ms EOURNAUSTS JUDGE THE CARR‘SEGLER T ;.
0NE~~MAN GRAND mm. 19434943: A STUDY

Thesis for the Degree of M. A
mcmsmsmsumvmsmt . ‘
HARRY THOMAS BANNISTER, 1r. fl
1971 ,

 

 

ABSTRACT

THE JOURNALISTS JUDGE THE CARR-SIGLBR ONE-MAN
GRAND JURY, 1943-1948: A STUDY

BY

Harry Thomas Bannister, Jr.

Since its inception in 1917, the Michigan one-man
grand jury has been used as an effective investigative
tool to uncover corruption and crime; and the procedure
has helped some of the men who conducted grand juries to
attain prominent public positions. At the same time, the
investigative technique has generated criticism that too
much power and responsibility have been concentrated in
the hands of one man--the judge-juror.

1 Five investigations achieved lasting public inter-
est during the original run of the one-man grand jury law,
with the last and most notable of them--the Carr-Sigler
legislative graft investigation--occurring at the peak of
its popularity in the 19405.

From 1943 to 1948, Judge Leland W. Carr of the
Ingham County Circuit Court, and his successor, Louis B.
Coash, investigated allegations of graft and corruption
in the Michigan Legislature. Besides disclosures that

resulted in convictions for legislators, lobbyists and

Harry Thomas Bannister, Jr.

others, Judge Carr's special prosecutor, Kim Sigler, was
elected governor of Michigan in 1946, primarily because of
grand jury-related publicity. Carr himself left the grand
jury in 1945 upon his appointment to fill a vacancy on the
bench of the Michigan Supreme Court.

On the negative side, the legislative graft grand
jury suffered three major judicial setbacks in acquittals,
and a State Senate Committee investigation in 1946 resulted
in criticism of the grand jury's spending, particularly as
regarded Sigler. But the most troubled aspect of the Carr-
Sigler investigation-~and its major predecessors--con-
cerned the use of contempt and immunity powers to force

testimony from recalcitrant witnesses.

It was predominantly the question of individual
liberty and the rights of a defendant in the one-man grand
jury that resulted in the law's major revision in 1949.

It was also this question that provided the reason for this
study. Through analysis of press coverage and editorials,
plus first-hand accounts from grand jury reporters, the
study examined how four closely involved Michigan daily
newspapers covered grand jury news, from the initiation of
the Carr-Sigler investigation in 1943 to the law's revision
in 1949.

Did these four newspapers function as watchdogs of
government and represent the citizen whose rights were being
threatened; or did they uphold the inquisitorial character

and broad power of the one-man grand jury? More important

Harry Thomas Bannister, Jr.

was the manner in which grand jury-related news reached the
public, for the revision of the law was certainly indica-
tive of dissatisfaction with the then existent structure.

Research has shown that the four major daily news-
papers cited in this study had clearly taken sides by 1949
on the merits of the one-man grand jury and that two of

them--the Detroit News and Detroit Free Press--had gone

 

 

beyond the editorial page in attempting to influence their
readers. This discovery that the largest and most presti-
gious newspapers of Michigan's press did not uphold the
citizen whose rights were threatened was not as discomfit-
ing as the realization that the newspapers resorted to using
page-one news columns to carry their editorial position to

the public.

THE JOURNALISTS JUDGE THE CARR-SIGLER ONE-MAN

GRAND JURY, 1943-1948: A STUDY

By

Harry Thomas Bannister, Jr.

A THES IS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

School of Journalism

1971

Accepted by the faculty of the School of Journalism,
College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in
partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Master of

Arts degree.

 

(0, 04mm "051M

Director of Thesis

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

For whatever this study of the Michigan one-man
grand jury may be deemed of value, I thank four individuals.
To W. Cameron Meyers, I am grateful for his initial role as
advisor, continual role as liason with the graduate commit-
tee, and final role as my thesis director. To John Murray,
I am grateful for his suggestion and advice in choosing the
topic upon which this study is based. To former reporter,
Knight McKesson, I am grateful for the leads he provided me
which served to enhance the validity of my research. To my

wife goes a final thank you, for her three years of patience.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . . . . . . . . .’ . . . . ii
INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter
I. POLITICS SLOWS THE EARLY GRAND JURY . . . . 10
II. "LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY" . . . . 55
III. A STRING OF SUCCESSES MARKS THE JURY'S
HIGH POINT . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
IV. AN ACHILLES' HEEL: THE JURY'S UNDOING . . . 142
V. THE LEGISLATURE KILLS A LAW . . . . . . . 176
VI. THE JOURNALISTS JUDGE THE ONE-MAN GRAND JURY . 196
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . 207

iv

I NT RODUCT I ON

On May 10, 1917, Governor Albert E. Sleeper approved
a bill passed by the Michigan Legislature "to authorize pro—
ceedings for the discovery of crime and to Provide penalties
for a violation of such procedure."1 This enactment, Public
Act. No. 196, was brief and consisted of only four sections.
For the next thirty-two years, it existed almost without
change--except for two minor amendments attached in 1921 and
1947. The system established by this statute soon became
known, and has continued down to this day to be referred to
as the Michigan onecman grand jury.

The law provided that any person, whether public
official or private citizen, could file a complaint with a
magistrate. The latter was to determine whether there was
probable cause to believe that some offense had been com-
mitted and that evidence could be given about it. If he
found probable cause, he could then institute proceedings.

If after inquiry the magistrate concluded that a
crime had been committed and if he suspected the guilty
party, he could then proceed as on a regular complaint to

issue warrants and conduct the preliminary investigation.

 

lMichigan, Public Acts (1917), Public Act. No. 196.

 

The secrecy requirement imposed on members of the larger,
traditional grand jury was made applicable to the magis-
trate, the prosecuting attornex,and others admitted to
the inquiry at the discretion of the judiciary official.
Refusal of a witness to appear or to answer relevant
questions constituted contempt, which was punishable by
fine and/or imprisonment. The magistrate, upon written
motion of the prosecuting attorney, could grant immunity
against prosecution in exchange for answers to Specific
questions.

At the height of its fame and power, the Michigan
one-man grand jury was indeed a formidable institution.
The grand juror combined in himself judicial functions and
functions similar to those of the common-law grand jury.
Acting in his judicial capacity, the grand juror could not
be sued for issuing an improper report reflecting on the
integrity of a governmental officer. He could hire at
public expense a staff of special prosecutors, investiga-
tors.and accountants. He was not directly controlled by
any court other than his own, which meant that he was the
foremost individual to consider appeals against his action
as a juror. He could punish, summarily and in secret,
testimony that he considered false or evasive, and he was
authorized by law to preside at the examination and trial
of cases he investigated. Like the traditional twenty-
three man grand jury, the one—man grand jury could insti-

tute an inquiry without finding probable cause and,

once begun, an investigation could be directed into broad

2
paths . SP

Since its inception in 1917, the n-man grand jury
has been used as an effective, investigative tool to
uncover corruption, crimes and scandal. And the procedure
has helped some of the judges who conducted grand juries to
reach prominent public positions. At the same time, the
investigative technique has generated much criticism that
too much power and responsibility have been concentrated in
the hands of one man--the judge.

While the majority of investigations conducted from
1917 to 1939 were of a minor sort and attracted little public
notice, the flowering of the one-man grand jury occurred from
that year to 1948. The system was used on an unprecedented
scale, in investigations large and small and in all parts of
the state, though its dominant habitat remained in the
southern half of the Lower Peninsula, where the bulk of
Michigan's population resides. Many of the inquiries car-
ried out by judge-jurors had little impact beyond a limited
locale, but there were at least a score of one-man grand
juries that stirred widespread interest. Five investigations
achieved lasting public interest during the original run of
the one-man grand jury law, with the last of them--the Carr-

Sigler case-~occurring at the peak of its pOpularity of this

 

2Background information was taken from a study by
Robert G. Scigliano entitled "The Michigan One-Man Grand
Jury," Political Research Studies (East Lansing: Govern-
mental Research Bureau, MiEhigan State University, 1957).

 

legal instrument in the mid-19405, when approximately
fifty to sixty one-man grand juries were in session each
year.

From 1943 to 1946, Judge Leland W. Carr of the
Ingham County Circuit Court, and his successor, Louis E.
Coash, investigated allegations of Michigan legislative
graft and corruption. Besides disclosures that resulted
in convictions of legislators, lobbyists and other citizens,
Judge Carr's special prosecutor, Kim Sigler, was elected
governor of Michigan in 1946, primarily because of the grand
jury-related publicity he attracted in the state press.
Carr himself left the grand jury in 1945 upon his appoint-
ment to fill a vacancy on the Michigan Supreme Court. On
the negative side, the legislative graft grand jury eventu-
ally suffered three major judicial setbacks in acquittals,
and a Michigan Senate committee investigation in 1946
resulted in criticism of the Carr grand jury Spending,
particularly as regarded Sigler.4

But the most troubled part of the Carr grand jury
investigation and its immediate predecessor, the Ferguson

grand jury in Detroit, concerned the use of contempt and

 

3Robert Scigliano, "History of State's Unique One-
Man Grand Jury System Since '17 Traced," Lansing State
Journal, September 13, 1956, p. 3 (Lansing State Journal
hereinafter cited as State Journal).

 

4Michigan, Legislature, Senate, "Report of the
Special Committee Appointed to Investigate Ingham County
Grand Jury Expenditures." The report, which was not for-
mally filed, is included in the records of "People v.
Hancock," in the Circuit Court of Ingham County, n.d.,
Docket No. 7813. (Typewritten.)

immunity powers. These powers were extensively employed
and were often used in support of each other as a means of
forcing testimony. And during the one-man jury's heyday
in the mid-19405, the Michigan Supreme Court assisted
in making the use of these powers as effective as possible.
If a witness testified before the grand jury with-
out formally receiving immunity, he could later be prose-
cuted, for he did not gain immunity automatically through
his testimony. If he testified in a manner that the judge
considered evasive, he could be summarily punished for
contempt. If his grand jury testimony conflicted with
testimony given at the examination or trial, he was liable
to be prosecuted for perjury. If the witness claimed self-
incrimination, then he could be given immunity and com-
pelled to testify. If the witness was already under
indictment for the crime concerning which immunity was
granted, he could not refuse to accept immunity on the
ground this would lose him his right to defend himself
against public accusation. While the Court did not require
the witness to testify in a situation that would expose
him to federal prosecution, it did look closely at this
defense, with the result that witnesses who refused to
testify on that ground all went to jail. And the court
ruled that a person who was improperly granted immunity
by the grand jury would have to object to the illegal
action at the time it occurred (at which time he was

before the judge-jury without the advice of counsel).

Persons prosecuted as the result of the one-man
grand jury were also under a judicially imposed handicap.
While the state was permitted to use any portions of the
grand jury record in order to refresh the memory of its
witnesses or to impeach the witnesses for the defense,
the same right was denied the defense.5

It was primarily this question of individual liberty
and the rights of a defendant in the one—man grand jury that
caused the Michigan Legislature to re-examine faults in the
law. Beginning immediately after the Carr-Sigler grand jury
suSpended most of its functions in 1946, resolutions were
launched from the State Bar of Michigan to correct the
apparent faults of the one—man system. The first resolution
was accepted by the legislature and passed in 1947. This
first amendment to the 1917 law in twenty-five years dis-
qualified judge-jurors from presiding at either the prelimi-
nary examination or the trial of persons arrested under
warrants issued by them.6 This qualification was particu—
larly relevant to the activities of Judge Carr, who regu-
larly presided at the examination of his own charges.7

The second resolution did not find such easy success.
Introduced at the 1945 annual meeting of the State Bar along

with the first resolution, the resolution proposed total

 

5Decisions pertinent to the contempt and immunity
powers cited above can be found in Scigliano, "The One-Man
Grand Jury," pp. 57-58.

6Michigan, Public Acts (1947), Public Act No. 33.

 

7Detroit News, Aug. 29, 1946, p. 19.

 

abolition of the oneéman grand jury. During the next four
years, dissent raged among various repeal and revision fac-
tions; the high-point appeared in March, 1948, when the
Supreme Court of the United States handed down its decision
in the Oliver case.8 While the federal court did not rule
on the constitutionality of the law, it nonetheless provided
strong support for those in opposition to the one-man grand
jury. The specific point of the court was that conviction
of a person for contempt of court without a reasonable
opportunity to defend himself against the charges, and con-
viction within the secrecy of the judicial chamber, consti-
tuted a denial of due process of law. Speaking for the
court, Justice Hugo Black castigated the Michigan proceed-
ings in strong terms, using the English Star Chamber, the
Spanish Inquisition and the French lettre de chachet for
his analogies.9

The eventual outcome of the contested one-man grand
jury law was the emergence of House Bill No. 287, which
advocated changes to correct the abuses of the law that
created "a three-judge system, heavily weighted with pro-
cedural safeguards."lo On June 17, 1949, newly elected
Governor G. Mennen Williams signed the bill into law.

"Thus, the one-man grand jury law enacted in 1917 and, up

 

81n re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257.

9Ibid., 268-270, 272-73.

loScigliano, "The One-Man Grand Jury," p. 64.

to 1949, only twice amended in minor ways, was completely
revised--so much so that opponents of the new act claimed
the law had in effect been repealed."11
The purpose of this study is to examine reportorial
coverage and editorial interpretation of the Carr-Sigler

one-man grand jury from 1943-1948, as published in the

Lansing State Journal, the only daily newspaper published

 

in the capital city of Michigan and appearing weekday after-
noons and Sunday mornings; and the three daily Detroit news-
papers that were being published at the time the grand jury

was in session--the Detroit Free Press, published weekday

 

and Sunday mornings; and the Detroit News and Detroit Times,

 

both published weekday afternoons and Sunday mornings.

The three Detroit dailies were chosen for study
because of their large circulations and traditional prestige
in the state. In addition, early interviews to establish
background revealed conjecture that all three Detroit news-
papers played an intimate part in fashioning the pattern of
the one-man grand jury's tenure in Michigan. As the capital
city's only daily, the Lansing newspaper was also chosen to
balance or add data collected from studying the Detroit

press.

 

llIbid., p. 68.

12Fred S. Siebert, Theodore Peterson, and Wilbur
Schram, Four Theories of the Press (Urbana: University of
Illinois Press, 1963), pp. 77-103.

 

Examining these four newspapers in relation to
their role in a free society, this study seeks to determine
whether they functioned under their responsibility to a
free society as watchdogs of government. Did they represent
the citizen whose rights were allegedly being threatened,
or did this portion of Michigan's press uphold the inquisi-
torial character and broad power of the one-man grand jury?
More important to the study is the manner in which grand
jury-related news reached the public via these newspapers,
for the revision of the one-man grand jury law in 1949 was
certainly indicative of rising dissatisfaction with the

existent structure.

CHAPTER I

POLITICS SLOWS THE EARLY GRAND JURY

For an investigation that attracted extensive
publicity in later months, newsPaper coverage of the one-
man grand jury probe into legislative corruption started
off quietly. Twelve days before the jury was officially
called into session, the Detroit Free Press published a
one-column story based on the exclusive announcement of a
petition1 presented to the then Attorney General of Michi-
gan, Herbert J. Rushton.2 Filed by six members of the
Detroit Citizens League acting as individuals, the petition
was backed by sufficient evidence, said league secretary
William P. Lovett, to merit the calling of a grand jury
immediately. Lovett further stated:

We are convinced after a careful investigation

for six months, that graft was paid to certain mem-
bers of the legislature to defeat the anti-Chain

Banking Bill, which prohibits the establishment of
any more chain banks in Michigan.

 

lKenneth McCormick, "State Graft Probe Begun by

Rushton," Detroit Free Press, Aug. 15, 1943, p. l.

 

2Kenneth McCormick, "Vote-Buying at Lansing Is
Alleged," Ibid., Aug. 14, 1943, p. l.

10

11

Individual members of the league have become
disturbed and worried over the increased reports
of graft in the legislature. During the last
three sessions there have been reports about the
buying and selling of votes to defeat the bill.
. . . [We] were able to submit voluminous reports
in writing with facts, figures and overt acts of
corruption to Attorney General Rushton.

Our committee suggested that a one-man grand
jury would be more effective, but that would be
up to the attorney general.3

In a Free Press story the following day, however,

 

Attorney General Rushton expressed irritation over Lovett's
announcement. Although admitting he had begun his own
investigation, he stated he was not a believer in "smearing
honest men's reputations and then finding out there was no
reason for smearing them."4 Rushton also said he would not
be stampeded into calling a grand jury. He said that if
his office found any evidence of wrong doing, however, it
would be punished. Defending his action in announcing that
Rushton had been asked for a grand jury, Lovett insisted

he was not a believer in "hunting ducks with a brass band.
. . . I don't believe that grand juries are a cure for all
evils, but I do think that when there is reason to believe
that graft has been paid to members of government there's
only one way to find out and that's a grand jury." Lovett
explained that such transactions by necessity were made
secretly and it would be necessary to put the men under

oath and force them to tell the truth.5

 

3Ibid.

4McCormick, "State Graft Probe Begun by Rushton,"

51bid.

12

By August 17, other newspapers picked up the story,
as Attorney General Rushton continued interviewing legis-

lators concerning the anti-branch banking bill. A Lansing

State Journal story on page one detailed for readers remarks

 

made by Rushton that he had "uncovered no evidence as yet
adequate to call a grand jury" and that Lovett's reports of
graft in connection with the branch banking bill "contained
insufficient evidence."6
In the same story was a statement from State Repre-
sentative William C. Stenson, Greenland Republican, who
said he had told Rushton that during the 1941 session
$1,000 had been placed in his coat pocket in an envelope
that also contained a note reading, "Vote against No. 1."
Stenson said he assumed this was the number of the anti-
branch banking bill and that he had returned the money to
a man he suspected of having placed the envelope in his
pocket. A grand jury investigation, Stenson said, "might
be a good thing."7

Stenson's statement was considered to be of more

importance by a Detroit News story of August 17. The

 

story said interest in a grand jury investigation

to determine whether legislators were offered bribes

 

6"To Continue Sift of Bribe Charges," State Journal,
Aug. 17, 1943, p. 1.

71bid.

13

"was revived here today when Representative William C.
Stenson, of Greenland, Ontonagon County, asserted that
$1,350 had been offered him about the time that members
of the House of Representatives voted on the anti-chain
banking bill."8
Attorney General Rushton told the News that the
Detroit Citizen League information had been turned over to
his deputy attorney general several weeks earlier and the
latter had reported very little evidence. "Still annoyed
at William P. Lovett, League Secretary, for making infor-
mation public on the complaint, Rushton said a statewide
grand jury might cost at least $250,000. He said no such
sum is in his budget--'If I should find reason to ask for
a grand jury, I will ask the Legislature to provide the
money,‘ he said."9
The Detroit Times story of August 17 was more Opin-
ionated in its page-one coverage of the probe. Headlined
"Rushton Acts on Bribery of Legislator," the news story in

the Hearst-owned newspaper said Rushton "indicated today he

will ask the Legislature for funds to conduct a grand jury

investigation after receiving a statement from Representative

William C. Stenson alleging he received $1,000 in bribe

money during the l942[l94l] session."

 

‘ 8Carl B. Rudow, "Lawmaker Bares 'Gift,'" Detroit
News, Aug. 17, 1943, p. 21.

91bid.

14

With the investigation now exposed to the public,
the newspaper stories of the next few days enlarged upon
the issue of legislative corruption. The Lansing State
Journal on August 18 published a page-one story, headlined
"Bribery Probe Backing Grows," carried quotes from state
officials anxious to expose alleged bribe-taking. D. Hale
Brake, state treasurer, who as a member of the state senate
in 1941 had spearheaded a "spectacular fight" for anti-
branch banking legislation, "added his voice to demands for
a grand jury investigation of reports that money at least
was offered in efforts to influence lawmakers' votes on that
bill." Brake said he considered the fate of the bank bill
in both the 1941 and 1943 sessions of the legislature
should be investigated and that a grand jury would be the
appropriate agency to conduct the inquiry.

Discussing its cost, Auditor General Vernon J.
Brown said a grand jury might run many thousands of dollars,
if it were properly conducted and financed, but that he
considered the expenditure would be worthwhile "to clear
the air of rumors he said have been current since the bill
became a center of controversy."

The branch banking bill was the center of a

classic fight in 1941, and the motivating cause of
the legislature's "sit-down strike" against the
then Gov. Murray D. VanWagoner, who vetoed it.

After long battling, it was passed by the legis-

lature, Van Wagoner vetoed it, and the legislature
then refused to adjourn with a promise from the
governor that he would refrain from helping opponents

of the bill when the proponents attempted to muster a
a two-thirds vote to override the veto. A stalemate

15

developed which extended for months, before the
lawmakers finally adjourned after a futile effort
to override.

A similar bill was defeated in the Senate in
the 1943 session.1 ‘

Enlarging the scope, a two-column story in the

August 18 issue of the Detroit News carried charges made by

 

Charles C. Lockwood, attorney for the Greater Detroit Con-
sumers Council, that "a lot of persons in influential posi-
tions are anxious to kill any suggestion of a grand jury
investigation of the State Legislature." Lockwood declared
that his organization had "definite evidence of graft
which he was willing to present," and that he "has been
trying to get an investigation started for two or three
years in regarding a payoff by interests which supported
the Milk Control Bill in the 1939 and 1941 sessions."ll
His letter to Attorney General Rushton also supported
demands for a grand jury investigation.

Facing increased pressure and mounting evidence,
Herbert J. Rushton announced on August 19 he would petition
the Ingham County Circuit Court for a grand jury investiga-

tion to determine whether lobbyists and others "have been

corrupting or attempting to corrupt members of the

 

10Background on the anti-chain banking bill is taken
from the State Journal story, "Bribery Probe Backing Grows,"
Aug. 18, 1943, p. l.

ll"Graft 'Proof' Offered Jury," DGtIOit News,
Aug. 18, 1943, p. 13.

 

16

legislature" with bribes. The investigation, he said,
would be a broad inquiry into conduct of the Legislature
in its 1939, 1941 and 1943 sessions.

Interest in the demand of a group of Detroit
Citizens league members for such an inquiry had
been lukewarm until [Representative William C.]
Stenson made public his story and said he had
related it to Rushton.

Promptly legislators and former legislators
lent their voices to the grand jury demands and
mentioned unpleasant rumors of graft and bribery
which they said they had heard in connection with
the legislature's action on certain banking dog
and horse racing, milk price fixing and insurance
bills, and of several of a multiplicity of bills
which sought to reduce small loan interest rates.1

The August 19 issue of the Detroit Times in a front-

 

page story, announced Rushton's decision to probe the con-
duct of the legislature with an eight-column, all capital-
1etters headline that shouted to its readers: "Probe Leg-
islative Graft." The story, which ran down column one,
carried William P. Lovett's charge that legislative bribers
were now fleeing the state. Despite the exodus, however,
Lovett predicted sensational developments and the "indict-
ment of several wicked men."

With Rushton's decision to ask for a grand jury
investigation came an announcement at the same time that
Judge Leland W. Carr, presiding judge of the Ingham Cir-
cuit Court, would conduct the jury sessions.13 In addi-

tion, both the Detroit News and Free Press editorialized

 

 

12G. Milton Kelly, AP, "To Ask Probe of Legislature
by Grand Jury," State Journal, Aug. 19, 1943, p. 1.
(Associated Press diSpatch hereinafter cited as AP.)

13James M. Haswell, "Grand Jury Will be Run by
Rushton," Detroit Free Press, Aug. 20, 1943, p. l.

 

 

17

on the decision. The News left no doubt of its stand on
alleged graft in Lansing.

Attorney General Rushton's decision to petition
for the convening of a grand jury on reported cor-
ruption in the Legislature was welcomed by everyone,
excepting the crooks who may be indicted for bribing
or bribe-taking.

The decision was a foregone conclusion even
though Rushton's_preliminarv inquiry turned up no
specific information further than the Stenson inci-.
dent . . . . With this much to go on, no honest member
of the Legislature, let alone of the voting public,
would have been satisfied to let the matter rest.
The Stenson incident proved there was attempted
bribery at least in the 1941 consideration of the
anti-chain banking bill. But the way in which that
attempt was made suggested only too strongly it was
no isolated instance. . . .

The crime of bribery is a crime against every
citizen. It is as near to treason as a man can get
without selling out to a foreign enemy of his coun-
try. It is a betrayal of the whole process of demo-
cracy and in a way is worse and more to be resented
than treason itself.

To restore public faith in the legislature, the
grand jury must leave no slightest room for doubt
that its work is thoroughly done.14

The Detroit Free Press also strongly supported a

 

probe, commenting that Attorney General Rushton had

"finally consented to ask for a grand jury to investigate
charges of bribery in the Michigan State Legislature,"

where "rumors of graft . . . have been rampant for years. . . .

However, said the Free Press, "the direct accusations made

 

by a committee of members of the Detroit Citizens League

in connection with the anti-chain banking bill, could not

15

be passed over lightly." Because of the League's

 

14"Go Right to the Bottoml", Editorial, Detroit
News, Aug. 20, 1943, p. 18.

15"Action at Lansing," Editorial, Detroit Free Press,
Aug. 20’ 1943’ p. 160

18

reputation for integrity and sincerity, the action pro-
posed by Rushton was made necessary. Not mentioned in

Free Press praise of the league, however, was the inte-

 

gral part its own reporter, Kenneth McCormick, played.
For a year prior to the calling of the grand jury, McCormick
had investigated rumors of graft. It was he who had pro-
vided the evidence used by the Detroit Citizens League to
launch its drive for a legislative investigation.16

By August 23, 1943, Attorney General Rushton's
petition had been submitted and found acceptable to Judge
Leland W. Carr. The circuit judge was to preside over a
broad inquiry into activities covering the previous three
biennial sessions of the legislature from January 1, 1939,
to July 1, 1943. Rushton himself estimated 400 to 500 wit-
nesses would be called in an effort to determine whether
any members of the legislature had accepted, solicited, or

17

had been offered bribes. With a special session of the

legislature coming up in early 1944, the attorney general
asserted he would avoid interfering with it, and would aim

18

for a clean-up of the inquiry "before the holidays." The

news on August 23 of an impending grand jury received

 

16Interview with former Detroit Free Press reporter,
Kenneth McCormick, December 2, 1970.

17Background information on Rushton's petition for
a grand jury is taken from the State Journal story, "Carr
Orders Investigation by Grand Jury," Aug. 23, 1943, p. 1.

18"Apt to Open Probe by Middle of Week," State
Journal, Aug. 21, 1943, p. 1.

 

 

19

major front-page play in the Detroit News and Times--both

 

of which ran eight-column headlines, taking second place

only to a war story--while the Lansing State Journal ran

its page-one story beneath a two-column headline in large type.
Following the announcement of an investigation, the

State Journal ran a biographical sketch on page one of its

 

editions for August 24, highlighting the two predominant
characters in the Ingham County grand jury: Judge Leland
W. Carr, and Herbert J. Rushton, who would function as

grand jury prosecutor, "to be sure friendships and politics

did not limit the inquiry."19

A couple of farm boys, who grew up to make their
mark in Michigan's legal profession, will hold a
spotlight in conduct of the grand jury investigation
of the legislature which will open here Thursday. . . .

Big, scholarly Leland W. Carr, for 21 years a
Circuit Judge here is famous for a memory which
enables him to quote laws and citations which many
attorneys would have to seek out in their law books.

Kindly and dignified, his temper nevertheless
quickly flares at any courtroom conduct which he con-
siders unbecoming. Judge Carr occupies modest offices
adjacent to the courtroom.

He walks to and from work, and home for lunch each
day, scorning to ride the half-mile each way.

Born on a Livingston County farm, September 29,
1883, he practiced law in Ionia after he was gradu-
ated from the University of Michigan law school, and
came to Lansing to serve six and a half years as an
assistant attorney general. He became legal adviser
to the State Highway Department in 1919 when Michi-
gan's trunkline road system was adOpted. A year-and-
a-half later he was elected to the circuit bench to
fill a vacancy. . . .

Carr and the hard-fisted, tough-speaking Rushton
offer an interesting contrast in personalities, but

 

19Haswell, "Grand Jury Will Be Run By Rushton,"

20

they are similar in being sticklers for the law
and in possessing legalistic backgrounds which
resulted in each bs$ng mentioned for a post on
the supreme court.

The following day, on August 25, the State Journal
published an editorial in which the editors discounted the
controversy over alleged graft in Lansing.

Now, after years and years--and years--there is
an actual, bonafide investigation of legislative
bribery afoot. It may result in conversation--and
then again it may not. Inasmuch as there is a
"may not" possibility, let the work go on. The
whole state knows Judge Carr and the full faith is
that he will bring out of the investigation all that
there is to bring.

The State Journal for weeks has noted the more
or less excited attitude of our Michigan papers over
the bribery charge. . . . But this paper, through
time out of mind, has heard the bribery story so
much and so often that, like Attorney General Rush-
ton, we have been slow to get excited. . . .

Tales concerning the preparation of the venal
minded, to deal in undue legislative influence, have
varied from session to session. . . . If outright
and downright passing of money to influence legisla-
tion is practiced in any degree in our legislature,
let us know it and face the fact grimly; but let us
hope that the investigation now stated is not merely
to inquire into the tales of the simple-minded and
credulous.21

At 9:00 a.m., August 26, 1943, the legislative graft
grand jury opened in Lansing and, through the experienced

view of Free Press reporter Kenneth McCormick the investiga-

 

tion "struck at two definite phases of alleged graft in the

State Legislature."22 Seven witnesses were questioned by

 

2 u . . . .
0 Ex-Farm Boys Hold Spotlight in Investigation,"
State Journal, Aug. 24, 1943, p. 1.

2 n 0 - . u . .
1 Legislative Bribery, Editorial, State Journal,
Aug. 25, 1943, p. 6.

22 . .
Kenneth McCormick, "Quiz Starts Before Carr,"

Detroit Free Press, Aug. 27, 1943.

 

 

21

Attorney General Herbert J. Rushton, including State
Senator Carl F. DeLano, three State Representatives, and
three hairdressers who had been active in a 1941 fight for
revision of a law governing cosmetologists. Appearing
before Judge Carr was Representative George N. Higgins,
Ferndale Republican, who told reporter McCormick before
going in front of the jury that he had been a roommate of
Representative William Stenson at the time the latter was
solicited. Higgins revealed that besides discouraging
Stenson from accepting money over the banking bill, he, too,
had been offered a bribe to vote against the anti-chain
bank bill as he was getting a shoeshine in the lobby of the

Capitol.23

Among the hairdressers who appeared at the opening
session was Calvin Waldron, former president of the state
unit of the National Hairdressers Association. Before
testifying, Waldron admitted that there had been a stiff
fight against the revision of the law regulating the con-
duct of the industry. "Did you ever bribe any legislators?"
he was asked. "No, darn it," he said, "I wish we had. We
might have got farther."24

In the August 26 issue of the State Journal, Judge

Carr announced he would hold the grand jury in continuous

session, including nights, if warranted, until the last

 

231bid.

24Ibid.

22

of the estimated 400 to 500 witnesses were interrogated.
"Of course," he said, "if witnesses aren't available when
we try to subpoena them, we may have to take a recess

until they are found"25

Under the law, said the Journal,
the court had no authority to reach into another state for
a witness who had not been subpoenaed, but once the sum—
mons had been served the witness could be extradited.

Judge Carr also disclosed that voice recordings of
conversations alleged to have dealt with the fate of cer-
tain legislation and submitted to Rushton by the Detroit
Citizens League, would be acceptable as grand jury evidence.
He said indictments or warrants could possibly be issued
as the inquiry progressed, but more likely would be with-
held until the last evidence had been received.

The graft probe began to pick up at the end of

August, as evidenced in the lead paragraph in the news story

in the State Journal for August 28, reporting progress of

 

the inquiry. "Sensational developments impend in the State's
one-man grand jury investigation of charges of graft in the
legislature, it was indicated Saturday, as D. Hale Brake,
State Treasurer, said he was about to name four persons as

'pay-off men' who offered bribes to lawmakers."26

The Free
Press account carried the news that Brake would reveal the

activities of a single pay-off man who had attempted to bribe

 

25G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Senator First to be Quizzed
in Jury Probe," State Journal, Aug. 26, 1943, p. l.

26G. Milton Kelly, AP, "D. Hale Brake Due to Name
Bribe Givers," Ibid., Aug. 28, 1943, p. l.

23

a state senator and a representative with offers ranging
from $300 to a graduated increase--at least to one of the
legislators--of up to $1,000 to vote against the anti-

branch banking bill.27 Two days later, the Free Press

 

reported that Attorney General Rushton was in possession
of an affidavit charging that three senators had demanded
$2,000 each as their price to vote for the anti-chain
banking bill. The affidavit was said to have been turned
over to Rushton along with other evidence collected by the

Detroit Citizens League, which initially had petitioned

28

the Attorney General for the grand jury. While awaiting

for the grand jury to reconvene on Monday, reporter
McCormick drew some conclusions on how Judge Carr and
Rushton would handle the growing accumulation of evidence:

Indications are that the inquiry thus far has
been confined to feeling out several witnesses in
connection with several pieces of legislation
shrouded in rumor of corruption.

The plan of attack appears to be to generalize
during the early stages before settling down to
clearing up one at a time the various bills under
scrutiny.

At present Rushton is organizing an investiga-
tive staff. He said that the names of his investi-
gators would remain secret.

Throughout the second week of the grand jury inves-

tigation, various legislators involved with passage of the

 

27Kenneth McCormick, "Brake Says He'll Name Bribe
Payer," Detroit Free Press, Aug. 28, 1943.

 

28"$6,000 Bribe Asked by 3, Prober Told," lEiQ-r
Aug. 30, 1943.

291bid.

24

anti-chain banking bill appeared before Judge Carr and
Attorney General Rushton. Among those legislators testi-
fying was Senator Charles F. Blondy, Detroit Democrat,

whose name, said the Free Press, "had been mentioned prom-
30

 

inently in connection with the banking bill." In addi-
tion, Representative William C. Stenson appeared before

the grand jury for the sixth time, and Detroit Citizens
League Secretary William P. Lovett also testified. On
September 1, the "Little Legislature," or appropriations
committee, met and allocated Rushton's request for $150,000
for the operation of the inquiry. The fact that he had
asked for $50,000 more than he originally intended "con-
vinced those close to the grand jury that the investiga-

31

tion would be exhaustive." With the grand jury making

32 Judge Carr adjourned the jury

"satisfactory progress,"
until September 7.
Following the close of the Tuesday, September 7,
session, the grand jury was advancing so well that Repre-
sentative Stenson was released from jurisdiction of the
court and Attorney General Rushton could assert that the

one-man grand jury would complete its investigation of

alleged legislative bribery earlier than anticipated and

 

3oKenneth McCormick, "Senator Blondy Testifies in
Graft Probe," Ibid., Sept. 2, 1943.

31Ibid.

32

Kenneth McCormick, "Lovett Gives Charges to
Bribery Grand Jury," Detroit Free Press, Sept. 3, 1943.

 

25

probably by October. "We have completed the spade work

and now are ready to get down to real business."33

On September 8, the State Journal published an

 

Associated Press dispatch on the grand jury investigation
which reiterated its approaching success. "Overcoming an
earlier paucity of witnesses, a one-man grand jury investi-
gating reports of legislative bribery raced Wednesday toward
a hinted early conclusion with its chambers amply populated
with lawmakers, lobbyists and businessmen waiting to

34 With indications that some key witnesses had

testify."
talked freely before Judge Carr and that the investigation
'had been speeded considerably, Rushton left the impression
with newsmen, wrote Associated Press correspondent, Jack R.
Green, that the grand jury investigation could conclude
"within a week or so." In contrast to the original projec-
tion of 400 to 500 witnesses, Rushton said not more than 40
or 50 would be summoned. "So far we have been getting the
stories of a whole lot of people. Now we are fitting them
together. The time has come to confront accuser and accused

35

and see who is lying," the attorney general announced.

