Ask the Scholar
Document scope · 1 page
Scholar
Ask about this object, its catalog metadata, its source description, or the page inventory.
For page-specific OCR and visual context, open one of the page chats.
Source Description
This file contains:
Memo from Charles E. Stuart to Lucy Winchester RE: Wedding thank you notes for William H. Lewis, Jr. and Vern Barry. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/31/1969
Handwritten note by unknown author RE: arrangements for cars and buses. 2 pgs. [Other Document], N.D.
Letter from William H. Lewis, Jr. of Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. to Charles Stuart RE: Photos of coaches for the Nixon wedding. 1 pg. [Letter], 12/5/1968
Copy of letter from John Ehrlichman to Frank Shakespeare RE: Request to locate a short film made by one of the television networks covering Julie Nixon's wedding. 1 pg. [Letter], 1/10/1969
Memo from RN to John Ehrlichman RE: Request for copy of film, possibly made by CBS, of Julie Nixon's wedding. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/7/1969
Handwritten notes from the desk of John Ehrlichman RE: Seating at unspecified event involving LBJ and the outgoing cabinet, Agnew, and RN. 3 pgs. [Other Document], N.D.
Receipt for John Ehrlichman from the Royal Coach Inns, Ltd. 1 pg. [Other Document], 7/11/1968
Handwritten note from Lou Nichols to John Ehrlichman RE: John Reagan. 1 pg. [Other Document], 8/17/1968
Handwritten note from Lou Nichols to John Ehrlichman RE: The rate for the Machenhut people in L.A. 1 pg. [Other Document], 8/17/1968
Copy of memo from Bob Haldeman to Dwight Chapin, cc John Ehrlichman, RE: RN not attending any cocktail parties after the end of formal affairs. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/15/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman, cc Dwight Chapin, RE: Bill Rogers informing Haldeman that it is customary for the new President to hold a reception for the entire corps of ambassadors and their wives and suggested dates. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/15S
Memo from Charles E. Stuart to John D. Ehrlichman RE: The Presidential Medal of Freedom. 2 pgs. [Memo], 1/16/1969
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: Governmental departments in New York and Williamsburg. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Phone message from Mildred Lane of Williamsburg. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Copy of memo from Herb Klein to Bob Haldeman RE: Discussion of a television presentation of RN's Cabinet. 2 pgs. [Memo], 12/4/1968
Handwritten note by unknown author RE: the Cabinet. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: Cabinet announcements, a conference, Miss Mildred Lane, television coverage. 3 pgs. [Other Document], N.D.
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: Don Gonzales, VP of the Colonial Willamsburg Corp, and a dinner for 50 to 60. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: Seminars regarding RN, personnel, legislative, and conflict of interest. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Copy of memo from bud Krogh to John Ehrlichman RE: RN Trust Arrangement. 2 pgs. [Memo], 11/30/1968
Memo from Bud Krogh to John Ehrlichman RE: RN termination compensation from Nixon, Mudge law firm. 2 pgs. [Memo], 12/3/1968
Copy of newspaper article from the New York Post titled "LBJ Expected to Urge A Pay Hike for Nixon" Not scanned. 2 pgs. [Newspaper], 12/3/1968
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: RN compensation from law firm and RN Trust. 3 pgs. [Other Document], N.D.
Handwritten memo from Bud Krogh to John Ehrlichman RE: RN termination compensation from Nixon, Mudge law firm. 4 pgs. [Memo], 12/3/1968
Letter from G. A. Horkan, Jr. to Dwight David Eisenhower, II RE: Enclosed W-4 form for payment for appearance on the Merv Griffin Show. 1 pg. [Letter], 3/9/1970
Copy of W-4 IRS form signed by Dwight David Eisenhower II. 2 pgs. [Financial Records], 3/11/1970
Memo from Harry Flemming to John Ehrlichman RE: White House Personnel Office functions. 3 pgs. [Memo], 12/14/1968
Copy of letter from Bryce N. Harlow to Peter N. Chumbris in the Office of Santor Everett Dirksen RE: Information provided by Chumbris. 1 pg. [Letter], 11/25/1968
Copy of memo from Peter N. Chumbris to Senators Dirksen, Hruska and Fong RE: Antitrust issues. Handwritten note at bottom of first page from Chumbris to Bryce. 10 pgs. [Memo], N.D.
Scholar Source Context
Document identity
localId
26126461
label
WHSF: Returned, 19-8
core
doc
dtoType
document
citationUrl
pageCount
1
Source metadata
id
26126461
sourceUrl
contentType
document
title
WHSF: Returned, 19-8
description
This file contains:
Memo from Charles E. Stuart to Lucy Winchester RE: Wedding thank you notes for William H. Lewis, Jr. and Vern Barry. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/31/1969
Handwritten note by unknown author RE: arrangements for cars and buses. 2 pgs. [Other Document], N.D.
Letter from William H. Lewis, Jr. of Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. to Charles Stuart RE: Photos of coaches for the Nixon wedding. 1 pg. [Letter], 12/5/1968
Copy of letter from John Ehrlichman to Frank Shakespeare RE: Request to locate a short film made by one of the television networks covering Julie Nixon's wedding. 1 pg. [Letter], 1/10/1969
Memo from RN to John Ehrlichman RE: Request for copy of film, possibly made by CBS, of Julie Nixon's wedding. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/7/1969
Handwritten notes from the desk of John Ehrlichman RE: Seating at unspecified event involving LBJ and the outgoing cabinet, Agnew, and RN. 3 pgs. [Other Document], N.D.
Receipt for John Ehrlichman from the Royal Coach Inns, Ltd. 1 pg. [Other Document], 7/11/1968
Handwritten note from Lou Nichols to John Ehrlichman RE: John Reagan. 1 pg. [Other Document], 8/17/1968
Handwritten note from Lou Nichols to John Ehrlichman RE: The rate for the Machenhut people in L.A. 1 pg. [Other Document], 8/17/1968
Copy of memo from Bob Haldeman to Dwight Chapin, cc John Ehrlichman, RE: RN not attending any cocktail parties after the end of formal affairs. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/15/1969
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John Ehrlichman, cc Dwight Chapin, RE: Bill Rogers informing Haldeman that it is customary for the new President to hold a reception for the entire corps of ambassadors and their wives and suggested dates. 1 pg. [Memo], 1/15S
Memo from Charles E. Stuart to John D. Ehrlichman RE: The Presidential Medal of Freedom. 2 pgs. [Memo], 1/16/1969
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: Governmental departments in New York and Williamsburg. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Phone message from Mildred Lane of Williamsburg. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Copy of memo from Herb Klein to Bob Haldeman RE: Discussion of a television presentation of RN's Cabinet. 2 pgs. [Memo], 12/4/1968
Handwritten note by unknown author RE: the Cabinet. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: Cabinet announcements, a conference, Miss Mildred Lane, television coverage. 3 pgs. [Other Document], N.D.
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: Don Gonzales, VP of the Colonial Willamsburg Corp, and a dinner for 50 to 60. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: Seminars regarding RN, personnel, legislative, and conflict of interest. 1 pg. [Other Document], N.D.
Copy of memo from bud Krogh to John Ehrlichman RE: RN Trust Arrangement. 2 pgs. [Memo], 11/30/1968
Memo from Bud Krogh to John Ehrlichman RE: RN termination compensation from Nixon, Mudge law firm. 2 pgs. [Memo], 12/3/1968
Copy of newspaper article from the New York Post titled "LBJ Expected to Urge A Pay Hike for Nixon" Not scanned. 2 pgs. [Newspaper], 12/3/1968
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE: RN compensation from law firm and RN Trust. 3 pgs. [Other Document], N.D.
Handwritten memo from Bud Krogh to John Ehrlichman RE: RN termination compensation from Nixon, Mudge law firm. 4 pgs. [Memo], 12/3/1968
Letter from G. A. Horkan, Jr. to Dwight David Eisenhower, II RE: Enclosed W-4 form for payment for appearance on the Merv Griffin Show. 1 pg. [Letter], 3/9/1970
Copy of W-4 IRS form signed by Dwight David Eisenhower II. 2 pgs. [Financial Records], 3/11/1970
Memo from Harry Flemming to John Ehrlichman RE: White House Personnel Office functions. 3 pgs. [Memo], 12/14/1968
Copy of letter from Bryce N. Harlow to Peter N. Chumbris in the Office of Santor Everett Dirksen RE: Information provided by Chumbris. 1 pg. [Letter], 11/25/1968
Copy of memo from Peter N. Chumbris to Senators Dirksen, Hruska and Fong RE: Antitrust issues. Handwritten note at bottom of first page from Chumbris to Bryce. 10 pgs. [Memo], N.D.
citationUrl
collections
Richard M. Nixon's Returned Materials Collection
Returned White House Special Files
imageCount
1
hasImages
yes
source
import
hasTranscription
no
Source extras
naId
26126461
levelOfDescription
fileUnit
recordType
description
ocrSource
nara-archive
Single page context
seq
1
pageIndex
0
type
document
mediaId
5a0838caef14d10f
ocrText
Richard Nixon Presidential Library
White House Special Files Collection
Folder List
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
19
8
01/31/1969
Memo
Memo from Charles E. Stuart to Lucy
Winchester RE: Wedding thank you notes
for William H. Lewis, Jr. and Vern Barry. 1
pg.
