Let 'em Holler - A Political Biography of J. Bracken Lee

The firing of W. Cleon Skousen

20 The Firing of W. Cleon Skousen On March 21,1960, Mayor Lee fired Salt Lake City Police Chief W. Cleon Skousen. Although Lee had only one vote among five, he received the reluctant support of two other members of the city commission, making the vote 3-2 in favor of dismissal.1 The community reeled under the impact of this thunderbolt. Not since Lee had refused to pay his federal income tax in 1955 had he received so much notoriety. As Time magazine observed, he became "beyond doubt the most unpopular man in town," illustrated by the burning cross placed on his lawn with the inscription, "Lee, you are a fool."2 Newspaper vehemence in some ways rivaled that of the nine­teenth century and was extraordinary for mid-twentieth-century journalism. The credibility of public officials was questioned as the people tried to discern whether the mayor or the chief spoke the truth. Letters and phone calls of protest to the media came in record numbers. Both the public and the media voiced con­cern that police protection would suffer. Members of the Mormon church, many of whom had enthusiastically supported Lee's conservative brand of politics, found themselves torn between him and one of their own; Skousen was a Mormon and a con­servative. Moreover, some General Authorities of the church had clearly taken sides in the dispute. The always thin line between church and state in Utah wavered, although not neces­sarily in the way expected. For it was Lee, rather than Skousen, who seemed to emerge with the church's blessing. On a smaller stage, the episode was reminiscent of President Truman's dismissal of General MacArthur during the Korean War. In retrospect, historians have been much kinder to Truman 265 J. BRACKEN LEE than MacArthur, although Truman initially suffered heavy criti­cism. Lee demonstrated even greater political viability than Truman, for he was reelected to two additional four-year terms as mayor. When asked in a newspaper interview in 1971 to name the most interesting times of his political career, he unhesi­tatingly topped the list with the "firing of Cleon Skousen."3 Skousen was appointed police chief in 1956 by Mayor Stewart, who had sought an administrator outside the department in accordance with suggestions in a survey report made the previ­ous year. The report by a New York firm cited "low morale, inefficiency, lack of manpower, inadequate technical equipment and loss of public confidence" in the Salt Lake City Police Department. Stewart went to Washington to ask the advice of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who recommended Skousen because of his sixteen years as an FBI agent with extensive experience training police officers.4 Skousen was fascinated by the challenge, even though he did not wish to leave Brigham Young University where he served as director of public services and assistant professor of speech. When Stewart went so far as to persuade David O. McKay to approve the appointment by granting a leave of absence from BYU, Skousen accepted.5 He received a higher salary than the previous chief and was allowed to bring in his own assistant chiefs.0 He appointed Golden Jensen, undersheriff of Riverside, California; L. R. Greeson, former chief of Santa Barbara, California, and Reno, Nevada; and Golden Haight, who had headed the Youth Bureau in the Salt Lake City Police Department.' By the end of 1957 Skousen claimed to have completely modernized the department in training, policies, equipment, and procedures.8 Time suggested that he ran a "model police force for 7>Vi years."9 Mayor Stewart had held him in high esteem, even writing "a little love letter" to Skousen in 1959 to tell him "how much DeEtte and I love you and how we appreciate all the wonderful things you have done and are doing." In a vocabu­lary more common to a church leader than a mayor, Stewart wished him "blessings of health, happiness and peace" in return 266 THE FIRING OF W. CLEON SKOUSEN for "unselfish service," and closed with "may the Lord bless and sustain you always."10 Yet Skousen was not beyond controversy. In 1958 Tribune reporter Harold Schindler removed the secrecy surrounding a year-long investigation by city and county officials into a nar­cotics and counterfeit ring working in the Utah State Prison. The investigation was unique, for Skousen, Salt Lake County Attorney Frank E. Moss, Gov. George D. Clyde, and prison officials were all aware of it. When asked for a report Skousen refused comment because "the Tribune is going to print a story they have been asked not to print." Skousen and prison officials argued that secrecy was necessary in order to