-»• I V-'IV I f^
c*yi
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING
TO IRVING PERESS
7- J'. d-A— n__YT.-^-"«t-^«^ • -^^-^Ivt^
HEARING
BEFORE THE
PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PART 4
MARCH 22, 1955
I'l-iiited for the use of the Committee on Government Opornlions
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60030 WASHINGTON : 1955
'Mb
Boston Public Library
Cuperintendent of Documents
MAY 1 8 1955
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOHN L. MCCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina THOMAS E. MARTIN, Iowa
Walter L. Reynolds, GMef Clerk
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel
Donald F. O'Donnell, Assistant Chief Counsel
James N. Juliana, Chief Counsel to the Minority
II
I
CONTENTS
Page
Appendix 348
Testimony of —
Forbes, Lt. Col. Lowell L. (retired) 323
Moore, Lt. Col. George B 338
Strickler, Maj. Gen. Daniel D 2S7
White, Maj. Gen. Miller B. (retired) 269
EXHIBITS Introduced Appears
on page on page
50. Memorandum, first comment from Assistant Chief of Staff,
G-1, to The Adjutant General, November 18, 1953 271 348
51. Army Personnel Board worksheet pertaining to Irving Peress,
November 20, 1953 273 (*)
52. Disposition form, comment No. 3, from Army Personnel
Board to G-1, November 23, 1953 282 (*)
53. Page 2, Army Personnel Board worksheet pertaining to Irving
Peress, November 20, 1953 326 (*)
54. Letter from Lieutenant General Burress, commanding. First
Army, to General Bolte, Vice Chief of Staff, Department
of the Army, November 6, 1953 339 348
55. Department of the Army Regulations 605-200, January 26,
1951 343 (*)
56. Department of the Army, summary sheet from G-1, subject
Irving Peress, to Office of the Chief of Staff, November 25,
1953 344 349
67. Referral slip from Chief of Staff to G-1, December 4, 1953 345 (*)
58. Department of the Army, second summary sheet from G— 1,
subject Irving Peress, to Office of the Chief of Staff, De-
cember 12, 1953 345 (*)
59. Disposition form, subject Irving Peress, from Chief of Per-
sonnel Actions Branch, G— 1, to Office of The Adjutant
General, January 11, 1954 345 (*)
60. Memorandum for record, signed by Maj. G. R. Dufresne,
Adjutant General Corps, March 2, 1954 346 350
61. Memorandum from The Adjutant General, Department of
the Army, to commanding general, First Army, January
18, 1954 346 350
• May be found in the flies of the subcommittee.
rn
AMY PEESONNEL ACTIONS EELATING TO
IMim PEEESS
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 1955
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the
Committee on Government Operations.
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met at 10 : 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room
357 of the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators John L. McCleHan (Democrat), Arkansas;
Henry M. Jackson (Democrat), Washington; Stuart Symington
(Democrat), Missouri; Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Democrat) North Caro-
lina; Joseph R. McCarthy (Republican) Wisconsin; Karl E. Mundt
(Republican), South Dakota; and George S. Bender (Republican),
Ohio.
Present also : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Donald F. O'Don-
nell, chief assistant counsel; James N. Juliana, chief counsel to the
minority ; J. Fred McClerkin, legal research analyst ; Paul J. Tierney,
investigator ; and Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk,
(Present at this time are Senators McClellan and Symington.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
It is perfectly obvious we are goin^ to labor under some most serious
and disagreeable situations, possibly more than we have in the
past, and we are going to ask you to be as quiet in the room here as
possible. We would like to urge the witnesses to raise their voice so
that we may be able to hear.
Gen. Miller B. White, please, is the next witness.
TESTIMONY OF MAT. GEN. MILLER B. WHITE (RETIRED)
The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall
give before this investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
General White. I do.
The Chaikman. General, state your full name and your rank,
and your place of residence.
General White. Miller B. Wliite, major general, retired.
The Chairman. Where do you reside. General ?
General White. South of Alexandria, in Fairfax County, Va.
The Chairman. When did you retire?
General White. January 31, 1955.
The Chairman. You retired this year?
General White. Yes, sir.
269
270 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. General Wliite, during the latter part of 1953 you
were chairman of a personnel board ; is that correct ?
General White. President of the Army Personnel Board.
Mr. Kennedy. What type of cases did you consider on that per-
sonnel board ?
General White. There were a great variety of cases. We acted
upon certain appointments in the Regular Army, certain types of pro-
motions; homosexuals, elimination of homosexuals; security risks;
category cases, certain types of category extensions and certain ques-
tions about relief from active duty, resignations, reclassifications;
and any number of personnel problems.
Mr. Kennedy. One of the categories that you handled then was the
category of security risks, in order to eliminate them from the Army ?
General White. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, General, in an average month, or say the month
of November and December, how many cases would you handle of the
various types?
General White. Of all types ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
General White. The Personnel Board itself, I would say, in No-
vember 1953 processed probably 600 cases. The same group of offi-
cers and the same four General officers also were with the Decora-
tions Board, and the Physical Disability Appeal Board and the Army
Review Board, and they handled in wearing those hats, we will say,
probably another 100 to 150 cases.
Mr. Kennedy. You handled approximately 700 to 800 cases during
the month ?
General White. Actually the total for that month, because I looked
yesterday to see, I think it was 767 cases.
Mr. Kennedy. 767 cases in the month of November ?
General White. In the month of November, yes, sir.
Mr, Kennedy During that month, specifically on November 20, you
considered the case of Irving Peress ?
General White. The records so indicate.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, General, you have no independent recollection
of the Irving Peress case ?
General White. None whatever.
Mr. Kennedy. When it first appeared in the newspapers, the name
was not familiar to you ?
General White. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. But since you have returned, or since the case has
broken in the papers, you have reviewed the documents in the Depart-
ment of the Army and have tried to recollect what occurred during
that period of time ?
General White. I have reviewed the record of the Personnel Board,
and no other documents.
Mr. Kennedy. The Personnel Board, the documents that were avail- 1 1
able to you ?
General White. As a part of the permanent records of the Per-
sonnel Board, and nothing else.
Mr. Kennedy. So that your testimony today is based on a review
of those documents, rather than on any personal recollection that you
might have of the case ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 271
General White. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Thank you.
Now, General White, when the Peress case first came to the Per-
sonnel Board, from the review of the records you have found that it
came from the Personnel Section and there were four alternatives as
to possible actions that could be taken against Irving Peress?
General White. That is right.
Mr. KjiNNEDY. Would you identify this document, please?
(Document was handed to the witness.)
Mr. Kennedy. It is difficult to read, and perhaps you can see a
better copy.
General White. This is similar to the paper that we have in the
file, is it?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes. Would you identify the document?
General White. It appears to be the same, identical.
Mr. Kennedy. What is that document? Could you identify it as
the document that you received of the various alternatives to be
considered ?
General White. It is what in the Department they call a disposi-
tion form, I think, or was, and this was the first comment from the
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1, to the Adjutant General, directing that
the attached case, that is the Peress case, be referred to the Army
Personnel Board for consideration and recommendation.
The Chairman. General, if you can speak a little louder, it will
be helpful.
General White. I don't have a very loud voice, or a very strong
voice, sir.
The Chairman. I am sorry.
General White. You don't want me to read this document, do you I
Mr. EIennedy, No ; I just wanted you to identify it, and I will ask
to have it made an exhibit.
The Chairman. It will be made exhibit No. 50.
(Exhibit No. 50 appears in the appendix on p. 348.)
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the original here?
General White. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. There were four alternatives in that document. No.
1 said that the officer might be relieved from active duty under the
involuntary release program that was then in existence in the Army,
and that should be done immediately.
The second alternative was that he should be released on a later
increment of the involimtary release program; and the third sug-
gestion was that elimination proceedings should start under 605-200,
which was a Board setup; and fourth, that the officer should be re-
tained on active duty. Is that correct?
General White. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Paragraph 3 of that memorandum also sets forth
the fact that under the Doctor Draft Act if an officer remained on duty
for a period of more than a year, and then was relieved from active
duty, his commission would be automatically terminated. Did you see
that?
General White. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. General Wliite, under ordinary circumstances with
so many cases to consider, you would not have meetings of the Board ;
is that right ?
272 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General White. Well, it would be better to say the Board was in
continuous session from eight o'clock in the morning until four o'clock
in the afternoon.
Mr. Kennedy. And you sat in one room ?
General White. Yes ; in one room,
IVIr. Kennedy. And passed these cases from one desk to another?
General White. That is right. In other words we read the case,
and made our decision, and noted it on the worksheet, and passed
it on. If there was any disagreement, then there was usually dis-
cussion.
Mr. Kennedy. You have no recollection of any meeting on this par-
ticular case ?
General White. No, I don't know what you mean by "meeting."
Mr. Kennedy. Or that you had any discussion on this particular
case?
General White. No, I do not recall any discussion.
Senator Symington. Did you keep any minutes of any of these
meetings ?
General White. Do we ? The Board used what we termed a work-
sheet, and we retained that worksheet. That had all of the notes that
the individual members of the Board made, and that the recorder
made in an identification. That was all.
Senator Symington. Were there any worksheets involved in this
case?
General White. Yes, sir, there was one worksheet, and an inter-
office memo, a part of the Board record.
The Chairman. Before you complete this, Mr. Counsel, this docu-
ment that you have been testifying from containing the four different
actions that might be taken in the Peress case, or in other cases that
you were considering, I believe this does refer directly to the Peress
case — is that a document of instructions to the Board from the Chief
of the Personnel Branch as to how it might be handled ?
General White. No, sir.
The Chairman. What is it?
General White. You couldn't call it that. It is an instruction to
the Adjutant General to obtain the recommendations of the Board
as to which of thase four courses of action the Board recommended.
The Chairman. It was submitted to you as a guide ?
General White. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. As a guide or instruction that under a given state
of facts, as you found them, you could take 1 of the 4 actions, or the
Board could?
General White. I would interpret it this way. Senator. Here
are four alternatives ; which do you recommend ?
The Chairman. So it was a guide to you ?
General White. Yes, sir, it was, to that extent.
The Chairman. To that extent that the Peress case, or in the Peress
case 1 of 4 actions could be taken ?
General White. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. With respect to it?
General White. Yes.
The Chairman. And it was submitted to the Board to get the
Board's recommendation as to which of the four actions the Board
thought should be employed ?
J
ARMY PERSOiSnsrEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 273
General White, That is right.
The Chairman. All right. Now go ahead. I wanted to get clear
what this document is.
General White. That is the way I interpret it, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. General, you had a recorder on the Board, a Colonel
Forbes ; is that right ?
General White, That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Colonel Forbes would bring together the various
documents that you would consider prior to making your de-
termination ?
General White. Well, we are speaking now only of the so-called
security risk cases.
Mr. Kennedy. In those cases he would
General White. In those cases the record usually came to the
Board with the directive or whatever the reference was— this docu-
ment here — together with the G-2 file on the individual showing the
information they had. Colonel Forbes usually read the file and made
his own comment on the worksheet and sent it in to the Board, usually
with his own recommendation as to what he considered the best action.
Mr. Kennedy. I ask you if you will identify this document, please?
(Document was handed to the witness.)
General White. This is a Personnel Board worksheet, dated No-
vember 20, 1953, and pertaining to the case of Irving Peress, et cetera.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, may we have that made an exliibit?
The Chairman. That will be made exhibit 51.
(Exhibit No. 51 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. General, on that worksheet the recorder. Colonel
Forbes, had made a suggestion as to what, in his mind, was the best
alternative ?
General White. Yes; do you want me to state what he recom-
mended?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes ; would you state that ?
General White. Colonel Forbes, I quote :
Ample evidence this oflScer a security risk. See disposition form comment
No. 1. Suggest best of alternative actions "a." Going back to the first exhibit
that we discussed, "a" is the choice that says he should be designated as sub-
standard and relieved from active duty with the first increasement of the
involuntary release program.
In other words, Forbes said we should adopt course "a", which
gets him out, to use his words "gets him out soonest."
The Chairman. Is that the recorder of the Board ?
General White. The recorder recommending that to the Board.
The Chairman. All right.
General White. Shall I go on, Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
General White. Forbes adds, "and commission automatically ter-
minated by law," paragraph 3, same disposition form.
There he refers to paragraph 3 of the first exliibit.
Mr. Kennedy. That paragraph 3 points out that under the Doctors
Draft Act, after he served a year, his commission would be auto-
matically terminated ?
General White. Forbes goes on :
In no event should he remain on active duty longer than necessary. Why
waste time, and so forth, with AR 605-200.
60030—55 — pt. 4 2 * .
274 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
That is an Army regulation which provides for a board procedure
for the elimination of officers.
Mr. IvENNEDT. That 605-200 provides for a board to pass on that?
General White. Action under that was the third alternative offered
in the G-1 paper.
The Chairman. That was the recorder recommending to the Board
that no Board action should be required for him to be relieved but
that you should recommend immediate removal ?
General White. That is right.
The Chairman. From active duty?
General White. From active duty, yes.
Senator Symington. Could I ask a question there? When you had
that recommendation, General, from the recorder, did you or he know
that Peress had stated away back in 1952 that he was not a member of
any subversive organization ?
General White. I can't answer that. Senator, because I don't know
what was in the classified file that was sent to us. I don't know
whether that information was in the file or not.
Senator Symington. If you didn't know that then why was there a
recommendation that he was a security risk ?
General White. Well, the G-2 file would contain all of the report
of investigation of this man's background and his preinduction activ-
ities, and that would make him a security risk. That is regardless of
whether he had done that.
Senator Symington. Your decision was based on that?
General White. On the G-2 information.
Senator Symington. On the G-2 information, without the knowl-
edge of the fact that he had said he was not a member of any sub-
versive organization ?
General White. I don't know whether we had that knowledge or
not.
Senator Symington. I see. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy. In connection with that, General, under normal con-
ditions, was the AG 201 file before the Board?
General White. I am not positive, Mr. Kennedy. On certain type
cases the 201 file was always with it, and on these alleged security
risks, my recollection is that quite often they came up only with the
G-2 information and if we wanted the 201 file we had to send for it.
So I can't say whether that was with this file or not.
The Chairman. But in this case, whether you had the file before
you or not, the G-2
General White. We must have had the G-2 file.
The Chairman. You did have from Intelligence, or from G-2 in-
formation that the man was obviously a security risk?
General White. Yes, sir, obviously from the record. We could
tell here from the enclosures that accompanied the G-1 memorandum
that they list two, and the only thing is I can't identify them. One
is apparently a confidential report numbered report to G-2 with an
enclosure, and another is a disposition form to G-1 from G-2 with
one enclosure.
That would have been the G-2 recommendation on this man with
their classified file on him.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 275
The Chairman. In other words, whether you had or ever knew
anything about his initial form that he filed, in making application
for a commission, that was form 390, 1 believe
General White. We still would have eliminated him.
The Chairman. Without knowing about that, you knew at the time
in passing on this case that Peress was regarded as a security risk
and you as a board were acting on him as such ?
General White. That is right.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you considered this recommendation of the
recorder. Colonel Forbes, General White, and below that you have
written the action that was taken by the board. Would you read us
that?
General White. I won't read the abbreviations because this is
Greek to everybody but us.
Mr. Kennedy. The way you read the one before ?
General White. This was my notation on the record : "Relief from
active duty now as substandard. After relief from active duty, start
new action under SR 420-5, and 600-220-1, to terminate ORC com-
mission without board action." That I initialed with the "W" 1
always use.
The Chairjian. You were midertaking in that decision, as recorded
there, you were undertaking to carry out the recommendations of the
recorder, were you ?
General White. That is right.
The Chairman. You were, in your notation ?
General Whtit:. Well, not entirely. It depends on how you inter-
pret the recorder's notes. "Wliat I was saying was (1) get him off of
active duty as early as possible, and the simplest and quickest method
was the solution "a" of the G-1 paper. That I went along with.
The second point, I said, "Start new action to terminate his reserve
commission," which to me indicates that I did not go along with this
suggestion that if he was relieved after 12 months service his commis-
sion would be automatically revoked.
The Chairman. According to your interpretation of your action,
you were ti'ying to get him out sooner ?
General White. As soon as possible, Senator.
The Chairman. And immediately have him relieved from active
duty and initiate proceedings to terminate his commission?
General White. As a security risk.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Looking back on it then, you felt that it was not
proper that his commission should be terminated under the doctors'
draft program, or did you feel you were just not aware of this para-
graph 3 in the suggestion ?
General White. Mr. Kennedy, of course I am only reconstructing
from here, and I don't know what I thought or what I was aware of
because I don't remember the case. But looking at this, this is my
interpretation :
I had to be aware of paragraph 3. It was staring me in the face.
I am quite sure I wouldn't have read down to that and ignored that.
The fact that I went on to recommend new action to to terminate
his reserve commission to me says that I did not accept paragraph 3
of the G-1 paper as a satisfactory solution.
276 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATESTG TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. In other words, you rejected the recommendation
of the recorder ?
General White. That is the way I interpret my notes.
Mr. Kennedy. General, were you aware that under this involuntary
release program, that the officer would receive or the individual who
was being taken off active duty would receive 90 days?
General White. No, I did not. I wasn't aware of that.
Mr. Kennedy. And that 90 days would have taken liim into
General White. Taken him well past the 12 month period
apparently.
Mr. Kennedy. Going back to your written notes, General, you men-
tioned two regulations there, 420-5, was one. Now, at that particu-
lar time, 420-2 was not in existence. Is that right ?
General White. There is such a regulation but it had no bearing
on this subject. I don't know where I got that number. The refer-
ence should have been to an Army regulation, a special regulation on
the reserve officers. That is 140-175. I once thought I found how
I copied that number down, but I wouldn't remember. It is a
mystery to me how that number got on there or how I got that number.
That is the error of trying to quote regulation numbers from memory.
Mr. Kennedy. You probably had another regulation in mind?
General White. I am quite sure I had that 140-175, and I believe
that was pertaining to the separation of the reserve officers, not on
active duty. 600-220-1, I think that is the correct reference.
Mr. Kennedy. However, under that, you since discovered, it was
impossible to do without board action ?
General White. I understand that to be the case now. I am sure
that I was not aware of that in November of 1952. The regulation
was changed in late October of 1953, and I was not aware that the
change had been published. 600-220-1 was not changed to conform
to that until January of 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. So that when you mentioned here to start new
action under these two regulations, one was not in existence and the
second regulation it was impossible to follow the instructions to
terminate his reserve commission without board action because board
action was required ?
General White. I wasn't aware it was impossible. We had been
doing it right along for several years since 1950. We had been termi-
nating reserve commissions without board action.
(Senator Bender enters the room.)
General White. Now, as I understand the change that was made
in October of 1953, and that I was not aware of in November, at least
I was not aware it had been published, it says that the officer may
request a board, and I believe that is correct. You could start to
terminate and then if he insisted on a board you could have it, but he
would still be an inactive officer.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, these suggestions under the involuntary re-
lease program as the officer could have had 90 days, and if he had
elected to take the 90 days, that would have taken him over past Janu-
ary 1, 1953, in which his commission would have been automatically
terminated ?
General White. That seems to be the case.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, I go on.
(Witness conferred with his counsel.)
I
ARlVTi' PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 277
General White. Wliat perhaps should be cleared up, is what I
meant "without board action." Of course, we were a board but the
board I was referring to there was what was termed a board of
inquiry, that was held in the field, say in an Army area, at which
the officer appeared in person with counsel, if he desired, and so on.
Mr. Kennedy. At that particular time, General, in order to give an
individual or an officer less than a discharge under honorable condi-
tions, that officer would have to appear before one of these boards,
wouldn't he ?
General White. As far as I knew at that time, and I am sure it was
the view of the board, you could not give an officer a discharge under
honorable conditions by a board. The only way you could get such a
discharge would be by sentence of court-martial or by resignation for
the good of the service, so you could not give him
Mr. Kennedy. You could not give him what ?
General White. A discharge under other than honorable conditions,
not by board action.
Mr. Kennedy. Perhaps I am wrong on it, General, but I thought
that under board action at that time you could give an officer less than
a discharge under honorable conditions, but as a practical matter at
that time the officers only receive honorable discharges, or discharges
under honorable conditions. As a practical matter, they didn't receive
an honorable discharge.
General White. The board could not give a discharge under other
than honorable conditions. No board that I sat on could o-ive that.
]\Ir. Kennedy. You could not to a Eegular Army officer, out could
you to a Reserve officer ?
General White. You couldn't to any officer.
The Chairman. Do I understand that your board could not recom-
mend a dishonorable discharge ?
General White. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. The board that you served on in passing on these
cases, even though a man was a security risk, notwithstanding however
undesirable he might be, or how much he might have perjured himself
to get a commission, you couldn't recommend or take action to bring
about a discharge less than honorable ?
General White. Senator, to take your phrase, if he had, say, per-
jured himself to get his commission, he could be tried by court-martial.
We could recommend trial. But tlie board could not direct his dis-
charge under other than honorable conditions.
The Chairman. All your board could do was say "Discharge him"
and that meant an honorable discharge ; is that right ?
General White. We could say give him a general discharge, which
is a discharge under honorable conditions, and there is a distinction
between that and an honorable discharge.
The Chairman. Which kind did Peress receive? Is his the highest
type you could give ?
General White. I don't know, sir.
The Chairman. You don't know ?
General White. No.
The Chairman. This other board, that you talked about, that you
referred to, that they would have to go before a board, that is more or
less what we might term a board in due process, where the officer has
278 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
a right to be heard and the board to adjudicate or make an adjudica-
tion of whether he was entitled to an honorable discharge ?
General White. It is a formal hearing.
The Chairman. But your board had no formal hearing and it sim-
ply took the record ?
General White. We took the record and nothing else.
Mr. Kennedy. General, I think
Senator Symington. As I understand it, your board would decide
whether or not you would recommend that a man be discharged or
not, is that right ''.
General White. That is right.
Senator Symington. As to the nature of the discharge, that was
not a ]Drerogative of your board, is that right ?
General White, senator, in those cases where we recommended or
even directed discharge, which we frequently did, we then indicated
the character of the discharge, either honorable or general. For ex-
ample, had an enlisted man with the same allegations, we could say
"Discharge him, general discharge." We could direct it.
In this case, we weren't asked anything about that. We volun-
tarily said, in effect, "Don't automatically terminate his commission,
but terminate it under 600-220-1." That required new action to be
initiated and whoever and wherever that would be initiated would be
the place to determine the character of the discharge. Had it come
back to us, we would have designated the character of the discharge.
Senator Symington. "Wliat is that ?
General White. Had it been referred back to us, to direct the ter-
mination of his Reserve commission after he was relieved from active
duty, then we would have also indicated the character of the discharge.
Senator Symington. I see.
General White. But at this moment, that question wasn't involved.
The Chairman. May I ask you why it wouldn't be involved ? Here
you have an undesirable officer, substandard, a security risk. And
why wasn't it desirable and why wasn't it before you to determine
and make some recommendation with respect to the character of dis-
charge which he would receive ?
General White. Well, Senator, you have got a good point.
The Chairman. I think it is a good point.
General White. I think so, too. I don't think that we would have
been out of line at all had we gone on, or had I gone on, I will say,
because I did the writing here, and added to terminate his commis-
sion with a general discharge. That was the worst I could do.
The Chairman. I understood you to say a moment ago that had
he been a private that is what you would have done.
General White. Normally. That is right.
The Chairman. Normally, if he had been a private
General White. I would have just directed his discharge.
The Chairman. You would have recommended a general discharge ?
General White. Had he been an enlisted man, yes.
The Chairman. But being an officer ?
General White. I couldn't do that.
The Chairman. You couldn't do that?
General White. No.
The Chairman. Wasn't it the policy to do it at that time, or did
you not have the authority, which do you mean ?
I
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 279
General White. Well, we had the authority. In this case, the way
this case was presented to the board, I don't consider that we had the
authority to direct his discharge.
The Chairman. To direct a general discharge ?
General White. To direct any discharge. We could only recom-
mend that somebody take action to discharge him, which is what we
did.
The Chairman. All you could do, then, was to recommend that he
be placed on inactive duty immediately ?
General White. That is right.
The Chairman. You had no authority, you thought, the way the
matter came before you, to say that he should be dishonorably dis-
charged ?
General White. No, sir.
The Chairman. But to recommend that action be instituted to dis-
charge him ?
General White. To terminate his commission, yes, sir.
The Chairman. And then whoever was the authority to do that —
whoever had the authority to do that — would be the authority to deter-
mine whether he should he honorably discharged or given something
less than an honorable discharge ?
General White. Yes.
The Chairman. That is all,
Mr. Kennedy. I would like to
Senator Symington. I would like to ask one more question.
In no case, either officer or enlisted man, did you feel or did the
board have authority to recommend a dishonorable discharge ?
General White. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. If an officer, you state, there was a possibility that
he had perjured himself
General White. We could recommend trial or investigation before
trial.
Mr. Kennedy. In this particular case, where he filled out his form
390 and stated thereon that he w^as not a member of any group or
organization which advocated the overthrow of the Government by
unconstitutional means, you have no recollection of that form being
reviewed by you ?
General White, I don't recall.
Mr. Kennedy. So if there was evidence
General White. May I go on and may I take that point up ?
Let us assume, for the discussion, that the form was there and
showed that he denied it and that the G-2 record, and I don't know
what the G-2 record showed, but that the G-2 record showed that that
was not a statement of fact. It would be very difficult to prove, be-
cause the G-2 information was usually based on confidential reports
that the source couldn't be revealed, and there was no way. You
couldn't go into court and try the guy, frequently, because the nature
of the evidence was such that you couldn't present it.
Mr, Kennedy, Wliat would you do in this case ?
General White. If it was up to us for separation, we would usually
discharge him with a general discharge,
Mr. Kennedy. You would still, even if there was some evidence that
he had perjured himself, give him a discharge under honorable con-
ditions?
280 ARMl^ PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General White. Usually.
Mr. Kennedy. During that period of time, at least, that was the
policy in the Army ?
General White. As far as I was concerned, it wasn't the policy, it
was law. I knew of no way that a board such as ours could give a
discharge under other than honorable conditions, unless the individual
agreed to accept it.
Mr. Kennedt. It wasn't law that you should make that determina-
tion, General, it was your decision, or the policy that you were fol-
lowing, the decision under that policy, that made you make that
determination ?
General White. What is that ?
Mr. Kennedy. That the individual should not be tried by a court-
martial, or should not appear before another board ?
General White. That wasn't the question of law. You mean in
this particular case ?
Mr. Kennedy. Where we have an individual officer, evidence that
the individual officer did not tell the truth when he stated he was not
a member of a group or organization, you stated that you would,
nevertheless, give him a discharge under honorable conditions ?
General White. We had no choice, if we were going to discharge
him, and we couldn't try him and we had no choice but to give him a
discharge under honorable conditions. If he was a Regular officer,
we would have to give him an honorable discharge.
The Chairman. Do I understand at that point, then, that you could
do 1 of 2 things: You could refuse to discharge him and recom-
mend that he be tried ?
General White. That is right.
The Chairman. That charges be preferred against him and he be
tried ?
General White. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You could do that ?
General White. Yes, sir.
The Chairaian. But if you discharged him, then all you could do
was just recommend that he be separated from the service?
General White. Under honorable conditions.
The Chairman. Under honorable conditions ?
General White. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Other than that, the only choice that you had was
to recommend lie be court-martialed, in effect ?
General White. In effect, that is right.
(Senatory Symington left the room.)
Mr. Kennedy. I think that we might have some evidence or testi-
mony on this at a later date. But we have gone into this question
of the type of discharges that can be given by a 605 board. And from
a number of people that we have talked to and the inquiries that we
have made we have found that ideally an officer could receive a dis-
cliarge less than honorable or less than general. However, as a prac-
tical matter, tiiey received only honorable or only general discharges.
But it was possible under a 605 board to give an officer a discharge
less than unde?- honorable conditions ?
General White. Not to my knowledge, Mr. Kennedy, and as far as
T am concerned, as president of that board of review, that reviewed
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 281
G05-200 cases, it could not be done under the law. Now, until some-
one convinces me that it could, I will have to stick to that opinion.
Mr, Kennedy. What law is that ?
General AVkite. Well, we will start with Public Law 810, which
I cited yesterday, and which pertains to Regular officers, and that is
the foundation for the regulation that you referred to.
Mr. Kennedy. That has to do with Regular officers?
General White. It says, specifically, they shall be given an honor-
able discharge. Now, the whole regulation is built around that law.
It was designed to give the Reserve officer the same protection in the
law that the Regular officer got.
Mr. Kennedy, That is where we come to a parting of the ways, be-
cause the law has to do with Regular Army officers.
General White. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Isn't that correct?
General White. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And a Reserve officer, therefore, could receive less
than an honorable discharge, or less than a discharge under honorable
conditions but, as a practical matter, because the Army did not want to
discriminate against Reserve officers, they gave them all honorable dis-
charges ?
General White. I still don't think that a Reserve officer could be
given other than a discharge under honorable conditions, unless he
agreed to accept it, or was tried by court-martial.
Mr, Kennedy. General, you will admit that the law has to do
only
General White. The law that I cited.
Mr. Kennedy. Only with Regular Army officers ?
General White. I think that you will find also that the Armed
Forces Reserve Act, which was enacted, I don't remember the date,
probably 1952 or 1953, has a provision in there that non-Regular offi-
cers shall be treated in effect exactly as Regular officers are treated. I
don't know how you reconcile those two. But I am not a lawyer, and I
sJiouldn't get into a discussion of this.
Mr. Kennedy. Rather than you and I pursuing this, perhaps,
Governor, we could get an opinion from the Department of the Army,
a written opinion.
Mr. Brucker. We will look it up.
Mr, Kennedy. Vv'ill you identify this document, please ?
(Document handed to the witness.)
The Chairman. Let the Chair understand exactly what is wanted.
You want a legal opinion from the Department of Defense with re-
spect to whether the law at that time required them to give an honor-
able discharge to Reserve officers as well as to Regular officers, unless
you recommended court-martial. Is that what you have in mind?
Mr, Brucker. It is what you have in mind.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
General White. Or else he agreed to accept it. That is unless the
individual or officer agreed to accept less than an honorable discharge.
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairman. All right.
General AVhite. This is a photostat, apparently, of a memorandum
from the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1, and I don't know who it is to.
60030—55 — pt. 4 3
282 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
It says to the Chief of Staff. It is dated November 25, 1953. It per-
tains to Major Peress.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Now, what I want you to pay particular attention
to, General, if you will, is paragraph 2, which states :
After coordination with G-2, and upon recommendation of tbe Army Personnel
Board, the determination was made to relieve Major Peress from active duty
after completion of 12 months' service under the involuntary release program,
since after that length of service his commission may be revoked as a special
registrant.
Now, this is the personnel actions branch of G-2, and deals with
what was to happen to Maj. Irving Peress, and it is a summary of your
action.
Now, is that a correct appraisal of the action that your Board took ?
General White. I don't think so.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell the conmiittee how that differs?
General White. May we have the Board memorandum back to
G-1?
I will have to identify a new document, Mr. Kennedy.
INIr. Kennedy. I don't know what the document is.
General White. This is comment No. 3, on the disposition form,
the Army Personnel Board back to G-1, dated November 23, 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. What is that ?
Mr. Brucker. I wonder whether you have tlie copy up there.
Mr. Kennedy. I have a copy of it.
General White. This was the recommendation of the Board.
The Chairman. Identify what we are reading from.
General White. I thought I did, sir. It is comment No. 3, on the
disposition form, from the Army Personnel Board, back to G-1, dated
November 23, 1953. Senator, this is where we
The Chairman. That will be made a part of the record. I will
order it to be made as exhibit 52, what you are reading from. We
want to keep it in the record.
(Exhibit No. 52 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
General White. And I quote, this is the recommendation of the
Board :
Recommend relief from active duty (par. 1-A, comment No. 1), followed by
action to terminate reserve commission under SR420-5, and SR600-220-1, with-
out Board action.
That is signed by Colonel Forbes, the recorder of the Board. That
was the Board recommendation.
Here is what the G-1 paper that you have referred to reads. This
is a new paper.
Mr. Kennedy. What you just read, was it not as written by the
recorder ?
General White. Tliat is the formal endorsement back to G-1, signed
by tlie recorder of the Board.
]Mr, Kennedy. On those notes, the recorder substituted for your
word "now" per paragraph 1-A, comment No. 1 ?
General White. I am sure that that is what I intended.
Mr. Kennedy. What is wliat you Iiad intended ?
General White. Yes. In other words, I interpret that the recorder
did exactly what I intended that he should do in my note on the
worksheet.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliich M'as to relieve him from active duty?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 283
General White. Yes; followed by action to terminate his Reserve
connnission, under the security-risk regulation. Is that clear?
Now, the Cx-l memo to the Chief of Staff, dated November 25, which
you quoted, says :
Upon recommendation of the Army Personnel Board that the termination was
made to relieve Major Peress from active duty. After completion of 12 months'
service —
and that phrase was not in our recommendation, and we said nothing
about after completion of 12 months' service.
Under the involuntary release program —
and there it should have stopped, if it was quoting the Board's recom-
mendation, but it goes on to say :
Since after that length of service his commisison may be revoked as a special
registrant.
The Board said nothing like that.
The Chairman. Who went beyond your recommendation ?
General White. I would say this, Senator, I don't think it is a case
of going beyond our recommendation. I think it is more probably that
it was a misinterpretation of our recommendation.
The Chairman. Somebody misinterpreted your recommendation
according to j^ou. That is not in conformity with what you recom-
mended, is it ?
General White. Specifically ; no.
The Chairiman. Somebody either misinterpreted your recommenda-
tion, or went beyond them ?
General White. I would say they misinterpreted them, and I would
like to add this: Had they come back to me personally, for a con-
currence on that paragraph, I would have concurred, having been
given the additional facts that I didn't have that the man had to be
kept in 3 months anyway. Is that clear ?
The Chairman. You would have concurred in that ?
General White. Yes.
The Chairman. Had it come to your attention ?
General White. With the additional information that I now have.
I didn't have it then.
Mr. Kennedy. And this was concurred in by the recorder; is that
correct ?
General White. No. Yes ; it was. The record, there is a note here
that says the concurrence is not initialed, and you would have to ask
Colonel Forbes.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, we will ask Colonel Forbes about that.
Now, you state that you would have concurred in it, General. As
you understood it, under the doctors terminating a man's commission
under the doctors draft program would have given him an honorable,
discharge ?
General White. I didn't know that.
Mr. Kennedy. If you had known that, what would you have done at
that time prior to the time you had given your concurrence, would you
have concurred in it then ?
General White. I would have to qualify my answer a little bit. T
have not since November 1953 seen the confidential record, the infor-
mation on this man, on which the action was based, but based on our
284 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
attitude, or my attitude toward the discharge of these people, I would
say that I would not have concurred in an honorable discharge had I
been asked to do so. I would have said, "I concur in what they say,"
but this doesn't say anything about an lionorable discharge, and it
doesn't mention it here. It says that the commission will be automa-
tically revoked. Now, had they said concur in this, and this gives him
an honorable discharge, I think that I would have demurred on that.
I would have said, "Give him a general discharge," because at that
time I still thought that was the worst that you could do.
Mr. Kennedy. And as you stated to us yesterday, you had learned
that under this program, he would have received an honorable dis-
charge ?
General White. I have been told, and I don't know who told me
that, and I didn't know it and I don't know it of my own knowledge
now. I am not familiar at all with that Doctors Draft Act, or with
the Department policies under that act. We had nothing to do with
it.
Mr. Kennedy. This is the November 25 memo. We will make it
an exhibit later.
The Chairman. Are there any questions, Senator Bender ?
Senator Bender. In the light of what has occurred, and since all of
this publicity has been given to this case, and it has been televised,
and so on, this has received such wide attention, what, if any, mistakes
did you make in this matter? Would you have done the same thing
that you did in this case had you known of all these ramifications ?
General White. Yes. sir: I think so. Under the conditions and the
procedures the Board was following in November of 1953. 1 can't s\e&
that we could have done anything else.
Senator Bender. You feel that you handled this matter in a routine
way, and in the way that you would have handled it in any event?
General White. Yes, sir.
Senator Bender. Did you have any special instructions from a su-
perior, either the Secretary of the Army, or any other superior in this
matter as to how you should handle it ?
General White. With respect to this individual you mean?
Senator Bender. Yes.
General White. No, sir ; I am positive that had I had I would cer-
tainly have recalled that. I don't know if you were here, Senator,
when I stated that I have no recollection of this case at all.
Senator Bender. I was not here at the time ; no.
General White. I am sure that had I had special direction from the
Secretary or the Chief of Staff, or anybody in that echelon, I would
have recalled that, certainly after all of this discussion I would have
remembered something about it.
Senator Bender. You were aware, of course, of the fact, it is obvious
from your notations, that this gentleman was a securitj^ risk ?
General White. I assumed that we decided that, and I haven't re-
viewed the records again, sir. On its face, it says that.
Senator Bender. On this document where you made your nota-
tions, there was that ?
General White. I was convinced, I never would have made such a
notation.
Senator Bender. Were there any other comparable cases that you
recall where similar action was taken ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 285
General White. I am not sure that I understand the question.
Senator Bender. Were there any other Dr. Peresses, or anyone
whose experience was comparable to his, wherein you had had author-
ity to determine as to what course or what action should be taken ?
General White. Senator, we handled, of course, many of these al-
leged security risks, a great many enlisted men and a great many offi-
cers. Now, i don't recall any case in which we were given, I don't say
there were none, but I don't recall any case in which we were given
these four optional procedures. Normally we had two choices, if he
was a commissioned officer. That was to retain him or give him a clean
bill of health, or put him before a 605-200 Board, which is a formal
board of inquiry. Those were the only two choices we had, with re-
spect to commissioned officers on active duty.
Here, in this situation, with regard to Peress, by virtue of the reduc-
tion-in-force program there were a large group of officers being re-
lieved almost immediately without any elaborate, processes, do you
understand? Here was an opportunity to get this individr.al out a
little more quickly and a little more cheaply, we will say, than the
normal procedure.
Now, whether there were more like this, I don't know.
Senator Bender. General, was it general policy of the board where
a security risk came to your attention that you were disposed to give
it action more quickly than otherwise, or any unusual case, security
risk or otherwise ?
General White. I still don't understand you.
Senator Bender. Well, I say, as these matters came to your atten-
tion for discharge of officers, either as a security risk, or for any other
reason, were you disposed to give cases comparable to that more quick
attention ?
General White. More expeditious attention, you mean ?
Senator Bender. Yes.
General White. You mean in our treatment of them in the board.
Unless they came down with a red tag on it, that required special han-
dling, they came into the board along with a mixture of cases, and
there was no special treatment.
Senator Bender. That is all I have.
General White. I would say that the average case never remained
in our board over 48 hours, or certainly 72 hours.
The Chairman. I may have misunderstood you. General. I under-
stood you to say, however, a moment ago that on all of the other cases
you were given only 2 alternatives, whereas in this one you were gi^'en
4 ; is that correct ? That is for similar cases ?
General White. Yes; in most cases we had two courses of action
with respect to a commissioned officer, as I now recall. We could re-
tain him, or we could direct he be put before a 605-200 board which
is a formal board.
The Chairman. A board for formal inquiry ?
General White. We had those two choices. Now, this is unique.
The situation in November of 1053 was uni([ue because at that moment
the Army was in process of releasing a large number of officers with-
out board action, and without these formal proceedings. They had
been classed as substandard, based on efficiency, or conduct, or what
not. Here was an opportunity to put these security risks in that pro-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
gram and get them out a little more quickly, and with less expense to
the Government than would normall}^ be the case. Once this reduc-
tion-in-force program was complete, you didn't have that choice any
more. So this was unique in that respect.
The Chairman. Well, these 4 instructions or 4 suggestions, alter-
natives, rather, were they submitted to you in any other single case
other than the Peress case ?
General White. I don't recall any, sir, but I didn't recall this one
until I looked at it.
The Chairman. You did not recall this one until you reviewed it ?
General White. Until I looked at it ; that is right.
The Chairman. Can you say, and who can tell us, whether there
was any other case that was submitted to you, with the same four
suggestions as alternate action other than the Peress case?
General White. I don't know, sir, who would have that informa-
tion. I suppose the Adjutant General could say.
The Chairiman. You cannot say tliat it did happen or that it did
not. You j ust do not recall ?
General White. That is right.
The Chairman. What I am trying to determine. Was there some-
thing special or something different about Peress, to other cases?
General White. I see your point, but I don't recall that whether
there were others, or whether this was the only one, or why this was
presented this way.
Mr. Juliana. General, how long were you in tlio military service ?
General White. I had a total for pay purj^oses of 38 years, of which
201/^ were active Federal service.
Mr. Juliana. And were you a graduate of West Point ?
General White. No ; I was not a Regular officer. Senator.
Mr. Juliana, How long did you serve on this Army Personnel
Board?
General White. From 1948 until I retired.
Mr. Juliana. Thank you.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, General.
General White. Were you through with me ?
The Chairman. Yes ; you may be excused.
The committee will suspend for about 5 minutes.
(Those present at this time were Senators McClellan and Bender.)
(Brief recess.)
The Senators present at the resumption of the hearing were Sen-
ators McClellan and Bender.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
General White, will you resume the stand for a moment, please, sir?
The Chair wishes to ask you one other question.
Were you interviewed by the Inspector General with regard to this
case, the Peress case ?
General White. No, sir ; not ever.
The Chairman. It appears that your name is on the list of 29 names
furnished by the Secretary of the Army to the special Mundt sub-
committee, as being one of those, or taking some direct action in rela-
tion to the Peress case. But you state you were not interviewed by
the Inspector General ?
General White. No, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 287
The Chairman. That is all. You can be excused. Thank you very
much.
Gen. Daniel D. Strickler, will you come around, please.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investifratino; subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothin<:^ but the truth so help you God ?
General Strickler. I do.
TESTIMONY OP MAJ. GEU. DANIEL D. STRICKLER
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. What is your present occupation ?
General Strickler. I am a member of the Army Review Board
Council.
Mr. Kennedy. And durino; November of 1953 you served on this
board that we have been discussing here today with General Wliite?
General Strickler. I did, sir. I was a member of the Army Per-
sonnel Board.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, General, you have as I understand it, an inde-
])endent recollection of this Peress case coming over your desk. Is
that right?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you also remember having a meeting or having
a discussion with General Wliite and General McConnell on this case?
General Strickler. I remember what took place and what part I
took in it.
ISIr. Kennedy. General McConnell, for the record, is a third member
of the board who is now back in Europe, Mr. Chairman, and we have
a sworn interrogatory from him which we would like to have placed in
the record.
The Chairman. I just wanted to identify it as we went along so we
would know who was in this conference.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, General, there were four alternatives suggested
to you by the recorder, the personnel section of the Army. Is that
correct ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And the recorder made a suggestion that you relieve
the officer under the involuntary release program and then he would
be automatically deprived of his commission after he had served a year
under the Doctors Draft Act. Do you remember that ?
General Strickler. I remember that.
Mr. Kennedy. And you have those documents, I believe, in front of
you, and they have already been identified for the record by General
Wliite.
Have you reviewed those documents lately?
General Strickler. I have.
Mr. Kennedy. That is riglit?
General Strickler. That is right.
Mr, Kennedy. General, as I understand it, it is your recollection
that you turned down all of the recommendations, the four recommen-
dations of the Personnel Section ?
General Strickler. As individual propositions; yes.
Mr. Kennedy, That you felt that was agreed to by the Board after
your meeting. Is that right ?
288 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Strickler. I didn't get that question.
Mr. Kennedy. You felt that the Board had decided that they would
not accept any of the reconnnendations of the Personnel Section?
General Strickler. That is correct, as separate propositions. That
is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And s])ecifically, you felt the Board had agi-eed not
to accept the recommendation No. 1 (a) which would have been to
relieve him under the involuntary release program then in existence?
General Strickler. As a separate proposition alone, we did not agree
to that.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not agree to that ?
General Strickler. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee, General what it was
that you felt the Board had agreed to ?
Perhaps I could ask you a few questions : Did you ay ree or feel that
as there was this derogatory information on Irving Peress that he
should be relieved from active duty right now ?
General Strickler. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So that, secondly, action should be taken against
him under 600-220-1 with a board, which would necessitate a board
action to relieve him of his commission. Is that correct ?
General Strickler. Well, I felt he should be relieved at once, as
soon as possible, and that they should take separate action under the
subversive regulations, 600-220-1, to determine how he should be sep-
arated from the commission which he had.
The Chairman. If I understand you, you agreed that he ought to
be gotten out quickly, off active duty ?
(jeneral Strickler. That is riglit.
The Chairman. Then you thought immediate action should be ini-
tiated to bring him before a board in the due process of the Army and
give him an opportunity to be heard, and let that board determine the
character of discharge he should receive ?
General Strickler. That is correct, except that I felt that our Board
should not enter into the case any more without any further action on
the part of our Board. After he was once relieved, the case would
not have to be referred back to our Board to determine that he should
be acted upon separately, that our Board had two propositions, one,
to relieve from active duty, and second, to have the regular process
under the Subversive Act be started.
The Chairman. Can you say what that Subversive Act is that you
speak of? ^Vliat regulation or what law dealt with those that were
subversives ?
General Strickler. That is Army Special Regulation 600-220-1.
The Chairman. In other words, it was your intent, as a member
of that Board, to order him relieved from active duty at once? In
other words, that is your recommendation ?
The next step was to have him processed under Army Regulation
600-220-1 which would have mentioned that be carried out, would
have meant that a board of inquiry, or whatever it was, would have
been assembled, and he would have been given an opportunity to ap-
pear and show cause why he should not have been separated from the
service by discharge less than honorable ?
General Strickler. That is not exactly so.
The Chairman. Well, state it exactly as it is.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 289
General Strickler. Under the regulation 600-220-1, whoever
started proceedings and depending upon the nature of the evidence in
the case, it would have to be determined whether he would go before
a board or whether he would be discharged without a board.
The Chairman. In other words, it was possible that he could have
been discharged without a board ?
General Strickler, That is correct.
The Chairman. But, in other words, it would initiate the action
to bring about these further determinations?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman. "VVliich you felt that your Board didn't have tlie
responsibility for ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman, The Board was not constituted to go into that
aspect of it ?
General Strickler, We weren't asked to go into that aspect, but
we thought we should use the process after he was off active duty be-
cause once off active duty he should not remain as a Reserve officer
without having to answer these allegations, and to be processed again
under the subversive regulations.
The Chairman, Did you think that was what your Board rec-
ommended ?
General Strickler, That is what I felt, and I don't know what the
Board recommended because this is what happened : After I finished,
or after we expressed our own opinion, General White \\as the presi-
dent of the Board and he wrote on the worksheet a note for the re-
corder to copy for the decision of the Board, I did not see that.
The Chairman, It was not brought back to you for review ?
General Strickler, No, sir.
The Chairman. And you did not know that it had been recom-
mended by General White as he wrote it?
General Strickler. I didn't know what he recommended except that
we more or less generally agreed, as I can remember, there wasn't much
dispute about it, and what he actually wrote is not much different
than what I said.
The Chairman. It had a different result ?
General Strickler. That is right.
The Chairman, So it must have been different, or there was an
erroneous interpretation placed on it ?
General Strickler, That may have been.
The Chairman. According to your understanding, you couldn't
possibly have anticipated the x^rocedure that was later followed, could
you?
General Strickler. That was definitely out in my mind, that that
was not to be done and that he was not to be released under the Doctors
Draft Act at the end of a year, and have his commission terminated
and given an honorable discharge. That was not at all in our mind,
Mr. Kennedy, Then there was a great difference between what
General White wrote up as what you had agreed to and what you felt
that the board had agreed to ?
General Strickler, There might be a difference in interpretation,
yes. But not actually
60030— 55— pt. 4 4
290 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy, Not only difference in interpretation but a difference
in the method in which you were going to get rid of IrA'ing Peress ?
General Strickler. All I can say is what I felt, my feeling was, and
which was what the Board really had in mind.
Mr. Kennedy. And General, from our conversations that we have
had in the past, you had in mind that Irving Peress would appear be-
fore a board and when he appeared before that board that they would
make the determination of whether he should receive a discharge other
than under honorable conditions, and that is why you wanted him to
appear before the Board — because you did not feel he should receive an
honorable discharge or a discharge under honorable conditions?
General Strickler, You mean that is my thought ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
General Strickler. Not exactly at all.
Mr. Kennedy. Let me ask you this.
The Chairman, Let him state what he thought.
General Strickler. When action was taken against Peress under
it, my feeling at the time and what was really indicated by General
White, at that time there was no provision for giving a Reserve officer
a dishonorable discharge without a court martial. Therefore, when
he was to be proceeded against under 600-220-1 he was to be processed
as that regulation provides, some kind of a board or some person had
to act on it and determine how he should be separated and the nature
of the separation, and that is what we recommended,
Mr, Kennedy, General, is it your understanding now that if he
appeared before a 600 board that he could not receive a discharge less
than honorable or under honorable conditions ?
General Strickler. Based on the information that we had on hand
at that time, and not based on what has developed since or gathered
since that time, but based on what we had, he would not receive a dis-
charge other than honorable before a 600 board because they could
not give him one,
Mr. Kennedy, General, I would like to state, or ask you if in our
interview on February 16 at the Pentagon you didn't state that the
reason that you wanted him to appear before this Board, to Mr, Tier-
ney, Mr, O'Donnell and myself, didn't you state that you wanted him
to appear before this Board so that he would not receive a discharge
under honorable conditions, or an honorable discharge ?
General Strickler, I didn't say that at all. I said that it was up
to the conditions at the time to determine whether or not there were
such conditions that might be available at that time which would indi-
cate that he should get a discharge other than honorable.
Mr, Kennedy. So that you wanted him to appear before the Board
so that that determination could be made, and you personally felt that
subversives should not receive an honorable discharge or discharge
under honorable conditions ?
General Strickler. I didn't say that,
Mr. Kennedy, You didn't say that?
General Strickler. No, sir.
Mr, Kennedy. Do vou feel at this time that officers, where there ij?
information that they are subversives, should receive honorable dis-
charges or discharges under honorable conditions?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 291
General Strickler. If an officer on active duty commits an overt act
while he is in the service, after he is brought in, and he is a Communist
or does some subversive thing while on active duty, he should be tried
and he should be discharged with a discharge other than honorable.
Mr. Kennedy. What type of discharge do you feel that Irving
Peress should have received ?
General Strickler. I told you under the conditions as we did it at
that time, on November 20, 1953, On the facts that we then had, he
should have received as we did it, a discharge which would be general.
Mr. Kennedy. What do 3^ou feel that he should have received look-
ing back on it ? What would you give him at this time ? What would
you do ?
General Strickler. I don't know the facts of the case, the whole
thing. There may be additional evidence, and we didn't have it.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Let us say it is the same evidence. You say that you
recall the case, General, and let us say we have the same evidence and
we discussed this yesterday. What type of discharge do you think
Irving Peress should receive ?
General Strickler. I wasn't asked to recommend a type of dis-
charge.
Mr. Kennedy. You volunteered that at that time he should receive
a general discharge, and what do you think at this time ?
General Strickler. I think the same thing.
Mr. Kennedy. You still think so ?
General Strickler. Based on the facts that we had at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. You think that he should receive a discharge under
honorable conditions.
General Strickler. Well, whatever general discharge involves,
which indicates that it is not other than honorable conditions.
Mr. IvENNEDY. You kiiow that a discharge, general discharge is
under honorable conditions ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Senator Bender. Excuse me, Mr. Chairman. You had no alterna-
tive under the rules to do other than you did. Is that correct?
General Strickler. What do you mean ?
Senator Bender. Your disposal of this matter, in that case you
acted according to the regulations. Is that correct ?
General Strickler. We acted according to regulations, Senator,
and we weren't asked to determine finally what happened to this man,
and we were asked how he should be eliminated.
Senator Bender. It wasn't up to you to determine whether to shoot
him at sunrise, or to do anything else other than to follow the rules ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Senator Bender. You certainly don't believe in keeping subversives
or Communists in the Army ?
General Strickler. We don't.
The Chairman. May I ask you a question, General ? Did you have
the 201 file before you when you acted on this case ?
General Strickler. I don't recall that we had the 201 file.
The Chairman. What I am trying to determine is whether you
knew at that time that he was making his application for a commis-
sion on form 390, and at that time he had denied any connection
with Communist organizations?
292 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Strickler. I am sure that it was not brought to my atten-
tion in the examination of the file that he had signed such a form.
The Chairman. You did not know it at that time ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman, So that you were treating him merely as a suspect
of being a security risk ?
General Strickler. I was treating him on the basis of the G-2
summary of information.
The Chairman. Which had found that he was a security risk?
General Strickler. They said he was.
The Chairman. Well, they found it, if they said it, I guess.
So it is on that basis that you took the action that you did ?
General Strickler. Tliat is coriect.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, General, I call your attention to the notes that
were written up by General AMiite. That is on the worksheet. Do
you have that in front of you ?
General Strickler. Yes.
Mr. Brucker. That is exhibit 51.
Mr. Kennedy. You have the notes written by General ^Vhite, "re-
lieve from active duty now as substandard."
Now, his interpretation of that "now" was that he should be relieved
tliat very day f i om active duty. Is that correct ?
General Strickler. Of course not. lie couldn't be relieved that
day. He would have to go through administrative process, but as
soon as possible.
Mr. Kennedy. What do you mean by administrative process, Gen-
eral ?
General Strickler. He would have to get his papers in and they
would have to go through the ])rocess of the Department of Personnel,
the G-1, taking action through the Adjutant General, and the Adju-
tant General would notify his major unit commander that he had
been relieved from active duty.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't have in mind the involuntary release pro-
gram, however, did you ?
General Strickler. If the involuntary release program had in mind
release as soon as possible, yes. I thought it did.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, see if I can refresh your recollection again.
General. On the 18th of February when ^\e had this conference over
in the Pentagon, did you not state'that you Avanted him relieved from
active duty right at that moment, and that that could be done, and that
you specifically rejected the suggestion of the recorder. Colonel Forbes,
that he should be relieved under the involuntary release program?
General Strickler. Senator, if you will divide that and ask me
just one or two questions I can answer it, but I can't answer the whole
thing at once.
Mr. Kennedy. I v:ill rephrase the question.
On February 18 you remember that we had a conference in the
Pentagon ?
General Strickler. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time we discussed the question of what "now"
meant. Is that correct ?
General Strickler. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And at that time you stated that you interpreted
"now" not to mean under the involuntary release program as suggested
ARMY PERSONISTEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 293
by the Personnel Branch and by the recorder, but that "now" meant
right at this very minute, and that he should be relieved from active
duty right at this time, and that you specifically rejected the suggestion
of the recorder and the suggestion of the Persomiel Division. Do you
recollect that?
General SxRicitLER. I said that I would have him relieved now,
meaning as soon as possible, administratively, right away, and then
I was informed, "Did I know that the. involuntary release program
involved giving him 90 days' notice," and I said on that basis, because
the 90-day notice was required under the involuntary release program
of these reserve officers, I would not have gone along with No. 1 on that
basis. That is correct.
But at the time I did not know that he could not be released under
the policy of the Secretary of the Anny and G-1 until he got 90 days'
notice.
' Mr. Kennedy. That is my point. General, that at the time you
talked to us originally you didn't know that he could not be relieved
from active duty right now ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. But at the time we talked to you, you said that that
is what you would have done and since that time you have learned
that as a practical matter that cannot be done except by instructions
from the Secretary of the Army, which is very rarely done ?
General Strickler. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So to go on to tlie rest of that suggestion of General
White, General, where it stated that he should be deprived of his
commission under 600-220-1, and this other regulation, 420-5-1, you
have since become aware of the fact that 420-5-1 did not exist at the
time ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And that when it goes on to suggest that his com-
mission be terminated under 600-220-1 without Board action, that
you had specifically wanted Board action at that time in order to at
least determine whether he should receive less than an honorable
discharge ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. So that the notes as written up by General White
do not conform with what you felt the Board agreed to ?
General Strickler. Again it is a matter of interpretation. I say
generally speaking, "Yes," they do conform with what I felt, but as
interpreted, "No."
The Chairman. General, may I inquire if the Secretary of the
Army, under the law, does have the authority to discharge imme-
diately from the Army ?
General Strickler. I understand when he wants to reduce the size
of the Army he has authority to do so ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, if he did not want to reduce the size of the
Army to the extent of getting a subversive out ; would he not ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman. Could your Board have recommended to the Sec-
retary of the Army immediate action of that kind to separate him
from the service ?
General Strickler. In that particular case, of course they could
have recommended it.
294 ARMl' PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERE^S
The Chairman. That is the point I am making. If your Board
had felt as you have stated that he ought to be separated now, it could
have recommended to the Secretary of the Army that he take that
action which he had the authority to take to separate him from it;
could he not ?
General Strickler. You can always make any recommendation
that the Board feels the law permits the Secretary to do.
The Chairman. In this particular case you did not feel that that
was necessary ?
General Strickler. I felt that by releasing him as substandard,
under the reduction program, that he would go out practically almost
immediately as soon as the administrative process was finished.
The Chairman. You were laboring under the im))ression at the
time that the act was an administrative process by which he would
be removed from active duty promptly. Then thereafter action would
be initiated to place him before a proper board to determine the char-
acter of discharge he would receive ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman. But had he been recommended, had you recom-
mended to the Secretary of the Army that he discharge him, would
that have determined the character of discharge, and could the Secre-
tary of the Army have given him a discharge less than honorable?
General Strickler. That I cannot answer.
The Chairman. As a matter of law would you know ?
General Strickler. I don't know. That is a matter of the Judge
Advocate General. I don't know that.
The Chairman. Well, the power being reposed in the Secretary of
the Army to take such summary action, I wonder if it gave him the
authority to give a man, an officer, a dishonorable discharge without
board action ?
General Strickler. That I cannot answer.
The Chairman. You would not know ?
General Strickler. No.
The Chairman. I would like to have the Legal Department get me
that information, if you will. You do not have to get it right now,
but we would like to know that. There will be the suixgestion ""Wliy
did the Secretary not discharge him preemptorily, like that," so I
want to know what the law is, or the interpretation of the Department
with respect to what action the Secretary of the Army could have taken
liad this board recommended that the Secretary of the Army act as
he had the power to do.
Mr. Brucker. We will get that.
Mr. Kennedy. The Personnel Actions Branch of G-1 ultimately
sent a summary sheet which they stated— and I quote :
After coordination with G-2 and upon recommendation of the Army Per-
sonnel Board —
which is your board —
the determination was made to relieve Major Peress from active duty after
completion of 12 months' service under the involuntary release program, since
atter that length of service his commission may be revoked as a special registrant.
Now, would you tell the committee whether that is what you rec-
ommended in the jjersonnel board ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATmO TO IRVING PERESS 295
General Strickler. Absolutely I know nothing about this com-
munication and I never saw it and I was never questioned about, and
the matter of the Doctor Draft Act was never discussed once we acted
on November 20.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you answer my question, please ?
General Strickler. And it does not represent what we decided.
Mr. Kennedy. During this period of time, General, you had a num-
ber of these subversives that came through your personnel board ; is
that correct ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr, Kennedy. Was it the policy or as far as the officers were con-
cerned, both Regular and Eeserve, did they receive honorable dis-
charges or discharges under honorable conditions ?
General Strickler. Up to that time as I recollect, no Reserve officer
got anything other than a general discharge, and nothing lower.
Mr. Ivennedy. And that was a discharge under honorable condi-
tions ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And if he was deemed to be a security risk, and there
was substantial evidence in his files to show that he was a Communist,
he would nevertheless receive a discharge under honorable conditions,
if he was an officer ?
General Strickler. If all of the accusations against him — and as far
as I know that is the only kind of case we had — existed prior to his
entry into the service, that is what he would get, a general discharge.
If he did some overt act within the service, that is a matter for another
Department to determine what should be done, whether he should be
court martialed or what.
Mr. I^nnedy. What if he signed a form in which he stated that he
was not a member of the Communist Party, or rather he was not a
member of an organization or grouji which advocated the overthrow
of the Government by unconstitutional means; was that considered
by your board in making a determination of the type of discharge he
would receive ?
(Witness consulted with his counsel.)
General Strickler. As far as that information was concerned we
had no information in the first case about a form 390, or anything like
it, as far as I can recollect.
Mr. Kennedy. You never asked in these cases for his form 390,
to review or to determine whether this man should be recommended
for court-martial or not?
General Strickler. We never asked for them ; that is true.
Mr. Kennedy. You never asked for that?
General Strickler. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Your personnel board?
General Strickler. That was a matter for the Intelligence Depart-
ment to get all of the papers that had any bearing on the case and if
they didn't have it in the file we took it for granted that it wasn't im-
portant, or they didn't want it.
The Chairman. In other words, on that basis you simply acttd on
what G-2 had found or stated as a general proposition; that he ^\■as
regarded as a security risk ?
General Strickler. The summary of the information prej^ared by
them.
296 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Tlint is all you had, and you did not Imow what
that summary was based on. or that finding, or statement?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman. You did not have the detailed evidence or the infor-
mation before you. All you liad was just G-2 had found that he was
probably a security risk ?
General Stricklkr. We had the summary of the information and
such papers that would back it up at that time. That was on Novem-
ber 20, as far as I recollect.
The Chairman. And you liad that, and certainly if you had all of
those papers you would have that form 390 ?
General Strickler. No, sir, we never had a form 390 in any file that
I ever remember we handled.
The Chairman. You did not have all of the papers ?
General Stricicler. It was never submitted.
The Chairman. You liardly had all of the information that G-2
had to back it up ?
General Stiuckler. Tliat may be, but we never had the form 390,
as I can remember, called to our attention for any basis for determin-
ing whether a man committed j^erjury, or whether he was or was not
a Communist when he sitrned it before lie came in the service.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have the AG-201 file before you ?
General Strickler. I don't recollect that we did, and I see no reason
for it.
Mr. Kennedy. If you had found in the reviewing of any of these
files that on his form he had stated that he was not a member of an or-
ganization which advocated the overthrow of the Govermnent by un-
constitutional means, would it have made nnj difl'erence to j^ou in your
determination ?
General Strickler. It would have.
Mr. Kennedy. What would you have recommended ?
General Strickler. We would have recommended that the case be
submitted to the Judge Advocate General for determination as to what
should be done with him.
(Senator Jackson entered the room.)
Mr. Kennedy. So that if all of these papers had been brought to
your attention, and specifically this form 390 had been brought to your
attention, or if you had asked for it, and had reviewed it, then a dif-
ferent determination would have been made in the type of discharge
or the result in discharge of Irving Peress ; is that rigiit ?
General Strickler. I cannot aiiswer that question.
Mr. Kennedy. But a different course of events would have ensued
regarding Irving Peress ?
General Strickler. It might have been.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, if you were going to say
General Strickler. I can't tell wdiat the board would have decided.
Mr. Kennedy. For your part, you would have recojnmended that
further action be taken regarding this individual ?
General Strickler. To send it up to the Judge Advocate General
Department, which we often do in cases, for his action and opinion as
a legal matter; and it wouldn't be a matter for our board.
Mr. Kennedy. The cases of enlisted men, were they considered by
your board?
General Strickler. Tliat is right.
ARMY PERSOJSTNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 297
Mr. Kennedy. If there was dero<^atory information in the files of
enlisted men, they had taken the fifth amendment, and there was evi-
dence that they were membei'S of the Communist l^arty while in the
Army, what disposition would have been made of their cases ?
General Strickler. There was a separate regulation involving en-
listed personnel in the service, and the}^ would get in a case like you
stated an undesirable discharge, which is a discharge pecidiar for en-
listed personnel; there is no such thing as an undesirable discharge for
an officer.
Mr. Kennedy. They would ha^e gotten a discharge under other
than honorable conditions. An enlisted man would have gotten a
discharge other than under honorable conditions; is that correct?
General Strickler. Well, it is an in-between affair, Mr. Kennedy.
In other words, an enlisted man can get an honorable discharge, a
general discharge, an undesirable discharge, or a dishonorable dis-
charge ; and it is not a dishonorable discharge, it is an in-betwen dis-
charge which gives him some of the privileges of nn enlisted man and
denies him others.
A dishonorable discharge other than honorable takes practically
everything away from him. That is the distinction.
]\Ir. Kennedy. An enlisted man would receive this type of discharge
and if you had the same facts on an officer he would receive a dis-
charge, either an honorable discharge or a discharge under honorable
conditions ; is that correct ?
General Strickler. Under the regulations that is all you could do,
that is correct. If there had been a provision for undesirable under
those conditions w^e would give the officers undesirables just like en-
listed men, but there was no such type of discharge.
Mr. Ivennedy. So because there was no discharge of that type the
officer would receive this discharge "under honorable conditions," and
a man who was an enlisted man who had the same facts in his file, the
same derogatory information, would receive an undesirable discharge ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr, Kennedy. Thank you.
Senator Jackson. Well, General, you were aware of the fact that
you would have cases before you involving situations such as the
Peress case ?
General Strickler. I was aware that we had cases like it ?
Senator Jackson. You were aware of the fact that some time or
another you would be confronted with the case of an officer who turned
out to be a Communist ?
General Strickler. Yes.
Senator Jackson. And being aware of that fact, would the Board
ever ask for instructions as to what the Board should do in such a sit-
uation ?
General Strickler. No, because a disposition sheet would come
down usually from the personnel office^ what we say in the Army, the
G-1 office, to the Adjutant General's Office, asking our recommenda-
tion as to the disposition of the particular case.
Senator Jackson. Well, now, you had a means of dealing effectively
with enlisted personnel by giving them an undesirable discharge. The
thing that disturbs me is, would it not be the natural thing for the
60030— 55— pt. 4 5
298 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Board to say "Look, we can handle enlisted personnel, but we are stuck
here with officer personnel, and what do you want us to do about it?"
General Strigkler. My own personal 0})inion would be the right
thing to do would be to provide some kind of a discharge similar to the
undesirable discharge for an officer and I think that is the fair thing
and it is unfortunate that that doesn't exist.
Senator Jackson. The thing that troubles me is that knowing that
possibilit}^, why the Board itself did not ask for guidance ?
General Strickler. That matter has been suggested many times,
that some provision be made within the law. •
Senator Jackson. But did the Board ever ask for guidance ?
General Strickler. Ask who for guidance ?
Senator Jackson. Well, I suppose from G-1, Personnel; are you
not operating under Personnel ?
General Strickler. We are operating under the Secretary of the
Army's Office.
Senator Jackson. Well, all right, then, let us take the Secretary
of the Army. Why did the Board not ask the Secretary of the Army's
Office for guidance?
General Strickler. I don't understand what you mean by guidance.
Senator Jackson. Guidance as to what you would do. It is very
simple. You just stated that you are aware of the fact that you could
deal with enlisted personnel eilectively by giving them undesirable dis-
charges in a situation such as the Peress case. Now, knowing that to
be a fact in the case of enlisted personnel, would you not want to ask
for instructions as to what you should do in the case of a Reserve
commissioned officer ?
General Strickler. We did ask for instructions a time back as to
the policy and the policy was laid down in the regulations, and the
law that applied to the officers. That is what we were told.
Senator Jackson. That is what I am trying to get. You say you
did ask for guidance or instructions ?
General Strickler. We were told what the policy was and we had
to be bound by it.
Senator Jackson. Let me see if I can get an answer to this one ques-
tion : Did the Personnel Board itself ever request of the Secretary or
whoever your higher authority happened to be, for instructions in
cases involving commissioned Reserve personnel who were suspected,
or where there was reason to believe they were disloyal — either Com-
munists or members of other subversive organizations ?
(Witness consulted with his counsel.)
General Strickler. Yes, we did many times, and the Secretary re-
ferred those cases to the Judge Advocate General sometimes for the
final opinion, and we have a number of times gotten that.
Senator Jackson, That the Board did?
General Strickler. Yes, and we have written memorandum to that
effect, I am sure.
Senator Jackson. And as a result of those requests. General, at
least up until the Peress case you did not have effective instructions
to deal with that type of case effectively?
General Strickler. I would say that we had definite instructions,
and we were told in answer to our inquiry what the policy was, and
we had complied with the policy.
¥
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 299
Senator Jackson. It is pretty simple. You admit that you could
deal effectively with enlisted personnel by giving them an undesirable
discharge; but at the time of the Peress case you did not have effec-
tive weapons in your hand to deal with the Peress situation.
General Strickler. I get your point. In other words, did we in-
sist that something be done to more fairly handle an officer's case?
We did, but nothing was done.
Senator Jackson.. I think this is a double-barreled situation. It
is not only discrimination, but it is discrimination that works against
the public interest, because you cannot deal effectively with the Re-
serve commissioned officer. That is apparent on its face.
General Steickler. That is correct.
Senator Jackson. And if you had those instructions that would
have made it possible for you to deal effectively, we would not be here
in these long, drawn-out sessions, vvhen we ought to be working on
something else; is that not about it?
General Strickler. That sounds like it is logical.
Senator Jackson. Well, it is not only logical, it is a fact; is it not?
The Chairman. The Chair will announce that the committee will
have to recess promptly at 12 o'clock and it is about that time.
Counsel had one question he wanted to ask before we recessed and you
will proceed now. Counsel.
Mr. ICennedy. Before we come back this afternoon, would you
find out for the committee whether under a 605 board an officer could
receive a discharge less than under honorable conditions ? That is a
Eeserve officer ; whether he could receive a discharge under other than
honorable conditions.
Mr. Brucker. At what time, Mr. Kennedy? At the time when
the procedure was being taken ?
The Chairman. I suggest this request be directed to counsel, be-
cause I do not suppose the general would want to try to determine
the law on that.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, he stated what the law was.
General Strickler. At what date ?
Mr. Kennedy. When this was all going on.
Mr. Brucker. You mean in November of 1953 ?
The Chairman. Yes, and if you will give us a report on that this
afternoon we will appreciate it.
Senator Bender. This matter first came to the attention of the
Board on November 18, 1953; is that correct?
General Strickler. It came in the Board room on the 20th of
November, and it came into the office, I think the 19th.
Senator Bender. 18th to 19th and you disposed of it on the 20th?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Senator Bender. You did not delay any longer, and it is a fact you
disposed of this matter quickly and rapidly ?
General Strickler. That is right ; that is correct in my opinion.
Senator Bender. This notation was made by Colonel Forbes —
suggest best of alternative actions 1 (a), getting out of the Army soonest, and
his commission would be automatically terminated by law. In no event should
he remain on duty longer than necessary and why waste time —
and so forth.
300 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Did you know tliat there was sucli a comment by Colonel Forbes on
this paper ^
General Stricklek. I only know what was on this sheet that is
here; that is all.
Mv. Brucker. The one he is reading from is there.
General Strickler. Yes, I knew that.
Senator Bender. So that you acted on the basis of this comment
of Colonel Forbes, and you maintain that you acted Avith rapidity,
and as expeditiously as possible ; is that correct ?
General Stricjvler. In my opinion, yes.
Senator Bender. You had no more authority to do other than you
did?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman. The Chair will announce, and I am glad to an-
nounce that we have another room for this afternoon ; another hearing
room.
It will be over at the Capitol, in room G-16, which is on the Galleiy
floor, right off the Senate Chamber. It is tlie Interstate and Foreign
Commerce room, and the committee will recess until 2 o'clock.
(Wliereupon, at 12 noon, the hearing was recessed to reconvene in
room G-16, the Capitol, at 2 p. m. the same day.)
AFTER RECESS
(The hearing was resmiied at 2 : 30 p. m., in room G-IG of the
Capitol.)
(The Senators present at the time of convening were Senators
McClellan and Jackson.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
General Strickler, will you come around, please ?
Mr. Brucker. In response to your request, Mr, Chairman, I have
here a memorandum with concurrences regarding the situation as
of November 20, 1953, with reference to an officer in a Reserve com-
ponent and the nature of discharge that can be given. I hand you
this now.
The Chairman. The Chair will read into the record the memo-
randum just presented by counsel for the Defense Department. Mem-
orandum for Gov. Wilber M. Brucker, and dated 22d of March 1955.
It reads as follows :
On November 20, 195.3, an officer of a Reserve component could have been
given a discharge under other than honorable conditions pursuant to the ap-
proved findings of a board of officers convened by competent authority.
That is signed — I can't read all of the signatures but primarily by
John F. T. Murray, lieutenant colonel, GS, military assistant to the
Secretary of the Army. It is concurred in by 3 other officers, or 2
other officers whose names can be inserted in the record at this point.
(The document is as follows:)
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 301
Department of the Army,
Washirujton 25, D. C, March 22, 1955.
Memorandum for : Gov. Wilber M. Brucker.
On November 20, 1953, an officer of a Reserve component could have been
given a discharge imder other than honorable conditions pursuant to the ap-
proved findings of a board of officers convened by competent authority.
John F. T. INIurray,
Lt. Colonel, G8,
Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Army.
Concur :
(TJAG) L. J. Fuller,
Lt. Col., J AGO.
(G-1) Gerald G. Epley,
MPMD.
(ASA(M. & R. F.) ) Lawrence D. Sites.
The CiiAiEMAN". You have just heard this memorandum read, Gen-
eral. Does that mean, according to your interpretation of it, and ac-
cording to mine it does, that there would have to be a special board
convened to consider the question of whether he should be discharged
or separated with a discharge less than honorable ?
General Stpjckler. That would be my interpretation of it.
The Chairman. That is what you testified to this morning, that you
had in mind by the recommendations that you thought you were
making?
General Strickler. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that correct ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman. There was one other thing that occurred regard-
ing this document that your board signed, and I don't believe you
signed it.
General Strickler. I didn't sign anything.
The Chairman. You didn't sign anything ?
General Strickler. Xo.
The Chairman. Only the president of the board. General "V^Tiite,
signed it ? Was that your practice in your general procedure at that
time ?
General Strickler. It was not.
The Chx\irman. How do you account for that having occurred in
this instance ?
General Strickler. I cannot account for it because usually when a
statement is made as to disposition, each member either concurs or
writes his own statement.
The Chairman. Did you concur that day ?
General Strickler. Verbally ?
The Chairman. Yes.
General Strickler. The thing was generally disposed of verbally
before he wrote anything on a paper. "Wliat he did after that I don't
know anything about his writing.
The Chairman. Was it the practice after you discussed it verbally
and came to a conclusion about it for him to write it up and bring it
back to the board members to be signed or initialed ?
General Strickler. That is right.
The Chairman. That was the custom ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman. That was the general practice ?
General Strickler. That is right.
302 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Do you know of any exceptions to it ?
General Strickler. I don't know of any other exceptions to it.
The Chairman. Did you know that this instance had been an ex-
ception until you discovered later the action that was taken on Peress?
General Strickler. I don't believe, from November 20, the day we
acknowledged on the file after he was discharged, that I heard any-
thing more about the Peress case.
The Chairman. You didn't know or it never came to your attention
or never occurred to you that tiiis had been followed in a different
manner than that that was customary and which was the general
practice ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
The Chairman. It never occurred to you about that until after
you knew he was discharged, I believe you said ?
General Strickler. That is right.
The Chairman. Well, what do you attribute it to, that it got away
from you or you lost track of it in that the usual procedure was not
followed ? Did it never occur to you that was happening ?
General Strickler. The President of the Board is responsible for
disposing of the case, and he takes it up with the recorder of the
Board. The recorder of the Board writes up the recommendation of
the Board and submits it back to the personnel, G-1, office.
The Chairman. Whose duty was it to see that it was submitted
back to the Board for their concurrence or their initialing their action
as written up by the recorder ?
General Strickler. The President would usually submit it back and
then if he doesn't do it the recorder would call his attention to the fact,
and the other members of the Board would then act on it.
The Chairman. Do you know whether this w^as deliberate or just
another one of those oversights ?
General Strickler. I haven't the slightest idea, and I know nothing
about it other than what I told you.
The Chairman. You cannot account for it having happened in that
fashion ?
General Strickler. As far as our determination was made, it was
firm in my mind what I had in mind and what was to be done. There
were many cases coming over the desk that day, and what happened to
it after that I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. I just would like to get the record straightened.
This morning, General, as I understood your testimony and also the
testimony of General White who was President of this Board, the
testimony was that unless an officer was court-martialed, it was not
possible to give him a discharge less than under honorable conditions,
and in answer to Senator Jackson's questions, that there was no avail-
able means whereby an officer could be given less than a discharge
under honorable conditions through a board.
Wasn't that your testimony ?
General Strickler. Generally speaking; yes. I would like to ex-
plain this thing I mentioned this morning. I said that at the time of
the Peress case there was a provision providing for an undesirable
discharge for enlisted men, you remember that.
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
General Strickler. Then I said there was no similar provision for
an undesirable discharge for an officer at that time. That is at the
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 303
time we heard the case. However, I would like to explain definitely
that after the Peress case, after he was discharged, the directives came
out and the provisions did provide definitely for the discharge of
officers with other than honorable conditions in subversive cases, and
they were so discharged.
In other words, the Secretary's Office, and those working with him,
decided that in lieu of undesirable in subversive cases of officers they
interpreted it to mean under the action of all conditions could be given
a discharge other than honorable, but up to that time it was the general
opinion and the practice that Reserve officers at that time should not
be given a discharge other than honorable unless they had been court
martialed.
Mr. Kennedy. I differentiated this morning between the practical
matter and what you could do, and as a practical matter you never
gave, as I understand it, these boards never gave a discharge to an
officer less than honorable or under honorable conditions, but the ques-
tion was whether there was a mechanism in the Department of the
Army whereby an officer could appear before a board, 605 board, and
be given a discharge less than under honorable conditions.
At that time you and General Wliite, who was president of the
board, stated that there was no such board in the Department of the
Army and that could not be done.
Now, I belie-^ie, and this memorandum states, that on November 20,
which was at the time of the meeting of your board, an officer of a
Reserve component could have been given a discharge under other
than honorable conditions pursuant to the approved findings of a
board of officers convened by competent authority, which would mean
one of these other boards.
General Stkickler. That legal opinion is probably correct, just
issued, but we had no such legal opinion at that time. That I just
tried to explain. I think General White did too, that it was the
definite policy at that time that no Reserve officer on subversive cases
should be discharged with other than honorable conditions. •
Senator Jackson. Did you ever ask for such an opinion?
General Stkickler. Did we ask for it?
Senator Jackson. Yes.
General Stricklee. No, sir ; I never did.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I understood this morning that
requests had been made, in your testimony. General, from time to time,
but you were advised that there was no way in which you could deal
with it.
General Stkickler. I said we asked for various opinions from the
Julge Advocate General's Office in dealing with subversives, and
not this particular question.
Senator Jackson. I don't mean this particular case. I am speaking
of the general problem.
General Stkickler. If I said that, I didn't intend to. We did ask
the Judge Advocate for many opinions concerning subversive cases,
what was to be done.
Senator Jackson. Let us pinpoint that, and I want to get it
straight, because I understood from your testimony this morning
that you had requested some higher authority for an opinion on this
question of dealing with subversives ? :
304 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Stricklee, Not on whether or not we could give a Reserve
officer on active duty a discharge other than honorable in a sub-
versive case.
Senator Jackson. Why didn't you?
General Strickler. Why didn't we?
Senator Jackson. You are handing out undesirable discharges for
enlisted men.
General Strickler, That is right.
Senator Jackson. Would it not occur to you ?
General Strickler. Because it was the announced policy all of
the way tlirough theat they should not be given, and, therefore, we
don't make the policy.