The next day, headlines in the Free Press and State

 

Journal announced the enlargement of Rushton's prosecution

staff to six men, with the appointment of Prosecutor

 

33Jack R. Green, AP, "End of Probe Seen in Month,"
State Journal, Sept. 7, 1943, p. l.

34uwaiting Witness in Sift of Graft," Ibid.,
Sept. 8, 1943, p. l.

351bid.

 

26

William E. Dowling, of Wayne County, and the addition of
Ben H. Cole, assistant attorney general in charge of the
Detroit staff. "Speculation arose immediately that the
grand jury was probing closer into Wayne County affairs
related to the state legislature, or the part Detroit law-

36

makers have played in legislation." In the September 10

issue of the State Journal, Associated Press writer G.

 

Milton Kelly noted that "tense activity by the prosecuting
staff indicated Friday some important development was
imminent in the state's one-man grand jury investigation."37
The "break" reporters and observers had been look-
ing for came on September 13 in the form of two warrants

issued by the one-man grand jury. In a two-column, page

one story, the Free Press reported that Francis P.

 

Slattery, Grand Rapids businessman and assistant vice
president of the Michigan National Bank, had been arraigned
before Louis E. Coash, justice of the peace, on a grand
jury warrant charging him with bribery. State Representa-
tive William Green, Hillman Republican, was charged in a

similar warrant. The story added, "indications here were

 

that other indictments will be forthcoming."38
36"Augment Staff of Jury Aides," Ibid., Sept. 9,
1943, p. l.
37

G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Hint at Probe DevelOpment,"
Ibid., Sept. 10, 1943, p. 1.

38Kenneth McCormick, "F. P. Slattery Arraigned in
Lansing; State Rep. Green will Plead Today," Detroit Free
Press, Sept. 14, 1943, p. l.

27

The complaints--first to come from Judge Carr's
grand jury--charged Slattery with having offered a bribe
to Representative George N. Higgins to vote against the
anti-branch banking bill on May 20, 1941. Higgins had
charged that a man stood beside him while he was getting
his shoes shined in the Capitol and thumbed through

several $50 bills just prior to the banking bill vote,

and Slattery was charged with being the man who had made.
that suggestion. Slattery surrendered voluntarily, the
Free Press reported, after receiving a call from Byron
Ballard, vice president of Michigan National, and former
legal adviser to ex-Governor Murray D. Van Wagoner. Green,
sixty-three year old farmer and former lumberman, was
charged with having solicited Floyd L. Trumble, Lansing
hairdresser and former president of the Lansing unit of the
National Hairdressers Association, for $600 in April, 1939,
to vote in favor of legislation pending in the House State
Affairs Committee.

Appearing at the arraignment, with Ballard acting
as his attorney, Slattery was asked several questions in
an interview, which indicated Slattery's and Michigan
National Bank's involvement with the anti-chain banking

bill.

"Didn't you come to Lansing to lobby against the
anti-branch banking bill, both during the 1941 and
1943 sessions of the legislature?" he was asked [by
McCormick].

28

"No," Ballard cut in, "he came down here to
get information, but not as a lobbyist."

"You came down here as a representative of
the Michigan National, didn't you?" Slattery was
asked.

"Yes," Slattery answered.

"As a representative of the Michigan National,
wasn't it your job at least to talk to legislators
and try to get them to vote in your favor?"

"Oh, sure," said Slattery.

"Did the Michigan National have a slush fund for
the purpose of influencing legislators to vote
against the bank bill?" he was asked.

Both Slattery and Ballard said that if there had
been such a fund neither of them had ever heard of
it. Then Ballard flatly denied that there had been
such a fund.39

The anti-branch bank bill, the Free Press story

 

explained, was designed to stop a gap in a previously
passed bill that prohibited branch banking in Michigan
except where the home bank was within the same county or
within a radius of twenty-five miles. The Michigan

40 by purchas-

National Bank "got around the original act"
ing six banks in other Michigan cities. This action was
defined by the courts as legal.

Opponents of the practice, however, fearing that
the smaller banks with which farmers and small townsmen did
business might be wiped out, set about to pass legislation
that would prohibit expansion of branch banking. Michigan
National Bank Opposed the bill. Favored and led by State
Senator D. Hale Brake, the bill was defeated, tabled and

then passed by a narrow margin before reaching Governor

 

39McCormick, "Slattery Arraigned in Lansing," p. l.

4OIbid.

29

Van Wagoner's desk. The latter vetoed the bill "largely

on the advice of Ballard, who was his legal advisor."41

The State Journal gave prominent play to the grand

 

jury's first warrants, running a three-column headline in
the upper right quadrant of page one, with the first three
paragraphs in oversize type. Covering the arraignment
before Justice of the Peace Coash, Associated Press writer
Kelly explained how arraignment was handled under a one-
man grand jury proceeding.
Under Michigan law, a grand jury may either
indict or obtain warrants when it finds reason
to believe crimes have been committed. Usually
Judge Carr prefers to have warrants issued, as in
this instance. . . . In either case, the respon--
dent is arrested for arraignment in a justice or
municipal court, to determine whether he should be
held for circuit court trial. . . .42
Another first for the Carr grand jury took place a

few days after the warrants were issued with the news that

Senator Charles S. Blondy, Detroit Democrat, had been

cited for contempt of court for giving evasive and contra-

43 The following

dictory testimony before the grand jury.
day, September 16, Judge Carr sentenced the senator to
sixty days in the county jail at Mason--"or until such

time as you feel you can come in here and testify as an

 

411bid.

42G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Legislator, Banker Named
in Warrants Issued in Jury Probe," State Journal, Sept. 13,
1943, p. 1.
43Kenneth McCormick, "Carr Holds Blondy in Contempt,"
Detroit Free Press, Sept. 16, 1943, p. l.

 

 

30

honest American should."44 Neither Rushton nor Carr would

disclose what Blondy had been questioned about, but Free
Press reporter McCormick in his story explained that Blondy

was linked to the banking bill by fellow members of the

state legislature.45

Continuing its investigation, the grand jury
received legislative-related witnesses from Detroit, while
members of Attorney General Rushton's prosecuting staff
worked on evidence already taken as the basis for new
warrants.46 On September 17, Rushton announced that the

grand jury inquiry had been broadened to include a number
of legislative bills not yet touched by the investigation.
Rushton said:

So far this investigation has been confined
largely to the bank bill, the milk bill and the
cosmetology bill. Now we are going to look into
the dental bill and the chirOpodist bill.

I understand that some change passed hands in
connection with them, so we are going to get to
the bottom of the accusations.

We also have a list of the so-called sandbag
bills (nuisance bills which are sometimes intro-
duced by members of the legislature to induce a
bribe offer or to force a vote trading deal) and
the names of the persons who introduced them and
we'll take the boys over the hurdle a little bit.47

In addition, a page one State Journal story, head-

 

lined "Extended Sift by Jury Looms," reported that the

 

44"Blondy Gets Sixty Days for Contempt," Ibid.,
Sept. 17, 1943, p. l.

45"Blondy in Contempt."

461bid.

47Kenneth McCormick, "Grand Jury Will Probe Other

Bills," Detroit Free Press, Sept. 18, 1943, p. l.

31

investigation might not be dissolved before 1944. Besides
the sandbag bills Judge Carr based the projected extension
on the importance of Senator Blondy's testimony and said the
latter might be called back upon the completion of his jail
sentence.

With the announcement of the extension of the

inquiry into legislative graft, the Detroit Free Press pub-

 

lished a background story to the investigation, with a head-
line that speculated, "When Will Judge Carr Get His Big
Chance?"

The progress of the grand jury investigating
charges of legislative bribery has revived specu-
lation as to how and when Judge Leland W. Carr
will find his way to the Supreme Court bench.
Judge Carr has been sitting in the Ingham County
Circuit Court since Gov. Groesbeck's day, and he
has a perfectly enormous reputation among attor-
neys. For many years he conducted classes for
young men wanting to review their legal knowledge
before taking the bar examination, and any number
of practicing lawyers freely admit they'd never
have passed their tests when they did without the
judge's patient tutoring.

It has been Judge Carr's hard luck (and Ingham
County's good fortune) that Justice Howard Wiest
has sat on the Supreme Court during the long years
Carr has sat in the Circuit Court. Justice Wiest
is an Ingham County resident, and in political
terms this means there hasn't been any opening for
Judge Carr upstairs.48

On the day Representative William Green was to
appear at his hearing on charges of soliciting a bribe,

the Detroit Free Press said that Attorney General Rushton

 

had revealed complaints had been drawn against four men

residing in Wayne County in connection with legislative

 

48Ibid., Sept. 19, 1943, p. 18.

32

bribery, and that their names would be made public when they

were arrested. Rushton added that he was satisfied that

on the evidence he had collected, the number of indictments

pending and already issued would total a dozen.49
Of the four men alluded to in Rushton's September

22 disclosure, two of their names came to light on Sunday,

September 26 in the Detroit Free Press. Warrants drawn by

 

the legislative graft grand jury and being sought through
Detroit Recorder's Court charged State Senators Charles S.
Blondy and Charles C. Diggs; Detroit Democrats, with solic-
iting a $6,000 bribe in connection with getting passage of
the anti-branch banking bill during the 1943 session.50
The two senators had allegedly solicited the bribe from
Adrian A. McGonagle, a controller of the Detroit Bank, who
had been active in the investigation that led to the grand
jury and who went on the witness stand voluntarily.51
The following day, newly appointed Lansing Munici-
pal Judge Louis E. Coash issued a warrant charging William
Burns, executive secretary of the Michigan State Medical

Society with attempting to bribe Representative Warren G.

H00per to pass the unamended form of a 1939 state bill

 

49Kenneth McCormick, "Green Due to Appear in Court
Today," Ibid., Sept. 23, 1943, p. l.

50"Bribe Warrants Sought for Blondy and Diggs,"
Ibid., Sept. 26, 1943, p. 1.

Sllbid.

33

popularly known as the "state health insurance law."52 In

a page one, two-column news story, the State Journal

 

reported that to exclude certain types of physicians from
the provisions of the bill, Burns had offered Hooper, in

March, 1939, the price of a trip to visit his parents in

California. Testifying in open court before Judge Coash,
Hooper said he was also approached by Burns on the possi-
bility of killing in his committee a bill designed to

53

regulate the practice of naturology or herb healing.

The day following, September 28, a State Journal

 

story dealing with the continued effort by Rushton's Detroit
staff to bring forth warrants against Blondy and D1995 for
bribe solicitation reported that Judge Carr's grand jury,
besides indicting William Burns, announced that its pro-
ceedings were almost complete, except for arrests. Herbert
J. Rushton speculated that perhaps "seven or eight persons
in all will be arrested," with a final tally of seven
warrants issued, relative to legislation back to and

including the 1939 legislature.54

The names of the 60 witnesses subpoenaed have
indicated . . . a variety of other measures which
were surrounded by hot controversy and rumor were
investigated. Speculation on what went on behind
the grand jury's locked doors perforce must remain
just speculation since it would be an act in con-
tempt of court to go farther.55

 

52G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Medical Group Aide Accused
in Warrant," State Journal, Sept. 27, 1943, p. l.

53

 

Ibid.
54"Hearing Asked on Bribe Count," Ibid., Sept. 28'
1943, p. 1.

55Ibid.

 

34

Although other controversial measures were investi-

gated, a Free Pres§_story of September 29 said the grand

 

jury "apparently is going to be content merely to scrape

the surface of the matters it has under investigation."56

Tangible results of the investigation to date
are a few warrants charging attempted bribery or_
solicitation of bribes. There are no warrants
charging actual bribery or the payment of any
money. .-. .

Rushton, by his own admission, possesses infor-
mation which might well bear investigation in con-
nection with the Liquor Commission, State Highway
Department and former Democratic officials. Yet he
has not broadened his petition to include these
departments in his investigation.

Rushton's petition covers only the period from
1939 on rather than running back as far as the
statute of limitations permits;

Prior to the Opening of the investigation
(Prosecutor William E.) Dowling told this writer,
"The Attorney General has a real basis for investi-
gation. It is one which can exceed the Ferguson
grand jury in sc0pe. I wish we had had as much
information when we started that inquiry as he has.
It would have saved us months of work."

The Ferguson grand jury was conducted along
the lines in which Dowling believes. That grand
jury got the facts and obtained convictions of
wrong doers.5

On Wednesday, September 29 the two warrants sought
against Detroit Senators Blondy and Diggs were approved,
while, from Lansing, Judge Carr and Attorney General Rush-
ton disclosed they had formally granted immunity from
prosecution to a witness upon whose testimony they expected

to obtain a Detroit warrant charging bribe solicitation

 

56Kenneth McCormick, "Only Surface of Charges is
Touched," Detroit Free Press, Sept. 29, 1943, p. 1.

57Ibid.

35

against two members of the House of Representatives.58 The
grand jury announced a long recess during which time Judge
Carr asserted the investigators would remain at work
"employed in a thorough analysis of the evidence we have.

. . . We still want some information concerning the source
of money which has been described as offered to bribe

. 59
certain persons."

Another statement by Rushton announced
a reduction in staff of one of his Special prosecutors
because "the grand jury's work had reached a point where
the staff could be reduced."60
The following day, Judge Louis E. Coash bound
Representative William Green over to Circuit Court for
trial on charges that he solicited a bribe from cosmeto-
logist Floyd Trumble. On October 1, the balance of
Charles Blondy's contempt sentence was set aside and he
was ordered by Judge Carr to surrender to the Detroit
Recorder's Court to face a charge of soliciting a bribe.61
As the grand jury briefly reconvened on October 11,
hearings had begun on the warrants against banker Slattery

and medical society secretary William Burns. On October

16, Judge Carr, acting as circuit court jurist,

 

58G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Get Warrant for Two More
Legislators," State Journal, Sept. 29, 1943, p. l. '

59

 

Ibid,
6oibid.

61G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Blondy's Jail Term Ending,"
State Journal, Sept. 30, 1943, p. l; "Blondy Winds Up Jail
'Vacation',F_State Journal, Oct. 1, 1943, p. l.

 

36

ordered the trial of Representative William Green.62 The

unidentified immunity grant disclosed on September 29 in

the State Journal resulted in the issuance of two warrants

 

against Detroit legislators. Headlined, "Bribe Charges
Face 2 Others," the November 10 story disclosed that
Representative William G. Buckley, Detroit Democrat, was
accused of having shared with former legislator Joseph L.
Kaminski a $100 bribe said to have been given them for
support of a Chiropody regulation bill in the 1939 legis-
lative session. With the grand jury in recess for more
than a month, Attorney General Rushton disclosed on
November 11 that it would reconvene and concern itself
largely with the results of "some undercover work" he said
was carried out by special investigators. He was, however,
not certain whether the "next batch of witnesses would be

the last."63

Judge Carr, too, indicated further warrants
and clearly stated there was more work to be done in a

State Journal story published November 26, noting "I would

 

not be so rash as to predict now when we will close our

investigation. . . . We still have a lot of work to do."64

But the Detroit Free Press sensed the imminence of some-

 

thing big in its November 26 issue with a headline deck

reading "Expect Disclosures to Rock Michigan":

 

62"Lawmaker Due for Trial Soon," State Journal,
OCt. 16, 1943' p. 1'

63"Plan Resumption 0f Jury Inquiry," iéiéf'
NOV. 11, 1943, p. 1-

64G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Carr Predicts Bribe Arrests,"
State Journal, Nov. 26, 1943, p. l.

 

 

37

Instead of ending its probe of charges of legis-
lative bribery as was commonly believed, Circuit
Judge Leland W. Carr's grand jury has been conducting
a vigorous undercover investigation which is soon
expected to explode with a reverberation which will
rock the entire state, it was learned here today.

The grand jury was reborn Oct. 1 at the time it
appeared to have gasped its last like two previous
unsatisfactory Lansing grand juries.

An announcement Oct. 1 said all testimony has
been placed in the record except that which might
turn up later. The announcement further stated that
the grand jury would remain in operation to accept
such testimony.

Instead, on that day the grand jury was reorgan-
ized to function with as much secrecy as possible.

A large group of the best investigators in the
country was employed and sworn in as members of the
grand jury staff by Judge Carr, it was revealed.
Those investigators have since operated without
restraint, using secret hideouts in which to inter-
rogate witnesses, and follow the same general lines
which made the Ferguson-O'Hara grand jury in Detroit
so successful. The Carr grand jury is delving into
the conspiracies which are believed to have been the
basis for payment of bribes.65

The Free Press story explained that the investiga-

 

tion sought wrongdoers under the Michigan Conspiracy Law,
"which has many teeth." There would always be a number of
witnesses to transactions which could be brought within a
conspiracy scope, and this fact made the conspiracy law
the "best of all weapons" in dealing with official corrup-
tion.

Bribery is a difficult charge to prove, it is
conceded. The briber usually corners the intended
bribe-receiver in a washroom--not in a public audi—
torium--and whispers his preposition in the latter's
ear. If the intended receiver is willing, the deal
is consummated. Nobody has seen the transaction.
There are no witnesses to it. If the intended
receiver later decides to talk, it boils down to his
word against that of the briber. Prosecuting attor-

 

. 65Kenneth McCormick, "Secret Jury Sifts Bribery
in Lansing," Detroit Free Press, Nov. 26, 1943, p. l.

38

neys find it next to impossible to prove such a case
in court.

On the other hand, if the briber is taken into

court on a charge of conspiracy, there are any num-

ber of persons who could have knowledge of the act.

Then, too, there are always books and records of the
corporation's or association which might shed light

on the deal.

There is little doubt among Lansing observers

that votes were bought and sold with boldness and
regularity; that many "Sledgehammer" bills have been
introduced to induce bribe offers; that some legis-
lators operated in blocs to raise the price of their
votes, and that many legislative bills voted on in
recent years were tainted by corruption.66

Editorially, the Detroit Free Press also acclaimed

the re-birth of Judge Carr's grand jury, saying "good

purpose was being served" during a period all thought was

"a state of suspended animation."

Because it was once more proved that such inves-

tigations defeat their own purpose when operated in
the hot light of noonday, Judge Leland W. Carr, one
of Michigan's ablest jurists, took a leaf from the
Ferguson-O'Hara book and effected a reorganization. . . .

Soon, as our Kenneth McCormick's story from

Lansing Friday revealed, reports on results will
begin to be forthcoming. . . . [W]hi1e the nature
of the findings still must remain temporarily a
matter of conjecture, it is quite evident that the
job which was only partly done earlier, will not
be open to such criticism this time.

It is good, though grim, news. An air of

inconclusiveness overhung the first phase. Indi-
vidual stories were half told, charges were made,
and there the whole thing rested. Judge Carr's
Oct. 1 decision appears to have made all the
difference. . . .

"Spectacular Developments Impend in Grand Jury Quiz,’

read November 2 page-one headline of the State Journal above

 

 

Press,

661bid.

67"The Probe Continues," Editorial, Detroit Free

Nov. 27, 1943, p. 16.

39

the story that informed readers about the spreading news of
a re-kindled investigation. Former Representative John F.
Hamilton, Detroit Democrat, who had recently completed a
prison term on a Detroit bribe conviction, was granted
immunity by the grand jury in connection with certain "cor-
rupt legislative 'deals' he might describe as its witness."
The immunity grant was related to whether he was promised
or had received money from a "Charles Hemans," said the
Journal, in exchange for support of legislation. The
Hemans in question was former regent of the University of
Michigan and at the time of the news story a United States
Army major in Washington, D. C.

In the November 29 issue of the Detroit Free Press,
mystery figure Hemans, who was to play a dominant role in
later grand jury business, again figured in the news. In
a two-column, page one story, Representative William C.
Stenson identified Major Hemans as the man suspected of
attempting to bribe Stenson to vote against the anti-
branch banking bill. Stenson had been taken to Washington
by grand jury aides under tOp secrecy to view Hemans with-
out arousing the latter's suspicion, and there Stenson
had made positive identification.68

The following day, an Associated Press story, date-

lined Lansing, linked Hemans with a Detroit member of the

 

68Kenneth McCormick, "Hemans is Tied to Probe by
Stenson's Bribe Story," Detroit Free Press, Nov. 29, 1943,
p. l.

40

House of Representatives, as Stanley J. Dombrowski con-
fessed that he falsely had accused Hemans of bribing him in
connection with 1941 legislation. Dombrowski's arrest was
the first public intimation that he ever had accused Hemans
or anyone else of bribing him, and his admission to perjury
swiftly earned him a prison sentence on the same day of

69

three-and-a-half to fifteen years.

On November 30, the Detroit News disclosed that a

 

large number of "confidential documents and files" belong-
ing to Charles Hemans had been seized for study by Judge
Carr's grand jury. Charging "utterly illegal" and "fairly
high-handed" tactics to obtain possession, Heman's attor-
ney in Lansing, Seymour H. Person, declared he would file
a petition to regain all documents and "any copies or

70 While

photographs of them which may have been made."
Hemans was still in Washington, his records had been
removed by subpoena, with tacit permission of tenants
who had been residing at that time in his home. The use
of the "grab-bag subpoena" by grand jury aides to net
records with little discretion was later to be branded an
abuse of defendants' rights.71

Through Persons, Major Hemans issued a formal

statement saying he was not guilty and complaining that

 

69"Bribe Story a Lie, Legislator Admits," AP,
Ibid., Dec. 1, 1943, p. 1.

70Carl Rudow, "Hemans Hits Jury Seizure," Detroit
News, Nov. 30, 1943, p. 1.

71Jack R. Green, Interview, Nov. 29, 1970.

41

his assignment in Washington made it impossible for him
to return to "fight rats who take unfair advantage of my
absence while in the armed service."72 In a separate

statement, Hemans noted the Free Press story relating his

 

link with Representative Stenson as the "man in the gray
suit" who had attempted to bribe him. "I never saw Stenson
to know who he was and do not know him . . . and it is my
idea an attempt is being made to try this in the news-
papers,"73 Hemans said. Grand jury officials had also

taken note of the Stenson story, the State Journal said,

 

and were investigating to determine who had disclosed it,
since disclosure of grand jury testimony was punishable as
contempt of court.

Representative Dombrowski appeared in the news
again on December 3, 1943, with the admission to reporter

McCormick of the Free Press that he had perjured himself
74

 

in order to draw a prison term to escape enemies. The
legislator contended two men in a black sedan following
him in Detroit had pulled beside him and shouted a warn-

ing concerning his grand jury testimony, and he had been

frightened by the experience.75 The House member

 

72G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Probing Leak of Grand Jury
Information," State Journal, Nov. 30, 1943, p. 1.

731bid.

 

74Kenneth McCormick, "Dombrowski May Request Another
Trial," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 3, 1943, p. 1.

75"Probe Story Dombrowski Intimidated," State
Journal, Dec. 2, 1943, p. 1.

 

42

volunteered initially that he had never been bribed, then
later said that his original story was true, with the excep-

tion that Major Hemans was not the one who gave the bribe money

as originally claimed. Although Attorney General Rushton
sought to determine the truth of Dombrowski's statements,
the latter began his jail term on schedule.76 Meanwhile,
there were two outstanding developments in the continuing
probe of the Carr grand jury:

1--Judge Carr and Rushton revealed that they
are searching Michigan for a young, vigorous
attorney to take over the jury prosecuting job.
Under the plan, Rushton would continue in an active
capacity, but would put the chief burden of work in
the hands of the younger lawyer who he would appoint
as a special assistant attorney general.

(It was pointed out that Gov. Thomas Dewey got
his [big] chance in public life from such an
appointment in New York, and that the post would
probably be avidly sought by many interested in
advancing their careers.)

2--Greater secrecy was assured the jury through
a voluntary censorship agreement made by the editors
of the Detroit Free Press, the Detroit Times, the
Detroit News and wire-service representatives. This
will cover information connected with release of
names of witnesses and other facts which, revealed
prematurely, might hamper the investigation.

In a page-one story, headlined "New Charges Hurled
Here in Jury Sift," the December 5 State Journal said Judge
Carr had revealed that Representative Stanley Dombrowski
had accused another Wayne County legislator--Representative

Walter N. Stockfish, Hamtramck Democrat--as the "pay-off"

 

76Kenneth McCormick, "Dombrowski to Enter Jackson
Prison Today," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 4, 1943, p. 1.

77Ibid.

43

man who gave him a total of $350 in bribes during 1941 to
vote against anti-branch banking legislation. As officers
representing the grand jury began searching for Representa-
tive Stockton, who had been missing from his home since
December 3,78 a column by James M. Haswell appeared in the

Detroit Free Press:

 

The re-entry of Judge Leland W. Carr's grand
jury into the news columns is an event which may
well cause the Republicans in Lansing little shivers
up and down their spines. Until this week the
Republicans seemed comfortably settled in the office
chairs at the State Capitol. They looked forward
with confidence to a Republican year at the polls
and a continuance of the present divisions of power
and authority under Gov. Kelly.

But the sheer violence of the Dombrowski affair
has shattered all of that. Obviously, strongly
contending forces are moving under the surface.

Kenneth McCormick's disclosure that the grand
jury inquiry into lobbying had not died six weeks
ago--as everyone had supposed--and had not even
been sleeping was shock enough.

But when Judge Hayden gave Rep. Stanley Dombrow-
ski three and one-half to fifteen years for repudiat-
ing his grand jury testimony, and the next day Dom-
browski confessed that he really had been seeking
sanctuary in jail--political Lansing came suddenly
to realize that trouble is heading their way. . . .

Instead of the sweet and soothing jello of post-
war planning, newspaper readers are to be fed the
strong red meat of scandal. Since this is an inquiry
into legislative intrigue and lobbying, it is to be
expected that political reputations will be involved,
and established political alliances and agreements
will have to be re-adjusted. . . .

The lobbyists themselves constitute an embarrass-
ment. As a group they are an institution in Lansing,
and as a group they perform a recognized and useful
function. They are the Spokesmen of special interests
of all kinds, the professions, the unions, and of
business organizations. Disregarding the fortunes of

 

78"Press Search for Lawmaker," State Journal,
Dec. 7' 1943’ p0 1'

44

individuals among them, as a group the lobbyists, too,
are under a cloud. And probably as a group, they,
too, will be "on the muscle."7

A shift of events in grand-jury related activities

began as the morning Free Press of December 8 ran a story

 

headlined "Rushton's Move Comes as Surprise." "Without the
knowledge of Judge Leland W. Carr," read the lead of the
story, "Attorney General Herbert J. Rushton Tuesday appointed
Jay W. Linsey, former attorney for Frank D. McKay, Repub-
lican national committeeman, as special prosecutor in Judge
Carr's one-man grand jury investigation of graft in the‘
State Legislature." Linsey was best known, said the news-
paper, through the fact that he represented Fred C.

Ehrmann, former secretary of the Michigan Liquor Control
Commission, in the 1941 graft trials in which Ehrmann was

a co-defendant with McKay. Besides the fact that Rushton

had not informed Judge Carr, the Attorney General claimed he
had consulted with Governor Harry Kelly regarding the appoint-
ment, but this the governor denied. Rushton later changed
his position, McCormick wrote, to say he had notified the
governor of the appointment "after it was made." Questioned
at his home in Grand Rapids, Frank D. McKay admitted that he
had retained Linsey to perform legal work for him. He said,
however, that he "had no personal interest in the grand

jury."80

 

79James M. Haswell, "The Tangle in Lansing," Detroit
Free Press, Dec. 4, 1943, p. 18.

80

 

Detroit Free Press, Dec. 8, 1943, p. l.

 

45

Following the examination of Grand Rapids banker
Francis P. Slattery, who was bound over for trial on charges

of bribery,81 and "after a day of confused contradictions

82

and completely bewildering statements," Rushton made a

public admission that he had appointed Jay Linsey special
prosecutor. But he "hadn't even extended Judge Carr the

courtesy of informing him . . . until after Judge Carr had

I.83

learned it from this reporter, Detroit Free Press

reporter McCormick told readers. Circuit Judge Carr said
that Linsey had visited him and he had neither accepted nor
rejected the appointment to act, as understood by Carr, as
a trial lawyer in the event of trials stemming from the
one-man grand jury. Linsey, however, had already accepted
Rushton's offer.

In a continuation of his series of confused
statements, in which he confirmed and denied his
action, Rushton concluded late Wednesday with
another statement, in which he said he had given
Linsey's name in confidence to this writer after
the Free Press reporter had Spoken to him on
behalf of a Detroit attorney. . . .

Rushton came to the door this morning as
reporters filed into his outer office. He took one
look at the group and said: "I have no news!" His
face was scarlet with anger. "If you want any news,
you'd better talk to that fellow," he shouted, strid-
ing over to where this reporter sat. "If he hasn't
got it he'll make it up."

"I never made up a story in my life, Mr. Rushton,
and you know it," this reporter retorted. "The

 

81"Banker Held for Trial in Bribery Case," State
Journal, Dec. 8, 1943, p. 1.

82Kenneth McCormick, "Action is Confirmed by Attor-
ney General," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 9, 1943.

831bid.

 

46

trouble with you is you're so muddle-minded you can't
keep track of what you say."

The Attorney General roared, "You are the meanest,
dirtiest, stinkingest reporter I've ever seen. You
are a liar. Get out of this office and if I ever see
you here again I'll throw you out."84

Rushton's troubles started, wrote McCormick, when
after admitting on December 7 that he had appointed Linsey--

who critics contended was associated closely with Republican

85

"machine politicians" --the attorney general was confronted

with questions he couldn't answer.

When the report appeared in the Free Press point-
ing out Linsey's connection with McKay and Gov. Kelly's
denial that he had conferred with Rushton on Linsey's
appointment, Rushton found himself hemmed in on all
sides and attempted to escape his predicament by
changing his story every time the telephone rang. . . .

After he had a chance to cool down following this
morning's press conference, Rushton was reported to
have indicated that he was willing to wash his hands
that he would let Judge Carr hire a prosecutor him-
self and said the Judge could also handle the funds
as far as he was concerned.

Observers here believe that if Judge Carr takes
over these important duties, the grand jury will be
highly successful. It is no secret that Rushton has
stumbled through one blunder after another. As
examples:

l--He failed to subpoena certain witnesses, thus
making it possible for them to escape testifying
before the grand jury by merely leaving the state.

If these witnesses had been subpoenaed, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation could be asked to bring them
back from any place in the United States under the
Fugitive Flight Act.

2--He failed to place Francis P. Slattery,
assistant vice president of the Michigan National
Bank, on the witness stand before Slattery was
charged in a warrant with offering a bribe to State
Rep. George N. Higgins, Ferndale Republican, to vote
against the anti-branch bank bill. Slattery was
charged with being a key man. It is logical to

 

84Ibid.

85"Banker Held for Trial," State Journal.

 

47

assume that if Rushton's contention that he was
offering bribes was true, he might have been able to
tell the grand jury where he was getting the money.

3--Rushton failed to make any effort to have
books and records of concerns under suspicion seized
until the investigation had been under way for six
weeks, despite the fact that it is elementary inves-
tigative procedure to build a wall around the key
witness before questioning him.

Rushton has shown no decided zeal for the investi-
gation from its inception.

He exploded when William P. Lovett, secretary of
the Detroit Citizens League, announced through the
Free Press that a petition had been filed with the
Attorney General for a grand jury.

He was irked again when the Free Press followed
this announcement with an exposé of certain suspi-
cious incidents in connection with the inquiry.

He has said on numerous occasions that the inves-
tigation would be over with before the legislature
met in special session in January and six weeks ago
he announced that all the evidence was in before he
started off for Lexington, Ky., to attend horse races.86

The December 8 edition of the Detroit News ran a

 

page-one story which separated from the confusion Rushton's
statement that "It is Judge Leland W. Carr's grand jury
investigation, and from now on he will dictate every phase
of it!"87 The News story also played up the attorney
general's defense of his now controversial appointee, Jay
W. Linsey, against insinuations that Frank D. McKay, Repub-
lican national committeeman and a recognized Michigan poli-

tical power, "had something to do with it."88

Declaring
that Linsey was appointed to arrange for trials that followed

the investigation, Rushton denied that he and Judge Carr were

 

6McCormick, "Action Confirmed by Attorney General."
87Allan J. Nieber, "Rushton Backs His Appointee,"
Detroit News, Dec. 8, 1943, p. l.

881bid.

48

"at odds," and said they had worked closely together,

that "someone always is trying to stir up trouble between
"89

us.

Allan J. Nieber, a Detroit News reporter disclosed

 

to the newspaper's readers that McKay and Linsey had been
friends for more than thirty years, and that the latter
had been counsel for Fred C. Ehrmann, former State Liquor
Control Commission purchasing director, in the first
Federal liquor graft trial at Detroit in 1941 in which
McKay was to co-defendant. Linsey withdrew from the case
after the first trial was declared a mistrial, and Ehrmann
and McKay were acquitted in the second trial. Rushton
said:
You can't retain a lawyer who has not been
hired by someone else at some time. If Linsey
ever did any work for Frank McKay, he was not

McKay's regular lawyer, and he is not numbered

among McKay's political associates, as far as
I know.

Although Attorney General Rushton had "washed his
hands"91 of the grand jury investigation, the December 9
State Journal carried a page one story in which Rushton
formally designated Linsey to the "lucrative" $2,000-
a-month position as special assistant. Judge Carr
was quoted as terming the arrangement premature, saying

he understood a tentative agreement had been made whereby

Linsey would lend his services as a prosecutor only as

 

89 90

Ibid. Ibid.

glIbid.

49

the need arose.92 While Rushton, elsewhere in the story,

described Linsey's fee as "reasonable" and asserted that

"Wayne County Spent $100,000 or more to hire a prosecutor

"93

to direct its trials resulting from the Ferguson grand

jury, Judge Carr said he saw no need for engaging a

special prosecutor at that time, since only three cases
94

were pending on grand jury warrants.
While the state chairman of the Democratic party

deplored the fact that a "politically-tinged" grand jury

could cause the arrest of five Democrats out of six past

95 the Detroit Free Press

and present accused legislators,
took a stand demanding Rushton's resignation. In a two-
column wide editorial running the length of the editorial

page, the Free Press said:

 

It looks as though certain leaders of the Repub-
lican Party in Michigan are desperately determined
that there shall be no real investigation of the
graft which has been rampant at Lansing during recent
sessions of the Legislature.

It may be that they are afraid. With such a
capable and courageous Judge as Leland W. Carr sitting
as the Grand Jury, the investigation could easily go
beyond the mere checking of chickenseed racketeers
and impinge upon the big money lads.

What is behind the scandalous farce, the Free
Press does not know. But each bizarre development
would lead to the natural conclusion that something
very rotten is going on in Lansing.

 

92"Due to Grill Rep. Stockfish," State Journal,
Dec. 9, 1943: P- 1'

93

 

Ibid.

94Ibid.

95"Brooks Sees Politics in Jury Probe," State
Journal, Dec. 10, 1943, p. l.

50

To begin with, there's Frank D. McKay, Republican
National Committee member and political boss of Michi-
gan. With Mr. McKay, politics is a business. He has
been twice tried in Federal Court for activities
which were held to be over and beyond the limit of
the law. The first jury disagreed. The second
enthusiastically acquitted him and helped him cele-
brate the acquittal. The Free Press makes no charges
against Mr. McKay. All that he does in politics may
be well within the law. But he and his associates
have been a blight on the Republican Party in Michi-
gan for the last two decades.

And so the announcement from Attorney General
Herbert J. Rushton that he had appointed McKay's
lawyer as special prosecutor came upon the State
with stunning force. . .

Mr. Rushton offered no explanation for this
strangest of all moves. He merely mouthed a lot
of flapdoodle about making the selection "without
consideration of political angles.". . .

So, out of the whole State of Michigan, all he
could find was Frank D. McKay's attorney to do the
job!

And he lacked even the common decency to consult
Judge Carr to see if such a choice was agreeable to

the man who must carry the responsibility. . . .
From the very beginning Attorney General Rush-

ton has acted with hesitation in launching the
investigation. . . .

But Judge Carr was not reckoned with. He began
his own investigation and, it is reported, dug up
sufficient evidence to warrant a real probe. It
was freely admitted that Rushton's years were upon
him and that his health is not of the best. . . .
But the time has come when he should resign from
office, retire to private life and let a younger
and more vigorous man take his place. . . .