complete the inves­tigation. But the Tribune quite correctly believed that there was a limit to how long a secret investigation could be justified and suggested that publication of the story earlier might have helped stop the activity.11 Skousen said he was only hours away from making an arrest and that publication of the story had allowed eighteen felons to get away with significant amount of narcotics. Consequently, Skousen ruled that the Tribune would no longer have access to police records. In response, the Tribune castigated Skousen in one of the more pungent editorials in its history, suggesting that he was lax in allowing a police report on the problem to be indiscriminately circulated. The Tribune accused Skousen of "bungling" and called him a "great man for bear stories," having "repeatedly issued marvelous, fictional accounts of impending invasions by international crime rings, gambling syndicates, nefarious gangsters and the like."12 In a counterattack, the Deseret News implied that the Tribune and other anti-Skousen forces preferred a more loosely run city. Heaping lavish praise on Skousen, the News insisted that he had produced tighter law enforcement and had virtually eliminated prostitution, narcotics traffic, and "backroom crap games." Admitting that Skousen had made mistakes (he had "not yet achieved perfection in this world"), the editors nevertheless con­cluded that he had prevented an open city. They urged readers to compare the efficiency, honesty, and dedication of the police 267 Left: Lee looked elated after his J 959 primary win in the Salt Lake City mayor's race. Right: Mayor Lee faced a tense situation in a city commission meeting after his March 1960 firing of Police Chief W. Cleon Skousen. Left: Throwing out the first ball of the J 964 home season at Derks Field. Deseret News photographs. Right: Mayor J. Bracken Lee. /, Bracken Lee photograph. Left: Sports editor Hack Miller called Lee one of the best trapshooters in the state but found him off target when his economy drive threatened city golf courses. Deseret News photograph. J. BRACKEN LEE department under Skousen with the chaos that had existed before.13 In 1959, when Lee was elected mayor of Salt Lake City, few observers suspected any conflict between him and the chief. Both were political conservatives, and Lee had expressed admira­tion for Skousen's controversial treatise, The Naked Communist. Skousen had every reason to believe that they had enough in common to work very successfully together. Yet, Skousen re­called that mayoralty candidate Bruce Jenkins had given unquali­fied support to the police department during the campaign, while Lee, to Skousen's "amazement," had refrained from doing so. Rumors then surfaced that Lee intended to "dismantle" the department. Several tavern owners called Skousen to tell him that Lee had threatened to fire him as his first official act. But Gus Backman, executive secretary of the Salt Lake City Cham­ber of Commerce, told Skousen that if he did not oppose Lee, Lee in turn would support him.14 However, by February 1960 a major conflict had developed. Mayor Lee, in his desire to economize, focused on possible cuts in the police department. Skousen responded by recommending areas where cuts could be sustained. For instance, he suggested eliminating the serving of warrants for the police court, thus releasing two officers for police work at a saving of $10,560. Four officers could be released from the job of desk sergeant and replaced by clerks; trained clerks in traffic, radio patrol, and antivice divisions could take over jobs held by officers; the civil defense director could be eliminated, saving a man's salary; policemen could buy gasoline at public service stations instead of lining up for service at a single department pump, saving $4,500. The total estimated annual savings reached $73,360.15 A debate ensued as to whether cuts in the department would affect protection to the community. The Deseret News argued that cuts would be acceptable as long as they did not decrease the level of police services. The News took issue with Lee's state­ment that Salt Lake had 1.4 police officers for each 1,000 popu­lation, a figure above the recommended standard of 1 officer per 1,000 for cities its size. Such figures supported Lee's belief that 270 THE FIRING OF W. CLEON SKOUSEN the size of the force could be reduced without danger. The News claimed that he was misinformed and that Salt Lake was con­siderably below the national average of 1.8 officers per 1,000 and the recommended standard of 2 per 1,000.16 Salt Lake was not "over-protected," the News stated. Although the rates of murder, rape, assault, and robbery fell well below the national