The Bismarck Tribune Newspaper, June 9, 1934, Page 3

d Langer and his co-defendants f ge gigkss ul ae i ttal REF q § Ss g alle Z LTE i / i : i i i] i ge jn F a Prd F ue He fil ! : i i E E i! i i iE : Hi i People’s Forum : e Tribune wel- someg isters gn gublects of inter- ore. If you wi @ pseudonym, first and your was cae it. We will re- ch uests. We reserve lelete su: ma: ne ich parts of oceseary to FOR NON-PAYING FANS Editor, Tribune: me enter # note of protest to our commizes in charge of the new Base- Fe TEUAGUSVTAEAAAC440001 4000 LULL ECU E EAA ALLEL cit un Turning The SEARCHLIGHT Behind the Scenes EEEEEEOEETOTITOTTATINIEEIRE RT THERE MAY BE SOME SHOTS LEFT FEDERAL LOCKER Although the prosecution has “rested” in the trial of Governor | | f i FL i F ? I E g IN THE the government's guns may Building and Valley City, Saturday, June 9. {i fellows driven away? No doubt they |Post-dated checks?” were enjoying the only game they had witnessed T also have been lal like they had better get a few more CWA workers would have driven away the Possible, they too, were intruding. team? Yes, but political candidates. Present | #lone $1.00. have been more Highway Leader Advised Langer Against Scheme petent and immaterial, and a self- declarat interest of any person or all per- sons, the states Leader’ g 5 RB ia £35 et rail i i Q é t 3 3 | fe tt i BE | | I | et 52 FE , H i if Ff i i i 3 8 iF E i : i ai ft : z | E § r i (i 3 Fy i 5 l | i Ht & s. ih ll Hi g g : iE F & é £ i | a i F : H i F ited ety for years. Judging from/|the their appearance, they were unable to] The record book, listing names of pay any admission price whatever, let|/all employes who gave post-dated to see a game, intruding upon their| proper” and the record rights? 1 think not, and I would sug-|was barred from admission from the a gest that if our sportsmen are so un-| court. Lanier objected to the introduction| ‘state mill and elevator?’” on the grounds the copy was incom-| Lanier. ition. “Let me see it,” ordered Judge} to a He scanned the copy, then|ourselves—and we intended to get a < regular bookkeeper.’ “The government does not claim} “who had access to that book?” of ‘The Leader’,/ “Practically everyone on the staff.” THE BISMARCK TRIBUNE, SATURDAY, JUNE 9, 1934 and disbursement of funds rested with Oscar E. Erickson, state senator and publisher of “The Leader.” Revelation by Chaput that he pur- chased a $500 draft at the Bank of North Dakota with “Leader” funds, and deposited it in Governor Lang- er’s account. Testimony that no books or records showing “Leader” profit and loss bal- ances exist. Chaput continued his testimony under cross-examination as court reconvened after the noon recess. Lanier, in the morning, had asked Asked if he had brought them with him, Chaput replied, “I called Sen- ator Erickson and he said he had ‘some | most of them. I sent Buttedah! (edi- of our records were impounded by the federal government.” Erickson wished “All except for November, 1933.” Court Issues Instruction Before proceeding with the exam- ination of the checks, the court told “jthe defense counsel to have them rc Chaput replied and produced checks, was introduced by Lanier over boring under the | Objections of the defense. impression that all the work done on} Chaput produced the record book at of Lanier, who told the it was his purpose, in intro- book, to “show that all the conspiracy had know!l- ‘surprise as myself. Was it any money| gave post-dated checks.” out of their pockets? Were those} Defense attorneys objected to the Poor fellows, willing to get drenched|language used by sora Seeapmoeanty ly “Now the heading ‘state mill under and build] and elevator’ there are a list of state their fence to the sky. Perhaps they| relief employes,” Lanier pointed out. aero-|“Do you know in whose handwriting Planes from above the field if it were| that list is made?” Names Printed In Chaput pointed out the list was Chaput said there were not. “Why are the names of those em- loyes printed?” “I believe this entry was made by Johansen,” replied Chaput. “Why were the names of the re- Nef employes put under the seer “Well—this was only a temporary record—” Chaput replied. “In order keep track we started the book “He