1973 Watergate Hearings; 1973-06-13; Part 3 of 3

Later! I didn't have any time for curiosity. I had to raise $40 million and I worked at a frenzied pace during the entire period I was there. Well, you did have some authority in determining the amounts of money that was to be expended, didn't you? Only in the aggregate by categories and I had very little authority on that. Well, now, how you want to remember the budgetary commission, committee?

That's correct. Now, the budgetary committee was composed of you and two other representatives from the finance committee to relax the president. Correct. Who were the other two members? Mr. Sloan and Mr. Nunn. Who were the members of the budgetary committee from the committee to relax the president? Mr. Mitchell, Mr. McGruder, and I think Mr. Porter, but I'm not quite sure. Well, you all met, didn't you? Yes, we met regularly. And didn't you confer about how much money you were going to spend? Yes, we did. And you had some authority to say something about how much money was to be spent, didn't you? I had no authority, Mr. Chairman. I only had the authority to argue. Well, you claim that you just a puppet of John Mitchell? Is that what you claim? No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that as a member.

Well, Mr. Stan, I wish you'd explained to me, you did say something about the expenditure was, didn't you? The amounts of the expenditure was? Mr. Chairman, as I said in my statement, and as I testified this morning in some detail, the budget was broken down into about a dozen items. And it is that which we argued about in the budget committee meetings. An item of research and planning, direct mail, and telephone, $6,785,000. Now, that included $4.5 million for direct mail, $1,900,000 for telephone, and $180,000 for computer maps, and so on. Well, that was overall budget, wasn't it? This was in the overall budget. You agreed on the overall budget all at one time, didn't you?

Oh no, we debated the overall budget right up to the end. You debated and redebated the same thing each time? Every time we met because I was trying to get the spending to be used. If you had no authority, no matter what, did you debate? Well, that's the authority I had, was to debate. Well, now, you didn't ask your judgment about the amounts that should be spent for this side of the other? No. They presented figures to me, they presented programs to me, and I was in the position of either agreeing or challenging. And that is why Mr. Chairman, I wrote the letter of May 10th to Mr. Mitchell. I sat in a number of these budget meetings. I had made very little progress in reducing the figures that were proposed, and I wrote a letter and said, I think we ought to cut the budget, a fairly significant amount of money. I didn't succeed. I think it's well known, I guess.

Did you tell the committee that Mr. Mitchell was a supreme authority in that field? No. I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying that the budgets were prepared by the people under Mr. Mitchell who had charge of the various functions. There were about a dozen different divisions of the budget, and each was under an individual. He prepared his budget. He came in and argued for it, and I was in the position of being the devil's advocate in every case and saying that's too much money, and the total is too high. And now how often did the budgetary committee meet? Beginning Labor Day, it was scheduled to meet every week. For Labor Day, it met at somewhat irregular occasions. There were fairly frequent meetings in April and May, and less frequent meetings, I believe,

in June, July and August. Wasn't it your function among other things to discuss and debate, and we should conclusion with the other members of the budgetary commission as to what the outlays and money should be made? Yes, sir. That was the function. Yes. Can you all— I apparently wasn't eloquent enough. Can you explain to a simple minded man like me the mental process by which you can determine how much money ought to be spent for a particular project unless you know what the project is? That exactly is the kind of problem we had. We had minimum specifications. The problem was not determining what the project was in those terms. The problem was, do we need to spend $12 million for television and radio advertising,

and another $4.5 million for direct mail, and another $1,900,000 for telephone, or isn't there an overkill in a duplication in doing all of these things? Mr. Chairman, there's no yardstick by which you judge the necessities of a political campaign. I was only arguing to keep the expenditures down to the limits that I thought I could raise. Then you didn't take in consideration of how much was needed. There is no such definition as how much is needed except the subjective definition of the people who want to spend the money. Well, I don't know how I understand your testimony, and now that you've had me and the fact that Mr. John Mitchell was running the show and you had very little bar senate except to raise the money that he wanted to spend. No, I'm not quite telling you that. I'm telling you that in the Budget Committee meetings, I was not very successful in holding

down the level of spending. Did they ever discuss the question in any budget that the terror meeting about using any money for intelligence work? I don't recall any discussions of that type. Did you ever vote to authorize the use of any money for intelligence work? No. If you mean by that, the kind of intelligence that we're talking about, the connection with the Watergate, and so on, no. Now, before you talk to the President in August, you say the President called you. President called me in August, and I've checked my record, and I believe the meeting I had with him was in September. Now, you were, I'd address for a minute to say that you were familiar with the power obstruction as the power was exercised in the White House, are you not? Generally speaking, it changed quite a bit.

And the main next to the President was Mr. Holman. And one of the men next to the President was Mr. Holman, and Mr. Erdogan was Elba. That is correct. Yes. And John W. Deans was a man who was subordinate to both of them, wasn't he? I don't really know. He was a General Counsel. I don't know where he stood on the organization structure of the White House. Well, you didn't, you didn't put him ahead of Mr. Holman on the Mr. Erdogan, either one in his thought, did you? No, but for all I know, he may have been on a par with them. I just don't know. I got a question I'm going to ask before we go. Well, I haven't finished up, and if you want me to ask a question now before we go, I'd like to get it in before we break. Okay. Mr. Chairman, we have a vote in progress now, and I know we're going to have to leave, but you've raised some interesting questions. And I'd like the Chairman's attention just for a moment.

