rotten > Library > History > Unamerican Activities > McCarthy Hearings Part 1

[107 Senate Committee Prints]

[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]

[DOCID: f:83869.wais]

S. Prt. 107-84

EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE

ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

=======================================================================

VOLUME 1

__________

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

1953

MADE PUBLIC JANUARY 2003

Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

________

U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

83-869 WASHINGTON : 2003

____________________________________________________________________________

For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800

Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

107th Congress, Second Session

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman

CARL LEVIN, Michigan FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TED STEVENS, Alaska

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MAX CLELAND, Georgia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel

Richard A. Hertling, Minority Staff Director

Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk

------

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii, SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TED STEVENS, Alaska

ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio

MAX CLELAND, Georgia THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah

MARK DAYTON, Minnesota JIM BUNNING, Kentucky

PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois

Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel

Kim Corthell, Minority Staff Director

Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

83rd Congress, First Session

JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota

HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina

Francis D. Flanagan, Chief Counsel

Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk

------

PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas \1\

EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington \1\

CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri \1\

Roy M. Cohn, Chief Counsel

Francis P. Carr, Executive Director

Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk

assistant counsels

Robert F. Kennedy Donald A. Surine

Thomas W. La Venia Jerome S. Adlerman

Donald F. O'Donnell C. George Anastos

Daniel G. Buckley

investigators

Robert J. McElroy

Herbert S. Hawkins James N. Juliana

G. David Schine, Chief Consultant

Karl H. W. Baarslag, Director of Research

Carmine S. Bellino, Consulting Accountant

La Vern J. Duffy, Staff Assistant

----------

\1\ The Democratic members were absent from the subcommittee from

July 10, 1953 to January 25, 1954.

C O N T E N T S

----------

Page

Volume 1

Preface.......................................................... xi

Introduction..................................................... xiii

Russell W. Duke, January 15...................................... 1

Testimony of Russell W. Duke.

Russell W. Duke, January 16...................................... 33

Testimony of Edward P. Morgan.

Stockpiling in General Services Administration, January 26....... 97

Testimony of George Willi; and Maxwell H. Elliott.

Stockpiling of Strategic Materials, January 29................... 121

Testimony of Downs E. Hewitt.

File Destruction in Department of State, January 26.............. 143

Testimony of John E. Matson.

File Destruction in Department of State, January 27.............. 177

Testimony of Helen B. Balog.

File Destruction in Department of State, January 28.............. 207

Testimony of Malvina M. Kerr; and Vladimir I. Toumanoff.

File Destruction in Department of State, January 29.............. 283

Testimony of Robert J. Ryan; and Mansfield Hunt.

Payment for Influence--Gas Pipeline Matter, January 26........... 321

Testimony of Eugene H. Cole.

Payment for Influence--Gas Pipeline Matter, January 27........... 337

Testimony of Eugene H. Cole.

Payment for Influence--Gas Pipeline Matter, February 7........... 349

Testimony of Clyde Austin; O.V. Wells; and John W. Carlisle.

Payment for Influence--Gas Pipeline Matter, March 3.............. 379

Testimony of Vernon Booth Lowrey.

Payment for Influence--Gas Pipeline Matter, March 24............. 393

Testimony of James M. Bryant.

Violation of Export Control Statutes, February 2................. 411

Testimony of E.L. Kohler.

Voice of America, February 13.................................... 457

Testimony of Lewis J. McKesson; Virgil H. Fulling; Edwin

Kretzmann; and Howard Fast.

Voice of America, February 14.................................... 499

Testimony of Lewis J. McKesson; James M. Moran; George Q.

Herrick; Newbern Smith; Stuart Ayers; Larry Bruzzese; and

Nancy Lenkeith.

Voice of America--Transmission Facilities, February 16........... 577

Testimony of Wilson R. Compton; and General Frank E. Stoner.

Voice of America, February 17.................................... 599

Testimony of Harold C. Vedeler.

Voice of America, February 23.................................... 615

Testimony of Nathaniel Weyl; Donald Henderson; Alfred Puhan;

James F. Thompson; and Reed Harris.

Voice of America, February 24.................................... 715

Testimony of W. Bradley Connors.

Voice of America, February 28.................................... 719

Testimony of Fernand Auberjonois; Norman Stanley Jacobs;

Raymond Gram Swing; and Troup Mathews.

Voice of America, March 3........................................ 765

Testimony of Jack B. Tate.

Voice of America, March 7........................................ 769

Testimony of Mrs. William Grogan; and Dorothy Fried.

Voice of America, March 10....................................... 795

Testimony of David Cushman Coyle; John Francis McJennett,

Jr.; and Robert L. Thompson.

Voice of America, March 16....................................... 881

Testimony of Charles P. Arnot.

Loyalty Board Procedures, March 18............................... 903

Testimony of John H. Amen.

Volume 2

State Department Information Service--Information Centers,

March 23....................................................... 913

Testimony of Mary M. Kaufman; Sol Auerbach (James S. Allen);

and William Marx Mandel.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers,

March 24....................................................... 945

Testimony of Samuel Dashiell Hammett; Helen Goldfrank; Jerre

G. Mangione; and James Langston Hughes.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers,

March 25....................................................... 999

Testimony of Mary Van Kleeck; and Edwin Seaver.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers,

March 31....................................................... 1015

Testimony of Edward W. Barrett.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers,

April 1........................................................ 1045

Testimony of Dan Mabry Lacy.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers,

April 24....................................................... 1071

Testimony of James A. Wechsler--published in 1953.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers,

April 28....................................................... 1073

Testimony of Theodore Kaghan.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 5. 1115

Testimony of James A. Wechsler--published in 1953.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 5. 1117

Testimony of Millen Brand.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 6. 1123

Testimony of John L. Donovan.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 13 1135

Testimony of James Aronson; and Cedric Belfrage.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers, May 19 1161

Testimony of Julien Bryan.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 1 1193

Testimony of Richard O. Boyer; Rockwell Kent; Edwin B.

Burgum; Joseph Freeman; George Seldes; and Doxey Wilkerson.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 2 1217

Testimony of Allan Chase.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July 7 1223

Testimony of Eslanda Goode Robeson; Arnaud d'Usseau; and Leo

Huberman.

State Department Information Service--Information Centers, July

14............................................................. 1231

Testimony of Harvey O'Connor.

State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, May 20........ 1235

Testimony of Naphtali Lewis.

State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, May 25........ 1245

Testimony of Helen B. Lewis; Naphtali Lewis; and Margaret

Webster.

State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, May 26........ 1267

Testimony of Aaron Copland.

State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, June 8........ 1291

Testimony of Rachel Davis DuBois; and Dr. Dorothy Ferebee.

State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, June 19....... 1305

Testimony of Clarence F. Hiskey.

State Department Teacher-Student Exchange Program, June 19....... 1311

Testimony of Harold C. Urey.

Trade with Soviet-Bloc Countries, May 20......................... 1321

Trade with Soviet-Bloc Countries, May 25......................... 1329

Testimony of Charles S. Thomas; Louis W. Goodkind; Thruston

B. Morton; Kenneth R. Hansen; and Vice Admiral Walter S.

Delaney.

Austrian Incident, June 3........................................ 1349

Testimony of V. Frank Coe.

Austrian Incident, June 5........................................ 1367

Testimony of V. Frank Coe.

Communist Party Activities, Western Pennsylvania, June 17........ 1373

Testimony of Louis Bortz; and Herbert S. Hawkins.

Communist Party Activities, Western Pennsylvania, June 18........ 1395

Testimony of Louis Bortz.

Special Meeting, July 10......................................... 1399

Alleged Bribery of State Department Official, July 13............ 1415

Testimony of Juan Jose Martinez-Locayo.

Internal Revenue, July 31........................................ 1431

Testimony of T. Coleman Andrews.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 10.................. 1439

Testimony of Mary S. Markward; Edward M. Rothschild; Esther

Rothschild; and James B. Phillips.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 11.................. 1473

Testimony of Frederick Sillers; Gertrude Evans; and Charles

Gift.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 11.................. 1497

Testimony of Raymond Blattenberger; and Phillip L. Cole.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 12.................. 1515

Testimony of Ernest C. Mellor; and S. Preston Hipsley.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 13.................. 1527

Testimony of Irving Studenberg.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 13.................. 1533

Testimony of Gertrude Evans; and Charles Gift.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 14.................. 1547

Testimony of Howard Merold; Jack Zucker; Howard Koss; and

Isadore Kornfield.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 15.................. 1563

Testimony of Cleta Guess; James E. Duggan; and Adolphus

Nichols Spence.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 18.................. 1573

Testimony of Roy Hudson Wells, Jr.; and Phillip Fisher.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 19.................. 1577

Testimony of Joseph E. Francis; Samuel Bernstein; and Roscoe

Conkling Everhardt.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 21.................. 1595

Testimony of Florence Fowler Lyons.

Security--Government Printing Office, August 29.................. 1603

Testimony of Alfred L. Fleming; Carl J. Lundmark; Earl Cragg;

and Harry Falk.

Stockpiling and Metal Program, August 21......................... 1615

Statement of Robert C. Miller.

Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, August 31.... 1625

Testimony of Doris Walters Powell; Francesco Palmiero; and

Albert E. Feldman.

Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 1.. 1651

Testimony of Cpt. Donald Joseph Kotch; Stanley Garber; Jacob

W. Allen; Deton J. Brooks, Jr.; Col. Ralph M. Bauknight;

Doris Walters Powell; Francesco Palmiero; Marvel Cooke; and

Paul Cavanna.

Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 2.. 1695

Testimony of Mary Columbo Palmiero; Col. Wallace W. Lindsay;

Col. Wendell G. Johnson; Maj. Harold N. Krau; Louis Francis

Budenz; Augustin Arrigo; and Muriel Silverberg.

Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 3.. 1729

Testimony of John Stewart Service; Donald Joseph Kotch;

Michael J. Lynch; and Jacob W. Allen.

Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 8.. 1745

Testimony of H. Donald Murray.

Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September 9.. 1777

Testimony of Alexander Naimon; John Lautner; Esther Leenov

Ferguson.

Volume 3

Security--United Nations, September 14........................... 1807

Testimony of Julius Reiss; and Florence Englander.

Security--United Nations, September 15........................... 1833

Testimony of Paul Crouch; Dimitri Varley; Abraham Unger; and

Alice Ehrenfeld.

Security--United Nations, September 16........................... 1877

Testimony of Frank Cernrey; and Helen Matousek.

Security--United Nations, September 17........................... 1889

Testimony of Abraham Unger; Vachel Lofek; and David M.

Freedman.

Communist Infiltration in the Army, September 21................. 1899

Testimony of Igor Bogolepov; Vladimir Petrov; Gen. Richard C.

Partridge; and Samuel McKee.

Communist Infiltration in the Army, September 23................. 1913

Testimony of Louis Budenz; Harriett Moore Gelfan; and Corliss

Lamont.

Korean War Atrocities, October 6................................. 1923

Testimony of Edward J. Lyons, Jr.; Lt. Col. Lee H. Kostora;

Maj. James Kelleher; Lt. Col. J. W. Whitehorne, III; Gen.

Fenn; and John Adams.

Korean War Atrocities, October 31................................ 1943

Korean War Atrocities, November 30............................... 1965

Testimony of 1st Lt. Henry J. McNichols, Jr.; Sgt. Barry F.

Rhoden; Capt. Linton J. Buttrey; Sgt. Carey H. Weinel; Col.

James M. Hanley; Pfc. John E. Martin; Capt. Alexander G.

Makarounis.

Korean War Atrocities, December 1................................ 2043

Testimony of Lt. Col. John W. Gorn; Lt. Col. James T. Rogers;

Cpl. Lloyd D. Kreider; Sgt. Robert L. Sharps; William L.

Milano; Sgt. Wendell Treffery; Sgt. George J. Matta; Cpl.

Willie L. Daniels; Sgt. John L. Watters, Jr.; Sgt. Orville

R. Mullins; and Donald R. Brown.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 8........... 2119

Statements of Paul Siegel; Jerome Corwin; Allen J.

Lovenstein; Edward J. Fister; William P. Goldberg; and

Jerome Rothstein.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 9........... 2201

Statements of Alan Sterling Gross; Dr. Fred B. Daniels;

Bernard Lipel; James Evers; Sol Bremmer; Murray Miller;

Sherwood Leeds; Paul M. Leeds.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 12.......... 2275

Statements of Louis Volp; William Patrick Lonnie; Henry F.

Burkhard; Marcel Ullmann; and Herbert F. Hecker.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 12.......... 2303

Testimony of Marcel Ullmann; Morris Keiser; Seymour

Rabinowitz; Rudolph C. Riehs; and Carl Greenblum.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 13.......... 2329

Testimony of Joseph Levitsky; William Ludwig Ullman; Bernard

Martin; Louis Kaplan; Harry Donohue; Jack Frolow; Bernard

Lewis; and Craig Crenshaw.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 14.......... 2389

Testimony of Harold Ducore; Aaron H. Coleman; Samuel

Pomerentz; and Haym G. Yamins.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 14.......... 2457

Testimony of Harold Ducore; Jack Okun; and Maj. Gen. Kirke B.

Lawton.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 15.......... 2487

Testimony of Vivian Glassman Pataki; Eleanor Glassman Hutner;

Samuel I. Greenman; Ira J. Katchen; Max Elitcher; Eugene E.

Hutner; Col. John V. Mills; Maj. James J. Gallagher; Marcel

Ullmann; Benjamin Zuckerman; and Benjamin Bookbinder.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 16.......... 2563

Testimony of Maj. Gen. Kirke Lawton; Maj. Gen. George I.

Back; Maj. Jenista; Col. Ferry; John Pernice; Karl Gerhard;

Carl Greenblum; Markus Epstein; and Leo M. Miller.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 17.......... 2625

Testimony of Alfred C. Walker; Joseph Levitsky; and Louis

Antell.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 22.......... 2649

Testimony of Fred Joseph Kitty; Jack Okun; Aaron Coleman; and

Barry S. Bernstein.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 22.......... 2697

Testimony of Benjamin Wolman; Harvey Sachs; Leonard E. Mins;

and Sylvia Berke.

Volume 4

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 23.......... 2729

Testimony of Sidney Glassman; David Ayman; Lawrence Freidman;

Elba Chase Nelson; Herbert S. Bennett; Joseph H. Percoff;

Lawrence Aguimbau; and Perry Seay.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 26.......... 2777

Statements of Benjamin Zuckerman; Hans Inslerman; Thomas K.

Cookson; Doris Seifert; Lafayette Pope; Ralph Iannarone;

Saul Finkelstein; Abraham Lepato; Irving Rosenheim; and

Richard Jones, Jr.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 27.......... 2815

Statements of Edward Brody; Max Katz; Henry Jasik; Capt.

Benjamin Sheehan; Russell Gaylord Ranney; Susan Moon; Peter

Rosmovsky; and Sarah Omanson.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, October 30.......... 2851

Statements of Harold Ducore; Stanley R. Rich; Nathan Sussman;

Louis Leo Kaplan; Carl Greenblum; Sherrod East; Jacob

Kaplan; James P. Scott; Bernard Lee; and Melvin M. Morris.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 2.......... 2893

Statements of William Johnston Jones; Murray Nareell; Samuel

Sack; Joseph Bert; Raymond Delcamp; Leo Fary; and Irving

Stokes.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 3.......... 2919

Testimony of Abraham Chasanow; Joseph H. Percoff; Solomon

Greenberg; Isadore Solomon; William Saltzman; and Samuel

Sack.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 4.......... 2953

Testimony of Victor Rabinowitz; Wendell Furry; Diana Wolman;

Abraham Brothman; Norman Gaboriault; Harvey Sachs; Sylvia

Berke; and Benjamin Wolman.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 5.......... 3033

Testimony of Harry Hyman; Vivian Glassman Pataki; Gunnar

Boye; Alexander Hindin; Samuel Paul Gisser; Stanley

Berinsky; Ralph Schutz; and Henry Shoiket.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 16......... 3083

Testimony of Rear Admiral Edward Culligan Forsyth; Samuel

Snyder; Ernest Pataki; Albert Socol; Joseph K. Crevisky;

Ignatius Giardina; and Leon Schnee.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 17......... 3125

Testimony of James Weinstein; Harry Grundfest; Harry

Pastorinsky; Emery Pataki; and Charles Jassik.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, November 25......... 3151

Testimony of Morris Savitt; Albert Fischler; James J. Matles;

Bertha Singer; and Terry Rosenbaum.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 10......... 3171

Testimony of Michael Sidorovich; and Ann Sidorovich.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 10......... 3175

Statement of Samuel Levine.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 14......... 3199

Testimony of Albert Shadowitz; Pvt. David Linfield; Shirley

Shapiro; and Sidney Stolbert.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 15......... 3221

Testimony of Ezekiel Heyman; Lester Ackerman; Sigmond Berger;

Ruth Levine; Bennett Davies; John D. Saunders; Norman

Spiro; Carter Lemuel Burkes; John R. Simkovich; Linda

Gottfried; Joseph Paul Komar; John Anthony DeLuca; and Sam

Morris.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 16......... 3273

Testimony of Wilbur LePage; Martin Levine; John Schickler;

David Lichter; Albert Burrows; Seymour Butensky; and

Kenneth John Way.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 17......... 3309

Statements of Irving Israel Galex; Harry Lipson; Seymour

Janowsky; Harry M. Nachmais; Curtis Quinten Murphy; Martin

Schmidt; and David Holtzman.

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, December 18......... 3349

Statements of Joseph John Oliveri; Philip Joseph Shapiro;

Samuel Martin Segner; Joseph Linton Layne; and Harry

William Levitties.

Transfer of Occupation Currency Plates--Espionage Phase,

October 19..................................................... 3403

Testimony of William H. Taylor; and Alvin W. Hall.

Transfer of Occupation Currency Plates--Espionage Phase,

October 21..................................................... 3425

Testimony of Elizabeth Bentley.

Transfer of Occupation Currency Plates--Espionage Phase,

November 10.................................................... 3431

Statement of Walter F. Frese.

Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry,

November 12.................................................... 3445

Testimony of Jean A. Arsenault; Sidney Friedlander; Theresa

Mary Chiaro; Albert J. Bottisti; Anna Jegabbi; Emma

Elizabeth Drake; Henry Daniel Hughes; Abden Francisco;

Joseph Arthur Gebhardt; Emanuel Fernandez; Robert Pierson

Northrup; Lawrence Leo Gebo; William J. Mastriani; Gordon

Belgrave; Arthur Lee Owens; John Sardella; and Rudolph

Rissland.

Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry,

November 13.................................................... 3545

Testimony of Lillian Krummel; Dewey Franklin Brashear; Arthur

George; Higeno Hermida; Paul K. Hacko; Alex Henry Klein;

Harold S. Rollins; and John Starling Brooks.

Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry,

November 18.................................................... 3585

Testimony of Karl T. Mabbskka; James John Walsh; Nathaniel

Mills; Robert Goodwin; Henry Canning Archdeacon; Donald

Herbert Morrill; Francis F. Peacock; William Richmond

Wilder; Donald R. Finlayson; Theodore Pappas; George Homes;

Alexander Gregory; Witoutos S. Bolys; Benjamin Alfred; and

Witulad Piekarski.

Transfer of the Ship ``Greater Buffalo'', December 8............. 3609

Testimony of Paul D. Page, Jr.; and George J. Kolowich.

Personnel Practices in Government--Case of Telford Taylor,

December 8..................................................... 3639

Testimony of Philip Young.

PREFACE

----------

The power to investigate ranks among the U.S. Senate's

highest responsibilities. As James Madison reasoned in The

Federalist Papers: ``If men were angels, no government would be

necessary. If angels governed men, neither external nor

internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing

a government which is to be administered by men over men, the

great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the

government to control the governed; and in the next place,

oblige it to control itself.'' It is precisely for the purposes

of government controlling itself that Congress investigates.

A century after Madison, another thoughtful authority on

Congress, Woodrow Wilson, judged the ``vigilant oversight of

administration'' to be as important as legislation. Wilson

argued that because self-governing people needed to be fully

informed in order to cast their votes wisely, the information

resulting from a Congressional investigation might be ``even

more important than legislation.'' Congress, he said, was the

``eyes and the voice'' of the nation.

In 1948, the Senate established the Permanent Subcommittee

on Investigations to continue the work of a special committee,

first chaired by Missouri Senator Harry Truman, to investigate

the national defense program during World War II. Over the next

half century, the Subcommittee under our predecessor Chairmen,

Senators John McClellan, Henry Jackson, Sam Nunn, William Roth,

and John Glenn, conducted a broad array of hard-hitting

investigations into allegations of corruption and malfeasance,

leading repeatedly to the exposure of wrongdoing and to the

reform of government programs.

The phase of the Subcommittee's history from 1953 to 1954,

when it was chaired by Joseph McCarthy, however, is remembered

differently. Senator McCarthy's zeal to uncover subversion and

espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics

destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the

infiltration of our government. His freewheeling style caused

both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules

governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act

to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at

Congressional hearings. Senator McCarthy's excesses culminated

in the televised Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954, following

which the Senate voted overwhelmingly for his censure.

Under Senate provisions regulating investigative records,

the records of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations are

deposited in the National Archives and sealed for fifty years,

in part to protect the privacy of the many witnesses who

testified in closed executive sessions. With the half century

mark here relative to the executive session materials of the

McCarthy subcommittee, we requested that the Senate Historical

Office prepare the transcripts for publication, to make them

equally accessible to students and the general public across

the nation. They were edited by Dr. Donald A. Ritchie, with the

assistance of Beth Bolling and Diane Boyle, and with the

cooperation of the staff of the Center for Legislative Archives

at the National Archives and Records Administration.

These hearings are a part of our national past that we can

neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur.

Carl Levin,

Chairman.

Susan M. Collins,

Ranking Member.

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

INTRODUCTION

----------

The executive sessions of the Permanent Subcommittee on

Investigations for the Eighty-third Congress, from 1953 to

1954, make sobering reading. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy assumed

the chairmanship of the Government Operations Committee in

January 1953 and exercised prerogative, under then existing

rules, to chair the subcommittee as well. For the three

previous years, Senator McCarthy had dominated the national

news with his charges of subversion and espionage at the

highest levels of the federal government, and the chairmanship

provided him with a vehicle for attempting to prove and perhaps

expand those allegations.

Elected as a Wisconsin Republican in 1946, Senator McCarthy

had burst into national headlines in February 1950, when he

delivered a Lincoln Day address in Wheeling, West Virginia,

that blamed failures in American foreign policy on Communist

infiltration of the United States government. He held in his

hand, the senator asserted, a list of known Communists still

working in the Department of State. When a special subcommittee

of the Foreign Relations Committee investigated these charges

and rejected them as ``a fraud and a hoax,'' the issue might

have died, but the outbreak of the Korean War, along with the

conviction of Alger Hiss and arrest of Julius Rosenberg in

1950, lent new credibility to McCarthy's charges. He continued

to make accusations that such prominent officials as General

George C. Marshall had been part of an immense Communist

conspiracy. In 1952, Dwight D. Eisenhower's election as

president carried Republican majorities in both houses of

Congress, and seniority elevated McCarthy to chairman of the

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Jurisdictional lines of the Senate assigned loyalty issues

to the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Judiciary

Committee, but Senator McCarthy interpreted his subcommittee's

mandate broadly enough to cover any government-related

activity, including subversion and espionage. Under his

chairmanship, the subcommittee shifted from searching out waste

and corruption in the executive branch to focusing almost

exclusively on Communist infiltration. The subcommittee vastly

accelerated the pace of its hearings. By comparison to the six

executive sessions held by his predecessor in 1952, McCarthy

held 117 in 1953. The subcommittee also conducted numerous

public hearings, which were often televised, but it did the

largest share of its work behind closed doors. During

McCarthy's first year as chairman, the subcommittee took

testimony from 395 witnesses in executive sessions and staff

interrogatories (by comparison to 214 witnesses in the public

sessions), and compiled 8,969 pages of executive session

testimony (compared to 5,671 pages of public hearings).

Transcripts of public hearings were published within months,

while those of executive sessions were sealed and deposited in

the National Archives and Records Administration. Under the

provisions of S. Res. 474, records involving Senate

investigations may be sealed for fifty years. With the approach

of the hearings' fiftieth anniversary, the Permanent

Subcommittee on Investigations authorized the Senate Historical

Office to prepare the executive session transcripts for

publication.

Professional stenographers worked independently under

contract to the Senate to produce the original transcripts of

the closed hearings. The transcripts are as accurate as the

stenographers were able to make them, but since neither

senators nor witnesses reviewed their remarks, as they would

have for published hearings, they could correct neither

misspelled names nor misheard words. Several different

stenographers operating in Washington, New York, and

Massachusetts prepared the transcripts, accounting for

occasional variations in style. The current editing has sought

to reproduce the transcripts as closely to their original form

as possible, deleting no content but correcting apparent

errors--such as the stenographer's turning the town of

Bethpage, New York, into a person's name, Beth Page.

Transcribers also employed inconsistent capitalization and

punctuation, which have been corrected in this printed version.

The executive sessions have been given the same titles as

the related public hearings, and all hearings on the same

subject matter have been grouped together chronologically. If

witnesses in executive session later testified in public, the

spelling of their names that appeared in the printed hearing

has been adopted. If thesubcommittee ordered that the executive

session testimony be published, those portions have not been reprinted,

but editorial notes indicate where the testimony occurred and provide a

citation. No transcripts were made of ``off the record'' discussions,

which are noted within the hearings. Senator McCarthy is identified

consistently as ``The Chairman.'' Senators who occasionally chaired

hearings in his absence, or chaired special subcommittees, are

identified by name. Brief editorial notes appear at the top of each

hearing to place the subject matter into historical context and to

indicate whether the witnesses later testified in public session.

Wherever possible, the witnesses' birth and death dates are noted. A

few explanatory footnotes have been added, although editorial intrusion

has been kept to a minimum. The subcommittee deposited all of the

original transcripts at the Center for Legislative Archives at the

National Archives and Records Administration, where they are now open

for research.

THE PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

Following the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, the

Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program

(popularly known as the Truman committee, for its chairman,

Harry S. Truman) merged with the Committee on Expenditures in

the Executive Departments to become the Permanent Subcommittee

on Investigations. In 1953 the Committee on Executive

Expenditures was renamed the Committee on Government

Operations, and Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (1908-1957), who had

joined the committee in 1947, became chairman of both the

committee and its permanent subcommittee. Republicans won a

narrow majority during the Eighty-third Congress, and held only

a one-seat advantage over Democrats in the committee ratios.

The influx of new senators since World War II also meant that

except for the subcommittee's chairman and ranking member, all

other members were serving in their first terms. Senator

McCarthy had just been elected to his second term in 1952,

while the ranking Democrat, Arkansas Senator John L. McClellan

(1896-1977), had first been elected in 1942, and had chaired

the Government Operations Committee during the Eighty-first and

Eighty-second Congresses. The other members of the subcommittee

included Republicans Karl Mundt (1900-1974), Everett McKinley

Dirksen (1896-1969), and Charles E. Potter (1916-1979), and

Democrats Henry M. Jackson (1912-1983) and Stuart Symington

(1901-1988) \1\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ See Committee on Government Operations, 50th Anniversary

History, 1921-1971, 92nd Cong., 1st sess., S. Doc. 31 (Washington,

D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1971).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

With senators serving multiple committee assignments, only

on rare occasions would the entire membership of any committee

or subcommittee attend a hearing. Normally, Senate committees

operated with a few senators present, with members coming and

going through a hearing depending on their conflicting

commitments. Unique circumstances developed in 1953 to allow

Senator McCarthy to be the sole senator present at many of the

subcommittee's hearings, particularly those held away from

Washington. In July 1953, a dispute over the chairman's ability

to hire staff without consultation caused the three Democrats

on the subcommittee to resign. They did not return until

January 1954. McCarthy and his staff also called hearings on

short notice, and often outside of Washington, which prevented

the other Republican senators from attending. Senators Everett

Dirksen and Charles Potter occasionally sent staff members to

represent them (and at times to interrogate witnesses). By

operating so often as a ``one-man committee,'' Senator McCarthy

gave witnesses the impression, as Harvard law school dean Erwin

Griswold observed, that they were facing a ``judge, jury,

prosecutor, castigator, and press agent, all in one.'' \2\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\2\ Erwin N. Griswold, The 5th Amendment Today (Cambridge: Harvard

University Press, 1955), 67.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946 had created a

non-partisan professional staff for eachSenate committee.

Originally, staff worked for the committee as a whole and were not

divided by majority and minority. Chairman McCarthy inherited a small

staff from his predecessor, Clyde Hoey, a Democrat from North Carolina,

but a significant boost in appropriations enabled him to add many of

his own appointees. For chief counsel, McCarthy considered candidates

that included Robert Morris, counsel of the Internal Security

Subcommittee, Robert F. Kennedy, and John J. Sirica, but he offered the

job to Roy M. Cohn (1927-1986). The son of a New York State appellate

division judge, Cohn had been too young to take the bar exam when he

graduated from Columbia University Law School. A year later he became

assistant United States attorney on the day he was admitted to the bar.

In the U.S. attorney's office he took part in the prosecution of

William Remington, a former Commerce Department employee convicted of

perjury relating to his Communist party membership. Cohn also

participated in the prosecution of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and in

the trial of the top Communist party leaders in the United States. He

earned a reputation as a relentless questioner with a sharp mind and

retentive memory. In 1952, Cohn briefly served as special assistant to

Truman's attorney general, James McGranery, and prepared an indictment

for perjury against Owen Lattimore, the Johns Hopkins University

professor whom Senator McCarthy had accused of being a top Soviet

agent. Cohn's appointment also helped counteract the charges of

prejudice leveled against the anti-Communist investigations. (Indeed,

when he was informed that the B'nai B'rith was providing lawyers to

assist the predominantly Jewish engineers suspended from Fort Monmouth,

on the assumption of anti-Semitism, Cohn responded: ``Well, that is an

outrageous assumption. I am a member and an officer of B'nai B'rith.'')

In December 1952, McCarthy invited Cohn to become subcommittee counsel.

``You know, I'm going to be the chairman of the investigating committee

in the Senate. They're all trying to push me off the Communist issue .

. . ,'' Cohn recalled the senator telling him. ``The sensible thing for

me to do, they say, is start investigating the agriculture program or

find out how many books they've got bound upside down at the Library of

Congress. They want me to play it safe. I fought this Red issue. I won

the primary on it. I won the election on it, and don't see anyone else

around who intends to take it on. You can be sure that as chairman of

this committee this is going to be my work. And I want you to help

me.'' \3\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\3\ Washington Star, July 20, 1954; Roy Cohn, McCarthy (New York:

New American Library, 1968), 46.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

At twenty-six, Roy Cohn lacked any previous legislative

experience and tended to run hearings more like a prosecutor

before a grand jury, collecting evidence to make his case in

open session rather than to offer witnesses a full and fair

hearing. Republican Senator Karl Mundt, a veteran investigator

who had previously served on the House Un-American Activities

Committee, urged Cohn to call administrative officials who

could explain the policies and rationale of the government

agencies under investigation, and to keep the hearings

balanced, but Cohn felt disinclined to conduct an open forum.

Arrogant and brash, he alienated others on the staff, until

even Senator McCarthy admitted that putting ``a young man in

charge of other young men doesn't work out too well.'' Cohn's

youth further distanced him from most of the witnesses he

interrogated. Having reached maturity during the Cold War

rather than the Depression, he could not fathom a legitimate

reason for anyone having attended a meeting, signed a petition,

or contributed to an organization with any Communist

affiliation. In his memoirs, Cohn later recounted how a retired

university professor once told him ``that had I been born

twelve or fifteen years earlier my world-view and therefore my

character would have been very different.'' \4\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\4\ Ibid., 22; David F. Krugler, The Voice of America and the

Domestic Propaganda Battles, 1945-1953 (Columbia: University of

Missouri Press, 2000), 191.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

An indifferent administrator, Senator McCarthy gave his

counsel free rein to conduct investigations. In fact, he

appointed Cohn without having first removed the subcommittee's

previous chief counsel, Francis``Frip'' Flanagan. To remedy

this discrepancy, McCarthy changed Flanagan's title to general counsel,

although he never delineated any differences in authority. When a

reporter asked what these titles meant, McCarthy confessed that he did

not know. The subcommittee's chief clerk, Ruth Young Watt, found that

whenever a decision needed to be made, Cohn would say, ``Ask Frip,''

and Flanagan would reply, ``Ask Roy.'' ``In other words,'' she

explained, ``I'd just end up doing what I thought was right.'' \5\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\5\ Ruth Young Watt oral history, 109, Senate Historical Office.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subcommittee held most of its hearings in room 357 of

the Senate Office Building (now named the Russell Senate Office

Building). Whenever it anticipated larger crowds for public

hearings, it would shift to room 318, the spacious Caucus Room

(now room 325), which better accommodated radio and television

coverage. In 1953 the subcommittee also held extensive hearings

in New York City, working out of the federal courthouse at

Foley Square and the Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, while other

executive sessions took place at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey, and

in Boston. Roy Cohn had recruited his close friend, G. David

Schine (1927-1996), as the subcommittee's unpaid ``chief

consultant.'' The two men declined to work out of the

subcommittee's crowded office--Cohn did not even have a desk

there. (``I don't have an office as such,'' Cohn later

testified. ``We have room 101 with 1 desk and 1 chair. That is

used jointly by Mr. Carr and myself. The person who gets there

first occupies the chair.'' \6\) Instead, Cohn and Schine

rented more spacious quarters for themselves in a nearby

private office building. When the subcommittee met in New York,

Schine made his family's limousine and suite at the Waldorf-

Astoria available for its use. As the subcommittee's only

unpaid staff member, he was not reimbursed for travel and other

expenses, including his much-publicized April 1953 tour with

Cohn of U.S. information libraries in Europe. In executive

sessions, Schine occasionally questioned witnesses and even

presided in Senator McCarthy's absence, with the chief counsel

addressing him as ``Mr. Chairman.'' Others on the staff,

including James Juliana and Daniel G. Buckley, similarly

conducted hearing-like interrogatories of witnesses. Schine

continued his associations with the subcommittee even after his

induction into the army that November--an event that triggered

the chairman's epic confrontation with the army the following

year.\7\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\6\ Special Subcommittee on Investigations, Special Senate

Investigation on Charges and Countercharges Involving: Secretary of the

Army Robert T. Stevens, John G. Adams, H. Struve Hensel and Senator Joe

McCarthy, Roy M. Cohn, and Francis P. Carr, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., part

47 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1954), 1803.

\7\ Ruth Young Watt oral history, 107-108; 130; Washington Star,

January 1, 1953.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The hectic pace and controversial nature of the

subcommittee hearings during the Eighty-third Congress placed

great burdens on the staff and contributed to frequent

departures. Of the twelve staff members that McCarthy

inherited, only four remained by the end of the year--an

investigator and three clerks. Of the twenty-one new staff

added during 1953, six did not last the year. Research director

Howard Rushmore (1914-1958) resigned after four months, and

assistant counsel Robert Kennedy (1925-1968), after literally

coming to blows with Roy Cohn, resigned in August, telling the

chairman that the subcommittee was ``headed for disaster.''