average, crimes against property such as grand larceny and burg­lary were "considerably worse than the national average."17 The intensity of the problem was reflected in an interdepart­mental memo later in the month, indicating a cut in the budget from $2,147,644.76 to $1,831,977.88. Of this total, $1,511,- 111.68 was for salaries and $320,866.20 for operations. Accord­ing to the memo, these amounts were not sufficient to cover actual commitments beginning in 1960. For instance, salary commitments alone were $1,602,513.00, $91,401.32 more than budgeted. Then, on February 10 a further cut in salaries of $40,000.00 was announced. In order to absorb the total loss in salaries, it would be necessary to eliminate 40 patrolmen sixth grade or 31 patrolmen first grade,18 which would unquestionably cut the level of police service. Claiming he did not wish to impair the efficiency of the department, Lee nevertheless was determined that the cuts be made. After a two-hour session with Skousen he asserted that the city must be operated in the black.19 Skousen argued that 17.5 percent had been allotted to the police department in past city budgets, compared with the 12.5 percent presently suggested. Lee ended their meeting by responding: "I am sure that you will continue to do the fine job you are presently doing, despite the decrease in funds for this year."20 Skousen was nettled. In a letter to Lee a few days later, he said he had applied the mandatory cut of $40,000 to the budget but called it an "inequitable distribution of funds" that would "definitely impair the quantity of police service."21 A po­lice department memorandum reflected the sincere concern of Skousen and his subordinates. It recommended savings in minor areas, such as the car-lease rental account and gasoline accounts, but it still forecast a major drop in personnel as inevitable to 271 J. BRACKEN LEE conform to the budget. The memo suggested that 14 first grade men be dropped by April 1 or 20 first grade men by July 1, beginning with those closest to retirement age.22 Only three days prior to the firing, Lee and Skousen were still debating the budget implications. Skousen claimed the department was already 25 officers short of the 294 policemen authorized by the city commission in 1958. Yet, he said, it would be necessary to fire more than 30 patrolmen of sixth grade rank if done by April 1 and 40 sixth grade if done by July 1.23 By fore­casting the firing of newer men instead of the retiring of older men, he could use a higher figure. Skousen wanted the public to understand the implications of the mayor's budget, and his feelings were well publicized. When confronted with Skousen's persistent belief that man­power would be lost, Lee suggested the alternative of dropping the three assistant chiefs. Implying that Lee spoke out of ignor­ance, Skousen reminded him of his own comment that he was "completely unfamiliar with police work."24 Skousen hinted that one assistant chief might be eliminated but certainly not three. Yet, Lee claimed that Skousen had told him the three assistant chiefs could go without impairment of service. Skousen mean­while complained that Lee had never seriously entertained the suggestions that Skousen had earlier made to effect economy.25 Finally, and seemingly without warning, Lee fired Skousen by securing the necessary support from Commissioners Geurts and Piercey who voted with the mayor, based on their belief that he should have the right to his own department heads, although Geurts thought Skousen had done a good job. When Commis­sioner Christensen complained that he knew too little and requested further study of the matter, Lee flatly refused. As a result, both Christensen and Commissioner Romney voted no.20 Since Lee had won his case by 3-2, the commission then voted unanimously to adopt a new ordinance eliminating the positions of the three assistant chiefs27 at a savings of $7,200 each per year and abolishing the uniform allowance for all per­sonnel not required to maintain uniforms. Capt. L. C. Crowther, former police chief, was named acting chief pending the appoint- 272 THE FIRING OF W. CLEON SKOUSEN ment of a successor.28 Lee gave no specific reason for the dismis­sal, but said, "I've given this a lot of thought and I'm doing it in the best interest of Salt Lake City. . . . He apparently didn't agree with me and I just found it impossible to work with him. I have no desire to hurt the man in any way and I don't intend to go into any details about it."29 According to Skousen, Charles Foote, the mayor's budget director, had once suggested that Skousen resign because of his disagreements with Lee. Skousen had told him that under no circumstances would he