The Bismarck Tribune Newspaper, June 13, 1934, Page 2

‘Spoils System’ Is Charged to Langer (was charged with inaugurating a (“Spoils system” unparalleled in the pany of North Dakota, in a political ‘address here Tuesday night by For- mer Governor George F. Shafer. The former chief executive, who ‘urged support of State Senator James didate for governor, said never before im state history has a state adminis-| tration been as politically minded as the present one headed by Gov. Wil-j Jiam Langer. Institutions which previous admin- istrations sought to remove from pol- itics have been plunged deeply into politics by the present administra- tion, he charged. The highway de- partment, Shafer said, was placed under the domination of an “experi- enced politician,” instead of an en- gineer, and “highway patrolmen, 800! strong,” were organized into a strong political unit, with attention to high- ways a secondary matter. DEATH TOLL GROWS Tegucigalpa—The death toll in Central America from last week's hurricane continued to grow as reports came from interior points of terrific damage. A storm in the Gulf of Mexico apparently blew - itself out. gp OA Judge Expected To Charge Jury Early Thursday counsel; “in fact, to the contrary, there is a spirit of friendliness.” “Presentation in this case is not one that gives the government attorneys gratification. This is not a lawsuit n which to engage the pyrotechnics of a Fourth of July celebration.” Lanier said if he were choosing a text for his talk to the jury it would be “the majesty of the law is su- ‘preme; her seat is the bosom of God.” Cites Purpose of Law He pointed to the purpose of the law, “to protect the weak, unemployed ‘and poverty stricken.” Outlining the charges “in a few) words,” Lanier told the jury that the government contends: The present state administration | P. Cain, Independent Republican can- j ing statement—‘We will produce wit- save one and that one ts the gover- nor of the state of North Dakota.’ “With that plan, the plan to raise funds by five per cent solicitations, what does Conspirator No. 1 do?” La- | nier interrogated. “Now, Conspirator No. 2—Oscar E. Erickson: No. 1 gets in touch with him and tells him the plan, what it is, and even tells how the money is going to be raised to pay off the $21,000 debt he says is his against the Non- partisan League. He says he didn’t tell this plan to any of the other conspirators. x Erickson Knew Purpose “No. 2 goes on record as the owner of ‘The Leader'—the only man who knows the purpose is to pay off a $21,000 old debt and the admission of the government sought to show.” Raising his voice to the jurors. Lanier declared, “It doesn’t make any difference if the profit was upon a past due debt—it was personal profit and when they admitted that, they admitted one of the facts the gov- ernment sought to establish.” Lanier lowered his voice to con- tinue, “As to No. 2, he was publisher of the paper, the figurehead owner, tion to be carried on behind ‘The Leader’. “Now,” he went on, “let's see about Conspirator No. 3—the next conspi- Trator is @ man you would naturally expect a conspiracy of this kind to fall upon, the head of the state high- way department. Vogel didn't ap- prove of the plan, according to the testimony. “But it doesn’t make any differ- ence,” Lanier declared, “whether he approved or not. About May 1, after a former meeting, what happened? “Let's go back a bit,” he said. “No. 4 is the business manager of ‘The Leader’, He said on the stand the name was probably a misnomer, that his duties were to look after the five per cent collections. He took a desk in the office of the governor and is there now, the business manager. The money goes to the governor's office and then to ‘The Leader’ account. Not only is he business manager but: he occupies the closest relation there! can be between one man and another, he is private secretary to the gover-| nor. He takes care of the money as it comes in, and the governor's most} significant private matters. | “Now let's connect up Nos. 3 and 4./ No. 4, Chaput, goes to the highway} department to see Vogel, No. 3, on nesses to show you the plan did not originate with any of the defendants that claim is one of the facts that! the cover-up owner for the transac- | time tell the story. “There were three checks given us by the defense which I am sure were never intended to come here. They were three checks about which I asked Kinzer. “I asked him if he ever received any money from ‘The