MAY 22, 1968.

I made service of the within subpena by serving personally the with-in named Jeff Fort, at 2600 California in the courtroom of Judge Wexler at 11:30 o'clock a.m., on the 22d day of May, 1968.

HERBERT T. LowE.

J. N. Tierney, U.S. Marshall by Herbert T. Lowes, Deputy, N. Dist. Ill. (Chicago).

The CHAIRMAN. I am going to ask your client two or three questions or a few questions. You can order him not to answer if you like but I want to make this record very clear.

I am not sure about your position. I don't need to advise you, you are a lawyer. If you advise him to place himself in contempt of the committee, that is a matter that addresses itself to you. You know what you are doing.

I will not attempt to advise you on that. I do want to make a record so that there will be no question on review of this matter as to what effort was made here to try to get the witness to testify.

Mr. PATNER. Mr. Chairman, it may be understood that he will not answer any questions unless the request of No. 2 be answered.

It may be so clearly understood in the record, if I may.

The CHAIRMAN. That is your statement. I am going to ask the questions and we will see whether he follows your advice.

State your place of residence, Mr. Fort.

Mr. PATNER. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, we cannot participate. The CHAIRMAN. I don't need you to tell me at this time. I am going to ask the question.

Mr. PATNER. Can I answer the question? We cannot participate any further.

The CHAIRMAN. You are walking off refusing to let him testify? Mr. PATNER. On the conditions that I previously stated, Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Will you not permit this committee to make a record by asking questions and letting him determine whether he will answer

them or not?

Mr. PATNER. The record is clear that he cannot testify on my advice. The CHAIRMAN. Then I may say to you under these circumstances, as far as I know both of you are in contempt.

(The witness and his counsel withdrew from the hearing room at 11:27 a.m.)

Senator MUNDT. It is a clear case of contempt, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Both the attorney and the witness.

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the record show that I was prepared to ask Mr. Fort several questions.

I wanted to ask him whether or not he was a paid employee of the OEO project, by whom he was employed, when; if he was appointed when his service was terminated.

If he is still on the payroll, what his duties were, and what was his salary.

He perhaps would have the right to claim the fifth amendment against answering, but he has no right to walk out of the committee room and neither answer nor raise his objection.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record show that the witness would have been asked by the Chair, if he is the same Jeff Fort who was center chief of center No. 1 of the Woodlawn project from July 1, 1967, to October 25, 1967.

He held this position as center chief, center No. 1, at $6,000 a year. Mr. DUFFY. This is the OEO-funded project from OEO.

The CHAIRMAN. Woodlawn project. He would have been asked that. Let the record show he would have been asked about the salary he received from the Federal Government.

Let the record show that he would have been asked the question of whether he performed any services for that salary.

Let the record show that he would have been asked whether he actually gave any supervision over the project in that center or if he gave any instruction to any of the proposed students who attended, trainees who attended the training program.

Also, he would be asked whether he was a member of the Blackstone Rangers and whether in that capacity he had a duty to make reports as a member of the Rangers and also primarily as a member, as a Federal Government employee acting in the capacity of supervisor, director, or instructor of one of these centers.

He would have been asked whether as a center chief or in his official capacity in connection with this project if he submitted pertinent reports to the project director.

He would have been asked whether he offered direction or gave direction to instructors when he felt it was appropriate, instructions in the project.

He would have been asked about the recordkeeping system of the project which was under his jurisdiction and a part of his duties.

He would have been asked about staff reports, whether he made any staff reports on the project as required as part of his duties.

He would have been asked about making evaluations of the staff, whether he did that in performance of his duties.

He would have also been asked regarding conduct that was carried on in the center.

He would have been asked regarding the activities of the gangsters of the Blackstone Rangers with respect to compelling trainees to give a kickback to the Blackstone Ranger organization out of their salaries.

He would have been asked whether he attended the meetings, attended the school and actually performed his duties or whether, as some testimony indicates, he spent much of his time away from the school without giving it any attention or supervision.

