He said he would not say such a thing, he was not the tax lawyer for the President, and this is not something that he would say to Mrs. Livingston. He did not know anything about deed of gifts. That was Mr. DeMarco's job. Mrs. Livingston also states that in that conversation Mr. Newman, and I want to be precise, because I wasn't precise before and I should have been, Mrs. Livingston told the Joint Committee staff that Newman said "It would be better for everyone, including the White House, if all dealings on this point would stay between the two of us." We directed Mr. Newman's attention to this statement by Mrs. Livingston, that this is what he said to her and Mr. Newman told us that he may well have said what Mrs. Livingston said he said but he explained that he meant that the Archives should not make any public announcement of the President's gift. He said he felt that that was for the White House to make and that if he made such a statement, and he does not contest that he made such a statement, he only made it for the purposes that I have just indicated that he made it. Now, on April 10, 1970, another deed of gift was signed with respect to the 1969 papers. It was executed by Mr. Morgan and it was notarized as being executed as of April 21, 1969. I refer you to page A-295 of the Joint Committee report which is a deed dated March 27, 1969, and it is signed as you can see on page 299 by Edward Morgan, deputy counsel to the President and notary, the notarization of which is contained on page A-300 which is signed by Frank DeMarco which indicates or states that it was executed on April 21, 1969. Now, in fact, as Mr. DeMarco acknowledges and Mr. Morgan acknowledges, that deed was signed in Mr. Morgan's office on April 10, 1969. And the circumstances with respect Mr. SEIBERLING. 1970. Mr. NUSSBAUM. I'm sorry-1970. The circumstances with respect to that deed are as follows. Mr. DeMarco says that after he received a new schedule, a complete schedule of the papers, the 1969 papers, after he received it in California from Mr. Newman, he saw that the schedule itself differed from the 1969 deed in the sense that the paper, the texture of the paper was different and the typing was different, and consequently he asked his secretary to type another deed, and his secretary has testified that she was asked to type such another deed to accord with the schedule, the new schedule which he had now received and she typed in his office. So taking the new deed which he had typed and the new schedule, he went to Washington, he went to Mr. Morgan's office and he asked Mr. Morgan to reexecute the document, which Mr. Morgan did. And that is Mr. DeMarco's statement. Now, Mr. Morgan, when he first spoke about signing a deed, when he made a statement to the White House in August 1973, did not mention the reexecution of the deed on April 10, 1970. When he was interviewed by the Joint Committee, he acknowledged that the signature was his on that deed but he did not recollect reexecuting a deed. He only recollected one deed. But subsequent to that, and when he spoke to us, he spoke to our staff, he did recollect reexecuting a deed. He did recollect DeMarco asking him to reexecute something which he had previously signed. He doesn't remember when that happened. He doesn't remember on what day, but he remembers being called out of a meeting, he told us, coming to DeMarco, DeMarco telling him to reexecute some thing, reexecuting it and going back into the meeting. That is the statement Mr. Morgan made to us. The CHAIRMAN. I think we will recess. There is a rollcall on an appropriation measure at this time, and we will recess until 2 o'clock. Mr. HOGAN. May I ask a question? Would it be possible to get these citations to the green book to track along with the report? Mr. DOAR. Yes. Mr. HOGAN. It would be very helpful to be able to have the page. numbers. The CHAIRMAN. And would the members kindly leave the books behind. [Whereupon, at 12:27 p.m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m., this same day.] AFTERNOON SESSION The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Doar. Mr. DOAR. There is a later report with respect to the Stanford Research Institute, the experts, that has been put on your desk. That should be filed in tab 99 [100]1 of the book that was presented to you yesterday. This is a supplemental of somewhat a fuller report that Mr. St. Clair filed with the court on May 31. It should be made a part of the record. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Members of the committee, when we recessed for lunch this morning, I had just finished telling about the reexecution of the deed on April 10, 1970, by Mr. Morgan. As you will recall, I said that the original deed which Mr. DeMarco says was signed on April 21, 1969, was kept with him, never sent to the Archives, and ultimately destroyed, destroyed after a deed was reexecuted on April 10, 1970. Now, there is a story with respect to the reexecution of the deed which I want to bring to the attention of the members of the committee. These statements by Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Mr. LATTA. Mr. Chairman, a matter of clarification. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Latta. Mr. LATTA. I seem to have lost my place. I cannot find where they destroyed that deed. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Congressman Latta, Mr. DeMarco told us-Mr. McKeithen interviewed Mr. DeMarco, and Mr. DeMarco told us that he thinks the first deed was destroyed. He does not remember where it is at this particular point. His best memory is that the first deed was destroyed. That is Mr. DeMarco's statements to us in the course of that interview. No one has produced that first deed, and Mr. DeMarco states that after it was executed on April 21, 1969, he kept that deed in his possession. He does not have it now, he states. He states that he does not know where it is, and to his best recollection, it must have been destroyed after the new deed was typed and was executed on April 10, 1970. What I am conveying to you is Mr. DeMarco's statements to us in the course of the interview conducted by our staff. 1 The paragraphs of book IV were renumbered prior to publication. The numbers in brackets refer to the paragraph numbers in the printed volume. 41-018-75-pt. 3-3 The CHAIRMAN. I understand that was carried in the newspapers. Mr. NUSSBAUM. In any event, I would like to direct the committee's attention with respect to the discussion of these deeds to page A-10 of the Joint Committee report is a letter sent The CHAIRMAN. Excuse me, what page? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Page A-10 of the Joint Committee report. This is a letter dated August 22, 1973. It is from Kalmbach, DeMarco, Knapp, and Chillingworth, signed by Frank DeMarco, Jr. It is addressed to Coopers & Lybrand in New York. At this time, Coopers & Lybrand was conducting a financial audit concerning the President. This letter was sent in connection with that audit. If you will look on page A-11, the last paragraph, Mr. DeMarco discusses the first deed. He says: While in our opinion, the law is clear that an instrument of deed is not a necessary requisite to a gift of personal property, the duly appointed and constituted attorney in fact and agent of the taxpayer did on April 21, 1969, execute an instrument of gift reciting and declaring the intent of the donor to make such a gift; that said gift had in fact been made on March 27, 1969, and the subject matter thereof delivered to the National Archives. In his letter, Mr. DeMarco does not mention any reexecution of a deed on April 10, 1970. Similarly in August 1969, Mr. Morgan-sorry. Similarly, in August 1973, Mr. Morgan made a statement with respect to the execution of a deed. That is contained on page A-159 of the Joint Committee report. I ask the committee to turn to those pages. Page A-159 is a statement or a memorandum to Mr. Douglas Parker, who is an attorney employed by the White House, from Edward L. Morgan. On page A-162, Mr. Morgan discusses events in 1969 and states: "There is absolutely no question in my mind that I signed a deed of gift for the President at that time"-referring to the time indicated in the paragraph above; namely, Monday, April 21, 1969. "The thing that I do not remember is whether or not there was any particular schedule attached to the deed at that time, and if so, its contents." Now, in this statement made by Mr. Morgan to Mr. Parker on August 14, 1973, Mr. Morgan also does not mention any reexecution of a deed. Now, the way those statements came to be made, as we have gathered from our investigation, is as follows, and this we are relying a great deal on the joint committee, the investigation they made. After the joint committee began to examine the President's tax returns for the years 1969 to 1972-that is after December 8, 1973-in other words, 4 months after these particular statements were made by Mr. DeMarco and Mr. Morgan-somebody at the Archives examined the deed in the possession of the Archives. They noticed that the deed was a duplicate original-that is, it was a photostat of an original typed copy-the photostat itself having been signed containing Mr. Morgan's signature. It was a Xeroxed which was signed. Attached to that signed photostat of the deed, a duplicate original, was a schedule listing the papers which were selected to be a part of the 1969 gift. That schedule was also a Xerox. Now, the people at the Archives looked at the duplicate original, the Xerox which was signed, and looked at the schedule, and noticed from the Xerox marks on the schedule and on the duplicate original that they had to be, that they were, in fact, Xeroxed at the same time. Now, we know and the Archives knew that that schedule which lists the President's 1969 gift could not have been prepared until March 27, 1970. It could not have been prepared until at least March 27, 1970, because all the papers which constitute the gift were not selected until that date. As I indicated earlier, Mr. Newman had selected some of the papers in late 1969, November and December, but then when they received this call from Mr. DeMarco on March 27, 1970, he had additional papers selected by Mrs. Livingston at the Archives. So schedule A to the deed which is now in possession of the Archives contains the papers selected by Mr. Newman at the end of 1969 and the papers selected by Mrs. Livingston on March 27, 1970. Consequently, since