Mr. RANKIN. Did you?
Mr. LANE. Yes; of course I told you that. I told you that on March 4,
and I have told you that in every letter which you have written to
me on these questions. I cannot understand how you can pretend to be
surprised or plead surprise at this point based upon my position before
the Commission which today, in July, is consistently the same position
I took in March, and consistently the same position I took in the
intervening months when I wrote to you, we exchanged correspondence, in
relationship to my position.
Mr. RANKIN. And you did not in answer to my letter, when I offered
to pay your expenses, say that the only thing you could testify to
was that there was an attorney-client relationship and you would not
produce any of the records in regard to Helen Markham because of that,
or you did not say that you would not give us the name of the informant
because you had refused to disclose it, in answer to my letter,
offering to pay your expenses. You said nothing about anything of that
kind, did you?
Mr. LANE. I never received your letter. You wrote it to my New York
address. I was in Europe traveling at the time. I received a phone call
from my office 3 days ago stating that you had asked that I return to
the United States to testify, and I immediately booked passage the
next morning, which was the first plane, in order to return, and to
be here before July 1, which was what your letter said. When I came
back, I received a phone call from you indicating that I was not needed
yesterday, but that today at 2 o'clock would be the appropriate time,
and so I came here today. And I am willing to----
Mr. RANKIN. Is that your answer?
Mr. LANE. Yes; of course, it is my answer. I will give you all of the
information in my possession in reference to everything I have been
able to discover in order to assist this Commission. But what you are
asking at this point are sources. You are not asking for information.
You are asking for sources. And you know that it is improper to ask for
those sources.
The CHAIRMAN. Even where there is no relationship of attorney and
client?
Mr. LANE. It is not improper because there is a relationship in that
case. It is improper because I gave that testimony to you voluntarily
on March 4, explaining to the members of this Commission that I had
given my word of honor to this person not to disclose his name.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you have anything else that you wish to disclose in
addition to such disclosures as you now have made to the Commission in
regard to the assassination of President Kennedy?
Mr. LANE. There are three additional matters which have come to my
attention, which I am not at this point able to disclose because an
investigation is still being conducted in Dallas. But by Monday,
this coming Monday, I will be in a position to make that information
available to you. In addition to that----
Mr. RANKIN. Will this be in written form, signed statements and
affidavits, or what will you have for this?
Mr. LANE. I don't understand your question, Mr. Rankin.
Mr. RANKIN. Will you have it in any kind of a written form; the
additional testimony or evidence that you refer to?
Mr. LANE. I cannot tell you that until Monday. In addition to that, as
I told you when we spoke on the phone 2 days ago, and you suggested
that I raise this matter before the Commission, I am deeply concerned
about the fact that since I have become involved in this matter,
and since I testified before this Commission, the U.S. Department
of Immigration has placed my name in their immigration book, on the
proscribed list, and that when I returned to this country, in response
to your invitation to come here and testify before this Commission, I
was halted by the immigration authorities because my name appeared in
that proscribed list.
Mr. RANKIN. And I told you at that time on the telephone, didn't I,
that the Commission had nothing to do with that? Is that right?
Mr. LANE. You did tell me that, and I ask you if you would be good
enough to find out, since I did not accuse the Commission of having
my name listed there, of course--to find out if my name was listed in
relationship to the inquiry which I have conducted, and the testimony
that I have given to this Commission.
The CHAIRMAN. Were you prevented from entering the United States?
Mr. LANE. No; I am here now, Mr. Chief Justice, but I was stopped.
The CHAIRMAN. How long were you detained? Were you detained?
Mr. LANE. Oh, just for a few minutes.
The CHAIRMAN. How many minutes?
Mr. LANE. Oh, perhaps 5. My objection is not to the period of time.
The CHAIRMAN. What was the question asked of you?
Mr. LANE. Just to wait.
Mr. RANKIN. Wasn't there something else asked of you?
Mr. LANE. Well, perhaps I should, then, tell you what happened.
Mr. RANKIN. All right. You better answer that question of the Chief
Justice.
The CHAIRMAN. That is a part of my question. I asked you: What did they
say to you?
