a claim before the Corps of Engineers, and specifically sought to obtain a claim for extras in the amount of $7,500. The testimony also indicates that Mr. Strobel visited a Mr. Hench, of the Corps of Engineers, several times in May of 1955 for the purpose of prosecuting that claim. And the testimony also indicates that that claim was paid, that claim was settled with Strobel & Salzman about a month later for approximately $3,000.

Mr. FINE. And that the job was completed before he became a Government employee.

Mr. MALETZ. The testimony also indicates that that particular job had been completed prior to Mr. Strobel assuming a Government position.

Now, do you think that Mr. Strobel's activities in that connection were proper or improper?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, I have got to admit that you are a way over my head now, because, first of all, this was something that happened before he came into Government; that would influence my thinking a great deal. It immediately comes to mind, What is a person going to do if they are in Government?

Suppose I myself feel that I have an income-tax refund coming. Would that bar me from going to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and trying to get that money?

Mr. MALETZ. Let me say this, Mr. Mansure: That the testimony has indicated a distinction between a solely owned firm and a partnership. I don't think that it is contrary to public policy for a Government employee to prosecute a claim before the Government on his own behalf. I think there is no statute which would be contrary.

On the other hand, the statute does prohibit a Government_employee from acting as agent for any firm in prosecuting any claim before any Government agency.

The CHAIRMAN. Where the individual is not the sole owner.
Mr. MALETZ. That is right.

Mr. MANSURE. Well, of course, now you get into the legal phase. And, of course, a partnership is the same as an individual, I understand. I don't know. That is a legal question I couldn't answer. I think, from a practical standpoint, I would be very much influenced by the fact this happened before-this was a negotiation that happened before he came into Government.

Now, I don't see how his position in Government would influence the collection of that claim. Now, I am just speaking from a layman's standpoint. I would have to have more facts on the case as to whether he used his office to get the money from the Corps of EngiI don't know that.

neers.

Now, if this were a business that happened after he came into office, then my feeling would be different.

Mr. MALETZ. Now, Mr. Mansure, as I understand, you have referred this entire matter on October 4, 1955, to the FBI?

Mr. MANSURE. No; to the Department of Justice, because we didn't feel qualified to rule on that.

Mr. MALETZ. The Department of Justice has referred the entire matter to the FBI?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes.

Mr. MALETZ. What was the basis of your sending this entire matter to the Department?

Mr. MANSURE. It is our regular procedure, where we feel that it comes into a-where we have a case which we feel we are not in a position to pass judgment on, we do it also to protect the Government and the agency's position, too.

The CHAIRMAN. Why did you see the need to protect the Government in this regard? What actuated it?

Mr. MANSURE. Because of all of this discussion regarding conflict which we wanted to clear up.

The CHAIRMAN. Discussion by whom and with whom?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, the discussion commencing in the press, when I first heard about this, the discussion within our own Department, the conflicting opinions among our people as to what was right and what wasn't right. And therefore we referred it to the legal branch of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. You felt that there was some doubt as to whether it was right or wrong?

Mr. MANSURE. That is correct. We wanted to be sure one way or the other, that is the way which we try to operate, with everything on top of the table.

The CHAIRMAN. Couldn't it have been resolved by your counsel? Mr. MANSURE. Well, that is an easy and a hard question. You see, this is a matter of our Division of Compliance. We have very definite division responsibilities. And the Compliance Division feels that there is a certain procedure that they must follow, and in this case I felt that I yielded to the feeling of Compliance rather than to Legal. And I believe that Legal probably could have decided on it, but it wasn't put up to Legal.

The CHAIRMAN. And did Legal advise you that it should be referred to the Department of Justice?

Mr. MANSURE. I don't know.

Did Compliance check with counsel?

Mr. ELLIOTT. No; they did not check with me. But, on the other hand, they do not customarily check with me on cases of this type. The CHAIRMAN. Isn't it rather unusual to refer a case of this character to the Department of Justice? Didn't you feel that there was something unusual about it?

