|
Post by sue75 on Jan 24, 2007 5:56:53 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by sue75 on Aug 22, 2008 15:53:21 GMT -5
Skip to contentSubscribe to The New YorkerSUBSCRIBE FOR JUST 85¢ AN ISSUE Give a gift Renew your Subscription Subscription Questions Reporting & Essays Arts & Culture Humor Fiction & Poetry The Talk of The Town Online Only SubscribeAbout Us Archive Store The New Yorker Welcome to The New Yorker Log in | Register AbstractA Reporter at Large THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LINDBERGH CASE. by Meyer Berger March 19, 1938 Text Size: Small Text
Meyer Berger, A Reporter at Large, "THE TRUTH ABOUT THE LINDBERGH CASE.," The New Yorker, March 19, 1938, p. 34
Keywords Hauptmann, Bruno Richard; Means, Gaston B.; Rice, Thomas F.; Bleakley, T. M.; Committee of 500; Whitaker, Norman; Yorkville REPORTER AT LARGE about a meeting held by the Committee of 500, in Yorkville. The principal speaker, Thomas F. Rice, told the truth about the Lindbergh case. The kidnapper was an associate of Gaston B. Means. This associate told Mr. Rice six days before the kidnapping that "they were going to pull a snatch job in the Sourland Mountains." Mr. Rice begged Governor Roosevelt and Hoover to do something about it. Mr. Rice says all his efforts to clear the name of Hauptmann have been blocked by the government officials.
The New Yorker’s archives are not yet fully available online. The full text of all articles published before May, 2006, can be found in “The Complete New Yorker,” which is available for purchase on DVD and hard drive. Many New Yorker stories published since December, 2000, are available through Nexis. Individual back issues may be purchased from our customer-service department at 1-800-825-2510.
|
|
|
Post by rick3 on Aug 25, 2008 3:02:45 GMT -5
Sue/ the Thomas F. Rice accusations were shoved aside in the 30s and buried. Only American Astrology covered the events in any detail.
If the Roosevelts did not call and warn Lindbergh's then it would be considered criminal negligence.
If the Roosevelts did call Lindbergh's and warn them then we can be certain that the Family took some action to foil the plot, just like in the Constance affair.
"Thomas F. Rice was a highly successful lawyer in Brooklyn, NY, and a former agent of the Secret Service. He had also served as an officer in the Coast Guard. In the Empire Hotel in New York City, some time* before the kidnapping, he overheard several men discussing the possibilty of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby. Gaston B. Means was among the group. Rice wrote a letter to his friend, James Roosevelt, son of FDR, to ask him to try and prevent the kidnapping. James Roosevelt replied and said he would seek the help of his father, who was then Governor of New York. Was it possible that these men whom Rice overheard were to be part of the gang who kidnapped the Lindbergh baby? Rice approached Reilly and offered to testify to these facts during the Hauptmann trial. Reilly never called him back." Vincent Godfrey Burns pg. 40-41. (*Thomas F. Rice wrote an affidavit and a letter to CAL stating that he heard about the kidnapping on Feb 25 1932 in the Imperial Hotel in NYC. He further stated that he was accompainied there by his Prohibition Supervisor Palmer Canfield and a Mr. Gaston B. Means. He told James Roosevelt, the Governor's son, to contact either FDR or Lindbergh himself and inform him of the plot. )
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Jan 12, 2015 22:03:14 GMT -5
I am going to post here - although the discussion of Thomas F. Rice seems to go across several threads. Could someone please tell me what is the book that Sue referred to? I can't use the link. I would be very interested in seeing this book. Where did others see it?
I have seen the New Yorker article which I take it sets out generally the accusations. From my own files, Rice was indeed a prohibition agent under Palmer Canfield. Rice was an honest agent who resigned twice in disgust over corruption. Canfield on the other hand resigned amidst his own corruption allegations. That said I find it unlikely that Canfield would be involved in the kidnapping as there is nothing about his history to suggest crimes of violence.
