Report of the President's Commission on the Assassination of President John F. Kennedy

by United States. Warren Commission

THE LOAN FROM THE STATE DEPARTMENT

In a letter dated January 5, 1962, Oswald said that he would like to make arrangements for a loan from the Embassy or some private organization for part of the airplane fares.[A15-226] The Embassy on February 6, 1962, replied that he would have to supply certain personal and financial data.[A15-227] The letter also said that after repatriation he would not be furnished a passport for travel abroad until he had repaid the money.

Between February 6, 1962, and May 1, 1962, Oswald attempted to secure a loan from the Red Cross[A15-228] and the International Rescue Committee[A15-229] in the United States. The State Department on February 1 wrote Oswald’s mother a letter asking whether she could advance the money.[A15-230] Oswald later wrote both his mother and the Department advising each that his mother should not be bothered in reference to the loan.[A15-231] Ultimately, after an exchange of communications between the Embassy and Washington,[A15-232] the Department approved a loan to Oswald for passage to New York only, directing the Embassy to “Keep cost minimum.”[A15-233] On June 1 Oswald signed a promissory note for $435.71.[A15-234]

Statutory authority for making such a loan was conferred by title 5, section 170(a), of the U.S. Code, which authorizes the Secretary of State to “make expenditures, from such amounts as may be specifically appropriated therefor, for unforeseen emergencies arising in the diplomatic and consular service.” Since 1947, the Department of State’s annual appropriation act has included a sum for expenses necessary “to enable the Secretary of State to meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and Consular Service. * * *”[A15-235] In recent years, the accompanying reports submitted by the Appropriations Committee of the House of Representatives have stated, “These funds are used for relief and repatriation loans to the U.S. citizens abroad and for other emergencies of the Department.”[A15-236] Out of the amount appropriated to meet unforeseen emergencies arising in the Diplomatic and Consular Service, the Secretary of State has annually allotted approximately $100,000 to meet the expenses of indigent U.S. nationals, including those in the Soviet Union, who request repatriation loans. From 1959 to 1963, 2,343 such loans were granted.[A15-237]

Section 423.2-1 of the Department’s regulations provides that repatriation loans may be granted only to destitute U.S. nationals:

a. Who are in complete and unquestioned possession of their citizenship rights;

b. Who are entitled to receive United States passports;

c. Whose loyalty to the United States Government is beyond question, or to whom the provisions of Section 423.1-2(b) apply.[A15-238]

Oswald undoubtedly satisfied the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b), since he was determined to have been a U.S. citizen at the time the loan was granted and he had been issued a passport to return to the United States. There is a serious question whether he could have qualified under the first clause of paragraph (c). The Commission is of the opinion that in its application of this clause the Department should exercise great care in determining whether an applicant’s loyalty to the U.S. Government is beyond question, particularly in the case of a defector like Oswald who has expressed hostility and disloyalty to our government and manifested a desire to renounce his citizenship. The Department chose instead to exercise its judgment under the second clause of paragraph (c), which refers to section 423.1-2(b). This section provides that loans to destitute nationals are authorized when:

b. The United States national is in or the cause of a situation which is damaging to the prestige of the United States Government or which constitutes a compelling reason for extending assistance to effect his return.[A15-239]

The Department decided that the provisions of section (b) were applicable to Oswald because his “unstable character and prior criticism of the United States” would make his continued presence in the Soviet Union damaging to the prestige of the United States.[A15-240] In acting under this section, the Department was acting within its competence and the law. As required by another section of the regulations, the Department sought to obtain funds for the Oswalds’ repatriation from private sources—his mother and the International Rescue Committee—before using Government funds.[A15-241]

Regulations further provide that repatriation loans are authorized for the alien, wife, and children of the U.S. national receiving a repatriation loan in order to avoid the division of families.[A15-242] However, loans are limited

To the minimum amount required to cover transportation and subsistence while enroute to the nearest continental United States port. * * * When necessary, loans may include: expenses incident to embarkation, such as fees for documentation and minimum subsistence from the date of application for a loan to the date of departure by the first available ship. * * * The cost of transportation shall be limited to third-class passage by ship.[A15-243]

Oswald’s loan was sufficient to cover no more than the least expensive transportation from Moscow to New York. His passport was stamped as valid only for return to the United States.[A15-244] Oswald completed all necessary forms and affidavits to obtain the loan.[A15-245]

According to its own procedures the Department of State should have prepared a lookout card for Oswald in June 1962 when he received the proceeds of the loan.[A15-246] The promissory note which he signed contained a provision stating,

I further understand and agree that after my repatriation I will not be furnished a passport for travel abroad until my obligation to reimburse the Treasurer of the United States is liquidated.[A15-247]

However, a lookout card was never in fact prepared. With respect to this failure the State Department has informed the Commission as follows:

On receipt of notice of the loan from the Embassy in Moscow, the Department’s procedures provided that Miss Leola B. Burkhead of the Revenues and Receipts Branch of the Office of Finance should have notified the Clearance Section in the Passport Office of Oswald’s name, date, and place of birth. If the Passport Office received only the name and not the date and place of birth of a borrower, it would not have prepared a lookout card under its established procedures because of lack of positive identification. (Among the Passport Office’s file of millions of passport applicants, there are, of course, many thousands of identical names.) Mr. Richmond C. Reeley was the Chief of the Revenues and Receipts Branch of the Office of Finance and Mr. Alexander W. Maxwell was Chief of the Clearance Section. If the notice was received in the Clearance Section it would have been delivered to the Carding Desk for preparation of a lookout card on Oswald. It appears, however, that such a lookout card was not prepared. It may have been that the Finance Office did not notify the Clearance Section of Oswald’s loan. One reason for this might have been the Finance Office’s lack of information concerning Oswald’s date and place of birth. On the other hand, the Finance Office may have notified the Clearance Section of Oswald’s name only, in which case this Section would not have prepared a lookout card under its procedures. Since Oswald began repaying the loan in installments immediately after his return to the United States, it is also possible that the Office of Finance decided that it was unnecessary to pursue the matter further. In any event, Oswald’s loan was repaid in full on January 29, 1963, five months prior to his application for a new passport.[A15-248]