"Dead Mackerel"

The Grand Jury of the District of Columbia for a second week withheld its action on the evidence that Oilman Harry Ford Sinclair and friends had shadowed the petit jury which was trying him for criminal conspiracy, and the further evidence that Detective William J. Burns and aides had perjured themselves in an effort to impugn U. S. agents for jury-tampering (TIME, Oct. 31 et seq.). But the involved Fall-Sinclair oil scandals were not altogether without further lucubrations last week.

Fish v. Hogan. One purple patch shone forth in a side-argument between Lawyer Frank J. Hogan of Washington, D. C. and U. S. Representative Hamilton Fish of New York. Mr. Hogan, attorney for Edward L. Doheny in the Fall-Doheny phases of the oil lease litigation, heard that Representative Fish had publicly listed jury-tampering among Dr. Doheny's doings. Since Mr. Doheny has yet another trial to stand, Lawyer Hogan remonstrated with Representative Fish lest his client be further misunderstood by the public. Representative Fish denied having cast upon Mr. Doheny any aspersions in addition to those cast by the U. S. Supreme Court, which mentioned "fraud" and "collusion." Then Representative Fish took occasion to address Lawyer Hogan as follows on the Fall-Sinclair-Doheny business in general: " . . . the country is aflame with righteous indignation at the nasty, sordid revelations both as regards the oil leases and the jury-tampering, and will not be satisfied with halfway measures. The public demands that all involved in either the oil scandal, now four years old, and the jury-shadowing, be sentenced to jail, and that no guilty man be permitted to escape.

"The people are watching every move made by both the lawyers for the Government and the defense, in order to find out whether rich men can thwart the process of justice by having a staff of able attorneys or whether witnesses can remain abroad indefinitely after being served with subpoenas. The big issue is whether the possessor of great wealth can, by use of legal talent, detective agencies, tampering with the jury and through the absence of important witnesses in Europe, defeat the aims of justice and keep out of the penitentiary. The whole sordid scandal is like a dead mackerel in the moonlight. It stinks and stinks."

Blackmer's Bonds. For refusing to return to the U. S. from France to testify in the Fall-Sinclair trial, Harry M. Blackmer, one of the main Sinclair vice presidents, was pronounced in contempt of court by Justice Frederick Lincoln Siddons, Mr. Sinclair's latest judge. Last fortnight a U. S. Marshall called at a Washington bank and attached for the U. S. $100,000 in Liberty Bonds deposited there in Mr. Blackmer's name. Mr. Blackmer's attorney promised to fight the U. S. for return of this price of silence by testing the constitutionality of the so-called Walsh Law under which the confiscation was made. Senator Thomas J. Walsh of Montana, the law's author, and one of the originators of the whole oil investigation, declared he was sure his law would withstand Supreme Court scrutiny; announced his intention of introducing to Congress another law, to compel just such reluctant witnesses as Mr. Blackmer* to testify willy-nilly-- when they can be caught before they leave the U. S.

Criminal Contempt. While waiting for the Grand Jury to indict Oilman Sinclair and friends and employes, U. S. District Attorney Peyton Gordon, their prosecutor before the Grand Jury, opened yet another action against them. He cited them to Justice Siddons for criminal contempt of the latter's court (Supreme Court of the District of Columbia). In this action, independent of what the Grand Jury might do to them, the defendants--Oilman Sinclair, Henry Mason Day, Sheldon Clark and Detectives William J. Burns, Sherman Burns and Charles L. Vietsch--were eligible for imprisonment, or fines, as Justice Siddons might see fit. Justice Siddons ordered the six cited ones to appear before him. To aid Justice Siddons in his decisions, Attorney Gordon prepared to subpoena some 75 of the jurors, detectives, newsgatherers, etc., whom he took before the Grand Jury last month after the miscarriage of the main Fall-Sinclair trial.

The Fall-Sinclair cases and sub-cases thus stood:

1) Criminal conspiracy trial of the Messrs. Fall and Sinclair in the District of Columbia Supreme Court: Mistrial announced November 2nd; retrial set for January, 1928.

2) Grand Jury investigation of jury-tampering charges: Defendants, Harry Ford Sinclair, Henry Mason Day, Sheldon Clark, William J. Burns and aides (with perjury complications) ; indictments pending.

3) Citations for criminal contempt: Defendants Sinclair, Day, Clark, Burns, et al. ordered to appear before Justice Siddons on December 5th.

*A reluctant witness whom Senator Walsh had more particularly in mind was M. T. Everhart, son-in-law of Defendant Fall. Lest he incriminate himself, Mr. Everhart refused to testify about Liberty Bonds received and deposited by him for his father-in-law-- an episode which, once made clear, would doubtless hasten conclusions.