He would also have been asked about the Ranger organization, whether any of these Federal funds that were paid to him as salaries, he and other members of the Ranger organization who were on the Federal payroll in connection with this project, whether they used that money and money that they received from kickbacks from trainees, whether they used that money to purchase marihuana, whether they used that money to purchase guns and ammunition or other explosives, and whether they engaged, the Rangers, to his knowledge, any members of it, any of those identified with this Federal project within his knowledge, while working for this project, engaged in blackmailing merchants, extorting money from merchants, and whether the Rangers during the course of this project and whether he participated in such practices, required schoolchildren going to public school in the Woodlawn area, to pay a stipend each week so that they could cross what is alleged to be so-called Ranger territory to get to public schools.

He would be asked whether money in the nature or guise of dues to the organization was extorted from members by threats, intimidation, and by violence, or whether members of the public school were compelled to drop out of public school, cease attending the public school and attend this so-called Federal project training course.

And if they refused, whether they were threatened with violence, whether violence was actually inflicted upon them, and if by those tactics they did succeed in having a number of students drop out of the public school and attend this so-called training program and then require them while attending the program to give a kickback out of their salary, money they were paid for attending the school, back to the Rangers for its fund and for personal and private use.

He would also be asked about the story of guns in the center, particularly in the First Presbyterian Church, in the loft of it, and in the tunnel of it.

He would also be asked about the purchase of guns in Circle Pine, Mich., which guns reportedly were returned to and placed in the First Presbyterian Church, one of the centers of this organization.

Senator MUNDT. On the trip he is alleged to have made, he was an employee at the time, he was being paid a salary by the Federal Gov

ernment.

The CHAIRMAN. Yes.

Senator MUNDT. I would like to add, Mr. Chairman, one other question I expected to ask.

In view of the fact that one of the functions of these hearings is to determine whether or not this particular OEO project should be refunded-counsel tells me the trip made to Circle Pine was before he was on the OEO payroll-I want to ask you whether or not, in view of the fact that Reverend Fry was asked the question if there were any of the Blackstone Rangers in the Main 21 in whom he had sufficient confidence so that if the project were refunded he felt that they were the kind of young men who should head it, he singled out Eugene Hairston and Jeff Fort as the two in whom he had the most confidence.

He was again going to have leadership role in the OEO program if in fact it was going to be funded.

This is a valid point in determining whether or not this is a wise and judicious expenditure of taxpayers' money.

How in the world we can discover whether or not a program should be refunded when the people at the head of it refuse to go ahead and testify will be out of my power to comprehend, because he has been singled out by Reverend Fry, a gentleman whose judgment we would have to respect in a matter of this kind, as the type of young man in Main 21 in whom he has the maximum confidence.

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to inquire of the chairman and the staff whether or not Mr. Jeff Fort or his counsel have submitted any questions to the committee pursuant to rule 13 for the consideration of the committee?

Mr. ADLERMAN. They have not submitted any questions whatsoever. I might point out also that Mr. Patner, the counsel to Mr. Fort, is the same gentleman that Reverend Fry stated he contacted when he wanted an attorney for Mrs. Martin.

I would also like to point out that in my arrangements for him to appear, whether or not he would be called on a certain date, I would tell the counsel for Mr. Fry or one of the gentlemen who was in the room who was going to be Washington counsel for Mr. Fry, and he would tell me, "I will see to it that Fort will be notified that he has to testify on this particular date."

So there seems to be a close connection between Mr. Fry's counsel and Mr. Fort's counsel.

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, has rule 13 been printed in today's hearings in its entirety?

I know it has been referred to and read.

Mr. Chairman, in order to make this record today abundantly clear for the consideration of the Senate should they decide to consider it, I ask that rule 13 in its entirety be printed in the record.

The CHAIRMAN. I think I read it all in.

Senator CURTIS. That was my question.

The CHAIRMAN. I read it into the record and it may be printed at that point.

