tected by the ninth and first amendments to the Constitution, and this committee has no right to inquire.

Mr. ICHORD. Thank you very much, sir.

Mr. GUTMAN. Thank you, sir.

Mr. ICHORD. Do we have any further witnesses? I believe that is all of the attorneys for the witnesses.

The committee will now retire to take point No. 11 under advise

ment.

Mr. KUNSTLER. Mr. Chairman, we have one more introduction of counsel.

I would like to introduce Mr. Arthur Kinoy as one of the counsel for Mr. Rubin, Mr. Dellinger, and Dr. Young. [Applause.]

Mr. ICHORD. Let the Chair remind you, the audience, that you are guests of the committee, and this hearing can't proceed with emotional outbursts and the committee will now declare a brief recess for the purpose of ruling on the motions.

Mr. Kinoy, from the New York bar.

Mr. KINOY. Yes, if, Mr. Chairman, you could ask the reporter to note that I am appearing of counsel for Mr. Dellinger, for Dr. Young, and for Mr. Rubin.

Mr. ICHORD. That will be done.

Mr. KINOY. Thank you.

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, one brief point before you retire, sir.
Mr. ICHORD. We will now retire. We will bring that up later on.
Mr. KENNEDY. With reference to a-sir, may I be heard?
Mr. ICHORD. Will the gentleman please be seated?

Now, gentlemen, I think at this time-will the gentleman please be seated? I think at this time that I again should read for the benefit of the audience, and also of the attorneys, the rules under which this committee is meeting.

Again, I remind you that this is not a court proceeding. No one is on trial. This is not an adversary proceeding, and the Rules of the House of Representatives prevail, not the rules of evidence in a court. And I read again, for the information of the learned counsel from New York, Rule No. VII:

A-At every hearing, public or executive, every witness shall be accorded the privilege of having counsel of his own choosing.

B-The participation of counsel during the course of any hearing and while the witness is testifying shall be limited to advising said witness as to his legal rights. Counsel shall not be permitted to engage in oral argument with the Committee, but shall confine his activity to the area of legal advice to his client.

And the Rules of the House of Representatives, ruling pronounced by the Speaker, presiding officer of the House, and I read from the Congressional Record, October 18, 1966:

The Chair will also point out, parenthetically, that subsection (k) of rule XI, provides that:

"Witnesses at investigative hearings may be accompanied by their own counsel for the purpose of advising them concerning their constitutional rights."

This privilege, unlike advocacy in a court, does not as a matter of right entitle the attorney to present argument, make motions, or make demands on the committee.

Now the Chair was quite lenient on Tuesday. Twenty-six times, according to a newspaper report, these committee hearings were in

terrupted, but let not the lenience of the Chair be considered as acquiescence in violating the rules of the House.

My job carries the authority vested in me as chairman, and I intend to use that authority to enforce the rules of the House. Now I make no threats, but I do insist upon having order in these proceedings. I have declared a recess.

Let me say, Mr. Kennedy, that I personally feel two times Tuesday the Chair was charged with "raping the Constitution." Now that is a conclusionary statement, which is not a proper argument in the Chair's opinion. I am not going to argue with counsel. I think there is just as much evidence that someone in this room might be trying to overthrow the Constitution of the United States, but I do not mean to argue with counsel or with anyone in this room.

I have announced what the rules of this committee are, and the Chair will enforce those rules, and I do not consider, when you, in violation of the rule, arise 26 times, such conduct to be ethical conduct. I consider it highly reprehensible, and not conduct becoming a member of the bar.

Now, the Chair declared a recess. There will be a recess while the committee considers these objections.

And I leave it to you and your sense of decorum to keep order while the committee is in recess, Mr. Kennedy.

(Whereupon, at 11:05 a.m. the subcommittee recessed and reconvened at 11:30 a.m. Subcommittee members present at time of recess: Representatives Ichord, Willis, Ashbrook, and Watson and when hearings resumed: Representatives Ichord, Willis, and Watson.1) Mr. ICHORD. The committee will come to order. Members of the audience will please be seated.

Mr. DI SUVERO. Mr. Chairman, I have an application

Mr. ICHORD. Will the gentleman please be seated?

