Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Now, your committee not only didn't keep records, but it actually undertook to conceal transactions, didn't it, with respect to campaign contributions? Maurice Stans. I am not sure what you are referring to, Mr. Chairman. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, I am referring to the Mexican checks. Maurice Stans. Absolutely not, Mr. Chairman. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well you said you got a phone call from the State Chairman in Texas. Maurice Stans. On April 3. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Yes. Maurice Stans. Asking me if it, was all right for him to accept a contribution from an American citizen who had money in Mexico and wanted to give it in Mexican funds. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Now did he give you the name of the party? Maurice Stans. No, he did not. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Did it not occur to you that well, I will withdraw that question. How long was it after that the 3rd of April, until you received this $89,000 in four Mexican cashier checks? Maurice Stans. Well, I did not receive it and I never saw the checks. It was received by Mr. Sloan on April 5 of last year. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Didn t you receive it? Maurice Stans. No, I did not. I did not receive those checks. They did not go through my hands. And I did not see them until I was asked to look at them in a deposition I gave in Florida at the time of the convention.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, anyway, you told the State Republican Chairman of Texas that it would be all right for your committee to receive the checks? Maurice Stans. Under the circumstances describes, yes Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Now, there were four checks which were cashier's checks drawn to a payee who was an obscure Mexican lawyer, wasn t he? Maurice Stans. I certainly did not know his name did not hear his name until months later. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And whether or not he endorsed them, it was a rather illegible endorsement. Maurice Stans. I had no idea. I never saw them at the time. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Did you not see them later? Maurice Stans. Yes, I saw them in August. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). What about their appearance in August when you saw them? Maurice Stans. I do not recall the endorsement to tell you the truth. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Don t you know, Mr. Stans, that that one way to conceal financial transactions is to get cashier's checks so that the name of the donor will not appear on them? Maurice Stans. Well, I suppose anyone could do that, yes. I do not know very many cases in which that happened. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, I think that we will find out some more perhaps.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, anyway, you had nothing to do with sending these down to the bank account of Mr. Barker? Maurice Stans. Absolutely not. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). You did make an investigation later, didn t you? Maurice Stans. I did not make an investigation I got the results of other investigations. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, was the committee accustomed to doing what they call laundering checks? Maurice Stans. Mr. Chairman, I am glad you asked that question. I have been waiting for it since yesterday. Our committee did not launder any checks with anybody. Our committee did not send any money to any foreign country to be laundered and brought back to the United States, positively period. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). You did not send any anywhere? Maurice Stans. No, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). You deposited all checks right in the bank here in Washington? Maurice Stans. We deposited all checks in the bank accounts of one or other of our committees in Washington or in the States.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, the committee, Mr. Sloan as treasurer of the committee was authorized by you to receive these four Mexican checks wasn t he? Maurice Stans. It was not a question of authorization. He did it in the ordinary course of his duties. I did not know the checks were coming. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). You had a phone call in which the State chairman of Texas wanted to know if he could receive a contribution from an American who had money in Mexico, didn t you? Maurice Stans. Yes, sir, but there was no discussion about as to whether Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well anyway, the checks did arrive, you found out later? Maurice Stans. I found out approximately 2 weeks after, 3 weeks after they arrived that they had come. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). There was a bank in the building in which your committee had offices, wasn t there? Maurice Stans. Yes, Sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Did it not strike you as very queer that the checks would not be deposited there but would be sent down to the bank account of Mr. Bernard L. Barker? Maurice Stans. Mr. Chairman, I did not handle those checks. It was Mr. Sloan who received them as treasurer. He discussed them with counsel because he was not sure how they should be handled Counsel recommended that they be returned to cash. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). That was, Mr. Liddy, the counsel? Maurice Stans. That is correct.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Was Bernard L. Barker employed by the finance committee of the Committee To Re-Elect the President? Maurice Stans. Not to my knowledge. I do not know Mr. Barker, I never met him. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, these checks wound up in his bank account, didn t they? Maurice Stans. I have no idea how they wound up in his bank account, Mr. Chairman. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). But you do know from your investigation that is where they wound up? Maurice Stans. That is where they wound up.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And you also know from your investigation that they stayed there until April 24 and you know he deposited not only these $89,000 in the four Mexican Checks but at the same time he deposited the Dahlberg check of $25,000 which had been received by you personally? Maurice Stans. Which had been received by me personally, which had been held by me for a very brief time and turned over to our treasurer who on his own discussed it with counsel and accepted counsel's recommendation that they be turned into cash. