The Bismarck Tribune Newspaper, June 14, 1934, Page 7

CONTINUE from page one D Judge Tells Them: To Make Decision In Line With Oath + struct and impede the government’ or that is—the executive branch of the government, “That they entered into a conspir- acy that they would, by certain de- vices and means, go to the employes of the relief administration and per- sons who were connected with it and who were receiving aid from federal funds, and in advance of their having earned their salary, they would solicit from those persons five per cent of their yearly salary, requiring them to sign a pledge to that effect—some of those pledges are in evidence—and | port. as further evidence of their pledge they would exact from them post- dated checks to the amount of five per cent, to be paid, sometimes quar- terly, sometimes monthly. “—And the indictment says that solicitations were made in such a manner as to intimidate and force them into making subscriptions; that the method was represented to them as job insurance; that unless they subscribed and paid they would or might lose their jobs or have sal reduced. “—That it was also persuasion against their will, to sign the pledge and that such solicitations and col- _ lection of those monies and for those purposes was corrupt because it di- verted a part of funds the govern- ment of the United States had raised by public taxation to the end for the relief of the destitute, to these defendants and others for political preferment. “That was an expression of im- pairment of the service of the United States. That charge is in the in- dictment. Always bear that in mind; keep within it and do not go with- out.” Quotes From Penal Law The judge then began his discus- sion of the criminal laws involved. *. He quoted Section 37 of the penal code of the laws of 1910: “If two or more persons conspire either to com- mit an offense against the United States or to defraud the United States in any manner or for any purpose and one or more of such parties do any act to affect the object of the con- Spiracy, each. of the parties to such conspiracy shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than two years or both. “The latter part of that section 1s of no importance to you,” he said, “and you have no right to consider the pen- alty with reference to whether or not law places that burden and responsi- bility solely upon the court.” The indictment, he said, “did not come under the section, but under a ,‘s_ clause in the section, following ‘... . . \or to defraud the United States in ags2ny manner for any purpose.” If two or more persons should con- spire to defraud the government out . of a million on deposit in the federal reserve bank they would come within ‘this clause. This indictment does not “charge the defandants with defraud- ing the United States out of any “money. If the defendants received any money from the United States it is not charged in the indictment. ‘Assessment’ Not in Issue The court told the jurors they could not convict the defendants for a vio- ,Jation of state laws. He said it ap- é peared from the evidence that Langer saliad assessed state employes for pur- Poses to which Langer testified, “and valso to repay him $21,000 which the League owed him. So that is not in controversy,” added the judge. Evidence of the government tenas to show Langer originated the scheme, he said. On the question of fraud, he point- ed out that state employes for their money received the right to sell sub- scriptions. “They had already earned “their money—they were either out their money or else they had to work : for ‘The Leader’ to get it back—so that they earned their money twice.” Referring to the question as to . ‘whether there was any deceit or fraud in the solicitations, Judge Miller ex- plained that the testimony showed that during the solicitations no repre- sentations were made that the money would be used to pay Langer the money he claimed was owing him.” “It is the duty of the governor... to enforce the laws of the state. It - is the government's theory that the scheme itself was fraudulent, and in direct violation of the statutes of North Dakota.” The judge read por- tions of the state law making it a awe dividiials who have to do with the administration of laws. ‘The government must enforce its laws or there will be no government, and it can enforce its. laws only through the jury. “I do not want you to forget the de- fendants’ interest in this case, because their very liberty is at stake—but I do want you to-bring in a verdict on the evidence. “If they are innocent—say so! “If-they are guilty—say so!” Using post office robbery to illus- trate his point, the judge continued, “if under Section 37 of the statutes two or more persons conspire to rob. the post office, all the government has' to prove would be that they did con- spire and would rob the post office ‘and some one or more did something to carry out the object of the conspiracy —that is, one went down to see where the doors were and came back to re- “Now, the purpose of this statute is, like the purpose of all public statutes, the result of experience and necessity. The government must protect persons and property. There are some offen- ses against persons and property which cannot be committed by one Person, that is, one person cannot be guilty of a riot. But riots some times result in destruction of valued prop- erty and destruction of human life. Therefore, a conspiracy statute is necessary to the end that various persons who plan and carry out the Plans can be reached. + Can Reach Originator “Again, the purpose of this statute is important because of provisions