Leader’ and he said no. Each time I asked him if he get suspicious and began to wallow. “I showed him a check dated Sep- tember, 1933, the first month after he had gone out of the relief organi- zation. (The check referred to was a veheck for $50 which Kinzer admitted receiving). From the collector of tri- ceiving funds he had collected and de- Posited in ‘The Leader’ account. M'Donald Did ‘Tough Stuff’ “The best way to tell which way the wind is blowing is to watch the straws as well as the big oak trees. This man, McDonald, conspirator number five—I refer to him as the gunman of the conspiracy—he was not in on those conferences—he was {Put out to do the tough stuff. He was jthe field man. “Counsel for the defense said they jwould show they did not know Mc- Donald; that it was just an accident |that he went into the offices of the {federal relief.” | Lanier referred to the testimony of {McDonald that he saw a sign labeled {state relief administration as he came {down a flight of stairs in the federal |building in May, 1933. | “He was coming down the stairs and Ho and behold he sees a big sign here: |‘The state emergency relief office.’ {He just mozied back casually, inno- leent as a new born babe and he soli- jcited those people.” “On first examination McDonald testified he saw the sign sticking out, jon the second examination he got sus- |picious and said” he didn’t know whether the sign stuck out or not. Well, there he was.” Lanier related a story regarding a fish that shrank. “—and on rebuttal,” Lanier con- tinued “that great big sign—how it had shrunk. It had shrunk because that three-foot sign was not there until November, 1933. The small sign that was there could not possibly have been seen. It couldn't be seen.” Lanier referred to the testimony of Mrs. Edith Scott that she had receiv- ed a salary reduction from $90 to $85 after she had refused to subscribe to “The Leader.” Only One ‘Docked’ “Edith Scott was the only federal That the defendants knowingly took | Collection of 5 per cent of year's sal-j relief employe to refuse to pay. The large amounts of money available for aries from employes. Vogel calls defendants claim she was docked in relief and ded to f | Hampie in and tells him he had a job|salary because she was absent three spiracy Rpyewhich they could vottain introducing Chaput to the employes.|or four days. The defense attempted ® portion of the money for their own Yersonal interest and political gain.” That the means used to obtain this money was through postdated checks from federal employes. “The charge is that there was a con- epiracy,” Lanier explained. “Con- ‘piracy is a combination of two or more persons to do a certain thing, tither by lawful or unlawful methods. “The defendants lawfully organized @ newspaper. The unlawful part comes in raising the funds for it.” “A conspiracy statute,” Lanier said, “enables the law to reach out behind the scenes to get the master mind di- recting the forces. Without a con- spiracy statute that cannot be done. It does not require to show a meeting of men, or agreement, written or oth- erwise, because the conditions of the conspiracy are such that the public never sees them. From an instance here and a meeting there, the sum total of these acts can be shown to be serving the interests of a certain number of persons and give us rea- son to look behind the scene to see the plan we know to be in action.” Mentions Acts of Congress Here Lanier pointed out the spe- cific acts of congress which the gov- ernment alleges were the object of the conspiracy's formation. By con- gressional approval, in June, 1932, on May 12, 1933, and again in June, 1933, three acts were passed to provide funds for the relief of widespread distress and unemployment in the several states, he said. The acts had their beginning under the Hoover ad- ministration and continued under the Democratic administration to provide means for the relief of “pov- erty and distress in each and every state in the nation.” Lanier pro- ceeded to read the captions of each of the three acts and then launched into the effects of the national legis- Jation upon North Dakota. “In January, 1933, under the act of 1932, into North Dakota came an officer of the United States who had taken an oath to sustain the laws of the nation. Then North Dakota could participate in the funds for the first time. The setup was made, the state committee was chosen and the move- ment started with the first applica- tion for funds in February.” He