Page images

Mr. RODINO. And this list of clients was furnished to Mr. Mansure some 8 months—you say in August of 1955—some 8 months

Mr. STROBEL. That is right.
Mr. RODINO. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. FINE. Do you mean by your answer to Mr. Rodino on his

question that Mr. Mansure after December 27 never felt that your reservation was a violation of that code?

Mr. STROBEL. As far as I recall he did not bring up any point until around August 1 or some time in July.

Mr. KEATING. Of this year!
Mr. STROBEL. Of this year.

Mr. RODINO. One further question. Mr. Strobel, it seems to me that from your previous testimony you wrestled for quite a long time with the decision that you were to make as to whether you would sign or not sign this code of ethics form. At any time during that pe

. riod, prior to your actual signing and adding this reservation, did you discuss with anybody whether or not you should sign it in that way or add the reservation clause?

Mr. STROBEL. No. As I testified the other day, that particular form was on my desk for a long time.

Mr. RODINO. Yes.
Mr. STROBEL. It got covered up and I
Mr. RODINO. What do you mean by "got covered up?"

Mr. STROBEL. Under a pile of work.
Mr. RODINO. It was an important document?
Mr. STROBEL. That is right. It was an important document; yes.

Mr. Rodino. Weren't you contacted during this period of time by anyone requesting that you sign it or at least take some action relative to it?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't recall. I can't say whether I was contacted or not. I do remember that a routine check was made on the employees that had not turned in a signed statement, and I was among them, and I was urged to sign it, and that is how I came about to sign it on December 27, with reservations. Obviously I could not sign that in good faith without making the reservation.

Mr. RODINO. Did the Office of Compliance request you to turn over a list of clients that you might have had?

Mr. STROBEL. That was what I answered to before. As far as I can recollect that request came later; however, that doesn't mean that my memory couldn't fail on that issue.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask you whether as Commissioner of Public Buildings you had, shall I say, a very large real-estate organization?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes: I think I would have to admit to that.
The CHAIRMAN. Would you say it is one of the largest in the world?
Mr. STROBEL. One of the largest in the world.

The CHAIRMAN. How many Federal buildings are you responsible for?

Mr. STROBEL. Approximately 5,000.

The CHAIRMAN. And how many employees does the Public Buildings Service have at the present time?

Mr. STROBEL. I have in the central office here in Washington approximately 364 employees.

The CHAIRMAN. That is in Washington?

[ocr errors]

Mr. STROBEL. That is in Washington. We operate through a decentralized method and cover our operations through 10 regions. There are a total of approximately 20,000 Public Buildings Service employees in all the regions.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you operate abroad, too, outside the continental United States ?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes; we have jurisdiction over some people in Puerto Rico and Hawaii and Alaska.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you say, also, that the selection of architects for the lease-purchase program of the Public Buildings Service is centralized in Washington ?

Mr. STROBEL. That is one of the very few functions that have not been decentralized, and there is a practical reason for that. It is for the simple reason that when it comes to handling a new building program, the offices in the regions are not fully qualified to handle that type of work. It involves this, that we must have an office, at least one office, that would be second to none in the country as far as design and construction is concerned. We have had a very hard time to keep such an office together right here in Washington.

So I would say, knowing that business very thoroughly, that it would be almost impossible, and it would not be proper on behalf of the Government to assume that we could set up such offices, one in each region, to handle new building construction.

There are many practical reasons why that would not be to the best interest of the Government.

The CHAIRMAN. On the last occasion when we met, you heard testimony to the effect that architects in particular instances were selected on an eeny, meeny, miney, mo basis.

Do you sanction that kind of a basis?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't think that describes properly the method. I do agree with the fact that we do not want to get into a competitive bid basis for selecting people to give us professional services. So it is a matter of investigating the qualifications of the people that should be considered, or could be considered for selection, and then make up your mind who would do the best job for you.

The CHAIRMAN. I think on the last occasion a question was asked as to whether you would supply to the committee your total income from Strobel & Salzman during the period from July 1, 1954, to June 30, 1955; do you have those figures now?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't recall that. It would be a difficult figure to get, because it is on an annual basis.

