Mr. TRAMMELL (when his name was called). I have a pair with the senior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. COLT]. I transfer that pair to the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. REED] and vote "nay." The senior Senator from Missouri if present, I understand, would vote as I have voted on this question.

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. McKELLAR (after having voted in the negative). I have a pair for the day with the senior Senator from Ohio [Mr. WILLIS]. Being unable to obtain a transfer, I shall have to withdraw my vote. If I were permitted to vote, I would vote “nay.”

Mr. GERRY. I desire to announce that the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BRUCE] is unavoidably absent on account of illness. He is paired with his colleague the senior Senator from Maryland [Mr. WELLER]. If present, the junior Senator from Maryland [Mr. BRUCE] would vote "nay."

I also wish to announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. OWEN] is paired with the senior Senator from Illinois [Mr. McCORMICK]. If the Senator from Oklahoma were present and permitted to vote, he would vote "nay."

Mr. WALSH of Montana. I understood the Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. GERRY] to announce that the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. OWEN] has a pair with the Senator from Illinois [Mr. McCORMICK]. I inquire if the Senator from Illinois [Mr. McCORMICK] has voted?

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. That Senator has not

Senator from Ohio [Mr. WILLIS] and my inability to obtain a transfer of that pair, I withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I would vote “nay."

The roll call was concluded.

Mr. GERRY. I wish to repeat the announcement made on the last vote in regard to the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BRUCE] and the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. OWEN] and their pairs, and also to state that if present, those Senators would vote "nay."

Mr. HARRISON. With reference to my colleague, the junior Senator from Mississippi [Mr. STEPHENS], I desire to make the same announcement as before, and to announce further that if he were here and permitted to vote, he would vote "nay."

Mr. TRAMMELL. I desire to announce that I am paired with the senior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. COLT]. I transfer that pair to the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. REED], who, if present, would vote as I shall vote on this question. I vote "nay."

The result was announced-yeas 37, nays 47, as follows:

George

Cameron

Capper

Greene

Couzens

Hale

Harreld

Curtis

Howell

Pepper

Dale

Jones, Wash.

Phipps

Edge

Keyes

Reed, Pa.

Ashurst

Mayfield

Shipstead
Simmons

Smith

Stanley
Swanson
Trammell

Underwood
Walsh, Mass.
Walsh, Mont.
Wheeler.

Stephens Weller Willis

Mr. STERLING. Mr. President, I move the following amendment: After the word "without in the first line of the second paragraph on page 2, and before the word "authority in the next line, insert the word " apparent," so as to read: Whereas the said leases and contract were entered into without apparent authority, etc.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The amendment will be stated.

The READING CLERK. On page 2, in the first line of the second whereas of the preamble, after the word "without " insert the word "apparent," so as to read:

Whereas the said leases and contract were entered into without apparent authority, etc.

Mr. STERLING. I think I might as well add this as a part of the amendment. After the word "in" in the third line of the second paragraph, on page 2, insert the word "apparent," so that the whole paragraph would read as follows:

Whereas the said leases and contract were entered into without apparent authority on the part of the officers purporting to act in the execution of the same for the United States and in apparent violation of the laws of Congress.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The two amendments will be treated as one, and the question is on agreeing to it. Mr. ASHURST. On the amendment I ask for the yeas and nays.

The yeas and nays were ordered, and the reading clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. MCKELLAR (when his name was called). Making the same announcement that I made before as to my pair with the

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The Secretary will state the amendment offered by the Senator from South Dakota.

The reading clerk stated the amendment proposed by Mr. STERLING.

Mr. HARRISON. I ask for the yeas and nays on the amendment.

The yeas and nays were ordered.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President, in the course of some remarks I delivered this afternoon I made some reference by name to a lady in the city of Washington. Upon consideration, I believe that those remarks as to her were perhaps uncalled for. I did not intend to make any reference to any person except to the man. So I ask unanimous consent that the remarks I made in reference to the lady be expunged from the RECORD.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the Senator from Nebraska? The Chair hears none, and the remarks to which he refers will be expunged from the RECORD.

Mr. EDGE. Mr. President, I do not propose to detain the Senate except for a brief moment, but I think this is, perhaps, the time to express the thought that I wish to express in connection with the pending joint resolution.

