dent or the President's counsel, let alone the people that attended this meeting on December 3? Because we do know that we had the statement by Mr. Alexander that Secretary Shultz was on notice November 28. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Sir, I have no such information. I would only make this comment if I may, Mr. Chairman, that the purpose, I think, of this recitation of events was to show that the reason the matter went before the Joint Committee was to avoid any implication of ability to control the result, not, as might be suggested by the special staff, in an effort to run away from an IRS audit. In fact, I think, in retrospect, he might have done better to stay with the IRS. But the point is, I think, the decision was made to request the Joint Committee to do it to avoid any implication that the President might be able to control the result. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Then specifically, we know that there is a question on the deed regarding the transfer of the 1969 papers. Do you have any evidence regarding the authorization by the President as to Mr. Morgan signing the deed? Mr. ST. CLAIR. Not other than the special staff has presented, and I do not recall precisely just what that was at this moment. Mr. MEZVINSKY. Then I have two other quick points. One, do we I would raise the point that regarding the letter sent to Senator Magnuson as to a legitimate gift, would I as a member of this committee, looking at the question of the possibility of fraud regarding the transfer of these papers, have the right to go to the Archives and personally look at those papers myself as a member of this committee? Mr. ST. CLAIR. Sir, I really do not know the answer to that. I imagine that the matter would have to be dealt with by the Archives. I would be glad to make inquiry on your behalf. Mr. MEZVINSKY. OK. Then there is a question that has been raised, and I would like for you to check with the President. He went into the White House in 1969, January, claiming that as his residency. There is a problem regarding State taxes. Can we find out whether or not a New York State tax return was filed by the President in 1969 for the year 1969? Could you it. Mr. ST. CLAIR. I will make inquiry. I have no information regarding Mr. MEZVINSKY. The last point, Mr. Chairman, is that-Mr. St. Clair, I see that in the presentation we have in front of us, you are submitting no information or no evidence concerning the presentation we had by staff regarding the use of IRS; namely, the matter that is presently under investigation by the Joint Committee, the use of IRS regarding political enemies as well as the problem of audits for friends of the President. Am I to surmise that the information we have from staff is not to be rebutted and is to be accepted because we do not have any information from you at all during this presentation regarding these particular matters as to the political situation of IRS and possible violation or criminal statutes? Mr. ST. CLAIR. We would rest on the special staff's presentation. Mr. MARAZITI. Mr. Chairman? Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Hogan. Mr. HOGAN. Mr. Chairman, might I inquire when we might get the brief material, the so-called green book which Mr. St. Clair had previously had available and which was not given to us? The CHAIRMAN. That will be a matter that would be presented after the complete presentation and when there is going to be a response, as we have stated, I think that that has not yet been decided and I think it would come after the completion of all the testimony of the witnesses as well. Mr. HOGAN. Thank you. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SARBANES. Mr. Chairman ? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Sarbanes. Mr. SARBANES. Mr. St. Clair, I had just a couple of questions, simple ones about these materials you have given us. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Yes, sir. Mr. SARBANES. In the tax areas, is any of this material on the public record? Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, this letter to Senator Magnuson. I do not know whether it is on the public record or not, frankly. The affidavit is not, obviously. Mr. SARBANES. I understand that. Then I have attachments A, B, and C, and then I have three letters, but one of them is marked attachment D, one marked attachment E, and one not marked. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Which one is not marked? Mr. SARBANES. The March 8 letter to Black on homesite value allocation. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Excuse me, sir. Well, my set does not seem to have it on a quick look though here. Could we examine your copy at the close and see what the difficulty is! Mr. SARBANES. Sure. Mr. ST. CLAIR. My attachment E is a letter to Mr. Gemmill under date of April 4, 1974, from Bowdle, Booth, and Drumm. Mr. SARBANES. Are these not all on the public record, attachments A, B, et cetera! Mr. ST. CLAIR. I am not familiar with what the status of this material is with the Joint Committee, sir. I can make inquiry of it. Mr. SARBANES. We can do that. