Mr. CROCKETT. The material from Mr. Otepka's cabinets was transferred to the central SY file room and placed in a specially reserved cabinet. A procedure file, personnel security file, and several missing files were returned to central files. The balance of material, which has been fully itemized, is awaiting formal authorization for integration into central files.

Mr. SOURWINE. Can you say whether all the material that was in Otepka's files and which you told us had been disseminated to central files of the Office of Security might not have been placed in dead files or noncurrent files?

Mr. CROCKETT. You said all of it?

Mr. SOURWINE. Yes.

Mr. CROCKETT. I can only say that I was told that it was not. But for instance, the top secret material found there that had been the subject of a search over a period of months. I am sure this went back to the area where it was supposed to

repose.

In attempting to trace the Otepka files, the subcommittee found that some of the Otepka files went to areas other than the central files. Mr. Crockett, after his testimony informing the subcommittee that the Otepka material was still awaiting a final determination, later sent a letter indicating that destruction of this material was under consideration."

Mr. SOURWINE. In other words, some of these files went, or at least may have gone to some area in the Department other than central files?

Mr. CROCKETT. Perhaps so. They are like the top secret material.

Mr. SOURWINE. They don't have that classification of files in central files? Mr. CROCKETT. Yes, they do. I am sure they have some of this.

But as I understood it, this kind of top secret material finally goes back to the Department central files and not organization central files.

(Mr. Crockett later furnished the following information:)

"Several cabinets of material are located in the area occupied by the Division of Evaluations. Disposition and/or determination as to destruction and/or relocation of this material has not been made to date."

The following testimony by Mr. Crockett disclosed his opinion on reassembling the Otepka files.10

Mr. SOURWINE. If it should be desired to bring together again all or some particular part of the files that Mr. Otepka did have in his office, would that be possible?

Mr. CROCKETT. I don't think so. It might be theoretically possible, but I don't know why anybody would desire-frankly, Mr. Sourwine it was a rat's nest. I had numerous people look at it. Mr. French and Mr. Flake can testify from personal knowledge. They went through it and inventoried it.

We asked Mr. Otepka to assist in the review of it. After he consulted his attorney, he decided he could if he could make manual notations of every item that was in there, which would have taken months to have done. We decided this was not practical, so I ordered that a general inventory be made and it be returned to central files.

But I don't see any earthly need, for any reason, for this kind of material ever to be reassembled.

Mr. Otepka gave his description of the January 1964, incident involving a request that he assist in reviewing the files taken from him 8 months earlier."1

In January 1964 I was orally requested by Mr. French and Ambassador Flake to review and sort out the files formerly in my custody. I indicated my willingness to do so but I objected very firmly to the intended presence of John F. Noonan, the Chief of the central file room as a monitor. I suggested that another person be assigned in his place for the reason that between March and June 1963 Mr. Noonan had connived with Reilly and Belisle in attempts to discredit me. I had specific knowledge that Mr. Noonan had prepared misleading production statistics about the Division of Evaluations which Reilly had presented to the Internal

State Department Security hearings, pt. 13, p. 1001. 10 State Department Security hearings, pt. 13, p. 996. 11 Ibid., pt. 8, pp. 532-533.

Security Subcommittee. I said I had prepared rebuttals to Noonan's statistics but these rebuttals were taken from me by stealth. Other rebuttal material was

taken by impounding all the material in my cabinets.

On February 27, 1964, exactly 8 months after I was ejected from room 3333 I was directed to review the contents of six file cabinets said to be those formerly under my custody located in room 3333. Again I objected to Noonan's presence but expressed a willingness otherwise to fulfill the instructions.

My objections were to no avail. After consulting with my attorney I began the file review on March 2, 1964, in the presence of Mr. Noonan and Mr. Henry S. Helton of the Records Management Division, Office of Operations. Both persons made it clear to me they would merely observe and advise me and that I was expected to do all of the reviewing entirely by myself. My_request to review the material at its original location, room 3333, was denied. Instead the file was transported to room 38A03, which is adjacent to my present office. Only six cabinets were made available to me. I was informed that this included all of the material originally in my custody in room 3333.

Initially I opened each file drawer for a cursory look at the contents. I found an unrecognizable mess. Neither Mr. Noonan nor Mr. Helton could explain to me why the documents were in such a condition or why I was not allowed to have the eight other cabinets, including my two-drawer safe.

As the accompanying instructions requested among other matters that I "parcel out to appropriate officers in the Division of Evaluations any pending material which requires action," it appeared incredible that the custodian of these impounded files would allow any material that required pending action to remain in those files for such a long period of time.

