Exhibit - "Book Scandal of 1919": Testimonies

December 5, 1919

On December 5, 1919, official testimonies began for the House Book and Library Investigating Committee.

Burtness Testimony #1

First up was Rep. Olger B. Burtness, and he would be the only witness for the day. Almost immediately, Burtness and Laureas J. Wehe (attorney for the committee) clashed. Burtness was also a lawyer by trade.

There were several heated exchanges, which culminated in Burtness angrily attempting to leave after refusing to answer Wehe's questions with a simple "yes" or "no." Burtness said it was not fair to answer as such. Wehe then threatened to charge him with contempt. "Go to it," Burtness replied.

In the end, Burtness did not leave and was not charged with contempt. He continued his testimony, and the animosity also continued.

In particular, Burtness objected to:

• Love and Ethics by Ellen Key
• History of the Supreme Court by Gustavus Myers
• The Profits of Religion by Upton Sinclair

He said it was an "outrage for the taxpayers to pay for such books," and he placed the blame upon the Board of Administration. Burtness said his speech in the House was misquoted by the papers but he stood by his accusations, and he reread passages from Love and Ethics to support his claims.

Burtness said he had previously heard a rumor that Charles E. Stangeland was surveying the State Library Commission (SLC) and there would likely be an effort to include objectionable books. When asked who told him this, Burtness responded, "I don’t intend to tell you."

However, his testimony made it clear that he had essentially arrived at his own conclusions about the books and how the SLC was circulating them, and he did not know some of the books in question had been in the SLC for several years. He admitted that he did not perform a "complete investigation" and had acted largely on rumors.

---

December 6, 1919

On December 6, 1919, the committee had a busy day with multiple witnesses testifying.

House Members Testify

Two members of the North Dakota House of Representatives were called to testify:

• Rep. Christian J. Ness of Wahpeton (Richland County)
• Rep. William Martin of Lansford (Bottineau County)

The two legislators had brief, nonconsecutive testimonies. Both admitted that a list of books had been circulating in certain circles, or at least being discussed, before Olger B. Burtness' speech in the House on December 1, 1919. The list was allegedly authored by Carl R. Kositzky (State Auditor).

Their testimonies cast doubt on Burtness' story of "accidentally" discovering the books, and the testimonies alluded toward a planned attack from the Independent Voters Association (IVA) on the Nonpartisan League (NPL).

Interestingly, Rep. Martin, on November 28 (the same day House Bill 28 was introduced), introduced House Bill 12. HB 12 was a bill to "abolish the offices of the State Library Commission..." Although the SLC was under intense scrutiny, this bill did not gain much support and went largely unnoticed. It was defeated a couple of days later on December 2. No mention of this bill was made during Martin's testimony.

Stangeland Testifies

Charles E. Stangeland, who had already received most of the blame for the book controversy, was called to testify after Rep. Ness.

The IVA-NPL battle continued. The IVA (J.F.T. O'Connor) attempted to focus on Stangeland's past arrests, although he had never been convicted, and his connection with Dr. Charles A. Beard, a controversial professor, historian, and author. Stangeland admitted that Beard was a friend and had bailed him out of jail on one occasion. The NPL (Wehe) attempted to focus on Stangeland's credibility as a scholar by referencing his inclusion in the book Who's Who.

Stangeland denied the books in question were part of an attempt to radicalize the collection. He reaffirmed his earlier survey and said the State Library Commission (SLC) is an "educational institution" and needed to diversify and supplement its collections with opposing viewpoints, and this order of books was following up on that recommendation.

He stated this order of books was one of several, and the only reason it received so much attention was because it had radical topics. He also affirmed his negative opinion of censorship by saying:

"I believe it is desirable to let people have any books that they call for; if they desire those books. I don't think there ought to be any censorship made, no point of view taken."

