Page images

the gun.

Would there be dates under which they would be submitted in order that you could determine at that point as to whether he was in default in performance of these studies or what?

In other words, what I want to know is what he would have to do to be in default under that contract that would allow you to terminate him for that reason?

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Counsel, I think that the termination clauses themselves, if you will read them, will point out specifically what he has to do in order to be in default.

Mr. PowERS. Well, Mr. Brewer, going back to the Civil Service Commission, I don't think I ever got an answer about the average length of time it usually takes to get an answer from them?

Mr. BREWER. I don't know.
Mr. POWERS. You don't have that information?
Mr. BREWER. We got this one in a hurry because we were under

Mr. POWERS. You got it in less than 5 days.
Mr. BREWER. Right. Mr. Cerra got that for us. He hand carried it.
Mr. POWERS. All right.

Would you submit for the record other instances in which you queried Civil Service Commission about annuity payments?

Mr. BREWER. I never have. Since I've been on the Commission I haven't.

Mr. POWERS. You never have.

Would you check the Commission record on that to see whether there's been correspondence with the Civil Service Commission?

Would you also submit for the record a list of those participants in ex parte 270 and 271 who urged the appointment of special counsel, the names of those gentlemen?

Mr. BREWER. Who urged it?
Mr. Powers. Who urged the appointment of special counsel.
Mr. BREWER. Yes.
[The information referred to is contained in appendix A, page 230.)

Mr. DINGELL. Gentlemem, you have been abundantly patient. We've had a long day, and the Chair does thank you all for your kindness.

We are going to hear from Mr. Goodman, but we will hear from him separately. The Chair expresses the thanks of the committee to you all for your patience. Mr. BREWER. Thank you for your courtesy, sir. Mr. DINGELL. We do thank you, sir.

Now, Mr. Goodman. Mr. Goodman, we are happy to welcome you. You will have great burdens to carry through the next however many years.

If you would raise your right hand.

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?


Mr. DINGELL. We are happy to welcome you to the witness chair, there, and if you would, give your full name and identification to the reporter.



Mr. GOODMAN. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

My full name is Leonard S. Goodman. I reside at-do you want my residence as well? It is 7119 16th Street, Northwest, in the District of Columbia.

Mr. Powers. Mr. Goodman, what has been the extent of your experience? Could you detail that for us, the various places that you have worked, the positions that you have performed?

Mr. GOODMAN. Mr. Powers, I have a resume with me, which I I would like to submit for the record, which, in detail, describes my background.

Mr. DINGELL. Without objection, it will be inserted in the record at this point.

[The material referred to follows:]


Name: Leonard S. Goodman. Date of birth: March 31, 1933.

Address: 7119 Sixteenth Street, N.W.; Washington, D.C. 20012 Telephone: Home: RAndolph 3–2402; Office: 202–343–3514, Gov't Code 183, Ext. 3514.

Present employment: Staff Director to Mr.jGordon L. Allott, Special Counsel to the Interstate Commerce Commission.

Marital status: Married; two children.


College: Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, 1951-1954, B.A. (three years). Course: Liberal Arts-Political Science Major with Minors in Classics and Mathematics. Honors: Graduated "with honors”; graduating marshal of the Liberal Arts College; Phi Beta Kappa, Phi Kappa Phi, Phi Lamba Sigma, Phi Eta Sigma, Phi Sigma Alpha. Activities: Editorial Director of the Daily Collegian (University's daily paper); Vice-President of a religious foundation; member of Tribunal (student court); chairman at a Model Security Council at the University; participant at a Model General Assembly at Cornell

, and at a Foreign Policy Conference at West Point; Penn State Checker Club.


Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachussets, 1954–1957, LL.B. Course: As prescribed but with emphasis on administrative law; also seminar in administrative law (transportation agencies). Activities: Ames Competition, Haar Law Club, and News Editor, Harvard Law School Record (first year).

Prizes: Williston (drafting) Competition, team won first prize after three rounds of competition in the second and third years.

Part-time employment: 1954–56: Tutor of English and mathematics, Bureau of Study Counsel, Harvard University, Cambridge, Mass. Summer, 1955: Computor and graphanalyst, Acoustics Laboratory, Harvard University; Tutor of English, Visiting Scholars Program, Harvard University. 1955–56: Computor and graph analyst, Gordon McKay Laboratory. Summer, 1956: Research assistant to Prof. Louis Jaffe on current passport practice (for his subsequent article in Foreign Affairs) and in the trial of facts in mandamus proceedings. Fall, 1956: Legal research in British passports for Professor Jaffe.