resign, because he could not abandon the department in time of crisis. The chief told the Deseret News: The Mayor, I understand today, suggested that I quoted him as saying that I had been asked to resign by him, and if I had said that, that was a lie. Well, let's be very clear on this. The Mayor didn't ever extend me that courtesy of resigning. He just up and fired me.30 Lee's version was very different. After several disagreements he called in Skousen and told him that they would "never get along. You're strong willed and so am I." Lee suggested that Skousen write a letter of resignation so they would not have to make a "big fuss" about their differences. Lee would promise to give him a good "boost" and tell everyone "what a good man I think you are." According to Lee, Skousen said he would not resign, and 'what's more, you can't fire me.' And I didn't think I could."31 When Lee decided to fire the chief he refrained from discuss­ing it with anyone-even his wife. "I thought, 'if I tell anybody it'll get out and this guy's got enough power-the only chance I've got is to keep it quiet.'" He decided to make the motion in a commission meeting without prior warning, and "when I did, all hell broke loose." The next day the chambers and hallways filled with friends of Skousen, "the meanest, screaming bunch of people I've ever heard in my life." Lee saw them as "religious people, pretending to like Skousen because he was religious," but they used foul language and called Lee and his wife on the phone and swore at them. Later they burned a cross in front of 273 J. BRACKEN LEE his home and ruined the lawn with salt. The firecrackers were so loud that his wife was ready to move.32 On the day of his dismissal Skousen was unavailable to any­one. His office claimed that he had left no word as to where he could be reached. When reporters sensed the import of the com­mission meeting they tried without success to find him. Harold Schindler of the Tribune finally caught up with him shortly after five, walking south on State Street toward the police station. Schindler shouted his regrets about the day's activities, but Skousen only laughed and said, "What's up?" According to Schindler, Skousen, when informed of his firing, was still "smil­ing, but uncertainly, as if he had misunderstood." "Really?" "You mean you haven't heard?" "I haven't heard anything; I've been at the Hotel all day. Tell me what's happened." Schindler then provided the details. Later, in describing Skousen's obvious surprise at the news, he commented: "Skou­sen's reluctance to discuss the Hotel Utah meeting or to identify its participants had always piqued my curiosity, but, then, that may be making a mountain out of a molehill." Schindler was convinced that Skousen would have been able to prevent the firing that day-"if he had known what was happening."33 Skousen corroborated the important points of Schindler's version of their meeting on the street and the conversation that ensued. Their only significant difference concerned the Hotel Utah. Skousen said that he had been addressing a meeting of the Rotary Club that afternoon ("or was it the Kiwanis?") and had been detained for about an hour afterward by several busi­nessmen. They asked many questions about the department and Mayor Lee's objections to Skousen's policies. Even though many of them were close friends of Lee, they were puzzled by his state­ments. Skousen gave them frank answers, concluding that Lee's attitude toward law enforcement was a major difference between them. Nevertheless, Skousen told them, he thought they could "work it out." After leaving the meeting, Skousen encountered Schindler. In response to the assertion that he could have pre- 274 THE FIRING OF W. CLEON SKOUSEN vented the firing, Skousen remained indifferent. Given the oppor­tunity, he would not have attended the commission meeting, for, he said, he had always accepted the commission's right to change the police administration. Therefore he made no attempt to appeal their decision.34 NEWSPAPER REACTION Editorial reaction from the city's two newspapers was ambiv­alent. In contrast to its 1958 criticism of Skousen over the prison investigation, the Tribune called the firing a "distinct shock" and said that massive public reaction in the form of tele­phone calls to the Tribune and a noisy demonstration by some seventy-five persons at the city commission meeting indicated a need for clarification. The Tribune astutely observed that the debate over economies in the department played only a small part in the final action. The editors suggested that seeds for the firing were planted during the mayoralty campaign when Jenkins and Lee had disagreed over the status of the