I have not been a protector, and I have not been a defender of any witness, nor have I been a prosecutor, I believe. And I don't propose to start that now, but it seems to me that the inquiry into two areas on campaign financing deserves further inquiry. The Chairman's question of this witness is to whether there was a higher duty than that required by the law under the Correct Practices Act of 1929 is very interesting, particularly with reference to the method and manner of accounting for cash contributions and cash disbursements and the requirement of the law or the custom and usage by political parties in disburseing cash. The second question the Chairman raised about whether or not the dividing up of cash contributions and the smaller sums for multiple deposit is an attempt to defeat the gift tax as distinguished from avoiding the gift tax. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that an absolute fairness, if we're going to inquire into something

higher than the language of the law, or into the custom and practice of politics in this respect, as incumbent on this committee, and I suggest that the committee's subpoena all the records of the Democratic National Committee and all those candidates for nomination of either of the two major political parties for a reasonable time preceding April 7, 1972 and subsequently to shed light on exactly what the custom and usage in politics was. I hope we will have witnesses here to discuss the manner of handling cash, the manner of handling deposits in order to avoid gift tax consequences before these hearings conclude. I think we should look into those things, and I would like to say something else too. American public, I don't think, understands how these committee hearings are conducted, unless they, and I don't want them to get the impression that the questioning of any

senator here is found favor by other senators, and I, for one, have not appreciated the harassment of this witness by the chairman in the questioning that is just finished. I think this Senate Committee ought to act in fairness. Well I have not questioned the veracity of the witness, I've asked for witness some questions to find out what the truth is. I didn't use the word veracity. I used the word harassment. What? Harassment. Harassment? Harassment. H-A-R-A-S-S-M-E-M-T. Well, I'm sorry that my distinguished friend from Florida does not approve of my method of examining the witness. I'm an old country lawyer and I don't know the fine ways to do it. I just have to do it my way. I just have to do it my way. If the senator will yield just for a moment, I think that it's important that we have this

in perspective and there's no point for us to go on to an argument. I understood the chairman to say that he found favor with my suggestion that the document of the Democratic National Committee in Canada is besiepping it and that witness is besiepping it to testify on the custom and usage with respect to the gift acts and the handling and disbursement of funds. Is that correct? Oh, yes, and I'll show it. I thank my chairman. The vice chairman that I would sign, I urge the committee to authorize me to sign in a subpoena for any person that any member of the committee wants to get to. I thank the chairman very much. I think that's one vote, though. Criticism over Chairman Irving's questionnaire of the campaign finance chief Maurice Stadge has been stopped by a roll call vote on the floor of the Senate. Senator Irving obviously still has a few questions to ask and when he does them, public television's complete coverage of the Watergate hearings will continue after this pause for station identification.

Out of bridge coverage of these hearings is provided as a public service by the member stations of PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service. From Washington, NPACT continues its coverage of hearings by the Senate Select Committee

on Presidential campaign activities. Here again, correspondent Jim Lehrer. All right, the Irving Gurney storm is apparently over for now. As Senator Irving resumes his questioning of Chairman Maurice Stadge. Mr. Secretary, you testified about Mr. Comlock coming to you and asking you for as I understand you to say all the money that you had available. All the cash, I could do all the cash. And you gave him $75,000. Yes, I did.

Now, you said that was not out of campaign France, did you mean that it was out of this special campaign front had been set up for your use? Well, I said it was not out of money that was the property of the committee. First, $45,000 of it was money that had been given to me for expenses, which I decided not to use. $30,000 of it was money which had been offered by a contributor. But I didn't know I could accept it. So I hadn't accepted it. I was holding it in escrow as it were, depending on determination of whether I could accept it or not. Those were the two funds that I gave to Mr. Comlock. Now, the $45,000 was had been set aside for your use in raising campaign funds, hadn't it? Yes, I had, yes, for my expenses. Now, at that time, Mr. Comlock told you that he was, that was a White House project, and the question made on by him on how authority.

Yes. But he refused to tell you what the money was for. That is correct. Now, you later found out that that money was given to a man named Tonit to bring down to Washington to be used to pay your lawyer fees for the defendant and the criminal action before Judge Siriko. Yes, I learned that in sometime late April or May. Now, of this year, don't you know that approximately $450,000 of funds that were raised, either campaigned funds or funds that were raised by people who active in the campaign, well, given to, well, punished to pay counsel fees for the attorneys for the defendants and the criminal action and to pay their salaries and to pay, take care of their families? No, sir, I do not know that. Do you know of anything except for $75,000 that was used for that purpose?

That is all I know about. So, we have a situation here in the criminal cases that, well, the Department of Justice, which is a rather rather prosecuting attorneys who held office at the place of the president while prosecuting the case, and to some extent, at least the counsel followed the defendants and the criminal case were being paid by money which was punished by people who active in the campaign. Isn't that so? Well, it depends on how much they were paid and what the source of the money was. Yes. And I really don't know only to the extent of $75,000. That is correct. And that was not. And some very distinguished gentleman maintained that we ought to leave it to the prosecutors in the courts to determine that's the whole thing in the committee over the close shop. Now, well, that's not fair. Yes.

As I understand it, you have no records showing that you have a meeting with Magruder and Mitchell on June 24th, 1972. Mr. Chairman, I have something to add to what I said this morning. I have no record showing that I had any meeting with Magruder or Mitchell on June 24th nor do I have any recollection, but because the committee put such emphasis on it, my counsel on his initiative called Mr. Mitchell's counsel who talked to Mr. Mitchell to see if he had any recollection. And this is the report that I got back, which is quoting Mr. Mitchell. There was a meeting sometime during the day between Martin, Magruder, and Sloan, at which Martin was pushing Sloan and Magruder to find out how much money Sloan had given to

Liddy. I was not at the meeting and I did not know about the meeting. Then there was a second meeting the same day between Martin, Sloan, and Mitchell. Martin had brought Sloan to Mitchell because Martin did not find out from Sloan how much money he had given Liddy. Again, I was not at that meeting and I did not know of the meeting at the time. It was hell. Then, according to Mr. Mitchell's records at 340, there was a telephone conversation between Mitchell and me whether he placed it originally or whether I did, we don't know. At 4 p.m., I met with Mr. Mitchell in his office alone. No one else was present. Mitchell told me that Sloan would not tell him how much money Sloan had given Liddy and

asked me if I knew and I said I did not, that is all it was said. Now, I am giving you a report which is 3rd hand Mr. Mitchell to his counsel, to my counsel, to me. As I said earlier, I have had no recollection of the meeting and no record of it and I still have no recollection of the meeting but this is Mr. Mitchell's report. Now, long, but it did not cover anything beyond the question of how much money did Sloan give Liddy? It did not cover any of the subjects that were alluded to in the questioning earlier as to whether there was a full discussion of who was involved in the Watergate and so on. Now, within a few weeks after the break-in, you knew that McCord, who had been employed as a security officer, followed by the political committee as I understand it.

