Chapter 1: Department of State, part 51, dealing with passports. This

title refers to the issuing officer.

Who is the issuing officer? Does that mean you or those who are under you, who are responsible to you?

Miss KNIGHT. Well, this is a question. Up until recently, I think the director of the Passport Office was considered the issuing officer. However, passports are issued in the name of the Secretary of State, who has the authority and the responsibility on passports.

Senator COOPER. And you are responsible to the Secretary of State?

Miss KNIGHT. Through the echelons.

Senator COOPER. Yes.

Now, Representative Ford and Mr. Dulles have gone into this, as well as counsel, but I would like to pursue it just a little bit.

Section 51.135, entitled "Denial of passports to members of Communist organizations," states, "A passport shall not be issued to, or renewed for, any individual who the issuing officer knows or has reason to believe is a member of a Communist organization registered or required to be registered under section 7 of the Subversive Activities Control Act of 1950, as amended."

Was there any evidence in the files of Lee Harvey Oswald which could give to the issuing officer either the knowledge that he was a member of a Communist organization or such evidence as would lead the issuing officer to believe that he was?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. Why do you say that?

Miss KNIGHT. Because, there was nothing in the passport file or in the reports that we received from investigative agencies that would indicate that he had any Communist leanings or any Communist affiliations prior to his sojourn in the Soviet Union.

Senator COOPER. There wasn't anything in his file from the reports of the State Department concerning his defection to Russia and his return which indicated that he was a member of the Communist Party?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. Or a Communist organization?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. Was there anything in the files from the FBI or any other security agency which would give you that information?

Miss KNIGHT. None that I saw; no, sir. I do know that there were two recent intelligence reports from the FBI, and they were dated October 31, 1963, and October 25, 1963, and these were logged into the Passport Office on November 20, 1963, and on November 22, 1963, respectively.

Senator COOPER. They were then, of course, would have been, received in the office after the time.

Miss KNIGHT. That was the date of the assassination.

Senator COOPER. After the time that the passport had been renewed.

Mr. COLEMAN. That included the information that he was active in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee.

Miss KNIGHT. That is correct, and these were referred to us by the Office of Security, and then on 5:30 a.m. on November 23, 1963, these reports were called for on an urgent basis by the Administrator of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs and we delivered them to him at approximately 7:30 that morning.

I never saw these reports and no one in the Passport Office had an opportunity to read them or see them.

Senator COOPER. The point I am making is, am I correct or are you correct, when you say at the time Oswald's passport was either issued or renewed to make the trip to Mexico City, that there was no evidence in his files of any kind which would indicate that he was a member of a Communist organization?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir; there was nothing in the file.

Senator COOPER. What weight would you give to the fact that he had defected and had returned to the United States, and had claimed once that he wanted to renounce American citizenship? Would that be a fact to which you would give weight in determining whether or not you believed he was a member of the Communist organization?

Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir; I understand your question. I did not adjudicate the Oswald citizenship case. But I would say that the adjudicators must have taken into consideration his instability which was reported in the dispatches, his attitude, his age, he was 20 years old at the time, and the fact that when he finally made his appeal to come back to the United States, he denied that he had asked for Soviet citizenship, that he was considered a Soviet citizen, and he further denied that he had offered anybody information.

He denied practically everything that he, in very bad temper, had told the consul that he was going to do. This, I think, is fairly well established in the document he signed, and which was sent to us when his passport was renewed and limited for return to the United States.

Senator COOPER. I am first directing my attention to the issuance or renewal of the passport which enabled him to go to Mexico City. I want to keep on that for a moment.

Miss KNIGHT. He didn't have a passport for Mexico City.

Senator COOPER. Not a passport for Mexico City.

Mr. COLEMAN. He had the passport in June 1963.

Senator COOPER. Yes; to go over to Cuba and different places.

Miss KNIGHT. We did not know, and there was nothing, I think I am right about this, there is nothing in our files to indicate that he went to Cuba or that he went to the Cuban Embassy in Mexico City. I understand this was brought out.

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; that is true.

Miss KNIGHT. Is that right?

Mr. DULLES. Not until October 1963.

Mr. COLEMAN. Even then, Mr. Dulles, they didn't know. The notice they got from Mexico only stated that he had been at the Soviet Embassy and not that he had been over to the Cuban Embassy.

Mr. DULLES. Is that correct?

Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.

Senator COOPER. The point I am trying to develop at some point in 1963 prior to the assassination he went to the office in New Orleans.

Miss KNIGHT. That is right, the New Orleans Passport Agency.

Senator COOPER. And he secured a passport there.

Miss KNIGHT. He applied for a passport.

Senator COOPER. To travel, applied for a passport, to travel in a number of countries.

Miss KNIGHT. That is right.

Senator COOPER. And that was issued to him.

Miss KNIGHT. That is right.

Senator COOPER. On the following day?

Miss KNIGHT. That is right.

Senator COOPER. At that time, of course, the issuing officer was under the restrictions of the regulations here that we have been talking about. What would the officer--would the officer in New Orleans have any information available to him?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. About Oswald?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir; the operation works like this: New Orleans is one of eight passport agencies in the United States. They are connected with the main office by teletype. Oswald made an application for a passport at the New Orleans agency, and they TWX'd to us, his name and identification--that is, date and place of birth, and so on. His name was one on a list of names. There may have been 15 or 20 of them.

Mr. COLEMAN. The record shows there were 25.

Miss KNIGHT. 25.

These names were then checked over the lookout file which I have explained here.

Senator COOPER. Here in Washington?

Miss KNIGHT. Yes; and if there is no card in the lookout file, it is presumed that he is clear, because if we had information that he was an active Communist, or that we had reason to believe that there should be further check on him, this would have been reflected in the lookout file. There was no such card in the file.

Senator COOPER. All right. At that time, then, when he had made his application and the information was sent to your office, there was no lookout card?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. Which would indicate that he was a Communist or a member of a Communist organization, registered, and so forth. And did you have such a system then?

Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Of lookout cards?

Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir; we have had that system for a long time.

Senator COOPER. Was your reason for not having a lookout card for Oswald, that there wasn't anything in his file to indicate that he was a member of a Communist organization?

Miss KNIGHT. That is correct.

Senator COOPER. Is that the reason?

Miss KNIGHT. That is correct. Because the FBI reports which had come to the Passport Office during his sojourn in the Soviet Union and after, did not indicate that he was a Communist. As a matter of fact, they were concerned with several other things, his mother's concern regarding his whereabouts, the fact that he had made a declaration that he wished to become a Soviet citizen; and the question of expatriation. But there was nothing in the files to indicate that he had had any contact or any active part in the Communist Party.

Senator COOPER. The fact that he had married a Russian girl and brought her to the United States have any significance in the determination that the issuing officer would have to make?

Miss KNIGHT. No.

Senator COOPER. You are sure that the FBI nor any other security agency had placed any information in that file which would fall within the scope of this first section dealing with, applicable to passports?

Miss KNIGHT. I am sure of that; yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Have you yourself examined those files?

Miss KNIGHT. I examined the file last Saturday for the first time.

Senator COOPER. And do you know who had charge of the file?

Miss KNIGHT. The file was in the Passport Office up until November 22, the day of the assassination.

Senator COOPER. Where did it go then?

