GOVERNMENT 

•W 73(40r, N GA'

Storage

CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STADIUM, AND MATTERS RELATED THERETO Y 

• Fl 844 2—

bsirr 5

HEARINGS

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

PURSUANT TO

S. Res. 212 and S. Res. 367

RESOLUTIONS AUTHORIZING AN INVESTIGATION INTO THE

FINANCIAL, BUSINESS, OR OTHER INTERESTS OR ACTIVITIES

OF PRESENT OR FORMER MEMBERS, OFFICERS, OR EMPLOYEES OF THE SENATE, WITH PARTICULAR EMPHASIS ON

THE ALLEGATIONS RAISED IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM, AND

MATTERS RELATED THERETO

,PART 5

DECEMBER 4, 1964

Testimony of Paul Aguirre, Samuel J. Scott,

Milton Hauft, and Myron Weiner

Printed for the use of the Committee on Rules and Administration

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

38-408 0 WASHINGTON: 1965
COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina, Chairman

CARL HAYDEN, Arizona

HOWARD W. CANNON, Nevada

CLAIBORNE PELL, Rhode Island

JOSEPH S. CLARK, Pennsylvania

ROBERT C. BYRD, West Virginia

GORDON F. HARRISON, Staff Director

HUGH Q. ALEXANDER, Chief Counsel

CARL T. CURTIS, Nebraska

JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky

HUGH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

SPECIAL STAFF FOR THE PURPOSES OF SENATE RESOLUTION 212 AND SENATE

RESOLUTION 367

LENNOX P. MCLENDON, General Counsel

W. ELLIS MEEHAN, Chief Investigator

BURKETT VAN KIRK, Associate Counsel (Minority)

JAMES H. DUFFY, Associate Counsel
CONTENTS

Opening statement by Senator B. Everett Jordan, chairman of the Corn- Page mittee on Rules and Administration 

Testimony 565 of:

Paul Aguirre, accompanied by Myron G. Ehrlich 567 Samuel J. Scott, investigator, Committee on Rules and Administra- tion 

Milton 586 Hauft 595 Myron Weiner, accompanied by F. Joseph Donohue, attorney 606

EXHIBITS

No.

54. Subpena, dated November 23, 1964, for appearance of Paul F. Aguirre before the Committee on Rules and Administration on December 1, 1964 569 55. Check, dated April 4, 1964, to Robert G. Baker for $60,000, signed by Paul F. Aguirre, and endorsement thereon 571 56. Promissory note, dated April 4, 1964, in favor of Paul Aguirre for $60,000, signed by Robert G. Baker 572 57. Check, dated in 1964, to Paul Aguirre for $1,950, from Mecklenburg Enterprises, Inc., signed by Nancy Carole Tyler, secretary-treas- urer 574 58. Affidavit of John D. Lane given to the Committee on Rules and Ad- ministration, dated November 27, 1964 583-584 59. Letter, dated November 27, 1964, from Paul F. McArdle, vice presi- dent, Bar Association of the District of Columbia, to the general counsel of the Rules Committee in reference to John D. Lane 585 60. Memorandum dated March 10, 1964, from Samuel J. Scott, investi- gator for the Rules Committee, to the committee's general counsel

61. 

on an interview with Paul F. Aguirre in Puerto Rico 590 List of checks from various companies received by Myron Weiner for services rendered, deposited April 2, 1962 612

CONSTRUCTION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

STADIUM, AND MATTERS RELATED THERETO

FRIDAY, DECEMBER 4, 1964

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION,

Washington, D .0 .

The committee met, pursuant to recess, at 9:55 a.m., in the caucus

room, Old Senate Office Building, Senator B. Everett Jordan (chairman) presiding.

Present: Senators Jordan, Hayden, Pell, and Cooper.

Also present: Gordon F. Harrison, staff director; Hugh Q. Alexander, chief counsel; L. P. McLendon, general counsel; Burkett Van

Kirk, associate counsel; James H. Duffy, associate counsel; William 

Ellis Meehan, investigator; Walter L. Mote, professional staff member; Samuel J. Scott, investigator; William B. Whitley, staff assistant

to Senator Jordan; Edward T. Hugler, investigator; E. George Pazianos, associate counsel; and William R. Haley, staff assistant to Senator Cooper.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will please come to order.

Mr. Aguirre, please come forward to the witness stand, sir. Mr.

Aguirre, it is necessary that I read an opening statement to you in

order that you and your attorney may know your rights before this

committee. A quorum being present, the committee will please come

to order. This committee is acting by direction and under the authority of Senate Resolution 367, agreed to on September 10, 1964, and

Senate Resolution 212, agreed to on October 10, 1963. Senate Resolution 367 renews the powers authorized by Senate Resolution 212 and

broadens the scope of jurisdiction conferred.

The Committee on Rules and Administration has now been granted

the power to investigate all interests or activities of present or former

Members, officers, or employees of the U.S. Senate for the purpose

of determining whether such interests or activities have involved any

violation of law or other impropriety or have reflected unfavorably

upon the integrity of the Senate, and whether additional laws2 rules,

or regulations are necessary or desirable for the purpose of prohibiting

or restricting any such interests or activities.

The study and investigation authorized by this resolution is directed

to give particular emphasis to the allegations raised in connection with

the construction of the District of Columbia Stadium and matters

relating thereto. The committee believes that witnesses who are

called to testify possess information which is material and pertinent

to the subject matter under investigation as authorized and will aid

the committee in the fulfillment of its legislative purpose. The Chair

advises each witness that he is entitled under the rules of procedure

565
•

566 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

adopted by the committee to retain and be accompanied by counsel

who may advise the witness of his legal rights during the course of the

inquiry but who shall not coach or answer for the witness. Should the

witness not understand any question directed to him he may ask for

clarification.

The committee will now proceed to hear the testimony of the witness

present under subpena by request. Would you rise and place your left

hand on the Bible, sir, and raise your right hand? Do you solemnly

swear that the evidence you are about to give before this committee,

in the matter under investigation is the truth, the whole truth, and

nothing but the truth, so help you 

investigation,

?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, sir. Please be seated.

Senator Pell, will you please assume the chair?

Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, before you ask the witness any questions, may I be permitted to make a statement in behalf of the

witness?

Mr. MCLENDON. Yes sir; go ahead.

Senator PE. LL Go ahead.

Mr. EHRLICH. I was retained—I will wait until such time as the

chairman is not otherwise occupied.

Mr. MCLENDON. I am sorry; go ahead.

Mr. EHRLICH. I was retained in this case Monday evening by the

witness who flew in here in answer to a subpena duces tecum from

San Juan, P.R. The subpena requires him to bring with him and

produce for the period of January 1, 1960, to date all the records

including but not limited to all correspondence, memorandums, canceled checks, and so forth, that relate to any and all business and

financial transactions with Robert G. and Dorothy C. Baker.

(Senator Jordan left the hearing room.)

Mr. EHRLICH. The witness did bring with him those records and, at

the request of committee counsel, I accompanied the witness to the

Senate Office Building here and he turned those records over to one

of your staff members. The witness came fully intending to answer all

questions that had to do with these transactions. However, I have

learned that this witness would be asked questions the answers to which

might form a link in the chain of testimony that would subject him to

possible prosecution for improper association with others. In the

light of that, I have advised him, because it is very difficult for a

lawyer to understand when a question might tend to incriminate and

when not to incriminate, I have advised him to refuse on constitutional

grounds to answer all questions. I did that because the committee

counsel—and he has been very fair to me in all of the associations I

have had with him—would not assure me and would not assure the

witness that any questions that were asked would not tend to incriminate the witness. So in view of that, and if the witness follows my

advice, he will refuse on constitutional grounds to answer all questions propounded to him by members of the committee or the committee staff.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 567

Senator PELL. Mr. Counsel, will you identify yourself with your

name and address?

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes; my name is Myron G. Ehrlich. I am a lawyer

in the District of Columbia and have been almost since time immemorial, I guess.

Senator PELL. Your address?

Mr. EHRLICH. My address is 401 Third Street NW.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Aguirre, will you state your name and address

in the record?

TESTIMONY OF PAUL F. AGUIRRE, ACCOMPANIED BY MYRON G.

EHRLICH

Mr. AGUIRRE. My name is Paul Aguirre. I live at 646 Concordia

Street, Santurce, P.R.

Mr. MCLENDON. The statement made by Mr. Ehrlich is in his capacity as your attorney on this occasion?

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. You acknowledge the subpena to which your counsel referred was properly served on you, do you not?

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And that you do have the records referred to in

the subpena?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I have turned the records over to your investigator,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you have no other records than the ones that

you turned over to a member of the staff?

Mr. AGUIRRE. No others, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Aguirre, how long have you been acquainted

with Robert G. Baker?

Mr. AGUIRRE. First, on advice of my counsel, Mr. Ehrlich, I refuse

to answer on constitutional grounds because I believe the subject matter is unrelated to any legislative purpose. It is beyond the inquiry

powers conferred upon the Senate in the U.S. Constitution, and is,

therefore, invalid and an unjustifiable encroachment upon my right

of privacy. Secondly, and on further advice of my counsel, Mr.

Ehrlich, I refuse to answer the question on the further constitutional

ground that the answer to such question might tend to incriminate

me.

Mr. MCLENDON. I would like for you and your counsel to examine

this copy of the subpena so that you can identify it for the record.

Senator PELL. I would like to ask the counsel a point of law here.

The first reason he gave; do you think that is correct? Don't we have

the right to ask questions of anyone in connection with a Senate employee? In other words, shouldn't the witness be taking the grounds

of not incriminating himself, and not saying it is not within the purview of our committee?

Mr. MCLENDON. I thought the statement he read did say that you

thought the examination, any questions asked, would incriminate you,

didn't you?
568 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Senator PELL. The first reason he gave was that it was beyond the

purview of the committee. This I would disagree with. The second

I don't.

Mr. EHRLICH. Senator, you certainly have a right to disagree with

him, but we have a right to make that statement.

Senator PELL. Absolutely.

Mr. EHRLICH. What is your question, Major?

Mr. MCLENDON. I want you to examine that copy and see if that is a

copy of the subpena served on your client.

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes; that is a copy of it.

Mr. MCLENDON. Hand it to the reporter there. Mr. Reporter, mark

it as an exhibit.

(The document referred to is as follows:)
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 569

EXHIBIT 54

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Congrefs5 of tic tiniteb iptate5

To %al F. LiArm, ikiJidoa1ii, Pa; Li. F. 4.2iirrf,2 ixeutive 

Pre --, iderit of Jarze - T. Brzne & err. )u.ri P.,er6e) mo. a or,),-ratio

ar. Juan, Puerto RI , greeting:

Pur5uant to lawful authority, You ./1RE HEREBY COMM.4NDED to

appear before the Committee on 

of the Senate of the United States, on cter La

at 10:0( o'clock a • m., at their committee room

Offloe /311111 '• 'a 3hin.7,.t.on C.

, 19 

, then and there

to testify what you may know relative to the subject matters under consideration by said comm,ittee., and to bri.hc, with ../.:71; and prod.we or the Tyeriod Januarzr 1, .L•, X() , to date ....Li the re4.tordf:, including but not limited to ell corre.-.2onden :2 e ineoranda, cexx. 1 le 

rerordr. j 1cij ..:13.rbon and other ,.-!)pier; rciati:k: to an„.. and all bu!-,ine•:- and .7inan.ia1 trr-rwacti,:m:. G. and D,r..,th-• - C 

ligreof fail not, as you will answer your default under the pains and penalties in such cases made and provided.

To U. :7 

to serve and return.

giben under my hand, by order of the committee, this

th day of L ••te.r.1.,e1 , in the year of our

Lord one thousand nine hundred and f-'";,sr 

Chairman, Committee on Rule:- ano. ni 

7.05 010.. enat.c 01.11.1dinc, hini,-;Lon P. c.

38-408 0-65--pt. 5-2
570 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Aguirre, you furnished to the committee and

the committee staff a copy of a check written by you April 4, 1964,

payable to Robert G. Baker, in the amount of $60,000. Will you look

at this copy and state whether this is a correct copy of that check?

Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, so that my client won't be forced and

you won't be forced to hear a repetition of these two long statements,

may he say in answer to each question that he gives the same reason for

refusing to answer as he did the first question?

Senator PELL. I would like for the committee that we accept the

statement because of the second paragraph in regard to self-incrimination, but not the first paragraph that this investigation is beyond

the purview of this committee.

Senator COOPER. In response to the last question is the witness relying on the fifth amendment?

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes; that is one part of it, and he is also relying on

the part that this committee is serving no legislative purpose.

Senator PELL. We have been directed to do this by the Senate.

Mr. EHRLICH. I understand that, sir, and I disagree with what the

Senate has done as involving a legislative purpose. Now chances are

that everybody will disagree with me, but I have a right as a lawyer to

suggest that.

Senator COOPER. I would like to state for the record that I can accept

his refusal to testify upon the grounds of the fifth amendment. I don't

accept on the first grounds you mention.

Mr. EHRLICH. Senator, you are a lawyer?

Senator COOPER. I hope so.

Mr. EHRLICH. We have a right to put it in the record that way, don't

we?

Senator COOPER. You have a right to put it in the record. I want

to make clear that I don't accept it.

Senator PELL. In other words, the majority of the committee accepts the second ground, not the first.

Mr. EHRLICH. What was the last question?

Mr. MCLENDON. The question was whether Mr. Aguirre will identify that as a correct copy of the check shown to the staff.

Mr. EHRLICH. Now may he be permitted, if he desires, to say that

he refuses to answer that question for the same reasons heretofore

given?