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserved the points of order that I wished to make with respect to various tabs, the summary pages of various tabs on the groups that they The CHAIRMAN. Would the gentleman withhold that for one moment? I think there are several other members. Mr. SEIBERLING. Well, all right, but the usual late evening stampede may lose us a quorum. The CHAIRMAN. I wanted to recognize Mr. Maraziti, who has been seeking recognition for a long time. Mr. MARAZITI. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief. I have only one question or point of clarification for Mr. St. Clair. Mr. St. Clair, in reference to this letter from the Archives, do I understand that at the bottom of the page, even though the committee or the IRS disallowed a deduction and perhaps did not make any finding on the question of the gift, the Archives refers to, in this language, "long before the onset of a tax controversy, it was the position of the General Services Administration *** that there had been a valid gift of the subject papers to the United States." In other words, as far as they are concerned, and they are not concerned with tax matters, I understand that, they considered the papers a valid gift to them. I understand these papers were delivered on March 25 and March 26, 1969. Apparently, they do indicate that title passed, but they do not make any reference to the date or the time of passing title. Is there anything further on that, do you know? Mr. ST. CLAIR. I think the intendment of the letter is, sir, that as far as GSA is concerned, or the Archives, there has been a valid gift. Of course, they disclaim any responsibility for any determination for tax purposes. Mr. MARAZITI. In other words, as far as the GSA is concerned- Mr. MARAZITI. Regardless of tax matters and they considered the gift to be a valid gift? Mr. ST. CLAIR. They contend they own them. May I, Mr. Chairman, make a further response to Mr. Mezvinsky? The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Mr. ST. CLAIR. You asked me if we had anything further to present by way of fact inquiry. We intend to brief this issue and argue, of course, that the President, there is no showing and no evidence in any way that the President was engaged in any efforts to abuse the IRS. We intend to argue that. I did not want you to believe we were not even going to mention it again. You understand that? Mr. MEZVINSKY. Sure, I understand that. I certainly expected that. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Thank you. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Father Drinan. Mr. DRINAN. Mr. St. Clair, on page 3 of this document, I hear for the first time the dissatisfaction of the lawyers for the President with the Joint Committee. They state that they had an understanding that they were to be furnished promptly memoranda concerning the substance of such interviews and that the memoranda or committee interviews, although frequently promised, were not furnished to them. Has this been submitted to the counsel and staff of the Joint Committee for the purposes of their reply? Mr. ST. CLAIR. No, it has not, sir. Mr. DRINAN. I would suggest, and I know that you would agree, that they should have the opportunity to respond and to give their version of this allegation that they had denied to the counsel for the President the memoranda of committee interviews. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Well, I have no objection to having them make inquiry of them. I think it might be appropriate for the special staff to do that. I think they would have greater entree to the staff of the Joint Committee than I would. Mr. DRINAN. Thank you. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman? The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Seiberling. Mr. SEIBERLING. Mr. Chairman, I reserved points of order with respect to certain summaries contained in the coversheets to certain tabs in Mr. St. Clair's presentation. The CHAIRMAN. That is correct. Mr. SEIBERLING. Specifically, they are volume 1, tabs 12, 13, 14, 20, and 24; volume 2, tab 8; volume 3, tabs 2, 14, 18, and 20, 22, and 24; and book 4, tabs 18, 26, 28, and 29. Now, in an effort to avoid prolonging this session I will not, unless somebody requests, specifically describe the particular statements that seem to me to be conclusions or findings of fact rather than statements of basic or primary fact. I will be glad to sit down with Mr. St. Clair or Mr. McCahill and point out each one, but short of their reaching, their agreeing to revise those tabs, I would like to request simply that when the tabs are printed, it be noted that a point of order has been made with respect to a particular portion of the tab, which would be footnoted that they are statements of conclusions by counsel rather than statements of primary fact. The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has raised these points of order and the Chair would like to state that regarding those particular points of