Warren Commission (05 of 26): Hearings Vol. V (of 15) (part 5 of 6)

Warren Commission (05 of 26): Hearings Vol. V (of 15) (part 5 of 6)

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I will hand you Commission's Exhibit No. 819 and ask you particularly about the signature at the bottom.

Mrs. OSWALD. That is Lee's handwriting, and this is mine.

Mr. RANKIN. Were the words "A. J. Hidell, Chapter President" on Commission Exhibit No. 819 are in your handwriting?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell the Commission how you happened to sign that?

Mrs. OSWALD. Lee wrote this down on a piece of paper and told me to sign it on this card, and said that he would beat me if I didn't sign that name on the card.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any other discussion about your signing that name?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. What discussion did you have?

Mrs. OSWALD. I said that this sounded like Fidel. I said, "You have selected this name because it sounds like Fidel" and he blushed and said, "Shut up, it is none of your business."

Mr. RANKIN. Was there any discussion about who Hidell, as signed on the bottom of that card, was?

Mrs. OSWALD. He said that it was his own name and a there is no Hidell in existence, and I asked him, "You just have two names," and he said, "Yes."

Mr. RANKIN. Was anything else said about that matter at any time?

Mrs. OSWALD. I taunted him about this and teased about this and said how shameful it is that a person who has his own perfectly good name should take another name and he said, "It is none of your business, I would have to do it this way, people will think I have a big organization" and so forth.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ask him why he needed to have the other name in your handwriting rather than his own?

Mrs. OSWALD. I did ask him that and he would answer that in order that people will think it is two people involved and not just one.

Mr. DULLES. Did you ever sign any more such cards with the name "Hidell"?

Mrs. OSWALD. Only this one.

Mr. DULLES. And you never signed the name "Hidell" on any other paper at any time?

Mrs. OSWALD. Only once.

Representative FORD. Where did this actual signing take place, Mrs. Oswald?

Mrs. OSWALD. In New Orleans.

Representative FORD. Where in New Orleans?

Mrs. OSWALD. In what is the name of the street where we lived, in an apartment house.

Representative FORD. In your apartment house?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; in our apartment house.

Representative FORD. What time of day, do you recall?

Mrs. OSWALD. It might have been 8 or 9 o'clock in the evening.

Mr. DULLES. Had you ever heard the name "Hidell" before?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember whether this was before or after Lee spoke on the radio. I think it was after.

Mr. DULLES. Did he use the name Hidell on the radio?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that he might have when he was talking on the radio said that Hidell is the President of his organization but, of course, I don't understand English well and I don't know. He spoke on the radio using his own name but might have mentioned the name Hidell. This is what he told me. When I tried to find out what he said on the radio.

Mr. DULLES. This might have been on television also?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was on the radio, not on television. He told me that someone had taken movies of him for to be shown later on television but I don't know if they ever were.

Mr. DULLES. Did you ever sign the name Hidell at any subsequent time to any document?

Mr. McKENZIE. If you recall signing it. Do you recall signing his name to any other document?

Mrs. OSWALD. I only remember this one occasion.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the way you signed on this Commission's Exhibit No. 819 your usual way of writing English?

Mrs. OSWALD. My English handwriting changes every day, and my Russian handwriting, too. But that is more or less my usual style.

Mr. RANKIN. You weren't trying to conceal the way you sign anything?

Mrs. OSWALD. I tried to do it, I just tried to write it as nicely as possible.

Mr. DULLES. Did you make some practice runs of writing this name before you actually put it on the card?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; because it was difficult for me to write English properly.

Mr. DULLES. So you mean you wrote it several times on another sheet of paper and then put it on this card?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. Was there anybody else present at the time of this incident?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; only Lee.

Representative FORD. Did he have you sign only one card?

Mrs. OSWALD. This was the only time when I--when Lee asked me to do this and I did it. I might have signed two or--cards and not just one but there weren't a great many.

Representative FORD. Did the other cards have someone else's name besides Lee Harvey Oswald on it?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; only Lee Oswald.

Representative FORD. But you think you might have signed more than one such card?

Mrs. OSWALD. Maybe two, three. This is just 1 day when I was signing this. It just happened on one occasion.

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, turning to another subject, I would like to ask you about some correspondence with the Dallas Civil Liberties Union.

Do you recall that they inquired as to whether you were being kept from seeing and speaking to people against your will?

Mrs. OSWALD. This letter was translated by Ruth Paine and I answered on the basis of the translation.

Mr. McKENZIE. May I see those letters, Mr. Rankin?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't want to answer this letter. It was simply a matter of courtesy on my part.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, you received a letter from the local chapter of the Civil Liberties union in Russian, did you not?

Mrs. OSWALD. There was a letter that was in English and there was a translation which came with it, and it was stated that the translation was done by Ruth Paine.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you do with the translation or the--I will ask you the translation first. Did you keep that?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember what I did with it.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know what you did with the part that was in Russian?

Mrs. OSWALD. Perhaps it is somewhere among my papers but I didn't pay any special attention to it.

Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 331 and ask you if that is the letter in English that you referred to?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; it is the letter.

Mr. RANKIN. I call the Commission's attention to the fact that that has already been received in evidence.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, did you write Mr. Olds about this? This appears to be a letter in reply to a letter from you.

Mr. RANKIN. That is right. I asked for it.

Mrs. Oswald, will you examine Commission Exhibits Nos. 990 and 991 and state whether you know the handwriting in these exhibits?

Mrs. OSWALD. This is all mine, my handwriting. This is the answer to that letter.

Mr. RANKIN. And the letter, Exhibit No. 990, and the envelope, Exhibit No. 991, in your handwriting were your response to the inquiry of the Dallas Civil Liberties Union on the Exhibit No. 331?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; this was my answer to this letter, Exhibit No. 331.

Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Commission Exhibits Nos. 990 and 991.

Mr. DULLES. You want them admitted at this time?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. They shall be admitted.

(Commission Exhibits Nos. 990 and 991 were marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I will ask you to examine Exhibit No. 988 and with the help of the interpreter, advise us whether or not it is a reasonably correct translation of your letter, Exhibit No. 990.

Mrs. OSWALD. This is not an accurate translation.

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, can you tell us what errors were made, where the corrections should be to make it a correct translation?

Mrs. OSWALD. There is one place here in which it refers to the third sentence of the English text which states: "What you read in the papers is correct."

Mr. RANKIN. How would you correct that?

Mrs. OSWALD. This is incorrect. A better, a proper translation, although unofficial of this passage, and the Russian text of my letter would read, "Your concern is quite unnecessary although it is quite understandable if one is to judge from what is written in the papers."

Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you proceed with any other corrections?

Mrs. OSWALD. This, the letter, the spirit of the letter reflects my own spirit in my own Russian text--although the translation is somewhat inaccurate and tends to shorten my own text somewhat.

There is another inaccuracy which is more important than the others--it is not more important, the first one is more important--there is another which should be called to the Commission's attention.

The last sentence of the English text reads: "Please let Mrs. Ruth Paine know I owe to her much and think of her as one of my best friends."

Whereas the letter only states that: "Of course, consider her my friend."

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I call your attention to Commission Exhibit No. 990 and ask you to note the date which appears to be December 7, 1964.

The Dallas Civil Liberties Union letter, you will note, was dated January 6, 1964 which I will hand you so you can examine it. Could you explain that discrepancy? You might wish to examine them.

Mrs. OSWALD. It can't possibly be the 7th of December 1964 because it hasn't even come yet.

Mr. RANKIN. You might wish to examine the envelope, Exhibit No. 991, that may help you as to the correct date.

Mrs. OSWALD. January 8. I wrote this January 7. It was just my mistake. I wrote it on January 7 and mailed it on the 8th. I just out of habit still writing December.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, may I ask the Commission, on Commission Exhibit No. 988, which purports to be a translation of Mrs. Oswald's letter to the Dallas Civil Liberties Union, do you know who translated this letter or could you tell us who translated the letter?

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McKenzie----

Mrs. OSWALD. They wrote me that I can answer them in Russian, and which I did but I haven't any idea who translated my answer.

Mr. RANKIN. The Commission Exhibit No. 987 which I will now offer states that the translation was handled by Mrs. Ford and later seen by Mrs. Paine.

The translation of the exhibit that you now have in your hand, what is the number of that?

Mr. McKENZIE. This is Commission Exhibit No. 988 in English which purports to be a translation of Mrs. Oswald's letter to the Dallas Civil Liberties Union and I am asking does the Commission know who translated the letter?

Mr. RANKIN. We were informed by the Dallas Civil Liberties Union in Exhibit No. 987 that the translation was made by Mrs. Ford and later seen by Mrs. Paine, and I now offer all exhibits together with Exhibit No. 987 as part of the testimony of this witness.

Mr. DULLES. The exhibits shall be admitted. Have we the numbers of all of these exhibits?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; the reporter has them.

(Commission Exhibit No. 987 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I will hand you the cameras of your----

Mr. DULLES. I wonder before we finish this----

Mr. McKENZIE. I would prefer, Mr. Rankin, for the purposes of the record so that the record will be complete, to have a correct English translation of Mrs. Oswald's letter in the record in lieu of Commission Exhibit No. 988.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, if it is agreeable to the Commission, I would like to ask counsel to furnish such a translation and we will then make it the next number, Exhibit No. 992, as a part of this record.

Mr. DULLES. That shall be admitted then as Exhibit No. 992, the other already being in the record I think, probably has to stay there particularly in view of all this discussion of it.

Mr. RANKIN. If you will furnish it.

Mr. McKENZIE. You are putting the onus or burden back on me, Mr. Rankin, when the Commission has a fully qualified, I presume, Russian interpreter here, and if the Commission would not mind going to the further expense of having the interpretation of the letter made, I think it would expedite the Commission's report.

Mr. RANKIN. If it is satisfactory to Mr. McKenzie, then, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. Coulter if he would make a translation and submit it to Mr. McKenzie for submission to his client for approval, and then we will have that marked the Exhibit No. 992 and made part of this record.

Mr. DULLES. Excellent, that will be admitted as such, Commission Exhibit No. 992.

Mr. McKENZIE. Thank you, Mr. Rankin and thank you Mr. Chairman.

(Commission Exhibit No. 992 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, will you examine the cameras of your husband and tell us which one took the pictures that showed your husband with the rifle and the pistol, as you will recall?

The pictures I am asking you about are Exhibits Nos. 133-A and 133-B which you recall are the ones that you said in your prior testimony you took yourself.

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. With one of these cameras.

Mrs. OSWALD. This is the first and last time in my life I ever took a photograph and it was done with this gray camera.

Mr. REDLICH. Mr. Rankin, the Commission exhibit numbers of the two cameras, one is Commission Exhibit No. 136 and one is Commission Exhibit No. 750.

Mr. McKENZIE. And the gray camera she is referring to, Mr. Rankin, for the purpose of the record is Commission Exhibit No. 750, isn't that right, Mrs. Oswald?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. That is the gray camera you just said you took pictures with, is that correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. The other camera also belonged to Lee but I don't use it.

Mr. RANKIN. Turning to another subject now, Mrs. Oswald, while you and Lee Harvey Oswald were at Minsk in the Soviet Union, can you tell us how Lee Harvey Oswald spent his leisure time while he was there?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know how he spent his time before we were married but afterwards he was a great lover of classical music and used to go to concerts a lot, and theaters, and movies, symphony concerts, and we used to go out on the lakes around Minsk. There are some lakes in the confines of Minsk and outside where we used to go.

Mr. RANKIN. While there did he read much?

Mrs. OSWALD. He didn't read very much because there wasn't a very great choice of books in English except the ones on Marxism.

Mr. DULLES. He could, however, read books in Russian, could he not, at this time?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; but it was a lot of work for him and he really didn't enjoy it very much. But he did go to Russian films and understood them.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he go to the rifle club there?

Mrs. OSWALD. He belonged to a hunters--a club of hunters and had a rifle but he never went to the practice meetings of this club. He only paid his membership dues, and I think that he joined this club in order to be able to acquire a rifle because only apparently members of such hunting clubs have the right in the Soviet Union to own a rifle. Only once did he go out with a group of some of my friends and take his rifle and try and shoot some game but he didn't catch anything.

Representative FORD. Did he buy the rifle or was it given to him?

Mrs. OSWALD. He bought it.

Representative FORD. What did you do with it when you went to the United States?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think he sold it.

Representative FORD. Was it a rifle of--much like the one that was used in the assassination?

Mrs. OSWALD. All rifles look alike to me.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did it have a telescopic sight on it, Marina?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. But it was similar to the same rifle that he had in the United States?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. It wasn't identical but it might have been similar, seeing as how they are both single barrel rifles. I don't understand anything about rifles at all and I really am not qualified to talk about them.

Mr. RANKIN. You mentioned that he went to the rifle club on one occasion or the hunting club on one occasion with some friends to hunt squirrels or rabbits or things of that sort. Did he go to the hunting club on other occasions to practice to shoot?

Mrs. OSWALD. When I first saw the rifle here in the United States I didn't pay much attention to it because I thought this was the rifle he had brought from Russia.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he practice shooting the rifle in Russia?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you see him or observe him cleaning the rifle in Russia?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. And would he clean the rifle, did he clean it on several occasions?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, several times.

Mr. RANKIN. The hunting club that he belonged to, did it have an instructor in shooting the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know but there should have been one.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, he had to have a permit to purchase the rifle in Russia.

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; you can't possess a rifle without a--permission in the Soviet Union.

Mr. RANKIN. Did he purchase the rifle from a government agency?

Mrs. OSWALD. You buy these rifles in special stores, but to buy them you have to have a paper from the hunting club stating that you have the right to buy a rifle.

Mr. RANKIN. And the authorized government official gave him authority to buy the gun through the hunting club?

Mrs. OSWALD. The hunting club issues this permit. He used to clean the rifle but he never used it. It always hung on the wall.

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, will you describe what you were saying off the record in regard to his going out to use the rifle in the country as distinguished from using it in the club?

Mrs. OSWALD. We all went out together in a group of boys and girls in order to get--to swim a little and to get a suntan. It was a lake which is just on the edge of town not far from Minsk, and the men had guns, and they all went out to try to shoot some kind of rabbit or bird or something like that, and the men went off together and I heard several shots and they came back and they hadn't caught anything so we laughed at it.

Mr. RANKIN. Did that happen more than once?

Mrs. OSWALD. Only one such trip. And even that time he didn't want to take the gun with him. He took it only because one of my friends was laughing at him and said, "You have a gun hanging here and you never use it. Why don't you bring it along and see if you can use it."

Mr. RANKIN. Did you and your husband have any friends other than Russians while you were at Minsk?

Mrs. OSWALD. There were friends. We had some friends from Argentina but they didn't come on this excursion with us.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have any friends there who were from Cuba?

Mrs. OSWALD. There were Cuban students studying in Minsk, and this Argentinian girl had a Cuban boyfriend and possibly Lee met this boyfriend, this Cuban student, but I never met him.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know where the Cuban students were studying, what particular school?

Mrs. OSWALD. They study in various educational institutions in Minsk, some are in the medical institute, others are in the agricultural and others are in the polytechnical institute.

Mr. DULLES. Could you tell us a little more about these Argentinians, were they there for educational reasons or what was the reason they were there?

Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me; I am mixed up with Cubans. You talk about Argentinians?

Mr. DULLES. I asked about Argentinians but I would be glad to have you add the Cubans to it, too.

Mrs. OSWALD. There is agreement between the Cuban Government and the Russian Government; and the Cuban Government under this agreement sends Cuban students to study in the Soviet Union.

From what I could tell from what Lee said, many of these Cuban students were not satisfied with life in the Soviet Union, and this Argentinian girl told me the same thing. Many of them thought that, they were not satisfied with conditions in the Soviet Union and thought if Castro were to be in power that the conditions in Cuba would become similar to those in the Soviet Union and they were not satisfied with this. They said it wasn't worth while carrying out a revolution just to have the kind of life that these people in the Soviet Union had.

Representative FORD. Would you have any idea how many Cubans were in school in Minsk?

Mrs. OSWALD. I heard the figure of 300 but I never knew even a single one.

Representative FORD. Could you be more helpful in the kind of schools they went to, what were the schools?

Mrs. OSWALD. Most of them were in agricultural institutes. Some were in the institute of foreign languages where they spent a year studying Russian in order subsequently to go on into some other institute where they could study some more formal subject or some more formal discipline.

Representative FORD. About how old were these students?

Mrs. OSWALD. About between 17 and 21.

Mr. DULLES. Was your husband absent from you during any protracted period after your marriage, and during your stay in Minsk other than the trip I think he took one trip to Moscow without you.

Mrs. OSWALD. Once I went to Kharkov, and he stayed in Minsk. Other than that there were no absences on his part, except, of course, for the trip to Moscow. Do you want to talk about the Argentinian students?

Mr. DULLES. Yes; if you have more to say about that.

Mrs. OSWALD. These are people who left Poland about 30 years previously for Argentina. Then after the second World War the part of Poland where they had been living became part of the Soviet Union and the father of this family was an engineer and worked in the same factory where Lee worked, his name was Zieger.

They had two daughters born in Argentina, and the wife was very homesick for her native country, so they came back and the Soviet Government gave them Soviet citizenship before they got on the boat to come back. Then she told us what she had been reading in the newspapers was just propaganda and they thought the life was a little better than what they found out what it was when they arrived. Now, they have been there 7 or 8 years and they would prefer to go back to Argentina but they can't.

Mr. DULLES. In connection with your husband's work in the factory did he have any indoctrination courses as a part of that in Marxism, Leninism, or in anything of that kind in connection with his work in the factory?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think there are such courses in the factory for party members and for people who want to become party members but Lee never went to them. When he was in Russia he didn't like Russian Communists. He thought they were all bureaucrats. I don't actually know what he liked except himself.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know whether your husband received any special pay or special funds through the Russian Red Cross or through any other channel in addition to his regular pay in the factory?

Mrs. OSWALD. Before we were married he apparently--he told me he was getting some assistance from the Government, but he told me this after we were married, and I don't know from whom or in what way he got it.

Representative FORD. Did you have any idea how much extra he was getting over his wages?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know how much it was but he had quite a lot of money in the beginning. Maybe he wrote about this in his diary.

Representative FORD. Did you know how much he was earning each week while he was employed?

Mrs. OSWALD. In Russia they don't pay for every week. Eighty rubles a month.

Representative FORD. Eighty rubles a month?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Those are the new rubles?

Mrs. OSWALD. New rubles.

Mr. DULLES. Those were the new rubles, revalued rubles, that is about $90; is it not?

Mrs. OSWALD. $90 or $80.

Representative FORD. While you were married did you know of any extra money he was getting?

Mrs. OSWALD. He didn't receive any--he didn't receive any extra money while we were married, he had a little bit left over from what he was getting before, that is all.

Representative FORD. Did he handle all of the money that he received or did he give you some while you were in the Soviet Union?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was working at the same time, and I gave him my salary and he in turn would give me some money every now and then to buy groceries with and that sort of thing, but I didn't ever get any money from his salary.

Representative FORD. So the only income that you know about was the money you earned and the money that he earned?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. And how much did you earn?

Mrs. OSWALD. 45.

Representative FORD. 45 rubles a month?

Mrs. OSWALD. A month.

Representative FORD. There were no other funds, to your knowledge, that he received after you were married?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative FORD. He paid all the bills?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes. You didn't have too much bills in Russia.

Mr. DULLES. Did he take your money, too? What was your rent, do you recall at that time, rent of the apartment?

Mrs. OSWALD. Seven rubles and 50 cents, kopeks.

Mr. DULLES. Was it 7 rubles and 50 kopeks? A week?

Mrs. OSWALD. A month; the rent in Russia are usually about 10 percent of wages a month.

Mr. McKENZIE. Wages are low, too.

Mrs. OSWALD. Of course, people who get more, higher wages have bigger apartments.

Mr. DULLES. Mr. Rankin, I think, is it all right to adjourn at this point?

We will reconvene at 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF HARRIS COULTER

The President's Commission reconvened at 2 p.m.

(Members present at this point: Chief Justice Warren and Representative Ford.)

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will come to order. You may proceed, Mr. Rankin.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice. Mr. McKenzie has asked that we develop in the record a little bit about the qualifications of Mr. Coulter as an interpreter, so it would be clear that he is able to translate back and forth.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Coulter, I think you should be sworn for this.

The CHAIRMAN. Would you rise and be sworn, please? Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. COULTER. I do.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you please state your full name?

Mr. COULTER. Harris Livermore Coulter.

Mr. RANKIN. Where do you live?

Mr. COULTER. Glen Echo Heights, Md.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have a position in the Government at the present time?

Mr. COULTER. Yes; I am an interpreter with the State Department.

Mr. RANKIN. How long have you been in that capacity?

Mr. COULTER. About 3 months.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any special field of foreign languages that you are working in?

Mr. COULTER. Russian is my best foreign language. I also work in French and in Yugoslavian.

Mr. RANKIN. What training have you had for interpreting or translating Russian?

Mr. COULTER. Russian language and area studies was my major subject at Yale University when I was an undergraduate. I also took 4 years of graduate work at Columbia University in Soviet area studies. In addition to that, I studied at the University of Moscow for 6 months. And I have been studying Russian since 1950.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us what period of time you studied at the University of Moscow?

Mr. COULTER. I was there from December 19--excuse me--from September 1962 until January 1963.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you been acting as an official interpreter in Government work?

Mr. COULTER. Yes; for the last 3 months I have been.

Mr. RANKIN. And will you describe the nature of that activity?

Mr. COULTER. I have been escorting delegations from Yugoslavia both around the United States and in Washington. I have been working with French delegations here in the State Department. I would have been working with Russians if there had been any. There just haven't been any yet.

In July I will be going to Geneva to be an interpreter at the disarmament negotiations between the United States and the Soviet Union.

I worked 3 years as simultaneous interpreter at the United Nations, in Russian and French.

Mr. RANKIN. And have all these various activities since you have been employed by the Government been as a part of your Government work?

Mr. COULTER. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have facility in the reading of the Russian language?

Mr. COULTER. Yes; I read it fluently.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you had any difficulty understanding Mrs. Oswald?

Mr. COULTER. Not in the slightest; no.

Mr. RANKIN. I will ask you to ask her if she has had any difficulty understanding you.

Mrs. OSWALD. In the Russian language?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McKenzie, do you have anything else?

Mr. McKENZIE. I would like to ask a couple of questions. Mr. Coulter, prior to your service with the State Department which commenced some 3 months ago, where were you employed?

Mr. COULTER. I was unemployed from June 1963 until March 1964. I was in the process of being cleared for a Government job at the time.

I terminated my employment with the United Nations in June 1963.

Mr. McKENZIE. And you have been cleared for Government security purposes?

Mr. COULTER. That is right. The clearance began about August. I had some part-time jobs, freelance work, between the dates, but nothing permanent.

Mr. McKENZIE. But for a number of years you were an interpreter at the United Nations?

Mr. COULTER. About 3 years.

Mr. McKENZIE. And then you started getting a security clearance, and for the past 3 months you have been employed by the State Department as an interpreter?

Mr. COULTER. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. You were the interpreter present this morning when Mrs. Oswald commenced her testimony on this occasion?

Mr. COULTER. I was.

Mr. McKENZIE. And all the above and foregoing testimony previously testified to from the beginning of this session this morning up through now, you have interpreted; have you not?

Mr. COULTER. I have.

Mrs. OSWALD. I appreciate Mr. Coulter helping me.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, the purpose and reason behind my asking you to show his qualifications, the interpreter's qualifications, is that the record will reflect that Mrs. Oswald was asked questions in English, and they were interpreted into Russian, and she has answered in Russian--and so that the record will show she was not answering in English.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, I would like to turn now to the pictures of your husband that I asked you about earlier, when you identified the gray camera as the one that was used in taking the pictures. And I called your attention to Commission Exhibits Nos. 133-A and 133-B. I now wish to ask you specifically whether you used that camera that you saw identified for the taking of both of these pictures. And in so doing, I wish to call your attention to the fact that there were two different positions in the exhibits.

Mrs. OSWALD. I took both these pictures at the same time, and with the same camera.

Mr. RANKIN. And in giving that answer, you have examined the pictures, and you know they are different positions--that is, your husband has the rifle in different positions and the newspaper in different positions in the two pictures--do you?

Mrs. OSWALD. I am aware of that.

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, did you ever have a discussion with your husband about when he decided that he would like to become a citizen of the Soviet Union?

Mrs. OSWALD. We discussed this and he said that the Soviet Government wanted him to become a Soviet citizen and furnished him the necessary papers, but he apparently refused. But the way it appears in his diary, of course, is quite different--in fact, the exact opposite.

Mr. RANKIN. By the exact opposite, you mean that it shows in his diary that he was the one that wanted to be a Soviet citizen, and the Soviet Union refused to allow that; is that right?

Mrs. OSWALD. That is correct.

Representative FORD. When did this conversation on this subject take place, Mrs. Oswald?

Mrs. OSWALD. About 3 months after we were married.

Representative FORD. While you were living in Minsk?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. Do you remember how the discussion came up?

Mrs. OSWALD. When Lee wrote the American Embassy requesting return to the United States and requesting an American passport, he told me that it was very lucky that he hadn't become a Soviet citizen, and that his passport was still in the American Embassy. And that if he had become a Soviet citizen, it would have been difficult if not impossible to leave.

Before I found out about his diary, I didn't realize that the Soviet Government had refused to grant him citizenship, because he never talked about this, never mentioned it.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, that is the end of the questioning that I planned to examine Mrs. Oswald about. I understand that Congressman Ford has some.

I would like before closing to make an offer of what has been marked now as Commission Exhibit No. 993, which is the story that Mrs. Oswald developed in Russian that was furnished to us, and I want to inform the Commission that it was furnished to us for the purpose of trying to examine Mrs. Oswald the first time, and that counsel at that time and present counsel wanted to make it very clear that they didn't want to lose any property interest in that document. And all rights that they might have to publish it and use it commercially and any other way that she might have, and that it was merely furnished to the Commission for official purposes and very strictly limited in that manner. But I would like to offer it and the Commission may want to reserve its decision as to whether it should be made a part of the record and published. But I think it should at this time be offered for your consideration in that manner.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. Does counsel wish to add anything to that?

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I would, if I may, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. I appreciate Mr. Rankin's remarks in connection with the offering of Mrs. Oswald's memoirs, or manuscript of her memoirs, which, I understand, is Commission Exhibit No. 993. The manuscript prepared by Mrs. Oswald was heretofore voluntarily presented for the sole and exclusive purpose of assisting the Commission in its official duties for the Commission's use and benefit and to help the Commission in evaluating Mrs. Oswald's testimony as well as the testimony of others in arriving at a report setting forth its findings and conclusions to the President and the American people.

Mrs. Oswald and her two minor children have property rights that are private to her and to them in the publishing and use of the memoirs set forth in her manuscript, which was written solely for her use in writing a book for commercial purposes. She does object to the inclusion of the manuscript in the record, or the publishing of same, and she does not waive or relinquish or in anyway legally or otherwise give away her proprietary rights in this regard, to the manuscript.

She respectfully requests that the Commission honor her request in what has heretofore been deemed and what she now deems to be her assistance to the Commission--and I will say this--that she has told me repeatedly that she has sought to assist the Commission in every possible and conceivable way. But in light of that, she does respect the Commission's indulgence in not publishing this manuscript, and asks that this only be used as it was presented for the purpose of assisting the Commission in its official duties, in evaluating the evidence.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any suggestions as to how we might use it and at the same time not permanently deprive the public of an opportunity to see it?

Before you answer that, I want to say this. I am sure no member of the Commission wants to--has any desire to in anyway interfere with the property rights of Mrs. Oswald. She did cooperate with us in bringing this. We feel grateful that she did do it. On the other hand, we do want eventually to have this in the record so the public will know that they are getting everything that the Commission has. I am just wondering if perhaps while you are contemplating writing something on the subject, and protecting her property rights, if we could seal this with a notation that it was not to be opened for public view until that has been done. And you could let us know when that day has passed. Would that protect her rights?

Mr. McKENZIE. Well, Mr. Chief Justice, I would be the last one in the world to suggest anything either to yourself or to the Commission insofar as the way this matter should be handled. I do have, or feel, that the manuscript was given to the Commission, the Commission has had more than adequate opportunity to interrogate Mrs. Oswald. She is willing to stay here now as long as the Commission desires, and will do so voluntarily without the issuance of a subpena or any other way.

I think through the interrogation that Mr. Rankin has conducted--I might remark, most ably--that certainly the matters covered in the manuscript have already been covered in direct sworn testimony. And with that thought in mind, it was my feeling, and it is my feeling that the Commission and its staff, through the help and assistance of the manuscript and Mrs. Oswald, have had the benefit of all the matters previously written down by Mrs. Oswald, and that if there are any questions that have not been covered that are covered in the manuscript, I am sure that counsel for the Commission could adequately cover those questions. The manuscript was prepared by Mrs. Oswald in the form of memoirs. And was not prepared for the use of the Commission. And I think without the Commission's knowledge--it was prepared beforehand. And she brought it so the Commission could have the effect of it and the use of it. Now, if the Commission feels that it should be finally published as part of the Commission's report, I would certainly hope that the Commission would honor her request and withhold the publishing of the manuscript until such time as she has had the opportunity to conclude any negotiations which she might have or might possibly have for the publishing of a book.

I ask this not so much for Mrs. Oswald herself, but more for her two minor children.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, we will do at least that. We will take the matter under consideration and having in mind her rights and our desire not to interfere with them we will try to work out a solution that will be satisfactory to you and to her.

Mr. McKENZIE. I thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice. And I might also add that the Chief Justice and all members of this Commission and its staff know full well, or at least I feel would know full well that just as soon as this report is published and distributed to the public, or distributed to the press, regardless of what property rights she may have now or may have then, it will be extremely difficult for Mrs. Oswald to protect those rights--if not impossible.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to say, also, for the record that there is nothing sensational or nothing of a secretive nature in the document. It is something that, as you say, was written for publication, and we assume that it will be some day published, probably, and that if it is not given to the public, it will not be because there is anything of a secret nature in there. It would only be a question of whether it could be done consistent with the rights of the witness. And we will bear those in mind, you may be sure.

Mr. McKENZIE. I thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

And if I may add one other thing. I have heretofore made a request on Mr. Rankin in connection with a diary which was presented by Robert Oswald at the time of his testimony to the Commission, that Robert Oswald had prepared shortly after November 22, and which not only has he furnished the diary to the Commission, but has also narrated that diary by reading same on dictaphone tapes, and I have, in turn, furnished it to Mr. Jenner, a member of the Commission's staff.

I have requested the Commission not to print Robert Oswald's diary for the same reasons that I have heretofore outlined in connection with Mrs. Oswald's manuscript. And I would hope that the Commission could consider Robert Oswald's diary in the same light that you would consider this manuscript. I am not saying that either have any commercial value, but if they do I would hope that they would inure to the benefit of Mrs. Oswald's family and the benefit of Robert Oswald's family.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. We will consider that, also. But there are some portions of the diary of Mr. Oswald that are in the record already as a result of his examination, as there are things involved in this document of Mrs. Oswald's that are in the record by question and answer.

Mr. McKENZIE. There is one other thing, and then I will close on this particular subject. Mrs. Oswald does not have a copy of the manuscript of her memoirs. Her former attorney, Mr. Thorne, or her former so-called business manager, Mr. James Martin, reportedly to me has such a copy. But at the present time she does not have a copy of this manuscript nor do I have a copy of the manuscript.

The CHAIRMAN. You may have one immediately.

Mr. McKENZIE. Fine, sir--I would like to say at the Commission's expense.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; of course, we will see you have one.

Mr. McKENZIE. At the time that Robert Oswald gave his testimony to the Commission, Mr. Jenner and Mr. Liebler followed the practice of taking originals and photostating them or Xerox copying them and giving the originals back. Before we do close today, I would like to make a request on the record to have all the articles that Marina has brought up here in the way of letters and things of that sort returned to her, with, of course, adequate copies for the Commission and its use. And I don't know whether you have any or not.

Mr. RANKIN. You have made your request.

The CHAIRMAN. We will consider that along with the other things. Mr. Rankin, will you continue now?

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Coulter, could you state for the record whether you have related this colloquy to Mrs. Oswald, so that she is informed of it?

Mr. COULTER. I gave it to her in general terms, that they were discussing the question of the rights to her manuscript and the rights to the originals of the various objects in her possession, which she had made available to the Commission.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you.

(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I have one other offer to make, and I would like to offer it under Exhibit No. 994, and that would be a translation of this document, that would present the same problems.

We have a translation that was made by Mr. Gopadze, the Secret Service agent, who is quite familiar with the Russian language. But we earlier today had a letter that Mrs. Oswald wrote to the Civil Liberties Union of Dallas, and she questioned some of the translation from Russian into English, which was not done by any of our people, of course. And we are not so sure about Mr. Gopadze's translation. So we would like to follow what was suggested at that time, that Mr. Coulter make a translation of this, which we would submit to counsel for Mrs. Oswald, and Mrs. Oswald, for them to be satisfied it is a correct translation, and then make that translation a part of the record, subject to your deciding later whether it should be.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, instead of referring it to Mr. Coulter, we will refer it to Mrs. Oswald's attorney, and he can have prepared any translation that he wishes, and then we will have it for comparison with the other.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I thought we would save them the expense.

The CHAIRMAN. I would rather deal directly with the counsel, and then we are not in any cross purposes. He can have it done any way he wants.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Chief Justice, with your kind indulgence, sir, and the Commission's kind indulgence, Mr. Coulter's translation of this document would be more than satisfactory with Mrs. Oswald and with myself. And, quite frankly, the funds which she has available to her for such a purpose are so extremely limited that it would be an extreme hardship on her to employ an interpreter to translate it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is perfectly all right, that Mr. Coulter should do it. I have no objection at all to Mr. Coulter. Only when we are dealing with a client of a lawyer, we like to deal directly with him, and he can deal with the translator if he wishes.

Mr. McKENZIE. I think we are both trying to serve the same purpose. But Mr. Rankin and I, I think, are in full agreement on Mr. Coulter's interpretation of this manuscript--if that is satisfactory with the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; if it is satisfactory with you, it is satisfactory with me. There is no question about that.

Mrs. OSWALD. Maybe in this manuscript many details are lacking which have been developed in my testimony, because I wrote it mainly for public consumption.

Mr. RANKIN. We understand, Mrs. Oswald. I am sure the Commissioners all understand that the manuscript is something that was referred to in order to inquire from you during your giving of testimony, and that your testimony, together with the manuscript, should be considered if there is any question, because you do not purport to cover everything in the manuscript. Is that what you are saying?

Mrs. OSWALD. I am very ashamed that there is so much unnecessary information in this manuscript and that it caused the interpreter so much difficulty in translating it.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I then offer under Exhibit No. 994, and I make, without repeating them, the same suggestions I did about the Russian document, Exhibit No. 993, and ask that we follow the procedure of getting the translation, and then make it a part of this record, subject to the Commission's determining that it should be.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be done in that manner.

Mr. RANKIN. That is all.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Ford, do you have some matters?

Mrs. OSWALD. I would like to know if the Commission wants me to make some comment on any differences in substance between the manuscript and the testimony which I have given, or between the manuscript or the translation, whichever translation may be accepted, or both.

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will ask the questions, if there is anything of that nature. Now, Congressman Ford, do you have some questions?

Representative FORD. Yes, Mr. Chief Justice, I have a few questions. In the Soviet Union, when a marriage application is applied for, what are the steps that you take?

Mrs. OSWALD. There are certain applications which have to be filled out by the boy and girl.

Representative FORD. Do you have to go down together to make the application?

Mrs. OSWALD. It is necessary for both to appear with their passports and fill out this application.

Representative FORD. In other words, Lee Harvey Oswald had to take his passport down to--at the time that he applied for a marriage application?

Mrs. OSWALD. Lee Oswald did not have his passport at the time since it was in the American Embassy. He went with his residence permission to the office. But our marriage was entered into his American passport after we were married and before we left the Soviet Union for the United States.

Representative FORD. So it is not the passport in the sense that we think of a passport, that we get to travel to a foreign country?

Mrs. OSWALD. Since most marriages are concluded between Soviet citizens, they only present their internal passports to the marriage license bureau. But if there is a marriage between a Soviet citizen and a foreigner, he presents his residence permission and his foreign passport, also, if he has one. If he doesn't have it, the residence permission is enough.

Representative FORD. Do we have the document that he presented at the time he applied for marriage?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. I think he had to turn that in before he left the Soviet Union.

Mr. McKENZIE. Are you referring to his American passport?

Representative FORD. No; I am referring to the document that he presented at the time he applied for marriage.

Mr. McKENZIE. Which would be a Russian instrument?

Representative FORD. Right.

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know if it is available. I think he had to turn it in before he left the Soviet Union.

Representative FORD. In other words, both you and Lee Harvey Oswald signed the necessary documents for marriage?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. During your period in Minsk, following your marriage, did you and Lee Harvey Oswald have any marital difficulties, any problems between the two of you?

Mrs. OSWALD. We had some difficulties in connection with the fact that I told my uncle and aunt that we were going to leave for the United States. Lee did not want me to tell anybody that we were preparing to leave for the United States.

Representative FORD. That was the only difficulty you had?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. Was your vacation trip to Kharkov--was that a vacation, or did that result from any marital difficulty?

Mrs. OSWALD. My aunt invited me to Kharkov, and that is why I went. It was not the result of any marital difficulties.

Representative FORD. You testified a few minutes ago, Mrs. Oswald, that there was a difference in the historic diary and what Lee Oswald told you concerning the status of his application for Soviet citizenship. You have read the historic diary?

Mrs. OSWALD. I have only read what the FBI agents translated, those parts of the diary which were translated into Russian by the FBI.

Representative FORD. Was that much of it or a small part of it?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was the part about his attempt at suicide.

Representative FORD. And also the part concerning the status of his Soviet citizenship?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that that is the part which deals with his application for Soviet citizenship. I don't know of any other parts of the diary in which this would be set forth.

Representative FORD. You have no idea of when he wrote the historic diary?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know when he began, but I know that after we were married he spent the evenings writing his diary. I think that is the reason why he didn't want me to study English while we were still in Russia, because he didn't want me to be able to read his diary.

Representative FORD. He never read you the diary in Russian?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative FORD. On the trip back to the United States, Lee Oswald wrote on the Holland-American Line paper some additional comments. Did you see him write this on the trip?

Mrs. OSWALD. I saw him writing this when we were in the cabin on the ship. I thought they were just letters, though, and I didn't read them. He didn't write these when I was around.

Representative FORD. He didn't write them while you were present?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. REDLICH. I might mention for the record that this document has already been introduced as Commission Exhibit No. 25.

Representative FORD. If you didn't see him write it in the cabin how did you know he wrote it?

Mrs. OSWALD. In the first place, because the paper was from the Holland-American Line, and then I think--in the second place, because I saw these pages covered with writing in the cabin, and I think that he must have gone some place else on the ship, such as the library, to do the actual writing.

Representative FORD. Have you read that which he wrote on the ship?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I have not read them, because I don't understand English.

Representative FORD. He never read it to you in Russian?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative FORD. At any time on the trip back, from the time you started to leave the Soviet Union until you arrived in the United States, did you have any trouble at the border of the Soviet Union or any other country?

Mrs. OSWALD. We had no difficulty with the authorities of any kind on any border. I think that my husband may have had some financial difficulties in New York, when he arrived.

Representative FORD. You left the Soviet Union by what means, now?

Mrs. OSWALD. Train and boat.

Representative FORD. You went from the Soviet Union to Poland by train?

Mrs. OSWALD. We took a train from Moscow to Amsterdam, through Poland and Germany.

Representative FORD. You had no difficulty going into Poland, going through Germany?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative FORD. Or into Holland?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. And there were no difficulties in our entering the United States, either.

Representative FORD. When you were living at Elsbeth Street, did you and Lee have any domestic trouble?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. Could you relate how frequently and how serious they were?

Mrs. OSWALD. The first difficulty we had was at Elsbeth Street when I told the landlady that I was from Russia. My husband had told her that I was from Czechoslovakia, and he became very angry with me for telling her I was from Russia, and said that I talked too much.

Representative FORD. That was the first incident?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. Were there others?

Mrs. OSWALD. Then we had difficulties because I had a number of Russian friends in Elsbeth Street, around there, in Dallas, and he was jealous of me, and didn't want me to see them.

Representative FORD. During this time, did he physically abuse you? Did he hit you?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. Did Mr. De Mohrenschildt reprimand Lee for his abuse to you?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. He didn't support this. He didn't favor this conduct of my husband's. But I don't think he ever said anything to him about it, or told him that he shouldn't do it.

Representative FORD. Mr. De Mohrenschildt didn't say anything to Lee Oswald in your presence about his abuse towards you?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; not in my presence.

Representative FORD. Did Mr. De Mohrenschildt take you to Mellers, was it?

Mrs. OSWALD. Anna Meller--no; he did not.

Representative FORD. Mr. De Mohrenschildt did not take you there?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; we had a quarrel, and I took the child and took a taxi, and went by myself there.

Representative FORD. Did you have money to pay for a taxi?

Mrs. OSWALD. Anna Meller paid for the taxi.

Representative FORD. When you got to Anna Meller's?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. I believe that is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles, do you have any questions?

Mr. DULLES. A couple, Mr. Chief Justice.

You have described this morning briefly the manner of your life in Minsk. I wonder if you would also now discuss that in the United States. What did you do with your leisure time, how did Oswald handle his leisure time when he wasn't working?

I am speaking of your stays in Dallas, Fort Worth, and New Orleans.

Mrs. OSWALD. My life in the United States was not quite as carefree as it had been in the Soviet Union. I was occupied all the time with housework, and I couldn't go anywhere. Lee spent a good deal of time reading.

Mr. DULLES. Were you together most of the time?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. So that you knew where Lee was. Lee wasn't away on trips much of the time, except for his trip to Mexico, and when he was absent in New Orleans?

Mrs. OSWALD. That is correct. We were together.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know what he was reading in those days?

Mrs. OSWALD. He read nonfiction almost entirely and mainly historical works.

Mr. DULLES. Was he reading Russian books or mostly English books?

Mrs. OSWALD. He could read Russian, but he read only English works.

Mr. DULLES. Was he doing much writing in this period, during the American stay?

Mrs. OSWALD. When we were living on Elsbeth Street, he wrote something, and also on Neely Street, I think it was in connection with the Walker, General Walker incident.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know what happened to that particular writing?

Mrs. OSWALD. I know that he destroyed this after the Walker business.

He had a map of Dallas, and he used to go off by himself and think about the map, and work on it. I think you have this map in among the materials of the Commission. He used to work on it, and the least disturbance used to upset him very much when he was working on this map.

Mr. DULLES. When you say he used to go away, do you mean go away in the house or outside the house with the map?

Mrs. OSWALD. In the house, in the kitchen, and would tell me not to come in, not to make any noise at all.

Mr. DULLES. Could you specify as to time and date, as to about when he acquired this map and began this study of the map?

Mrs. OSWALD. Could I ask the Commission just when we were living on Elsbeth Street, since I have forgotten?

Mr. REDLICH. November 1962 to March 1963. November 3, 1962 to March 2, 1963.

Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was at the end of January, it was after New Years. I think he had a map all the time, but he started becoming particularly occupied with it at the end of January 1963.

Mr. DULLES. 1963?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Did Oswald, to your knowledge, have friends, associates, other men whom he saw, in addition to the considerable number whom you have described as your friends in Dallas and Fort Worth, whom you have already described? Did he have any business friends or any other friends you can think of that used to come to the house?

Mrs. OSWALD. No one, except for my friends whom I have already told you about.

Mr. DULLES. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman, did you have any more?

Mr. DULLES. I was speaking of the United States.

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he told me that he was working on this map in connection with the bus schedules. He had a kind of bus schedule, and--a paper with bus schedules on it, and he was somehow comparing them or working on them, or doing something with these two documents.

The CHAIRMAN. Congressman Ford?

Representative FORD. When you left the Soviet Union, Lee borrowed money from the U.S. Government to pay for your transportation back to the United States. Did you have any other money of your own at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. We had--it is permissible to exchange a certain amount of Soviet rubles into American dollars in such cases, and we did exchange some Soviet rubles--I think about $180 worth--when we left. But that wasn't enough to pay the whole trip.

Representative FORD. Lee had borrowed from the Government approximately $600?

Mr. RANKIN. $450, and then the exchange made a total of $600 and something.

Representative FORD. This $180 was used with the State Department money for the transportation and the funds for the trip?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know, since my husband took care of that whole matter. He never talked about money with me.

Representative FORD. Would you describe one of the border crossings? What did the Government officials do when you went from Poland into Germany, for example? Tell us what actually happened.

Mrs. OSWALD. The train stopped and people come in and check your documents.

On the Russian border, of course, people come in and look at your bags--that is to say, they don't rifle through everything, but they pick things at random and look at them.

Representative FORD. Did Lee carry all the documents?

Mrs. OSWALD. He carried all the documents, since I had the baby to look after.

Representative FORD. At the Polish-German border, did they actually examine the documents?

Mrs. OSWALD. More carefully between Russia and Poland than between Poland and Germany.

Representative FORD. Did Lee make any acquaintances on the train and the boat?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative FORD. Did----

Mrs. OSWALD. On the boat there were two Rumanian girls we talked with, since I had studied a little bit of Moldavian before, which is similar to Russian, and could speak a little. And on that basis we met and talked a little.

Representative FORD. Did George De Mohrenschildt at any time take you any place from the Elsbeth Street residence?

Mrs. OSWALD. Only to his house.

Representative FORD. Did Lee accompany you at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; once he took us both home to see his daughter. He took us--took me to see his daughter, at a time when I was living in Fort Worth, and Lee was living in Dallas. I might be confused about just who went, and when.

Representative FORD. But he only took you once from one place to his house?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; we went several times to his house. Maybe two or three times.

Representative FORD. Did Lee accompany you on any of these occasions?

Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. De Mohrenschildt took us once to the Ford's house. It was on New Year's, I think, Katya Ford's house. It was either Christmas or New Year's. I don't think that Mr. De Mohrenschildt is as dangerous as he sounds. This is my personal opinion.

Representative FORD. I wasn't implying that he was dangerous. I was just trying to----

Mrs. OSWALD. He talks all the time. Did he appear before the Commission or not?

Mr. RANKIN. We have his testimony.

Representative FORD. I have nothing further.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all, Mrs. Oswald. Thank you very much.

Mr. McKENZIE. I have some questions, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; Mr. McKenzie.

Mr. McKENZIE. You mentioned earlier, in response to some question, that your husband had stated that the Soviet Government wanted him to become a Soviet citizen, but that his diary says the opposite.

When did you first learn that the Soviet Government wanted Lee Harvey Oswald to become a Soviet citizen?

Mrs. OSWALD. I heard this 3 months after we were married, from Lee.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did any Soviet----

Mr. DULLES. Who did you hear it from?

Mrs. OSWALD. From Lee.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did any Soviet Government official come to see you or Lee after you were married, and visit with you?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did Lee, from time to time, have to report to any Soviet Government agency after you were married?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. And how often did he make a report to a government official or to a government agency?

Mrs. OSWALD. He had to go every month or every 3 months. I don't remember how often. It was either every month or every 2 or 3 and get a stamp in his residence permit.

Mr. McKENZIE. And how long would he be gone on those occasions from home, or from work?

Mrs. OSWALD. About half an hour.

Mr. McKENZIE. You have mentioned that he had Cuban friends and friends from the Argentine in Minsk. Did he ever have any Mexican friends in Minsk?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he ever mention to you anyone that he knew in Mexico, either from Cuba or from the Soviet Union or from any other place, any name of anyone?

Mrs. OSWALD. He might have had some, but I don't know anything about any of them. He never mentioned it.

Mr. McKENZIE. It has been reported that--in the papers--that at the time you left New Orleans, or at the time that Lee Harvey Oswald left New Orleans, that he had two books on Marxism and a fiction book written by Ian Fleming called "To Russia With Love." Do you recall seeing that book there in the apartment?

Mrs. OSWALD. I only knew about the two books on Marxism and Leninism. I don't know anything about this third one.

Mr. McKENZIE. And those books you know about, were they books from the public library in New Orleans?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think these were his own private possession. I think he had even a book in English when he was in Russia on Marxism.

Mr. McKENZIE. After your arrival in the United States, and after you had left Fort Worth, and had moved into your own apartment, did your husband have any money?

Mrs. OSWALD. When he left Dallas for Fort Worth?

Mr. McKENZIE. Yes.

Mrs. OSWALD. I think he had some money saved up. He always was saving money for a rainy day.

(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. McKENZIE. From what source did he save that money? Where did the money come from?

Mrs. OSWALD. Only from his salary, from his wages.

Mr. McKENZIE. When he was not working, did he have any other source of money, or did he have money?

Mrs. OSWALD. When he wasn't working, he got some unemployment compensation from the place where he had been working.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he ever receive money to your knowledge from any other sources, other than from the Government or from his work?

Mrs. OSWALD. The only sources I know of were the companies where he worked.

Mr. McKENZIE. Who did your husband consider as good friends of his in Dallas, Tex.?

Mrs. OSWALD. He was most friendly with George De Mohrenschildt. However, this is not a very nice thing to say for Mr. De Mohrenschildt's reputation. This has been--had a harmful effect on Mr. De Mohrenschildt's reputation as a result of the assassination, the fact that he was friendly with my husband.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did your husband have any other good friends? For example, did he consider Michael Paine a good friend of his?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; he didn't like Michael Paine. Therefore, I was surprised when they went to this meeting together. Perhaps they became friends after this. But it didn't seem so to me. He didn't show it to me.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did your husband ever give you money or did you ever handle money in caring for the household, or did he take care of the money?

Mrs. OSWALD. He never gave me any money. We would go shopping together, and he would make all the payments.

Mr. McKENZIE. Were there not times when you didn't have enough money and food in the house, and friends had to help you?

Mrs. OSWALD. It never happened that there was no food in the house and that friends had to help us. The only time when this might have been the case was immediately after our arrival in the United States, when I gave some Russian lessons to Mr. Gregory and his son, and he paid me for it. And once after we arrived Mr. George Bouhe saw that I was rather thin and took us to a grocery store and bought us a lot of stuff.

Mr. McKENZIE. And did Mr. George Bouhe or Mrs. Ford have to take you to the hospital at one time or another?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. McKENZIE. For June?

Mrs. OSWALD. Not Mrs. Ford and not Mr. Bouhe.

Mr. McKENZIE. Who was it?

Mrs. OSWALD. Lydia Dymitruk took me to the hospital.

Mr. McKENZIE. That is all I have, Mr. Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Thank you, Mrs. Oswald, I think that will be all.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Chief Justice, before we close for the day I do have one request I would like to make of the Commission on the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. On behalf of Mrs. Oswald, I would like to have returned to her the original or original copies of all letters which she has previously furnished to the Commission, diaries, pictures, or any personal property of Lee Harvey Oswald that was presented to the Commission, including his personal effects and his diary, in particular his wedding ring, a watch, belt buckles, or any personal effects belonging to either Lee Harvey Oswald or Mrs. Oswald that have been presented as original exhibits to the Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will consider that in connection with all the other things that you asked for in connection with her writings.

Mr. McKENZIE. And may I respectfully ask this. In the Commission's consideration of our request, in connection with the original instruments or documents, or whatever it may be, do you at this time have any idea how long it would be before the Commission would decide?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I think----

Mr. McKENZIE. Mind you, I ask that as respectfully as I possibly can.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I answer you as well as I can. We are driving to conclude the work of the Commission, and we believe that it will be completed in the next month--we hope so, anyway.

Mr. McKENZIE. Of course she has no objection whatsoever for the Commission to have the documents which it now has as long as the originals are returned to her.

The CHAIRMAN. We will give consideration to that, because there are some things that are evidence here, that belonged to him, that perhaps will have to remain evidence. I can't make any analysis of all of those things at the present time. But, for instance, let us say, the gun.

Mr. McKENZIE. We want that, too.

The CHAIRMAN. I say, we will give consideration to that. But I cannot give you any assurance of it at this time.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to have the record show at this point--we have no objection to what you propose and say we should do about supplying new copies of material, but I don't want the record to indicate we took their copies away from them, because we understand their manager and former counsel kept the copies or the originals, and have them. So that we are not just taking them for ourselves. I don't want the record to appear----

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, I would not have the record reflect that, either. And I say that at all times that they were voluntarily given to the Commission. And the only thing I am asking for is a return of everything Mrs. Oswald has previously furnished the Commission, with the understanding that the Commission has the copies of them--she wants the originals back. In particular, there is a wedding ring that I would like to ask the Commission to return at this time.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, these things will have to be considered, all of them, by the whole Commission, Counsel. But we will give them consideration. We won't be turning anything back today, because we want the whole Commission to see what is essential.

Mr. McKENZIE. Thank you, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. All right. I think that will be all. The Commission will adjourn.

(Whereupon, at 3:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Tuesday, June 16, 1964

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT ALAN SURREY

The President's Commission met at 10:15 a.m., on June 16, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, and Representative Hale Boggs, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel.

(Members present: Chief Justice Warren, Senator Cooper, and Representative Boggs.)

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Surrey, we have asked you to come here to testify concerning two things. The first is we want to ask you concerning the printing of a publication entitled, "Wanted for Treason" that appeared on the streets November 22, 1963, in Dallas. And then we propose to ask you also some questions about the home of General Walker, in connection with an attempt that was made on his life some time before the 22d of November. You are prepared to testify, are you?

Mr. SURREY. I talked to Mr. Jenner. I am prepared to testify as concerns the Walker episode. I do not wish to testify as concerns the wanted poster, or the "Wanted for Treason."

The CHAIRMAN. For what reason--what reason do you assign for not wanting to? It is not a question of whether a witness wants to testify here. He is subpenaed to testify, and he must testify unless he has a privilege.

Mr. SURREY. I believe that my answers would tend to incriminate me under the fifth amendment.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You are entitled to raise that question. And, if you do, that privilege will be respected. But we will ask you a question concerning it, and if you claim your privilege it will be respected. And then if you want to testify--are willing to testify about the other matters, you may do so.

Would you rise and raise your right hand and be sworn? You solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. SURREY. I do.

Representative BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I would suppose that we would not be limited to one question. If he wants to plead the fifth amendment, of course that is his privilege. But I would hope that we could ask him several questions, and if he wants to plead he can plead on each question.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, on any phase of it that you wish to ask him a question, of course it is all right.

Mr. Jenner will conduct the examination.

Mr. SURREY. Is it my understanding that if I do invoke the fifth amendment to begin with, then I do not have the privilege of later on invoking it, is that correct?

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I believe it is a fact that on any phase of your testimony, if you testify in part about that phase, you can be required to testify fully concerning it. But if there is one phase of your testimony that you want to claim the privilege on, and are willing to testify as to other matters not connected with it, you can do so without waiving your privilege. Does that answer your question?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Mr. Jenner?

Mr. JENNER. Thank you, Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. Chief Justice, I offer in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 995 the original of the subpena served upon Mr. Surrey.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes. A subpena was served on you, was it, Mr. Surrey?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well, it may be admitted.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 995 for identification, and received in evidence.)

Mr. JENNER. You are appearing in response to the subpena?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am.

Mr. JENNER. Were you furnished with copies of the Senate joint resolution, or legislation which created--authorized the creation of the Commission?

Mr. SURREY. At a previous time; yes.

Mr. JENNER. And President Johnson's Executive order, and the rules and regulations of the Commission as to taking of testimony?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I was. It was hard to read them.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; they are a little bit difficult to read.

In order that you may exercise the rights that you have indicated to the Chief Justice, I will question you first about the pamphlet, after asking you the preliminary questions as to your name.

Mr. SURREY. Robert Alan Surrey.

Mr. JENNER. And what is your address?

Mr. SURREY. 3506 Lindenwood, Dallas, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. How long have you resided there?

Mr. SURREY. Eight years.

Mr. JENNER. And what is your age?

Mr. SURREY. Thirty-eight.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you born?

Mr. SURREY. Oak Park, Ill.

Mr. JENNER. When did you move to Texas?

Mr. SURREY. First moved there in 1948, and then left for 2 years, from 1951 to 1953, and then moved back to Texas.

Mr. JENNER. You are a college graduate; are you not?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am.

Mr. JENNER. What university or college?

Mr. SURREY. Northwestern.

Mr. JENNER. In Evanston, Ill?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. When did you receive your degree?

Mr. SURREY. 1948.

Mr. JENNER. You are married?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am.

Mr. JENNER. Is Mrs. Surrey a native born American?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; she is a Dallasite.

Mr. JENNER. She is a Dallas girl?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What is your business, occupation, or profession?

Mr. SURREY. I am a printing salesman.

Mr. JENNER. For what company?

Mr. SURREY. For Johnson Printing Co.

Mr. JENNER. Is that located at 2700 North Haskell, in Dallas?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is.

Mr. JENNER. How long have you been employed by Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. Seven years.

Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us in a general way what Johnson Printing Co. does? I appreciate the name in the title of the company indicates printing, but what kind?

Mr. SURREY. Commercial printing, advertising printing, house organs--just general commercial work.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have some military service?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Would you state what it was?

Mr. SURREY. I was 4 years in the Navy, in World War II.

Mr. JENNER. Are you also the president of a book publishing company located in Dallas?

Mr. SURREY. The American Eagle Publishing Co?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am.

Mr. JENNER. The only volume I have seen--there was a publication of reprints of newspaper stories.

Mr. SURREY. Called the Assassination Story, yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And your name appeared, I think, in that as the president of the company.

Mr. SURREY. A cover letter that was on the back cover.

Mr. JENNER. And----

Mr. SURREY. This was not our only publication. We have done many publications before that.

Representative BOGGS. Do we have a copy of this publication?

Mr. JENNER. Of this particular one?

Mr. SURREY. Mr. Alger's office came to me and requested two copies for the Warren Commission, which I furnished to him.

Representative BOGGS. Whose office?

Mr. SURREY. Congressman Bruce Alger's office.

Representative BOGGS. Did we make such a request through Congressman Alger?

Mr. JENNER. I am not advised as to whether we did or not.

Mr. RANKIN. I am quite sure we did not.

The CHAIRMAN. Did we receive any such copies?

Mr. JENNER. There is none among our exhibits in the exhibit room.

Mr. SURREY. His secretary called, and they came out to the house and got two copies of it.

Representative BOGGS. How long ago was this?

Mr. SURREY. Oh, I would say 3 weeks.

Representative BOGGS. When did you publish this book?

Mr. SURREY. I believe it was finally ready on January 1, right after January 1--January 1, 2, or 3, right in that area.

Representative BOGGS. What does the book allege?

Mr. SURREY. We took the 10-day period following the assassination from both Dallas papers, the Dallas Morning News, and Dallas Times Herald, and just all the clippings pertaining to it were in chronological order, and just shot them cold, and published them.

Representative BOGGS. Nothing else--just newspaper clippings?

Mr. SURREY. Just newspaper clippings.

Representative BOGGS. No editorial comment of any kind?

Mr. SURREY. Outside of the letter on the back; no.

Representative BOGGS. And what is the letter on the back?

Mr. SURREY. It said--this is just to the best of my knowledge, I don't recall exactly--"This is the local report of what happened when President Kennedy was assassinated. It is difficult to muzzle a local reporter in his own local paper. And we feel that some of the news that might not get out would be included in this book. We do not guarantee the accuracy of the information, but it will pose some questions, a few perhaps that the Warren Commission will not see fit to answer," I believe was in there.

Representative BOGGS. Not see fit to what?

Mr. SURREY. To answer.

Representative BOGGS. What was the implication of that?

Mr. SURREY. The implication being, as I see it, in Dallas--a local reporter--this is, for example. A local reporter from the Times Herald went down to the Western Union office several days after the assassination, and was told by the people in the Western Union office that, yes, they remembered Oswald, he had been in, he had gotten money orders, either the day before or just recently he had sent a wire to somebody, and they recalled his Swahili handwriting, and so forth. Well, I feel that surely Western Union knows who sent Oswald money, and so forth. Now, I don't know if this will come out of this Commission or not.

Representative BOGGS. The implication was that this Commission would not investigate these allegations?

Mr. SURREY. No--perhaps.

Representative BOGGS. Well, what did you mean by the word "muzzle"?

Mr. SURREY. Of the press?

Representative BOGGS. You used "muzzle" in this letter--written. I don't have the letter before me. I would like to have it.

Mr. SURREY. I don't, either. I would like to know what the exact wording was on it, sir.

Representative BOGGS. Did you write it?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. And the implication was that this Commission would not seek out the entire truth of the incidences arising----

Mr. SURREY. Oh, no, sir; this was not the implication of the muzzling. This was not the implication.

Representative BOGGS. What was the implication of the statement you made a moment ago, about questions that would not be asked by this Commission?

Mr. SURREY. News happens in an area, and after it has been up to the national news system, and then comes back through, and analyzed and so forth, I don't put full credit any longer.

Representative BOGGS. Your theory is that in a matter as significant as the assassination of the President of the United States, that the news as reported outside of Dallas would be untruthful?

Mr. SURREY. Possibly.

Representative BOGGS. Is that the substance of the book?

Mr. SURREY. No. No; the substance of the book is strictly newspaper clippings.

Representative BOGGS. Plus a letter.

Mr. SURREY. The letter is on the back cover of the book, just a cover letter.

Representative BOGGS. Tell me more about what the letter says.

Mr. SURREY. I would much rather have the letter. I don't recall exactly what it does say, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you write it yourself, or did somebody write it for you?

Mr. SURREY. I wrote it myself.

The CHAIRMAN. You don't remember what you wrote?

Mr. SURREY. No; not as per specific words, I do not.

Representative BOGGS. Well, not specific words. The sense.

Mr. SURREY. You picked the specific word "muzzling" out of it.

Representative BOGGS. You used that word; I didn't use it. "Muzzle" when you refer to a bipartisan Commission, established by the President of the United States, with a mandate to obtain the truth, is a rather serious word. I didn't use it--you used it.

Mr. SURREY. Based on some past experience that I have had--I was in Oxford, Miss., with General Walker. Based on past experience of the newspaper reports I heard coming out of national news media on that incident, which I saw with my own eyes, I could not believe any longer things which I read in the newspaper.

Now, the local paper there--and I was not privileged to read the local papers at the time--may have had some of the truth that went on there. But there certainly wasn't a good deal of it coming out in the national news media.

Senator COOPER. Did you select the clippings that were in the book?

Mr. SURREY. Pardon?

Senator COOPER. Did you select the newspaper clippings?

Mr. SURREY. No; I did not.

Senator COOPER. Who selected them?

Mr. SURREY. A couple named Osburn that lived in Dallas.

Senator COOPER. Who are they?

Mr. SURREY. Just some people that live in Dallas.

Senator COOPER. Do you know their names?

Mr. SURREY. Just Osburn.

Senator COOPER. Do you know their address?

Mr. SURREY. No; I do not.

The CHAIRMAN. How did you happen to be associated with them?

Mr SURREY. Mrs. Osburn works at Walker's offce.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of General Walker?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. Well, now, go ahead. I would request, Mr. Chairman, that this book and this letter be made a part of the record of this Commission.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you supply us with a copy of the book?

Mr. SURREY. If I have one, sir. They are out of print. And I don't know----

The CHAIRMAN. Are they all sold?

Mr. SURREY. Well, we were going into reprint, right at that particular time the attorney from the Times Herald called and put a cease and desist on them.

The CHAIRMAN. How many copies did you have printed?

Mr. SURREY. 3,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Were they sold?

Mr. SURREY. Some of them were; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. How many were sold?

Mr. SURREY. I would say about 900 to a thousand.

The CHAIRMAN. What became of the rest of them?

Mr. SURREY. They were sent to our presubscriber list, and given away.

The CHAIRMAN. Is this company that published them a corporation?

Mr. SURREY. No; it is a partnership.

The CHAIRMAN. Who are the partners?

Mr. SURREY. Myself and General Walker.

The CHAIRMAN. And General Walker?

Representative BOGGS. Was this pamphlet that you printed included in the book?

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. That is----

Representative BOGGS. "Wanted for Treason"?

Mr. JENNER. Commission Exhibit No. 996.

Mr. SURREY. No.

Representative BOGGS. That was not included?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Representative BOGGS. You didn't make that a part of the record of the events surrounding the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mr. SURREY. I did not make it a part of the record?

Representative BOGGS. In this record that you published.

Mr. SURREY. I had nothing to do with making it a part of the record.

Representative BOGGS. You published the book, didn't you?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; but these were newspaper reprints.

Representative BOGGS. You published this, too, didn't you?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

Representative BOGGS. You didn't publish it?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. You are speaking of the book now?

Representative BOGGS. I am talking about your printing company.

Mr. SURREY. You are talking about my printing company?

Representative BOGGS. The company you work for.

Mr. SURREY. Yes, Johnson Printing Co.

Representative BOGGS. Didn't you publish this?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Representative BOGGS. Who printed it?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.

Representative BOGGS. Mr. Chairman, I, of course, fully appreciate the right of the witness to plead the fifth amendment. But I would simply like to make the observation that this is the only witness out of hundreds who has pled the fifth amendment, and that obviously if each witness had done this, then the charge of being muzzled would be something that we would really be confronted with. I would simply like to make that observation.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed, Mr. Jenner.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you. Does the American Eagle Publishing Co. have a bookstore subsidiary or outlet?

Mr. SURREY. No; we do not.

Mr. JENNER. What is the American Eagle Book Store?

Mr. SURREY. There is no American Eagle Book Store.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a headquarters?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a telephone?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you listed with the local authorities under a fictitious or assumed name?

Mr. SURREY. Yes--doing business as?

The CHAIRMAN. Doing business as, yes.

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. And the names given are yourself and General Walker?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Where is that filed--with your county clerk?

Mr. SURREY. County clerk in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. We have talked about General Walker. That is General Edwin A. Walker, now resigned?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And do you know a Robert G. Krause?

Mr. SURREY. I refuse to answer on the grounds the answer may tend to incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Was he not formerly employed by Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. I refuse to answer for the same reason.

Representative BOGGS. Excuse me. Mr. Chief Justice--we will have testimony from Mr. Krause, I presume?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; do you know of a company, a printing company, Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. I refuse to answer--same reason.

The CHAIRMAN. For the reason it would tend to incriminate you?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you not prepare the copy for Commission Exhibit No. 996?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the same reason; that it would tend to incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. And, in turn, turn that copy over to Robert G. Krause, of the Lettercraft Printing Co. for reproduction?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer, same reason.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 996 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Exhibiting again Exhibit No.--Commission Exhibit No. 996 to you, you will notice a front and profile view of President Kennedy. Did you bring to Robert Krause photographs of which this is a reproduction?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. In fact, did you not bring to Robert G. Krause two slick paper magazine photographs of President Kennedy and request and engage him to make photographs of the slick paper magazine photos for the purpose of reproduction?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer; same reason.

Mr. JENNER. And did you not pay Robert G. Krause and his wife for printing some 5,000 to 10,000 of these handbills, of which Commission Exhibit No. 996 is a copy?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Did you thereafter--did you not in fact thereafter, yourself--well, I will ask you first--yourself, distribute duplicates of Exhibit No. 996 in and about the streets of Dallas, Tex., on November 22 and days preceding?

Mr. SURREY. Point of order. Can I ask a question? If I now answer one or two in through here, does this----

The CHAIRMAN. Well, this is connected with the entire situation--the publication, the distribution of it is one and the same subject matter, I would think.

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I might bring this out. Having received the rules and regulations of the Commission with respect to the taking of testimony, you are aware of the fact that you are entitled to have counsel present?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you appear without counsel?

Mr. SURREY. I cannot afford to bring counsel.

Mr. JENNER. But you do appear without counsel?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I do.

Representative BOGGS. I think, Mr. Chief Justice, the record should show if this man requested counsel he would be entitled to counsel, would he not?

Mr. JENNER. He certainly would. And he has not requested it.

Representative BOGGS. I just want the record to show that.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Did you request counsel?

Mr. SURREY. From whom, sir?

Senator COOPER. Did you request the Commission to appoint counsel for you?

Mr. SURREY. No; I did not. I did not know this was available.

Representative BOGGS. I might say it is still available.

Mr. SURREY. Would this be a court-appointed?

The CHAIRMAN. Beg pardon?

Mr. SURREY. Would this be a court-appointed attorney?

The CHAIRMAN. No; it would be an attorney appointed by the Commission.

Mr. SURREY. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Jenner.

Representative BOGGS. You prefer not to have an attorney appointed by the Commission?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Representative BOGGS. We might let the record show at this point, also, that the American Bar Association has been closely associated with the Commission.

Mr. SURREY. What does that mean? I mean what is the purpose of that remark?

Representative BOGGS. To show that the attorneys appointed are completely objective.

Mr. SURREY. I did not imply they were not, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know Mrs. Clifford Mercer, Dorothy Mercer?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know Mr. Clifford Mercer?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer; same reason.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know of a photoengraving company in Dallas, 2027 Young Street, Monks Bros.?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know J. T. Monk or J. T. Monk, Jr.?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer, same grounds.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have one of the workmen, printing workmen, at Johnson Printing Co., set type for the copy which appears on Commission Exhibit No. 996?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may tend to incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. And thereafter, after that type was set, have photographs made of that type?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer; same reason.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know Mr. Bernard Weissman?

Mr. SURREY. No. We are in another field now, I gather.

Mr. JENNER. Well, I don't want to represent to you that it is.

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Have you had any business relations with a man by the name of Bernard Weissman?

Mr. SURREY. If this is in your opinion still part of the other--concerning these leaflets, then I will plead the fifth amendment.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, with the policy of the Commission to be fully fair to all witnesses, may I respond to the witness and say to him there is that possibility.

The CHAIRMAN. There is that possibility; yes--that is a sufficient statement.

Mr. JENNER. And being that possibility, do you wish to decline to answer the question on the ground an answer may tend to incriminate you?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, unless you or other members of the Commission have some questions on this line of examination, I will not ask further questions with respect to it--unless you gentlemen desire to ask questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions, Congressman Boggs?

Representative BOGGS. Was anyone associated with you in the publication of this leaflet?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.

The CHAIRMAN. Did General Walker have anything to do with it?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me--but, no.

The CHAIRMAN. What? Now you have opened that up, sir--if you say--was your answer no, or is your answer that you claim the privilege?

Mr. SURREY. My answer is that I claim the privilege, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That is different.

Senator COOPER. May I just ask one question? To return for a moment to this book that you printed with newspaper clippings--what was your purpose in printing it?

Mr. SURREY. As a memento, primarily.

Senator COOPER. You had no other purpose?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. Didn't you really have the purpose of impugning the work of this Commission and giving the implication that it would not go fully and thoroughly into all questions?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir. This was not the intent; no.

Representative BOGGS. What was the allegation in the cease and desist order which was issued against you by the Dallas newspaper?

Mr. SURREY. That this would be in competition to a book which they were going to promote--I believe the AP. At the time--the Osburns had this, and they were gathering it together, and they brought it over one day, and it looked like a real good idea. Other people had stacks and stacks of papers. And this was a compilation of clippings of the paper. And everybody thought it was such a good idea that we thought we would publish it. So I got it into brownline form, which is a proof, a preliminary proof--silver prints, you may call them in Washington.

The CHAIRMAN. For how much did you sell these books a copy?

Mr. SURREY. We gave them free to our presubscriber list.

The CHAIRMAN. I didn't ask you that.

Mr. SURREY. They were $5 per copy.

The CHAIRMAN. And how many did you say you sold?

Mr. SURREY. About 900 to a 1,000.

The CHAIRMAN. What happened to the money?

Mr. SURREY. It was put into the American Eagle Publishing Co. account.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have a regular bookkeeping system?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And those figures would be available, showing how many you had sold, would they?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. In your books?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Representative BOGGS. Is the American Eagle Publishing Co. an incorporated company?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Representative BOGGS. What is it?

Mr. SURREY. Partnership, sir.

Representative BOGGS. Who are the partners?

Mr. SURREY. Myself and General Walker.

Representative BOGGS. And this presubscription list, how many people on that?

Mr. SURREY. I would say 700, 800.

Representative BOGGS. You publish a newspaper?

Mr. SURREY. No; we don't.

Representative BOGGS. What do you publish besides this book?

Mr. SURREY. Pamphlets--pamphlets.

Mr. JENNER. You receive part of your income from the American Eagle Publishing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. No; I do not.

Mr. JENNER. You serve as president, but you receive no compensation for that?

Mr. SURREY. That is true.

Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us, please, the address of the American Eagle Publishing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. P.O. Box 750, Dallas 21.

Mr. JENNER. It has no physical office itself--just the post office address?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct. That mail comes to my desk at Johnson Printing Co. That is the same post office box as Johnson Printing Co.

Mr. JENNER. I see. And where do you keep--where does American Publishing Co. warehouse or keep or store its pamphlets and books?

Mr. SURREY. 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard, Mr. Walker's residence. I have a room.

Mr. JENNER. That is General Walker's residence?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. That is General Walker's residence?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Who owns the Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. It is--the stock is split, four or five different people.

The CHAIRMAN. A corporation?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Who are they?

Mr. SURREY. Mr. Bryan Snyder is chairman of the board. Mr. Emil Borak is president, and Mr. Lewis C. Owens is treasurer. I believe some stock is held by Oliver Snyder, and I have some stock. And Mr. Fallon Snyder.

The CHAIRMAN. It is a commercial company?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is.

The CHAIRMAN. Is General Walker connected with it?

Mr. SURREY. No; he is not.

The CHAIRMAN. Or with the other people, as far as you know?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is Mr. Borak the general manager of the plant itself?

Mr. SURREY. No; he is president of the company.

Mr. JENNER. I see. Who is the general manager of the plant?

Mr. SURREY. Mr. Owens.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Owens.

Did you acquaint Mr. Owens or Mr. Borak, either of them, with the fact that you had Commission Exhibit No. 996 printed at the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Did you make either or both of them aware of the fact that some of the copy or all of the copy with respect to Commission Exhibit No. 996 was prepared by way of printing at Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. How many printers do you have at Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. How many employees?

Mr. JENNER. No--that operate linotypes or operate these machines that produce these slugs--what is the name of that kind of machine?

Mr. SURREY. Well, it would be a monotype or a linotype or a Ludlow.

Mr. JENNER. Are these lines on Exhibit No. 996 Ludlow productions?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Who are the Ludlow machine operators at Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. SURREY. Oh, I would say there are probably 10 or 15 that operate the Ludlow machine.

Mr. JENNER. Does your recollection serve you to name those who operated the Ludlow machines any time during the first 22 days of November 1963? If so, name them.

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may tend to incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Are you able to name any of the linotype operators who were employed during the first 22 days of November 1963?

Mr. SURREY. Who were employed at Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SURREY. Well, I gather this has nothing to do with this. So may I answer?

Mr. JENNER. I don't want to lead you to believe it doesn't, sir.

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the ground it may incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. From whom was the paper purchased on which appears the imprinting on the exhibit identified here as Commission Exhibit No. 996.

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the same grounds.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see another reproduction of Commission Exhibit No. 996 at any time from the 1st of November 1963 to and including the 22d of November 1963?

Mr. SURREY. I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I will now depart from this particular phase, if that is permissible.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. JENNER. I am now going to turn, Mr. Surrey, to the attempt on the life of General Walker.

First I would like to have you examine a series of photographs which purport to be photographs of the area of the Walker house.

Mr. Chief Justice, may I approach the witness for this purpose?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I show the witness Commission Exhibit No. 2, Item No. 7, and subdivision item No. P-2. Do you see that, sir?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. Examining the subitem, P-2, is the area depicted in that photograph familiar to you?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. It is the alley in behind Mr. Walker's residence, looking west.

Mr. JENNER. Looking west?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you be able to help us as to an estimate, perhaps from the nature of the foliage, and your familiarity with the Walker premises, as to when that photograph might have been taken, as to season of the year?

Mr. SURREY. I would say late fall.

Mr. JENNER. Could it have been the early spring, mid-March, for example? 1st of March, along in there?

Mr. SURREY. It could have been; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Either in the fall, when there is a deleafing or lack of foliage on trees, or the early spring?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I show you what purports to be the same thing, also marked--it is a larger photograph--Commission Exhibit No. 2, Item No. 7. Directing your attention to the subdivision P-2 you have just testified about, are they photographs----

Mr. SURREY. Basically the same thing. It looks like this one was taken a little closer to the ground.

Mr. JENNER. When you say this one, you mean the larger of the two?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. On Commission Exhibit No. 3, Item 14, subitem P-1, directing your attention to that, you recognize that?

Mr. SURREY. That is a picture of the back of the residence of 4011 Turtle Creek.

Mr. JENNER. General Edwin Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I perhaps should have asked you this: You are familiar with the area surrounding General Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, I am.

Mr. JENNER. You have been there a good many times, have you?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, I have.

Mr. JENNER. On all sides of the home?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And are you familiar with the inside of the home?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am.

Mr. JENNER. And have you worked there from time to time over the years?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. How long have you been associated with General Walker?

Mr. SURREY. Since the beginning of his campaign, when that was--I think the spring--about 3 years now.

The CHAIRMAN. What campaign is that?

Mr. SURREY. When he ran for Governor of Texas.

Mr. JENNER. That initiated your association with him?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And what are your duties in your association with General Walker?

Mr. SURREY. I am just a volunteer helper, whatever he needed, volunteer help in doing, I would help.

Mr. JENNER. Are you compensated?

Mr. SURREY. No; I am not.

Mr. JENNER. You have never received any compensation?

Mr. SURREY. No; I haven't.

Mr. JENNER. You have never received any compensation from the publishing company we have identified that published that book?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you handle any funds for General Walker?

Mr. SURREY. Of General Walker's fund?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Or any funds----

Mr. SURREY. Except what----

The CHAIRMAN. Or any funds that come to General Walker?

Mr. SURREY. No; only that comes to American Eagle Co., which is in fact, I guess, technically his funds.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, what funds do come to American Eagle Co.?

Mr. SURREY. Funds for purchasing of materials, and some donations. That is it.

The CHAIRMAN. Outside of donations, how do you get your funds for publishing?

Mr. SURREY. From the sale of materials.

The CHAIRMAN. And the rest of it is all donations?

Mr. SURREY. Donations are extremely small, as a matter of fact, yes. We operate on the sale of materials.

The CHAIRMAN. How much in the aggregate of donations have you had?

Mr. SURREY. To American Eagle Publishing Co.?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. SURREY. I would say a hundred dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. A hundred dollars?

Mr. SURREY. Over 2 years or 2-1/2 years.

The CHAIRMAN. Where did you get the money to publish your book?

Mr. SURREY. At the beginning of American Eagle Publishing Co., we started with a backlog of books which had been used in the campaign. This was Mr. Walker's contribution to the American Eagle Publishing Co.

The CHAIRMAN. Did General Walker sell his campaign books?

Mr. SURREY. I don't know if he did or not.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, you don't pay publishing funds with books, do you?

Mr. SURREY. From the sale of the books which were turned over to American Eagle Co. at its inception, from the sale of those books, we have accumulated funds to go on with others.

The CHAIRMAN. At its inception, where did you get the money to publish?

Mr. SURREY. I don't understand your question, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Well----

Mr. SURREY. At its inception we didn't have any money.

The CHAIRMAN. When you publish books, you have to have some capital of some kind.

Mr. SURREY. The capital was raised from the sale of a book called "Walker Speaks Unmuzzled" which sells for 35 cents. We started with that.

The CHAIRMAN. You published that first?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Who published that?

Mr. SURREY. I believe General Walker did.

The CHAIRMAN. And how much money came from the sale of those books?

Mr. SURREY. I do not know offhand, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Approximately.

Mr. SURREY. We are still selling them.

The CHAIRMAN. Beg pardon?

Mr. SURREY. We are still selling them.

The CHAIRMAN. But you handle the funds, don't you, for the company?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; but I don't know specific items.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am not asking you for specific items. But I would like to know approximately how much money.

Let me put it this way: How much money have you handled for that company in the last--since it has been established?

Mr. SURREY. Oh, as a rough estimate, $10,000 to $15,000.

The CHAIRMAN. And only a hundred dollars of that was contributions from outsiders?

Mr. SURREY. I would say that would be it.

The CHAIRMAN. And was there any of that $10,000 or $15,000 that came from any individual other than from people who purchased the hooks?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; at one time the General put some more money into the company.

The CHAIRMAN. How much money did he put into it?

Mr. SURREY. I believe a thousand dollars.

The CHAIRMAN. That is all?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Anybody else put any money into it?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, may I revert to the other subject matter? I have an additional question I would like to ask. And I warn the witness in advance I am returning to the pamphlet.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Your questions have stimulated me to ask another question.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Were any of the funds that reached Eagle Publishing Co. by way of contributions or proceeds of sale of materials employed or used to pay for the leaflet, Commission Exhibit No. 996?

Mr. SURREY. Now, I understand that if I answer that question, it opens up the whole thing again. So I decline to answer on the grounds it may incriminate me.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, I have asked our Chief Counsel, Mr. Rankin, to have a search of our files made and our telephone calls to see if we have received anything from Congressman Alger concerning this book. And Mr. Rankin, will you report to us what your finding is, please?

Mr. RANKIN. I had a search made of our files, and any incoming calls from the Congressman to see if we had received any such material, and such a search showed that we had not received any such material. I then called Congressman Alger's office to ask there if there had been any communication from them, and was informed that they had not sent anything to us, but that one of the booklets had been given away by Congressman Alger, and they had one left, and I have sent for that one to have for our records.

Representative BOGGS. I would like to see it when it gets here. You expect it pretty soon?

Mr. RANKIN. I sent him on the run.

Representative BOGGS. Good.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Surrey, I will return to the General Walker incident now.

I would like you particularly to examine the next photograph, which appears in Commission Exhibit No. 4, Item 6, as subletter P-5.

This depicts, Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen, a railroad track--in the far distance a tall building. Is that area at all familiar to you?

That is undoubtedly the MKT line, or some spur line.

You are familiar with the MKT line, are you not?

Mr. SURREY. This I do not recognize the area.

Mr. JENNER. I will ask you this. Is there a railroad near General Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. Facing out of the house, facing Turtle Creek, across the creek, and then another half block or so, there is a railroad.

Mr. JENNER. Within a half a block?

Mr. SURREY. Well, it would be a full city block to the railroad. Perhaps even more. I have never been in that area, as a matter of fact.

Mr. JENNER. Having that in mind, I show you a photograph, aerial view photograph, which we have marked Commission Exhibit No. 998.

Mr. Chief Justice, that is a copy of the exhibit.

That purports to be an aerial photograph taken of the vicinity of General Walker's residence. And you will notice there is an encircled building and the designation "A."

First, do you recognize that general area?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I do.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit 998 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. And does the encirclment of the home there appear to be General Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; it does. I don't see a house that should be in the corner.

Mr. JENNER. You say corner--you mean----

Mr. SURREY. Right there.

Mr. JENNER. To the left?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; there is a house there between Walker's residence and the next house, and the street here, which is Avondale, I believe.

Mr. JENNER. And you are talking about the street here--you are pointing to a street that runs obliquely from left to right towards the upper corner of the picture?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. To the left of the house encircled as General Walker's house?

Mr. SURREY. Yes. Oh, I see, I am sorry. It is much further back from the street. That is the house.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the house you say that is next is the one immediately to the left of the one encircled?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I was looking in this area for the houses. That is correct. That is General Walker's residence, as depicted in the picture.

Mr. JENNER. And the house to the left is the house you thought at first was not shown, but in fact it is shown?

Mr. SURREY. It is.

Mr. JENNER. And who is the owner of that home?

Mr. SURREY. I do not know. A doctor.

Mr. JENNER. A lady doctor?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is a woman, runs the household.

Mr. JENNER. Dr. Ruth Jackson?

Mr. SURREY. It sounds familiar, but I do not know.

Mr. JENNER. Does she have a dog that is sometimes obstreperous, does a lot of barking?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; she does.

Mr. JENNER. You are quite familiar with that fact, are you?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; I am.

Mr. JENNER. How and why did you become familiar with that fact?

Mr. SURREY. Anyone approaching the house, generally her house or General Walker's house, would be barked at, in the middle of the night noises.

Mr. JENNER. And you have approached General Walker's house, I assume, at night, have you?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. If the dog is out in Dr. Jackson's yard, the dog is alerted and barks?

Mr. SURREY. Not so much any more. Evidently he knows who I am now.

Mr. JENNER. I see. But before the dog became familiar with you, he did bark?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What kind of a dog is it, by the way?

Mr. SURREY. A small Collie, I guess--shaggy, brownish dog.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recall whether or not at or about the time of the attempt on General Walker's life that dog became or was ill.

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. This was reported to me. I do not know of firsthand knowledge.

Mr. JENNER. I would prefer not to have your hearsay. You have no knowledge firsthand, however?

Mr. SURREY. No; I do not.

Mr. JENNER. Unless, Mr. Chairman, you desire to pursue the hearsay----

The CHAIRMAN. No, no.

Mr. JENNER. Continuing with Exhibit No. 998, and looking at the footnotes, would you tell us whether that footnoting is accurate--A through G?

Mr. SURREY. I am not familiar with Gilbert Street.

Mr. JENNER. Which is designated as G?

Mr. SURREY. It very well could be Gilbert Street. I just don't know the names of those streets.

Yes; to the best of my knowledge that is accurate.

Mr. JENNER. There is a tall building to the left, rather nice-looking. Are you familiar with that building?

Mr. SURREY. No; there are several new ones going right up in that area. I think that is the Spa, or something.

Mr. JENNER. I am referring, Mr. Chief Justice, to the tall building with a lattice design immediately to the right of the letter "A".

What did you think that was?

Mr. SURREY. A new development in there called 21 Turtle Creek, the Spa, or something. I only know it from newspaper ads.

Mr. JENNER. I see. Was that building in that condition or being erected in the spring of 1963?

Mr. SURREY. If that is the building I think of, it has just been finished a month or so now.

Mr. JENNER. How long has it been under construction?

Mr. SURREY. Possibly a year, a year and a half.

Mr. JENNER. Does that photograph fairly depict and represent the area it shows as that area existed in the spring of 1963?

Mr. SURREY. No; you are missing a Jesuit high school which was here.