Miss KNIGHT. It went to the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, to Mr. Schwartz.

Senator COOPER. Who is in charge there?

Miss KNIGHT. Mr. Schwartz. He is the Administrator.

Mr. EHRLICH. I might add he turned them over immediately, he turned them over to Mr. Chayes who was authorized to take charge of all files and they were maintained in the Office of the Legal Adviser.

And anyone in the Department who wanted to review them was free to do so but we kept them all in one place.

Senator COOPER. Have you been testifying?

Mr. EHRLICH. I have broken in.

Senator COOPER. Just for the purpose of the record identify yourself.

Mr. EHRLICH. I have not been sworn in. My name is Thomas Ehrlich, I am Special Assistant to the Legal Adviser to the Department of State.

Mr. DULLES. I might add Mr. Chayes testified in some detail that he was asked by Mr. Ball, Acting Secretary of State, on the night, afternoon, late afternoon and late evening of the assassination, to get all the files regarding Oswald together and to prepare for him and the Secretary of State, who was returning the next morning, a detailed report on the whole Oswald case, and I assume that the file went from you to Mr. Schwartz, to Mr. Chayes.

And from there Mr. Chayes collected reports from other sources.

Miss KNIGHT. That is right.

Senator COOPER. I am not questioning any fact that these people testified to but I think for the record it is important to know where the file was and whether or not it is the same file, with the same papers in it that were in existence on November 22, which you turned over to your superior.

Miss KNIGHT. Well, of course, we presume all the papers are in there. The file was pretty thick, and, of course, it takes time to go over the papers. We had not time to look at the file or to check it, and there is no way of knowing whether any papers were taken in or out.

Mr. COLEMAN. Senator Cooper, we have the files and we also have letters from Mr. Chayes that to the best of his knowledge and ability every piece of paper which the State Department had which in any way bore on Oswald has now been turned over to the Commission and those letters were marked today.

Senator COOPER. I go a little further.

Look at 51.136, "Limitations on issuance of passports to certain other persons.

"In order to promote and safeguard the interests of the United States, passport facilities, except for direct and immediate return to the United States, shall be refused to a person when it appears to the satisfaction of the Secretary of State that the person's activities abroad would: (a) Violate the laws of the United States; (b) be prejudicial to the orderly conduct of foreign relations; or (c) otherwise be prejudicial to the interests of the United States."

Now, at the time this passport was issued to Oswald in New Orleans, was there any information in his passport file about his conduct in New Orleans in connection with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee?

Miss KNIGHT. There was nothing in the passport file on that. It is my understanding that there were two FBI reports that had come in and they were logged into the Passport Office on November 20 and November 22.

Senator COOPER. I know, but I am thinking of June 24, 1963. This decision to issue a passport to Oswald to go to Mexico and various other countries was made on when?

Mr. COLEMAN. June 24, 1963.

Senator COOPER. Was there any information in his file relative to his participation in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in New Orleans?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. The first information that came to the office came in November?

Miss KNIGHT. November 20 and 22.

Senator COOPER. And November 22.

Miss KNIGHT. And I think, Senator, you would be interested to know that these FBI reports are sent to us by the Office of Security.

A large volume of these reports come to us in the Passport Office on a very routine basis.

The last 6 months of 1963 over 3,000 such reports were received, that is 500 security reports a month, and in order to be effective and to render the ultimate in security these reports should be read by individuals who are knowledgeable; who are trained to spot information of security significance.

The staff that is assigned to this task is very limited, and it is heavily overburdened with many assignments, some of which take priority to the reading of reports, and it is physically impossible for the present staff of our legal division, which is headed by Mr. Johnson, to read and analyze the information in these reports as promptly and as thoroughly as should be done.

The eternal question that we are faced with is a matter of diminishing returns. It is almost impossible to staff the Passport Office 100 percent for security and with knowledgeability of everything that goes on, and in the course of the year the Passport Office puts in thousands of hours of overtime, uncompensated overtime, trying to catch up with this work and believe me, this makes little or no impression on the vast amount of paperwork, the reading, the reporting and the analyzing of reports which come in to us.

Senator COOPER. I can see your problem.

But now, assuming that this report from the FBI about Oswald's activities in New Orleans with the Fair Play for Cuba Committee in which he was distributing material, and had been arrested, and was operating under assumed names, had been known, had been in the file at the time the application for a passport to go to Mexico and other countries had been made, would that have been of any significance?

Miss KNIGHT. Oh, yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. In determining whether or not a passport should be issued?

Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir; very definitely. If those reports had reached us prior to the passport application we certainly would have put a card in the file.

As a matter of fact, it seems to me that if they had come to the Passport Office we would have advised the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs that this had become a Cuban case. These are handled by Mr. Schwartz personally.

Senator COOPER. Do you know when the report from the FBI concerning Oswald's activities in New Orleans in the Fair Play for Cuba Committee reached the State Department rather than the Passport Division?

Miss KNIGHT. When it reached the Department, I don't know. I think maybe Mr. Ehrlich might know.

Mr. EHRLICH. I will look to see if I have it.

Miss KNIGHT. I have the dates of them.

Senator COOPER. Will you give the date?

Miss KNIGHT. The date of the reports?

Senator COOPER. The date when it was sent, when it was received.

Miss KNIGHT. The reports were dated October 31, 1963, and October 25, 1963, and they were logged into the Passport Office on November 20, 1963, and November 22, 1963.

Senator COOPER. All of those dates are after the date of the issuance of the passport?

Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. I have just one more thing I want to inquire about.

Are you familiar with the--were you the Chief of the Passport Division at the time Oswald returned from Russia to the United States?

Miss KNIGHT. Yes, sir.

Senator COOPER. Who was empowered to issue passports in Moscow to Oswald?

Miss KNIGHT. Well, it was the consul, but he would not issue a passport or, in this particular case even limit the passport for return to the United States, without clearance from our office.

Senator COOPER. Then when Oswald made his application to return to the United States and to secure a passport to return to the United States, that application had to be cleared by the division, your division, in Washington?

Miss KNIGHT. Yes.

Senator COOPER. Did you make the determination as to whether the passport should be issued to him?

Miss KNIGHT. I personally did not. This was made by experienced citizenship lawyers.

Senator COOPER. By whom?

Miss KNIGHT. The decision was made by experienced citizenship lawyers in the Foreign Operations Division of the Passport Office. It was determined that Oswald had not expatriated himself. He had signed the necessary papers and he answered the required questionnaire under oath, and to the satisfaction of the Passport Office. Both the consul, who had an opportunity to talk to Oswald, and the citizenship lawyers, who handled the case in the Passport Office, were in agreement that he had not expatriated himself.

Mr. DULLES. Those details are in the file in considerable extent.

Mr. COLEMAN. Senator Cooper, for the record let me note we have Oswald's passport which is Commission Exhibit No. 946 and it states on page 15 thereof that the passport was renewed on May 24, 1962, and it expired on June 24, 1962, and it also stated when Mr. Oswald came into the United States on June 13, 1962.

Senator COOPER. I have just two more questions then.

One, at the time you issued the passport that Oswald was issued in New Orleans to go to Mexico and the other countries there was no requirement at that time that a lookout card be fixed to his file as a defector?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. Whatever decision has been made on that has come since that time?