The CHAIRMAN. What would you say your annual income is, or has been from July 1, 1954, to June 30, 1955? What was your annual income from Strobel & Salzman!

Mr. ROBB. What were those dates?
The CHAIRMAN. July 1, 1954, to June 30, 1955.

Mr. STROBEL. The only indication as to what that income would be would be what income I had for the fiscal year 1954, the calendar year 1954.

The CHAIRMAN. What was that?
Mr. STROBEL. I believe that was approximately $30,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you say that the income for the following year was more or less?


Mr. STROBEL. Are you talking about my personal income, or the firm's income?

The CHAIRMAN. Your own personal income from Strobel & Salzman.

Mr. STROBEL. That is right.
Mr. KEATING. What was it the year before?

Mr. STROBEL. The year before, so far as I recall, it was more than double.

Mr. KEATING. Before you came to Government?
Mr. STROBEL. That is right.
Mr. KEATING. It was more than double what it was the


after you came to the Government?

Mr. STROBEL. That is right.
Mr. KEATING. What is it this year?
Mr. STROBEL. I have no idea.

Mr. KEATING. Have you thought about it? Will it be more or less than the previous year?

Mr. STROBEL. It is definitely going to be a great deal less than what it was prior to my coming down here.

Mr. KEATING. Will it be more than 30,000 ?

Mr. STROBEL. I don't know. It is possible that it could be more. It is also possible it could be less.

We are not through the fiscal year 1955 yet.
(Subsequently the following was submitted :)

WASHINGTON 5, D. C., November 3, 1955. Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, Chairman, House Committee on the Judiciary,

Old House Office Building, Washington, D. C. DEAR MR. CELLER: Pursuant to the request of the Antitrust Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary, I enclose herewith a statement showing the following: (1) Total payroll, in dollars, of the firm of Strobel & Salzman for the years 1951 to 1954, inclusive, and the first 8 months of 1955; (2) net profit of the firm of Strobel & Salzman for the years 1951 to 1954, inclusive, and the shares of such profit received by Peter A. Strobel and Joseph Salzman, respectively. As Mr. Strobel testified before your committee, it is impossible to say until the end of the fiscal year 1955 what the profit, if any, may be for this year. The statement, however, shows the gross income of the firm of Strobel & Salzman for the first 8 months of the year 1955.

We respectfully request that the attached statement be made a part of the record. Very sincerely,



Total payroll

Strobel &

Peter A.


$169, 019.40

$134, 133. 78

$187, 985. 30

$89, 946. 68


Percent. 1952.

Percent. 1953

Percent. 1954.

Percent 1955.

$108, 171. 44

80.6 $69, 946. 68

77.8 $86, 946. 28

81.4 $34, 599. 94

65. 3

$25, 962. 34

19.4 $20,000.00

22. 2 $19, 802. 70

18.6 $18, 350.00

34. 7

$219, 564. 45

$106, 748. 98

$122, 542. 39

$52, 949. 94

$95, 349.00


1 To Aug. 31.
: Unknown; gross income to Aug. 31 was $120,996.

[ocr errors]

Mr. MalETz. Mr. Strobel, you testified on Wednesday that two clients of Strobel & Salzman; namely, Petroff & Chapman, Evans & Delehanty, had done work for the Public Buildings Service since you asumed your Government post.

Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.

Mr. MALETZ. Are these the only two clients of Strobel & Salzman which have done work for the Public Buildings Service since you assumed your office, your Government post!

Mr. STROBEL. I am trying to recall. We had a panel of building design and construction experts established shortly after I took office to view our methods in design and construction, and as chairman of that group there was a Mr. Lundin, an architect from New York. I don't know whether he is listed as a client. I don't think he has ever been a direct client, though he was an associate architect on a project that we did for another architect, or for the builder.

Mr. MALETZ. You say that Carson & Lundin was selected by the Public Buildings Service to work on that panel ?

Mr. STROBEL. Yes, sir; they were selected by me.
The CHAIRMAN. Selected by you?
Mr. MALETZ. Was any other client?
Mr. STROBEL. I don't recall any.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Strobel, do you recall writing a letter to Mr. Schwarz of Strobel & Salzman on September 1, 1954 ?