police department. Finally, the Tribune credited Skousen, quite surprisingly, with "an outstanding job of reorganizing and strengthening the force" and said he was leaving a department "more efficient and with a far more enviable record" than when he assumed office. The editors implored the mayor to act quickly in appointing a perma­nent chief to continue strong law enforcement, avoiding "any trend toward 'opening up' the town." As to Chief Skousen, "the community owes him a vote of thanks for his past service and his responsiveness to duty."35 On the other hand, the Deseret News, which had always been in Skousen's corner, soft-pedaled the affair, first giving warm praise to Lee's decision to step down from public safety and assume finance while J. K. Piercey took over public safety. The News saw a possibility that Piercey might call Skousen back, since "public reaction certainly confirms our convictions that Chief Skousen has done a tremendous job of building the Police department of this city." In an overture to Lee the editors claimed he was right in his decision to fire Skousen; after all, Lee was in 275 J. BRACKEN LEE charge of public safety. Since the two men had clashed so often, harmony was probably impossible. The News said that public reaction, "unprecedented in memory," gave ample proof that the city was definitely not apathetic.30 With some difficulty the News had straddled the fence. This was hardly the spirited defense they had launched so willingly for Skousen in 1958, but it was not because of a change of heart. In fact, the editors felt so strongly about the incident that they had prepared an unprecedented, full-page editorial to run in the News on March 23. It did not appear. With final preparations under way for its inclusion in the evening edition, the editorial was ordered killed by Henry D. Moyle, first coun­selor in the First Presidency of the LDS church, among whose official functions was the supervision of the Deseret News." A scathing denunciation of Lee's "high-handed autocracy," the editorial heaped lavish praise on Skousen: Here is a man who has finer personal and professional qualifications than any man who has served as police chief of this city within the memory of most citizens; a man of such superb reputation that he was seriously considered to reform and give new moral strength to the police department of the nation's second largest city; a man who raised Salt Lake City's own police department from a morass of unbelievably low morale and efficiency to one of national reputation in which every law-abiding citizen now takes pride; a man never touched by the slightest breath of scandal, whose integ­rity and purpose and ability have not been responsibly ques­tioned. 38 Castigating Lee for reneging on an agreement to appear on television the previous evening to explain the firing, the News demanded an explanation. The editors next detailed Skousen's accomplishments in increasing morale and efficiency following a "parade of police chiefs in and out of the job"; eliminating internecine warfare within the department so effectively that one officer could report, "he had made us no longer ashamed to say we're police officers"; instituting a self-policing program among taverns, hotels, pharmacies, and doctors, bringing the cleanest, highest standards in years; and cleaning up "an abominable city 276 THE FIRING OF W. CLEON SKOUSEN hall situation." The editors concluded that the discharge was not justified by Skousen's performance in office.39 Then, they speculated on the reasons for the discharge: according to Skousen, Lee had instructed him to go easy on law enforcement, especially with respect to private clubs, bingo gambling, and striptease shows. When Skousen refused, Lee allegedly became distraught. Perhaps the organized drive to institute sale of liquor by the drink in the city, opposed by Skousen, created another stumbling block. Only one criticism made by Lee, said the awaiting editorial, was worth considering: the charge that Skousen had used department pressure on tavern owners to form an association and to attempt to collect a $2,000 debt from tavern owner Byron Jensen, even though he did not owe it. However, no proof of this allegation was forthcoming from the mayor or the tavern owners. Since it was not legally possible to recall or impeach the mayor, the editors recommended massive citizen pressure in the form of petitions asking for Skousen's reinstatement. In the wake of such pressure, the city commission would have to reverse its stand or reorganize itself so that someone other than the mayor would head public safety and gain the power to invite Skousen back. Then came the grand­stand play: And so the vital question