« PreviousContinue »
Let me say to you that we are not trying to prove anything about you. What we are trying to find out, very candidly, is .whether or not your name was used on tickets that you knew nothing about. We have testimony that it was, which is in your favor.
We would like to accommodate you tonight. If we have to pull all these vouchers one by one, I will give you this subpena and you will just have to stay here until tomorrow when we can question you further.
I would point out to you that at some personal sacrifice we came back to accommodate you. We wasted 15 minutes by the clock in trying to get you to say whether or not you made a trip to Miami when you testified you were in Los Angeles.
I do not think it would be out of line for you to say, "I was in Los Angeles and couldn't possibly have made that trip, and let it go at that.
You couldn't possibly have made a trip to Miami if you were in Los Angeles, could you?
The WITNESS. I can appreciate very much what you are saying. You see, everybody testifies differently. You speak different in the way you speak. I am sure that anywhere that I am testifying, I am testifying to a statement that I made, my vouchers speak for themselves when I was in Los Angeles. I said I was in Los Angeles. I don't know what further you want me to say, unless you want me to say what you want me to say. This I have never done in all my life, and I don't intend to start it at this particular time. I testified to the fact, on the date that you mentioned, that I was in Los Angeles, Calif. I don't know what more you would want me to say
I can't say anything more, even if you gave me 100 subpenas. Whatever you said to me, I could not say any more to you than the fact that I was in Los Angeles from whatever the date it was to the other date. That is the time I was there. I was at no other place other than in California. I don't know anything else I can say. Mr. Hays. I was in Europe from the 10th of November to the 30th. The WITNESS. I didn't hear that.
Mr. Hays. I was in Europe this year from the 10th of November until the 30th. If anybody were to ask me, under oath or not, did I make a trip to Los Angeles during those days, I would say "No."
The WITNESS. If I asked you that same question, you told me you were in Europe from the 10th to the 30th, I would think it was a little bit—not reflecting on anyone I would think it was strange if someone asked me if I was somewhere on earth at the other end of the world when I testified to the fact as to where I was.
Mr. Hays. If somebody put my name on a ticket that was in question and it was reflecting on me, and I were in Europe, I would say-
The WITNESS. I don't know what you know.
The WITNESS. All I know is what I testify to, that I was in Los Angeles. If you know something else and you are trying to get me to say what you know, I cannot do that. I am not that competent to do that.
I am saying to you that I was in California at that particular time. That is the only thing I can testify to.
By Mr. O'CONNOR: Q. Did you make a flight from Miami to Washington, D.C., on the 19th as reflected by those tickets?
A. If the date here says I was in California, I did not.
A. If the date said I was in Los Angeles, sir, I don't know for what purpose and the gentleman said
Q. Never mind the purpose.
A. The gentleman is badgering me on this. I testified to the fact. I haven't even seen any of the records. I was on vacation. I got a letter from you, no subpena. I called Mr. Hays and told him that I would be happy to come in if I could continue on my trip.
Not having the subpena, I could just as well have said I got no subpena and stayed on my vacation.
I came here more or less voluntarily to be as helpful as I possibly could be. I want to be. But, gentlemen, I don't think it is exactly proper, either, for you to tell me to testify the way you want me to testify. I know nothing about what you know.
Q. There is no suggestion that we are putting words in you mouth. The question was asked and you had tickets in front of you showing the names of 0. Clark on a Miami ticket from Washington, D.C.
A. I testified to the fact that I have no knowledge of that particular thing. What do you want me to say other than that? If I have no knowledge of it, what are you asking me now to say?
Q. I didn't understand you to say you had no knowledge.
Mr. Hays. No knowledge of those tickets.
The WITNESS. If they were the tickets issued during the time that I was in California, I said to you that I cannot shed any light to you on that particular issue whatsoever. That is what I said to you.
Mr. DICKINSON. This might be semantics, Mr. Chairman. To a lawyer it means a great deal of difference to say that he can shed no light or has no knowledge is a world of difference in meaning, inference, implication, and whatever.
He says one thing and he says smething else. · He has been asked a question—did he make the trip. All he has to do is to say “Yes” or “No." That is all we are asking. He can say this.
But to say he has no knowledge is not at all the same as saying he can shed no light. These are two different things. Mr. Hays. He has said both. Mr. DICKINSON. He said both in two successive sentences. Did you make the trip or not?
The WITNESS. I made the trip to California. This is the trip I made, sir.
Mr. Dickinson. You will not leave here without my objection, I don't care about your vacation, until you answer this question.
The WITNESS. You mean, complete the statement-until I answer the question the way you want me to answer the question.
Mr. DICKINSON. Just a simple question. Did you or did you not? You say you are anxious to go. We are here to accommodate you.
You will not leave without my objecting to it until you answer this question.
The WITNESS. Let me say this I have tickets to leave, but for principle you would not keep me here on the basis of telling me that you would hold me here to get me to say what you want me to say if I was on my way to heaven tomorrow. Mr. Hays. We do not want you to say anything but the truth.
The WITNESS. I want you to understand that. I consider that as sort of a threat.