Mr. JENNER. When you say was here, I have to identify the spot to which you are pointing. And the spot to which you are pointing is the open field area that is shown immediately to the right of the building we have identified, near which the letter "A" appears?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about that.

Mr. SURREY. That was the old Jesuit high school, which has been torn down just recently. I believe just recently finished tearing it down.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I will identify these other photographs rather quickly. In each instance, will you look at the photograph and tell us whether the sub-lettering is correct.

I have now handed the witness Commission Exhibit No. 999.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 999 for identification.)

Mr. SURREY. I believe that to be generally correct. This area of Walker's residence here is difficult----

Mr. JENNER. It is some distance away, and the area of Walker's residence to which the witness referred is a circle to which the letter "A" is affixed?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Otherwise, this is an accurate representation of that area and as it existed in the spring of 1963?

Mr. SURREY. Again, the high school is--I don't believe that that Jesuit high school was to the ground as it shows here, in the spring of 1963.

Mr. JENNER. I now call your attention to the building that appears immediately to the right of the circle.

Mr. SURREY. That is, I believe, the same building that shows in the previous exhibit.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you. That is just exactly what I was going to ask you. All right. Now, would you look at Commission Exhibit No. 1000.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 1000 and 1002 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Are those footnotings correct?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; I believe they are.

Mr. JENNER. Would you look at 1002.

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; I believe they are substantially correct.

Mr. JENNER. All right. For the purposes of the record, Mr. Reporter, Commission Exhibit No. 1000 also has a sticker on it marked Commission Exhibit No. 1001. Would you please note in the record we will not be using Commission Exhibit 1001. It got on there by mistake. Now, you just covered Exhibit No. 1002. Now, Exhibits Nos. 1003, 1004.

(The documents referred to were marked Commission Exhibits No. 1003 and 1004, respectively, for identification.)

Mr. SURREY. Yes; that street previously mentioned was Avondale. That is the street immediately to the west.

Mr. JENNER. And it appears on Commission Exhibit No. 1003?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Have you yet examined Commission Exhibit No. 1004?

Mr. SURREY. No; I have not.

Mr. JENNER. The witness is now examining Commission Exhibit No. 1004.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. SURREY. I believe that is correct, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I will ask you a general question to be sure we have covered all of these.

Calling your attention to Commission Exhibits Nos. 998, 999, 1000, 1002, 1003, and 1004, which are aerial photographs--are they aerial photographs of the vicinity of General Walker's house?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; they are.

Mr. JENNER. And do they, except for the high school matter which you have pointed out to us--do they represent fairly the area as it was in the spring of 1963?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, I would say that is generally correct.

Mr. JENNER. All right, sir. Now, the Commission is interested, Mr. Surrey, in whether there are some open areas or fields near General Walker's house in which an object such as a firearm or rifle could be buried.

Mr. SURREY. Directly across from in front of the house--of course, Turtle Creek Boulevard, and across from Turtle Creek Boulevard is Turtle Creek itself, with a lawn area coming up to the street of 20 to 30 yards in some places.

Mr. JENNER. Using the blank sheet of paper I hand you, would you just give us a diagram--a rough diagram of the area of General Walker's house, so that I can locate the field about which you now speak?

Mr. SURREY. It is not actually a field.

Mr. JENNER. And we will mark that as Commission Exhibit No. 1005.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1005 for identification.)

Mr. SURREY. This is Turtle Creek. [Witness draws.]

Mr. JENNER. Now, is Turtle Creek a street?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is a street, a boulevard.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. SURREY. Mr. Walker's residence is here. [Witness draws.]

Mr. JENNER. Is the top of this sheet north or south, west or east? When I say that I refer to Commission Exhibit No. 1005.

Mr. SURREY. This is north.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Put an arrow and the letter "N" at that point. Now, would you put south on the other side, and then east and west where they belong?

Mr. SURREY. These are not exact. They are several points off. But generally.

Mr. JENNER. You are just making a rough sketch, sir, for the purpose of helping with your testimony. You have now drawn in General Walker's house. Would you put in the word "Walker"?

Now, having done that, you have now described an area--told us of an area where a firearm--a field where a firearm might be buried that is in the vicinity of General Walker's home. Would you indicate where that would be?

Mr. SURREY. Here is Turtle Creek. [Witness draws.]

Mr. JENNER. You are now drawing a wavy line. Would you write in there "Turtle Creek." And that is a stream, is it?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Does it always have water in it?

Mr. SURREY. To my knowledge; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. SURREY. Now, this area across Turtle Creek Boulevard.

Mr. JENNER. That is to the south of General Walker's house.

Mr. SURREY. And going down to the creek is a grassy, leafed, brushed, tree area.

Mr. JENNER. It is not an open field?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. But it is an area in which a firearm could be buried?

Mr. SURREY. It is down near the creek--there are rocks.

(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. SURREY. In addition to that--here is Avondale, here is the doctor's residence. [Witness draws.]

Mr. JENNER. This is Dr. Jackson's residence you have now drawn?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you please----

Mr. SURREY. And this entire block here is----

Mr. JENNER. You are pointing to the west?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Along Turtle Creek Drive?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you put the word "drive" there.

Mr. SURREY. It is boulevard.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Would you repeat your testimony in that connection?

Mr. SURREY. Another block of residences----

Mr. JENNER. To the west?

Mr. SURREY. To the west. And then you come to that field where the new building is going up and the Jesuit high school was.

Mr. JENNER. And that is the new building you identified in one of the earlier exhibits, and the high school has now been torn down?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. All right. And there was--in the spring of 1963, was there a field there?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; there still is.

Mr. JENNER. Where a firearm could have been buried?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. We understand there is a church, a church house, near the Walker home. Am I correct?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. Would you locate it, please?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; directly to the east. [Witness draws.] Their driveway comes up between the Walker house, into their parking lot [witness draws], and here is that back alley you showed me a picture of earlier. [Witness draws.]

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. For the purpose of the record, the witness has now drawn in what looks like a parking lot area, is that correct?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Is that the church parking lot?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is.

Mr. JENNER. And where is the church house itself located?

Mr. SURREY. This entire area. I don't know about the shape of it. But it is in this area.

Mr. JENNER. Write the word "church" in there. [Witness does so.] What church is that?

Mr. SURREY. It is a Mormon church.

Mr. JENNER. And about how far distant from the Walker house is the Mormon church?

Mr. SURREY. It is on the next lot--I would say 400 feet, maybe.

Mr. JENNER. What is there intervening, if anything, between the Mormon church buildings and General Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. In the way of a fence, you mean?

Mr. JENNER. Well, first; are there any buildings?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Or any sheds or anything of that character?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Are there any trees?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; there are trees.

Mr. JENNER. Is it heavily or lightly wooded?

Mr. SURREY. Lightly.

Mr. JENNER. There is a fence?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. A wooden fence?

Mr. SURREY. A wooden fence--about 5-foot tall.

Mr. JENNER. I see. Is that a lattice fence or a solid fence?

Mr. SURREY. Along this side here it is a solid fence.

Mr. JENNER. When you say this side, you are pointing to the driveway leading to Turtle Creek Boulevard?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; the fence actually is here. [Witness draws.]

Mr. JENNER. You have now put--he is indicating the fence. And that is a lattice or slat fence?

Mr. SURREY. That is a solid fence there. And then it is latticed along the alley.

Mr. JENNER. Which way does the front of General Walker's house face--on Turtle Creek Boulevard?

Mr. SURREY. On Turtle Creek.

Mr. JENNER. All right. That will be helpful to us. We will just set that exhibit aside for the moment.

Some of these photographs I am now about to show you--I now show you a photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 5, Item No. 369. Do you recognize that?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, I do. It is a photo of the back of General Walker's home.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, returning to your plat, Commission Exhibit No. 1005, is that the side of General Walker's house that faces the church?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. It is the side--is it the side that faces Dr. Jackson's home?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Is it the side that faces onto or toward Turtle Creek Boulevard?

Mr. SURREY. No; it is not.

Mr. JENNER. Is it the side that faces toward the alley which you have drawn on Commission Exhibit No. 1005?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is.

Mr. JENNER. Fine. Now, you will notice in that photograph an automobile, but no license plate, and there appears to be obliterated an area in which a license plate might have appeared on that car.

Now, first, you do see the automobile?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I have seen this photo before. Mr. Barrett of the FBI in Dallas brought this to my attention.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the automobile?

Mr. SURREY. Not positively, but I think it belongs to Mr. Charles Klihr.

Mr. JENNER. And who is Mr. Charles Klihr?

Mr. SURREY. He is a volunteer worker of Mr. Walker's, also.

Mr. JENNER. Are you sufficiently familiar with Mr. Charles Klihr's automobile--you already identified it----

Mr. SURREY. No; I did not identify it. I cannot do that, sir.

Mr. JENNER. To the best of your ability is all I am suggesting, sir.

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have a recollection as to whether there was a license plate or license plate fixture in or about the area in which the black spot on the automobile appears?

Mr. SURREY. I have seen Mr. Klihr's automobile many times. I have not seen it without a license plate, which I think I would note if it were not there.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; but located at or about in the vicinity of that black spot?

Mr. SURREY. I would say to the best of my knowledge; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you, sir. Were you at General Walker's home the evening of the attempted assassination, or attempt on his life?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, I was. After the shot. I was not there at the time.

Mr. JENNER. How soon after the shot were you there?

Mr. SURREY. About 15 minutes.

Mr. JENNER. How did you become aware that there had been an attempt on his life?

Mr. SURREY. He called me on the telephone at my home.

Mr. JENNER. And how far did you live from General Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. About 2 miles.

Mr. JENNER. And you immediately drove over there?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What kind of an automobile do you own and drive?

Mr. SURREY. A 1961 Ford convertible.

Mr. JENNER. And did you arrive at his home in that convertible?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, I did.

Mr. JENNER. What time of the day or night was this?

Mr. SURREY. This was about 9 to 9:30 in the evening.

Mr. JENNER. What day? I mean date.

Mr. SURREY. April 10th.

Mr. JENNER. What year?

Mr. SURREY. 1963.

Excuse me. This is 1964, isn't it.

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SURREY. So this would----

Mr. JENNER. Was this a year ago?

Mr. SURREY. It would be 1963, yes.

Mr. JENNER. I have marked a series of photographs as Commission Exhibits Nos. 1006 through 1012.

(The photographs referred to were marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 1006 through 1012, respectively, for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. These purport to be photographs of portions and places in--both inside and outside General Walker's home relating to the incident in question.

Would you be good enough to take them seriatim, identify them by exhibit number----

Mr. SURREY. Take them how?

Mr. JENNER. Seriatim, in series--commencing with Commission Exhibit 1006. And tell us if you are familiar with the photograph and whether it depicts a portion of General Walker's home, and, if so, what portion.

Mr. SURREY. I don't know what this is here in the back yard, but outside of that it looks like a picture of the window facing towards the alley which the shot came through.

Mr. JENNER. From the direction the shot came?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And the marring on the molding of the window is the point of the screen and the window through which the bullet came?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you examine that that evening?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Did you see the breach in the casement which is depicted on Commission Exhibit No. 1006?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I did. What is this in the back? Do you happen to know?

Mr. JENNER. No; I don't. But I think I can bring it out. These photographs, I think, were taken fairly recently.

Have you been at General Walker's house in the last couple of weeks?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I have.

Mr. JENNER. And have you had occasion to notice whether or not any repair whatsoever has been made or was made with respect to the marring of the molding?

Mr. SURREY. I don't believe it has.

That looks like a stack of cardboard back there. I am not familiar with it.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; it looks like heavy asbestos, or some wood out in the yard.

Mr. SURREY. I am not familiar with that.

Mr. JENNER. Now, look at Exhibit No. 1007.

Excuse me--the photograph Exhibit No. 1006 represents that casement in its present condition?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. JENNER. And also as it was when you saw it that night, April 10?

Mr. SURREY. No; the window was closed when I saw it that night.

Mr. JENNER. But the breach in the molding is the same on this photograph as it was when you saw it that night?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, the next photograph is Exhibit No. 1007, and purports to be a photograph taken from the outside of General Walker's home with the camera pointed into his home.

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And----

Mr. SURREY. It shows the same breach allegedly caused by a bullet----

Mr. JENNER. That is shown on Exhibit 1006?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And in the case of Exhibit No. 1006, that photograph represents the present condition of that casement and that window and that screen, as well as it was when you saw it on the evening of April 10, 1963? Insofar as the breach is concerned?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I seem to recall more cobwebbing effect than it shows in the photograph.

Mr. JENNER. Exhibit No. 1008 purports to be a room in General Walker's home, and a wall with a bullet hole shown in it.

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize that room?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. And is that a picture of one of the rooms in General Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is.

Mr. JENNER. Where is it with respect to the room shown in Commission Exhibit No. 1007?

Mr. SURREY. It is the same room.

Mr. JENNER. The same room?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; all this material has been turned around, from that night.

Mr. JENNER. You are referring in your last comment to Commission Exhibit No. 1007, some pamphlet materials you see shown in that photograph?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, turning your attention to Commission Exhibit No. 1008, does the wall that is shown on that exhibit face the casement window shown on Exhibit No. 1007, or is that the reverse side?

Mr. SURREY. It is the other wall, the other side of the room from the window.

Mr. JENNER. Is that the wall in which the bullet entered, or the wall, the side of the wall from which the bullet exited?

Mr. SURREY. That is the side of the wall that it entered.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Then I show you Commission Exhibit No. 1009.

Mr. SURREY. Yes; this is the next room now where the bullet exited.

Mr. JENNER. Now, taking Exhibits Nos. 1008 and 1009, am I correct, sir, that Exhibit No. 1008 shows the wall on the entry side of the bullet, and Exhibit No. 1009 is the reverse side of the wall shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1008?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. In other words, the side of the wall that the bullet exited?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Now, this picture was taken at the time, or soon thereafter, because this material was in this position.

(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. All right, sir.

You are able to say, from your familiarity with the condition of matters on the evening of April 10, 1963, that both Commission exhibits----

Mr. SURREY. No; that one I don't know.

Mr. JENNER. That Commission Exhibit No. 1009 depicts the condition of that room, which is the room to the reverse side of Commission Exhibit No. 1008, as it was the evening of April 10, 1963.

Mr. SURREY. Substantially the same; yes.

Mr. JENNER. And even including the boxes and packages of material?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. You will notice in substantially the center of that exhibit a rupture appears to be in the wall. Was that in fact a rupture?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was. That is where the bullet came out of the wall, and when the police came they found the bullet on top of these packages.

Mr. JENNER. On top of the packages shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1009. I show you Exhibit No. 1011, which appears to be a photograph of a fence, lattice fence. Are you familiar with that?

Mr. SURREY. I believe it is the same type of thing as is in back of Walker's home, in the alleyway.

Mr. JENNER. Is it not in fact a picture of the fence that is--surrounds to the rear General Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. I don't know. It is the same type, it looks the same.

Mr. JENNER. It looks the same to you?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. When you made your diagram, Exhibit No. 1005, you drew a wavy line along the alley, and I think you said that was a lattice fence.

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I drew it too far. This is Jackson's back yard.

Mr. JENNER. Well, that is all right. The lattice fence you identified----

Mr. SURREY. Is of the same type and construction.

Mr. JENNER. As shown on Exhibit No. 1011?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. All right, sir. Thank you. Is the area depicted on Commission Exhibit No. 1012 familiar to you?

Mr. SURREY. It looks like a picture taken from the top of that lattice fence towards the back of Walker's home.

Mr. JENNER. Next is Commission Exhibit No. 1010, which is a photograph of a tire imprint. On the evening of April 10 or the next day, April 11, when it was light, did you tour around General Walker's home with him or without him? There was a search made to see----

Mr. SURREY. Yes; there was.

Mr. JENNER. To find some identification in the way of automobile tire impressions?

Mr. SURREY. It is my impression that the police were looking primarily for a casing from a shell. I did not see them take any----

Mr. JENNER. So that the particular portion of the Walker vicinity shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1010 is not familiar to you?

Mr. SURREY. I wouldn't know where it was in the area.

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Those have all been formally introduced, Mr. Jenner?

Mr. JENNER. No; they have not, Mr. Chief Justice. If it suits your convenience I was going to offer all exhibits at once, so I don't overlook any.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; very well.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you. Some of the exhibits the witness has identified have already been introduced. They were exhibited to Marina Oswald.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; I recall.

Mr. JENNER. Would you help us, also--I hand you a map of Dallas, which we will mark Commission Exhibit No. 1013--or I should correct myself--I hand you what purports to be a map of Dallas.

There is indicated by brush pencil a cross in the center of that map as representing the area of the residence of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker, resigned, at 4011 Turtle Creek Boulevard in Dallas.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1013 for identification.)

Mr. SURREY. Yes; that is correct. That is the area.

Mr. JENNER. That is a scale map of Dallas that appears to have been obtained from the Dallas Transit Co. in Dallas, Tex.

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you received a telephone call from General Walker?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The evening of April 10. It was about 9 o'clock? Please try to fix that time as accurately as you can.

Mr. SURREY. I would say it was closer to 9:15.

Mr. JENNER. And you arrived 15 minutes later?

Mr. SURREY. 10 to 15 minutes later.

Mr. JENNER. Now, would you very carefully, calling on your most accurate recollection, recite for us--you came to the door, you entered, what did you see, who was there, and what was said to you by anyone, if anyone was there--just the course of events as best you are able to recall them that evening. And I will try not to interrupt you.

Mr. SURREY. When I pulled--I pulled up in front on Turtle Creek, got out of my car. A police car was there.

Mr. JENNER. Was there anything in addition to a police car?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. You pulled your car up on Turtle Creek Boulevard?

Mr. SURREY. Behind the police car.

Mr. JENNER. Would you be good enough, when you refer to Turtle Creek Boulevard, to say boulevard, because we have talked about Turtle Creek, a stream.

Mr. SURREY. Turtle Creek Boulevard.

Mr. JENNER. There was one squad car there at that time?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; just as I was getting out of the car, another squad car came up.

Mr. JENNER. Turning to your plat, would you put an "X" with a circle where you drove up? The witness has now done that. All right. Now, you are on Turtle Creek Boulevard. Then what did you do? You parked?

Mr. SURREY. I parked and got out of my automobile, and walked up the front walkway into the house.

Mr. JENNER. I see. All right.

Mr. SURREY. There were several policemen in the house, just arriving. Mr. Walker was sitting at his desk in this back room.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Now it will be helpful to the Commission--let's take this blank sheet of paper--you draw us a floor plan, will you please, of General Walker's home, and we will mark that Commission Exhibit No. 1014, so as to assist you in telling us what you did.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1014 for identification.)

Mr. SURREY. This is the ground floor.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, first let's locate the house. It is a rectangle that you have drawn. Is the rectangle facing the same as the rectangle marked "Walker" on Commission Exhibit No. 1005?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is.

Mr. JENNER. So that the lower portion is east?

Mr. SURREY. Do we need these directions exactly, because that Turtle Creek Boulevard winds all around.

Mr. JENNER. All I want to do is tie it up with Commission Exhibit No. 1005.

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is the same direction.

Mr. JENNER. Realizing that you have that problem of obliqueness, but relating it solely to Commission Exhibit No. 1005, the foot of Commission Exhibit No. 1014 represents an easterly direction, correct?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And the top a westerly direction. And the right, northerly, and the left, southerly. All right. Now, we have it located.

Which is the doorway into General Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. This is the--this is the front door. [Witness draws.]

Mr. JENNER. You have now put two oblique lines on the line facing southerly.

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. And then as you enter, there is a long hallway.

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And which is the rear of the house towards the alley?

Mr. SURREY. Toward the north.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, in what room, if any of those rooms on the first floor, was General Walker the night of April 10, 1963, when this incident occurred, as you learned when you reached there?

Mr. SURREY. His desk was positioned right there.

Mr. JENNER. You have now drawn a small but rather elongated rectangle, which appears to be opposite two lines you have drawn which I take it represents a window.

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And from what you learned from General Walker on that occasion in the presence of the policemen, was he seated at the desk?

Mr. SURREY. He was seated at his desk.

Mr. JENNER. His back to the window you have drawn, or facing the window?

Mr. SURREY. To the window.

Mr. JENNER. So he was facing to the window?

Mr. SURREY. No; his back was to the window.

Mr. JENNER. He was facing away from the window?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you have drawn a little circle by the figure representing a desk, indicating where General Walker was seated?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And facing westerly?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, locate for us, put a circle with a cross, the wall, the side of the wall indicated by Commission Exhibit No. 1008.

Mr. SURREY. It is right here, sir. [Witness draws.]

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, that is shown, for the purpose of the record, to the left of the blank circle which the witness drew to show General Walker sitting at his desk. And that area that is shown on--the wall shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1009, I take it, is precisely the other side.

Mr. SURREY. The other side.

Mr. JENNER. You have done that by showing an area?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Then we have that located.

Did General Walker in your presence relate what occurred?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us what he said about how it occurred, when he became aware of it?

Mr. SURREY. I walked in the front door, and there were several policemen standing around in various areas. I walked in through here.

Mr. JENNER. When you say "through here" [witness draws two lines to represent door.]----

Mr. SURREY. Through the front----

Mr. JENNER. You came in from the south, the front, and you went down the hallway?

Mr. SURREY. It is not really a hallway. It is mostly glass doors here. And I walked through those glass doors.

Mr. JENNER. You have put three strikes on your sketch. What is that?

Mr. SURREY. Those are glass doors.

Mr. JENNER. You walked through the glass doorway. You walked into the room, the wall of which is shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1009. Correct?

Mr. SURREY. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. SURREY. And I went right through this room.

Mr. JENNER. Into the room in which General Walker's desk is located?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. The wall of which on that side appears shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1008?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. SURREY. The General was sitting at his desk.

Mr. JENNER. When you arrived?

Mr. SURREY. When I arrived.

Mr. JENNER. Was he facing----

Mr. SURREY. He was----

Mr. JENNER. Westerly?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, talking to a policeman in uniform. And I walked in and I said, "What happened? What's going on?" And he pointed to this hole in the wall.

Mr. JENNER. Shown on Commission Exhibit No. 1008?

Mr. SURREY. Yes. And I facetiously said, "Oh, you found a bug."

Mr. JENNER. Would you explain your facetious remark? I don't get the fact that it is facetious.

Mr. SURREY. Well, actually, it may not be. It is a common joke around the General's house that there may be microphones.

Mr. JENNER. That kind of a bug?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is, you saw the hole in the wall and you remarked facetiously that he had discovered the house had been bugged by an electronic device?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; and, therefore, had chopped a hole in the wall.

And he said, "No; I have been shot at." And he pointed to the hole in the window.

Mr. JENNER. Which is shown on Commission Exhibits Nos. 1007 and 1006?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct. Except the window was closed at this time--both casements were together.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; and there is a screen on that window?

Mr. SURREY. I believe there is.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. SURREY. And then----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, sir. That would be the window which is the lower of the two sets of strikes appearing on the northerly line of your Exhibit No. 1014.

Mr. SURREY. Yes. I will mark it with an "A" and a circle.

Mr. JENNER. Good.

Mr. SURREY. And then a policeman asked him a question, and I noticed that his arm was bleeding.

Mr. JENNER. General Walker's arm?

Mr. SURREY. General Walker's arm, was bleeding in four or five places.

Mr. JENNER. How was he dressed?

Mr. SURREY. In a dress shirt of a color, as I recall, but it was not a sport shirt--and slacks.

Mr. JENNER. It was not a uniform of any character?

Mr. SURREY. No; and without a tie.

Mr. JENNER. Short sleeved or long sleeved?

Mr. SURREY. Long sleeved, rolled up.

Mr. JENNER. And his right arm, was it?

Mr. SURREY. His right arm, yes; on his forearm. And----

Mr. JENNER. Was he bleeding profusely?

Mr. SURREY. No. And he said "The jacket of the bullet must have come apart when it went through the window." And he brushed plaster--I assume it came from this wall--out of his hair, which was in his hair, also.

Mr. JENNER. What color hair does General Walker have?

Mr. SURREY. Brown; a dark brown.

Mr. JENNER. He has a fairly full head of hair, does he?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And plaster and that sort of thing would be quite apparent, would it, to anyone who saw it in his hair?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you noticed it?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you noticed him brushing plaster out of his hair?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, that leads me to ask you this, Mr. Surrey: That bullet hole is how high from the floor? I am showing you now Commission Exhibit No. 1009.

Mr. SURREY. You mean how high is the hole----

Mr. JENNER. From the floor.

Mr. SURREY. From the floor? Well, the police went into the next room and so did I, and sighted through the hole in the wall to the window.

Mr. JENNER. Yes, sir.

Mr. SURREY. And when Walker sat down at his desk, it went right through his head.

Mr. JENNER. So he was seated on a chair substantially the height of the one you are seated on?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, and he is approximately a little taller than I am.

Mr. JENNER. He is a little taller than you are. So that would be about 4, 4-1/2 feet.

Tell the Commission the distance from the wall, the point at which you have marked an "X" with a circle, and the place at which General Walker's chair was located.

Mr. SURREY. I would say 18 inches.

Mr. JENNER. He was that close?

Mr. SURREY. To the wall there; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. So that the representation you have made on Commission Exhibit No. 1014 is distorted?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it is. The desk was right up against the wall, and he was seated in the middle of the desk.

Mr. JENNER. His chair was much closer to the wall than would appear to have been as you have roughly diagramed on Exhibit No. 1014?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. All right. In other words, he was close enough to the wall when seated at that chair so that when a bullet penetrating the plaster wall could have splattered plaster into his hair?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Proceed, sir.

Mr. SURREY. So I went over and looked at his arm, and there was a piece of metal in one particular spot in his arm, that I noticed, in addition to the other scratches, and I went looking for some first aid equipment and found tweezers upstairs, and came back downstairs and picked that piece of metal and two others out of his right forearm.

Mr. JENNER. And what was done with those pieces of metal?

Mr. SURREY. They were--I believe the police took them.

Mr. JENNER. But you recall that you, in fact, yourself took the pieces of metal from General Walker's right forearm?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And--all right. Go ahead, sir.

Mr. SURREY. Well, then it became just a matter of the police questioning the general and myself. I don't recall which detective or which policemen and myself went out in the back and looked in the back area.

Mr. JENNER. Is that what you did next, after you took the metal out of General Walker's forearm?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You immediately went out of the house----

Mr. SURREY. Not immediately; no. We talked. I would say within 2 or 3 minutes.

Mr. JENNER. But you did not go into any other room? That is what I am getting at first. You went outside first?

Mr. SURREY. I don't recall if we went in the other room then or later on.

Mr. JENNER. When you say the other room, it is the room opposite the one and to the left of the one shown on your diagram----

Mr. SURREY. As I recall, I merely looked around the separation here when they said that the bullet came clear through into the other room.

Mr. JENNER. Who said that?

Mr. SURREY. One of the policemen.

Mr. JENNER. And did you go around and look then?

Mr. SURREY. I just looked around the doorway; yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did you find when you looked around--what did you see?

Mr. SURREY. I saw these books stacked, as shown in this picture.

Mr. JENNER. Identify the picture, please.

Mr. SURREY. Exhibit No. 1009.

Mr. JENNER. Had--you mentioned a bullet as having been found.

Mr. SURREY. Yes, the policeman said he had found that bullet, on top of the packages.

Mr. JENNER. Shown in Exhibit No. 1009?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was that portion of the bullet exhibited to you on that occasion?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. You did not see it?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. Was the statement that the bullet had been found on the opposite side of that wall made in the presence of General Walker?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did General Walker say when that statement was made in his presence, if anything?

Mr. SURREY. I don't recall that he made any statement.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about where the spent bullet had been found?

Mr. SURREY. Not at that time, no. Not to me.

Mr. JENNER. Well, did he say it to an officer in your presence?

Mr. SURREY. Not that I recall.

Mr. JENNER. Was it uttered by him at all in your presence on that evening?

Mr. SURREY. Not that I recall.

Mr. JENNER. That is, that the spent bullet had been found on the opposite side of the wall next to which he had been sitting?

Mr. SURREY. No; I think the policeman said it, and that is all that was said.

Mr. JENNER. But it was said in General Walker's presence?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. What did the policeman say?

Mr. SURREY. He said the bullet went clean through the wall and they found it laying on the packages in the other room.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say they found it or "I found it"?

Mr. SURREY. He said, "I found it" as I recall.

Mr. JENNER. Proceed in your chronology, please.

Mr. SURREY. That is all there was to it. Then he started getting calls from newsmen, and newsmen coming to the door.

Mr. JENNER. First, you went out and looked around the premises.

Mr. SURREY. Yes; but it was quite dark at this time, and they said, "We will come back in the morning."

Mr. JENNER. I should have asked you this. Perhaps I just assumed it. Was it dark when you arrived at General Walker's home?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. When does it get dark in Dallas, Tex., in this area in the spring?

Mr. SURREY. I would say 7.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have daylight saving time in Dallas?

Mr. SURREY. No; we don't.

Mr. JENNER. And you are on what time?

Mr. SURREY. Central standard.

Mr. JENNER. Central standard time?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Well----

Mr. SURREY. It is 2 hours from here.

The CHAIRMAN. Two hours from here when we have daylight savings.

Mr. SURREY. You have daylight saving now?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Only 1 hour then.

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. After looking around, you say newspapermen began to come.

Mr. SURREY. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. And interview General Walker?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In your presence?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And in the presence of the policemen?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. When did you leave General Walker's home that night?

Mr. SURREY. I stayed that night.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear General Walker being interviewed?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say about what had occurred, if anything?

Mr. SURREY. He said, "Somebody took a shot at me." This is the general tenor of the interviews as to what happened, and he said, "Somebody took a shot at me." I guess--"That is the closest I have ever been missed in 30 years of military service."

Mr. JENNER. Did he say anything about whether he was seated--whether he had been moving about?

Mr. SURREY. No; he said he had been seated at his desk when it happened. Working on his income tax.

Mr. JENNER. Now, Mr. Surrey, was there an occasion preceding October--April 10, 1963, that you noticed an automobile and some people in the automobile in and about General Walker's premises?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; that was 2 nights before, on Monday evening.

Mr. JENNER. That would be April 10?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I mean April 8, I am sorry.

Mr. SURREY. April 8; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What time?

Mr. SURREY. About 8:30 to 9. I am not sure about what time it was.

Mr. JENNER. I take it, then, it was dark?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. And tell the Commission what led up to that, what you said, and what you did. This incident that you have in mind.

Mr. SURREY. I was coming from my home, came down Turtle Creek Boulevard, passed in front of the general's house, and took a right-hand turn on Avondale, to come up to the alley.

Mr. JENNER. Have we put Avondale into your plat? You are now turning to Commission Exhibit No. 1005. [Witness draws.]

Mr. SURREY. The normal route into the parking lot behind the general's house----

Mr. JENNER. He does have a parking lot?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; this is the parking area back in here.

Mr. JENNER. Now, would you crossline that, so we know it is the parking lot? [Witness draws.]

That is fine.

Mr. SURREY. I came up Turtle Creek Boulevard and turned right on Avondale prior to turning again up the alleyway, to go into the parking lot in back of General Walker's house. And I noticed a car parked 30 feet--about 20 yards actually----

Mr. JENNER. You have now drawn a rectangle on the edge of the sheet of paper, Exhibit No. 1005, marked with the letter "N." Would you write the word "car" in there?

The CHAIRMAN. What is this designed to establish, Mr. Jenner? We are getting a little afield, it seems to me.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Surrey, Mr. Chief Justice, was interviewed and related this particular incident, and we want to dissipate any possibility--I don't want to put it this way----

The CHAIRMAN. If it has some relevancy, all right. But let's don't take too long, because it is getting to be quite collateral. Go right ahead.

Mr. SURREY. Well, the gist of the matter is that two nights before the assassination attempt, I saw two men around the house peeking in windows and so forth, and reported this to the general the following morning, and he, in turn, reported it to the police on Tuesday, and it was Wednesday night that he was shot at. So that is really the gist of the whole thing.

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

Mr. JENNER. I show you an exhibit marked Garner Exhibit No. 1. At anytime prior to April 10, 1963, were you familiar with the person who is shown on Garner Exhibit No. 1?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. When I say familiar, I mean did you know of or had you seen consciously a person with that physiognomy and physical appearance?

Mr. SURREY. No; I have not.

Mr. JENNER. That is a side view.

I show you Commission Exhibit No. 520. The man in the center--had you prior to April 10, 1963, ever seen a man with that physiognomy, facial showing, and body?

Mr. SURREY. No.

Mr. JENNER. All right, sir. I take it, then--I ask you this question. Neither of the two men that you saw in that automobile on the 8th of April 1963, at least to your present recollection, was the man shown on Garner Exhibit No. 1, and Commission Exhibit No. 520?

Mr. SURREY. I don't believe either of them was.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

The CHAIRMAN. May I ask--is this what you spoke of as the book?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I notice on here that there is no price of any kind. You say you sold this for $5?

Mr. SURREY. That was an afterthought. The original intent was not a sale.

The CHAIRMAN. Was it ever advertised to the public as for sale from $5?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. Where was it advertised?

Mr. SURREY. In just a flier that we included with some materials we were mailing out.

The CHAIRMAN. I see. I would like to ask you if you were present when--at the time that they had--that there was the demonstration against Ambassador Adlai Stevenson?

Mr. SURREY. No; I was not.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have anything to do with that demonstration?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Were you present when the demonstration was against then Vice President Johnson in Dallas?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you have anything to do with that?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, we have marked the book as Commission Exhibit No. 1015.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1015 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Would you please examine it? You need no more than just to look at it, so you will be able to testify that that is a true and correct copy of the book you have testified about, published by Eagle Publishing Co., which contains on its reverse cover side the letter to which you made reference.

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; it is.

The CHAIRMAN. What did it cost you to publish that?

Mr. SURREY. It came to $2.50 and some cents. In a limited quantity--3,000.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you now propose to offer all of the exhibits?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; I have three more FBI photos, and then I will have completed.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Surrey, I show you three more photographs which are identified first as Commission Exhibit No. 997. Would you read the material that appears on the reverse side of that first, please?

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 997 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Looking now at the face of the photograph, Commission Exhibit No. 997, does--do the inscriptions on the reverse side correctly describe that area of General Walker's home and the Mormon church references?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; they do.

Mr. JENNER. You are familiar with that area?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am.

JENNER. And its physical appearance, except for the foliage on the trees, is as that area looked on the night of April 10, 1963? Is that correct?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct.

Mr. JENNER. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1016.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1016 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Read the inscription on the reverse side, please. You are familiar with that area shown on the photograph?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; I am.

Mr. JENNER. Do the descriptions on the reverse side of the photograph correctly describe that area?

Mr. SURREY. With the exception that I do not know these cars and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. I am talking about the area.

Mr. SURREY. The physical area; yes, they do.

Mr. JENNER. And that area looks the same today as it did on the evening of April 10, or the day of April 10, 1963?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I now hand you the last of these, Commission Exhibit No. 1017, and ask you first to read the inscription and then examine the photograph.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1017 for identification.)

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir; these are substantially correct.

Mr. JENNER. As of today, as well as as of April 10, 1963?

Mr. SURREY. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Now, Mr. Chief Justice, I offer in evidence the various exhibits which we have identified in the record with the exhibit numbers, and ask that the exhibits take the exhibit numbers I recited in each instance as to each exhibit, being Exhibits Nos. 996 through 1000 and 1002 through 1017.

The CHAIRMAN. They may all be admitted under those numbers.

(The documents heretofore marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 996 through 1000 and 1002 through 1017 were received in evidence.)

Mr. JENNER. That includes, Mr. Chief Justice, the diagrams which the witness has prepared for us.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. As I reported to you, Mr. Chief Justice, the file on the Walker incident reached us about 20 minutes before we opened this morning. I think I have covered everything. Could I have the privilege of 5 minutes to take a look?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I will do it very quickly.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Who is Mr. Coleman? Do you know a man by that name?

Mr. SURREY. Not personally.

Mr. JENNER. Walker Kirk Coleman.

Mr. SURREY. As I just read on the back of your exhibit, he is the boy that reported seeing several automobiles at the time of the assassination.

Mr. JENNER. That is immaterial to this issue.

You have never seen either of the two men you have mentioned before or since the occasion you saw that automobile with the two men in it on the evening of April 8, 1963?

Mr. SURREY. Not to my knowledge. I never was very close to them.

Mr. JENNER. Were you able to--what kind of an automobile was it, do you know?

Mr. SURREY. It was a Ford, a new Ford at that time.

Mr. JENNER. Sedan?

Mr. SURREY. Four-door sedan.

Mr. JENNER. And it was new?

Mr. SURREY. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. To your knowledge, have you ever seen that automobile before or since?

Mr. SURREY. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What color was it, if you noticed?

Mr. SURREY. It was either a dark brown or a maroon.

Mr. JENNER. You followed it awhile and then gave up the chase?

Mr. SURREY. That is correct. Actually, they made a turn which--I am familiar with downtown Dallas--and they made a turn which would indicate they were doubling back or not going in a straight direction. And I thought perhaps I had been spotted in my convertible. So I left them there.

Mr. JENNER. I will close, Mr. Chief Justice, by asking the witness--was the Mormon church in session? Had there been----

Mr. SURREY. There had been services.

Mr. JENNER. The evening of April 10?

Mr. SURREY. They were still dispersing.

Mr. JENNER. When you arrived at approximately 9:30 in the evening of April 10, were people still leaving the Mormon church?

Mr. SURREY. Yes; they were.

Mr. JENNER. I have no more questions.

The CHAIRMAN. That will be all, Mr. Surrey. You may be excused now.

The Commission is adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:20 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Thursday, June 18, 1964

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY AND ROBERT CARSWELL

The President's Commission met at 9 a.m., on June 18, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Samuel A. Stern, assistant counsel.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES J. ROWLEY

(Members present at this point: Chief Justice Earl Warren.)

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will come to order.

Chief, it is our procedure to read a little statement as to the purpose of the meeting, for the benefit of the witness.

Chief Rowley will be asked to testify with respect to the protective measures taken by the Secret Service in Dallas, changes in such measures made as a result of the Dallas experience, and with regard to the investigation of the assassination and any information he may have respecting the assassination of the President.

Would you raise your right hand and be sworn?

You solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before the Commission will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. ROWLEY. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated, please. Mr. Rankin will conduct the examination.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, before starting the examination, I would like to make a brief statement for your benefit and for the benefit of the Commission, of the problems that are probably going to develop in this area with regard to the security of the country, and a suggestion about how we might handle them as we proceed with the witness.

I have suggested to Chief Rowley that as he moves along in his testimony he might have various matters that he would think should not be on the record because of the security of the country, and if he would just suggest that, when he came to that point, and say specifically that it did involve the security of the country, then we would proceed to go off the record, if it was satisfactory to the Commission, and consider those questions off the record. And then return to the record as soon as we had completed those security matters.

Would that be satisfactory?

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is an appropriate way to proceed.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, will you state your name and address for the record, please?

Mr. ROWLEY. James J. Rowley, 3501 Rittenhouse Street NW., Washington, D.C.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have an official position with the Government?

Mr. ROWLEY. I have, as Chief of the U.S. Secret Service.

Mr. RANKIN. How long have you occupied that position?

Mr. ROWLEY. Since September 1, 1961.

Mr. RANKIN. What is the nature of the duties of that position?

Mr. ROWLEY. The nature of the duties is the general overall supervision of the activities of the Secret Service.

Mr. RANKIN. And, in a general way, what is the official responsibility under the statutes of the United States of the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we are responsible under title 18, section 3056, to investigate all violations that affect the currency, securities, and coinage of the United States. That involves Government bonds, Government checks, and such other functions and duties as are authorized by law, subject to the direction of the Secretary of the Treasury.

In addition, we have the responsibility of the protection of the President, members of his immediate family, the Vice President, President-elect, Vice President-elect, and the former President for a reasonable period of time as he leaves office.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you please tell us what experience you had with the Secret Service prior to the time that you became chief.

Mr. ROWLEY. I was in charge of the White House detail from 1946 to 1961.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you tell us briefly the training that you had in regard to Government Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. I first entered the Government as a member of the FBI in 1937, and spent a year with the FBI, after which I went back to New York for a period of 9 months. I entered the Secret Service on September 12, 1938. I spent time in criminal investigation in the New York City office, and the Utica office of Secret Service and in April of 1939, I was assigned to Washington, eventually to the White House detail.

(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)

Mr. ROWLEY. I served as a member of the White House detail, as an agent on a shift, as an assistant agent in charge, agent in charge of the shift, and advance man, in preparing for Presidential visits, both domestically and abroad.

Mr. RANKIN. What educational training did you have?

Mr. ROWLEY. I had 2 years of college toward a B.S., then I was graduated from law school, and secured a master's degree in law.

Mr. RANKIN. Was one of the duties of your position as chief of the Service to have general supervision over the trip of President Kennedy and Vice President Johnson to Dallas around November 22, 1963?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, that would be part of my job--the general supervision of the trip. The actual direct supervision would have been under the jurisdiction of Mr. Behn, who was in charge of the White House detail.

Mr. RANKIN. Could you describe briefly the nature of Mr. Behn's responsibilities in that work?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it would have been, as mine was in the period I was there, that he was responsible for developing all arrangements with the members of the White House staff, designating the members of the detail to develop advance work, assigning agents to the various shifts, directing their training as it applied to the White House detail, and participating in any event that he thought would be necessary in connection with his work at the White House.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you become familiar with what did happen on that trip, in your position as chief?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I was first informed while addressing a graduating class of our Secret Service school on that day. I was summoned by Mr. Behn to the White House, at which time he told me that the President had been shot. He was then at the hospital, and subsequently we were notified that the President had died; that the Vice President would take the oath of office in the airplane at Love Field.

In the meantime, I asked my deputy, who was in his office while I was at the White House, to arrange with the Immigration Service to close the border, Texas being in close proximity to the border. There might have been a conspiracy or something, we didn't want to take any chances. And then I immediately dispatched an inspector from my staff to the Capitol to protect the Speaker, and directed the other activities as we got the information from Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn in connection with the trip when the assassination occurred that certain of the Secret Service agents had been in the press club and what is called the Cellar, at Fort Worth, the night before?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, that came to my attention through a broadcast that Mr. Pearson made, that the agents were inebriated the night before at the Fort Worth Press Club. I immediately dispatched Inspector McCann to Fort Worth to investigate the report, and to interview the agents.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you learn?

Mr. ROWLEY. I learned that there were nine agents involved at the Press Club. And I might say this--the agents on duty throughout that day had no opportunity to eat. When they arrived at Fort Worth, they were informed that there was a buffet to be served at the Fort Worth Club. This is what I ascertained in personal interviews. Upon going over there, they learned there was no buffet, and some of them stayed for a drink. Three, I think, had one Scotch, and others had two or three beers. They were in and out--from the time they arrived, I would say roughly around 12:30, until the place closed at 2 o'clock.

Now, after that some of them went to the Cellar. This is a place that does not serve alcoholic beverages. They went there primarily, I think, out of curiosity, because this was some kind of a beatnik place where someone gets up and recites, or plays the guitar.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you learn whether or not there were any violations of the regulations of the Secret Service by these men?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; there was a violation. At that time there was a section in our manual in effect that said that during----

Mr. RANKIN. Will you give us first the number?