Party politics has no place in the investiga-
tion of a condition which has been a stench to the
public nostrils for years._. . .

End the farce and start all over again.96

A brief interim followed the Rushton-Linsey contro-

versy during which time the attorney for Representative

Stanley Dombrowski sought an appeal for a new trial and

missing Representative Walter N. Stockfish voluntarily

 

96"Rushton Should Resign," Editorial, Detroit Free

Press, Dec. 9, 1943, p. 16.

51

visited Judge Carr, telling the latter he had been on a
trip while grand jury investigators sought him to serve
a subpoena.97

Controversy broke out again when, on Saturday,

December 11, Judge Carr announced he was appointing a new

prosecutor to assist in his one man grand jury, but

declined to explain whether the new man would supersede

98

Rushton as chief prosecutor. The Free Press called the

 

Carr announcement a "death blow" to "Rushton's attempt

to force the appointment of one of Frank D. McKay's

attorneys as chief counsel to the legislative-graft grand

jury." It also disclosed that Rushton had placed in "a

key position" on the grand jury staff one John Dalton, a

man formerly dismissed from the state payroll in a liquor-
99

sale scandal and now serving as an accountant.

The Free Press reported that it had learned that

 

Dalton was sent by Rushton to the chief investigator of

the grand jury, who had asked for an accountant. Like

other members of the grand jury staff, he had been working
under a false name and few people were aware of his identity.

Dalton had been dismissed from the attorney general's staff,

 

97"Dombrowski's Appeal Heard," State Journal,
Dec. 10, 1943’ p. 1'

98"Carr Naming Prosecutor in his Jury Sift," Ibid-:
Dec. 11, 1943. p. 1-

99Kenneth McCormick, "Judge to Appoint Own Prose-
cutor," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 12, 1943, p. l.

 

52

100 after it had been revealed

"so far as the public knew,"
that the state had purchased two and a half million dollars
worth of liquor from an agent introduced by him, but appar-
ently without the knowledge of the distillery concerned,

which never received the order or delivered the liquor.

Although he refused a statement to the Free Press, Rushton

 

told the Associated Press that he had recommended Dalton

for the grand jury job "because accountants are scarce these
days, so many of them are in the Army, and I thought he
could do a good job there."101

In a formal statement the Free Press described as

 

"politely worded," Judge Carr said his appointment of
counsel would give Rushton more time for the regular work
of his department, "which is particularly heavy at this
time and will be even more so when the Legislature is con-

102 Judge Carr also said the

vened in Special session."
attorney he would select would be primarily retained for
grand jury work, while in the trial of cases to follow the
attorney general or his staff, plus special counsel when

required, would participate.

A page one State Journal story on December 13 dis-

 

closed the attorney general's reaction to the Carr state-
ment. Declaring he believed the court considered his

presence embarrassing, Rushton said he would surrender to

 

100 101

Ibid. Ibid.

 

102"Carr Naming Prosecutor." State Journal.

 

53

Judge Carr the balance of the $150,

000 fund provided for

the inquiry, which he estimated was more than $120,000.

Rushton said he considered he had been invited to divorce

himself from the inquiry in the language employed by

Judge Carr in announcing plans to appoint a new special

prosecutor. Rushton said:

I feel that if my stepping

out of the grand jury

investigation will stOp those who are trying to
sabotage its effectiveness, I would not be a good

citizen if I did not step out.
I have no way of defending
myself against that portion of

the grand jury or
the press who evi-

dently want to make it appear that this is a Punch

and Judy Show.

The ultimate conclusion to
ing and bribery transcends any
If [it is going on,] I want to
up, regardless of what dirt is

Following his statement of

clean up this graft-
particular person.

see this thing cleared
thrown at me. 03

December 13, Rushton

drOpped publicly out of the grand jury inquiry. Although

he attempted to keep his appointee

Jay W. Linsey as a

trial prosecutor on the jury payroll by withholding a por-

tion of the apprOpriated funds, both Rushton and Linsey

were phased out by the end of December.

104 Throughout the

controversy over the Linsey appointment--much of it insti-

gated by the Detroit Free Press--the real reason for Rush-

 

ton's exit from the grand jury inquiry was never clear.

It was well publicized that Rushton had fended with a num-

ber of influential legislators long before the inquiry,

 

103
Dec. 13, 1943, p. l.
104

"Rushton Ready to Quit Grand Jury," Ibid.,

Kenneth McCormick, "Carr Finesse Sets Rushton

Back Again," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 29, 1943.

 

54

while in the grand jury room "he apparently has done

little to endear himself to more of them."105

The Detroit
Free Press took a different approach, citing a lack of zeal
in Rushton's participation in the probe, while the newspaper
reporter who pursued the investigation termed the initial
investigation as being "fixed," saying the attorney general
was placed by political boss McKay to quietly dr0p the

106 Whatever

investigation after probing a few activities.
the true reason, Rushton was out, and Judge Carr was seeking

a new prosecutor.

 

105G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Probe's Political Effect
on Rushton Being Studied," State Journal, Sept. 25, 1943,
p. 1.

 

106Kenneth McCormick, Interview, Dec. 2, 1970.

CHAPTER II

"LET THE CHIPS FALL WHERE THEY MAY"l

"Judge Carr knew the grand jury would never be
successful with Rushton in it, and as grand juror he had
the right to name or fire the special prosecutor. That
was how Kim Sigler got in."

The speaker was Allan J. Nieber, former Detroit News

 

reporter, who, along with Kenneth McCormick, a reporter for

the Detroit Free Press, and to a lesser extent Frank Morris,

 

a reporter for the Detroit Times, had the fullest of back-

 

grounds in the legislative graft probe and covered it
extensively throughout its duration.

"Judge Carr called me at my hotel suite and said
he had three men in mind for the position [of special
prosecutor] but couldn't very well check them out on his
own," Nieber recalled. "So he gave me the information on
each of them and asked me to quietly check them out. Kim
Sigler was one of the names."2 Nieber gave the Ingham

County jurist his confidential report, but not before he

 

1Chapter heading taken from Kim Sigler's formal
statement upon accepting the job as special prosecutor as
covered in the State Journal, Dec. 14, 1943.

2

 

Allan J. Nieber, Interview, Dec. 2, 1970.

55

56

had asked the judge what he knew of the attorney from
Hastings. "Not much," Carr had replied, and said the
Supreme Court justices had informed him Kim Sigler was a
"good organizer and well presented."
After reading the News reporter's report, Nieber
said Judge Carr settled on Sigler for his prosecutor.
"The first I knew Kim Sigler had seen Carr was when Sigler
turned up in my suite," Nieber recalled. "He said he wanted
to meet the boys he would deal with."3
Although Nieber said Sigler, who at the time was
"making in the neighborhood of $50,000 a year"4 from his
law practice and business interests, did not give Judge

Carr an immediate answer, he had reached a decision by

December 14. On that‘day, a Lansing State Journal story

 

on page one carried the news that "Sigler Named As Prosecutor
ForGrand Jury." Announcing that Sigler would start "imme-
diately"-with a salary of $100 a day while acting in the role
of Special prosecutor, Judge Carr said Sigler had withdrawn
his brief position as defense attorney for accused legisla—
tor William Green. Describing Sigler as one of the noted
criminal lawyers in Michigan, the Ingham jurist said, "I
think he fits into this picture in splendid shape. He has

a very good reputation in the legal profession."5 A lawyer

 

31bid. 41bid.

5G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Sigler Named as Prosecutor
for Grand Jury," State Journal, Dec. 14, 1943.

 

57

whose standards had won approval of the Michigan Supreme
Court through appointment as a commissioner-at-large of the
State Bar, Sigler was a veteran of twenty-five years city
and rural legal practice. He had played leading roles in
the Democratic party for years, but more recently he had
switched political affiliations, running as a Republican
state senatorial candidate. A three-term prosecutor of
Barry County, Sigler was forty-nine years old at the time of
his appointment. Born on a cattle ranch near Schuyler,
Nebraska, he was brought to Michigan during his boyhood. He
received his legal education at the University of Michigan
and the University of Detroit and briefly practiced in
Detroit before moving to Hastings, in Barry County. "Much
of Sigler's private practice has been in civil affairs and

6

he has earned an enviable reputation as a trial lawyer,"

the Detroit Free Press observed.

Editorials in the State Journal and Detroit News

 

absolved the grand jury of partisan criticism and looked
forward to a thorough investigation. Said the Journal
on December 14:

This announcement from Judge Carr has the effect
of calling attention to facts which some may have
lost sight of, namely that the investigation is being
conducted by the veteran and able jurist, that he is
responsible for it and that his reputation for
integrity and broad knowledge of the law stands7as a
guarantee of a fair and thorough inquiry. . . .

 

6Sigler's biography is taken from Kenneth McCormick,
"Judge Carr Names Sigler Grand Jury Prosecutor," Detroit
Free Press, Dec. 15, 1943, p. 1.

7"The Grand Jury," Editorial, State Journal,
Dec. 14, 1943, p. 6.

 

58

The News echoed the grand jury's new life in its
editorial of December 15:

Now that Judge Carr has a special prosecutor or
chief inquisitor of his own choosing, the grand jury
on legislative corruption can be expected to make
progress.

Kim Sigler, his appointee, is not very well
known in the eastern part of the state, but he comes
highly recommended as to ability and integrity. Of
equal importance is the fact that he will be Judge
Carr's own man, chosen by him and responsible to him
and to nobody else. . . .

Atty. Gen. Rushton wisely has disassociated him-
self from the investigation. His part in it had
resulted unfortunately, particularly as to his selec-
tion of Jay W. Linsey, of Grand Rapids, as a special
prosecutor. It is no reflection on Mr. Linsey to
say that Mr. Rushton should have foreseen that this
appointment would not be well received.

Anyhow that episode is now behind us. The grand
jury decks are cleared for action, which we hope will
result in uncovering all the crooks and putting them
where they belong.8

The Detroit Free Press editorialized about the change

 

in grand jury business in a headline, "Grand Jury Gets Down

to Brass Tacks," above a news story that began: "Circuit
Judge Leland W. Carr's one-man grand jury drew close again
today the veil of secrecy surrounding its investigation of the
Legislature, through which had burst a fortnight's uproar
surrounding a now-completed reorganization of its prose-
cuting staff."9 Judge Carr said he hoped he had heard the
last of grand jury matters extraneous to his task of sift-

ing evidence of "big money" graft in the making of laws and

 

8"Judge Carr's Own Choice," Editorial, Detroit
News, Dec. 15, 1943: p. 34.

9"Grand Jury Gets Down to Brass Tacks," AP, Detroit
Free Press, Dec. 16, 1943, p. l.

 

59

of attempting "the balancing of truth against fiction,
running down endless false trails and real trails while
seeking to expose once and for all the truth about Michi-
gan's Legislature, its honesty and temptations."10

As the grand jury Shifted into investigative

action once more, a news "leak" in the Detroit Times

 

brought an angry comment from Special Prosecutor Sigler
that "the time has come to quit monkey business."ll
Declaring he would prepare a contempt of court petition
against Iimes reporter Frank Morris, Sigler said the
writer's news story of January 6 had contained remarks
"intimated" by Auditor General Vernon J. Brown that the
grand jury had been expanded to include an investigation
of the Liquor Control Commission. The petition which
resulted in creation of the grand jury limited its
inquiry to reports of graft in the Legislature.

One headline on the Times story said "Jury May

Probe Liquor Rule,‘ while another said "Liquor Board
Faces Fire of Grand Jury." In the body of the story,
Morris wrote that Brown revealed he had made an audit of
Liquor Commission books and Morris quoted the auditor
general as saying he had testified before the grand jury

12

about the Liquor Commission. Publication of the story,

 

loibid.

11Carl B: Rudow, "Sigler Fights Jury Leaks,"
Detroit News, Jan. 7, 1944, p. 1.

12

 

Ibid.

60

which Morris later called an "interpretation of what Brown
had said to him,"13 brought a quick reaction from the grand
jury. Capitol newspaper reporters and Morris, who was
under subpoena, were called before Sigler and Judge Carr
in an open court session the same day the story broke.

Both Morris and Brown were placed under oath and
called to the witness stand to be questioned regarding
the reporter's interview. Under cross-examination, Morris
said he had gone to the auditor general's apartment and
that Brown had declined to comment when asked if he was
going to petition the grand jury to broaden its scope of
investigation to take in the Liquor Commission. "Asked
where he learned about the grand jury's interest in the
commission, Morris said he was told that by his city
editor, Jack McClellan, and that he had heard rumors
around the Capitol."14 Morris admitted that he was aware
of the secrecy surrounding the grand jury action, but that
he had submitted the story to his city editor. He denied
any attempt to embarrass the grand jury.

The Morris episode concluded a week later, when
Judge Carr ruled he was in contempt of court for divulging
grand jury secrets.15 While delaying sentence pending

further investigation, Carr said:

 

13Kenneth McCormick, "Carr Irked by Reporter,"
Detroit Free Press, Jan. 6, 1944, p. 1.

14

 

Ibid.

 

15"Reporter Is in Contempt," Ibid., Jan. 16, 1944,

61

He must have known when he wrote that article
and sent it to his paper that the story would
injure or at least embarrass the efforts of the
grand jury.

It is a serious matter when someone talks to a
person knowing that he has been before the grand
jury and then writes a story about it even if only
indulging in Speculation, innuendo and insinuation.
A newspaper owes a duty to the public, and one work-
ing for a newspaper owes the same duty.l6

Meanwhile, defendants related to the grand jury
investigation appeared in the news as their cases progressed.
On January 7, Michigan National Bank officer Francis P.
Slattery stood mute before Circuit Judge Charles H. Hayden
on charges of offering a bribe in connection with the

17

banking bill to Representative George Higgins and four

days later trial was set in March.18

Representative~
Stanley Dombrowski, convicted earlier of perjury, lost
his appeal to Michigan Supreme Court for a new trial and
was ordered to serve out his prison sentence.19
Following the information exposed by the Detroit
Eimes story, Judge Carr declared in a letter to Governor
Harry F. Kelly that the grand jury probe had been broadened

to include other departments of the state government.20

 

16Ibid.

l7"Banker Mute in Bribe Case," Ibid., Jan. 8, 1944!

p. 1.

18"Slattery's Trial Fixed for March," State Journal,
Jan. 11, 1944, p. l.

19

 

"Dombrowski Loses Appeal," Ibid., Jan. 13, 1944,
p. 1.

20Lloyd Moles, "Carr Informs Kelly Probe's Scope
Widened," Ibid., Jan. 19, 1944, p. 1.

62

Carr asked the governor and the "Little Legislature," or
emergency appropriations commission, to allow his grand
jury to use part of the $150,000 to include the new phases
of the inquiry. In the letter that was released by Kelly
on January 19, Judge Carr wrote that the reasons for
expanding the probe were "equally imperative as those
leading to the filing of the original petition for the
investigation."
This will make it possible to complete the
entire investigation at an earlier date than
would have been the case if successive investi-
gations were to have been conducted. Such action
is also desirable for financial reasons. . . .
The question involved does not concern the
power of the grand jury, under the broadened scope,
to inquire into other than legislative matters, but
rather has reference to payment of expenses so
incurred.
Four days after announcing its expansion, the Carr-
Sigler grand jury issued its first major indictment, and

Michigan newspapers studied gave it major play. "Bribe-

Taking Laid to 20 Lawmakers" ran a Free Press headline,

 

with a story in oversize type running across two columns
down page one. "Grand Jury Issues Warrants for 26"

a seven-column headline told State Journal readers on

 

January 23, with cuts of twenty-six past and present legis-
lators running the length of columns one and two, and
the story in oversize type running down columns eight and

nine. The Journal's two lead paragraphs were set three-

 

column measure in width. "Graft Jury Accuses 26," read

 

21Kenneth McCormick, "Carr Asks Decision on Expen-
diture," Detroit Free Press, Jan. 20, 1944, p. 1.

63

the Detroit News eight-column headline, complete with a

 

two-column wide story in oversize body type that ran down

all of page one and most of page two, and a three-column-

wide cut of Judge Carr and dapper Kim Sigler examining the
newly issued warrant. An eight-column headline in the

Detroit Times for January 23, above a story by Frank Morris,

 

proclaimed "20 Legislators Indicted," and below it, a second
eight-column headline continued: "Carr Jury Accuses 26
of Bribes in Passing Auto Finance Laws." Typographically
besting the other three newspapers, the limes ran a four-
column-wide lead in oversize type, with the balance of
the story running across columns seven and eight down page
one. In the same edition, the Elmes also featured a box
score on page one, headlined "The Indicted Men" and cuts
of the legislators on page six, headlined "Several Accused
of Graft Had Been 'Above' Suspicion."

"Circuit Judge Leland W. Carr issued a grand—

jury warrant Saturday," read the Free Press story,

 

"charging 26 men--20 present and past legislators and six
automobile finance company officials--with conSpiring to
obtain the enactment of three bills in the 1939 Legisla-
ture." The bills in question had been enacted and had
already become law. One regulated small loan companies,
placing a ceiling on interest rates, the other two regu-

lated the repossession of automobiles and similar goods

64

bought on time payments, and the deficiency judgments
which finance companies could obtain against defaulting
buyers.22 "Credit organizations supported the legisla-
tion because it protected them against 'shoestring' com-
petition, and also against popular demands for still more
restrictive regulation."23
Calling the warrant "just the beginning," Special
Prosecutor Sigler said that $25,000 "changed hands" in the
course of the conspiracy and said the story of the plot
would be told from the witness stand at the preliminary

examination of the defendants.24

At the judge's chambers
where the warrant was signed at 2:00 p.m., Saturday,

January 22, the Free Press reported Carr would preside at

 

the arraignments and later would preside at the preliminary
examination.

A distinction was drawn in the Detroit Free Press

 

between the legal terms "indictment" and "warrant" in con-
nection with the grand jury investigation. In a two-column
box on page one, the newspaper explained:

If the man on the street wants to say that the
legislators accused by the grand jury were "indicted,"
that's all right with Judge Carr. Only lawyers Will
disagree. Technically, an indictment is an accusa-
tion made by a multiple-man grand jury, used in most

 

22"Bribe-Taking Laid to 20 Lawmakers," Ibid-r
Jan. 23, 1944, p. 1.

23Ibid.

24Allen J. Nieber, "Graft Jury Accuses 26," Detroit
News, Jan. 23, 1944, p. l.

65

states and in the Federal Court system. An indict-
ment must be voted by the jurors. Judge Carr issued
a warrant because he is acting as a magistrate,
under Michigan law, making a judicial investigation.
A one-man grand jugy cannot indict, it must Speak
through a warrant.

Since Judge Carr's practice in this and subsequent
grand jury matters was to preside at the examinations held
on the charges contained in his warrants, "his warrants
were nearly tantamount to indictments and they were so
treated by the press."26

The following day, in typographic style only slightly
less dramatic, the Detroit newspapers and the Lansing §E§E§
Journal disclosed that during arraignment of a portion of
those accused, Ernest J. Prew, vice-president of the
General Finance Corporation of Detroit, waived the prelimi-
nary examination and pleaded guilty in circuit court before
Judge Carr.27 In a statement, Prew admitted being involved
in various practices in dealing with legislators while
representing his company. He "foolishly" allowed himself
to become "engulfed in the meshes of legislative graft . . .
without realization of the legal Significance of it."

Although he had considered his participation in such

efforts as within the law, "my counsel now advises me that

 

25Kenneth McCormick, "Judge Carr Explains Action,"
Detroit Free Press, Jan. 23, 1944, p. 1.

26Robert G. Scigliano, "The Michigan One-Man Grand
p. 52.

27G. Milton Kelly, AP, "First of 26 in Big Graft
Case Pleads Guilty," State Journal, Jan. 24, 1944, p. l.

 

Jury,‘

 

66

my conduct amounted to participating in the doing of a

lawful thing in an unlawful way, so that I am technically

guilty as charged."28

Sensing a parallel to Detroit's own one-man grand
jury--the Ferguson-O'Hara investigation--Car1 B. Rudow wrote
of the impact the first conspiracy warrant had on Lansing.

Capital politicians today crawled out of the
shell holes into which they were hurled Saturday
by the concussion of Judge Leland W. Carr's warrant
charging 26 persons with giving or taking graft and
began wondering out loud if there was going to be a
parallel to the Homer Ferguson grand jury cases in
Detroit. . . .

In the Ferguson-O'Hara grand jury cases, the
first warrant was a comparatively minor one. It
named only 15 defendants, and concerned the opera-
tions of a relatively small-time baseball lottery.
The only defendant of consequence was Fred W. Frahm,
then Superintendent of Detroit police.

That first warrant gave little hint of cases
still to come--cases against the Wayne County
sheriff and prosecutor, the Mayor of Detroit and
many others.

The big question today in the minds of the
political hunch-players was whether history would
repeat--whether the Carr grand jury also had in
mind warrants of wider scope and involving persons
in higher places.

From the grand jury there was no answer. . . .

What Judge Carr may have in mind, only he and
his aides know.

But in the Capitol and around it, there is the
definite impression that Saturday's warrant is
merely the precursor of others-~and Judge Carr means
business.

On the editorial pages there was ample praise for
Judge Carr and Kim Sigler's efforts and for the grand jury

structure itself.

 

28Kenneth McCormick, "One Finance Firm Official
Admits Guilt," Detroit Free Press, Jan. 25, 1944.

29Carl B. Rudow, "Startled Lansing Senses 'Another
Ferguson'," Detroit News, Jan. 24, 1944, p. 4.

 

 

67

Although the indictments and warrants issued by
the grand jury do not constitute proof of guilt, the
fact that Judge Carr has found basis for such accu-
sations is shocking to those interested in honesty
in government. . . .

Charges growing out of the grand jury proceed-
ings indicate that representatives of various special
interests assiduously look out for the welfare of
such interests at the expense of legislation in the
public interest.

Inasmuch as Michigan citizens interested in inte-
grity in government cannot, or would not want to if
they could, compete with some of the lobbyists, their
best opportunity to provide the kind of government
they want would seem to be at the polls. . . .

In the meantime, Michigan citizens will generally
be gratified at the evidence that Judge Carr and Kim
Sigler . . . are working with their sleeves rolled up.
There seems to be much important work to do but the
job appears to be in capable hands.30

The Detroit Free Press and Detroit News were more

 

 

vocal in their support of grand jury results. In a column

headlined,"At Last!", the Free Press called the grand jury

 

indictment more proof for the "desperate need" of reorgani-

zation of the Wayne County government, more than half of

whose members had been caught in the indictment's "drag-

net.

The Free Press has revealed the rottenness in
the county government and the Carr grand jury now
makes more evident than ever how that corruption
has taken over the government of the State.

Will the rest of Michigan come now to a reali-
zation of what it is the Free Press has been fight-
ing for? . . .

The present batch of indictments has to do with
laws paid for dealing with the regulation of small
loans, touching upon the pitifully poor. For this
it is charged these men received a total of $25,000.

That, we are given to understand, is mere
chicken feed compared to what is yet to come.

 

Jan.

30nThe Public Interest," Editorial, State Journal,
25, 1944, p. 4.

 

68

Judge Carr and Prosecutor Sigler are to be
congratulated on a splendid start in cleansing the
halls of legislation and the whole State of Michi-
gan from the stench which has plighted our govern-
ment for lo these many years.3

The warrants returned by the Judge Carr grand
jury alleging bribery in connection with enactment
of the small loan law are . . . an excellent start
. . . and a promise that legislative graft is going
to be unearthed and punished, no matter where or
how far the investigations may lead.

It is, incidentally, another vindication of the
one-man grand jury procedure for dealing with any
case of corruption or conspiracy to corrupt in public
life.

Given an energetic judge and prosecutor, such as
we again see in action in these cases, there evidently
is no better procedure, no better scourge for betrayers
of public trust. . . .

Even at this stage, . . . the observation is
invited that Judge Carr's investigation plainly is
destined to be one of the most healthful influences
for honesty and decency in public life that Michigan
has experienced in a generation.

Corruption at Lansing long had been a subject of
rumor, more destructive of respect for government
than the truth itself. . . .

We are now going to get the truth, and the start
made, as stated, gives wholesome promise that it will
be the whole truth. . 32

As the State Journal reported that the "veil of

 

secrecy dropped once more on the jury's proceedings,"

an editorial on page four reiterated an earlier statement
that "no one should lose Sight of the fact that accused
persons are considered innocent until they are proved

guilty. . . ."33

 

31"At Last!", Editorial, Detroit Free Press,
Jan. 24, 1944, p. 18-

32"Grand Jury Results," Editorial, Detroit News,
Jan. 24, 1944, p. 10.

33G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Jury Probers Back at Work,"
State Journal, Jan. 26, 1944, p. l.

 

69

One of the most serious aspects of offenses by
public officials is the fact that they are liable
to raise doubts in the minds of the peOple as to
the integrity of other officials. . . . Each case
[should] be considered separately on its merits by
the public and there [should] be no snap judgments
in advance of formal judgment.3
The end of January signaled the impending special
session Governor Kelly had called prior to the grand jury
investigation and "with 21 members and former members
under arrest on charges of conspiracy, bribe soliciting
or bribe taking, one member in prison serving a sentence
for perjury before the grand jury which obtained arrest of
the others, and Judge Leland W. Carr's investigation still
under way, leaders said they expected Governor Kelly's
appeal for unprecedented speed in diSposing of the work

"35

would be heeded gladly. "No. l reSponsibility" of the

special session, according to Kelly, would be a bill he
drafted which, if accepted by the Legislature, would give
Judge Carr a free hand to direct the Spending of grand
jury funds.36
The apprOpriation passed both Houses without

37

dissent the same day it was introduced. It made available

to Carr $150,000 subject only to his vouchers and a final

 

34nRight of Trial," Editorial, State Journal, Jan.
26, 1944, p. 4.

35"Session to Open in Probe Shadowr'l State Journal,
Jan. 29, 1944, p- 1-

36Hub M. George, "Boost Sought in Jury Fund,"
Detroit Free Press, Jan. 29, 1944, p. 1.

37James M. Haswell, "Carr Voted $150,000 to Probe
State Officers," Ibid., Feb. 1, 1944, p. l.

 

 

70

check by Auditor General Vernon J. Brown. In effect it
made available $25,000 or more in excess of the residue
of funds originally provided in September by the Little

38 "No strings would be attached to prevent

Legislature.
use of the money for inquiry into governmental phases
other than the influencing of legislation or the prose-
cution in Ingham County courts of indictments, the matters
Which Judge Carr asked to be clarified"39 by the Little
Legislature. The governor's signature to the measure on
February 3 gave Judge Carr complete sanction and formally
left Attorney General Rushton "without voice as to grand
jury finances."40
Meanwhile, three days before the special session
met, one of the indicted legislators, seventy-seven-year-
old Miles M. Callaghan of Reed City, had pleaded guilty
to the grand jury charges of graft conspiracy.41 Declar—
ing that he was ready to "make a contribution to good
government by helping to clean up what appears to be a
dirty mess in the Legislature,"42 Representative Callaghan

indicated he would appear as a prosecution witness along

with guilty Ernest J. Prew, when the other defendants were

 

38George, "Boost Sought in Fund," p, 2,

39Ibid.

 

4oibid.
41Kenneth McCormick, "Callaghan Pleas Guilty to
Charge," Ibid., Jan. 30, 1944.

421bid.

71

to be called for their hearing.43 On February 1, Callaghan

resigned from the House,44

followed a day later by Repre-
sentative Stanley J. Dombrowski, of Detroit, who had been
returned from Jackson Prison to face new grand jury

charges.

The Detroit Free Press disclosed in its February 1

 

story that Senate action on the grand jury appropriation
had been featured by "strong protest" from three Detroit
senators against the alleged employment of Charles Spare,
of Detroit, as a grand jury investigator. Said Senator
Stanley Nowak, who had sought a delay in passage of the
appropriations bill, "Spare was an organizer of the Black
Legion, he was a leader of the Ku Klux Klan, he is the
instigator of strikes in Detroit factories, . . . he is
anti-Negro and anti-Catholic, and his prestige on the staff
will lend no prestige to the grand jury."46 Although Judge
Carr initially denied any grand jury connection with

' 48

Spare47 and Special Prosecutor Sigler refused to comment,

the State Journal published for three days of related

 

 

43G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Callaghan Enters Plea of
Guilty," State Journal, Jan. 30, 1944, p. 1.

 

44Kenneth McCormick, "Rep. Callaghan Quits Seat in
Legislature," Detroit Free Press, Feb. 1, 1944, p. 1.

45Hub M. George, "Dombrowski Resigns His Seat in
House," Ibid., Feb. 2, 1944, p. l.

46

 

Haswell, "Carr Voted $150,000," p. 2.

47Ibid.

48"Ignore Attack on Jury Sleuth," State Journal,
Jan. 31, 1944, p- 1-

 

72

stories dealing with Spare and the "controversy" that had
developed from a radio broadcast by Walter Winchell criti-
cizing Spare's background and the fact that some of the
legislators indicted by the Carr grand jury were inter-
rogated by Spare.49 Asking editorially for an explanation--

which it never received--the State Journal said: "It

 

would appear . . . that the grand jury owes it to itself

and to the state as a whole to clear the atmOSphere by
setting forth the real facts as soon as reasonably possible
on the allegations against purported grand jury investigator
Charles Spare."50

On the eve of the February 28 hearing, the Detroit

Free Press ran a story headlined, "Carr to Sit as Examiner."

 

Describing for its readers the background of Carr, who, in
addition to conducting the one-man grand jury which origi-
nally indicted the defendants, could also, under Michigan

statutes, sit as their examining magistrate, the newspaper

reported:

The procedure of an examination is similar to
a trial without jury. After the evidence is on
record, the Court rules on whether any or all will
be held for trial.51

Carrying comments from the Special Prosecutor, the

Free Press quoted Sigler as saying that a battery of star

 

49Howard Rugg, "To Ask Light on Probe Aid," Ibid.,

Feb. 3, 1944, p. 1.

. 50"What Are the Facts?" Editorial, Ibid., Feb. 4,
1944, p. 8.

51Kenneth McCormick, "Carr to Sit as Examiner,"
Detroit Free Press, Feb. 26, 1944.

73

witnesses would testify at the hearing, backed by consider-
able documentary evidence exposing methods by which the
three bills involved in the warrant were bought and paid
for. "It will be a sordid story, Sigler said, "which the
electorate will not relish, containing allegations of
undercover operations of pay-off men buying legislators'
votes for and against unwanted bills, using cash, liquor
and pretty women as media of barter."52 Since making the
"ominous" announcement when the warrant was issued that it
was just the beginning, Sigler and "ponderous Judge Carr,
working early and late, have questioned an average of five
witnesses a day . . . but maintaining strict silence on
what, if anything, they had learned as to whether Michi-
gan's government contains dark corners into which the
cleansing sunlight of public gaze should be shone, and
furtive, unwholesome things in those corners driven out."53

As the examination got underway, following a
statement from one of the eleven defense lawyers object-
ing to Judge Carr sitting as the examining magistrate

after issuing the warrant,54 the State Journal ran a bio-

 

graphy describing the two main characters in the grand

jury.

 

52G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Grand Jury Set to Rip Off

Its Secrecy Mask," State Journal, Feb. 27, 1944, p. 1.
53

 

Ibid.

54" ' '
Carr Rejects Challenges as Hearing Opens,"

Ibid., Feb. 28, 1944, p. 1.

74

The judge is massive, ponderous, slow-spoken,
stern but kindly and famed for his wisdom and know-
ledge of law. Simple in tastes and dress, he is
more interested in courtroom decorum and analysis
of the facts at issue before him than in the crease
of his trousers or the cut of his coat. A one-time
schoolmaster, he is a sober and scholarly man,
built for durability and not for speed, willing to
sacrifice style for comfort any day.

Beside him is Kim Sigler, his Special prosecutor,
other half of the grand jury team--a fighter in
picturesque garb. He is a whip of a man, tough,
slender and tall--but dwarfed by the judge--a strik-
ing figure whose silvery hair has one lock. It is
difficult to say whether he is prouder of his repu-
tation as an able trial lawyer, or of his unorthodox,
flashy velvet-collared topcoats, pearl gray vests and
beribboned spectacles.

Brethren of the courts will tell you he is a foe
with whom to reckon; that it is a mistake to judge
him by his clothes. A fighter's eyes stab through
those Spectacles, bore into a witness and probe for
the truth. . . .

Sigler is a prodigious worker. Much of his
success came from tireless research into any case
he handled. Other lawyers respect this ability and
his ability to capitalize on it with a quick mind
and sharp wit, a gift for analytical statement,
knowledge of the law.

He has made enemies as the grand jury prosecutor,
and unworriedly realizes it. He concedes a "Michigan
Society of guys who don't like Kim Sigler" would have
a rather long membership roll, but like other things
he deems to be unimportant he brushes that aside:
"The hell with it. I'm not running fog any political
office, and you can underscore that."5

Lasting for a period of seven days, the conspiracy
examination resulted in Judge Carr binding over all twenty-
two of the defendants, not counting the two men who had
pleaded guilty and two others beyond the immediate efforts

of subpoena.56 Acting magistrate Judge Carr had ruled

 

55"Probe Judge, Prosecutor Offer Study in Contrasts,‘
Ibid., Feb. 28, 1944, p. 1.

56G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Judge Orders 22 Bound Over
in Graft Case," Ibid., March 6, 1944, p. l.

75

against the defendants primarily on the revealing testi-
mony of three men intimately involved in the conspiracy--
Ralph W. Smith, Miles M. Callaghanrand Major Charles F.
Hemans.

Smith, who at the time was a small loan company
operator, testified that a group of his colleagues in the
small loan and finance company business had employed
Hemans--whose name was linked early in the grand jury
investigation--as their legislative lobbyist to buy votes
in the legislature. With more than $8,000, which Smith
testified was raised by assessing the companies, Hemans
had maintained a suite of rooms in the Hotel Olds in Lansing
and maintained a bar in one particular room. The "slush
fund" was raised to combat legislation proposed by the
small companies' major rival--Household Finance Company--
to strictly regulate small loan and personal finance com-
panies in a manner they contended would injure them.57
Concluding his testimony at a late night session on
March 1, Smith asserted that bribery "was the only thing
to do with certain members of the Legislature to obtain
their votes for certain legislation."58

Continuing the conspiracy testimony, former Repre-

sentative Miles M. Callaghan was put on the witness stand

 

57"Witness Tells of Slush Fund to Buy Votes,"
Ibid., March 1, 1944, p. 1.

58"Calls Bribery Only Sure Way to Fix Votes," Ibid.,
March 2, 1944, p. 1.

76

at the night session of March 3 and testified Charles

Hemans had paid him a total of $450 in three installments

for his votes on the small-loan legislation.59 As other

individuals involved in the bribe machinery testified
throughout the session, prosecutor Sigler dictated into
the record a statement that he would prove that twenty

members of the 1939 legislature had received bribes from

Hemans in the bathroom of his hotel suite.60 To prove

his statement Sigler obviously needed the testimony of
Major Hemans, who until that point, had been stationed in
Washington, D. C.

Hemans was a former, good lawyer who became a
lobbyist. He wined and dined legislators and kept
the price of each one in his little black book.

Not all of them took money [to influence their
voting]. Some took clothing, booze, even a set of
teeth. Those who took money had prices ranging
from $750 down to $100.

When the grand jury caught up with Hemans
through hearsay on his little black book, grand
jury investigators found the book. Kim Sigler
spent a lot of time convincing Major Hemans to
leave Washington and testify on his book. Sigler
appealed to his mutual patriotism to clean up the
legislative mess.

Sigler got Charles Hemans a leave from the Army
and he became the key to the fifty-five some indict-
ments that came out of the grand jury.61

A page-one story in the March 5, 1944, issue of the

Detroit Free Press running across two columns and down the

 

 

59Kenneth McCormick, "Callaghan Bares Deals on Loan
Bills," Detroit Free Press, March 3, 1944.

60G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Callaghan Testifies He
Accepted $150 Bribe from Chas. Hemans," State Journal,
March 3, 1944, p. l.