Senator Jackson. I know, but you are sitting on a board and
things come to your attention and is it not reasonable, and is it not a
part of your duties to inquire whether or not you would have authority
to mete out similar punishment that you are meting out to enlisted per-
sonnel as you should for officer personnel ?
General Strickler. It always concerned me personally, and I told
you that this morning.
Senator Jackson. But did you ever ask?
General Strickler. I didn't.
Senator Jackson. It is rank discrimination in two directions, as I
tried to point out this morning, first it is discrimination against per-
sonnel in the Army between enlisted men and officers, but more im-
portant than that, it is discrimination against the public interest
in dealing with this problem.
Did the board not ever give any thought to the situation in the light
of those circumstances?
General Strickler. The board has often been concerned about it,
and I personally since I was on the board, about that situation, and
in the Peress case very definitely brought it to the front because
immediately after that they realized, and the question was then raised,
and it was changed. The policy was changed and the directives
were definitely put out.
Senator Jackson. Would it not have been the better part of wisdom,
Genernl, just as a selfish thing if nothing else, to protect yourself
on this situation, sitting on a three-man board, to write a letter and
inquire, say, "Look, we are handing out undesirable discharges to
enlisted personnel, but in the same situation we find that we cannot
mete out that j)unishment to reserve officer personnel?"
General Strickler. That was informally discussed and we were
told that the policy was not to do it. We were never told definitely
under the law you couldn't do it.
Senator Jackson. You didn't ask for an opinion on that, did you?
General Strickler. I didn't ask for a formal opinion.
Senator Jackson. The board didn't?
General Strickler. No, sir.
Senator Jackson. Did you suggest to the head of the board that
they do it ?
General Strickler. Not that I know of.
Senator Jackson. Because it appears now that as of November 20,
1953, you had authority to request a convening of a board by compe-
tent authority that could in fact mete out the kind of punishment that
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 305
was being meted out to enlisted personnel under like or similar
circumstances.
General Strickler. If I may explain again, I don't disagree with
you in the slightest on that basis, that possiby they could.
The general practice was then, and the directive was that Reserve
officers should not be given a discharge other than honorable up until
that time. Up until that time there were very few cases coming up
in connection with subversive cases.
Senator Jackson. Did this board have any right to suggest policy
changes ?
General Strickler. Did we ?
Senator Jackson. Yes.
General Strickler. Well, the Secretary of the Army and Personnel
Branch of G-1 makes the policies and issues the policies to our
board. ^Vhen we ask them about any change of policy it is up to
them to make a change. That has been asked at times, I imagine.
Senator Jackson. What I am trying to get at is, I realize you don't
make policy, but you are not a bunch of automatons just sitting
there dealing out or meting out punishment without regard to the
possibility of correcting mistakes that might be made above by higher
authority?
General Strickler. I hope we are not.
Senator Jackson. I am beginning to wonder because you knew,
or you should have known that the rules under which you were
opearting were obviously unworkable and discriminatory.
Now, what I am trying to get at, and I hope to just ask this for
the last time : As I understand it, despite all of that, the board either
individually or collectively failed to ask higher authority to make the
clianges that would correct the discriminatory feature of this
operation.
General Strickler. I don't know what former members of the
lioard did, or what happened before that time, but at that time we
did not. We did not ask for anything, because the policy was
iuniounced that this wouldn't be, and that is law as far as we were
concerned.
Senator Jackson. You did not call this situation to their attenti(m ?
General Strickler. No; I told you the Peress case was the thing
that really brought it to their attention. Prior to that ; no.
Senator Jackson. That was after it was a fait accompli?
(feneral Strickler. That is right.
Senator Jackson. But I say, despite the existence of this situation,
which any reasonable minded person would agree is utterly ridiculous,
despite that situation you failed, either you or the members of the
Board failed to call to the attention of higher authority what was
going on ?
General Strickler. That is not so.
Senator Jackson. Did you?
General Strickler. In the past, yes ; the thing was often. We were
told very definitely.
Senator Jackson. I didn't say what you were told, I said, did you
call this situation to the attention of higher authority ?
General Strickler. Informally it was discussed with G-1 personnel
))eople time after time on subversive cases.
600.30— 55— pt. 4 6 . , . ,. • ,' ,
306 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Jackson. That was all handled informally ?
General Stkickler. That is right.
Senator Jackson. Yon didn't do it by interoffice communication?
General Strickler, That is right.
Senator Jackson. ^Yho did you talk with ?
General Strickler. 1 don't know who. I didn't do the talking and
the president of the Board consults the personnel office of the G-1,
General Staff office.
Senator Jackson. Was it discussed in the Board ?
General Strickler. Informally.
Senator Jackson. Well, if it is being discussed, I o;uess that is in-
formally, and you didn't discuss it in writing, did you i
General Strickler. No.
Senator Jackson. All right, then, did you suggest to the president
of the Board that he take it up with higher authority ; or how did
YOU do it ?
General Strickler. The question came up time after time as to han-
dling of subversive cases and there were three types of cases. There
was the Regular Army officer, the Reserve officer with less than 3
years' active duty and the enlisted men, and those cases were discussed
from time to time as to policy in handling them.
Senator Jackson. The amazing thing to me, General, is that all
of this was handled on a very rough, informal basis, and it is such a
vital and crucial business. I don't understand it. It seems to me,
in the exercise of good prudent judgment, even from your own per-
sonal standpoint, I would put something in writing. The Army is
just loaded down with interoffice communications like every mili-
tary establishment. Here is something big and vital and all of this
is just an informal matter.
There is nothing in writing and nothing to indicate that you ever
took it up with anybody, or the Board ever took it up with anybody.
Is that not quite unusual?
General Strickler. Of course, this particular case
Senator Jackson. I do not care about the Peress case. I am talk-
ing about the whole problem.
General Strickler. It might have been if the Board took the atti-
tude that they were to develop policy and to contradict wluit they were
told to do.
Senator Jackson. Oh, no.
General Strickler. Then they should.
Senator Jackson. I am not suggesting that the Board make policy,
l)ut I would think that the Board certainly, you say they are not a
bunch of automatons, that they should point out this situation that
existed and should inquire about it and say, "Here is what is going
on and put it in writing." It is not a minor matter. It is a matter
of major concern, I would think, for the Board to deal with. Is that
right?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Jackson. But despite all of that, it was just an informal
discussion most of the time?
General Strickler. It just hadn't been brought to a head up to
that time. As I told you, it took that case evidently to bring it to a
head.
(Senators Mundt and Bender entered the room.)
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 307
Senator Bender. You say it was policy which was announced.
Who announced this policy?
General Strickler. All of the policies we get come from either
the G-1 office of the General Staff, or the Secretaiy of the Army
through the G-1 office to us.
Senator Bender. Did you ever have any conversations m your
Board or you personally, General, with the Secretary of the Army
regarding this situation ?
General Strickler. This particular case, or do you mean generally i
Senator Bender. Generally.
General Strickler. After this case; yes.
Senator Bender. Not before?
General Strickler. I don't remember participating in any.
Senator Bender. In reply to a question asked by Senator Jackson,
you say you did not believe that you would want to contradict what
you were told. Well, now, what were you told and who told you ?
General Strickler. Senator, I can't answer that. Wlien I came
to the Board all of the policies were established.
Senator Bender. That is by the Board itself ?
General Strickler. I don't know who established them. They
were established because they had to come generally from the Secre-
tary of the Army's office down through G-1 and those policies were
all established. Then oftentimes those policies referred to definite
Army regulations which put in writing what could be done.
Senator Bender. As a result of your asking questions, and as a re-
sult of your desiring to be more efficient, did you not on occasions ask
the Secretary of the Army or his office as to their opinion regarding
these situations as they arose?
General Strickler, that is unusual cases ?
General Strickler. Well, the president of the Board, General
White, had been on the Board about 5 years and he had been former
G-1 of the Army. He knew personnel matters and he had this whole
subversive business on the books for sometime. What went on before
I came on the board, I don't know. He may have done all of that.
Now, there were several times and there are now when the Secretary
of the Army's office confers with us about subversive cases.
Senator Bender. Your testimony this morning and this afternoon
indicates that the decision was made by your committee here.
General Strickler. Our Board.
Senator Bender. Your Board, and it was entirely yourself and
you didn't counsel with anyone regarding it. You made the decision
yourselves. Is that correct ?
General Strickler. There wasn't anybody who talked to us about
the case before we had it and there wasn't anybody who talked to us
about the case as far as I know now, and I am talking about myself
personally.
Senator Bender. It is your own personal testimony ?
General Strickler. I never heard about the Peress case until he
was discharged, after the day we handled it.
Senator Bender. Would you have handled it differently after what *
you heard, after all of this furor and all of these columns and col-
umns of news and television and all else ?
308 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Strickler. Senator, I wouldn't rely on what that sort of
report was. If the case was resubmitted with any additional evidence
and with any additional facts or what went on after we liad the case,
I don't know what kind of a decision the Board would have made
then. But based on tlie decision as of the time
Senator Bender. If you had to make the decision today, based on
all of this tons and tons of publicity and black ink that has been
spilled on this case, would you use a different formula?
General Strickler. I would use the same formula that I suggested
and not what was done.
Senator Bender. That is, you, today, would not come up with a
different decision?
General Strickler. What do you mean, decision ?
Senator Bender. I said
General Strickler. I made my decision that day.
Senator Bender. But you are still of the same mind today as you
were then ?
General Stoickler. I am still of the same mind that this man should
have been up for 600-220-1, and what that might have developed I
can't tell because it wasn't done.
You see. Senator, it wasn't done that way. It was done that he was
just dropped at the end of 12 months, and relieved from active duty
and given a discharge. That wasn't my thought.
Senator Bender. That is all.
Tlie Chairman. May I clear up one thing. A while ago in answer
to Senator Jackson, you used the word "directive" with respect to this
policy. Was there any written directive or instruction or rule that
guided the board on which you served with respect to these subversive
cases ? Was there anything in writing at all ?
General Strickler. You mean at the time. Senator
The Chairman. At the time, on November 20 ?
General Strickler. The regulations were in effect.
Tlie Chairman. There were regulations
General Strickler. There were certain Judge Advocate General's
written opinions which were in the file.
The Chairman. What I want to get, we can shorten it, what T want
to get is if there was anything in writing, any regulation, any instruc-
tion, or any directive to this board or to guide this board with respect
to the statement that you have made that it was not the practice, and
it was not the policy to give a commissioned officer anything but an
honorable discharge?
General Strickler. No, sir. Senator, I don't know.
Tlie Chairman. "Wlien you speak then, all right — when you speak
then of a directive or a policy or a practice, you are referring simply
to oral conversations. Is that right ?
General Strickler. No, sir.
The Chairman. What I want to o;et into the record is anything that
was there, in writing, any document, anything under which you came
to the conclusion and decision you did and followed the practice of
discriminating as between commissioned officers and enlisted men, in
the character of discharges that were given them for the same
situation.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 309
General Strickler. Just the provisions of tl\e Army regulations,
the regular regulations and the special regulations, that were in print
which were the guide for what we do.
Those regulations, none of them, that I ever read said anything
about the type of discharge, Senator, except the one dealing with
enlisted men.
The Chairman. Dealing with enlisted men, it specially directed
what?
General Strickler. That undesirable discharge could be granted in
subversive cases.
The Chairman. Could be?
General Strickler. That is right.
The Chairman. Or should be?
General Strickler. Could be.
The Chairman. Was it mandatory?
General Strickler. Could be in certain types of cases where there
w^as definite subversive, or he had done definite acts, he was to be
given an undesirable discharge and if he was a mere security risk, he
could be given a general discharge.
The Chairman. Is a general discharge an honorable discharge?
General Strickler. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is it not a little less than an honorable discharge ?
General Strickler. That is right.
The Chairman. It is a grade less?
General Strickler. They are both under honorable conditions, to
put it that way.
The Chairman. But the one that you speak of as general deprives
them of benefits that the honorable discharge does not ?
General Strickler. No ; it does not deprive them of benefits.
The Chairman, What I am trying to determine here — you say as
a practice, it was a custom, it was the policy in force at the time — is
there anything in the files of this case or of the Board, and I believe
you are still a member of the Board
General Strickler. That is right.
The Chairman. Or of the Board as of November 20, 1954, that sus-
tains the position this board took with respect to the handling of the
Peress case?
General Strickler. It was 1953.
The Chairman. Or 1953. I am sorry.
General Strickler. I have no recollection of any definite statement
to that effect ; no sir.
The Chairman. So that it is kind of just a custom and it had become
a precedent without any definite authority for it in the nature of
regulations, w^ritten regulations, printed directive, or written instruc-
tions. Is that correct?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. In response to a question by Senator Bender you
stated if you were doing this all over again you would not change
the decision that you personally made, but that the decision which
you personally made was not followed by the Board ?
General Strickler. I didn't say by the the Board.
Senator Mundt. Or was not followed ?
General Stricki.er. That is right.
310 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator jMundt. If I understand it correctly, the Board concurred
with your personal decision, but after the Board had agi'eed on the
recommendation which you thought was proper, it was subsequently
misinterpreted by the recorder. Is that correct ?
General Strickler. Slightly misunderstood by him evidently;
"Yes."
Senator Mundt. Is it that degree of misinterpretation which took
place, be it large or be it slight, which resulted in the fact that the
Peress case was handled differently from the recommendations you
made and in which the Board concurred?
General Strickler. Not entirely ; no, sir.
Senator Mundt. Wliat else transpired then ?
General Strickler. Because the recorder specifically called atten-
tion to the fact that another action should be started under the regu-
lations providing for subversives, to terminate his reserve commission.
That wasn't done.
The Chairman. Wliose responsibility was it to do that?
Senator Mundt. We are trying to find out these various escape
hatches which operated to the advantage of Peress regardless of who
was responsible for them. One of them was the slight, as you call
it, slight misinterpretation that the recorder made.
General Strickler. All that the recorder did, as I understand it,
he omitted the word "now," and he said that he should be relieved
from active duty, and he didn't say that.
Senator Mundt. It was rather an important omission.
General Strickler. It was in my opinion, and outside of that, I
don't know.
Senator Mundt. All officers expect to retire ultimately from the
Army, so that the word "now" was really the important word?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Mundt. So be it slight or be it great, by omitting the word
"now" he changed the verdict that the Board had arrived at?
General Strickler. That may have been someone else's interpreta-
tion, yes. It is possible that could be interpreted that way. He gave
them an opening that they didn't have to do it now.
Senator Mundt. In all events, the board had recommended it be
done now, is that right?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. And the recorder omitted the word "now"?
Geenral Strickler. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. So that was a change?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Mundt. A difference of opinion may be whether that is
an important change or a minor change, but it was a change — we agree
on that?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Now, what other changes took place and who is
responsible for them? You say there was another change.
General Strickler. I couldn't answer anything beyond that, and
I never saw it after that. I never saw it at all. I didn't even know
that the "now" was omitted until after Peress was discharged, as I
said here a while ago.
Senator Mundt. Didn't you say there was another change?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 311
General Strickler. No; I said that in recommending elimination
or termination of the reserve commission after relief from active duty,
he cited 600-220-1 regulation, SR, and no action was taken to do that.
That is correct.
(Senator McClellan left the room.)
Senator Mundt. The Chairman asked you who was responsible for
rl\e failure of action to be taken on that.
General Strickler. I couldn't answer that. I don't know who did
that after it left there.
Senator Mundt. I am not talking about individuals, I am tallang
about the branch of Government, or the board, or the commission, or
the division.
General Strickler. I don't know what happened to it after that,
and I don't know how it was handled. Ordinarily it goes back to the
G-1 office, personnel, and I suppose that is where it went.
Senator Mundt. If you don't know how the change was made or
who made it, how do you know there was another change?
General Strickler. By the announcement at the time, after the case
\\as over, after the case was over and he was released under the Doc-
tors Draft Act provision, 12 months' service, relief from active duty
and commission terminated and given an honorable discharge.
Senator Mundt. Did your board call the attention of the Secretary
of the Army to the fact that he had been discharged under conditions
different from those which your board had recommended ?
General Strickler. Had it been?
Senator Mundt. Did you call that to his attention?
General Strickler. I didn't personally, no.
Senator Mundt. Did the board ?
General Strickler. Did the board ?
Senator Mundt. Or did the recorder or anybody?
General Stricki.er. I don't know whether — I know it was discussed
and there was a great question.
Senator Mundt. Would that not be a responsibility that your board
would have in the nature of a followup? You make a recommenda-
tion that the case be handled thus and so, and you read in the paper
or elsewhere that it was handled entirely differently, and would not
that be a responsibility of yourself to say, "Well, how come? This
was our recommendation."
Genera] Strickler. Well, we did wonder why it was done and we
v.ere told it was a decision of people higher than we were.
Senator JNIundt. Wlio told you that ?
Genera] Strickler. What?
Senator JNIundt. Who told you that ?
General Strickler. Well, it was just by the general statement in the
pa])ei', and the report of the case, that the case went to certain people
and tlie action was accomplished. We didn't challenge. We did not,
Senator.
Senator INIundt. You are a member of a very important board as
I see it?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Mundt. And you made a recommendation ?
General Strickler. That is right.
312 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Mundt. With which I can't quarrel very much, and you
said you are goin<2: to get rid of him now and follow through to see
that he appeared before a board to show wliy he would not get an
honorable discharge. Is that right ?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Mundt. That was in substance your recommendation?
General Strickler. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Three members of your board agi^eed to that; is
that right?
General Strickler. Go ahead ; yes.
Senator Mundt. The recorder transmitted your decision and
omitted the word "now," but otherwise in the same substance that you
agreed to. Is that right ?
General S'i^rickler. That is right ; yes.
Senator Mundt. The next you heard about it was what you read in
the newspapers or picked up in general conversation, the fact that
Peress had been relieved of his duties or discharged under the Doctors
Draft Act by an entirely different process from that recommended by
your board. Is that right ?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Now, my question is whether you did not feel some
responsibility to the Army and to the Government and to the public
to call to the attention of the Secretary of the Army or somebody above
you that this had not been handled in accordance with the directive
issued by your board which had jurisdiction in the case ?
General Strickler. We felt that they hadn't done it, but we did not.
challenge it.
Senator Mundt. Do you not feel that you had a responsibility to
report that fact to someone? The Army is a greatly complicated
mechanism as this case illustrates.
General Strickler. I thought it was none of oiu" responsibility to
cliallenge the Secretary of the Army.
Senator Mundt. Was it your understanding that tlie Secretary of
the Army had changed your directive ?
General Strickler. ^-VTiat?
Senator Mundt. Was it your understanding that the Secretary of
the Army had changed the directive ?
General Strickler. I didn't know who changed it, but he is the
final responsibility. We know that.
Senator Bender. Excuse me. He didn't take issue or you are not
testifying here that the Secretary of the Army's position was contrary
to yours, or that — you testified something about it is not your right
to question the Secretary of the Army. Well, what do you mean by
that, to challenge that ?
Senator Mundt. You imply that the Secretary of the Army did
that, and I see nothing in the evidence to indicate that, yet there is a
clear implication in your statement that "we should not challenge the
Secretary of the Army."
General Strickler. That is who we work under, the Secretary of
the Army's Board, and in other words, Ave didn't go to him or anyone
else.
Senator Mundt. Assuming, therefore, as fai- as the evidence now
indicates would be a fair assumption, that the S':^crpt;u-y of the Army
did not inject himself into this to the extent of overriding the verdict?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 313
General Strickler. Someone did it for him. When I said that, I
meant somebody under his system.
Senator Mundt. Assuming that, did you not have a responsibility
to the Secretary of the Army to point out that this thing was being
handled contrary to the verdict of your board, which has jurisdiction
in the case?
General Strickler. I think to some extent we did, and I think it
was called to their attention, informally, in the discussions.
Senator jNIundt. You had a responsibility and you measured up to
it and you called it to their attention. Who do you mean by the
pronoim "they" ?
General Strickler. I don't remember Avho it was.
Senator Mitxdt. That is important. Did you call it to the atten-
tion of the Secretary of the Army?
General Strickler. Which was usually brought to his attention and
immediately tlie Secretary of the Army realized what the situation
Avas, and he put out new directives changing the whole setup.
Senator AIundt. To whom did you call or to whose attention did
A'ou call this conflict in the verdict that you made and the way in which
it was handled?
General Strickler. Me personally? I didn't call anyone person-
ally.
Senator Mundt. Or the Board.
General Strickler. I don't have any recollection of who we called.
Senator Mundt. Just think a moment. You just got through say-
ing, General, "and that we recognized our responsibility."
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator jNIundt. So we called it to tlieir attention?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Mundt. I am trying to identify "their."
General Strickler. It was probably in informal discussions with
interoffice personnel from G-1 office and our office, as to what happens
in this case. That is all I can remember about it.
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you, sir, if you are still handling these
cases in this completely haphazard fashion in which you keep no
records, write no notes, and make no minutes, and record nothing,
but in roundtable discussions, a sort of picnic lunch atmosphere, you
discuss these things, and, therefore, there is no record of really who
is responsible? Are you still doing it that way? I am not saying it
was right or wrong, but are you still doing it that way ?
General Strickler. I will say frankly no. The thing has been
changed entirely all the way down the line.
Senator Mundt. Do you now keep records?
General Strickler. It is entirely a dift'erent arrangement on all
cases.
Senator Mundt. Now it is a matter of record ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. So that we have made a corrective in that regard ?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Bender. But you did keep records then, didn't you?
General Strickler. Yes.
Senator Bender. You are not agreeing with the implication that
you were very haphazard and informal in your consideration of
matters?
314 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Mundt, If he is not, I have some more questions for him.
General Strickler. I didn't say we were haphazard. I said we
improved on the system before that time.
Senator Bender. But you do not agree that you failed to comply,
or you didn't do the job as you were hired to do ?
General Strickler. That is correct, and I think we did.
Senator Bender. On the records of this case, there were some nota-
tions made by you or your associates or your subordinates or some-
one indicating that this man was a flag case. Is that right?
General Strickler. A what?
Senator Bender. A flag case. I don't know where that came from,
and I never heard it before until I came here.
Senator Jackson. This is the red flag case.
General Strickler. Here, it was
Senator Bender. That is not an unusual word for this committee.
I have heard that used, very frankly.
Senator Jackson. That is right.
Mr. Brucker. That has been used repeatedly, flagging the case, in
the testimony.
Senator Jackson. These cases were called to the attention of people
by flagging them, and they call it a flagged case for various purposes.
Senator Bender. That term is foreign to you?
General Strickler, I know what you mean when you flag a case.
You put a stop on it.
Senator Bender, But you knew this was a flag case, didn't you ?
General Strickler, That is right.
Senator Bender. And your associates knew it was a flag case ?
General Strickler. Yes, sir.
Senator Bender. And you acted accordingly, is that correct ?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Bender. You had the case before you for 3 days?
General Strickler. Well, it was in the Board's office for 3 days.
Senator Bender. For 3 days, and so you disposed of it and handed
it on to the next fellow ?
General Strickler, That is right.
Senator Bender. Now, you said something about the Secretary of
the Army, you said to the effect that somebody did it for him, using
your language. Well, are you a subordinate of the Secretary of the
Army ?
General Strickler, Am I what?
Senator Bender. A subordinate of the Secretary of the Army ?
General Strickler. I should think so.
Senator Bender. Well, I say, so that you were doing it for him too,
weren't you ?
General Strickler. That is correct.
Senator Bender. That is, you were acting for the Secretary of the
Army, as was this lieutenant, or this colonel or wlioever it was, that
subordinate was handling it for the Secretary of the Army and cloing it
for him and that is the extent of which the Secretary of the Army had
knowledge of this particular case. Is that right?
General Strickler. That is right.
Senator Bender. So that the Secretary of the Army didn't give you
any instructions as to how to handle this?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 315
General Strigkler. Xo, sir.
Mr. Juliana. General, how long have you been in the Army?
General Strigkler. I have been in active service for a period off
and on totaling about 12 years.
Mr. Juliana. A^Hien did you first start serving on this Army
Personnel Board ?
General Strigkler. May 18, 1953,
Mr. Jltll\na. So prior to this particular case you had 4 or 5 months
experience on the Board ?
General Strigkler. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. Now General, I would like to clear one thing from
my own mind here. You and General "VVliite, and I think General
McConnell, was that the other member of that Board ?
General Strigkler. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana, You three Generals made up the Board ?
General Strigkler, As I said, as I explained, I guess I didn't, but
at the time there was a fourth member. General Stokes was also a
member of the Board,
Mr, Juliana. The three that I mentioned informally discussed
this Peress case ?
General Strigkler, That is right.
Mr. Juliana. And General Wliite was the president of the Board?
General Strigkler. That is right.
Mr. Juliana. Now. on this disposition sheet which has been made
an exhibit, General \Aniite made a notation. Now, I want to find
out whether or not the notation that General Wliite made, which I
will read, is the opinion that you three generals concurred in.
Relief from active duty now as substandard. After relief from active duty
start new action under SR 420-5-1, and 600-220-1, to terminate ORG commission
without Board action.
It is signed "W", which General White testified was his initial.
Now, is that action, as you see it, or as I read it, is that the action
that you three men concurred in ?
General Strigkler. That is not my idea of it, not exactly.
Mr. JuLL\NA. So in other words, the president, General ^Yliite,
wrote down the action and he misinterpreted what you had in your
mind ?
General Strigkler. I don't know. He added here "420-5" and I
don't know why he put that in. That was never even argued or
discussed.
Mr. Juliana, "\\niat portions of this did you not concur in?
General Strigkler. That particular portion is the one that I have
no reason or see no reason to put it in, and the other was a matter of
interpretation. "VMien he said, "without board action," I don't know
what he meant. I can only say what I meant.
Mr. Juliana, Let us take it on the face value of it here. If we
delete SR 420-5-1, in substance the rest of it is what you concurred in?
General Strigkler. That is right.
Mr. Juliana, That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Jagkson. Are there any further questions ?
Mr. Kennedy. General Strickler, the recommendation of your
board is final and nobody can change that recommendation. Is that
correct ?
316 ARMY PERvSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
That is except the Secretary unless he sends it back to your board?
General Strickler, Nobody can change it, I don't say that.
Mr. Kennedy. When you make a recommendation, or when the
recommendation comes out of your board, it is final and binding, is
it not?
General Strickusr. You mean now you are talking about ?
Mr. Kennedy. No, on November 20, 1953 ?
General Strickler. Now as of that time, the provisions were that
the G-2 intelligence officer was to make a recommendation on the
case and send it to G-1 personnel officer, and he was to make a recom-
mendation.
However, before G-1 made his recommendation, he would submit
it to our board for our opinion. When it went back to the G-1
office, the G-1 could concur with us or in subsmitting his opinion he
could say, "I disagree with the Army board," and he can submit it
as he sees fit, as his opinion.
Mr. Kennedy. But nobody can change the recommendation that
you people have submitted. Is that right?
General Strickler. You can't change the reconunendation ; no.
Mr. Kennedy. And if the recommendation is going to be changed,
if some other action is going to be taken, regarding the individual,
it must be sent back to your board for reconsideration?
General Strickler. No, that isn't done. I don't quite get you. As
I said, we give a recommendation and opinion, and the G-1 is the
final man, according to the regulations at that time, who gave_^\an
opinion as to what was to be done. ,.' rl
Senator Mundt. G-1 could change your recommendation if it
wanted to?
General Strickler. G-1 under the regulations must submit his own
personal recommendation, that is correct.
Senator Mundt. Which can be different from yours?
General Strickler, That is right.
Senator Mundt. And in this case was ?
General Strickler. I don't know.
Mr. Brucker. We have witnesses following on that.
General Strickler. Pie can testify as to what they do.
Mr. Kennedy. Where does your recommendation go to. General?
General Strickler. I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. You don't know where your recommendation goes
afterAvards?
General Strickler. It goes back to G-1 office.
Senator Jackson. Then G-1 takes the final action for the Secretary ?
General Strickler. G-1 makes the final recommendation.
Senator Jackson. For the Adjutant General ?
General Strickler. And usually acting for the Secretary, the thing
is disposed of, and sometimes it goes up, and some deputy secretary
may look into the case.
Senator Jackson. But you are subordinate or subservient to G-1,
and you get the information from G-2 Intelligence?
General Strickler. That has been the practice. We are known, or
we were originally known as the Secretary of the Army's Personnel
Board and later it was changed to the Army Personnel Board.
Senator Jackson. But your recommendation is channeled to G-1
and then G-1 makes the ultimate and final decision for the Secretary ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 317
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. When we discussed this on February 18, do you re-
member discussing this and making a statement that thereafter it
would go to G-1 for implementation only, and then be forwarded to
the Oflice of the Assistant Secretary of the Army, jSIr. Milton, who
may or may not request that the board reconsider it i
General Strickler. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Well then, your G-1 can only implement the decision
and it can be sent back then by the Assistant Secretary if he wants you
to reconsider, but they cannot change the recommendations that you
people have made.
General Strickler. They cannot change those. They can say, G-1
is required to submit a recommendation, and he can say, 'T concur with
the board," or 'T disagree and I submit the following,"' and it goes up
to Mr. Milton's office and Mr. Milton can dispose of it. He can take
G-l's recommendation and he can take ours, or send it back and do
what he wants.
Senator Jackson. I^t me get something clear here now. Does it
always go to the Secretary's Office, the Assistant Secretary for Per-
sonnel, jSIr. INIilton ?
General Strickler. That I can't answer. We send ours to G-1.
Senator Jackson. Let us get that nailed down.
Mr. Brucker. The witness on that is coming.
■ Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, may we have the interrogatories, the
in'^'rview which was sworn to by Gen. Frank McConnell, who was the
other member of this board, made a part of the record ?
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, I would like to suggest this, that the
recorder is here and he is a live witness, and that is a dead document,
and you can put it in any time. If the man is here from a long
distance, I would like to have him called if you can do it.
Mr. Kennedy. What is that ?
Senator Jackson. I thought Colonel Forbes was the recorder.
Mr. Brucker. I say Forbes is here.
Mr. IvENNEDY. That has nothing to do with this.
Mr. Brucker. That is all right.
Senator Jackson. We obviously wouldn't put it in if the witness
was here. It wouldn't be proper to put the interrogatories in if the
witness was here.
Mr. Brucker. The live witness is here, and if we can accommodate
this, and do you want to read it ?
Mr. Kennedy. I will. All I asked was to have it made a part of the
record.
Senator Jackson. It is not necessary to read it in. Mr. Juliana has
one additional question.
(The interview was as follows :)
Inter\tew of Brig. Gen. Frank C. McConnell, United States Army
(Held in the office of Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel. Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Government Operations, room 101, Senate Office Building,
Washington, D. C, at 5 p. m., Wednesday, February 23, 1955.)
proceedings
Mr. Kennedy. Would you give us your name. General.
General McConnell. Frank C. McConnell, brigadier general, United States
Army.
318 AR]\ri' PERSOXNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr, Kennedy. And where are you stationed now?
General McConnell. Headquarters, 84th Antiaircraft Artillery Brigade, 7th
Army, APO 166, New York, N. Y.
Mr. Kennedy. And are you returning to Europe?
General McConnell. I will return to overseas on Friday, the day after to-
morrow ; the 2r»th.
Mr. Kennedy. General, you were on that Personnel Board that considered
ways and means of terminating Peress' Army duty ; is that correct?
General McConnell. I was on the Army Personnel Board in November of
1953 when the case of Maj. Irving Peress was presented to us for personnel
action.
Mr. Kennedy. That was one of a number of cases?
General McConnell. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time did you receive a memorandum from the Chief
of Personnel Actions Branch suggesting various alternatives in disposing of
Irving Peress?
General McConnell. No ; there was a cover sheet on the file from G-1 which
made certain proposals and conclusions that the Board considered.
Mr. Kennedy. And were there four alternatives that could be considered? Do
you remember that?
General McConnell. It is my recollection there were.
Mr. Kennedy. Is this the memorandum that came to you [handing document
to General McConnell] ?
General McConnell. Yes, this is a copy of the memorandum that was the
cover sheet on the file.
CI 201 Peress, Irving, Captain 01893643.
TAG ACof S, G-1 18 Nov. 1953
Lt. Col. Moore /54450 /bis.
1. Refer the attached case to APB for consideration and recommendation as
to whether :
a. OflScer should be designated as substandard and relieved from active duty
with the first increment of the involuntary release program, or
b. Ofiicer should be released with later increments of the involuntary i-elease
program, or
c. Elimination proceedings should be initiated under AR 605-200, or
d. Oflicer should be retained on active duty.
2. Attached summary of information from G-2 indicates possible security
risk. Hq. First Army, and TSG recommend removal from the service.
3. If officer should be relieved from active duty after the completion of 12
months' service (January 1954) since he registered under the provisions of the
Doctor Draft Act, his commission will be revoked under the law (PL 84, 83rd
Congress (UMT&S, Sec 4) ) .
By direction of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1 :
Gerald G. Epley,
Colonel, GS,
Chief, Personnel Actions Branch.
2 Incl.
1. CS RS, 10 Nov 53, No. 2563, to G-1, w/1 incl.
2. DF to Gl fr G2, undated, w/1 Incl.
Regraded unclassified by auth. of Sec. of the Army :
J. Murray,
Lt. Col, G8, 10 Feb. 1955.
Mr. Kennedy. And it is dated the ISth of November 1953?
General McConnell. I don't remember the date.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, just so we can identify it, that is all.
And on the 19th of November we find a comment No. 2 whereby the Adjutant
General referred this matter over to the Personnel Board. Now, General, can you
remember whether the recorder. Lieutenant Colonel Forbes, made certain sug-
gestions in regard to action you might take?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 319
AGG-AA 201 Peress, Irving 01803643 (18 Nov. 53).
Subject: Peress, Irving, Captain, 01893643
To: President, Army Personnel Board, from CMD-TAGO, date 19 Nov. 53.
Comment No. 2.
Lt. Colonel Iugerski/53569/vjb.
For necessary action in accordance with preceding comment.
For the Chief, Career Management Division :
E. C. Norman,
Colonel, Artillery,
Executive Offlcer.
2 Incl n/c.
General McConnell. Yes, and in this disposition form on the cover sheet of
the file he always wrote out his analysis of the case when it came in. He was
not a member of the Board and was not present during the discussions.
Mr. Kennedy. And he recommended that the officer should be released under
the doctors draft program and his commission automatically terminated by law?
General McConneix. I don't have personal recollection of that, but I have
looked at this and I recognize this copy as General Forbes' handwriting. I accept
it as such
"Ample evidence this officer a security risk. See DF comment 1 (3d under),
suggest best of alternative actions is 'a' (gets him out soonest) and commission
automatically terminated by law (par. 3, same I>F). In no event should he re-
main on A/b longer than necessary, and why waste time, etc., with AR 605.200?
"Forbes."
Mr. Kennedy. So he recommended that Peress be released under this particu-
lar provision of the Doctors Draft Act — which was paragraph (a) under com-
ment Nu. 1 on the first memorandum that I showed you — and you people con-
sidered that in addition to the other alternatives. AVhat did you finally decide
to do, General?
General McConnell. My recollection is that our discussion was that Major
Peress should be released from active duty right now, and subsequent to that
the action to be taken under Special Regulation 600-22O-1 was considered revoca-
tion of his commission under those regulations.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, then, did you turn down in fact the recommendation that
Forbes had originally made to you?
General McConneix. Essentially, yes. Our recommendation was not exactly
in consonance with either the Gl proposal or Forbes' recommendation.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, under your recommendations Peress could be relieved of
active duty immediately and then action taken at a later time under 600-220-1
to relieve him of his commission; is that correct?
General McConnell. That is correct. That was our discussion as I recall it,
and that was our conclusion.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, there was not any discussion about the type of discharge
that Peress was to receive?
General McConnell. I do not recall having discussion about the type of
discharge.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that an ordinary matter that you would consider before your
board?
General McConnell. In a case of this kind, that was not essential.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, was it something that would be considered by you or
considered by the Secretary of the Army?
General McConnell. It was our opinion that that would come up in connec-
tion with subsequent actions to relieve him of his commission under 600-220-1,
as I recall.
Mr. Kennedy. Who were the other Board members with you?
General McConnell. Maj. Gen. Miller White.
Mr. Kennedy. He was chairman of the Board?
General McConnell. He was president of the Board.
Mr. Kennedy. And who else?
General McConnell. Maj. Gen. Daniel Strickler and myself. We were the
three members of the Board.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, I ask you whether this comment which is evidently by
General White under "Action" — I ask you if you would read that to me and
give us your interpretation of it ; whether perhaps you would let us know if
that is in accordance with your understanding of what occurred at your Board
and whether that was your understanding of what action should be taken regard-
ing Peress.
320 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General McConnell. This is a paragi'aph rinder "Action" by the Army Per-
sonnel Board in the Major Irvins Peress case. This is written in longhand with
the initial "W." which I recognize as General White's initial. Neither General
Strickler nor myself have any identiiication on this. This is the text : "RAD
now as substandard. After RAD start new action under SR 420-5-1 and 600-
220-1 to terminate ORG commission w/o board action." Initial "W."
Mr. Kennedy. What does "RAD" stand for?
General McConnell. Relief from active duty.
Mr. Kennedy. Relief from active duty?
General McConnell. Relief from active duty.
Now our discussion, as I recall, was essentially that action should be taken
immediately to relieve Major Peress from active duty right now ; get him off the
payroll ; then in view of the file that subsequent action be taken under 600-220-1
to have his commission terminated imder the existing administrative provisions
that were pertinent at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, as I understand it, General, that 600-220-1 necessitates
board action. Therefore, that comment at the end "without board action" leads
to some confusion ; does it not?
General McConnell. I don't recall that we discussed whether it would be with
or without board action. The type of case under these regulations determines,
as I recall, whether or not the board actually is required. It is my recollection
that subversive cases, such as there was an indication that this was, did require
board action, but I do not recall that we discussed that. This phrase "without
board action," I do not recall that either Strickler or I concurred in that. I do
not recall it was even discussed.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, was it your intention that Peress be relieved from active
duty and then given an immediate honorable discharge without board action, or
did you not get into that discussion? Could you tell us
General McConnell. As I recall, we did not discuss the type of discharge.
That was not necessarily pertinent to this.
Mr. Kennedy. But if it were done through other means than board action,
he would have to get an honorable discharge?
General McConnell. Yes.
Mr. CouGHLiN. That is your opinion?
General McConnell. That is my opinion.
Mr. Kennedy. So if you recommended that he be deprived of his commission
without board action, then you were in fact recommending that he be given
an honorable discharge?
General McConnell. Well
Mr. Kennedy. You can think about if if you want.
General McConnell. Without referring to the regulations I do not have a
recollection on that. Anything I say would simply be my opinion. My opinion
was that he could be relieved from active duty right now and get off the payroll,
but then his case could be investigated under the regulations I quoted.
Mr. Kennedy. I see.
General McConnell. And that that investigation would determine the type
of discharge that he would get when his commission was revoked.
Mr. Kennedy. So you have no recollection that you recommended at that
time that the action to be taken against Peress should be taken without board
action?
General McConnell. No ; I do not have any recollection.
Mr. Kennedy. You do remember, though, discussion that he should be deprived
of his commission through 600-220-1?
General McConnkx. My recollection is that the file on his case had enough
indications of subversive activities that it should be further investigated and
that the action, final action to be taken would be determined by that investiga-
tion. That is the reason that we recommended that he be investigated with a
view to terminating his commission under 600-220-1.
Mr. Kennedy. What occurs after you agree in a meeting such as this? Are
your notes written up by the recorder, or what?
General McConnbxl. The only action that was taken by the three members
of the board was to discuss the case after each of them had read it and studied
it, and to arrive at a conclusion which General White, the president of the
board, made a note of and sent the file out to Colonel Forbes, who was the
recorder of the board, to prepare in formal form for a presentation to the
Secretary of the Army through Gl. The other members of the board never
saw the file in the case after the discussion.
ARIMl' PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 321
Mr. Kennedy. Now I will ask you to read this comment No. 3 written on the
23d of November l)y Colonel Forbes.
General McConnell. I never saw this. I have no recollection of ever seeing
this. This was the formal action taken after tlie board — —
Mr. CouGHLiN. That was usual procedure?
General McConnell. That was normal routine procedure.
]Mr. CouGHLiN. You never saw it ai;ain?
General McConnell. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you read it, please?
General McConnell. This is comment No. 3, addressed to the Assistant Chief
of Staff, Gl, from the Army Personnel Board, dated the 23d of November 1953^
with the headin.a- "Lt. Colonel Forbes— Extension 73403." The text is this:
"Recommend relief from active duty (Paragraph 1-A, Comment No. 1) followed
by action to terminate Reserve commission under SIl 420-5-1 and SR 600-220-1
without board action. For the president of the board. — Lowell L. Forbes, jut.
Colonel, JAGC, Recorder."
IMr. Kennedy. Now, General, could you tell us whether that was your recom-
mendation that you asreed to?
General McConneil. My recollection is that that was not the exact recommen-
dation by the members of the board. That is essentially it, but it omits one
essential word and it adds a phrase that I do not recall that we discussed. The
word that is omitted is the word "now." We recommend that he be relieved
from active duty now, immediately. I do not recall that we discussed this
without board action, that phrase. We simply limited our discussion to subse-
quent action to be taken luider these regulations to have his commission termi-
nated. There is also a phrase here in parentheses, paragraph 1-A, comment
No. 1, that is not to be recommended. That refers to the Gl note that was on
the cover sheet that came out.
Mr. Kennedy. So although a good many of the words are similar, to be put
in that maner and including the words in the parentheses, it changes the
content a good deal?
General McConnell. Yes. This does not follow my recollection of our discus-
sion. It is in those three items. First, this does not put emphasis on getting
rid of him right now ; second, it refers to this paragraph A-1 in Gl's original
note which was not in accord with what we discussed ; and third
Mr. Kennedy. And as a matter of fact you had turned that recommendation
down because it had been the one that was originally recommended to you by
Colonel Forbes?
General McConnell. Let me finish this. Third, without board action. That
is not my recollection.
Now your other question, please.
(The pending question was read as follows : "And as a matter of fact you had
turned that recommendation down because it had been the one that was orig-
inally recommended to you by Colonel Forbes?"
General McConnell. Yes, we turned down Colonel Forbes' original recom-
mendation.
Mr. Kennedy. Which is this paragraph 1-A?
General McConnell. Yes.
(Discussion off the record.)
Mr. Kennedy. Did the actual separation orders of Peress that Mr. O'Donnell"
has shown you conform with what you had intended at your board meeting;
should be done regarding Peress' discharge?
(RCM/EM/dtd/lD733a Suspense Date : 8 Feb. 54)
Department of the Akmy,
Office of the Adjutant General,
Washington 25, D. C, 18 January 1954.
AGPO-SC 201 Peress, Irving (11 .Ian. 54)
Subject : Relief from Active Duty and Separation from the Service.
To : Commanding General, First Army.
1. It is desired that Major Irving Peress, 01893643, DC, be relieved from
active duty and honoi-ably discharged from the Army at the earliest practicable
date depending on officer's desires, but in any event not later than 90 days from
the date of receipt of this letter.
2. Individual or extract orders will be Issued by direction of the President,
citing Sec. 4 (b), PL 84, 83d Congress, as amended. Relief from active duty and
322 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
discharge will be effective under expiration of authorized rail travel time from
place of separation to home of record. Orders directing issuance of DD Form
214 and DD Form 256A will provide for payment of mileage and lump-s.um
payment for unused leave.
3. Separation forms will be completed and forwarded via registered mail
to officer after his separation (SR 135-175-5).
4. All commissions held by him will be terminated on effective date of dis-
charge and he will not be tendered a reappointment in the USAR except by
authority of the Department of the Army. Two copies of separation orders
will be furnislied to The Adjutant General, Department of the Army, Attn:
AGPO-SC in addition to distribution required by SR 310-110-1 and SR 135-
175-5.
5. Officer will not be separated prior to determination that he is physically
qualified for separation by your headquarters. A prompt report will be made
to this office in the event action cannot be taken without undue delay.
By order of the Secretary of the Army :
/s/ R. C. McDantel,
Adjutant General.
Copies for :
AMEDS Br-CMB
Res Br, Status Sec,
RmlC760, Pentagon
ACofS, G-1
A certified true copy :
/s/ J. T. LaMakca,
CWO, USA.
General McConnell. My recollection is that that was not our intent. Our
intent was to have him released from active duty right now, without delay, and
then to follow it up with subsequent action concerning the revocation of his
commission after his release from active duty.
Mr. Kennedy. And that would entail an investigation of his background?
(leneral McConnell. That is right. That was our intent, as I recall it.
At least, that was my intent.
Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything other or beyond this that you think we
should know that would be of assistance?
General McConnell. No ; I cannot contribute anything except that I might
say there has been a lot of water over the dam since I sat on this Board, and my
recollection is not too fresh as to our intent as I recall the discussion. Beyond
that I am afraid I cannot contribute anything.
(Whereupon, the interview in the foregoing matter was ended at 5 : 30 p. m.)
I, Frank C. McConnell, have read the above interrogatory consisting of 12%
pages and certify that it is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
Personally appeared before me, Frank C. McConnell.
Mr. Juliana. Did anyone discuss the Peress case with you subse-
quent to the time that you disposed of it in the board and prior to
Peress' honorable discharge?
General Strickler. Not a soul.
Mr. Juliana. Did anyone discuss it with General White to your
knowledge ?
General Strickler. I don't know, not to my knowledge, no.
Mr. Jui.iANA. Did the board reconvene to discuss the Peress matter
prior to the Peress discharge ?
General Strickler. No, sir.
Mr. Juliana. So that subsequent to your decision or recommenda-
tion of the board, no action was taken as far as you were concerned
until after Peress was discharged?
General Stoickler. That is right.
Mr. Juliana, Were you interviewed by the Inspector General ?
General Strickler. No, sir.
Mr. Juliana, Was his name on the list submitted ?
Senator Jackson. I was going to mention that.
ARlvn- PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 323
Without objection, the interrogatories submitted to Brig. Gen.
Frank C. McConnell in connection with the interview by the staff of
the subcommittee on Wednesday, February 23, 1955, has been included
in the record.
I am advised that our records disclose that General IMcConnell was
not interviewed by the Inspector General, however, his name has been
included on a list of 28 that the Department of the Army submitted
to the subcommittee, the Mundt subcommittee.
I understand the same applies to General Strickler. Is that right?
General Stkickler. I was never approached by a member of the In-
spector General's office.
Senator Jackson. You have never been interviewed by the IG?
General Strickler. No, sir.
Senator Jackson. Although your name, I am informed, does appear
on the list of 28 submitted to the Mundt subcommittee ?
General Strickler. That was because he probably inquired who
was on the board.
Senator Jackson. I know, but I don't know why he submitted it
on a list saying you had been interviewed by the Inspector General
when, in fact, as you now testify, you were not interviewed.
General Strickler. No.
(Senator McClellan returned to the room.)
General Strickler. May I be excused.
Senator IMcClellan. Thank you very much, General.
The next witness is Lt. Col. L. L. Forbes.
Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before this
investigating subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Colonel Forbes. I do.
TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. LOWELL L. FORBES (EETIRED)
The Chairman. All right, Mr. O'Donnell, you may proceed.
Mr. O'Donnell. Colonel, will you please state your name and
address ?
Colonel Forbes. Lowell L. Forbes, Bradenton, Fla.
The Chairman. Are you out of the service, now ?
Colonel Forbes. I am retired, sir.
The Chairman. I think that I failed to inquire of General Wliite
this morning, and I apologize for it. Those who are not now in the
service, of course, we advise them that they are entitled to counsel if
they desire counsel, and the Chair will so advise you.
Colonel Forbes. I am a member of the bar, sir, and I understand
that perfectly.
The Chairman. If you are a member of the bar, I have persuaded
you to take care of yourself.
Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. O'Donnell. Will you state your street address in Bradenton,
please ?
Colonel Forbes. 620 47th Street W. It is outside corporate limits
of the city.
The Chairman. You are a lieutenant colonel in retired status. Is
that correct?
Colonel Forbes. I am, sir.
324 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
( Senator Bender left the room. )
Mr. O'DoxNELL. Tliis morning several documents vreve introduced
as exhibits and I believe they are presently before you. starting with
No. 50. Have you had a previous opportunity prior to today to
familiarize yourself with those documents?
Colonel Forbes. I have.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Do you have any specific recollection of the Peress
case that was before the board ?
Colonel Forbes. Not until the story was published in the U. S. News
and World Report.
Mr. O'Donnell. On November 20, 1953, were you the recorder for
the personnel board in the Army ?
Colonel Forbes. I was.
( Senator Jackson left the room. )
Mr. O'Donnell. Were you also during that period of time and prior
thereto affiliated with other boards in the Pentagon ?
Colonel Forbes. I was.
Mr. O'Donnell. For approximately how long a period of time were
you affiliated in various capacities with various boards of the Pen-
tagon ?
Colonel Forbes. Four years and three months.
(The Senators now present are Senators :McClellan and Mundt.)
Mr. O'Donnell. I call your attention to the worksheet which is in
front of you, Mr. Forbes, which has been very thoroughly discussed
and to the comment rs to action In' General White and to the comment
No. 3 which has also been introduced as an exhibit, which is the for-
warding to G-1 by you as to the recommendation of the board. Do
you have that in front of you ?
Colonel Forbes. I do, sir.
Mr. O'Donnell. Your recommendation to G-1 differs from the
penciled or inked recommendation of General White in that in place
of "now" the words "paragraph 1 (a), comment No. 1" appears.
Colonel Forbes. I interpolated that.
Mr. O'Donnell. Was it the general policy by you as recorder to list
word for word what came out of the board, or did you interpret the
decision from the board for the benefit of clarity for G-1?
Colonel Forbes. Let us put it this way, Mr. O'Donnell, I edited the
instructions that were given to me and I cast them in proper termi-
nology and military phraseology as I saw it.
Mr. O'Donnell. Do you feel that your editing in this case was m
complete agreement with the decision of the Board ?
Colonel Forbes. I do.
Mr. O'Donnell. Would you explain upon what you base that mcon-
sistencv ?
Colonel Forbes. Well, it will aid me if the inconsistencies will be
pointed out first.
Mr. O'Donnell. All right. The recommendation of the Board
was to "EAD now as substandard," and then a second subsequent part
appears. Yours is "recommend relief from active duty, paragraph
1 (a), comment No. 1."
That refers to relief from active duty as substandard with the first
increment of involuntary release program. Is that correct?
Colonel Forbes. That is correct.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 325
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did your editing have "RAD now" mean that he
would go out under the Doctors Draft Act?
Colonel Forbes. No, I don't believe so. Just a moment. Let me
check. I cast the instructions of the president of the Board in con-
text of paragraph 1 (a) of what appears to be the committee's exhibit
No. 50. That is the reason I interpolated the reference to that para-
graph, "now" being a relative term, indicating the sequence in which
events transpired : First, relief from active duty and then the board
action.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You would interpret "now" then in what fashion,
as immediately or w^ith the first increment under the program ?
Colonel Forbes. In my opinion the word "now" was redundant, and
the fact of the matter is it is axiomatic in the Army, I believe, that
everything is done with the least practical delay.
Senator Mundt. That is a novel observation.
The Chairman. A'\niat is that? '\Miat else was it?
Colonel Forbes. That is a phrase that frequently appears in mili-
tary correspondence, that things will be done with the least practical
delay, and in my training things were always done as promptly as
possible.
The Chairman. In the Army?
Colonel Forbes. Yes, sir, and out of the Army, too, may I add.
The Chairman. You assumed that this man would be discharged
as promptly as possible?
Colonel Forbes. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. What did you substitute for the word "now" ?
Colonel Forbes. Nothing ; I thought it was redundant.
Mr. O'Donnell. Colonel, I think j^ou have heard the testimony
today of General White, retired, and also General Strickler. General
Strickler indicated very clearly that it was his inter])ictation that by
"now" he meant to get him out virtually immediately, get him off of
active duty immediately, as distinct from waiting until such period of
time as there might have been this hrst group going out, or as General
White said he could go out with the first increments. Are you familiar
with the testimony 'i
Colonel Forbes. I am.
Mr. O'Donnell. And your interpretation, however, was not to get
him out immediately, but to get him out under the first part of the
involuntary program ?
Colonel Forbes. Well. I have great difficulty in separating what
was in my mind at that time and what hindsight indicates now.
All I can say is that I considered at the time the word "now" to be
redundant in light of the context because two steps to be taken in
sequence were indicated. First, there was relieving from active duty
under this involuntary release program, and then bring him before
a board, and the term "now" denoted the sequence of events.
Mr. O'Donnell. Were you cognizant at that time under the in-
voluntary program it Avould have taken 90 days before he would have
been relieved?
Colonel Forbes. My best recollection is that I was.
The Chairman. Did you think "now" meant 90 days from now, if
you were cognizant of it ? Is that not a pretty strained interpretation
on the word "now," which you say is redundant, as compared to 90
davs hence?
326 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Forbes. You have a point, Senator.
The Chairmax. I believe I do.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was your best recollection that it was 90 days?
Colonel Forbes. I have a recollection that I was aware of that 90-
day matter. Now, whether it was the time that was written or shortly
thereafter, I couldn't say.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. On your forwarding to G-1 of the board's recom-
mendation, the second part deals with terminating his Reserve com-
mission under 425-1, and 600-220-1 without board action. I think
it has been established 420-5-1 did not pertain to this case. Is that
correct ?
Colonel Forbes. I believe that is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Are you in agreement with that, Colonel?
Colonel FoBRES. I have no knowledge in the premises and I am not
familiar with that regulation by that number.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Under 600-220-1 without board action, would that
part of the recommendation have been an agreement with your partic-
ular line of thinking as to what the regulations were at that time?
I am calling your attention now to page 2 of the worksheet.
Colonel Forbes. May I have the question again, please ?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Certainly. Was the second part, namely, to ter-
minate his commission under 600-220-1 without board action, in
agreement with your interpretation of existing regulations?
Colonel Forbes. Now, are you referring to the worksheet in my
handwriting called committee's exhibit No. 51?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is correct.
Colonel Forbes. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That was in agreement?
Colonel Forbes. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, are you looking at page 2 of that worksheet
dated November 23 ?
Mr. Brucker. Tliere is only one page there.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Will you hold it up so that I can see it?
Colonel Forbes. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is correct.
The Chairman. Page 2 of the worksheet will be called exhibit No.
53.
(Exhibit No. 53 will be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Colonel Forbes. It is the one I sent back to General Wliite, the
president of the board,
Mr. O'Donnell. I want to be clear on this, that termination under
600-220-1 without board action was in agreement with your inter-
pretation of regulations at that time?
Colonel Forbes. You have got me well confused.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I am calling your attention to the comment No. 3
appearing on 3^our sending to G-1 the decision of the board.
Colonel Forbes. Yes.
Mr. O'Donnell. In the latter part of that, the second part if I
might say —
followed by action to terminate reserve commission under SR 420-5-1, and SR
600-220-1, without board action.
Now, under 600-220-1 without board action, was your interpreta-
tion of existing regulations in agreement with this board's decision?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 327
Colonel Forbes. It was.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, I am referring you back to page 2 of the
work sheet. There you called to the attention of the board, you are
calling to the attention of the board :
See your instructions on work sheet re termination of commission without
board action.
Officer may request board action under procedures annoimced last week.
Now, that is your handwritten note, is that correct ?
Colonel Forbes. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. To the board?
Colonel Forbes. Yes, that is right.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So that at that time, if I am reading properly,
your interpretation was that the officer may request board action. Is
that correct ?
Colonel Forbes. Yes, under this reference to a G-1 memorandum
that was attached, that is what I had in mind at that time, when I
wrote this.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The answer that came back from T\n;iite, was that
the proposed directive
Colonel Forbes. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So that under your interpretation there could
have been a board action under 600-220-1. Is that right?
Colonel Forbes. Yes, I think so.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So this "without board action" was not in com-
plete agreement with your interpretation of the existing regulations?
Colonel Forbes. No, not as I interpreted it at that time.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So after it came back
The Chairman. Let us clear that a little.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The one going to G-1 from the board ?
The Chairman. The one in which you sent the recommendations of
the board to G-1 and in which you closed it by saying "without board
action." Now, you say that is not inconsistent with your interpreta-
tion of the regulations at that time, and yet you point out here that a
week before tliis memorandum came out pointing out that the officer
could request board action. How do you clear that up ?
Colonel Forbes. "Wliat I referred to as the G-1 memo was a pro-
posed change in the regulations.
The Chairman. You mean it had not gone into effect ?
Colonel Forbes. It had not yet been published and it was in memo-
randum form, as I recall it.
The Chairjian. But it was about to go into effect?
Colonel Forbes. Presumably so.
The Cil\irman. Or you anticipated it would go into effect?
Colonel Forbes. Yes.
The Chairman. But vou state at the time vou wrote this, it was
not m effect ?
Colonel Forbes. This memorandum? It was not in effect.
The Chairman. It actually went into effect on October 23, did it
not?
Colonel Forbes. Well, it might have been the effective date, but
when it was published it was not distributed.
The Chairman. How did you know about it if it wasn't in effect?
How would you know about it if it had not been put into effect?
328 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Forbes. Apparently it was a G-1 memorandum circulated
among interested agencies to get tlieir reaction to tlie proposed change
or modification in the regulations.
The Chairman. You mean sending them out that way and you do
not know whether they are in effect or not?
Colonel Forbes. They are not in effect until they are approved by
the Secretary and published, I don't believe.
The Chairman. Well, am I correct in saying that it did actually
go into effect on October 23 ?
Colonel Forbes. That is the date the printed regulation now bears.
The Chairman. Well, if that is correct, then it was in effect both
at the time you wrote this memorandum here
Colonel Forbes. It could have been in effect.
The Chairman. And also at the time you sent in your report of the
board to G-1. Is that not correct? It was in effect and not just being
circulated at that time. I mean, do the records not show that?
Colonel Forbes. My dear Senator, it could well have been in effect
and published and our board not have yet received it on distribution.
The Chairman. Well, you must have received it. You must have
known something about it.
Colonel Forbes. I knew about the memorandum, obviously, that
led up to the change.
The Chairman. Let us see what else is going on from there. From
October 23 to November 2, 10 days' time, or to November 20 rather,
instead of November 2, I am sorry— 30 days' time— the thing had
been in effect that long according to the document itself that shows
it went into effect on the 23d of October, and it had been in effect that
long and your board had never been advised it was in effect. You
still thought it was a memorandum floating around.
Colonel Forbes. All I had before me at the time I wrote this was
the memorandum.
The Chairman. I am not saying you are not correct, but again I
point out, what in the world is happening in the Army if it takes
that long for a board to get information on how to act after an order
had been into elfect 30 days before. Can you explain it ?
Colonel Forbes. No.
The Chairman. Was that the general situation ?
Colonel Forbes. I was a very small cog in a very big wheel.
The Chaieiman. I understand, and I am not trying to embarrass
you.
Colonel Forbes. It seems to me you are, sir.
The Chairman. AVliat?
Colonel Forbes. I am afraid that you are.
The Chairman. I hope not. All I want is to get the facts, and
here is a memorandum and instruction and an order that goes into
effect on the 23d of October, and here you are sitting with the board
on the 20th of No^■embe^ folknving, and I am not saying that you
should have known differently, but at least there is something wrong-
in the proceedings down there, in the administration, that your board
would not have knowledge on November 20 that the order had gone
into effect October 23.
Now, it may not have been your fault, and so I am not trying to
embarrass you. But do you say tliat you did not know it, and as of
that time it had not been made officially known to you?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 329
Colonel Forbes. All I can say, sir, is that obviously the only docu-
ment that I had in my possession on which I could base this kick-
back to General White, was this memorandum circulating a draft of
the proposed change in the regulations. I can't conceive that I would
have referred to a memo if the thing had been published and dis-
tributed and was in my hands.
The Chairman. You would indicate that you thought it was just
proposed and you use the word "proposed," Is that right? •
Colonel Forbes. That is right.
The Chairman. It was Geiieral '\^^nte who wrote the word "pro-
posed" in here? That is a proposed directive. Now, you wrote that
it had been announced prior to that, did you not?
Colonel Forbes. Yes, in a G-1 memo.
The Chairman. Read exactly what you said.
Colonel Foni!ES. '"See 3-cur irstructions on work sheet, re, termi-
nation of ORC commission, without board action," all three under-
lined, "but officer may," and that is underscored, "request board action
under procedures announced last week, (See par. 2 (a), subpar, 3,
G-1 memo attached.)"
That was my authority for the statement.
The Chairman. But you said it was announced. That is a dif-
ference in just a proposal going around, circulating around without it
being announced, as a policy, or as a rule or regulation to guide you,
is there not? You used the word "announced," which indicates that
you obviously knew at the time that this order had gone into effect.
Now, if you did not, say you did not, and say why you did not.
Colonel Forbes, Senator, I cannot charge my memory with those
things. It has been 14 or 15 months ago.
The Chairman. Well, the writing indicates that you knew it at
the time?
Colonel Forbes, Obviously, I did, and I tried to raise a red flag
to keep a mistake from being made that I thought was about to be
made. I was told in effect that I was in error, and that it was a pro-
posed thing.
The Chairman. You were told that by General White?
Colonel Forbes. That is right.
The Chairman. So he corrected you?
Colonel Forbes. Yes.
The Chairman. And you sent it on in anyhow because according
to his interpretation of it, or understanding at the time, it was just
a proposed change and had not yet gone into effect ?
Colonel Forbes. That is right.
The Chairman. But yet you, in your own judgment, obviously,
from what you wrote here, thought it was in effect and had been an-
nounced ?
Colonel Forbes. I used the word "announced," and I must have
thought it was in effect.
If I had thought of it merely in terms of "proposal," the probabili-
ties are that I would not have raised the issue.
The Chairman, I want to say to you, sir, that the Chair is not in-
terested in embarrassing anyone. We are interested, however, in try-
ing to get once and for all the Peress excursion cleared up and ended.
If I have said anything to try to embarrass you, I certainly had no
330 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
such intention, but these things appear here in the record and we are
entitled as a committee, Congress is entitled and so is the public, to
have them cleared up.
Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I am sorry, Colonel Forbes, but let me hand you
this protostatic copy. I don't think that you have had it in front
of you, and it has not been introduced as an exhibit and I was dis-
cussing it.
I know you have been using the Army's copy. Would you please
identify that document?
Colonel Forbes, This is the third comment on what I recognize is
a disposition form, dated November 23, 1953, written by myself as a
recorder for the Armj^ Personnel Board, and addressed to the Assist-
ant Chief of Staff, G-1.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. May we have that identified as an exhibit for the
record ?
The Chairman. It has already been made exhibit 52.
Proceed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, on this paper which contains the recom-
mendation of the Board over your signature to G-1, did your rec-
ommendation, in your editing of what the President of the Board sent
to you, did this in any way have to do with the Doctors Draft Act in
removing Peress from the service ?
Colonel Forbes. I would say not because I had invited attention
to that phase of this four-way alternative, and shall we say, I got
my ears pinned back for my trouble.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So that your interpretation would be that this
was not to relieve him from active duty pursuant to the Draft Act.
which had been presented to the Board, and you had specifically
called the Board's attention to it, is that right ?
Colonel Forbes. That is right.
I interpreted General '^A'liite's note to me that the Board agreed
with the first portion of my recommendation and disagreed with the
second portion, the second portion having to do with the Doctors
Draft Act, and the first portion having to do with the involuntary
release program relative to substandard officers.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Were you cognizant of the fact, which is para-
graph 3 in one of the exhibits before you, which is the summary with
the four alternatives from G-1 to the Board ?
Colonel Forbes. Was I cognizant of those four alternatives, and
paragraph 3?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Were you cognizant as a result of paragraph 3
that after 12 months of service that Peress could have had his com-
mission automatically terminated if he was taken off active duty?
Colonel Forbes. I was aware of paragraph 3, yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, you have sent the Board's recommendation
to G-1 which, according to your interpretation, had nothing to do with
the Doctors Draft Act ; am I correct ?
Colonel Forbes. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And still you have testified a few minutes ago
that getting him out under 1 (a), which would be the first increment
of the involuntary relief program, would take 90 days, and that you
were cognizant of that 90-day period. Is that correct ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 331
Colonel Forbes. My recollection is that I knew of the 90-day j^hase
of that at about that time. But I cannot say that I knew of it at the
time that I composed this endorsement or comment No. 3.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, this being November 20, the 90-day period
had expired, in fact, and it would have taken it beyond the period of
1 year when Peress had been in the service. Is that right ?
Colonel Forbes. I think that is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So that if he were removed under the present
Doctors Draft Act program, his commission would automatically be
terminated. Is that correct ?
Colonel Forbes. That seems to be the fact.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So that if, in fact, this particular recommenda-
tion of the Board went forward, since it would take 90 days, could
he have been separated under the recommendation of the Board ?
Colonel Forbes. I don't see how he could. If the paragraph 3 to
which you* have alluded was self-executing, obviously that would
make the other action. Board action, quite impossible.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. According to your interpretation, as distinct from
anything else, if you were cognizant of the 90 days before he could
get out under the involuntary release program, part 1 of the Board's
recommendation, so-called, then even though the Board did not want
to consider the Doctors Draft Act as such, he still would have had his
commission revoked automatically because the Doctors Draft Act
would come into the picture since it would be beyond the 1-year period.
Is that correct ?
Colonel Forbes. I think that is correct,
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And the second part of this could not be followed ?
Colonel Forbes. That is what I tried to say a moment ago.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, the only question I raise now, Mr. Forbes,
is why the apparent contradiction, or inconsistency was not caught by
you and brought to the attention of G-1 ?
Colonel Forbes. I have no explanation. It is human to err, and if
1 am at fault it is my responsibility, and hindsight is frequently much
better than foresight.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. If, in fact, you had caught the inconsistency,
would you have brought it to the attention of G-l or would you have
brought it to the attention of the Board ?
Colonel Forbes. I would probably have brought it to the attention
of the Board.
The Chairman. May I ask you a question at that point ? I think
it is pretty important. General Strickler testified that the custom
was, and the practice was, when these things were written up, to bring
them back to the Board to be initialed, and in this instance only Gen-
eral White, the president of the Board, initialed this order or report
that you made to G-l. '\^Tiat was the practice and custom ?
Colonel Forbes. The normal practice. Senator McClellan, was for
each member of the Board on the worksheet to inscribe in his own
handwriting his reaction and his decision as to what should be done.
Then the worksheet was passed back to me, from whom it had come,
and I cast the unanimity of opinion if it were so or the majority opin-
ion if that was the case, in proper terminology and phraseology, and
normally signed it as the recorder and it was never referred back to
the Board for their inspection.
332 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. You heard General Strickler's testimony and he
was mistaken about that ; was he ?
Colonel Forbes. That is my testimony.
The Chairman. Did it ever occur to you that where you were doinf^
the recasting of it, and trying to put the different endorsements on the
worksheet and combine it into language of instructions or reports, that
that should be carried back to the Board for their approval before it
was dispatched to your superiors, or to the destination to which it
should go ?
Colonel Forbes. In many cases, Senator, I prepared a draft of a
proposed endorsement which I thought was in harmony with the in-
structions set out on the worksheet and that was circulated among the
Board for their approval and then final draft was made. But those
were not mine-run cases.
The Chairman. Was this a mine-run case, the Peress case?
Colonel Forbes. This Peress case was just another subversive, all
of whom were anathema to me.
The Chairman. You did not do that on all of the subversive cases?
Colonel Forbes. No, sir ; very few of them.
The Chairman. Hindsight is a little better than foresight, I guess,
or present sight. It is certainly indicated to you now that that course
should have been followed ; is it not ?
Colonel Forbes. If I were not competent. Senator, in most cases to
cast the recommendation of the Board in proper language, I was not
competent to be the recorder of the Board.
The Chairman. That is something that we do not need to settle
today, at this moment, but the question is : Was it not better practice,
and do you not recognize it as such no matter how competent you were,
to turn it back to the Board for their final approval before it became
effective ?
Colonel Forbes. I don't think so, sir. It would just multiply the
paperwork that is already too burdensome.
Tlie CiiAiR^rAN. The Chair cannot agree with you, I am sorry to
say, because the Board is the one that speaks. It made the final deci-
sion and had that been followed, I think possibly this mistake could
not have occurred.
Colonel Forbes. May I suggest, had I been instructed to do it that
way, I would have done it.
The Chairman. I am not saying who failed to give the instruc-
tions. I am trying to get what actually happened. If you did not
have such instructions, it seems to me that someone was derelict in his
duty. I can say that to you whether it was you or the Board or some-
one'else, because it was certainly a kind of a ragged practice to handle a
matter of this importance in that fashion. It certainly looks that way
to me. The consequences that have followed pretty well confirms, I
think, the opinion I have expressed, and I trust I have expressed it
mildly.
Senator Mundt. You were here during the testimony of General
Strickler, were you r >t?
Colonel Forbes. I was.
Senator Mundt. You recall that I was interrogating him and he
said that after your final instructions had gone forward to G-1, and
tlie Peress case was then handled diffei'ently from what you had recom-
ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 333
mended, that it created some discussion in the Board. That is in-
formal discussion among the Board members and others, and the fact
that there had been a discrepancy was brought to what he called "their
attention."
He was unable to remember who he meant bv "their attention."
Can you shed any light as to the nature of those subsequent discussions
and how the opinion of the Board was brouglit to the attention of
somebody ?
Colonel Forbes. Senator Mundt, I never discussed this case with
any member of the Board, and moreover, I had been retired before
Peress was discharged. So obviously I could not have had any dis-
cussion with them afterward.
Senator Mundt. Let me ask you one other question : As a part of
the function of being the recordei', when they would have these in-
formal discussions on other cases at the time you were with the Board,
was part of your duty and part of your function to make sort of run-
ning notes and keep some kind of a diary, or some kind of minute book
as to what took place at these information discussions, or did you
come into the picture only when they sent something up to you in
the form of worksheets ?
Colonel Forbes. I was very rarely called into conferences with the
Board at any of its sessions in these matters. In cases of this charac-
ter, you might say I was nothing more than a scrivener after the Board
acted.
Senator Mundt. You did not sit in on the discussions ?
Colonel Forbes. No.
Senator Mundt. It came to you in the form of writing ?
Colonel Forbes. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Do you know whether there was any counterpart
of you who did sit in on the Board? Did the Board have another
secretary or another scrivener or another recorder, or another person
who made notes of these discussions?
Colonel Forbes. Not that I know of.
Senator Mundt. And you probably would have known about it had
there been such an individual?
Colonel Forbes. I am quite certain I would have.
Senator JVIundt. I have no further questions.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, during the period of time that you were
affiliated with the various boards, which is 4 years and 3 months, do
you know of any case wherein an officer who ai^peared before any of
the boards received a discharge under less than honorable conditions ?
Colonel Forbes. I do not recall any.
Senator Mundt. Does that mean you were dealing exclusively with
subversive cases or alleged subversive cases?
Colonel Forbes. Oh, no ; I had many other functions. Senator.
Senator Mundt. '\^^iat is that ?
Colonel Forbes. I had many other functions.
Senator Mundt. Did the Board not deal exclusively with cases of
subversion ?
Colonel Forbes. No, there were many types of personnel action
that it participated in.
Senator Mundt. There were other subversive cases, may I put it
that way?
334 ARMY PERSONISTEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Forbes. Many of them.
Senator Muxdt. And all of those received honorable discharges,
if they were discharged at all ?
Colonel Forbes, Let us put it this way : They all received honor-
able or general discharges, so far as my memory serves me. I don't
recall anywhere they got a derogatory type of discharge.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That is officers and not enlisted men?
Colonel Forbes. Officers; yes, sir.
Senator Mi xdt. So there was a different way of handling officers
from what was the running rule with enlisted men because they some-
times got less than honorable discharges?
Colonel Forbes. In some cases the enlisted men got an undesirable
discharge.
Senator Mundt. For subversive backgrounds?
Colonel Forbes. For subversive backgrounds ; yes.
Senator Mundt. So to that degree there was certainly a discrimi-
nation between the way officers were handled and the way enlisted
men were handled?
Colonel Forbes. There is no doubt of it.
The CHAiRMAisr. Let me ask you one question, and I do not know
how much bearing it has on this, but was there any difference in the
handling of cases such as the Peress case, regarded as subversive
cases, and the handling of homosexual cases ?
Colonel Forbes. Senator, I did not have any participation in the
homosexual cases, except in very rare instances.
The Chairman. They did not come before this Board?
Colonel Forbes. Yes, they came before this Board, but a different
recorder handled those.
The Chairman. I want to know whether there was a discrimination
against enlisted men on that score as compared to officers, such as
there was with respect to the subversives like the Peress case.
Colonel Forbes. I can't answer you because I did not participate in
that particular activity before the Board.
Senator Mundt. Probably the Governor would know.
Mr. Brucker. I don't have that independent information here.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, subsequent to the time that you for-
warded your board decision to G-1
The Chairman. May I say at this point, ]\Ir. Governor, I wish
you would inquire into that. We may want to take some testimony
on that wliile we are in this thing to see how far this discrimination
may extend.
Mr. Brucker. All right.
Senator Mundt. Before we leave the subject of discrimination, Mr.
Forbes, if this comes within the realm of your knowledge, were
Reserve officers and Regular Army officers handled exactly the same
by the board or was there also a double standard of morality between
these two groups?
Colonel Forbes. Every effort was made to treat them exactly alike.
Senator Mundt. There was no discrimination between those two
groups, as far as you know. The discrimination did not extend as
between Reserve officers and Regular officers?
Colonel Forbes. No ; you want to remember that the majority of us
who engaged in the activity were non-Regulars.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 335
Senator Mundt. I was not objecting to that, but j^on bad pointed
out a discrimination between enlisted men and Regular Army officers^
and I wanted to know if there was also this double standard of moral-
ity applied between the two types of officers. I think that you an-
swered that it did not.
Colonel Forbes. No; there was no double standard whatsoever in-
sofar as the statutes permitted and the regulations.
]Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, after you had forwarded the board's rec-
ommendation to G-1, G-1 submitted a summary in which they stated
that the Army Personnel Board made the determination to relieve
Peress from active duty after completion of 12 months' service under
tlie involuntary release progTam, since after that length of time his
connnission may be revoked as a special registrant. Was that the
decision of the board ?
Colonel Forbes. No; that is not in harmony with the decision of
the board in my opinion.
]SIr. O'DoNNELL. Well now, that particular memo shows that "APB
coordination was with Colonel Forbes, TSttOo concur," and would you
explain vrhat that would mean?
Colonel Forbes. I have no knowledge in the premises. I had no
recollection of ever seeing the document on which that appears or
having heard of it.
ISIr. O'DoNNELL. I am showing a photostatic copy now to the
Colonel.
Colonel Forbes. Yes,
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Have you ever seen that before, Colonel ?
Colonel Forbes. I have seen it in the last day or so, and T saw it last
month.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Have you seen it prior to that period of time ?
Colonel Forbes. Not that I recall.
Mr. CDoNXELL. I am not going to ask you to identify it because
you haven't seen it, but what would that indicate to you under normal
circumstances, that your name appears down in the left-hand corner,
showing concurrence ?
Colonel Forbes. Under normal circumstances, that would indicate
that the author of this document had talked to me about some phase
of it over the telephone, or maybe about it in its entirety.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would you have agreed to what obviously is a
change from the board's decision, as it is stated in that memorandum,
over the telephone?
Colonel Forbes. I would not, and I would not have agreed to it in
any event because I had no authority in the premises.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would you question the authenticity of that par-
ticular document ?
Colonel Forbes. I have no basis upon which to question it.
Senator Mundt. You say you have never seen it. Do you re-
member any conversation about it on the telephone?
Colonel Forbes. I have no recollection whatsoever, Senator, with
respect to this particular document.
Senator Mundt. Would you know who the author of it is?
Colonel Forbes. I assume it must have been Colonel Moore. It
would appear up in the corner, the right-hand corner.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. We are going to iiitroduce that as an exhibit later
on, Senator.
336 ARIMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Muxdt, What is tliat number back of your name ?
Colonel FoRisKS. The telephone number, telephone extension num-
ber.
Senator Mundt. Is it possible that in the business life you lead that
you were telephoned about this and have forgotten about it?
Colonel Forbes. Certainly it is possible, but I would be amazed at
myself at such a radical departure from the recommendation, that I
wouldn't have taken it up with the board because I had no authority
in the premises and I couldn't make changes in the substance like
that.
Senator Mundt. Did you know Major Buelow, who was also sup-
posed to have concurred?
Colonel FoRi^.ES. I have not had the honor of meeting the gentle-
man to my knowledge.
The Chairman. May I ask the colonel if you were interviewed by
the Inspector General in connection with this case ?
Colonel Forbes. I was not.
The Chairman. Your name does appear on a list of 28 witnesses
that was furnished to the special Mundt subcommittee. That is the
original list that was submitted.
Senator Mundt. Not as a witness, but as people who were allegedly
involved in one way or another in the Peress case.
The Chair3ian. It was a list su])iiiittcd by rhe Secretary of the
Army to your committee. Senator, of those who had some alnrmative
action in connection with the Peress case.
You say you were not interrogated by the Inspector General regard-
ing it ?
Colonel Forbes. I was not.
The Chairman. Before he filed this report ?
Colonel Forbes. No, sir.
The Chairman. Have you ever been interrogated by him ?
Colonel Forbes. No, sir.
Senator Mundt. Were you ever notified to the effect that your
name had been submitted? It was a pretty secret document for a
long time.
Colonel Forbes. By the Inspector General ?
Senator Mundt. By the Secretary of the Army, I think it was. Is
that not right?
Mr. Brucker. The Secretary of the Army submitted the list.
Senator Mundt. Were you ever notified that your name was sub-
mitted on that list that was given to me ?
Colonel Forbes. Will you pardon me just a moment, please?
Senator Mundt. I asked you a very simple question, and I don't
care — if you want to put something in the record that is different.
Colonel Forbes. A categorical answer may not suffice.
Senator Mundt. Read what you want to read.
Mr. Brucker. I advise you that you are able to read paragraph 2
of the letter addressed to you under date of August 13, 1954, subject,
"Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Hearing, to
Lt. Col. L. L. Forbes, JAGC, RE 1, 47th Street, West, Bradenton,
Fla.," into the record.
Colonel Forbes. That is paragraph 3 of the letter that you
identified ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes.
ARAIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 337
Senator Mundt, To whom was it addressed ?
Mr. Brucker. To Colonel Forbes.
Senator Mundt. Dated when ?
Mr. Brucker. August 13, 1954.
Senator Mundt. Do you want to put that letter into the record so
that we will have it ?
Mr. Brucker. It is a confidential document here, established as
such.
Senator Mundt. A letter dated August 13, 1954, to the colonel
and signed by whom?
Mr. Brucker. Signed by Herbert ISI. Jones, major general. United
States Army, Acting, the Adjutant General.
The Chairman. The question is, does the letter inform you that
your name was submitted on this list of 28 ? That is what it amounts
to.
Mr. Brucker. You are informed that you may answer it.
Colonel Forbes Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. When were you so advised ?
Colonel Forbes. Senator, it was probably about the 15th or 16th
of August 1954.
Senator Mundt. How were you advised ?
Colonel Forbes. By letter, registered.
Senator Mundt. That is the letter that you received and you are
now using it to refresh your memory ?