That is the committee that will reelect the president, had been arrested in the Watergate. Yes, I knew that the day after. And then you found out from the press that the four Barca and Sturgis and Gonzalez and Martinez had money which had come from the proceeds of checks to the committee in their pockets at the time they were arrested and in their hotel rooms. I knew that only for impressed stories. I did not know it. Then in a short time later, you asked you knew that Magruder had paid substantial, rather had directed Sloan and Sloan at Magruder's direction, had paid substantial sums of money to Liddy.

Yes. That also knew that Liddy had been charged with a complicit in the Watergate break-in. Well, before that, Mr. Liddy had refused to answer questions to the FBI and on advice of counsel. I fired him. Did you ask Liddy anything about the matter? You say it? No, I did not, because Mr. Martin was handing all of the legal matters involving the Watergate. Well, Liddy had been serving as General Counsel of your committee. Yes. Why didn't you ask him questions? Because Mr. Martin showed me a memorandum addressed to me stating that Mr. Liddy had failed to cooperate with the FBI, asked my approval to fire him, and said, don't discuss the matter with him or don't discuss anything with Mr. Liddy. So that was the end of it. I shook hands.

When Mr. Liddy came to my office and closed the day, I shook hands with him, said goodbye, and that was it. And you knew that Mr. Sloan told you that he had so much misgivings about the money that had been given to Liddy by him at Magruder's request that he was thinking about resigning him. Yes. That happened right around the 1st of July. And he gave you that message by telephone, didn't he? First. I'm not sure. I think he gave it to me in person in the office. Well, anyway, you told him to come and talk to him in person about it, didn't you? Oh, that was somewhat later. That was two weeks later. And when he came to talk to you about his resign and you told him that you had already informed the FBI that he had resigned. No, I didn't tell him that, but it evolved in that manner. I was certain that Mr. Sloan was resigning. I was no question that that was his intention.

He hadn't submitted it in writing. But when I met with the FBI, he said that Mr. Sloan had offered to resign two weeks ago and was undoubtedly resigning. And that was the record. Well, then, didn't Mr. Sloan tell you at any time that Mr. Magruder had sought to persuade him to commit Persia in respect to the amount of money that had been given to Mr. Liddy? Yes, he did. He told me that after he had had the several conversations with Mr. Magruder. And after he had told Mr. Magruder that he was going to tell the truth. Now, Mr. Stan's didn't all of these, this knowledge you acquired one way or another about these matters that I've enumerated. In gender in your mind, a feeling that you ought to communicate, you ought to talk to the President about this matter. And all of that, you realize that the President, so, well, answer that question first.

Mr. Chairman, this did not all happen on one day, as you know. It was a growing thing. As one circumstance after another developed, it was evident that it was entirely possible that Mr. Liddy was implicated in this matter. There was no indication that anyone else was outside of those who were arrested. The Guardian had been appointed as the counsel to investigate the situation, presumably to report to Mr. Mitchell and the President. And it was outside of my domain, so I did not go beyond going. But you didn't know about Magruder. Sloan had told you about Magruder trying to get persuade him to commit perjury. I had heard that from Sloan. Sloan had, Sloan himself had carried that story to me. And you knew that Mr. Mitchell had told you that, that Mr. Magruder was authorized to direct Mr. Sloan to make these payments to Liddy.

You knew all of these before you could talk to the President in August, didn't you? Oh, yes. Now you were not only a personal friend, but a political friend of the President, weren't you? Yes, I believe. And you wished him well. I certainly did. And you knew that under the Constitution, one of his principal obligations was to see that the laws be faithful executed. No question about it. Didn't it occur to you that as a friend of the President, as one who wished him well and one who was endeavoring to secure his reelection, that you should have talked to the President about it and suggested to him that he come out then make it clear that he was going to enforce the law regardless of what happened? Mr. Chairman, the President had far more resources than I did. It was known that the White House was conscious of the problem.

I had no knowledge that they wasn't common knowledge at the time. I had nothing to tell the President that would have been unusual. Well, didn't he? So all you did know in General Nyoma and suspicion that maybe something was rotten and that committed to reelect the President? Mr. Chairman, I had no reason to suspect at that time and until March 23rd that there was anybody involved in this matter beyond McCord and Litty. And not even that was a hunt who had worked. He had an office in the same building. I didn't know Mr. Hunt. I knew nothing about his connection with the affair. But he was one of those who was indicted. No, I didn't know anything about Mr. Hunt except what I read in the press until he was indicted. And the fact that you had been told that Mr. Magruder had tried to persuade Mr. Sloan to commit a surgery, didn't make you think that Mr. Magruder was implicated in some way in this?

Well, it's entirely possible that Mr. Magruder was. But he wasn't indicted by the grand jury who had apparently had the entire story according to Mr. Sloan's statement. I'm not in a position to accuse people of crimes if the grand jury doesn't find them inditable. Well, I wasn't suggesting that. I was just suggesting that as a friend and well-wish of the President that you might naturally have exactly the same inclination which Mr. Sloan have in the head to say that there's something that might be wrong. It might be rotten in the committee to relax the President and feel like that to protect the President you ought to call it this tension. You'll misgivance. Well, Mr. Magruder and Mr. Sloan testified before the grand jury. Mr. Sloan talked to people in the White House. I like and say is that I saw no reason for money going any farther with the President.

