Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1946-02-18
COP Questions
Stir Uproar al
Pau|ey Hearing
Democrats Protest
Probe of Judson's
Oil Company Work
By J. A. OLeory

mittee, considering the nomina-
ton of Edwin w. Pauley to be
UnderSecretary of the Navy, was
thrown into an uproar today
W h en- Democrats protested
against Republicans turning
their fire on Harold JudSon, now
assistant solicitor general, by in
quiring into work he did for oil
companies as lawyer in 1888
before he came to the Justice
Department.
Questions asked at the last Pauley
hearing had indicated that Mr.. Jud-
son was being called to see if he
could throw any light on the draft
ing OF legislation now pending in
Congress-, under which the Fedora
Government would relinquish to the
States any claim to title to tide
lands.
Senators Tobey of New Hampshire
and Brewster, Maine, both Repub-
licans, today brought out that $780,
800 contributed to one side in a ref
erendum fight over an oil conserva-
ton law in California in 1899, was
reported under the California cleo
ton laws as having been contributed
by Mr.. Judson. who testified that
he made no personal contribution
but was merely doing legal work for
opponents of a referendum.
Mr.. Judson said he felt confident
the law firm he was with at the time
looked into the California law and
found out it was legal to report the
contributions in that way before the
report was filed. Senators Tobey
and Brewster insisted it was mis-
leading" and not in accord with the
intent OF the law that the financial
reports of campaign expenses give
the names and addresses of each
Would Like Records.
Mr.. Judson told Senator Tobey he
did not want to argue the meaning
OF the California law with him, but
would like time to get the records
from his former law firm to show
why those who contributed to the
referendum fight wanted the return
filed that way and to refresh his
memory as to who contributed.
Senator Tydings, Democrat, of
Maryland brought out that the
campaign financial report was filed
by an auditor and not by Mr., Judsor
and that it accurately set forth the
fact that the auditor got the cam
paign funds from Mr.. Judson.
DO we understand that he fMr
Judson) doesn't want to testif,
further at this time for fear hi
might incriminate himself?" askec
Senator Brewster.
Il resent that" Mr.. Judson re.
torted.
Senator Ellender, Democrat. OF
Louisiana, broke in to shout, WHO
is on trial here, Pauley or Judson?'
and for few moments several COM
mittee members we're talking al
once.
Walsh Restores Order.
Chairman Walsh restored order
by raising his voice above the 9TH
ers to demand, The meeting will
come to order and one Senator will
speak at time"
The verbal clash subsidized. anc
the cross examination went on, bu
Mr.. Pauley's name was mentioned
only occasionally during the morn.
ing session.
At the outset of the hearing. Sem
ator Tobey had asked Mr.. Judsor
If he contributed anything to the
passage of the 1889 conservation bill
or to the defeat of the referendum
relating to it, and he replied he die
not.
Later, when Senator Tobey pro
duced several financial statement
hled during 1889, showing Mr.. Jud
son listed as having contributes
a total of $380,500, the witness sale
that. frankly, I had forgotten al
about it."
Didn't Have 100000.
Mr.. Judson said it was obviou
ne would not attempt to concea
the matter from the committee i
ne had remembered it, because tn
financial statements were public rec
ords in California. He said ever,
one knew he did not have $4Oo. OO(
and would not be interested enough
to make such a contribution. Il
fact, he said, he Was paid $3.50
for the legal work he did for tn
Oil companies interested in the ref
erendum, which consisted chiefly i,
having the authenticity of sigma
lures on referendum petition
checked for forgeries.
Mr.. Judson said there were man
companies interested in the refer
endum, and he could not recall
without looking up his records al
OF the reasons why they wante,
their contributions to the campaig,
over the conservation referendum
reported under his name.
L am sure that before that wa
done the members of the law firm
looked into the law and wrote
memorandum holding this was no
violation of the California law.
said Mr.. Judson. ut is obvious
would not have done this if it wa