Hide Article Text (OCR)
V* * *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 w'as 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 w'ouldlike for you to understand,” he said, “that Senator Fall, in my opinion, was not influenced in any wray by this loan because the negotiations were carried on by men who were not under his control.” Fall Signed NoteDoheny explained Fall had signed a note for the loan, but he now was unable to find it. He repeated that he had urged Fall to give all the facts about the loan, but that his old friend had tried to keep his (Doheny’s) name out of the investigation. He now' was reporting the loan on his ovm.On Jan. 25, 1924, Fall, using a cane and assisted by an escort, went before the committee.“There w?as no connection whatever between the $100,000 I received from Doheny and the lease he obtained for naval reserve lands in California,” Fall testified, hisvoice quivering. “I want themitted . . . 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, this time producing the note he had received from Fail — except that the signature had been torn 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 accident and then having his executors later find the note, and pressing Fall for payment.He was asked why his son made the $100,000 payment to Fall, going from New York to Washington.“I didn’t have sufficient cash at the time,” Doheny answered, “and I borrowed the money from my son . . . He drew the money from his bank by his own personalaccused 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 reserves were returned to the government. For Doheny, who had already drilled wells, erected buildings, obtained storage tanks, established refineries, docks, and terminals, the court’s decision meant a loss of $23 million.Earlier in 1925, however, h had begun to limit his holdings. He had sold to a syndicate 501,000 Class A shares1Religious Issue Hogan told the court his ell (Con. on Pg. 25, Col. 1)get much more thanCOMFORT*o.m.a;THE ONE
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