19
8
N.D.
Other Document
Handwritten note by unknown author RE:
arrangements for cars and buses. 2 pgs.
19
8
12/05/1968
Letter
Letter from William H. Lewis, Jr. of Hudson
Transit Lines, Inc. to Charles Stuart RE:
Photos of coaches for the Nixon wedding. 1
pg.
19
8
01/10/1969
Letter
Copy of letter from John Ehrlichman to
Frank Shakespeare RE: Request to locate a
short film made by one of the television
networks covering Julie Nixon's wedding. 1
pg.
19
8
01/07/1969
Memo
Memo from RN to John Ehrlichman RE:
Request for copy of film, possibly made by
CBS, of Julie Nixon's wedding. 1 pg.
19
8
N.D.
Other Document
Handwritten notes from the desk of John
Ehrlichman RE: Seating at unspecified event
involving LBJ and the outgoing cabinet,
Agnew, and RN. 3 pgs.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Page 1 of 5
Box Number Folder Number
Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
19
8
07/11/1968
Other Document
Receipt for John Ehrlichman from the Royal
Coach Inns, Ltd. 1 pg.
19
8
08/17/1968
Other Document
Handwritten note from Lou Nichols to John
Ehrlichman RE: John Reagan. 1 pg.
19
8
08/17/1968
Other Document
Handwritten note from Lou Nichols to John
Ehrlichman RE: The rate for the Machenhut
people in L.A. 1 pg.
19
8
01/15/1969
Memo
Copy of memo from Bob Haldeman to
Dwight Chapin, cc John Ehrlichman, RE: RN
not attending any cocktail parties after the
end of formal affairs. 1 pg.
19
8
01/15/1969
Memo
Memo from Bob Haldeman to John
Ehrlichman, cc Dwight Chapin, RE: Bill
Rogers informing Haldeman that it is
customary for the new President to hold a
reception for the entire corps of ambassadors
and their wives and suggested dates. 1 pg.
19
8
01/16/1969
Memo
Memo from Charles E. Stuart to John D.
Ehrlichman RE: The Presidential Medal of
Freedom. 2 pgs.
19
8
N.D.
Other Document
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE:
Governmental departments in New York and
Williamsburg. 1 pg.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Page 2 of 5
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
19
8
N.D.
Other Document
Phone message from Mildred Lane of
Williamsburg. 1 pg.
19
8
12/04/1968
Memo
Copy of memo from Herb Klein to Bob
Haldeman RE: Discussion of a television
presentation of RN's Cabinet. 2 pgs.
19
8
N.D.
Other Document
Handwritten note by unknown author RE: the
Cabinet. 1 pg.
19
8
N.D.
Other Document
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE:
Cabinet announcements, a conference, Miss
Mildred Lane, television coverage. 3 pgs.
19
8
N.D.
Other Document
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE:
Don Gonzales, VP of the Colonial
Willamsburg Corp, and a dinner for 50 to 60.
1 pg.
19
8
N.D.
Other Document
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE:
Seminars regarding RN, personnel,
legislative, and conflict of interest. 1 pg.
19
8
11/30/1968
Memo
Copy of memo from bud Krogh to John
Ehrlichman RE: RN Trust Arrangement. 2
pgs.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Page 3 of 5
Box Number
Folder Number
Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
19
8
12/03/1968
Memo
Memo from Bud Krogh to John Ehrlichman
RE: RN termination compensation from
Nixon, Mudge law firm. 2 pgs.
19
8
12/03/1968
Newspaper
Copy of newspaper article from the New
York Post titled "LBJ Expected to Urge A
Pay Hike for Nixon" Not scanned. 2 pgs.
19
8
N.D.
Other Document
Handwritten notes by unknown author RE:
RN compensation from law firm and RN
Trust. 3 pgs.
19
8
12/03/1968
Memo
Handwritten memo from Bud Krogh to John
Ehrlichman RE: RN termination
compensation from Nixon, Mudge law firm.
4 pgs.
19
8
03/09/1970
Letter
Letter from G. A. Horkan, Jr. to Dwight
David Eisenhower, II RE: Enclosed W-4
form for payment for appearance on the
Merv Griffin Show. 1 pg.
19
8
03/11/1970
Financial Records
Copy of W-4 IRS form signed by Dwight
David Eisenhower II. 2 pgs.
19
8
12/14/1968
Memo
Memo from Harry Flemming to John
Ehrlichman RE: White House Personnel
Office functions. 3 pgs.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Page 4 of 5
Box Number Folder Number Document Date
Document Type
Document Description
19
8
11/25/1968
Letter
Copy of letter from Bryce N. Harlow to Peter
N. Chumbris in the Office of Santor Everett
Dirksen RE: Information provided by
Chumbris. 1 pg.
19
8
N.D.
Memo
Copy of memo from Peter N. Chumbris to
Senators Dirksen, Hruska and Fong RE:
Antitrust issues. Handwritten note at bottom
of first page from Chumbris to Bryce. 10 pgs.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Page 5 of 5
R.Ross 1/23/79
MUSEUM OBJECT WITHDRAWAL SHEET
The original museum object was removed from this file in Nov. on Dec. 1978
by M.E.Ruwell
and transferred to the Richard M. Nixon Museum
Collection.
File Group/Collection: WH Special Files - Staff Members and office Fiks-
John lichmen
Series Title:
Folder Title: "Long Range Development Plan, 1969
University of California- - Irvine
Box No.: formerly 15, now remumbered as new box 49
Description of Object:
aerial photograph, approx 30"*30"
Origin (if known):
Engineers Architects Planners
2301 Campus Drive
Irvine, California
Approx. Date Given: 1969
julie Nivon wedding
January 31, 1969
TO
LUCY WINCHESTER
FROM
CHARLES E. STUART
RE
WEDDING THANK YOU NOTES
It is embarassingly late, but it occurred to me that there are
at least two people who require thank you notes for their work
on the Nixon wedding.
Mr. William H. Lewis, Jr., vice president of the ShortLine
Bus Company, 17 Franklin Turnpike, Mahwah, New Jersey,
07450, (the company from which we rented the buses) kindly
volunteered two free buses if we rented three. This saved us
approximately $250.
Mr. Vern Barry, President, Fugazy Continental, Inc., 660
Madison Avenue, New York City, provided all of the limousines
used for the wedding party at no charge.
Both of these gentlemen deserve some kind of a thank you note
from Mrs. Nixon.
:8W
R
SAT
5 CARS - Smoundry MARRICE Coc
3004 So 5-604 50 - @5:30-10:
Agent - Agens Mel
Sunday - 4 usuen -mmie
5 -CRI e 30 04 ST 3:00
Beet Pica UP
587 Cm 58 Pamen -
810 504 Avenue - 2:00 PM
Report TO Ageno Roupen
Besces Sen 3074 Decorated
@ 3:Pm
Venne BARRY
PRS. FUGAZY Continentic Inc
660 MAdison Ave
N.G (-
SHORTLINE
SHORTLINE
17 FRANKLIN TURNPIKE . MAHWAH, N.J. 07430 TELEPHONE 201-LA 9-3666
December 5, 1968
Mr. Charles Stuart
Office of President-Elect
450 Park Ave.
New York, New York 10022
Dear Mr. Stuart:
Enclosed are photos of coaches we anticipate using for Nixon
Wedding on December 22, 1968.
If we can be of further assistance, please feel free to call
upon us.
Very truly yours,
HUDSON TRANSIT LINES, INC.
Itillim h.
William H. Lewis, Jr.
Vice President
WHL: cl
encl
CHARTER SERVICE BUREAU
January 10, 1969
Mr. Frank Shakespeare
Vice President, CBS
CBS Building
51 West 52nd Street
New York, New York
Dear Frank:
The President-elect has requested that we locate a 15-
or 20-minute film that was made by one of the television networks
covering Julie's wedding.