I propose to vote for the passage of the joint resolution because I am in entire sympathy with the object of the resolution. Without going into a discussion of the question, I wish to make the public statement that in voting for the resolution it must not be considered as accepting a conclusion such as is expressed by one of the whereases which we have just attempted to amend but which motion has failed. I must state very positively that I am entirely unable to decide whether the

leases and contract were entered into with or without authority upon the part of the officers purporting to act for the United States in their execution or whether or not they were in violation of the laws of Congress.

The whereas clearly recites that the laws were violated and no authority existed. As a layman, of course, I would be unable to decide that legal question. Members of the body with legal knowledge have undoubtedly arrived at individual conclusions. They are better equipped to do so; neither am I questioning their conclusions; but I am opposed, especially in an important matter of this kind, to attempting to reach an advance verdict by the process of a whereas. Perhaps the transactions were illegal; perhaps the officers concerned did not have authority. But is that not for the courts to decide? I am bringing the matter to the attention of the Senate, so far as my viewpoint is concerned, absolutely without prejudice; but in voting for the resolution I simply wish it clearly understood, through the statement I am now making, that I am not passing upon the question of authority or upon the question of violation of the law.

I do, however, feel, without hesitation and without question. that all the circumstances surrounding this deplorable happening should be handled, as they are apparently being handled, by the President of the United States, through resolution or otherwise, if he has the authority-and I believe he has-and the country be given the benefit of firm judicial decisions.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is on agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from South Dakota Mr. STERLING]. The yeas and nays have been ordered. The Secretary will call the roll.

The reading clerk proceeded to call the roll.

Mr. McKELLAR (when his name was called). Making the same announcement as before with reference to my pair, I withhold my vote. If permitted to vote, I should vote “nay.” Mr. HARRISON (when Mr. STEPHENS's name was called). I make the same announcement as before with reference to my colleague. If he were present and permitted to vote, he would vote "nay."

Mr. TRAMMELL (when his name was called). I transfer my pair with the senior Senator from Rhode Island [Mr. COLT] to the senior Senator from Missouri [Mr. REED] and vote "nay." If the Senator from Missouri were present and permitted to vote, he would vote nay.”

The roll call was concluded.

66

Mr. GERRY. I desire to make the same announcement as previously with regard to the pair of the Senator from Oklahoma [Mr. OWEN] and the pair of the Senator from Maryland [Mr. BRUCE]. If those Senators were present and permitted to vote, they would both vote nay.”

The result was announced-yeas 37, nays 48, as follows:

leases; and, of course, that suit can not result successfully to the Government unless the court finds that the leases themselves were illegal. The Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH], the author of the joint resolution, as I remember, admitted the first day in his opening address upon this subject that the question of whether the leases were legal or illegal was a judicial question, and I heartily agree with him in that. I do not think that the Congress of the United States, which is a legislative body, has any more authority to determine the legality of a contract than the District Commissioners or the board of aldermen of a city would have. It presents a judicial question; and while, as I say, I am cordially in favor of doing everything I can to aid the President successfully to have that question decided in the proper tribunal, and am therefore in favor of the body of the joint resolution, I think the preamble of the joint resolution, embodied in the "whereases," is very unfortunately worded, and I do not think it represents the true situation in some respects. Inasmuch, however, as the preamble of a joint resolution is not the essential part of it, but is merely declaratory and will be considered simply to be the sense of the Senate, I apprehend, and no attention at all will be given to it by anyone if it presumes to come to a judicial decision, I shall vote for the joint resolution.

I want to call attention in passing to one other respect in which I think the third "whereas" clause incorrectly states the situation. It states that

Whereas such leases and contract were made in defiance of the settled policy of the Government, adhered to through three successive administrations, to maintain in the ground a great reserve supply of oil adequate to the needs of the Navy in any emergency threatening the national security

I do not think that represents the situation at all. I think it is a misstatement of the facts. I think it may be the national policy, and is a wise policy, to attempt to have on hand, ready for the emergency, all the oil that is necessary; but to say that keeping it in the ground is adequate preparation for a sudden naval emergency seems to me to be an absurdity. Oil locked up in the ground when a fleet is waiting to use it as its motive power in an emergency, 2,000 miles away from either coast, which has to be drilled for and refined, would not be, in my opinion, an adequate national defense. But, as I say, irrespective of the lack of precision in the preamble of the joint resolution, I approve of the body of it, and shall therefore vote for it.

Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, before we vote I wish to make this statement:

It will be recalled that I offered the original joint resolutions to cancel the leases of the three oil reserves-Joint Resolution No. 54, to cancel the lease of the Teapot Dome reserve, or reserve No. 3, in Wyoming, and Joint Resolution No. 55, to cancel the lease of the reserves in California. I believed then, and I am not receding from that position at all, that the Congress had a right to deal with the subject matter, and therefore had plenary power to take care of this entire situation. In deference to members of the committee, I assented to the joint resolution now being considered. I did not agree to it. I believe, from the face of the record, that every intelligent man and woman in America knows that there was a corrupt understanding between the parties who secured these leases and officials of the Government who undertook to execute them.

I have heard those who are advocating the present joint resolution say that the leases are utterly void. If they are, and we have power to deal with the subject matter, I do not agree that we should hire lawyers to go into court. I believe that we should deal with the matter directly. I stated my views with reference to it the other day, and the reasons which led me to that conclusion, and I shall not repeat them.

I wish to say this, and without any criticism: It is apparent now that in all the debate that has gone before there has not come from the other side of the aisle, from the Republican Party, a single suggestion for strengthening any joint resolution to deal with this situation. In the interest of accuracy, when the original joint resolutions introduced by myself were brought to the Senate I asked unanimous consent for their immediate consideration. The Senator from Utah [Mr. SMOOT] immediately objected. Later, when notice was given and a motion made to relieve the committee from further consideration of these joint resolutions, the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LENROOT] availed himself of the rule, and required them to go over; and I am not complaining. Every amendment offered by the Republicans to this joint resolution has been to weaken it, to take the sting out of it, to let those people who betrayed America for gold understand that is as far as they dare go; they say to them that we are not in favor of exacting any harsh terms or any harsh conditions, or urging that the courts

shall be harsh when they come to deal with them. We soften it as much as we dare do.

Mr. NORRIS. Mr. President

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. Does the Senator from Arkansas yield to the Senator from Nebraska?

Mr. CARAWAY. I yield to the Senator.

Mr. NORRIS. Since it has been suggested by the Senator's statement that no amendment has been offered from this side of the Chamber tending to strengthen the joint resolution, I want to call his attention to the one I offered.

Mr. CARAWAY. I am delighted to have the Senator call my attention to that, because I recall that that is true. The Senator did offer an amendment, broad, comprehensive, and all-inclusive, embracing all the reserves, the Doheny as well as the Sinclair leases. I am glad to correct my statement, as far as the Senator from Nebraska is concerned.

Mr. LENROOT. Mr. President, will the Senator yield?
Mr. CARAWAY. I yield.

Mr. LENROOT. I call the Senator's attention to the fact that the joint resolution as framed did not touch at all the contracts that are the subject of illegality, but only the leases, and that the suggestion that they be included came from this side of the Chamber.

Mr. CARAWAY. Oh, and the Senator offered a joint resolution to take every bit of the sting out of it if he could, and it was voted down a minute ago. The original joint resolutions proposed to cancel everything and let the Congress say to America that we are not going to condone treason in the Senate; and the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LENROOT] objected to their consideration.

I am willing that they should make their record. I am not willing, in an apologetic way, that they shall say, "I shall support the joint resolution but I regret that you say that it is illegal for Fall to sell his country." That is what they say. They are welcome to their position. I would make it stronger. So help me Almighty God, I never shall apologize for doing what I can to stamp with all the odium that law can any man who is guilty, as they know and everybody knows the people who dealt with these matters are.

Oh, the Secretary of the Navy said yesterday, putting two sentences of his note together, as follows: In the first sentence he said:

I have no intention whatever of resigning at the present time. And reading his last sentence, not quite in its consecutive order, speaking about wanting a vote on the Robinson resolution, he says:

So that I may determine what Senators are willing to besmirch and defame the name of an American citizen who is guilty of no crime and who has never been charged, tried, or convicted in any court.

He seems to say, "As long as they have never branded me with infamy, and as long as no jury has convicted me, it makes no difference how guilty I am; I am still worthy to sit in the Coolidge Cabinet."

I am willing to vote on the matter.

The PRESIDENT pro tempore. The question is upon agreeing to the amendment proposed by the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH] by way of substitute for Senate Joint Resolution 54.

Mr. LENROOT. Mr. President, I do not wish to delay the vote upon this measure, but in the interest of accuracy I must be permitted to say a few words.