61

 

 

Allan J. Nieber, Interview, Dec. 15, 1970.

77

length of page one carried the expose produced by star wit-
ness Charles Hemans' testimony. "Amazing stories of petty
chiseling by state legislators and intimate details of their
drinking habits were read into the record of the legislative-
graft grand jury Saturday as Maj. Charles F. Hemans, former
University of Michigan regent and an admitted lobbyist, told
how he bought the votes of 20 senators and representatives

62

in the 1939 session of the legislature." To his hotel room

and from there into the bathroom, which was called the
"library," flocked an "endless parade of legislators, whose
palms were lined when they needed money," Hemans testified,
as a payoff for votes in connection with the bills to regu-
late small-loan automobile financing.

A boxed side bar inset midway down the Free Press
story described the surprise with which Hemans' testimony
was received. The kicker headline read, "Story Stuns
Friends," while the headline described "'Chuck' Hemans in
Gay Mood":

Maj. Charles F. Hemans on the witness stand
Saturday was in rare form--the same suave, dapper,
smiling, likable "Chuck" whom Lansing has known
and laughed with since boyhood. The sordid story
of bribery and corruption he told, however, struck
a stunning blow to his hundreds of friends.

The name Hemans has been honorably known in
Ingham County for decades. . . .

In the courtroom Saturday Maj. Hemans hailed
his friends with his usual smile and jest. "Nope,
haven't been in Washington lately, been in Shangri-
La," he said, with an airy wave of his hand toward
a grand jury bodyguard. The remark indicated he
had been in custody for several weeks.53

 

62Kenneth McCormick, "Tale of Chiseling, Drinking,
Bared," Detroit Free Press, March 5, 1944, p. 1.

63Ibid.

 

78

Prior to Hemans' testimony on the individual pay-off

phase, the State Journal carried his remarks in which he

 

described what condition the state legislature was in

during 1939 and even two years earlier when as a lobbyist

he paid off some legislators.64 Hemans stated that "there
existed in this state over a period of years a progressively

and increasingly malignant system under which the payment

of bribes for certain purposes became necessary."65

Whether you liked it or didn't like it, you had
to do this thing. Not only I but others bumped into
the same situation. It came to a point where logic
and reason no longer served to obtain results.

Many of the men may have been honest, but because
of this system they accepted these payments.66

Continuation of Hemans' testimony in the Sunday

State Journal of March 5 won a nine-column banner headline:

 

"Hemans' Story of Graft!" Two decks ran beneath the major
headline, while the story itself, set in boldface oversize
type, ran down columns eight and nine. On March 6,

"apparently satisfied that the 1939 session of the legisla-
ture had been shot through with graft conspiracy,"67 Judge

Carr ordered the twenty-two respondents to stand trial in

 

64Ibid.

 

65G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Hemans Begins Own Story of
Capitol Graft," State Journal, March 4, 1944, p. l.

66

 

Ibid.

67Kenneth McCormick, "24 Held for Trial in Capitol
Bribery," Detroit Free Press, March 7, 1944.

 

79

the March term of the Ingham County Circuit Court.68 The

State Journal, in a recapitulation of the seven-day hearing,

reported:

Judge Carr, whose one-man grand investigating
state government returned the warrant, over-ruled
a series of motions for dismissal by any or all
the defendants. These included a challenge of his
authority to preside at the examination after hav-
ing conducted the grand jury, a practice which the
supreme court has already upheld, and contentions
that evidence was lacking or that the defendants
had been deprived of their constitutional rights
to due process of law.

Kim Sigler, special prosecutor, countered that
"counsel was confused on the law and have forgotten
the facts."

He reviewed the testimony of witnesses and
declared this was sufficient to convince any rea-
sonable and cautious man there was reason to believe
a crime had been committed and that the respondents
committed it. The judge upheld the View.6

In Hemans' concluding testimony, the Journal
reported Hemans as testifying that he was visited by several
of the defendants in Washington both before and after issu-
ance of the warrant to discuss "what was to be done" and

"the impending matter of the grand jury."70

The "reports"
he had received were tagged by prosecutor Sigler as the

"possible leaks" in grand jury matters that had plagued the

 

68 u -
Kelly, Judge Orders 22 Bound Over in Graft Case."

691bid.

7oIbid.

80

71 . .
On cross examination,

72

investigators in the fall of 1943.
Hemans also revealed he had been granted immunity.
Following the completion of the graft examination,

a page-one story in the March 7 edition of the State Journal

 

read: "Expecting New Break Soon in Jury Inquiry, as G.
Milton Kelly, an Associated Press reporter, sought to peer
through "a fog of baffling questions" that "remained in the
wake of the respondents' examination." Foremost in the
examples given by Kelly was the statement that only one
page from lobbyist Hemans' "little black.book" had been
placed in evidence, out of a diary of nearly 300 pages.
Sigler, backed by Judge Carr, had refused to allow defense
attorneys to turn the pages of the book on grounds that
notes written on them had a bearing on other cases then
under grand jury probe. Kelly also quoted Judge Carr as
saying the grand jury would begin fresh analysis of new
information developed at the examination and "resume its
exploration of other avenues."

Only five days after his first appearance on the

witness stand, Charles Hemans was back on page one

again, this time charging that his life had been

threatened because he gave state's evidence in the grand

 

 

jury investigation. "I have been offered all the money I
71"Grand Jury Jots," State Journal, March 6!
1944, p. 2.
72

Kelly, "Judge Orders 22 Bound Over in Graft
Case."

81

needed for life to 'clear out' and seek sanctuary in dis-
tant countries."73 His prepared statement, which was

handed to newsmen in Sigler's presence, contended he was
offended over the label "briber" and said that, while he

was forced to pay extortion money to those in a position

to demand it, he was now branded as a culprit.74 The

State Journal editorially scolded the lobbyist's bemoaning:

Mr. Hemans is not convincing when he pictures
himself as the helpless victim of what he terms
extortionists. . . . Mr. Hemans . . . says he
never paid a dollar to anyone in the belief that
it was in the nature of a bribe. As an attorney,
[he] should certainly know that what he did con-
stitutes a bribe.

The prompt exposure of [such] solicitation of
bribes might be expected to aid in eliminating a
"system" such as Mr. Hemans has complained of.

A short news story in the April 21 Detroit Free

 

EEEEE took up only a few column inches in analyzing
Sigler's cancellation of an impending speech

as an indication that "New Graft Jury Action

Hinted." Although small, the story was correct in its
estimate as, less than two weeks later, a lobbyist for

the Michigan Truckers Association was convicted for

 

73G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Hemans Claims Threat on

Life in Graft Case," State Journal, March 8, 1944, p. 1.

74Ibid.

75"Not Convincing," Ibid., March 10: 1944: Po 5°

82

76 and the grand jury handed down its

77

contempt of court
second major warrant.

Newspapers cited in the study were not as dramatic
in their front-page coverage of the second grand jury

warrant, with only the Detroit News running an eight-column

 

banner headline complete with the story set two-column wide
measure to report the January warrant. "A bribe plot to
influence Legislators on the 1939 intangibles tax law--a
statute involving revenue from tens of millions of dollars
in 'hidden wealth'--was charged to 14 defendants today in

a warrant issued by the Carr-Sigler graft grand jury,"78
the News reported. Five finance company officials and nine
past and present legislators were named in the blanket
warrant. Twelve of the fourteen named were reported as

already awaiting trial on the first grand jury warrant

involving the small loan legislation.79

The Intangibles Tax Law, reported the Free Press,

 

was passed in 1939 to put a specific annual tax on the

ownership of money, stocksand.bonds, and other intangible

 

76Kenneth McCormick, "Lobbyist is Given 30 Days by
Carr," Detroit Free Press, April 26, 1944, p. 1.

77G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Jury Indicts 14 for Bribes
on Tax Bill," State Journal, May 2, 1944, p. 1.

78Allan J. Nieber, "l4 Named by Bribe Jury,"
Detroit News, May 2, 1944, p. 1.

79Kenneth McCormick, "Grand Jury Names 14,"
Detroit Free Press, May 3, 1944.

 

 

 

 

83

forms of wealth.80 Amended over the objections of its

originator, Senator George P. McCallum, of Ann Arbor, the
bill contained so many exemptions for the benefit of
special interests that the State Revenue Department had
called it "more an exemption bill than it is a tax bill."81
Legislators "loaded" the intangible tax bill with amend-
ments in both the House and Senate and word spread at the
time that its foes were trying to "amend it to death," but
a compromise draft finally was evolved which McCallum said
was "a mess," but better than no bill.82
In keeping with their earlier precedent, no hint
regarding the nature of the evidence against the defendants
was given by either Judge Carr or Sigler. Sigler said
that the full outline of the plot would be revealed at the

83 He called the warrant but one of a series

examination.
that would result from the taking of testimony of scores
of witnesses, and that bigger ones were to come. "For a
period of weeks Sigler and Judge Carr have worked from 8
or 9 a.m. to nearly midnight and frequently much later,
six days a week, putting witnesses through the mill to get

together the story of graft they contend exists."84

 

8oibid.

81Kelly, "Jury Indicts 14."

82Ibid.

83McCormick, "Grand Jury Names 14."

84Kelly, "Jury Indicts 14."

84

Later in the week, as Judge Carr jailed ex-liquor
store clerk Joseph P. Viviano, Of Detroit, for perjury--
causing speculation that "pay dirt had been struck in

85

the investigation of the state liquor set-up"-- the

Detroit Free Press localized for its readers on the

 

editorial page what the intangible tax law meant to
citizens:

The grand jury warrants returned earlier against
present and former legislators were enough to suggest
the rottenness of the situation obtaining at recent
sessions of the Legislature. The new group of
warrants . . . make plain the longterm harm that can
be done by men with larceny in their hearts.

The guilt or innocence Of the group is for the
courts tO decide. But the degree of gross misrepre-
sentation of the State's welfare may be judged by the
Operations of the law in question since it was enacted.

Kenneth J. McCarren, City Assessor, says that the
intangible tax law has cost Detroit and Wayne County
$13,500,000 in the last five years. "It's absolutely
the worst tax law enacted by any legislature anywhere.
Exemption amendments, ceilings and limitations--
about which Judge Carr and Special Prosecutor Sigler
complain--smell worse than a pigsty." . . .

Michigan lost. Detroit and Wayne County lost.
And once more it is demonstrated beyond cavil that
the people are at the mercy of a system which encour-
ages mediocrity, incompetence and venality. . . . 6

As a follow-up to the Free Press editorial, the

 

State Journal reported on May 8 that Governor Kelly had

 

requested the State Bar to undertake the study of legisla-

tive processes as a means of seeking corrections for the

"evils shown by the Carr probe."87

 

85Kenneth McCormick, "Carr Jails Ex-Liquor Store
Aide," Detroit Free Press, May 5, 1944, p, 1, '

86"How One Law Worked," Editorial, Ibid.,
May 4, 1944, p. 16.

87"Bar to Study Legislature," State Journal,
May 8, 1944, p. 1.

 

 

85

With the examination of the fourteen conspiracy
defendants held up by the failure of two of them to appear

88 the State Journal ran a page one five-

for a hearing,
column headline disclosing "Another Legislator Accused."
Representative William C. Stenson, whose "amazing story
of a proffered bribe was a motivating factor" in the call-

ing of the one-man grand jury investigation was accused of

perjury by the Carr grand jury. Stenson was charged with

giving false testimony by denying under oath that fellow
member of the House of Representatives also had paid him a
sum of money to influence his vote on the anti-branch bank-
ing bill in 1941. As he left the courtroom, Stenson told
newsmen, "this looks like a frame-up to me. I stepped on
somebody's toes, I guess."89 '

The scope of the grand jury probe publicly expanded

in the middle of May, 1944, as Judge Carr rescinded the

secrecy order that had kept hidden the widened investiga-

tion, under threat of contempt of court, since December 29,

90

1943. The first indication had been given in the Free Press

 

that Joseph P. Viviano's involvement in the investigation meant

 

88Kenneth McCormick, "Sigler Raps 2 Suspects for
Delay," Detroit Free Press, May 13, 1944.

89

 

State Journal, May 14, 1944, p. l.

 

90Kenneth McCormick, "Grand Jury Opens New State
Probe," Detroit Free Press, May 17, 1944.

 

86

Judge Carr was examining the State Liquor Commission members

and personnel.91 By May 17, Judge Carr had bound ex-liquor

92 and had found Thomas

store clerk Viviano over for trial
McMasters, vice-president and general manager of the Arrow

Distilleries, Detroit, guilty of contempt of court for giving
evasive answers and refusing to answer "prOper questions by

"93 In addition, the fact that Judge

the grand jury.
Carr's grand jury "is in possession of 'reliable informa—
tion' that a gigantic liquor conspiracy which defrauded

the State of 'upward to $70,000'" was revealed Tuesday.94

The Free Press reported that the petition for

 

expanding the grand jury's scope, which was Officially
placed in the court record at the perjury examination Of
Joseph Viviano,95 also revealed that the jury had evidence
that a similar conspiracy existed in the State Highway
Department in the letting Of contracts and work on high-
way projects "with the intent of defrauding the State of
substantial sums."96

Specifically, Kim Sigler, acting as

complainant in the expansion petition, charged

 

lMcCormick, "Carr Jails Ex-Aide."

926. Milton Kelly, AP, "Two Feel Ire of Court in
Liquor Probe," State Journal, May 16, 1944, p. l.
(McMasters later purged himself of the charge.)

93

 

McCormick, "Grand Jury Opens Probe."

94Ibid.

 

951bid.

96Ibid.

87

that members of the Liquor Control Commission conspired
with the Star Transfer Company of Grand Rapids to defraud
the state by providing the company with large sums of money
based upon overcharges and improper bookkeeping entries.
In the allegations against the highway department the
petition asserted that members conspired to furnish cam-
paign funds for various candidates seeking election for
the purpose of influencing their votes in the event of
election, in addition to the fraudulent letting of con-
tracts and highway work.97
During the next few days, the newspapers carried
the appointment of John Simpson, junior judge of the Jack—
son County Circuit Court, as trial judge for the legisla-
tive graft cases, the first of which was scheduled for

98

trial on June 12. Two days later, on May 26, Special

Prosecutor Kim Sigler announced the trial site would be
held at the Ingham County Courthouse at Mason.99

On Monday, May 29, the twice-postponed examina-
tion Of fourteen legislators and finance company
officials began. Armand Robichaud, public rela-

tions counsel Of the Beneficial Management Corporation,

who was outside the state and had not surrendered to the

 

97Background on the conspiracies is taken from
McCormick, "Grand Jury Opens Probe," and "Reveal Liquor,
Highway Plots Being Probed," State Journal, May 17, 1944, p. l.

98"Appointee is Former Legislator," Detroit
Free Press, May 25, 1944, p. 1.

. 99Lloyd Moles, "Mason to Get Graft Trials," State
Journal, May 26, 1944, p. l.

 

 

88

jurisdiction Of the Ingham court was missing from the hear-

100 With testimony again from Detroit finance company

101

ing.
Official Ernest J. Prew and former lobbyist Charles Hemans,
who related how he used funds in 1939 from a "jackpot" raised
by five Of the defendants to bribe the other nine, all thir-
teen defendants, again appearing before acting examining
magistrate Judge Carr, were bound over for trial.102
As the first of the graft conspiracies approached the
trial date, the grant jury warrant and the grand jury
itself came under attack for a second time by defense
attorneys involved in one of its cases. Three separate
motions from six Of the twenty-three defendants accused on
the small loan and finance bills were filed, charging the
warrant was defective and Should be quashed; that Judge
Carr should not have sat as their magistrate in their cir-
cuit court examination after their arrest, and that the

103 Prosecutor

defendants were denied due process of law.
Sigler said all of the motions to quash followed a pattern

Of contending that the law under which Judge Carr sat as a

 

looKenneth McCormick, "14 to Be Examined in Bribery
Case," Detroit Free Press, May 29, 1944, p. 11.

101"Funds Raised to Half Tax Bill, Prew Says,"
Ibid., May 30, 1944, p. l.

102G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Hemans Tells New Story Of
Paying Bribes," State Journal, May 31, 1944, p. 1.

103"One-Man Jury Law Attacked." Ibid., June 3, 1944,

p. l.

89

one-man grand jury and caused their arrest was unconsti-
tutional.104

On June 6 Judge John Simpson overruled the defense's

contention that the one-man grand jury law was unconsti-
tutional, and defense counsel Walter M. Nelson said he
would appeal on behalf of his client, Senator Jerry T.
Logie of Bay City, to the Michigan Supreme Court for a
ruling on the law before the trial date Of June 12.105
Nelson based his application for writs to prohibit the
trial through challenging the law's constitutionality on
the grounds that it made the judge also act as the prose-
cutor. In addition, he contended Judge Simpson exceeded
his jurisdiction in denying the motion to quash the indict-
ment.106 On June 9, the Supreme Court handed down its
ruling, refusing to delay the scheduled start Of the trial
without prejudice to later raising the question after the
trial Of the one—man grand jury's validity.107
While the courts argued the validity of the one-

man grand jury, Judge Carr and Prosecutor Sigler continued

their investigation, and on Sunday, June 4, they issued a

 

104Ibid.

105"Graft Defendants' Motions Denied," Ibid.,
June 9, 1944, p. 1.

106Kenneth McCormick, "Graft Trial Delay Denied,"
Detroit Free Press, June 10, 1944.

107"Graft Trial Delay Denied by Court," State
Journal, June 9, 1944, p. l.

90

third warrant charging former Lieutenant Governor Frank
Murphy and four Officials of two Detroit liquor distil-
leries with conspiracy to bribe to obtain enactment Of a

1941 law reducing the license fee on liquor manufacturers.108
The measure involved was Senate Bill 203, which amended the
1933 Liquor Control Act to reduce the annual license fee

Of spirits manufacturers from $5,000 to $1,000. The reduc-
tion affected only the Arrow and Mohawk LiquIeJr Corporations--
both named in the warrant--and resulted in the annual loss

Of $8,000 in state revenue.109

Prosecutor Sigler said the
warrant was based on evidence that "several thousand dol-
lars" had been paid as bribes to influence the fate of the
measure, and that the companies and Officers gave bribes,
with Murphy acting as both taker and dispenser of "money
and other things Of value."110
Three days later, after disclosing he would plead

111 former Lieutenant Governor Murphy confessed in

guilty,
court that he had received a total of $2,500 in bribes
during his term in Office and offered tO return the money

as a partial atonement for the Offense. Murphy was suffer-

ing from a heart ailment. "I don't know whether it is 60

 

108G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Ex-Lieut. Gov. Murphy
Named in Warrant," Ibid., June 4, 1944, p. 1.

109Kenneth McCormick, "Liquor Firms Named," Detroit
Free Press, June 4, 1944, p. 1.

110

 

Ibid.
111
1944, p. 1.

"Await Plea Of Guilt," State Journal, June 5,

 

91

days or 60 years that I have before me to live. I would

rather have that Off my mind than to leave an inheritance

Of that type to my children."112

With the four liquor com-
pany officials still to be arraigned, examination of the
charge was postponed until after the impending graft

trial.113

Starting out with a defense made up Of "one of the
biggest legal staffs ever assembled for a single case in

114

Michigan," and a jury that was finally seated seven

115

days after the initial opening, the first of the legis-

116 With Kim

lative graft trials got underway on June 19.
Sigler conducting the prosecution and Charles F. Hemans

and his "little black book" billed as the star witness,

the trial moved on into August, 1944, before the prosecu-
tion and defense wound up their examinations. As Sigler
gave his closing arguments on August 7 before the jury of
Ingham County residents, he linked the conviction of all

twenty-two defendants as a blow in the cause of democracy

over totalitarianism.

 

112G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Murphy Admits Graft
Charges," Ibid., June 7, 1944, p. 1.

113Kelly, "Murphy Named in Warrant."

114G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Legislative Graft Trial
Opens Monday," State Journal, June 11, 1944, p. 1.

llSHMason Graft Jury Completed," Ibid.,
June 18, 1944, P- 1°

. 116G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Trial Finally is Underway,"
Ibid., June 19, 1944, p. l.

 

92

This case involves the most sacred right of
democracy--the right to make our laws. . . . The
lethargy of the people of Germany and France
caused dictatorship. When our lawmakers become
crooked and dishonest, God pity America.

The most sacred thing that can come to a man
is to hold public office in a democracy. Yet
these lousy individuals raised their right hands

to God, took solemn oath to uphold our Constitution
and laws [as] public officials and took graft and
put it in their filthy pockets. . . .

The situation is so bad in this great state that
he [Hemans] couldn't even make a graft payment all
at once. He had to pay a little down and a little
at a time so they would keep the deal.117

In a final summation on behalf of his clients,

former Senators D. Steven Benzie and Henry F. Shea, Lansing
attorney Roy T. Conley resorted to what the Detroit Free
Press called "personal attack against special prosecutor
Kim Sigler in an effort to win acquittal for his client"118
at the conspiracy trial. Although not carried in the Free
Press, Conley's closing arguments provided an early look at
facets of Sigler's operation that would plague the grand jury's
validity in 1946 and perhaps indirectly result in the law's
major revision in l949. Specifically, Conley accused

Sigler of coaching key prosecution witnesses, suppressing
certain evidence (during the trial) as it suited him, mak-

ing prejudicial remarks for the jury's benefit,and trading

favors with witnesses for their testimony. The Lansing

attorney suggested that Sigler bargained with Charles

 

117"Sigler Pleads for Conviction," Ibid.,
Aug. 7, 1944. p- 1-

118Kenneth McCormick, "Defense Plea Raps Sigler,"
Detroit Free Press, Aug. 9, 1944.

93

Hemans and another prosecution witness, former Senator
Joseph C. Roosevelt, giving them grand jury expense accounts
and promises they could "walk from the courtroom free men in
exchange for their testimony about payoffs they said they

119

made to legislators." Conley charged that testimony

showed that Roosevelt also received from the grand jury
living allowances for his family, while Hemans obtained a
pleasure trip "on tires and gasoline you and I would pro-
bably like to have."120
The outcome of the trial on August 13 was given
major play in the newspapers examined in this study with
boldface headlines and two-column wide stories in oversize
body type announcing the conviction of twenty defendants and
the acquittal of two of them. Sentence imposed by Judge
Simpson was three to five years for each man convicted. But
of more interest to this study were an editorial and a news
story published during the course of the trial and while
the grand jury was continuing its investigation without its
121

colorful prosecutor.

On June 22, the State Journal ran an editorial in

 

answer to one of the defendants in both of the first two
conSpiracy warrants, Senator Charles Diggs, who had pre-

sented a resolution to the senate to investigate the

 

119"Counsel Claim Trial 'Unfair'r" State Journal,
Aug. 9, 1944: P0 1-

lzolbid.

121Kelly, "Graft Trial Opens Monday-"

94

one-man grand jury system. The resolution had been killed
122

in committee.
If there is anything wrong with the Michigan
grand jury system it undoubtedly will be pointed
out by the state supreme court at the proper time.
If the legislature decided that the grand jury
procedure should be changed it will undoubtedly
make such changes.
In the meantime the main desire of the legis-
lature and all citizens of Michigan would seem to
be to clear up the conditions that have been indi-
cated by the grand jury's charges and by the pleas
of guilty which have been entered so far.123
On July 17, a news story on page one of the State
Journal reported that the State Bar of Michigan, which had
been commissioned earlier by Governor Kelly to study the
legislature, ordered in an Opinion the immediate end of
the "time-honored practice" of lawyers, who were also mem-
bers of the legislature, serving as paid lobbyists or
counsel for clients directly or indirectly interested in
legislative action on bills. Although there was no mention
of the grand jury-related probe, the state bar called the
practice a violation of its canon of ethics, which declared
lawyers could not serve at the same time two masters who
have conflicting interests, without the knowledge and con-

sent of each.124

 

122"Counter-Inquiry," Editorial, State Journal,
June 22, 1944: P- 3-

123

 

Ibid 0

124G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Bar Puts Curb on Retainers
for Lobbying," Ibid., July 17, 1944, p. l.

CHAPTER III

A STRING OF SUCCESSES MARKS THE JURY'S HIGHPOINT

With its first goal attained, the grand jury
announced on August 14, 1944, that it "was shifting back

into high gear immediately."l Judge Carr had been inter-

rogating witnesses during the graft trial at Mason and at
which Sigler had acted as prosecuting attorney, and deve10p-
ments were imminent on "many other fronts" in the investi-
gation.2 In a summary of grand jury activities following

its successful conclusion, the Free Press commented

 

editorially:

Proponents of good government believe that
Sigler and Carr conceivably can do a real job of
housecleaning among Michigan's public servants.

The investigation began one year ago this
month. A tale told by State Rep. William G.
Stenson, Republican, of Ontonagon County, touched
it off. . . .

The Free Press assigned Kenneth McCormick to
follow the investigation through to its completion.
As the Free Press readers know, it was his work
that more than once spurred the investigation on
when it had all but died. . . .3

 

lG. Milton Kelly, AP, "Carr, Sigler Ready to Issue
Warrants," State Journal, Aug. 14, 1944, p. l.

2

 

Ibid.

3"Sigler Hints at New Graft Indictments," Detroit
Free Press, Aug. 14, 194% F“ 1”

95

96

Still pending before Judge Carr's court as examin-
ing magistrate were the distillery cases examination and
the examination of former Representative Stenson, who had
been charged by the grand jury with perjury. The §EEEE
Journal reported on September 9 that Ernest Prew, one of
the chief state witnesses in the graft trial and confessed
briber, had been given only two years' probation for his part
in the conspiracy, giving "further clarity to its [the
grand jury's] policy of leniency with those who co-Operate
with its probe, and severity of punishment for those it
accuses of hindering its work."4 In addition, a recapitulation
of the trial confirmed that Charles F. Hemans had been granted
immunity from prosecution, as well as former Senator Joseph
Roosevelt and former Representative John Hamilton both of
Detroit--and both instrumental in Hemans' original role as

briber-lobbyist.

The grand jury returned to its work in secrecy and
nothing further was publicly heard from it until November
9 when Judge Carr announced he had dismissed a warrant,
issued in September, 1943, charging Francis P. Slattery
with offering a bribe to a state legislator, regarding
passage of the anti-branch banking bill in 1941.5 Emerging
abruptly again from its cloak of secrecy, the grand jury

sent Slattery to jail for sixty days on November 10 for

 

4 . .
G. M1lton Kelly, AP, "Grand Jury's Sift Resuming,"

State Journal, Sept. 9, 1944, p. 1.

5"State DrOps Slattery.Case," Ibid-r NOV- 9'
1944, p. 1-

97

contempt of court. He had given evasive and contradic-
tory answers during questioning by prosecutor Sigler.6
Immediately after Slattery's commitment to jail, the EEEE.
Press reported, the grand jury reconvened and began question-
ing other witnesses. "The hours being put in by the
Grand Jury indicate big news in the near future."7

With Francis Slattery's contempt sentence, the
one-man grand jury came under attack again, as the banker's
attorney, William Henry Gallagher, of Detroit, sought to
raise new legal obstacles in the state supreme court to
the progress of the jury. In arguing for writs of
certiorari and habeas corpus, Gallagher challenged the
constitutionality of the grand jury itself and of Judge
Carr's specific action. In a single-column State Journal
story, he contended that Carr had declined to disclose the
facts on which he had convicted Slattery of contempt, thus
hampering the attorney's defense. Gallagher also argued
that if Slattery were guilty it was only contempt of the
grand jury and not contempt of court, since the grand
jury did not have court functions. The statute creating
Michigan's one-man grand jury likewise was challenged on
the grounds it permitted a judge to sit in dual administra-

tive and judicial positions. Gallagher said that Judge

 

6Kenneth McCormick, "Gets 60 Days for Contempt of
Court," Detroit Free Press, Nov. 11, 1944, p. l.

7

 

Ibid.

98

Carr, as a circuit judge, was barred from holding any
other position.8
After Slattery was freed by writ temporarily from
beginning his sentence,9 his counsel renewed the attack on
the constitutionality of the one-man grand jury in a brief.
filed November 20 with the Michigan Supreme Court. Slattery
contended that the court's decision in a previous case was
lacking in logic and authority. "Every consideration of
logic and principle dictates that the act is unconstitutional,"
the brief read. Claiming Judge Carr exceeded his authority in
citing Slattery for contempt, counsel added the contention
that the banker's conviction was in violation of the due pro-
cess of law provision of the federal constitution.lo
While seventeen respondents from the small loan
legislation-graft trial were granted leave by the Michigan

11 Special Prose-

Supreme Court to appeal their convictions,
cutor Kim Sigler was countering the Slattery contempt
sentence with a brief filed before the court on November
27.12 The brief established that all of the points raised
by Slattery had been ruled upon years earlier by the Michi-

gan Supreme Court.

 

8"Fights to Free Jailed Banker," State Journal,
Nov. 14, 1944, p. 1.

 

9"Banker Freed by High Court," Ibid., Nov. 14:
1944, p. l.

lo"Slattery Counsel Assails Jury Law," Ibid-r
Nov. 20, 1944, p. 1.

11Kenneth McCormick, "l7 Freed on Bond by High Court,"
Detroit Free Press, Nov. 18, 1944, p. l.

12

 

"Brief Backs Carr Ruling," Ibid., Nov. 28, 1944, p. l.

99

Constitutionality of the one-man grand jury had been
first sustained in 1924, when Attorney Walter N. Nelson's
contempt sentence was upheld by the higher court. Nelson
at the time was being questioned in connection with the
secret investigation of the Benton Harbor religious sect,
the House of David. In addition, the grand jury brief
pointed out that the Slattery contempt matter was identical
in circumstances with those of seven cases brought to the
higher court in the one-man grand jury conducted by United
States Senator Homer Ferguson, then a Wayne County Circuit
Judge. These cases, the brief said, had all been upheld by
the higher court. To declare the statute unconstitutional,
the statement summarized, would "destroy a proceedings which
for a number of years has proved most effective in cleaning
13

up graft and corruption in our state."

In a December 2 Detroit Free Press story covering

 

the Supreme Court hearing on Slattery's contempt conviction,
Kim Sigler's defense of the grand jury maintained that the

law was "the only means of bringing certain offenders against

the State to the bar of justice."14

Since this law was adOpted, the mayor of an
important city, a prosecutor and many other public
officials who had violated their oath of office
were brought to justice by virtue of this law.

 

13"Slattery Case Hearing Friday," State Journal,
Nov. 28, 1944, p. 1-

14Kenneth McCormick, "Sigler Hits New Attack on
State Act," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 2, 1944, p. l.

 

100

Throughout his argument, which preceded Sigler's,
Gallagher had referred to Judge Carr as "inquisitor
Carr."

"I say it's a good thing that we have men like

'Inquisitor' Carr," Sigler answered. “He has brought

to justice some 17 legislators who violated their

oaths and accepted bribes. . . 15

Coincidental to the Michigan Supreme Court's consid-

eration of the law's constitutionality was the grand jury
announcement one day following the hearing of another important
conSpiracy indictment. By Sunday, December 3, newspapers
in the study carried the story that Republican political
boss Frank D. McKay and two other men were accused of con-
spiring to bribe unnamed legislators and influence their
votes on a 1943 bill regulating the conduct of horse racing
and pari-mutuel betting.16 Boldest in its reporting of
this most recent grand jury action was the Detroit News,
which, on page one, ran a two-line, headline proclaiming
"Frank D. McKay Indicted as Racing Bill Briber." A two-
column cut of McKay tied in with the Nsss story written by
Allan J. Nieber. In addition to a smaller story on page one
of McKay's reaction to the warrant, the news content of page
twelve was entirely devoted to the indictment, with three

halftones eight columns wide showing, among others, Kim Sigler

and Judge Carr accusing Frank D. McKay, "dethroned Michigan

 

lslbid.

 

16G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Indict Frank McKay, Lobbyist,
Legislator in New Jury Warrant," State Journal, Dec. 2, 1944,
p. l.

101

Republican boss," of bribery. A four-column story headlined,
"Accusations Not New to Indicted Trio," said McKay, lobby-
ist Floyd Fitzsimmons.and Representative William Green, of
Hillman, stood accused as no new experience for any one of

the "ill-assorted trio." "To have the accusations substan-

tiated is something else," the News said.

Providing background to the three indictees, the

State Journal described Frank D. McKay as an industrialist,

 

financier,and businessman, who for more than a decade was
the "directing genius of the most powerful political organi-
zation Michigan has known. His word was sufficient to make
or break aspirants for political office and his influence

17 Having served as state

extended throughout the state."
treasurer from 1925 to 1930, he was a "political mystery
man" working quietly, until self-styled "anti-boss" fac-
tions rebelled against his leadership and blocked him from
voice in Republican nominating convention affairs in the
fall of 1940. "His political star declined steadily until
this year when Gov. Kelly and anti-McKay groups cut him
from re-election as Republican national committeeman from
Michigan."18

Once a "big shot boxing promoter," Floyd Fitz-

simmons had been of late a lobbyist, especially for bills

to legalize pari-mutuel betting on dog and horse races.

 

17Ibid.

 

lBIbid.

102

He was also one of McKay's old political lieutenants, the

State Journal said. Representative Green, also a Repub-

 

lican, was then already awaiting trial from an earlier
grand jury warrant in connection with legislative action
on a bill to regulate the practice of cosmetology.

Drawn by Sigler, the warrant accused all three of
conspiring to bribe legislators to defeat a bill to amend
the Michigan horse racing law. The bill had proposed an
increase in revenue to the state from races conducted by
the Detroit Racing Association. While authorizing an
increase from 7.5 to 10 per cent of the Racing Association's
"take“ from pari-mutuel bettors at the Fair Grounds track,
it also had imposed a graduated participation by the state in
this income, in addition to increasing the minimum daily
license fee by $1,000. The amendment had been referred to
a house committee, where it was killed.19 Coming after
nearly three months of work by Judge Carr and Kim Sigler,
the warrant was the fourth major one issued by the Carr

grand jury. There was every indication, the Free Press

 

said, that the McKay warrant was the beginning of a series
of important developments. Asked if other warrants could
be expected soon, Sigler said: "Don't let your pencils get

dull, boys."20

 

19Kenneth McCormick, "Sports Promoter is Also
Indicted," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 3, 1944, p. l.

zoIbid.

103

Sigler's warning proved true. Less than five
days later, the grand jury issued its fifth major warrant
charging five legislators and eight naturopathists with
conspiracy to pay and accept bribes to obtain an enactment
of a 1939 law to give professional standing to nature
healers.21 The bill in question, which died in committee,
was introduced by Senator Henry F. Shea, Laurium Democrat,
who was earlier convicted in the small loan graft trial.
The bill provided that practitioners of the arts of healing,
including treatment by electrical means, massage and
baths, be licensed under certain regulations which provided
a penalty for violating the act.22 Prosecutor Sigler said
that bribes totaling several thousand dollars were paid to
two members of the senate and three former members of the
house from a slush fund created by the American Naturo-
pathic Association of Michigan.23

The following day, December 8, the Detroit News
carried the story that lobbyist Floyd Fitzsimmons had been
indicted for the second time in less than a week and

charged with offering a $500 bribe to former Representative

Gail Handy, Eau Claire, to influence his vote on a'

 

21"Carr Names 5 Legislators in Bribery,"'Ibid.,
Dec. 7, 1944, p. 1.

22Lloyd Moles, "Jury Accuses 13 of Healer Bid
Bribery," State Journal, Dec. 7, 1944, p. l.

23

 

McCormick, "Carr Names 5."