did not,” replied Chaput. “Well—under whose orders was the governor refused access to the book?” Lanier. Objection Is Sustained Defense attorneys objected and were sustained. “Yes, sir.” “Explain, then, why the governor did not have access to the record, rag post-dated checks,” ordered “I don’t know,” answered Chapui. As the jurors ended their study of “The Leader” ledger, Deputy Clerk Frank Talcott told the court that Lanier was engaged in a long dis- tance telephone conversation and would be absent for a few minutes. The court ordered recess called. i & F i ae as tor of “The Leader”) after them.” Buttedahl arrived and Thorp inter- jected, “We have some of the checks but before we turn them over we want to know what is going to be done with them.” “No,” the court said, “the govern- ment will either introduce them into evidence or return them.” “We'll do that,” Lanier said. The q of the witness continued, with “you stated that Erickson told you he didn’t have all of them.” “Yes, sir.” Leader Records Lacking “Did you bring the records of ‘The Leader’ with you?” “I did the best I could,” Chaput replied, and said that he was having statements of the various operating expenses of the newspaper prepared. “When you get them will you be in & position to give an explanation of ‘Leader’ expenditures accurately?” “No, I don’t believe so. I can give you a fairly good account of running expenses but insofar as the total ex- Penditures I’m not in a position to testify as to all the details.” “Do you understand that I am ask- ing for a of ‘The Leader’ as a newspaper?” “I haven't taken care of all items. Erickson had control of the check- book and a lot of incidental expenses that I couldn’t account for.” The set of books at “The Leader” offices, he said, were “not very accur- te.” “Where is the book and who kept ite” Chaput replied, “It's kept at the office.” He said Erickson sometimes had it and sometimc; others at “The Leader” office including himself had charge of it. “I'd like to have you produce those books of ‘The Leader,” Lanier said. “I don't believe w: have the books. Those I referred to are books show- ing the pledges of state employes, the amounts and the payments.” No Account of Salaries “Is there any book recording the salary expenditures?” “No, there isn't,” Chaput replied. “I asked you to find out how much of the money in ‘The Leader’ account: went to pay for the campaign of the sales tax to which you referred. Have you that record?” “No and I don’t know that I can Produce it. Senator Erickson might be able to.” Chaput said Erickson had charge of disbursement of all funds from “The Leader” account which went to pay the debts of the Nonpartisan or- ganization. “I had nothing to do with that,” he said. In some instances, he said, the money was paid dir <tly to the per- sons for their services on behalf of the organization, while in other cases the money was paid to a person who acted as distributing agent. Money remaining after expenses of the sales tax campaign had been paid, next came under tk~ scrutiny of La- nier. He asked what disposition was made of such a balance. “I understood it was speut for the organization. I don’t know definite- ly as to each item, how it was spent,” aske Chaput replied. He then recalled one instance of a donation of $500 t~ che ‘Woman's Nonpartisan League Aux- Chaput said he had a desk in the governor's office for a short time, and also had an office in the Patterson Hotel until the start of publication of “The Leader.” “Did you have access to the bank account of ‘The Leader’ at the Bank of North Dakota?” Lanier asked. “The only access I had was that deposit sheet, and deposit the’ cash it t, pos! et in the Bank of North Dakota.” Never Had Cancelled Checks Erickson. “Don’t you know what he did?” Lanier. “No,” said Chaput. “You know the governor's hand Ye.” ‘ * “In the course of your cont tion «ith him did he complain that decided thit if the employes in the drafting room of the highway depart- ment wanted advertising instead of subscriptions it would be all right be- cause “it would probably be advertis- ing we couldn't get otherwise.” “You never did see anybody?” “Never did, no.” We you solicit G. L. Personius?” 