that the originator of some unlawful criminal plan, often carried out by subordinates, may be reached. The originator himself rarely gets out in the open but, through secret instruc- tion to his subordinates and those subject to his will, the unlawful scheme is carried out.” Another purpose of the statute the judge described as follows: “The government is more interested in pre- venting crime than it is in punish- ing it—at least equally interested— and under the statute, two or more Persons who have conspired to com- mit an unlawful act may be discover- ed before the conspiracy has done any great amount of damage. By provid- ing that a conspiracy is unlawful. when some overt act is done, the government is often able to thwart i. almost at the beginning.” Before the crime charged in the indictment is clear, the judge explain- ed. some one of these conspirators must be shown to have done some act tending to advance the object of the conspiracy. “In this indictment,” he said, “It is alleged that the defendants did do various and diverse acts to carry out. the alleged conspiracy.” He briefly summarized the contents of overt acts and went onto say, “in this indict- ment the defendants pleaded not guilty and that plea puts in issue every material allegation in the in- dictment and before convicting them the government must prove beyond a reasonable doubt every material alle- gation.” May Try Erickson Later He pointed out that the defendants G. A. Hample, Joe A. Kinzer and Paul Yeater, named in the indictment had been acquitted on direction of the court and further stated that “though the defendant Oscar E. Erickson is not being tried before this jury, he may be tried before some other jury and in the indictment is named as @ conspirator though he is not on trial.” The material allegations contained in the indictment, the court defined as follows: “1. That at some time during the life of this alleged conspiracy—be- tween January, 1933, and March 4,| 1934—these defendants or some two! or more of them, did enter into a conspiracy as charged in the indict- ment. “2. That one or more overt: acts charged in the indictment was com- mitted in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy. i “3. That a conspiracy was entered into and an overt act committed, that some two or more of these defendants were parties to the conspiracy and that one or more of the defendants did commit one or more of the overt acts charged in the indictment.” The law, he explained, presumes that each defendant is innocent and was when they came before the jury. “That presumption remains,” he declared, “until evidence was—if it was—introduced convincing you be- yond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty. Then the presumption no Defines ‘Reasonable Doubt’ “I've told you,” he continued fur- ther, “that the defendants must be misdemeanor for any public official to receive or appropriate for his own use any money appropriated for clerk Ex Government Theory Immediately following his reading of the law, the judge brought to the jury's attention evidence “tending to show” the governor “contemplated violation of the state statute, by ob- taining from his own clerks a part of their salaries paid out of an approp- Tiation for that purpose and not for py political party or faction.” He expounded the government theory that the governor knew it was @ violation ‘of the law but that he told Oscar Erickson, state senator and Jater publisher of “The Leader,” of the plan. He said the governor ad- mitted telling Erickson. The judge summed this portion of his charge with the statement that if the jurors found the governor told Erickson, and Erickson performed any act in con- nection with the consummation of the alleged conspiracy, then there was an unlawful act. He directed the jurors to find the defendants not guilty if they failed to find the “conspiracy was broadened to include the federal employes.” The intent of the defendants was. discussed by the court. He explained that the government's theory was|ed that, after the governor had been w ‘Case Is Important’ “It’s an important case; import: \™ ant to the defendan‘s because it in- «volved the question of whether these men will lose their personal liberty substantial fine cw and be subjected to a —either or both— _ “It is perhaps the most important # ease ‘onthe part of the government that this jury will ever sit on. “It involves the question of whether the supreme laws of the United States be carried out. honestly or whether y will be interfered with—thwart- by @ corrupt administration of in- [FFseewesaeers + iF warned to halt collections, the collec- | promot tions from the employes continued. “The evidence in the case here and it is documentary, shows that the post dated checks were never returned, not proved beyond a reasonable doubt to be guilty if they are found guilty. A reasonable doubt is a doubt based on reason and which is reasonable in view of all the evidence, an honest, substantiated misgiving, generated by absence of doubt—n® a doubt un- warranted by the testimony or born of sympathy or mercy.” He told the jurors if they believed that any witness had testified falsely they had a right to throw out all that that witness had said—unless, added, “‘it' was corroborated by others’ testimony. You gentlemen are the sole judges of the credibility of each witness.” . Regarding witnesses’ credibility, he advised the jury to take into consid- eration their appearance, their intel- ligence, their demeanor on the stand and “whether or net they hag oer you as being candid and honest, whether they were relying on hear- |say and what interests they had