Site Map

CHURCH COMMITTEE REPORTS
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 22, 1975
U.S. SENATE,
SELECT COMMITTEE To STUDY GOVERNMENTAL OPERATIONS
1VITH RESPECT TO INTELLIGENCE ACTIVITIES,
WfUJhington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :08 a.m., in room 318,
Russell Senate Office Building, Senator Frank Church (chairman)
presiding.
Prpsent: Senators Church, )Iondale, Huddleston, Hart of Colorado,
Goldwater, )Iathias, and Schweiker.
Also present: William G. Miller, staff director; Frederick A. O.
Schwarz, Jr., chief counsel; and Curtis R. Smothers, counsel to the
minority.
The CHAIRMAN. The hearing will please come to order.
Today the committee continues its investigation of the mail-opening
program, endeavoring to determine in depth how it happened that for
20 years mail was opened by the CIA and the FBI, contrary to the
laws of the United States.
Yesterday, we heard from members of the Inspector General's Office
of the CIA, an office that conducted periodic reviews of this program
and an office which concluded that it was of marginal value, in terms
of the intelligence collecting, so much so that it was recommended to
the Agency, finally, that the program either be discontinued or turned
over to the FBI. There was little expression of concern about its
illegality, but there was evident fear that the exposure of the program
would make for a considerable embarrassment to the CIA. On that
basis, it was explained, particularly in the wake of Watergate, the
recommendation was made that the CIA discontinue a program that
had had little intelligence benefit.
Today, we are continuing to pursue the matter by asking former
Postmasters General of the United States what they were told about
the program and to what extent they approved it since it was their
responsibility under the law to protect the integrity of the land.
For that purpose. our first witnesses are three former Postmasters
GeneraL Mr. J. Ed"ward Day, ::\Ir. ,Tohn A. Gronouski, and Mr. Winton
M. Blount.
I shall ask all three to come forward and sit as a panel for purposes
of questioning. If you gentlemen will do that now. Please remain
standing and take the oath.
Do you and each of you solemnly swear that all of the testimony
you will gin in this proceeding will be the truth, the whole truth and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. DAY. I do.
Mr. GRONOUSKI. I do.
Mr. BLOUNT. I do.
The CHAIRMAN. Thank you very much.
Mr. Schwarz will commence the questioning.
(41)
42
TESTIMONY OF J. EDWARD DAY, FORMER POSTMASTER GENERAL,
. ACCOMPANIED BY IAMES F. REILLY, SR., COUNSEL; 10HN A. GRONOUSKI,
FORMER POSTMASTER GENERAL; WINTON M. BLOUNT,
FORMER POSTMASTER GENERAL, ACCOMPANIED BY DOUGLAS
ARANT, COUNSEL
Mr. SCHWARZ. Are any of you gentlemen accompanied by counsel?
Mr. DAY. Yes; I am, by Mr.•James F. Reilly.
Mr. BLOUNT. lam, by Mr. Douglas Arant.
Mr. GRONOUSKI. I am not.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Before questioning these particular people, may I call
the committee's attention to a chart which is headed, "Postmasters
General," and which sets forth the names and dates in offices of all of
the Postmasters General from the commencement of this program to
date, indicating in the right-hand column whether or not there is any
evidence whatsoever, or any claim on behalf of either the CIA or the
FBI, that anything was disclosed [exhibit 6 1
].
Mr. Summerfield, of course, is dead. We will deal with the subject
of disclosure and what kind of disclosure was made to ;him when Mr.
Helms testifies.
Mr. Day is here as a witness. Mr. Gronouski, who was not informed,
is here as a witness. Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Watson have testified they
were not informed, and there was no claim made that they were informed.
Mr. Blount, of course, is here as a witness. And Mr. Klassen,
who succeeded him, was not informed, and there is no claim made that
he was informed.
I am going to start with Mr. Gronouski.
The CHAIRMAN. First of all, Mr. Schwarz, is this summary based
upon the testimony that has heretofore been obtained in executive
session?
Mr. SCHWARZ. The testimony and the documents, yes.
The CHAIRMAN. So that this summarization can be distributed to
the press?
Mr. SCHWARZ. It can be and has been.
The CHAIRMAN. And can be authenticated as based upon sworn
testimony in executive hearings?
Mr. SCHWARZ. Yes. Moreover, in every case where it says "not informed,"
there is no claim made by either the CIA or the FBI that the
persons so named were informed.
Mr. Gronouski, I am going to start with you and explain why you
are here, even though you were not informed, because you have an
important story to tell the committee.
You were Postmaster General in the period 1963 through when?
Mr. GRONOUSKI. November of 1965.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Now, during the time you were Postmaster General,
was there an investigation into generally the subject of privacy by a
Senate subcommittee, headed by Senator Edward V. Long of
Missouri?
Mr. GROXOUSKI. Yes. The Long committee on mail coverage.
Mr. ScmvARz. And in connection with that, did you submit information
to the Long committee on the subject of mail?
Mr. GRONOUSKI. Yes, I did.
1 See p. 202.
43
Mr. SCHWARZ. What did you tell them?
~Ir. GROXOUSKI. "-ell, after reading the Rockefeller Commission
report and noticing my name mentioned, I tried to figure out what
testimony I had given before the Long committee, because my recollection
was that I had never testified before the Long committee. But
I got out some of those old hearings and I found a couple of letters
that I had submitted and were in the record.
One letter had to do with explaining a relationship that had existed
by law with the IRS, having to do with the treatment of mail as personal
property which could be seized by the IRS at the time they had
a judgment against a taxpayer who had not paid his taxes. I discov!,:red
this, and Lord knows I did not remember this from my recollectlOn.
I reread the letter of August of 1964, which \vas about 6 or 8 months
before the Long committee was in existence, that developed this
question.
This disturbed me no end, because of the main thing that one who
gets involved with the Postal Service feels the bottom line is the sanctity
of the mail, both in terms of no interruption of delivery and opening
the mail. And obviously this was a violation. It was an illegal violation
of what I thought was fundamental. So I wrote a letter to the
Long committee, recommending-oh, I informed them that on noticing
fhat and learning of this. in August of 1964, I called Doug Dillon,
who was then Secretary of the Treasury, and we personally agreed to
pnt in-to stop the practice. And, subsequently, Joe Bower agreed on
this, too.
But this, of course, was a personal agreement, and there was a law
still on the books which made it legal for this to happen. So in this
letter, I recommended to the Long committee that they change the
statute to prohibit the treatment of mail as personal property subject
to IRS lien. I can't for the life of me remember what they did about it,
but I offered them the use of two Post Office attorneys to help them
draft legislation.
The other letter had to do with my refusal to submit to the Long
committee a list of all of the mail covers that had occurred over the
last 2 years. And I explained the reason for that refusal that was related
to the fact that so many people who had been subject to mail
covers were totally innocent of any concern by a Government agency.
Mr. SCHWARZ. ""Vhen you say "mail cover", that is the examination
of the extNior of an eIlYelope and not the opening of it ~
Mr. GRONOUSKI. That's right. And in that letter I specifically defined
mail cover, and it is the onlv item that I think the CIA memorandum
could have referred to that'I know of. I explained that, very clearly,
it was not delaying the mail, looking only on the outside, recording
and not opening the mail or delaying it.
I might say, also, I explained how a year earlier, I had been concerned
about mail covers also and had put in very tight restrictions
on the anthorizations of mail covers. That is my recollection.
Mr. SCHWARZ. In any event, in that letter, which was largely about
the subject of mail coverage, you indicated that there was no mail
opening' program going on ~
Mr. GROXOUSKI. That's right. I flatly stated there was not.
Mr. SCHWARZ. And that you did not know about mail openings, did
you~
44
Mr. GRONOUSKI. I did not know about it.
Mr. SCIIWARZ. All right.
Mr. GRONOUSKI. Except I was not sure in August of 1964 what
the lien by the IRS meant. It did stop the mail, because it prevented
the delivery to the addressee, and I had some presupposition that they
stopped it and took it to collect taxes. They probably hoped that there
was some money in it, and that very much concerned me, and that's
when I put a stop to it.
The CHAIRMAN. But did you know during that period that the CIA
was busily engaged in opening the mail ?
Mr. GRONO-CSKI. I did not.
The CHAIRMAN. Your only concern, then, was with what you knew
about the IRS? That was legal at the time, and you recommended that
the law be changed?
Mr. GRONOUSKI. And administratively the practice was changed
immediately.
The CHAIRl\L\N. And you recommended a change in the law that
would make it illegal, and within your Department you ordered administrative
changes that stopped the practice?
Mr. GRONOUSKI: An agreement with the Treasury Department.
Mr. ScrnvARz. Mr. Chairman, at this point I would like to read
into the record from exhibit 7/ what the CIA subsequently said about
Mr. Gronouski, in a memorandum for the files dated April 23, 1965.
This supports your view, Mr. Gronouski. It does not change anything.
It is interesting in what it shows about the attitude of the CIA.