Would it be convenient for you to determine whether it
was your network or some other and make a print of that film avail-
able to the Presidential family for showing at the White House?
Many thanks.
Best personal regards.
Yours sincerely,
John D. Ehrlichman
Counselt to the President-elect
JDE :sw
January 7, 1969
MEMORANDUM
TO:
John Ehrlichman
FROM:
RN
I understand that CBS had a 15 or 20 minute film
on the wedding, (I think it was CBS, it might have been
NBC), which was carried broadly.
I wonder if you could check and see whether it
would be possible for us to get a tape of this film for
our library. We would like to see it at the White House
if possible.
122
John Ehrlichman
Staff of Richard M. Nixon
450 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10022
Z
(212) 661-6400
Tour Manager
Seasing -
HH no fam on plastorm mr/ms-
Johnson girls - 4
LBJ, Mrs J.
Ourgoing Cabiner. Rowk K
6 members -
Walk- Poru w/ SS
300-330
John Ehrlichman
Staff of Richard M. Nixon
450 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10022
(212) 661-6400
Tour Manager
Begin 1145
Better start late than early -
Ao Cap 1130
Procession
Dep wh Hae - 15
(:10 drive time
1045 Ar WH for coffee
HHH There
Agnews there
Sen Comm
girls marks in 2 w, sep (in cars rm- recep)
JE w/ our gives ?
John Ehrlichman
Staff of Richard M. Nixon
450 Park Avenue
New York, N.Y. 10022
Z
(212) 661-6400
Tour Manager
Agnew scheduler
Sheraton PK-
To WH by. 1040
marks will meet
when RN arrives
all 90 up-
580 EHRLICHMAN JOHN D. 7/11 1 14.00
450 PARK AVE. 7/10 HC/HB
Royal Coach Juns, Itd.
N.Y.C. N.Y.
TELEVISION TELEPHONES
PICKWICK COFFEE SHOP
BRIGHTON COACH ROOM
COACH AND HORSES CLUB
MEETING AND BANQUET ROOMS
SWIMMING POOLS
357-9561
DATE
REFERENCE
PREVIOUS BALANCE
CHARGES
CREDITS
BALANCE
PICK-UP
JUL 10%
ROOM 580
C* 14.00
JUL 10%
TAX 580
C* 42
*
14.42 *
A* 14.42
580
A* 1.55
15.97
SUEST SIGNATURE
CHARGE TO
RC
D
STREET
CITY
STATE
Royal Coach Juns, Itd.
3800 W. NORTHWEST HIGHWAY
CREDIT CARD NO.
APPROVED BY
DALLAS, TEXAS
357-9561
70m
L118
John
A Decision Heedstr
bemade O M John Reogach.
John mitchell Never Did
get Around to Seeling he
turnedin yes terday And Ifimally
I think you Heed Ringon
confield Both 14 ny r
wort
Tell Rergon Something
# Today. He Should "
Paid for this neck.
I'LL Take carry mixmi.
will he nt Leesbung over
neek EHd + Backin
N.YC. morecto or Tuesdoy
Rey ands
Lon Nichols
8/17
John
Isfok to the machen hut Peogle
114 2.4. Their Rate is 3.60 Perhour
T Ex jeases. Itold him to CALL
miami A 1+d teLL them to shove
AS muchas they (QH Then BILL
N... AS they Didin mismi
CALL meil There is OHY questor
L.B.N
MEMORANDUM
January 15, 1969
TO:
DWIGHT CHAPIN
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
It should be clearly understood that at affairs like the Gridiron
dinner and Alfalfa Club, etc. the President will not attend any
cocktail parties to be held after the formal affair ends. He will
always leave at the end of the program.
HRH
cc:
John Ehrlichman
MEMORANDUM
January 15, 1969
TO:
JOHN EHRLICHMAN
FROM:
BOB HALDEMAN
Bill Rogers informs me that it is customary that a reception be
held by the new President in the first week or two of his term
honoring the entire corps of ambassadors and their wives.
Bill suggests that this reception for the Nixon administration be
held either the week of the 27th or the week of the 3rd. He
would prefer the latter.
The customary hours are from 6:00 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. The
receiving line includes the President and his wife, the Vice
President and his wife, and the Secretary of State and his wife.
All other Cabinet officers are invited to attend. The uniform
is the same as that for the inaugural ceremonies.
Rogers also points out that there will be some ambassadors
who will have to present their credentials and suggests that
this could be done the same day just prior to the reception
in order to avoid doubling up on visits.
Rogers urges that we schedule this date as soon as possible
and get the invitations out.
H
HRH
CC:
Dwight Chapin
To:
John D. Ehrlichman
Date: January 16, 1969
From:
Charles E. Stuart
Subject:
Presidential Medal of Freedom
The Medal of Freedom was established by Executive Order
9586 of July 6, 1945, as an award for meritorious war-connected acts
or services. Executive Order 10336 of April 3, 1952, provided that it
could be awarded also for meritorious acts for service in the interests
of the security of the United States.
Executive Order 11085 (February 21, 1963) re-named the
award the Presidential Medal of Freedom. It broadens its scope to in-
clude persons who had made especially meritorious contributions to
"1) the security or national interests of the United States or 2) world
peace or 3) cultural or other significant public or private endeavors".
This Order further provided that the nominations to the
President for this award be made by the Distinguished Civilians Ser-
vice Awards Board. At that time, the Board was expanded to include
five additional members appointed from other than the Executive branch.
The Order also provided that announcements of the awards would be
made annually, .normally on July 4. The actual presentations, of course,
can take place at any time.
The original Awards Board was composed of the following:
Henry Cabot Lodge, Dr. Lee A. DuBridge, Samuel Newhouse, Mary
Mcgrory, and Justice Arthur J. Goldberg from outside the Executive
branch. The "internal" members of the board were: Robert F. Kennedy,
W. Willard Wirtz, Anthony J. Celebrezze, George W. Ball, and Roswell L.
Gilpatric. Mr. Ball served as chairman.
Although President Johnson has never activated the Appointments
Board to propose recipients for the medal, he did preside at the presen-
tation ceremony on December 6, 1963. At that time thirty-one outstanding
people, selected by Kennedy, were awarded the Presidential Medal of
Honor by President Johnson. The recipients were: Miss Marion Anderson,
Mr. Pablo Casals, Miss Genevieve Caufield, Dr. John F. Enders, Mr. Carl
Holton, Mr. Robert J. Kiphuth, Mr. Edwin H. Land, Governor Herbert H.
Lehman, Mr. J. Clifford Mac Donald, Mr. George Meany, Professor Alex-
ander Meiklejohn, Mr. Ludwign Mies van der Rohe, Mr. Clarance B. Randall,
Mr. Rudolph Serkin, Mr. Edward Steichen, Mr. George W. Taylor, Dr. A. T.
Waterman, Mr. Mark S. Watson, Mrs. Annie D. Wauneka, Mr. E. Lee White,
-2-
Mr. Edmund Wilson, Mr. Norton Wilder, Mr. Andrew Wyeth, Mr. Ellsworth
Bunker, Dr. Ralph J. Bunche, Dr. James B. Conant, Governor Luis Munoz
Marin, Mr. Robert A. Lovett, Mr. Jean Monnet, Justice Felix Frankfurter,
Mr. John J. McCloy, andHis Holiness, Pope John XXIII.
I agree with John Lodge. Certainly the Presidential Medal of
Honor will provide an opportunity to recognize, and be identified with, a
great many very desirable people. To this end it should be utilized as
fully as possible.
Charles E. Stuart
CES:sw
NY
Williamsburg
Agric
State
Interior
Defense
HUD
AG
HEW
DOT
Treasury
Commerce
UN
Labor
P.G.
11AM] Thurs) Thurs
Date
Time 1142 A.M.
P.M.
WHILE YOU WERE OUT
M
Mildred Lane
Williamsba
Area of & Exchange Code (703) 229-1800
TELEPHONED
PLEASE CALL
CALLED TO SEE YOU
WILL CALL AGAIN
WANTS TO SEE YOU
URGENT
RETURNED YOUR CALL
Message
pell
Operator
Fuller Stationers, New York City, MU 8-2243
Ehicha
December 4, 1968
MEMORANDUM:
TO: BOB HALDEMAN
FR: HERB KLEIN
I am aware of the strong arguments for a dramatic
presentation of all the Cabinet at one time on television
and the meanings which would follow. I would like to
suggest with RN that he consider these arguments which
I believe in strongly and finally to consider my com-
promise alternative.
