◆ SpookStack

h (ACLU), “was very much upset and. disturbed c over the prosp. e. of the Senate Post Office: Committee. violating the confidential character of files in their forthcoming inquiry on security procedures. * : lunch on May 12th with former Senator Gillette’ and Hugh Finzel, ‘He referred toh ' - the letter which he had written Senator Johnston’ and which he had also furnished: !-: us wherein he’ made a strong presentation on the necessity of protecting the: | confidential character of files.” He told me that Senator Gillette impressed him as: 4 being very determined to proceed and he inténds to have public hearings onan a individual-case basis. The only two cases that they have definitely decided to hold hearings on are the Wolf--Ladejinsky case and the Chasanow case.. stated that they contemplated developing the basic facts and then it will be. necessar _to get access to the files to see how the cases were handled or mishandled. * Gilde _ told Ferman that he appreciated his concern ‘and was sympathetic to his “concert i -and, of course, would not even consider r getting into raw files. aT So - - - Ferman ‘asked if there was not. some compromise and whether: lesocea information or.summaries might not suffice. Senator Gllette:stated thats i. this might serve the purpose. Ferman stated that: he is even more concerned : > _ now over the confidential character of files since he feels that the liberal forces, i |} were pretty well mobilized behind the necessity of protecting files. in the McCarthys es might now very well reverse themselves and say that t the files shoul be. made public . in the, Chasanow. and | Padejinsky c cases. mt ot “T told Ferman that these, of course, werebnly two cases and that i S must be remembered that there are many other cases and that there might come’ , bare’ the files ‘to show: exactly what was done or what was. not, done. 42 that we, of course, would stick to our traditional position,’ “but that on. thy ou her, ‘LBN:ptm: Ree a ' 67 uN 3 1985.