TESTIMONY OF BERNICE WATERMAN
Mr. Dulles. Would you kindly rise and raise your right hand.
Do you swear the testimony you will give before this Commission is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you God?
Miss Waterman. I do.
Mr. Dulles. Would you please advise Miss Waterman of the general purpose of the testimony we will ask of her.
Mr. Coleman. Miss Waterman was with the Department of State until 1962, at which time she retired. Miss Waterman was the adjudicator in the Oswald case, and she is being called to testify with respect to certain memorandums and actions she took in connection with Lee Harvey Oswald. These actions dealt with the question whether he had expatriated himself, and whether a passport should be reissued to him in 1961. And also she has some information concerning the waiver for Marina under 243(g).
Mr. Dulles. Miss Waterman, I wonder if you would just give us a brief outline of your experience with the State Department.
Miss Waterman. Well, I entered the Passport Office in March of 1926, and I was there until I retired in February 1962, and during that time I progressed from the position of typist to working on citizenship cases, and became an adjudicator.
Mr. Dulles. Can you hear?
Miss Waterman. Then I became in charge of a section adjudicating citizenship cases from certain places. I continued in citizenship work until I retired.
Mr. Dulles. Would you proceed, Mr. Coleman.
Mr. Coleman. Miss Waterman, I have had marked 25 documents beginning with Commission Exhibit No. 957 and going through Commission Exhibit No. 982, and just before you came in, I showed you a set of those files. Have you had opportunity to review those files?
Miss Waterman. Yes; I did look over the State Department file. I don't mean State Department files, I mean Passport Office files on Oswald.
Mr. Coleman. And I take it that you would agree that every one of the documents I showed you was a document which you prepared, or was a document which was sent to you and you had occasion to read it prior to the time I gave it to you today?
Miss Waterman. I believe so.
Mr. Coleman. Now would you tell the Commission the first time, to the best of your knowledge, that you heard the name Oswald and in what connection?
Miss Waterman. Well it was rather seeing it in connection with the——
Mr. Coleman. I call your attention to Commission Document No. 961, which is the second document in the folder I gave you, a telegram dated November 2, 1959.
Miss Waterman. The telegram—this is a reply.
Mr. Coleman. Yes; I am talking about the telegram dated November 2, 1959.
Miss Waterman. Yes; I recall from examination of the file that on November 2, 1959, I saw the telegram from the Embassy at Moscow reporting that Mr. Oswald had called there, and that was sent for reply. Sent to me for reply.
Mr. Coleman. I show you Commission Exhibit No. 910, which is a copy of a telegram from Moscow to the Secretary of State, dated October 31, 1959, and I ask you whether that is the telegram you saw on November the 2d?
Miss Waterman. Yes; this is the telegram, and this is the telegram to which I prepared an interim reply on the same day received, November 2, 1959.
Mr. Coleman. And the reply that you prepared is Commission Exhibit No. 961. That is the telegram of November 2? It is the second document in the file before you.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And that telegram indicated that it was prepared——
Mr. Dulles. Miss Waterman's file doesn't have the exhibit numbers on it so you will have to identify it in some other way.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. That telegram shows that it was prepared by you because your name appears in the lower left hand corner, is that right?
Miss Waterman. That is right.
Mr. Coleman. Now below that you indicate "Clearances EE: SOV: V. James in substance paraphrased by telephone." Will you indicate to the Commission what that notation means?
Miss Waterman. This is a telegram, isn't it?
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Miss Waterman. Well, as I recall all telegrams which we dispatch to Embassies or offices within the Iron Curtain countries were sent at least with the lowest classification, official use only, and we had previously received instructions that the telegrams which we prepared on any subjects going to the offices in the Iron Curtain countries should be cleared with the desk officers of the appropriate divisions, that is EE and so on.
Mr. Dulles. Geographical divisions?
Miss Waterman. Geographical divisions, yes.
Mr. Coleman. Could you identify for the record who Miss V. James is?
Miss Waterman. Well, Virginia James, an officer in EE.
Mr. Coleman. EE means?
Miss Waterman. Eastern Europe.
Mr. Coleman. And SOV?
Miss Waterman. SOV, Soviet Division.
Mr. Coleman. So the Commission Exhibit No. 961, which is a telegram——
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. Indicates that the telegram was at least communicated to and cleared by the Soviet desk in Washington before it was sent out?
Miss Waterman. Well yes; I think that one reason that it was always cleared was that the geographic divisions were particularly interested in the wording of our replies. I think they just wanted the general idea of whether or not we were using the proper classification.
Mr. Coleman. And in that telegram of November 2, 1959, you advised the Embassy in Moscow that if Oswald insisted on renouncing U.S. citizenship, that the statute precludes the Embassy from withholding his right to do so regardless of his application pending with the Soviet Government, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. Now thereafter did you have anything else to do with the Oswald matter prior to March 1960? To help you, Miss Waterman, March 1960 was the time in which you prepared the refusal card.
Miss Waterman. Yes—refusal sheet.
Mr. Coleman. Between sending this telegram on November 2, 1959, and March 1960, did you personally have any knowledge or anything else that was going on as far as Oswald was concerned?
Miss Waterman. Well, not certainly unless it is in the file. I would think that in the meantime we received some kind of further report from the Embassy, but I am not——
Mr. Coleman. Well, we have had marked and put in the record the various reports that were received, and you say that as all the reports came in that you had opportunity to read them?
Miss Waterman. Yes; of course that isn't too long from the latter part of 1959 to 1960. Quite often in cases of this nature, the appropriate Embassy might submit reports which didn't need replies, just information submitted.
Mr. Coleman. Well, there was a report submitted by the Embassy on November 2, 1959, which has already been identified as Commission Exhibit No. 908.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And I assume that you received a copy or saw that report?
Miss Waterman. Yes; I did.
Mr. Coleman. Then on or about March 25, 1960, you had occasion to prepare a card which has as its head the name or the word "Refusal."
Miss Waterman. That is not a card. That is a sheet.
Mr. Coleman. That is a sheet which is marked as Commission Exhibit No. 962. Now will you indicate to the Commission the circumstances under which you prepared that card and why you prepared that card?
Miss Waterman. This was prepared after the receipt, I believe, of further correspondence from the Embassy, which indicated that Oswald was—that it would be possible that he might want to return to the United States. And it was customary to make this red refusal sheet in our office.
Mr. Coleman. What was your office?
Miss Waterman. In the adjudication part of the office, to put a flag on the case for future reference.
Mr. Coleman. After you made the refusal card which has been marked——
Miss Waterman. Not a card.
Mr. Coleman. Pardon me, refusal sheet——
Miss Waterman. Refusal sheet.
Mr. Coleman. Has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 962, what would be the next step in the system to make sure that Mr. Oswald could not use his passport or come back to the United States without the Department having notice?
Miss Waterman. Well, in the case of this being a classified file, the file would have been returned to the Classified File Section as I recall, and there would be a note on there to please index the refusal sheet, and then if there were any other instructions, for instance, another office might want the file or ask for it, if no one wanted it, we would ordinarily ask to have the refusal sheet carded and the case filed.
Mr. Coleman. As a result of the preparation of the refusal sheet, would someone else or you have a responsibility to prepare something which is called a lookout card?
Miss Waterman. At that time, at least—I don't know what the procedure is now, I have no idea; at that time, at least, the refusal card as I call it, or lookout card would have been prepared in the Records Section of the Passport Office. In other words, a part of the section which handled the files.
Mr. Coleman. After you prepared the refusal sheet which is Commission Exhibit No. 962——
Miss Waterman. Yes; I wrote that myself.
Mr. Coleman. Would you then give—how would the records section know that a lookout card should be prepared?
Miss Waterman. Well, for one thing the refusal sheet would be placed on top of the file, and I am sure there would be a note to flag the attention of the records people that a refusal was there to be carded.
But in any event, it would be on top of the file, and there would have been nothing on the right hand margin. There would have been no name. There would have been nothing put on there in our particular office.
Mr. Coleman. In other words, you say——
Miss Waterman. In our adjudication part.
Mr. Coleman. Are you saying that Oswald, Lee Harvey, would not have been——
Miss Waterman. No, no; the sheet was completely blank as to the margin. At no time would anything have been entered there, in our adjudication part.
Mr. Coleman. In Commission Exhibit No. 962, you then say when you physically prepared the refusal sheet, the only thing that was prepared is the typewritten material, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. The typewritten red sheet. If you have the file, it is right here.
Mr. Coleman. You say that after you prepared that, you would physically place that red sheet on the top of the passport file, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. Well, now this was placed—I think there was a communication which went out at the same time.
Mr. Coleman. You are talking about the Operations Memorandum dated March 28, 1960?
Miss Waterman. I am talking about the Operations Memorandum, yes.
Mr. Coleman. Which has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 963?
Miss Waterman. Now that would have gone to file, to the file with this Operations Memorandum, and the Refusal Sheet.
Mr. Coleman. You prepared the Operations Memorandum also?
Miss Waterman. Yes; now I see that was mailed 3 days after it was prepared. In the meantime someone else was looking at it.
Mr. Coleman. Was it your responsibility actually to see that the lookout card was prepared?
Miss Waterman. No; I wouldn't think so, no.
