He was put on trial and found guilty of each count, and he was sentenced on counts 2, 3, and 4 to pay a fine of $500, and on count 1, he was sentenced to 1 year in the Federal penitentiary.

During the course of the sentencing, Mr. Tucker's lawyers brought into the court two letters from two doctors who alleged that Mr. Tucker at that time was a live carrier of tuberculosis, and if he were committed to the penitentiary, he would be contaminating the other prisoners.

After the judge examined the letters and the information, the judge decided to put Mr. Tucker on probation, on his promise not to ever do it again.

The CHAIRMAN. I think, Mr. Thornton, at this time, for the purpose of completing the record, we will put in the transcript of the actual court proceedings, so we have what the judge and district attorney actually said, as a matter of record.

(The documents referred to follow :)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT от Онго

EASTERN DIVISION

(Criminal Action No. 22589)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF v8. STERLING TUCKER, DEFENDANT

WEICK, J., November 10, 1958.

Present: George W. Morrison, Asst. U.S. Attorney, appearing on behalf of the government. Adrian Fink, Esq., Cleveland, Ohio, and W. Howard Fort, Esq., Akron, Ohio, appearing on behalf of the Defendant.

Mr. MORRISON. Your Honor, this matter was scheduled for trial this morning. Whether defense has anything to offer at this time or not

Mr. FINK. Your Honor, if the court please, in accordance with the conference held with the Court with Mr. Morrison representing the government, and Mr. Fort and I representing the Defendant, at this time we wish to change the plea of not guilty heretofor entered, and enter a plea of nolo contendere.

The COURT. That is to each count?

Mr. FINK. Well, it was my understanding when we were in conference that we were going to enter a plea to one count. I understand there is some change of that, but I have not been informed of it prior to this time.

Mr. MORRISON. As I recall, your Honor, there was no discussion of that. I know in our discussion prior to the conference with the Court I informed counsel for the defense that I would not move to dismiss any of the counts, in the event that a nolo contendere plea was offered.

The COURT. That is, you would dismiss them if a plea of guilty were entered. Mr. MORRISON. That was the suggestion I made. I might say for the record, your Honor, that the government would not consent to a nolo contendere plea, in any event.

The COURT, Well, it is necessary, of course, that you plead to each count of the indictment.

Mr. FINK. Well, at this time, your Honor, on behalf of the defendant I will enter a plea of nolo contendere to each count of the indictment.

The COURT. All right. Will the defendant stand up? Come forward, Mr. Tucker? The DEFENDANT. Yes, sir.

The COURT. You are familiar with the charge against you in each count of the indictment?

The DEFENDANT. Yes, sir; I am, your Honor.

The COURT. You hear your counsel enter a plea of nolo contendere. Is that your wish?

The DEFENDANT. Yes, sir; it is, your Honor.
The COURT. You do that voluntarily, do you?
The DEFENDANT. Yes, sir; I do, your Honor.

The COURT. All right. A plea of nolo contendere may be entered to each count in the indictment, and on the basis of that plea I find the defendant is guilty as charged in each count of the indictment.

I will refer the matter for pre-sentence investigation. What about the bond? Mr. MORRISON. Well, he is presently at large on bond, your Honor. I am not familiar with the amount of it.

Mr. FORT. It is one thousand dollars.
The COURT. I will continue the bond.
Mr. FINK. Thank you, your Honor.
Mr. FORT. Thank you, your Honor.

I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct transcript.

ROBERT J. KITCHEN,
Official Court Reporter.

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

EASTERN DIVISION

(Criminal Action No. 22589)

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, PLAINTIFF vs. STERLING TUCKER, DEFENDANT

WEICK, PAUL C., December 5, 1958.

PRESENT: George W. Morrison, Ass't U.S. Attorney, appearing on behalf of the Government. Adrian Fink, Esq., and Rex E. Sager, Esq., appearing on behalf of the Defendant.

Mr. MORRISON. If your Honor please, on November the 10th the Court found this Defendant guilty on his plea of nolo contendere to the four counts of the indictment charging evasion of income taxes.

He is now before the Court to be sentenced. I believe the Court has a presentence report, and I wouldn't care to add anything to what appears in the report.

Mr. FINK. Your Honor, if the Court please, neither counsel nor Defendant has seen the probation report. However, previously we presented to the Court a written memorandum, and we feel in our hearts that the probation report will substantiate the allegations and the facts set forth in that as to the character of this Defendant and as to indicate his entire life has been spent not in his own service but in the service of others in the welfare field.