1) Mass presentation will mean overlooking most
of the lesser Cabinet offices, thus taking
away from their strength. Inevitably, in
later stories about their assistants they
will get better play and undue attention
say compared to Secretary of Agriculture.
This point is particularly important in
areas where agriculture and interior and
others have importance nearly as great as
Secretary of Defense or State.
2) The very element of surprise at late hours
of the evening will mean less newspaper
coverage because of the lack of time to
produce adequate biographical material.
3) When the immediacy of this is past, there
will be greater pressure on issues at a
time when this will not be appropriate.
4) The sudden mass production of people will
make it less likely that people will retain
the names of secondary cabinet officials
and therefore their balancing factor in the
Cabinet will be lost.
-2-
ALTERNATIVES:
Begin parceling out in small groups if desired,
the names of lesser cabinet officers and then build
up to the presentation of the final three or four,
perhaps Secretary of Defense, State, HEW, HUD or
Treasury, followed by major family information
meeting you proposed with all officers. I believe
this gives us the best of two worlds and my informal
television checks indicate that we would get wide
television coverage from all networks and you'd have
the opportunity to present all the Cabinet to the
American public in this way.
# # #
cc:
John Ehrlichman
Bob Finch
Ron Ziegler
Monday
CABINET
Tuesday 12/10
* * wednes day 12/11 PressCont
arlie House- - So of Wash DC
announce-
Day of Conferences - -
W/pbarg
Tues The 10th
Hammelsine
A
229-1000
Miss Mildred Lane
Exec, Dis,
Cabiner announcements- -
Blown
Diversity- as a whole -
Going to Re people - TV
Sep Re climate in la home
1
Make comment secondary -
$5
3 nets live -
atter
Live Prep conference - - ?
10pm EST, ideal Time 2
TUESDAY ? Dec, 10-
Use 28"
NOT 7 NYC
Heavy planning
12 Secys
Inaugural. - AL SCOTT- full Time
TV Coordinasor
NOT Morrison (Rep Nas Com) & his aide
Ailes Too immature
McCune
Treleavan Know where he is -
Scott is willing
Manliatten book
12-17
CBS
I Cur prime time
Transition
Texploited
Key men interviews
Filming 393 Fe
RN film in mig No COMMITTENT
Cabrier members
Mike Wallace interviews
Dont commist to These:
Show #2- - Inaugeral time
#3- 125 100 days
- Deliver next to ABC around
inaugural Time
Xmas eve 10-11 pm "60 minutes" CBS
RN live-
A Xmas comment
Don
Gonzales
V.P. Colonial Corpin- Williamsburg
UP as White Hae
new auditorium
9 pm -930 -
Dinner 50 to 60
Rooms 285
Press adv
Semmars:
RN 0
Personnel
Legislarive
Conflict of Interest
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Ehrlichman
FR: Bud Krogh
RE: RN - Trust Arrangement
November 30, 1968
A trust arrangement whereby increments of the $250,000 could
be paid into the trust over a period of years with minimum tax
disadvantages would probably be the best arrangement for RN.
Certain events, such as retirement or death, would terminate
the trust. This type of trust is used commonly to protect
a woman who, upon divorce or death of her husband, would
receive the principal of the trust.
An arrangement like this is discussed in Scott on Trusts,
section 334, P. 2640. He says:
"Бу the terms of the trust it may be provided that
the trust shall cotinue until the happening of
various other events, in which case the trust will
be terminated only upon the happening of the
designated event. It may be provided that the trust
shall continue as long as the beneficiary is in a
certain employment.
For example, the trust in Seamans V. Gibbs, 132 Mass. 239
(1882) was terminable after duties of management and sale had been
performed. Also, in Matter of Fishberg, 158 Misc. 3, 285 N.Y.
Supp. 303 (1936) the trust was terminable when beneficiary
reaches the age of thirty or marries. What specific event will
trigger the termination of the trust appears to be up to the
settlor. The only restriction would be a general attitude of
the courts to disapprove conditions of divorce before a
person can enjoy a trust. Inducing divorce by a settlor is
considered to be against public policy and is not acceptable
as a valid event to terminate a trust.
Thus, there appars to be no problem re: establishment of
a trust which will terminate upon those events which may
befall RN - retirement after 4 or 8 years; death; incapacity.
The next question involves the degree of control which RN,
as settlor and presumably as beneficary along with other
members of his family, will retain over the trust. I have not
had a chance to research this question in depth yet, but
setting up a blind trust, or a trust with no control over the
management of the trust funds, would appear to be the best
device. Because of the close relation between FCC rate and
licensing regulations, LBJ divroced himself completely from
the operation of his TV holdings in Texas. As I'understand it,
-2-
the administrator who is operating the TV stations does not
look at all to LBJ (either of them) for direction in the
management of the stations.
As noted in the first paragraph, a schedule of payments from
the $250,000.00 should be set up so that RN will not suffer
a tremendous income tax in 1969. The number of years over
which the bonus would be spread should probably be 4. Annual
payments of $60,000 + per year for four years would probably
be better from a tax standpoint then setting up the trust for
payments over 8 years with a possible termination after 4
years which might result in 1/2 of the $250,000 being
taxed in one year. Of course, it would be feasible to set
up a flexible schedule of payments so that there would be
minimum tax disadgantage over 8 years.
18 U.S.C. Subsection 209(b) does not prevent a Government
employee "from continuing to participate in a bona fide
pension, retirement, group life, health, or accident insurance,
profit sharing, stock bonus, or other employee welfare or
benefit plan maintained by a former employer. 11 The bonus
to be paid to RN does not, in my judgment, fall within this
permissble category. It seems to me to be more in the
nature of an ad hoc payment, not a regular plan maintained
for numerous employees.
Receipt of the entire $250,000.00 in early 1969 would be
prohibitive from a tax standpoint. Deferring payment of the
$250,000.00 by dividing it into increments over the next
few years, would risk violation of 18 U.S.C. 209 (a) which
states: "Whoever receives any salary, or any contribution
to or supplementation of salary, as compensation for his services
as an officer or employee of the executive branch of the
United States Government, of any independent agency of the
United States from any source other than the United
States
Shall be fined not more than $5,000.00 or
imprisoned not more than one (1) year, or both. "While it
could be clearly shown that the payments made from Nixon,
Mudge over a period of years were for services rendered
during the time RN was employed with the firm, the fact that
the $250,000.00 was a special bonus to him would suggest
that the payments were made because of his election to the
Presidency. Some might claim that it was additional compen-
sation for his upcoming employment as President of the
United States.
Recommendations:
(1) That a trust specialist be retained to work out the
details of establishing a trust for this bonus payment
which would eliminate the greatest tax disadvantages,
insulate the management of the trust from any control
by RN, stipulate those events which would terminate
the trust. If you feel I should work with Len Garment
on this matter, I'll try to set it up with him this
week.
BK.
MEMORANDUM
December 3, 1968
TO:
John Ehrlichman
FROM:
Bud Krogh
RE:
Mr. Nixon's termination compensation from Nixon, Mudge.
Today I discussed the matter of Mr. Nixon's termination
compensation from his law firm with Mr. Ritzel, the partner
Mr. Nixon indicated has been working with this type of question.
Mr. Ritzel does a substantial amount of estate and tax work,
and he has handled several problems for Mr. Nixon in the past.
The amount payable to Mr. Nixon upon his retirement
from the firm has not, according to Mr. Ritzel, been calculated
to the dollar. It may well be the $250,000 amount you told me
about, but Mr. Ritzel did not verify that this was the exact
amount. The amount payable is a combination of capital and
income, the latter being money already earned. As of December
3, 1967, capital amounted to approximately $47,600.00. How
much of a capital interest has accrued in 1968 was not
determined. The firm agreement calls for payment of capital
to a retiring member in two equal annual payments. Under this
agreement, Mr. Nixon would receive about $23,800 per year
in 1969 and 1970. There is no income tax exposure on these
payments of capital.
I informed Mr. Ritzel of Mr. Nixon's decision to
receive his termination compensation in 20% annual payments.
-2-
Mr. Ritzel will go ahead with this and determine the best
way for this 20% to be paid over, but, if agreeable to
Mr. Nixon, he suggested that he investigate another
payment program which may be able to save Mr. Nixon a
substantial amount of money.
In brief, this alternative program would involve
an assignment of Mr. Nixon's termination payment into a
trust for the benefit of his family. By using Mr. Nixon's
gift deductions (which Mr. Ritzel stated had not been used),
we may be able to substantially reduce the tax base and
save tax dollars. This program would not provide for payments
to Mr. Nixon during his term of office.
Attached to this memo is a clipping from the
New York Post, December 3, 1968, regarding a probable
pay raise for Mr. Nixon from $100,000 to $150,000 per year.
