(navigation image)
Home American Libraries | Canadian Libraries | Universal Library | Community Texts | Project Gutenberg | Children's Library | Biodiversity Heritage Library | Additional Collections
Search: Advanced Search
Anonymous User (login or join us)
Upload
See other formats

Full text of "Hearings on S. Res. 301 : hearings before a select committee to study censure charges United States Senate ; Eighty-third Congress, second session pursuant to the order on S. Res. 301 and amendments, a resolution to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy"

T. 



.l^'b * 9335. 4A33n 




Given By 

W, a SUPT. OF D.OCUMENX.S 



^ 



I,? 



R-* 



mk: 



HEARINGS ON S. RES. 301 



HEARINGS 

BEiFORE A 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY 

CENSURE CHARGES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
PURSUANT TO THE ORDER ON 

S. Res. 301 

AND AMENDMENTS 
A RESOLUTION TO CENSURE THE SENATOR FROM 

WISCONSIN, MR. McCarthy 



AUGUST 31, SEPTEMBER 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 AND 17, 1954 



PARTI 



Printed for the use of the Select CJommlttee on S. Res. 301 




HEARINGS ON S. RES. 301 






HEARINGS 

BEFORE A 

SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY 

CENSUEE CHARGES 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGKESS 

SECOND SESSION 
PDRSTJANT TO THE ORDER ON 

S. Res. 301 

AND AMENDMENTS 
A RESOLUTION TO CENSURE THE SENATOR FROM 

WISCONSIN, MR. McCarthy 



AUGUST 31, SEPTEMBER 1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13 AND 17, 1954 



PART 1 



Printed for the use of the Select Committee on S. Res. 301 




/"^i- 



UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
62461 WASHINGTON : 1954 



7335 



Boston Public Library 
'uperintendent of Documents 

OCT 2 7 1954 



SELECT COMMITTEE TO STUDY CENSURE CHARGES 

ARTHUR V. WATKINS, Utah, Chairman 
EDWIN C. JOHNSON, Colorado, Vice Chairman 
FRANK CARLSON, Kansas JOHN C. STENNIS, Mississippi 

FRANCIS CASE, South Dakota SAM J. ERVIN, Jk., North Carolina 

II 









^ CONTENTS 





Statements: ,. ^ . . ^*^* 

Black, Senator Hugo: 1934 statement on shielding wrong-doing m 

government 2"' 

Carlson, Senator Frank: Propriety of administrative assistants par- 
ticipating in senate committee or subcommittee hearings 249 

Flanders, Senator Ralph E. : 

June 1, 1954, Floor speech 308 

June 11, 1954, Floor speech 310 

Hennings, Senator Thomas 0. Jr. : August 2, 1954, Floor speech 52 

Johnson, Senator Edwin C. : Denver Post article of March 12, 19o4 — 35 
McCarthy, Senator Joseph R. : 

Opening 14 

Lustron 5^ 

Nixon, Congressman Richard : April 22, 1948, Floor speech 270, 274 

Watkins, Senator Arthur V. (Chairman) : 

Opening 11 

Memorial to the late Senator Burnet R. Maybank 39 

Impartiality question 40 

Right of a Senator to lecture a witness in a hearing 252 

Witnesses : 
Senators : 

Hayden, Carl 359 

McCarthy, Joseph R. : 

Before Mundt Committee on May 5, 1954, relative to 2i^-page 
document : 

Excerpts 95 

In toto Part 2, 611 

Direct examination . 181, 259, 278, 325 

Cross examination 327, 375, 417 

Others : 

Anastos, C. George 518 

Cohn, Roy 443 

Collier, Robert A. : 

Before Mundt Committee relative to 2i^-page document: 

Excerpts 98 

In toto : 

May 5, 1954 Part 2, 575 

May 6, 1954 Part 2, 608 

Hall, Joseph W., Jr 66 

Harding, William J., Jr , 175 

Juliana, James N 514 

Lawton, Major General Kirke B. (retired) accompanied by John 

E. Pernice (counsel) 165, 433 

Livin2;stone, B. L 63 

Nelson, Clifford J 510 

Peress, Major Irving : 

Before McCarthy Committee on January 30, 1954 206 

Watkins, Charles L. : 

Direct examination 535 

Cross-examination 540a 

Winchell, Walter 145 

Woodward, William J 449 

Zwicker, Brigadier General Ralph W. : 

Before McCarthy Committee on February 18, 1954 : 

Excerpts 69 

In toto 237 

Before Select Committee on September 13, 1954 453 

m 



IV CONTENTS 

Documents : Pago 

Addendum A (Law Brief of Committee Connsel) Part 2 541 

Addendum B (Law Brief of Senator McCarthy's Counsel) Part 2 554 

Addendum to H-H-H subcommittee report 363 

(Also on page 52a of Appendix III, this Index.) 
Amendments to S. Res. 301 : 

Bush 4 

Flanders (1 to 33) 5 

Fulbright (1 to 6) 2 

Morse (a to g) 3 

Smith , 3 

Appendix 

I — Testimony of Robert A. Collier before Mundt Committee on : 

May 5, 1954 Part 2 575 

May 6, 1954 Part 2 008 

II — Testimony of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy before Mimdt 

Committee on May 5, 1954 Part 2 611 

III- — H-H-H subcommittee report on S. Res. 187 and S. Res. 3(>4 

of S2d Congress Part 2 629 

Army Regulations, Change No. 1 of (dated May 28, 1952—380-10)— 458 

Classified Documents, Definitions and Categories 412 

Espionage Act, section 798 of 395 

Internal Security Act, Progress Report by Subcommittee of Senate 
on Administration of, 

(1951) 419 

(July 30, 1953) 419 

Legislative Reorganization Act 1946, Section 102-G 2()7 

Memorandum, by Attorney General Tom Clark to all Government 

Departments, Agencies, and Commissions — April 23, 1948 512 

Memorandum from Attorney General Herbert Brownell to the Presi- 
dent of the United States 123 

Mundt Committee Report (page 76) on the 214-page document 317 

Nixon, Congressman Richard M. — Speech in the House of Representa- 
tives on April 22, 1948 422 

Notice of Hearings on S. Res. 301 8 

Oath of Office for Federal Employees 263 

Order of the Senate on S. Res. 301 1 

Payroll record of Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the 

Senate for January 1953 524 

Precedents for the appointment of committee members by Chairman 

(August 24, 1912, Congressional Record, p.- 11812) 537 

Presidential Directive of March 13, 1948 457 

Rules of Procedure : 

Select Committee 10, 13 

Conunittee on Government Operations 351 

Rules of the Senate, No. 25 (page 42 Senate Manual) 372 

Specifications : 

No. 1 — Incidents of Contempt of the Senate or a Senatorial Committee 

(Fulbright 3, Morse a, Flanders 17) 16 

No. II — I)icidents of encouragement of V. S. employees to violate the 
law and their oaths of oflBce or Executive orders (Fulbright 5, 

Morse e, Flanders 14) S3 

No. Ill — Incidents involving receipt or use of confidential or classified 
documents or other confidential information from executive files 

(Morse d, Flanders 13) 94 

No. IV — Incidents involving abuse of colleagues in the Senate 

(Flanders 30. Morse b) 61 

No. V — Incidents relating to Ralph Zwicker. a general officer of the 

Army ot the United States (Fulbright 4, Morse c, Flanders 10) 69 

S. Res. 301 of Kid c:<mgress 1 

S. Res. 1S7 of 82d Congres.s 20,279 

S. Res. 300 of S2d Congress 31 

United States Code: 

Title 5. Section »i52 411 

Title IS. Swtion 4 265 

Vote Record im S. Res. .300 of S2d Congress 32 

Zwicker, Brig. Gen. Riilph W., Military record of 80 



CONTENTS V 

Exhibits : „ 

H-H-H Subcommittee Report: ^»^e 

No. 3 ;3 

No. 4 j^ 

No. 5 ^^ 

No. 7 26 

No. 8 ^6 

No. 9 27 

No. 10 2< 

No. 11 ^^ 

No. 12 29 

- No. 12a f^ 

No. 13 ^1 

No. 14 ^1 

No. 17 32 

No. 18 32 

No. 19 35 

No. 20 43 

No. 21 44 

No. 3(1 291 

No. 37 294 

No. 38 44 

No. 40 45 

No. 41 45 

No. 42 300 

No. 44 49 

No. 45 51 

Select Committee : 

No. 1 47 

No. 2 80 

No. 3 123 

Senator McCarthy : 

No. 1 279 

No. 2 280 

No. 3 294 

No. 4 304 

No. 5 (2i/(.-page document) — not reproduced 314,326 

JLietters : 

Brownell, Attornev General Herbert, to Senator Mundt : 

jMav 6. 1954 114 

May 13, 1954 116 

Cotter, Paul J., to Senator McCarthy: November 7, 1952 44 

Eisenhower, President Dwight D., to Secretary of Defense Wilson : 

May 17, 1954 122 

Gillette, Senator Guy M., to Senator McCarthy : 

September 17, 1951 279 

September 25, 1951 281, 23 

October 1, 1951 23 

December 6. 19.51 ^ 26 

December 11, 19.51 27 

Deceml)er 21. 19.51 28 

January 10, 1952 30 

May 7, 1952 32 

May 10, 1952 290, 43 

To Senator Havden : September 10, 1952 294 

Hayden, Senator Carl, to Darrell St. Clair : November 20, 1952 362 

Hennings, Senator Thomas C, Jr.. to Senator :McCarthy : November 

21, 1952 45 

Kiermas. Ray, to Paul J. Cotter: Xovemlier 10, 1052 45 

Mnndt, Senator Karl E., to Attorney General Herbert Brownell: 

May 5, 1954 114 

McCarthy, Senator Joseph R., to Senator Gillette: 

September 17, 1951 279,280 

October 4, 1951 23 

December 6, 1951 24 

December 7, 1951 26 



VI CONTENTS 

Letters — Continued 

McCarthy, Senator Joseph R., to Senator Gillette — Continued Pas» 

December 19, 1951 27 

January 4, 1952 29 

May 8, 1952 32,35 

May 11, 1952 44 

To Senator Hayden, March 21, 1952 30 

To Senator Hennings : 

November 28, 1952 49, 304 

December 1, 1952 51 

McDaniel, Adjutant General R. D., to Commanding General, First 

Army : February 8, 1954 454 

Stevens, Secretary of the Army Robert S., to Senator McCarthy : Febru- 
ary 16, 1954 462 

Wilson, Secretary of Defense C. E., to Senator Watkins : September 

10, 1954 434 

Telegrams : 

Hayden, Senator Carl, to Senator Monroney : November 19, 1952 361 

Hennings, Senator Thomas C, Jr., to Senator McCarthy : 

"not sent" November 14, 1952 300 

November 21, 1952 47 

McCarthy, Senator Joseph R., to Senator Jackson : February 21, 1954_ 391 
Monroney, Senator A. S. Mike, to Senator Hayden : November 21, 1952_ 361 
Rulings of the Chair : 

On motion by Senator McCarthy to dismiss Specification No. I 20 

On motion by Senator McCarthy to insert article from Denver Post 36 

On offer by Senator McCarthy of views of Justice Black 261 

On admissibility of acts or statements of individual Senators 268 

On motion of Senator McCarthy that the Committee take judicial 
notice that the charges under S. Res. 187 of 82d Congress were 

preferred in open session 282 

On offer in evidence of the 214 page document by Senator McCarthy 325 

On request that the Committee obtain certain testimony from the 

Senate Parliamentarian 366 

On motion by Committee Counsel that Senator McCarthy be required 

to divulge the name of the informant on the 2Y2 page document 396 

On offer hj Senator McCarthy of testimony tending to prove the 

falsity of the charges under S. Res. 187 of 82d Congress 296 

Other Material : 

Case, Senator Francis, offer that Senator McCarthy's utterance about 

Senator Heudrickson be considered in light, of present facts 425 

Lawton, Major General Kirke B.- — ^"I must respectfully decline to 

an.swer" 167 

McCarthy, Senator Joseph R. : 

a. Statement in Mundt hearings about Senator Flanders 63 

b. To Reporter B. L. Livinavstone about Senator Flanders 64 

c. To Reporter Joseph W. Hall, Jr., about Senator Heudrickson 68 

d. To General Zwicker concerning fitness to wear the uniform 332 

e. Invitation to 2,000,000 Federal employees 262 

f. Relative to his authority to receive information about wrong- 

doing 262 

g. Scope of invitation to the Civil Service Employees 265 

h. Had no desire to appear before H-H-H Subcommittee unless 

ordered 288 

i. Someone on H-H-H Subcommittee was dishonest 299 

j. November 21st telegram was first request to appear 299 

k. Discussion with Senator Gillette about subpoena 305 

1. Conversation with Senator Heudrickson by phone 306 

m. Admission of having made the alleged remark about Senator 

Heudrickson 306 

Winchell, Walter, reference to 2y2-page document 150 

Zwicker, Brigadier General Ralph W., overheard by William J. Hard- 
ing, Jr., to have referred to Senator McCarthy 179 



HEAEINGS ON SENATE KESOLUTION 301 



TUESDAY, AUGUST 31, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges Pursuant 

TO Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301, 

Washington, D. G. 

The select committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 : 20 a. m., in the 
caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins 
(chairman) presidino;. 

Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson of Colorado (vice 
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin. 

Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel 
to the committee ; Guy G. deFuria, assistant counsel to the committee ; 
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member ; 
Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins' 
staff on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel 
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A, Neill and Brent 
Bozell. 

The Chairman. There will now be f)laced in the record Senate 
Resolution 301 of the 83d Congress, together with the amendments 
proposed thereto and the order of the Senate dated August 2, 1954, 
which set up this committee and referred that resolution and those 
amendments to us. 

(The matter referred to is as follows :) 

[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 
ORDER 

Ordered, That S. Res. 301, to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, INIr. Mc- 
Carthy, submitted by Senator Flanders on July 30, and amendments proposed 
thereto, be referred to a select committee as provided in the motion set forth 
below and agreed to by the Senate on Monday, August 2 (legislative day, Friday, 
July 2, 19.54) : 

"Mr. President, I move to refer the pending resolution (S. Res. 301) together 
with all amendments proposed thereto, .to a select committee to be composed of 
8 Republicans and 3 Democrats who shall be named by the Vice President : And 
ordered further. That the committee, which shall be authorized to hold hearings, 
to sit and act at such times and places during the sessions, recesses, and adjourned 
periods of the Senate, to require by subpeua or otherwise the attendance of such 
witnesses and the production of such correspondence, books, papers, and docu- 
ments, and to take such testimony as it deems advisable, and that the committee 
be instructed to act and make a report to this Body priod to the adjournment 
sine die of the Senate in the second session of the 83d Congress. 



[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 
RESOLUTION 

Resolved, That the conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, 
is unbecoming a Member of the United States Senate, is contrary to senatorial 
traditions, and tends to bring the Senate into disrepute, and such conduct is 
hereby condemned. 

1 



2 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

[S. Res. 301, 83(1 Coug., 2d sess.] 

PROPOSED AMENDMENT Proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S. Res. 
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike the period and insert the 
following : "for the following reason : 

"(1) The junior Senator from Wisconsin, while a member of the committee 
having jurisdiction over the affairs of the Lustron Company, a corporation 
financed by Government money, received $10,000 without rendering services of 
comparable value ;". 

[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 

AMENDIMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution 
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

On page 1. line 5, after the word "condemned", strilie the period and insert 
the following : "for the following reason : 

"(2) In public hearings, before the Senate Permanent Investigations Sub- 
committee, of which he was chairman, the junior Senator from Wisconsin strongly 
implied that Annie Lee Moss was known to be a member of the Communist 
Party and that if she testified she would perjure herself, before he had given 
her an opportunity to testify in her own behalf;". 



[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution 
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 

On page 1, line 5, after the word "condenmed", strike the period and insert 
the following "for the following reason : 

"(3) Although repeatedly invited to testify by a committee of this Senate 
headed by the Senator from Iowa, the junior Senator from Wisconsin denounced 
the committee and contemptuously refused to comply with its request ;". 



[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution 
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 

On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike the period and insert 
the following : "for the following reason : 

"(4) Without justification, the junior Senator from Wisconsin impugned the 
loyalty, patriotism, and character of General Ralph Zwicker ;". 



[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution 
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 

On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike out the period and insert 
the following : "for the following reason : 

"(5) The junior Senator from Wisconsin openly, in a public manner before 
nationwide television, invited and urged employees of the Government of the 
United States to violate the law and their oaths of office ;". 



[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution 
(S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike out the period and insert 
the following : "for the following reason : 

"(6) The Junior Senator from Wisconsin in a speech on June 14, 1951, without 
proof or other justification made an unwarranted attack upon General George 
C. MarshaU." 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 6 

[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 

AMENDMENT (in the nature of a substitute) Intended to be proposed by Mr. 
Smith of New Jersey to the resolution (S. Res. 301) to censure the Senator 
from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 

Strike out all after "Resolved," and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
"That the Senate views with real concern the growing divisiveness and disunity 
in the Senate and throughout the country over the problems created by the fact 
that there had been infiltration of Communists and other security risks into 
sensitive positions, and the methods and procedures employed in exposing and 
eliminating such security risks ; and be it further 

^'Resolved, That it is the immediate responsibility of the Senate to deal with 
this critical situation in an objective, judicial, and statesmanlike manner ; and 
be it further 

"Resolved, that- the Vice President of the United States Immediately appoint 
a special bipartisan committee of the Senate to investigate and report with recom- 
mendations to the Senate on this controversial matter. The committee shall be 
composed of six Senators, three of whom shall be nominated \)j the Republican 
Policy Committee, and three by the Democratic Policy Committee. Tlie Vice 
President shall be ex officio chairman of the group. The committee shall report 
with recommendations to the Senate not later than February 1, 1955." 



[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution ( S. Res. 
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

On page 1, lines 4 and 5, strike out the words "and such conduct is hereby 
condemned.", and insert in lieu thereof the following: "because the said Mr. 
McCarthy — 

"(a) declined to comply with a request made by letter on November 21, 
1952, by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of 
the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, that he appear before 
the subcommittee to supply information concerning certain specific matters 
involving his activities as a Member of the Senate ; 

"(b) unfairly accused his fellow Senators Gillette, Monroney, Hendrick- 
son, Hayden, and Hennings of improper conduct in carrying out their duties 
as Senators; 

"(c) as chairman of a committee resorted to abusive conduct in his 
interrogation of General Ralph Zwicker, including a charge that General 
Zwicker was unfit to wear the uniform, during the appearance of General 
Zwicker as a witness before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
of the Senate Committee on Government Operations on February 18, 1954; 

"(d) received and made use of confidential information unlawfully 
obtained from a document in executive files upon which document the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation had placed its highest classification ; and 
offered such information to a lawfully constituted Senate subcommittee in 
the form' of a spurious document which he falsely asserted to the subcom- 
mittee to be 'a letter from the FBI.' ; 

"(e) openly invited and incited employees of the Government to violate 
the law and their oaths of office by urging them to make available infor- 
mation, including classified information, which in the opinion of the em- 
ployee would be of assistance to the junior Senator from Wisconsin in 
conducting his investigations, even though the supplying of such informa- 
tion by the employee would be illegal and in violation of Presidential order 
and contrary to the constitutional rights of the Chief Executive under the 
separation-of -powers doctrine ; 

"(f) attempted to invade the constitutional power of the President of 
the United States to conduct the foreign relations of the United States by 
carrying on negotiations with certain Greek shipowners in respect to foreign 
trade policies, even though the executive branch of our Government had a 
few weeks previously entered into an luiderstanding with the Greek Gov- 
ernment in respect to banning the flow of strategic materials to Communist 
countries ; and 

"(g) permitted and ratified over a period of several months in 1953 and 
1954 the abuse of Senatorial privilege by Mr. Roy Cohn, chief counsel to 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

the Permanent Investigations Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on 
Government Operations of whicli committee and subcommittee the junior 
Senator from Wisconsin is chairman, Mr. Colin's abuse having been directed 
toward attempting to secure preferential treatment for Private David Schine 
by the Department of the Army, at a time when the Army was under 
investigation by the committee. 
'Sec. 2. It is the sense of the Senate that such conduct is hereby condemned." 



[S. Res. 301, 83d Cong., 2d sess.] 

AMENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Bush to the resolution ( S. Res. 

301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

Strike out all after "Resolvcfl," and insert in lieu thereof the following: 
"That rule XV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended by inserting at the 
end thereof the following : 

" '3. All bills and resolutions to authorize the investigation of a particular 
subject matter shall define such subject matter clearly, and shall state the need 
for such investigation and the general objects thereof.' 

"Sec. 2. Rule XXV of such Standing Rules is amended by deleting the title 
'standing Committees' and inserting in lieu thereof 'Powers and Duties of 
Committees'. 

"Sec. 3. Paragraph (b) of subsection 3 of such rule XXV is amended to read 
as follows : 

"'(b) Unless the committee otherwise provides, one member shall constitute 
a quorum for the receipt of evidence and the taking of testimony ; but no witness 
shall be compelled to give oral testimony before less than two members if, 
prior to testifying, he objects to the presence of only one member.' 

"Sec. 4. Such rule XXV is amended by inserting at the end thereof the follow- 
ing subsections : 

".'5. The rules of the committees shall be the rules of the subcommittees so 
far as applicable. Committees and subcommittees may adopt additional rules 
not inconsistent with the rules of the Senate. 

" '6. All hearings conducted by committee shall be open to the public, except 
executive sessions for marking up bills or for voting or where the committee 
by a majority vote orders an executive session. 

" '7. Unless otherwise provided, committee action shall be by vote of a majority 
of a quorum. 

" '8. An investigating subcommittee of any committee may be authorized only 
by a majority vote of the committee. 

" '9. No committee hearing shall be held unless .specifically authorized by the 
committee. 

" '10. No committee hearing shall be held in any place outside of the District 
of Columbia unless authorized by a majority vote of the committee. 

" '11. No measure, finding, or recommendation shall be reported from any 
committee unless a majority of the committee were actually present. 

" '12. No testimony taken or material presented in an executive session shall 
be made public, either in whole or in part or by way of summary, unless au- 
thorized by a majority vote of the committee. 

" '13. No person shall be employed for or assigned to investigate activities 
until approved by the committee. 

" '14. Unless otherwise provided, subpenas to require the attendance of wit- 
nesses, the giving of testimony, and the production of books, papers, or other 
evidence shall be issued only by authority of tlie committee, shall be signed by 
the chairman or any member designated by the chairman, and may he served by 
any person designated by the committee, the cliairman, or the signing member. 

"'15. No witness shall be compelled to give oral testimony for broadcast, or 
for direct reproduction by motion picture photography, recording, or otherwise 
in news and entertainment media if he objects. 

" '16. Oaths may be administered and hearings may be conducted and presided 
over by the chairman or any member designated by the chairman. 

" '17. AVitnesses shall be permitted to be advised by counsel of their legal 
rights while giving testimony, and unless the presiding member otherwise directs, 
to be accompanied by counsel at the stand. 

" '18. AVitnesses, counsel, and other persons present at committee hearings 
shall maintain proper order and decorum ; counsel shall observe the standards of 
ethics and deportment generally required of attorneys at Jaw. The chairman 
may punish breaches of this ijrovision by censure or by exclusion from the com- 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 5 

mittee's hearings, and the committee may punish by citation to the Senate for 
contempt. 

" '19. Whenever the committee determines that evidence relating to a question 
under inquiry may tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate persons called as 
witnesses therein, the committee shall observe the following additional pro- 
cedure, so far as may be practicable and necessary for the protection of such 

persons : ^ , ^ u. 

"'(a) The subject of each hearing shall be clearly stated at the outset 

thereof, and evidence sought to be elicited shall be pertinent to the subject as so 

'"'(b) Preliminary staff inquiries may be directed by the chairman, but no 
major phase of the investigation shall be developed by calling witnesses until 
approved by the committee. 

"'(c) All testimony, whether compelled or volunteered, shall be given under 

oath. , . ^. J. .-, 

"'(d) Counsel for witnesses may be permitted, in the discretion or the 
presiding member and as justice may require, to be heard briefly on points of 
right and procedure, to examine their clients briefly for purposes of amplifica- 
tion and clarification, and to address pertinent questions by written interro- 
gatory to other witnesses whose testimony pertains to their clients. 

"'(e) Testimony shall be heard in executive session, the witness willing, 
when necessary to shield the witness or other persons about whom he may 

testify. 

"•(f) The secrecy of executive sessions and of all matters and material not 
expressly released by the committee shall be rigorously enforced. 

"'(g) Witnesses shall be permitted brief explanations of aflSirmative or 
negative responses, and may submit concise, pertinent statements, orally or in 
writing, for inclusion in the record at the opening or close of tiieir testimony. 

" '(h) An accurate verbatim transcript shall be made of all testimony, and no 
alterations of meaning shall be permitted therein. 

"'(i) Each witness may obtain transcript copies of his testimony given 
publicly by paying the cost thereof ; copies of his testimony given in executive 
session shall be furnished the witness at cost if the testimony has been released 
or publicly disclosed, or if the chairman so orders. 

"'(j) No testimony given in executive session shall be publicly disclosed in 
part only, except when the committee decides that deletions from the trans- 
cript are required by considerations of national security. 

" '20. Whenever the committee determines that any testimony, statement, 
release, or other evidence or utterance relating to a question under inquiry may 
tend to defame, degrade, or incriminate persuus who are not witnesses, the 
committee shall observe the following additional procedures, so far as may be 
practicable and necessary for the protection of such persons : 

"'(a) Persons so affected shall be afforded an opportunity to appear as 
witnesses, promptly and at the same place if possible, and under subpena if 
they so elect. Testimony relating to the adverse evidence or utterance shall be 
subject to applicable provisions of subsection 19 of this rule. 

"'(b) Each such person may, in lieu of appearing as a witness, submit a 
concise, jjertinent sworn statement which shall be incorporated in the record 
of the hearing to which the adverse evidence or utterance relates. 

" '21. The chairman or a member shall when practicable consult with appro- 
priate Federal law-enforcement agencies with respect to any phase of an in- 
vestigation which may result in evidence exposing the commission of Federal 
crimes, and the results of such consultation shall be reported to the committee 
before witnesses are called to testify tlierein. 

" '22. Requests to subpena additional witnesses shall be received and con- 
sidered by the chairman in any investigation in which witnesses have been 
subpenaed. Auy such request received from a witness or other i)erson entitled 
to the protections afforded by subsection 19 or 20 of this rule shall be con- 
sidered and disposed of by the committee. 

" '23. Each committee conducting investigations shall make available to 
interested persons copies of the rules applicable therein.' " 



[S. Res. 301, 83(1 Cong., 2d sess.] 

AINIENDMENT Intended to be proposed by Mr. Flandeks to the resolution (S. 
Res. 301 ) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 
On page 1, line 5, after the word "condemned", strike the period and insert 

the following : "for the following reasons : 



6 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

"(1) He has retained and/or accredited staff personnel whose reputations are 
in question and whose backgrounds would tend to indicate untrustworthiness 
(Surine, Lavinia, J. B. INlatthews). 

"(2) He has permitted his staff to conduct itself in a presumptuous manner. 
His counsel and his consultant (Messrs. Cohn and Schine) have been insolent to 
other Senators, discourteous to the public, and discreditable to the Senate. His 
counsel and consultant traveled abroad making a spectacle of themselves and 
brought discredit upon the Senate of the United States, whose employees they 
were. 

"(3) He has conducted his committee in such a slovenly and unprofessional 
way that cases of mistaken identities have resulted in grievous hardship or have 
made his committee, and thereby the Senate, appear ridiculous. (Annie Lee 
Moss, Lawrence W. Parrish, subpenaed and brought to Washington instead of 
Lareence T. Parish.) 

"(4) He has proclaimed publicly his intention to subpena citizens of good 
reputation, and then never called them. (General Telford Taylor. William P. 
Bundy, former President Truman, reporters Marder, Joseph Alsop, Friendly, 
Bigrant, Phillip Potter. ) 

"(5) He has repeatedly used verbal subpenas of questionable legality. (Tried 
to prevent State Department granting visa to William P. Bundy on ground that 
he was under 'oral subpena.') 

"(6) He has attempted to intimidate the press and sin?;le out individual 
journalists who have been critical of him or whose reports he has regarded with 
disfavor, and either threatened them with subpena or forced them to testify 
in such a manner as to raise the possibility of a breach of the first amendment 
of the Constitution. (Murrey Marder of the Washington Post, the Alsops, James 
Wechsler.) 

"(7) He has attempted 'economic coercion' against the press and radio, par- 
ticularly the case of Time magazine, the Milwaukee Journal, and the Madison 
Capital Times. (On June 16, 1952, McCarthy sent letters to advertisers in Time 
magazine, urging them to withdraw their advertisements.) 

"(8) He has permitted the staff to investigate at least one of his fellow 
Senators (Jackson) and possibly numerous Senators. Such material has been 
reserved with the obvious intention of coercing the other Senator or Senators to 
submit to his will, or for the purpose of inhibiting them from expressing them- 
selves critically. (Cohn said he would 'get' Senator Jackson). — Washington 
News, June 14, 1954. 

"(9) He has posed as savior of his country from communism, yet the Depart- 
ment of Justice reported that McCarthy never turned over for prosecution a 
single case against any of his alleged 'Communists.' (The Justice Department 
report of December 18, 1951.) Since that date not a single person has been tried 
for Communists activities as a result of information supplied by McCarthy. 

"(10) He has attacked, defamed, and besmirched military heroes of the United 
States, either as witnesses before his committee or under the cloak of immunity 
of the Senate floor. (General Zwicker, General Marshall.) 

"(11) He has used distortion and innuendo to attack the reputations of the 
following citizens: Former President Truman, General George Marshall, At- 
torney General Brownell, John J. McCloy, Ambassador Charles E. Bohlen, Sena- 
tor Raymond Baldwin, Former Assistant Secretary of Defense Anna Rosenberg, 
Philip Jessup, Marquis Childs, Richard L. Strout of the Christian Science Moni- 
tor, General Telford Taylor, and the three national press associations. 

"(12) He has disclosed restricted security information in possible violation 
of the espionage laws. McCarthy has made public portions of an Army Intelli- 
gence stTidy. Soviet Siberia, which compelled the Army to declassify and release 
the entire document.) 

" (1.3) He received and held a vahiable classified document in possible violation 
of the Espionage Act. (Revealed in the Army-McCarthy hearings tbat he had 
improperly obtained J. Edgar Hoover's report on subversives from the Army, and 
failed to restore the docimient to properly authorized hands.) He permitted 
that document to fall into the hands of a gossip columnist (Walter Winchell). 

"(14) He has publicly incited Government employees to violate their security 
oaths and serve as his personal informants, thus tending to break down the 
orderly chain of command in the civil service, as well as violate the security 
provisions of the Government. 

"(15) He has u-^pd his oliicial position to fix the Comnmnist label upon all 
individuals and newspapers as might legitimately disagree with him or refuse 
to acknowledge him as the unique leader in the tight against subversion. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 7 

f Deliberate slips such as callinj? Adlai Stevenson 'Alger'; sayinfj that the 
American Civil Liberties Union hart been 'listed' as doing the work of the 
Communist Party ; calling the Milwaukee Journal and Washington Post local 
'editions of tlie Daily Worker.') 

"(16) He has attempted to usurp the functions of the executive depart- 
ment by having his staff negotiate agreements with a group of Greek ship- 
owners in London; and has infringed upon functions of the State Department, 
claiming that he was acting in the 'national interest.' 

"(17) He has continued to show his contempt for the Senate by failing to 
explain in any manner the six charges contained in the Hennings-Hayden- 
Hendrickson report, which was filed in January 1953. This involves his bank 
transactions, possible in':ome-tax evasions, and the Lustron deal. The taint 
pei-sists until he satisfactorily explains these matters, which he refused to do, 
although invited six times to appear, during the Eighty-second Congress. 

"(IS) He has made false claims about alleged wounds which in fact he did 
not suffer. (Claims he was a tailgunner when, in fact, he was a Marine Air 
Force Ground Intelligence oflicer * * * claims he entered as buck private^ 
when he entered as a commissioned oflicer.) 

"(19) His rude and ruthless disregard of the rights of other Senators has 
gone to the point where the entire minority membership of the Permanent 
Investiuating Subcommittee resigned from the committee in protest against 
his high-handedness. (July 10, 1953.) 

"(20) He has intruded upon the prerogative of the executive branch, violating 
the constitutional principles of separation of powers. (Within a single week 
(February 14-20. 1953), McCarthy's activities against Voice of America forced 
the State Department three times to reverse administrative decisions on matters 
normally considered internal operating procedures: (1) The Department had 
authorized the use of certain writings by pro-Communist authors as part of 
their program to expose Communist lies and false promises. McC'arthy com- 
pelled the State Department to discontinue this practice; (2) the Department 
authorized its employees to refuse to talk with McCarthy's staff in the absence 
of McCarthy himself. It was compelled to cancel this directive; and (3) 
John Matson, a departnaental security agent who had 'cooperated' with 
McCarthy, was transferred so as to be put out of reach of the Department's 
confidential liles. McCarthy compelled the Department to return Matson to 
his original position.) 

"(21) He has infringed upon the jurisdiction of other Senate committees, 
invading the area of the Internal Security Subcommittee and other committees 
of the Congress. 

"(22) He has failed to perform the solid and useful duties of the Government 
Operations Committee, abandoning the legitimate and vital functions of this 
committee. 

"(23) He has held executive sessions in an apparent attempt to prevent the 
press from getting an accurate account of the testimony of witnesses, and then 
released his own versions of that testimony, often at variance with the subse- 
quently revealed transcripts, and under circumstances in which the witness had 
little opportunity to correct or object to his version. 

"(24) He has questioned adverse witnesses in public session in such a manner 
as to defame loyal and valuable public servants, whose own testimony he failed 
to get beforehand, and whom he never -provided a comparable opportunity for 
answering the charges. 

"(25) He has barred the press and general public from executive sessions and 
then permitted unauthorized persons whom his whim favored to attend, in 
one case, a class of schoolgirls, thus holding the very principle of executive 
sessions up to ridicule. 

"(26) His conduct has caused and permitted his subcommittee to be incom- 
plete or incapacitated in its normal work for approximately 40 per centum of 
the time that he has been its chairman. (During his nineteen months as chair- 
man of the subcommittee, his refusal to recognize their rights — later acknowl- 
edged by him— caused the minority members to leave the subcommittee on 
July 10, 1953, and they did not return until January 25, 1954. His personally 
motivated quarrel with the United States Anny necessitated the interruption of 
the subcommittee's work and its exclusive preoccupation with the Army-Mc- 
Carthy hearings from April 22, 1954, to June 17, 1954. ) 

"(27) He has publicly threatened publications with the withdrawal of their 
second-class mailing privilege because he disagreed with their editorial policy. 
(Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time magazine.) Letter to Postmaster 



8 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

General Summerfield made public August 22, 1953. See Washington Post, Au- 
gust 23, 1953. 

"(28) He has exploited his committee chairmanship to disseminate fantastic 
and unverified claims for the obvious purpose of publicity. (McCarthy's hint 
that he was in secret communication with Lavrenti P. Beria and would produce 
him as a witness at a time when Beria was on the verge of execution in Moscow.) 
Washington News, September 21, 1953 (announcement of plan to subpena Beria). 

"(29) He has denied Members of Congress access to the tiles of the committee, 
to which eveiy Member of Congress is entitled under the Reorganization Act 
(title II, sec. 202, par. (d) ). 

"(30) He has ridiculed his colleagues in the Senate, defaming them publicly 
in vulgar and base language (regarding Senator Hendrickson — 'A living miracle 
without brains or guts ;'. On Flanders — 'Senile — I think they should get a man 
with a net and take him to a good quiet place.'). 

"(31) He has announced investigations prematurely, subsequently dropping 
these investigations so that the question whether there was ever any serious 
intent to pursue them may be justifiably raised, along with the inevitable con- 
clusion that publicity was the only purpose. (Central Intelligence Agency, 
Beria, and so forth. ) 

"(32) Checking through hearings, one will note that favorable material sub- 
mitted by witnesses will usually have the notation 'May be found in the flies of 
the subcommittee', whereas unfavorable material is printed in the record. 

"(33) He has permitted changing of committee reports and records in such a 
way as to substantially change or delete vital meanings. ( Senator Margaret 
Chase Smith felt compelled to object to the filing of his 1953 subcommittee reports 
without their first being sent through the full committee.)" 

The Chairman. At this point we will read into the record the notice 
of this hearing : 

"August 24, 1954. 
"Notice or Hearings 

"Notice is hereby oriven to Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy, and all inter- 
ested persons, that the select committee of the Senate of the United 
States, appointed pursuant to an order of the Senate agi'eed to on 
August 2, 1954 (legislative day, July 2, 1954), entered on Senate 
Resolution 301, a copy of which together with the resolution and 
amendments thereto is hereto attached, will meet in executive session 
on Monday, August 30, 1954, at 2 p. m., eastern daylight-saving time, 
and that the said committee will sit for the purposes of its appointment 
on Tuesday, August 31, 1954, at 10 a. m., eastern daylight-saving time, 
in the Senate caucus room, in the Senate Office Building, at Wash- 
ington, D. C, and commence at said time and place its hearings to 
receive evidence, take testimony, and act as provided in said order, 
relating to the following matters, among others, committed to its 
jurisdiction : 

"I. Incidents of contempt of the Senate or a senatorial committee, 
referred to in the following : 

"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S. 
Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, 
viz: 

"(3) Although repeatedly invited to testify by a committee of this Senate 
headed by the Senator from Iowa, the junior Senator from Wisconsin denounced 
the committee and contemptuously refused to comply with its request. 

"B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution (S. Res. 
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

"(a) Declined to comply with a request made by letter on November 21, 1952, 
by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate 
Committee on Rules and Administration, that he appear before the subcommittee 
to supply information concerning certain specific matters involving his activities 
as a Member of the Senate. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 9 

"C. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. 
Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, 
viz: 

"(17) He has continued to show his contempt for the Senate by failing to 
explain in any manner the six charges contained in the Hennings-Hayden-Hen- 
drickson report, whicli was filed in January 1953. This involves his bank trans- 
actions, possible income-tax evasions, and the Lustron deal. The taint persists 
until he satisfactorily explains these matters, which he refused to do, although 
invited six times to appear during the 82d Congress. 

"Copies of said amendments, and all other amendments hereinafter 
referred to, are attached to this notice. 

"II. Incidents of encouragement of United States employees to vio- 
late the law and their oaths of office or Executive orders, referred to in 
the following: 

"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S. 
Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, 
viz: 

"(5) The junior Senator from Wisconsin openly, in a public manner before 
nationwide television, invited and urged employees of the Government of the 
United States to violate the law and their oaths of office. 

"B. Amendment proposed by Mr, Morse to the resolution (S. Res. 
301 ) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 

"(e) Openly invited and incited employees of the Government to violate the 
law and their oaths of office by urging them to make available information, 
including classified information, which in the opinion of the employees could 
be of assistance to the junior Senator from Wisconsin in conducting his investi- 
gations, even though the supplying of such information by the employees would 
be illegal and in violation of Presidential order and contrary to the constitutional 
rights of the Chief Executive under the separation-of-powers doctrine. 

"C. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res. 
301 ) to censure the Senator from AVisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 

"(14) He has publicly incited Government employees to violate their security 
oaths and serve as his personal informants, thus tending to break down the 
orderly chain of command in the civil service, as well as violating the security 
provisions of the Government. 

"III. Incidents involving receipt or use of confidential or classified 
document or other confidential information, from executive files, re- 
ferred to in the following : 

"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution (S. Res. 
301 ) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 

"(d) Received and made use of confidential information unlawfully obtained 
from a document in executive files upon which document the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation had placed its highest classification ; and offered siich informa- 
tion to a lawfully constituted Senate subcommittee in the form of a spurious 
document which he falsely asserted to the subcommittee to be 'a letter from the 
FBI.' 

"B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res. 
301 ) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 

"(13) He received and held a valuable classified document in possible viola- 
tion of the Espionage Act. (Revealed in the Army-McCarthy hearings that he 
Lad improperly obtained J. Edgar Hoover's report on subversives from the Army 
and failed to restore the document to properly authorized hands.) He per- 
mitted the document to fall into the hands of a gossip columnist (Walter 
Winchell). 



10 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

"IV. Incidents involving abuses of colleagues in tlie Senate, referred 
to in the following : 

"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res. 
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

"(30) He has ridiculed his colleagues in the Senate, defaming them publicly 
in vulgar and base language (regarding Senator Hendrickson — 'a living miracle 
without brains or guts' ; on Flanders — 'Senile — I think they should get a man 
with a net and take him to a good quiet place.'). 

"B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution (S. Res. 
301) to censure the Senator from AVisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz : 

"(b) Unfairly accused his fellow Senators Gillette, Monroney, Hendrickson, 
Hayden. and Hennings of improper conduct in carrying out tlieir duties as 
Senators. 

"V. Incident relating to Ralph Zwicker, a general officer of the 
Army of the United States, referred to in the following: 

"A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S, 
Res. 301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

"(4) Without justification, the junior Senator from Wisconsin impugned the 
loyalty, patriotism, and character of Gen. Ralph Zwicker. 

"B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution (S. Res. 
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

"(c) As chairman of a committee resorted to abusive conduct in his interro- 
gation of Gen. Ralph Zwicker, including a charge that General Zwicker was 
unfit to wear the uniform, during the appearance of General Zwicker as a 
witness before the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate 
Committee on Government Operations on February 18, 1954. 

"C. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res. 
301) to censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: 

" (10) He has attacked, defamed, and besmirched military heroes of the United 
States, either as witnesses before his committee or under the cloak of immunity 
of the Senate floor (General Zwicker, General Marshall)." 

"The select committee reserves the right to take thereafter such other 
testimony as it may deem advisable relating "to any other matters re- 
ferred to in said order of the Senate, resolution, and pi'oposed amend- 
ments, or as may be developed at the hearings, and will make report 
to the Senate. 

"All testimony and evidence received in the hearings shall be such as 
is found by the select committee to be competent, relevant, and material 
to the subject matters so under inquiry, with the right of examination 
and cross-examination, in general conformity to judicial proceedings 
and in accordance with said order of the Senate. 

"The select committee will admit, subject to said order, as competent 
testimony for the record, so far as material and relevant, the official 
proceedings and pertinent actions of the Senate and of any of its com- 
mittees or subcommittees, taking judicial notice thereof, and using 
official reprints when convenient. Following Senate tradition, \vit- 
nesses may be examined by anj'^ member of the connnittee, and they 
may be examined or cross-examined for the connnittee by its counsel. 
AVitnesscs ma}' be examined or cross-examined either by Senator Mc- 
Carthy or his counsel, but not by both, as to tlie same witness. 

"The said Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy is hereby formally requested 
by the said select committee of the Senate of the United States to 
appear at said hearing and hearings and adjournments and continu- 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 11 

ances thereof, with legal counsel, if desired by him, to be examined, 
with the right to present evidence and testimony in accordance here- 
with and in accordance with the said order of the Senate. 

"Select Committee To Study Censure Charges 

"Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301, 

"Arthur V. Watkins, GhmrmanP 

At this point I note the presence of all members of the committee 
who are, of course, well known to the people who are assembled here, 
and the presence of the chief counsel and the assistant chief counsel 
to the committee. 

I introduce JNIr. E. Wallace Chadwick, chief counsel, former Member 
of the House of Representatives, and a leading and distinguished mem- 
ber of the bar of the State of Pennsylvania and of the Supreme Court 
of the United States. 

Mr. Chadwick. 

Mr. Chadwick. Thank you. 

The Chairman. And assistant counsel, Guy G. de Furia, also of 
Pemisylvania. Swai'thmore, Pa., a distinguished member of the bar 
wlio has served as district attorney in his community and has been vei'y 
active in the practice of law. 

We have other members of the staff whom it will not be necessary at 
this time to introduce. 

Now, at the outset of this hearing, the committee desires to state in 
general terms what is involved in Senate Resolution 301 and the Senate 
order on it, which authorized the appointment of the select committee 
to consider in behalf of the Senate the so-called Flanders resolution 
of censure, together with all amendments proposed to the resolution. 

The committee, in the words of the Senate order, was — 

authorized to hold hearings, to sit and act at such times and places during the 
sessions, recesses, and adjoiirned periods of the Senate, to require by subpena, 
or otherwise, the attendance of such witnesses and the production of such cor- 
respondence, books, papers, and documents, and to take such testimony as it 
deems advisable, and that the committee be instructed to act and make a report 
to this body prior to the adjournment sine die of the Senate in the 2d session of 
the S3d Congress. 

That is a broad grant of power, carrying with it a heavy respon- 
sibility — a responsibility which the committee takes seriously. In 
beginning its duties, the committee found a few precedents to serve 
as a guide. It is true that there had been other censure resolutions 
before the Senate in the past, but the acts complained of were, for 
the most part, single occurrences which happened in the presence of 
the Senate or one of its committees. Uiider such circumstances, 
prolonged investigations and hearings were not necessary. 

It should be pointed out that the some forty-odd alleged instances 
of misconduct on the part of Senator McCarthy referred to this 
committee are involved and complex, both with respect to matters 
of fact and law. AVith reference to the time element, the incidents 
are alleged to have happened within a period covering several years. 
In addition, 3 Senate committees already have held hearings on 1 or 
more phases of the alleged incidents of misconduct. Obviously, with 
all this in mind, the committee had good reason for concluding it 
faced an unprecedented situation which would require adoption of 
procedures, all within the authority granted it in the Senate order, 



12 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

that would enable it to perform the duties assigned within the limited 
time given by the Senate. 

The committee interprets its duties, functions, and responsibilities 
under the Senate order to be as follows : 

1. To analyze the charges set forth in the amendments and to 
determine : 

(a) If there were duplications which could be eliminated. 

(h) If any of the charges were of such a nature that even if the 
allegations were established as factually true, yet there would be 
strong reasons for believing that they did not constitute a ground 
for censure. 

2. To thoroughly investigate all charges not eliminated under No. 1 
in order to secure relevant and material facts concerning them and 
the names of witnesses or records which can establish the facts at the 
hearings to be held. 

In this connection the committee believes it should function as an 
impartial investigating agency to develop by direct contacts in the 
field and by direct examination of Senate records all relevant and 
material facts possible to secure. 

When Senate Resolution 301 and amendments offered were referred 
to the committee, the committee interprets this action to mean that 
from that time on the resolution and charges became the sole respon- 
sibility of the Senate. To state it another way, the Senator, or Sena- 
tors, who offered resolution 301, and proposed amendments thereto, 
have no legal responsibility from that point on for the conduct of 
the investigations and hearings authorized by the order of the Senate. 
The hearings are not to be adversary in character. Under this inter- 
pretation, it became the committee's duty then to get all the facts 
and material relevant to the charges irrespective of whetlier the facts 
sustained the charges or showed them to be without foundation. 

The foregoing statement seems to be necessary in view of a wide- 
spread misunderstanding that the Senator who introduced the reso- 
lution of censure into the Senate and the Senators who offered amend- 
ments thereto, setting up specific charges against the Senator from 
Wisconsin, are the complaining witnesses, or the parties plaintiff, in 
this proceeding. That is not true, as has been explained. However, 
because of the fact that they had made some study of the situation, 
the committee did give them an opportunity to submit informational 
documentation of the charges they had offered. Also they were asked 
to submit the names of any witnesses who might have firsthand knowl- 
edge of the matters charged and who could give relevant and material 
testimony in the hearings. 

Since matters of law also will be involved in reaching evaluation 
of the facts developed, pertinent rules of the Senate and sections of 
law, together with precedents' and decisions by competent tribunals, 
should be briefed and made a part of the hearing record, the commit- 
tee believes. 

3. To hold hearings where the committee can present witnesses and 
documentary evidence for the purpose of placing on record, for later 
use by the Senate, the evidence and other information gathered during 
the preliminary investigation period, and for the development or 
additional evidence and information as the hearings proceed. 

The resolution of censure presents to the Senate an issue with re- 
spect to the conduct and possible punishment of one of its Members. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 13 

The debate in tlie Senate preceding tlie vote to refer the matter to a 
select committee made it abundantly clear that the proceedings neces- 
sary to a proper disposal of the resolution and the amendments pro- 
loosed, both in the Senate and in the select committee, would be judicial 
or quasijudicial in nature, and for that reason should be conducted in 
<a judicial manner and atmosphere, so far as compatible with the in- 
vestigative finictions of the committee in its' preliminary and con- 
tinuing search for evidence and information bearing on all phases of 
the issues presented. 

Inherent in the situation created by the resolution of censure and 
the charges made, is the right of the Senator against whom the charges 
were made to be present at the hearings held by the select committee. 
He should also be permitted to be represented by counsel and should 
have the right of cross-examination. This is somewhat contrary to 
the practice by Senate committees in the past, in hearings of this 
nature, but the present committee believes that the accused Senator 
should have these rights. He or his counsel, but not both, shall be 
permitted to make objections to the introduction of testimony, but the 
argmnent on the objections may be had or withheld at the discretion 
of the chairman. The Senator under charges should be permitted to 
present witnesses and documentary evidence in his behalf, but, of 
course, this should be done in compliance with the policy laid down 
by the committee in its notice of hearing, which is a part of this record. 

In general, the committee wishes it understood that the regulations 
adopted are for the purpose of insuring a judicial hearing and a judi- 
<;ial atmosphere as befits the importance of the issues raised. For that 
reason, and in accordance with the order the committee believes to be 
the sentiment of the Senate, all activities which are not permitted in 
the Senate itself will not be permitted in this hearing. 

4. When the hearings have closed, to prepare a report and submit 
it to the Senate. Under the order creating this committee, this must 
be done before the present Senate adjourns sine die. 

By way of comment, let me say that the inquiry we are engaged in 
is of a special character which differentiates it from the usual legisla- 
tive inquiry. It involves the internal affairs of the Senate itself in 
the exercise of a high constitutional function. It is by nature a judi- 
cial or semijudicial function, and we shall attempt to conduct it as 
such. The procedures outlined are not necessarily appropriate to 
■congressional investigations and should not, therefore, be construed 
as in any sense intended as a model appropriate to such inquiries. 
We hope what we are doing will be found to conform to sound sena- 
torial principles and traditions in the special field in which the com- 
mittee is operating. 

It has been said before, but it will do no harm to repeat, that the 
members of this committee did not seek this appointment. The quali- 
fications laid down by the Senate order creating the committee said 
the committee should be made up of 3 Democrat Senators and 3 Re- 

?ublican Senators. This was the only condition named in the order, 
[owever, in a larger sense, the proper authorities of the Senate were 
charged with the responsibility of attempting to choose members of 
the Senate for this committee who coulcl and would conduct a fair 
and impartial investigation and hearing. Members of the committee 
deemed their selection by the Senate authorities as a trust. We realize 
we are human. We know, and the American people know, that there 



14 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

has been a controversy raging over the country through a number 
of years in connection with the activities of the Senator against M^ioin 
the resohition is directed. 

Members of this committee liave been conscious of tliat controversy ; 
they have seen, heard, and read of the activities, charges, and counter- 
charges, and, being human, they may have at times expressed their 
impressions with respect to events that were happening while they 
were happening. However, each of the Senators who make up this 
special select committee are mature men and with a wide background 
of experience which should enable them to disregard any impressions 
or preconceived notions they may have had in the past respecting the 
controversies which have been going on in public for many years. 

We approach this matter as a duty imposed upon us and which we 
feel that we should do our very best to discharge in a proper manner. 
We i-ealize the United States Senate, in a sense, is on trial, and we 
hope our conduct will be such as to maintain the American sense of 
fair play and the high traditions and dignity of the United States 
Senate under the authority given it by the Constitution. 
Off the record. 
(Discussion off the record.) 

The Chaiiusian. My attention has been called to an oversight, 
which, of course, I hardly need to say, that Senator ISIcCarthy and 
his counsel, Mr. Williams, are also present. I apologize for the over- 
sight. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, it seems that this may be an appro- 
■|)riate time for me to introduce my associate counsel who have not 
heretofore been introduced to the committee, Mr. Brent Bozell of the 
California bar, and Miss Agnes Neill of my office. 

The Chairman. We are glad to have them present with us. 
Mr. Williams. They sit immediately behind us. 
The Chairman. This probably is an appropriate time to permit 
Senator McCarthy to make an opening statement. However, before 
he makes it, I want to call attention to the fact that this morning we 
were given two copies of this statement and we have attempted in the 
rather last-minute rusli before coming in here, to go over it. 

The condition was made that it should be relevant and material. 
It will not be, of course, a sworn statement. It is not testimony. 
It is customary ordinarily in court to permit a statement of this kind. 
I want to say that we recognize that most of it is not material and 
relevant to the issues in this hearing as we understand them. How- 
ever, we are not going to prevent Senator McCarthy from making 
that statement, and we will now permit him to proceed. 
Senator McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 
The Chairman. xA.nd we want it understood that this is not a prece- 
dent to the reception of any matter in the way of testimony or evidence 
that is irrelevant, incompetent, and immaterial. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCAETHY, UNITED STATES 
SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN 

Senator McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the conunittee, I have requested several 
minutes at the beginning of these proceedings to make a statement. 
I am grateful for permission to do so. This is a serious matter to 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 15 

me and, I think, to the country. It weighs heavily on me and I would 
like my own feelings known, in broad outline at least, before the com- 
mittee begins to consider the evidence. 

Several years ago, Mr. Chairman, I became convinced that this 
countrj^ and its institutions were in imminent peril of destruction by 
international communism. I learned from dedicated Americans, 
theretofore closer to the situation than I, that the threat was not just 
from the outside, but that the agents of the Soviet Union were firmly 
entrenched in our midst; and in particular that their success in in- 
filtrating our Government had given the Soviet Union access to our 
most important secrets as well as a powerful and deadly voice in deter- 
mining our foreign policies. I became convinced that subversives in 
the American Government had played a large role in the long and 
tragic train of "defeats that this country and the free world have 
sultered at the liands of the Soviet Union since our entrance into the 
Second World War. 

I was late, Mr. Chairman — we all were late, although I daresay some 
of us were earlier than others — in appreciating the immediacy and 
enormity of the danger. For it had been with us many, many years. 

Once the weaknesses of our secm'ity system had been brought home 
to me, I conceived it my duty to expend every effort of mind and body 
to fight subversion, to help clean traitors and potential traitors out of 
the Government. 1 conceived this to be my first duty to my constitu- 
ents and to my country. I still do, Mr. Chairman. 

I have carried on my part in the fight as best I know how. 

Let me say that I believe much progress has been made in the fight 
against subversion. Yet all the while, success has been in jeopardy; 
it is still in jeopardy. 

As I see it, the fight has been obstructed — often successfully — by 
three groups : No. 1, by those against whom it is directed, the Commu- 
nists and their sympathizers ; No. 2, by those who do not sympathize 
with communism but who deny that it presents a seiious threat ; and 
No. 3, by those avIio profess to appreciate the strengtl\ of the Commu- 
nist fifth column but who balk at taking vigorous measures to stamp 
it out. 

These three groups, Mr. Chairman, so differently motivated, have 
rallied around a common standard. They have shaken hands on the 
proposition that vigorous anticommunism somehow represents a 
greater danger to America than communism itself. 

If, after all is said and done, tliis unholy alliance should have its 
way, then I propose the premise that holds it together — that vigorous 
anticommunism is more dangerous than communism — as a fitting 
epitaph on the grave of American civilization. 

May I repeat that, Mr. Chairman. I say if, after all is said and 
done, if this unholy alliance should have its way, then I propose that 
the premise that holds it together — namely, that vigorous anticommu- 
nism is more dangerous than communism — will be a fitting epitaph 
on the grave of American civilization. 

It has been said that I am the cause of disunity in the country and 
in my party. There is disunity, and perhaps my activities have been 
a part of its cause. But I had always thought that it takes two sides 
who disagree to bring about disunity; andthat either side, by ceas- 
ing to disagree with the other, can, of course, end the disunity. 



16 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Where there is disunity on matters of principle, then there ought 
to be disunity. Otherwise there is hypocrisy and betrayal of prin- 
ciple. I do not propose to be a hypocrite, and I will not betray prin- 
ciple. Nor do I urge this course on men who oppose me. 

Furthermore, for my part, Mr. Chairman, I shall never attempt to 
bring about unity by trying, on specious grounds, to silence my oppo- 
nents and destroy them, and thus cut off the debate. I believe that 
debate should continue on the merits of the questions that divide us, 
these questions being: Whether there is real danger from Communist 
subversion, and, if so, how to cope with it. 

