Page images
PDF
EPUB

Mr. TAPE. I don't remember the dates.

Chairman WALSH. Approximately when were the dates?
Mr. TAPE. I could not tell you.

Chairman WALSH. Were they this year?

Mr. TAPE. Oh, yes; this year, during the month of July.

Mr. BUSIEK. All three visits during that month?

Mr. TAPE. Well, he got here on the 28th or 29th, I think it was, when he arrived here.

Mr. BUSIEK. Of July?

Mr. TAPE. Of June, I think it was.

Mr. BUSIEK. He has been out at your house since these charges were filed against you, has he not?

Mr. TAPE. I haven't seen any charges filed against me at all.

Mr. BUSIEK. Or since you have been under investigation?

Mr. TAPE. No, sir; he hasn't been to my house.

Mr. BUSIEK. How long was it you were under investigation?

Mr. TAPE. I was suspended the 30th of July. I received it the 31st of July. Chairman WALSH. Were all these visits of Taylor and his wife prior to the time you were suspended?

Mr. TAPE. Yes, sir.

Chairman WALSH. How far were they apart?

Mr. TAPE. Oh, maybe a week.

Chairman WALSH. Was Mr. Taylor there in the nighttime or daytime?

Mr. TAPE. I think he visited us in the evening three different times.

Chairman WALSH. How long did he stay on each occasion?

Mr. TAPE. Two or three hours.

Chairman WALSH. Was there any person else present besides Mr. Taylor and his wife?

Mr. TAPE. Mrs. Tape and myself.

Chairman WALSH. No one else except you four?

Mr. TAPE. No, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. Do you visit back and forth with Inspector Monroe?

Mr. TAPE. At his home, you mean?

Mr. BUSIEK. Have Inspector Monroe and Mrs. Monroe ever been at your house?

Mr. TAPE. They have.

Mr. BUSIEK. When was the last time?

Mr. TAPE. Over a year ago.

Mr. BUSIEK. When was the last time you were together as a party?

Mr. TAPE. Some time in May.

Chairman WALSH. Now, you say the last time you were there was over a year ago?

Mr. TAPE. At Mr. Monroe's house.

Chairman WALSH. When was the last time he was at your house?

Mr. TAPE. Over a year ago.

Chairman WALSH. How many times has he been at your house altogether? Mr. TAPE. I don't think he has visited us over four or five times.

Chairman WALSH. Covering what period of time?

Mr. TAPE. Ever since I have been in Seattle. We have been out riding together.

Chairman WALSH. Who all?

Mr. TAPE. Mr. and Mrs. Monroe and Mr. and Mrs. Tape.

Chairman WALSH. How frequently?

Mr. TAPE. Oh, maybe three or four times a year.

Chairman WALSH. Covering how many years?

Mr. TAPE. Since I have had the automobile, the last three years.

Chairman WALSH. The last three years?

Mr. TAPE. Yes, sir.

Chairman WALSH. I take it from your mentioning Mrs. Tape that you are

married man?'

Mr. TAPE. Yes, sir.

Chairman WALSH. Had you ever been married before?

Mr. TAPE. No, sir.

Chairman WALSH. How recently have you been married?

Mr. TAPE. I decline to answer.

Chairman WALSH. On what grounds?

Mr. TAPE. On the ground it might incriminate me.

Chairman WALSH. I will ask you the direct question of whether or not Mrs. Tape ever went out riding with you prior to your marriage?

Mr. TAPE. I refuse to answer.

Chairman WALSH. On what grounds?

Mr. TAPE. The same ground, it might incriminate me.

Chairman WALSH. Where were you married?

Mr. TAPE. I refuse to answer that question, but I will say I was married and have documentary evidence.

Chairman WALSH. I asked you where you were married.

Mr. TAPE. I also refuse to answer that question.

Chairman WALSH. On what grounds?

Mr. TAPE. Might incriminate me.

Chairman WALSH. Have you a certificate of marriage?

