CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE

ing attorneys as having been registered

to represent the taxpayer: Treasury Department: Thomas C. Best; Andrew E.

Hurley; Emil N. Baar. Justice Department: Andrew E. Hurley; Maurice Celler,

certified public accountant; Judge W.

Mayock; Al Wheeler; Judge Baar; Mr.

Lieberman; William G. Pickrel.

Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent to have incorporated in the RECORD

at this point as a part of my remarks a

letter dated January 7, 1954, signed by

me and addressed to Hon. EMANUEL CELLER, House of Representatives, Washington, D. C., calling attention to a certain

memorandum, and the references therein to him.

There being no objection, the letter

was ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows:

UNITED STATES SENATE,

January 7, 1954.

Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,

House of Representatives,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: In reviewing

the tax case of Mr. Edward E. and Mr. Samuel

E. Jackson, of Tampa, Fla., and Sidney, Ohio,

along with their corporations, a memoran- dum dated in 1951 and signed by Mr. Turner

Smith, addressed to his superior, Mr. T. La- mar Caudle, who at that time was serving as Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, has

been called to my attention.

In this memorandum Mr. Smith explains

to Mr. Caudle a visit which you made to his

office accompanied by a gentleman whom you

introduced as a law partner either of your

brother or of your brother-in-law, who had

been representing the Jackson people. According to Mr. Smith you explained that this

relative had just been appointed judge, and

that the man whom you were then introducing would be taking his place in the case. In Mr. Smith's memorandum he told Mr.

Caudle that you had stated that it was your

opinion that the defendant should not be

prosecuted for criminal violations, due to

his health, and requested that the case be

settled in the civil courts.

In view of the fact that a report on this case is being considered, and the memoran- dum referred to above, or its substance, will

appear in that report, I felt that it should

be called to your attention prior thereto in

order that you could have incorporated in

that same report your explanation of the interview.

Yours sincerely,

JOHN J. WILLIAMS.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. President, I ask

unanimous consent to have printed in

the RECORD at this point as a part of my

remarks a letter dated January 26, 1954,

signed by Representative EMANUEL CELLEE and addressed to me, together with

an accompanying letter under date of

January 20, 1954, addressed to Representative CELLER and signed by Mr.

Lawrence J. Lieberman.

I may say that both these letters explain Representative CELLER'S version of

the interview referred to, and I think it

is only fair that they be incorporated in

the RECORD at this point.

There being no objection, the letters

were ordered to be printed in the RECORD,

as follows:

HoUsE or REPRESENTATIvES,

Washington, D. C., January 26, 1954.

Hon. JOHN J. WILLIAMS,

Senate Office Building,

Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR: I am enclosing a copy of a

letter I received from Mr. Lawrence J. Lieberman, which has reference to the matter contained in your letter to me dated January

12, 1954.

I, personally, have no interest and have

had no interest in the case of Samuel E.

Jackson. I introduced Mr. Lieberman to Mr.

Turner Smith, and recall saying that I felt

reliance could be placed on the statements

made by Mr. Lieberman, who is personally

known to me as a lawyer of good standing.

I also recall that I had no interest in and

no knowledge whatsoever of the facts involving the case of Samuel E. Jackson.

In other words, I merely introduced Mr.

Lieberman to Mr. Smith, and was careful to

Indicate the aforesaid facts.

Sincerely yours,

EMANUEL CELLER.

Enclosure.

BAAR, BENNETT & FULLEN,

New York, N. Y., January 20, 1954.

Re Samuel E. Jackson et al.

Hon. EMANUEL CELLER,

House Office Building, Washington, D. C.

DEAR CONGRESSMAN CELLER: I have before

me a copy of a letter of January 12, 1954, addressed to you by Senator JOHN J. WILLIAMS

with reference to the above matters. My partner, Emil N. BEar, was appointed

a justice of the Supreme Court of the State

of New York in 1951. The Jackson tax matter had been in his charge. I succeeded him

in the representation of the clients.