Mr. Coleman. Who would have that responsibility?
Miss Waterman. Well, in the first place the cases were examined by the records people before being filed, and no one would certainly be supposed to file a Refusal Sheet without an indication that he had had a card made.
Mr. Coleman. Would the indication that the card was made be put on the refusal sheet?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. Would you look at the original of the State Department records?
Miss Waterman. Yes; I am looking at it.
Mr. Coleman. Was it put on the refusal sheet?
Miss Waterman. Well, it looks to me as if someone started to handle this for the refusal card, or lookout card as you call it, because the name was typed on.
Mr. Coleman. It was written on.
Miss Waterman. Written on, yes. I believe that to complete that operation, the designation of the citizenship designation of the Department of State at that time at least, 130, should have been placed on there.
Mr. Coleman. What does 130 mean?
Miss Waterman. That is the Department's classification of citizenship.
Mr. Coleman. By looking at that file, is there anything else that you can examine to be able to tell the Commission whether in your judgment the actual lookout card was ever prepared?
Miss Waterman. No; I wouldn't be able to say. I do notice here that the case was called for from the files a few days after it went to file, and that apparently was occasioned by a new communication coming in from our Embassy at Moscow.
Mr. Dulles. Who called for it, can you tell from that?
Miss Waterman. Apparently we received—this was called for from—here is a call slip right here. I am looking at it. Which means that something new had been received and we wanted the file again.
Mr. Coleman. Could you tell me the number that is on that call sheet? You are looking at file X. It is file X she is looking at?
Mr. Ehrlich. Yes.
Miss Waterman. X-64.
Mr. Coleman. X-64.
Miss Waterman. I might say that in the meantime during the time from November 1959 up into 1960, beginning about early in February 1960, I was replaced in this section or branch by an attorney and a member of the bar, and at this time I was then the assistant of the section, and not the head of it.
Mr. Coleman. Well, was the attorney that replaced you G. W. Masterton?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. I would like to ask you to identify Commission Exhibit No. 983.
Is that a copy of the sheet you referred to, to indicate the file had been called for?
Miss Waterman. That is right. A new report had been received and our control clerk, we call her, our person looking after the records in our particular section had made that call slip for the file.
Mr. Coleman. Is there anything else in the original file which you could look at to try to advise us whether you think in your judgment a lookout card was ever prepared?
Miss Waterman. Well, I wouldn't be able to know. All I could say is it is very surprising, because it seems to me that we had—well, I could not say how many lookout cards and refusal cards on all kinds of subjects. And I can only guess that this file was caught up in some large number of files that were on hand to have refusal cards or lookout cards made, or something of that nature, or that the process of having the card made was interrupted by the receipt of the new material from our Embassy at Moscow.
Mr. Coleman. But——
Mr. Dulles. Could I ask one question?
Who would make out lookout cards in the normal process? Would it be quite a number of people, or one particular office?
Miss Waterman. I am not sure about that, Mr. Dulles. That was completely another area, and I don't know.
Mr. Dulles. Outside of the Passport Department entirely, was it?
Miss Waterman. Oh, no.
Mr. Dulles. In the Passport Department?
Miss Waterman. Oh, yes.
Mr. Dulles. Miss Knight could tell us that.
Miss Waterman. In the records part of the Passport Office.
Now, at one time I know that the cards were made in a certain area. Then I know that later on, and probably prior to this time, we had been requested not to forward any kind of classified files to the usual place for having these cards made—we should forward them to the Classified Files Section, which would take it up from there, and give them to the proper person to have a card made.
Mr. Coleman. Miss Waterman, it is your testimony that based upon the red refusal sheet that you prepared, and also the operations memorandums which have been marked respectively Commission Exhibit No. 962 and Commission Exhibit No. 963, that you had done all you were supposed to do, and that the file then should have been passed over to somebody else, and a lookout card should have been prepared?
Miss Waterman. Yes, yes; that was our procedure at that time at least.
Mr. Coleman. Now, after March 28, 1960, and prior to February 1961, in that period, did your department, or did you take other actions in connection with the Oswald case, with the hope that you would finally be able to reach a decision on Oswald, as to whether he had expatriated himself or not?
Miss Waterman. I don't think there was too much going on in the file in 1960.
Mr. Coleman. Well, I would like to call your attention to——
Miss Waterman. But in 1961——
Mr. Coleman. Before we get to 1961, I would like to call your attention to the memorandum from Mr. White to Mr. Hazelton, dated July 20, 1960, and the next document, which is a handwritten piece of paper, dated 2-15-61.
Do you have that? Your number should be X-49.
I show you the document which is marked in your file X-49, and it has been given Commission Exhibit No. 965.
Now, is that your handwriting on that document?
Mr. Ehrlich. Might I interject at this time? In looking at the originals of these I notice that X-49 is actually two memorandums. They were photostated as one, and thus probably you cannot actually read either one.
Mr. Coleman. Well, I am referring to the one on top. Is that your writing "took initial action, action"——
Miss Waterman. No; that is Mr. Masterton—the memorandum on the little larger size below was a memorandum, informal memorandum, which I sent to my section chief, Mr. Masterton.
Mr. Coleman. Could you indicate what you said in your memorandum?
Miss Waterman. Yes; I said, "Mr. Masterton, SCS, is writing to mother on welfare aspect of Lee Harvey Oswald. Last two paragraphs of Moscow dispatch 585, 2-8-61 appeared to be for PPT reply."
I believe that was a letter which had been prepared in SCS—you know what that is.
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Miss Waterman. And had been forwarded to our office for clearance, for our initial, before it was mailed, to reply to some inquiry of the mother.
Mr. Coleman. Now, on top of that memorandum you read, that you prepared, there is another memorandum, isn't there?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. Now, could you read that into the record?
Miss Waterman. Yes; "SCS. Took initial action on action copy, case of split action. Copy our action to go to SCS."
Mr. Coleman. Do you know or do you have any knowledge what they meant about case is split action?
Miss Waterman. Well, it has been a long time since I have seen the material. But I believe that the mother, Mrs. Oswald, in writing to the Department, to the Secretary, probably brought up various questions about her son. Now—questions which related to his welfare or physical repatriation, or something of that type, which would come under the jurisdiction of the Special Consular Services, should be answered there. Any inquiries which were about his citizenship or his passport, anything that came within the purview of the Passport Office, should have a reply drafted by Miss Knight's office, or elsewhere in the office.
Mr. Coleman. In other words, you are saying that the phrase, split action, on Commission Exhibit No. 965, doesn't mean that——
Miss Waterman. The decision was split; no.
Mr. Coleman. It just means that different offices in the Department would have to make different decisions, or take different action?
Miss Waterman. Yes; and I think that most of Mrs. Oswald's letters were quite involved, and brought up several questions.
(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Coleman. Then the next document which I want to ask you questions about is your X-55.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. That we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 966.
Now, this letter, though signed by Miss Knight, was prepared by you?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And it was a reply to an inquiry made by Congressman Wright?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. With respect to the Oswald case.
Miss Waterman. Yes; this was—we probably either received a memorandum from SCS or telephone call, something of that sort.
Mr. Coleman. The next contact you had with the Oswald case was as a result of the Embassy Despatch dated February 28, 1961, which is X-42(2).
Miss Waterman. Are you talking about the Department's Despatch?
(At this point, Mr. Dulles reentered the hearing room.)
Mr. Coleman. Yes; despatch. The Foreign Service Despatch.
Miss Waterman. Yes; our despatch to the Embassy.
Mr. Coleman. I beg your pardon. It is a despatch from the Embassy to you.
Miss Waterman. Yes; that is right.
Mr. Coleman. Which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 967.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. When that was received in Washington, you got a copy of it, did you not?
Miss Waterman. Well, I think—we seem to have the original in our file.
Mr. Coleman. Yes; you saw the document?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And then as a result of seeing the document on March 27, 1961, you prepared a draft of the instruction which should go to Moscow in response, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And that is in the file as X-46, and we have marked it as Commission Exhibit No. 968. And the draft that you prepared which was attached to Commission Exhibit No. 968 is the next document, which is X-47, which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 969, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. You mean the copy of the——
Mr. Coleman. The proposed State Department instruction.
Miss Waterman. Yes; I see that.
Mr. Coleman. And it indicates on the copy that the original was not sent, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. That is right. Nothing was sent.
Mr. Dulles. Can I get this clear now? I am not sure—which was the document that was not sent?
Mr. Coleman. That is X-47 (Commission Exhibit No. 969).
Mr. Dulles. Could you identify that for the record—because just reference to documents in our record would be meaningless to the reader. I think we ought to identify each document as we can, because I am lost completely.
Mr. Coleman. It is Commission Exhibit No. 969, which is a draft of the State Department instruction to be sent to the Embassy in Moscow, as a result of the Embassy's dispatch of February 28.
Mr. Dulles. And this was drafted on March 27, was it?
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Dulles. And you, I gather, Miss Waterman, drafted this?
Miss Waterman. I drafted this, and then apparently we had—everyone had second thoughts on some of the statements in there, and I believe that it was at this time—wait a minute.
We sent this to Miss Knight's office for the special attention of Mr. Hickey.