Mr. Brucker. Can I just say this, or I don't want to interrupt
you, but I see here the stamp of confidential and I would like to have
an opportunity to downgi-ade this letter, and I can't do it because I
have no authority. But I see nothing in this that should not be in
the record, and I would like to have the opportunity to get this down-
graded and place it there.
Senator Mundt. I suggest that we give him the opportunity, and
if he can get it he can put it in the record.
The Chairman. The opportunity is afforded and we trust that
you will be successful.^
Senator Mundt. Could you at the same time try to downgrade the
letter that the colonel is reading?
Mr. Brucker. It is the same thing.
Senator Mundt. I thought one was a letter of transmittal and the
other was the letter.
Mr. Brucker. No.
The Chairman. Do you have any f ii rther questions ?
All right, Colonel, you may be excused.
Mr. Brucker. Before you have him leave, may I request the chair-
man to ask him the question as to whether or not he was ever influ-
enced ?
The CHAIR3IAN. I will be glad to ask that. Thank you for calling
the Chair's attention to it.
Colonel Forbes, have you ever been talked to by any of your supe-
riors about the Peress case ?
Colonel Forbes. No, sir.
The Chairman. Prior to the time or at the time of November 20,
1953, when you took this action as recorder of the Board, and the
1 The letter referred to was later declassified and marked "Exhibit No. 79." It appears
In pt. 6 of this series.
338 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
actions that you have testified to here today, had you ever been talked
to by anyone about the Peress case with respect to giving you any
specific instructions or suggestions to you that you in any way favor
Peress, or give him any preferred treatment ?
Colonel Forbes, Absolutely not, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, you were never influenced other
than in the normal course of your duties?
Colonel Forbes. I wasn't influenced by anyone whosoever, and I
discharged my duty, as outlined here in my testimony, as I saw the
light.
The Chairman. As of that time, of course, you didn't know that
this was likely to occur, but at least no one at that time was inter-
ceding for Peress to get any favor for him as far as you were con-
cerned ?
Colonel Forbes. Not as far as I am concerned, nor so far as I know.
The Chairman. Was that sufficient?
jVIr. Brucker. It is.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Colonel.
The committee will take a 10-minute recess.
(Eecess.)
Senators McClellan and Jackson were present following the reress.
The Chairman. Colonel Moore, will you come around, please, sir?
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Colonel MooRE. I do.
TESTIMONY OF IT. COL. GEOEGE B. MOORE
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. What is your present address. Colonel?
Colonel Moore. Schiebusgerbund, Gemiany.
Mr. Kennedy. How long have you been in the Army ?
Colonel Moore. Seventeen years.
Mr. Kennedy. You are a Regular Army officer?
Colonel Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, during November of 1953, what was your posi-
tion in the Army ?
Colonel Moore. Action officer in tlie Personnel Branch of G-1 of
the Pentagon.
Mr. Kennedy. That is Personnel?
Colonel JMooRE. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. In that capacity, was a letter from General Burress,
lieutenant general, commanding the First Army, to General Bolte,
forwarded to you?
Colonel Moore, Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. For action and response?
Colonel Moore. Yes, sir.
Mr, Kennedy. Will you identify this letter?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
Colonel MooRE. This appears to be a copy of a letter dated Novem-
ber 6, 1053, from General Burress, commanding the First Army, in-
dicates at the bottom to General Bolte, Vice Chief of Staff, Depart-
ment of the Army.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 339
Mr. Kennedy. This was your first information on the Peress case,
the first time that you had v\u\ across the Peress case in your position;
is that correct?
Colonel MooKE. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, do you have any independent knowledge, or
any independent recollection of this case? Do you remember these
series of events?
Colonel Moore. Yes; I do.
Mr. Kennedy. You do?
Colonel MooKE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And you have refreshed your recollection by review-
ing the documents?
Colonel jNIoore. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, this letter w^as forwarded to you so that you
could make up a reply to the letter, and in addition take whatever
action was necessary ; is that right?
Colonel Moore. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. Has that letter been made an exhibit ?
Mr. Kennedy. May we have it made an exhibit?
The Charmian. It is exhibit No. 54.
(Exhibit No. 54 appears in the appendix on p. 348.)
Mr. Kennedy. Was it your feeling that the first thing that should
be done was to remove Irving Peress from active duty and get him
out of the Army ?
Colonel Moore. Those had been the recommendations that we re-
ceived.
Mr. Kennedy. Those were the i-ecommendations that had already
been made by his commanding officer, in addition to the G-2 officers
who had made investigation of the case?
Colonel Moore. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So then it was a question of you implementing
those decisions that had already been made?
Colonel MooRE. Yes, acting on the recommendations that came to
the office I was working in.
Mr. Kennedy. Implementing the suggestions that had been made ?
Colonel Moore. Y^es, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, at that time there was a board in existence of
w^hich General White was the president, and I would ask you whether
you sent on a list of suggestions, specifically four suggestions under
which they might act ?
Would you identify that document ?
The Chairjvian. That is already an exhibit.
Colonel Moore. This is a disposition form from the Chief of Per-
sonnel Actions Branch, G-1. to TAG, on the subject of Peress serving
as captain, dated November 18, 1953.
Mr. Kennedy. Those were recommendations that were furnished or
suggested to the Personnel Board as to certain actions that they
might take?
Colonel MooRE. Y"es, it was submitted for consideration and recom-
mendation as to these four suggestions.
Mr. Kennedy. And the first suggestion there was that he be desig-
nated as substandard, and relieved immediately under the substand-
ard program : and the second suggestion was that he should be relieved
340 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
with a later increment nnder the substandard progi*am ; and the third
that action should be taken against him under section 605 ?
Colonel Moore. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And the fourth that he remain on active duty ; is
that right ?
Colonel MooRE. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Paragraph 3 in that memorandum also points out,
does it not, that if the officer remained on duty, this particular officer,
being a doctor, remained on duty for a period of more than a year, that
his connnission would be automatically terminated after he had served
that time ?
Colonel MooRE. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. After that was completed, you forwarded that, and
then the Board sent back what conclusions they had reached ; is that
right ?
Colonel MooRE. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And I will ask you if you would identify that docu-
ment, and I believe that has been made a part of the record.
The Chairman. I will ask the clerk to identify the other one for
the record. Wliat exhibit is that ?
The Clerk. That is No. 55.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. That was not 55. I don't think we made that an
exhibit. It was an earlier exhibit.
The Clerk. Excuse me ; I am sorry.
The Chairman. So those who read the record can keep track of
these exhibits
The Clerk. It is exhibit 50.
The Chairman, He has been testifying and you have been inter-
rogating him about exhibit 50, and it is already in the record.
All right, we will proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, the Board sent back its recommendations, did
it not?
Colonel Moore. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that document that you hold in your hand now ;
does that contain those recommendations ?
Colonel Moore. It does.
Mr. Kennedy. That is exhibit 52 ?
Colonel MooRE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it is signed by Colonel Forbes for the president
of the Board, Lowell L. Forbes ?
Colonel MooRE. That is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And he signed it for the president of the Board, and
we have discussed that already, that it was "recommend relief from
active duty per paragraph 1 (a), comment No. 1, followed by action
to terminate Reserve commission under SR 420-5-1 and SR 600-220-1
without Board action."
Now, Colonel, under "recommend relief from active duty per para-
fraph 1 (a)," that refers to your initial suggestion that he be relieved
rom active duty under the first increment of the involuntary release
program ?
Colonel Moore. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And the rest of it goes on that his commission should
be terminated under SR 420-5-1, and 600-220-1 without Board action.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 341
Did you notice at that time that there was something that was incon-
sistent with those statements ?
Colonel Moore. Yes ; the SR 420-5-1 was not then in effect.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you point that out to the recorder ?
Colonel MooRE. Yes; I have a recollection of discussing that par-
ticular part of this comment with him.
Mr. Kennedy. Pointing out to him that this SR 420-5-1 was not
then in existence?
Colonel Moore. That is right.
The Chairman. Who was the recorder?
Colonel JMoore. Colonel Forbes.
The Chairman. You talked to Colonel Forbes ?
Colonel Moore. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, Colonel, regarding this 600-220-1 without
board action, did it occur to you that that was inconsistent because of
the fact that under 600-220-1 a board action was necessary ?
Colonel Moore. Yes, normally it was, and it did occur to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Colonel, it occurred to you also that under the invol-
untary release program then in existence, that an officer would receive
a 90-day time in which to clean up his affairs and terminate his rela-
tionship with the Army ?
Colonel MooRE. Yes ; that was not mandatoiy, but he could have up
to that time, if he so desired.
Mr. Kennedy. As this came back on the 23d of November, it was
your feeling that it was impossible to take action under 600-220-1 be-
cause of the fact that he had this 90 days which would then bring him
into a period of active duty of more than a year, and under the Doctors
Draft Act his commission would be automatically terminated ?
Colonel MooRE. Wliat you state is correct. Ninety days from this
date of November 23 he would have completed more than a year and
were he relieved from active duty thereupon, his commission would be
automatically terminated.
The Chairman. May I ask you a question at that point? By being
relieved from active duty would automatically, as I understand it,
terminate his commission?
Colonel MoORE. This particular man; yes, sir.
The Chairman. After he had been in the service for more than a
year ?
Colonel Moore. That is right.
The Chairman. What kind of discharge would be associated with
that termination from the service ?
Colonel Moore. It would be an honorable discharge.
The Chairman. That meant that he would receive an honorable
discharge in the normal course of procedures since he had been in there
for 1 year ?
Colonel Moore. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. Now, then, the only way that he could be given a
dishonorable discharge, after having been in there for a year's time,
would be for charges to be preferred against him and go before a
regular field board, or board constituted for that purpose?
Colonel Moore. A court martial.
The Chairman. That is in effect a court martial?
Colonel Moore. Yes, sir.
342 ARMY PERSOISHSTEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Tlie Chaiemax. The only way he could have been given a dis-
honorable discharge after he had served for a year was by a c )urt
martial ?
Colonel Moore. That is my understanding.
The Chairman. So that the effect of this was to carry him over into
a period where a dishonorable discharge could not be given to him, or
any discharge, less than honorable except by court-martial action ; is
that the effect of it ?
Colonel MooRE. Well, that was the state at this time, sir, regardless
of whether he had finished a year or not.
The Chairman. Are you meaning to testify now that there is no
way to give him less than an honorable discharge, even at that time
without a court martial ?
Colonel Moore. It would have been legally possible, sir; I believe
that has been indicated.
The Chairman. What is your interpretation of it at that time?
Here is a man you want to get out of the service and it is perfectly
apparent to everyone that he should be out. When this came back to
you it indicated that he could stay in the service until such time as
he could not be gotten out with a discharge less than honorable except
by court martial. Is that correct ?
Colonel Moore. Legally, I think it has been established by a pre-
vious document, sir, legally he could have been given a less than honor-
able discharge by a board other than a court martial.
The Chairman. Other than a court martial ?
Colonel Moore. Yes, and it was not being done at that time.
The Chairman. You say it was not being done. Legally it could
be done at that time, but in practice and policy it was not being done at
that time ?
Colonel MooRE. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. Wliere did that practice and policy emanate from ?
Colonel MooRE. I would say throughout the Army, sir, it was the
practice at that time.
The Chairman. Can you put your finger on any regulations or any
directive that declared that to be the policy ?
Colonel MooRE. There is a law. Public Law 810, sir, that applies
only to Regular officers which I believe has come up before, which
indicates that by administrative action; and these boards would be by
administrative action.
The Chairman. Instead of by court martial?
Colonel MooRE. That is right, sir, a Regular officer could get only
an honorable discharge. The policy was that Reserve officers would
be treated the same way.
The Chairman. That is the policy ?
Colonel Moore. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Was there a regulation that embraced such a policy,
or announced such a policy ?
Colonel MooRE. The implementing
The Chairman. I am talking about something in writing that said
that that was the policy.
Colonel Moore. The implementing regulation for the law is referred
to in exhibit 50, AR 605-200, the board action.
_ The Chairman. I thought you said that was not in effect at that
time.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 343
Colonel Moore. No, this regulation — this is another regulation, sir.
The Chairman. A different regulation ?
Colonel Moore. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Well, do we have that regulation, and can we make
it a part of the record? ^Vliat I am trying to clear up is the legal
aspects of it.
Mr. Brucker. We will get a copy of it for you.
The Chairman. I would like to have a copy of that regulation
inserted in the record at this point.
That is exhibit No. 55.
(Exhibit No. 55 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Colonel Moore. One point, sir, I don't believe specifically any-
where in this implementing regulation it states what type of discharge
will be given.
The Chairman. That is what I am trying to find out, whether it
is a policy that just grew up through lack of consideration or prac-
tice, or what. If there is anything that is in the regulations that
specifically said you could not give an officer of this character, in the
case of Peress, a discharge less than honorable, I want to get it in
the record if there is any such regulation or directive.
, Colonel Moore. I do not know of one which says that you may not.
The Chairman. Well, then, if it did not say you may not, that it
may not be done or should not be done, then it could have been done.
Colonel Moore. Yes, sir; legally it could have been done.
Tlie Chairman. All right.
Senator Jackson. May I inquire at this point, Mr. Chairman,
whether the interpretation still holds that a Regular officer might
be guilty of subversive conduct or membership in a subversive organ-
ization and only be removed from the service by a court-martial?
Mr. Moore. No, sir ; he could be removed from the service.
Senator Jackson. I mean given a dishonorable discharge.
Mr. Moore. Other than an honorable discharge would require a
court-martial, yes, sir, under the law.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat about a Reserve officer now ?
Colonel Moore. I believe there is a different law, the Armed
Forces Reserve Act, that applies to him which states that in effect
he must have a hearing at a board to get other than an honorable
discharge : I believe that is a correct statement.
Mr. Kennedy. There is a difference in the handling of Regular
Army officers and Reserve Army officers at this time in the type of
discharges that they can receive ?
Colonel ]\IooRE. There are two different laws, that is correct, yes,
and they are worded differently.
Mr. Kennedy. And one provides that the Reserve Army officer
can receive other than an honorable discharge without going before
a court-martial, while the Regular Armj^ officer cannot receive such
a discharge ?
Colonel MooRE. It implies that, and I think it states it negatively.
You may not give other than honorable discharge without appro-
priate board action.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, the same regulations that were in effect at
this time are still in effect, but it is now under Army policy — it is now
the policy to give Reserve officers discharges other than under honor-
able conditions ?
344 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Colonel Moore. I am not in the Pentagon now, and I think you had
better check with someone else on that present policy.
Mr. Kennedy. But during the period of time you were in, Army
officers both Regular and Reserve from a practical point of view all
received honorable discharges ?
Colonel MooRE. I can't swear that all of them did, but that was the
practice.
Mr. Kennedy. All of the ones of which you have knowledge?
Colonel MooRE. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, to get back to this, after the Board sent its
recommendation to you. Colonel Moore, did you write that memo-
randum and forward it to the Chief of Staff ?
Colonel Moore. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. This is not an exhibit yet, and may I ask if once it is
identified we could have it as an exhibit?
Colonel MooRE. This is a summary sheet from G-1 on the subject
of Peress, Irving, dated November 25, 1953, to the Office of the Chief
of Staff.
Mr. Kennedy. When you wrote this memorandum, Colonel, you
stated that after coordination with G-1 — summarized it states that the
Personnel Board has indicated or suggested or recommended that
Peress be relieved from active duty under the involuntary release
program, and that his commission be terminated under the Doctors
Draft Act?
Colonel MooRE. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, that was different in certain respects than
the notes that came to you as written by Colonel Forbes ; is that right ^
Colonel MooRE. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, the reason that you changed the language, as I
understand it, was because as a practical point of view you knew that
if he took the 90 days he would automatically go over the period of
service of 1 year, and therefore his commission would be automatically
terminated under the Doctors Draft Act?
Colonel MooRE. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And there is therefore no reason or no way under
600-220-1 that you would have a board action?
Colonel MooRE. He would be out and his commission revoked.
Mr. Kennedy. At a later time, after that, in early December of
1953, Colonel, General Weible
The Chairman. Has that been made an exhibit? It will be made
exhibit 56.
(Exhibit No. 56 appears in the appendix on p. 319.)
Mr. Kennedy. Colonel, General Weible on the 4th of December sent
a memorandum to you asking for a reconsideration of the handling of
the Peress case, and certain documents to be forwarded to him ; is that
right ?
Colonel Moore. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And would you identify these documents?
Colonel MooRE. This is a referral slip from the Cliief of Staff back
to G-1 for necessary action, and it is indicated on the back that he
wanted three items which we then supplied.
The Chairman. Wliat three items ?
Colonel MooRE. File of the subject officer and the recommenda-
tions of the Army Personnel Board, and copies of the Forms 98, 98-A,
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 345
and 398, and the present DA policy and DD policy to cover cases of
this sort.
The Chairman. Did he request Form 390 ?
Colonel Moore. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, Colonel, the next action that you took
The Chairman. That is exhibit 57.
(Exhibit No. 57 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. The next action you took was on the 11th of Janu-
ary, when you wrote up the papers, the disposition form. On the
12th of December, going back, you had sent him the necessary papers,
and also another memorandum reiterating your former point of view ?
Colonel MooRE. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Will you identify it?
Colonel MooRE. This is the second summary sheet, on Peress, Irving,
dated December 12, 1953, from G-1 to the Office of the Chief of
Staff.
The Chairman. Is that prepared by you ?
Colonel MooRE. Yes, sir.
The Chairman, And returned to General Weible in response to the
document that is the preceding exhibit, 57 ?
Colonel MooRE. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. This may be made exhibit 58.
(Exhibit No. 58 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
'"Mr. Kennedy. Now', Colonel, on the 11th of January, I understand
the next action was taken by you, and that was the memorandum to
AG to write up the orders to finally terminate Irving Peress' rela-
tionship with the Army ; is that correct ?
Colonel MooRE. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. Will you identify that document ?
Colonel MooRE. This is a disposition form, subject : "Peress, Irving,"
dated January 11, 1954, to the Office of the Adjutant General, from
the Chief of the Personnel Actions Branch, G-1.
Mr. Kennedy. That states that :
1. Take necessary action to :
(a) Relieve from active duty Major Irving Peress, 01893643, DC. upon com-
pletion of 12 months' active military service, granting officer up to 90 days' notice
if he so desires.
( 6 ) Discharge Major Peress from his commission under the provisions of sec-
tion 4(b), Public Law 84, 83d Congress, as amended.
2. Ensure that Major Peress (a) is not permitted to retain his commission at
the transfer point at his request, and (&) that he is never recommissioned. )
Now, Colonel, you have since found that section 4 (b) , Public Law
84, 83d Congi'ess, under which it is stated that Major Peress was
to be discharged, was actually the section of the law dealing with
promotions ?
Colonel Moore. I don't believe so, sir. I think it is correct that
these are successive changes to a basic law, and I think actually you
can find that that is a correct paragraph ; but it is a complicated way
to look at the change.
The Chairman. That document, since you have identified it may
be made exhibit 59.
(Exhibit No. 59 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Colonel Moore. Because there are successive changes it is difficult
to identify what paragraphs they are.
346 AEMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. On the first of February, there was a telephone call
from the Department of the Army stating that that was the wrong
section under which to discharge Irving Peress; is that right?
Colonel MooRE. I believe it referred mainly to the authority for
his relief from active duty. I believe that was the main point of that
phone call.
Mr. Kennedy. It says the authority for disharge of Maj. Irving
Peress, and it is a memorandum on that telephone call.
The Chairman. Let the witness identify the document.
Colonel Moore. Tliis is a memo for the record, dated March 2, 1954,
signed by Major Dufresne, Adjutant General Corps. He is First
Army, and does someone know for sure his location ?
The Chairman. If you do not know, that is all right. You have
identified it sufficiently so that it can be made an exhibit. It is ex-
hibit No. 60.
(Exhibit No. 60 appears in the appendix on p. 350.)
Mr. Kennedy. I think it speaks for itself.
After that, the memorandum from you to the AG's office that these
papers should be drawn up. The papers were drawn up on the 18th
of January — the subject is "Relief from Active Duty and Separa-
tion from the Service" ; in paragraph 1 it states :
To : Commanding General, First Army.
1. It is desired that Maj. Irving Peress, 01893643, DO, be relieved from active
duty and honorably discharged from the Army at the earliest practicable date
depending on officer's desires, but in any event not later than 90 days from date
of receipt of this letter.
Mr. Chairman, it goes on, and may we have this made as an exhibit?
I do not believe the witness can identify this. It was as the result of
his memorandum to the AG's office that they drew up those orders.
Colonel Moore. I can read what this is if you want, sir.
Mr. Brucker. Can you identify it ?
Mr. Kennedy. We won't have the witness to identify it unless there
is a desire to have him do so.
The Chairman. There is no objection on the part of the Depart-
ment of Defense or the Army.
Mr. Kennedy. It is an official document.
The Chairman. Then it may be made exhibit No. 61.
(Exhibit No. 61 appears in the appendix on p. 350.)
Mr. Kennedy. Now, that document was the first written indication
that Irving Peress was to receive an honorable discharge; is that
right?
Colonel MooRE. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. It is the procedure in the Army that unless the AG
is told differently about the type of discharge an individual would
receive, that he will give him an honorable discharge?
Colonel MooRE. I believe that is standard practice.
Mr. Kennedy. And the fact that you did not indicate to the AG
differently, resulted in writing Irving Peress' orders as receiving an
honorable discharge ; is that right ?
Colonel MooRE. Tliat is what resulted.
Mr. Kennedy. At that point of time, however, there was only two
types of discharges that you could have given Irving Peress, both of
them being discharges under honorable conditions; is that correct?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 347
Colonel Moore. That is the practice ; that is right, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Not only the practice, but when it had gotten to that
stage at the middle of January of 1954 without having gone through
a board or going through a court-martial, there was only the two types
of discharges, either a general discharge or an honorable discharge
that could have been given to Irving Peress ?
Colonel Moore. I think that is true. Practically speaking, only
honorable.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you explain that to the committee?
Colonel Moore. He was being discharged under the Doctors Draft
Act, and there was no proviso under that law for anything else than an
honorable discharge.
]Mr. Kennedy. So the fact that when the Personnel Board which
met on November 20 did not state that he should go through a 605
board, or be court-martialed, that precluded giving him other than an.
honorable discharge ; is that right ?
Colonel MooRE. In effect, without a board, or a court-martial, that
would be the result.
Mr. Kennedy. Even if he had gone before a board, from the prac-
tical point of view he still would have received an honorable dis-
charge ?
Colonel Moore. Under honorable conditions.
Mr. Kennedy. Even though there was this information that he
was a possible security risk ?
Colonel Moore. He would have received a discharge under hon-
orable conditions.
Mr. Kennedy. I am finished with the witness.
The Chairman. Are there any questions?
If there are no further questions
Mr. Brucker. Do you want to ask him those questions ?
The Chairman. Was his name on the list?
Were you ever interviewed by the Inspector General ?
Colonel MooRE. Yes, sir.
Mr. Juliana. It was on the list.
The Chairman. Let me ask you another question or two. Did any-
one ever talk to you about the Peress case, any of your superiors or
anyone connected with the military, or anyone else from the outside
of the military ? That is, suggesting Peress should have any favored
treatment or be given any special considerations?
Colonel Moore. No, sir.
The Chairman. During the time that you had any connection with
the case, in any way whatsoever there was no suggestion to you from
any source, or instructions that he was to be given preferred treatment ?
Colonel MooRE. No, sir.
The Chairman. Or be shown any favors ?
Colonel Moore. No, sir.
The Chairman. Or that he should receive an honorable discharge in
preference to a dishonorable discharge, or something less ?
Colonel MooRE. No, sir.
The Chairman. All right. The witness is excused and thank you
very much, Colonel.
The committee will stand in recess until 10 o'clock in the morning,
and we will resume in this room at that time.
348 ARIVri' PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
(Senators present at the time of adjournment were Senators Mc-
Clellan and Jackson.)
(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., Tuesday, March 22, 1955, the hearing was
recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m., Wednesday, March 23, 1954.)
APPENDIX
Exhibit No. 50
Gl 201 Peress, Irviug, Captain, 01893643
TAG AcofS, G-1 18 Nov 1953 Lt Col Mooi-e/544.50/bls
1. Refer the attached case to APB for consideration and recommendation as to
whether :
(a) Officer should be designated as substandard and relieved from active duty
with the first increment of the involuntary release program, or
(&) Officer should be released with later increments of the involuntary release
program, or
(c) Elimination proceedings should be initiated under AR 605-200, or
( d ) Officer should be retained on active duty.
2. Attached summary of information from G-2 indicates possible security risk.
Hq. First Army, and TSG recommend removal from the service.
3. If officer should be relieved from active duty after the completion of 12
months' service (January 1954) since he registered under the provisions of the
"Doctor Draft Act", his commission will be revoked under the law (PL 84, 83d
Congress (UMT&S, Sec. 4) ).
By direction of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1 :
Gerald G. Epley,
Colonel, GS,
Chief, Personnel Actions Branch.
2 Incl
1. CS RS, 10 Nov 53, No. 2563, to G-1, w/1 incl.
2. DF to Gl fr G2. undated, w/1 incl.
Exhibit No. 54
November 6, 1953.
Gen. Charles L. Bolte.
Vice Chief of Staff,
Depart hunt of Army,
Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Charlie: Yesterday my staff informed me that Capt. Irving Peress,
01893643, a Dental Reserve captain on active duty at Camp Kilmer, whom we
had recommended for separation on September 1, 1953, through the Surgeon
General, to the Assistant Chief of Staff, G2, has just been adjusted in grade
up to major. Moreover his letter orders dated October 23 from the Adju-
tant General state he will continue on active duty at Camp Kilmer in this
grade.
A complaint type investigation on Peress was initiated by this headquarters
last February when it was noted that upon his call to active duty he claimed
Federal constitutional iirivilege in executing DD Form 98 (loyalty certificate)
and DD Form 39S (personal history questionnaire). This investigation was
completed April 24, 1953, and results forwarded througli the Surgeon General
and Assistant Chief of Staff, G2, to the commanding general. Sixth Army, since
it had been learned that Peress had attended school at Brooke Army Medical
Center, Fort Sam Houston, and was transferred from there to Fort Lewis for
further assignment to Far East. However, his orders had been canceled and he
had been transferred to Camp Kilmer, N. J., so the action in his case has con-
tinued in this area.
The commanding general at Camp Kilmer on .Time 15. 1953, recommended that
Peress he separated from the service ; this headquarters concurred and for-
warded the case through Surgeon General to G2 on July 7. On August 10, G2
returned the case to First Army with an interrogatory to be accomplished by
Peress. Peress refused to answer questions 5a to 5i in the interrogatory per-
taining to his present and past membership in the Communist Party or other
organizations listed by the Attorney General. We returned the case with the
interrogatory through the Surgeon General to the Assistant Chief of Staff, G2,
on September 1, again recommending removal from military service.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 349
On November 3 we learned from headquarters, Camp Kilmer, of his promo-
tion or adjustment of grade to major and orders to continue in service. My Gl
has talked with the Surgeon General's and Adjutant General's offices and my G2
witli the office of G2, Department of Army. They were informed that this was
an administrative adjustment of grade based on experience and length of serv-
ice as prescribed by Department of Defense and that pursuant to Department
of Defense instructions, other factors had not been considered. My G2 was also
informed that the case is being processed for separation of Peress.
I have taken the liberty of writing to you personally about this case, be-
lieving that you should know about it in view of its obvious implications. It
also seems to me that this order for adjustment of grade should be revoked if it
is possible to do so, and that Peress should be separated from the Army as
soon as this can be accomplished.
We here are not blameless because the application by Peress for readjustment
of grade came through the Adjutant General channels and the letter orders
adjusting his grade came back through this headquarters without being caught.
However my G2 and adjutant general have set up further safeguards to prevent
any similar case going through undetected.
A summary of actions and correspondence on the Peress case is enclosed.
With kind personal regards, I am
Sincerely,
W. A. BURRESS,
Ldevtenant General, USA, Commanding.
Exhibit No. 56
Summary Sheet, Department of the Army
To : Chief of Staff.
For : Approval ; signature.
File No. : Gl 201 Peress, Irving
Subject : Separation of Major Irving Peress as a Security Risk.
Office of preparation : Personnel Actions Branch, G-1.
Grade — surname : Lt. Col. Moore/bp.
Date : 25 Nov. 53.
DISCUSSION
1. On 6 November 1958 Lieutenant General Burress wrote General Bolte
(TAB — Ltr to Gen. Bolte fr Gen. Burress, 6 Nov. 1953) concerning Major Irving
Peress, 01893643, a dental reserve officer, and forwarded a summary of actions
and correspondence reference separating Major Peress from the service as a
security risk.
2. After coordination with G-2 and upon recommendation of the Army Person-
nel Board the determination was made to relieve Major Peress from active duty
after completion of twelve months' service tinder the involuntary release program
since after that length of service his commission may be revoked as a special
registrant. (Doctor Draft) under Section 4, UMTi&S Act, as amended.
3. Attached letter to Lieutenant General Burress for the signature of General
Bolte informs General Burress of above determination.
EECOMMENDATION
That the attached letter (Tab B — Ltr to General Burress for signature of
General Bolte) be approved, signed and dispatched.
COORDINATION
G-2 — Maj Buelow, 75230 — concur.
APB— Lt Col Forbes, 73403— concur.
Robert N. Yottng,
Major General, G8,
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1.
2 Incl :
1. TAB A— Ltr to G-en Bolte fr Gen Burress, 6 Nov 53.
2. TAB B — Ltr to General Burress for signature of General Bolte.
350 AR 3 9999 05445 3731 '^^^ "^^ irving peress
Exhibit No. GO
2 March 1954.
memo fob eecord
Re : Discharge of Major Irving Peress
On 1 February 1954, Major Capucilli, Oflaoers Separation Branch, The Adju-
tant General's Office, Department of the Army, called the undersigned and stated
that the authority for discharge of Major Irving Peress as shown in letter of
separation instructions which was forwarded to the Commanding General, Camp
Kilmer, N. J., was in error. He further stated the authority for discharge
should be: Section 515d, Officer Personnel Act of 1947 and Section 4b, PL 779,
81st Congress as amended by Section 3, PL 84, 83d Congress.
I immediately notified Lieutenant Colonel Moore, Camp Kilmer, NJ by tele-
phone conversation of the change in the authority for the discharge of Major
Pex-ess.
To the best of my recollection, I believe that I questioned Major Capucilli as
to whether there were any other changes in the letter of instructions received
from their office and that he stated that the instructions as changed by this
telephone conversation were correct.
1 attempted to contact Major Capucilli, this date to verify statement as to
whether or not actual mention of discharge took place. However, he will be
unavailable until the morning of 3 March 1954.
I do not believe that the subject of type of discharge to be awarded Major
Peress was made at any time during the discussion.
G. R. DUFRESNE,
Major, AGC.
Exhibit No. 61
RCM/EM/dtd/lD733a
Suspense Date: 8 Feb, 54.
Department of the Army,
Office of the Adjutant General,
Washington 25, D. C, 18 January 1954.
AGPO-SC 201 Peress, Irving (11 Jan. 54).
Subject : Relief from Active Duty and Separation from the Service.
To : Commanding General, First Army.
1. It is desired that Major Irving Peress, 01893643, DC, be relieved from active
duty and honorably discharged from the Army at the earliest practicable date
depending on officers desires, but in any event not later than 90 days from date of
receipt of this letter.
2. Individual or extract orders will be issued by direction of the President
citing Sec. 4 (b), P. L. 84, 83d Congress, as amended. Relief from active duty
and discharge will be effective upon expiration of authorized rail travel time
from place of separation to home of record. Orders directing issuance of DD
Form 214 and DD P^orm 256 A will provide for payment of mileage and lump sum
payment for unused leave.
3. Separation forms will be completed and forwarded via registered mail to
officer after his separation (SR 135-175-5).
4. All commissions held by him will be terminated on effective date of dis-
charge and he will not be tendered a reappointment in the USAR except by
authority of the Department of the Army. Two copies of separation orders will
be furnished to The Adjutant General, Department of the Army, Attn : AGPO-SC
in addition to distribution required by SR 310-110-1 and SR 135-175-5.
5. Officer will not be separated prior to determination that he is physically
qualified for separation by your headquarters. A prompt report will be made
to this office in the event action cannot be taken without undue delay.
By order of the Secretary of the Army :
/s/ R. C. McDaniel,
Adjutant Oenerai.
Copies for :
AMEDS Br-CMD.
Res Br, Status Sec, RmlC760, Pentagon.
ACofS, G-1.
A certified true copy :
T. LaMarca,
CWO. USA.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING "^
TO IRVING PERESS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVEfiNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PART 5
MARCH 23, 1955
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
60030 WASHINGTON : 1955
c.\
Boston Public Li'^rarv
Cuperintcndent of Documents
MAY 1 8 1955
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
JOHN P. KENNEDY, Massachusetts KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina THOMAS E. MARTIN, Iowa
Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
Pekmanent Subcommittee on Investigations
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel
Donald F. O'Donnell, Assistant Chief Counsel
James N. Juliana, Chief Counsel to the Minority
n
CONTENTS
Page
Appendix ' 421
Testimonj' of — ■
Weible, Lt. Gen. Walter L 351
Zwicke.r, Brig. Gen. Ralph W 367
EXHIBITS Intro-
duced on Appears
62 Memorandum from G-1 to Office of Chief of Staff, Novem-ber page on page
25, 1953 352 421
63. Letter from Gen. Charles L. Bolte, Vice Chief of Staff, United
States Army to Lt. Gen. W. A. Burress, commanding
general, First Army, December 31, 1953 354 422
64. Letter from Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman, Senate
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, to Hon.
Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army, February 1,
1954 357 423
65. Substance of telephone conservaticn between Gen. "^ . A.
Burress, from Camp Kilmer, X. J., and General Murphy,
First Army Headquarters, New York, November 3, 1953_- 383 383-384
66. Letter from Brig. Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker, Commanding
General, Camp Kilmer to Lt. Gen. W. A. Burress, com-
manding general. First Army, November 3, 1953 384 424
67. Executive^ Order No. 9835, March 22, 1947 385 0)
68. Executive Order No. 10450, April 27, 1953 385 0)
69. Letter from Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Head-
quarters, First Armv, to Commanding General Camp Kil-
mer, N. J., January"^6, 1954 389 425
70. Substance of telephone conversation between Gen. Ralph W.
Zwicker and Colonel Gurney, January 26, 1954 403 403
71. Memorandum for record, substance of telephone call from
John Adams to Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker, January 28, 1954_ 404 425
72. Statement of Irving Peress requesting change of release date,
February 2, 1954 - 410 410
73. Substance of telephone conversation between Gen. Ralph W.
Zwicker and General Murphy, February 1, 1954 411 411
74. Memorandum for the record from Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker,
Commanding General, Camp Kilmer, N. J., February 24,
1954 420 420
75. Affidavit of Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker, Commanding General,
Camp Kilmer, N. J., March 2, 1954 421 426
' May be found in the files of the subcommittee.
m
IRVING PERESS
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23, 1955
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
OF the Committee on Government Operations,
Washington^ D. G.
The subcommittee met at 10 : 05 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room
857 of the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chair-
man of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators John L. McClellan (Democrat), Arkansas;
Henry M, Jackson (Democrat), Washington; Stuart Symington
(Democrat), Missouri; Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Democrat), North Caro-
lina; Joseph R. McCarthy (Republican), Wisconsin; Karl E. Mundt
(Republican), South Dakota; George H. Bender (Republican), Ohio.
Present also : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Donald F. O'Don-
nell, chief assistant counsel; James N, Juliana, chief counsel to the
minority ; J. Fred McClerkin, legal research analyst ; Paul J. Tierney,
investigator ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.
(Present at this time are Senators McClellan, Ervin, and
McCarthy.)
The Chairman. All right, the committee will come to order. I
wish we could bring that pile driver to order, too.
General Weible, will you come around, please.
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
General Weible. I do, sir.
The Chaikman. Have a seat, sir.
TESTIMONY OF LT. GEN. WALTER L. WEIBLE
The Chairman. General, what is your present assignment?
General Weible. I am Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations and
Administration in the Headquarters, Department of the Army, in
the Pentagon.
The Chairman. Wliat assignment did you have on November 20,
1953?
General Weible. The same one I now have.
The Chairman. You had the same assignment in January and
February of 1954?
General Weible. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that the same assigmnent on November 20 1953 ?
General Weible. That is right.
The Chairman. All right, counsel, will you take over ?
351
352 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. You took over that position on tlie 19th of October ;
is that correct ?
General Wejble. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you outline for us very briefly what your
duties consist of in that position ?
General Weible. My function is to coordinate all of the various
stafl' agencies of the Department of Army staff in the execution of
plans and policies and programs of the Department of the Army.
Mr. Ivennedy. General in the latter part of November of 1953,
approximately a month after you had taken over that position,
did you receive a memorandum from G-1 concerning Irving Peress,
a memorandum and some related papers ?
General Weible. There was a memorandum from G-1 to the Office
of the Chief of Staff, and it was brought to me by one of the assistant
secretaries for the General Staff.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify that document, please ?
(A document was handed to the witness.)
General Weible. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the memorandum that you received, and
I believe it has already been made an exhibit.
Mr. Brucker. Wliat is the number of that ; do you remember ?
The Chairman. Apparently this document has not previously been
made an exhibit. Therefore, 'if you will identify the document. Gen-
eral, we will make it an exhibit to your testimony.
General Weible. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Will you please identify the document for the
record ?
General Weible. This was the document that was brought to me as
a cover sheet for a large file relating to this particular case by one
of the assistant secretaries of the General Staff.
The Chairman. You mean the Peress case?
General Weible. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. Is that the first information you had of the Peress
case?
General Weible. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, this document may be made exhibit 62.
(Exhibit No. 62 appears in the appendix on p. 421.)
Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. There was a suggestion in that memorandum or
statement or recommendation that Irving Peress be released under
the involuntary release program.
First, General, was that the first case of this type that you had
handled in that position ?
General Weible. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have an explanation as to why this case was
sent to your office ?
General Weible. The only reason that I know of that it came up to
the Office of the Chief of Staff' was because there was a letter attached
to it for General Bolte's signature. Otherwise it had been acted upon
by all of the proper staff' agencies without any dissension.
Mr. Kennedy. You reviewed the case and had a briefing from
one of your assistants, and did you make the determination that as
this man was a subversive that you questioned whether he should be
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 353
released under the involuntary release program, but that perhaps more
drastic action should be taken toward him ?
General Wj:ible. Well, I was doubtful that this was the proper
method to eliminate a security risk from the service and hence I asked
various questions of the officer who was briefing me, who in turn then
sent the case back to G-1 asking for certain information which I had
asked informally of him.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify that document, General?
General Weible. Well, this seems to be what the briefing officer
placed on the referral slip as a result of my questions of him.
Mr. Kennedy. That was sent back to G-1 in order to get this fur-
ther information, and in order for you to make sure in your own mind
that this was the proper way to get rid of Irving Peress ?
General Weible. Yes, sir.
The Clerk. That was yesterday's exhibit 57.
The Chairman. The document you have just referred to is exhibit
57 of the record.
Mr. Kennedy. General, would you identify that document, please?
(Document given to the witness.)
General Weible. That is a photostatic copy of our referral slip.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify the new document before you?
General Weible. Oh, this one, you mean ? This is the cover sheet
that came back after G-1 had furnished the information which I had
asked of the briefing officer, and who reiterated with concurrences the
fact that the attached letter should be signed by General Bolte.
Mr. Kennedy. That is dated the 12th of December ; is it ?
General Weible. That is dated the 12th. I cannot say that I saw it
that same day.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand, and that reiterated the decision that
will be made that Irving Peress should be released under the involun-
tary release program?
General Weible. That is right; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there still a question in your mind regarding
this release of Irving Peress under these methods ?
General Weible. I was a little doubtful still, and so I sent it up to
the office of the Judge Advocate General for their comment or con-
currence.
Mr. Kennedy. And you received that same document back with a
concurrence ?
General Weible. With the concurrence of the Judge Advocate
General.
Mr. Kennedy. May we have that admitted?
The Clerk. That is exhibit 58 admitted on yesterday.
The Chairman. What is the number of it ?
The Clerk. It was yesterday's exhibit 58.
The Chairman. This document that you have been testifying about
is exhibit 58.
Mr. Kennedy. Now^ when that came back to you. General, you sent
the file and this letter to General Bolte with your concurrence. Is that
right?
General Weible. Yes; although at that particular time I did not
read the letter in detail, as I expected General Bolte would do that
before he signed it.
354 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. That is the letter that was sent on.
(Witness conferred with counsel.)
General Weible. I think that I have covered that, sir.
Mr. I\JENNEDY. Will you continue, that was the letter that was
sent on.
General Weible. This was the letter that General Bolte signed to
General Burress that Peress was to be eliminated under the provisions
of the involuntary release program.
Mr. Kennedy. May we have that letter made an exhibit.
The Chairman. It will be made exhibit 63.
(Exhibit No. 63 appears in the appendix on p. 422.)
Mr. Kennedy. General, these documents then were forwarded
to General Bolte with your concurrence. The next that you heard of
Irving Peress was on February 1. Is that right?
General Weible. That is right ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And at that time Mr. John Adams, the Department
Counselor came to your office on the evening of that date ?
General Weible. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell us what the purpose of his visit to your
office was ?
General Weible. He brought with him a letter from Senator Mc-
Carthy to the Secretary of the Army in which the Senator strongly
urged that Peress be tried by court-martial.
( Senator Symington entered the room. )
General Weible. The discussion as far as I was concerned centered
around the fact as to whether or not I could in any way initiate court-
martial action as a result of the letter alone.
Mr. Kennedy. In your mind was the purpose of the conversation
to receive your opinion as to whether Irving Peress could be court-
martialed or not?
General Weible. That is the way I understood it ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. What questions did you ask of John Adams at
that time ?
General Weible. I don't remember the detailed conversation because
it was in the evening and it only lasted for probably 20 minutes. But
my attention was focused on whether or not Mr. Adams had received
the evidence which was mentioned in the Senator's letter or whether
he was going to get any such evidence.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say that he could receive or get such evidence
from tlie committee ?
General Weible. He gave me a very definite impression that he had
not gotten anything and that he wasn't going to get anything.
Senator McCarthy. Did he keep from you the fact that all of the
evidence the committee took was made available to him?
General Weible. He told me that he had received nothing.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, he didn't tell you that he was
invited to sit in at all of the hearings and all of the evidence was
available to him ? He never told you that ?
General Weible. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Would your opinion have been changed if he
had told you that he had the evidence and the committee was making
it available to him, that he had the evidence from undercover agents
to the effect that Peress was a member of the Communist Party, that
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 355
he had the affidavit that Peress signed when he went into the service
saying" he Avas not a Communist, and if he had called your attention to
1001 of the United States Code wliicli makes it a criminal offense,
punishable up to 5 years ? Would that have changed your decision?
Mr. Brucker. Just a minute. That is a hypothetical question based
upon a lot of subjunctive material that certainly is not proper for
this witness. That is based on wdiat another man is supposed to have
had who hasn't even testified here.
The Chairman. We are trying to determine whether he was in
possession of all of this information and what action he would have
taken if he had had the information, if they are the facts, and he may
answer the question as to if these facts had been made known to
him as such whether he would have taken the same action he did
take, or advise or counsel as he did advise or counsel.
General Weible. As I understand it, sir, if I had had the evidence
which was indicated in the letter, what action would I have taken ?
Senator McCarthy. Do you understand the question? Let me
repeat it to you, and all of this is in evidence before this committee.
It is not a hypothetical question.
Mr. Brucker. I have heard nothing of that kind. Senator, at all.
There is nothing in this record of this kind.
The Chairman. Just a moment, and let us proceed in order. It
may be hypothetical insofar as this witness' knowledge is concerned,
and he may not have the knowledge of it as a fact, whether it exists
in the record or not. The Senator says it does exist in the record and
wishes to propound a hypothetical question if he had had the benefit
of these facts and information would his procedure or would his
counsel and advice have been the same as that which he gave. It is
quite proper.
Mr. Brucker. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. I have sat here
every minute of this hearing and if he means this record, there is
nothing in this record about that, and it can't be hypothetical because
there is nothing in the record.
The Chairman. He is referring to the records of this committee
and the record that this committee has, wdiich would relate, I pre-
sume and I am sure that is true, to previous investigations this com-
mittee may have made, and previous testimony that has been given
before it. Is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes ; it is in the same case, in the Peress case.
Mr. Brucker was not present then and Mr. Adams was present at that
time. The evidence was all made available to the Army. Mr. Adams
was allowed to sit in, and it was all part of the same hearing.
Mr. Brucker. Based on that hypothesis then
Senator McCarthy. It is the evidence which Mr. Adams had, and
now I am talking to General Weible and I want to know if General
Weible's decision would be the same if he knew what the evidence was.
I am repeating the question, and assuming you had this information,
your decision would have been different. If at the time you discussed
this case with Adams, if you had known that there was sworn testimony
that Peress was a member of the Communist Party and attended a
Communist leadership school, and if you had known that he signed a
false statement denying he was a Communist, and if the lawyer, and
60030— 55— pt. 5 2
356 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
you are not a lawyer, had called your attention to section 1001 of the
United States Code which makes it a criminal offense, punishable up
to 5 years, would your decision still have been to give him an honorable
discharge ?
General Weible. I had no decision to give him an honorable dis-
charge.
Senator McCarthy. Would you have recommended court-martial
then?
General Weible. Yes, sir, if the evidence justified it, we would
certainly have recommended court-martial.
Senator McCarthy. If you had the evidence that I just repeated,
you would have recommended court-martial ?
General Weible. Yes, as I understand it; yes, sir. I am not a
lawyer.
Senator McCarthy. I understand. I was bringing out the fact that
you were operating without the knowledge that was available, and,
therefore, you could hardly be blamed for the action you took.
The Chairman. May the Chair make this observation : The purpose
of this testimony would be to determine whether Mr. Adams, when he
went to you to confer with you about this matter, acquainted you with
all of the facts.
If he did not acquaint you with all of the facts, of course, you would
not be responsible probably for making an erroneous decision. The
purpose of it is, the reason the Chair felt that it should be admitted,
was so that we can get the whole facts.
You took an action, and we want to know upon what information
that action was based, or if you lacked information as to all of the facts
we want to establish that.
Now, as I understand it, you did not have the benefit of what had
transpired in this committee, the transcript of the testimony that had
been taken, that may have revealed all or some of the facts as related
by the Senator from Wisconsin.
You did not have those facts before you, whatever they were ?
General Weible. That is true, sir.
The Chairman. So, therefore, you advised that on the basis of what
you had before you, after receiving Senator McCarthy's letter, that you
saw no basis for a court-martial. Is that correct ?
General Weible. I saw no basis for taking any court-martial action,
sir.
The Chairman. That is right. Now, I have one other question in
that document that you had before you a moment ago. I think it is
there on your left, and I don't know the exhibit number.
Wlien you doubted. General, that that was the proper procedure to
get a subversive out of the Army, you sent back to Personnel an
inquiry, making inquiry, about certain information. Is that correct?
General Weible. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You did not ask what was on it, or what his form
No, 390 revealed, did you ?
General Weible. I did not go through the file in detail, myself.
The Chairman. But when you called for the information in forms
98, and 398, and 98-A, I believe, you did not call for form 390, what
it contained, did you ?
General Weible. No, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 357
Senator McCarthy. I have one question there. At the time you
talked to John Adams on February 1, did you know that they planned
to give Peress an honorable discharge the following morning?
General Weible. I did not. I knew that he might be discharged
the following day, sir, but I didn't Imow that he was going to get an
honorable discharge.
The Chairman. The Chair would like at this time to present this
letter which has been referred to, a letter having been received from
Senator McCarthy to the witness and ask you if you will identify that
letter, and if that letter was considered by you in the conference you
had with Mr. Adams?
(Senator McCarthy left the room. Senators present at this time
were Ervin, Symington, and McClellan.)
The Chairman. Let us have order, please.
General Weible. I believe this is the same letter, sir, that was
brought into my office by Mr. Adams on the night of February 1.
The Chairman. That was the basis of the conferences that he had
with you?
General "Weibije. That is right.
The Chairman. That is the letter?
General Weible. That is right.
The Chairman. The letter may be made exhibit 64 for the record.
Will you pass it back up here, please.
(The document was returned to the chairman.)
(Exhibit No. 64 appears in the appendix on p. 423.)
The Chairman. General, did you have anything to do with mak-
ing the determination as to whether Peress should receive an hon-
orable discharge ?
General AVeible. No, sir ; I did not.
The Chairman. That was not within your purview of your au-
thority ?
General Weible. Well, the action that we took in December, sir,
did not specify that he would get an honorable discharge, and I was
under the impression that the type of discharge would be determined
locally at the station from which he was separated.
The Chairman. In that connection, did you get counsel, and I sup-
pose you would get it from the Judge Advocate General, as to the
nature or character of the discharge that Peress would receive under
the proceedings then being followed?
General Weible. I did not get it, sir, at that particular time.
The Chairman. This being a security case, can you explain why
there was not knowledge on the part of those of you having to deal
with it, that had the responsibility for processing the discharge, why
there was not knowledge as to the character of discharge he would
receive if discharge from the service was ordered ?
General Weible. The only thing I can say, sir, is that the decision
or the matter that was subject to decision was merely whether or not
he would be separated from the service under the involuntary release
program.
The Chairman. Explain what the involuntary release program
means with respect to the character of a discharge a man would re-
ceive if discharged under that program?
General Weible. At that particular time he could have been dis-
charged with either a general discharge or an honorable discharge.
358 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Who was the deciding authority, and who made the
final decision as to whether the discharge Avoidd be general or be final
under the system that you were then operating under ?
General Wetble. It was actually made, as I understand it, in the
Adjutant General's Office, sir. I was under the impression that it
would be made by the local commander, at the time he was actually
separated.
The Chairman. Does the local commander determine the character
of discharge an officer receives, an officer who is a security risk ?
Has that ever been the policy of the Army, that the local commander
would determine the character of the discharge he receives?
General Weible. I cannot state, sir, whether or not it has ever been
the policy.
The Chairman. Was it the policy at that time?
General Weible. Actually
The Chairman. We are trying to find where the responsibility lies.
General Weible. Well, I did not know, at the moment, that I passed
this on to General Bolte, so in that respect I was uninformed as to what
would happen as a result of this action.
The Chairman. Well, were you not concerned about it ? You knew
it was a security case and you were trying to get this fellow out of
the service, and were you not concerned or did you not have any inter-
est in knowing the character and nature of the discharge he would re-
ceive if these papers were processed to a conclusion?
General Weible. I overlooked that, sir.
The Chairman. All right ; you overlooked that. Is it not true that
at that time, General, and were you not apprised of the fact that it
was the policy of the Army and the practice without exception to dis-
charge Reserve officers with an honorable discharge who were security-
risk suspects?
General Weible. I was not aware of that, sir.
The Chairman. And is it not also true, and were you not aware of
it, that where the subject, the person was an enlisted man, that he was
given a general discharge or a discharge — undesirable discharge?
General Weible. I was unaware of that, sir. I did not go into that
side of it.
The Chairman. How many of these different cases came over your
desk for similar attention and action that you gave the Peress case?
General Weible. I think this was the only one, sir.
The Chairman. The only one that ever came over your desk?
General Weible. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In the normal processing of them, then, you had no
responsibility in connection with them ?
General Weible. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. How did you happen to become involved in the
Peress case ?
General Weible. The only reason is the fact that a letter was at-
tached for the Vice Chief of Staff's signature and it was brought to me
first.
The Chairman. So that you are not the one who would normally
make the decision and be informed as to just what the procedure was,
or just how the system operated at that particular time, or what policy
governed or controlled ?
General Weible. That is correct, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 359
The Chairman. All right. All I am trying to do is get the record
straight.
General Weible. That is right, sir.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
Senator Symington. General Weible, why was the Peress case the
only one that came to the Vice Chief of Staff '?
General "VVeible. Simply because it had a personal letter to be signed
by General Bolte, to General Burress. I know of no other reason for
it having come to the office of the Chief of Staff'.
Senator Symington. Who sent that letter to the Office of the Chief
of Staffs
General AVeible. General Burress had written a personal letter to
General Bolte at a previous date, in processing it. In processing the
case the answer to General Burress' letter was attached to the case and
that is the only reason the whole case, as such, came up to the Office,
of the Chief of Staff level.
Senator Symington. What was the nature of the personal letter
that General Burress wrote to General Bolte ?
General Weiele. I don't think, sir, that I ever read it. I don't
recall it. The general nature, I think, was a questioning on General
Burress' part as to the delay in effecting a separation, that the decision
was in the Department of the Army and General Buitcss, I believe,
was irritated because the action hadn't been concluded.
Senator Symington. I understand that was testified to yesterday
and I was not here. But what motivated somebody to write General
Burress about it, and how" did General Burress get in on it?
General Weible. He was the commanding general, First Army, sir,
and had jurisdiction over all of the j)osts, camps, and stations in the
First Army area.
Senator Symington. Wlio got in touch with General Burress about
the mattei' ?
General Weible. I don't know, sir.
Senator Symington. Does counsel know ?
Mr. Brucker. General Zwicker did; you will find it in the testi-
mony, not in the testimony yesterday but the next witness will supply
it.
Senator Symington. General Zwicker notified General Burress that
there was some trouble with a fellow named Peress and, therefore, the
matter became a matter for the Chief of Staff', or the Vice Chief of
Staff?
General Weible. I think only because General Burress got per-
sonally interested to the extent that he wrote to General Bolte per-
sonally about it. Otherwise, I don't know, sir.
Senator Symington. Let me ask one more question. I have read
this letter here. It is a pretty tough copy to read. I wonder who
photostated this. In trying to deciplier it, not being a cryptologist,
you didn't feel on the basis of this letter Avhich Mr. Adams showecl you
that this Major Peress should be court-martialed ?
General Weible. I told Mr. Adams that on the basis of the letter
alone, I could not initiate court-martial action. AMiat I needed was
the evidence that was referred to in the letter.
Senator Symington. Did Mr. Adams suggests to you that Major
Peress be eliminated quickly, and that the matter be closed up as far
as the Army was concerned as quickly as possible ?
360 AR2VIY PERSOlSns^EL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Weible. I don't think that he said it in any such way, sir.
He was rather annoyed that we had not gotten rid of this man before,
but aside from that I don't think he said anything speciah
Senator Symington. I notice that at that time the question came
up that the dismissal of Major Peress would be advanced from March
31 to February 2. Did not that interest you, that speed up?
General Weible. I had heard that he himself had asked for an
immediate release, which would mean anytime within the next several
days.
Senator Symington. Well, inasmuch as you had seen the letter
from Senator McCarthy who was chairman of this committee, did
you not think that maybe the best thing to do would be not to release
him at that time and recognize the importance of the letter that the
chairman of this committee had sent to Mr. Adams ?
General Weible. I did recognize the importance of the letter, sir,
and what bothered me was the fact that we didn't have the evidence,
and from Mr. Adams' statement I didn't think we were going to
get it, and he so stated.
Senator Symington. Did Mr. Adams say there was any further
evidence regardless of whether you would get or not, and did he imply
there was any further evidence or did he say there wasn't any further
evidence?
General Weible. I don't know.
Senator Symington. I did not mean to make my question too long.
General Weible. May I answer it in part?
Senator Symington. Let us take it in part. First, did he tell you
there was any further evidence with respect to Major Peress?
General Weible. No, sir.
Senator Symington. Did he tell you that there was not any further
evidence with respect to Major Peress?
General Weible. He said he was not going to get it.
Senator Symington. Did he imply that there was any?
General Weiele. No, sir. I don't think he did, except by bringing
the letter and showing it to me, because the letter indicated that there
was.
Senator Symington. The letter could not be any further evidence
because you said that you did not have any further evidence, and
that, therefore, you felt that Major Peress could be released without
court-martial. So there could not be any further evidence in the
letter.
Now, what I am asking you is was there any evidence in addition to
the letter?
General Weible. No, sir.
Senator Symington. Did he imply there was any evidence anywhere
in addition to the letter?
General Weible. He did not.
Senator Symington. So that you felt that based on your conversa-
tion with him, that he gave you the complete story with respect to
Major Peress?
General Weible. As far as I know ; yes, sir.
Senator Symington. I have no further questions.
Senator Ervin. General, an order was issued in the Pentagon di-
recting that the elimination of Major Peress from the service, was
it not, sent down through channels?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 361
General Weible. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Now, I will ask you if the local commander was not
required by Army regulations to give an honorable discharge under
those circumstances, unless the order made some direction to the
contrary ?
General Weible. Well, I have learned since that he actually received
a directive from the Adjutant General's office to give the man an honor-
able discharge.
Senator IiIrvin. If. the order issuing out of the Pentagon through
channels to the local commander, directed the discharge of a man and
said nothing whatever on the subject, it would have been his duty,
under Army regulations, the duty of the local commander, to dis-
charge him with an honorable discharge ?
General Weible. That is right, sir. That is unless between the
date of receipt of the order and the date of actual separation, some-
thing had happened to indicate to him that he should report it to
the proper authorities and ask for further instructions.
Senator Ervin. You say you have ascertained since that there was
a directive issued to the local commander in this case to give or to
grant an honorable discharge?
General Weible. That is right, sir. I did not know that at the time
that it left the Department, and in fact, I did not know it until the
Inspector General made his investigation.
Senator Ervin. The fact is that the Army at that time had no ade-
quate regulations directing those responsible for action in cases like
this, what kind of action they should take in cases of subversives. Is
that not true ?
(Senator McCarthy entered the room.)
General Weible. I would say it this way, sir, if I may: I think
the policy that directed that these security risks would be discharged
under the provisions of the involuntary-release program were the
foundation of our difficulties in that respect.
Senator Ervin. That was based, or the involuntary-release program
was a program which was designed to really eliminate from the service
incompetent officers ?
General Weible. That is right, sir, or not necessarily incompetent.
It might have been people whom we had to release because of our
reduction in strength.
You see, as our strength is reduced, some people are released invol-
untarily, not necessarily for any cause.
Senator ER\^N. That is all.
Senator Symington. "When Mr. Adams came to you to discuss this
matter, did he say that he discussed it with anybody else in the Army
at that time, or in the Department of Defense, and if so, who?
General Weible. I don't recall that he did, sir, and I don't think
he did.
Senator Symington. Where was Secretary Stevens at the time that
he came to you ?
General Weible. He was still returning, I believe, from the Far
East Command, as I recall it. He had been away on a trip and had
not yet returned.
Senator Symington. In his absense, Mr. Adams represented him?
362 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Weible. I thought so, yes, sir, because his functions were
to be the contact with congressional committees and act as I thought
for the Secretary in conducting business with them.
Senator Symington. Does Mr. Adams report directly to the Secre-
tary of the Army ?
General Weible, Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Then, in effect, you felt based on your con-
versation that you were operating under a directive?
General Weible. Well, I can't say that I was operating under a
directive, sir. I felt, though, that he represented the Secretary of
the Army, and if there was to be any directive, it would come from
him, or from the Secretary level.
Senator Syjmington. Did he suggest that this man be promptly
cliscliarged without a court-martial, or did he leave that up to you
to decide based on the facts that he gave you ?
General Weible. No. I cannot answer that particular question
"Yes" or "No" just the way j^ou phrased it. He was annoj^ed because
the man had not been discharged, but I don't think that he said in
any way, "I want you to discharge him right away." No, sir. It
wasn't anything specific like that.
Senator Symington. Did he ask you whether you thought he should
be court martialed ?
General Weible. Well, that was as I thought, the point about
which the whole discussion revolved. It was whether or not the
Army staff could initiate court-martial action on the basis of the
letter.
Senator Symington. You felt in your opinion, based on the letter,
and that was all of the information you had, that there could not
be a court-martial ?
General Weible. That is right, sir.
Senator Symington. I have one more question : Did he tell you
that he had discussed this matter with anybody else in the Army,
at his level or above his level, or with anybody in the Department
of Defense?
General Weible. No, sir. I don't think that he did. At least I
don't recall it.
The Chairman. May I ask you a question there: AAHiile you say
it was your immediate opinion based upon the information Mr. Adams
gave you that it would not warrant court-martial action, is that
correct ?
General Weible. On the basis of the letter itself, yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, on the basis of the letter itself, does not
the letter contain sufficient information to alert you and to alert
anyone in the service or in the Department of the Army who may
have read it or to whose attention it may have come, that there was
reason, at least justification for withholding discharge until further
information might be considered, if it was available?
General AVeible. I wish that I had taken it upon myself to do it,
sir.
The Chairman. I am sure that you do. I think that is exactly
what should have been clone.
Now, you can stop a discharge, notwithstanding orders having
gone out, to the commanding officer and the commanding general of
AR]\1Y PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 363
a post, notwithstanding those orders having been processed and issued
and gone tlirough, you could have stopped the discharge. The De-
partment of the Army could have immediately after receipt of this
letter from the chairman of a congressional committee stopped that
discharge by simply getting on the telephone and issuing oral in-
structions to stop it, could you not ?
General Weible. That is right, sir.
The CiiAiRiiAN. That could have been done ?
General Weible. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In retrospect, at least, you think it should have
been done?
General Weible. I wish I had done it, sir.
The CHAiRMAiSr. Thank you very much.
Senator McCarthy. General, you are a soldier with a great combat
record, and I wonder if you would not agree with me it was very
unfair to you to come to you and ask you to decide whether a court-
martial proceeding should be commenced and then withhold from
you the pertinent information ?
Mr. Brucker. That has several questions in it. Do you want to
answer it without dividing the question ?
General Weible. May I have that read back ?
The Chairman. Let us let the witness answer that, and he can state
his feelings.
]Mr. Brucker. That has 2 or 3 questions in it, and now if he wants
to have an answer, I have no objection to the answer.
The Chairman. I am sure he can answer it, but let us have him
answer it.
General Weible. May I have it read back ?
Senator INIcCarthy. I will repeat the question : Do you think it is
rather unfair to you to ask you to decide whether or not court-martial
proceedings should be started and then withhold information from
you on which the decision would be based ?
General Weible. If anybody had withheld information that I
should have known, I do think it was unfair ; yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I agree with that wholeheartedly. 1 thank
you.
Senator Ervin. General, I am a lawyer and, therefore, I consider
people not lawyers as laymen, but you are a layman in that sense i
Creneral Weible. Yes, sir. I certainly am.
Senator Ervin. You have had no training in law, other than what
the normal Army officer gets ?
(xeneral Weible. That is true, sir.
Senator ER^^[X. Now, Mr. Adams was supposed to be the General
Counsel for the Army, was he not ?
General Weible. He was, sir.
Senator Ervin. And the General Counsel for the Army came to you
to ask you, a layman, whether a man ought to be court-martialed ?
General Weible. Well, that is what T thought he came for, and if
he came for something else, I don't know about it.
Senator Ervin. That is all.
The Cliairman. Thank you very much. General.
Mr. Brucker. Just a moment. Will you ask him the regular ques-
tions?
60030 — 53 — pt. 5—3
364 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Oh, yes, I intended to, and I appreciate your calling
it to my attention.
General, were you interviewed by the inspector general of the Army
prior to the time I submitted his report to the Secretary on this case?
General Weible. I can't say that I was interviewed, sir. I cer-
tainly talked to the inspector general about the case, but I can't call
it a formal interview.
The Chairman. You cannot call it a formal interview ?
General Weible. No, sir.
The Chairman. Well, I do not know just when an interview takes
on formality and when it is disrobed of it.
General Weible. You see, sir, the reason I put it that way is that
they did not come to me in a closed session and ask me questions about
the case. Now, normally that would be the procedure, and that testi-
mony would go into the report of investigation.
The Chairman. Do you know whether anything you may have said
about it to the inspector general went into his report? jNIaybe that
will help clear it up.
General Weible. No, sir, I don't know whether it did or not, as I
did not go through the report in detail. The inspector, or the investi-
gating officer who brought the case to my office, and I believe he had
the inspector general at that particular time, I indicated to them that
I was surprised that I hadn't been interviewed with respect to the
case, and the reply I got was, "Well, the Secretary wanted to know
who made the decisions in the case, and the record shows that the
Vice Chief of Staff made the decision," and I said, "Well, I still
think I should be in it."
The Chairman. You do not know whether you were placed in it
or not ?
General Weible. No, sir ; I don't.
The Chairman. You do know that your name was not among the
original list of 28 that was furnished to the Mundt special sub-
committee ?
General Weible. That is correct, sir, and I protested to the investi-
gating officer that my name should be on the list.
The Chairman. You did that, General, because you felt that you
did participate in the decision for his immediate discharge rather
than holding him for court-martial ?
General Weible. Well, I had participated in the case as far as that
level was concerned, sir, all of the way through, and so I wasn't
thinking about any particular feature of it.
The Chairman. Wlien did you protest to the inspector general?
General Weible. Wlien the investigation was brought to me to be
passed on to the Secretary in accordance with his desires. I only
screened the investigation, and I mean by that the recommendations
that had been made, to see what action I could take as part of the
Army's staff, even before the Secretary had acted upon it.
The Chairman. "\A'lieii did you first know your name was not among
the 28 ?
General Weible, Wlien it was brought to me that day.
The Chairman. Before it was filed with the committee?
General Weible. Before it was sent to the Secretary, sir.
The Chairman. I think it was filed with the committee on April
16, by the Secretary.
r
AR]VIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 365
General Weible. Oh, no.
The Chairman. It was filed with the Secretary on April 16, and
it was on that date or before that you knew your name was not
among those on the list ?
Mr. Brucker. I think May 11 is the date.
General Weible. I can't state the exact date.
The Chairman. It was before it was filed with the Secretary?
General Weible. It must have been ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you protest that, and insist that your name
should be on that list ?
General Weible. After it got to the Secretary level, sir, I did not
participate an}- further.
The Chairman. Did you protest before it went to the Secretary?
General Weible, Yes, sir.
The Chairman. To whom ?
General Weible. To the inspector, or the investigating officer who
was making the report of investigation.
The Chair3iIAn. Now, General, may I inquire of you, I think we
have asked this question of most or possibly all other military witnesses
that we have had before us, did anyone at any time, any of your
superiors or anyone else in the service, or from any other source, make
any request of 3^011 or suggestions to you that Peress should be shown
any special favors or considerations in any way whatsoever?
General Weible. Absolutely not, sir.
Senator Symington. On the question of that list, General Weible,
what you saw on that list was the name of your chief. General Bolte,
and you knew that you made the decision in his absence, and therefore
you felt it was your responsibility and not his ; is that correct?
General Weible. Well, you see, sir, I hadn't really made the final
decision, but I had done all of the work on it before it went to the Vice
Chief of Staff to sign that letter.
Senator Symington. Was the Vice Chief of Staff in his office when
Mr. Adams came to you ?
General Weible. I don't know, sir. You are referring to the night
of February 1 ?
Senator Symington. I am referring to the time when Mr. Adams
came to you with a letter from Senator McCarthy.
General Weible. I don't know whether the Vice Chief was in his
office that night or not. It was after 5 o'clock in the evening.
Senator Symington. The point is that you said in the absence of
the Secretary of the Army, that ISIr. Adams spoke for the Secretary
of the Army, and if he was speaking for the Secretary of the Army 1
am wondering why he did not go to the highest officer in the Army
on a matter of this character instead of going to a subordinate in that
office.
General Weible. That I don't know, sir. I cannot answer that.
Senator Symington. It never came up ?
General Weible. No, sir, I really don't know.
Senator Symington. You do not know why Mr. Adams came to
you. as Judge Ervin said, a layman, instead of going to the Vice
Chief of Staff?
General Weible. No, sir, I don't know. Perhaps I was the only one
available, and I really don't know, sir, and I didn't check.
366 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Symington. And the list that was given us by the Secre-
tary of the Army has General Bolte's name on it and not yours?
General Weible. That is because the record, sir, shows that the Vice
Chief of Staff approved it, and the Inspector General apparently
went on the basis of this record.
Senator Symington. Of the signature instead of the discussions; is
that right?
General Weible. That is right.
Senator Symington. Thank you.
Senator Ervin. General, do you know in my country when a man
died, his son became his administrator, and the estate of the father
was A'ery much complicated and the son had a lot of trouble with it
and a lot of lawsuits and controversies, and after so long a time he
said, "I have had so much trouble with this estate that I am almost
sorry the old man died."
Now, I understand from you that subsequent events which have
flown from the action that was taken has made you sorry that you did
not take other action, or it makes you almost sorry.
General Weible. I can say, frankly ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. General, have you talked to the Inspector General,
and did you discuss your meeting with John Adams with him?
General Weible. I don't recall whether or not I did. It wasn't a
recorded meeting, and I don't remember. I personally felt that my
part of the discussion, on the, evening of the 1st, was from the stand-
point of the Army staff, and not as important as I really should have
considered it. I thought I was just being questioned or conferred
with as to whether or not on the basis of the letter we could initiate
some court-martial action. Inasmuch as no new decision was made
that night I didn't attach the importance to it that I should have.
I was unaware of how this could be interpreted.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you know if the Inspector General knew of your
meeting with John Adams?
General Weible. I can't answer that, sir, I don't know.
Senator McCarthy. I have just 1 or 2 questions, General Weible.
There is something that I do not quite understand. You have stated
a number of times on the basis of the letter alone you could not initiate
court-martial proceedings. I understand the letter was not evidence
and you could not use that as evidence in the court-martial proceeding.
But if someone wrote you, a Senator, or chairman of a committee,
and said that Major Smith had murdered a man, you could not initiate
court-martial proceedings on the basis of that letter alone, and you
had to have the evidence ?
General Weible. That is right, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Why in this case, why did not John Adams or
you or someone get on the phone and call me up, and say, "McCarthy,
we have a letter here, which states some very damaging facts about
Peress, and can you back it up with evidence?" Why did not some-
one do that, and call me and say, "McCarthy, tell us about this, and
give us the evidence" ?
General Weible. The proper man to do it, sir, was Mr. Adams be-
cause that was his job. And if you had sent the letter to me, per-
sonally, I would have felt that I should do it.
Senator McCarthy. Did he tell you why he did not do that?
General Weible. No, sir, he did not.
ARAIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 367
Senator McCarthy. He just said he did not have the evidence?
General Weikle. In fact, when he left my office, I didn't know
whether or not he was goinfj to do it, and he merely indicated to me
that I wasn't going to get anything.
Senator McCarthy. You were certainly very grossly deceived, then,
and it was not your fault.
The Chairman. Thank you very much, General.
The Chairman. Before calling the next witness, the Chair has had
presented to him this morning an affidavit from Lt. Col. James D.
Anders, correcting the impression he left in his testimony when he
came before the committee on the I7th of jNIarch.
Without objection the affidavit should be made a part of the record.
I will ask the reporter to insert it in the permanent record immedi-
ately following the testimon}^ of the witness.
General Zwicker, do 3'ou solemnly swear the evidence you shall give
before this Senate subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
General Zwicker. I do.
TESTIMONY OF RALPH W. ZWICKEE, BRIGADIER GENERAL,
UNITED STATES ARMY
Tlie Chairman. HaA^e a seat, sir.
General Zwicker, where are you now stationed ?
Geenral Zwicker. I am commanding general of Southwestern Com-
mand, APO 9, San Francisco, Calif.
The Chairman. That is an overseas assignment ?
General Zwicker. It is.
The Chairman. "Wliere were you stationed and what was your as-
signment in 19r)2 and 1953 ?
General Zwicker. In 1952 I was assistant division commander of
the Fifth Infantry Division, Indiantown Gap, Pa. On July 15, 1953,
I assumed command of Camp Kilmer, N. J.
The Chairman. A"Miat was your next assignment after that?
General Zwicker. My present, sir.
The Chairman, ^^^len did you receive your present assignment?
General Zwicker. In September of 1954.
The Chairman. So from July of 1953 to September of 1954 you
were commanding officer at Camp Kilmer ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Counsel, you may proceed with the witness.
]Mr. Kennedy. General Zwicker, you took over at Camp Kilmer
on the 15th of July ; is that correct?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And Irving Peress came to Camp Kilmer on the
14th of March, the record shows that. Now, it was not until the 20th
of October, evidently, that you first learned of the fact that Irving
Peress as a security risk was under your command; is that right?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you tell the committee whv it was that
there was a delay between the 15th of July and the 20th of October?
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask a question there? "Wlien you were
before our committee some time ago on February 18, you refused to
368 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
answer a sizable number of questions. Have you been cleared now
so that you may answ^er those questions ?
General Zwicker. I have, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Who cleared you?
General Zwicker. Governor Brucker.
Mr. Brucker. That is correct.
General Zwicker. With one exception, Mr. Senator. That is I am
not privileged to discuss the specific contents of the classified files of
one Irving Peress.
Senator McCarthy. I understand.
Governor, could I ask you one question? Did you get clearance
from the President; that is, a Presidential directive?
Mr. Brucker. "Wliat are you referring to. Senator? Did I get
what ?
Senator McCarthy. I say you cleared him so that he could answer
questions whicli the general thought he was forbidden to answer
because of the Presidential directive. Did you get clearance from the
President ?
Mr. Brucker. Senator, I think that I said at the outset, and I
will repeat it now, that there is a clearance for everything in thft
Peress chronology with respect to General Zwicker and others.
Senator McCarthy. 'Wliere did you get the clearance ?
Mr. Brucker. Just let me finish, if you will, and I will make it
clear, and it is on the record. That is not related solely to the Peress
chronology as such, but to all matters connected with Peress that
General Zwicker had any part in, except, of course, the security in-
formation, and that information was cleared with the Chief Legal
Officer of the United States, the Attorney General.
Senator McCarthy. You got the clearance from the Attorney
General ?
Mr. Brucker. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. Thank vou.
The Chairman. We will proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. General, to get back to my question, you took over
on the 15tli of July and there was this delay until the 20th of
October; and would you explain why the delay occurred before you
yourself, individually, learned of the case of Irving Peress and his
security background ?
Mr. Brucker. Do you understand the question, that there was a
delay between March and July 1 ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you understand the question ?
General Zwicker. I do. Peress' case was then in the Intelligence
files of headquarters. Camp Kilmer. On assuming command of Camp
Kilmer I had many duties. Never having commanded a personnel
center of that magnitude before I felt it incumbent upon me to deter-
mine and to learn those duties as rapidly as possible. It did not occur
to me, and — well, it had occurred to me, and I had been following
more or less of a pattern in learning my job. That meant a visit
to the various stations and a briefing by the various principal staff
officers at Camp Kilmer.
In the early part of October I felt that I should have a briefing
by my G-2, and so instructed my chief of staff that I would like to
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 369
have my G-2 present to me any matters of importance in his juris-
diction.
On or about the 20th of October my G-2 did present to me the
Irving Peress case.
Mr. Kennedy. Were there any regulations in effect, in your camp,
or throughout the Army, that a G-2 officer is to keep his commanding
officer advised as to what is occurring in his unit ?
General Zwicker. No, sir ; there is not.
Mr. Kennedy. Is there any regulation governing the commanding
general insuring that he is kept advised by his G-2 officer of what is
occurring in the G-2 office of the camp?
General Zwicker. There was not at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Is there now ?
General Zwicker. I am certain that none of us would miss that
opportunity at the present time.
Senator McCarthy. What made you say that?
General Zwicker. I have had considerable experience, Mr. Senator,
in security cases since that time, and I feel that I am much more famil-
iar with the requirements as they exist now, and as they did then.
Senator McCarthy. Do you think the Peress case may have alerted
you and some of the other generals ?
General Zwicker. I am sure it did.
Mr. Kennedy. The result of this was. General, that you were not
aware of the fact that Irving Peress had requested a promotion from
captain to major m a letter of September 9, 1953 ?
General Zwicker. I was not aware of that.
Mr. Kennedy. And that that was forwarded for action to the First
Army, and ultimately to the Department of the Army, through your
camp; is that right?
General Zwicker. I am now aware of that.
Mr. Kennedy. If you had been aware of it, and knew the deroga-
tory information on Irving Peress, would you have put a notation
on the letter as it went forward pointing out the fact that there was
this derogatory information?
General Zwicker. I am certain I would have.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you think that should have been done ?
General Zwicker. I do.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, the day after you received this briefing from
your G-2 officer on Irving Peress, did you write i, letter to General
Burress, commanding general of the First Army ?
General Zw^icker. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Requesting that action be taken to eliminate Peress
from the service as a security risk ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. This is already in, Mr. Chairman, as exhibit No. 33.
The Chairman. We will hand it to the witness and ask him to iden-
tify it again, if that is the letter that he wrote.
(Letter was handed to the witness.)
The Chairman. General, you are being shown exhibit 33 to the
present hearings. Will you identify it ?
General Zwicker . I do, sir.
The Chairman. What is it?
General Zwicker. It is a letter, subject: "Elimination of Security
Eisk, Headquarters, Camp Kilmer, Office of the Commanding General,
370 ARMl' PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Xew Brunswick. N. J."' dated October 21, 1953, addressed to Com-
mandiiio; General, First Army, Governors Island, N. Y.
Paragraph 1
Tlie Ghaikmax. Just state the substance of it, it will go in as an
exhibit and it will shorten it.
General Zwicker. The substance of the letter, sir?
The Chairman. Read it all.
General Zwickj:r. Paragraph 1 :
expiring
Street,
, Head-
quarters, First Army dated 10 November, 1952.
2. This officer refused to si.irn a loyalty certificate, and refused to answer au
interrogatory concerning his affiliation with subversive organizations, claiming
Federal constitutional privileges. A complaint type investigation directed by
your Headquarters completed on 15 April 1953 reveals —
and the substantive derogatoiy information is deleted, sir.
The Chairman. You statecl in that letter what that investigation
revealed ?
General Zwicker. I did, sir.
The Chairman. That has been deleted from the letter ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Senator Symington. Why has it been deleted, Senator?
Mr. Brucker. It gives details of security information.
The Chairman. At any rate we do not have it at the moment, but
anyway you did report to the commanding officer of the First Armv
the facts as you had them at that time ?
General Zwicker. I did, sir.
The Chairman. And you quoted them in detail ?
General Zw^icker. I should like to read the remainder.
The Chairman. You reported them in detail from the information
you had ?
Genera] Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now you may proceed to read the letter.
General Zwicker. Paragraph 3 :
The Field Intelligence file shows that the Surgeon General on 30 April 19.53
recommended to G-2, Department of the Army, that the officer be eliminated
from the service. A similar recommendation was made bv Assistant Chief of
Staff. G-2. First Army on 7 July 1953.
4. The retention of Captain Peress is clearly not consistent with the interests
of the national securit.v. It is requested that immediate steps be taken to efEert
his relief from active duty.
(Signed) Ralph W. Zwickeb,
Brifjadier General, USA,
Cominandmii .
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
Senator Symington. I would like to ask a question.
Senator McCarthy. I am curious to know whv you could not have
read this letter to us when we were holding the' hearing on the 16th
of February last year, and you could have saved yourself a lot of grief.
Why were you barred from doing that? You left the impression there
that you were the man responsible for his discharge and I am wonder-
ing why you can give us this information now concerning this and
could not give to us then ?
General Zwicker. Probably, Senator, because the letter was never
brought up at that particular hearing; a specific question on it.
ARMY PERSOtoTEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 371
Senator ^McCarthy. We asked you for all of the infonnatiou we
could get and you knew about the letter. I am wondering wliy you
did not save yourself some grief by pointing out at that time that you
liad recommended it?
General Zwickek. It was a security matter, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I do not want to argue the point with you, but
YOU can answer it today but vou could not answer it then, and what
liappened in the meantime?
