I was employed by Mr. Fanning, the mayor of the city. I had no obligations to the du Pont estate. They did own some bonds, a small quantity, a very small quantity. The Pape case, Mr. Pape lived in Cincinnati, the Pape Chemical Co. Du Pont. had no interest in that at all; neither did any of their banks. That's three cases. The Avon Park case. I represented the American Life Insurance Co. Mr. Lumpkin was the chairman of the board and a personal friend of mine, and I represented him in all litigation in Floridaquite numerous during the period of years. The Winter Haven case, I was employed by the city. I don't think du Pont had any bonds in there that I recall. I don't know. The first case I represented them in was a suit against Sumter County. Mr. Crummer was trying to refund Sumter County and, of course, he tried to stop us. But that-in that case, I represented I think it was the du Pont-Ball Co. That's been about 12 years or more ago. I don't recall any other cases of any importance, Mr. Sourwine. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Patterson, did you draft a statute for Mr. Crummer back around 1929? Mr. PATTERSON. I drafted an act creating a board of administration and providing for the distribution of gasoline tax; yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. Was there quite a political fight over the enactment of that? Mr. PATTERSON. There was. Mr. SOURWINE. What was the chief opposition to the enactment of that? Mr. PATTERSON. I don't know that I can tell you. I had no part in it. Mr. SOURWINE. Weren't you in any way active in trying to secure an enactment of that? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir. That was the condition of my employment-that I should have nothing to do with the passage of the act. I stated that at the last hearing. I was only in Tallahassee once during the entire session of the legislature. I went there at Mr. Crummer's request because they were in a hurry to make some changes in the act, and I went over to his office. I went over to the capitol to get a stenographer, I remember. That's the only time I was in the capitol. I didn't even go to Tallahassee. I don't take part in any political controversies. Mr. SOURWINE. Weren't you sufficiently interested in that statute which you had drafted to note who was opposing it or favoring it? Mr. PATTERSON. Oh, I know it in a general way, the story of the controversy. Mr. SOURWINE. Who was in favor of that? Mr. PATTERSON. Mr. Crummer and his associates. Mr. Crummer came to Florida personally, as I recall, for the first time, to promote the passage of this act. Mr. SOURWINE. Who was opposing the act? Mr. PATTERSON. Well, I don't know who was opposing it to start with. Mr. Crummer went all over the State and built up a demand for it, you might say, to help these counties out, using the Arkansas statute as a copy. They had put a similar statute through in Arkansas. They had a man named Roy Johnson here who did the work, and they came to my office and asked me to draft a statute. I know how they happened to come there, and they agreed to pay for it, and my agreement with them was that I would try to draft it, which I did. That's all I had to do with it. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall anyone who did oppose the enactment of that statute? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes. You mean in the legislature? Mr. PATTERSON. Well, I don't know, Mr. Sourwine, who all did. Mr.-they got into a political fight between two groups and they deadlocked. The Governor was supporting the act-Governor Carltonand they had three sessions of the legislature-two extra sessions called-and they passed the last act the last night, and set the clock back an hour or two before they passed it. That's how bitter the fight was. Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Bell and his interests oppose the enactment of the act at that time? Mr. PATTERSON. I couldn't say that they did. I don't know. I didn't take any part in it. I had no contact with Mr. Ball at that time. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall testifying at our previous hearing concerning the Orange and Polk County cases? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir. I was in that case. I helped to argue the Orange case-Orange County case-in the supreme court on behalf of the board of administration, my first employment by the board of administration. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you represent the board in the Polk County case, too? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir. The Polk County case was not argued. It happened to involve the same questions. But it went up on briefs. The State attorney represented the State in the validation proceedings, which was the statutory requirement. Mr. SOURWINE. Who purchased the refunding bonds in those two cases? Mr. PATTERSON. I don't know. Oh, yes; I do know in the Orange County case; I don't know about the Polk County case. In the Orange County case, Leedy-Wheeler bought the bonds. They had a contract which was made with the county commissioners prior to January 1, 1943, when the amendment went into effect, and the proceedings to validate had been completed in the lower court before that went into effect. The case went to the supreme court, as a lot of cases do-not over that contract to purchase; that wasn't involved. It was purely a question of construction of the constitutional amendment as to what it meant, and I participated in there on behalf of the board of administration. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall who represented Leedy-Wheeler & Co. ? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes, sir; Mr. Millard Walton of Miami; yes, sir. Mr. SOURWINE. Were your interests in that case—that is, the interests of the board-and the Leedy-Wheeler interests coinciding? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir; they were absolutely in contrast. Mr. SOURWINE. You were opposing the validation? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes. If the Leedy-Wheeler contention would have been sustained, it would have destroyed the full effect of the amendment. He was contending that the State board of administration had no power, in any refunding bonds issued by it, to pledge the ad valorem tax of the county, which would have left the board with nothing but revenue bonds to issue, and would have destroyed the Governor's entire program which he had set up when he first went in office. Mr. SOURWINE. You were successful in establishing your theory? Mr. PATTERSON. Yes; the court sustained me in my contention. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you know whether Mr. Ball financed the LeedyWheeler transactions in either the Orange or Polk Counties? Mr. PATTERSON. I know nothing about Mr. Ball's financial transactions. I never dealt in bonds, and I have nothing to do with financing. Mr. SOURWINE. Did you have any connection in any of the work you performed or did for the Governor's committee during 1942 and up through 1944? Did you receive any compensation for that work? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir. I never did any work for them that I know of, and I know I never received any compensation. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall on any occasion ever discussing with Mr. Ball the fact that you were assisting in any way with the Governor's committee or Post Office Department investigation? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir; I did not. I didn't assist them, as I understand that. I extended to them the courtesies that any citizen would give to the Federal Government who requested information. That's all I did. I gave them courteous answers to any questions which I was authorized to answer. When they asked me for private filesthe Securities Commission man did-I told him before I did anything I would have to consult with my client. I took the same position with Mr. Mansfield. Now, when it came to court records which are public records and merely a matter of getting them from me or going to the courthouse. I see no harm in giving records or answering any reasonable questions with reference to it. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall a file of letters to and from Mr. Fanning, which you were asked for and which you consulted Mr. Fanning about and asked permission to do so, and turned it over to the investigator? Mr. PATTERSON. I have no doubt I did. I know I did ask Mr. Fanning about that. If I did-if I got his consent-I did. I don't say I didn't. I don't know. Mr. SOURWINE. Did Mr. Mansfield on any occasion or occasions come to you with legal questions that he sought your advice on? Mr. PATTERSON. I wouldn't say he sought my advice on. He might have come up and asked me a lot of legal questions. A lot of people do that, but I never gave them my legal opinions. Because that was up to the Government to furnish him with legal advice. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you recall in response to a request by him, or otherwise, giving him orally any citations or references to legal texts? Mr. PATTERSON. I am sure I never gave him any reference to any legal texts. If he asked me where a case was found, I might have given him the reference; or if he asked me about a case I would have answered his questions. Mr. SOURWINE. If he had asked you for a case or cases in point on a certain Mr. PATTERSON. Oh, no, sir; he didn't do that. Mr. SOURWINE. He never did that? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir. Let me make it plain. Mr. Mansfield never used me in connection with any investigation as a legal adviser-that is, I never considered it as such and never undertook to serve as such. If he came and asked me questions, why, that was legitimate; yes, I answered them as a matter of courtesy, not as a matter of any interest in anything he was doing. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Patterson, did you have a sufficient contact with Mr. Mansfield over a sufficient period of time to form an opinion as to his capacity in a legal way? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir; I don't think he is much of a lawyer, if you want to know what I think. He was too much of a layman to be a lawyer. He evidently had long experience in the post-office investigation work, and I don't mean to say he wasn't a capable post-office inspector. I don't mean any reflection on Mr. Mansfield. But as a lawyer, I don't think he had any knowledge of law sufficient to-well, to form intelligent legal opinions on any general questions. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you think Mr. Mansfield is competent to draft an indictment? Mr. PATTERSON. Well, I don't know about that. I never saw any of the drafts. I never saw him try to do any work. Mr. SOURWINE. Do you think he is competent in trying to draft a memorandum of points and authorities? Mr. PATTERSON. Well, anybody can prepare one of those. As to whether it is any good when they are prepared, that's another question. He can get books and pick out cases; whether they'd be in point or not, that's another thing. I doubt my own ability to do that after I lose a case in court. Mr. SOURWINE. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions of this witness. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything the witness would like to say? Do you want to volunteer any statment for the record? Mr. PATTERSON. I think I have probably taken advantage of the committee. I think this: That the resolution under which this committee is proceeding doesn't seem to me to fit in exactly with the questions that have been asked the witness. Apparently, the testimony that has been sought, so far as I am concerned, is an effort to show that I had some ulterior motives in prosecuting or persecuting Mr. Crummer, and I have sought in my testimony to explain my personal position and my professional position. I have some correspondence from Mr. Crummer as late as, I think, 1932 or 1933, which would clearly negative anything of that kind. After that, the situation began to deteriorate because, having severed my connection with him, I reserved the right which every lawyer has, to bring litigation which is legitimate, and Mr. Crummer seemed to feel that if I brought litigation which was against his interest, of his bonds or his clients' bonds, that I was inconsistent with the position which I had previously occupied, of representing bondholders. He and I disagreed about that, and for that reason he has drawn a number of assumptions which are unjustified and which I can see are involved in a lot of questions asked. So far as Mr. Mansfield is concerned, Mr. Mansfield came to my office as a representative of the Federal Government. He asked me questions about things. I didn't seek Mr. Mansfield in the beginning, nor ever. I don't recall ever having called him of my own free will. Whatever I may have said to Mr. Mansfield about anything was no more than I would have said to any officer of the Government seek ing information. And I want to say this: In making these statements, I don't want to imply that I don't have any personal opinion about a lot of things that have happened in the handling of Florida municipal bonds. Mr. Crummer came into this State and did a firstclass job in setting up the board of administration and in providing for payment of these bonds out of this gas tax. The way that thing was handled-I am not going into details was most unfortunate. It became a football, and so when the board of administration was set up in the constitution under Governor Holland, and he asked me to help him work it out, I was more than glad to do it because I wanted to see the thing done right. If you will compare the handling of the gasoline tax and what was accomplished under the 1929 act from 1929 to 1943 with what has been accomplished between 1943 to date, you will see an entirely different picture. The gasoline tax did not accomplish fully the purposes which it was intended to accomplish, and did not solve the financial problems of the counties under the former act. If I wasn't under oath, I can go into some detail and explain that. Since 1943, the credit of the counties in this State has been fully reestablished; their debt has been rapidly reduced; the rates of interest have been way reduced, all of which were possible under the former act, but it didn't occur. I think the State of Florida has benefited tremendously from the gasoline act, all told. Now, as to these particular transactions with the various counties: Of course, there are differences of opinion about a lot of things that happened. I think that there are things that can be said by way of criticism of lots of people besides Mr. Crummer, but I think that Mr. Crummer's handling of some of these situations-take the Avon Park case, where the supreme court condemned his handling of that transaction so strongly; where he undertook to represent three different interests, Judge Douglas, where I reversed the court of appeals for approving it-things of that kind have gone on all over the State, more or less. But so far as I am concerned, my participation has been purely professional and I think that the committee shouldn't reach the conclusion either that Mr. Crummer is a saint, or that everybody is a devil, or vice versa, because it is all a matter of business transactions. Everybody was trying to work for their own interests. Whether I approved of what he did or didn't do is not material here, but I say this in order to try to show the committee that a lot of these things that you ask about are not very material to this investigation. The CHAIRMAN. Is there anything else? Mr. PATTERSON. No, sir; that's all. (Thereupon the committee was recessed until 2 p. m.) AFTER RECESS (The hearing before the committee was reconvened at 2 FURTHER TESTIMONY OF CLYDE C. PIERCE The CHAIRMAN. Are you ready to proceed? Mr. SOURWINE. Yes, sir. (The witness was first duly sworn.) |