Evening star., 1954-10-07

WOOdner Probe Pressed.
The Senate committee also
pursued its scrutiny of the
financing of the huge Woodner
Apartments in an investigation
which sought openly to learn
whether some of the Woodner
money went to Clyde L. Powell.
former Government official.
Ian Woodner. head of the
company that erected the 1.139-
unit building with Government
insured mortgages totaling So
$4,000. was lnterrogated about
his company's checks.
He was asked by Mr.. Simon
whether it was possible the pro-
ceeds Of some of the checks went
to Mr.. Powell.
Absolutely not" Mr.. Wood
ner replied.
Mr.. Powell, former assistant
commissioner of the Federal
Housing Administration, was the
official responsible for passing on
applications for committee to in
sure loans on rental housing
projects. He was ousted last April
and is now under grand jury in
veStigation.
Woodner Marital Difficulties.
The questioning of Mr.. Wood
ner yesterday afternoon also
turned to what Mr.. Simon said
were payments of $4,000 to de-
tectives in connection with Mr..
Woodner's marital difficulties but
charged to the construction cost
of the hotel. This was in 1850
and 1851.
Mr.. Woodner denied that all
of the detective services were in
connection with his wife's divorce
suit. He described part Of the
services as chargeable to "over-
head in protection of the Wood
ner properties.
He said the divorce action also
involved the Woodner Apartment
project at 1886 Sixteenth street
NV because his wife was a
stockholder.
M. Simon questioned Mr..
Woodner about payments he said
totaled about $4,000 to Arthur
M. Chaite. attorney, of 1923 L
street NV. But, he said, Mr..
Chaite's records showed he got
only $4,000.
Mr.. Chaite. who took the wit
ness stand later, said at least
one check was for expenses.
That was cashed by him and
does not show in his records of
he said.
There were questions about a
check for $5,796 made out to
Mr.. Chaite October IL, 1850,
which Mr.. Simon said had been
indorsed by Mr.. Chaite and then
indorsed by one of Mr.. Wood
ner's employees. Mr.. Woodner
said he couldn't explain it.
Mr.. Chaite said he never re-
ceived the check. He was told
the Cancelled check showed his
Endorsement.
Asks to See Check.
II don't recollect the check"
he said. IF there is my sigma
ture on it, I Endorsed it. but I
would like to see it."
General Accounting Office ac-
countants who have been going
over the Woodner records were
instructed to bring in this and
other checks today.
Mr.. Simon listed a check of
October II, 1851, for $40, 900 pay
able to Mr.. Chaite. II never got
it," the lawyer said. He made
similar remarks about
checks for other amounts.
Mr.. Simon cited three checks
drawn January S, 1851. to cash,
one for $500, another for $2,250
and the third for $2,450. He
said that, by an "odd coinci-
dence," they add up to SIS. 1000 and
were cashed by three different
persons Mr.. Woodner identified
as company employees.
"They were probably cashed
for company purposes Mr..
Woodner said, land may have
been charged to my account for
personal and business expenses"
Calls Charges Erroneous.
Mr.. Simon went through a list
of many checks, most of which
he said were charged against
the building project. Mr.. Wood
ner said that, in some cases, the
charge was made enormously.
The GAO auditors reported that
some charges against building
costs inflated the costs and made
necessary "the de luxe rental
rates" paid by tenants.
The GAO report listed "a fam
tastic 1921 900" representing a
refund of deposit and credited
to Mr.. Woodner's account, "the
propriety of which is highly
questionable" Marshall Granger,
New York accountant for Mr..
Woodner, who sat beside the
witness, said this may be an
error and that he would look
into it.
Another person f1anking Mr..
Woodner was William E. Leahy,
widely known Washington at
torney. He said nothing.
Another item listed by the
Government auditors was for
Sc, 1856 for portraits and paint
ings. They said they could not
find the pictures.
Mr.. Woodner said they are
hanging in the Gold Room OF
the apartment building. He said
they were enormously charged
against the building costs be-
cause the invoice said paint
ings" and it was assumed it was
mart of the oaintinr costs. where