at stake in the trial.” Here the judge entered into his summation of the government theory of the case—“the highlights of evi- dence upon which the government The government's theory,” he began, “4s that sometime in January, 1933, William Lange: elect. a te or that his testimony was t: severnment is‘ nct“intes “He went on, But the rested in thas.” theory of the he | to of | violation of the statutes of North Da- government that William Langer con- cluded that the way to collect the money was to inaugurate a system of levying five per cent on’ the yearly salaries of employes, of federal em- ployes and staté ‘employes. In ac- cordance with the charge in the in- dictment, that was the conspiracy, to corruptly administer a federal statute by assessing employes of the federal emergency relief administration. It is true, the evidence shows conclusively, that they didn’t get far with their solicitations in the federal emergency relief offices. Only about $180 was collected. But I say again it is of no importance in this case except its bearing on the fact of whether there was @ conspiracy to corruptly admin- ister the law to the end that they might profit. It. does appear in the testimony that there is some evidence that soon after the soliciting was Giscovered by the United States gov- ernment it was stopped and they sent their agent, Ewing, to protest. His testimony was that the.fact that they were doing that endangered the whole system of federal relief funds coming into North Dakota. He advised the governor that it could not be done and it then came to the notice of Judge Christianson and other mem- bers of the committee and that the conspiracy was thwarted after pro- ceeding only a short way. So it’s un- important—except as it may bear on the facts—whether $179 or $4 was col- lected.” Theory Comprises Coercion The court explained that the gov- ernment’s theowy was that those solicited were coerced, that the em- Ployes were intimidated into paying the five-per-cent assessment. “The government's evidence in sub- stantiating this,” he said, “is that one of-the defendants came to the em- Ployes and said he wanted five per cent assessments for ‘The Leader’—! that it was a matter of job insurance —and in some cases intimated that the assessment was important in de- termining whether or not they kept their jobs and that their salaries would be increased if they did and} decreased if they didn’t. That is the government’s evidence for what it is worth.” i, He went on with his legal interpre- tation of the case by pointing out that, in return for the five per cent assess- ment, the employes received a con- tract in writing in which they were advised that they could sell a number of subscriptions at $1 each to get their money back. “This circumstance warrants your close attention,” Judge Miller em- phasized. “These persons already had | earned their salaries without having | to engage in selling subscriptions to ‘The Leader.’ It was not within the intent of the United States govern-| ment in granting relief and giving employment to the unemployed that in addition they give five per cent of} their salaries to any other purposc. Neither was it contemplated by the, government that its appropriation | should go for the purpose of paying someone's debt. Neither was it in- tended for running a private news- Paper. They had already earned their | salary from the government. The question is was it intimidation or) fraud? The government's evidence tends to prove the executive secretary said to them ‘I subscribed to this my- self.’ You are to consider whether employes were coerced or not by hav- ing the boss say ‘I’ve subscribed to this—you better think it over.’ The employes knew the boss could fire them.” He added to this. “I'm quot- ing to you now what the government evidence is. We'll come. later to the defense evidence.” Describes Inter-Relationship Judge Miller proceeded with his in- structions by describing the interrela- tionship of solicitations among state and federal employes as part of the same general scheme. He said the identical nature of the plan in its working among both stat? and federal employes brought up two points for consideration: Whether there was at.any time @ conspiracy on the part-of two or more of the de- fendants as charged; and what was the intent of the defendants in soli- citing members ‘of the federal relief offices. ; : He cautioned fhe jury that “how- ever immoral you may think the scheme, you cannot cenvict any of the defendants for violations of the laws of North Dakota. If you convict them if must be on the federal sta- tutes, but you are entitled to take in- to consideration the purpose—what they did in reference to state offices because it was at the same time, in the same manner and so closely in- terrelated that you may infer from the acts what the intent was. “Now, it does appear from the gov- ernment's evidence that the scheme of Governor Langer was that he would assess all state employes for the purpose he testified to. That is not in the controversy. But if the contracts were fraudulent, as the gov- ernment claims, that’s an incident to | | | | 1 i which you will give serious considera- | take. tion. He pointed out that, by the gover- hor’s own admission, there was a plan get five per cent from employes. “They could get it back if they could sell the newspaper but they had al- ready earned the money from North Dakota, so if they sold the-newspaper they earned it twice. Was there any deceit? ‘ “There is testimony here that, while the defendants made represen- tations they.did want the money for ‘The Leader,’ they did not tell them that they also