Buckeye property is what is known as Tate's Hell. It is a swampland, much of it.

Mr. WIDNALL. I think Congressman Brock at a previous session brought out the fact that assessments differ in various sections of the country, and also various parts of the State. I know that up until very recently in New Jersey we had low assessments, 15- to 20-percent assessments, and very high tax rates. Now, we have to assess at 100 percent of value and the tax rates are very much lower. But the net amount is about the same--you still pay the same amount of taxes.

It doesn't seem to me that because there is a low assessment that that is essentially wrong-if it is being applied fairly, the same way to all property owners.

Mr. MALONEY. I concur, Mr. Widnall, that is quite true. However, I invite your attention to this one incident that happened only a month age, where 43 acres in the city of Port St. Joe was on the tax books, the valuation of $10 an acre, and it was Du Pont property, and three of the commissioners approved the purchase of that property for $84,000. There are various examples of inequities that indicates the control of the Du Pont empire in Florida, and particularly in our

area.

Mr. WIDNALL. Thank you, that is all.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Moorhead?

Mr. MOORHEAD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Commander, yesterday we had some testimony about a real estate transaction involving a Judge DeVane. Is there anything more you can tell us about that transaction-are you familiar with the real estate transaction?

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Moorhead, I am familiar with it. I have documented it for the committee. I had prepared a statement and marked it confidential. I am reluctant to testify-a man who is not here to defend himself. Judge DeVane is dead.

However, I have this statement-I am sure you have a copy of it. And the documents relative to the acquisition of the judge's property. Mr. MOORHEAD. I think the statement should at least be received by the committee, if not testified to publicly.

The CHAIRMAN. What is your preference on it? Do you want him to testify about it now, or insert it in the record?

I know you are reluctant to talk about it, Commander, you told me about it-since the man has passed away.

But in view of the fact that it connects up definitely with what the committee is considering, I think it would be with the understanding that you are reluctant to do it, and that it is unpleasant for you to do it, but as a public duty you consider it necessary. And I, therefore, suggest you make it a part of the record.

Mr. MALONEY. Do you suggest that I read the statement, Mr. Chairman?

The CHAIRMAN. Would you like to have it read?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Well, of course we will have the advantage of reading what is in the statement, Mr. Chairman. But does it leave the question unanswered in the minds of anyone who would be here visiting?

The CHAIRMAN. What is your preference?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I would leave it to the judgment of the gentleman. He knows he is under oath. The statement, whether it is read or not, will be his statement.

The CHAIRMAN. It will be available for the committee members. Mrs. SULLIVAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that all right, Mr. Moorhead?

Mr. MOORHEAD. Certainly, Mr. Chairman. I have not seen the statement before this minute.

I think in case of doubt, it may be better to have it merely received for the record.

Mr. TALCOTT. Mr. Chairman-I just wonder if the statement this gentleman proposes to make is a statement that he had made previous to the judge's death. I think it would be entirely appropriate for him to reiterate any statement that he had made prior to the judge's death, because then the judge would have been able to respond-it would have been appropriate for him to respond. However, if this is a statement made after the judge's death, the witness now may have some reluctance to restate it here.

The CHAIRMAN. I don't know of any rule of law or any policy that would preclude it or require it.

Mr. TALCOTT. We are not talking about a rule of law, I think, here. Any evidence seems to be perfectly permissible here. We don't go by rules of law in this committee. We do every thing and anything we want to here. Remember you once told me we could march a bull elephant through the room with unanimous consent.

But it is a matter of the gentleman's preference-sort of a standard of ethics-that he is presenting, it seems to me. He doesn't want to testify about a gentleman who is dead and unable to respond or defend. I think it is a perfectly

The CHAIRMAN. Would it be all right to insert it in the record? Mr. TALCOTT. I would like to ask the gentleman if he wants to do that.

The CHAIRMAN. Would it be satisfactory to do that? Were these facts clearly known before the man passed away?

Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Talcott, I did not know Judge DeVane. I did not know him. This information was obtained after his death.