1U4

horse-racing bill during the 1941 legislative session.24
The Journal disclosed that Handy had made the bribe offer
public at that time, but no action was taken by Attorney
General Herbert Rushton.25
Less than seven hours after the issuance of the
Fitzsimmons bribe warrant, Senator Chester M. Howell, of
Saginaw, one of those named in the naturopathy warrant,

pleaded guilty to the charge of conspiracy.26 Following

his plea before Judge Carr, Senator Howell read a state-

ment "frankly admitting [his] mistakes" to "help clean up

"27 Howell's confession,

graft in . . . state government.
noted the Journal, had been entirely unanticipated and
"came as a shock to his wide circle of political acquaint-
ances at the Capitol."28
With only two individuals involved, the examination
of Floyd Fitzsimmons on charges of attempting to bribe
Representative Handy was held and concluded on December 14,

with the latter testifying before Judge Carr against the

lobbyist, who was bound over for trial. The Free Press

 

noted on Handy's testimony that he had related the bribe

offer to Attorney General Rushton:

 

24Allan J. Nieber, "$500 Race Bill Offer Charged,"
Detroit News, Dec. 8, 1944, p. 1.

25Lloyd Moles, "Fitzsimmons is Reindicted," State
Journal, Dec. 8, 1944, p. l.

 

26Kenneth McCormick, "Offers Help to Clean Up
Graft in State," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 9, 1944.

27Ibid.

28Lloyd Moles, "Howell Admits Graft Guilt in Sur-
prise Plea," State Journal, Dec. 9, 1944, p. l.

 

105

Handy's story added another link in the strange
chain of circumstances, reports and rumors which
have connected Rushton's office with Frank D. McKay,
Michigan Republican political boss.
Rushton told reporters that his office had done
nothing about the alleged bribe offer because Handy
had told many conflicting stories.
Rushton said that former Gov. Murray D. Van
Wagoner and he talked it over and decided he couldn't
get a conviction.29
With the Supreme Court ruling on its constitution-
ality still pending, the Carr grand jury issued its sixth
major warrant on December 16 charging two naturopaths, one
house member,and five former legislators with conspiracy to
corrupt the legislature in connection with a second naturo-
pathic bill introduced during the 1941 session.30 Two
officials of the 1941 American Naturopathic Association
spent several thousand dollars in bribes in a vain attempt
to get passage of a bill granting professional status to
the healing arts practitioners, Special Prosecutor Sigler
said.31
Following Senator Howell's action, Paul Faulkner,
a former Detroit naturopathist, pleaded guilty on the
morning of December 21 to grand jury warrants charging he

had conspired in offering a bribe to corrupt the 1939 and

1941 legislatures. Although Howell had been named only in

 

29Kenneth McCormick, "Handy Tells Judge Carr Story

of Payoff Attempt," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 15, 1944.

30Lloyd Moles, "One-Man Jury Accuses Eight More of
Graft," State Journal, Dec. 16, 1944, p. l.

 

 

31 . . .
Kenneth McCormick, "Elght Are Ind1cted on Graft
Charges," Detroit Free Press, Dec. 17, 1944.

106

the earlier warrant, Faulkner, who was president of the Michi-
gan chapter of the American NaturOpathic Association in 1941,
was cited in both charges in seeking to enact legislation
recognizing naturopathy as a medical science.32

Grand jury-related business continued to make the
news during December with the disclosure in an Associated
Press story that former Lieutenant Governor Frank Murphy
had died of a heart ailment on December 25. As a confessed
briber in the liquor license fee warrant, Judge Carr said
his already-provided testimony would probably be no longer
admissible in a trial, because defense counsel would have
no opportunity to cross-examine Murphy.33 Also of interest
was the announcement on December 30 that Senator Charles
Blondy was cleared of long-standing graft charges regarding
his alleged solicitation of a bribe in connection with the.
anti-chain banking bill. Dismissal of the early indict-
ments, which had been returned by Attorney General Rushton,
also cleared Senator Charles C. Diggs, Representative
William G. Buckley and former Representative Joseph L.
Kaminski, all of Detroit, but all three had already been

convicted in the small-loan graft trial.34

 

32G. Milton Kelly, AP, "Pleads Guilt in Graft Case,"
State Journal, Dec. 21, 1944, p. 1.

33"Death Claims Probe Figure," Ibid.
Dec. 26, 1944, p. l.

34"Graft Counts Against Four Are Dropped," EEEEQEE
Free Press, Dec. 30, 1944.

 

 

107

The month of December was also important as the
first anniversary of Kim Sigler's appointment to the role
of special prosecutor.

Exactly 12 months ago--12 exciting, eventful
months for wrong-doers--a colorful Battle Creek
lawyer breezed into Lansing and accepted Circuit
Judge Leland W. Carr's appointment as Special grand-
jury prosecutor.

Onlookers were blinded by the color--a lot
didn't see that the man with 40 flashy suits also
possessed a thorough knowledge of law, a keen sense
of responsibility and an intuitive understanding of
human nature.

They would have been surprised at the idea then
that Kim Sigler's solid accomplishments shortly were
to steal headlines from a two-ocean war.

After what has happened in the 12 months, how-
ever, no one is surprised now when Sigler promises
more revelations. His past promises have been as
meticulously correct as the blending of the wild
hues in his clothes of many colors.

Among those who are sure of Sigler's abilities
are 834 witnesses who have gone through the "truth
mill". . . .

Judge Carr knew, certain members of the Supreme
Court knew, legal giants put Sigler's name first on
the list for Special prosecutor--if he could be
persuaded to leave his lucrative practice.

Perhaps the excitement of Judge Carr's fight to
save his grand jury investigation prompted Sigler's
acceptance. . . .

Said Sigler on accepting the appointment:

"I intend to jump into this with both feet. The
chips will fall where they may."

But then he left for five days--to "clean up some
pending matters."

You'll understand Sigler's method of operation
much better when you realize that most of those five
days following Dec. 14, 1943, were spent on other
than private business.

Actually he had been investigating every person
connected with the grand jury, including newspaper
reporters assigned to it.

Returning to Lansing, he called certain newspaper
men together at a dinner, told them:

"I've checked up on you birds and I find you're
okay. I'm going to organize a ball team here. Every-
one on it must be loyal and honest. When you think
I'm making an ass of myself, I want you to tell me.
I'll do the same with you, if I think you're wrong."

108

After dinner he stroked his striking gray hair
into place, then said: "We're taking a little trip."
Destination was a secret "hideout" in Jackson

set up for questioning witnesses.

John Dalton, former chief clerk for Rushton, was
a grand jury investigator.

It turned out that the investigator was one of
those Sigler had investigated.

At dawn Sigler came from the interrogation room
with a sworn statement. Dalton admitted acting as
chauffeur for McKay. He had driven him from Lansing
to Grand Rapids.

The fact that a grand jury investigator was driv-
ing McKay around the state was sensational. But
Dalton's statement added that he had been ordered to
drive McKay by Rushton, himself.

Getting the statement was Sigler's first official
act--the first time the chips flew.

Now he was ready to organize.

Sigler moved the Jackson "hideout" to Lansing.
Investigators moved into a block of rooms in the Olds
Hotel so Sigler could live with them and study them.

He preached the teamwork theme until it became a
byword. He held staff meetings daily, soon organized
what is known as "the breakfast club." ”Every member
of his staff attends it each morning in a private
dining room.

There he maps out the work of each investigator.
Phases of jury work are discussed fully. Every inves-
tigator knows just what every other investigator is
doing. All are proud that nobody yet has let a secret
out. . . .

They work night and day to bring in witnesses,
evidence and records upon which Sigler has built his
cases.

The new year for the investigation started out with

the State Journal headline,"Grand Jury Funds Facing Obsta—

 

cle." The January 3 news story disclosed that a rumor was

spreading in the house that a few "rebellious" members

were contemplating a protest against appropriating an addi-
tional $100,000- to $150,000 for the Carr grand jury. The

original $150,000 was almost exhausted, said the Journal,

 

35Kenneth McCormick, "Grand Jury Prosecutor Fooled
'Em," Ibid., Dec. 17, 1944.

109

with several cases still pending in addition to further
inquisitorial work.

On January 4, 1945, the Michigan Supreme Court
handed down its awaited ruling on the one-man grand jury
system's validity by unanimously voting down Francis P.
Slattery's contempt-dismissal plea. The court rejected
Slattery's contention that Judge Carr was illegally per-
forming both judicial and administrative duties when he
acted as grand juror and also as sentencing magistrate in

finding the Grand Rapids banker guilty of contempt. Such

a step, the court said, was in "strict conformity" with

the constitution.36

Slattery's questioning of the Court as
to whether he must answer the questions if they would
incriminate him was dismissed as obstructing "the work of
a judge or jury which in an orderly manner is seeking to
ascertain whether a complaint is true and whether certain
crimes have been committed."37
Upon serving only two days in prison on his contempt
conviction, Francis P. Slattery was free again, after his

counsel had successfully petitioned for a stay of proceed-

ings pending a rehearing by the Supreme Court.38 Asserting

 

36Jack R. Green, AP, "Witness Loses Contempt Plea,"
State Journal, Jan. 4, 1945, p. l.

37£g_£s Slattery, 310 Mich. 476 (1945).

38"High Court Grants Stay to Slattery," State
Journal, Jan. 10, 1945, p. 1.

110

the banker would go to the United States Supreme Court if
necessary, his counsel argued against the state's uphold-
ing the constitutionality of the one-man grand jury law and
stated that "the summary [contempt] conviction of the

petitioner was denied of his rights under the Federal

constitution."39

Although the banker was free on technicalities, the

Detroit Free Press commented editorially on January 6 that:

It was only the malefactors themselves who
objected to Michigan's one-man grand jury law.
Their grievance, in sum, was that the law worked
and that it dealt so effectively with them.

The Michigan Supreme Court's decision, uphold-
ing the statute in all particulars, puts away any
chance that malefactors' pleas about "unconstitu-
tionality" will be an accompaniment of grand jury
findings in future. The very phrasing--"so that
there may be no further question"--takes cogniz-
ance of the source of such rancid plaints. They
have never been other than resort to a shade dodge
to escape punishment. . . .

Hereafter, the arms of the one-man grand jury
are strengthened beyond challenge. One has only to
consider what a parade of grafters, corruptionists
and other crooks would have gone unpunished if, at
any time, there had been the chance of an opposite
decision.

By January 9, the examination of eight defendants
named in the first naturopathic indictment had begun with
star witness and former lobbyist Harry R. Williams testi-
fying he had helped four of the defendants to plan for

paying legislators to vote for the 1939 naturopathy bill.49

 

39"Slattery Asking Stay of Sentence," Ibid.,

Jan. 6, 1945, p. 1.

40Frank Morris, "Naturopath Payoff Told," Detroit
Times, Jan. 9, 1945.

111

A story in the Detroit Times disclosed that both Williams

 

and former Senator Henry F. Shea had been granted immunity
and had become state witnesses. Shea had earlier been con-
victed in the small-loan legislative graft trial and was
free on bond awaiting outcome of his appeal.41
In the continuing testimony, Williams said
he was forced to pay Senator Carl F. DeLano $2,000
to get the naturopathic bill out of house committee. Like
lobbyist Hemans before him, Williams told a sordid story
of paying more than $1,200 to five former legislators, of
setting up residence at a Lansing hotel and providing a bar
to ply lawmakers with whiskey, of soliciting money from the
Naturopathic Association to pay his expenses and pay off
legislators, and of paying graft and poker debts of some
legislators.42 The examination was climaxed by the story
of Henry F. Shea, who testified that he took a $500 bribe
to introduce the naturopathic legislation.43
The conspiracy examination was over on January 11
as Judge Carr held the evidence sufficient to bind over
the eight defendants present and two individuals out-of-

44

state who were fighting extradition. The State Journal

 

41Ibid.

42Roberta Applegate, AP, "Claims $1900 Paid to
DeLano," State Journal, Jan. 10, 1945, p. 1.

43Kenneth McCormick, "Carr Holds 10 for Trial in
Bribery," Detroit Free Press, Jan. 11, 1945.

44

 

Ibid.

112

reported that next on the Carr-Sigler calendar was the
circuit court examination of six or eight defendants
named in the grand jury indictment accusing a conSpiracy
over a similar bill in 1941.45
Before the examination could get underway, how-
ever, another grand-jury related matter swept across the
front page--the murder of grand jury witness Senator
Warren G. Hooper. Found dead in his car near Springport,
with three shots in the head, HOOper's assassination brought
out the biggest diSplay of front page type in grand jury
coverage. An eight column banner headline in the Detroit

News read: "McKay's Accuser Killed to Block Jury--Sigler."

Cried out the Detroit Times in a huge eight-column banner:

 

"McKay Accuser Slain." Said the Detroit Free Press, at the

 

tOp of its first page: "Kidnapped, Shot in Head; Slayer

Sets Car Afire."

"The Carr-Sigler grand jury came face to face with
murder today-~the slaying of Republican State Senator
Warren G. Hooper, the state's star witness in a pending
bribe conspiracy case against Frank D. McKay and two

alleged McKay co-conspirators."46

 

45Roberta Applegate, AP, "Bind Over 10 in Graft
Case," State Journal, Jan. 11, 1945, p. l.

.46Allan J. Nieber, "McKay's Accuser Killed to
Block Jury--Sigler," Detroit News, Jan. 12, 1945, p. l.

 

 

113

Revealing for the first time that Hooper was to be
a witness against McKay, Special Prosecutor Sigler said
. - ~ "47
the murder was "a consplracy to obstruct just1ce.

"'Hooper testified freely and fully before the

grand jury and was granted immunity'," [Sigler
said]. "'He was to be our chief witness. His
death is a serious blow to our case against McKay
and the others. . . .'"

In a separate page one story, the Free Press
re—examined the racing bill indictment issued by the Carr
grand jury on December 2, 1944, and charging that McKay,
Floyd Fitzsimmons and Representative Green had conspired
to defeat the bill to increase the state's revenue from
horse betting. Although the murdered senator's part in
the conspiracy was not known, the 1943 bill was killed in
the House State Affairs Committee. In a special session
of the legislature in 1944, however, a bill similar in
most respects passed both houses by an overwhelming vote,
increasing the state's income from racing more than eight
times. "The Grand Jury was in session across the street
49

at the time."

In a page one story, the Detroit Times, too,

 

recalled a now significant statement" from

Sigler, made at the time the indictment was returned.

471bid.

 

481bid.

49"Murdered Senator Linked to Racing Bill Indict-
ment," Detroit Free Press, Jan. 12, 1945, p. l.

 

114

"'There are going to be prominent men as surprise
witnesses and they will have an amazing tale to tell.
Their testimony will be a neat little package of
dynamite,'" [Sigler said].

Death bared the secret that Hooper was one of
those "prominent men."

With a horrified legislature and incensed news-
papers, reward offers and editorial comments were quick to

appear. The day after the murder, the Detroit Free Press

 

was already carrying a box within the murder news story
that State Senator Ben Carpenter, of Harrison, would
request apprOpriation of at least $10,000 as a reward for
the apprehension of any persons who might be implicated in
51

Hooper's death.

The Detroit News carried its own offer of reward

 

in a six-column box--running three paragraphs in boldface
type--providing $5,000 to be given for information leading
to the "arrest and conviction of the person or persons
responsible for the murder of State Senator Warren G.

52

Hooper."

With a story running in the Detroit News that

 

quoted Frank D. McKay as saying Senator Hooper's death

53

was "a terrible thing," the Detroit Times ran a January

 

14 editorial on page one headlined: "A Killing for Pay?"

 

50"Sigler's Statement Recalled by Murder," Detroit
Times, Jan. 13’ 1945' p. 10

Slflproposes $10,000 Reward," Detroit Free Press,
Jan. 12, 1945, p. 1. ‘

52"News Offers $5,000 Reward," Detroit News,
Jan. 12, 1945, p. l.

53

 

"Terrible Thing," Ibid., Jan. 12, 1945,
p. 34.

115

If the cold-blooded assassination of Senator
Warren G. Hooper was the work of hoodlums hired
and paid to obstruct justice, the peOple of this
state have been affronted by a crime unequalled
in its history.

Time and again, in the last year, the citizens
of Michigan have been shocked by the evidence of
graft and corruption in lofty places, but the
staggering boldness of this murder calls for swift
and thorough investigation to determine whether
the assassination was the work of desperate politi-
cal conspirators.

If this is true, the actual killers, guilty and
stained with blood as they are, indeed must be
regarded as small fry compared to the men who would
plot and pay for the brutal death of one who held a
high position of public trust. . . .

No law enforcement agency should rest, nor any
man who respects the law be content, until this
stain is removed from the record. . . .

Clues to the Hooper murder were sparse: footprints
in the snow leading from his partially burned automobile;
a witness who saw three men speed away from the scene of
the senator's killing; earlier sightings in the area of a
member of the once notorious Detroit Purple Gang. But the
"brazenness of the murder and the blow to the grand jury's
Operations" marshalled all of the state's law enforcement
groups, as well as Sigler's investigators and Governor Kelly
himself, who co-ordinated the groups under state police dir-

ection.54 A State Journal story reported that Mrs. HOOper was

 

indignant over the lack of protection for her husband, who
reportedly had refused a bodyguard. Asserting that the danger
to Senator Hooper's life had been sufficiently great to force

him to live in a Lansing osteopathic hospital, rather than

 

54Kenneth McCormick, "Suspects Traced by Auto
License," Detroit Free Press, Jan. 13, 1945, p. 1.

116

a hotel, she added bitterly: "He may have been just

another man in the grand jury investigation, but he was

55

half my life." Said the State Journal editorially:

 

Blood may have stained the infamous record of
corruption in the Michigan legislature. . . .

While the motive for the Hooper slaying has not
been established it will be a general assumption
that his death was connected with his appearance
before the grand jury to which he is said to have
given a complete confession. . . .

It is tragic that Senator Hooper declined the
offer of police protection . . . and his death
emphasizes the necessity of taking every precaution
to safeguard grand jury figures in the future in
order to guard . . . against silencing of witnesses.

There must be no more rumors in the legislative
halls as to possible rebellion against provision of
funds with which to complete the inquiry. . . . Even
if the slaying of the legislator is left out of con-
sideration, the grand jury's accomplishments to
date show clearly that the legislature has no alter-
native to prompt action financing continuation of
the important work that is under way.

With the disclosure from Kim Sigler that attempts
were being made to intimidate grand jury witnesses by

capitalizing on the fear already engendered, the State

Journal editorialized that if the bullets that had killed the
senator were fired in an effort to obstruct Judge Carr's
grand jury, "it is likely that they will prove a boomerang

57

to the lawless and the corrupt." The slaying, which

"has . . . had the effect of solidifying public support of

 

55"Hooper Kin in Seclusion--Widow Bitter at Police,"
State Journal, Jan. 13, 1945, p. l.

56"A Challenge," Editorial, Ibid., Jan. 13,
1945' p0 4.

 

57"Boomerang," Editorial, Ibid., Jan. 16,
1945, p. 4.

117

58 temporarily held up the legislature's

the investigation,"
approval of $250,000 for continuing the grand jury, but did
not stOp the senate from voting $25,000--the biggest legis-
lative reward in history59--to spur solution to Hooper's
murder.
As indicated by Prosecutor Sigler, Warren G.

Hooper's death meant deferment on the McKay, Fitzsimmons
and Green conspiracy, perhaps even "a fatal blow to the

«60

prosecution's case. Although the State Journal reported

 

the hearing on the racing bill indictment was scheduled for
January 15, Sigler and Judge Carr would instead conduct the
examination against six former legislators involved in the
1941 naturopathy bill.61
The examination on the second "healing arts"

indictment lasted only one day, with former lobbyist Harry
R. Williams again a witness for the state. He testified
that he and his organization, the American Naturopathic

Association of Michigan, had placed $5,000 in escrow in a

Detroit bank to be used to get the 1941 version of the

naturopathic bill passed by the legislature. After linking

the indicted legislators through bribe payments—-including

 

58Ibid.

59"Senate Votes $25,000 for Murder Tip," Ibid.,
Jan. 16, 1945' p0 1'

60Roberta Applegate, AP, "Study Effect of Murder
on Graft Charge," Ibid., Jan. 15, 1945, p. 1.

61Ibid.

118

Representative William Green, to whom Williams testified he
gave $250 to introduce the bill--Judge Carr bound over the
six men for trial. Two others named in the warrant not
present were Paul Faulkner, who already had pleaded guilty,
and a second naturopathist who was ill.62
Ten days later, Clayton R. McKinney, former opera-
tor of a naturopathic clinic at Centerville, pleaded guilty
before Judge Carr to the grand jury charge that he had given
bribes in connection with the 1939 conspiracy. The guilty
plea, by McKinney, who had been extradited from Tennessee,
marked the third admission to a bribery conspiracy dealing

63

with the two naturopathy bills. And a few weeks later,

a plea of guilty by Detroit dentist Max Rosenfeld to the
1939 conspiracy raised the number to four confessions.64
While investigators continued searching for clues
to the murder of Senator HoOper, Judge Carr overruled
lobbyist Floyd Fitzsimmons' counsel that his January 29
trial date be delayed. Counsel had claimed that the
Hooper murder would cause "a cloud of suspicion" over

Fitzsimmon's trial and cause the jury to be prejudiced.65

 

62"Corruption Charged by Grand Jury," Detroit Free
Press, Jan. 17, 1945, p. 1.

63Kenneth McCormick, "3rd Admits Bribe Guilt,"
Ibid., Jan. 28, 1945, p. 1.

64"Detroiter Pleads Guilty in Natur0pathy Case,"
Ibid., Feb. 11, 1945, p. l.

6SROberta Applegate, AP, "Fitzsimmons Denied Delay,"
State Journal, Jan. 17, 1945, p. l.

119

The trial began as scheduled, however, and less than five
days later, after debating only ninety minutes, the jury
had "found Fitzsimmons guilty of attempting to bribe
Representative Gail Handy in 1941."66
Reported as "the defiant answer of . . . Judge
Carr and Sigler to those who hoped the grand jury had been
destroyed" by the murder of Senator Hooper, the Carr-
Sigler grand jury issued its seventh major indictment on
Saturday, February 10, charging three dentists and four
former legislators with corruption.67 Specifically, the
warrant accused the defendants of corruptly obtaining
enactment in the 1939 legislature of a law prohibiting
dentists from advertising. Asserting that several thousand
dollars had changed hands in the transaction, Special
Prosecutor Sigler declared that the legislative committee
of the Michigan State Dental Society had raised a "slush
fund" with which "legislative votes were purchased like
groceries."68
The 1939 bill was a complete revision of the code
regulating the practice of dentistry. But the "big squab-

ble" was over the clause prohibiting dentists from adver-

tising. The society had attempted to pass the same bill

 

66Roberta Applegate, AP, "Fitzsimmons Held Guilty;
Plans Appeal," Ibid., Feb. 2, 1945, p. 1.

67Kenneth McCormick, "Carr Jury Alleges Legisla-
tive Bribes," Detroit Free Press, Feb. 11, 1945.

68

 

Ibid.

120

in both the 1935 and 1937 sessions, but had met with strong
opposition from dentists who advertised. It was Warren G.
Hooper, as chairman of the 1939 House Public Health Commit-
tee, who had introduced the bill that eventually was passed.
And, Sigler said HOOper would have been a state's witness in
the case.69

Promising fast action on its latest warrant, the
Carr-Sigler grand jury had arraigned all seven defendants
and was hearing their examination by February 16. With two

70

having already admitted their guilt, additional testimony

came from four witnesses granted immunity previously by the
grand jury. They included: Henry C. Gerber, Jr., execu-
tive secretary of the Michigan State Dental Society; former
legislators Chester Howell and Henry F. Shea; and Dr. J. P.
Jaxtimer, a member of the dentists' state legislative com-

71

mittee in 1939. "Corruption was so flagrant in the 1939

legislative session," the Free Press reported, "that

 

false teeth and dental repairs were Openly traded by

72

dentists for lawmakers' votes." Included in testimony

was Gerber's statement that Senator HOOper, who had been

asked to introduce the bill, demanded and received $50.73

 

69Ibid.

 

7oKenneth McCormick, "Two Dentists Admit Legislator
Bribe Plot," Ibid., Feb. 16, 1945.

71Roberta Applegate, AP, "Hooper Paid Dental Bribe,
Witness Says," State Journal, Feb. 16, 1945, p. 1.

72Kenneth McCormick, "Aide Shows Bill Bartered into
Passage," Detroit Free Press, Feb. 17, 1945.

73

 

Ibid.

121

By February 23, Judge Carr had found sufficient
evidence to bind over the remaining five defendants in the
dental bill conspiracy for trial.74 The four former leg-
islators bound over for trial, including D. Stephen Benzie,
Ernest G. Nagel, Francis J. Nowak and Earl C. Gallagher,
had been convicted earlier in the small-loan conSpiracy
trial.

While the dental hearing had been mainly occupying
grand jury news coverage, Senator Carl F. DeLano was seeking
redress against Carr-Sigler charges accusing him in the
1939 naturopathy conspiracy. On February 15, he asked
the grand jury's case be drOpped on the grounds that the

charges violated his rights.75

DeLano, who had been singled
out by Harry Williams as having received $1,900 in bribe
money, based his petition on a violation of his state con-
stitutional rights compelling him to be a witness
against himself. He said the indictment also violated the
national constitution.

On Tuesday, February 20, Judge Carr denied the
DeLano petition, saying the "grounds set forth in the

76

motion are not well founded." DeLano next sought a

 

74Roberta Applegate, AP, "Five Ordered Held for
Trial in Dental Case," State Journal, Feb. 23, 1945, p. l.

75"Delano Claims Charge Invalid," Ibid.,
Feb. 15, 1945, p. 1.

76"Carr Holds DeLano Must Stand Trial," Ibid.,
Feb. 24, 1945, p. l.

 

122

separate trial from his fellow co-defendants, on the grounds
that three of them were already convicted of an earlier
charge and thus would prejudice his case before the jury.
This petition, too, was denied by Judge Carr,77 and by

March 1, the first naturopathy trial had begun.

During the course of the trial, again held in
Mason, C. B. McDonald, a Benton Harbor chiropractor,

testified under immunity that the American Naturopathic

Association of Michigan sought the law in 1939 because
most members also were chiropractors who wanted the legal
right to practice other forms of drugless medicine.
Chiropractors, under Michigan law, were limited to manipu-
lation of the spine.78 Also under immunity for their testi-
mony were former Senator Chester M. Howell and lobbyist
Harry R. Williams, whose story of paying Senator DeLano
marked the trial's high point.79 With the testimony con-
cluded in the graft trial on March 12, Kim Sigler, acting
as county prosecutor, singled out Senator Carl DeLano
before the jury, calling him "the arch-chiseler of the
Senate--the man who would take $1900 to get a bill out of

80

committee." By March 15, two weeks after the trial

 

 

77"Separate Trial Denied Senator," Ibid.

78Roberta Applegate, AP, "Sigler Builds Case
Slowly," Ibid., March 1, 1945, p. 1.

79"State Closing Bribery Case," Ibid., March 7:

1945, p. l; "Howell Tells of Bribe Share," Ibid., March 8,
1945, p. 1.

80"End Testimony in Graft Trial," Ibid., March 12:
1945, p. 1.

123

opened, the jury had found Senator DeLano, and Mihkel
Sherman, a Detroit chiropractor, guilty of conspiracy and
had acquitted two other Detroit chiropractors. In the
cases of former legislators William G. Buckley, Francis
Nowak and Edward J. Walsh, the jury disagreed.81
With a third trial successfully concluded and the

former legislators involved in the 1941 naturopathy con—

spiracy bound over for trial, the Carr-Sigler grand jury
issued a new indictment. On March 24, former Senator
Jerry T. Logie, of Bay City, and former Senator Charles
C. Diggs, of Detroit, were charged with conSpiracy to accept
bribes to defeat the twice-implicated race track bill of
1941.82 Both men, who were appealing their convictions
from the small-loan conspiracy trial, had been members of
the Senate State Affairs Committee, where the measure had
died.

Special Prosecutor Sigler revealed that former
Senator Howell was implicated in the latest warrant and
had been granted immunity to testify. He said the state

would charge that Howell had accepted a $3,000 bribe from

a deceased lobbyist to kill the race track bill in the

Senate State Affairs Committee. Howell allegedly shared the

bribe with Senators Logie and Diggs, who were fellow

 

81"DeLano Guilty in Graft Case; Two Acquitted,"
Ibid., March 15, 1945, p. 1.

82Allan J. Nieber, "'41 Race Bribe Plot Charged,"
Detroit News, March 25, 1945, p. 1.

124

83 After hearing testimony by ex-Senator

committee members.
Howell that he had paid Logie and Diggs $950 to kill the
bill to regulate horse racing and pari-mutuel betting,

Judge Carr bound the men over for trial.84

On April 16, the fourth trial to grow out of a
grand jury warrant began.85 Conducted at Mason by Judge
John Simpson, the trial resulted from charges that the
1941 Legislature had been corrupted in a vain attempt to
again pass the naturopathy bill. Six former legislators
were the defendants, with chiropractor C. B. McDonald again
granted immunity for his testimony.

While newspaper reporters continuously appeared con-
cerning new evidence on the Hooper murder, the graft trial
began with McDonald describing how a $10,000 "slush fund"
had been raised to pay off legislators through lobbyist
Harry Williams. The fund was raised from members of the
naturOpathic association, with Williams elected chairman
of the special legislative committee to see that the bill

86

got through the 1941 session. Following further testi-

mony from Williams, the 1941 naturopathy conspiracy trial

 

83Douglas Graham, United Press Dispatch, "Two Ex-
Senators Re-Indicted," State Journal, March 25, 1945, p. 1.
(United Press DiSpatch hereinafter cited as UP.)

 

84"Logie, Diggs Bound Over," Ibid., April 7, 1945:
p. 1.

85"Start New Bribe Trial," Ibid-r April 16! 1945'
p. l.

86

Lloyd Moles, "Witness Tells of Slush Fund," Ibid.,
April 17, 1945, p. l.

125

closed with Sigler's diatribe. "Our lawmakers raised their
hands on high to swear loyalty to the constitution and then
sold their lousy souls. They used the capitol for a
trading post rather than a citadel of government."87 Late
Wednesday, April 25, the six ex-1egislators, including
William Green, Edward J. Walsh, William Buckley, Francis
J. Nowak, Leo J. Wilkowski and William G. Birk, were found
guilty.88
On May 2, almost four months after the murder, a
State Journal story announced that three former Detroit
Purple Gang members and a fourth man were named in a warrant
issued by Sigler of conspiring to murder Senator Warren
G. Hooper in a plot alleged to have been developed in
Hooper's home county of Calhoun.89 Named earlier as assis-
tant prosecutor of Calhoun County to gain control over any
prosecution arising from the case,90 Sigler disclosed that
an individual involved in the preliminary negotiations to
kill Hooper would be the key witness for the state when

Sigler produced the evidence for which the warrants were

issued. "Meanwhile, investigators were unable to learn

 

87"Ex-Legislators' Fate UP to Jury," Ibi§°r
April 25, 1945, p. l.

88"5 Starting Cell Terms," Ibid., April 26'
1945’ p0 l.
89

Jack R. Green, AP, "Four Men Charged With Murder
Plot in Hooper Killing," Ibid., May 2, 1945, p. 1.

90"Kim Sigler to Direct," AP: Ibid., April 23'
1945' p0 l.

126

who actually shot Hooper or allegedly paid the $25,000 to

have the job done. For this reason, Sigler's warrant

merely charged a murder conspiracy."91
At the examination of the four defendants, which

began on May 12, Henry Luks, a paroled convict living in

Lansing, told the story in Calhoun County Circuit Court,
sitting in Battle Creek, of how four men "calmly discussed
dynamiting, bludgeoning, or strangling as a means of mur-
dering State Senator Warren G. Hooper to prevent him from

92

testifying before the Carr grand jury." Following Luks's

testimony, Sigler brought out another convict, Alfred Kumer,
who, like Luks, had been offered the chance to kill Hooper.93
In addition, a third man--Sam Abramowitz, of Detroit--testi-
fled that he and Luks had been offered the job together, and
that two attempts to kill Senator Hooper had failed.94
Background information coming out of the murder con-
spiracy examination showed that HOOper had appeared before
the grand jury six times between September 17, 1943, and
November 15, 1944, and that he had told Sigler, Prosecutor

Victor Anderson, of Ingham County, and Detective Sergeant Leo

Van Conant, of the State Police, that he had received $500 from

 

91"Hint Confession in Hooper Case," UP: Ibid.,
May 3, 1945, p. 1.

92Jack R. Green, AP, "Witness Involves Gangsters
in Plot to Murder Hooper," Ibid., May 12, 1945, p. 1.

93Ibid.

94"Lansingite Tells Story of Plot to Kill Hooper,"
Ibid., May 13, 1945, p. 1.

127

Representative Green on the race track bill and that the money

95

had come from Frank D. McKay. By May 17, the exami-

nation had concluded, with former gangsters Harry and Sam

Fleisher, Mike Selik and a fourth man, Pete Mahoney,

scheduled to stand trial on July 9.96

While the grand jury-related news of the day dealt
with recent findings on the Hooper murder, a grand jury
reporter and his newspaper had received high honor in the
journalism world for his coverage of legislative graft. In
a page-one story, with a two-column headline that read
"Free Press Wins a Pulitzer Prize," the newspaper said:

"Ken McCormick's done it again!"

This was the tribute paid by fellow-workers to
the energetic thirty-nine-year-old reporter of the
Detroit Free Press when word was received Monday
that this newspaper had been awarded the Pulitzer
prize "for the most disinterested and meritorious
public service rendered by an American newspaper
during 1944."

The award specified the Free Press investigation
of legislative graft and corruption at Lansing. . . .

McCormick is the only reporter who has worked in
close cooperation with Judge Leland W. Carr, sitting
as the one-man grand jury from the earliest stages of
the.investigation.

No other reporter was assigned exclusively to the
grand jury until after McCormick had been working on
it for four months.

In that time repeated efforts were made to sabo-
tage the grand jury--efforts which were thwarted by
Judge Carr's determination backed by McCormick's
searching stories and the Free Press' editorial
insistence that the probe must be carried on.

Fresh from covering the now famous Wayne County
graft investigation conducted by Senator Homer Fer-
guson, then a Wayne County Circuit Judge, McCormick

 

95Green, "Witness Involves Gangsters."

96Kathryn Umphrey, AP, "Hooper Case Trial is Set,"
State Journal, May 17, 1945, p. 1.

128

knew the inner workings of a one-man grand jury
intimately. With this knowledge as a background,
he was of incalcuable value in aiding Judge Carr
and Special Prosecutor Kim Sigler. . . .9

And editorially, the Free Press added:

 

It was in 1942 that the Free Press obtained the
first evidence that all was not well within our
State government. It was then that the long battle
really began against influential elements in the '
State which wanted no part of a grand jury investi-
gation. Through its news and editorial columns, the
Free Press led the battle against these interests.
The first round was won with the appointment of
Circuit Judge Leland W. Carr in 1943 as the one—man
grand jury.

Since then this newspaper has continued to batter
against the obstacles of special interest, and has
fought to awaken the citizenry to an awareness of the
cancer which had attacked the vital organs of our
State government. . . .98

As the Carr-Sigler grand jury continued its work

the State Journal disclosed on June 4 that a jury had been

 

selected in Mason for the fifth trial to come out of the
graft investigation.99 On trial were former Senators

Jerry T. Logie and Charles C. Diggs, charged with taking
bribes to help defeat race track legislation in 1941.
Lasting less than four days, with ex—Senator Chester Howell
serving as principal witness, the trial was concluded by
100

June 7. and Logie and Diggs were found guilty. The State

 

97. . . . .
'Free Press Wlns a Pulltzer Prize," Detr01t Free

Press, May 8, 1945, p. 1.

98"For Meritorious Service," Editorial, Ibid.,
May 8, 1945, p. 16.

99Roberta Applegate, AP, "Graft Trial Speedily
Chosen," State Journal, June 4, 1945, p. l.

100"Logie and Diggs Planning Appeal," Ibid., June 8,
1945' p0 1°

 

129

Journal also reported that questions asked of the jury by
Prosecutor Sigler hinted the grand jury was extending its
investigation from legislative activities to other branches
of the state government. This suspicion was borne out ten

days later.

On June 17, newspapers cited in this study carried
page-one headlines in boldface type, announcing new indict-
ments.101 Charging Frank D. McKay and seven others with con-
spiracy to interfere with and corrupt the State Liquor Control
Commission, the indictment was the tenth issued by the Carr-
Sigler jury and the first issued by Judge Carr charging
graft and corruption in the administration of a department
of the state government.