Mr. Nixon probably already has knowledge ot Mr. Johnson's
intentions on this matter.
QUAERE: Would it be possible for you to get a
reading from Mr. Nixon on whether he would like Mr. Ritzel
to explore this alternative proposal or to stick with the
annual 20% payment? I told Mr. Ritzel I'd be in touch with
him shortly.
Also, Mr. Ritzel advises that, to his
knowledge, Mr. Nixon has never executed his will prepared
over a year and a half ago. Perhaps this should be taken
care of, too?
Interview with MR. Ritzel at Nixon, Mudge
RN - Deferred Compensation - Trush arrangement.
20% / year .
/
Possible assignment of $ to into truse
for the benefit of Pat Nixon. Pritting him
in another tax category. Gift tax rather
than income tax. Would not he payable
until after the term has expired
2
The payment from the from is in fact money
already earned. Except for capital.
3
Firm arrangement.
- Expense on a yearly Unsis
- as fees collected, upon receipt they are
collected & then paid one to the
attorney
4
Earnings & Capital
- capital: payable in 2 equal 31, annual 1967.
installments. End of 1967 - ($43,600
how how much after 1968?)
approx.) -No tax problems on this Not
income. 20.
Note: my recommendation That RN request m. Ritzed to
Set up the specific financial arrangement.
cash
5
Get one reaction from RN.
- Could we work onl something to avoid
piling this on top
- No use going in to this if he wants to
draw it down himself
150
State Sab TNX Cesting
488-5930
Wast ordered by a gove agercy.
- b/c Not Transition Committee. -
State Sales Tax Law-
Sals $ Use Tax As. Art 28 $ 29. - N.Y. State
check the Transition Act. (Sessio Ar for
transition
1964 to determine if the agency ww committee
constitute on agency. Probably Not. & if
Not, then it will have to pay N.Y. Pals
Tax.
MR. Ritzel
(1) Need to know RN's base pay.
$ 150,000 ( Get Harmon memo or check
in the library )( Also, from Harmon, find out bost
450 Park or
address to send forms to.) Nixon, mudge. -
(2) what would be tax arrangment upon
paying 20% of $250,000 per year.
(3) 3) might check w/ Rital ve: moving
expenses for RN. to Assume he must
deduct (under $217) those expenses from
his 1969 income of he moves in 1969.
now IT 140 ARE a. 621
ozrz - 8841
wargo viaz 9 pu wreh, throw
- muliant tota old -
we AT also
[++2 X is - 96 s 8.6 the 2A XST 300 $ slob
noll in LA est bell
national
- progo w j envirsted of PUPI
20 $ tou felovary use stutional
ord y.n 00 of ruan virus his net tou
XOT
lastir ,AM
may and ing was of book (1)
Nots "W - top) 000,021$
food to hit - most (021A)( foundit A in
W Aver 070
- with (A mA - A
ragu zet - Newsw totw (+)
roay mg Fee net w X of
privan 139 lotil the 100 begin (2)
tiwn 24 MUSZA 4 not A manager
month englishe walt (risz lebsu) trubab
paps in - in r - POPI and
use his sift deduction - /$15x
Need
to set a reading from RN.
Mr. Ritzel says: We can set up the 20% per
year defered compensation as he wish $ However, but
we could explore a possible assignment
into treat for the beaefit of his family. By
using his cift deduction, we may be able to
substantially rduce his vase & save considerelk
tay dollar.
also, RN has never executed his will-(to
Ritzd's knowledge) of a year and a half
ago,
Rocommendation: : That if RN concure, we
explore # a possible assignment into trush as
further @ means to save considerable money.
Or, if he wishes, we can 80
ahead w/ a straight 20 2 payment.
Include in my memo the info about the
/
MEMRANDUM
DECEMBER 3, 1968
To: John Ehrlichman
FROM: BuD KROGH
RE: RN termination compensation from
Nixon, Mudge.
Today I discussed the matter of mr.
Nixons termination compensation from his law
firm with mr. Ritzel, the partner mr.
has been working
Nivon indicated was involved with this
type of question. Mr. Ritzel does a substanted
amount of estate and tax work and has
several
handled problems for mr. Nikon in the post.
m Ritzel The sum amt payable to mr. Nixon
leaving
the
upon his termination for firm has not, according to
mr. Ritzel, Geen calculated to the dollar. The
and is a combination of mi, capital Nixo and
2
an amount already earned.
amounted
income,n as of Dec. 31, 1967, the and of
capital who
How a capital interest and decreed
wind NOR determined
capital to approx. $ 47,600.n The firm agreement
calls for payment of capital to a reting
A/D
under this agreement.
thx
member in two aqual annual payments. mr.
d
Nixon would receive $23,800 per year in 1969
and 1970, not including the 1968 capital
amount.
I informed mr. Ritzel of mr. Nikons
receive his carrination
decision to take 20 of per of his you Caren compersation
in 20 % per year increments mr. Ritzel will
80 ahead with this and determine the best
way for the 20% to a paid over, and he
suggested that he investigate another payment
program which may Ce able to same
m. mixon a substantial amount of money.
3.
In Grief, this alternative program
would call for an possible assignment of his
termination compensation into a trust for the
benefit of his family. By using mr. Nixois
gift deductions (which mr. Ritzel stated had
not been used), we able to
may or
substantial reduce the tax base and save provide
tax dollar This program would not-Lequise
for
payments to me. Nicon during his term of
office.
attached 4 then memo is a clipping from
the New you Post, Dec. 3,1968 regarding a
probable pay rise for mr. Nixon from
$100,000 to $150,000. m. Nixon probably
4.
already has knowledge of the intentions of
- President Johnson on this matter.
for you
Quarre: would it be possible to gel a
reading from mr. Nixon as to bise whether Le
would like mr. Ritzel to investigate this
alteriative proposal or to stick with the
20% annual pay more. I told mr. Ritzel
I'd be back in touch w/ him shortly.
also, mr. Ritgl advise that, to
his knowledge, Mr. Nixon we never executed
his will prepared over a you and a half
ago.
LAW OFFICES
POWELL, HORKAN & POWELL
SUITE 1200
815 CONNECTICUT AVENUE, N.W
P.O. BOX 800
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20006
GLOUCESTER,VIRGINIA 23061
TELEPHONE 693-3939
AREA CODE 202-298-6770 CABLE POCAHONTAS
BOLLING R. POWELL, JR.
UPPERVILLE,VIRGNIA 22176
GEORGE A. HORKAN, JR.
TELEPHONE 592-3252
WILLIAM J. POWELL
ARLINGTON, VIRGINIA 22200
TELEPHONE 525-3474
Upperville, Virginia
March 9, 1970
Mr. Dwight David Eisenhower, II
36 Bedford Terrace
Northampton, Massachusetts 01060
Dear David:
Please sign and date the enclosed form W-4
Employee's Withholding Exemption Certificate and mail
it directly to Anthony Productions, Inc. This certificate
must be filed in order for you to receive payment for
appearing on the Merv Griffin Show, taped on November 21,
1969.
We had a grand time in Europe and spent a
week with your mother and father. Looking forward to
telling you and Julie all about it.
With warmest regards.
Sincerely yours,
Bo
G. A. Horkan, Jr.
GAH:ld
Enclosure
Run 170
CC: John Ehrlichman, Esq.
EOB
FORM W-4 (Rov. July 1969)
Department of the Treasury
Employee's Withholding Exemption Certificate
Internal Revenue Service
Type or print full name
Dwight David Eisenhower, II
Social Security Number
111-36-5300
Home address
36 Bedford Terrace
City Northampton
State Mass,
ZIP code 01060
EMPLOYEE:
File this form
HOW TO CLAIM YOUR WITHHOLDING EXEMPTIONS
with your employ-
1. If SINGLE (or if married and wish withholding as single person), write "1." If you claim no exemptions, write "0"
er. Otherwise, he
2. If MARRIED, one exemption each is allowable for husband and wife if not claimed on another certificate.
must withhold U.S.
(a) If you claim both of these exemptions, write "2"; (b) If you claim one of these exemptions, write "1"; (c) If you
income tax from
claim neither of these exemptions, write "0"
your wages with-
out exemption.
