8. (a) Have you ever been suspended or disbarred as an attorney in any court or jurisdiction? No.

(b) If so, state fully the circumstances:

9. (a) Have you ever been rejected, suspended, or disbarred from appearing as an attorney, agent, or in any other representative capacity before any governmental body, Federal, State, or municipal? No.

(b) If so, state fully the circumstances:

10. (a) Have you ever been an officer or employee of the United States? Yes.

(b) If so, state the branch of service, with dates of appointment to and separation from service, together with reason for separation: Secretary to Harry B. Hawes, United States Senator from Missouri, December 1, 1926 to February 1, 1933. Secretary to Bennett Champ Clark, United States Senator from Missouri, February 1, 1933, to June 1, 1933. Reason for separation: Resigned to enter law practice. United States Maritime Commission, June 11, 1937, to May 1, 1939. Resigned to enter law practice.

(c) Have you ever been employed by the United States Maritime Commission? Yes.

(d) If so, state date of separation from service, together with reason for separation: From June 11, 1937 to May 1, 1939. Reason for separation: Resigned to reenter law practice.

11. Describe any specific training in admiralty; what steps you have taken to familiarize yourself with (1) the provisions of the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, Shipping Act, 1916, and kindred acts; (2) the decisions of the courts, and of the Maritime Commission and it predecessors, with respect to matters now under the jurisdiction of the Maritime Commission; and (3) your experience, if any, in conducting cases before regulatory commissions, State or Federal: Have had no specific training in admiralty. During the time of my employment in the Maritime Commission I was attached to the Legal Division and in the course of my duties became familiar with the provisions of the various shipping acts and court decisions thereunder, as well as the decisions of the Maritime Commission and its predecessors. My experience in conducting matters before regulatory commissions has been confined to the Interstate Commerce Commission, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Maritime Commission as a representative of the latter agency.

12. In connection with what branch of the Commission's activities do you intend to practice? (Please specify.) All phases.

13. Give the names and business addresses of three persons not relatives, who have knowledge of your experience, ability, and character. (Only one reference may be from a present business partner or associate.)

Bon Geaslin, being first duly sworn, on his oath deposes and says that he is the person named in the foregoing application for admission to practice before the United States Maritime Commission, and the statement of facts therein contained are true.

BON GEASLIN.

Subscribed in my presence, and sworn to before me, this 27th day of NovemCAROLIN LOVING, Notary Public.

ber 1939.

[SEAL]

My commission expires September 1, 1944.

TO BE EXECUTED AND FILED WITH APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION TO PRACTICE BEFORE THE UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION

District of Columbia, ss:

I, Bon Geaslin, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will conduct myself according to law and the rules for the registration of persons entitled to practice before the UNITED STATES MARITIME COMMISSION; that my conduct will be upright, without misrepresentation by concealment or otherwise, and such, as far as in my power, as will justify the confidence reposed in me by the Commission and its members, and by parties whom I may at any time represent, and as will promote and maintain respect for the United States, the Commission, and those who are entitled to practice before it.

Subscribed and sworn before me this 4th day of December 1939. [SEAL]

Commission expires September 1, 1944.

BON GEASLIN.

CAROLIN LOVING, Notary Public,

FURTHER STATEMENT OF W. B. GARNER, VICE PRESIDENT, WATERMAN STEAMSHIP CORPORATION, MOBILE, ALA.

Mr. GARNER. On or about the 15th of November of 1940, the Waterman Steamship Corporation made application for membership in the Straits-New York Conference. That conference maintains jurisdiction in the trades between the Straits Settlements, the Dutch East Indies, and the United States, North Atlantic. Our application was denied by that conference. We then reapplied for membership, and the denial was reaffirmed. We inquired as to why our application was denied, and the assertion was made that the trade was then adequately being served. We did not believe that that reason was the true one, and we certainly felt then, and still feel it was the poorest excuse that could have been offered. That conference, if my memory serves me correctly, did.consist at that time of 16 members, of which only two were American lines. It appears that the American members agreed with the foreign members for the rejection of our application was unanimous by the entire group.