Mr. Coleman. And is that the memorandum dated March 31, 1961?
Miss Waterman. Yes; that is right.
Mr. Coleman. Which has been given Commission Exhibit No. 970.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And from that memorandum, you indicate that your proposed instructions were that, one, that the passport should be mailed back to Mr. Oswald only under proper safeguards——
Miss Waterman. Now, are you talking about what wasn't sent or what finally was?
Mr. Coleman. The memorandum of March 31, 1961.
Miss Waterman. Yes; these memorandums were prepared by my superiors. In other words, this looked a little different and more important by that time.
Representative Ford. In other words, the State Department document No. X-42 came back to you from higher authority?
Miss Waterman. No; I prepared the instruction, and I sent it to Mr. Kupiec, who by that time was in charge of our section—Mr. Masterton having been given other duties. And this went into the office of the Chief of our Division, of the Foreign Adjudications Division. And Mr. Cacciatore, who was the Assistant Chief of the Division, drafted a memorandum in Mr. White's name to go to Miss Knight's office, and that is a memorandum of March 31, 1961.
Mr. Coleman. Well, that has been given Commission Exhibit No. 970.
It is in your files as X-42.
Miss Waterman. Right.
Mr. Coleman. And you had no part in connection with the drafting of that memorandum?
Miss Waterman. No, no; our branch had sent the case to our Division Chief, either to comment or authorize the mailing of the instruction which I had prepared.
Mr. Coleman. And then after this memorandum of March 31, 1961, was drafted, a decision was finally reached in the Department as to the form of the State Department instruction which is in your file as X-38?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And we have marked it as Commission Exhibit No. 971.
Miss Waterman. Yes
Mr. Coleman. And that is the instruction that was actually sent to the Embassy?
Miss Waterman. Sent to the Embassy; yes. That was a replacement of the instruction which I had originally drafted, and I redrafted that according to the dictates of the memorandums which had been exchanged with our office and Miss Knight's office.
Representative Ford. May I ask a question here, Mr. Coleman?
On the memo of March 31, 1961, Commission Exhibit No. 970, the last sentence reads as follows: "For the best interests of the United States, therefore, and as the possession of a passport might facilitate his obtention of an exit visa it is believed that we should do everything within our power to facilitate Oswald's entry into the United States."
Who would have prepared the March 31, 1961 memo that contained that quotation?
Miss Waterman. That was prepared by Mr. Cacciatore, who was the Assistant Chief of the Foreign Operations Division, in which I worked. And Mr. John White was his superior, and Mr. White initialed the memo going to Miss Knight's office, to Mr. Hickey.
Mr. Dulles. Who is Mr. Hickey?
Miss Waterman. Who is he?
Mr. Dulles. I meant at this time what was his position?
Miss Waterman. Well, I believe at that time his title was—I wouldn't like to say definitely—I believe he was the Deputy Chief of the Passport Office.
Mr. Dulles. Under Miss Knight?
Miss Waterman. Under Miss Knight, yes.
Mr. Dulles. I would like to ask one question about X-38(2).
Mr. Coleman. That is Commission Exhibit No. 971.
Mr. Dulles. That is the cable sent—cable of instructions sent on the Lee Harvey Oswald matter to the American Embassy in Moscow. This relates to——
Miss Waterman. Now, you are talking about the State Department instruction?
Mr. Dulles. That is correct. In paragraph 2 there is reference to the circumstances under which his passport can be returned, and there is this phrase: "His passport may be delivered to him on a personal basis only."
What does that mean?
Miss Waterman. I think it meant deliver it to him in person.
Mr. Dulles. I see—deliver it to him in person.
Miss Waterman. Yes; I think those are the words of Mr. Hickey. I believe that somewhere in the file there is a memorandum which Mr. Hickey returned to Mr. White's division, giving his views.
Mr. Dulles. And that may be qualified by the last sentence here, suggesting that it would not be wise to send it through the mails?
Miss Waterman. Yes; in other words, the memorandum which Mr. Hickey returned to us, with our proposed instruction, was used as a basis for our action.
Mr. Dulles. It was to be given to him personally, and not transmitted through the mails.
Miss Waterman. I think that is what it means.
Mr. Coleman. And, also, the State Department instructions were that he was to get the passport only after the Embassy had thoroughly questioned Oswald regarding the circumstances of his residence in the Soviet Union, and his possible commitment of an act or acts of expatriation?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. Miss Waterman, I note on the side of the State Department instruction a notation that CIA furnished copy "on case by me, 10-5-61."
Do you know who wrote that, and what that means?
Miss Waterman. Well, I think the person has initialed it who wrote it.
Mr. Coleman. Who is CHS?
Miss Waterman. I think that is Mr. Seeley—Mr. Carroll Seeley.
Mr. Coleman. Carroll H. Seeley, Jr.?
Miss Waterman. If that is the way his name is listed in the book.
Mr. Coleman. Is he an attorney in the Passport Office?
Miss Waterman. I don't know what he is now. So far as I know, he was an attorney at that time. He was in—in the Legal Division of the Passport Office.
Mr. Coleman. I also note in the next paper which is attached to Commission Exhibit No. 971 we have marked as Commission Exhibit 972, there is a reference sheet——
Mr. Dulles. What is that paper?
Mr. Coleman. It is physically attached.
Mr. Dulles. You see, exhibit numbers won't appear——
Mr. Coleman. Well, it is a reference sheet dated 10-5-61, which indicates that a Thermofax copy of the Department of State Instruction No. A-173, dated April 13, 1961, was sent to the CIA.
Is that correct?
Miss Waterman. I know nothing about that. That is something that was entirely outside of our Adjudication Division, our Foreign Operations Division.
Mr. Coleman. But the reference indicates that it was prepared by Robert D. Johnson, Chief Counsel, Passport Office, under date of 10-5-61, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. I am looking at it. Yes. But that was nothing that emanated from our part of the Passport Office.
Mr. Coleman. After you prepared and had sent forward the Department of State instruction dated April 13, 1961, you then, on or about May 26, 1961, received the Embassy Foreign Despatch of that date, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. Yes, yes.
Mr. Coleman. And that despatch, which is your No. X-34, has been given Commission Exhibit No. 973, states that the Embassy had received another letter from Oswald, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. Yes; I am looking at a copy.
Mr. Coleman. And also the despatch——
Mr. Dulles. Would you identify that a little bit?
Mr. Coleman. The despatch is from the Embassy to the Department of State, and it is Commission Exhibit No. 973, written by Mr. Snyder on May 26, 1961, and it indicates, one, that the Embassy has received another letter from Mr. Oswald, and it also indicates that Oswald was married to a Russian woman, and it indicates that Oswald has informed the Embassy that he had an internal Soviet passport in which he was designated as "without citizenship."
And the Embassy Despatch actually has as a copy the letter which Mr. Oswald sent to the Embassy in May 1961.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And you received that in Washington some time shortly after March 26, 1961.
Miss Waterman. We received it in our particular office on June 12.
Mr. Coleman. As a result of receiving——
Mr. Dulles. Just one second.
June——
Miss Waterman. I am going by our automatic clock stamps on the reverse of the original.
Mr. Dulles. You received it on June 12?
Miss Waterman. Yes; we received it in our action office June 12, 1961.
Mr. Coleman. After you received it, you then considered whether the Embassy should return to Mr. Oswald his passport. And your decision as finally made is reflected in the State Department instruction dated July 11, 1961, which is your X-31, which has been marked Commission Exhibit No. 975, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. Yes; I am looking at a copy.
Mr. Coleman. In those instructions, you said that Mr. Oswald could be given his passport, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. Well, yes—because we are in effect agreeing with the suggestion of the Embassy. We are telling the Embassy that we——
Mr. Coleman. You are agreeing with their despatch of May 26, 1961, which has been identified for the record as Commission Exhibit No. 973.
Miss Waterman. What is this word?
Oh—"seek."
Mr. Coleman. Is that correct?
Miss Waterman. What was your question again now?
Mr. Coleman. I am saying what you were agreeing to was the proposed action of the Embassy as set forth in its Foreign Service Despatch dated May 26, 1961?
Miss Waterman. Yes; but I see we also note that the Embassy intended to contact the Department again before granting any documentation to Oswald.
Mr. Dulles. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Dulles. Back on the record.
Mr. Coleman. I note on Commission Exhibit No. 975, which is your X-31, that on the side there is written "Pink copy of this sent to EE:SOV Miss James, BW7-17-61."
Miss Waterman. Yes; I am looking at that.
Mr. Coleman. Do you recall whether Miss James asked you to send her a copy, or did you just send her a copy without being requested?
Miss Waterman. No; I would not recall, really. We tried to keep—since there were many interests involved here, we did try to keep the geographic division up to date on what we were doing, so that they would have more or less a complete picture of the case.
Mr. Coleman. Then I would like to next call your attention to your document which is X-28.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. That is a memorandum which you prepared, Commission Exhibit No. 978, in which you state that Miss James called and said that she wanted to know what reply had you made to the Moscow despatch 29, July 11, 1961, in the case of Oswald. And you stated that the draft reply was in preparation, and you also said that Miss James said that the communication should be cleared with the SOV, and then you make a comment that you never heard that the Passport Section's citizenship decisions should be routed to SOV for clearance.
