Mr. ROWLEY. Not on travel status under our regulations. They could
be there a week, and they would be working their 8 hours. They were
not working any longer than their 8 hours. It was comparable to their
assignment here in Washington.
Mr. RANKIN. So it was really a summer White House position?
Mr. ROWLEY. Summer White House is what we called it.
Mr. RANKIN. And did you investigate the charges to see whether they
were valid?
Mr. ROWLEY. I investigated. This portion was correct. There was some
substance to that portion.
He also said he was left on post for a period of 2 hours and wasn't
relieved. That an agent had used this time to take care of his private
car. We established there was no agent up there who had a private car.
Further, we established that he was left on post because according
to our arrangements it was routine that whenever the President went
out for a cruise, the agents on the outer perimeter at the time would
remain on duty, and the agents in the inner perimeter would accompany
the President on the cruise in the followup boat. Naturally, when they
were out on the boat, there was no one available to start what we
call the push, to rotate the men from one post to another. In other
words, in the White House or any place where we establish posts, every
half hour one man starts from the office and starts making the push.
The first man is relieved and he relieves the next one, so there is
no monotony on their jobs. They each have a different area. They are
conversant or acquainted with each and every phase of the physical
area. But because he was on one post, and not relieved, he complained.
So the next day, to bend over backwards, and show there was not any
prejudice, the agent in charge took him on the cruise, so he would not
feel he was being ignored.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, from your investigation, did you find any violation at
Hyannis of the regulations of the Secret Service?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Have you been informed of any other claims that Secret
Service agents had been violating the regulations while on duty?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; I haven't been informed of any others. And it
seems in the last few days or few weeks we have been getting complaints
that we haven't had in many years. And I think, as I mentioned earlier,
because of the fact that we are very careful with the type of men we
screen, their record has been above reproach over the years. They have
conducted themselves in an exemplary manner. My files are replete with
commendations on behalf of the agents wherever they have traveled and
worked with committees and individuals in connection with Presidential
travels, both here and abroad, which testifies to the impression that
they have made.
Mr. RANKIN. Have you ever had a Secret Service agent indicted or a
complaint filed against him, a criminal complaint, prior to this time?
Mr. ROWLEY. This is the first time I remember anything like this
happening since I have been with the Secret Service.
Representative FORD. Mr. Rankin, I don't recall Chief Rowley saying
precisely what the reprimands were specifically for these violations of
the regulations in this one instance.
You spoke highly of their background, and you spoke very high in their
praise. But I did not hear what reprimand, if any, had actually been
lodged against them.
Mr. ROWLEY. There was no reprimand. You are talking about the current
thing?
Representative FORD. I am talking about the Dallas trip.
Mr. ROWLEY. I stated in considering what would be an appropriate
punishment at the time, I felt that these men, by their conduct, had
no bearing on the assassination of the President in Dallas. That to
institute formal punishment or disciplinary action would inevitably
lead the public to conclude that they were responsible for the
assassination of President Kennedy. I did not think in the light of
history that they should be stigmatized with something like that, or
their families or children. And, for that reason, I took the position
that I did.
Representative FORD. So there was no official reprimand or disciplinary
action?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you talk to the agents, to indicate and make it plain
to them that this was a violation of the regulations?
Mr. ROWLEY. I talked to some of the agents, as did my inspector at the
time, who interviewed each and every one of them.
Mr. RANKIN. And I think the Commission would be interested in whether
you can be assured, or assure them that the action you took was
sufficient so that this would not happen again.
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, I am confident that it would not happen again, Mr.
Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. Can you tell us why you think so?
Mr. ROWLEY. Because they realize the seriousness of their action.
Initially I can understand the situation--they thought they were going
for a dinner, buffet, and they got into the place and it wasn't there.
I talked personally with the agents there, and they just thought while
they were there they would have a drink. It was one of those situations.
The important thing was that it was pointed out to them this was wrong,
this was a violation. These men are young men with futures, they
realize the true situation, innocent as they may have seemed to think
it was.
But I am quite confident that we will not have a repetition of that.
And in talking to Mr. Behn--I am confident, too, in him--I know that he
will see to it that they are well supervised.