Mr. ROWLEY. Section 10.

Mr. RANKIN. Is that chapter 1, page 7?

Mr. ROWLEY. Chapter 1, page 7; yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you tell the Commission about what the regulation was?

Mr. ROWLEY. "The use of liquor. Employees are strictly enjoined to refrain from the use of intoxicating liquor during the hours they are officially employed at their post of duty or when they may reasonably expect that they may be called upon to perform an official duty."

The one that applies here--"However, all members of the White House detail and special agents cooperating with them on presidential and similar protective assignments are considered to be subject to call for official duty at any time while in travel status. Therefore, the use of intoxicating liquor of any kind, including beer and wine, by members of the White House detail and special agents cooperating with them or by special agents on similar assignments, while they are in a travel status, is prohibited."

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell the Commission how many men were involved in these trips to the Press Club and the Cellar, where these things were done?

Mr. ROWLEY. There were 9 men involved at the Press Club, and there were 10 men involved at the Cellar.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, how many men, of those 10 men, were in the Presidential motorcade on the day of the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. Four--four men were in the followup car.

The CHAIRMAN. Who were they?

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know their names?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; Landis, Hill, Ready, and Bennett.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you make any investigation to determine whether or not their violation of the Secret Service regulations had anything to do with the assassination of the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes. They performed their duties from the time they departed in the followup car from Love Field until the point of the tragedy in a most satisfactory manner. There was nothing deficient in their actions or their alertness. They went through the heaviest part of downtown Dallas, through the crowds, and performed in an exemplary manner.

Mr. RANKIN. How do you know that?

Mr. ROWLEY. From the reports that I got from their superiors.

Mr. RANKIN. In the work that you did with the White House detail before you became Chief of the Secret Service, did you know the various responsibilities of the members of the White House detail?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever participate in such motorcades yourself?

Mr. ROWLEY. I have; yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. How much?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I have participated, in rough numbers, over a period of 22 years--roughly, maybe, a thousand or more.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you briefly describe the functions of the Secret Service agents in connection with the President's car?

The CHAIRMAN. Have you finished this other matter?

Mr. RANKIN. No; I just wanted to----

The CHAIRMAN. All right. Go right ahead.

Mr. ROWLEY. When the President's car leaves the airport or a railroad station or any other location, the agents accompany him to the car and stand to the right and left, in the same order as their designated positions on the followup car, and screen him. And then the car moves out, slowly, because the rest of the cars have to have an opportunity to follow in the motorcade, so that none lingers behind, or is left behind. And then the agent in the lead car determines that the motorcade is intact and is moving, then he steps up his speed, which is a cue to the Presidential driver to step up his speed, and then they go at a speed consistent with the crowd that is there, and so forth.

Now, upon leaving the airport, if there is a huge crowd there, the men are still on the ground running on the right and left side of the President, both rear and front of the vehicle. After they get out of the crowd, then the men in the front beside the Presidential vehicle drop back and take their positions in the followup car.

This is so that they are not in the way of the men running on the right and left rear. They move back last and have a clear opportunity to jump onboard the followup car in the event the speed of the motorcade is stepped up.

When the motorcade comes to intersections or turns which are always vulnerable points, in that if you make a right turn, that is the closest point for someone to come out, the agents on the right side before reaching that point, will jump off, to be available alongside the President's car in the event someone darts out with some malicious plan.

There have also been times when, innocently, ladies and young people will come out to throw a bouquet of flowers. And then if there is a crowd that is sparse, they return to their position in the followup car.

Now, when they come into a big crowd, they take it on foot, and at a little jog, if necessary.

In some instances, if the crowd continues for a prolonged distance, the agents work together. In other words, there are rear steps on the right and left rear of the Presidential car with handrails. These have two purposes. One, for agents to ride on and to screen the President from anything from above; the second, in a situation like this, to keep an additional man available in case of trouble, and also to alternate with the men to the right rear of the President, who are jogging along warding off the crowd.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, what positions did the four men that you referred to that were involved in the press club and the Cellar matter occupy on the day of the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, Mr. Ready occupied the right front, Mr. Landis to his rear----

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by right front?

Mr. ROWLEY. Right front running board position of the followup car. It was his responsibility or duty to jump off in crowds and to take the position at the right rear of the President's car.

Mr. Landis, if necessary, to jump off if the occasion demanded and take the right front of the President's car.

Mr. Hill was on the left front running board of the followup car, and his responsibility was at the rear of the President's car. His position was assigned there because he was in charge of the First Lady's detail, and she was seated on the left side.

And Mr. McIntyre was to his rear on the left running board. So his assignment would have been up to the left front of the President's car. Mr. Bennett was in the rear seat of the followup car.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, how can you tell that the fact that they were out as they were the night before and violated the regulations, had nothing to do with the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, based on the reports of my investigating agents and the facts as to how they performed at the time of the tragedy. Mr. Hill, who was on the left side, responded immediately--as he looked toward the Presidential car, being on the left side, he scanned from left to right, and when he saw there was something happening to the President following a noise, he immediately jumped from his position to get aboard from his side.

Mr. Ready scanned to the right so he was looking away from the President, because he was looking around from the right side. As a consequence, he wasn't aware of what was happening in the front. The car was also going on a turn at that time.

Mr. RANKIN. What about the other two?

Mr. ROWLEY. The other two were watching--they reacted normally--the man on the left side looked to his left rear, and the man, Landis, looked to his right rear.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you done anything to discipline these men for violation of the regulations of the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I did consider what type of punishment would be provided.

Then I also considered the fact that these men in no way had--their conduct had no bearing on the assassination. And, therefore, I thought that in the light of history, to place a stigma on them by punishing them at that time, from which inevitably the public would conclude that they were responsible for the assassination of the President--I didn't think this was fair, and that they did not deserve that, with their family and children.

(At this point, Representative Ford entered the hearing room.)

Mr. DULLES. May I ask one question there?

You described the assignment of the four men with respect to the followup car and the President's car. Do they have different assignments with regard to watching what is happening around them, or does that depend on the circumstances in which they are?

Mr. ROWLEY. Both. When they start off they have a certain area that they have to watch. Like the man in the right front would naturally watch slightly to the right and in front of him. The fellow on the side, behind him, will watch to the right and rear. In other words, as they are going by a building, he should scan the building. In the meantime, he picks up where the man in the front has finished. In other words, the scan of the man in the front will cover the building to his front and side; the fellow behind will scan alongside from rear to forward. Their scanning joins. This is the way they are accustomed to doing it.

Mr. DULLES. Who would cover straight ahead?

Mr. ROWLEY. The man in the front seat has that responsibility.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, how do you construe subparagraph (c) of your regulation 10 regarding the use of alcoholic liquors?

The CHAIRMAN. Will you read it for the record?

Mr. RANKIN. Will you kindly read it?

Mr. ROWLEY. "Violation or slight disregard of the above paragraphs or the excessive or improper use of intoxicating liquor at any time will be cause for removal from the service. In interpreting the words 'excessive' and 'improper,' slight evidence tending to indicate unusual or questionable conduct will be considered proof that the use of liquor has been improper or excessive. Association with others who drink to excess will be considered as an indication of using more than a moderate amount of liquor. The excuse that liquor was used for medicinal purposes will not be accepted."

Mr. RANKIN. How do you construe and apply that?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, in this instance, it was wrong.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, were these men under this regulation considered to be on travel status, so that they should not be using intoxicating liquor?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And there is no question about that in your mind?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Has anything been done to reprimand and cause them to realize that this is a violation of your regulations?

Mr. ROWLEY. They were interviewed by the inspector at the time. The seriousness of the matter was impressed upon them. And I think they recognize the seriousness of their acts.

The men we recruit are men that are college graduates and mature, and we screen them very carefully, particularly before we assign them to the White House detail. They know and we know that they are in a fishbowl 24 hours a day, and that, therefore, their conduct is always subject to scrutiny, and so forth, and that they are responsible individuals. Their records have indicated that they have been performing in a high degree. They have worked endless hours of overtime. They are dedicated. And if they were not, they would not be on the detail.

They realize the seriousness of the violation, and I went over it with my special agent in charge. He understands it. And I am quite sure that they all understand it at this time.

Mr. RANKIN. I would like to have you examine Commission Exhibit No. 1018, Chief Rowley, and see if that is the regulation of the Secret Service that you have been referring to.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; that is what I have been reading here, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I would like to offer as a part of the record the regulation, Commission Exhibit No. 1018.

The CHAIRMAN. It may he admitted.

(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1018, and received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, have you had any other complaints similar to this in regard to the conduct of the Secret Service agents on the Presidential or White House detail?

Mr. ROWLEY. We had one in the last month. We had charges leveled at us by an agent of the Secret Service----

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us about that?

Mr. ROWLEY. Who is currently under indictment, and who will be brought to trial on criminal charges on the 29th of June. And, for that reason, while I have no reluctance to discuss it, I think we should go off the record, because I don't want to in any way prejudice the case.

The CHAIRMAN. There is no reason to discuss that case here, Chief.

Is there anything in particular that would affect this situation you wanted to know about, Mr. Rankin?

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, the only thing would be the investigation as to whether or not there was comparable conduct. I didn't know whether the Commission would like to know what that investigation was and what the results of it were.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I suppose there is no objection to the Chief telling us what this complaint was, but not insofar as it bears on the crime that he is charged with.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it ties in with the crime, because he said he was framed.

Now, he said he was framed because he was prepared to go before your Commission, sir, to testify about this thing that happened 3 years ago, and in the charges he said he advised me, as well as others, and nothing was done. He said he was framed for this reason.

The CHAIRMAN. Had he ever made any complaint to you before?

Mr. ROWLEY. He had never made any complaint to me. It came as a complete surprise.

Representative FORD. The complaint to you came subsequent to the filing of criminal charges against him?

Mr. ROWLEY. He said he had made the charges at the time the alleged incidents occurred, Mr. Congressman, that he notified me, before he left an assignment 3 years ago.

Let me give you the background, so there is no misunderstanding. We have what we call an orientation program. The men we recruit from the colleges, and the type of men that we want, we cannot always get off the civil service roster. Therefore, we have an understanding with Civil Service that we can take men under schedule A. Within a period of 2 years, they will have to be assigned to the White House or dropped from the Service.

Now, in order to determine their ability and fitness for assignment, since some people are better criminal investigators than they are in protection work, we have an orientation program which includes duty on the White House detail. Mr. Bolden was one of the men selected to come in the summer of 1961. He was also a replacement for some regular agent on the detail who was on leave. It was a 30-day assignment. This afforded us an opportunity to observe him, determine whether he was equipped and so forth.

And he was on the White House detail for this short period of time. The time that he describes was a 5-day weekend up in Hyannis Port.

Mr. RANKIN. I don't think that quite answers----

Mr. ROWLEY. I am giving the background.

Mr. RANKIN. I think the question is as to when you got the complaint.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well--excuse me. [Continuing.] Before he left his detail assignment, you see, he alleges that he told me about the condition that was going on up in Hyannis.

Representative FORD. Before he left on this 30-day assignment?

Mr. ROWLEY. When he left to return to his office in Chicago.

Mr. RANKIN. And what is the fact in that regard?

Mr. ROWLEY. The fact is he never informed me. He never informed any of his supervisors or anyone on the detail.

Mr. RANKIN. I think the record should show, Mr. Chairman, that we were never advised that he wanted to testify, nor had we any inquiry or anything about the matter, until after we learned about it in the newspapers. And, even then, he didn't ask to testify. And we asked the FBI to check into it, and he had counsel, and they refused to tell anything about the matter at that time.

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask a question?

Did I understand you to say that the Civil Service prescribes that certain men must be assigned to the White House for a certain detail?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, Mr. Dulles; we have an arrangement with the Civil Service that they will permit us to recruit these men, not from the register, but under what they call schedule A. They give us an opportunity, 2 years, to train these men, with the understanding that within 2 years' time they will have to be assigned to the White House detail or we will not be able to retain them in the Service.

However, during that 2 years, we urge them to take the civil service examination, so that they get on the register. And then when they do--quite frequently this occurs--they are selected from the register, and once they become permanent, if they are not interested in the White House detail, then they continue their work as a criminal investigator in the field.

Mr. DULLES. But if they do not take that special examination, then--and become a part of the civil service, then they have to be assigned to the White House, to stay on?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. I was a little worried when you said certain people had to be assigned to the White House, that you were under compulsion to assign certain people to the White House in order to retain them.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; anyone who works in the White House, whether he is an electrician, a painter, or anything, for a period of 2 years, he automatically becomes eligible for permanent civil service status.

Representative FORD. Is that by law or by regulation?

Mr. ROWLEY. That I cannot say. I would always interpret it as under law. I may be wrong on that, Mr. Ford, but this is what happens. When our men spend 2 years on the detail at the White House, they come within that classification.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief, can you clarify Commissioner Dulles' inquiry? The Civil Service does not direct that you put certain people in the White House?

Mr. ROWLEY. Oh, no; we do that in order to--I see your point, sir. We do that in order to give them the permanency that they should have to continue their employment with the Secret Service.

Mr. RANKIN. But that is the choice of the Secret Service rather than anybody else?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. I gather the Civil Service prescribed if they did not do this, they could not be retained. Is that correct?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. In other words----

Mr. DULLES. There is some pressure, I should think.

Mr. ROWLEY. There is no pressure, because we voluntarily entered into an agreement with them, sir, for this arrangement, explaining that we frequently don't get from the register the type of men that we want, and that, therefore, we want the opportunity to recruit the men from the universities or colleges. Once they have served on the White House detail for a period of 2 years, then they would get this permanent status. However, during the 2 years, they have an opportunity and they are encouraged to take the civil service examination, so they get career status. But there is no pressure from the Civil Service. It is a convenience or agreement that they have arranged with us.

Mr. RANKIN. Maybe I can help, Chief. Schedule A is an exemption from the regular civil service roster, is it not?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. And the register is a list of employees from which you have to otherwise select Government employees if they are not exempt by reason of their positions, is that correct?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Representative FORD. In other words, Civil Service Commission has set up for the White House detail all inclusive----

Mr. ROWLEY. Not necessarily for the White House detail, Mr. Ford. For the Secret Service--to allow us to get the type of individuals that we want for both criminal investigation and protective work. Because if you say exclusively for the White House detail, the fellow might not be equipped for the White House detail.

Representative FORD. In other words, every person recruited by Secret Service for any capacity is recruited in the first instance under schedule A.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; if he hasn't--if he is not on the register for civil service. We first go to the Civil Service, when we want to select somebody, to see if there is anyone on there that meets our qualifications. And then, if not, then we hire them under schedule A, which is sort of a blanket exemption.

Representative FORD. But I gather from what you have said, or I think you are intimating that most of your recruiting actually is from colleges, and they are under schedule A.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right; yes, sir. Most of them from your State, sir--Michigan State University.

Representative FORD. It is a fine school.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is where it started, actually. They were the first ones. Now we also recruit on the west coast, in California, they have terrific schools out there.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I don't think you covered the Bolden matter as to whether you had an investigation made. Did you?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I did, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you find out anything about the conduct of your agents?

Mr. ROWLEY. I found out there was no truth to the charges of misconduct. There were 11 charges lodged against us.

One charge, the ninth charge, a part of it was true. The boys did contribute for food. In other words, up there in Hyannis, when they are up there for a week, or a weekend, they would be assigned to a house, which economically was beneficial to them. One shift, and some of the drivers would be in this house. This house was in a remote area from the shopping area and so forth. So they agreed when they arrived there to contribute, to buy food for breakfast, it being an 8 to 4 shift. Eight to four meant they would have breakfast there and dinner.

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by that, Chief? Did they get a certain house and were able to live together there to reduce their expenses?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. And then they each contributed to that common expense?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. And did someone cook for them?

Mr. ROWLEY. One of the agents who enjoyed it as a hobby cooked the meals for them, while the others took care of the dishes.

Mr. RANKIN. They did contribute to supporting that?

Mr. ROWLEY. They contributed to supporting that, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Was there criticism of that action?

Mr. ROWLEY. There was criticism of the action to this extent: That when they went shopping they bought two or three cases of beer which they had available in the icebox when the men came off duty in the evening.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, were they on a travel status or subject to----

Mr. ROWLEY. Not on travel status under our regulations. They could be there a week, and they would be working their 8 hours. They were not working any longer than their 8 hours. It was comparable to their assignment here in Washington.

Mr. RANKIN. So it was really a summer White House position?

Mr. ROWLEY. Summer White House is what we called it.

Mr. RANKIN. And did you investigate the charges to see whether they were valid?

Mr. ROWLEY. I investigated. This portion was correct. There was some substance to that portion.

He also said he was left on post for a period of 2 hours and wasn't relieved. That an agent had used this time to take care of his private car. We established there was no agent up there who had a private car.

Further, we established that he was left on post because according to our arrangements it was routine that whenever the President went out for a cruise, the agents on the outer perimeter at the time would remain on duty, and the agents in the inner perimeter would accompany the President on the cruise in the followup boat. Naturally, when they were out on the boat, there was no one available to start what we call the push, to rotate the men from one post to another. In other words, in the White House or any place where we establish posts, every half hour one man starts from the office and starts making the push. The first man is relieved and he relieves the next one, so there is no monotony on their jobs. They each have a different area. They are conversant or acquainted with each and every phase of the physical area. But because he was on one post, and not relieved, he complained.

So the next day, to bend over backwards, and show there was not any prejudice, the agent in charge took him on the cruise, so he would not feel he was being ignored.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, from your investigation, did you find any violation at Hyannis of the regulations of the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you been informed of any other claims that Secret Service agents had been violating the regulations while on duty?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; I haven't been informed of any others. And it seems in the last few days or few weeks we have been getting complaints that we haven't had in many years. And I think, as I mentioned earlier, because of the fact that we are very careful with the type of men we screen, their record has been above reproach over the years. They have conducted themselves in an exemplary manner. My files are replete with commendations on behalf of the agents wherever they have traveled and worked with committees and individuals in connection with Presidential travels, both here and abroad, which testifies to the impression that they have made.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever had a Secret Service agent indicted or a complaint filed against him, a criminal complaint, prior to this time?

Mr. ROWLEY. This is the first time I remember anything like this happening since I have been with the Secret Service.

Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, I don't recall Chief Rowley saying precisely what the reprimands were specifically for these violations of the regulations in this one instance.

You spoke highly of their background, and you spoke very high in their praise. But I did not hear what reprimand, if any, had actually been lodged against them.

Mr. ROWLEY. There was no reprimand. You are talking about the current thing?

Representative FORD. I am talking about the Dallas trip.

Mr. ROWLEY. I stated in considering what would be an appropriate punishment at the time, I felt that these men, by their conduct, had no bearing on the assassination of the President in Dallas. That to institute formal punishment or disciplinary action would inevitably lead the public to conclude that they were responsible for the assassination of President Kennedy. I did not think in the light of history that they should be stigmatized with something like that, or their families or children. And, for that reason, I took the position that I did.

Representative FORD. So there was no official reprimand or disciplinary action?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you talk to the agents, to indicate and make it plain to them that this was a violation of the regulations?

Mr. ROWLEY. I talked to some of the agents, as did my inspector at the time, who interviewed each and every one of them.

Mr. RANKIN. And I think the Commission would be interested in whether you can be assured, or assure them that the action you took was sufficient so that this would not happen again.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I am confident that it would not happen again, Mr. Rankin.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us why you think so?

Mr. ROWLEY. Because they realize the seriousness of their action.

Initially I can understand the situation--they thought they were going for a dinner, buffet, and they got into the place and it wasn't there.

I talked personally with the agents there, and they just thought while they were there they would have a drink. It was one of those situations.

The important thing was that it was pointed out to them this was wrong, this was a violation. These men are young men with futures, they realize the true situation, innocent as they may have seemed to think it was.

But I am quite confident that we will not have a repetition of that.

And in talking to Mr. Behn--I am confident, too, in him--I know that he will see to it that they are well supervised.

Mr. RANKIN. When they are out on a trip of this kind, Chief Rowley, as I understand your regulations, it is understood by the regulations and by the Secret Service that they are on duty all the time--that is, subject to call?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And even though it is late in the evening or they had gone to bed in the early hours of the morning, they could be called to go on duty and perform their responsibility of taking care of the President or the Vice President, or whoever they are charged with; is that right?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. So that do they understand that when they are out on that kind of duty, they are subject to call at all times, and anything they do contrary to regulations is a violation, because they are subject to the call and must be ready at any moment to perform their duties.

Mr. ROWLEY. They certainly do, because there have been situations, whether or not they have had it with the Kennedy administration I don't know--but I know there have been situations where we have moved fast, all hours of the night. I remember one instance, that has never been disclosed--as Mr. Dulles knows, you never advertise your successes, you just get the other things--that I would like to give you as an example off the record, to answer your question, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

Chief, it seems to me that on an assignment of that kind, to be alert at all times is one of the necessities of the situation. And I just wonder if you believe that men who did what these men did, being out until early morning hours, doing a little--even a small amount of drinking--would be as alert the next day as men should be when they are charged with the tremendous responsibility of protecting the President.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we checked on that, Mr. Chief Justice, and the agent in charge reported that they were in good physical condition. I don't condone these late hours; no. This is not a rule. This case is an exception. However, because of the activities of any travel such as the Presidents today make from one place to another, to maybe seven States in a weekend, there is constant going.

I don't condone this at all. But these men are young. They are of such age that I think that they responded in this instance adequately and sufficiently as anyone could under the circumstances.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am thinking of this. As you go along in the motorcade, you have men who are scanning the buildings along the way, don't you?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. And they have submachineguns in one of the cars.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; for security reasons, I would like to--we don't have machine-guns now, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I just thought I heard that from the record here, that they had some kind of guns.

Mr. ROWLEY. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir.

Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever it is.

Now, other people, as they went along there, even some people in the crowds, saw a man with a rifle up in this building from which the President was shot. Now, don't you think that if a man went to bed reasonably early, and hadn't been drinking the night before, would be more alert to see those things as a Secret Service agent, than if they stayed up until 3, 4, or 5 o'clock in the morning, going to beatnik joints and doing some drinking along the way?

Mr. ROWLEY. If I remember that witness' testimony--and that was one of the first statements that he made--that witness was with his wife, and he happened to look up there, and I think he said, "There is a man with a rifle, it is a Secret Service man," and let it go at that. He didn't inform any of the authorities.

The CHAIRMAN. No; nobody did. But I say wouldn't an alert Secret Service man in this motorcade, who is supposed to observe such things, be more likely to observe something of that kind if he was free from any of the results of liquor or lack of sleep than he would otherwise?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, yes; he would be. But then, on the other hand, Mr. Chief Justice, in some instances the men come in from a trip at 1:30 in the morning, which there have been cases on travels that I have made, and have to be up at 3:30 or 4 o'clock, and out in time for a 5 o'clock departure. Then you go all that day until 1 or 2 o'clock the next morning. This is what has happened in the past.

The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about the past. We are talking about nine men here who were out until rather unusual hours of the morning.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They were to be on duty the next day.

The next day--or if not sooner.

The next day they were supposed to be alert to anything that might occur along the line of march. Don't you think that they would have been much more alert, sharper, had they not been doing these things?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; but I don't believe they could have prevented the assassination.

The CHAIRMAN. Isn't it a substantial violation of these rules to do a thing of that kind?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir--on the basis of this section here.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Now, Chief I noticed, also, in reading some of the reports that three of these men whom you speak of, were actually on night duty, protecting the life of the President. And around 4 o'clock in the morning, when they were protecting him at the Texas Hotel, they said that they had a coffee break, and they went from the hotel over to the beatnik joint. Now, is that consistent with your regulations?

Mr. ROWLEY. In this case, I talked to these three agents. They were relieved at different times--because their posts are in the corridor of a stuffy hotel----

The CHAIRMAN. Of the what?

Mr. ROWLEY. The corridor that they were on post outside the President's suite was a stuffy one, and they went downstairs to get a breath of fresh air. And they walked--it was a block--and out of curiosity they went into this place. One fellow looked in and left, he didn't buy any coffee. Another fellow went in and felt, I suppose, when he went in that he would buy a cup of coffee. But they were on what we call reliefs, the same as we relieve them around the White House. There are only so many posts, but you have a group of men in one of the rooms of the hotel where they are available, like an alert squad, and they relieve everyone on post every half hour. It is a part of the rotation of positions we have.

The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any regulations concerning where they shall remain when they are relieved for this short period of time?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They can go any place they want?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; not any place. They usually stay within the immediate confines. That is understood. The hotel or the residence.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, they didn't do that here, did they?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. They went to the beatnik joint.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, is that consistent with their duty?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; it is not consistent or inconsistent with their duty. But as they explained to me, they wanted to get a breath of fresh air. If they are at a residence in a remote place, and they want to walk around the area, they might walk maybe a city block or so, which is what they do on a lot of these assignments--particularly in hotels. This was not an air-conditioned hotel.

The CHAIRMAN. It would seem to me that a beatnik joint is a place where queer people of all kinds gather anyway, and that the mere fact that these men did leave their post of duty might be an indication to someone that the President was not being protected, and might leave an opening for them to go there and try to do something.

Mr. ROWLEY. They were relieved, Mr. Chief Justice. They didn't leave their post of duty. They would not leave their post of duty until they were relieved by someone.

The CHAIRMAN. As I understood the report, they said they left for a coffee break.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it is an expression. They left to have coffee, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Was there any place for coffee in the hotel?

Mr. ROWLEY. I think there was a coffee shop in the hotel; yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. That was the only place in town, as I understood, from the reports, outside of the beatnik place they could. But they went down to the beatnik place. Did they do that by prearrangement with the other agents?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; it was curiosity on their part. They hadn't seen the other agents. There was no arrangement of any nature at all, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. But they did there meet other agents?

Mr. ROWLEY. They saw other agents--those that were in the place at the time they looked in. I think they came in after most had left, though.

Mr. DULLES. Were these men off duty for the night or were they going back on duty immediately after this break?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; they were on duty. They were the midnight shift, Mr. Dulles, from 12 to 8 a.m.

Mr. DULLES. They were going back on duty?

Mr. ROWLEY. They were going back on duty; yes, sir; in 10 minutes, 15 minutes.

Mr. DULLES. I see.

Representative FORD. And they did go back on duty and relieve somebody subsequent to this?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right; yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you give the Commission a letter as of May 5 of this year in regard to this Dallas matter concerning the Press Club and the Cellar?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And is that letter correct in regard to what happened as far as you know?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And did you make available to the Commission the statements of each agent signed by the agent?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. I think you said Dallas. Did you not mean Fort Worth?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes--it should be Fort Worth, I am sorry. Thank you.

I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1019 and ask you if that is your letter of May 5 that we have just referred to.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1019 for identification.)

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1019.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1019, was received in evidence.)

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, I notice in the report that was made that while your inspector found that no one--no member of the Secret Service was intoxicated at the club--but that there was someone connected with the group who was intoxicated.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if that also wasn't a violation of that portion of the rule which says, "In interpreting the words 'excessive' and 'improper' slight evidence tending to indicate unusual or questionable conduct will be considered proof that the use of liquor has been improper or excessive. Association with others who drink to excess will be considered as an indication of using more than a moderate amount of liquor."

Did you call that to the attention of your people?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. They ran into that individual as they were entering--two agents ran into this individual as they were entering the Fort Worth Club.

The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1020, and ask you if that is a document that you had prepared for the Commission.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1020 for identification.)

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And that includes, under capital letter A, the transmittal from Inspector McCann; B, the report of the investigation by Inspector McCann; C, the Drew Pearson article?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. D, the statements of the supervisors; and, E, the statements of the special agents; F, the statements of witnesses; and, G, the memorandum of May 19, 1964, by Agent Sorrels, is that right?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. And are those various documents a part of the official report by the Secret Service to the Commission of this matter?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1020.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be so admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1020, was received in evidence.)

Mr. DULLES. Off the record, may I ask a question?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

Chief, I notice--I have read this report. At any place in here, did any of your investigators, Inspector McCann, or your special agents, or anybody else, indicate that there had been any violation of any kind on the part of your people, or particularly any violation of this section 10, chapter 1, page 7 of the Secret Service manual?

Mr. ROWLEY. I think what happened in this instance, we responded to the broadcast of Mr. Pearson and his charge that the men were inebriated. We were primarily concerned with that at that time. And to get the statements from the men. But I do know that in the course of his interviewing of these individuals at the time, and taking their statements, he impressed upon them the fact that there was a violation.

The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any report made to the Commission to the effect that there was any violation of----

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; unless it is contained in this document here, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. I have not seen anything in there. It seems to me they were all given a complete bill of health. And I just wonder if that is quite consistent with the facts that the Commission should have.

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; as I said earlier, we don't condone their actions, nor do we try to belittle the violation. But in the circumstances, I took the decision that I thought right in view of the tragedy and so forth. In any other circumstance it would have been entirely different. But as I said earlier, I don't think that these people should be blamed for the tragedy that happened at that time, and that any attempt to assess formal punishment would in the light of history stigmatize them for the rest of their life, as well as their families.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I plan to leave that subject now--unless there is some further question.

The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?

Very well.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, will you tell us whether you learned anything about the preparations in Dallas for the visit of the President on November 22?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I read the report of Special Agent Lawson, who was designated as the advance agent for that visit.

Mr. RANKIN. And do you know that that report has been furnished to us?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. A copy of it.

And have you examined it to determine whether it is accurate, as far as you can determine?

Mr. ROWLEY. It is accurate; yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any additions or corrections?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; I have no corrections to make, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Were you--are you satisfied, now examining that report, with the manner in which the advance preparations for the trip of the President were handled?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

The report follows the standard procedure that we have exercised over the years, and in many of the trips we had taken with the late President. He covered everything with the police and all that we have normally covered on such visits.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you have enough agents at that time to perform the required duties in connection with this trip for both Dallas and the other cities in Texas to be visited?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we never have enough agents for the activities that the President today is engaged in. We draw from the field to supplement or augment the agents from the White House detail. We move the agents from one point to another where we can--particularly in the area of the advance men.

But in Dallas we had sufficient agents with prior experience in Presidential protection who assisted Mr. Lawson in the advance preparations.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you furnish to the Commission a statement of the preparations that were made for the trip?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And that included the various protective activities, did it?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1021, and ask you if that is the report you made in regard to the trip.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1021 for identification.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any corrections or additions that you care to make to it?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1021.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1021, was received in evidence.)

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, I have wondered about this question. Some months before Ambassador Adlai Stevenson had been handled very roughly in Dallas. Did you make--did your people make any investigation as to that group that caused that disturbance for him, to see if there might be some possibility of the same thing happening to the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. Not immediately at the time of the incident that occurred to Mr. Stevenson, but when the advance man came down, that was one of the things that we assigned a local agent to inquire into, to ascertain the hard core of that group, if you will, that were responsible for stimulating that activity. And he contacted an informant, and with the local police, who are members of a special squad that are involved in this kind of activity, they went and identified through pictures, which they saw in the newsreel, the principal members. They had photographs made, and they issued them to the agents on their visit there, to be on the lookout for these men as potential troublemakers.

(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)

The CHAIRMAN. Did they do the same thing concerning the incident that Vice President Johnson had a year or so before that?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; not at that time. That was more or less in the heat of a political campaign. I don't think that was a similar type of activity.

The CHAIRMAN. I see.

But you did do it with the Stevenson matter?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you make a report to the Commission with regard to the publicity concerning the trip of the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And is Commission Exhibit No. 1022 that report?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1022 for identification.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you wish to make any additions or corrections of that letter?

Mr. ROWLEY. Of that letter? No.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1022.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1022, was received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, could you inform the Commission about the advance publicity concerning trips of the President to various parts of the country? There has been the question raised as to whether that is a threat to the President, and might make the work of the Secret Service and others who are doing protective work more difficult.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have found that it is. And we always consider it as a potential threat in that it might give someone the opportunity who had any plans, whether it be an individual as in this case, or a group, to select an area, if they knew what the route was, or conduct a reconnaissance, if you will. I have always been opposed to it, and I have always tried to prevail upon the staff of the various Presidents who might be responsible for the release, not to release it too far in advance.

Mr. RANKIN. Could you tell the Commission what the problem is in that regard?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, in this regard, it is a political thing, and the President cannot be contained in a vacuum. If he wants to go out and meet the people under our form of government, he will in his own way. Each and every President has his own thoughts and methods as it pertains to these visits, and the need for publicity. This trip in Dallas was an opportunity for the people to see the President, as are the trips of any President. I remember well when President Truman started his trip across the country in June 1948, the purpose being to get the feel of the people and let the people see him at the time.

And it was then, as a result of that trip, that he determined he would run for reelection. That I know of my own personal knowledge.

But these are the things that are hard in security, as far as developing a close screen on the President.

Mr. RANKIN. Is the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service under your direction, too?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; that is part of the White House area, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you familiar with the testimony of Robert Bouck concerning that Section?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether that accurately describes the conduct of that Section?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, at that time. The Section was established by us some 20 years ago, and primarily to process threats, obscene letters and suicide notes. Over the years, and particularly during the last 9 years, the work has evolved to a point where we find that it requires further expansion.

It had a broad and general concept in the criteria of what it needed for Presidential protection in knowing what risks were about the country.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the Secret Service have a written communication to other intelligence agencies as to the criteria for information that they sought?

Mr. ROWLEY. At that time?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; at that time.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; it was more or less of an informal arrangement that we had with the agencies, as we developed the Section.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell the Commission what the standard was that you told the agencies you would like to have information concerning?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, if there were any threats to the President, we were interested in being informed about it. We were in touch with the FBI, the CIA and others.

In the basic schools of the Treasury, and through coordination, our agents in charge of the areas, in coordination meetings, would inform representatives of other agencies of the type that we were interested in, the nature of the threats that we asked that they refer to us.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you know that this standard only developed about 400 names from all over the country?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And that it produced none in the immediate Dallas vicinity?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, have you done anything about that standard since the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have had a complete reexamination of the Protective Research Section.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you describe----

Mr. ROWLEY. We infused new blood. We have asked the Rand Corp., the Research Analysis Corp., the President's Scientific Advisor, and the medical people for a study of this, and we are in constant consultation. We have brought in experienced agents who now are processing, evaluating, and analyzing all reports we receive, and indexing the information as we receive it from the various agencies. We have more recently issued and forwarded to the intelligence community in Washington our criteria at the present time regarding what we would ask them in a more formal manner. This is the beginning of what we hope to be a more thorough and practical approach to this problem.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief, I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1023, dated June 17, 1964, and ask you if that is a communication from you to the Commission describing the new criteria.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1023 for identification.)

Mr. RANKIN. Does it accurately state that criteria?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; it does.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1023.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1023, was received in evidence.)

Mr. ROWLEY. If I may read----

Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell us the gist of the new criteria, and what the difference is as you conceive it from the old standard?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, if I may do this. We have sent this criteria to the intelligence agencies that we think would be of help to us, with a covering letter in which we say that studies are now underway, "by which we hope to develop more detailed criteria. Our experience with the attached guidelines will also be carefully evaluated with a view towards amendments if required. We will appreciate your cooperation and suggestions concerning these guidelines, so that the person of the President will be protected to the best of our combined abilities and resources."

Another thing today now that we have to concern ourselves with, is that we get an expanding file of information.

Mr. RANKIN. Has that happened since the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well yes; we have gotten some 9,000 reports on the members of the Communist Party from the FBI. At this time we have read and evaluated and catalogued them and indexed them. There has been a small percentage that have been to date of interest to us. But this is the beginning. And except for the indexes, we are more or less current as a result of that. This is through the long hours and hard work by the new group that I brought in to develop this department.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, how is the standard described in Exhibit No. 1023 different from the prior standard?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have always had the basic standard. The other standard was the threat to harm or embarrass the President, however, this time we added three factors.

Mr. RANKIN. And these are in addition to the threat of harm to the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. All right, proceed.

Mr. ROWLEY. The interest of the individual or the organization, capabilities of the individual or the organization, and the activities of the individual or organization. The interests of the individual or organization is the prime factor to be considered in the criteria, but must be coupled with the capability and activity of the individual or organization in any determination for referral to the Secret Service.

"The interest must be towards the President, or others named, or other high Government official in the nature of a complaint, coupled with an expressed or implied determination to use a means other than legal or peaceful to satisfy any grievance, real or imagined. After the interest phase of the criteria is met, then the activity which encompass previous history, that is, mental instability, history of violence and the capability of the individual or organization for furthering this interest will dictate whether the case should be referred to the Secret Service. In making referrals to the Secret Service, it is requested that the agency furnish all pertinent background information relating to each of the three factor criteria."

Mr. RANKIN. Now, is the Secret Service operating under the standard or criteria described in Exhibit No. 1023 at the present time?

Mr. ROWLEY. At the present time, it is, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And when did that become effective?

Mr. ROWLEY. That became effective in the last 3 weeks as we developed and explored and examined the many reports that we were receiving.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, the language that you read into the record, where you invited comment and suggestions from the various other agencies to whom you sent communication, what did you mean by that? Is that asking them for their ideas so that you may further change the criteria?

Mr. ROWLEY. Where we may get in a position later on to break it down into categories. In other words, if every agency forwards and inundates us with many reports--say we expand to 3 million, obviously, the whole intelligence family could not cope with that. You have to get it down to a workable number. On the other hand, if you try to restrict the categories too much, then you find yourself in a position that you may miss another Oswald, and then the utilities of your file are of no consequence. So you have to try to reach the level in between there where it is going to be practical for us to react or develop the type of risks that we think should be covered by our organization in the protection of the President of the United States.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you doing anything about the use of equipment that might help you to secure information about any particular locality the President was going to travel to more readily?

Mr. ROWLEY. In connection with the PRS?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have conferred with the IBM. Can I go off the record on this?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, you have described off the record certain matters that involve the security of the country and cannot be made public. But can you tell us whether you have done anything in the past to try to improve your methods in testimony that can be made public?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I have tried to secure in the appropriations funds to enable us to procure the equipment and personnel that we thought would be necessary.

With the approval of the Congress, we were able 2 years ago to secure funds to enable us, in our check forgeries program, to try to adapt the characteristics of handwriting to an ADP processing program. We are hopeful this will work out. And we have used the Bureau of Standards to assist us in this program. We have prints out and have programmed part of the operation.

Now, it was my thought that if we succeeded in that area, we could also apply it to PRS. So we are working quite hard on this other area. And I knew the need would be eventually for us to get into the PRS stage on the electronic machine situation.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, did you know that we had asked Mr. Bouck when he testified if he could inform us at a later date about people who were in institutions or otherwise might be dangerous, and with regard to whom you asked that the Secret Service be notified, so that they could make adequate protection for the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know how many such cases you now have?

Mr. ROWLEY. Approximately a thousand.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell the Commission what your practice was for the Secret Service concerning the route of the motorcade at the time of the assassination--that is, whether you made inspection of adjacent buildings?

Mr. ROWLEY. At that time, and prior to that time, except for the inaugurations in Washington, and other parades, involving the visit of foreign dignitaries in Washington, in which the President would ride in the motorcade with the head of state, where we had ample time to make these surveys, we had never conducted on trips out of Washington surveys of this nature. I have here a statement of the conditions that prevailed in Dallas as well as other areas--if I may read this.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. ROWLEY. "Except for inauguration or other parades involving foreign dignitaries accompanied by the President in Washington, it has not been the practice of the Secret Service to make surveys or checks of buildings along the route of a Presidential motorcade. For the inauguration and certain other parades in Washington where the traditional route is known to the public long in advance of the event, buildings along the route can be checked by teams of law enforcement officers, and armed guards are posted along the route as appropriate. But on out-of-town trips where the route is decided on and made public only a few days in advance, buildings are not checked either by Secret Service agents or by any other law enforcement officers at the request of the Secret Service. With the number of men available to the Secret Service and the time available, surveys of hundreds of buildings and thousands of windows is not practical.

"In Dallas the route selected necessarily involved passing through the principal downtown section between tall buildings. While certain streets thought to be too narrow could be avoided and other choices made, it was not practical to select a route where the President could not be seen from roofs or windows of buildings. At the two places in Dallas where the President would remain for a period of time, Love Field and the Trade Mart, arrangements were made for building and roof security by posting police officers where appropriate. Similar arrangements for a motorcade of 10 miles, including many blocks of tall commercial buildings, is not practical. Nor is it practical to prevent people from entering such buildings or to limit access in every building to those employed or having business there. Even if it were possible with a vastly larger force of security officers to do so, many observers have felt that such a procedure would not be consistent with the nature and purpose of the motorcade to let the people see their President and to welcome him to their city.

"In accordance with its regular procedures, no survey or other check was made by the Secret Service, or by any other law enforcement agency at its request, of the Texas School Book Depository Building or those employed there prior to the time the President was shot."

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I will ask you not to describe any procedure, because of security considerations, but I would like to have you tell on the record, as I think it is proper, whether there has been a change in this regard in the procedures of the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. There has been a change in this regard.

Mr. RANKIN. I will not make an inquiry about that, unless the Commission wishes to go into it off the record.

Representative FORD. Is it my understanding that the Commission has such documents that we could analyze ourselves as to these changes?

Mr. RANKIN. I don't think we have any report of this.

Representative BOGGS. Why can't we get it off the record?

The CHAIRMAN. All right.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you give us----

Mr. DULLES. Could I ask one question with regard to Exhibit No. 1023?

This, as I understand it, is the new specifications with regard to persons with respect to whom you wish to have alert information.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. It is called, "U.S. Secret Service Protective Information Guidelines." The top of page 2 of this exhibit is a paragraph that reads, "The interest"--and that is the interest of the suspect, I assume----

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. "The interest must be towards the President, or others named, or other high Government officials in the nature of a complaint coupled with an expressed or implied determination to use a means other than legal or peaceful to satisfy any grievance real or imagined."

I wonder if you could explain that a little more? I ask this question because I have been studying the previous assassinations a good deal. And in many of these cases, it seems to me this definition would not have covered the assassin. That is, there has been in some cases opposition to government, opposition to people in authority, but there has been no expressed hatred toward or animus against a particular President. And I was wondering whether this went too far on a definition to meet your purposes.

Mr. ROWLEY. This is a beginning, as I indicated to you here. We hope to improve it. But this is one of the things where we want to include the Oswald-type individual.

Now, Oswald wrote to the Governor intimating that he would use whatever means was necessary to obtain the change of his undesirable, or as he called it, dishonorable discharge. All legal means had been used in his case, where the Navy Review Board had examined it and came to a decision.

And this is an example of what we were trying to include in the area of this type of individual. Now, the other people----

Mr. DULLES. But that was not a threat directed against the President. That was directed against the Secretary of the Navy.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right; but then, on the other hand, they transfer the threats. I am quite sure that the Congressmen here get many threats, and that sometimes they may not come off. But these people are obsessed.

You take the individual that attempted the assassination of the late President Roosevelt in Miami that time. His original purpose was to shoot President Hoover. But then when he heard Roosevelt was there, he transferred.

Now, I remember a situation involving a member of Truman's staff, where a fellow stalked this man at his home. And finally we got into the case on his request. We satisfied ourselves that he wasn't a real threat to him--but we picked up the paper a year later and found out he shot at an assemblyman in Staten Island. So if they make a threat or something like this, even though it is against the Government as a group, or have some grievance, they transfer it--particularly, to the President. They use that father complex, as indicated in the research work that these different agencies have submitted to us.

