Stewart Aquibble

When the Public Lands Committee of the Senate was trying, last year, to find out what became, in 1921, of the profits of the Continental Trading Co. (side-spout of the Teapot Dome oil mess), it asked Col. Robert W. Stewart, chief of the Standard Oil Co. of Indiana and stout friend of Oilman Sinclair, if he had "received" any of the Continental profits. "No," answered Oilman Stewart. He declined to say if he knew anyone who did "receive" the profits. For his silence the Senate indicted Col. Stewart for contempt. Also having learned that one-fourth of the Continental profits had been delivered to Col. Stewart the Senate indicted Col. Stewart for perjury. His explanation was that by "received" he thought the Senators had meant "profited personally." He admitted he had "received" the profits physically, "as a messenger boy" and conveyed them to his company.

Acquitted, last spring, of contempt, Col. Stewart went on trial for perjury last month. Last week, again, he was acquitted, or at least "aquibbled." Conducted by "million-dollar" counsel (small, snappy, whitehaired Lawyer Frank J. Hogan), the Stewart defense succeeded in shifting the crux of the case from the honesty of Col. Stewart's double interpretation of the verb, "to receive," to the legality of the Senators' second questioning of Col. Stewart. Chairman of the Public Lands Committee at the time of the second Stewart hearing was boyish, officious, inexperienced Senator Gerald P. Nye of North Dakota. It was an easy matter for the defense to impress the jury with the incompetence with which the hearing was conducted. The official stenographic record was riddled with errors and omissions. Roll calls had not been taken. Questions had been suggested in the hearing room by newsgatherers and put by the Senators. Finally, the defense represented that, though the Committee had decided that eight of its 15 members should constitute a quorum, there were not eight Senators physically present at the time Col. Stewart was asked the crucial question. Some had signified by telephone their assent to their colleagues' doings--a procedure formally recognized in the Senate since 1919.

Justice Jennings Bailey (District of Columbia Supreme Court) instructed the jury that unless it decided there were eight Senators physically present, the verdict must be not guilty. Thus, the ingenuousness of Col. Stewart was never passed upon. The jurors (three of them women) came in after 55 minutes, congratulated Col. Stewart, patted his broad back.

Chairman George W. Norris of the Senate Judiciary Committee was thoroughly disgusted with Justice Jennings Bailey. If the Bailey theory of quorums is right, "95 per cent of all State and national legislation would be nullified," said Senator Norris. "All the legislatures in the civilized world operate without physical quorums. Unless there was a fight on the Judge [Bailey] himself, he probably was not confirmed by a quorum and therefore, under his interpretation, he is not a judge. . . ."

While citizens wondered whether Justice Bailey was a discriminating jurist or a quibbling dolt, and whether U. S. Senators are efficient investigators or clumsy persecutors, Col. Stewart packed out homewards to Chicago, scot-free at last of the Oil Scandals unless the Senate gets the Bailey theory of quorums overridden in the U. S. Supreme Court.