Mr. TAPE. I have.

Chairman WALSH. Where is it?

Mr. TAPE. In my possession.

Chairman WALSH. In your pocket?

Mr. TAPE. No, sir.

Chairman WALSH. Where is it, then-what place?

Mr. TAPE. I have it at home.

Mr. BUSIEK. Will you present that to the commission?

Mr. TAPE. Not without the advice of

Mr. BUSIEK. And exhibit it to the commission?

Mr. TAPE. Not without the advice of my lawyer.

Mr. BUSIEK. Is that the only ground you have?

Chairman WALSH. Have you any other ground for your refusal to present your marriage certificate to the commission except you want the advice of counsel?

Mr. TAPE. No, sir.

Chairman WALSH. Very good. Then let the record show that.

Mr. TAPE. I said a few minutes ago, though, it might incriminate me later on. Chairman WALSH. You refuse to do it on the advice of counsel, and on the further ground it might tend to incriminate you?

Mr. TAPE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did you ever live with a woman by the name of Pearl in Portland?

Mr. TAPE. I refuse to answer that question.

Mr. BUSIEK. On what ground?

Mr. TAPE. Upon the same ground; it might tend to incriminate me.

Chairman WALSH. Does Mr. Taylor know a woman with whom you lived in Portland, whose first name was Pearl?

Mr. TAPE. No, sir; I never knew Mr. Taylor when I lived at Portland.
Mr. BUSIEK, Did you ever live at the Hotel Calhoun here?

Mr. TAPE. I did.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did Mrs. Sutherland live at the Hotel Calhoun at the same time you did?

Mr. TAPE. I refuse to answer that also.

Mr. BUSIEK. On what ground do you refuse to answer?

Mr. TAPE. It might tend to incriminate me later on.

Mr. BUSIEK. How much rent did you pay at the Hotel Calhoun?

Mr. TAPE. I refuse to answer that question.

Mr. BUSIEK. On what ground do you refuse to answer?

Mr. TAPE. It might tend to incriminate me later on.

Mr. BUSIEK. Getting back to Taylor, how many arrests did you make while you were with him this last time?

Mr. TAPE. None at all.

Mr. BUSIEK. How many weeks did you put in on that work?

Mr. TAPE. About six weeks.

Mr. BUSIEK. You had a motor boat?

Mr. TAPE. Under his orders.

Mr. BUSIER. And you had another inspector helping you?

Mr. TAPE. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. And you didn't catch a single smuggler?

Mr. TAPE. No, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did you get any opium?

Chairman WALSH. I wouldn't ask him about that.

Mr. BUSIEK. That is all the questions I want to ask.

Chairman WALSH. Now, Mr. Tape, you will be excused until to-morrow morning at 10 o'clock to appear here without further notice, remembering you are under the same subpoena. You will be excused until 10 o'clock to-morrow

morning.

Mr. TAPE. All right.

Chairman WALSH. Call your next.

Mr BUSIEK. Mr. de Bruler.

TESTIMONY OF MR. ELLIS DE BRULER.

Chairman WALSH. Will you please be sworn? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony which you are about to give at the hearing now pending before this commission, being the investigation into the alleged smuggling of Asiatics into the United States, will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?

Mr. DE BRULER. I do.

Mr. BUSIEK. Please state your full name.

Mr. DE BRULER. Ellis de Bruler.

Mr. BUSIEK. You are now a practicing lawyer in Seattle?

Mr. DE BRULER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. What was your occupation prior to that time?

Mr. DE BRULER. From September 1, 1909, to November 16, 1913, I was commissioner of immigration at the port of Seattle.

Mr. BUSIEK. And at that time you had under you as Chinese interpreter Frank Tape?

Mr. DE BRULER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. Mr. de Bruler, to get right at the matter, Mr. Frank Tape has been under a cloud here in Seattle, and the commission would like to know what you know about his activities?

Mr. DE BRULER. Now, you mean for me to tell that in my own way, I suppose?