As I say, I believe that the fight of the American people against 
Communist infiltration, while it is far from finished, has achieved 
much success. I believe that the record shows that I have played 
some small part in that achievement. I cannot help but be proud 
of this. 

But now it is urged that I be censured. 

I w^ould be untrutliful if I agreed that my accusers were not affected 
by ulterior, political considerations. I believe that my accusers either 
entertain such motives themselves, or are unwitting victims of power- 
ful pressure groups in the country who are best characterized as oppo- 
nents of a vigorous fight against communism. 

Be that as it may, this committee has its duty. I recognize that duty. 

Four weeks ago I hoped that the Senate would consider and vote 
on the censure motion. The Senate decided instead to refer the 
charges to this committee. While I preferred a vote then and there, 
perhaps this procedure is best after all. I do hope, however, thai: 
each of the charges made against me on the Senate floor will be either 
considered by the committee, or declared by it unworthy of con- 
sideration. 

May I repeat that, Mr. Chairman. I hope that each of the charges 
made against me on the Senate floor will be either considered by the 
committee, or declared by it unworthy of consideration. 

A motion of censure, whatever motives prompt the making of it, 
is under the Constitution a legal matter. Consequently, I have 
retained counsel, Mr. Edward Bennett Williams and Mr. Brent Bozell, 
and I now put the case in their hands. 

But I am here and I shall remain at the disposal of the committee 
to give it what assistance I can. I am hopeful that these matters 
will be disposed of as quickly as is consistent with a careful weighing 
of them. I have been kept from my job, Mr. Chairman, since last 
March, and I know I must get back to that job as soon as I possibly 
can. 

The Chairman. Now we proceed to a consideration of the matters 
which the committee deemed of first importance in connection with 
these hearings. No. 1, "Incidents of contempt of the Senate or a 
senatorial committee." 

I will ask our chief counsel, Mr. Chadwick, to read the specifications 
under that first category. 

Mr. CiiADwacK. Mr. Chairman, the matters of inquii-y under the 

first item under schedule I, are "Incidents of contempt of the Senate 

or a senatorial committee," and reference is made therein to the 

amendment by Senator Fulbright, subparagraph (3), and quoting: 

Although repeatedly invited to testify by a committee of this Senate headed 
by the Senator from Iowa, the junior Senator from Wisconsin denounced the 
committee and contemptuously refused to comply with its request. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 17 

B, the amendment of Senator Morse, subparagraph (a) — 

declined to comply with a request made by letter on November 21, 1952, by the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Senate Com- 
mittee on Rules and Administration, that he appear before the subcommittee to 
supply information concerning certain specific matters involving his activities 
as a Member of the Senate. 

And three, the amendment of Senator Flanders, subparagraph (17), 
quoting : 

He has continued to show his contempt for the Senate by failing to explain 
in any manner the six charges contained in the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson 
report, which was filed in January 1953. This involves his bank transactions, 
possible income-tax evasions, and the Lustron deal. The taint persists until he 
satisfactorily explains these mattei-s, which he refused to do, although invited 
six times to appear, during the S2d Congress. 

The Chairman. That conchides the specification with respect to this 
particular category, No. I, list of incidents. 

Now, the Chair will state at this point that the committee under- 
stands that charge to refer to the actions of Senator McCarthy with 
respect to requests of the committee to appear before it. It does not 
construe it in any way as involving the truth or falsity of the matters 
which the committee, presided over by Senator Gillette, later by Sena- 
tor Hennings or by Senator Hayden — I mean the subcommittee — it 
does not involve any of those charges, whether they were true or false. 

The matter goes directly to the conduct of the Senator from Wiscon- 
sin with respect to the answer to the summonings and the requests of 
that committee to appear before it. 

Mr. Williams? 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, if I may, I should like to be heard by 
the committeee at this time on a motion to dismiss that charge on the 
ground that it is legally insufficient on its face as a predicate for the 
censure of Senator McCarthy. 

Nw, I should like to predicate my motion upon two basic constitu- 
tional and legal principles, and call the precedents incident thereto 
to the attention of the Senate committee at this time. 

I ask for leave to make this motion now because I have not had op- 
porunity heretofore to make it. This is the first occasion upon which 
I could present this legal matter to the committee, and I shall do it 
with the utmost dispatch, if I am granted permission to make the 
motion at this time. 

The Chairman. If you will statue them briefly. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. I will say in the beginning, Mr. Williams, that the 
committee had to pass on those matters earlier, and the reason they are 
presented here is because we have determined that question. How- 
ever, we will hear from you. 

Mr. Williams. I believe, sir, that there are overriding considera- 
tions of a constitutional level that are more important than any of the 
individuals or issues involved in this hearing, and I will try to be as 
brief as possible, sir, in the interests and economy of time in present- 
ing our position on it, but I ask you to bear with me while I do call 
the attention of the committee to the outstanding precedents in this 
matter. 

The Chairman. You may proceed with the oral statement. How- 
ever, if you Avish to file a brief on that matter, the committee would 
consider it that way, because it wants to move ahead with its testimony.. 



18 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. I shall file a brief, too, Mr. Chairman, for the use 
of tlie committee, but the statement that I should like to make at this 
time is an oral statement on this subject. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Willi A]\rs. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I 
believe that the char^'es contained in the first category and classifica- 
tion of charges as presented by this committee on August 24, 1954, 
for two clear reasons, fail to present a basis upon which a resolution 
of censure can be predicated in the Senate of the United States. One 
of these reasons, if the committee please, is an overriding constitu- 
tional reason, a reason that has been supported by the judicial and 
senatorial precedent since the beginning of our country, unbroken in 
tradition. It is a constitutional argument predicated upon the law, 
sirs, and I might say to you that Senator McCarthy, who is my client 
in these proceedings, has evidenced a desire to me not to pitch his 
defense on this predicate because he wants to meet this charge squarely 
on the merits, and we do intend to meet it squarely on the merits. But 
I have convinced him that I should be derelict in my duty as counsel 
before this committee if I did not call to the attention of this com- 
mittee every precedent that has taken place on this subject since 
the beginning of the Senate, tlie first preceden,t going back to 1792. 

And so T say, by way of recap, that our position is two-pronged, 
and I should like to address myself first to the proposition that this 
charge is insufficient on its face legally and precedentially, by virtue 
of the interpretation of the Constitution by the Senate of the United 
States, and then I should like to go to the very merits of the cliarge as 
evidenced by the charge itself, and I shall not depart from the record, 
because as a lawyer that I am confined to the record on a motion to 
dismiss at the outset of these hearings. 

The fundamental proposition to which I should like to address my- 
self first, and which I believe is of overriding and transcendental im- 
portance to this committee, is this : Never in the history of the Senate, 
never in the history of the United States judicial system, has there 
been a censure imposed upon a Member of Congress for conduct ante- 
dating the inception of the Congress which is hearing tlie censure 
charges. And this is for a very fundamental constitutional and legal 
reason. 

The predicate for censure stems from article I, section 5 of the 
Constitution, which says that each House may pimish its Members 
for disorderly behavior. 

The purpose of that, as we read our constitutional history, was so 
that each Congress could preserve its legislative processes free from 
corruption and disorder. It was not to provide a basis for one Con- 
gress to review the conduct of an individual throughout some other 
Congress that antedated it and perhaps motivated, sometimes, by 
partisan and political considerations, impose upon him a censure. 
And this was considered from our earliest times. 

Three times, gentlemen of this committee, three times the Supreme 
Court of the United States has said in unequivocable, clear, and un- 
ambiguous language, that the power of Congress to punish for con- 
tempt, which is the charge that we are considering here this morning, 
is a power that dies with the Congress wherein the contempt was 
allegedly committed. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 19" 

It enunciated this basic proposition of law in the case of Ande7'son v. 
Dunn (6 Wheat. 204). It enunciated it again in Jurney v. Mac- 
Cracken (294 U. S. 125) ; and it enunciated it a third time in United 
States V. Br-yan (339 U. S. 323), so recently as within the last 5 or & 
years. 

Not only have we had an unbroken line of judicial precedent upon 
this subject, but the Senate itself and the House of Representatives 
itself have from time to time carefully weighed and evaluated this 
proposition. And I feel that it would be helpful to this committee — 
and I conceive that to be at least half of my function in this case — I 
feel that it would be helpful to this committee if I made a very cursory 
rundown — and I promise to be brief — as brief as the exigencies of the 
circumstances permit — to call these precedents to the committee's 
attention. 

The Chairman. We suggest that you do that in a brief. 

This matter has been considered by the committee and it has had 
to do that in selecting the charges to be heard. And if you will submit 
that in a brief — we have precedents — we do not care to go into a long- 
legal argument — if you make the argument we probably ought to have 
developed what we have in the legal setup — we have obtained that in 
our research — and when you get through with that probably the whole 
day would be consumed — that can all be taken care of in a brief that 
can be submitted by you in giving us the precedents. 

Our counsel and others have also run down the precedents. We do 
not agree with j^ou. And that is obvious or we would not have the 
charges before us at this time. 

Mr. Williams. I think that is all the more reason 



The Chairman. You can submit vour brief — we will permit vou to 
submit a brief on that point. 

Mr. Williams. May I say this, Mr. Chairman, when you say to me, 
sir, that the committee does not agree with me it demonstrates to me 
all the more reason for permitting me to make an oral argument on 
this subject, because if the committee has a predeliction and predispo- 
sition on this legal matter as we begin the hearings, then certainly I 
should be afforded as counsel for Senator McCarthy at least a hearing 
on these propositions of law. 

The Chairman. You are not being denied that hearing — you can 
file your briefs and that will be considered by the committee. 

We necessarily in this board of inquiry, which is not exactly a court 
trial — it is in the nature of a judicial proceeding — had to make some 
preliminary determinations or we could not move forward at all. 

You can submit that brief and we will reserve the question, but we 
would like to go on with the proceedings, if permitted. You can state 
the general grounds of your objection, and I think that any court 
would permit you to do that, but I think any court would also require 
you, if it deemed it necessary, to submit a brief on tliat point. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I shall abide, of course, by your 
decision this morning and throughout this heai'ing so long as I am 
counsel, but I would like to say to you, sir, that I feel that this is the 
heart of our defense. On this first charge, I do intend to submit 
written argument, but I should like to ask the committee, if I may have 
just one half hour to present our views on this matter which I regard 
as the heart of our defense. And I understood as I entered this case 
that it was to be judicial in nature. I understood from my reading of 



"20 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

the precedents that a proceeding of this kind is judicial in nature and 
that all of the rights that adhere to any accused in any tribunal are 
to adhere to the Senator who is before you today. 

And I must, at the risk of being derelict in my duty, ask once again 
for the right to present orally this position which I believe to be so 
important, and which I believe cannot adequately be presented in a 
written brief. 

The Chairman. You are not being denied any of your rights. I 
think the Chair is acquainted with court procedure and rights that may 
be permitted. And I know when counsel can submit briefs, when the 
court is in doubt or wishes to have the matter further heard. 

We are willing to consider the matter at length when you have filed 
your briefs, but we have made the ruling and we will now proceed with 
the testimony. 

Now, Mr. Chadwick, have you checked the Senate records with 
reference to the charges, the specifications under incident listed as 
No.l? 

Mr. Chadwick. I have, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you make an investigation appertaining to all 
of the documents that may have a bearing on that matter ? 

Mr. Chadwick. I understood that it was a part of my duties to find 
not only matters which might be affirmative in support of the resolu- 
tion, but also any matter which might be in fairness reflected in these 
hearings for the benefit of Senator McCarthy, and I did my best. 

The Chairman. You may read what you have obtained there and 
mention each exhibit as 3^011 go along. 

The Chair is acquainted with this material — has studied it some- 
what — so that the Chair can anticipate what is going to be presented. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I call j^our attention and ask you to 
take judicial notice or legislative notice, for those wlio are more par- 
ticular in the use of words, with respect to proceedings in the Senate 
on August 6, 1951, being Senate Resolution No. 187, introduced by 
Senator Benton to investigate Senator McCarthy. 

The record will show that the President of the Senate referred Reso- 
lution No. 187, introduced by Senator Benton, to the Senate Com- 
mittee on Rules and Administration. And with your permission I 
will now read the substance of Senate Resolution No. 187. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Chadwick. From the printed copy. Senate Resolution No. 187, 
I will omit the technical matter at the beginning and commence with 
the word : 

Resolution 

Whereas the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections of the Committee on 
"Rules and Administration has made a nnanimous report to such committee with 
respect to the 1950 Maryland senatorial general election ; and 

Whereas such report contains findings with respect to the financing of the 
campaign of Senator .Tohn Marshall Butler as follows : 

"1. As a result of the investigation and hearings of this subcommittee, Jon M. 
Jonkel, the campaign manager of Senator P.utler. has been indicted, pled guilty 
to, and has been sentenced for violation of the Maryland election laws for failure 
to properly report contributions and expenditures in the Butler campaign. 

"2. Not only were substantial sums of contributions and expenditures not 
■properly reported to Maryland authorities as required by law, but also a proper 
accounting was not made to the Secretary of the Senate as required by the Fed- 
eral Corrupt Practices Act"; and 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 21 

Whereas sucli report, with respect to the literature used in the campaign of 
Senator John Marshall Butler, contains findings as follows : 

li-J^ * * ;!= 

"The tabloid From the Record contains misleading half-truths, misrepresenta- 
tions, and false innuendoes that maliciously and without foundation attack the 
loyalty and patriotism not only of former Senator Millard Tydings, who won 
the Distinguished Service Cross for battlefield heroism in World War I, but 
also the entire membership of the Senate Armed Services Committee in 1950. 

"2. Its preparation, publication, and distribution were the result of a combi- 
nation of forces, including Senator Butler's own campaign organization. 

"3. The tabloid, disregarding simple decency and common honesty, was de- 
signed to create and exploit doubts about the loyalty of former Senator Tydings. 

"4. It could never have been the intention of the framers of the first amend- 
ment to the Constitution to allow, xinder the guise of freedom of the press, the 
publication of any portrayal, whether in picture form or otherwise, of the char- 
acter of the composite picture as it appeared in the tabloid From the Record. 
It was a shocking abuse of the spirit and intent of the first amendment to the 
Constitution. 

"5. The tabloid From the Record was neither published nor in fact paid for 
by the Young Democrats for Butler. Their alleged sponsorship for this publica- 
tion was nothing more than a false front organization for the publication of 
the tabloid by the Butler campaign headquarters and outsiders associated with 
It. In the judgment of the subcommittee, this is a violation of the Federal and 
State laws requiring persons responsible for such publications to list the organiza- 
tions and its officers" ; and 

• Whereas such subcommittee report contains findings with respect to the par- 
ticipation of Senator .Joseph R. McCarthy in sucli campaign as follows: 

"3. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, of Wisconsin, was actively interested in the 
■campaign to the extent of making his staff available for work on research, pic- 
tures, composition, printing of the tabloid From the Record. Members of lais 
staff acted as couriers of funds between Washington and the Butler campaign 
headquartei'S in Baltimore. Evidence showed that some of the belatedly re- 
ported campaign funds were delivered through his office. His staff also was 
instrumental in materially assisting in the addressing, mailing, and planning of 
the picture-postcard phase of the campaign" ; and 

Whereas such subcommittee unanimously included in its specific conclusions 
and recommendation to the committee the following: 

"5. The question of unseating a Senator for acts committed in a senatorial 
election should not be limited to the candidates in such elections. Any sitting 
Senator, regardless of whether he is a candidate in the election himself, should 
he subject to expulsion by action of the Senate, if it finds sucli Senator engaged 
in practices and behavior that make him, in the opinion of the Senate, unfit to 
hold the position of United States Senator" Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate is 
authorized and directed to proceed with such consideration of the report of its 
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections with respect to the 19.50 Maryland 
senatorial general election, which was made pursuant to Senate Resolution 250, 
81st Congress, April 13, 1950, and to make such further investigation with re- 
spect to the participation of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the 1950 senatorial 
campaign of Senator John Marshall Butler, and such investigation with respect 
to his other acts since his election to the Senate, as may be appropriate to en- 
-able such committee to determine whether or not it should initiate action with 
a view toward the expulsion from the United States Senate of the said Senator 
Joseph R. McCarthy. 

The Chairman. I may say that the readinsi: of the resolution was not 
related as to whether it was either true or false, I mean with respect 
to the charf^es, but merely to show that the resolution had been intro- 
duced in the Senate of the United States, and that it was before a 
•certain committee. 

Now, you have the record with respect to the resolution ? 

Mr. Chadwick. I have the record of the legislative history of the 
resolution, sir. 

Report of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections to the Committee on 
Rules and Administration, pursuant to Senate Resolution 187 and Senate Reso- 
lution 304, page 1. 



22 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The resolution was referred by the President of the Senate to the 
Senate Committee on Rules and Administration and, in turn, to its 
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections for proper action. 

The Chairman. You may proceed with the record. 

Mr. Chadt\'ick. Mr. Chairman, further support of the matters cog- 
nizable under the first paragraph — I request your leave, and I have 
been directed, to read into the record from the exhibits in the report 
of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections to the Committee 
on Eules and Administration with respect to Senate Resolution 187 
and Senate Resolution 304. 

I will proceed to do so. 

The Chairman. What are you going to read ? 

Mr. Chadwick. Read the letters, sir, from the report of the 
committee. 

The Chairman. Letters between whom? 

Mr. Chadwick. Well, the first one will be a letter from Senator 
Guy M. Gillette to Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Wiixi.ams. In the economy of time, Mr. Chaii-man, Senator 
McCarthy is perfectly willing to stipulate to the authenticity of these 
letters, instead of taking the time of this committee to read them. 

Mr. Chadwick. It is not a question of authenticity. 

The Chairman. We want them read into the record, sir. We will 
accept a stipulation with respect to the authenticity, but it is the 
purpose of the committee to have them placed in the record by the 
reading of them. 

Mr. Williams. I am thinking of the economy of time. They could 
be copied by the reporter. 

The Chairman. If it takes too much time in the course of these 
proceedings, we will think of economy measures, but at the moment, 
we do not think we need to so do. 

Mr. Chadwick. I desire to explain for the purposes of the record 
that these letters will be read, including their exhibit number jn the 
report from which they are drafted, for the purpose of convenient 
reference in the future. 

I shall read the date, the address, the body of each letter which I 
read, and the name of the author of the letter, which was signed 
thereby. 

The first is exhibit No. 3, which happens to commence on page 61 
of the report in question. It is a letter dated September 25, 1951. 
It is addressed to Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy, United States Senate, 
and it is signed by Senator Guy M. Gillette. 

It reads as follows 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Was this date prior to the resignation of Senator 
Gillette as chairman? Was he chairman at the time he wrote this 
letter ? 

The Chairman. The record, I think, shows that he was. 

Mr. Williams. We will so stipulate. 

The CiiAiRiMAN. He was chairman of the Subcommittee on Privi- 
leges and Elections, which is a subcommittee of the Committee on 
Rules and Administration of the United States Senate. 



HEARENGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 23 

The record will also show and we will take judicial notice of that 
fact, as we are of all these other matters, that it was referred to a 
subcommittee — that is, under Eesolution 187. 

You may proceed, 

Mr, Chadwick (reading) : 

My Dear Joe: I promised to tell you the decision of the Subcommittee on 
Privileges and Elections as to procedure as soon as they had made the decision. 
They are goinsr to take up the Benton resolution at 9 : 30 a. m., Friday, September 
28, in room 457. At that time they are going to hear Senator Benton's state- 
ment. They voted to hear the Senator in executive session but also voted that 
you could be present if you so desired and if time permitted, to make a state- 
ment at this same meeting. It was also decided that there should be no cross- 
examination except by the members of the subcommittee. 

A further decision was made that if additional evidence is taken, it will be 
governed by rules of procedure determined after this first meeting. 

With personal greetings, I am, 
Sincerely, 

Gut M. Gillette. 

There are the identifying initials "GMG : dd," 

Exhibit Xo. 4, a letter dated October 1, 1951, from Senator Gillette 
to Senator McCarthy, addressed as follows : 

Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy, 

United States Senator, Washinffton, D. C. 

My Dear Senator: On last Friday, September 28, Senator Benton appeared 
before the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections and presented a statement 
in support of his resolution looking to action pertaining to your expulsion from 
the Senate. You had been advised that you could attend this meeting which was 
a public one, but without the right of cross-examination of Senator Benton. 
The subcommittee recessed to reassemble on call of the chairman. The chair- 
man announced at the close of the meeting that an opportunity would be ac- 
corded Senator McCarthy to appear and make any statement he wished to make 
concerning the matter and with the right of Senator Benton to be present, but 
without any right on the part of Senator Benton to cross-examine you in any 
way. This is to notify you that this action was taken and the subcommittee 
will be glad to hear you at an hour mutually convenient. It is hoped that if you 
desire to appear and make any statement in connection with this matter, that a 
time can be fixed before the 10th of October. I should be glad to have your 
comment relative to a convenient time for you if you desire to come before us. 
If you do not so desire I shall appreciate it if you will advise us of that fact. 

With personal greetings, I am, 
Sincerely, 

Guy M. Gillette. 

Mr. Chadwick, Next is exhibit No. 5, which is identified, the third 
of these exhibits, in the text of that exhibit as a "copy" in brackets, 
and it quotes "A," which is not too" clear to me, but it is on the paper, 
and dated October 4, 1051. It is a letter to the Honoral)le Guy M. 
Gillette, from Senator McCarthy, and it reads as follows : 

Dear Guy : This is to acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 1 in which 
y()u offer me an opportunity to appear before your committee and answer Sena- 
tor Benton's charges. 

Frankly, Guy, I have not and do not intend to even read, much less answer, 
Benton's smear attack. I am sure yon realize that the Benton type of material 
can be found in the D'aily Worker almost any day of the week and -Rail con- 
tinue to flow from the mouths and pens of the camp followers as long as I con- 
tinue my fight against Communists in Government. 

With kindest personal regards, I am, 
Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCarthy. 

It is identified by the initials "McC :ct," 



24 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The next exhibit is exhibit No. 6, also designated as "copy'' and 
it quotes the letter "B." It is dated December 6, 1951. It is a letter 
from Senator McCarthy to Senator Guy Gillette, addressed to him a& 
chairman of the Elections Subcommittee of the United States Senate^ 
Washington, D. C, and reads as follows : 

Dear Mr. Chairman : As you of course know, your Elections Subcommittee 
has the power and the duty to carefully investigate any valid claims of irregu- 
larity or dishonest in the conduct of campaigns for the United States Senate. 

As you and all the members of your subcommittee know or should know, the 
Elections Subcommittee, unless given further power by the Senate, is restricted 
to matters having to do with elections. The Senate could, of course, by a ma- 
jority vote give your subcommittee power to conduct an unlimited investigation, 
of any Senator. Such power was not asked for nor given to your Elections 
Subcommittee. 

However, over the past months, it has been repeatedly brought to my attentioa 
that a horde of investigators hired by your committee at a cost of tens of thou- 
sands of dollars of taxpayers' money, has been engaged exclusively in trying 
to dig up on McCarthy material covering periods of time long before he was even 
old enough to be a candidate for the Senate — material which can have no con- 
ceivable connection with his election or any other election. This Is being done 
in complete disregard of the limited power of your Elections Subcommittee. The- 
obvious purpose is to dig up campaign material for the Democratic Party for th& 
coming campaign against McCarthy. 

When your Elections Subcommittee, without Senate authorization, spends- 
tens of thousands of taxpayers' dollars for the sole purpose of digging up cam- 
paign material against McCarthy, then the committee is guilty of stealing just 
as clearly as though the members engaged in picking the pockets of the taxpayers 
and turning the loot over to the Democratic National Committee. 

If one of the administration lackeys were chairman of this committee, I would 
not waste the time or energy to write and point out the committee's complete- 
dishonesty, but from you, Guy, the Senate and the country expect honest adher- 
ence to the rules of tlie Senate. 

If your committee wanted to dig up campaign material against McCarthy at 
the expense of the taxpayers, you were in all honesty bound to first get the power 
to do so from the Senate, which the Senate had a right to give and might have 
given. But your committee did not risk asking for such power. Instead, your 
committee decided to spend tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money to 
aid Benton in his smear attack upon McCarthy. 

Does this mean, that if a Benton asks your committee to do so, you will put an^ 
unlimited number of investigators at unlimited cost investigating the background 
of tlie other 95 Senators so their opponents can use this material next election? 
Or is this a rule which applies only to him who fights Communists in Government? 
Let's get an answer to this, Guy. The people of America are entitled to your 
answer. 

While the actions of Benton and some of the committee members do not sur- 
prise me, I cannot iTuderstand your being willing to label Guy Gillette as a man 
who will head a committee which is stealing from the pockets of the American 
taxpayer tens of thousands of dollars and then using this money to protect the 
Democratic Party from the political effect of the exposure of Communists in 
Government. To take it upon yourself to hire a horde of investigators and spend 
tens of thousands of dollars without any authorization to do so from the Senate 
is labeling your Elections Subcommittee even more dishonest than was the 
Tydings committee. 

The chairman suggests that one of the other copies, which is a 
photographic transition of the letters from the report, Mr. Williams, 
would be easier to read only because the book is hard to turn. 

Mr. Williams. The easier course I am still willing to stipulate to, 
]Mr. Chadwick, that we can regard all of this as in the record right 
now, and I will so stipulate. 

Mr. Chadwick. I recall your stipulation. 

The Chairman. I understand that, and the committee desires to 
have this read into the record. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 25 

I mentioned the matter of time before. This is important, and 
there is enough time to take on the matters that we need to do now. 

When I referred to the matter of time with reference to your offer 
to argue the legal questions, I expected to give you time to do that in 
a brief that we could sit down and consider, but this committee is not 
so set up that we can determine all these legal questions. 

The questions that are referred to the committee we gather evidence 
on. The Senate may decide we are dead wrong, and it may decide 
we are right. They are the final arbiter. We are only an agent of 
the Senate to gather the evidence in matters of law and all that sort 
of thing, and we prefer to have the legal arguments, except barely 
the statement of the grounds, legal arguments with reference to the 
precedents and all that sort of thing, in detail put before us in briefs. 
We consider it much better that way. That is the reason I made the 
ruling I did before. 

Senator EmT:N. Mr. Chairman, could I make one statement com- 
mending the chairman for his ruling ? My father was a trial lawyer 
in North Carolina for 65 years. I entered his law office 32 years ago, 
and when I did he gave me this advice — he said : 

Salt down tbe facts. The law will keep. 

And I understand that was the effect of the chairman's ruling — 
that we should get the facts first and then pass on legal questions when 
the facts are in. 

The Chairman. You state it far better than I could. 

Mr. Williams. I am certainly willing to abide by that, provided 
I do get an opportunity to orally argue these propositions, because I 
feel that is the heart of our defense, and I further feel that it is abso- 
lutely necessary, in the light of the Chair's statement, that there is 
some predisposition on the part of the committee on this matter of law. 

The Chaiemax. May I say this : In order to get before the Senate 
material on these various charges, it is necessary to have evidence pro- 
duced, and we can have the legal arguments produced, but we are not 
the final arbiters. 

We are merely the agents of the Senate to gather together this 
information and to use such rules and regulations as we can in screen- 
ing out and trying to keep the investigation on the track. 

If we were the final arbiter, or if we were a court, that would be 
another matter. Then you would be entitled probably to present in 
more detail your arguments as you go along. 

However, most courts recognize the facts that they will take the 
statement of the grounds and allow the matter to be presented more 
in detail in briefs, particularly if there is any doubt on it, and I think 
in this case you should present those arguments in a brief, because 
the Senate sliould have before it the argimients pro and con. 

But it isn't necessary for us to sit and listen to that as a matter of 
law, because you have stated now the general situation. 

I overruled your motion, so we will proceed now to take the evidence. 

In any event, we ought to get this evidence because the Senate later 
on may decide that we are right or it may decide you are right, but if 
they decide we are right, and we struck the testimon}^ and didn't take 
any of it, then there would be nothing before the Senate to work on, 
so we want that information. 



26 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. Mr, Chairman, I am sure that you will understand 
if I most respectfully continue throughout this hearing to insist on my 
right to be heard on these propositions. 

The Chairman. That is right, and you will understand we have an 
obligation here to perform, and that is to rule, and to rule properly. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And to state the rulings, and if we are wrong we 
will consider these matters in committee, and if the other members of 
the committee believe the chairman is wrong, the chairman is willing 
to be corrected, and we will indicate clearly where we think we have 
made an error during the course of the hearing. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

JSIr. Chadwick. ]Mr. Chairman, my associate calls my attention to 
the fact that in reading exhibit 6, which I have just completed, I men- 
tioned the date as December 6, 1954. If that is true, I desire to correct 
that. The correct date is December 6, 1951 . 

E:^liibit,7 is a letter from Senator Gillette to Senator McCarthy, 
dated December 6, 1951, and there is noted in the head in brackets, the 
word "copy." 

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, 

United States Senate, Washbu/ton, D. C. 

My Dear Senator : Your letter dated December 6 and referring to the work 
of the Senate Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections in the discharge of its 
duties relative to Resolution No. 187 has just been received by messenger. This 
resolution, on its introduction by Senator Benton, was referred by the Senate to 
the Committee on Rules and Administration, of which you are a member. This 
committee, in its turn, referred the resolution to its Subcommittee on Privileges 
aud Elections, of whicli I am the chairman. 

Our subcommittee certainly did not seek or welcome the unpleasant task of 
studying and reporting on a resolution Involving charges looking to the ouster 
of one of our colleagues from the Senate. However, ovir duty was clear in the 
task assigned to us and we shall discharge that duty in a spirit of utmost fairness 
to all concerned and to the Senate. We have ordered our staff to study and 
report to us on both the legal and factual phases of the resolution. On receiving 
these reports the subcommittee will then determine its course in the light of its 
responsibilities and authority. 

Your information as to the use of a large staff and the expenditure of a large 
sum of money in investigations relative to the resolution is, of course, erroneous. 
May I also assure you that no individuals or groups outside of the subcommittee 
membership have had or will liave any influence whatever in the work assigned 
to us to do. 

With personal greetings, I am 
Sincerely, 

Guy M. Gillette. 

Identified by the initials "GMG : cc." 

The next exhibit is exhibit No. 8, also marked in parentheses, "copy," 
and the letter "C." It is a letter dated December 7, 1951, by Senator 
McCarthy to Senator Gillette, and addressed to him as chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Elections of the United States Senate, Wash- 
ington, D. C. : 

Dear Senator Gillette : I would very much appreciate receiving the following 
information : 

(1) The number of people employed by the Elections Subcommittee, together 
with information on their employment background, the salaries they receive, and 
the length of time they have been employed. 

(2) The names of tlie above individuals who have been working on the 
investigation of Senator McCarthy. 

(3) Wliether they have been instructed to restrict their investigation to mat- 
ters concerning elections. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 27 

(4) If the investigators have been ordered to cover matters other than either 
my election or any other election in which I took part, then — 

the printed word is "than" — 

the theory of the law under which you feel an election subcommittee is entitled 
to hire investigators to go into matters other than those concerned with elections. 
I am sure that you will agree that I am entitled to this information. 

Signed, "Joe McCarthy," and with the words, "Sincerely yours." 

The next exhibit is exhibit 9, also containing the word "copy" in 

brackets. It is a letter dated December 11, 1951, from Senator 

Guy M. Gillette to the Honorable Joseph R. McCarthy, addressed to 

the United States Senate, Washington, D. C. : 

My Dear Senator: I received your letter dated December 7 in which you 
make inquiry and request for certain specific information. 

As you are a member of the Rules Committee, I feel, as you suggested, that 
you are entitled to the information relative to the personnel employed by the 
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. Y-^ur first request is as to the 
number of people employed by the Elections Subcommittee, their salaries, and 
the length of time they have been employed. The following is the list employed 
by the subcommittee — 

The following is tabulated. It is tabulated under "Employed," 
"Position," "Separated (3)," "Basic salary per annum." 

This completes the list of employees of the subcommittee. Three other 
employees of the Rules Committee have been performing work for the subcom- 
mittee, including Mr. John P. Moore, the chief counsel. You will note that 
3 of the 6 employees of the subconuuittee were taken on in a temporary capacity 
after the middle of October and completed their assiirned work within a few 
weeks time. These men have done some work in connection with the Ohio 
senatorial hearing. 

You make further inquiry as to what theory of the law the subcommittee 
holds in connection with its investigatory work. We are not working under any 
"theory." All the powers that we have derived from dele.:,'ated responsibilities 
assigned to us by the Senate Committee on Rales and Administration. We do 
not have, and could not have, any power other than so derived as a subagency 
of the standing Committee on Rules and Administration — 

with identifying initials. 

The next exhibit is a letter dated December 19, 1951, exhibit No. 10, 
and is a letter which bears at the head the word "Copy" in brackets, 
and the letter "D." It is a letter signed by Senator McCarthy ad- 
dressed to Senator Guy Gillette, chairman of the Subcommitee on 
Elections of the United States Senate, Washington, D. C. : 

Dear Senator Gillette : On December 7, I wrote you as follows : 

(1) The number of people employed by "the Elections Subcommittee, together 
with information on their employment background, the salaries they receive, 
and the length of time they have been employed. 

Parenthetically, I should state that apparently— strike that out, 
Mr. Reporter. The accuracy will turn up later. 

(2) The names of the above individuals who have been working on the in- 
vestigation of Senator McCartliy. 

(3) Whether they have been instructed to restrict their investigation to mat- 
ters concerning elections. 

(4) If the investigators have been ordered to cover matters other than either 
my election or any other election in which I took part, then the theory of the 
law under which you feel an Elections Subcommittee is entitled to hire investi- 
gators to go into matters other than those concerned with elections. 

I am sure you will agree that I am entitled to this information. 



52461—54- 



28 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

That is with reference to a letter which has ah-eady been read into 
the record. The letter proceeds : 

On December 11 you wrote giving me the names of those employed by the sub- 
committee, stating that two others, whom you did not name, were also doing 
work for the subcommittee. You did not give me the employment background 
of the investigators as I requested. Why, Senator, do you refuse to give me 
the employment background of those individuals? 

You also failed to tell me whether the investigators have been instructed to 
extend their investigation beyond matters having to do with elections. 

You state that the only power which your subcommittee has was derived from 
the full committee. The full committee appointed you chairman of an Elections 
Subcommittee, but gave you no power whatsoever to hire investigators and spend 
vast amounts of money to make investigations having nothing to do with elec- 
tions. Again may I have an answer to my questions as to why you feel you are 
entitled to spend the taxpayers' money to do the work of the Democratic National 
Committee. 

As I have previously stated, you and every member of your subcommittee who 
Is responsible for spending vast amounts of money to hire investigators, pay 
their traveling expenses, etc., on matters not concerned with elections, is just as 
dishonest as though he or she picked the pockets of the taxpayers and turned the 
loot over to the Democratic National Committee. 

I wonder if I might have a frank, honest answer to all the questions covered 
in my letter of December 7. Certainly as a member of the Rules Committee and 
as a member of the Senate, I am entitled to this information. Your failure to 
give this information highlights the fact that your subcommittee is not concerned 
with investigating elections, but concerned with dishonestly spending the tax- 
payers' money and using your subcommittee as an arm of the Democratic Na- 
tional Committee. 

Sincerely yours, 

[s] Joe McCarthy. 

and the letter carries the initials at the bottom. 

The next exhibit is exhibit No. 11, also indicated as "Copy" in 
brackets. It is a letter dated December 21, 1951. It is addressed to 
Senator McCarthy, and signed by Guy M. Gillette, and reads as 
follows : 

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, 

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Senator: Today I received your letter of December 19 quoting 
former correspondence in wliich you had asked for some specific information 
which you feel was not given you in my reply to your former request. 

Not only as a member of tlie Rules Committee, but as a member of tlie United 
States Senate, you were certainly entitled to any factual information relative 
to the work of our Subcommittee of Rules and Administration or with reference 
to the members of its staff. I shall be very glad to give you such information as 
I have or go with you, if you so desire, to the I'ooms occupied by the sul>com- 
mittee and aid you in securing any facts that are there available, relative to the 
employees of the subcommittee or their work. 

I am sure you will agree that this is preferable to an attempt to cover mat- 
ters of this kind through an interchange of correspondence. Unfortunately, 
our previous correspondence concerning these matters found its way into the pulj- 
lic press and your letters to me were printed in full in the pul)li(' press even be- 
fore I received them. As a former judge you will appreciate, I am sure, the im- 
propriety of discussing matters pertaining to pending litigation in the public 
press. The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, having referred 
the Benton resolution to our subcommittee, has placed us in a quasijudicial posi- 
tion relative to a matter of outstanding importance involving the expulsion from 
the Senate of a sitting member. 

Inquiry has disclosed that it would be impossible for me to call the subcom- 
mittee together for further consideration of this resolution and its import before 
Monday, the 7th of January, and I am calling a meeting for that date at 10 a. m. 
in my office. 

When the Benton resolution was first referred to the subcommittee it developed 
that there was a difference of opinion among the members as to our responsibility 
under the reference and the terms of the resolution. The subcommittee ordered 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 29 

its staff to make study and report of the legal phases and precedents pertaining 
to the questions I'aised by the resolution and also to report as to certain allega- 
tions of fact contained in the resolution. We are awaiting these reports and, 
on the date of the meeting, which I have called for January 7, it is expected 
that the subcommittee will make a decision as to what further action, if any, 
it will take on the resolution. 

As I have told you before, if you care to appear before the subcommittee, 
we should be glad to make the necessary arrangements as to time and place. 
Your letter and this reply will be made available to the members of the sub- 
committee by copy and you will be promptly advised as to what action the 
subcommittee decided to take. 

In the meantime, as I have stated above in this letter, I shall be glad to 
confer with you personally as to matters concerning our staff and its work. 

In closing, may I again assure you that as far as I am personally concerned, 
neither the Democratic National Committee, nor any other person or group other 
than an agency of the United States Senate has had or will have any influence 
whatever as to my duties and actions as a member of the subcommittee and 
I am just as confident that no other member of the subcommittee has been or 
will be so influenced. 

With warm personal greetings and holiday wishes, I am 
Sincerely, 

GtJY M. Gillette. 

And the initials at tlie bottom "GINIG : cc." 

Exhibit No. 12 is a letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator Gny M. 
Gillette dated January 4, 1952 : 

Senator Guy M. Gillbtfte. 

Chairman. Subcommittee on Elections and Privileges, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Gillette: Your letter of December 21 has just been called to 
my attention. As you know this was in answer to my letter to you of December 
19. in which I asked for certain information. 

I can easily understand that you mieht have some difficulty answering some 
of my questions without first consulting the other members of the subcommittee^ — 
for example, the question as to the theory of the law under which investigators 
are being hired and money being spent to investigate matters having nothing 
whatsoever to do with elections. There is, however, one simple question which 
you could easily answer and I am sure you will agree that I am entitled to the 
answer. It is the simple question of whether or not you have ordered the 
investigators to restrict their investigation to matters having to do with elec- 
tions, or whether their investigations extend into fields having nothing what- 
soever to do with either my election or the election of any other Senator. 
Sincerely yours, 

(Signed) Joe McCarthy. 

McC : jh 

The next letter is marked "Exhibit Xo. 12A," contains the word 
"copy" at the top, the date January 10, 1952. It is addressed to 
KSenator Joe McCarthy and is signed by Senator Guy M. Gillette : 

oMy Dear Sexator : This is an af'kno\\ledgment of the receipt of your letter 
of January 4 which has just been brought to my attention. Your letter makes 
inquiry as to whether the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections "ordered 
the investigators to restrict their investigations to matters having to do with 
elections, or whether their investigations extend into fields having nothing 
Avhatever to do with either my election or the election of any other Senator." 

In reply, you will recall that the Senate Committee on Rules and Adminis- 
tration received from the Senate the Benton resolution calling for a preliminary 
investigation relative to ouster proceedings. The Rules Committee referred 
the resolution to our subcommittee, as any other piece of legislation would be 
referred to a subeonnnittee. The subcommittee met and directed its staff to 
make a preliminary study both of the legal phases and precedents pertaining 
to this type of action and also a preliminary Investigation of the factual matter 
charged in the resolution. They were instructed to make these preliminary 
studies and report to us at as early a time as possible. The report on the legal 
questions has been received by the subcommittee and we advise that the report 
on the factual charges will be available to us by the end of this week. The 



30 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 801 

subcommittee then would study the reports and determine what action, if any, 
they wish to take in making their report to the Rules Committee on the resolution. 
The above statement covers the question you asked as to what instructions 
were given to the subcommittee staff relative to the Benton resolution. 
Sincerely, 

Guy M. Gillette. 
GMG : CO 

The next letter is marked "Exhibit 13," with the word "copy'^ 
bracketed, and is a letter dated March 21, 1952, addressed to the 
Honorable Carl Hayden, United States Senate, Washington, D. C, 
and is signed by Senator McCarthy. 

It is as follows : 

Deak Senator Hayden : Some days ago you handed me a letter from Senator 
Gillette, chairman of the Senate Elections Subcommittee, to you as chairman 
of the full committee. At that time you informed me that a majority of the 
full committee had adopted the subcommittee's resolution requesting that I 
bring to the floor of the Senate a motion to discharge the Elections Subcom- 
mittee. You further stated that the purpose of this motion would be to test 
the jurisdiction and integrity of the members of the subcommittee. 

As I stated to you the other day, I feel it would be entirely improper to dis- 
charge the Elections Subcommittee at this time for the following reasons: 

The Elections Subcommittee unquestionably has the power and, when com- 
plaint is made, the duty to investigate any improper conduct on the part of 
McCarthy or any other Senator in a senatorial election. 

The subcommittee has spent tens of thousands of dollars and nearly a year 
making the most painstaking investigation of my part in the Maryland election, 
as well as my campaigns in Wisconsin. The subcommittee's task is not finished 
until it reports to the Senate the result of that investigation, namely, whether 
they found such misconduct on the part of McCarthy in either his ow u campaigns 
or in the Tydings campaign to warrant his expulsion from the Senate. 

I note the subcommittee's request that the integrity of the subcommittee be 
passed upon. As you know, the sole question of the integrity of the subcommittee 
concerned its right to spend vast sums of money investigating the life of 
McCarthy from birth to date without any authority to do so from the Senate. 
However, the vote on that question cannot affect the McCarthy investigation, 
in that tlie committee for a year has been looking into every possible phase of 
McCarthy's life, including an investigation of those who contributed to my 
unsuccessful 1944 campaign. 

As you know, I wrote Senator Gillette, chairman of the subcommittee, that 
I considered this a completely dishonest handling of taxpayers' money. I felt 
that the Elections Subcommittee had no authority to go into matters other than 
elections unless the Senate instructed it to do so. However, it is obvious that 
insofar as McCarthy is concerned that is now a moot question, because the 
staff has already painstakingly and diligently investigated every nook and 
cranny of my life from birth to date. Every possible lead on r^IcCarthy was 
investigated. Nothing that could be investigated was left uninvestigated. The 
staff's scurrilous report, which consisted of cleverly twisted and distorted facts, 
was then "leaked" to the leftwing elements of the press and blazoned across 
the Nation in an attempt to further smear McCarthy. 

A vote of confidence in the subcommittee would be a vote on whether or not 
it had the right, without authority from the Senate, but merely on the request 
of one Senator (in the case, Senator Benton) to make a thorough and complete 
investigation of the entire life of another Senator. A vote to uphold the subcom- 
mittee would mean that the Senate accepts and approves this precedent and 
makes it binding on the Election Subcommittee in the future. 

A vote against the subcommittee could not undo what the subcommittee has 
done in regard to McCarthy. It would not force the subcommittee members to 
repay into the Treasury the funds spent on this investigation of McCarthy. 
A vote against the subcommittee would merely mean that the Senate disapproves 
what has already been done insofar as McCarthy is concerned, and therefore, 
disapproves an investigation of O'ther Senators like the one which was made 
of McCarthy. While I felt the subcommittee exceeded its authority, now that 
it has established a precedent in McCarthy's case, the same rule should apply to 
■every other Senator. If the subcommittee brought up this question before the 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 31 

investigation had been made, I would have voted to discharge it. Now that the 
deed is done, however, the same rule should apply to the other 95 Senators. 

For that reason, I would be forced to vigorously oppose a motion to discharge 
the Elections Subcommittee at this time. 

I hope the Senate agrees with me that it would be highly improper to discharge 
the Gillette-Monroney subcommittee at this time, thereby, in effect, setting a 
different rule for the subcommittee to follow in case an investigation is asked 
of any of the other 95 Senators. 
Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCarthy. 

At the bottom, initials, and "cc : To all Senators." 

Mr. Chairman, may I turn over the responsibility of reading to my 
able associate to my right, and let me rest my voice for a minute ? 

The Chairman. Mr. De Furia will now read the exhibits, beginning 
with exhibit No. 14. 

Mr. De Furia. We will read into the record Senate Eesolution 300 
of the 82d Congress, 2d session : 

In the Senate of the United States, 

April 8 {legislative day, April 2), 1952. 

Mr. Hayden (for himself, Mr. Gillette, Mr. Monroney, Mr. Hennings, and Mr. 
Hendrickson) submitted the following resolution, which was ordered to lie over 
under the rule : 

"Resolution 

"Whereas Senate Resolution 187, to further investigate the participation of 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the Maryland 1950 senatorial campaign and 
other acts, to determine whether expulsion proceedings should be instituted 
against him, was introduced in the Senate by the Senator from Connecticut 
(Mr. Benton) on August 6, 1951, and was referred by the Senate to the Com- 
mittee on Rules and Administration ; and 

"Whereas on August 8, 1951, said resolution was referred by the Committee 
on Rules and Administration to its Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections ; 
and 

"Whereas in a series of communications addressed to the chairman of said 
subcommittee during the period between December 6, 1951. and January 4, 
1952, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCarthy) charged that the subcom- 
mittee lacked jurisdiction to investigate such acts of the Senator from Wis- 
consin (Mr. McCarthy) as were not connected with election campaigns and 
attacked the honesty of the members of the subcommittee, charging that, in 
their investigation of such other acts, the members were improperly motivated 
and were 'guilty of stealing just as clearly as though the members engaged in 
picking the pockets of the taxpayers' ; and 

"Whereas on March 5, 1952, the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections 
adopted the following motion as the most expeditious parliamentary method of 
obtaining an affirmation by the Senate of its jurisdiction in this matter and a 
vote on the honesty of its members : 

" 'That the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration request 
Senator McCarthy, of Wisconsin, to raise the question of the jurisdiction of 
the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections and of the integrity of the members 
thereof in connection with its consideration of Senate Resolution 187 by making 
a formal motion on the floor of the Senate to discharge the committee ; and that 
Senator McCarthy be advised by the chairman of the Committee on Rules 
and Administration that, if he does not take the requested action in a period 
of time to be fixed by stipulation between Senator McCarthy and the chairman 
of the Committee on Rules and Administration, the committee (acting through 
the chairman of the standing committee or the chairman of the subcommittee) 
will itself present such motion to discharge for the purpose of affirming the 
jurisdiction of the subcommittee and the integrity of its members in its con- 
sideration of the aforesaid resolution ;' and 

"Whereas on March 6, 1952, the said motion was also adopted by the Com- 
mittee on Rules and Administration and the chairman of said committee sub- 
mitted to the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCarthy) a copy of the above-stated 
motion ; and 



32 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

"Whereas by letter dated March 21, 1952, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. 
McCarthy) in effect declined to take the action called for by the above-stated 
motion, repeating his charge that the subcommittee has been guilty of 'a com- 
pletely dishonest handling of taxpayers' money,' referring to a preliminary and 
confidential report of its staff as 'scurrilous' and consisting of 'cleverly twisted 
and distorted facts' : 

Now, therefore, to determine the proper jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Rules and Administration and to express the confidence of the Senate in its 
committee in their consideration of Senate Kesolution 187, it being understood 
that the following motion is made solely for this test and that the adoption 
of the resolution is opjwsed by the members on whose behalf it is submitted, 
be it 

Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration be, and it hereby 
is, discharged from the further consideration of Senate Resolution 187. 

The Chair:man. Mr. de Furia, will you state for tlie record, of -which 
we will take judicial notice, as to what happened to this resolution? 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir. 

We ask that the conunittee take legislative notice of the fact that the 
Senate voted upon this resolution on April 10, 1952; that the pro- 
ceedings appear in the Congressional Eecord of that day, page 3954. 
The votes were: Yeas, 0; nays, GO; not voting, 36, and the President 
of the Senate declared that the resolution was rejected, sir. 

The Chairman. You may proceed to the next exhibit. 

Mr. DE Furia. Exhibit No. IT is a letter dated ]May 7, 1952, from 
Sejiator Gillette to Senator McCarthy : 

Hon. Joseph R. McCakthy, 

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Senator: The Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections in execu- 
tive session this morning voted to hold public hearings on Senate Resolution 
187, which was introduced in the Senate by Senator William Benton, of Con- 
necticut, on August 6, 1951, and was thereafter referred to this subcommittee 
for action. 

It was further decided that the hearings are to begin on Monday, IMay 
12, and that the first charges to be heard will be Senator Benton's "Case No. 
2," wherein it was alleged that you had improperly received a fee of $10,000 
in 1948 from tlie Lustron Corp. for an article on housing which was included in 
an advertising booklet published by that company.. 

The subcommittee has not yet determined the order of witnesses for this 
first case but we expect to do so liy Friday after consultation with the staff. 

In the meantime I do wish to extend to you the opportunity to appear at the 
hearings for the purpose of presenting testimony relating to this charge. The 
hearings in this case will probably continue for several days, and we shall make 
whatever arrangements tor your appearance are most convenient for you. 

Sincerely, 

Guy M. Gillette, Chairman. 

The next letter, Mr. Chairman, Exhibit No. 18, is a letter dated 
May 8, 1952, from Senator McCarthy' to Senator Gillette and reads 
as follows : 

United States Senate, 
Committee on Appropriations. 

May S, 1952. 
Senator Guy Gillette, 

Chairman, Siihcommittee on Privileges and Elections, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Gii-lette: This is to acknowledge receipt of your lettei" of 
May 7, in which you state that your Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections 
plans to hold public hearings on Benton's "Charge No. 2"' against me, namely, 
that it was improper for me to sell the rights of my housing I)ook to the Lustron 
Corp. 

You invite me to testify. 

On what point do you desire information? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 33 

The following facts are all public information in regard to the sale of my 
book : 

I held a press conference in 1948 when the sale was completed and announced : 

(1) The sale of the housing book; 

(2) That Lustron was the buyer; 

(3) That Lustron would lie the publisher ; 

(4) That the book would be sold for 35 cents per copy ; 

(5) That the contract provided that I would keep the book up to date for 
5 years, revising it whenever required by any changes in legislation, lending 
practices, or other matters affecting housing ; 

(6) Tbat I had been working on the book for over a year and that every 
line had been checked for accuracy by every Government agency concerned with 
housing. 

At that time Lustron had been loaned money by the RFC, but was apparently 
flourishing and producing an excellent prefabricated house. 

During the housing hearings which were held throughout the country, I 
found that a vast number of young men were not even remotely aware of how 
to take advantage of the many housing aids which we had provided for them 
by law. I felt that writing a simple explanatory book so that every young man 
who desired to buy or build a home could easily understand how to take advan- 
tage of the aids which we had provided for him by law was even more impor- 
tant than passing the proper laws. I proceeded to do this task. 

Lustron offered a royalty of 10 cents per copy and promised the widest cir- 
culation of any of those who were bidding on the book. The Congressional 
Record of June 19, 1950, contains the correspondence which I had with a great 
number of publishers whom I attempted to interest in putting out this book 
at a low retail cost. This correspondence starts on page A-4764. The pub- 
lishers' replies boiled down to the statement that they could not afford to pub- 
lish such a specialized book at a low cost. 

In 1950, after RFC had foreclosed on Lustron, Senator Fulbright's committee 
made a thorough investigation of Lustron. Senator Fulbright, who by the 
greatest stretch of the imagination could not be considered a friend of mine, 
w^as unable to produce any evidence that McCarthy ever directly or indirectly 
interceded with any Government agency in behalf of Lustron. The unquestioned 
evidence before that committee was that "Senator McCarthy has never been 
interested in Lustron, has never interceded for Lustron, has never done anything 
to influence any particular thing for Lustron" — page 200, Senate Banking and 
Currency Committee, June 26, 1950. The evidence .also shows — page 200 — that 
Lustron received $46,000 for the sale of this book with an advertising pamphlet. 
Apparently the purchase and sale of this book was Lustron's only profitable 
venture. 

I understand that even though your investigators have been very painstaking 
in their attempts, they have been unable to find even a telephone call I made to 
anyone in behalf of Lustron. If the administration knew of a single contact 
which I ever made with RFC or any other Government agency in behalf of 
Lustron, they would hardly be keeping it secret to protect McCarthy. I am 
curious to know what new facts you expect to produce for the benefit of the public 
at this public hearing. 

Perhaps you are going to produce evidence to show that the day the contract 
was signed, November 12, 1948, 10 days after the Republicans lost control of the 
Senate and the House and were defeated in the Presidential race, Lustron bought 
this book from me because of the tremendous influence which I have with the 
Democrat administration. Or perhaps you hope to prove that the preparation 
of the book and the contract to keep it up to date for 5 years was worth less than 
10 cents a copy. If so, I wonder if you plan on proving that some of the speeches 
which a sizable number of yoiu- Democrat friends make and magazine articles 
and books which they have written for a fee are worth less than the fee paid. 

The announcement that you are holding public hearings after nearly a year of 
investigation carries the implication that there is some improper conduct in 
connection with the sale of the publication to Lustron. I would like to know 
what you claim that iniproper conduct to be. I assume you do not claim it is 
improper for a Senator to write a book or magazine article, because if so, you 
will have to call many of your Democrat friends before you. 

If the "improper conduct" is the sale by a Senator of a book or a magazine 
article to an apparently flourishing corporation which has an RFC loan, no 
hearing of any kind would be necessary, because there can be no dispute about 
the fact that the book was sold to Lustron and that Lustron did have an RFC 



34 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

loan. Therefore, I assume that I am not unreasonable in asking you what new 
facts or proof you expect to produce at the public hearings. Certainly, you 
would not be using the hearing merely as a sounding board for more of the 
Benton type of smear attacks. 

In this connection I call your attention to the fact that Benton, who has 
made the complaint, has been selling his publication and films directly to the 
State Department. Do you plan upon investigating this matter? Or, like 
Benton, do you consider it proper for a Senator to take money directly from a 
Government agency but improper to deal with a private firm which has a loan 
from a Government agency ? 

As chairman of the committee investigating Benton's charges, I am sure you 
are aware that Political Affairs, the official Communist Party publication which 
sets forth the current tasks and problems of the party, has ordered Commu- 
nist Party members to "support the Benton resolution to oust McCarthy from 
the Senate" (Political Affairs, October 1951, p. 29). This publication has 
been labeled by the House Committee on Un-American Activities as the tlieo- 
retical organ of the Communist Party. 

Shortly before Benton appointed himself to lead the fight to smear and dis- 
credit McCarthy, the Communist Party through its then secretary, Gus Hall 
(who has since been jailed) officially proclaimed that all Communist Party mem- 
bers must "yield second place to none in the fight to rid our country of the fascist 
poison of McCarthyism" (Daily Worker, May 4, 1950). 

The Communist Party has officially proclaimed and published in the Daily 
Worker that one of its major tasks is to discredit and smear McCarthy out of 
public office. 

The Communist Party of Washington and Maryland put out a directive to all 
members of the Communist Party under the heading, "Unity Can Defeat Mc- 
Carthyism." This directive was signed by Philip Frankfeld (who has since 
been jailed). It contains the following order to Communist Party members: 
"Remember the fact that the main enemy is McCarthyism and all of its work- 
ings and direct your main fight against it." 

All of the above objectives of the Communist Party have been adopted by 
William Benton as his objectives also. You must agree that the aims and ob- 
jectives of both the Communist Party and Benton are identical insofar as Mc- 
Carthy is concerned. The only question is whether it is knowingly or through 
stupidity that Benton is trying to perform what the Communist Party has of- 
ficially and repeatedly proclaimed its No. 1 task. 

Lenin once said, "We can and must write in a language which sows among 
the masses hate, revulsion, scorn, and tiie like toward those who disagree with 

us." 

