parison of sources of manuscript, and the trial went way beyond these 214 pages because Mr. Fields subsequently made other claims never established or proven.

I was developing with you the character of the testimony which confused the jury which in turn resulted in a verdict which had been subject to some question.

Senator PROXMIRE. If I could just have another minute to pursue this line

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask, while he is on this and he wants to read

Senator PROXMIRE. No; that is not necessary now. I think there is a stipulation in here that this was verbatim, precisely the same as the Casey book and the Fields' manuscript.

Mr. CASEY. Yes.

Senator PROXMIRE. When I asked you about the Fields' trial at the hearing last month did you respond by reading from a prepared statement?

Mr. CASEY. No; I hadn't heard about this for 9 years until you brought it up the night before. I did have some notes but they weren't prepared.

Senator PROXMIRE. I got the impression that your testimony was worded to give this committee the impression there was no plagiarism. You deny, No. 1, it was consciously worded inasmuch as it was impromptu, it wasn't prepared, and No. 2, you are telling us that you did not mean to deny that there wasn't some plagiarism but it was limited?

Mr. CASEY. I have always, in letters and every other way, indicated that 212 pages had accidentally, without my knowledge or control, crept into our publication.

Senator PROXMIRE. One more point.

One Senator said this: As I heard Mr. Casey testify his publication analyzes the law and regulation. This man had a manuscript analyzing the law and regulations. It was inevitable there would be some duplication.

However, they rejected the manuscript. I can understand why there would be a substantial duplication of the ideas contained in it, but we don't have that impression. So the impression was that there wasn't any repetition, verbatim or otherwise.

Mr. CASEY. I didn't deal with that before the committee.
Senator PROXMIRE. All right. My time is up.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Tower?

Senator TOWER. Well, I think it is pretty obvious that the plagiarism, if indeed there was plagiarism, was limited to 212 pages as admitted. But from the transcript of the case, obviously the judge was of the opinion that the plagiarism had been very limited in nature because the judge said to the plaintiff's attorney I think you will get a verdict but I will be very much surprised if it is much. Really it wouldn't surprise me if it was $250.

So obviously the judge was satisfied on the basis of the evidence presented at that time. There probably hadn't been extensive plagiarism except for the 21/2 pages confessed to.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Williams?

Senator WILLIAMS. On another matter, perhaps this has been dealt with in your prepared statement which you did not read-I was out of the room for a moment.

Mr. CASEY. I didn't read it, no.

Senator WILLIAMS. Perhaps it is in there. I wanted to deal with the circumstances surrounding your being named to the board of directors of Roosevelt Raceway. When were you named to the board?

Mr. CASEY. In August of 1969.

Senator WILLIAMS. August of 1969?

Mr. CASEY. Yes.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Was this the period when control of Roosevelt Raceway was being contested?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, it was, Senator. Effective control I think had just passed from San Juan Raceway to Madison Square Garden. They had just purchased a large block of stock.

Senator WILLIAMS. They were in effective control when you were named to the Board of Roosevelt?

Mr. CASEY. Madison Square Garden had just purchased the stock of San Juan Raceway which had been in effective control and until there was another stockholders' meeting they couldn't exercise their effective

control.

Senator WILLIAMS. Are you still a member of the board?

Mr. CASEY. I served until I was nominated to this post and I resigned about 3 or 4 weeks ago.

Senator WILLIAMS. Then you served during the period when there was another contest for control of Roosevelt. That contest was between Madison Square Garden and

Mr. CASEY. TransNation. In fact the contest merged into one contest, really. Madison Square Garden purchased an 18 percent interest in San Juan Raceway and Gulf & Land Realty purchased on the market a large amount of stock and these two companies then started a struggle for control.

Senator WILLIAMS. This was the period when you were on the board? Mr. CASEY. Yes; I was on the board of Roosevelt Raceway.

Senator WILLIAMS. You are familiar with the fact that at one point the Securities and Exchange Commission enjoined certain activities of Madison Square Garden?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, I am.

