States Government and made certain other concessions and we agreed to dismiss the receivership case against the Doheny estate. Mr. Lewinson showed a complete understanding of his case and first-class ability in his appearances in court and in his negotiations with the other lawyers in the cases throughout the negotiations for settlement. It was a very intricate proceeding, and in my opinion the recovery which he finally secured could not have been effected under the original state of the pleadings of the cases pending. The very fact that the case by the receiver against the Doheny estate had not been brought to issue, although pending possibly 4 years, is an indication of the intricacy and the difficulty of the issues involved. My relations with Mr. Lewinson throughout the proceeding, I may say, were never in accord. They always were in conflict, and at some periods clearly and openly antagonistic. In light of these facts I think I have a very clear conception of the splendid quality of his services and the very desirable results obtained by him.

The fee that Messrs. Lewinson and Martineau have requested is, in my opinion, reasonable compensation for the services rendered. Mr. WEAVER. Thank you very much, Mr. Hurley, for your very clear statement.

Whom do you desire to have testify next?

Mr. LEWINSON. I testified at the hearing on the bill introduced at the last session, and my testimony is in the record, so I will not repeat. Mr. Martineau was unable to be here at that time, but he is here now, and I would like to have him supplement it briefly.

Mr. WEAVER. We shall be very glad to hear you, Mr. Martineau.

STATEMENT OF L. R. MARTINEAU, JR., LOS ANGELES, CALIF.

Mr. MARTINEAU. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee. I regret very much that I was unable to be here at the prior hearing, because at that time I was engaged actively in court and could not be present.

I wish to associate myself with the testimony which has heretofore been given by Attorney General Cummings, Mr. Justice Stephens, and Mr. Joseph L. Lewinson at that hearing. I think a very full statement of the record has heretofore been made and appears in the transcript. It is unnecessary, therefore, to reiterate any of the facts from my point of view, but rather to supplement them.

Mr. WEAVER. I was about to suggest that probably it would be best to do that.

Mr. MARTINEAU. There is one aspect of the case, however, to which I should like to allude, and which, in a sense, supplements the testimony which is already in the record. I refer to the fact that on the morning of January 15, 1937, I received a teletype message from the Honorable Harry W. Blair, Assistant Attorney General in charge of public lands, and I should like to read into the record that telegram.

This telegram was dated Washington, D. C., January 15, 1937, and reads as follows:

Am sending you

Hogan suggests settlement Doheny claim for $1,960,000. air mail statement showing basis for figures. Navy inclined to give serious consideration to this figure, but think probably Navy will want at least 50-50 settle

ment. Hogan leaves tomorrow to discuss matter with executors. Do you have definite or other information satisfactory to you as to the value of the assets in estate? When you have gone over proposition air mail today please phone me your views on matter of acceptance.

The afternoon of the day on which I received the teletype I received an air mail letter dated January 15, 1937, as follows:

L. R. MARTINEAU, Esq.,

Special Assistant Attorney General, Los Angeles, Calif.

SIR: In accordance with teletype to you this morning I am enclosing the Doheny settlement proposition.

The Navy people are inclined to give this very serious consideration and may be willing to accept it or to accept a 50-50 proposition. That is, one-half of the amount of the claim filed by you. In any event, the sum of money here involved is so large, and there being the hazard of litigation, I think the Attorney General will wish to present the proposition to the Senate Committee on Public Lands before either approving or rejecting it.

When you have gone over this please call me on the phone and let me know what you think about it. I would like to have the figures on the amount of claims which have been or will be filed, so far as known and on the value of the estate. Also your views as to the litigation hazard.

Respectfully, for the Attorney General,

HARRY W. BLAIR, Assistant Attorney General.

Upon receiving that teletype and that letter Mr. Lewinson and I conferred and immediately I called up Mr. Blair by long-distance telephone at Washington and told him emphatically not to accept that offer by any means. I was convinced that we were entitled to receive very much more, and could undoubtedly get it, and I felt that any action whatsoever should be deferred with respect to the proposal of settlement until either Mr. Lewinson or I could be in Washington. At the moment I was in court daily trying a case, from which I could not be discharged, and I suggested that unless some postponement of that case could be had, or other arrangements made, that instead of our both going to Washington at least one of us should go and suggested at that time that Mr. Lewinson, I thought, would be able to do so.