Miss Waterman. That is right.
Mr. Coleman. Nevertheless, you indicated in the memorandum that you would indicate that the SOV had a special interest in the reply to the despatch, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. Yes; that is right.
Mr. Coleman. Did you discuss with anybody in the Department Miss James' request?
Miss Waterman. Well, I don't recall. I don't know. I wouldn't recall right now.
Mr. Coleman. Well, is this the only time, to your knowledge, where the SOV had made a request in connection with a passport?
Miss Waterman. Oh, no; I would not say that. I don't think so; no. I think probably a great many of our communications went out as office memoranda, and they received copies of them in the Division anyhow.
But I think this was probably more to avoid confusion in having classified files be traveling around the different areas of the Department. We could send a copy of an "OM" without trouble. But handing the files around was another matter. And we didn't put them around any more than we had to.
Mr. Coleman. The next document in the sheaf of papers I gave you is the Operations Memorandum dated August 18, 1961, prepared by you——
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And we have given it Commission Exhibit No. 979.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. In that you indicate that you concur in the conclusion of the Embassy that there is available no information and/or evidence to show that Mr. Oswald has expatriated himself under the pertinent laws of the United States.
Miss Waterman. That is right.
Mr. Coleman. Did you review the entire files which you had in the Passport Office on Oswald before you wrote this memorandum?
Miss Waterman. Yes; our file was all together.
Mr. Coleman. And you also had the benefit of the various Embassy Despatches which were sent prior to August 18, 1961?
Miss Waterman. Oh, yes.
Well, the part that concerned his citizenship, certainly, was with our file.
Mr. Coleman. And reviewing the whole file, you, as the adjudicator, determined on August 18, 1961, that there was nothing in the file which would show that Mr. Oswald had expatriated himself?
Miss Waterman. That is correct.
Representative Ford. When you say "no information and/or evidence to show that Mr. Oswald"——
Miss Waterman. No information or evidence.
Well, that is the way I worded it. No information or evidence. We would have to have evidence to hold up any action on him. And, in addition to having no evidence, we also had no information.
Representative Ford. Did you have the information that he had come in and presented a statement to Mr. Snyder that he wanted to renounce his citizenship?
Miss Waterman. Yes; but he hasn't done so. There was no place that he could have done so, except at the Embassy, under a specified form, and upon specified documents.
Representative Ford. In other words, you were relying upon the need for this particular document?
Miss Waterman. Well, in the first place, when he came in—as I believe Mr. Snyder said, or whoever reported from the Embassy—and threw down his passport, he apparently was a disgruntled young man—and that is not the first time a passport has been thrown down on a consular officer's desk. And I think that we had—no—in other words, it looked as if he were already regretting his first action. He was weakening a little bit because he was not being accorded any kind of recognition in the Soviet Union.
In other words, he was——
Representative Ford. But the subsequent evidence, where you say he was changing his mind, came about 2 years later. On the other hand, there was some evidence, when he first went to the Soviet Union, October 31, 1959, that he at least had an intention to renounce his American citizenship. He simply had not signed the actual form that is prescribed by the regulations.
Miss Waterman. That is right. He had not.
And there was no indication that actually he intended to do that. He apparently derived some kind of satisfaction from his appearing at the Embassy with an ambiguous statement. But there was nothing there to show that he actually had an intention of renouncing his citizenship under the law.
Representative Ford. I must differ with you. That first statement that he submitted was not very ambiguous.
Miss Waterman. Well, I think probably he made several. But, in any event—he——
Representative Ford. I do think I ought to read what he said on October 31.
Miss Waterman. Yes; I believe I recall that.
Representative Ford. Here is a letter or a statement in Lee Harvey Oswald's handwriting, which says:
"I, Lee Harvey Oswald, do hereby request that my present citizenship in the United States of America be revoked.
"I have entered the Soviet Union for the express purpose of applying for citizenship in the Soviet Union, through the means of naturalization.
"My request for citizenship is now pending before the Supreme Soviet of the U.S.S.R.
"I take these steps for political reasons. My request for the revoking of my American citizenship is made only after the longest and most serious considerations.
"I affirm that my allegiance is to the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics."
Signed, "Lee Harvey Oswald."
I don't think that is very ambiguous.
Miss Waterman. Well, perhaps not. But the procedure was explained to him, and he, as I recall, took no interest in completing any forms to make his renunciation of American citizenship official.
Representative Ford. The only question that I raise, Miss Waterman, is in light of this evidence, your statement that there is available no information and/or evidence to show that Mr. Oswald has expatriated himself under the pertinent laws of the United States——
Miss Waterman. I think that is correct. I think the statement is correct.
Representative Ford. That is a very technical response, or technical statement. I think there was evidence that he had placed before Government officials his desire to renounce his citizenship.
Mr. Coleman. Did anyone advise you or instruct you that you should make the adjudication that you made as reflected in the August 18, 1961, memorandum, or is this a decision that you made after you had reviewed the file?
Miss Waterman. Well, I made the decision and prepared the communication which went through my superiors, and they apparently agreed with me.
Mr. Coleman. Can you, by looking at the file, particularly the document marked X-27, which is the Operations Memorandum dated August 18, 1961, tell us what superior reviewed the memorandum before it went forth to the Embassy?
Miss Waterman. Yes; the initials there, HFK, are Mr. Kupiec, who was my area chief, and I believe that up at the top, on the second line of the Operations Memorandum, opposite "Department of State" I believe that those were the initials of Mr. White, who was in charge of the Foreign Operations Division. And then this was also cleared in our Legal Division.
Now, that would not be for citizenship purposes, but it would be there for reference.
Mr. Coleman. And who was CHS?
Miss Waterman. That is the same person you mentioned awhile ago, Mr. Seeley.
Mr. Coleman. Then as a result of determining that there was no evidence or information showing that Mr. Oswald had expatriated himself, you then indicated that the passport of Mr. Oswald could be renewed, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Representative Ford. May I ask a question here, Mr. Coleman?
Referring again to the memorandum of August 18, 1961, the first paragraph, where you say, "We concur in the conclusion of the Embassy that there is available no information and/or evidence to show that Mr. Oswald has expatriated himself under the pertinent laws of the United States"—where is their documentation, if any, that the Embassy has come to that conclusion?
Mr. Coleman. Sir, I think she is referring to the despatch of July 11, 1961, which is identified as Commission Exhibit No. 935.
Representative Ford. Do you come to that conclusion based on the total content of the July 11, 1961, memo from the Embassy in Moscow, or something specifically set forth in that memorandum?
Miss Waterman. Well, I think all of the material together. In other words, Oswald was not documented as a Soviet citizen. Apparently he didn't expect to be. The Embassy had questioned him. And, in addition to their knowing that during his visits to the Embassy itself he had not expatriated himself, they received no information from him in what questioning they could do that he had performed any act at all to expatriate himself under U.S. laws.
Representative Ford. Mr. Coleman, do you have that paper we had yesterday, where the cross-out was present?
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir; here it is.
Representative Ford. On Commission Exhibit No. 938, Oswald crossed out "have not"——
Mr. Dulles. What is the date of that, Mr. Ford?
Representative Ford. It is dated——
Mr. Coleman. July 11, 1961, and it is Oswald's application for renewal of passport.
Mr. Dulles. I remember the paper. That is subsequent to this document here that we are discussing now.
Mr. Coleman. Done at the same time. The State Department document shows—I mean the Embassy document shows that one of the covering material sent to the State Department was the application for renewal of passport executed by Oswald July 10, 1961.
Mr. Dulles. And this was sent with their dispatch of July 11, 1961, which we are now discussing.
Mr. Coleman. Yes, sir.
Representative Ford. Did you have that document at the time you wrote the statement, "We concur," and so forth?
Mr. Coleman. Which is Commission Exhibit No. 979.
Miss Waterman. What is the date?
Mr. Coleman. It is your X-27.
Miss Waterman. Yes; I think we had that. Because we referred to it.
Representative Ford. Well, does that statement, the way it is set forth there, raise any questions about whether there was any information or evidence about his expatriation?
Miss Waterman. His questionnaire discloses no information.
Representative Ford. But what about the statement on the first page?
Will you read it, for the record—the printed part?
Miss Waterman. Yes; "I have been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state." Well, of course, that would be prepared by the Embassy. I think they just crossed out the wrong one.
Representative Ford. But all we can go by is what we see.
Mr. Coleman. Would you examine the original in the State Department file, and see what was crossed out there?
Miss Waterman. Yes—"I have not." I think that was an Embassy error.
Representative Ford. That is a fairly important error, though.
Miss Waterman. Yes; it is.
Representative Ford. Will you read the full text of what is shown there as it is shown on the original?
Miss Waterman. "I have been naturalized as a citizen of a foreign state; taken an oath or made an affirmation or other formal declaration of allegiance to a foreign state; entered or served in the armed forces of a foreign state; accepted, served in or performed the duties of any office, post or employment under the government of a foreign state, or political subdivision thereof; voted in a political election in a foreign state or participated in an election or plebiscite to determine the sovereignty over foreign territory; made a formal renunciation of nationality, either in the United States or before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state; been convicted by court martial of deserting the military, air or naval service of the United States in time of war; or of committing any act of treason against or of attempting by force to overthrow or of bearing arms against the United States; or departed from or remained outside the jurisdiction of the United States for the purpose of evading or avoiding training and service in the military, air, or naval forces of the United States. If any of the above mentioned acts or conditions are applicable in the applicant's case, or to the case of any other person included in this application, a supplementary statement under oath should be attached and made a part hereof."
