here, an honorable man, a wholesaler in television and other electrical equipment, a very honorable man. Mr. BAUMAN. Did he give you the one in 1945? Mr. BAUMAN. Who gave you the one in 1945 ? Mr. BARRETT. Another reputable businessman. I will give you the names in executive session, but I rather, in answer Mr. BAUMAN. I do not see any reason myself, Major, why the names should not be given in public session. Every other member of the Department has answered this questionnaire in full, and I do believe that yours ought to be answered in full, sir. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission of the chair to press the question. The CHAIRMAN. Proceed. Senator WELKER. My observation is that you might just as well answer it here as in executive session because it will be out 10 minutes after that anyway. Major Barrett, I am mindful of the spirit that prompts the witness to decline to answer this question, but let me say to you that the majority of the committee here feel that you would be doing a greater justice to your friend who gave you the television set by telling his name openly and publicly than by withholding the name, because the assumption will go out, Major Barrett, that some thief or crook gave you those sets, and I think you would be helping your friends if you would just openly state who gave you that gift. Mr. BARRETT. Fine. The one in 1945 of Southern Wholesalers. Mr. William O'Connor, and the other one Mr. Burka, of the Atlantic Supply Co.-I don't know where it is-West Virginia Avenue. That is Izzie Burka. Mr. BAUMAN. Have you gotten other gifts of that size, Major? Mr. BAUMAN. Let us say, have you in the course of your administration received from people other than those in the Police Department and your family, gifts of the value of over $200? (There was a conference between witness and his counsel.) Mr. BARRETT. I don't know how you would value some gifts. I have received many gifts from honorable businessmen. Mr. BAUMAN. I have just one or two more questions. You say that you sold an Oldsmobile on March 17, 1947, for $2,350; is that right? I am referring to the next to the last paragraph on that insert on the card, the answer to question 34. It says: I sold this car to the Arvin Motors about March 17, 1947. Mr. BARRETT. My best recollection of that was that that Oldsmobile and the Chrysler don't-Mr. Canfield has made a mistake here. Mr. BAUMAN. Sir, what did you say your recollection was? Mr. BARRETT. I think Mr. Canfield has made a mistake in that. As I recall, the Chrysler was the first one that I bought, and I think in typing this up or fixing it up Mr. BAUMAN. Are you ready to answer, sir? Mr. MAHER. Will you read the question, please, Mr. Reporter? (The question was read by the reporter.) Mr. BAUMAN. You understand that I am talking about the 1946 Oldsmobile which you sold on or about March 17, 1947, for $2,350? Is that the date on which you sold that car? (There was a conference between witness and his counsel.) Mr. BARRETT. I don't have any independent recollection. It is a possibility that my bank book has got a little mistake here on it, but that is it is part of it in here that is true, that I had drawn $500 out of my daughter's account in the Oriental Building Association Mr. BAUMAN. Sir, I am not talking about that. Actually you sold that Oldsmobile to Arvin Motors, not on March 17, 1947, but on November 25, 1946, and you used the proceeds from that car to buy the 1946 Buick on December 31, 1946, for $2,278, which you paid in cash. Where did you get the $1,250 which you deposited in cash on March 17, 1947? Mr. BARRETT. Probably from the sale of a car is all I can Mr. BAUMAN. Now, the car previous to that which you sold was one in February, and you did sell a car in February, and you deposited the entire proceeds of that sale in the bank. The car before that, I believe, you sold in November of the preceding year, and that is one about which we are just talking. Mr. BARRETT. I don't recall. Most of these cars were sold for cash, and I sold one and bought another. Mr. BAUMAN. Where did you get the $1,250 that you deposited in cash on that date? Mr. BARRETT. From probably selling one of the other cars or a car. Mr. BAUMAN. You have no clear recollection of that? Mr. BARRETT. No, sir. Mr. BAUMAN. I have no further questions at this time, although I would like the witness to return. The CHAIRMAN. The subcommittee will now take a recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. The witnesses will return without any further notice. (Whereupon, at 4:30 p. m., the subcommittee recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m. on Tuesday, January 15, 1952.) INVESTIGATION OF CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA TUESDAY, JANUARY 15, 1952 UNITED STATES SENATE, SUECOMMITTEE OF THE COMMITTEE ON THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, INVESTIGATING CRIME AND LAW ENFORCEMENT, Washington, D. C. The subcommittee met, at 10 a. m. (pursuant to S. Res. 136, agreed to September 13, 1951, 1st sess., 82d Cong.), in room 457, Senate Office Building, Senator Matthew M. Neely (chairman) presiding. Present: Senators Neely, Hunt, Welker, and Pastore. Also present: Arnold Bauman, chief counsel