(The following year, Kennedy returned as minority counsel.)

When Francis Flanagan left in June 1953, Senator McCarthy named

J. B. Matthews (1894-1966) as executive director, hoping that

the seasoned investigator would impose some order on the staff.

Matthews boasted of having joined more Communist-front

organizations than any other American, although he had never

joined the Communist party. When he fell out of favor with

radical groups in the mid-1930s, he converted into an outspoken

anti-Communist and served as chief investigator for the House

Un-American Activities Committee from 1939 to 1945. An ordained

Methodist minister, he was referred to as ``Doctor Matthews,''

although he held no doctoral degree. Just as McCarthy announced

his appointment to head the subcommittee staff in June

1953,Matthews's article on ``Reds in Our Churches'' appeared in the

American Mercury magazine. His portrayal of Communist sympathy among

the nation's Protestant clergy caused a public uproar, and Republican

Senator Charles Potter joined the three Democrats on the subcommittee

in calling for Matthews's dismissal. Although Matthews resigned

voluntarily, it was Senator McCarthy's insistence on maintaining the

sole power to hire and fire staff that caused the three Democratic

senators to resign from the subcommittee, while retaining their

membership in the full Government Operations Committee. Senator

McCarthy then appointed Francis P. Carr, Jr. (1925-1994) as executive

director, with Roy Cohn continuing as chief counsel to direct the

investigation.\8\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\8\ G. F. Goodwin, ``Joseph Brown Matthews,'' Dictionary of

American Biography, Supplement 8 (New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,

1988), 424-27; Lawrence B. Glickman, ``The Strike in the Temple of

Consumption: Consumer Activitism and Twentieth-Century American

Political Culture,'' Journal of American History, 88 (June 2001), 99-

128; Robert F. Kennedy, The Enemy Within (New York: Harper & Brothers,

1960), 176.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE RIGHTS OF WITNESSES

In their hunt for subversion and espionage, Senator

McCarthy and chief counsel Cohn conducted hearings on the State

Department, the Voice of America, the U.S. overseas libraries,

the Government Printing Office, and the Army Signal Corps.

Believing any method justifiable in combating an international

conspiracy, they grilled witnesses intensely. Senator McCarthy

showed little patience for due process and defined witnesses'

constitutional rights narrowly. His hectoring style inspired

the term ``McCarthyism,'' which came to mean ``any

investigation that flouts the rights of individuals,'' usually

involving character assassination, smears, mudslinging,

sensationalism, and guilt by association. ``McCarthyism''--

coined by the Washington Post cartoonist Herblock, in 1950--

grew so universally accepted that even Senator McCarthy

employed it, redefining it as ``the fight for America.''

Subsequently, the term has been applied collectively to all

congressional investigations of suspected Communists, including

those by the House Un-American Activities Committee and Senate

Internal Security Subcommittee, which bore no direct relation

to the permanent subcommittee.\9\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\9\ William Safire, Safire's New Political Dictionary: The

Definitive Guide to the New Language of Politics (New York: Random

House, 1993), 441; Senator Joe McCarthy, McCarthyism: The Fight for

America (New York: Devin-Adair, 1952).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

In these closed executive sessions, Senator McCarthy's

treatment of witnesses ranged from abrasive to solicitous. The

term ``executive sessions'' derives from the Senate's division

of its business between legislative (bills and resolutions) and

executive (treaties and nominations). Until 1929 the Senate

debated all executive business in closed session, clearing the

public and press galleries, and locking the doors.

``Executive'' thereby became synonymous with ``closed.''

Committees held closed sessions to conduct preliminary

inquiries, to mark up bills before reporting them to the floor,

and to handle routine committee housekeeping. By hearing

witnesses privately, the permanent subcommittee could avoid

incidents of misidentification and could determine how

forthcoming witnesses were likely to be in public. In the case

of McCarthy, however, ``executive session'' took a different

meaning. John G. Adams, who attended many of these hearings as

the army's counsel from 1953 to 1954, observed that the

chairman used the term ``executive session'' rather loosely.

``It didn't really mean a closed session, since McCarthy

allowed in various friends, hangers-on, and favored newspaper

reporters,'' wrote Adams. ``Nor did it mean secret, because

afterwards McCarthy would tell the reporters waiting outside

whatever he pleased. Basically, `executive' meant that Joe

could do anything he wanted.'' Adams recalled that the

subcommittee's Fort Monmouth hearings were held in a

``windowless storage room in the bowels of the courthouse,

unventilated and oppressively hot,'' into which crowded

thesenator, his staff, witnesses, and observers who at various times

included trusted newspaper reporters, the governor of Wisconsin, the

chairman's wife, mother-in-law and friends. ``The `secret' hearings

were, after all, quite a show,'' Adams commented, adding that the

transcripts were rarely released to the public. This ostensibly

protected the privacy of those interrogated, but also gave the chairman

an opportunity to give to the press his version of what had transpired

behind closed doors, with little chance of rebuttal.\10\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\10\ John G. Adams, Without Precedent: The Story of the Death of

McCarthyism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983), 53, 60, 66.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Roy Cohn insisted that the subcommittee gave ``suspects''

rights that they would not get in a court of law. Unlike a

witness before a grand jury, or testifying on the stand, those

facing the subcommittee could have their attorney sit beside

them for consultation. The executive sessions further protected

the witnesses, Cohn pointed out, by excluding the press and the

public. But Gen. Telford Taylor, an American prosecutor at

Nuremberg, charged McCarthy with conducting ``a new and

indefensible kind of hearing, which is neither a public hearing

nor an executive session.'' In Taylor's view, the closed

sessions were a device that enabled the chairman to tell

newspapers whatever he saw fit about what happened, without

giving witnesses a chance to defend themselves or reporters a

chance to check the accuracy of the accusations.

Characteristically, Senator McCarthy responded to this

criticism with an executive session inquiry into Gen. Taylor's

loyalty. The chairman used other hearings to settle personal

scores with men such as Edward Barrett, State Department press

spokesman under Dean Acheson, and Edward Morgan, staff director

of the Tydings subcommittee that had investigated his Wheeling

speech.\11\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\11\ Cohn, McCarthy, 51; C. Dickerman Williams, ``The Duty to

Investigate,'' The Freeman, 3 (September 21, 1953), 919; New York

Times, November 28, 1953.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Inclusion as a witness in these volumes in no way suggests

a measure of guilt. Some of the witnesses who came before the

permanent subcommittee in 1953 had been Communists; others had

not. Some witnesses cooperated by providing names and other

information; others did not. Some testified on subjects

entirely unrelated to communism, subversion or espionage. The

names of many of these witnesses appeared in contemporary

newspaper accounts, even when they did not testify in public.

About a third of the witnesses called in executive session did

not appear at any public hearing, and Senator McCarthy often

defined such witnesses as having been ``cleared.'' Some were

called as witnesses out of mistaken identity. Others defended

themselves so resolutely or had so little evidence against them

that the chairman and counsel chose not to pursue them. For

those witnesses who did appear in public, the closed hearings

served as dress rehearsals. The subcommittee also heard many

witnesses in public session who had not previously appeared at

a closed hearing, usually committee staff or government

officials for whom a preliminary hearing was not deemed

necessary. Given the rapid pace of the hearings, the

subcommittee staff had little time for preparation. ``No real

research was ever done,'' Robert Kennedy complained. ``Most of

the investigations were instituted on the basis of some

preconceived notion by the chief counsel or his staff members

and not on the basis of any information that had been

developed.'' \12\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\12\ Kennedy, The Enemy Within, 307.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

After July 1953, when the Democratic senators resigned from

the subcommittee, other Republican senators also stopped

attending the subcommittee's closed hearings, in part because

so many of the hearings were held away from the District of

Columbia and called on short notice. Witnesses also received

subpoenas on such short notice that they found it hard to

prepare themselves or consult with counsel. Theoretically the

committee, rather than the chairman, issued subpoenas, Army

Counsel John G. Adams noted. ``But McCarthy ignored the Senate

rule that required a vote of the other members every time he

wanted to haul someone in.He signed scores of blank subpoenas

which his staff members carried in their inside pockets, and issued as

regularly as traffic tickets.'' Witnesses repeatedly complained that

subpoenas to appear were served on them just before the hearings,

either the night before or the morning of, making it hard for them to

obtain legal representation. Even if they obtained a lawyer, the

senator would not permit attorneys to raise objections or to talk for

the witness. Normally, a quorum of at least one-third of the committee

or subcommittee members was needed to take sworn testimony, although a

single senator could hold hearings if authorized by the committee. The

rules did not bar ``one-man hearings,'' because senators often came and

went during a committee hearing and committee business could come to a

halt if a minimum number of senators were required to hold a

hearing.\13\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\13\ Adams, Without Precedent, 67, 69.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When the chairman acted as a one-man committee, the tone of

the hearings more closely resembled an inquisition. Witnesses

who swore that they had never joined the Communist party or

engaged in espionage or sabotage were held accountable for

long-forgotten petitions they had signed a decade earlier or

for having joined organizations that the attorney general later

cited as Communist fronts. Seeking any sign of political

unorthodoxy, the chairman and the subcommittee staff

scrutinized the witnesses' lives and grilled them about the

political beliefs of colleagues, neighbors and family members.

In the case of Stanley Berinsky, he was suspended from the Army

Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth after security officers

discovered that his mother had once been a member of the

Communist party:

The Chairman. Let's get this straight. I know it is unusual

to appear before a committee. So many witnesses get nervous.

You just got through telling us you did not know she was a

Communist; now you tell us she resigned from the Communist

party? As of when?

Mr. Berinsky. I didn't know this until the security

suspension came up at Fort Monmouth.

The Chairman. When was that?

Mr. Berinsky. That was in 1952.

The Chairman. Then did your mother come over and tell you

she had resigned?

Mr. Berinsky. I told her what happened. At that time she

told me she had been out for several years.

The Chairman. . . . Well, did you ever ask her if she was a

Communist?

Mr. Berinsky. No, sir. . . .

The Chairman. When you went to see her, weren't you

curious? If somebody told me my mother was a Communist, I'd get

on the phone and say, ``Mother is this true''? . . .

Did she tell you why she resigned?

Mr. Berinsky. If seems to me she probably did it because I

held a government job and she didn't want to jeopardize my

position.

The Chairman. In other words, it wasn't because she felt

differently about the Communist party, but because she didn't

want to jeopardize your position?

Mr. Berinsky. Probably.

The Chairman. Was she still a Communist at heart in 1952?

Mr. Berinsky. Well, I don't know how you define that.

The Chairman. Do you think she was a Communist, using your

own definition of communism?

Mr. Berinsky. I guess my own definition is one who is a

member of the party. No.

The Chairman. Let's say one who was a member and dropped

out and is still loyal to the party. Taking that as a

definition, would you say she is still a Communist?

Mr. Berinsky. Do you mean in an active sense?

The Chairman. Loyal in her mind.

Mr. Berinsky. That is hard to say.

The Chairman. Is she still living?

Mr. Berinsky. Yes.\14\

\14\ Executive session transcript, November 5, 1953.

Perhaps the most recurring phrase in these executive

session hearings was not the familiar ``Are you now or have you

ever been a member of the Communist party?'' That was the

mantra of the public hearings. Instead, in the closed hearings

it was ``In other words,'' which prefaced the chairman's

relentless rephrasing of witnesses' testimony into something

with more sinister implications than they intended. Given

Senator McCarthy's tendency toward hyperbole, witnesses

objected to his use of inappropriate or inflammatory words to

characterize their testimony. He took their objections as a

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

sign they were covering up something:

The Chairman. Did you live with him when the apartment was

raided by army security?

Mr. Okun. Senator, the apartment was not raided. He had

been called and asked whether he would let them search it. . .

The Chairman. You seem to shy off at the word ``raided.''

When the army security men go over and make a complete search

of the apartment and find forty-three classified documents, to

me that means ``raided.'' You seem, both today and the other

day to be going out of your way trying to cover up for this man

Coleman.

Mr. Okun. No, sir. I do not want to cover up anything.\15\

\15\ Executive session transcript, October 23, 1953.

A few of those who appeared before the subcommittee later

commented that the chairman was less intimidating in private

than his public behavior had led them to expect. ``Many of us

have formed an impression of McCarthy from the now familiar

Herblock caricatures. He is by no means grotesque,'' recalled

Martin Merson, who clashed with the senator over the Voice of

America. ``McCarthy, the relaxed dinner guest, is a charming

man with the friendliest of smiles.'' McCarthy's sometimes

benign treatment of witnesses in executive session may have

been a tactic intended to lull them into false complacency

before his more relentless questioning in front of the

television cameras, which certainly seemed to bring out the

worst in him. Ruth Young Watt (1910-1996), the subcommittee's

chief clerk from 1948 until her retirement in 1979, regarded

the chairman as ``a very kind man, very thoughtful of people

working with him,'' but a person who would ``get off on a

tirade sometimes'' in public hearings.\16\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\16\ Martin Merson, The Private Diary of a Public Servant (New

York: Macmillan, 1955), 83; Ruth Watt oral history, 140.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator McCarthy regularly informed witnesses of their

right to decline to answer if they felt an answer might

incriminate them, but he interpreted their refusal to answer a

question as an admission of guilt. He also encouraged

government agencies and private corporations to fire anyone who

took the Fifth Amendment before a congressional committee. When

witnesses also attempted to cite their First Amendment rights,

the chairman warned that they would be cited for contempt of

Congress. Although the chairman pointed out that membership in

the Communist party was not a crime, many witnesses declined to

admit their past connections to the party to avoid having to

name others with whom they were associated. Some witnesses

wanted to argue that the subcommittee had no right to question

their political beliefs, but their attorneys advised them that

it would be more prudent to decline to answer. During 1953,

some seventy witnesses before the subcommittee invoked the

Fifth Amendment and declined to answer questions concerning

Communist activities. Five refused to answer on the basis of

the First Amendment, two claimed marital privileges, and

Harvard Professor Wendell Furry invoked no constitutional

grounds for his failure toanswer questions.\17\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\17\ Annual Report of the Committee on Government Operations Made

by its Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 83rd Cong., 2nd

sess., S. Rept. 881 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,

1954), 10-14; see also Griswold, The 5th Amendment Today, and Victor S.

Navasky, Naming Names (New York: Viking Press, 1980).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Some witnesses invoked the Fifth Amendment to avoid

implicating those they knew to be Communists. Other invoked the

Fifth Amendment as a blanket response to any questions about

the Communist party, after being warned by their attorneys that

if they answered questions about themselves they could be

compelled to name their associates. In the case of Rogers v.

U.S. (1951) the Supreme Court had ruled that a witness could

not refuse to answer questions simply out of a ``desire to

protect others from punishment, much less to protect another

from interrogation by a grand jury.'' The Justice Department

applied the same reasoning to witnesses who refused to identify

others to a congressional committee. Since the questions were

relevant to the operation of the government, the department

assured Senator McCarthy that it was his right as a

congressional investigator to order witnesses to answer

questions about whether they know any Communists who might be

working in the government or in defense plants.\18\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\18\ Assistant Attorney General Warren Olney, III to Senator Joseph

R. McCarthy, July 7, 1954, full text in the executive session

transcript for July 15, 1954.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Senator McCarthy explained to witnesses that they could

take the Fifth Amendment only if they were concerned that

telling the truth would incriminate them, a reasoning that

redefined the right against self-incrimination as incriminating

in itself. Calling them ``Fifth-Amendment Communists,'' he

insisted that ``an innocent man does not need the Fifth

Amendment.'' At a public hearing, the chairman pressed one

witness: ``Are you declining, among other reasons, for the

reason that you are relying upon that section of the Fifth

Amendment which provides that no person may be a witness

against himself if he feels that his testimony might tend to

incriminate him? If you are relying upon that, you can tell me.

If not, of course, you are ordered to answer. A Communist and

espionage agent has the right to refuse on that ground, but not

on any of the other grounds you cited.'' \19\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\19\ Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Army Signal Corps--

Subversion and Espionage, 83rd Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, D.C.:

Government Printing Office, 1954), 153, 299-300.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Federal court rulings had given congressional investigators

considerable leeway to operate. In the aftermath of the Teapot

Dome investigation, the Supreme Court ruled in McGrain v.

Daugherty (1927) that a committee could subpoena anyone to

testify, including private citizens who were neither government

officials nor employees. In Sinclair v. U.S. (1929), the

Supreme Court recognized the right of Congress to investigate

anything remotely related to its legislative and oversight

functions. The court also upheld the Smith Act of 1940, which

made it illegal to advocate overthrowing the U.S. government by

force or violence. In 1948 the Justice Department prosecuted

twelve Communist leaders for having conspired to organize ``as

a society, group and assembly of persons who teach and advocate

the overthrow and destruction of the Government of the United

States by force and violence.'' Upholding their convictions, in

Dennis v. U.S. (1951), the Supreme Court denied that their

prosecution had violated the First Amendment, on the grounds

that the government's power to prevent an armed rebellion

subordinated free speech. During the next six years 126

individuals were indicted solely for being members of the

Communist party. The Mundt-Nixon Act of 1950 further barred

Communist party members from employment in defense

installations, denied them passports, and required them to

register with the Subversive Activities Control Board. In

Rogers v. U.S. (1951) the Supreme Court declared that a witness

who had testified that she was treasurer of a localCommunist

party and had possession of its records could not claim the Fifth

Amendment when asked to whom she gave those records. Her initial

admission had waived her right to invoke her privilege and she was

guilty of contempt for failing to answer.

Not until after Senator McCarthy's investigations had

ceased did the Supreme Court change direction on the rights of

congressional witnesses, in three sweeping decisions handed

down on June 17, 1957. In Yates v. U.S. the court overturned

the convictions of fourteen Communist party members under the

Smith Act, finding that organizing a Communist party was not

synonymous with advocating the overthrow of the government by

force and violence. As a result, the Justice Department stopped

seeking further indictments under the Smith Act. In Watkins v.

U.S., the court specified that an investigating committee must

demonstrate a legislative purpose to justify probing into

private affairs, and ruled that public education was an

insufficient reason to force witnesses to answer questions

under the penalty of being held in contempt. These rulings

confirmed that the Bill of Rights applied to anyone subpoenaed

by a congressional committee.\20\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\20\ Arthur J. Sabin, In Calmer Times: The Supreme Court and Red

Monday (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1999), 11, 39,

55-57, 154-55, 167-68.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

If witnesses refused to cooperate, the chairman threatened

them with indictment and incarceration. At the end of his first

year as chairman, he advised one witness: ``During the course

of these hearings, I think up to this time we have some--this

is just a rough guess--twenty cases we submitted to the grand

jury, either for perjury or for contempt before this committee.

Do not just assume that your name was pulled out of a hat.

Before you were brought here, we make a fairly thorough and

complete investigation. So I would like to strongly advise you

to either tell the truth or, if you think the truth will

incriminate you, then you are entitled to refuse to answer. I

cannot urge that upon you too strongly. I have given that

advice to other people here before the committee. They thought

they were smarter than our investigators. They will end up in

jail. This is not a threat; this is just friendly advice I am

giving you. Do you understand that?'' In the end, however, no

witness who appeared before the subcommittee during his

chairmanship was imprisoned for perjury, contempt, espionage,

or subversion. Several witnesses were tried for contempt, and

some were convicted, but each case was overturned on

appeal.\21\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\21\ Executive session transcript, December 15, 1953.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

AREA OF INVESTIGATION

Following the tradition of the Permanent Subcommittee on

Investigations, the first executive session hearings in 1953

dealt with influence peddling, an outgrowth of an investigation

begun in the previous Congress. Senator McCarthy absented

himself from most of the influence-peddling hearings and left

Senator Karl Mundt or Senator John McClellan, the ranking

Republican and Democrat on the Government Operations Committee,

to preside in his place. But the chairman made subversion and

espionage his sole mission. On the day that the subcommittee

launched a new set of hearings on influence peddling, it began

hearings on the State Department's filing system, whose

byzantine complexity Senator McCarthy attributed to either

Communist infiltration of gross incompetence.

With the State Department investigation, Senator McCarthy

returned to familiar territory. His Wheeling speech in 1950 had

accused the department of harboring known Communists. The

senator demanded that the State Department open its ``loyalty

files,'' and then complained that it provided only ``skinny-

ribbed bones of the files,'' ``skeleton files,'' ``purged

files,'' and ``phony files.'' The chairman's interest was

naturally piqued in 1953 when State Department security officer

John E. Matson reported irregularitiesin the department's

filing system, and charged that personnel files had been ``looted'' of

derogatory information in order to protect disloyal individuals.

Although State Department testimony suggested that its system had been

designed to protect the rights of employees in matters of career

evaluation and promotion, Senator McCarthy contended that there had

been a conspiracy to manipulate the files.\22\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\22\ Robert Griffith, The Politics of Fear: Joseph R. McCarthy and

the Senate (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1970), 90-93;

``The Raided Files,'' Newsweek (February 16, 1953), 28-29.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

A brief investigation of homosexuals as security risks also

grew out of previous inquiries. In 1950, Senator McCarthy

denounced ``those Communists and queers who have sold 400

million Asiatic people into atheistic slavery and have American

people in a hypnotic trance, headed blindly toward the same

precipice.'' He often laced his speeches with references to

``powder puff diplomacy,'' and accused his opponents of

``softness'' toward communism. ``Why is it that wherever it is

in the world that our State Department touches the red-hot

aggression of Soviet communism there is heard a sharp cry of

pain--a whimper of confusion and fear? . . . Why must we be

forced to cringe in the face of communism?'' By contrast, he

portrayed himself in masculine terms: in rooting out communism

he ``had to do a bare-knuckle job or suffer the same defeat

that a vast number of well-meaning men have suffered over past

years. It has been a bare-knuckle job. As long as I remain in

the Senate it will continue as a bare-knuckle job.'' The

subcommittee had earlier responded to Senator McCarthy's

complaint that the State Department had reinstated homosexuals

suspended for moral turpitude with an investigation in 1950

that produced a report on the Employment of Homosexuals and

Other Sex Perverts in Government. The report had concluded that

homosexuals' vulnerability to blackmail made them security

risks and therefore ``not suitable for Government positions.''

\23\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\23\ New York Times, April 21, 1950; Congressional Record, 81st

Cong., 2nd sess., A7249, A3426-28; Committee on Expenditures in the

Executive Departments, Subcommittee on Investigations, Employment of

Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government, 81st Cong., 2nd sess

(Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1950), 4-5, 19.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The closed hearings shifted to two subsidiaries of the

State Department, the Voice of America and the U.S. information

libraries, which had come under the department's jurisdiction

following World War II. Dubious about mixing foreign policy and

propaganda, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles viewed the

Voice of America as an unwanted appendage and was not

unsympathetic to some housecleaning. It was not long, however,

before the Eisenhower administration began to worry that

McCarthy's effort to clean out the ``left-wing debris'' was

disrupting its own efforts to reorganize the government.

Senator McCarthy also looked into allegations of Communist

literature on the shelves of the U.S. Information Agency

libraries abroad. Rather than call the officials who

administered the libraries, the subcommittee subpoenaed the

authors of the books in question, along with scholars and

artists who traveled abroad on Fulbright scholarships. These

witnesses became innocent bystanders in the cross-fire between

the subcommittee and the administration as the senator expanded

his inquiry from examinations of files and books to issues of

espionage and sabotage, warning audiences: ``This is the era of

the Armageddon--that final all-out battle between light and

darkness foretold in the Bible.'' Zealousness in the search for

subversives made the senator unwilling to accept bureaucratic

explanations on such matters as personnel files and loyalty

board procedures in the State Department, the Government

Printing Office, and the U.S. Army.\24\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\24\ ``Battle Unjoined,'' Newsweek (March 23, 1953), 28; Newsweek

(April 27, 1953), 34; Address to the Sons of the American Revolution,

May 15, 1950, Congressional Record, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., A3787.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Many of McCarthy's investigations began with a flurry of

publicity and then faded away. Richard Rovere, who covered the

subcommittee's hearings for the New Yorker, observed that

investigation of the Voice of America was never completed. ``It

just stopped--its largest possibilities for tumult had

beenexhausted, and it trailed off into nothingness.'' \25\ Before

completing one investigation, the subcommittee would have launched

another. The hectic pace of hearings and the large number of witnesses

it called strained the subcommittee's staff resources. Counsels coped

by essentially asking the same questions of all witnesses. ``For the

most part you wouldn't have time to do all your homework on that, we

didn't have a big staff,'' commented chief clerk Ruth Watt. As a

result, the subcommittee occasionally subpoenaed the wrong individuals,

and used the closed hearings to winnow out cases of mistaken identity.

Some of those who were subpoenaed failed to appear. As Roy Cohn

complained of the authors whose books had appeared in overseas

libraries, ``we subpoena maybe fifty and five show up.'' \26\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\25\ Richard Rovere, Senator Joe McCarthy, (New York: Harcourt,

Brace, 1959), 159.

\26\ Ruth Young Watt oral history, 128.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

When Senator McCarthy was preoccupied or uninterested in

the subject matter, other senators would occasionally chair the

hearings. Senator Charles Potter, for example, chaired a series

of hearings on Korean War atrocities whose style, demeanor, and

treatment of witnesses contrasted sharply with those that

Senator McCarthy conducted; they are included in these volumes

as a point of reference. Other hearings that stood apart in

tone and substance concerned the illegal trade with the

People's Republic of China, an investigation staffed by

assistant counsel Robert F. Kennedy.\27\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\27\ Gerald J. Bryan, ``Joseph McCarthy, Robert Kennedy, and the

Greek Shipping Crisis: A Study of Foreign Policy Rhetoric,''

Presidential Studies Quarterly, 24 (Winter 1994), 93-104.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

The subcommittee's investigations exposed examples of lax

security in government agencies and defense contractors, but

they failed to substantiate the chairman's accusations of

subversion and espionage. Critics accused Senator McCarthy of

gross exaggerations, of conducting ``show trials'' rather than

fact-finding inquiries, of being careless and indifferent about

evidence, of treating witnesses cavalierly and of employing

irresponsible tactics. Indeed, the chairman showed no qualms

about using raw investigative files as evidence. His

willingness to break the established rules encouraged some

security officers and federal investigators to leak

investigative files to the subcommittee that they were

constrained by agency policy from revealing. Rather than lead

to the high-level officials he had expected to find, the leaked

security files shifted his attention to lower-level civil

servants. Since these civil servants lacked the freedom to

fight back in the political arena, they became ``easier targets

to bully.'' \28\ Even Roy Cohn conceded that McCarthy invited

much of the criticism ``with his penchant for the dramatic,''

and ``by making statements that could be construed as promising

too much.'' \29\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\28\ Earl Latham, The Communist Controversy in Washington, From the

New Deal to McCarthy (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966), 323,

349-54; John Earl Haynes, Red Scare or Red Menance? American Communism

and Anticommunism in the Cold War Era (Chicago: Ivan R. Dee, 1996),

147, 154.

\29\ Cohn, McCarthy, 94-95.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having predicted to the press that his inquiry into

conditions at Fort Monmouth would uncover espionage, Senator

McCarthy willingly accepted circumstantial evidence as grounds

for the dismissal of an employee from government-related

service. The subcommittee's dragnet included a number of

perplexed witnesses who had signed a nominating petition years

earliers, belonged to a union whose leadership included alleged

Communists, bought an insurance policy through an organization

later designated a Communist front organization, belonged to a

Great Books club that read Karl Marx among other authors, had

once dated a Communist, had relatives who were Communists, or

simply had the same name as a Communist. Thosewitnesses against

whom strong evidence of Communist activities existed tended to be

involved in labor organizing--hardly news since the Congress of

Industrial Organizations (CIO) had already expelled such unions as the

Federation of Architects, Engineers, Chemists and Technicians and the

United Electrical Workers, whom McCarthy investigated. Those witnesses

who named names of Communists with whom they had associated invariably

described union activities, and none corroborated any claims of

subversion and espionage.

Critics questioned Senator McCarthy's sincerity as a

Communist hunter, citing his penchant for privately embracing

those whom he publicly attacked; others considered him a

classic conspiracy theorist. Once he became convinced of the

existence of a conspiracy, nothing could dissuade him. He

exhibited impatience with those who saw things differently,

interpreted mistakes as deliberate actions, and suspected his

opponents of being part of the larger conspiracy. He would not

entertain alternative explanations and stood contemptuous of

doubters. A lack of evidence rarely deterred him or undermined

his convictions. If witnesses disagreed on the facts, someone

had to be lying. The Fort Monmouth investigation, for instance,

had been spurred by reports of information from the Army Signal

Corps laboratories turning up in Eastern Europe. Since Julius

Rosenberg had worked at Fort Monmouth, McCarthy and Cohn were

convinced that other Communist sympathizers were still

supplying secrets to the enemy. But the Soviet Union had been

an ally during the Second World War, and during that time had

openly designated representatives at the laboratories, making

espionage there superfluous. Nevertheless, McCarthy's pursuit

of a spy ring caused officials at Fort Monmouth to suspend

forty-two civilian employees. After the investigations, all but

two were reinstated in their former jobs.

Not until January 1954, did the remaining subcommittee

members adopt rules changes that Democrats had demanded, and

Senators McClellan, Jackson and Symington resumed their

membership on the subcommittee. These rules changes removed the

chairman's exclusive authority over staffing, and gave the

minority members the right to hire their own counsel. Whenever

the minority was unanimously opposed to holding a public

hearing, the issue would go to the full committee to determine

by majority vote. Also in 1954, the Republican Policy Committee

proposed rules changes that would require a quorum to be

present to hold hearings, and would prohibit holding hearings

outside of the District of Columbia or taking confidential

testimony unless authorized by a majority of committee members.

In 1955 the Permanent Subcommittee adopted rules similar to

those the Policy Committee recommended.\30\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\30\ New York Times, July 11, 19, 1953, January 24, 26, 27, 1954;

Congressional Record, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess, 2970.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Following the Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954, the Senate

censured Senator McCarthy in December 1954 for conduct

unbecoming of a senator. Court rulings in subsequent years had

a significant impact on later congressional investigations by

strengthening the rights of witnesses. Later in the 1950s,

members and staff of the Permanent Subcommittee on

Investigations joined with the Senate Labor and Public Welfare

Committee to form a special committee to investigate labor

racketeering, with Robert F. Kennedy as chief counsel.

Conducted in a more bipartisan manner and respectful of the

rights of witnesses, their successes helped to reverse the

negative image of congressional investigations fostered by

Senator McCarthy's freewheeling investigatory style.

Donald A. Ritchie,

Senate Historical Office.

SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF IN JANUARY 1953

Francis D. Flanagan, chief counsel (July 1, 1945 to June 30,

1953)

Gladys E. Montier, assistant clerk (July 1, 1945 to November

15, 1953)

Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk (February 10, 1947 to May 31,

1979)

Jerome S. Adlerman, assistant counsel (July 1, 1947 to August

3, 1953)

James E. Sheridan, investigator (July 1, 1947 to December 3,

1953)

Robert J. McElroy, investigator (April 1, 1948 to April 24,

1955)

James H. Thomas, assistant counsel (January 19, 1949 to

February 15, 1953)

Howell J. Hatcher, chief assistant counsel (March 15, 1949 to

April 15, 1953)

Edith H. Anderson, assistant clerk (January 26, 1951 to

February 9, 1957)

William A. Leece, assistant counsel (March 14, 1951 to March

16, 1953)

Martha Rose Myers, assistant clerk (April 5, 1951 to July 31,

1953)

Nina W. Sutton, assistant clerk (April 1, 1952 to January 31,

1955)

SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF APPOINTED IN 1953-1954

Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel (January 15, 1953 to August 13,

1954)

Robert F. Kennedy, assistant counsel (January 15, 1953 to

August 31, 1953), chief counsel to the minority

(February 23, 1954 to January 3, 1955)

Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel (January 22, 1953 to July

19, 1954)

Marbeth A. Miller, research clerk (February 1, 1953 to July 31,

1954)

Herbert Hawkins, investigator (February 1, 1953 to November 15,

1954)

Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel (February 1, 1953 to

February 28, 1955)

Aileen Lawrence, assistant clerk (February 1, 1953 to September

15, 1953)

Thomas W. LaVenia, assistant counsel, (February 16, 1953 to

February 28, 1955)

Donald F. O'Donnell, assistant counsel (March 16, 1953 to

September 30, 1954)

Pauline S. Lattimore, assistant clerk (March 16, 1953 to

September 30, 1954)

Christian E. Rogers, Jr., assistant counsel (March 16, 1953 to

August 21, 1953)

Howard Rushmore, research director (April 1, 1953 to July 12,

1953)

Christine Winslow, assistant clerk (April 2, 1953 to May 15,

1953)

Rosemary Engle, assistant clerk (May 25, 1953 to March 15,

1955)

Joseph B. Matthews, executive director (June 22, 1953 to July

18, 1953)

Mary E. Morrill, assistant clerk (June 24, 1953 to November 15,

1954)

Ann M. Grickis, assistant chief clerk (July 1, 1953 to January

31, 1954)

Francis P. Carr, Jr., executive director (July 16, 1953 to

October 31, 1954)

Karl H. Baarslag, research director (July 16, 1953 to September

30, 1953), (November 2, 1954 to November 17, 1954)

Frances P. Mims, assistant clerk (July 16, 1953 to December 31,

1954)

James M. Juliana, investigator (September 8, 1953 to October

12, 1958)

C. George Anastos, assistant counsel (September 21, 1953 to

February 28, 1955)

Maxine B. Buffalohide, assistant clerk (November 19, 1953 to

October 15, 1954)

Thomas J. Hurley, Jr., investigator (November 19, 1953 to

December 15, 1953)

Margaret W. Duckett, assistant clerk (November 23, 1953 to

October 15, 1954)

Charles A. Tracy, investigator (March 1, 1954 to February 28,

1955)

LaVern J. Duffy, investigator (March 19, 1954 to February 28,

1955)

Ray H. Jenkins, special counsel (April 14, 1954 to July 31,

1954)

Solis Horwitz, assistant counsel (April 14, 1954 to June 30,

1954)

Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel (April 14, 1954 to June

30, 1954)

Charles A. Maner, secretary (April 14, 1954 to July 31, 1954)

Robert A. Collier, investigator (April 14, 1954 to May 31,

1954)

Regina R. Roman, research assistant (July 15, 1954 to February

28, 1955)

ACCOUNTS BY PARTICIPANTS

Adams, John G. Without Precedent: The Story of the Death of

McCarthyism. New York: Random House, 1983.

Cohn, Roy. McCarthy. New York: New American Library, 1968.

Ewald, William Bragg, Jr. Who Killed Joe McCarthy? New

York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.

Merson, Martin. The Private Diary of a Public Servant. New

York: Macmillan, 1955.

Potter, Charles E. Days of Shame. New York: Coward-McCann,

1965.

Rabinowitz, Victor. Unrepentent Leftist: A Lawyer's

Memoirs. Urbana: University of Illinois, 1996.

Watt, Ruth Young. Oral History Interview, Senate Historical

Office, 1979.

ACCOUNTS BY WITNESSES

Aptheker, Herbert, ``An Autobiographical Note,'' Journal of

American History, 87 (June 2002), 147-71.

Aronson, James. The Press and the Cold War. Boston: Beacon

Press. 1970.