Reading from paragraph 7 into the record:
Mr. Karamessines brought up the question of what persons outside the Agency
have been briefed as to the actual operations of HTLINGUAL. He was told that,
at the present time, there were no officials in the post office or elsewhere in the
Government who had been so briefed. Karamessines suggested that consideration
be given to possibly briefing Postmaster General Gronouski after the [Long]
subcommittee activity has been discontinued. The writer stated that he would
recommend against this in view of various statements by Gronouski before
the Long subcommittee. Karamessines agreed with this thought and suggested
that, in his opinion, the President would be more inclined to go along with the
idea of the operation.
And we are going to take that up with Mr. H€'lms this afternoon,
that part of the document.
'VeIl, Mr. Gronouski, unless you have got something further to say
about your reaction to the treatment you now know you received, I am
going to pass to the other witnesses.
Mr. GRONOUSKI. I just wanted to add that when this news broke, I
thought it was incredible that a person in a top position of responsibility
in Government in an agency should have something of this sort
that is very illegal going on within his own agency and did not know
about it. It is not that I did not try to know about these things. I think
it is incumbent upon anybody at the top office to try to know everything
that ::roes on in his organization.
And to that effect, long before the Long committee, I asked Mr.
Montague and also my information officer, Ira Kappenstein, to very
carefully investigate the mail cover and any other associated problems
that we had, all the way from pornography to what have you, to find
1 See p. 203.
45
out what was going on, what we did, and whether it was in conformity,
not only with the law, but in good administrative practice.
And I think it is incredible that I could have held that office for
only the short time of 21;2 years, in the middle then-during an investigation
of mail coverage, that no how, no way did any information
seep up to me. And I think that isa very serious concern.
The CHAIIC\L\N. I do, too.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Day, when did you hold the position of Postmaster
General ~
Mr. DAY. January 21, 1961, until August 9, 1963.
Mr. SCHWARZ. 'Vas there a time when Mr. Helms and Mr. Roosevelt
and Director Dulles came to visit with you about the subject of CIA
and mail?
Mr. DAY. They came to visit me, yes, on February 15, 1961, about
3 weeks after I took office.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. There is a document in your book which
is exhibit 8/ dated February 16, 1961, the day after--
Mr. DAY. I don't have any book of that kind.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Mr. Blount can show it to you. It is right there. This
is a CIA document, written by Mr. Helms, reflecting the fact of the
meeting and stating in the second sentence of the paragraph, "We gave
him the background, development, and current status, withholding no
relevant details."
To your recollection, were you told that the CIA was opening mail
in Xe\y York City ~
Mr. DAY. No.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Do you deny that you were told that, or is it simply
that VOll do not recollect it ~
M;'. D.n:. I don't recollect it. And I do have several very distinct
recollections of that meeting, lyhichare inconsistent with this memorandum
of Mr. Helms.
These three gentlemen came to see me. I knew Mr. Roosevelt from
past years. Mr. Dulles, after some preliminary visiting and so on, said
that he wanted to tell me something very secret, and I said, "Do I have
to know about it~" And he was somewhat taken aback by that. And
he said no.
I said my experience is that where there is something that is very
secret, it is likely to leak out, and anybody that knew about it is likely
to be suspected of having been part of leaking it out, so I would rather
not know anything about it.
What additional things were said in connection with him building
up to that, I don't know. Rut I am sure, from my recollection of that
meeting, and, actually, from other things in your own record, that I
was not told anything about opening mail.
Mr. SCHWARZ. 'Vhatare the other things you refer t01
Mr. DAY. 'VeIl, for example, there is the memorandum, I believe
you read part of it, that was prepared by the CIA staff before they
came to see me. They really were laying- for me. I barely found out
where my office was when they came over there. It said, if the Postmaster
General asks if any mail is being opened, tell him that it is
being opened. Well, obviously, I didn't ask them if any mail was
being opened.
1 See p. 205.
64~663 0 .. 76 .. 4
46
Also, there is the subsequent memorandum that indicates that I was
not told. I don't know what that subsequent memorandum said specifically,
because I have not had an opportunity to see it.
Also, I can't see, thinking back on this situation, why·I would so
clearly recall that I told them that I did not want to know about this
if they had already told me about it. It doesn't make sense. As far
as Mr. Helms' statement that I said I did not want to be told the
details, what are the details? If they had said they were opening mail,
that they were opening mail, that would have been the details.
Mr. SCHWARZ. So the thrust of your testimony-and this is based,
you say, upon a clear recollection-is that ~Ir. Dulles said it was highly
sensitive or secret. You said, "I am worried about leaks. And, therefore,"
you said "please do not tell me."
:Mr. DAY. Correct.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Even though you knew it was a matter which significantly
concerned the Department for which you were responsible?
Mr. DAY. Of course.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. One further question to you, Mr. Day. Did
the FBI ever tell you they were opening mail?
Mr. DAY. No.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Did they ever discuss with you the subject of mail
covers?
Mr. DAY. They may have. All kinds of important people seemed to
come to see me or send for me immediately after I was appointed. Mr.
Hoover came over and had lunch with me.
As I recall that conversation, it was largely about the importance of
a close working relationship between the Postal Inspection Service
and the FBI and law enforcement activities in general. It is conceivable
he might have mentioned that. I have no recollection of it. I
doubt very seriously if I knew what a mail cover was until some weeks
after I took office.
Mr. SCHWARZ. You mean he came in and he also just told you something,
and you did not find out what he was talking about?
Mr. DAY. No; he was talking-it was a meeting in which he wanted
to be snre that I was sympathetic with the cooperative actidties between
the Postal Inspection Service and the FBI and wanted to see
that I had the right attitude. which I did. about working with them
cooperatively on their law enforcement efforts. And as I say, I don't
recall him saying anything about mail covers. I can't say definitely that
he didn't, and if he did mention it in passing, I probably didn't even
know what he was referring to.
Mr. SCHWARZ. All right. Mr. Blount, did you ever have a meeting
with Mr. Helms in which the subject of a CIA project relating to the
mails was discussed?
Mr. BLOUNT. Yes, I did.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Did that meeting take place in June of 197'1?
Mr. BLOm'T. Yes. it did.
Mr. SCHWARZ. What did Mr. Helms tell you?
Mr. BLOUlw. ·Well, as I recall, Mr. Heims explained to me about a
project that he told me had been going on for a great number of
years. I don't know whether he said 15 years or what, hut there was
some indication in my mind that this had been going on for at least 15
years, that it was an ongoing project. It was a project of great sensitiv47
ity and great importance to the national security of this country and
that he wanted to inform me about it.
I don't recall this being a very long meeting. I guess my memory
is not as good as .Mr. Day's but this was over 4 years ago, as far as I
was concerned, and I hadn't thought much about this until all of this
matter came up this spring. I hadn't thought at all about it.
But my best recollection is, he told me this was a project in which
the Post Office was cooperating with the CIA, that there were a
couple of postal employees in New York City that I believe he told
me were the only ones who really were involved or knew about this
project, that the way in which it operated was that the postal employees
would remove from the mail stream letters going to the Soviet
Union and give it to two or three CIA employees, and whatever they
did with it, it was reintroduced into the mail stream the next day.
That's about the ending of my recollection.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Did you not ask them what they did with it?
Mr. BWUNT. No, I don't recall doing that.
Mr. SCHWARZ. Did he not tell you what they did with it? Is it not a
fact that he told you that the CIA was opening the mail in New York
City? .
Mr. BwuNT. Not to my recolledion.
Mr. SCHWARZ. 'Well, now, did you not raise with him the question of
legality?
Mr. BLOUNT. Yes, I did.
Mr. SCHWARZ. 'Vhy would you have raised the question of legality
with him unless he had told you that the CIA was opening the mail
in New York City?
Mr. BLOUNT. Well, I think, Mr. Schwarz, this is a perfectly legitimate
and obvious thing for a prudent man to do.
Mr. SCHWARZ. But as you describe it, he just came in and gave you a
vague description. I don't understand why, on the basis of your description
of the conversation, there would have been any reason to
raise the question of legality, which you admit you did do.
Mr. BLOUNT. 'VeIl, maybe you don't, but I do.
Mr. SCHWARZ. 'Vhat is the reason?
Mr. RLOrNT. 'VeIl, just let me tell you. Mr. Helms was the Director
of the CIA. He is the man who had and continues to yield long 'and
distinguished service to this country. I had great respect for him and
have great respect for him. He was telling me abont a matter, a secret
matter, of great importance to this conntry. I don't recall talking
very much about the details about it. I didn't ask him what they were
doing.
I asked him-I raised the question of legality. I raised the question of
bringing. as I recall, the General Counsel of the Post Office Department
into the meeting, and as I recall, Mr. Helms said that the
Attorney General was going to be involved in the case.
I have seen from testimony by Mr. Helms and documents that he
had seen the Attorney General prior to the meeting with me, and I
have no Quarrel with that. I had assumed he was going to see the
Attorney General, but if he had seen the Attorney General, well, I
find it even more logical. and that the Attorney General had no problem
with that as far as the legality was concerned, and I thought then
48
it was a project that I wanted to give full cooperation with the CIA
within the limits of the law.
