upr000065 252

C O P Y UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OP THE INTERIOR GEOLOGICAL SURVEY Washington 25, DC Airmail Dec. 29t 1951 Memorandum To: Mr. T.W. Robinson, Carson City, Nevada (GW) Prom: The Director Subject: Court Testimony Your memorandum of Nov. 30, 1951 to Mr. Sayre on the subject of the Union Pacific Railroad Company's request for you to give court testimony together with a copy of Mr. E.E. Bennett's letter of Nov 27* 1951, to you requesting such testimony and copy of your reply to Mr. Bennett dated Nov. 30, has been received. Careful check has been made of the previous correspondence relating to this case and nowhere in it does the name of the Uhlon Pacific Railroad Conpany occur. Therefore we are at a loss to understand the role of the Union Pacific in this case. However, under the conditions as set forth in your subject memorandum and Mr. Bennett's letter of Nov. 27 to you, action is governed by See. 2.20(b), Code of Federal Regulations, Title 43, Part 2A, dated Dec. 22, 1948, a copy of which was sent to you in the 1950 corres­pondence. Inasmuch as the railroad is a private litigant, an affidavit must be submitted by their attorney, setting forth the Interest of the litigant and the Information with respect to which your testimony is desired, before permission to testify can be granted. Permission to testify, if and when given, is limited to the informa­tion set forth in the affidavit or to such portions thereof as may be deemed proper. In this connection it is noted from Mr. Bennett's letter that in addition to testimony on factual data, he desires to obtain your services as an expert witness to give opinion testimony with reference to some of the Issues in the case. In keeping with a long-established policy of the Survey against making its employees available as expert witnesses in private civil litigation, it is desired that your services as such a witness 'be not made available to the Uhlon Pacific Railroad Company. Accordingly, in advising Mr. Bennett of the request for submission of an affidavit you should call to his attention the above stated policy concerning expert testimony. For your Information and guidance the decision was made by the Comptroller General (Oct, 20, 1949, copy enclosed) relative to pay­ment of travel expenses incurred by Government employees appearing as witnesses in private suits. In accordance with this decision, a Government employee testifying in a private suit cannot be reimbursed by the Government for travel expenses. If an employee collects witness fees and/or travel expenses he must pay to the Government any excess over actual expenses. Julian D. Sears Acting Director Enc