« AnteriorContinuar »
They do not appear, therefore, to have come from different books or from different places in the books. Am I correctly interpreting the testimony?
Mr. SHANEYFELT. That is correct.
Mr. Moss. Therefore, the alleged use of checks out of sequence up to, I think, to quote you correctly, up to eight or 10 times in each book, could not and did not occur.
Mr. GARSON. Well, sir, I—
Mr. Moss. Unless you developed a phenomena that is, again, unique only to you and to no one else.
Nr. Garson. I did not say that the checks that I had written which I carried in my billfold were written during this period. I am not certain, I can't recall. Frankly there are many, many
Mr. Moss. Mr. Garson, believe me, sir, if we want to go back and check this record, this verbatim transcript, I can show you where you said precisely what you just now said you did not say.
Mr. Garson. There are many questions
Mr. MACDONALD. In any event, what is your best recollection at this point ?
Mr. GARSON. My best recollection is that the checks were issued, the check stubs contained the information that I would normally make based upon the check that was issued, and I can't explain any of the discrepancies.
Mr. MacDONALD. Thank you.
Mr. MANELLI. Just one more. The question is not that there is no question that the stubs do contain information which corresponds to the check. What I suggested to you in my previous question was that you had gone back and rewritten the four check stub books, which of necessity would have to be rewritten to have inserted a stub to correspond to the November 18 check, which you testified you had made out for the association.
There is no dispute that the amount on the stubs matched the checks, and I asked, and I did not get an answer to it, did you go back and systematically rewrite four checkbook stubs and return those among the materials you sent to the subcommittee under subpena?
Mr. Garsox. Well, frankly, I can't, I can't explain the differences between the checkbooks and the checks or the check stubs. I only want to say that with respect then to the November 18 check, Mr. Genovese has in his statement, indicated precisely what I have testified to.
Mr. Rogers. You did not answer the question as to whether you reconstituted those.
Mr. Garson. I did not.
Mr. Chairman, I think the evidence is so in conflict here that I personally would hope that the committee will recommend to the Justice Department that this be investigated for perjury.
Mr. MACDONALD. That is a decision we will reach in executive session.
Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, I would like to strongly urge that this hearing record today be brought promptly to the attention of the Interstate Commerce Commission for its immediate consideration and action.
I think that this raises a serious doubt as to the credibility and the integrity of the witness who occupies a most important position as secretary of the Commission, and until that matter is resolved, and I am not now prepared to say how it should be resolved, that he should be suspended from acting in that capacity.
Mr. MACDONALD. That is the opinion of the gentleman from California. We will go into executive session about this matter. However, I do think, perhaps, that counsel and staff have given me your duties at the ICC, but if they have I have mislaid them or have not seen them.
Mr. Garson. I would like to explain
Mr. MACDONALD. As I understand, you are in a very sensitive position down there.
Mr. GARSON. No; I am not.
I don't have a sensitive position, far from it. I don't make any decisions for the Commission. I do not write any reports for the Commission. All I say I simply do is monitor the material that comes into the Commission to see to it that it goes to the right places and when the orders are issued, I say
Mr. MACDONALD. When you say “right places" that is a sort of an awkward phrase because if you can channel those things to the right places
Mr. GARSON. I don't channel them in that sense. We have established procedures. If a pleading comes in involving let us say, motor carriers, it is automatically sent through the staff of the secretary's office to the area where it is going to be handled.
If somebody has a question as to who is supposed to handle a particular matter, I am asked about it, and I say, "Well this is a matter for the Bureau of Contracts, or the Bureau of Economics."
Mr. Moss. I would like to explain the term “sensitive,” because I used it advisedly.
Mr. Garson. I want to say this, that I cannot give anything to anybody. If anybody wanted something from me, the most I can give them is an extra copy of a decision or an order. That is all.
Mr. MACDONALD. Can you give them an early copy?
Mr. Moss. Isn't it true that you have the knowledge of the Commission's decisions normally about 10 days before they are publicly made available?
Mr. Garson. No, sir.
Mr. Moss. You have no advance knowledge of what the Commission has decided, no role in preparing for distribution to the interested parties the decisions of the Commission? Mr. GJRSON. It does not come to my
office. Mr. Moss. Do you have jurisdiction over this? Mr. Garson. There is jurisdictionMr. Moss. Do you have jurisdiction as secretary of the Commission? Mr. Garson. As secretary of the Commission, in some instances, yes. .
Mr. Moss. You do have jurisdiction. Isn't that the truth? Mr. GARSON. Mr. Moss, there are many decisions of the Commission which the Commissioners
Mr. Moss. You do have jurisdiction over the preparation and issuance
Mr. MACDONALD. I don't mean to interrupt, but let him answer.
Mr. Moss. He is not answering. I gave him every chance. He is evad-
Mr. GARSON. This is a matter of fact. There are many matters that go directly to the printshop without even coming to me, and I have no knowledge about their issuance until the very day and hour that they are issued.
Mr. Moss. They are under your jurisdiction.