to the subcommittee; Harold Solomon, associate counsel; and William P. Gulledge, assistant counsel to the full committee. The CHAIRMAN. The committee will be in order. Mr. BAUMAN. At this time, in the interest of the convenience of certain witnesses who, in my judgment, will not possibly be able to be reached today, I would like to request the Chair to excuse the witnesses I am about to name until tomorrow morning. The CHAIRMAN. Name the witnesses. They will be excused for the day, with the understanding that they must return tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Mr. BAUMAN. Roger Simkins, Yvonne Simkins. In the case of Roger and Yvonne Simkins, they will be excused until 2 o'clock tomorrow, with the permission of the Chair. The CHAIRMAN. It is so ordered. Mr. BAUMAN. Maurice Newsome, Jeff Thomas, Audrey Dixon, Hazel Terry, Jacqueline Terry, Frederick C. Woods, Sherman A. Berry, and Henry Ellis, until 10 o'clock on January 16, if the Chair please. The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, it is so ordered. Mr. MAURICE WEEKS. I am Maurice Weeks, representing Maurice Newsome. I have a matter in court tomorrow morning and I expected to be called today. I am wondering if we couldn't be excused until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. Mr. BAUMAN. I see no objection to that. The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Weeks' client is excused until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning. Mr. BAUMAN. No further preliminary business. The CHAIRMAN. Please proceed with your next witness. Yesterday afternoon the chairman and I discussed this very matter that I want to bring to the committee's attention at this time. It doesn't apply directly to this witness, but it should apply to every witness before this subcommittee. I notice he is surrounded by two very competent counsel. I notice at times the witness and other witnesses will hesitate to reply to questions by the counsel or committee members for the reason that he is conferring with his counsel. I am mindful of the fact that any defendant or any man before a board of inquisition such as this is entitled to the benefit of counsel at all stages of the proceeding, but I do not believe he is entitled to consult with his counsel before answering the questions. This committee is entitled to watch the demeanor of the witness on the witness stand. We are entitled to weigh his credibility as a witness, his manner and demeanor of testifying. Although I am conscious of the fact that in recent investigations I have seen this done before, it seems to me preposterous that a committee counsel or a committee member should interrogate this witness, or any other witness, upon any material facts and then be delayed while counsel is advising and consulting with their clients. I think we are entitled to spontaneous answers. If he cannot give the answer, I do not think he should be assisted by counsel. As far as I am concerned, I should like to move you, Mr. Chairman, that we welcome the addition of counsel here. They should preserve the rights of their clients. They are permitted to object at any time and advise their client not to answer any question that they deem advisable. I certainly do object to their advising with the, client with respect to the answers given here under oath. I notice General Marshall did it in the MacArthur hearing. If this gentleman is here before us on this board of inquisition, this committee is entitled to the facts as he knows them, not as to what his attorney might suggest. So I move you, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that not only this witness, but all witnesses attended by counsel, will refrain from consulting with their attorneys prior to answering the questions. The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further remarks? Senator PASTORE. Am I to understand that an attorney has a right before his client or the witness answers the question to interpose an audible objection? You are going to get tied up with a lot of objections. Senator WELKER. For the purposes of the record, if we present to this witness or any other witness a wholly immaterial question, a prejudicial question, that, in the interest of their clients, they certainly can instruct their client not to answer. I believe that is done in any procedure; but what I am objecting to, Senator, is-I don't want to direct this particularly at this witness, it goes to all witnesses-but a question is propounded by Mr. Bauman. Then there is a conference. I am up here sitting to be a judge as to the creditibility of this witness. I do not know whether that is the testimony of the witness or the testimony of his attorney. Senator PASTORE. If I may be heard, because, after all, this is more or less of tremendous concern to me also-doesn't Senator Welker feel that that objection can be interposed only in the instance where the answering of the question would be self-incriminating? Senator WELKER. No, I don't. Senator PASTORE. From that, I think the witness ought to be left alone to answer all the questions. If we are going to allow counsel to interpose an objection, he can be objecting on every single question, and we will lose more time. |