Acting on the advice of my attorney I prepared a log for the material to be reviewed. I made an appropriate notation as to the identification of the documents involved. After a few entries Mr. Noonan demanded to see my log. Upon reading it he immediately called on Mr. G. Marvin Gentile. It was Mr. Gentile's first day in office. Upon Mr. Noonan's return he informed me that Mr. Gentile had ordered the review discontinued. On the following day the six file cabinets were removed to a location unknown to me.

CASE HISTORY CARD FILE ON PERSONAL SECURITY

After Mr. Otepka's transfer the case history card system compiled by him was "bound and tied" and removed from readily available access. 13

Mr. SOURWINE. What changes have been made since 1962 which you feel have adversely affected the Division of Evaluations or its efficiency?

Mr. HITE. Well, sir, I recall one incident which occurred shortly after Mr. Otepka's departure.

We had, under Mr. Otepka's guidance, been maintaining in the Division of Evaluations a case history card system, on which cards were recorded all data pertaining to cases that had been handled in our Division. Those cards were used for statistical studies but they also had another purpose.

Any evaluator who worked in this program builds up lots of names in his mind and when he sees them he wants to know what there is about that individual that has caused that recall.

Well, as a shortcut, I personally-and I don't know how many other evaluators did this-would refer to those cards and see what there was about that name that caused this recall. And my interest in that was that I desired to know who was bringing the individual into the Department and whether there was any significance in that.

Those cards were, after Mr. Otepka's departure, bound and tied and taken from readily available access and placed in a file cabinet. To my knowledge they have not been maintained since that time.

Mr. SOURWINE. And under whose instructions was this done?

12 Mr. Gentile was the new Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Security Affairs. 13 State Department Security hearings, pt. 19, pp. 1615–1616.

Mr. HITE. I never knew under whose instructions. I questioned Mr. Raymond Levy about that and he merely indicated that they did it because they were getting new cabinets for them. I have never seen the cabinets arrive and they are still bound and tied.

Whether these case history cards were part of the material put in dead files or scheduled for destruction does not appear on the record.

Mr. REILLY. I was surprised when I had heard that their survey had gone that far.

Senator MCCLELLAN. May I ask one question on that point?

You keep talking about "if you ever decided to use it." Do you want to convey to this committee that there was only a very remote possibility, you ever someday would decide to use it?

Mr. REILLY. Yes, because I was running burn trash cover.

Senator MCCLELLAN. You were doing what?

Mr. REILLY. Running coverage of his burn bag, sir-a standard investigation technique, utilized by investigative agencies.

Senator MCCLELLAN. There was a very remote possibility that you would ever decide to use it?

Mr. REILLY. Yes.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It wasn't an imminent thing, that you were getting ready for-to be prepared for?

Mr. REILLY. That is right, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. How far off-you say it is remote-how far off did you contemplate you might someday make that decision?

Mr. REILLY. Well, if the remainders-if the recovery from the burn trash had been fruitless, over a period of several weeks

Senator MCCLELLAN. Several weeks?

Mr. REILLY (continuing). I would have then considered whether to utilize that technique or whether to institute a physical surveillance, or the like.

*

*

*

*

Some excerpts from Mr. Reilly's extended examination by Senator McClellan reveal other amplifications of attitudes: 27

Mr. REILLY. I considered the questions of Mr. Sourwine in the nature of crossexamination. To that extent, I felt that I should answer the question as asked, which witnesses on cross-examination normally do, and not volunteer.

Senator McCLELLAN. Do you state now

Mr. REILLY. To the extent that I did not volunteer at that time, and that it has caused unpleasantness between the members of this committee and myself, I am sincerely sorry. I have no desire to be on such relationships with you

Senator MCCLELLAN. All right. If we are not technical, let me ask you this question: Have you ever engaged in or ordered the bugging or tapping or otherwise compromising telephones or private conversations in the office of an employee of the State Department?

Mr. REILLY. I took that question as a whole, sir.

Senator MCCLELLAN. I want you to take it as a whole, and then each part of it, and tell me how you can now say that you were honest with the committee, that you were candid with the committee, even though you say you were on cross-examination, and that you told the committee the truth, when you answered that question "No, sir."

Mr. REILLY. First, I understood the question to mean the actual compromising of conversations.

Senator MCCLELLAN. It says, "Ordered." It didn't say you had to accomplish it at all. You know what giving an order is.

Mr. REILLY. Well, first, I did not order that any conversations be compromised. Senator MCCLELLAN. It is "or otherwise compromising telephones." Now the telephone was compromised when it was rigged so that it became a listening device.

Mr. REILLY. I did not so understand the question at the time-in the framework. I understood that Mr. Sourwine was endeavoring to find out whether or not we had compromised. And he says, "or otherwise compromised." Therefore, I take that the earlier

*

*

*

*

Senator MCCLELLAN. Well, it was your intention, then, when you testified here before, and you made every effort to withhold from the committee every"State Department Security hearings, pt. 12, pp. 887-889.