missal are given in an affidavit of John H. Taylor,1 who is the superintendent of transportation and equipment.

The reason for his dismissal was refusal to comply with the rules and regulations of my department as established by me with the approval of Mr. W. H. Faulk, general superintendent.

I am quoting from Taylor's affidavit.

Mr. FULTON. Does he state what those rules were?

Mr. MANIER. No, sir; I don't think he goes into detail.

Mr. FULTON. Were they insistent upon establishing no relationship for discussion with the Quartermaster Corps?

Mr. MANIER. Sir?

do you

you know?

Mr. FULTON. I say, what were the rules; do Mr. MANIER. Except as the affidavit, I do not personally know. Mr. FULTON. I think it would have been better if he had put down the rules so that we might know what they were.

The CHAIRMAN. Those rules can be made a part of the record, can they not?

Mr. MANIER. I am sure they can. Mr. Kingsley Ferguson can state

them.

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. The rule was that he could not contact the Quartermaster Corps direct, for this reason: There were 187 C. Q. M. employees, average, throughout the life of this project. If 187 employees were giving orders direct to our subordinate personnel, our executives could in no way be aware of what was going on. The executives were responsible for this transportation department, and the orders given to us by the C. Q. M., which we were supposed to carry out, were being short-circuited by contact between subordinates.

Mr. FULTON. And it was because Mr. Harrison talked directly to the quartermaster staff that he was said to be violating the rule. Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANIER. He went over the heads of his superiors.

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Without the knowledge of his superior man in our organization.

Mr. MANIER. He was an employee of the contractor and not of the quartermaster.

The CHAIRMAN. I understand.

Mr. MANIER. Now, I read from the affidavit of John H. Taylor: 2 About the middle of May 1941, in an attempt to reduce the cost and expense of operating my part of the work, I was present at a conference between Mr. A. K. Ferguson and one of the Army officers connected with the constructing quartermaster assigned to the camp, and the suggestion was made that the "Master re-cap of vehicle operation" that had been kept from the beginning of our operating could be eliminated and done away with as the Government could get the same information from other departments, and by agreement between Mr. Ferguson and the constructing quartermaster, I was directed to stop making out this "Master re-cap of vehicle operation." The making of same required the full services of five of my office help. After the conference I instructed Mr. Harrison that it had been agreed with the constructing quartermaster that this record was no longer to be kept. He persisted in continuing to make this report out with my reduced office help, which got my office well behind with its detailed paper work and even then he was well behind in these reports.

That is one of the reasons.

1 See Affidavit No. 58, appendix, p. 3518. See also Affidavit No. 58-A, appendix, p. 3534.

Now, Harrison, in his testimony, on page 2664 of the record, claimed to have recommended the discontinuance of the convoy system. Mr. Taylor in his affidavit testifies that it was discontinued on his orders with the approval of his superior, Faulk, but that Mr. Harrison still insisted on the old system.

Mr. Harrison in his testimony testified that there were 16 motor pools in Wolf Creek ordnance plant and the Milan ordnance depot, at page 2664 of the record. Taylor testifies-I think I am quoting1The greatest number of pools ever operated at any one time by dispatchers and clerk was seven.

Mr. Harrison testified that if the pools had been consolidated into three there would have been a saving of $200,000. That is his testimoney on page 2665.

Mr. C. J. Sullivan in his affidavit testifies that up to November 22, 1941, the total cost of all the motor pools had been exactly $53,887.10.2

COST OF EQUIPMENT REPAIRS

3

Mr. MANIER. In the record at page 2665, Mr. Fulton asked the question to the effect that he was particularly interested in the practices that did not mean much more than a definite intention to deceive, and he referred to trailer No. 2314, that it had a number painted out to be trailer No. E-2333, and which, on September 17, had been equipped with three new tires. This was entirely an error of a sign painter, and in support of it I have here affidavits of two people to the effect that the trailer and the tractors were numbered the same, but for a particular purpose it had been necessary to move a trailer from its tractor and use it with another tractor, and this sign painter on his own initiative and knowing the lack of correspondence between those two numbers, had painted out the old number and put the corresponding number. Then I have the affidavit of his superior that when he noticed that he immediately had the thing undone, and it was just an accident of a painter.