Mr. BUSIEK. Yes, sir.

Mr. DE BRULER. When I went into the service I found that Mr. Tape as interpreter was not very well liked by the officers. It was suspected that he was the confidential agent of the Commissioner General at that time, Commissioner General Keefe, and he was not popular. Later he bought an automobile, and it was a matter of conjecture as to where he got the money to buy the automobile. He told me that he got the automobile through his father. Different ones told me at different times that his father was a wealthy man, and that he later married a woman that had some money, some income. At different times different inspectors would mention the fact to me that they suspected, or conjectured, that he was getting money other than from his salary, and whether or not his father was furnishing him money or whether or not he was getting it through his wife, or how he was getting it, was a matter of conjecture from time to time. At no time, however, was there anything like proof established or sufficient evidence to base any action upon, consequently no action against Tape was ever taken while I was commissioner.

Chairman WALSH. Did you ever inquire of him personally as to these rumors and as to the sources of his income?

Mr. DE BRULER. Nothing further than to inquire of the inspectors from time to time what they knew about him, and I told them at different times when they spoke to me about it, that if they could find anything leading or pointing to where we could discover he was getting anything illegal, to let me know and we would investigate it carefully.

Chairman WALSH. Did you ever talk with Mr. Taylor about it?

Mr. DE BRULER. I never did; any further than I would recall he told me in a general way about his father giving him the automobile. Chairman WALSH. I didn't catch that.

Mr. DE BRULER. Nothing further than he told me his father gave him the automobile, and I inquired as to his father's income or wealth, and they said he had a wealthy father.

Chairman WALSH. Did you ever inquire of Mr. Taylor? Ever talk to Mr. Taylor about this subject?

Mr. DE BRULER. No, sir. of the service.

Mr. Taylor came out here just as I was going out

Chairman WALSH. And you never had any conversation with him about Tape?

Mr. DE BRULER. I think Mr. Taylor asked me how Tape's work was, and I said his work, as far as his work was concerned with me, was very good. Tape is a good interpreter and a good detective, as far as that is concerned. As an officer he makes a good officer, I mean a good interpreter. His general work was all right, no complaint.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did you ever have any complaints about him misinterpreting cases?

Mr. DE BRULER. Not directly. Mr. Monroe, who handled the Chinese work and who reports to me those things directly, spoke to me, I should say, in three or four different cases where I think attorneys complained that Tape had misconstrued-misinterpreted the statements made by Chinamen, but in those particular cases they were cases where his interpretation was in favor of the Government and against the Chinamen:

Chairman WALSH. Were you aware of the personal intimacy between Tape and Mr. Monroe?

Mr. DE BRULER. Yes, sir; I knew Mr. Tape and Mr. Monroe were together as officials every day, because Mr. Monroe used Mr. Tape as interpreter.

Chairman WALSH. Did you know that they visited back and forth at each other's residence and were out riding together, and there was social intimacy between them?

Mr. DE BRULER. That was reported to me only.

Chairman WALSH. Did you make any inquiry as to that?

Mr. DE BRULER. I made no investigation of it.

Chairman WALSH. Did you know whether Tape was a married or a single

man?

Mr. DE BRULER. I only knew he was reported as a married man.

Mr. BUSIEK. Did you ever hear reports that he was living in adultery with a woman, or had at Portland?

Mr. DE BRULER. No, sir; I don't recall I ever heard that until I went out of office.

Mr. BUSIEK. Didn't Inspector White tell you he lived at a hotel here in Seattle at the same place Tape and Mrs. Sutherland were, and that Tape was living with Mrs. Sutherland in adultery?

Mr. DE BRULER. Mr. White never told me anything of the kind that I have the slightest recollection of.

Mr. BUSIEK. Didn't you discourage officers under you in coming to you and giving expressions to their suspicions about other employees in the service? Didn't you forbid them to discuss any other member of the service with each other?

