handled the very large volume of business transacted between the company and the American United Life Insurance Company of Indianapolis.

These records clearly disclosed the fact that the American United Life Insurance Company was the largest single buyer of Citrus County, Florida, noncallable refunding bonds dated November 1, 1940, and that I was the one individual who had conducted all the negotiations incident to this transaction. Many times I invited a discussion of any subject with which I was personally familiar and which might be under inquiry by the investigators. On many other occasions I insisted that if the records or the employee's explanation did not entirely satisfy the investigators regarding any transaction, I should be permitted to discuss this, and was very confident that I could explain it to their entire satisfaction.

It was obvious that if the investigators were not satisfied with the records pertaining to the Citrus County transaction, and since I was the one person who had conducted the transaction with the American United Life Insurance Company, that if they were really interested in the facts and were not satisfied with my explanation, that it was a very short distance from Chicago to Indianapolis, where the accurate records of the insurance company and its officials who participated in the transaction could give them all the information necessary. They could help the investigators to determine whether or not the transaction was handled in a manner strictly in accordance with the understanding of the principals, namely R. E. Crummer & Company and the American United Life Insurance Company, and also in accordance with the rules and regulations of the SEC.

It is most obvious that the investigators intentionally avoided not only me but the records of the American United Life Insurance Company and the officials of that company who could explain such records and who could have advised them of any detail which might have any bearing on the transaction. I specifically would like to point out that not only did the investigators refuse to talk to me or the officials of the American United Life regarding this transaction but actually waited until I was in the Army, fighting in France, and then caused a Federal grand jury sitting in Topeka, Kansas, to return an indictment involving some ten or twelve other employees and associates of R. E. Crummer & Company, in effect charging them with defrauding, with others, the American United Life Insurance Company in the Citrus County transaction, when practically none of the individuals named in the indictment had ever had the most remote connection or knowledge of this transaction involving Citrus County.

I can frankly say that the approximate three years I spent, as an enlisted man, with the 30th Infantry Division were most unprofitable from a financial standpoint, and upon my discharge I was extremely desirous of reentering the investment business in which I had formerly been reasonably successful. I had hoped to reassume the duties of general manager created by the resignation of Mr. Turner, which would have been available to me, except for the fact that my former employer, although one of the most respectable and profitable investment houses in the United States, had been virtually wrecked by the activities of the investigators of the SEC and a post-office inspector. Through their efforts, indictments were then oustanding charging ten or twelve of my former business associates with fraud covering a transaction involving the sale and purchase of a substantial block of Citrus County bonds sold by me to the American United Life Insurance Company. This sale, which I recognized as one of the most profitable and satisfactory transactions from the viewpoint of the American United Life Insurance that I had ever had the privilege of handling during my experience in the investment business, was now the very basis of destroying my opportunity and indicting my former associates.

The wrecked business to which I returned as manager of the Chicago office of the Crummer company now employs only three other individuals, whereas over forty employees were formerly profitably engaged in a respectable enterprise. My salary now is $6,500 per annum; otherwise I would have been assured of and at the present time receiving not less than $24,000 per year for rendering the services which I had previously demonstrated myself capable of doing.

In my opinion, the activities and conduct of the investigators representing the SEC and the post office inspector, as well as all those who have contributed to the results which finally materialized whereby the investment business conducted by R. E. Crummer & Company was practically wrecked, are undoubtedly responsible for the fact that today my salary is $6,500 per year instead of not less than $24,000 which would have been reasonable compensa

tion for the services I am capable of performing, had it not been for the destruction of my position by the parties who promoted, participated in, and created a record that finally brought about the return of the Federal court indictments. I am 35 years old, married, a graduate of Washburn College of Law, Topeka, Kansas..

Respectfully yours,

WJN: S

/s/ William J. Noel. WILLIAM J. NOEL.

STATEMENT OF COURTNEY S. TURNER

Mr. TURNER. I would like to submit a statement.