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And his counsel was Mr. Liddy again? Maurice Stans. His counsel was Mr. Liddy. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And the $89,000 in Mexican checks and the $25,000 Dahlberg check which you received all wound up at the same time in the same bank account on the same day, didn t it? Maurice Stans. I am not sure about the same day but they all cleared through the bank account of Bernard Barker. Now, Mr. Sloan has testified, and I believe Mr. Sloan, that he got the proceeds of those checks back, that Mr. Liddy Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, do you not call that laundering checks? Maurice Stans. No, I do not call that laundering checks. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). What do you call it? Maurice Stans. I call it stupidity on the part of our general counsel.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, the truth of it is they wanted to hide it, didn t they? Maurice Stans. I do not know what his judgment was. I think the only man who can tell that is Mr. Gordon Liddy and I wish he would talk because I think he would clear up a great many things. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). What about Mr. Sloan? Maurice Stans. Well, Mr. Sloan been before this committee and has testified he took the advice of counsel. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Mr. Stans, regardless of whether anybody wanted to hide anything, can you imagine a more efficacious method to be devised to hide something than that? Maurice Stans. Mr. Sloan has given a reason for converting the checks into cash, that he couldn t deposit $25,000 or other amount of that size in the account of a single committee without creating gift tax problems for the contributor. Normally, contributions are divided over a group of committees not to exceed $3,000 each. In this case apparently, and I wasn t there, apparently Mr. Liddy recommended that the checks be converted into cash so that the amounts could be distributed over a number of committees. I am just quoting Mr. Sloan on that.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Mr. Stans, you received the $25,000 Dahlberg check yourself? Maurice Stans. I received it on April 11 and gave it to Mr. Sloan. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And you gave it to Mr. Sloan? Maurice Stans. And I explained the circumstances. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Did you give it to Mr. Sloan so it could be divided up so that they could circumvent the gift tax law? Maurice Stans. I have testified several times I gave it to Mr. Sloan and told him of how it had been received and the intention of the contributor and asked him to figure out how to handle it. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, you were engaged in the business of dividing up single contributions to your committee in such a way as to defeat the application of the gift tax law, weren t you? Maurice Stans. Senator, I think that is an improper phrasing. We were not engaged in Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). What were you dividing them up for? Maurice Stans. We did not normally divide up checks that is the problem Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, you just stated that Mr. Sloan could not deposit the $25,000 check received by you because if he did that it would be subject to the gift tax law? Maurice Stans. What I am saying and what I was saying in answer to your earlier question is that in almost all cases the contributor divided up his contribution by making it to different committees. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, the contributor did not divide up the $25,000 Dahlberg check, did he? Maurice Stans. No, but it is evident that he wanted it divided up because he wrote a letter later on criticizing us for not having divided it up.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). But you said Mr. Liddy was instrumental in getting it down to Mr. Barker's bank account, and it was not split up into $3,000 deposits there. It was deposited $114,000 on one day, wasn t it? Maurice Stans. The fact that Mr. Liddy sent it down to Mr. Barker's bank account is still only a presumption because I don t know the facts. They ended up going through Mr. Barker's bank account but they could conceivably have gone through several other hands during that time. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Mr. Stans, when your deposition was taken and these checks were exhibited to you they bore the evidence they had been deposited in the Miami bank, didn t they? Maurice Stans. Yes, they bore Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). So you do not say it is still an assumption or presumption, do you, that they were deposited there? Maurice Stans. No, I did not say that was a presumption I said the presumption I was not sure about was whether they went directly from Liddy to Barker. There may have been other people in the chain of movement.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Now, on April 24 Barker withdrew, you learned later, as you stated front reading charges in the paper, that he withdrew $25,000 of this money and at least $10,000 of it were in $100 bills. You learned that, didn t you? Maurice Stans. I read that it the paper, yes. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). You know that under the law that the bank is required to keep a record of the serial numbers of bills when they pay more than $5,000 in cash at one time, don t you? Maurice Stans. I am not conversant with the provisions of that law. I am not sure whether those provisions ever went into effect because there were some provisions of that bill passed by the Congress that were stayed by a court case in California and I am not sure whether that bill ever went into effect.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, you read in the papers subsequently and knew that on the 8th day of May 1972, that Barker withdrew $89,000 from the proceeds of these checks from his Miami bank account, didn t you? Maurice Stans. I read that, yes, sir. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And then you read at the Watergate hearing that 53 $100 bills that had come out of this withdrawal were found in the pockets of the four of the burglars that were caught red-handed in the Watergate, didn t you? Maurice Stans. I read something to that effect. I m not sure that chain of connection was ever established or not, but I did read that in the paper.