traced the progress of the relief administra- tion in securing monies for North Dakota and then emphasized to the} jury, “The government in this case is not complaining about the money taken, but is complaining about the amount of money intended to be tak- en. Under the federal relief plan the money which has come into the state 4s small in comparison with what is to come.” Sets National Precedent ; The case, he said, is not important ‘to the state alone but also as to the effect of the outcome as a national precedent. He continued with “upon the verdict of this jury hangs the effect not of state but of national im- portance” and determines “whether the government has the sacred right to aid suffering humanity.” Finished with preliminaries, Lanier began painting the government's pic- ture of the conspiracy. “Let's take up, first, Conspirator No. 1,” he said. “The government for two weeks, over the strenuous objec- tions of the defense counsel, put in its proof and evidence to establish control of ‘The Leader’ in the hands Df one of the defendants, to transfer “It doesn't make any difference,” Lanier reiterated, approved of operations under the sys- tem or not. On July 5 or 6, there is a meeting of conspirator No. 1, the governor; conspirator No. 2, Erick- son, and No, 3, Vogel, for the purpose of discussing the editorship of ‘The Leader’ which is to come out July 14, 1933. In that meeting Sam Clark suggests forming a corporation. ‘No,’ No. 3 says, ‘it won't do because we would have to give stock to all the 5 per cent contributors.’ s All Conspirators Met “That's not all—on July 10, 1933, in the office of the governor, there is a meeting of Erickson, Vogel, the gov- ernor and at least Chaput was in the réom, where—Clark and Dale have testified—Chaput was told to exer- cise the option. In the governor's of- fice four of the conspirators decided to take over ‘The Progressive’ and change the name to ‘The Leader.’ At the Patterson hotel that night, Was a meeting attended by these four and the deal was closed up.” Lanier then proceeded to describe the part played by conspirator Num- ber five—McDonald. “Under the evidence, according to the testimony of No. 4,” Lanier said, “He was employed to make solicitations and No. 4 showed him how it was fone: He goes to work about May 11, 1933. “No. 5 goes to the offices of the fed- eral emergency relief administration —he doesn't introduce himself—the employes were expecting him, the tes- timony shows. He wants to collect 5 per cent of their salaries in four pay- ments to be made quarterly. Some protest. They are drawing $80, $90 and $100 a month and they are peo- Ple who were employed because they were unemployed and needed this money.” Who Can Be Believed? Referring again to “conspirator No. 5"—Harold McDonald, “Leader” soli- citor, Lanier said, “ went away and came back and said the governor had said it was ‘O. K.’ and Kinzer said ‘If the governor said it was O. K., it’s O. K. with me.’ Who denies this state- ment except Kinzer and McDonald? Who is entitled to belief as between these girls who took the stand and Kinzer and McDonald? “So post-dated checks were taken covering 5 per cent of the salaries of those employes—but it gets back to Washington, where it is learned that it violates every pur) and it the federal reliei saministration, o to North Dakota—he sees the gover- nor, brings the matter to his atten- tion and he tells the governor: won't do—you’re “were goil it’ ~Woul do? ‘By God, it won't do.’ had said it was ‘O. K’ “Well, Kinzer—had to go. funds in the hands of one of the de- fendants, and after two weeks, when defense ly facts. As to Conspirator No. pcs t De- fense Attorney Sinkler in the open- 50 of the Latest Model Fords here. They had to take him out. recognized Stangler. But he did resign, then—remarkable to checks that came in “whether Vogel! “Ewing (field representative) comes ‘It jepordazing the whole federal relief set-up.’ What do you expect the governor to say except to do something about you expect him to say ‘we're going to go ahead with it?’ Of course not. No. And what did they “McDonald solicited the employes twice. But between the two dates, McDonald saw Stangler, and what did Stangler say?