Contrary to what is stated elsewhere, Gaston Means was not a prohibition agent. He was an employee of the Department of Justice in the Bureau of Investigation who had been sent to New York City in 1922 to investigate prohibition violations (and ended up defrauding bootleggers). Canfield was never Means' direct supervisor, but the two would have known each other from when Canfield was legal counsel to the Prohibition Unit in NYC in the early 1920s. Canfield would certainly have been aware of Means' unsavoury reputation in 1932.
|
|
Janice Canfield Nofziger
Guest
|
Post by Janice Canfield Nofziger on Oct 16, 2017 22:14:43 GMT -5
I am one of Palmer Canfield's 5 granddaughters. I would be very interested in what you know about him.. My sisters and I have only recently come across information about his corruption accusations, and now this Lindbergh kidnapping connection. I am intrigued. Thank You. Jan
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2017 17:27:07 GMT -5
I am going to post here - although the discussion of Thomas F. Rice seems to go across several threads. Could someone please tell me what is the book that Sue referred to? I can't use the link. I would be very interested in seeing this book. Where did others see it? Feathers, My apologies! I never saw your post above until I saw the new post from Ms. Nofziger. I have it but I think his Affidavit is a better document. I am one of Palmer Canfield's 5 granddaughters. I would be very interested in what you know about him.. My sisters and I have only recently come across information about his corruption accusations, and now this Lindbergh kidnapping connection. I am intrigued. Thank You. Jan Janice, I am going to do my best to post Rice's 2/13/35 Affidavit below. I personally do not have specific knowledge concerning your grandfather and only know what's mentioned about him in the Kidnapping files. As it relates to Rice, Gov. Hoffman believed wasn't reliable, so whatever I post below isn't an endorsement that they are absolute facts. In my opinion Feathers (above) is a more reliable source concerning him and he'd be the guy I'd go to for information on him.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 17, 2017 17:42:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 17, 2017 19:20:10 GMT -5
That's great, Michael, thanks!
Jan, I have some information for you that I am assembling. In the meantime, here is a picture of Palmer Canfield with Thomas F. Rice from 1929. Your grandfather is on the left (as you probably recognize!):
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 19, 2017 23:13:25 GMT -5
Hi Jan, As you can see from the affidavit Michael posted, Palmer Canfield’s name was brought into the Lindbergh Kidnapping by Thomas F Rice (not to be confused with Thomas S Rice), a former agent for the Prohibition Bureau of the Department of Justice. When I posted my comment in 2015, I had mistakenly believed Rice had implicated Canfield as a suspect – instead, he was a witness to the case against Gaston Bullock Means.
But getting back to Palmer Canfield, as you probably know, Palmer was a lawyer and fairly popular politician. He served as the mayor of Kingston, NY, for four terms between 1914-1922. Canfield was an active and well-connected Republican, being close friends with Vice President Curtis. He was also a staunch proponent of Prohibition, initially at least.
I need to explain that the Prohibition Unit was initially part of the Department of the Treasury. In the early 1920s, the country was divided into various districts (mostly corresponding to states) and each district had a State Director (responsible for regulation and permits) and a Supervising Enforcement Agent (for enforcement).
On March 5, 1922, Palmer Canfield joined the Prohibition Unit and was appointed a special assistant Federal District Attorney in charge of the prohibition division and was later legal advisor to the Prohibition Director for the New York District, Ralph A. Day. Day later resigned under a corruption scandal.
Canfield was appointed Federal Prohibition Director for the State of New York on March 26, 1923 and served until September 1925. During this time, he seems to had a relatively good reputation, at least avoiding the scandals that engulfed his predecessors (there were four before him between 1920-1923) and lasting longer than any of them. He also came into contact with Gaston B Means, who was at that time an agent with the Department of Justice. Means was sent to New York to assist in prohibition enforcement, but instead used the opportunity to extort money from bootleggers.
In April 1925, the Prohibition Unit was reorganized nation-wide and in September, Canfield was replaced by John Foster. Canfield was demoted to the position of “special disbursing agent”. However, Canfield had connections with Commissioner Haynes and in October 1925, Canfield was appointed an assistant to General Lincoln Andrews, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for prohibition (who later resigned in a corruption scandal, according to Elmer Irey).
By September 1926, Canfield was no longer working with the Department, although he did speaking engagements in favour of prohibition. In May 1927, Canfield took the civil service exams for the position of Prohibition Administrator of New York. After Andrews resigned and was replaced by Seymour Lowman, Lowman advised Canfield that there was no position for him in the prohibition service for the near future.