General Zwickek. A great deal has happened since then, Mr.
Senator.
Senator ]\IcCarthy. I guess you are right.
General Zwicker. In the first jjlace, everything tliat I know about
rliis case is a matter of record as of this moment, and has been due to
tlie various hearings that have been held in the past, and since my last
appearance before this or a similar body, there has been much made
public that had never been made public property prior to that time.
In addition to that I liave been advised by my counsel that I am
l^rivileged to release now anything except as I formerly stated.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
The Chairman. In other words, General, at the time you testified
before this committee on February 18, 1954, you did not have clearance
then to testify; is that correct?
General Zwicker. That was the impression under which I answered
questions, sir.
The Chairman. Well, was that just an impression, or were you
prohibited from testifying to these facts?
General Zwicker. It was no directive, sir. I had received my
thoughts on the matter from the Executive order, and that was my
interpretation of the Executive order.
The Chairman. The reason you did not disclose all of it at that
time was that you felt you were under the inhibition of an Executive
order ?
General Zw^icker. I did, sir.
The Chairmax. That you would be violating it if you did it ?
General Zwicker. I did. sir.
The Chairman. Since then a great deal of it has been released to
the public and practically all of it, and now you do have advice from
Defense counsel or counsel for the Defense Department that he has
secured clearance from the highest legal authority in the Govern-
ment, the Attorney General, and now you are present to testify to
eA'ery thing except actual security information?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
The Ciiair:man. Is that correct?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Senator Ervin. I w^ill ask you. General, at the time you testified
originally if you did not consider yourself precluded from testifying
on tins matter, not only by the Executive order but by a provision of
the Army regulations which had incorporated the substance of that
Executive order?
General Zwicker. Sir, the Army regulation itself was but a means
of publicizing to the Army the provisions of an Executive order. The
Army regulation itself did not set up the provisions for that order,
but was merely a means for transmitting to the Armed Forces, I
60030— 55— pt. 5 4
372 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
imagine, or at least to the Army, the provisions of Executive order
and the changes thereto.
Senator Ervin. It was your interpretation of that Executive order
which had been communicated by the Army regulations to the mili-
tary personnel that they deprived you of the liberty to testify as to
that matter?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir, that is correct.
Senator Symington. Governor Brucker, j^ou say that you have
inked out a lot of this letter for security reasons; is that right?
Mr. Brucker. Yes.
Senator Symington. Is that information available to the committee
in executive session?
Mr. Brucker. It is not available to the committee. It is security
information and as such it is privileged.
Senator Symington. Wliat do you mean by that?
Mr. Brucker. Well, it is derogatory information about the person
concerned.
Senator Symington. Well, there has been a lot of derogatory in-
formation about the person concerned. Is that special derogatory, or
superderogatory ?
Mr, Brucker. No, this is security information that relates to mat-
ters that have been obtained by the investigative sources, very similar
to the FBI file method.
Senator Symington. I would think if at this late date you cannot
tell what General Zwicker wrote to commanding general of the First
Army with respect to what is in his letter, that that is justification
for not being able to give the letter in evidence when he appeared
before Senator McCarthy.
Now, let me ask another question : Some members of the staff of the
committee felt that you were more cooperative when you talked to
the staff prior to the time of the hearing before this committee. If
you were less cooperative when the hearing occurred than at the
time that the staff interviewed you at Camp Kilmer, what was the
reason that you changed your position, if you did ?
General Zwicker. That was the impression of the members of the
staff* and it was not my impression at all.
Senator Symington. Did you have any visitors between the time
that you talked to the staff and the time that you testified at the
hearings in Albany ?
Mr. Juliana. It was New York.
Senator Syjviington. Did you have any visitors from the Pentagon
Building to discuss this matter with you ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir; I did.
Senator Symington. "\^^io were they?
General Zwicker. Mr. John Adams.
Senator Symington. Would you care to give the committee in
summary any details of your conversation at that time ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Syiniington. With Mr. Adams?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir. I had had a telephone call from Mr.
John Adams and may I refresh my memory from date notes, sir?
Senator Symington. Surely, General.
General Zwicker. I had a telephone call from Mr. Adams at 1000
on the 28th of January 1954. The substance of that call was to request
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVLNG PERESS 373
from him to me that I request Peress to appear before the subcom-
mittee on the 30th of January. That is the complete substance of
that call from Mr. Adams.
In talking to him during that call, sir, I said, in eifect "what
happens if he won't go for me? I can't order him specifically to
appear as far as I know before this committee." And he said "Please
let us know as quickly as you can in order that we may from this
end initiate proceedings incidental to sending a marshal out with
a subpena to insure that Mr. Peress or Major Peress will be present
on the 30th."
That was the substance of that call.
Senator Symington. Did you record that call. General?
General Z wicker. No, sir.
Senator Symington. Did you make notes afterward?
General Z wicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. And you are giving us all of the notes that
you made in summary ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
The Chairman. The Chair would like to clear up a matter with
respect to this letter of General Zwicker to the commanding general
of the First Army. Maybe I should ask this question of you, Mr.
Brucker.
This information that is deleted from this letter, derogatory infor-
mation that has been blotted out and is not now available to the com-
mittee
Mr. Brucker. That is right.
The Chairman. Is it that character of information that is in the In-
spector General's report that you still do not want the committee to
have?
Mr. Brucker. That is right.
The Chairman. May I ask you one other question.
Is this information, this derogatory information, or a copy of this
letter in the possession of the Attorney General ? Does he have that
information ?
Mr. Brucker. That I can't answer you specifically except to say that
all of the derogatory information that was in the Peress file obtained
by the G-2 investigators went to the Attorney General. So that I
would assume that the answer is, "Yes."
The Chairman. Let me ask the general a question.
Did the Inspector General interrogate you about the Peress case?
General Zwicker. He did.
The Chairman. In the course of that interrogation did you deliver
to him a copy of this letter ?
General Zwicker. I don't believe I did, sir.
The Chairman. Wliat I am trying to determine is: we have an
Attorney General to enforce the law, the highest law-enforcement
officer in the land, and it is indicated certainly, if not definitely estab-
lished, that here is a case where a prosecution possibly should be in-
stituted for violation of the law.
What I cannot understand is we debate this information, don't want
to make it available to the committee, don't know whether the Attorney
General has it not, and the Attorney General may be acting just as
General Weible was a while ago, mailing decisions without having all
the facts and information, and the Chair wants to know.
374 ARMY PERSOXXEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The chairman of this committee wants to know whether this infor-
mation deleted from this letter is now in the possession and has been
in the possession of the Attorney General so he might be informed and
have tliis as a basis of consideration in any decision he may make.
Mr. Brucker. I would be tempted to say, "Yes," but I want to cor-
roborate it, and I will, and report to you.
The Chairman. Do that.
While doing that I want you to ask the Attorney General to de-
classify that that has been stricken from this letter, and make it
available to this committee. This Peress case is out in the open, and
we want this to be the concluding problem, so far as the Congress is
concerned. When we get through with this hearing we want this thing
cleared up once and for all, and then if there is evidence that justifies
and warrants criminal prosecution I am sure every member of this
committee wants that action taken. We are hopeful that by these
hearings we will develop the facts sufficiently so that it will be of
assistance at least to the chief law-enforcement officer of the Nation, to
get proper action on this case.
I ask you if you have been getting clearances from the Attorney
General. I ask you, during the noon recess, that you undertake to
get clearance of the matter deleted here so that it can be made p-rt
of this record.
Senator McCarthy. I agree with the Chair wholeheartedly. I
think it is impossible for you to know what responsibility rests on
the shoulders of the conuuanding officer of the First Army unless you
know what information he had.
I would like to ask General Zwicker this question :
Do you think it would endanger the national security if the in-
formation which was cut out of your letter was restored to it ?
Mr. Brt'Cker. Is it addressed to him ?
Senator McCarthy. Let him answer the question.
Mr. Brucker. 1 thought you were asking me that. I beg your
pardon.
General Zwicker. 1 do not, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Senator.
Senator Symington. May I ask you a question, j\Ir. Brucker ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes.
Senator Symington. Have you read what has been deleted from
this letter?
]Mr. Brucker. T don't remember. I remember reading some infor-
mation.
Senator Symington. I will repeat the question.
Have you read wJiat has been deleted from this letter ?
Mr. Brucker. T am not sure that I have.
Senator Syimington. So you are not in a position to say whether or
not you feel it Avould affect the national security? Is that right?
]\Ir. Bri'Cker. No. I say this about it : I can give you the back-
ground of the reasons.
EA-ery bit of security information, while in and of itself may not
seem important or may not seem vital to give it away, but that, to-
gether with something else that the FBI may have, may be the very
thing that the other fellow wants to knoAV.
Senator Symington. You are not sure about anything you are say-
ing because you are not sure you have read what you have here?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 375
Mr. Brfckkr. No. On this letter, I will read it and let you know
the answer, but 1 don't want to speculate.
Senator Symington. As counsel for the Army— I am not saying
this critically— you come up with a letter which is classified, part of
it, and yet you don't know whether you have ever read it yourself,
and yet you say it sliould not be given out because it is a security
matter. Is that riglit ?
Mr. Bruckek. I don't say that.
I say, in answer to the chairman's request, that this was deleted. I
did iu)t delete it.
Senator Symington. Who did ?
Mr. BrI'Cker. It was deleted by, I imagine, the G-2 of the Army,
who reviews these security matters before any paper is released. And
we have the gentlenuin that brought it over.
Senator Symington. Wouldn't it interest you what was deleted, to
clear this case up ?
^Nlr. Brucker. Yes. I may have read it, but I want to make sure.
I don't want to answer things on speculation or possibility.
Senator Symington. It was deleted in the Army; you are sure of
that ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes.
Senator Syjsiington. You don't know why ?
Mr. BRrCKER. For security purposes : I know that; that is the only
thing that is being withheld here, the security information. I have
given an order that everytliing else shall be turned over.
Senator Symington. If General Zwicker wrote this letter to the
commanding officer don't you think it is unfair to delete part of the
letter unless it is very important from the standpoint of national
security? He answered Senator McCarthy saying he doesn't think
it affects national security.
Mr. Brucker. I will look it over and let you know.
Senator Symington. ]Mr. Chairman, I was asking General Zwicker
about anybody who visited with him or talked to him between the
time the staff talked to him and the hearing, and you said you had
a call the night before and then a visit.
General Zwicker. A later visit.
Senator Symington. You were going to describe briefly the more
succinct aspects of the colloquy in that visit.
General Zwicker. Yes.
Senator Symington. Who was present when you had that talk with
Mr. Adams?
General Zw'ICKer. I believe that Lieutenant Colonel Brown was
present.
Senator Symington. Who is he?
General Zwicker. INIy G-2, sir.
I believe that my Chief of Staff, Colonel Brunner, Avas present, and
I was there, sir.
Senator Symington. There were four people in the room?
General Zwicker. I think that is correct.
Senator Symington. To the best of your recollection? Is that
right ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Would you describe the discussion that you
had with ]Mr. Adams.
376 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
On the morning of February 17, 1954, I received a telephone call
from Mr. Adams, from Princeton Airport, saying his plane had been
grounded and that he would like to come to my headquarters and
talk with me.
I told him that that was fine, and told him I would pick him up im-
mediately, which I proceeded to do.
In company with Mr. Adams, Mr. Haskins, I went to Princeton
Airport and brought both gentlemen back to my headquarters.
The substance of the conversation at my headquarters was that I
was to appear before the Senate subcommittee at such and such a time,
at such and such a place, and in such and such a room, at Foley Square,
at 10 a. m. on February 18.
I indicated that I would be there,
I was also told that the subject of the investigation would revolve
around Peress. However, no directives or nothing of any nature was
given to me in the way of what to say or what not to say, how to act or
how not to act during this period,
I may have said, "What do I do ?" And I think I recall Mr. Adams
saying that, "Senator McCarthy is a very ruthless and very sharp
questioner. I can't anticipate his questions. Therefore, I can't give
you any advice as to how to answer his questions."
The rest of the period, as I recall, simply revolved about how Mr,
Adams was going to get to New York.
Senator Symington. You don't think there was any coincidence in
his being grounded at Princeton ?
General Zwicker. I am sure of it.
Senator Symington. You are sure of it ?
General Zwicker. Yes. lie was going to come to my headquarters
anyway. The purpose of his visit was to see me prior to my going
to New York, sir.
Senator Symington. I see.
But he came up just to give you the information that you have
given us, no other information at all?
General Zwicker. So far as I know, that is correct, Mr. Senator.
May I follow this ?
I received a corroborating letter dated February 17 with the same
information, but that, of course, arrived at my headquarters some time
after his visit. He wrote the letter saying he was going to be there,
but he beat the letter.
Senator Symington, To the best of your knowledge, you have told
us everything in your conversation with him at tliat time which would
be pertinent to this hearing ?
General Zwicker. Absolutely everything that would be pertinent to
this hearing, sir.
The Chairman. May I ask you this :
It seems, if that is all you discussed, his visit was pointless and
useless. Is that correct ?
General Zwicker. It may have been, sir.
The Chairman. There was nothing about it except that you were
going to be called to testify? Nothing else said? No instructions
given you or no orders as to how you should testify or what informa-
tion you should withhold? Wasn't it a pointless trip if those are the
facts It was an uimecessary and uncalled-for trip, was it not?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 377
General Zwicker, Mr. Adams seemed to think it was a trip he
wanted to make.
The Chairman. Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. I think this was covered, but I planned on
covering it.
If I understand you correctly, Mr. Adams flew up, and the only
thing of importance he told you was you were to testify and that
McCarthy was a tough cross-examiner.
Can you figure out why he flew all the way to tell you that ?
General Zwicbier. He was on his way to New York.
Senator McCarthy. You said he planned on coming to your head-
quarters anyway.
General Zwicker. I am sure of that.
Senator McCarthy. To give you that all-important information.
General Zwicker. I have no other
Senator McCarthy. Will you search your memory and tell us the
facts.
^Ylien you were interviewed by j\Ir. Juliana you gave him consider-
able information which you did not give the committee. The reason
for that was the conversation and the conference with John Adams,
and Adams told you not to answer certain questions.
Mr. Brucker. Break that down into two questions. I object to the
assumption, and I am advising the witness that when you put an
assumption in your questions it is fair for the witness to have his
attention directed to it.
This witness is going to be fairly treated, I assume.
The Chairman. Repeat the question.
Senator McCarthy. Could I ask this ?
Is it the function of Mr. Bruckner to object to questions and
Mr. Brucker. I have a right to counsel the witness.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish.
Mr. Brucker. I thought you were finished. It is hard to tell.
The Chairman. Just a moment.
We will try to carry this in order.
You conclude, and then I will
Senator McCarthy. I will address this to the chair.
I understand the rule of the committee was that counsel could
advise with the witness whenever the witness wanted his advice, but
counsel could not try to coach the witness, counsel could not interrupt
with objections. That is the rule the committee has been following,
I understand, and, if that is true, counsel should be made to follow
the rule.
The Chairman. The Chair wishes to be very lenient, of course,
because we want everyone to have fair consideration by this committee.
But it is improper, of course, and I am certain Mr. Brucker knows
that, to coach the witness as to what he might say.
If the counsel is apprehensive that the witness does not understand
the question, it would be proper for the counsel to suggest that the
question be repeated or be read by the reporter.
Now if the witness feels that he does not understand the question or
needs advice of counsel, it is the witness' prerogative to consult with
counsel about it.
If we may have the question I think we can move along here.
Repeat the question, or let the reporter read it.
378 ARIMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator McCarthy. I think I Avill have the reporter read it.
The Chairman. Will you read the question, iSIr. Reporter, and,
General, of course, pay attention, and, if you do not understand it,
you have a rioht to consult with your counsel or ask that it be repeated
again until you do feel that 3'ou understand it.
All right.'
Mr. Brucker. It isn't a question of understanding it; it is a ques-
tion of assumptions that are ])ut in there that ought to be called to
the attention of the witness, and I think
The Chairman. I think that would raise a question for the Chair
to pass on, and not the witness.
So, if you do have a question about a question that is asked, the
Chair will permit you to address the Chair to determine whether it
is proper.
All right, you may refid the question.
(The pending question Avas read by the reporter.)
Mr. Brucker. That question embraces the assumpticju that this
witness gave information to somebody he didn't give to the committee.
That is what I am calling attention to, that is involved in the question.
I think it is fair to have a fair question.
The Chairman. If the assumption is in there and the General
understands it, he can answer on the basis of the assumption whether
the assumption is correct or erroneous.
You ma}^ answer. General.
General Zw^icker. May I break it into two parts ?
The Chairman. All right.
General Zwicker. I will answer the last part first, relative to Mr.
Adams' visit.
I state unequivocally that nothing happened during Mr. Adams*
and Mr. Haskins' visit to me, either by word of mouth or by writing or
by any other possible indication, which in any way influenced my
answers to or appearance before the subcommittee on the 18tli of
February.
Is that satisfactory ?
The Chairman. If that is your answer, that is your answer*. Now
answer the other part of the question.
General Zwicker. Answering the second part of the question, I have
had an opportunity to review the testimony of Mr. Juliana given be-
fore, I believe it was called the Watkins committee. That testimony
is not true.
I did not give to Mr. Juliana then or at any other time any testimony
relative to Peress other than cooperating with him to the extent of tell-
ing him that all files and all information were available to him except
that information contained in the classified ]3ersonnel tile of Peress.
None of that information did I reveal to Mr. Juliana then or later.
Senator McCarthy. General, your testimony is in direct conflict
with what Mr. Adams said.
I have before me a staff memorandum.
You have no objection if I read from this?
Do you, Mr. Kennedy ?
The Chairman. We are going to put him under oath.
Senator McCarthy. Let me ask this.
yiv. Brucker. Can Ave have identified what it is he is reading from?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 379
The Chairman. He is asking questions.
A staff memorandum.
Mr. Brucker. By whom, and when was it ?
The Chairman. Let him ask the question. He has a right to use
any information in the files.
Mr. Brucker. I just want to know when and what it was.
Senator McCarthy. If you sit still and listen you will find out.
Mr. Brucker. I don't want to talk but I want to counsel the witness.
The Chairman.. The Chair will let you be heard in an appropriate
way at these meetings. He is basing his questions upon information
in the files of the committee.
Senator McCarthy. If John Adams, in the last few weeks, said that
the purpose of going to Camp Kilmer to visit you and Colonel Brown
Avas for the purpose of advising them as to what they could say or could
not say at their scheduled appearance before the subcommittee, would
you say Adams was lying about that or telling the truth 'I
General Zwicker. I will not pass an opinion on what Mr. Adams
thought.
Senator McCarthy. Is it the truth?
General Zwicker. He did not counsel me one way or another as
to what I could or could not say.
Senator McCarthy. You did not discuss that issue?
General Zwicker. Not that I recall.
Senator McCarthy. So then this is not the truth ?
General Zwicker. From my recollection, it would not be, sir, as
you have stated it.
Senator Symington. I would like to ask a question.
The Chairman. Senator Symington.
Senator Symington. First, a point. General Zwicker.
You used the name Haskins. Mr. Haskins came with Mr. Adams.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Then there would be 5 people in the meeting,
wouldn't there, instead of 4 ?
General Zwicker. There may have been more, sir.
Senator Symington. You don't remember?
General Zwicker. To the best of my recollection
Senator Symington. Two members of your staff' ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Senator Symington. You mentioned Mr. Adams and yourself;
that would be four.
General Zwicker. Yes.
Senator Symington. Was Mr. Haskins in til '^ meeting?
General Zwicker. I am certain he was.
Senator Symington. That would be five.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Just to clear that for the record.
It is hard for me to understand why Mr. Adams would come all
of the way to your headquarters just to give you the information which
you have given us.
With that preface, are you sure — check your memory; I know it
is a long time ago — that he didn't discuss with you the regulations
and what you could do under the regulations ?
General Zwicker. It is j)ossible he did that, sir.
60030— 53— pt. 5 5
380 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Symington. And did he say to you that, under the regu-
lations, you could say this but you could not say that ?
General Zwicker. It is possible that he may have called my atten-
tion to something which I was already quite familiar with, the provi-
sions of that special regulation containing the Executive order. I
don't recall that he specifically did, sir, but it is possible that he might
have.
Senator Symington. If he did do tliat wouldn't he, in effect, be
coaching you as to what you could or should say or should not say 'i
General Zwicker, Within the pwvisions of that regulation, he
would.
Senator Symington. Now do you remember whether he discussed
with you that regulation at all ?
General Zwicker. I don't recall that he did, sir.
Senator Symington. Have you had a chance since you returned
from the Pacific to discuss those matters with the other people who
were at the meeting ; any of them ?
General Zwicker. None of them.
Senator Symington. You haven't talked to the colonel or your
Chief of Staff or Mr. Adams or anybody ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Senator Symington. So you haven't refreshed your memory as to
whether or not you discussed what you could or couldn't say ?
General Zwicker. I have not, sir.
Senator Symington. General, I would ask that you give this serious
consideration and try to remember to the best of your ability, and
perhaps check with some of the people who were at the meeting be-
cause it would seem incredible to me that he would go all the way up
to tell you about a hearing and then, at the same time, not discuss
what might happen in the hearing beyond the very short recollection
you have of the matter.
I think that Senator McCarthy has read from the record the dis-
agreement perhaps between you and Mr. Adams with respect to the
extent of the detail of the discussion at that meeting and as to whether
or not you did discuss the regulation and what you could or could not
say under the regulation.
General Zwicker. You may have clarified that, Mr. Senator, by men-
tioning that it is a possibility that we turned to a special regulation,
and he may have discussed with me the provisions of that regulation
with which I was somewhat familiar.
But anything of pertinence relative to trying to influence me to say
this or that, or put questions in my mouth, or anticipate what questions
would be asked, or giving me any directives or any inference as to what
I should or should not say — he did nothing of that nature, sir.
Senator Symington. Specifically, he didn't tell you in any way, he
didn't attempt to tell you what you could say under the regulation or
what you couldn't say under the regulation ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Senator Symington. If he did mention the regulation, to the best of
your memory, he simply pointed out what the regulation said ; is that
right?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. And that you should be bound by the
regulation ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 381
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Senator Symington. Thank you.
The CHAiRiMAN. Mr. Counsel ?
Mr. Juliana. I have some questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Juliana.
Mr. Juliana. It seems we get involved in charges and counter-
charges, and I don't intend to have the record stand as it is without
making a comment of my own.
You have inferred that I perjured myself before the Watkins
committee.
I have not reviewed my testimony before the Watkins committee,
but I will stand on my testimony, and I am not going to say whether
anybody else perjured themselves before any committee.
But in connection with our meeting of February 13, 1954, is it not a
fact that I met with you in your office at Camp Kilmer ?
General Zwicbler. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. Is it not a fact that the meeting was very pleasant ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana, In fact, I was invited to visit with you at your home
after I had discussions with a couple of your other officers. Isn't that
accurate ?
General Zwicker. Entirely possible.
Mr. Juliana. It was a pleasant meeting ?
General Zwicker. It was.
Mr. Juliana. I might add, General, that I was most favorably im-
pressed, and reported back so to my superiors, and I was under the
impression that, if you had testified or if you had been called as a
witness to testify and had given the committee the same information
you gave me, you would have done a great service to the committee.
And that is why you were called.
Now didn't you tell me on February 13, 1954, that you had done
everything within your power to get rid of Peress ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Juliana. Or was something — I am not quoting. Something
similar to that?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. Juliana. Now the question is. Why didn't you tell the com-
mittee on February 18, in substance, what I have just stated that you
told me on February 13 ?
General Zwicker, Probably because the question was never asked.
Senator McCarthy. Probably you are wrong. The testimony is
here.
The Chairman. That record will speak for itself.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. JuliaJta. Now, General, I also want to ask the question : When
1 interviewed you at Camp Kilmer and we had an understanding that
we would not discuss security-type information, we concurred in that
understanding. Isn't that accurate?
General Zwicker. I so informed you I was not at liberty to discuss
security information with you.
Mr. Juliana. If my recollection is correct, I didn't expect you to
give me security-type information about Peress.
General Zwicker. Your exact quote, as I remember it, was "I
understand."
382 ARMY PERSONIS^EL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Juliana. So there we have a friendly, pleasant arrangement
in your office at Camp Kilmer. And I might add that, as far as I
am concerned, those feelings have not changed. But I don't like to
have sworn testimony, your opinion that I perjured myself, go out
to the American people without making a slight comment.
I thank you very much.
The Chairman. The Chair will make the observation that obser-
vations are not testimony. However, since there is a controversy, a
controversy has arisen between the witness and a member of this staff,
the member of the staff will be given an opportunity to testify him-
self as to his version of what occurred before these hearings are con-
cluded.
All right.
Senator Symington. I have a question to get the record clear.
What was the nature of the letter that you wrote General Burress?
Why did you write that personal letter ?
General Zwicker. Why did I write it, sir ?
Senator Symington. Counsel advises we are going to come to that
chronologically, and I will withdraw that.
The Chairman. Counsel may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Back on OctolDer 20, when you first learned of Irving
Peress, General, and on October 21 you wrote this letter that has al-
ready been made an exhibit.
The next time you had contact with Peress, as I understand it, was
November 2 when you learned that he was about to be promoted or
he had been promoted to major ; is that right?
General Zwicker. I did not have contact with him.
I was informed that he had been, that an adjustment in grade had
been made for Peress.
Mr. Kennedy. Now are you sure it had been or that it was about
to be, or do you know ?
General Zwicker. I am not sure.
Mr. Kennedy. You are not certain whether Peress had, as of that
moment, received his oath of office? You did not know?
General Zwicker. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. The next day. General, you took this up with Gen-
eral Burress, who was visiting your camp. Camp Kilmer. Is that
right?
General Zvv^icker. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. You also on the same day wrote General Burress a
letter.
(xeneral Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Following your conversation with General Burress,
he called his Chief of Staff' from Camp Kilmer, and I would like to
read that, a memorandum on that telephone call, into the record, Mr.
Chairman.
The Chairman. Do we have a witness who can verify it?
Mr. Kennedy. No; but itwas furnished to us by the Department of
the Army, and I felt it worthwhile
Mr. Brucker. General Zwicker says he will volunteer an answer
to that if you will ask him.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you cognizant of the fact that that telephone
call was made?
ARJVn' PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 383
General Z wicker. I was present, and lie was in my office when he
made the call.
The Chairman. Can you identify this? If you identify this in
substance as being the telephone call, I would make it an exhibit on the
basis of your testimony [handing letter to witness].
That is an Army document, as I understand. That is, it was fur-
nished to us from the Army's files.
General Zwicker. ]\Ir. Chairman, I can say that the first part of
the transcript, as to what General Burress said, is essentially correct.
I do not know what General Murphy said over the phone, nor do
I know, of my own knowledge, of General Murphy's call to my Chief
of Staff.
The Chairman. It may be made an exhibit, exhibit 65, to the extent
that General Zwicker has identified it. And, with respect to the
remainder of it, I understand that it is a document of the Army, and
it will be made an exhibit as such without further identification.
(Transcript of telephone conversation referred to, such portion
thereof as identified by the witness, was marked "Exhibit No. 65.")
Mr. Kennedy. Would you read that part of the conversation that,
the conversation part. General, into the record.
General Zwicker. I do not know the source of this, but I will read it,
copy OF TRANSCRIPT OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATIONS
On 3 November 1953 General Burress called General Murphy from Camp
Kilmer and stated that General Zwicker wrote a letter to us on 21 October,
subject: Quote Elimination of Security Risk — Captain Irving Peress unquote.
He said he does not know where the letter went in Headquarters, but nothing
has happened ; and in the meantime Kilmer has his promotion order dated 23
October from Washinjiton. He further stated he was told our G-2 knows about
this case. General Murphy declared that it should have rung a bell. The im-
plications are rather obvious — If the Senator who has been investigating at Fort
Monmouth finds out that the Army is promoting that type of fellow. He directed
General Murphy to get on it right away.
The Chairman. That part of the conversation you heard ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You know that occurred ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Let's have it, and we will read the rest of it into
the record.
Senator Symington. You don't know what General Burress said at
the other end of the phone ?
General Zwicker. No.
Senator Symington. You know what General Murphy said. Is that
right?
General Zwicker. Only what General Burress said.
Senator Symington. You heard General Burress but not General
Murphy ?
General Zwicker. I did not hear General Murphy ; no.
Senator Symington. You were not on a separate line ?
General Zwicker. No ; I was sitting next to him in the room.
The Chairman. Since this is an Army document, I am sure there is
no question about its authenticity so far as it being a part of the Army's
record of the case.
384 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chair feels that the remainder of the document should now
be read into the record. I shall so read it.
General Murphy stated that he has not seen it, but will check immediately,
conceding that somebody slipped because the Army should have been notified
the moment it came here.
Under title of "Action," this stated :
General Murphy called General Zwicker but spoke to Colonel Brunner, C/S,
C/p, Kilmer, in his absence, reference Captain Peress. He stated that he for-
warded his interrogatory to the Department of the Army on 1 September, recom-
mending his separation, and stating that he had refused to answer several of
those questions. General Murphy declared that it is obviously a slip in the
D/A—
That means Department of the Army, I presume.
but he does not know whether TAG or G-2. That fellow should have been
separated, not promoted. He asserted that he is going to write a letter to
General Bergin for General Burress' signature and advise him about that. He
also told Colonel Brunner that we have not gotten that letter from Camp Kilmer
dated 21 October, and he would not have done anything about it anyway except
to prod them again. Colonel Brunner promised to run it down and see when
it was mailed and let him know. He said he would inform General Zwicker.
(Note: Letter sent to General Bolte. See attached copy.)
Counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. That letter was dated 6 November, the letter sent to
General Bolte, and is exhibit 64 in the record already.
On that same day, general, you wrote a letter to General Burress,
Can you identify the document ?
General Zwicker. This is letter dated 3 November 1953, addressed
to Lt, Gen. W. A. Burress, Commanding General, First Army, Gov-
ernors Island, New York 4, N. Y.
I did write it.
Mr. Kennedy. That letter summarizes the conversations that you
had had with General Burress, and points out that you felt that Peress
should have been eliminated from the service rather than promoted.
Is that right?
General Zwicker. That is correct, sir.
May I read the first paragraph, which is the only one that is perti-
nent, I believe, to the Peress case ?
The Cpi AIRMAN. Has that been made an exhibit yet?
General Zwicker. Not yet.
The Chairman. It will be made exhibit 66.
(Exhibit 66 appears in the appendix on p. 424.)
Senator McCarthy. Before the witness reads that may I ask a
question now ?
Can you tell us why you considered this security information at
the previous hearings? Why did you not read it to us there?
I asked you what steps you took, asked you if you did anything to
have Peress removed or to stop his promotion. You refused to
answer.
"Wliy do you consider this letter of yours security information?
General Zwicker. It has been a long time ago, and I don't recall
specificaly the questions asked and the answers given to those ques-
tions at either the Februaiy 18 hearing or the Watkins committee
hearing, and, if pennitted to do so, I would like to have the specific
questions referred to and I will attempt to give the answers.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 385
The Chairman. You do not have a transcript of them ?
General Zwicker. I do not.
The Chairman. Have you had a transcript of it since to refresh
your memory ?
General Zavicker. I have not had the opportunity to so do, Mr.
Senator.
The Chairman. AH right.
Senator ER^^N. From my recollection of your testimony before the
Watkins committee, you put a construction on this Executive order
that it prevented you from testifying as to communications between
you and other people in the Army.
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Senator ER^^N. Is that not the explanation for your failure and
refusal to testify or failure to testify on the original hearing before
Senator INIcCarthy at Foley Square?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I don't think you want the record to stand
that way because you testified before our committee long before the
President signed that order.
Mr. Brucker. There were two directives, a Truman directive and
an Eisenhower directive.
Senator McCarthy. Neither one had anything to do with commu-
nications between officers.
Mr. Brucker. Yes, Senator, I think you will find both the Truman
directive and also the Eisenhower directive are parellel along that
line, and they do. as between executive officers of the Government
The Chairman. There may be different intei-pretations of the
directive.
The Chair will order both directives to be made part of this record.
The directiA^e under the Truman administration will be made ex-
hibit No. 67, and the one under the Eisenhower administration will
be made exhibit No. 68. We have them in the record; so whatever
was in effect at the time the general testified either place will be
controlling, I suppose.
(Executive order, Truman administration, was marked "Exhibit
No. 67." Executive order, Eisenhower administration, was marked
"Exhibit No. 68." Exhibits Nos. 67 and 68 may be found in the files
of the subcommittee.)
The Chairman. All right.
Are there any further questions ?
I see we have reached 12 o'clock.
Senator Symington. I think it should be pointed out, Mr. Chairman,
in fairness to General Zwicker, that he asked if he could read into
the record the first paragraph, and you said he could.
The Chairman. He can do that whek we resume. There is no
objection. I was trying to accommodate everybody.
Since we do have permission — the committee has permission to
continue hearings while the Senate is in session — we will meet at 2
o'clock this afternoon.
Members of the committee have other duties they have to give a
little attention to during the course of these hearings, and, for that
reason, we are going to take a recess until 2 o'clock.
When Ave resume we will resume in room 318, known as the caucus
room, in the Senate Office Building.
386 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
(Whereupon, at 12:05 p. m., the committee was recessed, to re-
convene at 2 p. m., this same day.)
. AFTERNOON SESSION
The subcommittee reconvened at 2 p. m., upon the expiration of
the recess.
Present: Senators McCleUan (chairman), Symington, and Mundt.
The Chairman, The committee will come to order.
We will resume the hearing wath General Zwicker on the stand.
Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
TESTIMONY OF EALPH W. ZWICKEE, BEIGADIER GENERAL,
UNITED STATES ARMY— Kesumed
Mr. Kennedy. General, you wanted to read the first paragraph
of that letter of November 3.
General Zwicker. I do not have it.
JVIr. Kennedy. Here is the copy.
The Chairman. Gentlemen, you are reading from exhibit nmnber
what?
General Zwicker. No. 66, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right, you may proceed. I think it has been
identified, but since we have had this recess, you may reidentify the
letter, or whatever the document is.
General Zwiciver. This is a letter headed Headquarters Camp Kil-
mer, Office of the Commanding General, New Brunswick, N. J., dated
November 3, 1953, addressed to Lt. Gen. W. A. Burress, commanding
general, First Army, Governor's Island, New York 4, N. Y.
The Chairman. You wish to read a part of the letter ?
General Zwicker. I would like to read the first paragraph, sir.
The Chairman. You may proceed.
General Zwicker (reading) :
Deab General Burbess : Reference our conversation of this morning con-
cerning the promotion of Capt. Irving Peress, 0-1-893-643 DC —
meaning Dental Corps —
USAR—
meaning United States Army Reserve —
this oflBcer has refused to sign a loyalty certificate and refused to answer an in-
terrogatory concerning his athliation with subversive organizations claiming
constitutional privileges. Investigation completed April 15, 1953, determined
that this officer was a known and active Communist in Queens, N. Y. The perti-
nent details of his case are on hie in the G-2 section in yours and this head-
quarters. This individual was promoted to major and to remain on duty in this
rank, pursuant to letter orders dated October 23, 1953. I am unable to reconcile
such policies, particularly at a time when outstanding officers are being forced
to return to inactive status.
This letter was signed by me, sir.
The Chairman. The letter has other contents, I believe.
General Zwicker. It does.
The Chairman. Inasmuch as that has been made an exhibit, it can
be referred to for the remainder of the contents in it.
General, did you have no knowledge or information that the promo-
tion was coming through until it was received at your headquarters?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 387
General Zwicker. I had no knowledge of it.
(At this point Senator Ervin entered the hearing room.)
The CHAiRMAisr. Did you know that it had come through prior to
the time he was given the oath as a major?
General Zwicker. No, sir; I am not certain whether or not I was
apprised, whether the letter was brought to my attention before or
after the oath had been administered.
The Chairman. At any rate, the letter from which you have read
refers to a telephone conversation, I assume.
General Zwicker. No, sir; that refers to the personal visit of
General Burress at my headquarters that morning.
The Chairman. The general had been at your headquarters that
morning ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You confirmed your conversation by letter of the
same date ?
General Zwicker. I did.
The Chairman. Now, at the time he was at your headquarters, you
did have knowledge then that Peress had been promoted?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
(At this point Senator Bender entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. Can you state whether when the promotion came
through to your headquarters that it came to your personal attention
before the oath was actually administered ?
General Zwicker. I cannot, sir.
The Chair3Ian. In a case of that kind, particularly where it was
a security risk case, would your subordinates have any instructions
from you in the event of such an occurrence, that a promotion came
through for one known to be a security risk, to bring that to your
attention before the promotion oath was actually administered?
General Zwicker. I don't believe through the channels through
which the letter was actually processed that that would be the case.
As I understand it, and I believe this is a matter of record, Mr.
Chairman, the letter was forwarded direct from headquarters, First
Army, to the office of the dental surgeon. Camp Kilmer, N. J., and
was handed to then Captain Peress by some officer. I imagine in the
office of the dental surgeon. Camp Kilmer, N. J.
It did not come through the headquarters proper, but I believe was
handled directly between First Army Headquarters and the Office of
the Dental Surgeon.
The Chairman. That would probably account for your not knowing
about it until the next day. What I do not understand is : Are the
regulations such as to permit an officer on duty at a post to be pro-
moted without the Commanding Officer knowing it?
General Zwicker. Sir, our headquarters had nothing to do with this
promotion.
Tlie Chairman. I understand, but when the promotion came
through, it did come to your headquarters and the oath was admin-
istered under your command ?
General Z\\^cker. That is right.
The Chairman. The point I am making is : Is that a usual occur-
rence that a promotion would come through to an officer under your
command and they proceed to give him the promotion and the oath
388 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
of office for the higher rank without its being called to the Command-
ing Officer's attention ? Is that a customary procedure in the Army ?
General Zwicker. It is not customary in my command, sir, because
I always take a great deal of pleasure in participating in the promo-
tion of an officer and insofar as possible if he is directly under my
command, in having the honor of pinning whatever next rank on his
shoulder that he is being promoted to. That, in any case, may have
taken place, or might take place in my office, probably after an oath
had been administered.
The Chairman. How did it finally come to your attention that he
had received the promotion? Your office knew about it the next
day
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. After he was made a major. How did it Qome
to your attention?
General Zwicker. I am not certain as to the exact method it was
called to my attention. It may have been a routine order placed in
my "In" basket, which I found in going through the papers.
It may have been delivered to me by my Chief of Staff.
It may have been delivered to me by my G-1.
I do not recall the exact manner in which I was given a copy of
this letter.
(At this point Senator McCarthy entered the hearing room.)
The Chairman. Had it come to your attention prior to the time
that the oath was administered would you, as commanding officer of
that post, have had any right to stop the order or hold up adminis-
tering the oath until you could have consulted with your superiors '<
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; I certainly would have.
The Chairman. But it did not come to your attention, obviously,
until after the oath was administered?
General Zwicker. I don't think it did. As far as I know, it did
not, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. After this letter of November 3, General, what was
the next relationship that you had with the Peress matter? Was it
en January 6 you received a letter from the G-2 officer of the First
Army notifying you that Peress was going to be released from active
duty and discharged?
General Zwicker. I never did receive that notice, Mr. Counsel. I
am aware, but was not at that time — I am aware that there was such
a letter at our headquarters.
(At this point Senator Jackson entered the hearing room.)
Mr. Kennedy. It was sent to the commanding general, Camp
Kilmer, N. J.
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Why wouldn't it go through you ?
General Zwicker. I imagine there are approximately in the neigh-
borhood of some 500 to a thousand communications a day that came
to Camp Kilmer addressed to the Commanding General, Camp
Kilmer, and of any need to be sent to some staff section or some
action agency.
By not being an action agency, I would have probably no occasion
to necessarily see that.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 389
Mr. Kennedy. It says here, "Attention, G-2,'' so perhaps that is
the exphmation.
Would you identify the document, please?
General Zwicker. This is a letter, Headquarters, First Army, Gov-
ernor's Island, New York 4, N. Y., Office of the Assistant Chief of
Staff, G-2, Intelligence, dated 6 Januarv 1954, identification marks
AHFKAB-SD-PSB; subject: Peress, Irving, DC 01893643. To:
Commanding General, Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, attention G-2.
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 69. I made exhibits 67
and 68 the directives of President Truman and President Eisenhower,
the security orders of the Presidents. I made those exhibits 67 and 68.
So this is 69.
(Exhibit No. 69 appears in the appendix on p. 425.)
Mr. Kennedy. General, what was the next occurrence in this matter
of Peress as far as you were concerned ?
General Zwicker. I believe the next significant date was January
22, 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time George Anastos, a member of the staff
of the subcommittee, telephoned you; is that right?
General Zwicker. Yes. sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Can you relate to the committee what passed in that
conversation ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
On that date a man representing himself to be a Mr. Anastos, a
member of Senator McCarthy's committee, called me by phone and
the substance of the initial conversation over the phone was : "I under-
stand that you have an officer at Camp Kilmer who has a derogatory
file or who has a communistic background."
I don't recall the exact words.
I said, "I am not at liberty to discuss any matters of that nature
with a person whom I cannot identify. Would you please permit me
to independently call you back and reach you other than through your
name."
He said, "Certainly ; that is fine."
I said, "I will call you back in a short time."
I did contact Mr. Anastos in the office, in Senator McCarthy's office,
at least in the place where I was certain that he had represented him-
self to be properly, and I said to Mr. Anastos at that time somewhat
as follows: "I believe that the officer to whom you referred in your
earlier conversation may be Maj. Irving Peress."
Mr. Kennedy. That was the end of the conversation ?
General Zw^icker. There may have been a few more words, but
that is the entire gist of the conversation.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you give Mr. Anastos at that time any security
information regarding Irving Peress?
General Zwicker. Pdid not.
Mr. Kennedy. So that when you ultimately appeared before the
committee on February 18, you were maintaining a position that you
had taken on January 22, Is that right?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him between the two conversations that
you had gotten the file on Irving Peress and had it before you while
you were talking to him on the phone ?
General Zw^icker. Yes ; I may have done that.
390 AR]VIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kexxedy. But you did not give him any security information in
that file?
General Zwicker. I gave him none of the security information.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not give him any information regarding
any Communist affiliations that Irving Peress might have?
General Zavicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not tell him that Irving Peress' wife,
Elaine, was a Communist Party member?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him that Irving Peress was a card-
carrying Communist member from 1948 to 1952 ?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. That in 1951 he was a Communist Party organizer?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And that from 1943 through 1952 he was registered
in Xew York City with the American Labor Party and had been an
official of the American Labor Party?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. That from 1949 to 1951 he subscribed to the Daily
Worker ?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And he attended a fund-raising party for the 11
Communists who were being tried ?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And his mother, Sarah, registered with the American
Labor Party from 1942 to 1949 ?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And his wife, Elaine, was a member of the Com-
numist Party in 1944 ?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And in 1951-52 his wife, Elaine, attended Com-
munist Party meetings and held Communist Party meetings in her
home?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy, xlnd that his address in 1944, did you give him his
address in 1944 as 245 North Washington Avenue, New York ?
General Zwicker. Possibly I did.
Mr. Kennedy. And that his address in 1945 and 1946 was 8036
Leffner Boulevard, Queens, N. Y. ?
General Zwicker. Possibly so.
Mr. Kennedy. And from 1947 to the present his address was 6139
79th Street, Queens, N. Y. ?
General Zwicker, Possibly so.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he go on to ask whether there were any other
cases in Camp Kilmer involving individuals who were suspected of
having Communist affiliations and you replied that "I know of no
other case of this nature" ?
General Zwicker. I don't recall that. He may have.
Senator Symington. I would like to ask a question.
The Chairman. I have just one question, if you will pardon me.
Senator Symington.
All of these questions that counsel has asked you, to which you have
answered "I did not," if such information had been in the file, or if it
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 391
was in the file at the time, would that be what you term security in-
formation that you would be prohibited from giving out ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The CiiAiRMAN. All of that that he read to you tliere would be in
the nature of security information that you would not be permitted
to give out ?
General Zwicker. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right, I wanted to establish that.
Senator Symington.
Senator Symington. I was wondering why the counsel asked those
questions of General Zwicker. Is that in order ?
Senator McCarthy. At the bottom of page 158.
Senator Symington. In other words, as I get it, the testimony of
;i meml)er of the staff, is that tlie questions that were just asked Gen-
eral Zwicker were given to that member of the staff by General
ZAvicker ; is that right ?
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me.
Senator Symington. As I say, questions that were just asked Gen-
eral Zwicker were testified to by a member of the staff as information
that was given that member of the staff by General Zwicker?
Mr. Kennedy. Tlie specific questions that were asked were taken
from a memorandum from the files, written by George Anastos, on
the conversation that he had with General Zwicker on January 22,
in addition, George Anastos ap})eared before the Watkins commit-
tee and on page 159 he testified as to, not in as great detail, but
roughly as to what he had stated in his memorandum.
It is for that purpose that I asked him the questions if it later
developed when he appeared before the committee on February 18,
if he was maintaining the same position that he had maintained on
January 22.
Senator McCarthy. T understand that when Anastos returned from
interviewing General Zwicker he made out this memo containing all
the items that you enumerated ?
Mr. Kennedy. He talked to him on the telephone.
Senator McCarthy. After talking to him on the telephone?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. Then he came back and made the memorandum
all about Peress ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Senator Symington. General Zwicker, is there not a chance that
you have the testimony of Mr. Anastos mixed up with the testimony
of Mr. Juliana?
General Zwicker. No, sir; I read both testimonies, sir.
Senator Symington. You are thoroughly familiar with his testi-
mony, are you ?
General Zwicker. I am familiar with the testimony of Mr. Anastos.
I believe that has just been referred to.
Senator Symington. If you will cast your memory back to the
questions that were asked you by counsel, did you know of this infor-
mation? Is there any of it that you knew of, but did not give to
the staff representative who called you ?
(Witness confers with Army counsel.)
General Zwicker. I am advised that I may give a general answer to
that question.
392 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
In general, I did, sir.
Senator Syimington. Thank you.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that this
is information that has been made available to us and Mr. Anastos,
of course, has not testified before this committee. These are questions
that I felt should be asked General Zwicker.
The Chairman. It can be determined later whether Mr. Anastos
will testify.
But the purpose, I understand, of asking these questions is pri-
marily to determine whether you had given out the information at one
time and then later when you were called before the committee, for
some reason you withheld it. Is that the purpose ?
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
The Chairman. Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. General, you realize that you left the com-
mittee in a rather unusual position. We find that Mr. Anastos after
he talked to you, sat down and wrote out information which he did
not have before that time, which you had.
Just a minute. Governor, the general will take care of himself.
Mr. Brucker. I haven't said a word. But that question is already
loaded enough.
The general ought to have the opportunity to answer it.
The Chairman. Let us have the question.
Senator McCarthy. Will you read the question as far as I was when
I was interrupted ?
(The pending question, as above recorded, was read by the reporter.)
Senator McCarthy. You realize that that raises a very serious ques-
tion, putting it mildly, as to your memory, do you not ?
General Zwicker. No, sir; I do not. I have no way of knowing
whether Mr. Anastos had any part or all of that information when
he called me.
As far as I am concerned he may well have had the information when
he did call.
Senator McCarthy. Do you know what motive he might have to
sit down after he talked to you, a man whom you had never met before,
and write out a detailed memo containing the facts as they were and
attribute the information to you?
General Zwicker. I have no idea.
Senator McCarthy. No idea at all, have you?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Again, now, that you have refreshed your rec-
ollection over the noon hour, is it still your testimony that John
Adams, when he came down to see you before you testified, did not,
as he says, discuss with you what you could testify to and what you
could not testify to? The word is "advised" that he used.
General Zwicker. As I said this morning, Mr. Senator, he may
have touched on the provisions of the Presidential directive. I am
sure that if he did he found that I was already familiar with those
provisions and to the very best of my recollection, if that is what you
term "advise," I cannot say that he did not mention the Presidential
directive or the changes thereto as they appeared in the special regu-
lations.
Senator McCarthy. But as he apparently said he did not tell you
what you could testify to and what you could not testify to ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATESTG TO IRVING PERESS 393
General Zwicker. I don't see how he could, sir. He didn't know
what the questions were going to be.
Senator McCarthy. Now, General, you were rather free this fore-
noon in accusing a young man of having committed perjury. This
afternoon we find also your testimony is in direct contrast of another
man on our staff. We find that his testimony is bolstered by the fact
that he sat down and talked to you, wrote out a memo which is the
same as his testimony.
Will you tell us for the benefit of the committee, if you will, what
questions and answers were perjury on the part of Mr. Juliana ?
General Zwicker, I don't believe I mentioned the word "perjury"
this morning.
Senator McCarthy. You said he lied. Lying under oath is per-
jury. ,
Mr, Brttcker. Just a moment. That is a question ?
The Chairman, I do not think he used the word "lie" this morning.
He said that was not true.
Senator McCarthy. It is the same thing.
Will you tell us what answers were not true?
The Chairman. That is better.
Senator McCarthy, Fii-st, can we agree on this : When you tell an
untruth, you are lying; right?
General Zwicker, As far as I am concerned, you certainly are.
Senator McCarthy. When you lie under oath, you are committing
perjury; is that right?
General Zwtcker. I am not a lawyer. I assume that to be correct.
Senator McCarthy. Will you tell us what answers were lies on the
part of Mr. Juliana?
General Zwicker. May I have the benefit of having the specific
<luestion asked of me?
Senator McCarthy. I do not know what you referred to. You said
he did not tell the truth when he testified under oath.
General Zwicker, You are asking me to go back a year and remem-
ber the conversation in a book that you have in front of you, which
I don't?
Senator McCarthy. General, you want me to read all of his testi-
mony ?
General Zwicker, If you wish, I would prefer to answer each one
of those and tell you whether I feel it was a true statement, or not.
Senator McCarthy, You said that he lied.
Senator Ervin. I object, Mr. Chairman. He said he told something
that was not true. I think the man can say something is not true by
mistake.
Senator McCarthy. IVliat are you objecting to?
Senator Ervin. I am objecting to your putting words in the wit-
ness' mouth, that the witness never did put there.
Senator McCarthy. Let us rephrase it so that the very able Senator
will not have an objection.
You said when you told an untruth under oath you were lying.
We both agreed on that.
Now. I asked you to tell where he was lying. You must know. You
do not accuse a young man of perjury idly. You do not accuse him
to telling an untruth under oath idly, I assume.
394 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Now, will you tell us where he told his untruths?
If you need time to do that, I will ask the Chair to give you as much
time as you need so that you can search the record and tell us wherein
he lied.
General Zwicker. In general, sir, I cannot do that. Specifically^
I cannot without the benefit of the testimony from which to answer.
But I would be happy to try to answer generally.
The Citair:man. General, this morning you stated that some parts
of Mr. Juliana's testimony, you did not use that exact expression,
but some of his testimony was untrue.
General Zwicker. That is correct.
The Chairman. Now, you do not have that testimony before you at
the moment.
General Zwicker. I do not.
The Chairman. But at present, state in general terms from your
recollection what part of the testimony you referred to as being
untrue.
Senator ISIcCarthy. He has the testimony right in front of him,.
Mr. Chairman. That is not answering my question.
The Chairman. I do not know whether he has it in front of him.
Mr. Brucker. He does not have it before him. I have just gotten
from my associate page 517 of that record. I was starting to look
at it.
The Cpiairman. The witness has not had the testimony before him
up until this moment.
Now, first answer this in general terms and then if it is insisted
the Chair will give you an opportunity to review all of the testimony
and ]-)oint out questions and answers that you say were incorrect, or
mitrue.
But first, answer in general terms.
General Zwicker. Thank you, sir.
In general terms it is this : As I recall reading the testimony of Mr.
Juliana before the Watkins committee, there was a lengthy bit of
testimony relative to telephone calls between the Pentagon and my
office, or "between my office and the Pentagon, or visits of myself to the
Pentagon, or visits of any persons within the Pentagon to my office,
with instructions to me as to what I was supposed to do relative to
the Peress case.
In general, those statements are not true.
The Chairman. Now, does the Senator want him to review the
testimony and point out specifically, or does the Senator prefer to ask
him the questions, reading fiom the record and ask him specifically?
Senator McCarthy. I think, Mr. Chairman, in view of the serious-
ness of this charge and in view of the other testimony of this witness,
he should have the opportunity to go over the testimony himself and
then come in here when he has done that and tell us wherein he claims
Mr. Juliana lied.
The Chairman. The Chair will direct the witness when we have
concluded here, whenever we recess in a given time to review the
testimony — the Chair is advised by the Senator from Wisconsin that
he thinks he can do it by reading from the record here. If you have
a copy of the record in front of you, you can follow the interrogation
and reading by the Senator from Wisconsin and then give your
answers.
ARAIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 395
Senator McCarthy. Eefer to page 517, Mr. Williams asks the
(question of Mr. Juliana :
Did he indiciite to you that he had talked to anyone in* Washington on this?
Mr. .Juliana. He indicated to nie that lie had been in frequent contact with
Wa.^hington on the former Major I'eres.s matter.
Is that answer trne or false ?
General Zwicker. It is not true.
Senator McCarthy. Did you have any communications from Wash-
ington at all ?
General Zwicker. T certainly did.
Senator McCarthy. And you wrote to Washington about it ?
General Zwicker. You asked me whether I had comnuinications^
Mr. Senator,
Senator McCarthy. In regard to the Peress matter.
General Zwicker. Eelative to the Peress matter.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
General Zwicker. No.
Senator McCarthy. You got no files ?
General Zwicker. I got. no files.
Senator McCarthy. Did you have communication with the First
Army ?
General Zwicker. I certain!}' did.
Senator McCarthy. That is the usual channel of communicating
with Washington i'
General Zwicker. That is my channel of command, First Army.
Senator McCarthy. Wait until I finish. We are in no hurry.
The First Army is your usual channel through which you com-
municate with AYashington; is that right?
(xeneral Zwicker. That is correct.
Senator ^McCarthy. So when you communicated with the First
Army, you were communicating with Washington; were you not?
General Zwiciver. Definitely not.
Senator McCarthy. You just corrected yourself. You said that
was your usual channel through which 3^ou communicated with
Washington.
General Zwicker. That is a connnand channel. Mr. Senator, through
which I normally transacted all business.
My superior was First Army, not the Department of the Army.
Senator ^IcCarthy. AYhen you wanted to contact the Pentagon,
you would not do it directl}'; you would do it via the First Army;
is that right ?
General Zwicker. That is not necessarily true.
Senator McCarthy. Not necessaril}' true?
General Zwicker. Xo, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Is it true in some cases?
General Zwicker. It happened to be true in this case. In the Peress
case I did not contact Washington direct in a single instance by any
method whatsoever, to the best of my knowledge.
Senator McCarthy. Now, Mr, Juliana did not say contact him
directly. The question is : Did you contact the Pentagon through the
First Army ?
General Zwicker. I don't know.
Senator McCarthy. You do not know?
396 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Zwicker. I don't know because any letter or any substance
that may have been material in this case, I would have contacted First
Army. It would have been up to the deteiTnination of the command-
ing general, First Army, as to whether or not the request subsequently
went to Washington or Pentagon.
Senator McCarthy. Do you think, Mr. Zwicker, that you are abus-
ing Mr. Juliana when you say you do not know whether you contacted
the Pentagon and you accuse him of lying when he said you indicated
you had ?
Mr. Brucker. Wait a minute.
The Chairman. I think he can answer it.
General Zwicker. INIr. Senator, I did not say that. I said that I
never contacted the Pentagon relative to the Peress case.
Further, I stated that I never visited Washington for the purpose
of, nor did I discuss while there if I made the visit at all, any aspect
of the Peress case.
Further, I stated that no one from the Pentagon contacted me di-
rectly with any instructions or anything of any nature, relative to the
Peress case, and, further, no representative of the Department of the
Army, the Department of Defense, or any other official department in
Washington, ever visited me in an attempt to advise me or tell me or
even mention the Peress case.
That is my statement, sir.
Senator McCartpiy. Is that still true as of today ?
General Zwicker. As of today, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, bring it down to today.
General Zwicker. I would like to limit that time to between the first
time that I knew anything about the Peress case, which would have
been October 20, 1953, and my appearance on February 18 before the
one-man committee in New York.
Senator Symington. How about the visit of Mr. Adams to you ?
General Zwicker. I am sorry. I must exclude that, sir. Thank
you.
The Chairman. Senator McCarthy, proceed.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Juliana says this, at the bottom of page
517. I am skipping a sizable number of questions.
Mr. Juliana. He did not say that the Pentagon was contacted through the
First Army. However, in discussing this matter — I talked with him about an
hour — I was under the definite impression that his immediate superior was the
First Army.
Mr. Juliana says at the top you said you contacted the Pentagon,
then he elaborates and says that that was apparently through the First
Army.
Do you say he was lying when he said it was through the First
Army?
Mr. Brucker. Take your time and read that part. He skipped
over it.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Brucker, I wonder if you should not desist
from coaching the witness.
Mr. Brucker. There is no coaching. I said you skipped something
which you did in reading that and this witness has the right to have
that called to his attention. That I have done.
The Chairman. Just a moment. I think we can proceed now.
Have you identified. General Zwicker, in the copy of the hearings
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 397
u^hich you have before you, the question tliat the Senator read, or the
statement of the witness that the Senator read? If you have not
found it, certainly Governor Brucker may have to locate what the
Senate just read. If you have located it, then you proceed to testify.
General Zwicker. I believe I have.
The Chairmax. It is right at the bottom of page 517.
General Zwicker (reading) :
Mr. Juliana. He did not say —
The Chairman. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. My question was: Do you say he was lying
when he said that the contact was through the First Army ?
I would suggest that you take time to read the questions and answers
between the first one I read and the last one. If there are any there
that you think are pertinent, we can certainly read them into the record.
General Zwicker. May I read the question by Mr. De Furia on the
middle of page 517 ?
Senator McCarthy. Starting out "Can you say" ?
General Zavicker (reading) :
Mr. De Furia. Mr. Juliana, can you say positively that General Zwicker said
Wasliington instead of Governors Island or First Army?
Mr. Juliana. He left the definite impression in my mind that he had been
in contact with the Pentagon and I assumed that to be Washington.
Mr. DeFueia. Can you say under oath that General Zwicker mentioned Wash-
ington or the Pentagon or might he have said Governors Island or First Army?
Mr. Juliana. I will say under oath that to the best of my recollection it was
with the Pentagon.
Mr. De Furia. Can you say under oath that General Zwicker mentioned Wash-
Zwicker referring to the Pentagon?
Mr. Juliana. The Pentagon. He used the words "the Pentagon."
Mr. De Furia. Is that all you can remember about it?
Mr. Juliana. No, I can remember further that he said that — and I almost
quote this — '"I had heen in frequent contact with the Pentagon."
That is almost a quote. Now, I can't say it is a definite quote.
Mr. De Furia. Did he mention it went through the First Army to the Penta-
gon or direct? In other words, did he say he contacted the Pentagon or was the
Pentagon contacted through the First Army?
Mr. Juliana. He did uot say that the Pentagon was contacted through the
First Army. However, in discussing this matter I talked with him about an
hour, I was under the definite impression that his immediate superior was the
First Army.
The Chairman. Now, what part of it. General, do you say is true,
and what part do you say is untrue?
General Zwicker. I say that any statement that I have read which
intimates that I had direct contact with the Pentagon by any means
whatsoever relative to the Peress case is false.
Senator McCarthy". Just a minute. There is no such statement
here. Will you point out such statement? He talked about your
contact with the Pentagon and he says he understands that your su-
perior was the First Army. In other words, you contacted them
through the First Army.
So you point out where at any time Mr. Juliana said that you
said that you contacted the Pentagon directly. You have it before
you. Will you point out the question and answer.
General Zwicker. ]Mr. Senator, I will be very happy to. Perhaps
we can shorten this.
If Mr. Juliana will explain that he meant by his testimony that
he understood I was going through First Army, I will accept that.
398 ARMY PERSONXEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator ^McCarthy. He does not liave to explain now. We are
talkino- about what he saitl before. You do not exphiin your testimony
G months hiter.
General Zwicker. That is what I am being asked to do.
Senator McCarthy. On the bottom of the page did you not find
here that he said that he was of the opinion that you went through
First Army ?
Genera] Zwkxer. As I read this, Mr. Senator, the Pentagon means
the Pentagon. It does not mean First Army. I think that anyone
who wishes to refer to Headquarters, First Army, would refer to
Headquarters, First Army, or Governors Island.
I think that anyone who wished to refer to the Department of the
Army would refer to the Department of the Army or the Pentagon.
Senator McCarthy. I do not want to prolong this any further,
but. General, you know, of coui-se, that you were talking to Mr.
Juliana, a man who had been in the military service. You and he
both knew that there was such a thing as chain of command. You
and he both knew that when you contacted the Pentagon you would
do it through the regular channels, and your regiilar chamiel is the
First Army.
You know he so testified. He said he did not say he did it through
the First Army, but I assume that the First Army is the chain of
command.
Now that you have refreshed your recollection on that, do you want
to still say that Mr. Juliana lied or told untruths — use whatever word
you care to ?
Mr. Brucker. He has not said that, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Let him answer.
Do you want to say now tliat Mr. Juliana lied or that he told an
untruth ? Which do 3'ou want to say, if either ?
Genei'al Zwicker. In my opinion, as I read this testimony, and as
I interpret this testimony, ^Ir. Juliana told untruths.
Senator JNIcCartiiy. Could I ask him one question ?
The Chairman. All right.
Senator McCarthy. I have a simple question. Did you have con-
tact with the Pentagon through the First Army in the Peress matter ?
Did you forward anything which represented the Pentagon through
the First Army? Did they forward anything to you through the
Firet Army ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. So tluit you did have contact with the Penta-
gon through the First Army ?
General Zwicker. Through the First Army; yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. So that you say that when Mr. Juliana said
you had contacted the Pentagon and then qualified it by saying that
the First Army was the chain of command, you say that that was not
true, but now you say you did have contact Avith the Pentagon, flowing
both ways, I assume.
You may think this is funny. General, but there is notliiug funny
about accusing a young man of perjury without backing it up.
General Zwicker. Is there anything funny about accusing a general
officer as unfit to wear his uniform I
The Chairman. General, did you direct any communication to tlie
Pentagon, or to Washington, tl'irough cliaiinels by the First Army
ARMY PP:RS0NKEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 399
regarding the Peress case? What I mean, did you write a letter to
Wasliington and send it through channels through the Firet Army?
Genera] Zavtcker. No, sir; I did not.
The CHAimiAN. Then all of your communications that j^ou sent —
Ave are talking about what you sent now — were communications from
you to the First Army.
Genei'al Zwicker. That is correct.
The Chair3iax. Xow, where they went from there you do not
know ?
General Zwigker. I do not.
The Chairmax. They could have gone on to the Pentagon. That
i.-i correct, is it not?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
The Chairman. The First Army could have forwarded them there,
hut you did not address them to the Pentagon ?
General Zwicker. I did not.
The Chairman. Noav, did you get communications from the Penta-
gon, from Washington, from the Department of the Army, that came
through channels back through the First Army command regarding
the Peress case ?
General Zw^icker. Between these dates that I mentioned before, sir?
The Chairman. Yes, between October 20 and the other date you
gave, February 2?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; I did. I received the order promoting
Peress which came through First Army channels to my headquarters.
I received an order directing his separation, which came through
First Army to my headquarters.
I recall of no other orders or records of any nature which I received
though that channel.
The Chairman. So that only the promotion and the order of dis-
charge Avas all you I'eceived from Washington through the First Army,
during that period of time ?
General Zwicker. So far as I can recall.
The Chairaian. So far as you recall.
I think there was some testimony, and to refresh 3'our memory, I am
not certain, that you also sent a letter to the Department of the Army
to the etfect that you regarded Peress as a security risk. Now, did you
send that communication to the Department of the Army, either direct
or through First Army, or did you only send that and address it to
First Army ?
General Zwicker. I am unable to recall, Mr. Chairman. It is pos-
sible : I don't think I did, but it is possible that a letter might be routed
to the Department of the Army through First Army, but that would
not have been normal.
The Chairman. If you sent such a letter your letter of November
3-^is the letter of November 3 the only one you wrote in connection
with Peress as being a securitv risk ?
General Zwicker. May I see that letter, sir ?
The Chairman. That letter is addressed to the commandino; jjeneral
of the First Army, your letter of November 3, 1953, which is exhibit 66.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Now, do you know whether that was transmitted
from the First Army on to Washington, to the Department of the
Armv ?
400 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Zwicker. I do not.
The Chairman. Did you write any letter other than that that you
addressed directly to the Department of the Army in Washington
regarding Peress?
General Zwicker. Mr. Chairman, I don't recall having any com-
munications or writing any letter, either through First Army, to the
Department of the Army, or to the Department of the Army direct,
relative to the Peress case.
The Chairman. Now, then, you do recall — of course, you testified to
that — Mr. Adams' visit to you ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. A day or two before you testified in New York ?
General Zwicker. The day before.
The Chairman. Did you have any other conversations with Mr.
Adams regarding the Peress case during the period of time that you
have qualified your answers to, from October 20 to February 2 ? Did
you have any other conversation with Mr. Adams in any way relating
to the Peress case other than the one you had with him the day before
you testified before this committee in February ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir; I did.
The Chairman. "WHiat other conversation did you have with him
about it?
General Zwicker. The normal conversations that would take place
between two persons who were interested in an appearance before a
subcommittee just prior to that appearance. I do not recall a single
word of what transpired prior to the time that I took the stand on
the afternoon of February 18. I am sure I must have talked to
Mr. Adams.
The Chairman. You mean between the time he saw you on Feb-
ruary 17 and you had that conversation and before you testified then
on the 18th, you had another conversation or other conversations
with him?
General Zwicker. I talked to Mr. Adams ; yes, sir. I am not certain
I did on the morning of February 18.
The Chairman. Following your testimony, did you have any other
conversations with him about the Peress case?
General Zwicker. Immediately following I certainly did. I don't
recall, Mr. Chairman, of any other conversations.
The Chairman. Prior to the time of October 20 up to the 2nd of
February, when Peress was discharged, had you had any conversation
with Mr. Adams regarding the Peress case during that period of time?
General Zwicker. I did not.
The Chairman. Had you had communication from him about it?
I am talking about between the date you discovered he was a security
risk, October 20, until February 2, when he was discharged. Had you
had any conversation with Mr. Adams?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir: I did, on January 28.
The Chairman. On January 28 ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. "\'\niat conversation was that, a telephone conver-
sation ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir; a telephone conversation in which Mr.
Adams called me and requested that I request Major Peress to appear
before Senator McCarthy's committee on the 30th.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 401
The Chairman. Any other conversation at that time ?
General Zwicker. None whatsoever.
The Chairman. Any other matter discussed ?
General Z wicker. None whatsoever.
Excuse me, sir ; there was a little bit more to that conversation. I
fully described it this morning.
The Chahiman. What else?
General Zwicker. I asked him whether or not if Peress did not go
at my request, what I should do about it. He said in that case "call
me right back in order that we may get a marshal to serve a subpena
on him."
The Chairman. But he did agree to go and it was not necessary
to call him back ?
General Zwicker. After considerable fuss, he did agree to go ; yes,
sir.
The Chairman. Was it a long fuss, big one, or short one? He
agreed to go and you did not have to call Mr. Adams back on that
account ?
General Zwicker. I did not have to call Mr. Adams back.
The Chairman. Did you have any other conversation then with
Mr. Adams before he was discharged, about Peress — ^he was discharged
on the 2d— from the 28th to the 2d ?
General Zwicker. Not to the very best of my recollection, I did
not, sir.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Counsel.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to merely say, Mr. Chairman, this
shows what Jim Juliana said was true. He was calling Adams and
Adams was calling him, Adams was at the Pentagon.
The Chairman. I think we have the record clear as to just exactly
what happened. I hope so.
Senator McCarthy. I think we have.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. General, you were discussing these convei*sations
with Anastos on January 21. He called you and then you called him
back.
During those two conversations you gave him no security informa-
tion on Irving Peress ; is that right ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennt:dy. We both understand what we mean by security in-
formation, anything to do with any Communist affiliations of Irving
Peress or his family ?
General Zwicker. Anything of a nature that was contained in his
derogatory file.
Mr. Kenn-edy. On January 23, General, was the next incident re-
garding Irving Peress. You received the orders to separate him from
the service: is that correct?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time you learned that he was to receive an
honorable discharge; is that right?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. That was contained in the orders that you received
from the Department of the Army ?
General Zwicker. That is right ; it was.
402 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. At that time did you call Anastos back and tell him
you had received these orders and that Peress was to be discharged
from the Army ?
General Zwicker. I did.
The CiiAiR:\rAN. Let me understand that. After you received the
order to discharge Peress and give him an honorable discharge, before
acting on those orders, carrjdng out those oiders, you called Mr.
Anastos, a member of this committee, the one who contacted you about
it first, and told him you had such orders ; is that correct ?
General Zwicker. That is correct, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Go ahead.
General Zwicker. I volunteered that information to ]Mr. Anastos
because he had evidenced an interest as a member of a senatorial com-
mittee the day before.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. General, the inspector general talked to you. You
were interviewed by the inspector general?
General Zwicker. I was.
Mr. Kennedy. Also by an inspector general from the First Army,
a representative from the inspector general from the First Army inter-
viewed you?
General Zwicker. I do not believe so.
Mr. Kennedy^, Were you questioned at all regarding the giving of
classified information to unauthorized sources?
General Zwicker. Only to the extent that some representative from
First Army — it may have been General Burress himself; it may have
been the Chief of Statf ; it may have been during the course of any
number of visits that I made to tlieir headquarters — wanted to be very
sure that I Iniew what the provisions of that order were and I satisfied
them, or him, that I did know, at least in my own mind, and my inter-
pretation seemed to gibe with theirs as to the provisions of that order.
Mr. Kennedy. What was the reason for their taking it up with you
at that late date, General ?
General Zwicker. I am not familiar with their reasons.
Mr. Kennedy. Did they discuss the conversation j^ou had had with
Mr. Anastos? Did they discuss with you in regard to the con-
versations that you had had with Mr. Anastos on the phone and
whether you had given any classified information at that time?
General Zwicker. No; they did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Tlie next incident. General, was on January 26,
as I understand it. You called General ISIurphy at the First Army;
is that right?
General Zwicker. I am unfamiliar with that.
]Mr. Kennedy. You spoke to Colonel Gurney.
General Zwicker. xlbout that, sir?
Mr. Kennedy. Will you examine this, please? Would you identify
the document?
General Zwicker. I am unfamiliar with this, but I see nothing
wrong with it, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember the telephone call ?
General Zwicker. I do not specifically recall that telephone call.
Mr. Kennedy. That was a document that was furnished to us by
the Department of the Army. It purports to be a memorandum on
the telephone conversation that you had with Colonel Gurney.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 403
The CiiAiRMAX. You say tliere is nothing wrong with it. Do you
recall in substance the conversation ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir; it could well have taken place. I see
no reason why it shouldn't have. I am accepting the fact that I did
make tlie call and say substantially what is contained in here.
The Chaiksian. All right, read what is contained in there and that
may be made exhibit 70.
Senator Mundt. Could we, first of all, have Colonel Gumey
identified ?
Mr. Kennedy. I think the first sentence does that.
General Zwicker. The only way that this is identified is by a
number "2."
The Chairman. I will show you the original. It is an excerpt from
tliis letter you read this morning which was made a previous exhibit,
from which you read this morning. That is an exceq^t from this
Army document. You may compare it if you like. It is about the
second paragraph, down in the middle.
General Zwicker. A copy of transcript of telephone conversations.
Mr. Kennedy. Plural, I believe.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The CiiAiRiNiAN. You had read the first one this morning, had you
not, identified it?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. This is a part of the same document the Army has
furnished us, so that is a photostatic copy of it which you have. Will
you read it?
General Zavicker. Yes, sir.
On Januai-y 26. 1954, General Zwicker called General Murphy, but spoke to
Colonel Gurnej', DCS, in liis absence
The Chairman. Is that of the First Army ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
The Chairjnian. Proceed.
General Zwicker (reading) :
and gave liim an informal report on the case of Captain Peress. He stated that
on Friday, January 22, a Mr. Anastos, assistant counsel to the Senate subcom-
mittee (Senator McCarthy's committee), called him from Washington and said
he understood that we had a Communist working for us at Camp Kilmer. Gen-
eral Zwicker stated that he told him he could not identify him by phone and
was not in a position to talk to him unless he was sure of his identification and
he asked if he could call him back, not by telephone, but by job description,
which he did. Mr. Anastos asked him the circumstances, the name, and so forth.
Fortunately, on Saturday, when he called Mr. Anastos back, they got the final
disposition on Peress — he is to be separated within 90 days on the 23d of January.
Peress elected separation on March 31.
General Zwicker said he gave this information to Mr. Anatos. He seemed
satisfied and asked if they had any other cases that he knew of pending, to
which his answer was negative. Colonel Gurney remarked that he was glad
they finally finished that case.
Senator McCarthy. He thought they had.
The Chairman. I wish he had been right.
Go ahead.
Mr. Kennedy. General, the next contact was on January 28 when
Mr. Adams telephoned you, I believe.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Xow, will you identify this document, please.
404 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Zwicker. This is a memorandum for record, signed by me.
Mr. Kennedy. It is a memorandum on that telephone call; is it?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you summarize it for us, General, rather than
reading it ?
Then may we have it made an exhibit ?
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 71.
All right, proceed to read it.
(Exhibit No. 71 appears in the appendix on p. 425.)
General Zwicker (reading) :
Late in the afternoon of January 28 Mr. Adams contacted me and requested
that I contact Major Peress and request him to be present in New York for the
purpose of appearing before the Senate Investigating Committee.
I was unable to locate Major Peress on the 2Sth of January, but did give him
the above information at 8115 — 8 : 15 — on the 29th of January 1954.
Major Peress indicated he would be present at the time and place as indicated
above. I granted him permission to make his appearance in civilian clothes and
further excused him from duty on January 30, 1954.
(Signed) Ralph W. Zwicker.
May I amplify that, sir?
The Chairman. All right, if you care to.
General Zwicker. This would make it appear that he requested
permission to wear civilian clothes. I directed him to wear civilian
clothes because I did not want any member of the military to be asked
to appear before any committee where he could be connected with
Communists.
Mr. Kennedy. On January 29 you notified Peress, General
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. "NVhich I think we have already covered here.
Then the next incident occurred on the 1st of February; is that
right?
General Zwicker. There was another incident which is a matter of
record nowhere, on the 30th of January. Peress early on the morning
of the 30th came to my office, requested permission to see me, and,
of course, I granted it. He told me that he was not going to appear
before the committee at 10 o'clock that morning. This disturbed me a
great deal and I informed him quite bluntly that he had given me his
word as an officer the day before that he would appear at this com-
mittee meeting and that I would like to get a witness in to witness any
change in that answer.
I opened the door of the office and called my chief of staff. Colonel
Gurney, in my office. I said, "Now, Major Peress, before this witness
you give me again the answer. I assure you that disciplinary action
will be taken if it is not the correct one." He gave me the correct
one.
The Chairman. He said he would appear ?
General Zwicker. That he would appear.
The Chairman. And did.
General Zwicker. And did.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. The next incident was on February 1 when Peress
came to your office again ; is that right ?
General Zwicker, That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time Peress asked for an immediate dis-
charge from the Army ?
ARaiY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 405
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you make a check then to find out when he could
get out ?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. And found out that the earliest possible time was
2 o'clock the following day, February 2 ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
The Chairman. That interests me a little. If the orders had not
yet come through, how could you tell how soon you could get him out
of the Aiiny ?
General Zwicker. The orders were in my hand, sir.
The Chairman. The orders were there ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator McCarthy. Peress appeared and testified as follows:
I don't recall the exact words, the word for word conversation —
talking about the conversation you are talking about. He said:
I requested of General Zwicker after the hearing before you on January 30
when I saw him on February 1, I requested that an inquiry be made into these
charges, that the newspapers had lambasted me on Sunday and Monday.
I certainly do not propose to suggest that because you testified
directly opposite from a Communist that you are not telling the
truth. I certainly would take the word of a general before I would
take the word of a Communist.
But having your memory refreshed by this, do you still say that he
did not ask for an inquiry ; he asked for a discharge ?
General Zwicker. The main purpose of his visit, Mr. Senator, was
to request an early discharge. I believe that while he was in the office
he did bring up the question of an inquiry of some sort or other being
made relative to his case.
Senator McCarthy. Did you tell him that if you made an inquiry
you could not discharge him; you would lose jurisdiction of him once
you discharged him ?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Senator McCarthy. Actually, if you started an inquiry you could
not have discharged him: is that right? In other words, you would
lose jurisdiction once you discharged him.
General Zwicker. No, sir ; the inquiry, I believe, would not be in
my jurisdiction — I don't recall the conversation with him at all clear-
ly, if we had one relative to an inquiry. It certainly made no impres-
sion on me because no inquiry was made and he did not press the point.
I am not at all
Senator McCarthy. Were you aware of the fact that I had written
to the Secretary of the Army and asked that he be court-martialed
prior to the time that you allowed him to be discharged?
General Zwicker. On that date?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
General Zwicker. I was not aware of that.
Senator McCarthy. You testified contrary to that before our com-
mittee ; you understand that, do you not.
General Zwicker. I am sure I did not.
Senator McCarthy. You are sure you did not testify ?
406 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Z wicker. I am pretty certain I made no such — I did not
testify to that.
Senator McCarthy. Just to refresh your recollection, you testified
that you knew everythinji: that was in the papers, you read the press
stores. I called 3'our attention to the fact that the press stories were
out before you discharged him. You said if they were out then you
had read them. Maybe your counsel can find the spot in the book for
you.
General Z wicker. I have it.
Senator McCarthy. What page ?
General Zwicker. On page 148,
Senator McCarthy. Now, do you want to read what you have in
mind ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Did you also read the stories about my letter to Secretary of
the Army Stevens in which I requested or, rather, suggested that this man be
court-martialed, and that anyone that protected him or covered up for him be
court-martialed?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Do you want to change your testimony of
today, then ?
General Zwicker. I think that will be clarified later on, sir, if you
will permit me to continue.
Senator McCarthy. Certainly.
General Zwicker (reading) :
The Chairman. That appeared in the papers on Sunday and Monday : right?
General Zwicker. I don't recall the exact date.
The Chairman. At least, it appeared before he got his honorable discharge?
General Zwicker. I don't know that that was true, either, sir.
The Chairman. In any event, you saw it in a current paper, did you?
General Zwicker. I did.
The Chairman. You did not see the story later. So that at the time he was
discharged, were you then aware of the fact that I had suggested a court-martial
for him and for wh;)ever got him special consideration?
General Zwicker. If the time jibes, I was.
Senator McCarthy. In otlier words, at that time you said if the
story appeared before he was discharged, you were aware of the facts
in the story ?
General Zwicker. That is correct. If the story had appeared in
the press prior to the time that his discharge was executed
Senator McCarthy. I will inform you now that the story did so
appear.
General Zwicker. Did not ?
Senator McCarthy. That it did so appear.
General Zwicker. I have never seen it.
Senator McCarthy. You now say you never saw it.
General Zwicker. I do not recall that it appeared at that time.
Senator McCarthy. You mean you never have seen it, or you did not
see it at that time ? You say here you saw it.