Well, you didn't have any feeling that there was anything rotten in the committee to re-elect the President to ought to be investigated. Beyond that investigation which was going on by the FBI, by the grand jury, by the White House and whatever other sources involved, I had no investigating mechanism. And I did not. Well, you questioned individually by the FBI. Oh, yes, I had three meetings with the FBI plus one occasion when they came back for a few questions. In other words, you didn't give the information you didn't give the FBI was not in the form of a written statement made for you. And how long was it after you had a conversation with the President that the President announced that Dean had made an investigation? And how long was it after you had a conversation with the President that the President announced that Dean had made an investigation and that he could assure the American people that nobody, the President employed, or then employed in the White House was implicated in any way?

Mr. Chairman, off hand, I don't know whether that announcement was made before or after the date that I had the meeting with the President. Now, you talked to the President personally in September, you say? Yes. Did you discuss any of these matters with him? No, I did not discuss the Watergate matter as such. The President commiserated with me. He said, I know you're taking a lot of punishment in the press and taking a great many accusations. He said, you're doing a fine job. I hope that you'll just keep on working because this will all be cleared up someday. And I'm confident that you had nothing to do with it.

It was a pep talk, as I said. And I did take advantage of the occasion to say to the President, I think we're spending an awful lot of money. We're working awfully hard to raise it. And Mr. President, it's very hard to raise money for a candidate who has 30 points ahead in the polls. But that was the nature of the discussion. Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stands, you testified that part of the money that Mr. Calumback was paid out of some Filipino national money. And you said that that had to be paid back? Yes. Was that paid back by check? No, that was paid back by Mr. LaRue in the same form in which we received it in case. Now, isn't it true, Mr. Stands, that shortly after the break-in, Mr. Sloan went to the White House because he was very upset about certain things that had allegedly happened?

He did, indeed, go there, that he talked to Mr. Erlichman and to Mr. Chapin. He has so testified, I had no direct knowledge of it at the time. All right, he returned to the committee, and did you not speak to him about his conversations at the White House? I have no recollection of having spoken to him about that. It's possible that it's somewhere along the line he reported on those conversations, but I don't recall it. Mr. Sloan may have a better recollection on that tonight. In quotes, did you recall raking him out about that, maybe, criticizing? I didn't understand your question. Did you quote rake him out about having that meeting in the White House? Oh, absolutely not.

All right. Now, do I understand that your concept of Mr. Mitchell's role in the whole campaign is that he chaired those meetings you spoke about? The meetings of the Budget Committee? That's right. Well, yes, we were really cult chairman of the Budget Committee, but I deferred to Mr. Mitchell. The meetings were held in his office or near his office, and in effect, I considered him the chairman of the meetings. Well, you viewed him as the man in charge, didn't you? Of the whole campaign. Yes, but not in charge of the Finance Committee. All right, but overall, you said that you had really nothing to do with the campaign, but you considered him in charge of the whole campaign process. Yes, he was campaign director. That was his title. All right. Now, when you were approached about giving some money to Mr. Liddy, you called up Mr. Mitchell, didn't you? I went to see him.

Right. And I think yesterday in response to a question I proposed, you said that do you mean, John, that if Magruder tells Sloan to pay these amounts or any amounts to Gordon Liddy, that he should do so? And he said that is right. Now, before that, Mr. Mitchell had said to you, he will have to ask Magruder because Magruder is in charge of the campaign and he directs the spendings. Now, wasn't that incredible to you? No, not in the context in which I understood it. What Mitchell was saying is that Magruder is the man who is handling the details of the campaign. Magruder is the man who is working out the programs. Magruder is the man who has the responsibility for directing the spending. Now, when John Mitchell is before this committee, he can tell you better than I can what his function was, but I conceived his function to be that of the political professional, the man who talked to the political leaders in a state and organized the campaign and the state, the man who sought to bring about harmony in the campaign and so on. I did not conceive of Mr. Mitchell as the man who said, let's spend $745,000 for public relations.

He was in on the discussions on that, but he was the political professional as I understood it. Magruder was the on-hand manager of the activity. All right, Mr. Stans, my last question is this. I know that you have subsequently read about so-called CIA involvement in the Mexican transactions, but didn't you have some inkling of that at the time that the Dalberg Mexican checks came up? Did somebody notify you about that there was possibly a CIA involvement? The stories I have been reading in the paper recently have been a great surprise to me about the discussions between the heads of the CIA and the FBI, because I was not aware that any of that was going on.

But there was one occasion when Barbellan had complained to me that the attorney in Mexico was being harassed, that the FBI had demanded to know the name of his client, that this would have reached his lawyer client privilege, and that the FBI had threatened him that if he didn't tell him who his client was in the matter, they were going to go to all the clients of his firm until they found out. Alan called me and said, does the FBI have that much authority in a foreign country? And I said, I don't know. I talked to either to Martin or to John Dean. I can't recall which one it was and asked him the question. And sometime later, a day or two later, I got to reply. It said, it appears as though this lawyer may be a CIA source. And if that is the case, the investigation will stop at that point.

Now, that is all I heard or know about that situation. I can't place that conversation in terms of a date, but I did get that one report. The investigation did not cease and eventually was carried on until I was told the investigation is over. Well, do you know any basis for that statement that there was some White House position? Pardon me? Do you have any basis for the apparent White House position that there was CIA involvement? No, I don't. Except, as you know, the White House was getting the FBI investigation reports apparently during this period of time. Thank you. Do you have any questions on this side? This stands, I'll ask you to get volume of 10 of the testimony.

