Mr. DOYLE. Not at that time. Later.

Mr. ADLERMAN. You did not hear the conversation?
Mr. DOYLE. Not initially.

Senator CURTIS. When did this take place?

Mr. DOYLE. March 21, 1968, in the Cook County jail.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Who else was present?

Mr. HOUTSMA. Originally I was the only one talking to Jeff Fort. Later on Detective Doyle entered the jail and was present.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Hairston and Fort were both present at the conversation?

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is correct.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Which one made the offer?

Mr. HOUTSMA. There was no cash involved in the initial offer. Hairston just stated that rather than work two jobs he thought it would be easier if Doyle and I went on the Blackstone Ranger payroll and worked for the Rangers at the same time we were working for the police department.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Did Hairston do all the talking?

Mr. HOUTSMA. At that time Hairston was doing the talking; yes, sir. Mr. ADLERMAN. At that time or any subsequent time related to this conversation, did Fort say or do anything to concur in the proposition that Hairston attempted to convey to you?

Mr. HOUTSMA. Yes, he did. After Detective Doyle came in the room I called him over and we were both standing there and talking about what Hairston had to say.

Fort said he thought it would probably be worth about $600 a month apiece if we went on the Ranger payroll.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Was this second conversation the same day?

Mr. HOUTSMA. It was a continuation of the conversation with Hairston.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Did you make any report of this conversation?

Mr. HOUTSMA. Yes, I did. I went back and reported it to my superior officer and also to the director of the intelligence division.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Did you make the report?

Mr. DOYLE. We made a combined report.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Is that report in writing?

Mr. HOUTSMA. No, it wasn't. At this time it was decided it would be better not to put this report in writing, just to keep it between ourselves, the commanding officer and director of the intelligence division.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you testifying about the same Jeff Fort who was sworn here a little while ago before this committee?

Mr. HOUTSMA. Yes, I am.

The CHAIRMAN. And who walked out with his counsel?

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Refusing to answer questions refusing to submit to interrogation after having been duly sworn?

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. That is the same Jeff Fort?

Mr. HOUTSMA. It is.

Mr. ADLERMAN. On April 15, 1968, did you have occasion to talk to Fort again?

Mr. HOUTSMA. Yes, we did. Detective Doyle and myself.

Mr. ADLERMAN. That is just about a month later or a little less than a month later?

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is correct. Charges had been dropped against Fort. He had been released from the jail at that time. He was back out on the street.

At that time Detective Doyle and myself saw Jeff Fort on the corner of 62d and Dorchester and started to have a conversation with him. He asked us at that time if we were still interested in the offer he made at the jail.

We said we had not made up our minds yet. He said in the meantime he would be willing to pay $200 for a picture of all the officers assigned to the gang intelligence unit. He felt it was necessary, especially the Blackstone Ranger leaders knew every police officer assigned to the gang intelligence unit.

He wanted to have their pictures so that he could show them around. The CHAIRMAN. Did you make a written report of that?

Mr. HOUTSMA. Yes, we did.

The CHAIRMAN. I hand you a copy of that report. I ask you to identify it.

Mr. DOYLE. We have it here.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the report be received as exhibit 213.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 213" for reference and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)

The CHAIRMAN. Proceed.

Mr. ADLERMAN. The next day did you have another conversation with Mr. Fort or did you see Mr. Fort again on the next day?

Mr. DOYLE. Yes, we did.

Mr. ADLERMAN. Will you tell us what happened then?

Mr. HOUTSMA. It was about 3 o'clock in the afternoon. Again it was Detective Doyle and myself. We saw Jeff Fort accompanied by Bernard Green in the 6700 block of Stony Island Avenue.

Bernard Green is a member of the Main 21, an instructor in the OEO program.

We started to talk to Fort again. He asked us at that time if we were still considering this offer. We said we had not made up our mind.

He said, "Will you take a ride with me over to my house or follow me? I have something I want to show you."

We said we would be interested in it. We followed Fort and Bernard Green, we followed them over to his house at 6050 Dorchester. Fort parked their automobile in front of the house and went into the house and we parked behind him and we waited outside. They said they would be right out.

They were only in the building a few minutes and they both came out. Green got in his automobile-Green got into Fort's automobile and Jeff Fort got into the rear seat of the police car. We had a few minutes conversation.

He pulled a hundred dollar bill out of his pocket and laid it on the seat of the car and started to get out. We asked him what the hundred dollars is for. At this time he said, "This is for nothing, but there is more to come." He said to take it and he left.

The CHAIRMAN. What did you do with that?

Mr. HOUTSMA. We initialed it and dated it and inventoried it with the intelligence division of the police department.

The CHAIRMAN. Did you make a written report on that?

Mr. HOUTSMA. Yes, we did.

The CHAIRMAN. I hand you a copy of the report. Will you examine it and state if you identify it.

Mr. HOUTSMA. I have a copy of the report. It is dated April 16, 1968. The CHAIRMAN. Do you have attached to it a copy of the receipt for the hundred dollars you turned in?

Mr. HOUTSMA. Yes, I do. Inventory receipt No. 647500 also dated April 16, 1968.

The CHAIRMAN. What is the serial number of the bill?

Mr. HOUTSMA. The serial number of the bill is G07451419A.

The CHAIRMAN. So he made attempts, three different attempts, to bribe you?

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. 1968?

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. This may be made exhibit No. 214.

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 214" for reference and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)

Senator MUNDr. Mr. Houtsma, earlier in your testimony when you were on the stand before Mr. Fort came into the room, you mentioned the fact that there were 275 to 300 Rangers presently in the Cook County jail.

You said that one way you identified them as such was because they were wearing Ranger jackets. Was this that you were alluding to the Ranger jacket that Mr. Fort had when he came in the room today which has two big badges on it saying "Almighty Ranger"?