The Senator from Arkansas [Mr. CARAWAY] has stated to the Senate and to the country that this side of the aisle has been trying to weaken this joint resolution in so far as any fraud or corruption may exist, and—if I understood his language correctly-to let down easier, so far as this joint resolution is concerned, those who have sold their country for money. Mr. President, not one amendment has been offered on this side of the aisle that touches in the least degree the question of fraud or corruption. This side of the aisle has accepted from the very beginning, and accepts now, the recitals in this joint resolution regarding fraud and corruption exactly as presented by the Senator from Montana, and there has been no suggestion from anybody upon this side of the aisle that those recitals be weakened in the least degree. The Senator from Arkansas must be aware of that, and I was astounded at the statement that he made.

What were the amendments that were suggested upon this side of the aisle? It is entirely clear that there are two sorts of questions involved here. One is the question of the illegality of the leases growing out of fraud and corruption in the makIng of them. As to that, there has not been any controversy whatever during this debate. The other is the question of

illegality of these leases through want of power to make them, or in complying with the statutes or formalities in the making of them, irrespective of any question of fraud; and that is what is comprised in the second recital, which reads as follows: Whereas the said leases and contract 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.

As to the question of fraud or corruption, we have been in agreement from the very start; but on the question of legality alone the only question has been whether the Senate should find as a fact, or as a conclusion of law, the very thing which by the resolution it asks the President to send to the courts to determine, or whether we should indicate that that is one of the things that the Senate wishes the President to charge in such action as may be brought as one of the grounds for cancellation.

That is all there is to it, Mr. President, and if any charge is made that any amendment that has been proposed on this side would tend to mitigate in any way any recital concerning fraud or corruption in the making of these leases I submit that the record will disclose that any such charge is wholly without foundation.

Mr. CARAWAY. Mr. President, I do not criticize the Senator who has just taken his seat; he has a right to stand on either side of any controversy that appeals to him; but he voted for the amendment of the Senator from South Dakota which was intended to insert the word "apparently," so that it would say that the making of the leases was "apparently against a settled policy of the Government." If the insertion of the word "apparently " would not be weakening the declaration that it was against the settled policy, I do not know what it means. He also wanted to strike out the word "de fiance" and insert the word "contravention"; and all those amendments received the vote of the Senator from Wisconsin [Mr. LENROOT].

Mr. LENROOT. Will the Senator yield?
Mr. CARAWAY. I yield.

Mr. LENROOT. Did those amendments have anything to do with the recitals concerning fraud and corruption?

Mr. CARAWAY. The Senator knows what they were offered for. If they were not intended to soften the resolution, why did the Senator from South Dakota make such an impassioned appeal to the Senate not to make any positive declaration about whether they were against the law or not? Whether they would do what the Senator from South Dakota thought they would-and I take it they would, because he is a lawyer of very great distinction-he gave his reasons for it, reasons which appealed to him, evidently reasons which appealed to the majority of Senators on the other side. I call attention to it. It is for the country to determine. I am sitting in judg ment on nobody.

Mr. BORAH. Mr. President, I shall be very brief in the remarks which I have to submit. I perhaps should not submit any at all if it were not for what I deem to be the most immaterial part of this resolution. The most immaterial part strangely is the part about which there is the most controversy. I understand we are all agreed that this matter shall go to the courts for determination, and that portion of the resolution is very little debated. The most material part seems to me to meet the approval of the entire Senate.

There has been considerable discussion about the whereases, and those outside of the Senate Chamber have seemed to con strue these whereases in a different light from the construction which I place upon them. I simply want to make the remarks that I shall make in order that my vote may be cast with a full understanding of what I understand the resolution to mean, so far as the whereases are concerned.

Mr. Denby stated last evening in his interview, if correctly reported:

I want a record vote in the Senate so I may determine just what Senators will stand up and vote to besmirch and defame the name of an American citizen who is guilty of no crime, and who has never been convicted or charged or tried in any court. In or out of office I am always available for examination and trial.

Mr. Denby seems to be under the impression that if the whereas relating to the illegality of the contract should be carried he would suffer condemnation which would involve moral turpitude. That may or may not be true. That depends entirely upon the facts as they shall in the future be developed. As I understand this matter, as a Senator I am simply called upon to construe a statute. Mr. Denby acted under a certain statute.

Mr. CURTIS. Mr. President, I think the Secretary of the Navy had reference to a resolution different from the one the Senator from Idaho is now discussing. It was a resolution providing that the Secretary of the Navy should be removed from office.