Mr. STROBEL. Not unless I see the letter.
Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Robb, I believe you have the document.
Mr. ROBB. Would you give us what the letter is about?
Mr. MALETZ. Will you examine this, Mr. Strobel, and tell us
whether this is a true and accurate copy of the letter you sent to Mr.

(The document was examined by the witness.)
Mr. STROBEL. That is correct.
Mr. MALETZ. Would your read that letter, Mr. Strobel ?
Mr. STROBEL (reading):

DEAR SCHWARZ: Please let me have home addresses (legal addresses) of the following:

Mr. Henry F. Richardson, partner, Meyer, Strong & Jones Construction Co.
Mr. Earl Hugo Lundin, Carson & Lundin, 50 Rockefeller Plaza.
Mr. Archie Milton Erickson, partner, Wilcox & Erickson, consulting engineers.
Mr. C. F. Rosenburgh, director, Turner Construction Co.

If you have to contact them directly, do not divulge any information as to why you want their addresses.

Your letter mailed at 1:45 p. m., August 1, was received by me at 3 p. m., September 1.

Mr. MALETZ. Mr. Chairman, I offer that document in evidence.
The CHAIRMAN. It will be received.
(The document referred to is as follows:)

SEPTEMBER 1, 1954.
Care of Strobel & Salzman,

New York 18, N.Y. DEAR SCHWARTZ: Please let me have the home addresses (legal addresses) of the following:

Mr. Henry F. Richardson, partner, Meyer, Strong & Jones Construction Co.
Mr. Earl Hugo Lundin, Carson & Lundin, 50 Rockfeller Plaza.
Mr. Archie Milton Erickson, partner, Wilcox & Erickson, consulting engineers.
Mr. C. F. Rosenburgh, director, Turner Construction Co.

Mr. STROBEL. That is right.

Mr. MALETZ. The first document I offer in evidence is dated March 31, 1954, a letter from Frank M. Tobin, vice president and general manager of International Incinerators, Inc., to Strobel & Salzman.

That company, I take it, is an affiliate of Róbert & Co.?

Mr. STROBEL. Not exactly, although I understand that Mr. Robert has a financial interest in the company.

Mr. MALETZ. And attached to that letter is a letter dated March 26, 1954, from William Sharpe, engineering division of the city of Dearborn, to Robert & Co.

The third document is a copy of the letter from Robert & Co. to the city of Dearborn, Mich., dated March 30, 1954.

The CHAIRMAN. They will be accepted in the record. (The documents referred to are as follows :)


Atlanta, Ga., March 31, 1954. STROBEL & SALZMAN,

New York, N. Y.

(Attention Mr. Peter A. Strobel.) DEAR MR. STROBEL: Enclosed please find the original letter from Dearborn, Mich., addressed to Robert & Co., and Mr. Hicklin's reply to these people.

We have had a considerable amount of contact with both Mr. Sharpe, who wrote the letter, and Mr. Hoxle, director of public works in that town. In fact, at present they are using a moving picture film which we made up on our incinerator in an effort to sell the people in Dearborn on using our type of incinerator.

It is thought that you possibly might like to contact these people in your capacity as consulting engineers, and you know that we would very much wish to have you handle this work if you can see your way clear to do so.

In the event that you are interested in discussing this matter with these people, please be advised that we will give you any or all help that we possibly can on the survey which the city seems to require, exclusive of spending actual time in the field. Very truly yours,

Vice President and General Manager.


March 26, 1954.
Architects and Engineers,

Atlanta, Ga. GENTLEMEN : A municipal refuse incinerator is being planned for Dearborn and Melvindale. The two communities are about to form a refuse authority and have an incinerator built. It has been recommended that a consulting engineer with incineration experience be retained by the authority. If your firm is interested, it is suggested that you forward a record of your past experience in municipal incineration work to this office.

Dearborn's present population is approximately 115,000 and Melvindale's population is about 12,000. Dearborn has some record of refuse quantities while Melvindale is now having a refuse study made. An engineering refuse study for the city of Dearborn by the consultant will probably be necessary before the consultant prepares plans and specifications for the incinerator and building. Yours very truly,

Engineering Division,

« PreviousContinue »