3." “Did the argument of subscriptions or advertising come up?” “Not with Personius, I don't be- eve.” “Did you have an argument about whether the pledg- would be paid Quarterly or monthly?” “Yes.” “Did you say you would see Vogel about it? Did you s-- him?” “No, I saw Hample.” (G. A. Hample, one of the defendants against whom charges were dismissed.) Lanier leaned forward in his chair to press the next question. He asked “and didn’t you report back and say that Vogel said it would increase the bookkeeping and couldn't be done?” “No, I didn’t say that.” “You didn’t state, as you heard Per- sonius testify, that you had taken it up with Vogel?” “I seem to recollect that I did say that I woud take it up with Vogel, but I didn't.” Did Make ‘Concessions’ “Now,” Lanier went on, “you say that all contributions were voluntary. If they were voluntary why didn't oe them to pay as they want- . “T'll tell you the way it was. There were & great number of the employes who didn’t have checking accounts and I felt that if we had t» cover the whole state once a month it would be Lapossible.” Pe deacon Lanier, “as a matter o° fact you were prescribing the methods and the way these con- tribu’:ons had to tk: paid?” “Not necessarily. We contacted the employes for five per cent of their year's salary and we made certain concessions—.” “You say you made concessions,” Lanier int ipted. “Yes,” said Chaput. Lanier said, “Now this sales talk— did you use it on everyone you solicit- bard to tell the jury exactly what you said.” “Yes.” ace you object to giving it over “No. I've given it .. thousand times. I guess I can give it again.” Chaput went into detail on the points he used to get the five per cent Pledges from the state }» con- cluding, “I guess that is substantially what I said except for the last part— ” I was interrupted this i “Yes,” Lanier remarked, “I guess that was substantially correct.” “In each instance you gave that talk?” Lanier asked. “Yes.” “How long did that talk take you— about 15 minutes?” “About 10 minutes, I'd say.” “Didn't you ever time yourself?” “Oh, I just started out with no sales talk and built one up as I went along.” Knows Nothing of Deposits Deposit by deposit, Lanier took Chaput through the various transfers of funds from “The Leader” account to the bank account of Langer. Of each Chaput denied having speci- fic knowledge, until a $500 deposit was reached in the Langer account. Chaput said he purchased a d:-ft for $500 and deposited it to the ac- count of Governor Langer in the Dikota National Bank and Trust pany. He could not remember what bank the draft was drawn on, Chaput said, although he purchased it at the Bank of North Dakota. Pisce did you buy a draft?” Lanier “Well—it seems to me we had a lot of cash that day so I just bought a draft,” Chaput replied. “Do I understand you had a lot of cash, the day you made the deposit— $500 in cash, with which you bought the draft?” Lanier cross-examined. “Well—I had both cash and checks —there were some checks in the de- Posits—if I remember correetly there was more than $500, and I told them at the bank to deposit some in ‘The Leader’ account, then I told them to| give me a draft for $500 to deposit 13, the Langer account.” “Now—are you sure it was a draft— couldn’t it have been a cashier's check?” Lanier asked. “It might have been a cashier's check—I don’t exactly remember,” “Did anyone tell you to get a draft?” “No.” At the opening of the afternoon ses- sion, various checks nier, who had asked that checks cov- S:|ering the operations of “The Leader” be given him. Checks For '3 Only Lanier scanned the checks, then “Your honor,” he explained, “I have here a number of checks—but amounts from $50 to $2,000 were dis- cussed by Chaput. In answer to La- nier’s cross-questioning, he replied that “Erickson must have made out the checks.” He was closely questioned by La- nier concerning one deposit for $1,900 made in the Langer account July 10, 1933. Chaput said he knew nothing about it. “Well, during that period of time, by Erickson in blank was in your desk, wasn’t it?” “9g, “Did you draw that check?” “I did not—it must have been Erickson,” said Chaput. Chaput said he knew funds were being transferred from “The Leader” account