should like to submit the following report of my own small involvement therein for whatever it may be worth. At the request of the editor of Book Week (a Sunday book review section published by the New York Herald Tribune and distributed in the Herald Tribune, The Washington Post, The San Francisco Examiner, and The Chicago Sun-Times), I wrote a review for the issue of January 23rd, 1966, covering Mr. Nader's book "Unsafe at Any Speed," as well as three other books on automotive subjects. I found, as I wrote, that Mr. Nader's book was by far the most noteworthy of the books I was reviewing and was, in fact, a first-rate book of possibly major importance. As the former director of Consumers Union I had, of course, been close to its car testing program and had had occasion to drive many of the cars under test and to write about automobiles, including aspects of their safety, for many years. I had never met Mr. Nader but I did have some familiarity with his subject matter, and it seems to me that he had done a much-needed job in an area in which not much had been written. Approximately a month following the appearance of my review, on February 21st of this year, I received a call at my home in the afternoon. As nearly as I can remember the call came at two or three o'clock. I do not recall whether the caller told me his name; if he did I didn't get it. At all events, as soon as I picked up the telephone he was asking me questions. Was I the Mr. Masters who had reviewed Ralph Nader's book? Did I know him? What did I know about him? I said I had never met Mr. Nader and had reviewed his book because the editor of Book Week had asked me to review it. Was my review favorable? the caller asked. I told him it was there for all to see that I had reviewed the book favorably and why was he asking me these questions? He then said that he worked for an organization called the Vincent Gillen or Gilliam Agency-as it sounded to me-a partner in which, he noted in passing, was a former FBI agent. I asked why they were trying to find out about Mr. Nader and he replied that he just worked for the agency and didn't really know. but thought someone wanted to hire Mr. Nader to write some articles, and the investigation was relevant to that. Did I know where he lived? Did I know whether he had a driver's license? I reiterated that I didn't know Mr. Nader and knew no more about him than the information on the jacket of his book, which I urged the caller to read. He said this was a splendid idea and that he would do so. After pondering this conversation for a moment I decided to call the publisher of Mr. Nader's book and tell him about it. And so I called Mr. Grossman, introduced myself and told him of the call, and learned from him of the general investigation of Mr. Nader. I have received no further calls from anyone in connection with this affair. Sincerely, DEXTER MASTERS. EXHIBIT 149 LAW SCHOOL OF HARVARD UNIVERSITY, Senator ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, Chairman, Senate Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, Old Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: I have been asked by Mr. Philip Cook of your staff to write to you concerning the visit which I received, in which the visitor inquired about Mr. Ralph Nader. The visit took place, as I recollect, about six weeks ago, in my office in Harvard Law School. The visitor came in unannounced and stated that he wished to inquire about Mr. Nader in behalf of a firm of consultants (I do not remember the name of the organization, nor do I remember the name by which he introduced himself). He stated that Mr. Nader was being considered for a position with the organization, and he wished to have my opinion about Mr. Nader's qualifications, since (as he correctly stated) I had known Mr. Nader when he was a student at Harvard Law School, and he worked for me as a research assistant for abou; six months after his graduation. I told the visitor that I thought very highly of Mr. Nader and his abilities, and that I had followed his activities over the years and had seen him from time to time, and that I was certain that he would do very well in anything that he undertook. However, I had a previous engagement which made it necessary for me to cut the interview short. The visitor did not press me with questions, but left and did not return or telephone me thereafter. Subsequently, I learned from Mr. Nader that he had not applied for any position and was not under consideration for employment by a firm of consultants or other organization. Yours sincerely, DEAR SIR: In the issue of The New Republic dated March 12, 1966 one James Ridgeway has authored an article titled "The Dick". The lanky hero of this narrative is Ralph Nader, who has been pointed out as "a major witness before Senator Abraham Ribicoff's subcommittee on traffic safety." Mr. Ridgeway unfolds his tale with the following sentence. "Nader's stockbroker received a visit from a man who said he worked for Allied Investigations. His client wanted to hire Nader. He wanted to know about Nader's habits and credit." Two pages further on Ridgeway stated, "Neither Allied Investigating Service in Washington nor Management Consultants in Boston cared to discuss this matter. Both are private detective firms. After some prodding, a spokesman for Allied said there was no investigation of Nader." The Washington Post, on March 7, 1966 printed an article under the heading of "Investigators Dog Car Safety Witness." In this article they print, "One Investigation firm, Allied Investigating Service of Washington refused to discuss the matter with Ridgeway initially and then denied it had any interest in Nader." Richard Starnes, in an article titled, “Missionary With a Tail", printed in the Washington Daily News on March 9, 1966 notes that "three sleuthing agencies have been identified as taking part in the investigation of Mr. Nader." Referring to news releases, the Department of Justice has now been asked to find out who has taken the trouble to investigate Mr. Nader. Understandably, publicity sells books, and Mr. Nader while wearing the cross of the crusader is probably not adverse to pocketing the royalties from his book. However, when he carries on his crusade by using the sympathies of fellow journalists to print untruths, then the entire project he has sired becomes suspect. On March 4th, 