Representative FORD. Under these criteria, which you are now following, Oswald would have been designated? Is that your judgment?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. I had some questions about that in reading it. That did not occur to me, because Oswald had never expressed any antagonism toward the President, as far as I know, up to this time--the President personally, or even afterward.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right; but under this criteria he would. Namely, he had the interest because of the letter he wrote to Governor Connally. The activity, because he was a defector, and he demonstrated for the Fair Play for Cuba Committee. The capability, because he traveled, and he had knowledge of firearms.

Mr. DULLES. Yes; but those do not come, it seems to me, within this definition. Maybe I interpret it differently than you. The last interest Oswald showed was directed toward General Walker. It wasn't against--of course, that wasn't known.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; it wasn't known but the first interest of this type was the letter to Governor Connally as Secretary of the Navy, in which he said he would use whatever means he could to correct that discharge, inferring, of course, that he would apply illegal means if he could.

Representative FORD. If we only had the letter that he wrote to Governor Connally, and no other information, how would that threat, or that course of action, become known to the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. It would not, unless it was furnished by the Navy Department or Secretary of the Navy's office.

Just like you gentlemen get letters that never come to our attention. But you might pick up a paper some day and read that this fellow hit somebody, and he was in to see you or wrote you letters.

Representative FORD. Would this criteria be circulated among the 50 Governors, for example, or their staffs, so that if threats are received against a Governor, then the Governor's staff in that particular State would so notify the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. It could. In this case it would be a help. But they refer all their complaints to the FBI. Threats of this kind.

Representative FORD. The State?

Mr. ROWLEY. The Governors do in most cases. So that the FBI under this system would bring it to our attention.

Mr. DULLES. I would think, Mr. Rowley, this might be subject to misinterpretation as being rather narrower than you suggest.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, this is something--actually, we have to develop something, and we have to, if you will, have a crash program; we are working constantly to develop the categories and breakdowns as I indicated earlier.

(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you supply to us the statements of the Secret Service agents who were informed about the assassination in Dallas? You gave us written statements, did you?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1024, and ask you if that is the letter of transmittal, together with the attached statements that you have just described from the various agents about the events at Dallas.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1024 for identification.)

(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1024.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1024, was received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. I would like to inform the Commission that these are copies of the statements you already have in connection with the Secret Service report, but we wanted to make it part of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief, did you write me a letter for the Commission on April 22, in which you enclosed the statements of five of your agents in regard to President Kennedy's views about agents riding on the back of the car?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1025, and ask you if that is your transmittal letter with the statements attached.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1025 for identification.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1025.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1025, was received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I should like to have you state for the record, for the Commission, whether the action of President Kennedy in making these statements was understood by you or properly could have been understood by the agents as relieving them of any responsibility about the protection of the President.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; I would not so construe that, Mr. Rankin. The agents would respond regardless of what the President said if the situation indicated a potential danger. The facilities were available to them. They had the rear steps, they would be there as a part of the screen. And immediately in the event of any emergency they would have used them.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know why there was no one riding on the rear step at the time of the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. From normal practice, based on my own experience over the years, I know that the agent in charge in the front or any experienced agent, who is either on the right front or the left front of the followup car, without being told, will react immediately. If he determines there is a situation here, there is a big crowd, and so forth, he will immediately leave that followup car.

Now, the running board on the followup car has an important place in the setup. It is a much better place to be than on the rear step if you see a situation, and you want to move fast. Suppose someone is coming toward the President's car--you would be surprised how fast you are propelled by jumping off that car, and you are in motion fast, where you can either tackle somebody, or block him or anything like that. So this is an important part. You cannot do that from the rear step of the President's car.

Now, when the agents are in a heavy crowd, as we have been abroad, in places where we had to run, say, for 10 miles alongside the car, agents could stand on the rear steps and screen the President. In addition, there would be agents on the side, protecting him on his right side. The crowd is surging close to him, you are bouncing off the car, and the people, trying to ward them off from touching the President.

After a period of time you are weary. But with the aid of this step, you can be replaced by the agent there, and he takes your place until you revive yourself, and you are acting as a screen.

Now, if the thing gets too sticky, you put the agent right in the back seat, which I have done many times with past Presidents.

When you come out of a big crowd like that, and the crowd is sparse, and it doesn't look like there is a potential danger, you return to the followup car to be ready for any emergency in the event somebody darts across.

In this instance, when the Presidential car was coming toward the freeway and the people were sparse, the men at some point came back to this car. This is one of the automatic operations, if you will, that the agents respond to. So it wasn't until the first shot was fired that, as I said earlier, Hill had the opportunity to scan from his left to his right, that he saw the President--the action of the President. Then he responded immediately. That is why he got up to the President's car.

Mr. RANKIN. Has it ever been the practice of the Secret Service to have an agent ride all of the time on the back step?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; it hasn't. Because there are times when you pick up your speed, for instance on a freeway. And when you pick up your speed, it is the most difficult thing on a step maybe 10 to 12 inches wide, and a grip, to stand up. And you would not be a very good screen going that fast, because you would have to bend down. That has happened to me, because I have been caught on it.

Now, I was in Costa Rica and worked the followup car. Whenever I was on a trip abroad, I would work the followup car to see how the agents work, and work myself, because it wasn't what you might refer to as a routine trip.

But the followup car conked out. The crowds were surging around the President's car. We had two men next to the President's car. I left the followup car immediately, from my experience, and jumped on the step, to the right rear of the President, and held onto the handgrip, and was there. And then when the man came back, I relieved him and took my position on the side--until, for a distance of a mile or two, until such time as the followup car got underway, and the other people came up. But you had to stay with the President under those circumstances.

So those are the different things that occur in a given situation.

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, as I understand this, President Kennedy did not give any general instructions to the agents never to ride on his car. It was only in specific circumstances where for one reason or another he did not want them on there at that particular time.

Mr. ROWLEY. No President will tell the Secret Service what they can or cannot do.

(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. ROWLEY. Sometimes it might be as a political man or individual he might think this might not look good in a given situation. But that does not mean per se that he doesn't want you on there. And I don't think anyone with commonsense interprets it as such.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. ROWLEY. I think there are certain things that you have to allow the man who is operating as a politician, and not as head of state. I mean this makes a difference in your operation.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you give us a report of the activities in protecting the President at and around Parkland Hospital?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And is that Commission Exhibit No. 1026?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1026 for identification.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1026.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1026, was received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any additions or corrections you care to make in that exhibit?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you give us a report about protective activity subsequent to Dallas on behalf of the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. I will hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1027 and ask you if that is the report that you have just referred to.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1027 for identification.)

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I ask you, are there any problems with regard to Commission Exhibit No. 1027 concerning security, and whether that should be--that document should be made public? You just take your time if you want to glance over it.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; as I read it, it is general enough, sir, that it can be included.

(At this point, Mr. Dulles entered the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1027.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1027, was received in evidence.)

(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Are there any of the various answers that you give in the answers to the questions attached to Commission Exhibit No. 1027 that you care to elaborate on at this time?

I am not asking you or urging you to do it, because I assume that you answered them with care at the time. I just wanted to give you that opportunity.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; not at this time.

Mr. DULLES. May I ask a question there?

You consider that the criteria as now furnished by you to the FBI and other investigative agencies would cover a case like Oswald's?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. You think they would?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. You think they understand that?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, as we stated in the covering letter when we sent this out--we haven't gotten any reaction--we asked for their cooperation and suggestions in connection with such guidelines.

Mr. DULLES. Defectors are not specifically covered, are they, by your criteria?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, they are given to us now. We are being furnished the names of defectors, and they are being investigated, so that their background and history will be furnished to us, and we will be in a position now to determine whether they represent a risk or not.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley----

Representative BOGGS. May I ask a question there?

Would you have any notion as to why names of defectors were not provided to you prior to November 22?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; under the broad picture, Mr. Congressman, there was no indication that they had made any threat toward the President or members of his family. Whenever there was a threat made, we were furnished promptly by the different agencies the information on the individual's name. And this was done in voluminous reports by the FBI, and the other agencies. When they got any information, they would notify the local office, notify their liaison, who notified us by telephone, and confirmed by memorandum. The same obtained with respect to the CIA.

Representative BOGGS. This fellow was interviewed by the FBI several times--he was interviewed in New Orleans when he allegedly had his Fair Play Committee. If my memory serves me correctly, Mrs. Paine was interviewed about him shortly before the visit of the President, after he had gone to work at the Texas School Book Depository. I agree that there had been no indication of a threat on the President's life. But, obviously he was a person in the FBI files who was under some degree of surveillance. It would seem to me strange that the FBI did not transmit this information to the Secret Service.

Mr. ROWLEY. The FBI, Mr. Congressman, are concerned with internal security. And I think their approach was internal security as it related to this individual, whether or not he was a potential recruit for espionage, intelligence, or something like that.

Their concern was talking to him in this vein, in the course of which there was no indication that he bore any malice toward anyone, and particularly to the President of the United States. If someone said that Henry Smith didn't like the President, and we got his file, we would get to the point where you have 3 million names in the file. How effective are you going to be then?

Representative BOGGS. Well, that is right.

Mr. ROWLEY. And then you get in the area of civil rights and all, if you start going into individuals----

Representative BOGGS. And if I remember correctly, there has never been--we have had no testimony from anyone that Oswald ever threatened the President of the United States. Is that correct?

Mr. RANKIN. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. That was the only question I had.

Mr. DULLES. Along that line, I just raise the question as to whether maybe too much emphasis is not put on the threat angle, because a clever fellow, if he is going to assassinate the President, the last thing he is going to do is go around and talk about it and threaten it.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. Well, this has been so with loners, too.

As you say, you read the assassinations. Some of them just kept to themselves, and traveled, and the next thing you know they confronted their victim. Sometimes they were successful, other times they were not.

Mr. DULLES. I recognize the difficulty of working out adequate criteria. But I just think you ought to do some more seeking, and there is more work to be done on that.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. May I ask this question: It hasn't been clear to me. Is it correct that now a defector does come within the scope of your Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; we are furnished the names of defectors by the FBI. And they investigate these people. And then in their report, if it shows that the individual has emotional instability or propensity for violence, we pick it up from there. But all the reports on the known defectors in this country are submitted to us, and then we evaluate from the case history of the report whether or not he would be a risk for us subject to investigation.

Senator COOPER. I understood that was the procedure before. But my question is now, is the defector per se classed as one of those against whom you would take protective measures?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, no, sir; not unless we had----

Senator COOPER. Since the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. Not unless we had these three categories of factors we just enunciated.

Senator COOPER. I would suggest--first, I understand there are not many defectors who have returned to the United States.

Secondly, it seems to me a man who has defected from the United States to go to Russia or a Communist country indicates that he has pretty strong convictions against the United States, or else there is something questionable about his mental processes.

I would think that fact alone would make it important to watch his activities when he came back.

Mr. ROWLEY. It would. And I think the FBI properly conducts the investigations, from the standpoint of internal security, and furnishes us a report. And then if there is something in the report that indicates he could be a risk to the President or the Vice President, we could take it from there.

Representative BOGGS. Mr. Rankin. I have to go to a meeting in 2 or 3 minutes. There is just one question I would like to ask before leaving.

Is it not a fact that probably the greatest deterrent that you have is the very fact that the public knows that there is a Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Representative BOGGS. That you do guard the life of the President. And that the chances of an assassin escaping with his own life are pretty remote. So this psychological weapon is one of the things you rely on?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Representative BOGGS. And you must necessarily keep a degree of secrecy about the methods you employ.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; otherwise they could develop countermethods, to thwart anything we might set up.

Representative BOGGS. Exactly. Thank you very much.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, do you in the Secret Service obtain the benefit of cooperation with other governmental agencies in the protection of the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. We receive cooperation from every agency. If I may name a few--we were scheduled to visit Puerto Rico in 1948 or 1947--I am not quite certain--with President Truman, who was then vacationing at Key West. We had no office in Puerto Rico at the time. We did not know the situation other than that it could be sticky because of the Nationalist Party of Puerto Rico.

(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. ROWLEY. Our advance man called me and asked me if I would not talk to Mr. Hoover to see whether or not we could have the assistance of some of their agents who were down there in an office established there. And I communicated then with the Assistant Director, who said, "I will get back to you" and got the approval. That was an example of the beginning of the cooperation, when I was at the White House, with the FBI.

Now, in the years subsequent to World War II, anytime we were abroad, I made personal contact with Mr. Dulles, and I think for national security we should go off the record on this, because this is something that pertains today.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, Chief Rowley, are you familiar with the provisions in the appropriation act with regard to the FBI concerning their protection of the person of the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. You know of that, do you?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I do. Historically, that was first passed in 1910. It stated that because of the limited number of Secret Service men at that time, that appropriation--a certain given figure--was to be used by the U.S. marshals to assist the Secret Service.

Mr. RANKIN. Was the Secret Service opposed to that provision in the appropriation act for the FBI?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; it has never opposed that provision over the years. I started to say, Mr. Rankin--subsequently, after the founding of the FBI, this was transferred, apparently, from the marshals to the FBI, and it has been in the appropriations as long as I can remember. We have never objected to that appropriation.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, there is some language in H.R. 4158, I understand, which deals with the permanent organization of the Government that you are objecting to; is that right?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; that has to do with the codification, wherein it states that the Attorney General will appoint--I think, in substance--officials for the protection of the President of the United States. And this is a feature in the codification of the law we object to, because the Secretary of the Treasury authorizes and directs the protection of the President.

Representative FORD. Is that a bill, Mr. Rankin, that is before the House Committee on the Judiciary and the Senate Judiciary Committee?

Mr. ROWLEY. They are preparing it, and they asked for our opinions. It must be now. This is a month or so ago, Mr. Ford.

Mr. RANKIN. I think I can give the Commission the exact language. It is chapter 33 of the House rule that I have just described, and it is under section 534, and the words are: "The Attorney General may appoint officials"--and then in quotes below that, in (2) "to protect the person of the President" and--and then it deals with other matters.

Now, will you tell why you have an objection to that? Just briefly summarize it.

Mr. ROWLEY. Because of the long history of Presidential protection we have been directed--it has been under the jurisdiction of the Treasury Department, authorized by the Secretary of the Treasury. But this would confuse and be a conflict in jurisdiction. Conflicts would naturally arise in the future as to who had jurisdiction.

If anything happened like Dallas, we would get into an Alphonse and Gaston pantomine.

Mr. RANKIN. You would get into a jurisdictional dispute?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. And that is why you object?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. But as far as any provision that has been made historically for the FBI to have funds so they can supplement and assist you, you have no objection to that?

Mr. ROWLEY. No objection at all.

Representative FORD. Do you know how much in the way of funds have been utilized through that provision?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; I would not know of my own knowledge, Congressman, because that would be under the jurisdiction of the FBI and the Budget Bureau.

Representative FORD. In other words, they don't take money that they get through their appropriation bill, and transfer it to the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. No.

Representative FORD. This is simply a provision which authorizes them to use whatever funds they get for this purpose?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I understand that regarding H.R. 4158, the Treasury and the Justice Department have agreed that the language may be changed so that it will read "Assist", is that right?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. And that is satisfactory?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. That is what we worked out.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, in connection with your protection of the President, have you drawn upon various people in the Government and consultants to assist you in regard to scientific problems?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; some 8 or 9 years ago, we evolved a relationship with the Defense Department--I think more specifically in the last 4 years--a relationship with the President's Scientific Advisor.

This is off the record.

Mr. RANKIN. Why, Chief?

Mr. ROWLEY. That has to do with national security.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, do you find in work of the Secret Service that you have need for scientific advice and consultation concerning problems that develop regarding the protection of the President, so that if you had some arrangement whereby you could have the assistance of either the President's Scientific Advisor or consultation with independent consultants, it would assist and in fact be necessary to your work?

Mr. ROWLEY. I think it would be a great help, and it is necessary today, because under the crash program that we are endeavoring to undertake, I think it is important that we know, in Presidential protection, what the current devices are that are available and are efficient in connection with countermeasures against eavesdropping and other things that we have been researching over the years. But this is not necessary on a day-to-day basis, and it could be on an informal basis with other agencies. I think it is necessary to have somebody of that type, who is conversant with the subject, a trained expert, who knows precisely where to go.

We might spend a lot of time going around the paths, but by having an expert, he knows precisely the organization, the contracting company, what they have, whether it is suitable, whether it is efficient for our purposes.

Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, is the letter of April 22, 1964, from Mr. Rowley to you with the enclosures a Commission exhibit?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; that has been offered. That is Commission Exhibit No. 1027.

Representative FORD. In this enclosure, Chief Rowley, on page 4, under subheading (c), the following is stated: "The Secret Service has no funds for research and very limited funds for the acquisition of protective devices. In the fiscal year 1964 budget, the Service requested $23,057 for two positions for technical specialists. The Congress did not make any appropriation covering this request, and it was repeated in the 1965 budget request, and has been included in the appropriation passed by the House several weeks ago."

Could you define more particularly what you had in mind for these so-called technical specialists?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; this was someone that knew something about electronics or electronic engineering for the sweeping of different places. We felt that to date we were utilizing the services of agents who primarily came with us on the basis of criminal investigation, and that, therefore, it was my feeling that we should have this type of expert.

As I said earlier, I realize the shortcomings and the requirements which we are operating under--and I was endeavoring to get the funds from Congress, the personnel that I thought were necessary, as well as the equipment I thought we should have, primarily to have this operation under control for us.

Now, I might say that the CIA has been most helpful. The equipment we used in the early days were from that organization and the State Department.

But now they have gotten so busy, as you well know, that they haven't got much time to assist us.

So that we feel we want to have our own equipment, our own experts, and people that know our work, and devote their time to it.

Representative FORD. When you talk about technical specialists here, you are referring to electronics specialists?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. You are not referring to a general research and development program, however?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; this confusion is why it was refused a year ago.

Representative FORD. Let me ask this, then, Chief Rowley. Would these technical experts, or technical specialists, have been on duty in Dallas on this particular trip if you had had the funds and had employed them?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; but they would have been employed in something entirely different.

Representative FORD. They wouldn't have had any relationship to the motorcade?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir. If I may go off the record.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us why you are going off the record?

Mr. ROWLEY. Because it involves national security.

(Discussion off the record.)

The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

Representative FORD. As I understand it, then, the deletion of these funds for these technical specialists in fiscal year 1964 did not in any way handicap your operation in Dallas at the time of the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; we have never said that. We are just saying that if we had the equipment--in other words, what I am trying to do, Mr. Congressman, is to move forward. And the only way I know, after a period of years, is to ask for a sum of money, but then my experience is that sometimes the Congress becomes alarmed. But this is a need that we have. And this is what I am trying to explain. This is an example of what we are trying to do, in equipment and manpower.

Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, or Mr. Rankin, I have to go shortly over to a session of the House. And since we are in the budget area, I think it might be well for the record to develop some facts concerning your budget--what they have in the past and what you are suggesting they might be in the future.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I have here a summary of the appropriation allocations as it applies to manpower and equipment, and the number of persons on the roll.

Representative FORD. Do you receive your appropriations in a lump sum or how do you receive Secret Service appropriations?

Mr. ROWLEY. I guess it is on a warrant. When the warrant is signed----

Representative FORD. Your budget is included as a part of the Treasury Department budget?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Now, do you have it in a separate part of the Treasury Department budget?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Is it specifically earmarked for the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. It is; yes, sir.

Representative FORD. It is a lump sum for the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. That is a public appropriation, it is made public?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct; yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Congressman Ford, if I may interrupt just a minute, I can ask Chief Rowley if Commission Exhibit No. 1028 is the one he just referred to in answer to your question about the budget.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1028 for identification.)

Mr. RANKIN. I then offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1028.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1028, was received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Exhibit No. 1028, Chief Rowley, does include in this--so it will be understandable to the Commission, the figures for your proposed budget of 1966, doesn't it?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And those are shown in that manner on the exhibit?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Is the figure we see here----

Mr. ROWLEY. This is what we call a tentative budget.

Mr. RANKIN. That has been presented to the Budget Bureau?

Mr. ROWLEY. It has not been presented to the Budget Office of the Treasury, which is the first step. Then it goes to the Budget Bureau, and then subsequently to the House and Senate.

Mr. RANKIN. You said it has not been.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; this is a tentative proposal that we have made.

Mr. RANKIN. At this stage, so we get the record clear--that is a consideration of what you think you should have, but it hasn't gone through the steps you have just described, is that right?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. But it does not include--necessarily, until we complete our thorough examination--what our requirements will be under the new revisions of our organization. Particularly as it relates to manpower, we want to be sure that we have the proper justification. And so we hope by October or November to have a good estimate at that time.

Representative FORD. Well, the figure that is shown here for fiscal year 1965 is $7,550,000.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Is that the budget submission to the Congress?

Mr. ROWLEY. To the Congress; yes, sir.

Representative FORD. And do you recall what the House approved in its version of the bill?

Mr. ROWLEY. $7,500,000. They cut $50,000.

Representative FORD. Do you recall what the reduction was predicated on?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; I don't. I think it was just cut to a round figure.

Representative FORD. What is the footnote here which is entitled "Pending action by the Senate"? Is that a $669,000 increase?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Representative FORD. Is that a supplemental?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, no; we are just showing the increase--this has nothing to do with the $669,000. We show--this was passed by the House, but it is now pending in the Senate for approval. In other words, you have your markup or something, and then it hasn't been submitted to the House for a--to the Senate for approval.

Representative FORD. But there is an asterisk there.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; this is the 1965 budget. This figure that was reduced by $50,000, by the House. Now, it goes before--for a markup--it will be placed before the Senate for approval.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, when you say "this" it doesn't show on the record what you are talking about. So if you can tell what item on that Exhibit No. 1028.

Representative FORD. On the same line with the language, "Pending action by Senate," on the right-hand side is $669,000, which is labeled as an increase. That increase relates to what?

Mr. ROWLEY. It relates to the difference--the increase between 1965 and our proposed budget of 1966. The asterisk here relates to the 586 positions.

Mr. RANKIN. Is there any connection between those two? Chief Rowley, is there any connection between the asterisk, and the wording "Pending before the Senate," and the item on the right-hand column of the increase?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; it represents the increase that we are asking for in the 1966 budget.

Senator COOPER. You are not asking the Senate, though, to increase the House figure of $7,500,000, by $669,000.

Mr. ROWLEY. No, no; there is no connection between these increases. This should have been down here, where you explain what the asterisk is, where we have 586. Maybe it was put in the wrong position there. In other words, it is like a footnote. This is pending action--meaning that the House has passed the 1965 budget, but the Senate has yet to pass it.

Mr. RANKIN. But to clarify, there is no connection between the increased figure and the fact that it is pending before the Senate?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. It happens to be on the same line.

Mr. RANKIN. But there is no connection?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. What you mean is the House has passed an appropriation of $7,500,000, and the Senate has not yet acted upon it.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. The $669,000 is an increase that you hope will be voted in the next fiscal year.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Mr. DULLES. Do you present the budget yourself, or does the Secretary of the Treasury, or someone else in the Treasury Department--present and defend it?

Mr. ROWLEY. The Secretary presents the overall Treasury budget, but then in detail, we appear before the appropriations subcommittee ourselves to justify our request.

Mr. DULLES. The Secret Service justifies its own request in the overall budget of the Department of the Treasury?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. Chief Rowley, on page 5 of Exhibit No. 1027, the statement is made, "In the fiscal year 1965, the Secret Service has requested funds for an additional 25 positions. The House of Representatives has included the requested funds in the Treasury-Post Office appropriation bill which passed several weeks ago. These funds will not be sufficient to take the additional measures which we believe are required. However, since the 1965 budget figures had to be submitted in November 1963, it was not possible to make specific and properly justified requests at that time. We should be in a position to do so in the fiscal year 1966 budget submission."

You are not saying that you won't have whatever additional personnel you need now, or from now until the beginning of fiscal year 1966, for the protection of the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; we are not saying that. We are saying that in view of the circumstances of what happened in November, that this budget of 25 positions had already been submitted, and there was nothing you could do to take it back.

The 1966 budget was also prepared and submitted. But, as I explain later, in all consideration, we cannot at this time helter skelter say we need so many men, taking advantage of the tragedy. We want to experiment and develop what we need in protective research in the way of manpower and equipment, and what we need in the field, because necessarily we will have to have special agents added to the field to conduct any investigations on risks that may be forwarded to them.

Representative FORD. But if in the process of your analysis of your needs, you develop that you need more personnel, you need new devices, you need equipment of any sort whatsoever--you won't delay the submission of that request just because of the fiscal year budget coming up for fiscal 1966?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Representative FORD. Because we do have, as you well know, supplemental and deficiency appropriation bills.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Representative FORD. So if you need something, you can request it of the Bureau of the Budget, and if it can be justified, it can be submitted to the Congress in one of the other forms besides the regular appropriation bills.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. Because now as I understand it the same committee handles the supplemental.

Representative FORD. That is correct.

Mr. ROWLEY. We are aware of that. That is what we would do when we arrive at what our requirements would be.

Representative FORD. We can have your assurance that if you come up with requirements, you won't wait for fiscal 1966 to make your submission.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, you are in the process of trying to arrive at your estimates of what you need in additional personnel and equipment and other assistance to make the protective services and the Secret Service in its work of protecting the President as efficient as possible, are you?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And you are seeking the help and advice of people that you have named, such as the Rand Corp., and others?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And do you have any estimate now that you can give the Commission as to when you might have your estimates in that regard?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I think, No. 1, with regard to the protective research, I think we need some expert there to assist us in developing our requirements, particularly in the criteria, on a full-time basis. We have assigned what we thought were sufficient men at this time to cope with the volume of work and reports that we have been receiving, which are now being received from the various organizations of approximately a hundred reports a day. So that we have cut down to a considerable point.

Now, following the evaluation and the processing of these reports, we will determine just what we actually need in the way of manpower.

Mr. RANKIN. You also have the problem of being able to get that material out once you have it, don't you?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. And this is the point that we have to develop with IBM, or, as I said initially, with the CIA.

Now, they have facilities that would be available to us, if it works.

Mr. RANKIN. And you are also inquiring into the question of the sufficiency of the number of agents you have for this area as well as other Secret Service tasks?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And you are going to present that to the Congress as soon as you have something definite that you can support?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right--in response to Congressman Ford's inquiry.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, I think the Commission would be interested in the requirements or standards that you have for agents. Do you require a college education now?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And are there any other conditions or standards that you would like to describe?

Mr. DULLES. May I inquire for one point? Is that a college education for the White House detail?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; that is for all the agents that we recruit for our work, for both criminal and protective, Mr. Dulles. We require a minimum academic achievement of 4 years of college or university, and preferably those who attend police administrative schools, where they have in their curricula subjects on science, criminology, and law. We find that these people are better adapted, they have an inclination, and they are interested.

But we do take people with B.A.'s and B.S.'s, because they, too, have been most satisfactory. But we find when we need to recruit the men, we go to these colleges with special courses. As I mentioned earlier we first started recruiting them from Michigan State, because that was one of the first universities with a police administration curriculum. And we found each and every one of them have been most satisfactory and have excellent records.

As a matter of fact, a good portion of them are agents in charge of our 65 offices throughout the country.

Mr. RANKIN. What do you do as a matter of procedure in assigning your agents? Do you keep them in Presidential protection, or do you shift them from that to other functions in the Secret Service?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, when they are first sworn into duty, we assign them to an office, so during the period, the first 6 months, you would call it inservice training, because we are not in the position that the FBI is where they take in, say, a given number of agents--let's set a figure at 30--and then they can start them immediately with their school of 12 weeks. We are not in a position to hire that many at a time. We are in a position to hire 10. So that after 6 months, 10 now, after the character investigations are completed, and then we may get 10 more later.

Then we send them to what we call the Treasury Basic School, after which we try to send them as soon as practical to our Secret Service School.

Now, sometimes a new man might be a year in the Secret Service, and during that period he is on probation, after which we determine through the agent in charge whether his service is satisfactory, and whether he will develop into an agent.

Mr. DULLES. Is the FBI School open to any of your respective recruits?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well----

Mr. DULLES. FBI Academy.

Mr. ROWLEY. The Police Academy would be if we had occasion to send them there, if there was something they could benefit from. We do send the White House Police to the FBI Police Academy, because that is more in connection with their police function.

Mr. RANKIN. How does your agent get into the Presidential protection?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, some of the agents have indicated in their personal history questionnaires submitted each year whether they wish to select an office of duty preference, and there are three offices listed. If an agent wants for one reason or another after a period of 3 years on the White House detail to make a request for a transfer, we consider which of the three offices he selected has a vacancy, and we assign him to that office. Then we bring in one of the new men from the field service to replace him. We then train him in the protective work.

Necessarily, you have to have a nucleus. So there are also a number of men in supervisory positions who have been on the White House detail for 20 or more years.

Mr. RANKIN. But your theory is that they should be able to be trained so that they could be shifted to any part of the service?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. And it has this advantage: Once they are trained in Presidential protection, if for some reason the White House detail gets instructions that the President is going to fly to one of the cities, or some hamlet across the country, and we do not have time to get an agent aboard a plane and send him there, or maybe the Air Force has no plane available to transport him there, we pick up the phone and call an agent at the nearest place--and here is an agent that has been trained, he knows the mechanics of the operation, and the procedure, and he goes to work, and effectively lays out the arrangements.

Representative FORD. Mr. Chairman, this Commission Exhibit No. 1028, which shows the budget and the positions, I think is helpful. But in the submission of the budget by the Secret Service to the Congress, they have a greater breakdown of their personnel setup.

I think it might be wise to include what they submitted to the Congress, or something comparable to it, because I think it is far more complete than this.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Representative FORD. And I think it might be helpful for the record.

Mr. ROWLEY. We do not disclose the number of men on Presidential protection.

Representative FORD. I understand that. But you are familiar with the presentation you might submit for your overall budget, including personnel?

Mr. ROWLEY. Right.

Representative FORD. Can that not be submitted for our record, just as it is submitted to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations?

Mr. ROWLEY. It is a matter of public record. But whether or not the tentative one, the 1966 can be, before the Budget Bureau sees it, is something else again.

Representative FORD. I would not expect that it would.

Mr. ROWLEY. No; but the others can be.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask leave to secure a copy of that and insert it in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted when you obtain it.

Representative FORD. May I ask one other question, and then I have to leave?

In listening to the testimony, Chief Rowley, sometime ago, I was a little concerned--more than a little, I should say--with the process by which the man in charge of a Presidential trip undertakes his relationship with the local law enforcement agencies.

As I recall the testimony, the man in charge has contact with the local police and the sheriff's department and any other local law enforcement agency. But the impression that I gained was that there was no clear delineation of responsibility. They sat around, they talked about what this local law enforcement agency would do and what another one would do.

But it seems to me that a more precise checklist, a clear understanding, would be wholesome and better.

What is your reaction on that?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, No. 1, in our revised Manual on Presidential Protection, this is part of the thing.

Now, I would hesitate to prepare a checklist for everybody, because you may be embarrassed to find it in the press some day, because of the activity of reporters around the police.

I do not want to downgrade any police department, but this is what happens through no fault of theirs. There are variations in different cities.

Now, I think what you are referring to, Mr. Congressman, is that they complained they did not have a sufficient notice of the route and so forth, so they could make the proper preparations. That is true. Neither did we have sufficient notice. Because they were going back and forth trying to establish--until they were told they had 45 minutes allotted to them for this route, and first our man had to go, which is a natural operation, to look over the route to see whether or not it could be negotiated within that particular period of time.

Once establishing that it could, and the thing looked safe, then they notified the police and went over it with the police. And then with the police they indicated what they would like done here at intersections and so forth, and other features.

Now, it is true in most cases we ourselves like to get sufficient advance information, we like to send our men out in advance so they do not have to cope with these fast operations, because when a police department has sufficient notice of the route and so forth, then they have adequate time to get out instructions to their own police department--whether by precinct or by group commanders, and so forth. And this is what I think in this instance that they are complaining about.

Representative FORD. As I understand it, however, at the present time, and for the future, there will be a more precise procedure for the relationships of the Secret Service on the one hand and local law enforcement agencies on the other.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Representative FORD. That is set forth in your manual as presently revised?

Mr. ROWLEY. In our present revised manual.

Representative FORD. So that when your agent-in-charge goes to city X, he now has the procedures set forth for many to follow on, so there are no uncertainties, if that is possible?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. And you have to necessarily do that, because you have agents, as I said--as I cited an example where an agent had been trained in the White House, but you have to utilize his services, because you cannot get a regular White House man out there. He has this information, and he follows it accordingly. It is a check for him as well as for the police.

Representative FORD. Other countries have protection problems of their chief executive.

I am sure in recent months the French have had considerable problems in this regard.

Do you ever have an exchange of methods with other governments for your benefit or their benefit?

Mr. ROWLEY. We have been approached, Mr. Congressman, for instructions on security and so forth, but we, for reasons--for national security reasons, I would like to go off the record.

(Off the record.)

(At this point, Representative Ford left the hearing room.)

The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.

Mr. DULLES. You have referred to the dry runs which you made in Dallas, and you usually make, I understand, to establish a route.

First I think you said you did this yourself, and then with the local police.

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Do you have any reason to believe that those dry runs were observed by the President or known to the President, or received any publicity?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; they did not receive any publicity.

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, you were referring a little while ago to the revised rules.

When did the last revision take place? Has it been since the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. No.

The overall revision of the Manual of the Secret Service, was undertaken before I took office, and because it was delayed, I took it upon myself to assign a man to sit down 7 days a week, to bring this manual up to date. The overall manual has been completed. Now we have almost completed the revised advance manual.

The CHAIRMAN. And--but there has been--as yet there has been no revision since the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; It is in the process.

The CHAIRMAN. It is in the process of being done? Very well.

Senator COOPER. I would like to ask a question. I think you stated that you took part in the procedures and methods for the protection of President Kennedy when he was--prior to his visit to Dallas.

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. I thought you said that you participated in a dry run.

Mr. ROWLEY. Oh, no; I was describing what the advance agents do.

Senator COOPER. Anyway--you know what the agents of the Secret Service did in preparing for the visit, of President Kennedy to Dallas?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. And you know what procedures they followed during the actual route of the motorcade on that day?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Now, reviewing those, is there any failure that you know about on the part of the Secret Service in those procedures or in the methods which they used on the day of the assassination?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, would you tell us the salary scale for your agents for the first 2 years?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; we recruit an agent at grade GS-7, at $5,795.

Mr. RANKIN. How does that compare with the starting salary for the FBI?

Mr. ROWLEY. I think it is a difference of three grades. As I understand, the lowest FBI grade is GS-10.

Mr. RANKIN. $10,000.

Mr. ROWLEY. Grade 10.

Mr. RANKIN. What salary would that be?

Mr. ROWLEY. It might be--for example, GS-11 is $8,410. Now, it could be somewhere between $7,500 and $8,000.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you able to get at that salary the quality of men that you should for this kind of work?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; we have found to date that we have been able--we have been selective. And, of course, the fact that we have only appropriations for a limited number of men.

For example, today we have well over 40 men waiting to be accepted, with completed investigations, some a year or more. Sometimes when we put in requests for a given number of men, we want to put those men on at the beginning of the fiscal year, so we undertake to recruit them and complete their investigation, so that everything--the character and the physical is up to date--and we can put them on, if we get the funds precisely at the beginning of the fiscal year.

Mr. RANKIN. You recognize that your starting salary is not favorable in comparison with some police forces, do you not?

Mr. ROWLEY. I recognize that. But at the same time, we are guided by the Treasury law enforcement examinations, and the other Treasury investigative standards. But we are below some of the west coast police organizations, for example. They are well-paid and great organizations.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, what kind of a workload do your agents have on an average?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, at the present time we have a caseload of 110.1 cases per man.

Mr. RANKIN. How does that compare with other intelligence agencies?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I think--a satisfactory caseload per man per month is from 14 to 15 cases.

Now, I am quite certain that in other agencies it is a little more than that. But whether or not it is as high as ours at the present time, I have no way of knowing at this time.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you thing that is a handicap to your operation?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it is a handicap. But I think it is testimony to the dedication and the industry of our men, that we are not complaining. We are conducting ourselves and performing our services for the Government to the point that even though we are understaffed, nevertheless we are not quitters, and we are carrying on the work within the responsibility entrusted to us.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you write the Commission a letter telling the history of the early development and growth of the Secret Service operation over the years?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Is Commission Exhibit No. 1029 that information that you gave us?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; this also included the White House police.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you examine Commission Exhibit No. 1029, and inform us as to whether or not any of that should not be included on the public record in light of the national security problem?

Mr. ROWLEY. I have no objections, because in the years past--this is part of the public record. So I would not see any objection at this time.

(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1029.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1029, and received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you write us a letter with regard to proposed legislation, dated June 11?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And is Commission Exhibit No. 1030 that letter that you wrote us with an attachment telling about possible legislative changes that you thought might be desirable?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

(The document was marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1030.)

Mr. RANKIN. I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No. 1030.

The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.

(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibit No. 1030, was received in evidence.)

Mr. RANKIN. Can you briefly state the contents of the attachment to that exhibit, Chief Rowley?

You recall that it is a commentary on the suggestion of legislation about the assassination of the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; it is a recommendation on the bills being proposed, that the assassination of a President or Vice President or possible successors to the Presidency be made a Federal crime.

(At this point, Senator Cooper reentered the hearing room.)

Mr. ROWLEY. Currently there is such a law whereby when people of lesser rank in the Government are murdered, that is investigated by Federal agencies.

Mr. RANKIN. Would you tell the Commission briefly what your idea is as to whether or not it would be helpful to have such a statute?

Mr. ROWLEY. I think today it would be helpful, because it would be a continuation of the present law, and it would be under Federal jurisdiction--because this is a Federal employee. And I think it properly should be under Federal statute. There would then be an opportunity particularly today in the case of the President or Vice President, for the investigation to be pursued immediately, and the assassin or groups of defendants to be interrogated as promptly as possible to develop and ascertain whether or not there is a conspiracy, and not wait as we have to do under the present law because of the State statute.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any suggestions in your proposal about who would have jurisdiction to investigate and report in regard to any violation of that law?

Mr. ROWLEY. Currently the Federal enforcement agencies--namely, the FBI--have the responsibility of conducting investigations, on most of the Federal laws in the country, and therefore it might properly be their responsibility in a situation like this.

However, we do have a reservation with respect to an attempt or threat on the President, because we would like to work out an agreement whereby we would jointly conduct an investigation because the threat phase of it has been under our jurisdiction, under section 3056, for many years. It ties in with our responsibility for protection of the President.

Mr. RANKIN. In connection with the investigation of the assassination of President Kennedy, have you personally participated in working with regard to that, in supervision of that investigation?

Mr. ROWLEY. In the early stages when we assigned our men to inquire into the background of Oswald and all. But then eventually, when the President authorized the FBI to conduct the investigation, we pulled out and only continued and finished up those reports that we initiated.

Mr. RANKIN. And since that time, after the FBI was given the authority to proceed with the investigation, you have cooperated with the Commission through the staff, your staff, in helping with various items of information from time to time. Is that right?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is correct.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, do you have any information of a credible nature that would suggest to you that Oswald was or could have been an agent or informant of any Federal agency?

Mr. ROWLEY. I have no credible information of that kind; no, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. Was he an agent or informant or directly or indirectly connected with the Secret Service in anyway?

Mr. ROWLEY. Not in any way. We did not know of him until the event.

Mr. RANKIN. From the way that the Secret Service employment is arranged, and the records are kept, and the payments are made, if he had ever been placed in any such capacity with the Secret Service, would it have come to your attention?

Mr. ROWLEY. It would; yes, sir.

Mr. RANKIN. And you are certain that he never was hired directly or indirectly or acted in that capacity.

Mr. ROWLEY. He was never hired directly or indirectly in any capacity.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any credible information that would cause you to believe that Lee Harvey Oswald was an agent of any foreign country.

Mr. ROWLEY. I have no such credible information.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any credible information to cause you to believe that he was involved in any conspiracy in connection with the assassination, either domestic or foreign?

Mr. ROWLEY. I have no credible information on any of those.

Mr. RANKIN. Are there any areas of the investigation of the Commission that you would suggest that further work should be done, as far as you know the work of the Commission?

Mr. ROWLEY. I do not.

Mr. RANKIN. From your knowledge of the investigation, do you have any opinion as to whether Lee Harvey Oswald was involved in the killing of the President?

Mr. ROWLEY. From what reports I have read, I would say that he was involved in the killing of the President, but I do not have complete knowledge of it.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any opinion from your knowledge of the investigation as to whether Mr. Ruby was associated with anyone else directly or indirectly in the killing of Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. ROWLEY. I have incomplete knowledge with respect to Ruby. Consequently, I could not say, other than what I saw on television or read in the newspapers, whether he had any connections.

Mr. RANKIN. Is there anything in connection with the work of the Commission or what you know about our inquiry here that you would like to add to or suggest that the Commission do beyond what you know of it?

Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question?

Mr. Rankin asked you several questions. He asked you if you had credible information, which I think was a proper question. But may I ask if you have any information based upon any facts that you know or based upon any information given to you by persons who claim to have personal knowledge, that there were persons engaged in a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy?

Mr. ROWLEY. I have no such facts, sir.

Senator COOPER. I address the same question as to whether you have any information that the killing of President Kennedy had any connection with any foreign power?

Mr. ROWLEY. I have no such information.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles, any questions?

Mr. DULLES. Yes, sir; I have one general question.

From the testimony, and from my own study, it would seem to me that it was likely that there would be parallel, somewhat parallel structures to develop the investigative capabilities with regard to possible suspects in the area of Presidential protection. And my question is as to whether, in order to avoid that undue expense, you think there would be any advantage in putting the responsibility of that within the FBI, who would then be responsible for advising you as to potential suspects and possibly following up on that, rather than putting that responsibility now to a certain extent on the Secret Service--whether there is not a division of responsibility in this field which is unfortunate and may possibly lead to greater expense, personnel doing somewhat duplicative work?

Mr. ROWLEY. As it applies to this law now?

Mr. DULLES. As it applies to the situation today, without the law which is recommended in your memorandum, and might apply also after that, because the investigation would be required in either case to turn up possible suspects.

My question is, where should that responsibility be primarily centered in order to avoid undue duplication and expense, and yet accomplish our objective?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, when you mention duplication, I do not think there has been much duplication in this case, when the President directed the FBI to conduct the investigation to determine whether or not there was a conspiracy.

Mr. DULLES. I am not talking about now. I am talking about investigation prior to, say, the President's visit to city X in the United States.

Mr. ROWLEY. I see.

Mr. DULLES. Or abroad--where you have the problem of the Secret Service and the CIA.

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I think you want to keep the concept of Presidential protection by a small, closely knit group, because of the intimate relationship. But if you want to expand it and give it to another group, to take the long-range view, you do not know what may develop from something like that--whether a police organization could lead to a police state or a military state--if you want to delegate it to some organization like that.

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose also, Chief Rowley, that if your people were not doing the spadework on this thing, and keeping their minds steeped in this protection matter, but were obliged to rely on the written records of someone else presented to you, that they would not be in the proper state of mind, would they, to be alert to it?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. There would be a tendency to relax and say John Jones is taking care of it. This is always the possibility that you might encounter something like that.

