does not make provision for such purpose. The only square appearing on the particular ballot referred to was after the names of Nixon and Lodge. It was in this square that the voter put his mark and my name was not listed under theirs along with the other electors nominated in the primary. I do not know whether this makes our State different from that of other electors. I will be interested in receiving further and subsequent information should either of you be disposed to inform me.

Senator KEFAUVER. These men being mentioned here, they don't know anything about all of this?

Mr. IRWIN. I don't know the men to whom you have reference, sir. Senator KEFAUVER. I mean, Senator Byrd, Senator Goldwater. Mr. IRWIN. I shall come to that later, sir.

Senator KEATING. Well, let me ask you before you come to that, have you given us at least excerpts from all of the telegrams and letters which you received from Republican electors in answer to your communication?

Mr. IRWIN. I have, to the best of my knowledge, sir.

Senator KEATING. And it is on the basis of that that you projected the fact that there were 200 Republican electors?

Mr. IRWIN. It was on that basis, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. Well, how did you project it? You have only read about

Mr. IRWIN. I tallied those that I thought-that definitely said "Yes," those who said "Maybe," and those who said "No." I replied that to the whole and came out with those figures.

Senator KEATING. You mean that you thought those that ignored your telegram and that you had no reply from, some of them you thought agreed with you?

Mr. IRWIN. In the same proportion. That might be weighting it in one way or the other. I have no way of knowing the significance. December 5: The principal deterrent to a coalition vote by the Republican electors appeared to be a feeling of moral obligation to support Vice President Nixon. Many believed this false assumption could be removed should a responsible individual in the Republican Party agree to release the electors from any such feeling. Accordingly, on December 5 I wired each national committeeman and State chairman of the Republican Party as follows:

I fear for future of our Republic under socialist-labor leadership of Kennedy. Surely our first obligation is to our country. In view of impossibility to elect Nixon, I call on you to issue public statement releasing electors from any feeling of moral obligation to vote for Republican nominee. This will permit Republican electors to elect conservative coalition Byrd-Goldwater for whom they have expressed overwhelming preference.

Of the replies I received, I should like to read the following.
Senator KEFAUVER. Read the States without the names.

Mr. IRWIN. Very well, sir. These wires were not solicited in confidence. This letter was not solicitied in confidence, and I feel free to reveal both the State and identity of the person sending it. I will yield to the wishes of the committee.

Senator KEFAUVER. You didn't ask for any confidence on this?
Mr. IRWIN. I asked for no confidence whatsoever.

'(NOTE.-Below the signature to this letter appears "cc: Mr. R. Lea Harris, 137 Lee St., Montgomery 4, Alabama.")

Senator KEFAUVER. Very well. If you didn't ask for confidence.
Mr. IRWIN. I feel perfectly at liberty to reveal the contents to this
committee, sir.

Senator KEFAUVER. Proceed.

Mr. IRWIN. From Indiana Republican State Central Committee,
Edwin Beaman, Republican State chairman:

As you well know, Indiana went for Nixon by a very large majority, and our
electors are under obligation to vote for him.

From the Territory of Hawaii, Herbert M. Richards:

Although I am personally a strong Nixon man, I can see certain merit to your
suggestions. Although unable to vote for President until recently, I was a Taft

man.

I have discussed your proposal with attorney friends of mine, who have con-
firmed my interpretation of the State constitution (I was an elected member of
the State constitution convention), which does not permit a releasing of elec-
tors by a political party.

Thank you, however, for your wire.

From the Congress of the United States, House of Representatives,
Washington, D.Č., Clarence J. Brown, Member of the Congress, Sev-
enth Ohio District.

Under Ohio law, Ohio electors are obligated to vote for Nixon and Lodge.

From Tacoma, Wash., Mrs. A. B. Ball, State committee woman, in-
cluding Walter J. DeLong, State committeeman:

We are both members of the State executive board, and attended the State
convention in Spokane, Wash., last June where we were pledged to the Nixon
ticket.

We cannot go along with you or anyone else unless the National Republican
Committee releases us from voting for Mr. Nixon and Lodge. That is where
we stand.