Instead, Major Maurice Campbell was appointed Prohibition Administrator of New York on July 1, 1927. Campbell resigned on June 30, 1930, and made various accusations about an assortment of high level officials in prohibition enforcement, including Canfield. I am attaching a newspaper article from 19 September 1930 from the Charleston News & Courier with Campbell's comments on Canfield. Please keep in mind there was a lot of political backbiting going on, so take it for what it is worth:
Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 19, 2017 23:39:11 GMT -5
In January 1929, Canfield was made Prohibition Administrator for Northern New York, in Albany. During that time, one of his agents was Thomas F. Rice, a lawyer from Albany. Canfield did not last long in this position. He was making claims that his district was dry and enforcement strict, but his assistant adminstrator, Lowell R Smith, was passing word to Washington that this was not true. Purportedly Canfield had even written a memo to his subordinates instructing them not to investigate major violations of the prohibition law. Irey sent one of his agents, George Golding, to the area, who had no difficulty locating and raiding two breweries.
Needless to say, Washington was unhappy with the state of bootlegging in Canfield’s district, including local politicians who boasted the fix was in, and on July 1, 1929, Canfield was transferred. Canfield claimed that as administrator, he had “undermining friendly agents under him, in front of him, and behind him, and on either side of him”.
But Smith didn’t get Canfield’s job as he wanted – instead the position went to a man named Moss.
Canfield was in fact promoted – he became legal field supervisor for the northeastern states under the Prohibition Bureau under Commissioner Doran, a position that was created for him and had a higher salary.
In February 1930, he was instructed to undertake a broad investigation of prohibition enforcement in the area for the Wickersham Commission on Law Enforcement. He was not actually employed by the Wickersham Commission but did submit a report to them in March 1931.
On April 16, 1930, during a trial regarding the Columbia County Cereal Beverage Company of Hudson, NY, the company president, Joseph F. Walsh, testified that on December 15, 1928, representatives of the company met with Canfield in a conference room in the Hotel Roosevelt. Walsh alleged that either $10,000 or $20,000 was sitting on a table and “disappeared” during the course of the meeting after Canfield was left alone with it. The allegation was that it was a payoff (in anticipation of Canfield’s appointment) for giving a permit to make near beer which had previously been denied. Canfield denied the allegations (indeed he denied being at the meeting), but he was suspended and an investigation launched. On June 17, 1930, the Federal Court sent a notice to the Treasury Department that after exhaustive investigation, the grand jury had decided not to indict Canfield.
But Canfield did not go back to work. On July 1, 1930, there would be another reorganization - this time the Prohibition Division was transferred from Treasury to the Department of Justice. Pending that transfer, Canfield’s suspension remained in place. However, even after the transfer took place, Canfield was not rehired.
Instead, he went back to legal work, providing legal advice to the National Civic League and like many former prohibition officials, he began representing liquor interests in court.
On September 25, 1931, Canfield was indicted for grand larceny and forgery, pertaining to allegedly forged railroad bonds he gave as security to a broker. The manager of the brokerage branch was the same Ralph Day he worked for back in 1922. Canfield claimed that he had been given the bonds in payment for legal services representing the Strictly Kosher Wine Company. In Canfield’s story, he was given the bonds at a bank at 165 Broadway (coincidentally the same building where Lawrence Condon, Jafsie’s son, would later have his lawyer’s office). He claimed he was given the bonds by a man named Tom Brown, later identified as Samuel Bernstein, and Louis Schattner.
On February 22, 1932, at court in NYC, the charges were set aside by a judge for fairly technical reasons. The assistant DA said they would resubmit the charges soon. On February 24, 1932, there is a record of Canfield sending a telegram from NYC once again denying the charges.
The matter was again brought to the grand jury. Once again, on June 23, 1932, the grand jury refused to indict Canfield.
Canfield then returned to private practice and his political pursuits.
Palmer Canfield had died on April 2, 1934, being found in his bathroom by his wife. There seems to have been some confusion or mystery about his death – the doctor on the scene refused to issue a death certificate, being unable to state the cause of death, so his funeral had to be postponed.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 20, 2017 14:10:26 GMT -5
Michael, I've read through the images of the pages of the Thomas F. Rice affidavit that you posted. Obviously, you have not posted page 8 and the the pages past page 11 as of yet. Look forward to those pages when you can post them.