3. Exemptions for age and blindness (applicable only to you and your wife but not to dependents):
(a) If you or your wife will be 65 years of age or older at the end of the year, and you claim this exemption, write "1"
EMPLOYER:
if both will be 65 or older, and you claim both of these exemptions, write "2"
Keep this cer-
(b) If you or your wife are blind, and you claim this exemption, write "1"; if both are blind, and you claim both of
lificate with your
these exemptions, write "2"
records. If the
employee is bo-
4. If you claim exemptions for one or more dependents, write the number of such exemptions. (Do not claim exemption
lieved to have
for a dependent unless you are qualified under Instruction 4 on other side.)
claimed too many
5. If you claim additional withholding allowances for itemized deductions fill out and attach Schedule A (Form W-4), and enter
exemptions, the
the number of allowances claimed (if claimed file new Form W-4 each year)
District Director
6. Add the exemptions and allowances (if any) which you have claimed above and enter total
2
should be so
advised.
7. Additional withholding per pay period under agreement with employer. (See Instruction 1.)
$
I CERTIFY that the number of withholding exemptions and allowances claimed on this certificate does not exceed the number to which I am entitled.
048-16--0515-
(Date)
March 11, 1970
1970
10
(Signed)
Devight David II
Sent:
Anthony Production, Inc.
430 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10022
Attention: Mrs. Bertha Sahy
1. Number of Exemptions.-Do not claim more than the correct
The death of a spouse or a dependent, does not affect your withholding
number of exemptions. However, if you expect to owe more income
until the next year, but requires the filing of a new certificate. If pos.
tax than will be withheld, a smaller number of exemptions may be
sible, file a new certificate by December 1 of the year in which the
claimed or you may enter into an agreement with your employer to
death occurs. If you qualify as a surviving spouse with dependent child
have additional amounts withheld. This is important if you have more
(children), you may claim your personal exemption on line 2 as a
than one employer. If both husband and wife are employed, each may
married individual for the two years following the year of the death or
ask to have taxes withheld as a "single" person to avoid owing large
your spouse.
additional amounts of taxes.
4. Dependents.-To qualify as your dependent (line 4 on other
Only one personal exemption may be claimed by nonresident aliens
side), a person (a) must receive more than one-half of his or her support
other than residents of Canada, Mexico, or Puerto Rico.
from you for the year, and (b) must have less than $600 gross income
2. Itemized Deductions.-See Schedule A (Form W-4) for instructions
during the year (except your child who is a student or who is under 19
on claiming additional allowances based on large itemized deductions.
years of age), and (c) must not be claimed as an exemption by such
person's husband or wife, and (d) must be a citizen or resident of the
3. Changes in Exemptions.-You may file a new certificate at any time
United States or a resident of Canada, Mexico, the Republic of Panama
if the number of your exemptions INCREASES.
or the Canal Zone (this does not apply to an alien child legally adopted
You must file a new certificate within 10 days if the number of ex-
by and living with a United Srates citizen abroad), and (e) must (1)
emptions previously claimed by you DECREASES, for example, because:
have your home as his principal residence and be a member of your
(a) Your wife (or husband) for whom you have been claiming exemption
household for the entire year, or (2) be related to you as follows:
is divorced or legally separated, or claims her (or his) own exemption on a
Your son or daughter (including legally adopted children), grandchild
separate certificate.
stepson, stepdaughter, son-in-law, or daughter-in-law,
(b) The support of a dependent for whom you claimed exemption is taken
over by someone else, so that you no longer expect to furnish more than
Your father, mother, grandparent, stepfather, stepmother, father-in-law
half the support for the year.
or mother-in-law;
(c) You find that a dependent for whom you claimed exemption will re-
Your brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, half brother, half sister,
ceive $600 or more of income of his own during the year (except your
brother-in-law, or sister-in-law;
child who is a student or who is under 19 years of age).
Your uncle, aunt, nephew, or niece (but only if related by blood).
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
048-10-80518-1
December 14, 1968
MEMORANDUM
file: CONTINUING
TO: John Ehrlichman
FROM: Harry Flemming
RE: White House Personnel Office
The function of this office should be to
screen and recruit candidates for positions in the
government which are exempt from Civil Service. In
the past Administration this office was combined with
and given to the Chairman of the Civil Service Commis-
sion. During the Eisenhower and Kennedy Administra-
tions the office was held by a Special Assistant to
the President.
Although there are benefits to be gained by
combining the authority to hire all government per-
sonnel in one office through the Civil Service re-
cruitment process such a practice will not uncover
men who are responsive to the President. It is much
more likely to produce people responsive to the com-
mission that appointed them, which commission is not
equipped to recruit people with that "extra dimension"
of excellence demanded by the President-Elect. The
people who run and staff the Civil Service Commission
have historically looked upon Presidential appoint-
ments as a last vestige of the spoils system and are
antagonistic to it. I do not think this can be over-
come by the appointment of three Commissioners.
If we are to provide personnel compatible
with the heads of the individual departments but re-
sponsive to the President, the White House should play
a major role in the selection and appointment process.
I therefore propose that the office be returned to the
White House to function pursuant to the following guide-
lines.
RECRUITMENT
We should continue the present transition
program of actively soliciting people for Presidential
appointments, which process should include private in-
terviews and reference checks which are conducted under
the direction of a White House staff member.
SCHEDULE OF AVAILABLE POSITIONS
The office should maintain a roster of avail-
able political appointments, which roster should include
positions available for the appointment in the reasonable
future by reason of anticipated resignations, termination
of tenure or lack of suitability of the incumbent appointee.
CONGRESSIONAL AND PARTY LIAISON
The office should collaborate with the Assistant
to the President for Congressional Liaison as well as
State Party Officials and Nixon State Chairmen in the
various states in order to insure the most effective
political use of appointments.
CENTRAL DATA BANK
The use of EDP should be upgraded on a con-
tinuing basis in order to provide the best possible
reservoir of information and should be used in con-
junction with the data bank maintained by the Civil
Service Commission in order to search and find com-
petent career people in government whose talents have
not adequately been used in the last two Administrations.
It is my opinion that the very existence of
a separate office responsible solely for political
appointments will in and of itself be a big step for-
ward in deterring the entrenchment process which in-
evitably leads to a strong bureaucracy in which the
employees become sensitive only to the needs of their
own department instead of the overall needs of the
Executive Branch of government.
November 25, 1968
Ehrkihman
Mr. Peter N. Chumbris
Office of Senator Everett Dirksen
United States Senate
Washington, D. C. 20510
DearPPete:
When you provide information, you really provide information.
Yes, it will be helpful. My gosh, to understand what you are
talking about requires a doctorate in the subject!
You are a nice guy to think of me and I hope you'll continue
your massively effective efforts.
With warm regard,
Sincerely,
Bryce N. Harlow
Assistant to the
President-Elect
BNH:ph
MEMORANDUM TO: SENATORS EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, ROMAN L. HRUSKA AND
HIRAM L. FONG
FROM: PETER N. CHUMBRIS
WITH A REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION COMES THE USUAL CHANGE IN THE
MEMBERSHIP OF THE VARIOUS COMMISSIONS, AGENCIES, AND DIVISIONS
OF THE VARIOUS DEPARTMENTS. THOSE OF THE ABOVE THAT WILL DEAL WITH
ANTITRUST LAWS AND REGULATIONS AND POLICES MAY NEED SOME GUIDANCE
FROM CONGRESSIONAL LEADERS AS TO CHANGES, IF ANY.
I AM ENCLOSING BRIEF EXCEPTS AND SUMMARIES FROM SOME LEARNED ANTITRUST
EXPERTS ON SPECIFIC ISSUES THAT MAY NEED ATTENTION COME NEXT JANUARY:
1. Robinson-Patman Act--30 years thereafter by Fred Rowe--He discusses
the pros and cons and concludes with a re-evaluation in a Congressional
context.
2. Presumptions and percipience about Competitive Effect- by Tom Austern--
He notes 5 expertFTC COMMISSIONERS HAD INDIVIDUAL VIEWS ON GIVEN ISSUE.
HE NOTES CRITICISM OR REPEAL OF ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT
3. Compulsory Universal Reciprocity by Ira M. Millstein--He discusses
sec 2(d) and 2(e) of R-R Act showing no flexibility as in sec 2(a)
with prima facia violation-- cost justification--and injury to
competition
4. Recent Developements in the Antitrust Field--These 11 pages merely
cite the leading cases in 1967 primarily on various aspects of
NOT
antitrust law. The memo is useful as an index to cases with some notes.
INCLUDED
The text of the above subject matter covers 205 pages.
Note: all of the above 4 summaries of articles appeared in the
American Bar Association's Antitrust Journal of recent issues.
5. POST ACQUISITION EVIDENCE AND CONGLOMERATE MERGERS--No. Caro. Law J.
Feb 1968
The brief note indicates the fate of mergers and how the Courts
reasoned its conclusions on predictive judgmant as to probability
that a merger may substantially lessen competition.
