Hon. Thomas F. Ford, a Representative in Congress from the State Hearing held December 13, 1937, on H. R. 8662: Hon. Joseph L. Lewinson, attorney at law, Los Angeles, Hon. Homer S. Cummings, United States Attorney General__ Hon. Harold M. Stephens, associate justice, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia... Capt. H. A. Stuart, Director of Naval Petroleum Reserves, Affidavit of Hon. John Perry Wood, attorney at law, Los Affidavit of Hon. Wilson McCarthy, attorney at law, Denver, Hon. Frank Hogan, president of the American Bar Association, Wash- Hon. Patrick J. Hurley, attorney at law, Washington, D. C...__ Hon. L. R. Martineau, Jr., attorney at law, Los Angeles, Calif ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION TO SPECIAL COUNSEL IN CASE OF DOHENY EXECUTORS FRIDAY, MARCH 17, 1939 HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE No. 2 OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a. m., Hon. Zebulon Weaver presiding, for consideration of H. R. 4366, which is as follows: [H. R. 4366, 76th Cong., 1st sess.] A BILL To authorize the payment of additional compensation to special assistants to the Attorney General in the case of United States against Dolieny Executors Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That the Attorney General is authorized to pay to the special assistants to the Attorney General employed to represent the Government in the case of United States against Edward L. Doheny, for whom was substituted his executors (numbered 6726 H in the files of the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, central division), an aggregate additional sum equal to not more than 9% per centum of the recovery in such case for their services rendered in such case, any provisions of law to the contrary notwithstanding, which sum is hereby authorized to be appropriated for such purpose. Mr. WEAVER. Gentlemen of the committee, the meeting this morning is for the purpose of considering H. R. 4366, which was introduced by Mr. Ford, authorizing the payment of additional compensation to Mr. L. R. Martineau, Jr., and Mr. Joseph L. Lewinson, who were special assistants to the Attorney General in what is known as the Doheny case. Now, Mr. Ford, we have certain testimony which apparently was taken here the year before last in December 1937, and we had discussed having that evidence, together with such evidence as is introduced and such statements as are made at this hearing, put together and printed as a whole. Mr. FORD. That record will constitute what you will study in determining what you are going to do. Mr. WEAVER. Yes; in the presentation of this case. STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS F. FORD, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I should like to make this statement: I introduced this bill for this reason, I think that when the United States goes out of its regular staff and employs expert counsel to handle an important case, that naturally they should be paid more than the ordinary compensation, and that they should be paid an amount equal to that which would be paid by private concerns. In the present instance, my understanding is that there was something like $3,000,000 recovered which, from what I can learn, was practically lost to the Government, but through the sagacity, ability, and keenness of the counsel employed it was recovered for the Government. For that reason I think these gentlemen are entitled to additional compensation other than that which was paid in the course of the trial of the case, and I wish to introduce the transcript of the record of a previous hearing on H. R. 8662. Mr. WEAVER. Is that the same hearing which I have before me here? Mr. FORD. Yes; I presume it is. Mr. LEWINSON. Yes, sir; that is correct. Mr. WEAVER. Yes; that is right. (The transcript of hearing of December 13, 1937, is as follows:) H. R. 8662-ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR SPECIAL ASSISTANTS HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, D. C., Monday, December 13, 1937. The committee met this day, Hon. Hatton W. Sumners (chairman) presiding. The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Lewinson. STATEMENT OF JOSEPH L. LEWINSON, LOS ANGELES, CALIF. Mr. LEWINSON. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, your committee has a bill (H. R. 8662) before it to authorize the Attorney General to pay additional compensation to special assistants to the Attorney General in the case of United States v. Doheny Executors. Having been one of the special assistants alluded to in the bill, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before your committee in support of the bill. The case against the Doheny executors was the last of the cases growing ont of the oil scandals in the 1920's. By reason of the importance of the cases, Congress had established the policy of compensation for counsel beyond the regular statutory fees paid to special assistants to the Attorney General. When my associate, Mr. L. R. Martineau, and myself were employed we contracted in view of that policy and, while we understood that the Attorney General could not technically bind the Government for more than the statutory fees, and he did not undertake so to do, both the Attorney General and ourselves regarded the fees as inadequate for a case of this magnitude for lawyers in general practice carrying their own overheads, and we understood that in the event of a large recovery the Attorney General would appeal to Congress for additional compensation, and he thought, and we thought, that Congress would recognize the moral or equitable obligation of the Government to pay such compensation. We have brought $3,000,000 into the Treasury on a claim which was both stale and doubtful, and we think, and the Attorney General will tell you he thinks, that we are entitled to substantial additional compensation. While the case against the executors was the last of the series, no one familiar with the litigation would suggest that it was for that reason any easy case. On the contrary, our burdens were increased by the necessity of mastering the huge records and involved proceedings that had gone before, and the questions involved in our case, which were of peculiar difficulty, were quite different from those involved in the earlier cases. Without going into detail, this is shown by the fact that Doheny was not joined personally as a party defendant in the second case against the Pan American Petroleum Co., out of which our case grew, even though the corporation was in receivership long before the trial; and the case brought by the receiver against Doheny personally-a companion case to ours-was pending for 4 years without being brought to issue and was |