STATE vs. HAUPTMANN
[881] Flemington, N. J., January
11, 1935. EIGHTH DAY
Present: Hon. Thomas W.
Trenchard.
Appearances: Mr. Wilentz, Mr.
Lanigan, Mr. Hauck, Mr. Peacock, Mr. Large, For the State.
Mr. Reilly, Mr. Fisher, Mr. Pope,
Mr. Rosecrans, For the Defendant.
The Court: The Clerk may poll the
jury.
(The jury was polled and all
jurors answered present.)
The Court: Is the defendant in
court? Mr. Reilly: He is, sir.
The Court: Counsel may proceed,
when they are ready.
[882] Mr. Wilentz: Mr. Frank J.
Wilson.
FRANK J. WILSON, sworn as a witness in behalf of the State:
Direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. Mr. Wilson, have you any
official capacity with the United States Government? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is that position?
A. Special Agent in charge of the Intelligence Unit, Internal Revenue
Service.
Q. Special agent in charge?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Of the Intelligence Unit?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is the Internal Revenue
Department of the Government, is it not? A. A part of it, yes, sir.
Q. In what territory do you have
charge? A. The States of Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky.
Q. Were you assigned by the
United States Government in connection with this Lindbergh case and if you
were, when? A. Yes, sir, about March 15th, 1932.
Q. As the result of that
assignment, did you come to Hopewell, New Jersey? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And when you got there will
you please tell us what happened? A. I arrived at Hopewell, New Jersey,
with Mr. Elmer L. Irey, Chief of the Intelligence Unit, Mr. Madden, another
agent, and the three of us had conferences with Colonel Schwarzkopf, Colonel
Lindbergh and Colonel Breckinridge.
Q. In connection with those
conferences, were there exhibited to you the ransom notes with the symbols that
had been received up to that time? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you or did you not receive
the fullest cooperation during those days from the New [883] Jersey State
Police, Colonel Lindbergh and Colonel Breckinridge? A. We received full co‑operation
at all times.
Q. Now as the result of the
various conferences did you finally direct the manner in which the seventy
thousand dollars referred to in one of the ransom notes, did you direct the
manner in which that money should be handled? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What did you do? A. At
the conference with Colonel Lindbergh and Colonel Breckinridge and others it
was directed that I proceed to the office of J. P. Morgan & Company where a
package of currency was available. A package had previously been prepared
without retaining the serial numbers. At this time I directed the proper
procedure to follow in order to correctly record and describe the currency
which had been demanded in the ransom notes. I instructed them that they should
have two men work on each note, each piece of currency, noting the number
appearing on it, the series, the correct description as to whether it was a
United States gold certificate, a United States note or a Federal Reserve note,
and I instructed them to use the gold certificates that were available at that
time as part of the package which they should prepare, and I also instructed
them that they should carefully retain the original sheets, upon which the
numbers were being recorded in order that they could be used at a trial at a
later date, and that they should be kept in the possession of one person, who
was the head of the office or a responsible person in that office.
Q. Under your directions, do you
know the name of the man who caused to be prepared these lists? A. Yes.
Mr. Stewart Wilson Cragin.
Q. And would you be able to
recognize the [884] original lists with the serial numbers that were prepared
under your direction and under the supervision of Mr. Cragin? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Will you take a look at these
yellow sheets and see if they are or are not the original writings of the men
who made up the packages of money and marked down on these Yellow sheets the
serial numbers as directed by you. A. (Examines sheets.)
Q. Take your time, Mr. Wilson, we
will wait. A. Yes, sir; these are the original sheets.
Q. Those are the yellow sheets
and not the printed white sheets you refer to, Mr. Wilson? A. I do.
Mr. Wilentz: I offer that part of
the book which contains the yellow sheets.
The Court: If there is no
objection, they will be admitted in evidence.
The Reporter: S‑99.
(The yellow sheets referred to
were received in evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑99.)
Q. Mr. Wilson, on April 4th,
1932, that is to say, a few days after the $50,000 had been paid, did you have
a conversation again with Colonel Lindbergh? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And as the result of that
conference, did Colonel Lindbergh request the United States Government to try
to find some of this money which had been paid? A. Yes, sir.
Q. In a letter directed to the
Secretary of the Treasury? A. Yes, sir; Colonel Lindbergh wrote this
letter in my presence and handed it to me for [885] transmittal to the
Secretary of the Treasury and I handed it to Mr. Elmer L. Irey, Chief of the
Intelligence Unit, who turned it over to the Secretary.
Q. Now, as a result of the
request of Colonel Lindbergh, the request being to make a search for this
money, which had been paid, what did the Government do? A. The Government
caused the printing of 50,000 circulars, bearing the serial numbers.
Mr. Pope: We object to what was
caused to be done. What this witness might have done might be all right.
(Letter, Colonel Lindbergh to
Ogden B. Mills, Secy. of Treasury, received in evidence and marked State
Exhibit S‑100.)
(Envelope marked S‑100A.)
Q. What was done to your
knowledge? A. The list was transmitted to Washington under my direction
and a list was prepared and circulated throughout the banks in this country and
foreign countries.
Q. When you say a list was
prepared, you mean the list was printed? A. Printed at the Government
Printing office, mailed from the Treasury Department to banks in this country
and foreign countries.
Q. When it was printed, it was
printed in circular form? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you know how many of these
circulars were sent out and distributed throughout the world by the Government?
A. 50,000 and later dates, 200,000.
Q. I show you a printed
communication from [886] the Treasury Department, Washington, dated April 6th,
1932, and signed by W. O. Woods, Treasurer of the United States and ask you if
that is the circular you refer to as being the one which was sent out in the
number that you have just indicated? (Handing witness a document.)
A. 50,000 of these circulars were sent out.
Q. And later two hundred
thousand? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: I offer this, for
the convenience of the defense counsel as well as the prosecution, so that we
will have a printed copy if we want to refer to these yellow sheets; and I
offer it in evidence after inspection.
Mr. Pope: Is this for us?
Mr. Wilentz: I am going to give
you that copy after it is in evidence.
Mr. Pope: All right.
Mr. Wilentz: I can give you
another one.
Mr. Pope: All right.
The Court: There seems to be no
objection to the admission of the document, and it may be admitted in evidence.
(Circular referred to received in
evidence and marked State Exhibit S‑101.)
Q. Mr. Wilson, was the mailing and
the circular edition of these printed circulars—
[887] Mr. Wilentz: That is in evidence, not
for identification.
The Reporter: Yes, sir, “Ev Id”.
Mr. Wilentz: I will withdraw the
question.
Q. Did you just circularize the
United States of America or did you also for the Government send these to other
nations? A. Sent them to other nations.
Q. You are now referring to
Exhibit S‑101. A. Yes, sir; it was printed in four foreign languages.
Q. Now, on December 26th and
27th, 1934, at my direction did you go to the office of the Trenton Banking
Company and examine an envelope containing some gold certificates and other
moneys? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Before I get to that, will you
tell me whether the list contained in the yellow sheets—
Mr. Reilly: What date, General?
Mr. Wilentz: December 26 and 27,
last year.
Q. —whether the serial numbers
contained in the yellow sheets in State's Exhibit S‑99, the printed being the
copy, the printed being S‑101, whether or not they contain correctly and
accurately the serial numbers of the bills that made up the Lindbergh ransom
package. A. Yes, sir.
