« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. DOHENY. I do not know which it was from. I do not remember.
Senator Walsh of Montana. Can you produce that check?
Senator Walsh of Montana. Of course that passed out of your possession ?
Mr. DOHENY. Yes, sir. It may be that my bank account will show whose check it was, and if so when it was credited, as it was credited to my account at the time. If so I will give you the information.
Senator Walsh of Montana. I did not imagine you could furnish that check, but if you can give it to us, or give us the information, I will be glad to have it.
Mr. DOHENY. Very well.
Senator ADAMS. You spoke of a gentleman by the name of Welborn.
Mr. DOHENY. Yes, sir.
Mr. DOHENY. Welborn & Welborn are our attorneys in California. This Olin Welborn is a brother of Judge Welborn of the court there, and they are sons of the late Judge Olin Welborn, the United States district judge for a number of years, and at one time a Congressman from Dallas, Tex., here in Washington. He served eight years in Congress. They are a well-known Georgia family. He has no connection whatever with the Welborns of Colorado.
Senator ADAMS. The particular Welborns were representing you?
Mr. DOHENY. This man had almost the same name as the Colorado Welborn.
Senator ADAMS. It is “born"?
Senator PITTMAN. Mr. Doheny, did you have any discussion with anyone in regard to whether or not you would present this note today?
Mr. DOHENY. No, sir. No, I made up my mind to present that note-do you mean this fragment of the note?
Senator PITTMAN. I mean this note that I now hold up?
Senator PITTMAN. You did not discuss it with your attorneys!
Senator PITTMAN. Well, never mind. I do not want to ask anything that is privileged.
Mr. GAVIN MCNAB. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a privileged matter.
Senator PITTMAN. I recognize that. I will not ask that question. But, Mr. Doheny, have you ever discussed this piece of paper with anyone except your attorneys?
Mr. DOHENY. Yes, sir; with my wife.
Mr. DOHENÝ. No; nobody besides my wife and my attorneys. What have you in mind? I do not know who I discussed it with, but I know I did not discuss it with anybody except that I should discuss it with.
Senator PITTMAN. That is a conclusion, of course, as to whom you should discuss it with. You remember what might have taken place in regard to this piece of paper?
Mr. DOHENY. What is that?
Senator PITTMAN. You remember what discussions may have taken place in regard to this piece of paper that I hold in my hand?
Mr. Doheny. I never discussed it with anybody connected either directly or indirectly with Senator Fall or the Sinclair concern. I discussed it merely with my own people and my wife.
Senator PITTMAN. Now, I didn't ask you whether you discussed it with anybody connected with him.
Mr. DOHENY. I know you didn't, but I am setting your mind at rest in regard to that.
Senator PITTMAN. Have you discussed this paper-you sometimes call it a note and sometimes a paper, and I do not want to get you confused in your answers—did you discuss in the presence of anyone except your attorney and Mrs. Doheny the tearing off of the signature to this piece of paper called a note?
Mr. DOHENY. No, sir.
Senator PITMAN. Did you discuss with anyone, or did anyone discuss in your presence or your hearing this piece of paper, except your attorney and your wife, since you have come to Washington with it?
Mr. DOHENY. Not that I know of. I don't know—there might have been in my hearing some one that I didn't see, but I didn't intentionally discuss it with anyone except the parties you mentioned my attorneys and
wife. Senator PITTMAN. Have you seen C. Bascom Slemp since you came on from California?
Mr. DOHENY. I never saw him in my life.
Senator PITTMAN. And you are sure now that there was no discussion with regard to this note since you have come on from California, with anyone except your attorneys and your wife?
Mr. DOHENY. Are you making that the plural or singularattorneys?
Senator PITTMAN. I make it plural.
Mr. DOHENY. Because I have talked it with my attorneys and my wife and nobody else.
Senator PITTMAN. That is all I want to find out.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Doheny, did you ever tell Mr. Fall what you had done with reference to mutilating this note?
Mr. DOHENY. Yes; I told Mr. Fall about it.
Mr. DOHENY. Last December, when I urged him to come in and tell about the note. I told him that I had torn the note in two, in case it should be used to injure him.
And I want to say right now, and I don't mind saying it under oath, without any question being put to me, that I think it was poor Fall's attempt to screen me that carised him, that note being mutilated, to tell that white lie, or black lie, whichever you call it, about getting the money from McLean, and he told it because he thought that might screen me until I could get the note together. He knew I only had a part of the note.
The CHAIRMAN. When did you first begin to search for the note? You said you told him last December.
Mr. DOHENY. Yes; I began after I came from here.
The CHAIRMAN. And do you think you can find it if you haven't found it in that time?
Mr. DOHENY. I haven't much faith in finding it. Senator, a thing is found in a second. And you may search for a month before that second arrives.
The CHAIRMAN. The thing I am getting at—you have already made a search and your wife already made a search, but you tell this committee you came away in a hurry.