We certainly hope and pray that the probation report will give this Court an adequate basis for determining that the best interests of the community and justice would be served by putting this man on probation, and letting him continue to work for his community, for his people in our nation.

Thank you.

Mr. SAGER. May it please the Court, there is one further factor. I believe there is a letter included in the probation report from a Dr. Jones, who is president of the board of Washington Urban League. It is my understanding, if the Court should see fit in this case to grant probation to the Defendant, that he can return to his job there, but under other circumstances he would not be permitted to return to his job as Executive Director of the Washington Urban League.

The COURT. Mr. Tucker, do you have anything to say before sentence is pronounced?

The DEFENDANT. Sir, from the moment that this matter was brought to my attention, it has been brought to my attention that I done something that was evidently wrong, I have co-operated completely with the authorities, tax authorities. I have made available to them anything that I had, giving them access to whatever I could.

This has been a tremendous nightmarish experience now for three and a half years for myself and my family. I would hope that, I know that there is no possibility of my ever getting into any difficulty. I have learned a great deal from this.

And I would hope that it would be possible-my Board of Directors indicated to me that if it was necessary that I spent any time incarcerated, that they would be happy for me to return to my position and to my work in the community. Mr. FINK. I might add one thing, your Honor. The full tax and the full 50%

penalty, as the Court, I believe, knows, has been paid in full to the Government prior to this hearing.

The COURT. Mr. Tucker, this was not worthwhile, was it? I mean, all this trouble you have had?

The DEFENDANT. Oh, my, indeed not.

The COURT. It is just too bad that you did this, because it certainly didn't help you with your associates in that field.

The DEFENDANT. May I say one further thing, if I might? At that time I was Executive Director of the Canton, Ohio Urban League. I was getting ready—we were getting ready to start a membership campaign, I had a new staff person, I was in preparation for going to India for the Department of State. I just returned to town and received a notice to report, I tried to gather my records in the best manner that I could. All of this has been set forth.

I am sure that if this set of circumstances at that point had been entirely different, I would not have found myself in this situation. It has been a tremendously nightmarish ordeal.

The COURT. Well, of course, this tax evasion extended over a period of four years involving calendar years 1951, '52, '53 and '54. You weren't over in India all that time, were you?

The DEFENDANT. No, I was not, sir. I am not prepared to discuss, of course, the

case.

The COURT. Well, the amount involved here was small in relation to the amounts that are generally involved in these tax evasions. I think the total amount was around $1,600, and you paid that.

The DEFENDANT. Yes, I have.

The COURT. And that was paid before the proceedings started, was it?
The DEFENDANT. Yes.

Mr. FINK. With an $800 penalty in addition, your Honor.

The COURT. I appreciate, so far as you are concerned, and your position, the effect of imprisonment might have on your job. Of course, you should have taken that into account when you were making out your income tax returns.

It has been my practice in this type of case to impose at least some form of imprisonment, either 30 or 60 days in jail. But I notice in looking through your report here that you are afflicted with active tuberculosis?

The DEFENDANT. Yes, I am.

The COURT. So that if we sent you to jail you might infect the other prisoners, and it would be necessary to put you in a hospital. On that account only I have decided not to inflict any jail sentence.

It is the sentence of the Court that on Count No. 1 you be fined the amount of $500. On Counts Nos. 2, 3, and 4 that you be placed in the custody of the Attorney General for imprisonment for a period of one year, and I will suspend the execution of that sentence and place you on probation for a period of five years. The DEFENDANT. Thank you, your Honor.

Mr. FINK. Thank you very much, your Honor.

CERTIFICATE

I hereby certify that the above and foregoing is a true and correct transcript.

Mr. THORTON. Did you say may I do it?

ROBERT J. KITCHEN,
Official Court Reporter.

The CHAIRMAN. I have done it. It is now part of the record. You may continue.

Mr. THORNTON. Since we are putting documents into the record, I would also like to include the record of December 5, 1958, the part of the record proceedings by the judge at that time, during the sentencing. The CHAIRMAN. That is what I just put in the record.

Mr. THORNTON. There were two documents. There was one of the trial transcript.

The CHAIRMAN. There are two separate hearings. The first was a hearing where Mr. Tucker pleaded nolo contendere, and the second was the hearing where the judge actually sentenced him. They are two separate documents.

We would like to see yours. If there are any differences, we want to make certain they are in the record.

Senator PROUTY. I certainly am not going to object, but I would like an opportunity to see these documents.

Mr. THORNTON. I would also like to add to the record my written statement and testimony, and I am summarizing it now, because I have difficulties seeing under this kind of light setup that you have here.

