'obstruct tustice.~
The defense had contended from the
outset that the respondents could not
be 10 contempt Of court unless i could
be shown Their actionst had INSTRUCTED
AfrnNffs 4A,zAAA "a nAxfk {t,Sf}
Jury .IHtsgrai Part Of Court.
Justice Siddons touched on one point
emphasized BY the Government when
he called attention TO the fact that II
the defense claimed. u exists, Of course,
ney and witnesses. the jury being an
integral part OF the court. Where does
IL lead US tor" he asked
The question Of shadowing strikes at
the jury trial system. the court declared.
What seif-respecting man would want
70 accept any jury service II he knew
that every movement that he made.
once he had taken the oath. would be
the subject OF suryeiliance?"
i do not follow counsel for the re-
spQndents In their contention that there
must be'a direct tendency 10 obstrtict,"
thu court added. Il do not now. how.
ever. and do not wish TO be Understood
TO be deciding any questions of ev'i In
tent or motive arising In this case, I
am resting on the broad proposition
that. In my judgment. applying the
known principles. the law Is that the
right TO shadow o jury does not exist,
and that the employment OF detectives
a. In this case has an obstructive
tendency
The criminal trial of the conspiracy
case broke down when IT was learned
that this thing had been done. there
fore overrule the motion 10 discharge
the rule and dismiss the petition.