to the Langer account, but mie of it because “it was a us * Regarding another $500 deposit, in the Langer account, from “The Lead- er” account, Chaput said he “would- n’t be in @ position to know who drew the check. I first knew of the check when the government revenue men began their investigation.” The check ‘was dated July 21, 1933. Later in his testimony regarding the check, Chaput said he saw the check among others he was depositing, in the governor's account. “Well, then if you saw the check, you knew about it before?” Lanier Chaput explained that the governor occasionally gave him a “bunch of checks to deposit” and that: he thought nothing particularly about ise Leader” check being among m. During the past 15 months, Chaput said, he had worked a total of “about six months” in the governor's office. Earlier in his testimony, Chaput was cross-examined regarding his solicitation of various employes who! have testified for the government. Told ‘Leave Flagg Alone’ Chaput denied telling J. L. Clifford that he had seen the governor regard- ing Clifford's request to selling ad- vertising instead of subscriptions; he denied similar statements testified to by Herman Leonhard. He admitted talking to Vogel regarding John Flagg’s failure to subscribe, and said ing | Vogel told him to “leave Flagg alone; he only gets $65 or $70 a month; he’s crippled and is having trouble with his bills; leave him alone.” “Did he tell you that he raised Flagg's salary to take care of the solicitation?” Lanier questioned. “No—Flagg told me that,” said Chaput. “As to all these withdrawals, who instructed you to make them?” La- nier asked. “Senator Erickson.” “And when you did, did you ask for any explanation of them?” “No, I didn’t.” “Who asked you to deposit them to ‘The Leader’ account?” “Senator Erickson.” “Has ‘The Leader’ made its income tax return for 1933?” “No,” Chaput replied. He said he had written to H. H. Perry, collector of internal revenue, and secured an extension of time. “As I understand it,” Chaput con- tinued, “our calendar year expired May 30 and we have two and one- insisted and the matter was left that way. The hgh Utter with “what is the pertinency o! is Binkler stated, “There was an infer- ence made, I believe, that Governor Langer wanted Kinzer in the job in- stead of Brant.” Sinkler Langer have anything to do with that?” “Not while I secretary, except to sign.” hia Engage In Legal Scuffle A legal scuffle ensued when Sinkler asked Brant to explain how the fed- eral monies which came to the state happened to be called “Governor Wil- Mam Langer Emergency Relief Fund.” Wallace started to explain that the Minnesota precedent had been fol- lowed in placing the governor’s name on the fund when Lanier objected, “That's conceded. There's no question involved.” The court sustained the objection. The attorneys sparred again as Sinkler asked, “Did Governor Langer have anything to do with the raising or lowering of the salaries of the fed- ination. Chaput, who had been under the fire of questions since a few minutes after court convened in the morning, further cross-examin- ing by Lanier. The prosecuting attorney showed him a series of government exhibits of deposit slips to “The Leader” ac- count. The slips were dated respect- ively July 6, August 23, December 22, and October 8. In regard to each of them, Lanier asked Chaput if the slips were made out in his handwriting. Chaput identified his handwriting on most of them. “When you filed these items on the slips, did you know where the eme ployes (as named on tho slips) worke “AS & rule.” Didn’t Know Forde Lanier asked him to state where certain state employes worked. Chaput told the state departments in which several of them worked until the name of Miss Brandby of the federal emer- gency relief administration was mentioned. He said he didn't know where she had worked until he heard her testimony in court. “Why is it you suddenly don’t know who she was?” and then he named O. T. Forde, also employed at the federal relief office. Chaput said he didn’t know Forde until he saw him in the courtroom, “At the time of making out these deposit slips, didn’t you make it a Point to find out who they were?” “Oh, I don’t know, we had employes contributing from all over the state who I didn’t know.” “Going back to the conference in the governor's office July 10, 1933, who did you say was present there?” “I heard the testimony,” Chaput commented. “Well, who was there?” Chaput named Langer, Vogel, Had- half months after that in which to/er, Conrad, Dale, Erickson. “I believe file the returns.” Leader Returns Not Filed that’s all,” he finished. “At the second conference that “So you haven't filed any returns?”