Mr. MANSURE. No. We refer cases wherever there is a question of doubt as to ruling. Sometimes it can be made very quickly, because we feel that that is part of the functions of the Department of Justice. The CHAIRMAN. When you say "doubt," what do you mean by "doubt"? Doubt as to what?

Mr. MANSURE. Where there is a question in our mind as to whether we-well, we have had several cases that we have referred lately, we have referred this little jurisdictional dispute on building construction, because we feel that we are prejudiced. We have our feeling on it, and we want to have the third party, the appeal, considered. The CHAIRMAN. The question of jurisdiction between the departments is quite different from something that the Department of Justice feels should be referred to the FBI.

Mr. MANSURE. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman: that Mr. Strobel is completely convinced, I believe, in his own mind that there is no conflict of interest.

The CHAIRMAN. I believe that, too.

Mr. MANSURE. And I feel that his personal integrity and conscientiousness I feel that he is completely convinced himself of that. What we don't want to do, we don't want to put ourselves in the position of questioning an individual's integrity; it is a question of judgment. That is one thing, but integrity is another. And for that reason Compliance felt that we should check to see whether there was a legal violation. There may be an ethical violation or an operational violation, but there is quite a difference, in my mind, between the three. One is a question of judgment, and another is a question of intent.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, if you felt that there was an ethical violation, what would you do with reference to Mr. Strobel?

Mr. MANSURE. Well, there would be one thing there. You can't hold a position with the responsibility that a Commissioner entails in Government and serve two masters; you can only serve one. You have got to make up your mind who you are going to work for. I had to do that. It was hard for me to make the decision, and I made the decision, and I work for one master, the Government, now.

Mr. RODINO. Mr. Mansure, did not this question arise in your mind at the time that you knew of the reservation that had been entered by Mr. Strobel on the code of ethics form?

Mr. MANSURE. No; the reservation was his interest in his partnership. You see, I did not know that there was any actual operations within the company. From the very beginning, the only question in our discussions was whether he was going to retain his financial interest in the partnership—I don't know whether it was a partnership or corporation-partnership, I guess it is.

I feel very strongly on that, that you just can't have people just give up all income they may have in order to serve the Government, providing they are qualified to do it. And I feel Mr. Strobel is eminently qualified for this position, that is, from a professional standpoint.

Now, when you carry on your business activities, that is an entirely different thing, and that was not the reservation in the conflict of interest.

Mr. RODINO. In other words, you saw in that reservation no actual conflict of interest between Mr. Strobel's maintaining his position with the partnership

Mr. MANSURE. No. His financial interest in the company, but not activity within the company; there is quite a difference between those

two.

Mr. RODINO. You did not, after you saw those reservations, though, on that code of ethics, discuss it further or enlarge upon it with Mr. Strobel?

Mr. MANSURE. No. And the reason we asked for the list of firms was to be helpful to him, so there would be no conflict. That was the only reason we wanted that list of firms; we didn't think there was a conflict when we asked for it, but we felt that something might happen outside of Washington, in some region, some firm might have done business with him, unknown. And so we weren't critical at the time, but wanted to be helpful.

Mr. FINE. Isn't it a fact that the reason you sent it to the Department of Justice in the final analysis, was to obtain an objective opinion?

Mr. MANSURE. That is correct, to see whether there was any criminal violation.

Mr. FINE. So you wouldn't be personally involved, or your office, because of the close relationship with Mr. Strobel?

Mr. MANSURE. That is right.

And I, furthermore, didn't think I was qualified to pass judgment on it; I wanted to get more expert opinion.

Mr. RODINO. In other words, at that time you had formed no opinion or conclusion?

The CHAIRMAN. I am afraid the committee will have to take an adjournment until 2:30.

We will resume at 2: 30.