is: What kind of city do the people of Salt Lake want? Do they want an "open" city where vice is winked at, where huge profits can be made by those who control vice, and where those profits can in turn influence city government? Or do they want impartial law enforcement, without fear or favor, in a city in which they can be proud and confident to rear their children? Every Citizen who considers this question should con­sider also the profound message of this truth: "All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do noth­ing." 40 No wonder the editorial that replaced this one was ambivalent and ineffective. It was undoubtedly written hurriedly, without conviction, and reflected the pressures applied from above. 277 J . BRACKEN LEE The accounts of both Lee and Skousen regarding the first editorial are revealing. According to Lee, when he received word that the Deseret News was about to run a full-page editorial against him, he telephoned President McKay who instructed him not to worry.41 McKay said that the First Presidency supported Lee in the firing of Skousen, and he advised Lee to call the other members of the First Presidency, Presidents Clark and Moyle, to thank them personally.42 Lee recalled J. Reuben Clark saying that it had always been his opinion that it was impossible for Skousen to handle the chief's job and be active in church assign­ments too.43 He suggested that Skousen had often taught inaccu­rate doctrine and on at least one occasion the First Presidency had forced him to repudiate some stands he had taken in an article. Moyle said, "Bracken, the Church supports you!" Furthermore, Moyle allayed Lee's fears by announcing that as the controlling official of the Deseret News he had personally ordered destroyed a full-page editorial against him that was already on the presses. He said Lee would never have to worry about the News discuss­ing the issue again. Although Skousen's account differed in explaining motiva­tion, it fully supported the basic details: that the News was in fact planning the editorial and that Moyle killed it.44 Skousen claimed that Lee had as many friends among church leaders as he did and that the president of the church had always been more comfortable with a non-Mormon in office who was friendly than a Mormon who might feel a need to be independent. Skousen was disappointed that he received no calls from church authori­ties saying, "Stick to your guns."15 He learned of the editorial when an employee of the News mailed him a proof and a note saying, "Good editorial-too bad Brother Moyle wouldn't allow it to be printed."46 Skousen believed that Moyle killed it because he was worried that the Deseret News, the church organ, attacking Lee, a Mason, might revive the Mormon-Mason feud of earlier times. Skousen claimed that Lee himself had conceived the idea of the Mormon- Mason feud and had sold Gus Backman on the idea, who in turn convinced Moyle.47 Both Lee and Skousen thought that William 278 THE FIRING OF W. CLEON SKOUSEN B. Smart was responsible for writing the editorial. Because Smart was director of the editorial page, he presumably estab­lished the general tenor of the piece.48 In light of the editorial incident, one conflict between Lee and Skousen may have had additional overtones. A few weeks before the firing, Lee accused Skousen of "covering up for a Mormon Apostle" in connection with a traffic accident. Skousen denied the charge and then wrote a letter to Lee describing an accident occurring on September 12, 1959, in which Henry D. Moyle was involved. While Moyle and a cab driver were exchanging license numbers, a woman parked by the curb asked Moyle to move his car so she could move hers. He did so and then drove into a parking lot to call the police. Later, Moyle called Skousen to complain about the way one of the officers handled the incident. Skousen characterized the officer as "dis­gruntled" and took over the investigation himself: When I completed the investigation, I determined that Mr. Moyle had violated Section 98 of the Salt Lake City Traffic Code in that he did not "remain at the scene of the accident until authorized to leave by a police officer." Later, Moyle was issued a citation and paid $100 for the viola­tion. 49 Neither Lee nor Skousen saw any connection between this incident and later events.50 SOFT ON LAW ENFORCEMENT In a series of television appearances after the firing, Skousen attempted to clear his reputation by outlining his differences with Lee. Although the record illustrates severe budgetary disagree­ments, Skousen claimed the real reason he was fired lay in his refusal to agree to softer law enforcement. For instance, Lee allegedly advised Skousen that the practice