Toward the end of July 1951, through associate counsel, I was advised that an indictment or information might be filed against

Samuel E. Jackson within a matter of days

to protect the Government against the statute of limitations' running on any returns

involved, despite the fact that the Department of Justice was awaiting a report from

the Public Health Service as to whether an

indictment and trial might prove fatal to

Samuel E. Jackson. It was my considered

judgment that the Department of Justice

had incorrectly applied the law and that in

fact, if the Department waited until the

Public Health Service report was received,

not only would the statute not run against

any returns that were then involved, but in

our opinion, by reason of our knowledge of

the client's physical condition, the finding

of an indictment prior to consideration of

the medical report would result in a miscarriage of justice. Since time was of the

essence, I requested you to make an immediate appointment for me with whomever

might be in charge of this case in the Department of Justice. On August 6, 1951, as

I recollect the date, you introduced me to

Mr. Turner Smith, whom you advised as to

my taking Judge Baar's place in these mat- ters. You also stated to Mr. Smith that 'it

was my position that the defendant, because

of the very precarious condition of his

health, should not be prosecuted for criminal violations and that I also wanted to

present before the Department a legal argument on the question of the statute of limitations which I confidently believed would

demonstrate that there was no urgency in

the immediate filing of an indictment, and

that consequently, in all fairness, the report

of the Public Health Service should be

awaited before further action was taken.

You will recall at the conclusion of the conference, I was advised by Mr. Smith that if

the medical report did not arrive in due

time, I would be given an opportunity to

present argument on the legal question of

the application of the statute of limitations.

In order that you may be fully apprised

of subsequent developments, I give you the

following information:

The Public Health Service report was such

that not only was an indictment not filed,

but the Department of Justice returned the

matter for civil disposition. However, subsequently and for reasons which, particularly in the light of the foregoing, we never

understood, Samuel E. Jackson was Indicted

in both New York and Ohio. Mr. Jackson

pleaded "guilty" to both the New York and

Ohio indictments. Under the rules, an application was made to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New

York to have the New York case transferred

to Ohio, where Jackson resided, which application was granted. By direction of the

judge presiding in the United States district

court in Ohio, the defendant was examined

by Government physicians and medical proof

was adduced as to his condition. By reason

of Jackson's state of health, the court fined

him $10,000 on each of three counts and sentenced him to 2 years in prison, which 2-year

sentence was suspended.

I trust this gives you all the required information in this matter.

Very truly yours,

LAWRENCE J. LIEBERMAN.

COINAGE OF 50-CENT PIECES IN

COMMEMORATION OF TERCENTENNIAL CELEBRATION OF

FOUNDING OF CITY OF NORTHAMPTON. MASS.-VETO MESSAGE

(S. DOC. NO. 93)

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr.

PAYNE in the chair) laid before the Senate the following message from the

President of the United States, which

was read, and, with the accompanying

bill, ordered to lie on the table:

To the United States Senate:

I am returning herewith, without my

approval, S. 987, "to authorize the coinage of 50-cent pieces in commemoration

of the tercentennial celebration of the

founding of the city of Northampton,

Mass."

The proposed legislation would authorize the coinage of 1 million silver 50-cent

pieces in commemoration of the tercentennial celebration of the founding of the

city of Northampton, Mass.

The principal objection to commemorative coins is that they detract from the

fundamental function of the coinage as

a medium of exchange. Multiplicity of

designs on United States coins would

tend to create confusion among the public, and to facilitate counterfeiting. The

Congress recognized the necessity for

limiting the designs of coins by section

3510 of the Revised Statutes which provides that "no change in the design or

die of any coin shall be made oftener

than once in 25 years from and including

the year of the first adoption of the design, model, die, or hub for the same

coin."

I am further advised by the Treasury

Department that in the past in many instances the public interest in these special coins has been so short-lived that

their sales for the purposes intended

have lagged with the result that large

quantities have remained unsold and

have been returned to the mints for

melting.