General Zwicker. If the time jibes, Mr. Chairman, relative to the
release — are you speaking specifically
Senator IMcCarthy. You now say you never saw that story ?
General Zwicker. No ; I will not say that.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, you saw the story ?
General Zwicker. At some time or other I saw^ either the letter or
the story or extracts of it.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 407
Senator McCarthy. You said you saw it in the current paper. Is
that still correct ?
General Zwicker. A current paper is one that you read from today,
day to day. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. So you saw it the day it came out.
Mr. Brucker. He is putting words in your mouth.
Senator McCarthy. Will you please be quiet ?
Mr. Brucker. I am not going to be quiet when you are making
assumptions. I have a right to comisel with him, and I am going to.
The Chairman. Just a moment. Eepeat the question.
Senator McCarthy. Will you read as far as I was when I was
interrupted.
Mr. Chairman, I wonder, would you instruct Mr. Brucker to be
quiet until I finish my question ?
The Chairman. 1 will keep it all under control if I get the co-
operation of everyone here.
Mr. Brucker. I am greatly flattered, I am flattered to have you try
to keep me quiet because it shows apparently I am getting under your
skin for once.
The Chairman. Kepeat the question and. General, I think you can
certainly answer these questions.
If you need any qualification you ought to catch it and be able to
answer it.
The Reporter (reading) :
Senator McCarthy. So you saw it the day it came out?
General Zwicker. I must assume I did.
Senator McCarthy. On page 146 — do you have your testimony
before you ?
General Zwicker. I have some ; yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. On page 146 you were asked the question :
The day the honorable discharge was signed, were you aware of the fact that
he had appeared before our committee?
General Zwicker. I was.
The Chairman. And had refused to answer certain questions?
(General Zwicker. No, sir: not specifically on answering any questions. I
knew that he had appeared before your committee.
Then after a page of abuse you say this :
I know that he refused to answer questions for the committee.
Which of those two answers is correct ?
General Zwicker. Which of what two ?
Senator McCarthy. The two I just read. The first one you said
"No, sir" ; I asked the question :
and refused to answer certain questions.
You said :
No, sir; not specifically on answering any questions. I knew that he had
appeared before your committee.
In the next page, page 147, you say :
I know that he refused to answer questions for the committee.
That is after you were abused and browbeaten for a page. Which
is correct now ?
General Zwicker. I would like to have time to find those.
408 AR]VIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator McCarthy. I am sorry. It is about three-fourths down
page 147, starting with "I know that."
Mr. Brucker. Will you give us the line on that, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. It is about 2 inches from the bottom of 147.
First :
The Chairman. But now you indicate you did not know that he refused ta
tell about his Communist activities; is that correct?
General Zwicker. I know he refused to answer questions for the committee.
The Chairman. All right, General, do you have the spot now?
General Zwicker. I do have that spotted.
The Chairman. He refers to another one. That is two. Get them
both in your mind and then you can answer the question.
Senator McCarthy. The first one is page 146.
The Chairman. The first one is on page 146. Near the bottom of
the page, about an inch from the bottom of the page. He is asking
you which of the two answers is correct.
Now, General, are you ready to answer ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
General Zwicker. Both answers are correct.
Senator McCarthy. The one where you say "No, sir, he did not re-
fuse to answer questions," and the one where you say "I know he re-
fused to answer." They are both correct?
General Zwicker. That is not the question. The question was "and
had refused to answer certain questions." That was the Chairman.
My answer :
No, sir ; not specittcally on answering any questions. I knew that he had ap-
peared before your committee.
The Chairman. Now, read the next one.
General Zwicker (reading) :
The CiiAiKMAN. But now you indicate that you did not know that he refused
to tell about his Communist activities; is that correct?
My answer :
I know that he refused to answer questions for the committee.
Senator McCarthy. You say because the word "specifically" is not
in the last one they are both true ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. General, the next one following what you read :
Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his Communist
activities?
General Zwicker. Specifically, I don't believe so.
Now, how could j^ou be either specific or unspecific about refusing to
answer questions ? What do you mean by that ?
General Zwicker. It is hard to reconstruct now what I meant a year
ago.
Senator McCarthy. It is awfully hard.
Let us turn to the page again. You say "Specifically, I don't believe
so." That is in regard to answering questions about Conmiunist
activities.
The next page, if you will drop down to the last paragraph in the
first questions, General :
AR]\ri^ PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 409
Now, it is your testimony that at the time you read the stories about Major
Peress that you did not know that he had refused to answer questions before
this committee about his Communist activities?
General Zwickek. I am sure I had that impression.
Now, again, which is true ? You say on page 147 you do not believe
that you knew that he refused to answer questions, and after the type
of abuse that you were subjected to on page 1-48 you said yes, you are
sure you had the impression that he refused to answer.
Which of those two are true ?
General Zwicker. They are both true.
Senator McCarthy. They are both true ?
General Z\\t:cker. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. Page 146 you say you did not know that he
refused to answ^er questions. Page 147 you said you knew he refused
to answer questions, but not about Communist activities. Page 148
you finally admit you knew he refused to answer questions about
Communist activities. You say all three answers are correct?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes
or as much longer as necessary to complete the answering of the roll
call.
(A recess was taken.)
(The following members of the committee were present: Senator
McClellan, Senator Symington, Senator Ervin, and Senator Bender.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Counsel, you may resume.
Mr. Kennedy. I think the last thing we discussed was that tele-
phone call of January 26, and we put that memo on that call into
the record.
Then on January 28 you received a telephone call from John Adams
regarding and giving you the information that Peress was to appear
before the subcommittee on the 30th, is that right?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
]\Ir. Kennedy. Did you identify this memorandum you wrote on
that telephone call ? I think you did.
General Zwicker. I have already identified this.
The Chairman. Is that exhibit 71 ? Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. That verbal exchange with Peress regarding his
appearance.
Then, General, the next occurrence was on February 1, as I under-
stand it, when Peress came to see you and requested that he be allowed
to get out of the Army as soon as possible ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That date was ultimately changed to the 2d of Feb-
ruary at 2 o'clock, is that right?
General Zwicker. That is right.
INIr. Kennedy. Would you identify this document?
Senator Bender. A-Vliile he is getting the document, could I ask
him regarding January 28 ?
At what time did Mr. Adams call you ?
General Zwicker, I have a note here, 1600.
Senator Bender. ^^Hiat does that mean ?
General Zwicker. Four o'clock in the afternoon. Excuse me, sir.
I have never seen this, Mr. Counsel.
410 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. Would you tell us what it is?
General Zwickek. It is a statement with the letterhead :
Headquarters Camp Kilmer,
Ncic Brunswick, N. J., February 2, 1954.
Statement: Request my date of release. 31 March 19.54, as I indicated on
statement dated 2.1 .January 11».j4 be changed to read : 2 February 19.54.
s/t/ Irving Peress, Major, DC.
A certified true copy.
The Chairman. Did you say you never saw that document i
General Zwicker. I have never seen this.
The Chairman. You have never seen it before ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
The Chairman. Could it have been delivered by Peress to your
command somewhere, to some other branch of your command.
General Zwicker. I believe I can explain this very simply, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
General Zwicker. lie came to my office and requested tliat this be
done. I told him it could be done as part of an official record. He lui-
doubtedly, subsequent to his visit with me, just simply wrote this state-
ment and handed it to the Adjutant General.
The Chairman. Mr. Counsel, is this part of the Army document
that you received ?
. Mr. Kennedy. That is right .
The Chairman. It may be admitted as exhibit 72.
Mr. Kennedy. On this same date, General, after Peress had come to
your office did you then telephone General Murphy at headquarters of
the First Army?
General Zwicker. I did.
Mv. Kennedy. Would you identify this document, please.
General Zwicker. I do not know the source of this document and
I have never seen it before, but the information and data contained
therein seems to be substantially correct.
The Chairman. Is that a document obtained from the Army hies?
JNIr. Kennedy. It was, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right. The contents of the document you are
familiar with?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right. You may state what it is, what it re-
lates to.
Genei'al Zwicker. I read from the document :
On February 19ri4, General Zwicker called General Murphy and stated that
he wants to bring him up to date on the Pere.ss case. It was released by the press
and the name was tied to the face. There was a misstatement in the press re-
leases, including the New York Times, Herald Tribune and local paper, which
Senator INIcCarthy made in which he indicated that on January 2.'i the Army asked
Peress to resign. General Zwicker declared that that is not true, because on the
23d he received the administrative order (letter from the Department of the
Army dated January 18, 19r)4, subject : Relief from Active Duty and Separation
From the Service), directing his separation. That was an uuclassitiMcl document.
Immediately on the 23d, they initiated action to inform Peress of this. At that
time Peress indicated that he would separate on March HI ( wliicli was his preroga-
tive as the letter gave him 90 days).
Also, he told Colonel Gurney on January 2G that be had had an in(iuiry on the
22d from Mr. Anastos, one of McCarthy's counselors, asking him cpiestions about
Peress, and, after taking the proper precautions, he called hini hn<k and answered
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 411
the questions that he could without violating any security. As a result of that
call, they called last Friday and requested his presence voluntarily for an in-
vestigation by McCarthy which was held on Saturday morning.
General Zwicker further stated that some of the press releases say that
McCarthy is seeking trial of a major and McCarthy said yesterday that he
would ask the Army to courtmartial him. Peress has just been in his office
and said that he wants to be separated as soon as possible, changing the date
from March 31, which is also his prerogative. General Zwicker indicated that
that satisties him and they are now separating him and he should be out by
1400 hours tomorrow. General Muriahy approved.
General Zwicker mentioned that I'eress asked that the Ai'my clear him of
the charges brought by McCarthy, and he told him that is not his business, but
that while he was still in the Army he still has access to the IG —
Inspector General —
However, he does not think Peress will do that. He said he told Mr. Anastos
very specifically that he was being separated under the provisions of a public
law and certain regulations, and that included complete separation from the
Service so that he would not be permitted to retain his Reserve commission.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, may we have that made a part of
the record?
The Chairman. It may be made exhibit 73.
Mr. Kennedy, Tlien at 2 o'clock on the following day, February
2, General, Irving Peress received his discharge from the Army?
General Zwicker. At approximately that time; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. In view of the fact that you were familiar with the
fact that Senator McCarthy w^anted Irving Peress to be court-mar-
tialed, as indicated in this telephone conversation, at least on Febru-
ary 1, why then did you permit him to be discharged on February 2
and thus get out of the hands of the Army the ability to court-mar-
tial him?
General Zwicker. At that time, and for a long time prior to that
date, the First Army and Department of the Army had all of the facts
of the Peress case tliat I had, and undoubtedly much more. To my
own knowledge his case had been in process for a very long period of
time. I assumed — and I think rightly — that when I received the
order, all of the superior headquarters concerned and mine included
had very carefully considered and weighed every aspect of the Peress
case, and that it was their decision that based on this information and
after considerable thought and carefid study, that it was determined
at the Department of the Army level that he should be separated in
accordance with the letter or the order that I received.
I couldn't conceive of anything that I could contribute to the prob-
lem at that time that had not already been thoroughly gone over,
digested, and a decision reached by headquarters far superior to
mine.
Mr. Kennedy. But, General, this was only within 36 hours pre-
ceding this or less' than that, just a little bit over 24 hours, that the
decision had been made that Peress was to be discharged on Febru-
ary 2 and thereby losing, the Army losing control over him, rather
than on jMarcli 31, which would have given more time to tlie Depart-
ment of the Army to make a decision as to whether he should be court-
martialed.
Now, Senator McCarthy only made the statement that he felt he
should be discharged at January 31, and the decision separating him
from the Army was to occur just 2 or 3 days later.
412 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
It would certainly have been conceivable that the Department of
the Army would not have learned that they were to lose control over
him and therefore couldn't follow out the wishes of the Senator.
The CiiAiRMAx. Counsel means Senator McCarthy made the state-
ment about his being court-martialed instead of being discharged.
General Zwicker. What is the question, please ?
Mr. Kennedy. "WHiat I am trying to understand is that when — you
personally only knew of Peress being separated from the Army, dis-
charged from the Army, on February 1, that you gave that informa-
tion to the First Army. However, the people in the Department of
the Army were not aware of that, it was very possible they might not
be aware of it and thought he was not going to be discharged until the
31st of March, so there would have been a reason to at least keep
Irving Peress in the Army until you had discussed it with the Depart-
ment of the Army.
General Zwicker. My superior, commanding general. First Army,
approved the action that I proposed to take 24 hours prior to the time
that I did take it. If he felt that I should have done otherwise, he
should have so directed.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever discuss with him the fact that Senator
McCarthy wanted this man court-martialed?
General Zwicker. Not that I know of.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't it a matter that had come to your attention
and yet he was going to be discharged the following day — wasn't it
a matter where you felt the Army sliould retain control over this indi-
vidual until disposition had been made of the case?
General Zwicker. I don't feel, Mr. Counsel, that anything could
have been done at my level more than was done.
Mr. Kennedy. You could have held him until at least further
instructions came.
General Zwicker. No, sir; I couldn't.
Mr. Kennedy. You could not?
General Zwicker. I could not.
Mr. Kennedy. After he requested to receive his discharge on Feb-
ruary 2 you could not have held him?
General Zwicker. In accordance with the order I could not hold him
1 minute beyond the minimum time necessary to discharge him, if
that was his request and desire.
Senator Symington. May I ask a question there, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman. Senator Symington.
Senator Symington. General, you say you have 500 to 1,000 letters
a day coming to your command, addressed to you, is that right?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. You had spoken to Colonel Burress or General
Burress and given the problem about this man and you suggested
he be released from the Army, is that correct?
General Zwicker. That is right.
Senator Symington. Inasmuch as you were in command of troops
you were anxious to get the man off the base as soon as possible; is
that right?
Genera] Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. May I ask a question ?
The Chairivian. Senatoii- Ervin.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 413
Senator Ervin. General, did Senator McCarthy or any other mem-
ber of this committee ask you to take any action to court-martial
or hold Peress ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. The only thing you knew about it was the fact that
you read a paper giving a letter that Senator McCarthy issued to the
press ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; I may have read that.
Senator Ervin. Was that letter addressed to you or to somebody
else?
General Zwicker. That letter was not addressed to me, sir.
Senator Ervin. It was addressed to the Secretary of the Army ?
General Zwicker. I believe so.
Senator Ervin. You are not accustomed to making decisions based
on letters addressed to the Secretary of the Army in a newspaper, or
otherwise, are you ?
General Zwicker. No, sir.
Senator Ervin. You were about the lowest man in the chain of
command that was involved in this thing, were you not?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; I was low man on the totem pole.
Senator Ervin. General, suppose you tell the committee what you
did if anything in adjusting or promoting or adjustment in the grade
or promotion of Major Peress.
General Zwicker. Absolutely nothing.
(Senator McCarthy entered the hearing room.)
Senator Ervin. ^Yl\at did you do, if anything, to assist Major Peress
in making the decision to give Major Peress an honorable discharge?
General Zwicker. Absolutely nothing.
Senator Ervin. At the time you got this order directing you to dis-
charge JSIajor Peress on his own request at any time in 90 days, did
you furnish a copy of that order or substance of that order to this
committee ?
General Zw^icker. I did, sir. Not at that time, Mr. Senator.
I believe it was at the time that Mr. Juliana visited me at my head-
quarters that 1 handed him a copy of that order, which was the 13th
of February.
Senator Ervin. And your position is that you were merely obeying
the orders which came to you from your superiors ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. Where did that order originate?
General Zwicker. Department of the Army.
Senator Er\t[n. You state, I believe, that first John Adams called
you by telephone and told you that you were, that the committee de-
sired you to appear before it as a witness at the time you stated.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. The day before the date for your appearance John
Adams came to — rather, he had a conversation with you and these
other officers that you mentioned at your headquarters?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator ER^^N. And you, you say that in the course of that con-
versation that it is quite possible that he may have discussed with
you the Executive order which you subsequently invoked in respect
to certain questions?
414 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. That is all.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator McCarthy. Could I continue in connection with some of
the questions Mr. Ervin asked ?
When asked what, if anything, you had to do with his honorable
discharge you said "absolutely nothing." Is that correct?
General Zwicker. I am sorry, I didn't understand your question.
Senator IVEcCarthy. I understood you to say you had absolutely
nothing to do with his honorable discharge.
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. When you testified before the committee on
February 18 you testified, as you will recall, I assume — maybe pain-
fully so — that if he had been
]Mr. Brucker. "Wliat page. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. If the gentleman doesn't remember I will give
him the page.
Mr. Brucker. I think he has a right to have his attention called to
the context.
Senator INIcCarthy. Why don't you be quiet until the question is
finished.
]VIr. Brucker. I know of no place in the court or
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, if this man cannot be made to
be quiet until the question is finished, he should be expelled from the
room.
The Chairman. The Chair will undertake to keep this in order.
When you proceed with a question, at the conclusion of the ques-
tion, if the witness thinks that he needs any counsel he may consult
with the attorney for the Defense Department.
Now ask the question and when he has concluded, then you may
weigh it and if you need to consult with your counsel you may do so.
General.
Proceed.
Senator INIcCarthy. I hope I can without another interruption by
the good governor.
Mr. Brucker. Thank you.
Senator ]\IcCarthy. General, do you recall having testified that if
this man Peress had been accused of stealing $50, that you could have
held up his discharge?
General Zwicker. I do remember that.
Senator McCarthy. You do not change your testimony on that?
That is still your testimony ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Senator McCarthy. But you felt that even though a chairman of a
committee had called attention to the fact that he was a member of
the Communist Party, a graduate of the Communist leadership
school, took the fifth amendment on a vast number of question re-
garding treasonable activities at an Army base, and asked that some-
thing be done about it, you felt you could not hold up his discharge
in that case ?
General Zwicker. Mr. Senator, you were out of the room when I
gave testimony
Senator McCarthy. Just answer the question if you can.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 415
General Zwicker. You were out of the room a moment ago when I
tlid answer that question, sir.
Senator JMcCarthy. Answer it again.
General Zwicker. Yes, sir. There is an entirely different distinc-
tion between
Senator McCarthy. I would say there is.
The Chairman. Let the witness answer.
General Zwicker. Let me answer your question. Senator.
The Chairman. Proceed.
General Zwicker. There is a great distinction between evidence or
allegations which have been made against a person which have been
thoroughly digested, thoroughly gone into, and a decision made as a
result of that as against new evidence or new allegations which may
be made against a person, and specifically we will take, the $50 question.
In the first place, Mr. Senator, the First Army headquarters and
Department of the Army had more information about Irving Peress
than did I at my headquarters or that was of my personal knowledge.
They had taken that information and for a very considerable period
of time had studied it, digested it, and arrived at a conclusion. Had
an accusation been made of Major Peress that he had stolen $50, there
would have been no investigation made up to that time or no evidence,
nothing to prove or disprove that he didn't, and I would not have
been satisfied to discharge him or any other person until that allega-
tion was digested and either proved or disproved, and certainly if
it were proved, he would be properly punished. And I would have
retained him in the service until I and, if necessary, my superiors were
satisfied as to one or the other of those circumstances.
Senator McCarthy. Now, you are aware, are you not. General,
that at the time the Army made its first decision to give him an
honorable discharge he had not taken the fifth amendment before a
congressional committee as to espionage activity? You are aware,
aren't you, also that at the time the Army decided to give him the
honorable discharge originally they did not have the testimony of the
undercover agent for the New York Police Department and the FBI,
so that there was a great deal of additional evidence. You knew
tliat, did you not ?
General Zwicker. I did not consider it to be additional evidence,
Mr. Senator, because in August of 1953 I was aware, as was First
Army, as was Department of the Army, of Peress' answers to an
interrogatory that had been given to him during the month of August.
Mr. Brucker. Not August.
General Zwicker. I may be mistaken on the date, Senator. May
I determine the correct date ?
Mr. Kennedy. August is correct.
Mr. Brucker. August is correct.
General Zwicker. During the month of August. The questions
asked on that interrogatory were voluminous and many, and they
covered every possible aspect of any individual's connection with the
Communist Party or any other party that might be affiliated with the
Communist Party in great detail. I did not feel that there was any-
thing new that could not be interpreted to be encompassed in that
interrogatory that was developed between the time I was aware of
it and the time he was discharged.
416 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator McCarthy. How about the New York City policewoman
whose testimony you did not have at that time, who testified posi-
tively that this man attended a Communist leadership school, that
placed him right in the Communist Party, that made him criminally
liable also because of the original interrogatory which he answered.
You did not have that. When you learned about that, didn't that
cause you to say "Well, let's find out about this, let's wait until Bob
Stephens gets back from the Far East."
General Zwicker. May I refer to, may I have advice from counsel,
sir?
The Chairman. You may.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
General Zwicker. It has been called to my attention, Mr. Senator,
that apparently the testimony to which you were referring was taken
on Thursday morning, February 18, 1954, whereas Peress was dis-
charged February 2, 1954.
(Senator Symington left the hearing room.)
Senator McCarthy. You are referring to public testimony or is it
executive session testimony ?
General Zwicker. That is when the testimony, so far as I know,
of the policewoman
Senator McCarthy. I^et me refresh your recollection.
General Zwicker. Excuse me.
Senator McCarthy. At the time I wrote the letter to Bob Stevens,
the one which was received and made public the day before you dis-
charged Peress, prior to that time this policewoman had testified in
executive session, as I recall — I beg your pardon, she had not testified
until after Peress was discharged.
Let me ask you this: Had you known of that witness, would you
have felt he should be honorably discharged ?
General Zwicker. Mr. Senator, I didn't feel then and I don't feel
now that he should have been honorably discharged.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you very much. It took many months
to get that from you.
I might say if your Department had wanted the information about
this New York City policewoman, it was all available to Mr. Adams
or to you or anyone else because she had been introduced prior to the
honorable discharge. I don't think I have any further cross-exami-
nation, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Just one further question by the chairman :
I think I am understanding it and I am correct about it : Did Mr.
Adams call you after his conference with General Weible after he
had received the letter and given you instructions ?
General Zwicker. He did not.
The Chairman. You knew nothing about that conference at the
time he was discharged?
General Zwicker. I knew nothing about tliat conference until a
couple of weeks ago.
The Chairman. If that conference occurred on, I believe the 1st of
February
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
The Chairman. The 1st of February and he was not discharged
until the 2d of February, in the afternoon of that day, then the De-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 417
partment of the Army, your superiors, had all the information that
the letter su<2:gested might be available and if they made the decision
that the discliarge should proceed, although you did not know they
had made that decision, they did not advise j'ou they had made that
decision and they did not advise you that they had concluded he
should be retained, so you had no knowledge either way with respect
to that conference and the result of it ?
General Zwicker. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCarthy. That seems unbelievable, Mr. Chairman. I
frankly can't believe that they would hold a conference to decide
whether he should be discharged instanter and would not notify Gen-
eral Zwicker.
The Chairman. It isn't a question of whether we believe the testi-
mony or not, but I seem to have the impression that some instructions
were given after that to proceed. We will have Mr. Adams on the
stand and this witness says he did not receive any such instructions.
So we will find out from both what they will testify to.
Any questions. Senator Bender?
Senator Bender. General, I have seen a lot of propaganda and lots
of publicity around regarding who promoted Peress.
Do you know now who promoted Peress ? It seems those placards
and things were directed to you. I don't know what you had to do
with it, and I wondered if you know any more about it now than you
did before.
General Zwicker. I still get one a month. I could name no indi-
vidual, sir. All I know is it was a Department of the Army order.
Senator Bender. If you had it to do over again as far as you were
concerned, knowing as much as you do at this time, would you have
acted exactly as you did before ?
General Zwicker. No, sir; I don't believe I would. I have learned
a great deal in appearing before committees for the third time and
I am also much better informed as to what I might or might not
testify to at the particular hearing that I was initially. I hope that
I would make a better impression the next time.
Senator Bender. General, had an3'one directed you at any time —
that is any superior — regarding any testimony that you have given,
was the testimony you had given previously and now your own?
That is, without any coaching or any influence or any effort made on
the part of anyone to direct you in any way ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir; I believe that is correct. I must say,
however, that since I arrived back from overseas, that I have been
studying certain parts of previous testimony and present testimony
and that I have been in consultation with certain people over in the
Department of the Army, but in no sense could it be interpreted that
anyone has tried to tell me what to do or what to say. I think that
would be a little bit impossible.
(Senator Symington entered the hearing room.)
Senator Bender. That is all.
Senator Ervin. This is about the first time they sort of untied your
arms, testimonially speaking; is it not? In other words, you have
been sort of inhibited up to tliis time ; have you not ?
418 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
General Z wicker. Sir, the first question I asked Governor Brucker
on nieetino- liim tlie first time, knowing he was Chief Counsel, was:
"Is there any area about which I cannot testify?" And he informed
me of that area.
Senator Ervin. In other words, this time you came just from the
standpoint of, as we say down in North Carolina, you are sort of foot-
loose and fancy free.
General Zwicker. Yes.
Senator Ervin. This is the first time you have had quite that much
leeway; is it not?
General Zwicker. That is correct, sir.
Senator Symington. It is not fair to take that just for North Caro-
lina, Senator.
The Chairman. Wliat do you mean, the foot-loose and fancy-free?
Senator Symington. Yes. Don't you want to put a word in for
Arkansas on that ? I will for Missouri.
The Chairman. We operate in Arkansas without publicizing every-
thing we do. So proceed.
Senator Ervin. I believe you must operate like the Department of
the Army, then.
The Chairman, Proceed.
Mr, Juliana. General, when did you assume command at Camp
ICilmer ?
General Zwicker. July 15, 1953.
Mr. Juliana. ^Ylien was the first time as commanding general at
Camp Kilmer that you learned of Irving Peress ?
General Zwicker. October 20, 1953.
]Mr. Juliana. I thought, I understood the testimony and also that
of Colonel Brown, your G-2 — there was some reference made a few
minutes ago about the interrogatory in August of 1953. Now that
interrogatory was one granted Peress, is that correct?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. Now, you knew of the interrogatory being granted
Peress ?
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. Juliana. In August of 1953.
General Zwicker. Yes.
Mr. Juliana. Now, did not that interrogatory bring to your atten-
tion the fact that he was a security risk ?
Mr. Brucker. Wait a minute. I think I want to ask the witness
a question here, if I may, with respect to his rights.
(The witness conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Governor, let's let the witness — he ought to be able
to clear that up. He said he did not know about it until October
and here is an interrogatory he was familiar with at some time. I
do not know if he was familiar with it at the time.
General Zwicker. I knew nothing of the interrogatory until
October.
The Chairman. You mean that is the first it came to your attention ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
The Chairman. Then it developed that it had been circulated to
him or submitted to him in August.
General Zwicker. That is correct.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 419
The Chairman. Proceed.
Mr. Juliana. In other words, you did not find out about the inter-
rogatory until October?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. Fine.
Colonel Brown also testified concerning monthly reports that he
submitted on which he indicated those security cases at Camp Kilmer.
Now, I believe that his testimony was that he submitted those to
G-2, First Army, is that right ?
General Zwicker. I don't know, sir.
Mr. Juliana. Well, the question is : The monthly reports submitted
by Colonel Brown, your G-2 at Camp Kilmer, did not cross your
desk, is that right ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. That was the usual procedure?
General Zwicker. It seemed to be.
Mr. Juliana. Now, has that procedure been corrected as far as you
know ?
General Zwicker. It certainly has.
Mr. Juliana. Today these monthly reports on which security cases
are either listed or — I don't know what the physical setup is — but in
any event the commanding general now has tne benefit of that in-
formation ?
General Zwicker. I don't know what the procedure is in all various
f arflung commands, Mr. Juliana, but I would assume that there is no
commanding general of any unit, regardless of size, who is not now
fairly familiar with any persons who may have derogatory informa-
tion in their personnel files.
Mr. Juliana. General, also I am referring back to some testimony —
you were not here, but Governor, I am sure you will correct me if I
don't state it accurately — Colonel Leverich, Dental Surgeon at Camp
Kilmer — is that correct ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. I believe the testimony is he learned of Peress from
G-2, Department of the Army, on June 1, 1953. Now I may stand
corrected on the date.
Mr. Brucker. G-2 at Camp Kilmer.
Mr. Juliana. G-2 at Camp Kilmer told the Dental Surgeon that
Peress was either a security case or there was derogatory information
on Peress.
Now you were not so advised at that time ?
General Zwicker. I was not. I was not in command at that time,
as a matter of fact hadn't been there until July.
Mr. Juliana. Was the commanding general at that time advised?
General Zwicker. He will have to answer that.
Mr. Juliana. Did the commanding general whom you relieved
advise you of the Peress situation ?
General Zwicker. He did not.
Mr. Juliana. That is all.
The Chairman. Any other questions ?
Mr. Kennedy. I have a question.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. General, I want to clear up one point.
420 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
You didn't learn and as of now you don't feel you learned about the
Peress case until October 20, is that right ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Before the Watkins committee — and I refer you to
page 465 — you stated that in answer to a question from Mr. de Furia :
When did the Peress case first come to your attention, sir?
General Zwickee. In August 1953.
Then page 466 the same answer. Maybe there is a misunderstand-
ing, but I thought you had better straighten that out. Was your testi-
mony incorrect at tliat time ?
General Zwicker. I don't know. I will assume it was October, to
the best of my Imowledge now, and if I stated August then I must
<assume I was in error.
McCartht. How do you place it in October now?
General Z^vicker. Well, because in October, Senator, when my G-2
brought this case to my attention, I was very much disturbed at the
lengthy delay and I directed him to draft a letter to First Army trying
to get the thing going and he brought the draft of the letter to me.
I rewrote very slight parts of it and sent it on.
That is what brings it back to my mind that it must have been then
because I probably would have the same reaction earlier.
Senator McCarthy. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kennedy. I just want to finish chronologically your knowledge
of the case and make sure that we touched on everything.
February 2, Peress was discharged and then on February 13 Mr.
Juliana visited you and I believe we discussed that.
Then as I understand it, next event was February 17 when Mr.
Adams telephoned you and advised you that you were to appear before
the committee on the following day. Is that right ?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And then he also visited you at that time on February
17, he came up to visit you at Camp Kilmer prior to your appearance
before the committee ?
General Zwicker. He did.
Mr. Kennedy. We have also gone into the discussion of what the
purpose of that visit was.
Then you testified on the 18th and then on the 24th of February;
Avill you identify this document, please ?
General Zwicker. It is a memorandum for record : "Headquarters,
Camp Kilmer, New Brunswick, N. J., February 24, 1954," reads as
follows :
At approximately 1800 hours —
6 p. m. —
I received a call from Maj. Gen. Robert N. Young, G-1, Department of the Army.
He directed that in case I am subpenaed to appear before the Senate Investigat-
ing Subcommittee, I am to contact either the Chief of Staff or the Secretary of the
Army for instructions prior to complying with the subpena.
And it is signed by me.
Mr. Kennedy. May we have that made a part of the record ?
The Chairman. Itmay be made exhibit No. 74.
Mr. Kennedy. Then, General, on the 2d of March you wrote a — will
you identify this?
ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 421
General Zwicker. This is an affidavit : "Headquarters, Camp Kil-
mer, New Brunswick, N. J., March 2, 1954."
Do you wish the contents, sir ? It is signed by me.
The Chairman. Give a brief summary of it and it will go in the
record.
Mr. Kennedy. Is it a memorandum dealing with the contacts that
you had with Mr. Anostos and Mr. Juliana ?
General Zwicker. It is.
Mr. Kennedy. May we have that made an exhibit ?
The Chairman. It will be made exhibit 75.
(Exhibit No. 75 appears in the appendix on p. 426.)
Mr. Kennedy. The date- of that is 2d of March ?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. That is all.
The Chairman. Any further questions by any member of the
committee ?
If not. General, you are excused. Thank you very much, sir.
We have reached the hour of 4 : 30 by my clock.
I wish to ask Governor Brucker this : Governor Brucker, this morn-
ing the Chair requested you to contact the Justice Department, the
Attorney General, with respect to getting certain parts of an exhibit
that was presented this morning, being exhibit 33, declassified so that
it might be made a part of this record.
Will you make a report to the committee now of what you have done?
Mr. Brucker. Yes, sir; Mr. Chairman, I immediately telephoned
upon adjournment to the Department of Justice and they indicated
that they could not by telephone have information communicated
because of the security nature of it, but that if I would send the
communication they would get after it and give a reply, and there
were two things connected with it, not just the one that is mentioned
but also whether or not they had this information before them when
they wrote the letter to you, which you have, with respect to whether
or not Peress can be prosecuted at the present time. So I put both
of them in.
I was informed that they would give me a reply as soon as they
could. I got the letter ready, sent it over, and it was in their hands
by 2 o'clock.
I haven't heard yet but I assume I will hear.
The Chairman. I just wanted a report on it. We may hope for a
clarification of the matter when we resume in the morning, I assume.
Mr. Brucker. I hope so.
The Chairman. The committee will stand in recess until tomorrow
morning at 10 o'clock in this room.
Whereupon, at 4 : 35 p. m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a. m. Thursday, March 24, 1955.)
APPENDIX
Exhibit No. 62
Department of the Aiimy Summary Sheet
To: Chief of StafE.
For : Approval, signature.
OflSce of preparation : Personnel Actions Branch, G-1.
422 ARRIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Grade — surname : Lt. Col. Moore/bp.
File No. : Gl 201 Peress, Irving.
Subject : Separation of Major Irving Peress as a Security Risk.
Date: 25 Nov 53,
DISCUSSION
1. On 6 November 1953 Lieutenant General Burress wrote General Bolte (TAB
A — Ltr to Gen Bolte fr Gen Burress, 6 Nov 1953) concerning Major Irving
Peress, 01893643, a dental reserve officer, and forwarded a summary of actions
and correspondence reference separating Major Peress from the service as a
security risk.
2. After coordination with G-2 and upon recommendation of the Army Per-
sonnel Board the determination was made to relieve Major Peress from active
duty after completion of twelve months' service under the involuntary release
program since after that length of service his commission may be revoked as a
special registrant. (Doctor Draft) under Section 4, UMT&S Act, as amended.
3. Attached letter to Lieutenant General Burress for the signature of General
Bolte informs General Burress of above determination.
BECOMMENDATION
That the attached letter (TAB B — Ltr to General Burress for signature of
General Bolte) be approved, signed and dispatched.
COORDINATION
G-2— Maj Buelow, 75230— concur
APB— Lt Col Forbes, 73403— concur
Robert N. Young,
Major- General, 08,
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1.
Regraded unclassified by auth. of the Sec. of Army.
J. Murray,
Lt. Col., 08., 10 Feb. 55.
2 Inch
1. TAB A— Ltr to Gen Bolte f r Gen Burress, 6 Nov 53.
2. TAB B — Ltr to General Burress for signature of General Bolte.
Exhibit No. 63
Department of the Army,
Office of the Chief of Staff,
Washington 25, D. C, December 31, 1953.
Lieutenant General W. A. Burress,
Commanding General, First Army,
Governors Island, 'New York, New York.
Dear Pinkie : My letter of 5 December 1953 informed you that the complete
file on the security risk case of Major Irving Peress, 01893643, the dental reserve
officer at Camp Kilmer, would be reviewed. The review has now been completed
and Major Peress will be relieved from active duty as a result of board action
under the Involuntary Release Program.
The Adjutant General will effect the timing of his release so as to allow the
90 days' normal notice if Peress so desires and will provide that his commission
will then be revoked after completion of twelve months of active service under
the provisions of special registrants (Doctor Draft) contained in Section 4,
Universal Military Training and Service Act. This procedure is considered the
most expeditious appropriate means of returning Major Peress to civilian status.
Sincerely,
Charlie
Charles L. Bolte,
General, U. 8. Armij, Vice Chief of Staff.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 423
Exhibit No. 64
Febkitary 1, 1954.
Honorable Robert Stevens,
Secretary of the Army, Washington, D. C.
Dear Bob : Weeks of investigation by tlie Senate Investigating Committee un-
covered wtiat appears to be very conclusive proof of Communist activities on
the part of a major now on active duty at Camp Kilmer. He had been assigned
to duty near Yokohama, Japan. However, when he arrived at the port of de-
barkation, those orders were cancelled upon his request and he was subsequently
assigned to Camp Kilmer. The only reason given for this change of orders was
that his wife and daughter were visiting a psychiatrist whose name he cannot
even remember.
There are convincing indications that he has been recruiting soldiers into the
Communist Party, that he has attended a Communist leadership school, and
that he may have personally organized a Communist cell at Camp Kilmer. He
was called before the Committee in Executive Session and given an opportunity
to deny under oath the evidence that he was an active participant in the Com-
munist conspiracy. He refused to answer all questions about his Communist
Party activities, e. g., as to whether Communist meetings were held at his home,
whether he organized a Communist cell at Camp Kilmer, whether he was suc-
cessful in recruiting soldiers into the Communist Party, whether he attended a
Communist leadership school, whether a Communist helped him obtain a desired
change in his orders, etc.
The evidence shows that last August the Army submitted to him a question-
naire in regard to his alleged Communist activities and that he refused to
answer the questions ou the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate
him. Nevertheless a few months thereafter he was promoted to the rank of
major. It was only after our committee became active in the case that he was
asked to resign. He has indicated that he plans on resigning some time prior
to March 31 of this year. Having discussed with you a number of times what
I consider a most dangerous and successful penetration of our military by the
Communist conspiracy over the past twenty years, I fully realize your great and
intelligent interest in this matter and that you realize the danger and are as eager
to remove Communists from the military as anyone on my committee. It would
seem therefore that this offers an excellent opportunity to set an example and
to blaze an encouraging and healthy new road in this Administration's attempts
to fulfill our campaign promise of removing all Communists from Government.
I therefore make the following suggestions :
(1) That Court Martial proceedings be immediately instituted against the
major. It would seem that the very least charge of which he would be found
guilty as a matter of course would be "conduct unbecoming an officer."
(2) A thorough investigation by your Department would disclose the names
of those responsible officers who had full knowledge of his Communist activities
and either took no steps to have him removed or were responsible for his promo-
tion thereafter. They also, of course, took an oath to protect this country
against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Aiding in the promotion of, or the
failure to expose the Communist activities of a fellow officer is a violation of that
oath and without question should subject them to a court martial.
(3) As above stated, when this officer was assigned to a duty station at
Yokohama, he succeeded in getting those orders changed and being assigned to
a duty station in the United States merely on the grounds that his wife and
daughter were visiting a psychiatrist. As you and I well know, a vast number
of young men with much more aggravated hardship stories of sickness in the
family, etc., who request deferment from foreign service are of necessity required
to serve their usual time out of this country. In view of his refusal to state
whether a Communist aided him in having his orders changed, I would strongly
urge a complete investigation, preferably by the Inspector General's Office, to
determine who was responsible for the change in his orders and why ; again
having a Court Martial in mind if this were improperly done.
I very strongly feel that prompt and vigorous Court Martial proceedings
against all those involved in this case of failure to remove, promoting and obtain-
ing special favors for a man known to them to be part of the Commimist con-
spiracy, can do more than any one thing to serve notice on every other officer
in the Army that under your Administration of the Army a new day has really
dawned in which every officer will be held strictly accountable to his oath "to
424 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
defend this Nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic," and tliat a failure
to report and take action against Communists will result in court martial.
I realize that this letter will be interpreted by the leftwing elements of press,
radio, and television as "a fight with Secretary of the Army Stevens."
Therefore, let me try again to make it clear that I have great respect for you
both as an individual and as Secretary of the Army, I feel that you have served
tremendously well in a most thankless job.
In closing, let me suggest that if you decide to follow the above suggestions, our
committee will be available to help you in every way possible.
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCarthy.
JMe:dmg
Exhibit No. 66
Headquarters Camp Kilmer,
Office of the Commanding General,
'New Brunstvick, New Jersey, 3 November 1953.
Lieutenant General W. A. Burress,
Commanding General, First Army,
Governors Island, New York, New York
Dear General Burress : Reference our conversation of this morning concern-
ing the promotion of Captain Irving Peress, 0-1-893-643, DC, USAK, this officer
has refused to sign a loyalty certificate and refused to answer an interrogatory
concerning his afiiliatiou with subversive organizations claiming constitutional
privileges. Investigation completed 15 April 1953 determined that this oflScer
was a known and active Communist in Queens, New York. The pertinent details
of his case are on tile in the G2 Section in yours and this headquarters. This
individual was promoted to Major, and to remain on duty in this rank, pursuant
to letter orders dated 23 October 1953. I am unable to reconcile such policies,
particularly at a time when outstanding oflicers are being forced to return to
inactive status.
I have just received letters of notification on two such ofiicers of this com-
mand, namely : Major John B. Myers, AGC, formerly an Infantry officer, and
holder of the DSC, Purple Heart, Silver Star, and Bronze Star. Major Myers
has done an outstanding job as Special Services Officer here since October 1952.
He was transferred to the Army Specialists Corps as a result of wounds received
in World War II, and was later absorbed into AGC when the Specialists Corps
was discontinued.
Major Eugene Doda, AGC, Postal Officer at this station who was specially
selected to fill this sensitive position and reported to Camp Kilmer in December
1952. He has done a superior job straightening out a complex postal problem
here, and is an officer of adequate capabilities to handle the many faceted postal
affairs at an installation of this kind..
In addition, renewal of category has been refused on Lt Colonel Owen W. Huff,
AGC, Executive Offijer to the Commanding Officer, Army Personnel Center who
joined this Command in August 1953. Almost all of Colonel Hiiff's commissioned
service has been in the handling of casual operations such as prevail here at
Camp Kilmer. He is one of the few particularly well-qualified officers presently
on duty at this station, and a suitable replacement with equal experience and
ti'aining will be difficult to find.
If there is anything that can be done to save these officers to the active service,
I strongly recommend that it be undertaken.
As to the new organization structure at Camp Kilmer and the activation of
the 1264th ASU for the Personnel Center, General Order #134 your headquarters
assigns the 1264th ASU as a subordinate command of my headquarters. My
original recommendation to you was that the lour stations directed by Depart-
ment of Army would be directly under this headquarters, doing away with the
intermediate Army Personnel Center headquarters as such and having my post
staff operate in a dual capacity. This recommendation was concurred in by
your headquarters, but was not acceptable to Department of Army, who directed
the present 1264th ASU personnel Center Headquarters with its own four sub-
oi'dinate stations (Bns). In view of this I recommend reconsideration of the
last paragraph of your letter to me dated 31 October. I as.sure you that my
intei-est in and supervision of the Army Personnel Center will continue as
highest priority here at Camp Kilmer.
A] J" "'";''"''J'i I'll!"" "'"111111111111111 nil III II .TING TO IRVING PERESS 425
3 9999 05445 3830
Since my comment to you regarding our need of some sixty clerk-typists, tlie
C & A Section of your lieadquarters lias approved the assignment of tliirty-tliree
enlisted personnel that we screened from the First Army pipeline. We have
been further advised that thirty-three on-the-job trainee Class B personnel will
arrive from Fort Dix on or about 12-15 November, with twelve additional such
Class B personnel due to be assigned on or about 18-20 November. These
should meet our immediate needs, however past experience has shown that per-
sonnel screened from the pipeline are, for the most part, short timers and there-
fore require frequent and continual replacement. The most effective personnel
in this category are the Class B on-the-job trainee people, as they remain on
duty long enough to learn their respective jobs and are fairly stable in their
performance. Should the need arise, and I believe it will, for additional clerk-
typist replacements, I believe consideration should be given to releasing such
Class B personnel to this command even prior to the completion of their full
course as clerk-typist at Dix, time of release and transfer to Camp Kilmer to
lie after they are reasonably prolicient typists, but before they have completed
the military correspondence phase of their instruction. We could then use such
as clerk-typists on copy work for say, six hours a day and include them in our
presently organized clerk typist classes for two hours daily until they completed
the full course required.
All here appreciated the time you and Secretary Stevens spent with us yester-
day and are looking forward to a more extended visit from you in the near
future.
Respectfully,
/s/ Ralph W. Zwicker
Ralph W. Zwicker,
Brigadier General, USA.
Exhibit No. 69
Headquarters First Armt,
Governors Island, New York 4, N. Y.,
Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Intelligence,
6, January 1954.
AHFKB-SD-PSB.
Subject : Peress, Irving, DC, 01S93643.
To : Commanding General, Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, Attn. : G2.
1. This office has been informed that Major Irving Peress, DC, 01893643, your
station, will be relieved from active duty as a result of board action under the
Involuntary Release Program.
2. The Adjutant General will effect the timing of his release so as to allow
the 90 days' normal notice if Peress so desires and will provide that his com-
mission will then be revoked after completion of twelve months of active
service under the provisions of special registrants contained in Section 4^
Universal Military Training and Service Act. This procedure is considered
the most expeditious appropriate means of returning Peress to civilian status.
For the Assistant Chief of Staff, G2 :
Ronald F. Thomas,
Lt. Colonel, GS,
Chief, Security Division.
A certified true copy :
Albert Robichoud,
Capt. MFC O2045268.
Regarded unclassified by authority of Sec. of Army.
J. MTTRR.VY,
Lt. Col, GS, S Feb 1955.
Exhibit No. 71
Memorandum foe the Record
At 1600, 28 January 1954, the undersigned received a telephone call from^
Mr. John D. Adams, Council to the Secretary of the Army, Pentagon, Washing-
ton, D. C, relative to Major Irving E. Peress, 01893643.
426 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Adams requested that I contact Major Peress and request him to be
present in Room 36, U. S. Court House, Foley Square, New York City, at 10: 30
AM, 30 January 1954, for the purpose of appearing before the Senate Investi-
gating Committee, of which Senator McCarthy is Chairman.
I was unable to locate Major Peress on the 28th of January, but did give
above information to him at 0815, 29 January 1954. Major Peress indicated
that he would be present at the time and place indicated above. I granted him
permission to make his appearance in civilian clothes and further excused him
from duty on 30 January 1954.
/s/ Ralph W. Zwicker
Ralph W. Zwicker,
Brigadier General, USA,
Commanding.
Certified a true copy ;
C. T. Bkown, Lt. Col, G8.
Exhibit No. 75
Headquabteks Camp Kilmek,
Neiv Brunswick, New Jersey, 2 March 195^.
Affidavit
Brigadier General Ralph W. Zwicker, being first duly sworn deposes and says :
On 22 January 1954 Mr. Anastos, an investigator from Senator McCarthy's
office, called and said in effect, "w,e understand that you have a Major at Camp
Kilmer who has been under investigation, I would like his name." On verifying,
by return telephone call to Senator McCarthy's office and contacting Mr.
Anastos there, I stated to him in effect, "I believe the name of the person
to whom you referred in your call to me is INIajor Irving Peress."
On 23 January 1954, I called Mr. Anastos and told him that I had just received
a Department of The Army order, dated 18 January 1954, directing separation
of Major Peress.
On 13 February 1954, Mr. Juliano, another investigator from Senator McCar-
thy's office, personally visited me in my office at Camp Kilmer. He attempted
to elicit classified information relative to the Peress case and I indicated to him
that he was as well aware of the executive order as amplified by the Secretary
of The Army as I, and that I could not give him any information relative to
Peress other than that which was not classified. He said, "I understand."
He spent considerable time that same date questioning other offices in my head-
quarters. While talking to me I took a copy of the TAG order, directing
Peress' separation, from our file and gave it to him. This or another copy
of it was available to Senator McCarthy and his counsels during the closed
Executive Sessions February 18th, during which I was questioned.
(Signed) Ralph W. Zwicker
Ralph W. Zwicker,
Brigadier General, USA,
Commanding.
Subscribed and Sworn to before me this 2nd day of March 1954.
George M. Gallagher,
1st Lt. AGG,
Asst. Adj. Gen.
X
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING
TO IRVING PERESS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
PERMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PART 6
MARCH 24, 1955
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
mm) WASHINGTON : 1955
Boston Public Library
superintendent of Documents
MAY 1 8 1955
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMEISTTOPERATIONS
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, JR., North Carolina
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
JOSEPH R. McCarthy, Wisconsin
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dal;ota
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire
GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
THOMAS E. MARTIN, Iowa
Walteb L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, JK., North CaroUna GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
ROBERT F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel
Donald F. O'Donnell, Assistant Chief Counsel
James N. Juliana, Chief Counsel to the Minority
CONTENTS
Page
Appendix 508
Testimony of —
Adams, John G 427
Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary of the Army 463
EXHIBITS
Introduced Appears
on page — on page —
76. Memorandum from John G. Adams, General Counsel, Depart-
ment of the Army, to General Trudeau, G-2, January 4, 1954_ 428 428
77. Memorandum from John G. Adams, General Counsel, Depart-
ment of the Army, to Chief of Staff, January 19, 1954. 430 430
78. Memorandum from John G. Adams, General Counsel, Depart-
ment of the Army, to Chief of Staff, February 5, 1954 457 (•)
79. Letter to Lt. Col. L. L. Forbes, from Maj. Gen. Herbert M.
Jones, Acting Adjutant General, Department of the Army,
Washington, D. C, August 13, 1954 463 508
80. Letter from Hon. Robert T. Steven.s, Secretary of the Army, to
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, chairman, Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, February 16, 1954 470 508
81. Major changes in Army procedures after the Peress actions at
Department of Army staff, technical service, and Army Head-
quarters levels 474 510
82. Letter from Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army, to
Senator Karl E. Mundt, June 23, 1954 479 (i)
83. Statement from Inspector General to Secretary of the Army Rob-
ert T. Stevens, May 11, 1954 485 585
84. Draft of letter from Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the
Army, to Mr. Ray H. Jenkins, special counsel. Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, May 11, 1954 485 (i)
85. Draft of letter from Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the
Army, to Mr. Ray H. Jenkins, special counsel. Permanent
Subcommittee on investigations. May 11, 1954 486 (i)
86. Letter from Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army, to
Mr. Ray H. Jenkins, special counsel. Senate Permanent Sub-
committee on Investigations, May 13, 1954 488 (*)
87. Memorandum from Lt. John F. T. Murray to Gov. Wilber M.
Brucker, March 24, 1955 506 513
■ May be found in the flies of the subcommittee.
AKMY PEESONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO
IMim PERESS
THUBSDAY, MARCH 24, 1955
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations of the Committee
ON Government Operations,
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met at 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in room 318,
the caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator John L. Mc-
Clelhm (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators John L. McClelLan (Democrat), Arkansas;
Henry M. Jackson (Democrat), Washington; Stuart Symington
(Democrat), Missouri; Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Democrat), North Caro-
lina; Joseph E. McCarthy (Kepublican), Wisconsin; Karl E. Mundt
(Kepublican), South Dakota; George H. Bender (Republican), Ohio.
Present also: Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel; Donald F.
O'Donnell, chief assistant counsel; James N. Juliana, chief counsel
to the minorit;^ ; J, Fred McClerkin, legal research analyst ; Paul J.
Tierney, investigator ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.
(Present at the convening of the hearing are Senators McClellan,
McCarthy, and Bender.)
The Chairman. Mr. Adams, will you be sworn, please, sir ?
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcoiiimittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Adams. I do.
The Chairisian. Be seated, please.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN G. ADAMS, GENERAL COUNSEL OF THE
DEPAETMENT OF THE ARMY
The Chairman. Wliat is your present position, Mr. Adams ?
Mr. Adams. General Counsel of the Department of the Army.
The Chairman. "Wlien did you become General Counsel of the De-
partment of the Army ?
Mr. Adams. I was appointed Counselor of the Department of the
Army on October 1, 1953, and the title of the position was changed
on March 1, 1955, so I have held this position continuously since
1953, with the change in the name of the position about 6 months ago.
The Chairman. The change of name did not change in any way
your duties ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
The Chairman. Or your functions?
427
428 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
The Chairman. I see. All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adams, what was the first contact you had with
this case of Irving Peress ?
Mr, Adams. The first contact I had with the case of Irving Peress
was on the 4th of January 1954, at which time I received a telephone
call from Mr. Cohn, the chief counsel of the McCarthy subcommittee,
in which he stated to me that there was in the Army at Camp Kilmer
a medical or dental officer, or an individual who was taking medical
training, who was a Communist, or was a subversive, and who was
known to the general in command at Camp Kilmer.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he mention his name to you at that time?
Mr. Adams. He did not. He indicated to me that he did not know
his name.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you identify this document, please?
Mr. Adams. This document is a memorandum prepared by me on
the 4th of January 1954, and sent to the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2,
General Trudeau, the Chief of Intelligence.
This is a photostat of that document.
The Chairman. The document will be made exhibit 76.
Will you read the document, Mr. Adams ?
Mr. Adams (reading) :
4 January 1954.
Memorandum for the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, i)ersonaI for General Trudeau.
1. By telephone today, Roy Cohn, of the McCarthy committee told me that
there is a major on duty at Camp Kilmer, N. J., who is a member of the Communist
Party. He said that the commanding general at Camp Kilmer knows the man's
name, and that the man is either a medical officer or has had medical training.
2. Also by telephone today, Cohn advised me that there was a major on duty
in Washington who is a member of the Communist Party and whose affiliations
were known to General Partridge at the time General Partridge was G-2. The
officer has since been promoted to lieutenant colonel and is now on duty in the
Pacific area. Cohn indicated that you are familiar with this case.
3. Can we discuss the two foregoing subjects personally?
(Signed) John G. Adams,
Department Counselor.
Copy to the Chief of Staff.
That was classified confidential at tlie time it was written and
declassified by me before being given to this committee staff.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the first contact you had on the case of
Irving Peress ?
Mr. Adams. That is the first recollection I have of ever having
heard of the case of Irving Peress.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to General Trudeau after sending that
memorandum to him ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, either that day or the next day General
Trudeau walked into my office carrying that memorandum in his hand.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time did you discuss with General Trudeau
as to what disposition was being made of Irving Peress ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. General Trudeau had the memorandum in
his hand and stopped by on his way to another appointment only for
the purpose of telling me. His statement was something to this
effect, and I don't quote him exactly :
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 429
He said this fellow at Kilmer, we know about him, he is being
put out of the Army. That was the substance of the conversation.
I do not recollect that he stated the name Peress to me at the time.
Mr. Kennedy, Did you notify Colin on that date ?
Mr. Adams. 1 am not sure tliat it was that day, but in a telephone
conversation very shortly thereafter, I told Mr. Cohn that informa-
tion substantially.
I think, paraphrasing what I said, it was something to the effect
that that fellow at Camp Kilmer, "the doctor that you spoke to me
about, we know about him. The Army is on top of it and he is being
put out of the Army."
Mr. Kennedy. l^Hiat was the next contact that you can recollect
that you had regarding the Peress matter ?
Mr. Adams. Either on the 26th or 27th of January, Frank Carr,
the staff director of the committee, telephoned me.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he request you at that time to have Irving
Peress, or make Irving Peress ready to appear before the subcom-
mittee. Is that right ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, his call, he said, "We want this fellow to appear
before the subcommittee in New York, at the courthouse in Foley
Square, on this coming Saturday, which would be January 30." He
gave me the man's name. My recollection is that I didn't know who
it was, and he told me then, "This is the fellow that you told us was
being put out of the Army. He hasn't been put out of the Army
and now we want him."
That, to my recollection, was the conversation. He stated also that
he wanted assurance from me that the man would attend, because if
he would not attend voluntarily, or if the Army could not produce
him, he wanted to know it. I told him that unless he heard from
me to the contrary, delivery of the man as a witness was guaranteed.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the first time that you knew or heard from
any member of the staff, or hear the name of Irving Peress. Is that
right?
Mr. Adams. That is my recollection. General Trudeau has a recol-
lection that when he walked into my office on the 4th of January he
mentioned the man's name. But I have no independent recollection
thiat he did. My recollection is that his name was first known to me
on January 26 or 27 and is borne out by my clear recollection of
the fact that I had to ask Carr who he was.
Mr. Kennedy. On January 28, did you call General Zwicker at 4
o'clock in the afternoon and tell him to prepare Irving Peress to appear
before the committee, the subcommittee, on the 30th of January ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, I think General Zwicker has made a
memorandum on that telephone call, and it has been made a part of
the record, as exhibit 71, already.
The Chairman. Do you want the witness to identify it ?
Mr. Kennedy. I don't think so.
You did call him and you told him to prepare Irving Peress for an
appearance before the committee ?
Mr. Adams. The telephone record in my office substantiates there
was a call from me to General Zwicker on that date and that is the only
thing I was to call him about.
430 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify this document, please ?
(Document handed to the witness.)
Mr. Adams. This is a photostatic copy of a memorandum for the
Chief of Staff prepared by me on the 29th of January 1954, in which I
make complaint about the slowness with which Peress was proce,ssed
out of the Army.
The Chairman. That may be made exhibit 77.
Mr. Kennedy. You mentioned in that memorandum the fact that
you had heard from the staff of Senator McCarthy's committee re-
garding; Irving Peress, and that under the system then in effect m the
Army that there was a 90-day period for a security risk to elect to get
out of the Army, and you protested that policy. Is that correct ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. Would you like to have the memorandum
read?
The Chairman. It is not necessary, I don't believe, to read it. It is
made a part of the record.
Mr.. Kennedy. That summarizes it, my statement, does it?
The Chairman. The committee has copies of it. You may state in
substance what the memorandum does.
Mr. Adams. There is one incident which motivated or caused this
that I discussed with you.
The Chairman. Eead it in the record.
Mr. Adams (reading) :
Memorandum For the Chief of Staff.
About 2 months ago I received informal communications from members of
Senator McCarthy's staff that they had Ivuowledge of a dental officer at Camp
Kilmer, N. J., who was a known Communist, and that his wife also was a Com-
munist. Informally as a result of those facts, I called the matter to the atten-
tion of G-2 to inquire as to whether there was anything underway directed
toward separating the officer from the Army. I later learned that the officer's
name was Maj. Irving E. Peress, 1893643, D. C. Again informally I was advised
that his separation was underway, and I so stated to members of Senator Mc-
Carthy's staff.
I was yesterday requested by Senator McCarthy's staff to make Major Peress
available for interrogations on Satvirday morning, January 30, 1954, at the
United States courthouse in New York. On receipt of this request I again
inquired of G-2 as to what had been done about separating the individual.
An examination of Army files indicated that a determination was made to
separate the individual from the service, but it does not appear that the decision
was made on the basis of his known Communist affiliations. The indications
given to me are that it was decided to separate him on 90 days notice, after he
had 12 months of service. This would mean that his separation is to be effected
as of March 31, 1954.
This brings immediately to attention the problem of whether present policy
should be reexamined, particularly with reference to the advisability of permit-
ting a period of additional service for individuals whose separation from active
service for security reasons is indicated.
(Signed) John G. Adams.
I wrote this memorandum as a result of conversations I had on the
afternoon that I received Mr. Carr's telephone call, conversations
with people in the Army Staff, at which time I was complaining
because he was still in the Army after I knew that I had told Mr. Cohn
some weeks previously that he had been separated, or that he was to
be separated, and I thought immediately.
Senator Bender. You testified, Mr. Adams, that this call was made
to you on January 4, but you were not conversant or familiar with
the name Peress until about January 28. Is that correct ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 431
Mr. Adams. That is my recollection. I have no independent recol-
lection of the name Peress having been identified with this case to me
prior to the time Mr. Carr called me on January 27.
Senator Bender. Mr. Chairman, I recall on the first day of these
hearings that there was some mention made of a top level conference
with the Attorney General, attended by you, and I think Secretary
Stevens, and 2 or 3 others.
Mr. Adams. That was on January 21.
Senator Bender. And some description, it was described as a con-
spiracy, or in some such fashion. Do you recall at that meeting that
you had with the x^ttorney General and Secretary Stevens, and I
think Mr. Adams of the White House, that the Peress name came up
during that discussion ?
Mr. xVdams. No, sir; it did not. I testified before the Mundt com-
mittee on page 1059 as to the substance of that meeting, and my testi-
mony preceded the time that the Presidential directive was published.
In my testimony I stated that two subjects were discussed at the
meeting on January 21 in the Attorney General's office. I identified
those two subjects as being the ultimatum by Senator McCarthy re-
quiring the appearance of Army Loyalty Board members, and the
Army's problems with reference to Private Schine and how the two
matters seemed related.
Those were the 2 subjects I testified as being discussed and those
were the 2 subjects discussed. The name of Peress did not come
into the matter because the name of Peress was not known to me.
The meeting was not a conspiracy, with reference to calling off the
Peress hearing, and it was not a conspiracy to call off' the Fort Mon-
mouth hearings, and it was not a conspiracy to attack Senator Mc-
Carthy. It was exactly as I described it, and nothing else.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr, Counsel.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adams, you are familiar with the Army policy,
were you not, to release security risks under the involuntary release
program ?
(Senator Symington entered the room.)
Mr. Adams. I w^as at that time, you say, sir ?
Mr. Kennedy. Were you ?
Mr. Adams. I was not very familiar with it; no, sir. It was not
something that I ordinarily would have known much about.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you on the Army Policy Council ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I attended Army Policy Council meetings.
Mr. IvENNEDY. And did you attend the meeting on September 9,
1953? ^ 1 ,
Mr. Adams, I did not, sir, because I was not appointed until
October 1.
Mr. KJENNEDY. You were not familiar with that policy that was set
up on that date ?
Mr. Adams. That is right, and I was not familiar with it. I might
say, sir, I may have had a familiarity with it because it may have
been in a document which crossed my desk but I did not have a
detailed knowledge of it.
Mr. Kennedy, And the Secretary did not discuss that with you,
the policy that had been set up at that time?
60030— 55— pt. 6 2
432 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Adams. I have no independent recollection tluit the matter was
discussed with me.
Mr. Kennedy. To go back, then, on your next contact with the
Peress matter, it was the 1st of February. Is that rights I think
January 29 we have discussed that memorandum, and then the next
contact was on February 1. Is that right ?
Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, before we get on to that, between the date of
January 28, and February 3, did you make any telephone calls to
General Zwicker, or anybody at Camp Kilmer?
Mr. Adams. The only call that I now recall is the call on January 28
to ask for his appearance.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, during the dates of January 29, through Feb-
ruary 3, did you make any calls to Camp Kilmer ?
Mr. Adams. I have no recollection of any, and I don't tliink that
I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you searched your record to find out?
Mr. Adams. I think so. I think I have given you a memorandum
which indicates there is nothing in the record to support any calls.
Mr. Kennedy. Then on February 1, Mr. Adams, you learned of the
fact that Irving Peress was to be separated on the following day,
rather than on March 31 ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ; sometime during the day of February 1.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you recollect how you learned that information ?
Mr. ADA]\rs. I don't have a recollection, and I have had many con-
ferences in the Pentagon in an attempt to determine exactly how I did
find out, and I don't know. We assume that I found out from some
officer in G-1, Personnel, sometime during the afternoon.
My telephone record indicates many telephone conversations with
many people, anyone of whom might have known about it, and some-
one of those people probably told me. Wliich one, I don't know.
Mr. Kennedy. But you did have that information to that effect?
Mr. Adams. I think I had it by the end of that day.
Mr. Kennedy. And you did not get that information directly from
Camp Kilmer ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have, or do you recollect having any conver-
sations with General Zwicker regarding the discharge of, the immedi-
ate discharge of Irving Peress?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you recollect having any conversations with Gen-
eral Zwicker requesting him to ask that Irving Peress move his dis-
charge date up from March 31 ?
Mr. Adams. Definitely not. I was sui-prised when I found out
Peress hadn't been out.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, on that date, February 1, Mr. Adams, you
received a letter, or the letter addressed to Secretary of the Army
Stevens which came to your attention ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, that letter has already been made
an exhibit to the record, and it is exhibit 64.
The Chairman. That is the letter from Senator McCarthy to Sec-
retary Stevens?
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 433
The Chairman. Do you want the witness to refer to it ?
Mr, Kennedy. Do you have it in front of you?
Mr. Adams. I have a copy of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember about approximately what time
you received the letter?
Mr. Adams. The letter, a photostatic copy of the letter was brought
into my office sometime around 4:30 in the afternoon by Col. C. O.
Bruce, who was one of the aides to the Secretary.
The Chairman. May I ask the witness if exhibit 64 now before
you, if you identify it as a photostatic copy of the letter that you
received ?
Mr. Adams. I haven't time to read the full three pages to see if
it is an exact replica, but it looks like it, and it looks like the one I
have in front of me.
The Chairman. It appears to be?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. It arrived in your office sometime around 4 : 30 in
the afternoon of February 1 ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir; it did.
Mr. Kennedy. After reading the letter, Mr. Adams, did you take it
then to General Weible's office ?
Mr. Adams. I had a conference going on in my office at the time,
and I received a communication through the interphone system from
Colonel Bruce advising me of the letter, and asking me what should
be done with it. I asked him to bring it to me.
He came down and interrupted the conference and put it on my
desk. I left then. I concluded the conference which took about an-
other half an hour, and at about 5 o'clock I picked up the letter, 5 or
5 : 15, or thereabouts, and I think I called General Weible on the
interphone and asked him if I could come up and see him — ^his
office is directly above mine — and in a few moments I went up to his
office.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you go to General Weible's office?
Mr. Adams. Well, the letter referred to court-martial, which is
military justice, which is under the Judge Advocate General, and it
referred to intelligence matters, which is under the G-2, and it re-
ferred to personnel matters, and it was a personnel problem which is
under the G-1, and all three of those offices had to be consulted, un-
less I consulted the superior of that office, which General Weible was.
He was an officer with whom I often dealt very informally and very
regularly, and who was in charge of administration of all three of
those agencies. I went to him as a natural matter.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there a civilian Assistant Secretary of the
Army available at the time ?
Mr. Adams. There was in town. Assistant Secretary Slezak was the
ranking Assistant Secretary, and I was in conference with the Assist-
ant Secretary Roderick at the moment the letter came, and he was
new and he had been there just a few weeks, and the Assistant Secre-
tary Milton, who was in charge of manpow^er and personnel, was also
available.
Mr. Kennedy. Why didn't you go to one of them?
434 ARIMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Adams. I didn't go to one of them because it just seemed logical
to me to go General Weible, and matters of that sort were always
being referred to me.
Mr. Kennedy. Wasn't this
Mr. Adams. I deal with these matters directly with Secretary
Stevens and the staff.
ISIr. Kennedy. This was a letter from a Senator requesting certain
information and it did not occur to you that it would be better to take
that up with one of the Assistant Secretaries as long as the Secretary
of the Army himself was not in town ?
Mr. Adams. No; it was an area of my responsibility, because it had
to do with the committee. I could have taken it up with one of them
and I did not. There was nothing wrong in not taking it up with
one of them.
Mr. Kennedy. But you felt that at that time it was best to take it
up
Mr. Adams. I took it to the place I thought I should take it.
The Chairman. I believe the witness said, too, he felt it was his
responsibility by reason of the position you held, I assume ?
Mr. Adams. That is right. These things were handled by me for
Secretary Stevens.
The Chairman. In other words, if it had come to an Assistant
Secretary, what j'ou mean to imply is that he would likely have re-
ferred it to you anyhow ?
Mr. Adams. He probably would have called me in. During that
period of January 1954 all of us were terribly busy, and I had another
problem which had to do with the McCarthy committee, having to do
with the Loyalty Board ultimatum. I have discussed that a good deal
with Assistant Secretary Slezak, who was the Acting Secretary of the
Army in the absence of Mr. Stevens, and there being no Under Secre-
tary at that moment.
The Chairiman. Now, his being Acting Secretary, in the absence of
Mr. Stevens, it didn't occur to you that it would be proper for you to
submit the matter to him for a decision because this letter was ad-
dressed to the Secretary ?
Mr. Adams. Well, at that time, matters of this sort which I was
taking to Mr. Slezak, he was terribly busy and I was terribly busy,
and generally I was touching down with him and saying "Here is
what has occurred, and here is how I think it should be handled,"
and usually he said, "All right."
There was a complete meeting of the minds on the way we were
handling these things. It did not occur to me to take t^his to Mr.
Slezak.
Mr. Kennedy. What you were looking for was some technical in-
formation so that you, yourself, could make a decision as to what
should be done ?
Mr. Adams. Not quite that. The decision had already been made
witli reference to Peress, you see, and here was a letter which came in
at about the time that the man was going out of the Army. I took
it to General Weible, and we discussed the two subjects which seemed
to be raised by the letter.
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat was the reason, if the decision had already been
made, what was the reason to go to General Weible ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 435
Mr. Adams. Here is a letter; one usually takes a letter from a Mem-
ber of Congress or a Senator, to other people to discuss, or he makes
the decision independently. I took the matter to General Weible, and
we discussed (1) the suggestion that he could be court-martialed be-
cause of the fact that he liad used the fifth amendment in refusing to
answer questions, or (2) whether or not there was any evidence other
than what was available to the Army.
Mr. Kennedy. There was no discussion at that time with General
Weible as to what disposition should be made of Peress as far as
changing the date of discharge ?
Mr. Aj)ams. Well, the discussion was General Weible nor I in our
conversations since that date have been able precisely to nail down
what any one of us said, or any one sentence, but there was a meeting
of the minds.
We both agreed that it was fundamental that the mere asserting of
tlie fifth amendment, or the taking of a constitutional privilege, was
not in itself grounds sufficient on which to court-martial an individual.
We were agreed as to that. This was a letter which basically proposed
that we try the man because he had used the fifth amendment.
We evaluated that suggestion and found it wanting.
Mr. Kennedy. But then, as the decision had already been made to
release Irving Peress. there was nothing that you could do as far as
court-martialing him anyway ?
(Senator Mundt came into the room.)
Mr. Adams. That is not quite so. Insofar as court-martial is con-
cerned, that is a military action taken by military officials. The mili-
tary commander who makes the decision to court-martial an individual
must sign the charges, and somebody on some level must sign the
charges. Obviously, what General Weible had for decision was
whether or not he or any of his subordinates could sign any charges
which would be sustained.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, General Gruenther is coming
before Armed Services Committee this morning, and I have just had
word he is about ready to testify. May I ask the witness a couple of
questions before leaving ?
The Chairiman. You may proceed.
Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, as counsel for the Army, you went
to General Weible with respect to whether or not he should be court-
martialed. That is primarily a legal matter, is it not ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ; it is a legal matter.
Senator Symin(jton. Therefore, it really was not necessary to go
there except to advise him what your legal opinion was. Is that
correct ?
Mr. Adams. Partially so, but also no civilian can institute a court-
martial action, you see. It is a military action. I took the suggestion
to General Weible because it was something we both should discuss.
Senator Sy3iington. Well, if Secretary Stevens was out of the
country, and you wanted a decision beyond your legal position, you
would normally go to the Acting Secretary of the Army, woulcl you
not?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Now, I have one other question : Inasmuch as
Senator McCarthy, who was chairman of this committee in the Senate,
had written a letter requesting a court-martial of this major, regard-
436 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
less of whether or not you did or did not court-martial him, do you
not think it would liave shown more respect for the Senate's position
if you had not released him from the sei-vice at that time?
Mr. Adams. Well, I think if Mr. Stevens had been here, he would
liave held up the separation for a few days. He has stated to me that
he would have. He has stated also that undoubtedly the man would
have been separated anyway. It is just a question of judgment.
Senator Symington. Did Mr. Slezak get a chance to act for Mr.
Stevens along the line Mr. Stevens lias expressed ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir; he did not.
Senator Symington. I have no further questions.
Mr. Kennedy. When you went to General Weible's office, did you
discuss the information that was available to the Army regarding
Irving Peress, the derogatory information?
Mr. Adams. You mean the man's loyalty security file?
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
Mr. Adams. We did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss wliat information was available or
what information the committee had regarding Irving Peress?
Mr. Adams. I think what we discussed divides into two parts.
After we had put aside the question as to whether or not lie could be
tried merely because he had asserted the fifth amendment and we had
decided he could not, we then
Mr. Kennedy. I don't want to move on to the second thing too fast,
Mr. Adams, because how could you make tliat decision until you dis-
cussed whatever information there was available on him other than
the fact he took the fifth amendment ?
Mr. Adams. Well, I said we discussed whether or not the taking of
the fifth amendment and asserting of a constitutional privilege in itself
was a trial offense and we decided it was not. We then moved on to
the subject of what information was available.
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
Mr. Adams. And the basic question in General Weible's mind, sum-
marizing, w'as this : "VN'liat do jou have from Senator McCarthy, and
summarizing my answer, we lune this letter. We also had my evalu-
ation, and I don't remember tlie words, that this was all we would get.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you state that was all you would get?
Mr. Adams. It was based upon my experience Avith Senator ]\Ic-
Carthy, and the ISIcCarthy committee over the past few months.
Senator McCarthy had begun to refuse to \et us have executive tran-
scripts for examination, and that had occurred sometime in mid-De-
cember, or mid-November, and subsequent to that time, although there
had been executive hearings we had not succeeded in getting the
executive transcripts. Even on occasions when I might have been
present as an obseiYer, we were unable subsequently to get the tran-
scripts, and I was not present over about 25 percent of the time. So
I felt that we would not get the executive transcript.
Senator McCarthy. You were invited to be present at all liearings,
were you not, Mr. Adams ?
Mr. Adams. I was invited to be present.
Senator McCarthy. And you were informed fully by the staff as
to what we were doing if it had anything to do with the military ?
Mr. Adams. I was informed by the staff as to who was being inter-
rogated and I was not always informed as to what you were doing
ARJVn.' PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 437
about anything; having to do with the military, and I did not know
what the'committee investigations were, and I did not
Senator McCarthy. You were invited to be present ?
Mr. Adams. I was invited to be present and I was not present on
many occasions, and subsequent to about the 15th of November, the
Army was refused permission to have executive transcripts. AVe
weren't getting them.
Senator McCarthy. Let us get the record straight. You were told
that you would have to pay for the transcripts if you wanted them,
but we would not pay for them any longer ?
Mr. Adams. No ; let us get the record straight ; we were not told that.
Senator McCarthy. Up to that time?
Mr. Adams. It wasn't a question of dollars. It was a question of
anger. You were sore at us and would not give us the transcripts.
Senator McCarthy. Let us get this straight, Mr. Adams, up until
sometime late in 1953, we were paying for the transcripts and giving
them to you at our cost. You were then told that we couldn't afford to
do that any more, and that our budget would not allow it, aiul you
would have to pay for the transcripts. You said that youl would take
it up with. I think, jNIr. Stevens, or someone, and decide whether you
would receive the transcripts and pay for them. Is that not a fact ?
Mr. Adams. I am sorry, Senator ; that is not the fact.
Senator McCarthy. It so happens it is.
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. Counsel.
Mr. Ejennedy. Now, Mr. Adams, you felt that you could not get any
further information from the McCarthy committee. Is that right ?
Mr. Adams. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. And you felt that even though this letter came in
from Senator McCarthy requesting that Irving Peress be court-mar-
tialed, that it was not worth waiting at least for another day or so to
make the request for the further information because you were so cer-
tain that you would not get it ?
Mr. Adams. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You didn't think ?
Mr. Adams. I had a very difficult experience with the McCarthy
committee during the previous month.
Mr. I^nnedy. As I understand it, it was some personal difficulties
that you and the Secretary had with the conunittee. Is that right ?
Mr. Adams. No ; I don't think is was personal difficulties, and it was
fully aired in this room last summer. It was an accumulation of
events, and the most serious one, of course, had been the refusal of the
Army to let its Loyalty Board members be subpenaed.
That had occurred on the 20th of January. As a result of that, I
had interviewed certain members of the committee and that had oc-
curred on the 21st and 22d and that had made Senator McCarthy
quite angi"y, and members of the staff.
Senator McCarthy. Did you mean, jNIr. Adams, that you felt that
even though we wrote a letter asking for the court-martial of Peress.
that we would not give you the information which w^e had about Peress
to back this up, and that was the reason why you recommended that
there be no court-martial?
Mr. Adams. I didn't recommend that there be no court-martial.
Senator McCarthy. You can't mean that. Do you want the record
to stand that way ?
438 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Adams. Let us have the question again.
Senator McCarthy. Do you mean that you felt that even though
we wrote a letter asking for a court-martial of Peress, we would re-
fuse to give the information on wliich we felt he should be court-
martialed, and that because you felt that way you made no attempt
to get it, and went up to Weible and recommended that he not be
court-martialed. Is that right ?
Mr. Adams. The question is too long. Let us have the question
broken down, and I don't quite follow.
The Chairman. You can break your answers down, and if you
can't follow it, we will have it read again.
Mr. Adams. Read the question again.
The Chairman. The question is long, but I think you can break
down the answers to different parts of it.
Read the question.
(The reporter read the quevStion.)
]\Ir. Adams. I didn't recommend to General Weible that he not be
court-martialed. We agi'eed that he could not be court-martialed
solely because he asserted the fifth amendment.
The other matter had to do with whether or not there was evidence
available, and both General Weible and I were aware of the fact that
the Army had processed this case for a long time, and had an intelli-
gence file on the man. The only problem before us was whether or
not there would be forthcoming from the McCarthy committee any-
thing in addition to what the Army already had. I didn't think there
would be.
Senator McCarthy. You were invited to be present at the execu-
tive sessions, at which Peress appeared, were you not?
Mr. Adams. I was.
Senator McCarthy. You refused to come?
Mr. Adams. I didn't refuse to come. I was busy and couldn't
make it.
Senator McCarthy. You didn't come ?
Mr. Adams. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. Who refused you transcripts of executive
sessions ?
Mr. Adams. I got them from nobody, and it was Mr. Cohn and Mr.
Carr, and associated with regularity.
Senator McCarthy. "V\^o refused to give them to you? Did you
ask for any ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. You mean of the Peress hearing ?
Senator McCarthy. Any executive sessions.
Mr. Adams. Oh, yes, subsequent to November 13, about the time that
Secretary Stevens said there was no espionage at Fort Monmouth, our
source of executive transcripts was cut off.
Senator McCarthy, Tell me, who refused to give them to you?
Mr. Adams. I was told by Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr that I could no
longer get them and the decision was yours.
Senator McCarthy. And you were allowed to attend the executive
sessions after that?
Mr. Adams. I was, from time to time, and there were very few sub-
sequent to that time.
Senator McCarthy. You were invited to attend all of them, were
you not?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 439
Mr. Adams. I think so. I did not, and when I did not I did not get
the transcripts.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams, did it not occur to you that in view
of the seriousness of this case, in view of the fact that Peress was guilty
of a Federal offense which called for up to 5 years' imprisonment, that
before you proceeded to assume that you could not get information
that you should pick up the phone and call me and say, "McCarthy,
what information do you have, and what will you give us?"
You could have done it very easily, and you and I got along all
right.
Mr. Adams. Your question says that Peress was guilty of a Federal
offense and that I knew it. I don't know what Federal offense you
are speaking of that he was guilty of that I knew about at that time.
Senator McCarthy. You do know about it now ?
Mr. Adams. What Federal offense are you speaking of ?
Senator McCarthy. Do you know about any Federal offense now ?
Mr. Adams. Wliat Federal offense are you speaking of that I knew
that he was guilty of at that time and that you also knew he was guilty
of at that time ?
Senator McCarthy. I am asking you if you know now of any Fed-
eral offense he was guilty of ?
Mr. Adams. You weren't asking me. Wliat were you asking me to
begin with ?
Senator McCarthy. Well, I will ask you the question, and listen
carefully. Are you aware that he was guilty of a Federal offense ?
Mr. Adams. Was I aware at that time ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Adams. No, were you ?
Senator McCarthy. Are you aware now ?
Mr. Adams. I am aware now that he committed an offense haying
to do with a falsification of a form. I wasn't aware of it at that time,
and the Army wasn't aware of it at that time, and you weren't aware
of it at that time.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you very much.