Mr. MCLENDON. Yes; that is all right for the committee.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer that question for reasons heretofore

given.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you have taken that position notwithstanding

the fact that you furnished these documents to the staff anyway?

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes.

Mr. MCLENDON. I ask you to look at this—mark that document

there, Mr. Reporter, and give it the proper number.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

(The document referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT 55

No.

PAY TO THE

ORDER OF

I

• • _ 114

FIRST NATIONAL CI

S JUAN BRANCH

SAN JUAN PUERTO

1:0 2/ 'II

571

101-204

21!,

WC).100_0!UO

_DOLLARS

.0000 000000.'1

7."....""1117111111.111141541"1"464416611614611661""talladMililliiiiko

ti) 

•

4 N • 7_ yis

, I t • •"'

-)

,

,

0

91h

-1,frmr,f • ,,,,,rm,mep.rmrr,

Mr. MCLENDON. I ask you to look at this document, dated April 4, 1964, purporting to be a note, a promissory note, for $60,000 due in 365 days signed by Robert G. Baker, and I ask you whether that is a

copy of the original note which you showed the staff? Are you mak- ing the same answer?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I am making the same answer, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. You decline to identify that copy?

Mr. AGUIRRE. Yes.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mark that, Mr. Reporter.

(The document referred to is as follows:)
572 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

EXHIBIT 56

t.."1 JIN 0.11 'X

.44-714:40.

t. :yet-tkEttfltITT-1-1,1) Tst'S-T rn..-rrr-lt-VthfN4A3ttft,—ft--

fL

i.r. romose , G. 'he .o<irr

'If

,• =I t• , • ,t , , ? apn,,,, 1,411 fn, '••••r hereof kInft.gx.i. l'Irtnttryi And tntrrv,e

, , .

-t'—. ,a,..`,,„,

...... Thrwr-44•••••• , ' '....i,is La- shst.....-,•••••••••••-...i •,,,,,,,,,i. ... •4 At,

utildr........414.-.. AV .011=4

',A ,••4 .....),A,...g.l. a.C. Jaillrxx.. .....-•••.* .• .......••••• fer...,e, 4....- 4.0.4...imv• ,nrirrr,--lehirh..hrme4rex112twe.lrxe-v-x•jehe-miliodme. sus.,

; 

., 

, ,../ 

.- 

f „ -

,-. / 

/ "X '

' h

‹t:Att 1V1L •

tl

•14,111,•• crembetotr trirtted to, ',I., r

11,4%0, Ott* ../ !terrain*. ;f1 the lunch ot

toig, 4rgally equttehly

Thx untirt.gned ,urther um, 'hist shotilo JON .

fig Mk nt %ski o nix et SAY ;XV,

tre, tx niox Oktlf Mae hethstf, whoh sum shaft uhu bectireJ

n. :f h tothweliii trilogy rxxx soki s's Is herembetom

' h,rossmt 10,11F114, trtitttitt$ from the 1.-i t wit, 0 • `

.114ter& parittiff. Sit(.111X. ttt attn..' it rftt. flOtitt" tO the

thr N.RM. tht 41,4111, 1,41'. , or the iatt now irfrni ttlf

,hr vow effect Aelmethi to the uncial...toss, puma

t I

"O.W

t"

tt t 4.3 llfiki

1.1C11 ttot Any Atht lit

1.1n, to ctu htsmhesi, ix,

s ,spest-*.x, Mx "Alcamo'. sst thts note 4. "he

-.VC rah. eraxsrtale rwlienxe,

l'aVehte on Jentand, It

tfrneint pt,pniles 00 (V, ft/ *en! r

1$1.11 trXXVIT

i.rulrevalteii maw he rnacte wren the 'haw •

on It/v*114+4 Of t, 11,.01111,4 .1, ikial ,X,4,1

a', art,' , (sto:o ott, .1,,,(11X1114 4.11 011M alldb sktxt

'
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 573

Type _

Makers

Number Code

Rate

CURT A.LS BAL•NCE
574 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. MCLENDON. I show you another document dated August—I

can't be sure about the date—in 1964 at any rate, for $1,950, payable

to Paul Aguirre, signed by Nancy Carole Tyler, secretary-treasurer,

and ask you to look at that and state whether or not that is a copy of

a document that you furnished to the committee staff?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer on the same grounds as given

before.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mark that.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT 57

•14 oacourer

L.*

TOTAL 0.11“30...CTOrAill

MECKLENBURG ENTERPRISES, INC.

:OVISRAIOES OF HOWARD JOHNSON MOTOR LODGE

1-1, • I. .....dakromeei ilI

int

. .

'00 ISIldt intho

teok ter 2,6

341

6,18

Mr. MCLENDON. That latter document purports to be a payment of

interest, does it not, on this loan of $60,000?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer on the same grounds as before.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Aguirre, don't you know that that loan was

made for the purpose of enabling Baker to reacquire Fred Black's

interest in the Serv-U stock which had been hypothecated with a bank

in Oklahoma?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer on the same grounds as before.

Mr. MCLENDON. Will you give this committee any explanation of

why you would be lending him $60,000?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer on the same grounds as before.

Mr. MCLENDON. Were you under obligation to him to make a loan

of this type?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer on the same grounds as before.

Mr. MCLENDON. You had been associated with him in business, had

you not?
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 575

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given before.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you told the member of the staff who interviewed you as far back as February of this year that you made several

trips with him, including one to the Pacific coast; you and he stopped

in Houston, Tex., and looked at some land and discussed the possibility of buying it, did you not?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer on the same grounds as given

before.

Mr. MCLENDON. The evidence tends to show, Mr. Aguirre, that you

and Robert Baker were two of a number of people who got together

and organized a corporation known as the Pasantic ; is that correct?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given

before.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you also make a business trip with him to New

Orleans in May 1963? •

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Is it not true on that occasion that you and Baker

met with a man named Nick Popich and another man named Wilson

Abraham for the purpose of discussing a housing development?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. I ask you if in May 1963—that same year—you

didn't have a conference with Robert Baker in New Orleans when he

was accompanied by Carole Tyler, who has testified in this case that

she was secretary in his office as secretary to the majority, and a woman

named Ellyn Rometsch ?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you have an arrangement or engagement to

meet Baker and those two women prior to their arrival in New Orleans, or were you called to meet with them after they arrived?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you ever visit the home of Carole Tyler in

Washington?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. What is your hometown in Puerto Rico ?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. You are not willing to give us your address down in

Puerto Rico?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Is it not a fact that Carole Tyler actually visited

you in Puerto Rico?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reasons as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. The cominittee has received evidence, Mr. Aguirre,

that on one occasion you asked Baker for help in connection with the

clearance of a loan through FHA on some property in which you were

interested in Puerto Rico; is that correct?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before. •
576 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM •

Mr. MCLENDON. And did you not get the FHA persons who had

responsibility in this connection to reconsider their first decision?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you personally attend any conference in the

FHA with respect to that property?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Mr. MCLENDON. What is your official connection with the Enterprise Hotel Corp.?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Haven't you actually been a vice president and

treasurer of that company?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And isn't that the same corporation that Mr. Hancock testified in this case that he was interested in and you and he and

others had to get the gamblers out of it before any underwriter would

undertake to underwrite the stock?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Will you tell the committee which gamblers were

in it?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Suppose I eliminate the word "gamblers," will you

answer the question as to who was connected with the hotel—I mean

the Enterprise Hotel Corp.—in addition to yourself?

Mr. AGMRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Mr. MCLENDON. Would you tell us whether Baker was interested in

it?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Aguirre, when and where did ycu pay money to

Robert Baker?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you refuse to answer that, even though the

money may have been paid to him in his capacity as an individual

rather than as secretary to the majority?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Mr. MCLENDON. How often did you call on him for help in connection with matters in Washington?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Mr. MCLENDON. I think originally when you were first interviewed

that you stated, did you not, that you would voluntarily appear as a

witness?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. But in this instance a subpena was served on you.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. It is already in the record that the subpena was

served on you, so I guess that settles that one. Are you willing to give
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 577

this committee any information about your relations with Robert

Baker prior to the time that he resigned his position as secretary to

the majority?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Mr. MCLENDON. That Is all.

Senator PELL. Mr. Aguirre, I am confused when you won't even

give us your address. I guess there is a legal connection here, but are

you being investigated by any other branch of the Federal Government? Is this the reason you are taking the fifth amendment?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that you let the

record show that you as chairman of the committee have ordered the

witness to answer each of these questions, and he has refused to answer.

Senator PELL. So be it. Senator Cooper.

Mr. McLENDoN. Is that the correct pronunciation, Aguirre?

Mr. AGUIRRE. Aguirre.

Mr. MCLENDON. That doesn't incriminate you, I am sure.

Senator COOPER. Mr. Aguirre, you have refused to testify upon several grounds, but one ground is that of claiming the protection of the

fifth amendment against self-incrimination. I will ask you if it isn't,

a fact that in February of this year you did voluntarily make a statement to an investigator of this committee.

Mr. AGITIRRE. I refuse to answer.

Senator COOPER. Mr. Samuel J. Scott?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer on the same grounds as before.

Senator COOPER. At that time did you not say that you would appear

voluntarily as a witness before the committee provided that you would

be served with a subpena upon arrival which would enable you to be

reimbursed for the expenses of the trip?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Senator COOPER. The counsel has referred to several transactions

between you and Mr. Baker. I want to ask you if in this statement

that you made to Mr. Scott you did not enumerate the various transactions to which counsel referred?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Senator PELL. Excuse me, Senator Cooper. I would like the record

to show that the chairman orders the witness to answer these questions

on the part of Senator Cooper.

Senator COOPER. That should be done with respect to each question.

Didn't you say that you had a business deal with Mr. Baker concerning

an organization called the Pasantic Corp.?

Senator PELL. The Chair orders that that question be answered.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Senator COOPER. Will you tell the committeeSenator PELL. Excuse me; the Chair orders you to answer that

question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Senator COOPER. Will you tell the committee something about each

of the following persons who you previously said were associated with

you and Mr. Baker? I will name them. James T. Barnes, San Juan;

Warren Neil, San Juan; Francis "Doc" Law, Washington, D.C. ; Tom

Webb, Washington, D.C. ; Ed Bostick, Melpar, Washington, D.C. ;

38-408 0-65—pt. 5—'3
578 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Bedford Wynne, Dallas, Tex.; Wilson Abraham, New Orleans; and

Nick Popich, New Orleans, La.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before.

Senator PELL. As chairman I order you to answer that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Senator COOPER. As referred to by the counsel, is it correct that you

told the investigator of the committee at that time in February that

you did go to Houston with Baker for the purpose of seeing if you

could buy a 100-acre plot of land about three blocks south of the Shamrock Hotel, but you were told it would cost about 845 million and you

dropped the idea?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Senator PELL. I order you to answer that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Senate COOPER. Isn't it true that you told the investigator that you

went to New Orleans in May 1963 to talk to Mr. Baker about looking

for a trailer park site and also a possible housing development there?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to answer that question:

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Senator COOPER. Isn't it correct that at that time you told the committee investigator that Mr. Baker met you in May 1963 and brought

with him from Washington Carole Tyler and Ellyn Rometsch ?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

before, sir.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to answer.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

before, sir.

Senator COOPER. Isn't it correct that you told the investigator that

you knew Jose Benitez, who testified in this hearing that he had business dealings with Baker concerning a meat contract?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

before, sir.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to answer that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

before, sir.

Senator COOPER. I don't think I have anything further.

Senator PELL. There are no further questions.

Mr. MCLENDO/sT. Mr. Aguirre, at the time you were interviewea in

February 1964 by Mr. Samuel Scott, you did not ask him to treat your

interview in confidence did you?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

before, sir.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to answer that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Isn't it true that you voluntarily consented to be

interviewed?
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 579

Mr. AGUIRRE.

before, sir.

Senator PELL.

Mr. AGUIRRE.

before.

I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

You are ordered to answer that question.

I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

Mr. MCLENDON. And isn't it true that you changed your mind between the time that you were interviewed by Mr. Scott and your appearance here today?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

before

'

sir.

Mr. EHRLICH. Of course, I think the record ought to show—pardon

me, sir—I think the record ought to show that between the time he

talked to Mr. Scott and until the time he appeared here today, he got

himself a lawyer. That may be one of the reasons he changed his

mind.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to reply to that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Since that point has been made, isn't it true that

your lawyer was with you when you appeared up here the other day

and talked to us and gave us these documents and you didn't interpose

any objection then, did you?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to reply to that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And isn't it true that in that interview you indicated that you might object to answering certain questions but not

all questions?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before, sir.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to reply to that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Can I repeat the general question I asked a while

ago? Are you willing now to give this committee the benefit of any

information you have in connection with business and financial transactions you have had either personally or indirectly or directly with

Robert G. Baker?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before, sir.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to reply to that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before

'

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. I ask you the same question, limiting it to the time

before Baker resigned as secretary to the majority.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before, sir.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to reply to that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. That is all.

•
580 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. EHRLICH. I might say, and I think the record ought to show,

that the test of whether or not a man can refuse to answer is whether

or not, considering the setting of the question, the setting in which

it is asked and the general subject matter, whether or not he would

tend to incriminate himself, and certainly from the questions that

have been asked this witness, if I were in his place I would believe that

I would tend to incriminate myself.

Mr. MCLENDON. I don't think you can do your thinking for him,

though.

Mr. EHRLICH. Well, I might be able to do it. I can't do the answering for him but I can do the thinking for him.

