Mr. COLEMAN. Before we get to 1961, I would like to call your attention
to the memorandum from Mr. White to Mr. Hazelton, dated July 20, 1960,
and the next document, which is a handwritten piece of paper, dated
2-15-61.
Do you have that? Your number should be X-49.
I show you the document which is marked in your file X-49, and it has
been given Commission Exhibit No. 965.
Now, is that your handwriting on that document?
Mr. EHRLICH. Might I interject at this time? In looking at the
originals of these I notice that X-49 is actually two memorandums. They
were photostated as one, and thus probably you cannot actually read
either one.
Mr. COLEMAN. Well, I am referring to the one on top. Is that your
writing "took initial action, action"----
Miss WATERMAN. No; that is Mr. Masterton--the memorandum on the little
larger size below was a memorandum, informal memorandum, which I sent
to my section chief, Mr. Masterton.
Mr. COLEMAN. Could you indicate what you said in your memorandum?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes; I said, "Mr. Masterton, SCS, is writing to mother
on welfare aspect of Lee Harvey Oswald. Last two paragraphs of Moscow
dispatch 585, 2-8-61 appeared to be for PPT reply."
I believe that was a letter which had been prepared in SCS--you know
what that is.
Mr. COLEMAN. Yes.
Miss WATERMAN. And had been forwarded to our office for clearance, for
our initial, before it was mailed, to reply to some inquiry of the
mother.
Mr. COLEMAN. Now, on top of that memorandum you read, that you
prepared, there is another memorandum, isn't there?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. Now, could you read that into the record?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes; "SCS. Took initial action on action copy, case of
split action. Copy our action to go to SCS."
Mr. COLEMAN. Do you know or do you have any knowledge what they meant
about case is split action?
Miss WATERMAN. Well, it has been a long time since I have seen the
material. But I believe that the mother, Mrs. Oswald, in writing to the
Department, to the Secretary, probably brought up various questions
about her son. Now--questions which related to his welfare or physical
repatriation, or something of that type, which would come under the
jurisdiction of the Special Consular Services, should be answered
there. Any inquiries which were about his citizenship or his passport,
anything that came within the purview of the Passport Office, should
have a reply drafted by Miss Knight's office, or elsewhere in the
office.
Mr. COLEMAN. In other words, you are saying that the phrase, split
action, on Commission Exhibit No. 965, doesn't mean that----
Miss WATERMAN. The decision was split; no.
Mr. COLEMAN. It just means that different offices in the Department
would have to make different decisions, or take different action?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes; and I think that most of Mrs. Oswald's letters were
quite involved, and brought up several questions.
(At this point, Mr. Dulles withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Then the next document which I want to ask you questions
about is your X-55.
Miss WATERMAN. Yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. That we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 966.
Now, this letter, though signed by Miss Knight, was prepared by you?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. And it was a reply to an inquiry made by Congressman
Wright?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. With respect to the Oswald case.
Miss WATERMAN. Yes; this was--we probably either received a memorandum
from SCS or telephone call, something of that sort.
Mr. COLEMAN. The next contact you had with the Oswald case was as
a result of the Embassy Despatch dated February 28, 1961, which is
X-42(2).
Miss WATERMAN. Are you talking about the Department's Despatch?
(At this point, Mr. Dulles reentered the hearing room.)
Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; despatch. The Foreign Service Despatch.
Miss WATERMAN. Yes; our despatch to the Embassy.
Mr. COLEMAN. I beg your pardon. It is a despatch from the Embassy to
you.
Miss WATERMAN. Yes; that is right.
Mr. COLEMAN. Which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 967.
Miss WATERMAN. Yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. When that was received in Washington, you got a copy of
it, did you not?
Miss WATERMAN. Well, I think--we seem to have the original in our file.
Mr. COLEMAN. Yes; you saw the document?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. And then as a result of seeing the document on March 27,
1961, you prepared a draft of the instruction which should go to Moscow
in response, is that correct?
Miss WATERMAN. Yes.
Mr. COLEMAN. And that is in the file as X-46, and we have marked it
as Commission Exhibit No. 968. And the draft that you prepared which
was attached to Commission Exhibit No. 968 is the next document, which
is X-47, which we have marked as Commission Exhibit No. 969, is that
correct?