Mr. RANKIN. When they are out on a trip of this kind, Chief Rowley,
as I understand your regulations, it is understood by the regulations
and by the Secret Service that they are on duty all the time--that is,
subject to call?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And even though it is late in the evening or they had gone
to bed in the early hours of the morning, they could be called to go on
duty and perform their responsibility of taking care of the President
or the Vice President, or whoever they are charged with; is that right?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. So that do they understand that when they are out on that
kind of duty, they are subject to call at all times, and anything they
do contrary to regulations is a violation, because they are subject to
the call and must be ready at any moment to perform their duties.
Mr. ROWLEY. They certainly do, because there have been situations,
whether or not they have had it with the Kennedy administration I don't
know--but I know there have been situations where we have moved fast,
all hours of the night. I remember one instance, that has never been
disclosed--as Mr. Dulles knows, you never advertise your successes, you
just get the other things--that I would like to give you as an example
off the record, to answer your question, if I may.
The CHAIRMAN. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
Chief, it seems to me that on an assignment of that kind, to be alert
at all times is one of the necessities of the situation. And I just
wonder if you believe that men who did what these men did, being out
until early morning hours, doing a little--even a small amount of
drinking--would be as alert the next day as men should be when they are
charged with the tremendous responsibility of protecting the President.
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we checked on that, Mr. Chief Justice, and the agent
in charge reported that they were in good physical condition. I don't
condone these late hours; no. This is not a rule. This case is an
exception. However, because of the activities of any travel such as the
Presidents today make from one place to another, to maybe seven States
in a weekend, there is constant going.
I don't condone this at all. But these men are young. They are of such
age that I think that they responded in this instance adequately and
sufficiently as anyone could under the circumstances.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, I am thinking of this. As you go along in the
motorcade, you have men who are scanning the buildings along the way,
don't you?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. And they have submachineguns in one of the cars.
Mr. ROWLEY. No; for security reasons, I would like to--we don't have
machine-guns now, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I just thought I heard that from the record here, that
they had some kind of guns.
Mr. ROWLEY. They had a weapon, a new weapon; yes, sir.
Mr. CHAIRMAN. Well, whatever it is.
Now, other people, as they went along there, even some people in the
crowds, saw a man with a rifle up in this building from which the
President was shot. Now, don't you think that if a man went to bed
reasonably early, and hadn't been drinking the night before, would be
more alert to see those things as a Secret Service agent, than if they
stayed up until 3, 4, or 5 o'clock in the morning, going to beatnik
joints and doing some drinking along the way?
Mr. ROWLEY. If I remember that witness' testimony--and that was one of
the first statements that he made--that witness was with his wife, and
he happened to look up there, and I think he said, "There is a man with
a rifle, it is a Secret Service man," and let it go at that. He didn't
inform any of the authorities.
The CHAIRMAN. No; nobody did. But I say wouldn't an alert Secret
Service man in this motorcade, who is supposed to observe such things,
be more likely to observe something of that kind if he was free from
any of the results of liquor or lack of sleep than he would otherwise?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, yes; he would be. But then, on the other hand, Mr.
Chief Justice, in some instances the men come in from a trip at 1:30 in
the morning, which there have been cases on travels that I have made,
and have to be up at 3:30 or 4 o'clock, and out in time for a 5 o'clock
departure. Then you go all that day until 1 or 2 o'clock the next
morning. This is what has happened in the past.
The CHAIRMAN. I am not talking about the past. We are talking about
nine men here who were out until rather unusual hours of the morning.
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. They were to be on duty the next day.
The next day--or if not sooner.
The next day they were supposed to be alert to anything that might
occur along the line of march. Don't you think that they would have
been much more alert, sharper, had they not been doing these things?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; but I don't believe they could have prevented the
assassination.
The CHAIRMAN. Isn't it a substantial violation of these rules to do a
thing of that kind?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir--on the basis of this section here.
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
Now, Chief I noticed, also, in reading some of the reports that three
of these men whom you speak of, were actually on night duty, protecting
the life of the President. And around 4 o'clock in the morning, when
they were protecting him at the Texas Hotel, they said that they had a
coffee break, and they went from the hotel over to the beatnik joint.
Now, is that consistent with your regulations?