Mr. TALCOTT. Well, then, I think we should decide whether the witness wants to submit the statement because it might be highly improper for him to reiterate under oath any statement that was made after the death of the judge.

The CHAIRMAN. Since the gentleman is under oath at his request, we could just accept it for what it is worth.

Mr. TALCOTT. I think he should understand that what he is stating here is still under oath.

The CHAIRMAN. That is right. He understands that.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman-would the gentleman yield? In glancing through--I haven't read the whole statement-but I think this only backs up the questions that I put to Mr. Ball yesterday, because it brings out the dates, it brings out the things that I was trying to bring out through the questions that I did put to Mr. Ball. I think this is just a rounded answer to those questions, as I see this now.

Mr. TALCOTT. Well, I would like to suggest here that this brings out nothing. This is only a statement of this gentleman here. There is no proof here at all.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Only that the gentleman about whom we were speaking, Mr. Ball, was invited to sit in this morning, to be here. Mr. TALCOTT. He had no idea

Mrs. SULLIVAN. I understand he is submitting supporting documents for the record, also.

Now, he could be here to defend himself if he wished. he knew this gentleman was coming to testify under oath.

Because

Mr. TALCOTT. Did Mr. Ball know this witness was going to be

under oath?

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Yes; he did know that.

Mr. TALCOTT. I have no idea what is in the document. I am just trying to get a record here that is correct and proper. Statements that are made about persons after their death are statements I would not like to make myself. But I think we should ask the witness right now if he wants this done. He should have the option of whether he makes this statement under oath or not.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. He wants it made a part of the record, I am certain. Mr. MALONEY. Mr. Talcott, I don't believe you were at your chair when I read this. I have an affidavit here notarized, completely documenting this entire case, with the exhibits, the whole situation.

Mr. TALCOTT. Please don't take any more time because of me. I am only trying to make very clear to you that you are making a statement that is under oath, by the submission of this document, whether you read it or not.

Mr. MALONEY. I understand that, sir.

Mr. TALCOTT. You want it to be part of the record under oath.
Mr. MALONEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. It will be received.

Mrs. SULLIVAN. Mr. Chairman, if it is going to be made part of the public record, even though this is marked confidential, there is no reason that the newspapers could not have it, is there, because the hearing will be made public?

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, that is up to the committee.

Mr. TALCOTT. No, it is not up to the committee, Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest it is not up to the committee, because I believe I am under no compulsion to keep it a secret.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

(The document referred to follows:)

THE BALL-DU PONT INTERESTS, A FEDERAL JUDGE AND A $50,000 PURCHASE

Strong evidence exists that the Ball-Du Pont interests in Florida, through a series of transactions, bought the home of U.S. District Judge Dozier A. DeVane of Tallahassee, Fla., for an inflated price-after Judge DeVane had dismissed a $30 million damage suit against the Ball-Du Pont interests and while an appeal asking a new trial of this suit (later granted) was still pending. It appears that Mr. Edward Ball was personally aware of these transactions. Judge DeVane received $50,000 for his home property, at a time when its appraised market value was about $30,000.

The $30 million damage suit was a civil action under the Sherman Act brought by the R. E. Crummer interests against the Ball-Du Pont interests. Crummer, a prominent financier, charged an illegal conspiracy by Ball-Du Pont in the 1940's to drive Crummer out of the business of underwriting and dealing in Florida

municipal bonds. Crummer charged this was part of a much broader Ball-Du Pont conspiracy to monopolize the economy of Florida.

The Crummer suit was filed in U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, on December 19, 1949. It was transferred to the northern district-to Judge DeVane's court in Tallahassee-on June 13, 1950. The suit's title was The Crummer Company and One Other v. Jessie Ball Du Pont, et al. Among the many defendants were the Du Pont Estate trustees, including Edward Ball, and the St. Joe Paper Co., 75 percent owned by the Du Pont Estate.