I am sure that you would never knowingly allow your committee to serve 
the Communist cause. However, the damage ddne is the same regardless of 
whether it is knowingly and deliberately done. There can be no question in 
your mind or in anyone's mind that this year-long investigation by your sub- 
committee would never have l)een commenced if I had not been exposing Com- 
munists in Government. Already 10 of those whom I have exposed have either 
been convicted or i-emoved under the loyalty program. This is only a small 
indication of how badly the Communist Party is being hurt. The Commu- 
nists will have scored a great victory if they can convince every other Sen- 
ator or Congressman that if ho attempts to exiwse undercover Communists, he 
will be subjected to the same type of intense smear, even to the extent of using 
a Senate committee for the purpose. They will have frightened away from this 
fight a vast number of legislators who fear the political effect of being inundated 
by the Communist Party line sewage. 

If you have evidence of wrongdoing on McCarthy's part, which would justify 
removal from the Senate or a vote of censure by the Senate, certainly you have 
the obligation to produce it. However, as you well know, every member of your 
committee and staff privately admits that no such evidence is in existence. It is 
an evil and dishonest thing for the subcommittee to allow itself to be used for 
an evil purpose. Certainly the fact that the Democrat Party may temporarily 
benefit thereby is insufficient justification. Remember the Communist Party will 
benefit infinitely more. 
Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCarthy. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 35 

Exhibit No. 19 is a letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator Gil- 
lette, dated May 8, 1952, and I will read it, Mr. Chairman : 

Senator Gut M. Gillette, 

Chairman, Suhcommittee on Privileges and Elections, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. G. 

Dear Senator Gillette : I understand that your subcommittee has decided to 
commence holding open hearings Monday on Benton's resolution to expel Mc- 
Carthy from the Senate because of his fight to expose Communists in the Demo- 
crat administration. I further understand that you have taken no action whatso- 
ever on the resolution to investigate Benton. 

Before I urged the Senate to vote to continue the life of your subcommittee 
vre received your unqualified promise to proceed to investigate the Benton case 
just as expeditiously as the attempted expulsion of McCarthy. I now understand 
that you have not even so much as suggested that the resolution asking for an 
investigation of Benton's activities be referred to your subcommittee; that noth- 
ing whatsoever has been done in the Benton case, although weeks have passed 
since that resolution was introduced, and you made that promise on the Senate 
floor. I understand you excuse your actions to the press by stating that the Rules 
Committee had not referred the Benton case to you. 

You and Benton are members of the Rules Committee, and, as you well know, 
the Democrats have the majority of the votes on that committee and can stall 
the Benton case indefinitely without referring it to your subcommittee. I am sure 
you will agree that this is a most dishonest evasion of a promise made to and 
relied upon by the Senate. 

In view of the amount of time and money spent investigating McCarthy, this 
stalling in the Benton case cannot help but more firmly convince the American 
people that your subcommittee is being dishonestly used as an arm of the Demo- 
crat National Committee. 
Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCartht. 

The Chairman. At this point, the committee will recess until —  — 

Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator Johnson. 

Senator Johnson. In just a minute, I desire to make a very brief 
statement. 

The Chairman. Order, please. Photographers, please keep your 
cameras quiet and do not use them. Sit down and be quiet until we 
recess. 

Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, on yesterday evening Senator 
McCarthy and his attorney, Mr. Williams, called the attention of this 
committee to a published article in the Denver Post on March 12, 
1954, in which an interview by telephone with me was stated or was 
used, and I desire to make a brief statement with respect to that 
publication. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. Senator. 

Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I did not say on March 12, or at 
any other time, that I personally loathed Senator Joseph McCarthy. 
In response to a telephone call from Denver, I agreed that some of my 
Democratic colleagues did not like Senator McCarthy. My March 12 
statement, as ])ublished, did not say that I personally loathed Senator 
McCarthy. The Flanders speech on the Senate floor, which was the 
forerunner of my March 12 statement, pertained to the question 
whether or not Senator McCarthy be removed from the chairmanship 
of a Senate committee. 

My position then and now is that that matter should be decided by 
the majority party in charge of the organization of the Senate and 
that it was not the business of the Senate Democratic Party at all. 
I have full faith in my ability to weigh the charges which have been 



36 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

made against Senator McCarthy, together with ^Yhatever evidence 
may be presented without prejudice. 

The Chairman. Thank yon, Senator. 

Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, may I 

The Chairman. Senator Stennis. 

Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that I think the 
ruling of the Chair was correct, a while ago, with reference to the 
oral argument by Mr. Williams. 

I think the request of the Chair that he file a written brief would 
be very helpful in this case to the members of the committee and to 
the Members of the Senate. 

Ordinarily, in a court of law, the declaration or the bill of com- 
plaint sets out the facts, and we have the facts before us ; but in this 
case, there is no formal bill of complaint, no formal declaration, so I 
think it is necessary to first get the facts. It is said that out of the 
facts the sound law arises. 

Now, after all these facts are in and the brief submitted — and I have 
made a note here of the three cases cited from the Supreme Court — it 
might be that some might want to hear oral argument on those cases. 

I would like to reserve that point now, because I want to go into 
it in the brief. 

But, first, I think the Chair is eminently correct. We must develop 
these facts. 

Mr. AViLLiAMS. I might say to the Chair that overnight I shall pre- 
pare a brief, and I shall submit it in form so that each member of the 
committee shall have a copy of it, in an effort to comport with the 
Chair's ruling. 

I shall also hope that the Chair, in its wisdom, will see fit, after 
consultation with the other members, to permit me a specified amount 
of time to make such additional points as I wish. 

I would like also to say at this time, if I may, sir, that the record 
might be straight in open hearings, I think it should be stated at this 
time that at no time has either Senator McCarthy or myself challenged 
Senator Johnson's qualifications to sit on this committee. 

What we did was to call to the attention of the committee a matter 
that was called to our attention exactly 5 minutes before we brought 
it to the committee. I felt that as counsel to Senator McCarthy, and 
as counsel serving before this committee, I should be derelict in my 
duty if I did not bring to the attention of the committee something 
upon which the committee might want to take action. 

Now, I do not know whether the Chair desires to have read into the 
record what I called to the attention of the committee or not. It seems 
to me it would be appropriate to have it there so that Senator John- 
son's remarks might be viewed in proper context. 

What I did call 

The Chairman. I do not think it is necessary to this hearing. No- 
body has challenged Senator Johnson. He was appointed by the 
Senate, and this committee has no authority to remove him or even to 
accept a resignation of his from the committee. 

Since that is the record, why is it necessary to clutter it up with a 
lot of extraneous matter? I rule that we will not follow that sug- 
gestion. 

Mr. Williams. The only thing we had hoped for, Mr. Chairman, 
was this : At least — maybe I am in error — but I was led to believe as I 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 37 

left the executive session last nigiit — I do not know whether Senator 
McCarthy shares my understanding or not — but I was led to believe 
that Senator Johnson was going to call the editor who bylined this 
story, and either confirm or deny the reported contents thereof. 

The Chairman. If it is immaterial to this hearing, what differ- 
ence does it make whether he called him or did not call him ? I do not 
think it makes any difference whatsoever. We are not trying Senator 
Johnson ; no accusations have been made against him, no challenge has 
been macle as to him. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have desisted from making 
any comments, so far, and I would like to ask a question, if I may. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Senator. Let us get this clear : I 
think the fair interpretation of the rule is that when your counsel 
speaks on a matter, that precludes you from addressing the Chair of 
the committee on the same matter. If you want to take it over your- 
self, why then, you start it, and then we"^ will let you finish it. But we 
are not going to permit both of you to argue this matter. 

Senator McCarthy. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman, just 1 minute. 

Mr. Williams. Senator ]\IcCarthy is really extending a thought 
that I had, and that I had suggested to the Chair. 

I had come away from the hearing yesterday, feeling that we were 
going to get a statement from Senator Johnson either affirming or 
denying the story which is reported in the March 12 Denver Post. 
Now, I'was not idly curious on that subject. Senator. I felt that I 
needed that information in order to intelligently advise Senator Mc- 
Carthy as to what position he should take witli respect to this matter. 

The Chairman. I would say to you, Mr. Williams, that Senator 
Johnson, if he was able to make that telephone communication, will tell 
you privately what was the result of the conversation. But I cannot 
see why it has anything to do with this matter. There is no challenge. 
We have not any authority over Senator Johnson. 

Mr. Willia:\ls. I do not have information enough at this time, Mr. 
Chairman, to make a challenge. I do not know whether I should 
advise Senator McCarthy to make a challenge or not, because I do not 
know yet whether or not the reported statements in the Denver Post 
are true or are untrue, and I have relied upon the representations made 
in executive session as to the source for my information on that subject 
today. 

The Chairman. I would say that the Chair has already ruled on 
this matter that it has nothing to do with the committee. We have no 
authority to change the personnel. We could not — it is not maerial 
to our investigation. 

The personnel have been selected ; members of this committee have 
been selected by the Senate itself, and this committee certainly has no 
authority under the order set up under the Resolution 301 to remove 
any of its members, to consider any challenge to its membership. 

Mr. Williams. So that I miglit understand the ruling of the Chair, 
it is that we are not entitled to the information as to the truth or 
falsity of the statements of March 12 ? 

The Chairman. I sav you are entitled to it if vou wish to get it from 
Senator Johnson, but I say that it is not material to this hearing and 
for that reason I am not going to permit, or should not permit colloquy 
to go on back and forth. 



38 HEARENGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator Johnson has made his statement, and that is it, and you 
have made your statement. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman — — 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. It occurs to me that all of this discussion is immaterial 
to the purposes of the inquiry, for the record of this inquiry. 

Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be in a position 

The Chairman. Senator Carlson. 

Senator Carlson. I confirm Senator Case's remarks, so far as this 
particular record is concerned. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask one ques- 
tion. Are we entitled to know whether or not the quotations of 
March 12 are correct or incorrect? 

I would like to know whether the Denver Post 

The Chairman. You may get it, Senator, and I am going to rule 
on this, and I have already ruled, you may get that some other place. 
But this committee has no jurisdiction over those matters, whatso- 
ever. This committee was appointed by the Senate ; the only condi- 
tion laid down was that there would be 3 Democrats and 3 Republi- 
cans, and here we are, 3 Republicans and 3 Democrats, and this com- 
mittee is not going to take on the job of the Senate and going to decide 
whether this committee is a proper committee or not. This com- 
mittee is 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator. You have filed no chal- 
lenge; and, in the first place, I believe it is improper for you to do 
so, because we have not unj jurisdiction. 

Senator ]\IcCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I should be entitled to know 
whether or not — — 

The Chairman, The Senator is out of order. 

Senator McCarthy. Can't I get Mr. Johnson to tell me 

The Chairman. The Senator is out of order. 

Senator McCarthy. Whether it is true or" false ? 

The Chairman. The Senator is out of order. You can go to the 
Senator and question and find out. That is not for this committee 
to consider. We are not going to be interrupted by these diversions 
and sidelines. We are going straight down the line. 

The committee will be in recess. 

I had announced previously that the committee would recess until 
10 o'clock tomorrow morning, and that is the order. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 25 p. m., the committee adjourned to reconvene 
Wednesday, September 1, 1954, at 10 a. m.) 



HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301 



wednesday, september 1, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges 
Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 : 10 a. m., in the 
caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins 
(chajrman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Watkins (presiding), Johnson of Colorado (vice 
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin. 

Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel 
to the committee ; Guy G. cle Furia, assistant counsel to the committee ; 
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff mem- 
ber; Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator 
Watkins' staff on loan to the committee; and Edward Bennett Wil- 
liams, counsel to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. 
Neill and Brent Bozell. 

The Chairman. It is with extreme regret and deep sorrow that we 
received today the news of the death of Senator Maybank, the dis- 
tinguished Senator from South Carolina. He was greatly beloved in 
the Senate. He had been there for a long time, had splendid seniority. 
We are going to miss him. 

His State lost a great man, and the Nation a fine public servant. 

By reason of the fact that this hearing had already been set up it 
would be very inconvenient to postpone it, and the committee felt 
that it should proceed with the hearings as scheduled. However, at 
least two members of the committee will be appointed to attend the 
funeral when the date is announced. 

As a mark of respect the committee will all stand, and we would 
like you to stand with us for one ^moment in silence, as a mark of 
respect to Senator Maj^bank. 

(The committee and the audience stood in silence.) 

The Chairman. You may be seated. 

I would like to ask at the outset of this hearing today, are the micro- 
phones and the amplification system working sufficiently well so that 
you can hear in the rear of the room ? 

(The response w\as ''Yes.") 

The Chairman. The officers at the end of the room indicated that 
they are working. We did not know until the latter part of the hear- 
ing yesterday that they were not working. We regret that very much. 

At the close of yesterday's session a question had been raised, which 
the Chair ruled on, and, in amplification of what was said then, I think, 
for the benefit of the people of the country, I should at least expand 
the statement and the ruling that I made. 

39 



40 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The question was raised with respect to the qualifications of Senator 
Johnson of Colorado to sit as a member of this committee. The ruling 
was that he was appointed by the Senate itself; this committee had 
no power to remove him ; and there had been no challenge filed against 
him ; and even if there had been, this committee was powerless to act 
in the matter. 

In addition to that, I would like to call attention to the fact that 
the connnittee has heard from Senator Johnson — his statement that 
was made yesterday in open session. The committee is satisfied that 
Senator Johnson can do exactly what he said he could do, that is, 
to try this matter fairly and consider the evidence that is brought 
before it. 

The Constitution of this country provided for a House and a Senate, 
our supreme legislative bodies. 

In doing that the framers of the Constitution said this in section 5 
of article 1 : 

Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifieations of 
its own Members and a majority of each sliall constitute a quorum to do busi- 
ness, but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day. 

Some parts of the section are not apropos of what I am going to 
say, so I will not read them. 

The following paragraph states : 

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its INIembers 
for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member. 

The foregoing language has been construed to give to each House 
of Congress the power to discipline its own Members and to determine 
the rules of its proceedings. It has in the past rejected Members who 
have come with credentials from a State and have done so for various 
reasons which seemed to be sufficient to the Senate. 

It has, as I recall, expelled Members. 

It has also passed resolutions of censure. 

It is the only body that can discipline a IMember for matters that 
occur in the Senate, or of his activities, and can take notice of what a 
Senator is doing. Courts cannot do it — no one else can do it but the 
Senate. 

The Senate has to act as a body in the final stages of any proceed- 
ing or series of proceedings which have to do with the discipline or 
the punishment of any of its Members for misconduct. 

No matter what position a Senator may have taken with respect to 
any of these matters of expulsion, rejection or discipline, he is en- 
titled to vote on that matter. No one can disqualify him. Even if all 
the Senators had taken a strong position, saying with reference to 
Senator X — let us make it impersonal^ — ^if all of them said that Sena- 
tor X was a disgrace to the Senate, that he had done things which were 
im])roper, and he ought to be disciplined. Senator X coidd not success- 
fully challenge any one of those Senators from sitting and acting on 
his case. If he could, if he could disqualify him for that reason, then 
there would be no action by the Senate, because all of them except 
the Senator himself would be disqualified. 

Suppose the Senate was divided evenly on a matter involving Sena- 
tor X. Then those who had taken a strong position for Senator X, 
if we are goiug to invoke a rule of complete impartiality and com- 
plete neutrality, all of those Avho were strongly for him would be 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 41 

disqualified, and all of those who had spoken against him would be 
disqualified, and again the Senate would be impotent, completely 
powerless to do the thing the Constitution says that it should do. 

Now, a committee is only an arm, an agency of the parent body, 
the Senate. None of the six Senators sitting here on this committee 
can make any final judgment in the proceedings of this committee 
on the matter now before it. 

I pointed out, I hoped in a clear way yesterday, that this com- 
mittee had taken a position that, in accordance with the order which 
was issued that it was to take such testimony as it deems advisable, 
that it had concluded that that meant that it was to receive, ferret 
out, and search for all evidence that has anything to do with or is 
relevant and material to the charges now before this committee and the 
Senate, not to eject any parties aside on the matter, but to ferret it all 
out. 

It is a fact-finding body. In order to accomplish that, we have to do 
a lot of preliminary work. We have staff people, investigators. They 
go out and search for evidence, because if they did not, the Senate 
would have to do it somewhere along the line, and that is the only way 
the Senate can act. 

Ninety-six Senators could not sit in a body and do that, as a prac- 
tical matter, not within the time limit in the resolution, I am sure. 
So* they have delegated this committee to take this testimony, to get 
it, and it is our purpose, as was announced, to get the testimony 
whether it favors Senator McCarthy or whether it is against him or 
whether it is just in between, as long as it is relevant and material. 

Now, that being the situation, and particularly with respect to the 
fact that we cannot make any final judgment, I cannot see how any 
legal contention of any shape or form can be made against any member 
of this committee that could be maintained as a matter of law or as a 
matter of fact. 

Men in the profession of law are trained to take an objective point of 
view. They sympathize with the man they defend in court, who may 
be charged with some vicious crime, and yet a law^yer would go all out, 
although he may have horrors of the crime, and he will do his level 
best to see that that man has his rights. 

You have three members of this committee wdio are lawyers and 
who have served as judges. 

Now, that is our purpose. And the other members of this com- 
mittee are all men of experience. In fact, I did not know until some 
time back that some of the others were not lawyers. They have had 
enough experience here to know how these matters are handled. 

The public at large, many of them, at least, do not seem to under- 
stand that we do not render any final decision. We do not find the 
accused innocent or guilty. We get the facts and try to get them all ; 
we get the arguments on the law and try to get them all, and have them 
briefed for us, and then we report to the Senate of the United States, 
which is the final court, and I submit that any man who cannot be 
disqualified from sitting on that court certainly cannot be disqualified 
from sitting on the committee that merely searches for the evidence. 

I want to make that clear. I do not know if any member of the 
committee has any desire to make comment on it. I shall be glad to 
hear from them if they do. 

Apparently, no comment is to be made. 



42 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

I think I might say without the denial or any fear of contradiction 
that the committee is unanimous on this matter. 

In addition to what I have said — I should say this— the Senate 
created the committee, appointed us, and we can find nowhere in our 
appointment, our source of authority, the directive of what w^e are to 
do, any place where we should pass on the qualifications of the com- 
mittee. That was done by a higher body, and it would be presump- 
tuous on our part to attempt to do any such thing. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. You have invited a comment. I would like to say 
that I approve 100 percent what you have said. It is apparent that 
if the right of a Senator to discharge a senatorial function can be 
successfully challenged, then the ability of the Senate to function 
under the Constitution of the United States would be paralyzed in 
many cases. 

The Chairman. Then the committee has made the ruling. We 
think the matter is not pertinent or relevant to this case, so we will 
go ahead with the testimony and call upon our counsel to read the 
minutes. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. W^illiams. So that our legal position in this matter might be 
preserved, overnight I have prepared a memorandum stating our 
position I think simply and clearly, and I should like to ask the 
Chair that this memorandum be incorporated in the record of these 
proceedings so that it will be there present for the Senate to con- 
sider at the appropriate time. 

The Chairman. Do you want the entire letter just as you wrote it 
put in the record ? 

Mr. Williams. I am interested in having the memorandum in the 
record, sir. 

The Chairman. Personally, I have no objection to that. I think 
the whole matter has been immaterial and irrelevant to these pro- 
ceedings. I think we should proceed to carry out the directive given 
us by the Senate. 

At this moment I think, since this involves the whole committee 
and one member of the committee specifically, that I shall reserve 
the ruling until a later moment, until I can confer with my colleagues. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I want to make it perfectly clear, 
sir, that I am not seeking opportunity to argue this matter orally. 
All I want is to have our position preserved in the record so that 
these proceedings will completely be recorded therein. I just want 
our position preserved in the record by an inclusion of this memo- 
randum. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The Cil'lirman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. I had an opportunity to read the statement very 
briefly just before coming to the meeting. It seems to me that the 
position of the counsel might be preserved without necessarily putting 
that statement in the record. 

The statement as I read it makes certain statements of fact which 
may or may not be provable. I don't know; they may be, but it 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 43 

seems to me before we agree to insert the statement in the record, 
that it should be examined and studied with that thought in mind. 

The position of counsel that they wish to preserve the right is 
already spoken for the record, and I see no objection to that, but it 
seems to me that the statement which incorporates allegations that, 
if true, should perhaps be submitted with proof or under oath or 
it ought not to be put in until we have a chance to study it. 

The CiiAiRMAX. I think that the whole matter should be studied, 
because the Chair has already ruled against the offer to place in the 
record the newspaper clipping referred to. 

As I remember, this memorandum restates it, and I haven't any 
reason for, at the moment, changing my ruling on the clipping that 
was offered. We will proceed with the hearing. 

Mr. Williams. Do I understand the Chair has reserved ruling on 
that point? 

The Chairman. That was the statement I made, 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, resuming the presentation of docu- 
mentary evidence in tlie form of the exhibits read from the record 
of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections to the Committee 
on Rules and Administration under Senate Resolution 187 and Senate 
Resolution 304, I refer to the exhibit No. 20, which contains the word 
"copy" in parentheses, which is dated May 10, 1952, which is a letter 
from Senator Gillette to Senator McCarthy, which I now read: 

My Dear Senator McCarthy : I acknowledge receipt of your letter of May 8 
which was written in response to a letter addressed to you by me as chairman 
of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections under date of May 7. Your 
reply of the 8th states factual matter in connection with the charges made by 
Senator Benton in his resolution and which have been listed as "charge No. 2." 

You will note from my letter of the 7th that I stated in the concluding para- 
graph "I shall extend to you the opportunity to appear at the hearings for the 
purpose of presenting testimony relating to this charge. The hearing in this 
case will probably continue for several days and we shall make whatever arrange- 
ments for your appearance are most convenient for you." 

The subcommittee, in determining its further action relative to the Benton 
resolution, decided to take up the charges one by one and, if additional evidence 
was desired in addition to the staff report that was before us, that the sub- 
committee would undertake to develop further testimony where it seemed 
desirable to do so. At their meeting on May 7 the subcommittee concluded that 
they wished to take some additional testimony with reference to charge No. 2 
and fixed next Monday, May 12, as the date for the hearing, at which witnesses 
under them could be heard. 

It seemed the courteous thing to do to invite you to attend so you could have 
full opportunity to present additional evid^ence or, at a later period, to present 
any evidence you might wish to make available to us in refutation or explana- 
tion of any evidence which you adduced at the hearing. That was the purpose 
of my letter to you and you were assured that the opportunity will continue to 
be yours to present such matter as you wish to present to us in connection with 
this hearing and to attend, if you desire to do so. 

I assume also that you would have no objection to having put in the record 
of the hearings your letter of the 8th. Unless I receive the request from you 
for me not to do so when the hearings are opened next Monday, I shall put in 
the record my letter of the 7th addressed to you and your reply of the 8th 
addressed to me. 

With personal greetings, I am 
Sincerely, 

Guy M. Gillette. 

And initials. 

The next is exhibit 21, which is a letter dated May 11, 1952, signed 
by Senator McCarthy, and addressed to Senator Guy Gillette, Senator 
A. S. Monroney, and Senator Thomas Hennings. 

62461—54 4 



44 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Gentlemen : I havf learned with regret that your public hearings are to open 
tomorrow without the presence of your star witness. You have my deepest 
sympathy. 

Some doubting Thomases might question the importance of this witness, ex- 
cept that after nearly a year of investigating, you and your staff decided that 
the public hearings must open with his intelligently presented, clear-cut expose 
of the dangers of McCarthyism. The Nation owes you a debt of gratitude for 
so carefully and honestly developing this witness who could have advised the 
Senate and the voters of Wisconsin to get rid of McCarthy. If only you had 
set the hearings 10 days earlier before the judge committed your star witness 
to an institution for the criminally insane, you would not have been deprived 
of this important link in the chain of evidence against McCarthy. 

Some shallow thinkers may say that you gentlemen are dishonest to have 
planned to use your committee as a soiuiding board to headline the statements 
of a Wiitness after your staff had reported he was mentally unbalanced. I beg 
you not to let this distract you from the honest, gentlemanly job you are doing. 
Those critics fail to realize that everything is ethical and honest if it is done 
to expose the awfulness of McCarthyism. After all, had not your staff reported 
that while this witness was mentally deranged, his mental condition would help 
to make him an excellent witness for you. 

Certainly, you cannot be blamed for not knowing that some unthinking judge 
woiild do the country the great disservice of commiting him to a home for the 
insane before the committee had a chance to publicize and place its stamp of 
approval on his statments about McCarthy. Certainly, you cannot be blamed 
for being unable to distinguish between his testimony and the testimony of 
the other witness, Benton, who asked for and was given the right to appear 
before your committee and publicly "expose" McCarthy. 

The Communist Party, which is also doing an excellent job of exposing the 
evils of ^McCarthyism, has repeatedly proclaimed that no stone be left unturned 
in the effort to remove McCarthy from public life. As Lenin said, "resort to 
lies, trickery, deceit, and dishonesty of any type necessary," in order to destroy 
those who stand in the way of the Communist movement. 

I ask you gentlemen not to be disturbed by those who point out that your 
committee is trying to do what the Communist Party has ofBcially proclaimed 
as its No. 1 task. You ju.st keep right on in the same honest, painstaking way 
of developing the truth. The thinking people of this Nation will not be deceived 
by those who claim that what you are doing is dishonest. After all, you must 
serve the interests of the Democrat Party — there is always the chance that 
the country may be able to survive. What better way could you find to spend 
the taxpayers' money? After all, isn't McCarthy doing the terribly unpatriotic 
and unethical thing of proving the extent to which the Democrat administration 
is Communist ridden? Unless he can be discredited, the Democrat Party may be 
removed from power. 

Again may I offer my condolences upon your failure to have your star witness 
present as planned to open the testimony. Do you not think the judge who 
committed him should be investigated? 
Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCarthy. 

Tlie next exhibit is exliibit No. 38 from that report, contaiiiiiio; the 
word "copy" in brackets at the liead. It is dated November T, 1952, 
and it is addressed to the Honorable Joseph R. McCarthy, United 
States Senate, Washington, D. C : 

Dear Senator McCarthy : In connection with the consideration by the Sub- 
committee on Privileges and Elections of Senate Resolution No. 187, introduced 
by Senator Benton on August 6, 1951, as well as the ensuing investigation, I 
have been instructed by the subcommittee to invite you to appear before said 
subcommittee in executive session. Insofar as possible, we would like to respect 
your wishes as to the date on which you will appear. However, the sul)committee 
plans to be available, for this purpose, during the week beginning November 17, 
1952. 

It will be appreciated if you will advise me at as early a date as possible of 
the day you will appear, in order that the subcommittee may arrange its plans 
accordingly. 

Very truly yours, 

Paul J. Cotter, Chief Counsel. 

PJC : miv. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 45 

The next exhibit is exhibit No. 40, a photostat. It is a letter from 
Ray Kiermas, administrative assistant to Senator McCarthy. It is 
addressed to Mr. Panl Cotter, chief counsel. Subcommittee on Privi- 
leges and Elections, United States Senate, Washington, D. C, and 
reads as follows : 

Dear Mr. Cotter : Inasmuch as Senator McCarthy is not now in Washing- 
ton, I am taking the liberty of acknowledging receipt of your letter of 
November 7. 

I have just talked to the Senator over the telephone and he does not know just 
when he will return to Washington. It presently appears that he will not be 
available to appear before your committee during the time you mention. How- 
ever, he did state that if you will let him know just what information you desire, 
he will be glad to try to be of help to you. 
Sincerely yours, 

(Signed) Ray Kiermas, 
Adniinist7-ative Assistant to Senator McCarthy. 
RK/dl. 

The letter was dated November 10, 1952. 

The next exhibit is exhibit No. 41, a letter dated November 21, 1952, 
to the Honorable Joseph R. McCarthy, a letter from Tomas Hennings, 
Avith quotations from several letters. It is difficult to quickly pick up 
the conclusion of it. The letter is as follows : 

Dear Senator McCarthy: As you will recall, on September 25, 1951, May 7, 
1952, and May 10, 1952, this subcommittee invited you to appear before it to give 
testimony relating to the investigation pursuant to Senate Resolution 187. 

Under date of November 7, 1952, the following communication was addressed 
to you : 

"Dear Senator McCarthy: In connection with the consideration by the Sub- 
committee on Privileges and Elections of Senate Resolution No. 187, introduced 
by Senator Benton on August 6, 1951, as well as the ensuing investigation, I 
have been instructed by the subcommittee to invite you to appear before .said 
subcommittee in executive session. Insofar as possible, we would like to respect 
your wishes as to the date on which you will appear. However, the subcommittee 
plans to be available, for this purpose, during the week beginning November 17, 
1952. 

"It will be appreciated if you will advise me at as early a date as possible of 
the day you will appear, in order that the subcommittee may arrange its plans 
accordingly. 

"Very truly yours, 

"Paul J. Cotter, Chief Counsel." 

On November 14, 1952, the subcommittee received the following communica- 
tion, dated November 10, 1952 : 

"Dear Mr. Cotter : Inasmuch as Senator McCarthy is not now in Washington, 
I am taking the liberty of acknowledging receipt of your letter of November 7. 

"I have just talked to the Senator over the telephone and he does not know 
just when he will return to Washington. It presently appears that he will not 
be available to appear before your committee during the time you mention. 
However, he did state that if you will let him know just what information you 
desire, he will be glad to try to be of help to you. 
"Sincerely yours, 

"Ray Kiermas, 
"Administrative Assistant to Senator McCarthy." 

The subcommittee is grateful for your offer of assistance, and we want to 
afford you with every opportunity to offer your explanations with reference to 
the issues involved. Therefore, although the subcommittee did make itself 
available during the past week in order to afford you an opportunity to be heard, 
we shall be at your disposal commencing Saturday, November 22 through, but not 
later than, Tuesday, November 25, 1952. 

This subcommittee has but one object, and that is to reach an impartial and 
proper conclusion based upon the facts. Your appearance, in person, before the 
subcommittee will not only give you the opportunity to testify as to any issues 
of fact which may be in controversy, but will be of the greatest assistance to the 



46 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

subcommittee in its effort to arrive at a proper determination and to embody in 
its report an accurate representation of tlie facts. 

Pursuant to your request, as transmitted to us through Mr. Kiermas, we are 
advising you that the subcommittee desires to make inquiry vpith respect to the 
following matters: 

(1) Whether any funds collected or received by you and by others on your 
behalf to conduct certain of your activities, including those relating to com- 
munism, were ever diverted and used for other purposes inuring to your personal 
advantage. 

(2) Whether you, at any time, used your official position as a United States 
Senator and as a member of the Banking and Currency Committee, the Joint 
Housing Committee, and the Senate Investigations Committee to obtain a $10,000 
fee from the Lustron Corp., which company was then almost entirely subsidized 
by agencies under the jurisdiction of the very committees of which you were 
a member. 

(3) Whether your activities on behalf of certain interest groups, such as 
housing, sugar, and China, were motivated by self-interest. 

(4) Whether your activities with respect to your senatorial campaigns, par- 
ticularly with respect to the reporting of your financing and your activities 
relating to the financial transactions with and subsequent employment of Ray 
Kiermas, involved violations of the Federal and State Corrupt Practices Acts. 

(5) Whether loan or other transactions which you had with the Appleton 
State Bank, of Appleton, Wis., involved violations of tax and banking laws. 

(6) Whether you used close associates and members of youi^ family to secrete 
receipts, income, commodity and stock speculation, and other financial trans- 
actions for ulterior motives. 

We again assure you of our desire to give you the opportunity to testify, in 
executive session of the subcommittee, as to the foregoing matters. The S2d 
Congress expires in the immediate future and the subcommittee must necessarily 
proceed with dispatch in making its I'eport to this Congress. To that end, we 
respectfully urge you to arrange to come before us on or before November 25, 
and thus enable us to do our conscientious best in the interests of the Senate and 
our obligation to complete our work. We would thank you to advise us imme- 
diately, so that we may plan accordingly. 

This letter is being transmitted at the direction and with the full concurrence 
of the membership of this subcommittee. 
Sincerely yours, 

Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., Chairman. 

with initials. 

The date of the letter which I have just read is November 21, 1952. 

I turn aside at this point from the sequence of the exhibits quoted 
from tlie H-H-H report — — 

The Chairman. And when you say "H-H-H report," what are you 
referring to, Mr. Chadwick ? 

]Mr. Chadwick. I refer to the report heretofore mentioned, the re- 
port of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections to the Commit- 
tee on Rules and Administration in the investigation pursuant to 
Senate Resolution 187 and Senate Resolution 304. 

The Chairman. And which Congress ? 

Mr. Chad-\vick. The 82d Congress, I think. 

Tlie Chairman. And what does tlie "H-H-H" stand for? 

Mr. Chadwick. The initials of the three members of the subcom- 
mittee who signed the report. 

The Chairman. Please name them. 

Mr. Chadwick. Hennings, Hayden, and Hendrickson. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Chadwick. I have in my hand an original telegram addressed 
to Senator Joseph McCarthy which was produced at my request this 
morning by his attorneys and delivered pursuant to an informal call, 
and I understand — Mr. Williams is listening — that he is willing to 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 47 

enter into a stipulation that this telegram shall be read into evidence 
at this time. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Will you speak louder, Mr, Williams, for the 
record. . 

Mr. Williams. My microphone is dead, Mr. Chairman. That is 
why you can't hear me. Yes, I have agreed that that telegram may be 
read into the record as authentic and as having been received on the 
day which it purports to have been received on. 

Mr. Chadwick. Thank you, sir. Reading the telegraphic script at 
the top, it is an instrument with the number MA820M.WA237 Long 
Govt, NLPW — Washington, D. C, 21, Senator Joseph McCarthy, 
Appleton, Wis. : 

Today you were advised by letter delivered by hand to your oflace of the prin- 
cipal matters which the subcommittee desires to interrogate you in furtherance 
of your express desire transmitted to the committee by your administrative 
assistant that — 

and a false letter — 

Mr. Ray Kiermans under date of November 10. The subcommittee appreci- 
ates your willingness to help in the completion of the work in connection with the 
Investigation of Resolution 187 and the investigations predicated thereon. Your 
prompt appearance before the subcommittee can save the Government much 
effort and expense. We are sure that you want to be of help to us in arriving 
at a proper determination of the issues in controversy. We are, therefore, at 
your disposal in executive session and for your convenience suggest that the 
subcommittee is available to you commencing with tomorrow, Saturday, No- 
vember 22, but not later than Tuesday the 25th, to enable the subcommittee to 
hear you and allow time thereafter to prepare the subcommittee report. 

Senator Benton has also been notified to appear by similar communication. 
This action is being taken at the direction and with the full concurrence of the 
committee members. 

There is a typed signature to the telegram, the customary form, 
"Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., chairman, Senate Subcommittee 
on Privileges and Elections," and final typed memorandum is not sig- 
nificant to me," 187 22 25." 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. I should like to ask counsel whether there is any 
notation or identification on the telegram to indicate the date of its 
delivery. 

Mr. Chadwick. The Senator no doubt heard the date, which is the 
21st. 

Senator Case. That is the date of the transmission. 

Mr. Chadwick. That is true, sir. 

Senator Case. Is there any stamping or other indication on the 
telegram to indicate the time of its delivery ? 

Mr. Chadw^ick. Senator, I have already read, without asserting 
the significance, from the telegram "187 22 25." I do not think that 
answers your question. 

However, at the head of the telegram in purple ink by stamp ap- 
pears the following matter : "1952 November 22 A. M. 8 12." 

Senator Case. May I see the telegram, please? 

Mr. Chadwick. Yes. 

Mr. Chairman, it appears to me that the stamping in reddish purple 
ink reads "1952, November 22, A. M. 8 : 12." 



48 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

In the black stamp at the top of the telegram is "Rec'd December 1, 
1952." 

The Chairman. Since there has been a stipulation with respect to 
this telegram, I direct an inquiry to Mr. Williams: Do you have any 
data which would help us identify the date on which it was delivered 
or received by Senator McCarthy ? 

Mr. Williams. I have not at this time, sir. I was just asked about 
the telegram last night at 11 : 30, and I ferreted it out of the files so 
that Mr. Chadwick might have it this moi'iiing. 

I have not consulted with Senator McCarthy as to his recollection 
as to when it was received, so I cannot help the committee at this time, 
but I will be glad to consult with him further this morning. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I would like — pardon. 

]Mr. Williams. I will direct his attention to this telegram, and ask 
him if he has an independent recollection on this subject. 

The Chairman. I assume that the exact date of the delivery of the 
telegram is not too important ; at least, it was delivered, because it was 
produced by Senator McCarthy. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, there is some significance in the de- 
livery date of the telegram. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

I am advised by the operator of the amplifying equipment that only 
two microphones can be on at a time, and if you will wait until I indi- 
cate who is to speak then he will turn on the microphone for that 
particular one. 

This amplifying system is not working any too well, so we have to 
watch that, otherwise you may speak into a dead microphone. 

Now, proceed. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. ]Mr. Chairman, the significance of the delivery dates 
of the telegrams is this : That it was ai:)parent on reading exhilDit No. 
42, as it appears in the so-called H-H-H Report that the telegi-am 
which appears in the print of the committee report as exhibit No. 42 
was incorrectly placed, if it was sent, because it follows the letter of 
November 21, and the telegram that appears in tlie print invites 
Senator McCarthy to appear before the committee on November 20. 

That obviously was in error, in some date or something of that sort, 
so, in endeavoring to run that down, it appeared to me, that the tele- 
gram, which shows as exhibit No. 42, if sent, should have been sent on 
the 14th of November, because the first sentence of it refers to "having 
received the reply of your administrative assistant received today," 
and the letter of November 21, 1952, recites that on November 14, 1952, 
the subcommittee received the following communication, which was 
the letter from Senator McCarthy's assistant. 

Consequently, I suggested to counsel yesterday, after noting this, 
that there must have been some other wire that was referred to in the 
letter whicli appears as exhibit No. 44, by Senator IMcCarthy, dated 
November 28, wdiich is not yet read for the record, but when it is it 
will be noted that it says : 

I just received your wire of November 22 in which you state you would like 
to have me appear before your committee between November 22 and 2."). 

Obviously, if he just received it on the 28th of November, he could 
not have appeared before the committee sometime between November 
22 and 25. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 49 

I was wanting to determine if the telegram did show the receipt on 
that date or a prior date. All I know is that from the stamping of 
the telegram — there are two stampings to which attention has previ- 
ously been called — in the reddish purple ink, of November 22, a. m. 
8 : 12. That may have been the time that the telegram was received 
by the Western Union. But above in black ink is stamped "received 
December 1, 1952," so maybe that does not shed too much light, but it 
seems to me it would be 

The Chairman. It may possibly be cleared up when the other 
exhibits are placed in the record. At any rate, this exhibit will now 
be received in tlie record. 

Mr. Williams. May I see that exhibit, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairmax. You may, sir. 

You may proceed, Mr. ChadAvick. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I refer to exhibit No. 44, in the se- 
quence of exhibits, which we are reading. This is a letter signed by 
Senator McCarthy, and addressed to Senator Thomas C. Hennings, 
Jr., chairman, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, Senate 
Office Building, Washington, D. C, and is dated November 28, 1952. 
It reads as follows : 

Senator Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, 
Senate Office Building , Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Hennings : I just received yoiir wire of November 22 in which 
you state you would like to have me appear before your committee between 
November 22 aud 25. 

As you were informed by my office prior to the time you sent this wire, I was 
not expected to return to Washington until Tliursday, November 27, on which 
date I did return. 

Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCarthy. 

Mr. AViLLiAMS. That is' also signed. 

Mr. Chadwick. Yes, it is signed by Senator Joe McCarthy. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, obviously, if he did not receive the 
wire until after the date that he was asked to appear he could not 
be in contempt for failing to respond to it. 

That was my only purpose in bringing out the significance of the 
date there. 

I thinlv it should be determined when the telegram was received 
It makes quite a bit of difference. He did not have the physical 
opportunity to appear on the suggestion. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Chadwick. I desire to make this statement in fairness to all 
parties particularly because the exhibits from which we are quoting 
are available in public form. 

There was among the number an exhibit No. 42 which was also a 
Western Union telegram. It was a telegram from Senator Thomas C. 
Hennings addressed to Senator McCarthy at three different addresses. 

We have made the most careful possible investigation, Mr. Chair- 
man, and we cannot convince ourselves that that telegram was neces- 
sarily sent; neither do we wish to be understood as stating that it 
was not, but we are not presently in position to establish that it was 
sent. 

We also think that a date which would have attached to that tele- 
gram, if it had been sent, was probably the 14th of 1952. 



50 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. The 14th of what month ? 

Mr. CiiADwiCK. The 14th of November. 

Mr. Williams. I want to say this, if I may, Mr. Chairman. 

Last night when Mr. Chadwick called me he asked me to produce 
the telegram which I have in fact produced this morning here. 

At tliat time he told me that there was some doubt as to the au- 
thenticity of the telegram which appeared in the report over Senators 
Hennings', Hendrickson's, et cetera's signatures, in other words, he 
had some doubt as he just expressed as to whether that telegram was 
in fact ever sent. Of course, it is significant that bears no date as 
is shown in the report itself. 

I have combed Senator McCarthy's files this morning in an effort 
to supply this. 

I want to tell you this, Mr. Chadwick, so that you will have further 
light on this subject, I find no copy of such a document as appears in 
this report here, so that your conviction as expressed to me that this 
telegram was probably never sent is certainly supported by our 
search of the files. 

Mr. Chadwick. Do I understand that you said to me that you 
have no original, or, in other words, telegraphic copy of the telegram? 

Mr. WiLLiABis. That is right. 

Senator Case. Assistant counsel is sitting at my left, and he has a 
folder here which I understand is a folder from the files of the so- 
called Hennings committee. And in it appears a typewritten draft 
of a telegram which is identical in wording to the purported exhibit 
No. 42 in the Hennings report. 

There are an original and four copies of that telegram. And on 
the face of the original is written in pencil the words "not sent." 

I think that would confirm the fact that probably it has not been 
sent. This is from the stapled files here from the Hennings com- 
mittee. 

If the record is to be accurate, it seems to me that it ought not to 
be suggested that the telegram, or what purports to be a telegram, 
which is exhibit No. 42 in the Hennings report — it ought not to be 
indicated that it ever was sent unless there is some evidence that it 
was. 

The Chairman. The record at the moment, as I understand it, says 
that there was doubt as to whether it was ever sent or not, and I assume 
that from the standpoint of the evidential v;alue, it would be considered 
that it was not sent. 

Mr. Chadwick. My phraseology on that was dictated by a sense of 
precaution. This is a carefully prepared telegram, and it does con- 
tain in notation the words "not sent," which I thougkt was strong 
evidence that this telegi'am could not be sent. But I could not affirm 
that another telegram of substantially the same phraseology or even 
this same phraseology had not been sent, and we desire to be allowed 
to continue our investigations on it so that we may have the final proof. 

Mr. Williams, may I borrow back the telegram which I redelivered 
to you ? 

The Chairman. That would be in the record, and would be one of 
the exhibits. So it belongs in the committee files now. 

Mr. Chadwick. I desire to offer in evidence and have marked by the 
stenographer as "Committee Exhibit No. 1" the telegram which has 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 51 

been read, being a telegi-am dated Washington, 21st, addressed to Sen- 
ator McCarthy, and signed by Senator Gillette. 

Mi\ Williams. What date was that again, Mr. Chadwick? 

Mr. Chadwick. It is the telegram which contains the word "21," and 
underneath it, 1952, November 22, a. m. 8 : 12. 

Mr. Williams. And would you read to me again the date on which 
that purports to have been received ? 

Mr. Chadwick. It contains at the top, by stamp, Received, Decem- 
ber 1, 1952, and for further identification, it contains figures and 
initials which are no doubt telegraphic detail which we cannot explain, 
31381, SVC. 

Mr. Williams. Now, do I understand that that telegram is being 
offered in lieu of the one which appears on page 99 of what we will 
call the Hendrickson, Hennings, Hayden report of exhibit No. 42? 

Mr. Chadavick. I cannot confirm the "in lieu of." It is offered as a 
telegram in the exchange of correspondence which has been heretofore 
read. We did not offer or read the exhibit No. 42, which is tlie tele- 
gram referred to by Senator Case and which contains on its face in 
pencil the statement, "Not sent." 

The Chairman. Counsel advised the chairman that that is the 
telegram, Mr. Williams, that was read. 

It will be received in evidence as a part of the committee files. 

(The telegram referred to was marked "Committee Exhibit No. 1" 
and will be found in the files of the committee.) 

The Chairman. We will pause in the deliberations here for a few 
moments so that one of the exhibits may be examined. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I will proceed with the reading of 
exibit No. 45, on the letterhead of the United States Senate. It is 
dated December 1, 1952. It is addressed to Senator Thomas C. Hen- 
nings, Jr., chairman of the Committee on Privileges and Elections, and 
it is signed at the end, "Sincerely yours, Joe McCarthy." 

Dear Mr. Hennings : This is to acIi:nowledge receipt of yours of November 21 
in which you state that your object is to reach an "impartial and proper conclu- 
sion based upon the facts" in the Benton application, which asks for my removal 
from the Senate. 

I was interested in your declaration of honesty of the committee and would 
like to believe that it is true. As you know, your committee has the most unusual 
record of any committee in the history of the Senate. As you know two members 
of your staff have resigned and made the public statement that their reason for 
resignation was that your committee was dishonestly used for political purposes. 
Two Senators have also resigned. One, Senator Welker, in the strongest possible 
language indicted your committee for complete dishonesty in handling your 
investigation. Senator Gillette also resigned without giving any plausible reason 
for his resignation from the committee. Obviously, he also couldn't stomach the 
dishonest use of public funds for political purposes. For that reason it is diffi- 
cult for me to believe your protestations of the honesty of your committee. 

I would, therefore, ordinarily not dignify your committee by answering your 
letter of November 21. However, I decided to give you no excuse to claim in 
your report that I refused to give you any facts. For that reason you are being 
informed that the answer to the six insulting questions in your letter of November 
21 is "No." You understand that in answering these questions I do not in any 
way approve of nor admit the false statements and innuendoes made in the 
questions. 

I note with some interest your reference to my "activities on behalf of certain 
special interest gi-oups, such as housing, sugar, and China." I assume you 
refer to my drafting of the comprehensive Housing Act of 1946 which was passed 
without a single dissenting vote in the Senate, either Democrat or Republican. 
Neither you nor any other Senator has attempted to repeal any part of that 
Housing Act. Or perhaps you refer to the slum-clearance bill which I drafted 



52 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

and intvoduced in 1048, which slum-clearance bill was adopted in toto by the 
Democrat-controlled Senate in 1949. 

When you refer to sugar, I assume you refer to my efforts to do away with 
your party's rationing of sugar, as I promised the housewives I would during 
my 1946 campaign. If that were wrong, I wonder why you have not introduced 
legislation in the Democrat-controlled Senate to restore sugar rationing. You 
have liad 2 years to do so. 

I thought perl)aps the election might have taught you that your boss and mine — 
the American people — do not approve of treason and incompetence and feel that 
it must be exposed. 

You refer to the above as "special interests." I personally feel very proud 
of having drafted the Housing Act in 1948 which passed the Congress without a 
single dissenting vote — a Housing Act which contributed so much toward making 
it possible for veterans and all Americans in the middle- and low-income groups 
to own their own home. Likewise, I am proud of having been able to fulHll 
my promise to American housewives to obtain the derationing of sugar. I proved 
at the time that rationing was not for the benefit of the housewives but for the 
commercial users. 

I likewise am doubly proud of the part I played in alerting the American 
people to your administration's traitorous betrayal of American interests through- 
out the world, especially in China and Poland. 

You refer to such activities on my part as "activities for special interests." I 
am ciirious to know what "special interests" you mean other than the special 
interest of the American people. 

This letter is not written with any hope of getting an honest report from your 
committee. It is being written merely to keep the record straight. 
Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCarthy. 

With initials. 

That, sir, completes the record of the exhibits of letters in connec- 
tion with the presentation of onr point I. 

The Chairmajst. Now, Mr. Chaclwick, have you proceeded to ex- 
amine the Congressional Record with reference to further matters 
pertaining to the subject or the incident referred to in category I ? 

Mr. Chadwick. We have, sir, and I request the committee to take 
judicial notice of the Congressional Record, Senate, August 2, 1954, 
page 12318, with the following quotations : 

Mr. Hennings. He was invited 5 times, but did not appear before the sub- 
committee upon any occasion except 1, and that was in order to testify with 
respect to a resolution which the junior Senator from Wisconsin himself had 
introduced in order to investigate another Senator, former Senator Benton of 
Connecticut. 

That is evidence that Senator IMcCarthy had not appeared in reply 
to the invitations which have been read. 
Similarly, I asked the committee- 



The Chairman. You may proceed to read- 



INIr. Chadwick. To read from the Congressional Record ? 

The CiiAiRMAx. We will take judicial notice of the Congressional 
Record of the quotations you have read. Give the date and the jxige. 

Mr. Chadwick. From the Congressional Record of the Senate, 
August 2, 1951, at page 12331. 

JNIr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I do not want my silence on this to 
be construed as an acquiescence to the general principle that excerpts 
can be taken from the record of Congress, statements made on the floor 
of the Senate by any other Senator, and introduced in this record as 
competent evidence ; we have not objected to the particular statement 
involved because we feel that it is not prejudicial in any way. 

But I do not want my silence to be construed as an acquiescence of 
the evidentiary principle. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 53 

Mr. Chadwick. In the interests of fairness 



The Chairman. Have you given tlie date and page ? 

Mr. Chadwick. I did, sir. 

I desire to say tliis is read on our part in the interest of fairness 
and accuracy for the purpose of ])utting into tlie record Senator 
McCarthy's statement on the subject of the Lustron matter, lest it 
appear or be thought that he made no reply to the matter in any 
particular. 

The Chairman. You may read it. 

Mr. Chadwick (reading) : 

Mr. McCarthy. So many misstatements have been made about the Lustron 
matter, that I wonder whether the Senator from Idaho would like to have me give 
him the facts in that case, if I may. 

I had been writing, and I wrote, the Housing Act of 1948. I took up with the 
special House committee the question on whether we should do something to try 
to bring to the attention of the young veterans the various aids which Congress 
had provided for them. The committee did not manifest any enthusiasm in 
response to my suggestion. 

I then wrote, with the aid of some very able AVashington newsmen, what I 
thought was a complete, thorough dissertation on what aids were available and 
liow they could be obtained. 

Incidentally, I offered it to some of the magazines which today are screaming 
about this matter. I offered it to them free of charge if they would publish it. 
But they did not. I received offers from various corporations in the housing 
business, who wanted to publish it. Lustron made what I thought was the best 
offer at the time. Of course, later on Lustron went bankrupt. The Lustron offer 
was 10 cents a copy for the first 100,000 copies, and 5 cents a copy for each suc- 
ceeding copy. The testimony of the head of Lustron Corp., when he appeared 
before the Banking and Currency Committee, was, as I recall, that that was one 
of the few projects upon which they made money. They lost money and went 
bankrupt on the others. But they made some money on that, at the rate of 10 
cents a copy. 

I may say that if I were embarrassed at all regarding the Lustron deal, it 
would be because my efforts were worth only 10 cents a copy. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the matters to which I and the staff 
presently desire to call the attention of the committee on point No. 1 of 
the matters which came under the notice which you gave. 

With your consent, my associate will proceed with the presentation 
of the matters under point No. 4. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Before we leave category No. 1 of the charges I 
would like to call certain facts to the attention of the committee which 
I think cast grave doubt on the relevancy, materiality of all of this 
evidence. 

Of course, I do not propose to speak in the face of your ruling of 
yesterday that I should submit a legal brief on the law. I do not pro- 
pose to discuss the law at all. 

I propose to discuss certain facts which are now of record which cast 
grave doubt on the materiality of everything that has been offered. 

The Benton resolution, which was Resolution No. 187, introduced 
in the 82d Congress calls, as I understand it, for an investigation of 
Senator McCarthy looking toward his expulsion from the Senate. 

The significant thing about that resolution is that it was never passed 
by the Senate. 

I Avill stand on this statement, this is the first time in the history of 
the United States when a resolution looking toward the expulsion of 
a United States Senator was passed authorizing hearings without a 



54 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

vote by the Senate. I use tlie term "passed." It was never passed. It 
was simply referred to the Rules Connnittee, and the Rules Committee 
in turn referred it to the Subcommittee of the Committee on Rules and 
Administration. That is significant. 

The second significant thing about this resolution which in my 
opinion invalidates the whole proceeding pursuant thereto is this, that 
nowhere contained in that purported resolution, which was never acted 
upon by the United States Senate, but which nevertheless calls for a 
hearing looking toward the expulsion of a Senator, in an unprece- 
dented form — that resolution contained no allegations, no charges, no 
averments of any kind against Senator McCarthy as it was in its 
original form. 

So unconscionable did the Senate of the 83d Congress think it was, 
that a resolution even calling for censure of another Senator did not 
have specifications, allegations, and averments, that it voted 75 to 12, 
to require the filing of specifications and averments, and the reference 
of those specifications to this committee. 

That was the way the 83d Congress deported itself, because it 
followed all of the precedents of the Senate. 

The other sigiiificant thing about this resolution as it now appears 
of record, first of all, it was never passed by the Senate; secondly, 
it had no allegations or specifications against Senator McCarthy, 
The other significant thing is that the resolution specifically author- 
izes the committee to investigate Senator McCarthy from the time 
of his election to the Senate in 1946, and I dare say that 40 percent 
of the report of which this committee can take judicial notice, as 
I understand its rules, pertains to matters that antedated his election 
to tlie Senate, because this committee as evidenced by its own report 
conducted a cradle-to-1952 investigation of Senator McCarthy. 

Many of the matters referred to in the report go back so far as 
6, 8 years before his election to the Senate. 

Therefore, the committee in its report as evidenced by the very 
record which has been referred to here this morning w^as acting 
outside of the scope of its authority from its first day. 

Another thing was this, that it is evident now from the record 
as introduced here this morning. Senator McCarthy, as the record 
indicates, requested the right in the expulsion proceeding which 
Senator Benton had initiated to appear in the hearing and confront 
his accusers and cross-examine them. 

Again I say that the history of the Senate shows tliat a proceeding 
looking toward censure and expulsion is a judicial proceeding. The 
prececlents are so numerous that I will not bore this committee by 
alluding to tliem, but everything that has ever been written about 
article I, section 5, of the Constitution, every authority who has ever 
written a single line about it, has said that a proceeding thereunder 
is a judicial proceeding, and the minimum safeguards that adhere 
to any accused in any judicial proceeding adhere to the defendant 
in an expulsion or censure proceeding. And those minimal safe- 
guards that adhere to any judicial function are the right to be 
apprised of the charges against the accused and the right to face his 
accusers, and to cross-examine them, to test their credibility in the 
crucible of cross-examination. 

I want to point out that from the very record that has been intro- 
duced in this proceeding over the past 2 days it is evident, No. 1, 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 55 

that there was no authority from the Senate for the conduct of the 
hearings at the start. 

No. 2, there was no specification of charges. 

No. 3, there was a denial of the right to cross-examine by the Gil- 
lette committee, so that the committee was operating in an unprece- 
dented manner that flouted every case that ever had been decided by 
the United States Senate from 1792. 

Furthermore, the resolution clearly, unequivocally, and unmis- 
takably states that they are authorized only to expend funds to inves- 
tigate Senator McCarthy from the date of his election. And yet the 
report, the so-called Hennings, Henclrickson, and Hayden report, 
shows, from even a cursory reading, that the committee was con- 
cerned with things far, far outside the scope of its resolution ; so that 
if the statement were made that that committee was acting in an 
unauthorized way and that it was expending funds of taxpayers in an 
unauthorized fashion, that statement, by the very record that is before 
us, was true, and true in all respects. 

JFurthermore, from even a cursory reading of this proceeding, it 
is clear that although Senator Benton 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Williams. You referred to 
that report a number of times ; and since you have been and are con- 
sidering it as a base, I think probably we will consider the matter of 
having the whole report made a part of the record. 

Mr. Williams. The part that I am alluding to, sir 

The Chairman. Is the report on S. 183 of the 82d Congress, as I 
recall. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Now, may I say this : Although there are no charges, and although 
there were no specifications, and although there was not a single alle- 
gation against Senator McCarthy in the original resolution looking 
toward his expulsion, Senator Benton did appear before the Hayden- 
Gillette committee — I believe he appeared on September 28, of 1951, 
if my memory serves me — and he did in fact outline 10 cases on 
Senator McCarthy to that committee. 

The significant thing about the report is that on all the sworn 
evidence that that connnittee heard only four pages of this volume 
are devoted to it. The rest of this volume that I hold in my hand, 
A\hich is the Hayden report, the Hennings report, and the Hendrick- 
son report, if you will, is devoted to unsworn hearsay statements, 
never taken under oath, of staff investigators. That was the kind of 
judicial proceeding that that committee conducted, looking toward 
the expulsion of a United States Senator. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams 

Mr. Williams. And it is our position, sir- 



The Chairman. JiLst a moment, Mr. Williams. 

