*Write "L" before the number if piece is dispatched loose in iron or brass lock pouch and "O" if outside piece and show destination. **If consecutively listed articles originate at the same office, office of origin need be entered but once and a vertical line drawn through appropriate spaces to indicate that office of origin is the same. c9-16-23894-2. Postmark of Dispatching office. Bill No. Jacket No. Lock No. Rotary No. --- Received articles described on above specified bill from dispatching office named in postmark. DEAR Mr. CARPENTER: As agreed upon at the time of my recent visit to your office I am listing below the customer files which were originally turned in to your office by former Inspector E. J. Mansfield and which you have delivered to me following dismissal of the outstanding indictment in this case: Edward Ball, Jacksonville, Fla. Dr. Terry Bird, Florida Crippled Children's Commission, Tallahassee, Fla. Walter J. Brant, 1810 South Water Street, Wichita, Kans. Mrs. T. J. Carter, 1901 West Maple Street, Wichita, Kans. Mary E. Condell, El Dorado, Kans. E. R. Eakins, Wakefield, Kans. Mrs. Anna Lammers, 1115 East Forty-fourth Street, Kansas City, Mo. Mrs. M. O. Madsen, Corbin, Kans. Anton Rosenberger, 1415 North Topeka Street, Wichita, Kans. August H. Rosenberger, 1415 North Topeka Street, Wichita, Kans. Luada Severance, 535 North Yale Street, Wichita, Kans. D. A. Smith, Hildebrandt Building, Jacksonville, Fla. H. W. Strong, care of Coleman Lamp & Stove Co., Ltd., Toronto, Canada. Panama City File W. P. Waggener, Atchison, Kans. (Citrus County file). Post Office Inspector. POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT BUREAU OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR Case No. 37536-F ATLANTA 2, GEORGIA, July 15, 1946. Subject: United States v. Crummer and Company. UNITED STATES SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION., 105 West Adams Street, Chicago, Ill. (Attention Mr. Alex J. Brown, Attorney.) GENTLEMEN: As information I am enclosing copy of a letter to the United States attorney at Topeka, acknowledging receipt of the customer file listed therein. In addition, the following miscellaneous files were turned over to me by Mr. Brown, since all indications were that these papers were originally obtained by former Inspector E. J. Mansfield: John M. Ammon, 119 East Lemon Street, Lancaster, Pa. Louis D. Anderson, 270 Penn Street, Reading, Pa. Edward Ball, Jacksonville, Fla. Childress & Co., Atlantic National Bank Annex, Jacksonville, Fla. Frank R. Pondell, Eldorado, Kans. E. R. Eakins, Wakefield, Kans. Mrs. Florence B. Holler, 1952 Vista Del Mar, Los Angeles, Calif. John W. Leedle, attorney at law, 108 North Main Street, Wheaton, Ill. Mrs. Albert S. Ross, Sabetha, Kans. Mrs. Richard Sellman, 183 North Mansfield Avenue, Los Angeles, Calif. Mrs. Anna Wangbichler, 1345 North Lockwood Avenue, Chicago, Ill. Pamphlet No. 313, containing petition for writ of certiorari filed on behalf The cooperation in segregating and recovering these files is sincerely appreciated. Very truly yours, Post Office Inspector. [From the Investment Dealers' Digest, April 9, 1945] WASHINGTON ROUND-UP SENATE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDS SEC INVESTIGATION A three-man Senate Judiciary subcommittee has recommended a full investigation of "certain activities" of the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Post Office Department as recommended by Senate Resolution 35, Seventyninth Congress, agreed to February 25, 1945. The subcommittee also recommended that $5,000 be made available for the investigation, which is to continue until January 1, 1946. Senators Pat McCarran, James Eastland, and Kenneth Wherry, in recommending the inquiry, report that a "preliminary and hurried investigation has definitely established the necessity for continued investigation and hearings.” EVIDENCE UNEARTHED The evidence which the subcommittee has unearthed allegedly reveals that1. Many officials of Florida counties, municipalities, and taxing units state that "unjustified investigations by the Securities and Exchange Commission and Post Office Department has resulted in adversely reflecting upon the credit of Florida taxing units, and that such investigations are materially interfering with the execution of refunding or refinancing contracts provided for under plans of composition passed on by Federal bankruptcy courts." 2. Many Florida bondholders who were contacted by SEC and Post Office investigators and attorneys complain of the "prejudiced, coercive, and threatening attitude and 'third degree' methods of those Government employees." 3. There is evidence that the SEC and Post Office have "not conducted investigations designed to secure all the pertinent facts in the cases which are under investigation, and that inquiry has not been made generally into the necessity for various refunding or refinancing operations which were required to preserve the credit of Florida bonds." 4. By inquiring into refunding or refinancing contracts, established under decrees of Federal bankruptcy courts, the SEC and Post Office Department "appear to have gone beyond their statutory authority by exercising, in effect, appelate jurisdiction over Federal courts." 5. The only bonding company signaled out as the subject of the Post Office Department and the SEC investigations that "it has not been appraised of the true nature of the investigation, nor has it been afforded a satisfactory opportunity to present important facts to the Federal agencies." This charge the SEC denies and, although the evidence is conflicting, the Commission takes the position that the subjects of their investigation do not have a legal right to be advised of the nature of the charges nor to be heard. 6. Letters received by Florida bondholders, over the signature of a postal inspector, "contain false and misleading statements concerning the refinancing operations of certain Florida county and municipal bonds." 7. The Securities and Exchange Commission and Post Office Department "refused to furnish the committee with information and facts necessary for a full and complete investigation, and the postal inspectors involved were extremely uncooperative." Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall, Mr. Jervey, whether there were any subsequent complaints in this case? Mr. JERVEY. Are you speaking to me now? Mr. SOURWINE. I am sorry. I meant Mr. Ackerman. Mr. ACKERMAN. I don't know. I am not familiar with the file at all. Mr. SOURWINE. You would only know what is on the jacket? Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. You have actually, already, testified to everything that you know about the case? Mr. ACKERMAN. That's all I know about it. I am not familiar with the file because we have from ten to twelve thousand investigations a year coming through. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, I am through with the witness. The CHAIRMAN. If you do not need the witness any further, he might as well be excused and released from any further attendance. You are excused. (The witness, Ackerman, was excused.) TESTIMONY OF T. H. JERVEY, ASSISTANT POST OFFICE Mr. SOURWINE. You are Mr. T. H. Jervey? Mr. JERVEY. Yes. Mr. SOURWINE. You have heard Mr. Ackerman's testimony? Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know of any complaints that were filed in this case, other than the one from Mr. Main, in regard to which he testified? Mr. JERVEY. No, sir; I don't. There were none filed with me. Mr. JERVEY. I had the case from November until sometime in June. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, can you say from your knowledge of-— Mr. JERVEY. November 1945-excuse me-until June 1946. Mr. SOURWINE. Can you say from your knowledge of procedure in your Department, that if there had been any other complaints, they would have been similarly endorsed on this jacket? Mr. JERVEY. No, sir; I would say not. That jacket-that endorsement on that jacket usually reflects the original complaint. Any subsequent complaints are sometimes made to the inspector who has the case and they would not pass through the division headquarters with that copy that Mr. Ackerman referred to, or identified. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Jervey, do you have in your possession or custody any records or files in this case whatsoever? Mr. JERVEY. Yes; I have some memoranda that I brought with me in pursuance to that subpena. Mr. SOURWINE. Will you tell us about that, sir? Mr. JERVEY. Yes, sir [examining papers]. The first is a copy of a letter to the inspector in charge, dated June 21, 1946, in this case, identified as "No. 37536-F." This memorandum shows that on that date I forwarded to the chief post-office inspector, under separate cover, two rotary locked pouches containing the file in this case. They were sent by his direction. I haven't got a copy of the instructions. That was in the case file returned to him. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you keep an inventory of those files? Mr. JERVEY. No, sir. There was a tremendous volume of files and I had instructions to send them in to his office promptly, which I did. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know whether they included the files of the post-office inspector at Jacksonville, with respect to this case? Mr. JERVEY. Yes. I think, at that time, those represented all the files in my possession. At that particular time. I subsequently forwarded some other files. Mr. SOURWINE. Were you an inspector at Jacksonville at that time? Mr. JERVEY. No; I was a post-office inspector, stationed at Atlanta, Ga. I have had considerable experience in years past in the investigation of mail fraud cases. When Mr. Mansfield retired, I think in November, possibly, of 1945, this case was then assigned to me for such further handling as was necessary. The investigation, at that time, had been completed. Mr. SOURWINE. I am trying to find out the whereabouts of the file which was maintained over a period of years by the postal inspector at Jacksonville, on this case. Mr. JERVEY. I couldn't answer-I don't know of any file, Mr. Sourwine, other than the file that I sent in to the chief. I came to Jacksonville-I am relying on my memory to some extent-I came to Jacksonville after this case was turned over to me, and in the inspector's office, there, I found-I came here to pick up these files. That and one other case. I gathered them up and I see that they represent the work of several years, on the file of Mr. Mansfield. And, I shipped them into Atlanta. I had only a very, very sketchy knowledge of the facts in the case and it wasn't incumbent on me, at that time-the investigation had been completed and the facts were in the hands of the United States district attorney, in Kansas, and my function, then, as I conceived it, was to follow the case through and aid the United States attorney in any way that he might ask. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever see Mr. JERVEY. Excuse me. The file I got, there, was possibly the file you are referring to. If there are any others, I know nothing of them. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever see the file which contained this complaint from Mr. Main, and which also contained the Department's letter of instruction with regard to going forward with this investigation? Mr. JERVEY. I recall-and I am now relying on my memory-a letter; that letter, I think, from Mr. Main, is in what we call the “case file.' That is, the original case jacket. And my recollection is that that letter is in that file. Mr. SOURWINE. Would there be any particular indentifying marks on that case jacket that would enable you or any person to identify it? Mr. JERVEY. Readily, yes. Each of our jackets has a number, is assigned a number in numerical sequence, and a classification. The classification of this case would be "F." That is, mail-fraud investigation. The number was 37536-F. Any papers in that case would automatically, after it reached the post office inspection service, would automatically be channeled in that file. Mr. SOURWINE. May I make a statement off the record, Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. You may. (An off the record statement by Mr. Sourwine ensued.) The CHAIRMAN. Now, on the record. The witness may be able to explain that and clear up the situation for you. Mr. JERVEY. I would be glad to, if you wish. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Jervey, the particular file that this committee is looking for now, is the folder or jacket containing the original complaint and the original letter of instruction from the Post Office |