Senator WILLIAMS. The question really comes down to who sponsored you for membership on the board of directors of Roosevelt. Were you advanced by either of the buying groups?

Mr. CASEY. No, Senator, I wasn't. My sponsorship was George Levy who was the president of the company and the founder of the company. Senator WILLIAMS. Of Roosevelt Raceway?

Mr. CASEY. And Joseph Danzansky who is president of Giant Stores and director of the raceway. He agreed to get off if I would succeed him and Mr. Levy and Danzansky asked me to go on the board for the purpose of representing the interest of the independent minority stockholders of Roosevelt Raceway.

My interest and activity was adverse in negotiation with Madison Square Garden and TransNation.

Senator WILLIAMS. You were invited on the board by Mr. Levy and the position on the board was made available upon the resignation of

Mr. CASEY. That is right.

Senator WILLIAMS. So you were not in any way a nominee of the buying faction?

Mr. CASEY. No, sir. I believe I covered that in the statement I sent to the committee last week.

Senator WILLIAMS. That clarifies it.

Just one further question, Mr. Casey. I was not able to be here when you first came before the committee but I have had an opportunity to talk to you informally in my office following your appearance here. Before I talked to you I did see a letter, I believe it was addressed to Chairman Sparkman. It was a cover letter for your portfolio of investments and your statement of intention of what you would do if you assumed the position of Chairman of the SEC.

This statement of intention disturbed me because as I recall it, you retained the power to sell your securities even after you might become a member of the Securities and Exchange Commission. As I told you, this disturbed me.

I have read your new statement, that you are now prepared to handle your portfolio differently and even if it is in your written statement. I would like to hear it orally from you.

Mr. CASEY. I would like to cover that. It was never my intention to retain the power to buy and sell. I always had an investment adviser with full discretion to buy and sell. In discussion before the committee I did say my investment adviser sent me quarterly statements as to what he had done and that other members of the Securities and Exchange Commision had not put their securities in blind trust.

But I said if the committee thought I should I would be willing to do so and have since said that I will, upon indication from you and other members of the committee that they would like me to, place my securities in a blind trust.

Senator WILLIAMS. Exactly what does a blind trust mean to you? Mr. CASEY. It means that you don't know what happens to your securities. You give a trustee full discretionary authority to buy and sell and he doesn't tell you what he has done. So you don't know what you hold.

The CHAIRMAN. Just let me say right here, Senator Williams, that Mr. Casey has written me another letter dated March 1, 1971, in which he has agreed to change his original plans for dealing with his assets and holdings in the event he is confirmed to office. I would like for that letter to be inserted in the record at this point. Now let me go back to Mr. Casey for a minute. Mr. Casey you are executing a blind trust according to that letter; are you not? And you as the one executing the blind trust exercise no control over either buying or selling?

(The letter referred to above will be found at p. 105.)

Mr. CASEY. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Furthermore the quarterly reports will not come to you as has been the case?

Mr. CASEY. That is right. I will not get any report until I complete my term of service.

The CHAIRMAN. And you will exercise no control whatsoever over buying or selling?

Mr. CASEY. Yes.

Senator WILLIAMS. You will be completely insulated from any knowledge as to what is being done with your stock?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, Senator.

Senator WILLIAMS. You will be completely insulated from any of the other variations of insulation. This, as far as you are concerned, is completely blind. These securities will stay in your name or as they

are now

Mr. CASEY. Well, they would probably go to the name of the trustee. They would go in his name under an instrument that gives him full power to deal with them and direct him not to buy any securities proscribed by the rules of the SEC and not to tell me or anybody in my family what transactions he authorizes and carries out."

Senator WILLIAMS. One final question concerning the Fields' suit. Could you tell me when you offered to pay Mr. Fields what you considered the fair value of his work that was used in your publication? Mr. CASEY. I did that as soon as I received a letter from him. I met him in 1956. In April of 1957 I received a letter in which he claimed that part of his material had appeared in our publication. I immediately inquired as to what had happened and asked my editor to verify this.