order, I am happy to hear the gentleman also state that he would prefer that perhaps he would go over these matters with Mr. St. Clair, and if there was agreement that in some instances because the Chair has also noted that there were obvious conclusions-that perhaps these might be reconciled so that the tabs would read properly. I would hope that that would be the case so that there would not be, and I think that the committee certainly does not want to impose any strict restrictions on the presentation of the materials, since the committee is seeking information. But I think it is important to note that this has occurred in various instances and I suppose that it may be subject to varied interpretations as tabs are prepared. But I would hope that we could do it that way; and, therefore, let it rest at that insofar as the gentleman's points of order are concerned and state that the material, however, would be presented subject to those reservations. Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Chairman, I not only agree, but I can see how counsel for the President can try-it is difficult to distinguish the advocacy position. I understand that our staff is going to attempt to reconcile some of these differences and perhaps if they would be able to bring to the attention of President's counsel where conclusions. have been reached without facts, we might be able to get a record that both sides can go on. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. St. Clair. Mr. ST. CLAIR. Mr. Chairman, without in any way, with all due respect, conceding that these are inappropriate, I would be very happy to meet with Congressman Seiberling and representatives of his office and the staff. To me, this is not a problem. I am reasonably confident we can come to an accommodation regarding them. I just would not want my agreement to constitute an admission on my part that this is inappropriate. I am sure we all understand that would be so. But I will be glad to meet with them and see if we can work that out. The CHAIRMAN. Fine. Ms. Holtzman. Ms. HOLTZMAN. Mr. Chairman, in the same vein as Mr. Seiberling, I would like to note for the record points of order that I have been reserving as well. I will not argue them here, but I am making them on the same basis that he is; namely, that they do not seem to be supported by the information given in the tabs annexed: book 1, paragraphs 5, 10, and 18; book 2, paragraph 10; book 3, paragraphs 15 and 24; and book 4, paragraph 26 with respect to the last paragraph. I would again urge with respect to that last paragraph, Mr. Chairman, while I have no objection to letting Mr. St. Clair's material forward with points of order noted, I would respectfully urge the chairman to rule that the last paragraph on paragraph 26 of book 4 not be included in any published statement of information. I have no objection to the information being in a backup tab, but I think to highlight it as it has been is extremely unfortunate and not relevant to the needs of this inquiry. Thank you. go The CHAIRMAN. I think the Chair will make the same proposition with respect to the gentlelady's points of order. I do not believe that the Chair is really in a position at this time to substitute the Chair's interpretation as to what are conclusions and what are not conclusions, except that I think they are valid points that have been raised and I would hope that they might, consistent with what Mr. St. Clair has stated before, be the case in the Mr. ST. CLAIR. We will be even more delighted to meet with Ms. Holtzman. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Owens. Mr. OWENS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to belabor the point, but I would like to take 30 seconds and state-I do not know whether the chairman will consider this important. I also raised a point of order, I think Mr. Waldie did, too, that the committee has allowed to be stated and accepted here as evidence put forth by the President's counsel transcripts of Presidential conversations of which the tape recordings are in the control of counsel's client, and that I consider that a mistake for the committee to allow that to be introduced. If the Chair rules it appropriate, I would like that objection and that point of order at least to be noted when these materials are printed. The CHAIRMAN. Well, the Chair will again state that the presentation on the part of both staff and counsel for the President will be released, as they should be. There are some reservations in the resolution that provided for the releasing of these materials and that reservation was and is that the ranking member and the chairman use the criteria that have been used in the past concerning the question as to possible deletions. I am sure that the Chair in consultation with the ranking member will exercise great caution and discretion insofar as that is concerned. I would like to make clear here that I think that we all have to recognize that while there may have been characterization of some of the material presented by Mr. St. Clair as summary, conclusions, |