Belfrage, Cedric. The American Inquisition, 1945-1960: A

Profile of the ``McCarthy Era.'' New York: Thunder's Mouth

Press, 1989. Reprint of 1973 edition.

Copland, Aaron and Vivian Perlis. Copland Since 1943. New

York: St. Martin's Press, 1989.

DuBois, Rachel Davis with Coran Okorodudu. All This and

Something More: Pioneering in Intercultural Education: An

Autobiography. Bryn Mawr, Penn.: Dorrance & Company, 1984.

Fast, Howard. Being Red. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1990.

Fast, Howard. The Naked God: the Writer and the Communist

Party. New York: Praeger, 1957.

Kaghan, Theodore. ``The McCarthyization of Theodore

Kaghan.'' The Reporter, 9 (July 21, 1953).

Kent, Rockwell. It's Me O Lord: The Autobiography of

Rockwell Kent. New York: Dodd, Mead, 1955.

Lamb, Edward. ``Trial by Battle'': The Case History of a

Washington Witch-Hunt. Santa Barbara, Calif.: Center for the

Study of Democratic Institutions, 1964.

Mandel, Bill. Saying No to Power. Berkeley, Calif.:

Creative Arts Book Company, 1999.

Matusow, Harvey. False Witness. New York: Cameron & Kahn,

1955.

O'Connor, Jessie Lloyd, Harvey O'Connor, and Susan M.

Bowler. Harvey and Jessie: A Couple of Radicals. Philadelphia:

Temple University Press, 1988.

Seaver, Edwin. So Far So Good: Recollections of a Life in

Publishing. Westport, Conn.: Lawrence Hill, 1986.

Seldes, George. Witness to a Century: Encounters with the

Noted, the Notorious, and Three SOBs. New York: Ballantine,

1987.

Service, John S. The Amerasia Papers: Some Problems in the

History of U.S.-China Relations. Berkeley: Center for Chinese

Studies, University of California, Berkeley, 1971.

Webster, Margaret. Don't Put Your Daughter on the Stage.

New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1972.

Wechsler, James A. The Age of Suspicion. New York: Random

House, 1953.

Weyl, Nathaniel. The Battle Against Democracy. New York:

Thomas Y. Crowell, 1951.

WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, 1953

Ackerman, Lester

Adams, John

Aguimbau, Lawrence

Alfred, Benjamin

Allen, Jacob W.

Amen, John H.

Andrews, T. Coleman

Antell, Louis

Archdeacon, Henry Canning

Arnot, Charles P.

Aronson, James

Arrigo, Augustin

Arsenault, Jean A.

Auberjonois, Fernand

Auerbach, Sol (James S. Allen)

Austin, Clyde

Ayers, Stuart

Ayman, David

Back, Maj. Gen. George I.

Balog, Helen B.

Barrett, Edward W.

Bauknight, Ralph M.

Belfrage, Cedric

Belgrave, Gordon

Bennett, Herbert S.

Bentley, Elizabeth

Berger, Sigmond

Berinsky, Stanley

Berke, Sylvia

Bernstein, Barry S.

Berstein, Samuel

Bert, Joseph

Blattenberger, Raymond

Bogolepov, Igor

Bookbinder, Benjamin

Bortz, Louis

Bottisti, Albert J.

Boye, Gunnar

Boyer, Richard O.

Bolys, Witoutos S.

Brand, Millen

Brashear, Dewey Franklin

Bremmer, Sol

Brody, Edward

Brooks, Deton J., Jr.

Brooks, John Starling

Brothman, Abraham

Brown, Donald R.

Bruzzese, Larry

Bryan, Julien

Bryant, James M.

Budenz, Louis Francis

Burgum, Edwin B.

Burkes, Carter Lemuel

Burkhard, Henry F.

Burrows, Albert

Butensky, Seymour

Buttrey, Capt. Linton J.

Carlisle, John W.

Cavanna, Paul

Cernrey, Frank

Chasanow, Abraham

Chase, Allan

Chiaro, Teresa Mary

Coe, V. Frank

Cole, Eugene H.

Cole, Phillip L.

Coleman, Aaron H.

Compton, Wilson R.

Connors, W. Bradley

Cooke, Marvel

Cookson, Thomas K.

Copland, Aaron

Corwin, Jerome

Coyle, David Cushman

Cragg, Earl

Crenshaw, Craig

Crevisky, Joseph K.

Crouch, Paul

Daniels, Dr. Fred B.

Daniels, Cpl. Willie L.

Davies, Bennett

Delaney, Walter S.

Delcamp, Raymond

DeLuca, John Anthony

Donohue, Harry

Donovan, John L.

Drake, Emma Elizabeth

DuBois, Rachel Davis

Ducore, Harold

Duggan, James E.

Duke, Russell W.

d'Usseau, Arnaud

Ehrendfeld, Alice

Elitcher, Max

Elliott, Maxwell

Englander, Florence

Epstein, Markus

Evans, Gertrude

Everhardt, Roscoe Conkling

Evers, James

Falk, Harry

Fary, Leo

Fast, Howard

Feldman, Albert E.

Fenn, Gen. C.C.

Ferebee, Dorothy

Ferguson, Esther Leemov

Fernandez, Emanuel

Finkelstein, Saul

Finlayson, Donald R.

Fisher, Phillip

Fischler, Albert

Fister, Edward J.

Fleming, Alfred

Forsyth, Rear Admiral Edward Culligan

Francis, Joseph E.

Francisco, Abden

Freedman, David M.

Freeman, Joseph

Frese, Walter F.

Fried, Dorothy

Freidlander, Sidney

Friedman, Lawrence

Frolow, Jack

Fulling, Virgil H.

Furry, Wendell

Gaboriault, Norman

Galex, Irving Israel

Gallagher, Maj. James J.

Gebhardt, Joseph Arthur

Gebo, Lawrence Leo

Gelfan, Harriett Moore

George, Arthur

Gerber, Stanley

Gerhard, Karl

Giardina, Ignatius

Gift, Charles

Gisser, Samuel Paul

Glassman, Sidney

Goldberg, William P.

Goldfrank, Helen

Goodkind, Louis W.

Goodwin, Robert

Grottfried, Linda

Greenberg, Solomon

Greenblum, Carl

Greenman, Samuel I.

Gregory, Alexander

Grogan, Mrs. William

Gross, Alan Sterling

Grundfest, Harry

Guess, Cleta

Hacko, Paul F.

Hall, Alvin W.

Hammett, Dashiell

Hanley, Col. James M.

Hansen, Kenneth R.

Harris, Reed

Hawkins, Herbert S.

Hecker, Herbert F.

Henderson, Donald

Hermida, Higeno

Herrick, George Q.

Hewitt, Downs E.

Heyman, Ezekiel

Hindin, Alexander

Hipsley, S. Preston

Hiskey, Clarence F.

Holtzman, David

Homes, George

Huberman, Leo

Hughes, Henry Daniel

Hughes, Langston

Hunt, Mansfield

Hutner, Eleanor Glassman

Hutner, Eugene E.

Hyman, Harry

Iannarone, Ralph

Inslerman, Hans

Jacobs, Norman Stanley

Janowsky, Seymour

Jasik, Henry

Jassik, Charles

Jegabbi, Anna

Johnson, Wendell G.

Jones, Richard, Jr.

Jones, William Johnstone

Kaghan, Theodore

Kaplan, Jacob

Kaplan, Louis

Kaplan, Louis Leo

Katchen, Ira J.

Katz, Max

Kaufman, Mary M.

Keiser, Morris

Kelleher, Maj. James

Kent, Rockwell

Kerr, Mavlina M.

Kitty, Fred Joseph

Klein, Alex Henry

Kohler, E.L.

Kolowich, George J.

Komar, Joseph Paul

Kornfield, Isadore

Koss, Howard

Kostora, Lt. Col. Lee H.

Kotch, Donald Joseph

Krau, Maj. Harold N.

Kreider, Cpl. Lloyd D.

Kretzmann, Edwin

Krummel, Lillian

Lamont, Corliss

Lautner, John

Lawton, Maj. Gen. Kirke B.

Layne, Joseph Linton

Lee, Bernard

Leeds, Paul M.

Leeds, Sherwood

Lenkeith, Nancy

LePage, Wilbur

Lepato, Abraham

Levine, Martin

Levine, Ruth

Levine, Samuel

Levitsky, Joseph

Levitties, Harry William

Lewis, Bernard

Lewis, Helen B.

Lewis, Napthtali

Lichter, David

Lindsay, Col Wallace W.

Linfield, David

Lipel, Bernard

Lipson, Harry

Lofek, Vachlav

Lonnie, William Patrick

Lowrey, Vernon Booth

Lundmark, Carl J.

Lyons, Edward J.

Lyons, Florence Fowler

Lynch, Michael J.

Mabbskka, Karl T.

Makarounis, Capt. Alexander G.

Mandel, William Marx

Mangione, Jerre G.

Markward, Mary S.

Martin, Bernard

Martin, Pfc. John E.

Matles, James J.

Mastrianni, William J.

Mathews, Troup

Martinez-Locayo, Juan Jose

Matousek, Helen

Matson, John E.

Matta, Sgt. George J.

McJennett, John Francis, Jr.

McKee, Samuel

McKesson, Lewis J.

McNichols, 1st Lt. Henry J., Jr.

Mellor, Ernest C.

Merold, Harold

Miller, Leo M.

Miller, Murray

Miller, Robert C.

Mills, Col. John V.

Mills, Nathaniel

Mins, Leonard E.

Moon, Susan

Moran, James M.

Morgan, Edward P.

Morrill, Donald Herbert

Morris, Melvin M.

Morris, Sam

Morton, Thruston B.

Mullins, Sgt. Orville R.

Murphy, Curtis Quinten

Murray, H. Donald

Nachmais, Harry M.

Naimon, Alexander

Narell, Murray

Nelson, Elba Chase

Northrup, Robert Pierson

O'Connor, Harvey

Okun, Jack

Oliveri, Joseph John

Omanson, Sarah

Owens, Arthur Lee

Page, Paul D., Jr.

Palmiero, Francesco

Palmiero, Mary Columbo

Pappas, Theodore

Partridge, Gen. Richard C.

Pastorinsky, Harry

Pataki, Emery

Pataki, Ernest

Pataki, Vivian Glassman

Peacock, Francis F.

Percoff, Joseph H.

Pernice, John

Petrov, Vladimir

Phillips, James B.

Piekarski, Witulad

Pomerentz, Samuel

Pope, Lafayette

Powell, Doris Walters

Puhan, Alfred

Rabinowitz, Seymour

Rabinowitz, Victor

Ranney, Russell Gaylord

Reiss, Julius

Rhoden, Sgt. Barry F.

Rich, Stanley R.

Riehs, Rudolph C.

Rissland, Rudolph

Robeson, Eslanda Goode

Rogers, Lt. Col. James T.

Rollins, Harold S.

Rosenbaum, Terry

Rosenheim, Irving

Rosmovsky, Peter

Rothschild, Edward M.

Rothschild, Esther B.

Rothstein, Jerome

Ryan, Robert J.

Sachs, Harvey

Sack, Samuel

Saltzman, William

Sardella, John

Saunders, John D.

Savitt, Morris

Schickler, John

Schnee, Leon

Schutz, Ralph

Schmidt, Martin

Scott, James P.

Seaver, Edwin

Seay, Perry

Segner, Samuel Martin

Seifert, Doris

Seldes, George

Service, John Stewart

Shadowitz, Albert

Shapiro, Philip Joseph

Shapiro, Shirley

Sharps, Sgt. Robert L.

Sheehan, Capt. Benjamin

Shoiket, Henry

Sidorovich, Ann

Sidorovich, Michael

Siegel, Paul

Sillers, Frederick

Silverberg, Muriel

Simkovich, John R.

Singer, Bertha

Smith, Newbern

Snyder, Samuel

Socol, Albert

Solomon, Isadore

Spence, Adolphus Nichols

Spiro, Norman

Stokes, Irving

Stolberg, Sidney

Stoner, Frank E.

Studenberg, Irving

Sussman, Nathan

Swing, Raymond Gram

Tate, Jack B.

Taylor, William H.

Thomas, Charles S.

Thompson, James F.

Thompson, Robert L.

Toumanoff, Vladimir

Treffery, Sgt. Wendell

Ullmann, Marcel

Ullman, William Ludwig

Unger, Abraham

Urey, Harold C.

Van Kleeck, Mary

Varley, Dimitri

Vedeler, Harold C.

Volp, Louis

Walker, Alfred C.

Walsh, James John

Watters, Sgt. John L., Jr.

Way, Kenneth John

Webster, Margaret

Wechsler, James A.

Weinel, Sgt. Carey H.

Weinstein, James

Wells, O.V.

Wells, Roy Hudson, Jr.

Weyl, Nathaniel

Whitehorne, Lt. Col. J.W. III

Wilder, William Richmond

Wilkerson, Doxey

Willi, George

Wolman, Benjamin

Wolman, Diana

Yamins, Haym G.

Young, Philip

Zucker, Jack

Zuckerman, Benjamin

PUBLIC HEARINGS OF SENATE PERMANENT SUBCOM-

MITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS, PUBLISHED IN 1953

Eligibility Audits--Federal Security Agency, February 3

State Department--File Survey, Part 1, February 4, 5, 6

State Department--File Survey, Part 2, February 16, 20

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part 1,

February 16, 17

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part 2,

February 18, 19

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part 3,

February 20, 28

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part 4,

March 2

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part 5,

March 3

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part 6,

March 4

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part 7,

March 5, 6

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part 8,

March 12

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part 9,

March 13, 16, 19

State Department Information Program--Voice of America, Part

10, April 1, Composite Index

Stockpiling--Palm Oil, February 25

State Department Information Program--Information Centers, Part

1, March 24, 25, 26

State Department Information Program--Information Centers, Part

2, March 27, April 1, 2

State Department Information Program--Information Centers, Part

3, April 29, May 5

State Department Information Program--Information Centers, Part

4, April 24

State Department Information Program--Information Centers, Part

5, May 5

State Department Information Program--Information Centers, Part

6, May 6, 14

State Department Information Program--Information Centers, Part

7, July 1, 2, 7

State Department Information Program--Information Centers, Part

8, July 14

State Department Information Program--Information Centers, Part

9, August 5, Composite Index

Control of Trade with the Soviet Bloc, Part 1, March 30

Control of Trade with the Soviet Bloc, Part 2, May 4, 20

Austrian Incident, May 29, June 5, 8

State Department--Student-Teacher Exchange program, June 10, 19

Communist Party Activities, Western Pennsylvania, June 18

U.S. v. Fallbrook Public Utility District, et al., July 2

Security--Government Printing Office, Part 1, August 17, 18

Security--Government Printing Office, Part 2, August 19, 20,

22, 29

Communist Infiltration Among Army Civilian Workers, September

8, 11

Security--United Nations, Part 1, September 17, 18

Security--United Nations, Part 2, September 15

Communist Infiltration in the Army, Part 1, September 28

Commuist Infiltration in the Army, Part 2, September 21

Transfer of Occupation Currency Plates--Espionage Phase,

October 20, 21

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, Part 1, October

22, November 24, 15, December 8

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, Part 2, December 9

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, Part 3, December

10, 11

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, Part 4, December

14

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, Part 5, December

15

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, Part 6, December

16

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, Part 7, December

17

Korean War Atrocities, Part 1, December 2

Korean War Atrocities, Part 2, December 3

Korean War Atrocities, Part 3, December 4

WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN PUBLIC SESSION, 1953

Abbott, Lt. Col. Robert

Ackerman, Lester

Adlerman, Jerome S.

Allen, Maj. Gen. Frank A., Jr.

Allen, James S.

Aptheker, Herbert

Archdeacon, Henry Canning

Aronson, James

Auberjonois, Fernand

Ayers, Stuart

Baarslag, Karl

Balog, Helen B.

Barmine, Alexander

Bauer, Robert

Beardwood, Jack

Belfrage, Cedric H.

Bell, Daniel W.

Bentley, Elizabeth

Berke, Sylvia

Bernstein, Barry S.

Blattenberger, Raymond C.

Bogolepov, Igor

Booth, William N.

Bortz, Louis

Boyer, Richard O.

Boykin, Samuel D.

Bracken, Thomas E.

Brand, Millen

Browder, Earl

Budenz, Louis F.

Burgum, Edward B.

Buttrey, Capt. Linton J.

Caldwell, John C.

Carrigan, Charles B.

Cocutz, John

Coe, V. Frank

Cole, Philip L.

Coleman, Aaron Hyman

Compton, Wilson R.

Cooke, Marvel J.

Conners, W. Bradley

Creed, Donald R.

Crouch, Paul

Cupps, Halbert

Daniels, Cpl. Willie L.

DeLuca, John Anthony

Dooher, Gerald F.P.

Duggan, James E.

d'Usseau, Arnaud

Epstein, Julius

Evans, Gertrude

Fast, Howard

Finn, Maj. Frank M.

Foner, Philip

Forbes, Russell

Ford, John W.

Francis, Robert J.

Freedman, David M.

Freeman, Frederick

Fulling, Virgil H.

Gelfan, Harriet Moore

Ghosh, Stanley S.

Gift, Charles

Gillett, Glenn D.

Glasser, Harold

Glassman, Sidney

Glazer, Sidney

Goldfrank, Helen

Goldman, Robert B.

Gorn, Lt. Col. John W.

Gropper, William

Grundfest, Harry

Hammett, Dashiell

Halaby, N.E.

Hall, Alvin W.

Hanley, Col. James M.

Hansen, Kenneth R.

Harris, Reed

Henderson, Donald

Herrimann, Frederick

Heyman, Ezekiel

Hipsley, S. Preston

Hlavaty, Julius H.

Hoey, Jane M.

Horneffer, Michael D.

Huberman, Leo

Hughes, Langston

Hunter, Eleanor Glassman

Hyman, Harry

Jaramillo, Arturo J.

Johnstone, William C., Jr.

Kaghan, Theodore

Kaplan, Louis

Kennedy, Robert F.

Kent, Rockwell

Kereles, Gabriel

Kimball, Arthur A.

Kinard, Charles Edward

King, Clyde Nelson

Kitty, Fred Joseph

Kreider, Cpl. Lloyd D.

Kretzmann, Edwin M.J.

Lamont, Corliss

Lautner, John

Leddy, John M.

Lenkeith, Nancy

Levine, Ruth

Levitsky, Joseph

Lewis, Helen

Lewis, Naphtali

Linfield, David

Locke, Maj. William D.

Lotz, Walter Edward, Jr.

Lumpkin, Grace

Lundmark, Carl J.

Lyons, Roger

McKee, Samuel

McKesson, Lewis J.

McNichols, Lt. Henry J., Jr.

Maier, Howard

Makarounis, Capt. Alexander G.

Mandel, William Marx

Manring, Roy Paul, Jr.

Markward, Mary S.

Martin, Pfc. John E.

Mason, Arthur S.

Matson, John E.

Matta, Sgt. George

Matusow, Harvey

Mazzei, Joseph D.

Meade, Everard K., Jr.

Mellor, Ernest C.

Merold, Harry D.

Milano, William L.

Mins, Leonard E.

Moran, James B.

Morris, Sam

Mullins, Sgt. Orville R.

Nash, Frank C.

O'Connor, Harvey

Pataki, Ernest

Patridge, Gen. Richard C.

Percoff, Joseph H.

Petrov, Vladimir

Phillips, James B.

Piekarski, Witulad

Pratt, Haraden

Puhan, Alfred

Reber, Maj. Gen. Miles

Reid, Andrew J.

Reiss, Julius

Rhoden, Sgt. Barry F.

Richmond, Alfred C.

Ridgeway, Gen. Matthew B.

Robeson, Eslanda Goode

Rogers, Lt. Col. James T.

Rogge, O. John

Rosinger, Lawrence K.

Ross, Julius

Rothschild, Edward M.

Rothschild, Esther B.

Rushmore, Howard

Sachs, Howard R.

Salisbury, Joseph E.

Sarant, Louise

Saunders, John

Savitt, Morris

Schappes, Morris U.

Seaver, Edwin

Shadowitz, Albert

Sharpe, Sgt. Charles Robert

Shephard, Patricia

Shoiket, Henry N.

Shulz, Edward K.

Sillers, Frederick

Silvermaster, Nathan Gregory

Sims, Albert G.

Smith, Lt. James

Smith, Newbern

Synder, Samuel Joseph

Socol, Albert

Spence, Adolophus Nichols

Spence, Clifford H.

Stassen, Harold E.

Stern, Dr. Bernhard J.

Stolberg, Sidney

Strong, Allen

Sussman, Nathan

Syran, Arthur G.

Taylor, Donald K.

Taylor, William C.

Teto, William H.

Thompson, James F.

Tippett, Frank D.

Todd, Lt. Col. Jack R.

Toumanoff, Vladimir I.

Treffery, Sgt. Wendell

Ullmann, Marcel

Ullman, William Ludwig

Unger, Abraham

Utley, Freda

Veldus, A.C.

Vernier, Paul

Walsh, A.J.

Watters, Sgt. John L., Jr.

Wechsler, James A.

Weinel, Sgt. Carey H.

Wetfish, Gene

Wilkerson, Doxey A.

Wolfe, Col. Claudius O.

Wolman, Benjamin

Wolman, Diana Moldover

Wu, Kwant Tsing

Zucker, Jack

RUSSELL W. DUKE

[Editor's note.--The inquiry into the alleged influence-

peddling of Russell W. Duke (1907-1978) in U.S. tax cases and

his cooperation with Washington lawyer Edward P. Morgan (1913-

1986), was a continuation of similar investigations that the

subcommittee had conducted during the previous Congress, but

the subcommittee's new chairman, Senator McCarthy, had a

personal interest in both these men. Russell Duke, who lived in

Oregon, maintained close ties to Senator Wayne Morse, one of

McCarthy's outspoken critics, while Edward Morgan had served as

counsel to the Foreign Relations Committee subcommittee,

chaired by Senator Millard Tydings, that examined McCarthy's

Wheeling, West Virginia, charges about Communists in the State

Department. The Tydings subcommittee rejected McCarthy's claims

as a ``fraud and a hoax.'' In 1952, Morgan had campaigned

against McCarthy's reelection.

The subcommittee seized all of Duke's records in a garage

in San Francisco, and subpoenaed all of Morgan's records

relating to Duke. At the same time, a subcommittee of the House

Judiciary Committee also investigated the case, and two members

of that committee audited the Senate subcommittee's executive

session.

Duke was served with a subpoena on January 11, 1953. After

testifying in executive session, he was informed that he would

need to reappear to testify in public on February 2. But the

public hearing was postponed ``until some other date to be

designated.'' Duke was later instructed to appear on April 13,

but had already gone to Canada. Informed that the subpoena was

``a continuing one,'' he was ordered to return. When he failed

to appear, the subcommittee unanimously voted him in contempt.

In November, Duke was arrested in Cleveland, Ohio, and brought

to Washington to stand trial. On January 26, 1954, Judge

Burnita S. Matthews of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Columbia found him not guilty of contempt for failing to

honor a subpoena in April that had originally been issued for

January 15. Senator McCarthy vowed to issue another subpoena.

``If Duke refuses to obey this one, we'll have him cited

again,'' he told reporters, ``and this time I hope his case is

heard by a judge who knows the law.'' However, the subcommittee

did not pursue the matter any further.

Russell W. Duke did not testify in public session.]

----------

THURSDAY, JANUARY 15, 1953

U.S. Senate,

Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

of the Committee on Government Operations,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 251,

agreed to January 24, 1952, in room 357 of the Senate Office

Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman, presiding.

Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin;

Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator

Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L.

McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson,

Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat,

Missouri.

Present also: Representative Kenneth A. Keating,

Republican, New York; Representative Patrick J. Hillings,

Republican, California.

Present also: Francis D. Flanagan, general counsel; Robert

Collier, chief counsel, House Subcommittee to Investigate the

Department of Justice, Committee on the Judiciary; William A.

Leece, assistant counsel; Robert F. Kennedy, assistant counsel;

Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.

The Chairman. We will have the record show that present are

Senator Potter, Senator McClellan, Senator Jackson, Senator

Symington, and Senator McCarthy, and Congressman Keating of the

House Judiciary Subcommittee, and Congressman Patrick Hillings.

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I should report to you

that pursuant to the resolution or motion adopted at the

meeting of the full committee on yesterday, I have appointed as

members of the minority of this subcommittee the following

Senator Symington, Senator Jackson, and myself.

The Chairman. Let the record show that yesterday in the

full committee meeting with a quorum present, the motion was

made, seconded and passed that the four Republican members,

Senator Potter, Senator McCarthy, Senator Dirksen, and Senator

Mundt, were confirmed as members of the subcommittee, and also

confirmed were the members to be subsequently nominated or

appointed by Senator McClellan, which has now been done.

Mr. Duke, in this matter before the subcommittee, do you

solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing

but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Duke. I do.

The Chairman. Mr. Duke, before we start, I would like to

make a suggestion, due to the fact that you are here without

counsel. Time after time, witnesses have come and they have not

been guilty of any criminal activity of any kind until they

testify, and they make the mistake of thinking they can

outsmart the committee and make the mistake of lying, in other

words, committing perjury. So I would like to suggest to you

for your own protection that you do one of two things: that you

either tell the truth, or that you refuse to answer. You have a

right to refuse to answer any question the answer to which you

think might incriminate you. So I would suggest to you that for

your own protection you either tell us the truth and nothing

but the truth, or else avail yourself of the privilege of

refusal to answer.

TESTIMONY OF RUSSELL W. DUKE

Mr. Flanagan. What is your full name and your permanent

address?

Mr. Duke. Russell W. Duke. Unfortunately, I don't have any

permanent address.

Mr. Flanagan. Is Russell W. Duke your legal name now?

Mr. Duke. It has been for years, yes, it is my legal name.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you previously have another name?

Mr. Duke. Yes.

Mr. Flanagan. What was that?

Mr. Duke. D-u-t-k-o.

Mr. Flanagan. Where were you born?

Mr. Duke. St. Clair, Pennsylvania.

Mr. Flanagan. What was your birth date?

Mr. Duke. February 11, 1907.

Mr. Flanagan. When did you first begin to engage in the

public relations business?

Mr. Duke. I have--about 1934 or 1935.

Mr. Flanagan. You have been engaged in that business

continuously?

Mr. Duke. Not continuously, no.

Mr. Flanagan. When did you engage in any other business

since 1934 or 1935, other than public relations?

Mr. Duke. I have continuously been engaged in various

businesses. I have been in the manufacturing business, in the

sales business, the procurement business, the real estate

business.

Mr. Flanagan. When did you first begin to act as public

relations counsel or representative in cases involving the

federal government, such as tax cases, claims, and the like?

Mr. Duke. In about 1946, '47, '48.

Mr. Flanagan. Can you recite the number of cases, that is,

federal tax cases, in which you were employed as a public

relations counsel?

Mr. Duke. Not until I look in my books to be able to tell

you that.

Mr. Flanagan. But you were employed in a number of federal

tax cases as public relations counsel?

Mr. Duke. I was.

Mr. Flanagan. What were your duties and responsibilities,

as you saw them, as a public relations counsel in a tax case?

Mr. Duke. Well, I learned that in a lot of cases, upon

investigating the case after the Internal Revenue Department

got through with it, there were a lot of errors created by the

agent that put a burden upon the taxpayer, over-assessed him

various and sundry amounts that should not have been assessed,

and I would engage certified public accountants to recheck the

books, definitely determine if these over-assessments were

justified or not, and then either call it to the attention of

the Internal Revenue Department, the various heads of the

Internal Revenue Department, and if they did not do anything

about it, then advise the client to secure competent tax

counsel.

Mr. Flanagan. Are you an accountant?

Mr. Duke. No, but I can do book work.

Mr. Flanagan. Have you ever had any accounting training of

any kind?

Mr. Duke. Practical, yes. I was with Sears, Roebuck Company

for seven-and-a-half years.

Mr. Flanagan. As an accountant?

Mr. Duke. No, in their legal department.

Mr. Flanagan. What did you do in the legal department?

Mr. Duke. I was assigned to various stores, and I had

forty-six stores in eight states, and my position was to go to

the various stores and go over their accounts and check them to

see if there was any discrepancy in them, and find out if all

of the accounts are live.

Mr. Flanagan. You were an auditor, in other words?

Mr. Duke. Not as an auditor; more of an investigator.

Mr. Flanagan. Are you a lawyer?

Mr. Duke. No.

Mr. Flanagan. Can you tell us the names of the various

counsel that you recommended in some of these tax cases that

you were public relations counsel for?

Mr. Duke. Oh, yes. I recommended probably in the past,

prior to 1946 or 1947----

Mr. Flanagan. I am not talking about prior; I am talking of

since then.

Mr. Duke. Bob Murphy from Keenan & Murphy; Morgan, of

Welch, Mott & Morgan--again, I would have to look at my files

to refresh my memory, because I have recommended various legal

firms.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever recommend Conrad Hubner, of San

Francisco?

Mr. Duke. On the coast I have, yes.

Mr. Flanagan. Who else on the coast have you recommended as

an attorney?

Mr. Duke. Stephen Chadwick, quite a prominent attorney in

Seattle, and I don't recall. Again, I would have to go into my

files to check.

Mr. Flanagan. Do you recall the specific cases in which you

had an interest and in which Edward P. Morgan also had an

interest as a lawyer?

Mr. Duke. Some of them I can recall, but not all of them.

Mr. Flanagan. Can you recite those that you can recall?

Mr. Duke. There was Dr. Ting Lee, Wilcox----

Mr. Flanagan. Where was Ting Lee?

Mr. Duke. Portland, Oregon.

Mr. Flanagan. And the next case?

Mr. Duke. And the Noble Wilcoxon case in Sacramento.

Mr. Flanagan. Any others?

Mr. Duke. Again, I would have to check the file.

Mr. Flanagan. How about the Jack Glass case?

Mr. Duke. I referred that to Morgan.

Mr. Flanagan. How about the Guy Schafer case in Oakland?

Mr. Duke. I referred that to Morgan.

Mr. Flanagan. How about the Harry Blumenthal case in San

Francisco?

Mr. Duke. Well, that was a case wherein Hubner wanted me to

get him counsel in Washington, and through me he associated

with Morgan on that case.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever attempt to get Morgan in as an

attorney in the Inez Burns case in San Francisco?

Mr, Duke. No. I was requested in San Francisco some time

ago to get information on the Inez Burns case back here, to

find out why it was laying dormant in San Francisco.

Mr Flanagan. Who requested you to do that?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall whether it was the Burns attorney

or whom, right at the moment, who it was, and I came back here

and inquired of the Internal Revenue Department and told them

that the case was laying dormant back there and it had been

dormant for about two years, and they wanted to find out why it

wasn't coming to a head. I couldn't find out anything, and so I

requested Mr. Wilson, the administrative aide of Senator

Knowland's office, if he would make inquiry of the Internal

Revenue Department to find out why the Internal Revenue

Department wasn't bringing the case to a head.\1\

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

\1\ George F. Wilson, administrative assistant to Senator William

F. Knowland (Republican-California).

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

He did find out, or learn why, and sent me a copy of the

letter; and at the same date I was here, I inquired of Mr

Morgan if he could aid me in finding out why the case was

laying dormant, and that was about the gist of the Inez Burns

case.

Mr. Flanagan. Did Mr. Morgan find out anything for you?

Mr. Duke. The letter is there, and will probably answer it

best, and I don't recall what was in the body of that letter.

Mr. Flanagan. Did he get a fee out of that case?

Mr. Duke. Did he?

Mr. Flanagan. Yes.

Mr. Duke. I don't think so. I doubt it very much. I don't

know.

Mr. Flanagan. Now, how would you locate these tax cases,

and how would you be brought into them?

Mr. Duke. Well, there were various means, and some

accounting firms would call me, and I knew quite a number of

accounting firms on the coast, and I knew a lot of people that

had friends that were involved in these tax cases who asked if

I could help them out in any way.

Mr. Flanagan. In other words, they would come to you?

Mr. Duke. Some cases, in some instances, yes.

Mr. Flanagan. In some instances did you go to them and

suggest that they retain you?

Mr. Duke. I sure did.

Mr. Flanagan. Can you tell us a case in which you went to

either the taxpayer's lawyer or someone connected with it, and

told them that they ought to retain your services?

Mr. Duke. The Wilcoxon case is fresh in my memory.

Mr. Flanagan. That is the Noble Wilcoxon case at

Sacramento?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Mr. Flanagan. To whom did you go?

Mr. Duke. I went to Mr. Wilcoxon.

Mr. Flanagan. What did you tell him?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall right now, I really don't. If you

want me to tell you verbatim what I told him, I wouldn't

recall. I could probably give you an idea.

Mr. Flanagan. Give us in substance what you told him.

Mr. Duke. I probably told him, knowing he was in tax

difficulties, and asked him if he had competent counsel, and

how far they had gone with it, and checked his records and

books, and found probably a discrepancy in his records or

books, where the Internal Revenue Department made errors, and

then advised him that he should get Washington counsel, someone

that had good legal training in tax matters.

Mr. Flanagan. How did you find out that he was in tax

trouble?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall right now.

Mr. Flanagan. You have no idea how you found out?

Mr. Duke. I wouldn't say I have no idea. At the moment I

haven't. If I could sit down and go through my files, probably

there is something there that would refresh my memory.

Mr. Flanagan. What is your best present recollection as to

how that case came to your attention?

Mr. Duke. If I gave you an answer to that, it would be just

guesswork, and I really couldn't answer that until, as I say, I

had checked through the entire file in the Wilcoxon case.

Mr. Flanagan. I have here a letter, Mr. Duke, or a copy of

a letter, dated September 10, 1949, which was taken from your

files. This letter is addressed to Edward P. Morgan in

Washington and, being a copy, it has your typed signature on

it. We will put this in the record, but for the present I will

just read certain paragraphs from it and ask you some questions

about it.

[The letter referred to was marked as committee's Exhibit,

No. 11 January 15, 1953, R. W. Duke, and is as follows:]

Portland 13, Oregon,

September 10, 1949.

Mr. Ed Morgan,

Welsh, Mott & Morgan, 7100 Erickson Building,

Fourteen Northwest, Washington, DC.

Dear Ed: Since my conversation with you over the phone regarding

Senator Morse, yourself, and myself discussed in your office, I can

only repeat as I stated in my previous letter--Senator Morse, his

integrity, honesty, and sincerity is something to be highly admired and

respected. At no time have I ever known him to make an idle promise. I

shall see that you will be given assurance in person immediately after

the 12th of this month complying with the request you had made of me.

Talent, Ed, is what I want. I am going to make my tour of the South

(incidentally, Nevada and Idaho are good territory) and make one

complete thrust to bring all the talent I possibly can to Washington.

I understand there are 23 applications in Oregon for television.

Can you confirm that?