Turn to page 1733. Do you have that? Under whose testimony is that? This is Secretary. Mr. Stan's is testing. Page 1733. And I call. We don't have that, sir. Do you have another copy here? Let me read an inconsistent end of testimony and ask you if you can clarify, please. On page 1733 this morning, I'm quoting Senator Norway. Yesterday in this morning you testified that you had no reason to question the integrity or the reliability of such associates as Mr. LaRue. You've described him as a good person.

Mr. Mitchell or Mr. Combine? When did you suspect that something was wrong? Mr. Stan's. I didn't have any suspicions about any of these people until after the disclosures in the press, following I believe it was March 23rd when Mr. McCord wrote his letter. And then on page 1770 of the testimony, on line 20, Senator Townidge, Mr. Stan's. Did that not raise suspicions in your mind as to the possible illegal unethical uses of the money that Mr. McGruder was dispersed? Mr. Stan's. No question about that. But those suspicions began to generate earlier than that, particularly on June 28th. And Mr. Lydia was discharged from failing to cooperate with FBI. Now you stated in response to Senator Norway's question that you had no suspicions until March 23rd of this year. You stated in response to the question that I asked you that your suspicions arose earlier than that, but particularly on June 28th.

So when did you first get suspicious that something was rotten in Denmark? Well, I think I can clear that up very easily. The first quotation you recited was as to a man like LaRue and Comba. And I was not suspicious of them until sometime after March 23rd. But my suspicions as to Gordon Litty began to grow shortly after the Watergate Affair. And that is the answer I was giving in the second part so far as I can get it from your quotation. These were different people. So you're suspicious about some individuals earlier than you were suspicious about us? I was suspicious about Gordon Litty within the week and 10 days that it evolved after the Watergate Disclosure. Yes. But your early suspicions were not enough to arouse more suspicions. As to the gentleman you named, the Mr. Particularly Mr. LaRue and Mr. Comba.

Both of whom I held in very high regard. And I don't think there was anything in the public press or anywhere to point any fingers of implication at either of them. Thank you, Mr. Stan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Stan, you indicated in your testimony throughout that Mr. Sloan was in charge of the money which was collected and the disbursements, the money that was collected. And that your primary duty was to go out in the field and collect money. And to fund raising events. That is correct. Now, were you in California and Iowa on a similar mission in early July? Approximately July 11th and 12th, as I recall. Yes.

And when had you left for that trip from Washington? Well, I had left for that trip on approximately July 5th. I went to Atlanta and several cities in Georgia. I went to Miami and elsewhere in Florida. I spent the weekend in Florida from there to California. From there to Seattle. From there to Portland. From there to Des Moines. And from there to Dayton, Ohio. And I returned. I believe on the night of the 13th about two o'clock in the morning. Were you in touch on or about the 6th of July with anyone connected with the White House or with the committee? I was out of town then. I don't recall any phone calls until I got to Florida. I had a phone call from Bob Martin.

And what was that telephone call about? About the importance of my going to California. Mr. Martin had been in charge of that region of states. There was a very difficult budget problem with the California campaign committee. It had not been resolved. And he wanted very much for me to go to California and try to work it out. And that was the only telephone call with Washington or anyone connected with the CRP or with the White House on that day? I really don't know. It's the only one I can recall. And it was the important one because I tried to get out of the trip. I wanted to go directly. The best of your recollection was that the only call. Is the best of my recollection now, yes. And to the best of recollection, to the best of your recollection, was the conversation confined just to the very subject and urgency of going to California? It was confined to that subject and to the suggestion that Mr. Sloan joined me in California.

That's what I was getting. Now, who suggested to you that Mr. Sloan joined you in California? I think it was Mr. Martin. Did anyone else call you? Well, you're testing my recollection now, but I don't recall anyone else telling me. Had you requested that Mr. Sloan join you? No, I had not. Did you ask, Mr. Martin, why he should join you? I don't recall any discussion on that. He thought it would be a good idea if Sloan were in California. It was one of our biggest states, a budget problem as serious. And whatever his reasons were for flowing going along, I don't recall them at this time. I don't know that he even told them. Did Jerry use Mr. Sloan in California during that trip on budgetary problems? Mr. Sloan said in the meeting.

Did he contribute anything to those meetings and the input? I don't recall that he did. Did he stay with you in your room or in the same hotel next to your room? I think it was in the same hotel in a room somewhere, but I don't know where it was. Did he discuss the fact that McGruder had been trying to get him to purge himself with you? Well, I really don't know whether he discussed it on that trip or not, or whether that had come out earlier. Well, you must have discussed something about the McGruder involvement during that trip. Did you? I don't think we did. I don't recall it. Did you discuss anything about Wargate with Mr. Sloan during that trip? Well, again, I think there were some discussions with Mr. Sloan toward the end of the trip, but let me tell you what we were doing. We had a budget meeting with the California people that lasted quite late. I flew that night quite late, well after midnight before I got to Seattle.

The next day I had a series of meetings beginning with breakfast, private meetings, a luncheon meeting, and a series of other meetings. During which time Mr. Sloan met with the treasurer of the Washington Finance Committee. We left that afternoon late or evening. I guess it was either late that evening or it makes morning for Portland, Oregon. And I had a similar schedule. Mr. Sloan again met and talked with the treasurer of the Oregon State Committee so far as I can recall. We had a very busy time, and it wasn't until we got there. Well, you had a little social conversation together, didn't you? Yes, we did, but the only ones I recall were, did you socialize about Wargate? Senator, I really don't recall.

