detail because it is all in the Joint Committee report, there were discussions in March 1969 between members of the White House and people at the Archives.

We do know that on March 26 and 27, all the President's prePresidential papers which had not been previously deeded in 1968 were delivered to the Archives and placed also in a separate room, a room different, or a section different from the room in which the 1968 papers were placed.

Now, the Joint Committee staff concludes-and when I talk about the Joint Committee, of course, I am talking about the Joint Committee on Internal Revenue Taxation-concludes that they believe that this transaction was for the purposes of storage so that the people in the Archives could work on the papers. It is the position of the White House in this regard that the delivery of the papers on March 26 and 27 constituted the making of the gift which was eventually deducted under the 1969 tax return.

Now, all the facts here again are contained in the Joint Committee report, and I do not plan at this particular point to go over each particular memorandum and letter, but I think it is safe to say, and I do not think anyone contests this point, I think this is uncontradicted that no one at the White House told anyone at the Archives or anyone at the General Services Administration that a gift was being made on March 27, 1969, when the papers were delivered to the Archives.

The Archives claims, and you will see this when you read the Joint Committee report, that the papers were delivered at their request, and they initially, the White House requested that the Archives people work on the papers, sort them and select them at the Executive Office Building. The Archives people, after beginning this process, felt that they did not have enough room there and requested the papers come and be stored at the Archives, where it would be much easier to work on them.

Mr. WIGGINS. Mr. Chairman? Counsel, who are you talking about when you say White House at this point?

Mr. NUSSBAUM. I am talking about the White House, Mr. Morgan and Mr. Stewart, Edward Morgan who is a deputy counsel to the President, who was on Mr. Ehrlichman's staff and Mr. Stewart.

Mr. WIGGINS. In both cases when you referred to the White House, now you are talking about Ed Morgan and Mr. Stewart?

Mr. NUSSBAUM. That is correct. That is correct.

In any event, the papers were delivered on March 26 and March 27, 1969. and by papers, I am talking about the pre-Presidential papers which were not deeded to the Government in 1968.

Now, on April 8, 1969, Ralph Newman, who was an appraiser, does come into the Archives, and he does do an appraisal of the 1968 papers. Now again, so I can be clear, by 1968 papers. I mean those papers which were deeded and delivered at the end of 1968.

Now, he has to do the appraisal at this point because the income tax return for 1968 shortly has to be filed. It is not necessary to do an appraisal until that return is filed. And Mr. Newman does come in on April 8, 1968, does go into the Archives and does do an appraisal of the 1968 papers, and eventually they are valued at approximately $80.000.

L

Mr. COHEN. You mean 1969?

Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm sorry, April 8, 1969. Yes.

Now, initially Mr. Newman stated to the Internal Revenue Service and to the Joint Committee staff that in April 1969, he also viewed the 1969 papers to determine, to see if there was a sufficient amount of papers to make a gift of approximately $500.000. Subsequent to those statements by Mr. Newman, the people at the Archives, Sherrod East, who accompanied Mr. Newman in April 1969, stated that Mr. Newman never viewed the 1968 papers in April 1969.

Subsequent to that, subsequent to those statements by the people at the Archives, Sherrod East, Mr. Newman reviewed his records, and by this time had retained an attorney, and discussed the matter with his attorney, and in looking at his records determined that he was incorrect when he said that in April 1969 he viewed the 1969 papers. He said he never viewed the 1969 papers in April 1969. All he did, as the Archives said, was view the 1968 papers on April 8, 1969.

Initially Mr. Newman had stated that he believed that he was first contacted by Frank DeMarco in April of 1969 and asked to look at the 1969 papers, and he believed that to be true. Later, after looking at this records, as I indicated, he realized, he found certain correspondence, which we will refer to later on, and he realized that first contact with Mr. DeMarco, Mr. Newman's first contact with Mr. DeMarco did not come in April 1969, but came in the end of October 1969. And he knew that he did not look at the 1969 papers until after he had talked with Mr. DeMarco.

So, consequently, his present statements to this committee as well as to the Joint Committee and to the IRS is that the first time he viewed he looked at the 1969 papers when they were in the Archives was in November 1969 and not in April 1969. But, in April 1969. as I indicated, he did look at the 1968 papers, did appraise them, and that appraisal was in part of the tax return which was filed by the President in April 1969 for the tax year 1968.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Nussbaum, you speak of the 1968 papers and the 1969 papers. Now, what you are talking about are the papers delivered in 1968 and the papers delivered in 1969 and claimed as a deduction, is that correct?

