In this statement Mr. Cosgriff disclosed that he had had correspondence with Senator Benton commencing with the early part of 1950 in regard to the reorganization plan for the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, with which office Mr. Cosgriff had been engaged in an extended dispute. Mr. Cosgriff stated that he had written to Senator Benton, after he had discovered that Senator Benton was one of the greatest proponents of the plan, and received replies from the Senator. Mr. Cosgriff further advised that he first met Senator Benton on June 28, 1950, when he testified before the Senate Banking and Currency Committee on behalf of the Bimson Plan. Mr. Cosgriff stated:

After my testimony on the 28th, most of which occurred before Senator Benton, the other members of the Committee had left the room for one reason or another (Senator Maybank having left during the hearing), I talked with Senator Benton both in the hearing room and our conversation continued into his office. He complimented me on my testimony and during the conversation we started to talk about the Reorganization Plan I of 1950, specifically the part referring to the Office of Comptroller of the Currency. Senator Benton told me he was going to do some work on both the Reorganization Plan and the Bimson Plan and other Hoover Commission Proposals, and it was at that time on June 28, 1950 that I expressed a desire to pay for the cost of the printing and the mailing . . .

Mr. Cosgriff said that he was called back to Washington about July 10 or 12, for consultation at the White House at which time he was advised he was being considered for an RFC Directorship. Mr. Cosgriff further advised that it was then, when he was in Washington for approximately 10 days, that he gave Senator Benton $300 in the first. of several visits to Senator Benton's office during that period. Mr. Cosgriff stated that he gave Senator Benton $300 at that time, in cash, to help defray the cost of disseminating literature on the Hoover Proposals, and he is quite definite about the fact that he "never purchased a bank draft on the Continental National Bank and Trust Company to Senator Benton at any time." Upon giving the cash to Senator Benton, Mr. Cosgriff states that Senator Benton called in his secretary and told her to deposit the money to his special account. Mr. Cosgriff further states that he again returned to Washington in the middle of August, whereupon he went to Senator Benton's office and asked him how he was getting along with the distribution of the literature, and whether all the money had been used up yet; that Senator Benton told him the money had been used, whereupon Mr. Cosgriff gave Senator · Benton an additional $300. Mr. Cosgriff advised in his statement:

I told Senator Benton I had collected part of this sum from other bankers but that was actually not the case. Although I intended to later collect it but never did.

The additional $300 was found to be covered by a check dated August 21, 1950, to the order of William Benton (see Exhibit 151) and was deposited in the Riggs National Bank of Washington, D. C., on September 19, 1950, bearing the bank's stamp of September 20. Mr. Cosgriff stated that he presumed

.. that the mailings I was paying for were to be made to banks and manufacturing companies, possibly Chambers of Commerce or fraternal organizations or individuals interested in this plan and in position to do something about it. Mr. Cosgriff also said in his November 11, 1952 statement:

I can definitely state that I did not discuss my RFC appointment with Senator Benton at any time prior to its becoming public knowledge, which was sometime in August 1950. After it was public knowledge, sometime in August of 1950, I

did discuss the appointment with Senator Benton with regard as to whether or not I should accept it, although at no time did I ask him to exert any influence in my behalf. If he did such a thing, it was unknown to me.

As far as my testimony before the Fulbright Committee is concerned, at the time I testified that I had contributed to Senator Benton's campaign I did not understand the fine point legal difference between a campaign contribution and my paying for the distribution of the literature. Therefore, I considered the entire thing to have something to do with politics and being in the nature of a political contribution. Also during the Fulbright testimony any referral I may have made referring to urgings by Senator Benton to take the job, took place subsequent to the time my appointment became public knowledge; as well as to further urgings by Senator Benton to stay on the job despite the fact that no hearings had been scheduled regarding confirmation of the appointment, as well as several other opportunities to quit. I discussed with Senator Benton at several times as to whether I should stay on during the period from October 1950 to May 1951.

Mr. Cosgriff further stated that in regard to his letter of June 4, 1952, read by Senator Benton into the July 1952 hearings, that it was in response to a letter of May 28, 1952, and a phone call of June 2, 1952, both from Senator Benton.