I fully recognize the importance to the

country of the event which this coin

would commemorate. I recognize, too,

that the authorization of 1 or 2 or 3 of

such issues of coins would not do major

harm. However, experience has demonstrated that the authorization of even a

single commemorative issue brings forth

a flood of other authorizations to commemorate events or anniversaries of local or national importance. In the administration of President Hoover, theso

1954 1215
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD - SENATE February 3

authorizations multiplied to the point

where he felt compelled to exercise his

veto. The same pattern recurred in the

administrations of Presidents Roosevelt

and Truman. In view of this historical

pattern, which by now has become so

clear, I think that it is both wiser and

fairer to make known my views on this

subject at the outset. I therefore regretfully withhold my approval of S. 987.

As has been suggested in the past, it

seems to me wholly appropriate that

anniversaries like this one, which the

Congress deems it desirable to commem- orate, should be recognized by bills authorizing the Treasury to provide suitable commemorative medals at cost.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, February 3, 1954.

COINAGE OF 50-CENT PIECES TO

COMMEMORATE THE TERCENTENNIAL OF FOUNDATION OF

CITY OF NEW YORK-VETO MESSAGE (S. DOC. NO. 94)

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the following message

from the President of the United States,

which was read, and, with the accompanying bill, ordered to lie on the table:

To the United States Senate:

I am returning herewith, without my

approval, S. 2474, "to authorize the coinage of 50-cent pieces to commemorate

the tercentennial of the foundation of

the city of New York."

The proposed legislation would authorize the coinage of not to exceed

5 million silver 50-cent pieces in com- memoration of the tercentennial of the

founding of the city of New York.

The principal objection to commemorative coins is that they detract from

the fundamental function of the coinage

as a medium of exchange. Multiplicity

of designs on United States coins would

tend to create confusion among the public, and to facilitate counterfeiting. The

Congress recognized the necessity for

limiting the designs of coins by section

3510 of the Revised Statutes which provides that "no change in the design or

die of any coin shall be made oftener

than once in 25 years from and including the year of the first adoption of the

design, model, die, or hub for the same

coin."

I am further advised by the Treasury

Department that in the past in many

instances the public interest in these special coins has been so short lived that

their sales for the purposes intended

have lagged with the result that large

quantities have remained unsold and

have been returned to the mints for

melting.

I fully recognize the importance to the

country of the event which this coin

would commemorate. I recognize, too,

that the authorization of 1 or 2 or 3 of

such issues of coins would not do major

harm. However, experience has demonstrated that the authorization of even a

single commemorative issue brings forth

a flood of other authorizations to commemorate events or anniversaries of

local or national importance. In the

administration of President Hoover,

these authorizations multiplied to the

point where he felt compelled to exer- cise his veto. The same pattern recurred

in the administrations of Presidents

Roosevelt and Truman. In view of this.

historical pattern, which by now has become so clear, I think that it is both

wiser and fairer to make known my views

on this subject at the outset. I therefore regretfully withhold my approval

of S. 2474.

As has been suggested in the past, it

seems to me wholly appropriate that

anniversaries like this one, which the

Congress deems it desirable to commemorate, should be recognized by bills authorizing the Treasury to provide suitable commemorative medals at cost.

DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER.

THE WHITE HOUSE, February 3, 1954.

RETIREMENT OF EMPLOYEES IN

THE LEGISLATIVE BRANCH

The PRESIDING OFFICER laid before the Senate the amendment of the

House of Representatives to the bill (S.

2175) to amend title VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, with respect to the retirement

of employees in the legislative branch,

which was to strike out all after the en- acting clause and insert:

That title VI of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended, is amended

by adding at the end thereof the following new section:

"Szc. 603. (a) Section 4 of the Civil Service

Retirement Act of May 29, 1930, as amended,

is amended by adding at the end thereof the

following new subsection:

" '(g) Any officer or employee in the legis- lative branch of the Government within the

classes of officers and employees made eligible for the benefits of this act by the act of