Well, Ed, oil lands in Oregon are going to surprise the nation. In

delving through old records in the capitol recently, I ran across a

survey and drilling tests that were made in a certain county by the

Texas Oil Company, and their findings are so important that they will

illicit from anyone who would go over them a thrilling surprise. At the

time of the Teapot Dome scandal, Texas Oil Company, in conjunction with

Sinclair Company, was contemplating stealing the leases for this

particular area; sank seven wells; and each well was capped off as soon

as Fall, Dohney, and Daugherty were indicted, and it has been a dead

duck ever since. People filed homesteads on this particular land and

have since cut out the forests for lumber purposes and have abandoned

these lands. They are available from the country for the price of

delinquent taxes, which among to $200 per 160 acre sections. If you can

get a company to drill on this established oil land, would you be

interested in my writing you in as a full partner in owning these

various sections. As I stated above, your cost would be negligible. Let

me know at the earliest possible date, and I will exercise the

auctions.

How are the horses running? I refer to Sir Laurel Guy, the Oakland

owned horse, and the Sacramento owned horse.

With best personal regards, I remain.

Sincerely yours,

R.W. Duke.

Mr. Flanagan. In the second paragraph of this letter you

say:

Talent, Ed, is what I want. I am going to make my tour of

the South (incidentally, Nevada and Idaho are good territory)

and make one complete thrust to bring all the talent I possibly

can to Washington.

What did you mean there?

Mr. Duke. Could I read the entire letter, and that would

give me a better knowledge than just one paragraph.

Mr. Flanagan. Yes.

Mr. Duke. To answer that, it could mean quite a lot of

things. It could mean cases on television. At that time there

were a lot of applications from Oregon for television stations,

and in fact, I understand this letter states there were twenty-

three. It could mean most anything, it actually could, because

we were at that time contemplating going into leasing oil lands

through Oregon and Wyoming. So what it means now, I have no

recollection of.

Mr. Flanagan. Does it mean that you would search up cases,

either tax cases or television application cases, or other

cases involving the federal government, and refer those cases

to Edward P. Morgan?

Mr. Duke. It is possible that is what it meant.

Mr. Flanagan. Well, does it mean that or doesn't it mean

that?

Mr. Duke. For me to say yes now, I can't bring my mind

back----

Mr. Flanagan. Do you think it means that?

Mr. Duke. It is possible that it does.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you have any arrangement with Morgan that

you would, as you say, bird-dog cases for him out in the West?

Mr. Duke. Only in this respect: I had told him when I met

him and found out that he was specialized in television, and he

was specialized in tax cases, and he had taught taxes at one

time, I told him that I had a lot of people out on the coast

that approached me on cases, and would he be interested if I

would send these cases to him; and he told me that he would

have to talk to the attorneys, or to the clients of these

people, and go into the matter of the case, and then he would

determine after discussing it with the client and with the

attorney whether he would take the case.

Mr. Flanagan. What would you get out of such an

arrangement?

Mr. Duke. Well, if I ran across a case like that, I would

try to sell my services as a public relations to him.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you have any arrangement, directly or

indirectly, with Morgan whereby you would get a forwarding fee?

Mr. Duke. No, none whatsoever.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever have a discussion with Mr.

Morgan in which he was going to set up a West Coast law office

to handle some of these cases?

Mr. Duke. I didn't have the discussion. Mr. Morgan stated

at one time that there was a tremendous possibility for another

legal office on the West Coast, because there were various

attorneys here that had opened branches on the coast, and he

was contemplating doing the same thing on the coast.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever obtain any money from Morgan?

Mr. Duke. I borrowed some money from him, yes.

Mr. Flanagan. On how many occasions did you borrow money?

Mr. Duke. I only borrowed money from him one time.

Mr. Flanagan. When was that?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall.

Mr. Flanagan. How much?

Mr. Duke. It was $500.

Mr. Flanagan. Did he pay you by check or by cash?

Mr. Duke. He gave me a check.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you sign any note or other evidence of

the debt?

Mr. Duke. I think I did, I am not sure.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you pay it?

Mr. Duke. I haven't had a chance.

Mr. Flanagan. Is that the only occasion on which you got

money from Morgan or his firm?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Mr. Flanagan. Either directly or indirectly?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever pay any money to Morgan or his

firm, either directly or indirectly?

Mr. Duke. Indirectly, these clients that came there would

be indirectly.

Mr. Flanagan. I mean you, yourself.

Mr. Duke. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever split any fees with Morgan?

Mr. Duke. No, I never split any fees with Ed Morgan.

Mr. Flanagan. You never had a referral fee from him?

Mr. Duke. No.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever send him a referral fee?

Mr. Duke. No, not to my knowledge, I never sent him any

money.

Mr. Flanagan. You have read this letter of September 10?

Mr. Duke. I have.

Mr. Flanagan. I notice in the second to last paragraph it

reads as follows:

How are the horses running? I refer to Sir Laurel Guy, the

Oakland owned horse, and the Sacramento owned horse.

What are you talking about there?

Mr. Duke. That again, I am not sure of. Right now I

couldn't answer it. It might have been Sir Laurel Guy is a

horse owned now by Senator Morse and it was shown here, and

there is a Barbara Hunt in Sacramento that has a horse shown

here, and I could have been referring to that.

Mr. Flanagan. You say that Senator Morse at that time owned

a horse named Sir Laurel Guy, a show horse?

Mr. Duke. A show horse, and he just got through purchasing

it.

Mr. Flanagan. Was it from Oakland?

Mr. Duke. I am not sure whether it was or not. Now I am

not. At that time I possibly could have been.

Mr. Flanagan. Is this reference to Sir Laurel Guy in fact a

reference to the Guy Schafer tax case in Oakland?

Mr. Duke. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Flanagan. Is it possible that it is a reference to

that?

Mr. Duke. It could be possible.

Mr. Flanagan. Is it possible that your reference to a

Sacramento horse is in fact a reference to the Noble Wilcoxon

tax case?

Mr. Duke. It could be possible.

Mr. Flanagan. Do you mean to tell us that you can't recall

whether you are talking about a horse or a tax case?

Mr. Duke. I can't at this time, no.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever have any discussion with Morgan

that you would refer to tax cases by the name of a horse?

Mr. Duke. No.

Mr. Flanagan. You never had any such discussion?

Mr. Duke. That is why I don't recall what that is in

reference to at this time.

The Chairman. Did I understand you to say you do not know

whether you are talking about a horse or a tax case?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall right now.

The Chairman. You do not know?

Mr. Duke. I don't. If I might enlarge, Senator, this might

sound asinine, but it is factual, and the doctors will verify

it. I was in quite an explosion some time ago, and I have a

malignancy in the upper antrum; and in feeding me Acth at the

time of the explosion, the second and third degree burns, that

has affected me, it really has affected my thinking, and there

are a lot of things that I can go through there, and it takes

me probably quite a few hours to refresh my memory on it.

Senator Jackson. Why would you be talking about horses when

you are writing a letter to an attorney who has nothing to do

with horses?

Mr. Duke. Well, we were rather friends, and we discussed

horses, and we discussed a lot of things together.

Senator Jackson. What else?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall. It could have been horses or

taxes or oil or it could have been hay or anything.

Senator Jackson. How long have you been a friend of

Morgan's?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall what year I had met him, but I had

met him----

Senator Jackson. About when?

Mr. Duke. Again, I wouldn't be able to tell you until I

would----

Senator Jackson. Well, ten years ago, or what?

Mr. Duke. I think probably five or six years ago, and I

don't recall.

Senator Jackson. You were quite intimate with him?

Mr. Duke. We got very intimate.

Senator Jackson. You have been to his house?

Mr. Duke. Yes.

Senator Jackson. Made a lot of trips here to Washington?

Mr. Duke. I sure did.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever go to the horse races?

Mr. Duke. No. I never have been to a horse race--yes, one

time in my life.

Mr. Flanagan. Do you know anything about horses?

Mr. Duke. Yes, I know a lot. I was in the 15th Field

Artillery. I ought to know about horses.

Mr. Flanagan. I notice in the letter you ask, ``How are the

horses running?'' And you testified a few minutes ago that Sir

Laurel Guy was a show horse.

Mr. Duke. He is a show horse.

Mr. Flanagan. What would a show horse be doing running?

Mr. Duke. He has to run. They run him in a saddle, and then

they run him behind a cart, or the show carts, and the entire

prize is predicated on how the horse conducts himself wherever

he is running.

The Chairman. Who owned the show horses?

Mr. Duke. Senator Morse owned Sir Laurel Guy at that time.

The Chairman. At that time?

Mr. Duke. Yes, at that time. And I think he just about

purchased him about that time.

The Chairman. Are you sure of that?

Mr. Duke. I am not sure of that, but if my memory serves me

right, it was about that time that he probably purchased the

horse.

Mr. Flanagan. You must have had some discussion with Morgan

about Senator Morse's show horses.

Mr. Duke. I probably did.

Mr. Flanagan. Was Ed Morgan a friend of Senator Morse?

Mr. Duke. Yes, he became a friend of Senator Morse.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you introduce him to Senator Morse?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Mr. Flanagan. When?

Mr. Duke. Again, I don't recall. A couple of years ago.

Mr. Flanagan. Sometime in 1948, '49, possibly?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall what specific year, or time.

Mr. Flanagan. Under what circumstances did you introduce

him to Senator Morse?

Mr. Duke. Well, I might be mistaken in this, and I have got

to be sure. I think that Senator Morse spoke before the FBI

graduating class, and I think Mr. Morgan wanted to meet him at

that time.

Mr. Flanagan. At that time, was Morgan a bureau agent or a

lawyer?

Mr. Duke. No, he was a lawyer, but he still was very

intimate about a lot of the members of the Federal Bureau of

Investigation.

The Chairman. I am curious about the ``talent'' you mention

in the letter. You say you were going to round up ``talent''

and bring it to Washington.

Mr. Duke. Again, I have to answer, I don't recall, at this

time what I was referring to.

The Chairman. Do you have any idea what it was?

Mr. Duke. It could have been oil leases. There were a lot

of them available in that area; and it could have been cases,

and it could have been most anything, and I really don't recall

what I was referring to.

The Chairman. At least you were not referring to talent in

the accepted sense of the word?

Mr. Duke. No.

The Chairman. You were using that as a code word?

Mr. Duke. I mean my expression, and I expressed myself

probably a lot of ways.

The Chairman. Could you tell us why, in a letter of that

kind, instead of saying ``talent'' if you mean oil leases, you

would not say ``oil leases,'' and if you mean television cases

you would not say ``television cases?''

Mr. Duke. I notice in that letter that I refer to

television cases.

Mr. Flanagan. And you also refer to oil matters.

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Mr. Flanagan. And you called it oil lands, and you didn't

call it talent.

Mr. Duke. As far as the Noble Wilcoxon case and the Schafer

case are concerned, I am sure that those cases he already had,

and I don't think I would have any reason to be referring in

any code to him regarding those cases.

The Chairman. Could I ask you this question: When you went

out and solicited tax cases, where would you get your

information about the case to begin with?

Mr. Duke. Again, as I say, to the best of my knowledge,

from various accounting firms, from attorneys on the West

Coast, and I knew quite a number of attorneys.

The Chairman. Sometimes attorneys would contact you and

tell you about a tax case?

Mr. Duke. That they probably had, and they wanted to

associate with some counsel in Washington, and they knew that I

was here quite often, and they wanted to know if I knew of any

competent firms.

The Chairman. Let us stick, now, to the cases that you

solicited personally, cases where there was no lawyer in the

case. Did any lawyer ever tell you about a case before you

solicited the case?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall right now if they ever have or

not.

The Chairman. Did Morgan ever refer any cases to you?

Mr. Duke. Again, I would have to go through my files to

search pretty thoroughly, and I don't recall whether he did or

not.

The Chairman. You do not remember whether he did or not?

Mr. Duke. No, I don't. You see, Senator, it might sound

asinine to you gentlemen here, but I was in a very diversified

line of business, and I met quite a number of people, and I

actually have. To recall things now, I might be able to in some

instances.

The Chairman. Have you seen Mr. Morgan since you have been

in Washington on this trip?

Mr. Duke. No.

Mr. Flanagan. Have you called him?

Mr. Duke. No.

Mr. Flanagan. When was the last time you saw Ed Morgan?

Mr. Duke. Again, I don't remember. It was a couple of years

ago, I guess, maybe a year ago or maybe a couple of years ago.

The Chairman. Do you recall any case now where Morgan or

any other Washington attorney got the information on a tax

case, and referred it to you?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall, I really don't; and it is

possible, but I couldn't say. He might have, and there is a

possibility that he gave me some; and I could say, I did say

this before, before the jury, I am not sure. They asked me, and

I think that I told them yes, that some of these cases I did

get, but I honestly--and you are asking me to be candid with

you--I honestly don't remember, and I don't want to injure or

impugn anybody's character about this by letting my imagination

run away with me and say yes, they did, when I am not sure.

The Chairman. You did tell the grand jury?

Mr. Duke. It is possible I did, and I am not sure whether I

did or not.

The Chairman. You do not remember now that you told the

grand jury that cases had been referred to you by Washington

attorneys?

Mr. Duke. I might have told the jury that, and I might have

told the King committee that, but at that time--I want you

gentlemen to understand it is no alibi--I was a pretty sick

person when I appeared before both bodies, and I lost sixty

pounds in about fourteen days.

Mr. Flanagan. I have here a letter, a copy of a letter

dated September 5, 1949, addressed to Welch, Mott & Morgan,

opening, ``Dear Ed,'' and signed by typewriter, ``Russell W.

Duke.'' I notice on page two of this letter, at the top of the

page, you state:

Ed, I have a lot of cases in California that I have to do a

lot of bird-dogging on, and I hate like sin to go down there

and bird-dog without clicking on a few. I wish that you would

be able to secure some talent as I could use some hay.

What are you talking about there?

Mr. Duke. Again, I don't recall; it might be cases and it

might not be.

[The letter referred to was marked as committee's Exhibit

No. 2, R. W. Duke, January 15, 1953, and is as follows:]

Portland, 13 Oregon,

September 5, 1949.

Welsh, Mott & Morgan,

710 Erickson Building, Fourteenth Northwest,

Washington, DC.

Dear Ed: I was up to see Mr. Braman, as I told you over the phone

today, and I received the information which I am passing on to you. The

patent was originally issued on October 6, 1936, Patent No. 2056165,

and then it was re-issued December 14, 1948, Reissue No. 23058, issued

to Louis J. Bronaugh, of Portland, and Thomas I. Potter, of New York.

The attorney in the case is Richard S. Temko. Louis J. Bronaugh is a

Portland attorney. I shall try to get in touch with him and learn all I

possibly can regarding the reissue. However, it is my understanding

that Potter had put the patents on the refrigerator and a patent for a

pump as his collateral to the Refrigeration Patent Corporation, and he

had no authority to have the patent reissued exclusively to himself.

However, he has accomplished having the patents reissued, as I have

stated above. Mr. Braman has written Mr. Potter a letter and is

awaiting the reply; and as soon as he receives Mr. Potter's reply, he

is then going to retain your firm by paying the $2000 down and the

percentage of the property. I tried to get myself retained as a public

relations agent; however, I had a logical argument against it by saying

if he retains a public relations agent on investigation and retains

attorneys, the cost would probably cause the other stockholders to back

down from going ahead in the suit, so will have to hold to the original

agreement. I will participate in the monies that you get; however, I

don't worry about that because we can always work something out

satisfactory to all concerned.

Ed, I have a lot of cases in California that I have to do a lot of

bird-dogging on, and I hate like sin to go down there and bird-dog

without clicking on a few. I wish that you would be able to secure some

talent as I could use some hay. I am letting things quiet down on the

coast by lying dormant and putting more effort in lining up the coming

campaign. I assure you that the request you made of me on the phone

that Senator Morse will go along 100 percent, because the longer you

get to know him, the more you will learn that he is a man of his word;

but he has had so much to do, and, as I understand, he has been given

assurance that you are number one on the list. In all the time I have

known Senator Morse, I have never known him to deviate or to say

something that is not so. He either tells you in the beginning nothing

doing, or he will go along. I am willing to gamble with you in any

shape, form, or manner that you will be in as soon as the other chap

resigns. I sincerely hope that the cases that are back there clear up

so that we can start on something else. Again I repeat, ``I can use the

hay.''

Howard has received an appointment as a commissioner on the city

Boxing Commission. The job is gratis; however, it takes up a tremendous

amount of his time. He also was appointed on a commission of 22

attorneys to study revising the city charter. That, also, is gratis.

Plus his fishing, his handball, and his Oregon Medical Association's

work, the good Lord only knows how he does it all. However, he gets by.

He is in the best of health; and I am sure that if I told him I was

writing you, he would tell me to say ``hello.''

I conveyed to Mr. Braman that urgency in this particular case was

all important. Mr. Braman said that within three weeks time he would

call me and be ready to retain your firm. As I told you over the phone,

Mr. Mott talked to him on the phone the day before he was there; and

Braman is very much impressed by Mott and your firm. Senator Morse gave

you a big send-off when Braman had asked him as to what type of firm

and people you are. If you ever read the letter that Braman received

from Senator Morse, you will have to look into the mirror to see if

you're the same individual because, Ed, he really boosted you very,

very high.

As you know, the talent is plentiful, and it is a psychological

effect when one comes in cold and tells a person what he knows about

him, so I hope sincerely that you will be able to secure some talent

for me.

With best wishes to you, Welsh and Mott, I remain,

Sincerely,

Russell W. Duke.

Mr. Flanagan. It is quite likely that you were talking

about cases?

Mr. Duke. It is possible.

Mr. Flanagan. When you are referring to ``talent''?

Mr. Duke. It is possible.

Mr. Flanagan. When you were talking about ``hay,'' is that

money?

Mr. Duke. Yes, sir.

Mr. Flanagan. You weren't talking about hay for these

horses?

Mr. Duke. No.

Senator Potter. What else could ``talent'' mean in that

sentence?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall at this time. Could I read the

letter, and I could probably tell you.

Mr. Flanagan. It is a rather long letter. Go ahead and read

it if you wish.

Mr. Duke. Again, I will have to tell you that I really

don't recall what that referred to, and it could have been

cases and it could have been most anything.

Mr. Flanagan. I refer to the last page of this letter, page

three, the second paragraph:

As you know, the talent is plentiful, and it is a

psychological effect when one comes in cold and tells a person

what he knows about him, so I hope sincerely that you will be

able to secure some talent for me.

Mr. Duke. What year was that again?

Mr. Flanagan. It is September 5, 1949. Do you know what you

meant by that statement?

Mr. Duke. No, I don't.

Mr. Flanagan. When you say that ``it is a psychological

effect when one comes in cold and tells a person what he knows

about him,'' you are in fact referring to the fact if you come

in with information on a man's tax case and start telling him

about it, you are in a much better position to got yourself

hired as public relations counsel?

Mr. Duke. It is possible, but I wouldn't say yes or I

wouldn't say no.

Mr. Flanagan. Then it is possible, you say, that what you

are referring to here is that it is very helpful to you if you

can go in to a taxpayer or his lawyer and tell him some of the

facts of the case, is that correct?

Mr. Duke. I wouldn't say that that refers to that, no.

Mr. Flanagan. You say it is possible?

Mr. Duke. It is possible. Anything could be possible.

Mr. Flanagan. Where would you get information on a tax

case?

Mr. Duke. Usually from the client or from the attorney.

Mr. Flanagan. No, you are talking about ``going in cold.''

Mr. Duke. Well, I might not be referring to that.

Mr. Flanagan. And telling a person.

Mr. Duke. I might not be referring to a tax case.

Mr. Flanagan. Are you in fact indicating here that you can

get information from some government source, either Justice or

the Internal Revenue Bureau, and go in and tell the client

about it?

Mr. Duke. I never got any information from the Internal

Revenue Bureau or the Department of Justice.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you get any indirectly from Justice or

the Internal Revenue Bureau, here or in the field?

Mr. Duke. Indirectly, yes, from the client or from the

client's attorney.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever ask Ed Morgan to go to the

Justice Department, the Internal Revenue Bureau, or any other

government agency, and get information in connection with a tax

case?

Mr. Duke. Other than I did in that Burns case. I didn't

tell him where to go, and I asked him if he could get any

information regarding the case.

Mr. Flanagan. Did Morgan ever tell you--and I want you to

consider this question carefully--did Morgan ever tell you that

he had contacts in the Justice Department or Internal Revenue

Bureau where he could get confidential information concerning

tax cases?

Mr. Duke. I don't know. You are wording it in such a way--

--

Mr. Flanagan. I will reword it. Did Morgan, Edward P.

Morgan, ever tell you that he had contacts in the Department of

Justice where he could get confidential information about tax

cases?

Mr. Duke. Well, I will answer it this way: He probably told

me that he was in the Justice Department for eight and a half

or nine years, and he knew his way and knew the handling and

the federal procedure of handling cases in the Justice

Department.

Mr. Flanagan. I did not ask that question, Mr. Duke, and I

will ask it again. Did Morgan ever tell you that he had ways

and means to get confidential information from the Justice

Department concerning tax cases?

Mr. Duke. Not that I remember.

Mr. Flanagan. Is it possible that he told you that?

Mr. Duke. I doubt it, and I don't think a person with his

mentality would make a statement like that.

Mr. Flanagan. Did Morgan ever tell you that he had ways and

means to get confidential information from the Internal Revenue

Bureau concerning tax cases?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall him ever making a statement like

that to me.

Mr. Flanagan. Did Morgan ever get information for you other

than his efforts in the Inez Burns case, from either Justice or

Internal Revenue?

Mr. Duke. I don't know where he would get the information,

but if I ever wrote him a letter, I would ask him to get

whatever information he could pertaining to the particular

case, for the attorney out there.

Mr. Flanagan. Would he do that, or did he ever do that

before he was actually retained as counsel?

Mr. Duke. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Flanagan. He would only do that after he would be

retained?

Mr. Duke. Now, wait a minute. In the Inez Burns case, he

was never retained, but he made an effort to get some

information; but whether he went to Justice or where he went, I

am inclined to believe that any information he would get, he

would legally try to secure it from the proper source.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever ask him to get information in

tax cases before he was actually retained as counsel, other

than the Burns case?

Mr. Duke. Not that I recall. It is possible in other cases

like the Burns case, too. I don't recall.

Mr. Flanagan. I will refer to the letter of September 5 on

page two. Mr. Duke:

I assure you that the request you made of me on the phone

that Senator Morse will go along 100 per cent, because the

longer you get to know him, the more you will learn that he is

a man of his word, but he has had so much to do, and, as I

understand, he has been given assurance that you are number one

on the list.

What are you talking about?

Mr. Duke. I don't know for sure, but I think--does that go

on? I think that I read that letter, didn't I?

Mr. Flanagan. Yes.

Mr. Duke. Does that go on to say that someone was going to

resign from a position?

Mr. Flanagan. Yes. I will read it for you:

In all the time I have known Senator Morse, I have never

known him to deviate or to say something that is not so. He

either, tells you in the beginning nothing doing, or he will go

along. I am willing to gamble with you in any shape, form, or

manner that you will be in as soon as the other chap resigns.

Mr. Duke. I think that that wasn't only Senator Morse. I

think there were quite a few senators. This Mr. McCoy was going

to resign from the FCC, and Mr. Morgan, having his experience

and knowledge of FCC and television work, I think made

application for that position.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you talk to Senator Morse on behalf of

Morgan's candidacy as an FCC commissioner?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever assist or attempt to assist

Morgan in getting any other federal jobs?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Mr. Flanagan. Which jobs?

Mr. Duke. I assisted, and I don't know, the Tydings

committee----

Mr. Flanagan. What did you do on his behalf so he got to be

counsel to the Tydings committee?

Mr. Duke. I talked to several senators that I knew,

including Senator Morse, to see if it was possible to get him

on that committee; and also on this OPS.

Mr. Flanagan. When he was made national director of

enforcement for OPS?

Mr. Duke. He was made chief counsel, wasn't it?

Mr. Flanagan. Inspector of enforcement.

Mr. Duke. Yes, sir.

Mr. Flanagan. What did you do on his behalf for that job?

Mr. Duke. I talked to various senators and congressman to

see if I couldn't get him on that.

Mr. Flanagan. Who are the senators you talked to?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall. I think probably Senator Kilgore,

Senator Morse--again, I don't recall who all I talked to;

whoever had anything to do with the committee or those

positions.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever know Eric Ellis from Portland,

Oregon?

Mr. Duke. I didn't know him; I met him.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever meet his attorney, Mr. George

Bronaugh?

Mr. Duke. Yes, I met them both.

Mr. Flanagan. Mr. Ellis owned the restaurant known as Mr.

Jones' Restaurants, didn't he, in Portland?

Mr. Duke. That is right,

Mr. Flanagan. To your knowledge, did Mr. Eric Ellis have

tax problems back in 1950?

Mr. Duke. Well, now, I will have to answer that for you and

it won't take much time but it will have to be answered

properly.

I had an accountant, and his name was Lester Talbott, who

used to be in the Internal Revenue Department.

Mr. Flanagan. Where is he from?

Mr. Duke. Portland, Oregon. And it seems that this Eric

Ellis was employed by a rancher or manufacturer in Tacoma or

Spokane, Washington, and the Internal Revenue Department, in

investigating this employer of Eric Ellis, found a discrepancy

in his accounts. And Ellis was the bookkeeper or the

accountant. Then he made an open deal with the Internal Revenue

Department that if he would testify against his employer----

Mr. Flanagan. Who was the employer in this case?

Mr. Duke [continuing]. I don't recall. There are records of

it; Talbott has them.

That if he would testify against his employer, he wouldn't

have to file any income tax returns for the next few years. And

Eric Ellis didn't file any returns for the next few years.

So one day Ellis called me at my home and told my wife that

as soon as I came in to come down to see him. And so I called

Talbott and asked Talbott if he knew Ellis, and he said yes. He

told me the story about Ellis. So I went down to see Mr. EIlis

in his restaurant, and he asked me if I could do him any good

or give him any help on his case. And I already had all of the

knowledge and information, and I wanted him to tell me, and so

he told me about it. I said, ``The best thing you can do is to

go to the Internal Revenue Department and tell them how much

you owe, and tell them you haven't filed returns for the past

four or five years, and get out of it the best you can.''

So the next day he called me again and asked me to meet

with him and his attorney in another restaurant that he owned

and so we went there. They proceeded to get a fifth of whiskey

and start plying me with whisky and kept asking me who in the

Internal Revenue Department in Portland was aiding in these tax

cases. I told them it was asinine in questioning me on that,

and you

couldn't get me drunk on it, and that as far as their problem

was concerned the best thing he could do was go ahead and

settle with Internal Revenue Department themselves. I left them

with that, and I haven't seen them since, and I understand the

case was settled for about $4,000.

Mr. Flanagan. This second meeting that you had, with Mr.

Ellis, you say his attorney, George Bronaugh, was present?

Mr. Duke. Yes, sir.

Mr. Flanagan. Who else was in the room besides yourself and

George Bronaugh and this man?

Mr. Duke. That is all.

Mr. Flanagan. At Mr. Jones' Restaurant?

Mr. Duke. They were all called that.

Mr. Flanagan. This was the one on International Avenue?

Mr. Duke. Not on International Avenue.

Mr Flanagan. The one on Sandy Avenue?

Mr. Duke. No. It was on Interstate Avenue.

Mr. Flanagan. Interstate Avenue?

Mr. Duke. Yes, sir.

Mr. Flanagan. At that time, did you try to prevail upon

either Mr. Ellis or his attorney to hire you as public

relations counsel?

Mr. Duke. No, indeed.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you have any discussions about the fact

that you might be their public relations counsel?

Mr. Duke. No, indeed. They were trying to retain me, and I

refused, because I already knew the entire story on Ellis, and

I didn't want to have anything to do with Ellis.

Mr. Flanagan. At that conversation in Mr. Jones'

Restaurant, the only one you say you ever had with Ellis and

Bronaugh concerning their tax matters----

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Mr. Flanagan [continuing]. Did you tell them, either

directly or indirectly, that you could secure confidential

information?

Mr. Duke. No, sir. They were questioning me on that to see

if I could, and I told them not.

Incidentally, the same day I called up the Internal Revenue

Department and gave them that very information, that these two

men were questioning me on that.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you at that time tell them that you could

get information out of the Justice Department or the Bureau of

Internal Revenue?

Mr. Duke. Absolutely, I did not. I would never make a

statement that I could get information from Justice or the

Internal Revenue, because it is impossible to do so.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you at that meeting in that restaurant

with Ellis and Bronaugh, tell them, either directly or

indirectly, that you could offer your services as a public

relations agent on a monthly fee basis?

Mr. Duke. No, I told them how I operated.

Mr. Flanagan. But did you offer your services to Mr. Ellis

or to his attorney?

Mr. Duke. Not to my knowledge did I ever offer my services

to either one of those gentlemen.

Mr. Flanagan. Are you quite sure that you didn't offer your

services to those gentlemen?

Mr. Duke. Well, I will answer it this way: By the time we

hit that first fifth and the second fifth, no one knew what

they were talking about, and----

Mr. Flanagan. Just a moment. A few moments ago you said

that, as I recall your testimony, after you left this meeting

you went to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and told them.

Mr. Duke. I did.

Mr. Flanagan. Were you still drunk?

Mr. Duke. No. I am telling you they tried to get me drunk,

but they were plenty drunk.

Mr. Flanagan. But you weren't?

Mr. Duke. I was feeling ``high,'' but I wasn't drunk.

Mr. Flanagan. You knew what you were doing and what you

were saying?

Mr. Duke. I certainly did.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you tell these men, either directly or

indirectly, that you could follow through with various offices

where their case might be, their tax case?

Mr. Duke. Their case?

Mr. Flanagan. Yes.

Mr. Duke. That would be impossible, and again I will have

to answer it this way: The case was already set, and it was

already set for them to adjust the case, and the deal was

already made with the Internal Revenue Department by

themselves, to adjust the case in Seattle, and they didn't

require anybody's help.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever tell these gentlemen at that

time at that meeting that you could follow other cases through

the various departments?

Mr. Duke. I wouldn't discuss any other cases with them.

The Chairman. I do not believe you have answered that

question.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you in fact tell them that you had

followed other cases or could follow them through the various

departments of government?

Mr. Duke. I possibly did, yes.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you or didn't you?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you tell them that tax cases could be

killed in the Department of Justice by you or people that you

knew?

Mr. Duke. No. That I would emphatically deny.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you tell them, either directly or

indirectly, that through certain contacts that you might have,

that you could stop cases in the Department of Justice?

Mr. Duke. I wouldn't make no such statement, no.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever state, either directly or

indirectly, that you could stop or fix tax cases at any place

in the government?

Mr. Duke. Nowhere would I make a statement like that, that

I could fix tax cases.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you make any such statement to these

gentlemen at that time?

Mr. Duke. No, I did not.

The Chairman. Can you go back three questions and read

that?

[The record was read by the reporter.]

The Chairman. Does that mean you did not make such a

statement?

Mr. Duke. Not to my knowledge did I ever make such a

statement, no.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you state, either directly or indirectly,

to those gentlemen, that is, Ellis and Bronaugh, or did you

intimate to them, that if their tax case went to the Justice

Department that they would have to hire any certain Washington

attorney?

Mr. Duke. Mr. Flanagan, if I might state--and this

committee should know this--there was an attempt made to entrap

me by those two gentlemen, and I had information, and I have

Mr. Talbott to testify to that. I was told that Ellis was going

to try to entrap me. You are asking me a lot of questions

pertaining to these two gentlemen, and I told you that I knew

their efforts were to try to trap me, and when I went to talk

to these gentlemen I spent the first evening, I spent about ten

minutes with Mr. Ellis in his restaurant, and left him, and

told him I couldn't do anything for him, and absolutely left

him, and the next day they called again and asked me to meet

him, and I met him there, and I asked him what he wanted, and

he said he wanted to talk to me about something else beside the

tax case. And I met him there, and I met the other gentleman,

and he never introduced me to the other gentleman as being an

attorney, and he brought out a fifth of whisky, and said ``Have

a drink.'' And I said, ``Sure, I will.'' And I let them drink

theirs first, and we kept on visiting and talking and nothing

else. And then they started asking me a lot of questions, and I

started telling them, and I said, ``Look, I am not answering

anything like that.'' I knew what they were wanting, and I knew

they were trying to frame me, because he was already involved

in one frame of his employer, and, now, if these men have given

a statement and they would swear that I made such statements,

and I sit here and say no, and, these men swear that I did make

such statements, here I am being framed by a man that framed or

helped frame another man.

Senator Potter. Is that what you mean by being framed?

Mr. Duke. They tried to entrap me into statements or into a

deal in order to involve me in tax matters, because Ellis was

sore at Talbott, and Talbott used to be his accountant, and

after Talbott found out what he had done, and what he had done

in Spokane with his former employer, he and Talbott got very

bitter.

Senator Potter. Why would they go out of their way to frame

you?

Mr. Duke. After all, I can say this, without being

egotistical, because I learned a long time ago that ego is an

anesthesia provided by nature to deaden the pain of a damned

fool, and I don't want to be placed in that category, but

politically I was pretty big in Oregon, and there were many

efforts made to discredit me in Oregon.

Senator Jackson. You were pretty big politically?

Mr. Duke. Yes.

Senator Jackson. What is that?

Mr. Duke. I have been in labor and I have for quite a long

time controlled--headed one of the largest locals in the United

States.

Senator Jackson. Controlled it?

Mr. Duke. No, I headed it. I didn't control it.

Senator Jackson. What local was that?

Mr. Duke. Local 72 of the Boilermakers, AFL.

Senator Jackson. You were president of it?

Mr. Duke. No.

Senator Jackson. Where did you control it from?

Mr. Duke. I withdrew that word ``control'' and I said----

Senator Jackson. Where did you head it from, in what

capacity?

Mr. Duke. On the committee, the executive committee.

Senator Jackson. You controlled the committee?

Mr. Duke. I didn't say ``control.'' I withdrew that.

Senator Jackson. What did you head?

Mr. Duke. I headed the Boilermakers Local.

Senator Jackson. President of it?

Mr. Duke. No, I wasn't president of it, and we had no

president. And we had a lawsuit and we had rather a bitter

fight about two or three years and we finally got rid of the

president and the business agent, and we operated the local

from a committee.

Senator Potter. Then if you were active politically, these

people must have assumed that you could use political influence

for tax adjustments.

Mr. Duke. No, sir, those people were maneuvering for

someone else.

Mr. Flanagan. Mr. Duke, I would still like to pursue this

question further and get a categorical answer from you if I

could. I will rephrase my question.

At this meeting with Ellis and his attorney, Bronaugh, in

that restaurant on that day, did you state, directly or

indirectly, if the Ellis case went to the Justice Department

they should hire a lawyer in Washington by the name of Morgan,

or any other lawyer?

Mr. Duke. It is possible I might have told them that, yes.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you recommend Morgan to them as a lawyer?

Mr. Duke. It is possible that I might have. What year was

that?

Mr. Flanagan. 1950.

Mr. Duke. The whole thing is wrong. I didn't meet him until

1949, and in 1950 he was broke and he was out of the restaurant

business.

Mr. Flanagan. You now state that when you had this meeting,

whether it be in 1949 or 1950, the only meeting you say you

ever had with Ellis and his attorney, you now state that you

did not indicate that if their case went to Justice and they

would have to hire a Washington lawyer?

Mr. Duke. Repeat that again.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you state at that meeting that these

gentlemen would have to hire a Washington lawyer?