Miss KNIGHT. When you say "defector," the answer to that is in the questionnaire.

Senator COOPER. When I say "defector," was there any regulation, I mean in the Department, which required any special attention to be given to a defector----

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir.

Senator COOPER. With regard to the issuance of passports?

Miss KNIGHT. No, sir; and we cannot deny them passports.

Senator COOPER. My last question is, is it your statement that at the time you issued the passport in Moscow for his return to the United States, at the time the passport was issued in New Orleans, 1963, for his trip to Mexico and other countries, that there was nothing in the regulations relevant and nothing in the files which precluded you from issuing a passport to him?

Miss KNIGHT. This is my opinion; yes, sir.

Mr. COLEMAN. I have no other questions.

Mr. DULLES. I have no further questions.

Mr. COLEMAN. Thank you, Miss Knight. We appreciate your coming in.

(Whereupon, at 6:35 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)

_Thursday, June 11, 1964_

TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD AND HARRIS COULTER

The President's Commission met at 9:45 a.m., on June 11, 1964, at 200 Maryland Avenue NE., Washington, DC.

Present were Chief Justice Earl Warren, Chairman; Senator John Sherman Cooper, Representative Gerald Ford, and Allen W. Dulles, members.

Also present were J. Lee Rankin, general counsel; Norman Redlich, assistant counsel; Harris Coulter, interpreter; Leon Jaworski, special counsel to the attorney general of Texas; William McKenzie, attorney for Mrs. Lee Harvey Oswald; and Charles Murray, observer.

TESTIMONY OF MRS. LEE HARVEY OSWALD RESUMED

The CHAIRMAN. The Commission will be in order.

Shall we reswear Mrs. Oswald?

Mr. RANKIN. I would think her former swearing would be sufficient, Mr. Chief Justice.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well. You consider yourself under oath, do you, Mrs. Oswald?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, we would like to have you tell about the incident in regard to Mr. Nixon that you have told about since we had your last examination. Could you tell us what you know about that incident, first, when it happened insofar as you can recall?

Mrs. OSWALD. I am very sorry I didn't mention this before. I prefer that you ask me the questions and that will help me to remember what there is.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us what Mr. Nixon it is, was it Richard Nixon, the former Vice President of the United States that you were referring to?

Mrs. OSWALD. I only know one Nixon and I think it was Richard Nixon which it was all about.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you fix the date when this occurrence did happen? Approximately?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was a weekend before he went to New Orleans and after the Walker business I think. But I might be mistaken as to whether or not this was a weekend because I am basing this on the fact that my husband was home and he wasn't--wasn't always employed and he was at home weekdays as well sometimes, so I can't be entirely sure that it was a weekend.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you place the place of the various homes you had that this happened?

Mrs. OSWALD. Neely Street.

Mr. RANKIN. At the Neely Street house. Do you know what time of day it occurred?

Mrs. OSWALD. This was in the morning.

Mr. RANKIN. Who was there?

Mrs. OSWALD. Just my husband and me.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, will you describe in detail just what happened. Mrs. Oswald, when you are answering the questions will you try to break up your answers, and let the interpreter try to translate; I think it will be helpful in not having the interpreter have to try to remember everything of a long answer. Do you understand me?

Mr. DULLES. May I suggest also, Mr. Rankin, that I think it would be preferable that the record be in the first person, that is, the interpreter translate just as she said it.

I was looking over the earlier record and that is the way it was over the earlier record and it went quite well.

Mrs. OSWALD. It was early in the morning and my husband went out to get a newspaper, then he came in and sat reading the newspaper. I didn't pay any attention to him because I was occupied with the housework.

Then he got dressed and put on a good suit. I saw that he took a pistol. I asked him where he was going, and why he was getting dressed. He answered, "Nixon is coming. I want to go and have a look." I said, "I know how you look," or rather, "I know how you customarily look, how you customarily take a look," because I saw he was taking the pistol with him rather than I know how you look in the sense that you are dressed, how you look at things is what I mean.

Mr. RANKIN. Had it come to your attention, Mrs. Oswald, that Mr. Nixon was going to be in Dallas prior to that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; it did not.

Mr. RANKIN. Had you seen anything in the newspapers or heard anything over the radio or television?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; we didn't have TV. I didn't see this in the newspaper.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know what newspaper it was in which your husband read this report?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; Dallas Morning News maybe. It was a morning paper.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether there was any information at all in the papers about Mr. Nixon planning to come to Dallas about that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't ever read the newspaper and I did not know; therefore, didn't know whether there was any information in the newspapers prior to this time about Vice President Nixon's arrival in Dallas.

Representative FORD. Could we establish the date more precisely, either by the newspapers or by testimony from Mrs. Oswald?

(At this point, the Chief Justice left the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. Mrs. Oswald, can you help us by telling how many days it was before you went to New Orleans that this incident occurred?

Mrs. OSWALD. What day did I go to New Orleans?

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall that your husband went to New Orleans on April 24?

Mrs. OSWALD. April 24? My husband?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; and you went at a later date with Mrs. Paine, do you remember that?

Mrs. OSWALD. I remember it was about 2 weeks before.

Mr. RANKIN. Two weeks before April 24?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; but when was the incident with Walker?

Mr. RANKIN. April 10 was the Walker incident. Does that help you?

Mrs. OSWALD. This is a short distance, you know, I think maybe----

Mr. RANKIN. So you think it had to be sometime between April 10 and April 24?

Mrs. OSWALD. This may be 10 days or more. I think it was closer to the time when my husband left for New Orleans than it was to the incident of General Walker. I think it was less than a week before my husband left for New Orleans. I did not think up this incident with Nixon myself.

Mr. RANKIN. What do you mean by that, Mrs. Oswald?

Mrs. OSWALD. I had forgotten entirely about the incident with Vice President Nixon when I was here the first time. When you asked me the questions about it, then I remembered it. I wasn't trying to deceive you the first time.

Mr. RANKIN. What did your husband say that day about Richard Nixon, when he got this gun and dressed up. Did he tell you anything about him?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I just didn't know what to do, you know.

Mr. RANKIN. How did you know he was interested in doing something about Mr. Nixon at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. My husband just said that Nixon is coming to Dallas.

Mr. RANKIN. Then what did you do?

Mrs. OSWALD. First I didn't know what to do. I wanted to prevent him from going out.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything to him?

Mrs. OSWALD. I called him into the bathroom and I closed the door and I wanted to prevent him and then I started to cry. And I told him that he shouldn't do this, that he had promised me.

Mr. RANKIN. Are you referring to his promise to you that you described in your prior testimony after the Walker incident?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; that was the promise.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall the bathroom, how the door closes? Does it close into the bathroom on Neely Street or from the outside in?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember now. I don't remember. I only remember that it was something to do with the bathroom.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you lock him into the bathroom?

Mrs. OSWALD. I can't remember precisely.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall how the locks were on the bathroom door there?

Mrs. OSWALD. I can't recall. We had several apartments and I might be confusing one apartment with the other.

Mr. RANKIN. Is it your testimony that you made it impossible for him to get out if he wanted to?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.

Representative FORD. Did he try to get out of the bathroom?