Mr. ROWLEY. In this case, I talked to these three agents. They were
relieved at different times--because their posts are in the corridor of
a stuffy hotel----
The CHAIRMAN. Of the what?
Mr. ROWLEY. The corridor that they were on post outside the President's
suite was a stuffy one, and they went downstairs to get a breath of
fresh air. And they walked--it was a block--and out of curiosity they
went into this place. One fellow looked in and left, he didn't buy
any coffee. Another fellow went in and felt, I suppose, when he went
in that he would buy a cup of coffee. But they were on what we call
reliefs, the same as we relieve them around the White House. There are
only so many posts, but you have a group of men in one of the rooms
of the hotel where they are available, like an alert squad, and they
relieve everyone on post every half hour. It is a part of the rotation
of positions we have.
The CHAIRMAN. Do you have any regulations concerning where they shall
remain when they are relieved for this short period of time?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. They can go any place they want?
Mr. ROWLEY. No; not any place. They usually stay within the immediate
confines. That is understood. The hotel or the residence.
The CHAIRMAN. Well, they didn't do that here, did they?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. They went to the beatnik joint.
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Now, is that consistent with their duty?
Mr. ROWLEY. No; it is not consistent or inconsistent with their duty.
But as they explained to me, they wanted to get a breath of fresh air.
If they are at a residence in a remote place, and they want to walk
around the area, they might walk maybe a city block or so, which is
what they do on a lot of these assignments--particularly in hotels.
This was not an air-conditioned hotel.
The CHAIRMAN. It would seem to me that a beatnik joint is a place
where queer people of all kinds gather anyway, and that the mere fact
that these men did leave their post of duty might be an indication to
someone that the President was not being protected, and might leave an
opening for them to go there and try to do something.
Mr. ROWLEY. They were relieved, Mr. Chief Justice. They didn't leave
their post of duty. They would not leave their post of duty until they
were relieved by someone.
The CHAIRMAN. As I understood the report, they said they left for a
coffee break.
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, it is an expression. They left to have coffee, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. Was there any place for coffee in the hotel?
Mr. ROWLEY. I think there was a coffee shop in the hotel; yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. That was the only place in town, as I understood, from
the reports, outside of the beatnik place they could. But they went
down to the beatnik place. Did they do that by prearrangement with the
other agents?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; it was curiosity on their part. They hadn't seen
the other agents. There was no arrangement of any nature at all, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. But they did there meet other agents?
Mr. ROWLEY. They saw other agents--those that were in the place at the
time they looked in. I think they came in after most had left, though.
Mr. DULLES. Were these men off duty for the night or were they going
back on duty immediately after this break?
Mr. ROWLEY. No; they were on duty. They were the midnight shift, Mr.
Dulles, from 12 to 8 a.m.
Mr. DULLES. They were going back on duty?
Mr. ROWLEY. They were going back on duty; yes, sir; in 10 minutes, 15
minutes.
Mr. DULLES. I see.
Representative FORD. And they did go back on duty and relieve somebody
subsequent to this?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right; yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you give the Commission a letter as of
May 5 of this year in regard to this Dallas matter concerning the Press
Club and the Cellar?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And is that letter correct in regard to what happened as
far as you know?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And did you make available to the Commission the statements
of each agent signed by the agent?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. DULLES. I think you said Dallas. Did you not mean Fort Worth?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes--it should be Fort Worth, I am sorry. Thank you.
I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1019 and ask you if that is your
letter of May 5 that we have just referred to.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1019 for
identification.)
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No.
1019.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission
Exhibit No. 1019, was received in evidence.)
The CHAIRMAN. Chief, I notice in the report that was made that while
your inspector found that no one--no member of the Secret Service was
intoxicated at the club--but that there was someone connected with the
group who was intoxicated.
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I wonder if that also wasn't a violation of that portion
of the rule which says, "In interpreting the words 'excessive' and
'improper' slight evidence tending to indicate unusual or questionable
conduct will be considered proof that the use of liquor has been
improper or excessive. Association with others who drink to excess will
be considered as an indication of using more than a moderate amount of
liquor."
Did you call that to the attention of your people?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir. They ran into that individual as they were
entering--two agents ran into this individual as they were entering the
Fort Worth Club.
