nessman, if I would find out he was $75,000 to $100,000 higher than O'Brien's figure was for that job, if he had heard about it I am quite sure I would have-I would have gone to the contractor and raised it $50,000. I didn't want him to know that. I don't think he understood at the time what was in my mind.

So I finally got impatient and went out and told Mr. Burns: "Mr. Burns, I have told you all the information I can. I am in a terrible hurry. This man has only been told about an hour and a half ago that he has to go to Washington. He hasn't even been home to his wife and told her yet. At 3 o'clock he has to go get on the plane. We haven't a minute to lose. I told you everything. I wouldn't tell O'Brien's partition, your partition, or anybody else about this. I have to be especially careful talking to you with the conduct that Henges had down in St. Louis. I have to be especially careful.” I said: "But don't think that I am running, because any time you want to start throatcutting, start it, and I will get into throatcutting with you.'

I think that disturbed Mr. Burns momentarily.

Mr. BROOKS. Did you think they were trying to get more information after you told them that they had all the data you were giving them?

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. And that it was time to hit that door?

Mr. WARREN. I don't think Mr. Burns was trying himself to get information, but the information he was getting was confidential. But I don't think he appreciated that what he was trying to get was confidential.

Mr. BROOKS. That is pretty interesting.

On the day after this supposed verbal abuse, Mr. Burns wrote a letter to Mr. Jay apparently. I would like to put that in the record at this point. Read it, Mr. Moore, it is not too long.

Mr. MOORE. This is an office memo from the Henges Co. It is addressed to Mr. Tom Jay from Mr. Murray Burns. The subject of which is, "Verbal Abuse by Mr. Ralph Warren." It is dated September 22.

Yesterday I had occasion to visit Mr. Warren twice, once in the morning at which time I was treated in a very gentlemanly fashion, and the second time in the afternoon when I went over to simply ask a question about the Omaha Courthouse-not about prices or status of contractors-but if GSA had received a partition price to take to Washington along with stud wall prices. Mr. Warren became incensed and said he would not let me get any information from his office, and then he started a verbal barrage of abuse concerning the Mart Building in St. Louis which was furthest from my mind in which he said he hoped that our firm would start something on this as there are a few throats he could cut. Mr. Jay, I just work for this firm and have no ill will toward anyone, especially Mr. Warren, and I think it is unbecoming of a man in Mr. Warren's position to expostulate before his entire office like this. Clarence Marshall was with me during this tirade. I said nothing.

Mr. BROOKS. Just what did you say to him? again?

Will you tell us

Mr. WARREN. I told Mr. Burns. I said, "Mr. Burns, I have told you everything that I can tell you. I am very hurried. I am really getting pushed. I am in an awful fix here. I can't give you any information on this. This is not like a public bid opening. This is a private thing between you and the contractor and between the con

tractor and us. I can't tell you, and I wouldn't tell you, or I won't tell any other contractor." I said what was it?-I said, "Another thing, I have to be very careful what I tell you as a representative of the Henges Co. because you people caused me an awful lot of trouble on your conduct in St. Louis."

Mr. BROOKS. When did you learn about this note being written by Mr. Burns?

Mr. WARREN. A friend of mine told me that he had delivered the note, and then a day or two later, maybe it was the next day, it was a short time, Mr. Lund called me into the office and we discussed it. Mr. BROOKS. Did they have a memo from Mr. Jay at that time? Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir. He showed me a memo from Mr. Jay? Mr. BROOKS. Is this the memo? I will read it. This is the memo dated September 25, 1959, regional director, PBS, complaint by Mr. Murray Burns. Will you read this?

Mr. MOORE (reading):

Attached is a personal note received from Murray Burns of the Henges Co. on which I have taken no action because of my expected absence from the office. I would appreciate it if you would look into the matter and give me a memo in regard as to the actual facts of the incident and the corrective steps taken.

Mr. BROOKS. Do you have a copy of this memo?

Mr. WARREN. No, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. We have a memo from you written at the time of that meeting with Mr. Lund. That is the one I meant. That is what I am talking about. You then complied with this and you got a memo together to send to him. I believe this is a copy of it, isn't it?

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir. Mr. Lund conferred with me. We went before my secretary, and my secretary-he spoke about it in front of the entire office-my secretary, as far as I could find out, was the only one that heard the conversation. The conversation couldn't have been loud. We were standing in front of my secretary's desk.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. What is your secretary's name?

Mr. WARREN. Mrs. Roberta McCarthy.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Excuse me. There was another person mentioned, wasn't there, by the name of Marshall, as being present?

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir. It was an associate. I didn't know his name at the time. He was with Mr. Burns, yes. He went to-I went to Mr. Lund, talked to Mrs. McCarthy. Mrs. McCarthy's testimony, I think she said that I was firm, and I was insistent, but I was not abusive, nor did I use any profane language in any shape, manner, or form.