If we talked about it, we talked about it in terms of the general interest, the nature of his concerns. But I don't know anything fundamental or new that came out in the course of that trip. Do you mean to tell me that Mr. Sloan did not express to you his concern about Mr. McRooter's attempts to yet him to purge himself? Well, I said, Mr. Sloan had said that to me on one occasion, I don't know whether it was on that trip or whether it was before we made the trip. Would you say that it was either on that trip or before one of the two? I'd be inclined to think so, yes, but I'm not even sure of that. I don't see how I can fix the dates of anyone. Then if you knew that, and if he did that, either on that trip or before, why do you say that you had no knowledge of anything disparaging about Mr. McRooter until March 23rd of this year of 73? Well, I don't really think I said that I had no knowledge of anything disparaging about Mr. McRooter.

I believe that was your indication. I said I had no knowledge about anything disparaging about Mr. LaRue, Mr. Comback and others. But I did have in mind what Mr. Sloan had told me, but Sloan had told it to the grand jury. And as time went on, it was evident that the grand jury did not think that it was anything that they were going to act on. That was as far as I was concerned, the extent of my interest in concern. Mr. Sloan devotes to you that he had had a meeting with the attorneys, Mr. Parkinson and Mr. O'Brien, and informed them of the attempts on the part of Mr. LaRue, that he would go before the grand jury and claim the Fifth Amendment. I don't recall that Mr. Sloan ever told me that.

You were aware that he had met with Mr. LaRue on the day he returned from the California trip, were you not? Well, I really have no direct recollection over it. I've heard his testimony later on to that effect. He did call you on the telephone that night, did he not? He called me in demoring or Dayton, Ohio before I returned to Washington, yes. And did you not tell him in that telephone conversation that you said, let us not discuss this on the phone. I will be in the office. He was talking about his resignation, and I said, let's not discuss this on the telephone. Mr. Sloan is a very valuable man, I didn't want to lose him. One of the reasons why I welcomed him going on the trip, I wanted him to participate in the meetings, to hear the discussions, to develop some of the enthusiasm of the campaign. And I didn't want to lose Mr. Sloan, but it was evident that he had concluded he wanted to leave.

Well, actually, you were aware that there were more than two months between the time the Sloan talked to you and the grand jury acted. Were you not? I would say something like that, yes. Were you not aware of this? I think that's what part of what it was, yes. Then if Mr. Sloan resigned to you and discussed his resignation with you, do I understand that Mr. Sloan worked under you and was responsible to you for his acts as treasurer? Mr. Sloan was responsible under the law for his acts as treasurer directly in reporting to the controller general, but I was the chairman of the committee, I coordinated its activities, but Sloan consulted with me, I consulted with him, and the relationship was exactly as I've described it. But in theory and practice, he did work under you.

On the organization chart, Mr. Sloan worked under me. Thank you. You have it. Mr. Secretary, in past scandals, political scandals such as the Teapot Dome scandal, the crime involved was use of money for personal gain or personal purposes. Many have suggested that in the activities now under consideration by this select committee, none of the funds were ever used for personal gain or personal purposes. Are you aware of any of your funds under your control were ever used for personal purposes or personal gain? I am not aware of anyone connected with either committee who profited financially as a result of any of these things other than a salary and normal reimbursement of expenses. You can't quite be different, can you?

After you've told the committee that you were not aware what the cash disbursements were used for? No, that's right. That's why I said I'm not aware of anything. Obviously, some of it apparently went to the lawyer of Mr. McCord, and Mr. McCord has testified that he got compensation continuing for quite a period of time after he was discharged. Now, as the events have unfolded, have you as chairman of the Finance Committee to reelect the President made an attempt to investigate what uses these monies were put to? I'm not sure which money you're referring to the ones. The cash disbursements. I have not conducted an independent investigation that could be described in those terms. I have learned a great deal about these items. I have inquired into some of them. I'm conversant with most of them by this time, but not in terms of having made an investigation.

How would you respond to any inquiry by the Internal Revenue Service if they became interested in the use of these funds? Well, again, it would be a matter of which funds. If I look at the chart and go down the names, I would say that it would be necessary for each of these people to justify his receipt and use of the funds, but I would not be an obsession to know whether they could account for them properly or whether they would be taxable on them. Now that there is a grave possibility that some of these funds have been used for unintended purposes such as the cover. Will you as chairman of the Finance Committee make an effort to get the funds returned to its proper place?

Senator, I hadn't thought of that as a responsibility until now. Who's responsibility would that be, sir? I don't know. I think I should discuss that with Council and see whether there is a responsibility to recover any of those funds. Do you think there's an obligation to those who contribute it? I think it's a very valid suggestion and I thank you for making it. Thank you very much, Mr. Secretary. The audience will please refrain from life. The committee has decided to, at least I think this is that aspect of all members of the committee, that we will hold, if necessary, will hold session Monday. In case we were able to hold session Monday, then the last week, of course we have session scheduled, but Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, next week.

And if a satisfactory committee had set hearings for Monday, the 25th, Tuesday, the 26th, Wednesday, the 27th and Thursday, the 28th, that's the last week before the 4th of July recess. Is there any objection to that being done? Mr. Chairman, before you recess, if that is your intention, may I have the opportunity under the committee's rules of a closing statement? Yes, sir. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the committee for your consideration and for the opportunity to me to present my story for the first time. I hope it creates a picture of a very difficult undertaking, a frenzied activity on my part and on the part of the Finance Committee in trying to meet the obligations of the campaign. I have done my best to recall from all the records I have, everything to answer the committee's questions, but I'm only human and I can only tell what I know.

Now, I do want to say something about three elements. First, I'd like to talk about the people in the Finance Committee. Under the conditions of separateness, and I won't use the term watertight and view of Senator Baker's comment this morning, but under the conditions of separateness between the two committees, I'm confident that no one in the Finance Committee, except of course Gordon Litty, had any knowledge of or participation in the Watergate Affair or any other espionage or sabotage activities. When all the testimony is in, and of course we are hearings, I'm confident that you will find that everyone connected with the Finance Committee has cooperated fully and that all of them are innocent of any involvement. I want to say it's so particularly with respect to our two treasures of Hugh Sloan and Paul Berry.