The CHAIRMAN. Go ahead.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1020, and
ask you if that is a document that you had prepared for the Commission.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1020 for
identification.)
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And that includes, under capital letter A, the transmittal
from Inspector McCann; B, the report of the investigation by Inspector
McCann; C, the Drew Pearson article?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. D, the statements of the supervisors; and, E, the
statements of the special agents; F, the statements of witnesses; and,
G, the memorandum of May 19, 1964, by Agent Sorrels, is that right?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. And are those various documents a part of the official
report by the Secret Service to the Commission of this matter?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No.
1020.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be so admitted.
(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission
Exhibit No. 1020, was received in evidence.)
Mr. DULLES. Off the record, may I ask a question?
The CHAIRMAN. Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
The CHAIRMAN. Back on the record.
Chief, I notice--I have read this report. At any place in here, did any
of your investigators, Inspector McCann, or your special agents, or
anybody else, indicate that there had been any violation of any kind on
the part of your people, or particularly any violation of this section
10, chapter 1, page 7 of the Secret Service manual?
Mr. ROWLEY. I think what happened in this instance, we responded
to the broadcast of Mr. Pearson and his charge that the men were
inebriated. We were primarily concerned with that at that time. And to
get the statements from the men. But I do know that in the course of
his interviewing of these individuals at the time, and taking their
statements, he impressed upon them the fact that there was a violation.
The CHAIRMAN. Has there been any report made to the Commission to the
effect that there was any violation of----
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; unless it is contained in this document here, sir.
The CHAIRMAN. I have not seen anything in there. It seems to me they
were all given a complete bill of health. And I just wonder if that is
quite consistent with the facts that the Commission should have.
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; as I said earlier, we don't condone their actions,
nor do we try to belittle the violation. But in the circumstances, I
took the decision that I thought right in view of the tragedy and so
forth. In any other circumstance it would have been entirely different.
But as I said earlier, I don't think that these people should be blamed
for the tragedy that happened at that time, and that any attempt to
assess formal punishment would in the light of history stigmatize them
for the rest of their life, as well as their families.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I plan to leave that subject now--unless
there is some further question.
The CHAIRMAN. Any further questions?
Very well.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, will you tell us whether you learned anything
about the preparations in Dallas for the visit of the President on
November 22?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes; I read the report of Special Agent Lawson, who was
designated as the advance agent for that visit.
Mr. RANKIN. And do you know that that report has been furnished to us?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. A copy of it.
And have you examined it to determine whether it is accurate, as far as
you can determine?
Mr. ROWLEY. It is accurate; yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any additions or corrections?
Mr. ROWLEY. No; I have no corrections to make, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Were you--are you satisfied, now examining that report,
with the manner in which the advance preparations for the trip of the
President were handled?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
The report follows the standard procedure that we have exercised
over the years, and in many of the trips we had taken with the late
President. He covered everything with the police and all that we have
normally covered on such visits.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you have enough agents at that time to perform the
required duties in connection with this trip for both Dallas and the
other cities in Texas to be visited?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we never have enough agents for the activities that
the President today is engaged in. We draw from the field to supplement
or augment the agents from the White House detail. We move the agents
from one point to another where we can--particularly in the area of the
advance men.
But in Dallas we had sufficient agents with prior experience in
Presidential protection who assisted Mr. Lawson in the advance
preparations.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you furnish to the Commission a statement of the
preparations that were made for the trip?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And that included the various protective activities, did it?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. I hand you Commission Exhibit No. 1021, and ask you if that
is the report you made in regard to the trip.
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1021 for
identification.)
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have any corrections or additions that you care to
make to it?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No.
1021.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission
Exhibit No. 1021, was received in evidence.)
The CHAIRMAN. Chief, I have wondered about this question. Some months
before Ambassador Adlai Stevenson had been handled very roughly in
Dallas. Did you make--did your people make any investigation as to that
group that caused that disturbance for him, to see if there might be
some possibility of the same thing happening to the President?
