the work done, a description of its own findings in general terms, and the direction in which the facts tended to point. That was the purpose of this report, and that report in my estimation should have had in it everything significant to be helpful to the committee. Now, the two questions and the two statements to which you make reference have in my judgment been an important aspect of it all along. Mr. HAYS. Then you would say that you want in that the conclusion that foundation grants are not directly responsible for any deterioration in the standards of American scholarships? Mr. DODD. That is my feeling, sir. Yes, sir. Mr. HAYS. And you want in there, also, with reference to the purported deterioration, that it cannot be said to have been due directly to foundation grants? Mr. DODD. Yes, sir. And the other has to do with this inferred criticism of favoritism. Mr. HAYS. All right. I would like to have whoever can explain these two mimeographed versions to take the stand, and I would like to ask some questions. about it. The CHAIRMAN. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Miss CASEY. I do. TESTIMONY OF KATHRYN CASEY, LEGAL ANALYST, SPECIAL Miss CASEY. Yes, I do, may I explain Mr. HAYS. Yes. I would like in your own words to have you tell us about it. Miss CASEY. Well, at the time the hearings were set and it was decided that Mr. Dodd would present a staff report, it was thought that we should have mimeographed copies available. When the report was I thought close to its final draft, I will have to confess I jumped the gun and had the stencils cut. We ran Mr. HAYS. Right there, when was that? Can you give us an exact date of it? Miss CASEY. It was only Friday and Saturday, because we had quite a bit of difficulty getting the copies done by the duplicating office here in the Capitol. Mr. HAYS. That was Friday and Saturday, prior to Mr. Dodd's appearance on Monday? Miss CASEY. That is right. No distribution was made, and not even to the members of the committee. Mr. HAYS. I am aware of that. Miss CASEY. One reason Mr. Hays, was, that we were at the office until midnight Saturday, and I thought perhaps your office might be closed. Mr. HAYS. I am sure it was. If it was not, it should have been. Miss CASEY. I think ours should have been, too. I am sure the girls in the office thought so. But on Monday morning it developed there was going to be a slight rearrangement on one thing, after Mr. Dodd and Mr. Wormser had again gone over it. So new stencils were cut on certain pages, and page numbers changed on the others. But in reference to what you are talking about, which appears, I believe, first on page 2, at the top of the page of the final report, it says: Simultaneously, I undertook additional studies I believe this is what you read to the validity of the criticism leveled against the work done by the Cox committee, to substantiate or disprove the prevalent charge that foundations were guilty of favoritism. But, Mr. Hays, if you turn over to pages 9 and 10—the reference to foundation criticism starts at the bottom of page 8 Mr. HAYS. That is 9 and 10 of which version now? Miss CASEY. This is the only version that was distributed. Mr. HAYS. The distributed version? Miss CASEY. Yes, sir, and let us call it the final version, because the other was a draft. Mr. HAYS. All right. Miss CASEY. And for which I will take full responsibility, as far as the duplication is concerned. The CHAIRMAN. It was primarily an effort to be helpful to the members of the committee and the members of the press? Miss CASEY. That is right. Mr. HAYS. Miss Casey, right there, now we have got this thing pinned down pretty well, and you mimeographed these on Friday and Saturday. And now when were the changes made? Miss CASEY. The changes were made when Mr. Wormser and Mr. Dodd met on Monday. Actually, Mr. Hays, they were not "changes" such as you say. If you will turn to pages 8, 9, and 10, the statement which I read before, from page 2, is elaborated in the same way that you found it in the next to final draft. That is on pages 8, 9, and 10, Mr. Hays. Mr. HAYS. Do you have any completely assembled versions, like the one I have, of the original, before it was cut? Miss CASEY. No, sir, everything, including the stencils were destroyed, and every copy of that was taken to the incinerator, so that there would be no possibility Mr. HAYS. Every copy was not, because I have one. The CHAIRMAN. Every copy so far as you knew? Miss CASEY. It was my understanding that every copy had been sent to the incinerator-taken there personally by a staff member. Mr. HAYS. Now, I think we could argue indefinitely about whether changes have been made, but in order to get the record straight, would you have any objection, Mr. Reece and Mr. Goodwin, to making this undistributed version a part of the record, just so we can compare the two? The CHAIRMAN. My own feeling is that the director of research who submitted his statement should be advised on that, as well as the general counsel. As I analyze this thing, this situation, Mr. Dodd is the director