position, however, on the merits where there is a factual dispute. Briefs are prepared by the Office of the General Counsel, with the assistance of field and Division staff familiar with the case or with the general problem being adjudicated.

CONCLUSION

The duty of the Director is to direct all of the foregoing activities and, in addition, to supervise personnel, prepare budget requests and participate in budget hearings, and to meet with members of the public.

Mr. HELLER. Will you briefly describe your educational background and any other matter that you would like to call our attention to?

Mr. YOHALEM. Yes. I was born in New York City and educated in the public schools; received my baccalaureate degree from Cornell University, and my law degree from New York University in 1930. I was in private practice in New York from 1931 until 1938, when I joined the staff of the Commission.

Mr. HELLER. In 1938?

Mr. YOHALEM. Yes. Then, I joined the staff of the Commission. When I joined the staff, I was an attorney in the New York office of the Reorganization Division, where I remained until June of 1941. In August of 1942 I was appointed special adviser on reorganizations of the Public Utilities Division, and I think it was in March of 1944 that I became counsel to the Division, an office now known as chief counsel; and in 1946 Associate Director, and as of the first of January 1947, Director of the Division.

Mr. HELLER. In 1942 when you acted as special adviser-is that correct?

Mr. YOHALEM. That is correct.

Mr. HELLER. Under whom did you work?

Mr. YOHALEM. Well, I would say that I was responsible to the Director of the Division.

Mr. HELLER. Who was the Director then?

Mr. YOHALEM. John Houser.

Mr. HELLER. And who was chief counsel at that time?

Mr. YOHALEM. Roger Foster.

Mr. HELLER. What position did Mr. Slater have?

Mr. YOHALEM. He was an attorney in one of the branches in the Division. They were then sections.

Mr. HELLER. What position did Joseph Weiner occupy?

Mr. YOHALEM. At that time, I think he was in private practice in New York.

Mr. HELLER. When did he become connected with the Commission? Mr. YOHALEM. Well, he became special counsel to the Reorganization Division, I think, in the summer of 1938, and I think it was in 1939 that he became Director of the Public Utilities Division; but by the time I came to the Public Utilities Division he had left the Com mission's service; served with OPA and the War Production Board, and had then gone out to private practice in New York City.

Mr. HELLER. Did you have any previous experience in the Federal
Government before you became connected with the Commission?
Mr. YOHALEM. No; I did not.

Mr. HELLER. Did you practice law up to that time?
Mr. YOHALEM. Yes; I had practiced law up to that time.
Mr. HELLER. Where did you practice law?

Mr. YOHALEM. In New York City-well, headquartered in New York City. From 1931, just before I had been admitted to the bar until the latter part of 1932, I was employed by Charles Seligson, whose practice consisted very largely of representing the Irving Trust Co. as standing receiver in bankruptcy in the southern judicial district of New York, and since that time I have been interested primarily in bankruptcy and reorganization matters. In 1933, I was employed by Rosenberg, Goldmark & Colin, who were then attorneys for the Irving Trust Co. in connection with the International Match Corp. (After informal discussion off the record.)

Mr. HELLER. You may continue.

Mr. YOHALEM. The International Match Corp. was one of the Ivar Kreuger enterprises..

In the latter part of 1934, I was sent by the firm to Europe, and I was there from 1934 until the middle of 1936.

Mr. HELLER. What was the name of the firm?

Mr. YOHALEM. Rosenberg, Goldmark & Colin.
Mr. HELLER. Where was their office?

Mr. YOHALEM. 165 Broadway.

Mr. HELLER. Would you mind telling us what this mission to Europe was about?

Mr. YOHALEM. Yes; the trustee of the International Match Corp. was engaged in a number of law suits; one against the National City Bank and other banks, to recover preferences under the Bankruptcy Act; one against the directors for mismanagement and another against the directors for the unlawful payment of dividends. Much of the evidence upon which any such action could be tried related to the operations of foreign subsidiaries and to the conduct of the corporation's affairs abroad by Ivar Kreuger, who dominated that company. It was my job to prepare the evidence that was available abroad for presentation in the American courts.

That work continued until, as I said, the summer of 1936, when the litigation was composed by settlement; and in the fall of 1936 I left that firm and became associated as an employee with Marshall, Bratter, & Seligson. I remained with them until the fall of 1938, as which time chapter X of the Bankruptcy Act had become law; and, since that was the field of law in which my primary interest lay, I sought employment with the Commission.

Mr. HELLER. Mr. Yohalem, as we understand, the chief function of the Division of Public Utilities is to administer the Holding Company Act and act in an advisory capacity in connection with chapter X proceedings; is that correct?

Mr. YOHALEM. That is right, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HELLER. Your statement indicates that the present personnel of the Division consists of 63 professional employees and 23 clerical employees.

Mr. YOHALEM. That is correct.

Mr. HELLER. How does that compare to the number of persons employed by your Division in 1950 and 1951?

Mr. YOHALEM. I have those figures here. As of the end of fiscal 1950, we had 113 on the rolls. I might go on to say at the end of fiscal year 1951 we had 98.

Mr. HELLER. Can you break down the 1950 and 1951 figures, please?

Mr. YOHALEM. Of the 113 on the rolls for 1950, 82 were professional and 31 were clerical. Of the 98 in 1951, 68 were professional and 30 were clerical. As you see, most of the decrease occurred in professional employees.

Mr. HELLER. Now, for the 1952 fiscal year, what was it?

Mr. YOHALEM. Fiscal 1952, it was 97. That was the budget request. For fiscal 1953 it is 86, I believe; our present employment is 84, with 4 employees on loan elsewhere.

Mr. HELLER. Are you able to break down that 1952 figure?

Mr. YOHALEM. Not at the moment, sir, except to say that I know that it represents a reduction of 10 professional employees and 1 clerical. That is fairly certain.

Mr. HELLER. Do you keep track of the subsequent employment of those persons whose services have been discontinued by your Department; who voluntarily leave, of course?

I

Mr. YOHALEM. No; we do not keep track in any formal sense. think that there is a very good and close esprit de corps in the Division and, therefore, as a personal matter we know-most of us know-where most of our departed brethren have landed; but we do not attempt to keep any formal record of their employment.

Mr. HELLER. To what extent, assuming that you know where they have departed to, do these people find employment in utility systems subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission?

Mr. YOHALEM. Well, there have been several instances of that sort. I would say that they are in the minority, trying to quickly add them up on my fingers.

Mr. HELLER. We would like you to give us a statement; and, if it is not available at this moment, would you please furnish us with that information and we will consider it as your answer at this point in the record.

Mr. YOHALEM. How far back, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. HELLER. We would like to have you go back for 5 years.

Mr. YOHALEM. Mr. Chairman, I should say that we will, of course, give you the best information that we have. There may be some people about whom we simply have lost track.

Mr. HELLER. If you have no information on those people, will you just state so, and we will consider that your best answer.

Mr. YOHALEM. All right.

(The information requested is as follows:)

Present employment, to the extent known, of employees resigned from Public Utilities Division since Jan. 1, 1947