Q. Was there one exception?
A. One exception, where a figure was transposed.
Q. What do you mean by a figure
transposed?
A. There was one serial
number where I believe the number, part of the number was 61 and it was [888] made
16.
Q. Of all the numbers the 6 and
the 1 were transposed? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Getting back then again to
December 26th and 27th, 1934, at my direction did you go to the Trent on
Banking Company office in Trenton, New Jersey, in company with Corporal Horn of
the New Jersey State Police and examine a package of gold certificates and
other moneys? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: May I have the
money, please.
(Package handed to Mr. Wilentz.)
Q. First let me ask you whether
or not you recognize this sealed package. A. Yes, sir. It bears my
initials and the date upon which Captain Snook and myself sealed it.
Q. Tell me whether or not the
serial numbers of those bills are amongst—I withdraw that.
Q. Tell me whether or not the
moneys contained in that package bear serial numbers which are in the yellow
sheets now in evidence as S‑99 and which are also contained in the printed
exhibit S‑101. A. There are 966 United States gold certificates in this
envelope, bearing the same serial numbers as appear upon the original list
which were prepared at Morgan & Company at the direction of Mr. Madden and
myself on March 22nd, 1932.
Q. In other words, every bill in
that folder as you checked it is a part of the Lindbergh money prepared at the
Morgan Company and which made up what is commonly known as the Lindbergh ransom
money? A. With one exception, where it appears the figure was transposed.
[889] Q. That is one bill, you mean?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is, the bill where the
six and the one are transposed? A. Two figures are transposed, I am not
really—
Q. Positive? A. —positive
about the particular digits that were transposed.
Q. Well, whether transposed or
not, all the money in there is a part of the Lindbergh ransom money?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And there is in that package,
how much? A. $14,600, consisting of 493 twenty-dollar United States gold
certificates and 474 tendollar United States gold certificates.
Mr. Wilentz: I offer this—
Q. How much is it altogether?
A. $14,600.
Mr. Wilentz: I offer $14,600 of
United States in evidence as one exhibit in this sealed package.
Mr. Reilly: Judge Pope will argue
the objection.
Mr. Pope: We object to the
admission of this money, your Honor please—
Mr. Wilentz: We withdraw the
offer then and ask that it be marked for identification.
(The package of money was marked
S‑102 for Identification.)
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. With reference
to S‑102 for identification and the seals thereon, did you participate in the [890]
sealing of this envelope, S‑102? A. Yes, sir, I did.
Q. So that since the time that
you caused it to be sealed, it has not been open, as you see it? A. No,
sir.
Q. It is in its original package?
A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: If your Honor
please, Mr. Wilson is called away by the United States Government and that
explains my calling him out of turn. I address these remarks to your Honor for
the purpose of asking counsel whether they will make any point of the fact that
the package might have been opened since he sealed it, because I would not be
able to call him back as he will be quite a distance away.
Mr. Pope: Did he seal it?
Mr. Wilentz: He stated so.
Mr. Pope: Those are his seals on
there.
Mr. Wilentz: Yes.
Mr. Pope: We will so agree.
Mr. Wilentz: So we may stipulate
on the record that no point will be made that the seals have been opened since.
He affixed the seals to it.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. I notice, Mr.
Wilson, that in some of these yellow sheets which make up Exhibit S‑99, that
there are some blue check marks and so that counsel and particularly the
defense will know [891] what they mean, it not having been explained up to now,
did you affix those blue check marks alongside of some of the serial numbers?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. What is the meaning of those
blue marks, as you put them alongside of some of these serial numbers?
A. On December 26th, December 27th, 1934, Corporal Horn and myself checked
each identical bill appearing in that envelope with the numbers appearing upon
the yellow sheets and I placed a blue pencil check mark opposite each number in
the record on the yellow sheets where the same number was in and on the gold
certificates which we were handling.
Q. So that where the blue check
mark appears in this exhibit 99, that represents the bill which is in the
package. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it is for the convenience
of the trial I take it? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: I want it witnessed,
your Honor please, that I am returning this package. (Laughter.)
Mr. Reilly: Don't put it over
here.
Q. Now, Mr. Wilson, I desire to
exhibit to you a five dollar bill of the United States of America. There
appears to be written on the back of this bill in pen and ink “Loew's” with
some sort of ink marking, and I ask whether this has been in your possession
and, if so, for how long and from whom you obtained it. A. Yes, sir; this bill
has been in my possession since December 21st, 1934, at which time I obtained
it from the cashier in the office of the Treasurer of the United States at
Washington, D. C.
Q. Thank you, sir.
[892] Mr. Wilentz: I offer it for
identification. The Court: It may be marked.
(The five dollar bill was marked
State Exhibit S‑103 for Identification.)
Mr. Hauck: Did you mark the bill
itself?
Mr. Wilentz: Yes, S‑103 for
identification.
The Court: When did you get that
bill, Mr. Wilson?
The Witness: December 21st, 1934,
at Washington, D. C.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Can you from
memory describe the bill which you got from the Treasury Department that date?
A. It is a five dollar United States note, series of 1927 or 1928; I don't
remember the serial number, but I checked the serial number.
Q. Is it one of the bills of the
Lindbergh ransom money package? A. I checked the serial number on that
bill with the yellow sheets prepared at Morgan & Company, Mr. Madden and
myself, and we found that that particular—Corporal Horn and I found, that that
particular number appeared upon the yellow sheets.
Q. So that it is a part of the
Lindbergh ransom money? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Wilson, as a
representative of the United States Government, you continued to work on this
case in an investigating capacity? A. Yes, sir.
[893] Q. And also in an advisory
capacity? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So far as you were concerned,
I take it, representing the Federal Government, you were in the same position
as the State troopers, that is, your job was to do the same kind of work?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Your business is also to
apprehend criminals, is it not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you knew, did you not,
that Colonel Lindbergh was planning to pay thousands of dollars to some person
who was attempting to get it on the pretext that he was going to surrender the
Colonel's child. A. Yes, sir.
Q. And, you knew of the
negotiations, as well as the other police officers? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you make any effort to
interfere with those negotiations and apprehend the criminal? A. No, sir.
Q. Wasn't it your duty—I withdraw
that. Were you in the court yesterday? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you hear counsel for the
defense propound to Colonel Breckinridge a question with reference to his duty
as a lawyer, with reference to the apprehension of a criminal? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. What have you to say as to
whether or not you knew as an officer of the law, and particularly representing
the United States Government? Didn't you know that it was your duty to
apprehend the criminal?
Mr. Reilly: I move that he answer
yes or no, please.
The Court: Yes or no.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you do it? A. Yes,
sir.
[894] Q. How? A. We felt
that two things were necessary.
Mr. Reilly: I object to how he
felt.
The Witness: All right.
Mr. Reilly: Wait.
The Court: Let him tell what he
did.
The Witness: We retained the
serial numbers on the ransom bills and, as a result of that, we were successful
in finding a large amount of it in the possession of one person and that
evidence was presented to the Grand Jury in Hunterdon County with other
evidence which resulted in his indictment and he is now on trial for murder.
Mr. Fisher: That is objected to,
if your Honor please, because it doesn't state a fact. No such indictment was
returned by the Grand Jury Mr. Wilson is speaking about. On the contrary, it is
an indictment for kidnaping which has never been brought to the fore.
The Court: He is talking about an
indictment for murder. Was there not an indictment for murder?
Mr. Fisher: Not at the session he
is speaking about. The original indictment was for a kidnaping.