wanted to be repaid $21,000 the Nonpartisan League owed the governor. It is.for you to de- termine. He continued on this point with “a further situation” that has a bear- ing on intent. “It is the duty of the governor and all officers to obey the law and it is also their duty to enforce the law of the state. The government theory is that the scheme ‘itself, assuming that it related only to the laws of the state, was fraudulent and in direct kota. Therefore, the scheme was un- are not guilty. |Gefinitely make up your minds as to ful act.” Pointing out the government's theory again as to the relation be- tween state and federal offenses, he said, “It was the government's con- tention that about May 11, 1933, the governor and his co-defendants de- Cided to broaden their field and hired McDonald to solicit the federal em- ployes. In the meantime, there is testimony to indicate that McDonald said he was working for the governor, and that he came back later and said he had seen the governor and the governor said it was ‘O. K.’ I said the testimony tends to show that. If you find that to be—that McDonald consulted the governor and that the governor advised him he could—then, gentlemen, that conspiracy included federal employes and you will so find, for the law is that it is not necessary for each and every conspirator to know all the details, but if two or more get together on plans—if they conform to the general plan—then it includes all of them.” Defense claims that all money in “The Leader” account was not fed- eral money were dismissed by the judge as “a quibble.” Dissecting the part of each defend- ant in the trial, Judge Miller said, “It is not necessary to show that they received any financial gain. Recites Vogel’s Position “With reference to Vogel—if Vogel knew Langer knew it was unlawful and fraudulent on his part, and he | cooperated in any way, he comes into the conspiracy. “Kinzer is much the same. Evi- dence shows he was the executive sec- retary of the relief administration, that McDonald came down there and he permitted him to collect from the federal employes and that he assist- ed by collecting money and subscrib- ing himself. “McDonald came into it, if he came in at all, by the fact that he was em- ployed by the governor or Chaput, or both, as you find—and by going out soliciting. “The theory of the defense is they They introduced evi- dence to show they had no intent or plan to evade federal relief laws. McDonald testifed he did not know they were federal employes in the building. Vogel testified he had no intent to violate the federal statutes, “Intent,” the judge explained, “is something the government must infer or not infer, from circumstances. “In the law a person is presumed to intend the natural consequences of his voluntary act and his testimony that he did not so intend is not sufficient to offset the presumption of the law. But that is a question for you to de- termine. Must Find Conspiracy “Before you can convict any de- fendant in this case you must first find a conspiracy to impede a federal statute was at some time, during the life of the conspiracy, entered into and understood by and between two or morevof the defendants; that some one or more of the defendants did some- thing or more of the overt acts and that some two or more of the defend- ents were guilty of conspiracy. “You may find any two or more guilty. You may find any two or more innocent, or you may find all guilty, or all innocent.” | Judge Miller halted his charge, as jhe neared the end, to tell defense counsel they might take exceptions to his charge “if they wished.” Thorp and Hanley had stepped from the courtroom, and were hastily recalled while the court waited. Hanley asked that the court read the charge of circumstantial evidence. | “I-didn't give it, because evidence in |this case seemed direct and positive,” {he said. “However, if you wish it I'll |give it.” He gave the charge and the case | was taken under the jury's considera- tion at 12:53 p. m. Courtroom Jammed Wednesday ‘ A jammed courtroom, so crowded special benches became necessary to accommodate those clamoring for admission, heard opposing counsel at- tack and defend, attack and defend. They heard appeals to the jury to forget political alignment and render @ verdict of “not guilty”; they heard opposite demands for a judgment of “guilty.” Charges of corruption and of hon- est intent were laid before the jury in impassioned summations which worked to a climax with the statement of presiding Judge Andrew Miller, to the jury, “I will tell you what it’s all about—wait until you hear the court define what it’s about before you | { the merits of this case.” In conversational tones, so low that spectators, court attaches and counsel on both sides sat immobile to avoid losing a word, Defense Attorney Geofge Thorp made a dramatic ap- peal for the freedom of Langer and his associates. He analyzed the testimony of each witness and drew a, picture of Langer as a man who had only the best in- terests of North Daxota at heart, a man whose only fault was human mis- “Do not convict us of a state law, because when we do that we want to be tried in our own state,” Thorp ap- pealed. “We bare our bosoms to you —you cannot say that any of us has not told the truth. Bill Langer is not afraid to tell the facts. He was not afraid to tell them here. Whether you believe all the advocates or not is beside the question.” These—“Curious Times” “These are curious times—people become excited, and the honest are condemned when they should be complimented.” In tones so low, his arguments many times were audible only to the jury, Thorp said, “We shall be worried, na- .