Representative Ford. That is signed by Lee Harvey Oswald.
Miss Waterman. That is signed by Lee Harvey Oswald. And his statement here indicates and shows the performance of no such act as is described on the first page of the application.
Representative Ford. Any one of those conditions, however, in that statement would indicate that he had renounced his citizenship?
Miss Waterman. It could. But, in other words, he now says——
Representative Ford. He says some place in there he is without nationality. Did you have that at the time——
Miss Waterman. "I am described as being without citizenship." That is right. In other words, it is questionable whether the Embassy should have crossed out "have not." In other words, he might have said I have done this, but his explanation——
Representative Ford. That is what the document shows.
Miss Waterman. But his explanation clearly shows that he had not.
Mr. Dulles. Do you know whether that was noted at the time, or deemed to be a clerical error, or how did you interpret that crossing out of that particular line there?
Miss Waterman. Well, in any event—I actually cannot recall, Mr. Dulles. But the questionnaire, which was also under oath, at the Embassy, would be the material part here. And there is no information in here to show that he had been naturalized. He said he was not known as a Soviet citizen, he did not have a Soviet passport. And as for the other items of possible expatriation, I don't see how they could have applied to him, in any event.
Representative Ford. Mr. Coleman, I suggest that, to make the record complete as to what the evidence was in the file, that we have reprinted in the record at this point Commission Exhibit No. 912, because it was a followup statement by Oswald on the status as he saw it of his citizenship at that time.
Mr. Coleman. You want the reporter to print physically in the record Commission Exhibits Nos. 912 and 913, the two Oswald letters?
Mr. Dulles. Just one question. I note here this is typed out. The line I saw had been marked out. I think it is a fair inference that this was typed out, since the typing was probably done in the American Embassy. He had no typewriter. There is a fair inference that might have been a mistake.
Representative Ford. All we can go by is what the record shows.
Mr. Dulles. I think we ought to clarify that through the record in Moscow, because the record is not good at this point.
Mr. Ehrlich. There is another copy, as you know, that came in from the Embassy that we sent to you that showed in fact—it was not a carbon, it was a separate one, in which the "have" was——
Mr. Coleman. That is Commission Exhibit No. 947.
Mr. Ehrlich. That was in the Embassy. It was not in the Department.
Mr. Dulles. There the "X's" were above everything, but probably were intended to mark out the "have."
Representative Ford. Is Commission Exhibit No. 938 the original?
Representative Ford. This is a photostat of the original?
Miss Waterman. The original is in the Department's file.
Mr. Coleman. Congressman Ford, the original document is right physically in front of you.
Representative Ford. That one is crossing out his "have not." It is very clear.
Mr. Dulles. And on this one, which is the copy in the Embassy files, the crossed out is above all three. It apparently was intended to be crossed out, the "have."
(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. Coleman. We just thought the record should—you recall we asked Mr. Snyder a question about this, and he said he didn't know whether it was a typographical error, or just what the reason for it was.
Miss Waterman, would you be kind enough to look at the document in your file which is X-30, and could you look at the original, in the original State Department file?
Now, we have marked it as Commission Exhibit No. 977.
Now, the second page of the document that we have has inserted a sheet of paper called a passport office lookout file. Is that stamped physically on the back of the first page?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. That indicates that the document was received on July 19, is that correct? There is a stamp on there?
Miss Waterman. Yes; July 19.
Mr. Coleman. There is another stamp on there, August 3, 1961.
Miss Waterman. Yes; I see that.
Mr. Coleman. You also have the lookout file on the Passport Office, is checked under "No Lookout (refusal) File Record."
Do you see that?
Miss Waterman. Yes; I see it.
Mr. Coleman. Does this mean that when someone ordered a search of the lookout record file in July or August, 1961, that there was no lookout file record on Lee Harvey Oswald?
Miss Waterman. Apparently so. That was probably done automatically. The records people probably did that.
Mr. Coleman. This was prior to the time when you had made your decision there had been no expatriation, is that correct?
Miss Waterman. I will have to look at this.
Mr. Coleman. Your recommendation wasn't made until August 18, 1961.
Miss Waterman. That is what we were replying to. That is one of the communications that we were acknowledging, yes, that is right.
Mr. Coleman. Well, should there have been a lookout card when the search was made in July 1961, on Lee Harvey Oswald?
Miss Waterman. Well, I would say that if one were made, it would have been in there.
Now, I don't know that I always would have examined the reverse of every dispatch. If I had examined the reverse of that despatch, I probably would have noted it.
Mr. Coleman. Well, what I am saying, as a result of the refusal sheet that you prepared in 1960, when the lookout section made the search on August 3, 1961, should there not have been a lookout file at that time on Lee Harvey Oswald?
Miss Waterman. Are you talking about a lookout card?
Mr. Coleman. A lookout card, yes.
Miss Waterman. A lookout card would only have referred to this file.
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Miss Waterman. Which we already had, and which we already determined had no evidence of expatriation.
Mr. Coleman. I am suggesting that you did not make that determination until August 18, 1961.
Miss Waterman. Well, Mr. Coleman, the card itself would have been totally immaterial to the decision we made here, inasmuch as we had the entire file, and also our refusal—the refusal sheet would be in here.
As I said, that was not for expatriation. It was just to flag an adverse—possible adverse interest in the case.
Mr. Dulles. But there has been testimony given here before, Miss Waterman, that when the question came up later of the issuance of a passport, since there was no lookout card, this file was not consulted.
Miss Waterman. Well, that could be. That was, I believe—I believe that was after I had anything to do with the file.
Mr. Dulles. Yes; I know. You cannot testify as to that.
Mr. Coleman. Now, Miss Waterman, would you be kind enough to turn over to the next document which you have before you, after the August 18, 1961, memorandum?
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And that is in the file—your file as 1X-24. It has been given Commission Exhibit No. 980.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. And will you note that there is some typewritten material that appears on the first page which says, "Attached report is a summation of Subject's background and case since he renounced U.S. citizenship and sought Soviet citizenship in the fall of 1959. As his citizenship status does not appear to be resolved, copies of the report are furnished to both PPT and VO."
And the attachment is an FBI report.
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. Written on the side in your handwriting, I assume, is the word "incorrect."
Miss Waterman. That is correct.
Mr. Coleman. Do you recall when you wrote that on that paper?
Miss Waterman. Well, probably when I saw it. I would not recall when I wrote it, but it would be—the statement—my inference there that the statement in this memorandum is what you might call a misnomer would have been correct at any date.
Mr. Dulles. Who wrote this memorandum which you indicated was incorrect?
Miss Waterman. I have a line there "renounced U.S. citizenship." In other words, somebody who had nothing to do with the adjudication of the case or citizenship had made a statement in there that this person had renounced, and that is a rather poor thing to have in the file which is going around to various places in the Department or possibly elsewhere. And I did write that on, with reference only to his renunciation.
Mr. Dulles. With reference to that one statement?
Miss Waterman. That is right.
Mr. Coleman. And then on December 28, 1961, you drafted a memorandum which purports to be from Miss Knight to Robert F. Hale, in which you indicated that any inference in the memorandum of July 27, 1961, which is the document I have just asked you about——
Miss Waterman. Yes.
Mr. Coleman. That Oswald was not a citizen of the United States is incorrect.
Miss Waterman. That is right.
Mr. Coleman. And you prepared——
Miss Waterman. In other words, this memorandum which I did make the notation on was sent to other parts of the Department, and we wanted to correct that impression, that there was any evidence of expatriation by Oswald, by renunciation of U.S. citizenship, or any other way.
Mr. Coleman. That has been marked as Commission Exhibit No. 981, which is the memorandum of December 28, 1961, in which you made the statement that any inference that Mr. Oswald had—was not a citizen of the United States was incorrect.
Mr. Waterman. Well, yes; well, that is self-explanatory.
Mr. Coleman. Then on the same day you drafted an operations memorandum to be sent to the Embassy in Moscow in which you said that the Passport Office approves the manner of the Embassy's replies to Mr. Oswald with respect to passport facilities for him in the future. Is that correct? That you drafted that memorandum?
Miss Waterman. Yes; I drafted that.
Mr. Coleman. That has been given Commission Exhibit No. 982.
That is December 28, 1961. It is the last document.
Now, after December 28, 1961, did you have anything else to do as far as the Oswald matter was concerned?
Miss Waterman. I don't think so, except perhaps sending a copy of some document or letter to our files—because I had only about a month's work in the Department. I left work on February 2, 1962, and that was the last day I had with any kind of performance of duties.
I might have marked some paper or something of that sort.
But I don't recall any action. If the file shows it, I took it. But, otherwise, I don't remember.
Mr. Coleman. When you took the various actions we have discussed this morning with respect to Mr. Oswald, were you acting under instructions of anyone that this was the decision you would have to make because someone else in the Department wanted you to resolve the question this way?
