MERRIAM TESTIFIES ON ITT-CIA COLLABORATION

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP91-00901R000600100016-7
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 19, 2016
• Document Release Date: October 18, 2005
• Sequence Number: 16
• Publication Date: March 20, 1973
• Content Type: OPEN

F AD10 E-A#pr ~qk. f sejNQ 111/28 : CIA-RDP9
4435 WISCONSIN AVE. N.W., WASHINGTON, D. C. 20O16, 244-3540
PUBLIC AFFAIRS STAFF
NBC Nightly News
March 20, 1973 6:30 PH
W R C TV
NBC Network
Washington, D.C.
MERRIAM TESTIFIES ON ITT-CIA COLLABORATION
STAT
JOHN CHANCELLOR: The International Telephone & Telegraph
Company, IT&T, was in the news again today. Company officials
testified before a Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee about
charges that the company tried to influence the election in
Chile in 1970. A company official said today that IT&T had
tried to get the White House and the State Department to threaten
Chile with economic reprisals because its Marxist President,
Salvador Allende, was threatening to take IT&T property without
compensation.
Paul Duke covered the hearings.
PAUL DUKE: William Merriam, an ITT vice president,
said the company only wanted to keep its property. But he admitted
company officials met with White House and other government
bigwigs to discuss the Chilean election. And ITT memos showed
the company worked closely with the CIA to stop Allende by economic
pressure and other means.
WILLIAM MERRIAM: We, at this point, had begun to
talk to the Kissinger office and the State Department about
what might happen when Dr. Allende was elected, if he 'was elected.
SENATOR FRANK CHURCH: And you also were.talking to
Mr. Broe at the CIA in recommending a course of action, which
he approved.
MERRIAM: The memorandum was recommending it, yes.
SENATOR CHURCH: Yes. And the memorandum came from
SENATOR EDMUND MUSKIE : Now, that memorandum to me
is a statement cf onllaboration between ITT and CIA on its face.
And I think the burden of proof is on you and 111- to discount
that implication. And you haven't done it.
Approrqpq F(pr, elea?ebAOP~ /1l1k26s; GIA R94 Aq@ lfdo9oq~@ UpQ1 b d 0 i t ,