Mr. Wilentz: That is not the fact
at all. I don't know why counsel attempts, if [895] your Honor please, to
misstate the facts. I am sorry that I must so refer to him. This indictment is
for murder, as the witness has stated.
The Court: Yes. If counsel have
any doubt about the matter and desire to cross-examine this witness in relation
to the activities that he has been speaking of, counsel may do so.
Mr. Fisher: What I want to get in
the record, your Honor, is that there are two indictments here, the first
returned to John Doe for kidnaping, and now this indictment for murder.
The Court: I know of no
indictment for kidnaping. I know of an indictment for murder. That is the
indictment on which he is now on trial.
Mr. Wilentz: There is only one
indictment for kidnaping and counsel knows it, as far as this defendant is
concerned.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. And as the
result of the plans of the United States Government with reference to these
serial numbers, the arrest and indictment you speak of, of a man who is the man
you are talking about? A. Bruno Richard Hauptmann.
Q. Now, in addition to that you
have continued along in this investigation since his arrest, have you not?
A. A great deal of the time. I was on another assignment for a period of a
few months.
Q. Temporarily? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that you had been on and
off this assignment [896] for the Government since March, 1932? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. The other day in this
courtroom counsel for the defense asked Colonel Lindbergh who he thought was
the kidnaper—
Mr. Reilly: I object to this.
Mr. Wilentz: Let me ask the
question.
Mr. Reilly: If he is going to
predicate it upon—
Mr. Wilentz: I don't know, since
counsel asked that sort of question I thought I would try it (laughter), and if
it is objectionable—
The Court: One moment.
Mr. Wilentz: Well, I will
withdraw it if there is an objection to it, and I see that there is one.
Mr. Reilly: I don't think it is
legal. That is why the objection.
Mr. Wilentz: I think that counsel
is right about it; I don't think it is legal. I didn't think the other one was.
(Laughter.)
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Did you as
agent in charge cause to be investigated, so far as you could, the money
transaction of this defendant, Bruno Hauptmann? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And you assigned agents for
that purpose, [897] did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So far as you know, Mr.
Wilson, since the indictment of Bruno Richard Hauptmann for murder has there
been one ransom bill turned up? A. No, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: That is all.
Cross-examination by Mr. Fisher: Q. Do you mean to say, Mr. Wilson,
as a positive fact it is within your knowledge that not a single ransom note
has been passed since the apprehension of Hauptmann? A. Not that I know
of.
Q. Well, now, that is a different
question. You don't know whether any has or not, do you? A. I have no
report and have not seen any; I know nothing about any bill turning up, sir.
Q. But you would not want to say
under oath in this court as you sit there now, that not a single ransom bill
has appeared since the arrest of Hauptmann would you? A. None that I know
of.
Q. Will you say that not a ransom
bill appeared anywhere in the world since the arrest of Hauptmann? A. I
don't know what has happened throughout the world.
Q. Of course you don't. Now you
say you are in this investigation from sometime in March, 1932, that is
correct, isn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Working with the police,
various police organizations? A. Yes, sir.
Q. State Police? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Jersey City police?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Newark police? A. Yes, sir.
Q. To some extent, the New York
City police? A. Yes, sir.
[898] Q. What about the New York
State police organization? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Trenton City police?
A. No, sir.
Q. Federal Agencies? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. You testified in the trial of
the indictment against John Hughes Curtis, did you not, Mr. Wilson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. At that time, on page 373, in
answer to a question: “Could not the truth or falsity of Mr. Curtis'
investigation have been established as to the contact with the actual kidnaping
gang at any time by any person, Colonel Lindbergh, the police, or anybody else
demanding that he produce a writing bearing that symbol or discontinue his
activity in the case?” And in answer to that question didn't you answer “No”?
Mr. Wilentz: What is the
question, your Honor, please?
Mr. Fisher: That is the question.
Was that question asked and did he answer?
Mr. Wilentz: It is not proper
cross-examination, your Honor. It is not material anyway. It has nothing to do
with his testimony up to date whether a question of that sort was asked at
another trial. It does not bear on the subject matter of my inquiry.
The Court: It does not seem to be
related to the direct examination.
Mr. Fisher: May it please your
Honor, I will attempt to show you where it is; Mr. Wilentz had the witness
testify that he came in this investigation in the middle of [899] March, I
think he used the very date, March 15th, and continued as an investigator in
this cause from there on with a short exception. Now, it is my understanding
that I will be permitted to question this man as to his actions during the days
he had related he was working on this particular case.
The Court: Well, you may—
Mr. Fisher: With reference to the
solution of the crime.
The Court: You may question him
about his activities.
Mr. Fisher: Yes.
Mr. Wilentz: I have no objection
to that, Mr. Fisher, I told you that once, but I do not see at the moment that
it is relevant to ask him what he testified to at the Curtiss trial.
Q. As a result of your
investigation, and as the result of being connected with the case, were yon
connected with the case, were you called on to testify in the trial of the
indictment against John Hughes Curtiss? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, the testimony that you
gave there resulted from your investigation, didn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Yes. Now, while testifying in
that cause, as the result of your investigation conducted during the period
about which you were questioned by the Attorney General, were you asked this
question during the trial of the indictment [900] against John Hughes Curtiss:
“Question: Could not the truth or falsity of Mr. Curtiss' investigation have
been established as to contact with the actual kidnaping gang at any time by
any person, Colonel Lindbergh, the police, or anybody else, demanding that we
produce a writing bearing that symbol or discontinuing his activity in the case?”—
Mr. Wilentz: I object.
Q. —and didn't you answer “No”?
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute,
please. Well, if your Honor please—
Mr. Fisher: I assume I have a
right to finish my question.
Mr. Wilentz: I assume that they
are two separate questions anyway, first the question and then the answer. Now,
the first part is just the question. That is where I attempted to interrupt
counsel, but apparently he didn't hear my effort. Now, if your Honor please, it
is the same question and I make the same objection. To open the door to this
line of questioning particularly where it isn't with reference to my direct
examination, would be to attempt to try a different defendant, who apparently
had some trial here at some other time in which Mr. Fisher apparently
participated. It is not at all material to this case what his views were about
that situation at that time, and he wasn't asked about it on direct, and for
that reason, not because I have any particular reason for attempting [901] to
have this question eliminated, but merely for the properly and orderly
procedure of the trial, I think that this question which I believe to be
objectionable because it is immaterial, should be overruled, and therefore I
object to it.
The Court: I sustain the
objection.
Mr. Fisher: I pray an exception
to your Honor's rule.
[EXCEPTION ALLOWED].
Q. Now Mr. Wilson, while you were
on the investigation, starting, as you testified in answer to the Attorney
General, about March 15th, did you develop any clues which seemed to indicate
that you were about to close in on the kidnaper? A. No, sir.
Q. You didn't? A. (The
witness shakes his head negatively.)
Q. Now I ask you whether or not
now in the trial of the indictment against John Hughes Curtis, in answer to
this question—
Mr. Wilentz: What page, please.
Mr. Fisher: Page 393.
Q. If you didn't make the answer
which I will incorporate in my question?
Mr. Wilentz: I will object to
that, as [902] long as counsel gives me advance notice of it. First the
question, if your Honor please,—
Mr. Fisher: I assume, your Honor,
that I have the age-old privilege of asking my question before objection is
offered.
The Court: Yes, you may ask your
question.
Mr. Fisher: Yes.
