Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1929-09-17
Justice SiddonS Hands Down
Decision After Supreme
Court Hearing.
WARNING TO WITNESSES
IN FUTURE INQUIRIES
100000 in Liberty Bonds Seized
Under Walsh Act to Remain
in Custody of U. S.

Justice Frederick L. Siddons in Dis
trict Supreme Court today held Harry
M. Blackmer guilty Of contempt of court
for his failure to testify in the oil cases
and fined him $4,000 In each of the
two cases, with costs.
Immediately after the justice had
handed down his decision, following the
hearing of extended argument and tes-
timony, yesterday and today, George
Gordon Battle of New York, Blackmer's
counsel, noted an appeal to the District
Court Of Appeals and Government at
torneys agreed to accept a nominal
bond Of $1,000. Justice Siddons as
serted that this ruling would serve as
a warning to those disposed similarly
to Blackmer, by failing to give testi-
mony when summoned by their Gov
ernment. Blackmer has been living
for some years in France and eluded
the efforts of United States Govern
ment agents to locate him until he
was served with the subpoena.
u. S. VIII Hold Bonds.
Owen j. Roberts, special prosecutor
for the Government in the Oil cases,
who insisted Blackmer should be pun-
ished, explaining that pending the ap-
peal, the 100000 in Liberty bonds,
seized as Blackmer'S property under the
Walsh act when Blackmer failed to ap-
pear, will remain in the custody of the
U. S. marshal here.
Justice Siddons failed to subscribe to
the contention of Mr.. Battle that the
o1ch anH
hence the issuing of Subpoenas under 1t
was null and void.
In final arguments, Mr.. Roberts as
serted that Blackmer was the missing
link IN the trials Of Albert B. Fall, for
mer Secretary Of the Interior, and
Harry F. Sinclair, Low q prisoner in the
District Jail. The Governments hands,
he said, were tied because of the abb
sence of Blackmer. Justice Siddons,
in his review Of the case, agreed with
this contention and expressed the
opinion that the testimony Of Blackmer
was vital in the proper presentation Of
charges in the trial Of Fall and Sinclair.
Attorney Makes Plea.
Mr.. Battle sought to excuse the alb
Sence of his client on the grounds that
the Walsh act was unconstitutional,
that the first trial in the oil cases here
resulted in mistrial and that in the
second trial, when Sinclair was ac-
quilted, there was no great harm done
to the Governments case by the failure
of Blackmer to appear and testify.
Blackmer simply did what he thought
he had ri ght to do, Mr.. Battle insist
ed, adding that there was nothing "con-
tulnelious" in Blackmer's conduct.
Justice Siddons made it clear that he
was not engaging in any criticism Of
the acts of counsel, expressed or i'm
piled.
IT have no doubt that they advised
him according to their consctences,"
Justice Siddons said. THAT doesn't
excuse Blackmer"
The Justice said that it was his opin-
ion the Government was put to consid-
cradle expense in endeavoring to ascer-
tain the whereabouts of Blackmer.
Battle took the witness stand this
an dadvised Justice Siddons
that he had seen Blackmer in Paris,
had advised him that several prominent
attorneys had rendered their opinions
that the Walsh act, under which the
government seized 100000 worth of
Blackmer's property for failure to COM
ply with the subpoena was unconsti-
and that the subpoena was
likewise invalid.
Roberts OF Government counsel
illicited from Mr.. Battle on cross-ex-
that Mr.. Blackmer was In
formed of the penalty that would
arise, should the attorneys be in error
in their opinions, holding the Walsh
act unconstitutional. Mr.. Battle said
that he did not know If Blackmer had
withheld his address from the United
States Government while living in
France.
In argument, Mr.. Battle contended
that there was no session of the Dis
trict Supreme Court dealing with the
oil cases on April 2, 1928-one of the
dates on which the Government says
Blackmer was to have appeared in.
Washington. The case was not on the
calendar he insisted and it was not
called, so that Blackner could not be
held in contempt Of court for failure to
respond.
Justice Siddons sustained an objec-
ton Of Government counsel aimed at
the relevancy of Mr.. Battles conten-
ton. Mr.. Roberts told the clerk of the
court that there was no proffer OF testi-
mony that the witness in question was
here on April 2 and obeyed the sum-.
mons Of the court.
AS Mr.. Battle took the witness stand
his associate counsel, Karl d. Milliken
of Denver, Colo, conducted the exami-
nation. Justice Siddons interposed
query as to the qualifications of Mr..
Battle as an attorney, and Government
counsel further acquiesced at the JUS
tice's suggestion that there was no
question about this.
From the witnes stand Mr.. Battle
advised the court that Blackmer or
iginally came from Massachusetts,, but
went West for his health and that he
was an attorney at law.
Mr.. Roberts vigorously objected to
the contention that Blackmer could
escape censure by relying upon the
advice of his counsel that the WALSH
act was unconstitutional and that IS
result Blackmer had declined to obey
the summons.
Mr.. Battle testified In response to a
question from Me. Roberts that .
French counsel had advised Blackmer
that If he failed to answer in a French
court he could not be punished under
the French law.
Chief Of Police Slain.
FLORENCE. Kans.. September IT,