July 13, 1937, or the act of June 21, 1947,

retiring under this act on or after the date

of enactment of this subsection and after

having rendered at least 6 years of service as such an officer or employee shall, if he so elects at the time of retirement, be paid, in

lieu of an annuity computed under subsection (a), a life annuity equal to the sum of the following: "'(A) 2/2 percent of the average salary,

pay, or compensation received by him during

any five consecutive years of allowable serv- ice at his option multiplied by the sum of his

years of service as an employee described in

this subsection and the years of his allowable military or naval service; and

'(B) 11/2 percent of such average salary,

pay, or compensation multiplied by the years of his allowable service other than service

referred to in clause (A). "'In no case shall an annuity computed

under this subsection exceed an amount

equal to 75 percent of the highest average annual salary, pay, or compensation received

by the officer or employee during any 5 con- secutive years of allowable service. No officer or employee shall be entitled to the

benefits of this subsection unless there shall

have been deducted and withheld from his

salary, pay, or compensation for the last 5

years of his service, or there shall have been

deposited under section 9 with respect to

such last 5 years of service, the amounts

specified in section 9.'

"(b) Section 3 (a) of such act Is amended by adding at the end thereof the following new paragraph:

"'Notwithstanding any other provision of this act, any officer or employee in the

legislative branch of the Government within

the classes of officers or employees which were made eligible for the benefits of this

act by the act of July 13, 1937, or the act of June 21, 1947, serving in such position or the date of enactment of this paragraph,

may give notice of his desire to come within

the purview of this act at any time prior

to the expiration of 6 months after such

date of enactment.'

"(c) Section 3A of such act is amended as follows:

" '(1) Paragraph (3) is amended to read as follows:

"'" (3) No person shall be entitled to re- ceive an annuity as provided in this section

until he shall have become separated from

the service after having had at least 6 years

of service as a Member of Congress and have

attained the age of 62 years or after having

had at least 10 years of service as a Member

of Congress and have attained the age of 60

years, except that (A) any such Member who

shall have had at least 5 years of service as

a Member of Congress, may, subject to the

provisions of section 6 and of paragraph (4)

of this section, be retired for disability, irrespective of age, and be paid an annuity

computed in accordance with paragraph (5)

of this section, and (B) any such Member

who shall have become separated from the

service after having had a least 10 years of

service as a Member of Congress and have attained the age of 55 years may receive an

annuity computed as provided in paragraph

(5) of this section reduced by one-fourth of

1 percent for each full month he is under the

age of 60 years.' " "'(2) Paragraph (5) Is amended to read as

follows:

... (5) Subject to the provisions of section

9 and of subsections (c) and (d) of section

4, the annuity of a Member of Congress shall

be an amount equal to 21 percent of the

average annual basic salary, pay, or compensation received by him during any 5

consecutive years of allowable service as a

Member of Congress at his option multiplied

by the sum of his years of service as a Member of Congress and his years of active service

performed as a member of the Armed Forces

of the United States prior to his separation

from service as a Member of Congress, but no

such annuity shall exceed an amount equal

to three-fourths of the basic salary, pay, or

compensation that he is receiving at the time

of such separation from service.'"

" '(3) Paragraph (10) is amended by inserting before the period at the end thereof

a semicolon and the following: "and the term

'basic salary, pay, or compensation' includes amounts received as expense allowance under

section 601 (b) of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, as amended; and the

term 'active service performed as a member

of the Armed Forces of the United States' means (A) active service performed as a

member of such forces, during any war or

national emergency proclaimed by the President or declared by the Congress, by a Member of Congress who left or leaves his office

for the purpose of performing such service,

and (B) any other periods of active service,

not to exceed an aggregate of 5 years, performed as a member of such forces, but shall

not include any such service for which credit

is allowed for the purposes of retirement or retired pay under any other provision of law,

including title II of the Army and Air Force

Vitalization and Retirement Equalization

Act of 1948."'

"(d) (1) Notwithstanding the provisions

of section 3 (a) of the Act of February 28,

1948-

"(A) the last proviso in section 9 of the

Civil Service Act of May 29, 1930, as amended,

shall apply to Members of Congress; and

"(B) subsections (c) and (d) of section 12

of such act shall apply in the case of Members of Congress dying after the date of enactment of this section. Such subsections

(c) and (d) shall apply to the widower of

any such Member of Congress to the same

extent and In the same manner as to the

1216