Mr. Duke. I told you I don't recall anything that was

stated at that meeting.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you indicate to them that if their case

got to the Justice Department, they would have to get Ed Morgan

or else they would lose that case?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall making any such statement.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you state to them or indicate to them

that they would have to hire Morgan if their case went to

Justice so that they could be sure to win their case?

Mr. Duke. Again, I could not answer directly or indirectly

because I don't recall.

Mr. Flanagan. You have no recollection of what you said?

Mr. Duke. No, I don't. Three years ago, was that, and I

talked to quite a number of people.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you report to the Internal Revenue

Department that day that you went to them?

Mr. Duke. I certainly did.

Mr. Flanagan. What did you tell them?

Mr. Duke. I just told them of the meeting, and what took

place at the meeting, and who was there.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you tell them anything about the fact

that Morgan may have to be hired in these cases?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you think, in fact, that it was necessary

to hire Morgan in Justice Department cases?

Mr. Duke. I don't know why. There are other competent

attorneys here that are probably just as capable.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you recommend Morgan as an attorney to

Ellis or Bronaugh?

Mr. Duke. It is possible, and I don't recall.

Mr. Flanagan. Now, your testimony here is very confusing.

First of all, you say that you recommended nothing to them; and

now I ask you, did you or did you not recommend Morgan?

Mr. Duke. I didn't say that I didn't recommend anything to

them. It is possible that I recommended Morgan, and I don't

recall.

Mr. Flanagan. Did Morgan contact you at that restaurant

when you were there?

Mr. Duke. No.

Mr. Flanagan. Did he call you on the telephone?

Mr. Duke. He wouldn't know to call me. How would he know to

call me at a restaurant? He would call me at my home.

Mr. Flanagan. Who did you contact in the Bureau of Internal

Revenue to give these facts to?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall. It might have been, someone in

the intelligence unit.

Mr. Flanagan. In Portland?

Mr. Duke. Yes.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever handle any cases involving

claims against the government?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Mr. Flanagan. Claims bills pending in Congress?

Mr. Duke. I don't get that.

Mr. Flanagan. Bills for claims against the government that

were in the Congress?

Mr. Duke. Yes.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever receive any money from any

persons or any firm to assist them in putting their claims

bills through the Congress?

Mr. Duke. In this way: Every time I had to come back here,

they paid my fare and expenses.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you come back here to promote their

claims through the Congress?

Mr. Duke. No, not at first.

Mr. Flanagan. Well, at the last, did you; at any time did

you?

Mr. Duke. After the bill was introduced in the Congress I

had to come back here and appear before the various committees

to try to get the bills through.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you discuss this bill with any members of

the House or the Senate?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Mr. Flanagan. Who were your clients in that case?

Mr. Duke. Herman Lawson, and Nelson Company.

Mr. Flanagan. Was American Terrazzo Company one of your

clients?

Mr. Duke. No.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you go to American Terrazzo and attempt

to get them to hire you?

Mr. Duke. No.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you discuss this case with anyone

connected with American Terrazzo?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Mr. Flanagan. With whom?

Mr. Duke. I do not recall at the moment. Mr. Nelson and Mr.

Brace of both companies were putting up the money, and had

already spent quite a lot of money on this before I ever

entered into this, and I know Brace and Nelson, we have been

very close friends for a number of years, and I knew about this

case.

They were getting tired of spending their money for it, and

I asked them what they were doing on it, and they told me, and

I said, ``The best thing you can do with this case is to go

right directly to the federal works or Public Works

Administration and get to the chief counsel and discuss the

case with him, and find out how far you can go with it.''

Well, they told me to go ahead and try it. They paid my

expenses, and we came out here, and I met with the chief

counsel of the federal works, or whatever bureau or department

that bill or the claim was against, and discussed the case with

them, and they told me what to do. And in fact, they prepared

the bill, and said that the claim was justifiable and it should

be paid.

I was just representing Mr. Nelson at the time, and he paid

$500, I think, for my fare, round-trip fare to come out here.

Then Mr. Frick, who was the chief counsel, stated that the

bill would have to be put into the Congress.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever discuss this case on behalf of

your clients with any member of Congress?

Mr. Duke. Yes, I have.

Mr. Flanagan. With whom?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall. Various congressmen.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you discuss it with Senator Morse?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Mr. Flanagan. Did he introduce a bill after your

discussion?

Mr. Duke. He introduced two of them.

Mr. Flanagan. On your behalf?

Mr. Duke. We don't want to get Senator Morse involved in

that. I brought Mr. Nelson and Mr. Brace back here, and they

discussed the bill with Senator Morse.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever discuss the bill with Senator

Morse?

Mr. Duke. Yes, later on, after he introduced it.

Mr. Flanagan. And you were discussing it on behalf of your

clients?

Mr. Duke. Yes, sir.

Mr. Flanagan. This was the San Francisco case?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Mr. Flanagan. Were you at that time registered as a

lobbyist?

Mr. Duke. No. I inquired about that, and the Justice

Department, or whoever it was in the Justice Department, told

me that as long as it was not--a person couldn't register as a

lobbyist unless he was lobbying to change legislation and laws

of our land. But on a private claim bill, if you visit the

various senators and congressmen to put it through, it was not

classified as lobbying, and it wasn't necessary for me to

register.

Senator Potter. Who gave you your advice in the Department

of Justice?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall now, and also it was the counsel

for the committee headed up, I think, if I am not mistaken, and

I might be in the name, by Congressman Buchanan, was it? Wasn't

he the chairman of the Lobby committee?

Senator Potter. Yes.

Mr. Duke. Their chief counsel told me the same thing, so

long as it was not lobbying to change laws of this legislature.

Senator Potter. Do you recall who your contact was in the

Department of Justice who gave you that information?

Mr. Duke. I called the Department of Justice and I asked

them--they asked who I wanted to talk to, and I explained, and

then they referred me to whoever it was, and I do not recall.

Senator Jackson. Did you go down and see them?

Mr. Duke. I talked to them on the telephone.

Mr. Flanagan. In connection with this claims case, Mr.

Duke, did you ever, directly or indirectly, indicate to anyone

connected with American Terrazzo that if they didn't hire you

as public relations counsel, you would see that their name

would be taken out of the bills that were then pending?

Mr. Duke. I did not make that kind of statement. If I can

tell you what happened in that, you will understand it.

Mr. Nelson and Mr. Brace decided that they were not going

to foot the bills for all of the other people, all of the other

claimants, and so we had a meeting in my room, Mr. Nelson and

Mr. Brace and everybody involved, and they called them to come

in. And I happened to be in San Francisco with Mr. Bobber. They

discussed this case and they told the other claimants that they

would have to proportionately prorate the cost of this bill,

and put up their share of it.

Senator Potter. What cost of it?

Mr. Duke. Mr. Brace and Mr. Nelson had already spent

several thousands of dollars retaining attorneys and trying to

get the bill through. They advanced my expenses coming out

here, and they felt justifiable that all of these people, that

they should get together and prorate their share.

Now, I had no fee. If Nelson and Lawson would get their

claim, then they were to pay me.

Senator Potter. How much?

Mr. Duke. We would have settled that later.

Senator Potter. You took on a job without any amount being

set as to what you would receive?

Mr. Duke. That is right, Senator, in this particular case.

We are very close friends, both Mr. Nelson and Mr. Brace and

myself, and we have known each other for a number of years.

Senator Potter. Who made the first contact with Senator

Morse? Did you make it or did Mr. Nelson and Mr. Brace?

Mr. Duke. We all three came out here together, and I took

them in to Senator Morse's office, and they explained to

Senator Morse the predicament they were in, and then Mr. Frick

contacted Senator Morse and wanted to know, and Frick prepared

the bill.

Senator Potter. What was your $500 round-trip expense

money, where did that come from?

Mr. Duke. In the beginning, they paid my fare coming out

here.

Senator Potter. You mean when you came out together?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you tell Senator Morse that you were

getting a fee or expenses out of this claims case?

Mr. Duke. I don't think so.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever tell him that you were getting

fees or expenses or acting as public relations counsel in any

tax cases?

Mr. Duke. I don't think so, no.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever ask for his assistance in a tax

case, not involving a constituent of his in the State of

Oregon?

Mr. Duke. Not assistance. I would ask him, there was one

particular case that comes to my mind, the L. diMartini case,

where the Internal Revenue Department agent ruled that because

a man conducted his business at the age of ninety, even though

he was active in it, he was not entitled to the salary he was

getting.

Mr. Flanagan. Was that a California case?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ask Senator Morse to appear in that

or any other case down at the Internal Revenue on behalf of any

of your clients?

Mr. Duke. I don't think that I have. I think that Mr.

Kaiser, if I am not mistaken, asked him to.

Mr. Flanagan. Who is Mr. Kaiser?

Mr. Duke. He is the comptroller and head of the L.

diMartini Company.

Mr. Flanagan. That is a California company?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Mr. Flanagan. Did Senator Morse ever know you were acting

as public relations counsel for these taxpayers?

Mr. Duke. I don't know.

Mr. Flanagan. That he might be contacting Internal Revenue

on behalf of?

Mr. Duke. I wouldn't know if he did.

Mr. Flanagan. Did you ever tell him you were getting fees

for representing these taxpayers as public relations counsel?

Mr. Duke. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Flanagan. So, then, you say that he had no knowledge of

the fact?

Mr. Duke. I wouldn't say that, whether he had knowledge or

not, but I don't think that I ever discussed it.

Mr. Flanagan. You never brought that to his attention?

Mr. Duke. I don't think so.

Mr. Flanagan. Did he ever tell you or bring it to your

attention that you were acting as public relations counsel for

these people?

Mr. Duke. I don't recall.

Senator McClellan. May I ask two or three questions, and I

have to go.

I would like to ask you, Mr. Duke, how you became known as

a tax public relations man, or government public relations man,

to contact different agencies of government?

Mr. Duke. Well, Senator, I have been coming back here for

quite a number of years.

Senator McClellan. For what?

Mr. Duke. For various--my own businesses, and I manufacture

trailers, and I had to come back here to get cleared through

the various bureaus of the government, and I manufactured

various and sundry items that had to be cleared through

Washington, both in the Internal Revenue Department and in the

old OPA, and the War Production Board, and the army and the

navy; and coming back here at that time, I got acquainted here

with Washington quite well.

Senator McClellan. Did that help to qualify you in any way

as a tax public relations expert?

Mr. Duke. Well, I don't know whether it qualified me, but

you take a person that comes out here to Washington and hasn't

been here before, he finds it very difficult, as I did, and I

spent three months here before I found out that I was to go to

the Miscellaneous Tax Division. For three months I was looking

for the Excise Tax Division of the Internal Revenue.

Senator McClellan. You got experience in knowing where to

go to in the Internal Revenue Bureau or the Department of

Justice, so that you could guide others and counsel them and

charge a fee for it? I am trying to get your background, and

how you got into this, and how people knew that you had some

services to sell.

Mr. Duke. From practical experience and coming back here on

my own work.

Senator McClellan. In tax matters?

Mr. Duke. Oh, yes, I was involved. You see, in everything,

trailers and various and sundry items, there are excise tax and

trailer tax, and there are various numbers of them, and in one

trailer there are eight or nine taxes that you have to pay.

Senator McClellan. I understand. And did you have problems

with the revenue bureau here in Washington?

Mr. Duke. Oh, yes, I did, for several years.

Senator McClellan. So you had some practical experience in

contacting them?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Senator McClellan. Now, did you maintain an office while

you were carrying on these public relations activities?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Senator McClellan. Where?

Mr. Duke. Portland, Oregon.

Senator McClellan. Do you have an office there now?

Mr. Duke. No, I haven't had an office there since the

explosion, in 1950.

Senator McClellan. In 1950?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Senator McClellan. Did you advertise it as a public

relations service?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Senator McClellan. Which you had to offer?

Mr. Duke. I did.

Senator McClellan. Did you keep records or files pertaining

to your business?

Mr. Duke. I have.

Senator McClellan. Did you keep all of your files?

Mr. Duke. Every scrap of paper from the time I started

business.

Senator McClellan. Every scrap of paper?

Mr. Duke. Yes.

Senator McClellan. Have these files been subpoenaed by this

committee?

Mr. Duke. They have.

Senator McClellan. Are they now in the possession of the

committee?

Mr. Duke. I wouldn't know.

Senator McClellan. Do you know whether they have obtained

and have in possession now all of your files, or only a part of

them?

Mr. Duke. I wouldn't know. You would have to ask the chief

counsel.

Senator McClellan. May I ask you, then, have you disclosed

to the committee or to the chief counsel of the committee, Mr.

Flanagan, the whereabouts of your files so that they may be

made available to the committee?

Mr. Duke. To the best of my knowledge and ability, yes.

Senator McClellan. All of your files?

Mr. Duke. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. You know where they all are or where

they were?

Mr. Duke. I didn't know where they all were, and I had an

idea, and I so disclosed to the committee counsel.

Senator McClellan. You have disclosed that?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Senator McClellan. I have not seen these letters, but there

seems to be one word that is causing some inquiry; in the two

letters that have been referred to here in this preliminary

questioning, the word ``talent'' appears and seems to have some

particular significance as a code word or as related to

something other than ``talent,'' the meaning of which was known

to you and to Mr. Morgan.

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Senator McClellan. I do not know whether there are other

letters that have the use of this word to convey some

particular meaning or impression. Possibly there are. So I will

ask you, do you know if that is a word that you use frequently

in your correspondence with Mr. Morgan?

Mr. Duke. I think that if you go through all of my files

and correspondence, I think that you will find that that

expression and word is used to various other people, and not

necessarily lawyers.

Senator McClellan. I understand it may have been used in

others, but I want to talk about this correspondence here with

Mr. Morgan, and did you use it frequently in your

correspondence with him?

Mr. Duke. It is possible. I would have to look through my

files to see how often I used it.

Senator McClellan. If you used it frequently, did it have

one particular meaning, and one particular significance?

Mr. Duke. Right at this moment, I couldn't tell you what it

meant.

Senator McClellan. At any time, whether the first time you

used it or the last, or in between?

Mr. Duke. I wouldn't know; right now I wouldn't recall.

Senator McClellan. Did it have reference--and you know

enough about these two letters to know whether it had reference

to the common and accepted meaning of the word ``talent?''

Mr. Duke. No, not to its common and accepted meaning.

Senator McClellan. It did not?

Mr. Duke. No.

Senator McClellan. Then what did it have reference to?

Mr. Duke. I couldn't tell you, because I don't recall right

at this time.

Senator McClellan. Would you say that wherever and whenever

you used it, in your correspondence with him, since it did not

refer to talent in the common accepted meaning of the word,

that it did have reference to something specific and in using

it you used it for that specific expression or to convey that

specific meaning each time you used it?

Mr. Duke. It is possible.

Senator McClellan. Well, this is what I am trying to

determine. You would not use the word ``talent'' one time to

mean a race horse, and another time to mean hay or money, or

another time to mean clients, and it had a continuous meaning

as between you and Morgan when you used the word?

Mr. Duke. It is an expression, probably, of mine, and I

think, as I told you, if you go through other correspondence to

various people, it might not be professional people, I might be

referring to talent, and I----

Senator McClellan. How would he know, if you used it to

mean different things, how did Ed Morgan know what you meant

when you used the word, which one you meant?

Mr. Duke. I might have talked to him on the telephone and I

might have talked to him in person before I left Washington.

Senator McClellan. And told him that when you used the word

``talent,'' it meant so-and-so?

Mr. Duke. Not necessarily. I mean discussing various

things.

Senator McClellan. I am trying to determine how he

understood what you meant by the word ``talent'' if you did not

know yourself.

Mr. Duke. If I could remember right now what I was

referring to, I could tell you right now what it meant.

Senator McClellan. The point is, you did not use it in the

sense of the correct meaning of the word, you admit that.

Mr. Duke. The common accepted meaning.

Senator McClellan. That is right. You did not use it to

convey that meaning?

Mr. Duke. It is possible, and I don't recall now what I

used it for.

Senator McClellan. Well, evidently it had quite a

significance between the two of you; you acknowledge that?

Mr. Duke. It might have had, yes.

Senator McClellan. It might have had? Do you not know that

it had?

Mr. Duke. No, I don't.

Senator McClellan. Do you not now know that it had?

Mr. Duke. Yes.

Senator McClellan. And you used it to convey that

particular meaning rather than to use the normal term that

would convey the meaning to someone else?

Mr. Duke. I really do not recall what I meant by that

expression in that letter.

Senator McClellan. Do you think that you will be able to

recall what you meant by the use of the word ``talent'' in your

correspondence?

Mr. Duke. It is possible.

Senator McClellan. You think, given a little time, you will

be able to recall?

Mr. Duke. It depends, and I will tell you why it depends on

that. As I told you, I was in this explosion, and I might leave

here and land in a hospital and be in a hospital for the next

six months, and I told you I have a malignancy that is

spreading, and I have X-rays in my files to prove it, and this

malignancy spreads and sometimes I will blank out for a couple

of weeks at a time, and so you are asking me if it is possible

to remember----

Senator McClellan. That is the reason you are saying it may

not be possible for you to remember?

Mr. Duke. I didn't say that. It is possible that it might

be that I might blank out, and I might be blank for maybe a

month or two weeks.

Senator McClellan. You might not live to remember, if we

want to indulge in extreme speculations, but I am not trying to

go into your physical condition in detail. You are saying

normally you think you would be able to remember; if that is

right, Okay.

Mr. Duke. It is possible. I don't know, Senator. As I told

you, I am trying to keep myself calm; and excitement, I

hemorrhage.

Senator McClellan. I do not want you to get excited.

Mr. Duke. I am under a pressure right now, and that

pressure can blank me out.

Senator McClellan. Let me ask you another question. What

did you mean by bird-dogging?

Mr. Duke. Bird-dogging cases, television cases.

Senator McClellan. Soliciting cases?

Mr. Duke. Yes, soliciting any kind of cases.

Senator McClellan. Then what service did you actually have

to sell to prospective clients and to those who employed you?

What service did you actually sell to them?

Mr. Duke. Can I give you an example?

Senator McClellan. I would like for you to answer the best

way you can.

Mr. Duke. A couple of friends of mine had----

Senator McClellan. I understand--first may I qualify that.

It is my understanding that you are not a lawyer.

Mr. Duke. No.

Senator McClellan. You are not an accountant?

Mr. Duke. No.

Senator McClellan. And yet you engage in public relations

dealing with those two professions, primarily?

Mr. Duke. Well, public relations, anyone can go into that,

and it doesn't----

Senator McClellan. I understand you can go into it, but you

are selling something related to the profession of a lawyer or

public accountant primarily, or to government.

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Senator McClellan. One of the three, just what you had to

sell to your clients.

Mr. Duke. I will give you an example. There were a couple

of friends, four friends of mine, that started with about

$1500, and in six years' time they ran this business, a wood

business, to about, I guess, maybe a $2 or $3 million business.

All of the time they retained the same services of a small

bookkeeper, that is all he was. So we met, they came after me

to see what I could do to help and they wanted to retain me as

a public relations expert. I met with them and with their

accountant, and I went over the books and realized he was

absolutely wrong; that under the present bookkeeping system or

the accounting system that he had set up for the firm, it would

cost the firm a fortune, and they were making money but paying

it all out in taxes and holding nothing back in reserve, and

they were ready to go bankrupt, and they retained me at the sum

of $250 a month.

They could have done this themselves. They had six years

previous to do it in.

I went down, and retained the services of a certified

public accountant, brought them up to the firm, set up their

books, set them up a new payroll system, and they set up their

machinery and their equipment and their buildings on a lesser

number of years to depreciate, and I saved them thousands of

dollars.

Senator McClellan. I am not primarily interested at the

moment in specific cases. I am trying to determine, as a public

relations man and in your relations here with Mr. Morgan, a

Washington attorney, and with others in handling claims against

the government, or in selling some service to clients in

matters relating to the federal government, what you actually

sold them. You did not sell them professional ability as a

lawyer.

Mr. Duke. No.

Senator McClellan. You did not sell them professional

ability as an accountant.

Mr. Duke. Not a professional accountant, no.

Senator McClellan. All you sold them was placing them in

contact here with somebody whom you thought could help them?

Mr. Duke. No, not necessarily.

Senator McClellan. What else besides that?

Mr. Duke. I would go over their entire case, over all of

their books, and I would probably spend maybe two or three

weeks going over them to determine, to see if they had a

justifiable cause to oppose the Internal Revenue Department on

their case; and if I so found, I would so advise the client.

Senator McClellan. Then what further service did you

perform?

Mr. Duke. Then, I would advise them to retain competent

counsel.

Senator McClellan. And you would recommend that counsel

that you thought was competent?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Senator McClellan. Now, that is the service that you

undertook to perform to earn the fees you charged or which they

would be willing to pay?

Mr. Duke. That is right.

Senator McClellan. I just wanted to get that clear.

Senator Jackson. Just one question.

Senator McClellan. I am sorry. I have to go, and I wanted

to get in the record just what his business was in the thing.

Senator Jackson. I have one question along that line.

The Chairman. I would like to say they have got to put him

on a plane at six o'clock.

Senator Jackson. What is the reason for using these code

words, ``talent,'' and so on?

Mr. Duke. Again, I will have to go back, and I don't

recall.

Senator Jackson. What were you trying to cover up?

Mr. Duke. Well, let us put it this way. My vocabulary is

limited, and I probably used it for a varied expression.

Senator Jackson. You have admitted that it is not used in

or it was not used in its usual sense or its usual meaning and

context.

Mr. Duke. No.

Senator Jackson. What were you trying to cover up?

Mr. Duke. I didn't admit specifically it was not used in

that as its common acceptance, and I say it is possible that I

used it for not its common acceptance.

Senator Jackson. Why, then, would you use it not in its

accepted sense, and what were you trying to cover up?

Mr. Duke. Nothing to cover up, and I do not recall why I

used it.

Senator Jackson. You are not using it in its usual sense?

Mr. Duke. That is true but I still don't recall why I used

it.

Senator Jackson. You were trying to cover something up.

Mr. Duke. I never tried to cover anything up, and if I had

tried to cover anything up I would have destroyed all of my

files, and there is nothing in my files that I am trying to

cover up, and they are all available.

Senator Jackson. You are using code words here.

Mr. Duke. Not necessarily.

Senator Jackson. Who would know what you meant by

``talent'' and the horse race business here, except you who

were sending it and Mr. Morgan on the other end?

Mr. Duke. Nobody here would, but suppose you and I were

friends, intimately, and we went around together and we used

various expressions, and perhaps I might have been using one,

and you and I would get to know each other very well and have

various expressions, and there it would be a lot better than a

lot of people----

Senator Jackson. Now, maybe you have given an answer.

Senator Potter. Could I ask one question? You sold your

services as a public relations man?

Mr. Duke. Not necessarily as a public relations man, just

agent.

Senator Potter. In your testimony, you said that your

office--you had an office?

Mr. Duke. My office was a diversified office.

The Chairman. Senator Potter, I had hoped we could let

everybody question the witness fully, and I had hoped the

congressmen would have a chance, but the traffic is extremely

bad and it is getting late.

You are still under subpoena, Mr. Duke, and you are now

ordered to return here on February 2, at ten o'clock in the

morning, unless notified of some other time. And you will call

the committee collect, on the Friday before February 2, you

understand.

Mr. Duke. How long is that from now?

Mr. Flanagan. Two weeks from Friday.

Mr. Duke. That is all right.

The Chairman. I may say to the congressmen and senators

here, I think it would be well, if we are contacted by the

press, if we would refuse to comment on this matter, in view of

the fact we are in such a preliminary stage.

[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., a recess was taken until 10:00

a.m., Monday, February 2, 1953.]

RUSSELL W. DUKE

[Editor's note.--Edward P. Morgan (1913-1986) served as an

FBI agent from 1940 to 1947, rising to the rank of chief

inspector. He was also a staff member of the joint committee

that investigated the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. In 1947

he joined the Washington law firm of Welch, Mott and Morgan,

specializing in corporate, tax, and international law. In 1950

he became chief counsel to the special subcommittee of the

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, chaired by Senator Millard

Tydings, that investigated Senator McCarthy's charges of

Communists in the State Department. During the Korean War, in

1951, Morgan became chief of the enforcement division of the

Office of Price Stabilization. He resigned that position in

1952 and went to Wisconsin to campaign against Senator

McCarthy's reelection.

After Russell Duke refused to return to testify in public,

Morgan was not called back to give public testimony. In its

annual report, the subcommittee noted: ``There is no indication

that Duke performed any legitimate service for any taxpayer. He

possessed no legal, accounting, or other technical ability. Not

a lawyer himself, he utilized the services of attorneys and

primarily the services of Edward P. Morgan, of Washington, D.C.

In the cases investigated by this subcommittee, Russell W. Duke

received a total of $32,850 in fees, and approximately $2,500

in expenses; and Attorney Edward P. Morgan received $13,700 in

fees, and $450 in expenses. Completion of this investigation is

awaiting the resolution of Duke's criminal trial. In the

meantime, the evidence concerning Morgan's conduct is being

submitted to the Washington, D.C., Bar Association.'' However,

Duke was acquitted and Morgan remained a member in good

standing in the District Bar. In 1980 and 1985 he served as a

member of the Presidential Commission on Executive, Legislative

and Judicial Salaries, and in 1985 was named to the President's

Commission on the Bicentennial of the United States

Constitution.

Edward P. Morgan did not testify in public session.]

----------

FRIDAY, JANUARY 16, 1953

U.S. Senate,

Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations

of the Committee on Government Operations,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to Senate Resolution 251,

agreed to January 24, 1952, at 10:30 a.m., in room 357 of the

Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt presiding.

Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota;

Senator Everett M. Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Charles E.

Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L. McClellan,

Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat,

Washington.

Present also: Representative Kenneth A. Keating,

Republican, New York; Representative Patrick J. Hillings,

Republican, California.

Present also: Roy Cohn, chief counsel; Robert Collier,

chief counsel, House Subcommittee to Investigate the Department

of Justice, Committee on the Judiciary; William A. Leece,

assistant counsel; Jerome S. Adlerman, assistant counsel;

Robert F. Kennedy, assistant counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief

clerk.

Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order.

Mr. Cohn, who is our first witness?

Mr. Cohn. Our first witness, Mr. Chairman is Mr. Edward P.

Morgan.

Senator Mundt. Will you be sworn?

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth,

and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. Morgan. I do.

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD P. MORGAN

Senator Mundt. For the purpose of the record, will you give

the committee your name and address, present position and

occupation?

Mr. Morgan. Edward P. Morgan, residence 3000 39th Street,

Northwest, Washington, D.C.; business, law office, 710 14th

Street, Northwest.

Senator Mundt. Now, Mr. Cohn will proceed with the

questioning.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Morgan, for how long a period of time have

you been engaged in the active practice of law in Washington?

Mr. Morgan. Since March 15, 1947.

Mr. Cohn. What did you do directly prior to that time?

Mr. Morgan. I was associated with the Federal Bureau of

Investigation.

Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?

Mr. Morgan. March 2, I believe, 1940.

Mr. Cohn. Do you know a man by the name of Russell Duke?

Mr. Morgan. I do.

Mr. Cohn. When did you first meet Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. If I may refer to some notes, please, counsel,

because I tried to refresh my memory on first knowledge of this

man, I would like to say at the outset, of course, that since

the inquiries that have come to me from certain members of the

press, I have endeavored to refresh my memory from every source

I possibly could, and on the basis thereof, I am going to try

this morning to certainly present to this committee, completely

and fully, all the information that I have. I must say,

however, that inasmuch as this goes back four and a half,

almost five years, I naturally cannot remember all of the

details; but I certainly will do the best I can.

Mr. Cohn. I think the question was: When did you first meet

Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. In September; September 16, 1946, to be exact.

Mr. Cohn. And under what circumstances?

Mr. Morgan. A very good friend of mine, of long standing,

brought Mr. Duke to my office.

Mr. Cohn. What was your friend's name?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Howard I. Bobbitt, an attorney of Portland,

Oregon, whom I had known for years in the FBI, and who, in

fact, had been agent in charge of the FBI in Portland, Oregon.

Mr. Cohn. And for what purpose did Mr. Bobbitt bring Mr.

Duke to your office on that occasion?

Mr. Morgan. There was no ostensible purpose in bringing Mr.

Duke to my office. Mr. Bobbitt came into see me, as he does

every time he came to Washington.

Mr. Duke was accompanying him at that time.

Mr. Cohn. Had you ever heard of Mr. Duke before this

meeting?

Mr. Morgan. Never, to my best knowledge and belief.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bobbitt had never mentioned him to you in any

way?

Mr. Morgan. To my best knowledge and belief, he had not.

Mr. Cohn. And Mr. Bobbitt walked in and brought this man

Duke in with him, and that is the first you ever heard of

Russell Duke?

Mr. Morgan. That is correct.

Mr. Cohn. Can you give us the substance of the conversation

at that first meeting?

Mr. Morgan. Well, apart from the matter of mere social

conversation, Mr. Bobbitt mentioned to me that at that time

they had been in Washington along with an attorney from San

Francisco in connection with a particular case, one involving a

man named Thomas Guy Shafer, of Oakland, California.

He stated that they had been having conferences at the

Bureau of Internal Revenue with respect to the case. He advised

me that Mr. Knox was the counsel for Mr. Shafer and that, in

all probability, the case was going to require a great deal of

additional work and that they would probably need Washington

counsel in connection with it.

He asked me if I would consider handling the case. I talked

with them in some detail concerning their knowledge of the

matter and asked them if they were in a position to retain me

at that time. They said that certainly, subject to approval by

Mr. Knox.

Mr. Knox, to the best of my knowledge at that time, was in

Washington, or at least was on his way to New York.

But, in any event, Mr. Knox came by my office a short time

thereafter and explained to me who Mr. Shafer was. He was a

druggist in Oakland. There was a tax deficiency of a very

sizable amount, approaching, on, as I remember, 400, maybe

$500,000, with the penalties that were involved.

And thereafter I agreed to represent Mr. Shafer and I did

represent him.

Mr. Cohn. What was Mr. Bobbitt's connection with the tax

man, Mr. Shafer?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Bobbitt was associated as company counsel

with Mr. Knox.

Mr. Cohn. What was Mr. Duke's connection?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Duke's connection, there I must say it is

quite vague in my mind, because I had little occasion to

inquire at that particular point.

As a matter of fact, I am not at all certain, this far

removed, that I have any specific knowledge concerning the

nature of Mr. Duke's association at that time.

Now, in light of what I now know--and it is sometimes

difficult to distinguish between what you then know and what

you know now--Mr. Duke, it appears, was associated as a public

relations counsel or an investigator or what not for Mr.

Shafer, and it is my understanding, since that time I did not

know it then--to the best of my knowledge, Mr. Knox had engaged

Mr. Duke for that purpose.

Mr. Cohn. And Mr. Duke is not a member of the bar?

Mr. Morgan. Not to my knowledge.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any communication with Mr. Duke

about the Shafer case after that first meeting?

Mr. Morgan. When you say communication, do you mean written

communication, or oral?

Mr. Cohn. I mean written or oral, direct.

Mr. Morgan. I am sure he came by my office many times. He

probably inquired about it.

Mr. Cohn. What was he doing in connection with this case?

Mr. Morgan. Insofar as I was concerned, after I took over

the active handling of the case, there was no service he was

performing as far as I was concerned.

Mr. Cohn. For what purpose was he in communication with you

when you became counsel?

Mr. Morgan. Merely an inquiry in connection with the case,

as to its status and so on.

Mr. Cohn. Was he representing Mr. Shafer?

Mr. Morgan. He was representing Mr. Shafer.

Mr. Cohn. I say did he come in and inquire in behalf of Mr.

Shafer?

Mr. Morgan. Not as such. It was merely an inquiry, since he

had been in my office in the initial conversation concerning

the case, as to how the Shafer case was coming along.

Mr. Cohn. And you felt at liberty to discuss that?

Mr. Morgan. I didn't see any reason why I shouldn't.

Mr. Cohn. Were you authorized by Mr. Shafer or his counsel

to discuss the case with Mr. Duke or to consult him in any way?

Mr. Morgan. As a matter of authorization; certainly not.

Mr. Knox knew Mr. Duke and had been in discussion with him,

certainly about the matter. You can ask Mr. Knox.

Mr. Cohn. What finally happened with the Shafer matter?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Shafer was indicted.

Mr. Cohn. Did you receive a fee in connection with your

services?

Mr. Morgan. I did not.

Mr. Cohn. You received no remuneration whatsoever?

Mr. Morgan. None whatsoever.

Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Duke receive any?

Mr. Morgan. I do not know and at that time I had no idea

that Mr. Duke was in any way engaged, as I indicated earlier,

formally in the case.

I know now that Mr. Duke received funds in connection with

the case, I certainly do.

Mr. Cohn. You know that now?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. When did you find that out?

Mr. Morgan. I found that out from newspaper reports at the

time the King committee was out in California.

Senator Mundt. May I inquire: why would you be discussing

the case with Mr. Duke when you knew he was connected with it?

Mr. Morgan. Senator, insofar as Mr. Duke was concerned, it

was not a matter of discussing the case, and, as I say, I have

no definite record on the matter. I am sure that somewhere

along the line, after having been in the office with Mr.

Bobbitt, he may have inquired of me, ``How is the Shafer case

coming along,'' something like that.

I would indicate to him there was nothing to report,

nothing new and no developments in the matter. I saw nothing

improper in that, certainly, still don't.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any relations with Mr. Duke

concerning any other case?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I did.

Mr. Cohn. How many others.

Mr. Morgan. I would like to indicate specifically each one,

if you would like.

Mr. Cohn. Could you give us first the total and then

discuss them?

Mr. Morgan. Insofar as the reference of matters that I

could say Mr. Duke referred a case to me, there would be two

cases specifically. One was the case of Dr. Ting David Lee, a

Chinese doctor in Portland, Oregon, and the other is a case

involving a man named Noble Wilcoxon, of Sacramento,

California.

Now, after having made that observation--and if you would

like any other explanation of that I will be glad to give it to

you--I should say this: On November 10, 1948, Mr. Duke came to

my office. He was accompanied at that time by a Mr. Conrad

Hubner, introduced to me as a lawyer of San Francisco. We had a

conversation generally by way of discussion of mutual

acquaintances.

I learned that Mr. Hubner had associated with him a man

that I had known in the FBI, and at this particular meeting,

Mr. Hubner discussed with me the possibility of handling the

Washington end of two cases in which he was counsel.

He stated that these cases were at that particular time

still under consideration in San Francisco. He said he was

three thousand miles away from Washington and necessarily had

to have someone here because he couldn't be coming back and

forth to handle the Washington end and the Washington incidents

of the cases, there were two.

One of those cases involved a man named Harry Blumenthal.

The other involved a man named Wolcher. I have forgotten his

first name.

Mr. Hubner advised me that he did not know when those cases

would be referred to Washington for consideration.

I noted here that that visit was on November 10, and that

he forwarded to me power of attorney in each of those cases on

March 24, 1949.

Now, I mentioned those two cases because there was an

instance where Mr. Duke had referred to me an attorney--I

assume he recommended me. I was very grateful for his having

done so, and I assume responsibility in those cases.