1966, Mr. Shuster, the Washington correspondent for the New York Times called this office and inquired about the connection of the Allied Investigating Services with the investigation of Mr. Nader. Not even knowing what he was talking about, he quoted Ridgeway, and after my complete denial of any connection with the matter, mailed me a copy of the magazine. Neither I, nor anyone on my staff had the opportunity of denying any connection with the Nader investigation prior to the contact with the Times mentioned above. Just what benefits Ridgeway derived from "using" the name of an established detective agency for his own purposes are obvious. His claim is that Allied denied handling the matter. There is no libel there. He smears the agency then cleanses his hands. But this devious approach to finding a culprit to fit into his writings should color not only his entire article, but Nader's adventures in Washington with the bright yellow of journalism of bygone days-and especially alert an austere Senate Committee that something is wrong. Very truly yours, JOHN W. LEON, Director. Re Ralph Nader. ALLIED INVESTIGATING SERVICES, Hon. ABRAHAM A. RIBICOFF, U.S. Senator, Senate Office Building, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: In closing out an issue involving the above captioned subject and this agency, we are enclosing correspondence that should be part of the record. While we agree with Vince Gillen's right to handle the investigation as projected, we do not agree with the methods used-if such methods were used. The resulting publicity was not helpful to this organization, because of the hint of "goon" operations, and we are not going to "sue" anyone about it, but in an atmosphere such as that projected by the President of General Motors, are we due an apology? Very truly yours, JOHN W. LEON. Mr. JOHN W. LEON, SCRIPPS-HOWARD NEWSPAPER ALLIANCE, Director, Allied Investigating Services, DEAR MR. LEON: I have your letter of March 10. I am surprised at it, I'll confess, because you take the trouble to deny the story to me (who did not use your firm's name) and yet you have not denied it to Mr. Ridgeway, who did. Is it because while you are technically telling the truth when you say "We . . . deny having denied it to Ridgeway" you must remember denying it when you talked to David Sanford, a reporter for The New Republic who worked with Mr. Ridgeway on the article? Your letter to Sen. Ribicoff is also startling. "Neither I. nor anyone on my staff had the opportunity of denying any connection with the Nader investigation prior to the contact with the Times. . ." you say in part. And yet the conversations with Mr. Sanford (there were two, as I understand it) took place on Feb. 28 or March 1. Perhaps Sen. Ribicoff's committee can get to the truth of it. Investigations, as you point out in your letter to me, are a normal part of every-day business. And if "a person seeking publicity should be able to stand an impersonal investigation" there is no reason why a person seeking to shun it should be any less able to stand one. Sincerely, RICHARD STARNES. ALLIED INVESTIGATING SERVICES, Re Ralph Nader. Mr. RICHARD STARNES, Washington, D.C. DEAR MR. STARNES: Practicality, or the time consuming effort of engaging in a controversy with an experienced correspondent such as you-which would give me about the same edge as a heckler in a night club would have against a professional comic-delayed my reply to your letter of March 14th. By now, all the facts are out, and you must certainly be convinced that neither I, nor my agency was in any way involved in the Nader Investigation. Truthfully, my letter to Senator Ribicoff was composed in anger, and only later did I notice that I had used two negatives-sometimes implying a positive. My denial of being involved in the Nader Investigation was one thing. My denial of ever being contacted by anyone concerning the investigation was another. Both denials still stand. James Ridgeway, without a doubt cleared his article "The Dick", with Nader, who must have approved of the use of Allied Investigating Service, clearly insinuating our complicity. I welcome a healthy kick in the pants, because on even terms I will come back fighting and will take an honest licking if that is the outcome. I do not agree that Nader and Ridgeway were honest in using the name of my agency as they did. And now that the facts are out, if the President of General Motors was big enough to apologize, Nader and Ridgeway should be big enough to apologize to me. Very truly yours, Capt. THOMAS I. HERLIHY, ALLIED INVESTIGATING SERVICES, Metropolitan Police Department, Washington, D.C. DEAR SIR: With reference to the "Nader" subject, presumed closed at this time, I am enclosing correspondence with Richard Starnes of the Washington Daily News, which should close this irritating incident. During the past two months, or since the suicide of one Dan Burros, at that time connected with the Ku Klux Klan, I have taped numerous interviews with Right Wing elements who had been in contact with Burros for the New York Times. All of the subjects of these interviews have claimed a personal contact with you, and therefore, since I have informed the F.B.I. of at least one aspect of my contacts-it would seem fitting that I advise you. Those I have interviewed include: John Patler-5 hours on tape; Carl Allen, J. V. Morgan, Seth Ryan, Bernard Davids, Christopher Bailey, Eric Carlson; 51⁄2 hrs. Roy Frankhouser (in Reading, Penna.) 