Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, June 7, 1973
[00.41.31] Senator ERVIN. Do you know whether any of the checks that were received by the committee were sent out to some person in Bethesda or Silver Spring Or somewhere in the environs of Washington to be converted into cash and returned to the committee? Mr. SLOAN. Senator, I believe what, you are referring to there is, in the early period 'Mr. Magruder asked me to set up essentially what was an agency account with Mr. Henry Buchanan, a CPA, who was doing work for us. I understood that a certain portion of this money, and I think it was something in the neighborhood of $2,000 a month, went to supplement, the salary of Ken Rietz. I do not know what the balance went for. As I recall, it was quite an argument at that point and I have forgotten the participants or where the final authority came from, but I recall objecting to the concept of a, separate fund out of the hands of the finance committee. Senator ERVIN. Am I correct in inferring from your testimony that the objections of the disbursements of the funds which you paid out under the authority of -Mr. Kalmbach , Mr. Mitchell, and Mr. Magruder was determined by either them or the recipient, of those, funds? Mr. SLOAN. Yes, sir. Senator ERVIN-. And not by Mr. Stans or you? Mr. SLOAN, Not by myself and to the best of my knowledge not, by Mr. Stans. Senator ERVIN-. And so those are the men, or the recipients of those funds, who would be the people who would know what was done. with those funds. Mr. SLOAN. Yes. sir: I would say with one, exception Mr. Stans and were involved in 'the Lankler item of $50,000 that was a finance matter and the Clement Stone matter as well, but the other matters that would be correct. [00.43.28--Classic ERVIN] Senator ERVIN. Well, I can't give any retroactive advice to the Men who were responsible for this disbursing funds for political purposes and concealing the objectives of the disbursements, but I can suggest to future people who attempt to do that that when they do, they may be either rightly or wrongly judged by the standards set out in the Scriptures where it says "Men love darkness rather than light because their deeds are evil." Senator BAKER.. Mr. Chairman. Senator ERVIN. Senator Baker. Senator BAKER. I have one additional question or line of questions and I apologize to the committee and 'Mr. Sloan, but when you have a good witness YOU try to get as much information as you can. In reviewing the testimony that you have given to the committee, and in anticipating some of the testimony I expect, we may receive from other witnesses later, I have tried to establish areas where there might be potential conflicts or where there might be elements of uncertainty or incomplete explanation of either statements of people or the contents of documents. Now, with that preamble, let me point to two or three things I would like to ask you about and, frankly, I confess in advance I am asking you for subjective answers. I think it, is impossible for you to give an Objective answer. I am concerned at this point for a clear definition of the quality and the scope of your warnings or your expressions of concern to Mr. Chapin, Mr. Ehrlichman, Mr. Haldeman, Mr. Mitchell. I have only a sketchy picture of what was said and, therefore all I can ask you to do in addition to what you have already said is give me some appraisal of the quality of that warning. Was it a Stern, intensive sort of thing or was it a casual expression of vague uneasiness? Between those two, if you can help me on this scale of subjectivity, I would be grateful. Mr. SLOAN. Senator, with regard to the Chapin and Ehrlichman matters I think they essentially fall in the same category, As I have tried to point out, I have a very great, deal of trouble putting together in my precise state of mind what factors were affecting that at that point in time. The nature of those meetings were, as in the case of Mr. Haldeman, extremely cordial. They are men I consider my friends. We talked over a range of other things. The introduction in each case was about families, vacations, the social amenities and so forth. I would say probably just, because it is not my character I do not believe, that I made the hard sell anywhere. I think I said I just think there is a problem. I do not believe at that point in time, and I am not sure of the precise sequence, in fact, whether Mr. Magruder made his approach to me, so what I am saying, there were certainly no--it was not a warning in it sense of substantive information. I think it was an expression of personal concern that perhaps maybe I, because Of how I felt, assumed that these gentlemen would intuitively pick that up and perhaps run with the ball from there. I cannot characterize these meetings as something where I said, gee, you guys have to do something about this specific problem or I am going to do something about it. It was not that, kind of proposition, it was very low keyed. [00.47.23]