Mr. DOHENY. I didn't make as close a search as we might make.
The CHAIRMAX. That is all. Are there any further questions of Mr. Doheny? [After a pause.] Mr. Doheny, please do not consider yourself excused. We may desire to examine you further. The committee will stand adjourned until 10 o'clock to-morrow morning.
(Thereupon, at 1 o'clock p. m., the committee adjourned to meet on Saturday, February 2, 1924, at 10 o'clock a. m.)
LEASES UPON NAVAL OIL RESERVES.
SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 1924.
UNITED STATES SENATE,
Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10 o'clock a. m., Hon. Irvine L. Lenroot (chairman) presiding.
Present: Senators Lenroot (chairman), Smoot, Ladd, Stanfield, Bursum, Cameron, Kendrick, Walsh of Montana, Adams, and Dill.
The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.
Mr. COOKE. If the committee please, under the subpoena which was served upon Mr. Fall yesterday afternoon he is present in the committee room and ready for the hearing.
I wish to remind the committee, however, that he is still under the advice of his own physician, and to state that certain observations made before the committee by the physicians employed by the committee tend to confirm his doctors in the advice which they have already given. I therefore urge that that be remembered by the committee—what he is advised as to his physical condition.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Fall, you will please be sworn.
TESTIMONY OF MR. ALBERT B. FALL-Resumed.
(The witness was duly sworn by the chairman.)
Senator Walsh of Montana. Senator Fall, do you care to make any further statement about the matters under consideration by the committee?
Mr. Fall. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I decline to answer the question for the following reasons and on the following grounds:
The committee is conducting an investigation under Senate Resolution 282, agreed to April 21, 1922, in the Sixty-seventh Congress, and Senate Resolution 294, agreed to May 15, 1922, in the same Congress; and further by virtue of Senate Resolution 434, agreed to by the Senate on February 5, 1923, during the same Congress; and I do not consider that, acting under those resolutions or under the lastmentioned resolution, which authorizes the committee to sit after the expiration of the Sixty-seventh Congress“ until the assembling of the Sixty-eighth Congress, and until otherwise ordered by the Senate,” this committee has any authority to conduct the investigation now attempted to be conducted by the addressing of this question to me.
I decline to answer on the further ground that on January 7, 1924, Senator Caraway introduced in the Senate of the United States, in this Congress, Senate Joint Resolution 54, attempting to deal with the lease of the Mammoth Oil Co., that that resolution was referred to this committee and in due course the Senate discharged this committee as of January 24, 1924, and the Senate thereafter, on January 31, 1924, agreed to that resolution and completed its consideration thereof, the resolution being so amended as to deal in the Senate in a plenary way with the leases upon naval oil reserves which were before this committee under Senate Resolution 282 and Senate Resolution 294; and that this committee has no further authority to deal with Senate Joint Resolution 54, since it has been discharged by the Senate and the Senate itself has finally acted upon the resolution.
I decline to answer on the further ground that Senate Joint Resolution 54, as passed unanimously by the Senate, recites that it appears from evidence taken by this committee that certain lease of naval reserve No. 3 in the State of Wyoming, bearing date April 7, 1922, made in form by the Government of the United States through_myself, Albert B. Fall, Secretary of the Interior, and Edwin Denby, Secretary of the Navy, as lessor, and certain lease of naval reserve No. 1 in the State of California, bearing date December 11, 1922, made in form by the Government of the United States through myself, Albert B. Fall, Secretary of the Interior, and Edwin Denby, Secretary of the Navy, as lessór,“ were executed under circumstances indicating fraud and corruption"; that said leases were entered into without authority on the part of the officers purporting to act in the execution of the same for the United States and in violation of the laws of Congress; and that in the same resolution it is resolved that the President of the United States be authorized and directed immediately to cause suit to be instituted and prosecuted for the annulment and cancellation of the leases, and to prosecute such other actions and proceedings, civil and criminal, as may be warranted by the facts in relation to the making of said leases, and the President is further authorized and directed to appoint special counsel to have charge and control of the prosecution of such litigation, and I decline to answer on the ground that my answer may tend to incriminate me.
In declining to answer and in stating these reasons I wish to express full respect for the committee and for the Senate, but to remind the committee that on October 23d and 24th last, while this committee was sitting in recess of Congress and dealing with Senate Resolution 282, and Senate Resolution 294, I appeared before the committee and discussed at length the negotiations of the_leases, including the lease of April 25, 1922, signed by Edwin C. Finney, Acting Secretary of the Interior, and Edwin Denby, Secretary of the Navy, relating to construction of oil tanks at Pearl Harbor, Hawaii; and thereafter was prepared to appear again before the committee; but since the Senate of the United States has passed the Senate Resolution 54, that action being concurred in by the House of Representatives, and the Congress of the United States has adjudicated, by that resolution, its finding that the leases were executed under circumstances indicating fraud and corruption, and has directed the President of the United States to prosecute such pro