STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD V. LONG ON INTRODUCTION OF BILL TO PROHIBIT 'MAIL COVERS'

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP66B00403R000100310009-6
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: November 15, 2004
• Sequence Number: 9
• Content Type: SPEECH

Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100310009-6
STATEMENT BY SENATOR EDWARD V. LONG ON
INTRODUCTION OF BILL TO PROHIBIT "MAIL COVERS"
Mr. President:
Freedom has been taking a real beating at the hands of federal agents during
the past few months. Time and again since late last summer the newspapers have
carried stories of federal agents and employees utilizing police state techniques,
In September we learned that out military intelligence people in West Germany
were wiretapping on behalf of a German intelligence agency because the agency itself
was prohibited from tapping by the German Constitution. This was certainly a great
example of liberty for the German people.
Shortly after these news stories, there began to unfold in the newspapers a
story of wiretapping at the State Department. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for
Security had through a "misunderstanding" caused the tapping of the telephone of one
of his subordinates. The Deputy Assistant Secretary at the time of the tapping was
attempting to obtain evidence showing the subordinate had provided certain informa-
tion to a Senate Subcommittee.
Next there was the story of Internal Revenue agents planting a bug or hidden
microphone in a public telephone booth located in the lobby of the I.R.S. head-
quarters here in Washington.
At the same time, there was another story of government agents recording a
telephone conversation with the permission of one party to the call for the purpose
of securing incriminating evidence against the other party,
All was quiet for a few weeks, then we read of telephone taps by government
agents on a Nevada gambler.
This was followed by the report that we are using a field type lie detector
on the Vietnamese people. A practice that is ensured to instruct them in the ways
of free men. I can only hope the punishment for failure to pass the test is not
too severe considering the lack of reliability of a full size detector when used
under the best of circumstances.
Next we read of government agents photographing all persons entering and
leaving a Federal court building and the use of an informer who takes advantage of
his relationship with an accused to be present at discussions between the accused
and his attorneys.
Finally last week, the papers carried stories of "mail covers" ordered by the
Internal Revenue Service and an Assistant U. S. Attorney. Today, I shall direct the
bulk of my comments to this latter practice, But as the days go by I will have
more to say with respect to some of the other stories to which I have alluded,
On August 3, 1962, I discussed at some length here in the Senate Chamber the
subject of "mail covers." This procedure consists of systematically recording the
name and address of the sender, the place and date of postmarking, the class of
mail and any other exterior data on all mail going to a certain address or addressee
addressee, Prior to making my statement, I had written Postmaster General J.Edward
Day requesting a report on the practice. Mr. Louis J. Doyle, General Counsel of
the Post Office Department, had responded to my letter for the Postmaster General.
He readily admitted that there was no statute authorizing "mail covers" but he
attempted to support the Department's authority to conduct such "covers" through
custom and usage and the Postmaster General's general authority to prescribe rules
and regulations for the Department. In 1962, I took issue with his arguments and
I still take issue with them. How can this practice which is completely foreign
to the Depar nneenr a?respons . a ity1 V29 'the p-ick6up00 0009~g
an d delivery of
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29 : CIA-RDP66B00403R000100310009-6
- 2 -
?the mail be authorized without a specific statute? General Counsel Doyle also
admitted in his letter that the Department had somewhere between 500 and 750 covers
in effect on the day he made a check for the purpose of answering my letter. In
concluding my statement in 1962, I called upon the Department to re-evaluate its
position, I urged it to discontinue the use of "mail covers" or in the alternative
if it found such covers absolutely essential to establish enforceable regulations
to limiit and control their use.
Several months later, oft June 28, 1963, I wrote Postmaster General Day to
inquire if the Department had taken any action regarding "mail covers." Some weeks
later, I received a letter again from the General Counsel which in effect said "no."