Admitted to the Bar of the District of Columbia, October 21, 1957.


Civil Aeronautics Board (August 1957-May 1960): Trial Attorney, Bureau of Air Operations, Rates Division, Commercial Rates Section. Experience was gained in rates proceedings involving diverse rate problems and other facets of, the regulation of air transportation. A great part of this period was spent in the

General Passenger Fare Investigation, Docket No. 8008, where I gained experience in many phases of legal research and drafting, hearing work, cross-examination, and insights into the problems of air transportation regulation.

On December 16, 1959, received a Certificate of Honorary Award from the Civil Aeronautics Board with the following citation: “For sustained exceptional performance during the past year in performing the basic legal research in connection with many issues of the General Passenger Fare Investigation.”

Interstate Commerce Commission (May 1960 to Víarch 1973):

Duties: (1) To defend ICC orders before three-judge district courts and before the Supreme Court; (2) To prepare for the General Counsel's approval advice to the agency on questions relating to proceedings pending before the agency or pending in court on which instructions or further administrative action are necessary.

Examples of work experience:

1. Defended the Commission's position in the district court in the largest trackage abandonment proceedings in the agency's history (State of Arizona v. United States, 220 F. Supp. 337 (D. Ariz. 1963)); in the significant abandonment of the entire line of the Rutland Railroad in Brotherhood of Loc. Engs. v. United States, 217 F. Supp. 98 (N.D.Ohio 1963); and participated in the defense of several major merger decisions of the Commission.

2. Prepared advice to the Commission, including an analysis of a complex record and subsequently defended the Commission's position, in a grain rate adjustment; defended the Commission's position in a preference and prejudice case involving rates on cotton through competing Texas ports, and in cases involving volume rates of REA Express; defended the Commission's policy in court concerning protection of the low-cost carrier in intermodal competition.

3. Participated in the defense along with the Department of Justice, of Commission rules prohibiting racial discrimination on motor busses.

4. Defended Commission position in two cases concerning the nature of proof a rail motor subsidiary must submit to obtain an unrestricted certificate of public convenience and necessity; and prepared legal and factual analyses to the agency, and defended several agency orders, on the extent to which motor transportation is incidental to transportation by aircraft and hence exempt from economic regulation by the Commission.

5. Defended the Commission's reports and orders in the Penn Central merger concerning the terms for the inclusion of the New Haven Railroad; and defended the terms for the inclusion of three railroads in the Norfolk and Western Railway system.

From 1968 to my resignation in March of 1973, I surved as the chief of the Section of Research and Opinions of the ICC's Office of the General Counsel.

PUBLICATIONS 1. "Mandamus in the Colonies-- The Rise of the Superintending Power of American Courts,” 1 Am. J. Legal History 308 (1957), 2 ibid. 1 and 129 (1958). This article, published in three parts, is discussed by Professor Louis Jaffe in his treatise, Judicial Control of Administrative Action, pages 179 and 334 (1965).

2. “The History and Scope of Federal Power to Delay Changes in Transportation Rates,” XXÏII I.C.C. Practitioners' Journal 245 (Dec. 1959), cited in Arrow Transportation Co. v. Southern Railway Co., 372 U.S. 658, 670–71 (1963).

3. "Eighteenth Century Conflict of Laws: Critique of an Erie and Klaxon Rationale," 5 Am. J. Legal History 326 (1961).

4. “Passports in Perspective," a major article concerning the history of executive discretion in giving American passports prior to 1810, 45 Texas Law Review 221 (preface by Prof. Jaffe, at 219) (1966).

5. "The Historic Role of the Oath of Adminission," 11 Am. J. Legal History 404 (1967).

6. “Recent Trends in Transport Rate Regulation,” 70 Mich. L. Rev. 1223 (1972).


On July 27, 1967, received a 1967 Younger Federal Lawyer Award from the Federal Bar Association at its convention in San Francisco with the following citation:

“As Assistant General Counsel, Interstate Commerce Commission, he has devoted outstanding energy and imagination to the development of transportation law. His written and oral advocacy in complex cases of far-reaching importance to the Commission reflects a high standard of professional skill and accomplishment. In ten years of government service he has distinguished himself not only in his work but also by his contributions to scholarly publications.”



Own and manage real estate in the District of Columbia and suburban Maryland.

Participant pro bono publico (1959–1963) in hearings and litigation concerning the fares of the bus company in the District of Columbia. See 287 F. 2d 337, 318 F. 2d 187, cert. denied U.S.

Plaintiff and counsel in litigation concerning waste of corporate assets. See 213 A2d 899, cert. denied · U.S.