Now, do you know
The Chairman. May the Chair say to the witness, I don't know
whether you could testify as to what a member of the committee is
aware of or not, and I believe that you had better confine, or it would
be better to confine your remarks to what you knew at that time.
Mr. Adams. Very well, sir.
The Chairman. I don't know whether he was or not.
Mr. Adams. I think we are discussing the form 390, which was
never known to anybody until the Army found it 3 or 4 months later.
The Chairman. It can't be said it wasn't known to the Army be-
cause it was in the Army's possession from the time that he executed
it and submitted it in connection with his application for a commis-
sion.
Now, some members of the Department of the Army, and some of
the personnel, including you and including the Secretary, and includ-
ing many others, did not know about the form at that time. That
may be true. But certainly the Army had Imowledge of it because
it was delivered to the Army and in the Army's possession and re-
mained there.
60030 — 55— pt. 6 3
440 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Adams. Perhaps I should have qualified it to say the responsi-
ble officials who would have acted on it did not have it in their posses-
sion because it was routed to the wrong repository.
The Chairman. That is a little better.
Senator McCarthy. Just so the record will be straight, we received
Peress 201 file in January and we knew the minute we got that file that
he w^as guilty of this offense. Whether Mr. Adams
Mr. Adams. Will you say it again, something about the 201 file.
Senator McCarthy. I was just correcting a misstatement that you
made. I said we knew in January when we got the file that he was
guilty of this offense.
Mr, Adams. You got his file in January, and the 390 was not in the
201 file.
Senator McCarthy. We received the file in January, and we knew
then that he was guilty of this offense.
Mr. Adams. Of what offense ?
Senator McCarthy. You should have known it — the one you just
mentioned — giving false information which calls for up to 5 years'
imprisonment in a Federal penitentiary. If you didn't know it, you
should have known it. It was in the files. It represents carelessness
on your part.
Mr. Adams. The 201 file, Senator, was not seen by me prior to Feb-
ruary 1, and I think it was not seen by your committee until subse-
quent to February 1.
Senator McCarthy. If you will look at this chart that Mr. Ken-
nedy had prepared, you will find that information was known to re-
sponsible officials, or maybe I should say irresponsible officials, for
some time.
Mr. Adams. I am told that that chart does not show that. I am
told it doesn't indicate that. In any event, the 390 was not in the
Peress file, the 201 file at the time you saw it.
Senator McCarthy. Will you answer the question, why didn't you
before deciding that he should not be court-martialed, why didn't you
pick up the telephone — it was very simple — and call me up and say,
"McCarthy, what information do you have upon which you base this
letter"?
Mr. Adams. \Yhy didn't I ?
Senator McCarthy. Wliy didn't you, and you and I were not hav-
ing any fight or anything ?
Mr. Adams. I didn't call up. Senator, because I felt that it would
be fruitless.
Senator McCarthy. You decided?
Mr. Adams. I decided.
Senator McCarthy. Even though I wrote and asked for a court-
martial, and set forth the facts, you decided I would not give you
the facts, and, therefore, you didn't even take the trouble to pick
up a telephone in a matter as serious as this and call me and say,
"McCarthy, what do you have and when can we get it"?
Mr. Adams. I decided that I would get no facts from you, and the
Army got no facts from you, and whatever facts you had you didn't
give to the Department of Justice until October of that year, and
in your own letter to the Department of the Army dated January 14,
1955, you had indicated that the Army had all of the facts you "had,
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 441
because you state this, and this is the second sentence of the last
paragraph of your letter of just 2 months ago. It says :
After all of the facts in regard to Peress' Communist activities were known
to your Department, he was promoted and discharged.
You have admitted here, sir, that you had nothing that we didn't
know.
Senator McCarthy. General Zwicker testified that you did have
all of the facts that we had, and if you did, you had more than the
letter, and you had the testimony of a policewoman from New York.
Mr. Adams. We didn't have the testimony of the policewoman prior
to the 1st of February and yesterday afternoon when you were
interrogating General Zwicker you stated, sir, that you didn't have
it before February 1 either.
Senator McCarthy. Now, Mr. Adams, let us get this straight.
Wlien we had the hearing on the 18th of February, that was after
Peress had been discharged.
Mr. Adams. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. And when this woman testified, Zwicker then
stood up in the audience and said that they had all of the information
which we had, and it was all in the files.
In other words, he said that they had the testimony of this woman.
Mr. Adams. I don't thiiik that he said they had the testimony of
the woman.
Senator McCarthy. I am telling you what he said.
Mr. Adams. I remember what he testified to, and he didn't testify
to that. That was the meeting at which I was present.
Senator McCarthy. It is just another example of what you have
been doing over there.
The Chairman. Let us proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you at the time that this decision was made, Mr.
Adams, review the G-2 file ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir ; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you review the 201 file?
Mr. Adams. No, sir; I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. If you had made the decision at that time to keep
Irving Peress in the Army for another 20 days, you would have had
definitely the testimony of the policewoman, would you not, from
New York?
Mr. Adams. Yes, that testimony came on the I7th of February and
we didn't have it at that time. I might state
Mr. Kennedy. My question is. If you had made a different decision
and had decided that Irving Peress should not have been discharged,
then you would have had this further information regarding his
Communist background ?
Mr. Adams. That is correct, but we had no way of knowing that
18 days later something else would come in.
Mr. Kennedy. Well, the only thing that you would have known
would have been that you have received a letter on February 1, asking
that he be court-martialed. Now, if you made the decision at that
time that there might be some basis to it and followed the letter up,
you would have kept Irving Peress in the Army and ultimately yoa
would have found out that you had enough information?
Mr. Ad \ms. Well, of course
442 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. Is that right?
Mr. Adams. That is an argumentative sort of a question,
Mr. Kennedy. It is not an argumentative sort of a question ; is it
the fact or not? Would you, if you had kept Irving Peress in the
Army for 20 more days, have had the testimony of the policewoman?
Mr. Adams. We would, of course.
Mr. Kennedy. Then you would have had that further information
regarding Irving Peress. If you had kept him in the Army for
another month, you would have had the information the committee
then pointed out in a letter that it M-rote to the Department of the
Army, or Justice Department, that it was indication that Irving
Peress had falsely filed his form 390.
Mr. Adams. That was discovered about 3 months later.
Mr. Kennedy. No.
Mr. Adams, Two months later. '
Mr. Kennedy. No ; it was discovered in either early May or the end
of February because it was discovered at the time
Mr. Adams. All right, a month later those two things would have
been discovered if he had been kept ; you are correct.
Mr. Kennedy. If you had made a different decision on that date
and had paid some attention to the letter, then those facts would have
been developed for you.
Mr. Adams. In other words, if I had kept the man based on no facts
that we had
Mr. Kennedy. Now wait a minute-
Mr. Adams. We might have discovered something else.
Mr. Kennedy. How do you know that you had no facts? In the
"first place, you didn't review the G-2 and you didn't review the 201
file, and, in the third place, you never called Senator McCarthy to
find out what facts they had.
Mr. Adams. I didn't review the G-2 file and I didn't review the 201
file for the reason that the Army staff had reviewed them and had
made a decision to terminate the man.
Mr. Kennedy. And that decision was wrong. Now, you are the
one who made the decision and you are basing your decision
Mr. Adams. What decision ?
Mr. Kennedy. The decision to terminate because they did not find
the facts.
Mr. Adams. I thought he was a subversive we wanted to get out of
the service.
Mr. Kennedy. But, Mr. Adams, in one of those files was the form
590, which there is some indication that he falsely filed.
Mr. Adams. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. So the person who reviewed those files in the Army
and made that determination and did not find it made a mistake?
And you compounded the mistake by not reviewing it yourself, and
allowing him to resign the following day ?
Mr. Adams. I regret to disagree with you, Mr. Kennedy, but I did
not compound the mistake by not reviewing the file, for this reason :
If an individual in a position such as mine is to review independently
every action taken by the staff, the first World War II person wouldn t
be out of the Army yet.
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Adams, the only ones that you have to review
are the ones in which somebody made mistakes on.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 443
Mr. Adams. How are you going to know in advance where mistakes
are made?
Mr. Kennedy. That is why you are up here today. That is your
responsibility and you have got to pick the ones where the mistakes
were made, Mr. Adams.
Mr. Adams. I think we had better go back to where I started, then,
and try and revoke every separation, because we had better study them
all. I have no way of knowing any more than you do whether or not
a mistake was made in every one of the thousands of cases of indi-
viduals who were separated.
Mr, Kennedy. You just received a letter, Mr. Adams, making a
statement and requesting that the man be court-martialed, and that
there were some facts available ; nevertheless you went ahead and dis-
charged him, based on reports that you had received from subordinates
that those reports were wrong and you have to take the responsibility.
The Chairman. Let me ask you a question there, Mr. Adams; let
us see if we cannot clear this up.
The fact is when you got the letter your relations with the McCar-
thy committee at that time, and the staff, as you have indicated were
not too pleasant, and when you got that letter you concluded that you
wanted to get the man out of the Army ; and irrespective of the fact
that a chairman of a Senate committee had alerted you to the possi-
bility of that man having been guilty of an offense for which he should
be court-martialed, you made the decision simply to let him be dis-
charged notwithstanding the fact you were alerted to the possibility.
Rather than pui-sue that possibility before letting him be released
from the service, you decided to let the discharge go through ; is that
not correct?
Mr. Adams. Substantially ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right; at that time, had you made a definite
decision on that basis of fact, you could have, by modem communica-
tions, canceled the order for his discharge before he would have been
discharged ; is that not right ? That could have been done ?
Mr. Adams. That could have been accomplished.
The Chairman. There is no reason to say, or you could not say that
you could nor, have gotten on the telephone and ordered General
Zwicker not to discharge him and to disregard the order until further
notice ?
Mr. Adams. That could have been accomplished, Senator.
The Chairman. There is no doubt that the man, after receiving
this letter — you did receive it in time to have held up his discharge?
Mr. Adams. There is no doubt, his discharge could have been held
up if Genera] Weible — if I had asked General Weible to do it un-
doubtedly he would have done it ; and if he hadn't done it I could have
gone to one of the assistant secretaries.
The Chairman. So you take the full responsibility for not holding
up his discharge ? It was your decision, and followed by inaction to
bring about a revoking or cancellation of the orders to discharge him
that permitted him to be discharged at the time he was discharged ?
Mr. Adams. I think the responsibility was as much mine as General
Weible's.
The Chairman. In fact you were making the decision, were you not,
yourself ?
Mr. Adams. No.
444 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. You are the one who actually made the final
decision ?
(Senator Ervin entered the room.)
Mr. Adams. I don't think that is quite true.
The Chairman. Would General Weible not have complied with
any orders you gave him ?
Mr. Adams. Well, I think
The Chairman. If you had said to him "stop this man, stop this
discharge" he would have carried out your instructions ?
Mr. Adams. I think that he would, and he had the authority. I was
in effect an adviser to the Secretary, but had I asked him to he would
have done it ; you are quite correct.
The Chairman. I am not trying to shift any responsibility from
General Weible.
Mr. Adams. I am not trying to shift any from myself, either.
The Chairman. In view of the fact the Secretary was overseas and
was not here for you to consult with, and the fact that you did not
consult with the Acting Secretary during his absence, and the fact
that you received the letter and took the only action on it that was
taken — which amounted to taking inaction and doing nothing about it,
only to let the discharge go on through — it occurs to me and I think
you will agree, that you must take the full responsibility for that
decision and the failure to keep him in the service.
Mr. Adams. I had the last clear chance to close the door and I
didn't do it.
The Chairman. There is no doubt about it?
Mr. Adams. That is right.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator McCarthy. I have just one question. If you had reviewed
the 201 file and the form 390, and if you knew then what you know
today, would you have held up his discharge ?
Mr. Adams. If I had known then what we know today about the
form 390, which was not in the 201 file, we would have held up the
discharge undoubtedly ; if G-2 had known that at the time that the
final decision was made or if General Weible had known on any level,
the man undoubtedly would have been court-martialed. But none of
us knew those facts at the time of the separation.
The Chairman. Where was that form 390 at that time ?
Mr. Adams. It is my recollection and I am not too accurate on this,
that three copies of the form were prepared and that not one of them
reached Intelligence files. One of them went to a repository— am I
correct ?
(Witness consulted with counsel.)
Mr. Adams. There were three copies made. One went to the Selec-
tive Service System which had no jurisdiction over him at all, and
one went to the Adjutant General which is merely a repository of
records, and one went to the Surgeon General, Medical Section which
is his professional qualifications section, and no copy reached Intelh-
gence files. I think Army regulations
The Chairman. Intelligence file is a G-2 file ?
Mr. Adams. That is right.
The Chairman. \Vliat is the 201 file?
Mr. Adams. It is liis personnel file.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 445
The Chairman. That copy, or a copy of the 390 forai was in the
201 file, was it not, at that time ?
(Witness consulted with counsel.)
The Chairman, At the time you made the decision ?
Mr. Adams. I haven't reviewed it since that time, but I am told that
nobody has found that the 390 was in his file at that time.
The Chairman. T think you are going to find that you are mistaken
about that, and the point I am making is simply this : It was in the 201
file and had you looked in the 201 file after receipt of this letter that
alerted you to the fact that the man possibly should be court-martialed
rather than discharged, certainly rather than an honorable discharge —
had you looked in that file and had you reviewed it at all you would
have had the information about the 390 form and his having denied
any connection with any Communist organization ; and by reason of
the fact that he had since taken the fifth amendment it was enough
to arouse a very strong suspicion at least that the man had violated
the law for which he should be punished?
Mr. Adams. Senator, if I may state, if I had looked in the 201
file and the 390 were there, and time had been taken to review it, that
would have been discovered. I had no knowledge that such a thing
might — may I finish, sir — I had no knowledge that such a thing would
be discovered in the 201 file, and Senator McCarthy's letter didn't
suggest that such a thing had occurred.
Tlie Chairman. If the Army could not have any idea that it was
in there, I do not see how you would expect Senator McCarthy to have
any idea it was in there.
Mr. Adams. The point I make. Senator, is that the staff people in
the Army who had the responsibility for evaluating the case had not
discovered it. Having evaluated the case for months they had separ-
ated him as a subversive, apparently on the theory that there was no
grounds to do anything else. There was no ground brought forward
to me independently, in this letter, other than that he took the fifth
amendment, which would give me reason to think that a recheck of
Army files would find something new.
The Chairman. Well, that may be true, and of course we all make
mistakes, but it is just simply is resolved down to this: That you did
have the opportunity, as you say, and you had the last chance to
have prevented this from happening, and because you caniiot take the
care and the precaution to review the case you made a decision without
doing that, and you made a bad decision ; is that not correct ?
Mr. Adams. Everything is correct excepting that I made a bad de-
cision. The man was put out of the Army and he was costing us $700
a month ; he was under surveillance and he was better off out of the
Army. You have said I made a bad decision, and I would like to make
a statement.
The man was put out of the Army and he belonged out of the Army,
and he was a subversive. Had he committed any criminal acts against
the United States such as violating the Espionage Act, he was not
relieved from amenable to trial merely by being out of the military
service; he was still subject to trial by the Department of Justice if
he had violated anything, any sections of title 18. The mere fact of his
separation from the sei^ice didn't change that. Keeping him in the
service was costing the Government $677 a month in salary, plus sur-
veillance.
446 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Since he has been out of the service 1 year has elapsed and the
Department of Justice has not found grounds on which to try him.
The only possible grounds to try the individual which we have devel-
oped in the Army subsequent to the time of his separation was the
falsification of Form 390. There has been no clear legal determina-
tion made on any level that I know of that that would have been a
successful court-martial.
The Chairman. You would not know until you tried it, would
you?
Mr. Adams. That is right.
The Chairman. Here is a case-
Mr. Adams. It is a matter of judgment as to whether the decision
was a bad one.
The Chairman. Here is a case where it obviously should have been
tried.
You speak about costing us $600 or $700 a month to keep Peress
in the service. It has cost a whole more since we got him out, if I
am any judge of expenditures.
All right, Senator McCarthy, did you have a question?
Senator McCarthy. You said he was ordered removed because of
evidence of subversion. Did you know what that evidence was at
the time you talked to Weible ?
Mr. Adams. The day I talked to Weible, no.
Senator McCarthy. You knew that he had been ordered removed
because of subversive activities?
Mr. Adams. I didn't read the file, and I knew he was a security case,
and that the Army
Senator McCarthy. Did you not have enough interest in this to
read the file when you knew that he was a loyalty case and was being
removed because of subversion, before you went up and talked to
Weible?
Mr. Adams. No ; he was a security risk, and he had been separated
from the Army after careful evaluation by the responsible people.
Senator McCarthy. Will you answer my question, John?
Mr. Adams. Let us have the question again.
(Question read by the reporter as above recorded.)
Mr. Adams. Well, I used the wrong word in saying he was removed
for subversion. He was removed as a security risk. That was the
decision made by the Army. I did not read the file.
Senator McCarthy. Do you know what evidence of disloyalty is
in his file now?
Mr. Adams. Do I know now what is in his file at this moment ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Adams. No.
Senator McCarthy. You could read it if you wanted to?
Mr. Adams. I could, yes ; but I have not.
Senator McCarthy. You have not enough interest in it?
Mr. Adams. Now?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Adams. He has been out of the Army a year.
Senator McCarthy. You say he was under your surveillance ; what
do you mean by that ?
Mr. Adams. Subsequent to the time that — I think it was subse-
quent to the time General Zwicker became commander, at about the
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 447
middle of the year 1953, one of the G-2 officers who testified here,
testified that they had, Leverich had requested his superiors to keep
discreet-type surveiUance on him. That is during the rest of his
service at Camp Kilmer.
Senator McCarthy. The doctor in the room next to him was ordered
to look in the room once in a while ; and he was not under surveillance
at night or any time when he was off the post?
Mr. Adams. "When he was off the post, no. He didn't live on the
post and he lived in New York City. He commuted and he came in
in the morning and left in the evening.
Senator McCarthy. And the surveillance was by another doctor
who was working full time and was another dentist ?
Mr. Adams. By his colleagues, I understand.
Senator McCarthy. To try and watch him in the next office?
Mr. Adams. By his colleagues, as I understand ; yes.
Senator Ervin. As I understand, Mr. Adams, when you made the
decision to allow Peress to go out of the Army under the original order,
you had in your possession a letter from Senator McCarthy written
as chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, asking
that he be court-martialed?
Mr. Adams. That is right, sir.
Senator Ervin. You made no response whatever to that letter ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir ; I did not at that time.
Senator Ervin. Well, how long was it after that before you
made a response ?
Mr. Adams. Mr. Stevens answered the letter on about the 16th of
February.
Senator Ervin. Now, at that time, at the time that you made your
decision, to ignore that letter and permit Peress to go out of the Army
under the original order, you knew that the Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations was an agency of the Senate empowered to super-
vise in some way the executive departments of the Government, did
you not ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Ervin. And you knew that Senator McCarthy was the
chairman of that committee?
Mr. Adams. Yes.
Senator Ervin. And notwithstanding that fact, you ignored that
committee because of your personal feeling toward Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Adams. I don't think that is quite correct, Senator.
Senator Ervin. Why did you ignore it then ?
Mr. Adams. In the final analysis, Senator, the executive branch
must ultimately make its own decisions. The determination had been
made to separate this individual as a security risk. The letter came
from Senator McCarthy on the day he was being separated. That is
for reasons already described.
I took it to General Weible, and we seriously considered the matter
and there were three suggestions in the letter. Two of those the
Arniy adopted; one it did not. One of the suggestions was that an
inspector general's investigation go forward, and that did go for-
ward. The second suggestion was that anybody who needed disci-
plining be disciplined, and that was done. The third one was that
the individual be held for court-martial.
60030— 55— pt. 6 — —4
448 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Tlie only grounds given by which the individual should be tried
was because of the fact that he had asserted the fifth amendment and
had refused to answer certain questions. General Weible and I talked
about that, and seriously considered whether there were sufficient
grounds to try the individual by court-martial because he had asserted
the constitutional privilege. We were in agreement that there was
not.
Since there were no grounds to try him on the grounds that he had
asserted the constitutional privilege there remained no reason to
court-martial him on the basis of the facts then before us.
Those things having been considered, and having been decided in
the manner that they were decided, it was also decided to take no
action to postpone the separation.
Senator Ervin. Do you not think that a proper consideration for
an agency of the legislative branch of the Federal Government ought
to have prompted you to at least contact the chairman of the subcom-
mittee on investigations and at least acquaint him with the fact that
that was your final determination before you permitted it to be car-
ried out?
Mr. Adams. That could have been done, Senator, and it was not
done in this case.
Senator Erven. Do you not think that you ought to have done it?
Mr. Adams. Senator, I don't think it would have made any differ-
ence in what we did, or in Senator McCarthy's opinion in what was
going to be done. Senator McCarthy's staff had talked to me regu-
larly during this period and they knew that this action was going to
be taken and they didn't favor the action. I was in very regular con-
tact with the staff and with the Senators, and it had been going on for
a period of months ; and based upon my personal relationship with the
committee and with the chairman this action was taken.
Senator Ervin. That is just exactly what I am talking to you about.
You allowed your personal feelings to cause you to take an action
which showed contempt, did it not, for a coordinate branch of the
Federal Government?
Mr, Adams. You can draw that conclusion if you wish, sir. I didn't
think we were acting contemptuously.
Senator Ervin. 'Is there any other conclusion possible to be drawn ?
Mr. Adams. The basic conclusion is that there was no ground to
court-martial the man.
Senator Ervin. Do you not think that you should have at least
called him and told him. Senator McCarthy, that fact and asked him
if he had any additional information that you did not have in your
possession ?
Mr. Adams. I could have done it. Senator, and I did not. That was
based upon my own evaluation, was a result of months of experience
with this committee.
Now, in hindsight, and a year later, those suggestions can be made.
At that time it seemed like a reasonable matter, and the decision was
made seriously by two reasonable men, and having been made we were
aware of the fact — and I think I stated that this is something that
Senator McCarthy won't like — Senator McCarthy had just discovered
this man one week earlier after the Army had concluded the proceed-
ing and so he moved in and suggested we court-martial him.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 449
Senator Ervin. But you did not care to discover what Senator Mc-
Carthy might have discovered, and you did not make any inquiry of
him to see whether he had any facts in his possession additional to
those that you had ?
Mr. Adams. The facts in his possession, I felt, were outlined in his
letter. And his letter said that the man had taken the fifth amend-
ment. That was the basic problem being considered by General Weible
and me. We did not feel that the asserting of a constitutional privi-
lege was ground successfully to try an individual. That was the basis.
Senator Ervin. That is not the case, Mr. Adams. The question is do
you not think that common courtesy and a proper consideration for an
official agency of the Senate would have at least prompted you to have
communicated with the committee and told the committee of the action
you contemplated taking, and asking if they had any information
which would justify you in taking any other action?
Mr. Adams. Senator, I think that during the day of February 2,
prior to the man's separation, I did have conversation with members
of the Senator's staff, and indicated to them that the man was going
out of the service. If I did not precisely say, "give us additional facts"
perhaps I was derelict, and I didn't say that for the very clear reason
that I didn't expect to get any facts; nor did any member of the
staff say, "we have additional facts."
Senator Ervin. Wliat kind of communication did you have with
the members of the staff of the committee on that day?
Mr. Adams. Telephone conversations.
Senator Ervin. What transpired in the telephone conversations?
Mr. Adams. I think that I talked primarily with Mr. Carr, who was
at that time staff director. And I think that he asked me if the letter
from Senator McCarthy had been received and I think that I told him
it had and he was curious as to whether or not the Army was going to
hold him and I indicated that they were not.
Senator Ervin. Then you say now that you did acquaint the com-
mittee ?
Mr. Adams. As I say I think that Mr. Carr was aware of the ac-
tion.
Senator Ervin. You think, or do you know ? Did you tell him ?
Mr. Adams. Did I tell him that the man was not going to be held ?
Senator Erven. Did you tell Mr. Carr that you were going to ignore
Senator McCarthy's request?
Mr. Adams. Well, as I say I have no clear recollection of telephone
conversations, but there was testimony during the Mundt committee
hearing last year from one of the members, I think Mr. Cohen, in which
he said that Mr. Carr had talked to me a number of times during that
day.
Senator Ervin. I am not talking about that, I am asking what you
told Mr. Carr.
Mr. Adams. I have told you as well as I can remember what our
conversations were.
Senator Ervin. What is it? You said that you think you might
have done it, and do you say positviely you called Mr. Carr and told
him that you were going to ignore the letter?
Mr. Adams. I can't say positively, but that is my recollection, that
Mr. Carr was aware of the fact.
450 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Ervin. Wait a minute, and don't tell me what he was aware
of; tell me what you told him. If you told him anything?
Mr. Adams. I didn't hear your full sentence. What did you say?
Don't tell me what?
Senator Ervin. I do not care what you think Mr. Carr was aware of,
I am asking you what you told him.
Mr. Adams. I can tell you exactly ; I told you
Senator Ervin. Are you swearing that you did communicate by tele-
phone with Mr. Carr on that day ?
Mr. Adams. I am stating that we had telephone conversations on
that date, and I am stating further that the subject of this letter and
the Army action was discussed.
Precisely what he asked me and precisely what I told him, I cannot
tell you. I am quite sure of the fact that it was the subject of discus-
sion. I know positively that at 10 o'clock that night, Senator Mc-
Carthy was aware of the action which had been taken ; or was aware
of at least that Peress had separated from the service. But I cannot
tell you precisely what my conversations were with Mr. Carr, or how
clearly I delineated what was going to be done or what was not going
to be done because I do not remember.
Senator Ervin. In the final analysis all you can remember, Mr.
Adams, is that you did have a phone conversation with Mr. Carr ; and
what you said and what Mr. Carr said you do not remember ?
Mr. Adams. I cannot clearly and precisely state.
Senator Ervin. That is all.
Senator McCarthy. I have 1 or 2 questions.
In answer to Senator Ervin, you stated that I had learned of
the Peress case only 1 week earlier. Do you want to stand on that?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir; if you want me to say yes, because on the
23d of January your people telephoned General Zwicker to ask what
the name of the fellow was.
Senator McCarthy. I have your memorandum here dated January
29, 1954, to the Chief of Staff, and you say "About 2 months ago I
received communications from members of Senator McCarthy's
staff"
Mr. Adams. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. "That they had knowledge of a dental officer
at Camp Kilmer, N. J.," and so on.
So in your memorandum you say 2 months before this you were
warned about this dentist and now you say we only learned of him
a week before. Which is correct, John ?
Mr. Adams. Did you say "John"? I wish you would say Mr.
Adams.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams, certainly.
We will start over, Mr. Adams; wliich answer is true and which
is false? Is the memorandum
Mr. Adams. Every answer I give is true.
Senator McCarthy. Is the memorandum false, then ?
Mr. Adams. The memorandum of January 4 is the first knowledge
that I had that you knew about it ; that you knew about Peress. And
at that time my memorandum didn't indicate that I had a name.
Without reading my file, at the time that I heard on January 29 that
the man was still in the Army, from memory I dictated tliis and
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 451
I said "about 2 months ago." 'Wlien I read my files I found that
it wasn't 2 months ago ; it was about 31^ weeks ago.
So you knew of an individual on the 4th of January; and your
own staff memoranda, testimony before the Watkins committee, and
telephone call to General Zwicker, would indicate that you didn't
even know who the individual was until you asked on January 23
and got his name.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, Mr. Adams, you say your
memorandum was not correct and that you made a mistake there?
Mr. Adams. When I wrote my memo of Januaiy 29 I said I thought
it was about 2 months ago, and when I checked my files I found it
was 31/^ weeks ago.
Senator McCarthy. So your memorandum to the Chief of Staff
was incorrect ; it that right ?
Mr. Adams. No ; it is not incorrect. I have explained it.
Senator McCarthy. Is it correct ?
Mr. Adams. The memorandum was for the purpose of calling atten-
tion to a situation, and I said I thought something was 2 months ago,
and reading the files indicated it was 3 weeks ago.
Senator McCarthy. Can you tell us why he got an honorable dis-
charge ?
Mr. Adams. Wliy Peress got an honorable discharge; I had noth-
ing to do with this type of discharge.
Senator McCarthy. Do you know why he got an honorable dis-
charge ?
Mr. Adams. It was my understanding that an honorable discharge
was the only type of discharge available to an individual going out
under those circumstances, and I had nothing to do with it, however.
Senator McCarthy. Would you say that it would be conduct un-
becoming an officer to appear before a Senate committee and refuse
to give evidence of treason, espionage, or recruiting soldiers under
the military; and would you say that would be conduct unbecoming
an officer?
Mr. Adams. Yes; I think that is conduct unbecoming an officer,
but we evaluated whether or not that would be conduct unbecoming
an officer and sufficient by which he could be court-martialed, and
we decided it was not so.
Senator McCarthy. You can court-martial an officer, I have seen
it done often for conduct unbecoming an officer. If it is conduct
unbecoming an officer he can be court-martialed, is that right?
Mr. Adams. Conduct unbecoming an officer is grounds for court-
martial. However, the asserting of a constitutional privilege, we did
not feel could be considered to be conduct unbecoming an officer in
itself. For that reason we didn't feel he could be tried for that.
I want this clearly understood, Senator, that I don't favor an in-
dividual taking the fifth amendment when he is an officer of the
United States. The reason I had hoped he would be out of the Army
before he testified before your committee is that I didn't want him
to clisgrace the uniform. I think that if he, in answering questions
having to do with loyalty or security, if he asserts the fifth amend-
ment he should not be entitled to the position of trust. I don't think
he should be an officer. I don't favor that.
Senator McCarthy. You gave me two answers. You first said it
was conduct unbecoming an officer to refuse to answer about treason
452 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
and espionage, and so on. Now, within a matter of a minute or two
you say that you talked it over and discussed it with Weible and
decided it was not conduct unbecoming an officer.
Mr. Adams. We decided he could not be successfully tried merely
by reason of the fact he had asserted constitutional privileges.
Senator McCarthy. Was it mere assertion of the constitutional
privilege in regard to treason, espionage, in your opinion, conduct
unbecoming an officer ; and if it was he could be court-martialed ?
Mr. Adams. In my opinion that was conduct for which he should
not have had a continuing commission. Using the words "conduct un-
becoming an officer" presumes or suggests that it is an offense for
which he could be tried. We didn't think it was in itself; asserting
the constitutional privilege.
Senator McCarthy. Conduct unbecoming an officer doesn't mean
he is guilty of any criminal offense, does it ?
Mr. Adams. It is an offense against the Uniform Code of Military
Justice.
Senator McCarthy. Do you think this was an offense ?
Mr. Adams. We didn't think this was an offense on which court-
martial would successfully lie.
The Chairman. Senator Bender, do you have any questions?
Senator Bender. I wonder now if you think that he committed an
offense that he could be tried for ?
Mr. Adams. The additional information which came out subse-
quent to the time he was terminated, having to do with his member-
ship or as a result of testimony of a New York policewoman, would
'give grounds to assume that a successful trial could be brought
against him. I am not sure. The other thing which came out sub-
sequently, and was not known to me, or to the officials in the Army
•who had the responsibility, had to do with the form 390. I under-
stand that there is some doubt as to whether or not a trial would
successfully lie there, but certainly a court-martial would be attempted
for that offense.
As to crimes against the United States, I think that case, that
problem was offered to the Department of Justice, about a year ago,
and I think that the Department of Justice has given you an opinion
on that. Isn't that right. Governor ?
Mr. Brucker. To the chairman of the committee.
Senator Bender. Recently Governor Brucker asked the Depart-
ment of Justice to give us a statement regarding their attitude, or
their position. I understand the offense complained of is the fact
that he signed a false statement ?
Mr. Adams. That is right.
Senator Bender. And under that provision he can be prosecuted;
is that not your opinion ?
Mr. Adams. Well, it is my understanding that that is the ques-
tion which was placed with the Attorney General, and I think at
first the Attorney General indicated he did not want the letter which
gave his answer, released; but I understand that he has now given
clearance, and that letter can be released and it is in the possession
of the chairman of this committee.
Senator Bender. It is now in the possession of the chairman.
Mr. Adams. I understand the Attorney General has rendered a
clear opinion on that.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 453
Senator Bender. How long have you been with the Department
of Defense, Mr. Adams ?
Mr. Adams. Since 1949.
Senator Bender. How long have you had your present position ?
Mr. Adams. Since October of 1953.
Senator Bender. Your contact during your connection with the
Department of Defense has been principally with congressional
committees ?
Mr. Adams. A considerable amount of it, yes, sir.
Senator Bender. And you have handled a good many cases in your
time?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Bender. You were acting on the basis, in this case, on the
strength of what officers in the Army had recommended; is that
correct?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Bender. Had you had any conversations with any su-
periors regarding the manner in which this case was handled at any
time, either at the meeting in January, or before Major Peress was
separated ?
Mr. Adams. No ; as I stated, the January meeting did not refer to
Peress at all. I have no recollection of his name ever coming to my
attention prior to January 27. He was finally separated on the 2d of
February.
The only conversation I had with any officials of the Army concern-
ing him, other than the one conversation with General Trudeau,
was with Lieutenant General Weible on the afternoon of the 1st of
February when we read the letter, evaluated it and decided not to inter-
vene to stop the separation. That was the only conversation I had at
any time.
Senator Bender. Is the Department, or is the Secretary of the Army
or the Secretary of Defense disposed to cover up mistakes that are
made in the handling of any of these matters ?
Mr. Adams. Not to my knowledge, not to my knowledge. I feel
they have made very clear availability of all of the facts, and files
and records.
Senator Bender. That is all.
Mr. Juliana. Mr. Adams, there came a time when the 201 file of
Peress was made available to the subcommittee ; is that accurate ?
Mr. Adams. Yes.
Mr. Juliana. "Who requested the 201 file, if you recall ?
Mr. Adams. I don't remember.
Mr. Juliana. Was it requested of you, to your best recollection ?
Mr. Adams. That I don't remember, either, Mr. Juliana. I have a
note from one of my assistants here saying that the 201 file was hand-
carried to the committee in the middle of February.
Mr. Juliana. Well, I was going to get around to that. We have
searched our records to try to place the date that the 201 file was hand-
carried to our office. It was, and you have just stated that it was.
The 201 file was photostated by a member of the staff of the subcom-
mittee, and Mr. Chairman, I would like to advise, to make the record
clear here, that the files of the subcommittee reflect that the Depart-
ment of Defense Form 390 was in the 201 file when we received it, and
454 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
it was photostated, and it is and has been a part of the record of this
subcommittee ever since.
The Chairman. What date was it received? The Chair did not
catch it.
Mr. Juliana. The date has not been fixed either by the committee or
the Army, but Mr. Adams said that he thinks it may have been in the
middle of February.
The Chairman. May I ask a question ? Can the Army establish the
date that the 201 file was delivered to the committee?
Mr, Juliana. Our assistant back here says it was 12 February when
the 201 file was turned over to the committee.
The Chairman. 12 February ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. If there is any doubt about the form 390 being in
there at the time it was delivered, I think we may be able to develop
that from testimony from staff members. Is there an contention on
the part of the Army
Mr. Adams. I am told by the people who handle it that the 390 was
in the 201 file when it was delivered on 12 February.
The Chairman. There is no question, and there is no issue about
that?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
The Chairman. That is conceded. Let us proceed.
Mr. Juliana. Was form DD390 in the 201 file on January 30, 1954?
Mr. Adams. I don't know, Mr. Juliana. I never saw the 201 file.
Mr. Juliana. I am wondering if we can find that out, Mr. Chair-
man, by the Army ?
The Chairman. I am very sorry, what is the question ?
Mr. Juliana. "Wliether or not r)D390 was in Peress' 201 file on
January 30, 1954, the day Peress testified in New York City ?
The Chairman. Is there anyone present from the Army that can
give us that information ?
Mr. Brucker. I am informed, Mr. Chairman, that there was a state-
ment furnished by the Army on that subject to the staff. If I am
incorrect on it, I hope that I will be corrected now. Is that correct?
Mr. Kennedt. Do you have a copy of it? I think it was on the
question of whether the form 390 was in the 201 file rather than on the
particular date that it might have been there. I think probably that
is right.
(Senator McCarthy left the room.)
The Chairman. In order to expedite this, we can drop this for the
moment. But in the meantime, I will have the staff search and see
wliether the document that was submitted to it covers this point. If
not, then I would request that you have the Department officials
undertake to establish the time for us that the form 390 was placed in
the 201 file.
Mr. Brucker. I will.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Juliana. Mr. Adams, you testified here that you do recall
slightly, a conversation with Mr. Carr concerning Peress on Febru-
ary 1 or 2 ?
Mr. Adams. I think on February 2, but I am not sure.
Mr. Juliana. Do you recall Mr. Carr ever telling you not to honor-
ably discharge Peress.;
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 456
Mr. Adams. No; as I say, I do not recall clearly any substance of
those conversations, and I do recall from reading testimony in the
Mimdt committee, that Mr. Cohn stated that JNIr. Carr said that to
me on the telephone, on the 1st or 2d of February. I don't recall Mr.
Carr testifying to that effect, and I have no clear recollection of such
a conversation.
Mr. Juliana. Do you recall, also, whether or not Mr. Carr told you
at about the same time, February 2, that it would be a big mistake on
your part to discharge Peress from the military ?
Mr. Adams. No ; but I think that is in the Mundt committee testi-
mony as a statement by Mr. Cohn.
Mr. JULLA.NA. That is all.
Mr, Adams. I have no particular recollection.
The Chairman. JSIr. Kennedy, you may proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adams, Secretary Stevens returned from the Far
East on February 3 ; is that right?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And the letter to Senator McCarthy was sent out
by one of your assistants, or one of your assistants went out to meet
him and brought the letter from Senator McCarthy with him ?
Mr. Adams. That is right. He left on the morning of the 2d of
February, with the letter from Senator McCarthy.
Mr. Kennedy. Secretary Stevens returned then on February 5, as
I understand it, and you had a conference with Secretary Stevens in
which you discussed this Peress matter, as well as a number of other
matters.
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time, did you inform Mr. Stevens of your
meeting with General Weible ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Mr. IvENNEDY. And the decision that you had made at that time?
Mr. Adams. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there anything between the dates of February 1
and February 5, that is of importance in this hearing?
Mr. Ada3IS. I think there were conversations with other officials
in the Army about the matter because it became something of a news
item. I don't recall precisely what happened having a l)earing on
that.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, after that, on February 16, was that the next
date of importance ?
Mr. Adams. On February 16
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the next date after February 5 that has
any bearing on this ?
Mr. Adams. Well, I don't know what incident you are referring to.
Mr. Kennedy. On February 10 wlien you visited General Zwicker?
Mr. Adams. I think that the visit to General Zwicker was on Feb-
ruary 17, and I may be wrong; and it is on 1 of those 2 days. Gen-'
eral Zwicker was called to testify before the committee in New York,
and I had received the request and I don't know from whom, from
one of the members of the staff, I tliink; I think it was Mr. Carr, that
General Zwicker be made available to testify. I telephoned General
Zwicker and asked him to appear. I think that he objected a little
bit, and asked for formal instructions, and I talked to the Secretary
60030 — 55— pt. 6 5
456 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
about it, and then prepared a letter to General Zwicker which
amounted to formal instructions, which said something to the effect
that the Secretary of the Army directs you to appear on such and
such a day. I told General Zwicker on the telephone that I would
bring up a letter with me to Camp Kilmer, that I would stop to see
him on my way to New York, because I wanted to talk to him, and
talked to him about the hearing and what he could expect, and to be
sure that he was aware of Army regulations and Executive orders.
Mr. Kennedy. AVas the purpose of your visit to make sure that he
understood the Army regulations and the Executive order regarding
giving classified information to unauthorized sources ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. I knew he knew about the order^ but we
had discovered that there was a great deal of difference within the
Army in various levels as to how it was being interpreted. We were
attempting to get a uniform interpretation, and I wanted to be sure
his interpretation was consistent with that which we were attempting
to get every place,
Mr. Kennedy. Were you aware of the fact that General Zwicker had
given to the committee the name of Irving Peress ?
Mr. Adams. I was not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you have any conversations with anybody in the
Pentagon regarding the amount of information that General Zwicker
had given to the committee ?
Mr. Adams. No, I did not, at that time.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you had any conversations since that time ?
Mr. Adams. No ; because I don't know, and I have never known, what
information General Zwicker gave to the committee, other than Peress'
name.
Mr. Kennedy. You never learned that he had given any further
information other than his name ?
Mr. Adams. No; other than the telephone calls which have been
testified to here, and in which Zwicker stated he had changed his time
of separation, and a couple of things like that. But I have never had
any knowledge given to me directly or indirectly as to whether or not
General Zwicker made any loyalty or security information available
to any member of Senator McCarthy's staff.
Mr. Kennedy. You have no information of that kind ?
Mr, Adams. No, sir ; I have no independent knowledge of it at all.
Mr. Kennedy. The purpose of your visit, therefore, on February 16
was to inform General Zwicker of the security regulations regarding
what information he could give when he testified ?
Mr. Adams. That is correct, and I don't think that I had to inform
him of the regulations. I think that he knew of them. But I wanted
to be sure that we had a meeting of the minds as to how they should be
interpreted.
Mr, Kennedy. So that he and Colonel Brown who were to appear
before the committee would not give to the committee any classified
information regarding Irving Peress or any other matter that they
were asked ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir; I think summarizing the interpretation we
placed in the Department of the Army on Executive orders and regu-
lations, was that no matter of a loyalty or security nature, and no
information with reference to 3'our participation as an individual in
any step of a loyalty or security procedure or no names of any indi-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 457
viduals against whom derogatory information was available, could
be made available by you as an official of the Government.
Mr. Kennedy. You went up to instruct him to that effect ?
Mx. Adams. To be sure that he understood it ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adams, on February 5, after your conference
with Secretary Stevens it was decided that an Inspector General's
investigation would be made of this whole handling of the Peress
matter ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Is that right ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And it was you who drew up the memorandum to the
Inspector General, giving him the instructions as to what to investi-
gate ?
Mr. Adams. I tliink the memorandum was to the Chief of Staff, the
Secretary asked for an investigation.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify the document, please?
(Document handed to witness.)
Mr. Adams. This is a photostatic copy of the memorandum dated
February 5, 1954, to the Chief of Staff, and signed by me, subject:
Inspector General's Investigation of the Case of Major Peress.
Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything in that document— Mr. Chairman,
may we have that made an exhibit to the public record ?
The Chairman. It is exhibit 78.
(Exhibit No. 78 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything in the document, Mr. Adams, that
covers that part of the Peress matter with which you had any dealings ?
Are there any instructions that would cover that, instructions to the
Inspector General to investigate anything in which you had some-
thing to do with it?
Mr. Adams. My participation specifically ?
Mr. Kennedy. Not specifically, but in a broad way, that would
cover what part you had taken in the Peress matter.
Mr. Adams. Again it is a matter which is open to interpretation,
and it says that Secretary Stevens has today asked that I request an
Inspector General's investigation of all of the facts and circumstances
surrounding the handling of the case of Maj. Irving Peress, and later
on I list some questions which appear to need answering, and then con-
clude by saying that the foreign by no means are all of the questions
which should be answered, but include those which have been directly
raised.
So you ask if I did ask they investigate my participation, my answer
is "No," but I asked them to investigate everything.
Mr. Kennedy. You list 5 or 6 questions which the Secretary wants
answered. Do you cover there at all the question of his honorable
discharge ?
Mr. Adams. No.
Mr. Kennedy. That is not covered at all?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. I)id you feel that the committee, or anybody was in-
terested in that matter ?
Mr. Adams. Of his honorable discharge, you mean ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
458 ARIlIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Adams. That is one of the mattei's Senator McCarthy had ob-
jected to.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that not listed in your memo ?
Mr. Adams. I said all of the facts and circumstances, and that is
inclusive.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you not just leave it that way, and why did
you list 5 or 6 other matters that should be covered but did not list
anything about the honorable discharge?
Mr. Adams. These are questions which came immediately to my
mind so I enumerated them.
Mr. Kennedy. Was not the honorable discharge rather an impor-
tant part of what had happened ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Could you give us any explanation as to why you
listed these other matters, such as when he came into the Army ?
Mr. Adams. They were matters which were of public notice or had
been talked about, between me and a member of the conmiittee staff
or within my own staff.
Mr. Kennedy. Have you since become aware of the fact that the
Inspector General did not cover in his investigation the meeting that
you liad with General Weible?
Mr. Adams. I have.
Mr. Kennedy. And that in fact he cut off his investigation as of
December 30 ?
Mr. Adams. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And therefore did not cover your participation ?
Mr. Adams. That is right, I have.
Mr. Kennedy. And that his reason is that because that was not
listed specifically in the memorandum that was given to him, as to
what should be covered in his investigation ?
Mr. Adams. I have no knowledge that the IG said he did not in-
vestigate that because I didn't list it as a reason, and I don't think
that that is true. It is my understanding that the Inspecor General
interpreted this as requiring him to investigate everything up until
the time the decision w^as made to terminate him on December 30, and
when he reached that date he terminated his investigation. There were
lots of other things that I did not precisely mention in this memoran-
dum which were covered by the Inspector General.
Mr. Kp:nnedy. You think that was an oversight by the Inspector
General, the fact that he did not cover your meeting?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, and I was frankly surprised during the Mundt
committer hearings, when the list of 28 names was delivered here and
I hadn't seen it, and I went back to the Pentagon subsequently and
when I saw my name not among those present, I was surprised.
Mr. Kennedy. You are not
Mr. Adams. I thought I had something to do with it on the last day.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you aware of the fact that the Inspector General
restricts his investigation to specifically those things enumerated in
the memorandum of instructions to him ?
Mr. Adams. No, I am not aware of anything about how the In-
spector General conducted his investigation. I didn't have any nego-
tiations with the investigators, and I was never interrogated by any
Inspector General's official, in this or any other inspection or inves-
tigation having to do with anything that concerned the Peress case,
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 459
and I don't know wliat he restricted himself to, or how he interpreted
this paper. I did not interpret the paper when he dictated it as
meanino; lie should terminate on December 30, nor did I expect that
my participation would not be included.
Mr. Kexnedy. So it was a surprise to yon that your participation
was not included in the Inspector General investigation ?
jNIr. Adams. It was a surprise to me that my name was not included
and it was a surprise that General "Weible's name was not included.
Mr. Kennedy. Did the Inspector General interview you?
]Mr. Adams. No, sir, he did not.
Mr. Kexnedy. Did that not strike you as strange?
Mr. Adams. Yes, it did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ever call that to the attention of anyone,
prior to the names being sent up here ?
Mr. Adams. I think I discussed it with Mr. Welch who was the
Army counsel at the time, and I am not sure precisely, and I made no
memorandum on it and I don't think I ever discussed it with Mr.
Stevens. I was busy on other matters last spring, at the time of the
investigation.
The Chairman. Did you help prepare the list of 28 names ?
Mr. Adams. Sir?
The Chairman. Did you help prepare the list of 28 names ?
Mr. Adams. Sir, I never saw the list of 28 names.
The Chairman. Were you consulted about whose names should be
submitted to the committee ?
Mr. Adams. I was not, sir.
The Chair3Ian. ~W1io did prepare it ?
Mr. Adams. It is my understanding that it was prepared by an
investigator of the Inspector General's office, and I don't know his
name.
The Chairman. Was that list ever checked in the Secretary's office
to your knowledge prior to the time it was submitted to the committee?
Mr. Adams. I have no independent knowledge, and I have heard
that it was discussed with the Secretary, but I don't know that from
any information.
The Chairman. You do not know whether it was checked for accu-
racy or not, before it was submitted ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir, I do not.
The Chairman. All right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adams, I expect that you were present on the
Army-McCarthy hearing on May 10, 1954, in which Mr. Stevens was
asked :
I will now ask you, Mr. Stevens, with reference to the Peress case, whether or
not Mr. Adams had any participation in the honorable discharge of Major Peress,
specifically on February 1, 1954.
This is on page 916. And Secretary Stevens answered :
I don't know, Mr. Adams can testify on that.
Do you have any explanation as to why Secretary Stevens did not
know of your participation at that time, in this conference that you
had on February 1 with General Weible ?
Mr. Ada:ms. Well, Mr. Stevens knew of my conference with General
Weible on the 1st of February, in his testimony on that occasion I
think it is clearly understandable how he would have made that
460 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
answer. He was very bus}'^ when he ^ot back on the 1st of February,
and I think my first conference with him on the 5th of February was
when we discussed what happened. That was in the case of Peress,
and I think it was probably 1 of 30 or 40 conferences he had that day,
and probably 1 of a couple of hundred he had that week. He may
not have remembered precisely what I told him. It is reasonable to me
that he should have said, as everybody else expected that I wouki be
interrogated during the Mundt committee hearings about the Peress
matter, because on at least 30 occasions during the ISIundt committee
hearings, Mr. Stevens was asked about my participation before I was
a witness, and in each case he asked the committee or attempted to get
the committee to ask me, and I was ready, and nobody during 5 days
that I was a witness ever asked me 1 word about my participation in
the Peress case. I was there, and they could have asked me, and the
committee expected me to be asked and Mr. Jenkins on a number of
occasions said, "Ask Mr. Adams," and other Senators did also. But
the McCarthy side didn't choose to ask me any questions with refer-
ence to my participation,
Mr, IvENNEDT, Did you remind Secretary Stevens when you were
sitting behind him during the Army-McCarthy hearing that you had
taken part in this conference on February 1 w^ith General Weible, and
had received the letter from Senator McCarthy ? Did vou remind him
of that?
Mr. Adams. I have no clear recollection of what I reminded Sec-
retary Stevens of during the 12 days he was a witness.
Mr. Kennedy. Admittedly, it was a matter of some importance, at
least while Secretary Stevens was testifying?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Mr. E^ENNEDY. But you think that you must have slipped — it might
have slipped Secretary Stevens' mind, the fact that you told him
about this ?
Mr. Adams. I think Secretary Stevens was merely trying to tell
the committee, "Mr. Adams is available and will be a witness, and
ask him,"
Mr. Kennedy, Well, he said, he went on to say that, but he said,
"I don't laiow," first and that was the point. I think he could have
said, "Mr. Adams can testify on that," but he said, "I don't Icnow,"
when he was asked. And what I am trying to get — we can ask the
Secretary about that — but what I am trying to find out from you is
whether you reminded him of the fact so that he could straighten
the record out for the Army -McCarthy hearings ?
Mr. Adams. I think that I very well may have, but I have no clear
recollection of what I said to him during the case, the 12 days he was
a witness while I was sitting beside him. I can't precisely state that
at the time he replied to that question I whispered something to that
effect.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, you knew these names were going to be sent
over to the special Mundt committee ; did you not ?
Mr. Adams. I knew they would go over sometime, and I didn't
know when.
Mr. Kennedy. In view of the fact that you hadn't been interviewed
by the Inspector General, and the Secretary evidently had forgotten
that you had taken a part in that conference, did you draw it to any-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 461
body's attention that you had taken part in that conference, and,
therefore, your name should be submitted?
Mr. Adams. No; I didn't go through that sort of reasoning, but
it was clearly known in the Pentagon that General Weible and I had
this conversation on the last day, and it certainly was known to the
counsel of the Army, and it was certainly known to all of the offi-
cials of the Army, and it was no secret.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Who specifically was it known to, as the Assist-
ants of Secretary Stevens — who specifically was it known to ?
Mr. Adams. I think Assistant Secretary Milton was aware of it,
and probably Under Secretary Slezak was aware of it, and I know
Mr. Welch and Mr. St. Clair were aware of it, and all of my assistants
were aware of it, and there were 8 or 10 lawyers in my office, all of
whom were aware of it. I think other officers of the Army staff were
aware of it, and I talked about it with General AVeible at lunch one
day in the dining room, and it was just something that was known. It
was no secret.
I have never attempted to conceal it from anybody in the Pentagon
or anybody who wanted to know.
The Chair^ian. Are there any other questions ?
Senator jNIuxdt. I would like to check on this list of 28 names. I
was surprised when you testified today that you didn't know what
names Avere included on this list, or whether you were included or not,
or who was included until after the list had been submitted to me,
and you went back and looked at it.
I am trying to find out, if we can, the identity of whoever submitted
the list, or prepared it or checked it Normally, I would have thought
that that would have come over your desk, but I realize you were doing
other things in those days.
Mr. Ada]ms. I was doing other things, and I think that the matter
went directly to the Secretary, and with whom he consulted about it,
1 have no direct knowledge. I was watching television the day the
letter was presented and I was not in the room. I saw it go up and
that is the first appreciation I have of it because I realized that I had
not been talked to by the Inspector General. It was some days after
that before I found the time to look at the list, and I think, or I was
told, first by Colonel Murray, that my name wasn't on it, and then I
looked at the list and I found neither my name or General Weible's,
and I was surprised.
Senator ISIundt. Governor Brucker, do you think we can find out
the identity of whoever it was who sent up that list? It was sup-
l)osed to be a list of some importance, and certainly it was sent up with
great histrionic secrecy. I would like to know who wrote the letter.
I am sure Bob Stevens didn't write it, and Adams didn't write it,
and we should know who wrote it.
Mr. Brucker. I think that can be developed.
The Chairman. Tlie Chair will request you to do that. Governor.
Are there any other questions ?
Mr. Brucker. I think on second thought, while I will get any in-
formation of that kind I can, that the staff be furnished with that
information.
The Chairman. We will have the staff check it.
Mr. Brucker. If they have not, I will do that.
Mr. Kennedy. "Wliat was the question ?
462 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. The question was to try to get who prepared and
submitted the list of 28 names. We can ascertain this from Secretary
Stevens, but I want to know, of course, from him whether lie had the
list cleared in his office.
The Chairman. Are there any other questions ?
Senator Ervin. Mr. Adams, would not Peress necessarily be dis-
charged with an honorable discharge unless he had been court-mar-
tialed, or unless some board had passed on him ?
Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir. At the time he was discharged it
is my understanding that there was available to him, being discharged
as he was, only an honorable discharge. It is my underetanding that
those were the policies at that time.
Senator Ervin. Under the regulations at that time, the Army, un-
less they gave an officer an honorable discharge, they could not get
rid of him without a board ?
Mr. Adams. A board proceeding which took 7 months, that is right,
and this proceeding took only 3 months. My irritation was that I
thought it should have taken only 3 days.
( Senator McCarthy entered the i oom. )
The Chairman. Thank you very much, Mr. Adams. Before we
recess I would like to have a rejjort from Governor Brucker regard-
ing this matter submitted to the Attorney General with respect to
exhibit No. 33, Mhat we may refer to as the blackout exhibit; that is,
whether that information that is blacked out is going to be made
available to the committee, and whether it has been declassified.
Governor, can you report to the committee about it?
Mr. Brucker. I would like to report to the committee on that. I
sent tlie copy of the original letter as it was before tlie band was placed
across, that has inked out the last five lines of paragraph 2. Along
with the letter went another inquiry which the chairman asked, which
1 will answer at tlie same time.
The first was whether or not those five lines were possible to be de-
classified or not. In other words, whether tliose five lines could be
included in the public record here. I was informed by the Depart-
ment of Justice that the i-eference and the letter itself made to the
files, the security files, by the general was from intelligence material
which they, the' Department of Justice, and the Bureau of Federal
Investigation, felt was a part of the intelligence material and related
to security, and, therefore, it cannot be released.
I also took up the second matter which was the question of whether
or not the information contained in those last five lines of paragraph
2 of that letter, having everything intact, had been a part of the De-
partment of Justice's files when they considered whether or not a
prosecution could be effected successfully at the present time.
They liave reported to me that that nuiterial is a part of the other
materia], the whole of which has been reviewed by the Department,
and that they did consider that in connection with the letter which
tlie}^ sent to you about the matter.
The Chairjiax. Then that material is not going to be made avail-
able to the committee?
Mr. Brucker. I am so informed.
The Chair3IAn. May I inquire, or ask you one other question, or
make one other inquiry about it: You have read the material, and
I am not asking you to state what is in it, other than to ask you this
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 463
question : Is there anything different in that material that is blacked
out, and what you read here from a staff memorandum yesterday, as
to Avhat General Zwicker is said to have reported to the staff in the
telephone conversation Avith respect to information he gave the staff
about Peress and his background?
Mr. Brucker. Without in any sense revealing the contents of it, I
think tliat I am privileged to say this, to this extent : That it does
contain a part of some of that material, a small part of it.
Is tliat responsive to your question?
The Chairjcax. That is responsive as far as it goes, and I would
like to establish whether without identifying it, it contains addi-
tional information that was not revealed here yesterday?
]Mr. Brucker. It does not.
The Chairmax. In other words, it is all the same, in substance ?
Mr. Brucker. That is right.
Senator Muxdt. Xow, Mr. Chairman, I was wondering whether you
had been successful in declassifying the letter to Mr. Forbes. You
were going to make an efi'ort to do that. That is Colonel Forbes.
Mr. Brucker. I think that you have it there.
The Chairman. It lias been declassified, and the Chair
]Mr. Brucker. May I make a statement on the record because that
has been declassified, and the whole letter is there.
The Chairmax. The Chair is now going to have it made exhibit 79,
but I will ask that it be related to Colonel Forbes' testimony.
(Exhibit Xo. 79 appears in the appendix on p. 508. Colonel Forbes'
testimony of March 22, 1954, appears on p. 323, pt. 4 of this series.)
If there is nothing further, the committee will stand in recess until
2 o'clock this afternoon.
(Whereupon, the committee recessed at 12 o'clock, to reconvene at
2 o'clock.)
after recess
(The hearing was resumed at 2 : 05 p. m., pursuant to recess.)
The Chairmax. The committee will come to order.
Mr, Secretary, will you be sworn, please, sir.
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
Investigating Subcommittee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Secretary Stevexs. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT T. STEVENS, SECRETARY OF THE
ARMY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE, WASHINGTON, D. C.
The Chairmax^. Mr. Secretary, when did you become Secretary of
the Army ?
Secretary Stevexs. I was swoi'n in at the White House on tlie 4th of
February 1953.
The Chairmax. And you have occupied the position since then ?
Secretary Stevexs. Yes, sir.
The Chairmax. All right, Mr. Counsel, you may proceed with the
interrogation.
Mr. Kexxedy. Mr. Secretary, when was it that you first heard of the
name Irving Peress ?
60030— 55— pt. 6 6
464 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Secretary STE\^]srs. I never heard of Irving Peress until lie was out
of the Army. As you gentlemen know, he went out on the 2d. of
February 1954, and I heard about it on the 3d of February 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. On the 2d of February, Mr. Secretary, you were
on a trip in the Far East, is that right, or returning from a trip to
the Far East?
Secretary Stevens. That is correct. I was en route back to Wash-
ington.
Mr. Kennedy. You had not returned to this country until after
Irving Peress was discharged from the Army ; is that right?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary', when you arrived in California did
a representative from the Department of the Army come to meet you
with certain documents, included in which was a letter from Senator
McCarthy to yourself that had been opened by the Department Coun-
selor, John Adams?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, Mr. Kennedy, there was a representative
of his office, Mr. Haskins, got aboard the plane during the course of the
night with a briefcase full of papers for my information on the return
trip, and that document to which you refer was one of those documents.
(Senators present at this time were McClellan, Symington, McCar-
thy, and Bender.)
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify the document ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. That is the letter.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Chairman, that has already been made an ex-
hibit to the record, and I believe it is exhibit No. 64.
When you arrived here in Washington, Mr. Secretary, did you make
a statement at that time to the press that you did not feel that Irving
Peress or anybody with some substantial derogatory information in
their background should be honorably discharged from the Army ?
Secretaiy Stevens. Well, Mr. Kennedy, I read the letter during the
course of the afternoon before arrival in Washington, and talked with
IMr. Haskins briefly about it. I knew very little about it, but when
I arrived at the airport I was met by representatives of the press, and
they questioned me a good deal about the Irving Peress case. At the
end of that conference I made a statement along the lines that you
have just indicated.
Mr. Kennedy. You stated at that time that you did not feel that
Irving Peress should have received an honorable discharge?
Secretary Stevens. I felt that way about it ; yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, after retuiTiing to the Pentagon, did
you then have a briefing, among other things, on the Irving Peress
case?
Secretary Stevens. I returned to the Pentagon on the 4th of Febru-
ary, and that day I was called to appear before the Senate Armed
Services Committee, and attended various other briefings in connection
with things that happened when I was away.
On the 5th of February Mr. Adams came to my office and discussed
with me the matters which had gone on in his office during my absence,
including the Irving Peress case.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Adams tell you at that time of his partici-
pation in the Peress matter ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, I would say that he did, Mr. Kennedy. As
I have indicated, he talked about a good many things, including the
AR]\ri' PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 465
Peress case, mentioned his part in it, and we were together, I would
say, something over an hour on the morning- of the 5th of Febrnaiy.
Mr. Kennedy. You believe that he did mention the conference he
had with General Weible?
Secretary Stevens. I think he probably did, although I do not my-
self recall that he mentioned General Weible. He may well have done
so, but I do not recall the general's name being mentioned.
yiv. Kennedy. Did you say to him at that time that you felt he
should have held up the discharge of Peress until you had had a chance
to pass on the matter yourself ?
Secretaiy Ste\t:ns. I indicated, I would say, to Mr. Adams that I
thought the letter should have been handled in a different manner. As
a matter of fact, I said to Mr. Adams, "John, I am very busy. I have
a great many important military matters to attend to, and I would ap-
preciate it if you would immediately advise the Inspector General to
make a full report in the case of Irving Peress."
I also said to him, and I believe it was in the same meeting, to find
out from the Judge Advocate General as to whether or not it would
be possible to recall Major Peress. So you can see from that that I was
interested in the subject of Peress and I wanted to see if anything could
be done about it.
Mr. Kennedy. So you felt at that time that a mistake had been made
in ignoring the letter from Senator McCarthv in which he asked that
Irving Peress be held for court-martial?
Secretary Stevens. I think as a matter of senatorial courtesy we
certainly should have held it up and taken the time to look into the
matter and make a proper determination, and confer with Senator
McCarthy as to any information he had on the case.
Mr. Kennedy. Jumping ahead a little bit, Mr. Secretary, on a num-
ber of occasions during the Army -McCarthy hearings you were asked
regarding Mr. Adams" participation in this Peress matter. I call your
attention specifically to page 916, the middle of the page. I will read
this to you :
I will now ask yoii, Mr. Stevens, with refei'ence to the Pevess ease, whether or
not Mr. Adams had any participation in the honorable dischai'ge of Major Peress,
specifically on February 1, 1954.
You stated at that time :
Secretary Stevens. I don't know. Mr. Adams can testify on that.
Will you explain to us why it was that you answered that you did not
know, if it was true that Mr. Adams did on February 5 explain to you
the meeting or tell you about the meeting he had had with General
Weible?
Secretary Ste\-ens. Mr. Kennedy, as I have indicated, I had a con-
ference with Mr. Adams on the morning of February 5, something
over an hour, in which we covered a great many subjects, including the
Peress case. What I meant there was that I didn't know any detail
about the business. All I knew was what Mr. Adams had said in that
particular conference, in a very limited number of minutes. So my
immediate reaction was to get all the facts in the case, and therefore I
said to Mr. Adams, "You go and get the Inspector General busy to
make a full report on the case."
Mr. Kennedy. I am not sure that is — you mean at the time you tes-
tified on May 10. I believe, you did not remember the fact that John
Adams had participated in this conference?
466 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Secretary Stevens. Oh, no. John Adams participated in the con-
ference.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not remember that he had this conference
\Yith General Weible regarding Senator McCarthy's letter?
Secretary Stevens. I don't specifically recall that. I have said that
John Adams in the meeting on February 5 told me, sketched the out-
line of what had happened about the letter from Senator McCarthy,
along with other things we discussed. I felt I had no detail on the
thing. All I had was what he had sketched. I wanted to get the
facts. Wliat I meant here was that I didn't know" in detail anything
about the Peress business.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not know, then, when you said "I did not
know," you did not know at that time or did not remember the fact
that John Adams had had this conference with General Weible on
February 1 ?
Secretary Ste\t:ns. John had mentioned to me on the 5th of Febru-
ary that he had had a conference with somebody. I don't remember
General Weible's name. I sort of remember the Army staff expres-
sion. So I knew that.
(At this point Senator Jackson entered the room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Wlien you answered that you didn't know, actually
you had some information but
Secretary Stevens. It was of such a sketchy variety and all from
Adams, I didn't have any other information on it, that I decided I
wanted to get at the facts from an objective point of view. Hence,
the Inspector General's report.
Mr. Kennedy. On February 5. Mr. Secretary, did you give orders
to Mr. Adams to direct an investigation by the Inspector General of
Irving Peress ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes. I told Mr. Adams to initiate action of the
Inspector General to have a full report made.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you outline for him at that time what you
wanted covered by the Inspector General ?
Secretary Stevens. No, I don't think I did. I said, "I want all
the facts." I didn't attach any strings to it.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you intend that the investigation by the In-
spector General should end as of December 31, 1953, or should con-
tinue ?
Secretary Stevens. I intended that the Inspector General's report
should produce all of the facts in connection with the Peress case.
Mr. Kennedy. So it was your intention, therefore, that it would
encompass anything that had to do with what occurred in the Penta-
gon on the arrival of Senator McCarthy's letter?
Secretary, Stevens. I would say it covered everything to do with
Irving Peress from the time he came into the Army until he got out
of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar with the memorandum that John
Adams sent to the Inspector General as to what sliould be covered in
the Inspector General's report?
Secretary Stevens. I saw that a long time afterward; yes, Mr.
Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have it in front of you there ?
Secretary Stevens. No ; I do not.
(Document passed to the witness.)
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVESTG PERESS 467
The Chairman. Identify it by exhibit number. That is exhibit No.
78 which is being presented to you, Mr. Secretary.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary
Mr. Brucker. He is reading the document.
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me.
(Present at this time were Senators McClellan, Symington, Jackson,
McCarthy, and Bender. )
Secretary Ste\t:ns. Yes ; that is the memorandum.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you notice in there that there are approximately
six matters enumerated which were requested to be investigated by the
Inspector General ?
Mr. Brucker. Will you read that back?
Mr. Kennedy. Didn't the Secretary miderstand?
Secretary Stevens. I was looking at the document. I may have
missed some of what you said.
(The question was read by the reporter.)
Secretary Stevens. There appear to be seven questions listed here
as a sort of guideline for the Inspector General, although it was by no
means, I would say, restricted to those questions.
Mr. Kennedy. I understand. Do you notice that any discussion or
question of the honorable discharge is not specifically enumerated
there ?
Secretary Stevens. I don't see anything here about that.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you have any explanation of why Mr. Adams
would not have included that in his instructions to the Inspector
General ?
Secretary Stevens. This is Mr. Adams' document. I didn't see him
for literally weeks after it was written. I just simply asked Mr.
Adams to initiate the action. I later saw the document. So I had no
knowledge of what Mr. Adams intended by it.
]\Ii'. IvJENNEDY. But you intended that the Inspector General should
cover all the events surrounding the honorable discharge of Irving
Peress ?
Secretary Stevens. The entire waterfront, vrith no restrictions
whatever, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you familiar now with the fact that the Inspec-
tor General's report ended as of the 31st of December ?
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And therefore it didn't include the meeting that Mr.
Adams had with General Weible?
Secretary Stevens. Right.
Senator McCarthy. Do I understand that the Inspector General
did not investigate the matter of the honorable discharge?
Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it— you can correct me, Mr. Secre-
tary— he covered the events up to December 31, during which period
the decision was made to jrive Irving Peress an honor.ible discharge.
However, the events which occurred after January 1, which would
include this meeting of General Weible and Mr. Adams, were not
covered by the Inspector General.
Senator McCarthy. I see.
The Chairman. In other words, he did not follow through to the
time of this conference between Mr. Adams and General Weible.
Secretary Stevens. That is right, Mr. Chairman.
468 ARiMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. When did that first come to your attention ? When
did yon first know tliat that conference had not been inchided?
Secretary Steaens. When I first took a look at the Inspector
General's report.
The Chairman. That does not tell me much. When was that?
Secretary Stevens. That would be somewhere alon«; about the 11th
of May.
The Chairman. Of last year?
Secretary Stevens. Of 1954.
The Chairman. You have known since then that that was not in-
cluded in the Inspector General's report?
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
The Chairman. Did you direct that the Inspector General make
further inquiry into the matter so as to bring it down to date to in-
clude the time of discharge?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir, I did not.
The Chairman. All right. Proceed.
Senator Symington. May I ask a question?
The Chairman. Senator Symington.
Senator Syjviington. Mr. Secretary, you say that you felt it was a
mistake that Major Peress was given an honorable discharge, when
you got back to the country.
Secretary Steatsns. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Did you tell that to Mr. Adams?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir ; I told that to Mr. Adams.
Senator Sy^iington. When you directed a report from the Inspec-
tor General, would you not expect him to look into that matter of the
honorable discharge ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, I would.
Senator Symington. Are you not somewhat surprised that he was
not instructed to do it ?
Secretary Stevens. He did look into the matter of the honorable
discharge. Senator Symington, but he did not look into Senator Mc-
Carthy's letter of February 1 and anything that resulted therefrom in
the way of conferences.
Senator Symington. As I understand it, what he looked into ended
at December 31, 1953.
Secretary Stea'^ns. On December 30, 1953, the decision was taken
in the Department of the Army to discharge Major Peress with an
honorable discharge.
Senator Symington. Wlien was he given the honorable discharge?
Secretary Stevens. On the 2d of February.
Senator Symington. The terms of the discharge would be just as
im])ortant as the decision itself, in eilect, would they not?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. So what actually happened was that your
orders were not carried out from the standpoint of the Inspector Gen-
eral's activity; is that correct?
Secretary Stevens. As I say, I wanted all the facts, with no strings
attached. That included everything, in my mind, up until Peress
was out of the Army, which would have carried it through the 2d of
February, and that was not done.
ARMY PERSOXNEL ACTIONS RELATEN^G TO IRVING PERESS 469
Senator Symixgtox. Tjet me try to rephrase it. If you felt it was
a mistake that he had been given an honorable discliarge, then the In-
spector General should have investigated all details of the honorable
discharge if he was to carry out your orders; should he not?
Secretary STE^'E^^s. Yes, sir.
Senator Symixgtox. He did not do that; did he?
Secretary Stevex^s. That is right.
Senator Symix^^gtox'. No further questions.
The Chairmax^. All right.
Mr. JuLiAXA. I have one on this same subject.
The Chairman. All right, Mr. Juliana.
Mr. JuLiAX^A. Mr. Secretary, has anyone been reprimanded as a
result of failure to carry out your orders?
Secretary Stevex'S. Has anybody been reprimanded?
Mr. JuLiAX^A. For failure to carry out your orders with respect to
the IG report.
Secretary Steven's. No.
Mr. JuLiAX^A. Thank you.
Senator Jacksox'. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Jackson?
Senator Jacksox'. I do not have a question. This is more or less
an observation.
Would it not have been a lot better if the Army had made it very
clear to the public that they handle several thousand cases involving
discharge of enlisted and officer personnel every year, and in this case
a mistake was made '. There is nothing unusual about making mis-
takes. I make a lot of mistakes every day. Therefore admit that a
mistake has been made and let the public know that steps were being
taken to correct possible errors in the future. That would be my
summary of this whole case after several days.
Secretary Stevex's. I couldn't agree with you more. Senator Jack-
son. On the 16th of February, 13 days after I got back from the
Far East, I wrote Senator McCarthy a letter, and made it public, in
which I specihcally stated that we had made mistakes in handling
this case, and I repeated that consistently for over a year.
Senator Jacksox. I notice that in your letter you made that
admission.
The Chairmax'. Do you have a copy of that letter?
Secretary Stevexs. Sir?
The Chairmax^. Do you have a copy of that letter?
Secretai'v Stevex's. Yes, sir.
Senator Jacksox. The only thing that disturbed me was this long
chronological summary. It is hardly accurate to call it a summary
because it consisted of about 10,000 words.
Mr. Brucker. Chronologv.
Senator Jacksox'. Chronology. We had another one earlier than
that which resulted in a 2-months hearing. Actually this whole
thing can be summed up with the fact that we are human beings, we
are fallible, and we make mistakes. So far in this record I clo not
see any conspiracy or any remote evidence indicating any conspiracy
on the part of any one to promote a known Communist. I think it
does point out the fact that the machinery in the Army or in any big
institution can be so bogged down witli rules and regulations that the
470 ARIMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
individuals who operate the machine lose control of it. They fail to
exercise common sense. They are afraid to exercise common sense
because the macliine tells them that they must follow the macliine no
matter where it may lead them.
I hope, if nothing: else has been gained from all this, that men in
Government can make the machine operate with a little common sense.
I am not speaking now in criticism of anyone, but I do think that
much of the time and much of the discussion could have been elimi-
nated and more time spent on rectifying the machine so that we can
avoid this kind of error in the future.
That is all.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you have a copy of the letter to
which you referred ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
The Chaieman". The letter which you wrote to Senator McCarthy
in reply to his letter.
Secretary Stevens. Yes.
The Chairman. Let it be filed as exhibit 80 and made a part of the
record.
(Exhibit No. 80 appears in the appendix on p. 508.)
All right, Counsel, proceed.
Secretary Stevens. Do you want me to read from that letter the
pertinent paragraphs, Mr. Chairman ?
The Chairman. I do not know what is in it. I have not seen it.
Secretary Stev'ens. If I may, I would like to read from it.
The Chairman. All right. You do not need to read all the letter.
Secretary Stevens. No, not the whole letter.
The Chairman. I hope if you have a paragraph there which you
think pertinent, you will read only that.
Secretary Stevens (reading) :
The developments of this case have made it obvious to me and to the Army
staff that there were defects in the Army procedures for handling men called
to duty under the provisions of the Doctors Draft Act.
That is one pertinent passage.
*
I have directed the Inspector General of the Army to initiate an exhaustive
investigation for the purpose of determining two things : first, whether there are
any additional areas where correction should be made, and second, whether
there is any evidence of collusion or conspiracy which might have been inspired
by subversive interests in the assignment.
That is another important statement. I go on further :
This situation must and will be corrected.
Then I say :
We are all cognizant of the extent to which our system fell down in this case.
We do not defend this shortcoming and intend that such cases shall not recur.
Again :
if there can be developed any facts other than that this was a routine person-
nel action taken under regulations in existence at the time, you can be assured
that I will take vigorous action against the individuals involved.
I say here that :
I had the personal feeling that an officer should not get an honorable dis-
charge from the service if he refuses to answer questions properly put to him
by a congressional committee.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 471
Parenthetically, may I say that following my observation to the
representatives of the press on my arrival in Washington on February
8, 1954, 1 instructed the Army to get out a regulation which would
make that a part of our procedure, and that was done on approximately
the 19th of February 1954. That regulation a few months later was
superseded by Department of Defense directives which took this
whole area into account. My own personal idea of what to do about
it was immediate!}^ incorporated in a directive throughout the De-
partment of the Army.
I will say, if I may, ISIr. Chairman, from my point of view the thing
that I was really interested in was, first, was there any subversion or
collusion. That must be vigorously investigated and run down if any
had developed.
Second, the correction of the procedures under which administra-
tive errors which took place in this case occurred. I went vigorously
after that project, to the end that such a case could not recur, and
I don't believe it can.
The Chairman. Let me ask you a question at that point, Mr. Secre-
tary. In your letter to Senator McCarthy, you point out that you
had instructed the Inspector General to make a thorough investiga-
tion with a view of correcting any errors or any deficiency in your
system in handling these cases. May I inquire whether the Inspector
General did make such an investigation ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, he did, sir.
The Chairman. Is that the investigation which has been referred
to here as the Inspector General's report ?
Secretary Stevens. That was part of it.
The Chairman. Was there another report?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir. It was all one report.
The Chairman. It is all in one report.
Secretary STE^^NS. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. In other words, in the Peress case, whatever the
report is on the Peress case from the Inspector General, that is the
only report and the only investigation that was made to determine
the faults in the system then in effect ?
Secretary Ste-stens. Of course I took a great many actions as a
result of consideration by my colleagues on the staff of the Army, to
put in these corrections of procedure, of which I have a list which
I would like to introduce into evidence, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
AVhat I said to the Inspector General was —
Maybe I have missed some error where regulations ought to be changed and
I haven't caught it yet. So when you are making this investigation, please find
out if we have overlooked anything, because we want to plug that hole, too.
The Chairjnian. AVliat I was trying to determine — you spoke of in-
structing the Inspector General to make a thorough investigation with
a view of aiding you in issuing proper regulations or instructions to
con-ect the faults that had been exposed or that had developed by
reason of the Peress case, and I wanted to determine if there is only
the one report of the Inspector General.
Secretary Stevens. One report, that is right.
The Chairman. You do know, as a matter of fact, that the Inspector
General failed to question many of the officers and others who handled
the Peress matter, do you not ?
Secretary Ste\t:ns. Yes, sir.
472 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Then it is not thoroiio-h and complete, is it?
Secretary Stevens. Not thorouoh and complete in that sense; no,
sir.
Senator Symington. May I ask a qnestion, Mr. Chairman?
Secretary Stevens. JNIay I ask permission to
The Chairman. I woidcl like to see it. I am sure permission will
be granted, but I would like to see it. Do you have other copies of it,
Mr. Secretary?
Secretary Stevens, Yes,
The Chairman. Senator Symington?
Senator Symington. Mr. Secretary, you said there were some 28
or 30 people who are involved in this, am I correct?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, Senator S3Tnington.
Senator Symington. That was a classified list which 3'^ou furnished ?
Secretary Ste\t:ns, That is right.
Senator Sy3iington. Then later you gave a list of some 60 people,
and that was an unclassified list.
Secretary Stevens. Tliat is correct.
Senator Symington. Let me ask you first, why did you classify the
first paper ?
Secretary Stevens. I classified the first paper. Senator Symington,
because I was determined that Army personnel was not going to be
subjected to the treatment that General Zwicker had received on
February 18, 1954, when the then chairman of this committee said,
"You are not fit to wear that uniform." I determined that we were not
going to have another Roman holiday.
Senator Symington. If you had 28 names in one case as a result of
an inspection, how did you get 60 names as a result of an inspec-
tion? Does that mean that the job was about half done when you
presented the list?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir; it does not. Senator Symington. "Wliat
it means is this : The first list was the result of the Inspector General's
examination. It was taken from the investigative file. It was an in-
vestigation. He prepared the list of names. That list of names was
submitted exactly as he submitted it to me. I didn't tamper with it.
I left it just as it was. It was the result of an investigation. Whereas,
the later chronology, so-called, was a narrative of everything that had
occurred from the induction of Major Peress right through his whole
military career until he went out, including the part that was affected
by Mr. Adams and General Weible. Two entirely different things,
just different as peanuts from pmnpkins.
Senator Symington. In the discussions incident to this case, one of
the most important matters has been, for example, almost a slogan,
"AYlio promoted Peress?"
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Senator Symington. Without casting any special compliments to
the staff of this committee, within a veiy short period, as illustrated
by these charts, this committee has been able, through the cooperation
of the Army, to find out in complete detail, I would say, who was
responsible for his promotion and who was responsible for his dis-
charge. That is evidenced by the charts which are here in the com-
mittee room today and by the witnesses.