I do not mind giving you the time to make the statement, but we 
are not trying over again the matters that were set forth in the so-called 
Hayden report and Senate Resolution 187. I stated at the outset that 
we were not concerned with whether those charges contained in that 
resolution were true or false. The matter we were conducting our 
investigation on is the charge of contempt w^ith respect to the Senate 
committee; whether it made any report or not or w^hether the Senate 
had done anyhing about it is not at issue here. 



56 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

But I call 3^oiir attention also — if I can comment on that while you 
are at it — the Senate did pass without a dissenting vote on April 8, 
1952, Senate Resolution 300, which, in effect, as we construe it, con- 
firmed and approved the activities of the committee to that point, and 
also confirmed the jurisdiction. 

INIr. Williams. My point is this, INIr. Chairman 

The Chairman. And that, as I understand, was submitted for the 
very purpose of testino- out the things we have just been talking about, 
and the committee takes judicial knowledge of the fact the Senate 
by a unanimous vote has in effect apparently passed upon what you 
were talking on. 

Mr. Williams. Let us assume that that, sir, is in all respects cor- 
rect. If you can concede that the Senate's action on the date which 
you just recited was a retroactive authority to this committee, none- 
theless it does not give the committee wider authority than the Benton 
resolution originally gave it, and the Benton resolution originally 
authorized an investigation of Senator McCarthy only from the time 
that he was a Senator, whereas the report shows that this committee 
was concerned with matters that antedated by 6 to 8 years his senatorial 
career. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question : As I recall, much 
of the investigation — now that is not in evidence yet, and, of course, 
you are talking about something that is not even in evidence, that 
report — but as I recall, there were quite a large number of matters 
mentioned in that same report with respect to which the connnittee 
investigated that postdated the election of Senator McCarthy in 1946. 

Mr. Williams. May I have just a minute, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. Chairman, if I may conclude my thought, the vote on the Senate 
floor, which I understand was 60 to nothing, can in no way as I under- 
stand it be construed as a ratification of what the committee had 
theretofore done. 

It may have been a ratification of the original resolution under 
which they purported to operate, but I direct your attention, sir, to 
the fact that the original resolution carefully delimits and delineates 
the scope of the investigation whicli the committee far, far exceeded. 

The CiTAiRiNiAN. Well, of course the resolution itself is in the record, 
and that will be considered by the committee in going over the evidence 
which is submitted. It was placed in the record, and I indicated at 
the beginning, it was done so Avhether it helped or hurt. 

Mr. AViLLiAMS. Yes, sir; that is why we want all the facts to come 
out, too. 

The Chairman. They are in the record, sir. 

Mr. Williams. The sole purpose of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, 
was to call the connnittee's attention to all of this evidence, because 
I feel, whetlier or not the committee was operating validly or in- 
validly, within or without the scope of its authority, has a gi*eat 
deal to do with the relevancy and germaneness of wlmt has been 
offered lieretofore, and my only purpose in calling these facts to the 
attention of the committee in this way was to show as best I could 
in a very cursory way the fact that this whole proceeding was invalid, 
sir, because it contravened all the precedents of the Senate. 

They conducted a judicial proceeding with unsworn testimony. 
They included in the recoi'd things on which they had no evidence. 
The}' ])ut in the record reports, hearsay reports of staff reporters, and 



HEARESIGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 57 

I say that 48 out of 52 pages of the report are wholly and exclusively 
predicated upon unsworn hearsay evidence. 

No witness appeared before that committee to support 48 pages 
of findings out of 52 pages of findings. The only testimony that is 
supported by sworn testimony is the testimony on four pages which 
Senator Benton himself gave, so I say, sir, that never in the history 
of the United States Senate has an expulsion proceeding been con- 
ducted without any charges, without any right to cross-examine, out- 
side the scope of the delineated authority, and finally on unsworn 
hearsay reports of staff investigators, never taken either in executive 
session or in open session. 

The Chairman. Well, that may be one of the matters the Senate 
will want to consider, but of course we have the record. Whether it 
finally shows actions constituting contempt in other matters that are 
being charged or not, that is one of those things we will bring to the 
attention of the Senate, and we bring in that testimony because this 
is the means the Senate adopted for getting all the information so that 
it can decide that very question. 

Now I call your attention, so that the record will be complete on 
this matter, not necessarily because it is needed but I think it ought to 
be referred to, to this; the last part of the so-called Benton resolu- 
tion, Senate Resolution 187, has this to say, and I start on line 4 on 
page 4 of the print that was before the Congress : 

and to make such further investigation with respect to the participation of 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the 1950 senatorial campaign of Senator J'olin 
Marshall Butler, and such investigation with respect to his other acts since his 
election to the Senate, as may be appropriate to enable such committee to 
determine whether or not it should initiate action with a view toward expul- 
sion from the United States Senate of the said Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. 

Now that is rather a blanket charge to make some investigations to 
say whether or not there should be charges filed. That is a far differ- 
ent matter than what you have been talking about. 

And may I say that no matter how weak the case may have been — 
and I am not saying it was because I am not passing judgment on 
that — still the fact that a Senate committee was considering it, and 
through a series of letters and telegrams was attempting, to get Sena- 
tor McCarthy there, and through a series of answers and letters to that 
committee he said some things with respect to the committee, whether 
they were right or wrong in what they were actually doing, which 
the Senate has felt of sufficient importance to refer to us to investigate 
at least. 

Mr. Williams. I want to say, sir, that that blanket charge doesn't 
stretch so far as to cover 1944, though. Blanket as it is, it goes only 
back to 1947. 

The Chairman. Well, we are not considering the matters in that 
at all. We are only considering the conduct, and that is the 
ground of the charge, his conduct with respect to a duly constituted 
committee. 

Whether they had a faulty resolution, whether they had one that 
didn't say anything much at all, or not, so far as I can see now is 
wholly immaterial. 

What is material is his conduct with respect to that committee and 
its activities. 



58 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. May the record show also, Mr. Chairman — and I 
don't mean to press this matter — I do have, as I explained yesterday, 
another motion on this particular subject. 

The Chairman. At the proper time we will consider that, be- 
cause we liave had a very short time to prepare this matter, and 
before we finally conclude the presentation of what evidence we have 
been able to gather, we will check again, and if there are any loose 
ends, why we want to take care of them. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. I should like to determine, if I could, the position 
of counsel on one point. 

The Chairman. You are addressing your remarks now to Mr. 
Williams? 

Senator Case. Yes. 

Mr. Williams, is it your position that the acts or attitude of Sen- 
ator McCarthy toward the Hennings committee, if contemptuous in 
nature, were not actually in contempt, because his committee was pur- 
suing a course of inquiry which was outside the scope or authority of 
his committee? 

]Mr. Williams. It is my position, sir, that you cannot be in con- 
tempt of a body, be it judicial or legislative, which is acting without 
authority, and it is mv position that when this particular body under- 
took to do something which nobody authorized it to do, not even the 
one man who proposed the investigation authorized it to do, nor tried 
to authorize it to do, it became a body which was acting in an un- 
authorized, illegal manner, and that, therefore, it is impossible that 
anyone could be contumacious in relationship to it in the legal sense. 

Now, I want to say this to the Senator, in final answer to your 
question : It is significant, sir, tliat while this committee said clearly 
in its report that it had the right to subpena Senator McCarthy, 
and tliat he was subject to the mandate of a subpena, it, for reasons 
satisfactory to itself but never explained to others, did not see fit to 
subpena him; it simply invited him. 

Now, when you take Senator McCarthy's declination of the invita- 
tion to that committee, against the backdrop of the performance of the 
committee, I think we begin to see this case in proper perspective, be- 
cause it is our position that the committee was unauthorized in its 
scope of operations, that it was deporting itself in a manner which 
was at war with all the precedents of the Senate by not taking testi- 
mony under oath on the charges or on any matters, but rather by tak- 
ing hearsay, unsworn reports of staff investigators, and including 
them in a document which purports to be findings of facts in a judicial 
proceeding. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case (continuing). I merely suggest that counsel for the 
committee, and I also suggest that counsel for Senator McCarthy, 
examine the record of the Senate a few days prior to the recent recess, 
in whicli Senator JNIcCarthy presented the case of contempt against 
Corliss Lamont for, I think, the somewhat similar issue was involved 
there. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 59 

The Lamont claim was that the investigating committee was seeking 
to interrogate him, Lamont, on things outside the scope of the re- 
sponsibility of the committee. 

I think some statements that were made there, the presentations 
that were made, would be useful to both our counsel and to counsel 
for Senator McCarthy. 

The Chairman. You have in mind that it may throw some light on 
the legal reasons and legal grounds underlying this matter, Senator ? 

Senator Case. I am sorry, I did not hear that. 

The Chairman. I say, do you have in mind that the Lamont matter 
may throw some light on the legal situation with respect to the matter 
we are now investigating? 

Senator Case. Well, that precise issue of whether or not the person 
could be in contempt of a committee if the committee sought to inquire 
outside the specific authority of the committee for the specific matter 
referred to it, w\as an issue that was discussed in the Lamont case when 
it was presented to the Senate a couple of weeks ago. 

The Chairman. And the Senate, I think, adopted the resolution, 
did it not? 

Senator Case. The Senate did adopt the resolution. 

Mr. Williams. To send it to the grand ]nry, and I understand the 
case went to the grand jury, and the grand jury will pass, I assume, 
on the prima facie validity of the connnittee which heard the evidence. 

Senator Case. Of course, there are some other angles to this matter 
of contempt here, the dating of this, the invitations to appear here, 
that had been read into the record this morning, all were subsequent 
to the adoption of Senate Resolution 300 by the Senate in wdiich it, 
in effect, continued the committee and refused to withdraw the Sen- 
ate Resolution 187. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I call your attention to the fact that much 
of the evidence that was introduced yesterday antedated that, of 
course, and the evidence that was introduced this morning in some 
cases postdated that period. But I again call your attention. Senator, 
to this fact: That all the resolution that was proposed and passed, 
60 to nothing, did was to reaffirm the delineated jurisdiction of the 
subcommittee which had been laid out in the original Benton resolu- 
tion. It did not expand it and, of course, the committee had trans- 
gressed and continued to transgress its jurisdiction both procedurally 
and substantively, procedurally in refusing to conduct a judicial pro- 
ceeding such as this committee is doing, and such as the Senate did 
in this case. 

The Chairman. You are arguing the law on it now, Mr. Williams. 
I call your attention also, so that we will have this in the record, to the 
fact that much of the testimony — I think I skimmed over the report, 
and I have it in mind — considerable testimony related to matters that 
postdate the election of Senator McCarthy and his induction into the 
Senate of the United States in 1947. 

Mr. Williams. None of it was based on sworn testimony. 

The Chairman. That is another matter. 

We are talking about No. 1 now. Let us stick with that one. We 
are talking about the matter of whether there was any material before 
the committee concerning a matter that happened after his induction 
into the United States Senate in 1947. 

52461 — 54 5 



60 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Now the committee takes the position, as I have indicated before, 
that it is our duty to cjet all of this evidence, no matter who it helps 
or hurts, but I do want to point out to you that we are not just out on a 
wikl-o:oose chase on this matter — we are bringing it all in. And in 
the opinion of our staff and the members of the committee, there was 
sufficient matter before that committee that postdated the induction 
into office of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1947 that probably it could 
not be argued that it was not there at all. So that even if there was 
only one item, it might have some bearing on the argument you have 
just been making. 

Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Williams has made a 
very important point here. 

He is, in effect, arguing for the exclusion of this testimony on the 
ground that it does not state a case. 

As I understand your argument, it is that this so-called Hayden 
subcommittee was totally lacking in authority and had no legal status, 
and therefore could not legally call Senator McCarthy or anyone else 
before it. 

Tliat goes to the question of whether or not it was facto or de jure 
or, just what status do you argue for? 

Mr. Williams. My feeling on that is dual, Senator, if I may. In- 
sofar as the Benton resolution was concerned, which is Senate Resolu- 
tion No. 187, it was never passed upon by the Senate, as the record 
will show. 

It is the first time that there was an expulsion hearino: in the Senate 
without authority from the Senate, which is against all of the prece- 
dents of the Senate. 

Secondly, substantively thereby the jurisdiction was not vested. 

Then they voided themselves in the matter, which was against all 
precedents of the Senate, by not having charges specified to them for 
hearing such as this committee has done. This committee has charges 
before it. 

The 83d Congress was careful to document the resolution under 
which this committee is operating. That was not so in the Benton 
case. 

Thirdly, they denied, refused in that the right to confront and 
cross-examine the accused. 

Senator Stennis. Pardon me, I remember those points, but your 
conclusion is, then, that they were without le^al authority to proceed? 

Mr. WiLT-iAMs. They were without legal authority to proceed as 
they started their original investigation, their hearings. 

Senator Stennis. Therefore, it did not actually constitute a legal 
arm of the Senate ? 

Mr. Williams. Not for the purposes of hearing evidence on an 
expulsion case. 

I do not, of course, contest the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee of 
Privileges and Elections as a valid committee of the Senate, but I say 
in this mission they were outside the scope of their authority of that, 
therefore, they did not constitute a valid arm of the Senate. 

Senator Stennis. And could not legally proceed in your case? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

Senator Stennis. Thank you. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 61 

Senator Case. I would affain sug'gest that counsel both for the 
committee and for Senator McCarthy examine the La Follette and 
Lang-er cases to \Yhich reference is made on page 71 of the Henninfjs 
report, for there the contention is made that in the case of the old 
Committee on Privileges and Elections, 5 cases had been presented 
to them that were unconnected with an election, and in 3 of those, 
the Smoot, Burton, and Gold cases, the Senate adopted resolutions 
directing an investigation of the charges, but in the other 2 cases, 
those of La Follette and Langer, the petitions and protests of private 
citizens were referred by the presiding ofiicer to the Committee on 
Privileges and Elections, which then conducted investigations with- 
out obtaining resolutions of authorizations from the Senate, 

The contention is there made that on the basis of those precedents 
in the Langer and La Follette cases, the predecessor committee pro- 
ceeded on its own motion by reference of this material to it. 

There is further cited section 184 of the Legislative Reorganiza- 
tion Act. It seems to me that a study of those cases and of the Legis- 
lative Reorganization Act would be helpful in arriving at a proper 
conclusion. 

The Chairmax. Senator Case, I will say that as far as the com- 
mittee staff is concerned, we certainly will direct them to make a full 
investigation of the matters you call attention to. We want to get 
all of the precedents, all of the law matters, the arguments before us, 
so that we can submit them all to the Senate in our report, on both 
sides of the question, if possible. 

Mr. Williams. I might say. Senator Case, that the Langer case 
started out, sir, as an exclusion case, and through a series of procedural 
mechanisms, which would take too long to go into here, it ended up 
on the floor of the Senate as an expulsion case, but I think for a 
number of reasons, neither it nor the La Follette case is germane to 
this particular inquiry. 

But I do not want to burden the committee at this time with a legal 
proposition, and I will cover this in the briefs which I submit to the 
committee. 

The Chairman. I think you gentlemen will find as you investigate 
the records of the Senate that the Senate fixes its own rules from time 
to time, ancl they are not always the same. At least, that is what I 
have found in my investigations. 

And in the particular inquiry we are in now, I think we are plowing 
in, many parts of it, virgin soil. 

You may proceed with the presentation of evidence. 

Mr. Chadwick. In the fourth 

The Chairiman-. In the fourth category. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. de Furia, with your permission, will take that. 

The Cttaiksian. I may say also that in the fourth category, some 
of the material that has been presented heretofore will be considered 
by the connnittee as having some bearing on the fourth charge. 

Mr. de Furia, proceed. 

Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, we call to the attention of the com- 
mittee the 2 specifications, being, 1, the amendment offered by Senator 
Flanders to Senate Resolution 301, reading as follows : 

He has ridiculed his colleagues in the Senate, defaming them publicly and 
in vulgar and base language (regarding Senator Hendrickson— "A living niiraele 
without brains or guts"; on Flanders— "Senil(^-I thiak they should get a man 
with a net and take him to a good, quiet place.") — 



62 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

and also the specification based upon the amendment proposed by 
Senator Morse reading as follows : 

(b) Unfairly aceusod his fellow Senators Gillette, Monroney, Hendrickson, 
Hayden, and Henniugs of improper conduct in carrying out their duties as 
Senators. 

Mr. Chairman, this part of the presentation will be brief. We 
would like to read into the record certain documentary matters and 
then call two witnesses, sir, whose testimony will be relatively brief. 

The Chairman, You may proceed. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. I call to the attention of the committee 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr. Williams. May I see the documentary matter that is being 
introduced, sir ? 

I think that I should have a copy of this material. I do not have 
any idea what he is undertaking to offer, and therefore I cannot talk 
to it. 

Mr. DE Furia. I think that point is well taken, Mr. Chairman. The 
first part of it is a group of letters which we have already offered and 
read into evidence. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. DE Furia. So I take it Mr. Williams' objection does not pertain 
to that, and we will be glad to show" him, sir, immediately what we 
propose to present to the committee, based on the documentary 
evidence. 

Mr. Williams. I make that suggestion because I think we may be 
able to save time if w^e can stipulate to some of these things. 

The Chairjvian. Well, it has been difficult for us to make all the 
contacts necessary in this investigation up to date As counsel knows, 
we have had a very short time, and there have been many other ac- 
tivities, and it has been very difficult to get everything prepared as we 
would have liked to have it. 

However, you may run across considerable evidence before we get 
through that we can't apprise you of in advance, and you probably 
will have some that you won't tell us about until it is presented before 
the committee. 

Mr. DE Furia. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. DE Furia. In connection with the specification of Senator 
Morse, we call the attention of the committee to the letters already 
admitted in evidence from Senator McCarthy, being a letter from 
Senator McCarthy to Senator Gillette, exhibit No. 6, December 6, 
1951; a letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator Gillette, December 
10, 1952, exhibit No. 10 ; a letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator 
Hayden, March 21, 1952, being exhibit No. 13; letter fi'om Senator 
McCarthy to Senator Gillette, May 8, 1952, being exhibit No. 18; 
letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator Gillette, May 11, 1952, be- 
ing exhibit No. 21 ; those exhibit numbers, of course, referring to the 
appropriate exhibit numbers in the H-H-H report. 

Now I would like to inquire, Mr. Chairman, whether Mr. Williams 
has had an opportunity to examine the copy of certain proposed docu- 
mentary evidence which we desire to admit from the Army-McCarthy 
hearings. 

Mr. Williams, I haven't had a chance to examine it, because you 
haven't given it to me. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 63 

Tlie Chairman. You will have a chance to see it before we get 
through with the investigation. The committee will have to proceed. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. It will only take a minute, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. We can't, of course, always give the new testimony 
in advance. There is no rule requiring it. We like to do it as a matter 
of courtesy, but in this particular instance we haven't been able to 
get to it, but we will proceed. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, I ask that there be read into evidence 
that portion of the testimony in the Army-McCarthy hearings, volume 
25, of the transcript on June 2, 1954, before the Special Subcommittee 
on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations, page 
4782, reading as follows : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Flanders in this statement attempts to raise the 
question of religious racial bigotry. I think it is a vicious thing. I read his 
speech. I don't believe he wrote it himself. I think the kindest thing you can 
say about Ralph is that this may be the result of senility. He tries to inject 
religious racial bigotry into this fight to expose Communists. 

We desire to read into the record, Mr. Chairman, another portion of 
the same testimony from the Army-McCarthy hearings, being volume 
24 of June 1, 1954, page 4546, reading as follows : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, this is a statement by the Senator from 
Vermont in the nature of a question. I have been very patient with the Sena- 
tor from Vermont as he has engaged in his diatribes over the past number of 
weeks. I have felt that he is a nice, kind old gentleman. I wondered whether 
this has been a result of senility or viciousness. 

Mr. Chairman, we desire to read into the record another part of the 
same testimony, being volume 32, June 11, 1954, page 6321, reading 
as follows : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have no feud with Mr. 
Flanders. I have said that I thought it was not the result of viciousness but 
perhaps senility that he is making these unfounded attacks. I feel, Mr. Chair- 
man, however, that where any Senator has information of value to this commit- 
tee, that then he should be willing to come before this committee and take the 
oath and be cross-examined. However, as the Chair says, I am merely a witness 
here. The Chair is running the committee, so I will abide by any decision made 
by the Chair obviously. 

At this point we desire to call as a witness Bernard Livingstone, sir. 

Tlie Chairman. Will you raise your right hand and be sworn ? 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony given in the matter pend- 
ing before the committee will be the truth,' the whole truth, and noth- 
ing but the truth, so help you God ? " 

Mr. Livingstone. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF BERNARD LYNN LIVINGSTONE 

The Chairman. You may state your name and your address for the 
purposes of the record. 

Mr. Livingstone. Bernard Lynn Livingstone, 7110 Georgia Street, 
Chevy Chase, Md. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. You are here under subpena served upon you at the 
direction of counsel for the committee; is that correct, sir? 

Mr. Livingstone. That is correct. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. And what is your business or profession, Mr. Liv- 
ingstone? 

Mr. Livingstone. I am a reporter for the Associated Press. 



64 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. DE FuRiA. How long have you been employed by the Associated 
Press, Mr. Livingstone ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I am completing 25 years. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you know Senator McCarthy? 

Mr. Livingstone. I do. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. How long have you known Senator McCarthy — 
known him to recognize and talk to? 

Mr. Livingstone. Casually, upward of 4 or 5 years, I should say. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Did vou attend a press conference called by Senator 
McCarthy on June lia954? 

Mr. Livingstone, Well, those were in the course of the Army hear- 
ings, I understand. I do not think that I attended a press conference. 
J did speak to him, however. 

Mr. DE FuRTA. Did you speak to him alone or in company with other 
reporters ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I spoke to the Senator at the noon recess, approxi- 
mately 12: ?)0, in company with other reporters. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. However, it was not formally a press conference — 
was that the point of your correction ? 

Mr. Livingstone. That is the point I am trjdng to make. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Where did you speak to him on that day, Mr. Living- 
stone ? 

Mr. Livingstone. The Senator was at the witness table — this table 
that I am sitting at, I believe. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. In this room ? 

Mr. Livingstone. In this room. On June 11. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. You say there were other reporters present ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes. The occasion was as the hearings broke up 
for the luncheon recess, a number of reporters, myself included, walked 
over from the press table to the Senator who was sitting at the witness 
table, and asked him if he had any comment to make about a speech 
that Senator Flanders was to deliver on the Senate floor that after- 
noon, I think it was. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Will you give the rest of the conversation and, of 
course, I am particularly inquiring as to whether Senator McCarthy 
made any statement or reference or otherwise ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Yes, we had received advance copies of the text 
of the Senator's speech during the morning. 

Senator McCarthy. Wliich Senator's speech ? 

Mr. DE FuRiA. "Wliich Senator ? 

Mr. Livingstone. Senator Flanders. And we had an opportunity 
to look it over, and I think — I know I did, at least, underline several 
points which appeared to be interesting to me, and when the recess was 
called I walked over, stepped over from the press table to the witness 
table, and handed it to the Senator and asked him if he had any com- 
ment he cared to make on the Senator's speech. 

A few minutes before Senator Flanders himself had walked into 
the committee room and served notice on Senator McCarthy that he 
w^as to make that speech. 

And the Senator looked at it briefly and smiled and said : 

I think they should get a man with a net and take him to a good, quiet place. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, you have quoted the utterance of Senator 
McCarthy ; is that correct, sir ? 
Mr. LivTNGSTONE. I liavB, sir. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 65 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you send that in as part of your story to your 
office? 

Mr. Livingstone. I did. It was very brief. It was sent from 
downstairs in the press room, a matter of three lines, and the time at 
12 : 46 p. m. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that story put on the national wires, containing 
that quote, by the AP ? 

Mr. Livingstone. That was, sir. That was placed in our running 
national trunk story of the day. I don't know, I think the time on the 
original was about 10 minutes after I had sent it in from the press 
room here in the Senate Office Building. 

The Chairman. Does counsel for Senator McCarthy wish to cross- 
examine ? 

Mr. Williams. I just have 1 or 2 questions, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. I want to identify the particular speech, if I may, 
Mr. Livingstone, that you showed to Senator McCarthy. Was that 
the speech in which Senator Flanders spoke about civilization coming 
to an end, in his opinion ? 

He said, as I recall it, that the civilization through which we were 
passing was coming to an end ; that is what identifies the speech in my 
mind. Is that the one to which you have reference ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I mj'Self don't know what was in the speech, 
because the speech itself was made on the floor. 

Mr. Williams. Was it the speech in which he said he drew the 
parallel between Senator McCarthy and Hitler ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I believe it was. 

Mr. Williams. Then that is the speech, I take it 

Mr. Livingstone. That was the speech of June 11. 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

Mr. Livingstone. That is the one you are talking about. 

The Chairman. Is that the only speech the Senator made that 
•day ; do you know ? 

Mr. Williams. That is the only one he made that day. 

Mr. Livingstone. That is the only one. 

The Chairman. Does that identify it for you, Mr. Williams? 

Mr. Livingstone. I think so. 

Mr. Wn^LiAMS. I am trying to fix the context of it, sir, because I 
feel that may have relationship to the remark that was prompted, and 
in trying to fix the context of it, I have to ask him if it was the speech 
in which these things were said. 

Mr. Livingstone. Well, this was the speech in which 

The Chairman. The only thing he has testified to, of course, was 
the remark that Senator McCarthy is supposed to have made. 

Mr. Williams. Did you particularly, Mr. Livingstone, when you 
called this speech to Senator McCarthy's attention, direct his atten- 
tion to any facet of it, or did you just hand him the whole speech 
and let him read it ? 

Mr. Livingstone. I don't think you would say that I attracted his 
attention to any particular facet. As is customary when you have 
advanced texts, you underline certain parts that you think are inter- 
esting, and I think my copy of the text was underlined here and there 
throughout the copy of the advance. 



66 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr, WiiJvTAMs. So that we can identify this context, did you under- 
line that part of the speech which said that "our civilization has passed 
through its maturity and is approaching its end?" 

Mr. Livingstone. I could not recall. 

Mr. Williams. Do you remember saying anything to Senator Mc- 
Carthy, about this speech, about the coming of the end of civilization? 

Mr. Livingstone. I have no recollection of that at all. 

Mr. Williams. Do you remember saying anytliing to Senator Mc- 
Carthy concerning the parallel that was drawn between him and 
Hitler? 

Mr. Livingstone. I have no recollection. 

Mr. Williams. So you are not able to helj) us with the context? 

Mr. Livingstone. I am not. I merely had the copy and laid it 
on the table before him, and asked if he had a comment. My only 
interest was in his comment. 

Mr. WiLUAMS. Tliank you very much, Mr. Livingstone. 

The Chairman. Are there any questions by members of the com- 
mittee ? 

If not, you will be excused, Mr. Livingstone. 

Mr. Livingstone. Thank you, Senator. 

The Chairman. Call your next witness. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Joseph W. Hall, Jr., Mr. Chairman. 

The CiiAiiaiAN. Mr, Hall, please come forward. Raise your right 
hand. 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give in the matter 
now pending before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Hall. I do. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Shall I proceed, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH W. HALL, JR. 

Mr. DE Furia. What is your address, Mr. HaU ? 

Mr. Hall. Silver Spring, Md. 

Mr. DE Furia. Are you here under subpena issued at the request of 
counsel for the committee? 

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir; I am. 

Mr. DE Furia. What is your business or profession ? 

Mr. Hall. I am a reporter for the Associated Press assigned to 
the Senate staff, 

Mr, DE Furia, How long have you been a reporter, sir ? 

Mr, Hall. Well, I have been a reporter about 20 years, and I have 
worked for the AP since 1937, 

Mr. DE Furia. Do you know Senator McCarthy ? 

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DE Furia. How long have you known Senator McCarthy ? 

Mr. Hall. Well, about 4 years, I would say. 

Mr. DE Furia, Do you know wliether you talked to Senator Mc- 
Carthy on the evening of January 2, 1953, Mr. Hall ? 

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir, I believe that I did. 

Mr. DE Furia, Was that talk in person or by telephone, sir? 

Mr. Hall. By telephone. 

Mr. DE Furia. Where were you at the time ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 67 

Mr. Hall. In the Senate Press Galley, Mr. de Fnria. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. So far as you know, where was Senator McCarthy 
at that time ? 

Mr. PIall. I don't know, sir. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, do you have notes of the telephone conversa- 
tion between Senator McCarthy and you ? 

Mr. Hall. No, sir, I don't have my notes. But I have a story, or 
rather a file 

Mr. DE Furia. Just a minute, please. You have a file ? 

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DE FuBLA.. Do you have any recollection at the present time, 
independent of your notes or your files, of conversations between the 
Senator and you that day ? 

Mr. Hall. Well, based upon the record here, I believe that I talked 
to Senator McCarthy that night and obtained from him a statement, 
which we had requested. 

Mr. DE Furia. Thank you. Now, what time was that, Mr. Hall? 

Mr. Hall. Well, the story that I wrote is timed 8: 51 p. m. 

Mr. DE Furia. All right. Now, will you tell us to the best of your 
recollection and your knowledge what was the conversation by tele- 
phone had between you and Senator McCarthy? 

Mr. Hall. Well, by way of background, January 2 was the day the 
Hennings subcommittee report was issued, and we had unquestionably 
asked Senator McCarthy to comment, because that is our practice, 
and according to our files, he had issued a statement, a written state- 
ment. Then later in the evening, according to this story that I 
wrote, which is marked as an insert in the Hennings subcommittee 
report story, he telephoned a further comment on the report of 5 or 
6 paragraphs, and I took, based on the record here — I believe that 
I took that statement, and I believe that it. is accurate. Do you 
want me to read it ? 

Mr. DE Furia. Yes. 

Mr. Hall. Just all of the paragraph ? 

Mr. DE Furia. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Hall. Well, starting off with a full paragraph : 

In his telephone comment, McCarthy said, "This report accuses me either 
directly or by innuendo and intimation of the most dishonest and improper 
conduct. 

"If it is true, I am unfit to serve in the Senate. If it is false, then the three 
men who joined in it — namely, Hendrickgon, Hennings, and Hayden — are dis- 
honest beyond words. 

"If those three men honestly think that all of the four things of which they 
have accused me, they have a deep, moral obligation tomorrow to move that 
the Senate does not seat me as a Senator." 

Parenthetically, "tomorrow" was January 3, the opening of the 
83d Congress. 

"If they think the report is true, they will do that. If they know the report 
is completely false and that it has been issued only for its smear value, then 
they will not dare to present this case to the Senate. 

"This committee has been squandering taxpayers' money on this smear cam- 
paign for nearly 18 months. If they feel that they are honest and right, why 
do they fear presenting their case to the Senate? 

"I challenge them to do that. If they do not, they will have proved their 
complete dishonesty. 

"I can understand the actions of the leftwingers in the administration, like 
Hennings and Hayden. As far as Hendrickson is concerned, I frankly can bear 
him no ill will. 



68 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

"Suffice it to say that he is a living miracle in that he is without question 
the only man in the world who has lived so long with neither brains nor guts." 

That ends the statement that I 

Mr. DE FuEiA. Was that sent by you, Mr. Hall, to the AP office here 
in Washington? 

Mr. Hall. This statement from which I have been reading is a 
coi)y that I wrote and was sent by teletype printer from the Senate 
Press Gallery into onr office downtown. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Did it go over the wire? 

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. Do you want the reference on that? 

Mr. nE FuRiA. It went over the national wires; is that correct? 

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. And that would be to your associated newspapers? 

JMr. Hall. Yes, sir. It went over our trunk wire, which is the 
A wire over the United States, at 9 : 45 p. m, 

]Mr. nE FuRTA. On what day ? 

Mr. Hall. On the night of January 2, as an insert giving Senator 
McCarthy's comment in the story of the Hennings subcommittee re- 
port. We had a long story out, I assume, on the Hennings subcom- 
mittee report, and this was sent as an insert, giving Senator McCarthy's 
comment on it. 

The Chairman. Do you wish to cross-examine, Mr. Williams ? 

Mr. Williams. I iust have 1 or 2 questions to ask, if I may, sir. 

The Chairman. You maj'' proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Hall, as I understand it when you talked to 
Senator McCarthy on January 2 of 1953, he was addressing his re- 
marks to this report about which we have had so much conversation 
this morning, the so-called Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson report; is 
that right? 

Mr. H \LL. Yes, sir ; I am sure we had asked him for comment on it. 

Mr. Williams. And in colloquy that you had with him in that 
telephone conversation, as I understand it, he said to you that if these 
men believed these things to be true which were stated by innuendo 
in this report, that it behooved them to stand up on the Senate floor 
on January 3, 1953, and challenge his being seated; is that correct? 

Mr. Hall. That's right. "I challenge them to do that," he said. 

Mr. Williams. That is what he said? 

Mr. Hall. Yes, sir. 

Mr Williams. That's all. 

Mr. DE Furia. Thank you, Mr. Hall. 

The Chairman. Does anv member of the committee have a ques- 
tion ? If not, then, Mr. Hall, you are excused. 

The committee will now be in recess until 2 this afternoon. 

(Whereupon, at 12: 18 p. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m., 
this same day.) 

afternoon session 

Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson of Colorado (vice 
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin. 

Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel to 
the committee; Guy G. de Furia, assistant connsel to the committee; 
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member; 
Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins^ 
staff on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 69 

to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and Brent 

Bozell. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in session. Counsel will now 
proceed with the presentation of documentary evidence, of which the 
committee takes judicial notice. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, this 
evidence is with respect to point No. 5 of the notice which was hereto- 
fore given to the parties as prescribed by the chairman covering inci- 
dents relating to Ralph Z wicker, a general officer of the Army of the 
United States. 

That is supported in the statement by quotations from various pro- 
posed amendments which have been submitted to this committee for 
consideration by the Senate itself. 

I therefore call attention to the amendments proposed by Mr. Ful- 
bright to the resolution, Senate Resolution 301, in which he said : 

Without justification the junior Senator from Wisconsin impugns the loyalty, 
patriotism, and character of Gen. Ralph Zwicker. 

Also, the amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution as 
follows : 

(c) As chairman of a committee resorted to abusive conduct in his interroga- 
tion of Gen. Ralph Zwicker, including a charge that General Zwicker was 
unfit to wear the uniform — 

during the appearance of General Zwicker as a witness before the Per- 
manent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on 
Government Operations on February 18, 1954. 

The third is from the amendment proposed by Senator Flanders to 
the resolution. Senate Resolution 301, viz : 

He has attacked the fame and besmirched military heroes of the United States, 
either as witnesses before his committee or under the cloak of immunity of the 
Senate floor — General Zwicker, General Marshall. 

I ask the committee to take judicial notice that on February 18, 1954, 
Senator McCarthy was chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations of the 
Senate in the 83d Congress, 2d session, and also chairman of the 
Senate Committee on Government Operations. 

I also ask the committee to take judicial notice of the transcript of 
hearing, and I propose to offer in evidence and read into the record the 
following testimony given by General Zwicker under examination for 
the use of the Committee on Government Operations, and appearing as 
part of the record of hearings before the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, of which Senator McCarthy was chairman, held on 
February 18, 1954, using for the purpose the official transcript certified 
and sworn to by the report. 

The Chairman. Where was that hearing held ? 

Mr. Chadwick. That hearing was held, sir, in executive session in 
room 110, Federal Building, New York City, N. Y., Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy presiding. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Chadwick. I now begin the reading of the transcript of the 
subject matter referred to: 

The Chairman. General, would you raise your right hand and be sworn? In 
this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 



70 HEARENGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Testimony of Brig. Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker, United States Army ; Accom- 
panied BY Capt. W. J. Woodward, Medical Corps, United States Army 

General Zwicker. I do. 

Before we start, there is no need for a medical officer to be in here. 

The Chairman. That is O. K. 

Mr. CoHN. A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client, and it is the 
same thing with a man who tries to be his own doctor. 

General, could we have your full name? 

General Zwicker. Ralph W. Zwicker. 

Mr. CoiiN. General, to see if we can save a little time here, isn't the situa- 
tion this — by the way, you have been commanding officer at Kilmer since when? 

General Zwicker. Since the middle of July last year. 

Mr. CoHN. Has the Peress case come to your attention since that time? I 
am not asking questions about it. 

General Zwicker. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. It has come to your attention, and you have a familiarity with 
that case? 

General Zwicker. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, general, would you like to be able to tell us exactly what 
happened in that case, and what steps you took and others took down at Kilmer 
to take action against Peress a long time before action was finally forced by 
the committee? 

General Zwicker. That is a toughie. 

Mr. CoHN. All I am asking you now is if you could, if you were at liberty 
to do so, would you like to be in a position to tell us that story ? 

General Zwicker. Well, may I say that if I were in a position to do so, I 
would be perfectly glad to give the committee any information that they desired. 

Mr. CoHN. You certainly feel that that information would not reflect unfavor- 
ably on you; is that correct? 

General Zwicker. Definitely not. 

Mr. CoHN. And would not reflect unfavorably on a number of other people 
at Kilmer and the First Army? 

General Zwicker. Definitely not. 

The Chairman. It would reflect unfavorably upon some of them, of course? 

General Zwicker. That I can't answer, sir. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Well, you know that somebody has kept this man on, know- 
ing he was a Communist, do you not? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You know that somebody has kept him on knowing that he 
has refused to tell whether he was a Communist, do you not? 

General Zwicker. I am afraid that would come under the category of the 
Executive order, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. What? 

General Zwicker. I am afraid an answer to that question would come under 
the category of the Presidential Executive order. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question. 

General Zwicker. Would you repeat the question, please? 

Mr. Cohn. Read it to the general. 

(The question referred to was read by the reporter.) 

General Zwicker. I respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, on the 
grounds of the directive. Presidential directive, which, in my inteiijretation, will 
not permit me to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Let the record show he was ordered — 

followed by stars to show the sentence was not completed. 

The Chairman. You know that somebody signed or authorized an honorable 
discharge for this man, knowing that he was a fifth amendment Communist; 
do you not? 

General Zwicker. I know that an honorable discharge was signed for the man. 

The Chairman. 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. 

The Chairman. Didn't you read the news? 

General Zwicker. I read the news releases. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 71 

The Chairman, And the news releases were to the effect that he had refused 
to tell whether he was a Communist, and that there was evidence that he had 
attended Communist leadership schools. It was on all the wire service stores ; 
was it not? You knew generally what he was here for ; did you not? 

General Zwicker. Yes, indeed. 

The Chairman. And you knew generally that he had refused to tell whether 
he was a Communist; didn't you? 

General Zwicker. I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether he was a 
Communist. 

The Chairman. Are you the commanding officer there? 

General Zwicker. I am the commanding general. 

The Chairman. When an officer appears before a committee and refuses to 
answer, would you not read the story rather carefully? 

General Zwicker. I read the press releases. 

The Chairman. Then, General, you knew, did you not, that he appeared before 
the committee and refused, on the grounds of the fifth amendment, to tell about 
all of his Communist activities? You knew that, didn't you? 

General Zwicker. I knew everything that was in the press. 

The Chairman. Don't be coy with me, General. 

General Zwicker. I am not being coy, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you have that general picture? 

General Zwicker. I believe I remember reading in the paper that he had taken 
refuge in the fifth amendment to avoid answering questions before the committee. 

The Chairman. About communism? 

General Zwicker. I am not too certain about that. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that you did not have enough interest in the 
case. General, the case of this major who was in your command to get some 
idea of what questions he had refused to answer? Is that correct? 

General Zwicker. I think that is not putting it quite right, Mr. Chairman, 

The Chairman. You put it right, then. 

General Zwicker. I have great interest in all of the officers of my command, 
with whatever they do. 

The Chairman. Let's stick to fifth-amendment Communists, now. Let's stick 
to him. You told us you read the press releases. 

General Zwicker. I did. 

The Chairman. But now you indicate that you did not know that he refused 
to tell about his Communist activities. Is that correct? 

General Zwicker, I know that he refused to answer questions for the 
committee. 

The Chairman. Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his 
Communist activities? 

General Zwicker. Specifically, I don't believe so. 

The Chairman. Did you have an.v idea? 

General Zwicker. Of course I had an idea. 

The Chairman. What do you think he was called down here for? 

General Zwicker. For that specific purpose. 

The Chairman. Then you knew that those were the questions he was asked, 
did you not? General, let's try and be truthful. I am going to keep you here as 
long as you keep hedging and hemming. 

General Zwicker. I am not hedging. 

The Chairman. Or hawing. 

General Zwicker. I am not hawing, and I don't like to have anyone impugn 
my honesty, whicli you just about did. 

The Chairman. Either your honesty or your intelligence ; I can't help im- 
pugning one or the other, when you tell us that a major in your command 
who was known to you to have been before a Senate committee, and of whom 
you read the press releases very carefully — to now have you sit here and tell 
us that you did not know whether he refused to answer questions about 
Communist activities. I had seen all the press releases, and they all dealt with 
that. So when you do that. General, if you will pardon me. I cannot help 
but question either your honesty or your intelligence, one or the other. I want to 
be frank with you on that. 

Now, is it your testimony now 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 Zwickehj. I am sure I had tliat impression. 

The Chairman. Were you aware that the major was being given an honor- 
able discharge * * *. 



72 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The CHAirMAN. Did you also read the stories ahont my lettefto Secretary 
of the Array Stevens in \vhich 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. 

The Chaikman. 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 didn't 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- 
martialfor him and for whoever got him special consideration? 

General Zwicker. If the time jibes, I was. 

The Chairman. Were you aware that he was being given a discharge on 
February 2? In other words, the day he was discharged ; were you aware of it? 

General Zwicker. Yes; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Who ordered his discharge? 

General Zwicker. The Department of tlie Army. 

The Chairman. Who in the Department? 

General Zwicker. That I can't answer. 

Mr. CoHN. That isn't a security matter? 

General Zwicker. No. I don't know. Excuse me. 

Mr. CoHN. Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody? 

General Zwicker. No, I did not. 

Mr. CoHN. How did you know he should be discharged? 

General Zwicker. You also have a copy of this. I don't know why you asked 
me for it. This is the order under which he was discharged, a copy of that 
order. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. 

You are referring to an order of January 19. 

General Zwicker. I am not sure, sir. Just a moment. 

The Chairman. January 18. Will you tell me whether or not you were at all 
concerned about the fact that this man was getting an honorable discharge after 
the chairman of the Senate Investigating Committee had suggested to the De- 
partment of the Army that he be court-martialed? Did that give you any 
concern ? 

General Zwicker. It may have concerned me, but it could not have changed 
anything that was done in carrying out this order. 

The Chairman. Did you take any steps to have him i-etained until the Secre- 
tary of the Army could decide whether he should be court-martialed? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did it occur to you that you should? 

G 'ueral Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Could you have taken such steps? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, there is nothing you could have done; is that 
your statement? 

General Zwicker. That is my opinion. 

IVIr. Rainvtli.e. May I interrupt a minute? Doesn't that order specifically 
state that this is subject to your check as to whether he is in good health and 
can be discharged? 

General Zwicker. May I read it? 

Mr. Rainville. I read the order. It is in there. 

G?neral Zwicker. Paragraph 5 of this order states: 

"Officer will not be separated prior to determination that he is physically quali- 
fied for separation by your headquarters." 

Mr. Raixville. That is a decision that you must make? 

General Zwicker. Not me personally. My medical oflBcers. 

Mr. Raixville. But he would report to you. He would not make the decision 
without giving you, the commanding general, the order for final verification? 

General Zwicker. It would not be necessary. If something were found wrong 
physically with the man, he would be retained. 

Mr. Rainville. He would report to you? 

General Zwicker. No. He would be retained. 

Mr. Rainville. It would be automatic, and you would not have to sign any- 
thing? • . 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 73 

. General Zwicker. I would not personally, no. The medical officer would make 
such a report. 

Mr. Raikville. But there was somebody in your outfit who could say, "This 
man can go out or can't go out," and that was the doctor? 

G?neral Zwicker. He could not keep him in if he were physically qualified for 
separation. 

Mr. Rainville. But he could say he couldn't go out, so that there was discretion 
within that 90day period. 

The Chairman. Let me ask this question : If this man, after the order came 
up, after the order of the 18th came up, prior to his getting an honorable dis- 
charge, were guilty of some crime — let us say that he held up a bank or stole an 
automobile — and you heard of that the day before — let's say you heard of it the 
same day that you heard of my letter — could you then have taken steps to pre- 
vent his discharge, or would he have automatically been discharged? 

General Zavicker. I would have definitely taken steps to prevent discharge. 

The Chairman. In other words, if you found that he was guilty of improper 
conduct, conduct unbecoming an officer, we will say, then you would not have 
allowed the honorable discharge to go through ; would you? 

General Zwicker. If it were outside the directive of this order? 

The Chairman. Well, yes ; let's say it were outside the directive. 

General Zwicker. Then I certainly would never have discharged him until that 
part of the case 

The Chairman. Let us say he went out and stole $50 the night before. 

General Zuicker. He wouldn't have been discharged. 

The Chairman. Do you think stealing $jO is more serious than being a traitor 
to the country as part of the Communist conspiracy? 

General Zwicker. That, sir, was not my decision. 

The Chairman. You said if you learned that he stole $50, you would have pre- 
vented his discharge. You did learn something much more serious than that. 
You learned that he had refused to tell whether he was a Communist. You 
learned that the chairman of a Senate committee suggested that he be court- 
marshaled. And you say if he had stolen $r)0 he would not have gotten the 
honorable discharge. But merely being a part of the Communist conspiracy, 
and the chairman of the committee asking that he be court-martialed, would 
not give you grounds for holding up his discharge. Is that correct? 

General Zwickek. Under the terms of this letter, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That letter says nothing about stealing $50, and it does not 
say anything about being a Communist. It does not say anything about his 
appearance before our committee. He appeared before our committee after that 
order was made out. 

Do you think you sound a bit ridiculous. General, when you say that for $50, 
you would prevent his being discharged, but for being a part of the conspiracy 
to destroy this country you could not prevent his discharge? 

General Zwickek. I did not say that, sir. 

The Chairman. Let's go over that. You did say if you found out he stole $50 
the night before, he would not have gotten an honorable discharge the next 
morning? 

General Zwicker. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You did learn, did you not, from the newspaper reports, that 
this man was part of the Communist conspiracy, or at least that there was strong 
evidence that he was? Didn't you think that was more serious than the theft 
Qf $50? 

General Zwicker. He has never been tried for that, sir, and there was evidence, 

Mr. Chairman 

, The Chairman. Don't you give me that doubletalk. The $50 case, that he had 
stolen the night belore, he has not been tried for that. 
; General Zwicker. That is correct. He didn't steal it yet. 

The Chairman. Would you wait until he was tried for stealing the $50 before 
you prevented his honorable discharge? 
, General Zwicker. P^ither tried or exonerated. 

, , The Chairman. You would hold up the discharge until he was tried or ex- 
onerated? 

. General Zwicker. For stealing the $50; yes. 

. The Chairman. But if you heard that this man was a traitor — in other 
words, instead of hearing that he had stolen $50 from the corner store, let's 
say you heard that he was a traitor, he belonged to the Communist conspiracy ; 
that a Senate committee had the sworn testimony to that effect. Then would 
you hold up his discharge until he was either exonerated or tried? 



74 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

General Z wicker. I am not going to answer that question, I don't believe, 
the way you want it, sir. 

The Chairman. I just want you to tell me the truth. 

General Zwicker. Of all of the evidence or anything that had been presented 
to me as commanding general of Camp Kilmer, I had no authority to retain 
him in the service. 

Mr. Williams, It says "on" here — "on all of the evidence." I 
think it changes the meaning. 

Mr. CiiADWicK. I will read it as it is here — if it involves a correc- 
tion I am sorry I said it wrong. 

On all of the evidence or anything that had been presented to me as com- 
manding general of Camp Kilmer, I had no authority to retain him in the 
service. 

The Chairman. You say that if you had heard that he had stolen $50, then 
you could order him retained. But when you heard that he was part of the 
Communist conspiracy, that subsequent to the time the orders were issued a 
Senate committee took the evidence under oath that he was part of the con- 
spiracy, you say that would not allow you to hold up his discharge? 

General Zwicker. I was never officially informed by anyone that he was part 
of the Communist conspiracy, Mr. Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, let's see now. You say that you were never officially 
informed? 

General Zwicker. No. 

The Chairman. If you heard that he had stolen $50 from someone down the 
street, if you did not hear it officially, then could you hold up his discharge? 
Or is there some peculiar way you must hear it? 

General Zwicker. I believe so, yes, sir, until I was satisfied that he had or 
hadn't, one way or the other. 

The Chairman. You would not need any oflQcial notification so far as the 50 
bucks is concerned? 

General Zwicker. Yes. 

The Chairman. But you say insofar as the Communist conspiracy is con- 
cerned, you need an official notification? 

General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; because I was acting on an official order, having 
precedence over that. 

The Chairman. How about the $50? If one of your men came in a half hour 
before he got his honorable discharge and said, "General, I just heard down- 
town from a police officer that this man broke into a store last night and stole 
$50," you would not give him an honorable discharge until you had checked 
the case and found out whether that was true or not ; would you? 

General Zwicker. I would exx)ect the authorities from downtown to inform 
me of that or, let's say, someone in a iwsition to suspect that he did it. 

The Chairman. Let's say one of the trusted privates in your command came 
in to yon and said, "General, I was just downtown, and I have evidence that 
Major Peress broke into a store and stole $50." You wouldn't discharge him 
until you had checked the facts, seen whether or not the private was telling the 
truth, and seen whether or not he had stolen the $50? 

General Zwicker. No ; I don't believe I would. I would make a check, cer- 
tainly, to check the story. 

The Chairman. Would you tell us. General, why $50 is so much more important 
to you than being part of the conspiracy to destroy a Nation which you are 
sworn to defend? 

General Zwicker. Mr. Chairman, it is not. and you know that as well as I do. 

The Chairman. I certainly do. That is why I cannot understand you sitting 
there. General, a general in the Array, and telling me that you could not, would 
not, hold up his discharge having received information 

General Zwicker. I could not hold up his discharge. 

The Chairman. Why could you not do it in the case of an allegation of mem- 
bership in a Communist conspiracy, where you could if you merely heard some 
private's word that he had stolen $50? 

General Zwicker. Because, Mr. Senator, any information that appeared in the 
press or any releases was well known to me and well known to plenty of other 
people long prior to the time that you ever called this man for investigation, 
and there were no facts or no allegations, nothing presented from the time that 
he appeared before your first investigation that was not apparent prior to that 
time. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 75 

The Chairman. In other words, as you sat here this morning and listened to 
the testimony you heard nothing new? 

Mr. CoHN. Nothing substantially new? 

General Zwickek. I don't believe so. 

The Chairman. So that all of these facts were known at the time he was 
ordered to receive an honorable discharge? 

General Zwicker. I believe they are all on record ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think. General, that anyone who is responsible for 
giving an honorable discharge to a man who has been named under oath as a 
member of the Communist conspiracy should himself be removed from the 
military? 

General Zwickee. You are speaking of generalities now, and not on specifics — 
is that right, sir, not mentioning about any one particular person? 

The Chairman. That is right. 

General Zwicker. I have no brief for that kind of person, and if there exists 
or has existed something in the system that permits that, I say that that is wrong. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about the system. I am asking you this 
question, General, a very simple question : Let's assume that John Jones, who 
is a major in the United States Army 

General Zwicker. A what, sir? 

The Chairman. Let's assume that John Jones is a major in the United States 
Army. Let's assume that there is sworn testimony to the effect that he is part 
of the Communist conspiracy, has attended Communist leadership schools. Let's 
assume that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee and says, "I 
cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear that might 
tend to incriminate me." Then let's say that General Smith was responsible 
for this man receiving an honorable discharge, knowing these facts. Do you 
think that General Smith should be removed from the military, or do you think 
he should be kept on in it? 

General Zwicker. He should be by all means kept if he were acting under 
competent orders to separate that man. 

The Chairman. Let us say he is the man who signed the orders. Let us say 
General Smith is the man who originated the order. 

General Zwicker. Originated the drder directing his separation? 

The Chairman. Directing his honorable discharge. 

General Zwicker. Well, that is pretty hypothetical. 

The Chairman. It is pretty real, General. 

General Zwicker. Sir, on one point, yes. I mean, on an individual, yes. 
But you know that there are thousands and thousands of people being separated 
daily from our Army. 

The Chairman. General, you understand my question 

General Zwicker. Maybe not. 

The Chairman. And you are going to answer it 

General Zwicker. Repeat it. 

The Chairman. The reporter will repeat it. 

(The question referred to was read by the reporter.) 

General Zwicker. That is not a question for me to decide. Senator. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it. General. You are an em- 
ployee of the people. 

General Zwicker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have a rather important job. I want to know how you 
feel about getting rid of Communists. 

General Zwicker. I am all for it. 

The Chairman. All right. You will answer that question, unless you take 
the fifth amendment. I do not care how long we stay here, you are going to 
answer it. 

General Zwicker. Do you mean how I feel toward Communists? 

The Chairman. I mean exactly what I asked you. General ; nothing else. \\ /■ 
And anyone with the brains of a 5-year-old child can understand that question. , \(^ 

The reporter will read it to you as often as you need to hear it so that you'^~'' 
can answer it, and then you will answer it. 

General Zwicker. Start it over, please. 

(The question was reread by the reporter.) 

General Zwicker. I do not think he should be removed from the military. 

The Chairman. Then, General, you should be removed from any command. 

Any man who has been given the honor of being promoted to general and who 

says, "I will protect another general who protected Communists," is not fit to 

wear that uniform. General. I think it is a tremendous disgrace to the Army to 

52461 — 54 6 



76 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

have this sort of thing given to the public. I intend to give it to them. I have 
a duty to do that. I intend to repeat to the press exactly what you said. So 
you know that. You will be back here, General. 

Do you know who initiated the order for the honorable discharge of this 
major? 

General Zwicker. As a person, sir? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

General Zwicker. No ; I do not. 

The Chairman. Have you tried to find out? 

General Zwicker. No ; I have not. 

The Chairman. Have you discussed that matter with Mr. Adams? 

General Zwicker. As a person, no, sir. 

The Chairman. How did you discuss it with him other than as a person? 

General Zwicker. I mean as an individual. This is a Dspartmeut of the Army 
order. 

The Chairman. Have you tried to find out who is responsible? 

General Zwicker. Who signed this order? 

The Chairman. Who was responsible for the order? 

General Zwicker. No, sir; I have not. 

The Chairman. Are you curious? 

'General Zwicker. Frankly, no. 

The Chairman. You were fully satisfied then, when you got the order to give 
an honorable diecharge to this Communist major? 

General Zwicker. I am sorry, sir? 

The Chairman. Read the question. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Cohn. General, I have just 1 or 2 questions. 

Ihe Chairman. Let me ask one question. 

In other words, you think it is proper to give an honorable discharge to a man 
known to be a Communist? 

General Zwicker. No ; I do not. 

The Chairman. Why do you think it is proper in this case? .1 

General Zwicker. Because I was orderecf to do so. 

The Chairman. In other words, anything that you are ordered to do, you think 
is proper? 

General Zwicker. That is correct. Anything that I am ordered to do by higher 
authority, I must accept. 

The Chairman. Do you think that the higher authority would be guilty of im- 
proper conduct? 

General Zwicker. It is conceivable. 

T'e Chairman. Do you think they are guilty of improper conduct here? 

General Zwicker. I am not their judge, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think to order the honorable discharge for a Commu- 
nist major was improper conduct? 

General Zwicker. I think it was improper procedure, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think it is improper? 

Mr. Cohn. General, I just want to ask you this: Peress was discharged on 
February 2, which was a Tuesday. 

General Zwicker. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. He appeared before the committee on Saturday^ On Monday or 
Tuesday, did you speak to anybody in the Department of the Army in Wash- 
ingtf n, telephonically, about the Peress case? On Monday or Tuesday? 
-~" General Zwicker. Let me think a minute. 

' It is possible that I called First Army to inform them that Peress had changed 
his mind and desired a discharge as soon as possible. 

M". Cohn. Who would you have told in the First Army? Who would you 
call? G-2, or General P>urre.ss? 

General Zwicker. I don't think in that case I would call General Burress. 

Mr. CoHN. General Seabree? 

General Zwicker. No. It would have been G-1, or Dei>uty Chief of Staff. 

:Mr. Cohn. Who is that? 

General Zwicker. General Gurney. 

P^Ir. Cohn. You don't remember which one it was? 

General Zwicker. I don't recall that I called. 