The CHAIRMAN. This is your signature on your document, Mr. Turner?

Mr. TURNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You solemnly swear that the statements and each thereof contained in this letter of January 2, 1947, with the date line of Atchison, Kans., and addressed to myself, are the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. TURNER. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. It is inserted in the record.

(The letter is as follows:)

Hon. PAT MCCARRAN,

ATCHISON, KANSAS, January 2, 1947.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR MCCARRAN: I cannot help but be quite interested in the investigation being made by the Judiciary Subcommittee of the United States Senate in accordance with Resolution No. 35 of the 79th Congress, and desire to place before you the following facts:

In March 1922 I became employed by the then Brown-Crummer Investment Company of Wichita, Kansas, as a security salesman, headquarters in the Kansas City, Missouri, office. I later became a director and vice president of the company, in which capacity I continued until its liquidation on December 31, 1938.

I was one of the original stockholders of the R. E. Crummer & Company when it was organized in 1934. After January 1, 1939, my entire time was spent in the service of that company as manager of the Kansas City, Missouri, office. I also became a director and vice president of that company. Sometime thereafter I was made executive vice president and general manager of the Chicago office.

In the early part of 1942, two representatives of the Securities and Exchange Commission came into the Chicago office to conduct an examination of the affairs of R. E. Crummer & Co. I happened to be in Florida at the time. When I returned to Chicago in March 1942 I was introduced to these individuals, viz: George Reutel and a Mr. Corbett. Later, another examiner was brought in, his name being Joseph Butler. Shortly after my arrival in Chicago Mr. R. E. Crummer, president of the company, arrived in Chicago from Florida, and I reported to him the presence of these SEC examiners. A few days later Mr. Crummer suggested that I arrange a conference with the three examiners in relation to their investigation, which I did. Those present at that meeting were

the three SEC men, Mr. Crummer, and myself.

During that meeting Mr. Crummer covered quite in detail the history of the operations of the Brown-Crummer Investment Company and R. E. Crummer & Company. He also told these men that he had given instructions that every assistance possible was to be rendered them by every employee, that all books and records were to be made available to them whenever desired, and that he had also instructed his personal secretary to furnish them any information they might desire of his personal records. To this remark, Mr. Butler replied, "I am awfully glad to know that you have done that, Mr. Crummer, as we have already noted in the company records that you personally own some bonds and in checking ownership of the bonds we no doubt will have occasion to want to refer to your personal records."

My duties with the company were such as to require my absence from the Chicago office on the average of about two weeks out of every month. I would then be in the office on an average of about two weeks in every month.

When

I would return from such trips, Miss Shockley, an employee in the refunding department, would come to my office shortly after my arrival and complain about the abusive and intimidating treatment that she was receiving at the hands of examiner Reutel. I soon adopted the custom, upon my return from these trips, to go to the desk that we had turned over to Mr. Reutel for his use, and ask him the following questions: (a) "Are you getting all of the information you desire?" to which he always replied "Oh, yes, Mr. Turner"; (b) "Is everyone cooperating with you, Mr. Reutel?" His answer invariably was, "Oh, yes, Mr. Turner"; (c) I would then ask him, "May I be of help to you in any way?" and his answer always was "No, Mr. Turner, we are getting everything that we need." Not once did Mr. Reutel request my assitance in any way, either as to any information desired which I might have been able to furnish, or as to directing that any employee furnish information or records that he thought they might be withholding from him. It would appear that had he had occasion to not be satisfied with the assistance being rendered by Miss Shockley that it would have been quite in order for him to have complained to me, since I gave him every opportunity to do so inasmuch as I was in charge of the office. The only time that any one of the examiners came to me for any information was when Mr. Butler came to my office with a list of our inventory and asked for my opinion as to the then market value of each issue of bonds contained therein.