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is one of the types they wear; yes, sir.
Senator MUNDT. That is one of the types?

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is correct. Normally they are black jackets with Ranger or Blackstone Ranger printed across the back or black jacket with an emblem saying "Almighty Rangers" or "Almighty Black

stones."

Senator MUNDT. It is easy to see because he is the vice president of the group next to Gene Hairston. He puts "Almighty Ranger" on to indicate some leadership that he has achieved.

Mr. HOUTSMA. That is correct.

The CHAIRMAN. Let the record reflect, Mr. Reporter, the time and place and at what point, I suppose you did, if you did not, let it reflect at what place the witness Jeff Fort and his counsel left the hearing room. Very well.

Thank you very much.

The committee stands in recess until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12 noon the subcommittee recessed, to reconvene at 2 p.m. the same day.)

(Members present at time of recess: Senators McClellan, Mundt, and Curtis.)

AFTERNOON SESSION

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2:20 p.m., Senator John L. McClellan, chairman, presiding.)

(Members present at the time of convening were Senators McClellan, Muskie, Harris, and Curtis.)

The CHAIRMAN. The committee will come to order.

Reverend Brazier, come around, please. Be sworn.

You do solemnly swear the evidence you shall give before this Senate subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Reverend BRAZIER. I so affirm.

The CHAIRMAN. Be seated.

Senator Percy, the committee is glad to welcome you, sir. Do you have a statement you wish to make?

STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES H. PERCY

Senator PERCY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the opportunity to appear before this subcommittee today and present to you one of my very distinguished constituents. The Reverend Arthur Brazier of the Apostolic Church of God located in the Woodlawn area is president of the Woodlawn Organization and in that capacity is here to testify before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.

Mr. Chairman, my introduction will be brief, because the Reverend Mr. Brazier has been waiting off and on for more than 2 weeks to present his testimony to you, and I want you to have the maximum of time possible to hear and question him. I do want to express to the committee my own interest in these hearings, and my desire-as a representative of the people in this area-to be helpful to the committee in any way I can in developing the facts surrounding this experimental grant by OEO to the Woodlawn Organization.

I am very anxious-as I know the committee is that all sides of the situation be explored fully so that an accurate picture of the validity of the project, in the context of the area in which it is located, be fully presented in the course of the committee hearings.

I sincerely hope that as the spotlight of public attention is focused on aspects of the program that allegedly have gone awry-or testimony on various unsavory activities that are not a part of the project-it will be done in such a way that others who have the courage, the guts and the determination to persist in their work in these areas will not be deterred or discouraged.

The work of the Inner City is extremely high risk in nature. Often the failures outnumber the successes, and what successes there are seem almost invisible in relation to the magnitude of the problem.

But nonetheless we must try. If ever we are going to cure these cancers of the cores of our older cities, we must persist. And we must give our sympathy and understanding to those courageous men and women who have turned their backs on far safer jobs to try to find the answers to the needs of these imprisoned persons of our slums and ghettos.

As the legislation passed by the Senate yesterday on juvenile delinquency makes clear, we must work to find better answers than we have found to date to the lawlessness that is spreading at such an alarming rate among our juveniles, and in our inner city ghettos.

Accordingly, Mr. Chairman, I should like to present to the committee a list of six witnesses whose views-in addition to Reverend

Brazier-I believe are essential to a full and fair presentation on the Woodlawn Project. These witnesses that I would suggest could be exceedingly helpful to the committee in the determination of a value judgment in this case would include, first, Alderman Leon Despres. He is the Democratic alderman from the Woodlawn area. He has been the recipient of gang violence himself and is familiar with the relationship of the project to the Woodlawn community.

Second, Dr. Julian Levy, vice president of the University of Chicago and executive director of the Southeast Chicago Commission. He is familiar with the relationship of the project to the community and familiar with the prelimniary evaluation. In my judgment Dr. Julian Levy is one of the generally recognized most able and knowledgeable urban affairs experts in the country today.

The third would be Mr. Ed Berry, executive director of the Chicago Urban League. The Urban League had the subcontract for generating job opportunities for the project and is therefore familiar with this aspect and the project generally.

Fourth would be a representative from Xerox Corp. Xerox Corp. has formulated and provided educational materials used in the project. Mr. Sam Sands, Xerox representative on the project in Chicago, is familiar with the teaching aspects of the project on a day-to-day basis. Fifth would be Dr. Harold Visotski, director of the State department of mental health, who served with great distinction under Gov. Otto Kerner and who is very conversant with the general approach taken with the project but not with the particulars of the operation. Last I recommend Senator Richard H. Newhaus, a Democrat, State senator, former social worker. He represents the Woodlawn-Hyde Park area and is conservant with the need for experimentation in projects of this kind.

Today, I am personally introducing the Reverend Arthur Brazier because of my deep personal interest in the work he is doing, the community he is serving, and because of my high regard for his own personal integrity, selflessness, and courage.

The Reverend Brazier is a man deeply concerned about the stability of his community. He has gathered considerable knowledge of juvenile delinquency and how to deal with it. The project that Woodlawn undertook for OEO is experimental in nature and is looked upon by him and by the leadership of the Chicago community as a highrisk venture.

An official of the University of Chicago familiar with civic and urban affairs recently commented to me, "If I were to name a half dozen of the most useful citizens in Chicago today, the Reverend Brazier would certainly be among them."

This high regard is shared by a number of civic and business leaders who have worked with TWO and the Reverend Brazier, and who have written to me since the hearings started.

The Reverend Brazier is realistic, hard-headed, and tough in his dealings with gang leadership. He has taken risks; I think he will agree he has made mistakes. But he has had some encouraging and some immensely successful results from the programs The Woodlawn Organization has undertaken through the years.