Mrs. OSWALD. I remember that I held him. We actually struggled for several minutes and then he quieted down. I remember that I told him that if he goes out it would be better for him to kill me than to go out.

Mr. DULLES. He is quite a big man and you are a small woman.

Mrs. OSWALD. No; he is not a big man. He is not strong.

Mr. DULLES. Well, he was 5 feet 9, and you are how tall?

Mrs. OSWALD. When he is very upset, my husband is very upset he is not strong and when I want to and when I collect all my forces and want to do something very badly I am stronger than he is.

Mr. DULLES. You meant mentally or physically?

Mrs. OSWALD. I am not strong but, you know, there is a certain balance of forces between us.

Mr. DULLES. Do you think it was persuasion, your persuasion of him or the physical force or both that prevented him from going?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think it was physically, physical prevention because if he--I couldn't keep him from going out if he really wanted to. It might have been that he was just trying to test me. He was the kind of person who could try and wound somebody in that way. Possibly he didn't want to go out at all but was just doing this all as a sort of joke, not really as a joke but rather to simply wound me, to make me feel bad.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, if I may interpose here for a moment. Mrs. Oswald has been interrogated at length by the FBI in connection with this particular incident--the Nixon incident. I feel confident that the FBI has made a written report insofar as her testimony is concerned in their interrogation, but for purposes of the record I have no objection whatsoever for the FBI report to be included in the record as part of the record.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you, Mr. McKenzie. We will incorporate those reports as a part of the record in regard to this incident, if that is agreeable to the Commission.

Mr. McKENZIE. The reason I say that is because of the fact that those interrogations were conducted at an earlier date and closer to the actual incident, the state of time to the actual incidents than her interrogation here today, and insofar as dates are concerned I think that her mind would be clearer on those dates, and I likewise know that at that time a Russian interpreter was there.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. McKenzie, I think with the members of the Commission here that I want to ask a number of questions about this incident because of its importance so they can observe the witness as well as have the benefit of her testimony.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, in no way am I suggesting otherwise but if it would help the Commission in evaluating her testimony and evaluating the evidence that it has had heretofore in prior testimony we have no objection to those reports being a part of the record in any way.

Mr. RANKIN. Thank you.

Mrs. OSWALD. I might be mistaken about some of the details of this incident but it is very definite he got dressed, took a gun, and then didn't go out. The reason why there might be some confusion in my mind about the details because it happened in other apartments in which we lived that we quarreled and then I would shut him in the bathroom, and in this particular case it may not have happened quite that way, but there is no doubt that he got dressed and had a gun.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you remember what you said to him and what he said to you at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember now but I told the FBI precisely.

Mr. RANKIN. And were your reports to the FBI in regard to this incident accurate, truthful, and correct?

Mrs. OSWALD. They were correct as far as I could remember. The only detail as far as my memory served me--the only detail which might be confused is the one with the bathroom.

Mr. RANKIN. Had your husband said anything before or did he say anything at that time in regard to Mr. Nixon showing any hostility, friendship, or anything else?

Mrs. OSWALD. Showing any hostility or friendship toward Mr. Nixon?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes; toward Nixon.

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember him saying anything--I don't remember but he didn't tell me. I don't remember him saying anything of that sort. I only remember the next day he told me that Nixon did not come. Excuse me.

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mrs. OSWALD. The FBI suggested that possibly I was confused between Johnson and Nixon but there is no question that in this incident it was a question of Mr. Nixon. I remember distinctly the name Nixon because I read from the presidential elections that there was a choice between President Kennedy and Mr. Nixon.

Representative FORD. Where did your husband get the pistol that morning; do you remember?

Mrs. OSWALD. What, where?

Representative FORD. Where.

Mrs. OSWALD. My husband had a small room where he kept all that sort of thing. It is a little larger than a closet.

Representative FORD. Did you see him go in and get the pistol?

Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't see him go into the room. I only saw him standing before the open door and putting the pistol in his pocket.

Representative FORD. Do you recall which pocket he put the pistol in?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was not in a pocket. He put it in his belt.

(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. DULLES. Had you and your husband ever discussed Mr. Nixon at a previous, at any previous time?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. No.

Mr. RANKIN. What else happened about this incident beyond what you have told us?

Mrs. OSWALD. He took off his suit and stayed home all day reading a book. He gave me the pistol and I hid it under the mattress.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you say anything more than you have told us to him about this matter at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. I closed the front door to the building that day and when we were quarreling about--when we were struggling over the question of whether or not he should go out I said a great deal to him.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you say to him then?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.

Mr. RANKIN. Just tell us in substance?

Mrs. OSWALD. I really don't remember now. I only remember that I told him that I am sorry of all these pranks of his and especially after the one with General Walker, and he had promised me, I told him that he had promised me----

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything in answer to that?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember.

Mr. DULLES. As I recall, in your previous testimony there was some indication that you had said that if he did the Walker type of thing again you would notify the authorities. Did that conversation come up at this time with your husband?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I said that. But he didn't go at that time and after all he was my husband.

Mr. DULLES. Does--do you mean you said it again at the time of the Nixon incident?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I told him that but you must understand that I don't speak English very well, and for that reason I used to keep a piece of paper with me, and I had it, you know, what piece of paper I am talking about. At that time I didn't know how to go in police station: I don't know where it was.

Mr. McKENZIE. Was that the passport?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. After the incident with Walker----

Mr. RANKIN. Was that paper the Walker incident note that you have described in your testimony?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Representative FORD. When you put the pistol under the mattress, what happened to the pistol from then on?

Mrs. OSWALD. That evening he asked for it and said that nothing was going to happen, and that he said he wouldn't do anything and took the pistol back. And put it into his room.

Mr. DULLES. Did you keep the, what you call, the Walker note with you all the time or did you have it in a particular place where you could go and get it and show it to him?

Mrs. OSWALD. I had it all the time. I kept it in a certain place initially and then I put it in the pages of a book.

Senator COOPER. Mr. Rankin, would you ask the witness to state again what Lee Oswald's promise was to her that he had made at the time of the Walker incident?

Mr. RANKIN. Will you relate the promise that your husband made to you right after the discovery of the Walker incident by you?

Mrs. OSWALD. This wasn't a written promise.

Mr. RANKIN. No.

Mrs. OSWALD. But in words it was more or less that I told him that he was very lucky that he hadn't killed--it very good that he hadn't killed General Walker. I said it was fate that--it was fated that General Walker not be killed and therefore he shouldn't try such a thing again.

Mr. RANKIN. What did he say in answer to that?

Mrs. OSWALD. He said perhaps I am right. I myself didn't believe what I was saying because I didn't believe that he was fated. I was just trying to find some way of dissuading my husband to do such a thing again. Do you understand what I mean?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes. Did he say that he would or would not do that again, that is what I want to know.

Mrs. OSWALD. At the time I did definitely convince him that I was right, and at the time he said that he would not do such a thing again.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, when you talked to him about the Nixon incident and persuaded him not to go out and do anything to Mr. Nixon, did you say anything about your pregnancy in trying to persuade him?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. What did you say about that?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I told him that I was pregnant.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you observe his action at the time of this Nixon incident, how he acted?

Mrs. OSWALD. How he reacted to this?

Mr. RANKIN. How he reacted to your interfering with him.