Plaintiff and co-counsel in litigation (1966–1970) involving the sale of hazard insurance by a partnership composed of the directors of a major savings and loan association. See 320 F. Supp. 20.

Current plaintiff and counsel pro bono publico in litigation involving the legality of recent increases in the rates for electricity in the District of Columbia.

Current plaintiff and co-counsel in litigation over recent increases in fire and homeowners insurance rates in the District of Columbia.

Mr. DINGELL. Incidentally, let me tell you, Mr. Goodman, that your reputation is considerable in this area. As a matter of fact, I would be very comfortable if you would be in charge of the study for the ICC.

Mr. POWERS. Now, while you were at the ICC, would you describe for us your title there and, basically, the duties that that entailed.

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes. From about 1968 until just a few days ago, in fact, I held the title of Chief of the Section of Research and Opinions of the Office of General Counsel of the Interstate Commerce Commission and, perhaps, a second hat I wore gave me the title Associate General Counsel, which I used when I represented the Commission in court.

Mr. Powers. Did you have anything to do with Ex Parte 270 and 271?

Mr. GOODMAN. I had some minor things to do with Ex Parte 270, yes.

Mr. POWERS. And you were involved in the negotiations with Mr. Allott to enter this letter contract. Is that correct?

Mr. GOODMAN. In answer to your question, I was involved in the negotiations in, really, two sessions. I believe in the list of dates that was submitted to this committee, there were two dates mentioned in early February, in which I participated in sessions with the Senator and other members of the Commission staff.

On or about February 6, which was the second session, the date of the second session with the Senator, the Senator, in the presence of Mr. Wilson, who was also in the room with us, asked me if I was interested in coming to work for him, and I said I did have that interest.

On that date, I then went to Commissioner Brewer of my own volition and I said to Commissioner Brewer that I would have to remove myself from all further negotiations with the Senator, since he had approached me to work for him. And after February 6, I believe it was, I did not participate any longer in any negotiations between the Commission and the Senator.

Mr. Powers. Didn't you subsequently attend a negotiating session on February 23?

Mr. GOODMAN. No; that was not a negotiating session. That session came about in this fashion. The Senator had come back to the Commission with some questions concerning the letter contract. For one thing, he did not understand the advance payment clause that had been written into the letter contract. The letter contract, however, had been shown to me, and, at Commissioner Brewer's request, I and Mr. Wilson met with the Senator to discuss that particular clause. But it was not a matter of negotiating with him. It was a matter of either explaining to him—or at least giving him my understanding as a lawyer of that clause and obtaining from Mr. Wilson an understanding of the clause.

In addition, at the time, I was negotiating with the Senator on some agreement as between the Senator and myself, and I had some questions of Mr. Wilson that I wanted answered. I supplied those questions to Mr. Wilson in the Senator's presence.

Mr. POWERS. Mr. Brewer was also present on the 23d. Is that not right?

Mr. GOODMAN. I don't believe he was.

Mr. POWERS. According to information received from the Commission, the attendance at a February 23 meeting with Senator Allott and Commission staff participating, in attendance were Messrs. Brewer, Allott, Wilson, and Goodman.

Mr. GOODMAN. That may have been at the beginning of our meeting, but then we retired to Commissioner Brewer's library.

Mr. POWERS. On February 1, were you involved in negotiations with Mr. Allott?


Mr. POWERS. And at that point, you were involved in such negotiations, as a member of the Commission staff?


Mr. POWERS. And you were also involved, at some point, through negotiations on February 6, at least up until Mr. Allott indicated that he was interested in your coming to work for him. Is that correct?

Mr. GOODMAN. Yes. Mr. Powers. Did you ever sign any memorandums concerning 270 or any of these rate studies that were going to lead up to the work performed by Mr. Allott?

Mr. GOODMAN. I did more than sign a memorandum. I prepared a memorandum.

Mr. POWERS. A number of memorandums? Would that be fair to say?

Mr. GOODMAN. No. One, I believe, to my knowledge.

Mr. Powers. It seems that in your position as General Counsel for Research and Opinions you should have been substantially involved in the rate cases.

Mr. GOODMAN. No. I was not substantially involved in 270. 270 was a rather broad proceeding that required more or less constant surveillance by staff people, and I was not on the task force concerned with 270, nor did I have any immediate responsibility.

Mr. POWERS. Did you meet with the task force on 270?
Mr. Goodman. I don't recall any such meeting.
Mr. POWERS. What about 271?
Mr. GOODMAN. The same response with respect to 271.

« PreviousContinue »