“Mr. Wilson, the person to whom
you refer is suspected of being implicated in this matter? A. Not”-
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute. I
object to that if your Honor please. I think that the answer cannot be included
in the question. My understanding of the law is that when—
The Court: Yes, I think you are
perhaps correct about that. Mr. Fisher may ask whether or no the witness on the
Curtis trial was asked a certain question. Now you
may frame your question; frame your question.
Q. Mr. Wilson, on the Curtis
trial, were you asked the question, “Mr. Wilson, the person to whom you refer
is suspected of being implicated in this matter?” Were you asked such a
question or were you not? A. Yes, sir.
By Mr. Fisher: [903] Q. And in
answer to that did you state “Not him himself, but he is in touch with other
persons and for that reason I do not care to give his name”?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to the
question, if your Honor please, because it is not material to this cause at
all; it is not proper cross-examination, does not at all refer to the subject
matter of my inquiry.
Mr. Fisher: I think that is
entirely foreign to the law of New Jersey. Here is a man who is a police
officer and if, under oath in this court, he gave evidence as to a person who
as a result of his investigation he suspected of having knowledge of this
crime, certainly on the trial of this indictment that should be admissible
testimony, particularly if it was other than the defendant.
Mr. Wilentz: May I state, if your
Honor please, if we are going to inquire as to suspects and as to this
gentleman's opinion at that time, we are going to return to the position that
we had earlier in the case, and we will have to ask what this gentleman's
opinion is now. It does not affect his credibility in this case at all, it is
apparently not intended for that purpose, but it is merely to inject a matter
that is absolutely foreign to this case. Apparently counsel cannot forget the
Curtis case and it has absolutely nothing to do with this witness or his
testimony in this case, nor has it anything to do with the case.
[904] Mr. Fisher: Apparently the
State would like to forget the Curtis case, but they can't forget it.
Mr. Wilentz: I move that remark
be stricken.
Mr. Fisher: I move your remark be
stricken.
The Court: I will sustain the
objection.
Mr. Fisher: I pray an exception,
your Honor.
The Court: Take your exception.
[EXCEPTION ALLOWED]
By Mr. Fisher: Q. Mr. Wilson, I
ask you this further question: if on the trial of the indictment against John Hughes
Curtis you were asked this question:
“If you disclosed this man's
name—”
Mr. Wilentz: What page? Mr.
Fisher: Page 394.
Q. “If you disclosed this man's
name, would it affect the people this man is in touch with who are suspected of
this crime?”
[905] Mr. Wilentz: I object to
the question, if your Honor please, because it has no bearing on this case at
all and it is not proper cross-examination, not having been alluded to at all
in the direct and it is not material to this cause.
Mr. Fisher: Your Honor, it is my
position it is proper by having the witness testify that he was engaged in an
investigation of this very crime. Certainly if he was engaged in an
investigation, anything he did in the investigation would be proper cross-examination.
The Court: As far as Mr.
Curtis—is that the name—was concerned, was he indicted for murder?
Mr. Fisher: Mr. Curtis was
indicted for interfering with Justice. Nobody knows what he was tried for.
Mr. Wilentz: Counsel should know,
he defended him, if your Honor please.
Mr. Fisher: I was defending what
the State introduced, and the State introduced nothing that could be
understood.
The Court: I sustain the
objection. Mr. Fisher: I pray an exception. The Court: Granted.
[EXCEPTION ALLOWED].
[906] By Mr. Fisher: Q. Now Mr.
Wilson, I ask you if in the course of your testimony in the trial of John
Hughes Curtis you referred, in speaking of the people suspected of the crime,
continuously to them as a gang?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to that, if
your Honor please, for the same reasons. I hate to be on my feet every minute
objecting to questions. I don't think it is material to this cause, if your
Honor please, aside from the fact that it is not proper cross-examination and I
respectfully submit that the question ought not to be allowed.
The Court: This witness has not
been asked as to whether, to his knowledge, a gang committed this murder or
whether an individual committed the murder, has he?
Mr. Fisher: I am looking to sworn
testimony, your Honor, in the cause.
The Court: I am talking about his
present examination.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. In March and
April, 1932, did you refer to the crime as being committed by a gang?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to the
question, if your Honor please.
[907] The Court: I sustain the
objection.
Mr. Fisher: I pray an exception
to your Honor's ruling.
The Court: Granted.
[EXCEPTION ALLOWED].
Q. Now Mr. Wilson, where was the
first ransom bill passed after the money was turned over to the suspected
person, suspected of procuring the money from Condon—where was the first ransom
bill picked up? A. The first bill that we know was passed was located in a
bank on Broadway not far from 72nd Street, I believe, or near the Majestic
Apartments.
Q. And when was that?
A. That was approximately about April 7th or 8th, 1932.
Q. Now, where was the next ransom
bill that you know of found; where did it come to light?
A. I believe it come to
light in a restaurant referred to as Schrafft's Restaurant on lower Broadway.
Q. At about that time did you
have any knowledge of a $20 ransom bill picked up near Bridgeport, Connecticut?
A. There never was one of these bills picked up in Bridgeport,
Connecticut.
Q. Never any picked up—
A. No, sir.
Q. —in Connecticut; in the State
of Connecticut? A. Not one.
The Court: Did the witness say
where, [908] on what date, this second bill was picked up?
Mr. Fisher: No.
The Witness: No, your Honor, I do
not recollect the date. It was approximately around May 1st, 1932.
The Court: Down in the Broadway
neighborhood of New York?
The Witness: Lower Broadway, yes,
your Honor.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. And what was
the denomination of the first bill picked up, the one that you say was found in
the Broadway bank? A. Twenty dollars.
Q. And about the second one: what
was the denomination of that? A. Five dollars.
Q. Now, Mr. Wilson, what about
ransom money being picked up outside the United States? Do you know whether or
not any ransom bills have ever been located in any country foreign to our own?
A. Not one while I was working on the case.
Q. Do you know whether or not any
have been found? A. No, I do not.
Q. You don't have any knowledge
of that? A. No.
Q. Do you know whether or not
approximately $3,000 of ransom money was deposited by one Max Schlaug, a
florist of New York City? A. No.
Q. You never heard of that
deposit? A. No, sir.
Q. Do you know whether or not $2,910
of ransom [909] money was deposited in a Federal Reserve bank in New York City
the day the gold embargo became effective? A. No, sir.
Q. You know nothing about that
$2,910? A. Not that amount.
Q. Well, was there any sizable
deposit made in a Federal Reserve bank of New York the day the gold embargo
became effective? A. Yes, sir.
Q. How much was it?
A. $2,980.
Q. $2,980. Was that deposited by
one person? A. We don't know.
Q. Well, was there a deposit slip
or any record of the transaction? A. Not that would be directly connected
with that amount.
Q. Isn't there any record kept,
or wasn't there any record kept within your knowledge by the bank that would
indicate who turned in $2,980 of ransom money? A. We tried to establish
the person that turned that in and we could not do so.
Q. Well, you established a name,
didn't you, Mr. Wilson? A. Not definitely, no sir.
Q. Do you mean to say that there
was no name on any slip that accompanied the turning in of the 2980 dollars?
A. Yes, there were slips containing names, but we were unable to attach
this particular amount to a particular slip because—
Q. Pardon me. A. Go ahead.
Q. Was there any ransom money
turned in at that time that you were able to attach any particular slip to?