The Commissioners act separately in these instances, and they will deal directly. The only time I see
Mr. MACDONALD. If I could interject, they reach their own decisions, of course, but they have to have a consensus. Do you have the first whack as to how the consensus is going?
Mr. Garson. No.
Mr. Garson. The Commissioners will deal directly with the printshop, and then on the day that it is issued, it is brought upstairs and issued through my office, and many times I do not
Mr. MACDONALD. You don't see what goes to the printshop?
Mr. Garson. I do not see what goes into the printshop. Many times I do not see it; there are some instances
Mr. MACDONALD. You say many times, but are there occasions that
Mr. GARSON. Yes.
Mr. MACDONALD. I would think the secretary, any secretary, sort of compiles things.
Mr. Garson. There are many occasions when I don't see any of these.
Mr. MACDONALD. But you say many occasions, let's not
Mr. MACDONALD. Well, do you have, as Mr. Moss says, and he is madder than I an
Mr. Moss. I am not mad, not mad at all.
Mr. MacDONALD. Why don't you say yes, you have the jurisdiction, but sometimes you don't. That is the fact.
Mr. Moss. He can certainly certify as to whether a timely filing has been made.
Mr. MACDONALD. I want him to answer my questions, and then I will yield to you.
Mr. Garson. The answer is yes, I do have jurisdiction, but-
Mr. Moss. You don't have to, sir. I have been on this committee for many years, and I investigated ICC 10 years ago.
Mr. MACDONALD. You have jurisdiction over that subject matter, so, therefore, you do have access to information that other people
in the ICC don't have, and, therefore, you are, in my judgment, in a sensitive position.
Mr. GARSON. The answer is "Yes,” but I would like to explain that there are other people who also have the same information, and many times, and I would like to reemphasize it, there are many times when we—when important cases, for example, like the merger cases, are handled directly from a Commissioner's office with the printshop, and I don't even see—they are handled directly from the Commissioner's office with the printshop, and I don't even see this.
Mr. MACDONALD. In an average case, you do?
Mr. Garson. We issue— let me say this: from my office there are issued directly approximately 350 to 500 cases a day, and from the release room, there are about 10,000 or 15,000 separate pieces of paper issued a day.
It would be impossible for me to see all of these, or even a small part of them.
Mr. VAN DEERLIN. The question is, not whether he does see everything before it goes to the printshop, but whether he could see everything before it went to the printshop, or anything?
Mr. GARSON. The answer is “No." There are two printshops at the Commission. One is under the jurisdiction of the Managing Director, and the other one, the smaller one, issues very short orders, which is directly under my jurisdiction.
When it goes into the big printshop, very often I don't know what is sent down there, because
Mr. MACDONALD. But you see it when it comes back in advance of everyone else; don't you?
Mr. GARSON. Yes; I do see it to the extent that it comes through my office and I have jurisdiction to see it. Mr. MacDONALD. Yes; right. Are there any further questions?
Mr. Moss. Just, also, that he can stamp and certify that there has been a timely filing, which sometimes is advantageous, also.
Mr. Garson. Yes and I am the certifying officer of the commission. Mr. MACDONALD. Are there any other questions?
We thank you very much. Do you have anything further you want to say?
Mr. Garson. I have not had an opportunity to submit my statement.
Mr. Moss. No, sir. There is a reservation made that until I have a chance to review your statement and if you release it, it has not been given.
Mr. Garson. The statement was given to the committee prior to July 9th.
Mr. MACDONALD. I remember.
You can come back and give your statement in public at the call of the Chair, and I am not the Chair.
Mr. Garson. I am scheduled to go on annual leave next week.
Mr. MACDONALD. Well which is more important to you, annual leave or your job?
Mr. Garson. Well, sir, both are very much important to me. Of course my job is important to me.
Mr. MACDONALD. We will be very fair and let you—I can't speak for the Chairman of the full committee, because obviously I am not the chairman of this subcommittee either.
You will have an opportunity to present it in public. This is no effort on the part of the subcommittee to silence you.
I suppose Congressman Moss is 100 percent correct in saying that you can't release your statement because he made the reservation at the time that you offered it before the committee.
Mr. GARSON. Am I assured
Mr. MACDONALD. I don't know any law in the land, however, that takes away the first amendment from you, and I would think that the testimony you were about to give to the committee, if anyone wants to print it, they can.
My opinion which is gratuitous, and all gratuitous things are more so than the word indicates, I would say come back and testify before the committee.
Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, I want to indicate that I fully concur. My reason for reserving my rights at this point is because I may want to examine you rather carefully on your statement, and I don't want it in the record without my opportunity to examine you on the statement.
Mr. GARSON. Mr. Macdonald, may I request one favor of this committee?
The last time, I had to make a special request to Mr. Lishman for a copy of the transcript. I have not seen a copy of the transcript of the executive session and I request an opportunity to see it.
Mr. MACDONALD. We have not had an executive session.
Mr. MACDONALD. And we haven't had that meeting.
Mr. MACDONALD. I see no reason why not. The counsel can answer more directly than I. As far as I am concerned, yes.
Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman, I move-
Mr. MACDONALD. You don't need to go into that. We all heard you.