Mr. SCHWARZ. ""VeIl, it doesn~t make any sense to me, but you have
your explanation on the record. I don~t see, according to your explanation
of the conversation, why there is any reason to discuss legality,
which you agree was discussed.
Mr. Chairman, I do not have anything further.
Senator MONDALE [presiding]. Mr. Smothers?
Mr. SMOTHERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Just briefly, back to Mr. Day, if we might, for starters.
Mr. Day, at the time Mr. Dulles and Mr. Helms came to see you,
you have a pretty clear recollection of your indication that you did
not want to be made privy to secret matters that might leak. Do you
have any other recollection of the subject of that conversation?
Mr. DAY. No, I don~t recall the subject of that conversation. There
was some purely social talk because of the fact that I had known Mr.
Roosevelt during Navy days, and I don~t recall the specific statements
that were made. It is not surprising to me because I am more inclined
to remember things about people and my reactions to them than I am
to remember all of the details of some conversation, and I can recall
that very distinctly, my reaction to their approach.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Is it your recollection that this visit was a social
call ?
Mr. DAY. Oh, no, of course not.
Mr. SMOTHERS. I am a little concerned. The Director of the CIA
comes out to chat with you about a matter of some importance to your
Department, and all you recollect from that is that you asked him not
to tell you about it?
Mr. DAY. That is correct. And I have explained previously why
that is true. I would do it exactly the same way if I were doing it today.
I figured then that the CIA had their own lines of authority and their
OWn responsibilities, and I had absolutely no control over them, any
more than I did over the Air Force.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Even if they were opening mail, for which you were
responsible?
Mr. DAY. I don't know. The thought of opening mail didn't enter
into my mind, because I didn't hear anything about it that I can
recall.
Mr. SMOTHERS. To what would this authority on their part have
related?
Mr. DAY. Probably, as I began thinking about it afterward~ it probably
had to do with the extent of the mail covers that the CIA was
using. That is what I thought later might have been the purpose of the
visit.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Yes; but going back to the conversation and why,
if at all. it made any sense, you previously indicated that you had no
idea at that time even what a mail cover was.
Mr. DAY. That is correct. I said afterwards, when I began surmising
what they might have been coming to talk to me about, it struck me
that it was probably mail covers.
Mr. SMOTHERS. I understand the surmise afterwards. vVhat I am
concerned about is what kind of strange conversation this must have
49
been at the time. You have a specific recollection about a very small
part of it, the part that indicated that you did not want to know anything.
But what did you talk about ~
~Ir. DAY. I didn't say it was a very small part of it. I said that there
was a certain amount of conversation with ~Ir. Roosevelt and undoubtedly
some get-acquainted conversation. I have stated that I do
not recall the statements that were made as a buildup to the statement
they wanted to tell me something very secret. But I do recall what
my reaction was, and I told them I did not want to know anything
about it.
~[r. S~IOTHERS. ~Ir. Day, in your assessment, and with the information
that you now haw as to the subject matter which would have been
discussed with you, is it your impression that you were simply duped
in this process, or was it more a case of your saying heal' no evil, see
no evil?
~Ir. DAY. Keither one. It wasn't my responsibility. The CIA had
an entirely different kind of responsibility than I did. And what they
had to do, they had to do. And I had no control over them. I don't
know whether it was clear to me at the time they came to see me, but
it is clear they did not come to ask me if they could do something;
they came to tell me it was happening. And that was their responsibility.
I don't recall over that.
~[r. SMOTHERS. And it was your view that the CIA could do whatever
they wanted to with the mails, and it was your further view that
you would hope they wouldn't tell you about it?
~Ir. DAY. I don't know if I particularly focused at the time on thinking
they coulcl do whatever they wanted to, ~ause I didn't know the
various alternatives of things they might be doing. But as I developed
more knowledge of the situation-and right now I am not at all sure
it was illegal for them to open the mail.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Let me turn to Br. Blount for just a moment.
~Ir. Blount, going back to your meeting with Mr. Helms, is it your
recollection that at that meeting Mr. Helms discussed the mail of
specific persons that had been opened ~
~Ir. BLOUXT. I have seen testimony that the name Eldridge Cleaver
was mentioned in the conversation, and I seem to recall that name
being mentioned.
~Ir. SMOTHERS. Did you discuss the contents of Eldridge Cleaver's
maiH .
~Ir. BLOUNT. I don't recall that.
~Ir. SMOTHERS. Did he tell you anything about what the Agency
might have learned from opening Eldridge Cleaver's mail ~
~Ir. BLOrxT. I don't recall him talking about opening themail.Mr.
Smothers, and I don't recall his talking about what they had learned
from it. I recall the name being introduced into the conversation, and
these were as an example of the kind of mail that would be interrupted.
~Ir. SMOTH~RS. By example, are you saying that he showed you
samples of mall that had been opened?
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't recall any of that. I am talking about the
example of the kind of people whose mail was valuable to interrupt
as far as the CIA was concerned.
Mr. S~fOTIIERS. What kind of people are we talking about?
50
~rr. BLOrxT. ,Yell. people that were avowed, in my view, at any
rate-who had vowed they were enemies of this country.
~1r. S~IOTIIERS. So if' the CIA determined that 'someone was an
enemy of the country, in your view it was all right for the Agency to
open the mail!
~1r. BLOrxT. I did not say anything about opening the mail, ~rr.
SmotllPrs. I raised the qlH'stion of the legality of the CI.A operations.
This matter was disposed of in my mind by the fact that the Attorney
General had agreed. or ,,'as going to agree. or was going to be briefed
about this matter, and he would deal with the legality of it. I understand
he had been briefed prior.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Did you ever speak to the Attorney General about
this matter?
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't recaII anv specific conversation with the Attorney
General. I may weII have"said something to him in passing. I
had many conversations with him. I just don't recall.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Did you ever raise the matter with your counsel at
the Post Office Department?
Mr. BLOUNT. I talked about, during this meeting, of bringing in the
counsel of the Post Office Department. And when it was indIcated that
the Attorney General ,,'as going to be involved in this, I decided to
let the Attorney General handle the legality of it.
Mr. SMOTHERS. In other words, after this briefing, after being told
effectively that the mail of certain persons was being opened--
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't recall that, Mr. Smothers.
Mr. Sl\IOTHERf\. OK, depending on what impression you drew from
the conversation regarding Cleaver's mail, one mayor may not conclude
that you had such knowledge, but certainly you knew there was
a CIA project relating to the mails and that the CIA was using this
as a source to get some kind of information; you knew that much.
Mr. BLOUNT. That is precisely what my impression of the meeting
was.
Mr. SMOTHERS. Did you do anything after this knowledge had come
to you? After you had been advised of this much, was there any foIlowup
on your part to find out what the Agency or the FBI was doing, or
what anyone else was doing in this regard?
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't recall that. I have seen testimony that I caIIed
Mr. Cotter who was the Chief Inspector and related the fact that we
had such a meeting. I don't recall that conversation. I could weII have
had it. I had many conversations with Mr. Cotter, but I simply don't
recaII it. .
Mr. SMOTHERS. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
Senator MONDALE. Thank you very much.
Mr. Blount, according to a memo, which I gather you have seen,
dated .Tune 3, 1971. exhibit 4.1 the following is a statement:
The DCI then indicated that yesterday, 2 June 1971, he had seen Postmaster
General Blount. Mr. Blount's reaction, too, was entirely positive regarding the
operation and its continuation. He opined that "nothing needed to he done" and
rejected a momentarily held thought of his to have someone review the legality
of the operation as such a review would, of necessity, widen the circle of witting
persons. Mr. Helms explained to the PMG that Mr. Cotter, Chief Postal Inspector,
has been aware of the operation for a considerable period of time by virtue of
having been on the staff of the CIA's New York Field Office. Mr. Helms showed
1 See p. 197.
51
the Postmaster General a few selected examples of the operation's product, inclUding
an item relating to Eldridge Cleaver which attracted the Postmaster
General's special interest.
,Yould you disagree "'ith any part of that memo ~
Mr. BLOL'NT. Senator, I don't recall seeing any document. As to
Eldridge Cleaver, I do remember the name being introduced into the
conversation.
I do not recall any conversation about Mr. Cotter. I simply don't
recall it. I mean, it may well have been in the conversation. Again, I
don't recall a conversation with Mr. Cotter after this meeting. I have
seen testimony by Mr. Cotter that I did call Mr. CotteT. I don't have
any quarrel with it; I just don't recall it. And I don't recall anything
in this meeting about Mr. Cotter's name being mentioned or being
shown any documents.
Senator ~fONDALE. Is it your testimony, then, that you do not recall
being told that the mail was opened?
Mr. BLOL'NT. That is correct.
Senator MONDALE. And further, that you never saw any byproduct
of such opened mail?
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't recall either of those two things, Senator.
Senator MONDALE. And that your only inquiry, based on this general
discussion with DCI, was in effect asking to be sure that it was
legal?
Mr. BLOUNT. In effect, that is correct.
Senator )fONDALE. As I understand your earlier testimony, you did
so because you thought this effort, although not defined for the use of
the mails, invoh'ed the Kat ion's security and therefore a higher purpose
that would justify it.