On January 14, 1957, this suit finally came to trial before Judge De Vane in Tallahassee. On February 8, 1957, after the case had gone to the jury for judgment, Judge De Vane took the case back from the jury and said he would enter a directed verdict of acquittal for the defendant Ball-Du Pont interests. The plaintiffs' attorney, Francis P. Whitehair, vigorously protested. At that time, according to the recollection of some of the jury members, the jury stood 10 to 2 in favor of the plaintiffs. Judge De Vane on February 13, 1957, entered a memorandum decision directing acquittal of the defendants. On March 7, 1957, the plaintiffs filed notice of appeal, asking for a new jury trial.

At that time Judge and Mrs. DeVane lived on a property of about 381⁄2 acres, some 4 miles east of the center of Tallahassee on the Old St. Augustine Road. According to a Tallahassee real estate appraiser, John H. Neeley, who inspected the DeVane homestead in October of 1957, it was a relatively modest frame house with one bathroom, surrounded by 2 acres of beautifully landscaped grounds. Neeley has appraised the market value of the DeVane home property, including the land, at about $30,250 as of April 1, 1958 (exhibit 2).

The DeVane home property is adjacent to Southwood Farm, a property of nearly 9,000 acres owned by St. Joe Paper Co. Edward Ball uses the mansion house on Southwood Farm as his home, and when Ball calls himself a "farmer" that is what he means.

On October 4, 1957, Judge and Mrs. De Vane entered into an agreement of sale with H. G. Conrad to sell him their home property for $50,000. Conrad was and is the superintendent of Southwood Farm. A witness to the agreement was R. C. Brent, Jr., a vice president of St. Joe Paper Co., in charge of its Woodlands Division (exhibit 1). On October 5, 1957, Conrad assigned this agreement of sale to St. Joe Paper Co. (exhibit 3).

However, St. Joe Paper Co. did not directly buy Judge DeVane's home property from him. Instead, there occurred a series of transactions aimed at obscuring from public knowledge the true buyer and the true price.

On April 14, 1958, Judge DeVane and his wife executed a deed to their home property transferring it to B. J. Carter, Jr., and his wife. Carter was president of Merchants & Farmers Bank of Meridian, Miss. Federal documentary stamps affixed to this deed at the time a copy was filed in the Leon County courthouse at Tallahassee, indicated a sales price of $30,000 (exhibit 4). Reflecting this, the local newspaper, the Tallahassee Democrat, reported on April 20, 1958 "a $30,000 sale of land south of the Perry Highway by Judge Dozier A. DeVane to B. J. Carter, Jr." (exhibit 7).

A far different story, however, is revealed by the closing letter and statement written on April 16, 1958, by Tallahassee attorney John H. Cotten, who had handled the settlement (exhibits 5 and 6). Cotten addressed this letter to R. C. Brent, Jr., of St. Joe Paper Co. He enclosed the actual deed, noting that "the additional documentary stamps on $20,000 are affixed to the second page of the enclosed warranty deed." Cotten's statement also noted the "purchase price" as being $50,000. His letter to Brent concluded: "We assure you and Mr. Carter that it was a pleasure to handle this transaction, and we thank you for referring same to us for handling."

Thus Judge DeVane's property was sold for $50,000, not $30,000. As for Carter's role, other evidence shows plainly that he acted in the interest of St. Joe Paper Co. in this transaction. This evidence consists of five main things:

1. On April 7, 1958, from his bank in Meridian, Miss., Carter wrote to Brent (addressed as "Dear Bob") to say: "I am enclosing my check in payment of Judge DeVane's house and lot. When you get the papers drawn, send them to me and I shall be glad to execute them" (exhibit 9).