Mr. DICKINSON. You can take it as a threat. Until you give this committee an honest, forthright answer to a simple question
The WITNESS. Now you are questioning my integrity, when you say to me if I give you an honest answer, and I consider that I have given you an honest answer.
Mr. Hays. Let's get back. There is no point in continuing the debate.
Hand him the ticket. Again we will put the question. If he does not want to answer it, we can adjourn and come back tomorrow.
By Mr. TAYLER: Q. I show you, Mr. Clark, what has been marked “Clark No. 2," being three portions of a National Air Lines ticket. I direct your attention to the third portion, which is marked “Passenger Ticket, Coupon No. 1.” showing travel by 0. Clark—excuse me. These are out of order.
I am showing you the portion of this ticket bearing the passenger's name as Mr. O. Clark, showing a flight on National Air Lines from Miami to New York on March 19, 1966, and the ticket bears an airline stamp as having been used on that date for first-class travel. I ask you whether or not you made that trip from Miami to New York on that date?
A. On March 19?
Q. Now would you answer my question, Mr. Clark, the question previously asked you? Mr. Hays. Did you fly from Miami to New York?
The WITNESS. I did not leave Los Angeles from the time that I was in Los Angeles from March 16 to March 20 until I came back to Washington.
Mr. Hays. So you could not have made the trip. Is that the answer?
By Mr. O'CONNOR: Q. Why do you hesitate to answerA. I do not. That is not the right statement for you to make to me. Q. Will you answer “Yes” or “No”?
A. I went from March 16 to March 20 to Los Angeles, Calif., exclusively.
Q. Will you answer either you did make the trip from Miami to New York
A. I don't know anything about this ticket, sir, and I cannot testify to something, and I want the record to show that I cannot testify to something, that I have no knowledge of. I have no knowledge of this ticket, sir. I have knowledge of this other.
Mr. Hays. Do you have knowledge of whether or not you flew from Miami to New York on any of those days.
The WITNESS. I have knowledge that I was in Los Angeles at this time, and that's the only place that I am testifying that I was at that particular time from the 16th to the 20th. I have no knowledge of this that you showed me, and you cannot get me to testify to something that I have no knowledge of.
By Mr. O'CONNOR:
By Mr. TAYLER:
Q. Did you request that the transportation, the airline ticket reflected in Clark Exhibit No. 2, did you order that from someone in the office of the committee?
A. The only ticket I requested at that particular time, sir, was the ticket that bears the date from the 16th to the 20th, the only tickets I was involved with and requested. I think that the Congressman requested those for me.
Q. Will you wait until I finish, please?
Q. You are not answering the question, and that is why you are being interrupted. If you would be responsive, you would not be interrupted.
Q. Clark's exhibit No. 2, the ticket from the District of Columbia to Miami and the return trip having been reissued as District of Columbia to New York, did you ever order that ticket from someone in the committee's office?
A. I just testified that I never ordered any ticket.
Q. Didn't you make trips where you requested tickets from someone in the staff?
A. Requested. You said ordered.
A. I requested only a ticket to this trip, and this is the only ticket I requested.
Q. During that period of time?
Q. Before March 16, before you went to Los Angeles, did you request the ticket that is Clark's exhibit No. 2?
A. I don't understand.
Q. Did you ask for an airline ticket from the District of Columbia to Miami and return before you went to Los Angeles?
A. During this period?
A. That is what I testified to.
The WITNESS. I am not refusing. You are putting your words into my words. I don't think this is fair, sir.
By Mr. TaylER: Q. Now I will hand you another voucher bearing your signature as the payee requesting per diem and travel expenses for the date February 1, 1965, for travel performed for the committee to Chicago and return. I ask you if you can identify your signature on that voucher.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. The audit has been unable to uncover or to turn up any transportation expense or airline ticket for you from District of Columbia to Chicago and return for that trip.
Did you go by air when you went to Chicago?
A. Yes, certainly. I don't remember the specific incident, but I am sure I went to Chicago by air. I didn't go to Chicago any other way.
By Mr. O'CONNOR:
A. I believe there is a possibility, and I am not completely clear, this is over a year—I believe yes. Now it is coming to me.
In one of the trips to Chicago it was on the education issue of the schools there. One of the times we went to Chicago, I believe there were three people—Stone, and at that time the education chief went. I don't know if this is the date.
Q. When you went out with Stone and the education director, who was the education director?
A. Dr. Hewell.
A. Yes, I remember that, but I don't remember the dates. I do remember, on second thought, and I want to correct that, I believe on this occasion they went. I remember them out there, and I assume we went together.
By Mr. TAYLER: Q. Does reading the voucher and the justification you wrote down on the voucher refresh your recollection as to who you went with?
A. No, this is the trade union. I had two issues in Chicago. That was the Building Services, Local 4, and then at another time it was the education setup. I see here it is the trade union.
Q. You recall the purpose of your visit to Chicago on February 1, 1965?
A. On this occasion, the education chief I don't believe would have been with me.
Q. Do you recall who, if anyone, accompanied you