Mr. DE BRULER. I don't know that I understand you—that question. Chairman WALSH. Let me ask the question. Did you issue any instructions to the officers under you as to discussing any shortcoming or alleged offense within their knowledge?

Mr. DE BRULER. I issued instructions at one time that officials knowing or learning of anything against each other should either report it to some one in charge or otherwise not discuss it, so that there would be no mere tattling, but I always told the officers they were free to come to me and discuss any matter that they might see fit.

Mr. BUSIEK. Were those instructions in writing?

Mr. DE BRULER. Yes, sir.

Mr. BUSIEK. I will hand you this and ask you if that is a copy of the order, with the underscoring and all.

Mr. DE BRULER. Yes, sir; that is correct. I recall that that is correct. I will explain how that came about. I found there was more or less trouble arose between officers by mere whispering, talking about each other without it being a matter of sufficient importance to report. It should be reported to some officer in charge, that it might be brought to my attention. This was simply to prevent tattling and the trouble that so often arises among officers; that was all.

(The paper so presented reads as follows:)

No. 3201.

To all officers:

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE AND LABOR, IMMIGRATION SERVICE, OFFICE OF COMMISSIONER, Seattle, Wash., February 7, 1911.

Should any official misconduct on the part of any officer in this service and this district be brought to the attention of any other officer, the misconduct should be reported to the officer in charge but should not be communicated to any other officer or person. In no instance should one officer call the attention of another officer to any unfavorable allegation or remark made concerning him by any other officer of this service. This is tattling and is highly detrimental to the service.

Any misconduct on the part of any officer is either grave enough to be brought to the attention of the officer in charge or too insignificant to mention.

Should any officer feel aggrieved at anything said of him he should discuss it only with the officer in charge.

An officer who violates either the letter or spirit of this circular will be reported to the bureau with appropriate recommendation.

Respectfully,

EDEB-S.

Το

(Signe)

ELLIS DE BRULER,
Commissioner.

Chairman WALSH. Had there been any discussion at or prior to the time of the writing of this letter as to the domestic or professional relations of Frank Tape?

Mr. DE BRULER. That circular had nothing to do whatever with any discussion in regard to Frank Tape.

Chairman WALSH. I am asking you whether or not it is a fact that prior to the time of the writing of this letter there had been any discussion in regard to the domestic or official relations of Frank Tape?

Mr. DE BRULER. I wouldn't like to say. I can't remember that now.

There

was so many things took place I can't remember, and I wouldn't want to testify to a matter unless I remember about it.

Chairman WALSH. Do you recall a discussing—or whispering, as you call it— in regard to any particular officer or upon any particular subject at or immediately prior to the writing of that letter?

Mr. DE BRULER. No; I don't recall anything in particular.

Chairman WALSH. All right. Go ahead.

Mr. BUSIEK. Mr. de Bruler, early in the year 1911, in January-January, 1911-there were nine Chinese certificates lost from your office, and that matter was reported to you at that time by Inspector Stewart, was it not? Mr. DE BRULER. Inspector Monroe, as I recall it.

Mr. BUSIEK. And the records show that no notice was sent of this-of the disappearance of these certificates-to Washington until the following February, or February the year after. Do you remember that circumstance?

Mr. DE BRULER. I remember the circumstances distinctly of them being lost, and I remember of ordering Inspector Monroe to make a very careful investigation of this and try to get those certificates back, and I remember a number of them were returned-the number of them I don't remember. I do not remember the date of the discovery of their loss, nor do I remember how long after the discovery before they were reported. My report to the bureau, I presume, indicates and states about when they were presumed to be lost, but I could not say as to the dates now. I wouldn't want to try to because I might not be correct.

Mr. BUSIEK. Granting that the record shows that the loss was reported in January, 1911, and that no report was made to Washington until February, 1912, could you give any reason for the delay in writing to Washington?

Mr. DE BRULER. There was no reason excepting that in every case that arose I always tried to make a careful investigation and make a full report if I could, before I made any report at all.

« PreviousContinue »