Word: sinclairs
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1920-1929
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...Admiral. Last year, he was recommended for the permanent rank of Rear Admiral. The President did not nominate him to the Senate for the rank, however. The reason was that it was he who, acting for Secretary Denby, had O.K.'d the Teapot Dome and Elk Hills leases to Sinclair and Doheny (see OIL). It was presumed that the President withheld his, name awaiting the outcome of the oil investigations. Since then, the judge who decided the Doheny case decided that Admiral Robison was misguided, but entirely blameless. The judge who decided the Sinclair case did not even believe...
Less than three months after he had taken the case under advisement, Federal Judge T. Blake Kennedy of Cheyenne, Wyo., rendered a decision. The case was the suit of the U. S. to cancel the lease of Naval Oil reserve No. 3 (known as Teapot Dome) to Harry F. Sinclair's oil interests. The decision was that the lease should stand...
...time being, however, the Government has the advantage. The Government suit to recover Teapot Dome from Harry F. Sinclair's companies is now waiting decision. In the Teapot Dome case, the evidence of fraud was far less impressive-in fact, very fragmentary because so many witnesses were out of the country. But, if the Cheyenne judge follows the same reasoning as the Los Angeles judge, he will void the Teapot Dome lease-on the ground that President Harding had no authority to give Secretary Fall control of the Naval oil reserves...
After the signing of the recent Russo-Japanese Treaty (TIME, Feb. 2), the Bolshevik Government was obliged to cancel the oil concession granted to Harry F. Sinclair on the island of Saghalin. This they did legally through the Moscow District Court (TIME, Apr. 6). Mr. Sinclair subsequently announced his intention of appealing to the Bolshevik Supreme Court...
...Sinclair Co. argued that the District Court's ruling was contrary to Bolshevik law and to the terms of the concession agreement. The crux of the defense was that a longer time should have been granted to the Company to carry out its contract. The Supreme Court thought otherwise. Mr. Sinclair, as foreseen, lost his case...