Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't know what you mean by "criminal reference report." Mr. SOURWINE. I take it, then, that any material that you filed, was filed with the United States attorney either at Topeka or at Cincinnati or at Toledo, or anywhere else; that you never filed, in connection with the filing of anything with the Department of Justice, a written report to the Attorney General in Washington? Mr. MANSFIELD. No. The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask a question or two, just to clear up something in my mind. Mr. SOURWINE. At any time, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You gentlemen are thoroughly familiar with this and I am not. I judge from what Mr. Mansfield said, after making an investigation you determine in your own mind whether or not there had been a violation of the mail-fraud statute. Is that correct? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Where did you go, first, after you made that determination? Mr. MANSFIELD. The first United States attorney. The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, I am not certain now. Possibly I discussed it verbally with the United States attorney at Tampa. I am not sure. The CHAIRMAN. Well, why with him? Mr. MANSFIELD. Because the operations were in this State. The CHAIRMAN. Where was Crummer located? Mr. MANSFIELD. At Orlando, Fla. They had an office at Orlando and home office at Wichita. The CHAIRMAN. Is that in the district where Tampa is located? The CHAIRMAN. So you discussed it, probably, there, first, with the United States attorney for that district? Mr. MANSFIELD. That's probable. The CHAIRMAN. And he told you he was not interested in a prosecution because it had been before the courts? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. And the courts had approved it and he did not think an indictment was authorized, or a prosecution, or something to that effect? Mr. MANSFIELD. Something to that effect; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Then what was your next step? Mr. MANSFIELD. I believe the next step was to present the matter at this personal conference to the United States attorney at Topeka, Kans. The CHAIRMAN. Why did you go to Topeka? Mr. MANSFIELD. Because that was also one of the places where Crummer had an office. The CHAIRMAN. He had an office in Topeka? Mr. MANSFIELD. In Topeka and Chicago, and in various other cities. No; the office was in Wichita, Kans., instead of Topeka, but in the same jurisdiction. And a lot of the correspondence had emanated from this Wichita office. The CHAIRMAN. Well, now, what was the result of your conference at Topeka ? Mr. MANSFIELD. The assistant United States attorney indicated that they would be glad to further consider the matter and if the evidence submitted would justify it, to present it to a grand jury. The CHAIRMAN. Well, was it further considered? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Was it presented to the grand jury? The CHAIRMAN. An indictment was obtained? Mr. MANSFIELD. Two indictments. The CHAIRMAN. The prosecution was held in Topeka? Mr. MANSFIELD. There has been no prosecution. Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. But no trial was had? Mr. MANSFIELD. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What was your next step? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; what did you do next? Mr. MANSFIELD. So far as I was concerned, the next step was in the way of presenting the case to a United States attorney-was on this city of Stuart refunding which was presented to the United States attorney's office at Cincinnati, Ohio. The CHAIRMAN. Why did you go there? Mr. MANSFIELD. Because most of the bondholders resided in that jurisdiction. The CHAIRMAN. Did Crummer have an office there? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't think he had an office there. But there would be jurisdiction on delivery of the letters. The CHAIRMAN. What was the result of the Cincinnati conference? Mr. MANSFIELD. The matter was taken under advisement by the assistant, with whom I confered, and that was the last I knew of it. The CHAIRMAN. There as no indictment returned? Mr. MANSFIELD. No. The CHAIRMAN. Did you go any place else? Mr. MANSFIELD. To the United States attorney's office? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; any place. Mr. MANSFIELD. No. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you go to Toledo? Mr. MANSFIELD. I went to Toledo on investigation but not with the United States attorney. The CHAIRMAN. Well, did you take it up with any officials any place, about securing a prosecution anywhere? Mr. MANSFIELD. Other than the places I have mentioned? I think not. The CHAIRMAN. The counsel asked you about Missouri. Evidently he has more information about it, which I do not have. What did you do down in Missouri? Mr. MANSFIELD. We investigated-interviewed some people, some bondholders who I believe-there may have been some of them living in Missouri, but I am not sure. I think possibly what he is referring to may have been a statement by some of the SEC people that in discussing the matter of jurisdiction of the case I suggested that they might establish jurisdiction in Missouri. I don't recall that that happened, but it could have. The CHAIRMAN. You did have numerous conferences all the time with representatives of the Securities and Exchange Commission? Mr. MANSFIELD. Oh, yes; we worked together and were in direct contact for The CHAIRMAN. They were assisting you in assembling the evidence? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well The CHAIRMAN. Or were you assisting them? Mr. MANSFIELD. I was largely assisting them on the indictments which were returned to Topeka. Mr. SOURWINE. At that point may I interrupt? The CHAIRMAN. Yes; go ahead. I was trying to get the whole situation clear in my own mind. Mr. SOURWINE. Wasn't there an understanding between you and the SEC that they would carry the ball on the indictments in Kansas and you were to carry the ball in the sense that you were to have control of the indictment you were seeking in the Stuart case, in another jurisdiction? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. What was the reason for that division of effort? Mr. MANSFIELD. Because they had made no investigation of the Stuart case and were dependent entirely upon the information and evidence collected by me. The CHAIRMAN. I do not want to prejudge anything, but from what little I have heard it seems to me, and perhaps rightly, that the officials all have a duty to prosecute and to discover violations of the law and to secure convictions if they can. That is their job. I see nothing wrong in it at all. But I judge that you did determine in your own mind that this concern had been guilty of violating the law and you were going to get a prosecution and a conviction; isn't that true? Mr. MANSFIELD. I wouldn't want to go so far as to say that I was attempting to influence either the United States attorney or any of their The CHAIRMAN. I did not ask you that. It was your job to discover a violation of the law, and when you found it you were trying to find the violator and convict him? Mr. MANSFIELD. I was trying to collect the evidence on which there might be a prosecution, with the hope of recovery. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Mansfield, you mentioned the two indictments in Kansas. What happened to those two indictments? Mr. MANSFIELD. I understood, indirectly, they had been dismissed by order of the Department of Justice. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you testify before the grand jury in those Kansas cases? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Was your testimony reported by the official court reporter that took the proceedings? Mr. MANSFIELD. I think so. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Mansfield, did you personally check the reliability of all of the information that came to you from Mr. Fuller, Mr. Patterson, Mr. Adams, Mr. Pierce, and Mr. Ball, before you passed it on to the SEC or the United States attorney? Mr. MANSFIELD. I satisfied myself that it was dependable and correct. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you always find it dependable and correct? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes; I don't recall any variations. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever interview the Governor during the course of your investigation? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes; in connection with The CHAIRMAN. The Governor of Florida, do you mean? Mr. SOURWINE. Yes. Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes in connection with the SEC representative. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you have more than one conference? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't recall but one. I think there was only one. Mr. SOURWINE. Was that in April 1944? Mr. MANSFIELD. It may have been. I don't recall. Mr. SOURWINE. If you did have a conference with the Governor in April 1944, is that the only conference you had with him? Mr. MANSFIELD. That's the best of my recollection; yes. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever interview a Mr. Mott, of General Motors? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't recall that I ever interviewed Mr. Mott. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall any correspondence that you had with Mr. Mott? Mr. MANSFIELD. I think there was some correspondence. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall the nature of that correspondence? Mr. MANSFIELD. It was a request for information as to the dealings which he had with the R. E. Crummer & Co. and for any correspondence or any other data which he could supply me. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall what Mr. Mott replied? Mr. MANSFIELD. No; I don't. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Mansfield, do you recall your testimony at a prior hearing with reference to a rather extensive memorandum that you prepared on applicable court decisions and statutory decisions and leading case on Florida municipal securities? Mr. MANSFIELD. You mean the briefs which I furnished you? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. It is a part of the record. Do you recall a statement that you had prepared, yourself—that paper, without any assistance? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. The Post Office Department has made available to the committee all of its files, which include, presumably, all other matters out of your file in connection with this investigation. This file contains innumerable letters and memoranda citing and analyzing cases and discussing and analyzing pleadings and lengthy legal provisions. Most of them were transmitted by you to attorneys or agents of the Securities and Exchange Commission. Do you want. the committee to understand that all of these were the result of your own individual unaided efforts? Mr. MANSFIELD. You mean as to these Florida cases, in the Florida State courts? Mr. SOURWINE. All of the memoranda; citations and analysis of cases; opinions on different points; the drafts, or rough drafts, of legal pleadings or legal documents. Were they all prepared by you without the assistance of anyone! Mr. MANSFIELD. I think probably what you are referring to now are some memoranda which were prepared and filed at the request of the United States attorney at Topeka. We were aiding his office in the preparation of an indictment. Mr. SOURWINE. You say "we." You mean you and whom? Mr. MANSFIELD. The SEC representatives. Subsequent to the indictment, and I would say subsequent to the indictment, when we were aiding the United States attorney's office with the case citations apparently having a bearing on-I believe it was a petition for dismissal of the indictment. Mr. SOURWINE. Were all of those prepared by you without any assistance of anyone? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, I couldn't recall now. Possibly at that time there was some assistance or possibly some of them may have been prepared by some of my associates. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, do you recall any assistance you received from any lawyer in connection with the preparation of the information? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, the various assistants in the United States attorneys office and the United States attorney himself collaborated with us in all of that. Mr. SOURWINE. I am talking about material which you submitted either to the SEC or the United States attorney's office. Did you have any assistance in preparing any of it? Your lawyer, or any lawyer? Mr. MANSFIELD. That which I prepared myself, without collaboration with anyone else, I prepared myself; without assistance. Mr. SOURWINE. All right. 1? The CHAIRMAN. Let us just get down to cases. That which you submitted to the United States attorney or to the SEC-was that prepared by yourself, alone, or did you have someone else to assist you Naturally, that which you prepared yourself, you prepared yourself. But what the counsel is trying to get at is, Did you have any help in the matter that you submitted? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, it's a case of having to differentiate between what I submitted, which I prepared myself, and what I may have submitted on which I did have some collaboration. The CHAIRMAN. And you did have some help, then? Mr. MANSFIELD. On some of it, no doubt. The CHAIRMAN. You did have some help? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That ends it. Go ahead. Mr. SOURWINE. Now from whom did you receive that help? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, I was in collaboration with Mr. Hart to some extent; with Mr. Brown, an attorney of the SEC; with the assistant United States attorneys in the Topeka, Kans., office. That is, that that relates to those indictments out there. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you receive any help from anyone else? Mr. SOURWINE. Did you receive any help from Mr. Patterson? Mr. MANSFIELD. No. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you receive any help from Mr. Adams? Mr. MANSFIELD. No. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you receive any help from Mr. Pierce? Mr. MANSFIELD. No. Mr. SOURWINE. From any other lawyer not connected with the Government? |