Mr. DI SUVERO. I have an application unconnected with any matter now pending before the hearing; that is, that certain members of the press have been excluded from the hearing room.

I would like to make application on behalf of certain publications; namely, the Liberation News Service, Ramparts, the Yale Daily News, Newsreel, which is a documentary film company, and the Evergreen Review, to allow their representatives to be here and know what the subcommittee is doing, to report to their audiences.

Mr. ICHORD. The gentleman has been warned that he can participate only as counsel under the rules of the House.

The motion, I believe, was raised yesterday, if my memory is

correct.

The Chair will reject the motion as frivolous. We do have limited space in this room. I have turned the matter of press entry over to the Press Gallery. In view of the circumstances surrounding this hearing, the Press Gallery will be upheld in their admissions to the hearing

room.

Now, will the gentleman please be seated?

Mr. DI SUVERO. May the record reflect

Mr. ICHORD. Will the gentleman please be seated? Obviously, the gentleman is trying to goad the Chair.

1 Representative Ashbrook entered after hearings had resumed.

Mr. DI SUVERO. No, I am not, not in the least.

Mr. ICHORD. There is a word, Mr. Counsel, for this, and that is "pettifoggery." I have explained the rulings to the gentleman.

Will you please be seated? I appeal to you as a member of the bar. Please be seated.

The Chair is about to rule. Will the gentleman please be seated?

The Chair and the committee have taken under advisement the points raised by counsel in point No. 11 of the Procedural Demands with respect to possible indictments by grand jury investigations. This is entirely too speculative.

Where is the list of the witnesses who do not have cases pending against them?

The CHAIRMAN. Will the chairman yield at this point?

Mr. ICHORD. Could I finish just a minute, Mr. Chairman?

There are four witnesses who do not have cases pending against them arising out of the incidents in Chicago. They are Mr. Davis, Mr. Greenblatt, Mr. Dellinger, and Mr. Young.

As to those witnesses, the Chair will rule that point 11 has no application.

Possible indictments are entirely too speculative. I cite the case of Hutcheson versus United States, a Supreme Court case decided May 14, 1962. I read from page 14 of that case as follows:

Nor can it be argued that the mere pendency of the state indictment ipso facto constitutionally closed this avenue of interrogation to the Committee. "It may be conceded that Congress is without authority to compel disclosures for the purpose of aiding the prosecution of pending suits; but the authority of that body, directly or through its committees, to require pertinent disclosures in aid of its own constitutional power is not abridged because the information sought to be elicited may also be of use in such suits.”

This case definitely applies to the four witnesses that I have just named. It is not the purpose of these hearings to assist any State court in the prosecution of any case. The purpose of these hearings is to inquire into what happened in the city of Chicago and how it happened, as a basis of possible remedial legislation.

As to those witnesses who have prosecutions pending against them, the Chair will reserve a ruling at this time because it was not the intention of the Chair to call these witnesses today. The witnesses who will be called today are Mr. Pierson of the Chicago police force; it is the intention of the Chair to call Mr. Greenblatt and also Dr. Young.

I would also state, in regard to the petition that has been filed in the district court, the Chair would rule that a decision enjoining this committee in its present functions would be so speculative the Chair would not consider such a possibility. It would be so flagrantly and patently unconstitutional because of the matter of separation of powers.

I am sure that even those Members of the House of Representatives who might vote in favor of doing away with the House Committee on Un-American Activities certainly would rise up in arms against such a possible decision, because if it can be done against one committee, it could be done against all committees. A tyranny of power might exist in one of the three coequal branches of Government.

The Chair will rule against the point raised by the gentleman, the attorney from New York.

The counsel, in the inquiries that I directed to them, have stated that it is not a matter of incrimination, but a question of separation of powers.

If and when the question of the fifth amendment comes before this committee, the Chair will dispose of the point at that time.

With that ruling out of the way, Mr. Counsel, call your first witness for today.

Mr. KENNEDY. May I rise to a point of personal privilege?

Mr. ICHORD. Will the gentleman please continue?

Mr. KENNEDY. I thought we were proceeding under the rules of parliamentary procedure.

Mr. ICHORD. I Would direct the attorney that you are in violation of the rules of the House. I appeal to your ethics as a member of the New York bar to please be seated.

