« ÎnapoiContinuați »
anybody, but I will have my staff make some exact duplicates of it, but I am not going to trust it out of my hands.
The CHAIRMAN. For Mr. Goodwin's benefit, I think Miss Casey might state how this draft came into being.
Mr. Goodwin. Perhaps she stated it once, and I don't want her to repeat anything
Miss CASEY. I will be glad to, Mr. Goodwin. At the time Mr. Wormser left, after going over the statement with Mr. Dodd on Thursday—and at this point I would like to say that I hope we are not asked to give copies of all of the drafts, because that would entail a considerable amount of work
Mr. Goodwin. I am sure Miss Casey will know I was somewhat facetious. I don't like to feel that I am at a disadvantage, and here is my associate here with a lot of material before him, which apparently he finds most interesting, and I haven't anything.
Miss Casey. The chairman and the staff are at the same disadvantage, because we don't have copies of the document that Mr. Hays has now, except perhaps in a penciled draft that is crossed out and whatnot from which we would have to make another copy just like that, if we were asked to do it. I don't say it is impossible, but it might vary from comma to comma unless we had access to proofread it against his copy.
Mr. Hays. I will be glad for you to do that.
Miss Casey. If it is decided that we cut the stencils, Mr. Hays, I will take advantage of it. To answer Mr. Goodwin, after telephone conversations between Mr. Dodd, and Mr. Wormser, and Mr. Koch, and myself, the last copy of Mr. Dodd's report seemed to me to be approaching a point where it was possible to mimeograph it. I had the stencils cut, and I had the stencils run with two things in mind.
The hearings started at 10 o'clock on Monday, and Saturday was half a day, as far as the duplicating room at the Capitol was concerned. We had them run, I have forgotten the exact number of copies, but there were enough for copies to be available to the press, and available for each member of the committee.
On Monday morning, it developed that, well, a rearrangement and not a deletion, Mr. Goodwin, was made in Mr. Dodd's report. The entire material that is in the unpublished draft version that Mr. Hays has, is in this one, but it is in a slightly different position. It may not be expressed at as great length, but everything is there.
Now, I am responsible for having the stencils cut, and having the stencils run and finally having those stencils destroyed, and I thought all of the copies were taken to the incinerator.
Mr. Goodwin. Could I ask Miss Casey one question, whether or not when she started work on whatever was necessary to be done before it was actually distributed, whether or not the material placed in your hands then appeared to be a finished product, and ready to go ahead with?
Miss Casey. Yes, I knew in a sense there might be or rather, there is always a possibility that changes might be made afterward, but considering the length of this, Mr. Goodwin, and I think it runs some 36 pages, the sheer mechanics of it somewhat overwhelmed me bet ween Saturday morning and Monday. It may have been an error in judgment on my part to have had the stencils cut and run.
Mr. Hays. Were there two complete? Now, this thing comes to us in two sections, the Monday section and a Tuesday section. Did you rerun both of them?
Miss Casey. Yes, we reran it. You see, by rearranging it, some of the page numbers varied, and so in those cases, I think that I am right, we had to rerun it. We had to rerun most of it, let me put it that way.
Mr. Hays. I only have the original of Monday's version, and it is hard to tell what has been lost to the world by the fact I didn't get Tuesday's, too.
Mr. Goodwin. Is there something else you want, Mr. Hays!
Mr. Hays. Well, Mr. Goodwin, this is a little bit serious, I think, because some of the changes in language, in here, would indicate that the staff was prepared after 10 months of study to damn these foundations pretty severely, and then apparently somebody came along and said, "Look, I don't think we can get away with quite this, we had better tone this thing down a little bit, because if we go out at it too badly we may just get run clear out of the Capitol. We had better move into this thing a little more gradually."
So, instead of saying in some places, for instance, here it says, these penciled notes are mine, but in one place it said, “Our studies indicated conclusively that the responsibility for the economic welfare of the American people had been transferred completely to the executive branch."
Well, in the new version, they took out the word "completely" and said "heavily” and you see they didn't want to go whole hog on that particular one.
The CHAIRMAN. There is nothing unusual in changing phraseology and words.