It is hard for me to understand, if you were anxious to see this
thing through to a conclusion in accordance witli your letter, whv
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 473
you could not do a job in many months, with all the people available,
which was done by the committee staff in a relatively few weeks. If
we had had this information before, this matter could have been
cleared up a long time ago.
What would be your thoughts on that?
Secretary Stevens. I do not think it was quite as simple as that.
Senator Symington. It seems to me that on the promotion and reas-
signment of Peress that was quite a complicated matter, and there
was a combination of people and circumstances involved there,
together with its close relationship to the Doctors' Draft Act, as
amended.
Senator Symington. Did you ever take into consideration the fact,
especially since you were out of the comitry, that the person who was
fundamentally responsible for approving the discharge of Major
Peress was your attorney, and the person who certainly tried, based on
the testimony, as much as anybody else to get rid of Major Peress, and
not on the basis of an honorable discharge, was General Zwicker?
Did it ever occur to you that in protecting the names of the people who
were involved by classifying the paper you were doing an injustice to
other officers who ostensibly were involved but actually, as the testi-
mouA^ turns out, were not ?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir. I felt, as the civilian head of the
Army, that I have an obligation to this great Army of ours, as well
as to all the other citizens. I had seen what happened to General
Zwicker, and I just made up my mind that we were not going to have
a thing like that repeated until the climate became somewhat im-
proved. The responsibility for that decision. Senator, is completely
mme.
Senator Symington. I ask you this question with respect and with
sincerity: Do you feel that the results have improved the position
of the Army as against if you had just laid the facts before the com-
mittee, including the names, last spring ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir; I do.
Senator Symington. No further questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, I guess it is my right and privilege
to disagree with you. I do not want to start an argument, but do I
understand you to say that by withholding these names all this period
of time and letting interest be aroused and the case discussed and
charges of conspiracy and charges of coddling Communists, and all
that, that has served to help the Army ?
Secretary Stevens. In answer to that, Mr. Chairman, I call your
attention, if I may, to the fact that the committee had 28 names which
liad been submitted in accordance with my agreement. I had also
agreed to produce those witnesses any time the committee wanted
them. They could have called any or all of those people at any time,
and they never called any of them.
The Chairman. Did it occur to you or did you know it, that out of
the 28 names you submitted, only 8 had ever been interviewed by the
Inspector General ? Did you know that ?
Secretary Stevens. I don't see that that is necessarily conclusive,
Mr. Chairman, because a great many of the things were the result of
an examination of documents on which names were involved, and
places, which did have a part in this thing. It wasn't all personal
interview.
474 ARMY PERSONjS'EL actions relating to IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Maybe that is so, but why did you find it neces-
saiy, after 28 names were submitted, 7 months later to submit another
list of 60 names ?
Secretary STE^^:NS. I submitted that because Senator McCarthy
wrote me a letter on the 25th of October, I answered it on tlie 3d of
November, and at that time released the facts, without the names, in
connection with the Peress case. I had thought that that would do
the job, but there was continuino; interest in it. As a matter of fact,
Senator Watkins appeared before this committee on the 15tli of No-
vember and testified in respect to it. He said that the committee had
the names and the men could be inter\dew any time the committee
wanted to.
So it was apparent to me that there was a continuing interest in
this, so we started to prepare this chronology, which took a consider-
able period of time, in narrative form of this story.
Shortly after the first of the year when the Congress reconvened, it
was abundantly clear that there was a continuing interest in this and
the climate had changed considerably. I made the decision that we
would publish that narrative exactly as you now know it to be.
The Chairman. I think it has caused a great deal of confusion
throughout the countiy, and I ask you if you do not realize that the
handling of the names the way you have, and the long delay, simply
served to stimulate more curiosity and interest and suspicion among-
the people than it would have if you had just laid the whole thing face
up right at the start?
Secretary Stevens. Of course we now have the advantage of hind-
sight on it, Mr. Chairman, but my position was that I was not going
to have these Anny personnel subject to what General Zwicker had
been subjected to.
The Chairman. I think that could have been avoided, too, but cer-
tainly you admit mistakes and you admit that this thing has been
poorly handled, I assume, from beginning to end, do you not ?
Secretary Stevens. Sir, I missed that question.
The Chairman. I say, you concede certainly that many mistakes
were made, not just one but many.
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. I say there were dozens, and that may be an under-
statement.
Secretary Stevens. I concede that.
The Chairman. You state now that you have taken corrective meas-
ures so that those mistakes will not again occur.
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
The Chairman. This is what you submit as a statement of the cor-
rective action that has been taken, is that correct?
Secretary Stevens. Those are the major actions.
The Chairman. This may be admitted as exhibit 81.
(Exhibit No. 81 will be found in the appendix on p. 510.)
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Symington ?
Senator Symington. Mr. Secretary, there were at least 5 people
interviewed who were not listed among the 28 and who had a prominent
part in this Peress fiasco. Could you explain to the committee why
those people were left off that list ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 475
Secretary Stevens. No, sir. Senator Symington, frankly I am not
an expert in the detail of the Peress case. I wasn't here when it hap-
pened. I have, as you well know, large responsibilities to carry out.
I know that we have provided all the witnesses that the committee
wanted in order to testify on the details of the Peress case, and I don't
feel qualified to testify with respect to the details of it, although if
there is any information that you don't have that you want, I want
to supply it.
Senator Symington. Let me ask you another question. There is an
officer here who was reprimanded about the Peress case — admonished
I think is the correct word — and he was not on the list of 28. How do
you think that could happen if a real investigation had been made of
the case ?
Seci-etary Steatens. I just don't know. That one I can't answer.
The Chairman. If you want to follow up, there is another one.
Senator Jackson. The one officer that I think Senator SjTiiingtoii
has reference to, Mr. Secretary, was admonished for failing to take
certain action, I believe from the early part of December, from the
1st of December until the 27th of January or the 5th of February,
between 1953 and 1954, and he was not even on duty. I suggested in
the hearing the other day that whoever suggested he be admonished
ought to be admonished himself.
That sort of thing I think is bad. I do not know who is responsible
for that, but I do not understand how you can admonish someone for
failing to do something when he was not even on the job, had not yet
been assigned to it.
Secretary Stevens. I certainly will take a look at that.
Senator Jackson. The officer himself was not much concerned about
it, but he should have been. He indicated that it would not be a part
of his record, but I do not know whether he was familiar with the
public record, and everybody listening to it, and it will be in the
printed documents of the hearings. I hope that will be corrected.
The other thing is, when we get into something as long and involved
and complicated as this, I think it is unwise for tlie Army to come out
v>-ith a long chronological series of events of what happened when they
could summarize it in one paragraph. I think your letter was helpful.
I think if the Army had just come out and told the public that it is a
big organization and mistakes are made and admit some mistakes, then
all this business of suspicion and charges and countercharges which
can naturally evolve from a long, complicated statement, could be
avoided.
I just hope that in tlie future tlie people in the Department who
handle these matters will exercise a little common sense. The public
wants to know what went on in a given case or situation. I must say
that trying to follow this in the newspapers must have been most con-
fusing to the American public.
After all, when you issue statements your main task ought to be to
clarify. There are millions of GI's in this country who know that
mistakes are made in the Arm}' and mistakes are made elsewhere. If
you admit the mistake and say you have taken remedial action to
prevent it in the future, the people will applaud you.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I finish my questions ?
The Chairman. Senator Symington.
476 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator Symingtox. Will you explain how the name of the Deputy
Vice Chief of Staff is not on the list — General Weible — when you
mif^ht say he had everything to do with the decision, along with Mr.
Adams, to give this man his discharge, and the name of the Vice Chief
of Staff' was on the list, and he had nothing to do with it at all ?
Secretary Ste\t:ns. No, sir; I couldn't explain that. If I may,
Senator, it is perfectly plain that due to the pressure I was under
from the committee, that I in turn was keeping pressure on the In-
spector General. I think this job was finished in a much shorter space
of time than probably would have been the case in the event the pres-
sure was not on to such a degree. It may well have been that under
those circumstances some of these things which have been pointed out
would not have occurred.
Senator Symington. When did you first ask for the Inspector Gen-
eral to make his report ? Was that the 3d of February ?
. Secretary STE^^ENS. I asked for it on the 5th of February, and in-
cidentally, it was the first time that I had asked for an Inspector
General's report to be made. That was the first time I had done it.
Senator Symington. When did you get it ?
Secretary Stea'ens. I first saw it on, I think it was the 10th or 11th
of May.
Senator Symington. That is 3 months and a few days.
Secretary Stex-ens. That is right.
Senator Symington. That report had only 28 names. How did you
go on to get the 60 names ?
Secretary" Stevens. As I have indicated, we started in the Army to
make a chronology, a full story of every detail connected with this
Peress matter. We started on that on the l7th of November. The
Department of Defense was naturally interested in this, too, and they
also wanted a complete chronology. So we joined forces, the Depart-
ment of Defense and the Department of the Army, and collaborated
together in getting up the chronology which was published on the Tth
of January.
Senator Symington. The Tth of January of 1955 ?
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
Senator Symington. We got up a clii'onology here pretty quickly,
in a few weeks. No doubt that was due to your help.
Suppose this happened again, would it take 11 months in order to
find out who promoted a man and discharged him — everybody in-
volved ?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir.
Senator Symington. I am being sincere about it.
Secretary Stevens. Definitelj^ not.
Senator Syjiington. What happened between the report which you
got in May of 1954, which gave 28 names, and the report wliich you
released in January of 1955, which gave 60? Did you give up in the
Army and turn it over to the Department of Defense, or did you
Secretar}^ Stevens. Oh, no, sir. As I said, we did not want to pub-
lish these names, Senator Symington, for the reasons that I have out-
lined, and, therefore, there was no chronology. That wasn't started
until mid-November.
Senator Symington. You had 28 names which you did not want to
publish in May. When did you get the 60 names, regardless of when
you wanted to publish them or whether you wanted to publish them ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 477
Secretary Ste\"ens. That Avas completed, I would say, around the
1st of the year 1955.
Senator Symington. Then it did take you IO14 months to find out
eA'erybody involved, did it not ?
Secretary Ste\t:ns. No, because we were not working on a chro-
nology, for example, in the period from
Senator Symington. I am not talking about the chronology. You
told the committee, and you have reiterated today, that you were
doing everything possible to clarify this matter and get it cleared up.
It could not have been cleared up if you had not found out the 60
names that 3'ou released on the 7th of eTanuary 1955. What I am
asking is — I am sure you were talking in good faith on the 5th of
February 1954, when you said you w'ould immediately institute all
action possible to get the facts with respect to Peress — you never did
get those facts until the day you had the 60 names, and you released
those 60 names in Januaiy. You certainly did not have those 60
names by May, because you didn't even give them to us in a classified
document.
]My question is : "\A1ien did you get all the 60 names which you re-
leased on the 7th of January? You must have gotten them sometime
before the 7th of January. When was that ?
I think the Colonel behind you would like to discuss it with you,
and we would be glad for him to do so.
Secretary Stevens. May I confer with counsel on this date?
(Secretary Stevens conferred with his counsel.)
(Present at this time were Senators McClellan, Symington, Jack-
son, McCarthy, and Bender.)
The Chair]man. I think we might let the record show an extended
conference at this point.
Mr. Brucker. That is all right.
Secretary Ste\^ns. I don't know that I can give j'ou the precise
date, Senator Symington, much as I would like to
Senator Symington. Eoughly.
Secretary Stevens. But I would say that the major portion of those
names, if not all of them, were in the IG report.
Senator Syiviington. "V\niy did you take some out, then ?
Secretary Stevens. I didn't take any out. I asked the Inspector
General to give me a list of the people who had had any important
part insofar as the promotion and discharge of Irving Peress was
concerned. But the IG report probably contains substantially all of
the 62 names that you are talking about.
Senator Symington. Then w^ho edited the IG report ?
Secretary Stevens. The Inspector General compiled the list based
on his conclusions from the report, and that list was supplied to me and
I in turn passed it along to the committee.
Senator Symington. Can you explain why there was a name in the
IG report — and I am accepting your word for it that there was that
name, because it was not in the group — where a man got a reprimand
for what he did in the Peress case and yet was not included in the 28
names ?
Secretary Stevens, No, sir ; I can't tell you exactly why that hap-
pened.
Senator Symington. Will you not agree with me that that is an
extraordinary Inspector GeneraFs report for the Army to hang its
478 ARIVIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
position on, based on the facts as they have developed over the hist few
months ?
Secretary Stevens. In the light of hindsight now, I think there is
material which should have been covered ; that is correct.
Senator Symington. Mr. Secretary, it isn't hindsiirht. You, the
Secretary of the Army were telling the American people — and it was
in the press all the time — that you were basing your position on the
Inspector General's report, and when we hnally get the whole story,
the Inspector General's report is most incomplete and, if I may respect-
fully say so, knowing that you had nothing to do with compiling the
report, most inaccurate.
Secretary Stevens. I think the Inspector General's report is not a
most incomplete report. It may be said that the list which was sub-
mitted was an incomplete list.
Senator Symington. "Wlio made the list up ?
Secretary Ste\^ns. The Inspector General.
Senator Symington. Is the Inspector General not responsible for
what the Inspector General does ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir ; he is.
Senator Symington. Then he is responsible for the submission of
the list to you which you submitted to the connnittee; is that not
right?
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
Senator Symington. And the list could not have been much more in
error, could it, in your opinion ?
Secretary Stevens. I don't know that I would agree fully with that.
I think
Senator Symington. You reprimanded or admonished two men.
One man had nothing whatever to do with the case. He was on the
list. The other man was not on the list which you submitted and he
was admonished. How wrong can you be without being wrong ?
Secretary Stevens. Senator, I don't know why the Inspector Gen-
eral treated it the way he did. I just don't know, sir. I didn't make
up the report.
Senator Symington. I do not want to pursue this, Mr. Chairman,
with the Secretary of the Army ; but, if I may, I should like to make
one comment. If you had brought the facts up here to the committee
and laid them on the table and said, "Here are the facts," then the
committee could examine the facts, with or without the Inspector
General himself, but at least with his staff, I think we would have been
through with this thing a good many months ago.
Secretary Stevens. I attempted to do that, Senator Symington,
but apparently not successfully, because right from the start, from
the word "go," I admitted the deficiencies of the Army in the handling
of this matter.
Senator Symington. As I understand it, you were afraid of the
attitude that the committee would take toward the facts; is that it?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir. I did not want to have our officer
personnel subjected to the treatment that General Z wicker had re-
ceived on the 18th of February 1954, and I thought that might well
happen in the atmosphere which existed at the time.
Senator Symington. If you gave the names — you gave 28 names
and you have just said that you gave them and that you would have
been glad to have them examined bv the committee, but not a single
ARRO^ PERSOXKEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 479
one was — I think you used words like that — were you not at that time
offering up as a possible sacrifice, on the premise of your observation,
28 people who might be treated that way, but you were reserving 32
people whom you were not letting anybody know about at all ?
Secretary Stevens. Definitely not, sir. Definitely not.
Senator Symingtox. If you say "Here are 28 people that you can
examine," like General Zwicker or unlike General Zwicker, then how
can you say that you are not holding back from the committee if you
say, "Here are 32 people I will be sure you won't examine, because
1 am not going to give you their names."
Secretary Stevens. If I may, I would like in answering that to
bring up my letter to Senator Mundt of June 23. Do we have that
here ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes. It is right here.
Secretary Stent.ns. I would like also. Senator, to point out that
submitting a list of 28 names in confidence to the committee is quite
a different proposition from putting out and publishing on the front
page of all the papers, with the interest there was in this thing, pub-
licity in my judgment out of all proportion to the facts : and I think
that has been proved during the course of this hearing — it is quite a
different thing to put those 28 names out on the front page than to
submit them to this committee in the way that I did in accordance
with my commitment.
I w^ould like, if I may, Mr. Chairman, to present as an exhibit my
letter of June 23 to Senator Mundt, from which I would like to quote
u few extracts, if I may, the first of which is :
This investigation —
that is, the I. G. —
disclosed no evidence of any subversive conduct with respect to personnel actions
involving Peress. Furthermore, there is no evidence of disloyalty, pro-Commu-
nist influence, or any other type of misconduct reflecting on the loyalty, integrity,
or patriotism of the officers and civilians who processed the ease.
The investigation, however, did reveal that in several instances improper
administrative handling of papers resulted in unwarranted delays in processijig
actions concerning Major Peress.
I readily admitted that the case could have been handled better.
The Chairman. All right. It may be made exliibit 82.
(Exhibit No. 82 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Secretary Stevens. I want to read one more, if I may :
I wish to emphasize that the mere fact that the individuals are named as
having some administrative responsibility or knowledge of the subject should
in no way be construed to indicate culpability on their part.
I would like, if I may, to submit this as an exhibit.
The Chairman. It has been made exhibit No. 82 for the record.
Mr. Secretary, I would like to ask you 1 or 2 questions.
Are you convinced now that the Inspector General's report was in-
adequate, incomplete, and reflects inefficiency in that department?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir.
The Chairman. Have you taken any corrective measures with
respect to the Inspector General's office since these facts have been
developed ?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir.
The Chairman. Do you think any are required or necessary ?
Secretary Stevens. I want to study the matter carefully to see, sir.
480 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. The Chair would seriously urge you to do so. Any-
body who would submit an Inspector General's report with the errors
in it which this one seems to have, it occurs to the Chair at least — I
do not know about other members of the committee — it occurs to the
Chair, at least, that there is still a job to be done. I just wondered if
that was one of the reasons why the Inspector General's report was
not made available to the committee.
Secretary Stevens. Sir?
The Chairman. I do not think you could be very proud of it.
All right, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. IvENNEDY. ]Mr. Secretary, you were aware of the fact that the
committee was interested in the names of the individuals involved in
the Peress matter.
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy, You knew that there was a good deal of interest in
having that at the earliest possible moment, is that right ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understand it, the Inspector General's report
was finished on April 16, is that right?
Secretary Stevens. I believe that is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. I call your attention to your testimony on INIay 3,
on page 639 :
Secretary Stevens. The information. Senator, depends upon the Inspector
General's report, which, as I testified this morning, I expect to receive any day.
Senator McCarthy. Why do you expect to receive it? Has he told you he waa
going to give it to you?
Secretary Stevens. It is just about finished, I think.
Senator McCarthy. How do you know? You said you have not contacted him.
Secretary Stevens. No; I haven't contacted him, but I just have a feeling
that the thing must be about ready.
That was on May 3. The Inspector General's report had been fin-
ished over 2 weeks. Could you tell the committee why the Inspector
General's report w^as not brought to your attention, in view of the
fact that continuously during the Army-McCarthy hearings the re-
quest had been made for the names in the Inspector General's report ?
Secretary Stevens. I have found out since that the Inspector Gen-
eral's report which was finished on the 15th of April, or thereabouts,
was sent in due course to the Chief of Staff and was reviewed there
by the Chief of Staff or his staff, and sometime in the neighborhood
of the 27th of April was sent to the Assistant Secretary of the Army
for Manpower, Mr. Milton, for study. In the meanwhile, I remind
you that I was spending all day every day on the witness chair here
in this committee room, and was trying at night to handle the impor-
tant matters which were part of my job as Secretary of the Army
to do. That paper, along with many other important papers, did
not reach me during that period of time because there simply wasn't
an opportunity to do it.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, one of the reasons the committee was
interested in Irving Peress is the delay of the Army in handling it.
Here we have once again a delay in getting the information to the
committee of almost 3 weeks.
Secretary Stevens. I would like to call your attention to the fact
that, on the recommendation of Mr. Jenkins, Senator Mundt had ruled
that the Peress case was not relevant to the issues that were involved
in the Army-McCarthy hearings.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATESTG TO IRVESTG PERESS 481
Mr. Kennedy. I agree, Mr. Secretary, but it was agreed by you
that you would nevertheless furnish to the subcommittee the names
of those individuals who were involved in the Peress matter ; isn't that
correct ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes ; and I did so.
Mr. Kennedy. Again I point out that there was a delay of approxi-
mately 3 weeks between the time that the Inspector General's report
was finished before you evidently even became aware of the fact.
Secretary Stevens. I have explained to you, Mr. Kennedy
Mr. Kennedy. I understand your explanation.
Senator Symington. Mr. Secretary, how many pages are there in
the Inspector General's report?
Secretary Stevens. Including exhibits, there are approximately
600.
Senator Symington. You could read that, somebody could read that
over a weekend ; couldn't they ?
Secretary Stevens. I doubt if I could, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, isn't the report itself only 40 pages,
*ind the 560 pages are exhibits?
Secretary Ste\tens. It is necessaiy to look at the whole report, in
my opinion, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. That might be true, but the report itself, Mr.
Secretary
Secretary Stevens. The heart of the report is about 40 pages.
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me?
Secretary Stevens. The heart of the report is about 40 pages.
Mr. Kennedy. The report, the written material. And there are
exhibits of 560 pages which refer to the report.
Senator Symington. There would not have been any possible
thought that if the report was held up for a while, maybe the hearings
would be over?
Secretary Stevens. None that I know of.
Senator Symington. Three weeks does seem a long time to read 40
pages.
Secretary Stevens. I wouldn't have been satisfied. Senator Syming-
ton, to read 40 pages.
Senator Symington. Three weeks seems a pretty long time to read
600 pages when it had gotten to the point where you had a lot of the
Senate tied up.
Secretary Stevens. If you have nothing else to do, I concur. Sena-
tor, you are absolutely right, but it was on account of the accumula-
tion of things which went on while I was spending all my days up
here.
Senator Symington. TSHiile you were spending your days up here,
perhaps the staff could have been reading the report.
Secretai-y Stevens. That is true, and I think that was going on, but
I wasn't satisfied to do anything with it until I had had a chance to
look at the report.
Senator Symington. I would like to take 600 pages and divide it by
3 weeks and see how they were going on it.
Mr. Kennedy. Prior to submitting these names, Mr. Secretary, you
read the report ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes ; I went over the report, not every word of
it but I did the best I could with that gigantic document.
482 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. When did you receive the report?
Secretary Stevens. 1 received the report, 1 believe it was on the
] 1th of May.
Mr. Kennedy. So that was a little bit over 3 weeks from the time
that it was issued. It took a little over 3 w^eeks for it to get from the
lnsi>ector General to your office.
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, moving on, you were conscious that
the special Mundt subcommittee was extremely interested in learning
of Mr. Adams' participation in the Peress matter.
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. A number of times, by Senator McCarthy and Mr.
Jenkins and by Senator Mundt. it was pointed out to you that when
the list was furnished to the Mundt subcommittee, special emphasis
should be placed on the participation that John Adams had in the
case ; is that right ?
Secretary Stevens. I was asked for that information; yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, the name of John Adams was not
furnished to the committee; is that right?
Secretary Stevens. The name of John Adams? Yes, I think that
John Adams
Mr. Kennedy. On the original list of 28, does the name of John
Adams appear?
Secretary Stevens. No. That is correct.
Mr. IvENNEDY. Would you explain to the committee why his name
was not on the list ?
Secretary Stevens. Why it was not on the list?
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
Secretary Stevens. As I say, I asked the Inspector General to fur-
nish a list that I could furnish to the committee in carrying out my
conunitment to submit a list. The list which was submitted to me did.
not have General Weible or Mr. Adams on it, as we have discussed.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask specifically for a memorandum on the
participation of John Adams ?
Secretary Stevens. I did.
Mr, Kennedy. Did the Inspector General fnrnish you that infor-
mation ?
Secretary Stevens. He did.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that in the first letter that you Avrote to the
special Mundt subcommittee? Did you include that information in
the letter ?
Secretary Stevens. No. The Inspector General prepared a letter to
the Mundt subcommittee which enclosed a list of names, and also
enclosed the report about John Adams. I rewrote the letter, discussed
it with counsel. The fact of the matter was that the Peress case was
irrelevant to the issues of the Army-McCarthy hearing, and also that
John Adams was testifying on the stand right at that particular time.
If the committee was interested in anything having to do with John
Adams' part in the Peress case, all they had to do was ask him, which
was not done.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, you have stated at the hearings on
May 10 that you didn't feel that it was necessary to furnish any writ-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 483
ten material to the committee on John Adams' participation. How-
ever, Senator Mundt pointed out to you at that time that he wanted
that information given to the subcommittee, and the fact that John
Adams was to testify did not preclude you from furnishing that
information.
Secretary Stevens. According to my counsel, there was no reason
for me to submit something which I was not committed to submit
which might prejudice the appearance of John Adams on the witness
stand.
Senator Symington. May I ask a question there ? You knew that
Mr. Adams was involved in the Peress case, because you discussed the
Peress case with him.
Secretary S^pevens. That is true.
Senator Symington. What were the 28 names that you reviewed and
submitted to the committee ? What were they considered to be ?
Secretary Ste\^ns. They were considered to be names that had to
do with the promotion and discharge of Peress.
Senator Symington. Then when you reviewed that, you knew that
Mr. Adams' name should be on that list, did you not ?
Secretary Ste%tens. I didn't review the list in any particular detail.
Senator Symington, because I asked the Inspector General to prepare
it. He was the man who made the investigation and spent the time
on it. I neither took a name off of it or put a name onto it. I did not
tamper with it. I thought the thing to do was to send it to the com-
mittee precisely as it had been prepared by the Inspector General.
Senator Symington. Then you really didn't review it, did you?
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, I want to point out the testimony
on page 922 :
Mr. Jenkins. As I understood it, specifically he —
Senator McCarthy —
wanted to know whether or not Mr. Adams had anything to do with it. And
then the names, as I understand it, the chairman ruled are to be submitted to
this committee or me, as its counsel, privately, and without exposing their
names. They are not parties to this controversy. The chairman would prob-
ably hold that you are entitled to give publicly the information as to whether
or not Mr. Adams had anything to do with it. I am just making a suggestion
and asking you that in the interest of speed. It occurred to me that that would
be a way out, a solution to the problem. Can you do it or not?
Secretary Stevens. I can do that, sir, but it seems to me that IMr. Adams can
testify right here now as to what he had to do with it, if anything.
Further down, you went on to say :
Secretary Stevens. Mr. Jenkins, I want to cooperate with you the very best
I can. I will supply any and all information that this committee wants just
as quickly as I can possibly do so.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, that is all I care to ask the Secretary.
Senator Mundt. I think that is a very constructive suggestion. If the Chair
understands it, the Secretary is willing and desirous of expediting the securing
of this information, and has agreed to talk with the Inspector General, who
wrote the report, and who consequently could tell you immediately the names in-
volved. Insofar as Mr. Adams is concerned, that should be discussed publicly
because he is a party to the dispute. The other names requested by Mr. Cohn
should be submitted confidentially and to counsel for our committee because
we don't want to expand the circle of witnesses any more than necessary.
484 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
No. 1, Mr, Secretary, when you wrote the letter to this committee,
you used both of those quotes and left out the top line. You did have
dots here, but —
As I understood it, specifically he wanted to know whether or not Mr. Adams had
anything to do with it —
that line was left out. And then, as far as when Senator Mundt
talked :
Insofar as Mr. Adams is concerned, that should be discussed publicly because
he is a party to the dispute —
was also left out.
Secretary Stevens. Mr. Adams was right on the stand the next day,
prepared to discuss it publicly to any extent that you wanted him to.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, you never told the subcommittee that
that was the position you were going to take. You stated that you
would comply with the request of the special Mundt subcommittee to
furnish the names.
Secretary Stevens. Mr. Kennedy, with anything having to do
with Mr. Adams, I have said repeatedly I thought the committee
ought to call Mr. Adams and ask him about it, and they would get
the information directly instead of secondhand.
Then on the 10th, which was the last day I testified, except for a
short af)pearance I think perhaps 10 days later, Mr. Adams was right
there on the stand. So if it was a matter of public interest, all the
committee had to do was to ask about it.
I would like now to submit for the record, if I may, Mr. Chairman,
a document which was given to me by the Inspector General in respect
of Mr. Adams.
The Chairman. Let us have order.
Secretary Stevens. Could the reporter read what I said a moment
ago?
The Chairman. I may say to the witness that we are going to reach
that interrogation in a few moments, if you will withhold it for the
present.
Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. The Inspector General wrote a letter to the special
Mundt subcommittee for your signature, is that right ?
Secretary Stevens. He prepared a draft. That is, it was a letter,
but it was his idea of a letter.
Mr. Kennedy. In that letter it mentioned the fact that there was
going to be a statement regarding Mr. Adams' participation in the
case; is that right?
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, there was a memorandum submitted
by the Inspector General regarding Mr. Adams' participation in the
case?
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. But that memorandum did not include, for the rea-
sons which we have discussed before, what the conference that Mr.
Adams had with General Weible on February 3 was.
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, you changed the letter and withdrew
the information regarding John Adams ?
Secretary Stevens. On the advice of counsel; yes, sir.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 485
The Chairman. You say on the advice of counsel. Was Mr. Adams
himself the counsel?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir. This was Mr. Welch.
Mr. Kennedy. May I have the witness identify this document.
The Chairman. Counsel wishes you to identify that document, Mr.
Secretary.
Secretary STE^^:NS. Yes, sir, that is it.
The Chairman. That is it? That is what?
Secretary Stevens. This is Mr. Adams' participation in the Peress
case submitted to me by the Inspector General.
The Chairman. That is a copy of what the Inspector General sub-
mitted to you ?
Secretary Ste\'ens. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Is that what you had before you?
Secretary Sitivens. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It may now be made exhibit No. 83.
Secretary Stevens. Mr. Chairman, could I read this. It is a short
document.
The Chairman. Yes, I would be very glad to have you read it.
Mr. Stevens (reading) :
Mb. Adams' Participation in the Peress Case
Mr. Adams' participation in the case of Major Peress, as reflected in the
Inspector General's report of investigation, was limited to the following actions :
(a) Wrote a memorandum of February 5, 1954, to the Chief of Staff requesting
that an investigation of the case be conducted by the Inspector General.
(&) The testimony indicates that Mr. Adams inquired of General Willems,
Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, on January 27, 1954, whether Peress had
already been discharged, and if not, if he could be separated by the following
day. Colonel Stearns, Security Division, G-2, obtained from First Army the
information that Peress had not been discharged as of that date, but that he
could be if proper instructions were received by First Army from the Department
of the Army.
(c) Records indicate that Mr. Adams called Brig. Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker,
commanding general, Camp Kilmer, N. J., on January 28, 1954, requested him to
contact Major Peress with respect to his appearance before Senator McCarthy's
committee in New York City at 10 : 30 a. m., January 30, 1954.
The Chairman. The memorandum has no reference whatsoever to
the conference between Mr. Adams and General Weible.
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you identify this document ?
The Chairman. That is another document, Mr. Secretary, which
I would like you to identify.
Secretary Stevens. This is the draft or the letter prepared by the
Inspector General for me, that is right, to Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Kennedy. May we have that made an exhibit ?
The Chairman. Was the letter ever sent?
Secretary Stevens. No; this letter
The Chairman. Is that the one you made changes in before sending ?
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
The Chairman. Do you have a copy of the letter which was sent?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. We will come to that.
The Chairman. Will that follow ?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
The Chairjvian. This may be made exhibit No. 84.
486 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
(Exhibit No. 84 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Mr. Kennedy. Will you read that part of the letter which is
struck out?
Secretary Stevens (reading) :
and a statement regarding Mr. Adams' participation in this case.
Mr. Kennedy. You had better read the whole paragraph.
Secretary Stevens (reading) :
On the basis of this conversation and my earnest desire to supply this com-
mittee with as much information at my disposal as I am permitted to release,
I am submitting herewith in classified form the names of personnel who took an
active part in the various personnel actions concerning Dr. Peress.
Mr. Kennedy. And then?
Secretary Stevens (reading) :
and a statement regarding Mr. Adams' participation in this case.
That was stricken out.
The Chairman. Is that all that was stricken in the original draft ?
Secretary Stevens. I think I changed "these classified documents"
to "this classified document," and in order to correct the grarmnar
said "is" rather than "are."
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, we present to you another document
for your identification.
Secretary Stevens. This appears to be another draft of the same
general letter.
The Chairman. Is this the draft which was forwarded to Mr.
Jenkins?
Secretary Stevens. This was not used, either.
The Chairman. This draft, was not used ?
Secretary Stevens. Neither the one before which I just referred
to, nor this one, was used. It is marked right on here that it was not
used.
The Chairman. This may be made exhibit No. 85.
(Exhibit No. 85 may be found in the files of the subcommittee.)
Does the document which you now hold in your hand, which has
just been made exhibit No. 85, differ from the document which was
made exhibit No. 84, the one in which you struck out some of the parts
of the letter which was drafted for your use ?
Secretary Stevens. It is different from the previous draft ; yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right, it may be inserted in the record.
Proceed, Mr. Kennedy.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, when did counsel advise you not
to furnish to the special Mundt subcommittee the information that
they had requested on Adams ?
Secretary Stevens. After the draft of letter prepared by the In-
spector General came up, I naturally took it up with counsel. I would
not write letters or submit exhibits without talking with counsel.
That would be somewhere in the area of the 12tli or 13th of May.
The Chairman. That is a rollcall in the Senate. Therefore, the
committee will stand in recess for 15 minutes or until such time
thereafter as we can return.
(Brief recess.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
The Chair will announce that instead of 1 rollcall we had 3, and
that accounts for our delay in returning.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 487
All right, Mr. Counsel, proceed.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, we were discussing the letter which
was sent up with the list of 28 names, you will remember.
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. By whom was the second letter written, the letter
in which the information on Adams was struck from the body of the
letter?
Secretary Stevens. I think the main body of the letter was pre-
pared by the Inspector General. I assume that any changes were
made in my office.
Mr. Kennedy. Then the letter was retyped ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir ; it is typewritten.
Mr. Kennedy. You signed that letter at that time ?
Secretary Stevens. I think I did sign it.
Mr. Kennedy. This was back on May 11. Was it at that time
that you made the determination not to furnish the information on
Adams to the committee ?
Secretary Stevens. It was about that time that I conferred with
Mr. Welch, my counsel, in regard to the situation.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, you are taking the responsibility for
not furnishing that information to the committee ; are you not ?
Secretary Steatens. That is correct.
Mr. I^nnedy. It is not your counsel's responsibility. He might
advise you, but you were the one who made the determination not
to furnish the information to the committee.
Secretary Stevens. It was on the advice of counsel, on the basis
that the Peress case was not relevant to the Army-McCarthy hearing,
and also due to the fact that John Adams was on the stand that very
day. Any information that was needed about his part in it could
have been gotten from him simply by asking him.
Mr. Kennedy. Nevertheless, we read into the record the fact that
the committee was interested to hear from you regarding Adams'
participation. Did you inform the committee that you were not going
to furnish them with the information on Adams because Adams was
testifying?
Secretary Stevens. I followed the advice of my counsel, and my
testimony ended on the 10th, I believe, Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Adams
went on on the 11th. I thought that his being on the stand would
take care of anything necessary to his connection with the Peress case.
Mr. Kennedy. You made that explanation, Mr. Secretary. I call
your attention again to page 922. You made that suggestion to the
committee, and Senator Mundt specifically rejected it, as did Mr.
Jenkins, and said that was no reason why you should not also furnish
that material, and you stated at that time, "I will do so." Evi-
dently
Secretary Stevens. I don't think I stated precisely that I would
do so.
Mr. Kennedy. You said to Mr. Jenkins : "I want to cooperate with
you the very best I can. I will supply any and all information that
this committee wants just as quickly as I can possibly do so."
That referred specifically to the question of whether Adams' par-
ticipation in tlie Peress matter should be furnished along with the
names of the other people who participated.
488 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVESTG PERESS
Secretary Stevens. I think when he was put on the stand within 24
hours, the question was fully answered.
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, that is not the answer to the question.
Secretary Stevens. I don't understand, Mr. Kennedy, when you
had the primary person on the stand to testify with respect to his
actions, what difference it made or what anything that I might get
secondhand would have to do with it.
(Present at this time were Senator McClellan, Jackson, and
Bender. )
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, that was not the Peress case that
was under investigation. That information was being submitted for
the benefit of the committee, and for that reason your contention
before the committee that Mr. Adams should be asked about the
information and that that would be sufficient was rejected by both
Mr. Jenkins, who was counsel for the committee, and Senator Mundt,
who was chairman of the committee.
Nevertheless, as I understand it, you went back to the Pentagon and
there, after a conference with your counsel, Mr. Welch, decided you
would not furnish the information to the committee anyway ; is that
right?
Secretary Stevens. We decided we were not going to put it in cer-
tainly at that time, with Mr. Adams sitting on the stand testifying.
Mr. Kennedy. You just decided that you wouldn't give the com-
mittee the information that they had requested ?
Secretary Stevens. It seemed to me that if the committee was inter-
ested in this question, with Mr. Adams sitting on the stand, they could
find out anything they wanted to.
Mr. Kennedy. They had decided — I am not going to belabor this
any further, but they had made the decision, and I call your attention
again to page 922, and I call your attention to page 916 where it is
specifically stated that you should furnish the subcommittee, the
special Mundt subcommittee, with the information on John Adams,
and that you then made the argument that the committee could ask
John Adams about it, and it was then rejected and you were told to
furnish that information yourself. We will go on now.
Mr. Secretary, what did you do after the second letter was written
and signed? Did you seal that? Wliat was your next step?
Secretary Stevens. No, I didn't. I prepared another draft which
was on the 13th of May, which was the letter which was sent to the
committee with the list of the 28 names.
Mr. Kennedy. Will you identify this document, please ?
(Document passed to the witness.)
Secretary Stevens. That is the letter of May 13.
Mr. Kennedy. That letter does not refer to John Adams at all.
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy, That letter was sent up to the Mundt subcommittee
together with the 28 names.
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
The Chairman. Is that the final letter, the letter which was finally
sent?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
The Chairman, Let it be made exhibit No, 86,
(Exhibit No, 86 may be found in the files of the subcommittee,)
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVESTG PERESS 489'
Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Secretary, were you aware that there were two
individuals admonished for their participation in the Peress matter,
two Army officials ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, I am aware that there were.
Mr. Kennedy. Are you aware of the fact that neither one of those
officials' — and they were both officers — names were furnished to the
special Mundt subcommittee under the title of officers who had an
active part in the Peress matter ?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir, I am not familiar with the detail of it.
Mr. Kennedy. Neither one of those officers' names — Thomas and
Lt. Col. Samuel Gordon — was furnished to the special Mundt sub-
committee, as well as Colonel Anders' name, who was the G-2 officer
down here in the Department of the Army, Colonel Brown, who was
G-2 officer up at Camp Kilmer, Colonel Thomas, who was G-2 officer
at First Army, Captain Kirkland, who handled the forms DD-98 and
DD-398, General Zwicker, as well as a number of other officers. I
think that the record shows in addition, as Senator McClellan said,
that out of the 28 names which were furnished under the title, only
8 were deemed by the Inspector General of sufficient importance for
him to interview with regard to the Peress matter.
When, ISIr. Secretary, did you send the letter of May 13 to this
subcommittee ?
Secretary Stevtsns The letter of May 13, after it had been pre-
pared and signed, I gave, as I recall it, to my aide. Colonel Belieu,
who retained the letter, subject to the advice of Mr. Welch, until I
would say somewhere along about the 25th of Mav.
Mr. Ivennedy. Is it not a fact, Mr. Secretary, that John Adams
finished testifying on May 24, and that this letter furnishing the names
was not sent up to the special Mundt subcommittee until after he had
finished testifying?
Secretary Stevens. I can't testify on that because I don't know
exactly when it was received by the committee. I would have guessed
around the 25th, but I do not know.
Mr. Kennedy. That was the day after John Adams finished testi-
fying. Can you tell us
Secretary Stevens. I do know this : From the period of May 14
to 24, there was testimony taken by this committee on only 1 day.
It was a period of inactivity as far as the committee was concerned.
Mr. Kennedy. What is the explanation of the fact that that
information or that letter was not sent to the special Mundt subcom-
mittee prior to that time?
Secretary Stevens. I don't know exactly when it arrived, but I
am sure that Colonel Belieu, if he was the one who delivered it, did
it in accordance with advice from Mr. Welch.
Mr. Ivennedy. Mr. Jenkins states on the 24th that he still had
not received the letter, and again requested that the names be fur-
nished. Then finally, on the 26th of May, he made a statement that
the letter had finally arrived.
Was the reason that it was not sent up sooner by the Department
of the Army, to wait until after John Adams had finished testifying,
and tlien to find out or to make the determination of what informa-
tion should be put in the letter regarding John Adams ?
Secretary Stevens. I would certainly answer that in the negative.
490 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. This letter was signed by you, and you don't know
why Mr. Welch, or whoever kept it out, kept it for approximately
10 days before furnishing it to the Mundt subcommittee?
Secretary Stevens, As I say, the committee was inactive during
most of that period. It took testimony on only 1 day during the
period May 14 to 24. I think Mr. Welch undoubtedly was looking
for the proper opportunity to present it. Wlien Mr. Jenkins, as you
have indicated, raised the question once again on the 24th, I think
it was probably submitted as a result of that on the 25th. It might
have been the 26th, Mr. Kennedy.
Senator McCarthy. Might I say, Mr. Chairman, I marvel at the
tremendously good memory the Secretary has, that he knows we had
hearings on only 1 day between the 14th and the 24th. I want to
compliment you on your excellent memory, Mr. Secretary.
Secretary Stevens. Thank you.
Senator McCarthy. I wish it were as good on other vital matters.
The Chairman. Let us proceed.
(Present at this time were Senators McClellan, Jackson, Syming-
ton, McCarthy, and Bender.)
Senator McCarthy. Would you mind if I break in and ask a couple
of questions?
The Chairman. Counsel has finished, he says. Proceed, Senator
McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, you have testified that you
now recall that you talked to John Adams about the part that he
played in the honorable discharge of Peress; is that right?
Secretary Stevens. I have testified that John gave me a brief ac-
count of the thing when I got back and talked with him on the 5th of
February. We discussed that along with many other things.
Senator McCarthy. Let me read to you from page 602 of your
testimony.
Mr. Brucker. Will you wait just a minute until we get that?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, certainly. Page 602, and when you are
geting that, mark page 921, because they both go together.
Secretary Ste\^ns. Wliere on page 602 ?
Senator McCarthy. On page 602 about three-fourths down the
page:
Senator McCaktht. I will restate it.
Do you find that ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. You find Secretary Stevens says :
Will you restate that or let the reporter read it?
Ajid I said :
I will restate it. The discharge was ordered, as I recall, sometime around
January 1 of 1954. It gave Peress 90 days in which to accept the honorable
discharge. He did not accept it until the day after I wrote you suggesting a
court-martial in his case. The question is, who arranged for his honorable
discharge after I had written that letter, which was made public incidentally,
the day before he got the honorable discharge? Did you find out who was re-
sponsible for that act?
Secretary Stevens. No ; I did not, Senator, and I expect that will all be in the
Inspector General's report.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVLNG PERESS 491
In connection with that, I refer you to page 921, also, about one-
fourth down the page, the second question. Do you have that ?
Senator McCabthy. And did you discuss with him —
referring to John Adams —
the question of who was responsible for the sudden honorable discharge of Mr.
Peress?
Secretary Stevens. I don't recall and I think Mr. Adams ought to testify on
that. He can testify whether or not he had anything to do with it.
Then I say :
The question is
And you interrupted and said ;
I wasn't here at the time and 1 don't know.
Mr. Secretary, now you say you do know that you talked to him
about this. I would like to ask you a simple question. Why did you
not tell us that when you were before the Mundt committee? Why
did you try to deceive the committee then ?
Secretary Stevens. I object violently to your suggestion that I at-
tempted to deceive the committee. I did no such thing.
Senator McCarthy. Would you call this a truthful statement?
Secretary Stevens. I sat here day after day and told you the truth
to the best of my ability.
Senator McCarthy. Would you call this truthful when it is directly
contrary to what you tell us today ?
Secretary Stevens. I certainly call it truthful to the best of my
ability. In other words, Mr. Adams and I had a conference of some-
thing over an hour in which a great many different subjects were
mentioned, and that was one of them. But I had no detail with respect
to it. I didn't know the facts and couldn't have testified.
Senator McCarthy. Do you mean that you did not remember at
that time, as you said, "I don't recall," but something has happened
since then to make you recall ?
Secretary Stevens. I don't mean that.
Senator McCarthy. Wliat do you mean, then ? You said then, "I
don't recall."
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. You say now you do recall. What happened
to make you recall in the meantime ? Was it the fact that John Adams
testified this morning that he had that conversation with you ?
Secretary Stevens. That is a fact ; he did.
Senator McCarthy. Is that the thing that made you recall it?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. WTiat did, then ?
Secretary Stevens. Senator, I think you will find all through here
I tried to get you to call John Adams to testify with respect to what
he had to do with the thing. I had a very limited knowledge of what
had happened, because I had that one conference with John Adams
at that time, and we covered a great many different subjects. I had
no detail with respect to it.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, do you remember my question
now ? You said today that you recall that Adams told you about this.
When you appeared before the Mundt committee you said, "I don't
recall." My question was, what has happened to make you recall
between that date and today ?
492 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Secretary Stevens. May I consult with counsel?
Senator McCarthy. Certainly.
(Secretary Stevens conferred with his counsel.)
Senator McCarthy. Will you have the record show that Mr. Stev-
ens is consulting with counsel now to find out what made Mm recall
this?
The Chairjian. All right, Mr. Secretary, let us proceed.
Mr. Brucker. What was said there while we were talking?
Senator McCarthy. I said, will you have the record show that Mr.
Stevens is consulting with counsel.
Secretary Stevens. Isn't that all right ?
Mr. Brucker. Just a minute.
Senator McCarthy. Your counsel
Mr. Brucker. If you make any remarks while we are conferring
from now on, I am going to hold up the conferring until you get
through with your remarks. We have a right, if we are conferring,
to confer without your making any comment on the record.
Senator McCarthy. Do you want to know what I said ?
The Chairman. Just a moment. We can get into these hassles and
stay here for a month or two. Let's proceed with the questioning of
the witness.
Senator McCarthy. I think, Mr. Chairman, he is entitled to know
what I said while he was conferring.
The Chairman. All right, let us have the reporter read it, and at
the conclusion of that we are going to proceed with the witness.
( Wliereupon, the reporter read the remarks referred to as follows :)
Senator McCarthy. Will you have the record show that Mr. Stevens is con-
sulting with counsel now to find out what made him recall this.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, do you know, after consulting
with counsel, what made you recall this very important fact?
Secretary Stevens. I assume that I must have discussed the mat-
ter with Mr. Adams.
Senator McCarthy. You assume you did ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. You demonstrated a wonderful memory here
a minute ago. Do you know whether you did or not?
Secretary Stevens. I did on the fifth, and of course I did many
times subsequently.
Senator McCarthy. No, I am afraid you don't follow me. When
you appeared before the committee on May 10, you were asked whether
or not you had discussed this with Adams. You said, "I don't recall."
Now today you do recall. You say, "Yes, I discussed it with Adams."
Secretary Stevens. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. The question is. What made you recall it be-
tween May 10 and today ?
Secretary Stevens. I think that my memory was undoubtedly re-
freshed by discussing this thing with Mr. Adams.
Senator McCarthy. It was undoubtedly refreshed ? Was it or not ?
Secretary Stevens. It was undoubtedly refreshed.
Senator McCarthy. Do you remember whether you discussed it
with Adams?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, I did discuss it with him.
Senator McCarthy. And he told you that he had discussed this
with you previously, is that it ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 493
Secretary Ste%^ns. I talked with Mr. Adams and lie refreshed my
memory in connection with this.
. Senator McCarthy. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Any further questions by any member of the com-
mittee ? Senator Bender ?
Senator Bender. I would like to emphasize or at least clear the at-
mosphere in connection with your position in this whole case.
From the Congressional Directory I have your pedigi'ee, and I find
that you were in the Army in the First World War, in the artillery,
and that you had considerable experience in the Army before you be-
came Secretary of the Army. That is correct, is it not?
Secretary STE^^NS. Yes, it is. Senator.
Senator Bender. You have a very strong feeling about the Army ?
Secretary Stevens. Very strong. I do. I think it is a wonderful
army.
Senator Bender. You feel, as a result of your close association with
the Army, that any reflection on any part of the Army is something
that concerns you ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Or upon the Secretary.
Senator Bender. Under the circumstances, you feel that if any one
of your officers is in any kind of difficulty, it is your concern.
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir — providing that doesn't involve col-
lusion or subversion or communism.
Senator Bender. As a former serviceman yourself, and as a man
who has served in the United States Army and as Secretary of the
Army, you would not condone any subversion or any coverup for any
subversives?
Secretary Stevens. I would positively not do so.
Senator Bender. If there is any inefficiency in the Armed Forces,
insofar as you are concerned you want it revealed; is that correct?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir ; and I hope to improve it.
Senator Bender. You have no order from your superior, the Presi-
dent, to do anything except reveal whatever mistakes were made?
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
Senator Bender. Under the circumstances, of course, you have en-
deavored here and in the previous hearing to reveal whatever mistakes
have been made.
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Senator Bender. You are not covering up for anyone ?
Secretary Stevens. Positively not. I thmk that the witnesses who
have appeared before this committee in the last 10 days and the work
of the committee in this hearing can say better than I can that there
has been no covering up.
Senator Bender. You have respect for this committee and for the
committee that Senator McCarthy headed, in their pursuit of sub-
versives and pursuit of fifth-amendment characters in the Army or
outside of the Army ?
Secretary Stevens. I have the utmost respect for this committee.
Senator Bender. You have no quarrel at the moment with Senator
McCarthy ?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir.
Senator Bender. You have respect for him ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. [Laughter.]
494 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator McCarthy. Thank you. I thought you might take the
fifth amendment on that.
Secretary Stevens. No. I respect all Senators, sir.
I would like, if I may, too, in connection with this matter of com-
munism, to point out that on my very first day in office, February 4,
1953, I wrote a memorandum to the Chief of Staff and I said that
1 want to get into the matter of all security and loyalty cases. I
want to know how we keep this kind of people out of the Army, and
I want to know how we find any who might be in and proceed to get
them out. That was on my very first day. I was briefed thoroughly
on that subject 2 days later.
Senator Bender. Is it your opinion that because of the manner in
which this Peress case was handled by certain members of your staff,
that these 28 officers or some of them were derelict in not handling
this matter as expeditiously as possible ?
Secretary Stevens. I think there were some very bad mistakes
made. Senator, in the handling of the Peress case; very bad. It re-
minds me, however, of the fact that 17 million men have gone into
this Army and through this Army during the course of the past
15 years, and that is the most stupendous job of personnel adminis-
tration. I would just like to take this opportunity of mentioning
what those millions of boys have done for us in the way of winning
wars, and not let the mistakes in one case get our vision out of
perspective.
Senator Bender. You, too, were handicapped some because of a
lack of congressional action and, as a result of the congressional
action which was taken in, I think, June of 1953 — I might be mistaken
as to the month — the manner in which these cases are handled has
improved ; is that correct ?
Secretary Stevens. Congressional action in respect of the Doctors
Draft Act, you mean ?
Senator Bender. Yes.
Secretary Stevens. That was a very complicating factor, because it
was an absolutely unique piece of legislation in our military liistory.
The fact that it was superimposed on our existing personnel system
and was not integrated properly with it caused us a great deal of our
trouble in the Peress case.
(At this point Senator Mundt entered the room.)
Senator Bender. Again I want to emphasize that you have no quar-
rel, to the slightest degree, with any member of this committee or of
Senator McCarthy's committee, or with Senator McCarthy, in their
pursuit of subversives or in their effort to get at the truth and the facts
pertaining to this case or any other case ?
Secretary Stevens. None whatever. We want the facts in this and
all other cases.
Senator Bender. Do you feel now that with a little more patience on
the part of some of your staff and possibly some of the congressional
committee staff, possibly this matter might have been resolved much
more readily and much more quickly, and as a result of that misunder-
standing possibly this thing has dragged on as it has most obviously,
and everyone is aware of how expensive this has been and how much
time has been consumed by people who were important in govern-
mental affairs, as a result of these misunderstandings?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 495
Secretary Stevens. Senator, I don't know. I don't know that I can
answer that question yes or no, because a OTeat deal of the trouble in
this connection was caused, in my view, by the treatment that was
accorded General Zwicker on the 18th of February 1954. That was
at the root of a lot of the trouble.
(Secretary Stevens conferred with his counsel.)
The Chairman. Any further questions ?
Secretary Stevens. Maybe I misunderstood the question. Senator.
If it is a matter of : Can these mistakes which have taken place in the
Peress case, which w^e have frankly admitted for well over a year, be
eliminated or the system improved by good work between my staff
and the staff of this committee, I think that would have been very
helpful. I am not sure that I understood your question in the first
instance.
Senator Bender. On the other hand, it might prove a blessing in
disguise to have had this whole thing aired and an improvement in
the service resulting therefrom.
Secretary Ste'vtens. Yes, sir.
Senator Bender. That is all.
Senator McCarthy. May I have just 1 or 2 questions?
The Chairman. All right. Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, I have been somewhat disturbed
by your refusal to give the IG report to this committee, especially in
view of the fact that you promised you would make that report avail-
able at that rather famous chicken dinner. I understand you made it
available for about an hour or so to Mr. Kennedy and other staff mem-
bers, and then withdrew it.
Can you tell us why you feel that this committee cannot see that
report? Do you feel it would endanger the national security if you
did?
Senator Stevens. I never promised to supply the IG report, Sena-
tor McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. Now will you answer the question ? ^
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir, I am answering the question, because
you referred to the famous chicken dinner, and I have a copy of the
agreement in front of me, and it says nothing whatever about making
the IG report available, and I did not at that time or any other time
agree to submit the IG report.
Senator McCarthy. Could I see that agreement ?
(Document passed to Senator McCarthy.)
Senator McCarthy. 'VVliile that is being brought around, I wonder
if you could tell us whether or not you feel it would endanger the
national security if you were to make that IG report available ?
Secretary Stevens. I feel that anything that tends to break down
the investigative process of the Government, such as the FBI or the
Army or the Navy or the Air Force, will, in the final analysis, endanger
the security of the country.
Senator McCarthy. Is there anything in this report specifically
which would endanger the national security, or is it your answer that
you feel that any IG report which was made available would ultimately
endanger the national security ?
Secretary Stevens. I would like to turn this over to the General
Counsel of the Department of Defense.
The Chairman. No. You are the witness.
496 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Senator McCarthy. You are the witness.
The Chairman. Let the Chair ask you this: Do you realize and
recognize that under the law you do have the authority as Secretary
of the Army to make it available?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir ; I do not think I do, and that is why I
want to turn it over to the General Counsel of the Department of
Defense.
The Chairman. You answer for yourself, and then
Secretary Stevens. I can't answer on the legal side, because I am
not a lawyer.
The Chairman. I asked you if you felt or if you knew. You say
you do not. That is all I wanted. I just wanted to get your own
judgment about it.
Secretary Stevens. My own view is that I cannot turn it over.
The Chairman. All right.
Senator McCarthy. Would that be true of any IG report ?
Secretary Stevens. It would be true of any IG report where there
was a security connotation, loyalty.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, you feel if there is not security
involved, you can freely make IG reports available ?
Secretary Stevens. No ; I do not.
Senator McCarthy. Do you feel you cannot make them available
if there is not security involved ?
Secretary Stevens. As a general proposition. Senator McCarthy, I
don't feel that IG reports should ever be made available.
Senator McCarthy. I notice you were very, very eager to make the
IG report, a very detailed report, on David Schine and who shined
Schine's shoes, available to the Mundt committee, but when you get
into the question of trying to find out who promoted this Communist,
we don't know yet.
We were trying to find out who promoted this Communist, and
you clamped the lid down. You clamped it down at an odd time, too,
after the staff was looking at the report and discussing certain phases
of it.
Secretary Stevens. I didn't clamp any lid down.
Senator McCarthy, Let me finisk
Secretary Stevens. Just a minute. Senator. I didn't clamp any lid
down at any time. I want that understood.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish my question.
The Chairman. Restate the question, and the Chair will see about it.
Senator McCarthy. Will you read as far as I went when I was
interrupted ?
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, about that interruption, the Senator
does let his voice drop, just as he has done several times with others —
wait a minute — and then immediately after you start
The Chairman. Wait a minute, now.
Mr. Brucker. Immediately after
The Chairman. Will you respect the Chair?
Mr. Brucker. I certainly will.
The Chairman. All right, sir.
Now proceed and ask the Chair any question you care to.
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, I say that several times Senator
McCarthy will do the same thing — he will let his voice fall and stop,
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 497
and we have the way of believing that he is through. The Senator
did it.
The Chairman. All right. Be careful.
Mr. Bkucker. The Secretary started to answer, and then he is
charged with breaking him up. I suggest that the Secretary be
allowed to answer the question.
The Chairman. All right. The Chair will try to give it a little
more attention, and I will determine when the Senator has concluded
his question, and then I will direct the Secretary to answer. If it
takes that procedure to conduct this in an orderly manner, we are
going to do it that way.
Proceed, Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. I wonder if you would read the question as
far as I was.
(Whereupon, the question was read by the reporter as follows :)
We were trying to find out who promoted this Communist, and you damped
the lid down/ You clamped it down at an odd time, too, after the staff was
looking at the report and discussing certain phases of it.
Tlie Chairiman. Now proceed, Senator, to the conclusion of the
question.
Secretary Stevens. May I answer that ?
The Chairman. Let the Senator proceed to the conclusion of his
question, and then the Chair will recognize the witness to answer.
Senator McCarthy. Will you tell us, Mr. Secretary, why, No. 1,
you clamped the lid down so they could not see the report, and why
you did it at that particular time ? Had the law changed in the hour
that they were in the office studying it? Had you been advised by
someone not to let them see it ? Just what happened ?
The Chairman. Wait a minute.
Secretary Ste\tens. There are 3 or 4 questions in 1.
The Chairman. Has the Senator concluded ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, you may answer.
Secretary Stevens. There are at least four questions in that one,
and I would like to take them one at a time.
The Chairman. You may. Proceed.
Secretary Stevens. What are they? [Laughter.]
The Chairman. All right, let's have order now. Let's proceed and
conclude with this witness.
You may answer the questions one at a time, or all in one if you can.
Your choice.
Secretary Ste\^ns. One at a time, please, sir.
The Chairman. All right. Proceed.
Secretary Stevens. What is the first one?
The Chairman. Read the first one to him, Mr. Reporter.
As he reads, if you reach the point where you are ready to answer,
you so indicate.
(^^^lereupon, the portion of the question referred to was read by the
reporter as follows:)
Senator McCarthy. Will you tell us, Mr. Secretary, why, No. 1, you clamped
the lid down so they could not see the report, and why you did it at that
particulai" time?
The Chairman. Can you answer that ?
498 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Secretary Stevens. My answer to that is that I never clamped the
lid down at any time, and that if tlie Senator will refer to my testimony
on page 886 of the Army-McCarthy hearing he will find at the bottom
of the page the following :
Secretary Stevens. We don't submit the Inspector General reports. We will
give you the pertinent information that I mean to give you and that we can give
you, but we do not submit the report.
The Chairman. I think, Mr. Secretary — I am trying to be helpful —
that the Senator's question refers to the Inspector General's report
that was turned over to the staff of this committee for inspection and
later withdrawn. That is what he means by "clamping the lid down"
after you had released the report for inspection.
Secretary Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I never turned that report over.
That was done without my knowledge.
Senator McCarthy. Who was responsible, then, for turning it over
and, if you don't like the words "clamping the lid down," then
withdrawing it ?
Secretary Stevens. The Judge Advocate General.
Senator McCarthy. Do you know what caused him to change liis
mind ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. Do you know what caused the change in
direction ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, I do.
Senator McCarthy. What did?
Secretary Stevens. I considered that it was not legal to make the
Inspector General's report available, so I told the Inspector General
he must retrieve the report — I mean the Judge Advocate General that
he must retrieve the report.
Senator McCarthy. Can you tell us, Mr. Secretary, why in the
case of Schine, on which they spent a vast amount of time, you made
the report readily available, when in this case, which was much more
important, you say that we cannot see the reports ?
Secretary Stevens. That was an entirely different situation. Only
a portion of the report was made available, and it was not a case
where there was a loyalty or security connotation.
Senator McCarthy. Do you think that this report in and of itself,
if made available to the committee, would in any way endanger the
national security? In other words, if we got the information about
who promoted this Communist, why he was promoted, the entire
report, do you think that this report in and of itself would in any
way endanger the national security ?
Secretary Ste\t,ns. I have already answered that once. Senator.
The Chairman. Answer it again, and let's move along right fast.
Do you or not ?
Senator McCarthy. This report alone.
Secretary Stevens. Any tendency to break down the investigative
process of the United States Government, either through its FBI
or the Army or the Navy or the Air Force investigative departments,
will have a tendency to affect the security of the United States. I
definitely do.
The Chairman. Do you apply what you have said to this specific
report ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 499
Secretary STE^^EI^^s. Yes, sir. I apply it to all Inspector General's
reports — —
The Chairman. xVll right.
Secretary Stevens. Of a loyalty or security nature.
Senator McCarthy. You have repeatedly volunteered the sugges-
tion that General Zwicker had been mistreated. I would like to ask
you this question : If the testimony shows that one conversation that
Zwicker had was monitored so that 2 people can swear to what was
in that telephone conversation, if the testimony shows that lie per-
jured himself about 10 or 12 times, according to the testimony of 2
witnesses, would you recommend that his case be referred to the
Justice Department?
]\Ir. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, that certainly is an impossible ques-
tion. I have heard several, but I would like to have you pass on that
question.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, the answer is either "Yes" or
"No."
The Chairman. What is the concluding part of it?
Secretary Stevens. There are too many if 's in it for me.
The Chairman. I know what the if's are.
Mr. Brucker. It involves a legal question.
Senator ISIcCarthy. The question is, would he suggest that it be
referred to the Justice Department, or would he take any other action
against the officer.
Tlie Chairman. I think you may answer that. I know how I would
answer it. I hope you know.
Secretary Stemsns. I M'ould like to have it read.
The Chairman. All right, read it back.
(Whereupon, the question was read by the reporter as follows:)
Senator McCarthy. You have repeatedly volunteered tbe suggestion that
General Zwicker had been mistreated. I would like to ask you this question:
If the testimony shows that one conversation that Zwicker had was monitored
so that 2 people can swear to what was in that telephone conversation, if the
testimony shows that he perjured himself about 10 or 12 times, according to
the testimony of 2 witnesses, would you recommend that his case be referred to
the Justice Department?
Secretary Stevens. I think that is entirely too hypothetical a ques-
tion for me.
The Chairman. You think you cannot answer it ?
Secretary Ste\^ns. I do not.
The Chairman. Proceed.
Senator McCarthy. You mean jow don't know that you would take
action against an officer who perjured himself 10 or 12 times?
Secretary STE\TiNS. I am not going to assume that General Zwicker
perjured himself.
Senator McCarthy. Let's say John Jones and not Zwicker.
Secretary Stevens. I am not going into hypothetical questions.
Stick to the facts.
Senator McCarthy. I am going to ask the Chair to order you.
You are the Secretaiy of the Army and you should know how you feel
about perjury. You should have some idea about whether you would
punish an officer who perjures himself. We are entitled to know that.
Mr. Brucker. Ask your question.
500 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. Let the Chair help you and see if we can untangle
this one. If you found that one of your officers had committed per-
jury, Avould you take any action?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. All right.
Secretary Stevens. Definitely.
The Chairman. That is all you need to say.
Proceed.
Senator McCarthy. I think this tooth-pulling job is too tedious.
E will desist.
The Chairman. Any other questions by any member of the com-
mittee ?
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Senator Mundt?
Senator Mundt. I would lilve to devote our attention a little bit to
the future, hoping that out of this long and tortuous series of hearings
we can get as much assurance as possible in the record that this type
of thing is not going to occur again.
In that connection, I have been studying rather carefully the changes
in Army procedures after the Peress action, which were submitted
before I came to the committee room, but I presume, Mr, Secretary,
you submitted that.
Secretary Stevens. Yes.
Senator Mundt. I would like to ask you one clarifying question
concerning the statement at the bottom of page 3 :
If the member of the Reserve component who has been involuntarily ordered
to active duty returns DD form 98 prior to his reporting for active duty he will
still be ordered to active duty even though he fails or refuses to accomplish the
form in its entirety —
et cetera.
Then parenthetically it says :
This provision is necessary to prevent individuals from avoiding their duty
to serve merely by qualifying their loyalty forms.
I recognize the problem that Communists in the country do present
to the Armed Forces, whether you are going to draft them. We do
not want to give them the right of a conscientious objector, certainly.
I want to be reassured, if possible, that that does not imply in any way,
shape, or form that they are going to be commissioned.
Secretary Stevens. No, sir ; it does not.
Senator Mundt. It simply means they would have to serve as non-
coinmissioned officers ?
Secretary Ste\t<:ns. They would have to serve under surveillance
and an investigation would be made.
Senator Mundt. If they were known to be Communists or if they
liad taken the fifth amendment, as I take it, under any circumstances
they would not be commissioned ?
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
'Senator Mundt. Do I understand, Mr. Secretary, that the former
Army Personnel Board still functions, but it has been renamed to be
called the Army Review Board ?
. : Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Other than that, it still has approximately the same
function, I presume, which it had formerly.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 501
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
Senator JSIundt. I would like to ask a question or two about that,
because in our perusal of this case it seems that that was one of the
loopholes which certainly existed at the time of the Peress case. It
seems to me that at the time you had the Peress case, you had a Review
Board which did not review, you had a recorder who said he did not
record, and you had a screening process which certainly did not screen.
Because of that you have made these commendable changes, but I am
wondering what changes specifically you have made about the opera-
tion of the Review Board, which told us it operated in such a lacka-
daisical form that it kept no records and made no minutes of what
transpired. Has that loophole been plugged up ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir ; it has been plugged. I was very inter-
ested in the testimony that came out here day before yesterday, that
when the recorder finally put down the opinion in his own language,
it was indicated, those who had made the opinion maybe didn't even
see it. I checked immediately on that, and I found that we had cor-
rected all of that ; that the recorder puts it into final form, and it then
goes back to the three people who made the decision, is read by them
and, if approved, signed by them.
I said, "Is this a matter of custom now, or is it in writing as a part
of a rule and regulation that it must be clone that way?" They said
they are carrying that on as a matter of policy and custom. I said,
"I want it issued," and yesterday within 24 hours after we heard about
this point, a written order was issued to the effect that that is tlie way
it will be done.
Senator Mundt. Very good. That is what I meant by review
boards which did not review.
NoAv, about the recorder who did not record or the minutes which
they said they failed to keep, have you some kind of order or policy
now so there is some written memorandum or notation of minutes
made so if you have occasion to review it, you have something to
review ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir; right on the docket itself, and in-
itialed by all the members.
Senator Mundt. That would go not only for the written opinion,
but for the discussion of the evidence, and so forth ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, right on the docket.
Senator Mundt. I have no further questions.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, the Chair wanted to ask you two
questions.
With respect to these letters of admonition that were sent out,
did you know about them ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, I knew about them later.
The Chairman. You were not consulted about sending out the
letters?
Secretary Stevens. I told the Chief of Staff that I wanted him to
look into this whole matter and see w^hether or not the admonitions
were indicated.
The Chairman. You did not know about it until after they were
sent?
Secretary Stevens. That is right.
502 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. You did not know that they were sent to those
Avho had no responsibility for the things they were admonished about?
You did not know that until these hearings?
Secretary Stevens. I have to adopt your premise, sir. I would
like to have the privilege, if I may, of looking into the facts.
The Chairman. The record has been made. We have already made
the record here. You may look at that.
One other question. I want to ask you about this document, exliibit
81, the one to which Senator Mundt has just been referring, and ask
you, Mr. Secretary, if these are all of the corrective measures that
you have taken.
Secretary Stevens. No, sir. These are the most important ones.
There have been many others of lesser importance.
The Chairman. Many others of lesser importance?
Secretary Stevens. Eight.
The Chairman. These are the substantial ones, as you term them ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. Are you now convinced that another Peress case
could not occur under your present regulations ?
Secretary Stevens. I feel confident that that is the case. Senator,
but I certainly would welcome any suggestion from this committee or
the staff as to how we can make it more airtight if it is possible to do so.
The Chairman. We will try to do that when we go through this
record, if there is anything indicated.
One of the purposes is to try to find these discrepancies or these
inefficiencies and get them corrected.
I wanted to ask you further : As Secretary of the Army, are you
now prepared to express an opinion as to how long it would take
to get a subversive or a security risk, such as the Peress case was,
out of the Army after it came to the attention of any responsible
officer ? In other words, it took about 9 months or longer to get Peress
out after it was known. How long would it take j^ou now to get
another Peress out of the Army if you have one in there?
Secretary Ste\^ns. I think, if the facts are established and we know
he is that, we can get him out awfully fast.
The Chairman. What is "awfully fast"? I think the country is
interested in knowing.
Secretary Stevens. Within 30 days if we have the facts. On the
other hand, if we hiive a field investigation to make of derogatory
information, which must be proved, that, of course, is a much longer
investigative process.
The Chairman. But where it is (juce established — let us say as it
was established in this case after the Inspector General's report, as it
was established in the First Army that Peress was a security risk — •
I think that was established along about April when that was con-
cluded, was it not ?
Secretary Ste\i:ns. A security risk.
The Chairman. As a security risk. Then it took them until Feb-
ruary 2, 1 believe, to get him out of the service.
What I am concerned about is, Have you taken the steps now that
are necessary and are you sure that under your rules and ])rocedures
and directives now you could get a case like that — a person like that —
out of the service quicker ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 503
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. We can get them out much quicker.
I am not satisfied, Senator, with the speed that I think we probably
would achieve doing it today. I think that can be still further im-
proved upon, and it is my intention to pursue that relentlessly. We
nave to get that down to as short a time as we can.
The Chairman. Let me ask you about another practice or policy
that prevailed at that time. Do you take any more in the service —
commission any more officers and put them on active duty — until you
have had them complete their Forms 390, 98, 98-A, and 398?
Secretary Stevens. No, sir; we clo not take them.
The Chairman. You have stopped that practice ?
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. You have taken the precaution now to know what
they are and what is in their record before you ever commission them
or place them on active duty; is that correct?
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
The Chairman. That has been corrected ?
Senator Mundt. In that connection, Mr. Chairman-
The Chairman. Senator Mundt ?
Senator Mundt. Trying to relate the hypothetical case as closely
as we can to the Peress case, No. 1, I understand that a Peress case
could not get commissioned now because you check on them first and
we would not have that difficulty.
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
Senator Mtindt. If you had the difficulty of getting rid of one, it
would take 30 days, and it w^ould be because some derogatory infor-
mation developed about some present officer who had been commis-
sioned previously, and your problem is how to get rid of him after you
develop the derogatory information.
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir ; it might take a considerable period of
time to make the field investigation, but, having done that, then we
could get rid of him fast.
Senator Mundt. Having the officer under suspicion, let us say, and
he is called before some board or commission or some officer or fills
out an interrogatory, however you determine it, and he takes the fifth
amendment, then I assume that taking the fifth amendment would be
sufficient evidence, as far as you are concerned, to get him out of his
official rank. Woud it still take 30 days from that time on ? Say here
is an officer that you have presently working for you.
Secretary Stevens. AVe would put him on inactive duty at once,
and then make the investigation. Senator Mundt.
Senator Mundt. The point I am trying to make is, in the course of
investigation at the time he takes the fifth amendment about ques-
tions concerning loj^alty and communism, from that point on what
happens to him^ Is that in itself, in the opinion of the Army now,
sufficient to take the necessary steps to get rid of him ; and if so, how
long does it take to do it ?
I am not talking about any other information, just the fact that he
takes the fifth amendment on questions dealing with espionage, sub-
version, and Communist association.
Secretary Stevens. Could I have that read. Senator?
Senator Mundt. I will repeat it. It would be easier.
We are taking a man who is presently in office. There is no reason
to assume he is anything but a good, loyal citizen. Derogatory in-
504 ARlVrk' PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
formation develops about him and lie then is asked questions under
oath, one of which would be, I presume, "Are you now or have you
ever been a member of the Communist Party?" On that he takes re-
course to the fifth amendment.
Is that recourse to the fifth amendment sufficient to activate the
machinery for getting rid of him, and how long does it take after he
takes that course?
Secretary Stevens. That is certainly sufficient to activate the ma-
chinery, and we would take him off active duty and start an investi-
gation. That would be a field investigation, which we would complete
as soon as we could, which I have said takes some time, and I hope we
can cut down the length of time involved.
Senator Mundt. The point that disturbs me, which I do not under-
stand, is why do you need a field investigation after the officer has
been called in and asked, "Have you ever been a spy ? Have you ever
been a Communist?" and he takes recourse to the fifth amendment?
I should think that would be enough to warrant your getting rid of
him as an officer, regardless of the field investigation.
Secretary Stevens. We are getting a little bit complicated here,
perhaps.
Senator Mundt. Let's keep it as simple as we can. Is the fact that
an officer refuses to answer the question and takes the protection on
the fifth amendment when he is asked whether he is a Communist or
has been a Communist or espionage agent, if he refuses to answer and
says, "Under the fifth amendment I don't have to," is that step in
itself sufficient to justify, in the opinion of the Army, his removal as
an officer?
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. I thought I said that before.
Secretary Stevens. In other words, all of our officers have to sign
the loyalty pledge.
Senator Mundt. That is right. Having done that, then I am won-
dering how fast the machinery works after he himself has refused
to answer the questions under the fifth amendment, how long it then
takes to get rid of him.
Secretary Stevens. I think it depends on each individual case, but
I would hope that we would handle any of them within a period of
90 days.
Senator Mundt. What other steps are necessary under the present
setup, Mr. Secretary or Governor Brucker, either one, to get rid of
him after he has condemned himself in that fashion ?
Secretary Ste\'ens. Do you want to answer?
Senator Mundt. It is perfectly all right if you would rather have
the Governor answer the question. I am just seeking the informa-
tion.
Secretary Stevens. He would have to appear before a board. He
would be entitled to counsel. There would be a hearing. It would
take a little while to do it.
Senator Mundt. At the time he made the statement, he would be
put on the inactive list and placed under surveillance immediately?
Secretary Stevens. That is right, immediately.
The Chairman. Did you answer what kind of discharge he would
receive ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 505
Secretary STE^T.xs. It would be under other than honorable con-
ditions.
The Chairman. It would be under other than honorable conditions.
He would not get out like Peress did.
Secretary Stevens. No, sir.
The Chairman. The Chair directs the chief counsel to insert in the
record at the appropriate place or at this point the report of the
Army-]\IcCarthy hearings the days that it was in session from May
13 to May 25, inclusive.
(The dates referred to above are as follows: May 13, 14, 17, 24, and
25, 1954.)
The Chairman. I believe Mr. Juliana has a question. Mr. Juliana,
you may proceed, and then I have two matters I wish to take up
with Governor Brucker before we adjourn.
Mr. Juliana. Mr. Secretary, you returned to this country on or
about February 3, is that correct?
Secretary Stevens. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. Do you recall where you were January 30 and 31 ?
Secretary Stevens. On the 30th and 31st, I was en route across the
Pacific, I believe.
Mr. Juliana. How about February 1 and February 2?
Secretary Stevens. I think that we made a stop of about 20 hours
at Honolulu, and then came on to California.
Mr. Juliana. From January 30 until you returned to Washing-
ton, did anyone from the Pentagon contact you in any way ?
Secretary Stevens. You mean about the Peress case?
Mr. Juliana. About the Peress case.
Secretary Stevens. As I said, Mr. Plaskins came to California and
boarded the plane during the night of February 2.
ISir. Juliana. Did John Adams telephone you from Washington
on any of those days concerning the Peress case?
Secretary Stevens. Not that I recall.
INIr. Juliana. Did you receive any wire or any communication
whatsoever from John Adams between January 30 and FebruaiT 3
concerning the Peress case?
Secretary Sticmsns. I don't recall it, Mr. Juliana. I don't think
so. I was traveling pretty fast by ]Jane, and I had a number of mili-
rarv messages received to which I was devoting mv attention, but I
don't recall any message with respect to Peress.
The first awareness that I had of Peress Avas Senator McCarthy's
letter of Fe])ruary 1 which came aboard tlie plane during the night of
February 2, and which I read during: the course of the next dny and
chatted Avith Mr. Haskins about while en route to Washington.
Mr. Juliana. Thank you. That is all.
The Chairman. Mr. Secretary, thank you very much.
We will remain in session for a moment. I wish to take up a mat-
ter or two with Governor Brucker.
Governor, there was some discussion here this morning with refer-
ance to P'orm 390. Tlie staff did not have anything in our tiles regard-
ing it. Do you have something;'
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, I have here a memorandum whicii
covers the matter, which has been prepared, addressed to me, "Sub-
ject : Peress' Form 390."' It contains three paragraphs, and I hand
it up to the Chair.
506 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
(Document passed to the chairman.)
The Chairman. We will not take time to read it into the record.
It will be made exhibit No. 87.
( Exhibit No. 87 appears in the appendix on p. 513. )
There is one other thing, Governor, which I would like to take up
with you as General Counsel for the Department of Defense, as this
is a legal question. Is there any administrative action that the Army
can take to revoke the honorable discharge which was given Peress ?
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, we have had that question legally
reviewed, and it is our opinion that we cannot revoke the honorable
discharge of Irving Peress as a legal matter.
The Chairman. Then possibly another avenue should be explored,
and that is whether it can be done by legislative act. I do not know,
myself, but I am wondering what the eti'ect of it would be.
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, the same review that we made of it
would lead me to believe that it could not be done there, either ; that
it would be in the nature of a bill of attainder. We have gone into
the question, and I would be glad to work with the chief counsel of
the committee and turn over our papers so lie may review them, if he
would like.
The Chairman. Would you be so kind as to do that. Governor ? We
would like to have it, because I want to know. I want to follow this
thing, while we are in it, I hope to the end of it.
Mr. Brucker. Very well.
The Chairman. If there is any other action indicated that possibly
could be taken, I think this committee would want to recommend such
action, either administratively or possibly legislatively.
Mr. Brucker. I found that the judge advocate general had passed
on the question before I came, but nevertheless this study was made
independently, and you shall have the results of it.
The Chairman. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brucker. May I request something?
Senator Mundt. In your study of the possibility of taking some
retroactive action against the honorable discharge of Peress, did you
find anything at all in the statutory provisions which empowered the
Army or the Department of Defense to take action against an officer
who gets his commission fraudulently and then gets an honorable dis-
charge before the f raudulency is discovered ?
Mr. Brucker. Yes, and that is comprehended by title 18, section
1001. That is a matter to which we have given attention, and if there
is sufficient evidence of that, the Department of Justice would be very
glad to get it. We have been in touch with the Department of Justice
upon at least four occasions in that regard, to review the matter, and
this opinion which was sent over to the committee under date of Feb-
ruary 9, which the chairman has, and which I was going to ask be
put in the record, is the up-to-date information that we found out
about that. I know that the Department of Justice is not at all
through with its investigation, and in the future if anything turns
up, the Department of Justice is anxious to get further information
about it. We are also. Senator, in touch with them about it.
Senator Mundt. Did you say you had an opinion from the Justice
Department or the Attorney General based on the tentative studies
:up to date ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 507
INIr. Brucker. The chairman has that opinion, dated I think Febru-
ary 9, and we have a counterpart, because the Judge Advocate Gen-
eral of the Army asked for the same opinion from the Attorney
General, and I understand that the counterparts were delivered simul-
taneously. I would not suggest putting tliis one in, because the chair-
man has the opinion.
