Page images

cided upon a course of action somewhat different than had been discussed with Mr. Elliott and me. He did not disclose what that course of action was. Since that time neither Mr. Elliott nor I have been consulted by Mr. Strobel or by anyone else in this regard.

Neither the question of whether his personal situation was in conflict with his official interests nor the full facts upon the basis of which a legal opinion could be formulated has been presented for our official consideration until Friday, August 26, 1955, at which time Administrator Mansure requested us to ascertain the full facts and advise him which we will proceed to do upon Mr. Strobel's return to the office.

I have reviewed the substance of the foregoing with Mr. Elliott who tells me that his recollection coincides, generally, with mine.

Now, Mr. Mansure, you requested Mr. Moody and Mr. Elliott to ascertain the full facts; is that correct?

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

Mr. MALETz. Does this memorandum, in your judgment, represent the full facts concerning this matter?

Mr. MANSURE. It represents the full facts up to that time, but why I hesitated on that–I call your attention to the first paragraph, “Although my recollection of the matter is not exact," and the fourth paragraph, “As I recall it.” That is what I meant, that these were not opinions.

Then on the second page, the third paragraph, “We emphasized that our advice was tentative.” And on the last page, the first paragraph, "It was our thought that this statement, verified to the extent considered necessary”-it was merely a review for my information, and they did not intend this in any way to be an opinion on their part as counsel to me.

Mr. MALETZ. Is it correct that the full facts concerning this matter are now being investigated by the FBI, rather than by GSA?

Mr. MANSURE. Now, I cannot answer that question because I do not know what the answer to it is. We have, as I said before -we turned it over to the Department of Justice, which in turn turned it over to the FBI. Now, how much of an investigation they are going over, I don't know. We asked them for a review and for an opinion, the Department of Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you continuing your own investigation ?

Mr. MANSURE. No. When we turn it over to Justice we discontinue our investigation. In other words, we take it out of our Compliance Division,

Mr. MalETz. I take it, if I understood you correctly this morning, you turned it over to Justice, and Justice has turned it over to the FBI; is that correct?


Mr. MALETZ. Now, does the FBI have jurisdiction with respect to administrative conflict of interest problems, assuming no law violation is concerned ?

Mr. MANSURE. We want to know that there has been no law violation. That is what we want to know, and find out.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you think in the light of what you have heard that there is a violation of your code of ethics that you promulgated!

Mr. MANSURE. I would want to hear all the testimony first and be able to review it.

The CHAIRMAN. Up to this point, do you think the code has been violated from what you have heard?

Mr. MANSURE. I think there has been some question in the amount of information that has been given to me, Mr. Chairman; yes, I do.

The CHAIRMAN. I did not get your answer. You say that there is a violation?

Mr. MANSURE. I don't know whether there is a violation, but I feel that there is information of occurrences which I did not know about, Now, whether those acts would be a violation of the code of ethics, that is what I would have to review now in my mind. I don't

The CHAIRMAN. Does this additional information that you have received make the case worse or better?

Mr. MANSURE. Just some of the testimony this morning was things that I had not heard about before except just by name.

The CHAIRMAN. What testimony

Mr. MANSURE. The question in my mind was whether it was intent. For example, we were talking about one of the architects on this New York job. I have had the feeling that that was an unusual case which was a question of time, as I testified this morning.

Mr. KEATING. That is the Petroff case?

Mr. MANSURE. That is right, yes. And I would want to review it now to find out whether those were the particulars or whether the regional deputy intended really to convey the fact that he was ordered to do this or not. I don't feel from what I have heard up until now that it was a definite instruction to favor one firm or the other. I think the instruction was to get the job done.

The CHAIRMAN. In addition, you had not heard up until this morning, as I take it, that the Petroff firm had given four different contracts to Strobel & Salzman?

Mr. MANSURE. No, I did not know anything about that. As a matter of fact, I really did not know the name of the firm up until these hearings started. I just knew there was a firm to do the job.

The CHAIRMAN. And the fact that Strobel & Salzman were the beneficiary of four different contracts from Petroff

Mr. MANSURE. I knew nothing about that, no.

The CHAIRMAN. The fact that Strobel & Salzman was the beneficiary of four different contracts, that would make a difference in you own mind in judging this case?