—Stangler told him those people were needy persons and do you remember what he remarked— But McDonald went back just the same and solicited the employes because the governor the executive secretary— It is not good sense that when a man loses his worth in a@ conspiracy, to keep him Power above after so long a to show she had been reduced August 25, 1933. Lanier produced the minutes of the meeting. “If you look closely,” he said point- ing to the minutes, “you can observe that the figure $85 is not originally there. It will show a second bunch of figures was put in. The testimony of Phrene Junge (a prosecution wit- ness) is to the effect that she took the minutes of the meeting and that no reduction was discussed in any- body's salary. She'd have known it, lif there was. She wrote up the min- utes and it was written in as $90. Subsequently, at the request of Kin- zer, she was told to change it and in- {sert $85.” | Vouchers for the pay of Mrs. Scott were referred to by Lanier. The voucher shows the $85 was in ink. Miss Junge claims it was originally writ- ten in as $90, but was changed at the request of Kinzer. “When the opposing counsel comes | to you with their arguments they will undertake to show that you will find no conspiracy here. They will say ‘maybe this one is wrong—maybe this j thing is wrong—but you can’t do any- jthing about that—you haven't got jus joined together?” Claim Common Purpose | “We claim there was common pur- Pose here and that that common pure Pose led into ‘The Leader’ account in the Bank of North Dakota.” yet to come. have got to quit. fair. States of America.” Jury. the issues of the case and pointed out to the jury that “never i. all his ar- guments has he made any reference, or any attempt to talk about what this case 1s about, he has spoken of conspirators one, two, three, four, and five, engaged, he said, in a conspiracy to establish ‘The Leader.’ The charge here is that the defendants entered into a conspiracy to obstruct the acts of congress—which have been mentioned here. “The question here is to determine whether these men entered into en agreement, agreed to go into the room upstairs (referring to the former quar- ters of the relief administration in the federal building) to solicit funcs from their salaries—whether they en- tered into an agreement to do that act. Not whether to enter into a de- cision to purchase ‘The Leader’— that is not this case. “I want to ask every member of this jury—you—and you—and you—and you—” Sinkler pointed a finger at each juror—“if you can say tiat any agree:nent was made to send McDon- ald into that office to solicit ary of those employes?” Says Evidence Inconclusive “Can you say there was any intent 0°. the part of the man who did the soliciting—not of state employes—the government has got to confine it to the state emergency relief office. “I ask you—I ask you—when you get in the jury room point out if you Please, a single bit of evidence in the record that will lead a reasonable man received money from ‘The Leader’) he replied no. Then he began to! bute he went into the position of re-. “The state and nation is watching you—two-thirds of the relie‘ money is “This is the last time ~ am going to have an opportunity to talk to you. I I've tried to be I ask you to remember your oath and to do your duty to the United As Lanier concluded his argument, E. R. Sinkler, one of the chief de- fense attorneys, arose to address the Sinkler accused Lanier of evading | “It is the same in this case,” he explained. “McDonald was hired for the purpose of soliciting state em- | Ployes. Is there any evidence to the jcontrary? If there is, point it out. | Where is it? Find it! Pc:nt it out! | Examine the record. It isn’t here— {it has to be here. It’s got to be here! “If you find no evidence of con- spiracy you've got to find the defend- ants not guilty. That’s the founda- tion of this case, “McDonald was hired to do a cer- tain piece of work. He listened to Chaput's sales talk. That's the ex- tent of the agreement. If you find any agreement—the sales talk if you please, contained the entire agree- ment—that is, if you say there is an agreement. We say there is no asree- ment—that the mind in which this plan originated sits in the mind of this great governor—"Sinkler turned and beckoned toward Langer—“He's jthe one who originated it—he’s the one who started it. Where Is The Evil? “I want to call your attention to the statement of Chaput.” Sinkler outlined the testimony of Chaput, in which he testified he told employes he thought they should cooperate with the present administration. “And why not?” asked Sinkler. “Who scriptions from private corporations? Or should those carry the load who a : being the beneficiaries of the ad- ministration? We're criticized