of resarch and he had an initial and primary responsibility for digesting and putting this into written form for presentation to the committee, and he made numerous notes and drafts. He had made, after consulting with his assistants, what he thought was essentailly a final draft for presentation to the committee. But at that time, he had not consulted with the general counsel or the assistant general counsel with reference to the exact wording of part of the report, and they also have a responsibility. Over the weekend that consultation was had among themselves, that is, among the members of the staff, and certain modifications were made, as Miss Casey states, in some instances something was taken out, and it is amplified in another part of the report. It seems to me like a prefectly logical way to develop a statement for a committee, that is, for the members of the staff to consult among themselves. They have stated, even under the affirmation of an oath, that they did not consult with anybody, any outside interests, as to what this preliminary presentation to the committee might obtain. So far as I am personally concerned, I have no objection for their work notes and preliminary drafts to go into the record. But I do not feel that it is the logical way to proceed with a presentation. That is my reaction to it. Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I had to come in late. As a matter of fact, I would have been here when the gavel fell, as you know, except for the fact that I felt I ought to be up in the Armed Services Committee to help save for the Commonwealth of Massachusetts a facility which we believe is very important to us. So I am a little lost to know what is going on here. Apparently, the question is whether or not there should be put into the record preliminary drafts of a certain statement, is that it? The CHAIRMAN. Yes, sir. Mr. GOODWIN. Do I understand that it is a fact that the preliminary drafts show some change of heart, or change of mind on somebody's part? Mr. HAYS. I would say not that Mr. GOODWIN. I should not press that question. Mr. HAYS. Go ahead and press it. Mr. GOODWIN. It is in my mind that if this is something simply cumulative, and if what my distinguished friend from Ohio now wants to put into the record is something cumulative and will be of no value to us in the future, I should think that it should be kept out. If, however, it states a frame of mind on somebody's part who is going to have a portion of the responsibility of directing this investigation, it seems to me that it might be well that we should have it. The CHAIRMAN. Would you permit Miss Casey- Miss CASEY. Mr. Goodwin, may I say this: That your first statement about it being cumulative is more accurate than any change of heart. Actually, it is merely a rearrangement that was agreed on, and a particular statement on page 2 is not elaborated. Mr. Dodd's report said to "substantiate the prevalent charge that foundations were guilty of favoritism in the making of educational grants," and then that is elaborated in the same manner that it was in all of the drafts on pages 8, 9, and 10. Mr. Dodd's statement contains the same language that Mr. Hays read, "we analyzed thoroughly," that is a very reasonable thing to have happened, "the way in which the grants were originally made by some of the foundations to the larger institutions," and he explains why. All of that is in the final version which was distributed to the press and to the people who asked for it. It was only rearranged from the next-to-final version for which, as I explained, I had stencils cut with the idea that it would be available first thing Monday morning. sultations among themselves, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Wormser, Mr. Koch, Mr. HAYS. To put this back in the language of the chairman, he says that this represents a digestion of your findings over a period of 8 months. What I am trying to find out is who caused you to get indigestion over Sunday, here. I will read you some more changes that were made in this, if you would like me to, and in fact I want to question about them. The CHAIRMAN. I don't remember the chairman's exact words, but he did not intend to say that this was a digest of the findings. I would not want to say that it was a digest of findings. Mr. HAYS. I don't want to quibble about your words, but I made come notes about them, and if I am wrong, the record will show it. The CHAIRMAN. I would like to ask Mr. Wormser whether he feels there is any objection to the part that is in the working draft being put in the record along with the presentation which Mr. Dodd made to the committee. Mr. WORMSER. Before I answer that, may I respectfully request Mr. Hays to excise his word "doctored," and I think that there is no evidence at all that anything was doctored, Mr. Hays. That has rather unpleasant significance. The CHAIRMAN. That is the purpose of my Mr. HAYS. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to delete my language from my statement, and I used the word "doctored" and I am going to stand on it until someone shows me it wasn't doctored, and I am going to right now read you another sentence, and I will use the word "changed," if that makes you feel better, Mr. Wormser. The CHAIRMAN. Will you permit an interjection there again? As I stated earlier, the staff developed a presentation for the committee. During the course of that they consulted no one except the members of the staff, and the members of the committee, insofar as they did. consult the members of the committee. No outside person was consulted. In the process of developing the statement, they had various working data and they had preliminary drafts, and, as is a natural consequence, they ultimately had a preliminary final draft, which might very well have become the final draft. After additional consultations among themselves, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Wormser, and Mr. Koch, Mr. McNiece, and Miss Casey, made some consolidations, tightening it up, and may have taken some things out. But whatever was done was their own work. The chairman can't see any possible grounds for any inferences except that the staff in good faith tried to develop the most perfect and complete presentation for the benefit of the committee. I, as one, want to commend the members of the staff in their industry and effort in developing and putting out their fullest efforts to develop the best statement possible for presentation to the committee. That, now, the chairman's analysis of the way this was handled, and I don't see any possible grounds for any adverse inferences to be drawn from that method of procedure, which is a normal one. I have been on committees up here around the Hill now for some 30 years, and when I could get a staff to proceed in that way I always felt very grateful. Mr. WORMSER. May I now answer your question, Mr. Chairman. You asked whether I had any objection to introducing the preliminary draft. I do have an objection, and I think it is unfair to Mr. Dodd, and I think it would be just as unfair as asking a man to publish a draft of a book when he has published the book itself. Mr. Dodd's opinions, as far as I know, have not altered one bit between the drafting of the first one and drafting the second one, but the actual wording of the instrument, or the document, which he wanted to present to the document and read at hearings was in some respects changed and rearranged and what not. I think that he has personal responsibility for issuing this report, and he is entitled to rest on the final report which he gave, and not be confused or made responsible for a draft of any kind. The draft has not been made public, and no effort was made to distribute what we call the preliminary report in any way, and it was not made public as far as the committee was concerned, as far as the staff was concerned. It was not distributed to anyone. Mr. HAYS. Let me say, Mr. Wormser, that I am not trying to confuse Mr. Dodd. God forbid. According to some of the newspaper editorials, some of the responsible newspapers think he is confused enough as it is, and I am just trying to straighten him out a little bit. I want to say, though, that whether you agreed to introduce it or not is immaterial to me. Apparently I have the only living copy of the so-called preliminary final draft, and I still say that I want to get to the bottom of why this was done after 10 months, Mr. Wormser, after 10 months of study, and so on. to I am sure that you have known for a long time that these hearings were going to start last Monday, and as a matter of fact they have been postponed 2 or 3 times, and it seems to me a little bit queer, say the least, that after this draft was mimeographed on Saturday, that it was gone over and completely edited on Monday morning, and the committee itself didn't even have a copy of it, and only by accident I got a hold of a copy when I phoned down to one of the staff the other day, and I can't even remember the gentleman's name. I was sent up a couple of copies, and only probably by accident I discovered the changes in them. But to me, after 10 months of study, the fact that these significant changes were made either Sunday night or at breakfast Monday morning or sometime, deserves a little bit of comment. If this 10 months of study hasn't firmed anything up at all yet, why, then, let us develop the testimony here in hearings and throw Mr. Dodd's statement clear out and start afresh. I think that that would be an invigorating way of doing it. Mr. GOODWIN. Mr. Chairman, I always like to be on even terms with my associates on the committee, and might I inquire whether there would be any facilities for all members of the commission to have made available to them whatever there is by way of working sheets, and I don't know what it is that my distinguished friend from Ohio has before him. Whatever is available to me, should it not be made available to other members of the committee? Mr. HAYS. It seems that I have the say about that, and since I have the only copy, I will promise right now I am not going to yield it to |