THOSE OTHER ITT DOCUMENTS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP09T00207R001000030021-9
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: U
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 5, 2011
• Sequence Number: 21
• Publication Date: March 18, 1973
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2011/08/05: CIA-RDP09T00207R001000030021-9
Jack ,4ndo-sole 18 MAR 1973
Those Other ITT Documents
Confidential ITT documents-so ex-
plosive that they were removed from
other subpoenaed papers and locked in
a safe---contradict the sworn testimony
of former Attorney General John
Mitchell before the Senate Judiciary
Committee a year ago.
The committee asked the Justice De-
partment to revictr the transcripts of
the ITT hearings for possible perjury.
Dcsl?ite some apparent misstatements
under oath, no action has been taken.
Rut now that the suppressed docu-
meri s have surfaced, the Justice De-
partment may he compelled to investi-
gate its former boss.
The documents were included in a
huge collection that International Tel-
ephore & Telegraph delivered under
subpoena to the Securities and Ex-
change Commission. House investi:^,a-
tors claim SEC Chairman William Ca-
sey's aides locked up the most damn-
ing documents in a safe. When Sen. Ed-
ward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. Har-
ley Staggers (D-11'. Va.) sought the ,uh-
poenaed papers, Casey hastily packed
them off to the Justice Department in
34 cartons. Casey subsequently was ap-
pointed underseretary of state.
We have now obtained an official di-
gest of the documents sent to Justice.
The digest, stamped "Confidential." in-
cludes summaries of the memos kept
under lock. These show that ITT's dy-
namic chief executive, Harold Geneen,
made a whirlwind visit to Washin.,ton
in early August 1970 to deal with the
company's antitrust troubles.
On Aug. 4, he sat down with i\litch-
ell who testified at the ITT hearing:
"My office calendar shows that this
meeting could not have lasted more
than 35 minutes ... The meeting was
held at Mr. Geneen's request to dis-
cuss the overall antitrust policy of the
department with respect to conglomer-
ates. I assented to the meeting on the
express condition that the pending '1f'
litigation would not he discussed. Mr.
Geneen agreed to this condition. The
pending ITT litigation was not dis-
cussed at this meeting."
ITT's confidential account of the
meeting, however, gives quite a differ-
ent imp?ession. The digest, sum:nariz-
ing a memo of the meetin states: "It.
also indicates there was a friendly ses-
sion betwcen Gencen and
Mitchell ... It ;udicates that Mitchell
told Gencen that Nixon was not op-
posed to the merger.He believed that
mergers were good. \litchell appar-
ently said that ITT had not been sued
because bigness is had. 'Mitchell em-
phaSr,er, that 'bigness is bad' is not the
case in relation to ITT. . . ."
Presumably, l'1'T would have no rea-
son to deceive itself by preparing a
phony report of the Gencen-\litciell
meeting for its own confidential use.
But if the memo is accurate. the two
men di,l, indeed, discuss the litigation
contrary to i\l;tchell's ottn statcn.ent.
The menu's mention of Nixon is also
significant. For, under oath. Mitchell
declared: "'l'ice President Iute nevet-
talked to gnu' about any antitrt zt calve
that wags in the department."' Vet the
memo reports: ' ilitchell told ,'en
that Nixon N\, ).s not opumscd to the
merger." The cclchrated Dita Beard
memo al-i, chirps that the I'resuirnt
spoke to .`?iitciicli ',bout the 17'T C_e
and asked him to see tiur thi~;,< are
worked oil] tail 1>'.
Another of the suppres?:?d nlctilos,
referring to the same Geneen-flitch-.
cli mee:in_ speaks of a "discussion
re ' :,hng ac counting principals
board." Tn,s was crucial to 1TT's argu-
merlt main-t antitrust prosecution.
Simply sta-ed. ITT contended that new
aecountin :3rincipals would deter fur,
ther acctu'.i*ions and, therefore, that,
the antitrt:.st suit was unnecessary to
stop ITT's expansion.
Yet at the ITT hearing. Mitchell re-
peatedly claimed to have no knowl-
edge of the ITT antitrust case. We
read to Mitchell the summaries of the
ITT memos, and he repeated the de-
nials he had rna'le under oath.
Of his meeting with Gencen. Mitch-
cli said: "We didn't discuss the merg-
ers at all." He acknowledged that they
had talked about the accounting prin-?
cipals board but insisted that the dis-
cussion had been confined to the broad
issue without any reference to ITT's
liti ration. The report that he told
Gencen what the President had said,
Mitchell told us, was "as far from
anything as I can conceive." -
Geneen.'s visit to Washington in Au-
gust 19,0, according to the memos, was
to bang pressure on Richard McLaren,
Ilion tine antitrust chief, to stop prose-
cution. The memos indicate that Gen-
et it and his top Washington hand, 1Vil-'
Liam Merriam. mot with White house
a:des John F; Iici ,tan and Charles'
Colson or Att^- 7.
One etc?mo indicz!es "that Ehrlich
man st . I frequently that Nixon was--
not enforcing a hi,;tess is had nolicy..
lltilLch- n:rn supported what Mitchell
M d iolri Gencen."
Ano'.'r-'r memo, written to Merriam
by his de_;uty. John Ryan, raised the
names cf Jlsurice Stans" then Secre-
tary of Conine rce. a.nd Richard Klein-
dienst, not.- attorney general. A sum-
mar;: o the mcreo, which was dated
Aug. 24. 1070, states it --relates to a
meeting on Aug. 19. 1970. with Maurice
Stuns. There -is an indication that
lil