Mr. MCLENDON. Since you have raised that point, let me ask your

client another question. Are you under investigation by the grand

jury sitting in Washington, D.C., now?

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given before,

sir.

Senator PELL. You are ordered to answer that question.

Mr. AGUIRRE. I refuse to answer for the same reason as given

before.

Mr. EHRLICH. I certainly question the pertinency of that.

Mr. MCLENDON. That would go to the question of whether or not he

might incriminate himself, would it not?

Mr. EHRLICH. You can incriminate yourself whether or not a grand

jury is sitting.

Mr. MCLENDON. I am sure of that.

Mr. EHRLICH. I think his knowledge of whether a grand jury is

sitting is certainly not pertinent to the issues in this matter or the

subject matter that the committee is investigating.

Mr. MCLENDON. I won't get into a legal debate with you.

Mr. EHRLICH. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. The Supreme Court has over and over indicated

that such a circumstance is one to be seriously considered when this

question is raised. After all, this business of whether a man answers

any and every question that would tend to incriminate him involves

at least good faith on the part of the witness.

Mr. EHRLICH. Yes, but, Major, you asked this witness some questions that had to do with meeting women in New Orleans, and indulging in certain business transactions with Mr. Baker, and certainly

a married man meeting women in New Orleans would tend to incriminate himself or he had better have a good explanation when he gets

home; I'll tell you that.

Mr. MCLENDON. That is not the sort, of incrimination that the

Constitution is talking about. The fifth amendment is not designed

to protect you and me and other men against incrimination with their

wives.

Mr. EHRLICH. I know; but it could be a criminal prosecution to

have anything to do with transporting a woman from here to New

Orleans, too, couldn't it?

Mr. MCLENDON. Under certain circumstances only.

Mr. EHRLICH. Of course, I wouldn't do anything like that; but it

has been done.

Mr. MCLENDON. There is no need of prolonging this argument, Mr.

Chairman.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 581

Senator PELL. The witness is dismissed. Forgive me, one more

question.

Senator COOPER. Concerning the right of the witness to claim the

fifth amendment with the possible exception of the trip to New Orleans

with the women, and taking into account the statement you made to

the committee's investigator and the questions that you have been

asked, it seems to me that without other evidence the questions themselves would not incriminate him.

Mr. EHRLICH. They may be a link in the chain, Senator; yes.

Senator COOPER. These transactions with Baker, as stated, unless

there are other facts which are to be disclosed, would not incriminate

him.

Mr. EHRLICH. Senator, the questions asked this witness started off

with knowing Baker, and sort of finished meeting him in New Orleans

with a couple of women. Now, certainly, where do you stop and where

do you begin? When do you waive your privilege and when don't

you waive your privilege? No lawyer has ever been able to tell me

when that happens, and no Supreme Court has.

Senator COOPER. I understand that, but I ask then if it isn't a true

inference to be drawn from the answers that have been given to the

question about facts and transactions, which on their face are themselves not criminal and would not incriminate him, that there are other

facts which he is not willing to give this committee?

Mr. EHRLICH. I won't answer that, and I don't think he ought to

answer that, because by giving an explanation of the reason that he is

refusing to answer, I think dangerous disclosures may result, and I

don't think that is a fair thing to ask him, sir.

Senator PELL. The witness is excused. The next witness will be Mr.

Samuel Scott, the investigator for this committee.

Mr. MCLENDON. He is on the telephone at the moment, Mr. Chairman. Let me offer in evidence an affidavit of John D. Lane. This

was his request, that this affidavit be accepted in evidence which was

presented to the committee in executive session, and it was granted. I

will read the affidavit before I put it in the record.

I, the undersigned, John D. Lane, being first duly sworn according to law, depose and say as follows:

That I have known Robert G. Baker for more than fifteen years; that to the

best of my recollection, he called me around October 1961 and inquired if I would

be willing to act as his nominee or agent in the purchase of 500 shares of stock of

Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation, which as I recall, he stated could be

acquired from a New York underwriter, the name of which I believe was Bache &

Company. I agreed to do so solely as such nominee or agent.

II

Mr. Baker caused a prospectus of the company and a subscription blank to be

sent to my office; and upon receipt of same, I so advised Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker

then delivered to me his personal check made payable to the underwriter covering

the full subscription price for the aforesaid 500 shares of said company. I

mailed the subscription blank which had been executed by me in my name together with the aforesaid check direct to the said underwriter.

III

Shortly thereafter, one certificate covering said 500 •shares of stock of said

company which had been issued in my name was received by me in my office, and

I immediately signed my name to the blank form of assignment printed on the

•
582 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Senator PELL. That will be inserted in the record.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

back of the aforesaid certificate and delivered it to Mr. Baker. It is my best

recollection that, in like manner, I handled a second certificate representing a

stock dividend later received by me from said company.

IV

I have never had any financial interest in this matter whatsoever, direct or

indirect, and I did not effect any loans or furnish any funds to Mr. Baker.

( S) John D. Lane

JOHN D. LANE.

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this 27th day of November,

1964.

( S) MARTHA A. GOODALL,

Notary Public.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 583

City of Washington

SS.

District of Columbia

EXHIBIT 58

I, the undersigned, John D. Lane, being first duly sworn according to law, depose and say as follows:

I.

That I have known Robert G. Baker for more than fifteen years;

that to the best of my recollection, he called me around October 1961 and

inquired if I would be willing to act as his nominee or agent in the purchase

of 500 shares of stock of Mortgage Guaranty Insurance Corporation, which

as I recall, he stated could be acquired from a New York underwriter, the

name of which I believe was Bache & Company. I agreed to do so solely

as such nominee or agent.

U.

Mr. Baker caused a prospectus of the company and a subscription

blank to be sent to my office; and upon receipt of the same, I so advised

Mr. Baker. Mr. Baker then delivered to me his personal check made

payable to the underwriter covering the full subscription price for the

aforesaid 500 shares of said company. I mailed the subscription blank

which had been executed by me in my name together with the aforesaid

check direct to the said underwriter.
584 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Ill.

Shortly thereafter, one certificate covering said 500 shares of

stock of said company which had been issued in my name was received

by me in my office, and I immediately signed my name to the blank form

of assignment printed on the back of the aforesaid certificate and delivered

it to Mr. Baker. It is my best recollection that in like manner I handled

a second certificate representing a stock dividend later received by me

from said company.

Iv.

I have never had any financial interest in this matter whatsoever,

direct or indirect, and I did not effect any loans or furnish any funds to

Mr. Baker.

-

John D. Lane

Sworn to before me and subscribed in my presence this

day of 7/ , 1964.

7

Ma,ett,t I-(

Notary Public

iv, fll,jfl Expi:es June 30, 1966
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 585

Mr. MCLENDON. In connection with that, Mr. Chairman, I made inquiry of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia with respect

to Mr. Lane, and I have a letter here from the vice president certifying

that he is a man of good character and good standing at the bar.

(The document referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT 59

THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA,

Washington, D.C., November 27, 1964.

LENNOX P. MCLENDON, Esq.,

Chief Counsel, Senate Committee on Rules,

Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MAJOR MCLENDON: John D. Lane, a member of the firm of Hedrick &

Lane, 1001 Connecticut Avenue, Washington, D.C., asked me to write this letter

in response to his conversation with you this morning.

I have known John for nearly 20 years. We graduated from Georgetown College and graduated in the same class from Georgetown Law School.

At present, I am the vice president of the Bar Association of the District of

Columbia. I can state without reservation or equivocation that John Lane is in

the active practice of law as that term is generally understood. As fully set

forth in Martindale-Hubbell, John and his partners enjoy the highest legal rating.

On several occasions his firm and our firm have represented codefendants in civil

actions. His firm represented two of the major eastern railroads in an antitrust

suit filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Mr. Lane and the members of his firm are active in bar association activities,

and I never hesitate to ask them for assistance as needed.

Based on my long association with Mr. Lane, I can assure you that you can

rely on any statement he makes.

Please let me know if I can be of any further assistance.

Very truly yours,

PAUL F. MCARDLE.

Mr. MCLENDON. I think I ought to say that another reason why the

committee agreed to let him use the affidavit rather than making a

personal appearance is that at that time he was, as a matter of record,

attorney for Baker in some tax litigation that was pending, and he

was therefore in the position of invoking the attorney-client privilege

if he were examined on anything other than this particular transaction,

when he acted as nominee for this stock.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a statement about another aspect

of this investigation which I hoped to be able to present to the committee this morning but I find I can't do it. We have had here physically present during these hearings in the last day or two Mr. Robert

H. Berman and Mr. C. Franklin Daniels of the Federal Housing Administration, in connection with testimony concerning Maywood Boggs

and the construction of a retirement home in the State of Mississippi

for a labor union. Mr. Boggs couldn't be here. I was convinced that

he had a perfectly good excuse for not being here. I don't think it

would be fair to put on evidence concerning it without his presence nor

would I recommend that it be disposed of on the affidavit of Mr. Boggs,

although he has given us one. So with your permission, I just will not

call any of that evidence today and let it go until some later hearing.

Senator COOPER. May I ask what the intention is as to when these

further hearings will be held?

Senator PELL. This is an open question. I am not sure that I would

completely agree with the suggestion because it may be indefinitely

prolonged. You see no way, Mr. Counsel, that this matter could be

acted on today by the witness with the affidavit?

38-408 0-65--pt. 5-4

•
586 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. MCLENDON. I could use the affidavit of Mr. Boggs, but that

is never a very satisfactory use.

Senator COOPER. I think we should have the witness in this case.

Senator PELL. You would?

Senator COOPER. Yes.

Senator PELL. We will not call them at this time. Is Mr. Scott

here?

Mr. Scow. Yes.

Mr. MCLENDON. Take the stand. Will you swear this witness?

Senator PELL. Will you put your left hand on the Bible and raise

your right hand? Do you swear that all the statements you are about

to make are true, so help you God?

Mr. SCOTT. I do.

Mr. MCLENDON. Give your full name and address to the reporter.

TESTIMONY OF SAMUEL J. SCOTT, INVESTIGATOR, COMMITTEE ON

RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

Mr. Scow. Samuel J. Scott, 5403 North Washington Boulevard,

Arlington, Va.

Mr. MCLENDON. Are you a member of the investigating staff of this

committee?

Mr. Scow. I am.

Mr. MCLENDON. And in that capacity as an investigator, did you

interview Paul Aguirre first on or about February 26, 1t64?

Mr. Scow. I did.

Mr. MCLENDON. Where?

Mr. Scow. In San Juan, P.R. ; a suburb called Santurce.

Mr. MCLENDON. Will you tell the committee what you said to him

before the interview began, what request you made of him?

Mr. SCOTT. I called Mr. Aguirre and got in touch with him on the

morning of February 26, 1964, and made an appointment. It was

early in the morning, and I arrived at his office at approximately 8 :30

a.m. Upon arrival at the office I met Mr. Aguirre. I identified myself, presenting to him my committee credentials, and advised him of

the nature of my visit, of the Baker investigation, and that information had been received by the committee that he had had certain business dealings with Mr. Baker.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did he raise any objection to being interviewed?

Mr. Scow. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you ask him questions, all questions you

thought were pertinent to the investigation?

Mr. SCOTT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And did he answer them?

Mr. Scorn Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And did you make a recording promptly thereafter of what took place in the interview?

Mr. Scow. I made a recording of the course of the conversation and

statements at the time of the interview, that is investigative notes, from

which I prepared and dictated this memorandum dated March 10,

1964, after my arrival back in Washington, D.C.

Mr. MCLENDON. Does the committee want to hear this report read

now? I want to offer it in evidence, the whole report.

Senator PELL. I think most of it is in the record. I suggest that it

be put in the record as written.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 587

Senator COOPER. It won't take but a few minutes. I suggest he read it.

Mr. MCLENDON. Will you read your report of this interview, Mr.

Scott?

Mr. Scorr. This report is dated March 10, 1964. It is a memorandum:

To Maj. L. P. McLendon, general counsel.

From Samuel J. Scott.

Subject: Interview with Paul F. Aguirre, executive vice president of James T.

Barnes & Co., San Juan, P.R.

On February 26, 1964, I interviewed Mr. Paul F. Aguirre, executive vice president of the James T. Barnes & Co. of Puerto Rico, Inc.

'

in his office in Room 238 of the Garcia Commercial Bu dd Street 800, Santurce,

P.R. (office phone: 724-6490; residence phone .

Subsequently I have been advised his office phone has been changed

to 725-1616.

Mr. Aguirre thinks he first met Robert G. Baker in Baker's office in the Capitol Building, Washington, D.C., approximately three or four years ago when he

was introduced to Baker by Warren Neil at that time. At first Mr. Aguirre stated that he had never had any business deals with Baker but just knew Baker

socially. However, subsequently in the course of the interview, Mr. Aguirre did state that he had had business discussions with Baker concerning the organization of the Pasantic Corp., which was a company to be organized for the

purpose of operating Trailer Parks. Mr. Aguirre said originally the plan was to have ten members in the Pasantic Corp. From memory, he named the following:

James T. Barnes, San Juan, P.R.

Paul Aguirre, San Juan, P.R.

Warren Neil, San Juan, P.R.

Robert Baker, Washington, D.C.

Francis (Doc) Law, Washington, D.C.

Tom Webb, Washington, D.C.

Ed Bostick, Melpar, Washington, D.C.

Bedford Wynne, Dallas, Tex.

Wilson Abraham, New Orleans, La.

Nick Popich, New Orleans, La.