A. No, sir.
Q. Now, do you mean to tell this
Court and jury that of the $2,980 the last day that gold was legal tender, that
there is no way at all that you could identify, even as to name, any person who
turned in a single one of those ransom bills, is that correct? A. Oh, yes,
we could identify many of them.
Q. Well, did you identify anybody
by name that [910] turned it in? A. I beg your pardon, we could not
identify anyone.
Q. By name, even? A. By
name, no, sir.
Q. So that, on that day, $2,980
of ransom money was passed over the bar of the bank and you say now that not a
human being knows even a name that was given by a person that passed one of
those ransom bills?
Mr. Wilentz: Just a minute, the
question is impossible of an answer, whether this man knows whether any human
being knew.
Q. Well, as an intelligent human
being do you know? A. No, sir. We have a slip that may be connected with
it, but we couldn't definitely establish it.
Q. What is the name that appears
on the slip?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to that, if
your Honor please, as mere speculation.
The Court: Well, I don't know
about that. The witness may know and he may not. I cannot tell whether he does
or does not. He may answer the question.
The Witness: J. J. Faulkner.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. You had reason
to believe that the slip bearing the name of J. J. Faulkner was passed over the
till along with some ransom money, is that correct? A. We thought it might
have been.
[911] Q. Well, did you check up
J. J. Faulkner? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As you were investigating J.
J. Faulkner, is it true that a J. J. Faulkner threw himself from the top of the
Chrysler tower and committed suicide? A. I don't know.
Q. Don't you know, as a matter of
fact, that that is true? A. No, sir.
Q. That J. J. Faulkner of New
York committed suicide shortly after the knowledge that this ransom money had
been turned in to the Federal Reserve Bank? A. No, sir.
Q. You say you have never heard
of that, Mr. Wilson? A. No, sir, I have not.
Q. You never heard of a man named
J. J. Faulkner committing suicide in New York? A. I heard of a man named
Faulkner, but I don't remember that that was his initials.
Q. You carefully investigated J.
J. Faulkner, did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you find a J. J. Faulkner
alive? A. Yes, sir, several of them.
Q. Several of them alive?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Did you find any of them dead?
A. Yes, we found some of them dead.
Q. Dying since the passing of the
ransom money into the bank? A. No, sir, previous to that.
Q. Then your investigation
disclosed no man named J. J. Faulkner who died between the time the money was
passed in the Federal Reserve Bank—and I speak now of the ransom money—and the
date of the arrest of Hauptmann? A. I don't remember the initials of the
Faulkner that committed suicide. He may have had those initials, but I am not
sure.
Q. What happened to the slip
signed J. J. Faulkner? A. It was left in the bank where the money was
exchanged.
[912] Q. Who has it now, if you know?
A. I do not know.
Q. Do you know whether that note
was submitted to handwriting experts to compare to the handwriting of the
defendant in this cause? A. I don't know.
Q. You know nothing about that?
A. I don't know that.
Q. You did not follow that
investigation? A. No, I was away from this case for a short period and I
don't know just exactly what was done about that.
Q. When did you come back on the
case, Mr. Wilson? A. I came back on the case November 15th of this year.
Q. Did you make any effort then
to personally locate the note signed J. J. Faulkner? A. No, sir.
Q. Didn't you consider that an
important element of your investigation? A. I was informed that it had
been taken care of.
Q. Were you informed that it had
been given to a handwriting expert to compare with the handwriting of Mr.
Hauptmann? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what were you informed the
result was? A. That it was not the same writing.
Q. That it was not in the
handwriting of Bruno Richard Hauptmann? A. Yes.
By the Court: Q. When you speak,
Mr. Wilson, of a note, do you mean a deposit slip or something of that
character? A. A slip very similar to a deposit slip that was used at the
time an exchange of gold certificates was made for Federal Reserve notes which
the Government required be surrendered.
[913] Q. You saw there a deposit
slip signed by J. J. Faulkner? A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. Did that deposit slip show the
amount of money that had been exchanged? A. Yes, your Honor.
Q. What was that amount?
A. $2,980.
Mr. Fisher: I should like to ask
the State to produce that slip at this time so that I may present it to the
witness for identification.
Mr. Wilentz: I should like to
have a little advance notice of what is wanted. We have a ton of evidence—
Mr. Fisher: You mean it isn't in
court now?
Mr. Wilentz: I have whatever you
want, if you will ask for it.
Mr. Fisher: You will produce that
for the next session?
Mr. Wilentz: If we have it you
will have it.
Mr. Reilly: Just a moment. It is
very important that we have it. We have a stipulation on the record. We want to
trace that slip.
Mr. Fisher: Yes. The Attorney
General says he will produce it and that, of course, is sufficient for us.
By Mr. Fisher: [914] Q. Now,
let's get back to the picking up of ransom money. What about the third ransom
money found, the third piece of ransom money—Do you remember where that was
found and when, and what the denomination of it was? A. I am not positive.
I think the third piece was a five dollar United States note found at
Bickford's Restaurant on 42nd Street near Broadway or in that vicinity.
Q. Now, on the same day that the
Faulkner money was passed in at the bank, was there any additional ransom money
beyond the $2,980 passed there that day? A. No, sir.
Q. There wasn't an additional—
Mr. Wilentz: I can't hear you,
Mr. Wilson.
A. No, sir—excuse me.
Mr. Fisher: I am in the way.
Mr. Wilentz: No, you are not in
the way, you are standing too close and he doesn't throw his voice up. There is
no objection to that, Mr. Fisher, I don't mean that.
Q. Do you know whether or not
there is a ten dollar ransom money note passed in the same bank on the same day
as the $2,980, a ten dollar note? A. No, I do not.
Q. You have no knowledge of that
at all? A. No.
Q. Now, how much ransom money was
there in the envelope that you produced here this morning? A. $14,600.
Q. And do you have in your
possession any additional ransom money at this time? A. No, sir.
[915]Q. What happened to the
$2,980 deposited by Faulkner? A. It was sent by the Federal Reserve Bank
to the Treasurer of the United States.
Q. Now, how much ransom money
altogether, exclusive of the money produced in court this morning and the
$2,980 has been sent in to the Treasurer of the United States since the passing
of the ransom money down to the present time?
Mr. Wilentz: If the witness
knows.
Mr. Fisher: Yes.
Q. If you know. A. I don't
know.
Q. Well, you know that this
$2,980 was sent in? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, how much more money do
you know has been sent in to the Treasurer of the United States? A. I know
of approximately $1,000.
Q. $1,000. Now, of that $1,000
was it sent in in single bills; that is, one bill at a time? Or a five or a ten
or a twenty? A. No. One lot of fifty tendollar bills and—
Q. Where—pardon me. A. Yes.
Q. Where did that come from?
A. It come from the Chase Bank and Trust Company, No. 149 Broadway.
Q. And had that been turned in to
that bank in one lump sum or was it an accumulation? A. I don't know.
Q. Mr. Wilson, who would have
knowledge of how much money has been turned in to the Treasurer of the United
States? What official would have that information? A. The cashier in the
office of the Treasurer of the United States.
Q. Who is that, if you know? It
is Mr. Hilbert.
Q. Mr. Hilbert? A. Yes.
[916] Q. H-i-l-b-e-rt? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And he would have definite
knowledge of just how much of this ransom money has been surrendered to the
Treasurer of the United States? A. He would have knowledge regarding
certain parts of it; I don't know whether he will know whether all of it has
been.
