review with us the elements of your proposal and that of Loveman's which received consideration in our decision CMA and the methods applied in the valuation of bids and in determining the proposal considered most advantageous to the Government. I can assure that I shall approach this review of the pertinent facts with an open mind. As I have already advised your Mr. Stanley Roth CMA we are always prepared to discuss with you any time prior to the expiration of your contract on January 31, 1950, the possibility of a limited extension of the terms of your occupancy to permit an orderly liquidation of your operation provided need is shown for an extension. Any agreement reached on extension will require a supplement to your contract.

My reply to that telegram, dated January 25, is as follows:

Re your wire January 24. We are not asking for an extension pending liquidation and never did. You have previously finally reaffirmed your decision with Mr. Towne and we have been so informed. Further explanation by you of your reasons for accepting Loveman's bid is not in issue. We are demanding an absolute extension of time pending full inquiry into all the facts not only as to your reasons but as to the legality, correctness, and validity of the methods which were adopted in this instance. The pertinent facts as to the reasons for the delay in opening the bids, prior communications with bidders, etc., have all been withheld and are all necessary parts of the final determination by all higher authorities interested in this case. No loss would be inflicted on any one by an extension pending a full inquiry which we have demanded from all interested authorities, whereas carrying out your arbitrary determination now can only cause irrevocable loss to Taylor's and 13 subconcessionaries.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Will you explain, before you leave the stand, what legal steps you took to obtain additional time for the closing out of your merchandise?

Mr. STANLEY ROTH. Legal and nonlegal, if it is all right with you: Our first attempt was to go to the Atomic Energy Commission, a member thereof, Mr. Strauss, whom I happen to know personally, and appeal to him to correct what we considered a gross inequity right at the source, namely, in the Commission. Mr. Strauss was most polite, and he arranged for a meeting with Mr. Towne. Mr. Towne was met by Mr. Eugene Roth, Mr. Leonard Marx, our realestate representative, and myself, who spent about 3 or 4 hours with him, I should say, and we were given what we considered to be, and which we told him we considered to be, a bureaucratic run-around. We were given a lot of double talk, and we were given no satisfaction as to action whatsoever, except finally, when we pressed for same, we were told that Mr. Cook would get in touch with me. The result of

Mr. Cook's getting in touch with me, you have heard in these telegrams.

We then pressed further for action through the Atomic Energy Commission and were as much as told that they couldn't do anything about it.

We then pressed for action through congressional committees, particularly through your committee, and requested most urgently that we be given at least a stay subject to an open and complete investigation of the facts. All we wanted was that the facts be exposed. And at that time your committee was most profoundly engaged, and we were aware of it, on the hydrogen-bomb project, and we felt, quite rightly, that we deserved at least a secondary position to that.

However, we were not given any encouragement that we would have a hearing, and we were only urging that we get a postponement in order that there may be, at your convenience, an opportunity to expose the facts.

Having failed to do so in that matter, we then sought legal recourse, and the story of the legal recourse I should much prefer, if it is all right with you, to have presented by Mr. Eugene Roth.

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. We brought an action in the State Court of Tennessee against Roane-Anderson Co. and secured a temporary injunction.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Restraining the Roane-Anderson Co.?

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. Restraining the Roane-Anderson Co. from taking steps to evict us. In the meantime, shortly after that, the Atomic Energy Commission brought an action in the United States district court to restrain or enjoin us from continuing in possession of the premises and to restrain us from the other action. The court held in the Government's favor on that action, and we were permanently restrained from continuing by the State action and from continuing possession of the premises, and all litigation was thereby disposed of, before the end of February.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. All right. Now, you had been informed on January 10 that the proposal of Loveman had been accepted. And you were given how many days to close out your business operation?

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. Our business operation was to terminate on January 31.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Approximately 21 days.

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. We had 15 days more under the agreement, I believe, in which to remove; that is, to sort of liquidate, move out. Mr. HOLIFIELD. To move out. But you had to close the business as of January 31, as I understand it.

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. Yes. And I believe the 10th was a Friday, and that communication didn't become effective until about the 13th. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Subsequent to this notice, were you given additional time by the Roane-Anderson people?

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. We were never given one day by them. got it from the courts.

We

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You got it from the local court, the Tennessee court?