The warrant, citing the conspirators with plotting
to control Michigan's $100 million-a-year liquor business,
was based on evidence similar to that disclosed at the
McKay trials in federal court in Detroit in 1941 and 1942.

The group had been acquitted when tried a second time for
using the mails to defraud in connection with liquor deals,
after the first trial ended in a jury disagreement.102

Based on the grand jury indictment, the conspiracy was said to

have occurred between October 1, 1938 and December 1, 1940,

 

101Allan J. Nieber, "McKay Again Indicted; Liquor
Plot Laid to 8," Detroit News, June 17, 1945, p. 1.

102Kenneth McCormick, "McKeighan Listed in Sigler
Charge," Detroit Free Press, June 17, 1945, p. l.

 

130

with those involved corrupting liquor law enforcement

by threatening members of the liquor commission, their

employees and officers, with loss of their jobs.103 In

addition, the alleged conspirators were further accused of
promising and getting appointments to public office by

threats, and of granting favors and large orders to liquor

companies, if they were paid for the service.104

In Grand Rapids, McKay, former political boss of the

Michigan Republican party, described the new Carr-Sigler

indictment as a "continuation of political prosecution."105

This new charge accusing me and others of par-
ticipating in a state liquor plot, is only a rehash
of the Federal charges of which I was acquitted in
1943.

The fact that practically everyone of the per-
sons named with me in the Federal case are named as
defendants in this suit, makes it all the more
evident to me that Mr. Sigler is trying every means
at his disposal to create something out of a case
that has been declared officially dead by the United
States Government.106

The Detroit Free Press recalled that this was the

 

second time McKay had been indicted by the Carr-Sigler
grand jury. He had been accused in December, 1944, in an
alleged bribery plot to defeat the race track measure

giving the state increased revenue. "That case died with

 

103Ibid.

104Roberta Applegate, AP, "Grand Jury Indicts
McKay," State Journal, June 17, 1945, p. l.

105

 

McCormick, "McKeighan Listed in Charge,"

lOGIbid.

131

the echo of the shots which killed the late Senator Warren
G. Hooper reputed key witness against McKay."107

With defendants in the latest indictment set for a
June 27 examination, the contempt conviction fight of

Francis P. Slattery occupied a new chapter in news coverage.

Having first lost a review by the Michigan Supreme Court,

the United States Supreme Court on June 11 refused to

review the banker's sixty-day sentence and ordered him to
finish serving the remainder of the term.108 By June 19,
however, Slattery had prepared a new suit against his con-
viction before a federal district court in Detroit. Using

a similar approach from earlier petitions to the state and
federal supreme courts, the banker stated he was guilty of
no misconduct during the hearing in November, 1944, and that
he did not fail to answer the questions asked. His applica-
tion also asserted he was being deprived of his liberty with-
out due process of law, as provided for under section one of

the Fourteenth Amendment.109

One week later, U. S. Judge
Ernest J. O'Brien refused to free Slattery on the latter's

writ of habeas corpus, but the court granted him a stay of

 

107Ibid.

108
1945, p. 1.

109"U. S. Court Frees Slattery on Bond," Ibid.,
June 19, 1945, p. l.

"Slattery Loses Plea," AP, State Journal, June 11,

 

132

his sentence pending an appeal to the United States District
Court of Appeals.110
Following a brief delay, the liquor commission con-

111 More than

spiracy examination got underway on July 5.
a dozen witnesses appeared during the three-day hearing,
with five men--including one defendant-turned-witness--
granted immunity to reveal details on large commissions
demanded of companies and illegal control exerted over the
liquor commission, notably by then-political boss Frank D.
McKay. At the conclusion of the examination on July 8,
two names had been dropped from the warrant and six defen-
dants faced a September trial for graft conspiracy.112

With the McKay examination marking an investigation

lasting almost two years, the State Journal editorially

 

defended the graft probe:

Citizens of Michigan should not be impatient
because of what may appear to some of them to be
undue slowness on the part of Judge Leland W.
Carr's grand jury investigation of state govern-
ment. . . .

Secrecy, of necessity, shrouds most of the
work of the grand jury and little or nothing is
heard of the investigation, except at the times
when indictments are returned and public court
proceedings follow to determine the guilt or
innocence of the accused.

No one should lose sight of the fact, however,
that the issuance of indictments is only a small
part of the work of the grand jury. The greater

 

110Kenneth McCormick, "Slattery Plea to Go Free Is
Rejected," Detroit Free Press, June 26, 1945.

’ 111Roberta Applegate, AP, "Link McKay With Liquor

Sale Agents," State Journal, July 5, 1945, p. l.
112
1945, p. l.

 

"McKay, 5 Others Face Trial," Ibid., July 8,

133

part of the grand jury's time . . . must be devoted
to the discovery of evidence on which the indictments
are based. . . .

Judge Carr's investigation . . . has returned 10
indictments. Thirty-eight of the persons indicted
have been tried and 31 of them have been convicted,
five of them on two counts. Eleven indictees have
pleaded guilty! In all there have been 87 individual
indictments, some of them involving different charges
against the same person. . . .

If the mills of the grand jury seem at times to
grind slowly the record of the proceeding should con-
vince the people of Michigan that they also "grind
exceeding fine." 3

Six months after his death, the Hooper murder con-

SPiracy came to trial on July 18.114

Following the earlier
examination, the prosecution supplied witnesses Henry Luks,
Alfred Kurner,and Sam Abramowitz, all of whom linked the
defendants in a conspiracy to kill Hooper. By

July 23, the trial had been going so well that acting prose-
cutor Kim Sigler indicated he would cut down his twenty-
three man witness list and look for an early conclusion.115
But Sigler's optimistic estimate was blocked by an investi-
gative report on corruption at the state prison at Jackson,
released by Attorney General John R. Dethmers, and impli-
116

cating prison inmates in the Hooper murder. In a second

and more specific disclosure on July 25, Dethmers gave

 

113"Slow but Sure," Editorial, Ibid-r
July 5, 1945, p. 10.

11
4Jack R. Green, AP, "Ex-Convict Describes Death
Pact," Ibid., July 18, 1945, p. l.
115
1945, p. 1.

116"Gang Big Shots Ruled Prison, Dethmers Says,"
Ibid., July 24, 1945, p. 1.

"Will Resume Hooper Case," Ibid., July 23,

134

official weight to the theory that Hooper's murderer might
have slipped out of prison to commit the crime and then
returned behind the walls with a perfect alibi.ll.7
Dethmer's prematurely released report brought angry
criticism from Sigler. He charged that the attorney general
was tampering with a fair trial "to steal the show." Sub-
poenaed by defense attorneys--who were seeking a mistrial
on grounds the report was prejudicial to their clients--
Dethmers claimed the urgency of the situation was his reason
for early release of the four-month-long study. Besides the
fact that the report tended to discredit the testimony of
Henry Luks, Sigler strongly criticized Dethmers on the wit-
ness stand for failing to realize his comments on Hooper's
possible murderer "took the heat off" the four defendants.
With the circuit judge denying a retrial motion, and with
the jury absent from the courtroom, Prosecutor Sigler again
lashed out at Dethmers, calling him a "bedfellow of Frank
D. McKay," and charging that the attorney general "and the
rest of the politicians" were willing to "give their bottom
dollar to see something happen to cases coming out of the

grand jury.".118

 

117Jack R. Green, AP, "Dethmers Says H00per Killer
Might Have Come from Prison; Revelations of Probe Being
Demand for Mistrial," Ibid., July 25, 1945, p. 1.

118
1945, p. 1.

"Jury Told Testimony of Hooper," Ibid., July 26,

135

"Thank God, we have fearless editors and a fear-
less press not afraid to print the news as it is.

If anything happens to this case nobody is to blame
but Mr. Dethmers."

The prosecutor's face flushed as he shouted,
"When McKay was naming governors and 'yes-men' in
the capitol of this state, Dethmers was sleeping in
the same bed with him. Until old Judge Carr and
the fine state police officers and myself got to the
door of Jackson Prison the rottenness had never been
exposed."

"Then they saw it wasn't until the grand jury got
close that they had to do it. Then this former bed-
fellow of Frank D. McKay came in here with this report.

"We have a little trial coming up in Mason on the
fifth of September. We're going over to Mason and
do our level best to put that crooked political boss
where he belongs."11

Testifying for a motive to the Hooper killing at the

close of the examination, Ingham County Prosecutor Victor C.
Anderson said that the McKay race track case was drOpped
because of Hooper's death. At the same time, Anderson dis-
closed that an indictment involving the Michigan National Bank,
the only statewide branch bank in Michigan, had been delayed

because of the murder. Anderson said that Hooper was

to have been an important witness in the branch banking

case, which originally touched off the investigation. The

prosecutor also asserted that Hooper would have been a

witness against McKay and others in an indictment involving

a state highway bill.120
Although defense attorney Maurice Walsh had labelled

the murder conspiracy trial a "political football game"

 

119Ibid.

120Kenneth McCormick, "Sigler Says Slaying Crippled
Graft Cases," Detroit Free Press, July 27, 1945, p. 7.

 

136

needed by the prosecution to "precede the trial of Frank

121

D. McKay," the twelve-day trial ended with a verdict of

122 Sigler

guilty leveled against all four defendants.
hailed the verdict--the sixth successful trial growing out
of the grand jury investigation--as "an opening wedge to
the solution of the Hooper murder."123
With his court date soon approaching, defendant

Frank D. McKay asked the Ingham Circuit Court on August 27

to postpone his trial for at least a year, or alternatively,
to change the trial site to some other county, preferably one

124 He charged that

where liquor was sold by the glass.
Kim Sigler had so prejudiced the people of Michigan against
him that he could not obtain a fair trial in any county at
that time. In addition, his attorneys declared that Judge
Carr, who had ordered McKay's arrest on the liquor conspiracy
charge, was held in such universal esteen in Ingham County
that no jury could be found that would give McKay his con-
stitutional presumption of innocence.125

McKay accused Sigler of inspiring newspaper and

radio stations of Michigan to a "defamatory anvil chorus,"

 

121.,sigler Hit by Defense," AP, State Journal,
July 28’ 1945, p0 1'

122"Spectators Take Verdict Calmly," AP, Ibid.,

123Ibid.

124James M. Haswell, "McKay Asks Year's Delay in
Graft Trial," Detroit Free Press, Aug. 28, 1945.

125Jack R. Green, AP, "McKay Asks Trial Delay,
Venue Shift," State Journal, Aug. 27, 1945, p. l.

137

to whip up prejudice against himself. Sigler used the
Hooper trial as a "forum," McKay charged, insinuating at
every opportunity that there was a "sinister" link between
Hooper's murderer and the fact that Hooper was to be a

grand jury witness and a star witness against McKay at a

forthcoming preliminary examination.126

In a lengthy petition, replete with scores of
examples of newspaper stories and editorials,
McKay sought to show that the press of Michigan
had united to villify him. . . .

McKay asserted the Detroit Free Press demanded
"scoops" on Carr grand jury news in return for its
early support of the grand jury and Sigler and
received preferential treatment in news releases
until other newspapers objected. Then, McKay
declared, the news releases, with one exception,
were made on a Saturday afternoon to give all three
Detroit newspapers equal treatment. As a result,
McKay implied, the neWSpapers gave Sigler favorable
publicity and the alleged campaign to prejudice
McKay spread throughout the state press. . ...127

In public rebuttal, from Douglas D. Martin, managing
editor of the Detroit Free Press, said in reference to his

newspaper: "The statement that the Free Press demanded

 

'sc00ps' in return for support of the grand jury is com-

pletely false but just what we would expect from Mr. McKay.

The files of Michigan newspapers will bear us out."128
Former Detroit News reporter Allan J. Nieber, some

years later, also denied that the Free Press demanded

 

"sc00ps" and received preferential treatment from the grand

jury.

 

126Ibid.

127Ibid.

128Ibid.

138

If Frank D. McKay made that statement, it was
just him mouthing. This was true:

Because McCormick was first on the ground floor
and the Detroit Free Press in effect had sponsored
the grand’jury in its early operation, when Rush-
ton's days were over and Sigler got in there, the
Free Press ended up in a similar position. It
couldn't get preferential treatment—-We just stole
the grand jury away from them. As a matter of fact,
we arranged between the Detroit News, the Free Press
and the Times to have the grand jury bring down its
major indictment news at one o'clock Saturday. The
reason for that was to allow all newspapers to get
an equal break in coming out together in their Sun—
day editions. This was grand jury policy that all
newspapers be treated equally.

Ken McCormick didn't get away with anything
related to major indictments. On the side issues,
I can remember only the H00per shooting, which
broke at night on McCormick's time. The rest of
the side issues broke normally and were released
during the daytime. The key from myself and others
was to let the news break when it comes. We edu-
cated them on that.129

 

 

 

"The Detroit Free Press didn't have to demand scoops.

 

It was in on the ground floor. But Kim Sigler saw it was
smart to play along with all of them when he came in as
prosecutor," said a former Associated Press Capital Corres-
pondent, Jack R. Green.

.There was a funny situation in regard to cover-
age of the Carr-Sigler grand jury on all three news-
papers. What happened was the Carr-Sigler investi—
gation was an outgrowth of the Ferguson grand jury.

The Times and the News got the jump on the Free
Press over the Ferguson grand jury. The Free Press
wasn't on the inside, like them.

The Ferguson grand jury had private investigators,
because it was investigating the Detroit Police Depart-
ment. When it was all over, the Ferguson jury had a
pretty good staff, so they came up to Lansing to look
into rumors. After bugging a few rooms and using
other methods, they took their information to the
Detroit Citizens League. The head of the League took

 

129Allan J. Nieber, Interview, Dec. 15, 1970.

139

the information to Bill Markland at the Detroit News.
who was on vacation and never returned his call. So
he took it to the Free Press, where they were still
smoldering from the beating they took over Ferguson
coverage. . . .

When Kim Sigler came in, he was too smart to go
with one paper, so he later treated all three special
reporters from the Detroit papers [Nieber, McCormick
and Morris] the same way. They just lived together
during the grand jury's duration, with Sigler taking
the three of them around all the time--even had hotel
parties together.

There was never a threat of biased grand jury
coverage, but all three reporters built Kim Sigler
up as a "great white knight," because it made good
copy. They were on his team 100 per cent. Those
three crime reporters had Kim Sigler-in their pocket
and vice versa. He wouldn't tell other reporters
much until after talking with those three. They
always had the jump on others and would counsel
Sigler on when to break a story and when to hold
the news.130

On August 28, Judge Carr denied a defense attorney's
motion for a separate trial of McKay's five co-defendants
who had provided the motion on the grounds that the alleged
publicity scheme to smear the former political boss would
prejudice their trial. The Ingham jurist also denied an
affidavit seeking that he step aside as trial judge because
of his prejudice from McKay's failure to support his nomi-
nation to Supreme Court justice. Carr said he had not been
motivated by any feelings of antagonism when he issued the
original warrants and believed it his duty to hear the

131

trial preliminaries. On September 1, as headlines

carried the news that a second co-defendant with McKay,

 

130Jack R. Green, Interview, Nov. 29, 1970.

131"Carr Declines to Split Trials," Detroit Times,
Aug. 29, 1945.

 

140

Charles Leiter, had pleaded guilty to the liquor conspiracy

132

charges, Judge Carr denied motions for a change of venue

and for a delay of trial. Attorneys for Frank D. McKay
indicated they would ask leave to appeal Judge Carr's
denial before the Michigan Supreme Court.133
By September 4, McKay's defense attorneys had
petitioned the Supreme Court for a stay of their

trial.134

The following day, the court refused to
intervene, saying in effect that the defense could

present its motion before trial Judge John T. Simpson

at Mason.135 The trial got underway on Thursday, Sept-
ember 6, but after hearing more than two days of argument,
including claims by the defense that Sigler was aspiring to
become governor through trying McKay, Judge Simpson granted
a thirty-day delay to study the seven defense motions for

136

continuance. Accusing the defense attorneys of staging

 

132Kenneth McCormick, "Graft is Admitted by
McKay's Aide," Detroit Free Press, Sept. 2, 1945, p. 1.

133Ibid.

134"Would Stay McKay Trial," State Journal, Sept. 4:
1945, p. l.

135Roberta Applegate, AP, "McKay Case Venue Shift
Is Demanded," Ibid., Sept. 6, 1945, p. l.

136"McKay Trial Postponed for 30 Days:" £219°'
Sept. 7: 1945! P° 1'

141

a "legal filibuster" to delay the trial of McKay and four

co-defendants,137 Sigler told newsmen he would be "very

busy" with grand jury business during the thirty-day

delay.138

 

137Kenneth McCormick, "Filibuster Trial of McKay
Charged," Detroit Free Press, Sept. 7, 1945, p, 1.

138"Sigler to Be Busy as Trial Waits," State
Journal, Sept. 8, 1945, p. l.

CHAPTER IV

AN ACHILLES HEEL: THE JURY'S UNDOING

With the death of Supreme Court Justice Howard
Wiest, the Carr-Sigler grand jury lost one of its dominant
forces. Judge Carr was selected by Governor Harry Kelly
to fill the vacancy.1 The appointment had widespread
approval, the Detroit News noted, for "Judge Carr's name
and qualifications have been well known in Michigan for
many years."2 Before elevating him to the bench, Governor
Kelly had been assured by Judge Carr that the grand jury's
work could be carried successfully to a conclusion.3 With
a grand jury tally that included the issuance of ten
warrants and the naming of more than ninety defendants--
twenty nine of them convicted--all that remained for the
outgoing Circuit Court judge to do was to appoint his
successor.

While there had been no official comment, it was

rumored outside the grand jury that Ingham County Circuit

 

1Carl B. Rudow, "Graft Jurist is Named to Wiest
Post," Detroit News, Sept. 24, 1945, p. l.

2

 

Ibid.

3Ibid.

142

143

Judge Louis E. Coash, of Lansing, would carry on the judi-
cial phase of the inquiry.4 Coash had been a Lansing muni-
cipal judge until his appointment by Governor Kelly on
April 26, 1945, to a newly created third seat on the Ingham
County circuit bench. As municipal judge, Coash had sat at
the arraignment of some defendants in Carr-Sigler grand jury
indictments. His appointment was formally made on September
25, and with Special Prosecutor Sigler at his side, the new
graft jurist said he expected the work of the grand jury to
proceed along the same lines, with no changes in personnel.
Sigler disclosed he did not expect the grand jury to take
any further public action for some time.5

Frank D. McKay, the Republican political boss,
appeared in the news again, with the announcement by Judge
John Simpson that he had denied the petitions for change of
venue and a year's continuance of the trial. At the same
time, the circuit judge from Jackson County also denied a
motion for separate trial for McKay's four co-defendants.6
On Monday, October 8, over Kim Sigler's objections, Judge
Simpson set the liquor conspiracy trial date for January 14,

1946, to avoid holiday interruptions.7 Having been denied

 

4Ibid.

5"Coash Gets Grand Jury Assignment," State Journal,
Sept. 25, 1945, p. l.

6"MCKaY'S Motions Rejected," AP, Ibid., OCt. 3,
1945, p- l-

 

7Roberta Applegate, AP, "McKay Trial Date Jan. 14,"
Ibid., Oct. 8, 1945, p. l.

144

their petitions, McKay's attorneys again sought to appeal
the motions denied by Judge Simpson,8 but on November 5,
the Michigan Supreme Court denied a leave to appeal the
trial court dismissal "with prejudice," which meant fur-
ther appeals on the issue were forbidden.9 At last the
legal way was clear for a legal decision to be made on one
of the Carr-Sigler grand jury's most important indictments.
The grand jury investigation briefly surfaced when,
on November 16, a series of raids conducted by investiga-
tors resulted in the seizure of more than a hundred slot
machines, together with records pertaining to their ownership

10 Judge Coash explained

and operation, in Lansing and vicinity.
that the seizure was "not a raid" but a "routine investiga-
tion in connection with a conspiracy to violate the state

11 The machines were taken from more than

gambling laws."
twenty-five private liquor clubs and fraternal and veterans

clubrooms. Declining to Speculate on this latest phase of

activities, Judge Coash did reveal that Sigler and
Ingham County Prosecutor Victor C. Anderson had petitioned

the court several weeks earlier to broaden the sc0pe of the

 

8"New Appeal to be Filed for McKay," Ibid.,
Oct. 23, 1945, p. l.

9"Balk McKay Trial Delay," Ibid., NOV- 5,
1945, p. l.

lo"Slot-Machine Raids Made at Lansing," Detroit Free
Press, Nov. 16, 1945, p. 1.

11Lloyd Moles, "Jury Launches Gambling Sift; Seize
Machines," State Journal, Nov. 16, 1945, p. l.

145

probe to cover gambling.12 Lamenting the "smudge" of

notoriety placed on the "old home town," the State Journal

 

asked critically: "Has the possibility of graft in high

places been fully explored and the perpetuity of the grand
jury become dependent on making war on penny-ante games in
the backroom of veterans' clubs?"l3

Former political boss Frank D. McKay brought in
the New Year's coverage of the legislative graft grand
jury, as a page one, three-column headline greeted §EEES
Journal readers on January 10 with the news: "5 Face
Charge of Plot to Prejudice Jurors in McKay Graft Trial."
The story, filed by Associated Press writer Roberta Apple-
gate, said that Prosecutor Victor Anderson had filed a I
petition with Judge Coash naming five persons in a con-
spiracy to prejudice jurors and had asked for a hearing to
show cause why the defendants should not be held in con-
tempt of court.

Named in the dual charge of conspiracy and con-
tempt of court were Ira H. Marmon, private investigator
and formerly with the Michigan State Police detective
bureau; Edwin A. Goodwin, publisher and editor of the
weekly political newspaper, Michigan State Digest; J. A.
Wilson, charged by Anderson with calling prospective jurors

and acting as a court representative; and two unidentified

 

12Ibid.

l3"'Wicked' Lansing," Editorial, Ibid.,
Nov. 18, 1945, p. 10.

146

men whom Anderson said abetted the carrying out of the
conspiracy. The Ingham County prosecutor asserted that
Wilson had made the phone calls and asked a series of
questions about the prospective jurors' religion, politi-
cal affiliation and families; Goodwin had had an extra

1,000 copies of the January 2 issue of the Michigan State

 

Digest printed--containing a series of articles that "would
discredit Kim Sigler" and influence ”readers against the
prosecution"--and distributed them to prospective jurors.
One of the headlines listed in the petition read: "Late
Session Has Eye on Sigler." In addition, Marmon and the other
two individuals counseled and advised as parties to the con—
spiracy, while the latter two men also distributed Digest copies.
The petition stated that Anderson had discovered the conspiracy
when jurors telephoned him concerning Wilson's calls.

With action on the conspiracy to prejudice sus-
pended, the liquor conspiracy trial, "one of the state's
most spectacular trials in recent years,"14 got underway
January 16 with some important alterations. On January 14,
Judge Simpson had decided to grant the defense a change of
venue from Ingham County to Jackson County, saying the
"scandalous articles" printed and distributed to the jurors

about Kim Sigler "bode no good for anybody, either the

prosecution or the defense."15 Secondly, Judge Simpson had

 

l4
Roberta Applegate, AP, "F. D. McKay, Four Others

Await Trial," Ibid., Jan. 13, 1946, p. l

15
Roberta Applegate, AP, "McKay's Trial to be Held

in Jackson Court," Ibid., Jan. 14, 1946, p. l.

147

again denied a petition of continuance--which again made
references to Sigler's desire to be governor after first

convicting McKay.16

The circuit judge did, however, agree
to the prosecution motion to eliminate charges of bribery
from the information. This, in effect, left only the
charges of conspiracy to corrupt the State Liquor Control
Commission by threats and intimidation and to give prefer-
ential treatment to distillers who paid fees.17
On the same day the trial opened, the case closed
on Francis P. Slattery, the Grand Rapids banker who had
twice carried his motion for dismissal of a contempt con-
viction cited by Judge Carr in November, 1944. The second
and last attempt brought him to the United States Supreme
Court with a writ for dismissal of habeas corpus, but the
Court refused to review his conviction, thereby forcing
Slattery to conclude his sixty-day sentence.18
The liquor conspiracy trial opened in Jackson
County with Prosecutor Kim Sigler declaring that Frank D.
McKay and four co-defendants had "illegally controlled

purchases and distribution of liquor and therefore con-

trolled the state liquor control commission.19 And during

 

l6Ibid.

l7"Deny Move to Quash McKay Case," Ibid., Jan. 15:
1946, p. l.

18"Slattery's Plea Denied," AP, Ibid-r Jan. 16:
1946.

19

Roberta Applegate, AP, "Jury Hears Sigler Plea,"
Ibid., Jan. 18, 1946, p. l.

148

the course of the trial, the prosecution's witnesses,
including liquor company officials and commission members,
testified how McKay and his associates held sway over the
commission's functions. But testimony from prominent
defense witnesses also involved with the liquor commis-
sion's Operation refuted outside control by any of those
on trial, and by February 11 the defense had listed twenty-
four reasons for striking portions of testimony and asking
for acquittal.20 Sigler contended that the state did not
claim the liquor commission was itself corrupted, rather
the law was corrupted by dealings between its employees
and the alleged conspirators.21
By February 14, Judge Simpson had reached a deci-
sion on the course of the trial, as he directed the jury
to acquit McKay and the four other defendants.

"In the entire evidence presented in the case,
there was no testimony that the defendants did
one single criminal act as we know that term," the
judge declared.

"There is no fraud or bribery or'any other
criminal act chargedfl he asserted. 'From the entire
claim of the prosecution there is not one bit of
evidence that shows a criminal conspiracy. . . ."

The half-filled courtroom broke into pandemonium
as spectators surged up to both defense and prosecu-
tion tables. Photographers flashbulbs immediately

began popping. Faces wreathed in smiles, the defen-
dants accepted congratulations of spectators.22

 

20"Ask McKay Acquittal," Ibid.; Feb- 11' 1964'

p. 1.

21Kenneth McCormick, "Court Ruling Today May Free
McKay," Detroit Free Press, Feb. 14, 1946, p. l.

22Roberta Applegate, AP, "Judge Simpson Directs
Jury to Acquit McKay, 4 Others; Says No 'Illegal Act'
Shown," State Journal, Feb. 14, 1946, p. l.

 

 

149

Sigler, who had "suffered his first major defeat"

following more than two years with the grand jury, sat

quietly as the judge read the 32-page opinion." He left
the courtroom immediately after the decision, declaring he
had "no comment" on the actiOn.23 McKay, however, issued
a written statement saying he hoped this was the end of
his "political persecution" and criticizing the system

that had subjected him to false charges.

McKay declared the charge of "bribery made
against me illustrates the danger inherent in the
so-called one-man grand jury system. It followed
more than a year of investigation in which no
evidence of bribery was or could be found. The
examination produced no such evidence. It is
unthinkable that a regular grand jury would ever
tolerate the making of such a false charge against
a citizen, for such grand juries move indictments
only after at least some evidence is offered to
support the charge."24

With the conclusion of the liquOr conSpiracy trial,
the Detroit Free Press reported that the State Senate had in

a resolution adopted February 14 moved to investigate the

25

legislative grand jury immediately. The Detroit Free

Press commented editorially:

The acquittal of former Republican boss Frank
D. McKay is not an indication that the Carr-Sigler
grand jury has failed to accomplish its purpose.

Apparently, though, some members of the State
Legislature have come to this conclusion, as evi-
denced by the Senate resolution to investigate the
grand jury and make it immediately accountable for
money it has spent.

 

23Ibid.

24Ibid.

25Kenneth McCormick, "State Senate Will Probe

Sigler," Detroit Free Press, Feb. 15, 1946, p. l.

150

The grand jury's work has resulted in several
convictions. A number of those sent to prison
were members of the Legislature. And Prosecutor
Sigler hints that there may be more legislators
and state officials indicted.

Can that be the reason that the Senate has
taken a step at this time which might seriously
cripple the grand jury's efforts?2

And on page one, in a State Journal story, Senator

 

Murl H. Defoe, of Charlotte, answered the Free Press ques-

 

tion, charging that the resolution under which a special
committee was appointed to investigate grand jury expendi-
tures, was "designed to weaken the jury and its work in
the minds of the peOple by majoring on the costs rather

27 The resolution he referred

than on the jury's record."

to was introduced by fellow Senator Frank Heath, of Bay

City, and adopted by a voice vote without dissent. "The

resolution showed no concern," his statement read, "for

the unsavory conditions that were alone responsible for

the temporary creation and operation of this emergency pro—

vision in our law."28
But Special Prosecutor Sigler, in an interview

before leaving on a brief vacation, said he would keep

"driving away" until he finished the job. "I don't care

how far the senate committee investigates as long as they

do not interfere with cases in progress and particularly

 

26"Leave the Grand Jury Alone," Editorial,
Ibid., Feb. 16, 1946, p. 4.

Howard J. Rugg, "Jury Probe Draws Fire," State
Journal, Feb. 19, 1946, p. 1.

28Ibid.

151

with cases investigating certain members of the house and

29

senate." Sigler disclosed an indictment from a state-wide

investigation of gambling activities was being prepared,
in addition to an indictment on the 1941 anti-branch bank-
ing bill that had started the grand jury. Referring again
to the senate resolution, Sigler said "some of the gentlemen
mixed up in the bank or gambling matters would like very
much to hamstring our efforts." He promised "an accounting
of every dime" of the $442,000 state grant to the grand
jury "as soon as our work is finished."30
While Sigler was vacationing in Florida, the legis-
lative investigative committee got its work underway. Its
members consisted of Senators Ivan A. Johnston, Mount Clemens,
acting chairman; Robert J. MacDonald, Flint; and Harold D.
Tripp, Allegan. The Detroit News in a page-one story des-
cribing the background to the resolution and its main char-

acters, reported that

Heath recalled that $400,000 has been appro-
priated for the grand jury, and asserted that the
Legislature had received no accounting.

"When I was elected," he said, "I promised to
do everything possible to watch the tax dollar.

I don't believe in being a rubber stamp. Large
sums have been spent and it is time the public
knew what happened to this money. I don't care
about Mr. Sigler or anyone else. I want to know
where the money has gone."

Heath is from Battle Creek, home town of
former Senator Jerry T. Logie, who has appealed
two prison terms resulting from the grand jury
investigation into legislative graft.

 

29Roberta Applegate, AP, "Sigler Determined He'll
'Finish JObr'" Ibid., Feb. 16, 1946, p. 1.

30Ibid.

152

Johnston is a former Macomb County Prosecuting
Attorney. Petitions for a grand jury investigation
of Macomb law enforcement are pending in Circuit
Court there. The Sigler grand jury is believed to
be sifting gambling activities in Macomb.

The senate is presided over by Lieut.-Gov.

Vernon J. Brown, an announced candidate for the
Republican nomination for Governor. There have
been reports, denied by Sigler, that the grand
jury prosecutor would seek that nomination himself.31

On February 25, the State Journal reported that

 

Judge Coash had been subpoenaed to appear with grand jury
records, along with George MaDan, official auditor and

accountant for the grand jury.32

After one day of testi-
mony, Senator Johnston switched to an open hearing, with
State Police Detective Sergeant Leo Van Conant's disclosures
making front-page news. On February 28, a Detroit Times
banner headline in boldface type, cried out:

"Sigler Jury Paid Hemans $600 a Mo." The other newspapers,
following suit with less flair, reported that grand jury
money was used for liquor, entertainment and "special
services," including $8,850 paid to Charles F. Hemans,

the state's star witness in the initial grand jury graft
trial.33

Testimony primarily from Van Conant revealed that

Hemans at first received $150 a month from jury funds and

 

31"Senate Quiz of Jury Hit by Sigler," Detroit
News, Feb. 15, 1946, p. 1.

32Lloyd Moles, "Call Coash in Inquiry," State
Journal, Feb. 25, 1946, p. l.

33"Reveal Hemans Got $8,850 of Jury's Funds,"
Ibid., Feb. 27, 1946, p. l.

153

later received a $450-a-month increase when he was assigned
to go to work for the grand jury as an attorney investigat-
ing a bill. The money, Van Conant explained, was charged
to the "expense for special services and informant fees."
In addition, the State Police detective said he paid for
the lobbyist's entertainment and liquor while acting as his
bodyguard--including Hemans' personal business trips to
Washington, D. C. Van Conant also explained for the com-
mittee that all checks and expense money paid to Hemans
were approved by Judge Carr up to the time he resigned to
take over his Supreme Court duties. Fred C. Kelly, State
Police special investigator assigned to take over Van
Conant's duties in August, 1945, testified he continued
paying Hemans until February, 1946, and followed a similar
pay procedure.34

Running a follow-up to the senate committee's dis-

closures, the February 28 Detroit News carried a story that

 

played down the probe evidence. One of the headlines read:

"Effort to Discredit Grand Jury Seen."

Two State graft grand jury officials today
issued sharp replies to charges made by the
special Senate committee investigating the grand
jury's expense accounts.

Prosecutor Victor C. Anderson, of Ingham
County, described the committee's investigation
as an attempt to "discredit the grand jury and
interfere with matters pending before it" and
declared "the investigators are weighing dollars
against the administration of justice." . . .

Circuit Judge Louis E. Coash revealed Hemans
was removed from the grand jury payroll 11 days
before the Senate committee was appointed. . . .

 

34Background on the committee testimony is taken
from Moles, "Reveal Hemans Got $8,850."

154

Grand jury aides generally saw in the unexpected
publicity given portions of the testimony of witnesses
called by the Senate committee a deliberate attempt to
attack the veracity of Hemans as a witness in future
grand jury trials. . . .

"It is significant," Anderson said, "that the
Senate committee's findings were made partially public
when Sigler was on the way back to Michigan and had no
Opportunity to be present."35

While the Detroit Free Press similarly gave less
play to the inflammatory evidence released by the investi-
gating committee, the Detroit Times ran its second banner
on the probe story, with an eight-column boldface headline
that read: "Coash Bares Firing of Hemans." Using a pre-
pared statement by Judge Coash, the Timss disclosed he had
"protested" the $600-a-month payments to Charles Hemans and
had stopped them in February.

"I wondered about those payments when I took
over the grand jury? Judge Coash said,"and I

protested because I knew a day of reckoning
would come. . . .

"While I approved vouchers for paying Hemans,
I didn't like it, but I was new on the bench and
new to the grand jury.

"I had the assurance of both Judge Leland W.
Carr . . . and Special Prosecutor Kim Sigler that
all expenditures were properly within the scope

of the grand jury and necessary to its investiga-
tion. . . ."36

As the Detroit Free Press asked the public to "keep
an open mind" until explanations from Judge Carr and the

Special Prosecutor "are forthcoming,"37 Kim Sigler hurriedly

 

35Carl B. Rudow, "Hemans Pay Halted Feb. 4,"

Detroit News, Feb. 28, 1946, p. 1.

36Don Gardner, "Coash Bares Firing of Hemans,"

Detroit Times, March 1, 1946, p. 1.

37"Wait for All the Facts," Editorial, Detroit Free

Press, March 1, 1946, p. 6.

 

155

returned from Florida, and on Sunday, March 3, issued a
1,000-word statement charging the senators with "smearing"
the grand jury.38 He said committee disclosures were
designed "to squelch and destroy the forthcoming bank
indictment and gambling indictment," and criticized the
motives of the senate investigators "to discredit the
accomplishments of the grand jury thus far" and "shake

the confidence of the people in the one-man grand jury
system."39 He said that the $8,850 paid in fees to
Charles F. Hemans' had saved the state of Michigan several
thousand dollars and added that the former army officer
had given "us more help than a dozen other investigators
could possibly give." Emphasizing that one purpose of

the senate committee was to discredit Hemans as a witness,
Sigler said he had planned to bring out all the facts at
the trial of the bank case. "That would be too late to
serve the purposes of the enemies of the grand jury.

They hoped to cripple the grand jury before the indict-

. 4O
ments were issued."