Mr. BORAH. I am informed by the Senator from Kansas, who perhaps has better sources of information than I have, that it is possible that the Secretary of the Navy had in mind another resolution which is coming along, supposedly, later. My understanding was, from the debate which took place yesterday, that he had in mind the fact, as suggested by the Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. PEPPER], that to pass this resolution in its present form would be a condemnation of the Secretary of the Navy, and I am rather of the opinion that that was the view, in part at least, which was entertained by the Secretary.

At any rate, Mr. President, in voting for the resolution with its whereases I am simply construing a statute. I am quite clear in my own mind that there was no sufficient authority under the statute for the execution of these leases or for the making of these contracts. I can readily understand that a Secretary of the Navy or anyone else, layman or lawyer, might come to a different conclusion. He might believe that he had the power to execute a lease and execute, so far as authority is concerned, in perfectly good faith. On the other hand, it would be possible, as some seem to believe, that he executed it for other reasons. But my vote is nothing more than the recording of what I understand to be the terms of the statute and a proper construction of it.

It is true, as was said by the Senator from Connecticut, that in all probability the court will not pay any attention to these whereases. I do not expect the court to pay any attention to them. It would be no part of the duty of the court to give consideration to them. Nevertheless, as a Senator, I am called upon to express my view with reference to a very important transaction, and we naturally, inevitably, and logically arrive at a conclusion with reference to the terms of the statute under which the whole proceeding was had.

Believing, therefore, as I do that the lease was made without authority, I find no impropriety in recording my vote accordingly. That is about all that needs to be said at this time. Of course, with reference to the other resolutions which are coming along later, the question presented is an entirely dif ferent proposition. What we have to do now is to proceed as calmly and as effectively and as efficiently as we can to see that the property of the people of the United States is reclaimed and preserved and that damages are recovered, if possible, for that which has been lost. That is all we have to deal with

Mr. STERLING. Mr. President, I would not rise to say anything but for the fact that reference was made by the Senator from Arkansas [Mr. CARAWAY] a moment ago as to the intent with which the Senator from South Dakota introduced these three short amendments. The Senator from Arkansas misjudges the Senator from South Dakota in that respect. The first two amendments I offered, the amendments to the second paragraph on page 2, were not offered with the idea of softening the resolution or the terms of the recitals prior to the resolution, but they were offered with this in view, and speaking at some length on the matter I thought I defined myself reasonably clearly on that subject. I took the view that we could not say under the law, particularly the act of June 4, 1920, that the leases were absolutely without authority of law, and I thought the Senate would hardly be justified in saying in so many words that the leases were without authority of law. Although I might believe they were without authority of law, yet there would be contrary opinions entertained. So I thought we could say it was apparently without authority of law and reach the question in that way. I declared myself as heartily in favor of the resolution.

very terms of that order, can not be accused or charged with any ulterior or unworthy motive. That is the reason I thought we had better use the word "contravention" there, that the word "defiance" in itself expressed an attitude, a frame of mind, of willfulness, in disregarding the law, a thought I can not entertain.

Mr. REED of Missouri. Mr. President, I am curious to know whether an act which is in contravention of the law would not necessarily be in defiance of the law?

Mr. STERLING. If I know the English language and I think I know a little something about it-there is a difference between the terms "in contravention of" and "in defiance of." There might be a contravention of the law through negligence, through misinformation, through something of that kind, without absolute willfulness, on the part of the party disregarding the law, if in fact he did disregard it.

Mr. PHIPPS. Mr. President, I have not been convinced that I think it is a questhere was any willful violation of the law. tion for debate as to whether or not the law of June 4, 1920, was violated by the execution of these leases. I still want to feel that it was not intentionally violated. I believe the amend ment offered by the Senator from South Dakota should have been accepted by the other side of the Chamber. I think it would have been a mere act of courtesy on the part of Members on the other side.

Still, I do not care to be put in the position of voting against the resolution simply because by a majority vote refusal to adopt an amendment was recorded here. I do feel that the resolution might have been couched in rather different language and have been just as effective. I feel that the Senate as a rule requests the Chief Executive to do something, and has not used the word directs."

Mr. President, I desire to offer an amendment. On page 2, line 8. I move to strike out the word "directed" and insert the word "requested," and on page 4, line 8, to strike out the word "directed" and insert the word "requested." I believe that would be a proper substitution, that it would not weaken the measure in any particular, and it would certainly be a more respectful term than the one which is now written in the joint resolution.