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. From the Tennessee court, and also I believe the United States district judge there, both in the form of withholding his decision for a week, substantially gave us to the end of the month of February. Around the end of February, we completed our removal, and we were out. We are out.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You are out.

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. We were out and have been since the first of March. We moved out in conformity with the court's order.

Mr. ELSTON. How much of a hearing was there in the United States court?

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. There was a full hearing, with documents such as these in evidence, and affidavits of different kinds.

Mr. ELSTON. And all the facts presented to us today were presented in that court?

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. No, not all the facts, because they couldn't be marshaled in quite the same way.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. May I ask this question: If the hearing in the Federal court was to determine whether the injunction of the lower court was valid or not? It was not on the merits of the case?

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. We don't believe it was. The main issue is very simple, that is, the right of a State court to enjoin the United States Government through an agent such as this, which, as a matter of established law, seems to be determined, that "you can't do it that way." And on top of that, we had no right to the possession of the premises. It was the only protection we had as to the continuation of business after January 31.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. In other words, your action in the Tennessee court and in the Federal court was not on the merits of the leasing act, but as to Roane-Anderson. It was strictly on the point of obtaining additional time to close out your merchandise, in the first instance, with the Tennessee court, and in the second instance it was a denial by the Federal court that the Tennessee court had the right to give you that type of an injunction?

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. I must clarify that a bit, though, Mr. Congressman. The Tennessee State action was not based merely on the idea of getting the extension in order to liquidate. It was based upon the oral assurances that were given. It was a sort of a general equity action seeking to enforce the idea that we were entitled to priority on the lease and to an extended period of time; but that we had a temporary injunction in that action, a temporary injunction pending a final hearing.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Yes, sir. Your request to the court was on that basis, but that request was never ruled upon by the court? .

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. Never ruled upon. Now, I might say one thing, so that we might have the record clear. The Federal court in the district court action did comment that it ordinarily had no power to examine into the actions of the Atomic Energy Commission. But in this case, the court felt there wasn't enough to warrant interference. There was some attempt there to make a finding, and I think that will be referred to.

Mr. ELSTON. Have you got the opinion of the court there?
Mr. EUGENE ROTH. I think I could find that.

Mr. STANLEY ROTH. May I say in the interim that as a businessman my hope was that we could circumvent this arbitrary designation of too short a time, to get enough time so that this body here might have an impartial hearing before the patient died, so to speak, rather than an autopsy, which we seem to be having at this moment. You see, we are out now. I am told that Loveman's hasn't put a hammer to a nail to get in as yet, but we are out. I hope something will come out of this more than autopsy. We hoped that we might have a review of the situation before the patient was declared dead.

Mr. EUGENE ROTH. Here is the judgment of the United States court [handing]. I do not have anything else at the moment.

(The opinion referred to is marked "Exhibit 2" and will be found in the appendix on p. 106.)

I would like to insert just one further affidavit into the record. It is the affidavit of Ira Čravens, a concessionnaire. This was filed in the State court, an affidavit sworn to on February 9, 1950, and it contains the statement that on December 5, 1949, he had a meeting with Mr. White similar to the meeting that Mr. Levitt testified to, and it was suggested to him that he go out and get himself another location, as early as December 5, even before the bids were in. And he refused to do it. I would like to put that into the evidence.

Defendant.

Taylor's Oak Ridge Corporation, Complainant, v. Roane-Anderson Company,

No.

AFFIDAVIT OF IRA CRAVENS

I, Ira Cravens, do state under oath that I am the operator of the men's department at the Taylor's store in Oak Ridge.

On or about December 3, 1949, I discussed with Mr. Winfrey, the manager of the rental department of Roane-Anderson, the various rumors I had heard with respect to the renewal of Taylor's lease on the Oak Ridge store. I told him that my own lease with Taylor's expired on January 31, 1950, and since I had merchandise of the value of $40,000 I was naturally concerned with whether or not Taylor's lease would be renewed. I specifically asked him what in his opinion was Taylor's chances of obtaining a renewal of its lease, and what would he do if he were in my shoes. He began discussing a Mr. Hall, who as I understand it, was an employee of the real-estate agents for Taylor's. Mr. Winfrey stated that Mr. Hall was a "smart aleck", and that he disliked Hall. He further stated that Mr. Hall apparently thought that the people at Roane-Anderson were "dumb yokels.' He did say that he was very fond of Mr. Max Gluck, the president of Taylor's, and Mr. H. Levison, district manager of Taylor's, and it was unfortunate that one of these two gentlemen had not attempted to negotiate a renewal of the lease instead of Mr. Hall. He said that if one of them had come to Oak Ridge for this purpose instead of Mr. Hall there was no question in his mind but that a new lease would have been granted to Taylor's, and he implied that solely because of his extreme dislike for Mr. Hall, and not because of any legitimate business reason, Taylor's would not be given a new lease on the premises.

