(Testimony of Abram Chayes)
Mr. Coleman.
to us just yesterday, that they constitute all of the flies that the State Department has?
Mr. Chayes.
As I say, they constitute all that we have been able to find, all the documents we have been able to find after a most diligent search.
I myself did not personally conduct the search, but we directed responsible officers in all the various places where documents might be to give us all the documents they had, and I think we made a very intensive search, and to my knowledge there are no other documents in the Department relating to this matter in any way.
Mr. Coleman.
Shortly after the Commission-was appointed, you had prepared under your direction, and submitted to the Commission a document entitled "Report of the Department of State Lee Harvey Oswald," is that correct?
Mr. Chayes.
That is correct, sir.
Mr. Coleman.
And this document is an examination of the various actions taken by people in the State Department, and your judgment as to the legal correctness of the various actions?
Mr. Chayes.
Well, as you see, the document consists of five subparts. It is an analysis and summary of the documents in the files. We went through the files, looked at all the documents, tried to summarize them for the Commission so as to give the Commission the fullest possible appreciation of the contacts between Oswald and the Department. Where it was necessary to elucidate policies or matters of law in order to give the Commission that appreciation, we have done so, yes.
Mr. Coleman.
The Report has been given a number of Commission Document No. 2. (Commission Exhibit No. 950.) After that you, on May 8, 1964, sent a letter to the general counsel for the Commission in which you answered certain questions which had been proposed by the general counsel?
Mr. Chayes.
Yes; the general counsel sent us a questionnaire with two attachments, attachment A and attachment B. Attachment A referred to matters mostly concerning Russia and the Embassy in Moscow. Attachment B raised questions about matters within the Department, passport and visa offices within the Department. Each attachment contained a series of questions.
Again I think it is more accurate to state that the responses were prepared under my supervision and direction. I, of course, reviewed every response and and none were sent out without my approval. But I was not the draftsman or
didn't do all of the work.
Mr. Coleman.
The first question that the Commission would like to know about and be given some advice on is the question of whether the acts which Oswald performed in October 1959, and shortly thereafter, would in your opinion result in his loss of citizenship.
Mr. Chayes.
In my judgment they would not amount to expatriating acts. The basic analysis is covered in the third part of Commission Document No. 2, entitled "Lee Harvey Oswald--Expatriation."
Representative Ford.
On what page is that, Mr. Chayes?
Mr. Chayes.
Well, I am sorry, each of the parts begin at No. 1, so it is not very convenient, but it is about halfway through. There is a memorandum entitled "Memorandum Lee Harvey Oswald--Expatriation."
Now, in that memorandum we analyze three sections of the act under which it might be argued that an expatriation took place.
Mr. Coleman.
Yes?
Mr. Chayes.
I say in that memorandum we analyzed the three possible sections of the act under which it might be argued that an expatriation took place, and in each case we conclude, and I think properly, that there was no expatriation. The first section is section----
Mr. Dulles.
May I ask one question? This is a formal opinion of your office as Legal Adviser to the State Department?
Mr. Chayes.
I take responsibility for this as my present opinion, yes, sir, and it goes out over my signature. We are not quite like the Attorney General. We don't have opinions that get bound up in volumes.
Mr. Dulles.
I realize that it is not a formalized opinion from that angle. Was this ever submitted to the Department of Justice for consideration?
|