~fr. BLOL'NT. I don't know what you mean by justify, but I understood
that national security was involved, and this was a very sensitive
project as far as the CIA was concerned, and that it was important to
this country. And my inclination was, and is today, to be fully supportive
as long as this matter was legal.
Senator MONDALE. As long as it's legal.
~fr. BLOL'"NT. And that's the reason I raised the question of legality.
And it was disposed of in my mind by the fact that the Attorney General
was going to be involved in the legality of it. So I thought that the
General Counsel of the Post Office Department should not be involved
as long as the Attorney General was going to be involved.
Senator MONDALE. So you would support any national security effort
that was legal. But in this case, even though you knew it affected
the operation of your Department and had something to do with the
mails, you did not ask what it might be or inquire on your own as to
the legality; is that correct?
Mr. BLOrxT. My recollection, Senator, is that the extent of the Post
Office involvement was to interrupt the mail stream and to turn it over
to CIA agents who would then turn it back to the postal employees
the next day.
Senator ::\fONDALE. After having read it?
Mr. RwrNT. I don't know what they did with it, and that is when
I raised the question of legality.' .
. Senator )fONOALE. But you didn't ask what they were doing with it,
elthed
52
Mr. BLOUNT. I did not.
Senator MmmALE. All rip:ht. And you didn't-Mr.
BLOUNT. I don't recall that.
Senator MOXDALE. You might have asked ~
Mr. BLOUNT. I just don't recall. I don't recall any conversation about
opening the mail.
Senator MOXDALE. But you might have asked. Do you think that you
did not ask or that you did ask or that you can't remember ~
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't think I ought to speculate as to what I might
have asked. I just don't recall.
Senator MOXDALE. You mayor you may not or you don't recall ~
~Ir. BLOUXT. I don't recall any discussion.
Senator MOXDALE. In any event, you did not inquire as to the legality
itself. you inquired. rather. whether they had-- .
~Ir. BLOUXT. Based on the testimony that ~Ir. Helms has gIven to
otheTf;. including this committee. he saw the Attorney General prior
to coming to me. I have no quarrel with that. I accept the fact that he
saw him prior to coming: to me. I had first thought that he was going
to see the Attorney General after our meeting. I accept the testimony
that he saw him before our meeting, and I am quite certain that he
said to me that he had briefed the Attorney General and that the Attorney
General had no problem with this matter and that as far as the
legality was concerned. that put it to bed, as far as I was concerned.
Senator MOXDALE. All right.
Sir, we all take an oath of office-you do, I do, as we go into public
office-to faithfully uphold and execute the laws of the land. Do you
feel that this nse of the U.S. mail shonld not have raised your curiosity
as to what in fact was happening so you would ask those essential questions
and having asked them. that you had a duty then, under your
oath of office. to execute the law ~
Mr. BLOUNT. "Well, Senator. just as Mr. Day has testified, I didn't
know then. and I don't know now, that what the CIA was doing was
illegal.
Senator MONDAI,E. My point is, you did not ask, apparently, and
having not asked. you did not inquire as to its illegality; I was wondering
how that squares with one's oath of office which requires us to
faithfully execute the laws of the land.
Mr. BWUXT. I raised the fluestion of legality. and as far as I was
concerned, it was settled with the Attorney General dealing with
the legality of the matter. .
Senator MONDALE. Now. Mr. Day, as I understood your testimony.
Mr. Helms, then the DDP, and Mr. Dulles, came to you and said
that we have a secret matter to discuss with you affecting the Postal
Department. And yonr attitude was. or your statement was, "Do I have
to know? Because when secrets are known then the disclosures can be
blamed on the people who knew the secrets." Therefore, you did not
want to know. 1Vehave heard a lot of that, not just in tIle executive,
but in the Congress.
Maybe if I had been in your position at that time I would have said
the same thing. I am not trying to draw moral judgments about it. We
had direct statements of Senators back in the early days, when confronted
with embarrassing information. that they didn't want to know.
53
That seems to be the way you dealt with the CIA and the FBI
in those days: "Don:t tell me: I don't want to know." Do you think
that was the right attitude? .
Mr. Thy. T definitely do. As I say, T would do the same thing again.
I would not agree that it is comparable to embarrassing information.
As I said, I felt the CIA had their own lines of authority and their own
responsibilities: and they were the ones that knew what they
couldn:t do.
Senator MOND.\LE. And so did you. You were the Postmaster General.
Mr. DAY. Thars correct. .
Senator MONDALE. You had taken an oath to uphold and faithfully
execute the laws of the land. Like Mr. Blount. who didn't ask the questions,
you didn't want to hear and you wouldn't ask.
~ don't want to sound personaL because I think that was the general
attItude in those days, but I was wondering now, in the light of what
\ve have seelL the gross illegality that \vas going OIL and the warranted
opening of mails \vhich was clearly illegal, I don't think anybody--
Mr. DAY. I disagree with--
Senator MONIULE. Xow that you know that. do you think that-:
Y1r. DAY. I don't agree that it is clear that it is gross illegality, but
that is another subject.
)1y feeling then and my feeling no\v is that the CIA had overall
powers that put them in a different situation than other people, and I
think actually, on the law itself, it is not at all clear it was illegal.
Senator :Y10XDALE. That is the first time we ha\'e heard that, Mr. Day.
The law: I think is very clear. In order to open maiL you have to do
it under court warrant and on the basis of probable cause. Your position
is that i~ you im'oke the term national security, you can open
anybodis mall.
Mr. DAY. Xot just invoking the term national security, but the CIA
is and always has 'been something Yerv different and Yery special.
Senator MOXDALE. ",Ye are bath la\;yers. I do not remember reading
that in the Constitution; maybe you can tell me about that exception
in the fourth amendment.
:.\fr. DAY. There is a specific section of that statute, Title 18, U.S,
Code, Section 1717, saving it is illegal to send things through the mail
that have to do with advocating the overthrow of the Government. And
up until shortly before--
Senator MOXDALE. And that is probable cause. In other words, if
you have probable cause--
Mr. DAY. "'Yell, that is not in that section.
Senator :YI0XDALE. If you feel that sOIlwbody is ad\'ocating the overthrow
of the Government. you can get a warrant and you can open
the mail.
:Yfr. DAY. That is not in that section I am referring to. 'What I was
going to continue, that section I llll\'e long since found out, shortly
before I was Postmaster General that section 1717 had a provision,
right in the same section ahout the national security, saying that mail
should not be opened. And that was stricken out in August 1960 by the
Congress.
Senator :YloxDALE. "~ell, I must say that the tE'stimony I have just
lward from you, :YIr. Day, and from )Ir. Blount, scares me more than
54
I expected. Not only have we found gross and unconscionable interference
with the mail which threatens the civil liberties of every American,
but we have the testimony from two former Postmasters General
that they do not think it is wrong, even today.
Mr. Uronouski, in your case, you were not tQld of these openings,
even though you wanted to know. 'Ve now know, from a private
memorandum of the DCI, that it was decided not to tell you. How can
a Postmaster General who wishes to enforce the law do so in that kind
of environment ~
Mr. GRONOUSKI. Well first--
Senator MONDALE. And how do we know whether the present Postmaster
General, if desirous of enforcing the law, can be sure such
abuses are not going on today ~
Mr. GRONOUSKI. First, Mr. Chairman, if I may I want to disassociate
myself with the generalization which you opened your remarks
with that in those· days it was the general attitude. That was not my
attitude and I deplore that attitude.
Senator MONDALE. And I commend you.
Mr. GRONOUSKI. I think anyone in Government that runs an agency
has the responsibility of finding anything going on in that agency,
and I am terribly upset that the system is such that 'what happened
co~ld happen, because I made every (jffort to find out what was going
on m my agency.
Senator MONDAU;. And I commend you.
Mr. GRONOUSKI. And I cannot tell you how to do it either. I wish I
could tell you.
Senator MONDALE. 'Vould it be fair to say that you tried, you did
not get the answers, and you now find--
Mr. GRONOUSKI. The first moment I learned that according to law
and in accordance with law that the IRS was stopping and holding
mail, I immediately called the Secretary of the Treasury and, with him,
agreed to stop it in 1964. I investigated everything involving the mail
that was humanly possible and if I had any idea that the CIA or any
other agency was not only opening the mail but de}aying the mail,
I would have, as I did in the case of the IRS, put a stop to it.
Senator MONDALE. That is why I have always liked .John Gronouski.
If that attitude had prevailed, we would not have had this mess that
we are exploring today, and we would not have had a 'Vatergate, and
we would not have gone through this tremendous morass of cynicism
and despair that we have suffered. It is a little simple thing called
obeying and enforcing the law. A.nd that is what I thought I heard
and I commend you for it.
We have a vote. We suspend the hearings until after we vote.
[Abrief recess was taken.]
The CHAIRMAN [presiding]. The hearing will come back to order.
Between votes and another hearing over which I have had to preside
this morning, I have missed some of the testimony. I do want to say,
however, that I have been told of testimony given just before the break
for the vote by former Postmaster General Gronouski, and I simply
want to strongly associate myself with the view he expressed.