THESE ARE A FEW OF THE MEMORANDUMS THAT WILL BE PREPARED. THESE ARE
SUBMITTED NOW so THAT YOU MAY TAKE THEM WITH YOU TO READ AT YOUR
CONVENIENCE.
Dear Bryce: Congratulations in your new Post. This memo
may be helpful.
onc
ROBINSON-PATMAN ACT -- 30 YEARS THEREAFTER, by Frederick M. Rowe, 30 ABA,
Antitrust Section
The Robinson-Patman Act, the most controversial of our antitrust laws, emerged
as an anti-chain store law in 1936 at the death of the NRA. The legislative
annals reverberate with the colorful clashes between Congressman Wright Patman
and Congressman Emanuel Celler, 80 Cong. Rec. 3447 (1936) H.R. Rep. 2287, 74th
Congress, 2nd Sess.
To some, the Robinson-Patman Act still remains the magna carta of small business,
but to others it is a price fixing statute hiding in the clothes of anti-monopoly
and pro-competition symbols.
Today criticism of the Robinson-Patman Act enforcement is mounting. New Republic
outrated at FTC's attack on small businessmen who form coops.
On the positive side, Robinson-Patman enforcement has probably stimulated greater
care by firms in their pricing decisions. The Act may have prevented some pre-
datory pricing tactics and may have averted some coercive actions on the part
of big buyers towards sellers.
On the negative side, demerits are plain. Robinson-Patman Act's aim to protect
small business has conspicuously victimized the smaller firm. The predominance
of proceedings against smaller firms is striking. Rowe, "Price Discrimination
under Robinson-Patman Act," p. 542, 75 L.J. 487 (1966)
The courts and Department of Justice refute FTC interpretations.
Prominent are recurrent collisions by the Robinson-Patman Act enforcement and
antitrust policies. See: Quibbling, "FTC Interpretations.
Cost justification has been a bonanza for accountants, but fools' gold for
the affluent respondent. Rowe's book, p. 296.
FTC majority interpretations still find injury to competition from vigorous
price rivalry 1 stimulates competition in every meaningful sense.
So-called industry-wide approaches in field of pricing is desirable.
30-year Robinson-Patman record devoid of rational policy. Today it appears
FTC is quietly chloroforming Robinson-Patman Act.
Is Robinson-Patman controversy liquidating itself or will statute just fade away?
(a) Prosperity retards pressures for price concessions and affluent
competitors are not griping to FTC. However, business turndown may
make a difference.
(b) Private plaintiffs have increased in tempo, however.
-2-
Now is the time for a profound re-evaluation of the Robinson-Patman Act, past,
present and future, Because there is deep concern from broad spectrum of respon-
sible and respectable opinion.
Matters to be considered are:
1. Closer partnership between economics and the law. In the field
of Transportation, the President's Council advocated comprehen-
sive policy planning and coordination of Federal agencies with
divergent aims.
2. Re-appraisal in area of marketing and distribution. What public
policy is served by protecting wholesalers or brokers?
3. Rowe suggests re-evaluation in a Congressional context, at the
highest level of competence in leadership.
2
PRESUMPTION AND PERCIPIENCE ABOUT
COMPETITIVE EFFECT
By H. Thomas Austern - Vol.37
Penetrating economic analysis that Commissioner Jones first suggested in
Dean Milk, developed in National Dairy, and illuminated today in an amplified
analogy to the merger suit.
No price discrimination is unlawful unless the Commission or a jury can deter-
mine a probable adverse effect upon competition. Key question--is how that
determination will be made--naked presumption, by wide open guessing, or by
some backhanded fashion by linguistic mumbo-jumbo oriented to a result
viscerally first reached.
Fred Rowe stated, in measuring probable competitive effects among consumers--
in secondary line competition--it was and still is enough to show merely a
substantial price difference. One can presume competitive injury and find a
prima facie violation. That is what Mr. Justice Black approved in Morton Salt.
We shall have to await Supreme Court enlightenment as to whether that presump-
tion short-cut in those so-called secondary level cases can be mechanically
applied in measuring competitive effect in the giving of functional discounts
or in the application of this act to cooperative buying agencies. See: Anti-
trust Division, amicus brief in Puralator case. See: Memorandum on functional
discounts with Commission's theory of direct purchaser or imputed buyer.
Illegality turns on percipience in measuring or guessing what may happen to
the seller's competitors. Distinction between primary and secondary levels
for the competitive effect is enforceable in the statute, but analytical
distinction is of key importance in territorial price discriminations.
Different price in each local market is not prima facie illegal; however,
FTC harbors suspicion when seller cuts price in a single market. Note:
Commissioner Jones' dissent in Dean Milk case with complete study of previous
price history. Easiest approach for Commission was to find a predatory
purpose. See: Basic problem posed in Utah Pie Case--also Pet Milk.
See: Economic guessing game in National Dairy, and its full set of Commission
opinions.
THE FTC IS ENDOWED WITH EXPERTISE BY STATUTE, YET THE 5 EXPERT COMMISSIONERS
COULD NOT AGREE ON WHEN A TERRITORIAL PROMOTION OR A LOCAL PRICE CUT MIGHT
INJURE COMPETITION AND DIVIDED 4 WAYS ON THAT QUESTION.
2 page discussion that follows should be noted, since it analizes the varying
opinions of the Commissioners. Austern concludes, "On both promotions and
price cutting, whatever their form, restrictive action is usually given
exponential meaning by the Commission and by the Court." Inevitably, the
key fulcrum for challenging legality is selling in the local market at
below-cost prices. There are vagaries about cost accounting, but selling
Austen-Vol. 37
Page 2
below cost will lead to charges of subsidization, usually equated with
predatory intent. Predatory intent, as Mr. Rowe SO dramatically suggested,
will always be found in unrelated, usually unauthorized, and colored
characterizations of purpose.
Most difficult to cope with is the bearing of the actual rather than the
intended consequences of a price cut or of a promotion in the local
market. Noting the Utah Pie case and the National Dairy case. It should
be noted that in the Utah Pie case, the Court was dealing with a prima
facie case; and it returned for further consideration all other elements
of violation, defense, justification, and damage to the treble damage
plaintiff.
With reluctance most lawyers accept the Robinson-Patman Act as politically
unrealistic the reading of successive Supreme Court decisions renders for
long any hope of integrated classification or meaningful accommodation
between this bastard grandchild of the NRA Blue Eagle and the basic
predicates of the Sherman Act.
The Commission finding and opinions lead lawyers to believe that theFTC
performs in Patman cases somewhat like a jury. However, the client wants
to do business without having counsel always at his elbow, and in wonder-
ing if his pricing conduct remains a lottery in which a big company has
a much better chance of winning a complaint. Mr. Austern states that
FTC develops very few complaints out of many investigations, noting
that administrative hearings remain complicated, prolonged, costly,
cease and desist orders operate only prospectively even though in
perpetuity, and for those who can afford them, petitions for court review
seldom, and in the Supreme Court never, conclude the litigation inthe
first round. Treble damage actions are a different kettle of fish, with
jury resolution of the issues.
Hard core critics and many of the law professors often end by joining
those who would prefer outright repeal. They would leave predatory
pricing to Section 2 of the Sherman Act, and execution to Section 5
of the FTC act. That provision would also effectively embrace all
instances of buyer coercion or over-reaching.
3
IRA M. MILLSTEIN -- COMPULSORY UNIVERSAL RECIPROCITY? Sec. 2d-e R-P-Act
Professor Corwin Edwards likened what has occurred under Sec. 2(d) and (e) to
requiring "a steel manufacturer to buy railway transportation service from every
railroad in proportion, not to his needs for service from each, but to the
amount of his steel products purchased by each."
1. Services are related to customer's efforts to resell goods-benefitting
customer and supplier.
2. Manufacturing offers contributions to mass media advertising run by customer,
--catalogues and handbills, window and floor displays, etc.
3. If manufacturer pays for services provided--it is Sec. 2(e) case--such as
mentioning customer's store in manufacturer's advertising. Accepting return
of unsold merchandise - must be connected with resale of item and not
original sale such as credit terms, freight allowance etc. which is 2(a) case.
4. Case may be 2(a) as well as 2(a)-(e) such as Fred Meyer case, 359 Fed. 2nd. 351--
Coupon book of $350 donation by Manufacturer is 2(d) promotional while cash
for redeeming coupon is price discrimination 2(a).
5. Payments grossly above services probably is a 2(a) case.
6. Macy case, 326 F. 2d. 445 - No products mention in promotional payments but
2(d) case as institutional promotion for all goods of vendors.