Q. Well, is there any person we
could put our hand on who would be able to come in this court and say to a
certainty how much ransom money has found its way back to the office of the
Treasurer of the United States? A. He is the best man available, I
believe.
Q. And so far as you know, within
your own knowledge, $1,000 has been turned in, exclusive of the money you have
here and the $2,980 deposited by Faulkner? A. And a few odd bills.
Q. What would they total, Mr.
Wilson? A. Oh, two or three hundred dollars.
Q. Two or three hundred dollars.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. It would be safe to assume it
at three hundred: is that so? A. I believe so.
Q. That represents approximately
$18,000, doesn't it? Eight, twelve, eighteen, seven—if I figure correctly,
$18,800: is that roughly right? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Without relying on my figures?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And how much money was passed
to the kidnaper? A. $50,000.
Q. $50,000. Then at the moment,
so far as you know, there is roughly $31,000 of ransom money that has been
surrendered to the United States Treasurer or is not in your possession in this
file? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, you sent out circulars,
or your Department sent out circulars giving the numbers of the bills: is that
correct? A. Yes, sir.
[917] Q. And where were they
sent? A. To banks, banking institutions, post offices, police departments,
in this and foreign countries.
Q. Were they sent down through
the Wall Street, the financial district, to all financial institutions down
there. A. All the banks down there.
Q. Do you have a copy of the
notice that was sent out, Mr. Wilson? A. It was introduced in evidence.
Mr. Fisher: Is it here, Mr.
Wilentz?
Mr. Wilentz: It is the printed
one.
Mr. Reilly: This here.
Mr. Fisher: This one?
Q. Now, this is the circular sent
out giving the numbers of the ransom bills? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is that what you refer to
when you say that was sent to all institutions everywhere? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: That is 101, is it,
Mr. Fisher?
Mr. Fisher: It is Exhibit S‑101
for Identification.
Mr. Wilentz: No, it is in
evidence.
Mr. Fisher: It is in evidence,
oh, yes, it is in evidence.
Q. Were those numbers published
in the public press? A. I believe—a few of them were. I [918] don't
believe there were a great many of them published.
Q. A certain lot of them from
time to time, is that it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. But there was knowledge given
to the press that such a circular had been sent to all financial institutions,
wasn't there? A. Yes, sir.
Q. So that it was generally known
to the rank and file of the people in the nation that the ransom numbers had
been broadcast to all financial institutions? A. Yes, sir.
Q. What day—That bears the date
April the 6th. Is that the approximate date it reached the banks or is that the
day it was sent out? A. That was sent out on April 6th, 1932.
Q. Now Mr. Wilson, did you have
any knowledge of a $20 ransom bill being picked up in London— A. No, sir.
Q. —England? Do you know whether
or not there have been any ransom bills passed since the 19th of September,
1934? A. No, sir.
Q. Within your knowledge none
have been passed? A. No, sir.
Q. But there are outstanding so
far as you know roughly $31,000 in ransom bills. A. Well, I don't know
whether it is outstanding. Much of that money may have gone into the Treasury
of the United States without being located.
Q. Let me ask you this: so far as
your records go you can account for only, roughly, between eighteen thousand
and nineteen thousand dollars of the ransom money, is that correct?
A. Approximately that amount.
Q. Approximately, of course.
A. Yes.
Q. Were any ransom bills picked
up in Philadelphia? A. No, sir.
Q. What about Chicago.
A. No, sir.
Q. Were there any ransom bills
picked up anywhere [919] except in New York City? A. I believe there were
one or two picked up just outside the city.
Q. Did you ever hear or did you
have any knowledge of ransom money being located in the safe of the Earl Taylor
Hat Company, New York City? A. Never.
Q. Or in the possession of one
Meyer, M-e-y-e-r, in New York City? A. No, sir.
Q. Was any ransom money ever
picked up in the Capital, that is Washington, D. C.? A. No, sir.
Q. Who had knowledge besides
yourself of the numbers on the bills prior to the passing of the ransom? A. Mr.
Arthur P. Madden, Special Agent in charge of our Chicago office, who operated
with me, in directing the procedure by which the list was prepared, and also
the manager of the banking house that prepared the list had knowledge of it.
Q. What about employees of the
bank who assisted in the preparation of the packages? A. The various
men that worked upon it of course had knowledge of it.
Q. How many men would you say,
Mr. Wilson, altogether including yourself and Mr. Madden, had knowledge of the
markings of the numbers on the ransom bills? A. Approximately 25 to 27 or
28.
Q. Does that include Colonel
Lindbergh and Colonel Breckinridge? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fisher: I think that is all,
sir.
Re-direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. You are leaving the State
after your testimony [920] today, are you not, on business for the Government?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Just for the purpose of the
record, so we may connect it later, the money, the 14,000 and some odd dollars that
has been introduced in evidence that you refer to, or rather that has been
introduced for identification, you left that at the Trenton Savings Bank
sealed, did you not? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And it came up with one of the
agents this morning? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that is the package that
you had there, as I remember it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, this Faulkner referred
to, was there any evidence that you found that Faulkner actually deposited any
gold certificates in that bank that day? A. We could not find any direct
evidence with reference to it.
Q. Was there any evidence except
that a man by the name of Faulkner had exchanged some moneys at that bank that
day? A. We found that a man by the name of Faulkner had exchanged $2,900
at the bank on that day; yes, sir.
Q. Now— A. Or, a man using that
name.
Q. A man using that name? Is it a
fact that such a person with the address given—isn't it a fact that it was
found that that was a fictitious name so far as the address given was
concerned? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, with reference, as I
understood Mr. Fisher's calculation, approximately $18,000 has been definitely
located, and of that you mean the fourteen thousand some hundred dollars that
were found in Hauptmann's possession? A. That is included, yes, sir.
Mr. Fisher: Objected to, your
Honor. [921] I should like the witness to say what he means.
Q. Well, what do you mean, sir?
A. In arriving at that calculation, the $14,600 found in Hauptmann's
garage was included.
Q. Now, with reference to the
other moneys Mr. Fisher indicated, for the purpose of the record, at this
stage, there is $31,000 approximately unaccounted for—I think that is the way
it is: that is true, isn't it? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Is it possible and is it
probable that some of this money could reach the Treasury Department and be
there without being detected? Yes, sir.
Q. Why is that probable and why
is that possible? A. Because on May—previous to May 1st, 1933, President
Roosevelt issued an order calling in all United States gold certificates to the
Treasury Department and at that time a large amount of money went in and the
serial numbers of each bill that went in could not be checked. It was not a
practical proposition.
Q. Have you any notion at all,
can you give us some estimate of the number of bills that were turned in to the
Government as a result of the President's order?
Mr. Fisher: That is objected to,
your Honor. Mr. Hibben—
The Court: The objection is
overruled.
Mr. Fisher: Exception.
The Court: Granted.
[EXCEPTION
ALLOWED]
[922] The Witness: Several
billion dollars.
Q. Several billions of dollars?
A. Yes.
Q. And so as I understand it the
reason you gave why some of this money may have gotten into the Treasury
without detection was because of the comparison between the amount that had
been paid by Colonel Lindbergh and the amount that had to be returned?
Mr. Fisher: That is objected to.
It is very leading.
Mr. Wilentz: I will withdraw the
question. Oh, I don't think it is leading.