Mr. MANSURE. I would certainly, surely want to go into it and find out just what was involved in the situation.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Mansure, couldn't Mr. Strobel have instructed Mr. Lawton, deputy regional director, to return to New York that night, August 26, and get an architect the next morning? Would that not be possible!

Mr. MANSURE. You mean some other architect or just an architect?

Mr. MALETZ. To get an architect, and leave the question as what architect with Mr. Larson?

Would that not

Mr. KEATING. Both Lawton and Strobel say that they did leave it with Mr. Lawton.

Mr. MANSURE. That is the question. That is the thing that I cannot reconcile, because I don't know what he told him.

My opinion is, which is merely a supposition, that that is what he intended to convey to the deputy.

Now, according to the testimony, the deputy does not explain it in that way. I do not know what Mr. Strobel told the deputy. I am still under the impression that his intent was to go back and get an architect to get this job done.

The CHAIRMAN. The best one to tell what was intended was the man who heard the conversation. You did not hear it.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lawton heard it.
Mr. MANSURE. That is right.

The CHAIRMAN. And his impression was that this would fall in the nature of instructions.

Mr. KEATING. Now, you cannot say that at all.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute, please.
Mr. KEATING. You cannot possibly say that.
The CHAIRMAN. Wait a minute.

Strike that out of the record, what the gentleman from New York has stated.

Mr. KEATING. Leave it in the record.
The CHAIRMAN. Who is the chairman? You or me?

Mr. KEATING. I am entitled to have it in the record and let this record show that you said to have it stricken out, and I said to leave it in.

The CHAIRMAN. Have it stricken out.
Mr. KEATING. Every word will be in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Mansure, the man who can testify as to what was stated is the one who heard the conversation, and the testimony is to the effect—we can read it again if you wish–the testimony was to the effect that there may not have been any absolute instruction, but that he took it to be an instruction to hire the man, Petroff, as the architect.

Mr. KEATING. I suggest you do read the record, and not accept that as the statement.

The CHAIRMAN. We can read it.

Mr. KEATING. And all of it; not just part of it, as you tried to do this morning.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, wait a minute, Mr. Keating.
Mr. KEATING. You did not, but the counsel did.
The CHAIRMAN. That is an unfair statement.
You are going pretty far afield on this matter.
Mr. KEATING. Just as he did in this memorandum-
The CHAIRMAN. Please.

There is only 1 man in the driver's seat, and not 2 or 3, and I say that we will read the entire record. The entire record was read this morning. We will read it again for your edification.

Mr. KEATING. I call the chairman's attention to the fact that when this memorandum was read, which was used in cross-examination, the paragraph in it was left out which said:

Mr. Elliott and I advised Mr. Strobel tentatively and based upon his recitation of the facts that we doubted whether he was in violation of the conflict of interest statute.

In other words, we are reading here just those parts which show one side of this controversy.

The CHAIRMAN. Read the record.

Mr. KEATING. All I am insisting on is that we show the whole controversy.

Mr. MALETZ. Do you want me to read, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Lawton's entire statement?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. I just want to say that the gentleman from New York is very anxious to get home tonight. So he cannot believe me

Mr. KEATING. I am not anxious to get home. I want to get the record. I will sit here as long as the chairman will.

The CHAIRMAN. If the gentleman from New York would not be so testy and intemporate, we might get somewhere.

The gentleman from New York, Mr. Fine, is very anxious to get home.

Mr. KEATING. I will be very glad to cooperate.

The CHAIRMAN. If we read all these things in the record, it is going to take time. Now, when I tell Mr. Fine that it is going to take a little effort, I want to get this cleared up.

Mr. MALETZ (reading):
Testimony of Edwin H. Lawton-Resumed:
The CHAIRMAN. You were sworn yesterday.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Lawton, have you prepared a detailed statement concerning your knowledge of the selection of Petroff & Chapman, Evans & Delahanty?

Mr. LAWTON. I did.
Mr. MALETZ. Do you have the statement before you?
Mr. LAWTON. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you care to read it?
Mr. LAWTON. Read the entire statement?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. LAWTON. I, Edwin H. Lawton, make this statement in order to clarify my answers to questions by Herb Maletz, counsel for the House Judiciary Subcommittee on October 27, 1955.