Each individual was to invest $1,000 in the Pasantic Corp. Mr. Aguirre said he sent $2,000 ($1,000 each for him and Mr. Barnes) to Ernest Tucker, Wash- ington, D.C. However, he said during the final stage of organization of the corporation in September or October of 1963, the Baker case broke and Robert Baker withdrew. Also, Mr. Aguirre states that subsequent to setting up the Pasantic Corp., he and some of the other members of the Pasantic Corp. dis- covered that Wilson Abraham and Nick Popich were hard to deal with and

were not the type of individuals with whom they wanted to associate, business

or otherwise, so the corporation refunded their money and eliminated them from the organization. Mr. Aguirre said the Pasantic Corp. had purchased 18

acres of land at Woodbridge, Va., and had an option to purchase an adjoining

180 acres.

When asked further about his association with Baker, Mr. Aguirre said that

about 2 years ago, he came to Washington, D.C., and made a trip to the west

coast with Baker. He said they went to Los Angeles, then he remained in Los Angeles while Baker went to Sacramento. When Baker came back to Los Angeles they 'went to Houston, Tex., where they split and each returned to his respective home. When asked if this was a business trip, Mr. Aguirre replied,

"I don't know what it was. When we were in Baker's office, Baker said he had to go to California. I don't know the purpose of his trip. He merely asked

me if I wanted to go along, and I said yes." However, Mr. Aguirre said he had been interested in a 100-acre plot of land about 3 blocks south of the Shamrock Hotel in Houston, Tex. He said he talked to Baker about his interest in this particular piece of land and Baker thought they could get it. So they stopped in Houston and contacted the owner, Mr. "Wes" West. Mr. Aguirre said West asked $45 million for the property. Mr. Aguirre stated he told Baker, "Forget it."

xxxxxxxx
588 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. Aguirre said he and Baker met by prearrangement in May 1963 in New

Orleans to look for trailer park sites and also to meet with Nick Popich and

Wilson Abraham. Mr. Aguirre said Wilson Abraham was a builder and developer in New Orleans and that he had a housing development under way.

Aguirre said he and Baker discussed with Abraham the possibility of them

getting into the deal with Abraham. However, Mr. Aguirre stated that the

negotiations were never brought to fruition. Mr. Aguirre admitted that Baker

brought Carole Tyler and Elli Rometsch with him from Washington to New

Orleans on the May 1963 trip. Mr. Aguirre said he spent several days partying

with them in New Orleans but denied going with them to Dallas and Miami.

Mr. Aguirre said he knew Carole Tyler socially and had been to her house at

308 N Street SW., and had seen her many times in San Juan, P.R., with

Bobby Baker. Mr. Aguirre stated that he and Baker were close personal

friends and that he didn't want to discuss Baker's private life, saying, "I'm

sure Baker is paying dearly at home now for this."

Mr. Aguirre reported that he and Warren Neil met Baker, Wilson Abraham,

and Nick Popich in New Orleans in June 1963 and from there they went together to see the Patterson-Liston fight in Las Vegas. When asked about who

paid the expenses, Mr. Aguirre said Baker picked up the check as often as any

of the others of the group.

When asked further concerning Elli Rometsch, Carole Tyler, and the alleged

"parties," Mr. Aguirre declined to discuss the matter further, stating, "if I'm

asked by the Committee about this, I will deny it even if they have photographs.

My wife is expecting a denial and she will get it. I'll take the First through

the Twenty-eighth."

Mr. Aguirre said he thought he knew Bobby Baker pretty well but that he

never knew Baker had any interest in MGIC or the Serv-U Corporation. He

claimed Baker had never used his influence to help him. However, he advised

that a Fred Epstein (one of the builders for the James T. Barnes & Co.) owned

a one and one-half acre plot of property in a slum area of San Juan and wanted

to erect a multiple dwelling (slum clearance project) on this piece of property.

Mr. Aguirre said he went with Mr. Epstein to the local FHA office for a "220

Loan" (slum clearance). Then a proposed highway was supposed to go through

this area. As a result of this highway development, Mr. Aguirre said they went

back to FHA to get a "207 Loan," which is a loan for a higher grade development.

However, FHA maintained it was still a slum area, according to Mr. Aguirre,

and refused to approve the loan application. Then they took up the matter with

FHA Director Wendell Edwards who okayed the application subject to the approval of Mr. Verne Anderson, Chief Underwriter for FHA. Mr. Aguirre said

Anderson declined to approve the loan application so they asked his permission
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 589

to go to Washington with pictures and exhibits. When they arrived in Washington, they went to Baker's office. Baker called FHA and made an appointment

for Aguirre and Epstein to see Frank Daniels and Robert Jones in the FHA offices

in Washington. Mr. Aguirre said the FHA officials in Washington declined to

approve the loan application stating the decision on the application was in the

hands of the local underwriter in San Juan and they would not overrule him.

Mr. Aguirre advised that the James T. Barnes Co. and the James T. Barnes of

Puerto Rico, Inc., are authorized mortgagees of FHA in Puerto Rico and that

these two companies handled 25% to 50% of the FHA loans in Puerto Rico, but

he claimed they had never received any assistance from Baker in their business

operations.

Mr. Aguirre advised that he was the vice president and treasurer of the Enterprise Hotel Corporation, Inc., which owns the new Puerto Rico Sheraton Hotel.

He said contrary to the newspaper reports, Baker did not own any interest in

the Sheraton. Mr. Aguirre said as a matter of fact Baker usually stayed at the

Caribe Hilton when he was in San Juan. He mentioned that when Baker with

his wife, Dorothy Baker, spent a few days in San Juan around February 1963,

they stayed at the Dorado Beach.

Mr. Aguirre said he only met Scott Peek once and that was when he was walking through the Capitol Building. He thought it was either Baker or Warren

Neil who introduced Peek to him.

When asked concerning his acquaintance with Eugene Hancock, Mr. Aguirre

advised that he had met Mr. Hancock once, that was when he was introduced to

Hancock in Baker's office. When questioned about the following individuals,

Mr. Aguirre stated he was not acquainted with nor had he met any of them:

Edward Levinson Jacob Kozloff •

Jack Cooper Ben Sigelbaum

Clifford Jones Edward Torres

When asked about Jose Benitez, Mr. Aguirre said he knew him well but was

not knowledgeable of any of Benitez' dealings with Baker except what he had

read in the newspaper articles about him in connection with the Baker hearings.

Mr. Aguirre said Benitez was popularly known as "Chinchi" (bedbug). He

described Benitez as being the town jester who was always involved in everything.

Mr. Aguirre said he would appear voluntarily as a witness before the committee provided he would be served with a subpena upon arrival in order to

enable him to be reimbursed for the expenses of his trip.

(The document referred to is as follows:)
590 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

0. EVERETT JORDAN. N.C.. CH,

CAM. XANDEN, ARIZ. CARL T. CUR •

HOWARD W. CANNON. NEV. JOHN SHERMAN COOPER. KIN

CLAIBORNE PELL. R.I. HUGH SCOTT. PA.

JOSEPH S. CLARK. PA.

ROBERT C. BYRD. W. VA.

GORDON P. HARRISON. STAFF DIRECTOR

HUGH Q. ALEXANDER, CHIEF COUNSEL

EXIIIBIT 60

?..lenifeb -Sfafev.; -Senate

COMMITTEE ON

RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

March 10, 1964

jMEMORANDUM

To: Major L. P. McLendon

General Counsel

From:

Subject:q

Samuel J. Scott

Interview with Paul F. Aguirre, Executive Vice

President of James T. Barnes & Co., San Juan,

Puerto Rico

On February 26, 1964, I interviewed Mr. Paul F. Amiirre;

Executive Vice President of the Jones T. lunes 6:_comnl.v o! Puerto

in his office in Room 233 of he Garcia Commercial

Todd Street 800, ee /to Rico. (Office phone:

'-rifTEE1) .7 Residence phone: 

Aguirre thinks he first met Robert G. Baker in Baker's

office in the CaPitol Building, lashington, D. C., approximately

three or four years ago when he was introduced to Baker by 3.1arrqz,

at that time. At first Mr. Aguirre stated that he had never

had any business deals with Baker but just knew Baker socially. However, subsequently in the course of the interview, Mr. Aguirre did

s_te that he had had business discussions with Baker concerning the

organization of the Pasantic Cornoration, which was a company to be

o:ganized for the purpose of operating Trailer Parks. Mr. Aguirre

aaiC originally the an yas to have ten members in the Pasantic

Corporation. From memory, he named the following:

Jc,nea T. -Larne's, San Juan, P. R.

Paul_rre, San Juan, P. a.

Yarren Meil San Juan P. R.

:uober,t.; Baker, ',.ashington, D. C.

(Francis (Doc) Lev', 1:ashington, D. C.

Wasliington, J. C.

, Jd Bostick, Melpar, ',:ashington, D. C.

Bedford M"n Dallas, Texas

U.1,lson... bri.14=, New Orleans, La.

. Niel,„_RO'oic'F.t, New Orleans, La.

xxxxxxxx
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 591

Each individual was to invest $1,000 in the Pasantic Corp.

Mr. .:uirre said he sent $2,000 ($1,000 each for him and Mr. Barnes)

to ::no.ct_Tckr.lr, Washington, D. C. However, he said during the final

saaL:c of organization of he corporation in September or October of

1963, the Baker case broke and Robert Baker withdrew. Also, Mr. Aguirre

stated that subseeuent to setting up the Pasantic Corporation, he and

some of the other members of the Pasantic Corporation discovered that

Olson Ahraham and Nick Popich were hard to deal with and were not

the type of individuals with ,ghom they wanted to associate, business

or otherwise, so the corporation refunded their money and eliminated

them from the organization. Mr. Aguirre said the Pasantic Corp. had

purchased 13 acres of land at Woodbridge, Virginia, and had an option

to purchase an adjoining 180 acres.

When asked further about his association with Baker, Mr. Aguirre

said that about two years ago, he came to Washington, D. C., and made

a trip to the 'Zest Coast with Baker. lie said they went to Los Angeles ,

then he remained in Los Angeles while Baker went to Sacramento. When

Baker came back to Los Angeles, they went to Houston, Texas, where

they split and each returned to his respective home. When asked if

this was a business trip, Mr. Aguirre replied, "I don't know what

it was. When We were in Baker's office, Baker said he had to go to

California. I don't know the purpose of his trip. He merely asked

me if I wanted to go along, and I said yes." However, Mr. Aguirre

said he had been interested in a 100 acre,plot of land about three

blocks south of the Shamrock Hotel in Houston, Texas. He said he

talked to Baker about his interest in this particular piece of land

and Baker thought they could get it. So they stopped in Houston and

contacted the owner, Mr. "Wes'ndest. Mr. Aguirre said West asked

$45,000,000 for the property. Mr. Aguirre stated he told Baker,

"Forget it."

Mr'. Aguirre said he and Baker met by prearrangement in May

1363 in New Orleans to look for trailer park sites and also to meet

with Nick Popich and Wilson Abraham. Mr. Aguirre said Wilson Abraham 

was a builder and developer in New Orleans and that he had a housing '

development under way. Aguirre said he and Baker discussed with Abraham the possibility of them getting into the deal with Abraham. However, Mr. Aguirre stated that the negotiations were never brought

to fruition. . Mr. Aguirre admitted that Baker brought Sa2.30e.._..e.r.

and Elli aometsch with him from Washington to New Orleans on May 1953

trip. Mr. Aguirre said he spent several days "partying" with them

in New Orleans but denied going with them to Dallas and Miami. Mr.

Aguirre said he knew Carole Tyler socially and had been to her house

at 303 N Street, S. W., and had seen her many times in San Jean, P. R.,

with Bobby Baker. Mr. Aguirre stated that he and Baker were close

personal friends and that he didn't want to discuss Baker's private

life, saying, "I'm sure Baker is paying dearly at home as.. for this."

Mr. Aguirre reported that he and Warren Neil met Baker, Wilson

Abraham and Nick Popich in New Orleans in June 1963 and from there

they went together to sec the Patterson-L:stan :i:;ht. in Las Vegas.

When asked about who paid the expenses, Mr. Auirre said Baker picked

up the check as often as any of the others of the group.
592 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

When asked further concerning Elli Rometsch,-Carole Tyler and

the allcg,ed "parties", Mr. Aguirre declined to discuss the matter

further,. stating, "If I'm asked by the Committee about this, I will

(.eny it even if they have photographs. My wife is expecting a denial

and she will get it. I'll take the First through the Twenty-eighth."

Mr. Aguirre said he thought he knew Bobby Baker pretty well

but that he never knew Baker had any interest in MGIC or the Serv-U

Corns?rat_ipp, He claimed Baker had never used his influence to

Brip him. However, he advised that a Fr‘ed.,.E2.stein (one of the builders

for the James T. Barnes & Co.) owned a one and—One-half acre plot of

property in a slum area of San Juan and wanted to erect a multiple

dwelling (slum clearance project) on this piece of property. Mr.

Aguirre said he went with Mr. Epstein to the local FHA office for

a 7 220 Loan" (slum clearance). Then a proposed highway was supposed

to go through this area. As a result of this highway development,

Mr. Aguirre said they went kack to FHA to get a "207 Loan", which

is a loan for a higher grade development. However,.FHA maintained

it was still a slum area, according to Mr. Aguirre, and refused to

approve the loan application. Then they took up the matter with

rn Director Wendell Edwards who okayed the application subject to

the approval of Mr. Ver,ne Anderun Chief Underwriter for FHA. Mr.

Aguirre said Anderson declined to approve the loan application so

they asked his permission to go to Washington with pictures and exhibits.

