Mr. Belmont.

to Dallas. Hosty had established that he had a job, he was working, and had told Mrs. Paine that when he got the money he was going to take an apartment when the baby was old enough, he was going to take an apartment, and the family would live together.
He gave evidence of settling down. Nowhere during the course of this investigation or the information that came to us from other agencies was there any indication of a potential for violence on his part.
Consequently, there was no basis for Hosty to go to Secret Service and advise them of Oswald's presence. Hosty was alert, as was the Dallas office, to furnish information to Secret Service on the occasion of the President's visit.
It is my recollection that Hosty actually participated in delivering some materials to Secret Service himself, and helped prepare a memorandum on another matter that was not over there. So that most certainly the office was alert. The agent in charge had alerted his agents, even on the morning of the visit, as he had previously done a week or 10 days before the visit.
So that, in answer to your question, I cannot even through the process of going back and seeking to apply this against what happened, justifiably say that Hosty should have given this information under the existing conditions and with the history of this matter, that he was in a position to give it to the Secret Service. Now, most certainly----

Mr. Mccloy.

We wish he had.

Mr. Belmont.

Of course.

Representative Ford.

Mr. Chairman, I have a call from the floor of the House. I wonder if I could ask Mr. Belmont a question.

The Chairman.

Yes, indeed.

Representative Ford.

In response to a question by Mr. McCloy, you categorically said that Federal Bureau of Investigation under no circumstances had employed Oswald as an informant, as an agent or in any other way whatsoever.

Mr. Belmont.

Yes, sir.

Representative Ford.

You would be in a position to know specifically that information?

Mr. Belmont.

Yes, sir.

Representative Ford.

You also said, as I recall, that you had found no credible information or evidence thus far that Oswald was connected in any way whatsoever with another country as an agent. Is that about what you said or do you wish to reaffirm it in another way?

Mr. Belmont.

I will affirm what you said.

Representative Ford.

There is a difference, however, between your knowledge as to whether the FBI had hired Oswald, you can be very categorical about that.

Mr. Belmont.

That is correct.

Representative Ford.

You can only----

Mr. Belmont.

Say based on the evidence that we have or which developed or all information that we received, there was no indication that Oswald was in any way connected or within the service of a foreign government.

Representative Ford.

But there is a difference in the way you can answer those two questions.

Mr. Belmont.

There is a difference, yes; there is a difference because in the one case we know, in the other case we rely on all the information and evidence available.

Representative Ford.

But as far as a foreign government is concerned, you only know what you have been able to find out?

Mr. Belmont.

That is correct, sir.

Representative Ford.

There is always the possibility in the second case, involving a foreign government, that something might come up at some other time.

Mr. Belmont.

There is always the possibility. We have no indication of it. There is always the possibility; yes, sir.

Representative Ford.

But you cannot be as categorical about the future in the second case as you were in the first case.

Mr. Belmont.

Yes, sir; you are right.

The Chairman.

Are there any other questions?