It is the position of my organization, and it is also my own personal view as a resident of Washington for some 20 years, that Mr. Tucker's nomination to the City Council as Vice Chairman was a colossal mistake, and we cannot understand, since there has been no precedent or no other example, as we could find, in the history of the Nation's Capital, where the President of the United States has submitted a man's name to head a city and to legislate for its people, and to levy taxes on its people, who has been convicted of a felony, as Mr. Tucker has done.

And we are led to believe from what we hear from the various organizations in this community that the people will resist any tax legislation that will be proposed or voted upon by Mr. Tucker.

I may inform you now, if that sort of situation arises, and if my feelings remain as they are, I intend to participate.

I don't know how we would do it at this time, if you were to ask me what we would do, but I feel that this situation is one of the most unusual that I have seen.

If I would accept the theory that a man who has been convicted of refusing to pay his personal income taxes would be the best man to levy taxes on other people, then you would also have to ask me would I accept the theory that a man who has robbed several banks and gone to the penitentiary and a few years later was pardoned, would he make a good bank inspector; or a highwayman who would rob trains and was sentenced to the penitentiary, and he received a pardon, whether he would make the best railroad detective.

I subscribe to the fact that rehabilitation of prisoners sometimes takes effect, but I do not subscribe to the theory that because one has committed offenses over a consecutive 4-year period, and this shows a malicious intent to do it-this is not just a rare incident where a person makes a mistake in filing his income taxes, as is done by almost everyone. This is a deliberate-make no mistake about it-this is a deliberate and willful act, which I think the residents of the District of Columbia would have a right to resent, if he were in a position to tax them.

And I would be opposed to any type of legislation proposed by Mr. Tucker, and the taxes levied against me and my family in this city.

I would say to you, we can find no precedent to equal it, not even where a President has appointed a man with a record to serve over and legislate for the people of a city.

These are the reasons why I appear here today, and these are the reasons why we ask you to reject this nomination.

There is nothing personal in it. I have known Mr. Tucker for years. I know him on a personal basis.

I know that he does not represent the Negro community. I don't care whether the Post had a poll downtown, or whether the Star had a poll, and asked people.

Ask the Negro community and its organizational leaders and its other leaders whether Mr. Tucker is representative of the community.

Now, this is important, because I was one of the officers of the 47 community organizations that lobbied through Congress the President's Reorganization Plan No. 3 that set up the City Council and the Mayor. We raised the money and had 300 or 400 people going through the Senate and the House lobbying for that bill.

We happen to know, after working with the White House staff, that they drew up a chart to create a city council, a representative for every large bloc of people. For example, they wanted two women, one white woman and one black woman, they wanted one minister, and they wanted one labor leader, and they wanted one man who represented the youth, and they wanted several Negroes on there to represent the Negro organizations in the city.

So they created these slots, and this is the chart they are going by now. When one of these slots gets emptied, they go back and fill it with that type of individual.

Mr. Tucker I assume was selected on the same basis. He was selected to represent the Negro community, and he does not represent the Negro community.

Mr. Tucker has been employed by the Urban League. The Urban League is financed more than 60 percent by the business interests of Washington.

Mr. Tucker has been in trouble with the Negro organizations in the Negro community ever since he has been here, and he was asked to leave Canton, Ohio. I was there when all of this was going on, for the particular reason that he did not represent the Negro community. We think this selection was bad, and we would hope that the Senate would not force this selection on us.

It is now the responsibility of Mr. Nixon. I assume the people who did it did not research the question far enough, and I am sure the President does not have time to go into all of these details, and he has to rely on other individuals. Possibly if he had known all of these facts, he would not have submitted Mr. Tucker's name.

So we ask the Senate, we ask this committee, to reject this nomination and send it back to the White House for further consideration. The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Thornton.

Do you believe if a person is ever convicted of a felony, that regardless of his subsequent conduct, the fact that he receives a pardon, that he should be foreclosed from Federal employment, or an important position, because he was once convicted of a felony?

Mr. THORNTON. Would you repeat the last part of that?

The CHAIRMAN. Do you believe because a person was once convicted of a felony, regardless of his subsequent conduct, regardless of whether or not he receives a pardon, that he should be ever precluded from serving in a high government position, or industry, because of his conviction once?

Mr. THORNTON. Senator Tydings, my own personal view is that a man who has been convicted of a crime or felony should not be put in a position where he can legislate for the people of that same category.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Mr. Tucker's case involved an alleged overstating of deductions on his Federal income tax case. On the City Council, he would be required to legislate on real estate and property taxes.