Sigler also disclosed evidence alluded to earlier
5J1 the Detroit News that his investigation of gambling
fuad reached into Macomb County, where chairman Johnston

luad formerly served as county prosectuor. Sigler said he

¥

38Carlisle Carver, "Sigler Hits Jury 'Smear' by
Senate," State Journal, March 3, 1946, p. 1.

39Ibid.

40Ibid.

156

had intended to call Senator Johnston as a witness before
the grand jury upon his return to Lansing and that the
senator was "personally very much interested" in an indict-
ment involving gambling to be returned in the near future.41
As Judge Coash suspended the grand jury until "a
proper determination" of senate committee evidence could
be made,42 newspapers began to choose up sides. In a
two-column-wide editorial set in large type and topped by

the caption, "Whether They Are Guilty is the Only Grand

Jury Issue," the Detroit News observed:

 

As it was in the beginning, the question raised
by the attempt to put obstructions in the way of
the Ingham County grand jury is simply whether crooks
in office belong in jail; whether legislators and
other job holders who have betrayed a public trust
shall be punished, with their accessories, for their
crimes.

There can be only one answer to that in the minds
of citizens of good conscience:

The inquiry ought to proceed, despite the attacks
of those who may have excellent reasons of their own
for wishing that it be abandoned.

This in substance is what Kim Sigler, the jury's
Special prosecutor, has to say in his latest state-
ment, to which we subscribe.

The Legislature, particularly the Senate, has
come under his scrutiny, and it is in the Senate
that the move to discredit the jury's past works
and further activities has centered.

Each of the Senators who compose the committee
assailing him is shown by Sigler to have a motive
for wishing that the jury go out of business. . . .

If the Senate committeemen have nothing to fear
from any inquest into their conduct in office, why
trouble themselves with Hemans and the circumstances
under which the grand jury has availed itself of the
information he can offer?

 

41Ibid.

42Lloyd Moles, "Judge Coash Halts Grand Jury,"
Ibid., March 4, 1946, p. l.

157

The Lansing State Journal commended editorially that

The position of Lieut. Gov. Vernon J. Brown in
branding an investigation of grand jury spending
as "the height of impropriety" is hard to under-
stand. . . .

When did it become improper in Michigan for the
taxpayer to know how his money was being thrown
around? . . .

Under the common understanding of the term "day-
light" we would catalogue the common knowledge that
a bribe-passer is not only granted immunity but is
paid $6,000 of the taxpayers' money for his testi-
mony. Just why that kind of information is none of
the taxpayers' business, as Mr. Brown suggests, is
statesmanship of the higher order we just fail to
understand--or accept. . . .

There should be no blank checks for state money
even if such checks have the O.K. not only of Judge
Carr, but all the rest of the members of the Supreme
Court with the administrative board thrown in for
good measure.

Mr. Brown is critical of the group selected by
the senate at large to make this investigation at public
expense. . . . There is perhaps some advantage in
the senate picking its own committees--there might
be fewer applications of whitewash of things inves-
tigated. . . . 3

With the Journal leading the taxpayers into a jury

probe, the Detroit Free Press was most vocal in its support

 

of the graft investigation and the grand jury itself. The
editorial cartoon of March 6, drawn by staff artist Frank
Williams, pictured a policeman with a nightstick and
pistol--and labelled "State Grand Jury"--running down a
road littered with cash and coins and tagged "Trail of
Graft and Corruption." Being whisked across the road,
directly in front of the policeman's path, was a dead fish

on a string, marked "Obstructionist Tactics." The cartoon

 

43"Grand Jury 'Daylight,'" Editorial, State Journal,
March 3: 1946: P0 5'

158

caption read simply: "Red Herring." The Free Press

 

noted editorially:

In taking the course that he has in suspending
the State grand jury and perhaps ending its opera-
tions, Circuit Judge Louis Coash has assumed a
responsibility that few men in public position would
want.

It is a responsibility which the Free Press
believes he has no right to assume. . . .

The grand jury has been in Operation for more
than two years. It has disclosed a situation in
the Michigan Legislature, which, to put it mildly,
is a sickening betrayal of the people of this
commonwealth. . . .

The work of the grand jury and the trial courts
has been upheld on more than one occasion by the
State Supreme Court. The grand jury has been wholly
justified. . . . Judge Coash didn't inaugurate the
grand jury--money for the grand jury was appropri-
ated by the State Legislature--by ordinance of the
people of this state.

Now, Judge Coash says he is perturbed by the
manner in which that money has been spent. And
while he declares that the work of the grand jury
will not be ended, he has ordered its operations
suSpended while he investigates the uses to which
the appropriation has been put.

Meanwhile, a committee of State Senators is
pursuing the‘same course. They are making an ill-
advised probe into matters which do not concern
them and they are doing it in the face of state-
ments made by Special Prosecutor Kim Sigler that
the future work of the jury may concern itself with
some of these committee members.

The whole Senate committee affair smacks of
obstructionism, and it is unfortunate that Judge
Coash has permitted even the outward appearance of
allying himself with a group whose evident purpose
is to hamstring justice. . . .

There will be a prOper time for a full account-
ing of all monies spent. But the time is not now.
For the moment, principles of honesE government
take precedence over dollars. . . . 4

 

44"More Than Dollars at Stake," Editorial, Detroit
Free Press, March 6, 1946, p. 6.

 

159

With an Open "break" now claimed by the Detroit

45 the

Timss between Judge Coash and Prosecutor Sigler,
next wedge driven between them was the senate committee's
"blistering" reply to Sigler over grand jury irregularities.
Claiming Sigler "broke faith" with the grand jury and with
Judge Coash, the committee said he had placed several grand
jury witnesses on the payroll after they had turned state's
evidence and had also returned former Ku Klux Klansman
Charles "Nightshirt Charlie" Spare to the grand jury pay-
roll under an alias. The committee also disclosed that
Sigler had taken three vacation trips with a state policeman
as driver--whose living expenses were paid by grand jury
funds on two trips; that the grand jury had incurred a bill
exceeding $25,000 at only one of several hotels it had
used; that State Police Officers spent taxpayers' money for
liquor and entertainment of private investigators employed
by the grand jury; and that funds were used to buy four or
more scrapbooks and fifty newspaper mats of Sigler's own
photograph.46

Continuing its sharp reply to Sigler, the committee
also said the prosecutor claimed there was nothing wrong
with paying state witness Hemans a salary of $600 a month

and expenses in addition. "The witness fees payable to an

 

45"Sigler Pay Stopped, Jury Suspended," Detroit
Times, March 5, 1946, p. 1.

46Lloyd Moles, "Sigler 'Broke Faith,‘ Senate Probers
Claim," State Journal, March 5, 1946, p. l.

160

ordinary Michigan taxpayer in a similar case amount to

$2 per day and 15 cents per mile going to court. . . ."47

The senate investigators also declared in a statement that
they had not sought the job of investigating grand jury
expenditures and were not aware of the resolution naming
them to the committee until the resolution was introduced.
Publicly silent over changing developments since
his statement criticizing the senate committee, Kim Sigler
released a five-page letter to Judge Coash charging him
with losing interest in the grand jury and asserting he

would petition the Michigan Supreme Court to take super-

intending control over the grand jury.48

"In your public statements, you have permitted
the impression that I alone am responsible for
everything in connection with the grand jury. . . .
I have had no expenditure that you did not fully
understand and about which we have talked on
various occasions.

"Your suSpension of the grand jury for all
practical purposes means the end of the investiga-
tion. . . . The battle Should not be stopped
because those who are being investigated criticize
us. . . .

"At the beginning of your service as grand juror,
you started out with great enthusiasm. When pres-
sure began to develop and you saw the possibility of
criticism, your enthusiasm began to wane," Sigler
charged. . . .

The grand juror's attitude was viewed by Sigler
as "encouraging the making of baseless and slander-
ous statements concerning myself."

"This matter is beyond personalities," he said.
"Uncovering graft is of far more importance than
YOU, the senate committee, or myself, and of more

 

47Ibid.

48"Sigler to Ask High Court to Control Probe,"
Ibid., March 6, 1946, p. l.

161

importance to the people of the State of Michigan.
. . . I humbly believe that I owe the people of 49
this state the duty of continuing the fight. . . ."

The March 8 edition of the Detroit Free Press again

 

featured a grand jury-related editorial cartoon, this time
Showing Kim Sigler with his pince-nez glasses pointing an
accusing finger at Judge Coash, who was returning the ges-
ture from the bench. As steam rose between them from the
heat of their arguments, a pompous figure labelled "Graft
and Corruption,"puffed a cigar contentedly from the witness
stand, his fingers hooked on his vest. Remarked the Esss
EEEEE in reference to Sigler's petition seeking Supreme
Court jurisdiction of the grand jury:

This is the latest move in a series of three-
cornered maneuverings between Sigler, Judge Coash
and the Senate investigating committee which, for
reasons of its own, is attempting to scuttle the
probe of legislative graft in this state. . . .

It is the 5,266,000 citizens of the State who
stand to win or lose, according to the grand jury's
fate. It is not the tender feelings of a small
group of politicians or job holders that is of
primary concern in this matter. . . .

The people of the State of Michigan are not
greatly concerned with the exchange of acrimonious
messages between Sigler and Judge Coash.

They are not much concerned with the fine points
of law, or with political juggling designed to save
the culpable from their just desserts.

They are interested only in the fact, revealed
by Sigler, that crimes have been committed, and
that those suspected have not been brought to
trial. . . .59

 

49Ibid.

50"Justice," Editorial, Detroit Free Press, March 8:
1946, p. 6.

162

As the senate inquiry, in a "renewed blast at

grand jury expenditures,‘ revealed that payments to Hemans

were more than double the $8,850 originally uncovered by

51

the committee, Detroit News reporter John McManis sum-

 

marized the past month of controversy.

Michigan's legislative graft grand jury may
resume hearings this week, but where it will go
nobody knows.

Will Kim Sigler continue as the special
prosecutor, resign or be fired?

Will Judge Louis E. Coash, bitterly assailed
by Sigler, remain as grand juror?

Will the grand jury maintain its Spectacular
record in prosecuting grafters, bribe takers and
bribe givers in the State Government?

Or will the three-cornered fight between
Sigler, Judge Coash and a Senate committee inves-
tigating grand jury expense accounts, wreck the
grand jury? . . .

Two important investigations were underway
when the jury was shut down. These are the inves-
tigation of the vote of the 1941 Legislature on
the anti-chain banking bill and a gambling case. . . .

In both cases, Sigler said, the grand jury has
obtained confessions from some legislators and public
officials and is nearly ready to return indictments.
The banking indictment, he said, will name legisla-
tors who have not appeared in any other indictment.

These are the last of a series of major indict-
ments to be revealed by the grand jury as the result
of corruption in the Legislature.5

McManis' questions were answered in a series
of steps that began with the senate committee state-
ment that the resumption of the grand jury "need not await"

its finalreport.53 The next step followed when, on

 

51Allan J. Nieber, "New Attack on Hemans," Detroit
News, March 10, 1946, p. 1.

52John McManis, "What's Coming Next in State Grand
Jury," Ibid., March 10, 1946, p. 1.

53Lloyd Moles, "Senate Probers Find More Hemans Costs;
Total Nearing $16,000," State Journal, March 9, 1946, p. l.

 

163

March 12, neWSpapers carried the major page-one story that

Judge Coash had fired Sigler and had named former Ingham

prosecutor Richard B. Foster to his place.54 Although at

first declaring he would proceed with his petition to the
55 .

Supreme Court, Slgler later revealed he would withhold

it until he had the chance to view what would happen.
"Meanwhile," the State Journal reported, "rumors that
Sigler would run for governor were given new impetus Wed-
nesday, when it was learned that petitions were being cir-
culated in Detroit to make him a candidate for the Republi-
can nomination."56 As the senate committee reportedly
continued its probe of grand jury expenditures behind
closed doors, Judge Coash and his new prosecutor resumed
the grand jury investigation.57
On March 21, less than two weeks after leaving the
grand jury, Kim Sigler announced his candidacy for governor.
Asserting from a Detroit hotel lobby that no candidate ever
entered a gubernatorial race with the line between friends
and enemies so sharply drawn, Sigler said: "Foes of the

grand jury will fight me in this campaign as bitterly as

they have opposed my efforts to bring criminals to justice.

 

54Don Gardner, "Sigler Fired," Detroit Times,
March 12, 1946, p. 1.

55Lloyd Moles, "Coash Fires Sigler, Names Ex-Prose-
cutor to Grand Jury Post," State Journal, March 12, 1946,
p. l.

 

 

56"Sigler Plan for Appeal Withheld," Ibid.: March 13'
1946, p. 1.

57Ibid.

164

Now, as in the past, my friends are the people who want to

strike out graft and corruption in our great state."58
Still to be settled by the grand jury were indict-

ments on gambling and branch banking legislation, and on

May 7 the reorganized one-man grand jury handed down a

conspiracy warrant against Laurence A. Lyon, retired

captain and former deputy commissioner of the Michigan State

Police, and three alleged gambling partners.59 Breaking

a silence of several months, grand jury prosecutor Richard

Foster said the conspiracy had occurred between January

and November of 1945, and he set forth two counts--one,

the payment and receiving by Lyon of graft and the other,

a conspiracy entered into by Lyon and three gambling opera-

tors who had been allowed to operate slot machines in Ing-

ham County without State Police interference.60 The sssss

Journal reported that the grand jury seizure in November,

1945, of 105 slot machines and records of operation and

ownership "laid the foundation for the present gambling

conspiracy."61
Of interest to this study was Judge Coash's state-

ment following the araignment that he would not preside

 

58"Sigler Now Is In Race," UP, Ibid.: March 21!
1946, p. 1-

59"Grand Jury Charges Ex-Trooper Captain Took
Gambler Bribes," Ibid., May 7, 1946, p. 1.

60Ibid.

61Ibid.

165

at the examination of the defendants.62 Said the State
Journal:

Judge Coash would appear to be acting wisely in
deciding not to sit as examining magistrate at the
hearings of those against whom the grand jury has
returned indictments. While such a practice is legal,
the grand jury process would seem to be strengthened
by a policy of having other jurists conduct the pro-
ceedings beyond the point of issuance of indictments.63

Two weeks after the first warrant, the Ingham County

grand jury issued its second gambling conspiracy indictment
accusing retired Lansing Police Department Chief John F.
O'Brien with accepting graft for protection of gambling
interests.64 Named also in the indictment were three area
businessmen, including Dorr T. Feldman, reputed gambler,
who furnished the money for the bribes. The warrant covered
a period from December, 1943, to September 15, 1945, fif-
teen days after Chief O'Brien had retired. Prosecutor
Foster said the bribes paid allegedly to O'Brien ranged
from $350 to $700 a month and were paid by Feldman through
a Lansing businessman.

Under the charges of the first gambling indictment,

testimony from Feldman's partner Ora Ray Messner told of

former State Police Administrator Lyon receiving $400 a

month in bribes, plus an undisclosed amount given as a down

 

62Ibid.

63llThe Grand Jury Grinds On," Editorial, Ibid.,
May 9, 1946, p. 4.

64Lloyd Moles, "Accuse Ex-Police Chief of Accepting
Bribes to Protect Gambling Here," Ibid., May 21,
1946, p. l.

166

payment.65 By the time the trial had opened on July 9 at
Mason, Lyon had pleaded guilty and turned state's evidence.
With Lyon's testimony that he had received $2,500 for pro-
tection of the illegal slot machine operation, the con-
Spiracy trial ended on July 11, with convictions against
Dorr Feldman and two other conspirators.66

The second gambling conspiracy indictment featured
a plea of guilty by former Chief O'Brien the day following

his indictment.67

The two remaining defendants, Dorr T.
Feldman and Wallace Crafton, manager of an alleged gambling
establishment in Lansing, were bound over for trial on

July 1,68 while a third man involved, Sidney Goldman, had

69 With Feldman

received immunity for his testimony.
already convicted on the first conspiracy charge and
Crafton's role in the indictment questionable and never

70 the trial was never held.

explained by the grand jury,
The last of the grand jury's investigative work--

and the subject that initiated the probe--came about in

 

65nSays Lyon Paid Bribe by GamblerS," Ibid-r
May 15: 1946! P° 1'

66Roberta Applegate, AP, "Expect Appeal of Convic—
tions in Graft Case," Ibid., July 11, 1946, p. 1.

67Lloyd Moles, "Ex-Chief Pleads Guilty to Graft,"
Ibid., May 22, 1946, p. l.

68"Feldman, Crafton Face Trial July 1," Ibid.!
June 5, 1946, p. 1.

69"File Grant of Immunity," Ibid.: May 23: 1946'
p. l.

7OMoles, "Ex-Chief Pleads Guilty."

167

mid-1946 with the announcement of the long-awaited
anti-branch banking indictments. On July 21, eight-column
headlines proclaimed the news that twenty-four persons,
including bankers, lawyers, and legislators, had been
indicted on charges of a $50,000 bribe conSpiracy to block
the 1941 legislation.71 Reported as the biggest indictment
issued in the almost three-year history of the grand jury,
twenty-eight persons had been named, but four of the defen-
dants would not be prosecuted because of grants of immunity,

the State Journal said:72

 

Charged with conspiring to wrongfully obstruct the
due course of legislation and to corruptly influence the
acts of the members of the legislature and the legal adviser
to former Governor Murray D. Van Wagoner, the alleged bribe
givers included Howard J. Stoddard, president of the
Michigan National Bank chain; Charles B. Bohn, chairman of
the Michigan National Bank chain board and Detroit busi-
nessman; Simon D. DenUyl, secretary-treasurer of the Bohn
Corporation and member of the bank board; Harold Vander-
berg, Kalamazoo businessman; Francis P. Slattery; Byron L.
Ballard, former legal adviser to Governor Van Wagoner; and
Charles F. Hemans. Ballard, as assistant attorney general

and former legal adviser was also accused of "offering,

 

71"28 Indicted in Lansing Plot," Detroit Free Press,
July 21, 1946, p. 1.

72Carlisle Carver, "Grand Jury Indicts 24 More,"
State Journal, July 21, 1946, p. l.

168

tendering, promising, giving and receiving bribes, money

and other things of value" to bring about the defeat of

the bill originally sponsored by former Senator D. Hale
Brake, and thereby act to corrupt his office. The remain-
ing defendants accused of bribe-taking were either present
or former members of the Michigan House and Senate, and only
three of them had not been named in previous grand jury

indictments.73

The warrant alleged that the conspiracy took place
between January, 1941, and March, 1941. Much of the
investigative work had been done before Judge Coash and
Prosecutor Foster assumed direction, the Journal reported,
but since their assumption of control more than 100 wit-
nesses had been questioned and complicated transactiOns
involving the defendants were traced through several cor-
porations. Nine defendants had already confessed their
part in the indictment, and the four individuals already
granted immunity would appear as key witnesses for the
prosecution. Among these was former lobbyist Charles F.
Hemans.

Newspaper reaction to the major indictment was con-

tinued support of the grand jury in its efforts to uncover

corruption and also admonition toward apathetic citizens. Edi-

torials, such as one in the Detroit News commented that "Weak

 

 

3Background on the anti-branch banking indictment
is taken from Carver, "Grand Jury Indicts 24."

169

Citizenship is Also Indicted,"74 while the Detroit Free

 

Press editorially recalled that rumors of graft involved
with the "branch bank scandal" prompted that newspaper to
demand a complete investigation.

In the cleaning up of the state, the job has
just begun.

That is why the Free Press urged the selection
of Kim Sigler for Governor. He should be allowed
to finish the task he and Judge Carr SO efficiently
and courageously began.

 

Providing a perspective to what the Carr-Sigler
investigation had uncovered, now that the bank branch

indictment has been handed down, the Free Press published

 

a news analysis on July 22, on page thirteen. With a kicker
headline, "Lush Days are Gone," the main headline read:
"Grand Juries Clamp Lid on Lansing's Pot of Gold."

The charge that leading Michigan bankers had
been tinkering with the Legislature to block the
branch and chain bank banning law recalled mem-
ories of high-living legislators to veterans
around the Capitol.

They remembered legislators coming to Lansing
with borrowed shoes and patches on their pants.

A couple of months later the same lawmakers
would be wearing Spats, choosing from a half a
dozen new suits and twirling a cane.

Another member of the House drove down from
the North in a battered fifteen-year-old Ford.

He went home wheeling a Packard and towing the
Ford. .

All this happened on three dollars a day that
legislators get legally.

The 1941 session of the Legislature was con-
sidered the last of a long era of venal lawmakers
who wore "for sale" signs under their vests.

 

74"Weak Citizenship Is Also Indicted," Editorial,
Detroit News, July 23, 1946, p. 14.

75"28 More Indicted," Editorial, Detroit Free Press,
JUly 23, 1946, p0 60

 

170

Cynics in those days contended that getting
elected to Lansing was just the same as paying
the mortgage on the old home.

Previous grand jury trials have revealed that
some elected officials could be bought as easily
as a pound of ham.

Since the grand jury started operating across
the street from the dome of the Capitol there has
been no vulgar display of sudden wealth on the
part of any of the legislators. . . .

The first indication of trouble in the branch bank

trial was a news story in the State Journal on September 9

 

that Charles Hemans, who had already furnished key testi-
mony in earlier grand jury successes and granted immunity
for his bank testimony, had moved to Washington, D. C.
Special Prosecutor Richard Foster said Hemans had been
subpoenaed for the impending conspiracy examination and,
if he failed to appear, "action would be taken to compel
his return."76

Meanwhile, in a special dispatch from Washington,

Detroit News reporter Allan J. Nieber quoted Hemans as

 

saying he wanted no further part in the inquiry.77 Accord-

ing to a report from Free Press writer James Haswell, who

 

interviewed Hemans, public reaction to his testimony was
the lobbyist's reason for fleeing the state and refusing
to cooperate further.

"You remember that two years ago the grand jury

officers asked me to return to Michigan and testify
in the case against the legislators there.

 

6"Hemans Balks at Summons in Bank Case," AP,
State Journal, Sept. 9, 1946, p. 1.

77Allan J. Nieber, "I Didn't Ask Immunity," Detroit
News, Sept. 10, 1946, p. 1.

 

171

"I talked to a lot of people in whom I had con-
fidence, then. I talked to Kim Sigler and Judge
[Leland] Carr, and to a couple of members of the
Supreme Court, and I talked to some pastors in
whom I had faith. . . .

"They all said the right thing, and the decent
thing, was to go to Michigan and tell the story. . . .

"But as soon as I did I found out that I was
wrong. I had done the wrong thing. The public
reaction to my testimony showed me at once that I
had done wrong. I was kicked and reviled and
blasted from one end of the state to the other.

"So I said to myself, 'Never again,‘ and I
meant it. I went through with my testimony because
once I give my word I don't break it. But I meant
'Never again.'"

But in an interview years later with former reporter

Nieber, the ex-Detroit News writer offered another reason:

 

Denny [Simon D.] DenUyl had supplied Hemans with
the money to buy the bank bill, and Foster was push-
ing for this. Hemans took the position that he
wouldn't testify against his pal, Denny. He was a
maverick and took off after his refusal for Washing-
ton, D. C. He figured he was safe and thumbed his
nose at the grand jury. . . .

I think Hemans was paid off to keep his mouth
shut. There's no proof, but obviously that's what
it had to be. Along with the principle of testify-
ing against his pal, he was paid off. After all,
Hemans cooperated for quite awhile before balking.79

Whatever the reason, Charles Hemans refused to
return to Michigan, declaring he would not come back "until

80 As the

the United States Supreme Court orderSIhim] back."
examination began without him, Special Prosecutor Foster

said he expected to invoke a new federal statute--making it a

 

78James Haswell, "I'm Not Testifying," Detroit Free
Press, Sept. 10, 1946, p. 1.

79Allan J. Nieber, Interview, Dec. 15, 1970.

8o"Hemans Balks at Summons," State Journal.

172

felony for a person to leave a state with intent to avoid
giving testimony--if Hemans persisted in his refusal to
return.81 By September 18, Foster conceded his inability
to produce Hemans as a state witness was a "decided handi-
cap," while presiding Circuit Judge Chester P. O'Hara, of
Detroit, called the lobbyist "the connecting link" between
the fourteen legislators and the five Michigan National
Bank officers accused of conspiring to defeat the 1941
bill.82
During the next twenty-one months, the branch bank
examination was forced to adjourn seven times, while
Judges Coash and O'Hara and Prosecutor Foster sought
Hemans' necessary testimony. After exhausting his legal
redress, the former lobbyist was forced to appear at the
examination on October 16, only to refuse testifying
because of possible incrimination through a federal indict-
ment issued against him as a fugitive witness.83 After his
conviction and sentencing to four years, Hemans still
refused to talk, pending appeal before the federal courts,

and Judge O'Hara was forced to re-adjourn the examination

until the possibility of giving incriminating evidence was

 

81Roberta Applegate, AP, "Foster Files 7 Grants of
Immunity," Ibid., Sept. 10, 1946, p. 1.

82"Need Acute for Hemans' Testimony," Ibid.,
septo 18, 1946' p. 10

83"Try Hemans on Stand; Result Nil!" EEEQ-r OCt° 16'
1946, p0 1'

173

removed.84 When at last the United States Supreme Court

refused Hemans' appeal,85 he still refused to testify, as
the hearing reOpened November 13, 1947, on the grounds his
testimony in the bank case--for which he was still under
immunity-~too closely paralleled evidence needed against
him under an April, 1948, indictment sought against him
in connection with intangible tax law bribery.86 Follow—
ing postponement of the examination on November 14, attor-
neys for the other bank case defendants appealed to the
Michigan Supreme Court against the unwarranted delays,
and on April 6, 1948, the court ruled that Judge O'Hara
had sixty days in which to bind over the defendants to
trial or dismiss the charges.87
As the bank examination re-adjourned on April 19,
1948, still minus the testimony of Charles Hemans--Judge
O'Hara granted Prosecutor Foster's motion to quash the
indictments.88 Although Foster declared he would concen—

trate his efforts toward the bribery case in which Hemans

was named a defendant--and for which he had been cited in

 

84"Hemans' Silence Still 15 Upheld," £E£Q°'
Dec. 12, 1946, p. l-

85"Hemans May be Returned," Ibid., Oct. 20:
1947, p. l.

86"Refuses to Testify in Bank Case," Ibid-v
Nov. 13, 1947, p. l.

87"Ultimatum is Issued in Bank Bribe Case," Ibid.:
April 6, 1948, p. 1-

88"Long-Drawn Bank Bribe Case Ends," Ibid.,
April 19, 1948, p. l.

174

contempt89--this, too, fell through when the Michigan

Supreme Court dismissed the charge. The court ruled that

since the main case had been dismissed, Hemans could not

be held in contempt for refusal to testify in it.90
With the dismissal of the branch bank examination,

the Carr-Sigler grand jury lost its second major enter-

prise. In addition, the grand jury under Judge Coash and

Prosecutor Foster had been forced to dr0p other indict-

ments, because of the deaths of two key witnesses--former

Lieutenant Governor Frank Murphy and Senator Warren G. Hooper.91

Although achieving more than forty-five convictions, its

only surviving major success was the small loan conspiracy

case of 1944. This prosecution, too, fell through, and

again it was Hemans who was responsible. On September 25,

1950, Circuit Judge John S. Simpson granted a motion for

a new trial in the case of John Hancock, a finance company

officer, on the basis of evidence concerning Hemans'

92 Ultimately all the con-

testimony at Hancock's trial.
victions were reversed by Judge Simpson and the state did

not undertake new prosecutions.

 

89"Bank Case Postponed Until March," Ibid.,
April 19, 1948, p. 1.

90"Court Rules on Hemans," Ibid., Jan. 13. 1949,

p. 1.

91"Grand Jury Drops Eight Indictments," Ibid.,
March 18, 1947, p. 1.

92"People v. Hancock, Opinion of the Court," in the
Circuit Court for Ingham County, Sept. 25, 1950, Docket
No. 7813. (Typewritten.)

175

The key to the reversal of convictions--for which
most of the defendants had been seeking since l944--was an
affidavit filed by a former investigator with the Carr-
Sigler grand jury.93 The affidavit declared that Hemans
had agreed to testify in the small loan bribery cases "in
such a way as the prosecution desired regardless of his
own recollection," and that he said several times that he
had never informed the finance Officials about his bribe-
paying. In exchange for his testimony, according to the
affidavit, Hemans was to receive certain favors from the
grand jury. Judge Simpson apparently did not consider the
affidavits of denial filed by former Prosecutor Kim Sigler
and Hemans94 of sufficient weight to offset the conclusion
that the small loan bribery case convictions had been

obtained through "purchased testimony."95

Thus ended the Carr-Sigler grand jury.

 

93"People v. Hancock, Affidavit of Monroe M.
Wendell," in the Circuit Court for Ingham County, n.d.,
Docket No. 7813. (Typewritten.)

94"People v. Hancock, Affidavit of Kim Sigler,
Answer to Motion to Leave to File Motion for New Trial,"
in the Circuit Court for Ingham County, n.d., Docket No.
7813. (Typewritten.); "People v. Hancock, Affidavit of
Charles F. Hemans," in the Circuit Court for Ingham
County, n.d., Docket No. 7813. (Typewritten;)

95"People v. Hancock, Opinion of the Court."

CHAPTER V

THE LEGISLATURE KILLS A LAW

While the anti-branch banking case‘slowly faded,
events that would re-shape the structure of the law respon-
sible for that indictment, as well as for the myriad of
other indictments, trials, and convictions resulting from
the Carr-Sigler grand jury had been occurring.

The first hint of (legal) attack against the
One-Man Grand Jury Law had come as early as 1945, when,
at the annual meeting of the State Bar of Michigan, two
resolutions had been introduced related to the one-juror
system. The first one, adopted unanimously, put the bar
in favor of legislation to disqualify judge-jurors from
presiding at either the preliminary examination or the
trial of persons arrested under warrants issued by them.1
The resolution seemingly was directed at the activities

of Judges Ferguson and Carr, both of whom had regularly

presided at the examination of their own charges.2

 

1State Bar of Michigan, Proceedings, Tenth Annual
Meeting, pp. 56-58.

2Scigliano, p. 59.

176

177

Appropriate legislation was introduced on February 10,
1947, by Representative Henry T. Gage, of Detroit,3 and
was formally approved by the legislature in April--making

it the first amendment to the One-Man Grand Jury Law in
more than twenty-five years.4
The second resolution did not have such easy suc-
cess. Introduced by an attorney once punished for contempt
in an earlier grand jury investigation, it was designed to
place the bar on record as being in favor of the system's
abolition. During the next several months, controversy
took place among bar members, with the majority believ-
ing that abuses in the system could be corrected through
amendment. Two separate minorities shared the view that
the judge-jury system was inherently defective, because
it combined executive and judicial powers in one individual.

The Detroit Free Press said editorially of the controversy

in 1946:

By asking the State Bar to help abolish the
one-man grand jury system in Michigan, the left-
wing Lawyers Guild is not acting in the public
interest.

While the one-man grand jury admittedly has
flaws, and while it is still subject to all of
the weaknesses of the human element, it still
remains the only proven agency that the people
of this state have to combat graft and corruption
in official circles. That [point] has been made
on numerous occasions in the past decade.

To shackle it or take it out of existence
without the substitution of some equally effective
weapon would be to wipe out all of the recent gains

 

3"Seeking to Curb Grand Jury Power," State Journal,
Feb. 11, 1947, p. 1.

4Michigan Public Acts (1947), Public Act No. 33.

 

178

which have been made toward more honest government
in Michigan.
Does the Guild mean to question the ability
and integrity of such jurists as Leland W. Carr,
Herman Dehnke and Homer Ferguson?5
With the spreading reaction among lawmakers and the
public to the large-scale investigations of the preceding
eight years, and particularly the questionably handled
Carr-Sigler grand jury, opposition to the one-man grand
jury became legally respectable in March, 1948, with the
United States Supreme Court's decision in the Michigan-
originated Oliver case. While the Supreme Court did not
rule on the constitutionality of the law itself, it none-
theless gave respectability to those opposing the one-man
grand jury. In a strongly worded opinion, the Court held
that conviction of a person for contempt of court without
a reasonable Opportunity to defend himself against the
charges and conviction within the secrecy of the judicial
chamber, constituted a denial of due process of law.6
The three-way division within the State Bar Associa—
tion over the one-man grand jury found its approximate counter-
part within the 1949 State Legislature. Among the legis-
lators there were some who wanted to amend the statute

but keep its basic features, including that of the single

judge—juror, intact; there were others who wanted to make

 

5"We've Nothing Better," Editorial, Detroit Free
Press, Sept. 12, 1946, p. 6.

6

 

In re Oliver, 333 U. S. 257.

179

a major revision of the system; and a third group wanted
to abolish it.7
The first bill to reach the legislature and the
newspapers was designed for abolition of the judge-juror
system, and it was sponsored by Representative John S.
Ptaszkiewicz, of Hamtramck, who had unsuccessfully intro—
duced the same measure two years earlier.8 Disclosing
he would ask for a public hearing on the bill before the
House Judiciary Committee, Ptaszkiewicz said he had not
changed his Opinion that the one-man system had developed
into "one of the most vicious attacks on human rights
this country has ever seen." One of the principal

objections opponents had to the system, the State

Journal reported, was that it violated consti-

tutional separation of powers between the administrative

(the prosecuting attorney) and the judiciary. "Critics

hold that when a judge is made a grand juror he becomes

the prosecutor and the judge in the case he is investi-

gating, and as prosecutor has dictatorial powers to the

detriment of the civil rights of those brought before him."9
An all-day hearing on the repeal bill was con-

ducted on February 16 before the House Judiciary Committee

with arguments presented for and against the measure. The

rights of citizens and due process of law were the

 

8"Seek to Abolish Grand Jury Plan," State Journal,
Jan. 27, 1949, p. 1.

9Ibid.

180

catchwords for proponents of the bill who, the State
Journal reported, asserted at the hearing that "we cannot

have a one-man grand jury and have the proper regard for

fundamental protection of our citizens." One of those most
bitterly attacking the law's abuses was William Henry

Gallagher, a Detroit attorney. Having been counsel
for several defendants in grand jury-related trials,
Gallagher listed among the abuses such "inquisitorial
tactics" as arresting witnesses in the middle of the night;
citing for contempt when a witness did not agree with the
grand jury; the joining of judicial and administrative
powers in one man; detention of citizens without warrants;
and the use of wives to testify against their own husbands}o
Those opposing the repeal measure, including
former Governor Wilber M. Brucker, denied that "third
degree" tactics were used and said that the one-man grand
jury had "thrown the fear of God into the underworld and
criminals know that Michigan isn't a safe state in which
to operate." In addition, they asserted the law had
already been changed to prohibit a grand juror from serv-
ing as both accuser and judge, while amendments to the
present law had been prepared to eliminate so-called

abuses.ll

 

10"State Grand Jury System Defended and Attacked,"
Ibid., Feb. 16, 1949, p. 1.

11Ibid.

181

By early March, the House Judiciary Committee was
expected to report out the measure calling for repeal of
the one-man grand jury law. At the same time, the §E§E§
Journal reported it would probably also report out an
alternate proposal containing modifications in the present
system.12 On March 10, alternatives to repeal were intro-
duced--one by Representatives Homer L. Bauer, Charlotte, and
John Bannasch, Jackson, and the other by Representative
Louis Cramton, of Lapeer. With opponents of the judge-juror
system charging that too often grand juries had been freely
used as vehicles for publicity and subsequent election to
political office, Bauer had worked out a solution to retain
the efficiency of the system, yet eliminate some of the
evils charged to it. His measure would supplant the single
juror with three judges, thereby increasing the difficulty
of political advancement by any one judge~juror. In addi-
tion, Bauer included a provision to forbid grand jurors
from making statements to the press except in connection
with indictments and similar official action.13

Citing the one-man grand jury as "the people's
best weapon against rackets and political corruption,"

Representative Cramton attempted through his measure to

 

2"Legislative Battle Looms over Grand Jury System,"
Ibid., March 5, 1949, p. 1.

13"Grand Jury Plan Under Fire Again," Ibid.!
March 8, 1949, p. l.