of regularly sending the vice squad into the private clubs of the city, such as the Alta, Ambassador, and Elks, was a waste of manpower that should be directed toward major crimes. According to Skousen, Lee ordered him several times to stay away from those clubs. On one occasion, he even talked to several officers, advising them that 279 J . BRACKEN LEE he did not want any further suppression of fringe gambling; Skousen argued that such a request was impossible because the law required that police check for gambling and sale of liquor across the bar. Skousen voiced his intention to enforce the law and added that the mayor could not order him to do otherwise. Angry words followed, with Lee suggesting that the police should stay away from striptease shows and admitting that he enjoyed them himself and had no desire to be arrested while attend­ing one.51 Lee admitted talking candidly about the latter point to Skousen. He remembered a contractors' association gathering at a private club, raided by fourteen men sent in by Skousen. There were some dancing girls who had very little on, and Lee asked Skousen later what he found when he got there. Skousen replied that they had arrived too early and "they hadn't taken off their clothes yet." Offered Lee, " 'Well, what if they had? To me the most beautiful thing on earth is a naked woman.' He gave that to the press and they played it up. But I don't give a damn what the press says. I think the prettiest thing in the world is a nude woman-a good looking nude woman."52 In his television rebuttal, Lee alleged that Skousen was guilty of telling "half truths" about the private club situation. When Skousen complained about a shortage of men to check burglaries and robberies at night, Lee advised him to stop bothering the legitimate clubs and use the men on the street automobile patrols where they were needed most. According to the mayor, he gave no order, only some advice about allocation of manpower.53 A major point of contention concerned a specific night at the Ambassador Club when Mayor Lee was in attendance. Part of the activities centered on a parimutuel horse race game, a clear violation of the law. After the game was over, police officers arrived to investigate, and the club owners frankly admitted the violation. It was then discovered that besides Lee, Tony Hatsis, tavern owner and good friend of Lee, and Charles Foote, Lee's budget director, were also present.54 A close associ­ate of Lee's, John Lewis, claimed that the mayor made the initial call to the police to report the game, but Skousen coun- 280 THE FIRING OF W. CLEON SKOUSEN tered that the call was anonymous. Skousen criticized Lee's failure to enforce the law as mayor of the city.55 Lee said that "fine leading citizens" from all over the city were in attendance that night at an annual banquet for charity purposes, with proceeds going to the blind. He was proud to be there at what he called a "high class club," recognized as legiti­mate and honest. "The gambling-if you want to call it that- doesn't amount to anything. Mr. Skousen thinks it is a terrible thing." Lee argued that he had no advance knowledge of the gambling and did not buy any of the fifty-cent tickets. Worried that Skousen was setting a trap for him, Lee instructed Foote to call Skousen and ask who granted permission to run the game.50 Since Foote could not get the chiefs telephone number, he gave the information to the dispatcher. Lee said he took this action to protect himself and the members of his party, because he knew it was against the law for the mayor or a police officer to be in the presence of illegality. But he called it a "silly thing to make a big fuss over."57 Skousen claimed a discrepancy in Lee's story, because em­ployees had instructions to get a message to the chief from any legitimate person. The reason Foote failed to get the number is found in the official report, which recorded: "About 11:30 P.M., 3-19-60, an irate anonymous phone call was relayed by the dis­patcher to Sergeant Haun."58 The next day Skousen discovered that the city attorney, James L. Barker, had also been at the club. According to Lee, Barker told Skousen that "there wasn't any­thing to it," but Skousen retorted, "Well, it is too bad for you, too."59 That, said Lee, was the reason Skousen was fired- because he was a man who used the police department for "scaring his enemies and protecting his friends."00 Although the incident seems an excellent example of Skousen's vindictive spirit, Skousen himself declared, "the only problem is, I did not say it."01 SELF-POLICING According to Skousen, the supervision of taverns was chaotic when he became chief, and so he inaugurated a self-policing pro- 281