Vernon, Tex., is my home and I well understand the position you find your-
self in on this election. Edgar Eisenhower, the brother of Ike, addressed a meet-
ing last week where he stated the South would pull us out of this kind of fiasco.
Knowing the South well, I feel sure this will happen. What I cannot under-
stand is why Texas as well as other Southern States voted for Kennedy and
Johnson with such a platform their party set up-it is a mystery how anyone
could buy all those tired old Roosevelt promises he made, plus the inexperience
of the man for the top spot. It is true that I have never had so many calls
from people saying they were afraid, for the first time in their life, of what is
going to happen to their country. Didn't the South know he was in Walter
Reuthers pocket?

Thank you for your telegram, Mr. Irwin. I am an American and a fighter too
but I am pledged to vote for Nixon and Lodge and I just don't know what can
be done about it. Wishing you the best of luck in your campaign and I am with
you in spirit, if that is any help.

From Albert, N. Mex., signed by Albert K. Mitchell, national com-
mitteeman for New Mexico:

Your recent telegram with reference to releasing the electors so they would be
free to vote for a Byrd-Goldwater coalition was forwarded to me while in
Washington attending a meeting of the National Advisory Commission in Agri-
culture.

I took this question up with some of the leaders of the Republican National
Committee level and found that while everyone was in favor of the move, they
felt that it should not be sponsored by the Republican organization. I con-
cur in your strategy in this program and anything that would eliminate Kennedy
from the Presidency would definitely meet with my enthusiastic approval. I
still don't think that a public statement from me would accomplish the desired
results, however, and I was persuaded to go along with the decision of the
Republican National Committee in the matter.

With best wishes.

Senator Keating, sir, these letters to which I have reference, the Republican National Committee offering their tacit support to the

move.

Senator KEATING. And that letter from Mr. Mitchell is the basis for your saying that the National Committee gave their tacit approval to what you were doing?

Mr. IRWIN. In part. Plus these other replies. And I have one more I would like to read, sir.

Senator KEATING. But the one you largely base it on is this one from Mr. Mitchell.

Mr. IRWIN. This letter would have to speak for itself, sir, and the words are there.

Senator KEATING. I am asking what the operation of your mind is. You said you had the tacit approval of the Republican National Committee. I want to know what it is based on.

Mr. IRWIN. I take for face value the statement, "I took this question up with some of the leaders of the Republican National Committee level and found that while everyone was in favor of the move," and the additional statements.

Senator KEATING. In favor of what move?

Mr. IRWIN. The topic in discussion, sir, was with reference to my telegram, the contents of which I read.

Senator KEATING. You mean in favor of the move for the Republican electors to vote against Mr. Nixon. Is that the way you interpret it?

Mr. IRWIN. No. The Republican electors to exercise their constitutional duty in giving us exercising their constitutional duty, sir. Senator KEATING. In other words, voting as they saw fit.

Mr. IRWIN. For the good of our country, sir, parties notwithstanding.

I took for face value its further statement that

I was persuaded to go along with the decision of the Republican National Committee on the matter

the pointed question being a public statement releasing the electors from any moral obligation to support the Republican nominee. I took that for face granted.

I have a letter from John W. Tyler, Oklahoma.

DEAR HENRY: Upon my return yesterday I found your telegram at my home concerning the Oklahoma electors.

To begin with, the presidential electors are elected by the State at large and are legally under no obligation to follow any lead that I might suggest. As I have attempted to indicate to you in the past, I feel that the progress we have made politically in Oklahoma would be severely damaged by any statement that I would make suggesting that the electors be released from their moral obligations and considering that as of this time we have little chance of throwing the election into the House, which would be necessary before Byrd and Goldwater could possibly be elected.

If there is any change within the next few days, I would certainly make any statement that I felt would be effective.

Senator KEATING. Well, I am certainly glad that my colleague, Senator Tower, recognized the moral obligation of State of Oklahoma, and I commend him.

Mr. IRWIN. I did not so construe his letter, sir. That is John Tyler, T-y-l-e-r.

Senator KEATING. I beg your pardon.

Mr. IRWIN. Who is national committeeman.

Senator KEATING. Anyway, my comment goes for Mr. Tyler.

Mr. IRWIN. I offer these letters as the committee wishes to receive them.

Senator KEFAUVER. Very well. You have read them. We will keep the originals or photostats.

(The documents referred to are in the files of the subcommittee.) Senator KEFAUVER. I want to say what I think your assumption there, of any substantial part of the Republican leadership, the national committee, being willing to go along with such an idea, is pretty farfetched, and is not in my opinion sustained by what you have read.

