DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE HANDLING OF POOLED COTTON ALLOTMENTS OF BILLIE SOL ESTES FRIDAY, JULY 6, 1962 U.S. SENATE, PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS Washington, D.C. The subcommittee met at 10 a.m., in the caucus room, Old Senate Office Building, pursuant to Senate Resolution 250, agreed to February 7, 1962, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding. Present: Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; Senator Sam J. Ervin, Jr., Democrat, North Carolina; Senator Edmund S. Muskie, Democrat, Maine; Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; and Senator Carl T. Curtis, Republican, Nebraska. Also present: Donald F. O'Donnell, acting chief counsel; Paul E. Kamerick, assistant counsel; Alphonse F. Calabrese, investigator; Philip W. Morgan, chief counsel to the minority; and Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will be in order. (Members present at the time of reconvening, Senators McClellan and Mundt.) The CHAIRMAN. Our next witness is Mr. Laurence Manwaring. Do you solemnly swear the evidence you are about to give before this Senate subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. MANWARING. I do. TESTIMONY OF H. LAURENCE MANWARING The CHAIRMAN. Will you please identify yourself for the record, giving your name, your address, and your present business or occupation? Mr. MANWARING. Mr. Chairman, I am H. Laurence Manwaring. I live at 514 North Oak Street in Falls Church, Va., and I am at the present time an employee in the Department of Agriculture as Director of the Soil Bank Division, in the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. I have been in that position since March of this year. Prior to that time I was Director of the Food and Materials Division from March of 1961 to March of this year. Prior to that time from 1953 to March I was Deputy Administrator, CSS, and previous to that time I was Assistant Deputy Administrator from 1947 to that time. The CHAIRMAN. What were your duties in your previous position, the one immediately preceding the position you hold now? Mr. MANWARING. In the one preceding the one I hold now, I was Director of the Food and Materials Division, and we had responsibility for coordinating the defense activities of the Department. The CHAIRMAN. The defense activities? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. All right, Mr. Counsel, I will let you proceed. Mr. O'DONNELL. Mr. Manwaring, in December of 1960, you were the Deputy Administrator for Production Adjustment; is that correct? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. There was a reorganization of the Department in that particular position, and you later became known as Deputy Administrator for State and County Operations, am I right? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. In connection with your particular job in the Department, did you receive a letter dated December 6, 1960, from College Station, Tex., relating to pooled cotton allotments? The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment. The committee will suspend a minute or two until Senator Mundt returns to the committee table. I didn't notice his absence a moment ago. I see he has returned. All right, we will proceed. Mr. MANWARING. The memorandum was received by Mr. Allen who was area director of the Southwest area, at that time. Mr. O'DONNELL. Did he refer the memorandum to you for appropriate attention? Mr. MANWARING. No, sir, it was referred directly to the Cotton Division and the Cotton Division and the Office of the General Counsel collaborated in preparing an answer. Mr. O'DONNELL. Would the individual in the Cotton Division who worked on this particular document that went out in response to the incoming document that I have mentioned, was that Ocie Costen? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. Was the individual in the General Counsel's Office Paul Rapp? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. What is his specific title in the Office of the General Counsel? Mr. MANWARING. I don't know the answer to that, Mr. O'Donnell. I don't know what Mr. Rapp's title is. He is a lawyer for the Office of the General Counsel. Mr. O'DONNELL. As a result of their concurring in connection with the documents that were sent in, did they draft a letter dated December 20, 1960, that went out to the Texas State office, over your signature? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. Was the document that they studied, a contract that had been sent in from Texas? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir, it was a blank contract that had come in from Texas, with the memorandum. The CHAIRMAN. Counsel, is this the same one that was identified yesterday? Mr. O'DONNELL. This is a new one. I am going to show you exhibit 2 and exhibit 3, and ask you if you will identify them as the letter which you signed, which is now known as the Manwaring memo, and whether exhibit 3 is the contract that went out? The CHAIRMAN. Present them to the witness. (Documents handed to witness.) (Senator Curtis entered the hearing room.) Mr. MANWARING. Exhibit 2, which is the memorandum I signed, is the same as the one I signed. The CHAIRMAN. That memorandum is now known as the Manwaring memorandum; is that correct? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Which has already been made exhibit 2 to these proceedings? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. Can you identify this letter of December 6, 1960? The CHAIRMAN. What is exhibit No. 3? Mr. MANWARING. Exhibit No. 3 is a copy of the blank contract, and agreement which came in from Texas, with the memorandum to Mr. Allen sent from Mr. Osborn. The CHAIRMAN. Are those the documents that you passed on, and were they the premise for the memorandum that you issued? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, you made an analysis of those documents, and made a decision with respect to their legality? Mr. MANWARING. That is correct, sir. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, the legality of the transaction that they proposed to consummate? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. The memorandum that came in indicated that these were being used in some counties in Texas, and they asked for us to analyze them and let them know whether they were proper to be used for this purpose. The CHAIRMAN. You did analyze them and concluded they were not proper? Mr. MANWARING. That is the gist of the memorandum which we sent out, yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You determined that the documents were a scheme and a device? Mr. MANWARING. That is right, that they could constitute a scheme and a device for selling allotments. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, it was to circumvent the law that prohibited the sale of allotments? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. And by the use of that device that law might be circumvented? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Now, we have another photostatic copy of a document dated December 6, 1960, and I will ask you to examine it and state if you identify it. (Document handed the witness.) Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir, this is the same as the one I have. The CHAIRMAN. Has this been made a part of the record? Mr. O'DONNELL. No. Mr. MANWARING. This is a memorandum from G. F. Osborn, Texas State administrative officer, to Mr. J. Taylor Allen, director of the southwest area, and the subject of which is the attached contract relating to transfer of pooled allotments and asks that the Department examine this contract and give them some information, and the last sentence of it says: This appears to be a fairly standard agreement, judging from the manner in which it has been printed. The CHAIRMAN. That is the memorandum making the request of the Department to pass upon the document as to its legality? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Let it be made exhibit 3A, so they will appear together. (Document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 3A" for reference and will be found in the appendix on p. 779.) Mr. O'DONNELL. Was this the document that was sent up, that started with Mr. O. B. Marshall, in Hunt County, Tex.? Mr. MANWARING. I don't know the answer to that. The memorandum coming in did not identify the county from which it came, and it merely said that this was a blank agreement "which has been sent to us by one of our north Texas counties." I heard the reference to Hunt County, I think Friday, for the first time, and so I did not know where it came from at the time this was signed. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any questions? Senator MUNDT. Mr. Manwaring, at the time that you made your memorandum, were you not familiar with the Bridgforth memo randum? Mr. MANWARING. No, sir. Senator MUNDT. But subsequently, I presume because of all of the fuss and feathers that had been kicked up about the two memorandums, I presume you have taken time or maybe not but I ask you the question; have you taken time or have you had occasion, to examine your memorandum and compare it with the Bridgforth memorandum, and have you had a chance to compare the two contracts which gave birth to the two memorandums? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir; I have. Now, I am not schooled in those things, but I have examined them and the context under which each was written. This one of mine was a blank contract, and it had in it clearly some devices which would permit a man to sell his allotment. The other one, so far as I could read it, not being a lawyer, did not have. It was a fairly common type. Senator MUNDT. It did not have the devices, you mean? Mr. MANWARING. That is right. Senator MUNDT. They both were blank, I believe. No, I guess the other one had a name on it. Mr. MANWARING. That is right. Senator MUNDT. But in all events, you did compare the two contracts, and I think it is important to have for the record your judgment as to the difference between the two contracts. You have been in Agriculture a good long while, handling different aspects for a good long while, and your memorandum. has been referred to many, mary times. I think it is a credit to you that you wrote what you wrote. and the people who made the decision decided what they decided because you found what you considered flaws, or schemes and devices and you disapproved it. I just wondered-now you have mentioned the difference between the two contracts-one was blank, and one was an actual application. That is one difference. The Bridgforth memorandum dealt with a contract from a mar by the name of Williams, in which you were unable to detect ary schemes or devices; whereas your study of the one oL which you based your memorandum did have what you considered to be schemes and devices. Now, is that an accurate summary of your position! Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir. Now, I did not see this contract, the Williams contract, until I was asked to come up and talk about the one that I signed. Senator MUNDT. You didn't know about the other one? Mr. MANWARING. I didn't know of the existence and I have talked to some others who have examined it, and they have indicated to me that it was a fairly standard type of contract, that it did not, on the face of it, have a scheme or device in it. I suppose an unscrupulous person could use it for that purpose, but it was not suspicious, or they were not suspicious of it at the time. Now, the law was for the purpose of transferring allotments to displaced owners, to other farms. We didn't want to stop that, and we wanted to do it if the man was legitimately entitled to it, and I think that is the basis for it. Senator MUNDT. I was there when the law was passed, and it was passed out of the Legislative Committee to which I belong, and you may well have been one of the witnesses appearing for it, I don't know. A good many Department of Agriculture people did. I don't see any defect in the law, but if there is one, I think that we should know about that. Is the law itself deficient, that provides for these transfers of eminent domain things? It seems to me that the poor fellow who gets pushed off his farm by exercise of the right of eminent domain in this era when allotments for production are essential to success, has to have some protection. To your knowledge, do you have any suggestions which should be incorporated in modifications of the law? Mr. MANWARING. No, sir: I do not. Senator MUNDT. You think the law is all right, as it is? Mr. MANWARING. I think so. Senator MUNDT. If you can avoid these kind of contracts? Mr. MANWARING. Yes, sir; it seems to me adequate protection, and it says a man shall be entitled to it if he buys a farm prior to or subsequent to his other land being taken. It also provides that his allotment shall be the same as others, as other comparable ones, but shall not be greater than the last one he had. This seems fair. |