|the went to Langer—it st] ore shown to have been solicited who THE BISMARCK TRIBUNE, THURSDAY JUNE 14, 1934 clared the moratorium, in which no’ bills were to be paid, no debts col- lected——” — Please—we take exception to that.” J. M. Hanley and |E. R. Sinkler, both defense counsel, cried in unison. “——exception noted,” replied Judge Miller, then cast his eyes on Lash- kowitz, “there is no evidence in this case coneerning the operation of the moratorium—and there will be no Politics in this case,” he declared. Langer Collected Debts Lashkowitz deferred in apology, and resumed his argument: “I only want- ed to point out that during the mor- atorium, Langer collected his own debts,” he explained to the jury. Lashkowitz referred to the explana- tion by Langer on the witness stand that he recived funds of “The Leader”, collected by solicitation, because it was “owed him.” Accusations that the prosecution seeks to prejudice the jury by state- ments made in opening arguments were hurled by Defense Attorney E R. Sinkler as he resumed final arguments Wednesday afternoon. He pointed to District Attorney P. W Lanier’s previous statement to the Jury that “the eyes of a nation are on this trial.” “I don’t know,” Sinkler declared, “why it was necessary tor the district attorney to bring that into this case unless it is an attempt to prejudice your mind. “The eyes of a nation may be upon you but that doesn't wake any dif- ference because you are not going to te swayed from your duty. I am sat- isfied that such things are injected enly for the purpose of prejudicing you.” Sinkler then took up where he left. off Wednesday morning with a discus- sion as to the sign on the doors of the former relief administration of- fices. He said, “I now want to dis- cuss another point—in August, 1933, Ewing came to North Dakota from Washington, It seems a letter was written criticising the secretary and also that solicitation of funds were jhbeing made. He told the governor and the governor said ‘I'll take care of that'—that in substance was what the governor said and what happened. “Immediately when the governor received the information, he called upon Mr. Stangler and had a talk with him. He told Mr. Stangler and Lee Nichols subsequently, in sub- stance ‘this has got to be stopped— ciean it up.’ Does that mean that the governor was engaged ir a conspiracy t> take a portion of the salaries of the employes? Points to Nichols’ Testimony “Lee Nichols said ‘the governor told us to clean it up. You are handling this matter. It's up to you’ and the evidence shows that the governor Placed all the responsibility for ad- ministering of funds in the hands of the committee.” Here Sinkler read a portion of a let- ter in which the governor had stated that the entire responsibility of relief administration was to be left in the hands of the committee. Sinkler said the letter had been dictated by Ewing and signed by the governor and added, “the evidence supports the fact that the governor washed his hands of administering these funds.” “There is no conspiracy here,” he shouted. “It doesn’t exist. You can't spell anything out of it They ‘the government) are asking you to act upon circumstantial evidence.” He said the court “will tell you that the evidence is circumstantial and re- member that the defendants can be found guilty on such evidence only if it is inconsistent with any other rational or reasonable conclusion.” Sinkler lauded the testimony of the defense witness, Mrs. Minnie Craig, speaker of the North Dakota House of Representatives. “I think it is peculiar,” he said, “that such a wonderful woman as Mrs. Craig, who was in the office where McDonald came, made nc pro- test. “I think it is significant that that uoble woman knew ali about what McDonald did and yet made no re- monstrance. There is strong indica- tion that she thought nothing wrong was being done. If she thought any- thing wrong was being done, she would immediately have said ‘stop.’ If she didn't know it was against the law opposed, he wasn’t asking Vogel. It was done. If he was a human polly- wog there would not be this continual publicity about Bill Langer. He would be stepped on. Because of his activity and his character, because of his spirit of bigness and greatness he likewise attracts monumental criticism.” Concluding his discourse on the Langer character, Thorp next referred tu the governor’s part in securing federal relief funds for the state. Signed Application Himself “Now, they say in the indictment,” he pointed out, “that he (Langer) signed the applications. But he him- self signed. That was not a conspir- acy.” With a few additional remarks on | how the governor had surrendered one ot the most wonderful practices in the state “to take public office,” Thorp ‘directed his arguments to facts from of the United States. “I hope you do your full duty and I want to say to you that the in- terests of those men are as great, if not greater, under the evidence than those of the federal government. Reasonable Doubt “They have the right not to expect you to place the damnable stain upon them unless you are satisfied beyond @ reasonable doubt. Can you say to yourselves that you are satisfied to « moral certainty that these defendants entered into a conspiracy to defraud the United States? “You should not allow your political affiliations to sway you from your duty. If you do your duty your con- science will be satisfied. | “You should not crush down the crown of thorns on the brows of these innocents to satisfy vau'ting ambition; you should not make them drink bit- oe UR bivaid them on the cross| MID lara b> te discharge of