When they arrived in -ashington, they went to Baker's office. Baker

called FHA and made an appointment for Aguirre and Epstein to see

Frank Daniels and aab.e1:,.LJ9nea in the FHA offices in Washington. Mr.

Aguirre said the FHA officials in Washington declined to approve the

loan application stating the decision on the application was in the

hands of the local underwriter in San Juan and they would not over--

rule him.

Mr. Aguirre advised that the James T. .Barnes Co. and the

James T. Barnes of Puerto Rico, ;Inc. are authorized mortgagees of

FHA in Puerto Rico and that these two companies handled 257. to 507.

of the FHA loans in Puerto Rico, but he claimed they had never received any assistance from Baker in their business operations.

Mr. Aguirre advised that he was the Vice President and Treasurer

of the EnternAjse '40 g1-§,91-72at.ion,,Inc., which owns the new2ortgeo_Sh. r,r1. He said contrary to the newspaper reports, Baker

did not own any interest in the Sheraton. Mr. Aguirre said as a matter

of fact Baker usually stayed at the Caribe Hilton when he was in San

Juan. He mentioned that when Baker with his wife, Dorothy Baker,

:.pent - a few days in San Juan around February 1963, rrie37-a.W.er'at

Dorado Beach.

Mr. Aguirre said he only met Scott Peck once and that was when

walking through the Capitol Building. He thought it was either

'.er or Warren Neil who introduced Peek to him.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 593

When asked concerning his acquaintance with Eugene Hancock,

Mr. Aguirre advised. that he had met Mr. Hancock once, that was when

he was introduced to Hancock in Baker's office. When questioned about

the following individuals, Mr. Aguirre stated he was not acquainted

with nor had he met any of them:

F41,7,1170 imvi,nriori

Jack Coocr

Cford Jones

Jacob — Kozlnf.f.. --

Ben Sigelbaum

Edward Torres

.';q1en asked about Mr. Aguirre said he knew him

.ell but was not knowledgable of any of Benitez's dealings with

Baker e::cept what he had read in the newspaper articles about him

in connection with the Baker Hearings. Mr. Aguirre said Benitez

was popularly known as "Chinchin (Bed-bug). He described Benitez

as being the town-jester who was always involved in everything.

Mr. Aguirre said he would appear voluntarily as a witness

before the Committee provided he would be served with a subpoena upon

arrival in to enable him to be reimbursed for the expenses o f

his trip.
594 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you subsequently interview him, Mr. Scott?

Mr. Scow. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Recently?

Mr. Scorr. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Do you have a copy of that interview with you?

Mr. Scow. I do not have a copy of the interview, Major. That was

taken during the course of this hearing this week. I have some investigative notes, but I can quote or relate to you the substance of

that interview.

Mr. MCLENDON. Will you tell the committee the substance of what

he said to you at that time? When was it, by the way?

Mr. SCOTT. It was at 4 p.m., December 2.

Mr. MCLENDON. Go ahead.

Mr. Scow. Pursuant to your request, I called Mr. Myron Ehrlich,

the attorney, and asked if he could have Mr. Aguirre available for

further questioning, which he agreed to do, and by arrangement they

came to my office here in room 312 in the Old Senate Office Building

at 4 p.m. on Wednesday, December 2, 1964, at which time Mr. Ehrlich

introduced himself and advised that he was the attorney, and wanted

to sit in on the interview, which I told him was perfectly all right.

The substance of the interview was to obtain additional information

concerning Mr. Aguirre's business activities or arrangements with

Mr. Baker relative to a $60,000 loan which had been reported that

he had made in the spring of 1964 to Mr. Baker in connection with

Mr. Baker redeeming some stock that he had placed as a collateral in

the bank in Oklahoma. Mr. Aguirre said this was true, and he had

with him the original check of $60,000 which he wrote to Mr. Baker,

of which a copy was made and has been introduced into the record.

Also a copy—he had with him the original of the note that Mr. Baker

gave him as evidence of the loan, a copy of which has been made and

placed in the record.

Mr. MCLENDON. How about the check for payment of interest?

Mr. Scorr. In addition, he had a photostatic copy of a check which

he said was for $1,950 in payment of interest to date. It was an interest payment on this loan, and he mentioned that this was for $150

in excess of the actual amount of the interest, and he had called it to

Mr. Baker's attention, I believe. They had agreed that this excess

of $150 was to be applied to the next interest payment.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did he make any explanation of why he made

this loan to Baker?

Mr. Scow. He had received a call from Mr. Baker saying that the

bank in Oklahoma had instituted foreclosure "proceedings," I believe

is the word or the phrase that he used, and that it was necessary for

him to obtain some money to redeem this; that he had made efforts

to get a loan other places and had been unable to do so, and he was

asking Mr. Aguirre if he would be willing to lend him $60,000. Mr.

Aguirre said that he did make the $60,000 loan.

Mr. MCLENDON. Do you recall whether he identified the stock that

Baker was purchasing or redeeming?

Mr. Scorr. I have it in my investigative notes in the desk here,

Major, but to the best of my memory I believe it was MGIC stock.

Mr. MCLENDON. Rather than Serv-U stock?
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 595

Mr. Scow. I am not sure. This refreshes my memory. I recall

now, without looking at the notes, that it was the Serv-U stock that

I believe he, Mr. Baker, and Fred Black had pledged as collateral,

and Mr. Baker was desiring to redeem this.

Mr. MCLENDON. You heard Mr. Tucker testify yesterday that it

was Serv-U stock that was redeemed?

Mr. Scorn. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Is that the substance of what he said in this interview?

Mr. SCOW. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. That is all.

Senator PELL. Thank you, Mr. Scott.

Mr. MCLENDON. Is Mr. Weitier in the room, and his counsel? Mr.

Bromley Mr. Hauft—Milton Hauft.

Senator PELL. Could you come forward please, Mr. Hauft? You

have heard the statement read to other witnesses about your rights?

Mr. HAUFT. I have, sir.

Senator PELL. You have not been sworn under the new resolu- tion. Would you stand and put your left hand on the Bible and raise

your right hand? Do you swear that the statements you are about

to make are true, so help you God?

Mr. HAUPT. I do.

Mr. MCLENDON. Give your name and address to the reporter.

TESTIMONY OF MILTON L. HA'UFT

Mr. HAur r. My name is Milton L. Hauft, 3801 Archer Place,

Kensington, Md.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Hauft, you have testified on two previous occasions before this committee, have you not?

Mr. HAu-FT. I have, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. I believe you testified that you were employed by

Don Reynolds Associates to prepare that corporation's income tax

returns?

Mr. HAUPT. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. For the period of the fall of 1960, when would the

return be filed?

Mr. HAurr. That would be filed at the end of the fiscal year which

would be ending June 23, 1961, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. What was the fiscal year of the corporation at that

time?

Mr. HAUPT. June 23—June 22 of the subsequent year, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And at the time you prepared the return, did you

prepare the return for the corporation for that fiscal year?

Mr. HAUFT. I did, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. At the time you prepared the return, did you have

in your possession books, records, and data from which you could

compute the income of Don Reynolds Associates, Inc.?

Mr. HAUPT. Those books which were available; yes, sir.

Mr.' MCLENDON. And did you have similar records from which you

could compute the expenses?

Mr. HAurr. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Were there any records relating either to income

or expenses that you knew about but did not have possession of?
596 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. HAU/ I. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. As far as you know, you had them all.

Mr. HAuyr. To the best of my knowledge; yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. According to your recent interview, you stated

that after September 1964 you were visited by Internal Revenue

Service agents in connection with the Reynolds Associates tax return;

is that correct?

Mr. HAUFT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you communicated with Reynolds thereafter?

Mr. HAuFT. I first communicated with Mr. Reynolds—I was unable

to communicate with Mr. Reynolds directly. I didn't know where

he was, sir. So I made communications first with his attorney, Mr.

FitzGerald.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you later communicate with Reynolds?

Mr. HA UFr. Yes

'

sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And were you instructed by Reynolds at that time

to destroy all tax records in your possession relating to his income

and expenses for the fiscal year ending in July 1961?

Mr. HAI7FT. Yes, sir. This was premised first upon a question on

my part, sir, advising him that the internal revenue agents were

there, that I had certain records. I wanted to know—these being his

records, I asked his authority as to what disposition should be made

of them sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. What did he say?

Mr. HAUFT. Mr. Reynolds' indication was on those returns on which

the statute of limitations had tolled, and inasmuch as the Internal

Revenue Service had already had possession of these records for some

time before returning them once before, that he saw no reason that

I should retain them. I asked if he wanted them. He said "No."

And in view of this, he said also he saw no reason they should not be

thrown away.

Mr. MCLENDON. SO you did destroy them?

Mr. HA17FT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And that was after you had been interviewed by

the IRS with respect to them?

Mr. HAuFT. Only—yes; yes, sir, based on the interview.

Mr. MCLENDON. Had you been interviewed prior to that time by

anyone representing this committee?

Mr. HAUFT. Prior to that time? No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. SO, when Mr. Hugler came to see you about these

records, they were not available. These records which you destroyed

were not available then?

Mr. HAurr. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you send some records to Mr. Reynolds by

parcel post?

Mr. HAuvr. I sent some through the parcel post; yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. The subpena directed you to produce and have

with you at this hearing any proof of that, such as a post office receipt

or anything.

Mr. HAUFT. Well, I had no post office receipt, sir. It was an

uninsured parcel and went through the regular mails; there is no

receipt, only an indication of payment as applied to the stamp affixed

to the material.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 597

Mr. MCLENDON. Now were these records that you mailed to Reynolds selected; were they selected by you or by Reynolds?

Mr. HArryr. They were records indicating to me that Mr. Reynolds

wanted to review pertaining to the years in question, and these were

records indicating income from various insurance companies he represented so that he could verify them against statements which the insurance companies were going to present him.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did he select them?

Mr. HAuyr. No, sir; based on his request these are tne materials

I selected from those papers I had and mailed to him.

Mr. MCLENDON. What became of them then, if you know?

Mr. HAuyr. I have no idea, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did he ever return them to you?

Mr. HAUFT. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. I believe at the same time you advised our investigator that you had returned some old books, like an old ledger for

1955, which had no relation to the income tax returns, did you not?

Mr. HA-cryr. That is right, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you get any sort of receipt from Mr. Reynolds

for that parcel post package?

Mr. HAurr. I did not, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did he acknowledge that he had received it in con- versation with you?

Mr. HAurr. I think he did, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Are you sure about that?

Mr. HAITI% I am fairly sure he did.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did he ask that any other records be returned to him?

Mr. HATTFT. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. How about the tax returns themselves, the retained copies of the tax returns?

Mr. HATT'''. The retained copies I had which were my working copies for the year in question, which was those years on which the

statute of limitations had tolled, were part of the records that I

threw away, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Let me see if I understand that. At that time you had in your possession as part of your working papers as auditor a

copy of the tax return as filed?

Mr. HAUPT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And when you had this conversation with Mr.

Reynolds, you destroyed—you returned those returns to him or de- stroyed them?

Mr. HArryr. I threw those returns away, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. You destroyed them?

Mr. HA-crrr. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And that was notwithstanding that it was part of

your work papers?

Mr. HATT'''. That is right, sir. I had no further use for them because the statute of limitations had tolled. Internal Revenue had had possession of all of this material for some time, and had initially re- turned—and then returned it.

Mr. MCLENDON. Wasn't thst after Mr. Hugler, representing this committee, had talked with you about these records and expressed the

interest of the committee in it?
598 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. HAurr. No, sir; this was before that.

Mr. MCLENDON. Are you sure of that?

Mr. HAU FT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Do you have any independent recollection of two

checks from Mr. John L. McMillan to Don Reynolds in that year, that

tax year, 1961?

Mr. HAUPT. No, sir; I have no record of it.

Mr. MCLENDON. You have no independent recollection of that?

Mr. HA17Yr. No, sir.

Mr. McLENDoN. Do you have any recollection of a check for $5,000

from Roberts Associates or Myron Weiner?

Mr. HA17Yr. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Had you heard of it in any way?

Mr. HAUTT. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. SO far as you can recollect now, there was no income reported during that period as having been received from

Weiner?

Mr. HAurr. I have no way of knowing whether there was income

from Weiner, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Well, I am basing my question on the fact that you

did have as part of your work papers records, data, memorandums,

some from books and some, I assume, that Mr. Reynolds gave you, as

most taxpayers do?

Mr. HA U.r.r. Maybe I can qualify this to some extent, sir. The materials I usually procured from Mr. Reynolds were canceled checks indicating disbursement. Other materials consisted of statements from

insurance corporations indicating his net commissions on policies sold

or, in addition to that, to those computations, that is to arrive at income, any other statement relative to income Mr. Reynolds would give

me.

Mr. MCLENDON. Can you

Mr. HAUFT. I am sorry, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did I interrupt you?

Mr. HAut.r. Primarily, the main interest I had was in canceled

checks indicating disbursements. I was—the taxpayer or in this case

Mr. Reynolds himself would indicate to me primarily the total income

he had received for the year, that is for the corporation.

Mr. MCLENDON. Do you have any recollection as to whether Mr.

Reynolds furnished you as a part of the working papers from which

you prepared this tax return for this fiscal year any statements or data

of any sort showing the amount of commissions collected by him on a

performance bond for McCloskey & Co. in coruiection with the construction of the stadium?

Mr. HA U.rr. I have no personal knowledge of this, sir, or any knowledge whatsoever of this. In the one particular year, and I think this

is the fiscal year ending June of 1962, I do recall Mr. Reynolds giving

me a figure in addition to the computed income of $10,000 to be included with the other income.

Mr. MCLENDON. But that was in the following year, 1962?

