The CHAIRMAN. And you made a specialty of those kind of cases? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How long has that been your particular field? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, since about 1920.

The CHAIRMAN. 1920? About 25 years you have spent in this work? Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir; not exclusively, along with other work. The CHAIRMAN. In all of your investigations which you have conducted, have you reported in various jurisdictions, as you did in this case, seeking to secure an indictment?

Mr. MANSFIELD. To answer the question directly, no, but there was a special reason in this case.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, what was that special reason?

Mr. MANSFIELD. There were different-each one of these refunding operations had different aspects and different possible jurisdictions, due to the location of the owners of bonds as well as the emanation and receipt of mail matter in connection.

The CHAIRMAN. You were not influenced to go into different jurisdictions because the district attorney at Tampa refused to prosecute and you were seeking some place where you could get a prosecution?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I felt that it was a case where there was evidence to justify a prosecution and that before closing it without prosecuting, it should be presented to some other jurisdiction than the Florida jurisdiction, after the United States attorney had refused.

The CHAIRMAN. You felt so strongly that when one United States attorney refused to prosecute, you felt it your duty to take it some place else?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I thought that the evidence justified it; yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you did do that?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In at least three places?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, it was just that-I never discussed the Stuart case with Mr. Phillips, the United States attorney, although there was a discussion that was somewhat general as to the Crummer operations in general.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the operations of this firm were involved in each of the jurisdictions?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. This one particular firm?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. You may not have discussed one case but then you did discuss the firm and all of its operations?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In all of these cases?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you recall any place else where you went, Mr. Mansfield, besides the three places to which you have testified? Mr. MANSFIELD. With a view of prosecution?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. MANSFIELD. No, sir; there were no others.

Thte CHAIRMAN. You will be excused until 2 o'clock.

Mr. MANSFIELD. There was one observation I wanted to make in the interest of fact. As to the matter of assisting in the preparation of indictments. Up to about the time that Mr. Brown was Postmaster

General, there had been participation in drafting of indictments by different inspectors. The practice was referred to by Attorney General New, apparently with approval. I believe it was in the administration of Mr. Brown and instructions were given that such practices be discontinued. My recollection is that subsequently another book of instructions was issued in which such instructions were not included. And I know that as a matter of fact various inspectors did, thereafter, prepare drafts of indictments in these mail-fraud cases. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else you want to add? Mr. MANSFIELD. That was the particular matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else that you wish to do now, Mr. Sourwine?

Mr. SOURWINE. No. We can resume this afternoon.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. You be back at 2 o'clock, this afternoon, Mr. Mansfield. You are not through with him, Mr. Sourwine?

Mr. SOURWINE. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Be back at 2 o'clock.

(Thereupon the committee was recessed until 2 p. m.)

AFTER RECESS

(The hearing before the committee was resumed at 2 p. m.)

TESTIMONY OF E. J. MANSFIELD-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Before we begin, there is one other statement that I would like to make to clear up the record. When the investigation had reached the stage that I thought there was strong evidence of fraud, I made inquiry of the inspector in charge, advising him that there were other refundings that I felt should be inquired into, and I inquired whether it was desired that I proceed with those cases under the same case or whether separate cases should be jacketed on each one, and I was instructed to proceed under the one case of various refunding operations.

Mr. SOURWINE. The first case that came to you was the Lee County case, was it not?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. What was the second county that you investigated? Mr. MANSFIELD. I believe the next one that I made some investigation on was Hernando County.

The CHAIRMAN. What?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Hernando County. That's my recollection now. Mr. SOURWINE. Why did you go into Hernando County?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Because the information that I had, largely from Mr. Fuller, indicated to me that there probably was fraud in that. Mr. SOURWINE. And what was the next county that you went into, sir?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I believe the next-that I next made some inquiry on Okeechobee County.

Mr. SOURWINE. And why did you go into that county?

Mr. MANSFIELD. For the same reason.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now, Mr. Fuller gave you information about a great number of county cases, did he not?

Mr. MANSFIELD. There were several; yes.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did he indicate to you that order, first Hernando and then Okeechobee County were probably to be taken next, or was that your own choice from the names of the counties he told you about! Mr. MANSFIELD. That was my own selection.

Mr. SOURWINE. Why did you pick Hernando to follow Lee instead of some other county?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't recall whether there was any special reason. I don't think that there was. It was probably the one that was most convenient for me to get to at that time.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Mansfield, we were discussing, during the morning, the two forms of indictment that you prepared. One in the Panama City case and one in the Stuart case, and you have testified that you had no assistance in connection with the preparation of them. Now let me ask you this question. Did you include in those drafts of indictment, any phraseology or statements which you secured from pleadings or briefs furnished to you by any other person?

Mr. MANSFIELD. No. I don't suppose you mean to indicate the final draft of the Panama City indictment?

Mr. SOURWINE. I am speaking about the draft which you, yourself prepared, which you say was wholly your own work and which you submitted,

Mr. MANSFIELD. As I explained before, that was only a partial draft. It was not the complete draft that was finally passed on by the grand jury.

Mr. SOURWINE. It was not the indictment which the grand jury returned; we understand that.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. But it was complete, so far as you could make it at the time. You did not, wittingly, and of intent, leave omissions in it, did you?

