Senator JAVITS. Mr. Rose, one other question: You have used the word "contributions" in response to a question of Senator Mundt, and then previously, you used what I thought was "protection money," or something like that.

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. Are they the same thing? Are you referring to the same thing?

Mr. ROSE. Businessmen were pressured in such a way as to almost be impossible to bring charges of extortion against us.

Senator JAVITS. What did you tell the businessmen, typical businessmen? What did you tell them in words? What words did you say

to them?

Mr. Rose. We woud compliment his place, tell him how nice it was, and what guarantee did he have if something happened to his place, would he lose money on it, and what guarantee did he have that nothing would ever happen like that, things like that.

Senator JAVITS. And then did you ask him for money? In what words did you ask him for money?

Mr. ROSE. We used to tell him about the guys who were in jail, and we need a little money every now and then.

That is the way we began. That is the way we began.

Senator JAVITS. So when you used the word "contribution," it was a contribution to help the fellows who were in jail, to provide bail money, or lawyers' money, something like that?

Is that the idea?

Mr. Rose. That is what we used to feel them out with.

Senator JAVITS. And then did you give them any name of an organization or somebody who would receive the money? Did you specify that it had to be in cash? What did you tell them?

Mr. Rose. In cash, the Blackstone Rangers.
Senator JAVITS. Nobody gave you any checks?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, a couple of people did.

Senator JAVITS. To whose orders were the checks made?

Mr. ROSE. Eugene Hairston got a couple of checks, and to the Black

stone Rangers, Inc.

Senator JAVITS. Also about that time?

Mr. Rose. About what time?

Senator JAVITS. About the time you mentioned, before and afterMr. ROSE. You asked me about myself? I never received any checks. Senator JAVITS. But you know about the fact that Hairston did receive checks?

Mr. ROSE. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. That is all of this witness, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BRACKETT. Senator Javits asked about a procedure which confuses me.

As I understand it, the witness has confessed extortion. He does not want to give the names.

I guess he does not plead the fifth amendment, but he was allowed to go into executive session with the names being given.

I am confused about the procedure. Can I be enlightened about it? The CHAIRMAN. The committee holds executive sessions at which time the members are present, and we take testimony under oath.

By a majority of the committee, it can be released and made public at any time.

Mr. BRACKETT. Has that vote been taken?

The CHAIRMAN. No.

Mr. BRACKETT. I see.

The CHAIRMAN. We do it at our discretion.

Since this investigation does involve charges of murder, extortion, threats, intimidation, and fear, we are not unnecessarily exposing people whose names are involved.

I think you would agree that that is the best course.
Mr. BRACKETT. I apologize for my ignorance.

I think Senator Curtis is right. I am much more used to court procedure, where that wouldn't be the case.

The CHAIRMAN. I think in court procedures, the grand jury does take testimony in secret; do they not?

Mr. BRACKETT. Yes, sir; but not the petit jury.

The CHAIRMAN. If you want to criticize these procedures, you can do that, and make a speech.

You are getting nothing different, here. We are proceeding under the rules of this committee, which have been characterized for years, with members of both parties adopting the rules of procedure.

I don't apologize to you or anybody else for trying to protect people's lives.

Senator MUNDT. Have you read the rules of procedure?

Mr. BRACKETT. Yes, Senator.

Senator MUNDT. You have been supplied a copy?

Mr. BRACKETT. Yes.

Senator MUNDT. You will probably be back.

I want to be sure, because I think this attorney wants to have a respectful and decorous approach.

I suggest you read, before you come back, on page 18, rule 7, the rules applying to a counsel before the committee.

I just call your attention now to one item, which you may have overlooked:

This rule shall not be construed to excuse a witness from testifying in the event his counsel is ejected for contumacy or disorderly conduct.

This does not apply to you, as yet, and I don't think it is going to. This is the part I want to call your attention to:

Nor shall this rule be construed as authorizing counsel to coach the witness, and for the witness, or put words in the witness' mouth.

It is this that I was objecting to. You were whispering to the preacher without his first turning to you and asking for counsel.

Mr. BRACKETT. I understand, Senator, but I was giving legal advice, and I hope you are not suggesting that my ethics are so bad that I coach a witness.

Senator MUNDT. It doesn't make any difference what kind of advice you give him. You are not authorized to do that without his turning to you to request it.

Mr. BRACKETT. I did not get that interpretation.

I will read that again, if that is there.

Senator MUNDT. That is the rule.

TESTIMONY OF REV. JOHN R. FRY-Resumed

The CHAIRMAN. Senator Javits.

Senator JAVITS. Reverend Fry, there are four items Mr. Rose has testified to that I would like to ask you about.

Item 1. He says that you told him, and he gave the time bracket, about a message given or passed to him through you by Mr. Hairston with respect to what he construed to be killing somebody.

Would you say that that is true, or untrue?

Reverend FRY. I specifically and categorically deny it.

Senator JAVITS. The second point: He says that you saw, in his presence, guns on him, and caches of guns in your church. He has given the place and the date. You heard it.

What do you say about that?

Reverend FRY. I specifically and categorically deny that charge. Senator JAVITS. You understand your constitutional rights, too, do you not, in these denials?

You are a sworn witness.
Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. The third item relates to your informing Mr. Rose and those he identified, in his presence, that the police were about to come to the church.

What do you say about that?

Reverend FRY. I specifically and categorically deny that.