Senator Mundt. Is the other one in the record, Mr. Chairman? ^
The Chairman. Which one is that?
Senator Mundt. He says the Attorney General has supplied you
with an opinion as to the legality of taking steps against Peress.
The Chairman. I announced it the other day and actually made
it an exhibit. The Attorney General wrote a letter to me which was
placed in the file of the committee, in which he pointed out their
opinion with respect to the Peress case, that is, a criminal prosecution
of him. The closing paragraph of his letter he asked be treated con-
fidential. The Chair immediately called the Attorney General's of-
fice. I think I talked to him or to his assistant, Mr. Rogers — maybe
Mr. Eogers talked to him about it and told him that the letter was
addressed to me as chairman of the committee, and I felt it should
be a committee document, and therefore I asked permission to put it
in the file, which was readily granted, and the letter went into the
committee file.
The other day, having forgotten at the moment that the letter was
sent to me in confidence, I ordered it made an exliibit, and then
immediately withdrew it. I have since taken the matter up with thei
Attorney General about making it a part of the record, and he has
left it to my discretion.
If my colleagues will bear with me on the committee, it is a subject
that I would like to discuss with them at an executive session which
the Chair now calls for in the morning at 10 o'clock.
Mr. Brucker. Mr. Chairman, I have the copy, the counterpart,
here, and that is the only reason it came up while you were in discus-
sion with chief counsel, which came to the Judge Advocate General.
The Chairman. I really think it is a matter that the committee
should discuss in executive session.
We will in all probability have one more open session of this com-
mittee. There may be 1 or 2 things that we should like to place in
the record publicly. That will also be determined at the executive
meeting in the morning.
The chief counsel calls my attention to the fact that, notwithstand-
ing we have liad them on exhibit from the beginning of this hearing,
the charts which have been present have never been made a part of
the record. So the Chair now makes the large one exhibit 88, and the
small one exhibit 89.
(Exhibits Nos. 88 and 89 appear in the appendix of pt. 1, this series,
facing p. 62). -■,
This session is adjourned.
C^Vliereupon, at 5:25 p. m., the hearing was adjourned.)
508 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
APPENDIX
Exhibit No. 79
Department of the Akmt,
Office of The Adjutant General,
Washington 25, D. C, 13 August 1954.
In Reply Refer To AGPO-E 032.1 (13 Aug. 54).
Subject : Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations Hearings.
To : Lieutenant Colonel L. L. Forbes, JAGC, RR No. 1, 47th Street West, Braden-
ton, Florida.
1. Senator Joseph McCarthy has announced recently that some, if not all,
of those officers who were concerned with the grade readjustment and honorable
discharge of Major Irving Peress should be called as witnesses before his Sub-
committee when he reopens that case. A list of the names of those concerned
was furnished to Senator Mundt by Mr. Stevens during the so-called Army-Mc-
Carthy hearings.
2. You are informed that your name appears on that list which is now in the
possession of Senator McCarthy. You are, therefore, liable to be called as a
witness in the case.
3. The Chief of Legislative Liaison is designated as monitor for appearances
of Department of the Army personnel before Congressional Committees. In
the event you receive a summons or request to appear before Senator McCarthy's
Subcommittee you will immediately report the fact to the Chief of Legislative
Liaison, Washington 25, D. C, by the most expeditious means and report in per-
son to his office. Room 2C 639, The Pentagon, prior to appearing before that body.
4. In the event that the date scheduled for your appearance precludes report-
ing in person to CLL prior thereto, you will respectfully inform the Subcommit-
tee that since the hearing is in connection with a loyalty case you must obtain
proper clearance before appearing. You will then proceed to report to CLL as
above directed.
By order of the Secretary of the Army :
Herbert M. Jones,
Major General, USA,
Acting The Adjutant General.
Regraded unclassified by authority of Secretary of Army.
John F. T. Murray,
Lt. Col, GS,
Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Army.
Exhibit No. 80
February 16, 1954.
Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy,
Chairman, Permanent Investigating Subcommittee,
United States Senate.
Dear Senator McCarthy: This refers to your letter of 1 February and to
your telegram of 8 February sent from Aberdeen, S. Dak., both of which make
reference to the Army officer, who, in a recent appearance before the Senate
Permanent Investigating Subcommittee, invoked the fifth amendment and re-
fused to answer certain questions.
The developments of this case have made it obvious to me and to the Army
staff that there were defects in the Army procedures for handling men called
to duty under the provisions of the Doctors Draft Act, and that it has unfor-
tunately been possible in the past for commissions to be tendered to individuals
who might be xmdesirable. As a result of these disclosures, I have already issued
instructions for corrective changes in current practices.
I believe that the changes already instituted will make certain that there
will be no repetition of the circumstances which occurred in the case to which
y6u allude. These changes will avoid tendering a commission to any individual
who refuses to submit loyalty data, will terminate the commission of any Reserve
oflScer not on active duty who likewise refuses to submit such data, and will re-
quire the immediate separation from active duty under conditions other than
honorable of Reserve officers who may refuse to answer questions on the subject
when properly asked. These rules may not be invoked in the case of Regular offl-
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 509
cers, whose appointments are governed by different laws than are the Reserves,
but I am having a study made to determine what if any changes of law should
be made to permit handUng of a Regular officer if such a case should develop
in the future.
In addition to the foregoing steps, I have directed the Inspector General of
the Army to initiate an exhaustive investigation for the purpose of determining
two things : First, whether there are any additional areas where correction
should l>e made, and second, whether there is any evidence of collusion or con-
spiracy which might have been inspired by subversive interests in the assign-
ment, transfer, or other personnel handling of the officer in question.
Among the reasons why an isolated situation such as this can develop are
the great size of the Army, its fluctuating population, its worldwide operations,
and the fact that a large portion of our personnel including a substantial pro-
portion of our metlical and dental officers, are impressed into the service through
the operation of the Selective Service Act and the Doctors Draft Act. Tailing
a cross section of the population as we do, there ha^•e been isolated possibilities
for individuals to receive commissions even though they may be undesirable.
This situation must and will be corrected.
1 he case of this officer had come to the Army's attention and the decision
had been made on December 30 to separate the officer from the service by reason
of his unwillingness to submit to loyalty information. The ofiicer was in the
last tiO (lays of his service prior to such separation when he was interrogated
by your committee. The changes being made in our procedures will, among other
things, reciuire immediate separation or tnese individuals instead of giv^iug
them 'JO days' notice as was done in this case. The Army has been conducting
loyalty and security investigations for many years, both in Washington and in
all of its field headquarters, and is fully aware of its great responsibility to
the Nation to maintain as tight a security screen as is possible. We are all
cognizant of the extent to which our system fell down in this case. We do not
defend this shortcoming and intend that such cases shall not recur.
You made reference to his change of orders for Far Eastern duty. From the
early information which is available to me the indications are that his request
for compassionate transfer to New York City was favorably considered only
after it was first concurred in by representatives of the American Red Cross who
made a personal investigation of the facts, and who advised his commanding
officers that his wife and child were in fact under medical care and in need of
his presence at home. It was then passed upon by a board of oflicers appointed
by the Surgeon General.
It should be emphasized that throughout the period when the officer was under
investigation he was assigned to duties of a nonsensitive nature and was not
given access to classified information.
During the period of investigation, along with many other medical and dental
officers, this officer was adjusted in rank on criteria based on past professional
experience as established in the Doctors Draft Act. These adjustments were
automatic and were accomplished administratively in accordance with the law
by the Department of the Army in Washington. Under this adjustment pro-
gram this officer was changed in grade from captain to major. It is admitted
that this grade adjustment took place while the officer was under investigation.
It should not have taken place. The circumstances of this advancement are
being examined by the Inspector General. I have taken steps to insure that
such a thing cannot happen again.
The suggesticm which you made in your letter that the officer's discharge should
be reversed and that he should be recalled for the purposes of court-martial on
charges of conduct unbecoming an officer have been examined and appear to be
impiacticai)le. In the first place the separation of an officer under circumstances
such as this is a final action, and there is no means of which I am aware by
which the action could be succe'^sfuliy reversed. In the second place the Army
does not have available facts on which sound charges could be placed, except
the refusal of the officer to answer questions before the committee. Careful
examination of authorizing legislation indicates that this act in itself probably
is not sufficient to sustain charges of any offense on the part of the officer. A
case :is (I M ^ ery similar charges was prosecuted unsuccessfully last year
by courts-martial.
You have further suggested in your letter the possibility that the individuals
who participated in the final personnel action on this individual should be court-
martialed for possible conspiracy. As stated I have asked the Inspector General
of the Army to investigate the case, and if there can be developed any facts
510 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
other than this was a routine personnel action taken under regulations in exist-
ence at the time, you can ))e assured that I will take vigorous action against
the individuals involved.
Let nie assure you that I appreciate the fact that you brought this matter to
my personal attention. I stated quite emphatically to members of the press when
I was interrogated on my return from the Far East on February 3, that I had
the personal feeling that an officer should not get an honorable discharge from
the service if he refuses to answer questions properly put to him by a congres-
sional committee. The regulations now being published will assure that similar
actions in the future will result in discharge under other than honorable con-
ditions. I regret that this case was handled as it was during my absence in
the Far East.
In you telegram you spoke of a War Department order of December 30, 1944,
prohibiting discrimination against military personnel because of political be-
liefs. I have investigated the files on that matter, and have ascertained that
the directive in question was rescinded on March 4, 1946, during the tenure of
the late Robert P. Patterson as Seci'etary of War.
You also alluded in your telegram to an /irmy order that files containing
evidence of Communist membership on the part of military personnel be de-
stroyed. As to this matter, I am having all of the records of the Army carefully
searched for available information. From what I have already discovered, a
subcommittee consisting of Senators Bridges, Chandler, and O'Mahoney called
on Secretary of War Stimson on May 22, 1944 and on the following day he wrote
them a letter in which he assured them that no such files were being destroyed.
Later, on February 27, 1945, Assistant Secretary McCloy appeared before a spe-
cial subcommittee of the House Committee on Military Affairs and denied that
records of this sort were being destroyed. Additionally, there is in Army files
a copy of a letter from Secretary Patterson to Senator Ferguson dated Feb-
ruary 21, 1947, which indicates that he made another examination into these
same allegations and was satisfied that such records were not being destroyed.
When the Inspector General has completed his investigation, I will communi-
cate with you further. In the meantime, with personal regards, I am.
Yours sincerely,
(Signed) Robert T. Stevens,
Secretary of the Army.
ASA (M&RF)
Chief of Staff
Chief of Legislative Liaison
Asst. Chief of Staff, G-1
DCS (O&A)
ACS, G-2
IG
Exhibit No. 81
Major Changes in Army Peocedtjres After the Peress Actions at Department
OF THE Army Staff, Technical Service, and Army Headquarters Levels
department of the army
1. Peress action. — Peress was appointed in the United States Army Reserve
prior to execution of DD form 98 (loyalty certificate) and DD form 398 (state-
ment of personal history) pursuant to regulations then in effect, making an
exception to the regulation for members of the medical profession only.
Procedural chancjc. — Change of November 28, 1952 (DA message 378703), pro-
vided that all applicants for a commission must properly execute DD form 98
before any appointment will be tendered. (This change subsequently incor-
porated in regulations and is currently applicable; see par. 12, SR 60O-220-1,
June 18, 1954.) At present if an applicant qualifies DD form 98 he may be com-
missioned only upon specific approval of the Secretary of the Army. If the
applicant fails or refuses to accomjilish DD form 98 in its entirety he will not be
commissioned (pars. 13b and 13c, SR 600-220-1, .June IS, 1954, as changed).
2. Peress action. — Peress was relieved from active duty under the involuntary
release program.
Procedural change. — The involuntary release program is not now in effect. All
security cases are now processed under the military personnel security program,
SR 600-22(Vl. Other methods of separating a security risk will not be resorted
to unless it has been determined that the security program cannot be used.
ARMY PERSONISTEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 511
3. Peress action. — The type of discharge given Peress was not considered by
the persons detei'uiining the disposition of the Peress case.
Procedural c/i a Hr/e.— Paragraph 30c (7), SR 600-220-1, June 18, 1954, provides
that when Board of Inquiry recommends a discharge from the Army it must also
recommend the type of discharge.
4. Peress action. — Conflict between paragraph 6c (1), change 2, SR 600-220-1,
March 20, 1951, and paragraph 2b, SR 605-310-1, November 4, 1953, as to whether
members of the Reserve components under investigation will be ordered into
active military service.
Procedural change. — This conflict has now been eliminated.
5. Peress action. — So far as can be determined DD form 390 (initial data
for classification and commission in medical services for Medical, Dental, and
Veterinary Corps) was not in the file being reviewed by the officials considering
the most appropriate means of effectuating Peress' separation from the service.
Procedural change.- — Current regulations require that the DD form 390 be
placed immediately in the officer's official personnel file upon receipt so that
it will necessarily be at hand for those reviewing his file.
6. Peress action.— Peress relieved from active duty under the reduction in
force program and was discharged under special provisions of the doctors' draft
law (honorable separation).
Procedural change. — Reserve officers determined to be security risks will be
separated under conditions other than honorable (par. 2b, (3), (g), SR
60.5-290-1, .June 17, 1952, change 2, July 13, 19.54). As a matter of policy, the
taking of the fifth amendment by an individual queried about his Communist
affiliations is sufficient to warrant the issuance of general discharge rather
than an honorable, even if he is not determined to be a security risk.
OFFICE OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAX, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
1. Peress action. — The Ad.iutant General was informed on February 12, 1953,
of the initiation of the Peress investigation. However, on March 13, 1953, that
office transferred Peress contrary to regulations. Also on October 2.3, 1953, The
Ad.iutant General issued a letter of appointment in the grade of major to
Peress.
Procedural change. — Personnel actions by The Adjutant General on persons
under investigation have been tightened through designation of the Personnel
Division as the final clearing agency for all personnel actions handled by The
Adjutant General where such personnel actions are checked against complete
files of DA form 268 (form used to flag files of persons under investigation).
INTEXUGENCE DIVISION (G-2), DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
1. Peress action. — Time lapses in handling papers pertaining to Peress:
Investigative file was received by G-2, Department of the Army, about May 3,
1953, from G-2, First Army, and not returned for recommendations of the
commanding generals. First Army and Camp Kilmer, until May 21, 1953.
File was returned to G-2, Department of the Army, on or about July 16, 1953,
and returned with interrogatory on August 10, 1953.
Interrogatory completed by Peress on August 25, 19-53, and returned to G-2,
Department of the Army, on September 10, 1953, but was not incorporated into
Peress' file at G-2 until October 27, 1953.
Procedural changes. — Personnel strength increases have been authorized for
G-2. A more streamlined system to handle such cases is now in effect (i. e.,
incoming correspondence is screened the day it arrives ; certain proirities are
established ; The Adjutant General is contacted to determine the current loca-
tion of any individual whose report contains any indication of disloyalty ; and
where sufficient evidence warrants removal, action is initiated immediately by
the Disposition Section of G-2).
2. Peress action. — Although there was sufficient information in the Peress
file to effect board action, case was delayed over a month by routine requirement
of an interrogatory.
Procedural change. — Interrogatories are no longer required except in unusual
cases.
OFFICE OF THE SURGEON GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
1. Peress action. — Although the Surgeon General's OflSce was informed of
the initiation of the investigation on Peress about March 4, 1953, a board of
oflacers in the Surgeon General's Office recommended the revocation of Peress'
512 ARMYPERSONN ^ ■^^^^""^'g^^^ ^^3^ ^GP^H^SS
overseas orders and his reassigninent (jii Martli 11, T.tnS, apparently without
knowledge of the investigation.
Personnel in the Office of the Surgeon General who compiled the list of
officers for grade readjustments had no knowledge of the derogatory information
which had been developed on Peress. (Since the grade readjustments were
mandatory, tiles containing information other than professional qualifications
were not reviewed.)
Procedural change. — When derogatory information is received at the Surgeon
General's Office or the Career Management Division of any other branch, the
file of the person concerned is withdrawn from the regular files and is placed
in a separate file to which only one officer has access. It is the duty of this
officer to fully inform anyone desiring the file of the status of this person.
The proper utilization of DA foi-m 2GS has been brought to the attention of all
individuals who are responsible for personnel actions and these persons are
required to acknowledge in writing that they have read and understand the
regulaticms pertaining to the procedures for flagging and reporting information
which warrants the suspension of personnel actions.
FIRST ARMY HEADQUARTERS
1. Peress action. — G-2, First Army received DD form 398 on December 1,
1952 ; yet investigation did not begin until Februai-y 5, 1953.
Procedural chatiye. — Investigations are initiated pi-oniptly withovit waiting
for the completed forms 98 and 398.
2. Peress action. — The Adjutant General, Reserve Forces Division, was in-
formed of the initiation of the investigation on Februaiy 5, 19.")3, but failed to
indicate in Peress' file that an investigation was in progress. This resulted in
G-2, First Army, being unaware of Peress' reassignment to Camp Kilmer.
Procedural chunffc. — Inmiediate llagging action is now specifically provided
for in paragraphs 3 and 11 of SR GOO-310-1, July 21, 1954.
3. Peress action. — Alter the review of the file by the couunanding general,
Camp Kilmer, the file was returned to First Army and remained there from
about June 15, 1953, until July 7, 1953.
Procedural chanye. — Reserve personnel files at First Army are centralized in
the AG Reserve Forces Division, thus enabling a m«n'e rapid and accurate proc-
essing of papers. All incoming correspondence is promptly screened and a
suspense file is established for priority items. Also a card file of ail security
cases is maintained and periodically reviewed by G-2, First Army.
4. Peress action. — The papers pertaining to I'eress' initial appointment were
not forwarded to the Adjutant General until September 16, 1953.
Procedural change. — The internal control and suspense system for applications
has been overhauled in the Adjutant General's Office, Reserve Forces Division.
Positive records showing the transmittal of records to the Adjutant General are
now maintained.
5. Peress action. — On September 23, 1953, commanding general. First Army,
recommended that action be taken to reappoint Peress in the grade of major
without referring the matter to G-2.
Procedural chanye. — In May 1954 commanders recoumiending officers for pro-
motion were directed to assure that no investigation is pending against an
officer recommended for promotion.
General
The Adjutant General's letter of August 30, 1954, to major commanders re-
quested continuing review of the investigative programs toward the view of
accelerating investigation and reducing investigative caseloads.
The xVdjutant General's letter of December 29, 1954, to major commanders
establishing new and shorter time goals for various actions in security cases.
The Peress case is not likely to arise again because now an applicant for
a commission must satisfactorily complete form 98 before he can be tendered
an appointment. In addition, all ofiicers and warrant officers of the Army
Establishment (including those not on active duty) were required to execute
loyalty certificates pursuant to DA circular 27 dated March 11, 1954. Further-
more, paragraph 14, SR 6UO-220-1, provides that every member of a Reserve
component involuntarily entering on active duty immediately upon reporting
to his first duty assignment must again fill out DD form 98. If the member of
the Reserve component who has been involuntarily ordered to active duty re-
turns DD form 98 prior to his reporting for active duty he will still be ordered
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATESTG TO IRVING PERESS 513
to active duty even though he fails or refuses to accomplish the form in its
entirety or makes entries thereon which provide reason for belief that his entry
is not clearly consistent with the interest of national security. (This provision
is necessary to prevent individuals from avoiding their duty to serve merely by
qualifying their loyalty forms.)
Exhibit No. 87
Department of the Army,
Office of the Secretary of the Ajimy,
Washington 25, D. C, March 24, 1955.
Memoi'audum for : Governor Wilber M. Brucker.
Subject : Peress' form 390.
1. We are imable to determine, after thorough research, whether or not the
Form 390 was in the Peress 201 File on 30 January 1954.
a. The usual distributiou for the three copies of the form 390 is as follows:
1 copy to the OflSce of The Surgeon General (AG MED) ; 1 copy returned to the
local selective service board ; and 1 copy to the files of the Reserve Section, Head-
quarters, 1st Army. This would seem to indicate that on 30 January there would
be no reason for a copy of the Form 390 to be in Peress' 201 File. However, one
copy of the 390 was forwarded from 1st Army to the Department of the Army
accompanying Peress' September 9 letter requesting grade readjustment. Peress'
request was forwarded by indorsement dated 23 September 1953.
2. Concerning the inclosure to the 23 September 1953 letter, an examination
of the original letter and file would seem to indicate that a Form 390 originally
filed in 1st Army Headquarters was inclosed to the mentioned letter and for-
warded with it to The Adjutant General. So far as can be determined, this is
the same form that was photostated by The Inspector General as part of the
Peress 201 File in late B^ebruary or early March 1954. Whether it was present
in the Peress 201 File throughout this period cannot be determined. The letter
was most likely received in the Appointment and Promotion Section of the
Office of The Adjutant General, whose chief at that time was Lt. Col. Bernard
Babcock. This officer, upon interrogation, is unable to pinpoint exactly who in
his office handled the letter, nor can he detei'mine its exact location at the time
the Peress separation was being processed.
3. It has further been determined that early in February there was a meeting
between representatives of Gl, The Surgeon General, and The Adjutant General.
A memorandum of this conference is dated 11 February 1954. There is a pos-
sibility that the Form 390 was transferred to the 201 File at this time in order
to make a complete case history on Peress. None of the individuals have a
definite recollection as to whether the Form 390 was transferred to the 201 File
at this meeting.
John F. T. Murray,
Lieutenant Colonel, 08,
Military Assistant to the Secretary of the Army.
"■ ARMf Personnel actions relating
TO IRVING PERESS
HEARING
BEFORE THE
PEEMANENT
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-FOURTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
PART 7
MARCH 31, 1955
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
C'XWii WASHINGTON : 1955
Boston PuWic Library
Cupermtende.nt of Documents
MAY 1 8 1355
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chairman
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina
HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
NORRIS COTTON, New Hampshire
GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
THOMAS E. MARTIN, Iowa
Waltf:r L. Ukv.noi.iis, Chief Clerk
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas, Chaintmn
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin
STUART SYMINGTON. Missouri KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
SAMUEL J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina GEORGE H. BENDER, Ohio
Robert F. Kennedy, Chief Counsel
Donald F. O'Donnell, Asuistant Chief Counsel
James N. Juliana, Chief Counsel to the Minority
II
CONTENTS
Appendix 529
Testimony of —
Anastos, C. George 515
Morrill. Mary 521
EXHIBITS
Introduced Appear
on page on page
90. Testimony of C. George Anastos on September 13, 1954,
before the Select Committee To Study Censure Charges 515 529
91. Memorandum from C. George Anastos to Francis P. Carr,
January 22, 1954 518 530
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
TranscrijJt of the interrogation by the stafif of the Senate Permanent Pf
Subcommittee on Investigations of Col. Emery E. Hyde, April 5, 1955. . 532
III
ARMY PEESONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
THURSDAY, MARCH 31, 1955
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
or the Committee on Government Operations,
Washington^ D. G.
The subcommittee met at 2 p. m., pursuant to notice, in room 357 of
t]ie Senate Office Building, Senator John L. McClellan (chairman of
the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators John L. McClellan (Democrat), Arkansas;
Henry M. Jackson (Democrat), Washington; Stuart Symington
(Democrat), Missouri; Sam J. Ervin, Jr. (Democrat), North Caro-
lina; Joseph R. McCarthy (Republican), Wisconsin; Karl E. Mundt
(Republican), South Dakota; George H. Bender (Republican), Ohio.
Present also : Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel ; Donald F. O'Don-
nell, chief assistant counsel; James N. Juliana, chief counsel to the
minority ; J. Fred McClerkin, legal research analyst ; Paul J. Tierney,
investigator ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.
(Present at this time were Senators McClellan and McCarthy.)
The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
Mr. Anastos, will you come around, please? Will you be sworn?
Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Anastos. I do.
The Chairman. Have a seat.
Mr. Counsel, you may proceed with the witness.
TESTIMONY OF C. GEORGE ANASTOS
Mr. Kennedy. Will you give us your full name, please?
Mr. Anastos. C. George Anastos.^
Mr. Kennedy. Wliat is your present address ?
Mr. Anastos. 806 Tennessee Avenue, Alexandria, Va.
Mr. Kennedy. You were formerly an attorney on the Senate Sub-
committee on Investigations ?
Mr. Anastos, That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What were the dates of your employment with the
committee ?
Mr. Anastos. I was employed as assistant counsel from September
1953 until the end of February 1955.
J At an executive meeting of tlie Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investijrations on
March 25, 1955, it was voted unanimously that the sworn testimony of C. George Anastos
on September 13, 1954, before the Select Committee To Study Censure Charges be made
an exhibit in the hearing on Army Personnel Actions Relating to Irving Peress. This
testimony was marked "Exhibit No. 90" and appears on p. 529 of the appendix, pt. 7.
515
516 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. I^NNEDY. During February of 1954 did Mr. Roy Colin, chief
counsel of this committee, give you some instructions relative to put-
ting a call in to the commanding officer at Camp Kilmer ?
Mr. Anastos. He instructed me either late in 1953 or very early in
January 1954 to follow up information which he had that there was
a Communist major at Camp Kilmer wlio was probably in the Medical
Corps there.
Mr. Kennedy. And he discussed this matter with you back in
December 1953?
Mi\ Anastos. I cannot remember exactly Avhether it was the end of
December or early in January that he first told me about that.
Mr. Kennedy. On January 22 did you put in such a call ?
Mr. Anastos. I telephoned
Mr. Kennedy. Just answer "yes" or "no."
Mr. Anastos. Yes, I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Why did you wait until January 22 to put in a
call?
Mr. Anastos. Well, he had given me several things to do. That
was one of several things.
Mr. Kennedy. He did not speak to you on the day of January 22
or January 21 reiterating these instructions ?
Mr. Anastos. No, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You just finally came to that on the list of instruc-
tions that he had previously given you ?
Mr. Anastos. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. What information did you have regarding this indi-
vidual about whom you called Camp Kilmer ?
Mr. Anastos. That is all the information I liad except that he was
a card-carrying Communist.
Mr. Kennedy. And a major in the Medical Corps?
Mr. Anastos. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That is the total amount of information you had at
the time you put in the telephone call to Camp Kilmer ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. You put that call in on January 22, is that right?
Mr. Anastos. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. You refreshed your memory as to the date from
reading the memorandum that you wrote on that date ?
Mr. Anastos. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not know as of right now that it was on
January 22, but you have had your recollection refreshed?
Mr. Anastos. Well, I have had my recollection refreshed so many
times, even before I read the memorandum within the last week or so,
that I am pretty sure, I am positive that it was January 22.
Mr. Kennedy. Now you called the commanding officer at Camp
Kilmer on Januarv 22. Did you talk to him immediately ?
Mr Anastos. Yes. Miss :Morri]l put the call through to the com-
manding general of Camp Kilmer. At the time I didn't even know
who the commanding general was.
Mr. Kennedy. Miss Morrill was a secretary on the subcommittee
staff?
Mr. Anastos. She was a secretary.
Mr. Kennedy. She got General Zwicker, who was the commanding
officer of Camp Kilmer, on the telephone ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 517
Mr. Anastos. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Then when you picked vip the phone did you tell
Miss Morrill to get oft' the phone ?
Mr. Anastos. No ; I instructed her to listen in and take notes because
in case he jjave me a certain amount of information tliat I couldn't
take down while he was talking she could take the notes down.
(At this point Senator ]\Iundt entered the room.)
Mr. Kennedy. Did you state to General Zwicker at that time that
you had information that he had a card-carrying Comnnmist who was
a major in the Medical Corps ?
Mr. Anastos. That is correct. I think I said probably in the
Medical Corps.
Mr. Kennedy. Did General Zwicker state anything to you at that
time?
Mr. Anastos. Yes. He indicated at first that he knew whom we had
in mind, then he asked me if I had the name, whereupon I replied that
I didn't have the name before me, that maybe somebody else on the
committee had the name but it would facilitate things if he gave me
the name and gave me whatever information he could on the subject,
on the person involved.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he seem reluctant at that time to talk to you?
Mr. Anastos. He expressed some reluctance as to talking on the
telephone.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you thereupon suggest that he call you back so
that he could put his own mind at ease as to whom he was talking?
Mr. Anastos. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Was that the substance of the telephone conversa-
tion ?
^fr. Anastos. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Now do you remember approximately what time
that would have been? Was it in the morning or afternoon?
Mr. Anastos. It was in the afternoon, but I can't remember exactly
what time.
Mr. Kennedy. In approximately an hour after that did General
Zwicker call you back?
Mr. Anastos. He called me back about an hour later.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time when you got on the phone did you ask
that Mary Morrill, who was the secretary, also get on the phone?
Mr. Anastos. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you ask her to monitor the conversation?
Mr. Anastos. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. To take notes on whatever information General
Zwicker might give to you ?
Mr. Anastos. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time did General Zwicker go into the back-
ground of Irving Peress?
Mr. Anastos. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he first tell you that the person whom you were
looking for was Irving Peress?
Mr. Anastos. He did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say he was in the Dental Corps rather than
in the Medical Corps?
Mr. Anastos. He indicated he was in the Dental Corps.
518 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy. Then did he go on to give you information as to his
background ?
Mr. Anastos. He did.
Mr. Kennedy. I am going to ask you about that information in
just a minute, but I want to find out what you did after the conversa-
tion was over. You hung up the phone and then did you tell Mary
Morrill to write up her notes?
Mr. Anastos. I did.
Mr. Kennedy. Then she furnished them to you?
Mr. Anastos. She did.
Mr. I^NNEDY. Then did you dictate a memorandum to her incor-
porating the notes that you had made as well as the notes she had
made ?
Mr. Anastos. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. That was on the same day ?
Mr. Anastos. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Then did you take the memorandum into Frank Carr
who was staff director at that time ?
Mr. Anastos. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify this document please ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes. This is a memorandmn which I dictated and
which Miss Morrill typed up.
The Chairman. Is this the original memorandum ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. It will be made exhibit 91 of the hearing.
(Exhibit No. 91 appears in the appendix on p. 530.)
Mr. Kennedy. Will you identify it as to date and pages and the
title of it?
Mr. Anastos. I didn't get the question.
Mr. Kennedy. Would you identify it as to date and the number
of pages and the title ?
Mr. Anastos. This is a memorandum which I dictated, dated Jan-
uary 22, 1954, to Francis P. Carr concerning Major Irving Peress.
Mr. Kennedy. How many pages ?
Mr. Anastos. It contains two pages.
Mr. Kennedy. Is there anything in this memorandum, Mr. Anastos,
any statement in this memorandum that General Zwicker did not give
you over the telephone ?
Mr. Anastos. No.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you talk to anybody else at Camp Kilmer on
that date ?
Mr. Anastos. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. All the information contained in this memorandum
was given to you by General Zwicker in that second telephone call ?
Mr. Anastos. Absolutely.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he give you the serial number of Irving Peress —
01893643 ? Do you remember if he gave you the serial number ?
Mr. Anastos. I distinctly remember his giving me Peress' serial
number.
Mr. Kennedy. And that Peress was a student officer at the medical
school at Fort Sam Houston, Tex. ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember that ?
Mr. Anastos. I do.
;;ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 519
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember that he also gave the information
that in August 1953 Peress refused to answer interrogatories claiming
his Federal constitutional privilege?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, he gave me that information.
Mr. Ejennedy. And that Irving Peress had attended CCNY from
1938 to 1936 ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And attended NYU from 1936 to 1940 ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And was a card-carrying Communist member from
1948 to 1952?
Mr. Anastos. Of course, I can't remember the exact dates as I sit
here now
Mr. Kennedy. But you can remember that he mentioned-
Mr. Anastos. I remember he gave me information concerning every-
thing that you have mentioned.
Mr. Kennedy. Something about his being a Communist Party
member ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And information that he was a Communist Party
organizer ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And he was registered in New York City from 1943
to 1952 with the American Labor Party and had been an official in
the American Labor Party ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. And that for a couple of years he had subscribed
to the Daily Worker ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes.
Mr. Ivennedy. Do you remember his mentioning the fact that he
subscribed to the Daily Worker ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, I do.
Mr. Kennedy. And that he attended a fund-raising party for the
11 Communists who were being tried ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And the information regarding his mother, Sarah,
and the fact she was registered in the Labor Party from 1942 to 1949 ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. You remember his giving information regarding his
mother Sarah ?
Mr. Anastos. This is right.
Mr. Kennedy. And his wife, Elaine: do you remember his men-
tioning his wife Elaine ?
Mr. Anastos. I distinctly remember that General Zwicker gave
me information that his wife, Elaine, was a member of the Communist
Party and that she held Communist Party meetings at her home.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he also give j^ou certain home addresses of Irving
Peress ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, he did. I remember that.
Mr, Kennedy. Now you testified before the Watson committee;
is that true ?
Mr. Anastos. That is true.
Mr. Kennedy. The information you gave that committee is accurate
and the truth ?
60030— 55— pt. 7 2
520 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Anastos. It is absolutely accurate and I want to stand on it.
Mr. Kennedy. Those are all the questions I have.
The Chairman. Mr. Anastos, this memorandum that you testified
about has been made an exhibit in the record. As I understand, it was
prepared the afternoon of the same day following your telephone con-
versation with General Zwicker ?
Mr. Anastos. Sir, I dictated the memorandum almost immediatelj
following the telephone conversation that afternoon. I am not posi-
tive wheuier Miss Morrill gave me the memorandum that afternoon or
the next morning.
The Chairman. At any rate you dictated it, as it now is, immedi-
ately after your conversation with General Zwicker ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. That was after comparing or making use of the
notes that Miss Morrill had made as she monitored the call ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
The Chairman. So you apparently placed in the memorandum im-
mediately after conversation the information which was fresh in your
mind and which impressed you as being important to the conduct of
your inquiry ?
Mr. Anastos. That is correct.
The Chairman. Any other questions ? Senator Mundt.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I would like to find out from Mr.
Aanastos something about how this information was conveyed to him
by General Zwicker. Did he do it more or less in the form of a narra-
tive or in response to specific questions you asked him, such as per-
haps "Did Major Peress have a wife by the name of Elaine? Did
Elaine belong to the Communist Party ? Did she do so and so ?" Was
it the result of interrogatories or did he give it to you in narrative
form ?
Mr. Anastos. Senator, as I told Mr. Kennedy, the only information
I had was that there was a card-carrying Communist wlio was a major,
probably in the Medical Corps, at Camp Kilmer. So that at the time
that I called I didn't know that Peress was married. I didn't even
know Peress' name as a matter of fact.
Senator Mundt. At the time you called it naturally follows you did
not know he had been a card-carrying Connnunist in those specific
years he mentioned. At the time you called you did not know that he
had attended a meeting for the 11 convicted Communists. This infor-
mation had to come to you from General Zwicker because at that time
you had no knowledge of it whatsoever ?
Mr. Anastos. That is absolutely correct, sir. As a matter of fact.
General Zwicker said to me either that he had looked at the files or
that he had the files before him. Then he proceeded to give me this
derogatory information concerning Peress.
Senator Mundt. That is a very important point to get in the record,
Avliether you had another source of information prior to that time.
Mr. Anastos. General Zwicker gave me that information.
]SIr. Juliana. Mr. Anastos, Miss Morrill listened in on this telephone
conversation at your request ; is that correct ?
Mr. Anastos. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. Did she listen in on the entire conversation between
you and General Zwicker ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 521
Mr. Anastos. Yes, she did.
Mr. Juliana. To the best of your recollection the memorandum
which has been made an exhibit in this record is the memorandum that
you dictated immediately after your conversation with General
Zwicker ?
Mr. AxASTOs. That is correct.
Mr. Juliana. That is all I have.
The Chairman. Mr. Kennedy ?
Mr. KJENNEDY. Mr. Anastos, were you surprised that General
Zwicker would give you this information ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, I was. I was very pleasantly surprised at the
time because I had been afraid that he might refuse to give us very
much information.
Mr. Kennedy. Was there much discussion in the office afterward re-
garding the fact that he had given you this information ?
Mr. Anastos. I was very pleased and I know Miss Morrill and I
were quite happy about the fact that the general provided the com-
mittee with the information.
The Chairman. All right, thank you very much, Mr. Anastos.
Mr. Anastos. Thank you.
The CHAiR:>rAN. Miss Morrill, will 3'ou come around, please. Will
you be sworn.
You do solemnly swear that the evidence you shall give before this
investigating committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Miss Morrill. I do.
The Chairman. Have a seat, please. Mr. Kennedy, you may pro-
ceed.
TESTIMONY OF MARY MORRILL, WASHINGTON, D. C.
Mr. Kennedy'. Will you give us your present address?
Miss Morrill. 2800 Connecticut Avenue NW.
Mr. Kennedy. And you are here in answer to a subpena. Is that
correct ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. A subpena served upon you yesterday ?
Miss Morrill. Yesterday.
Mr. Ivennedy. You used to be an employee of the Senate Subcom-
mittee on Investigations ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, sir ; from June 1953 to November 1954.
Mr. Kennedy. You were a stenographer ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Were you a stenographer during January of 1954?
Miss Morrill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. At that time. Miss Morrill, were you requested by
Mr. George Anastos to put a telephone call in to General Zwicker ?
Miss Morrill. I was.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you then get General Zwicker on the telephone
and tell George Anastos that he was on the phone?
Miss Morrill. Yes, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you then hang up the receiver or did you listen
in on that call?
Miss Morrill. I listened to that call, at Mr. Anastos' request.
522 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedy, Mr. x\nastos requested that you listen in on the tele-
phone ?
Miss Morrill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember whether General Zwicker was re-
luctant at that time to discuss this matter over the telephone with Mr.
Anastos ?
Miss MoRRn.L. Yes, he was.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Anastos then suggest that General Zwicker
telephone him back ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, at that time did you know what information
Mr. Anastos had regarding Irving Peress ?
Miss Morrill. I believe he had nothing, sir.
The Chairman. May I ask the photographers not to snap any more
pictures.
Miss Morrill, Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Kennedy. He had no information at that time ?
Miss Morrill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he have the name of Irving Peress ?
Miss Morrill. He did not.
Mr. Kennedy. He did not ?
Miss Morrill. He did not have the name.
Mr. Ivennedy. At the time he put in the first telephone call he did
not have his name ?
Miss Morrill. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Approximately an hour after that did General
Zwicker telephone Mr. George Anastos at the committee office ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did Mr. Anastos ask you to listen in on that tele-
phone conversation ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, he did.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you listen in on the telephone conversation ?
Miss Morrill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you take notes ?
Miss Morrill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. After that call was finished did you then type your
note^ ?
Miss Morrill. I believe I typed them immediately afterward. To
the best of my recollection, I typed a draft of the notes and gave it to
Mr. Anastos.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he then dictate any memorandum to you on
this telephone conversation ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, he did.
Mr. Kennedy. And that, as you understood, incorporated the notes
that he had taken and the notes you had taken ?
Miss Morrill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he put anything in that memorandum, Miss
Morrill, that you did not hear General Zwicker say on the telephone?
Miss Morrill. I don't believe he did, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Did it strike you at that time that he was putting
anything in the memorandum that you had not heard on the telephone ?
Miss Morrill. At that time it did not strike me that he did.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 523
Mr. IvENNEDY. He was, therefore, putting in memorandum form
the information that General Zwicker had given him on the telephone ?
JMiss MoRMLL. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. And he did not put in any information that General
Zwicker had not given him on the telephone?
Miss Morrill. I do not believe so.
INIr. Kennedy. Were you aware that during that date George Anas-
tos had gotten information from some other source and he was incor-
porating that information into the memorandum ?
Miss Morrill. I was not aware, no.
Mr. Kennedy, So that when he dictated that memorandum, to the
best of your knowledge, that was the information that had come over
the telephone from General Zwicker ? Is that right ?
Miss Morrill. To the best of my knowledge, sir, yes.
Mr. Kennedy. JNIay I ask you to identify this document ?
Miss Morrill. Yes. That is the memorandum.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understand your testimony, to the best of your
knowledge there is no information in that memorandum that you
typed that General Zwicker did not give you on the telephone?
Miss Morrill. To the best of my knowledge, sir.
Mr. Kennedy. Now, to get down to specifics :
Do you remember the fact as to whether General Zwicker mentioned
the man's name as Irving Peress ?
Miss jVIorrill. Yes, I do remember.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he then give the serial number? Do you
remember that ?
IVIiss Morrill. I am vague on that.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he say he was in the Dental Corps ?
Miss Morrill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember if he mentioned he was a captain ?
Miss Morrill. I believe he did.
Mr. Kennedy. And the date on which he had come on active duty ?
Miss Morrill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he mention about the fact that he refused to
answer an interrogatory, and claimed his constitutional privilege ?
Miss Morrill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember that ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, I do remember that.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember that he ran through his education,
the fact that he had gone to C. C. N. Y. and N. Y. U. ? Do you remem-
ber that he discussed that ?
Miss Morrill. Yes.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember whether he made a statement that
he was a Communist member ?
Miss Morrill. That I don't recall specifically.
Mr. Kennedy. And whether he was a Communist Party organizer ?
Miss MoRiLi.. I don't recall that specificall3^
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember if he mentioned the fact that
he was registered in Xew York City with the American Labor Party?
De you remember any discussion about the American Laboi- Party?
Miss Morrill. To the best of my recollection, I remember t!iat.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember any discussion about the Daily
Worker ?
Miss Morrill. I believe so.
524 ARMY 'personnel actions relating to IRVING PERESS
Mr. Kennedt. But you are not sure ?
Miss Morrill. I am not sure, no.
Mr, Kennedy. Do you remember if he mentioned anything about
attending a fund-raising party for the 11 Communists?
Miss Morrill. That I remember.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember his mentioning anything about his
mother, Sarah ?
Miss Morrill. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You do not?
Miss Morrill. I am vague on that.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember his mentioning an}i:hing about
his wife, Elaine ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, I do remember that.
Mr. Kennedy. As being a member of the Communist Party and
attended Communist Party meetings and held Communist Party meet-
ings in her home ? Or just the fact that he mentioned Elaine ?
Miss Morrill. No. I remember mentioning Elaine and her mem-
bership.
Mr. Kennedy. You do remember the membership ?
Miss Morrill. I do.
Mr. Kennedy, Do you remember that he gave the home addresses
of Irving Peress during the dates from 1944 to the present, giving 245
North Washington Avenue, New York, and 8036 Leffner Boulevard,
Queens ? Do you remember any discussion about that ?
Miss Morrill. Yes, I do.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember George Anastos asked him if he
knew of any other cases such as that at Camp Kilmer, and that General
Zwicker said, "I know of no other cases of that type" ?
Miss Morrill. I am vague on that.
Mr. Kennedy. Now have you discussed this case with anybody
other than myself. Miss Morrill ?
Miss Morrill. No.
Mr. Kennedy. You just came to the committee offices and discussed
that, and that is the only discussion you have had of this matter? Is
that right?
Miss Morrill. That is right.
Mr. Kennedy. Do you remember afterward whether you were sur-
prised that General Zwicker should give as much information as he
l\ad on the telephone ?
Miss Morrill. I believe I didn't realize the import of the informa-
tion. I remember Mr. Anastos was surprised, and I believe I became
surprised, too.
Mr. Kennedy, Thank you. Miss Morrill.
The Chairman. Are there any questions.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Chairman, I do not think I have a question,
but this is completely and diametrically in conflict with the testimony
of General Zwicker.
We have just heard conflicting testimony of Mr. Anastos and Miss
Morrill as compared to the testimony of General Zwicker.
So that we may have it all one place in the record, I would like to
have unanimous consent to insert in the record at this point the ques-
tions asked by Mr. Kennedy, starting on page 814, and the questions
and answers between General Zwicker and him, ending with Mr. Ken-
nedy's statement on page 820,^ so that we will have it all together.
* Page numbers refer to stenographic transcript.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 525
The Chairman-. Without objection, it will be so incorporated.
Thank you very much, Miss Morrill.
(The testimony referred to is as follows :)
Mr. Kennedy. Did you give Mr. Anastos at that time any security information
regarding Irving Peress?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. So tliat when you ultimately appeared before the committee
on February 18, you were maintaining a position that you had taken on January
22; is that right?
General Zwicker. That is correct.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him between the two conversations that you had
gotten the file on Irving Peress and had it before you while you were talking
to him on the phone?
General Zwicker. Yes, I may have done that.
Mr. Kennedy. But you did not give him any security information in that file?
General Zwicker. I gave him none of the security information.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not give him any information regarding any Com-
munist affiliations that Irving Peress might have?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. You did not tell him that Irving Peress' wife, Elaine, was a
Communist Party member?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. Did you tell him that Irving Peress was a card-carrying Com-
munist member from 1948 to 1952?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. That in 1951 he was a Communist Party organizer?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And that from 1943 through 19.52 he was registered in New
York City with the American Labor Party and had been an official of the Ameri-
can Labor Party?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. That from 1949 to 1951 he subscribed to the Daily Worker?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And he attended a fund-raising party for the 11 Communists
who were being tried?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And his mother, Sarah, registered with the American Labor
Party from 1942 to 1949?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And his wife, Elaine, was a member of the Communist Party
in 1944?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And in 1951-52 his wife, Elaine, attended Communist Party
meetings and held Communist Party meetings in her home?
General Zwicker. I did not.
Mr. Kennedy. And that his address in 1944, did you give him his address in
1944 as 245 North Washington Avenue, New York?
General Zwicker. Possibly I did.
Mr. Kennedy. And that his address in 1945 and 1946 was 8036 Leffner Boule-
vard, Queens, N. Y.?
General Zwicker. Possibly so.
Mr. Kennedy. And from 1947 to the present his address was 6139 79th Street,
Queens, N. Y.?
General Zwicker. Possibly so.
Mr. Kennedy. Did he go on to ask whether there were any other cases in
Camp Kilmer involving individuals who were suspected of having Communist
affiliations and you replied that "I know of no other case of this nature"?
General Zwicker. I don't recall that. He may have.
Senator Symington. I would like to ask a question.
The Chairman. I have just one question, if you will pardon me. Senator Sym-
ington.
All of these questions that counsel has asked you, to which you have answered
"I did not," if such information had been in the file, or if it was in the file at the
time, would that be what you term security information that you would be pro-
hibited from giving out?
General Zwicker. Yes, sir.
526 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
The Chairman. All of that that he read to you there woukl be in the uahire
of security information that you would not be permitted to give out?
General ZwicKER. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. All right, I wanted to establish that.
Senator Symington.
Senator Symington. I was wondering why the counsel asked those question^
of General Zwicker. Is that in order? .■>
Senator McCarthy. At the bottom of page 158.
Senator Symington. In other words, the testimony, as I get it, the testimony
of a member of the staff, is that the <iuestions that were just asked General
Zwicker were given to that member of the stalf by General Zwicker; is that
right?
Mr. Kennedy. Excuse me.
Senator Symington. As I say, questions that were just asked General Zwicker
were testified to by a member of the staff as information that was given that
member of the staff by General Zwicker?
Mr. Kennedy. The specific questions that were asked were taken from a mem-
orandum that was written from the files, written by George Anastos on the
conversation that he had with General Zwicker on January 22; in addition,
George Anastos appeared before the Watkins committee and on page 159 he
testified as to, not in as great detail, but roughly as to what he had stated in
his memorandum.
It is for that purpose that I asked him the questions if it later developed when
he appeared before the committee on February 18, if he was maintaining the
same position that he had maintained on .January 22.
Senator McCarthy. I understand that when Anastos returned from interview-
ing General Zwicker he made out this memo containing all the items that you
enumerated?
Mr. Kennedy. He talked to him on the telephone.
Senator McCarthy. After talking to him on the telephone?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. Then he came back and made the memorandum all about
Peress?
Mr. Kennedy. Yes.
Senator Symington. General Zwicker, is there not a chance that you have
the testimony of Mr. Anastos mixed up with the testimony of Mr. Juliana?
General Zwicker. No, sir ; I read both testimonies, sir.
■ Senator Symington. You are thoroughly familiar with his testimony, are yon?
General Zwicker. I am familiar with the testimony of Mr. Anastos. I believe
that has just been referred to.
Senator Symington. If you will cast your memory back to the questions that
were asked you by counsel, did you know of this information? Is there any
of it that you knew of, but did not give to the staff representative who called
you, or is that too detailed for you to answer?
( Witness confers with Army counsel. )
General Zwicker. I am advised that I may give a general answer to that
question.
In general, I did, sir.
Senator Symington. Thank you.
Mr. Kennedy'. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that we have not —
this is information that has been made available to us, and Mr. Anastos, of
course, has not testified before this committee. These are questions that I felt
should be asked General Zwicker.
The Chairman. It can be determined later whether Mr. Anastos will testify.
But the purpose, I understand, of asking these question is primarily to deter-
mine whether you had given out the information at one time and then later when
you were called before the committee, for some reason you withheld it. Is that
the purpose?
Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
■ARRIY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 527
Senator McCarthy. I would like to suggest to the Chair, in view of
the fact that we have two witnesses who contradicted General Zwicker
on an important matter on which he testified positively — and we know
that Mr. Anastos had not known this information before he talked to
General Zwicker — it seems to be a clear-cut case of perjury.
I suggest that we send this testimony to the Justice Department and
have the Zwicker case taken before a grand jury.
I think this is an important matter.
The Chairman. The Chair was just trying to recall. T am not sure
what the record shows.
My recollection is that the committee already has voted, without
objection, to have the transcript of the entire hearing submitted to
the Justice Department.
Senator ]Mundt. You are right.
My only reason for putting that in the record at this place is to show
that it is in direct conflict with the testimony of today.
The Chairman. The Chair announces that the entire transcript of
the hearing will be sent to the Justice Department, including the testi-
mony of today.
Senator McCarthy. The Justice Department has asked us to make
public the executive session testimony of Wendell Furry, professor at
Harvard, and Mr. Leon J. Kamin, another Harvard professor. They
are appearing in the prosecution of these two cases in contempt now.
They need the executive session testimony. I hope that the Chair
sees fit to order that testimony published.
We have gone over the testimony carefully and there is nothing that
js objectionable.
The Chairman. The Chair will suggest that, if the Department
wants it, it will be made available.
Without objection by the committee, it will be released to the public.
Mr. Kennedy. As I understand, they also want the testimony of
Yates C. Holmes.
Mr. Juliana. They would like to consider it.
(Proxy of Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington, fol-
lows below :)
March 31, 1955.
Senator John L. McClellan,
Chairman, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
Committe on Government Operations, Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Mk. Chairman : This is to authorize you to vote my proxy at the meeting
of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. You are authorized
to cast my vote to make public the executive testimony of Leon ,J. Kamin dated
January 15, 19.54, and the testimony of Wendall Furry of January 15, 19.54, and
November 4, 19.5o.
Sincerely,
Henry M. Jackson.
The Chairman. If there is no objection, all right.
The committee stands in recess.
(Whereupon, at 2 : 45 p. m., the committee was recessed subject to
the call of the Chair).
528 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
ATTENDANCE OF MEMBERS OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
The official reporter hereby certifies that during the course of the
proceedings on this day, the members of the committee were present
during the proceedings for the periods of time indicated in the trans-
script of proceedings.
Albert J, LaFranob,
Official Reporter.
CERTIFICATE OF THE CHIEF CLERK
I hereby certify that the attendance of the Senators during the pro-
■ceedings was as indicated in the transcript of proceedings.
Ruth Y. Watt, Chief Clerk.
APPENDIX
EXHIBITS
No. 90
hearings on senate resolution 301
Testimony of C George Anastos (September 13, 1954)
Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you give us your name, address, and oflScial position, sir?
Mr. Anastos. C. George Anastos — C as in Cosmos — C-o-s-m-o-s. I am assistant
(•oxmsel with the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
Mr. DE FuKiA. And you have been how long, sir?
Mr. Anastos. Since a year ago this month.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you have a telephone conversation with General Zwicker,
I believe in the early part of January 1954, about Peress?
Mr. Anastos. I telephoned General Zwicker on January 22 of this year.
Mr. deFuria. January 22?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
Mr. Anastos. Concerning the Peress case.
Mr. DE FuRiA. What was the conversation please?
Mr. Anastos. Well, I told him — I told General Zwicker — that we had informa-
tion that there was a card-carrying Communist, who was a major, probably in
the Medical Corps, at Camp Kilmer.
General Zwicker indicated that he knew who we had — whom we had in mind.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did he mention the name?
Mr. Anastos. At first he did not mention the name.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes.
Mr. Anastos. As I recall, he asked me if I knew his name, and I replied that
I didn't have the name before me, that maybe somebody else in the committee
may have known, had the name, but that I did not; and he raised some objection
to talking on the telephone, and I suggested to him that if he had any question
as to who I was he could telephone back at the oflice where I was.
As I remember, about an hour later he returned the call. He called me back
and he said he had the files before him or he had looked at the files, and he pro-
ceeded to give me the name of Peress, his serial number, the dates that he was
called into the service. He told me that they had information, that the Army
had information, that Major Peress was, had been — was or had been — a member
of the Communist Party ; that his wife, Elaine, was a member of the party, that
she held Communist Party meetings at their home.
He also stated that Major Peress had been a Communist Party organizer and
probably gave me a few more details along those lines.
Then he added that in August of 1953 Peress had refused to answer a loyalty
questionnaire because he invoked his constitutional privilege not to answer those
questions.
General Zwicker also mentioned Peress, who was then captain, vias promoted
to the position of major in November of 1953, and concluded by saying that he had
received word from the Department of the Army that Peress was to be separated
from the service within 90 days with an honorable discharge.
As I recall. General Zwicker also mentioned to me that — there was some ques-
tion as to forcing Major Peress out of the service — that they would try to per-
suade him to separate himself from the service. I don't remember exactly what
be said, but there was some discussion as to that.
Mr. DE Fubia. Was that in order to avoid a court-martial?
Mr. Anastos. I don't know. I didn't go into it.
Mr. DE FuRiA. And is this all in the same telephone conversation?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FusiA. You may continue.
529
530 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
Mr. Anastos. The next day, next morning, General Zwicker telephoned me
again and told me that lie had just received word from the Department of the
Army that Major Peress was to be separated within 90 days with an honorable
discharge.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that a voluntary call on the part of General Zwicker?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you find him cooperative?
Mr. Anastos. For my purposes ; yes, sir. He was.
Mr. DE FuRiA. AVas Mr. Cohn familiar with the fact about which you have just
testified when he. .Mr. Cohn, examined General Zwicker at the hearing on Feb-
ruary 18, 1954?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir ; he was.
Mr. DE FuuiA. Was Senator McCarthy familiar with tho.se facts?
Mr. Anastos. Well, sir, I didn't discuss this matter with Senator McCarthy
because I dealt primarily with Roy Cohn and with Frank Carr.
I do recall in this case I pretty much discussed it with Roy — because he had
been the one who originally — he was the chief counsel.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you make a report of your conversation with General
Zwicker and the information you received from him ?
Mr. Anastos. Yes, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that in the file?
Mr. Anastos. I submitted it to, memorandum, two memoranda, to Frank Carr.
Mr. DE FuRiA. In order to clear the skirts of everyone, let me ask the same
question I have asked others.
Did you have anything to do with making copies of the 2i4-page paper?
Mr. Anastos. Absolutely not, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you see anybody make copies?
Mr. Anastos. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you see anybody distribute them ?
Mr. Anastos. No, sir.
Mr. DE FuRiA. You had nothing whatever to do with it?
Mr. Anastos. I had nothing to do with it in any shape or form.
Mr. DE FuRiA. That concludes our examination, sir.
The Chairman. Mr. Williams.
Mr. Williams. I have no questions of this witness, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman. Does any committee member have any questions?
You may be excused.
Apparently no one wants to ask you any questions.
No. 91
January 22, 1954.
Memorandum
Re Camp Kilmer, N. J.— Maj. Irving E. Peress, 01893643, Dental Corps— about
to be released from service on account of membership in the Communist Party
To : Francis P. Carr.
From : C. George Anastos.
In view of information which the subconunittee has previously received con-
cerning the above .subject. General Zwicker, the commanding general of Camp
Kilmer, N. J., was contacted by telephone and he gave the following information.
By letter of January 6, 1954, he was advised by the Department of the Army
through the First Army that Maj. Irving E. Peress, 01893G43, Dental Corps,
was to be sepai-ated from the service within 90 days and Peress' commission was
to be revoked without retention of a Reserve status.
Peress was commissioned a captain in the USAR, July 10, 1952, in the Dental
Corjts, and was placed on active duty as a captain on January 1, 1953 ; from
January 12 to February 6, 1953, he was a student officer at the medical school at
Fort Sam Houston, Tex.
In August of 1953 he refused to answer interrogatories, claiming his Federal
constitutional privileges.
Education
Attended College of the (Mty of New York from 1933 to 1936.
Attended New York University from 1930 to 1940, receiving D. D. S. in 1940.
Derogatory information
Was a card-carrying Communist member from 1948 to 1952.
In 1951 was a Communist Party organizer.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 531
From 1943 tbiougli 1952 was registered in New York City with the American
Labor Party and has been an oflicial of the American Labor Party.
From 1949 to 1951 he subscribed to tlie Daily Worker.
Attended a fund-raising party for tlie 11 Communists who were being tried.
His mother, Sarah, registered with the American Labor Party from 1942 to
1949.
His wife, Elaine, was a member of the Communist Party in 1944; in 1951-52
she attended Communist Party meetings and held Communist Party meetings in
her home.
Home addresses
1944 : 245 Fort Washington Avenue, New I'ork.
1945-46 : 8036 Leffner Boulevard, Queens. N. Y.
1947 to present : 6139 79th Street, Queens (Middle Village) , N. Y.
When asked whether he knew of any other cases at Camp Kilmer involving
individuals who were suspected of having Communist affiliations. General Zwicker
replied. "I know of no other case of this nature."
SUPPLEMENTAL DATA
Transcript of the interrogation by the staff of the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations of Col. Emery E. Hyde, April 5>
1955
TUESDAY, APRIL 5, 1955
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation,
OF the CoMMI'ITEE on (jOVTiRNMENT OPERATIONS,
WasMngton^ D. G .
Interrogation by the staff' of the Permanent Subcommittee on In-
vestigations, of the Committee on (Tovermiieiit Operations, at 11 a. m.,
in room 101-B, Senate Office Buikling, Donald F. O'Donnell, chief
assistant counsel, presiding.
Present: Donald F. O'Donnell, chief assistant counsel; Paul J.
Tierney, investigator.
TESTIMONY OF COL. EMERY E. HYDE, GENERAL STAFF, SOUTHERN
REGION HEADQUARTERS. NATO, NAPLES, ITALY (ACCOMPANIED
BY LT. COL. JOHN F. T. MURRAY, MILITARY AIDE TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY)
Mr. O'DoNNKix. Colonel, will you please identify yourself for the
record, stating your name and place of assignment?
Colonel Hyue. I am Col. Emery E. Hyde, (leneral Staff, presently
assigned to Southern Region Headquarters, XATO, Xaples. Italy.
Mr. O'Donnell. During the fall of 1953, were you assigned to G-1
in the Pentagon ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'Donnell. During that period of time were yon Chief, Man-
agement Branch, Reserve Components Division, (t-1, Pentagon'^
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'Donnell. Is G-1 known as the policy division of the Army?
Colonel Hyde. One of the policy divisions, and is for most personnel
matters.
Mr. O'Donnell. In your position did you deal with DOD Directive
1205.1, which dealt with readjustments of individuals who came into
the service, or were coming into the service, pursuant to the Doctor
Draft Act?
Colonel Hyde. In ])nrt tliis dii-ective came within the purview of
my duties, specifically that pertaining to grade readjustment of Re-
serve officers.
Mr. O'Donnell. At the time this DOD directive was issued, did
you have the benefit of the discussions that had been handled by the
532
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 535
special ad hoc committee which had been established to issue a pro-
posed directive ?
Colonel Hyde. Not in detail. Only as to 1 or 2 points in ques-
tion that had been raised by Army members of the ad hoc committee
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was it your function to interpret the DOD direc-
tive with regard to this readjustment section of Keserve officers?
Colonel Hyde. By administrative action within the Office of the
Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1, it had been allotted to my office.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did you interpret this provision of this directive
as making the readjustments mandatory?
Colonel Hyde. By intent, yes.
Mr. O'DoxxELL. At the time that you made the determination, had
you been briefed by a member of the ad hoc committee with the dis-
cussions within that committee and the fact that in their proposed
directive they had recommended that a board be convened before any
Reserve officer was readjusted?
Colonel Hyde. That point had been summarized to me and ex-
plained in brief as to the ad hoc committee's position.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Were you also familiar with the fact that this board
recommended by the ad hoc committee was deleted in the DOD direc-
tive that came to j'our attention ?
Colonel Hyde. By board reconnnendation, I presume you mean that
the conunittee had recommended that the grade-adjustment actions
all be processed in the normal manner by presenting the eligible names
to an independent board of officers prior to the grade-adjustment ac-
tion being finalized, and if that is your intent, I was only aware of the
net result after the DOD directive had been issued.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. In other words, you were aware that this particu-
lar recommendation to which you refer was not in the DOD directive ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes, after the fact of issue, but not before the direc-
tive was issued.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Did any memorandum issue directly from your
office pertaining to your interpretation of this DOD directive con-
cerning this readjustment provision?
Colonel PIyde. In essence, yes. However, in technical administra-
tive channels it was an approving memorandum of a proposed draft
directive for the Army's implementation of the DOD directive.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. The directive actually was drafted in the Office of
the Surgeon General, then sent to your office for approval, and then
forwarded up to TAG for proper implementation to go out to the
various field commanders ; is that coirect?
Colonel Hyde. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Normally, is it the fuiu-tion of T.'.G before imple-
menting any directive to consult with the proper division of G-1 if
TAG feels that it is not a proper directive ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes, that is normally done and in addition TAG
works very closely with the appropriate office of G-1 in keeping them
informed as to the procedure they plan to follow.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You did not issue any instructions to the Surgeon
General's office or to the AG's office as to reviewing files, did you, in
connection with this ?
Colonel Hyde. No, none were issued in this case as both the Office of
the Adjutant General and the Office of the Surgean General were in
534 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVESTG PERESS
atjreement that no revieAV of the files was permissible other than the
])rofessional (lualitications qualifying them for the <2:rade adjustment.
Mr, 0'DoxxELi>. Althou<2:h you issued no such orders, the fact that
the professional qualifications only were reviewed would be consistent
with your interpretation that this provision I'elative to readjustment
was mandatory J'
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, I show you a photostatic copy of a docu-
ment which is marked "P^xhibit 88,'' which i"e fleets a telephone con-
versation between you and Major McKenzie of the Surgeon General's
office in which you advise him to hold in abeyance temporaril}^ read-
justments of some 12 officers ; is that correct ?
Colonel Hyde. Basically, yes.
Mr. O'DoxxELL. Was your ruling based on the presentation of
detailed information from Major McKenzie as to each individual of
the 12?
Colonel Hyde. No. General conditions were given me, and to my
recollection they were not particularly as to the specific suggestions
made in exhibit 38.
However, the net result would have been the same.
Mr. O'DoNXELL. Was your ruling made because it was a practical
thing to do in the light of the gcnei'al information presented ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes, and if I may, to clarify the basic concept that
prompted my opinion, it Avas, that if information was available to the
extent that an other than honorable discharge might be given any indi-
vidual or if the preliminary action indicated could subsequently result
in findings that could result in a discharge other than honorable.
Those cases should be withheld temporarily.
Mr. O'DoNNELi;. Then your decision was based on commonsense and
practicability, even though it was inconsistent to the extent that the
DOD directive was mandatory?
Colonel Hyde. Yes. However, I would like to phrase it in this
manner : that in the application of law and directives having proper
authority the interest of the Government in the first instance and the
interest of the xlrmy in the second insance, are always considered in
<}ases which might have to be ruled as exceptions to the application of
the directive or the law. These cases come in that general category.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, looking at exhibit 38, is there anything
appearing in that memorandum with which you cannot fully agree?
Colonel Hyde. Basically, no. However, in the first paragraph
where it refers to possible unfavorable publicity for the Army, this
was not the guiding factor at all. But as I explained previously, the
interest of the Government and the interest, the best interest of the
service, were the policy determining criteria.
In paragraph 2, likewise, the explanation appears to highlight "the
amount and source of the criticism resulting from our initial noncom-
pliance." and this had no immediate influence on my opinion or action.
It was still a matter of the best interest of the Government and the
best interest of the service.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, I show you pages 442 and 443 of volume
3 in the original transcript of the hearings in the Peress case, which
quote in detail a memorandum dated January G, 1954, concerning a
telephone conversation between you and Major McKenzie. Will you
kindly read it to yourself ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 535
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Is it my understanding that the basic reason why
you authorized the Surgeon General's office to go forward with the
readjustments of these officers was because an apparent sufficient
period of time had elapsed so that if there was action to be taken by
the military, it would have been either initiated or consummated ?
Colonel Hyde. That is essentially correct, as you will note from the
two reference dates. The earlier date was October 27, 1953, and the
second date was January 4, 1953.
Normally any serious administrative or investigatory action would
have progressed to a degree and through administrative channels to
the point where specific action would be in process which would elimi-
nate an individual by name from any personnel action until the point
in question had been clarified.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Do you have any comments you would like to add
concerning that particular memorandum?
Colonel Hyde. Yes, I would like to further comment on the passage
you have asked me to read and state that it appears that I had in-
structed the Office of the Surgeon General to transmit all remaining
names even though they were the subject of court-martial action or
being separated for some cause.
This technically might be true. However, as I have previously
stated, if these suggested court-martial or separation actions were of
a serious enough nature to result in separation with other than honor-
able discharges, my original instructions, and they still applied, were
to withhold action on those cases.
In other words, if an officer might have been court-martialed for
some offense and fined $100, it would not bar him from this grade
readjustment.
However, if he had been court-martialed and the sentence of the
court was to be separated with a general discharge, he would not fall
within the application of the action I directed.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Again at the time that this second telephone con-
versation occurred, did you have before you the specific information
pertaining to any one of these individuals?
Colonel Hyde. No, at no time did I have specific information on
individual cases. They were not presented as individual personnel
actions.
The situation was presented as policy interpretation of a DOD
directive.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Other than the two memorandums of telephone
conversations that you have just discussed, were there any general
instructions issued at any time concerning the holdiiig up of a read-
justment of any individuals under this particular memorandum?
Colonel Hyde. To the best of my recollection, prior to the original
memorandum of rercord, made by the Office of the Surgeon General,
dated October 27, 1953, exhibit 38, it was my understanding that a
greater number, possibly as many as 200, doctoi-s' files were not com-
plete enough to process under the apj)licable grade-readjustment
directive.
These reasons ranged from lack of complete academic transcripts,
to missing administrative papers in the officer appointment files, the
lack of signatures in the appropriate or proper place or proper form,
536 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
lack of witnessin«: officers to oaths of office, and other administrative
deficiencies.
These individuals were processed by the Office of the Surgeon Gen-
eral to the Adjutant General as these deficiencies were corrected, and
the residual cases referred to by the October 27, 1953, memorandum,
exhibit 38, were those that liad possible serious implications that could
result in investigations or court-martial.
Mr, O'DoNNELL. Tlien you had issued specific instructions concern-
ing, generally, having brought to your attention cases of individuals
that might result in elimination from the service or courts-martial?
Colonel ITyde. Xot specific individuals; only liypotlietical types of
cases.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Such as?
Colonel Hyde. Such as possible court-martial or investigations for
disloyalty, or subversion, administrative truculence, by refusal to
appropriately or properly to complete all the forms for ajjpointment
4ts Reserve officers.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Now, the DOD directive is dated October 7, 1053.
I show you the date as appearing on exhibit 35 in the upper right-
hand corner, and exhibit 38, which was the telephone memorandum
of record of October 27.
Colonel, can you recall approximately when you issued tlie instruc-
tion that have just been discussed? Was it sliortly after the DOD
directive and before the October 27 call ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes; it was much closer to the date of October 7
than October 27, because the ])oint in (luestion was that the officers
whose records were not immediately in proper form for grade read-
justment would be deprived of rank and advance in pay every day
that their grade adjustment was delayed, for whatever I'eason.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Then when Major McKenzie conferred with you
on the phone on October 27, he was in essence carrying out previous
instructions you had issued generally ?
Colonel H'^T^E. He was following up on previous discussions of a
still more general nature than the memorandum for record of October
27 deals with.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, since you have stated that your inter-
pretation of the DOD directive as to this readjustment provision was
mandatory, is that not inconsistent with the general instructions you
issued shortly after the DOD directive came out?
Colonel Hyde. No, not directly. A personnel action that may have
been taken on incomplete or inaccurate or overlooked errors of admin-
istrative procedures would not justify a subsequent personnel action
being taken when those deficiencies had been learned and they must
be corrected before further actions are to be taken.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Apart from the administrative delinquencies that
might have existed and confining ourselves to the general area of people
who miglit be eliminated from the service or in the ]n-ocess of being
court-martialed, since this memorandum of October 27 from Major
McKenzie deals with that aspect, and since the telephone call or con-
versation with Major McKenzie was pursuant to general instructions
you had issued, wasn't this particular area inconsistent with the man-
datory interpretation — I mean this particular area of the elimination
or court-martial ?
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 537
Colonel Hyde. Xo; not in my opinion. I was exercising; jud^nnent
in applying; the mandatory dir'ective to persons who mijrht be subject
to other than honorable discharge.
Mr. O'DoNNKLL. But in etl'ect. Colonel, weren't you interpreting the
DOD directive as mandatory with the aforementioned exceptions?
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNEiJ.. Do you mean to say, then. Colonel, that apart from
administrative delinquencies or incompleteness of surgeon files admin-
istratively before a person could be readjusted that those categories of
officers who might come within the purview of the act, but who were
on the verge of having action taken against them because of unfavor-
able information, that these individuals should not be readjusted in
rank until their cases had been decided ?
Colonel Hyde. That is essentially correct.
Mr, O'DoNNELL. What I am trying to get clear. Colonel, is this:
that shortly after the DOD directive was issued, which was October 7,
you had some diiscussions with the Surgeon GeneraFs Office.
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. That some of the discussions involved the fact that
administratively files were not in the stage where a determination could
be made to readjust in rank ?
Colonel Hyde. Particularly as pertains to professional qualifica-
tions.
Mr. O'DoNNEr.L. And at the time of these discussions, which would
be somewhere between October 7 and October 27, you also discussed
generally the fact that some individuals in the service might, as a result
of unfavorable information, be in the process of being eliminated with
discharges probably less than honorable?
Colonel Hyde. That is correct.
Mr, O'DoNNELL, And that it was your opinion that tliese particular
types of cases, the latter type cases, should be held in abeyance until
their situation would have been resolved by the military before they
were readjusted in rank?
Colonel Hyde. That is correct.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. So that in effect your interpretation of the direc-
tive was that it was mandatory with the exceptions pertaining to indi-
viduals who might be in the process of being eliminated from the serv-
ice, subject to the result of the action being taken, namely, if he was
retained in the service he should be readjusted, if he were eliminated
then he would not be readjusted ?
Colonel Hyde. In principle, yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Tlien that raises the distinct question, if these dis-
cussions were held and these were your opinions shortly after the DOD
directive, was it not your opinion that a complete review of all files
should be made on each individual and not only the qualification rec-
ords in oi"der to determine if any cases of this nature actually existed?
Colonel Hyd::. I can only answer "Yes,"" that lias always been my
personal opinion.
However, the DOD directive was interpreted by myself and supe-
riors to preclude such action.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Were you in a position to direct the review of all
available files of all doctors in the Pentagon ?
Colonel Hyde. No, I did not have that authority.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Who did have that authority?
538 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING FERESS
Colonel Hyde. In the name of the Secretary it would be executed by
the Assistant Chief of Staff, G-1.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I believe you stated earlier that the fact that the
qualification records were being reviewed only was in complete agree-
ment with your interpretation that the action as to this part was
mandatory ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes, that is correct, but that was a positive action in
compliance with the positive corollary parts of the DOD directive.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. "VVliat I am trying to reconcile. Colonel, is if the
review of only the qualification records was in agreement with your
interpretation, then how do you reconcile that with the preceding-
answer a few minutes ago that you felt that all files should be
reviewed ?
Colonel Hyde. That opinion was expressed by tlie Army members of
the ad hoc committee, and was in individual agreement with most
Army personnel familiar with the circumstances, but was not incor-
porated in the DOD directive.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, I think you misunderstand me. AVhat I
am trying to get a clarification concerning is your apparent two incon-
sistent statements made here this morning.
Colonel Hyde. Substantially being which ?
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Namely, earlier this morning I believe you stated,
and you stated a few minutes ago, that the review by the military of
only the qualification records was consistent with your interpretation
of the directive as mandatory.
You have also stated that in view of the exceptions to your manda-
tory interpretation, namely, those individuals who might be in the
process of being separated because of unfavorable information, you
felt at that time that all files of individuals should be reviewed.
How do you reconcile both statements ?
Colonel Hyde. My action as to the mandatory concept of DOD di-
rective was within my responsibility of assisting in carrying out an
authoritative directive.
My personal opinion, however, was prior to the issuance of the
directive and still is, that the entire files should have been screened
and that in essence a board action be taken in recommending elimina-
tion from the mandatory provisions of the DOD directive, those in-
dividuals it would not be in the best interest of the Government or
the service to retain and give the grade readjustment.
These cases would then be handled as individual actions through the
administrative channels of the Army and would be disposed of finally
in the name of the Secretary.
As a matter of official action, I was not delegated authority from
the imperative directive of the Department of Defense and my supe-
riors did not choose to appeal the imperative actions directed by the
Department of Defense directive and, therefore, the exceptions that
appear to have been taken on my authority were taken solely on my
opinion and the withholding of names was actually clone in the name
of the Surgeon General or the Adjutant General unless the cases were
specifically and formally presented to the Assistant Chief of Staff,
G-1.
This action was not to my knowledge ever taken.
ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 539
Mr. O'DoNNELL. After the DOD directive was issued, was it your
feeling that all available files in the military on each of these individ-
uals should be reviewed ?
Colonel Hyde. My personal feeling, yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Would a review of all records in the military have
been inconsistent with the DOD directive ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes, in my opinion it would have, in view of the
background to the issuance of the DOD directive.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. I would like to get back for a moment. Colonel, to
this discussion, or group of discussions between you and the Surgeon
General's Office.
After the issuance of the DOD directive, but prior to October 27,
I believe you stated that apart from the administrative deficiencies
that were generally discussed, individuals who were in the process of
being eliminated were also discussed ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes. These were brought up during the latter part
of the period, October 7, October 27.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Prior to the latter part of October when these
were brought up, did you have any specific discussion with anyone
in the Surgeon General's Office concerning cases of that nature, namely,
the elimination because of unfavorable information?
Colonel Hyde. Not to my recollection.
Mr. O'DoxxELL, Colonel, I show you a photostatic copy of a docu-
ment consisting of three pages, which is identified as exhibit 26. Will
you kindly read it.
Colonel Hyde. I have read it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. You are familiar with the contents ?
Colonel Hyde. I am.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Isn't it true. Colonel, that at that time the pre-
vailing Army regulations were contained in SR600-220-1, 6 (c) (1"^,
dated March 20, 1951, a copy of which I show you ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Was the problem presented in exhibit 26 the first
time that such a problem had been presented to G-1 for consideration?
Colonel Hyde. It was the first time that it had been presented to my
office. Whetlier it was the first time that it had ever arisen in G-1,
I would not know.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. And you opinion was an exception to the prevail-
ing regulations for the reasons mentioned in exhibit 26 ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, these five officers all received honorable
discharges. Can you explain why they were given honorable dis-
charges instead of some other type ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes. As contained in the memorandum, exhibit 26,
the provision of law would provide their complete escape from mili-
tary service if they were separated from their reserve status with other
than honorable discharges and it was not desired to contribute to their
possible evasion of military service by this action.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. If they had received less than honorable discharges,
could they have been brought back into the service as enlistees or in-
ductees?
Colonel Hyde. It is my understanding that they could not have,
and that were they given less than lionorable discharges it would have
required a waiver if subject was subsequently ordered for induction,
540 ARMY PERSONNEL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS
and to my personal recollection waivers were not being given in these
instances.
Mr. O'DoxxELL. Colonel, I will show you a photostatic copy of a
document which is exhibit 8 in the hearings. I ask you to read the
first part thereof pertaining to the five officers.
Colonel Hyde. I have read it.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, you will note that five officers received
honorable dischmges and three subsequently received undesirable dis-
charges from an enlisted status. Do you know why the other two
officers were not recalled into the service as enlistees ?
Colonel Hyde. I have no knowledge.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Do you know why the three who were recalled as
enlistees received undesirable discharges?
Colonel Hyde. I have no knowledge as to those circumstances, either.
Mr. O'Donnell. Do you think it is proper Army policy to give hon-
orable discharges to officers and undesirable discharges to enlistees if
the same information is available on each ?
Colonel Hyde. I am not qualified to answer without knowledge of
individual details, and then it would only be an opinion, not an author-
itative action.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, these five cases occurred at the approxi-
mate time that Peress was on the verge of coming into the service.
Peress had executed his DD form 398 on October 28, 1952.
If the Peress case had been brought to your attention prior to his
being called on active duty, would your opinion have been the same as
expressed concerning these five ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Whose responsibility would it have been to have
brought the Peress case to the attention of G-1 ?
Colonel Hyde. The Army area commander who was issuing his
appointment and orders to active duty.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Within the Army area wouldn't that have been the
office of G-2, and I call your attention to exhibit 26.
Colonel Hyde. I am not competent to answer the question positively
yes or no, because the normal channel for advisement would be through
command channels. Commander, First Army, to Secretary of the
Army, through the Adjutant General.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Let us take it this way. On the basis of exhibit 26,
which concerns these five cases, page 2 indicates that DA was notified
by G-2, First Army to G-2 DA, but that the following Reserve officers
declined to complete DD form 98 and DD form 98-A, claiming con-
stitutional privilege thereon.
Now, the action on those five cases apparently started with G-2, First
Army ; is that correct ?
Colonel Hyde. I would assmne so from the record.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. If the Peress case, which also involved the consti-
tutional privilege and which occurred at the approximate time of
these five, had been included in this group, isn't it correct to say that
it would have started in G-2, First Army ?
Colonel Hyde. The presumption is essentially accurate.
Mr. O'DoNNFXL. Subsequent to the action concerning the individ-
uals mentioned in exhibit 26, was there any change in the printed
Army policy concerning handling cases of this type ?
ARMY PERSON><'EL ACTIONS RELATING TO IRVING PERESS 541
Colonel Hyde. I believe there was; however, without referral to the
Army rejrulations, I cannot state positively.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, were you ever interviewed by the Inspec-
tor General prior to his filing his report with the Secretary of the Army
in connection with the Peress matter ?
Colonel Hyde. Yes.
Mr. O'DoNNELL. Colonel, were you ever contacted by any person and
requested to render any favorable treatment in the case of Irving
Peress.
Colonel Hyde. None whatsoever. I knew nothing of the subject, sir,
Irving Peress, by name, until I read it in the newspaper.
Emery E. Hyde, Colonel.. General Staff .
Sworn and subscribed to before me, this 7th day of April, 1955.
[seal] a. F. Spada,
Notary Public, Comity of Arlington, Va.
My commission expires September 7, 1956.
%,
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05445 3541
FTB 6 W57
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11