Mr. MANSFIELD. There is this further explanation to make of it. I had covered

Mr. SOURWINE. Just answer the question.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no explanation to be made in connection with that. I think it could be answered yes or no very quickly. You did not, wittingly, leave out something? Or did you?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Only that which I hadn't yet directly done in the case. Some of which was later. But I didn't purposely omit anything.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now let me ask again, and perhaps rephrase the question that I just asked you and did not get an answer to. Did you include in either of those two indictments which you prepared phraseology or statements which you secured or picked up from pleadings or briefs furnished you by any other person?

Mr. MANSFIELD. There was some of the phraseology which had been used in previous indictments which I had in other cases, if that's what you are driving at.

Mr. SOURWINE. Leaving aside any previous indictments which you had used in other cases, did you include in the two indictments which you prepared, any phraseology or statements taken from pleadings or briefs furnished you by any person outside of the Government? Mr. MANSFIELD. No.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now, Mr. Mansfield, we talked about your contact with the United States attorney at Topeka. I believe you said you saw the deputy district attorney or the assistant United States attorney at Topeka.

Mr. MANSFIELD. I saw all of the assistants. yes.

The first assistant;

Mr. SOURWINE. Did you subsequently submit direct to him, or to the United States attorney at Topeka, the material that you had developed on this case?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Oh, yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. You submitted a detailed report?

Mr. MANSFIELD. My report was a brief summary. There was a very lengthy detailed report submitted by the SEC which I participated in to some extent.

Mr. SOURWINE. Where was that report sent?

Mr. MANSFIELD. To the United States attorney at Topeka.

Mr. SOURWINE. As a matter of fact, wasn't that report submitted to the Attorney General at Washington and by him transmitted to the United States attorney at Topeka?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, perhaps that was their procedure.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know whether it was or not?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I think that it was.

Mr. SOURWINE. Didn't you submit all of your reports to the SEC for inclusion in that main report that they were preparing?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I didn't submit any formal report to the SEC; no. Mr. SOURWINE. Let us leave out the word "formal." Didn't you report to the SEC almost continuously from time to time? Mr. MANSFIELD. Well

Mr. SOURWINE. Weren't you in constant contact with them and constantly furnishing them material that they used?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I furnished them some material at various times. The CHAIRMAN. Didn't you furnish them all of the material that you had?

Mr. MANSFIELD. On those cases, yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Why of course you did. You would not submit part and leave out part.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Certainly not.

Mr. SOURWINE. And did you furnish such material direct to the United States attorney's office at Topeka?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Later.

Mr. SOURWINE. You mean by "later," after the SEC had submitted their report?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. So that after you had your original contact with the United States attorney's office at Topeka, you learned from him that they were interested and would go forward if the matter were submitted; you, thereafter, did not submit any material direct to him until a time subsequent to the time when the SEC had made its full report?

Mr. MANSFIELD. That's right.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now you spoke, Mr. Mansfield, this morning, of the fact that you had considered having an indictment secured in Cincinnati, through the office of the district attorney there, in the Stuart case,

because, I think you said, the majority of the bonds in the Stuart case were held in Ohio.

Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, a large number of them. I don't know that it was the majority.

Mr. SOURWINE. Are you familiar with the holdings of the bonds in the Stuart case!

Mr. MANSFIELD. I was at one time, to a considerable extent. To some extent, yes.

Mr. SOURWINE. Isn't it a fact that by far the largest majority of the bonds in the Stuart case were held in Florida, or were at that time, held in Florida?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I think not.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now with regard to the Okeechobee case, do you recall where the majority of the bonds in that case were held?

Mr. MANSFIELD. My impression is that the majority of those were held in Kansas and nearby States.

Mr. MANSFIELD. My impression is that the majority of those were held in Florida and Kansas? Weren't there very substantial holdings in Florida?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes; there were a few substantial holders.

Mr. SOURWINE. That is the case that you considered at one time for possible presentation for an indictment in Missouri, is it not? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't recall that at all.

Mr. SOURWINE. Now the Panama City case is one of those on which there was an' indictment returned in Kansas?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.

Mr. SOURWINE. Where were the majority of the bond holdings in the Panama City case?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Well, I wouldn't say as to the majority, but there were a number of those in Kansas.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did you ever make any effort to find out where the majority of those bonds were held?

Mr. MANSFIELD. I do not recall that I made any effort to establish just where the majority were held.

Mr. SOURWINE. Did your investigation of the case lead you to the data which showed where the bonds were held?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes; one of the accountants had a complete record. Mr. SOURWINE. Well, you did, at one time, know where those bonds were held?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes.

Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall that the majority of those bonds were held in Florida, Nebraska, and Oklahoma?

Mr. MANSFIELD. No; I don't remember that.

Mr. SOURWINE. If that had been the case, would it have made any difference in your determination to seek an indictment in Kansas? Mr. MANSFIELD. I don't suppose it would.

Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Mansfield, did you ever draft a proposed indictment in the Citrus County case?

Mr. MANSFIELD. No.

Mr. SOURWINE. Was that one of the cases where an indictment was returned in Kansas?

Mr. MANSFIELD. Yes. At Topeka.

Mr. SOURWINE. Why is it that you prepared a proposed indictment in the Panama City case and did not do so in the Citrus County case?