The Bismarck tribune. [volume] (Bismarck, N.D.) 1916-current, 1934-06-14

4
emergency relief administration. It L
true, the evidence shows conclusively
that they didn't get far with thetl
solicitations in the federal emergenc,
relief offices. Only about $3.50 wa.
collected. But / say again 1t is o.
no Importance in this case except it.
bearing on the fact Of whether there
was conspiracy to corruptly admin.
lister the law to the end that they
might profit It does appear in the
testimony that there Is some evidences
that soon after the soliciting Wa.
discovered by the United States gov.
eminent 1t was stopped and they sent
their agent, Ewing, to protest Hl
testimony was that the.fact that they
were doing that endangered the whole
system Of federal relief funds coming
into North Dakota. He advised the
governor that 1t could not be done
and 1t then came to the notice Of
Judge Christianson and other mem.
beers Of the committee and that the
conspiracy was thwarted after pro-
ceeding only short way. So it's un-
important-except as 1t may bear or
the facts-whether 3l79 or 81 was COL
lected."
Theory Comprises Coercion
The court explained that the gov
ernments theNy was that those
solicited were coerced, that the en-
ployes were inundated into paying
the five-per-cent assessment.
THE governments evidence in sub
stantiating this" he said, us that one
of the defendants came to the en-
ployes and said he wanted five per
cent assessments for The Leader
that it was a matter of job insurance
and in some cases intimated that
the assessment was important in de-
termining whether or not they kept
their jobs and that their salaries
would be increased if they did and
decreased If they didn't. That is the
governments evidence for what it is
worth"
He went on with his legal interpre-
tation Of the case by pointing out that,
In return for the five per cent assess
ment. the employees received con-
tract in writing in which they were
advised that they could sell a number
Of subscriptions at 81 each to get
their money back.
This circumstance warrants your
close attention. Judge Miller en-
phaSized. These persons already had
earned their salaries without having
to engage in selling subscriptions to
The Leader It was not within the
intent of the United States govern
ment in granting relief and giving
employment to the unemployed that
In addition they give five per cent of
their salaries to any other purpose.
Neither was it contemplated by the
should go for the purpose of paying
someone's debt. Neither was 1t in
tended for running private news
paper. They had already earned their
salary from the government. The
question is was it intimidation or
fraud? The governments evidence
tends to prove the executive secretary
said to them I subscribed to this my
self You are to consider whether
employees were coerced or not by hav-
ing the boss say I've subscribed to
this-you better think it over The
employees knew the boss could fire
them" He added to this. I'm quot
ing to you now what the government
evidence is. Well come later to the
defense evidence" =
Describes Inter- relationship
Judge Miller proceeded with his in
structions by describing the interrela.
tionship of solicitations among state
and federal employees as part Of the
same general scheme.
He said the identical nature Of the
plan in its working among both stat !.
and federal employees brought up two
points for consideration: Whether
there was at any time conspiracy on
the part of two or more of the de-
PENDANTS as charged: and what was
the intent of the defendants in soli-
citing members Of the federal relief
offices.
He cautioned the jury that "how.
ever immoral you may think the
scheme. you cannot convict any Of
the defendants for violations Of the
laws Of North Dakota. # you convict
them if must be on the federal sta.
tutes. but you are entitled to take in.
to consideration the purpose-what
they did in reference to state offices
because 1t was at the same time, in
the same manner and so closely in
terrelated that you may infer from,
the acts what the intent was.
Nov. it does appear from the gov
ernment's evidence that the scheme
Of Governor LANCER was that he
would assess all state employees for
the purpose he testified to. That Is
not In the controversy. But II the
contracts were fraudulent. as the gov
eminent claims. that's an incident to
which you will give serious considera-
ton.
He pointed out that. by the COVER
nor's own admission. there was plan
to get five per cent from employees.
They could get it back If they could
sell the newspaper but they had al
ready earned the money from North
Dakota, so II they sold the newspaper
they earned it twice. Was there any
deceit?
There is testimony here that,
while the defendants made represen-
tations they did want the money for
The Leader they did not tell them
that they also wanted to be repaid
$2l 900 the Nonpartisan League owed
the governor. It is for you to de.
termine.
He continued on this point with
"a further situation" that has bear.
ing on intent.
1T is the duty Of the governor and
all officers to obey the law and it Is
also their duty to enforce the law Of
the state. The government theory Is
that the scheme itself, assuming that
It related only to the laws Of the
state. was fraudulent and In direct
violation Of the statutes Of North Da.