(Whereupon, at 1:35 p. m., a recess was taken, to reconvene at 2 p. m. of the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

TESTIMONY OF EDMUND F. MANSURE, ACCOMPANIED BY MAXWELL H. ELLIOTT—Resumed

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Mansure, did there come a time when you asked Mr. Moody, counsel for the Public Buildings Service, to review all agency files in GSA concerning a possible conflict of interest on the part of Mr. Strobel?·

Mr. MANSURE. That is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you recall getting a memorandum from Mr. Moody dated September 1, 1955?

Mr. MANSURE. I remember the memorandum. I am not sure of the date. But I recall it..

Mr. MALETZ. I show you a 3-page document and ask you whether this is a true and accurate copy of a memorandum that you received from Mr. Moody?

Mr. MANSURE. This is not the one I had, but I believe it is the supplement to it; yes.

Mr. MALETZ. That is a copy of the memorandum which you received from Mr. Moody?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes, that is correct. But you see, there was a prior memorandum on the 29th. This one is supplementing a memorandum of August 29. The August 29 memorandum is the one that I had in mind.

Mr. MALETZ. Well, let me direct your attention to this memorandum, and we can discuss the supplemental memorandum.

Mr. ELLIOTT. Excuse me, Mr. Maletz. This is the supplemental memorandum.

Mr. MANSURE. Yes.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Mansure now has the supplemental memorandum? Mr. ELLIOTT. That is correct.

Mr. MANSURE. That is correct, yes. I received the original one on the 29th. That is the one I had reference to.

Mr. MALETZ. May I have that back?

Mr. MANSURE. Yes.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you happen to have the memorandum, the original, with you, Mr. Mansure?

Mr. MANSURE. No, I do not. I did not know that was going to come up. We could get it, but

Mr. MALETZ. Now, this is a memorandum for the Administrator re conflict of interest-P. A. Strobel, dated September 1, 1955:

Supplementing memo of August 29, have reviewed Compliance file on Mr. Strobel and his personnel file in Office of Management as instructed. Compliance file discloses:

(1) Memorandum of June 24, 1954, from Compliance to Personnel advising that in accordance with section 3 (b) of E. O. 10450 a full field investigation has been completed and security clearance was given for Strobel to occupy sensitive position of Commissioner, Public Buildings Service.

Mr. KEATING. May I interrupt, please? Is this a memorandum delivered by one of the counsel for General Services Administration to the Administrator of General Services Administration, in which the relationship of attorney and client existed, and does counsel propose to read this memorandum into the record? I am not disposed to object, but I certainly would consider it a highly irregular proceeding, if that is the fact.

The CHAIRMAN. We received this from Mr. Mansure's office, did we not? Is that not right, Mr. Counsel?

Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes, sir, that is correct. You got it from our Compliance Division.

Mr. MALETZ. Was that not done on Mr. Mansure's instructions? Mr. ELLIOTT. I could not answer that, Mr. Maletz.

Mr. MALETZ. And did not Mr. Mansure tell you to make the files of GSA available to this committee?

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. MANSURE. Yes.

Mr. KEATING. Did you construe that as meaning that you should make available confidential memoranda from an attorney to his client? Mr. ELLIOTT. The client in this case, sir, is the Administrator of General Services.

Mr. KEATING. That is Mr. Mansure?

Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. KEATING. And did you understand that instructions included the delivery of a document prepared by an attorney, a confidential memorandum for his client?

Mr. MANSURE. No, I did not understand that. But I would like to ask Mr. Moody if there is anything of conflict in that that was restricted to counsel, because I am not familiar with the entire document, offhand.

No, Congressman. It was just a review of the files. It is all right. It was a review of the files just as it was, and the files were made available. So it was merely a recap of the whole procedure.

Mr. KEATING. All right. I do not know what is in it, and I have no disposition to object.

Mr. MANSURE. I want to check to make sure. I appreciate it very much.

Mr. KEATING. And if the Administrator, who is the client in this

case

The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Government is the client.

Mr. KEATING. The Administrator is acting for the Government, and the Government is not a person.