Mr. Cohn. D'd you talk to Mr. Adams in those days? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 77 

Mr. CoHN. Did you ever talk to Mr. Adams before yesterday? You recall 
whether or not you spoke to him. 

General Zwicker. I know Mr. Adams, yes. There was one call, but I think 
that came from a member of your committee, from Washington, requesting that 
this man appear before your committee first. 

The Chairman. You understand the question. Did you talk to Mr. Adams 
before yesterday? 

General Zwicker. I don't recall. I don't believe so, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you talk to anyone in Washington? 

General Zwicker. No, sir, about this case. 

The Chairman. Within the week preceding his discharge? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you at any time ever object to this man being honorably 
discharged? 

General Zwicker. I respectfully decline to answer that, sir. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer it. 

General Zwicker. That is on the grounds of this Executive order. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer. That is a personnel matter. 

General Zwicker. I shall still respectfully decline to answer it. 

The Chairman. Did you ever take any steps which would have aided him in 
continuing in the military after you knew that he was a Communist? 

General Zwicker. That would have aided him in continuing, sir? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

General Zwickeb. No. 

The Chairman. Did you ever do anything instrumental in his obtaining his 
promotion after knowing that he was a fifth-amendment case? 
• General Zwickek. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you ever object to his being promoted? 

General Zwickeir. I had no opportunity to, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you ever enter any objection to the promotion of this 
man under your command? 

General Zwicker. I had no opportunity to do that. 

The Chairman. You say you did not ; is that correct? 

General Zwickbhj. That is correct. 

The Chairman. And you refuse to tell us whether you objected to his obtaining 
jan honorable discharge? 

General Zwicker. I don't believe that is quite the way the question was 
phrased before. 

The Chairman. Well, answer it again, then". 

General Zwicker. I respectfully request that I not answer that question. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer. 

General Zwicker. Under the same authority as cited before, I cannot answer it. 

Mr. CoHN. Did anybody on your staff. General — Colonel Brown or anyone 
"in G-2 — communicate with the Department of the Army on February 1 or 
Pebruarv 2? In other words, in connection with the discharge? 

General Zwicker. I don't know, but I don't believe so. 

IMr. CoHN. To the best of your knowledge, no? 

General Zwicker. No. 
 Mr. CoHN. In other words, on .January 18, 1954, you received a direction from 
the Secretary, signed by the Adjutant GeTieral, I assume that is General Bergin, 
telling yon to give this man an honorable discharge from the Army at any prac- 
ticable date, depending on his desire, but in no event later than 90 days ; that 
that was the order, and you had nothing from the order to change that order 
in view of his testimony before the committee; and therefore, when the man 
.came in and wanted an honorable discharge, you felt under this order compelled 
to give it to him as a decision that had been made by the Adjutant General. 
Is that correct? 

General Zwicker. That is corrrect. 

Mr. CoHN. And you received no additional words from the Adjutant General 
on February 1 or February 2, and before you gave the discharge you did not 
call and say, "In view of all of this, and his testimony on Saturday, and Senator 
McCarthy's request for a court-martial, this man is in here now, and is that all 
right?" You never made any such call? 

General Zwicker. No; I did not. 
" . Mr. Rainville. General. I think at one place there you said he changed his 
"request to an immediate discharge? " ' ' 

General Zwicker. That is correct. 



78 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Rainville. Then he had previously objected to the discharge or at least 
he wanted the full 90 daysV 

General Zwicker. No, sir. He requested to be discharged on the 31st of 
March, I think, which would make it 60 days from receipt, rather than the full 
90. He did not ask for the full 90, but he asked for what amounted to 60 days, 
2 months. 

Mr. Rainville. Then he came in as soon as he testified, and asked for an imme- 
diate discharge and it was processed routinely? 

General Zwicker. That is correct. 

Mr. Rainviixe. But you never thought it necessary after he appeared before 
the committee or when he made that request to discuss his appearance before 
the committee with him? 

General Zwicker. I am sorry. 

Mr. Rainville. My question is this : After he appeared before the committee 
and he was still a member of your command, even though he was on separation, 
you didn't ask him to come in and report what he testified to? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

Mr. Rainville. And you didn't think it was necessary when he came in and 
asked for an immediate discharge instead of 60 days to ask him what transpired 
so as to get some kind of an idea as to why he wanted it immediately, or why- 
he is in a rush to get out now instead of taking the 60 days that he wanted 
before that? 

General Zwicker. That was beyond my ijrerogative. I did not. 

Mr. Rainville. As an officer of your command, certainly what we usually 
call the old man's privilege there, prerogative, they may ask that sort of question, 
and so forth, so long as he is one of your command. But you didn't do it? 

General Zwicker. No. He told me he wanted to be released, and I said, 
"All right." 

Mr. Jones. General did the counsel of the Army advise you not to discuss 
the Peress ca.se? 

General Zwicker. He did not. 

Mr. Jones. He did not advise you? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Who did advise you? 

General Zwicker. No one. 

The Chairman. What did you and Mr. Adams talk about yesterday? 

General Zwicker. Mr. Adams and I talked about the various procedures of 
prior meetings such as this. He tried to indicate what I might expect. 

Mr. Jones. Did Mr. Adams advise anyone not to discuss the Peress case to 
this committee? 

General Zwicker. I am sorry. He did not advise me. 

Mr. Jones. I mean to your knowledge, did he advise any other person? 

General Zwicker. To my knowledge he did not. 

Mr. Jones. General, what is .vour considered opinion of this order here for- 
bidding you to assist this committee in exposing the Communist conspiracy in 
the Army? 

General Zwicker. Sir, I cannot answer that, because it is signed by the 
President. The President says don't do it and therefore I don't. 

Mr. Jones. What is your considered opinion of that order? You see now, 
here is a perfectly good example of a Communist being promoted right in the 
I'anks, all because of this Executive order here, in many respects, where we 
couldn't get at these things earlier. What is your considered opinion of an 
order of that nature? 

General Zwicke^i. I won't answer that, because I will not criticize my Com- 
mander in Chief. 

The Chairman. General, you will return for a public session at 10 : 30 Tuesday 
morning. 

General Zwicker. This coming Tuesday? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

General Zwicker. Here? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

General Zwicker. At what time? 

The Chairman. 10 : 30. In the meantime, in accordance with the order 
which you claim forbids you the right to discuss this case, you will contact 
the proper authority who can give you permission to tell the committee the 
truth about the case before you appear Tuesday, and request permission to be 
allowed to tell us the truth about the 

General Zwicker. Sir, that is not my prerogative, either. 



HEARIXGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 79 

The Chairman. You are ordered to do it. 

General Zwicker. I am sorry, sir, I will not do that. 

The Chairman. All right. 

General Zwicker. If you care to have me, I will cite certain other portions 
of this. 

The Chairman. You need cite nothing. You may step down. 

(Whereupon, at 5:15 p. m., the committee was recessed, subject to the call 
of the Chair.) 

Senator Case. Mr. Cliairman 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case (continuing). In view of the fact that one of the 
amendments referred to the committee was the one by Senator Bush, 
which proposes certain rules governing committee conduct, I think 
we ought to have some identification of Mr, Rainville and Mr. Jones, 
for the purposes of the record. To my knowledge they were not 
members of the committee, and I do not know who they were, and for 
the record I think they should be identified as to who they were. 
They apparently participated in the interrogation. 

The Chairman. We will have counsel make that identification, if it 
is possible, from the record. 

Mr. Chadwick. I read, Mr. Chairman, from the covering page of 
the transcript as follows : 

Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; present also: 
Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel ; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel ; Harold Rain- 
ville, administrative assistant to Senator Dirksen ; Robert Jones, administra- 
tive assistant to Senator Potter ; and James N. Juliana, investigator. 

Is that the matter that you had in mind. Senator ? 

Senator Case. Yes. 

Mr. Williams. I might suggest, if I may, sir 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams (continuing). Since that stipulation has been of- 
fered in the record, perhaps it would be well to stipulate that Mr. 
Eainville and Mr. Jones were attending in lieu of the respective Sena- 
tors for whom they worked, who were otherwise engaged on thaf. 
occasion, which is the fact. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, it is my recollection from other ma- 
terial that that is true, but I do not have that information here. I 
believe it to be true. 

The Chairman. Well, that would be the probability. 

The Chair will rule that the committee will take judicial notice of 
the record which has just been producBd. 

Have you other matters there of which the committee can take judi- 
cial notice, Mr. Chadwick ? 

Mr. Chadwick. I have here a certification from the Department of 
the Army, Office of the Adjutant General, Washington, D. C, in the 
following matter — 



^te 



in reply refer to AGPI-OD-S 201 Zwicker, Ralph W., O 16 878 (24 Aug 54) — 
and is as follows— I may say, sir, before I commence to read, for Mr. 
Williams' benefit, that on the third page appears the following 
language: 

By authority of the Secretary of the Army: John A. Klein, major general, 
USA, The Adjutant General— 

and it bears the seal. 

The Chairman. What is the material contained in that statement ? 



80 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Chadwick. It is the official record in the custody of the Office 
of the Adjutant General, showing the military record of Ralph W. 
Zwicker. 

The Chairman. The committee will take judicial notice of that, and 
it will be placed in the record. 

Mr. Chadwick. Reading from the word "Certificate" as follows: 

I certify the official records in the custody of the Office of The Adjutant Gen- 
eral show that Ralph Wise Zwicker, O 16 878, was born in Stoughton, Wisconsin,, 
on 17 April 1903. He attended the University of Wisconsin for approximately 
two years. He was appointed cadet to the United States Military Academy on 
2 .luly 1923. Upon graduation on 14 June 1927 he was appointed a Second Lieu- 
tenant of Infantry, Regular Army, accepted 14 June 1927 ; promoted to First 
Lieutenant, Regular Army, 10 July 1933 ; promoted to Captain, Regular Army, 
14 June 1937 ; appointed Major, Army of the United States, 4 February 1941, 
accepted 6 February 1941; promoted to Lieutenant Colonel, Army of the United 
States, 23 June 1942 ; promoted to Major, Regular Army, 14 June 1944 : promoted 
to Colonel, Army of the United States, 16 June 1944 ; promoted to Lieutenant 
Colonel, Regular Army, 15 July 1948 ; promoted to Colonel, Regular Army, 23 
March 1951; appointed Brigadier General, Army of the United States, 16 March 
1953. 

He graduated from the United States Military Academy, 1927 ; Infantry 
School, Company Officers' Course, 1933 ; Command and General Staff School,. 
1942 ; Naval War College, 1945 ; National War College. 1947 : and was awarded 
the educational eqiiivalent to the Armed Forces Staff College, 1947. 

General Zwicker was awarded the Silver Star for gallantry in action, 6 .Tune 
1944: the Legion of Merit for exceptionally meritorious conduct in the perform- 
ance of outstanding services during the periods from 28 July 1944, to IS August 
1944, and from 30 August 1944, to 15 October 1944; Oak Leaf Cluster to the 
Legion of Merit for the period from 15 October 1944, to May 1945 ; Bronze Star 
Medal with two Oak Leaf Clusters ; Commendation Ribbon with Metal Pendant. 
Extracts of the citations for these awards are attached. 

His combat record began in April 1944 when he went to Europe as Com- 
manding Officer of the 3Sth Infantry Regiment ; he served in this capacity until 
May 1945 ; his commander said of him during this i)eriod : "Mentally energetic, 
self-reliant and considerate. He has an exceptionally pleasing personality, 
mixes well and inspires confidence." From July 1945, to December 1945 he 
attended the Naval War Collesre, graduating with a rating of "Superior." 
From January 1946 to Au.enist 1946 be was Assistant to the Assistant Chief of 
Staff, G-3, Army Ground Forces, Washington, D. C. His superior officer said 
of him : "exceptionally able and experienced, cooperative, professionally well 
qualified for any staff or command assignment. Possesses good judgment and 
commonsense to a marked degree." From September 1946 to June 1947 he at- 
tended the National War College, graduating with a rating of "Superior."' 
The Commandant of the College said of him : "He has shown special aptitude 
for duty with highest combined or joint staffs." From .Tune 1947 to April 1949 
be was Chief of Organization Branch. Organization-Requirements Group, Organi- 
zation and Training Division, General Staff, United States Army, Department 
of the Army, Washington, D. C. His superior officer said of him : "An officer 
of the highest type in character and ability. Seeks responsibility, demonstrates 
Initiative and force in his work." From April 1949 to July 1949 he was Deputy 
to the Special Assistant to the Chief of Staff, IT. S. Army for Civilian Component 
Affairs, in the Office Chief of Staff, Washington, D. C. His superior officer said 
of him : "A superior, bisrh type officer with a great deal of initiative and ability. 
High sense of duty. Reasons to logical conclusions and puts them into effect. 
Has capacity for leadership and hi'^h command and is general officer material." 

From August 1949 to August 1950 he was Deputy Director, Operations and 
Trainin? Division, Headquarters, European Command. From August 19.50 to 
May 1952 he was Commanding Officer. 18th Infantry Regiment, Europe. His 
commander said of him : "An officer with extremely hi.gh standards. Has a fine 
background of combat and staff experience. I consider him well qualified to be 
a general officer." From June 19.52 to January 1953 be was a member of Military 
Faculty Committee No. 1. National War College. His superior officer said of him : 
"He is considered to be exceptionally well qualified for high command or staff 
assignments: is fully qualified and is hierhly recommended for promotion to 
general officer rank." From February 1953 to June 1953 he was Assistant 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 81 

Division Commander, 5th Infantry Division, ludiautown Gap IVIilitary Reserva- 
tion. His commanding general said of him : "A superior general officer, in- 
telligent, energetic, and extremely loyal." From July 1953 to August 1954 he 
was Commanding General, Camp Kilmer, New Jersey. His superior officers 
said of him : "Loyal, dependable, level headed and mature in judgment," and 
^'Outstanding officer, fine character and integrity." 

General Zwicker is presently under transfer orders to Army Forces, Far East, 
for assignment within that theater, departing on 27 September 1954. 
By authority of the Secretary of the Army : 

John A. Klein. 
Major General, US!A, 
The Adjutant General. 
1 Incl. : Extract of Citations. 

There is a note, "One enclosure, extract of citations," and the matter 
is rendered under seaL 

The extracts from the citations which are referred to in the order 
are as follows : 

Silver Star: For gallantry in action on the coast of Normandy, 6 Jun 44. 

Bronze Star Medal : The 2d Inf Div was heavily engaged before Hill 192 in 
Normandy, France at the time Col Zwicker as.sumed command of the 38th Inf 
Regt. His responsibilities were exceedingly grave, due first, to the assumption 
of command while units were in contact ; secondly, to the fact that Germany 
defensive positions possessed high ground and observation. Nevertheless, Col. 
Zwicker capably directed combat operations and guided his command in a most 
commendable manner through the campaign of Normandy. 

Bronze Star Medal : In mid-August, the 2d Inf Div moved to Brest on the 
Brittany peninsula in France. The reduction of Brest involved detailed and 
continuous coordination of arms in order to eliminate Germany defensive posi- 
tions prepared with great skill over a period of four years. The 38th Inf Regt, 
commanded by Col Zwicker, contributed materially to the methodical progress 
which enforced surrender of the garrison on IS Sep 1944. 

Bronze Star Medal : For meritorious achievement against an armed enemy 
during the period June 1944 to May 1945. 

Legion of Merit : The bitter fighting during the fall and early winter in 
Germany was followed by the German counter offensive in December, which tem- 
porarily halted all forward progress. The enemy penetration was stopped as 
the Division aided immeasurably in holding the northern hinge of the bulge near 
Camp d'Elsenborn, Belgium. The hardships and long hours were extremely 
wearing on physical strength and demanded utmost care to direct and guide 
various elements of the Division. Col Zwicker capably coordinated and super- 
vised the joint efforts of both staff and command during this period. 

Army Commendation Medal: For outstanding achievement in planning and 
developing the organization of the proposed new Infantry Division (15 Jan 47). 

The Chairman. Does that cover the record matter that the com- 
mittee decided to take judicial notice of, Mr. Chadwick? 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, this is a certified paper, but I would 
like, because of the difficulty of transcribing, for the stenographer to 
have it available for checking purposes against his transcript, to be 
returned to me. 

The Chairman. It may be received in evidence as exhibit No. 2. 

(Tlie document referred to was marked "Committee Exhibit No. 2" 
and will be found in the files of the committee.) 

Mr. Chadwick. That, sir, comjirises our presentation on the fifth 
point of our evidence relating to Ralph W. Zwicker, general. United 
States Army. 

Mr. Williams. I am sorry, I didn't understand what you just said. 

Mr. Chadwick. I said that comprises all of our presentation on 
point 5 with relation to Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker. 

I mean, however, it is understood we have the right to return to 
this subject before we complete our entire case. That is what I have 
to present at this moment on that point. 



82 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. Mr. de Fiiria, are you ready to proceed with the 
next matter ? 

Mr. DE FuRiA. We are, Mr. Chairman, if you desire us to do so. 

The Chairman. I will advise you, Mr. Williams, that counsel thinks 
that the evidence the committee has gathered together on two other 
categories can be covered tomorrow. 

The report, or series of reports rather, in the Army-McCarthy con- 
troversy have not been examined by us at all. Obviously there are 
some matters referred to tliere that concern this committee and which 
have been referred to us, so at tliis point we will recess the public hear- 
ing until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. 

Just a moment before you leave. The committee will go into execu- 
tive session. We have matters to consider, so we will continue in 
executive session. 

Will our friends kindly leave the room so that we may go on with 
our meeting? 

(Whereupon, at 2 : 23 p. m., the hearing recessed to reconvene 
Thursday, September 2, 1954, at 10 a. m.) 



HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301 



thursday, september 2, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges Pursuant 

TO Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301, 

Washington, D. C. 

The select committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 05 a. m. in the 
caucus room. Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins 
(chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Watkins (presiding) , Johnson of Colorado (vice 
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin, 

Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel 
to the committee: Guy de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee; 
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member ; 
Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins' 
staff on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel 
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and Brent 
Bozell. 

The Chairman. The committee will resume session. 

Mr. Chadwick, will you proceed with the presentation of the docu- 
mentary matter which the committee has taken judicial notice of ? 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, we will proceed with the matters 
embraced within point 2 of the notice heretofore given and read into 
the record : 

Incidents of encouragement of United States employees to violate the law. 

I will read from that notice the appropriate excerpts from amend- 
ments offered to Senate Resolution 301 by several Senators : 

A. Amendment proposed by Mr. Fulbright to the resolution (S. Res. 301) to 
censure the Senator from Wisconsin, Mr. McCarthy, viz: "(5) The junior Sena- 
tor from Wisconsin openly, in a public manner before nationwide television, 
invited and urged employees of the Government of the United States to violate 
the law and their oaths of office." 

B. Amendment proposed by Mr. Morse to the resolution — 

in question — 

viz: "(e) openly invited and incited employees of the Government to violate 
the law and their oaths of office by urging them to make available information, 
including classified information, which, in the opinion of the employees would 
be of assistance to the junior Senator from Wisconsin in conducting his investi- 
gations, even though the supplying of such information by the employee would 
be illegal and in violation of Presidential order and contrary to the constitu- 
tional rights of the Chief Executive under the separation-of-powers doctrine." 

C. Amendment proposed by Mr. Flanders to the resolution (S. Res. 301) 
* * * viz: "(14) He has publicly incited Government employees to violate their 
security oaths and serve as his personal informants, thus tending to break down 
the orderly chain of command in the civil service, as well as violating the 
security provisions of the Government." 

83 



84 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chaii-man 

The Chairman. Mr, Williams. 

Mr. Williams. I wonder if you could furnish us, sir, with a copy of 
the documentary evidence which Mr. Chadwick proposes to introduce 
this morning so that we might follow it along. 

The Chairman. Do you have copies of the documentary evidence, 
Mr Chadwick? 

Mr, Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I think we can find separate copies 
to be delivered to Mr. Williams. I will have to turn to my assistants 
for that. 

Senator Stennis. Do you have copies for the committee members? 

The Chairman. Do you have copies for the committee? 

Mr. Chad^vick. I am afraid we do not have that many copies. 

Mr. Williams. I would rather have a committee member liave mine, 
if there is any choice to be made. 

Senator Stennis, No. My suggestion was secondary to the counsel. 
1 think he is entitled to the document. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Senator Johnson. Surely. 

Senator Stennis. Surely. 

The Chairman. I think if I remember correctly that the material 
will be taken from the hearing records of the Army-McCarthy con- 
troversy, and I assume that counsel has a copy of that, and the page 
number. 

Mr. Williams. That was a pretty long controversy, though. Senator 
Watkins, and I could not carry it all down here this morning. 

The Chairman, I realize that. And I hope we have copies for you. 

Mr, Chadwick, I am in difficulty with respect to this, Mr. Wil- 
liams, only for this reason. We have our four working trial briefs to 
which I intended to refer, but I relieved two of my assistants this 
morning to pursue inquiry outside. They have their copies with 
them. Mr. de Furia needs his copy. I have mine. 

You understand the dilemma in which I find myself. If you had 
asked me yesterday — please do not think I am criticizing you — but if 
vou had asked me yesterday, I would have been better prepared on 
this. 

You can be assured, of course, that we are reading from the records 
of the committee. But that is not very helpful to you, sir. 

Mr. Williams. Did I understand you to say that you had four, 
Mr. Chadwick? 

Mr. Chadwick. Four working copies. 

Mr, Williams, May we not have at least one of those so that we 
can follow the evidence ? 

Mr. Chadwick. I don't believe you understood me. Two of them 
are in the possession of gentlemen who are not here. Mr. de Furia, 
my assistant, must have his copy. 

If the chairman will indulge us, w^e will send a messenger imme- 
diately upstairs to our room to see if we can get these papers. 

INIr. Williams. All right. 

The Chairman. We will pause a moment here while we untangle 
this difficulty. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

The Chairman. The committee will resume session. 



HEARESTGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 85 

Mr. Chadwick. I understand, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Williams 
now has copies of the matter, and we can proceed in course. 

Mr. Chairman, I ask the committee to take judicial notice that the 
Army-McCarthy hearing under Chairman Mundt was public and was 
televised nationally. 

The Chairman. The committee will take such notice. 

Mr. Chadwick. I offer and read into evidence certain excerpts from 
the transcript of the Army-McCarthy hearing before the Perma- 
nent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Govern- 
ment Operations on May 27, 1954, May 28, 1954, June 15, 1954, and 
June 16, 1954, at the following pages indicated, asking the committee 
to take judicial notice thereof. 

The Chairman. That will be the order. 

Mr. Chadwick. I suggest that the counsel for Senator McCarthy 
should and no doubt will, be accorded the right to offer any other 
relevant and material excerpts from such transcript. 

The Chairman. Well, that is provided for and there is no necessity 
for notice to be served upon Senator McCarthy. That, of course, 
has been the ruling and understanding of the committee all along. 
We want to get all the relevant and pertinent evidence, no matter 
where it leads, as long as it will give light on the charges that are 
before the committee. 

We are doing that for the benefit of the Senate as well as for the 
members of this particular select committee. You may proceed, Mr. 
Chadwick. 

Mr. Chadwick. I am about to read from page 3915, May 27, 1954, 
in volume 22. I ask Mr. Williams if that is conveniently at hand to 
him. 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. CHAD^VICK (reading) : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, in view of Senator McClellan's statement 
and his request, I would like to make it clear that I think that the oath which 
every person in this Government takes, to protect and defend this country, 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that oath towers far above any 
Presidential secrecy directive. And I will continue to receive information such 
as I received the other day. In view of Senator IMcClellan's statement that he 
feels that it is a crime for someone to give me information about traitors in 
Government, I am duty-bound not to give the Senator the names of those 
informants. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I,^ of course, recognize that this 
evidence has to be introduced piecemeal from the record. And I cer- 
tainly am cognizant of the fact that we have the right in the sense 
to offer such portions of the record as we choose. 

The Chairman. So long as it is relevant and material to this issue. 

Mr. WiLLL4MS. Yes, that would be for the Chair to decide. 

The Chairman. I want to make that clear now, because we could 
not have just everything offered. I am sure you would not attempt 
to do that, either. 

Mr. WiLLL^MS. I would not. 

The thing that disturbs me, however, is that what Mr. Chadwick 
has just read does not present the full picture, and it is almost out of 
context, because antedating this colloquy which he is reading there 
is a colloquy which makes it clear what Senator McCarthy had refer- 
ence to when he said, "I will continue to receive information such as 



86 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

I received the other day." And I will have to get the pagination for 
the committee. 

The Chairman. If yon can do that, Mr. Williams, we would be vei*y 
glad to put that in, because I can see very clearly that there ought to 
be enough of the background so tJiat we would not be taking the state- 
ments out of context. 

Mr. WiLLiAMw. I have that here, sir. I have the quote to which I 
have reference. It may be that the committee 

The Chairman. Would you submit it to Mr. Chadwick and we will 
probably have it read or take a look at it. 

Mr. Williams. I can read it in just a sentence — it is just a sentence 
long — two sentences. 

The Chairman. Give us the page, and so on. 

Mr. Williams. I have not the page. Tliat is why I want to read it. 
Maybe we can have some help here in finding it. 

So far as I am concerned, I would like to notify those 2 million Federal em- 
ployees that I feel it is their duty to give us any information which they have 
about graft, corruption, communism, treason, and that there is no loyalty to a 
superior officer which can tower above and beyond their loyalty to their country — 

in other words, from the "which Mr. Chadwick has made'' it is not 
clear what information is referred to, but if you read the entire context 
it becomes apparent that reference is made to information on graft, 
corruption, communism, and treason in the executive branch of the 
Government. I feel that should go in, and I think that we ought to 
find that here in this. 

The Chairman. We will accept it on your statement. Was that 
prior to the material that Mr. Chadwick was just reading — did that 
occur 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Carlson. I have a copy here of some notes, and a letter 
from Senator Wayne Morse in which he copied that quote, and that is 
found in transcript volume 22, page 3918. 

Mr. Williams. I find it now. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Mr, Williams, I am advised by our staff that the one you just read 
is the next one. 

Mr. Williams. I see. 

The Chairman. The next one is the one that counsel for the com- 
mittee intended to read. 

Mr. Williams. Good. I think that places this whole thing in 
proper context. 

The Chairman. We intend to do just what you advised and sug- 
gested should be done. 

If, inadvertently, by not covering the entire record, we have left 
anything out, we will be only too happy, as we advised you last night, 
to receive suggestions, anything we can do to help get all the evidence 
that is relevant and material to the issues here. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. And we renew that offer now. If you have any 
leads or any suggestions or any clues that will help us get evidence or 
material relevant to these charges that you think ought to be in, for 
the information of the committee and the United States Senate, of 
course, for which we are working, then we will be very glad to put 



d 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 87 

the staff to work on those matters, because this is to be an all-out 
investigation to get all the facts, no matter who they help or hurt. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, may I be allowed a word with Mr. 
Williams ? 

The Chaikmax. Yes. 

Mr. CHADA\acK. I understood from you that the matters which you 
read preceded what I had just read. 

Mr. Williams. I was obviously in error on that, Mr. Chadwick, 
because Senator Carlson just corrected me and said it came 3 pages 
later. But my original position is the same, that it was part of the 
original context to which he had reference when he made the statement. 

Mr. Chadwick. In the next succeeding page, which I will reach in 
half a minute, is the material to which you refer. 

Mr. WiLLL^MS. I appreciate that. 

The Chairman. Proceed with the reading, 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, with your permission, I will start 
again with the paragraph I read in order that I may know what the 
continuity is here : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, in view of Senator McClellan's statement 
and his request, I would like to make it clear tliat I think that the oath which 
every person in this Government takes, to protect and defend this country, 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that oath towers far above any Presi- 
dential secrecy directive. And I will continue to receive information such as I 
received the otlier day. In view of Senator McClellan's statement that he feels 
that it is a crime for someone to give me information about traitors in Govern- 
ment, I am dutybound not to give the Senator the names of those informants. 

Senator McClellan. I just want to get it straight. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say that tliat will be my policy. There is no power 
on earth that can change that. 

Again, I want to compliment the individuals who have placed their oaths 
to defend the country against enemies, and certainly Communists are enemies, 
above and beyond any Presidential directive. And none of them — none of 
them will be brought before any grand .iury because of any information that I 
give. If any administration wants to indict me for receiving and giving the 
American people information about conununism, they can just go right ahead 
and do the indicting. 

I now read, Mr. Chairman, from page 3918, the hearing on May 
27, 1954, from volume 22. 

The Chairman. Still speaking of the Army-McCarthy controversy 
hearings. 

Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir. These are all applicable to that : 

Senator McCarthy. I am at this point de.eply concerned to find my two Dem- 
ocrat colleagues in effect notifying the 2 million people who work for this 
Government that they think it is a crime for those employees to give the chair- 
man of an investigating committee evidence of Communist infiltration, treason. 
I think that will serve to discourage them. As far as I am concerned, I would 
like to notify those 2 million Federal employees that I feel it is their duty to 
give us any information which they have about graft, corruption, communism, 
treason, and that there is no loyalty to a superior officer which can tower above 
and beyond their loyalty to their country. I may say that I hope the day comes 
when this administration notifies all Federal employees that any information 
which they have about wrongdoing should be given to any congressional com- 
mittee which is empowered to take it. 

I now read from page 4260 of the same matter, in volume 23, with 
respect to the date of May 28, 1954: 

Senator McCarthy. I may say, Mr. Chairman, that I have instructed a vast 
number of these employees that they are dutybound to give me information 
even though some little bureaucrat has stamped it "Secret" to protect himself. 



88 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

From page 6796 of tlie hearing on June 15, 1954, appearing in vol- 
ume 34: 

Senator McCarthy. IMr. Carr, can yon think of any reason why the old Tru- 
man blackout order of 1948 should be maintained in effect as of 1954? 

Mr. Cark. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Just one further question. If our committee is to per- 
form its function, it is imperative, is it not, that every blackout order, re- 
gardless of whether it is Truman's or anyone else's be cancelled instanter. 

Mr. Williams- Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Chadwick. Excuse me. Let me read 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams, let the counsel finish the reading. 
Then I will recognize you. 

Mr. Chadwick. Just one more line, sir : 

Mr. Carr. I think that is correct, sir. 

I pause. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I listened with interest as Mr. Chad- 
wick read this last excerpt from the record, and it seems to me that 
it is not at all germane to the charge which was categorized under 
count 2, because, as I understand the language that has just been read, 
Senator McCarthy is asking a witness as to the advisability of chang- 
ing the directive of the executive branch. He is not there asking that 
anyone override that directive, I do not see how that is germane to 
the charge that he urged employees not to follow the directive. 

The Chairman. I will say I do not have a copy of the material 
read, and my attention was diverted momentarily from the reading. 
So I will ask Mr. Chadwick to read it again. 

Mr. Chadwick. The excerpt reads as f ollow^s : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Carr, can you think of any reason why the old Truman 
blackout order of 1948 should be maintained in effect as of 1954? 
Mr. Carr. No, sir. 

May I suggest that there is a special pertinency in respect to the 
interrogation from the Senator addressed to Mr. Carr ? 

The Chairman. Will you explain what it is? 

Mr. Chadwick. My recollection is that Mr. Carr was associated 
with the committee of which Mr. McCarthy was the chairman. 

The Chairman. At the same time, Mr. Carr was a witness. 

Mr, Williams. Won't you read the next question, Mr. Chadwick, 
because that demonstrates the point tliat I make here — that the ques- 
tion is rather directed to Mr. Carr asking his opinion on whether or 
not it is a good thing to have that administrative or Executive order 
in effect? It is not the thought of anyone to disregard it. It goes 
to the wisdom of keeping the order in effect, which is entirely outside 
the charge. I am sure there is no charge against Senator McCarthy 
here for having an opinion that the Executive order is unwise. 

The Chairman. I will ask Mr. de Furia to respond to what you 
have said. 

Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, the difficulty here, of course, is for 
committee counsel, which were instructed to present all the testimony 
in this case, whether it bore one way or bore the other way, to desig- 
nate and read into the record a set of particular excerpts which would 
be fair. 

Now, the rule of evidence, of course, is that evidence may be com- 
petent, relevant, and material, and it is admitted into the record. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 89 

How much weight shall be given to any particular part of the evidence 
is for the court, or, in this case, for the committee. 

We suggest, Mr. Chairman, that these questions and answers shed 
some light on the mental processes of Senator McCarthy with refer- 
ence to this particular problem, and we feel it is evidence that the 
committee should properly weigh. Now, it may be there are other 
pails of this testimony, there are other sentences, there are other ques- 
tions, that should be incorporated in the record. 

So far as committee counsel is concerned, we have no objection to 
that whatever, but we think that the committee should permit the 
reading of all these excerpts in a continuous fashion, and that will 
give a clear picture of what we are trying to delineate, sir. 

Mr. Williams. I understand now the counsel's position. He is not 
offering this as evidence in support of the charge itself that there 
was an encouragement of employees 

The Chairman. On the other side, it may show that the charge 
is groundless, and that is in line with the policy we have adopted. 

Mr. Williams. I thought the record should be clear on that, sir. 

The Chairman. The matter will be received. 

Proceed. 

Mr. CiiADWiCK. I will now read from page 7013 of the hearing on 
June 16, 1954, volume 35. Are you ready, Mr. Williams? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chadwick (reading) : 

Senator McCarthy. Senator — 

addressing Senator McClellan — 

may I say that the law is very clear. Back in 1912 there was a hassle pretty 
much on the order of what we have today. At that time my predecessor, Sen- 
ator Bob La Follette, Sr., introduced a bill which was passed. As far as I know, 
it is still the law today. 

It provides that every individual in civil service has the right to furnish "in- 
formation to either House of Congress or to any committee or member thereof," 
and that right shall not be interfered with. 

Aside from the reading, starting with the word "information" and 
ending with the word "thereof" are quotation marks. 
I read from page 7013 continuing : 

Senator McClellan. Does that not mean legal information? That doesn't 
refer to someone taking a classified document and passing it out. 

Senator McCarthy. 1 think you are completely wrong, Senator. I don't 
think any Government employee can deny the people the right to know what the 
facts are by using a rubber stamp and stamping something "Secret." 

Senator McClellan. This is a legal question. 

Senator McCarthy. I don't think it is a close question at all. I don't think 
it is even a close question. 

I read consecutively from the same documents at page 7014 the 
following : 

Senator McCarthy. Senator- 
addressing Senator McClellan — 

may I make it very clear that there is no question about it. Regardless of who 
tries to sustain me or vice vei-sa while I am chairman of the committee I will 
receive all the infonnation I can get about wrongdoing in the executive branch. 
I will give that information to the American people. 

I read from page 7017 : 

Senator McCarthy. May I say. Senator — 



90 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Dirksen; I supply the reference because the record reads "Senator." 
[Continuing:] 

May I say. Senator, I think you have raised and covered the point so vpell it 
doesn't require any answer of any kind. I personally feel that the oath v?hich 
every individual takes to defend this country against all enemies, foreign or 
domestic, places upon him the heavy responsibility to bring to the Congress 
any information of wrongdoing where the matter is not being taken care of 
properly by his superiors. 

I may say, Senator, that I feel strongly that it isn't even a close question. 
I think that oath to defend our country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, 
towers above and beyond any loyalty you might have to the head of a bureau or 
the head of a department. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. I am sorry to interrupt, sir, but I feel that in order 
to place that in context, it is necessary to read the one paragraph of 
expression from Senator Dirksen that appears just before that, so we 
will know what position Senator McCarthy herein is adopting. Other- 
wise it seems to be meaningless. 

I would ask you just to read that. I will hand it over to you, if you 
will. 

Mr. Ciiadwick. We would like to see it, sir. 

Mr. Williams. All right. 

The Chairman. The Chair will rule that the statement made by 
Senator Dirksen immediately preceding the information on the record, 
the quotation that was just read, should be reecived. 

Mr. Chadwick. I read the testimony, all the statement of Senator 
Dirksen, at page 7017 of the transcript immediately preceding the 
last paragraph read by me. 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Chadwick. Senator Dirksen 
was not testifying, as I recall it, that morning. He was merely a 
member of the committee, and you referred to it as testimony. 

Mr. Chadwick. I intended not to. Perhaps I did identify it as 
testimony or a statement. I have not had time to go over it. 

The Chairman. 1 think it is a statement. I think at one time prob- 
ably he was sworn and did testify. 

Mr. Chadwick. I amend anything I have said before, and quote 
the following statement of Senator Dirksen, published at page 7017 
of the same transcript as we have been using. 

It is a question that admits of no easy solution. You might approach it 
legalistieally or try to look at all sides. I am wondering about a case like this: 
Let's assume that a document in a file which two men have knowledge which, 
if it fell into the hands of the enemy, could be regarded as giving aid and comfort 
to the enemy, which is the accepted definition for treason. Suppose 1 of the 2 
should say, "I have a friend who will transmit this to the enemy." And the 
other admonished him of his duty to his country, and then went to complain 
to his superior about it and got no satisfactory answer, and then called it to 
the attention of some Member of the House or the Senate. Legally and morally, 
where do you draw the line where the security of the country is involved? It 
might be a clear case of treason. Should 1 of the 2 individuals with an in- 
grained sense of loyalty and devotion say, "This is treason if you give it, and 
while I get no comfort from my superior by telling him that you have this in 
mind, I will call up one of the Senators and tell him about if." 

The question is, not what about the legal aspect, but what about the moral 
aspect that is involved as well? 

That is the end of the quotation as I understand, that Mr. Williams 
desired to be read. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 91 

The Chairman. Does that cover what you wanted, Mr. Williams? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. Thank you for calling it to our attention. 

Mr. Chadwick. It is possible that in reading the number 7017 from 
the transcript, I misquoted one of the figures. I repeat it again, I 
think, for the third time, this is at page 7017 of the transcript. 

Mr. Chairman, I proceed to read in order from page 7022 of the 
transcript in question : 

Senator Symington. Now, I understand you believe, as permanent c-bairman 
of the Subcommittee on Investigations, you are an authorized person to receive 
classified documents; is that right? 

Senator McCarthy. I am an authorized person to receive information in regard 
to any wrongdoing in the executive branch. When you say "classified docu- 
ments," Mr. Symington, certainly I am not authorized to receive anything which 
would divulge the names of, we will say, informants, of Army Intelligence, 
anything which would in any way compromise their investigative technique, 
and that. sort of thing. But as chairman of this watchdog committee, I think 
that is what you call it, I feel I am in duty bound to receive any information 
about wrongdoing. 

1 now read from page 7026 to page 7028 of the same transcript : 

Senator McCarthy. Could we now — you [Senator McClellan] and I — both 
say to the public you will either be the chairman or the ranking Democrat mem- 
ber, I will either be the chairman or the ranking Republican member. Can we 
now say to the public, say to the people who are working in Government, that 
if they know of any wrongdoing, that no phony stamp of secrecy or classification 
should keep that from the Congress? Can we agree now, John, that if anyone 
brings you information or me infoi'mation, if they do that in a confidential 
manner, that their names will not b? made public? If we do that 

Senator McClellan. I will state my position very frankly. If they do it legally, 
no, their names will not be given out. I will not protect people in crime. Now, 
if it is a crime, that is the issue I am ti-ying to get settled ; but if you want 
to take the other position, that is your privilege. But I say, frankly, that 
I will not protect people in crime against my Government. As to giving in- 
formation, I don't blame you for the position you. took with respect to the 
one who gave you the document, if you felt that it was legal, and you had a right 
to take it. I would certainly agree with you that you were under no obligation 
whatsoever to give his name. That is the position I take. Bvit I go back to the 
position, at all times, that I will not condone crime. I don't know what your 
position is. 

Senator McCarthy. Senator, could we do this — and I don't want to pursue 
this any further because we are all trying to end up these hearings — can we 
agree that if anyone in Government knows of any wrongdoing, whether it is theft, 
whether it is treason, whether it is Communist infiltration, that if they come to 
you or if they come to me. that we will consider that they ai-e doing their duty, 
and that they are not guilty of any crime, because the law says they have a right 
and the dut.v" to do it? They take an oath .of office to protect this Nation. If we 
could agree upon that, Senator 

Senator McClellan. That is your position. 

Senator McCarthy. May I finish? If we coiild agree on that, then I think that 
much of this time, which might otherwise be considered wasted, would not be 
wasted. 

Senator McClellan. May I say to you, in answer to that, if one brings to me a 
classified document, and I am of the opinion he has violated the law, then I will 
be under no obligation to keep his name secret. And until you can settle that 
question, I cannot follow 

I now read from the same transcript at pages 7034-7035 : 

Senator Symington. I am for a government of law and not men. 

Now, may I continue with the questioning? As I understand, Senator, going 
back to the last one, do you believe, as chairman of the Permanent Committee on 
Investigations, you are an authorized person to receive classified documents; is 
that right? 

52461—54 7 



92 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator McCarthy. First, Senator, I assume when you made that comment, 
that you may have wanted me to comment on it. I would say, when you made 
that profound statement that crime is wrong, I ayree witli you. 

No. 2, your question is whether, as chairman of the Investigating Committee I 
am entitled to receive classified documents. 

Senator Symington. AVill the repoi'ter i-ead the question, please, because the 
Senator did not get it? 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question. 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Senator McCarthy. The answer to that, Mr. Symington, is that no one can 
deny us information by stamping something "Classified.'' 

Senator Symington. I am sorry. Senator, I didn't hear you. 

Senator McCarthy. I said the answer to that is that no one can deny us 
information, deny the American people information, by stamping it "Classified." 

Senator Symington. Regardless of whether it is top secret, Q-clearance, or 
secret? 

Senator IVIcCarthy. It isn't a question of the stamp on it. We should not re- 
ceive or get any information which gives the names of any informants of any 
investigative agency, anything that discloses their investigative technique or 
anything which might endanger the Nation's security. We have not. 

I read from page 7037 of the same transcript : 

Senator McCarthy. Any committee which has .iurisdiction over a subject has 
the right to receive the infoi-mation. The stamp on the document, I would say, 
is not controlling. Any evidence of wrongdoing should be made available to the 
people, especially when it has to do with treason. 

Senator Symington. Regardless of instructions from his superior, anybody 
can decide themselves, regardless of the classification of a document, if they 
believe that it is wrong, whatever their superior does, therefore they have the 
right to tell it to a congressional conmiittee, is that right? 

Senator IMcCarthy. Senator, so that there is no question, let me repeat again, 
anyone who has evidence of wrongdoing, has not only the right but the duty to 
bring that evidence to a congressional committee. 

Just one minute. 

Mr, Williams. I do not think you finished that statement of Senator 
McCarthy, Mr. Chadwick. There is another sentence. He was 
answering. 

Mr. Chadwick. I finished it as my notes have it appear, sir. If 
there is another sentence, I will be very glad to have you read it. 

Mr. Williams. The answer was not complete. That is all I call 
your attention to. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. de Furia, will you get the copy, and let us see 
what the question is ? 

Mr. Williams The last sentence was this, and I am quoting : 

Now, Alger Hiss, you see, if you followed your line of reasoning, Senator, 
Alger Hiss would not be in jail. Alger Hiss could stamp the information about 
himself secret and top secret. You just can't do that. 

That is the complete answer. 

The Chairman. We have no objection. That should go in. 

Mr. Chadwick. I ask the chairnum's indulgence for just a moment. 

Mr. Chairman, that completes the matters' which w^e desire to sub- 
mit to your attention under point 2 of our notes. 

The Chairman. Y(.»u mean, point 2 of the charges as the committee 
decided to take them ? 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. There are some things I should like to see placed in 
the record, and I suggest that the staff get them and prepare to intro- 
duce them at an appropriate time : 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 93 

1. I think the record should have a copy of the oath of office which 
Federal employees do take; 

2. I should like to see the appropriate paragraph from the Legisla- 
tive Reorganization Act which deals with the authority of what was 
then designated as the Committee on Expenditures' in the Executive 
Departments, and is now knoAvn as the Committee on Government 
Operations ; 

3. The paragraph from the rules of the Senate which recites the 
jurisdiction of the committees as pertaining to the presently desig- 
nated Committee on Government Operations; 

4. Appropriate sections, if any are now applicable, from the act 
which Senator McCarthy referred to as having been introduced by 
his predecessor. Senator LaFollette : 

5. Appropriate sections or paragraphs from the Espionage Act 
relative to the handling of classified material ; 

6. The law, or appropriate sections therefrom, relative to the powers 
of employees or officers in the executive branch of the Government 
to classifiy or declassify documents ; and 

7. Any references in the statute, if there be such, which define the 
responsibility of those who have access to classified material, with 
respect to reporting to their superiors any violations of law in the 
handling of such classified material. 

The Chairman. Senator Case, the suggestions are all very good, 
and we thank you for them. 

I will say that committee counsel and staff had anticipated the 
need for all that information, and rather than break up the continuity 
of the testimony itself, we decided to place it immediately following 
the conclusion of each one of these testimony readings. That will.be 
inserted in the hearings at the appropriate points. 

Senator Case. I have no objection to where.it comes in, Mr. Chair- 
man. It may be that part of it will be covered in the presentation on 
the next category. 

The Chairjvian. I think they are all good suggestions. I just con- 
ferred a moment ago with Mr. Chaclwick, and he asked the very ques- 
tion that you had in mind, where they are to be put in — should we 
put them in now or at the conclusion of each phase of the testimony. 

I think the proper thing to do is probably to insert them there, and 
it is not necessary to read them at this time, all of those sections of the 
law, unless the committee members want it. If the committee mem- 
bers want it, we can have that done nOw. 

They are mostly legal matters. They are quotations from the stat- 
utes and they will ordinarily come in under the legal phase of this 
investigation. 

Mr. Williams. I assume that ruling pertains also to us, Mr. Chair- 
man. We have, of course, a legal position on this, but I assume from 
your rulings of the other day you prefer to hear that in defense. 

The Chairman. That's right. Well, you can suggest then. Even 
though you put them in later, we will try to put them along with the 
committee investigations at the same point in the record. Will that 
be satisf actoiy ? 

Mr. Williams. We will wait until we go to the defense. 

The Chairman. I think unless the committ-ee objects, the proper 
time to do that is after we have concluded the testimony, and then 



94 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

inserts can be made following each one of these categories of the 
legal matters that should be taken into consideration. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It will not consume then the time of the committee 
to receive it now. Is there any objection to that course, Senator Case? 

Senator Case. No; no objection at all. I just thought we ought to 
have it for the benefit of the committee as we study and review the 
evidence, and also that it should be available conveniently for the con- 
sideration of the Senate when the committee makes such a report. 

I learned by talking with the assistant counsel, Mr. de Furia, that 
at least part of what I have asked for will probably be presented in 
connection with the next classification, and, of course, any part that 
is presently completely there, I mean that is responsive to the infor- 
mation I requested, won't need to be duplicated, but that can be checked 
against the requests made, and then at the appropriate time the bal- 
ance of the information submitted. 

The Ch AIRMAN". I think you are correct in that statement, and I 
agree. Proceed with the next category. We will pause temporarily. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

The Chairman. The committee will resume. 

Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, we now pass to that part of the com- 
mittee counsel's presentation referring to three incidents involving 
receipt or use of confidential or classified documents or other confi- 
dential information from the executive files, based upon the amend- 
ment offered by Senator Morse, being amendment D, reading as 
follows : 

Received and made use of confidential information unlawfully obtained from 
a document in the executive files upon which document the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation had placed its highest classification ; and offered such information 
to a lawfully constituted Senate committee in the form of a spurious document 
vphich he falsely asserted to the subcommittee to be "a letter from the FBI." 

And based also upon the amendment proposed by Senator Flanders, 
No. 13, reading as follows : 

He received and held a valuable classified document in possible violation of 
the Espionage Act. (Revealed in the Army-McCarthy hearings that he had 
improperly obtained .1. Edgar Hoover's report on subversives from the Army, 
and failed to restore the document to properly authorized hands.) He permitted 
the document to fall into the hands of a gossip columnist (Walter Winchell). 

Mr. Chairman, we continue to read into the record excerpts of testi- 
mony and statements made at the hearings before tlie Permanent Sub- 
committee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Opera- 
tions on various dates, beginning May 4, 1954, at the pages indicated, 
asking that the committee take legislative notice thereof. We will 
read into the record, first 

The Chairman. You may proceed. The committee will take judi- 
cial notice of the record. 

Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, parts of this that I am about to read 
do not appear in the printed portions of those hearings, and we have, 
therefore, obtained the official transcript and will read from the 
transcript where necessary. 

Mr. Williams, do you have a copy of the material I am about to read ? 

Mr. Williams. I am sure that I do not have it. I was not furnished 
with a copy. 

Mr. DE FuRL\. We will be glad to suppy that deficiency, sir. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 95 

May I proceed, Mr. Chairman ? 
The Chaieman. Proceed. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Page 703, volume 18. Secretary Stevens is on the 
stand. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, I would like to give you a letter, one which 
was written incidentally before you took office but which was in the tile, I under- 
stand, all during the time you are in office — I understand it is in the file as of 
today — from the FBI, pointing out the urgency in connection with certain cases, 
listing the fact, for example, that Coleman had been in direct connection with 
espionage agents — 

there is an omission or there is a deletion — and then we continue with 
the following : 

Senator Jackson. May I ask this question? I am a little confused. This is a 
copy of a letter that is being introduced. I would like to know how it arrived 
here to the committee, where it came from, and how it came here. This is a letter 
from J. Edgar Hoover to General Boiling back in 1951. How did it get into the 
hands of the committee? 

Mr. Jenkins. It was handed to me. Senator Jackson, by Senator McCarthy, 
who is making it the basis of the cross-examination of the Secretary of the Army, 
the purpose of his examination patently being this 

Senator Jackson. I think it ought to be authenticated. 

Mr. Jenkins. I am getting ready to. I hold now, on the basis of the copy of this 
letter, and on the assumption that no guardian in interest and no counsel would 
refer to a spurious manufactured document, that Senator McCarthy's cross- 
examination of the Secretary with reference to this letter is wholly competent. 

Then on page 704, Mr. Chairman : 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Jenkins, it is a very simple matter. Did the committee 
get this from the Army? Was it subpenaed? Is it from the FBI? That is the 
vei-y simple question. How did it come into our possession? 

Mr. Jenkins. Which committee, the McCarthy committee or this investigating 
committee? 

Senator Jackson. Both. 

Mr. Jenkins. It was handed to me just now by Senator McCarthy; that 
is all I know of it. It is a proper basis for a cross-examination. That is very 
evident from reading the letter. 

Senator Jackson. I understand, but it can be readily identified whether this 
was a matter that was subpenaed from the Army files or whether the Army 
voluntarily gave it to Senator McCarthy. 

Mr. Jenkins. I can have Senator McCarthy put under oath and examine him 
with reference to that particular point, in keeping with Senator Symington's 

Senator Mundt. A point of order, Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. I respectfully suggest that that be done. I am a lawyer, and 
the appearance of what purports to be a copy of a letter from J. Edgar Hoover 
in 1951 addressed to some colonel ; is that riglit? 

Mr. Jenkins. A major general. 

Mr. Welch. The mere fact that we have an impressive looking, purported 
copy of such a letter doesn't impress an oldtime lawyer. I would like to have 
Mr. J. Edgar Hoover say that he wrote the letter and mailed it. Then we would 
know what we were dealing with. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. I want to question the Secretary as to whether or not 
the original of this and other letters like it are in his file. I want to make it 
clear that I have gotten neither this letter nor anything else from the FBI. 

Mr. Welch. Where did it come from then? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will rule that Senator McCarthy may ask the 
witness, if he cares to, whether such a letter is there in the files, and as to 
other investigative agencies. The Chair holds that none of them have to dis- 
close the sources of their information. 

Then on page 705 again, Mr. Chairman : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, would you look at that letter and tell us, 
No. 1, whether or not you have ever seen it or were ever notified of its contents? 
I think you should read the letter before you answer it. 



96 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Secretary Stevens. I would like to have the advice of counsel first as to 
whether or not I am at liberty to discuss a letter from J. Edgar Hoover, because 
I have grave reservations about discussing at all any letter written by Mr. J. 
Edgar Hoover unless I have his specific approval. I will, therefore, ask the 
chairman to give me the opportunity of securing the approval of Mr. J. Edgar 
Hoover before I discuss any letter purporting to have been written my him, 
because I think it is a very bad policy to discuss these things without Mr, 
Hoover's knowing about it. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you like to read it first? 

Mr. Welch. May I add, Mr. Chairman — and I have a letter in my hand and it 
is headed "Personal and Confidential Via Liaison." which seemed to me to be 
rather severe words of a confidential nature. I think INlr. Stevens is quite right 
in saying that this is a matter that ought to be released by J. Edgar Hoover 
before we deal with it in this room. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would agree that if the letter is marked "Per- 
sonal and Confidential" that the contents of the letter should not be revealed 
without the consent of the Senate. 

Continuing on page 706, Mr. Chairman : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think I would have no objection to that, 
but first may I have the Secretary read the letter? I don't intend to inquire 
about the contents if the Chair feels we should not do that, but I would like to 
have him read the letter and tell us whether or not that is a duplicate of what 
he has in his file. If he cannot tell us that, then he can examine the file and tell 
us, tell us whether or not this is just one of a sequence of letters from the 
FBI, complaining about the bad security setup at the Signal Corps Laboratory 
and giving information on certain individuals. 

Continuing on page 707 : 

Senator McCarthy. May I say I have heard many ridiculous things across 
the table, but to say that something dealing with the Communist activities of 
men under the Secretary's command should not be seen by him is the most 
ridiculous I have heard of. Of the letter here, Mr. Chairman, all I ask is that 
the Secretary look at it so he can search the files and tell us whether or not 
the original of that letter is in the file. 

Continuing on page 708 : 

Senator Symington 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. I am sorry to interrupt again, but I have to call 
attention of the Chair to the fact that Mr. de Furia is reading from 
the record of the Army-McCarthy hearings, and everything he is 
reading of course is accurate, but I think there are many things which 
he is omitting here Avhich should be placed in the record if we are 
going to read this whole thing, so that all of the remarks that are made 
will be in the context. Now, there are some statements by Senator 
McCarthy himself Avhich have a very vital bearing on this whole 
matter with regard to his attitude and disposition toward the very 
letter in question. I have reference to things at page 70G of the 
printed hearings, and that is where I have been trying to follow Mr. 
de Furia. 

It seems to me, I think the Chair has always known my position. I 
have always been willing, at least throughout this week, while docu- 
mentary proof went in, to stipulate that the whole record could be 
considered. But since we are reading these things, I really feel that 
Ave ought to read everything so that all statements made by everybody 
should be in context. 

Now, there, on page 706, is a statement by Senator McCarthy that he 
has no disposition to have the contents of the letter disclosed 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 97 

The CiiAiEMAN". Mr. Williams, I suggest as a practical matter, now, 
if you will indicate the matter that you think ought to be read, we will 
have someone read it, if it is not clearly off on some other subject. 

Mr. Williams. I do not propose to read anything, Mr. Chairman, 
that is clearly off 

The Chairma^st. I assume that. But still I have to make a ruling 
on that. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. de Furia had gone, I understand, to page 708, 
as I have tried to follow him here, in two documents. 

The CiiAiiuiAx. I suggest, Mr. de Furia, that you and Mr. Wil- 
liams get together for a moment and get clearly just what he has in 
mind that ought to be read, and I think we can settle that in just a 
moment. 

Mr. De Furia. Yes. 

(Discussion off the record.) 

Mr. DE Furia. May I proceed, Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Did you get the material that Mr. Williams thought 
ought to be read ? 

Mr, DE Furia. Yes, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Williams desires that an 
additional sentence be read into the record, following the excerpt 
which I am about to read, and we have no objection, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, proceed to read it. 

Mr. DE Furia. Page 708: 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I do not know the contents of the letter. 
I do know it is a letter written to the Intelligence Department of the Army, 
marked "Personal and Confidential" by J. Edgar Hoover. 

Mr. Williams. There is a sentence following the identification by 
Senator Miuidt which reads as follows : 

The Chair does not imderstand that there is any disposition on the part of 
anyone to make the contents of the letter public ; is that correct? 

Mr. Jenkins' answer : 

That is correct, as far as I am concerned. 

Senator Symington says : 

I don't see why we are wasting all this time on a letter that we do not intend 
to publish or put in evidence. 

Some of these things, I believe, Mr. Chairman, have a very direct 
bearing on the overall attitude of the committee and Senator McCarthy 
regarding the contents of this letter and their publication. I would 
like to reserve the right to call those matters to the attention of the 
committee. 

The Chairman. Yes. Well, you have read them and we received the 
statement you just read as part of the evidence. Thank you for calling 
it to our attention. 

Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Chairman, I will proceed, then, on page 708. 

Senator ^McCarthy. May I ask that the letter remain in the custody of Mr. 
Jenkins. That is the only copy I have. 