Mr. ROWLEY. Not immediately at the time of the incident that occurred
to Mr. Stevenson, but when the advance man came down, that was one of
the things that we assigned a local agent to inquire into, to ascertain
the hard core of that group, if you will, that were responsible for
stimulating that activity. And he contacted an informant, and with the
local police, who are members of a special squad that are involved in
this kind of activity, they went and identified through pictures, which
they saw in the newsreel, the principal members. They had photographs
made, and they issued them to the agents on their visit there, to be on
the lookout for these men as potential troublemakers.
(At this point, Representative Boggs entered the hearing room.)
The CHAIRMAN. Did they do the same thing concerning the incident that
Vice President Johnson had a year or so before that?
Mr. ROWLEY. No, sir; not at that time. That was more or less in the
heat of a political campaign. I don't think that was a similar type of
activity.
The CHAIRMAN. I see.
But you did do it with the Stevenson matter?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, did you make a report to the Commission with
regard to the publicity concerning the trip of the President?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And is Commission Exhibit No. 1022 that report?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
(The document referred to was marked Commission Exhibit No. 1022 for
identification.)
Mr. RANKIN. Do you wish to make any additions or corrections of that
letter?
Mr. ROWLEY. Of that letter? No.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence Commission Exhibit No.
1022.
The CHAIRMAN. It may be admitted.
(The document heretofore marked for identification as Commission
Exhibit No. 1022, was received in evidence.)
Mr. RANKIN. Chief Rowley, could you inform the Commission about the
advance publicity concerning trips of the President to various parts of
the country? There has been the question raised as to whether that is a
threat to the President, and might make the work of the Secret Service
and others who are doing protective work more difficult.
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have found that it is. And we always consider it
as a potential threat in that it might give someone the opportunity
who had any plans, whether it be an individual as in this case, or a
group, to select an area, if they knew what the route was, or conduct
a reconnaissance, if you will. I have always been opposed to it, and I
have always tried to prevail upon the staff of the various Presidents
who might be responsible for the release, not to release it too far in
advance.
Mr. RANKIN. Could you tell the Commission what the problem is in that
regard?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, in this regard, it is a political thing, and the
President cannot be contained in a vacuum. If he wants to go out and
meet the people under our form of government, he will in his own
way. Each and every President has his own thoughts and methods as it
pertains to these visits, and the need for publicity. This trip in
Dallas was an opportunity for the people to see the President, as are
the trips of any President. I remember well when President Truman
started his trip across the country in June 1948, the purpose being to
get the feel of the people and let the people see him at the time.
And it was then, as a result of that trip, that he determined he would
run for reelection. That I know of my own personal knowledge.
But these are the things that are hard in security, as far as
developing a close screen on the President.
Mr. RANKIN. Is the Protective Research Section of the Secret Service
under your direction, too?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir; that is part of the White House area, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Are you familiar with the testimony of Robert Bouck
concerning that Section?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you know whether that accurately describes the conduct
of that Section?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, at that time. The Section was established by us
some 20 years ago, and primarily to process threats, obscene letters
and suicide notes. Over the years, and particularly during the last 9
years, the work has evolved to a point where we find that it requires
further expansion.
It had a broad and general concept in the criteria of what it needed
for Presidential protection in knowing what risks were about the
country.
Mr. RANKIN. Did the Secret Service have a written communication to
other intelligence agencies as to the criteria for information that
they sought?
Mr. ROWLEY. At that time?
Mr. RANKIN. Yes; at that time.
Mr. ROWLEY. No; it was more or less of an informal arrangement that we
had with the agencies, as we developed the Section.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you tell the Commission what the standard was that you
told the agencies you would like to have information concerning?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, if there were any threats to the President, we were
interested in being informed about it. We were in touch with the FBI,
the CIA and others.
In the basic schools of the Treasury, and through coordination, our
agents in charge of the areas, in coordination meetings, would inform
representatives of other agencies of the type that we were interested
in, the nature of the threats that we asked that they refer to us.
Mr. RANKIN. Did you know that this standard only developed about 400
names from all over the country?
Mr. ROWLEY. Yes, sir.
Mr. RANKIN. And that it produced none in the immediate Dallas vicinity?
Mr. ROWLEY. That is right.
Mr. RANKIN. Now, have you done anything about that standard since the
assassination?
Mr. ROWLEY. Well, we have had a complete reexamination of the
Protective Research Section.