Mr. HAUPT. It was either in the year—sir, he was on a fiscal year

basis so this would have been earnings from June 24, 1961, through

June 23, 1962.

Mr. MCLENDON. Yes; did he identify the source of the $10,000 you

are talking about?
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 599

Mr. HAurr. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Do you have any independent memory of additional income in connection with the stadium, a second $10,000 or

approximately?

Mr. HAurr. No, sir; I had no particular information on that, sir.

In fact, I have no—

Mr. MCLENDON. You can't recall it?

Mr. HAurr. I have no knowledge of it.

Mr. MCLENDON. You have no knowledge of it. Did you have

knowledge of it at the time you prepared the returns for those 2 years?

Mr. HAurr. I have no knowledge of any income from a specific person, sir. Only that knowledge given me by Mr. Reynolds saying

"Include or increase the net commissions earned from various sources

by $10,000."

Mr. MCLENDON. Was that the largest item that you can recall that

he gave you showing income?

Mr. HATJFT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you have no recollection of a second item of approximately the same amount?

Mr. HATIFT. N o, sir.

Mr. McLErtixmr. In either year?

Mr. HATJFT. In either year.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you personally make any examination of any bank accounts of Mr. Reynolds—I am talking about Reynolds Asso- ciates when I say Mr. Reynolds in this connection—did you personally examine any of the bank accounts of that corporation?

Mr. HA 137T. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Ever at any time?

Mr. HATTFT. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you have no knowledge, based upon the rec- ords, as to how the item of $109,000 was handled in the bank?

Mr. HA UM I have no knowledge, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Nor do you have any knowledge of how it was disbursed?

Mr. HAurr. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. In connection with the preparation of the corpora- tion's tax returns, did you have access to the original books, and by original books I mean books of account?

Mr. HAUFT. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Where the income and expenses would be recorded?

Mr. HATJFT. No, sir. When you say—let me qualify that, sir; when

you say the books we referred to for expenses would not be books as such, sir, merely canceled checks.

Mr. MCLENDON. There were no books actually kept on the premises?

Mr. HA U FT. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. How about on income; were there any books kept

on income?

Mr. HAITI'. No, sir; none at all.

Mr. MCLENDON. None at all. So you had to rely on memorandum

or word of mouth from him?

Mr. Hiturr. That is correct.

Mr. MCLENDON. I believe you previously testified—and if I am in

error about this you correct me—that the item of $4,000 paid by Reyn- olds Associates to Robert G. Baker in connection with the writing of
600 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

the bond, performance bond on the District of Columbia Stadium,

was not used as a deductible expense in his return?

Mr. HA-urr. I will qualify that, sir; you say the $4,000 paid to

him relative to the performance bond. I had no reason to know why

he paid him $4,000. I don't think I testified it was in connection with

a performance bond.

Mr. MCLENDON. I think you are probably correct on that. The

check is dated October 15, 1960, and from Reynolds Associates to Robert G. Baker, and it was introduced in evidence before the committee

on January 9, 1964. Am I correct in stating that you testified that

that item was not used as a deductible expense?

Mr. HAUFT. Yes, sir, as I was advised this was a loan which was

supported by a note, sir. It would have been an account receivable as

far as Mr. Reynolds was concerned and Mr. Reynolds was on a cash

basis so a receivable would not be considered in the preparation of the

return.

Mr. MCLENDON. Exactly. And I believe you testified that you went

to Ernest Tucker's office and you saw this note there.

Mr. HAUFT. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And the note for the $4,000 from Baker?

Mr. HA UFT. Right ,sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And at that time in the fall of 1963, after this matter had received some publicity, a new note was executed by Baker to

Reynolds?

Mr. HA UFT. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Including the $4,000 and certain other items?

Mr. HAuFT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Was any explanation made to you why that was

done?

Mr. HA UFT. Only to update the note, sir, and bring the accrued

interest up to date and I was only there as a witness to this fact, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you gave it as your opinion as a tax expert or

auditor that since he held a note for the $4,000 he couldn't deduct it as

an expense?

Mr. HAurr. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Now, what treatment was given to the two checks

given by Reynolds Associates to McLeod—William N. McLeod? Do

you remember those?

Mr. HA uyr. Yes, sir; there were two checks one I think in the

amount of $1,000 and one in the amount of $500. They were identified to me as legal fees and were deducted as such.

Mr. MCLENDON. I believe they were given in different years. One

check was in one year and the other the following year. Do you

remember that?

Mr. HAu.r.r. I am not sure, sir, whether they were both in the same

year or in 2 different fiscal years.

Mr. MCLENDON. Let's be sure about that. I think I am right. The

first check is January 42 1961.

Mr. HA um Right, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. So that would go in the 1961 fiscal year return.

Mr. HAurr. Right, sir ;._fiscal year ending June 1962, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Yes; June 1962.

Mr. HA uyr. Yes, sir.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 601

Mr. MCLENDON. And the second check was dated July 24, 1961, for

$500, and that would go in the 

Mr. HAurr. 1962 year, fiscal year 1962, ending June 1963. Or that

is where they should have gone, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Well, it is 1 day after the end of your fiscal year,

I notice. It is dated July 24, and your fiscal year ended on July 23,

didn't it?

Mr. HAurr. I think so, sir. It is pretty 

Mr. MCLENDON. June, Mr. Hugler says; June 23.

Mr. HAurr. June 23.

Mr. MCLENDON. So this check on July 24, 1961, necessarily would

fall in the year beginning June 23.

Mr. HAurr. That is right, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And the other one would fall in the year ending

June 23, 1961.

Mr. HAUPT. Right, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. You think both of those checks were deducted

as expenses in the tax return?

Mr. HAurr. To the best of my knowledge, sir, I handled them both

as legal fees; yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Hauft, at any time, while you were preparing

these returns and conferring with your client in connection with

them, did Mr. Reynolds make any statement to you in connection with

the premiums that he had earned or money he had earned from the

sale of or acting as broker for the performance bonds on the stadium?

Mr. HA urr. No, sir; I have no knowledge of it.

Mr. MCLENDON. No knowledge of it at any time?

Mr. HAU.I.V. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Hugler reminded me that you referred to the

fact that the IRS had some of these documents in their possession.

I ask you if that wasn't at a time before the disclosure was made by

Reynolds that he had collected approximately $35,000 or $36,000 more

than the true amount due on the bill for the performance bond?

Mr. HAUFT. I don't know when he made that disclosure, sir; I

think this goes back to the original—when the original case first

started.

Mr. MCLENDON. That is right.

Mr. HAurr. Mr. Reynolds was visited by a Mr. Rosetti of the Internal Revenue Service and, at that time, I was requested to turn over

all documents in my possession. I did this, sir, and this was everything I had. At a later date—I think some 6 weeks later—these materials were all returned to me after Internal Revenue had had them.

This included that material which was later thrown away after the

statute of limitations had tolled. Subsequent to that, Internal Revenue again called for these same papers.

Mr. MCLENDON. Let me interrupt you. That was after the disclosure about the $109,000 check; wasn't it?

Mr. HAurr. I think SO, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. In the meantime, you had destroyed all the records.

Let me qualify that. I don't mean to ask you more than the facts are.

In the meantime, you had destroyed the records relating to the income

and expenses for that year?

Mr. HAUFT. Well, this was premised on the advice of Mr. Reynolds

and only for those records ending July—June 1961.
602 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT' OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. MCLENDON. I understand.

Mr. HAUFT. Where the statute of limitations had tolled.

Mr. MCLENDON. And when the revenue people came back a second

time they wanted the records for that year, did they not?

Mr. HAUFT. They wanted all of the records I had in my possession,

sir. I had no authority to give them to them. I made the check at this

point; this is when I referred to Mr. FitzGerald, who informed me that

I should give them nothing without Mr. Reynolds' permission.

Mr. MCLENDON. Let's get that straight. You were subpenaed, were

you, by the Internal Revenue?

Mr. HAUFT. Not at that time, sir. They had come out and I had

told them what material I had.

Mr. MCLENDON. And they told you they would subpena you, did

they not?

Mr. HAUFT. They didn't mention subpena at that time, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Why did you consult Mr. Reynolds' counsel?

Mr. HAUFT. Because I was Mr. Reynolds' accountant, sir, and

I didn't know what to do with them. I had to have someone's advice

who was in a little higher authority than I was.

Mr. MCLENDON. Anyway, whatever the motive was, you were told by

Mr. Reynolds and his counsel not to give them the records?

Mr. HAurr. Right , sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you refused to give them to them?

Mr. HAurr. That is right, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Following that, a subpena was issued for them?

Mr. HAuyr. About 10-12 days later, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And then you turned over such records as you had?

Mr. HAu-vr. Right, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And only such as you had, because you had disposed of some?

Mr. HAUFT. Right. I retained all records for all years which were

still open on the statute of limitations.

Mr. MCLENDON. But not barred by the 3-year statute?

Mr. HA Ut-1. 1 That is right.

Mr. MCLENDON. OK.

Senator PELL. Mr. Hauft, when you stated you threw away or destroyed the records or the—or rather counsel stated you destroyed

them and you said you threw them away, I recollect, which did you

do?

Mr. HAurr. I threw them away, sir; I just threw them in the trash

with all the other trash I had.

Senator PELL. Right. Am I correct in saying when it comes to

fraud the statute of limitations goes more than 3 years; isn't that

correct?

Mr. HAUFT. If there is an indication of fraud, sir. At this point

Internal Revenue had already had these records and it was my understanding from Mr. FitzGerald that Internal Revenue in exchange of

an affidavit from Mr. Reynolds had reviewed these returns and said

they had found no discrepancies and that there was nothing wrong

with them.

Senator PELL. This was your understanding, but not your

knowledge.

Mr. HAUFT. If I recall, sir, I was present at a meeting where Mr.

Rosetti gave this statement to Mr. FitzGerald, that these returns had
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 603

been reviewed and Internal Revenue was satisfied with them and at

that time they stated, or my understanding was, that they would

present an affidavit to this effect.

Senator PELL. Mr. Rosetti being the Internal Revenue Service?

Mr. HAUFT. Yes, sir.

Senator PELL. Did you know at that time there was a criminal in- vestigation underway or not? That Mr. Reynolds was being investigated by various organs of the Government?

Mr. HAUFf. Yes, sir.

Senator PELL. In connection with the $1,500 that Mr. McLeod states he treated as a gift, do you recall if this was treated by Mr. Reynolds

as a gift?

Mr. HAUFT. No, sir. We treated it as a legal expense and deducted

it as such, sir.

Senator PELL. As a legal expense. I was fascinated with Mr. Reynolds' practice, or the practice he stated he had, of overpaying his income tax and understating his expenses. Was this, to your knowledge, his practice?

Mr. HAUFT. Well, let's qualify that a little bit, sir. Some of the deductions taken by Mr. Reynolds or itemized by Mr. Reynolds I dis- puted, and would not permit as a tax deduction rather than have ques- tions raised relative to them. So we would deliberately delete these,

although they were legal, legitimate expenses; this, in effect, is under- stating exempt deductions and overstating on income; yes, sir.

Senator PELL. But, to your knowledge, did he ever overstate income,

too, or not?

Mr. HAUFT. It is entirely possible that the figure he gave me could

have been an overstatement of income; yes, sir.

Senator PELL. Another question, going back to your preparation of

Mr. Baker's returns. If my recollection is correct, the signatures on the returns, the personal returns, of Mr. Baker that we have discussed in this committee which bore your name were not in fact your signature, were your forged name. Is that correct?

Mr. HAUFT. That is correct, sir.

Senator PELL. Do you have any thought as to why a man would

forge your name and, as I understand it, make a net gain of about $15?

Mr. HAUFT. I think as I testified earlier, sir, it could only have been, and I think it was possibly, only a matter of convenience on Mr. Baker's part. Rather than call me, the amount of the change being nominal, rather than bothering me, he just signed my name to the

return. I can think of no other reason, sir.

Senator PELL. I can't, either; a very strange thing to do.

Mr. HAUFT. I don't think my name is that important, either, sir.

Senator PELL. Thank you. Senator Cooper?

Senator COOPER. You are aware of the testimony given that on October 17, 1960, McCloskey & Co. paid by check to Don Reynolds Associates $109,205.60.

Mr. HAUFT. I have heard this, sir.

Senator COOPER. Later, on November 4, 1960, Reynolds—Don B. Reynolds Associates—paid by check $63,599.72 to Hutchinson, Rivinus

& Co.

Mr. HAUFT. I have heard this, sir.
604 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT' OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Senator COOPER. What year would Mr. Reynolds have been required

to account for these transactions?

Mr. HAUFT. What are the dates, sir, of the transactions?

Senator COOPER. The first check is October 17, 1960. The second,

November 4, 1960.

Mr. HAurr. They would both have been reflected in the corporate

return ending June 232 1961, sir.

Senator COOPER. Did you prepare his income tax return for that

fiscal year?

Mr. HA-OFT. We are still talking of corporate returns, sir?

Senator COOPER. What?

Mr. HAUFT. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Do you have any independent recollection concerning the accounting for these two checks?

Mr. HAUFT. No, sir. I don't have.

Senator COOPER. $109,205.60 is a pretty big check.

Mr. HAUFT. I have never seen that check, sir, other than as published.

Senator COOPER. Then you haven't seen it?

Mr. HAUP"r. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. According to your recollection, did Mr. Reynolds

account for any income received by him as commissions for insurance

written for McCloskey & Co. on a performance bond or general

liability insurance?

Mr. HAUFT. I had no personal or particular knowledge of that, sir.