Mr. Hays. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I finish? There is something unusual in this whole procedure. It was unusual Monday, and I was amazed—and maybe this isn't true; Miss Casey is still here, and she can tell us to read in the papers that when the press came up to look at the final complete version, or we have used so many terms here, this is the preliminary final version, but then the final version—which was in looseleaf typewritten pages, that Miss Casey grabbed it and refused to let them look at it.
Miss Casey. Let me clear that up. In the first place that was not the final draft. Those were Mr. Dodd's notes, and he had a great many penciled notations for his own guidance. I did not feel, and I don't feel now, nor I feel sure would you that the press could just take that and say, “Well, Mr. Dodd said this,” because it happened to be a notation. That could be misconstrued, and I felt in justice to the committee it should not be done.
Mr. Hays. That is an explanation, and I just wondered about it, but of course the whole crux of the matter goes back to the fact that you did have a version ready, and then that version was changed Monday morning rather significantly, and then you didn't have any ready.
Miss Casey. I would give you the same protection if you were going to make a speech on the floor of the House and had some penciled notations on what you were going to read which might even be in a sort of, in hybrid shorthand, which could easily be misconstrued. I would feel you should be protected against someone misconstruing it.
Mr. Hays. I will say this, Miss Casey, you needn't worry much about that, because if you will sit on the floor and hear what some of the Members say and then read the Congressional Record the next day, you will know that we have complete protection.
Miss Casey. If you were speaking at a dinner perhaps it would be a better illustration.
Mr. Hays. As a matter of fact, and I am sure the chairman won't take anything personal about this, I read with great interest just recently what he is alleged to have said when he was getting this resolution through and there was a lot of stuff that was introduced by unanimous consent that he didn't say, but it looks like he said it in the record. You see, we are protected, you don't need to worry about us.
The CHAIRMAN. Anything I didn't say in the record was for want of time and not disposition. Are there any other questions?
Mr. Hays. I have some more questions.
Mr. WORMSER. May I correct the record in one respect? You have been talking about 10 months of preparation and it has been 6 months and not 10, and may I recall also that this report was drawn in great haste. I am not trying to detract from its character, but at a committee meeting, and I don't know whether you were there or not, Mr. Goodwin, it was agreed that Mr. Dodd would prepare such a report for the express purpose not only of informing the committee, but of giving the foundations notice of what our main lines of inquiry would be. It was done in great haste, and we had only a week, or something slightly over a week, to produce the thing and get it out. I could not see it nor could Mr. Koch until it had been finally drafted.
Mr. Hays. You don't need to apologize, Mr. Wormser. You told me a month ago that Mr. Dodd was going to be your first witness, at least a month ago. As a matter of fact these hearings were set down originally for sometime way back in April, and even then I knew he was going to be the first witness. Let us not quibble about a week or so.
Mr. WORMSER. It was not intended then, Mr. Hays, that he would file a report. Now, this report had to be finished in approximately a week.
Mr. Hays. I have some more questions I want to ask Mr. Dodd.
Mr. Dodd. May I make a comment on something Mr. Hays said a few minutes ago? Mr. Hays mentioned that the atmosphere behind this whole thing is as though the staff had set out to damn the foundations.
Mr. Hays. Now, just a minute, don't put words in my mouth. I think what I said was that it would appear from this original, what do we call it, the final preliminary draft, I can't remember that termMr. Goodwin. How about the unexpurgated ? Mr. Hays. That is a good word. Mr. Dond. May I ask that that be read.
Mr. Hays. I would say that this report would seem to indicate that and then it was changed and they decided not to go quite so heavily. That is what I meant.
Mr. Dodd. I don't think that that is exactly what you have said, sir. Mr. Hays. The record will show.
Mr. Dodd. In any event, I would like to go on record as emphatically as possible that there has never entered into this work to my knowledge a desire to damn the foundations, and thereby get in a position such as Mr. Hays mentioned, namely, “Do we dare go this far at this time?” This investigation has been carried on in a manner which permitted the facts to tell their own story, and I am certain that as these hearings go forward that is the way in which it will be done. Nothing that I have had anything to do with has ever lost sight of that one purpose, to actually permit the facts to tell their story.
