just to see what business is going on. I don't know whether it makes his mouth water or gives him indigestion-all these big deals that are getting away from him.

I do not understand that he had done anything about this.

The CHAIRMAN. This was in late 1949.

Mr. KEATING. Oh, in the forties?

The CHAIRMAN. Late 1949.

Go ahead, Mr. Maletz.

Mr. MALETZ. Let me get this straight. Did you at any time, Mr. Strobel, negotiate for business with Kahn & Jacobs?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't think I can say that I ever got that far. I made a personal call on an old acquaintance in that office, a Mr. Newman, that I had become acquainted with when I was a young man. I went down to see him and make him acquainted with the fact that I now had my own office, but there was no actual discussion on any specific project. And that is the only contact we have ever had with Kahn & Jacobs.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you not tell them that you had an engineering firm

Mr. STROBEL. I just told you; yes, sir. I just told you.

The CHAIRMAN. And you might get some business from them?

Mr. STROBEL. And I presented my information in that respect. But there was no actual negotiation.

Mr. KEATING. You mean on a specific job?

Mr. STROBEL. On a specific job, at any one time, even that day or since.

The CHAIRMAN. On that day, you had a discussion with him; you told him about your facilities and your engineering firm, and you said if anything could be developed whereby you could get some benefit, you would like to have it for your engineering firm; is that right?

Mr. STROBEL. I never heard from him since.

Mr. KEATING. And you probably did the same thing with a hundred or more others?

Mr. STROBEL. I might have done that.

Mr. ROBB. Mr. Chairman, is it clear in the record when this took place? I am not sure that it is.

The CHAIRMAN. He said in 1949, late 1949.

Mr. ROBB. That is right.

Mr. STROBEL. In the late forties.

Mr. ROBB. And that was not after this newspaper story.

Mr. MALETZ. I repeat the question, is it not true that of the list of 14 architects submitted to CIA by the Office of the Commissioner of Public Buildings, 6 firms are or have been clients of Strobel & Salzman and 2 are firms with which Strobel & Salzman sought to get business in the past?

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. How many New York City architectural concerns are

in this list of outstanding architects submitted to CIA?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't understand your question.

Mr. MALETZ. Would you repeat the question?

(Question read.)

Mr. STROBEL. This list here?

69220-55-11

Mr. MALETZ. Yes.

Mr. STROBEL. There are 9; 9 in New York City.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Schwarz, is it a fact that in August 1955and I am turning to another matter-is it a fact that in August 1955 Strobel & Salzman secured a contract from the architectural firm of Ferrenz & Taylor to do the structural design for Junior High School No. 45 in New York City for a fee of $18,000?

Mr. SCHWARZ. I think the way to answer that question is not by a direct yes or no. We submitted a proposal to them for that project in June of 1955; June 29, I believe the date was. And they accepted our proposal some time in August.

Mr. MALETZ. In August of 1955?

Mr. SCHWARZ. They accepted our proposal some time in August 1955.

Mr. MALETZ. And was the fee $18,000?

Mr. SCHWARZ. Depending on what work is done, the fee is $18,000, more or less.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, did Mr. Strobel have anything to do with getting that job?

Mr. SCHWARZ. Nothing whatsoever.

Mr. MALETZ. To your knowledge, did Mr. Strobel ever see Mr. Ferrenz, of Ferrenz & Taylor, concerning the possibility of getting that job?

Mr. SCHWARZ. He never did.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, do you have a copy of the testimony, Mr. Schwarz?

Mr. SCHWARZ. No, I have not.

Mr. ROBB. I have one.

Mr. MALETZ. Would you refer to page 18? Would you read, Mr. Schwarz, beginning in the middle of page 18?

The CHAIRMAN. Let counsel read it.

Mr. MALETZ. I will read from the transcript:

Mr. MALETZ—

addressing a question to Mr. Strobel

Is it not true that in August 1955 you personally secured a contract from the architectural firm of Ferrenz & Taylor for Strobel & Salzman to draft the engineering plans for Junior High School No. 45 in New York City?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't think it would be totally correct to say that I personally secured that contract. I did personally see Mr. Ferrenz, together with Mr. Schwarz, saw him once, and that is all.