2. On April 7, 1958, according to a later memo by Brent, "Mr. B. J. Carter of Meridian, Miss., drew a draft on St. Joe Paper Co. from the Florida National Bank of Jacksonville in the amount of $50,000. This sum was used to purchase certain property in Leon County owned by Dozier A. DeVane and wife" (exhibit 8). The bank named here is the leading member of the Du Pont bank group. 3. On April 14, 1958, the date Judge and Mrs. DeVane executed the deed of sale of their property, Brent wrote to the DeVanes, saying: "It is my under

standing that Mr. Carter agreed to let you use the house and grounds in the yard free of charge through June 30, 1959, and thereafter you could rent the house at a rate of not more than $50 per month for the balance of your natural lives. It is anticipated that St. Joe Paper Co. will exchange deeds with Mr. Carter sometime in the future, and in case this transaction is concluded this company will possibly come into ownership of the house and yards. In such case, you may rest assured that St. Joe Paper Co. will honor the agreement between you and Mr. Carter in every respect" (exhibit 9-a).

4. On April 16, 1958, settlement attorney John H. Cotten sent to Carter a bill for $350 for services rendered in this transaction. Instead of Carter paying this bill, Brent instructed S. D. Stoneburner, treasurer of St. Joe Paper Co., to draw a company check to Carter for $350, which Brent then forwarded to Carter "to reimburse you for a check in a similar amount which I would appreciate your forwarding to Cotten & Shivers." Carter then did this (exhibits 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15).

5. On April 14, 1958, Carter from his bank in Meridian, sent Brent a letter saying, "Dear Bob: I am enclosing deed signed by my wife and self" (exhibit 15–A). What was this deed? Clearly, it must have been a deed transferring the De Vane property from the Carters to St. Joe Paper Co. But that deed was not entered in the public record for more than a year. As of April 1958 the Crummer $30 million antitrust suit was still in the courts-it might be sent back to Tallahassee for a new trial.

On December 3, 1958, the U.S. Court of Appeals finally rendered its decision in the Crummer appeal. It reversed Judge De Vane's directed verdict of acquittal and sent the case back to district court in Tallahassee for trial by jury.

By then, howeve, Judge De Vane had retired (he later died, on December 15, 1963). The second trial of the Crummer suit began March 16, 1959, before Judge DeVane's successor in Tallahassee, District Judge J. Harrold Carswell. On April 22, 1959, the jury found for the Ball-Du Pont defendants. No notice of appeal was filed. Crummer finally gave up his fight.

A few months thereafter, on July 21, 1959, a quitclaim deed executed by B. J. Carter, Jr., and his wife, transferring the former De Vane property to St. Joe Paper Co., was recorded in the county courthouse at Tallahassee (exhibit 15-B). The copy of this quitclain deed, as recorded, showed no sign of any Federal documentary_stamps. The date of execution of the deed is given as "18th day of July, A.D. 1959"--but this month and year are typed over, and slightly below, an earlier erased month and year. Carter, in sending Brent the deed on April 14, 1958, had evidently left the day open but typed in "April, A.D. 1958."

As for Edward Ball's personal knowledge of these transactions, the following exchange of correspondence seems significant: On August 12, 1959, Ball wrote to Brent: "On your Report of Woodlands Purchases, August 1, the second itemLeon County, 38.55 acres, cost-$50,000, I am certain that I should recognize this, but I do not; so won't you give me a little more information as to where these 381⁄2 acres are located" (exhibit 16).

On August 17, 1959, Brent replied to Ball: "Reference is made to your letter of August 12, concerning the Woodlands Purchases Report showing land in Leon County for which we paid $50,000. I believe you will recognize this item under the name of Mr. B. J. Carter and located on the Old St. Augustine Road" (exhibit 17).

During the period under consideration Ball was chairman of the executive committee of St. Joe Paper Co., as well as being dominant trustee of the Du Pont Estate.

A further memo from Brent, dated August 4, 1962, refers to the $50 a month rent being collected by St. Joe Paper Co. on the DeVane homestead and states that henceforth this rent will not be collected (exhibit 18).

[From the Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel, Feb. 9, 1957]

CRUMMER TO APPEAL VERDICT

JUDGE DEVANE FAVORS DU PONT

(By Henry Balch)

Roy E. Crummer will appeal Judge Dozier B. DeVane's directed verdict against him in favor of the Du Pont-Ball interests, he told the Sentinel here last night.

"We certainly will take as speedy appeal as possible," he said.