Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-04-08
SINCLAIR CONTEMPT.
CONVICTION UPHELD
Supreme Court Decision Holds
Capitalist Must Pay $500
Fine as Well.
Continued From First Page.)

fls concerning Teapot Dome, CD con-
corning an agreement between himself,
Secretary Fall and Mr.. Shaffer,
under which Mr.. Shaffer was to re-
ceive q lease upon certain portion Of
the Teapot Dome; 90 where and when
he had met Secretary Fall during No
vember and December of 1928, and a.
whether he or any of his companies
had made any loans or gifts to Secre-
tary Fall.
These questions Sinclair refused to
answer and he was prosecuted in the
Supreme Court of the District of CO.
lumhia for contempt of the United
States Senate. Here, Sinclair main
tanned. as he did before the commit
tee: Cd that the questions propounded
by the committee were not relevant to
the subject matter of the investigation;
-t2) that the Senate could not require
him to disclose his private affairs; 90
that the Senate could not require in
formation on matter in which the Gov
eminent can have relief or redress only
through judicial proceedings; ca that
he. Sinclair. already had been made
defendant IN a case involving the same
subject matter and that he was, there
fore, justified in refusing to answer
questions pending in the courts.
Upon testimony taken, the trial court
submitted to the jury the questions
whether Sinclair had been Intercepted
on the above matters by the commit
tee and whether he refused to answer
those questions. The jury returned a
verdict Of guilty. and Sinclair was sem
fenced.
Sinclair appealed the case to the
Court of Appeals of the District of CO.
1umbia in which he assigned as error
the rulings of the lower court against
him on the above contentious, and he
also maintained that the lower court
erred in refusing to submit to the jury
the question whether the committee
interrogationS were pertinent to the
investigation.
The Court of Appeals of the District
of Columbia certified these issues of law
to the Supreme Court of the United
States, and the Supreme Court, on mo-
ton Of special counsel for the Govern
ment, directed the Court of Appeals to
certify the entire record to it,
The main contentious of Sinclair in
the argument before the Supreme Court
were: 0D That the questions PROFOUND
ed by the committee constituted an I'M
reasonable search and seizure, contrary
to the fourth amendment of the Con-
stitution: az that the Senate had no
power to require testimony relating to
a witness private business; CD that the
matters concerning which the commit
tee required information were already
in the courts and that therefore the
Senate could not take jurisdiction over
the questions in which Sinclair himself
was defendant, and (4) that the ques-
ton of pertinency of the interrogations
was one of fact and should have been
submitted to the jury.
The Government argued, in oppoSi-
ton, that the power of the Senate to
investigate and require witnesses to
answer questions propounded was settled
by the Supreme Court in the Nal
Daugherty case; that since the Ques-
lions propounded related to the admin
istration of public lands, the matter
was within the province of the Senate
committees investigation; that the
mere fact that a case involving the
subject matter is pending before the
courts or that that Government might
institute proceedings before the courts
does not. deprive q committee of Con-
gress from investigating matters within
its legislative fields. In this con-
nection. the Government argued that,
as matter Of fact, Sinclair was not a
defendant in the case, as was pre-
SuYned in the questions certified by the
Court of Appeals of the District of
Columbia, but that the suit in the
courts was against the Mammoth Oil
Co.. corporation, and not against
Sinclair as an individual.