teacclament C"qhorp was next defense counsel to! Giles Personius, an employe of the address the jury. In quiet tones, con-|Staie, highway department. | “Vogel facing to tne vigorous, oud spoken Sa4 he quchareed im forthe good words of Sinkler, he began his address. | Pf . liseet base lavely ie “alvetved Vis | AR act Soa anti iiors attack against Lanier. jam “It was not well thought out when Can't cooperate. He argues too much this distinguished American citizen | 7; 16 i disrupting you try to be (pointing to Lanier) said to you that |{2i" but finally you say, ‘Let's let the the eyes of the nation and state Were anak would you GaniK or Vowel it upon you; the America. citizen if no : L ot one else in administering his jury uty | Be bees UA ad a iH eaten x aaron 0 OS ta New ae de a ahaa os fi, | eerie time has not vet come, my | good highway man—to be efficient in fellow citisens, when any force of ay oi eee HEROS Tor argument, vanity or fear can be or) 2 2 should be allowed for a moment to) er engineer for the state highway de- ce the mind of the Geta poet het Bet came under Thorp’s juror. | Vocal scalpel. “We're here to determine the facts) “Look at Hepner—the government in this case; whether or not you are/| brought in a letter; the first one men- to be convinced beyond a reasonable| tioned cooperation. The government doubt that these gentlemen conspired | inferred that he wanted Hepner to co- and agreed to traitorously defraud the|operate with McDonald, and yet in change for subscriptions for “The Leac ~,” and agreed-to sell these subs © scriptions. “The money was taken under false pretenses,” Lashkowitz told: the jury with emphasis. . “There is nothing here,” he said pointing to the pledge slip, “that says the money. will go to payment of past Political debts and for political wars.” why weren't these people toll the money was going to other purposes?” The governor, Lashkowits charged, “had in mind a wcheme for payment to himself of $19,000 and to solicit em- ployes for it, employes in the regula tory department, stenographers in his own office. “I say he knew that he was violate ing the law of the state of North Da- kota. I know that is not here for your consideration, but they started out unlawfully and used corrupt, criminal means of procuring finances. “The governor also tells one of his reasons for wanting a newspaper was because of the dastardly economic conditions; for explaining his mora- torium and because the so-called op- Position press would not expound it in a favorable light. There is some merit in that.” He then began to tell the jury that “while the governor declared a mora- torium, in which no bills were to be paid, no debts collected—” but was headed off by defense objections, Langer Demanded Payment The court warned him “there will be no poitics in this case,” and Lashko- witz resumed his argument by telling the jury “I only wanted to point out that during the moratorium, Langer demanded he be paid.” Testimony by the governor that funds were taken out of “The Leader” account because he feared garnish- ment was attacked by Lashkowitz, who declared withdrawals continue “until June 2—did they fear garnish- government of the United States. Whether anybody is looking at you or not. “The picture of this conspiracy as alleged in this indictment. and as they in an atmesphere of distress. Governor Seen as Master Mind “That governor who sits at the helm of this state and who has been desig- nated as the master mind by the pros- ecution is entitled to credibility as a citizen and a defendant—addition- ally so because of the honor which the people of the state have stamped upon him. “He comes before vou with a history. and there must abide in the minds of every man that this continual and re- iterated recomendation all his life en- titles him to at least credibility. “I say to you that this conspiracy was born in integrity and care and tress. iis time loaded with problems of state and himself in the hospital, beset by cares of state—that is the time the and he is a master mind in more ways than one—conceived this conspiracy “It is true.” said Thorp, “that in his enthusiasm for the Nonpartisan League he perhaps made a_ mistake concerning the propriety of soliciting |State employes, and perhaps not. | jis true that Bill Langer made up his |mind that he could appropriately ask state employes to assist in mainten- ance of a newspaper that would advo- cate and tell the principles for which he stood but all of which are opposed by the sturdy press of the State of North Dakota and we show you this man conceived that idea and show you what it was and further show you jthat it was not the conception the jgovernment would have you believe but entirely a matter of his own mind. “Right cr Wrong,” Not Important “Whether you think it wrong,” he charged the jurors, “has no place here. It is a mutter of which We are perfectly-capable of determin- ing in our own way when that time comes. Those overt acts which have to do with the soliciting of federal funds (in the highway department) tion of this jury. defendants for soliciting in the high- way department—bear that in mind. If you are satisfid that there was no how would McDonald know? If} intent to violate the law, then this Christianson didn’t know it was against the law and Stangler didn't, Prosecution must fail. “Gentlemen,” he continued, “what is your conception of a traitorous con- how could McDonald be expected to know? “Doesn't it indicate to your minds spirator against the law of this coun- try? This master mind, as they would ithat she at least thought nothing havee you believe. who concocted this idea; this conspirator, the