The CHAIRMAN. And in law enforcement, you have to have the feel of the situation, do you not?

You have to do the spadework in order to be aware of every possibility that might develop?

Mr. ROWLEY. That is true. Because you see in this, Mr. Dulles, on the Presidential detail, it is a unique detail. This is something that they think 24 hours a day. They do it 24 hours a day. They are not otherwise involved. For example, they have the principle of screening the President and being always ready to make a quick exit. They do not have to stop to investigate or identify any person, whoever the assailant might be. Their responsibility is only to protect the President at all times.

Mr. DULLES. But they have to know against whom to protect him.

Mr. ROWLEY. That is right. But they are ready for anything under the present close screening.

But if I understand your question, Mr. Dulles, you also want to know whether or not in the screening or the investigation of certain groups, like the Communist group, and so forth, since it is their responsibility and not ours, because they have the internal security of the United States, this is something that we have to develop.

Mr. DULLES. Is "they" the FBI?

Mr. ROWLEY. The FBI.

That is something that we have to have a formal arrangement about, because it enters the realm of internal security. We do not want to conflict with them, if that is what is uppermost in your mind. We have to be most correct about that, in any of the agencies, as you know.

Mr. DULLES. How much larger staff do you think you are going to have to have to cover that situation in the future?

Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I would not know until we see the volume of reports that we get that we have to refer to the field for investigation. Since we are processing them now, we have to wait to make that determination.

Mr. DULLES. Should you do field investigations as contrasted with the FBI--the FBI have a large number of people in a large number of cities throughout the United States. You do not have that?

Mr. ROWLEY. No; but on the basis of the criteria we discussed earlier, the FBI would give us the information, and if in our evaluation we determined that it should be referred to the field for investigation, particularly in the case of individuals, we would conduct our investigation, to determine whether this individual is a high risk to the President.

Now, where it comes to the group, this is something for the FBI to do, because it ties in with their responsibility for internal security.

Now, if there is a close connection between the two, then we would have to have a formal agreement. But because of our responsibility, and the fact that this is part of the work that we have to undertake, then we would conduct our own investigation, because we know what we are looking for.

Mr. DULLES. If the name of Lee Harvey Oswald had been submitted to you by the FBI, what would you, in the normal course, have done?

Would you have referred that back to them for investigation, or would you have carried on an independent investigation?

I am talking now if that name had been referred to you when you knew you were going to go to Dallas.

Mr. ROWLEY. If we knew we were going to go to Dallas and we had this present criteria, then we would investigate him.

Mr. DULLES. You would carry on the investigation?

Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Thank you.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, I am through with Chief Rowley now--except I would like to ask him to supply a copy of the information about their appropriation request, and insert it with Commission Exhibit No. 1028. [The information subsequently furnished by the Secret Service was inserted in the record as a part of Commission Exhibit No. 1028.]

We have Mr. Carswell here. As you recall, there was some difficulty at one meeting about the testimony about what the Secret Service was doing in regard to the Speaker. And while he is here, I would like to straighten that record out.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. RANKIN. It will be very brief.

The CHAIRMAN. Chief, I want to take this opportunity to thank you and the members of your Secret Service for the cooperation you have given to this Commission. They have been very diligent, very helpful, as you personally have been. And we appreciate it.

Mr. ROWLEY. Thank you, sir.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT CARSWELL

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Carswell, you have been sworn, have you not?

Mr. CARSWELL. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chief Justice, if the Commission will bear with me just a minute, I would like to tell about my own conversation with the Speaker about this matter prior to his answering in regard to correction of the record.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You may proceed.

Mr. RANKIN. After the matter came up before the Commission, I was asked by one of the Commissioners to see the Speaker, Mr. McCormack, and I did that at his office. And he informed me that the Secret Service and also the FBI had undertaken to try to give him protection because of his position in the line of succession, and that because of the interference that he felt and his wife felt with their relationship over the years in being alone and together in their family life, he did not like to have that interference, and he asked them not to participate any more in furnishing that protection for him. He said it was his own responsibility in taking that action, and he wanted that to be clear, and that he thought that as far as any protection he needed, he had plenty of protection with the kind of protection that the Congress had around him in the performance of his duty.

It came to Mr. Carswell's attention, right immediately after he had testified, that his statements in that regard were inaccurate because of the change that had occurred that had not come to his attention. He called me and he said he would like to correct the record.

Mr. Carswell, will you tell us now what the facts are as you have learned?

Mr. CARSWELL. When I testified here before I was asked, I believe, what protection the Secret Service was providing the Speaker. I said that we were providing protection comparable to that previously provided to the Vice President. I did that on the basis of checking with Chief Rowley immediately after the assassination of President Kennedy, and he told me at that time such protection was being provided to the Speaker.

I understood that that was the case the next day--because at that time we were not certain what was going on. I had not heard anything about it after that. And I assumed that the situation continued as it was immediately after the assassination. But that was not the case.

As Mr. Rankin has stated, the Speaker requested the Secret Service to discontinue assigning agents to him for protection, and we did what he requested. That is the present situation.

Mr. RANKIN. That is all I have.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Thank you, Mr. Carswell.

Well, gentlemen, I think that will be all today. The Commission will adjourn now.

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Tuesday, June 23, 1964

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN AND ROBERT G. KLAUSE

The President's Commission met at 10:30 a.m., on June 23, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, D.C.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Hale Boggs, Representative Gerald R. Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; and Albert E. Jenner, Jr., assistant counsel.

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN, ACCOMPANIED BY THOMAS A. FLANNERY, ESQ.

(Members present: Chief Justice Warren, Representative Ford, and Mr. Dulles.)

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. Mr. Flannery, you are here representing Mr. Weissman?

Mr. FLANNERY. Yes; Your Honor.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Jenner, would you mind making a brief statement of the testimony we expect to develop here?

Mr. JENNER. Yes; Mr. Chief Justice.

Mr. Bernard William Weissman, who is the witness today, played some part in the preparation of and the publication of the advertisement in the Dallas Morning News on the 22d of November 1963, and we will seek to develop the facts with respect to that. It has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1031, entitled "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy."

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1031 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman's deposition was taken in part. He was not then represented by counsel, and he had some qualms about it and raised the issue, and as soon as it was raised we suspended the deposition. He appears this morning with Mr. Flannery as his counsel.

Mr. Flannery, would you be good enough to state your full name?

Mr. FLANNERY. Thomas A. Flannery.

The CHAIRMAN. And you are a practitioner in Washington?

Mr. FLANNERY. Yes; Your Honor, I am a partner in the firm of Hamilton and Hamilton.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Weissman; will you raise your right hand and be sworn?

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you shall give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I do.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you be seated? Mr. Jenner will question.

Mr. JENNER. Your full name is Bernard William Weissman?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. And you now reside in New York City, do you not?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Mount Vernon, N.Y.

Mr. JENNER. Would you give your address?

Mr. WEISSMAN. 439 South Columbus Avenue, Mount Vernon, N.Y.

Mr. JENNER. You were born November 1, 1937?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. You are almost 27 years old?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. All right. I would like some vital statistics, if I may, Mr. Weissman. Are you presently employed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And where are you employed presently?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Carpet Corp. of America, 655 Clinton Avenue, Newark, N.J.

Mr. JENNER. I see. Is that connected in any fashion with the Carpet Co. by which you were employed in Dallas, Tex., last fall?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. You are a native born American?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And your folks are as well?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me?

Mr. JENNER. Your folks are as well, mother and father?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you have two brothers?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. And they likewise are native born Americans?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is your marital status at the present time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Separated.

Mr. JENNER. You were married or are married to Jane Byrnes Weissman?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. She is a native born American, also?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You have been separated since when?

Mr. WEISSMAN. May 16, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. So you became separated from her before you went to Dallas in the fall of 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I was in the service at the time.

(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. Now, are you acquainted with a gentleman by the name of Larrie Schmidt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first meet him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Munich, Germany, about July or August of 1962.

Mr. JENNER. His middle name is Henry. Are you aware of that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I am not aware of that.

Mr. JENNER. Where does he reside?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, he was in Dallas. I understand he has dropped from sight. I don't know where he is now.

Mr. JENNER. Was he residing in Dallas in the fall of 1963 when you were there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. When did you arrive in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Dallas, on the 4th of November 1963.

Mr. JENNER. And was Mr. Schmidt aware that you were about to come to Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And what was the purpose of your coming to Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I will be as brief as possible. It was simply to follow through on plans that we had made in Germany, in order to develop a conservative organization in Dallas, under our leadership.

Mr. JENNER. Did that conservative organization, or your purpose in going to Dallas, as well, have any business context in addition to politics?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I would say 50 percent of the purpose was business and the other 50 percent politics. We figured that only rich men can indulge full time in politics, so first we had to make some money before we could devote ourselves to the political end completely.

Mr. JENNER. In short compass; would you tell the Commission your background up to the time that you entered military service, and give us the date of the entry of military service?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Do you mean as far as my schooling and where I lived before then? Before I went into the service?

Mr. JENNER. Let's take it from high school.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I graduated from Edison Technical High School in Mount Vernon in June of 1956, went to work for the Nuclear Development Corp. as an experimental machinist in July of that year and left them in August of 1957. I then went on the road with my brother, Joe, and his wife, working as demonstrators or pitchmen, you might say, in department stores, selling some patent medicines and the like. Did this for about--oh, that was from the 18th of November 1957 up until about April or May of 1958.

Mr. JENNER. Your brother Joe is a little bit older than you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He is 20 months older, yes.

Mr. JENNER. And his given name is Joe, and not Joseph?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Joseph. Then--let's see--I went to work for the American Schools of Music, which my brother founded in Jersey.

Mr. JENNER. Which brother?

Mr. WEISSMAN. My brother Joe--in New Jersey. And I stayed with him as his sales manager for a little over a year.

Then I went to work for Encyclopedia Americana, Harvard Classics Division, as a district sales manager. I was with them about a year--until 19--I believe it was September of 1960.

I was starving, so I went to work for Underwood Olivetti, in Newark, N.J., and I sold typewriters and calculators up until May of 1961, at which time I quit, tried to go into business for myself in costume jewelry, formed a corporation known as Jane Williams Co., Inc., and in August of 1961, I was drafted into the Army. That was on August 5, 1961.

Mr. JENNER. You were honorably discharged from the Army in August 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. August 5; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What has been your father's occupation?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, for about 20 years he was plant superintendent for University Loudspeakers in White Plains, N.Y. They moved to some place out west. He quit and went back to work with Local 3 in New York City, IBW.

Mr. JENNER. Your father's name is Harry?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Harry Weissman; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you reside with him now at 439 South Columbus Avenue in Mount Vernon?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You were discharged from the Army honorably?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You were married when, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. November 7, 1958.

Mr. JENNER. A New York girl?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yonkers, N.Y.

Mr. JENNER. And you have some children?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. You separated, as you have indicated. Now, would you start from the Army?

Before I get to that, you met Larrie Schmidt in the Army?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. What other buddies did you have in the Army with whom you again renewed your acquaintance when you were discharged from the Army and went to Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Only one beside Larrie. That was Bill Burley. William Burley.

Mr. JENNER. What contact did you have with Mr. Larrie Schmidt and Mr. Burley after you left the Army, which eventually brought you to Dallas? State it in your own words and chronologically, please.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I got out of service on the 5th, and I spent the month of August looking for a job. During this time, I had been in contact with Larrie. I had telephoned him once during August. Things were pretty bad. I didn't have any money. As far as I could ascertain he was broke himself. There wasn't any percentage in going to Dallas and not accomplishing anything. As a matter of fact, I had lost a good deal of confidence in Larrie in the year that he left Munich and was in Dallas, and the letters I got from him--he seemed to have deviated from our original plan. I wasn't too hot about going. He didn't seem to be accomplishing anything, except where it benefited him.

Mr. JENNER. You say he deviated from the original plan. What was the original plan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, the original plan was to stay away from various organizations and societies that were, let's call them, radical, and had a reputation as being such.

Mr. JENNER. When you say radical, what do you mean?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I mean radical right. And I considered myself more of an idealist than a politician. Larrie was more of a politician than an idealist. He went with the wind--which is good for him, I guess, and bad for me.

In any case Larrie wrote me easily a dozen letters imploring me to come down, telling me in one that he doesn't need me down there, but he would love to have my help because he can't accomplish anything without me, and in the next one saying, "Forget it, I don't need you," and so forth. As the letters came, they went with the wind, depending on what he was doing personally. And along about the end of October, I had been in contact with Bill--he was in Baltimore, Md., selling hearing aids. He wasn't getting anywhere. He was making a living.

Mr. JENNER. Up to this point each of you was barely making a living?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And you had no capital?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. No funds of your own?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None at all. And I got in touch with Bill. Actually, I forgot how it was. He wrote me a letter and I wrote him a letter. In any case, it came about that I invited Bill up to Mount Vernon, because he figured if there was any money to be made it would be made in New York, because this is a salesman's paradise. I invited Bill to Mount Vernon. He came up about the last week of August.

I am sorry--October of 1963. And we set up about looking for work and trying to find him work, that is--I was working for the Encyclopedia Britannica, Great Books Division, as a district manager in Westchester County. So I more or less supported Bill the best I could. I fed him and gave him a room to sleep in and so forth.

In the meantime, Larrie had up to a point--hadn't accomplished anything in the way that we could use gainfully or to our purposes in Dallas. So there was really no reason to go down there--up until about, I guess, the 26th or 28th of October.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. Why were you thinking of Dallas at this time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I kept getting these letters from Larrie. I tried to forget about it, and he constantly reminded me. Once or twice a week I would get a letter. And it was a question--I was almost obligated to go, because I had promised I would be there. And still having somewhat of a close relationship with Larrie, through my promises, I sort of felt morally obligated to go down there.

And, at the same time, it was new, different, exciting, it had a lot of promise for the future if it worked out.

So Adlai Stevenson was down there in the latter part of October.

(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. And I didn't pay too much attention to this--until the evening of Stevenson's speech at the Dallas Auditorium. And I got a long distance telephone call from Larrie, and he explained what had happened--that Stevenson had been struck by several individuals down there.

Mr. JENNER. Please call on your best recollection and tell us what he said to you. You recall that he made that telephone call?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You recognized his voice?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You are clear it was Larrie Schmidt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He said that big things are happening, and he went--this is before it hit the papers. He told me what had happened with Adlai Stevenson.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Something like, "I think we are" he always speaks I this and I that. "I have made it, I have done it for us," something to this effect. In other words, this is not exactly his words. I don't recall his exact words. But this is essentially it. And that----

Mr. JENNER. Did you say to him, "What do you mean you have made it for us?"

Mr. WEISSMAN. When he said, "I have made it for us," meaning Larrie Schmidt--meaning me and Bill and whoever else was going to come down here----

Mr. JENNER. That was----

Mr. WEISSMAN. Bill Burley.

Mr. JENNER. What did you say when he made that remark?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I said "Great."

Mr. JENNER. What did it mean to you, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. What did it mean to me?

Mr. JENNER. It is a generalization.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is it. In other words, I didn't really know what to think. I had to go along with him, because I didn't know anything about it, aside from what he told me.

And he said, "If we are going to take advantage of the situation, or if you are," meaning me, "you better hurry down here and take advantage of the publicity, and at least become known among these various rightwingers, because this is the chance we have been looking for to infiltrate some of these organizations and become known," in other words, go along with the philosophy we had developed in Munich.

Mr. JENNER. Could I go back a little bit, please. You received a telephone call from Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. At that moment, you knew nothing about the Adlai Stevenson incident, is that correct?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I had received a letter from him several weeks before saying that--if you will wait just a minute, I think I might have the letter with me.

Mr. JENNER. All right. While you are looking, what was your rank when you were discharged?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Pfc.

Mr. JENNER. Did you reach any higher rank when you were in the service?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; this is a letter I received on October 1, 1963.

Mr. JENNER. For purposes of identification, we will mark that as Commission Exhibit No. 1033.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. May I approach the witness, Mr. Chief Justice?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes; go right ahead.

Mr. JENNER. That is marked only for identification for the moment.

Mr. FLANNERY. The record will reflect it is a three-page letter.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you.

Marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033, is that not correct?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is correct. Now, in Exhibit No. 1033, the letter I received from Larrie on October 1--that was typed on October 1, 1963, and mailed on 7 October 1963.

Mr. JENNER. You are looking at the envelope in which the letter was enclosed when you received it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is correct. And he states in the last paragraph of his letter in a postscript, "My brother has begun working as an aide to General Walker. He is being paid full time, et cetera. Watch your newspaper for news of huge demonstrations here in Dallas on October 3 and 4 in connection with U.N.-day and Adlai Stevenson speech here. Plans already made, strategy being carried out."

This was the only advance notice I had of this. And I didn't give it too much thought, because he had said many things like it before, just to build something up, and nothing ever came of it.

Mr. JENNER. Is that document signed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; it is not.

Mr. JENNER. Does it bear a typed signature?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have occasion to speak with Mr. Schmidt respecting the contents of that letter at any time subsequent to your receiving it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever talk with him about having received that particular letter, that he acknowledged having sent to you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; as a matter of fact, I was pretty worried about his brother becoming involved with General Walker, and I thought it might give us a black eye.

Mr. JENNER. And what did you do--call Mr. Schmidt or talk with him on that subject?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall if I spoke with him, or if I wrote it to him in a letter. I don't recall.

Mr. JENNER. But you had occasion to confirm the fact that the letter now identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1033 was written by Mr. Schmidt and mailed to you in an envelope, which we will mark as Commission Exhibit No. 1033-A?

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1033-A for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear my question?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Repeat it, please.

(The question, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. So that when you had your telephone conversation which you were in the course of relating, with Mr. Schmidt, you were aware when he made the exclamation which you have described, of that to which he was then referring--that is, the Stevenson incident?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was there anything else in Mr. Schmidt's letter that disturbed you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I received so many.

Would it be permissible to--excuse me.

Mr. Jenner, would it be permissible to read this letter into the record?

Mr. JENNER. My trouble is, Mr. Weissman, and Mr. Flannery--I haven't seen the letter.

Mr. Chief Justice----

The CHAIRMAN. I suppose Mr. Jenner could see the letter for a moment, couldn't he?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Flannery, would you be good enough to pass it up?

(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. You see, up to the point of that letter--excuse me.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, it is quite apparent to me, from glancing through the letter, that this is a letter that we--in connection with Mr. Weissman's testimony, that we would like to offer in evidence in due course.

And, with that in mind, Mr. Weissman, it will not be necessary for you to read paragraphs from the letter, unless in the course of your testimony you feel it will round out your testimony and serve to refresh your recollection as to events you might wish to relate.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I would like to take a look at it now.

(At this point, Representative Ford reentered the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. Ready?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Reporter, would you be good enough to read, let us say, the last question and answer of the witness?

(The question and answer, as recorded, was read by the reporter.)

Mr. JENNER. The point I was making, Mr. Weissman, was that when you received the telephone call about which you were testifying, in which Mr. Schmidt exclaimed, "I have made it for us," or words to that effect, you were then aware of that to which he was referring, at least in general?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. So that was the reason why you didn't ask him to elaborate upon what he meant by, "I have made it for us"?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. And that was the fact that he, as you understood it, am I correct in saying, had had something to do with the organization of the picketing or other demonstrations at the time that Mr. Stevenson made his visit to Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, at the time I was almost--Larrie led me to believe that he had organized the whole thing. And it transpired when I got to Dallas that I found that he had led a group of 11 University of Dallas students in quiet picketing near the entrance to the auditorium, and didn't engage in any physical violence of any sort.

Mr. JENNER. But up to the time that you arrived in Dallas, you were under the impression that he had had a more extensive part?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is what he led me to believe. In other words, he was trying to--he wanted to get me to Dallas in the worst way. And he wanted it to look like he was on the hot seat and he would be there unless I came down to help him. In other words, he is throwing my obligation at me. And trying to convince me in various ways, as I mentioned, to come down there, so we can get moving on what we had planned in Munich.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive a letter from him dated October 29, 1963, a copy of which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1032, and I tender to you. You may have the original among your papers.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1032 for identification.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did receive this letter, Exhibit No. 1032, from Larrie, about the 29th of October.

Mr. JENNER. And, gentlemen of the Commission, this is a letter dated, as the witness has stated--it is addressed to, "Dear Bernie and Bill," and I assume Bill is----

Mr. WEISSMAN. Bill Burley.

Mr. JENNER. He was then staying with you in New York?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And it is signed Larrie. By the way, do you have the original of this letter with you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't think so. Let me see. No; as a matter of fact, I believe the situation was when I gave the letter to the FBI, they asked me if I needed it back right away, and I said no--I didn't see any value in it, frankly. And then I spoke with Mr. Reedy, the agent who had conducted the investigation at the FBI headquarters in New York, and he said, "Do you want the letter?" And I said, "I don't particularly need it," and I don't recall if I ever got it back.

Mr. JENNER. All right. But the document which has been marked with an exhibit number is a true and correct copy of the letter you received from Larrie Schmidt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It seems to be; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, in that letter, there is a reference to CUSA in capital letters. What is CUSA, what was CUSA? What was its genesis?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, CUSA, the letters stand for Conservatism USA, for lack of a better name. Larrie had originally founded this himself--as far as I know he had originally founded this himself in Munich some time in 1961.

Mr. JENNER. You mean it was a concept of his?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know if it was his. But I was led to believe the concept was his; and when I became associated with him, almost a year after he had started to develop this organization----

Mr. JENNER. And while you were still in the Army?

Mr. WEISSMAN. While I was still in the Army; right.

Representative BOGGS. What was your rank in the Army?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Private, first class.

Representative BOGGS. That is when you completed your service?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; at the time I was pfc, also.

Representative BOGGS. How long were you in the Army?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Two years.

Representative BOGGS. When you were separated you were private, first class?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. Here is how it came about. I had been in the field on an Army training test. And I had been discussing just political views, foreign policy especially.

Mr. DULLES. Is this Germany, now?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; this is Germany.

Mr. JENNER. Who was the overall commander in Germany at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The overall commander?

Mr. JENNER. Was General Walker one of the commanders at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; he had been removed at that time. In any case, he would have been about 60 or 70 miles--he was based in Landshut, Germany.

In any case, I was on this army training test with my company, MP Company, and I was talking to the company clerk--he had a book. We just got onto a discussion of politics, just generally. And I expounded some views on foreign policy, and where I agreed or disagreed. And I went into some great detail. And he said, "Gee, if I didn't know better I would say it is Larrie speaking."

And I said, "What do you mean?"

And he went into this CUSA organization. He was at that time a partner in CUSA. It was set up as a business.

Representative BOGGS. What does CUSA mean?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Conservatism USA.

Representative BOGGS. What was Mr. Schmidt's rank?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He was specialist fourth class, SP-4, and he was in charge of public relations for Armed Forces Recreation Centers.

Mr. JENNER. How old a man is he?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie is 26 or 27.

Mr. JENNER. About the same age as yours?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And Mr. Burley?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Twenty-nine now, I believe.

Mr. JENNER. A little older--about 2 years older than you and Mr. Schmidt.

Mr. WEISSMAN. In there. A year and a half, 2 years, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. What was his rank?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Corporal. At the time that I met Bill he was a pfc. In fact, Bill Burley didn't become really involved in this until, I would say, 2 or 3 months before we left Germany. We left there about the same time, we were discharged about the same time; and, anyway, I was talking to the company clerk, Norman Baker, who was a partner in CUSA. I didn't know this at the time; but he just said he wanted to introduce me to somebody.

Mr. JENNER. What was the rank of the company clerk?

Mr. WEISSMAN. At that time--I think he was the only corporal company clerk in the army. And he introduced me to Larrie several weeks later after we had returned from the field.

They tried to pull a big snow job, saying public relations and so on and so forth, just to sort of impress me, and they did. They worked very well together; and, in any case, I became involved in it.

I don't recollect the step-by-step involvement--just that I jumped in with both feet, because I liked the idea.

Mr. JENNER. This was Conservatism USA, and it consisted of an idea at this particular time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And associated with that idea were these people, Larrie Schmidt, yourself, was Burley----

Mr. WEISSMAN. At that time, I don't think so.

Mr. JENNER. But he did become?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Later.

Mr. JENNER. And the company clerk--what was his name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Norman Baker.

Mr. JENNER. And yourself--what was that--five? Were there any others?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There were others, but it was the sort of thing where they were involved but not involved. They were just sort of going along for the ride, because it was interesting, and you might say a little diverse from the humdrum army life.

Mr. JENNER. Was CUSA ever organized formally in the sense of corporate organization or drafting of partnership papers and registration under the Assumed Name Act in Texas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Texas; no.

Mr. JENNER. I take it it was organized?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. As a corporation or partnership?

Mr. WEISSMAN. As a partnership.

Mr. JENNER. In what state?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Munich, Germany.

Mr. JENNER. I see. And that was a sort of declaration among you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a written declaration; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Who drafted that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We did--that is, we called ourselves--the hangers-on were identified as the outer circle, and the partners were the inner circle. This was just for ease of identification. This, I think, would be the easiest way to really express it.

And the partners, the five partners, were the inner circle, the leaders of this organization; and----

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen, may I interrupt for just a minute? I have an appointment I must keep at the court.

Congressman Ford, will you preside, please?

Representative FORD. Surely.

(At this point, Chief Justice Warren withdrew from the hearing room.)

Representative FORD. Will you proceed, please, Mr. Jenner.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you. In short compass, tell us the objectives of CUSA.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, the objectives of CUSA were substantially to set up a political business organization. We used a rough comparison with Ford and the Ford Foundation as an example. The Ford Foundation would be CUSA, Conservatism USA, and the Ford would be AMBUS, or American business.

Mr. JENNER. What was AMBUS?

Mr. WEISSMAN. American business. This was the business half of the political organization.

Mr. JENNER. This was to be a combination of business and politics?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. We were going to use the business end----

Mr. JENNER. Which you called AMBUS?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. That would be----

Mr. WEISSMAN. American business, or American businesses.

Mr. JENNER. I don't get the initials. A-B-U-S?

Mr. WEISSMAN. A-M-B-U-S--American business.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. WEISSMAN. And we were trying to develop, in our own minds, without actually doing it at the time, ways to build up various businesses that would support us and at the same time support our political activities.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Could I characterize it this way--that a material objective of this group or partnership was ultimately a self-interest in business?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Coupled with a political arm which was to aid or assist in the business, and each was to feed the other?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The business arm was to be developed mainly to feed the political arm.

(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. We were mainly interested in the political end. At least this is my feeling on it. Mainly interested in the political end. And the business end, while, of course, we hoped it would succeed, in my mind was merely to support us politically.

(At this point, Representative Ford reentered the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, as of this moment, Mr. Weissman, there were the five of you only. There were no others who were part of the combination business-political group?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We left out one man, one of the original men. His name was James Moseley.

Mr. JENNER. Was he a GI with you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; he was an American civilian. His father was a major--is a major in the Army.

Mr. JENNER. And was he an acquaintance of yours?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Prior to this time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not prior to this. I met him when I went into the organization.

Mr. JENNER. I see. Was he an acquaintance of Mr. Schmidt's?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. How did he get in, is what I am getting at? How did he get into this little group here?

Mr. WEISSMAN. They all hung around the same bar.

Mr. JENNER. What bar?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The Gastatte Lukullus.

Representative BOGGS. How far was that from the bar where Hitler used to gather?

Mr. WEISSMAN. A couple of miles, I think.

Mr. JENNER. It is a bar in Munich?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. It is a GI guest house.

Mr. JENNER. This man you have now mentioned, Moseley, was a civilian in Germany?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He was a civilian; yes.

Mr. JENNER. How did he come to be in Munich? Was his father stationed there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. His father was stationed there. But he was also employed by Rambler--he was selling Ramblers.

Mr. JENNER. What is Mr. Moseley's hometown?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What is Mr. Mosley's hometown?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe it is New York. I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. How old a man is he?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He is a pretty young fellow. He is about 21.

Mr. JENNER. Now, have you named all of you who were the nucleus of this group?

Mr. WEISSMAN. To my recollection, yes.

Mr. JENNER. Had you finished your statement as to the general--the general statement as to the purpose of this organization which consisted of the two arms?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not completely. I think what might bear directly is we had planned while in Munich that in order to accomplish our goals, to try to do it from scratch would be almost impossible, because it would be years before we could even get the funds to develop a powerful organization. So we had planned to infiltrate various rightwing organizations and by our own efforts become involved in the hierarchy of these various organizations and eventually get ourselves elected or appointed to various higher offices in these organizations, and by doing this bring in some of our own people, and eventually take over the leadership of these organizations, and at that time having our people in these various organizations, we would then, you might say, call a conference and have them unite, and while no one knew of the existence of CUSA aside from us, we would then bring them all together, unite them, and arrange to have it called CUSA.

Mr. JENNER. You never accomplished this, did you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Almost. Here is how far we did get.

Larrie had--and this was according to plan--the first organization we planned to infiltrate was the NIC, National Indignation Convention, headed by Frank McGee in Dallas. About a week or so after Larrie got to Dallas he got himself a job with the NIC, as one of the very few paid men.

This didn't last too long, because a few weeks after that the NIC went under. And we had also--in other words, we had planned to use these organizations as vehicles to accomplish----

Mr. JENNER. Keep going on those details of your infiltration.

Mr. WEISSMAN. All right. We had planned to infiltrate these various rightwing organizations.

Mr. JENNER. You mentioned one.

Mr. WEISSMAN. The NIC. The Young Americans for Freedom. We succeeded there.

Mr JENNER. What organization is that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The Young Americans for Freedom? This was an organization essentially of conservative youths, college students, and if I recall I think the most they ever accomplished was running around burning baskets from Yugoslavia.

Mr. JENNER. Where was it based?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is southwest. Regional headquarters was in Dallas, Tex., Box 2364.

Mr. JENNER. And the earlier organization, the organization you mentioned a moment ago, NIC--where was that based?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. All right. What is the next one?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We had also discussed getting some people in with General Walker, getting some people into the John Birch Society.

Mr. JENNER. Stick with General Walker for a moment. To what extent were you able to infiltrate, as you call it, General Walker's group?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this was rather a fiasco. Larrie's brother, as I mentioned in the letter--Larrie's brother went to work for General Walker.

Mr. JENNER. What was his name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know his first name. But Larrie led me to believe his brother was some guy. His brother is about 29. And the only thing I ever heard from Larrie about his brother was good; and when he mentioned that his brother had joined the Walker organization, I figured this is another step in the right direction. In other words, he was solidifying his argument as to why I should come to Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. And this is what he told you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. So when I got to Dallas, I found that Larrie's brother drank too much, and he had--well, I considered him a moron. He didn't have any sense at all. He was very happy with $35 a week and room and board that General Walker was giving him as his chauffeur and general aide. And so I tossed that out the window that we would never get into the Walker organization this way.

Mr. JENNER. This man's name, by any chance, was not Volkmar?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This name is entirely unfamiliar to me. Never heard it before.

Senator COOPER. Could you identify the Walker organization? You keep speaking of the Walker organization.

Mr. WEISSMAN. General Edwin Walker.

Mr. JENNER. General Edwin A. Walker?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I never have.

Representative FORD. How did you infiltrate the Young Americans for Freedom, and what led you to believe you had been successful?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, Larrie had been named executive secretary of the Dallas chapter of the Young Americans for Freedom. And another man--his name is in one of these letters somewhere--I don't recall it offhand--who was brought into CUSA by Larrie, was named chairman or vice chairman--vice chairman. And the only other move that we had to make in order to take control of Dallas Young Americans for Freedom would have been to get rid of the chairman, who was anti-Larrie Schmidt. He was absolutely no help to us. And this was on its way to accomplishment. But for some reason or another, there was some sort of an argument. I am still not clear on what happened. I wasn't there. I just can take it secondhand from Larrie.

A friend of Larrie's had come to Dallas--this was Larry Jones, another partner in----

Mr. JENNER. He is mentioned in some of these interviews. Did you meet Larry Jones?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I didn't meet him in Dallas; no. He was gone before I got there. But Larry had come to Dallas, he had stayed a few weeks, had made friends with these people, and I had advocated many and many a time--I saw through Larry the first time I met him--is to get rid of this guy, because he was not going to do us any good.

Mr. JENNER. You did meet Jones?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In the Army; yes.

Mr. JENNER. You met Larry Jones in the Army?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. We were all on the same post.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, if you will permit, I would like to go back to that at this moment.

Representative FORD. Surely.

Mr. JENNER. This was another man. You hadn't mentioned him before.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I didn't? I thought I did.

Mr. JENNER. What rank was he?

Mr. WEISSMAN. SP-4, Specialist-4.

Mr. JENNER. That wasn't the company clerk?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No. Larry worked for headquarters. He was in communications--the scramblers and so forth.

Mr. JENNER. Seeking to scramble broadcasts?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No. In other words, they would send out the secret messages and so forth from commander to commander and so on.

Mr. DULLES. These were military messages?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. How old a man was Larry Jones?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry--he looked 30. I think he is 21.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have the charter or partnership agreement of CUSA with you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I do.

Mr. JENNER. I wonder if I could see that.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Sure.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman; the document consists of two pages which have been identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1034. It is entitled "Corporate Structure of American Business, Inc.," naming as incorporators or partners, Larrie H. Schmidt, Larry C. Jones, Bernie Weissman, James L. Moseley, Norman F. Baker. It purports to be signed in those names as well on the second page.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1034 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. I notice on the first page that after each of those names there appear to be some initials. Are those the initials of those respective men?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. And were those initials placed on there in your presence?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; they were.

Mr. JENNER. The signatures that appear under each of those names or above each of those names on the second page, those are the signatures of those men, including your own?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Were they placed on there in your presence?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, they were.

Representative FORD. Do you want that admitted at this time, Mr. Jenner?

Mr. JENNER. I was going to offer these documents in sequence, if it suits the convenience of the Chairman. If we may return now, Mr. Weissman, please, to your efforts to infiltrate various conservative groups----

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question there? I may have to leave in a few minutes. Was there any time when your organization drew up a list of organizations, of other organizations, that it wanted to infiltrate?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Do you have that list with you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. I have lost an awful lot of it. I might.

Mr. JENNER. Would you look, please?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I don't have it.

Senator COOPER. May I ask, then--can he name from memory the organizations?

Mr. JENNER. Using your recollection, sir, and it appears to be very good, if I may compliment you----

Mr. WEISSMAN. Thank you.

Mr. JENNER. Would you do your best to respond to Senator Cooper's question by naming those various groups?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. One was the NIC.

Mr. JENNER. When you use initials, will you spell out what the initials mean?

Mr. WEISSMAN. National Indignation Convention, headed by Frank McGee, in Dallas, Tex.

Young Americans for Freedom, which encompassed the southwest. The initials are YAF.

Mr. JENNER. Located in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Regional headquarters in Dallas. John Birch Society.

Mr. JENNER. Where was the John Birch--was there a chapter or headquarters in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There are several chapters in Dallas; yes. And as far as I can recollect, that is as far as we went.

Representative BOGGS. What did you hope to accomplish by this infiltration, as you call it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I will be very blunt.

Representative BOGGS. That is what I would like for you to be.

Mr. WEISSMAN. We were, you might say--at least I personally--this is my reason--I was sick and tired of seeing America as a weak sister all the time. And this is especially in the field of foreign affairs, where it seemed that our administration, whether it is the Eisenhower or the Kennedy administration, both of them, had no set, stable foreign policy. We were constantly losing ground all over the world. We were going to conference tables with everything to lose and nothing to gain, and coming away by losing.

And we hoped by developing a powerful political organization we could exert some influence on the government and eventually even put, you might say, our man in the White House, let's say, in order to obtain a stable policy--because we felt that the Communists were gaining ground all over the place, we were doing nothing but losing.

Representative BOGGS. Did you have a candidate for the Presidency?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me?

Representative BOGGS. Did you have a candidate--you said your man.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I wouldn't say we had a candidate. We had looked to Barry Goldwater as personifying Mr. Conservative. And we had stated in writing, though, that we would support him for the Presidency, but we were not obligated to support him or any other individual.

Representative BOGGS. Are you still in this business?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Representative BOGGS. What are you doing now?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am a salesman, I sell carpets.

Representative BOGGS. You have given up this goal?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, if I had money I didn't know what to do with, I would get back into it--only I would do it myself, because I found that in order to accomplish these aims--I mentioned before I considered myself an idealist. I found in order to accomplish these goals I had to against my will prostitute my ideals in order to further the general cause of the organization.

Representative BOGGS. What ideals did you find you had to prostitute?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I personally didn't want to associate with the John Birch Society.

Representative BOGGS. You did not want to?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I did not.

Representative BOGGS. Why didn't you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well; they are rather extreme, I thought. I didn't like some of the things they were doing. For example, I didn't want to spend my days and nights sneaking into bathrooms around the country, pasting up "Impeach Earl Warren" stickers.

Representative BOGGS. Is that what they do?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is part of their program. And I can't see any use in it, frankly. In other words, it is just little things like this. Plus the fact that after I got to Dallas, I found that most of the people who are professing anti-communism, they were, they were definitely anti-Communists. But, at the same time, it seemed to me to be nothing but a conglomeration of racists, and bigots and so forth.

Representative BOGGS. What do you mean by that--bigots?

Mr. WEISSMAN. They are anti-everything, it seems.

Representative BOGGS. Are you Jewish?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am.

Representative BOGGS. Were they anti-Jewish?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Too many of them, yes. It was requested at one time that I change my name.

Representative BOGGS. Is that right?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Representative BOGGS. What did you tell them?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me?

Representative BOGGS. What did you tell them? Did you change your name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No, sir.

Representative BOGGS. Well, did you find this request unusual?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did, as a matter of fact, I got pretty mad.

Representative BOGGS. When you were in Germany, did you find sometimes, particularly in Munich, as long as you opened this line of replies, that some of the Nazi-alleged anticommunism was also associated with their racist policies?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In what vein are you using Nazi?

Representative BOGGS. Well, of course, you know they exterminated quite a few members of your religion in Germany.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. That is a fact; is it not?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it is.

Representative BOGGS. I am using Nazi in the normal term of state dictatorship, with all that it implies. I am sure you have worked on foreign policy, you understand what I mean.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think you are giving me a little too much credit. But I think I can answer your question.

Representative BOGGS. I would like for you to.

Mr. WEISSMAN. At no time did I, and to my knowledge, in Germany, did we consider ourselves fascists or Nazis. As a matter of fact, in my every conversation, and everything I had written----

Representative BOGGS. I didn't ask you whether you had considered yourself as a fascist----

Mr. WEISSMAN. Or any of my associates, sir.

Representative BOGGS. Or any of your associates. I asked you if in your study of events in Germany, having been stationed there, that you didn't soon associate, or that you didn't see some association in your mind of the alleged so-called extreme right with naziism.

Mr. WEISSMAN. No. In fact, I never thought--I thought of the extremists as superpatriots. I had never really defined the term fascist or Nazi in my own mind----

Representative BOGGS. Of course, you realize that members of your religion in Germany were described as traitors, treasonable, and Communists. And I presume that on the other side of the coin those making the accusation classified themselves as superpatriots.

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is quite true. But you are getting into a field right now that at the time----

Representative BOGGS. Were you surprised when you discovered this anti-Jewish feeling? You must have been somewhat, shall I say, disappointed when one of your associates asked you to change your name. I would think that was right insulting.

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was downright insulting, as a matter of fact. No, I wasn't surprised. Now----

Mr. DULLES. Did you have something on this in your letter? I noticed you looking through that letter a minute ago. I thought maybe you had something on this very point in your letter.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. I received a letter from Larrie, while I was in Germany.

Mr. JENNER. Is this another document to which no reference has been made?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am not sure whether this is the one I want to read from. But this letter is an answer that I wrote Larrie.

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me, sir. I want to put an exhibit number on that.

This will be exhibit--Commission Exhibit No. 1035.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1035 for identification.)

Representative BOGGS. I would like for a moment to pursue this a bit. This gentleman is telling us something that I think is very significant. You have a letter there about changing your name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is my answer. I would like to read just this one paragraph.

Representative BOGGS. Who was this addressed to?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was addressed to Larrie Schmidt.

Representative BOGGS. Did he ask you to change your name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Representative BOGGS. He was your associate?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He didn't ask me directly. He had written a letter to Larry Jones, and Larry Jones gave me the letter.

Mr. JENNER. Where was Larry Jones at this time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Germany.

Mr. JENNER. You are now reading from Commission Exhibit No.----

Mr. WEISSMAN. Exhibit No. 1035. This is dated Munich, Germany, January 7, 1963.

(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. It is addressed to whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt.

Mr. JENNER. And I take it it is your letter to Larrie Schmidt.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did you dispatch the letter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. And is that a true and correct copy of the original that you did dispatch to Larrie Schmidt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Erasures and all; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And did you become aware of the fact subsequently to your mailing that letter that he received it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You had occasion to discuss it with him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He sent me a letter.

Mr. JENNER. He responded?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he did.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Do you have his response?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. I have his response. I don't know if it is with me.

Representative BOGGS. Let's first have what he said.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Paragraph 2 on the second page, "Larrie, as relates to the political goals of CUSA and the methods of achieving them, I (not alone)"--meaning Bill Burley--"do not wholly support your ideas as concerning the NIC and related or affiliated organizations. It seems to us that this type of organization smacks of hypocrisy. I feel that any type of organization that we choose to support or begin to take support from should be free from the racism and prejudice in general that is rampant among the high officers of the NIC. It should be obvious to you that once we associate ourselves with these people, we may acquire a personal reputation that can never be lived down. I am sure you have considered this yourself, because I remember we had talked of it several times. Larrie, let me remind you that my zeal has not slackened, but that I did not want to compromise myself or my ideals for the sake of accomplishing our goals a year ahead of time. I know and you know that we can do a fantastic job once we get together again with or without these organizations."

Representative BOGGS. What do you say about your name, though?

Mr. WEISSMAN. About my name?

Representative BOGGS. Yes. Changing your name.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I didn't refer to it directly. In other words, in the letter I received from Larrie, he said--he mentioned that the NIC, the leadership, Frank McGee, was anti-Jewish, and it might be best if I changed my name in order to bring myself down to where I can associate with these people.

(At this point, Senator Cooper reentered the hearing room.)

Representative BOGGS. Do you have a copy of that letter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Let me take a look here. With your permission, I would like to read into the record a paragraph----

Mr. JENNER. To what are you referring now, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is a letter sent by Larrie Schmidt to Larry Jones.

Mr. JENNER. And it is in longhand, is it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it is.

Mr. JENNER. And do you recognize the handwriting?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It is Larrie's.

Mr. JENNER. It consists of seven pages, which we will mark Commission Exhibit No. 1036.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1036 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Before you read from the letter, how did you come into possession of the letter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry Jones gave it to me.

Mr. JENNER. Over in Germany?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Over in Germany; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And the envelope which I now have in my hand, from which you extracted the letter, is postmarked Dallas, Tex., November 5.

Representative BOGGS. What year?

Mr. JENNER. 1962. Is that the envelope in which the letter, Commission Exhibit No. 1036, was received by Mr. Jones? I notice the letter is addressed to Mr. Jones, SP-4 Larry Jones.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. We will mark that as Commission Exhibit No. 1036-A--that is, the envelope.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1036-A for identification.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. On the third page, last paragraph, he has marked "One bad thing, though. Frank gives me the impression of being rather anti-Semetic. He is Catholic. Suggest Bernie convert to Christianity, and I mean it."