In view of my discussion with Mr. Winfrey, on Monday, December 5, I went to see Mr. White, manager of the concessions for Roane-Anderson, and asked him to give me what information he had concerning the renewal of the Taylor's lease. He was extremely evasive on the subject and would give me no information with respect to the status of the Taylor's renewal, but he did in the course of our conversation, suggest that I bid for space in other buildings at Oak Ridge operated by Roane-Anderson. I told him that until I knew I would have to leave my present location I was not interested in discussing the leasing of any other space. However, I felt that his suggestion to me with respect to making bids on space in other locations was his way of telling me that Taylor would lose their lease and that I should make plans to go elsewhere after January 31.

I have been operating the men's department in Taylor's store since September 1946. I have built up good will over the last 31⁄2 years, and I would suffer great financial loss to give up my present operation.

In making this affidavit I understand it may be used in connection with the motion to dissolve the injunction in this case.

Sworn to and subscribed before me this February 9, 1950.

IRA CRAVENS.

WILLIE V. COOPER, Notary Public.

My commission expires October 17, 1950. Mr. HOLIFIELD. Now, which one of you gentlemen wishes to lead off? Mr. Williams?

Mr. WILLIAMS. If I could, I would like to have Mr. Cook and Mr. Winfrey and I proceed.

I would like to make a short statement myself and then have them put their statements into the record.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. You wish to make a statement at this time?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; a very short statement, just to make clear the lines of authority.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. All right, come to the stand, Mr. Williams.

Do you swear that the evidence you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I do.

Mr. Cook. I do.

Mr. WINFREY. I do.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Proceed, Mr. Williams.

TESTIMONY OF WALTER J. WILLIAMS, DIRECTOR OF PRODUCTION, ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

Mr. WILLIAMS. I am Walter J. Williams, Director of Production for the Atomic Energy Commission, and have been assigned responsibility by the General Manager for the general administration of the Oak Ridge operations.

Mr. R. W. Cook, the manager of the operation at Oak Ridge represents the Commission and has authority to carry on the business of the Commission at Oak Ridge. The Commission has decentralized its business and various managers of operations, so that they have broad authority to make decisions without reference to the Commission.

Now, in the case of the concessions, there are quite a few of these that have to be negotiated, and there are very few that ever come to the attention of Washington. They are handled by the local manager, and the contractors under the local manager.

At Oak Ridge we have, I would say, approximately 160 concession agreements that have to be managed, and then we have possibly 180 additional agreements for rental of space for offices, and so on, making a total of over 340 such agreements that have to be entered into and administered.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Do you have a set over-all policy in regard to the negotiation of these leases, or is that left on a variable status in the hands of your agents?

Mr. WILLIAMS. We have a written long term leasing policy, which was passed on by the Commission and was sent to the managers of operations at our installation.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Well, now, I realize you have that, but is it uniform, and do you apply the same type of negotiations to each and every concession,, or is it variable?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Generally, the policy is uniform.

Now, in the negotiation of the various leases, they might vary some. A manager from Oak Ridge can answer as to any variation he might have at Oak Ridge. We state a broad policy, and expect the managers to work within certain limits without too much discussion with Washington.

I might say that this case which is under investigation by you today is the only one to my knowledge of the many that we handled at Oak Ridge that has ever come to my attention. And Mr. Cook can give you the variations, if there are any, in the leases. Of course, some of these leases run for various periods of time, and at the time of renegotiation they are either renegotiated or advertised depending upon the circumstances.

Mr. HOLIFIELD. Do you consider this a normal way of advertising? Mr. WILLIAMS. For this type of operation, Mr. Chairman; yes, sir. Mr. HOLIFIELD. For this type of operation?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes; I do.