182

"perfect the system rather than destroy it."' Embodying
changes discussed by the State Bar Association, his bill
included provisions for penalizing recalcitrant witnesses,
such as Charles F. Hemans; hearing contempt citations in
Open court--following the United States Supreme Court's
ruling in the Oliver case; and "speedy hearing" of grand

jury witnesses, to meet criticism of the midnight service

14
of summons.

As the House Judiciary Committee reported out the

repeal bill on April 7, with the two revision measures

15

initially held back pending a general house vote, the

newspapers again launched their editorial position on the
one-man grand jury law. Said the Detroit News, in an

editorial headlined, "It Sends the Crooks to Prisonl":

The House at Lansing is to take up Wednesday
the bill to abolish the one-man grand jury system,
which was reported without recommendation from the
Judiciary Committee.

The Committee is holding in readiness two
other bills described as revisions of the grand
jury law. These do not come from the hands of its
friends anymore than does the repeal bill. It
looks as though the idea is to use the repeal bill,
which will not pass, as a way of softening up the
House and making it more receptive to the revision
proposals. . . .

The public has not asked for any tampering with
the one-man grand jury system. The public knows
that on a number of well-remembered occasions such
juries have stepped into the breach, when regular
law enforcement agencies have failed or been unable
to act.

 

14"Grand Jury Amendments Offered," Detroit Free
Press, March 10, 1949, p. 23.

15"House Gets Bill to Kill Juror System," Detroit
News, April 7, 1949, p. 1; Carl B. Rudow, "Jury Repea
Debate Set," Ibid., April 8, 1949, p. 5.

 

183

The one-man grand jury has put the crooks in
jail, where the public wanted them, and never has
yet put an innocent man there.

The system is not perfect, admittedly. But,
if there is to be a revision, let it begin with
the naming of a study commission drawn from the
State Bar. And let the witnesses heard be some-
body other than former subjects of grand jury
attention or their lawyers.

There is no reason for the haste so evident in
the present attempt to railroad through amending
legislation. There is at any rate no good reason.16

The Detroit Free Press took this position:

Acting upon a bill now before it, the Michigan
Legislature may determine whether or not the people
of this state are to be deprived of their most
potent weapon for law enforcement. . . .

The record of criminal prosecution under it has
been impressive. It has been a shield for the law-
abiding and a scourge of the wicked.

Why now this determination to abolish it?

Who are the interests behind the move and what
are their motives?

The Michigan Legislature should take careful
note of this:

Behind every single effort to abolish or limit
to the point of ineffectiveness the present grand
jury system are selfish interests which have felt
the heavy hand of justice through the one-man grand
jury. . . .

Before weakly surrendering to such elements,
the Legislature should carefully consider its duty
and responsibility to the peOple of Michigan.

The State must not be left to the mercy of
racketeers and hoodlums.1

Viewing the judge-juror system as inherently dan-
gerous to the rights of the individual, the State Journal

supported the repeal measure:

 

l6 .
Detr01t News, April 8, 1949, p. 30.

17"One-Man Jury," Editorial, Detroit Free Press:
Apr. 19’ 1949] p0 6.

184

Debate scheduled . . . on the proposal to
abolish Michigan's unique one-man grand jury
system will focus attention on the legislature's
opportunity at this session to safeguard citizens
of the state against abuses arising from a vicious
device that places a dangerously large amount of
power in the hands of one judge.

There have been many arguments in favor of
repeal of the one-man grand jury law which, for
a time at least, gave one person the powers of
prosecutor, jury and judge. That some of these
arguments were valid is attested by the fact that
from time to time precautions have been taken to
guard citizens against irreSponsible use of one-
man grand jury powers. . . .

Support of repeal . . . implies no criticism
of the able and fair jurists who have served
effectively under that system. The criticism is
directed, not against them, but against the system
under which such grave abuses by the unfair and
incompetent have been possible. 3

On April 21, the Detroit News reported that

 

defenders of the one-man grand jury system "were hopeful
today that they had gained sufficient strength to beat
back repeal of the law as the issue came to a vote in the

19 Foes of the repeal bill had won a tactical

House."
victory, disclosed the Nsss, by getting reported from the
House Judiciary Committee, with a recommendation that it
pass, a revised version of the Bauer-Bannasch bill to
create a system of three-man grand juries. Intended as

a compromise between the one-man and the traditional

twenty-three man grand juries, the revision bill was

acceptable to Representative Cramton, who was considered

 

18"A Dangerous Device," Editorial, State Journal,
April 12, 1949, p. 4.

19Carl B. Rudow, "Grand Jury Law at Stake,"
News, April 21, 1949, p. l.

 

Detroit

185

the leading defender of the one-man system, and, in effect,
unified "revisionists" against the Ptaszkiewicz repeal
bill.20
The following day, the newspapers carried by various
means the page one story of the house alteration of the

one-man system to a three-man grand jury. Foremost among

their treatment of the grand jury issue was the Detroit

Timss, which on April 22 ran a banner headline in boldface
type, announcing: "House Kills l-Man Jury." The Detroit
ESE§.Page‘°ne news story began: "The Ptaszkiewicz bill

to repeal the one-man grand jury law was beaten in the

House Thursday, but the Bauer-Bannasch bill to create three-
judge grand juries was passed and sent to the Senate, loaded

with corrective and weakening amendments."21 The Free Press

 

said in its page-one news story:

The House voted to amend the one-man grand jury
law in a way that would nullify effectiveness of
the law.

Along with corrective amendments proposed by
the State Bar Association, the Representatives
struck out the immunity provision, regarded by
many as the very heart of the law. . . .

It was the best the grand jury defenders could
get to preserve the framework of the machinery that
has sent scores of crooks in high places to prison.

Repealists were out to scuttle the crime-
detecting procedures so effective in Detroit and
legislative bribery cleanups. . . .

 

20Ibid.

Zlcarl B- RUdOW: "House OK's 3-Member Grand Jury,"
Detroit News, April 22, 1949, p. l.

 

186

Here are the members who voted to wipe out
grand juries with teeth in their activities. . . .
Two close friends of former Senator Ivan John-
ston (R-Mt. Clemens), who is awaiting trial on
grand jury bribe charges, engineered the coup to
mutilate the existing law. . . .22
In addition to the enlargment of judge-jurors and
the striking of the controversial immunity clause, the
house measure also prevented anyone connected with a grand
jury from seeking political office for two years after the
end of the jury. Other provisions made it a misdemeanor
for any grand jury-connected person to comment publicly on
matters before the jury; limited grand jury inquiries to
a maximum of six months, unless lengthened by a specific

order of the three judges; and required that testimony

be taken at once from witnesses after they had been sub-

poenaed.23

Again, the Detroit News and Free Press attempted
to alter the course Lansing legislators were choosing for
the one-man grand jury. Editorialized the Free Press
under a headline reading: "Civic Duty," with a kicker

headline pleading: "Save the Grand Jury":

The time is right now when every citizen of
Michigan who believes in honesty and decency in
government, and in strict enforcement of the law,
should raise his voice in defense of the one-man
grand jury law. . . .

22Hub M. George, "House Votes to Curb l-Man Grand
Juries," Detroit Free Press, April 22, 1949; p. 1.

23Knight D. McKesson, "Three-Man Grand Jury Bill
Passes," State Journal, April 22, 1949, p. l.

187

The House of Representatives has gutted the
law which has stood as a protective shield between
the law-abiding people of this State and those who
would commit any crime, from robbery on the streets
to violation of the public trust.

Despite valiant efforts of responsible legisla-
tors to preserve the one-man grand jury law as
Michigan's most potent weapon of law enforcement,
interests which are more concerned with their own
protection than with the public good have rewritten
the law until it is nothing but a hollow mockery. . . .

To reduce the law, as the House has done, to a
point of ineffective uselessness, is to flash the
green light on all that type of crime which the one-
man grand jury in recent years has so effectively
exposed.

Church groups, clubs and individuals should
speak out in behalf of the one-man grand jury in
a volume which members of the Senate cannot fail
to heed.24

Law-abiding citizens must now look to the Senate
to save the one-man grand jury law and, therewith,
the public's respect for the Legislature.

Hardly three years have passed since the Legis-
lature was the chastened subject of a crime detec-
tion procedure especially effective against con-
spiracy to corrupt public officials.

It can not now turn on that procedure to rend
and destroy it without inviting inferences no self-
respecting legislator could welcome. . . .

The peOple themselves have had only praise for
the present law and surely want it kept from harm.
We think the Senate will not disappoint them.25

On May 19, a page-one story, headlined "Keep Teeth in

Grand Jury," the Free Press reported that the Senate had voted

 

to change to a three-man jury system but, at the same time,

keep the key provision of the law to grant immunity. In addi-

tion, to accepting the house measure with three judge-jurors,

 

24Detroit Free Press, April 23, 1949, p. 6.

 

25uUp to the Senate," Editorial, Detroit News,

April 23, 1949, p. 4.

188

the bill passed by the senate included a provision limit-
ing special prosecutors to a total fee of $5,000 "instead
of fees like $76,000 collected by former Governor Kim

Sigler when he was sending less than a dozen lawmakers to

26

prison for bribery." Another clause forbade appoint-

ment of the same person as a Special prosecutor for
another grand jury until after three years. Interestingly,

Kim Sigler was serving as special prosecutor at the time

in a grand jury investigation in Mount Clemens.27

Although the two houses were in agreement on the
basic principle "that the one-man procedure must be
stricken from the books,"28 progress of the bill was
temporarily halted until both houses could remove the block
concerning immunity grants.

Senators upholding the immunity clause contended
that it was the "teeth of the bill," and that with-
out it "you might as well repeal the entire grand
jury law."

"When you grant immunity you are giving a break
to the biggest rat who can run the fastest to the
judge to testify," countered Sen. Harold M. Ryan,
Detroit Democrat.

It was obvious that legislators were smarting
under the record of the Carr-Sigler grand jury,
which had revealed wholesale corruption in past
Legislatures, sent some members to prison, and 29
granted immunity to others who turned state's witnesses.

 

26Frank Morris, "l-Man Juries Killed," Detroit
Times, May 19, 1949, p. 1. (The provision was later raised
to a ceiling of $10,000.)

27Howard J. Rugg, "Grand Jury Bill Passed by
Senate," State Journal, May 19, 1949, p. l.

28

 

Ibid.

29"Attack on 3-Man Jury Bill Fails," Detroit News,
May 19, 1949, p. l.

189

The House of Representatives rejected the senate
amendments to its bill, and the measure went to conference
committee. The committee issued its report on May 20, the
last day of the session, and, most notably, had eliminated

30 With this one clause the only

the immunity provision.
controversial element in the senate version of the revi-
sion bill, both houses adopted the conference report,
final action being completed at 3:00 a.m., May 21.31
Acceptance of the report meant the one-man structure was
substantially altered, while both houses "agreed to out-
law the right of judges to grant immunity, thereby admittedly
tearing the heart from the procedure that sent Homer Fer-
guson to the United States Senate and made Kim Sigler a
governor."32
While the incumbent Governor G. Mennen Williams, a
Democrat, mulled whether to "scuttle the one-man grand jury
system," which had drawn "growing criticism as lodging too much
power in one man and lending itself to use as a political
springboard,"33 defenders of the one-man system planned a
statewide referendum to counteract the legislature's

tactics.34

 

3OScigliano, p. 66.

31Ibid.

32Frank Morris, "Ban Immunity in Law Killing l-Man
Juries," Detroit Times, May 21, 1949, p. 1.

33James A. O. Crowe, AP, "Grand Jury Bill Mulled,"
State Journal, May 22, 1949, p. 1.

34"Plan Referendum to Fight Jury Measure," Detroit
Free Press, May 22, 1949, p. 2.

 

190

Fighting to retain the present system, Rep. Louis
C. Cramton (R-Lapeer), a battle-wise former circuit
judge, shouted that the bill "means that the grand
jury system Michigan has had since 1917 is dead."

"In its place," he said, "is a monstrosity which
is not intended to work, cannot work, and will not
work."

The bill in effect, he added, repealed the grand
jury system.3

The State Journal disagreed editorially with Cramton
and other one-man grand jury supporters, calling the new
measure a "Step in Right Direction":

The legislature's revision of Michigan's unique
one-man grand jury system . . . gave attention to
the interests of the taxpayers by limiting fees of
special prosecutors to $10,000 in order to guard
against lavish misuse of the public's money.) It
also sought to prevent exploitation of the grand
jury system by the politically-ambitious by requir-
ing those connected with grand juries in major
capacities to wait two years before seeking other
public offices.

Critics of the legislature's action contend that
the grand jury system Michigan has had since 1917 is
dead. If reference is made to concentration of dan-
gerously excessive power in the hands of one judge
and to the other opportunities for abuses of authority
and disregard of the rights of individuals, it is
likely to be widely agreed that the death was in the
best interests of the state of Michigan. . 36

Also acclaiming the state legislature's move, the
Detroit Times editorially approved the return to a "sane~
grand jury system."

Responding to the general demand of the people of
Michigan, the Legislature has ended the one-man grand
jury system. . . . .

Only the signature of Gov. Williams is necessary
now to erase with dignity and honor this blot of
deSpotism.

 

35Crowe, "Grand Jury Bill Mulled."

36$tate Journal, May 24, 1949, p. 6.

191

It is to be hOped that Gov. Williams, as the
majority of the House and Senate, will not be mis-
led by the designs of those who have profited from
one-man grand juries in the past and who are strug-
gling to preserve this repugnant source of personal
aggrandizement.

The new law does not end grand juries. . . .
[B]ecause of insistent pressure from certain
factions of the bar, they [the legislators] retained
a special grand jury system in event a prosecutor

desires to resort to drastic measures.

In such a case there will be three judges instead
of one, thus preventing terrorizing of witnesses and
assuring that when criminal evidence is uncovered
indictments will follow forthwith.

No longer will grand jury prosecutors be able to
buy evidence from guilty conspirators by promising
immunity. . . .

And the fishing expeditions through which grand
juries kept alive for as long as four or five years,
and made it possible for 17 to exist at one time in
Genessee County alone, have been outlawed.

So Michigan is returning at last to the funda-
mental principle that citizens have inherent rights
protecting them from star chamber courts and the
racks. . . .

Gov. Williams now Should complete the job and
restore to Michigan a public confidence in the
American processes of justice.3

The resistance to revising the One-Man Grand Jury
Law had been steadily mounting as the revision bill had pro-

38 . . .
Thls increase in

gressed through the legislature.
opposition was reflected in the smaller majorities by
which the conference committee report had been accepted
by the two houses, as compared with the votes on passage.
From the time that the first grand jury measure had been

reported by the House Judiciary Committee on April 7, to

the final passage of the revision bill on May 20, the

 

37Detroit Times, May 25, 1949, p. 24.

 

8Background prior to the revision measure's signa-
ture is taken from Scigliano, pp. 69-70.

192

Detroit News alone published ten major editorials in sup-

 

port of the one-man grand jury, not to mention constant
news stories. And, upon passage of the legislation by the
Michigan House and Senate, the governor was editorially
advised that "Honest Citizens, Gov. Williams, Want Crooks
to GO to Jail."39
Faced with what many considered the hottest issue
of the 1949 session, Governor Williams was hesitant in
determining the fate of the one-man grand jury. His first
announcement following passage was that he wanted to study
the measure in its final form before deciding upon signing
it. Ten days later, on June 1, still publicly undecided,
Williams asked leading protagonists and antagonists of
the act to submit briefs expressing their positions, and
he invited comment from the public as well. On June 2,
he announced he would hold a public hearing on the issue.
In addition to the oral positions furnished at the

40 letters and briefs were submitted to

hearing on June 16,
Williams from many parts of the state, about one-half in
favor and one-half opposed to the revision measure. Thus
supplied with argument, Governor Williams signed House
Bill No. 287 on June 17. In his statement reported by

the press, the governor expressed his opinion on the old

system:

 

39Detroit News, May 24, 1949, p. 22.

40Howard J. Rugg, "Grand Jury Bill Argued," State
Journal, June 16, 1949, p. l.

193

"I am convinced the one-man grand jury has
inherent defects which militate against justice.

"Chief among these is the concentration of
executive and judicial power in the hands of one
individual who both directs the investigation and
issues the indictment. No man can be a good judge
and at the same time a good prosecutor.

"As a judge, he should be impartial, objective
and disinterested. As a prosecutor, he should be
aggressive and zealous in ferreting out evidence
against the accused and in seeking indictments. . . .

"To combine these functions," he said, "is a
step backward toward the court of star chamber
before which our forefathers suffered and against
which they rebelled. Such a combination leads dir-
ectly to the exercise or arbitrary power. . . ."41

In his statement, Williams said abuses "of the
most serious nature" had crept into the one-man grand jury
system. These included: the needless creation of grand
juries, the use of subpoenas as arrest warrants, the use
of subpoenas as search warrants, unreasonable detention
and treatment of witnesses, summary punishment for con-
tempt, the issuance Of public statements derogatory to the
reputation of innocent persons, and failure to advise wit-
nesses of their constitutional rights. It would do no
good, the governor stated, to attempt to retain the one-man
system and correct the abuses, because those abuses "are
all the natural result of concentrating judicial and exec—
utive power in a single man . . . of a prosecutor's zeal

unrestrained by a separate judicial power."42

 

41"l-Man Grand Jury Law is Eliminated," State
Journal, June 17, 1949, p. 1.

42Ibid.

194

Lauding the governor's approval of the new law
eliminating "the grave weaknesses and dangers of this
state's unique one-man grand jury system," the sssss
Journal noted. editorially that the new measure would make
more effective the efforts for discovery and punishment of
crime by "erecting safeguards against abuses of power and

irreparable damage to the innocent which may result from

43

such abuses." But the Detroit News again reported that

the one-man jury system "was revised by the Legislature
smarting under memories of a state graft grand jury which
had sent members of previous Legislatures to prison for

selling their votes and influence to lobbyists represent-

"44

ing Special interests. "And Now the Crooks Will Cheer,"

said the News editorially.

Yesterday was a great day for the underworld,
for faithless public servants, for malefactors in
general and conspirators against the rights, the
peace and safety of law-abiding citizens.

Yesterday, when Gov. Williams signed the ripper
bill the people of Michigan lost what for 30 years
had been their best weapon against entrenched
crime. Michigan's one-man grand jury law passed,
for the time being, anyhow, into history. . . .

It is true a case of sorts had been made against
the law now repealed. A few respectable attorneys
had said that, in theory unbacked by any specific
instance, its abuse might threaten civil rights--
as might any abuse of law enforcement procedure!

Against that weak case were the many instances
in which this law had protected citizens in their
rights. . . .

 

43"Grand Jury Safeguard," Editorial, Ibid.
June 19, 1949, p. 6-

44"Williams Signs Bill Setting Up 3-Man Juries,"
Detroit News, June 17, 1949, p. l.

 

19S

Against it was the fact that the attack on the
law notoriously was launched and supported by the
Shadiest elements in the state, including those in
the Legislature itself.

Against it was the palpable fact that the substi-
tute grand jury law now enacted is a conscienceless
fake. . . .

The removal of the power to grant immunity to
witneSses will balk any attempted investigation.
Without this power and the power to question wit-
nesses in places other than a courtroom, there
could have been no exposure of the purchase and
sale of laws in the Legislature.

The new law is not a law to expose crime but
to hide it. That is what the people have been given
by a Legislature spurred by shame to rend the whip
that once lashed it and by a Governor too weak to
withstand the pressure that bade him in turn act.

We do not think the people will bide forever by
that action. . . . Sooner or later, we believe, they
will reinstate the one-man grand jury law.

 

45Detroit News, June 18, 1949, p. 4.

CHAPTER VI

THE JOURNALISTS JUDGE THE ONE-MAN GRAND JURY

When Public Act No. 196 became law in 1917, Michi-
gan lacked any agency for exercising inquisitorial powers
in the course of criminal investigation and accusation.1
The common-law grand jury had largely slipped into disuse
and its replacement, the prosecutor-information system,
lacked the grand jury's power to subpoena, to compel
testimony, and to grant immunity. Moreover, because of
his position as an elected official in local government,
the prosecuting attorney could not always be expected to
act in a decisive manner. Thus, the One-Man Grand Jury
Law filled a void in Michigan's criminal system, and
allowed a circuit judge to constitute himself as a grand
jury, with all the powers of the usual multiple-member
system employed in federal law enforcement and by other
states.

At the height of its fame and power in the 19405,
the Michigan one-man grand jury was indeed a formidable

institution. Acting in his judicial capacity, the grand

 

1Background on the history of the one-man grand
jury is taken from Scigliano, pp. 85-87.

196

197

juror could not be sued for issuing an improper report
reflecting on the integrity of a governmental officer.

He could hire at public expense a staff of special prose-
cutors, investigators and accountants, and was not immedi-
ately accountable for how he Spent appropriated funds. He
was not directly controlled by any court other than his
own, which meant that he considered in the first instance
appeals against his action as juror. He could punish
summarily and in secret testimony which he considered
false and evasive. And although never practiced, he was
authorized by law to preside at the examination and trial
of cases he investigated. Like the twenty-three man

grand jury, the one-man grand jury could institute an
inquiry without finding probable cause, then once begun,
an investigation could be directed into broad paths.

As the Carr-Sigler legislative graft grand jury
slowed to an end thirty years after the law had been in
effect, criticism of one-man grand juries had reached the
level where legislative action was needed to satisfy the
system's antagonists. Condensed into two general points,
critics of the one-man grand jury charged that the system
combined executive and judicial functions in violation of
the principle of separation of powers and consequently in
derogation of individual liberty. The second criticism
was that the system placed too much power, with too much
temptation for abuse, in a single government official-~also

to the detriment of individual liberty. Proponents of the

198

system were equally as sure that the one-man grand jury
was necessary and were of the opinion, as expressed by
then Circuit Judge Chester P. O'Hara, of Detroit, that it
was "the state's most effective weapon in the continuing
fight to keep corruption and graft out of our governmental
processes."2

That the one-man grand jury had evolved into a
tailor-made system of efficiently detecting crime in areas
where the more cumbersome common-law grand jury or politi-
cally elected officials could not go, was a conceded fact.
But the fact had also been established that the one-man
grand juries culminating with the Carr-Sigler investigation
had resulted in abuses of individual rights both through
overzealousness and the free legal exercise by the judge-
juror and his staff provided them initially by the state
Legislature and, more importantly, by consistently favorable
decisions of the Michigan Supreme Court. Two decisions by
the United States Supreme Court indirectly affecting its
operation provided the only legal rebuttal to the Michigan
one-man grand jury.3

Although the State Bar Association was influential
in initiating and altering the One-Man Grand Jury Law, the

press served to convey reportorial and editorial coverage

 

2"Williams Signs Bill Setting Up 3-Man Juries,"
Detroit News.

3The two court decisions referred to were: In re
Oliver, 333 U. S. 257 (1948); and In re Murchison, 3
U. S. 133 (1955).

199

of the Carr-Sigler grand jury, and, in addition, played
the dominant role in affecting public opinion concerning
the legislative graft investigation and the one-man grand
jury itself. And instrumental in press coverage of the
last major one-man grand jury were the reporters who
covered the Carr—Sigler investigation during its five-
year run. Their opinions today represent the controversy

engendered by the law in the courts, the Legislature, and

in the press itself. In former Detroit News reporter

 

Nieber's opinion

The one-man grand jury had too goddamn much
power. It had with it almost autocratic control
by the grand juror over a witness. If a fellow
refused to answer a question, he could get a con-
tempt conviction without advice of an attorney
and go right to jail. This was one of the bad, bad
features of the thing. Another control was to grant
immunity to encourage a witness to testify. If he
still refused--boom--they had him again.

It [the law] was very effective but very damn
unfair. . . . I

The law was revised partially because of the
Carr-Sigler investigation, but particularly as a
result of the Ferguson-O'Hara grand jury in 1942,
when there were appeals after appeals to kill the
grand jury law. By the time the Carr-Sigler grand
jury got started, the idea of revision was well
underway. . . .

The revision into a three-man grand jury was a
revolt of the one-man grand jury plan. Proponents
felt there were not as many problems with the
three-man system. . . .

Basically, I liked the one-man grand jury and
saw how successful it could be with certain limita-
tions. The adding of more people--like the tradi-
tional twenty-three man grand jury--only made for
more trouble.

 

4Allan J. Nieber, Interview, Dec. 15, 1970.

200

Albert Kaufman, former Detroit Times reporter, supplemented

 

Frank Morris in later coverage of Carr-Sigler operations.

The one-man grand jury was a very potent weapon
to uncover crime and wrong doing. Less than crime
catching was its danger, however, which ultimately
became a disease with one-man grand jury combina-
tions. It was an abusive power. It had consider-
able resources in terms of money, manpower, public
acceptance and, in the main, editorial support.

An individual had to face the grand jury almost
bereft of his constitutional rights--if he knew
them.

On the other hand, I know of no other way you
can more speedily get to crime and corruption than
through the one-man grand jury technique. There is
a dichotomy there. I guess the basic question is:
How important is the right of an individual as an
individual with respect to the overall objective? . . .

As far as abuse of individuals, I personally
knew of none, although I heard of many-through
hearsay. Abuses in the Carr-Sigler grand jury were
minimal in comparison to other major grand juries--
notably the Detroit O'Hara case, where detainees
were allegedly held outside the window to answer
questions. . . .

There is no question that the Carr-Sigler grand
jury was responsible for the law's change. Sigler's
treatment of lobbyists and legislators, who were
called as witnesses but not indicted, as well as
those indicted--who related to friends in the legis-
lature their claim of abuses--led to the law's
revision. The clause on the limit of holding public
office was specifically related to Kim Sigler. No
longer could the grand jury be used as a political
stepping stone. . . .

Whether the one-man grand jury was revised or
repealed is getting into semantics. The idea of the
grand jury was supposed to be good, but the one-man
system was too dangerous, while a three-man structure
would be less dangerous. The Legislature found the
one-man grand jury system, as exercised by O'Hara,
Ferguson, Sigler and Carr, to be repugnant, and so
they decided to do away with that system without
throwing the baby away with the dirty water.

 

5Albert Kaufman, Interview, Dec. 15, 1970.

201

Former Detroit Free Press reporter Kenneth McCormick, who
was instrumental in initiating the Carr-Sigler grand jury,
said:

My honest opinion is that the one-man grand jury
was the only Significant way of coping with graft.
I know of no person convicted who wasn't guilty.
The Legislature, however, wanted to stop it. . . .
One thing that bill did was restore honest government.
Although I've been out of the newspaper business for
eight years, I'll hazard a guess that Michigan is the
cleanest state in the country in terms of corruption.

Jack R. Green was the Associated Press capitol correspondent
who covered most of the legislative graft grand jury for the

wire service.

I have sincere doubts about the way the grand
jury was handled. . . . There was no question that
there was abuse in the grand jury. . . . There was
also no question that many people were putting up
a smoke screen. Thirdly, there was real concern
from some people because of the grand jury serving
as a political launching pad for Ferguson [who
became a United States Senator] and Sigler. . . .

The reason for the death of the one-man grand
jury was sort of a reaction by people to the poli-
tical wangling associated with the system, plus the
Senate investigation and the disclosure that some
money was misused. There was also a determination
by legislators, political organizations and lobby-
ists, too, that they didn't want such a strong grand
jury to interfere with their monkey business. . . .

The three-man grand jury law was definitely a
repeal of the original one-man system. I think they
just deliberately concocted a straitjacket for it
and crippled it so it wouldn't work. I can't remem-
ber one effective case under the new law. . . .

I personally wanted the one-man grand jury
retained. It had proved itself very effective in
spite of the charges. You see, if you covered the
Legislature in those years, you were pretty damn

 

6Kenneth McCormick, Interview, Dec. 2, 1970.

202

Sick of seeing what went on. I was glad to see some
of them get "hanged." The Carr-Sigler grand jury
slowed down graft for a long time, and some of the
influence is still hanging around.

Of more importance than the opinions of individuals
reporting the grand jury investigation was the total editorial
output provided the public. Research has shown that all four
major newspapers cited in this study had clearly taken
Sides by 1949 on the merits of the one-man grand jury. As

supporters of the system, the Detroit Free Press and the

Detroit News had gone beyond the editorial page in attempt-

 

ing to influence their readers. From its earliest begin-
nings, the Carr-Sigler grand jury had been closely linked

with the Free Press through the initiatory work<mf its

 

reporter Kenneth McCormick. In the case of the Detroit News,

 

editorial policy was responsible for the strong support of
the one-man grand jury, as opposed to any specific rela-
tionship through Nsss reporter Allan N. Nieber, who himself
held a poor attitude of the system after having reported the
Ferguson-O'Hara grand jury in Detroit--an opinion he kept
during coverage of the Carr-Sigler investigation.
Editorially, the Detroit Times "was opposed to the
one-man grand jury concept and fought bitterly and vehemently
for its repeal. We felt it was not the way to root out
crime, and it carried too many abuses." One of the abuses

often mentioned and directly affecting the Times was the

 

7Jack R. Green, Interview, Nov. 29, 1970.

8Allan J. Nieber, Interview, Dec. 15, 1970.

203

summary conviction for contempt of its grand jury reporter
Frank Morris. Although grand jury stories appearing in

the Detroit Times were not editorially slanted, Frank

 

Morris was a reporter who wrote what he thought, and there
were several instances in his coverage when he personally
reported his own opinion of the investigation.9

The Lansing State Journal completed the four-way

 

assessment of press Coverage of the Carr-Sigler grand jury
and was initially selected to provide an out-state balance
to the larger and traditionally more prestigious Detroit
dailies. Although out of the mainstream of controversy
surrounding the legislative grand jury, the Journal nonethe-
less took a firm editorial stance against the One-Man Grand
Jury Law shortly before its legislative demise. Relying
almost exclusively on wire service copy for coverage of the
Carr-Sigler investigation, there was definitely no attempt
to reach its readers editorially on page one.

Following the law's major revision in 1949, "the
first shots in the restoration campaign were fired by the
press"--again the Detroit News and Free Press--with their

campaign continued "until victory was won"10 two years

 

 

later.
Introduced on the second day that the 1951 session

opened by Representatives Louis C. Cramton and Howard R.

 

9Albert Kaufman, Interview, Dec. 15, 1970.

loScigliano, p. 72.

204

Estes, Oakland County, the bill to restore the one-man
grand jury had become heavily loaded with restrictive
amendments by the time it reached Governor Williams' desk
for signature. Although the single-judge feature and com-
pulsory immunity were restored to the basic law, the
amendments stipulated that the order instituting an inquiry
had to be Specific as to the scope of the investigation,
and no inquiry could extend beyond a year's duration. All
testimony had to be taken in the presence of the grand
juror, with mandatory time limits placed to encourage the
taking of testimony soon after a subpoena was issued. The
judge-juror and others serving with the grand jury were
made liable to imprisonment and/or a fine for disclosing
grand jury information. And the judge-juror was disquali-
fied from hearing motions to dismiss or quash indictments,
from hearing contempt charges instituted by him, and from
acting as examining magistrate or trial judge in his own
cases.

In addition, the judge-juror and others attached
to the grand jury were disqualified from holding any poli-
tical office other than that currently held for one year
from the termination of the inquiry. Grand jury witnesses
were to receive only the regular witness fees paid in
other criminal proceedings, and a witness granted immunity
was to receive a copy of the immunity motion and order
before having to testify and a copy of the portion of the

transcript containing testimony given under the immunity

205

grant. A public accounting of all grand jury expenses was
required within ninety days of the conclusion of an inquiry,
while grand jury records were to be filed with the Michigan
Supreme Court clerk, with relevant portions made available
to witnesses involved in contempt proceedings. Communica-
tions concerning news reports and their informants were
made privileged.ll

Although the campaign waged for restoration had
been considerable, sentiment against the one-man grand jury
still remained strong and, in the words of Representative
Cramton, the new grand jury law was about the best that
could be put through the legislature.12

The vigorous pursuit, however, toward return of the
One-Man Grand Jury Law by two of the state's most influ-
ential newspapers provided one more example of their sup-
port of a method of judicial inquiry, which though efficient
and successful in its research for crime and corruption,
sacrificed some of the principles basic to the concept of
justice in this country.

More important to this study is the conclusion drawn

from research that the Detroit Free Press and the Detroit

 

News did not uphold their responsibility as members of a

 

free press in a free society. With their reporters on

 

11Background on the restored One-Man Grand Jury Law
is taken from Scigliano, pp. 74-76, and Michigan Public
Acts (1951), Public Act No. 276.

12Scigliano, p. 77.

206

friendly terms with the central figures of the Carr-Sigler
grand jury, and with editorial pages often largely devoted
to defending the one-man grand jury from its protractors,
both Detroit newspapers failed their readers in backing a
technique throughout with publicized weaknesses instead

of the accused. The discovery that they did not uphold the
citizen whose rights were being threatened was as discom-
forting as the realization those newspapers resorted to
using page one to carry their editorial position to the

public in the guise of news.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Scigliano, Robert G. The Michigan One-Man Grand Jury.
Political Research Studies. East Lansing:
Governmental Research Bureau, Michigan State
University, 1957.

Siebert, Fred 8.; Peterson, Theodore; and Wilbur Schram.
Four Theories of the Press. Urbana: University
of Illinois Press, 1963.

 

Government Documents

 

is re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955).
£2.£2 Oliver, 333 U.S. 257 (1948).
ls_£s Slattery, 310 Mich. 476 (1945).

Michigan. Legislature. Journal of the Senate. (Published
eash session.)

Michigan. Legislature. Senate. "Report of the Special
Committee Appointed to Investigate Ingham County
Grand Jury Expenditures." (Typewritten.)
(Located in "People v. Hancock." In the Circuit
Court for Ingham County, n.d., Docket No. 7813.)

Michigan. Public Acts. (Published for each session of the
legislature.)

 

Michigan. Public Acts (1917), Public Act. No. 196.

 

Michigan. Public Acts (1947), Public Act No. 33.

 

Michigan. Public Acts (1949), Public Act No. 311.

 

Michigan. Public Acts (1951), Public Act No. 276.

207

208

"People v. Hancock, Affidavit of Charles F. Hemans," in
the Circuit Court for Ingham County, n.d., Docket
No. 7813. (Typewritten.)

"People v. Hancock, Affidavit of Kim Sigler Answer to
Motion to Leave to File Motion for New Trial,"
in the Circuit Court for Ingham County, n.d.,
Docket No. 7813. (Typewritten.)

"People v. Hancock, Affidavit of Monroe M. Wendell," in
the Circuit Court for Ingham County, n.d., Docket
No. 7813. (Typewritten.)

"People v. Hancock, Opinion of the Court," in the Circuit

Court for Ingham County, Sept. 25, 1950, Docket
No. 7813. (Typewritten.)

Newspapers

 

Detroit {see Press. Daily issues from August, 1943, to
June 1949; also selected issues in 1951.

 

Detroit News. Daily issues from August, 1943, to June,
1949; also selected issues in 1951.

 

Detroit Times. Daily issues from August, 1943, to June,
1949; also selected issues in 1951.

 

Lansing State Journal. Daily issues from August, 1943,
to June, 1949; also selected issues in 1951.

 

Reports

"Special Committee to Study and Report upon the One-Man
Grand Jury Law," Michigan State Bar Journal, XXVI
(September, 1949), 55-67; XXVII (September, 1948),
60-68; XVIII (September, 1949), 63-78.

State Bar of Michigan. Proceedings, Tenth_Annual Meeting,
Detroit, Michigan, October 31, 1945.

Sources Consulted

 

Green, Jack R. Former Associated Press Correspondent who
covered the Carr-Sigler grand jury.

Kaufman, Albert. Former Detroit Times reporter who covered
the Carr-Sigler grand jury.

 

209
McCormick, Kenneth. Former Detroit Free Press reporter
who covered the Carr-Sigler grand jury.

McKesson, Knight. Former Lansing State Journal reporter
during the course of the Carr-Sigler grand jury.

Nieber, Allan J. Former Detroit News reporter who covered
the Carr-Sigler grand jury.

 

HICHIGQN STQTE U

l rmm]1111mm

! 2750878

312 3