Mr. IRWIN. Very well, sir. The point I would make is that they were all apprised of my activities and no one by letter to me or otherwise to my knowledge took exception to the possibility and desirability of the success of such a coalition.

Senator KEFAUVER. You have read a number of letters and given names. The rule of this committee is, and I want the public to know, anybody whose name has been mentioned can send in a statement to the committee in explanation, or if they want to, come here personally and make any explanation or testify; we will welcome them immediately to do that.

Mr. IRWIN. My object was to relate the information I received, sir, and no further object in my mind.

Senator KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I want to say I concur completely with the Chairman's conclusion that there is nothing in any of these letters, including Mr. Mitchell's, that gave any justification whatever for the original statement of the witness that the Republican National Committee tacitly approved running out on Mr. Nixon. This has rarely occurred in our Nation's history-most electors have recognized the moral obligation, although under the Constitution the elector has a free choice of whom he will vote for. It may well be that we should make it a matter of law that the elector is required to vote, if we retain the electoral college, which, as you know, I am not very keen for, but if we do, in support of the choice of the people who elected him and should not arrogate to himself the choice of someone else for a candidate for President.

Mr. IRWIN. I have no objection to any interpretation which anyone wishes to place on the communications which I have just read. They need not necessarily agree with mine. It is perhaps significant that this has not happened many times before. It happened once when our Republic was quite a young Republic, in the election of George Washington. One elector declined to vote as he was expected to vote because he did not wish George Washington or anyone else to be elected by unanimous consent.

The second occasion occurred shortly after the Civil War when an elector from the South refused to support a Republican nominee and voted instead, I believe, Senator Kefauver, for one-it wasn't Beauregard but an equally influential family name from Tennessee. To my knowledge this is the third occasion. Perhaps when we are faced with a change in direction, shall we go this way or shall we go that way?

If I may continue, sir

Senator KEFAUVER. Very well.

Mr. IRWIN. November 22. On November 22 I wired Senator Goldwater's office as follows:

I am polling Republican electors for support of Byrd-Goldwater conservative coalition ticket. Over half replies indicate willingness but for moral obligation. Sufficient southern Democrats refuse to support Socialist Labor nominee to make plan workable. Would advance cause if Senator would state in speech tonight electors should feel no moral obligation and feel released from any moral obligation for good of country. Nixon used this in television debate. Please convey to Senator and urge incorporation.

To which the following reply was received:

Senator Goldwater on vacation. Unable to be contacted. He is not making any speech tonight.

December 13: I was apprised that the unpledged southern electors were meeting in Mississippi to choose their candidates. I wired the Governor of Mississippi that I believed sufficient votes available to elect a coalition ticket of Byrd-Goldwater. It was comforting to me and perhaps presumptive that the unpledged electors agreed to support Senator Byrd for President and declined to name a Vice President at that time.

Senator KEATING. Mr. Chairman, I assume our colleagues, Senators Byrd and Goldwater, will also have an opportunity to appear here if they desire to do so in connection with their interests.

Senator KEFAUVER. Senators are always welcome and immediately recognized.

While we have a break-it is 1:25. Obviously, we are not going to be able to finish before lunch. About how much more of your testimony do you have?

Mr. IRWIN. I would say I have these three pages, sir, if I might

continue.

Senator KEFAUVER. I know counsel has a number of questions to ask and Senator Keating will have some and I will have some. I believe it would be best that we finish up this afternoon.

Mr. IRWIN. Very well. As you wish.

Senator KEFAUVER. We will stand in recess until 3 o'clock. (Whereupon, at 1:25 p.m., the committee recessed, to reconvene at 3 p.m., the same day.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

Senator KEFAUVER. We will proceed now, Mr. Irwin.

TESTIMONY OF HENRY D. IRWIN-Resumed

Mr. IRWIN. Where was I, please? I believe I had advised the committee that I had sent a wire to Senator Goldwater.

Senator KEFAUVER. Yes.

Mr. IRWIN. And I read the reply from his office.

Senator KEFAUVER. For the information of the press and for the record, Senator Keating and I have discussed further the matter of the telegrams. The substance of the telegrams will be placed in the record, but they were sent to Mr. Irwin on his statement that they would be confidential. That, of course, does not bind us, but I do not think it serves any particularly useful purpose to reveal the names, so it is our decision not to do so. You go ahead, sir.