Miss Waterman. What do you mean?
Do you mean outside of the Passport Office?
Mr. Coleman. Yes.
Miss Waterman. Outside the Passport Office?
Mr. Coleman. Yes; I am just asking you for the record.
Miss Waterman. I know. But you mentioned—such as who?
Mr. Coleman. Did anyone call you up and say, "Miss Waterman, this is the way you have to resolve this case"?
Miss Waterman. Oh, no. Oh, no.
Mr. Coleman. And you made the decisions you made based upon the record and your judgment as to what you thought the law was and what the facts were?
Miss Waterman. Certainly.
Mr. Dulles. Did you consult anyone in connection with reaching that decision in the Oswald case?
Miss Waterman. Well, Mr. Dulles, in preparing this correspondence, as I have told you, the correspondence was prepared for the signature of my superiors, and if they didn't agree with what I wrote, that was all right with me. But that was my impression, and I believed there had been discussion among persons in our immediate office. And while——
Mr. Dulles. Your decision, then, is not final. It is subject to review by your superiors in matters of this kind?
Miss Waterman. That is right.
But in no event—I don't know of any—as I say, my connection with the case closed, and I never heard in the press or any other place that indicated that Oswald expatriated himself and that he wasn't entitled to a passport.
Mr. Coleman. Your decision wasn't in any way influenced by the fact that Miss James told you that this was a decision that would have to be made or anything like that?
Miss Waterman. Certainly not. They have absolutely nothing to do with citizenship—nothing.
Mr. Coleman. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Dulles. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Coleman. Mr. Chairman, before we close the testimony of Miss Waterman, I would like to move for the admission of Commission Exhibits No. 957 through Commission Exhibit No. 983, which were the documents that we marked.
Mr. Dulles. They shall be admitted.
(The documents heretofore marked for identification as Commission Exhibits Nos. 957–983, were received in evidence.)
Mr. Coleman. I would like to thank Miss Waterman for coming in.
Mr. Dulles. We thank you very much, Miss Waterman.
(Whereupon, at 12:50 p.m., the President's Commission recessed.)
Afternoon Session
TESTIMONY OF THE HON. DEAN RUSK, SECRETARY OF STATE
The President's Commission reconvened at 3:30 p.m.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary Dean Rusk, we wanted to ask you a few questions about this matter in any particular detail you wanted to answer. Mr. Rankin would you inform the Secretary the areas we intend to cover before we ask the questions.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chief Justice, I think the particular area that we would be interested in with the Secretary is just as to whether, or his knowledge of whether there was any foreign political interest in the assassination of President Kennedy?
We have been getting the information in regard to other matters concerning the State Department from other of his associates and colleagues and employees of the Department, and we are going to complete that and it has been helpful to us and I think we can rather limit the inquiry to that area.
The Chairman. Yes; very well.
Mr. Secretary, would you rise and be sworn, please. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give before this Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Secretary Rusk. I do.
The Chairman. Will you be seated, please, and Mr. Rankin will ask you the questions, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rusk. Mr. Chief Justice, may I ask one question?
The Chairman. Yes, indeed.
Secretary Rusk. I would like to be just as helpful as possible to the Commission. I am not quite clear of testimony in terms of future publication. There may be certain points that arise where it might be helpful to the Commission for me to comment on certain points but there—it would be a very grave difficulty about publication, so I wonder what the Commission's view on that is.
The Chairman. Well, Mr. Secretary, our purpose is to have available for the public all of the evidence that is given here. If there is any phase of it that you think might jeopardize the security of the Nation, have no hesitation in asking us to go off the record for a moment, and you can tell us what you wish.
Secretary Rusk. Thank you, sir, I am at your disposal.
Mr. Dulles. Mr. Chief Justice, could I make a suggestion in that connection?
The Chairman. Yes.
Mr. Dulles. Would it be feasible to have a discussion here of the points that are vital from the point of view of our record, and so forth, and maybe a little informal conversation afterward to cover the other points.
The Chairman. We will have a recess for a few moments then.
Mr. Dulles. I thought between the two wouldn't that be easier than put the two together.
(Discussion off the record.)
The Chairman. Back on the record.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Secretary, will you give us your name and address, please?
Secretary Rusk. Dean Rusk, 4980 Quebec Street, Washington, D.C.
Mr. Rankin. And you are the Secretary of State for the United States?
Secretary Rusk. That is correct.
Mr. Rankin. You have occupied that position for some time?
Secretary Rusk. Since January 22, 1961.
Mr. Rankin. In that position you have become familiar with our foreign relations and the attitude and interest in some degree of other countries that we deal with?
Secretary Rusk. Yes; within the limitations of the possibilities, it is at least my task to be as familiar as possible with those things.
Mr. Rankin. In your opinion, was there any substantial interest or interests of the Soviet Union which would have been advanced by the assassination of President Kennedy?
Secretary Rusk. I would first have to say on a question of that sort that it is important to follow the evidence. It is very difficult to look into the minds of someone else, and know what is in someone else's mind.
I have seen no evidence that would indicate to me that the Soviet Union considered that it had an interest in the removal of President Kennedy or that it was in any way involved in the removal of President Kennedy. If I may elaborate just a moment.
Mr. Rankin. If you will, please.
Secretary Rusk. As the Commission may remember, I was with several colleagues in a plane on the way to Japan at the time the assassination occurred. When we got the news we immediately turned back. After my mind was able to grasp the fact that this event had in fact occurred, which was the first necessity, and not an easy one, I then, on the plane, began to go over the dozens and dozens of implications and ramifications of this event as it affects our foreign relations all over the world.
I landed briefly in Hawaii on the way back to Washington, and gave some instructions to the Department about a number of these matters, and learned what the Department was already doing. But one of the great questions in my mind at that time was just that question, could some foreign government somehow be involved in such an episode.
I realized that were this so this would raise the gravest issues of war and peace, but that nevertheless it was important to try to get at the truth—to the answer to that question—wherever that truth might lead; and so when I got back to Washington I put myself immediately in touch with the processes of inquiry on that point, and as Secretary of State had the deepest possible interest in what the truthful answer to those questions would be, because it would be hard to think of anything more pregnant for our foreign relations than the correct answer to that question.
I have not seen or heard of any scrap of evidence indicating that the Soviet Union had any desire to eliminate President Kennedy nor in any way participated in any such event.
Now, standing back and trying to look at that question objectively despite the ideological differences between our two great systems, I can't see how it could be to the interest of the Soviet Union to make any such effort.
Since I have become Secretary of State I have seen no evidence of any policy of assassination of leaders of the free world on the part of the Soviets, and our intelligence community has not been able to furnish any evidence pointing in that direction.
I am sure that I would have known about such bits of evidence had they existed but I also made inquiry myself to see whether there was such evidence, and received a negative reply.
I do think that the Soviet Union, again objectively considered, has an interest in the correctness of state relations. This would be particularly true among the great powers, with which the major interests of the Soviet Union are directly engaged.
Mr. Rankin. Could you expand on that a little bit so that others than those who deal in that area might understand fully what you mean?
Secretary Rusk. Yes; I think that although there are grave differences between the Communist world and the free world, between the Soviet Union and other major powers, that even from their point of view there needs to be some shape and form to international relations, that it is not in their interest to have this world structure dissolve into complete anarchy, that great states and particularly nuclear powers have to be in a position to deal with each other, to transact business with each other, to try to meet problems with each other, and that requires the maintenance of correct relations and access to the leadership on all sides.
I think also that although there had been grave differences between Chairman Khrushchev and President Kennedy, I think there were evidences of a certain mutual respect that had developed over some of the experiences, both good and bad, through which these two men had lived.
I think both of them were aware of the fact that any Chairman of the Soviet Union and any President of the United States necessarily bear somewhat special responsibility for the general peace of the world.
Indeed without exaggeration, one could almost say the existence of the Northern Hemisphere in this nuclear age.
So that it would be an act of rashness and madness for Soviet leaders to undertake such an action as an active policy. Because everything would have been put in jeopardy or at stake in connection with such an act.
It has not been our impression that madness has characterized the actions of the Soviet leadership in recent years.
I think also that it is relevant that people behind the Iron Curtain, including people in the Soviet Union and including officials in the Soviet Union, seemed to be deeply affected by the death of President Kennedy.
Their reactions were prompt, and I think genuine, of regret and sorrow. Mr. Khrushchev was the first to come to the Embassy to sign the book of condolences. There were tears in the streets of Moscow. Moscow Radio spent a great deal of attention to these matters.
Now they did come to premature conclusions, in my judgment, about what this event was and what it meant in terms of who might have been responsible for it—and ideological effect has crept into that.
But I had the impression that the regret was genuine and that the ordinary Soviet citizen joined with ordinary people in other parts of the world in feeling the loss of the President in a very genuine sense.
Mr. Rankin. There has been some suggestion that possibly the leadership of the Soviet Union would not have been politically interested in the death of the President but possibly a distant wing of the Party might have been so involved.
Can you give us any light on that, Mr. Secretary.
The Chairman. By suggestion you mean rumor?
Mr. Rankin. In the newspapers, and things of that kind, rumor.