After the SEC examiners had been going through our records for several months and had been reiterating that they were simply making a routine check, and would be through with their investigation shortly, yet they continued to stay on, finishing with one refunding operation and then calling for another one, so that I became rather desirous of ascertaining if possible just what their intentions might be. As I recall, sometime about the latter part of July 1942 I mentioned to Mr. Butler that sometime at his convenience I would like to have a chat with him. At just about 5 p. m. that day, as all of the others were leaving, he came to my office and asked if that time would be `all right with me, which of course it was.

In substance, I mentioned to Mr. Butler that such an examination was a new experience to me, and that I'd like to know how they were finding things, to which he replied in effect: "All right so far, except that part of your accounting system is not as we desire it." I then informed him that not many years before we had employed a highly recognized certified public accounting firm to install accounting methods, with the idea in mind that they would meet all efficient requirements. I also asked him what their procedure was in such circumstances as well as in cases where, in their opinion, they found something that they considered seriously wrong. His reply was, as I recall, “When we complete an examination our report is sent in to the SEC headquarters at Philadelphia where it is reviewed. If irregularities are reported, which in the judgment of those in Philadelphia are serious enough to warrant an explanation, you will be notified and a 'hearing' will be held for the purpose of explaining the points in question." I then asked, "What do you mean by a 'hearing'?" to which Mr. Butler replied, "That is conducted just like any administrative hearing-we all will sit around a large table, and you will be given an opportunity to explain any of the points we might raise."

It might interest you to know that the next word I had of the investigation was in August 1944, when I was beyond the continental limits of the United Sates, and that the "hearing" that I was assured would be held was, in fact, a session of a Federal grand jury; that I was not informed that it was being held; that I was not given an opportunity to appear, but, on the contrary, the first and only word that I received that such a proceeding had taken place, was a copy of an indictment that had been obtained against me.

I respectfully request, Senator, that this letter be made a part of the record of your investigation.

Very truly yours,

(Signed) Courtney S. Turner. COURTNEY S. TURNER.

STATEMENT OF ROBERT J. PLEUS

Mr. PLEUS. My name is Robert J. Pleus; I am an attorney from Orlando, Fla., and I represent Mr. R. E. Crummer. The chairman probably recalls that a letter was addressed to Mr. Crummer by the committee requesting him to furnish any pertinent information that he might have. He has asked me to deliver this letter to the chairman of the committee, and the appendixes in the form of a folio. The CHAIRMAN. Is this Mr. Crummer's signature to the letter of January 4?

Mr. PLEUS. It is, Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Crummer is not present?

Mr. PLEUS. He is not, sir.

Mr. SOURWINE. May I make a suggestion, that you have indicated that you intend to hold the record open for a short time at least, and since all of the other witnesses including those who have presented their statements have been placed under oath, would you deem it desirable that Mr. Crummer be requested by mail or otherwise as speedily as possible to make affidavit to this letter?

The CHAIRMAN. I think that would be the proper thing to do, in view of the fact that it is all under oath, and I think that Mr. Crummer can make an oath to this.

Mr. SOURWINE. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, what is this?

Mr. PLEUS. This is a folio, and many of the matters stated in the letter are supported by the folio.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you have Mr. Crummer make an oath to the statements in that letter, and make reference to this brochure?

Mr. SOURWINE. May I respectfully suggest that if this brochure is to be offered in connection with the letter, that Mr. Crummer's affidavit should state that the matters in this brochure which are stated as matters of fact are true and that matters stated on information and belief are to the best of his knowledge true.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that that would be wise. If you will get it to me tomorrow I will insert it here in the record and have it inserted in the record tomorrow if it is made in proper form.

Mr. PLEUS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. I suggest tomorrow forenoon.

(Whereupon, at 4: 15 p. m. the committee took a recess subject to the call of the Chair.)

(The statement by Mr. Crummer, above referred to, was duly submitted, having been sworn to, and was admitted to the record. Because of its late receipt, it is printed hereafter as appendix C.)