visible evidence of a side agreement in these documents, but the deeds of trust given are such that the ownership of the 40-acre tracts could revert to the original owner without undue difficulty. The Reeves County Committee is suspicious of these transactions as is indicated in its transmittal memorandum of July 1, 1960. (No action will be taken, of course, until after January 1, 1961, when the Oklahoma counties will have established 1961 cotton allotments for the pooled farms.) We have examined the Farm Constitution and Allotment Record Regulations and Handbook 3-PA (Rev. 1) and cannot find anything to support us in disapproving requests for transfer of pooled allotments under these conditions. It is true that part II of form CSS-178 contains language that will be called to the attention of the displaced owner, but he will probably sign form CSS-178 anyhow if he can get $20 to $35 per acre for each acre of allotment transferred. It is believed that the regulations should be strengthened to support our disapproval of every case that is questioned. In fact, we believe that regulations should be amended to provide that the displaced owner should give assurances to the county committee that he will operate the land to which the pooled allotments are transferred before the county committee recommends approval of the transfer on form CSS-178. I will appreciate your comments after you have reviewed the attachments. Mr. CLIFTON. There are some attachments to that document, Mr. Chairman. The CHAIRMAN. The attachments may be lettered and attached as a part of the exhibit if you identify the attachments. Mr. CLIFTON. I have the attachments. They are not a part of the document. The CHAIRMAN. I am making them a part just for the purposes of the record. You identify the attachments that came with it. Mr. CLIFTON. All right. The attachments are forms that bear the name of C. B. Bentley, Fort Cobb, Okla.; Bonnie and Scott Walling, Route 2, Elgin, Okla.; S. G. Strange, Fort Cobb, Okla., and a form CSS-155. The CHAIRMAN. I am asking you specifically with respect to those that I presented to you. There may be others we will want to put in the record. Answer me if you identify those that I presented to you and if they were a part of the attachments to the memorandum that is already an exhibit. Mr. O'DONNELL. We have one warranty deed and one deed of trust and we just put them in instead of putting them all in. Mr. CLIFTON. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman. I do identify the doc uments. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Let them be lettered "29, B, C, D, and E" as part of exhibit 29. (The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 29B, 29C, 29D, and 29E" for reference and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.) The CHAIRMAN. Were there other documents that accompanied this memorandum? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, there were. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a copy of those other documents before you? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All of the other documents that the witness now identifies may be attached and lettered as one letter. These others are specific. 88201-62-pt. 1-26 Mr. O'DONNELL. After you received these documents, did you coLfwith Mr. Howard Rooney of the General Counsel's Office in relatie to the problem presented? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. What was the problem presented? Mr. O'DONNELL. The problem presented by Mr. Osborn was whethe in fact these documents indicated that pooled allotment transis could or could not be made and he desired your comments in relati thereto. Mr. CLIFTON. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. Is that what he requested in the memorandur' Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. He submitted these as samples or as specific cass for you to make a ruling as to whether they were proper or improperi Mr. CLIFTON. This is correct. Mr. O'DONNELL. Thereafter, you conferred with Howard Roo of the General Counsel's Office in relation to this problem? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Howard Rooney is what in the General CounseTM Office? Mr. CLIFTON. Howard Rooney is Director of the Production Adjusment Division. I believe I am correct on that. The CHAIRMAN. Is he an attorney in the General Counsel's Office' Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. O'DONNELL. Did you thereafter draft a reply to the letter that came in from the State office in Texas? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a copy of the reply? Mr. O'DONNELL. Is exhibit 1 a copy of this reply! The CHAIRMAN. Exhibit 1 is known as what, the Bridgforth memorandum? Examine it and see if that constituted your reply to the interrogation submitted in the memorandum that was made exhibit 2. Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. This is the same document. The CHAIRMAN. That is the famous or otherwise Bridgforth memorandum? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. Senator MUNDT. What is the date of that? Mr. O'DONNELL. October 13, 1960. Mr. CLIFTON. October 13, 1960. Mr. O'DONNELL. This memorandum after preparation by you was in fact signed by R. B. Bridgforth who at that time was the Acting Director or Administrator of the Production Adjustment Division. am I right? Mr. CLIFTON. Mr. Bridgforth was Acting Deputy Administrator of Production Adjustment. Mr. O'DONNELL. Did he have anything to do in the preparation of this memo? Mr. CLIFTON. No, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. He merely signed it as the Acting Deputy Administrator, am I right? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, in accordance with any operation such as that it goes across the board, as a general rule it will be signed by the Deputy Administrator. The CHAIRMAN. Who, then, is responsible if he is not? I would think it would make him responsible if he signed it Mr. CLIFTON. He is responsible. The CHAIRMAN. But you said he didn't prepare it. Mr. CLIFTON. I dictated the memorandum for his signature. The CHAIRMAN. Was it in accordance with his judgment or in accordance with yours? Mr. CLIFTON. It was in accordance with established policy, a determination by a representative of the General Counsel and it was this thing that I dictated the reply and sent it forward and through standard operating channels for signature. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Clifton, maybe I am not making myself clear. What did the memorandum say, your reply, does it approve or disapprove? Does it say the ones submitted were legal or improper? Mr. CLIFTON. It was the opinion of the General Counsel and the memorandum so stated that the documents in question appeared to be proper and they, of themselves, would not warrant disapproval of the transfer, and accordingly, they should give further consideration to them, but the documents themselves did not justify refusing the transfer. The CHAIRMAN. Of course, the memorandum speaks for itself, but the point I was making is who made the judgment and thus accepted or was primarily responsible for the decision being made that these documents were legal and were not subject to disapproval? Mr. CLIFTON. The decision with respect to legality of the document was a decision by the Office of the General Counsel. The CHAIRMAN. Did the General Counsel at that time make that decision? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And you simply operated to carry out that decision in the dictation of the memorandum, in the preparation of the memorandum? Mr. CLIFTON. This is correct. The CHAIRMAN. You simply functioned as an instrumentality in carrying out a decision made, and by whom? Mr. CLIFTON. By Mr. Rooney of the Office of General Counsel. The CHAIRMAN. By Mr. Rooney, and thus your function was primarily just mechanical-I don't mean it did not require some mental ability, too, but I mean you carried out by writing an appropriate memorandum to convey the decision made at the responsible source. Mr. CLIFTON. This is correct. I attempted to convey the opinion: of the Office of General Counsel to Texas. Senator MUNDT. Will the Chairman yield? Senator MUNDT. Did any of these documents, Mr. Clifton, involve any of the transactions of Billie Sol Estes? Mr. CLIFTON. No, sir. Senator MUNDT. Your decision related to requests from other individuals who were interested in the transfer or the procurement of allotted acres? Mr. CLIFTON. These particular documents referred to what has since become known as the Williams case, involving a transfer of requested transfer of cotton allotment from Oklahoma-Caddo and Comanche Counties as I recall, to Reeves County, Tex. There was a specific case unrelated to the Estes case. Senator MUNDT. You and Mr. Rooney and Mr. Bridgforth, of course, found these requests were in conformity with the purport of the law passed by Congress in 1959? Mr. CLIFTON. This was our judgment. The CHAIRMAN. To get it clear now, the Estes transactions were not involved in this decision. Mr. CLIFTON. This is correct. The CHAIRMAN. But this transaction that these documents repre sented or purported to represent were in the same county in which Estes was operating, and therefore the same county board? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. That Estes applications or transactions occurred! Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir, one of the counties. The CHAIRMAN. In the same locale, in the same jurisdiction under the same county board? Mr. CLIFTON. Reeves County, Tex., yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Very good. Mr. O'DONNELL. Is it true, Mr. Clifton, that the Department makes rulings on pooled cotton allotment transfers on the basis of individual cases that are presented to it by state committees? Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. Was this the situation prevailing in October of 1960, that is an individual case came in, was referred to you and Mr. Rooney for a decision? Mr. CLIFTON. This is correct Mr. O'DONNELL. This has nothing to do in any way with the Estes case? Mr. CLIFTON. No, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. Mr. Chairman, I think that this document wil become important as the hearings progress. I would like to ask the witness to read it verbatim. The CHAIRMAN. It has already been printed in the record, has it not? This exhibit No. 1, was it not printed in the record? It is printed in the record. We might read it again, but there is no use encumbering the record with it. Senator MUNDT. I think that it might be well to read it. The CHAIRMAN. All right. Let us encumber the record. Read it again so that we can all hear it. Mr. CLIFTON (reading): To: Chairman, Texas ASC State Committee. From: Acting Deputy Administrator, Production Adjustment. Subject: Transfer of Pooled Allotments. October 13, 1960. This replies to Mr. Osborn's memorandum of August 31, 1960, in connection with the transfer of allotments pooled under eminent domain for transfer from Caddo and Comanche Counties, Okla., to Reeves County, Tex. The photocopies of the document executed in connection with this specific cas have been reviewed by the Office of the General Counsel. We are advised informally that although the deeds of trust are drawn in a manner that word permit the land to revert to the original owner without undue difficulty, tbst they are legally sufficient and of themselves do not warrant legal denial of the proposed transfers. As a matter of policy, we believe that any attempt to read intent into these transactions is not administratively feasible and basically would not give full recognition to the enabling legislation. Although such an approach might eliminate some transactions which serve as a device to effect an indirect transfer or sale of an allotment, it on the other hand would undoubtedly result in the denial of bona fide transfers. So long as the interested persons certify on Form CSS-178 that no side agreements are involved in a transaction and the documentation supports a bona fide real transaction which does not specify or imply, directly or indirectly, the sale or transfer of allotments, the case should be accepted at face value. In this connection it is noted that the displaced owner does not assume and agree to pay the deed of trust on the land he is purchasing from Williams. However, this alone would not necessarily prevent the transaction from being bona fide, although it may be that it is contemplated that the deed of trust will be defaulted and at the trustee's sale either Williams or someone working with him will bid more than the amount due. In such a case the land would pass to the purchaser and the displaced owner would get the surplus money left over after payment of the debt, trustee's fees, and sale expenses. This surplus might be considered payment for the allotment, but the plan outlined above or something similar would have to be agreed upon by the interested parties at the time the application is made in order to furnish grounds for denying the application. Before the application is signed by the displaced owner it would be proper to point out to him the certification he is required to sign and to ask him specifically whether he has any agreement to follow the plan outlined above in handling the deed of trust or is a party to any other plan to transfer the land with the allotment to Williams or some other third party. The proposal that the regulations be amended to provide that the displaced owner assure the county committee that he will operate the land to which the pooled allotments are to be transferred is not practical in our opinion and would not meet the provisions of the statute. Many instances occur where the landowner is not the operator at the time the farm is acquired, and, accordingly, it would be unreasonable to require that he operate the land to which the allotment is to be transferred. This particular case is different from those cases previously discussed involving transfers between Oklahoma and New Mexico in that the documentation in these earlier cases included specific conditions implying the sale and transfer of the allotments involved. That is signed by R. B. Bridgforth. The CHAIRMAN. There is one question on the first full paragraph on the first page. You say, In this connection it is noted the displaced owner does not assume and agree to pay the deed of trust on the land he is purchasing from Williams. In other words, Williams had a deed of trust on the land at the time he was selling. Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you already had him encumbered. Mr. CLIFTON. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And the fellow buying it did not assume or agree to pay any of that debt? Mr. CLIFTON. This would be my understanding of the document, Senator. The CHAIRMAN. That is my understanding. I think that holds true also, as I understand it, with respect to the Estes cases. Estes already had all of this land mortgaged before he sold it. It was encumbered at the time he was selling to these people. Mr. CLIFTON. But it never did show up. The CHAIRMAN. Well, it would show on the record; if anybody was interested enough in having a valid transaction and be sure he is getting what he is paying for he would want to know that the title was |