Secretary Rusk. I haven't been able to put a rational structure behind that possibility. If there are dissident elements their primary problem is within the Soviet Union.
If these dissident elements were aiming to change the present Government of the Soviet Union or its leadership or to return to an early range of policy by the elimination of present leadership or seizure of control, I don't quite see how the elimination of the President of the United States could contribute to that purpose.
I would also suppose that in their kind of system such elements would be under pretty close supervision and surveillance and they would have limited opportunities for the kind of action that would be organized in a way in this direction, although that is a matter of some speculation.
But, I would doubt very much that such dissident elements would have a motive or very much of an opportunity. Again, I have seen no evidence pointing in that direction.
Mr. Rankin. How could you tell us in regard to Cuba in the same general way, your opinion and knowledge of any information or credible evidence?
Secretary Rusk. Well, I would again repeat that the overriding consideration is to make every possible effort to find evidence and follow the evidence to wherever it leads.
I think it is, at least for me, more difficult to try to enter into the minds of the present leadership in Cuba than, perhaps, even of the present leadership of the Soviet Union. We have had very few contacts, as the Commission knows, with the present Government of Cuba.
But again, I have seen no evidence that seems to point in that direction.
There were some exchanges, with which the Commission is familiar, that seemed to be—seemed to come to another conclusion. But I would think that objective considerations would mean that it would be even greater madness for Castro or his government to be involved in any such enterprise than almost for anyone else, because literally the issue of war and peace would mean the issue of the existence of his regime and perhaps of his country might have been involved in that question.
We were under the impression that there was very considerable concern in Cuba as to whether they would be held responsible and what the effect of that might be on their own position and their own safety.
But I have seen no evidence that points to involvement by them, and I don't see objective facts which would seem to make it in their interests to remove Mr. Kennedy.
You see, this embarks upon, in any event it would embark upon, an unpredictable trail for them to go down this path, but I would think again the Commission would wish to examine the evidence as it has been doing with meticulous care and follow the evidence in these matters.
Mr. Rankin. After the assassination, did you have direct communications with Ambassador Thomas Mann while he was still Ambassador at Mexico?
Secretary Rusk. Yes; we had a number of exchanges with Ambassador Mann connected with the presence in Mexico of Mr. Oswald.
I say those messages, and over a period of some days had daily consultations about them with our Deputy Under Secretary for Political Affairs, Mr. U. Alexis Johnson. Mr. Johnson is my principal representative in our dealings with the various intelligence and security agencies of the government and with the Pentagon, and he has an office very near mine on the seventh floor of the Department of State.
These exchanges raised questions of the most far-reaching character involving the possibility of the implications of another government, and so I had a very deep personal interest in that at the time.
Our principal concern was to be sure that the FBI and the CIA who were the principal agencies investigating this matter would have every possible facility at their disposal, and would—and that our Ambassador would be given the fullest support from us in facilitating the investigation at the Mexican end.
So I was for a period, until this particular trail ran its course, very much involved in those exchanges.
Mr. Rankin. Do you have any commentary that you want to make about those exchanges other than what you have given us?
Secretary Rusk. I think not, sir. I think that the materials, the information developed in those exchanges are before the Commission, and I believe the Commission has had a chance to inquire into them both as I understand both here and in Mexico with the appropriate agencies and I would think that the Commission's conclusions on that would be more valuable than mine because I have not put together all the pieces to draw finished conclusions from them.
Mr. Rankin. One of the Commissioners saw a newspaper story shortly after the assassination saying "The Voice of America beaming its message into Russia immediately blamed the reactionary rightwing movements after Kennedy's death."
Do you know anything about that matter or what the source of it might have been?
Secretary Rusk. No; I have not anticipated that question so that I could have a chance to investigate it, but I will, if I may, Mr. Chief Justice, file a report with the Commission on that point.
I can say now that there was never any policy guidance from the Department of State or from the leadership of the Voice of America suggesting that any broadcasters take that line.
It is possible, and this is purely speculative at the moment, that the Voice of America in repeating a great many news accounts, as it frequently does in its overseas broadcasts, may have repeated some news accounts from this country, among which might have been a story to that effect from one source or another, but I would like if I may, sir, an opportunity to investigate that point and make a report to the Commission.
The Chairman. You may do that, Mr. Secretary.
Representative Ford. May I ask a question? Have we received in the Commission all of the Voice of America broadcasts that were made over a period of 2 to 7 days involved in this incident?
Mr. Rankin. I don't know of any.
Representative Ford. I think the Commission ought to have them for our own analysis as well as the analysis of the Secretary of State.
Mr. Rankin. Is that under your jurisdiction?
Secretary Rusk. Yes; indeed I could provide that.
Mr. Rankin. If you will, please.
Secretary Rusk. The Commission might also be interested in either digests or the fuller materials on world reactions to the President's assassination.
I have here, for example, a daily summary of the 26th of November 1963, on foreign radio and press reaction which gives some interesting treatment about this behind the Iron Curtain.
I would be happy to furnish the Commission with any material of that sort which you might wish.
Mr. Rankin. We would appreciate having that.
The Chairman. Very well, thank you, Mr. Secretary.
Representative Ford. Would that include the Voice of Moscow or whatever they call it over there?
Secretary Rusk. Yes, sir.
Representative Ford. From the outset of the events that took place?
Secretary Rusk. Yes, sir; you might just wish to look at the first two or three paragraphs here to get a sample of the kind of summary that that involves.
Mr. Dulles. Was that prepared in the Department or by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service?
Secretary Rusk. This particular one is from the Foreign Broadcast Information Service. We also have another one. We also have another one from within the Department which is also available in terms.
Representative Ford. I think it would be useful to have both for a period of about a week or so. I realize this is a summary covering several days. I think I saw that at the time.
Mr. Rankin. There was another statement in the paper apparently purporting to be official that one of the Commissioners asked me to ask about and that was the Washington Post, Sunday, November 24, 1963, which was quoted by the Commissioner as, "Today in Washington State Department officials said they have no evidence indicating involvement of any foreign power in the assassination."
Do you know anything about that or can you give us any information?
Secretary Rusk. That was the view which we took at the time in consultation with the investigative agencies. We did not then have evidence of that sort nor do we now, and the implications of suggesting evidence in the absence of evidence would have been enormous.
Representative Ford. I don't understand that.
Secretary Rusk. Well, for us to leave the impression that we had evidence that we could not describe or discuss, when in fact we didn't have the evidence on a matter of such overriding importance could have created a very dangerous situation in terms of——
Representative Ford. Wouldn't it have been just as effective to say no comment?
Secretary Rusk. Well, unfortunately, under the practices of the press, no comment would have been taken to confirm that there was evidence. I mean, that would have been the interpretation that many would have put upon no comment.
But, Mr. Ford, I think the key thing is that at the time that statement was made we did not have such evidence. I mean, this was a factual statement at that time.
Representative Ford. But, at that time, this was 2 days after the assassination, you really didn't have much time to evaluate all of the evidence.
Secretary Rusk. Well, that is correct. But if the evidence or the known facts had changed certainly that type of statement would have changed.
In other words, such statements are based upon the situation as known at the time the statements are made.
Representative Ford. This statement then appeared in the Sunday morning, November 24 issue or edition of the Washington Post. That was a statement issued certainly on the 23d of November because it had to be in order to get in the Sunday edition of the Post. So, that is 24 hours after the assassination.
Secretary Rusk. That is correct, sir, and this statement was made on the basis of such information as was available to us in the first 24 hours.
Mr. Rankin. I was also asked to inquire whether that was an official statement if under your responsibility or if you could tell me who would be responsible for it?
Secretary Rusk. Well, I would have to check the actual source of the statement. But I would have no present doubt that it was an officer of the Department who was authorized to make that and for which I would be fully responsible.
Mr. Rankin. That is all I have.
Mr. Dulles. Could I ask a question in connection with that?
The Chairman. Mr. Dulles.
Mr. Dulles. There was some evidence presented here quite recently when the district attorney of Dallas was here with regard to a message from Washington, from the White House to the attorney general of Texas, who was also here the other day before the Commission, on this point: A rumor had reached Washington that in preparing the indictment there, they were going to put in some reference to an international conspiracy. As a matter of fact, when that was run down it was not a correct rumor. But when that reached Washington, the reaction was rather strong and I think entirely understandable, and word went back to Dallas from high quarters that that should not, hoped that that would not be included in the legal proceedings and papers that were filed in connection with the assassination of the President and charging——
Mr. Rankin. Unless there was evidence to support it.
Mr. Dulles. Unless there was evidence to support it. And the district attorney, who was here, testified that he had never considered adding that into it, putting that in the proceedings because if you put it in you had to prove it, and it is not necessary at all. All you need to do is allege a murder with intent, and so forth, and so on. So that that was all pretty well cleared up.
Mr. Dulles. Did that ever reach your attention, did you know anything about that?
Secretary Rusk. I don't personally recall that particular message. I do recall——
Mr. Dulles. That took place, I think before you got back, because that took place on the evening of the 22d.
Secretary Rusk. I didn't arrive until——
Mr. Dulles. You didn't get back until the 23d?
Secretary Rusk. Until the early morning of the 23d.