Mr. UNDERWOOD. Mr. President, I shall detain the Senate only a moment or two, but before the joint resolution is voted on I want the opportunity to state my viewpoint.

I regret that the opportunity is not given for the Senate to vote on the joint resolution directly declaring the leases null and void. I do not think that this is a question for lawyers or technicalities. It is a question that goes to the very heart of government.

A public office is a public trust, and when an officer charged with the great responsibility of government deals with the recipients of governmental bounty for his own question about that. No government can survive where the benefit, the fraud stands apparent on its face. There can be no people who live under that government lose faith in the governing bodies of the country. The only way that faith can be maintained and sustained is by the men who hold public posi tions removing themselves entirely from personal gain or greed or graft in the administration of public office.

You may speak of the technicalities as you may, but we have here a case where a corporation was granted a great tract of Government land which the officers of the corporation, immedi ately after it was turned over to them, declared was worth more than $100,000,000 in excess of what they were to pay for it. That happened in both cases. Then we discovered that the heads of those corporations were loaning money to the man with whom they were dealing on the part of the Government, an officer of the Government, and loaning money in large amounts without security.

Now, Mr. President, it seems to me that under those circumstances it does not take a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and it does not take a trial justice to reach a conclusion. It is so apparent that the man in the street may read as he runs that the officer who made the grant did not bring to the decision of the case that disinterested mind which the American people were entitled to have at his hands.

This is not a case of technicality. It is not a case of doubt. It is clear as the noonday sun that an officer of the Government has made a grant of public property that will greatly enrich the recipients thereof, and at the same time he was receiving benefits for himself. It should be so clear to every man that there can be no question about it. It is not a question solely of prosecution of the guilty. That is an incident. Of course, the prosecution should be carried on, but the issue that lies before the great lawmaking body of the American people is whether they, as the representatives of the people, will take a position and declare it in regard to these contracts.

Mr. President, I shall vote for the joint resolution most gladly, but I do regret that it is not in a form where I could declare of record that, in my judgment as a Senator of the United States, the transaction is fraudulent and void on its face.

Mr. STANLEY. Mr. President, I earnestly desire to be just to both sides of the Chamber, and I fear that an injustice has possibly and inadvertently been done to Senators upon the other side of the Chamber.

I gladly exculpate them from any purpose to excuse or to palliate in any way the crimson sins of the former Secretary of the Interior. They deliver him over, as is indicated by the dispatches read by the Senator from Ohio [Mr. WILLIS], to the merciless clutches of the law.

The unfortunate and guilty-and I pity him-the poor, friendless, abandoned former Secretary of the Interior has none "so poor as to do him reverence," and he who yesterday was the observed of all observers, the gallant and debonair member of the Cabinet, to-day is sick. I hope he is not dying; and yet if I were he I would pray to die. Like a dead vagabond, "rattle his bones over the stones, he is only a pauper whom nobody owns." A beggar's bones are not more friendless than poor Albert B. Fall.

When it comes to damning him we are all together, but when the joint resolution goes further and goes after his associates, if not his partners, in crime there is a howl from the other side of the Chamber, a cry of pain and anger and dismay. It is said that when one of a pack of wolves is wounded the others devour it. For oue. I would hold the pack responsible as well as the wounded wolf.

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, there have been some suggestions in reference to the softening of the joint resolution that have led me to refresh my recollection as to some things which have transpired earlier in these proceedings. I find the motion now made proposes that in the place of directing action to cancel the leases the Senate shall request cancellation. I am very much impressed with the argument of the Senator from Alabama [Mr. UNDERWOOD], and, like him, I am regretful that the present form of the joint resolution is not such that in an effective way this body might absolutely stamp its disapproval and declare the cancellation of the leases and say to those who hold them, "Step aside, and if you Lave any rights you may go into court and maintain them."

I believe it is within the power of the Congress of the United States to direct the officers of the United States to take possession of those lands under a provision of our legislation which would give to those in possession the right to recover compensation in the event they were wrongfully ousted. I am becoming impatient with the suggestion that we shall merely request some one to proceed in this respect and that we shall face the delays of preparation, of investigation, and of court procedure. It seems to me that the burden under the present condition of confessed guilt should be placed upon those who have made the confession and not upon the United States of America.