Now, much has been made of a few differences in recollection between me and Mr. Sloan. That ignores all of the common ground between our testimony, and there's a great deal of it. And above all, the differences that have come out between the recollections of Mr. Sloan and me really relate to financial reporting rather than do any responsibility for espionage or sabotage, not with regard to the Watergate Affair. The second thing I'd like to talk about briefly is about the contributors. Among all of our committees in this campaign, there were about a million contributions received for the President and the Republican Party. Some of them came from wealthy people, some of them came from people in the middle strata, and some from poor people. We received amounts from $1 or less up to a very large amount in a million or more. Always urge people, in the course of my travels and solicitation, to contribute according to their means, according to their ability to give, just as they pay taxes.

So it's true there was some large contributions, some very large contributions. But the idea is being pervade in some circles that no one gives a substantial amount of money to a campaign without buying something in return, without the expectation of a favor. I think most of the members of the committee would agree with me that that's vicious. That's a lie, and it's belittling to our self-respect as a people. I'd like to give a couple examples. Clemens Stone and Chicago, pretty well known now, gave $2 million to elect the President. He gave a lot in 1968. He's a very wealthy man and he can afford it. He believes in the President, he knows him, he's a friend. Clemens Stone has never asked for anything from his government or the administration in return.

He's done it because he believes it's a public service, the man of wealth. I'd like to give you another case. Ray Crock is the man in Chicago who is responsible for the development of the Magnonald Hamburger chain. I visited with him in Chicago in September for about 45 minutes. I'd never met him before. I talked about the campaign and we discussed his success story. Mr. Crock said, on October 3rd, I'm going to have my 70th birthday. And in appreciation for what I've been able to achieve, I'm going to give millions of dollars of my money to charity. I said, Mr. Crock, you are a beneficiary of the Great American System and I'm sure you believe in it. I reason to believe that you think the President will help to preserve that system.

I'd like to make a suggestion. When you get to October 3rd and make those distributions to charity, why don't you at the same time give $250,000 to help reelect the President? He did. There was no discussion in that meeting of anything else. Now, what happened after his contribution became known? First, the press accused him of making the contribution so he could influence the Price Commission on matters affecting his company. Secondly, he was accused of making the contribution so that he could get a lower minimum wage for the young people that worked for his company. He was insulted by these insinuations and falsehoods. They were vicious and unfair, completely conjectured without any fact, whatever. My point is that there are many people like Mr. Crock who believe in the country, who believe in the party, who believe in principles, and who may believe it at a given time in a candidate.

There are very few people who want to collect and return for their contribution and they don't get very far under either party that's in power, Democrats or Republicans. I think the time has come to express more confidence in the honor and integrity of our fellow men, whether they're richer poor, and stop manufacturing reasons to attack people who merely exercise the right of citizenship by making a political contribution. I want to say one thing more about innocent people and I'll be finished. In the course of all the things that have happened since June 17th, a lot of innocent people have been drawn through the mayer of unrelenting publicity, insinuations, accusations, charges. I'll name a few. Kenneth Dolberg, Dwayne Andrews, Robert Allen, and their considerable number of others, who paid a horrible price merely because they participated in a campaign as a contributor or as a worker.

In time and expenses and even in their reputation, there have been very damaging effects on their businesses and on their personal lives. That's very unfair. Somebody has got to speak up for those people. So when the committee concludes its work and writes its report, I hope it will make it clear that such people, and by name, are innocent victims of this tragedy. I hope that people like Hugh Sloan and others in the limelight of adverse publicity will be directly cleared. I put myself in that category. I volunteered or was drafted, whatever the case may be, because I believed in my president. You know by now from what you've heard, but I know you can't feel the abuse to which I've been subjected because of the associations I fell into.

All I ask Mr. Chairman and members of the committee is that when you write your report, you give me back my good name. Thank you very much. Mr. Stan, so you were placed in a rather embarrassing situation and being called upon by the committee to testify. And that was the reason that I stated that I've commended your lawyer for the very excellent and very eloquent statement that he made in support of your position. Sometimes I'm a lawyer and sometimes we lawyers get a little over-settles and all that, but I have a profound respect for the legal profession. And I don't think a final service can be rendered and the person to see, to see that his clients' rights are protected. Notwithstanding the fact that I went to the existing situation, it was somewhat the invasion for you to appear. I want to thank you on the behalf of the committee for preparing before the committee and testifying in the right substantial details and connection with all the matters you ask about.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. If I may before the witness that excused, I'd like to associate myself with remarks of the chairman and also express our appreciation to Mr. Stan's for appearing as a witness. I hope now that with this phase of his testimony concluded that some concerns about the involvement in testimony and other matters and other forums has been dispel, that we have not trespassed or encroached on other inquiries. We do not intend to put you in embarrassing position. We do not intend to create for you problems and difficulties, but we do not intend to do less than the very best we can to get all the facts and to follow those facts wherever they lead us. I think you've been very helpful in that respect and we thank you for it.

It may be later that the committee may recall you for further testimony, not in connection with the matters you've been interrogated about, but in connection with the campaign contributions in general, but we'll try to do that at your convenience. Thank you as far as possible. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. So, as you saw, the end of the Marie Stan's testimony brought with it the most acrimonious exchange within the committee as Senator Gurney criticized the chairman for what he called harassing the witness. Still, Mr. Stan's managed to maintain the calm demeanor which has characterized his appearance. He may return later for more questioning on how he ran the finance operations generally. Next on the stand will be Jeb Stuart McGruder, the deputy campaign manager who reportedly authorized the payment of large sums of cash to G Gordon Liddy, of course, one of those convicted in the Watergate break in. The key question for McGruder is what he knew of what Liddy was doing and who'd instructed him to include Liddy in his operation. McGruder was granted immunity earlier this week and there are several theories about what he'll say on the stand.

