The Bismarck tribune., 1929-04-08
CONVICTION upheld.
BY SUPREME court
AFTER EXAMINATION
Justice Butler Rules Questions
Put to Sinclair by Commit
tee Were Pertinent
DAucHERTY SET PRECEDENT
Oil Opera ator Refused to Answer
Queries, Claiming Senate
Had No Jurisdiction

washington, April S-(F)-The
conviction of Harry r. Sinclair Tor
contempt for refusing to answer
questions during the Teapot Dome In
yestieation by the senate oil commits
tee was approved today by the supreme
court.
Under the decision the oil operator
must serve three months In jail and
pay q fine Of $500.
Justice Butler. who some months
ago delivered the opinion canceling
the naval oil reserve leases, spoke for
the court. Emphasizing the impor.
tancc OF protecting the individual
from unreasonable and arbitrary dis
closure Of his private Affairs, he said
that questions put to Sinclair were
not Of that character.
The fact that the information
sought by the committee might be Of
Importance in . suit pending against
Sinclair did not excuse him from m.
swcring. the justice stated. because
the information was properly within
the inquiry Of the committee and the
questions were pertinent.
Justice Butler stated that the court
in its decision In the Daugherty case
had laid down the rights Of the two
houses Of congress to conduct inves-
tiRations necessary to aid In the In
vestigation Of the private affairs Of
individuals by requiring disclosures
not in aid Of legislation.
During investigation Of the naval
oil reserve leases by the senate conn
mittee Sinclair testified several times
but refused to answer certain Ques-
tions concerning the Teapot Dome
lease, taking the position that because
a grand jury was considering indict-
ments, the senate committee had lost
Jurisdiction.
His counsel contended that as court
proceedings had been. begun .agatnsl
Sinclair alleging conspiracy to d .
fraud the United States he was witt
in his rights in refusing to answer
lquestions before the committee relat.
ing to the contracts and leases up,r
which the prosecution was based.
After his conviction in the tria
court here he appealed, and the cour
Of appeals asked the supreme cour
to give 1t instructions on five OF tn
more important law points involved
!, The supreme court at the request o
the government consented to pass 81
all phases Of the appeal instead Of an
: swering the specific questions, thu
expediting the final determination Q
the controversy.
There Is no merit in the appel
lant'S contention that he is entitled Il
, q new trial because the court exclud
ed evidence that In refusing to an
swer he acted in good faith on tn
advice of competent counsel" the de
! cision said. THE gist OF the offens
. is refusal to answer pertinent ques
tions. No moral turpitude Is involves
i. Intentional violation Is sufficient t
; constitute guilt.
Refusal Was Deliberate
= "There was no misrepresentation q
;. to what was called for. The refuss
to answer was deliberate. The fact
!. sought were pertinent as q matter
law" and xx "he was bound right
ly to construe the statute. His n1ts
: taken view of the law is no defense
= Sinclair will have probably le'
/. | tu6Q TWO WCCAo VCAOAC AtC AAAuCV ~
!. jail to serve the three months ser
= tence, it was said today by Unite
= States Attorney Rover. The supren
!. court, Rover said. usually sent
4 mandate to the court Of appeals
= the District Of Columbia in not mo
i. than 10 days after a decision VI
handed down. The court Of appea
u then Immediately transmits its mai
= date to the supreme court Of the Di
;. trict of Columbia and Sinclair "
then be notified to appear to beg
= to serve his sentence.
"a Sinclair's counsel still can appe
~ to the court for review Of toda,
- decision.
: One other case, contempt Of 6
" District Of Columbia supreme cou
n in connection with the jury sl1ado'
ing episode Of the trial Of Albert
W Fall and Sinclair, still is pending
the highest court against the oil ms
n In that case he was sentenced to
months in jail.