I notice he is surrounded by two very competent counsel. I notice at times the witness and other witnesses will hesitate to reply to questions by the counsel or committee members for the reason that he is conferring with his counsel. I am mindful of the fact that any defendant or any man before a board of inquisition such as this is entitled to the benefit of counsel at all stages of the proceeding, but I do not believe he is entitled to consult with his counsel before answering the questions. This committee is entitled to watch the demeanor of the witness on the witness stand. We are entitled to weigh his credibility as a witness, his manner and demeanor of testifying. Although I am conscious of the fact that in recent investigations I have seen this done before, it seems to me preposterous that a committee counsel or a committee member should interrogate this witness. or any other witness, upon any material facts and then be delayed while counsel is advising and consulting with their clients. I think we are entitled to spontaneous answers. If he cannot give the answer, I do not think he should be assisted by counsel.

As far as I am concerned, I should like to move you, Mr. Chairman, that we welcome the addition of counsel here. They should preserve the rights of their clients. They are permitted to object at any time and advise their client not to answer any question that they deem advisable. I certainly do object to their advising with the client with respect to the answers given here under oath.

I notice General Marshall did it in the MacArthur hearing. If this gentleman is here before us on this board of inquisition, this committee is entitled to the facts as he knows them, not as to what his attorney might suggest.

So I move you, therefore, Mr. Chairman, that not only this witness, but all witnesses attended by counsel, will refrain from consulting with their attorneys prior to answering the questions.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further remarks?

Senator PASTORE. Am I to understand that an attorney has a right before his client or the witness answers the question to interpose an audible objection? You are going to get tied up with a lot of objections.

Senator WELKER. For the purposes of the record, if we present to this witness or any other witness a wholly immaterial question, a prejudicial question, that, in the interest of their clients, they certainly can instruct their client not to answer.

I believe that is done in any procedure; but what I am objecting to, Senator, is-I don't want to direct this particularly at this witness, it goes to all witnesses-but a question is propounded by Mr. Bauman. Then there is a conference. I am up here sitting to be a judge as to the creditibility of this witness. I do not know whether that is the testimony of the witness or the testimony of his attorney.

Senator PASTORE. If I may be heard, because, after all, this is more or less of tremendous concern to me also doesn't Senator Welker feel that that objection can be interposed only in the instance where the answering of the question would be self-incriminating?

Senator WELKER. No, I don't.

Senator PASTORE. From that, I think the witness ought to be left alone to answer all the questions. If we are going to allow counsel to interpose an objection, he can be objecting on every single question,

Senator WELKER. I am convinced of this, Senator, that these able counsel know well that many of the questions propounded yesterday were immaterial and would not be permitted in a court of law, and I see no activity on their part that would indicate a desire to disrupt the proceedings.

I will agree that they may interpose an objection where it goes to the indictment or the embarrassment of the witness on a self-incriminating statement. I would be willing to compromise on that.

This is what I want to keep away from, Senator, the fact that we up here are not sure who is testifying when one or two attorneys confide and talk with their clients prior to the answering of the question.

Senator PASTORE. I agree with the Senator in spirit and I agree with him in the of the remarks he has made with the reservapurpose tion that he has just recited, I will go along with his suggestion. Senator HUNT. Mr. Chairman, I find myself in sympathy with the position of the Senator from Idaho to a certain extent. I do not like in a hearing of this kind to lay down certain rules and regulations that hold steadfast. This is not a court of law. This is an attempt to get information from an inquiry. I would be inclined to leave that question to the discretion of the chairman with the chairman having in mind what the Senator from Idaho attempts to accomplish by a strict and fast rule.

I just do not believe I would like to go along voting favorably to not allow counsel to talk over a question with clients in all cases.

The CHAIRMAN. Gentlemen of the committee, I am in sympathy with the remarks made by the Senator from Idaho.

Senator WELKER. When a witness is under oath in a courtroom or a court of inquisition, he is the only person who can take advantage of the privilege of immunity from testifying about anything that might tend to incriminate him. That is all I want to bring up here. It will expedite matters if we go on in a long hearing. We will have 50 attorneys who will be doing the testifying. If I were an attorney, I would do it for my client. That is the reason I was making the objection.