I furthermore told Mr. Blair that from our investigation, which had been exceedingly detailed and made with the aid, in part, of the Government of the assets in the Doheny estate, that the estate could be compelled to respond in the event we were able to obtain judgment, but in my judgment no sum less than a minimum $3,500,000 should be accepted.

Finally I asked him if I might not have support of the Government enough to know that no settlement whatsoever would be made without our being in complete accord before an agreement was reached. Thereupon Mr. Blair told me that the Attorney General and the Department of Justice would make no settlement without the concurrence of Mr. Lewinson and myself.

With that situation well in hand Mr. Lewinson set aside all other things and left immediately for Washington. At that time the conferences which have heretofore been detailed in the testimony, and to which Mr. Hogan has alluded this morning, took place with the result that the Government ultimately received the payment of $3,000,000, which we took great pride in handing to Judge James of the district court at Los Angeles. Unless there are some questions, that is all.

Mr. WEAVER. Judge, do you have any questions?

Mr. MASSINGALE. I should just like to ask Mr. Martineau a question or two because I was not a member of this committee at the former hearing. I would be pleased to have you state just exactly what the terms of employment were between you and the Attorney General, or your firm and the Attorney General.

Mr. MARTINEAU. The employment ran to me personally as you suggest but with the understanding that I was free to use such assistant as I might need from my associates in my office. The matter was discussed with me long prior to the time of our actual appointment to this case. My first connection with this pending litigation occurred approximately the 1st of May 1934, at which time I was asked to investigate the situation then pending in the Pan American and Richfield receiverships by Mr. Blair of the Department of Justice for the reason that there had then been pending for some time in the receivership proceedings an offer to purchase the assets in receivership at a figure in excess of $20,000,000. There was also pending at the time a stipulation or proposal under which a sum, originally of $5,000,000 and later $5,500,000, was supposed to be paid on the $9,000,000 judgment out of the assets in receivership in exchange for the release of the lien of the Government on those assets. That is the payment of $5,500,000 to which Mr. Hogan alluded, and to which there was added a credit of $191,000 for an income-tax refund. Mr. MASSINGALE. Right there, Mr. Martineau, would you mind an interruption?

Mr. MARTINEAU. No, sir; not at all, sir.

Mr. MASSINGALE. Were you connected with that case as a special assistant Attorney General at the time of the recovery of the $9,000,000 judgment?

Mr. MARTINEAU. Not at all, sir. I had nothing at all to do with that, but being an attorney from Los Angeles, and Mr. Blair, being interested in that situation and knowing some of my connections in matters of that sort, had asked me to make this investigation. I mention that merely because it has bearing upon the ultimate question which you asked. On a subsequent occasion, following the conference in May 1934, I conferred again with Mr. Blair respecting those pending matters in this receivership at Los Angeles, and on the 28th of June 1934, Mr. Blair handed me, by special messenger at the train, a bundle of files, which I should imagine were 8 or 10 inches in thickness, and he asked me to review the situation, which would enlighten me in order to respond to the questions which he had asked me.

When Mr. Blair was in Los Angeles on the 21st of July 1934, I met him and reported to him, apprised him not only of the study of the files which had then been made, and which had to do with the preceding litigation which has been described to you this morning, but with the current matters which were then pending in Los Angeles and the manner in which those matters were being handled by the Government. That not only gave me a familiarity with the entire background of the litigation up to that time, but gave rise to the suggestion that I be employed in connection with this particular case which we have under discussion this morning. I declined that employment because I was otherwise engaged.

In the summer of 1935 I was again asked regarding the matter by Mr. Justice Stephens, who was then head of the Antitrust Division, and later Assistant to the Attorney General, and, on the 30th of August 1935, I was requested to take charge of the Doheny litigation, and I again declined employment.

Later I was here in Washington on October 7, 1935, and at that time we had a conference, Mr. Blair, Justice Stephens, and myself, respecting employment. Mr. Cummings, the Attorney General, was then in Europe, and although we had previously discussed the case I did not see him at that time. At the conference in October I called attention to the fact that there was a tremendous amount of record, a part of which I had then studied, that the case involved a most intimate knowledge of a great deal of preceding litigation, and that there was no means by which a lawyer in private practice, situated as I was, with a number of other associates, could possibly afford to take the time even to look into the case under the arrangements which were allowed to the employees of the Land Division of the Department of Justice. We had several other discussions relating to the matter, and at that time I called attention further to the fact that a large number of men had previously been employed in the preceding litigation, that at least four special assistants had been appointed from Senator Pomerene's office, and that the difficulty of handling the matter was evidenced by what had gone before.

