Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, I think it is possible that I might want to ask Mr. Pierce a few questions toward the end of tomorrow's session, but I do not now. He lives in Jacksonville. The CHAIRMAN. You will be available and subject to call, Mr. Pierce, tomorrow? Mr. PIERCE. What time, Mr. Sourwine? Mr. SOURWINE. It would be toward the early part of the afternoon, tomorrow. Would that interfere with your plans? Mr. PIERCE. I was going to the country, 20 miles out, down to my farm. Of course, I will defer to your wishes about it. How long do you think I will be tied up? I have some men that I want to pay off. The CHAIRMAN. We might be able to get to you this afternoon. Mr. PIERCE. I am pretty busy. I am trying to clear up the year's work. That's all right. Mr. SOURWINE. I don't think we would want Mr. Pierce over half an hour, at most. Any time tomorrow afternoon. into any witness. Mr. PIERCE. That is all right. The CHAIRMAN. Your farm is 20 miles away? Mr. PIERCE. Twenty miles away. The CHAIRMAN. And you want to pay your help? Mr. PIERCE. Yes. We could break The CHAIRMAN. I suggest that you be here at 2 o'clock tomorrow. We will hear you at that time. Mr. PIERCE. Two o'clock tomorrow. Yes, sir. (The witness Pierce was excused.) The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed. FURTHER TESTIMONY OF E. J. MANSFIELD Mr. SOURWINE. You testified at our previous hearings, did you not? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. For the benefit of the record, the witness has not been identified. He is Mr. Mansfield, I presume? Mr. SOURWINE. You are Mr. E. J. Mansfield? Mr. MANSFIELD. That's right. Mr. SOURWINE. A former post-office inspector? Mr. SOURWINE. And you were the inspector who did the major part of the work on the case which has been identified as-what is that number? Mr. MANSFIELD. 35763-F. Mr. SOURWINE. You mean 37536-F? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Some of these questions, Mr. Mansfield, will refer back to your original testimony. Do you recall whether the first contact between you and Mr. Walter Fuller was made by you or him? Mr. MANSFIELD. By him. Mr. SOURWINE. He came to see you, did he? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Did he write you prior to the visit? Mr. MANSFIELD. I am not certain about what the correspondence was. I think possibly I wrote him. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, then, the first contact was from you and not from him? Mr. MANSFIELD. After learning that he, and I believe some other person, had made a visit to the office of the Chief Inspector concerning this case. At any rate that was after that, that he came to my office. Mr. SOURWINE. How did you learn that he and another person had made this visit? Mr. MANSFIELD. By reference to the information in the office of the Chief Inspector. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall what the name of the other person was? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't, now. Mr. SOURWINE. You then wrote Mr. Fuller. Do you recall what you wrote him? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't recall, definitely, that I did write him. I think it's possible that I did, and indicated to him that I had learned of his representations to the Chief Inspector's office and would be glad to confer with him. Mr. SOURWINE. You do not recall whether he wrote you, seeking such a conference? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't think he did, prior to that visit. Mr. SOURWINE. Your memory of the events is, it was originally initiated by you as a result of what came down from Washington? Mr. MANSFIELD. I think that's possible but I don't recall definitely. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Mansfield, at that time, what was your understanding as to Mr. Fuller's capacity? Mr. MANSFIELD. He was conducting an investigation on behalf of the Governor and possibly, I thought also, the legislature, or the investigating committee of the legislature, into the operation, refunding operations of R. E. Crummer & Co. Mr. SOURWINE. You had reason to believe he would be helpful to you? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Because of the advice which had come to you from Washington? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you know that he was very much interested in this Crummer matter? Mr. MANSFIELD. No. Except that at the time of the interview, I learned that he had made an investigation in several different places. Mr. SOURWINE. Now, Mr. Mansfield, you heard the testimony this morning of Mr. Ackerman? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you remember the letter from Mr. Main, about the time that he testified? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. I believe Mr. Ackerman said that his memory was that that letter concerned Lee County. Mr. MANSFIELD. That's right. Mr. SOURWINE. Did it mention any other counties? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't believe it did. Mr. SOURWINE. Now at the time you got the case, the indication was that the three inspectors who had had it before you had been unable to do anything with it at the time? Mr. MANSFIELD. Practically. Mr. SOURWINE. So you were practically starting from scratch when you got it? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall whether there was anything in the jacket or the file at the time you got it, in the nature of a complaint, besides this complaint from Mr. Main? Mr. MANSFIELD. My recollection is there were two or three more other complaints. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall who they were from? Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall what they were about? Mr. MANSFIELD. No; except that they were complaints about the general practices of R. E. Crummer & Co., and this bond refunding, as it affected stockholders. Mr. SOURWINE. Did they not refer to specific counties? Mr. MANSFIELD. I am not sure, now, whether they did or not. I think possibly they did refer to other refunding operations. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you remember testifying when you were at this hearing before, that the only county that was mentioned in the file when it came to you, was Lee County, and that your knowledge of the alleged transactions in other counties which merited investigation, came from Mr. Fuller when you spoke to him? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't remember testifying so, but I would say now that I believe up to that time I had made no inquiry into any other refunding operations than Lee County. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, it is your recollection now that the information on these other counties came from Mr. Fuller? Mr. MANSFIELD. In part. Mr. SOURWINE. He told you all of the counties that he was investigating, did he not? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't know that he did. He told me of some investigations he had made and some of the things that he had discovered. Mr. SOURWINE. If you received information concerning operations of the Crummer Co. in some counties other than the county of Lee, and these counties you heard of from Mr. Fuller, can you tell us what counties and from whom? Mr. MANSFIELD. How did you Mr. SOURWINE. I will rephrase the question. If you got information other than from the original complaint or from Mr. Fuller about counties not mentioned by Mr. Fuller who gave you the information and what counties were involved? Mr. MANSFIELD. I couldn't say, now. I have no recollection. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever get any information about the Crummer activities in particular counties, from Mr. Tom Adams? Mr. MANSFIELD. From Mr. Adams I obtained some information concerning the refunding operations of the city of Stuart, Fla. Mr. SOURWINE. Any other information from him? Mr. MANSFIELD. I think I got some other information from him, which he had as a result of some other suits that he was interested in, as an attorney. I believe, as attorney for the railroads, who were opposing some of the conditions surrounding certain bonds, but I don't remember now, the counties or cities that were involved. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you get any information of any sort from Mr. Clyde Pierce, about counties that ought to be investigated? Mr. MANSFIELD. I didn't get any information from anybody in the way of a suggestion as to what counties should be investigated, except after I became associated with the SEC. We exchanged information which we had collected. Mr. SOURWINE. You mean you got no suggestions of that nature from Mr. Fuller at any time? Mr. MANSFIELD. I got information from him. He did not attempt to suggest to me what I should do. Mr. SOURWINE. You did investigate a number of the counties concerning which Mr. Fuller gave you information, did you not? Mr. MANSFIELD. I wouldn't say a number. I would say there were some. Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Fuller volunteer information concerning the counties which you had not previously asked him about? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, I think I asked him about-for all the information he was able to furnish, concerning all of his investigations which he had made. Mr. SOURWINE. The answer to my question is "Yes"? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't think your question was exactly in point with my answer. Mr. SOURWINE. All right, sir. Did Mr. Adams ever furnish you any information concerning matters that you had not specifically asked him about? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't recall that he did. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever receive any information from Mr. Patterson? Giles Patterson? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes; I solicited information from Mr. Patterson. Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Patterson ever furnish you any information, or assistance, that you had not directly solicited? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't believe so. I think he was very particular not to go beyond my request in all cases. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever receive any information from Mr. Pierce, that you had not specifically solicited? Mr. MANSFIELD. I think not. I don't recall any. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Mansfield, you spoke of having obtained information from Mr. Adams with respect to Stuart. Do you know about when it was that you obtained that information? Mr. MANSFIELD. I think that should have been some time in the year 1944, probably. Mr. SOURWINE. What was the situation in the Stuart case at that time? Mr. MANSFIELD. I was making an investigation of that refunding. Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, but what was the situation in regard to the refunding? Was it under way? Mr. MANSFIELD. Oh, no; it had been long completed. Mr. SOURWINE. Were there any matters pending in court? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. There were, I believe, two suits pending, which had been initiated on behalf of certain Stuart citizens, in opposition to that refunding. Mr. SOURWINE. Were those bankruptcy matters? Under the municipal bankruptcy act? Mr. MANSFIELD. It was in opposition to the municipal bankruptcy proceeding which had previously validated the bonds. Mr. SOURWINE. My question was, There was a suit pending in opposition? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, it was in the nature of an appeal. The action had been taken some time previous. Mr. SOURWINE. The refunding had all been completed then, had it not? Mr. MANSFIELD. The refunding bonds had been issued and exchanged. Mr. SOURWINE. You mean the appeal did not hold up the proceedings? Mr. MANSFIELD. That was the way I understood it. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever attempt to secure action—— Mr. MANSFIELD. Excuse me a minute. My recollection about that is there were pending matters in court in the Stuart case and it was that the court had denied and dismissed the objection of the Stuart citizens and that what was pending was a motion for an appeal, I believe, to the Circuit Court of Appeals at New Orleans. Mr. SOURWINE. Was Mr. Adams involved in that case? Mr. MANSFIELD. I believe he was. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know in what capacity? Mr. MANSFIELD. I think as an associate counsel. Mr. SOURWINE. Was Mr. Crumer or the Crummer Co. a party to that action? Mr. MANSFIELD. Not on the record, I don't believe. Mr. SOURWINE. What do you mean by that answer? Mr. MANSFIELD. I mean that the city officials would have been, I think, the persons against whom this objection Mr. SOURWINE. Well, did it carry any implication that the Crummer Co. was involved, but was not in the record? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't understand exactly what you mean. Mr. SOURWINE. I asked you if Mr. Crummer or the Crummer Co. was involved in that action and you said "not on the record." Do you have, or did you have any thought in your mind that Mr. Crummer or Crummer & Co. were involved, although not on the record? Mr. MANSFIELD. I did not mean to imply anything beyond what my words mean. Mr. SOURWINE. In other words you intended the answer simply to be "No"? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, I don't remember the question asked. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you, Mr. Mansfield, ever attempt to secure action, by the United States attorney in Cincinnati, leading to an indictment of the Crummer Co., in the Stuart case? Mr. MANSFIELD. I presented a report to the United States attorney's office in Cincinnati, on that case. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you present that report in writing, sir? |