Senator JAVITS. Then he testified to the fourth item which is: You told them to go upstairs and open the windows in connection with the smoking of pot.

What about that?

Reverend FRY. I specifically and categorically deny that charge. Senator JAVITS. That is all, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

Will any of you want Reverend Fry back here tomorrow?
Senator CURTIS. I will ask one question now.

Reverend Fry, did the principal leaders of the Main 21 ever gather in the church in a room when you were present?

Reverend FRY. I have, on occasion, seen the 21, or some parts of the 21, meeting in my office; yes, sir.

Senator CURTIS. You have been with them?

Reverend FRY. Not in the meeting; no, sir.

Senator CURTIS. But you have been present?

Reverend FRY. I came into my office, and went out of my office, while a meeting was going on. I was not a participant of the meeting. Senator CURTIS. How many times did that happen?

Reverend FRY. I cannot estimate; but certainly more than a dozen. Senator CURTIS. More than a dozen.

You are referring to such individuals as Eugene Hairston, and Jeff Fort, and others?

Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator CURTIS. In this more than a dozen times, did they ever reveal in your presence any activity they were carrying on of any kind of extortion?

Reverend FRY. No, sir.

Senator CURTIS. Did they ever reveal by words, actions, or anything else that any of them used any dope or trafficked in it? Reverend FRY. No, sir.

Senator CURTIS. Did they ever discuss in your presence anything about any of the killings?

Reverend FRY. No, sir.

Senator CURTIS. Did they ever discuss in your presence the defense of any charges that were made against any of them in the court? Reverend FRY. Quite often this was a matter of discussion on a great variety of matters for which young men were before the courts. Senator CURTIS. You told me the first day you were here that your service to the Black Rangers was in the nature of legal services. Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator CURTIS. Getting them a lawyer?

Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator CURTIS. Then you did know about the charges against them?

Reverend FRY. I knew by the information they supplied me; yes, sir. Senator CURTIS. But in supplying bonds in perhaps 200 cases, you never heard of an admission of guilt to anything?

Reverend FRY. No.

I have made it a very definite matter of public record that in those cases where I might presume guilt on my own, it was my own bias, or where there was an acknowledgement of guilt, we did not touch these

cases at all.

We never, to our knowledge, supplied bail or a lawyer to a person we felt had been arrested and charged in accordance with the regular legal procedures.

Senator CURTIS. So the 200 cases were ones where you felt they were innocent?

Reverend FRY. Well felt that they were definitely police harassments. That was specifically what we were seeking to combat with our legal support.

Senator CURTIS. Police harassment?

Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator CURTIS. You think that these 200 cases were police harassments?

Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator JAVITS. Could I ask just one question of Mr. Rose?

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator JAVITS. Mr. Rose, has anybody promised you immunity for the testimony you give before this committee?

Mr. Rose. No, sir.

Senator JAVITS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Senator MUNDT. Reverend Fry, I can't quite get the picture clear in my own mind.

The Blackstone Rangers would hold their meetings in your office. You say you never sat in on any of the meetings. You walked into your office, you walked out, on numerous occasions, over a dozen in number, but you never sat down to counsel with them or confer with them or listen to their discussion. Is that right?

Reverend FRY. That is true.

Senator MUNDT. I am trying to figure out how the cases were brought to your attention, where you provided bonds over 200 times.

You couldn't pick that up, just walking in and out of your office. Reverend FRY. No, sir. The major provision of bonds was done by Mr. LaPaglia, and, therefore, not by me.

Senator MUNDT. Some were done by you?

Reverend FRY. There would be very few cases that I had anything to do with, unless it was a young man calling me up at 3 o'clock in the morning, saying, "I am at the third district, and I have been picked up," for so-and-so, and, "Would you bond me out?"

Senator MUNDT. What would you say?

Reverend FRY. I would say various things, Senator Mundt, such as, "No," and such as, "I will be right over."

Senator MUNDT. How would you decide whether to say, "No," or, "I will be right over," on the basis of a 3 o'clock call in the morning? Reverend FRY. I would make these judgments on the basis of how well I knew the person, on the events surrounding the arrest that was described to me on the phone.

Senator MUNDT. Did any of the Main 21 members ever call you up personally to get a bond?

Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator MUNDT. Did you give a bond to any of them?
Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator MUNDT. Did you turn any of them down?

Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator MUNDT. Which one?

Reverend FRY. I was called on numerous occasions by various members of the 21, and even lesser groups, and I simply did not have any money to furnish bonds.

Senator MUNDT. You turned them down because you didn't have any money?

Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator MUNDT. Not because you felt they weren't innocent?
Reverend FRY. The specific cases I am trying to describe

Senator MUNDT. Did you ever turn down any of the Main 21 when they asked for a bond because you felt there was a presumption of guilt, and you thought you might be protecting a guilty individual? Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

Senator MUNDT. Which one?

Reverend FRY. There was a recent incident in which three Rangers were involved, and I thought there was a heavy presumption of guilt. Their bonds were very high. But even had I had the money, I would not have furnished it.

Senator MUNDT. Which three were those?

Mr. BRACKETT. Senator, I think this may be a pending case in a pending trial.

The CHAIRMAN That doesn't matter, to tell who it was he gave bond for. I think that is public information.

Mr. BRACKETT. I thought he said he didn't give bond.

The CHAIRMAN. That he refused for? That is public information, if they have been arrested.