The result was that a number of ships which otherwise we would have put into the trade hauling tin and rubber from the Straits Settlements to the United States were denied that privilege. We could not go in there and get tonnage because the ships were all tied up under the exclusive-patronage agreement. The statement was made that the lines who were members were the only ones who could get in and get the traffic.

Finally the situation was worked out by the Maritime Commission calling an informal conference the 15th of January 1941, and that resulted in a great deal of oral discussion. It was repeated then that the trade was sufficiently served, that there were enough ships in the trade to serve it. The British lines and the Japanese lines opposed our coming in, and the American lines sided with the Japanese and the British in denying our right to enter that trade. The Maritime Commission saw that the situation was becoming rather serious. I am sure the Commission realized the need for the transportation of an increased supply of rubber and tin into this country, and finally the Commission instructed the conference lines that they should give us conference privileges in that trade in order that an increased supply

of those materials might be brought into this country. So, a few months later we were given conference privileges. We have never been admitted into that conference. I do say that had we been admitted promptly upon receipt of and filing of our application, that several additional shiploads of rubber and tin and other strategic materials originating in that trade would have been in this country

now.

The CHAIRMAN. The whole matter of conferences will be gone into later.

Mr. CANFIELD. Were you or anyone representing you at that conference?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. CANFELD. What group was most vocal in that group?

Mr. GARNER. Well, the decision was made by the conference which they have sitting in Singapore. They had a committee in New York, which, in the final analysis, I think, dictated what the conference in Singapore should do. I, as an individual, was not present when the application was acted upon. We have copies of the letters which were written by the secretary of that conference to us declining our application, and similar letters were written to the Maritime Commission, stating that our application was denied because they alleged that the berths were adequately tonnaged.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask if in the records of the Maritime Commission there is a complete record of that transaction?

Commander EVANS. I would be glad to ascertain that for you, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, let us have it if there is.

Mr. WELCH. Is it not safe to assume that the British Ministry of War Transport was, as usual, conspicuous at the Singapore conference? Mr. GARNER. There were a number of British lines engaged in that trade, and there were a number of Japanese lines in that trade, I think maybe four or five. There were some Dutch lines, and I do not recall whether there were any German lines or not.

Mr. O'BRIEN. Were there any Norwegian lines?

Mr. GARNER. I believe there was one Norwegian line.

Mr. WELCH. I remember Will Rogers saying about this country's experience in foreign conferences that we had never won one and never lost a war.

Mr. GARNER. We have never, during recent years, been able to gain any admission into any conference without fighting for weeks and sometimes months to gain such admission.

Mr. CULKIN. The date of that conference was what?

Mr. BOYKIN. January 15, 1941.

Mr. CULKIN. That was subsequent to the passage of lend-lease? Mr. GARNER. I do not think so. Our application for membership was originally filed on or about November 15, 1940.

Mr. CULKIN. About that time the British Ministry of War Transport. group were routing all of our boats, were they not?

Mr. GARNER. I think they were routing all of the ships under the British flag.

Mr. CULKIN. And all of them under the American flag?

Mr. GARNER. I do not think their powers had quite gotten up to the point of routing them.

Mr. CULKIN. They subsequently did.

Mr. GARNER. As I understand it, under the arrangements which have been worked out, I understand that the American Government worked in close concert with the British Government with respect to the routing of all vessels serving the Allies.

Mr. CULKIN. That is, they accepted the dictum of the British Ministry of War Transport, is that what you mean to say?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir. Of course, I do no presume to have anything to do with the British Ministry of War Transport.

Mr. CULKIN. We have had some evidence here to that effect, but you could not get your boats in to get this needed material by reason of England and Japan acting jointly in that instance?

Mr. GARNER. Yes, sir; and the other members, the American lines joined also.

Mr. O'BRIEN. What American lines were they?

Mr. GARNER. The American President Line, I belive it was, and the Isthmian Steamship Co.