here— we're told we're wrong—we're told it is an outrage, we're told we're wrong in taking a few dollars—the sales talk was particularly to state em- Ployes. . . . “Is there anything wrong-in that? What is criminal about that? Those who were energetic enough—who wanted to use their spare time, could get out and sell subscriptions and get every dollar back they had subscribed. Is there anything wrong in that? If there is, what is wrong? Where |; the evil in that kind of plan?” In a surprising move, both prosecu- tion and defense counsel rested their cases Tuesday afternoon, bringing to a halt the flow of testimony which has marked the last 22 days. “Job insurance was explained not being necessary to sign an agreement to hold his job. That testimony (re- ferring to Chaput) contains what we! did in this matter—not secretly. | “It has been inferred here that we! got together in the dead of night and planned—ridiculous! Bill Langer in his first speech after this plan had a salesman performs “a fraudulent act.” should bear the brunt? Private sub-| from the standpoint of the employe pployes for 5 per cent of annual sal- because everyone knew of it.” meet the claims of the government revolving around McDonald’s testi- mony regarding the relief sign. M’Donald Merely Confused “Now I want to ask you fellows a question,” continued Sinkler. ‘How many of you have seen signs up there —you've been up there @ week—huh? Think of it. How many of you can remember what was on those signs— huh? You can’t. The fact is that McDonald was confused . . . if you ‘please, confused trying to remember something that ago. “He was confused—we. admit. it.” ment spent 15 days trying to prove what we admitted in 10 minutes—we admit it all with the exception that we conspired to obstruct the laws of the federal government.” Sinkler explained that until he was called info the case as counsel he had no knowledge of the federal statutes surrounding the particular charges against the defendants. “I had no knowledge as an attor- ney—and yet they want little Mc- Donald to be held responsible; want you to believe that he knew the law— that he knew he had no right to go there. When Judge Christianson and all of them considered this purely as state relief, and looked upon it as something with which the federal government had no connection. 54 Witnesses Heard From 44 witnesses, District Attorney P. W. Lanier drew the picture of con- spiracy alleged in the indictment; brought forth stories of solicitation of federal relief employes for 5 per cent of their annual salaries; and brought out claims of employes in state de- partments that they were discharged from their positions after they had refused to contribute to support of “The Leader,” administration news- per. Peron 10 defense witnesses, includ- ing the defendants themselves, came admissions of solicitation of state em- aries, but denials of any intent to ob- Struct any federal law or to perform an illegal act. Governor Langer, prime witness for the state, admitted formation of the | paper was his idea; admitted he re-/ ceived $19,000, from “Leader” funds, but claimed it was due him in pay- been hatched, told them all about it. met of a debt owed by the Nonparti- cret. The manner the money was to be collected shows no criminal intent Sinkler swerved in his argument to, he saw over a year|éd. “As a matter of fact the govern- | thi the 5 per cent method of financing me ee a For the past week, benches in the tion of one of its great dramatic mo- mente—the submission of testimony, te ful defense objections halted : Government Rests Lanier turned to his aides in cor- ference, then wheeled and announced, “The government rests.” ‘There was a sudden rustling as de- fense attorneys drew together, heads touching, then George Thorpe, who told the court, “‘The defense rests.” A quick silence fell over the audi- ence, to be broken by the s la- conic words, “Well, that ends tes- timony.” In bright chatter, listeners moved from the courtroom, during the imme- diate recess, to cluster for the first has been leading his cause, stood and | pl ‘Hanley also Frank Vogel, state highway commis- sioner and one of the defendants, be explained, “Vogel used the term old adminis- tration in his testimony,” Hanley pointed out “That testimony meant the old Republican executive commit- tee which was in charge of the League campaign in 1932. It does not refer to the term administration as it has been commonly used.” Judge that “all testimony with reference