"We must all return to church. These people here are religious bugs. Also no liberal talk whatsoever--none." Larrie had a flare for the dramatic.

Mr. DULLES. When he mentions "these people" who does he mean?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The NIC. And at this point I was ready to drop out of the organization completely, but thought better of it, because I am a perennial optimist. I felt once I got down there--it is like changing your wife after you marry her. You figure everything will work out.

Representative FORD. This CUSA organization in Munich--did it have any local Munich affiliation at all? I mean German affiliation?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; none whatsoever. Strictly an American proposition.

Representative FORD. All among GI's, with the one exception of----

Mr. WEISSMAN. GI's or, one or two hangers-on, American civilians over there.

Senator COOPER. May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman?

You stated at one point in your testimony that you did not care to become associated with some of the organizations you had discussed. You named the John Birch--you thought it was too extreme. Yet you stated earlier that it was your intention to infiltrate these organizations. How do you explain this inconsistency?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It is difficult to explain. The situation being as fluid as it was--you find that without anything solid to go on, you have got to change your stand a little bit in order to just get started.

Senator COOPER. Let me ask you something else. You said that you all had thought that to be able to fully pursue your political objectives, you needed to have a certain financial independence, is that correct?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Did you intend to get some financial support from these organizations, in addition to political support?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; not directly. We felt that after we had accomplished our goal--this is assuming we would accomplish our goal--any treasury that they had through membership dues or what-have-you would then be a common treasury, a CUSA treasury.

Senator COOPER. You had the idea that you could infiltrate and get control of these organizations, then you would have a source of revenue through their treasury, or through whatever treasury you were able to build up?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Did you think, also, in terms of contributions to these organizations from individuals?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It had been discussed--never very completely. It had just been brought up. But we didn't know exactly what we were going to do, really.

Senator COOPER. Was there any discussion about the support of these organizations--about the financial support of these organizations, that they might be a source of funds?

Mr. WEISSMAN. You mean from individuals who would contribute?

Senator COOPER. Yes.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Was there any discussions as to what individuals were supporting these organizations?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Just those that we had occasionally read about in Life or Look or Time--people like Hunt, H. L. Hunt.

Mr. JENNER. Of Dallas, Tex.?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Of Dallas, Tex.--the oilman. In other words, people who are known to be conservative, sympathized with the conservative philosophy. And we didn't know at the time--in fact, I still don't know personally whether or not they do contribute. I just know it is said they do. But whether they do or not, I have no idea.

Representative BOGGS. It has been established, I presume, who paid for this newspaper advertisement.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this is something else. I am still not sure of who paid for it.

Mr. JENNER. The newspaper advertisement is Commission Exhibit No. 1031.

Representative BOGGS. Did you bring the money in to pay for it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Representative BOGGS. Do you know where you got it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I know where I got it. But I don't know where he got it from. I got it from Joe Grinnan.

Mr. JENNER. Joseph P. Grinnan, Room 811, Wilson Building, Dallas, Tex., independent oil operator in Dallas.

Representative BOGGS. How did you happen to get it from him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, Joe was the volunteer coordinator for the John Birch Society.

Representative BOGGS. And how did he hand it to you--in a check or cash?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In cash.

Representative BOGGS. How much was it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a total of $1,462, I believe. We had 10 $100 bills one day, and the balance the following day. Now, as far as I know, Joe didn't put any of this money up personally, because I know it took him 2 days to collect it.

Representative BOGGS. Do you think you know where he got it from?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. I really don't know.

Representative BOGGS. He didn't tell you where he got it from?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; he didn't.

Representative BOGGS. But you are convinced in your own mind that it wasn't his money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; because he seemed to be--he didn't seem to be too solvent.

Representative BOGGS. Did you solicit him for this money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I didn't.

Representative BOGGS. Who did?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe--well, I believe Larrie did. I think the idea for the ad originated with Larrie and Joe.

Representative BOGGS. And Larrie solicited the money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I don't think so. I think it was Joe who originally broached the subject.

Representative BOGGS. How did you happen to end up with the money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was an expression of confidence, you might say, that Joe Grinnan had in me.

Representative BOGGS. Did you write the copy?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I helped.

Representative BOGGS. Who else?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie.

Representative BOGGS. So Joe Grinnan gave you the money, and you and Larrie wrote the copy?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We wrote the copy before that.

Representative BOGGS. And then you paid for it. What was this committee? Are you the chairman of that committee?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this is an ad hoc committee. I think we finally thought of the name--as a matter of fact, we decided on it the same morning I went down to place the original proof of the ad.

Representative BOGGS. What do you mean an ad hoc committee?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was formed strictly for the purpose of having a name to put in the paper.

Representative BOGGS. Did you have many of these ad hoc committees?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is the only one that I was involved in; that I know of.

Representative BOGGS. Were there others?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not that I know of.

Representative BOGGS. Did you ever ask Joe where this money came from?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; Joe was pretty secretive. I frankly didn't want to know. I was interested, but not that interested. And it didn't--it would have been a breach of etiquette to start questioning him, it seemed.

Representative BOGGS. Have you ever heard of H. R. Bright, independent oil operator?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Representative BOGGS. Did you ever hear of Edgar Crissey?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Representative BOGGS. Did you ever hear of Nelson Bunker Hunt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is H. L. Hunt's son. I knew that he had gotten it from three or four different people, because he told me he had to get $300 here and $400 there, but he did not say where.

Mr. JENNER. The "he" is Mr. Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Grinnan; right.

Representative BOGGS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DULLES. Did you suggest that this advertisement had been drafted before he collected the money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. And you used this advertisement as the basis for the collection of the money, or was it used for this purpose, as far as you know?

Mr. WEISSMAN. As far as I know; yes.

(At this point, Representative Boggs withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. May I see the ad for a moment? There are a few things I would like to point out in this.

Mr. JENNER. Give the exhibit number, please.

Mr. WEISSMAN. It is Exhibit No. 1031.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us the genesis of the advertisement, the black border, the context, the text, the part which Mr. Grinnan played, you played, and Mr. Schmidt played in drafting it, how it came about, what you did, in your own words. How the idea arose in the first place--and then just go forward.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, after the Stevenson incident, it was felt that a demonstration would be entirely out of order, because we didn't want anything to happen in the way of physical violence to President Kennedy when he came to Dallas. But we thought that the conservatives in Dallas--I was told--were a pretty downtrodden lot after that, because they were being oppressed by the local liberals, because of the Stevenson incident. We felt we had to do something to build up the morale of the conservative element, in Dallas. So we hit upon the idea of the ad.

Mr. JENNER. Would you please tell us who you mean?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Me and Larrie, Larrie and Joe, and then all of us together.

Mr. JENNER. All right.

Mr. WEISSMAN. And I originally--well, I took the copy of the ad to the Dallas Morning News.

Mr. JENNER. Please, sir--we wanted the genesis from the beginning. How it came about, who participated in drafting it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. About a week or so before placing the ad, Larrie and I got together at his house.

Mr. JENNER. The ad was placed when?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The first payment was made on the 19th or 20th of November.

Representative FORD. Was this after the announcement of the President's visit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Representative FORD. You knew that President Kennedy was to be in Dallas on November 22?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. A week before that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right; we had started working on the ad. Larrie and I got together. And I said, "What are we going to put in it?"; because I didn't have the vaguest idea. And Larrie brought out a list of questions, 50 questions, that were made up for some conservative--I think it might possibly have been one of Goldwater's aides had just listed 50 questions of chinks in our foreign policy, you might say, weak points. And we just picked some that we thought might apply to President Kennedy and his foreign policy. Because the 50 questions went back quite aways. And all of the questions except for two I had a part in saying okay to. The two that I had no part in was----

Mr. JENNER. Read them, please.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Was the 11th question----

Mr. JENNER. Are those questions numbered?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; but I will read it to you. It says "Why has the foreign policy of the United States degenerated to the point that the CIA is arranging coups and having stanch anti-Communist allies of the U.S. bloodily exterminated?"

This was handed in at the last minute by one of the contributors. He would not contribute.

Mr. JENNER. By whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I have no idea. But he would not contribute the money.

Mr. JENNER. Was this one of the men who gave money to Mr. Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; this is my understanding.

Mr. JENNER. And did Mr. Grinnan tell you this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he said "This has to go in."

Mr. JENNER. He said that to you in the presence of whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe Bill Burley was there, and Larrie Schmidt.

Mr. JENNER. Where was this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Joe Grinnan's office.

Mr. JENNER. In Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Dallas; yes.

Mr. JENNER. That is room 811 of the Wilson Building?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and I was against this particular question, because I frankly agreed with the coup. But it is a question of having all or nothing.

Another question that was put in here--I forget exactly when--which I wasn't in favor of, which we put in after the proof was submitted to Joe Grinnan for his approval, is "Why have you ordered or permitted your brother Bobby, the Attorney General, to go soft on Communists, fellow travelers, and ultra-leftists in America, while permitting him to criticize loyal Americans, who criticize you, your administration, and your leadership?"

Now, this struck me as being a States rights plea, and as far as our domestic policy goes, I am a pretty liberal guy. So I didn't agree with that.

Mr. JENNER. Who suggested that question?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't remember. I just remember that it came up--I didn't like it. But the fact was that it had to be in there.

Mr. JENNER. I would like to keep you on that for a moment. Was it a suggestion that had come from a contributor, or did it originate in your group?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I really don't recall.

Mr. JENNER. Or Mr. Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall if it originated with Larrie or Mr. Grinnan or with someone else. I really don't know.

Mr. JENNER. How old a man is Mr. Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I would say in his very early thirties.

Representative FORD. That suggestion, the last one, didn't come from you, however?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Which?

Representative FORD. The one you just read.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Oh, no.

Representative FORD. Because of your own liberal domestic philosophy?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. The only question in here that is entirely my own is the last one, and this is because I was pretty steamed up over the fiasco in Cuba and the lack of followup by the administration.

"Why have you scrapped the Monroe Doctrine in favor of the spirit of Moscow?" I will still stand by that question.

As far as the copy at the top of the letter, appearing before the questions, as far as I know, this was written by Larrie Schmidt. He showed it to me. I said, "It is a little rough, but if we are going to get our money's worth out of the ad, I guess it has to be."

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, may I stand over near the witness?

Representative FORD. Surely.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you.

When you say the copy at the top of the ad, does that include the banner, "Welcome, Mr. Kennedy, to Dallas."?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And you are referring to all that portion of the ad which is Commission Exhibit No. 1031, down to the first question?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. The idea of the black border was mine.

Mr. JENNER. Yes. I was going to ask you that. Why did you suggest the black border?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I saw a proof of the ad--drew a mockup, the advertising man at the newspaper office drew a mockup, and it was the sort of thing that you just turned the page and pass it by, unless you had something to bring it out. And I suggested a black border. He put a one-eighth inch black border around. I said try a little heavier one. He went to a quarter inch black border and I said, "That looks okay," and we had the black border.

Mr. JENNER. I take it from your present statement that you worked with a copywriter or advertising composer at the Dallas Morning News.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. His name was Dick Houston.

Mr. JENNER. How many editions did this ad run for the $1,463?

Mr. WEISSMAN. One edition. It came out on the evening edition, on the 21st, and the morning of the 22d.

Mr. JENNER. Just one paper?

Mr. WEISSMAN. One edition, one paper.

Mr. JENNER. That is only the Dallas Morning News?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. It was not in the other Dallas papers?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. The Times Herald?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No. We felt--we didn't even go to the Times Herald. We felt they would not even print it, because they are a very liberal paper, and we felt it would be a waste of time. We were convinced that the Morning News was conservative enough to print it. And they did.

Mr. JENNER. So the Dallas Morning News people were quite aware of the composition of the ad, and worked with you in putting it in final shape?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; as a matter of fact, I had asked to show it to a Mr. Gray, who was the head of the advertising department, and they said no, that wouldn't be necessary, they just have to submit it to a judge something or other, a retired judge who was their legal advisor, and who would look at the ad to see if there was anything libelous in it, so to speak, or anything that the Morning News could be sued for. And I assume they did this, because they didn't let me know right away whether or not they could print it.

When I came back that afternoon, or the following morning--I don't recall which--and they said everything was okay, that it would go.

Mr. DULLES. When you spoke of the head of the advertising department, that is the advertising department of the News?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Of the Dallas Morning News; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman, you have read two questions with which you disagreed.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You have read a question, which is the last in the advertisement.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Of which you are the author, and you said you would still stand by that particular one.

Mr. WEISSMAN. A hundred percent; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, are there any others with which you had a measure of disagreement, or any other which you now would not wish to support or, as you put it, stand back of?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There was one other that I thought was being a little rough on the President, but which I didn't particularly agree with a hundred percent.

Mr. JENNER. Identify it, please.

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was in the question that read, "Why has Gus Hall, head of the U.S. Communist Party, praised almost every one of your policies and announced that the party will endorse and support your reelection in 1964?

I personally thought that the selection of this particular question tended to put President Kennedy in a light where he is voluntarily accepting this support--in other words, sort of calling him a Communist, which I felt he was not. And, at the same time, though, I had a reservation about making a big furor over it, because of the fact, if nothing else, if the President did read it, he might realize something, and he just might do something about it, in foresaking the support. So I let it go at that.

Mr. DULLES. When you spoke, then, of selection from a list--was that the list to which you referred before, which I believe you said came from the Birch Society?

Mr. JENNER. A list of 50 questions.

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; as far as I know it didn't come from the Birch Society. It was just some political material that Larrie had collected rafts of--he had books and folders. It was something he pulled out and said, "Maybe we can use this." And we went through the 50 questions. We were in a hurry, and this seemed to be the easiest way out, as far as getting some text, some composition for the ad.

Representative FORD. So the final selection rested with Larrie, Mr. Grinnan, and yourself, with the exception of this one contributor who insisted on one?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, let's put it like this. I signed my name to the ad. But you might say the final selection rested with the contributors. I had to go along with them, because if I said I won't go along with it, or I won't sign my name, there would have been an ad anyway--the ad would have been printed anyway. Larrie would have put his name to it.

Now, let me tell you this. It will be a very short story.

Bill and I had decided about a week after we got to Dallas that Larrie was full of hooey, that we could not go along with this guy.

Representative FORD. What do you mean by that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, everything he is doing he is doing for himself, and if we happen to fit in, it was fine. And he was getting an awful lot of recognition and publicity. We felt if this guy got any stronger, he would be able to move us out, or control us. So when the idea for the ad came up I said, "Okay, I will put my name to it," because I felt any recognition that came would then be in my favor, and if we took advantage of this, and because these organizations would have to back me personally as representing them, I could then denounce the anti-Semitism, the anti-Catholic, anti-Negro, and they would have to back me up, or else I would just tell the whole story about this thing. And I felt that this was going to be my move to get back to the original philosophy of a completely democratic type of organization.

And I had discussed--Bill and I, I might say, were a partnership unto ourselves. We had decided one way or the other we were either going to get out of Dallas or run the thing ourselves, because we didn't like the way it was going.

Mr. DULLES. Did Larrie object to your being the one to sign the advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; in fact, Larrie was sort of afraid to sign it, because when he came out and said he was part of the Stevenson demonstration, his life had been threatened, and he had all sorts of harrassing phone calls and so on. And he wanted to avoid this. But if it was a question of printing an ad or not printing it, he would have signed it.

Representative FORD. But as far as any organization of any kind being responsible for this ad, it was not true. There was no organization that backed this ad? There were four or five of you that really promoted it and finally raised the money for it and put it in the newspaper?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is not quite accurate. You might say when you get right down to it, in the final tale, the John Birch Society printed that ad, not CUSA.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us why, now. Please expand on that.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, in order to get anywhere in Dallas, at least in the area of conservative politics that we were in, you had to, you might say, cotton to the John Birch Society, because they were a pretty strong group, and still are, down there. And----

Mr. JENNER. Who is the head of that now?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The Birch Society?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I never met the fellow. They had a paid coordinator. I don't recall his name offhand. But, anyway----

Mr. JENNER. Were you in his offices?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; Joe Grinnan, as a matter of fact, is the only man in the hierarchy of the Birch Society in Dallas that I met.

Larrie was a member of the JBS, and Bill and I didn't like it, but we saw that he was out for himself as much as anything, and this was a way to help himself along anyway, both politically and financially. And he convinced us of the method to his madness. But as I said we wanted to move Larrie out when we found he was more JBS than he was CUSA, and he was willing to go along with them completely, and forget about the CUSA goals.

Representative FORD. Your allegiance was to CUSA?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. In other words, I would have used the John Birch Society as a vehicle, as planned. But I would never have gone up on a soapbox to support them.

Mr. DULLES. Who were the members of the American Fact-Finding Committee, if any?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, the members would be myself, Bill Burley, Larrie Schmidt, Joe Grinnan--just the people immediately involved.

Mr. JENNER. That was a name and solely a name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Solely a name.

Mr. JENNER. There was no such organization?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. And you used it for convenience on this advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. As a matter of fact, when I went to place the ad, I could not remember the name. I had it written down on a piece of paper. I had to refer to a piece of paper for the name.

Mr. JENNER. Had you ever used that name before?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did your group ever use it thereafter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not as far as I know.

Mr. JENNER. Have you now named all of the people who played any part in, to the best of your recollection--in the idea for the publication of, the actual drafting of the ad, and its ultimate running in that edition of the Dallas Morning News?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There is only one other individual that I could name. He was there at the reading of the final proof, before the ad was printed. That was Joe Grinnan's brother, Robert P. Grinnan.

Mr. JENNER. Is he an older or younger brother?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe he is an older brother.

Mr. JENNER. What business is he engaged in?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Oil and real estate.

Mr. DULLES. Who took out the post office box 1792, Dallas 21, Tex., that appears under your name here on this advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Bill, Larrie, and I went to the post office together. I signed for the box.

Representative FORD. Do you recall the date?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was the same--the morning--the same morning I originally went to get the ad laid out at the Morning News.

Representative FORD. Has it been discontinued?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The box? Yes; I received a communication from Larrie. He said the box time had run out. They had extended it for 3 months after that, and then it was--as far as I know, it is nonexistent now.

Senator COOPER. May I ask this question: Would you state now to this Commission the idea of printing this ad was conceived by you and Larry Jones--what is the other's name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt.

Senator COOPER. Alone, and there was no stimulation from any outside group or organization. Do you state that under oath?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There was stimulation.

Senator COOPER. From whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I assume from the Birch Society. In other words, I think the idea for the ad, for the something to do on the occasion of President Kennedy's visit--I think the idea for the something to do came from the Birch Society--whether Mr. Joe Grinnan or someone else, I don't know.

Senator COOPER. Was it communicated as an idea to you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie communicated the idea to me, said what do you think. I said, why not?

Senator COOPER. Which one of this group did the idea come to?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know.

Senator COOPER. It didn't come to you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; it didn't come to me personally originally, no.

Mr. DULLES. What is the basis of your evidence of saying this was the Birch Society? How did you know that? Where did you get that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, it came to a point where everything we were doing we had to go talk to Joe--big brother. And that is just the way it worked out.

Mr. JENNER. This is Joe Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. They were getting a grip on us, and Bill and I felt that we had to bust this grip somehow.

Mr. DULLES. Was he prominent in the Birch Society?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he was known.

Mr. DULLES. Joe Grinnan?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he was known as a coordinator.

Representative FORD. This one question that was inserted at the insistence of one of the contributors, which reads as follows: "Why has the foreign policy of the United States degenerated to the point the C.I.A. is arranging coups and having staunch anti-Communist allies of the U.S. bloodily exterminated"--to what does that refer? Do you have any specific information?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I know it specifically refers to the Vietnam thing, with the overthrow of Diem, and the subsequent murder of the Diem people.

Representative FORD. Was that said to you at the time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was not said to me at the time. But I had mentioned it various times, and this was definitely, as far as I am concerned--this was definitely the reason for placing that. As a matter of fact, this had occurred not too long after that, I believe.

Mr. DULLES. Who was it that insisted on the insertion of that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, Joe Grinnan handed me this piece of paper. It was written on a piece of scrap paper. I could hardly decipher it, myself. And he said, "This has to be in. Go back and have them change the ad."

So I had to run back to the Morning News, with this other insertion. This is just the way it happened.

(At this point, Senator Cooper withdrew from the hearing room.)

Representative FORD. I understand that you made a downpayment on the ad.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Representative FORD. And then went back and paid the rest in full?

Mr. WEISSMAN. A thousand dollars the first day, and $400-odd on the second day.

Mr. DULLES. Were both payments made before publication?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Dulles called attention to the post office box number.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That stimulates me to ask you this: Did you receive any responses to the advertisement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Oh, did I? Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Now, tell us about that and also, before you start, do you have any of those responses?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not with me. All that I received I have at home.

Mr. JENNER. And indicate to us the volume that you have at home.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I have approximately 50 or 60 letters; about one-third of which were favorable, and the rest, two-thirds, unfavorable. The favorable responses, all but one came before--they were postmarked, the envelopes were postmarked before the President was assassinated. And the threatening letters and the nasty letters came afterward.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive any contributions?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I still have a check to the American Fact-Finding Committee in the amount of $20. Since we never opened a bank account, I just sort of kept the check as a souvenir. There was one $2 contribution----

Mr. JENNER. Cash?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right--from a retired train engineer, or something.

Mr. JENNER. And that is----

Mr. WEISSMAN. For the Wabash Railroad.

Mr. JENNER. Were those the only contributions?

Mr. WEISSMAN. To my knowledge; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. At least that you know anything about?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. In all the letters I received the first time we went to the box. I only went to the box once, that was, I believe, the Sunday morning following the assassination.

Mr. JENNER. The 25th of November?

Mr. WEISSMAN. About; yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Did anybody have the key to the box in addition to yourself?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Up to that point, only I had the key. After that, I left Dallas on Wednesday, I believe----

Mr. JENNER. I misspoke--it was the 24th of November rather than the 25th.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I left Dallas on the following Wednesday. And at that time I didn't see Larrie personally--he couldn't get to the apartment that Bill and I were staying at for some reason or another. And I left all the dishes and things he had given us to use while we were there, and in one of these dishes I left the key to the box.

Since that time, communications I received from Larrie, he says the tenor of the letters had changed, they are more favorable than unfavorable in the ensuing weeks and months. Of these letters--he sent me one that called me all sorts of names, a lot of anti-Semitic remarks, and he sent another, and he gave excerpts in one of his personal letters, of letters that he received in support of the position of the ad.

Mr. DULLES. Do I understand that you got all the letters that came in up to Wednesday after the assassination, and that your associates have the rest, or Larrie, I presume, has the rest?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know who has the rest. I don't know if it is Larrie or Joe.

Mr. DULLES. Larrie had the key.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. I left him the key--I left him access to the key. I received the letters written during the 2 days following the assassination--the Friday afternoon and Saturday following the assassination--because I picked the mail up the following Sunday morning.

Mr. JENNER. Having in mind all your testimony up to the moment, I would like to take you back to the telephone conversation that you had with Larrie Schmidt, in which he made the reference to Stevenson, following which, that is following this conversation, you eventually came to Dallas.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And this conversation, as I recall it, the telephone call, was in the month of October 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. It was the evening of the Stevenson demonstration. According to the letter I think it was the 24th of October.

(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. Now, one of the members of the Commission is interested in having you repeat that conversation in full, to the best of your recollection.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Since it is recollection, it is going to change somewhat in words, but in tenor it will be the same.

Mr. JENNER. You do your best.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie called me on the telephone and he was very excited, and he had described what had transpired in Dallas----

Mr. JENNER. Tell us what he said, please. That is what we are interested in.

Mr. WEISSMAN. He just said----

Mr. JENNER. And his part in it, if any.

Mr. WEISSMAN. He said that he had helped organize this demonstration and it went off beautifully, there is going to be national publicity, the newspapers were all over the place, he had given statements to the news media, to the television. He said he was on TV and radio, and had given out statements, and that he was--it seemed that he was going to be heading for, not trouble, but a good deal of difficulty because it seems that he was the only one that came out as one of the organizers of the demonstration, who openly came out and said so.

Mr. JENNER. And identified himself with the demonstration?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. He said he had--what did he say--something to the effect that he had a bunch of his people down there, the University of Dallas students.

Mr. JENNER. Did he identify them as students?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. I met the students several weeks later when I got to Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. The students he had employed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That had participated in the demonstration; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did he describe what the demonstration was insofar as his part and his group's part in it was?

(At this point, Mr. Dulles reentered the hearing room.)

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, just to the effect they had picketed and carried signs and made some noises inside the auditorium. Not he and his group, but that the picketers had raised quite a hullabaloo inside the auditorium.

Mr. JENNER. Were they his picketers?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know. This he didn't specify. I had assumed----

Mr. JENNER. What impression did you get in that respect?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I had assumed his picketers were part of it.

(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. You were repeating to the best of your recollection that telephone conversation.

Mr. WEISSMAN. The gist of the conversation; yes.

Mr. JENNER. As best you are able to recall.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. I really cannot swear to its 100 percent accuracy, but I would say it is 75 percent accurate anyway.

Mr. JENNER. Have you now exhausted your recollection as to all that was said, in substance?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In substance; yes.

Mr. JENNER. In the course of that conversation.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I take it he urged you to come to Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He did.

Mr. JENNER. That this Stevenson incident had stimulated things to the point that CUSA--you members of CUSA should come to Dallas, and everything was ripe?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He said we can pick up the ball and start running.

Mr. JENNER. Now, you and Mr. Burley then went to Dallas, did you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. We left on the 2d of November.

Mr. JENNER. And that would have been following the receipt of the letter of October 29, which we have identified as----

Mr. WEISSMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 1032.

Mr. JENNER. How did you get there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I drove in my car.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. Burley accompany you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you stop off anywhere on the way?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We stopped at his mother's house in South Carolina for about 4 or 5 hours.

Mr. JENNER. And when you reached Dallas, did you find a room, or what did you do?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That night we stayed at Larrie's house. We got there about 5 o'clock in the afternoon.

Mr. JENNER. Where does he live?

Mr. WEISSMAN. At that time he was living at the Eden Roc Apartments, in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Is he a married man?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He was.

Mr. JENNER. I take it he was separated from his wife at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No, no. He has been divorced since.

Mr. JENNER. But he was living with his wife at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By the way, is Mr. Burley a married man, also?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I spoke with him just the other day. His divorce will be final in about 6 weeks, he thinks.

Mr. JENNER. He was married at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; separated.

Mr. JENNER. Where was his wife living?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In West Virginia, I believe.

Mr. JENNER. He had a family, did he not, several children?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Four or five children.

Mr. JENNER. You stayed with him at the Eden Roc Apartments?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. That is, with Mr. Schmidt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And then you and Mr. Burley arranged a room somewhere, did you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We rented an apartment. I think we stayed with Larrie for 2 days, 2 or 3 days. Then we rented an apartment in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Where was that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall the address offhand.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, approximately where are we now, as a matter of time in this period?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is----

Mr. JENNER. That you rented the apartment.

Mr. WEISSMAN. About the middle of the first week after we arrived in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Which should be approximately what date?

Mr. WEISSMAN. About the 7th or so of November.

Mr. JENNER. What did you do thereafter in the way of furthering the business of CUSA?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, we were thinking of buying a fourplex, a four-family apartment house.

Mr. JENNER. Where were you going to get the money?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We could have gotten a loan, we hoped, with no downpayment, because of the fact we are GI's, through the FHA, or VA, and we were counting on that. So we were looking around. We had also planned to take over a private club, manage a private club, with an option to buy it.

Mr. JENNER. What club was that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That was the Ducharme Club.

Mr. JENNER. That was in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Dallas; yes.

Mr. JENNER. Where did you become acquainted with that possible business opportunity?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, this had been broached by Larrie. This was one of the big disappointments. We had been promised by Larrie we wouldn't have any trouble making a living, that he had jobs and everything set up for us. That is one of the reasons I chucked my job in New York. I figured we would be able to survive down there.

We got to the Ducharme Club, after a day or two, and it was a miserable hole in the wall that you could not really do anything with. But we were still dickering with the owner on the potentials.

Mr. DULLES. What did this club purport to do?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a private club. They sold liquor and beer over the bar to members.

Mr. DULLES. Entertainment?

Mr. WEISSMAN. They had a dance floor and jukebox.

Mr. JENNER. Who--do you recall the names of any of the people interested in the Ducharme Club?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The owners?

Mr. JENNER. Yes.

Mr. WEISSMAN. The only one I know of is Leon Ducharme, the owner.

Mr. JENNER. Did Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein have any interest in this club?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; not as far as I know.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever meet Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted with the Carousel Club when you were in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I was never in it, and I still don't know where it is.

Mr. JENNER. You were never in it; you don't know where it is. Did you hear of it when you were there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never. As a matter of fact, in the entire 3-1/2 weeks or so that Bill and I were in Dallas, we didn't go to the movies at all. The only two clubs that I can recall that we went into was the Lavender Lounge----

Mr. JENNER. Where is that located?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Where?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall the street.

Mr. JENNER. It is downtown, is it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; it is not downtown. This is--it was about two blocks from our apartment. And it is about, I guess, a good 30-minute walk to downtown from there. And the only other club would be the Ducharme Club.

Mr. JENNER. Where was that located?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That was on Haskell Avenue, in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. How far from the downtown area, if at all?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, to make it conveniently, you should take a bus. Otherwise, about a 20-minute walk.

Mr. JENNER. From the Ducharme Club to the downtown area of Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir; and the reason we went to the Ducharme Club after the fact we decided we were not going to take it, was that that was a place we could get credit for beer. Larrie had a charge account there. And that was the extent of our association with that place.

Mr. JENNER. Now----

Mr. WEISSMAN. Now, in the Lavender Lounge, the reason we went there, is we were dickering with the owners of the Lavender Lounge----

Mr. JENNER. Name him.

Mr. WEISSMAN. L. S. Brotherton. We wanted to lease a club that he had that was closed down, called the Beachcomber, in a suburb of Dallas. And we had been in there several times and had talked to him about leasing this. In other words, we were looking for something that would give us an income so we could operate a little bit. And that never worked out. He wanted too much money, and we didn't have it.

Mr. JENNER. In any of these negotiations that were carried on by you or your associates, was the name Jack Ruby ever mentioned as having any possible interest whatsoever in any of those groups?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear of the name Jack Ruby or Jack Rubenstein up to--at anytime prior to November 24, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; never.

Mr. JENNER. And do you have any information or any knowledge or any notion or feeling that Larrie Schmidt or any of your associates knew of or had any association with Jack Ruby or otherwise known as Jack Rubenstein?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think I can state pretty emphatically no.

Mr. JENNER. Were there any communications of any kind or character, written notes, telephone calls, or otherwise, that you know about or knew about then to or from Jack Ruby?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first hear of the name Jack Ruby?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think he shot Oswald some time in the afternoon or the morning--since Bill and I had neither a radio or TV in the apartment--we were in the apartment all day.

Mr. JENNER. All day that Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; we had heard about it that night.

Mr. JENNER. That is the 24th of November 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. If that is when Oswald was shot.

Mr. JENNER. And you first became aware of Oswald being shot the night or evening of the 24th?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. That Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. I don't recall exactly how. I think Larrie telephoned us, and told us that.

Mr. JENNER. This is the first time we have mentioned the name Oswald. Had you ever heard the name Lee Harvey Oswald prior to your going to Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you hear of the name Lee Harvey Oswald at any time prior to November 22, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Was the name ever mentioned in your presence?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. I take it from what you have said that you did not know a man by the name of Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first hear the name Lee Harvey Oswald?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We were sitting in a bar, right after President Kennedy's assassination.

Mr. JENNER. This was the 22d of November 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was Bill Burley, myself, and Larrie. We had made--we were to meet Larrie and Joe Grinnan at the Ducharme Club.

Mr. JENNER. For what meal?

Mr. WEISSMAN. For luncheon. We were supposed to meet him at 12:30 or 1 o'clock, I forget which--about 1 o'clock. And I had a 12:30 on the button, as a matter of fact--I had an appointment to sell a carpet out in the Garland section of Texas--it was a 2:30 appointment. And I was in a hurry to get to meet Larrie and finish the lunch, and whatever business they wanted to talk about I didn't know. So I looked at my watch. I remember specifically it was 12:30, because at that time Bill had been driving my car. He had quit the carpet company and was looking for another job. He had looked at a franchise arrangement for insecticides. He picked me up. He was waiting for me from 10 after 12 to 12:30. We got into the car. I am a great news bug. So I turned the radio on, looking for a news station. And they had--at that time, as I turned the radio on, the announcer said, "There has been a rumor that President Kennedy has been shot." So we didn't believe it. It was just a little too far out to believe.

And after several minutes, it began to take on some substance about the President's sedan speeding away, somebody hearing shots and people laying on the ground. In other words, the way the reporters were covering it. I don't recall exactly what they said. And, at this time--we were going to go to the Ducharme Club through downtown Dallas. We were heading for the area about two blocks adjacent to the Houston Street viaduct. And then we heard about the police pulling all sorts of people--somebody said they saw somebody and gave a description. And the police were pulling people off the street and so forth. So Bill and I didn't want to get involved in this. So we took a roundabout route. We got lost for a while. Anyway, we finally wound up at the other side of Dallas, and we were at the Ducharme Club.

Mr. JENNER. When you arrived there, was Mr. Schmidt there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He was waiting for me. But Joe Grinnan wasn't there. He had heard this thing and took off. I guess he wanted to hide or something.

Mr. JENNER. Why?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, because the way it was right away, the announcers, even before it was ascertained that President Kennedy was dead, or that he had really been shot, that it was a rightwing plot and so forth. And he had every reason to be frightened.

Mr. JENNER. Why did he have every reason to be frightened?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Because, let's face it, the public feeling would suddenly be very antirightwing, and no telling what would happen if a mob got together and discovered him. They would tear him apart.

Bill and I were frightened to the point because I knew about the ad. And I knew exactly what--at least I felt in my own mind I knew what people would believe. They would read the ad and so forth, and associate you with this thing, somehow, one way or another. So we went to another bar--I don't remember the name of it--the Ducharme Club was closed, by the way, that afternoon.

Mr. JENNER. When you reached the Ducharme Club, it was closed, but you found Mr. Schmidt there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie was waiting on the corner. He got in the car. We sat and talked for a few minutes. We went to another bar a few blocks away. We drank beer and watched television. And we had been in the bar, I guess, about an hour when it come over that this patrolman Tippit had been shot, and they trapped some guy in a movie theater. And maybe half an hour, an hour later, it came out this fellow's name was Lee Harvey Oswald. This is the first time I ever heard the name.

Mr. JENNER. What was said at that time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. By us?

Mr. JENNER. Yes. When it was announced it was Lee Harvey Oswald.

Mr. WEISSMAN. We were relieved.

Mr. JENNER. Anything said about it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. First, what was said, like, I hope he is not a member of the Walker group--something like that--I hope he is not one of Walker's boys. Because it is like a clique, and it is guilt by association from thereafter. So it came over later this guy was a Marxist. This was the same afternoon, I believe. It was found out this fellow was a Marxist. And then the announcers--they left the rightwing for a little while, and started going to the left, and I breathed a sigh of relief. After 4 hours in the bar, Bill and I went back to the apartment, and Larrie went to the Ducharme Club. He was afraid to go home.

Mr. JENNER. I thought the Ducharme Club was closed.

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was open at that time. We drove by. It was open. Larrie went in. We dropped him off there. And Bill and I went back to our apartment. We just waited. We knew we were going to get involved in this thing because of the ad. And we figured that if anybody at all in Dallas was on the ball, they know who we were and where we were. So we waited. Nothing happened. We waited there until we left. We barely left that house. As a matter of fact----

Mr. JENNER. You remained in the house all that evening, did you--the apartment?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think the--yes; late that evening Larrie came home.

Mr. DULLES. That is Friday evening, November 22?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I think Larrie went home late that evening, and Bill and I met him there.

Mr. JENNER. You went to Larrie's home?

Mr. WEISSMAN. To Larrie's apartment; yes. And I said what are we going to do? And Larrie said, "Well"--he had talked to Joe Grinnan, and Joe said don't say anything, don't do anything, don't get any more involved than you have to, lay low, keep out of it, it is going to be pretty bad. And it was. Thereafter, a day or so later--

Mr. JENNER. What did you mean by that--it is going to be pretty bad?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In other words--this is just exactly the way it worked out. For example----

Mr. JENNER. You are now explaining what you mean by "and it was"?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right. Stanley Marcus, who was a Dallas businessman, financier----

Mr. JENNER. Nieman Marcus?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Of the Nieman Marcus group, yes, and he was a well-known and rather very rabid liberal. And sure enough, even though the following day it was then established that Oswald was a Marxist and so forth, and there was some question as to whether or not it was a Communist plot, pros and cons, and Marcus put his 2 cents in in the Dallas Times Herald, and he starts blaming the rightwing for the trouble. And I was told--I didn't see this----

Mr. JENNER. This was on the 23d now?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was on the following day; yes, sir. And, in other words, he and friends of his, I guess, did everything they could to solidify their position as being always in the right, and throw the blame, even though Oswald is obviously a Marxist--they tried to transfer the blame to the rightwing. They had us on the run and they were going to keep it that way.

Mr. JENNER. How did this come to your attention?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Just by reading the newspapers.

Mr. JENNER. The Dallas Times Herald and the Dallas Morning News?

Mr. WEISSMAN. There was very little in the Morning News about the rightwing, that was antirightwing, and the Dallas Times Herald was full of it.

Mr. JENNER. Would you please delineate what you mean by "us" who were on the run?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I mean any conservative in Dallas at that time was keeping quiet.

Mr. JENNER. Including yourself and the other men you mentioned?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Including myself and everybody I was associated with; yes, sir. And a day or so after that, I think it was Sunday or Monday, I had suggested to Larrie, and I spoke to Joe Grinnan on the phone, that maybe I should call the FBI and give them the story on this ad.

And he said, "Now, look, if they want you, they will find you. They know where you are, probably. So if they want you, they will find you." So I waited. And several times I was going to make that phone call, and I did not. Then finally we just ran out of money.

Mr. JENNER. You are probably a few days beyond the 23d now?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right; I am. I am going now--everything was rather stable, static up until the Wednesday, the following Wednesday, when I left Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. I want to complete your whole day of the 23d before you move beyond that. Did you or Bill leave your apartment on the 23d?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; we were over at Larrie's house. I don't remember exactly the times. We had been to Larrie's place several times.

Mr. JENNER. Were you in the Dallas downtown business district at anytime on the 23d?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't think so--no--no, as a matter of fact. In fact, I didn't get around to the business district until--yes. We went into the outer edge of the downtown area to get to the post office, to pick up the letters.

Mr. JENNER. That is right. On the 23d you went to the post office box and picked up the 60-odd letters that you have at home in New York.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right. And then we went directly back to the apartment, and opened these letters.

Mr. JENNER. That is all you did in the downtown area?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; so far as I can recollect.

Mr. JENNER. Approximately what time of the day was that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That was in the morning. That was early in the morning--about 8 or 9 o'clock, I guess, in the morning.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive any telephone calls at your apartment that day?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I received--Larrie called us, I know. I don't recall what was said. It was just like, "What is happening--everything okay?"

On Monday I received a letter----

Mr. JENNER. Excuse me. Have we now accounted from the time you got up Saturday morning until the time you went to bed that evening?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't recall. Bill and I might have gone out for a hamburger a couple of blocks away. We didn't go anywhere near downtown. We might have gone to Larrie's apartment that night. I am not sure.

Mr. JENNER. The 22d--we picked you up in your car with Mr. Burley around 12:30. Now, what happened that morning?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That morning?

Mr. JENNER. Yes--the 22d. Where were you the morning of the 22d, up to 12:30 o'clock in the afternoon?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Let's see. I left the apartment at about--I guess it was a little after 9. We had a 10 or 10:30 sales meeting scheduled, or 9:30. Anyway, I got there on time for the sales meeting.

Mr. JENNER. That was the carpet company by which you were employed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. Name it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Carpet Engineers.

Mr. JENNER. And you had obtained that job when?

Mr. WEISSMAN. About a week after arriving in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. And that was located where?

Mr. WEISSMAN. 1002 South Beckley, in the Oak Cliff section of Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. In the Oak Cliff section?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. On Beckley?

Mr. WEISSMAN. On Beckley.

Mr. JENNER. What was the address?

Mr. WEISSMAN. 1002. I know what you are getting at. Oswald also had a room on Beckley, but he was on the opposite extreme. I think he was on North Beckley. I was on South Beckley.

Mr. JENNER. Give us the distance approximately between the location of the carpet company by which you were employed which is on South Beckley, and Oswald's address on North Beckley.

Mr. WEISSMAN. At least a few miles. I don't know. I had never been on North Beckley.

Mr. JENNER. At no time while you were in Dallas were you ever on North Beckley?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not as far as I know, unless I got lost and didn't know where I was. But as far as I know, I have never been there.

Mr. JENNER. And you were a salesman of carpeting?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever sell any carpeting?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not a one.

Mr. JENNER. Did you make any effort?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I made a lot of effort. This is where most of my money went--for gas and things like that.

Mr. JENNER. Your associate, Mr. Burley, was he a salesman for this company also?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He quit about 2 weeks--about several days before the 22d. And he was looking--of course, one of us had to make money. We both were blanking out with the carpets.

Mr. JENNER. I take it, however, he had been employed by the same carpet company?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You made application together, did you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you were both employed at approximately the same time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. But he left the carpet company before you did?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. And I understand you attended a sales meeting at the carpet company the morning of the 22d.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. When did that sales meeting break up?

Mr. WEISSMAN. 12:30 for me. It was still going when I left. I left at 12:30 because I had this afternoon appointment, and also this meeting with Larrie. I had talked to the sales manager after that. I had----

Mr. JENNER. What was his name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Frank Demaria. And I had asked him if he had been questioned at all by the FBI. He said yes, they had been around. And I said, "What did you tell them?" And he mentioned at that time, he says, "We thought you had left about 12 o'clock." And I said, "What are you trying to do?"

And, anyway, this is the way it went. But I know I left at 12:30. They were embroiled in a big discussion, and they were not cognizant of the time. I was.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, would you tell us what you did on the 24th?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Went to pick up the mail in the morning, went back to the apartment.

Mr. JENNER. You picked up mail in the morning on Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right, the post office was open Sunday morning.

Mr. JENNER. You went to the post office on the 23d, which is Saturday, and you also returned----

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I didn't go to the post office on Saturday the 23d.

Mr. JENNER. I misunderstood you, then.

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I am almost positive it was Sunday morning. I know it wasn't Saturday. I am positive--almost positive it was Sunday morning.

Mr. DULLES. That is when you picked up the 50-odd letters you referred to?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. It was the day that you heard that Ruby had shot Oswald, was it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am getting a little confused now. I think I might be 1 day----

Mr. JENNER. See if we can orient you. The assassination of the President occurred on the 22d of November 1963, which is a Friday.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Then there was Saturday. Then on Sunday the 24th occurred the shooting of Lee Harvey Oswald by Jack Ruby.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Now, with those events in mind, when did you go to the post office box?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, now, I know it was not Monday. Now, I am back in perspective. I am almost definitely sure it was Sunday morning.