I would like to go back to a possibly critical point related to Roosevelt's failure to give a heads-up to CAL Sr. I've made several posts in the past on these boards about the animosity between them. There is a short book on this subject, Lindbergh vs. Roosevelt, by James P. Duffy, published by Regnery in 2010. But Duffy does not mention any problems between them until 1934, when there was a big hullabaloo over Lindbergh's outspoken opposition to Roosevelt's legislation to give the US military sole responsibility to fly air mail routes. In the context of the Rice affidavit, though, we don't know if Roosevelt already had hard personal feelings toward Lindbergh back as far as early 1932, feelings which may have motivated him not to warn CAL Sr. after he received the news of a possible kidnap plot.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2017 8:18:39 GMT -5
Michael, I've read through the images of the pages of the Thomas F. Rice affidavit that you posted. Obviously, you have not posted page 8 and the the pages past page 11 as of yet. Look forward to those pages when you can post them. They are there Hurt. Page 8 in at link #8. Page 11 you will have to scroll down in one of the later links. I didn't realize they were stacking since it wasn't posting up like that at the beginning. I want to say I am learning about this host but I'm not because I don't know why it changed like that. The reason I am using a public server is because I don't want to force a family member to sign up to see something about that person. I did that earlier with Lupica's daughter too but unfortunately she hasn't returned.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 22, 2017 8:46:23 GMT -5
Sorry Michael, my bad. Page 9 of the Rice affidavit isn't up yet. I think that's the page that contains most of the letter from FDR to Rice.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 22, 2017 15:31:50 GMT -5
Sorry Michael, my bad. Page 9 of the Rice affidavit isn't up yet. I think that's the page that contains most of the letter from FDR to Rice. Try it now Hurt. Sorry for the issues with this...
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 23, 2017 10:27:10 GMT -5
Michael, I've read through page 11 of the Rice affidavit. I'm left in a state of suspense at this point, because (assuming Rice is telling the truth) there is some gamesmanship going on between Rice and Roosevelt. Rice is trying to get to the bottom of the federal government's lack of zealousness in pursuing the LKC investigation, and even went to the point of "infiltrating" the FDR administration, even though FDR and his henchmen seem to be coyly avoiding discussions with Rice about what Rice purportedly knew days before the purported kidnapping. (It should be noted that Gen. Hugh Johnson, under whom Rice was working in 1933, was the head of the infamous National Recovery Administration, and would have been close to FDR himself. The NRA, BTW, was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1935, and disbanded then.)
Sorry, I can't find any links that will take me past page 11 of the affidavit, and would very much like to see more. Please help if you can.
|
|
|
Post by feathers on Oct 23, 2017 13:14:45 GMT -5
Hurtelable,
Item 10 on Michael’s links takes me to a page where I can scroll down to several other pages. It goes from page 10 to 12 to 11 then to 10 again. I haven’t seen anything past page 12 in the links.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 24, 2017 17:30:57 GMT -5
Hurtelable, Item 10 on Michael’s links takes me to a page where I can scroll down to several other pages. It goes from page 10 to 12 to 11 then to 10 again. I haven’t seen anything past page 12 in the links. Here are pages 13-17: imgur.com/a/Sf2t5
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 25, 2017 15:54:58 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, for pp. 13-17 of the Rice affidavit. Still more to come, I hope, since we haven't reached the end yet.
Seems as if the FDR antagonism toward Lindbergh, which I've posted about several times, was in play in Louis Howe's snubbing of Thomas F. Rice at the White House in May, 1934. Howe was Roosevelt's top political advisor, a name frequently mentioned in histories of that era.
Rice also alludes to the friendship of J. Edgar Hoover with Gaston Means in the 1920s. Wouldn't necessarily go along with Rice's presumption that this motivated Hoover in covering up Means's possible participation in the Lindbergh kidnap plot. On the contrary, as posted elsewhere on this site, the FBI produced an extensive Summary Report on the LKC in February 1934. Seems as if the FBI was doing quite a bit during the two years following the purported kidnapping, though they hadn't made any arrests up to that point.
|
|
Jan Canfield Nofziger
Guest
|
Post by Jan Canfield Nofziger on Oct 25, 2017 23:27:17 GMT -5
Thank you so very much for your comprehensive answer to my inquiry. We know so little about him, as he died long before we four girls were born between 1947 and 1952. Our father John came out to Washington after his mother died about 2 years after his father. We visited Kingston once, when I was very young, and met his sister Rosalind and brothers Robert and David, and our only cousin, Nancy. The Canfield always seemed very closed-mouthed and our father told us very little. Actually, I don't think he knew much. I never knew about the brother Palmer Brinnier, who, from the age 17, lived, and finally died in his eighties, in a mental hospital. He was never talked about. Again, many thanks. Jan
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 28, 2017 16:53:17 GMT -5
Thanks, Michael, for pp. 13-17 of the Rice affidavit. Still more to come, I hope, since we haven't reached the end yet. Pages 18-22: imgur.com/a/p1XdySorry for the delay. I have been working hard on V2 so I have been a little slow on the trigger here.