no one knew what the papers were that were to be selected by Mrs. Livingston, that schedule had to be prepared on March 27, 1970, or thereafter. Since that schedule-since the deed was Xeroxed apparently at the same time as the schedule, the deed could not have been prepared until March 27, 1970, and had to be signed thereafter. So the document in the Archives had, which was dated by the document, I am talking about the deed, which was dated March 27, 1969, and which had a notarization which said it was signed on April 21, 1969-a notarization by DeMarco which said it was signed on April 21, 1969— clearly could not have been signed on April 21, 1969, that particular document. I am not talking about a prior deed, but that particular document. And that was brought to the attention of Mr. DeMarco and also subsequently of Mr. Morgan. At that particular point in time, Mr. DeMarco did relate the facts as I have given them to you; namely, that on April 10, 1970-in other words, after March 27, 1970-on April 10, 1970, he did have a duplicate original prepared and he did have Mr. Morgan execute that duplicate original. And Mr. Morgan, as I have stated, while he initially stated he did not remember executing two deeds has ultimately told us that now he does recall executing something else, a deed which he previously signed, and he does recall executing that in-he does not remember the date, just sometime subsequent thereto. Mr. SMITH. Mr. Nussbaum, why could not the deed now in possession of the Archives have been signed before March 27, 1970, even though the attachment might not have been in existence before. March 27, 1970? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Because it was Xeroxed at the same time-the Xerox marks on the same document which was signed Mr. SMITH. But are they separate pieces of paper? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes-well, one is attached to the other, but Mr. SMITH. Why could you not Xerox an original deed made on April 29, 1969, and a later attachment made after March 27, 1970, at the same time. Mr. NUSSBAUM. Because the deed itself is a Xerox. It is signed by Mr. Morgan. It was Xeroxed-the Xerox marks tell us that it was Xeroxed at the same time that the March 27-at the same time that the schedule to the deed was Xeroxed. That schedule could not have been prepared until March 27, 1970. Mr. SARBANES. Is Morgan's signature Mr. SMITH. But why could not the original of that Xerox of the deed have been prepared before that time and held to be Xeroxed at the same time? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Congressman Smith, the original could have been prepared before that time, but it had to be Xeroxed after March 27 and the Xerox is the copy which was signed. So in other words, the person had to sign it after it was Xeroxed, since it had to be Xeroxed March 27, 1970, or thereafter; it had to be signed March 27, 1970, or thereafter. The original, the actual ribbon copy could have been prepared prior to March 27, 1970, but the Xerox of that original copy, which was signed by Mr. Morgan and which constitutes the deed which was given to the Archives, that could not have been signed prior to March 27, 1970. Mr. SMITH. The Xerox itself is signed? Mr. NUSSBAUM. That is correct. Mr. SMITH. The signature is not a Xerox signature? Mr. NUSSBAUM. No, it is a duplicate original. The actual deed now possessed by the Archives is a Xerox copy with an original ink signature. Mr. DENNIS. Counsel? Mr. NUSSBAUM. Yes. Mr. DENNIS. I do not claim to know a lot about tax law, but is it not true, generally speaking, that a delivery with intent is all you need? Why do you need a deed at all to complete this gift? It seems to me that a general rule of law is if you deliver with intention, you have a completed gift. Now, the question would be the matter of intent, of course, but I am wondering why all the problem about a deed? You would not have to have a deed at all, I would not think. Mr. DOAR. Maybe I could answer that, Congressman Dennis. As I understand it, there is in some jurisdictions a provision for delivery of tangible personal property by transfer of property without any kind of deed. When the property was transferred or moved from the EOB to the Archives, there were about three times as many boxes of pre-Presidential papers as were actually included in the deed, in the gift. This was no segregation of those boxes at the time. So in other words, just hypothetically, you can assume, we will say, that 450 boxes were removed from the White House or EOB to the Archives and that the ultimate gift involved only 150 of the boxes and there was no segregation of part of the total amount transferred. In that case, the question is for you to decide whether there was an intention to make that kind of a gift. Mr. DENNIS. I would agree that would go to the question of intent. But it still would not answer the point that if the intent existed, you could have a completed gift by delivery plus the necessary intent without an instrument being executed. Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Butler. Mr. BUTLER. Just following up that, I assume that the gift took place in the District of Columbia, and that the law of the District of |