Mr. BROOKS. After you got this memo, you had a meeting with Mr. Lund, is that correct?

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. And you then worked up this memo here and presented it, is that right? A memo that you gave to him?

Mr. WARREN. As I recall, Mr. Lund prepared a memo to Mr. Jay. Mr. BROOKS. Prepared on September 30, 1959, and says, "Čonfidential file, Henges Co. letter to Mr. Jay."

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir. I preserved that to preserve my memory. I wrote that immediately while my memory was fresh.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Harding, show that to him to be sure this is the same document he is talking about.

Mr. WARREN. I wrote that because I knew my memory was fresh and probably wouldn't be so good later [document handed to witness]. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. This is the memo you prepared on the facts and circumstances existing at the time of this conference with Mr. Lund? Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir.

(The memo referred to is as follows:)

[From confidential file]

HENGES Co. LETTER TO MR. JAY

SEPTEMBER 30, 1959.

me.

Yesterday, September 29, 1959, at about 10:30 a.m., Mr. Lund called me into his office and showed me a memorandum from Mr. Jay to which was attached a memorandum from Mr. Burns of the Henges Co. Mr. Burns' remarks were that he had received ill treatment from me a few days before in the conversation that we had in connection with the partition proposal that we had in the office from the Bateson Co. regarding partition changes at the new Omaha Federal Building. Mr. Jay's memorandum was a very short one, the closing sentence of which went somewhat as follows as addressed to Mr. Lund: "Get the facts and report to me on corrective action taken." It appeared to me that, inasmuch as he had requested a report on corrective action taken, Mr. Jay had presumed that the facts were such that corrective measures had to be effected, and inasmuch as it is necessarily to be presumed that Mr. Jay was not directing Mr. Lund to corrective action against the Henges Co., it logically follows that he was directing that corrective action be taken against This attitude showed itself later in Mr. Lund's conversation. He asked me what I thought he should report to Mr. Jay on the corrective action. My reply to Mr. Lund was I would not accept a reprimand without protesting it, that under circumstances I would act again as I acted before and with considered, deliberated motives. We conversed at some length on this subject in Mr. Lund's office and at about 11:10 a.m. I told Mr. Lund that I thought that the only person other than the representatives of the Henges Co. and myself who heard the conversation was probably my secretary, Mrs. McCarthy, who I thought heard all the conversation. I suggested to him he ask Mrs. McCarthy to come into his office without my presence and take her testimony on the nature of the conversation that was held. Mr. Lund's reply was that he would like to go back into my office with Mrs. McCarthy. This we did. Mrs. McCarthy's statement was to the effect that the conversation was short, that the tone of my voice was decisive, and that in essence told the Henges Co. that the information contained in the Bateson proposal in relation to the mountable partitions was not one of public competition and was, therefore, confidential, and that I, Warren, would not divulge any of the information to him, to the O'Brien Partition Co., Henges' partition company, or anyone outside of the regional office. I might add that in addition I told Mr. Burns that I had to be very careful with any information that I divulged to him as a representative of the Henges Co. because of the very reprehensible conduct they had shown in connection with the Mart Building contract which was about completed.

During the time that I was in Mr. Lund's office we held a discussion in connection with the contract for partitions, etc., at the Mart Building. The essence of those remarks were that Mr. Lund again was very insistent on installing of strips in the hall panels of the partitions at the Mart Building, which problem is described in Mr. Kunze's report of September 21, 1959. I again told Mr. Lund that I would be most glad to direct the installations of the strips, that I still felt they were outside of the requirements of the contract, and that the contractor, in accordance with his claims, should be given additional compensation for the execution of this work. I called attention to Mr. Lund to the fact that if we insisted that this contractor do this work without additional compensation, it was very well possible that the contractor might open up the whole subject of his claims of discrimination and ill treatment in connection with the conduct of the Henges Co., Mr. Jay, and Mr. Lund; that I thought that to bring the matter open again, have people start throwing dead fish at each other, was not worth the amount of $150. That in addition to this I advised Mr. Lund that I felt that the contractor very well, if he was aware of his rights, could ask for an extension of time on the contract, which would have to be given, and that he,

in turn, then submit proposals possibly in the amount of several thousand dollars which would have to be paid. Mr. Lund said that he did not care if these proposals were legal and allowable when they came in, it did not bother him that the contractor's making no such claim might, in case we endeavor to jam down this particular piece of small work, from what he (the contractor) considered an unjust basis.