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 29, 2017 17:47:34 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for posting the links to the entire Rice affidavit.
No doubt that the refusal of the Roosevelt administration people to give Rice any consideration and rather to do their best to mike Rice a social outcast, both before and after Hauptmann's arrest and trial, was motivated by political and personal considerations. One factor perhaps at work, as I pointed out, was the mutual antagonism between FDR and CAL St. Another factor might have been the Roosevelt administration's protection of the real perps of the LKC. Also, Rice might have become "toxic" because of his connections to pro-Hauptmann groups and individuals after the conviction, among which were some who could be thought of as pro-Nazi. (My take is that neither Hauptmann nor Rice were pro-Nazi, but their desperate situation put them in contact with organizations that gave off that taint, especially the Committee of 500.) Of course these motivations are just intuitive guesses, based on what I know of the history of the 1930s in the United States.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 30, 2017 8:56:16 GMT -5
Also, Rice might have become "toxic" because of his connections to pro-Hauptmann groups and individuals after the conviction, among which were some who could be thought of as pro-Nazi. (My take is that neither Hauptmann nor Rice were pro-Nazi, but their desperate situation put them in contact with organizations that gave off that taint, especially the Committee of 500.) Of course these motivations are just intuitive guesses, based on what I know of the history of the 1930s in the United States. I remember that Gov. Hoffman rejected his story based upon his mental state or something.... I'd have to find the source because I don't have it in front of me. Believe it or not, while certain organizations were viewed as "fringe" they weren't usually blacklisted for talks or events. Hoffman kept giving the Committee of 500 the run-around because he did not want to give a public speech to them but at the same time his return letters were warm and cordial. Others spoke where ever an invite was extended but it didn't mean they held extremist views - they just wanted to get their position out to as many people they could so they didn't cut themselves off from any group. I remember going through the various correspondence files and seeing letters written to Schwarzkopf by the KKK offering suggestions and his replies thanking them. I believe Hoffman got one too. It was shocking to me at the time but I came to understand it wasn't like it is now. Like Dave says: "It was a different time." Obviously WWII changed everything, but by researching this case, it taught me how the "mood" toward the various organizations was more of a mild approach at that time in history.
|
|
|
Post by Michael on Oct 31, 2017 7:52:03 GMT -5
Well, I couldn't find the letter I am thinking of. This sort of thing can happen because I either misfiled it, it could be filed in the folder of the person he was writing it to, or the letter also contained another subject and that's where I wound up filing it. As crazy as I've become I can sometimes sleep on it, remember who it was to, then find it in the morning. It said something like " I've known Thomas for a long time and ...", however, there was a copy of a letter in his file (meaning the file I put together on him) Hoffman wrote to Rudolph Thielen. Thielen, you will recall, was a Defense handwriting expert who went to Flemington but was never called. He also ran a PI business and worked with the Governor during his re-investigation efforts. This should work in it's place:
|
|
|
Post by hurtelable on Oct 31, 2017 9:31:06 GMT -5
Michael, thanks for posting the letter from Gov. Hoffman to Mr. Thielen. The date of the letter is Dec. 15, 1937. Hoffman, IIRC, was on his way out pf the Governor's office at the end of that year, and Hauptmann had been executed nearly two years before. Under these circumstances, you might expect Hoffman - who theoretically could have kept Hauptmann away from the electric chair as long as he was Governor and therefore might feel some responsibility for Hauptmann's death - to try to discredit Rice and Rice's potentially exculpatory information as it relates to Hauptmann's case. In this way, Hoffman would be vindicating his own decisions not to prolong Hauptmann's life.
BTW, it's somewhat amusing that Hoffman alluded to Franklin D. Roosevelt as "an official who at that time was Governor of an eastern State and who later was elevated to high National office." Perhaps it was considered a taboo in certain political circles at the time to mention Roosevelt by name.
|
|