Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-11-21

Harry +. Sinclair (leftl greeting
left the District Jail shortly after mid
sentences for contempt of the Senate an
| which could only be determined by a
court. 1t, therefore, logically follows
that not only was the pertinency un-
known at the time declined to answer,
but was unknowable. / was, therefore,
punished ex post facto on an unknown
rule of law.
II followed my attorneys advice in
good faith My total evidence before the
Senate committees took approximately
265 pages and about $4,000 words. and
l was imprisoned for my refusal to an
Swer one question whose pertinency was
unknown. Three times / appeared be-
fore the committee after this occurrence
and no question pertinent or not perth
nent asked me ever remained unan-
swered. This should have purged me of
the pretended contempt.
THE prosecution of the Senate con-
tempt case was moved by political
prejudice and misunderstanding. A
citizen has rarely been denied the pre-
sumption of innocence or been subjected
to such violence and animosity as was
exhibited in my case
Il note that the American press cor
daily disapprovcS committing to Jail the
three reporters who have Just refused
in Washington to disclose to the grand
jury the persons from whom they bought
liquor in the many Speakeasies which
they visited as newspaper enterprise.
They were given As days in Jail. They
Justify themselves on the ground OF
newspaper ethics against 4 betrayal of
confidence, and the American press Is
supporting them.
The liberties of the American people
are OF such Importance that the press
will do we'll to keep this in mind
even in case like mine The principle
is much more important than the in
dividual. The precedents set in my
cese are against the interest of the
American people. If politics can rail-
road me to Jail it can railroad others.
. In Hostile Atmosphere"
'In the contempt of court case the
trial judge turned the jury loose in
hostile. atmosphere in Washington,
where the newspapers were aSsailing
me. had reason to believe the jury
might be tempered with to my disao-
vantage. so I directed Burns operatives
be engaged to watch the jury to pre-
vent or expose tampering, with the
explicit instruction not to speak to,
approach or let a juryman know he
was under observation. This instruc-
ton was rigidly carried out. All the
opera tives gave testimony to that erect
and the jury members stated that they
were not aware of being under OBJ
Servation
This act could not possibly have
INSTRUCTED justice The Supreme Court
did not find that l had INSTRUCTED
Justice, but, in order to sustain the
lower court. they found that putting
the jury under surveillance had
tendency to obstruct justice. The law
which forbids a judge to impose al
sentence of contempt except for mis-
behavior which obstructs justice was
thus changed by judicial Interpretation
to fit my particular case.
"I offered to prove by many witnesses
that the Government OF the United
States and private persons had for
years been shadowing juries with the
knowledge of the courts and by OF
ficials of the courts without reouke.
Proof was offered that this practice
had been engaged In the very cour ~,
room where l was being tried and by
the very district attorney who was
pressing this charge against me, but
the court refused to allow me TO
present this evidence either in my de-
tense or in mitigation OF sentence.
Two AfTidavits Attacked.
ct attach to this statement only
two of the many affidavits proving thus
practice and usage.
'rrhe trial Judge did not impriSon
or rebuke Raymond Akers and Donald
King, who deliberately tempered with
juryman Kidwell with the result OF
miStrial. ,
Herald or its editor, although on NO
vember 3 the Herald boastlngly declared
it was responsible for having maoe
mistrial unavoidable.
THE trial judge did not punish VIII
liam l. McMullen, who was planted
in the Burns agency and who operated
to my serious prejudice. This man mace
six false reports on juryman. HIS
corruptions and crimes were dug up ana
exposed by the Burns agency, when I'M
peached him in open court, ana also
furnished the proof as to how he mad
been planted among their operatives by
pretending TO be responsible man
named William " Long.
yet the trial judge sentenced me 10
six months in jail on the ground that
my actions had caused mistrial.
/ THE Government counsel was EVIL
| IDENTIFY not averSe to mlstrial ana got
| it, and was punished for having caused
a mistrial l did not want.
( THE Supreme Court did me the JUS
| tee to say in the Senate contempt case.
| in speaking of my action, that no
moral turpitude was involved Not only
did they make this statement in their
opinion, but they gave convincing evil
dence that moral turpitude was impos-
sible by explaining that the pertinency
| of the alleged. question asked me was a
| judicial question only aScertainable by
| a court and therefore was not known OF
movable at the time had declined to
answer. 1t was then, think, unfairly
held that my unavoidable ignorance Of
the law Chen unwritten by the court
was no defense. AS a common layman
and citizen l cannot think this was
just.
while was acquitted of moral tur-
..'+:.(l1 by the Supreme Court, is there
!.u moral wrong in thus depriving an
American citizen of his liberty where
he is admittedly innocent of moral tur-
pitude? Could not the law be more
wisely and justly interpreted?
rs 1t not moral wrong to deprive
a citizen OF his liberty for watching &
jury when such action violated no Law
and no known rule of the courts anC
when 1t was only what the Government
itself and other private citizens hat
laa.a Anipo for vaarg without rehlEn9