Mr. FULTON. Does he say that he reported to the Quartermaster Corps that the number was the wrong number?

Mr. MANIER. I don't think so. I have the affidavits here. Let me see them just a minute.

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. In changing the numbers, an incident. occurred which has a bearing on it. On Saturday afternoon I received word from Mr. John Taylor, about 3 months ago, that Mr. McCarthy planned to change numbers on some of the equipment. Realizing the serious import of that change, inasmuch as every accounting record from the beginning of the job was based on those numbers, I telephoned Major Hofto, then Captain Hofto, and asked him to insure any-to prevent any effort to change those numbers, and he assured me that he would. However, when we arrived on the job Monday morning we found that during Sunday afternoon the numbers on, I think it was about 22 pieces of equipment had been painted out by Mr. McCarthy and new numbers which were not on

1 Se Affidavit No. 58, appendix, p. 3518. See also Affidavit No. 58-A, appendix, p. 3534. 2 See Affidavit No. 59. appendix, p. 3539. See also Affidavit No. 59-A, appendix, p. 3540, See Affidavits Nos. 60 and 61, appendix, pp. 3541 and 3542. See also Affidavits Nos. 50-A and 75-A, appendix, pp. 3542 and 3557.

the record substituted. We immediately called Major Hofto and fortunately the old numbers were not so obliterated but that we could determine the original one through the paint and reassign the proper number.

Mr. FULTON. My question related to this truck, No. 2314. Was that switch which was inadvertently done by your sign painters reported to the Quartermaster Corps?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Yes, sir; I believe it was.

Mr. FULTON. Is that in the affidavit?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. I don't know that it appears in the affidavit.

Mr. FULTON. Do you know personally that that is so?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. I believe so; yes.

Mr. FULTON. At what time was it reported?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. As soon as it was discovered by Mr. John Taylor, the superintendent.

Mr. FULTON. This 2314; and when was that discovered?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. I don't recall, sir.

Mr. FULTON. Was it reported before the Memphis hearing?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. I am not sure.

Mr. FULTON. Would you ascertain that fact specifically as to what date it was reported and give us a copy of the memorandum reporting it?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. FULTON. I am informed that No. 2314 is a 20-ton trailer tractor and that 2333 is only a 7-ton cab, so that it looks quite unusual that you should have found occasion to switch a 20-ton piece of equipment to a 7-ton piece of equipment. Would you check on that, too? Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. MANIER. That may be included in this affidavit.

Mr. FULTON. And if that is so, does the affidavit explain why you found it possible to use one that was 3 times its size?

Mr. STIRTON OMAN. May I clear that for you?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes, indeed.

Mr. STIRTON OMAN. We have three heavy-equipment trailers here. One is a 16-wheel trailer and another one is an 8-wheel trailer, and another one 4-wheel, semitrailers, and these trailers hook right onto the back of the tractor truck; and, as you know, you have seen these highway express lines, you unhook a trailer and put another tractor under it, and any of these trucks will handle those other trailers.

Mr. FULTON. Isn't it unusual to have one three times the size? Mr. STIRTON OMAN. That is when you are hauling heavy draglines that weigh 50 tons and above, they use that other one, but they can use the smaller tractor when they are hauling 10 to 20 tons, and that is just swapping a semitrailer.

Mr. FULTON. Let's see. If 2333 is a 7-ton cab, that ordinarily would not be capable of pulling a 20-ton trailer.

Mr. STIRTON OMAN. Yes, sir; that is the one that handles it.

Mr. FULTON. Wouldn't it be less efficient than a 20-ton cab?

Mr. SIIRTON OMAN. We don't have a 20-ton cab.

Mr. FULTON. What did you have in the line of a cab?

311932-42--pt. 9-16

Mr. STIRTON OMAN. From 2- to a 7-ton cab. That is the truck, and the trailer is the thing that carries the weight. The 7-ton is a Diesel General Motors truck, and they are semitrailers, and it just takes a minute to slip one out and put the other one under it.

The CHAIRMAN. You may be seated there, if you like.