I then told Mr. Lund that I would be very glad and cooperative to endeavor to have the contractor do this work without compensation although I felt as though the whole thing might be again brought into a severe controversy. In order to keep the records straight, I felt that he should give me a memorandum directing me to take this action, to spell out his desires in the matter. His reaction to this was that, yes, he would give me such a memorandum. As the conversations continued, it became very evident he had no such intention of putting his directions into writing. Because of the fact that on many occasions previously Mr. Lund has demonstrated he is without integrity or memory on such matters, it bothers me very much to proceed in accordance with his verbal directions.

I am now in a quandry. If I proceed in accordance with his verbal directions I feel very much he will not stand up to testify later, and to testify to his directions. If I wait for his memorandum, which I do not believe will come forth, it will mean a further delay in completion of this contract. I am contemplating writing Mr. Lund a memorandum calling to his attention specific instructions that he desires for me to work under. This for the record.

Mr. BROOKS. Mr. Wallhauser?

Mr. WALLHAUSER. In this colloquy with Mr. Burns, did you ask him to leave the office?

Mr. WARREN. Oh, no, sir; no. Good gracious, Mr. Burns and I worked very amicably together, as well as many, many other con

tractors.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. If you

Mr. WARREN. I have never done such a thing in my life.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. If you had confidential matters

Mr. WARREN. I told him I couldn't talk to him right then because I had to get this man off to Washington.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. Don't you think you should have asked him to step outside while you were talking?

Mr. WARREN. Sir, my office was built like a snake pit. It was 5 foot 6 inches high. You can hear conversations over it, back and forth, and everywhere else. There were no facilities provided for me for guests, who could have a place to sit and wait, who called upon me. Mr. Jay has since provided me with an office, and chairs away from the office so that they can't hear conversations going on in the office, where customers and people come in and sit.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. I presume, on account of your good relationship with Mr. Burns, had you invited him to leave, he would have left, wouldn't he, and made another appointment to come back?

Mr. WARREN. Sir, I can't even I won't even talk about inviting anybody to leave. I never invited anybody to leave. I just told him I didn't have time to talk to him there, that I would talk to him later.

Mr. WALLHAUSER. I don't think it is unusual to invite somebody to leave. I know I have, many times, when I was in conference or had other matters. That is not unusual. I don't think that point is an unusual point.

Mr. WARREN. Usual or unusual, it doesn't enter into this, sir, an invitation to leave.

sir.

Mr. BROOKS. It didn't please him very much, anyway.

Mr. WARREN. Well, construction business isn't conducted by pansies, There are many times of disagreement for which construction

men usually let each tub sit on its bottom. Good friends don't always agree.

Mr. BROOKS. They somtimes differ.

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. At the time you had this conference, did you feel that Mr. Lund was still favorable to the Henges Co. claims on the Mart Building? Did that come up again in this conference about Mr. Burns and the argument in the office?

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir. I think I opened up the subject there on that, because I made an appeal to him. I said, "Mr. Lund, you are insistent that this extra work be done for which the contractor is becoming very irritated about and feels injured about. It doesn't amount to anything, and in our opinion and the engineers, it is not required by the contract. I said, "If you will give me instructions in writing to have this done, I am not insubordinate, I have been in the Army and I know what insubordination is; you give me instructions in writing and I will have them do it." But I said, "If they do, I know if they will go to a lawyer they can get two to five thousand dollars more money than they have coming. They will go to a lawyer on other phases." And I said, "We might prolong this thing until maybe it will cost the Government that." Mr. Lund's reply was, "I don't care if they have it coming. If they have two, three, or five thousand dollars coming, let them come and get it. But I want them to do this work."

Mr. BROOKS. He wanted to make the changes that he thought were necessary?

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir. And he said at that time that he might give me instructions in writing to have them do this work.

Mr. BROOKS. Did he give you instructions in writing to get this accomplished?

Mr. WARREN. He specifically said it.

Mr. BROOKS. Did he give you those instructions in writing?

Mr. WARREN. No, sir.

Mr. BROOKS. Did you feel that you were wise not to have gone against your own better judgment, particularly since it would have saved the Government a couple of thousand dollars?

Mr. WARREN. Yes, sir. I felt that. And I felt that I was trying to execute fairplay, because contractors, after all, are citizens of the United States, also. They are not just contractors and lose their citizenship when they become a contractor. They should have a right to fairplay. And I was trying to stand up and give fairplay to the

contractors.

Mr. BROOKS. After that meeting with Lund on the 28th, what happened to Mr. Burns' complaint with regard to your behavior?

Mr. WARREN. Would you ask that again, sir?

Mr. BROOKS. After your meeting with Mr. Lund on the 28th, concerning your discussions

Mr. WARREN. Oh, yes; yes.

Mr. BROOKS. With Mr. Burns, what happened in regard to that complaint?

Mr. WARREN. Mr. Lund gave me a copy of a memorandum that he was writing to Mr. Jay in connection with that incident, and in that memorandum it indicated, he said that he was placing it in my personnel file.