As soon as I received a report about these 22 pages I immediately telephoned Mr. Fields and I subsequently wrote him and told him apparently we had 22 pages that resembled his, explained how it happened, offered to pay him and take any other steps necessary to protect his copyright, and so on.

r

The CHAIRMAN. May I say that date was May 6, 1957?

Mr. CASEY. That is right.

Senator WILLIAMS. You took this step when you first learned that his material had been used in your publication?

Mr. CASEY. Immediately, as soon as I learned.

The CHAIRMAN. I think it might be well to place in the record at this point the substance of the letter Mr. Casey wrote.

(The letter referred to may be found at p. 162.)

All right. Senator Bennett.

Senator BENNETT. Well, Mr. Chairman, more or less as a summary and at the risk of going back over some material we have been over, Mr. Casey would you please take us again through the various things that happened between the time, as I understand it, Mr. Fields personally turned that manuscript over to you in San Francisco and the time that you discovered that it had appeared in the magazine?

Mr. CASEY. Yes, Senator.

In 1956 I was in San Francisco. I was asked to meet Mr. Fields. Mr. Fields had two things on his mind. He had a manuscript that was partially completed which he hoped to have published. He had some prior discussion with Prentice-Hall. He said: "They would value your opinion on this, would you look at it and pass it on and recommend it if you can for publication."

He also said to me that he would like to write this kind of material on a regular basis and asked if there was any opportunity for him to do so in my editorial operation. I said we sometimes did use freelance writers and in a tentative way I said I would be willing to explore working with him on the basis of paying him $250 a month for material

that he would write pursuant to specific assignments and we would find out over a period of time whether this was satisfactory to him. or to us or whether it should be adjusted or dropped. I took this manuscript back to New York

Senator BENNETT. May I interrupt you at this point?

Did you read the manuscript in San Francisco?

Mr. CASEY. No, I didn't. I glanced through it on the plane. He gave it to me as I was leaving San Francisco.

Senator BENNETT. How long a manuscript was it, roughly?

Mr. CASEY. Well, I had a word count. It was 30,000 words. It wasn't many pages. It was oversized sheets of columns. I would guess it was probably 24 pages.

Senator BENNETT. Well, it was 30,000 words?

Mr. CASEY. Yes; it would be a 60- or a 70-page booklet. At that time I thought there would be some difficulty in getting it published because it was too short to be a book and too long to be a pamphlet. Nevertheless I agreed to take it on.

When I got back to New York I turned it over to our editorial department and I said, "Take a look at this and see if there is anything in here that we haven't covered."

Senator BENNETT. Is this the editorial department of the Institute for Business Planning?

Mr. CASEY. Yes.

Senator BENNETT. Not Prentice-Hall?

Mr. CASEY. That is correct. In doing that I had in mind it would be checked against our material and I would get ideas as to whether there were any assignments I could send back to Mr. Fields to carry out this $250-a-month arrangement. I never got around to doing that. It was reported back to me that this was legalistic material, sent the matter on to Prentice-Hall and I didn't get any hope there until I received Mr. Field's letter, the Institute for Business Planning supplement. Thereupon I inquired to find out what had happened and how it happened. As soon as I received word that there were these two and a half pages which were a Chinese copy, as Judge Craven said, I called Mr. Fields and I wrote him a letter apologizing and saying what happened. I made a full disclosure of everything that happened and offered to pay for this material and return his copyrights to him.

Senator BENNETT. Did you read the manuscript again after you turned it over to the editors?

Mr. CASEY. No.

Senator BENNETT. You didn't participate in the writing of that section of the material which included his manuscript?

Mr. CASEY. No.

Senator BENNETT. Was the basis of the entire case these two and a half pages?

Mr. CASEY. NO; Mr. Fields, as time went on, enlarged upon his claim and he claimed that a lot of the material that Prentice-Hall had pubEshed as well as a lot of subsequent material that the Institute of Business Planning published derived from his manuscript. Most of the trial at the first hearing was devoted to this was not true, that this material came from analysis of law and regulations, that I had given strict orders that this material Fields had sent us be gotten out of the house and took steps and precautions to see that this didn't happen

57-426-71—5