Shortly thereafter, John Gronouski was appointed Postmaster General to succeed
Mr. Day, So on November 1, 1963, I wrote the new Postmaster General setting out my
position on this matter and enclosing a copy of my floor statement as well as my
correspondence with his predecessor. I told Postmaster General Gronouski that if
the Department did not take action, I would introduce legislation. For the first
time, I received an immediate response and this time from the Postmaster General
himself. He understandably stated that he was not yet familiar with the matter of
"mail covers." But he stated he would take the matter up with the General Counsel
and be in touch with me again. Almost three months have passed without word from
the Postmaster General.
However, I feel I received my answer in the press last week. News stories
covering a pretrial hearing in the Roy Cohn case showed not only that "mail covers"
are still being used but show complete irresponsibility in their use, Mr. Cohn and
his attorney, Thomas Bolan, had asked the Federal District Court in New York to
dismiss an indictment against Mr. Cohn because of the use of "mail covers."
The story revealed in the hearing began on March 24, 1963. At the request of
the Internal Revenue Service, a mail cover was placed on the law office of Roy Cohn
and Mr. Bolan who in addition to beingCohn's attorney is his law associate. At the
same time, covers were also placed on the residences of both men. In fact, the
cover placed on Mr. Bolan's residence included the mail of his wife. Due to the
volume of mail received, the cover on the law office was discontinued after a month
but the covers on the two residences continued.
Subsequently, Mr. Cohn was indicted on the perjury and conspiracy charge which
led to the pretrial hearing of last week. In September, after the indictment, the
Assistant U. S., Attorney in charge of the case ordered "mail covers" placed on the
residences of Cohn and Bolan and also on their office. He told the court he had
information that they were improperly trying to influence government witnesses. The
office cover was reinstated but apparently it again proved too burdensome for it was
discontinued later in the fall. On the other hand, the residence covers were con-
tinued until February 14, 1964, when the defense filed its motion to dismiss the
indictment. These two covers had been in operation from March 24, 1963 to February
14, 1964.
To support its motion, the defense had a copy of the Post Office order dated
March 24, 1963, which directed the establishment of the cover on Bolan's residence.
The Assistant U. S. Attorney who had ordered the "mail covers" in September filed
a sworn statement with the Court prior to the hearing saying the U. S. Attorney's
office had nothing to do with the mail cover established by the March order.
However, during the hearing, he admitted ordering covers in September,
Mr. President, this is a sad commentary on the administration of justice and
on all fedefflovaeencc3re$Re easoLvea. itie ? IA-,gQP6~B0040e scrJ.D00a3 tu009-~
g nvo ve e D str ct ourt escr e t e s tuation as
 Approved For Release 2004/11/29: CIA-RDP66B00403R000100310009-6
~~shocking." Something must be done to prevent such flagrant intrusions on privacy
and the attorney-client irelatiQnship. After two years my patience has come to an
end. In view of these recent developments, I have decided there is only one way to
stop the use of this police state technique. That is, to enact legislation. I
have prepared a bill which would prohibit all mail covers, Consideration has been
given to a court order procedure,,but I am convinced that as in the case of all
other surreptitious surweillaiice techniques such a procedure would not provide any
real control or safeguards. The current wiretap situation shows clearly that even
an absolute ban is not too effective in preventing the use of such practices. How-
ever, I believe the Congress should place itself four square against the use of
"mail covers." The Congress can na longer acquiese in the Post Office Regulation
which authorizes "mail covers" on the request of every law enfoxcement officer in
the nation be he local, state or federal.
Therefore, Mr. President, I introduce for appropriate reference a bill to
prohibit the use of mail covexs. Also, Mr. President, I aslc unanimous consent to
insert at this point in the Record my statement on August 3, 1962, subsequent
correspondence betcreen myself and the Postmaster Generals, as editorial from the
t?]ashington Post relative to this matter, and an article written by William S. White
which recently appeared in the Gdashington Evening Star.
Approved For Release 2004/11/29: CIA-RDP66B00403R000100310009-6