Mr. MALETZ. About the possibility of getting that job?

Mr. STROBEL. That is right. But I did not participate in the negotiations of the contract.

Now, is that correct reading of the transcript?

Mr. SCHWARZ. That is a correct reading of the transcript, yes. Mr. MALETZ. So, therefore, is it not correct that Mr. Strobel testified that he saw Mr. Ferrenz, together with you, about the possibility of getting that job?

Mr. SCHWARZ. The transcript reads that way, but it is not true. It is not exactly the fact.

The CHAIRMAN. What are the facts?

Mr. SCHWARZ. The fact is that in November or December of 1954 I made an appointment with Mr. Ferrenz to see him and he suggested that I bring Mr. Strobel along with me, which I was able to arrange,

and we spoke about a job for the New York City Housing Authority, a housing job. Actually, the meeting was not particularly for obtaining a job, but just to become acquainted with each other, with us, with our work.

We submitted our brochure, and that was all that transpired at that time.

Mr. MALETZ. When was this, Mr. Schwarz?

Mr. SCHWARZ. This was either in November or December of 1954. Mr. MALETZ. And Mr. Strobel was then Commissioner of Public Buildings?

Mr. SCHWARZ. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. And he was trying to get business from Ferrenz & Taylor?

Mr. SCHWARZ. No, he was not. He was trying to get business-he along with me. We introduced ourselves to Mr. Ferrenz, and Mr. Ferrenz-we thought that Mr. Ferrenz had a housing job, but he did not have a housing job. So we could not solicit any work at that time.

Mr. MALETZ. Wasn't the purpose of the meeting to see whether you could get some business from Ferrenz & Taylor?

Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes, that was the purpose of the meeting.

Mr. MALETZ. And Mr. Strobel was there with you?

Mr. SCHWARZ. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. For that purpose?

Mr. KEATING. After he talked to Mr. Ferrenz?

Mr. SCHWARZ. That is correct; after he talked to Mr. Ferrenz. Mr. MALETZ. And you gave Mr. Ferrenz a brochure; is that correct?

Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes.

Mr. MALETZ. What did Mr. Strobel say at this meeting?

Mr. SCHWARZ. How can I explain that, now? I don't remember exactly what his words were at that meeting.

Mr. MALETZ. Well, give us your best recollection of what transpired. Mr. SCHWARZ. My best recollection is that first he spoke about the fact that he was not actively participating in the management of our firm and that if there was any work available, it would be negotiated by either Mr. Salzman or myself or both of us, and then when we were informed that there was no housing project which Ferrenz & Taylor had, the conversation drifted to other matters which did not deal with the obtaining of any kind of business.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did Mr. Strobel accompany you? What was the purpose of Mr. Strobel's presence?

Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Ferrenz wanted to see him.

The CHAIRMAN. And during that interview, you discussed the possibilities of getting some business for Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. SCHWARZ. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. And did Mr. Strobel tell this man that he did not have any active participation in the firm of Strobel & Salzman? Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes; he did.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he also tell him

Mr. SCHWARZ. I believe he did.

The CHAIRMAN. Did he tell him that he did participate in the profits of Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. SCHWARZ. To the best of my knowledge, I don't believe that question came up in the conversation.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, let me address this question to Mr. Strobel: Did you know that Ferrenz & Taylor was interested in getting business from the Public Buildings Service?

Mr. STROBEL. I would have to answer that by saying that I did not know that they were specifically interested, but being in the architectural business, I presume they, like any other firm, might be interested in work.

Mr. MALETZ. And you have heard the testimony this morning, Mr. Strobel, that Ferrenz & Taylor has actually asked to be considered for selection by the Commissioner of Public Buildings for a Government contract?

Mr. STROBEL. I couldn't testify exactly to those words, but they had been considered. I think I should explain-I tried to explain the other day-that when it came to selecting architects for the very large, important projects that can be classified as being national in character, we were interested in establishing an up-to-date file giving information concerning the top firms in the country, and I think we established such a file by sending out questionnaires to about 90.

Mr. MALETZ. When you discussed this matter

Mr. KEATING. Let me ask a question there. Did you send those questionnaires out to all cities or to just the larger cities?