man wrong was being done? “She didn’t against whom they say whew he made get the story second hand. She knew, she saw and could tell if pressure was being brought to bear upon those People. these applications and knew that there were post-dated checks to col- lect, this man who collected the money from these funds, what did he do?” “Everyone of those witnesses had to Thorp began a lengthy analysis of admit no pressure was used. One or the characters of each of the members two admitted that what was in their of the state relief committee appointed minds was not what McDonald said by Governor Langer. cr what Kinzer said, but what they had read in the newspapers of the state; the newspapers broadcasting “Who did he appoint?” he began. “Did he appoint a bunch of crooks? over the state in blaring headlines about those in power. Blames Newspapers “That was the real cause why they were led to believe that it was job Did he appoint men and women he could manipulate?” t Praises Langer Appointees In answering his question, he de- seek to illustrate it by facts, was born! right or} have been taken from the considera-/| “You cannot convict any of these! {October, another letter was sent by Vogel to Hepner, critisizing him. Dave Hamilton tells you Hepher was a good jengineer but he couldn't get along.” | Hamilton was a defense witness. “Then Vogel calls in Hepner and | tells him ‘I can't use you at Minot but I'm going to try to put you some {Where else.’ That's the evidence. Poor Old Frank Vogel “Then we have Flagg (John Flagg, (highway department employe for | whom the prosecution claims a salary raise was declared to take care of a j Pay his bills; his creditors were after jhim; they were complaining to poor jold Frank Vogel that one of his boys jcouldn’t pay his bills. “Vogel called him in and told him jof a $3.50 bill and said, I'll raise your salary to take care of the bills. And that's used to condemn Frank Vogel ‘When this governor took office—| because he lifted Flagg to $75 and) ‘again to $100 a month.” | who the prosecution asserts received government would have you believe,4 salary cut because she refused to; e tiat the governor—this master mind— pay a contribution for “The Leader”) cleaned up. ‘was next to be discussed by Thorp. “She is undoubtedly a nice little lady. They (the prosecution) showed _she had a cut. Showed she worked in | the federal relief administration. They | said Kinzer raised and lowered checks ‘to show conspiracy in which he had to show he knew anything about the |Newspaper until McDonald came to | him. “McDonald said she asked him not |to have her work overtime. She said |she didn’t want to work overtime. She could not take dictation, and sh wasn’t as valuable as the other gir Thorp related a humorous story | Laniey had used to illustrate a point /in his argument. in which a smaller |fish had been replaced for a larger fish. “Whe knows—who is there to say Lanier didn’t take both fish?” McDonald Biundered Into Office “Mrs. Craig says she knew of no pressure, she says she did not see Mc- Donald do anything when he blun. dered into the place—because he did blunder into the relief office. “So they must be mistaken when they say that Kinzer saw the gover- jnor, because he didn't see the gover- |mor—he saw Stangler. They'd have you believe that by reason of what Kinzer did the employes were afraid not to contribute. “It wasn't Kinzer—it was the news- Papers—the opposition press—Bill's enemies—who claimed they would lose their jobs if they did not contribute.” On completion of Thorp's plea to the jury, Harry Lashkowitz. assistant to the district attorney, opened the last argument to be made before the judge's charge. He termed the case “one of the most important pieces of litigation ever tried in the United States.” “Mindful, am I,” he said, “that State officials of your state and my state have corruptly administered acts of your country and my country. I know that there have been indul- gences in pathos and jests—to me this is one of the most serious mat- ters I have had the privilege of taking part in.” Not a Crime of $179.50 scribed Judge A. M. Christianson as Then pointing to the defense claims a man “who has worked on the su- that the allegations against the de- insurance in fact, and rot what they preme court bench nigh unto a quar- fendants involve solicitation of $179.50 were told. The evidence shows the te: of a century and against whom from federal workers, Lashkowitz strong hand of Washington—Ewing there has never been a breath of raised his voice to tell the jury “This came out here and demanded the resignation of Kinzer and came to the suspicion”; R. M. Stangler, head of) is not a crime that involves $179.50, cenelusion that ‘if I don’t do this, I too, will be shuffled into the dis- card.” “I don’t care about that—I'm willing the Bank of North Dakota “in whom you place the trust of handling hun- dreds of thousands “of dollars”; Mrs. Minnie Craig, speaker of the state House of Representatives, a woman +0 concede the truth of all their stor- “who would understand women”; les—to concede it because the evi- dence does not show any conspiracy Lee Nichols, Morton county auditor, “who has been returned to the office but a crime that goes to the very roots of this government.” He referred to a statement made previously to the jury by District At- torney P. W. Lanier, that the “eyes of the nation are upon you,” a state- ment which drew fire from defense to violate the statutes which have been paraded before you “I want to go further—Lanier made atement that all of this money totals exactly he holds year after year by his coun- ty”; Arthur