Page 710: ^ 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, one other statement. Apparently the contents 
of this letter are so involved, so important, so sacred, and carry with them so 
many implications even of violations of the law, that I respectfully decline Sena- 
tor McCarthy's request that I personally be the custodian of this letter, and I 
now, in the presence af everybody return it to Senator McCarthy. 



98 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Page 712 : 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, before you recess, let me ask one question. 
I wanted to ask Senator McCarthy whether he contemplated inserting that FBI 
letter in the record. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say to Senator Dirksen that would be entirely up to 
the Chair. I think first we should have established whether or not it was 
received, whether it is in the files of the Department of the Army. 

Continuing now, on page T20, part 19, May 5, 1954 : 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, yesterday afternoon the committee instructed 
me to confer with J. Edgar Hoover with respect to a copy of a letter allegedly 
in the files of the Intelligence Department of the Army, and to clarify that issue 
this morning. I am now prepared to do so. Prior to so doing I desire to ask 
the Secretary one question. * * * 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, since yesterday afternoon, have you or not through 
yourself or those under your command examined the files of the Intelligence 
Department at the Pentagon with special reference to the original of the letter 
about which you were questioned yestei'day aftei'noon? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not such a letter was found in that file or any 
other file. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Chairman, I desire the Secretary to stand aside 
momentarily and let me clarify that issue. I desire to call as the next witness 
my assistant counsel — one of my assistant counsel and a member of my staff, 
Mr. Robert Collier. 

Continuing, Mr. Chairman, on page 720 with the testimony of 
Robert A. Collier. 

Mr. Williams. Do you intend to read all of the testimony of Mr. 
Collier, because it seems to me all of this goes right to the heart of this 
matter ? 

The Chairman. "V\^iat is the answer, Mr. de Furia ? 

Mr. DE Furia. We propose to read, Mr. Chairman, I think, sir, all 
of the testimony of Mr. Collier beginning on page 720, continuing 
through 721> 722, 723 — there ai"e one or tw^o small deletions on 723 
which I do not think are material, sir — continuing on 724 — there is one 
small deletion there of some irrelevant matter — 725, 726 — another 
deletion of apparently irrelevant matter — 727, two small deletions of 
irrelevant matter, and 728, there is just a small part we desire to read 
into the record, sir, about half of 729, a small part of 732, continuing on 
734 and 735. 

All I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that Judge Chadwick directed us to 
be careful to delete only those portions which were clearly irrelevant 
and we have tried to follow the judge's instructions, sir. 

The Chairman. I suggest that you follow that order, and when you 
come to a deletion, if Mr. Williams will call our attention to that 
deletion, if he thinks it ought to be read, please indicate it. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you very much. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

"Mr. DE Furia. Beginning again, then, on page 720, Mr. Chairman, 
with your permission I will read the testimony of Robert Collier. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you please state your full name? 

Mr. Collier. Robert A. Collier. e 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, you are a member of my staff — assistant counsel, is 
that correct? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, formerly have you or not been employed by the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation ? 

Mr. Collier. I was, sir. I was employed from April 1, 1941, until October 
26, 1951. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 99 

Mr. Jenkins. You were present yesterday afternoon wlien a discussion occurred 
with respect to a letter. Will you give the date of the letter, Mr. Collier? It 
has escajied me. 

Mr. Collier. January 26, 1951. 

Mr. Jenkins. At which time the committee instructed me, either myself or by 
some member of my staff, to confer personally with Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, 
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

Mr. CoLLiEK. I was present. 

Mr. Jenkins. Were you present? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not at the close of the meeting I 
assigned that task to yovi. 

Mr. CoLiJER. You did, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not pursuant to that, Mr. Collier, j'ou conferred 
with Mr. Hoover personally. 

Mr. Collier. I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. At what time, approximately, yesterday afternoon or evening? 

Mr. Collier. From approximately 5 : 15 until approximately 7 : 15. 

Mr. Jenkins. During the course of your conversation with Mr. Hoover, I will 
ask you whether or not he called upon you to procure and show to him a copy 
of the letter about which we are talking? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir ; he did. 

Mr. Jenkins. I believe dated January 

Mr. Collier. 26, 1951. 

Mr. Jenkins. January 26, 1951. As a result of that request of Mr. Hoover, did 
or not you go to Mr. Cohn's office and procure that copy? 

Mr Collier. I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. And then take it to Mr. Hoover? 

Mr. Collier. I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. Was it shown to him? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, now at this time, without my taking the time and 
still in the interest of expediting the hearing, I ask you to chronologically relate 
the incidents of that conference with Mr. Hoover — what was done pursuant to 
the request of the committee and what was said to you by Mr. Hoover? 

Mr. Collier. Upon receiving your instructions I communicated with the FBI 
and within a very short period of time obtained an appointment with Mr. 
Hoover. I went to see him, having advised him of the date and the type of 
letter involved. Mr. Hoover at that time informed me that they had not found 
such a letter. He did have another letter of the same date. In order to be 
perfectly sure that they had obtained the correct letter I returned to the Senate 
Office Building and obtained from Roy Cohn in Senator McCarthy's office the 
letter which I now have in my hand and which was the one produced yesterday 
by Senator McCarthy. I took that letter to Mr. Hoover, and at that time he 
compared this letter with the letter in his possession of the same date. 

There is a short deletion there, Mr. Chairman, that I call to the 
attention of Mr. Williams. 

We continue on page 722 with the words, "I can now report to you." 

Mr. Williams. Go ahead. 

The Chairman. Do you desire the deletion read? 

Mr. Williams. So far as I can see there has not been a deletion, 
Mr. Chairman ; that is why we are confused. 

Mr. DE Ftjria. Then I will continue, Mr. Chairman, on page 722, 
and this is a continuation of the testimony of Mr. Collier : 

I can now report to you that Mr. Hoover advised me that this letter is not a 
carbon — 

the answer is incomplete. 

Mr. Jenkins. Identify the letter when you say "this letter." 
Mr. Collier. This is the letter produced yesterday by Senator McCarthy. This 
is not a carbon copy or a copy of any communication prepared or sent by the 
FBI to General Boiling on January 26, 1951, or any other date. The FBI has 
in its files a letter — 

the answer is incomplete. 



100 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Jenkins. Are you now stating what Mr. Hoover personally told you? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You may proceed. 

Mr. Collier. The FBI does have in its files a file copy of a letter dated Janu- 
ary 26, 1951, the same date, prepared and sent hy the FBI to General Boiling, 
which was a 15-page interdepartmental memorandum. A carbon copy of that 
went to Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Carroll, United States Air Force. 

Mr. Hoover, in comparing the two documents, advised me that the form of 
the carbon copy which I have the one introduced, and the yellow copy of thfi 
FBI memorandum prepared on January 26, are materially different in form. 

I can recount for you, as Mr. Hoover advised me, the difference in that foi-m. 
For purposes of identification, I will refer to the document introduced yesterday 
as the carbon copy, and to the yellow copy in the FBI files, the 15-page memo- 
randum, as the FBI original. 

On the FBI original the words "Federal Bureau of Investigation" are printed 
in large block letters across the top of the page. On the carbon copy the words 
"Federal Bureau of Investigation" are typed. The date January 26, 1951, ap- 
pears directly beneath the type "Federal Bureau of Investigation" on the carbon 
copy and is in a different position on the page of the FBI original. The cai-hoa 
copy has across the top "Personal and Confidential Via Liaison." The FBI 
original has in the upper-hand corner the words "Via Liaison." The memo- 
randum, the FBI original, is in the form of an interdepartmental memorandum. 
It is not typed. It merely carries the name of the Director and the FBI. The 
carbon copy would indicate a signature was to be affixed. The FBI original 
was addressed to Maj. Gen. A. R. Boiling. The carbon copy is addressed to 
Major General Boiling, the initials "A. R." being left out. 

The same words "Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army" 
appear on both documents. In the FBI original the additional words "The 
Pentagon" appear, that is not on the carbon copy, and the words "Washington. 
D. C." appear on both dociunents. The FBI original has the word "from" and 
the words "John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation." 
That is not on the carbon copy. The FBI original has the word "subject" and 
then typed thereon "Aaron Hyman Coleman, Espionage-R." The "R" stands 
Jor Russian and — 

the senteiice is incomplete. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. I am not sure I understood. You say 
that is the FBI copy you are talking about? 



Continuing on page 723 : 



Mr. Collier. Yes. sir. In other words, the subject Aaron Coleman, Espion- 
age — R, appears on the FBI original. It does not appear on the carbon copy. 

This carbon copy carries the salutation "sir." The FBI original carries no 
salutation. 

This carbon copy is 214 pages in length. The FBI original is 15 pages in 
length. 

The carbon copy at the end carries the words "Sincerely yours. J. Edgar 
Hoover. Director." That, of course, did not appear at the end of the FBI 
original, but actually appeared in the "To" "From" relation in the beginning. 

The carbon copy shows no carbon copy being sent to anyone else. 

Continuing on page 723 : 

Mr. Collier. I would like to pass to the Chair the diagram which I haVe 
drawn which will give you a more visual reference to the two letters which 
I have brought out. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I make a point of order? When the 
witness discusses the carbon copy, he might say the alleged carbon copy. 

Senator McCarthy. A point of order. Mr. Chairman. I would like to know 
who alleged it to be a carbon copy. We have never alleged it to be a carbon 
copy. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, you may proceed. 

Senator Mundt. Proceed. Mr. Collier. 

Mr. Collier. The FBI oriuinal. on the last page thereof, shows the following: 

"cc. Major General Joseph F. Carroll. * * * U. S. A. F." 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 101 

Now, that is the difference in form alone. I am clistinguishinsr between 
form and substance. Mr. Hoover advised me, and examined the two documents 
in my presence, advised me that the substance of the original FBI 15-page 
memorandum and the substance of the 2i/4-page carbon copy, contain informa- 
tion relating to the same subject matter, and that in some instances exact or 
identical language appears in both documents. 

Other than that, Mr. Hoover feels that to further clarify it would reveal, 
possibly reveal, the substance of the documents themselves. 

Mr. Chairman, I am continuing on page 724 : 

On that point, Mr. Hoover asked me to inform you that he respectfully refers 
the committee to the Attorney General for his opinion as to whether or not 
the contents can be made public in line with security requirements. And 
since the language is, in some instances, identical, that would apparently go for 
both documents. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, have you in detail related all of the events tran- 
spiring in your conference with Mr. Hoover? 

Mr. CoLLiEK. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jknkins. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mxjndt. Just one question. The Chair is not certain, and I am not 
sure that you can answer this question, but did you determine whether the 
FBI original was in the files of the military and available to Secretary Stevens? 

Mr. Collier. I will go back to the question that Ray asked me. I did not com- 
plete it. On that point I determined that the yellow copy in the FBI file, which 
is the file copy, carries the following handwritten notations concerning the 
original : 

"Delivered to Colonel Cramer, G-2, 1-27-51, W. R. P." 

Those initials are those of the liaison representative of the FBI, Wesley P. 
Reynolds. The carbon copy to Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Carroll, according to a hand- 
written notation on the yellow, was delivered to "Gill Levy, OSI, 1/29/51, ESS," 
the initials standing for Ed S. Sanders. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, those originals were apparently delivered 
in 1951? 

Mr. Collier. They were, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And were delivered to G-2 at that time? 

Mr. Collier. The memorandum is dated January 26. It was delivered per- 
sonally by Mr. Wesley P. Reynolds to Colonel Cramer on January 27, 1951. The 
carbon copy was delivered personally by Mr. Ed Sanders to OSI on January 
29, 1951. 

Mr. Chairman, we have deleted a portion and are continuing on 
page 724 with the statement or question of Senator Mundt, beginning 
now, "I understand." 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams, do you want that deletion read? 

Mr. Williams. Wliere does that deletion appear? After 724? 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes ; from my notes, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Would you read the last thing you just read, Mr. 
de Furia ? 

Mr. DE FuRLA. (reading) : 

Delivered personally by Mr. Ed Sanders to OSI, 1/29/51. 

Now, it may be a turnover instead of a deletion. 
Mr. Williams. Wliere do you resume ? 
Mr. DE FuRiA (reading) : 

Senator Mundt. Now I understand 

Mr. Williams. Go ahead ; that's all right. There is no purpose in 
putting that in. 
Mr. DE FuRiA. Page 724 : 

Senator Mundt. Now I understand. You were quoting Mr. Hoover then when 
you say that in some instances the language was identical, that the subject 
matter was identical, and that, as Mr. Hoover interprets the security laws, the 
subject matter, both of the FBI copies and the copies from Senator McCarthy's 



102 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

flies, because they deal with an identical subject, should not be revealed in 
public, short of a ruling of the Attorney General ; is that correct? 

Mr. CorxiER. I want to make it clear Mr. Hoover did not, of course, refer to 
his carbon copy when he stated that, because actually this is not a carbon copy 
of any FBI document. He was referring to his own document, the 15-page 
memorandum, when he suggested that "I respectfully refer you to the Attorney 
General for his opinion." 

Senator Mundt. You are speaking for yourself then when you said that because 
J. Edgar Hoover had told you in some instances the language was identical, the 
subject matter was identical, that you believe that without authorization from 
the Attorney General we should not discuss the subject? 

Mr. CoLLiKR. That is correct. Mr. Hoover made no comment concerning this 
carbon copy. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman; I would like to point out I think 
this should be explored with Mr. Hoover. As far as I know, if the Chair will 
refer to page 2 of the hearings where this letter lists the names of individuals 
at Fort Monmouth, I understand the FBI report gives the names of informants 
and information. That security information was omitted from this copy, call 
it what you may, which I have. I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, and the 
witness has not covered that. Apparently he can because he says he has — 

I think there is a typographical error there. It should read : 

Apparently he can't, because he says he has not examined the letter whether 
or not all portions of this document which was— 

Incompleted sentence. 

Senator Mundt. That is a question which you should address to the witness, 
not to the Chair. It would not be a point of order, I don't think. 

Senator McCarthy. No, Mr. Chairman ; it is a request of the Chair and this 
is a very, very important matter, Mr. Chairman. It is a request of the Chair 
that I am making. 

I am making a request that someone from the FBI be called to tell us whether 
or not all of the language in the documents submitted yesterday is not identical 
to the language in the documents submitted to the military, with the exception 
of where we list the name of an individual and put the word after it "deroga- 
tory," in same cases "not derogatory," that the FBI report actually contains 
all the information. I should think we should ask Mr. Hoover whether or not 
he would object to having put into the record — -this is a request I am making 
of the Chair. May I finish, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Is it a point of order? 

Senator McCarthy. I am making a request of the Chair, a very important 
request. 

The request is this : We have a document here concerning Fort Monmouth, 
Communists at Fort Monmouth, and a warning relating to them. I want to 
know, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will not now call someone from the Bureau 
who can bring down the document they have, not for public exhibition, and tell 
us whether or not all the language is not identical except that in this document 
the individuals are merely named and all security information is left out of 
this document, where, in the FBI document, the secui'ity information is included. 

Continuing on page 726. 

Senator McCletxan. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the docu- 
ment that is presented to us here which we have not read if incomplete — if it 
contains onl.v 3 pages out of the 15-page document — then the best evidence is 
the document itself which is available unless it is prohibited by security reasons. 
If it is prohibited by security reasons then these excerpts from it are not admis- 
sible at this hearing. If it is not prohibited, under the the security order and 
directive of the President, then the original document in full and complete is 
the best evidence and should be produced. 

I have a note of a possible deletion at this point, Mr. Williams, and 
then I continue witli Senator McCarthy. 

The Chairman. Is there a deletion there, Mr. Williams? 

Mr. W11.LIAMS. Yes ; there is. 

The Chairman. Do you want that deletion read? 

Mr. Wiu.iAMS. No, sir. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 103 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. de Fiiria. 
Mr. DE FuRiA (reading) : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, while I agree considerably with what the 
Senator from Arkansas says I would say that I think it should be made clear 
that we are not now requesting, and never have requested, that the security 
information about these specific individuals be made a part of the record. That 
is in line with the ruling of counsel, Mr. Jenkins. I do think that the language 
of the letter, if this language is correct and verbatim — and I have every reason 
to believe it is — that the language of the letter contains nothing of a security 
nature except that it warns, admonishes those in charge of Fort Monmouth. 

Senator INIundt. The letter is not admissible. 

Senator McCarthy. The Chair has stated that unless the entire 1.5 pages 
could be made a part of the record, none of it could. I want to disagree with 
that, Mr. Chairman. I think you can delete, as there apparently was deleted 
in this letter, the security reports on each specific individual. The rest of the 
letter, I think, is extremely important. 

Senator IMundt. The Chair is ready to rule. Unless his ruling is upset by his 
colleagues on this committee, he will rule that the counsel for the committee 
should seek from the Attorney General the permission suggested by Senator 
McClellan which has been restated by him and by the Chair. 

Then there is a deletion, Mr. Chairman. We go down to page 727. 

Mr. Collier. This letter is not a copy. 

The Chairman. Mr, Williams, will you check that? 
Mr. Williams, How far down do you go to? 
Mr. DE FuRiA. We begin again : 

Mr. Collier. This letter is not a copy. 

Mr. Williams. We do not desire that read. 
The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. de Furia. 
Mr. DE Furia. Page 727. 

Mr. Collier. This letter is not a copy of any document prepared by the FBI. 
Senator Jackson. Or one that he sent out? 
Mr. Collier. That is correct. 

Further down on page 727 : 

Senator McCarthy. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The (^hair says you 
should request of Mr. Brownell permission to use the entire 15-page document. 
I would like to ask the Chair t(» i-equest that if you cannot use the entire 1.5-page 
document — I assume he Avill rule against you on that, because it contains the 
names of informants — ask him whetlier or not we can use that portion of the 
document which was submitted yesterday — find out whether this is a verbatim 
copy of the FBI memorandum or letter, find if so, whether there is any objection 
to the introduction of a part of the document, omitting the names, which I 
sul)mitted yesterday. 

Then there is a deletion and we continue with a statement or a 
question by Senator ]McCarthy on the same page. 

I have 

Mr. Williams. Go ahead. 

The CiiAiii]viAN. Did I understand you to say to proceed? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed, Mr. de Furia. 

Mr. DE Furia. Continuing on page 727 : 

Senator McCarthy. I have. Mr. Jackson has made a completely false state- 
ment. He said I represented yesterday that this came from Mr. Hoover. I 
made it very clear that I had never received anything from J. Edgar Hoover, 
that this was not received from Mr. Hoover. Mr. Jackson knows all that. 



104 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Page 728 : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cliairuian, a point of order. Mr. Jackson has tried 
very deliberately to create the impression that this did not come from J. Edsar 
Hoover. I am sure the evidence will show that this did come from J. Edgar 
Hoover, and that there has been omitted from it — 

there is an interruption there. 

We continue, Mr. Williams, and with the chairman's permission, 
on page 729, a statement by Senator McCarthy beginning with the 
words, "I very definitely have," is that all right, sir ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Page 729 : 

Senator McCarthy. I very definitely have, of the same nature as Mr. .Taclcson's. 
We have a document here which, according to all the information I have, is 
verbatim, a report given from the FBI. It should be in the Army file. I sent 
a wire this morning to the Secretary asking for the addendum showing the 
derogatory material on each individual. I think it is important for Mr. Jackson 
not to maite these statements and try to create these impressions when he hasn't 
seen the letter. If he will look at it, I believe he will find each and every word 
is identical to the original letter, with the exception of the fact that where there 
is listed the names of Foi"t Monmouth employees and the word "derogatory" 
put after it in the FBI report, you will find the derogatory information and, 
perhaps, the names of the informants. If that were included in this letter, Mr. 
Chairman, then it would be objectionable. We would be violating the rules by 
submitting it to the committee. That security information is not in the letter. 
The meat of the letter is here, and I would suggest that we proceed now to exam- 
ine this young man and see if he can give us this information or not. 

Then we continue on page 732 with a question by Senator Symington. 

The Chair3ian. Is there a deletion at that point? 

Mr. DE FtJRiA. There is a deletion, Mr. Chairman, between 729 and 
732. 

Mr. Williams. I cannot tell by just a quick look Avhether there is 
anything in those three images — perhaps you ought to give me a minute 
here. 

The Chairman. If you wish to take time to read it, we will cease 
the progress at this point. 

Mr. Williams. I want to make it clear that I know Mr. de Furia 
is reading it completely fairly. It is just a question of interpretation 
as to whether something should go in which might help the investi- 
gation. 

The Chairman. The Chair is inclined to be very liberal with respect 
to anything that you think has any bearing on this matter. In other 
words, we want the full and complete picture so that nothing will be 
out of context. 

Mr, Williams. I think he can go on. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. DE Furia. Page 732 : 

Senator Symington. Mr. Collier, am I correct that Mr. J. Edgar Hoover asked 
you or suggested to this committee that prior to the publication of this document, 
that it be — that the matter be consulted with the Attorney General of the United 
States to see whether the publication of the document was in the interests of 
the security of the United States? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct. Senator Symington. 

Then there is a deletion, Mr. Chairman, down to page 734, which 
begins with a question by Mr. Welch, "Right. I think I will do no 
wrong" 



Mr. Williams. You may proceed, Mr. de Furia. 



KEATIINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 105 

Mr. DE Ftjria. With the permission of the chairman, I \vill begin 
reading again on page 734 : 

Mr. Welch. Right. I think I will do no wrong if I read the heading "Federal 
Bureau of Investigrtion, January 26, 1951." Are you following me, sir? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Then appeal's the words which I read yesterday and which startled 
me so "personal and confidential via liaison" ; is that right? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct. 

Mr. Welch. Then this purported carbon copy of a letter has this appearing 
"Major General Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff. G-2, Department of the Army, 
Washington, D. C, Sir"; is that right? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct. 

Mr. Welch. Now, passing the body of it and going only to the conclusion that 
appears at the bottom of it "sincerely yours," and then typed in capital letters 
"J. Edgar Hoover. Director"; is that right? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Collier, as I understand your testimony, this document that 
I hold in my hand is a carbon copy of precisely nothing; is that right? 

Mr. Collier. I will say that Mr. Hoover informed me that it is not a carbon 
copy of a memorandum prepared or sent by the FBI. 

Mr. Welch. Let us have it straight from the shoulder. So far as you know 
it is a carbon copy of precisely nothing? 

Mr. Collier. So far as I know, it is, yes ; but that again is a conclusion. 

Mr. Welch. So far as you know, this document in this courtroom sprung 
yesterday by Senator McCarthy is a perfect phony, is that right? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir ; that is your conclusion. I will not draw such a con- 
clusion. 

Mr. Welch. You just told us it is a carbon copv of precisely nothing, haven't 
you? 

Mr. Collier. I have said it is not a copy of a document in the FBL file. I will 
not say that it is a copy of nothing because if it was typed as a carbon there 
must have been an original. 

^Ir. AVelch. You would think so, but we can find no trace of an original, can 
we? 

Mr. Collier. Not yet. 

Mr. Welch. Anywhere? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir. 

Mr. Welch. No, sir. If no original of this document can be found, will you 
go along with me, sir, with my quaint English, when I say it is a copy of pre- 
cisely nothing? 

Mr. Collier. You are assuming that the original cannot be found? 

Mr. Welch. That is right. 

Mr. Collier. My investigation yesterday was to determine whether this was 
an authentic document. 1 have made no investigation to determine whether the 
original can be found or not. It may be that it can be found. 

Mr. Welch, l^ou cannot find a copy of it in the FBI place, can you? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Now you do not on your investigation — strike it out. You are 
not, as you sit in this chair, in possession of a single fact which will allow you 
to believe that the document which I now show you is a carbon copy of any 
existing original letter? 

Mr. Collier. I made an examination yesterday to determine whether this 
was a copy of a document prepared or sent by the FBI. I have not made any 
examination to determine whether it is a copy of an original now in existence. 

Mr. Welch. Have you any doubt, sir, that it was presented in this room as 
if it were a carbon copy of a letter signed J. 'Edgar Hoover, Director, and ad- 
dressed to Major General Boiling? 

Mr. Collier. I was present when it was presented, and I do not now remember 
the exact manner in which it was presented. 

Mr. Welch. Did you have any doubt, sir, that your superior, Mr. Jenkins, 
was handed a document which he believed to be a carbon copy of a letter? 

Mr. Collier. That would be for Mr. Jenkins to &.\y. 

Mr. Welch. Did you believe it was a carbon copy of a letter when you first 
heard it in this room? 

Mr. Collier. It was referred to as a copy of a letter. 

Mr. Welch. Yes, sir. 



106 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Collier. And I observed it. I can draw no further conclusions from it. 
Mr. Welch. And now as you sit in this room, you are unable to tell us from all 
the information you have been able to obtain last night V 

May I have a minute, sir ? 
The Chairman. You may. 
(Discussion off the record.) 

The Chairman. Tlie committee will now take its recess until 2 p. m. 
(Whereupon, at 11 : 55 a. m., a recess was taken until 12 p. m., the 
same clay.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johuson of Colorado (vice 
chairman), Stennis, Carlson, Case, and Ervin. 

Also present : Senator McCarthy ; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel to 
the committee; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee; 
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee ; John W. Wellman, staff member ; 
Frank Ginsburg and Ray K. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins' 
staff' on loan to the committee ; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel 
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and Brent 
Bozell. 

The Chairman. The committee will resume session. 

Counsel for the committee will resume reading the matters which 
the committee takes judicial notice of in the Army-McCarthy hearing. 

Mr. DE Furia. With the permission of the chairman, we desire to 
resume reading at page ToG of the same source material, Page ToG : 

Senator McCarthy. May I make it very clear that as far as I am concerned, 
the Truman directive, or any other directive, will ijreclude me from examining 
material bearing upon the security of this Nation. I am very surprised when I 
find Ml'. Welch here worried about disclosing information on Communists, sitting 
back and slyly approving the violation of the law insofar as eavesdropping is 
concerned and monitoring. So there is no question about Mr. Collier, Mr. 
Chairman, there will be no personal and confidential material where it shows 
that someone is covering up and hiding Communists. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, we desire to call to the attention of the com- 
mittee that that statement from Senator McCarthy on page 736 is 
exactly as it appears in the printed report of the testimony. Appar- 
ently there was some discre})ancy. So we checked with the olHcial 
transcript, volume 10, page 180-1, May 5, li)51, and find that the cor- 
rect wording is as follows : 

Senator McCarthy. May I make it very clear that as far as I am concerned, 
the Truman directive, no directive will preclude nie from examining material 
bearing upon the security of this Nation. I am very surprised when I find 
Mr. Welch here worried about disclosing information on Communists, sitting 
back and slyly approving the violation of the law insofar as eavesdropping is 
concerned and monitoring. So there is no question about Mr. Collier, Mr. Chair- 
man, there will be no personal and confidential material where it shows that 
someone is covering up and hiding Communists. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman 



Mr. DE Furia. And may I say, Mr. Chairman, that I called this to 
the attention of Mr. Williams, and he agreed that the words are as I 
just last read them. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. I certainly agree that the substitution of "no" for 
"any other" was a jn-oper substitution, but I do want to call attention 
of the Chair to the fact that the last sentence which lias just been read 
by Mr. de Furia is also inaccurate, and I think a very cursory analysis 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 107 

of it would demonstrate that, because it is completely ^Yitllout sense. 
Senator McCarthy advised me that he did not say this sentence : 

So there is no question about Mr. Ck)llier, Mr. Chairman, there will be no 
personal and confidential material where it shows that someone is covering up 
and hiding Communists. 

That is obviously meaningless as it is written there, and it does not 
acciu'ately rej)resent what was said, because Mr. Collier, although he 
was a witness on the authenticity of the documents, had nothing to 
do with the issue which has been discussed there. 

I do not think the change is significant or meaningful, but in the 
interests of accuracy. I think I should call that to your attention. 

The Chairman. Your explanation is in the record, and we will let 
it stand that way. I mean by that, we will let the record stand. I 
do not mean that the committee is accepting your interpretation or 
the other at the moment. We will let it stand as the record shows, your 
statement pointing out that it seems inconsistent and does not seem 
to be the correct language. 

Mr. WiLLTAiNis. What it should be is, "So that there is no question 
about this subject, Mr. Chairman." 

The Chairman. You read it as you think it should be, so that that 
M'ill be in the record. 

Mr. Williams (reading) : 

So that there is no question about this subject, Mr. Chairman, there will be 
no personal and confidential material where it shows tliat someone is covering 
up and hiding Communists. 

The Chair^ian. Proceed. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. I shall continue then, Mr. Chairman, on page 737 : 

Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, may I say that I, as assistant counsel to 
Mr. Jenkins, am here to get the facts. I don't think it is our purpose nor our 
right to draw conclusions in any form. I have examined this document, as I 
have so testified, at the beginning and at the end, in order to establish what 
kind of document it is, in order to identify it. I have not read the contents. 

The part you speak of is on page 2. I feel that in view of the security 
requirements I should not read that second page. 

Senator IMcCarthy. I am asking you to look at the top of page 2, which, 
contains nothing in regard to security, but shows that the security informa- 
tion was omitted. I ask you to look at that parenthetical expression. It is 
very important to establish that fact now, in view of the repeated statements 
by Mr. Welch that this was a phony and that anyone had a right to believe 
that all of the security information was in it. 

Mr. Chairman, it is important to get at the truth of this right now. 

Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, I feel that I must respectfully decline to 
read it and determine those facts from it. 

Passing on, Mr. Chairman, to page 738 : 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Collier, you say that the Director told you the 
language was identical in some respects ; is that correct? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct, in some respects. 

Senator McCarthy. Did he tell you that the language was identical in all 
respect.s 

Mr. Collier. No. 

Senator McCarthy. Except that this 3-page document omitted the security 
reports furnished by the FBI; that other than that the document is complete? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir ; he did not state it in that way. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, now, what did he tell you? 

Mr. Coliier. He told me that the language is identical in some respects and 
that it relates to the same subject-matter ; that both documents relate to the 
same subject-matter. That was as far as he felt he was entitled to go. 

52461 — 54 8 



108 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Page 740. 

Mr. AViLLiAMS. I think there is some very pertinent language on 
page 739. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Committee counsel did not think so, Mr. Chairman, 
but as we have repeated, we have no objection whatever to Mr. Williams 
calling to the attention of the committee any excerpts that he thinks 
would further clarify this situation. 

The Chairman. Do you know now, Mr. de Furia, the language that 
he thinks should be significant and should be in the record ? 

Mr. DE FuKiA. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not since I gave to Mr. 
Williams the transcripts from which we were working, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams, on your statement that you think it 
is pertinent, I am going to allow you to read it. 

Mr. Williams. Beginning at page 739, in the fifth paragraph of the 
official printed report of this investigation : 

Senator, may I ask counsel for the Army, so the Attorney General will know 
the attitude of the parties to this dispute, whether counsel for the Army will 
consent to having this 15-page dociiment with the security information deleted 
and this document made public, so that the press and the public can compare 
the two documents? 

I am just reading this because the next part is necessary. 

Senator McCarthy. I know. I just asked whether or not we can transmit 
to the Attorney General the information that both counsel for Mr. Stevens 
and Mr. Adams, as well as Senator McCarthy, request that they make the 15-page 
document public if there is deleted any seciirity information, and that also we 
make public the document which I have submitted after deleteing the names on 
page 2. 

The Chairman. Does that cover all that you think ought to be 
added ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. DE Furia. Page 740 : 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Collier, is this much very clear from what you have been 
able to tell us at this time : that on the date Senator McCarthy mentioned 
yesterday, January 26, 1951, there was transmitted, under the name of John 
Edgar Hoover, to Army Intelligence a document? 

Mr. Collier. I will restate it, Mr. Cohn. Under date of .January 2G, 1951, 
a 15-page FBI memorandum was prepared. The original of that memorandum 
was transmitted to General Boiling's office via liason on January 27, and the 
carbon copy to General Carroll's office via liaison on the 29th. 

Mr. CoHN. Sir, did this memorandum go to the Army under the name of 
John Edgar Hoover? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. On the memorandum there are the printed words 
"date, to, from, and subject" : and beside the word "to" was the identification, 
"IMajor General A. R. Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of 
the Army, the Pentagon, Washington, D. C," and beside the word "from," 
"John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation." 

Mr. CoHN. You say printed. Were they not typewritten? 

Mr. Collier. They were typed. 

Mr. Cohn. Typewritten words, "from, John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal 
Bureau <if Investigation"? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. And, sir. Is it a fact, on the basis of what you can tell us now, 
the subject matter of this 15-page memorandum from Mr. Hoover to the Army 
on that date was Aaron Coleman, then at Fort IMonmouth, espionaging? 

Mr. Collier. I will say tliis : That after the word "from" and the designa- 
tion "John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation," there 
followed the word "subject" and typed thereon was "Aaron Hyman Coleman, 
espionage — R". For your information the "R" stands for Russian. 

Mr. CoHN. The "R" stands for Russian. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 109 

Now we are passing, Mr. Chairman, with your permission, sir, to 
page 741, reading as follows : 

Mr. CoHN. I think we left at this point this memorandum sent under the name 
of John Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, to the Army, dated January 26, and 
I believe you said delivered on January 27, sir? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. Bears the hearting "Aaron Coleman, espionage-R." 

Mr. Collier. Aaron Hyman Coleman. 

Mr. CoHN. ••Espionage-R," and you now tell us that the word "R" stands for 
Russian? 

Mr. Collier. Mr. Hoover told me that the "R" stands for Russian. 

Mr. CoHN. So you can tell us this morning that the 15-page memorandum 
was a communication from Mr. Hoover to the Army concerning Aaron Coleman, 
and Russian espionage ; is that a fair statement? 

Mr. Collier. That is what the "to" and the "from" read, and the subject is 
Aaron Hyman Coleman, Espionage-R. 

Mr. CoHN. Can you, Mr. Collier, as having been present in the room and a 
member of Mr. Jenkins' staff, tell us from the testimony of yesterday on the 
public record that on the day this memorandum was sent over from Mr. Hoover, 
Aaron Hyman Coleman was the section head in the secret radar laboratory at 
Fort Monmouth? 

Mr. Collier. Mr. Cohn, I cannot tell you that of my own personal knowledge. 

Mr. CoHN. I would ask the Chair, then, to take judicial or chairmanwise 
notice of the public hearings of this committee of December 8, 1953, which indi- 
cate that. I believe I read the job description of Mr. Coleman into the record 
yesterday. 

Now, sir, can you tell us whether Senator McCarthy stated with complete 
accuracy yesterday that this 15-page memorandum, that this memorandum by 
Mr. Hoover, was a warning to the Army that at the secret radar laboratories 
;at Fort Monmouth a group of associates of Julius Rosenberg and people with 
Communist records were operating on a secret link and chain radar project at 
-that time? 

Mr. Collier. Mr. Cohn, I cannot tell you of my own personal knowledge. I 
was busy on some other matters. I was in and out of the room. I didn't hear 
that complete statement. The record would speak for itself. 

We now pass, Mr. Chairman, to page 749 of part 20 on May 5, 1954, 
reading as follows • 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman— — 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Sorry, sir. Are you skipping to 749, now, did you 
say? 

The Chairman. Apparently so, yes, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. In order to avoid my interrupting Mr. de Furia, 
which I consistently hesitate to do, I would suggest this, if I may, Mr. 
Chairman. It is not necessary for us to read these parts that I feel are 
germane now. So long as all the Collier testimony may be considered 
of record, I would be satisfied. I cannot stop here now and read 7 
pages without delaying this hearing, which I am loath to do. 

The Chairman. I have not read all the Collier testimony, but on 
the advice of Mr. Chadwick, I think it would be fair to rule that it all 
can be made a part of the record, and it will appear as appendix No. I. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir. 

The Chairman. And if in the reading Mr. de Furia or Mr. Chad- 
wick do not include it all, the rest of it can be supplied so that the 
record can be complete. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. DE Furia. Page 749 : 



"to^ 



Mr. Jenkins. Are you now prepared to answer the questions asked of me by 
Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn during the noon hour? 



110 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

I believe, though, that I should recount to the committee the conversation that 
I had with Mr. Hoover. At the conclusion of that, of course, any questions can 
be asked. 

Mr. Jenkins. You are talking about the conversation between you and Mr. 
Hoover during the noon hour? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you now relate in detail that conversation which I think 
will answer Senator McCarthy's questions? 

Mr. Collier. Upon your instructions, I communicated with the FBI and ex- 
pressed my desire to talk with Mr. Hoover. Within a few minutes thereafter Mr. 
Hoover called me on the telephone. He stated that the letter to General Boiling 
of January 2(), 1951, was classified by the word "Confidential" and he does not 
feel that he has any right to declassify it or to discuss its contents. May I point 
out at this time that the FBI in 1951 did not use the classifications normally 
attributed to the military. That is, "Restricted," "Confidential," "Secret," and 
"Top Secret." They used either the characterization "Confidential" or "Per- 
sonal and Confidential." Therefore, that confidential, in Mr. Hoover's opinion 
and in his statement to me, is the highest classification that can be put on a 
document by the FBI. 

We pass now, Mr. Chairman, to page 751 : 

Mr. Collier. On page 2 following the list of names is paragraph 7, whicli 
paragraph extends over to page 3 and is identical in both documents. On page 3, 
the last paragraph No. S is identical in both documents. Mr. Hoover advised 
that he could not make any further comment upon the substance of either of 
tliese documents ; that it is still classified, and that he still respectfully referred 
the committee to the Attorney General. He further advised that the original 
15-page document was furnished to General Boiling's office by liaison representa- 
tive on January 27 and that the original and one copy went to General Boiling's 
office, and the FBI this morning determined from that office that the original 
and one copy are in their files. 

A carbon copy was delivered liy a liaison representative on January 29, 1951, 
to the Office of Maj. Gen. .Toseph F. Carroll, United States Air Force. The FBI 
this morning ascertained that that copy is presently in the files of the Air Force. 

There were, in addition to those three copies, a yellow tickler copy, a white 
copy, and the file copy, a yellow copy, and both of those are presently in the files 
of t^he FBI. 

All copies that were prepared by the FBI are present and accounted for. 

We pass now, Mr. Chairman, to page 754, sir : 

Mr. Collier. From the information in my possession, I will say that paragraphs 
1, 2, 3, and 4 are the same; 5 is different, containing a parenthetical statement in 
place of a paragraph ; 6 is the same ; and following 6 in this document before me, 
the 21/4 page is a list of names taking up about a half page, whereas in the 
15-page document there would have been the names and factual information 
taking up many pages. 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Collier. That thereafter, following that, paragraphs 7 and 8 are the same. 

Senator McCarthy. Just so we will have this one final question, is it the last 
paragraph in the letter? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct, sir, and was the last paragraph in the 15-page 
document. 

There is a deletion here, and we continue with Senator McClellan. 
Senator McCleUan, on pages 754 and 755 : 

Just one question, Mr. Chairman. 

From what you have seen of the two documents, the one that has been pre- 
sented here, and the one that you discussed with Mr. Hoover, I will ask you to 
state whether it would be possible for anyone to compose or present the docu- 
ment now before us except that they had access to the original document or the 
original copy thereof which still remains confidential and restricted. 

Mr. Collier. You are asking for my personal opinion on that? 

Senator McClellan. From what you have observed of the two. Would it be 
possible, except that the author of the document now before us nuist have had 
access to the original or the original copy thereof? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 111 

Mr. Collier. I would say that since seven of the paragraphs are identical, 
that the person who wrote this document must have had access to the original, 
l)ecause the identical language is contained therein. 

Senator McClellan. It is still restricted so far as the FBI is concerned? 

Mr. Collier. Mr. Hoover told me, and as I have stated to the committee at the 
beginning of this testimony, that it carries the highest classification the Bureau 
can place on a document, confidential, that he does not feel that he has any right 
to declassify it. 

We pass now, Mr. Chairman, to page 759 : 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, yesterday afternoon there was presented to 
me, to be read — and I desire to state that I hastily read it, Mr. Chairman, and 
that my mind was completely shed of all knowledge of its contents last evening, 
which perhaps may absolve me of guilty knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. Immunity of which the Senator has divested himself may be 
imposed upon you temporarily. 

Mr. Jenkins. There was handed to me, Senator McCarthy, a letter dated 
.January 26, 1951, and referred to herein as a 2i/4-page letter. As I recall, Sena- 
tor, that letter was handed to me by you; is that correct? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. It was passed along the table by me. 

Mr. Jenkins. I am sorry, I did not get your last answer. 

Senator McCarthy. I said, yes, it was at least passed along the table from 
nie to you. 

Mr. Jenkins. — 

There is a deletion here, sir. 

Then we continue on the same page, 759 : 

Mr. Jenkins. That letter was used as a basis by me in further examination or 
cross-examination of the Secretary of the Army. 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, you are bound to be aware of the fact that 
some attack has been made upon that letter. I want to ask you at this time to 
tell this committee all of your knowledge, without my asking you any specific 
questions at this time, with respect to the 214 -page letter, particularly where you 
obtained possession of it, when you obtained possession of it, whence it came, and 
give any other knowledge that you may have pertaining to that 2% -page letter. 

Senator McCarthy. First let me make it very clear, Mr. Jenkins and Mr. 
Chairman, that I will not under any circumstances reveal the source of any 
information which I get as chairman of the committee. One of the reasons why 
I have been successful, I believe, in some extent, in exposing communism, is be- 
cause the people who give me information from within the Government know 
that their confidence will not be violated. It will not be violated today. There 
was an attempt to get me to violate that confidence some 2 or 3 years ago, before 
the Tydings committee. I want to make it very clear that I want to notify the 
people who give me information that there is no way on earth that any com- 
mittee, any force, can get me to violate the confidence of those people. 

May I say that that is a rule which every investigative agency follows. Mr. 
J. Edgar Hoover insists that no informants be disclosed and brought up in 
public. They will not be brought up today, aside from that. I will give you the 
information that you request, Mr. Jenkins. This came to me from someone 
Avithin the Army. 

As I recall the time, I do not recall the date, I recall he stated very clearly 
the reason why he was .giving me this information was because he was deeply 
disturbed because even through there was repeated reports from the FBI to the 
effect that there was Communist infiltration, indications of espionage in the 
top-secret laboratories, the radar laboratories, that nothing was being done, he 
felt that his duty to his country was above any duty to any Truman directive 
to the effect that he could not disclose this information. 

And may I say, Mr. Chairman and counsel, now that I am on the stand it 
has now been established that this is a completely accurate I'esume of all of the 
information in that Federal Bureau of Investigation report, but that our in- 
formant, whoever he was, was very careful not to include any security informa- 
tion. I give him credit for that. I call the Chair's attention to the fact that 
there is no security information in this, and I urge, Mr. Chairman, that this be 
made available to the public. 



112 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

No. 2, if you will pardon me, Mr. Jenkins, I know I have objected to long- 
winded answers, but may I just answer you one bit further? You said to go 
ahead in chronological fashion. 

I received information also to the effect and, Roy, check with me on this, that 
in 1949 there was a report made of the same nature from the FBI complaining 
of what would appear to be apparently espionage, September 15, 1950, October 
27, 1950, December 1950, again December 1950, again June 5, 1951, January 20, 
1951 — I believe that is the one we have here — February 13, 1951, February 1952, 
June 1952, September 1952, January 1953, April 10, 1953, April 21, 19.53, and the 
young man who gave me this information was deeply disturbed, that is why he 
gave it, because there was no action taken by the Army to get rid of individuals 
after the FBI had given a complete report. 

Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, I am afraid that is a conclusion you will 
have to draw. I do not feel that I should. I will say that in substance the 
paragraphs are as I stated. The difference in form I have also stated. 

Mr. Jenkins Is that the end of your answer. Senator? 

Senator McCarthy. That is the end of the answer. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then do we understand, Senator McCai^thy, that you did not 
get the 2^/4 -page document from the Federal Bureau of Investigation? 

Senator McCarthy. I not only, Mr. Welch, did not get this from the FBI, but 
let me make it clear that I 

That sentence, apparently, Mr. Chairman, is incomplete. 

Mr. "Williams. May we have the same ruling on Senator McCarthy's 
testimony as we had a moment ago on Mr. Collier's testimony, that 
all of it may be considered of record here, although Mr. de Pyuria is 
reading only such portions as he has excerpted. 

The Chairman. You say, all of his testimony — you mean the entire 
examination of Senator McCarthy ? 

Mr. Williams. All of his testimony as I read it concerns this docu- 
ment. And as I do not want to burden 

The Chairman. You mean all of his testimony — pardon me, so that 

I get it clear — with respect to this document ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. You do not mean his other testimony ? 

Mr. Williams. No, just this testimony which Mr. de Furia is read- 
ing from now. 

The Chairman. We see no objection to it. It will be considered as 
having been read into the record, and if it is not all read by Mr. de 
Furia, counsel for the committee, we will have it inserted. You 
indicate the beginning and the end of it ; will you do that, please ? 

Mr. Williams. Thank you. 

The Chairman. To be sure that it is correct by you — we want you 
to check to see that it is all there. 

Mr. Williams. I will have it read- — I just want to make sure that the 
printed testimony of Senator McCarthy on this stage is included in 
the record. 

The Chairman. All right, it will be ordered printed as appendix 

II to this record. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. de Furia has asked me to spell him. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Chadwick. I will turn to page 761 of the same transcript, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins (to Mr. Welch). Then, Senator, yon did not get the 2i^-page 
document from the Federal Bureau of Investigation? 

Senator McCarthy. I did not, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I am not going to ask you, and I did not intend to ask you the 
name of the individual who gave you that document. 

Senator McCarthy. I thank you. 

Mr. Jenkins. But, as I do understand it, Senator McCarthy, and we are 
trying to pursue this question to its logical end so that the committee may know 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 113 

all of the facts, that 2i/l-page document was delivered to you by someone from 
the Army? 

►Senator McCarthy. Yes. I can go a step further. Mr. Jenkins. 
_ Mr. Jenkins. And perhaps in the Intelligence Department? Can vou go that 
far? 

Senator McCarthy. An officer in the Intelligence Department. 

'Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Senator, when was that letter, that 2%-page document delivered to you? 

Senator McCarthy. I will have to consult with counsel on that, if I may. 

I\Ir. Jenkins. Very well : you are entitled to that. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I would have difficulty giving you an exact 
date, but it was early last sprins', roughly a year ago. Counsel says he thinks 
May or .Tune, and Mr. Carr says he thinks also, perhaps, in June. I think it 
was earlier. I think we had it before Mr. CaiT came with us ; is that right, 
Frank? 

Mr. Jenkins. AVhen it was delivered to you last spring, approximately a year 
ago, which would be in early May 1953, were you then advised. Senator, that 
it was not a coiiy of an — an exact copy — of the 15-pag9 document in the files 
of the Intelligence Department, but a condensation of it, as we would call it? 
That is, what information did you receive at that time with respect to this 
2 M -page document in relation to a 15-page document, if you had any such 
information? 

Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Jenkins, as I recall, I discussed with 
the officer who delivered this the fact that the document itself shows that 
there has been deleted security information. That will appear on page 2 — 

Then going to page 763 of the same : 

Senator McClkllan. Just one question. Did I understand you to say this 
document was delivered to you as chaimian of the committee? 

Senator McCarthy. I was chairman. In what capacity it was being delivered 
I don't know. I was chairman of the committee. 

Senator McClellan. I ask you now, do you regard it as a committee docu- 
ment or as a personal document? What is it? 

Senator McCarthy. It is available to the committee. 

From pages 763 and 764 : 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator INIcCarthy, is it unusual or extraordinary for confidential documents 
of this nature to come to you either as chairman of the Senate Permanent 
Investigating Committee or as an individual Senator? 

Senator McCarthy. It is a daily and nightly occurrence for me to receive 
information from people in Government in regard to Communist infiltration. 

From page 764 of the same : 

Senator Jackson. Was it delivered to you personally or to any one of the 
staff initially? 

Senator McCarthy. There may have been some member of the staff present; 
I don't know. The letter came into my possession personally. 

Senator Jackson. You do not know whether your informant gave it to you 
directly or a member of the staff' received it first and then gave it to you? 

Senator McCarthy. I am reasonably certain. Scoop, that this was handed to 
me personally. Keep in mind that I talk to so many people every day that I just 
cannot remember who handed me something a year ago. 

Senator Jackson. I mean, to your best knowledge and belief it came to you 
personally and not through the staff? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

At page 768 : 

Mr. Welch. Will you tell us where you were when you got it? 

Senator McCarthy. No. 

Mr. Welch. Were you in Washington? 

Senator McCarthy. The answer was I would not tell you, I would not give 
you any information which would allow you to identify my informant. That has 
been the rule of this committee. 

Mr. Welch. How soon after you got it did you show it to anyone? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't remember. 



114 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Welch. To whom did you first show it? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't recall. 

Mr. Welch. Can you think of the name of anyone to whom you showed it? 

Senator McCarthy, I assume that it was passed on to my stafE, most likely. 

Page 769 : 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Senator, when it was handed to you, was it put in the files of 
the subcommittee? 

Senator McCarthy. I assume it was. 

Mr. Welch. Like any other paper? 

Senator McCarthy. Like any other of a thousand of papers. 

Mr. Welch. And it became a document belonging to the subcommittee? 

Senator McCarthy. It now belongs to the subcommittee. 

From pages 819, 820, and 821 of the hearing on May 6, 1954, testi- 
mony of Robert A. Collier : 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask at this time that my assistant 
counsel, Mr. Prewitt, interrogate the witness. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Tom Prewitt will take over as counsel for the committee 
and interrogate Mr. Collier. 

Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Collier, at the iustance of the committee, did you, on yester- 
day, deliver the 2i/4-page reported copy of a memorandum from the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation to the oflice of Mr. Herbert Brownell, with the request 
that he give this committee an opinion on the question of whether or not that 
information could be released publicly? 

IVIr. Collier. I did. At approximately 5 :15 yesterday afternoon, I delivered 
a letter from Senator Mundt together with the 2i/i-page document, which I per- 
sonally handed to Mr. Robert Minor, assistant to the Deputy Attorney General. 

Mr. Prewitt. Do you have an opinion in writing from Mr. Brownell? 

Mr. Collier. I do. It was delivered at approximately 12 o'clock today. 

Mr. Prewitt. Will you read it? 

Mr. Collier. This is a letter 

Senator McCarthy. I wonder if we can fii'st have Mr. Mundt's letter, so we can 
understand what the answer is. 

Senator Mundt. You may read my letter of transmittal first. 

Mr. Collier. Mr. Prewitt has that. 

Mr. Prewitt. This letter is dated May 5, 1954, and addressed to the Honorable 
Herbert Brownell, Jr., United States Attorney General, Department of Justice, 
AVashington, D. C. : 

"As chairman of the Special Investigating Subcommittee and by its direction, 
I request your opinion as to whether or not the contents or any part thereof 
can be released by this committee to the public of the following documents : 

"1. A ir)-page interdepartmental memorandum elated January 26, 1951, from 
John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, to Maj. Gen. 
A. R. Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army, the 
Pentagon, Washington, D. C. — Subject : Aaron Coleman, Espionage — R. This 
document Avas classified 'Confidential.' 

"2. A 214-page letter dated January 26, 1951, from J. Edgar Ploover, Director, 
to Major General Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army, 
Washington, D. C. This document was classified 'Personal and Confidential.' 
This document was furnished to the committee on May 4 by Senator .Joseph R. 
McCarthy and is being furnished to you for your perusal by the bearer of this 
letter, ]Mr. Robert A. Collier, assistant counsel of the Special Investigating 
Subcommittee. 

'"Your expeditious attention to this matter will indeed be appreciated. 

"With best wishes and kindest personal regards, I am, 
"Cordinally yours, 

"(Signed) Karl E. Mundt." 

Mr. Collier. The communication from the Attorney General is on the letter- 
head of the Oflice of the Attorney General, Washington, D. C, dated May 6, 
1954: 

Hon. Karl E. Mundt, 

Viiited States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Senator : Upon receipt of your letter of May 5, I inquired concerning 
the 15-page memorandum referred to therein, and was advised that under date 
of January 26, 19.51, a 15-page memorandum was addressed to Maj. Gen. A. R. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 115 

Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, with a copy to Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Carroll, 
Director, Special Investigations, the Inspector General, USAF, by Mr. J. Edgar 
Hoover, Director of the FBI. This memorandum is classified "Confidential," 
which means, under existing law that its contents must not be disclosed "in, 
the best interests of the national security." It was delivered by hand to the 
appropriate officials of the Air Force and the Army. 

I inquired further to determine whether or not the Federal Bureavi of Inves- 
tigation or any person on its behalf had ever authorized the delivery of this 
memorandum to others, and was advised that the FBI has never released or 
authorized the release of the memorandum or any portion thereof to anyone 
except as above stated. 

The question as to whether or not this memorandum can now be declassified 
and made public has been presented to me by your letter. 

The FBI has a duty as the principal intelligence agency of the Government, 
operating within the United States and Territorial possesions, to call to the 
attention of other agencies of the executive branch of Government information 
of interest to such agencies. This is particularly true insofar as the investigative 
and intelligence branches of the armed services are concerned. The Director 
of the FBI and other intelligence and investigative agencies must be free to 
exchange information, one with the other, without the fear that information of 
a classified nature will be made public. The FBI with its enormous responsi- 
bilities to the President, the Congress, and the American public must have the 
fullest cooperation from all persons who possess information bearing upon the 
internal security of our country. This it cannot have unless it is in a position 
to give assurances that its files will be kept confidential. 

It has been the consistent and I believe wise policy of the Department of 
Justice, therefore, not to disclose the contents of FBI reports or memoranda or 
any part thereof. The only exception has been in the rare case where the 
information contained therein has been fully testified to by a witness or wit- 
nesses in court or before congressional committees under oath, so that no element 
of disclosure was in fact involved, and where no confidential sources of informa- 
tion or investigative techniques would be disclosed. 

The 15-page memorandum, if made public, would reveal confidential sources 
of information on the FBI, and confidential investigative techniques. It con- 
tains the names of persons against whom no derogatory material has been 
shown and unevaluated data as to others. Its publication would be harmful 
to matters now under consideration. 

I must therefore conclude that the memorandum should not be declassified 
and that publication of the memorandum would be contrary to the public 
interest. 

Your second request refers to a 2%-i)i\ge documents, dated January 26, 1951, 
a copy of which was delivered to us by Mr. Robert A. Collier, assistant counsel 
of your subcommittee, and which is returned herewith. This documents pur- 
ports to be a copy of a letter with a salutation : "Ma.lor General Boiling, Assist- 
ant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army, Washington, D. C, Sir :" It 
is marked "Personal and Confidential." It closes with the following type- 
written signature : "Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover, Director." 

Mr. Hoover has examined the document and has advised me that he never 
wrote any such letter. However, this document does contain phraseology which 
is identical with words and paragraphs with those contained in the 15-page 
memorandum referred to previously. In addition this docmnents contains the 
listing of names identical with names contained in the 15-page memorandum. 

After these names there appear the words "derogatory" or "no derogatory" 
which were not contained in the original memorandum. Although the 214-page 
document purports to be a letter signed by J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the 
FBI, these evaluations of "derogatory" or "no derogatory" were not made by 
him nor by anyone on his behalf. In fact, there is nothing contained in the 
2% -page document to show who made such evaluations. In view of these facts 
and because the document constitutes an unauthorized use of information which 
is classified as "confidential," and for the reasons previously stated, it is my 
opinion that it should not be made public. 
Sincerely yours, 

Herbert Brownell, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

There is a reference to the fact that the letter is marked "Exhibit 
No. 16." 



116 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

From pages 3080 to 3083 of the stenographic transcript, volume 
18 of the hearing on Ma}^ 17, 1954 : 

Senator Mundt. We will begin tliis morning by annoxuicing that the Chair has 
received liis reply from the Attorney General to a letter which was written 
some time ago in connection with the so-called .SVt-page document, and in the 
interest of time I shall not read my letter of May 10 in its entirety. It is a 
little long. Btit I will ask to include it in the record as an exhibit appropriately 
marked and I shall read the significant passages. 

(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 18" and received in evi- 
dence. ) 

Senator Mundt. For the purposes of recapitulation, you will recall that this 
dealt with the 214-page document — by the way, it has been returned, and I will 
ask that it be passed down to Senator McCarthy, since it is his property — - 
in which, paraphrasing my letter, I asked the Attorney General whether his 
admonition against publishing or releasing the contents of that document in 
toto held for all portions and all paragraphs. The significant part of my letter 
after reviewing my previous interrogatory of the Attorney General, was this : 

"Would it be possilile for you to authorize or clear for use as an exhibit be- 
fore our subcommittee any of the paragraphs or portions of the enclosed 214- 
page document? It has occurred to some members of the subcommittee that 
the fact that the 214,-page document may contain the names of some of those 
still under investigation or being used as informants could he the l»asis on which 
you requested the contents be not divulged. If so, perhaps such names could 
be deleted and other portions of the document released. 