I occupy the position of Deputy Regional Director for the Public Buildings Service, region 2, New York, N. Y., and have been deputy or acting deputy since 1950. I supervise the operations of a Design and Construction Division, a Buildings Management Division, a Real Estate Division, a Real Property Disposal Division, and an office of the National Industrial Reserve Division.

May I interject, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Keating said that I had not referred to that portion of the memorandum in cross-examination. That is with reference to an entirely different matter.

The CHAIRMAN. Read the record. Read what was said.
Continue to read it, Mr. Maletz.

Mr. KEATING. I want my colleague, Mr. Fine, for whom I entertain such a high regard, to understand that I am not calling for it here so that the whole record can be read. It is the chairman that wants this whole record read.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you willing Mr. FINE. Since my name has been mentioned, I want you to know, Mr. Chairman, that I have a sworn duty to the Government and to the people of the United States, and if we have to sit here all week, I will sit here.

The CHAIRMAN. Fine. Do you want to waive this reading, or do you want it read! I will read it if you wish.

Mr. KEATING. You do not have to read what is in the record as far as I am concerned.

Mr. FINE. You do not have to read it for anybody.

The CHAIRMAN. I thought you wanted to have your memory refreshed.

Mr. KEATING. No. My memory is just as clear as a bell.
Mr. FINE. You read it three times this morning.
Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Elliott, may I interpose this question?

[ocr errors]

Mr. ELLIOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MALETz. Did you know whether or not Mr. Strobel had gone to the Corps of Engineers to prosecute a claim under an old contract which Strobel & Salzman had with the Corps of Engineers—did you know at the time this memorandum was written?

Mr. ELLIOTT. No; I did not, sir. Mr. Moody's and my entire conversation with Mr. Strobel at that point had to do with a contract which, as he recited to us, he had entered into shortly before he became Commissioner of Public Buildings and was then under performance by his firm for the Corps of Engineers. He did say that he had previously had contracts with the Corps of Engineers, but I understood that performance of work under those contracts had been completed at that time.

I was not aware until these hearings started that he had any discussions with the corps on any contracts.

Mr. MALETZ. So therefore

Mr. ELLIOTT. Strike that "until these hearings started.” I did know about it before, during the course of the investigation that was being made by our compliance people, prior to this.

Mr. MALETZ. So therefore, is it not true that your reference to the fact that no violation of the conflict of interest statutes appeared to be involved, had no reference to the claim before the Corps of Engineers ?

Nr. ELLIOTT. That is entirely correct. However, sir, so that we get it clear, the advice which Mr. Moody and I gave him with reference to not negotiating with the corps in connection with that contract was not related to a violation of the statute as much as it was to what we considered proper conduct. In other words, we did not feel then, and I do not feel now, that there has been a violation of the statute, since Mr. Strobel, as either the sole owner or a partner, was the principal and not an agent.

Mr. MALetz. So if we can get this in context now, I take it that your memorandum was referring to a contract entered into on March 31, 1954, negotiated on March 31, 1954, between Strobel & Salzman and the Corps of Engineers; is that correct!

Mr. ELLIOTT. Well, let me say—and I am not trying to fence with you—I just don't know the date when it was entered into. It did have reference to contract No. DA-49-129-ENG.–350, that is referred to in Mr. Zackrison's letter of August 4, 1954.

Mr. MALETZ. I see. And your memorandum made no reference to a possible violation of the conflict of interest statute resulting from Mr. Strobel's prosecuting a claim before the Corps of Engineers under a previous contract; did it?

Mr. ELLIOTT. That is correct, sir. That was not discussed by Mr. Strobel and myself. The subject did not come up at that meeting, as I recall.

Mr. MALETZ. Have you reached any legal conclusion with respect to whether or not it is a violation of section 283,

Mr. FINE. I did not get the beginning of that. Mr. MALETZ. Have you reached any conclusion? Have you reached any conclusion as to whether or not it is a possible violation of section 283 of title 18 of the Criminal Code for Mr. Strobel, acting on behalf of Strobel & Salzman, to have prosecuted a claim before the Corps of Engineers ?


« PreviousContinue »