The only thing, as I stated earlier, Mr. Reynolds did inform me in

that particular year that I had developed the income from the other

insurance companies he represented as a direct agent, I then was

told to increase this figure by an amount of $10,000. The source or

where this $10,000 came from I didn't ask questions about it, sir.

When a man is increasing his income I am not going to question it in

preparing a return.

Senator COOPER. He didn't indicate that it was a commission for

a performance bond?

Mr. HAUFT. I had no knowledge upon what it was, sir.

Senator COOPER. On that same return I think you said that he did

account for $1,500 paid to McLeod.

Mr. HAUFT. As I said, sir, this $1,500 may have gone into 2 separate

years, a thousand as a legal expense in one year and 500 as another.

I am not sure of that, sir.

Senator COOPER. He never claimed a deduction of $4,000 he paid

Baker?

Mr. HAUFT. That was represented by a note, sir, so there would be

no deduction.

Senator COOPER. Mr. McLendon asked you a while ago about a

meeting held in Tucker's office—I think after this investigation

started—when a renewal note was prepared for $4,000.

Mr. HAUPT. I don't think it was after the investigation started.

Senator COOPER. It was December 1963. I think you have stated

that you met in Baker's office and a renewal of the note was prepared.

Mr. HAUFT. No; I think there are two things involved there, sir.

On one occasion, I think it was back in March of 1963, I witnessed

the renewal of some notes. In December of 1963, after the investigation started I think I testified that Mr. Baker called me at my office
CONSTRUCTION OF msTRIcr OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 605

and brought me an envelope containing updated notes. These were

two separate occasions involved here, sir.

Senator COOPER. All right. The last occasion was after the investigation started, and concerned a renewal note or a note increased by the

amount of interest due?

Mr. HAurr. I think these notes, as Mr. Baker reflected them to me

were—are updating the notes that Mr. Reynolds has. I didn't even

look through them. It was merely an envelope given to me to transmit

to Mr. Reynolds.

Senator COOPER. Was it your purpose to accept it and to deliver it on

behalf of Mr. Reynolds?

Mr. HAurr. Mr. Baker called me to handle it in this manner; yes,

sir.

Senator COOPER. I want to get this clear. After the investigation

started Mr. Baker did bring you a note which had been updated, and

increased by the amount of interest due?

Mr. HAurr. That is correct, sir.

Senator COOPER. You said that Mr. Reynolds never claimed that

this represented an actual debt to him, I think.

Mr. HA UET. I didn't say that, sir. Mr. Reynolds said that.

Senator COOPER. He said it?

Mr. HAurr. I can only give my opinion.

Senator COOPER. Did Mr. Baker make any statement as to whether

this note was actually due Reynolds?

Mr. HAurr. No, sir. Mr. Baker called me and said, "I am bringing

you an envelope updating the notes due Mr. Reynolds."

Senator COOPER. He never made a statement to you as to whether or

not he actually owed the note?

Mr. HAurr. He owed the note, sir?

Senator COOPER. Yes.

Mr. HAurr. The only indication I had on that, sir, was Mr. Reynolds' advice that he had given Mr. Baker this money, that these notes

were due and that he had—these were legitimate notes.

Senator COOPER. You said at one point that the records of Mr. Reynolds were turned over to IRS?

Mr. HAuFT. On two different occasions, sir.

Senator COOPER. Did Mr. Reynolds consent that they be turned over

to the IRS?

Mr. HAUPT. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. There was no effort on his part to withhold them?

Mr. HATJFT. No, sir; his advice to me was to give everything I had,

sir.

Senator COOPER. It was after they were returned from IRS that certain records were withdrawn or thrown away?

Mr. HAUFT. Yes, sir. After they had been returned by the Internal

Revenue Service.

Senator COOPER. Do you remember anything about those particular

records that were thrown away?

Mr. HAI:11'T. They were just work papers, copies, income statements

from various insurance companies, canceled checks supporting deductions and that material which was reflected or had to be reflected as

income and expenses in these particular corporate returns.

Senator COOPER. Has any question been raised about the destruction

of these records by the IRS?
606 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADrUM

Mr. HAurr. Not as yet, sir.

Senator COOPER. That is all.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Hauft, the law requires the taxpayer to report

the income in the year in which he received it, does it not?

Mr. HAUPT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. He can't receive income in one year and report

part of it and then postpone some of the rest of it the next year

without violating the law, can he?

Mr. HAUPT. It should be my understanding and from what I have

learned, income earned is reportable in the year in which earned.

Mr. MCLENDON. Because if he is permitted to distribute it over a

period of years he could thereby reduce his tax liability, could he

not?

Mr. HAUPT. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. That is all, sir.

Senator PELL. No further questions. Thank you very much.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Weiner. Isn't he in the audience? His counsel? We are calling Mr. Weiner, Mr. Donohue.

Mr. DONOHUE. Major, I called him just as I left the courthouse and

I am sure he is on his way here by taxicab.

Mr. MCLENDON. I thought I saw him out there in the audience.

Mr. DONOHUE. He is on his way here by cab.

Senator PELL. Is Mr. Bromley in the audience? Is his attorney in

the audience? The committee is compelled to take a recess until the

appearance of Mr. Weiner or Mr. Bromley.

(Short recess.)

Senator PELL. The committee will resume its session. We welcome

Mr. Weiner and his counsel. Mr. Weiner has already been sworn and

there is no necessity for swearing him again. Carry on.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Weiner, the file that you left with us on yesterday has been examined and I want to ask you a few questions

about some documents we found in it.. I find in the file a list of "checks

received from the following and deposited April 2, 1962." That would

be within 1 year after you gave Baker the $5,000 check, would it not?

TESTIMONY OF MYRON WEINER, ACCOMPANIED BY F. JOSEPH

DONOHUE, ATTORNEY

Mr. WEINER. Sir, I do not know the document you are referring to.

Mr. MCLENDON. I am sorry.

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. You gave Baker the check in the fall of 1961, you

testified.

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And it was for a retainer for the following year12-month period beginning at, the time you delivered the check?

Mr. WEINER. Sir, I am sorry.

Mr. MCLENDON. The check was for a retainer, according to your

testimony, for services to be rendered during the year following the

date of the check.

Mr. WEINER. That is correct, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And this list of clients, apparently a list of clients,

shows payments during that year to you.

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 607

Mr. MCLENDON. The total on that sheet is $9,500, is it not?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Can you tell the committee what the nature of the

business of each one of those was during that year?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir; these are all people in the freight forwarding business. Once again, as Mr. Barr testified yesterday, many of

these people I do not know. The committee handled the fees and they

were turned over to me for the fees I was to receive for work that I

was doing for the industry, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you—excuse me; go ahead.

Mr. WEINER. And they requested that, since the committee was ad

hoc an ad hoc committee that had employed me—that we send, where

possible, receipts to the individual firms who had contributed to the

fees, many of whom I had never met, receipts for the funds.

Mr. MCLENDON. Why is that dated 1962?

Mr. WEINER. I cannot explain that, sir. I am trying to recollect.

I do not wish to make any statements that I am not sure of the

absolute truth.

Mr. MCLENDON. Are those items listed on that sheet which came out

of your file, are they items of money paid to you?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And the date; all of those were paid within the

calendar year 1962?

Mr. WEINER. I assume from reading this that they did. I am not

trying to evade the answer.

Mr. MCLENDON. I understand that.

Mr. WEINER. I just don't recall exactly.

Mr. MCLENDON. I am just trying to get your explanation, Mr.

Weiner.

Mr. WEINER. Well, needless to say, Major, I am only attempting

to tell you exactly what I recall. The legend says deposited April 2,

1962, so I have to assume it was. Until I check the books and records

I would not be able to—

Mr. MCLENDON. What is your explanation of the fact that the

legislation was all passed and your clients had won a great victory

and went home happy and then the very next year you collected

$9,500 from a group of these people who were in the same business?

Mr. WEINER. Sir, they have had a continuing problem, not affecting

legislation, but rules.

Mr. MCLENDON. Rules?

Mr. WEINER. Being promulgated by the Maritime Commission.

Mr. MCLENDON. Yes.

Mr. WEINER. And it is purely, if I recall, additional fees that I

received for additional work that they wished me to do. It had

nothing to do with legislation but merely the rules.

Mr. MCLENDON. I see. Then your explanation is that this particular group of forwarders paid you the amounts of money indicated

there for your services not in connection with the legislation, because

that was all passed, but for your services in connection with the

Maritime Commission?

Mr. WEINER. To the best of my recollection, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Do you remember who the Chairman of the

Maritime Commission was at that time in 1962?

Mr. WEINER. No, sir; never met him.
608 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. MCLENDON. Did you ever appear before him?

Mr. WEINER. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. What did you do? What kind of services did

you render?

Mr. WEINER. Well, Major, obviously these people respected my

legal opinion because they felt I had given them proper advice before.

And in.the promulgation of rules, regulations they just felt that I

could give them advice whereby they might be able to get rules that

were more satisfactory to them. I have never spoken during this

entire period to any member of, or Commissioner of, the Federal

Maritime Board.

Mr. MCLENDON. Well, Mr. Weiner, can't you help the committee

by simply explaining what sort of service you rendered for the

amount of money indicated on that sheet of paper?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir; I would investigate these various matters as

an attorney would.

Mr. MoLENDoN. Don't talk about various matters. Tell us specifically what you did.

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir; concerning the rules and regulations in this

instance.

Mr. MCLENDON. Can you give us an illustration of any rule and

regulation?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir. Can I, sir?

Mil. MCLENDON. Yes, sir.

Mr. WEINER. I believe in the file that you have seen there, there

are memorandums of rules and regulations and exactly what the forwarding industry or how they would like to have them changed so

that they feel they can operate within them. Legally 

Mr. MCLENDON. GO right ahead.

Mr. WEINER. My opinion, what I felt would be acceptable to the

Commission, what changes or possible changes could be made to make

the rules agreeable to both the Commission and to the industry.

Mr. MCLENDON. Did that continue on into the next year, 1963?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. So for both 1962 and 1963 you were still rendering

services to some of these people in connection with the Maritime

Commission?

Mr. WEINER. Sir, when you say some of the people, I was still

rendering services to the same, as far as I was concerned to the same

committee. These individuals who contributed to the committee, as

I say, most of them I never met.

Mr. MCLENDON. I find one document in your file dated October 23,

1961, which would be almost within 30 days after the passage of the

legislation, to Karr, Ellis & Co., Inc., 17 Battery Place, New York 4.

"Receipt for legal services rendered is hereby acknowledged, $2,500."

What was that for?

Mr. WEINER. Sir, I never met these people. I was informed by

Mr. Barr they were one of the folks who had contributed toward these

fees and it was requested of me that I send them a paid bill for purposes of Internal Revenue examination that they were undergoing

and I was informed they were one of the people contributing, and I

had no objection to sending a bill for moneys, fees that I had been

paid.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 609

Mr. MCLENDON. I see. What you were doing here, you were mailing a bill to the people who contributed to the $50,000; is that right?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. And they wanted something from you to indicate

that they had paid that for that tax purpose?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. That would explain that one, wouldn't it?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Senator PELL. Doesn't this bring up a question of law that it is a

legitimate deductible expense if it is legal services, but if it is paid to

the trade association for the influence of legislation that is not a

deductible expense?

Mr. WEINER. That is correct, sir; therefore, I must refer back to Mr.

Barr's testimony yesterday, Senator, when he told the committee this

was an ad hoc committee that was fornied for the purposes of, well,

attempting to see what they could do on the legislation, and they retained my services for advice and for the work that I did for them.

Senator PELL. Would this not seem an improper device?

Mr. WEINER. Sir, I did not consider it a device because as I testified

yesterday, Senator, my job was not lobbying. It was strictly legal

advice that I was giving them and I felt that there was absolutely nothing improper as long as they were only receiving legal advice to give

them a paid receipt for a fee

Senator PELL. But the $50,000 was not for advice but for the influence of legislation.

Mr. WEINER. No, sir; I did not influence any legislation. I did not,

as I say, to the best of my recollection; I don't think that I attempted

to or I know I didn't attempt to sway anybody's vote, to influence the

legislation, and while this may sound difficult to believe they did pay

me this fee, and I cannot make more out of it than it is, Senator.

Mr. MCLENDON. How long did you continue to collect fees from members of the association as indicated there on the sheet of paper you have

before you?

Mr. WEINER. As indicated here, sir?

Mr. MCLENDON. Well, from those people listed there, concerns or

forwarders. What I mean by my question is did you collect from them

in 1962 ? In 1963?

Mr. WEINER. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. You did in 1962?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. What happened after 1962? Were your services

ended at that time?

Mr. WEINER. Yes. As a matter of fact, there was a lawsuit that was,

I understand, just in the process of being brought in the courts of the

United States that I did not handle on the effect of these very rules

and regulations where I felt that the position of the Federal Maritime

Commission was correct and that I could not help these people and

so informed them, and that their only available—their only way of

correcting it would be to go to the c,ourts where they did—a case in

which I have not participated 

Mr. MCLENDON. But you are not responsible for that.

Mr. WEINER. No, sir.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Weiner, isn't it obvious that, when you gave

your check for $5,000 to Robert Baker in the fall of 1961, you knew
610 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICTr OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

at that time that some of these people were going to retain you or had

already retained you for the following year and you were employing

Baker to be of service in connection with these clients that you have.