Either we are going to have a Government of laws in this country
that is obeyed by all agencies of the Government, or we are going to
55
have the beginning of a slide that could undermine all individual
liberty in this land. ,Ve have to recognize the crossroad and take the
right road before it is too late.
Senator MONDALE. Could I ask just one question?
The CHAIRMAX. Yes. Senator Mondale.
Senator MONDALE. How does it feel now to know that you were permitted
to represent something to the Congress which you then thought
to be the truth-namely, that it was only mail cover operations and
nothing else-when, in fact, you have now learned that that was not
the truth?
~fr. GIWNOUSKI. ,VeIl, when I heard it, of course, I was indignant
and frustrated. And it poses, I think, the real gut issue of government,
how you get control of this business. And I thought I had reasonable
control when I was in the Post Office. I thought I knew what was going
on.
Senator MoxDALE. This not only undermines-
Mr. GROXOUSKI. Obviously, I didn't know something very important.
Senator MONDALE. But more than that, they let you represent something
to the Congress that you believed to be true but in fact was false,
thereby misleading the Congress as well. .
Mr. GROXO"LSKI. Beyond that, I-it meant ~ great deal-the propOSItion
of those around me, not only those I appointed, but those who had
been Post Office employees before I came there didn't know about that.
I may in testimony be dissuaded of that, but I don't think any of the
people that I dealt with-the Chief Inspector, legal counsel, or the
Assistant Postmasters General-had any notion of this. It was not just
me. It seems to be the whole top staff didn't know anything about it.
Senator MONDALE. Thank you, Mr. Gronouski.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRl\1AX. Thank you, Senator Mondale.
I believe Senator Schweiker is next.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to address a question to all three of you in sequence. My
question basically concerns this: In listening to your testimonies here
this morning, I guess you could summarize your three statements with
three other statements. One would be, I don't recalL Second would be,
I don't want to know. The third would be, I didn't know they were
actually opening the maiL
My question is in two parts. First, what is a Postmaster General for,
if not to guarantee the sanctity of the mail ? Second, where did the
responsibility in your particular administration break down?
Mr. Day. let us start with you. 'What is a Postmaster General for
if he is not to guarantee the sanctity of the U.S. mail?
Mr. DAY. My main concerns when I was Postmaster General, and
particularly when I first came in, was to straighten out the very bad
employee relations in the Department, to attempt to improve service,
and to improve postal facilities. The law enforcement aspect of the
Postmaster General's job is rather a peripheral part of that job.
Senator SCHWEIKER. 'Where do you feel your responsibIlity broke
down?
Mr. DAY. I don't think it did break down at all.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Now, Mr. Day, how can you say that?
56
Here we see a case of mail opening unparalleled in American history,
actually almost falling apart like a sieve. Yesterday we found out that
one out of every 13 letters to the Soviet Union was opened, read, photographed,
and distributed widely throughout our intelligence agencies.
And you say your responsibility did not break down?
Mr. DAY. Yes. Because, as I have already stated several times, it is
not clear to me that it was illegal for the CIA to open the mail.
The CHAIRMAN. It is clear to everybody else, including the CIA.
Mr. DAY. I say it is not clear to me.
Senator ScHWEIKER. It is not clear to you?
Mr. DAY. That is correct.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Are you saying the mail was not opened?
Mr. DAY. No, I say it is not clear to me that it was illegal for them
to open the mail.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Then you are saying that it really was not
illegal to open the mail, and I gather you take issue with your own
postallaws protecting the sanctity of the mail ?
Mr. DAY. There are more postal laws than the one that has been
referred to here. I referred to another one, and there are CIA laws,
and there was a CIA position that existed, particularly when I was
there, that make it far from clear to me that there was any breakdown.
Senator SCBWEIKER. If it was not clear to you, and if that was really
the issue, do you have an opinion in writing- from either the Attorney
General or the General Counsel to you as PORtmaster ? Would you not
have had that pursued? Would you not have nai]{'d that down? Would
you not have asked for a legal opinion if it really was unclear?
Mr. DAY. I had no occasion to ask for it, Senator.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Did Mr. Mitchell ever give you an opinion to
that effect?
Mr. DAY. You seem to have me confused with someone else. Mr.
Mitchell came on the scene long after I had departed.
Senator SCBWEIKER. Did any of the Attorneys General that served
with you give you an opinion m writing that makes your point valid?
Mr. DAY. No. I never asked for one.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Did you not feel it was your responsibility to
get one?
Mr. DAY. No.
Senator SOUWEIKER. Well, we do have a problem, there is no question
about that, Mr. Day.
Let me ask you, Mr. Blount, what is your response as to whether
the duty of the Postmaster General is to guarantee the sanctity of
the mail, and where did your responsibility break down? . . .
Mr. BLOUNT. Well, Senator, for one, I don't think my responSIbIlIty
broke down.
Senator SCBWEIKER. Do you agree with Mr. Day that it is legal
to open everybody's mail?
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't know that Mr. Day said that, to begin with.
Second--
Senator SCHWEIKER. I am not sure what he said on that point either.
Mr. Bwmn. He said, if I understood him, that it wasn't clear, and
I did not understand at the time that what the CIA was doing was
illegal, and I don't understand that now.
57
I don't intend to engage in a legal debate with you, but-I am not
a lawyer.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Did you get an opinion from your lawyer?
Did you get an opinion from Attorney General Mitchell?
Mr. BwuNT. Senator, I have testified that I raised the question of
legality in the meeting I had with Mr. Helms. Mr. Helms told me that
he had talked to the Attorney General a'bout this, he had briefed him
on it, and he had no problem with it.
Now, I had first recollected that he was going to talk to the Attorney
General, but the evidence indicates that he had talked to him the
day before he came to see me. And I accept that. I have no quarrel
with it. It is just a question of what you remember 4 years or more
ago.
Now, I think you are dealing with the question, the age-old question,
of citizens' rights versus national security; and if I might be so bold
as to suggest that this kind of question is best dealt with in an atmos~
ili~~~~~~~~~~~U~~I~
it is a difficult question which people of not only good will but great
sensitivity have varying views about. And it would seem to me that
one way to proceed on that issue would be to maybe try to construct
a different atmosphere from this kind of atmosphere-maybe a distinguished
panel to deal with this question.
I do not understand, again, that what the CIA was doing was
illegal. I did not understand it at that time. I just do not have an
understanding about that matter. I raised the question of legality. It
was disposed of by the fact that the Attorney General was gomg to be
involved in that, and I had no problem with it. So I do not think my
responsibility broke down.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Are you testifying that Mr. Mitchell told you
it was legal, or sent you anything in writing that said it was legal?
Mr. BLOUNT. I am testifying that Mr. Helms told me he had talked
with the Attorney General. And he had no problems with that.
Senator SCHWEIKER. The Attorney General does not recall that, of
course.
Mr. BLOUNT. I do not know what the Attorney General does recall.
Senator SCHWEIKER. I can assure you that is what he testified to
this committee because I took the deposition when he said he did not
recall that conversation at all. That is where your point stops, right
there. .
Mr. BLOUNT. You are talking about people who recall a conversation,
Senator; in my own case, 4 years ago; in Mr. Day's case, 14 years
ago. I think that is asking a little bit too much of detailed human
memory. Everybody can sit up here and make a speech, if they want
to. But if you are trying to get at the facts, I would suggest you try
to construct an atmosphere where you can deal with these sensitive
questions of citizens' rights versus national security. I happen to
believe that national security is very important in this country. I also
believe that citizens' rights are very important, and I think those two
can be and have been, over the years, reconciled.
Senator SCHWEIKER. You said that basically the atmosphere today
is different from the time when you were Postmaster General. I would
not disagree with that. But the one thing that has been constant for
58
200 years is the fourth amendment. That has been pretty clear cut,
and hopefully it is observed by our own Government. So I think that
element of stability somehow ought to be with the system, and I
thought it was. But there is obviously a difference.
Mr. BLOUNT. I think it is with the system, Senator. I think that
some of the time, we get carried away with some things that make
headlines. They are talking about opening the mail. The mail is
opened all the time by the Customs Department. It is opened by the
Dead Letter Department, and this is by law.
Senator SCHWEIKER. That is a very important distinction, though,
Mr. Postmaster General-a very important distinction.
Mr. BLOUNT. Well, as far as I know, the CIA was acting under the
laws of this land to--
Senator SCHWEIKER. But you made no effort to get an opinion or a
position, even verbally, from anyone who really could give you advice.
Because certainly, the CIA was not an objective source in this case.
Mr. BLOUNT. Well, I do not have any comment about that.
Senator SCHWEIKER. Mr. Gronouski,' I would like to ask you the
same question.
Mr. GRONOUSKI. Well, I felt immediately upon assuming the Postmaster
General's job, that I had some very serious responsibilities in
terms of individual rights. I can recall four cases that ensued. One
had to do with keeping lists-the customs office. In effect, what the
customs people did was to write to people, and ask them if they
wanted to receive mail that came from overseas. The people would
have to sign a card and send it back, and this developed into quite
a list.