|you drew up the bill of sale?” Lanier confirmed. “No.” “Did you give a check for pay- “When you come to make up your|ment?” income tax return, what books have you available for use in making the return?” Thorp objected and Lanier, address- ing the court, said, “My purpose is to find if the records are available. If they are, they can be used now.” The court permitted the question to stand. a “Have you any records to show now the profits or losses of ‘The Leader’?” Lanier went on. “I haven't myself.” “Who has?” “I don't know. In regard to the income tax return, Senator Erickson told me to get a certified public ac- countant to make it up because of the Pressure that was being brought upon ws.” “Do you remember a meeting July 10 in the governor's office attended by Vogel, Sam Clark, E. J. Conrad and . lfred Dale?” “I remember it particularly.” pte you in on that conference?” io.” “You weren't in the governor's of- fice?” “I was in the reception room.” “Did the governor ask you to ex- page the option for the purchase of Hanley arose to interrupt the tes- timony at this point. He requested the withdrawal of the witness to per- mit questioning of George E. Wallace, Minneapolis, former state tax com- missioner, who had to return to his * Wallace Is Called they are not checks I asked for. These} Lanier agreed, reminding Chaput Cover the period from March 31, 1934|that he desired a complete set of to May 26, 1934. I desire the checks |‘‘The Leader” accounts, stubs of check during the 1933 period.” as er's” “I'd like to explain my duties as business manager,” was i fee z E 8 ¥ 5 a ie HE i F 3 books and cancelled checks among others. Chaput said he would try to pro- duce them but “none of our accounts show profits and losses.” Wallace was sworn in. He testified that he had been called, as a tax ex- pert, to North Dakota in 1932 for the Oscar | purpose of drafting “12 to 15” init- iated measures. Lanier objected to Wallace's testi- ‘The court Second and Broadway Plymouth - Dodge - | “No.” ‘AS business manager you knew that @ check of $500 had been given?” “Yes.” “You knew that the $500 check was on ‘The Leader’ account?” “I don’t know that it was paid that way,” Chaput replied. Lanier said “that’s all” until “we can get further records” of “The Leader” accounts. Thorp continued the questioning of Chaput. He showed him government exhibit 153, Chaput’s federal income tax return. He pointed out that the return stated “governor's office and Jaw practice, $1,340.” “Explain that,” Thorp demanded. Ohaput said he had made out his state income tax report at the office of the state tax collector. He said Mr. Hart! of that office helped him in making out the returns “and after he had made exemptions he said ‘you won't have to pay an income tax.’” $1,340 Was Total—Yes’ “Did that state the full amount of your income?” “Yes.” “Did you receive more than $20 from the governor's office?” “No, sir.” “Mr, Lanier asked you why you didnt say ‘The Leader’?” “Well, it was the first time I had ever made out an income tax return.” “You know it was the correct amount?” “Yes.” Thorp directed the questioning back to Chaput’s morning testimony re- garding the operating expense of “The Leader.” “You gave the expenses of ‘The Leader’ at $750. During the noon hour you said you had made certain omissions. What were they?” Chaput listed an additional employe who is paid $150 a month, commis- sions on advertising, more postage, organization expense, office rent and office furniture, a cartoonist’s fee of #4, costs of cuts, telephone and tele- graph tolls and concluded, “I believe $1,000 a week would be a closer fige mony as irrelevant to any question) ure “What is your estimate of ‘The Leader’ i” “Forty-five thousand, approximate-