Mr. KENNEDY. I cannot do that. My partner is being excluded. She is Miss Dohrn, who has worked with me in preparation for my clients. She is standing outside and has been excluded from the hearing room. Mr. ICHORD. Is she outside the hearing room, Mr. Kennedy?

Mr. KENNEDY. Yes.

Mr. ICHORD. The Chair will direct the police to escort Miss Dohrn in. I am happy that was not an attempt to interrupt the proceedings. The Chair will apologize.

Call your witness, Mr. Counsel.

Mr. SMITH. The witness is Mr. Robert Pierson.

Mr. ICHORD. Before the witness is sworn, the Chair will yield to the chairman of the full committee, Mr. Willis.

The CHAIRMAN. I would like to add these additional reasons for the disposal of the matter just discussed by my friend from Missouri.

With reference to the possible indictments, the situation is this: If it be determined by the prosecuting attorney that these proceedings are considered to be prejudicial, the prosecuting attorney could, and no doubt would, continue them for a reasonable time, or even consent to a change of venue.

Then, too, Mr. Chairman, all of these objections addressed to this committee are not before the proper forum. We operate, as the Chair has said time and time again, under the rules of the House. This is not the forum to test these proceedings. If anyone is dissatisfied with what is going on, go to court. Test them there. It has already been done. Mr. ICHORD. I thank the gentleman for his observation.

The witness will rise and be sworn.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Mr. PIERSON. I do.

Mr. ICHORD. Proceed, Mr. Counsel.

TESTIMONY OF ROBERT L. PIERSON

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Pierson, will you give the committee your full name?

Mr. PIERSON. Robert L. Pierson.

Mr. SMITH. Would you give us some background information about yourself and your employment?

Mr. PIERSON. I am currently employed in the Cook County State's attorney's office as a civilian investigator. Previously, I have been employed with the Chicago Police Department, with the counterintelligence of the United States Army, and with the police departments of Fontana and Williams Bay, Wisconsin.

Mr. SMITH. Have you had any training or educational courses in the investigative field?

Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir. While with the Fontana and Williams Bay Police Departments, I attended the FBI training school in Beloit, Wisconsin. I have attended the prosecuting attorney's course at Northwestern University. I have attended the Chicago Police Academy. I have attended and graduated from the Counterintelligence Academy at Fort Holabird, Maryland, and I have attended other short courses for police officers.

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Pierson, as you have been informed, the committee is investigating the extent of subversive influences being involved in the attempt to disrupt the Democratic National Convention in the city of Chicago during the latter part of August of this year.

Several groups, such as the National Mobilization Committee, the Students for a Democratic Society, and the Yippies, or Youth International Party, the Black Panthers, and so forth, had publicly announced their intention some time before the convention to create general disruption in Chicago during and immediately preceding the convention.

Did you, Mr. Pierson, in the course of your official duties, come into direct contact with any of the known leaders of any of the organizations which I have just mentioned?

Mr. PIERSON. Yes, sir, I did.

Mr. SMITH. Would you explain to the committee the circumstances under which you met these leaders and exactly what your involvement was?

Mr. PIERSON. On August 16, 1968, I discussed with Mr. William J. Martin, assistant State's attorney in charge, the feasibility and/or necessity of infiltrating the various groups of people who had specifically stated to the press and to reliable confidential informants of my office that they intended to completely disrupt the Democratic National Convention and to create grave problems for the city of Chicago. Our information indicated the following-named persons to be the leaders of these contemplated activities: Dave Dellinger and Rennie Davis of the National Mobilization Committee; Jerry Rubin, Abbie Hoffman, and Wolfe

Mr. KUNSTLER. You have ruled that you are deferring Mr. Rubin's case with reference to his pending prosecution. If he testifies here, he hopelessly prejudices Mr. Rubin's case in Chicago.

Mr. ICHORD. On what ground?

Mr. KUNSTLER. On the ground the whole country will read what this man says. It will hopelessly prejudice under Estes against Texas, under Ruby against the State, will hopelessly prejudice any chance of a fair trial in the city of Chicago.

Mr. ICHORD. The Chair will overrule the legal objection of the counsel. I will ask his indulgence in further objections because there is no intent on the part of this committee to aid any prosecution of the case against Mr. Rubin or any other witness.