I ordered those lists destroyed, because I felt that kind of a list,
given the fact that people were receiving mail from Russia and what
have you, might be researchers of universities or what have you, that
those lists could be used by a McCarthy in Wisconsin-that is not
Gene, that is Joe--and I felt that was a serious matter, and one I did
not want to tolerate.
I felt that we had been very lax on a second point, on mail coverage;
that anybody and his brother could authorize a mail cover, and the
mail covers proliferated extraordinarily-24,OOO in 2 years. And I
put in a new set of regulations a year before the Long committee
brou~ht the subject up, which centralized in the 15 regional inspectors
the rIght to authorize a mail cover.
I have already mentioned the fact that when it came to my attention
that the Attorney General had the capacity to seize mail under court
order, I objected to that, and arranged with the Secretary of Treasury-
two of them-to stop that procedure, and also suggested legislation
to chang-e the law in that respect.
Senator SCHWEIKER. And I want to commend you. .
Mr. GRONOUSKI. I got very concerned on a fourth point, with how
we dealt with pornography. i: am not a pornographer, but I also think
that this whole question-I do not say I object to what some people
call pornography, but I felt it a very serious matter that the Post
Office Department has been dealing with this. And, in fact, I wrote
an article very early on in my career as Postmaster General in the
Yale Law Review-I believe it was the Yale Law Review-----explaining
59
my position on this, and implemented that, which is essentially that
the Post Office Department was not to do any censoring of mail in
terms of the law.
These arc four pursuits I can say I pursued actively. I had no
guestio~ i? my mind all of the time I ,,"as there that not only was openmg
mall Illegal, except under court order or under a specific statute;
and second, that delaying the mail was illegal. Xow, I had had the
impression, up until very recently, that the only thing that invoh"ed
a mail cover was that the postman, when he released his mail, ,,"auld
write down a list of return addresses, and who the mail was going to,
and then proceed to deliver the mail the same day.
Obviously, there was a failure in my administration, because something
happened that I did not know about. All I can say is, I diligently
pursued, and I failed on that score.
Senator SCHWEIKER. I think, Mr. Gronouski, in your case, your
record does show that you tried, and tried under very adverse circumstances,
to do the job. When I was a Congressman, I got letters
criticizing the position you took on pornography, so indirectly that is
a compliment to the way that you did protect the sanctity of the mail,
and I think you deserve some credit for it.
Mr. Day, you did not want to hear what Mr. Helms told you. In
view of the fact that you did not know he was going to talk about
employees of yours performing an action that might be illegal, why
would you not want to know what your own employees might or might
not be doing?
Mr. DAY. I do not recall Mr. Helms saying anything at all to me.
Mr. Dulles did all of the talking, so far as I can recall, except the
conversation with Mr. Roosevelt. But I was told that it was something
very secret, and it was in reaction to that I said I did not want to
know about it. I cannot recall having anything said to me that gave
me any idea about what the specifics of the secret were.
Senator SCHWEIKER. In your judgment, the word "secret" made it
right?
Mr. DAY. I did not say that, Senator, or anything close to it.
Senator SCHWEIKER. 'What judgment did you make?
Mr. DAY. I have already covered that. The CIA, in my opinion, then
and now, has certain special powers. Naturally, the Congress is not
going to outline in a statute all the possible techniques for carrying on
a spying operation. But to me, there was and is a clear indication in
the whole authorization of the CIA and its whole function that it has
certain unusual powers. I knew I had no control over those powers. I
felt it was up to the CIA to take care of what they had to do in the
spying business.
Senator SCHWEIKER. That is all, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
The CH.URMAX. Senator Huddleston.
Senator H"Ll>DLEsTox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Gronouski, you indicated that during your tenure as Postmaster
General, that not only were you not advised of the extent and
nature of the mail opening project, but you did not believe that either
your General Counselor the Inspector General of the Post Office
Department had been advised of it?
Mr. GRONOPSKI. That was and is my belief. I could be dissuaded,
but that is my belief.
60
Senator HUDDLESTON. That is not the case with you, Mr. Blount,
because during your tenure I believe you employed Mr. William
Cotter as Inspector General; is that correct?
Mr. BLOUNT. As Chief Inspector.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Mr. Cotter was Chief Inspector of the Postal
Department. Were you aware at the time that he had been involved
personally in mail opening projects of the CIA?
Mr. BLOUNT. No, I was not.
Senator HUDDLESTON. ""Vere you aware at the time that there was
a secrecy agreement between the CIA and its employees not to reveal
certain information to which they were privy?
Mr. BLOUNT. I never heard of it until I testified before the House
committee up here earlier this year.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Were you aware t.hat subsequent to the employment
of Mr. Cotter, seven other members, former CIA employees,
four of whom had been involved in and had specific knowledge of
the mail opening, came into that Department?
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't believe so.
Senator HUDDLESTON. You were not aware of thaH Did you ever
discuss with your Chief Inspector the question of the mail openings
and its nature and propriety?
Mr. BLOUNT. Senator, we had many discussions about the operations
of the postal inspectors, including mail covers, including mail openings
under warrants, including the postal participation in the strike
force, as it were, assembled to fight organized crime, and the role that
the Post Office played in not only gathering evidence, but evidence
that led to convictions of many people involved in organized crime
around this country, so that is the kind of thing that I remember that
we talked about.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Do you recall how the name of Mr. William
Cotter came to you as a potential person to fill this important
position ~
Mr. BLOUNT. Yes, I do.
Senator HUDDLESTON. How did that follow?
Mr. BLOUNT. When I first came to the office, I had looked at the
Post Office Department. I went over to talk to-prior to being sworn
in, I was over talking to Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, who was then Director
of the FBI. I, like Mr. Day, had some question about whether or
not that kind of operation belonged in the Post Office Department,
and explored the ideas of whether or not it could be transferred out
of the Post Office Department, and other people fulfill that
responsibility.
As I looked at that responsibility, however, I began to ask people
for recommendations for someone to become the Chief Postal Inspector.
I got recommendations from people inside the Post Office Department.
I got recommendations from Mr. Hoover. I also got some
recommendations from Mr. Helms. I interviewed a number of these
people. Mr. Cotter was one of them, and I selected him.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Now, at the time then that you asked for
recommendations, you were aware that the FBI and the CIA were
involved in mail openings or mail surveillance projects that at least
may have some questionable legality?
61
Mr. BLOU~T. K0, sir, I was not at all.
Senator HUDDLESTO~. I thought that you just said that you talked
to Mr. Hoover about theluestion of whether or not this was something
that ought to be carried out?
Mr. BLOUNT. I am talking about the Postal Inspector, the Postal
Inspector Service being lodged in the Post Office Department itself.
Senator HUDDLESTOX. I see.
Mr. BLOUNT. I had some question about whether or not that should
be lodged in another agency.
Senator HUDDLESTOX. But you had no question as to whether or not
the projects that the FBI and the CIA were undertaking with the
mail were legal?
Mr. BLouxT. I had no knowledge of that at that point.
Senator HUDDLESTO~. Did you discuss with Mr. Cotter when you
interviewed him what his experience was and what type of activity
he had been involved in?
Mr. BLOUNT. I am certain-I don't recall our conversation, but I
am certain I disoussed with him his experience, what he had been
doing, what his experience had been. I don't recall any discussion
relatmg to the Post Office Department.
Senator HUDDLESTON. None at all, whether he had any knowledge
of the workings of the Post Office Department, or what he might be
required to do as the Chief Inspector?
Mr. BLOUNT. Senator, I am quite sure we talked about the postal
inspectors, and I am quite-I don't recall, but I find it pretty logical
that we would have some knowledge about the postal inspectors.
I found, after having been in the Post Office Department for a short
time, that the postal inspectors were a highly qualified and varied group
of investigators in the U.S. Government, and I'm qui~ sure we disoussed
the postal inspectors.
Senator HUDDLESTON. You do not recall his indicating to you any
knowledge at all about the ongoing projects in New York?
Mr. BLOUNT. I am quite sure I had no discussions with him about
that.
Senator HUDDLESTON. And he did not express to you any concern
or give you any indication that the fact that he was under a secrecy
agreement might present some restrictions on him in giving you a
complete picture of what your own Department was doing?
Mr. BLOUNT. To my knowledge, I never heard about the secrecy
agreement before I testified before the House committee earlier this
year.
Senator HUDDLESTON. You did not know he would be prohibited
from fulfilling his responsibility to you because of an agreement with
a previous agency?
Mr. BLOUNT. I never heard of a secrecy agreement.
Senator HUDDLESTON. To what extent does a Postmaster General
rely on or seek information relating to illegal activities relating to
the mails from his Chief Inspector?
Mr. BLOUNT. Well, I think generally they rely on the General Counsel
for that.
Senator HUDDLESTON. 'What kind of reports does the Chief Inspector
make to the Postmaster General?
64-663 0 • 76 • 5
62
Mr. BLOUNT. Oh, there are a great number of reports, Senator, a
great number of meetings. There is a great amount of discussion
about the kind of activities that the postal inspectors are involved in.
