Alterations Alleged In Nixon Home Data
By Philip Shabecoff Special to The New York Times
HR Govt Activities Subcom chmn Repr Brooks charges on Aug 31 that some documents pertaining to Pres Nixon's property at San Clemente, Calif, released earlier this wk, were previously altered, news conf; says dates on documents containing legal description of 23 acres of property, sold by Pres to 2 friends, were erased and changed by surveying co involved on orders from Nixon's personal atty F DeMarco Jr; White House deputy press sec Warren says on Aug 31 that Brooks is making 'much ado about nothing'; releases lr from Pres counselor B N Harlow to Brooks that, he says, shows 'there is nothing whatever improper or irregular about the transaction'; Brooks says he wrote to Harlow asking for explanation of 'inconsistencies and inaccuracies' in some of documents and emphasizes that he was making 'no charge or accusation'; raises questions about sales agreement dated Dec 15 '60 between Pres and Mrs Nixon and R H Abplanalp and C G Rebozo, who helped finance Nixon's purchase at San Clemente and to whom Nixon sold large part of property; questions dating on attachments to sales agreement that contain legal description of parcels of property reserved to Pres and those transferred to B & C Investment Co, co organized by Abplanalp and Rebozo; says his staff discovered that surveying co South Coastal Engineering Services Corp had, on Jan 8 '71, erased original date on attachments and sutstituted Dec 15 date; says DeMarco insisted, when asked, that no change had been made; says records in com's possession indicate that descriptions of property were not actually prepared until about Dec 28 and 29 '70 and that some data contained in Dec 15 sales agreement were not even in existence on that date; suggests change might have had something to do with Nixon's taxes; says his com is interested in fixing exact date of transfer because it is concerned with who owned property when Govt was paying for improvements on it in name of Pres security; Harlow, in lr, explained altered dates by saying that descriptions of property contained error and had to be changed; asserts that date of descriptions was 'irrelevant to effective date of sales agreement' which was prepared and executed before Dec 15 '70; Brooks says this assertion has been disproved by documentary and testimonial evidence collected by his staff; calls 'false' assertion in Harlow's lr that DeMarco gave explanation of changed date to investigator from com; says DeMarco refused to make available for review documents regarding transaction and denied Dec 15 date had been changed; illus of Brooks