Mr. Coleman.

in the file as of June 24 or 25, or would you have at least talked to people to see whether some action should be taken?

Mr. Seeley.

If I had seen this application on June 24 or 25. before it had been issued, I think I probably would have discussed it. But that would have been the end of it. We have no basis upon which to deny him or hold up his passport. There would have been a discussion.

Mr. Coleman.

Are you saying. then, it is your opinion that after reviewing the file that if the request for a passport had come in, and you had looked at the file before the passport was issued, there was no regulation or legal basis on which you could refuse him a passport?

Mr. Seeley.

That is correct. That is absolutely correct.

Mr. Coleman.

And. therefore, I take it then, that the only additional information you got in the October CIA telegram was that he was in Mexico City, and he had visited the Russian Embassy in Mexico City.

Mr. Seeley.

That is correct.

Mr. Coleman.

And it is your position that he had the right to go back to Russia if he wanted to go anyway; is that correct?

Mr. Seeley.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Coleman.

And so, therefore. there is nothing that you could have done about it?

Mr. Seeley.

No, sir.

Mr. Coleman.

Did you make any memorandum or any memoranda when you looked at the file in October 1963?

Mr. Seeley.

Aside from this notation which is in my handwriting, which says "Noted CHS 10-22-63" that is the extent of the documentation that I gave to them.

Mr. Coleman.

But you do say you had some discussions with the other gentlemen that looked at the file?

Mr. Seeley.

I don't have a recollection. I 'don't know whether Mr. Ritchie does. I don't believe he does, either, but the fact that we both had it, he may have passed it to me. You have to get this in context. We have hundreds of these cases. This is one case out of hundreds.
I am surprised that I have got any recollection, but I do have some, as I mentioned before in my testimony here, that I did have some recollection of it.

Mr. Coleman.

No one called you and said, "Well, look, let him have the passport, don't do anything about it." I take it?

Mr. Seeley.

Oh no, sir. At the time the passport was issued, it was issued.

Mr. Coleman.

But I mean when you got the telegram, nobody called you and said, "Look, just skip it. Let him have the passport."

Mr. Seeley.

No, sir.

Mr. Coleman.

"Don't do anything about it"?

Mr. Seeley.

No, sir.

Mr. Coleman.

All the action you took, you took independently?

Mr. Seeley.

Yes, sir; as my own independent action.

Mr. Coleman.

I take it if faced with the situation again, knowing only what you knew on October 22, 1963, you would take the same action today?

Mr. Seeley.

Yes, sir; that is correct. There is one additional item, and that is under our new regulations we do put a card in on a defector or a person--I think I can give you the definition here.
"Defectors, expatriates and repatriates whose activities or background demand further inquiry prior to issuance of passport facilities."
I presume that under this criteria, in fact I know under this criteria that Oswald would have a card placed against him today.

Mr. Coleman.

Is it your opinion as assistant legal counsel to the Passport Office that you still in the final analysis couldn't deny him the passport?

Mr. Seeley.

That is definite.

Mr. Coleman.

And you would have to give it to him?

Mr. Seeley.

Yes, sir.

Mr. Coleman.

Has there been any other case of a defector where you have actually issued him another passport?