Mr. NUSSBAUM. By the 1968 papers I mean the papers which were given as a gift to the United States in 1968, and the 1969 papers, I mean the papers which it was claimed on the President's tax returns were given as a gift to the United States in 1969.

Mr. SMITH. And they were all pre-Presidential papers?

Mr. NUSSBAUM. They are all pre-Presidential papers, that is correct. Now, let me turn, as I indicated I am not taking every single thing in the report, just trying to touch on certain of the more important things, but on April 21, 1969, that date is another significant date.

On that date, according to Frank DeMarco, and according to Edward Morgan, a deed was signed in California by Mr. Morgan on behalf of the President in which Mr. Morgan deeded on behalf of the President, or the President deeded through Mr. Morgan as his agent approximately $500,000 of pre-Presidential papers to the United States, these papers having previously been delivered to the Archives on March 26 and March 27, 1969.

Now, DeMarco says such a deed was signed. Morgan says that the deed was signed.

Now, in order to just elaborate a bit on this story, DeMarco first. when he was first interviewed by the Joint Committee did not recollect such a deed being signed. Later, when he sent a written statement to the Joint Committee, he did state that he recalled that Mr. Morgan did sign such a deed in 1969, on April 21, 1969.

Mr. DeMarco's secretary has testified before the California secretary of state, and has submitted an affidavit which states that she recalls typing a deed for the President in 1969. Mr. Morgan has stated that he recalls signing a deed on April 21, 1969. Now, this deed is appar ently no longer in existence, and no one other than the people who have testified with respect to it have seen this deed.

The deed was destroyed, and I will get into that a little bit later on when I deal with the re-execution in 1970.

The deed was kept, as I indicated, by Mr. DeMarco. It was never given to the Archives. And as I indicated also, it was destroyed, except for one portion which Mr. DeMarco says was not destroyed, and that portion is in existence, and that is listed on page A-187. As you can see, that is entitled "Schedule to a Chattel Deed" dated March 27, 1969. Mr. DeMarco has testified or has stated that when Mr. Morgan came. out to California, one of the purposes being to sign a deed of papers. that he thought that Mr. Morgan would bring with him a schedule of papers which were to be given as a gift in 1969. When Mr. Morgan arrived in California Mr. DeMarco had stated Mr. Morgan did not have such a schedule. Thus, Mr. DeMarco said he sat down and he had typed this schedule A which you are now looking at at page A-187. Mr. McKeithen reminds me that Mr. DeMarco that he had typed this himself, this particular schedule himself. And this schedule was attached then to the deed which Mr. Morgan is said to have executed on April 21, 1969.

The deed itself, along with the schedule, was kept by Mr. Morgan. Excuse me, it was kept by Mr. DeMarco, not by Mr. Morgan, by Mr. DeMarco in his personal custody. As I indicated, it was never given to anvone, never given to the Archives.

It was later destroyed, but this schedule A was not destroyed according to Mr. DeMarco, and he, to my knowledge-Mr. McKeithen interviewed him and another member of our staff-does not know why this was saved and the deed was destroyed.

Now, I should also indicate to the committee that the California secretary of state, which recently prosecuted a case against Mr. DeMarco in the sense that they wanted to take away his notary, and Mr. DeMarco ultimately, on June 17, resigned his notary, his position as a notary public in California, so the proceedings ended on June 17. But, the California secretary of state indicated to us or representatives of his office indicated to us that they had some question as to whether or not this particular schedule A was typed in 1969 when Mr. DeMarco said it was typed. They are in the process of examining this typewritten document against the typewriters or against samples from the typewriters which Mr. DeMarco had in his office in 1969. They did not complete that process because in order to conclude it it required additional documents from Mr. DeMarco, and those documents were subpenaed for the notary hearing which was scheduled

to be held on June 17 of this year, a couple of days ago. When Mr. DeMarco resigned his commission it was no longer necessary to produce those documents in response to that subpena, and consequently they were not able to complete their typewriter examination with respect to the schedule A. And as far as we know, there has been no completed typewriter examination of this particular schedule A.

Mr. COHEN. Mr. Chairman, could I inquire on one point, whether we have any documents as to Mr. Morgan, what authority he had to sign the deed for the President? Did he have that?

Mr. NUSSBAUM. Well, we discuss with Mr. Morgan what authority he had to sign the deed. We asked him. He does not recall anyone giving him authority to sign the deed. Mr. Morgan's story is that basically he was relying on Mr. DeMarco with respect to this matter because he had been told that DeMarco was now representing the President and was the President's tax attorney. Mr. Morgan stated that in 1968, at the end of 1968 he was asked to help Mr. Ritzel with respect to making the 1968 gifts and consequently in 1968 he thought he could rely on Mr. DeMarco with respect to this. He does not state anyone specifically gave him authority to execute the deed which he signed, or which he says he signed on April 21, 1969, which conveyed approximately $500,000 worth of papers to the United States. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Why don't we continue with the presentation and we will defer the questions. It is only going to take a few more minutes.