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). On this $1,027,000 in cash that was not deposited, where was that kept? Maurice Stans. It was kept under the jurisdiction of the treasurer, Mr. Sloan. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, was not part of it kept in the safe of your secretary? Maurice Stans. Well, Mr. Chairman, I discussed that this morning and let me break it down into two parts. Before April 7 when any money came in I gave it to Mr. Sloan at the first opportunity. And I only used my safe in the event that Mr. Sloan was not available to protect the money until I could give it to him. As I said there was only one occasion in which there was more than one contribution in that safe. Now, after April 7 a different situation prevailed. We cleared out all the money in my safe before April 7 when I gave him the last of the contributions I had accepted. And so far as I knew there was no more money in that safe. However, I went on vacation on the 12th of April returned on the 24th and during that time Mr. Sloan decided that he did not want to keep the money in his safe any longer. He had it all at that time. So since he has the combination of the safe in my secretary's office he moved the money into that safe. I did not know he had done that until sometime in August when I testified to one thing and he testified to another. And we talked it over and I found out he was using my safe, the one in my secretary's office for a period of time.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). How much money in cash did you and Mr. Sloan have in the offices of the Committee To Re-Elect the President it any one time? Maurice Stans. I don t know. Mr. Sloan handled the cash and I do not know how much was in it at any one time except the days on which I asked him for the figure or on the days in which Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, tell us about the days on which you asked him for the figures. Maurice Stans. Well, occasionally after I was aware that some contributions had come in I asked him how much he had and suggested he make some deposits. That s how he made $400,000 in deposits prior to April 7. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Yes, but there was over a million dollars he didn t deposit. That is what I am talking about. Maurice Stans. Well he did not have it because he had paid it out. Some of these items, Mr. Chairman Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). He had it before he paid it out. Maurice Stans. Mr. Chairman, let s be fair. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). I am trying to be fair. Maurice Stans. Some of these items were paid out by Mr. Sloan before I even got to the committee. Many of them were paid out without my knowledge.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, this $350,000 that was put in a briefcase and carried by Mr. Sloan over to Mr. Haldeman that was there in cash, wasn t it? Maurice Stans. That was there in cash. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And all at one time? Maurice Stans. Of course. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Yes. Maurice Stans. But I do not know what the total balance was at any one time, Mr. Chairman. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Well, you do know that prior to the 7th of April, that there was as much total from the time they started putting it in cash in the offices instead of putting it in the bank that there was a total of $1,777,000, approximately in cash in that office? Maurice Stans. Over a period of 12 months? Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Yes. Maurice Stans. Yes, sir.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And the office was in a bank building, wasn t it? Maurice Stans. Yes, it was. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And all you would have had to have done to make it safe would have been for somebody to go on the elevator, go down to the bank and deposited it in the bank, wouldn t they? Maurice Stans. That would be a very simple way to do it. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Why did they not do it? Maurice Stans. I was not the treasurer. Mr. Sloan was the treasurer. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). When did you become treasurer? Maurice Stans. I never become treasurer. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). You were the chairman? Maurice Stans. February 15. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And the chairman, as I understand the setup, is superior to the treasurer and the treasurer takes orders from him. Maurice Stans. Well, that needs clarification too. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Clarify it, please, sir. Maurice Stans. The statute, in effect, fixes the responsibilities of the treasurer very thoroughly as to all the matters of handling money, accounting disbursing, and reporting. The statute does not fix the responsibilities of the Chairman. Now, Mr. Sloan had his responsibilities and I had mine and we worked together very well. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). You are talking about the statute but you know you have an organization set up there that is independent of the statute. Maurice Stans. Yes, but we Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And you didn t have any statute requiring anything then you say? Maurice Stans. But we had a method of operation. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). That is what I am talking about, under the method of operation you were Mr. Sloan's superior, weren't you? Maurice Stans. I was the coordinator for the committee and in that sense I was superior to Mr. Sloan but he had his functions and responsibilities. He consulted with me when he had a problem but he did his work otherwise. Just as everyone else did. Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). And you gave him instructions from time to time as to what he should do, didn t you. Maurice Stans. Of course, I did.
Watergate Hearings: Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 13, 1973 Testimony of Maurice Stans
Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). Here is a letter that Senator Talmadge called your attention to this morning, June, 1, 1972, from you to Hugh Sloan and it gives him the instruction that checks must be deposited immediately and appropriate lists prepared so that the thank you letters will go out at once. Doesn't that sound like an order? Maurice Stans. I think it sounds like a strong suggestion Sam Ervin (D - North Carolina). You call it a strong suggestion. Well, I read in the infantry drill regulations on time which said the request of a superior was equivalent to a command and I would construe that to be a command myself.