As far as I was concerned, they were involved in a massive upgrading
of the pORtal inspectors, recruiting from colleges for the first
time and bringing in qualified, highly qualified people, and conducting
extensive training programs. We had many meetings on all of these
subjects.
Senator HUDDLESTON. But when they encountered something they
considered illegal in the course of performing their duties, you would
expect them to advise the Postmaster General, would you not?
Mr. BLOUNT. Well, there are many times that the Chief Inspector
would bring to me matters that not only were illegal, but-you know,
the question of security of the mails, the organIzed crime effort to
break the mails, and when I got there, there had been an enormous
amount of stealing from the mails.
Senator HUDDLESTON. ""Vould you have expected the person you put
in as Chief Inspector, if he had any reason to have any serious question
about the legality of any actiVIty relating to the mail, to at least
consult with you or the General Counselor someone?
Mr. BLOUNT. I'm quite sure we had conversations relating to those
kinds of matters, from time to time. I don't recall any specifics.
Senator HUDDLESTON. You do not recall any incident where he
came to you and discussed specifically the mail openings by the FBI
and the CIA?
Mr. BLOUNT. I never recalled anything about that until Mr. Helms
came to see me in June of 1971.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Nothing subsequent to it from your own
Department?
Mr. BLOUNT. I do not have any recollection.
Senator HUDDLESTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. I must say that I have found some of the testimony
this morning both astonishing and unsettling.
First of all, when you say, Mr. Blount, that there is lots of mail being
opened every day in the Post Office Department and cite the opening
of dead letters and the opening of mail that is opened under court
orders as examples of letter openings, you certainly do not mean by
that to imply that lawful mail opening is no different than unlawful
mail opening, do you? That just because letters are opened, it really
does not matter whether they are opened in accordance with the law or
contrary to the law? Is that your position?
Mr. BLOUNT. I didn't make any comment about that, Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. Yon said quite clearly you did not understand why
this committee was so concerned about this matter because lots of mail
was being opened all the time.
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't recall making that statement that I don't know
why this committee is so concerned. Senator.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, you certainly conveyed that impression to me
because you then went on to say that there were lots of letters being
opened in va,rious ways.
Mr. BLOUNT. That I did.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, then. just to clarify the issue. you did not mean
by that to imply that unlawful opening of the mail was unimportant
or ought not to be examined?
63
Mr. BWUNT. I certainly did not.
The CHAIRMAN. All right.
Since several of the witnesses, including Mr. Day, said they were unclear
about the legality of this CIA mail opening program, I think that
that matter should be laid to rest right here and now. As I understood
your testimony, Mr. Day, you said you were told there was a secret, and
you did not know what the secret was. You did not want to know what
the secret was.
I must say, that attitude has existed in lots of places. It has existed
in the Congress. 'When I first came to the Congress, I would hear senior
Members of the Congress who were part of the watchdog committee
for the CIA make the same statement. They would say, "I don't know
what the CIA is doing, and furthermore I don't want to know."
But I suggest to you that if that is the prevailing attitude of the
men who hold the responsible positions in Government, then we are
just inviting the very kind of trouble that did in fact ensue, the very
things that this committee is now charged to investigate. All kinds of
illegalities and wrongdoing may never have occurred if public officials
had said, "Yes, it is my responsibility to know what is going on in my
Department, and even if it is a secret, I want to know about it. I do not
want to turn my back on it."
Do you not think that as Postmaster General of the United States you
had a responsibility to know what is going on in your Department;
even though they told you it was a secret?
Mr. DAY. No, I didn't think I had a responsibility to know what the
CIA was doing. I want to emphasize, Senator, I think there is a big'
difference between Senators on an oversight committee and the Postmaster
General. Senators do have an important oversight responsibility
in the total Government. I had no power whatever over the CIA.
The CHAIRMAN. No, you had no power ~)Ver the CIA, but you did, as
the Postmaster General. not only have power over your agency, but
you were charged with the laws of governing the Post Office Department.
Those laws clearly made it illegal for first-class mail to be opened,
and there should not have been any question in your mind about the
law.
Let me just cite the law on this subject. First of all, there is a statutory
law, 39 U.S.C. 36-23 (d) provides-and I read the pertinent part:
"No letter of such a class"-being first class-"of domestic origin shall
be opened except under the authority of a search warrant."
That is pretty dea.r, and then there is the Post Office Department
regulation, 39 C.F.R. 115.1, and that regulation provides, pursuant to
the statute, "First-class mail is given absolute secrecy while in our
custody." That is pretty clear, too.
Mr. DAY. Under sections--
The CHAIRMAN. Let me just continue, and then I will invite any
comments you would like to make.
And then there is the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court on this
question, in the case of the United States v. Van Lewin. It quotes from
an 1878 docision of the Supreme Court. I happen to refer to this one
because it is one of the latest decisions of the Court. Let me read the
Courfs decision on the question :
It has long been held that first class mail, such as letters and sealed packages
subject to letter postage, as distinguished from newspapers, magazines, pam64
phlets, nnd other printed matter, is free from inspection by postal authorities
except in the manner provided by the fourth amendment.
Then in the 1878 case which established the sanctity of the mail
and made it subject to the protection of the fourth amendment of the
Constitution, which is the highest law of the land, the Supreme Court
said:
Letters and sealed packages of this kind in the mail are as fUlly guarded
from an examination and inspection, except as to their outward form and weight,
as if they were retained by the parties forwarding them in their own domiciles.
The constitutional g"uarantee of the righl of lhe people to he serure in their
pavers against nnreasonable searrhes and seizurps extpnds to their papers thus
rlosprl against inspt'Ction whprpver thpy may Iw. 'Yhilst in the mail, they ran
only be opened and examined under like warrant issued upon similar oath
or affirmation.
Then, there is a criminal statute which says, 18 U.S.C. 1702, Obstructions
of Correspondence, and it says, reading that pertinent
part:
"rllOever tnkes nny letter or post card or package, opens, secrets, emhezzles,
or destroys, the same shall be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not
more than [) years or both.
So it would seem to me that as a Postmaster General of the United
States each one of you gentlemen were charged with kno,,-ing what
the postal laws were, ,,-hat the Supreme Court had said about the
Constitution in its guarantees of privacy, and there ought not to have
been any question about that. I would further suggest that it was not
your prerogative as a Postmaster General to decide how much authority
the CIA had. You did not even want to know what the secret
was, so how could you know what they were doing in your Department?
But you did have a responsibility, it seemed to me, to make certain
that the mail that passed through the Department was being given
that degree of protection referred to in the laws and the Constitution
of the United States.
If you take a different view of your responsibility, I invite you
to express it.
Mr. DAY. I will not attempt, Senator, to give a long legal argument,
although I would bet a dollar that in 1878 whatever spy agency
they had was opening mail, but there was not any CIA as such then.
There is a thing that Mr. Gronollski touched on that I think is very
revealmg as to the difference in the atmosphere in which I operated
from tJ1e atmosphere that may have come about subsequently. There
was stIll a lot of McCarthyism in the air and in the Congress when
.1 was Postmaster G~n~ra1. The Congress passed It law which said that
If ~ou were the reCIpIent of some open. non-first-class publication
mall from a Communist country, the Post Office couldn't deliver it
to you unless first you sent in It card saying you wanted it. That was
not som~thing ~ ~hought up. That was passed by the Congress. I
thought It was rIdICulous, but that's the kind of atmosphere in which
I operated.1
The CHAIRMAN. I recognize that, but let us draw the distinction.
However foolish the law may have been, you were obliged to comply
1 Mr. pay request,"d th!lt the rommlttee Inrlude in the record an addition to his remarks
eoneernlllg the CIA s mall opening progr.lm. These have been appended at p. 25!l.
65
with it because it had been enacted by the Congress, and it was part
of the law of the land. That law, incidentally, was later declared unconstitutional
fJuite properly.
But this is quite a different matter. We are talking about mail openings
which are contrary to the law. Now, let us not confuse this issue
by saying that there may be some inner sanctum that exists within
the intelligence community that can decide that it has greater authority
or hig-her authority or need not attend the laws of the land, a very
dangerous and pernicious doctrine for anyone who wants to see a free
society preserved. But we do not even have that issue here, that notion
whieh seems to have grown in so many minds, that the CIA can do
what it pleases because it is charged with 'lational security, the laws
to the contrary, the Constitution to the contrary, notwithstanding,
because we have plain evidence--even the intelligence agencies recognize
that what they were doing was unlawful. They did not contend
that what they were doing complied with the law.
1Vhen the agencies got together and made a special report to the
President of the United States recommending- that he approve certain
unlawful actions, which later became known as the Huston planwhich
President Nixon did approve and then rescinded 5 days laterthey
referred to the opening of the mail in this fashion and in their
own report, signed by J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI; Mr.
Helms, Director of the CIA; General Bennett, the Director of the
Defense Intelligence Agency; Admiral Gayler. the Director of the
National Security Agency. Tlwse are the top spokesmen for the entire
intelligence community. What do they say about it?
They say: "This coverage, not having the sanction of the law, runs
risk of an illicit act, magnified by the involvement of a Government
agency."