Mr. MAHER. Mr. Chairman, would you indulge me a moment while I consult with Mr. Ford?

The CHAIRMAN. Certainly.

(Consultation between Mr. Maher and Mr. Ford.)

Mr. FORD. As counsel for Major Barrett, we have no comments to make whatever on the court's ruling or the discussion by the Senators. The CHAIRMAN. Counsel will be afforded every reasonable opportunity to protect the rights of their clients.

Mr. FORD. We will follow out, to the best of our ability, the directions of this body.

The CHAIRMAN. As many as favor Senator Welker's motion say "Aye"; contrary "No." The "ayes" have it and it is so ordered.

FURTHER TESTIMONY OF ROBERT J. BARRETT, ACCOMPANIED BY CHARLES E. FORD AND DANIEL B. MAHER, COUNSEL

Mr. BAUMAN. Major Barrett, have you, within the last 3 years, purchased any cashier's checks for cash?

Mr. BAUMAN. Has your wife, to your knowledge, purchased cashier's checks for cash?

Mr. BARRETT. To the best of my knowledge, no, and never.

Mr. BAUMAN. What would you estimate the total amount of money orders purchased by you or your wife to be in 1951?

Mr. BARRETT. Money orders?

Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARRETT. 1951?

Mr. BAUMAN. Yes.

Mr. BARRETT. I have no idea, but it would be a very small amount for some bill, or something that she paid.

Mr. BAUMAN. How often would you pay bills in that way?

Mr. BARRETT. I don't know. I never paid any, but I know it would be a small amount.

Mr. BAUMAN. On February 24, 1949, you paid Edward P. Schwartz, Inc., an insurance firm, $163.01 by money order. That is the type of transaction I am talking about, Major Barrett. How many others like that were there?

Mr. BARRETT. I didn't pay it. It is not my signature on there. I am sure of that. My wife paid the bill, but I know that she has paid a few bills with money orders, but they are very small. It means nothing.

Mr. BAUMAN. Can you estimate the total amount in a year like 1951? Mr. BARRETT. I have no idea, as I told you, but I don't think it would be $200 or $250. I am saying that right freely.

Mr. BAUMAN. Major Barrett, in answer to question 49 of the questionnaire, the question of that number reads:

What was the total amount spent by you or your wife, your children and dependents, for vacations away from home; that is, resorts, trips, children at camp, et cetera, for each of the following years?

Forgetting your children and dependents, just talking about you and your wife, what trips did you and your wife, or you or your wife, make

in 1951?

Mr. BARRETT. 1951, the only trip that my wife and I made as I recall, is a trip to Florida when her father was in the hospital dying82 years old and we were at a standstill for a month waiting for the right time to go there. We went to Florida and advised him to stay. We got back a few days before he died. In fact, I have the date of his death here, and I think that will coincide with the trip you are talking about. He died March 12, 1951. It was just a week prior to that that we got back from Florida. We begged him to stay, and he came home. and died 2 days later.

Mr. BAUMAN. How long were you there?

Mr. BARRETT. Eight or nine or ten days. But I understand that you have the information where we stayed, what it cost.

Mr. BAUMAN. Did you stay at the Hotel Tatum at that time?

Mr. BARRETT. That is right.

Mr. BAUMAN. Who accompanied you on that trip?

Mr. BARRETT. My daughter came there, and her husband. They borrowed $500 on their building association account to come there. Mr. BAUMAN. Did you make any other trip during 1951, sir?

Mr. BARRETT. I don't know whether that it was when we went to

Mr. BAUMAN. No, sir. That was in the previous year, to the best of my knowledge.

Mr. BARRETT. Would you give me a lead?

Mr. BAUMAN. Did you go to Virginia Beach in 1951?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir; with the baseball team.

Mr. BAUMAN. How long did you stay in Virginia Beach?

Mr. BARRETT. Two days.

Mr. BAUMAN. Did you make any other trips during that year? Mr. BARRETT. That was just recently when they had a play-off game down there with the Navy.

Mr. BAUMAN. Did the Police Department pay for that or did you pay for that?

Mr. BARRETT. The Police Department. The ball team from the finances of the results of the sale of tickets for the game.

Mr. BAUMAN. Did you make any other trips during 1951 that you can remember?

