|
[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. |
Your feedbacks and suggestions to improve this site are highly appreciated!