Mr. MANIER. Mr. Lloyd Harris testifies very definitely in his affidavit about the change being made by the sign painter and about the desirability of moving the truck to the other, and the sign painter made the change without orders from anybody; and the minute he discovered it, he reported it to his superior and had it changed; and that the tire was purchased; that was really what brought it to attention, and they checked that through the mention of the tire.1

The CHAIRMAN. That affidavit will be made an exhibit.

Mr. MANIER. Yes, sir; I am making them all exhibits that I am referring to here.

IDLE EQUIPMENT

Mr. MANIER. You will recall Mr. Harrison identified pictures of a great number of pieces of machinery in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right.

Mr. MANIER. As being idle equipment. From the record and such reference as was made to them, which did sufficiently identify them, although I have never examined the pictures, we have an affidavit on each one of those pictures definitely and positively_meeting the insinuation in the record as made by those pictures. I will take them one at a time.

First is caterpillar tractor D-7, No. 71. The affidavit of Mr. Wallace H. Faulk: 2

Mr. Harrison testified that this tractor had been idle on the job for 3 months. This statement is absolutely not correct. The fact is that this tractor, as supported by the records, came on the job on March 17, 1941, and since that time has worked a total of 3,710 hours, an average of approximately 460 hours per month, or better than 14 hours per day, 30 days each month.

And he testifies that that is supported by accurate records.

Mr. FULTON. Are those the records of the actual operation, or are those the records on which payment was made?

Mr. MANIER. As I understand it, they are the records of the actual operation.

Mr. FULTON. And did they indicate who inspected it?

Mr. MANIER. This is the superintendent of transportation who is testifying.

Mr. FULTON. I am, of course, aware that as to each of those 35 articles there would be a record in the contractor's office to the effect that it was on the job in operation. What I was questioning is not that, because that is the basis for paying for them, but the question is, Is there any evidence here that it was in operation?

Mr. MANIER. There is no evidence here to the contrary except the evidence of Mr. Harrison, and here is evidence of the man in charge of it who testifies to the fact, not to the records.

1 See Affidavit No. 60, appendix, p. 3541. * See Affidavit No. 62, appendix, p. 3543.

See also Affidavit No. 60-A, appendix, p. 3542.
See also Affidavit No. 62-A, appendix, p. 3543.

Mr. FULTON. Will you take up particularly those pictures as to which you could see the grass growing through the treads of the tractors and show us the affidavits?

Mr. MANIER. When we get to that affidavit I will show you that. There were several of those.

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Mr. Fulton, they were taken from the records for payment.

Mr. FULTON. From payment?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Yes, sir.

Mr. FULTON. We are interested in evidence not that they were paid for but that they were used.

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. The record that they were used coincides with the record for payment.

Mr. FULTON. What type of record is that? How is it made up?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. An equipment operator receives each day a card which goes with his particular piece of equipment. He fills this out. It is attested to by his foreman supervising his work or his superintendent, and that is turned in to the superintendent of equipment. That, in turn, is incorporated into the record, the ledger, indicating idle time and operating time, from which ledger the rental roll for payment is made.

Mr. FULTON. Then the exact place where it would be noted by someone that it was actually in operation would be where? That would be that first step, that card?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. There are really two reports which the general superintendent in charge of the utilities division keeps, one which comes from his foreman inasmuch as he can have access to that much quicker than he can the record which is used for accounting purposes, so he likewise gets a duplicate record from his foreman in order to allow him to check what equipment is idle and what is working immediately.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a time checker on that when it is on the job?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. On the equipment?

Mr. FULTON. Yes.

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. We have equipment checkers; yes, sir. Mr. FULTON. That is, they keep time on the equipment on the job? Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. That is right.

Mr. FULTON. Do they make a report to the foreman in charge of this equipment after the day's work is done, or how is that handled?

Mr. KINGSLEY FERGUSON. Well, that is what I was bringing out here. The operator's card is the basic accounting information. We don't have enough equipment checkers to really keep time on all of the pieces of equipment because to do so would require so many men that it would be impossible, but they spot-check this operator's record to insure that, for example, a piece of equipment isn't to check the operator's record and the foreman's record. In addition to that procedure, which is then turned in to the accounting department, the foreman himself keeps a record of every piece of equipment in his possession, which he turns in to Mr. Faulk, the general superintendent in charge of the road and railroad division, which indicates really a duplicate record, indicating the equipment that he has in his posses