In addition to the signed statement, the investigator from this staff examined with Mr. Cosgriff's permission, the personal and office diaries of Mr. Cosgriff kept during the period that he was an RFC Director (October 12, 1950 to May 4, 1951). The diary contained several references to meetings with Senator Benton, including the following: "March 7, 1951 (office diary) 12:30-Lunch with Senator Benton. Call him from floor." (Personal Diary) "Had lunch with Senator Benton in the restaurant at the Capitol Building. He stated he was disturbed about what was happening to RFC in general and regretted the part he had played in my employment by the organization. I told him I did not feel he was in any way responsible as I should be old enough to take care of myself. He offered to do anything he could to be of assistance."

TESTIMONY OF SENATOR BENTON ON NOV. 24, 1952

The Crosgriff statement of November 11, 1952, and the excerpts from the diary were introduced into the executive session hearings held before this Subcommittee on November 24, 1952, relating to the Cosgriff matter. At this hearing, Senator Benton, who testified, identified a deposit slip of September 19, 1950 to an account in the Riggs National Bank of Washington, D. C. under the name of William Benton (Exhibit 152). This slip lists under "Checks Deposited," a $300 item on the Continental National Bank and Trust Company of SaltLake City, which Senator Benton stated was the August 21, 1950 check of Mr. Cosgriff and, in addition, it shows a deposit of $500 in currency, which is the only 1950 consequential currency deposit in this account during this period. The $500 was identified by Senator Benton to be, in part, the $300 cash contribution of Mr. Cosgriff, made in July 1950 (p. 48 original transcript). The ledger sheets covering Senator Benton's account at the Riggs National Bank is attached as Exhibit 153.

At the outset of the testimony of November 24, 1952, Senator Benton stated that the first time word ever reached him that Mr. Cosgriff had a special interest in the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency was that very morning (November 24) when he was shown Cosgriff's November 11 statement (p. 7).

Senator Benton then stated at this hearing that Mr. Cosgriff told him, at a date of which he is uncertain, that he had been offered the

RFC appointment and was considering taking it. Senator Benton specifically stated in regard thereto (pp. 22-23):

Just as Walter Bimson, I believe, urged him to take it, I formed a high opinion of him. I had a high opinion of his testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee; here he is, a rich and successful private banker. I said "This would be a great experience for you to come down here to Washington and get this experience".... He was a Republican banker and nominated as a Republican member of the Board. His friendly interest in these mailings of mine quite naturally generated a friendly interest on my part in him, and I thought he looked like a good appointment.

I don't know who else besides Senators Watkins and Thomas may have talked to him, I don't know who recommended him to Dawson. I don't know the sequence by which he was offered the appointment, and to the best of my recollection I have never been told it.

Further in his testimony Senator Benton states (p. 24):

I did not hear any more about Cosgriff or what had happened until I was elected and was back here in the Spring at which time he came in to see me, as his diary shows, wanting to know whether I thought the Reorganization Plan on the RFC was going to go through abolishing these 5 fellows and setting up only one of them, or whether they were going to be confirmed. I said, "I don't know. I will ask Senator Fulbright about it".

The reason Senator Fulbright is so well informed in this testimony is I went to him and very frankly told him I said "I want you to know I have a personal interest in this man and he contributed, paid for some of the mailings on the Hoover Reorganization proposals that I sent out last year".

To cast further light on whether Senator Benton knew anything about Mr. Cosgriff's RFC nomination prior to August 9, 1950, when President Truman actually submitted the nomination to the United States Senate, the following testimony of Senator Benton's given at the November 24 executive session may be considered pertinent (pp. 33-34):

When he first talked to me about the RFC matter, there was a question of clearance, with Senators Thomas and Watkins, by the White House, before they could offer him the job... My recollection from the first I heard of him considering this job was that there was a good deal of maneuvering and he had to be cleared with Senators Thomas and Watkins, and it was during that period, it was my recollection, he asked me about whether I thought it would be a good thing for him to take the job, if he could get it, and I thought it would be a very fine thing, I said, if he could get it.