Mr. WEINER. No, sir; that is absolutely untrue. As a matter of fact,

the situation concerning the rules, the situation whereby they again

retained me, concerning the rules and the advice that I could give them

on it, was well after it, as you could see, sir. In the meantime what

had been attempted is the formation of a national association instead

of all of the loosely jointed associations in the various ports around

the United States and that was completely unsuccessful. It was impossible to get the various organizations together, and when that

proved to be impossible the entire—my interest in the matter at that

time was ended. I did everything I could and it was just something

that could not be accomplished.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Weiner, the committee is concerned about this

simple question: You either gave Bobby Baker that check for $5,000

for services already rendered or you gave it to him for services to be

rendered, and yesterday I understood you to say very distinctly in

answer to a question asked by some of us 

SenatorCOOPER. I asked it.

Mr. MCLENDON. I believe Senator Cooper asked the question and I

understood you to answer that the check was given to him for services

to be rendered.

Mr. WEINER. That is correct, sir; that was my answer. To be rendered to the corporation in a general manner as a firm of attorneys.

Mr. MCLENDON. To be rendered to the corporation?

Mr. WEINER. To be rendered to the public relations corporation.

Mr. MCLENDON. That was your public relations corporation?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir. As I felt the need to call upon the services

of the law firm to render such advice.

Mr. MCLENDON. All right. Now, you have nailed that one down.

Let me ask one more question.

Mr. WEINER. May I 

Mr. MCLENDON. Just tell us what he did; just a little bit.

Mr. WEINER. Major, I did a very foolish thing in the retention. I

am not attempting because of this hearing to create sympathy or to

create the effect that I am naive. I did retain the law 'firm, as silly

as it may look in retrospect, and regardless of how it may look to the

committee, I could—I can only testify to exactly what occurred, the

reasons for it and what happened, and I will not perjure myself for

any reason to try to justify what I did. The motives were absolutely

pure, in spite of what interpretation various people may want to put

on it.; this, of course, I cannot help.

Mr. MCLENDON. Mr. Weiner, as far as this committee is concerned

they are not wanting to put any interpretation on it.

Mr. WEINER. No, sir I didn;t mean by you directly.

Mr. MCLENDON. We are trying to find out what your interpretation is.

Mr. WEINER. Yes sir; and I am trying—

Mr. MCLENDON. Lt me direct your attention for just a moment. I

think Senator Cooper, who has had a long, distinguished career as a

lawyer, and I, both, will say we have never been paid a retainer without

rendering services for it or be at least on a standby basis to render

service.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 611

Mr. WEINER. That is exactly what it was, sir; to be on a standby

basis to render services. Perhaps I did not express it in exactly those

words, but I have attempted in my own way to tell the committee that

is exactly what it was.

Mr. MCLENDON. All right. That is the best answer you can make?

Mr. WEINER. Well, sir, it is not a question of making the best answer; it is a question of telling this committee the absolute truth.

Mr. MCLENDON. And you are unable to tell us a thing you did?

Mr. WEINER. Senator, I can—pardon me, Senator [laughter], the

only explanation 

Senator COOPER. He doesn't like to be called that.

Senator PELL. I think he would rather be called Major.

Mr. MCLENDON. At this moment at least you had better address

me as Major. [Laughter.]

Mr. WEINER. Major, I did not find, as I testified yesterday, the op- portunity to use this firm at all. I realize that the testimony could be interpreted in any way that the newspapers saw fit to describe it.

However, I am thankful that I was called back this morning because of the publicity that occurred. I would like to merely make this statement to the committee, and the public. I am an attorney. I am not naive and I do not consider myself ignorant. If I felt that I had any- thing to hide, as other witnesses have done, if I felt anything improper

had been done, I would have taken the amendments. I did not, sir, realizing that as a lawyer that the only person that can put you in trouble is yourself.

Now, I did not, Major, because I felt that I wanted to tell the truth, that I had nothing to hide, that my motives regardless of how they

were interpreted and the events were absolutely correct. That there

was no attempt in any manner to do anything improper nor was any- thing improper done. Under the light of the sun, and in light of these hearings, I can very well understand how people might misinterpret what occurred because of the general atmosphere and all the other testimony that has been brought out. And, Major, I wish to assure yourself and the committee, that all of these things were taken into consideration before I did appear here yesterday and took the position that I did opening myself up to the type of publicity which could very well cost me a great deal financially in the form of clients and, other things but I feel it my duty to this committee, and the United States

comes first, to tell the truth regardless of the fact that it may sound foolish, embarrass me, and that there is not an explanation that is doc- umented, and I, therefore, Major, this is all I can tell you, exactly what occurred.

Mr. MCLENDON. All right. Now, the committee has information that you purchased a very expensive fur coat for Mr. Baker or some relative of his. Will you tell us about that?

Mr. WEINER. This is an absolute lie. I have never heard of any- thing like that, sir. I know of nothing like this, and I cannot answer

a c uestion like that that I have no knowledge of.

Mr. McLENDoisr. Could it be confused with a fur coat that you might have bought for someone else?

Mr. WEINER. I have never bought a fur coat, Major.

Mr. MCLENDON. You never have. All right.

Senator PELL. Senator Cooper?.

Senator COOPER. Yes.
612 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Mr. MCLENDON. Mark that list. Give it to the reporter. Give it a

number.

(The list of checks referred to is as follows:)

EXHIBIT 61

Checks received from the following; deposited Apr. 2, 1962:

COSMOS Shipping Co., customs brokers, 8-10 Bridge Street, New

York, N.Y $1,000

Pitt & Scott Corp., 51 Broadway, New York, N.Y 1,000

American Union Transport, Inc., 17 Battery Place, New York, N.Y 1,000

United Forwarders Service Inc., 51 Beaver Street, New York, N.Y 1, 000

Fred P. Gaskell Co., Inc., 1 Broadway, New York, N.Y 1, 000

Milton Snedeker Corp., 44 Whitehall Street, New York, N.Y 1,000

Arncam Shipping Co., Inc., 11 Broadway, New York, N.Y 1,000

Copeland 'Shipping, Inc., 11 Broadway, New York, N.Y 1,000

Schaefer & Krebs, Inc., 25 Broadway, New York, N.Y 750

Maron Shipping Agency, Inc., 11 Broadway, New York, N.Y 750

Total 9,500

Senator COOPER. Mr. Weiner, yesterday I asked you that in the

year following the payment of this check to Tucker & Baker if you

had any business clients and I think you said you did have a client,

Otis Elevator Co. I want to ask you this: Do these checks paid to you

in the following year totaling $9,500 represent payments to you for

services rendered by you in the year following the issuance of the

cheeks?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir; they do, sir, and as I told you yesterday, I

would be delighted to furnish the committee with a list of clients. I

just did not recall.

Senator COOPER. Then they were clients additional to Otis Elevator

Co.?

Mr. WEINER. Yes sir.

Senator COOPER. 

Yes,

the business of these clients similar to the type

of business you had conducted the year before in representing the

freight forwarders?

Mr. WEINER. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. They were freight forwarders, weren't they?

Mr. WEINER. Perhaps I misunderstood the question.

Senator COOPER. I say these clients were freight forwarders.

Mr. WEINER. These particular ones were; yes.

Senator COOPER. And they were the same people that you represented before?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Part of the same people?

Mr. WEINER. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. You did not then find it necessary to call on

Baker or Tucker for advice in that following year?

Mr. WEINER. No, sir I did not.

Senator COOPER. Because of the curious nature of this transaction,

I have another question to ask. Did you actually make the contract

to pay Baker & Tucker for services to be rendered in the future as a

device for payment for services rendered in the past by Baker &

Tucker?

Mr. WEINER. Senator, no, I did not.
CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 613

Senator COOPER. What?

Mr. WEINER. NO, sir.

Senator COOPER. That question hasn't been asked you. You stated

that you did not pay them for past services.

Mr. WEINER. SenatorSenator COOPER. But we do know and you know as a lawyer that

at times a device like this is used.

Mr. WEINER. Senator, just for the record, may I make an unequivocal statement?

Senator COOPER. You could be making a very honest statement as

to the procedure by saying that "Yes; I paid $5,000 for services to be

rendered in the future." But actually the purpose was to pay for

services rendered in the past.

Mr. WEINER. NO, sir.

Senator COOPER. What?

Mr. WEINER. I will make a statement for the record and I am under

oath. Mr. Robert Baker nor Mr. Ernest Tucker did anything in any

way to aid me in the freight forwarder legislation. They were not

requested for help. They did perform nothing to aid me or the industry. There were no services rendered by them prior to this day of any

kind.

Senator COOPER. What was it then about the firm which recommended itself to provide services to you in the future?

Mr. WEINER. Several things, sir.

Senator COOPER. What?

Mr. WEINER. No. 1, Mr. Baker's reputation himself, his position,

the fact that I, wherever I went, I was told how adequate and capable

they were. The fact that I felt that the combination of both ability

and position could be most helpful.

Senator COOPER. Influence you mean.

Mr. WEINER. Yes, influence, if necessary, which was not used nor

requested. But the fact that they were good attorneys, and could

advise me properly. However, sir, there was nothing done. I did

enter into this retainer agreement. I regretted it afterward, not for

the purpose of this committee hearing but for the fact I wasted the

money and had no use for it. The fact that the truth here is so simple

that it might not be fully believed, and I assure you that if I wanted to

concoct a story to make it more believable, Senator, I would but this

is the bald truth. I cannot change it.

Senator COOPER. I will ask you again. In the period of 4 or 5

months in 1961, when you represented the freight forwarders in connection with this legislation, I think you testified that you were not

expert in this field. You couldn't advise your clients concerning details of the legislation and you did not testify before congressional

committees.

Mr. WEINER. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. You say you did not lobby any Member of

Congress or committee?

Mr. WEINER. I say, sir, when I say I did not lobby, I did not Attempt

to get any Senator or Congressman to change their vote, and I think,

sir, that the history of this should be brought out so that there are no

illusions as to 'what occurred because I think this is the problem in

answer to some of the questions, Senator; there are unanswered questions and I think background would clear it up.
614 CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM

Senator COOPER. You really were paid $50,000 because you were

able to convince the freight forwarders that you were actually helping them. According to your own testimony, however, you didn't do

anything.

Mr. WEINER. I didn't do that much.

Senator COOPER. Yes; I must say I don't doubt there are a lot of

persons paying fees here to people who convinced them they are doing

something for them and they are not or cannot. Did Mr. Baker ever

call any members of the committees or Senate into his office and

introduce them to you?

Mr. WEINER. What was that, sir?

Senator COOPER. Did Mr. Baker ever call any members of the Senate or legislative committees handling this legislation into his office to

introduce them to you?

Mr. WEINER. TO help me with this?

Senator COOPER. Introduce them to you.

Mr. WEINER. He never called anybody just to introduce them to me;

no, sir.

Senator COOPER. All right.

Mr. MCLENDON. That is all.

Senator PELL. No further questions. Thank you very much, Mr.

Weiner.

Mr. DoNoHuE. Are we finally excused?

Mr. WEINER. Gentlemen, may I thank you for your courteous

treatment.

Senator PELL. Is Mr. Bromley in the room? The committee will

recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:05 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at

2 p.m. the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator COOPER. I will repeat what I said. I think it is agreed that

we will meet next week. I ask that we meet next week.

In addition to Bromley there are three other persons who were

named as witnesses who have not testified: Robert H. Berman,

C. Franklin Daniels, and Maywood Boggs. Also I would ask counsel

to see if it is possible at the meeting next week to produce additional

evidence on the Reynolds-McCloskey matter. Although it is difficult

from the testimony we have had to secure the records of Mr. Baker,

I suggest that we secure the records of Mr. Reynolds and the bank

records of Mr. Baker, to see if there are five withdrawals in amounts

of $5,000 before the election in 1960, and afterward. This would

provide the committee with a basis for deciding whether Reynolds'

statement can be substantiated.

I would also ask that counsel get in touch with the officials of

McCloskey & Co. who have the authority and who can testify with

accuracy concerning certain facts. I would ask that such officials or

employees be asked to appear if they can secure the evidence in sufficient time, first to tell this committee during the term of the general

liability insurance contraet which is in evidence, whether there were

other brokers who participated in general liability insurance contracts

other than the District of Columbia Stadium contract. If there wer#A
4

CONSTRUCTION OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA STADIUM 615

such other brokers, to give their names, their residences, contracts, the

amounts involved, and whether in those cases there were double payments as claimed in the case of the District of Columbia Stadium. I

would also ask if, during the term of the District of Columbia Stadium

contract, there were yearly audits of the McCloskey operation, and, if

so, that these audits be produced together with persons who are qualified to speak with knowledge of the facts concerning the payment to

Reynolds of $109,0002 and the quarterly premium adjustments.

The reason I ask is that if the audit did disclose a payment to

Reynolds at the same time continuing payments to Aetna upon the

same account, it would seem to me that somebody in the company

should have been informed that there had been a double payment.

You will remember that we have had no testimony from the auditing and accounting departments of McCloskey & Co.

Let me make one final statement. There are other witnesses. There

has been testimony given in executive session on the first day of the

hearings. I was not present at the time. I would like to read that

testimony and decide for myself in consultation with my colleagues

what witnesses we would ask the committee to call.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Pell, do you have any remarks you wish to

make?

Senator PELL. No. I think thought should be given to the idea of

asking General Persons to at least file a statement with us as to the

extent of his correspondence and conversations with Mr. Baker concerning the passage of the stadium bill.

Senator COOPER. I may say I have no objection to anybody you want

to call.

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will stand adjourned until call from

the Chair, whatever date we start back.

(Whereupon, at 3:10 p.m., the committee was adjourned, subject to

the call of the Chair.)

0
II I )111 1 il it!117j 

81 ,11.,11 11