At that time it was called to my attention that under the Economy Act, if I recall correctly, or some preceding legislation, a maximum of $10,000 could be allowed to an employee in the Lands Division, and it was stated to me that a policy or precedent had been established in connection with the oil cases which would undoubtedly enable us at the conclusion of the litigation, if it were favorable to the Government, to receive compensation commensurate with the work done on the case.

So, having that assurance, I called attention to the fact that in this case matters were so exigent that an individual lawyer could not handle them and that I would not undertake employment unless I might have the assistance of some person of somewhere near my ability who could assist me in attending court in the event of my conflicting court engagements. I said that perhaps I could get Mr. Lewinson, a man of substantial ability, but I did not know whether he could accept employment or whether he was free to accept it so far as claims against the Government were concerned. By accident we were able to confer with Mr. Lewinson, because he happened to be in Washington at the time. He said he was favorably disposed, and we conferred later after he had left Washington. Inasmuch as this was a most exigent matter which could not await further legislation on the part of Congress or any other delay, because the claim was already stale because of Doheny's death, and because matters in the receivership proceeding were proceeding rapidly, I agreed to accept the responsibility. It was largely on my assurance with respect to ultimate compensation, I believe, that Mr. Lewinson accepted the employment that he did. He was acquainted with me, with Justice Stephens, and with Mr. Cummings, and we had no hesitance in plunging into the matter with the same devotion that we would if we were working for a private client, leaving it to those who were

superior in the Department to determine by what means we might be paid. Apparently after the hearing last year it became evident that a bill such as this-H. R. 4366— would have to be enacted.

Mr. MASSINGALE. I do not care to have this go into the record if it is in the least objectionable, but, personally, I would like to know this, if you do not mind stating it: Was there any understanding or any kind of a reservation on your part that in the event the Government should not be successful in recovering that you would still have additional compensation in addition to the $10,000 as ordinarily allowed to special assistants to the Attorney General?

Mr. MARTINEAU. I have no hesitancy in answering that question, sir. My idea was that the reasonable value of our services would be determined at the conclusion of our work; that, in other words, the activity was not undertaken on the basis of a pure contingency, as one might undertake a collection or something of that sort; and that, obviously, one of the factors which would be considered, as it always is considered in fixing a fee, would be the result achieved, and hence, if the results were excellent our compensation would be correspondingly greater.

Mr. MASSINGALE. Now, you and Mr. Lewinson are joint claimants here in this bill?

Mr. MARTINEAU. Yes, sir; that is true.

Mr. MASSINGALE. And the amount that you have been paid by the Department of Justice is how much, Mr. Martineau? Mr. MARTINEAU. Slightly under $25,000.

Mr. LEWINSON. That is, the both of us.

Mr. MARTINEAU. Yes, sir; to the two of us together.

Mr. MASSINGALE. Yes, I understand; and the recovery upon which you ask this additional fee is $3,000,000?

Mr. MARTINEAU. Yes, sir; that is correct.

Mr. MASSINGALE. That is all I care to ask, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. WEAVER. Is there anything you desire to ask, Mr. Guyer?
Mr. GUYER. No; I was familiar with this before.

Mr. WEAVER. Do you have any questions, Mr. Chandler?

Mr CHANDLER. No; thank you.

Mr. MARTINEAU. There is one thing that may be misunderstood in the record. It might be asked how it was that Mr. Blair requested me in May 1934 to make an investigation for the Department of Justice. I should like to make it clear that from approximately the 20th of April until the 28th of June 1934, I had made a review for the Attorney General of all of the matters in the Department of Justice that related to oil because of my experience in certain oil litigation. For that purpose I had spent that entire period in Washington as a special assistant to the Attorney General and made him special reports with respect to matters relating to antitrust and other questions, including those involved in certain of the work of the Navy Department relating to the oil reserves, and in the Interior Department relating to public lands and the N. I. R. A.

It was because of these matters, therefore, that I happened to be here; and I should like to have it understood that that was a temporary employment for a special purpose. Later on, in the fall of 1934, again after I had returned to private practice in Los Angeles, I was asked, about the 22d of September, by long-distance telephone,