"Will you please write me your reaction to this request, and if you feel it is 
against the best security interests of the United States to permit any portion 
at all of the 2H-page document to be used as an exhibit before our subcom- 
mittee, I am sure it will be helpful to us if you will give your specific reasons 
for making such a determination We, of course, do not want to make public 
anything which is deemed to be injurious to our national interest to disclose, 
but in our search for truth in the current liearings, on the other hand, we would 
like to have availnble for our consideration every fact and document which can 
be included in our record without doing violence to essential security con- 
siderations. 

"We will appreciate a reply as soon as possible." 

Next are the words, still Senator Mundt : 

I talked about the enclosures. 

I have here a reply from the Attorney General : 

May 13, 1954. 
Hon. Karl E. Mitndt, 

United States Senate, Washinfiton, D. C: 

In reply to your letter of May 10, 1954, for the reasons set forth in my letter 
of May 6, it is my opinion that it would not be in the public interest to release the 
214 -page document which purports to be a copy of a letter or to release any part 
thereof. 

As I pointed out. the document is not authentic in that no such letter was 
written by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. The portions of this document which were 
taken verbatim from the 15-page interdepartmental FBI memorandum dated 
January 26, 1951, by an unidentified person are classified "confidential" by law; 
this means they must not be disclosed "in the best interests of the national 
security." 

If the "confidential" classification of the FBI reports and memoranda is not 
respected, serious and irreparable harm will be done to the FBI. This prin- 
ciple applies with equal force to the release of portions of the FBI memo- 
randum which are contained in the 214-page document as well as to the memo- 
randum as a whole. 

The Department has under consideration at the present time possible viola- 
tions of criminal law as a result of the referral of the transcript of the hearings 
to the Department by your subconunittee. The 2i4-page document is involved, 
and its declassification at this time might affect adversely or even defeat the 
proper prosecution of offenses involved in its preparation and dis.semination. 
This consideration confirms my original opinion that it would not be in the 
public interest to declassify the document or any part of it at the present time. 
Sincerely, 

Herbert Brownell, Jr., 

Attorney General. 



SHEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 117 

Mr. Mundt again in his own words : 

I ask that my letter in full, and the Attorney General's letter in full, be en- 
tered at this point in the record, and properly identified. 

And in parentheses : 

The letter from the Attorney General was marked "Exhibit No. 19" and re- 
ceived in evidence. 

End of parentheses. 

Again reverting to the stenographic transcript, this time volume No. 
34, pages 6722 and 6723 : 

Senator Jackson. All right, we won't go into any further detail about that. 
When did you first see the 2Vt-page FBI document? 

Mr. Cakr. I believe — I believe that I first saw the two and a— what is it, 21^- 
page document? — in this courtroom, or just before that, just the day that Mr. 
McCarthy lianded it up here, or attempted to have the Chair read it. 

Senator .Jackson. Tou had never seen it before? 

Mr. Carr. I had never seen it. I knew about it, however. 

Senator Jackson. So it was never in the files? 

Mr. Carr. It was never in the files downstairs ; no, sir. 

Senator Jackson. How could you conduct this investigation? You are the 
staff director, and if yoii hadn't seen it until the day you came in, how could 
you have conducted this investigation without having seen that document? 

Mr. Carr. I didn't have to see the document, sir. I know what was in it. 

Further in the stenographic testimony of the same hearing for June 
17, vohime 36, at pages 7270 and 7271 : 

Mr. Welch. Where do you keep the documents like the 2%-page document that 
we had here? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, I was of the opinion that was down in the 
committee files. However, I heard 'Slv. Carr testify to the effect that it was not : 
that it was in my office. I will take Mr. Carr's testimony on that, because I 
am sure he is right in that. 

I\Ir. Welch. That you would consider an important document; would you not? 

Senator McCarthy. Important, but not important beyond many documents 
•we get. 

Mr. Welch. You wouldn't allow it to lie around carelessly, would you, Senator? 

Senator McCarthy. It did not lie around carelessly. 

]Mr. Welch. I want to ask about that. Have you a safe in your office? 

Senator McCarthy. I have. 

Mr. Welch. Was that document kept in that safe? 

Senator McCarthy. Apparently it was, Mr. Welch. May I say, I wasn't aware 
■of that until I heard Mr. Carr testify to that, and I checised with Mrs. DriscoU 
and she tells me that document was in my safe rather than in the committee 
files. 

Mr. Welch. In your safe, sir? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Mr. Welch. May I ask who has access to your safe; others than you, or not? 

Senator McCarthy. My administrative assistant has access. Mrs. Driscoll 
has. I, of course, have. I don't think anyone else has the combination. 

Mr. Chairman, that conchides the factual matter in connection with 
the subject matter to which we have been directing our attention. 

My brief, of course, contains some memorandums of law, but I have 
already made a request to you that this material might be presented by 
the staff in carefully prepared and revised documentary form, rather 
than as it is in our briefs, which we will do, giving a copy of that 
paper to Mr. Williams. And we hope that it may be made part of the 
record without the necessity of needing it here. 

Mr. Williams. May we have that today, Mr. Chadwick? 

Mr. Chadwick. I do not think I can supply it today. 

Mr. Williams. All right. 



118 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman, I understand, Mr. Cliadwick, it will probably be 
next Tuesday before you can give that material, 

Mr, Chadwick. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And I assume that you will want some additional 
time in which to prepare such items with respect to the law as you have 
already indicated you want for the record ? 

Mr, Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The Chair recognizes the fact that it is a long 
and laborious job to prepare these briefs, and to carefully check the 
authorities and the precedents and for that reason I think that any 
reasonable time should be granted either counsel for the committee 
or counsel for Mr. McCarthy in which to do that job. 

Mr. Chadwick. Such briefs of the law will contain all reference 
to all Federal directives that we identify as having application. We 
might read them here, and we may read them when we file our report, 
if we deem it fit, but I suggest that we better not read it now until 
we have had a chance to review that situation, Mr. Chairman, 

Mr. Williams. If we could have even a rough draft of that prior 
to Tuesday, I think that we might be able to file our brief by Tuesday 
or Wednesday in reply thereto. 

I assume that you have reference to those legal matters that Senator 
Case called to our attention this morning ? 

Mr, Chadwick, Yes, sir ; matters that we have heretofore ref eiTed 
to at the close of the reading of the brief on various points. And 
that is a reasonable request. We can give it to you in the rough with- 
out the extension of material, because we will give you these citations 
in support thereof. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you. 

Senator Carlson. May I ask if the request that Senator Case made 
this morning contained a request for Executive Order No. 10450, 
which deals with the security requirements of Government employ- 
ment and, also, the Presidential directive of March 13, 1948, which 
deals w^ith the confidential status of employees. It seems to me that 
should be a part of these hearings, if it is not already. 

Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir; we quite agree. It will be made a part 
of that. 

The Chairman. I take it that counsel is going to search for all of 
the precedents, all of the sections of the code, all of the rules of the 
Senate or any interpretations thereof that have anything to do with 
this matter. 

Mr. Chadwick. We will do our very best, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. That includes the Presidential directives, and any- 
thing of a legal nature that may throw some light on these contro- 
versies, that is, on these issues raised in this hearing? 

Mr. Chadwick. That will be our purpose, and it is our under- 
standing of our instructions. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further that you have to offer 
in a factual way at this time? 

Mr. Chadwick. No, sir. 

The Chairman. This is rather early in the day. The committee 
has been looking for a time when it could hold a rather extended execu- 
tive session. 'There are matters of law to be cleared up and matters 
of investigation yet to be finished and to receive reports on some 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 119 

tha,t are underway, so that the committee appreciates getting the 
rest of the afternoon to work out such matters, in which to hold such 
a meeting. 

As I said yesterday, some members of the committee at least will 
attend the funeral tomorrow in South Carolina, and that will make 
it impossible for us to go ahead with the hearing. 

The hearings will resume next Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock, and 
in this same room. 

Mr. Williams. Do you want us at this meeting ? 

The Chairman. We have some internal work with respect to the 
committee's activities. If you have anything to suggest, Mr. Wil- 
liams, either you or Senator McCarthy, that will be helpful in getting 
all of the facts in the record — in getting all of the law pertinent to this 
matter in the record — we would be very glad to meet with you for that 
purpose. 

We do not have any other objective in mind, however. 

Mr. WiLLLVMS. Thank you. 

The Chairman. The committee will now stand in recess until next 
Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 10 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
at 10 a. m., Tuesday, September 7, 1954.) 



HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301 



TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges 
Pursuant to Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301, 

Washrngtan^ D. C. 

The select committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10: 14 a. m., in the 
caucns room, 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins 
(chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson (vice chairman), 
Carlson, Case, Stennis, and Ervin. 

Also present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel 
to the committee ; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee; 
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee : John W. Wellman, staff mem- 
ber; Frank Ginsberg and Ray R. McGuire. members of Senator Wat- 
kins' staff on loan to the committee : and Edward Bennett Williams, 
counsel to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and 
Brent Bozell. 

The Chairman. The committee will resume session. 

Confirming a committee purpose, which I mentioned at a pre\dous 
hearing, judicial or legislative notice will be taken by this committee 
of the report of the Henning-Hayden-Hendrickson Subcommittee on 
Privileges and Elections of the Committee on Rules and Adminis- 
tration relating to the investigation directed against Senators Joseph 
R. McCarthy and William Benton, pursuant to Senate Resolution 
187 and Senate Resolution 304, in the 82d Congress; for the limited 
purpose of showing the nature (but not to establish the truth or 
falsity) of the charges before that subcommittee, as bearing upon the 
question of jurisdiction of that subcommittee. 

That report will be made a part of this record, and will appear as 
appendix No. III. 

Tliis committee will also take legislative notice of the letter from 
the President to the Secretary of defense, dated May 17, 1954, and of 
the memorandum of law from the Attorney General to the President, 
accompanying the same. The counsel will "offer said letter and memo- 
randum in evidence by copies thereof, and will read the letter into 
the record. The memorandum will be marked as an exhibit and 
included as part of the record without reading. 

You may proceed, Mr. Chadwick. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I offer in evidence a letter of the 
President of the United States to the Secretary of Defense, dated 
May 17, 1*954, which I will read for the purposes and into the record 
as you direct. 

121 



122 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. The Chair has already directed that you read it 
into the record. I have already taken judicial notice of that docu- 
ment. You may proceed, Mr. Chadwick. 

Mr. Chadwick. The letter reads as follows : 

Dear Mr. Seceetary : It has long been recognized that to assist the Con- 
gress in achieving its legislative purposes every executive department or agency 
must, upon the request of a congressional committee, expeditiously furnish 
Information relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the conniiittee, 
with certain historical exceptions — some of which are pointed out in the at- 
tached memorandum from the Attorney General. This administration has been 
and will continue to be diligent in following this principle. However, it is essen- 
tial to the successful working of our system that the persons entrusted with 
power in any 1 of the 3 great branches of Government shall not encroacli upon the 
authority confided to the others. The ultimate responsibility for the conduct of 
the executive branch rests with the President. 

Within this constitutional framework each branch should cooperate fully 
with each other for the common good. However, throughout our history the 
President has withheld information whenever he found that what was sought 
was confidential or its disclosure would be incompatible with the public interest 
or jeopardize the safety of the Nation. 

Because it is essential to efficient and effective administration that employees 
of the executive branch to be in a position to be completely candid in advising 
with each other on official matters, and because it is not in the public interest 
that any of their conversations or communications, or any documents or repro- 
ductions, concerning such advice be disclosed, you will instruct employees of 
your Department that in all of their appearances before the subcommittee of the 
Senate Committee on Government Operations regarding the inquiry now before 
if they are not to testify to any such conversations or communications or to pro- 
duce any such documents or reproductions. This principle must be maintained 
regardless of who would be benefited by such disclosures. 

i direct this action so as to maintain the proper separation of powers between 
the executive and legislative branches of the Government in accordance with 
my responsibilities and duties under the Constitution. This separation is vital 
to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power by any branch of the Government. 

By this action I am not in any way restricting the testimony of such witnesses 
as to what occurred regarding any matters where the communication was directly 
between any of the principals in the controversy within the executive branch 
on the one hand and a member of the subcommittee or its staff on the other. 
Sincerely, 

(Signed) Dwight D. Eisenhower. 

This letter is addressed to the honorable the Secretary of Defense, 
Washinjrton, D. C. This letter was dated May 17, 1954. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. I understood that order as read by Mr. Chadwick 
pertains solely and exclusively to the committee of which Senator 
Mundt was chairman, which functioned earlier this year. 

Now, I was wonderino; what relative purpose this introduction had 
here. I thought Mr. Chadwick might help us on that. 

The Chairman. Mr. Chadwick. 

Mr. Chadwick. As I catch the question, it is the limitation on a 
certain matter to prove a certain case. Mr. Williams, I think the docu- 
ment speaks for itself. 

Mr. Williams. It does to me, Mr. Chadwick. It speaks very clearly 
that it has applicability only to the Mundt committee. I wondered 
what its purpose was in this hearing. 

Mr. Chadwick. The purpose is to supplement the other testimony 
which has been read as evidence heretofore or which may be adduced 
hereafter with reference to the utilization, use, transmission, disclosure 
of classified documents or other communications, interdepartmental 
connnunications which are confidential under this directive. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 123 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman ? 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Will counsel state whether or not this letter from the 
President went to the so-called Mundt committee before or after, and 
was it written or issued by the President before or after the alleged 
invitation by Senator McCarthy to Government employees with re- 
spect to the furnishing of certain information ? 

Mr. Chadw^ck. My best recollection, sir, is that it followed that, 
that it was immediately contemporaneous with it. Whether it was 
immediately before or immediately after, I cannot say without refer- 
ence to the record. 

Senator Case. The dates, I assume, do appear in the record. 

Mr. Chadwick. They do, sir. I call the attention of the stenog- 
i-apher, and ask him to mark as a committee exhibit a memorandum 
10 pages in length to the President from the Attorney General which 
was attached to and in support of the Presidential order which I have 
just read into the record. I ask him to advise me what number to give 
to the document. We understand that it is exhibit No. 3. It is offered 
in evidence as part of the record in this case. 

The Chairman. The Chair has already ruled the exhibit will be 
marked as a memorandum and be included as a part of the record at 

this point. 

Memorandum 
For : The President. 
From : The Attorney General. 

One of the chief merits of the American system of written constitutional law 
is tliat all the powers entrusted to the Government are divided into three sreat 
departments, the executive, the le?;islative, and the judicial. It is essential to 
the successful working of this system that the persons entrusted with power 
in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the powers 
confided to the others, but that each shall be limited to the exercise of tlie powers 
•appropriate to its own department and no other. The doctrine of separation of 
powers was adopted to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power and to save the 
people from autocracy. 

This fundamental principle was fully recognized by our first President, George 
Washington, as early as 1796 when he said: "* * * it is essential to the due 
administration of the Government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution 
between tlie different departments should be preserved * * *." In his Fare- 
well Address, President Washington again cautioned strongly against the danger 
of encroachment by one department into the domain of another as leading to 
despotism. This principle has received steadfast adherence throughout the 
many years of our history and growth. More than ever, it is our duty today to 
heed these words if our country is to retain its place as a leader among the 
free nations of the world. 

For over 150 years — almost from the time tliat the American form of govern- 
ment was created by the adoption of the Constitution — our Presidents have 
established, by precedent, that they and members of their Cabinet and other 
heads of executive departments have an undoubted privilege and discretion to 
keep confidential, in the pulilic interest, papers and information which require 
secrecy. American history abounds in countless ilUistrations of the refusal, on 
occasion, by the President and heads of d partments to furnish papers to Con- 
gress, or its committees, for reasons of pulDlic policy. The messages of our past 
Presidents reveal that almost every one of them found it necessary to inform 
Congress of his constitutional duty to execute the office of President, and, in 
furtherance of that duty, to withhold informatit)n and papers for the public good. 

Nor are the instances lacking where the aid of a court was sought in vain to 
obtain information or papers from a President and the heads of departments. 
Courts have uniformly held that the President and the heads of departments 
have an uncontrolled discretion to withhold the information and papers in the 
public interest ; they will not interfere with the exercise of that discretion, and 

52461—54 9 



124 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

that Congress has not the power, as one of the three great branches of the 
Government, to subject the executive branch to its will any more than the execu- 
tive branch may impose its unrestrained will upon the Congress. 

PRESIDENT Washington's administration 

In March 1792, the House of Representatives passed the following resolution : 

''Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of the 
failure of the late expedition under Major General St. Clair ; and that the said 
committee be empowered to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may be 
necessary to assist their inquiries." (3 Annals of Congress, p. 493.) 

This was the first time that a committee of Congress was appointed to look 
into a matter which involved the executive branch of the Government. The 
expedition of General St. Clair was under the direction of the Secretary of War. 
The expenditures connected therewith came under the Secretary of the Treasury. 
The House based its right to investigate on its control of the expenditures of 
public moneys. It appears that the Secretaries of War and the Treasury ap- 
peared before the committee. However when the committee was bold enough f o 
ask the President for the papers pertaining to the General St. Clair campaign, 
President Washington called a meeting of his Cabinet (Binkley, President and 
Congress pp. 40-41 ) . 

Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State, reports what took place at that 
meeting. Besides Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, Secretary of 
War, and Edmond Randolph, the Attorney General, were present. The com- 
mittee had first written to Knox for the original letters, instructions, etc., to 
General St. Clair. President Washington stated that he had called his Cabinet 
members together, because it was the first example of a demand on the Executive 
for papers, and he wished that so far as it should become a precedent, it should 
be rightly conducted. The President readily admitted that he did not doubt the 
propriety of what the House was doing, but he could conceive that there might 
be papers of so secret a nature, that they ought not to be given up. Washington 
and his Cabinet came to the unanimous conclusion : 

"First, that the House was an inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries. 
Second, that it might call for papers generally. Third, that the Executive ought 
to communicate such papers as the public good would permit, and ought to refuse 
those, the disclosure of which would injure the public : consequently were to 
exercise a discretion. Fourth, that neither the committee nor House had a right 
to call on the Head of a Department, who and whose papers were under the 
President alone ; but that the committee should instruct their chairman to move 
the House to address the President." 

The precedent thus set by our first President and his Cabinet was followed in 
1796, when President Washington was presented with a resolution of the House 
of Representatives which requested him to lay before the House a copy of the 
instructions to the Minister of the United States who negotiated the treaty with 
the King of Great Britain, together with the correspondence and documents rela- 
tive to that treaty. Apparently it was necessary to implement the treaty with 
an appropriation which the House was called upon to vote. The House insisted on 
its right to the papers requested, as a condition to appropriating the required 
funds. (President and Congress, Wilfred E. Binkley (1947), p. 44). 

President Washington's classic reply was, in part, as follows : 

"I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to withhold 
any information which the Constitution has enjoined upon the President as a 
duty to give, or which could be required of him by either House of Congress as a 
right ; and with truth I affirm that it has been, as it will continue to be while I 
have the honor to preside in the Government, my constant endeavor to harmonize 
with the other branches thereof so far as the trust delegated to me by the people 
of the United States and my sense of the obligation it imposes to 'preserve, pro- 
tect, and defend the Constitution' will permit" (Richardson's Messages and 
Papers of the Presidents, vol. 1, p. 194). 

Washington then went on to discuss the secrecy required in negotiations with 
foreign governments, and cited that as a reason for vesting the power of making 
treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. He felt 
that to admit the House of Representatives into the treatymaking power, by 
reason of its constitutional duty to appropriate moneys to carry out a treaty, 
would be to establish a dangerous precedent. He closed his message to the 
House as follows : 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 125 

"As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding that the assent of the 
House of Representatives is not necessary to the validity of a treaty ; * * * and 
as it is essential to the due administration of the Government that the boundaries 
fixed by the Constitution between the different departments should be preserved, 
a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the 
circumstances of this case, forbids a compliance with your request" (Richard- 
son's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 1, p. 196 ) . 

PRESIDENT JEFFERSON'S ADMINISTRATION 

In January 1807, Representative Randolph introduced a resolution, as follows : 
"Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is, re- 
quested to lay before this House any information in possession of the Executive, 
except such as he may deem the public welfare to require not to be disclosed, 
touching any illegal combination of private individuals against the peace and 
safety of the Union, or any military expedition planned by such individuals 
against the territories of any power in amity with the United States ; together 
with the measures which the Executive has pursued and proposes to take for 
suppressing or defeating the same" (16 Annals of Congress (1806-1807), p. 336). 
The resolution was overwhelmingly passed. The Burr conspiracy was then 
stirring the country. Jefferson had made it the object of a special message to 
Congress wherein he referred to a military expedition headed by Burr. Jeffer- 
son's reply to the resolution was a message to the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives. Jefferson brought the Congress up to date on the news which he 
had been receiving concerning the illegal combination of private individuals 
against the peace and safety of the Union. He pointed out that he had recently 
received a mass of data, most of which had been obtained without the sanction 
of an oath so as to constitute formal and legal evidence. "It is chiefly in the 
form of letters, often containing such a mixture of rumors, conjectures, and sus- 
picions as renders it difficult to sift out the real facts and unadvisable to hazard 
more than general outlines, strengthened by concurrent information or the par- 
ticular credibility of the relator. In this state of the evidence, delivered some- 
times too under the restriction of private confidence, neither safety nor justice 
will permit the exposing names, except that of the principal actor, whose guilt 
is placed beyon question" (Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, 
vol. 1, p. 412, dated January 22, 1807). 

SIMILAR ACTIONS BY PRESIDENTS JACKSON, TYLER, BUCHANAN, AND GRANT 

On February 10, 1835, President Jackson sent a message to the Senate wherein 
he declined to comply with the Senate's resolution requesting him to communi- 
cate copies of charges which had been made to the President against the official 
conduct of Gideon Fitz, late surveyor-general, which caused his removal from 
office. The resolution stated that the information requested was necessary both 
in the action which it proposed to take on the nomination of a successor to Fitz, 
and in connection with the investigation which was then in progress by the 
Senate respecting the frauds in the sales of public lands. 

The President declined to furnish the information. He stated that in his 
judgment the information related to subjects exclusively belonging to the execu- 
tive department. The request therefore encroached on the constitutional powers 
of the Executive. 

The President's message referred to many previous similar requests, which 
he deemed imconstitutional demands by the Senate : 

"Their continued repetition imposes on me, as the representative and trustee 
of the American people, the painful but imperious duty of resisting to the utmost 
any further encroachment on the rights of the Executive" (ibid., p. 133) . 

The President next took up the fact that the Senate resolution had been 
passed in executive session, from which he was bound to presume that if the 
information requested by the reoslution were communicated, it would be applied 
in secret session to the investigation of frauds in the sales of public lands. The 
President said that, if he were to furnish the information, the citizen whose 
conduct the Senate sought to impeach would lose one, of his basic rights, namely, 
that of a public investigation in the presence of his accusers and of the witnesses 
against him. In addition, compliance with the resolution would subject the 
motives of the President, in the case of Mr. Fitz, to the review of the Senate 
when not sitting as judges on an impeachment ; and even if such a consequence 
did not follow in the present case, the President feared that compliance by the 



126 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Executive might thereafter be quoted as a precedent for similar and repeated 
applications. 

"Such a result, if acquiesced in, would ultimately subject the independent 
constitutional action of the Executive in a matter of great national concern- 
ment to the domination and control of the Senate; * * * 

"I therefore decline a compliance with so much of the resolution of the Sen- 
ate as requests 'copies of the charges, if any,' in relation to Mr. Fitz, and in 
doing so must be distinctly understood as neither affirming nor denying that 
any such cliarges were made; * * *" (ibid. p. 134). 

One of tlie liest reasoned precedents of a President's refusal to permit the 
head of a department to disclose confidential information to the House of Repre- 
sentatives is President Tyler's refusal to communicate to the House of Repre- 
sentatives the reports relative to the affairs of tbe Cherokee Indians and to 
tbe frauds which were alleged to have been practiced upon them. A resolution 
of the House of Representatives had called upon the Secretary of War to com- 
municate to tlie House the reports made to the Department of War by Lieutenant 
Colonel Hitchcock relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians together with 
all information communicated by him concerning the frauds he was charged 
to investigate ; also all facts in the possession of the Executive relating to tiie 
sul>.ipct. The Secretary of War consulted with the President and under the hit- 
ter's direction informed the House that negotiations were then pending with 
the Indians for settlement of their claims; in the opinion of the President and 
the Department, therefore, publication of the report at that time would be 
inconsistent wtih the public interest. The Secretary of War further stated 
in his answer to the i-esolution that the report sought by the House, dealing with 
alleged frauds which Lieutenant Colonel Hitchcock was charged to investigate, 
contained information which was obtained by Colonel Hitchcock by ex parte 
inquiries of persons whose statements were without the sanction of an oath, 
and wliich tlie persons implicated had had no opportunity to contradict or ex- 
plain. The Secretary of War expressed the opinion that to promulgate th',>se 
statements at that time would be grossly unjust to those persons, and would 
defeat the object of the inquiry. He also remarked that the Department had 
not been given at that time sufficient ouportunity to pursue the investigation, to 
call the parties affected for explanations, or to determine on the measures 
proper to be taken. 

The answer of the Secretary of War was not satisfactory to the Com- 
mittee on Indian Affairs of the House, which claimed the right to demand 
from the Executive and heads of departments such information as may be in 
their possession relating to sulxiects of the deliberations of the Hou^e. 

President Tyler in a message dated .January 31, 1843, vigorously asserted 
that the House of Representatives could not exercise a right to call upon the 
Executive for information, even though it related to a subject of the delibera- 
tions of the House, if, by so doing, it attempted to interfere with the discretion 
of the Executive. 

The snme course of action was taken by President James Buchanan in ISGO 
in resisting a resolution of the House to investigate whether the President 
or any other officer of the Government had, by money, patronage or other im- 
proper means sought to influence the action of Congress for or against the 
passage of any law relating to the rights of any State or Territory (see Rich- 
ardscm, "Messages and Papers of the Presidents," vol. 5, pp. 618-6103. 

In the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant, the House requested the 
President to inform it whether any executive offices, acts, or duties, and if any, 
what, have been performed at a distance from the seat of government established 
by law. It appears that the purpose of this inquiry was to embarrass the Presi- 
dent bv reason of h's having spent some of the hot months at Long Branch. 
President Grant repied that he failed to find in the Constitution the authority 
given to the House of Representatives, and t^^at the inquiry had nothing to do 
with legislation (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. VII, 
pp. 362-363). 

PBESIDENT CLEVELAND'S ADMINISTRATION 

In 1886, during President Cleveland's administration, there was an extended 
discussion in the Senate with reference to its relations to the Executive caused 
by the refusal of the Attorney General to transmit to the Senate certain docu- 
ments concerning the administration of the office of the district attorney for the 
southern district of south Alabama, and suspension of George W. Durkin, the 
late incumbent. The majority of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary con- 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 127 

eluded it was entitled to know all that ofBcially exists or takes place in any of 
the departments of Government and that neither the President nor the head of a 
department could withhold official facts and information as distinguished from 
private and unofficial papers. 

In his reply President Cleveland disclaimed any intention to withhold official 
papers, but he denied that papers and documents inherently private or confiden- 
tial, addressed to the President or a head of a department, having reference to an 
act entirely executive such as the suspension of an official, were changed in their 
nature and became official when placed for convenience in the custody of a 
public department (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 8, 
pp. 378-379, 381 ) . 

Challenging the attitude that because the executive departments were created 
by Congress the latter had any supervisory power over them, President Cleveland 
declared (Eberling, Congi'essional Investigation, p. 258) : 

"I do not suppose that the public offices of the United States are regulated 
or controlled in their relations to either House of Congress by the fact that they 
were created by laws enacted by themselves. It must be that these instrumen- 
talities were created for the benefit of the people and to answer the general pur- 
poses of Government under the Constitution and the laws, and that they are 
unencumbered by any lien in favor of either branch of Congress growing out of 
their construction, and unembarrassed by any obligation to the Senate as the 
price of their creation." 

PRESinENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION 

In 1909. during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, the 
question of the right of the President to exercise complete direction and control 
over heads of executive departments was raised again. At that time the Senate 
passed a resolution directing the Attorney General to inform the Senate whether 
certain legal proceedings had been instituted against the United States Steel 
Corp., and if not, the reasons for its nonaction. Request was also made for 
any opinion of the Attorney General, if one was written. President Theodore 
Roosevelt replied, refusing to honor this request upon the ground that "beads 
of the executive departments are subject to the Constitution, and to the laws 
passed by the Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, and to the directions 
of the President of the United States, but to no other direction whatever" 
(Congressional Record, vol. 43, pt. 1, 60th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 527-52S). 

When the Senate was unable to get the documents from the Attorney General, 
it summoned Herbert K. Smith, the head of the Bureau of Corporations, and 
requested the papers and documents on penalty of imprisonment for contempt. 
Mr. Smith reported the request to the President, who directed him to turn over 
to the President all the papers in the case "so that I could assist the Senate 
in the prosecution of its investigation." President Roosevelt then informed 
Senator Clark, of the Judiciary Committee, what had been done, that he had 
the papers and the only way the Senate could get them was through his 
impeachment. President Roosevelt also explained that some of the facts were 
given to the Government under the seal of secrecy and cannot be divulged, 
"and I will see to it that the word of this Government to the individual is 
kept sacred" (Corwin, The President — Office and Powers, pp. 281, 428; Abbott, 
"The Letters of Archie Butt, Personal Aide to President Roosevelt," pp. 305-306). 

PRESIDENT COOLIDGE's ADMINISTRATION 

In 1924, during the administration of President Coolidge, the latter objected 
to the action of a special investigating committee appointed by the Senate to 
investigate the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Request was made by the com- 
mittee for a list of the companies in which the Secretary of the Treasury was 
alleged to be interested for the purpose of investigating their tax returns. 
Calling this exercise of power an unwarranted intrusion. President Coolidge 
said : 

"Whatever may be necessary for the information of the Senate or any of its 
committees In order to better enable them to perform their legislative or other 
constitutional functions ought always to be furnished willingly and expedi- 
tiously by any department. But it is recognized both by law and custom that 
there is certain confidential information which it would be detrimental to the 
public service to reveal" (68th Cong., 1st sess., Record, Apr. 11, 1924, p. 6087). 



128 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

PRESIDENT HOOVEE'S ADMINISTKATION 

A similar question arose in 1930 during tlie administration of President 
Hoover. Secretary of State Stimson refused to disclose to the chairman of the 
Senate Foreign Relations Committee certain confidential telegrams and letters 
leading up to the London Conference and the London Treaty. The committee 
asserted its right to have full and free access to all records touching the nego- 
tiations of the treaty, basing its right on the constitutional prerogative of the 
Senate in the treatymaking process. In his message to the Senate, President 
Hoover pointed out that there were a great many informal statements and re- 
ports which were given to the Government in confidence. The Executive was 
under a duty, in order to maintain amicable relations with other nations, not 
to publicize all the negotiations and statements which Aveut into the making 
of the treaty. He further declared that the Executive must not be guilty of a 
breach of trust, nor violate the invariable practice of nations. "In view of this, 
I believe that to further comply with the above resolution would be incompatible 
with the public interest" (S. Doc. No. 216, 71st Cong., special sess., p. 2). 

PKESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION 

The position was followed during the administration of President Franklin 
D. Roosevelt. There were many instances in which the President and his 
executive heads refused to make available certain information to Congress the 
disclosure of which was deemed to be confidential or contrary to the public in- 
terest. Merely a few need be cited. 

1. Federal Bureau of Investigation records and reports were refused to con- 
gressional committees, in the public interest (40 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 8, Apr. 30, 
1941). 

2. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation refused to give testi- 
mony or to exhibit a copy of the President's directive requiring him, in the 
interests of national security, to refrain from testifying or from disclosing the 
contents of the Bureau's reports and activities (hearings, vol. 2, House, 78th 
Cong., Select Committee To Investigate the Federal Communications Commis- 
sion (1944), p. 2337). 

3. Communications between the President and the heads of departments were 
held to be confidential and privileged and not subject to inquiry by a committee 
of one of the Houses of Congress (letter dated January 22, 1944, signed Francis 
Biddle, Attorney General, to select committee, etc.). 

4. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget refused to testify and to produce 
the Bureau's files, pursuant to subpena which had been served upon him, because 
the President had instructed him not to make public the records of the Bureau 
due to their confidential nature. Public interest was again invoked to prevent 
disclosure. (Reliance placed on Attorney General's opinion in 40 Op. Atty. Gen. 
No. 8, Apr. 30, 1941.) 

5. The Secretaries of ¥/ar and Navy were directed not to deliver documents 
which the committee had requested, on gTounds of public interest. The Secre- 
taries, in their own judgment, refused permission to Army and Navy officers 
to appear and testify because they felt that it would be contrary to the public 
interests (hearings. Select Committee To Investigate the Federal Communi- 
cations Commission, vol. 1, pp. 46, 48-68). 

PRESIDENT TRUMAN'S ADMINISTRATION 

During the Truman administration also the President adhered to the tra- 
tional Executive view that the President's discretion must govern the surren- 
der of Executive files. Some of the major incidents during the administra- 
tion of President Truman in which information, records, and files were denied 
to congressional committees were as follows : 

Bate Type of document refused 

Mar. 4, 1948 FBI letter-report on Dr. Condon, Director of 

National Bureau of Standards, refused by 
Secretary of Commerce. 

Mar. 15, 1948 President issued directive forbidding all ex:ec- 

utive departments and agencies to furnish 
information or reports concerning loyalty 
of their employees to any court or commit- 
tee of Congress, unless President approves. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 129 

March 1948 Dr. John R. Steelman, confidential adviser to 

the President, refused to appear before Com- 
mittee on Education and Labor of the House, 
following the service of 2 subpenas upon him. 
President directed him not to appear. 

Aug. 5, 1948 Attorney General wrote Senator Ferguson, 

chairman of Senate Investigations Subcom- 
mittee, that he would not furnish letters, 
memoranda, and other notices which the Jus- 
tice Department had furnished to other Gov- 
ernment agencies concerning W. W. Reming- 
ton. 

Feb. 22, 1950 S. Res. 231 directing Senate subcommittee to 

procure State Department loyalty files was 
met with President Truman's refusal, follow- 
ing vigorous opposition of J. Edgar Hoover. 

Mar. 27, 1950 Attorney General and Director of FBI ap- 
peared before Senate subcommittee. Mr. 
Hoover's historic statement of reasons for re- 
fusing to furnish raw files approved by At- 
torney General. 

May 16, 1951 .. General Bradley refused to divulge conversa- 
tions between President and his advisers to 
combine Senate Foreign Relations and Armed 
Services Committees. 

Jan. 31, 1952 President Truman directed Secretary of State 

to refuse to Senate Internal Security Sub- 
committee the reports and views of foreign 
service officers. 

Apr. 22, 1952 Acting Attorney General Perlman laid down 

procedure for complying with requests for in- 
spection of Department of Justice files by 
Committee on the Judiciary : 

Requests on open cases would not be hon- 
ored. Status report will be furnished. 
As to closed cases, files would be made 
available. All FBI reports and confi- 
dential information would not be made 
available. 
As to personnel files, they are never dis- 
closed. 

Apr. 3, 1952 President Truman instructed Secretary of 

State to withhold from Senate Appropria- 
tions Subcommittee files on loyalty and se- 
curity investigations of employees — policy to 
apply to all executive agencies. The names 
of individuals determined to be security risks 
would not lie divulged. The voting record of 
members of an agency loyalty board would 
not be divulged. 

Thus, you can see that the Presidents of the United States have withheld in- 
formation of executive departments or agencies whenever it was found that 
the information sought w^as confidential or that its disclosure would be incom- 
patible with the public interest or jeopardize the safety of the Nation. The 
courts too have held that the question whether the production of the papers 
was contrary to the public interest, was a matter for the Executive to determine. 

B.v keeping the lines which separate and divide the three great branches of 
our Government clearly defined, no one branch has been able to encroach upon 
the powers of the other. 

Upon this firm principle of our country's strength, liberty, and democratic 
form of government will continue to endure. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. I don't want to object to the admission of this, and 
I think I can avoid any objection by stipulation which I am sure 
Mr. Chadwick will enter into, namely, that that letter of May 17, 1954, 



130 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

from the President to the Secretary of Defense laid down a rule which 
had applicability only to the Mnndt committee and it did not have gen- 
eral applicability to the Government Operations Committee, of which 
Senator McCarthy is chairman. It related solely and exclusively to 
the specific hearing which was being conducted under the chairman- 
ship of Senator Mundt, of South Dakota, and had no relevancy or ap- 
plicability to any other hearing or any other committee function. 

Mr. Chauwick. Mr. Williams, I stated I could not affirm that fact 
because I am not authorized and have no power to construe, limit the 
effect of an order of the President. It is manifestly, on its face, re- 
lated to the matters in question. 

Mr. WiLLL\Ms. To the matters? 

Mr. Chadwick. Whether it goes further, sir, I cannot limit it by 
any stipulation which I would enter into. 

The Chairman. May I say, gentlemen, that we will check that mat- 
ter further in the light of what Mr. Williams has now called to our 
attention and if it should appear to be irrelevant and immaterial to 
the present issue and has no bearing on it, it will be excluded. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chairman, I submit to you herewith a brief 
prepared by the staff summariizng the pertinent cases, rules. Presi- 
dential orders, and directives and other legal matters, which will be 
cited and relied upon by the staff in support of the propositions de- 
veloped before the committee. 

We request and suggest that it shall be printed as a supplement to 
the record, subject to additions and corrections. 

This brief is not submitted as testimony, but is convenient reference 
material for the committee and Senate and any other interested 
persons. 

A copy of this brief has been supplied to Mr. Williams. 

The Chairman. I take it from your statement it could be proved. 
That seems to be proper. 

Mr. Chadwick. May I proceed, sir, to cite the headings of this 
brief and such matters therein as seem pertinent to read into the record 
now for the immediate information of the committee? 

The Chairman. You may. 

We do not want you to read the whole brief, but you may cite the 
material therein. 

Mr. Chadwick. This is submitted as pertaining to law relating to 
specifications I to V, inclusive, the specifications being those adopted 
in the notice which the chairman gave before the commencement of 
these hearings. 

With respect to part I, which is contempt of Senate or committee, we 
call attention to the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1945, Public 
Law 601, and section 102 thereof for standing committees of the 
Senate. 

We have referred and read into the record and reference has been 
made to Senate Resolution 187 of the 82d Congress, the 1st session, 
introduced by Senator Banton of Connecticut and referred on August 
6, 1951 — and I shall not read all the material which follows. It is 
available for the committee, for Mr. Williams, and for the record. 

We have reached the conclusion that it is not necessary to deter- 
mine whether the Gillette-Hennings subcommittee had or had not 
the power to subpena Senator McCarthy. He did not demand a sub- 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 131 

pena and no subpena was issued. It was clear the subcommittee had 
the power to request his appearance other than by subpena. 

The jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections 
was not limited to the conduct of Senator McCarthy connected with 
elections, but the jurisdiction of that subcommittee extended to acts 
totally unconnected with election matters, but which were relevant in 
inquiries relating to expulsion, exclusion, and censure. 

We call attention to the Congressional Record of the Senate of 
April 8, 1952, at page 3701 ; also at pages 3753 to 3756. 

We call attention to the purpose of the introduction of Senate Reso- 
lution 300, 82d Congress, 2d session, by Senator Hayden, on April 
8, 1952, as shown by the Congressional Record and the senatorial 
debate, that it was to affirm or deny the contention of Senator Mc- 
Carthy that the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections lacked 
jurisdiction to investigate such acts of the Senator from Wisconsin as 
were not connected with elections and campaigns, as well as to bring 
before the Senate the charges of Senator McCarthy reflecting upon 
the honesty and sincerity of the members of the subcommittee. 

The matter of the Senate vote on that is referred to. 

On the question of the nature of the Senate as a continuing body, 
the contention has been made that the Senate is not a continuing body 
and that the incidents under category I, relating to contempt of the 
Senate or a senatorial committee, cannot be inquired into by the select 
committee under the authority of at least three cases cited. Those 
cases are : 

Anderson v. Dunn in 6 Wheaton, 204 ; 

Journey v. McCrachen (294 U. S. 125) ; 

United States v. Bryan (339 U. S. 323). 

All cases were cited by Mr. Williams in oral argument or state- 
ment before this committee. 

This statement by counsel im])lies that the Senate may censure a 
member only when he is guilty of contempt. 

Counsel for the committee does not believe there is any legal limi- 
tation to this effect and that there are acts on the part of a member 
of the Senate which may warrant his censure unrelated to any of 
contempt toward the Senate or one of its committees. Furthermore, 
the examination of the three cases cited shows that they are without 
direct application or control to this question. 

We cite Senate Document No. 99 of the 83d Congress, 2d session, 
a document entitled "Congressional -^Power of Investigation." We 
have called attention to the fact that on page 7, while the rule with 
reference to the House, whose Members are all elected for a period 
of a single Congress, may be the same as in the case of the two Houses 
of Parliament, this rule cannot be the case with the Senate, which is 
a continuing body w^hose Members are elected for a term of 6 years 
and so divided into classes that the seats of one-third only become 
vacant at the end of each Congress, two-third always continuing into 
the next Congress. 

The continuity of the Senate was questioned at the beginning of 
the 83d Congress and the issue Avas resolved in favor of the uniform 
precedents. See Senate rule XXXII, providing that the legislative 
business of the Senate shall be resumed and proceeded with as if no 
adjournment had taken place and all papers referred to committees 
and not reported upon at the close of a session of Congress shall be 



132 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

delivered by the Secretary of the Senate to the several committees to 
Avhich they had previously been referred. 

We also call attention to the Senate debate in the Congressional 
Record of the Senate of January 6, 1953, pages 92 to 114. 

We also call attention to Senate Document No. 4 of 1933, of the 
83d Congress and to the case of McGrain v, Doherty (273 U. S. 135), 
at page 181. The date was 1927. 

See also Senate rule XXV, page 42 (3) . 

D, Necessity of an oath before congiessional committees : 

In reference to the necessity of an oath before congressional com- 
mittees, and the contention heretofore raised before this committee, 
we refer to page 18 of Senate Document No. 99, 83d Congress, 2d 
session, previously referred to, which states : 

While the administration of an oath to a witness adds dignity to a congres- 
sional hearing, it is not essential — 

since the Senate may make its own rules, even in censure or expulsion 
cases, and there is no rule requiring the administration of an oath to 
a witness, it is respectfuly submitted that the point is not well taken. 

On the general power of the Senate to censure one of its INIembers, 
article 1, section 5, clause 1, of the Constitution provides that each 
House shall be the judge of the elections, returns, and qualifications 
of its own Members. 

Clause 2 of the same section provides that each House may deter- 
mine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly 
behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a Member. 

Senate rule XIX, clause 2, provides that no Senator in debate 
shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another 
Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or 
unbecoming a Senator. These provisions are respectfully called to 
the attention of the select committee, not as limitations upon the 
extent of censurable conduct, but as perhaps pertinent to the present 
inquiry. 

Part 11. Law relating to invitation for and use of classified material : 

In this connection we cite the statutory oath imposed upon employees 
of the Government generally and particularly as Senator Case asked 
us to make a reference to this as a part of the record. The oath of 
office is as follows : 

1, , do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the 

Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic ; 
that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same ; that I take this obliga- 
tion freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion ; and that I will 
well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office in which I am about to 
enter. So help me God. (5 U. S. 16.) 

We assume, sir, for purposes of information of the committee, that 
the staff has been as yet unable to find that. A search of the statutes 
fails to disclose: (a) any provision for administering or any form 
of "security oath," or (b) any provision for or protection of "the chain 
of command of the civil service," referred to in amendment 14 pro- 
posed by Senator Flanders. 

We cite the Espionage Act, Ignited States Code chapter 37 on the 
subject Espionge and Censorship. I refer only to sections thereof 
which, of course, will be set out in full. 

Title 18, section 793(d) covers "gathering, transmitting, or losing 
defense information." 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 133 

The Scame section, 792, covers harboring or concealing any person 
"who he knows or has reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has 
committed or is about to commit, an affense under sections 793 or 794" 
of this article "shall be" — and there follows a statement of the penalty 
in connection therewith, (June 25, 1948, ch. 645, 62 Stat. 736.) 

Of the pertinent subject with which we are dealing, and under the 
subhead "crimes, general provisions, misprision of felony," we cite 
United States Code, chapter I, title 18, section 4, which I shall read : 

Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony cognizable 
by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make 
known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority 
under the United States, shall be fined (penalty, etc.). (June 25, 1948, ch. 
645, 62 Stat. 684. 

On the subject Disclosure of Confidential Information Generally, 
( 18 U. S. Code, sec. 1905) , reads : 

Whoever, being an officer or employee of the United States or of any depart- 
ment or agency thereof, publishes, divulges, discloses, or makes known in any 
manner or to any extent not authorized by law any information coming to 
him in the course of his employment or official duties * * * shall be — 

and this is followed in the act by the statement of the penalty. 

On the subject of Activities Affecting Armed Forces. Generally, we 
cite the act of June 25, 1948, chapter. 645, 62 Stat. c. 811, as amended 
May 24, 1949, chapter 139, section 46, 63 Stat. 96. 

From that section, I read ifi more detail the provisions of sec- 
tion (b) : 

For the purposes of this section, the term "military or navel forces of the 
United States" includes the Army of the United States, the Navy, Air Force, 
Marine Corps, Coast Guard, Naval Reserve, Marine Corps Reserve, and Coast 
Guard Reserve of the United States ; and, when any merchant vessel is com- 
missioned in the Navy or is in the service of the Army or the Navy, includes 
the master, officers, and crew of such vessel. 

On the subject of Kemoval from Classified Civil Service, we cite an 
act which has been referred to heretofore in the hearings, or in the 
testimony. We call the attention of the committee to the last sentence 
of an act approved August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555, U. S. C. 5, 652 (d) ), 
whicli reads: 

The right of persons employed in the civil service of the United States, either 
individually or collectively to petition Congress, or any Member thereof, or to 
furnish information to either House of Congress, or to any committee or 
member thereof, shall not be deeuied or interfered with. 

As I say, this has been cited before in the hearing, or in the testi- 
mony, upon which our evidence is based. We include it at this point, 
because we feel that this provision has little, if any, application to 
these hearings, because the act as an entirety refers to removals of 
persons from classified civil service for sufiicient cause, and after 
due notice and written charges. 

Furthermore, this act must be interpreted in the light of subsequent 
pertinent resolutions and Executive orders, under the heading "U. S. 
Code, Title 5, Section 22," which reads as follows : 

The head of each department is authorized to prescribe regulations, not incon- 
sistent with law, for the government of bis department, the conduct of its officers 
and clerks, the distribution and performance of its business, and the custody, use, 
and preservation of the records, papers, and property appertaining to it. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chadwick, do you know the date of that statute? 
Mr. Chadwick. I can get it in just a minute. 



134 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator Case. I note that the date of the section you earlier read 
with reference to persons in the chxssified civil service was 1912, and 
that the date of the sections you read from the Espionage Act were 
various dates, principally June 25, 1948 ; but I think it would be helpful 
to have the date of the section you just read, too. 

Mr. Chadwick. We would be glad to have it now, sir, and inserted 
before the matter reaches the committee. It will take me a few minutes 
to get the date and if I may, I will proceed with the other matter and 
supply it as soon as we are able to do so. 

Is that satisfactory. Senator Case? 

Senator Case. That is all right. 

Mr. Chadwick. Subhead H, Department of Justice Order No. 3229, 
counsel calls the attention of the committee to the Department of Jus- 
tice order which was filed on May 2, 1946, 11 Federal Kegister 4920, 18 
Federal Register 1369, which reads : 

Pursuant to authority vested in me by Revised Statutes 161, United States 
Code title V, section 22, it is hereby ordered that all oflficial files, documents, and 
records and information in the offices of the Department of Justice, including the 
several offices of the United States attorneys, Federal Bureau of Investigation, 
United States marshal, and Federal penal and correctional institutions, or in the 
custody or control of any officer or employee within the Department of Justice, 
are to be regarded as confidential. 

No officer or employee may permit the disclosure or use of same for any purpose 
other than for the performance of his official duties except in the discretion of th» 
Attorney General or Assistant Attorney General acting for liim. 

This order was held valid by the United States Supreme Court in 
United States ex rel. Touhy v. Regan (340, U. S. 462), in the year 
1951. 

But the subhead which is marked "I," we go at some length into the 
Presidential directive of March 13, 1948, 13 Federal Register 1359, 
under the title of Presidential directive, March 13, 1948, "Confidential 
Status of Employee Loyalty Report," a memorandum to all offices and 
employees of the Federal branch of the Government. 

The directive contains these further orders : 

This directive shall be published in the Federal Register and over the signature 
of Harry S. Truman. The date, March 13, 1948. 

The above order apparently was in effect in May or June of 1953 
when Senator McCarthy received the 214-page document, according 
to his statement in the Army-McCarthy hearing, and also at the time 
of his public invitation during those hearings. 

We call attention, under subtitle J, to Executive Order 10290. Title 
3, the President. Executive Order 10290 prescribing regulations 
and establishing minimum standards for the classification, transmis- 
sion, and handling by departments and agencies of the executive 
branch of official information which requires safeguarding in the 
interest of the security of the United States. 

I shall read the order in more detail : 

Whereas it is necessary in order to protect the national security of the United 
States, to establish for the safeguarding of official information, the unauthorized 
disclosure of which would or could harm, tend to impair, or otherwise threaten 
the security of the Nation ; and 

Whereas it is desirable and proper tliat minimum standards for pi-ocedures 
designed to protect the national security against such unauthorized disclosure 
be uniformly applicable to all departments and agencies of the executive branch 
of the Government and be known to and understood by those who deal with the 
Federal Government ; and 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 135 

Whereas the furnishing of information to the public about Government activ- 
ities will be facilitated by clear identification and marking of those matters, 
the safeguarding of which is required in the interest of national security; 

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and 
statutes, and as President of the United States, the regulations attached hereto, 
entitled "Regulations Establishing Minimum Standards for the Classification, 
Transmission, and Handling, by Departments and Agencies of the Executive 
Branch, of Official Information Which Requires Safeguarding in the Interest of 
the Security of the United States," are hereby prescribed for application 
throughout the executive branch of the Government to the extent not inconsistent 
with law. 

Such regulations shall take effect 30 days after their publication in the 
Federal Register. 

All citizens of the United States who may have knowledge of or access to class- 
ified security information are requested to observe the standards established 
in such regulations with respect to such information and to join with the 
Federal Government in a concerted and continuing effort to prevent disclosure 
of such information to persons who are inimical to the interests of the United 
States. 

That is signed by Harry S. Truman, the White House, September 
24, 1951. 

Mr. Chairman, the instrument itself is law and will have to be read 
by the committee with particularity, and it has no doubt been read 
by Mr. Williams. I will refrain from rereading it in its entirety. 

Under title K we referred to Executi\e Order 10450 of April 27, 
1953, title III, the President— Executive Order 10450, Security Ke- 
quiremeiits for Government Employment. 

This order is signed by D wig] it D. Eisenhower and dated April 27, 
195o. It is as follows : 

Whereas the intei'cst of the national security requires that all persons priv- 
ileged to be employed in their departments and agencies of the Government shall 
be reliable, trustworthy, of good conduct and character, and of complete and 
unswerving loyalty to the United States, and. 

Whereas the American tradition that all persons should receive impartial and 
equitalile treatment at the hands of the Government requires that all persons 
seeking the privilege of employment or privileged to be employed in the depart- 
ments and agencies of the Government be judged by mutually consistent and 
no less than minimum standards and procedures among the departments and 
agencies governing tlie employment and retention in employment of persons 
in the Federal service. 

Now, therefore, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution 
and statutes of tlie United States, including section 17.53 of the Revised Statutes 
of the United States (5 U. S. C. 631), the Civil Service Act of 18S3 (22 Stat. 403, 
.5 U. S. C. 632, et seq.), section 9A of the act of April 2. Ilt3;» (.53 Stat. 1148, 5 
U. S. C. 118j). and the act of August 20, 1J).50 (64 Stat. 476, 5 U. S. C. 2201 et 
seq.), and as President of the United States, and deeming such action necessary 
in the best interests of the national security, it is hereby ordered as follows : 

Section 1 : In addition to the departments and agencies specified in the said 
act of August 26, 1950, and Executive Order No. 10237 of April 26, 1951, the 
provisions of that act shall apply to all other departments and agencies of the 
Government. 

Section 2. The head of each department and agency of the Government shall 
be responsible for establishing and niaintain.ing within his department or agency 
an effective program to insure that the employment and retention in employment 
of any civilian officer or employee within the department or agency is clearly 
consistent with the interests of the national security. 

The reports and other investigative material and information developed by 
invesfiiiations conducted pursuant to any statute, order, or program described 
in .section 7 of this order shall remain the property of the investigative agencies 
conducting the investigations, but may, subject to considerations of the national 
security, be retained by the department or agency concerned. Such reports and 
other investigative material and information shall be maintained in confidence, 
and in no access shall be given thereto except, with the consent of the investiga- 
tive agency concerned to other departments and agencies conducting security pro- 



136 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

grams under the authority granted by or in accordance with the said act of 
August 26, 1950, as may he required for the efficient conduct of Government 
business. 

Section 15 : This order shall become effective 30 days after the date hereof. 

The publication date of the order is Federal Register Document 
50-3794, filed April 27, 1953, under an hour of 4 : 04 p. m. 

This directive was apparently effective in May and June of 1953 
and during the Army-McCarthy hearings. 

Under the subheading "L" of Executive Order 10501 of Novem- 
ber 5, 1953, "safeguarding oflicial information in the interests of the 
defense of the United States" the subject matter of the order is quite 
lengthy. 

I will content myself with reading only sections 18, 19, and 20 
and over the signature of the President. 

Section 18 is entitled, "Review Within Departments and Agencies." 

It goes on to state : 

The head of each department and agency shall designate a member or mem- 
bers of his staff who shall conduct a continuing review of the implementation 
of this order within the department or agency concerned to insure that no 
information is withheld hereunder which the people of the United States have 
a right to know, and to insure that classified defense information is properly 
safeguarded in conformity herewith. 

Section 19 : Revocation of Executive Order No. 102900. 

Executive Order No. 10290 of September 24, 1951, is revoked as of the effec- 
tive date of this order. 

Section 20: Effective date. This order shall become effective on December 
15, 1953. 

This appears in Federal Register Docket 53-9553, filed November 
9, 1953, under an hour of 9 : 55 a. m. 

We refer to subheading "M" of the Constitution of the United 
States of America, revised and annotated 1952, Senate Document 170, 
82d Congress, 2d session, page 82 : 

If Congress so provides, violation of valid administrative regulations may be 
provided as crimes. But the penalty must be provided in the statute itself. * * * 

Mr, Chairman, referring to part III or category III of our presenta- 
tion under this notice on the subject of "Abuse of Colleagues," we 
cite the United States Constitution, article I, section 6, clause 1 : 

The Senators and Representatives * * * for any speech or debate in either 
House shall not be questioned in any other place. 

The constitutional clause is intended to protect the Members against 
suit or prosecution, not for their own benefit, but to enable the Repre- 
sentatives of the people to execute the functions of their office with- 
out fear. It is an absolute privilege and immunity against all but 
the House itself. 

We cite Jefferson's Manual, section 3; Hind's Precedents of the 
House, 1907, section 1244, page 797; the Journal of the 1st session 
of the 39th Congress, May 14, 1866, page 695 ; Globe, page 2573 ; Hind's 
Precedents of the House, page 795. 

The United States Constitution by article I, section 5, clause 2, 
provides : 

Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its members 
for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a member. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 137 

Now, from the Standing Rules of the Senate, we cite rule XIX, 
section 2 : 

No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute 
to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or 
unbecoming a Senator. 

We refer to Jefferson's Manual, section XVII. 

We refer to the Legislative Reorganization Act the powers of com- 
mittee and government operations. 

As to part 1, Standing Rules of the Senate, standing committees of 
the Senate, section 102 is as follows : 

Rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate is amended to read as follows : 

"Rule XXV 

"standing committees 

"(1) The following standing committtees shall be appointed at the com- 
mencement of each Congress, with leave to report by bill or otherwise ; * * * 

"(g) (1) Committee on Government Operations, to consist of 13 Senators, to 
which committee shall be referred all proposed legislation, messages, j)etitions, 
memorials, and other matters relating to the following subjects : 

"(A) Budget and accounting measures, otlier than appropriations. 