Mr. Cohn. Following this initial recommendation when Mr.

Duke came in with Mr. Hubner, did you have any communication

with Mr. Duke concerning those cases, following the initial

meeting?

Mr. Morgan. The Wolcher and Blumenthal Case?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, the Wolcher and Blumenthal.

Mr. Morgan. I may have. I recall none certainly. But I

would not say I did not, because I have no recollection. If you

have anything that might refresh my recollection on the matter,

I would be glad to see it.

Senator Mundt. Have you examined your files in your office?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I have. I have examined them, Senator; I

received a subpoena sometime in the afternoon, I guess it was

last Monday, at eight, I believe.

It was a ``forthwith'' subpoena, requesting that I produce

all records and so on--I don't know, maybe counsel would like

to read the subpoena into the record--with respect to any

correspondence of any kind with Russell Duke and any financial

dealings with Russell Duke and so on.

As I say, it was the ``forthwith'' subpoena. I wanted to

comply with it in every way possible.

We had no file on Russell Duke. That meant that to obtain

any correspondence, conceivably we would have to run through

virtually every file in the office, including general

correspondence and that sort of thing.

But I took girls off other work and made them run a check

of all of our files, and at 5:30 I called the counsel of the

committee, and said that insofar as I was able to I would be

glad to come up and produce these records. They said that

wouldn't be necessary, I could be up in the morning, and I did

at 10:30 in the morning.

As I said then and I certainly repeat now, I would not

vouch that that is every piece of correspondence with respect

to Russell Duke, I don't know. That is all we could find at the

time. There may be more.

Mr. Cohn. Since the time you produced those papers, have

you continued to search the files to determine whether or not

you did in fact fully comply with the subpoena?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. We haven't made a consistent project out

of it. We have been very busy in the office in the last few

days. As a matter of fact, when I received the subpoena, I had

a man who traveled eighteen hundred miles to confer with me on

the case. I dropped it and went out on this.

The best we can, we did, yes. I find no other

correspondence insofar as he is concerned.

Mr. Cohn. You have no other correspondence?

Mr. Morgan. No other correspondence.

Mr. Cohn. So following the searches you made, you now feel

you have complied with the subpoena?

Mr. Morgan. Insofar as I was able to, yes.

Mr. Cohn. And that you produced every paper called for by

the subpoena, in your possession?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir.

Mr. Cohn. What was the final determination of the Wolcher

and Blumenthal cases?

Mr. Morgan. Those were two separate cases.

Mr. Cohn. What was the final determination of each one of

them?

Mr. Morgan. In the Blumenthal case--I remember that rather

vividly----

I assume, Senator, that we regard this as proper to be

discussing incidents of a case. I am somewhat reluctant to do

it because of the relationship with the client, but I will go

ahead and do it, if you like.

In that particular case I conferred with the Justice

Department attorney after the case had been referred to the

Justice Department.

Mr. Cohn. Could you give us his name, please?

Mr. Morgan. I think it was Mr. John Lockley.

Mr. Cohn. Was he in the tax division?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Lockley told me very frankly that they intended to

prosecute Blumenthal unless he saw fit to come clean.

By that he meant Blumenthal's position was that he had not

received himself, on his own behalf, certain monies in certain

transactions growing out of deals during the war. And Lockley

stated that the Justice Department was simply not going to

accept that position, that they were going to insist that he

indicate who got the money, or they were going to prosecute

him.

I communicated that information to Mr. Hubner in San

Francisco. Mr. Hubner thereafter advised me Mr. Blumenthal had

stated that he had gone to jail once in connection with the

incidence of that case, and that he did not intend to go again.

Thereupon he made a full disclosure in the matter. That

information was made available to Mr. Lockley.

I don't know whether Mr. Blumenthal became a witness for

the government thereafter against those individuals who

received the money, or not. To the best of my recollection, the

case was taken on from there.

I don't know, frankly, the ultimate disposition.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever receive a fee?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I received a fee of $1,000.

Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Duke receive a fee?

Mr. Morgan. I do not know. I have no knowledge in the

matter.

Senator Mundt. At what point in the case did you cease to

be connected with him?

Mr. Morgan. At such time as I had understood from

conversations with Mr. Hubner that they were going to proceed

locally with a further investigation of the matter, based on

the additional information that Blumenthal had voluntarily

supplied the Department of Justice.

On the Wolcher case, I had one conference, as I remember

it, perhaps two--I can't be sure of that--with Mr. Lockley. I

remember the first one very vividly, because while I was

talking to Mr. Lockley I received a very fateful telephone call

in my life. The call was for me to consider taking the position

as counsel to a certain committee of the Senate.

Mr. Cohn. Which committee was that?

Mr. Morgan. That was a subcommittee of the Senate Foreign

Relations Committee.

Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Duke make any efforts to obtain that

counselship for you?

Mr. Morgan. Certainly not. I say certainly not. I don't

know what Mr. Duke may have done at any particular time, but

insofar as I know, he certainly did not.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss that counselship with him?

Mr. Morgan. Prior to assuming the counselship?

Mr. Cohn. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. Certainly not. I am quite positive of that.

Senator Mundt. Did you afterward?

Mr. Morgan. What do you mean discuss it, Senator? I don't

understand what you mean. I have discussed the incidents of my

association with that committee but----

Senator Mundt. Tell us what you mean by the kind of

discussion that you had.

Mr. Morgan. With Mr. Duke?

Senator Mundt. Correct.

Mr. Morgan. I don't remember any discussion, with Mr. Duke,

but I certainly wouldn't say, Senator that I didn't talk with

him and with hundreds of other people about my association with

the committee.

Senator Mundt. I wondered when you qualified the question

``prior to,'' which indicated that you had discussed it

afterwards.

Mr. Morgan. I made that observation because counsel's

inquiry related to whether Mr. Duke had anything to do with my

securing the position, and I stated that certainly not to my

knowledge, in any way.

And I remember excusing myself from Mr. Lockley's office at

that time. I talked with those who were interested in having me

take that position, and I agreed to do so.

Thereafter, having become counsel to the committee, I

withdrew from active consideration of cases and later on Mr.

Hubner came back to Washington for a conference on the Wolcher

case. He went to the Justice Department with one of my law

partners. They conferred on it. Mr. Wolcher thereafter was

indicted, so I understand.

Mr. Cohn. Did you receive any fee?

Mr. Morgan. I received a thousand dollars in connection

with each of those cases, and that $1,000 was a retainer paid

me at the time Mr. Hubner originally engaged me for the purpose

of handling the cases at such time as they might be referred to

Washington for attention.

Mr. Cohn. The $1,000 was for the purpose of a retainer in

case the cases got down to Washington?

Mr. Morgan. Exactly.

Mr. Cohn. What if the cases didn't go down to Washington?

Mr. Morgan. The retainer necessarily would be returned to

Mr. Hubner.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever return any retainer that you took on

that basis in any tax case?

Mr. Morgan. In any tax case?

Mr. Cohn. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I have returned retainers.

Mr. Cohn. In tax cases. You took the retainer predicated on

the possibility of the case going to Washington?

Mr. Morgan. Well, now, I think of one case in which a fee

in escrow was returned.

Mr. Cohn. What was the name of that case?

Mr. Morgan. That was the Shafer case.

Mr. Cohn. That is the one in connection with which you

originally met Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. That was the one at the time Mr. Bobbitt

brought Mr. Duke to my office.

Mr. Cohn. I asked whether or not you had received any fee

and you said no.

Mr. Morgan. I didn't receive any fee.

Mr. Cohn. How much was put up in escrow?

Mr. Morgan. $20,000.

Mr. Cohn. What was the escrow arrangement?

Mr. Morgan. The escrow arrangement was simply this: I

talked to Mr. Knox at the outset in the handling of the case.

The matter of fee came up. Mr. Knox explained it to me this

way: that Mr. Shafer had spent a great deal of money in

connection with legal representation and for other purposes in

an effort to get this case disposed of locally; and that he did

not feel in the position to want to spend any additional money

by way of a fee as such.

That, of course, meant that he wanted the case to be

handled on a contingency basis.

I discussed with Mr. Knox fully the incidents of the

matter. I looked at the size of the case insofar as dollars and

cents were concerned, I looked at the ramifications of it, I

looked at the financial position of the client. I set a

contingency fee, explaining to Mr. Knox at that point that

manifestly, in a case that was going to involve as much work as

certainly I anticipated would be involved in this case, that

the contingency would be appreciably higher than would be an

out-and-out fee at the outset.

In setting the fee additionally, I realized that I would

have to send a reference fee to Mr. Bobbitt.

I also contemplated that I would probably have to go to

California to make inquiry and further investigation and

probably engage an accountant, which I assumed that I would

have to pay for in the situation.

This fee was placed in escrow in the event prosecution was

denied in the case.

Mr. Cohn. Who was the escrow agent?

Mr. Morgan. The escrow agent--there was no formal escrow

agent.

It was maintained in a reserve account in Riggs National

Bank.

I understood Mr. Knox and I had formal correspondence with

respect to the arrangement.

Mr. Cohn. Exactly what was the contingency involved?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Shafer did not want to be prosecuted. The

contingency in the case was whether or not we could present the

case to the Department of Justice that would adequately

convince the department that this was a case that should not be

prosecuted criminally.

Mr. Cohn. The indictment was stopped or did not go forward?

Mr. Morgan. Well, you can characterize it any way you like.

Mr. Cohn. Did you return the $20,000 immediately after the

filing of the indictment?

Mr. Morgan. We did. I did not return it because I was not

with the firm at that time, but my office did.

Mr. Cohn. I think you were telling us about two other tax

cases which you handled as a result of introductions by Mr.

Duke, is that correct?

Mr. Morgan. There are two other cases in which Mr. Duke

seems to have been in the picture; and I want to relate both of

them.

Mr. Cohn. Will you please do so?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

One case is a case involving a man named Jack Glass, of Los

Angeles, California. That case came to me by reference to me

from an attorney named Maurice Hendon.

I might say Mr. Hendon was then and is still a very

prominent lawyer.

Mr. Hendon called me concerning the handling of the case.

He made arrangements whereby he would come back to Washington

for a conference. There Mr. Hendon paid me a fee in connection

with the case, and I gave him a one-third reference fee for

referring the case to me.

At some stage of the picture--I don't know just exactly

where, when and how, I ascertained that Mr. Duke had approached

Mr. Glass in connection with this case.

I am frank to say that I think my knowledge insofar as any

particularity is concerned, it stems from a conference I had

with Mr. deWind of the King committee, who indicated to me, I

think that in this particular matter Duke had obtained some

money.

Mr. Cohn. Exactly when was this?

When did you get into the Glass case?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Hendon, called my office on July 12, 1949,

and I held a conference with Hendon here in Washington, as I

remember, on July 27, 1949.

Mr. Cohn. It is your testimony that in the course of the

telephone conversation, in the course of the first meeting, Mr.

Duke's name was not mentioned in any way?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge and belief, it was

not.

Now, in trying to recall something that happened that long

ago--I was in Los Angeles the other day in connection with

other business matters. I had a conference with Mr. Hendon in

connection with something wholly unrelated to any of this sort

of thing. He brought up at that time the fact that when the

King committee had been on the West Coast, that he had

submitted to the committee an affidavit concerning the matter.

I asked him at that point: I said, ``How and when and under

what circumstances, as best you can remember, did Mr. Duke

enter into this picture?''

He stated to me that his reference of this case to me was

by reason of some friend of mine who was a lawyer that he knew.

I don't know whether it was someone that I had known in the

bureau, or not.

He said that Duke had approached Glass and made an

arrangement with Glass over his objection.

That is the best that I can do to help you on that. That is

Mr. Hendon's recollection of the matter; insofar as I can

recall, it is my recollection.

Mr. Cohn. When did you first discover Mr. Duke's connection

with this particular case?

Mr. Morgan. I just couldn't recall. It is just a blank. I

remember Mr. deWind speaking out. I remember talking to Mr.

Hendon about it. But I don't remember any conversations with

Mr. Duke about it, but that certainly wouldn't mean that there

weren't any.

Here is what I am trying to remember in this situation.

Frankly, I draw a blank on it.

When Mr. Hendon was back here in July 1949, July 27, 1949,

I am, sure that if Duke were in the picture, that he must have

mentioned it, we must have discussed it. But I just have no

recollection on the point.

Mr Cohn. Did you keep any diary entries?

Mr. Morgan. No, I maintain no diary.

Mr. Cohn. From what were you able to reconstruct some of

these exact dates you have given us here?

Mr. Morgan. From the files on each of the cases.

Mr. Cohn. You mean correspondence?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. I mean correspondence or memoranda in the

files.

Mr. Cohn. Would your memoranda in the files in the Glass

case reflect whether or not Mr. Duke had been present at any of

these meetings?

Mr. Morgan. You mean insofar as with Mr. Hendon?

Mr. Cohn. With Mr. Hendon or with anybody else in

connection with the case?

Mr. Morgan. I am certain, insofar as I can reconstruct the

situation, counsel, that Mr. Duke was never at any conference

with me and Mr. Hendon.

In other words, I just have no recollection of it, and I am

sure if it occurred I would have remembered it.

Mr. Cohn. What was the final disposition of the Glass case?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Glass was declared non compos mentis by the

court in Los Angeles.

Mr. Cohn. Was that following an indictment?

Mr. Morgan. No; it was prior to indictment. Mr. Glass was

supposed to have a very serious heart condition, and Mr. Glass

did have a heart condition, and I was advised by Mr. Hendon

that his physician said that the strain in connection with the

whole matter was responsible for it.

I say that because that was one of the things we presented

to the department as a basis for arguing that the case should

not be prosecuted.

Mr. Cohn. With whom in the Department of Justice did you

deal in connection with the case?

Mr. Morgan. As I remember, it was Colonel Victor

Swearingen.

Mr. Cohn. Did you receive any fee in connection with the

services you rendered in the Glass case?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. How much?

Mr. Morgan. I received a fee of $4,000, of which $1,500 I

forwarded to Mr. Hendon as a reference fee.

Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Duke receive any compensation in

connection with that case?

Mr. Morgan. I have indicated to you, according to Mr.

deWind that he did.

Mr. Cohn. How much was it?

Mr. Morgan. I don't know.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. deWind mentioned no amount?

Mr. Morgan. He may have. I just don't remember.

Mr. Cohn. What is the next case you handled with which Mr.

Duke had a connection?

Mr. Morgan. This particular case, when you say Mr. Duke had

a connection, I remember quite well. I have tried to remember,

as best I can, the initial meeting in my office with Mr.

Bobbitt. At that time Mr. Duke was discussing various cases in

which he had been concerned. In other words, he was giving his

background to me, more or less. He had explained that during

the war he had represented various companies and organizations

and that many of those were involved in difficulties. I have

tried to remember some of those that he mentioned because a

newspaper man the other day asked me if I remember one case,

and there came back a flicker of memory on it.

It relates, I think to that discussion. It is a case

involving di Martini, that is. But who they were I don't know.

Now, di Martini, I didn't handle the case, don't remember

it. But there was one matter I do remember his mentioning when

he was in my office, and that is a rather bizarre case, on the

basis of what I now know about the incidence of it, involving

an Inez Burns of San Francisco.

Senator Mundt. Just a minute, before we get away from this.

All this discussion, this string of cases, was taking place

in your office, the first time you met him; is that right?

Mr. Morgan. No, Senator. These cases, I will be glad to

give you date by date as to when any of these cases came my

way. But I want to remember this case.

Senator Mundt. It is my understanding of your testimony a

few minutes ago that you said Mr. Bobbitt came to your office

and Mr. Duke was telling you about all these various cases.

Mr. Morgan. I was trying to resurrect my knowledge of Mr.

Duke and his activities, and this is the case I am about to

mention.

That is when I first heard of it.

Mr. Cohn. It is my understanding from your testimony just a

couple of minutes ago, that you were referring to this first

meeting in which Mr. Bobbitt brought Mr. Duke to your office.

You testified previously that the Shafer case was

discussed, is that right?

Mr. Morgan. That is the case that Mr. Bobbitt referred to

me, yes.

Mr. Cohn. And Duke came along to that meeting at which

there was a reference to the case?

Mr. Morgan. It was the first time I ever met the gentlemen.

Mr. Cohn. Haven't you just testified that at the same

meeting Mr. Duke also mentioned to you this Inez Burns case?

Mr. Morgan. I am trying to give you the background in

connection with the Burns matter because this is not a case in

which I feel that I was in any way associated with Mr. Duke as

a lawyer or anything like that.

Mr. Cohn. What I am trying to get at is this: Did Mr. Duke

mention this Inez Burns case to you at the first meeting

between Mr. Bobbitt, Mr. Duke and yourself?

Mr. Morgan. I am disposed to think he probably did, yes.

Mr. Cohn. Did he mention a case involving someone named di

Martini?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I think so.

Mr. Cohn. Were there any other cases mentioned by Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. I don't remember any others.

Mr. Cohn. Why did Mr. Duke, who is a public relations man,

not a lawyer, bring up three tax cases in his discussion with

you on that first occasion?

Mr. Morgan. As I remember, there were two: the Burns matter

and the di Martini case.

Mr. Cohn. How about Shafer?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Bobbitt brought that case to me.

Mr. Cohn. You mean Mr. Duke didn't mention it?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Duke was certainly there. But I mean in

source as far as I was concerned, that is a reference from--I

wouldn't say a lifelong friend but a friend of many years'

standing, who is a very reputable lawyer on the West Coast.

Mr. Cohn. He brought Mr. Duke with him, and Mr. Duke

participated in the discussion?

Mr. Morgan. There is no question about that.

Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Duke participate in the discussion, about

the Shafer case?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Bobbitt led the discussion in all.

Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Duke participate?

Mr. Morgan. He may have.

Mr. Cohn. Don't you remember where he did, or whether he

did or didn't?

Mr. Morgan. Frankly, I don't.

Mr. Cohn. You do remember discussing that case with Mr.

Duke on subsequent occasions?

Mr. Morgan. Discussing as I said before. I have no positive

recollection on it, but if he inquired about the status of the

case we talked about it in my office with Mr. Bobbitt, I would

certainly have indicated to him what the status was.

Mr. Cohn. You said you had no positive recollection of it.

I thought you had previously testified quite definitely that

you had a clear recollection of Mr. Duke having made inquiries

as to the status of the case and having called you about the

Shafer case after the first meeting.

Mr. Morgan. The record will reflect that, Mr. Counsel.

Mr. Cohn. What is your testimony now?

Mr. Morgan. My testimony is now that I have no definite

recollection of discussions with Mr. Duke concerning the Shafer

case after the initial meeting, other than the fact that if he

had inquired about it I would have certainly told him the

status of the case.

Mr. Cohn. Except for that conjecture, it is your testimony

now that, according to your present recollection, you have no

recollection whatsoever of having discussed the case with Mr.

Duke after that first meeting?

Mr. Morgan. My testimony is that I have no positive

recollection one way or the other.

Mr. Cohn. Were any other tax cases discussed at that first

meeting.

Mr. Morgan. I tried to give you the last one, and if you

will let me proceed with it now, I will.

Mr. Cohn. Will you give me the name of the last one,

please?

Senator Mundt. That still doesn't answer the question.

The question was: were any other cases discussed at the

first meeting?

Mr. Morgan. Nothing other than the ones we have mentioned.

Mr. Cohn. Burns, di Martini and Shafer?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Senator Mundt. You are sure of that?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. Now, we were talking about the Burns case.

Could you tell us what was said about the Burns case by Mr.

Duke to you at that first meeting?

Mr. Morgan. My only recollection of that matter this far

removed is the presentation to me of a rather gory story about

the woman who had a large sum of money that she had secreted in

the basement of her home and that the rats had eaten up the

money and that it had become gummy and so forth. On the basis

of that, I recall that particular phase of it.

I remember that Duke indicated at that time that he had

some connection with this particular individual. And, as I

remember, he also had some connection with the attorney, as he

so indicated.

He said that he did not know what would ultimately happen

with the case or what the disposition of the case might be

ultimately, but that that was one of those situations in which

he hoped that he might refer to me as attorney.

On that occasion, that was in September 1948.

I did, in December of 1950--that is two years later--by

reference with Mr. Frank Ford, attorney of San Francisco,

associate myself with him in this particular case.

Mr. Cohn. Now, in between the original discussion with Mr.

Bobbitt, Mr. Duke and yourself about the Burns case at the time

you were retained in 1950, did you have any further discussions

with Mr. Duke about the Burns case?

Mr. Morgan. I may have.

Mr. Cohn. Oral or written?

Mr. Morgan. I may very well have.

Mr. Cohn. Did you or didn't you?

Mr. Morgan. I don't remember.

Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection whatsoever?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Senator Mundt. Did you have any correspondence with him?

Mr. Morgan. I recall no correspondence in the file.

Mr. Cohn. Did you do anything in connection with the Burns

case between this initial conversation in September 1948, and

the time you were retained in 1950?

Mr. Morgan. I may very well have. Probably to what you are

referring.

I received a copy of a so-called expose in the Duke matter

with respect to a newspaper in San Francisco.

Mr. Cohn. My question, Mr. Morgan, was----

Mr. Morgan. I am going to answer your question.

Mr. Cohn. I would appreciate it if you would.

Mr. Morgan. That particular newspaper account relates to a

postscript attributed to a letter from me to Duke. In that

particular postscript, as I remember--and I don't remember the

specific wording of it--but there is some indication that a

check on the Burns case does not locate it back to Washington,

and a request for an indication as to who the counsel was in

the case; in other words, requesting information from Duke.

So, if such a piece of correspondence exists, then to that

extent certainly I did.

I don't have the slightest recollection of it.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, in response to the subpoena served

on this witness, he produced a copy of a letter dated March 31,

1949, as addressed to Mr. Russell Duke, signed by the penned

signature and added typed signature, Edward P. Morgan, on the

stationery of Welch, Mott and Morgan.

I would ask that that letter be received in evidence.

Senator Mundt. Is that the letter with the postscript?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, that is the letter with the postscript, to

which this witness affixed his signature.

[The letter referred to was marked as committee's Exhibit

No. 3, January 16, 1953, Edward P. Morgan.]

March 31, 1949.

Mr. Russell Duke,

4523 Northeast Alameda,

Portland 13, Oregon.

Dear Russ: Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, I am enclosing

herewith two photostatic copies of an editorial which may be somewhat

helpful to you relative to the matter which we discussed, along with a

clipping from the local Washington Times Herald.

Best personal regards.

Sincerely,

Edward P. Morgan.

Enclosures.

P.S. I don't seem to be able to get a line on Inez B. at either

place back here. Who is the attorney of record in her case? Can you

check at S.F. to find when they referred it to D.C.?

EPM.

Mr. Morgan. Should I have produced the letter pursuant to

the subpoena?

Mr. Cohn. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. That would be it, then.

Mr. Cohn. May I read it ?

Senator McClellan. Do you want to see the letter?

Mr. Morgan. Well, I would like to see it.

Mr. Cohn. After examining it, Mr. Morgan, would you read

the postscript, please?

Mr. Morgan. This is a letter dated March 31, 1949.

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you first: is that your

signature?

Mr. Morgan. I don't think there is any question about it,

Senator.

The letter is dated March 31, 1949, on the letterhead of my

office. It is addressed to Mr. Russell Duke, 45233 Northeast

Alameda, Portland 31, Oregon.

Mr. Cohn. Would you read the postscript, please.

Mr. Morgan. ``Dear Russ''--may I read the entire letter?

Senator Mundt. Surely.

Mr. Morgan.

Pursuant to our conversation yesterday I am enclosing

herewith two photostatic copies of an editorial which may be

somewhat helpful to you relative to the matter which we

discussed, along with a clipping from the local Washington

Times Herald.

Best personal regards. Sincerely, Edward P. Morgan.

It is signed ``Ed.'' Now, there is a postscript:

I don't seem to be able to get a line on Inez B.----

Which would be Inez Burns, presumably.

at either place back here. Who is the attorney of record in her

case? Can you check at S. F. to find when they referred to D.C.

It is initialed EPM.

Mr. Cohn. What did you mean by either place you were unable

to get a line?

Mr. Morgan. That would be whether or not it would be in the

Bureau of Internal Revenue or the Department of Justice.

Mr. Cohn. Had you made inquiries at the Bureau of Internal

Revenue and Department of Justice with reference to this case

prior to being retained?

Mr. Morgan. If this inquiry here was made, most assuredly

it was made before I was formally retained in December of 1950.

Mr. Cohn. Do you have any doubts that such an inquiry was

made?

Mr. Morgan. I would say that it must have been made. And

having been made and looking at this now, to the best of my

recollection, I think I could give you the situation, if you

would like to have it.

Mr. Cohn. First may I ask you this, Mr. Morgan: Whom did

you contact in the Justice Department and with whom were you in

contact in the Bureau of Internal Revenue?

Mr. Morgan. The contacts with the Justice Department is

with the clerk handling the cases over there. No power of

attorney is required or as required in the Department of

Justice.

Mr. Cohn. I was just trying to get the name.

Mr. Morgan. Somebody who handles the records. It would be

some girl.

Mr. Cohn. How about the Bureau of Internal Revenue?

Mr. Morgan. The Bureau of Internal Revenue--and the reason

I think I might remember this is the fact that I believe it is

the first time that I realized, as a practical matter, that you

had to have a power of attorney in order to ascertain whether a

case was pending in the Bureau of Internal Revenue.

I had known, of course, that you had to have a power of

attorney in order to represent a client before the Bureau of

Internal Revenue.

But in this particular instance, I am sure, by reason of an

inquiry as to the attorney of record, that we were advised that

they could supply no information concerning the matter.

Now, I have no background recollection on that other than

just what I have said.

Senator Mundt. Do you recall the purpose of the editorial?

Mr. Morgan. Senator, I don't have the slightest idea. The

note here ``Please return the news clipping,'' it is the only

one I had. I don't know what it related to. I have no idea.

That was March 1949.

Senator Mundt. It is a matter of some importance, because

the letter indicated the day before you had called Mr. Duke by

long distance and talked with him about it.

Mr. Morgan. Whether I called Mr. Duke or Mr. Duke called

me, I don't know.

I would say this: Mr. Duke was very prolific in his

telephone calls. I think if you were to check his records, you

would find that he made calls all over the country, and he

called many, many times, Senator, there is no question about

that, about many different things.

Senator Mundt. You mean he called you?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. When I wasn't there he called one of my

partners. He called me at home at night, all hours of the

night.

So there is no question about that, sure, he called me many

times. I would imagine he called me. But I couldn't be sure of

that, I don't know.

Mr. Cohn. What was the next step in the Burns case? Did you

hear back from Mr. Duke as to the name of the attorney of

record and when it was referred from San Francisco to the

District of Columbia?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge, I didn't.

To the best of my knowledge, that is the last I can recall

of it, and I don't think the file enlightens me any.

Mr. Cohn. Until the time you were retained in 1950?

Mr. Morgan. By Mr. Ford.

Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection having done anything in

connection with the Burns case between March 31, 1949, the date

of this letter, and the date on which you were formally

retained by Mr. Ford?

Mr. Morgan. I have no recollection of having done anything,

and my opinion is that I did nothing.

Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss it with Mr. Duke between those

dates?

Mr. Morgan. I have no recollection of it.

Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss it with Mr. Duke between the

period of time that you were formally retained?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge, I did not, but I

cannot be sure of that.

Mr. Cohn. What was the ultimate disposition of the Burns

case?

Mr. Morgan. She was indicted.

Mr. Cohn. Did you receive any fee in connection with the

Burns case?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I did.

Mr. Cohn. How much?

Mr. Morgan. I think I received a fee in the neighborhood--

and this was paid me by Mr. Ford, the attorney--in the

neighborhood of something over $2,000, as I remember.

Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Duke receive any compensation in

connection with that case?

Mr. Morgan. Not to my knowledge.

On that I feel reasonably certain, although on that I can't

be sure, because at the time I talked with Mr. DeWind he

discussed many situations in which Mr. Duke might have been

involved, some of which I had never heard of. He may have

advised me, but I just have no recollection.

Senator Mundt. How did he make out? With all these long

discussions by long distance calls--never seemed to get a fee.

Mr. Morgan. Senator, you will have to talk to Mr. Duke

about that, I can't help it.

Mr. Cohn. Are there any other tax cases concerning which

you had any dealings with Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge and belief, there

are no others.

Mr. Cohn. Did you mention a case involving a Dr. Lee?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. Tell us about that.

What connection did Mr. Duke have with that case?

Mr. Morgan. The records of that office indicated that in

March of 1949, Mr. Duke called the office to indicate that a

Chinese Doctor named Ting David Lee had had a jeopardy

assessment levied in his case and that the situation involved

moneys received by Dr. Lee by way of inheritance from the Lee

family in China.

He asked me if I would undertake to try to help him. He

said he had been trying to help Dr. Lee out there as best he

could in connection with the matter, and the man was strapped,

he had buildings downtown, it was perfect security for the

obligation owed the government, and that he felt that the

jeopardy assessment was unjust.

I told him that I would be glad to help him and in a way

that I properly could.

Then thereafter I wrote him, as I remember, indicating

that----

Senator Mundt. By ``him,'' do you mean Lee or Duke?

Mr. Morgan. To Duke, after he had called me--indicating

that I felt they should supply more information to me in order

that I could make an appraisal of the situation and to see in

what manner and to what extent we might be of assistance.

The next thing I knew, Mr. Duke appeared in Washington with

Dr. Lee, came to my office. I met Dr. Lee.

He impressed me as a very sincere type individual, and Mr.

Duke was obviously his agent, there is no question about that.

As a matter of fact, in view of Dr. Lee's complete lack of

acquaintance with any phase of tax matters, he certainly needed

some help.

And they told me what the story was. He had the jeopardy

assessment, he even had to borrow money to get back to

Washington he said, in connection with the case. He wanted to

know if I could do anything in connection with it.

I said ``Well, I don't know what we could do.''

We went over to the Bureau of Internal Revenue, and I would

like to say at this point that, to my knowledge, I didn't know

one single person over there, that is, to the best of my

recollection.

We went first to the----

Senator Mundt. What do you mean by ``we'' now, the three of

you?

Mr. Morgan. The three.

I had no doubts about Mr. Duke, I thought he was perfectly

legitimate. I took him right along.

We first went to the technical staff. We talked there--

well, I don't remember with whom we talked, but it must have

been some official there--about the case.

He explained to me that they felt that they could not grant

a conference prior to the filing of a petition in the tax

court; that was the normal procedure and they felt that they

didn't want to depart from it in this case.

We next went down on the collector's office to find out if

there was any possibility of lifting the jeopardy assessment

upon a showing of tangible assets in this country that would

adequately protect the government. Dr. Lee explained everything

he had.

Senator Mundt. To whom did you talk there?

Mr. Morgan. I don't remember his name, Senator. It was some

subordinate we talked to, anyway. I had made no appointment

with anybody. We just walked in cold. As a result of that,

nothing was accomplished. They felt we could do nothing. They

felt the matter of protecting the revenues was the

responsibility of the local collector.

So we went back to the office and Mr. Lee asked me what had

to be done in the situation. I explained to him there was one

thing that could be done. That was to file a petition in the

tax court and then request an early hearing before the

technical staff, in the hopes that you could have the matter

resolved and get the jeopardy assessment lifted.

He asked me if I would undertake to represent him in

connection with the matter, and I agreed to do so.

Mr. Cohn. Did you thereafter represent him?

Mr. Morgan. I did.

Mr. Cohn. What was the final determination in that case?

Mr. Morgan. The final determination of the case was a set

limit through the technical staff.

Mr. Cohn. In other words, you went ahead and filed the

petition, is that right?

Mr. Morgan. That is right, a petition was filed in

Washington, with the tax court.

I requested the head of the technical staff on the West

Coast for a conference. He set a conference date.

Mr. Cohn. Could you give us his name?

Mr. Morgan. I think it is Mr. Harlacker, as I remember. He

set a date for it. I flew to Portland, a period before the

technical staff, presented such evidence as Dr. Lee was in a

position to present, demonstrating that he had received these

moneys from China as a part of the Lee estate, that it was not

income subject to income tax. Thereafter I outlined for him

additional information which should be presented to support his

case based on inquiries made at the conference.

I returned to Washington thereafter. From time to time I

understand Dr. Lee was able to find record evidence of the

receipt of moneys from China, which he presented to the

technical staff. On the basis thereafter, the case was

ultimately compromised.

Mr. Cohn. Did the compromise take place out west?

Mr. Morgan. The first knowledge that I had of the

compromise was, as I had the power of attorney, and of course

it was my responsibility to agree to the compromise, and the

proposed compromise was referred to me for acceptance. I sent

it to Dr. Lee. I outlined the considerations in his case. I

recommended that he accept it.

Mr. Cohn. How much was the original jeopardy assessment?

Mr. Morgan. The jeopardy assessment, as I remember it

involved something like $100,000.

Mr. Cohn. For how much was it settled.

Mr. Morgan. It was settled for something over $6,000, with

interest. I think there was an interest item that may be

brought it up over seven. I can't give you exact figures,

without checking on it.

Mr. Cohn. Did you do anything in Washington in the Internal

Revenue Bureau to obtain an approval of the settlement down

there?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge and belief on this

case, I did not.

Mr. Cohn. In other words, your own contact with the Bureau

of Internal Revenue was your original visit when you were

accompanied by Duke and the tax man.

Mr. Morgan. And the appearance of the technical staff.

Mr. Cohn. That was out west, wasn't it?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. I was talking about Washington.

Mr. Morgan. In Washington, to the best of my knowledge and

belief, that is all.

Mr. Cohn. And you had no communication, direct or indirect,

with anyone in the Bureau of Internal Revenue in Washington in

this case, following the original meeting; is that right?

Mr. Morgan. Right.

Mr. Cohn. How many times were you out west conferring with

the technical staff in connection with the matter?

Mr. Morgan. One time.

Mr. Cohn. Did you receive a fee in this case?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I did.

Mr. Cohn. How much.

Mr. Morgan. It was a contingent fee. Dr. Lee explained to

me that he didn't have any money, that all his funds were tied

up.

He asked me if I would undertake to represent him on a

contingency basis, the contingency being whether or not he ever

got any money so he could pay me.

I agreed to do so. He set a contingency fee of $4,000 in

the case. I flew out to Portland, flew back. I had certain

expenses while I was there.

As I remember, I was there about three days. I made about

three speeches in the state while I was there. I don't remember

whether they were scheduled before, or after I knew I was

going.

When I got back, I communicated with Dr. Lee, explaining to

him--I think maybe I communicated with Russell Duke--explaining

to him that I did not feel that our contingency arrangement

would relate to the actual out-of-pocket expenses incurred on

the trip.

Thereafter--I have forgotten the exact date--he sent me a

check covering the out-of-pocket expenses which would total

something around $400, as I remember.

Thereafter the case was settled, the jeopardy assessment

was lifted. Dr. Lee paid our office the balance, and he

deducted, as I remember the expenses from the original fee and

got something around $3,450, something like that.

Mr. Cohn. Can you tell us the total amount of money you

received by you from Dr. Lee?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. I received $3,450 and expenses of $450.

I might say, Mr. Counsel, knowing what I know now about the

practice of law, I never would take a case of this kind for a

fee that low if it were on a contingent basis.

Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Duke receive any compensation?

Mr. Morgan. I now know that Mr. Duke received very

substantial compensation in connection with the matter. I

understand that Mr. Duke received in the neighborhood of maybe

as much as eight or nine thousand dollars.

If I might just add, gentlemen, I can assure you that I

would not be handling the case for $4,000 contingent fee if I

had known Mr. Duke was getting $8,000 or $9,000.

Mr. Cohn. And the amount the taxpayer paid out to you and

Mr. Duke was about twice as much the amount the government got,

as a result of the settlement, is that right?

Mr. Morgan. I think those facts are self evident.

Mr. Cohn. Is there any other tax case----

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you first: Did you get your

payment from Mr. Duke, or Mr. Lee?

Mr. Morgan. From Dr. Lee.

Senator Mundt. Yes, Dr. Lee. The check was made payable to

the law office, Senator.

I was out of town, Senator, as I remember, at the time. In

other words, I was not available, and Dr. Lee communicated with

the office saying that Mr. Duke wanted the money paid to him,

and one of my partners wired out there that money was due to

Welch, Mott and Morgan and the check should be made payable to

Welch, Mott, and Morgan. So it was payable to the firm.

Senator Mundt. The money the firm received came from Dr.

Lee in a check signed by him?

Mr. Morgan. Right.

Senator Mundt. You received no money from Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. As a matter of fact, I didn't see the check,

but I am sure it must have been from Dr. Lee, because the

correspondence indicates that he had forwarded the check.

I am sure it was not Mr. Duke. Of that I am confident.

Senator Mundt. You are sure you received no money from Mr.

Duke?

Mr. Morgan. No, sir.

Mr. Cohn. Is there any other tax case in which you had

dealings with Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge and belief, no.

Mr. Cohn. Getting back to this Lee case for one minute, in

what capacity was Mr. Duke acting for Dr. Lee?

Mr. Morgan. He was acting as agent of Dr. Lee, as I

understood it.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Duke was not a lawyer or certified public

accountant, was he?

Mr. Morgan. No, he was not.

Mr. Cohn. He was a public relations man?

Mr. Morgan. I understood from Mr. Duke's discussion that he

handled public relations matters for clients, that he conducted

investigations for them and that sort of thing.

It was in that capacity that he was engaged by Dr. Lee.

I might say for your record that he was engaged by Dr. Lee

and not by me, and that I never had any discussions concerning

it with the view to having Dr. Lee engage me, if that is what

you want to know; none whatsoever.

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever had any financial transactions

direct or indirect, with anybody connected with the tax

division of the Department of Justice?

Mr. Morgan. Now, what kind of question is that? What do you

mean; financial transactions direct or indirect with anybody in

the Department of Justice?

Mr. Cohn. Is there something that isn't clear about the

question?

Mr. Morgan. No, I don't understand it. What do you mean

financial transaction? Do you mean did I ever in any way lend

anybody money or anything like that?

Mr. Cohn. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. Or pay them anything?

Mr. Cohn. That is right.

Mr. Morgan. The answer is, no, not of any kind.

Senator Mundt. Did you cash any checks?

Mr. Morgan. No.

For anyone in the Department of Justice?

Senator Mundt. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. Certainly not. On that score I can be almost

positive. I have no recollection of it.

Senator Mundt. What kind of financial transactions are you

trying to rule out?

Mr. Morgan. I was merely saying, for heaven's sake, if

somebody over there along the line wanted to borrow ten bucks

from me or something like that--no one did, Senator, but I lend

people money right and left.

Senator Mundt. You can say categorically you have had no

transactions, of any kind?

Mr. Morgan. I am confident of that.

Mr. Cohn. And would you make the same answer with the

Bureau of Internal Revenue?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. And how about Mr. Russell Duke?

Mr. Morgan. I have had no transactions with Mr. Russell

Duke apart from one matter, which I brought to the attention of

Mr. Flanagan and Mr. Collier when I brought the papers up here.

Mr. Cohn. Will you bring that to the attention of the

committee.

Mr. Morgan. I certainly will.

On June 22, 1949, Mr. Duke came to my office, he appeared

to be as near down and out as I have ever seen him. He also put

out a very bold front.

Mr. Cohn. What was the date again?

Mr. Morgan. July 22, 1949, as I remember it.

He said that his boy was seriously ill, that his wife had

to go to a hospital, that he had a hotel in Washington, that he

was flat broke and that he had no way to get back to Portland,

Oregon.

As a matter of fact, he broke down and cried in the office.

I said, ``Russell, what can I do for you?''

He said, ``I want to borrow some money.''

I said, ``How much do you feel that would be necessary for

you to take care of your problem?''

He said ``I would like to have five hundred dollars.''

Well, I didn't have $500 myself certainly to lend him.

I discussed it with my partners as to whether or not we

felt that we should, in the circumstances, lend the money to

him.

He said he would pay it back when he got back to Portland.

We decided to do it. We wrote a check payable to him, drawn

on our firm account. He said he would like to have the cash. I

had him endorse it, one of the secretaries went over to the

bank and got the cash and gave it to him.

That was entered as a loan to Russell Duke on our original

check stub on July 22, 1949. That is the only financial

relationship of any kind that I have ever had with Russell

Duke.

Mr. Cohn. Did he ever repay that $500?

Mr. Morgan. He did not, and I asked him about it on a

couple of occasions thereafter.

Mr. Cohn. When did you last ask him about it?

Mr. Morgan. I think the last time I asked him about it, if

I can remember--well, I couldn't recall the specific date

because he was flitting in and out of Washington so much I

don't remember exactly.

Mr. Cohn. Can you approximate the date for us?

Mr. Morgan. I couldn't give you any definite date.

It might have been late 1950, something like that. I know

he got a very serious injury in a mine explosion and he called

me from the hospital bed to tell me he was in bad shape and had

to have plastic surgery and that kind of thing.

I didn't have the heart to ask him them, so I remember that

was 1951.

So it must have been sometime in late 1950.

Senator Mundt. When was the last you saw Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. I would say, Senator--and this is hard to

remember--but I would say the last time I probably saw him was

in maybe May of 1951.

Senator Mundt. When did you last talk to him on the

telephone?

Mr. Morgan. I think the last time I talked with him on the

telephone, as I remember, was when he called me from the

hospital after the explosion had wrecked him pretty much.

He indicated he was in rough shape, and wanted me to know

how he was getting along. I was also nice to him, kind to him.

As a matter of fact, let us put it straight on the record.

I was a young lawyer and I was grateful to Mr. Duke. I am still

grateful to him. I have nothing mean to say about that man. He

was kind to me and I appreciated this. And every one of these

cases was handled legitimately on the merits of any cases that

ever were.

Senator Mundt. That last telephone call in 1951 was a

hospital bed call, was it?

Mr. Morgan. Senator, I just can't remember, I am sure if I

checked my record of telephone calls----

Senator Mundt. Was it earlier, or later.

Mr. Morgan. I can't remember. It might have been later.

I just don't remember when the mine explosion was.

Senator Mundt. It was 1952.

Have you any correspondence with him since 1952?

Mr. Morgan. That I can't remember.

Senator Mundt. How carefully did you examine the background

or record of Mr. Duke before you became associated with him in

whatever capacity you were associated with him?

You were an old FBI agent so you did a pretty careful job?

Mr. Morgan. That is right. That is one of the very

embarrassing aspects of the whole thing, there is no question

about that.

I hope none of you gentlemen are ever comparably victims,

but unfortunately, my foresight is not as good as some people's

hindsight.

My law office is open, my door is open, anybody can come in

at any time. Here came a man to my office with one of the most

highly respected men I know even today. I took him for face

value, for what he was. I went out to Portland Oregon, to

handle the hearing in his Lee matter. I met his wife and I met

this man's children, and I was in his home.

He lived in a respectable part of Portland.

I made three speeches in Oregon, two at the Montriomah

Hotel. The best people in the city were there. He seemed to

know them all well by their first names. He belonged to nice

clubs, he took me to the club for dinner.

I had every reason in the world to believe he was a

legitimate individual.

Insofar as inquiring into the man's background, I wish now

I could conduct a complete FBI investigation on everybody that

walks in my office, but I imagine if I had to do that I

wouldn't practice too much law.

Senator Mundt. Why do you wish you had done it now?

What did you discover subsequently?

Mr. Morgan. Senator, I am sure you are not so naive as not

to realize what this sort of thing does to a professional man.

I mean you can appreciate it by realizing, if you have a good

and fine clientele, what this sort of thing does.

Senator Mundt. Have you subsequently discovered things in

Mr. Duke's record that you wish you had known about earlier?

Mr. Morgan. I understand Mr. Duke has a criminal record, I

understand that he sought to take his own life. I understand

that he had a terrific fight in which he threw his wife down

the stairs and she divorced him. I understand he was indicted

for perjury and running up and down the West Coast trying to

sell some fantastic story for $30,000 or $500,000, or what

anybody would give him, drunk as the lord. I know all that, and

that is what I am talking about. Certainly I wished I had known

that.

Senator Mundt. When did you learn about that?

Mr. Morgan. Insofar as the later matters that are

discussed, I didn't learn about that until relatively recently.

I knew that he was indicted by reason of a newspaper account

that appeared in the local paper about a year ago, I guess it

was. And I know that he sought to take his own life because the

same account treated of that.

I think the matter of his domestic difficulties was also

related in a clipping that I have, as I remember.

Senator Mundt. Is it a recent clipping, or how long ago?

Mr. Morgan. It was a year ago, in connection with the time

of his indictment. There was a story in connection with it

then.

Insofar as having the record is concerned, I think that

that goes back to late 1950, as I remember, or late 1949

perhaps. I remember asking him about it. He was in the office

and I said ``Russell, have you ever been arrested?''

He was evasive for a moment and then he said ``Yes, Yes, I

was.'' He said ``I would like to tell you the story.'' And he

related the entire story.

He said that when he was a young man, just out of the navy,

he was hitchhiking across the country. He was picked up, he

said, as he told me, by a driver of a car, and the police

stopped them. He said that he was a confused young man and that

they arrested both of them for some kind of robbery. As I

remember it, and he said he was a young, confused ``punk,'' as

he put it, didn't understand what the situation was, didn't

know how to defend himself, and he went to the penitentiary in

the state of Iowa. He told me of course, all the details about

it, which I don't remember.

He said when Governor Gillette, now Senator Gillette--at

the time he was governor--ultimately obtained the facts,

pardoned him. That was the story.

He presented that phase of it to me.

Senator Mundt. Did you ever ask Mr. Bobbitt, who was an

old-time friend and colleague of yours how come he didn't give

you the background of this man he brought to your office at

that time?

Mr. Morgan. Well, I don't recall instances in which I have

had an opportunity to chat with Mr. Bobbitt about it since the

time that I knew these things, certainly.

I am sure that Mr. Bobbitt didn't know it.

Senator Mundt. I thought you FBI agents have a habit of

looking pretty carefully into records of people.

Mr. Morgan. Perhaps we are given too much credit, Senator.

Mr. Cohn. Tell me about this $500 loan which has never been

repaid. Have you ever treated that in any way on your income

tax return?

Mr. Morgan. No, I haven't. I think he will pay me if he

gets it.

Mr. Cohn. You have not charged him for it?

Mr. Morgan. No. And I wouldn't push anybody. He has had his

troubles. I am not going to condemn him. You people pass

judgment on him, me or anybody else.

Mr. Cohn. My only question was how you treated it on the

income tax return.

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I know.

Mr. Cohn. Now, you mentioned the names of two people in the

Department of Justice, Mr. Lockley, is that correct?

Mr. Morgan. That is correct.

Mr. Cohn. John Lockley? Is he the man with whom you had

conferences with two of these cases?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. Had you known Mr. Lockley before you went to him

in connection with these cases?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Lockley was a classmate of mine at

Georgetown.

Mr. Cohn. Had you known him following your graduation from

Georgetown?

Mr. Morgan. I could almost say this positively, but you can

never be sure, I don't think I saw Mr. Lockley from the day I

graduated from Georgetown in 1949, to the day I held a

conference with him on the Blumenthal case. I have no

recollection of seeing him in the meantime.

Mr. Cohn. There was another name you mentioned; Colonel

Swearingen.

Mr. Morgan. Yes, Colonel Swearingen.

Mr. Cohn. Had you known him prior to this conference on the

tax case?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. You had never met him before?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. Have you seen him since?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I have seen him since.

Mr. Cohn. You have seen him since?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. I spoke at his church.

He invited me to come out and speak to his class. He is a

Sunday school teacher and I went out and talked to his class.

Mr. Cohn. Was that as a result of the meeting?

Mr. Morgan. I got acquainted with the gentleman and over a

period of time I met him from time to time.

Mr. Cohn. How soon after your conference in connection with

this tax case did this acquaintance come forward?

Mr. Morgan. The conference was in April of 1949, I guess,

the first one, and I guess I spoke at his church a year after,

two years later. I don't remember exactly.

Mr. Cohn. Did you see him between the April 1949 conference

and the time you went to his church to talk?

Mr. Morgan. I must have seen him, sure.

Mr. Cohn. On how many occasions?

Mr. Morgan. I don't know. Colonel Swearingen is very much

interested, or was very much interested--he was with the

Nuremberg trial, as I remember, and he was very much interested

in a problem that I still regard as a great problem.

I have a lot to say on that myself--unfortunately usually

on the unpopular side, the subject of communism.

On the basis of that we chatted quite a bit because he was

interested in the subject, and we both knew a little about it,

I think.

Mr. Cohn. What do you mean he was on the unpopular side?

Mr. Morgan. I said I was on the unpopular side.

Mr. Cohn. You were on the unpopular side?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. When after this conference in connection with the

tax case, did you next see Colonel Swearingen?

Mr. Morgan. I couldn't answer your question.

Mr. Cohn. Could you estimate for us, a week, two weeks, two

months?

Mr. Morgan. I would call him on the status of the matter

periodically.

Mr. Cohn. When did you first see him in connection with

things other than this particular tax matter?

Mr. Morgan. I would say that in so for as the personal

contact with him is concerned, I recall none other than the

time I met him at his church out at Connecticut Avenue and

spoke to his Sunday School class.

Mr. Cohn. That covers the time from when you first met him,

up to the present day?

Mr. Morgan. That is right, as far as I can remember.

Counsel, I have had a pretty rough existence. I have been

counsel to a pretty rough session on the Hill. I set up an

organization of three thousand men in OPS. I have spoken all

over the United States, I have met thousands of people. I can't

remember specifically when I saw this individual or some other

individual. To the best of my knowledge, that is the only time

I have seen him.

Mr. Cohn. The only time to, to the best of your knowledge,

the only time you have seen him was at the church you went out

to speak, that covers from the time you first met him?

Mr. Morgan. That is a qualified answer. I might have bumped

into him in the house or in front of the Justice Department.

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been to his home?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. He hasn't been to yours?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever spoken any place else under

arrangements made with him?

Mr. Morgan. No; not to the best of my knowledge. I might

have, though, I just don't remember.

Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. We have talked about this subpoena which as

served upon you calling for the production of all records

relating to any transactions between Mr. Duke and yourself, and

you have told us that you have searched the files of your

office and made compliance with the subpoena.

Let me ask you: what is the usual routine in your law

office when letters come in relating to pending matters?

Mr. Morgan. I know what it is now. What it was in 1949 I

certainly can't be sure of, or 1950, or any other time during

the period we are talking about. I can tell you what our

routine is at the present time.

Mr. Cohn. Let us talk about 1949 and 1950.

Mr. Morgan. I have no recollection.

Mr. Cohn. Would you want to tell us whether or not you

think correspondence and papers in connection with cases were

retained?

Mr. Morgan. I would certainly say that any correspondence

relating to any official matter in the office was retained,

certainly.

Mr. Cohn. Would you customarily retain correspondence that

you received at your office?

Mr. Morgan. Normally, certainly; unless it was strictly a

personal letter that had no business in the files of the

office.

Mr. Cohn. What would you do with those letters?

Mr. Morgan. I might tear them up, take them home with me. I

might do any number of things with them. I got a letter just

this morning from a personal friend that has nothing to do with

the office.

Mr. Cohn. In complying with the subpoena, did you go

through your personal correspondence?

Mr. Morgan. I think I asked them to check my personal file,

yes.

Mr. Cohn. So, in other words, every source----

Mr. Morgan. We did the best we could. One girl worked all

night long on this thing to comply with the ``forthwith''

feature of it.

Mr. Cohn. Are there any letters that you received from Mr.

Duke that you did not produce in response to the subpoena?

Mr. Morgan. None that I know of, certainly.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, may I have shown to the witness a

letter dated September 5, 1949, addressed to Mr. Morgan, signed

by Russell W. Duke.

I will identify it for the record as a letter dated

September 25, 1949, addressed to Welch, Mott and Morgan, 710

Erickson Building, 14th Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C.,

beginning: ``Dear Ed''--and with a typewritten signature

``Russell W. Duke.''

It is a three-page letter.

Mr. Morgan. Do you want me to read this?

Mr. Cohn. I would like you to just glance at it first and

tell us whether or not you recognize that as a letter you

received from Mr. Duke.

Then having told us that, I would like you to read the

letter from beginning to end.

Mr. Morgan. Do you have a question?

Mr. Cohn. Have you read that letter?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. Do you recognize that as a letter you received?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge, I never saw that

before.

Mr. Cohn. Can you tell us whether or not you received the

original of that letter?

Mr. Morgan. I certainly can say that, to the best of my

knowledge and belief, I never saw that before.

Mr. Cohn. You never saw that before?

Mr. Morgan. Correct. To the best of my knowledge and

belief, I never saw that before.

I recall some of matter mentions in there, I mean this

Bremen matter that he mentions, I remember that situation, but

this letter right here and the facts relating in it do not

click with me at all, and it is my considered opinion that I

never saw it before.

Mr. Cohn. It is your considered opinion that you never did

see that letter before, is that right?

Mr. Morgan. That is right.

Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you: if you had received such a

letter, would that have been in the files of your office?

Mr. Morgan. Certainly.

Senator Dirksen. The hearing will recess until two o'clock.

[Whereupon at 11:50 a.m. a recess was taken until 2:00 p.m. the

same day.]

Afternoon Session

[2:00 p.m.] Senator Dirksen. The hearing will resume, Mr.

Cohn, you may proceed.

Mr. Cohn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Morgan, is it still your testimony that you never

received this letter which was shown to you just before the

recess, referring to the one dated September 5, 1949.

TESTIMONY OF EDWARD P. MORGAN (RESUMED)

Mr. Morgan. My testimony is that to the best of my

knowledge and belief I have never seen that letter before you

showed it to me.

Mr. Cohn. You read it.

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. I believe you said that the matters in it are

familiar to you?

Mr. Morgan. One of the matters is, particularly.

Mr. Cohn. Are there any matters mentioned in here with

which you have no familiarity?

Mr. Morgan. May I see the letter again?

Mr. Cohn. Of course.

Mr. Morgan. Now, I certainly am familiar with this matter

that he refers to as the Bremen matter.

Mr. Cohn. What is the next one?

Mr. Morgan. When I say I am familiar with it, I am not

familiar with it in contemplation of what he says.

Mr. Cohn. How about the top of the second page?

Mr. Morgan. That to me is Greek.

Mr. Cohn. Would you read it?

Mr. Morgan [reading]:

I have a lot of cases in California that I have to do a lot

of bird-dogging on, and I hate like sin to go down there and

bird-dog without clicking on a few. I wish that you would be

able to secure some talent, as I could use some hay. I am

letting things quiet down on the coast by lying dormant and

putting more effort in lining up the coming campaign. I assure

you that the request you made of me on the phone that Senator

Morse will go along 100 per cent because the longer you get to

know him, the more you will learn that he is a man of his word;

but he has had so much to do, and, as I understand, he has been

given assurance that you are No. 1 on the list. In all the time

I have known Senator Morse, I have never known him to deviate

or to say something that is not so. He either tells you in the

beginning nothing doing, or he will go along. I am willing to

gamble with you in any shape, form or manner that you will be

in as soon as the other chap resigns. I sincerely hope that the

cases that are back there clear up so that we can start on

something else. Again I repeat, ``I can use the hay.''

Mr. Cohn. Regarding that paragraph, which contains a

reference to a request you made to Mr. Duke over the telephone,

what is that about?

Mr. Morgan. I don't know.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever ask Senator Morse through Mr. Duke

or anyone else to intercede in your behalf?

Mr. Morgan. Through Mr. Duke? I have never asked of Senator

Morse anything. If you want to know through my own personal

acquaintance with Senator Morse, that is another question. If

you would like me to answer that, I would be glad to.

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been together with Mr. Duke and

Senator Morse?

Mr. Morgan. It is possible. I recall no particular

situation, but it is certainly possible, because I was up on

the Hill and it could have happened, certainly. But I don't

recall any specific incident.

Mr. Cohn. Was Senator Morse ever in your office?

Mr. Morgan. If he had been, I think I would remember it. I

just don't remember it.

Mr. Cohn. I assume that in view of this answer, your answer

would be that you don't recall any occasion when you, Senator

Morse and Mr. Duke, the three of you, were together in your

office?

Mr. Morgan. I have no recollection. It could have occurred,

certainly, because I have a great admiration for Senator Morse.

I have visited in his home. He certainly could have been in my

office. I just don't remember the situation to which you refer,

if it occurred.

Mr. Cohn. What do you think this business of ``100 per cent

behind you'' refers to?

Mr. Morgan. As I say, counsel, I have no recollection of

ever having seen this. If I had seen such a letter as this, I

would have come to one of two conclusions. Either the man who

wrote it was drunk and on goofballs, or he was demented. One or

the other. I have no recollection of having seen this. It is

just so much Greek to me.

Mr. Cohn. Did Senator Morse ever attempt to obtain any kind

of a position for you?

Mr. Morgan. Senator Morse has to my deep appreciation

endorsed me for positions, yes.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss his endorsement of you with

any position with Mr. Duke, or did Mr. Duke ever discuss it

with you?

Mr. Morgan. It is conceivable, yes.

Mr. Cohn. Do you have any recollection?

Mr. Morgan. I have no specific recollection.

Mr. Cohn. You can't tell us whether any such discussion

took place or didn't?

Mr. Morgan. No. If you have any specific occasion, maybe it

will refresh my recollection. I recall none. I took this man at

face value. I talked freely with him. I talked with him before

the atmosphere of suspicion of your neighbor occurred. I talked

to him openly. I wrote to him frequently. I looked at the

correspondence that is four or five years old, and I hope

everybody's correspondence of four or five years ago will stand

up as well.

Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not Mr. Duke knew Senator

Morse at that time?

Mr. Morgan. I think perhaps he did.

Mr. Cohn. You say you think perhaps he did. Do you know

whether or not he did? Can't we get a categorical answer?

Mr. Morgan. I am sure he knew Senator Morse.

Mr. Cohn. Then your answer is yes?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. But you ask me to make categorical

assertions about what somebody else knew. I say I take for

granted he knew him. I am sure.

Mr. Cohn. That was my original question.

Mr. Morgan. I don't think there was any question about

that.

Mr. Cohn. That is all we want to know.

Do you recall any occasion when you, Senator Morse and Duke

were together?

Mr. Morgan. I remember no specific occasion, but we might

have been. If you have in mind any situation you may ask me.

Mr. Cohn. I will ask you any questions that occur to me,

thank you. The word ``talent'' is used in this letter. Do you

know what Mr. Duke was referring to by that word?

Mr. Morgan. I certainly don't. I would say it is a

screwball expression. I can say this certainly, that I recall

one type of situation in which Mr. Duke was interested in my

offering him some help and assistance. During this particular

period I was in association with a very, very wealthy Texas oil

man, and we were drilling some wells in north Louisiana, and

Duke was always wanting to have some oil proposition that he

might present to some of his friends out there. Now, if he had

used such an expression to me, which I don't remember, that

would certainly be the only thing to which I might attach such

an expression.

Mr. Cohn. You mean this oil deal?

Mr. Morgan. No, he was wanting some oil situation that he

might present to clients of his, and friends.

Mr. Cohn. How do you tie the word ``talent'' up with an oil

deal?

Mr. Morgan. I say I can't explain it other than if such an

expression ever were used in contemplation of his wanting

something of me, that is the only time I ever remember that he

asked me for anything, that is, in connection with the idea of

some oil deal.

Mr. Cohn. He asked you for your assistance or work as

counsel in connection with various tax cases.

Mr. Morgan. I have explained that completely. I am trying

to talk to you now in terms of this expression here, which is

meaningless to me.

Mr. Cohn. Couldn't that refer to obtaining tax cases?

Mr. Morgan. I suppose it could refer to anything. I never

saw the letter to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Mr. Cohn. What is there that makes you think it might refer

to any oil deal?

Mr. Morgan. Nothing at all.

Mr. Cohn. That is just pure conjecture on your part?

Mr. Morgan. Sure.

Mr. Cohn. You brought up the oil deal. What was your

connection? Do I understand you had an interest in oil wells?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. That was not a lawyer-client matter.

Mr. Morgan. No, this was an investment matter.

Mr. Cohn. Could you tell us who the partners were?

Mr. Morgan. In the drilling venture?

Mr. Cohn. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. I would like to ask the chairman if that has

any pertinence in this proceeding, that is, who my partners

might have been in a business venture in the southwestern part

of the United States in contemplation of this proceeding. The

only reason I am reluctant to do it is that I am disinclined to

throw the name out of somebody who has nothing to do with this.

Senator Dirksen. Unless it were foundation for something

that counsel might want to ask later that is pertinent to the

objectives sought here, I doubt very much----

Mr. Morgan. I would be glad to tell you, if you would like

to know, who it is, and then you can put it on the record if

you wish. I am not trying to withhold anything, certainly.

Senator Dirksen. It may not be relevant to the inquiry at

this point.

Mr. Cohn. May I ask this, Mr. Chairman. Would you tell us

this: When did Mr. Duke first talk to you about participation

in this oil deal or in any oil venture?

Mr. Morgan. Every time he was in the office after I was in

any way engaged in the business, he would bring it up. We have

in our office a picture of a gusher coming in. It is well

known. My friends here in the bureau know about it. Everybody

knows I have been interested in oil. It is no secret.

Mr. Cohn. Did he ever talk with any of your partners in any

of these oil ventures or in this particular oil venture?

Mr. Morgan. I would say no.

Mr. Cohn. You are quite sure of that?

Mr. Morgan. I know of none.

Mr. Cohn. No communication, direct or indirect, with anyone

associated in any of these oil ventures?

Mr. Morgan. That is correct. I remember Mr. Duke had some

information, so he thought, about possible oil production in

the state of Oregon, and he indicated an area out there where

he felt that some kind of work had been done to indicate the

presence of oil. He communicated with me about it, either

personally or by letter, and I wrote him a letter back

concerning it. I think I have supplied you with a copy of the

letter--I don't know--with respect to that matter. But insofar

as communicating with any of my associates, I don't think any

of them know him. I am sure they don't.

Mr. Cohn. Did he know their names?

Mr. Morgan. Possibly, very possibly.

Mr. Cohn. You are familiar with those terms, about the

psychological effect, on the last page of that letter,

referring to the talent situation. Would you re-read that

sentence, please?

Mr. Morgan. On the last page?

Mr. Cohn. The last page, I believe.

Mr. Morgan. ``As you know,''

I am reading from page three of this letter:

the talent is plentiful and it is a psychological effect when

one comes in cold and tells a person what he knows about him.

So I hope sincerely that you will be able to secure some talent

for me.

Mr. Cohn. Does that still sound like reference to

participating in an oil deal?

Mr. Morgan. Now, counsel, let us be fair about this

proceeding. You asked me, as we went down this sentence here,

this paragraph, what this meant. I told you that it was

meaningless to me. In the context of your examination the idea

was indicated as to what Mr. Duke might have at any time

requested of me, and I tried to tell you honestly the only

thing I can ever remember is that he requested an oil deal.

Mr. Cohn. Your testimony was that it was conjecture that

the word ``talent'' might refer to this oil deal. My question

to you now is, having read this last paragraph, do you think

the word ``talent'' had reference to an oil deal?

Mr. Morgan. I don't think it does here. I don't assume it

does back here. It is just meaningless to me.

Mr. Cohn. Your testimony is that the last paragraph is

meaningless to you?

Mr. Morgan. Exactly.

Mr. Cohn. Do you ever recall having used the word

``talent'' in any conversations with Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. It is an expression that I would not use. I

just would have no recollection of it. I might have used the

word ``talent'' certainly in a conversation, but in no

significance as we might think of it here.

Mr. Cohn. It was never given any secondary meaning by you

or by Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. Correct, by me. I don't know what meanings Mr.

Duke might put on anything.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any conversation with Mr. Duke

in the course of which there was any arrangement concerning use

of code words or secondary meanings or phrases to imply certain

things that you did not say directly?

Mr. Morgan. I never had any relationship involving the use

of code words with Mr. Duke.

Mr. Cohn. How about the rest of the question?

Mr. Morgan. Repeat it.

Mr. Cohn. Could we have the last question read, please?

[Question read by the reporter.]

Mr. Morgan. No, I would say there was no such arrangement.

Mr. Cohn. Let me ask you this, Mr. Morgan. Did you ever

have any interest in any way in any horses owned by Senator

Morse?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. You did not?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. Did you know that Senator Morse owned any horses?

Mr. Morgan. I knew that Senator Morse got kicked by a horse

and broke his jaw, and I knew he was in an accident on the West

Coast when he was riding in some rodeo or something. I never

had any interest in any of Senator Morse's horses.

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I display to the witness a

letter which I will identify for the record as a letter dated

September 10, 1949, addressed to Mr. Ed Morgan, Welsh, Mott &

Morgan, beginning, ``Dear Ed,'' a two page letter with the

typed signature, ``R. W. Duke.''

Senator Dirksen. The letter, as identified, which was

submitted for the record as Exhibit No. 1 yesterday, will be

displayed to the witness.

Mr. Cohn. Would you read it and tell us whether or not you

can identify that as a letter you received?

Mr. Morgan. I have no recollection of the letter.

Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection of it?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. You can't tell us whether you received it or not?

Mr. Morgan. No, I cannot tell you whether I did or did not.

Mr. Cohn. If you had received that, would that have been in

your files?

Mr. Morgan. Normally it would appear in the files, yes.

Mr. Cohn. And a search of your file has not disclosed the

letter?

Mr. Morgan. Unless it was among the letters that I

presented to you; unless it is among the letters I presented

pursuant to the subpoena.

Mr. Cohn. It was in neither the prior letters nor these

that you presented?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. You have read that letter and are familiar with

the contents?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I have no recollection of that letter. I

just don't recall it, that is all.

Mr. Cohn. May I read the letter for the record?

Senator Dirksen. The letter may be read.

Mr. Cohn [reading]:

Dear Ed: Since my conversation with you over the phone

regarding what Senator Morse, yourself, and myself discussed in

your office, I can only repeat as I stated in my previous

letter, Senator Morse, his integrity, honesty, and sincerity is

something to be highly admired and respected. At no time have I

ever known him to make an idle promise. I shall see that you

will be given assurance in person immediately after the 12th of

this month complying with the request you made of me.

Talent, Ed, is what I want. I am going to make my tour of

the South (incidentally, Nevada and Idaho are good territory)

and make one complete thrust to bring all the talent I possibly

can to Washington.

I understand there are 23 applications in Oregon for

television. Can you confirm that?

Well, Ed, oil lands in Oregon are going to surprise the

nation. In delving through old records in the capitol recently,

I ran across a survey and drilling tests that were made in a

certain county by the Texas Oil Company, and their findings are

so important that they will elicit from anyone who would go

over them a thrilling surprise. At the time of the Teapot Dome

scandal, Texas Oil Company, in conjunction with Sinclair

Company, was contemplating stealing the leases for this

particular area; sank seven wells, each of which were

producing; wells; and each well was capped off as soon as Fall,

Dohney and Daugherty were indicted, and it has been a dead duck

ever since. People filed homesteads on this particular land and

have since cut out the forests for lumber purposes and have

abandoned these lands. They are available from the county for

the price of delinquent taxes, which amount to about $200 per

160 acre sections. If you can get a company to drill on this

established oil land, would you be interested in my writing you

in as a full partner in owning these various sections. As I

stated above, your cost would be negligible. Let me know at the

earliest possible date, and I will exercise the auctions.

How are the horses running? I refer to Sir Laurel Guy, the

Oakland owned horse, and the Sacramento owned horse.

With best personal regards, I remain, Sincerely yours, R.

W. Duke.

Referring to this paragraph, ``How are the horses running?

I refer to Sir Laurel Guy, the Oakland owned horse, and the

Sacramento owned horse,'' what does that paragraph mean to you?

Mr. Morgan. As you read it to me now, I certainly do know

what that meant. It would mean the Guy Schafer case and the

Wilcoxon case. Wilcoxon was from Sacramento.

Mr. Cohn. Was the Schafer case in Oakland?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, he was from Oakland.

Mr. Cohn. So, in other words, your explanation of this

paragraph is that the reference is to these two cases.

Mr. Morgan. Right. That is certainly what I would interpret

that to mean, yes.

Mr. Cohn. Was it a usual practice not to refer to these

cases by their regular names, but to employ a device such as

this?

Mr. Morgan. Certainly in any correspondence I ever had I

would utilize the name of the individual.

Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection of another name or a

code name or any such?

Mr. Morgan. No. You asked me earlier if there were any code

relationships, and I said no.

Mr. Cohn. You feel if you would have received this letter

you would have known what it would refer to?

Mr. Morgan. I recognize it immediately, sure. Sure.

Mr. Cohn. This would indicate, too, would it not, that you

had received in inquiry, or that you had received this letter

from Mr. Duke concerning the Schaeffer case?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, certainly. I think I stated this morning

that he inquired of me several times about the status of the

matter.

Mr. Cohn. I don't think so. I think your testimony was you

had no recollection as to whether he had or not.

Mr. Morgan. I had no specific recollection. This well might

be one instance where he certainly did.

Mr. Cohn. Do you have any recollection of any inquiry

whatsoever by Mr. Duke to yourself concerning the Schafer case

after the original meeting between Mr. Duke, Mr. Bobbitt and

yourself?

Mr. Morgan. I have no specific recollection concerning the

matter.

Mr. Cohn. I don't mean that you recall a specific date. I

mean, do you recall any communication, oral or written, to you

by Mr. Duke making any inquiry about that case following the

first meeting?

Mr. Morgan. I don't recall it, no, but this letter which

you have in your hand, when you read that paragraph to me, had

I received it, that is the construction that I would have given

it.

Mr. Cohn. Now, going back to the very beginning of the

letter, ``Since my conversation with you over the phone

regarding what Senator Morse, yourself and myself discussed in

your office,'' does that refresh your recollection as to

whether or not there was a meeting between Senator Morse, Mr.

Duke and yourself in your office?

Mr. Morgan. I don't recall it. I don't recall the meeting.

It might well have occurred.

Mr. Cohn. You can't say whether or not a meeting occurred?

Mr. Morgan. I have no specific recollection. That does not

refresh my memory.

Mr. Cohn. I think you told us before if Senator Morse had

been in your office, you would probably remember.

