◆ SpookStack

CHICAGO—The FBI has a lot more ex- plaining to do about its motives for spyiag on the late Dr. Martin Luther King. —= It was publicly described as “‘maticious” in a column written by Carl Rowan that er.ti-- cised the wiretapping of Dr. King's phones, Clyde Tolson, associate PBI Director, says - the wiretapping was done for “national secu-° | rity” reasons, with the approval of the late | Robert Kennedy, then attorney general, ON TIONG IT DOESN'T explaln is the fal- lowing incident: ' About three years ago an ex-FBI agent I- knew asked me to join him for a round of — golf. Atter the round, we sat in the clubhouse chatting. He worxed the conversation around to Dr. King. He told me that the FBI had been using a variety of electronic evesdropping devices on Dr. King. Besides tapping his phone, they had planted listehing devices in hotel roonis be used while traveling. The result, he said, was a very thick fue on Dr. King. He gave me some examples, They were very personal things. Natural y, .if you bug almost anybody's bedroom long enough, you will hear personal things. They were things that I’m sure Dr. Kirg would not want anyone else to know about. *Tf you bugged almost anyone’s bedroom long enough, you would hear things that person didn't want anyone else to know about. BUT NONE OF THE THINGS this @x-F'RI agent told me about reflected in any way on Dr. King's “loyalty,” his “Americanism,” or seemed to be: remotely related to “national security." . Nor did they reflect on hig role as a leader in the civil rights crusade, a winner of the Nobel Peace Prize, or a figure of historie importance. . I asked the ex-FBI agent if his information was merely gossip or if he was sure about it. B He said that he had visited J. Edgar Hoover =in Washington and had been briefed on the contents of the Dr. King file. Lh Ji BOK hee evel. Ci06e te telhug a. | BBE fides Reason | For ‘Bugging’ King It was not uncommon, he said, for trusted ex-agents to be let in on such things. B Obviously, I was supposed to be shocked by ~ the things he told me. And I was. But not for the reasons he assumed. A famous man’s ini- o perfections don’t shock me. ~ The shocking disclosure was that he was actually sitting there telling me such things. LD They were none of my business, and they ~ were none of his business. They were robads'r ‘> business but Tr nuing’s, Tr was plain ofd mud sirging, on a level With the lowest scandal Magazines and tran- Som-peeking public actions. THERE WAS NO DOUBT in my mind then, and none now, that it was being leaked ta me for the purpose of discrediting Dr. King, The same type of thing, I have since searned, ‘occurred in other cities, with other newsmen, And it doesn’t take much tmagination te fig- ure out why. Dr. King and Hoover had en- gaged in a furious public quarrel, Hoover, - quite clearly, did not like Dr. King. That’s why I suggest that the FBI hasn't given an adequate ex panation, If the wiretapping waa béing done for “national security," I presume that it Soca have been kept a big secret. } Secret? How much of a secret was jt ifa © newspaper columnist in Chicago knew of the evesdropping? Or if a former agent —a pri- vate citizen — could talk about it? “(For the record, the ex-agent was not a two- bit gumshoe given to flights of fancy. He wag then a well-known and highly-respected inves- uigator. He is today a famous and powerfu man.) AND IS THE PURPOSE of such official G eavesdropping to gather spite-material, trans- om-peeking tidbits that will be whispered in “S the ears of opinion makers? ; That, of course, is the greatest danger Big Brother and his big ear. If that’s what Dr, King’s file war then I'll gladly second Rowan's Hoover be replaced. The scandal sheet busines: G private industry.