Mr. SHELBY. That constituted much of the discussion, and that procedure was adopted. Mr. O'DONNELL. Was it adopted as a result of this meeting? Mr. SHELBY. Well, I don't know. I think generally it was recommended at the meeting. The CHAIRMAN. Now, I have here some notes, and in order to expedite your testimony and kind of sum it up, may I ask you if it was contended by you and others present that the county officials in the county from which the allotments came out and went into the eminent domain pool, that they should have some authority to clear the application for transfer, to approve it before the transfer was finally made? Mr. SHELBY. Not county officers, no, I don't recall that. It was State offices. The CHAIRMAN. That the State office Mr. SHELBY. That is the way it ordinarily works in other phases of the program, where land is transferred, and reconstituted and combined, that clears the State office. The CHAIRMAN. You clear that at the State office? Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Your contention at this meeting- The CHAIRMAN. Your contention at this meeting, was that it ought not to be left to the State or county officials receiving the allotment, but a responsibility ought to also rest on the State and county that was losing the allotment, is that right? Mr. SHELBY. That is right, and in that case there would not have been any of this allotment transferred out of Oklahoma. The CHAIRMAN. If that had been true, the State and the officials where the application for transfer originated would have the opportunity to examine there on the ground the circumstances attending the proposed transfer, is that right? Mr. SHELBY. That is right. The CHAIRMAN. In other words, out in Texas somebody said, "Well, I bought a piece of land out in Texas, and I want to transfer my allotment out of this pool over here to Texas," and the result was that they simply said, "Well, the county board in the county in Texas where the land is supposed to have been purchased has the full authority to pass on and approve whether the allotment would be transferred or not," whereas the county board or committee in the county from which the original allotment is being taken or was taken by reason of the eminent domain proceedings, where the cotton allotment originated, had nothing to say about whether it was legal or illegal or what the facts were locally surrounding it. Mr. SHELBY. That is right. Senator CURTIS. Nor the State office from which it was transferred. Mr. SHELBY. All of the authority was vested in the receiving county and State. Senator CURTIS. The receiving county in the State. Mr. SHELBY. And the State. Senator CURTIS. But I don't think the State of Texas had much to do with it, did they, the State authorities there? Mr. SHELBY. Well, I don't know. It was all transferred. The CHAIRMAN. According to the notes I have here, Tom Smith suggested that a C. & I. investigation should be made, and you say nothing came of that? Mr. SHELBY. No, sir. Well, now there was one some time later, Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Ít started in July. Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Well, I have a note here that you were disappointed in the conference, that you doubted if the proposed amendments that they were proposing would be effective in preventing the use of the scheme, was that true? Mr. SHELBY. That is true. The CHAIRMAN. Did you so express yourself there at the time? The CHAIRMAN. Several times? Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir. That was our solution for this problem. Mr. SHELBY. Joint responsibility, the receiving State and the other, The CHAIRMAN. Thereafter there was promulgated an amendment to the regulations which required the purchaser of the land to go to the county in which the purchase was made and present his credentials, so to speak. Was that considered at this meeting, and by you and others rejected or disagreed to as not being adequate to prevent this scheme? Mr. SHELBY. Yes, I think that I expressed myself, at least I held that it should be joint responsibility. The CHAIRMAN. You contended the Oklahoma representatives there contended all of the way through that it should be a joint responsibility. Mr. SHELBY. Yes. The CHAIRMAN. Was that joint responsibility ever established? Mr. SHELBY. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Has it been established until now? Mr. SHELBY. No, sir. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other questions? Mr. O'DONNELL. Not on this meeting. In December of 1960, did a Mr. Stone, who represented Mr. Ester, appear in the State offices of Oklahoma at which time he remested certain statistical data? Mr. SHELBY. He did. I was not there, but the report was made to me on my return that he did visit our office. Mr. O'DONNELL. Did a Mr. Biggerstaff later on in May of 1961, also appear in your office and ask for statistical Qata ! Mr. SHELBY. He did. Mr. O'DONNELL. What happened in regard to his visit! Mr. O'DONNELL. Yes. Mr. SHELBY. We accumulated some data for him, and gave it to him. Mr. O'DONNELL. Did you first call Washington to see whether or not you could give it to him? Mr. SHELBY. Or should give it to fum, vs. Mr. O'DONNELL Did Washington tal you it was all right? Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir. It was just a courtesy we would extend anybody, and we tried to fill all of those requests. Mr. KAPLAN. Why did you call Washington, then? Mr. SHELBY. This was a little different. The CHAIRMAN. Why did you call Washington, then, as you said it was a courtesy you would extend to almost anybody, and why in this particular instance did you call Washington? When I say call Washington, I mean someone in the Department here at Washington. Mr. SHELBY. Well, we were not in sympathy with the whole deal and that is the only reason I can think of. I just wanted to be reassured that I could give this man, a representative of Billie Sol Estes, this data, without getting into any trouble about it. Senator CURTIS. In your call to Washington, you identified him as Estes' representative? Mr. SHELBY. I am sure I did. I knew it, anyway. Senator CURTIS. But in other words, some very legitimate operator might want to see that list because if he had land to sell and carry through this thing, here was a list of potential buyers; would that not be true? Mr. SHELBY. That is right, and it is an open book. Senator CURTIs. It is a public record? Mr. SHELBY. Public records, yes. The CHAIRMAN. I can't figure why you would call Washington unless it was because you were leery about the Estes scheme, and you felt that you wanted to further protect yourself before giving out the information. Mr. SHELBY. I guess that is the reason I did. Senator CURTIS. Who did you call? That isn't good evidence. Mr. SHELBY. Tom Miller, you mean about my reasons? The CHAIRMAN. That is up to you. I can't say it for you. But you say ordinarily anyone would walk in there and you would give them the information, and when Billie Sol Estes came in, you hesitated and you called Washington. I can't figure out why you would do that unless it was because you just felt that there was a scheme here that was illegal, and you just did not want to take the responsibility and make them take it, and make Washington take it. Mr. SHELBY. Something like that. The CHAIRMAN. You say it. I can't testify for you now. Mr. SHELBY. I think that is true, yes, because I had no other reason. The CHAIRMAN. I am putting words in your mouth here, in effect, and I don't want to do that. But if there is any other reason why you would have called Washington Mr. SHELBY. We thought the whole scheme was irregular and I am sure that is why I did. I wanted some reassurance that it would be all right for us to furnish this data. The CHAIRMAN. If anything ever came up afterward about your having furnished data to Billie Sol Estes' man, you wanted to be sure, and you wanted to be able to say you called Washington and they told you it was all right? Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. You wanted to be reassured on that. Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir. The CHAIRMAN. As a matter of protecting yourself to some extent. Mr. SHELBY. Probably, yes. Mr. O'DONNELL. Did you at one period in time, or did Mr. Wolfe, direct John Aldridge, who was an employee of the State office, to attempt to obtain documents in connection with these pooled allotment transfers? Mr. SHELBY. Yes, sir. Mr. O'DONNELL. Was this in the county where Dumas and Stone operated, Uvalde? Mr. SHELBY. No, it was in Pittsburg, I think. Mr. O'DONNELL. Did he in fact obtain copies of the contract that was being utilized? Mr. SHELBY. That is right. Mr. O'DONNELL. Did he turn the copy in to the State headquarters? Mr. SHELBY. He did, on February 20. Senator CURTIS. What year? Mr. SHELBY. 1961. Mr. O'DONNELL. I will show you notes here prepared by Mr. Aldridge, together with a copy of the contract, and ask you if you can identify these notes and this contract. (Document shown to the witness.) Mr. SHELBY. I can identify part of it, and this instrument- Mr. SHELBY. In Aldridge's handwriting, and I am sure that this is a copy of the attachment in our office now. Mr. O'DONNELL. What date is that particular memorandum you have there from Mr. Aldridge? Mr. SHELBY. February 17. Mr. O'DONNELL. What does it state? Mr. SHELBY. 1961. Mr. O'DONNELL. What does it state, in effect? Mr. SHELBY. Well, it states that he was able to secure this very easily, and for each acre of cotton being transferred, the farmer is being sold 2.6 acres of land, which means that they had a cropland ratio provision to meet. Mr. O'DONNELL. And he turned that contract that is attached thereto, or a contract similar thereto, in to the State office? Mr. SHELBY. He did. Mr. O'DONNELL. And this would be February 17, 1961. The CHAIRMAN. That may be made exhibit No. 1 in the executive session. (The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 1" for reference and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.) Mr. O'DONNELL. Thereafter did you forward that particular contract to Washington, D.C.? Mr. SHELBY. Our records indicate that we did. Mr. O'DONNELL. Was this forwarded to Washington, D.C., under date of February 20, 1961? Mr. SHELBY. That is right. Mr. O'DONNELL. Was this letter that you forwarded with the contract, directed to Ralph Raper, Director of the Cotton Division in Washington? |