Q. Now when the President of the
United States ordered the return and surrender of gold certificates, what have
you to say as to whether or not it is not within your knowledge that anybody
could come into any bank of the United States, using any name, and exchange
gold certificates for others? A. They could do that.
Mr. Fisher: Object again for the
same purpose.
The Court: Did the witness answer
the question?
Mr. Wilentz: He did answer the
question.
The Court: What was his answer?
[923] Mr. Wilentz: He said they
could.
Mr. Fisher: I move to strike it
out, sir.
Mr. Wilentz: I asked him whether
it was within his knowledge that they could do that.
The Court: I think I will allow
the answer to stand.
Mr. Fisher: Note an exception.
The Court: Yes.
[EXCEPTION
ALLOWED]
Q. At the time when the President
of the United States called for the surrender of gold certificates, was that
order accompanied with the manner in which the money was to be returned?
Mr. Fisher: Objected to as
leading, sir.
A. Not the—
Mr. Wilentz: Just a moment.
The Court: Just a moment. Read
the question, please.
Q. (Pending question read by the
reporter.)
Mr. Fisher: That is extremely
leading.
[924] The Court: Oh, I think that
may be answered. You may answer that. I don't think it is leading.
A. I believe a date was
specified but not the particular manner in which it should be done.
Q. I see. Did the United States
Government to your knowledge designate any particular place where people were
to bring these gold certificates? A. All banks.
Q. Was there any requirement, if
you know, by the United States Government as a part of that law or any other
law, was it a requirement of the United States Government that anybody identify
themselves when they surrendered gold certificates? A. No, sir.
Q. So that if you as a resident,
say, of Oklahoma, happened to be in New Jersey sometime after the President's
order and before the date, the limitation date of the President for the surrender
of the money, and you wanted to exchange your gold in order to comply with the
President's order for other moneys of the United States, would it, under the
United States regulations, have been necessary for you to identify yourself by
name or otherwise?
Mr. Fisher: That is objected to.
The Court: You see, he has been
pretty well cross-examined on this topic by you.
Mr. Fisher: Not on that topic.
The Court: Generally.
Mr. Fisher: He is setting himself
up as an expert on United States procedure.
[925] The Court: The witness may answer the
question if he knows.
(Reporter repeats the last
question.)
A. No, sir, it would not.
Q. During the times, Mr. Wilson
that you were required to leave this case because of other duties with the
Government, did you assign other agents in your place, or were they assigned?
A. They were assigned, yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Fisher asked you
about the first bill that was found. I think you said April 7th or April 8th,
near the Majestic Apartments. A. Yes sir.
Mr. Fisher: Objected to, just a
second, there is nothing in the testimony that says Majestic Apartments thus
far down.
Mr. Wilentz: I have got it right
on my notes from his testimony, Majestic Apartment, that must have been in the
testimony, I could not have dreamed it.
The Court: What is the present
question? (The reporter repeats the last question: “Now, Mr. Fisher asked you
about the first bill that was found. I think you said April 7th or April 8th,
near the Majestic Apartments? A. Yes, sir.”)
Mr. Fisher: I withdraw the
objection if it is objected to.
The Court: He may answer it.
[926] Mr. Wilentz: The objection
is withdrawn, if your Honor please, anyway.
The Witness: Yes, sir.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Now, in your investigation—withdraw that.
You say you know the Majestic Apartments? A. Yes.
Q. Do you know the Majestic
Apartments with reference to its—withdraw that. Do you know whether Mr. Bruno
Richard Hauptmann worked there? A. Yes, sir.
Mr. Fisher: I object to that
unless he shows of his own knowledge.
The Court: Well, he is asked if
he knows and he says that he does.
Mr. Fisher: Yes.
The Court: You may cross-examine
him about that when you get ready.
Mr. Fisher: Yes.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Were you in
the Bronx Court when Mr. Hauptmann testified as to the places he worked?
A. No, sir.
Q. You were not. Is there any question
that he didn't work there?
Mr. Fisher: There is a question
as to this man's knowledge—considerable.
[927] Mr. Wilentz: I see. But not as to
whether he worked there.
Mr. Fisher: That is not before
us, Mr. Wilentz.
Mr. Wilentz: All right, sir.
Q. Now, of course, Mr. Wilson,
neither you nor any other person living knows how much of this money is in
circulation or where, isn't that so? A. No, sir.
Q. And is it possible at all
humanly for any agency, Government, State or otherwise, to state definitely
today how much of this Lindbergh money except that which has already been found
is in circulation amongst the general public and amongst various banks?
Mr. Fisher: Objected to, your
Honor.
The Court: I think that question
has already been answered.
Mr. Wilentz: That is all I have.
Re-cross-examination by Mr. Fisher: Q. Are there any gold notes in
circulation today, Mr. Wilson? A. I presume there are, a limited number.
Q. In circulation? A. That
have not been returned to the Treasury Department.
Q. Now the Attorney General asked
you a question prefaced by the words “of your own knowledge.” What do you
understand that to mean? A. Well, if I read a sworn statement or I read a
transcript of evidence in a court procedure as I [928] did with reference to
the matter that was referred to, I would consider that my own knowledge.
Q. Then your own knowledge, means
something that you read, is that right? A. A transcript of a court
procedure.
Q. I don't care what it is—
Mr. Wilentz: It isn't what you
care. Just a minute, if your Honor please. I think that the witness has been
interrupted before his answer.
The Court: Let the witness answer
the question.
Mr. Fisher: I submit to the
stenographer to see if the question isn't answered.
The Reporter (Reading): “Then
your own knowledge means something that you read: is that right? A. A
transcript of a court procedure.”
Mr. Fisher: Yes, it was answered,
Mr. Wilentz.
The Court: Proceed.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. You never saw
Hauptmann work in the Majestic Theatre, did you? A. No, sir.
Q. You never heard his voice
while he was employed there, did you? A. No, sir.
Q. And when you answered under
oath as to something of your own knowledge, you are relying on something you
read: is that correct? A. The testimony in the court proceedings.
[929] Q. Will you answer my
question, please? A. Yes.
Mr. Wilentz: The testimony in
what? The Witness: In the court proceedings.
Mr. Fisher: Just a moment. I will
conduct this examination—subject to your Honor's ruling.
The Court: Well, you will have to
conduct it in an orderly fashion.
Mr. Fisher: Yes, I want to.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. Something you
read; is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Wilson, I understood
you to say that a man could take gold, after the embargo was declared, to a
bank and simply pass it through a window, without any formality or without
writing anything or leaving any memoranda: is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. And is that true of any sums
of money? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Do you say that a man could
take in $2,980 as much money as that and pass it across the bar without any
memoranda being given or exchanged, A. Yes, sir, larger amounts than that.
Q. Wasn't it the rule that if any
money over a thousand dollars was turned in, that an exchange slip must be
executed? A. No, sir.
Q. Giving the name and address of
the party turning the money in? A. No, sir.
[930] Q. You say that was not the
rule? A. That was not the rule.
Q. No such instructions went out
to the various bankers of the country? A. Not—no, sir.
Q. Requiring them to take a
memorandum from any person who exchanged more than one thousand dollars?
A. No, sir.
Q. Why do you suppose, Mr.
Wilson, the Federal Reserve—why did the Federal Reserve Bank require this man
to make out a slip a transfer slip? A. They requested all people making
deposits there to do so, but that was not done in other banks throughout the
country.
Q. Well, then, so far as that
particular United States Bank is concerned, it was necessary to exchange a
memorandum when you exchanged money, gold money? A. In that particular
bank.