Mr. Dulles. Yes.
Secretary Rusk. I do recall being concerned if several different authorities and agencies undertook investigations that would cut across each other's bow or make it difficult to elicit the cooperation of people outside the United States whose cooperation we might need in matters of that sort, I felt myself at that time there ought to be a complete and absolutely thorough investigation by the most responsible authorities and I was glad to see that brought into some order at the time but I don't remember the particular message you are talking about.
Representative Ford. Could you check to see if somebody in the Department of State made such a call or made such a contact?
Secretary Rusk. Yes; I will be be glad to.
Representative Ford. And if so so report it for the proceedings?
Secretary Rusk. Yes, indeed; I will be glad to.
Mr. Chayes. I may be able to supply some information to the Commission on this point because during the night of the 22d when we were examining the data in my office, the files, I did receive a call from Mr. Katzenbach who said that they had heard at the Justice Department, that there was a possibility that this kind of an element would get into the indictment, and said that—I can't remember the exact words that he used—but he conveyed to me that he regarded this as not very good, in the absence of evidence to support it, and said that he was seeking to have Mr. Saunders, who is the U.S. attorney in Dallas, admitted to the councils of the State officials there so that they could discuss these matters as time went on. And that he would try to, I don't know exactly again what he said, but that he would try to see that in the absence of evidence no such allegation was made in the indictment.
I didn't in any sense authorize, and I certainly couldn't direct him to do anything of this kind but my recollection of my reaction is that I acquiesced fully in what he was proposing to do, and raised no objection to it.
I think at sometime during that evening I reported this conversation to Mr. Ball. I am less clear about this part of the recollection, but I think I did report the conversation to Mr. Ball, much in the same way as I am reporting it to you, and he saw no objection either.
I think that is the entire State Department side of that particular transaction.
Representative Ford. Would you check, however, Mr. Secretary, to see if there is anything further in this regard?
Secretary Rusk. Yes; I will.
Representative Ford. Do I understand that you or somebody for you is to summarize the USIA Voice of America broadcast that went out for the first 3 or 4 days subsequent to the assassination and that would be submitted for the record?
Secretary Rusk. Yes, indeed. And we can, of course, have available to the Commission such tapes or transcripts as we have of all those broadcasts in full, but I think we can start with the summary and then you can have the other materials if you wish to follow up particular points.
Representative Ford. Would they be voluminous, the originals?
Secretary Rusk. I would think they would be fairly voluminous, but not unmanageably so.
Representative Ford. I would say for at least the first 24 hours it might be well to have the full text of the USIA Voice of America material that was sent out.
Secretary Rusk. Right.
Representative Ford. Do I also understand for the record that we are to have this or others like it showing what the press reaction was throughout the world?
Secretary Rusk. Yes, sir.
Now, the Foreign Broadcast Information Service material would be much more voluminous because there we are receiving broadcasts in the clear from most broadcasting countries. But we will be in touch with your staff to show them everything that we have, and they can have any part of it they wish or we will be glad to give any help in terms of digesting or summarizing.
Mr. Rankin. We have been furnished some information, considerable information, about the attitude of the foreign press as it was recited and has come to the attention of the people from time to time, but I don't believe we have right close, the Voice of America we don't have right close to the date of the assassination.
The Chairman. I read a sizable file on that that came from the State Department and very early in the life of the Commission that seemed to encompass all of the statements that were made around the world at that time.
Secretary Rusk. Yes.
Representative Ford. This document which you handed me, Mr. Secretary, is for Tuesday, 26 November 1963. Are these done on a daily basis?
Secretary Rusk. I think that one was a summary of the first 2 or 3 days, but I would——
Mr. Dulles. Summaries are done from time to time and there are daily reports from Foreign Broadcasting Information Service covering the Soviet Union and the satellites and another volume covering China and southeast Asia, and so forth and so on.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Secretary, could you give us a brief description of that, we have been calling it this and these.
Secretary Rusk. Yes; this is a daily report or rather a supplement to the daily report put out by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service in what is called its world reaction series.
This apparently is a supplement to the foreign radio and press reaction to the death of President Kennedy, and the accession of President Johnson, prepared on 26 November 1963.
This is a daily report, the subject matter of which varies from day to day, but I will be glad to draw together not only such digests as we have, but also to see what we have retained in terms of the actual broadcasts from other countries so that although it may be voluminous it might have some material of interest to the Commission or its staff.
Representative Ford. I think it would be particularly pertinent as far as the Soviet Union or any of the bloc countries or Cuba, anything in this area that could be pulled together and included in the record, which I think would be very helpful.
Secretary Rusk. All right, sir.
Representative Ford. I have the recollection that some people have alleged that Castro either prior to or subsequent to the assassination, made some very inflamatory speech involving President Kennedy.
Do you have any recollection of that?
Secretary Rusk. I don't have a recollection of a speech specially related to time. He has made more than his share of inflamatory speeches about this country and its leaders. But I will be glad to furnish the Commission a schedule of his speeches, and the character of these speeches and the texts if we have them during this period.
Representative Ford. There was one that I vaguely recall, either prior to or subsequent to the assassination that some people construed to be directed specifically at President Kennedy, and I think if there was such a speech that the Commission ought to have it and it ought to be analyzed by the staff and by the Commission.
Secretary Rusk. We will be very glad to look into that and furnish you with speeches made during this period or during a substantial part of the period on both sides of the November 22 date.
I gather the Commission has Mr. Danielle's interview with Mr. Castro on the subject. You have the published report of that.
Mr. Dulles. Was that the long interview with Castro?
Secretary Rusk. Yes; that was as close to any reflection of a thing that he might have said personally about this that went beyond the kind of broadcast speeches you referred to that I have seen, but——
Mr. Dulles. Do you have that available?
Secretary Rusk. We certainly can get it.
Mr. Dulles. It was in the press I guess at the time. Maybe you have a fuller copy than we have.
Secretary Rusk. Yes; it was a rather extensive interview.
Mr. Chayes. I think the staff has it already.
Secretary Rusk. I see.
Mr. Rankin. I think Commissioner Ford is referring to that speech of Mr. Castro which is sometimes called the slip-of-the-tongue speech that referred in a way that may have some implications in it. I think that might help you to identify it, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rusk. It might be well for me, just to complete the sense of the atmosphere, to accompany that with the timing and the nature of statements and speeches that were being made on our side as a part of this continuing rather acrimonious discourse with Cuban leadership. But I will provide full information on this.
Mr. Rankin. We would appreciate it so it would give a complete picture.
Secretary Rusk. Yes.
Representative Ford. Do I understand now, Mr. Rankin, that what the Secretary provides will be put in the record as exhibits?
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to offer to do that if that is satisfactory, as a part of this record.
The Chairman. Yes, sir; it might be admitted.
Representative Ford. There is one question that I think ought to be cleared up, you mentioned Mr. Mann who was our Ambassador at Mexico at that time. The way the record stands now it could be construed by somebody who wanted to so construe it that the country in which he served us was involved in what he was reporting. I think it ought to be made clear that is not the case.
Secretary Rusk. That is absolutely correct, sir. We never had the slightest view that Mexico was involved in this. The problem, the question arose because Mr. Oswald had been in Mexico, and was known to have been in touch with some Cubans at the Cuban Embassy in Mexico. But the Mexican authorities gave us complete and the most helpful cooperation in full investigation of this matter.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions? Mr. Dulles.
Mr. Dulles. Had you finished?
Mr. Rankin. Yes; I have.
(Discussion off the record.)
The Chairman. Are we ready to go back on the record?
All right, the Commission will be in order.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Chief Justice, I should like to offer in evidence at this point Commission Exhibit No. 984 being the communication from yourself as Chairman of the Commission to the Secretary of State, dated March 11, 1964, and the Note Verbale in regard to the inquiries of the Soviet Union.
And Commission Exhibit No. 985 being the responses of the Soviet Union, including all of the medical as well as all other responses together with the transmittal letters from the Soviet Union and from the State Department.
The Chairman. They may be admitted under those numbers.
(Commission Exhibits Nos. 984 and 985 were marked for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. Rankin. I would like to assign, Mr. Chief Justice, Commission Exhibit No. 986, if I may, to those prior communications from the files of the Soviet Embassy in Washington that were furnished to us by the State Department.
The Chairman. They may be admitted under that number.
(Commission Exhibit No. 986 was marked for identification and received in evidence.)
Mr. Rankin. Commission Exhibit No. 986 will be the copies of the records from the Soviet Embassy in Washington that were supplied to the Commission earlier by the State Department as a part of the records that were furnished to us by the State Department.
The Chairman. Those were the ones that were voluntarily offered by the Russians before any request was made of them?
Mr. Rankin. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. They may be admitted under that number.
Mr. Rankin. Mr. Secretary, will you tell us whether you know of any credible evidence to show or establish or tending to show any conspiracy either domestic or foreign involved in the assassination of President Kennedy?
Secretary Rusk. No; I have no evidence that would point in that direction or to lead me to a conclusion that such a conspiracy existed.
Mr. Rankin. That is all I have.
The Chairman. Are there any further questions, gentlemen?
If not, thank you very much, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Rusk. Thank you very much, Mr. Chief Justice and gentlemen.