◆ SpookStack

. . (1) Whether the article was discussed with thes before Lt was published; ° (2) Whether the arti¢le was proof read by them before publication; (3) Whether any of the information contained in the article was furnished by them with the kmowledge that 1t would be published; (4) If they hac any mowledge of the proposed publica- tion, then to indicate whether or not they sede any effort to discourage its publication; and (5) any other inforwation they might deex uaterial. Under date of February 4, 1992, Mr. Fortas and dr. Porter bovn m- plied, and tir. Arnold replied under date of February t, 1952. The replies of these gentlemen requested that the laterrogatori-vs contained in our letter be withdrawn and stricken. <All three replirs answered query Wo. 1 ‘Whether the article wes discussed with you before ‘t was published@® in the affirmative. All tnree stated tnat the article was not proof read by them. (This is not in accord with the statements of Mr. Cassels.) With respect to the third query as to whether any of thea furLisked information cOntained in the article with the knowledg®d toat it woulda be published, all three gentlewen state, in effect, that the author re- quested an interview; that an interview was arranged in the office o° Mr. Papl A. Porter, and that. all three participated in that conference. The effect of the answers is that they did not want the article published but the author insisted he was going to publish it; that trey could not stop his arid they thought, in fairness to themselves, they should consent to a conference in the bope that as the article was ge to be published whether or not they consented, it might be made a accurate. Tae general effect of the foregoing report was submitted orally by; Mr. Canfield to the Committee on Adpissions and Crievances; the gene © | watter was discussed, and it was con¢luded that Ar. Canfield would sex sn interview with ur. Louis Cassels. Mr. Cantield was under the impression tnat Mr. Caaseis'! office was in New York and he planned to see him the neo.t time he went to hes York. It will be remembered that kr. Canfield's activities were #ducwt. restricted because of his 1llaesé> and ° ‘4t waa undoubtealy ame we resul’ 4! thie Lllness that he had not sea: Mr. Cassels. cal 2.