keepsie for sale and that Mr. Hatfield is endeavoring to
obtain suitable offers of purchase to be submitted to the
Trustees. As to the remainder interest in the James R.
Roosevelt Estate, Mr. Koons was instructed to have Joseph
P. Day, Inc. study the possibility of offering the
remainder interest for sale at this time and submit its
recommendations to the Trustees with respect thereto.
 
           IV. INVESTMENT COUNSEL AND INVESTMENT POLICY.
 
           Mr. Koons advised the Trustees that the courts in New York
were divided on the question as to whether or not the
expense of investment counsel was a proper charge against
the trust corpus. Surrogate Delehanty in New York County
ruled in 1937 that trustees have no authority to employ
investment counsel at the expense of the estate, whereas
the Surrogate's Court of Suffolk County in 1939 held that
where there are individual trustees as distinguished from
banks or financial institutions, the employment of
investment counsel is permissible and a proper charge
against the trust estate. There is no appellate ruling on
the subject in New York and Willis & Christy agree that the
law is unsettled but suggest that the ideal solution would
be to charge the cost of investment counsel against income
if the income beneficiary consents. Colonel Roosevelt
reported that he had discussed the matter with his mother
and that she desired to have the Trustees retain the
services of investment counsel and charge the entire cost
against income. Inasmuch as it was unanimously agreed that
it was desirable to retain investment counsel, Mr. Koons
(MORE)