Mrs. OSWALD. At first he was extremely angry, and he said, "You are always getting in my way." But then rather quickly he gave in, which was rather unusual for him. At the time I didn't give this any thought, but now I think it was just rather a kind of nasty joke he was playing with me. Sometimes Lee was--he had a sadistic--my husband had a sadistic streak in him and he got pleasure out of harming people, and out of harming me, not physically but emotionally and mentally.

Mr. RANKIN. Have you told us substantially all that happened about this Nixon incident?

Mrs. OSWALD. That is all I can remember.

Representative FORD. Can you tell us why you didn't mention this incident to the Commission when you appeared before?

Mrs. OSWALD. There were an awful lot of questions at that time, and I was very tired and felt that I had told everything and I don't remember, I can't understand why I didn't mention this. It would have been better for me to mention it the first time than to make you all do more work on it.

Mr. DULLES. At the time of this incident did you threaten to go to the authorities in case your husband did not desist in his intention?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I said that.

Senator COOPER. I may have to go--could I ask a few questions? Mrs. Oswald, will you repeat what your husband said that morning when he dressed and got the pistol?

Mrs. OSWALD. I asked him where he was going and why he was getting dressed. He answered. "Today Nixon is coming and I want to go out and have a look at him."

I answered, "I know how you look," and I had in mind the fact that he was taking a pistol with him.

Senator COOPER. Did he say anything about what he intended to do with the pistol?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator COOPER. Did you ask him if he intended to use the pistol against Mr. Nixon?

Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that, "You have already promised me not to play any more with that thing." Not really play, but, you know--I didn't mean, of course, just playing but using the pistol. Then he said, "I am going to go out and find out if there will be an appropriate opportunity and if there is I will use the pistol." I just remembered this and maybe I didn't say this in my first testimony and now it just has occurred to me that he said this.

Senator COOPER. Did your husband say why he wanted to use the pistol against Mr. Nixon?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator COOPER. Did he say where he intended to see Mr. Nixon?

Mrs. OSWALD. He didn't say. He just said in Dallas, and since Nixon was coming to Dallas.

Senator COOPER. When he was talking to you about seeing Mr. Nixon and using the pistol, what was his attitude? Was he angry or----

Mrs. OSWALD. He wasn't angry. He looked more preoccupied and had sort of a concentrated look.

Senator COOPER. Now, from the beginning, from the time that he first told you that he was going to use the pistol, until the time that you say he became quieted, did he again make any statement about using the pistol against Mr. Nixon?

Mrs. OSWALD. I told him that I didn't want him to use his gun any more. He said, "I will go out and have a look and perhaps I won't use my gun, but if there is a convenient opportunity perhaps I will." Strike "perhaps" please from that last sentence. I didn't have a lot of time to think of what we were actually saying. All I was trying to do was to prevent him from going out.

Senator COOPER. How much time elapsed, if you can remember, from the time he first told you that he was going out and when he finally became pacified?

Mrs. OSWALD. This was maybe 30 minutes. The whole incident took maybe 20 minutes. It was about 10 minutes I took--15 minutes maybe. 15 minutes, it took maybe 10 minutes for him to be prepared to go out and then the incident in the bathroom took maybe 5 minutes until he quieted down. It doesn't mean I held him in the bathroom for 5 minutes because I couldn't do that but the general discussion in the bathroom.

Senator COOPER. You said he stayed at the house the remainder of the day. During the remainder of the day did you discuss again with him the incident?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; no.

Senator COOPER. Did he say anything more that day?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. He read a book.

Mr. DULLES. Do you know what book it was, by chance?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. It was some kind of book from the public library. He had a two-volume history of the United States. This is not from the library, this was his own book.

Mr. DULLES. The incident occurred, you said just a few days after he had told you he shot at General Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was about 10 or 12 days after the incident with General Walker, perhaps about 3 days before we left for the departure for New Orleans. This didn't happen right after the incident with General Walker. It happened rather closer to a time when we departed for New Orleans.

Mr. DULLES. The General Walker incident made a very strong impression on you, didn't it?

Mrs. OSWALD. Of course. I never thought that Lee had a gun in order to use it to shoot at somebody with.

Mr. DULLES. Didn't this statement that he made about Vice President Nixon make a strong impression on you also?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know. I was pregnant at the time. I had a lot of other things to worry about. I was getting pretty well tired of all of these escapades of his.

Mr. DULLES. Was there any reason why you didn't tell the Commission about this when you testified before?

Mrs. OSWALD. I had no--there is no particular reason. I just forgot. Very likely this incident didn't make a very great impression on me at that time.

Mr. DULLES. Now, before the death of President Kennedy, of course, you knew that your husband had purchased a rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. You knew that he had purchased a pistol?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. And a knife?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; what kind of knife?

Mr. DULLES. Did he have a knife?

Mrs. OSWALD. He had a little pocket knife; I think.

Mr. DULLES. You knew that he had told you that he had tried to kill General Walker?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. And, of course, as you said you heard him make a threat against Nixon.

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. DULLES. Did you have some fear that he would use these weapons against someone else?

Mrs. OSWALD. Of course; I was afraid.

Mr. DULLES. What?

Mrs. OSWALD. Of course; I was afraid.

Mr. DULLES. You thought that he might use his weapons against someone?

Mrs. OSWALD. After the incident with Nixon I stopped believing him.

Mr. DULLES. You what?

Mrs. OSWALD. I stopped believing him.

Mr. DULLES. Why?

Mrs. OSWALD. Because he wasn't obeying me any longer, because he promised and then he broke his promise.

Mr. DULLES. Would you repeat that?

Mrs. OSWALD. Because he wasn't obeying me any more. He promised and, he made a promise and then he broke it.

Mr. DULLES. That is my question. Having been told that--isn't it correct he told you that he shot at General Walker? He made a promise to you that he wouldn't do anything like that again, you heard him threaten Vice President Nixon, didn't it occur to you then that there was danger that he would use these weapons against someone else in the future?

Mrs. OSWALD. After the incident with Walker, I believed him when he told me that he wouldn't use the weapons any longer.

Mr. DULLES. I remember you testified before and I asked you if you had heard him threaten any official or other person and your answer was no.

Mrs. OSWALD. Because I forgot at that time about the incident with Nixon.

Mr. DULLES. I want to ask you again: In view of the fact that you knew--in view of the fact that he had threatened Walker by shooting at him, and he threatened Vice President Nixon can you not tell this Commission whether after that he threatened to hurt, harm any other person?

Mrs. OSWALD. Nobody else. Perhaps I should be punished for not having said anything about all this, but I was just a wife and I was trying to keep the family together, at that time. I mean to say. I am talking, of course, of the time before President Kennedy's death. And if I forget to say anything now, I am not doing it on purpose.

Mr. DULLES. I am just asking questions. Will you say here that he never did make any statement against President Kennedy?

Mrs. OSWALD. Never.

Mr. DULLES. Did he ever make any statement about him of any kind?

Mrs. OSWALD. He used to read and translate articles from the newspaper about Kennedy to me and from magazines, favorable articles about Kennedy. He never commented on them and he never discussed them in any way but because of his translations and his reading to me he always had a favorable feeling about President Kennedy because he always read these favorably inclined articles to me. He never said that these articles never were true that he was a bad President or anything like that.

