Hide Article Text (OCR)
ms piracy, Bribery Charges» lt;1He submitted a prepared statement, which said . . the Joan had no relation to any of the subsequent (oil lease) transactions . .He tried to make his position clear in unmistakable terms.“This sum was loaned to Mr. Fa!! by me personally,’’ the statement continued. “It was my own money and did not belong in whole or in part to any oil company with which I am or have been connected ... I loaned him the money because he has been a warm personal friend . . . especially as I could easily spare the money.”In addition to offering his statement, Doheny had his lawyer reveal that he would open his contracts to a review by any board of experts the government wished to select. If the board decided that his agreement in regard to the leases was not the “best the government could have obtained,” he said cancel them, asking only that his company be reimbursed for expenses already incurred.Walsh questioned Doheny about the loan to Fall. The oilman observed during this discussion that a Joan of $100,000, under his circumstances, was “no more than $25 or $50 perhaps to the ordinary individual.” Walsh said while this might be true, it still was a large sum to Fall.Doheny admitted the amount indeed was helpful to Fall, but commented that this still in no way influenced the matter of the oil leases.“That is the point I wouldlike for you to understand,” he said, “that Senator Fall, in my opinion, was not influenced in any way by this loan because the negotiations were carried on by men who were not under his control.” Fall Signed NoteDoheny explained Fall hadpeople to know that there was no corruption between Ed Doheny and me in those leases. I don’t want him crucified. He didn’t do anything wrong . . .“One thing I regret in all this is that I said I did get money from McLean, and I am ready to apologize for having said it.”Doheny, apparently saddened by the humiliation of his old friend, commented: “If it will remove all such suspicion from A1 Fall I’ll go back to the directors of my company and ask them to re-convey the lands to the government.”Four days later, Navy Secretary Denby gave his views to the committee. He was under fierce criticism.“I am convinced of the legality of the leases,” Denby declared. “They are absolutely in the best interests of the United States.”Walsh later commented thatDenby should be “driven from office.” He added: “A great crime has been committed . . . The structure of our government rocks upon its foundation in consequence of the revelations made in connection with the leases.”Sen. Robert M. La Follette of Wisconsin, who had prompted the investigation, called Denby “intellectually and morally abnormal” and said he was “unfit to hold the office of Secretary of the Navy.” La Follette described the oil leases as “organized raids upon the public treasury.”Meanwhile, Doheny was back explaining the $100,000 loan, his time producing the note he had received from Fall — except that the signature had been tom off. He said his wife had been given the tom portion. The reason for this, he said, was that he feared being killed in an ac-r.irlpnf and th/an h QTrtnrr Viif*check but I later paid him back.”“Why did you tell us you got the cash when your son really got it?” he was asked.“Well,” replied Doheny, “it was the same thing.”4 IndictmentsThe investigation into Sinclair's lease of the Teapot Dome reserve in Wyoming was just as thorough as that conducted into Doheny’s affairs. On June 30, 1924, a grand jury of the District of Columbia handed down four•»•v:4 \'SINCLAIRFALLindictments against Fall, Do-heny and his son, and Sinclair. Doheny and Sinclair were charged with conspiracy to defraud the government, Fall was charged with taking a bribe, and the Dohenys were accused of making a “bribe” payment.In a U.S. District Court civil suit in Los Angeles aimed at canceling the Elk Hills lease of Doheny, Judge Paul J. McCormick didn’t reach a decision until May 28, 1925. He called the lease null and void, and said President Harding had no right to turn over the naval reserves to the Secretary of the Interior.Paradoxically, a similar suit against Sinclair’s lease of Teapot Dome property was termed valid by Judge T. Blake Kennedy on June 19, 1925. Immediately, Doheny’s lawyers planned an appeal. This plan fell through, however, when the Teapot Dome decision later was reversed by the Supreme Court.This meant that the oil re-i■of his Pan-American Co.— the majority of the voting stock— for $37,575,000. He retained his California properties. This deal, regarded as the equivalent of a Pan-American merger with Standard Oil of Indiana, was termed “the largest oil consolidation in the history of the industry.” Their combined assets were valued at close to $584 million, with securities on the open market placed at $787 million.QN NOV. 22, 1926 Doheny ^ancl Fall went on trial forconspiracy to defraud the government. Defending Doheny was Frank J. Hogan, 49, who reportedly was to get a fee of $1 million. Prosecuting attorneys were Owen J. Roberts•sand AUee Pomerene.Doheny, his wife, Carrie Estelle, and son, Ned, were besieged by photographers, who were barred from the District of Columbia courtroom. Doheny, looking pale and wearv, had his infected left arm in a sling.Religious IssueHogan told the court his cli-(Con. onpar O’25, Col. 1)*o.m.a:THE ONEiMAN
Newspaper Details
Fond Du Lac Commonwealth Reporter
Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin, US
Tue, Dec 14, 1965
Page 18
Full Page
Clipped by
Debbie R.
NA, 29 Jan 2022
Other Publications Near Fond Du Lac, Wisconsin
Fond Du Lac Commonwealth Reporter
Fond Du Lac Daily Commonwealth
Fond Du Lac Weekly Commonwealth
Fond Du Lac Whig
Fond Du Lac Western Freeman