Mr. STROBEL. Covering the entire country.

Mr. KEATING. Now, I come from a city that has some pretty fine architects in it. Would you send those-I do not want to be charged with any improprieties, either, Mr. Chairman-would you send those to a city the size of Rochester, N. Y.?

Mr. STROBEL. I do not think that Rochester is represented on that list.

Mr. KEATING. Well, I have got some names of some very fine architects, as fine as any in the country, and I want to send those down to

you.

Mr. STROBEL. I should say this

Mr. KEATING. Have you got some from Brooklyn?

Mr. RODINO. You might add Newark, N. J., too.

Mr. KEATING. Newark is in there now.

Mr. FINE. I do not understand, Mr. Strobel. You said they are not on the list. You mean the list of 14?

Mr. STROBEL. No

Mr. FINE. Mr. Keating is

Mr. STROBEL. Referring to architects from Rochester, I do not believe there are any architects from Rochester in this file of 90 to 100 top-notch firms from the entire country.

Mr. KEATING. What is a top-notch firm? Just because they are from New York City or from Brooklyn?

Mr. STROBEL. No, sir. It would have to do with qualifications, the type of work they have done, the size of organization they have.

Mr. KEATING. Suppose they built universities and big office buildings, many-million-dollar buildings, and have done a fine job, and the buildings have not fallen down, and they are in good shape; would they not qualify?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes, they would qualify, and it is very difficult to avoid, let us say, probably not offending somebody who actually might

be entitled to be on that list but do not get there. I would say this: That local architects, for instance from Rochester, would have a preferred status for consideration when it comes to a project in that vicinity.

Mr. KEATING. I see.

Mr. STROBEL. However, when it comes to giving the large, outstanding firms that by the nature of the business collect in cities like Chicago, Boston, Los Angeles, and New York, if we distributed or selected architects on the basis of local conditions only, we would not give the very best firms in the country an even chance with the local firms, because there would never be a sufficient number of Federal projects to give, let us say, the many architects, the many qualified architects, in New York City a fair participation on the basis of local distribution.

As I said the other day, when it comes to these large, important jobs, we try to deal from the top of the deck. That is why we established that rather large, up-to-date file, including close to 100 names. Mr. FINE. The inference seems to be, Mr. Strobel, that you personally selected Ferrenz to send its brochure; is that correct?

Mr. STROBEL. No, I don't think the answer would be

Mr. RODINO. I don't believe that is the inference. I didn't draw such an inference.

Mr. FINE. What is the inference, that Ferrenz, having done business with the firm of Strobel & Salzman

The CHAIRMAN. No. Mr. Schwarz, in company with Mr. Strobel, visited the Ferrenz firm, submitted a brochure to him, and attempted to get some business.

Mr. FINE. You didn't understand my statement. I said the inference here was that Mr. Strobel personally solicited Mr. Ferrenz to send him the brochure to the Public Buildings Service

Mr. STROBEL. That is not so.

Mr. FINE (continuing). To be listed, to list them among the hundred of outstanding architects in the country.

The CHAIRMAN. Who inferred that?

Mr. FINE. What would the purpose be of asking him about Ferrenz, if in fact that was not the inference?

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to state it as I understand it. That Mr. Schwarz, accompanied by Mr. Strobel, visited Ferrenz, and Mr. Schwarz submitted a brochure of Strobel & Salzman, and solicited business from the Ferrenz firm.

Mr. FINE. I know, but Mr. Hill took the stand this morning, and I couldn't quite get the connection, but I now have the connection.

The question put to Mr. Hill was, Didn't Mr. Ferrenz, or the Ferrenz firm, request to be included among the architects in the Public Service work? Now, isn't the inference then to be drawn that because Mr. Strobel went in December, or whenever it was, in 1954, to see Mr. Ferrenz, he personally solicited subsequently Mr. Ferrenz's application to be included as one of the outstanding architects?

And I want to know from Mr. Strobel, is that the inference? Is it true that you asked Mr. Ferrenz to send in a brochure on himself, so that he might be included among those 100 or 90 outstanding architects?

Mr. STROBEL. That firm was included in the list of 100 that was solicited by GSA.

Mr. FINE. And prepared by whom?