Mr. DULLES. I didn't catch the last.

Mrs. OSWALD. He never said these articles were not true or that President Kennedy was a bad President or anything like that.

Senator COOPER. I think you testified before that he made statements showing his dislike of our system of government and its economic system.

Mrs. OSWALD. He used to complain about the educational difficulties and about the unemployment in the United States and about the high cost of medical care.

Mr. McKENZIE. Right there, please, may I, Mr. Dulles when did he complain of those things, was this in Russia or was it in the United States after you returned from Russia?

Mrs. OSWALD. After our return from Russia. When we were living in New Orleans after returning from Russia.

Mr. McKENZIE. Did he likewise make such complaints about the American system while you were living in Russia after you were married?

Mrs. OSWALD. He used to tell me that it was difficult to find a job and to get work in the United States but nonetheless we would be better there than we were in Russia. Excuse me. He was the kind of person who was never able to get along anywhere he was and when he was in Russia he used to say good things about the United States and when he was in the United States he used to talk well about Russia.

Senator COOPER. You knew, of course, because of the incidents in New Orleans that he did not like American policy respecting Cuba.

Mrs. OSWALD. He was definitely a supporter of Cuba. This was something which remained with him from Russia.

Senator COOPER. Did he ever say to you who was responsible or who had some responsibility for our policy toward Cuba?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Senator COOPER. Had he ever mentioned President Kennedy in connection with our Cuban policy?

Mrs. OSWALD. Never to me.

Mr. DULLES. Did he ever say anything----

Mrs. OSWALD. He might have discussed this with Paine.

Senator COOPER. With who?

Mrs. OSWALD. Mr. Paine, husband of Ruth Paine.

Senator COOPER. He might have done what now?

Mrs. OSWALD. With the husband of Ruth Paine.

Senator COOPER. Why do you say that, did you ever hear him talking about it?

Mrs. OSWALD. He used to talk politics with Mr. Paine. I don't know what they were talking about because at that time I didn't understand English.

Senator COOPER. Did you mean, though, to say that you believed he might have discussed the Cuban policy with Mr. Paine.

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; especially after we returned from New Orleans.

Senator COOPER. Why? Why do you make that statement?

Mrs. OSWALD. Because we only saw Mr. Paine once or twice before we went to New Orleans. And there was more opportunity to see Mr. Paine after we came back.

Senator COOPER. But my question is what makes you think he might have talked to Mr. Paine about Cuba?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think, sir; because after returning from New Orleans this was his favorite subject, Cuba, and he was quite--a little bit cracked about it, crazy about Cuba.

Senator COOPER. You mean he talked to you a great deal about it after you came from New Orleans?

Mrs. OSWALD. Well, in New Orleans he used to talk to me endlessly about Cuba, but after we came back he didn't talk to me about it any longer because I was just sick and tired of this.

Mr. DULLES. "He" in this case is your husband?

Mrs. OSWALD. That is right. I really don't know about what he talked with Mr. Paine. I think that they were talking about politics, that is to say my husband with Mr. Paine because my husband used to tell me afterwards, "Well, he doesn't understand anything about politics." "He is not too strong on politics."

And, therefore, I think they were probably talking with the American political system and the Russian political system and comparisons between them. I think that Mr. Paine could probably tell you more about this than I can.

Senator COOPER. That is all I want to ask for the time being.

Mrs. OSWALD. I think that Mr. Paine knows more about my husband's political attitudes toward the United States than I do.

Mr. RANKIN. You said the FBI asked you whether you could have been mistaken about it being Mr. Nixon that your husband was interested in going and seeing and maybe doing something to with his gun.

Do you know what Mr. Johnson you were asking about?

Let me rephrase the question.

You said the FBI asked you whether you might have been mistaken about Mr. Nixon and whether it might have been Mr. Johnson instead of Mr. Nixon that your husband was interested in doing something to with his gun.

Do you know what Mr. Johnson was being referred to?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I didn't know who Johnson was. I am ashamed but I never knew his name. I am ashamed myself but I didn't know who Johnson was.

Mr. RANKIN. You didn't know that the FBI was asking about the then Vice President and now President Johnson?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I never heard of Johnson before he became President.

Mr. DULLES. And you are quite sure----

Mrs. OSWALD. Maybe I am stupid, I don't know.

Mr. DULLES. And you are quite sure that your husband mentioned the name of Nixon to you----

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; I am sure it was Nixon.

Mr. DULLES. That morning?

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether this Nixon incident occurred the day before your husband went to New Orleans?

Mrs. OSWALD. It wasn't the day before. Perhaps 3 days before.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mr. Rankin, may I ask a question?

Mr. RANKIN. Yes.

Mr. McKENZIE. Mrs. Oswald, you say or you said a few minutes ago that Mr. Paine knew or knows more about your husband's attitude about the United States than you do. Why did you say that?

Mrs. OSWALD. Because my husband's favorite topic of discussion was politics, and whoever he was with he talked to them politics and Mr. Paine was with him a fair amount and I am not sure they talked about politics. They went to meetings of some kind together, I don't know what kind of meetings.

Mr. McKENZIE. Do you know where the meetings were?

Mrs. OSWALD. In Dallas. After they came back from some meeting my husband said to me something about Walker being at this meeting, and he said, "Paine knows that I shot him."

I don't know whether this was the truth or not. I don't know whether it was true or not but this is what he told me.

Mr. McKENZIE. Would they go in Mr. Paine's automobile?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; it was about 2 days after this incident with Stevenson or the next day, or maybe it was the same place, or the next day that a meeting was held where General Walker appeared.

Mr. McKENZIE. It was the day before.

Mrs. OSWALD. The day before? The day after. I think there was 1 day's difference between them, either it was the day before or the day after.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you say that there were a number of political meetings----

Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me; but I think this was on Friday. I think that Lee was at this meeting on a Friday.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you say there were a number of political meetings that your husband went to----

Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me; this was October 24.

Mr. RANKIN. With Mr. Paine?

Mrs. OSWALD. A week after his birthday--this was Friday. I think it was a week after my husband's birthday about October 24 or something like that or the 25th.

Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Reporter, can you give her the question that I asked?

Mrs. OSWALD. Excuse me, please.

(The question was read by the reporter.)

Mrs. OSWALD. I only know about this one.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the FBI tell you that the reason they were asking about whether there was a mistake as to whether it was Mr. Nixon or Vice President Johnson was because there was a report in Dallas papers about Vice President Johnson going to Dallas around the 23d of April?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; they did tell me this. They said that at this time there was only one announcement in the newspapers of anyone coming and that was Vice President Johnson.

Mr. RANKIN. But you still are certain it was Mr. Nixon and not Vice President Johnson?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, no. I am getting a little confused with so many questions. I was absolutely convinced it was Nixon and now after all these questions I wonder if I am right in my mind.

Mr. RANKIN. Did your husband----

Mrs. OSWALD. I never heard about Johnson. I never heard about Johnson. I never knew anything about Johnson. I just don't think it was Johnson. I didn't know his name.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you husband during the Nixon incident say Mr. Nixon's name several times or how many times.

Mrs. OSWALD. Only once.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, you said that your husband went to get the pistol in the room. Will you tell us what room that was that he went to get the pistol?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was a small sort of storeroom. Just to the left off the balcony as you come in; it is just on the left from the balcony.