Although it would appear from the above testimony that Senator Benton knew and discussed the pending RFC appointment with Mr. Cosgriff, prior to its final submission to the Senate and the simultaneous public announcement on August 9, 1950, nevertheless, Senator Benton, at another point in the testimony, stated that just because it became public knowledge in August did not mean he (Šenator Benton) knew about it then, and that prior to his (Mr. Cosgriff's) appointment he never heard of it (pp. 41-42).

Senator Benton further stated in the testimony that in 1950 he received similar payments to this which he handled in a similar manner. Senator Benton testified on this point (p. 49):

In 1950 I had some other gifts made to me on which I sought and received counsel which were spent similarly on items that were adjudged to be noncampaign items.

However, Senator Benton declined to disclose any further details. In view of the fact that Senator Benton was unsuccessful in the recent election and was no longer a member of the Senate, he was not pressed further.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

On the basis of the evidence submitted, we can only concur with Senator Benton that the matter of the Cosgriff donations was badly handled. If the monies were intended to be contributions to Benton's political campaign, as indicated in the original testimony of Mr. Cosgriff before the Fulbright Committee, it would appear that the failure to report this contribution in his statement filed on 1950 Campaign Receipts and Expenditures with the Secretary of the Senate, placed Senator Benton in violation of Section 307 of the Federal Corrupt Practices Act, which requires that a senatorial candidate shall file "a correct and itemized account of each contribution received by him, or by any person for him, with his knowledge or consent, from any source, in aid or support of his candidacy for election, or for the purpose of influencing the result of the election, together with the name of the person who has made such contribution", and Section 302 defines "contribution" to include "a gift, subscription, loan, advance or deposit of money or anything of value . . ."

If the sums contributed by Walter Cosgriff were not intended as campaign contributions, but donations particularly earmarked to be used for a specific purpose, as later asserted by both Cosgriff and Benton, namely, to pay the cost of printing and mailing Senator Benton's speeches on Government Reorganization, we still have the issue of whether Senator Benton's acceptance of contributions, no matter what the purpose, from a person who was then under either presidential consideration, or actual nomination for an office in the United States Government requiring confirmation by the United States Senate, was ethical and proper.

Although there appears to be some conflict in the testimony and statements of Senator Benton, as to whether he had any knowledge that Cosgriff was to be nominated to the RFC Directorship at the time of receiving the first contribution in July 1950, he was on public notice at least on August 9, 1950, if not before, when the President announced Mr. Cosgriff's nomination; therefore, his acceptance of an additional contribution by check dated August 21, 1950, places Senator Benton in a rather inconsistent position. Senator Benton should have known that as a member of the United States Senate he would be called upon to exercise a vote should the matter of Cosgriff's nomination reach the floor. Although Senator Benton is, by his own statement, a wealthy man, and therefore not reliant upon such sums as Mr. Cosgriff gave him, this would not seem to change the principle involved.

A law requiring Members of Congress to publicly acknowledge the acceptance of any funds given to them in connection with the responsibilities and duties of their office, would certainly place the use of these funds for legitimate purposes free from any question. Such a law should require the listing of the donor, donee, and purpose, if any, and should have some criminal sanction attached which would discourage a surreptitious handling of such funds. It is herewith suggested that the Congress give special consideration to legislation in this field.

ADDENDUM

to Subcommittee Report on S. R. 187 and S. R. 304

The foregoing report is based substantially upon testimony and exhibits which were presented before the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. However, because of a lack of continuity in the Committee membership and delays beyond the control of the present membership of the Committee, its preparation has given us great concern as a number of its aspects have become moot by reason of the 1952 election. Such facts therein as were known to the people of the States particularly affected have been passed upon by the people themselves in the election. Thus, as we pass our studies on to our colleagues of the incoming session, we want the Senate of the United States to understand that the Committee's efforts have been harassed by a lack of adequate time and lack of continuity in the Committee membership. There will be forthcoming in the next few days a Committee report embodying suggestions on remedial legislation affecting election laws and procedures.