Q. Yes, so that there is an
exception to your general rule, then, is that correct? A. Yes, sir.
Q. Well, now, how about other
exceptions over the country, do you know if any other bank required the same
thing? A. I don't know of any other banks that did that.
Q. But you do know this
particular bank did. A. Yes, sir.
Q. As to ransom money slipping
back into the Treasury Department, what were the instructions given the
Treasury Department as to this so-called ransom money? A. There were
instructions given to Federal Reserve banks and to other banks, to make a
careful search of this money.
Q. Issued by authority of no less
a person than Herbert Hoover, the President of the United States? A. Yes,
sir.
Q. Is that correct? And they were
told to watch with great care for these so-called ransom notes, were they not?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Then was the Treasury
Department itself [931] instructed to keep a check on ransom money as it should
come in? A. As far as practical, but it was not practical to check all
money coming in.
Q. Then you want us to understand
that despite the order of the President of the United States, despite the
emergency that existed, they were not at all careful in observing money sent in
through the Treasury of the United States. A. No, I don't want to—
Q. Well, they were careless to
the point that you say it would have been very simple for money to slip through
their fingers? A. No, they were not careless, but they were handling
volumes of money and it was not practical to check each bill.
Q. It was better to forget all
about the Lindbergh kidnaping than to check the money?
Mr. Wilentz: I object, your Honor
please, this in a harangue and I object
to it.
The Court: That is an improper
question.
Mr. Wilentz: I move that it be
stricken from the record.
The Court: Yes.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. Then the force
of work, the volume of work, became so acute that there was some laxity
existing in the department in the search for ransom money?
Mr. Wilentz: I object to that
question as being improper.
[932] The Court: I overrule the question. It
has been answered repeatedly.
By Mr. Fisher: Q. Will you
explain to me exactly what did happen that the ransom money might be overlooked
in the Treasury Department? A. The President, Franklin D. Roosevelt issued
a proclamation calling in all gold certificates and they came in in such great
volume that not through carelessness or laxity or being lax, but because there
was such a great volume coming in, it was not practical for the Treasury
Department or banks to check each bill that passed through their banks in such
a short space of time.
Q. Did you ever work in the
Treasury Department itself, that is, in the Treasury Building, in the Secretary
of the Treasury's office? A. I worked in the Treasury Building.
Q. Did you work in the Department
that would handle the return of money such as you are now speaking of?
A. No, sir.
Q. What happens, Mr. Wilson, to
gold money turned in? A. I don't know.
Q. Is it still stored in
Washington? A. I don't know.
Q. You don't know whether it is
destroyed or whether it is stored or what happens to it? A. I do not know.
Q. You don't know then whether
they checked the gold that has come in since the arrest of Hauptmann? A. I
do not know that they have checked it all.
Mr. Fisher: That is all.
[933] Re-direct Examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. Now, with reference to
these notices, S‑101, being sent to banking institntions, they were not sent to
brokerage houses, were they, A. No, sir.
Q. Being connected with the
Treasury Department, you are familiar with the fact, are you not, that in 1933
and shortly prior to the inauguration of President Roosevelt, that many banking
institutions in the country closed, A. Yes, sir.
Q. And during the time— No,
withdraw that.
Q. And upon the inauguration of
the President of the United States you recall, do you not, that there was a
banking holiday, A. Yes, sir.
Q. And that during those days the
ordinary banking methods of people were stopped, A. They were.
Mr. Reilly: Oh, I object to the
speculation and the discourse.
Mr. Wilentz: Well, no; I am
coming to a question, if your Honor please.
The Court: I don't know the point
of it, Mr. Wilentz.
Mr. Reilly: Neither do I, sir.
The Court: It may be relevant. I
will allow it.
Mr. Reilly: Then we will go along
with the General until he gets to the point.
Q. The moneys during those days,
during the banking holiday, is it a fact, or is it not a fact that much more
cash was handled throughout [934] this nation than ever before in the history
of the country?
Mr. Reilly: I object to that.
The Court: Well—
Mr. Reilly: Far-fetched, if the
banks were closed—
The Court: If he knows.
Mr. Reilly: Well, how could he
know?
The Court: I do not know how he
could know. Do you know about that as a fact?
The Witness: No, sir; no, your
Honor.
The Court: He says he does not
know.
Q. Now, we have been talking
about gold. What have you to say as to whether or not this Lindbergh money was
all gold or whether or not some of the certificates were other than gold?
A. $35,000 was in United States gold certificates; $15,000 was in other
currency, such as United States notes
and Federal Reserve notes.
The Court: Were the serial
numbers taken with respect to not only the gold certificates but the Federal
Reserve notes and U. S. Treasury notes?
The Witness: Yes, your Honor.
The Court: All of the notes in
the package, the serial numbers were taken?
[935] The Witness: Yes, your Honor. The yellow
list represents $50,000, of which 35,000 was gold certificates, 5,000 United
States Federal Reserve notes and 10,000 United States notes, totalling $50,000.
The Court: I understand you, sir.
By Mr. Wilentz: Q. Just one more
question, Mr. Wilson. You talked about the bank which did require the presentation
of some slip, deposit slip or exchange slip. Did that bank require a person to
identify himself? A. No, sir.
Q. So that so far as that bank
was concerned, the requirement was, according to your answer to Mr. Fisher,
that when a citizen or a resident came in with gold he had to give a name?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. That is to say, his name, but
no identification was required, as I understand? A. None at all.
Q. So that if I went in and gave
Mr. Fisher's name, that is all there would be to it; is that it? A. That
is all.
Q. Or reverse, if Mr. Fisher went
in and gave my name? A. Yes, sir.
Q. As a matter of fact, the
clerks made out many of those exchange slips?
Mr. Fisher: Objected to, your
Honor.
Mr. Wilentz: I withdraw the
question.
Q. Do you know whether or not
many of the exchange slips for gold certificates in that bank were made by the
persons who asked for the exchanges [936] or whether they were made by clerks
in the bank?
Mr. Fisher: That is objected to,
if your Honor please.
The Witness: No.
Mr. Wilentz: He doesn't know
anyway.
The Court: He doesn't know.
Mr. Wilentz: He doesn't know
anyway.
All right, Mr. Wilson; thank you.
Re-cross-examination by Mr. Fisher: Q. Just one question. I
understand that $70,000 was marked. That is correct, isn't it, Mr. Wilson?
A. Yes, sir.
Q. And what happened to the
$20,000 that wasn't used? A. The $20,000 that was not used was returned at
the direction of Colonel Lindbergh to his bank.
Q. And then the serial numbers
destroyed as to that $20,000? A. No.
Q. Crossed off the list?
A. It was not destroyed. The list was kept separate on the $20,000.
Q. And you used only the $50,000?
A. That is correct, Mr. Fisher.
Redirect examination by Mr. Wilentz: Q. As a matter of fact, the
$20,000 was in fifty dollar bills: isn't that so? A. It was.
[937] Q. And there are no fifty
dollar bills in this list? A. None whatsoever.
Mr. Wilentz: Thank you, Mr.
Wilson. And we wish you a pleasant journey.
Court Crier Hann: The jurors
would like to have a recess, your Honor.
The Court: I am told that certain
members of the jury would like to retire for a moment.
Mr. Reilly: Yes, sir.
The Court: We will take a recess
for five minutes.
No comments:
Post a Comment