Mr. JENNER. You said earlier that it was Saturday. You said it was the day after the ad appeared, that night, and you went the next day.

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; couldn't have.

Mr. JENNER. That was an error?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That was an error; yes. It was Sunday.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, on further reflection, your recollection is reasonably firm now that you did go to the post office box on Sunday rather than Saturday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am almost positive it was Sunday morning.

Mr. JENNER. You are equally positive it was not Monday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It might either be--I remembered there was an awful lot of traffic. And I don't know if the traffic was because everybody was driving through downtown to go around the Houston viaduct to see the scene of the assassination or what. And this is what is confusing me now. That is why I am not sure if it was Sunday morning--it might have been Monday morning. I doubt it. But it might have been.

Mr. JENNER. But it was early?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Around 8 o'clock?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Eight, nine o'clock; yes.

Mr. JENNER. I was asking you to account for your comings and goings and your whereabouts on Sunday the 24th. And in the course of doing that, in referring to the morning, you mentioned that you had gone to the post office box. Now, what did you do thereafter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Went right back to the apartment.

Mr. JENNER. Did Mr. Burley accompany you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and another fellow. Ken--Kenneth Glazbrook.

Mr. JENNER. Who is he?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is a fellow associated with CUSA, but never really. He came in, as a matter of fact--yes; I had forgotten about him. President Kennedy was assassinated on a Friday. Ken Glazbrook arrived in town by bus on Friday night. We went down to the bus station to pick him up.

Mr. JENNER. You knew he was coming?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes. He----

Mr. JENNER. Please identify him.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Ken Glazbrook.

Mr. JENNER. Yes; who was he?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Ken is what you might call a world traveler. This is a guy--he is a political science--he has a masters in political science from UCLA, I believe. And we had hoped to bring him in as our political analyst.

Mr. JENNER. Had you met him in the service?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Germany; yes. Larrie met him at one time originally. Ken was passing through Munich, and he had stopped off at our favorite bar, and gotten into a discussion with Larrie. And he had been through Munich after that two or three times, at one occasion which I met him. And he had also said, "I will meet you in Dallas."

But he came and he went. He stayed with Bill and I for a couple of days at our apartment, because he was on his way home to California. From what I understand now, he is back in Europe. He could not take it here.

Mr. JENNER. I am still accounting for Sunday. You went to the post office box, you think. You went to the bus station to pick up----

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am not sure whether this was--I am pretty sure it was Friday night we picked him up at the bus station. It might have been Saturday night. But I am more sure in my mind--my inclination goes more toward Friday night.

Mr. JENNER. You saw him on Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Ken?

Mr. JENNER. Did you see this man on Sunday?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He was in the apartment with us.

Mr. JENNER. He came to stay with you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he brought a pitcher and a knapsack.

Mr. JENNER. Did he go down to the post office box with you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And he returned to your apartment?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did you do then?

Mr. WEISSMAN. We went through the letters. We were going pro and con, and reading them. We were very pleased at first because a lot of it was favorable, and then we got to the later postmarks, and those were terrible. We just discussed the letters for a while. And a girl came over. What was her name? Lynn something--I don't know her last name. And she sat around and talked for a while. We discussed the letters with her. Then Larrie came over that afternoon also. He was wearing a turtle-neck sweater. And we stayed around for a few hours. Then Larrie and Lynn took off to the Ducharme Club. And thereafter I don't know what happened to them. I did not hear from them at all. And--that is about it for Sunday.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first hear about the Ruby-Oswald incident?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think Larrie called me up. Yes, he was watching television at the Ducharme Club, I believe. I believe this was the occasion. I think he was with Lynn. And he telephoned me at the apartment. And that was the story.

Mr. JENNER. You have testified you were never in the Carousel Club.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. What if any acquaintance did you have with Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None.

Mr. JENNER. What if any acquaintance did any of your associates have to your knowledge with Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Absolutely none.

Mr. JENNER. Had you ever heard of the name Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Up to or any time during the day of November 22, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None at all. The first I ever heard of this name was after Oswald shot him, and it came over the TV, that a policeman had been shot near a movie theater. That was the first I had heard that name.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know whether any of your associates, Schmidt or Burley or Jones, or any persons you have mentioned, knew Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. To the best of my knowledge, no.

Mr. JENNER. Did anything occur during all the time you were in Dallas to lead you to believe any of these people, including Mr. Grinnan, for example, had had any connection with or association or knowledge of or acquaintance with Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not as far as I know. I don't know too much about Joe Grinnan.

Mr. JENNER. Did you at anytime while you were in Dallas ever have a meeting with or sit in the Carousel Club with Officer Tippit?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Do you know or do you have any information as to whether any of the associates you have mentioned ever had a meeting with Officer Tippit in the Carousel Club?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. Or whether or not, irrespective of whether it was a formal meeting or even an informal one, that they were with Officer Tippit at anytime in the Carousel Club.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Absolutely not.

Mr. JENNER. And you were never in the Carousel Club at all; and you never were with Officer Tippit.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. Any place.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Any place.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman, it has been asserted that a meeting took place on November 14, 1963, in the Carousel Club between Officer Tippit and yourself--and I take it from your testimony that you vigorously deny that that ever took place.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Very definitely. May I say something in relation to this?

Mr. JENNER. Is it pertinent to this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe so. I believe that this is a statement made by Mark Lane, who claimed to be attorney for the deceased Oswald. It was originally made at the Town Hall in New York, and later that same evening, I do not recall the date exactly, on a radio program Contact WINS New York, at about midnight of that same day.

At that time I telephoned the radio station and spoke to Mark Lane. This is the first I had heard of the allegation at all.

Mr. JENNER. You telephoned the radio station?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Right.

Mr. JENNER. And you asked for Mr. Lane.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Did the man for whom you asked come to the phone?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; he did.

Mr. JENNER. Had you known Mr. Lane prior to this time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never heard of him before.

Mr. JENNER. You had never spoken to him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ask--when there was an answer on the phone, did you ask who it was that was on the phone?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I said something to the effect of "Hello, Mr. Lane?"

Mr. JENNER. What did the voice on the other end of the phone say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He said yes--yes something.

Mr. JENNER. Did you identify yourself?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Did you identify yourself before or after you asked whether the voice was that of Mr. Lane?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I identified myself--I called the radio station and it was a telephone thing that was broadcast over the air, question and answer--you telephone in a question and he answers. So I telephoned, and just by luck I happened to get through on the first ring. And somebody said, "Who is calling?" I said, "I would like to speak with Mr. Lane. This is Bernard Weissman calling, chairman of the American Fact-Finding Committee." And so I got him on the phone, because they could not pass this up. And I told him, I identified him that "You are the attorney for the assassin Oswald"--this is just what I said to him.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. And he said--he murmured in agreement. He did not say emphatically "Yes; I am." But he said, "Um-hum," something to that effect. And I said, "I know what you are trying to do. I think you are hunting for headlines. But you had been talking to some liar in Dallas who has been feeding you all this baloney about me. You are making all these allegations at the Town Hall and now on radio. And you have never taken the trouble to contact me. My name has been in the paper. It is very well known where I live. I am in the phone book. You could have at least tried to contact me." And I pinned him up against the wall verbally. And he agreed at that time----

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He said that he had no definite proof, that he would have to check on it.

Mr. JENNER. Proof of what?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Proof of the allegations.

Mr. JENNER. Did you mention what the allegation was when you talked with him on the telephone?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. What did you say?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I said, "You are alleging that I had a meeting with Patrolman Tippit in Jack Ruby's bar with some unidentified third person about a week before the assassination." I said, "You are going strictly on the story of some liar in Dallas." I said, "If you had any courage or commonsense or really wanted to get at the facts, you would have called and asked me, too." And he agreed, yes, he should have talked to me.

Mr. JENNER. Did he say yes he should have talked to you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and that he would also recheck his facts in Dallas. And that ended the essence of the conversation.

Mr. JENNER. Have you exhausted your recollection as to that conversation?

Mr. WEISSMAN. As to that particular conversation; yes.

Mr. JENNER. When you adverted to his assertion in the Town Hall meeting, that you had been present in the Carousel Club in a meeting with Officer Tippit, did you say that you denied that you were ever in the Carousel Club?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I denied that; yes.

Mr. JENNER. That was what you said.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I said, "I did not know Lee Harvey Oswald. I did not know Jack Ruby. I have never been in the Carousel Club."

Mr. JENNER. And you said that to him over the telephone on that occasion----

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. What was his response to that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This is when he came up with he would have to recheck his facts and he would have to check into it. Subsequently, I had talked to him later that same evening--the show went off at 1 a.m. in the morning. And I had been given a private number to call at the radio station. I talked to him on the telephone.

Mr. JENNER. How did you get that number?

Mr. WEISSMAN. The announcer gave it over the air. And he said, "If you want to speak with Mr. Lane"--because I was getting pretty hot.

Mr. JENNER. You mean angry?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Angry; yes. And he said, "If you want to talk to Mr. Lane call him after the show is over, about 5 after 1." I forget the number of the station. And I telephoned him.

Mr. JENNER. You called the same number again.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You asked for Mr. Lane.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. And somebody responded?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Mr. Lane got on the wire.

Mr. JENNER. Was it the same voice?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say in the way of acknowledging that it was Mr. Lane?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I went into it again.

Mr. JENNER. Did you say, "Mr. Lane"?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And the voice's response was what?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I said, "Hello, Mr. Lane." And he said--I said, "Hello, Mr. Lane." And he said, "Yes."

"This is Bernie Weissman" or Mr. Weissman. And he said "Yes." And then I reiterated what I had said, and that he had better check his facts--and "I am going to get a hold of some friends in Dallas to check on your witness and find out who he is."

Mr. JENNER. Please identify these people.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I was saying this to Mark Lane. And Mark Lane repeated again----

Mr. JENNER. Please say again what you said to Mr. Lane, and then what his response was, because with the rapidity with which you speak, it is difficult to sort out his words from your words.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well----

Mr. JENNER. It might be well if you started over again. You called the station. You asked for Mr. Lane and a voice responded.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. You then said, "Mark Lane"? And he responded?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. All right. Now, carry on from there.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I told him that he had better check his facts, that he is off on a tangent, that there is absolutely no factual background.

Mr. JENNER. For what?

Mr. WEISSMAN. For him saying, his allegations, that I had had this meeting with Tippit in Ruby's bar.

Mr. JENNER. Did you repeat that again? Did you repeat again that you had not been in the Carousel Club at anytime?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I don't know if I repeated it at that time. I just made a point of saying that he had better check his facts and talk with me also, and get both sides of the story here, before he got himself in trouble. By trouble, I had assumed he knew what I meant--I meant a lawsuit. And I would have sued him, but I could not find a lawyer to handle the case. They said any publicity that comes out of it would be only bad. So I dropped it. Several days later----

Mr. JENNER. Have you finished the conversation?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I have finished the conversation with him. Several days later I got ahold of his office number.

Mr. JENNER. Would you fix the time of this Town Hall meeting broadcast, as best you can.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am pretty sure it was on the 28th or the morning of the 29th--on the Town Hall thing? That was the afternoon of the 28th of April, I believe. I believe it was April. It was prior to his coming to a hearing here at the Commission. And in any case, I telephoned him several days after our radio and telephone conversation--I telephoned him at his office in Manhattan and got him on the line again. And I said, "Well, what has happened?" I was very curious as to what he had done about this.

Mr. JENNER. Where did you reach him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. At his office in Manhattan. I do not know the address. I had first contacted a law firm he was associated with previously, and they gave me his office number in lower Manhattan. And I telephoned him at his office. The secretary answered, then he got on the line. And he said this time--I don't recall exactly what was said before or after this particular part of the conversation. But I said that I want to meet this guy in Dallas, the one who told him this story and call him a liar to his face, and that I wanted it to be a public meeting, and Mark Lane said he would arrange for a public meeting, he would pay my transportation to Dallas to see this guy as soon as he could arrange a meeting. And I have not heard from him since.

Mr. JENNER. To check that date you gave us again. Mr. Weissman--Mr. Lane appeared before the Commission on Wednesday, March 4, 1964.

Mr. WEISSMAN. March 4? March? I did not think it was that long ago. If he appeared March 4, then the conversation--well, I stand corrected. I am not positive of the month.

Mr. JENNER. It might have been February 28?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It might have been. If it was March 4 he appeared here, it might have been February 28, because there seemed to be several weeks lapse between his coming here----

Mr. JENNER. Are you certain, however, that your telephone conversation with him the evening of the broadcast following the Town Hall meeting was before he appeared before the Commission?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Unless he appeared twice, I am a 100 percent positive.

Mr. JENNER. And from what source did your information come that he had appeared before the Commission?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Newspapers.

Mr. JENNER. I think we can close this. I show you Garner Exhibit No. 1. Did you ever see the person who is shown on that photograph?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 520 and direct your attention to the man in the white tee shirt between the two policemen. Did you ever see him before?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Prior to November 22, 1963, had you ever seen him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. And except for these photographs, and whatever newspaper clippings or photos you have seen since November 22, or television shows on or after November 22, have you ever seen that person in the flesh?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever have any contact with him of any kind?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Telephone calls, letters, memoranda of any kind or character?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chairman, there is correspondence that Mr. Weissman has, and I wonder if it would be convenient with the Commission if we could return at 2:30. In the meantime I will be able to look at some of the material he has to see if any of it is relevant and helpful to the Commission.

Mr. DULLES. I would like to adjourn at this time if we can, because I have a luncheon appointment.

Mr. JENNER. That is what I am suggesting, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Good.

We will adjourn until 2:30.

(Whereupon, at 1:05 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

Afternoon Session

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD WILLIAM WEISSMAN RESUMED

The President's Commission reconvened at 2:45 p.m.

(The Chairman and Mr. Dulles being present.)

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order. You may proceed.

Mr. JENNER. Thank you. Mr. Chief Justice.

Whereupon, Bernard Weissman was recalled as a witness and having been previously duly sworn, testified further as follows:

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, during the luncheon hour Mr. Weissman has afforded us an opportunity to examine some of this correspondence, to which he made reference this morning. I have selected a few of these pieces of correspondence as rounding out the genesis of CUSA and its affiliate, AMBUS, and the infiltration of the rightist organizations in Dallas that the witness described.

I will identify these without reading from them, as some of them are rather lengthy.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Mr. JENNER. First, Mr. Weissman, I have a letter on the letterhead of National Indignation Convention, the top of which has scrawled in ink longhand "Top Secret." It is a five-page longhand letter. At the bottom of each is written the word "Destroy." I have marked an envelope postmarked Dallas, Tex., on November 5, 1962 as Commission Exhibit No. 1048, the first exhibit being identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1047.

(The documents referred to were marked respectively Commission Exhibits Nos. 1047 and 1048 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The envelope is addressed to SP-4 Larry Jones, APO Station 407, New York, N.Y.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize the handwriting on the envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is Larrie's.

Mr. JENNER. And the Larry Jones is the man to whom you made reference in your testimony?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The document Commission Exhibit No. 1047, do you recognize that handwriting?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It appears to be Larrie's.

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And was document Commission Exhibit No. 1047, enclosed in the envelope marked Commission Exhibit No. 1048?

Mr. DULLES. Is there any signature on those documents?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This page should be last.

Mr. JENNER. On the page which is marked with a circle 7, there appears to be a signature L-a-r-r-i-e. Do you recognize that signature?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is Larrie Schmidt's signature.

Mr. JENNER. How did you come into possession of the documents now identified, one of which was addressed to Larry Jones rather than you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larry Jones gave it to me.

Mr. JENNER. Where?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In Munich, Germany.

Mr. JENNER. And when he handed the document to you was Exhibit No. 1047 enclosed in Exhibit No. 1048?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Next is a three-page letter dated Dallas, Tex., January 4, 1963, typewritten, addressed to "Dear Bernie." Is that you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1040.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1040 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. It is signed in typing "Larrie."

A document of five pages marked Commission Exhibit No. 1041 on the first page of which appears the signature Larrie H. Schmidt.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1041 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Do you recognize that signature?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Whose is it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt's.

Mr. JENNER. The last of this series of letter-sized papers is a five-page document titled "A Code of Conduct for Members of Conservatism U.S.A." which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 1042.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1042 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. I understand that these three documents that I have now identified were enclosed in an envelope which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 1043, in the upper left-hand corner, L. H. Schmidt, 5417b Lewis Street, Dallas 6, Tex., addressed to Private First Class Bernie Weissman. Is that you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is me.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1043 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. That is postmarked Dallas, January 4, 1963.

Did you receive the documents, now identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 1040, 1041, 1042, and 1043?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, I did.

Mr. JENNER. Were the first of those three--were the first three of those exhibits I have named enclosed in the document identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1043?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I have already identified the signature.

These documents relate to the development of and plans for CUSA, do they not?

Mr. WEISSMAN. They do.

Mr. JENNER. And the conduct of CUSA?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. The next two documents, a three-page letter typed on the top "Headquarters Conservatism U.S.A.," dated February 2, 1963, at Dallas, Tex., 5417b Lewis Street, which I have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 1049.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1049 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. This is addressed "To All Members." It is signed in typing "Sincerely, Larrie." Have you seen that document before?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. JENNER. And was it enclosed in an envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was.

Mr. JENNER. Was it sent to you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. Is that document the envelope Commission Exhibit No. 1050?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1050 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. There is handwriting on the face of Exhibit No. 1050. Whose handwriting is that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is mine.

Mr. JENNER. Read it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. "Meeting with Bob Morris. Infiltration of YAF by CUSA."

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice and members of the Commission, the three-page document relates to a meeting held in the home of Dr. Morris. Is that Dr. Robert Morris?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right, of Dallas, Tex.

Mr. JENNER. Which recounts the plans for infiltration of conservative groups in Dallas, Tex., upon which the witness has somewhat expanded in his testimony this morning.

Mr. DULLES. Has the witness indicated who Mr. Bob Morris was? I don't recall that.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Bob Morris at that time was president of the Defenders of American Liberties in Dallas, Tex., and recently was a candidate for political office in Dallas.

Mr. DULLES. What office?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe he was running in the primary for Senator.

Mr. JENNER. U.S. Senate.

Mr. WEISSMAN. U.S. Senator.

Mr. JENNER. I just want to be sure I have covered this. You received both of the documents now marked Commission Exhibits Nos. 1050 and 1049 in due course through the U.S. mail at your station in Munich, Germany?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir; I did.

Mr. JENNER. The next series is--consists of a two-page letter which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 1044, addressed to "Dear Bernie" at Dallas, Tex., on June 13, 1963, also signed in typing "Best, Larrie." That is again Larrie Schmidt, is it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1044 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. That document was enclosed in what?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In this envelope here.

Mr. JENNER. And the envelope is marked Commission Exhibit No. 1046?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1046 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. For the purposes of the record, Commission Exhibit No. 1046 is an envelope postmarked at Dallas, Tex., on June 14, 1963. The envelope is imprinted with "Young Americans for Freedom. Inc., Southwestern U.S. Regional Headquarters, P.O. Box 2364, Dallas 21, Texas," and addressed to Pfc. Bernie Weissman. That is you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Was there anything else enclosed in an envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I believe it was this.

Mr. JENNER. A newspaper clipping from the Dallas Morning News which has been marked and identified as Commission Exhibit No. 1045. Is that right?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1045 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. The caption of this reads "Panel Reports Birch Society Dedicated But Not Dangerous."

Those three documents were received by you from Larrie Schmidt?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That is right.

Mr. JENNER. The third from the last of this series, a letter dated at Dallas, Tex., June 2, 1963, addressed to "Dear Bernie," Commission Exhibit No. 1037. Also in typing "Larrie." Who is that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. There is some handwriting at the bottom of that letter--do you recognize it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; that is Larrie Schmidt's.

Mr. JENNER. Did you receive that document?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I did.

Mr. JENNER. And was the handwriting on the document when you received it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. Was it enclosed in an envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was.

Mr. JENNER. You received the mail, then.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. In the envelope I now show you marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-A?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-A for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Addressed to you. Was there something further enclosed with those?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think this piece.

Mr. JENNER. Which is Commission Exhibit No. 1037-B.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1037-B for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. This is a handbill of Young Americans For Freedom, Inc.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. You received all three documents I have now identified as Commission Exhibits Nos. 1037, 1037-A, and 1037-B in due course through the U.S. mail.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I did.

Mr. JENNER. Next to the last of this series is a letter, single page marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038, dated June 26, 1963, at Dallas, Tex., addressed to "Dear Bernie" signed again in typewriting as "Larrie." Have you seen that document before?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. JENNER. When did you first see it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. When I received it in the mail.

Mr. JENNER. I show you an envelope marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A.

(The document was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Is that envelope the envelope in which Commission Exhibit No. 1038 was enclosed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and as a reference, the handwriting on the outside of these envelopes on this and the other exhibits that refer to the contents were put on by me about a week ago, so I could identify it.

Mr. JENNER. Please read what you have written on the face of Commission Exhibit No. 1038-A.

Mr. WEISSMAN. "Ready to take over YAF. Jones in Dallas. Ducharme Club."

Mr. JENNER. And that Ducharme Club is the club, the private club, semi-private club in Dallas that you mentioned in your testimony this morning.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Lastly, a single-page exhibit, Commission Exhibit No. 1039, dated at Munich, Germany, on July 31, 1963.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1039 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. This purports to be a copy of a letter apparently from you to Larrie Schmidt, is that correct, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. And this is a carbon copy of the actual letter?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Did you mail the original of this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I did.

Mr. JENNER. To whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Larrie Schmidt.

Mr. JENNER. On or about the date this letter bears?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. DULLES. What date is that?

Mr. JENNER. July 21, 1963.

On Commission Exhibit No. 1043, which is the envelope which enclosed several other exhibits, there is some handwriting. It that yours?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Would you read it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. "Membership List 1962. Code of Conduct and Introduction to CUSA. Ultimatum."

Mr. JENNER. And that is a shorthand description or summary of the contents of the envelope?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. On Commission Exhibit No. 1048, which is also an envelope, there appears to be written on the face "NIC Infiltration." Whose handwriting it that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's mine.

Mr. JENNER. And you put it on there under the circumstances you have now related?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Weissman, I will show you Commission Exhibit No. 996. Have you ever seen a counterpart of that exhibit which is entitled "Wanted for Treason"?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never directly.

Mr. JENNER. Tell us about your first acquaintance with that, with the circumstances, if you know, of how it came into existence, and who had anything to do with it.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I can only go by hearsay on this--what I have seen and what I have heard from other individuals.

Mr. JENNER. Did this come to your attention before November 22, 1963, or after?

Mr. WEISSMAN. After.

Mr. JENNER. Tell what you know, please.

Mr. WEISSMAN. I had heard that these handbills were distributed somewhere in North Dallas, I believe, on the university campus I believe it was, the University of Dallas campus.

Mr. JENNER. From what source did you hear this?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Now, I think it was--I am not sure--I think it might have been Larrie or his brother Bob. I am not sure. Larrie declaimed any knowledge of this. I know he had nothing to do with this particular handbill.

Mr. JENNER. How do you know that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He would have told me.

Mr. JENNER. That's the basis for your supposition?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; and I saw this handbill, or something similar to it, in the back of a station wagon used by Larrie's brother Bob in transporting----

Mr. JENNER. When?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was several days after the assassination. There was one crumpled up in the back. And I happened to look through the window and see it. This was in front of the Ducharme Club, as a matter of fact. It was one night. And I saw this. And I saw something "Treason"--I had heard about the handbills.

Mr. JENNER. From whom?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me?

Mr. JENNER. From whom, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I think it was Larrie. I cannot be hundred percent sure. I did not take too much interest in it at the time. But in any case, I did see something resembling this, only it seemed to be a larger picture of President Kennedy. But in any case, it was in the back of a station wagon owned by General Walker, Edwin Walker, or by what--if incorporated, by the corporation he is with, chairman of.

Mr. JENNER. How did you know that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, I know that Bob was General Walker's chauffeur, and by seeing this crumpled up in the back, behind the front seat on the floor of the car, I naturally assumed that it had something to do with General Walker. Exactly what or how, or if he had distributed it, I have no idea. I do not have the faintest idea. I did not go into it any further, because I felt that everything was past, and I was leaving Dallas anyway. I had made up my mind.

(At this point, Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)

Mr. JENNER. When you say you had heard about this matter, that is the handbill, or handbill similar to it, had you heard about that before November 22, 1963?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not to my recollection, no.

Mr. JENNER. Shortly after that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And before you left Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have anything to do with the bringing into existence of this or similar handbills?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None; none whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. Other than the possibility of Bob Schmidt having something to do with them under the circumstances you have related, did any others of your group have anything to do with creating this type of literature and distribution of handbills?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None that I know of.

The CHAIRMAN. How about the names of those people who were in on it?

Mr. JENNER. On the handbill?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted at any time with Robert A. Surrey?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. With Robert G. Klause?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. With J. T. Monk?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted at any time with the Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Did you have any materials printed--and when I say you, I mean you or your group--while you were in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not that I know of. I personally have no knowledge of anything being printed.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear of the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I have not.

Mr. JENNER. Did you ever hear of Ashland Frederick Birchwell?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Or have any contact with him?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not that I know of. I guess I must have met two or three dozen people. For example, when we went up to Joe Grinnan's office at various times, we would come down and eat in the cafeteria, and there would be somebody sitting with him, and there would be introductions. I never remembered their names, because it was just in passing. I never had any personal contact, really.

Mr. JENNER. Did you meet General Walker at any time while you were in Dallas?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Never did.

Mr. JENNER. Did you meet anybody or know anybody by the name of Mercer?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. While you were in Dallas--Mrs. Clifford or Dorothy Mercer?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Mr. JENNER. Or Mr. Clifford Mercer?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely not.

Mr. JENNER. Among the exhibits we have identified this afternoon is a list of members. Those were the members of CUSA as of that particular time?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. And the changes in membership you have recounted in your testimony this morning, is that correct, sir?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I am sorry--I knew I had left something out of one of those. I do not know which exhibit is. But it is the one that says----

Mr. JENNER. I will hand them back to you, and you can tell me.

You now have in your hand a sheet of paper.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I take it that sheet of paper came from one of the envelopes we have already marked?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This one here.

Mr. JENNER. The answer is yes?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. JENNER. I will mark this sheet as Commission Exhibit No. 1051.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1051 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Would you tell us in what envelope Commission Exhibit No. 1051 was enclosed?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 1043.

Mr. JENNER. And what is Commission Exhibit No. 1051?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Commission Exhibit No. 1051 was a current membership list as of about January 4, 1963. If you like, I can go over this and tell you who was in no way really associated with it at the time or active.

Mr. DULLES. Membership in CUSA?

Mr. WEISSMAN. In CUSA, yes. It lists Larrie Schmidt, Larry C. Jones, Bernie Weissman, Norman Baker, James Moseley as partners. Members as Ken Glazbrook, Bob Weiss, who was not active after about--at about the time this was printed--these men dropped from the active list. Herb Starr was not active. Chuck McLain was not active. Richard Harsch was not active. Hank Tanaro was not active. Sheila McDonald was not active. And the rest of the list were active in one form or another--some to a much lesser degree than the others.

Mr. JENNER. Now, the 50-odd responses that you received to Commission Exhibit No. 1031, when you went to the post office box on the following Sunday, the 24th of November 1963, did you recognize the names of any of the persons who responded?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None--none at all.

Mr. JENNER. Was there any response from Jack Ruby?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not under his name.

Mr. JENNER. And you say about a third of those responses were favorable and two-thirds unfavorable.

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right.

Mr. JENNER. Insofar as the questions asked on Exhibit--Commission Exhibit No. 1031 are concerned?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. When you said there was no letter in the box under the name of Jack Ruby does that infer that there was one by any other name?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Well, to put it very exact, if I did receive a letter from Jack Ruby, I have no knowledge of it.

The CHAIRMAN. That is what I wanted to know.

Mr. JENNER. And apart from--I asked you also the general question whether you recognized any names. I would like to add to that--did you recognize in reading over any of those letters or responses any persons, regardless of what name was signed to the document?

Mr. WEISSMAN. None whatsoever.

Mr. JENNER. During the noon recess I have had the witness read through an interview with him by the FBI on the 5th of December 1963. You have read that?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; I have.

Mr. JENNER. Does that accurately reflect the interview which the FBI had with you on that day?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It does. The only variance you might find is that at the time I had the interview with the FBI, I did not develop the CUSA story with them. And they did not press the issue, and I did not go into it.

Mr. JENNER. But it does accurately reflect what took place during the course of that interview.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Exactly.

Mr. JENNER. What you said--it reports it accurately.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; very accurately.

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I was using this method in order to shorten the balance of Mr. Weissman's testimony. There are many details here that I wanted to spare the Commission.

I will mark that with the next exhibit number, Commission Exhibit No. 1052.

(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1052 for identification.)

Mr. JENNER. Mr. Chief Justice, I offer in evidence the exhibits which have been identified--I will read the exhibit numbers. Commission Exhibits Nos. 1031 through 1052, both inclusive, with some of the envelopes designated with subletters A, and one of the other documents designated with the subletter B. I ask that those exhibits be admitted in evidence with the exhibit numbers which appear on them, each of which has been recited in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. They may be admitted under those numbers.

(The documents referred to, heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits Nos. 1031 through 1052 inclusive, were received in evidence.)

Mr. JENNER. I have no further questions of the witness. Mr. Flannery, do you have anything?

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Dulles, do you have any questions you would like to ask?

Mr. DULLES. Just one general question. From the questions which have been addressed to you, Mr. Weissman, you have a general idea of what the Commission, the area of search of the Commission is so far as you are concerned.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Did anything occur to you of any significance which you could add or would like to add to the answers you have made to the questions you have already given?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Excuse me, please. There is just one thing but it is a question of--it is not a positive identification or anything like that. But on the day I went to the post office to pick up the mail there was a gentleman waiting, observing the box, the post office box in the Dallas post office. Now, Bill Burley was waiting in my car outside, driving around the block because the traffic was quite heavy. I went in with Ken Glazbrook, who had just come to Dallas about a day or so before by bus from the East Coast. He got off a freighter from Sweden. And this individual seemed to be about--I would put him at about 60 years old. And I thought about it since. And I said that might have been Jack Ruby, because he was short enough to be. But my recollection of the individual that followed me, when we subsequently lost in the crowd, and jumped into the car and took off, was that one time not more than 3 feet away from me--though I did not stare into his face, because I did not know if this fellow was going to shoot me or say something.

Mr. JENNER. You were then frightened; were you not?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir. And we went across through traffic and up a street and down a street and lost this individual and jumped into the car and took off back to the apartment. And to this day I do not know whether it was Ruby--because frankly my recollection of the individual on the pictures I have seen of Ruby in the newspapers, they do not seem to jibe--just the size. This fellow was about 5 foot 6 or so. He was wearing tan clothing with a Stetson hat, a tan Stetson hat.

Mr. JENNER. A typical Texas western hat, sometimes called a 10-gallon hat?

Mr. WEISSMAN. That's right. And this is about the only thing else I have to add.

Mr. JENNER. Did he follow you?

Mr. WEISSMAN. He followed us from the box down the steps of the post office to the traffic light. We crossed the street, he walked up the other side of the street adjacent to the post office, directly opposite us. And we were going halfway up and he started to cross the corner. We quickly ran back to the corner, across which we came. At that time Bill had come around the corner in the car, he knew nothing about it, we jumped in, sat down low and went in a straight line, made the turn and went back to the apartment. And I have never seen the individual since.

Mr. DULLES. This post office box from which you were taking the mail, was that box the one that was advertised in the paper?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. So that the number of that box was known.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; it was. This individual was obviously waiting for me. I did not see him. Ken pointed him out to me. We expected possibly some sort of trouble there. And Ken was walking about 6 feet to the right of me, on another side of the post office tables that are in the middle of the aisle. So if I got in any difficulty he would be there to help. And he noticed this individual and pointed him out to me. And this fellow just followed us right out, and that was that.

Mr. DULLES. As I recall, you fixed the time when you went to the mail box as probably sometime Sunday morning.

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. Can you be any more definite as to the time Sunday morning when you were there?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am almost 100 percent sure it was between 8 and 9 o'clock.

Mr. DULLES. In the morning?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Cooper, have you any questions?

Senator COOPER. What age did the man seem to be?

Mr. WEISSMAN. About 60.

Senator COOPER. I have two or three other questions.

Did your organization, CUSA, ever consider violence as a means to reaching its objectives?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This had been--I don't remember exactly. It had been hashed over in skull sessions, so many things come up, and you talk about it and throw it away. These things did come up over the year or so that I was involved in it in Munich, and thrown out. No. In schedules that we had made up, we figured probable political happenings over a period of years, and we took into account there might be a war for example in 1968 or 1970 or 1972, and what would happen before or after, or who would probably be President at that time, and the type of action America would take. But it had never gone any further than a lot of supposition.

Senator COOPER. Did you consider the advertisements in the paper there as possibly inciting to violence under the circumstances?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely not.

Senator COOPER. Was that considered at all?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Definitely not. At least not by me. And nobody ever mentioned it.

Senator COOPER. This group of men that you have named, of which you were one, who formed this CUSA with objectives, both political and business you said?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Was there any background of writings or theory of any kind upon which you depended? Where did it come from?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Let's see. You are putting me in sort of a box but I will answer you. We read, for example--for example, I did not know I was a conservative until I got to Germany. I just knew how I felt. But I never identified myself with any particular political leaning. I thought I was a Democrat, an independent voter and independent thinker. For example, I voted for Kennedy in 1960 and I would have voted against him in 1964. But this is neither here nor there.

We were asked--not asked--we had a list of required reading. In other words, if you are going to expound the conservative philosophy we figured you should know something about it, a little bit of the background, aside from your own personal feelings. So we read, for example--I didn't--I never did find the time to do it--some of the fellows read "Conscience of a Conservative" by Barry Goldwater, one or two books that Barry Goldwater had written, and "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand, which I did not read.

Mr. JENNER. Did the others read them?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I guess Larrie read them, because he suggested these. There were many times when I said yes--I yessed him to death, and did as I pleased. And this is one of the cases.

Senator COOPER. That was about the extent of your reading background?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Not completely. In other words, I cannot point to any specific volumes that I read for the specific purpose of giving me a certain background. In other words, I am motivated personally by my own feelings in the situation, and the particular dogma that you might read in a book does not interest me too much.

Senator COOPER. As one of your aims, did you have the purpose of making some money out of this movement?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Out of the movement itself, no. Out of the business, yes. Because I think it would be foolish to go on the premise that if we would devote ourselves a hundred percent to politics that we could make money at it, because there are laws against it, and in order to survive while you are in politics, you have to have a business interest, managed by yourself part time or by others full time, that can support you while you devote yourself to politics.

Senator COOPER. Was this business interest to be these organizations which you were going to infiltrate and whose treasuries you might capture?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No.

Senator COOPER. Or was it to be--you hoped to develop businesses because of your political influence; is that it?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; to put it straight on the record, we had discussed this, and what we would do if we came into any of the treasuries of these organizations. We felt that you can incur a lot of legal problems if you are caught taking funds, tax-free funds, and using it for personal gain and so forth. I am sure there are laws against it. Exactly which ones, I do not know. I am sure there are laws against it.

And so we felt there is nothing wrong, and it is done occasionally in government, where occasionally you would use--you would meet someone politically--because generally these are more affluent individuals, people in politics. By dint of their drive they have acquired property or moneys, et cetera. And these individuals might be willing to invest some of their capital in some up-and-coming young businessmen, young politicians. And we had hoped to get some money this way. Plus the fact, by using our heads, by setting up businesses on our own that would support us in the political goal.

Senator COOPER. Did you study methods of propaganda?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Study methods of propaganda? No; we had discussed ways of bringing about recruitment and so forth, in the way of pamphlets, or things of that nature, but this never got out of the talking stage itself. As a matter of fact----

Senator COOPER. You felt the way to move into political life quickly was to get into these extreme organizations which do use a great deal of propaganda, and are against things?

Mr. WEISSMAN. Yes; in general, we thought these organizations because they grew so quickly, would be relatively unorganized and easy to infiltrate, and this proves to be quite true. They were more or less autonomous within their own regions, and they did not have a national director keeping tabs on everything they did.

I have something here that was made up. It is just a list. I just happened to remember. Publicity tactics, for example--rallies, hangings--these are effigies, I would imagine--demonstrations, picketing, sit-downs, stickers, billboards, boycotts, lectures, songfests, talkathons, telephone campaigns, door-to-door campaigns. Publicity--letters, brochures, pamphlets, booklets, stationery, flags, songs, emblems on blazers, stickers, match covers, billboards, radio, TV, newspapers, magazines, streetcars, taxicabs. Fund-raising would be personal solicitation, get firms to do things free for us, parties, teas, bridges, lectures, assessments, dues, sale of books, pins, buttons, stationery, flags, emblems, match covers, brochures, and pamphlets. That is it.

Mr. JENNER. That was your program?

Mr. WEISSMAN. This was our advertising program; yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Some of these activities are certainly activities carried on by political parties. But did it ever occur to you that some of the activities which you planned, in fact which you undertook, such as infiltration into an organization, to try to seize control of it, and these methods that you used--do you consider that as in the regular spirit of our system of government?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I would say this, sir.

Senator COOPER. Democratic system you spoke of?

Mr. WEISSMAN. It was a question of doing something like that, or absolutely nothing at all, never getting off the ground. And while my belief would say no, of course not, this is not the way you do it, this is not the way it should be done, but it was expedient at the time to do this. And plus the fact that you certainly could not make these organizations any worse than they were. And as far as I felt, if we could bring them around to our way of thinking or my way of thinking, we could have brought them around to where they were more beneficial to the country rather than detrimental.

Senator COOPER. That is all I want to ask.

The CHAIRMAN. I noticed on the list that you had there of techniques was hangings. Now, you said--you added to that, I think, that that meant hanging in effigy, you assumed. Is that right?

Mr. WEISSMAN. I am 100 percent sure, Your Honor, that that is what it meant. In other words, this was just ways to attract attention, and the college students are doing it all the time. It was just sort of tossing it all in a pot and then putting it down on paper.

The CHAIRMAN. Is that not provocative to violence?

Mr. WEISSMAN. No; I think in the context that we meant it, that it was just another way of getting possibly some publicity--like if students in a university do not like their professor, for example, or if they win a football game, they will hang the opposing team in effigy, or the captain, or what have you. And it attracts a certain amount of publicity and talk.

We had to gain recognition in order to accomplish some of the goals that I had stated previously. And this is just another way. In this case, you have to consider us as young men, and effigy hanging, you know, is just part of a young idea.

The CHAIRMAN. I think that is all. Thank you very much, Mr. Weissman. You may be excused. And Mr. Flannery, thank you very much for your cooperation.

If there are any questions you would like to ask, you may feel free to do so now.

Mr. FLANNERY. I have nothing.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

(At this point in the hearing, Chairman Warren left the hearing room and the witness Robert G. Klause entered.)

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT G. KLAUSE

Mr. DULLES. Would you kindly raise your right hand?

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You are Robert G. Klause?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you appear here voluntarily today?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I may say, Mr. Chairman, I reached Mr. Klause in Dallas yesterday afternoon. He had just returned from a 2-week vacation. He volunteered to come. The Secret Service got him on a plane with but minutes to spare, and no baggage. This he did to accommodate the Commission.

Mr. Klause is here to testify with respect to the genesis and dissemination of the "Wanted For Treason" handbill, Commission Exhibit No. 996.

Mr. DULLES. Proceed, please.

Mr. JENNER. Your age, please?

Mr. KLAUSE. 32.

Mr. JENNER. You are a married man?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You were born and reared in this country?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Likewise your wife?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And your parents?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And you reside in Texas?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Where?

Mr. KLAUSE. Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. What address?

Mr. KLAUSE. 1126 South Waverly.

Mr. JENNER. And what is the name of your mother?

Mr. KLAUSE. Dorothy Anna Mercer.

Mr. JENNER. And is she engaged in a printing business in Dallas?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. She and her husband?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. What is her husband's first name? Clifford?

Mr. KLAUSE. Clifford; yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Are you employed in their business?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Is that the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that is located where?

Mr. KLAUSE. 2615 Oak Lawn, Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. And how long have you been employed in the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. I would say approximately about a year and a half. I think we have been open about a year and a half, it might be going on 2 years.

Mr. JENNER. And tell us what the nature of that printing company is.

Mr. KLAUSE. Offset lithography, letterheads, statements, envelopes, things like that.

Mr. JENNER. Is it a small house?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Were you employed theretofore by a different printing company?

Mr. KLAUSE. Sir?

Mr. JENNER. Were you formerly employed by another printing company in Dallas?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. And that was Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Johnson Printing Co.; yes, sir. With several other companies in town.

Mr. JENNER. I see. And where is Johnson Printing Co. located?

Mr. KLAUSE. I think it is the 2700 block of Haskell in Dallas.

Mr. JENNER. Did you become acquainted with Robert A. Surrey while you were employed at Johnson Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Had you known him before that?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir.

Mr. JENNER. I show you a document which has been identified and admitted in evidence as Commission Exhibit No. 996. The particular document I show you is a Xerox reproduction of the original exhibit.

Did you play some part in producing the original, the original copy and materials from which the Exhibit No. 996 I show you was prepared?

Mr. KLAUSE. I am not too sure what you mean but as far as laying--laying the job out, no, sir. Now, like I said, I ran the job. I shot the negatives.

Mr. JENNER. Perhaps we can get at it this way, sir. When first did you have any connection with this matter?

Mr. KLAUSE. Approximately, I would say, a month before President Kennedy came to town.

Mr. JENNER. How did that arise?

Mr. KLAUSE. Mr. Surrey called on me and asked me if I would run a job.

Mr. JENNER. You say he called on you. Where were you when he called on you?

Mr. KLAUSE. I believe I was at the shop. In fact, I know I was at the shop. He must have called me at the shop.

Mr. JENNER. When you say shop, you mean the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. He came to Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. No, sir; he called.

Mr. JENNER. What did he say?

Mr. KLAUSE. He said that he had a little job he would like to have run, and would I run it myself?

Mr. JENNER. And you responded?

Mr. KLAUSE. I said yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Did he come over to your shop?

Mr. KLAUSE. Mr. Jenner, to be honest with you, really I do not remember now. I might have gone out, or he might have come over. To be perfectly honest, right at the present time I do not remember.

Mr. JENNER. Did I understand you to say that you said to him you would run it yourself?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. You mean by that something distinct from or having Lettercraft Printing Co. run it?

Mr. KLAUSE. He asked me if I was interested in doing a little job on the side, and I said yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. By "on the side," does that mean that you were going to do some reproduction printing for him, other than as a job for the Lettercraft Printing Co.?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir. You see, I have my own shop.

Mr. JENNER. You do?

Mr. KLAUSE. Yes, sir.

Mr. JENNER. Where is that located?

Mr. KLAUSE. Actually, I operate out of my house. But I have always had my own shop. I mean I have two or three little insert accounts that I do, and a couple of beauty suppliers. They will come in and want 500 letterheads. For a long time, when I was out of work, I went out and solicited work door to door. Then I would job them out to other printers. And then when I could get my hands on a press, I would run them myself.

Mr. JENNER. Was Mr. Surrey aware of this practice?

Spotted a typo or a problem in this chapter? Tell us