Mr. RANKIN. Was it out, was the pistol out in the room or was it in a closet?

Mrs. OSWALD. This room contained only a table and some shelves, and the pistol was not on the table. It was hidden somewhere on a shelf.

Representative FORD. Was the rifle in that room, too?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Where was the rifle in the room?

Mrs. OSWALD. Sometimes it was in the corner, sometimes it was up on a shelf. Lee didn't like me to go into this room. That is why he kept it closed all the time and told me not to go into it. Sometimes he went in there and sat by himself for long periods of time.

Mr. DULLES. By closed, do you mean locked?

Mrs. OSWALD. He used to close it from the inside. I don't remember what kind of lock it was. Possibly it was just a--some kind of a tongue----

Mr. McKENZIE. Latch.

Mrs. OSWALD. Latch or something like that.

Mr. DULLES. How could he close it from the inside and then get out?

Mrs. OSWALD. When he was inside he could close it from the inside so that I couldn't come in.

Mr. DULLES. But when he came out could he close it from the outside so that you could not get in?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; from the outside it couldn't be locked.

Representative FORD. When you went to New Orleans and packed for the trip to New Orleans, did you help to pack the pistol or the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. No, no; Lee never let me pack things when we went for trips. He always did it himself.

Representative FORD. Did you see him pack the pistol or the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative FORD. Did you know the pistol and the rifle were in the luggage going to New Orleans?

Mrs. OSWALD. I stayed for some time with Ruth Paine after he left for New Orleans and I don't know whether they were in his things or they were in the stuff which was left with me.

Representative FORD. At the time Mrs. Paine picked you up to go to the bus station, did you intend to go by bus to New Orleans at that time?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Representative FORD. While you were living on Neely Street you didn't tell us before of any extensive rifle shooting at Love Field or rifle practice at Love Field. Can you tell us more about it now?

Mrs. OSWALD. Lee didn't tell me when he was going out to practice. I only remember one time distinctly that he went out because he took the bus. I don't know if he went to Love Field at that time. I don't--after all this testimony, after all this testimony, when I was asked did he clean his gun a lot, and I answered yes, I came to the conclusion that he was practicing with his gun because he was cleaning it afterwards.

Representative FORD. Did he take the rifle and the pistol to Love Field or at the time he went on the bus?

Mrs. OSWALD. Only the rifle.

Mr. McKENZIE. Just a minute. Let me ask her a question. May I ask a question?

Representative FORD. Yes, sir.

Mr. McKENZIE. Representative Ford, I wasn't here as you know when Mrs. Oswald testified before. I have been with her when she was interrogated by the FBI relative to practicing the rifle shooting. This is the first time that I have heard the use of the words "Love Field." Has there been prior testimony by Mrs. Oswald here that he was practicing at Love Field, because the reason I ask this is because she has steadfastly in the past told me and the FBI that she didn't know where he went to practice and that is the reason I wanted to know.

Mr. RANKIN. The record is----

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't know where he practiced. I just think that the bus goes to, went to Love Field.

Mr. RANKIN. Her testimony before was that the bus that he took, that she knows about when he went, was a bus that went to Love Field, and she thought he went to some place in that area to do his practicing.

Mr. McKENZIE. The reason I ask the question, Mr. Rankin, is because I don't believe there is any practice area at Love Field for rifle practicing.

Mr. RANKIN. Well, the investigation that the Commission has made shows that there is a place near Love Field where people do shooting and practicing.

Mr. McKENZIE. Not at Love Field.

Mr. RANKIN. It is right adjacent, in the neighborhood.

Mrs. OSWALD. Once we went out with Kathy Ford with the children to watch airplanes landing and these airplanes made a tremendous noise and for that reason I thought that maybe my husband was practicing somewhere in that area because you couldn't hear the sound of shots. I don't know if there is any place near there where one can practice shooting, though. This idea just came to me a little while ago when we were out there, watching the airplanes because it was a couple of weeks ago that this happened. Just sort of a guess of mine.

Mr. DULLES. How did he pack the gun or conceal the gun when he went out on the bus toward Love Field?

Mrs. OSWALD. Are you talking about the gun or the rifle?

Mr. DULLES. I am talking about the rifle.

Mrs. OSWALD. He used to wrap it up in his overcoat, raincoat.

Mr. RANKIN. So that the record will be clear on this, Mr. McKenzie, the prior testimony did not purport to indicate that Mrs. Oswald thought he was practicing right on Love Field where the airplanes were landing or anything like that. It was that he took that bus and took the rifle and came back with the rifle and that the bus went to Love Field and the investigation has shown that there is at least one place in that immediate neighborhood where there is gun practice carried on.

Mr. DULLES. Is there testimony, Mr. Rankin, as to more than one trip or should we get that from the witness?

Mr. RANKIN. She testified right now she only knew of this one although she knew of his cleaning his guns a number of times. She just testified to that. Do you want more than that?

Mr. DULLES. I thought the record was a little fuzzy. Maybe you should clarify it.

Mr. McKENZIE. I think you should ask the question.

Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell us, Mrs. Oswald, how you thought your husband might have been practicing in the area near Love Field or how you concluded that he might have been practicing with the rifle in the area near Love Field.

Mrs. OSWALD. Only because that is the bus, only because that is where the bus goes. He never told me where.

Mr. RANKIN. And you don't know whether he was practicing at a place near Love Field or some place between where he got on the bus near your home and Love Field; is that right?

Mrs. OSWALD. No; I don't know, even now I don't know where it is.

Senator COOPER. Can I just ask a question? Do you know how many times he took the rifle from your home?

Mrs. OSWALD. Well----

Mr. DULLES. You are speaking of Neely Street.

Mrs. OSWALD. I only saw----

Senator COOPER. When you were living on Neely Street--strike that. You have told about his taking the rifle from the house on Neely Street and then later cleaning the rifle. Do you know how many times that occurred?

Mrs. OSWALD. I saw him take the rifle only once when we were living on Neely Street but he cleaned the rifle perhaps three or four times, perhaps three times--three times.

Senator COOPER. Did he ever tell you that he was practicing with a rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. Only after I saw him take the gun that one time.

Senator COOPER. Did you ask him if he had been practicing with the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes, I asked him.

Senator COOPER. What did he say?

Mrs. OSWALD. He said yes.

Senator COOPER. Did he ever give any reason why he was practicing with the rifle to you?

Mrs. OSWALD. He didn't give me a reason. He just said that for a man it is an interesting thing to have a rifle. I considered this some kind of a sport for him. I didn't think he was planning to employ it. I didn't take it seriously.

(At this point, Senator Cooper left the hearing room.)

Mr. RANKIN. At the time of the Nixon incident did you know who Mr. Nixon was?

Mrs. OSWALD. I didn't know what position he held. I thought he was Vice President.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever check to see whether Mr. Nixon was in fact in Dallas anytime around that date?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. After the day of the Nixon incident did you ever discuss that incident again with your husband?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the Nixon incident have anything to do with your decision to go to New Orleans to live?

Mrs. OSWALD. After the incident with Walker it became clear to me that it would be a good idea to go away from Dallas and after the incident with Nixon insisted--I insisted on it.