E. Thompson, superin- tendent of public instruction, ap- Pointed because he represented educa- tional. interests, though he is opposed attorneys. “I agree with my illustrious chief,” said Lashkowitz, “when he says that.” The offense against Langer and his associates, Lashkowitz continued, “is $179.50, and out of five millions he @ continuous one; it starts January got $179.50. Out of approximately 50,000 persons employed in relief, six ty the governor politically. “These are the folks he told Ewing 1, but keeps growing all the time un- til the last amount reaches one de- he wanted to take the responsibility lawful.” He quoted the North Dakota stat- , It Erickson Knew “If you find that Erickson knew the governor violated the. laws of the State and Erickson did any act to connection witl..the .consummation it was under the. state statuie an unlawful conspiracy And an unlaw- courtroom in accusation or defense as each counsel brought his arguments to the jury. Governor Langer, “——and while the governor de: | conspiracy to defraud the i E ges if i = | E E i g & E ny Z a 8 if Hil Ee tal ati + Fy i E ; z a2 5 at Lange: the fendants ent! 3 34 he could not take himself and who, ese i i 7 é : Eee i ge : ; 2 et .——— fendant in this lawsuit.” “This is not a matter that involves only $179.50. The other day I eount- ed up over ten million dollars that came into North Dakota, one amount to the highway department,” kowitz continued. “So, ‘tis no small matter and many | ‘Leader’ contribution.) Flagg couldn't | The testimony of Mrs. Edith Scott, | ment until then.” “We learn, after several days testi- money, that $19,000 goes into Langer’s account. All of that they questioned until proof was conclusive and then we find out $19,000 is not all they were to collect, for the governor claims $8,000 is still due.” Lashkowitz continued his attack on the defense case. He pointed out that “the evidence establishes that the governor received personal notice of the political machinations of the ex- ecutive secretary (R. A. Kinzer).” “Yes,” he conceded, “the governor said ‘clean it up'—that standing alone is beautiful. But the solicitations continued. In the minutes of the re- lief committee for August 25, they | passed a resolution which stated, ‘no employes or representatives of the federal emergency relief administra- tion and no person on the payroll who received money out of the federal emergency relief funds shall engage in any political activities or contribute to any political organization.’ Crdered Cleaned Up, But— “The governor said ‘I want this It was a laudable ex- pression. But what does he do? Chaput is in his office and he doesn’t see Chaput. Chaput, the solicitor. Chaput the collector, the business manager who doesn’t know to whom the paper belongs!” Continuing on this point, he waved i i “But, gentlemen,” he continued. “it indulged although there was nothing|before the jurymen’s eyes, the re- | ceipts received by R. A. Kinzer from McDonald for collections from federal \relief employes the former had made ‘for “The Leader.” : “Now,” he broke off, “there is Mr. | Vogel, that genial gentleman who | didn’t want to join in the consipiracy | but was merely ‘going to collaborate.’” He next showed the jurors “The eader” ledger containing the names of “employes solicited for 5 per cent jof their salaries throughout the breadth of the state.” After some of |the names he pointed out words “let j out.” “What do you suppose,” he asked P { jthe jurors, “those words ‘let out’ |mean?” He cautioned the jurors to take note hat the defense witnesses, Mrs. Craig jand Mr. Nichols, “said nothing” ma- | terial to the issue of the case. He flayed the defense methods of attacking the credibility of govern- ment witnesses. “Stella Brandby,” he said, “testified that Kinzer told her he would give her a raise if she subscribed for ‘The Leader’.” | Mrs. Edith Scott, he pointed out, |swore under oath that she had told “The Leader” solicitors that she couldn't pledge “on account of sup- Porting her mother and boy.” ~Dolve, Lashkowitz said, had told the jury “he saw the governor frequently with McDonald,” contrary to the de- fense testimony. He referred to the dismissal of Per- sonius and Hepner from the highway department as the result of Vogel’s sharing in the scheme of the conspir- ators, Recalls How Cl Fidgeted He asked the jurors to “recall” how the defendant Chaput had “fidgeted in his chair” in answer to the govern- ment’s questions and told them to re- fer to the government exhibits to test the veracity of some of Chaput’s statements. Before closing, he said “a word about the applications. We do not say that they did not represent the amount of money needed at the time but we do say. that after Ewing had been here and after Nichols and Stangler’s conversations with the gov- ernor, they continued to collect from federal employes; that after that the governor did sign these applications knowing full well that ® portion of them would be diverted to other chan- nels. state but I do not want kind of blemish remain name of the state because are involved in corruption. z to the emergency relief and the other you more millions will come into the state for the situation in which Ameri- cans find ourselves is not over with.” “Own Word Convict” He then referred to testimony given by Governor Langer—“out of the lips of the man in whom we reposed great confidence—that man’s own words convict him before the bar of justice.” Lashkowitz called op aet to Cha- was about the administration.” He exhibited a pledge signed by state employe in which they agreed t pay five per cent of their salary in ex- 10 trod» the SFUth | customers. Days