Senator CURTIS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out I was particularly anxious to make inquiry of Mr. Jeff Fort concerning the operation of this particular OEO project because he was so highly recommended to this committee by Reverend Fry of the First Presbyterian Church in Chicago.

I refer to the record of these hearings on June 25, 1968, page 4077. Senator MUNDT. Go back to page 4076 when the chairman asked him whether he recommended the project and who he would like to have in charge of it.

Senator CURTIS. I am going to read portions of it first.

On page 4077, the chairman addressed Reverend Fry as follows:

I didn't ask if you were on the advisory board. I am asking would you, you are recommending the project, you know these people, you have been their legal adviser. Would you recommend that a single one of them be retained and used in this program? If so, name him.

Reverend FRY. I would name two immediately and thereafter claim not sufficient competence.

The CHAIRMAN. What two would you name?

Reverend FRY. Eugene Hairston and Jeff Fort.

The CHAIRMAN. Let us take Jeff Fort. You would name him.

Reverend FRY. Yes, sir.

The CHAIRMAN. What specific qualifications do you think he has?

Reverend FRY. He has the love and the respect and the friendship of the people who would be in the program.

Mr. Chairman, it is apparent there was close acquaintanceship, if not close association, between Jeff Fort and Reverend Fry.

Serious implications have been made concerning a number of individuals. I think that our investigation will be incomplete unless we can ask Mr. Jeff Fort if he frequented the First Presbyterian Church of Chicago, whether or not he ever observed any unlawful acts there such as gambling, use or distribution of narcotics of any kind, sexual misbehavior, and whether or not he ever observed any guns and under what conditions.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Very well.

The Chair would like to also make the record clear that in addition to the statements that have been made here as to the questions that would have been asked the witness, he would have been asked a number of other questions pertaining to the subject matters under inquiry, questions about eliciting information that the committee believes was within his knowledge which would be essential for this committee to have in conducting a thorough investigation of the issues involved. The Chair would also like to observe upon his failure to answer these questions that have been stated here by the Chair and by other members of the committee, that he refused to answer these questions. He would have been ordered to answer and he would have been directed to answer unless he took the fifth amendment and made the statement that he believed that a truthful answer to the question might tend to incriminate him.

Unless he exercised the fifth-amendment privilege he would have been ordered and directed by the committee to answer the questions that have been related here and others that are pertinent to this inquiry.

Senator MUNDT. Let the record clearly show that both he and his counsel were clearly and adequately warned in advance that he had a right to take the fifth amendment but he did not have the right to defy the committee, the Senate, and the Government of the United States by refusing either to answer or to take the fifth amendment. The CHAIRMAN. Very well. Is there anything further on that? Call your next witness.

Mr. ADLERMAN. I would like to recall Houtsma and Doyle.
The CHAIRMAN. Proceed, Mr. Counsel.

TESTIMONY OF JAMES DOYLE AND JAMES HOUTSMA-Resumed

Mr. ADLERMAN. Mr. Houtsma, I would like to recall the time of March 1968.

Did you visit Eugene Hairston and Jeff Fort in jail on March 21, 1968?

Mr. HOUTSMA. Yes; I did.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Would you tell us what the subject of the conversation was there?

Mr. HOUTSMA. At that time both Fort and Hairston were locked up in the Cook County jail charged with murder.

Detective Doyle and I had occasion to be in the jail. We went down and visited Hairston and Fort. In the course of the conversation Gene Hairston told me that he was aware that I had been working two jobs for a long time and it was tough to make a go of it on a policeman's salary.

He asked me if I would be interested in going on the Ranger payroll to let the Blackstone Rangers know what the police department was planning to do about the Blackstone Rangers and what moves they were going to make against the Blackstone Rangers.

Mr. ADLERMAN. He offered to put you on the payroll of the Blackstone Rangers while you were still in the police department?

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is correct. He wanted both Detective Doyle and myself to go on the Blackstone Ranger payroll.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Were you present in the room at that time?