Mr. BARRETT. I have made many trips, and if you could help me just as you did on that——

Mr. BAUMAN. I am afraid I have helped you about all I can. You better help yourself.

Mr. BARRETT. I don't think I have. Answering you truthfully, I don't recall.

Mr. BAUMAN. I am talking about trips such as the ones to Florida and Virginia Beach, any other trip when you went out of the Washington, D. C., metropolitan area.

Mr. BARRETT. 1951?

Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARRETT. I have been to many places, but, no, sir, to the best of my knowledge-no.

Mr. BAUMAN. You would recollect if you made such a trip, wouldn't you, Major Barrett?

Mr. BARRETT. I am trying to tell you. If I have, and you tell me, I will answer you, but, to the best of my knowledge now, it is, no, I haven't.

Mr. BAUMAN. You ought to know much better than I where you went, but apparently you are familiar with what records I have. Mr. BARRETT. I have been in many places within 6 or 7 years, and it is a little confusing.

Mr. BAUMAN. How about during 1950?

Mr. BARRETT. I went to Texas. Wasn't that the police chiefs' convention in 1950? Is that what you are referring to?

Mr. BAUMAN. I am just asking.

Senator WELKER. Major, I suggest you tell him all the places you can remember. If you cannot remember, just tell him that.

Mr. BARRETT. I am trying to, Senator. I went to Texas, I think, in 1950. We stopped in Chicago overnight.

Mr. BAUMAN. Did you go to attend the police chiefs' convention there?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BAUMAN. And who paid for the trip to Texas? Did you or did the Police Department?

Mr. BARRETT. The Police Department paid the railroad fare and $9 a day, the expenses.

Mr. BAUMAN. Did you and your wife take any trips during 1950? Mr. BARRETT. My wife was with me on that.

Mr. BAUMAN. Did you pay her expenses?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BAUMAN. Were there any other trips you made during the year 1950?

Mr. BARRETT. I do not recall any.

Mr. BAUMAN. How about during 1949?

Mr. BARRETT. Police chiefs' convention.
Mr. BAUMAN. Where was that?

Mr. BARRETT. New York.

Mr. BAUMAN. Any other trips? Go to Florida in that year? Mr. BARRETT. I could have-and Boston, to a world series. Mr. BAUMAN. Who accompanied you on that trip to Boston? Mr. BARRETT. Well, I went to Boston twice. I went to two world series, one in 1948 and one in 1949—and Cleveland played there. It was Mr. Blank.

Mr. BAUMAN. Major, let me direct your attention to the trip you made in 1948, when you went to Boston. I forget now who the teams were that played in that year.

Mr. BARRETT. St. Louis and Boston. St. Louis the first time and Cleveland the next.

Mr. BAUMAN. I should have remembered that. Who was with you on that particular trip?

Mr. BARRETT. On the first one?

Mr. BAUMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. BARRETT. It was Captain Pierce, Mr. Williams, "Gillie" Young, and myself, I believe.

Mr. BAUMAN. Was Lieutenant Wolf with you?

Mr. BARRETT. I don't think he was with me on the first trip. I am pretty sure he was on the second trip.

Mr. BAUMAN. You think he was with you on the second trip?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir. He was with me on the trip that the police chiefs' convention was in New York. I got off the train, and Mr. Maher was on that trip with me, and they came on to Washington and I got off at New York.

Mr. BAUMAN. Major Barrett, while you were in Boston on any of those two occasions, did you see Jimmie LaFontaine ?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BAUMAN. Where did you see him?

Mr. BARRETT. I was with Mr. Williams about 11:30 at night. Either Mr. Young called Mr. Ford here or Mr. Ford called Mr. Young, I don't know which, and we were invited over to his apartment.

Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Ford's apartment?

Mr. BARRETT. Yes, sir.

Mr. BAUMAN. Mr. Ford was with Mr. LaFontaine at that point? Mr. BARRETT. Let me explain it, sir.

Mr. BAUMAN. Sure, sir.

Mr. BARRETT. Mr. Williams and Mr. Young and I went over and we were in the living room of this apartment that Mr. Ford was in, and there was another couple present and we had a drink, and while there, we were there about 15 or 20 minutes when Mr. LaFontaine came out of a bedroom and walked across with a nightgown on, and Mr. Wil