Mr. NUSSBAUM. I should say also, Mr. Chairman, not only Mr. Morgan states he signed the deed on April 21, 1969, but there has been an interview with Mr. Morgan's secretary. We have not interviewed her but she has been interviewed by the other bodies investigating this matter and she states that she recollects Mr. Morgan did go out to the west coast in 1969 to, she thinks, sign the deed. Mr. McKeithen says that Mr. Morgan's secretary, to his knowledge, has not stated this fact directly to the investigating body but she has stated this to Mr. Morgan's attorney, Mr. Van Dusen, in Detroit, and he in turn has conveyed it to the different investigating bodies with respect to this matter.

In May of 1969, subsequent to the execution of this April 21, 1969, deed, Mr. DeMarco states that he had a conversation with Mr. Blech, who was the President's accountant, and he asked Mr. Blech, the way he described it, he said if a gift had been made of $500,000 for how long or for how many years can you carry over that gift for income tax purposes. He wanted to know for how many years the carryover would be good if a taxpayer, he posed a hypothetical question to Mr. Blech and he said if a taxpayer had given a gift worth $500,000 he wanted to know for how many years the carryover would be good. After doing the calculations, Mr. Blech asked who the donor was and DeMarco replied that it was the President. This is in May 1969. Blech told our staff, as he told the joint committee, that he made notes of this conversation and that he dated those notes and kept those notes subsequent to the conversation, but at the present time he could not find those notes of that conversation. So, he did not produce any notes but he does recall having such a conversation with Mr. DeMarco in May 1969 and Mr. DeMarco also recalls that conversation.

Now, in June and July 1969 we have two memorandums which were written by Mr. Ehrlichman to Mr. Morgan and a memorandum written by Mr. Barth who was the Assistant to the Commissioner of the Internal Revenue Service to Mr. Morgan. Those memorandums are referred to on the bottom of page 8 of our report. And you will see as we said there on June 16 Ehrlichman wrote two memorandums to Morgan which posed a number of tax questions relating to the President's taxes. In one of them he asked "Will you please have someone carefully check his salary withholding to see if it takes into account the fact that he will be making a full 30-percent charitable deduction." Now, Morgan apparently referred the question to IRS Commissioner Randolph Thrower, and they were answered by a memorandum dated July 16, 1969, from Mr. Barth, Assistant to Commissioner Thrower, to Mr. Morgan.

Now, no mention, as our report indicates, is made in either of these memorandums that the President had made a gift of papers in March 1969 of $500,000. Now, the committee members do not have copies of these memorandums before them but when we supply, for example, the memorandum from Mr. Ritzel to the President we can also supply copies of these memorandums.

Mr. WIGGINS. Well I do not understand, counsel. Why in the world would Ehrlichman be concerned about taking the full charitable deduction if there had not been at least some contemplations of a gift of the maximum amount for those years?

Mr. NUSSBAUM. Well, Congressman

Mr. WIGGINS. I only raise the question because you emphasize there was nothing said about it.

Mr. NUSSBAUM. There certainly was contemplations I guess that the President would make a maximum 30-percent charitable deduction for that year.

The question, or one of the questions for the committee was whether or not the President did make, on March 27, 1969, a gift not only for the maximum 30-percent charitable deduction for that year, but for 4 succeeding years and all I am stating is that in the memorandum to which I'm referring there is no mention made of such a gift covering not only 1969 but subsequent years. I am not stating anything else other than that fact.

Mr. WALDIE. Mr. Chairman, did in fact the return of the President. take into account a full 30-percent charitable, the withholding of the President take into account the full 30-percent charitable deduction? Mr. McKEITHEN. Withholding from the income tax payer never takes into account any contemplated deductions.

Mr. WALDIE. Was that the substance of the Barth memorandum? Mr. McKEITHEN. That is correct.

Mr. NUSSBAUM. In November 1969 Mr. Newman returned to the Archives. As I indicated previously, he had been there in April 1969 at which time he appraised the 1968 papers and his appraisal was made part of the 1968 tax return. But, in November 1969 he returned to the Archives and he began doing a preliminary appraisal of the Archives.

On November 7. Mr. Newman wrote a letter to Mr. DeMarco and the letter is on A-263 of the joint committee report. In that letter Mr.