The CHAIRMAN. All right, gentlemen, are there any further questions? If not, we will hear the representative of the Accounting Office, Mr. Tulloss. In the former hearing Mr. Tulloss asked permission that his coworkers be up here with him. They did the investigational work, and without objection they will be permitted to sit with him at the witness table.

STATEMENTS OF STEWART B. TULLOSS, CHIEF OF INVESTIGATIONS; HARRY S. BARGER, INVESTIGATOR; AND THOMAS H. REAVIS, INVESTIGATOR, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C.

Mr. TULLOSS. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee, I desire to make a brief statement concerning the report to Congress on the transactions between the Maritime Commission and the Waterman Steamship Corporation. As in the case of the Tampa Shipbuilding Co., Inc., a complaint was filed with the Comptroller General concerning the report in the Waterman matters. The facts involved have been carefully reviewed, but nothing has been found to establish that the report is factually incorrect, or that there should be any modification of it.

Indeed, under date of October 15, 1942, the Maritime Commission filed with the chairman of the House Committee on Expenditures in the Government Departments an answer to the Waterman report in which, as we read the answer, the Commission has admitted all factual matters contained in the Comptroller's report to Congress, either expressly or by failure to deny the facts averred. Specifically, as we understand the Commission's answer, it is admitted that, in or about June 1940, the Commission sold to Waterman Steamship Corporation five vesesls from the Commission's laid-up fleet for the sum of $596,000, and, as one of the considerations for the sale, it was agreed that the Commission might repurchase the same vessels for that sum, plus improvements, if any, and less depreciation. I may say at this point that the covenant for the repurchase was strictly in line with the provisions of section 902, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, under which the Commission was and is authorized to take vessels for

war uses and purposes. The Commission's answer filed with Congressman O'Leary further says, in substance, that in late 1941 and early 1942 (after the President had proclaimed a national emergency within the meaning of section 902, Merchant Marine Act, 1936), the Commisison, instead of exercising its right to repurchase the vessels sold in June 1940, adopted a policy which led it to, and it did, purchase from Waterman Steamship Corporation five other and different vessels, all but one of which were older than those sold to the Corporation in June 1940, and paid for them the sum of $3,374,700, or substantially $1,995,602.68, more than the $596.000 for which it could have repurchased the vessels sold to the corporation in June 1940. The prices paid for the five old vessels so purchased from the corporation aggregated an average of $75 per deadweight ton, which was greatly in excess of the price for which the Commission could have repurchased the other vessels, and far in excess of the prices which, under the Merchant Marine Act, 1936, were proper to be paid for them for use in the proclaimed national emergency.

In further connection with the complaint filed with the Comptroller General by Mr. Bon Geaslin concerning the report to Congress, as set forth on page 12 of that report, attention is invited to the fact that the Comptroller General merely suggested to Congress that the conduct of Mr. Bon Geaslin in respect of the transactions. reported was "a possible violation of the spirit, if not of the letter, of section 807, Merchant Marine Act, 1936, as amended, as well as of good ethics in the transaction of the public business before the Commission."

In the light of data in hand at the time of, and supporting, the report to Congress, of the facts subsequently brought to attention by written statements of Mr. Bon Geaslin himself, and of data later found in the files of Waterman Steamship Corporation, it is believed this committee will feel that Mr. Geaslin was dealt with in a most lenient fashion in the Comptroller's report to Congress, as will be shown by representatives of the General Accounting Office in this hearing.

With the committee's permission, I should like to leave to Messrs. Thomas H. Reavis and Harry S. Barger, investigators for the General Accounting Office, who are altogether familiar with the facts supporting the Comptroller's report, to discuss that report and certain additional data, and to answer any questions the committee shall propound.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions?

Mr. WELCH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one question of the witness.

When Admiral Land testified before this committee on this matter yesterday or the day before

Mr. BOYKIN. The day before.

Mr. WELCH. The day before yesterday he stated it was his practice to consult your department before entering into transactions of this kind. I reminded the committee of your answer to my question when you were on the stand the other day when I asked you if a precedent had been established whereby the Maritime Commission consulted your department before entering into large financial transactions, and I believed you stated no, as the record will show. What is the case?