It has been insisted that great efforts have been made at all times and that aid has been rendered and that no effort to obstruct the proceeding has at any time occurred. I want simply to call the attention of the Senate to one or two matters that occurred during the time when the senior Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH] was endeavoring under discouraging conditions to prosecute the investigation at a time when if anyone had asked him how he was proceeding he would have said that he was getting no support and that it was discouraging.

I refer first to page 1441 of the fifth part of the hearings where occurs an instance which will show how much support the Senator from Montana was receiving. I am reading from the reports of the proceedings before the investigating committee. It was sought at that point to ask Mr. Sinclair certain questions about the syndicates that handled the stock involved in the Teapot Dome leases. Mr. Sinclair stated that those were private matters; that he did not care to answer; in fact, he declined to answer so far as he could. At that time the question as to whether or not Mr. Sinclair should answer in reference to the proceeds that came out of the Teapot Dome leases was submitted to a vote of the committee, and the roll call had at that time appears in the committee hearing. The chairman [Mr. LENROOT] voted "no." The Senator from Utah [Mr. SMOOT] voted "no"; the Senator from Arizona [Mr. CAMERON] Voted "no"; in other words, three Republican members who were present voted "no." Those who voted "aye were the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH]; the Senator from Wyoming [Mr. KENDRICK]; the Senator, mis

LXV-107

Mr. LENROOT. I am sure the Senator desires to be fair. Will he not read the actual record following that vote? Mr. ADAMS. I shall be very glad to read any portion of the record.

Mr. LENROOT. I ask the Senator to read the statement made immediately following the vote.

Mr. ADAMS. The statement of the chairman of the committee?

Mr. LENROOT. Yes; and of other members of the committee.

Mr. ADAMS. I shall be very glad to read all of the pages covering that portion of the record.

Mr. LENROOT. I ask the Senator to read the record where the announcement was made that the motion prevailed.

Mr. ADAMS. To begin at that point would not give quite an accurate statement. The question was asked by the Senator from Montana [Mr. WALSH]:

And who were the members of that syndicate?
Mr. Sinclair then said:

If the

I have the names of the members of that syndicate here. committee insists upon my giving them to the committee, I will do so. I think it is a private matter, and do not think it is pertinent to this inquiry. I do not care to divulge the private business of other people, citizens of the United States, and corporations in which I am not interested.

Senator WALSH of Montana. It seems just as pertinent as the other. Mr. SINCLAIR. The other information was given by some one else and not by myself. Mr. Livermore gave that information. Senator WALSH of Montana. I submit the matter to the committee, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. SINCLAIR. I would further add, Senator WALSH, that if any member of the committee would like to have this information in executive session I should be very glad to give it to them, But I do not think it is a matter for the public record.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I think, Mr. Chairman, that anything divulged in this matter ought to be published. We have had one executive session, which I do not think improved the situation very much.

The CHAIRMAN. You may state, Senator WALSH, what bearing this has, according to your judgment.

Senator WALSH of Montana. I do not know if I care to indicato what I expect to get from the examination of an adverse witness. I scarcely expect to reveal the truth from a witness of that character when I tell him in advance what I expect to establish. However, I am not going to press it. If Mr. Sinclair and the committee are willing to leave it that way, I am.

Senator SMOOT. Senator WALSH, I really do not know what bearing it has upon the case. If I felt that the mere giving of these names and referring to these transactions had any bearing upon the case, of course I would want to have them. But I can not for the life of me see what bearing they could have upon the case in any way.

The CHAIRMAN. If I understand, Mr. Sinclair, you are willing to submit this list for the inspection of the committee in executive session, and then respond to any inquiries that shall be made afterwards regarding any of the individuals?

Mr. SINCLAIR. I do not think I understand your question, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. I understood you to say your only objection to answering Senator WALSH's inquiry was publicity with reference to private affairs which have nothing to do with this matter, and that you are willing to submit the list for inspection of the members of the committee in executive session.

Mr. SINCLAIR. Or I am willing to submit the list to any member of the committee.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; or to any member of the committee. Then, my other inquiry was in reference to any particular person whose name might be upon the list, if the committee should desire to interrogate you as to that member, you are willing to respond?

Senator ADAMS. Senator WALSH, let me ask a question to get my mind clear on this matter. Is the Mammoth Oil Co. the company that now holds this lease?

Senator WALSH of Montana. Yes.

Senator ADAMS. So that we are inquiring in reference to a company that Mr. Sinclair says is practically a partner of the Government?