Mr. Dulles.

How voluminous is this? I should be very much interested in thumbing through it because I have been trying to study the past history.

Mr. Bouck.

The rough notes on this are this high.

Mr. Dulles.

A few thousand pages?

Mr. Bouck.

The studies didn't go beyond that.

Mr. Dulles.

By cases?

Mr. Bouck.

Yes. Of course, in many of these cases it is very spotty and these are handwritten notes. We never, outside of extracting in this in training material and what not, we have never systematized it down to where it is a readable document as such.

Mr. Dulles.

Have you tried to draw any conclusion out of this study as to the type of people, the types of causes, the types of incentives?

Mr. Bouck.

Yes; we have.

Mr. Dulles.

That is in your department, is it, to do this?

Mr. Bouck.

Yes; it is. We have arrived at some conclusions from it.
(Discussion off the record.)

Mr. Mccloy.

On the record. Your study of the prior assassinations would take into account Czolgosz, Guiteau, what type of persons they were?

Mr. Bouck.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Mccloy.

The thing to me that seems very worthy of research is the plotter, I mean the political plotter as against, for want of a better word, the loner, the man who is self-motivated against the man who has to have a group around him. How do you tell one from the other? I just was reading last night in Loomis about Madame Corday. She was just as much of a loner as apparently Mr. Oswald was.

Mr. Dulles.

So was Czolgosz so far as I can make out, and so was Zangara. Zangara, I was told, planned to shoot Hoover and then he decided that the climate of Washington wasn't very healthy in February and March for him because he had stomach trouble, so he decided that F.D.R. was coming to Miami and it was just as good to shoot him. You have situations of that kind that defy it.

Mr. Bouck.

I believe he intended to shoot the King of Italy before that but he got a chance to migrate before he got an opportunity.

Mr. Dulles.

Zangara?

Mr. Bouck.

Yes.

Mr. Mccloy.

Do you have any look out for defectors as such?

Mr. Bouck.

As such we have never been quite able to determine that that is a valid criterion. We do not as such.

Mr. Mccloy.

You have some suspicions, now, don't you?

Mr. Bouck.

Yes; we have some suspicions now; yes, sir.

Mr. Dulles.

I wonder whether it would not be useful for this Commission to have, if it could be reduced to readable form and to assist, the conclusions of your study if you have such conclusions?

Mr. Bouck.

We will do that, sir.

Mr. Dulles.

What do you think, do the rest of you agree to that?

Mr. Mccloy.

I think it is part of our mission to try to make recommendations in regard to the future protection of the Presidents. Actually, we don't want to go into anything which is going to compromise the future security of Presidents. We simply want to augment. What we are concerned about is how well equipped we are to do the job in the light of all the circumstances and I would think that any conclusions that you have in this regard, if you--the Secret Service, Treasury--could convey them to us in a form that perhaps we might endorse, it might be helpful from your point of view and our point of view.

Representative Ford.

I would agree with that observation.

Mr. Dulles.

You can possibly define categories. You may find the loner, you may find a fellow engaged in a plot with others for political reasons and that would help us very much because we find that particularly the case we are investigating falls into one of these classes.

Mr. Bouck.

All right.
(Discussion off the record.)
(At this point Senator Cooper entered the hearing room.)

Mr. Mccloy.

I think we are ready to go ahead.