7. Corn Products case, 324 U.S. 726 (45) Curtis Candy got promotion money
from Corn Products to advertise Dextrose used by Curtis in their candy--
held 2(d) case. Same with Clairol (1966) when promotional money to
salons was to resell Clairol products.
8. Lorillard Co. V. FTC, 267 F. 2d. 435, and State Wholesale VS. A. P. Stores,
258 F. 2d 831, payment thru a 3rd party to resell products--see also
FTC advertising opinions in store music with advertising messages etc.
displays, etc. individualized catalogues - 2(d) case - Control of
publication also.
9. Congressional History (p. 84) - Congress inteded to stop favoritism
coercively obtained by large buyers (chain stores) This evolved into
Sec. 2(a) - pricing provision - to supplement the effort, Congress was
convinced it had to cover potential evasions thru organized price favoritism --
brokerage rebates, etc. 2 (d)(e) secret discriminations.
Why should manufacturer assist 1 customer without helping his competitors--
concept in the law. However, protections not c, a, e. Thus no flexibility as in
Sec. 2(a) -- with prima facie violation -- cost justification -- injury to
competition -- etc. not in (a) (e).
FTC VS. Simplicity Co., 360 U.S. 55 (59) -- 80 Cong. Rec. 8126 --
FTC views rigid compliance in 2(a)(e), thus compulsory universal reciprocity
as almost inevitable -- as follows:
IRA M. MILLSTEIN -- COMPULSORY UNIVERSAL RECIPROCITY? Sec. 2d-e R-P Act
P.2
a. Interstate Commerce rule on 2a differs with 2d - Commerce is tied to adver-
tising not sale.
b. Like grade & quality -- Earlier cases in 2d - not even item sold is covered.
But problem becomes fuzzy when manufacturer sells a trademark, known line
of items such as small and medium size promotion but not giant size, 258 F(2)365.
FTC may claim all 3 are a line of products and discriminatory to some.
In Tri-Valley, 329 F(2) 694, FTC held it could prove violation without
showing same item in line had been purchased by both favored and unfavored
customers. For example: No. 1 got item A with promotion--Nos. 2 got item
C had to get promotion also.
C. Contemporaneous sales--line of items can compel offers of longer periods
rather than temporal for promotion - hence greater manufacturing expense.
d. Competing customers--Promotions to limited area okey, but what of promotions
to national chain, or expanding territories, fringe areas, rack jobbers
within territories of many traditional warehouse wholesalers, etc. May
have to give promotions to all rack jobbers - also duty of manufacturers
if customers compete.
e. Functional competition is another concept as to which recent decisions
have increased the burden of compliance--drug stores VS. grocery stores
and wholesalers VS. retailers Frey Meyer case now before Supreme Court.
4 Commissioners say allowance must be given to wholesaler but fail to
indicate how manufacturer can make certain allowance goes to retailer.
1 Commissioner says manufacturer should give directly to retailer buying
from wholesaler. 9th Circuit says all Commissioners are wrong - that
wholesalers are not in functional competition with retailers, and retailers
thru wholesalers are not customers of manufacturer.
f. Indirect customers-If manufacturer controls price or terms, retailer may
be indirectly his. See FTC advisory opinion on this -- 143 --
However - Fabric Manufacturer advertising cooperatively with 1 or 2
retailers in an area was an economic & useful promotion tool - may find
it economically impossible to advertise with all of retailers in this area.
g. Availability -- 1. Notice
2. Suitability for use
1. Notice - Manufacturer has that responsibility to let his customers know
of promotions . Written plan to communicate is preferrable
Suprise Brassiere Co. Also in Rabiner- FTC
formal plan needed for use of meeting competitive defense.
2. Suitability - promotion must be suitable to customer - for example:
bad if only to new store openings - small stores who can't
advertise or in catalogue stores only or display racks - since
all customers can't qualify.
IRA M. MILLSTEIN -- COMPULSORY UNIVERSAL RECIPROCITY Sec. 2d-e R-P Act
P.3
h. Proportionality -- promotion by law - must be offered to competitors pro-
portionally equal amounts.
(1) The more you buy the more you get
.
(2) Proportional to value to seller - legislative history not clear -
FTC guides - no single way to proportionalize - prescribed by
law -- See: Lever Bros. - Proctor & Gamble - Colgate-Palmolive Peet
Millstein, Cooperative Advertising - 7 Antitrust Bulletin (1962)
1966-Advertising Opinion 88 - FTC Plan noted exposure (value
received) though noting it would correspond to amount of purchases.
1967 Advertising Opinion 106 - disapproved plan of floor space -
because no relation to volume. Noting that proportionalization
can best be done by basing payments on volume it may have meant
that otherwise payments would be unlawful.
Buyer may be culpable under Sec. 5 of FTC Act for knowingly inducing
and receiving unlawful promotional allowance.
5
NORTH CAROLINA LAW REVIEW
Feb. 1968 - Vol. 46-P.366
POST ACQUISITION EVIDENCE AND CONGLOMERATE MERGERS
In merger cases under Section 7, Clayton Act, trial does not often take place
until several years after the merger. Since Section 7 requires a predictive
judgment as to the probability that a merger may substantially lessen compe-
tition, there is a temptation to test probabilities against the particular
post-merger history. A recent decision of the Supreme Court may be interpreted
as indicating that the post-merger evidence is not admissible.
In FTC VS. Proctor and Gamble Company, 58 FTC 1203 (1961); 358 F.2nd 74 (1966);
and 386 U.S. 568 (1967) the court held that Proctor and Gamble's 1957 acquisi-
tion of the Chlorox Company violated Section 7. P&G was the leading firm in
the detergent field. Chlorox, with 49% of total liquid bleach sales, was the
dominant firm in that industry, and together with its principal rival, Purex,
accounted for almost 65% of the national sales. Six firms sold over 80% of the
nation's liquid bleach. The Court found that all liquid bleach is chemically
identical and attributed Chlorox dominance to heavy advertising and promotional
expenditures. P&G's acquisition of Chlorox would probably injure competition
because it eliminated P&G as a potential entrant and "the substitution of the
powerful acquiring firm for the smaller, but already dominant firm, may sub-
stantially reduce the competitive structure of the industry by raising entry
barriers and by dissuading smaller firms from aggressively competing
Three probable anti-competitive effects of the merger:
1. Merger increased opportunities for anti-competitive behavior such
as predatory pricing.
2. Merger produced certain undesirable economies, chiefly advertising
3. Merger caused structural alterations by elimination of potential
entrant into the concentrated industry.
Main source of difference between FTC and the 6th Circuit was the question of
the proper weight to accord post-acquisition evidence.
See: Discussion on considering post-acquis ition developments by hearing
examiner, by the Commission, and by the 6th Circuit.
P&G argued that post-acquisition developments should be considered to test
the probabilities of anti-competitive effects (386 U.S. 591). Since the
merger was conglomerate, it did not have the effect of automatically fore-
closing to competitors any market outlet or source of supply as in a vertical
merger. Nor would it have the effect of automatically eliminating a competi-
tor as in a horizontal merger. Commission argued that Section 7 clearly
does not require the existence of actual anti-competitive effects, but
Post Acquisition Evidence and Conglomerate Mergers
Page 2
rather a conclusion as to the probability of various possible economic
consequences of the merger; also post-acquisition evidence would serve no
useful purpose and it was difficult to know the extent post-merger develop-
ments were caused by the merger and not by other factors.
Commissioner Elman noted 5 factors present in Proctor case:
NOTE: 1. Increased opportunity for anti-competitive behavior
2. Undesirable potential economies
3. Structural alterations--See:
FTC VS. Consolidated Food, 380 U.S. 592 (1965)
U.S. VS. Penn-Olin, 378 U.S. 158 (1964)
U. S. VS. ElPaso Natural Gas, 376 U.S. 651 (1964)
U.S. VS. Vons, 384 U.S. 270 (1966)
NOTE: Commission considered it likely that Proctor's merger into the market
might trigger defensive mergers among smaller firms in the liquid
bleach market. Concluded that second ranked Purex with 4th ranked
Fleecy White was such a triggered merger.
Commissioner Elman stated that certain post-acquisition developments may
require the consideration of their effects upon potential competition within
a given product market. This situation was presented in Commission's later
decision against the acquisition of S.O.S. by General Foods. Attitudes of
FTC are shared by antitrust division.
See: Discussion on the reasoning of the Supreme Court in the DuPont case,
353 U.S. 586 (1957). Also post-acquisition will be decisive in the
treble damage action filed by Purex against P&G.