to two per cent collections is eliminated from this case. There is no evidence asked that testimony of two per cent collections.” Hanley seated himself, to be suc- ceeded by Thorp who renewed pre- vious motions made at the close of the "3 case-in-chief, that dis- missals be granted or directed verdicts be given on grounds of failure of proof, Various overt acts alleged in the ednesday the 28 charged will be held as those upon which the government will make claim of conspiracy. The overt acts, Lanter said, will be limited to those alleging solicitations of federal em- loyes. Others, according to previous voiced agreements in court, will be for the. purpose of tending to show conspiracy existed, but will not be claimed ag evidence of an overt act. Judge Confers With Attorneys Attorneys on both sides retired to the judge's chambers at the conclu- sion of court to discuss questions of to the theory of the case, included in the judge's attorney. Thorp appeared slumped in his chair, while E. R. Sink- ler, another defense counsel, sat, perched on the edge of his chair as the day ended. L..M. French, employe of the fed- eral emergency relief offices here, was noon’s session began. He testified he painted two signs, one with the words “state emergency For the purposes of the record, to believe that these men agreed that McDonald should go up there and solicit funds from those employes.” . Sinkler drew an analogy between the case and a group of men organ- izing a company to sell stock, in which @ 1934, Loocarr & Biymns Tosacco Co, . i making it possible for us.to display the most complete line of passen- ger. and commercial cars: to the automobile relief committee, John E. Williams, secretary,” and another “civil works administration engimcering depart- before the jury with reference to the’ ld McDonald, Leader” and aes of had that he saw & wi licited the relief offices, is inaceur- ate. McDonald had testified that he be- Meved the office to be a state depart- mient, and not a federal office, being guided by a sign which read watate emergency relief offices.” Phrene Junge, federal relief employe was then called to the stand and was asked if she had a voucher showing payment to French for painting tre sign. She said she had the voucher. Sign Was Not There Objections were interposed by the defense, and Lanier told the ccurt he sought to show by Miss Jungo’s testimony that McDonald had ‘esti- fied to seeing a sign but that “there never was a sign there” at the time. Lanier said McDonald testified he saw the sign in May, while with Miss Junge’s and Frefich’s testimony the government attempts to show there was no sign at the time McDonald made the solicitations. Judge Andrew Miller said the testi- mony would serve to “clutter up the records,” and Lanier abandoned cues- tioning along that line. Miss Junge was then asked about a salary voucher for Mrs. Edith Scutt who had testified that when she faile’ to contribute five per cent of her sal- ary to “The Leader,” her pay was re- duced from $90 to $85 a month. Miss Junge testified she drew up minutes of the meetings of the relief committee; that she drew up a voucher for $90 for Mrs. Scott's pay, but that she was asked by R. A. Kinser, then secretary of the relief committee, to erase the $90 figure and make it $85. Miss Junge testified that during the committee's meetings she heard no dis- cussion regarding reduction of any person's salary. Then referring to testimony by Mrs. Scott that she was absent about half a day during the month that the re- duction in salary was made and testi- mony of defense witnesses that she was absent several days and “docked” $5, Lanier asked Miss Junge about the employe's absences. > Miss Junge testified Mrs. Scott was absent a “short period.” “Was it three or four days?” Lanier asked. “No, it was not that long.” On cross-examination, defense at- torney J. M. Hanley asked Miss Junge if her duty was to keep records of employe’s work, to which the witness replied “no.” ; SS oul Chesterfields «..we use mild, ripe Turkish baccos carefully selected for their smoking qualities; that is, for their good taste and mildness. the cigarette paper «..that we use for Chesterfield is tested again and again for three things purity, the right burning quality, no taste or odor. The right paper adds to Chestere field’s milder better taste. EE the cigarette that’s MILDER | the. cigarette that TASTES BETTER niversal Motor Company First and Broadway Phone 981 JOHN R. FLECK, Mgr. P ¢ SAS