Meanwhile, an end to the hearings seemed further away. Chairman Irvin announced today that the committee will work a four-day week for the next two weeks in an attempt to accelerate the pace. But as of now, no one's betting on when these hearings will come to an end or how close they will come to the start of the 1974 congressional races. We have David Oster of the Georgetown University Law School and Herbert Alexander, director of the Citizens Research Foundation and a national expert on campaign financing with us now. Gentlemen, first of all, I'd like to ask you, Mr. Alexander, is there something inherently evil about the use of cash and a political campaign, do you believe? Secretary Stan suggested that there was a necessity for the use of cash in campaigns. It is true that in a campaign organization there must be petty cash. It is also true that sometimes money is raised in cash in small sums. Perhaps a collection basket will be sent around at a rally and individuals should be permitted to contribute cash in small sums.

I think that in terms of legislation, I would not be in favor of prohibiting the use of cash, but rather would circumscribe its use by saying that an individual could not contribute in cash in excess of, say, $50 or $100, whatever the amount the Congress might want to set. And I would also try to set some limits on the use of cash within the campaign organization itself. When an advanceman is going out on a trip to set up a rally, he may need $100 or $200 in cash to pay incidental expenses along the way. And I would not try to inhibit that kind of activity, but rather to limit it.

Well, look, we just saw Mr. Stan's being questioned about the advantages to a contributor anonymity, in other words, what advantages this hell holds for a contributor. He was not asked, however, within that framework, what advantages giving cash has for a contributor? What are they from your extensive research in this area? Well, of course, cash is a universal means of exchange, and it doesn't bring along with it the individual who may have given it. Cash could have come from any source from any individual, and you can't establish a linkage between the giver and the receiver. So it's double anonymity in a way. In the testimony of Mr. Stan's where he said that he gave $75,000 to Herbert Calm back on orders from high up or at the request of high up in the White House, I have a legal question, hypothetical legal question. If it later is determined that that $75,000 was used for an illegal purpose, as has been alleged that it was used to assist in the Watergate cover-up, is Mr. Stan's legally culpable, even though he said he did not know.

In fact, Aston was, and Mr. Calm back refused to tell him for what purpose that money was going to be spent. Well, Jim, as far as the criminal law is concerned, he is not culpable. If he did not know, there are exceptions to that in the criminal law. Many states, many jurisdictions have a negligent homicide statute, so that if you kill someone with your automobile and obviously didn't do it on purpose, that is nonetheless a crime. It comes to the illegal purpose of money that might have gone through Mr. Stan's hands. If he really did not know what the purpose of the money was for, then he is not criminally liable. However, let me add this, there are a number of civil suits which have grown out of the Watergate matter. One of them is a suit by the Democratic Central Committee against the committee for the re-election of the President and Mr. Stan's and Mr. Mitchell and some other individual defendants. There the issue is somewhat different, particularly if negligence is claimed.

And when it comes to negligence, the issue is not what Mr. Stan's knew. The issue is whether Mr. Stan's knew or should have known what the money was going to be used for. And the proof is very different, and if it can be shown that Mr. Stan's was negligent, and in fact should have known what the money was going to be used for, then he as an individual defendant could be liable. One other seemingly peripheral question. Above and beyond the argument that we just saw between Senator Gurney and Senator Irvin and the whole thing from a partisan standpoint, how would you rate Senator Irvin as a country lawyer? Well, I'd like to be a country lawyer the way he's a country lawyer. He has obviously a very superior legal mind. He plows right ahead when he asks the questions, and frankly with a witness like Mr. Stan's, that is what you have to do. Mr. Stan's does not answer questions yes or no. He simply gives fairly long answers. And Senator Irvin just asks the question, and whatever response he gets, he goes right ahead and asks the next question, and that is frankly what you have to do. All right, away from the hearing room today, Vice President Agnew's name received some indirect Watergate spillover.

And a matter that has previously been linked with the Watergate Probe, a county grand jury in Maryland came up with a four count sealed indictment against someone involved in last year's Baltimore dinner honoring the vice president. That was the dinner where Maurice Stan's advanced $50,000 to swell the kitty, and action had made the event seem more successful than it really was. She'll recall Mr. Stan's testified about that today, as a matter of fact, and said that the money was in fact eventually returned to the national campaign. The identity of the person indicted won't be made known until the arrest is made, and that'll probably be tomorrow. There are really two themes running through this investigation, these hearings, and the second one got quite an airing today. The main theme, of course, is to find out who did all the bad things associated with the Nixon campaign, illegal improper or unethical things. It's a search for the guilty, and how high up the guilt reaches the committee is grinding on with that process. The other process is to accumulate materials to help the Senate draft better campaign legislation, and that involves the morality of campaigning.

Morality is a notoriously difficult thing to define, in politics, probably impossible, but the committee is attempting it anyway. In the questions, particularly of Senators Baker and Irvin, there is a pattern of concern. A number of witnesses have been forced to probe their moral consciences in public. It may prove impossible to legislate these matters, but the hearings themselves could by a repetition of their concern help to promulgate a finer set of political ethics. Two broad generalizations, which might form the basis for such a possible code, have emerged from the hearings so far. One is that loyalty to any politician, even if he's the president, or to his political team, does not override a man's loyalty to his own moral conscience. The other theme was well put by Senator Irvin today. The conduct of people in high political positions should be guided by ethical principles which are higher than the minimal requirements of the law. For Jim Lehrer and Peter K., I'm Robert McNeill, goodnight for NPACT.

From Washington, you've been watching Gavill-to-Gavill videotape coverage of hearings by the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities. This coverage is made possible by grants for special events coverage from the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Ford Foundation, and has been a production of NPACT, a division of the Greater Washington Educational Telecommunications Association. You You

You You You