Mr. Morgan. I think so, yes.

Mr. Cohn. And you have no recollection?

Mr. Morgan. No specific recollection. I would be willing to

concede that Senator Morse had been in my office forty times,

and I had talked with him and Mr. Duke in my office forty times

if it were regarded as pertinent to this committee. I just have

no recollection on the matter.

Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know what request that you had made

concerning which Senator Morse was asked to intercede is being

referred to in this letter from Mr. Duke to yourself?

Mr. Morgan. No. It does not strike a chord in my mind. What

is the date of the letter again?

Mr. Cohn. Dated September 10, 1949. Is there any position

you were seeking at that time?

Mr. Morgan. September 10, 1949?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Morgan. I recall none at the moment. I might well have

been. The only thing I am trying to think of in my mind there

was one position in which I was very much interested, and I

can't think of it in terms of that particular date, and that is

the Federal Communications Commission. I was interested in the

commission.

Mr. Cohn. In an appointment to the Federal Communications

Commission?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss your proposed appointment

with Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. I might very well have.

Mr. Cohn. Do you have any recollection of ever having

discussed it with him?

Mr. Morgan. No, I have no specific recollection.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss it with Senator Morse?

Mr. Morgan. I think he wrote a letter of endorsement for

me, as I remember.

Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Duke have anything to do with that?

Mr. Morgan. I would say in all probability I had

communicated directly with Senator Morse on the matter.

Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection of having discussed it

together with Senator Morse and Mr. Duke, is that correct?

Mr. Morgan. It could have happened. I just have no

recollection on the matter.

Mr. Cohn. Now, this morning you were telling us a tax case

involving Dr. Lee, is that correct?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. I believe your testimony was that Mr. Duke was

sort of acting as Dr. Lee's agent, and that he brought Dr. Lee

into your office in Washington, is that right?

Mr. Morgan. That is correct.

Mr. Cohn. Did you know that they were coming down?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. He called and asked me if I would try to

help Dr. Lee in connection with his problem. I wrote back and

suggested that they send me additional information in order

that I might determine what might be done in the situation. I

don't think I was ever supplied that information. He and Dr.

Lee came on to Washington. There is no question that I know of

Dr. Lee's case, yes.

Mr. Cohn. Then your testimony was that you took Mr. Duke

and Dr. Lee over to the Bureau of Internal Revenue and first

went to the technical section.

Mr. Morgan. As I remember, we went to the technical staff.

Mr. Cohn. And then to the comptroller's office?

Mr. Morgan. No, the collector's office.

Mr. Cohn. And your testimony was that was your last

communication with the Washington office of the Bureau of

Internal Revenue?

Mr. Morgan. With the Washington office?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, with reference to Dr. Lee's case.

Mr. Morgan. Certainly not the last communication--official

communication--concerning the case.

Mr. Cohn. With the Washington office?

Mr. Morgan. Oh, no. I would want to check my file to find

out what correspondence I had officially relating to the case.

There well might have been correspondence. I think particularly

one instance in which I think the man I talked to over at the

Bureau of Internal Revenue was Mr. Krag Reddish, in connection

with the matter. As to correspondence with the bureau, no, I

never made any statement that I had not corresponded with them

on the case, certainly not, because I did correspond with the

bureau. I proceeded to file a formal tax court petition in the

case. I tried to get an early conference arrangement. The man

had a jeopardy assessment that he wanted to get lifted if he

possibly could.

Mr. Cohn. That is the case in which you said you had this

original conference in Washington, you were advised to file the

petition, and the petition was filed out west, and the case was

compromised out there is that correct?

Mr. Morgan. No. The case was forwarded here to me for

approval of the compromise.

Mr. Cohn. But it was compromised out west, and the

compromise was then forwarded to you, is that right?

Mr. Morgan. I would want to check my file to be absolutely

correct on it. I assume it would have been as a matter of

procedure. I don't think those compromises have to be passed on

back here in Washington. But I can't be sure of that and my

file would show the facts.

Mr. Cohn. Did you make any visit to the Bureau of Internal

Revenue in connection with the Dr. Lee tax case other than your

original visit with Mr. Duke and Dr. Lee?

Mr. Morgan. I don't recall one, but it would have been

proper to do so.

Mr. Cohn. When did you see Mr. Reddish first?

Mr. Morgan. The first time Dr. Lee was here. We talked to

the bureau.

Mr. Cohn. Didn't you say this morning you couldn't recall

with whom you conferred?

Mr. Morgan. You mean by name?

Mr. Cohn. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. I don't recall I said I could not recall with

whom I conferred. If I did say it, I do recall.

Mr. Cohn. I was quite sure that the record will show that I

asked you specifically with whom you conferred in each

division, first in technical and then the collector's office,

and your answer was you could not recall. As a matter of fact,

I think you were asked by one of the members of the committee

who the collector was then, and you didn't recall.

Mr. Morgan. On the collector, I certainly don't recall.

Mr. Cohn. Let me finish the question, please.

And then you commented in any event, you didn't talk to the

collector, it was probably one of the deputies you talked with,

and you could not recall the name. I am quite sure the record

will indicate that you specifically stated you did not recall

the names of the persons with whom you conferred in the

technical section or the collector's office.

Mr. Morgan. If that is the testimony, it is certainly

subject to correction.

Mr. Cohn. Do you wish to correct that testimony?

Mr. Morgan. I certainly do. In the case of Mr. Reddish, if

that is pertinent or material, as to who it might have been, I

might check my file and recall who the other individual was. As

I indicated to you, as I remember in this situation, we walked

over there cold on the situation to talk to them. There were

two logical places to discuss the case. One was the technical

staff for an early conference, and the other was the

collector's office.

Mr. Cohn. Do you recall with whom you conferred at the

technical staff? Do you recall that this afternoon?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. With whom?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Reddish.

Mr. Cohn. He was in the technical staff?

Mr. Morgan. That is right.

Mr. Cohn. Had you known him before the conference on that

date?

Mr. Morgan. I might have.

Mr. Cohn. You don't recall whether you did or did not?

Mr. Morgan. I might tell you why I might have known him,

because we were both members of the Missouri Society.

Mr. Cohn. You have no specific recollection?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. Have you ever seen him since that date?

Mr. Morgan. Personally I believe not. I don't think I have

ever seen him since that time.

Mr. Cohn. With whom did you confer in the collector's

office?

Mr. Morgan. Now I don't know.

Mr. Cohn. You are quite sure you don't recall?

Mr. Morgan. That is what I think your question related to

this morning. If it related to both of them, then I would have

to certainly amend my testimony to say Krag Reddish, because

that name I do know.

Mr. Cohn. Your testimony now is that except for this one

personal conference to which you were accompanied by Mr. Duke

and the taxpayer, you never again went to the Bureau of

Internal Revenue in Washington in connection with the Dr. Lee

case?

Mr. Morgan. I have no recollection of it, but had I done

so, it would be perfectly normal and natural to do so. But I

have no recollection of ever having done so.

Mr. Cohn. The petition was filed out west. Was any further

action by the Bureau of Internal Revenue in Washington

necessary?

Mr. Morgan. In connection with the case?

Mr. Cohn. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. As I say, I don't know whether a settlement of

that kind would have to be passed on by the bureau back in

Washington.

Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether it was passed on by the

bureau in Washington in that particular case?

Mr. Morgan. Not without referring to my file.

Mr. Cohn. This is the case where the government claimed the

jeopardy assessment was for $100,000, and the settlement was

$6,000?

Mr. Morgan. It was over $100,000.

Mr. Cohn. Can you give us the figure?

Mr. Morgan. I don't remember the exact amount. There were a

lot of penalties, including fraud penalty of 50 percent.

Mr. Cohn. Would you say $140,000 might be accurate?

Mr. Morgan. It could have been.

Mr. Cohn. Now, following your meeting with the Bureau of

Internal Revenue in Washington before the case was finally

compromised, do you know whether or not Senator Morse contacted

the Bureau of Internal Revenue with reference to this case?

Mr. Morgan. He may have. I have no recollection of his

having done so. He may very well have done so.

Mr. Cohn. You have no recollection?

Mr. Morgan. No.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever discuss with Mr. Duke or he with you

the fact that Senator Morse was being asked to communicate with

the Bureau of Internal Revenue?

Mr. Morgan. I have no recollection on the point. Perhaps

so. I do remember in the Lee case that after the case had been

compromised, he was extremely anxious to get the assessment

lifted. As you know, the settlement would be in the technical

staff, and the lifting of the assessment would be, I believe,

with the collector. After it was compromised, there was still

the problem of getting the jeopardy assessment lifted. I think

he was interested in that. I had no part in that, as I

remember.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, may I at this point identify and

place in the record a telegram that has been produced here

pursuant to subpoena. It is a telegram dated September 8, 1950.

It is addressed to Russell Duke, 4523 Northeast Alameda. It is

signed Wayne Morse, USS. If I may, I would read the first

sentence.

Senator Dirksen. Has this been submitted for the record

before?

Mr. Cohn. This has not.

Senator Dirksen. The telegram will be identified for the

record, and in its entirety will be inserted in the record, and

counsel is privileged to read from it.

[The telegram referred to was marked as committee's Exhibit

No. 4, Edward P. Morgan, January 16, 1953, and is as follows:]

PRA232 Govt PD-SN Washington DC 8 425P 1950 September 8

Russell Duke, 4523 Northeast Alameda PTLD

Have been in touch with Internal Revenue with reference to Dr. Lee's

tax case and just today the case was sent in from the local office. I

hope to have a definite report for you on Monday concerning it. S 3357

passed the House August 28 and is now on the Senate table awaiting

action on House amendments. S 3358 is on the Senate calendar.

Regards, Wayne Morse, USS

Senator Dirksen. Has the witness seen this telegram?

Mr. Cohn. No, I don't think so.

Senator Dirksen. I think he should, first of all, for

refreshment.

Mr. Morgan. I have seen it.

Mr. Cohn. I might ask you first of all, does that telegram

refresh your recollection as to whether or not Senator Morse

did communicate with the Bureau of Internal Revenue in

connection with the Lee tax case?

Mr. Morgan. That telegram would not refresh my

recollection, certainly. Senator Morse may well have

communicated with the Bureau of Internal Revenue concerning the

lifting of the jeopardy assessment. If he did so, I certainly

did not ask him to do so.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, the sentence I wish to read into

the record----

Senator Dirksen. I think it is well to read the entire

exhibit, including all the code items.

Mr. Cohn [reading]:

PRA232 Govt Pd--SN Washington, D.C. 8 425P Russell Duke, 4523

Northeast Alameda PTLD. Have been in touch with Internal

Revenue with reference to Dr. Lee's tax case and just today the

case was sent in from the local office. I hope to have a

definite report for you on Monday concerning it. S 3357 passed

the House August 28 and is now on the Senate table awaiting

action on House amendments. S 3358 is on the Senate Calendar.

Regards. Wayne Morse USS.

And your testimony is, Mr. Morgan, that on hearing that, it

does not in any way refresh your recollection as to whether or

not Senator Morse was in touch with the BIR?

Mr. Morgan. That telegram does not refresh my memory, no.

He may well have been. I just have no recollection on it. I do

recall the general situation, that Dr. Lee was anxious to have

the assessment lifted after this compromise.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, may I identify for the record a

document produced here pursuant to subpoena, dated August 29,

1950, on the stationery of R. W. Duke, Portland 13, Oregon,

addressed to ``Dear Ed,'' and may I display it to the witness?

Senator Dirksen. It will be identified for the record at

this point.

[The letter referred to was marked as committee's Exhibit

No. 5, Edward P. Morgan, January 16, 1953, and is as follows]:

August 29, 1950.

Dear Ed: As per our telephone conversation I am sending you this

letter explaining the entire arrangement made between Dr. Lee, and

myself.

I did give Dr. Lee, a letter agreeing that he was to pay you a

certain sum and that I would then pay you the difference out of my own

pocket, however after writing the agreement I pointed out to Dr. Lee,

that it was unfair as I did not profit from the deal under the

arrangements because my cost on his case amounted to better than the

amount he was paying me. The final agreement was that Dr. Lee, would

pay you the full four thousand dollars. I feel confident that Dr. Lee,

does and will keep his word. The only reason that you are not paid is

one, he has desperately tried to raise the money from various sources,

and due to the jeopardy assessment against him it is difficult for

people to conceive that he could pay them back. As you know Senator

Morse's office has taken the matter up and I in turn called Mr. Earle,

collector of Portland, and told him exactly what has taken place up

until now and he in turn promised that he would see about the release

and let me know Monday. I do know that Dr. Lee, will upon being

released will immediately send you the money. Ed, I do have faith in

the Dr. for various reasons which I will explain to you via phone. I

still have a report that the doctor wants me to furnish him and until I

render the report the case is not completed. So please bear with him

and I will try to force the release thru the local collector.

As soon as the boy is better I will be in Washington, D.C. as there

is a lot of which I have to do as soon as I get there. I am getting

inquiries regarding representation for various type of representation

for firms here in the Northwest.

With best personal regards, I remain,

Sincerely.

Mr. Morgan. Yes, I recognize this letter.

Mr. Cohn. You do recognize it?

Mr. Morgan. This is one of the letters, I believe, that I

produced pursuant to your subpoena. Is that correct?

Mr. Cohn. We will check that.

Mr. Morgan. I would like the record to indicate that

certainly.

Mr. Cohn. I said we will check that.

Mr. Morgan. Fine.

Mr. Cohn. You recognize that letter as a letter you

received from Mr. Duke, is that right?

Mr. Morgan. I remember the letter, yes.

Mr. Cohn. May I read the letter into the record?

Senator Dirksen. Yes, in its entirety.

Mr. Cohn. May the record indicate that this letter was

produced by Mr. Morgan?

Mr. Morgan. I don't wish to be over-technical, but I wish

you would indicate it is a carbon copy of the letter.

Senator Dirksen. To make sure that the record is correct,

this letter was procured under subpoena, and is identified as

carbon copy, unsigned, but on stationery allegedly of R. W.

Duke, Portland 13, Oregon, and the letterhead, instead of

appearing at the top of the letter, appears on the left-hand

side.

Mr. Cohn. May I read the letter?

Senator Dirksen. The letter may be read.

Mr. Cohn [reading]:

August 29th, 1950. Dear Ed: As per our telephone

conversation I am sending you this letter explaining the entire

arrangement made between Dr. Lee, and myself:

I did give Dr. Lee a letter agreeing that he was to pay you

a certain sum and that I would then pay you the difference out

of my own pocket, however after writing the agreement I pointed

out to Dr. Lee that it was unfair as I did not profit from the

deal under the arrangements because my cost on his case

amounted to better than the amount he was paying me. The final

agreement was that Dr. Lee would pay you the full four thousand

dollars. I feel confident that Dr. Lee does and will keep his

word. The only reason that you are not paid is one, he has

desperately tried to raise the money from various sources, and

due to the jeopardy assessment against him it is difficult for

people to conceive that he could pay them back. As you know

Senator Morse's office has taken the matter up and I in turn

called Mr. Earle, collector of Portland, and told him exactly

what has taken place up until now and he in turn promised that

he would see about the release and let me know Monday. I do

know that Dr. Lee will upon being released will immediately

send you the money. Ed, I do have faith in the doctor for

various reasons which I will explain to you via phone. I still

have a report that the doctor wants me to furnish him and until

I render the report the case is not completed. So please bear

with him and I will try to force the release through the local

collector.

As soon as the boy is better I will be in Washington, D.C.,

as there is a lot of work which I have to do as soon as I get

there. I am getting inquiries regarding representation for

various types of representation for firms here in the

Northwest.

With best personal regards, I remain, Sincerely.

This copy is unsigned.

Now, does this letter refresh your recollection as to

whether or not Senator Morse was in touch with the BIR?

Mr. Morgan. It does not refresh my recollection. I had no

knowledge--personal knowledge--that Senator Morse had been in

touch with the BIR. The letter here that Duke has, a copy of

which I produced for this committee, indicates that that is the

case.

Mr. Cohn. And that you were so advised?

Mr. Morgan. Beg pardon?

Mr. Cohn. And that you were so advised.

Mr. Morgan. It says, ``As you know,'' meaning as I would

know.

Mr. Cohn. Meaning as you, Mr. Morgan, would know, that

Senator Morse has been in touch, and so on.

Mr. Morgan. I have no recollection of Senator Morse having

done so. He may have done so. I assume it would be perfectly

proper for him to do so, but I have no independent recollection

on the matter.

Mr. Cohn. Did you know that Mr. Duke was to be compensated

in connection with the Lee tax case?

Mr. Morgan. The sequence of events on that, if I may be

permitted to explain it, were these. Dr. Lee and Mr. Duke came

to my office. I had no real thought, necessarily, at that

juncture of formally representing Mr. Lee. I was merely trying

to help in connection with these two little visits over at the

BIR and no suggestion was made of a possible fee at that point.

When we got back to my office, and Dr. Lee realized that there

was no possibility of getting a jeopardy assessment lifted, and

it was explained to him what was involved insofar as legal

steps were concerned, he asked me if I would undertake to

represent him in connection with the case, and I told him that

I would. The fee decided upon was $4,000 in a contingent fee

arrangement. The contingency, as earlier indicated, was lifting

the assessment so he could pay the fee. After the case was

finally disposed of, I communicated with Dr. Lee, as I

remember, for my fee, and at that particular point to the

matter Dr. Lee pointed out that I would have to look to Mr.

Duke for my money. At that point I think I probably called Duke

and I think I was probably incensed at the time. I think this

letter that you have read is his reply to that.

Now, Dr. Lee wrote me a letter, which I have, after he

appeared before the King committee in San Francisco. I

appreciated it. The letter said, ``Since you were my attorney

in this case, I felt I should tell you my testimony before the

King committee.'' In his letter he indicates his recollection

that I knew at the time of the original visit about his

arrangement with Russell Duke. The doctor is honestly mistaken

concerning the matter. But, gentlemen, for your purposes, if a

man came to my office, being legitimate, as I thought he was,

and being the agent of Dr. Lee, as I thought he was, I would be

willing to concede the point. But I think the correspondence

will indicate my knowledge on the matter was after the original

meeting. I just feel that it would be ridiculous for me to

undertake to go to the West Coast and handle a case for $4,000

on a contingent basis had I known that this fellow had received

eight or nine thousand dollars in the matter. It just does not

make any sense to me. I think that the whole sequence of events

bear that out. But I would concede the point. So what? I

thought he was a bona fide agent of the doctor. It was one of

the first matters he ever came to the office with.

Mr. Cohn. Now, I think you told us you had no financial

transactions with Mr. Duke, except for the $500 loan you made

to him, is that right?

Mr. Morgan. The $500 loan was made out of our firm account,

yes, with the approval of my partners.

Mr. Cohn. That appears on the books of your firm?

Mr. Morgan. I think I gave you the original entry at the

time I produced the papers pursuant to your subpoena.

Mr. Cohn. And with that exception you have had no financial

transactions with Mr. Duke, is that right?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge and belief, I have

not.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever split any fee with Mr. Duke?

Mr. Morgan. That I can state categorically no.

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any discussion with Mr. Duke

concerning the possibility of splitting a fee with him?

Mr. Morgan. No. On that score I desire to be very positive

because I naturally assumed that you are building up to

something of this kind in your interrogation. In the entire

relationship that I might have had with Russell Duke certain

things were definitely and clearly understood. Number one, that

my relationship was always directly with the client or with the

client's lawyer. Additionally, that as a lawyer the ethics of

my profession precluded the splitting of fees, and I am now

stating to you categorically that I never split any fee at any

time with Russell W. Duke.

Mr. Cohn. And that you never had any discussion about the

possibility of splitting one?

Mr. Morgan. Russell Duke at one time may or may not have

indicated an interest in having something from some of these

cases, but I am telling you that in any relationship that point

was, certainly made very clear. I have never--I don't need to

make a self-serving statement like that--in my profession split

a fee. Certainly not.

Mr. Cohn. You say he might have suggested it one time. Do

you specifically recall it?

Mr. Morgan. No, I don't. I do recall having made certain

things clear to him, and I assume that the only reason I would

have done that is by reason of his inferring or implying that,

I don't know.

Mr. Cohn. Did you have any connection with Mr. Duke

concerning any claims case?

Mr. Morgan. It is possible. There are in my mind one, two

or three situations. This fellow was calling me all the time.

Check your telephone logs, gentlemen. He would call me morning,

noon and night. I was not so sophisticated in the practice or

so busy that I did not listen to him. I did. He was one of

those individuals who had a thousand things on the fire. If

there are any particular ones you want to ask me about, I will

try to remember.

Mr. Cohn. You are saying you don't offhand recall any?

Mr. Morgan. Offhand, I don't.

Mr. Cohn. How about the claims cases involving Herman

Lawson and Company and James A. Nelson?

Mr. Morgan. The Herman Lawson situation, if I remember it

correctly, that is something that Duke discussed with me about

a bill, I think. This is subject to correction. I think the

relief bill in the case had been introduced in the House and

Senate before I met the fellow. That is subject to correction.

I just don't remember. I do know that he had said that he

represented these people. I think they were California people,

as I remember, who built a post office or something down there,

and by reason of some difficulties in connection with the

contract, they were entitled to some type of relief in the

opinion of those that were making the claim. They apparently

had engaged Mr. Duke to prosecute their claim on their behalf

and to represent them in that connection, and I think a bill

had been introduced for such relief. I recall his discussing

that with me, yes.

Mr. Cohn. By whom had it been introduced?

Mr. Morgan. As I remember, I think Senator Morse introduced

the bill. I think that antedated or predated my acquaintance

with Duke. I can't be sure. I know I had nothing to do with any

conversations prior to the introduction of the bill.

Mr. Cohn. Now, how about the James A. Nelson claim case?

Mr. Morgan. That does not strike a bell in my mind. It may

be a part and parcel of the Lawson case, I don't know. It just

doesn't strike any bell at all.

Mr. Morgan. With reference to the Lawson case, was there

ever any discussion between Mr. Duke and yourself concerning a

fee to compensate for both of them?

Mr. Morgan. No, I know exactly the story on that particular

case, because I had really little or nothing to do with it

until late in September of 1950, as I remember, and that is

subject to correction. Duke called one time from the West Coast

and said he was flat broke and could not come back here to

confer on it. He said he had been talking, I think, to Senator

Morse's administrative assistant about the matter, and he was

hoping at that time to get the matter revived, because he felt

that there was merit in the case. I think he wrote a letter,

possibly in connection with it. I can't be specific about that.

He asked me to run a check on it. I made one check in

connection with the case, and I think I wrote him a letter, and

that is as far as I remember any specifics on the matter.

Mr. Cohn. Did you produce that letter here for us that you

wrote?

Mr. Morgan. I don't know. I don't have the copies of the

correspondence that I made available to you.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, may I identify for the record a

letter dated September 8, 1950, on the same stationery of R. W.

Duke, Portland 13, Oregon, with the name and address printed in

the margin, addressed to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, Welch, Mott &

Morgan, Erickson Building, Washington, D.C., and signed with

the signature that purports to be Russell W. Duke.

Having identified that, may I display it to the witness?

Senator Dirksen. It may be so done. May I say that this

letter at this point will appear in its entirety in the record.

[The letter referred to was marked as committee's Exhibit

No. 6, Edward P. Morgan, January 16, 1953, and is as follows:]

September 8, 1950.

Mr. Edward P. Morgan,

Welch, Mott & Morgan, Erickson Building,

710 Fourteenth Northwest, Washington, DC.

Dear Ed: Attached is a letter which I received from Herman Lawson

and Company. It is self-explanatory. Unquestionably, other claimants

have sent me letters addressed to the Continental hotel giving me like

authorization.

As you know I have worked on this case for over 3 years and up to

date I have received approximately $4,000 from Herman Lawson & Company

and $500 or $1000 from James A. Nelson. The total of the claim due me

would be $18,000. The majority of moneys which I have received, in fact

all the moneys which I have received, has been used in travel and

expense pushing this bill through.

If you care to file this case under the Tucker Act, attached you

will find that portion of the Tucker Act under which this case can be

won.

I am due to arrive in Washington some time next week at which time

I sincerely hope you will be in Washington so that we can get together

on this and other matters. Regarding the balance of the fee due on this

particular claims case, I am sure that whatever you decide on the fee

will be satisfactory to me. I have been given assurance that under this

Tucker Act we can definitely win the case.

Did Doctor Lee send you the total of $4,000? If not, please let me

know immediately as I will see that you get every dime of it. As I had

stated in my previous letter to you this case is not finished until Dr.

Lee gets a report.

With best respects, I remain,

Sincerely,

R.W. Duke.

P.S., Have you heard from the Johnson Committee? If you haven't, I

am sure you will.

Mr. Morgan. May I make an inquiry as to whether this is one

of the letters I produced pursuant to your subpoena?

Mr. Cohn. Yes.

Senator Dirksen. Let the record show that this letter was

produced under subpoena.

Mr. Cohn. I might state for the record, Mr. Chairman, if I

may, that this is a photostat of the original.

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir, I have read it.

Mr. Cohn. Would you read that letter for the record?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. It is dated September 8, 1950, addressed

to Mr. Edward P. Morgan, Welch, Mott & Morgan, Erickson

Building, 710 Fourteenth N.W., Washington, D.C. [reading]:

Dear Ed: Attached is a letter which I received from Herman

Lawson and Company. It is self-explanatory.

Unquestionably other claimants have sent me letters

addressed to the Continental hotel giving me like

authorization.

As you know I have worked on this case for over 3 years and

up to date I have received approximately $4,000 from Herman

Lawson & Company and $500 or $1000 from James A. Nelson. The

total of the claim due me would be $18,000. The majority of

moneys which I have received, in fact all the moneys which I

have received, has been used in travel and expense pushing this

bill through.

If you care to file this case under the Tucker Act,

attached you will find that portion of the Tucker Act under

which this case can be won.

I am due to arrive in Washington some time next week at

which time I sincerely hope you will be in Washington so that

we can get together on this and other matters. Regarding the

balance of the fee due on this particular claims case, I am

sure that whatever you decide on the fee will be satisfactory

to me. I have been given assurance that under this Tucker Act

we can definitely win the case.

Did Doctor Lee send you the total of $4,000? If not, please

let me know immediately as I will see that you get every dime

of it. As I had stated in my previous letter to you this case

is not finished until Dr. Lee gets a report.

With best respects, I remain, Sincerely, R.W. Duke.

It has a P.S., ``Have you heard from the Johnson Committee?

If you haven't, I am sure you will.''

Mr. Cohn. With reference to the sentence, ``Regarding the

balance of the fee due on this particular claims case, I am

sure that whatever you decide on the fee will be satisfactory

to me,'' what was Mr. Duke's interest in the fee?

Mr. Morgan. In this particular case?

Mr. Cohn. Yes.

Mr. Morgan. This is just about the substance of the case

insofar as I know, and the correspondence which was attached to

it, which I would assume was returned to him.

Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?

Mr. Morgan. I would assume any correspondence attached here

was returned to him.

Mr. Cohn. What interest did Mr. Duke have in a possible fee

in this case? It says, ``I am sure whatever you decide on the

fee will be satisfactory to me.''

Mr. Morgan. He is presenting a situation here in which he

had an arrangement with the Herman Lawson Company going back

three years, and he is presenting it to me at this late date

for consideration. In other words, he is saying to me at that

point whatever fee you care to set for your services would be

satisfactory.

Mr. Cohn. To Duke?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. What concern was it of Duke's?

Mr. Morgan. Insofar as his representation of these people

might be concerned, if he was formally the agent of these

people, and formally represented them and there were a fee

forthcoming--the point is I never claimed any fee in this

latter.

Mr. Cohn. Doesn't this envision the possibility that there

will be a fee which must be satisfactory to both you and Mr.

Duke, and I would assume from that a fee in which both you and

Mr. Duke would participate?

Mr. Morgan. I am sure if I undertook to represent the

Herman Lawson Company in any extended matter apart from a

simple inquiry which I make every day for friends all over the

country, with no thought of remuneration, if I do so, I would

want a fee arrangement. I am in the law practice and I am not

in it for my health. This is Duke's letter. This is not my

letter concerning the matter. You are asking me what I might

construe from what Mr. Duke might say. I am telling you that

upon the formal undertaking of representation of Herman Lawson

Company in a matter of this kind, I would want a fee

arrangement with the Herman Lawson Company certainly.

Mr. Cohn. Doesn't this one sentence, ``I am sure whatever

you decide on the fee will be satisfactory to me'' refresh your

recollection to the point that there was at least one instance

in which Mr. Duke was interested in splitting a fee?

Mr. Morgan. Mr. Duke may have been interested, counsel, in

splitting the fee.

Mr. Cohn. That is my question.

Mr. Morgan. It doesn't mean that to me necessarily.

Mr. Cohn. It does not mean that?

Mr. Morgan. That is right. If I were to take some of the

things that Mr. Duke might have in his letters and presume to

have to pass judgment on everything he might say about what he

intended in contemplation of what I might consider in the

matter, that would be rather ridiculous and I couldn't do it.

What this letter means to me is simply this, that he has a case

that he got back in 1948 before I ever knew the gentleman, and

he is at this late date trying to see if something can be done

about it, and he is asking my opinion about it, and he is

saying in effect whatever fee in the situation would appeal to

you would be satisfactory to me. But that has nothing to do

with me, gentlemen.

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, may I ask one question

that I am not quite clear about? Is that the case in which he

had received approximately $4,000 up to date, which he claimed

had been consumed in expenditures?

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Senator McClellan. And that he had anticipated an

arrangement for a fee of about $18,000?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, that is right.

Senator McClellan. Hearing it read, it carries with it the

implication possibly that you were to charge him a fee out of

his $18,000. Was there any consideration in that regard, that

you were to get your fee from him, since he was their agent,

and already had a contract with them?

Mr. Morgan. I would certainly agree with you.

Senator McClellan. I am just asking. I do not know.

Mr. Morgan. On that point. I mean from his letter you might

make such a connotation and such a construction. The

significant point is this, that I never represented the Herman

Lawson Company in contemplation of formal legal representation.

He had called me, as I remember, prior to this letter and said

that he was broke, couldn't get back here, and that he had

phoned, I think, Senator Morse's administrative assistant, as I

remember, because my memory was refreshed in connection with

that. I looked it over, I decided in my own mind it was a dead

duck and to make a long story short, I never represented the

Herman Lawson Company. So insofar as any fee arrangement might

be concerned insofar as I might be concerned, there was no fee

arrangement.

Senator McClellan. It seems here he had a contract with

them as their representative.

Mr. Morgan. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. Whereby he expected to earn a total of

$18,000.

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Senator McClellan. If the agreement was carried out between

him and those clients that he was representing. Now, there

might be some other explanation of this, but on the face of it,

it indicates to me if you had had no contact with the clients

direct prior to that time, that he may have been paying to you

out of this $18,000, whatever fee you fix would be agreeable to

him. I do not know that that is true. I am asking you, since

you were one of the parties to it.

Mr. Morgan. I wish I could shed more light on it. But let

us put it this way. Duke had a contract with the Herman Lawson

Company before I ever knew him. In other words, I had not

participated in the negotiation of any such contract. Let us

assume that he is a legitimate agent of the Lawson Company, and

I suppose we must certainly concede that. If as an agent of the

Lawson Company he should pay me a fee in connection with legal

work that I might do, I would say that was certainly ethically

proper.

Senator McClellan. I would, too. The further point is he is

saying here, I have a contingent fee of $18,000. I assume that

is what he means, if the claim is prosecuted successfully.

Mr. Morgan. That is what he is saying.

Senator McClellan. And anything you want to charge me out

of that for your services would be agreeable to me. I do not

know that those are the facts, but it appears that way on the

surface to me.

Mr. Morgan. I would say that is a fair construction from

Mr. Duke's letter.

Senator McClellan. Let me ask one further thing there in

that connection to clarify it further. Did you ever represent

this client-what is his name--Herman Lawson? After receipt of

this letter, or had you prior to that been in direct touch with

the Lawson Company?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge and belief I have

not.

Senator McClellan. Did you ever afterwards contact them or

did they contact you with reference to this matter directly?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge and belief I did

not.

Senator McClellan. Then you never accepted employment

either from Duke or from Lawson?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge and belief I did

not.

Senator McClellan. You did not accept employment?

Mr. Morgan. Correct. I did not accept employment certainly

to the best of my knowledge and belief. I made an inquiry

concerning the case as a favor to Duke, that was all.

Senator McClellan. Then you rejected the employment in the

case after that inquiry?

Mr. Morgan. I think I advised them that the case had no

merit as I remember. At any rate, I did not pursue it.

Senator McClellan. You did not pursue it.

Mr. Morgan. That is right.

Senator McClellan. You never earned anything out of it?

Mr. Morgan. Not a penny.

Senator McClellan. You never had any direct contact with

the client?

Mr. Morgan. That is correct.

Senator McClellan. In any way whatsoever?

Mr. Morgan. To the best of my knowledge and belief I am

quite sure I did not earn anything in connection with it.

Senator McClellan. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Cohn. Now, I would like to direct your attention to the

case involving Jack Glass.

Mr. Morgan. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. I believe you told us about that this morning.

Exactly how did that case come to your attention?

Mr. Morgan. That case to the best of my knowledge and

belief was referred to me directly by Maurice Hendon.

Mr. Cohn. He is the Los Angeles lawyer?

Mr. Morgan. That was my impression. It has been my

impression all along, and within the past two months, I was in

Los Angeles, California, talking to Mr. Hendon, and this

question came up and he said, ``By the way, did you have any

connection with this fellow Duke'' or did I, in connection with

this Glass case. ``Just how did you happen to get in touch with

me in connection with the case?'' He related the circumstances

and he told me about the King committee having been in touch

with him concerning the matter, and that he had referred the

case to me on the basis of some friend of mine who had

suggested that he get in touch with me. My memory is as vague

on it as can be, just as vague as can be. If Russell Duke

himself directly referred the case to me, I would admit it. I

have no reluctance about doing that. As I say, I thought this

man was legitimate. I was grateful to him. I handled everything

that he referred to me strictly on the merits. I think if you

will look at the files you will find that I worked my cases,

every one of them. So in answering your question here, as I

have, saying it is vague, I don't do so to circumvent any

admissions with respect to that. If Russell Duke had put Mr.

Glass in touch with me, I would have represented him if I

thought it was a legitimate situation.

Mr. Cohn. What happened in the Glass case? Did you actually

come into it?

Mr. Morgan. Yes. Mr. Hendon came back and he and I

conferred at the Department of Justice. I submitted a rather

extensive brief, which the file will reflect, as far as the

facts would permit in connection with the case.

Mr. Cohn. With whom did you confer at the Department of

Justice?

Mr. Morgan. I think it was Col. Swearingen, as I stated

this morning.

Mr. Cohn. Then Mr. Glass is the gentleman who later passed

on, due to a heart condition, is that correct?

Mr. Morgan. Yes, he died not long after the case was

finally disposed of. I might say that in this case the

Department of Justice did not decline prosecution. The

Department of Justice referred the case to the United States

attorney and asked on the basis of the man's physical and

mental condition whether the United States attorney wanted to

prosecute. Mr.


Pornopolis   |   Rotten   |   Faces of Death   |   Famous Nudes