71⁄2 hrs. All these tapes have been turned over to Arthur Gelb of the New York Times. The only unusual thing of interest, other than statements which are now the property of the New York Times, was my description of the Frankhouser home in Reading, where the walls were lined with gun racks, loaded with rifles, and hand guns and where they are kept, the other paraphernalia consisting of ammunition, knives, etc., and the statement that they had vast stores of hidden armaments, that the F.B.I. knew they had, but would like to find. File this with the "keep my nose clean department". Hon. ABRAHAM RIBICOFF, JOHN W. LEON. EXHIBIT 151 WINSTED, CONN., June 1966. Chairman, Subcommittee on Executive Reorganization, DEAR SENATOR RIBICOFF: In Volume 3 of the "Federal Role in Traffic Safety," The National Safety Council submitted for the record a statement on my criticisms of its performance. This statement contains inaccuracies and irrelevancies which require brief commentary. The Council's statement reflects the expected failings of an organization desperately trying to rewrite its history. As such, its reedy arguments will, if not responded to, nourish further misleading of the dwindling public that remains unaware of the propaganda facade that for so long has been the Council's trademark. The Council's statement took four sentences before plunging into misstatement and "beside the point" indulgence. Fully contrary to the NSC's assertions, I did discuss Council problems with Council personnel; I did visit the Council's offices; and I have long been informed about what the Council does and what it does not do. Unfortunately, the Council has been quite reluctant to disclose certain information about itself that it deems inadvisable to publish in its bland pamphlets. This failing required one to engage in a good deal of collateral research. Even routine information is difficult to obtain-such as the salaries of each of its officers including its President, Howard Pyle. A strange bit of secrecy for a body which is tax-exempt and possesses a federal charter. The Council proceeds to flush from its archives a number of obscure quotations by its personnel dealing with the vehicle. This shows clearly how great and enduring was the gap between what the Council realized about the vehicle's safety role and how little it did about it. Such chronic unwillingness to communicate to the public and to state agencies about vehicle design hazards and their perpetuation year after year by the industry is central to the Council's distorted conception of the accident-injury problem. Illustratively, an article by Sidney Williams, Director of the Council's Public Safety Division, is quoted from Motor magazine (March 1935) to the effect that external ornaments on cars are dangerous to pedestrians. In the postwar period, similar and worse stylistic lethalities were impaling adult and child pedestrians. Yet the Council never repeated its warnings, nor recommended to the states any policy or action to ban such ornamental cruelties from automobiles, as some European countries have done. The chronology of references cited by the Council to show its verbal concern with auto design (largely excluding collision protection until very recently) reveals no criticism of the auto industry, apart from the speed promotion issue a disagreement which the Council carefully restricted to private discussions with the manufacturers. The Council's claim that it induced the 1957 manufacturers agreement to tone down such appeals to power and speed (broken in 1962) is unfounded in anything but its delusions of grandeur. House Congressional hearings were the warning bells for this industry action. The so-called "Parthenon" symbolizing a "comprehensive, balanced program" (a Council euphemism for not allocating priorities) allots equal "pillars" to "Vehicle" as it does to "School" and "Courts." How ridiculous can such a misperception be? Until the present time, the Council circulates a chart on research needs which shows that research allocations by the auto companies for safety are presently sufficient-a self-serving declaration given the NSC by the Automobile Manufacturers Association. It is important to ask the Council leaders why they do not reveal the substance of their private meetings with the auto industry. Should not the membership of the Council be informed of such high level discussions and modus vivendis in order to exercise their responsibility of membership optimumly? Only under the spur of criticism has the Council told the public of some meetings with auto executives. We now know that the Council had an analysis of its views on the effects of speed-thrill advertising which it sent in snug wrappings to the manufacturers in 1962. Why was it not made public immediately? The Council leadership fails to recognize that it makes a great deal of difference in what forum its views are expressed, in what manner responsibility is ascribed, and how persistent the exposure of unsafe practices is effected. Talk behind closed doors cannot be a substitute for action in the public arena. Repeatedly, the Council would have us believe that a show of routine form constitutes' a substantive practice. For example, the Council denies that it ignored Rex Whitton's message contained in his address to the National Safety Congress in 1963 and points to its printing of his remarks in its magazine. All such annual addresses are so printed, but this does not mean that it heeded his comments or were stimulated by them to think about assuming a more realistic posture. The Council does not distinguish between the meaning of his remarks and the printing of them as far as its reaction is concerned. Further, by lumping all its activities and then separating out the auto and allied industry membership on the Board, it concludes that the percentage is insignificant to constitute a substantial influence. An essential point is omitted— that Council activities are discrete and that its traffic safety area embodies no determined group representing the consumer to counteract industry persuations. Other groups on the Board, such as insurance, education, farm groups etc., have their own areas of interest and are not about to intrude on terrain long considered to be the preserve of the auto industry. Moreover, since the Council is continually trying to obtain additional funds from the Automobile Manufacturers Association, the burden of an endemic servility toward the industry is increased. Participation by the industry on its Board and the financial contributions to the NSC are not the exclusive precondition of the Council's weak performance over the years. The Council's leaders have been chosen in a way to insure conformity with the industry way and unquestioning adherence to industry imperatives. This has had tragic consequences—including a long delay before the Council took up the cause of seat belts and its failure to support the far more effective combination shoulder harness, lap type belt that restrains the upper torso. The auto companies have long resisted this three-point belt because its installation and effectiveness was limited by the inadequate support structure of modern cars (note the hardtop models, for example). The Council made sure not to embarrass |