Mr. Rankin. Is that the basis for your refusal to disclose the name?
Mr. Lane. Obviously if I say yes, you cannot pursue this, but I must tell you honestly that is not the reason.
Mr. Rankin. Then I ask you to disclose the name of the informant.
Mr. Lane. I cannot. I have given my word to that person that I would not disclose his name.
Mr. Rankin. You know that is no legal justification, do you not?
Mr. Lane. I know that is true. There is no legal justification. I know that I am not here under subpena. I know that you wrote to me while I was in Europe, although you have the power of subpena—you do not have the power to subpena me while I was in Europe. I know the Commission will complete its work very likely within the next 2 weeks. I could have easily remained in Europe until the Commission had completed its work.
I knew you were calling me here today in reference to that specific matter because you said so in your letter to me. So I have come here voluntarily to cooperate with the Commission to the very best of my ability, and not to rely upon any legal superstructure to protect my answers.
I told this Commission at the outset that I had given my word to this person, and I would not reveal his name. The Commission led me to believe at that time that it would honor that understanding, and the record, I think, so reveals that. If the Commission is prepared——
Mr. Rankin. You base that upon the record at that time? You base your claim that the Commission indicated that it would honor any such understanding on the record that was made on March 4, do you?
Mr. Lane. Yes; I think there is language there which indicates this. I was not pressed at that time. We discussed the matter at that time. If the Commission is at this point about to reverse its position, despite an indication that it would honor that understanding, I am myself not ready to break my honor, my commitment to that individual. I have not done that ever in the past, and I will not do that now.