However, the committee established that Stangeland did not have the proper authority to order the books. Although he was doing so on the librarian's behalf, and was on the payroll of the Board of Administration, he was not a SLC employee.

Despite the hearings being closed to the public, some information was still being leaked to the press. The Bismarck Tribune published an article on the front page of its December 6, 1919, issue reading: "Stangeland was guilty of many crimes, he said." This article was accompanied by subtitles, adding further condemnations: "Testifies before 'free love' committee of having been in three jails" and "Aided enemy during war". The following day, the Tribune was forced to publish a retraction.

Burtness Testimony #2

After Stangeland's testimony, Rep. Burtness was briefly called on again. Richard H. Walker, chair of the committee, took the lead. He questioned Burtness about his statements in the House that the books were ready to circulate to schools. Burtness dodged the questions and attempted to give long answers. Like Wehe the day before, Walker wanted him to give "yes" or "no" answers. When Burtness again refused to do so, the committee moved on to their next witnesses.

Librarians Testify

Two employees of the State Library Commission (SLC) were called to testify.

The first was Ethel Lane, a library assistant (stenographer). She had only been working for the SLC for about four months, but she was familiar with the cataloging and processing of books. She testified the box of books in question was being used as a temporary shelf and was not ready to be circulated. In particular, Love and Ethics by Ellen Key was cataloged for the Educational Reference Library and was marked for adults only.

Lane's testimony would help form the committee's final report.

Anne E. Peterson (Deputy Librarian) was called to testify after Rep. Martin. Initially, O'Connor handled the questioning. He asked Peterson about Stangeland and who ordered the books. Peterson had ordered some books, and Stangeland had also ordered some with her approval (ahead of her arrival).

O'Connor then wanted to know specifically how she learned about the job opening and how she was hired. Peterson said she heard about it through another librarian and had corresponded with Charles Liessman, Executive Secretary of the Board of Administration. She added: "It is a very personal matter. My appointment is a public matter, but not how I heard of the position." Seemingly, O'Connor was attempting to make a connection to the rumors that she (and Stangeland) had been recruited to the SLC by individuals with ties to socialism.

At one point during Peterson's testimony, Burtness and Wehe clashed again when Burtness interjected with a question. Wehe scolded Burtness and reminded him that he was only a spectator. O'Connor came to Burtness' defense and said, "[Rep. Burtness] has more right here as a member of the House of Representatives than Mr. Wehe."

When the bickering subsided, Peterson continued her testimony. She was asked questions by Wehe and O'Connor, as well as two members of the Board of Administration: Minnie J. Nielson (Superintendent of Public Instruction) and John N. Hagan (Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor).

Peterson explained the book classification system and how she was reclassifying collections. She also stated that Burtness did not talk to her about the collections of the SLC or its circulation procedures until after his dramatic speech in the House. She said Burtness had wrongfully assumed that a "traveling" distinction meant the books circulated to schools. She stated:

"[Burtness] at once jumped at the conclusion. He had no business to say that about the book Love and Ethics because it did not have a traveling library pocket in it."

Board of Administration Testifies

The IVA then turned their attacks onto the Board of Administration. Liessman (the board's executive secretary) was called next, but he had gone home for the night. Instead, George A. Totten (chair of the board) and then Nielson (Superintendent of Public Instruction) were called.

Through their testimonies and O'Connor's questioning, it was revealed that the board was meeting haphazardly. Also, Nielson, the only non-NPL member of the board, was being excluded from meetings and was not provided with minutes. Totten was essentially running the board however he wanted.

The poor treatment of Nielson and the book scandal would be two of the several controversies to plague the Board of Administration during its first few years of existence.

Burtness Testimony #3

Rep. Burtness was the final witness. He stated, after learning more and talking with SLC staff, that he would have still raised this book issue, but he would have done so differently. He concluded with the statement that the Board of Administration law either needs to be amended or repealed.

After Burtness' testimony, the committee spent the next couple of days working on their report.