So there was not anybody anywhere who pretended that this was
lawful, and I would suggest to you gentlemen that as Postmasters
General of the United States charged with seeing that the law of the
land is recognized in connection with the delivery of the mail, you
had some responsibility to inquire about secrets in your agency. When
you were told about this practice, you had some responsibility to
determine whether or not it was legal by referring it to the proper
authorities and obtaining from them the proper kind of opinion, and
your failure to do so, in my judgment, was a serious omission.
1Ve will question Mr. Helms. As we try to get the whole story pieced
together, we will question others as to why each of you was not told
the particulars of this operation. But that does not excuse each of
you from the duty to make certain that the Post Office Department
was being operated in conformity to the laws and the Constitution
of the country.
Mr. Mondale?
Senator MO~DALE. 1fr. Blount, would you agree that the CIA had
a duty to tell you that they were opening mail?
Mr. BL01J~T. Gee, I don't know, Senator, what the responsibilities
of the CIA are.
Senator MOKMLE. So you do not know whether they had a responsibility
to tell you or not.
Mr. BLorNT. No, I don't know whether they do or not.
66
Senator MONDALE. So, the Postmaster General does not haye the
duty to ask the CIA, and the CIA may not have the duty to tell the
Postmaster General. How then does anybody faithfully execute the
law?
Mr. BLOUXT. I raised the question of the legality of this matter
und just to be specific about what I recall of our conYersation, as far
as the postal employees are concerned, I am-well, let me back upI
do not understand the postal employees had any involvemenf in this
matter except to turn certain mail that was going to the Soviet Union
over to the CIA and the next day carry it on.
Senator ~10NDALE. That was not something you asked about. That
was just something you assume, you have indicated.
Mr. BLOUNT. No, that's not correct. That was something I was told.
Senator MONDALE. By the CIA?
Mr. BLOUNT. By Mr. Helms.
Senator MONDALE. So the postal officials and employees had no
knowledge or complicity whatsoever with the mail opening functions
of the CIA?
Mr. BLOUNT. My understanding was absolutely that the postal employees
were not involved in anything but turning the mail over to
the CIA, and this operation was going on in New York.
Senator MONDALE. And that was based upon what Mr. Helms told
you?
Mr. BLOUNT. That was my only knowledge about it.
Senator MONDALE. Did you inquire yourself, through your Department,
whether that was true?
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't recaIl any other conversations about this matter.
Senator MONDALE. You accepted Mr. Helms' word that that was the
case?
Mr. BLOUNT. That is all I know about the issue.
Senator MONDALE. Mr. Blount, you said earlier that you think it
would have been preferable to discuss this matter in a different environment,
with a difterent approach. Could you describe ,,,hat you
think is the appropriate way the requirement in this matter should
have been worded?
Mr. BLOUNT. I was addressing myself to the question of the matter
of individual citizens' rights wrsus national security. I sai.d that I
di.dn't have any magic suggestion in that regard. I suggested it is a
question of the most serious nature and a question of the nature that
is Ill0St or better dealt with in an atmosphere where serious scholars
or people that have knowledge or views about this matter can sit down
and debate these issues away from the public glare, and try to come
up with some suggestions that might be useful to the Congress in
guiding the enactment of the laws that deal with these problepls.
Senator MONDALE. In these public hearings, we are trying to determine
issues of accountability and whether the law has been violated,
in this case with mail openings. Do you think that public hearings of
this kind are improper?
Mr. BLOUNT. No; that was not my point at all, Senator.
Senator MONDALE. Do you think they are desirable.
Mr. BLOUNT. I think sometimes public hearings in the light of the
glare of publicity, in matters that are headline grabbing, can go too
67
far. I think that the question of national security is a major question
for this country, as is the question of individual citizens' rights.
Senator MOXD.\LE. Do you think the hearings today were proper
and desirable?
Mr. BLOliXT. 'VeIl, I haw testified to this committee in August the
same things I testified today, no different.
Senator MOXDALE. The only difference is that it is in public and the
reason for that--
Mr. BLorNT. The only reason it ,vasn't public was because the Senate
committee decided it not to be as far as I was concerned.
Senator MONDALE. That is correct. But what I am trying to get at
is that I thought you doubted the propriety of public hearings on this
matter. But I gather from what you say, you do not.
Mr. BLOFNT. That was not the questIOn I was raising.
Senator MOXDALE. So you consider these hearings to be proper and
desirable?
Mr. BLOUNT. I don't know that I have any opinion about that. If
it is helpful to the Senate, I think that is useful.
Senator ~I()XDALE. You will not say it is desirable?
~r t'. BurcxT. ,VeIl. I don't know ,vhether it's desirable or not.
Senator MONDALE. That is what I said, you will not say it is
desirable.
:Mr. BLOI'XT. I think there have been plenty of hearings that were
not desirable.
Senator MOXDALE. I am talking about this one.
~:Ir. BLOlixT. I don't have any quarrel with this one at all. I just
testified to the same thing I testified before.
Senator MoxDALE. Thank you.
Senator HliDDLESTOX. }:Ir. Chairman?
The CIIAIR~L\X. Senator Huddleston?
Senator HUDDLESTON. Just one brief statement, Mr. Chairman. It
seems to me that what we encounter here today is very similar to what
we have seen in many instances. Perhaps one of the most significant
differences between our system of government and some others is that
we believe that Gm'ernment can break the law and it and all of its
agencies are potential law breakers that should be held accountable
when they do.
But we cannot hold them accountable if we have a procession of
people who are charged with certain responsibilities that do not take
the time and the trouble to find out whether or not what the government
might be doing is legal or illegal, even when there is a substantial
question raised in the minds of many people about the legal status ot
these government activities. It seems that no matter what kind of
laws we might pass, if we do not ha,'e this interest and this effort by
people in responsible positions to at least ascertain and make sure
that this determination is made to the best and the fullest extent pos- .
sible, whether or not the law is being broken, then our law becomes
ineffective and our citizens' rights are infringed upon. Furthermore,
those rights are not protected in the way that those charged with the
responsibility of protecting them should see that they are.
And we have had ,vitnesses say time and time again, during the
entire course of this hearing, concerning the matter of individuals
68
in high positions all the way down to the low-level operatives that are
implementing programs. that we just assumed that because so and so
said this was the policy of the country that it was proper and legal.
And we carried out those instructions without question. I think that
therein lies much of the problem that 'Ye ha ye encountered in going
too far, going beyond the charter, going beyond the law in carrying
out what people perceive to be their responsibility and thereby infringing
on the rights and privileges of the citizens of this country.
Thank you, ~[r. Chairman.
The CUAIR)L\X. Thank you. Senator Huddleston. I haye no fmther
questions. I want to thank: you gentlemen for your testimony.
Mr. REILLY. Mr. Chairman. I kn01v the I'IIle prohibits the counsel
to ask questions. but would you and Senator ~[ondale and Senator
Huddleston-Senator Schweiker has left the room-but may I have
an opportunity to make some obsenations for 1 or 2 minutes that I
might have?
The CHAIR)L\X. Are YOU counsel?
J\fr. REILLY. For ~[r."Day.
I am .James Francis Reilly and I selTed under all three of these
gentlemen in pro bono publico.
The CIL\IR~L\X. Do you desire to testify as a witness and be sworn?
Mr. REILLY. I will cl0 anything I wailt so I can make my observations.
The CIL\IR~L\X.You can make your obselTations.
Mr. REILI,Y. I will testify.
The CHAIR~L\X. You ,,:ill have to put under oath and be heard as
a 'vitness.
Mr. REILLY. That's all right. that's perfectly all right.
The CIL\I~~L\X. Mr. Day, I think you should stay if your la,yyer is
going to testrfy.
Mr. DAY. I will stay behind him and advise him.
Mr. REILLY. That cloesn't say I ,vill accept it.
The CIJAIR~L\X. If the other gentlemen will ,vithdraw and if you
will take the oath, please.
Do you swear that all the testimony you are flb()~tt to give in this
proceeding will be the truth, the ,dlOle truth, and nothing but the
truth, so help you God?
Mr. REILLY. I do.
TESTIMONY OF 1AMES REILLY, SR., COUNSEL FOR 1. EDWARD DAY
Mr. REILLY. Mr. Chairman and Senators. the obserntion I ~want
to make: 40 years ago on October 12, I was admitted to the bar in the
District of Columbia. I ha,'c been in all phases of the law and m'en
today in retirement-you\-e got a young man on your staff who knows
something abont this. Mr. Bayley.
I try cases, I haw been in all the courts and I ,,-as privileged to
be a membPI' of tlw Post Office Advisory Board by appointment of
Presidf'nt Kf'nnecly and I rf'signecl in 1904- and we "Totp hvo reports.
I think you ought to knmv-now this is not a trial. I nndersta11l1 that-and
in talking abont memory, ,vhen I wpnt to a little school. ~[O\lnt
Saint ~fary's up ,v!wre. ~rothpr Seton is nmv buried in that arpa,
fonnded in 1SnS; I daim it's the first Catholic collel!(\. Georl!etown
disagrees.

Go to Next Page