The CHAIRMAX. Certainly, so far as the chairman has had anything to say, with you or the other members of the staff, he has certainly indicated that he wanted that course to be followed. And, as chairman, I want to say that I have not observed any other disposition on the part of Mr. Dodd, or Mr. Wormser, or Mr. Koch, or Miss Casey, Mr. MeNiere, or any other member of the staff to do otherwise.
Do you have some further questions?
Miss Casey. Could I make one statement further, and that is Mr. Hays asked this of Mr. Dodd and he might want to ask it of me. No one has ever attempted to influence my opinions, or the way in which I brought out the facts on any of the foundations that I worked on, and no one attempted to gear my thinking in any respect at all.
The CHAIRMAN. However, it is not at all illogical to me to learn that members of the staff, especially as important members of the staff as we have here, might have different views, at least in a tentative way, that would ultimately need to be harmonized and brought together among themselves. There is nothing unusual about that that I can see at all, if such should happen to be the case. I cannot imagine that group of men and women starting out with exactly the same views expressed in the same language.
TESTIMONY OF NORMAN DODD, RESEARCH DIRECTOR, SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE TAX-EXEMPT FOUNDATIONSResumed
Mr. Hays. Do you consider the New York Times to be a rather fair and impartial newspaper?
Mr. Dond. May I answer that to give my opinion or judgment?
Mr. Hays. I want your opinion, and I have my opinion, and Mr. Reece has his.
Do you consider that to be a fair and impartial newspaper ?
Mr. Hays. In the light of the editorial they wrote, I suppose that you wouldn't be consistent if you didn't say that.
Mr. Dodd. Mr. Hays, may I remark that I have not read the editorial?
Mr. Hays. Let me read a sentence of it to you, and see if you think so, and may I say that I have gotten several dozen letters which drew the same conclusions from your statement: The New York Times on May 13 says:
What is alarming about Mr. Dodd's opening statement is that it indicates a belief that intellectual advancement, if any, must conform to a rigid pattern of those set in the 18th century.
And you know something, independently I arrived at just the same conclusion from reading your statement, because I didn't see this editorial until this morning. I have been questioning you trying to bring that out.
The CHAIRMAN. You don't reach the same conclusion yourself, did you, Mr. Dodd?
Mr. Dopp. No, sir, I did not, Mr. Chairman, and I don't know where it says that in the statement.
Mr. Hays. Well, do you recall having a conversation with me back in November, at Bethesda Naval Hospital?
Mr. Dond. Very definitely, Mr. Hays.
Mr. Hays. Now, perhaps fortunately for both of us, I will tell you right now, there is no transcript of that conversation available, and we will have to rely upon our memories. But do you recall telling me generally that you believed there had been some sort of—and I may be using the wrong word when I say plot or arrangement-among all of these foundations to change the whole concept of the social sciences !
Mr. Dodd. I remember talking to you about that, that that is what the facts would ultimately disclose, but it is not between the foundations.
Mr. Hays. But you told me back in November that that is what the facts
Mr. Dopp. That is what the story would unfold, probably.
Mr. Hays. What do you want to call it? Let us get a terminology there.
Mr. Dopd. It is a happening.
Mr Hays. Well, now, there is a good deal of difference, Mr. Dodd, isn't there between a happening, and something that is brought about deliberately?
Mr. Dond. Very definitely, sir and I am one of those who strongly advocates and takes the stand that this has not been brought about deliberately by the foundations.
Mr. Hays. It is just sort of an accidental thing?
Mr. Dopp. I don't know as you could call it accidental; it is a development. But I do not feel that it has been brought about deliberately by foundations.
Mr. Hays. Do you think it is bad?
Mr. Dopp. I have attempted to be objective, and I don't think of it in terms of bad or good, and I think it is something we should know about.
Mr. Hays. Well, I don't think that there are any of us here who wouldn't know that the concept of the social sciences has changed even in my generation.
Mr. Dodd. Yes; but I don't think it is a question of whether it is good or bad; I think we should know that it changed.
Mr. Hays. Well, we don't need a $115,000 investigation to know that, and you can find that out. Most anybody on the street could tell you that; is that right?
Mr. Dopo. But this is in relation, as I understand it, to a resolution which asks 5 Members of Congress to make 5 determinations.
Mr. Hays. The way we are going, we may wind up with five determinations; I don't know.