Mr. RANKIN. After the Nixon incident did you ever discuss that Nixon incident again with your husband?

Mrs. OSWALD. No. I don't know why. Perhaps it didn't make a very strong impression on me and that is why I didn't mention it in my first testimony. Perhaps it is because the first incident with Walker made such a strong impression that what happened afterward was somewhat effaced by it. I was so much upset by this incident with General Walker that I only just wanted to get away from Dallas as fast as possible.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss the Nixon incident with anyone other than your husband before the assassination of President Kennedy?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever consider telling the police about the Walker and Nixon incidents?

Mrs. OSWALD. I thought of this but then Lee was the only person who was supporting me in the United States, you see. I didn't have any friends, I didn't speak any English and I couldn't work and I didn't know what would happen if they locked him up and I didn't know what would happen to us. Of course, my reason told me that I should do it but because of circumstances I couldn't do it.

Mr. RANKIN. When did you first tell something about the Nixon incident?

Mrs. OSWALD. It was after the assassination; we were in Martin's house and I think Robert was there also. That is when I first mentioned that. I don't remember whether I told them both at the same time or told Martin first and Robert second or Robert first and Martin second.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know about when that was with reference to the time you moved in with the Martins?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was in the first month. I don't remember which day it was, though.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you recall whether you first told Robert about it some time in January of this year?

Mrs. OSWALD. I think it was earlier than that, early in December. Perhaps in the beginning of January, but I think it was before New Year's.

Mr. RANKIN. If Robert has stated that it was on a Sunday, January 12 of this year, do you think he is in error then?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't think that Robert would make a mistake. I might make a mistake myself but I don't think he would make a mistake because he doesn't have quite as many, because he has not been in contact with quite as many of these events and doesn't have quite as much to remember as I have. And in general, I have a bad memory for figures.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you discuss the Nixon incident at anytime with Mr. Thorne or Mr. Martin, your agent?

Mrs. OSWALD. I told Martin about it but I don't think I told Thorne about it, and if Thorne learned about it it must have been from Martin.

Mr. RANKIN. You just related how you told Mr. Martin about it and the occasion in your testimony a moment ago; is that right?

Mrs. OSWALD. I am certain that these were the circumstances in which I told Martin about this. Whether or not the--it's possible I was just talking with Martin and his wife about Lee and it just came into my mind and I don't remember whether Robert was there or not, or whether I told Robert later.

Mr. RANKIN. Did anyone at anytime advise you or tell you not to tell the Commission about this incident?

Mrs. OSWALD. Martin told me that it is not necessary to mention this. But when they were asking me here in the Commission whether I had anything to add to my testimony, I really forgot about it. When Martin and I were talking about it he said, "Well, try not to think about these things too much."

Mr. RANKIN. Did he say anything about why it wasn't necessary to tell about this incident?

Mrs. OSWALD. I don't remember. I don't think he told me why. Maybe he told me and I just didn't understand because I didn't understand English very well.

Mr. RANKIN. When you were telling about the Nixon incident you referred to your husband's sadistic streak. Do you recall that?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes.

Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us a little more about that, how it showed?

Mrs. OSWALD. Anytime I did something which didn't please him he would make me sit down at a table and write letters to the Russian Embassy stating that I wanted to go back to Russia. He liked to tease me and torment me in this way. He knew that this--he just liked to torment me and upset me and hurt me, and he used to do this especially if I interfered in any of his political affairs, in any of his political discussions. He made me several times write such letters.

Mr. DULLES. I have just one question: What did you or your husband do with these letters that you wrote? Did any of them get mailed or did they all get destroyed?

Mrs. OSWALD. He kept carbons of these letters but he sent the letters off himself.

Mr. DULLES. To the Russian Embassy?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; he didn't give me any money to buy stamps. I never had any pocket money of my own.

Mr. RANKIN. But the letters to the Embassy you are referring to are actual letters and requested--requests--they weren't practice letters or anything of that kind to punish you, were they?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; they were real letters. I mean if my husband didn't want me to live with him any longer and wanted me to go back, I would go back, not because I wanted to go back but I didn't have any choice.

Mr. RANKIN. I misunderstood you then because I thought you were describing the fact that he made you write letters as a part of this sadistic streak that would never be sent but what he actually did was have you prepare the letters and then he proceeded to send them, is that your testimony?

Mrs. OSWALD. He did send them and he really wanted this. He knew that this hurt me.

Mr. RANKIN. Those are the letters to the Russian Embassy we have introduced in evidence in connection with your testimony; is that right?

Mrs. OSWALD. Yes; those are the letters.

Representative FORD. Did he ever show you replies to those letters?

Mrs. OSWALD. At first--yes; there were. At first I didn't believe that he was sending off those letters.

Representative FORD. But you did see the replies?

Mrs. OSWALD. I received answers from the embassy.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, I will turn to another subject, Mrs. Oswald.

Mr. DULLES. Would you like to have a 5-minute recess? We will proceed.

Mr. RANKIN. Now, Mrs. Oswald, I would like to ask you about the Irving Gun Shop in Dallas.

Mrs. OSWALD. The what? I don't know anything about this at all.

Mr. RANKIN. Your counsel tells me I should correct that, that Irving is not a part of Dallas. It is the city of Irving. A witness has said that you and your two children and your husband came into a furniture shop asking the location of a gunshop in that area in Irving, and after appearing there that you and your husband, with your husband driving the car, along with your two children, got in the car and went up the street in the direction of where the gunshop was. Did you recall any incident of that kind?

Mrs. OSWALD. This is just a complete fabrication. Lee never drove a car with me. Only Ruth Paine drove a car with me. And I never took my baby with me.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever go into such a furniture store in Irving?

Mrs. OSWALD. Never.

Mr. RANKIN. That you recall?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was only twice in a store in Irving where they sell, like a cafe, where you can buy something to eat and where they sell toys and clothes and things like that; a little bit like a Woolworths, a one-story shop but without any furniture in it.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know a Mrs. Whitworth who works in a furniture store in Irving?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was never in Irving in any furniture store.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know a Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. OSWALD. It is the first time I have ever heard that name.

Mr. RANKIN. Do you know a Mrs. Hunter, a friend of Mrs. Whitworth?

Mrs. OSWALD. No.

Mr. RANKIN. Did you ever go on a trip with your husband to have a telescopic lens mounted on a gun at a gunshop?

Mrs. OSWALD. Never. No; this is all not true. In the first place, my husband couldn't drive, and I was never alone with him in a car. Anytime we went in a car it was with Ruth Paine, and there was never--we never went to any gun store and never had any telescopic lens mounted.

Mr. RANKIN. Did the four of you, that is, your husband, you, and your two children, ever go alone any place in Irving?

Mrs. OSWALD. In Irving the baby was only 1 month old. I never took her out anywhere.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime----

Mrs. OSWALD. Just to doctor, you know.

Representative FORD. Did you ever go anytime with your husband in a car with the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. I was never at anytime in a car with my husband and with a rifle. Not only with the rifle, not even with a pistol. Even without anything I was never with my husband in a car under circumstances where he was driving a car.

Representative FORD. Did you go in a car with somebody else driving where your husband had the pistol or the rifle?

Mrs. OSWALD. Never. I don't know what to think about this.

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