Mr. LANE. Well, there were three different persons. The first person
was at the desk, whose name I do not recall, but as an immigration
inspector said, "Kindly wait," and he returned within 5 minutes and
gave me back my passport and said, "You can pass through now." So not
a single question was asked of me by the immigration inspector who
discovered that my name was in the proscribed book.
I, however, asked him if he could tell me why my name was in the book,
and he said that it was confidential material which he could not reveal
to me, and I asked him if he would be good enough to tell me the name
of his superior officer so that I might discuss the matter with him. He
referred me to Mr. J. J. Daley, also an immigration inspector, and Mr.
Daley asked me if perhaps I had gone to Cuba, and I said to him I had
never been to Cuba; I had only been out of the country where a passport
was required twice in my life, both within the last 6 months. The only
time prior to then I had left the country was when I was a soldier in
the U.S. Army, and I was sent to Europe--not to Cuba at that time.
He said, "Well, then, I can't understand it." And I asked if I could
see his superior officer. And he referred me to W. T. McArnity, who
was the officer in charge. He told me that perhaps there was just some
mistake made, but could give me no further information. He referred
me to Mr. Espardy, who is the district director, I believe, of the
Immigration Department, and Mr. Espardy said merely, "I am not going to
tell you a thing." That is where the entire matter rested, and where it
rests now.
Mr. RANKIN. Mr. Lane, when you asked your informant if you could
disclose the information that we have asked you about--and we have
asked you the name of the informer--did you tell him that the
Commission had indicated to you that his name would not be publicly
revealed if he would allow you to disclose it to the Commission?
Mr. LANE. I most certainly did.
Mr. RANKIN. And what was his response?
Mr. LANE. He wondered whether that meant his name might not be revealed
anywhere--if not by the members of the Commission, perhaps somehow it
might be revealed.
Mr. RANKIN. Is that what he said?
Mr. LANE. That is precisely what he said.
Representative FORD. When did he tell you that?
Mr. LANE. When I spoke with him; I think it was during March or April
of this year, after I testified before the Commission.
Representative FORD. Have you made any further inquiry in that regard?
Mr. LANE. Have I?
Representative FORD. Yes.
Mr. LANE. I spoke with him one more time.
Representative FORD. Since your return from Europe?
Mr. LANE. No; I just arrived 2 days ago.
Mr. RANKIN. When was the last time you spoke to him about disclosing
his name?
Mr. LANE. I would think it was during April of this year.
Mr. RANKIN. When in April?
Mr. LANE. I don't recall the exact date. When I was last in Dallas.
Mr. RANKIN. Can you give us a closer approximation than that?
Mr. LANE. I really cannot. I believe it was in April; perhaps toward
the middle of April, but I am not certain.
Representative FORD. Was it by telephone?
Mr. LANE. No; I saw him in person. I went down to see him.
Representative FORD. You saw him in Dallas?
Mr. LANE. Yes; well, near Dallas.
Mr. RANKIN. Do you consider, Mr. Lane, that you have cooperated with
the Commission as much as you can in regard to both of these matters,
Helen Markham and this informant?
Mr. LANE. Yes; I think there is no question but that I have. Frankly,
when I returned to the country, I had thought that it would be not
difficult for me to make available to you all the documents regarding
Mrs. Markham. I had planned to do that.
(At this point, Representative Ford withdrew from the hearing room.)
Mr. LANE. I felt that I would be able to be released from the
attorney-client stricture so that I could do that. It was not until
after I returned that I received a phone call from Mrs. Oswald, after
she called you, related this new development in relationship to the
Markhams, which has at this point handicapped my being able to secure
permission to release that information. I had intended to do that.
I am hopeful that in the next few days it will be possible to give you
that information, as I said earlier.
The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Lane, you told us what your attorney relationship
was, but, really, I did not understand it very clearly. Will you tell
us what your present attorney relationship is that causes you to rely
upon it in refusing to tell us about this recording that was made at
the time of the conversation between you and Helen Markham?
Mr. LANE. I don't have a present attorney-client relationship in
relation to that particular matter. I, at that time, had been retained
by Marguerite Oswald to investigate the charges against her son and
peripheral matters, and, in conformity and in furtherance of that
retainer, I conducted an interview with Mrs. Markham.