"(B) Reorganizations in the executive branch of the Government. 

"(2) Such committee shall have the duty of— 

"(A) Receiving and examining reports of the Comptroller General of the 
United States and of submitting such recommendations to the Senate as it deems 
necessary or desirable in connection with the subject matter of such reports ; 

"(B) Studying the operation of Government activities at all levels with a view 
to determine its economy and efficiency ; 

"(C) Evaluating the effects of laws enacted to reorganize the legislative and 
executive branches of the Government ; 

"(D) Studying intergovernmental relationships between the United States 
and the States and municipalities, and between the United States and interna- 
tional organizations of which the United States is a member." 

As to part IV, "Procedure Before Investigating Committees," the 
first part of the discussion is with respect to the rights of witnesses 
before congressional committees. 

We refer to Senate Document 99, 8od Congress, 2d session, filed 
1954. 

Under the subheading of "Disgracing and Inconveniencing Ques- 
tions," there is a discussion on the rights and duties of witnesses. 

Then on page 16 the right to counsel, the privilege of a witness to 
have advice of counsel depends u23on the committee, and the rule has 
varied a good deal. 

There are some citations at length on the subject. 

On page 17, under the heading of cross-examination there is this 
provision : Whether a witness or his counsel may cross-examine other 
witnesses depends on the attitude of the committee. 

It has been said that the custom is to permit little or no cross-exami- 
nation, then there is a citation and a more extended discussion. 

And on a subject of presenting written statements or calling wit- 
nesses, a discussion. 

And with respect to the pertinency of testimony, discussion and, 
Mr. Williams, a citation of Sinclair v. U. S. ((1929) 279 United 
States, 263) , with a quotation therefrom. 

And on page 18 under No. 7, with respect to defamation by a con- 
gressional witness, material and discussion and cases. 



138 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

On paga 19, with respect to the undignified activity of a member, 
discussion, citation of tlie case of TJ . S. v. Peehart et al. ((1952) 183 
Fed. Supp. 417), and referring to a case Barsky v. U. S. ( (1943) 167 
Fed. Second 241, 250). 

Senator Case. Mr. Cliairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Just judging by the headings of these several para- 
graphs which counsel has placed into the record and without reading 
the detailed subject matter, it occurs to me that at least the para- 
graphs under the heading "Right of Witnesses Before Congressional 
Conmiittees" and the i-ight of counsel and the right of cross-examina- 
tion would well be worth reading in detail, and if time permits and 
under the plan of the morning session, I would like to have them 
read. 

Mr. Chadwtck. I should be very glad to read them. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, under the heading part IV, "Pro- 
cedure Before Investigating Committees" and reading the paragraph 
labeled "x\," "Rights of Witnesses Before Congressional Committees," 
I wonder if counsel might proceed with that? 

Mr. Chadwick. To spare my voice, I request that associate counsel 
read this. 

The Chairman. Mr. de Furiu will proceed to read. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. With the permission of the chairman, part IV, 
"Procedure Before Investigating Committees," section A — 

The Chairman. What are you reading from ? 
Mr. DE Furia. This is a resum^ of the law, Mr. Chairman, made by 
i\\^ staff for the committee. 

The Chairman. Are you reading from the Reorganization Act, 
or merely a statement commenting on it ? 

Mr. DE Furia. It is a comment of the committee counsel, the choice of 
the words being mostly our own, based upon an interpretation of the 
authorities, cases, and statutes, as well as the precedents of the House 
and the Senate, relating to this subject. 

The Chairman. \ ou may proceed. 

Mr. DE FiTRiA. Subsection A, "Rights of Witnesses Before Congres- 
sional Committees" : 

There are no statutes protecting a witness appearing before a congressional 
committee from intimidation or coercion. In fact, tliere are very few absolute 
safeguards for tbe protection of a witui'ss before a congressional committee. 
His treatment generally is dependent upon the attitude of the chairman and 
the members of the committee. An investigation conducted by a committee is 
not a trial : therefore the rules of a court of law do not apply. Nor, generally 
speaking, do the constitutional guaranties relative — 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Who is saying that? Is that the counsel's discus- 
sion or is that some statement by some authority, or is that a statute ? 

Mr. DE Furia. That is counsel's conclusion, Senator Case, based 
upon the authorities cited. I did not read the authorities. I think 
you have a copy of our law brief. I think there are about 10 authori- 
ties. I will be ghid to read them into the record. 

Senatoi- Case. The statements you have read are the conclusions of 
counsel, based upon autliorities cited? 

Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 139 

Senator Case. But tlie statements are not the statements of any 
court or of an,y precise authority or constitutional precedents or con- 
gressional precedent. 

Mr. DE I^'uKiA. No, sir. Wherever we have a quotation from an 
authority, sir, I shall indicate quotation marks. 

The Chairman. May I inquire of Senator Case whether he still 
wants that read, since it is not a citation of any court or congressional 
adjudication of any kind. 

Senator Case. 1 note below there are some quotation marks. 
Whether they are direct quotes from something, I think it would be 
just as well to have them read. 

The CHAimiAN. Would counsel please read the quotation ? 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There will be time for argument on presenting the 
various views with respect to whatever the statute and rules of the 
Senate are in due time. We ]:)ermitted the reading of the general 
subject and these statutes and the general law governing this inquiry^ 
governing the matter of accusations that have been refererd to us by 
the Senate. 

Senator Case, how seriously do you want that pressed? 

Senator Case. I think you might hnish this paragrapli under that 
heading, and whether it is a quotation from a court decision or whether 
it is counsel's opinion. 

The Chairman. If it is counsel's o])inion, you do not want him to 
read it, do you, or you may have whatever you want on that. 

Senator Case. I think he could finish the paragraph in the time we 
are discussing it. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Nor, generally speaking, do the constitutional guar- 
anties relative to trials have any application except possibly those re- 
lating to the privilege against self-incrimination — the fifth amend- 
ment — and to the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and 
seizures — the fourth amendment. 

In conducting a hearing, the committee thus is not bound to follow 
the rules of evidence or the precedents or principles of courts of law. 
And there is a citation from various authorities, including Townsend 
V. United States^ which is as follows : 

* * * study of the practice in investigative proceedings and of the rules 
pertaining thereto indicates that * * * they have been to a large extent un- 
trammeled by legal rules and prescriptions,. 

Continuing with the presentation of committee counsel : It is funda- 
mental, of course, that the investigation nnist be in ]nn-suit of a legis- 
lative purpose. But as investigation will be presumed to have such 
a purpose and once that purpose is established, the inquiry may be as 
broad, searching, and exhaustive as is necessary to make effective the 
constitutional powers of Congress. 

Again quoting from the Supreme Court decision of Toiunsend v. 
United States: 

Within the realm of legislati\e discretion, the exercise of good taste and 
good judgment in the examination of witnesses must be entrusted to those 
who have been vested with authority to conduct such investigations * * *. 



52461 — 54 10 



140 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The witness cannot determine for himself whether the questions 
proposed are germane to the matter of inquiry ; 

orderly processes of legislative inquiry require tiiat the committee shall deter- 
mine such questions for itself. 

Senator Case, the chairman, has asked me to read the provision 
from United States Code 2, section 193, reading as follows : 

No witness is privileged to refuse to testify to any fact, or to produce any 
paper, respecting which he shall be examined by either House of CongTess, or 
by any .ioint committee established by a joint or concurrent resolution of the 
two Houses of Congress, or any committee of either House, upon the ground 
that his testimony to such fact or his production of such papers may tend to 
disgrace him or otherwise render him infamous. 

Mr. Chadwick. I had expected, Mr. Chairman, to pick up and com- 
plete the two additional pages of the summary of which I was engaged 
when we referred to some particular inquiry therein. 

With your permission, and for the sake of certainty, I think I read 
at page 19, with reference to the undignified activity of a Member, 
without reading into detail. 

On page 19, and 20, 12, quorum citations, including United States 
Y. DiCarlo (1952, 102 Fed. Supp. 597), and United States v. Auippa 
(1952, 102 Fed. Supp. 609) ; also United States v. Bryan (1950, 339 
U. S. 323, 332-335). 

At pages 21 and 22 is a study which supports certain propositions 
which are cited by us in detail. 

The final reference on the brief is to the rules of the Senate, 
at article 1, sectioii 5, clause 2, of the Constitution, authorizing 
the Houses to determine the rules of their proceedings, and legal 
propositions citing United States v. Ballin (114 U. S. 1, 5, 1892, 
p. 97). 

That is the conclusion of the brief in its present form. 

Mv. Williams. Mr. Cliairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. If Mr. Chadwick has concluded, I would like to 
say, sir, that I have no objection to his legal brief going into the 
record, provided it is labeled for wliat it is. It is a vigorously 
partisan advocate's brief on the law. It is a prosecutor's brief, 
and, as such, I think it should go into the record provided it is 
labeled as such and provided it is identified as being the prosecutor's 
side of this case. 

I say that, sir, for this reason : In this brief Mr. Chadwick under- 
takes to answer a couple of arguments which I was not permitted to 
make on the first day. I don't think it is quite fair that this brief 
should purport to be an impartial analysis of a law when it at the same 
time undertakes to refute an argument which I probably had only 
completed 5 percent of at the time I was interrupted on the first day. 

I want to call attention also to this : That in this brief counsel says 
on three occasions, where he said orally as he referred to it — 

We have decided that the Gillette committee had jurisdiction contrary to 
the iwsition advanced by counsel for Senator McCarthy. 

The Chairman, I state, Mr. Williams, that is not the decision of 
the committee. That is the decision of the counsel. 

Mr, Williams. And we also 

The Chairman. I would say also no committee member, as far as 
I know, has read tliis brief. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 141 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. I appreciate that. 

He also said, and I think this is very important : 

We have decided it is not Important whether Senator McCarthy was suu- 
penaed or not because the fact is he was not and did not demand a subpena. 

Mr. Chadwick has arrived at this startling conclusion without hear- 
ing our defense, and I think he is a little premature in making de- 
cisions before we have been accorded the opportunity either to pre- 
sent our side of the law or to present our side of the facts. 

The Chairman. May I say this : That the statement by Mr. Chad- 
wick and Mr. de Furia represents their own views and they are not 
the views of the committee, and no decision has been made on these 
points, except in a preliminary way we had to decide the matters 
we were going to take testimony on and we made that decision. The 
final decision has not been made on any of these matters and when 
he says they decided, he is speaking for the committee counsel and 
nobocly else. 

Mr. WiLLLVMS. I would like to make just one more observation, 
if I may, sir, with respect to this material which Mr. Chadwick has 
presented for his side of this case. 

The Chairman. There is not any side of it, as far as the committee 
is concerned. We are still going to get all the evidence, all the law 
we can on this matter that is pertinent and relevant. We want to 
get all the facts, and we have offered to subpena anyone that you 
wanted, or to follow any leads that you had, that you might suggest, 
so we can have the investigators get that evidence and bring the 
witnesses before this committee, so long as it is relevant and pertinent 
to the hearings on these particular charges. 

Now, that being the situation, I think what the gentlemen have clone 
here is in keeping with the whole matter, to get the law. 

Of course, when they read the law, read a statement into law and 
they go over a matter, apparently they have it to make up their minds 
whether it is one way or another; otherwise they could have said, 
"It might be this way ; it might be the other," and it would be of very 
little help in making up the minds of the committee. 

Mr. Williams. I would hope, if Mr. Chadwick is serving as legal 
counsel to the committee, he will not impose his legal mind on these 
propositions before we are given an opportunity to be heard. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, may I have a word ? 

The Chairman. Just let him finish, Mr. Chadwick. I interrupted 
him, and I want him to finish. 

Mr. Williams. I want to say this ajso : Our position with respect to 
the Gillette committee was misrepresented, and I am sure inadvertently 
misrepresented. It seems to me in this brief here Mr. Chadwick has 
built a strawman up and then shot him down. It is a strawman we 
don't adopt. We have never said at any time, nor do we say now, nor 
shall we say hereafter, that the Gillette committee did not have juris- 
diction to look into the exclusion and expulsion and censure matters. 

Wliat we did say, operating as it was under the Benton resolution, 
was that it did not have the authority to go back behind 1947 because 
the Benton resolution gave it authority only to go to 1947, as it was 
originally drawn, as it was subsequently ratified by the Senate. 

Secondly, there was a reference made to title XVIII, section 1905. 
The brief which Mr. Chadwick has handed me a copy of does not 



142 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

even piirpoit to quote all of that statute. It talks about whoever 
being an officer of the Government divulges or discloses or makes 
known information shall be subject to a penalty. Half the statute is 
quoted and Mr. Chadwick said the remaining part of it simply related 
to the people's sanction; but the fact of the matter is the remaining 
part of the statute demonstrates clearly that Congress was talking 
about trade secrets, processes, operations, and apparatuses, insofar 
as the information related thereto is concerned, 

Tlien, also, the statenieut was made tliat title V, section 652, which 
guarantees the right to every member of the executive department to 
bring information to Members of Congress and provides specifically 
that right sliall not be interfered with, was read in this brief, and Mr. 
Chadwick made the remark, as he read it, that, of course, that would 
be superseded by regulations and resolutions of the Senate, specifically 
mentioning the resolutions on secrecy or tlie Executive orders on 
secrecy by the Pies i dent. 

I want to call the attention of the committee to the fact, lest any 
inference be drawn from what Mr. Chadwick said to the contrary, 
that Congress reenacted title V, section 652, in 1948, 4 months after we 
had the first Truman secrecy order. In other words. Congress, at the 
time that it passed the statute, had the Truman order before it. Execu- 
tive order on secrecy, and in the face of that it reenacted this statute to 
guarantee to members in the executive their right to petition Congress, 
and to give them such information as they have. 

Now, I think those things, in the interest of fairness — I know I am 
premature in getting into the defense, but I can't let these matters go 
unchallenged when they are given in the guise of an impartial analysis 
of the law. 

I say I have no objection to this going in if it is labeled as a legal 
view of this case, Mr. Chadwick's legal view of this case, but certainly 
I do object to its going in as to the findings on the law of impartial 
counsel. 

]\Ir. Chadwick. ]Mr. Williams, I am glad to have an opportunity now 
to reply to several aspects of your statement. 

First, I want to say, sir, in all respect, that the brief as produced 
was an honest effort to produce an impartial review of the law as we 
find it, without application to the matters before the committee. 

Your criticisms, sir, are those which counsel very naturally feels 
about briefs that anyone prepares. We always feel we could make up 
a better one or we regret that we haven't ])repared a better one. How- 
ever, the paper was prepared by us tinder the strict instruction of this 
committee that our approach to the problem, and a fair approach, 
should be nonpartisan, and I think it will be found there are sections 
there wdiich a lay reader might believe had direct a])])lication to the 
support of other views than those which we advanced. 

Now, I have another question : You point to the fact we cited three 
cases which you had quoted to us. Naturally, we take account of all 
cases that come to our attention. Whether we had all three of those 
cases, or not, before you mentioned them, I cannot now assert. 

I tlo assert, however, if they had any ai)plication when you men- 
tioned them at the bar of this committee, they have an a]i]^lication also- 
to our brief. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 143 

And, Mr. Williams, is it not the fact that j^ou promised me a week 
ago tliat you would let me have your brief, the brief in support of your 
position to which you refer ? 

It is my recollection you called me afterward and said you would 
be a few days late, and I said, of course, your time was my time on the 
question of the delivery of your brief. 

Am I correct in stating now I have not yet seen your brief ? 

Mr. Williams. You are correct to this extent, Mr. Chadwick : You 
are correct insofar as what you have said, but you haven't stated the 
whole fact. The whole fact is that I went before this full committee, 
which was in executive session, I believe, on Thursday evening, and I 
told the committee that I had made a commitment to furnish it with 
certain legal principles in the form of a brief and the commitment 
was they were to have it on Thursday. I said to the members of the 
committee, and you were present, that I could comply with t?iat com- 
mitment if I kept the girls in the office at the mimeographing machines 
late that evening. It was the Unanimous feeling of the committee that 
I should not do that and if I presented my position today in written 
form that I would fully comport with the desires of the committee. 

That is the fact, Mr. Chadwick, and I propose to submit my brief 
here today, but what I objected to, sir, was that you undertook to 
answer me on an oral argument that I had started to make, but was not 
permitted to finish, was not permitted to get into, which I do not think 
complies with the basic dictates of fair play. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, that is a matter which I and the 
committee should take into cognizance. I have always tried to be 
fair, and I am generally successful. I didn't mean to dispute there 
was any question with respect to delay in the preparation of your 
brief. I merely pointed out we could not postpone the preparation 
of our brief until your very efficient and, I am sure, hard-worked staff 
had a chance to prepare yours. 

Senator Ervix. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make just this obser- 
vation : I think there is a good deal to what Mr. Williams says with 
reference to the designation of the brief. Wlien this matter goes back 
to the Senate, it will necessarily go on the record made before this 
committee and I think it would be helpful to the Senate to have the 
legal views of Mr. Chadwick and also the legal views of Mr. Williams 
and, consequently, I think it would be a good thing if we incorporated 
the legal briefs on both sides in the record for the use of the Senate 
as well as for the use of the committee, with a designation to the effect 
that they do represent legal views. 

I would like to make one additional observation, and that is : When 
the chairman ruled he would take the evidence rather than hear the 
whole oral argument of Mr. Williams on the legal question, I thought 
that ruling was correct because I have spent most of my life in the 
law and I have found out that, as a lawyer or as a judge, I never 
could interpret the law without the facts ; that, therefore, you have to 
have the facts, know what the facts are, before you can determine 
what the law is and what the application of the law is. For that 
reason I think the ruling of the chairman to the effect that we would 
hear the evidence before passing on the point of law raised by Mr. 



144 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Williams was correct because, as I say, and as Senator Stennis ex- 
pressed the idea, out of the facts the law arises. 

I would think it would be well for the Senate and the committee to 
have the benefit of briefs on both sides, that they should be inserted 
in the record and designated as legal views so that the Senate might 
not arrive at the conclusion that they are anything except the legal 
views presented. 

The Chairman. Are there any further comments ? 

At this point I think I should make this statement : That, because 
of the holiday period and the vacation period, the number of people 
whom we wanted to interview before we proceeded with this hearing, 
we were not able to interview them or were not even able to find their 
whereabouts. So, it is necessary now to postpone the public hearing 
for a time. 

The fact is we also have a number of very pressing matters that the 
committee must take consideration of in executive session. So, there 
won't be any time lost, actually. 

Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. Senator Stennis. 

Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, may I say just one word about the 
briefs ? 

It just occurs to me the committee has the benefit of two briefs on 
this matter, on the law. Neither one of them is a committee brief. 
I have never seen either one of them and I am anxious to see both of 
them. They will be helpful, I am sure, and then we will all perhaps 
read some cases pointed out in those briefs. 

The Chairman. Is it not possible. Senator, we may not agree with 
either one of them ? 

Senator Stennis. Yes. That is the inference. Certainly the com- 
mittee has no brief and we have seen no brief, and we are anxious to 
get to these major cases that may be reflected in each brief. 

The Chairman. I will continue with my statement. 

We will recess this hearing until 2 : 30 this afternoon. 

The committee will meet in executive session immediately following 
this continuance. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 35 a. m., the hearing was recessed to reconvene 
at 2 : 30 p. m,, same day.) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

(Thereupon, at 2: 30 p. m., the committee reconvened.) 

The Chairman. The committee will be in session. 

Counsel will call the witness, if it has one. 

Mr. DE FuEiA. JNIr. Chairman, we have here under subpena, Mr. 
Walter Winchell, and I desire that he be called and sworn. 

The Chairman. Mr. Winchell, will you please come forward. Raise 
your right hand and be sworn. 

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in the mat- 
ter now pending before the committee will be the truth, the whole 
truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes ; I do. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 145 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER WINCHELL 

Mr. DE FuRiA. With the permission of the chairman, Mr. Winchell, 
what is your full name, sir ? 

Mr. Winchell. Walter Winchell. 

Mr. DE FuMA. And your address? 

Mr. Winchell. 50 West 59th Street, New York City. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. What is your business or profession, Mr. Winchell ? 

Mr. Winchell. Newspaper. 

Mr. DE FuKiA. How long have you been in the newspaper business? 

Mr. Winchell. Thirty-two years. 

Mr. DE FuEiA. Were you one of the reporters, Mr. Winchell, who 
covered the Army-McCarthy hearings here last May? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you write a column during the course of those 
hearings with reference to a copy of a 21/4-page letter or document ? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes ; I did. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. In a column which you wrote, and which was pub- 
lished, I believe, first on May 6, and later on May 9, 1954, did you say 
that you had in your possession a copy of the 214-page document or 
letter addressed to General Boiling ? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes ; I did. 

The Chairman. Mr. de Furia, I think probably you had better 
identify that a little closer with any so-called security matter. 

Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir. 

So that there may be no misunderstanding, Mr. Winchell, between 
you and me, we are referring to a copy of a letter or document which 
was produced by Senator McCarthy in the course of the hearings de- 
scribed as classified information, with the words "Personal and Confi- 
dential via liaison" from the FBI to General Boiling, with reference 
to espionage matters at Fort Monmouth. 

Are we in accord about what we are talking about ? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes. 

Mr. DE Furia. And you did say in a newspaper column written by 
you that you had a copy of that *2i^-page letter or document in your 
possession ? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes. 

Mr. DE Furia. When did you first obtain possession of that copy, 
Mr. Winchell? 

JNIr. Winchell. If you are asking the date, counsel, I am not sure, 
the exact date. But it was during one of the hearings here in this 
room. 

Mr. DE Furia. Do you recall the first day that you wrote an article 
or column, or made a radio talk referring to the fact that you had 
posession of a copy ? 

Mr. Winchell. Do I recall the date ? 

Mr. DE Furia. Yes. 

Mr. Winchell. No, sir ; I do not. 

Mr. DE Furia. Can we agree that it was about May 6 ? 

Mr. Winchell. Around that time ; I believe that would be correct. 

Mr. DE Furia. Of this year? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes. 



146 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. DE FuKiA. What time of the daj^ did you receive your copy of 
the 214-page document ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I am not sure whether it was morning or afternoon, 
but it was during one of the short recesses. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you receive it here in this Senate caucus room ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Outside the Senate caucus room. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. de Furia, I think if we are going to talk about 
a 21/4-page document, we ought to have that document carefully iden- 
tified so that we can see precisely what j'ou are referring to in your 
interrogation of Mr. Winchell, so that Mr. Winchell will know exactly 
what you are talking about Miien you allude, as you have 3 or 4 times 
in your questioning, to a 2i/4-page document. What 214-page docu- 
ment? Let's see it. 

Mr. DE Furia. Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, for reasons which 
will become evident as I proceed with my examination, we cannot see 
it, sir, and I suggest that I be permitted to continue the examination. 

Mr. Williams. Unless we are talking about a 214-page document 
which is subject matter germane to this inquiry, all of this questioning 
is irrelevant. So I think it should be established what we are talking 
about. I think that my position is very sound and I ask the Chair 
to rule. 

Mr. DE Furia. Perhaps, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Williams was not lis- 
tening to me but I asked Mr. Winchell specifically whether we were 
talking about the same thing and described the letter or document to 
him, and I don't think there is any misconception between Mr. 
Winchell and me. I don't think so. Is that correct, Mr. Winchell? 

The Chairman. Mr. de Furia, I think probably you could identify 
it a little further by asking Mr. Winchell whether or not he was in 
the room when they were ciiscussing a certain classified document or 
classified information during the course of the hearings and if that 
is that particular one that he had reference to. I am certain that is 
the one w» are inquiring about. That is the one that seems to be in 
issue here under one of these categories. 

Mr. DE Furia. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Winchell, were you present during the Army-McCarthy hear- 
ings when Senator McCarthy presented, or had in his possession, and 
made an examination with reference to, a paper that I think he called 
a letter, a 214 -page letter that was marked "Personal and Confidential" 
from the FBI to General Boiling? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes. 

The Chairman. Does that satisfy your objection? 

Mr. Williams. Obviously, unless Mr. Winchell saw the document 
that was referred to during the Mundt hearings, Mr. Winchell does 
not know whether the copy that he is talking about is a copy of that 
document. I think Mr. de Furia must first ask Mr. Winchell if he saw 
the document that Senator McCarthy referred to and that was handed 
to Mr. Jenkins during that hearing. Otherwise, Mr. Winchell obvi- 
ously cannot testify to whether or not what he had was a copy of it 
or whether it even purported to be *a copy of it. 

The Chairman. Well, it seems to me that we cannot be too technical 
about this matter. 

Mr. Williams. I do not want to be technical, Mr. Chairman. I just 
want it to be established before this interrogation continues that Mr. 
Winchell is talking about the same thing that Mr. de Furia is and I 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 147 

don't see how we can establish that unless Mr. Winchell saw the docu- 
ment that Senator McCarthy had in his hands that was passed to Mr. 
Jenkins and it was passed back to Senator McCarthy. If he saw it, I 
will withdraw my objections and we can go forward because then he 
would be qualified to state whether or not the document which he had 
was a copy of it ; but I don't see how in the world this witness can say 
that he had a copy of a document that he never saw. 

So I think it is most important that we establish whether he saw it 
or not. 

The Chairman. I think the nature of the — the very nature of the 
document itself limits the identification. When it was before the 
Mundt committee, as I recall it, very few of the committee apparently 
saw it. 

They didn't read it, at least, and even the Army counsel would not 
read it, nor the Secretary of the Army would not read it, and I think it 
was identified sufficiently so that we know what he was talking about. 

It may not be of any weight. The fact of the matter is, I think 
probably it will help you rather than hurt you. 

Mr. Williams. We are out for all the facts, too, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I am going to rule that he may proceed and go on 
with the testimony. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. In what part of this building, Mr. Winchell, did you 
receive that letter? 

Mr. Winchell. Directly outside. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Outside of the Senate caucus room ? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Was that during intermission or brief period during 
one of the hearings ? 

Mr. Winchell. I think it was one of those brief recesses. It could 
have been such, and perhaps was. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Who handed you the 2%-page letter which you said 
was your copy ? 

Mr. Winchell. I refuse to tell that. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. On what ground do you refuse to tell it ? 

Mr. Winchell. I will not reveal the source of information. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. I am asking you, sir, on what grounds you refuse to 
answer that question. 

Mr. Winchell. On the grounds I just gave you, sir. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Unless I am mistaken, Mr. Winchell, you have not 
given me any grounds. You said you refused to answer the question. 
Now, I am asking you, on what grounds do you refuse to answer ? 

Mr. Winchell. I would not reveal my source of information on any 
news. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. You had a meeting about an hour ago with Senator 
Watkins, Judge Chaclwick, and myself ; did you not, Mr. Winchell ? 

Mr. Winchell. That is right. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. You made certain statements to us at tliat meeting; 
did you not? 

Mr. Winchell. I did. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Are you shifting your position in any way from what 
you told us then, to what you are telling us now ? 

Mr. Winchell. No. I know that I will say what I said to you down- 
stairs, at the finish, tliat I would not reveal my source of information, 
even if I knew it. 



148 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Tlie Chairman. Well, are you not just laboring the point a little, or 
do you actually know wlio delivered it to you? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I beg pardon ? 

The Chairman. Do you know wdio delivered it to you ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I do not know. I am not sure. 

The Chairman. Had you said that before, it would have saved a 
lot of difficulty. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I thought I would expedite things, sir, and get to 
the point. 

The Chairman. Well, that was the way to get to the point, if you 
did not know it, if you do not know the person who gave it to you ; and 
that is what I understood you to tell us at the interview. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right. 

The Chairman. All right; proceed. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Was your answer correct, that you are not certain 
who gave you the copy ? Is that what you said, sir ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. That is correct. 

Mr. DE FtJRiA. Do you have any knowledge about who gave you the 
copy ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No, as I indicated to you and Senator Watkins 
downstairs. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. I prefer that you answer, up here, if you will. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Well, as I explained to you gentlemen, I have re- 
ceived considerable assistance from various people in this room, par- 
ticularly newspaper people, some of them men I have not met before. 
"Wlien they heard that I was covering the caucus room for any high- 
lights and sidelights, not the usual curiosity, several of these men 
offered their memos to me. They did that outside, during the recess. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. So I am fair to you, sir; are you now withdrawing 
your refusal to answer tlie question that I propounded to you? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. If I knew, counsel, I would not tell you. That is 
what I said to Senator Watkins before; and I thought I would get 
right to the statement. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, I say the statement is unnecessary, 
because you told us you do not know; and you now say you do not 
know who gave it to you. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I am not sure. 

The Chairman. Did you have any idea who it was ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I said, in your office, about an hour ago 

The Chairman. You are answering, now. Forget 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I am not sure. Senator. There are so many people 
offering material to me ; and I believe I told you all that I was engaged 
in a conversation, or listening to other people talk, directly outside this 
room, and accepting offers from various people in the form of memos 
— they were planning to write the business — to let them place in my 
hand, sometimes just with the acknowledgement "thank you very 
much," lacking time to continue with the conversation I put them into 
my pocket before readhig them. 

The Chairman. As I understand, you say now you cannot — you do 
not know the person who gave it to you ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Not that particular piece of paper. 

The Chairman. Can you describe in more detail just how it was 
handed to you — first, where, and then how ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Outside — I beg your pardon, sir? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 149 

The ChatrmajSt. Yes. 

Mr. AYiNCHELL. Outside this room, right near the door, to the right 
of the door — my right — I remember talking to 2 or 3 men. They were 
reporters. Various people passing by handed me little memos, not 
necessarily news. Some of them were messages of a personal nature ; 
and I do recall getting what I believe to be this 214-page document 
somewhere. It Avas folded. 

The Chairmax. Somebody handed it to you while you were there ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Somebody did, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you get a full view of the person who handed 
it to you ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No, I did not. 

The Chairman. And, as of now, you do not know who actually gave 
it to you ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You do ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I do not know. 

The Chairman. Well, you said "Yes." I thought you meant — just 
so I understand you, Mr. Winchell. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I want to be sure whether I have given you a repe- 
tition of the actual language I was developing, and I did not consider 
that that question had been raised ; because I thought you misunder- 
stood. I thought you always had said to us you did not know who 
gave it to you ; and therefore, of course, you could not say. 

Mr. WiNCPiELL. I could not swear that I did know. 

The Chairman. Well, that is what you are telling us, today. You 
are testifying to that. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. de Furia. 

INIr. DE Furia. Mr. Winchell, do I understand you to state now, 
under oath, you do not know who gave you your copy of that 214- 
page letter? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. de Furia. Was he in uniform or in civies ? 

Mr. Winchell. I believe he was in civilian clothes. 

Mr. DE Furia. A man or a woman ? 

Mr. Winchell. Male. 

Mr. DE Furia. Wliite or colored ? 

Mr. Winchell. White. 

Mr. DE Furia. About how old, Mr. Winchell ? 

Mr. Winchell. I really don't know. 

Mr. DE Furia. Was he a member of Senator McCarthy's staff? 

Mr. Winchell. I don't think so. 

Mr. DE Furia. Are you sure about it? 

Mr. Winchell. I'm not sure. 

Mr. DE Furia. Did you know all the members of Senator McCarthy's 
staff? 

Mr. Winchell. Many of them. 

Mr. DE Furia. You knew Mr. Carr ? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes. 

Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Juliana ? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes. 

Mr. DE Furia. And Mr. Surine ? 



150 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr, WiNCHELL. Yes. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Was it any of those? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Of course, it was not Senator McCarthy who handed 
it to you ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No. 

Mr, DE FuRiA. Now, were you seated or standing when it was 
handed to you ? 

Mr, WiNCHELL. Standing. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. To whom were you talking ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I beheve reporters. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you know some of the reporters? Can you 
identify them, Mr. Winchell ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I know nearly all of them in this room, or in the 
room at the time, but I'm not sure who these reporters were. It 
might have been Mr, Spivak of International News, It might have 
been Jerry Greene or Jim Patterson of the New York Daily News — 
several of them — Mr, Kempton of the New York Post. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. How soon 

Mr. WiNCHELL, I'm not sure any of these names I mentioned were 
the ones I was talking to at the time, 

Mr. DE FuRiA. How soon after you received that paper, Mr. Win- 
chell, did you examine it? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Shortly after, when I sat back at the press table. 

Mr, DE FuRiA. Now, I take it, sir, you heard the description of the 
214-page letter as it developed during the Army-McCarthy hearings? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. That committee went into a long description of it, 
comparisons. Now, did the copy that you had in your possession — did 
it, or didn't it compare with the S^/^-page document as it was described 
in those hearings ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I believe the letter that I had was the same. 

The Chairman. That was not quite an answer to the question. Did 
it compare ? 

Mr, WiNCHELL. Oh, I do not know, Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, from what you heard 

Mr. Winchell. I didn't see the letter. 

The Chairman. I realize that, but he had already told you, de- 
scribed in some detail, the remarks on it, personal and confidential, 
and all that sort of thing. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Right. 

The Chairman. Did this compare? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I believe it was the same letter. 

The Chairman. But still you do not answer the question. Were the 
same, substantial markings on this letter and the date on this letter 
you heard mentioned 

Mr. WiNCHELL. It was signed, I believe, by John — J. E. Hoover — 
containing a list of names of enemy suspects. 

Mr, DE FuRiA. Mr, Winchell, in your column didn't you state this : 

The letter to General Boiling, about Reds and pro-Commies at New Jersey 
Government radar places, which is being argued about, is in this columnist's pos- 
session, too. 

Mr, WiNCHELL. I replied I believe it is the same. 
Mr. DE FuRiA. Well, is there any doubt about it, sir ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 151 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I have no doubt. 

Mr. DE Fdria. Then your testimony is that the copy you had, so far 
as you know, was the same ; is that correct, sir? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Oh, I really believe it was a copy of the evidence 
offered here. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. You knew it was a classified document, did you not? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes. 

Mr. HE FuRiA. And did you retain that document in your possession ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. How long ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. About a week and a half. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you show it to anyone, Mr. Winchell? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No one. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. No one at all ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Nobody saw the text. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you show any part to anyone? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. When I took it out of my pocket, with other papers, 
to look at what I had collected during that recess, I believe I said 
to the men sitting near me at the press table, about here, "Gee, look 
what I have." 

Mr. DE FuRL\. Wliat did you do with your copy of the 2i/4-page 
letter? 

Mr. WiNCHELL, I contacted John E. Hoover at once about it, or as 
soon as I could get to a telephone. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, Mr, Winchell has told us about some 
conversations he had with Mr. Hoover, but as I understand the rules 
of evidence, I am not permitted to develop that conversation. 

The Chairman. I will say this: Since the question has arisen as to 
whether or not it was a copy — as I recall the testimony that has been 
introduced heretofore — it has been that the exhibit was bsfore the 
Army-McCarthy hearings, was taken to Mr. Hoover and he saw 
that. I think maybe we can pursue this a little further with Mr. 
Winchell on the question of whether he did consult Mr. Hoover about 
this letter, purely on that basis, not for any other purpose, to see 
whether or not it is the same letter. 

Mr, Williams. 1 think if Mr, Winchell is going to say what Mr. 
Hoover said, of course, his testimony would be objectionable. We 
tliink Mr. Hoover should be called, under the rules of this committee. 

Tlie Chairman, Well, Mr, Hoover's testimony probably would not 
be direct evidence for any other purpose than to identify what Mr. 
Winchell sliowed him. 

Mr. Williams, I don't think INIr, Winchell is competent to tell this 
committee what Mr, Hoover has said about this letter. I think only 
Mr, Hoover is competent under the rules laid down by the com- 
mittee that hearsay evidence would be rejected. 

The Chairman, As I remember, in the other hearing, and it is also 
in this record, Mr, Hoover did not appear there. He was allowed 
to identify the letter and a messenger was sent out. 

Mr. Williams, That committee, sir, did not purport to be operating 
under the rules of evidence, though. 

The Chairman, I realize that. Of course, if you do not Avant this 
in the record — I say I think it is favorable to you, and we felt duty 
bound to present it. 



152 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The charge has been made that Senator McCarthy had permitted 
this document to fall into the hands of an unauthorized person, to 
wit, a gossip columnist, and we wanted to get all the evidence on 
this point, and, while I recognize it is remote, if you want to object^ 
I suppose you can, and I am going to rule on it. It is up to you. 

Mr. Williams. Well, I haven't heard a pending question. I don't 
know what Mr. de Furia is seeking now. 

Mr. DE Furia. May I have a moment, sir? 

The Chairman. On the objection to the questioning by counsel, as- 
far as Senator McCarthy is concerned, we will withhold any further 
questioning on this line. 

You may proceed, Mr. de Furia, on another phase of it. 

Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Winchell, what did you do with the two-and-a- 
quarter page copy which you had ? 

Mr. Winchell. I destroyed it. 

Mr. DE Furia. When did you destroy it, sir ? 

Mr. Winchell. About 8 to 10 days after I had possession of it. 

Mr. DE Furia. Where did you destroy it ? 

Mr. Winchell. In a hotel. 

Mr. DE Furia. Where? 

Mr. Winchell. In the bath room of the Shoreham Hotel. 

Mr. DE Furia. Which hotel? 

Mr. Winchell. Shoreham. 

Mr. DE Furia. Here in Washington, sir ? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. DE Furia. And how did you destroy it ? 

Mr. Winchell. I burned it ; flushed it. 

The Chairman. How was that? 

Mr. Winchell. I burned it and flushed it. 

The Chairman. You said you burned it, or flushed it ? Wliich did 
you do ? 

Mr. Winchell. And — I burned it and flushed it. Senator. 

The Chairman. That makes quite a difference. 

Mr. Winchell. Yes, it does. 

Mr. DE Furia. Did you have any conversation with Senator Mc- 
Carthy at any time with reference to that two-and-a-quarter page 
letter after you received your copy of it ? 

Mr. Winchell. I don't recall having any conversation with the 
Senator about it. 

Mr. DE Furia. Does that mean you may or may not have had? 

Mr. Winchell. I'm pretty sure I didn't. 

Mr. DE Furia. You did not ? 

Mr. Winchell. I'm pretty sure I didn't. 

Mr. DE Furia. All right. 

Were any copies made of that two-and-a-quarter-page letter from 
your copy? 

Mr. Winchell. Not from my copy ; no, sir. 

Mr. DE Furia. Are you sure of that? 

Mr. Winchell. I'm positive. Nobody saw it but me. 

Mr. DE Furia. And it was in your exclusive possession ? 

Mr. Winchell. In my possession. I didn't even show it to Mr. 
Hoover. I just told him I had it. 

Mr. DE Furia. Are you sure about that, that you didn^t show it to 
Mr. Hoover ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 153 

Mr. WiNCHELL, I think I took it out of my pocket and said, "I have 
that letter, John." 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Then you may have shown it to him ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Well, that way, without showing, revealing the text. 

Mr. DE FuRLv. Now, I ask you again : Are you sure that you didn't 
show it to Mr. Hoover ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I'm pretty sure I did not show it to Mr. Hoover. 

Mr. DE FuEiA. All right, but to be fair with you, 3 ou may have and 
don't remember ; is that right ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I don't recall doing that, counselor. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. All right. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this question : Didn't you go to Mr. 
Hoover to see whether or not it was proper for you to use it ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And he told you it wasn't proper to use it ? 

Mr. AViNCHELL. I said, "John, I have a copy" 

The Chairman. No. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. "Of that letter." 

The Chairman. I am only asking that one question. You v/ent 
there for the purpose of finding out whether you could use it or not, 
whether it was classified or not ; isn't that the fact? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I guess you are right about that. 

The Chairman. And after you talked with him, you didn't use it? 

Mr. WiNCHELL, Yes, sir; I did not use it. 

The Chairman. How could he determine whether it was a copy or 
not and classified confidential unless you had shown it to him? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I beg your pardon. 

The Chairman. I sa}-, How could he determine and see that it was 
classified without seeing it, without you showing it to him? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. May I, Senator, tell you what the conversation 
was? 

The Chairman. No; we can't. Counsel objected. I think it was 
in their favor, but they objected. So I am not going to let you tell 
that conversation. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. They published the conversation. That is a matter 
of public record. 

Mr. Williams. I don't have any objection to this, if you want to 
pursue it. 

The Chairman. All right. You tell us what Mr. Hoover told you. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I said, "John, I hav.e a copy of that letter." 

I assumed he knew what I was talking about, because it had been 
on the television and radio, in the papers, all afternoon. His name 
had been bandied about considerabl}^, and that letter. 

The Chairman. You made it known that you had it ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I said, "I have a copy of that letter, John. I want 
to ask you something." 

I said, "Would you arrest me if I published it?" 

He said, "Yes." 

I said, "You're kidding, John." 

He said, "No ; I am not." 

That was the end of the conversation. 

The Chairman. Well, now, as a matter of fact, you did not let him 
see the letter to be sure that it was the same one, did you ? 



154 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. WiNCMELL. I could not swear that I showed him the letter. I 
wish I could tell you I had. I cannot recall doing that. I am trying 
to recapture the scene at the table in the restaurant. 

The CiTAiRMAisr. Do you think Mr. Hoover would take it for granted 
that you had a copy of that letter without looking at it? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Would he take it for granted ? 

The Chairman. Without looking at it. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I do not know whether he believed that I had it 
or not. He answered mv question because I asked him if he would 
arrest me, and he said, "Yes." 

The Chairman. That was based on the fact that it was a classified 
document and you had a copy of a classified document, is that right? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right. 

The Chairman. That is all I have. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. I want to be certain I understood the testimony 
with reference to the receipt of this document. 

Do you swear that you are certain that you do not know who handed 
you this document? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right, sir. 

Senator Ervin. That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. de Furia. 

Mr. DE Furia. Mr. Winchell, Senator McCarthy had a copy of the 
two-and-one-quarter page letter, as I understand it, and you had 
one also. Is tliat right? Do you know of any other copies in exist- 
ence, of your own knowledge ? 

The Chairman. Out of your own knowledge, now, remember. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I do not remember. 

Mr. DE Furia. Did you see any others while you were here, or 
since that time ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No. 

Mr. DE Furia. Of your own knowledge, you do not know that any 
other than the two letters were in existence? Is that correct, sir? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. That is correct. I had heard that there were 35 
distributed to the other newspaper people. 

Mr. DE Furia. That is what we lawyers call hearsay so far as you 
are concerned. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I told you that before, and I offer it again for 
background. 

The Chairman. Do any other members of the committee wish to 
ask any questions ? 

Mr. Williams, you may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Winchell, just so that we can understand 
your testimony, as I understand you, you were dowm here covering 
the so-called Army-McCarthy hearings in May of 1954. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, I was. 

Mr. Williams. And on May 4, 1954, while you were seated out 
here covering the hearings, there was reference made by Senator 
McCarthy to a letter which purj^ortedly bore the typed name of 
J. Edgar Hoover as tlie sender ; is that right ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 155 

Mr. Williams. And that letter, you recall, do you not, Mr. 
Wincliell, was passed on May 4, 1954, by Senator McCarthy up to 
Ray Jenkins, counsel for the committee? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. Ray Jenkins retained possession of that letter 
for a time and thereafter, you recall, do you not, Mr. Winchell, that 
he returned it to Senator McCarthy ? 

jMr. Winchell. Yes, and I believe it was received and unread 
and unopened by anyone on that committee. 

Mr. Williams. As a matter of fact, at no time during the hear- 
ings while you were present were the contents of that letter made 
known ? 

Mr. Winchell. I know of no one at any time revealing the con- 
tents. 

]Mr. Williams. So that as a newspaperman sitting at the table 
covering the hearings, you were in precisely the same position as 
everybody else in the room except Senator McCarthy and Kay 
Jenkins ? You did not know what was in that memorandum or that 
letter. 

Mr. Winchell. I eventually read it. 

Mr. Williams. Did you read the document, Mr. Winchell? 

Mr. Winchell. Oh, I beg your pardon. I meant to say that I read 
the copy I had. I did not see the purported original or whatever it 
was up there. 

Mr. Williams. At no time during the hearings were the contents 
of that document made known. 

Mr. Winchell. Would you please repeat that ? 

Mr. Williams. At no time during the hearings were the contents 
of that document made known. 

Mr. Winchell. I do not believe so. 

Mr. Williams. The only thing that was disclosed about that docu- 
ment was that it was a docimient which purported to be from J. Edgar 
Hoover to General Boiling, and that it was a memorandum on 3 pages ; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Winchell. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. Now, as I understand your testimony, thereafter 
you received a copy, or you rec;eived a document from someone whose 
identity you do not know, and that that document also was a document 
which bore the name J. Edgar Hoover as sender and, as recipient, 
General Boiling. 

Mr. Winchell. Tliat is right. 

Mr. Williams. And apart from that point of similarity, you know; 
of no other similarity between what you had and what was referred to 
in the record of the Army-McCarthy hearings ? 

Mr. Winchell. That is true. 

Mr. Williams. So that you are unable to say here under oath, in 
response to Mr. de Furia's questioning, you are unable to say under 
oath that you ever had in your possession a true copy of the document 
just discussed at such gi-eat length of 3 days during the Mundt inquiry, 
are you ? 

Mr. Winchell. No. 

Mr. Williams. Now, you said in response to Mr. de Furia's question 
that Senator McCarthy did not give you what you had in the way of 
a memorandum. Let us call what you had the Winchell document 

52461—34 11 



156 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

and let lis call the one at issue in this hearing the hearing document or 
the Mundt document, the Mundt-Jenkins-Army document. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Counsel, as I testified, I did not take a very good 
look at this person, although I knew it was a male, but I am sure that 
if you contacted the people to whom I showed this copy, that they 
might be helpful. I don't know. I mean at the press table. 

Mr. Williams. They might be helpful ? 

Mr. WiNCiiELL. Or any one of the other reporters, ladies of the press 
who might have seen people or a person passing things to me, to certify 
to me that it was or it was not Senator McCarthy. I do not know. 

Mr. Williams. But you have testified in response to a question that 
it was not Senator McCarthy who gave you this document. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I am pretty sure that it was not Senator McCarthy. 
I am pretty sure that if Senator McCarthy approached me and handed 
me something, I am pretty sure somebody would have seen that. 

Mr. Williams. And likewise, to the best of j^our recollection and to 
the best of your knowledge, it was not a member of his staff? 

Mr, AViNCHELL. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. Now that we have established, Mr. Winchell, No. 1', 
that this document to which you have made reference here today 
and to which Mr. de Furia has made reference cannot be shown 
to have been a copy of the document that is germane to this inquiry, 
and to the best of your recollection you did not get it from Senator 
McCarthy or any of his staff, let me ask you this: The fact of the 
matter is that you did not ever show your, what I call the Winchell 
document to John Edgar Hoover and say, "Look this over, John, and 
let me know if I can use it," did you? 

Mr. Winchell. No, I did not. 

INIr. Williams. In other words, you simply said to John Edgar 
Hoover, "John, I have a copy of that 'hot document,' as Ray Jenkins 
'ised to call it, and is it all right if I publish it." Is that right? 

Mr. Winchell. Will you arrest me if I publish it, is what I said. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, "Would you arrest me?". 

So that when you said that to Mr. Hoover, Mr. Hoover's answer 
was directed to whether or not you could publish the document about 
which there was so much discussion and so much discussion had been 
held in the Army-McCarthy hearings, is that right? 

Mr. Winchell. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. And he did not look at what you had in your hand ? 

Mr. Winchell. No, he accepted my question. He simply said, 
"Yes, I will arrest you." 

Mr. Williams. He simply said, "Yes, I will arrest you," is that 
right? 

Mr. Winchell. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. The fact of the matter is that even your so-called, 
what we will call the Winchell document did not have security in- 
formation in it, did it, Mr. Winchell? 

Mr. Winchell. In my opinion it was not security information. 

Mr. Williams. As a matter of fact, Mr. Winchell, what you had in 
your possession clearly indicated such portions as could have been 
security matters had been removed, did it not? 

Mr. Winchell. I believe so. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 157 

Mr. WiT.LiAMS. So tlicat yon simply had — the Winchell document — 
was simply in the form of a letter from which had been removed those 
things which might affect in any way security measures? 

Mr. WiN^CHELL. I believe that is true. 

Mr. Williams. I have no further questions. 

The CuMRMAiSr. Since you have made those statements, I wish you 
would tell us, and tell the committee just why you did believe, and 
why you said that it was a copy of the two-and-a-fourth page letter 
that had been classified as a security document. Give us your reason. 
We would like to know why you said it in your publication. 

Mr. Winchell. From hearing the charges and explanations across 
the table at which you are sitting now. Senator, I have no reason to 
doubt that what I had was not an exact copy of what had been pre- 
sented to the Senate committee. 

The Chairman. You remember you told me something about having 
"Personal and Confidential" about the top of the letter that you had? 

Mr. Winchell. That I had what, sir? 

The Chairman. That it was written in red across the top of it, 
"Personal and Confidential." 

Mr. Winchell. "Persojial and Confidential," and John Edgar 
Hoover's signature, I think. 

The Chairman. Signature? 

Mr. Winchell. Typewritten. 

The Chairman. Typewritten? 

Mr. Winchell. This was the copy. 

Incidentally, Senator, I just recall some of the people to whom I 
had revealed this part [indicating] in opening it up that much, just 
the top, and the huge letters "C-o-p-y" in red and perhaps a line at 
the top to the left, "Personal and Confidential," and perhaps the 
date over here. 

I think that Mr. Green of the New York Daily News, who was 
sitting on my right, he may have seen it. He was closest to me. I 
don't know whether I showed it to Mr. Spivak of International News, 
or to Miss McKee, also of International News Service, but they might 
corroborate that I did have what I believed to be a copy of what 
was in evidence here. 

The Chairman. You have given us now all the reasons why you 
thought you were right in saying it was a copy ? 

Mr. Winchell. I was trying to. 

The Chairman. You were so sincere about it that you published it 
in your column without equivocation or ifs and ancls? 

Mr. Winchell. I believed that it was a true copy. 

The Chairman. I see. 

We just wanted to be sure that you had given the committee all 
your reasons for believing it was. We wanted to clear up this inci- 
dent. It was one of those matters charged, and we wanted to get the 
statement on it, and you seemed to be the logical person to make the 
explanation. 

Mr. Winchell. Also, sir, I think that during the testimony, it was 
either Mr. Cohn or somebody else testifying, that he named one 
name in this list of suspects. He described this name as one who had 
already appeared in the headlines in the role of a Communist agent, 
and that the others had never been known before, and this coincided 
with the copy I had. 



158 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, I avouIcI like to have the names of 
the newspapermen or newspaperwomen who may have seen Mr. 
Wincliell's copy. You said Mr. Green ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Counsel, I did not show the text to anyone. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. I understand, sir. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I just opened it up like that [indicating] and he 
probably took a look out of the corner of his eye and went on about 
his business. I don't knoAv. I didn't turn around. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. I missed 1 or perhaps 2 names. Mr. Green 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Jerry Green, of the New York News, was on my 
right. In front of me, to my right, Jimmy Patterson. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. James? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. James Patterson, of the New York News, and 
Jerry Green, of the same newspaper. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Jerry Green? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Jerry Green, James Patterson. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. And James Patterson. You mentioned a Mr. Spivak. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Spivak was seated 2 or 3 from me; I may have 
turned it around and said, "Look." I don't know that I did. I think 
I did. 

Mr. DE FtJRiA. Did you say a Miss McKee? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. She may have been at the table at the time. Some 
of the reporters had to get up and leave and go and file copy a great 
deal of the time. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Now, sir, I have four names. Are there any more? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I offer those to help you decide Avhether I had any- 
thing that may have been a copy of the letter in controversy here. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. What Avas the color of the paper you had ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. White. 
 Mr. DE FuRiA. Was it copy paper, or regidar Avhite paper, letter 
paper ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. It Avas — I don't knoAv the name of it. It is a Avliite, 
very thin tissue. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Was it legal cap size, or octa\'o size ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. It Avas this size [holding up sheet of yellow paper]. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Regular business letterhead size. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Did you see in the audience here today any person 
Avho had another copy of that letter? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. That isn't clear to me. Counsel. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Do you see among the neAvspapermen or newspaper- 
Avomen here in' this room anyone Avho had another copy of the 214- 
page letter? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I never knew that any of them had. I have heard 
that 35 copies had been distributed — not. Counsel, not mainly to people 
in this room, but to heads of neAvspaper services and neAvspapers in 
Washington and New York City. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Mr. Winchell, the copy that you had, Avas that a 
mimeographed copy, or Avas it a carbon copy ? 

Mr. Winchell. A carbon. 

Senator Case. And you heard that there Avere some 35 copies that 
had been distributed? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 159 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I had later lieard — oh, a good week or so after — 
and I liad already told this to Senator Watkins and Mr. Chadwick and 
the counsel in his office earlier today. 

The Chairman. The reason we didn't ask about it was that we 
thought it was hearsay. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Well, mine was hearsay, Senator. 

The Chairmax. What was that ? . 

Mr. WiNCiiELL. Mine was hearsay. 

The Chairman. What you are saying now is hearsay. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I think I prefaced it by telling you that the man 
himself was a notable publisher of a newspaper. 

The Chairman. You do not need to go into the whole thing. I 
thought it was hearsay, and tliat is the reason I didn't ask you about it. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I see. 

Answering your question, Senator, this source told me that he had 
heard that 35 of the same, copies of the same letter, had been 
distributed in high places or newspapers. 

The Chairman. Senator Case, are you through ? 

Senator Case. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Stennis. 

Senator Stennis. Mr. Winchell, according to this stamp that was 
on this paper that you testified about, you say it was stamped "Per- 
sonal and Confidential"? 

Mr, Winchell. Typewritten. 

Senator Stennis. Typewritten. I got the idea a while ago that it 
was a stamp that had been impressed on there. 

Mr. Winchell. It was typewritten, sir. 

Senator Stennis. In the same way, apparently, as the body of the 
instrument was? 

Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Stennis. And the name, J. Edgar Hoover, was stamped or 
typewritten ? 

Mr. Winchell. Typewritten. 

Senator Stennis. Was there any kind of a marking on it indicat- 
ing a committee file number or stamp or any indication of that kind ? 

Mr. Winchell. I am pretty sure not, sir. 

Senator Stennis. This person that handed this paper to you, was 
that someone that you had then known, someone you then knew, and 
had forgotten who it was, or some person you never did know ? 

Mr. Winchell. One I didn't take^a good look at. It was handed 
to me folded in half, among the things like that [showing folded piece 
of paper] would be handed to me if I was busy talking to some- 
one and somebody who didn't want to wait, and this was handed 
to me by a male whose face I didn't get a good look at. I assume it 
was somebody who wanted to be helpful with some trivia. 

Senator Stennis. Was it your impression, then, that this party is 
a stranger to me, or was it your impression that it was just one of 
the boys around the table? 

Mr. Winchell. I think it was just somebody who wanted to pass 
along 

Senator Stennis. Would you recognize that person now if he were 
brought before you ? 

Mr. Winchell. I certainly would, I think. 

Senator Stennis. You think you would ? 



160 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I have g^one down tlie list of all the people it may 
have been, and eliminated; but there were 1 or 2 others that I have 
not seen. 

Senator Stennis. You would not mind identifying that person if 
he were brought before you? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I would like it for my own curiosity. If I knew 
the source, I would not reveal it to this committee. 

Senator Stennis. I beg your pardon? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. If I knew the source, I would not reveal it to this 
committee. 

Senator Stennis. You w^ouldn't mind identifying the person if 
the person was brought before you ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I could not identify him publicly ; I would know 
myself that that was the one; I think I would. 

Senator Stennis. Does this privilege that you claim, you think, 
extend to a paper that the I'BI Director told you that you would be 
subject to arrest for if you published it? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. That question eludes me. 

Senator Stennis. Do you think that the privilege that you claim 
extends to a paper or a document that you would be arrested for if 
you had published it ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Senator, I do not claim any privilege. I have just 
made a statement. I said I would not reveal any source of infor- 
mation. 

Senator Stennis. But you say on your oath that you do not know 
who this person was ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Any further questions ? 

Mr. DE FuRiA. I have a question or two, Mr. Chairman, please. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Winchell, the words "Personal and Confiden- 
tial," were they in red or black ink on your copy ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. The only thing red, as I recall, was the word "copy." 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Do I assume that the words "Personal and Confiden- 
tial" were in black ink or dark blue or blue? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I believe so. 

Mr. DE FuRiA, Do you know anybody who knows who is the person 
who handed you the 2i/4-page document? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Do I know anyone who knows the source of any 
information ? 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Yes, sir. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No ; I do not. 

Mr. DE FuEiA. Do you know any way that this committee can iden- 
tify the man who gave you the 214-page document? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No ; I do not. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Have you seen the man who gave you the 214-page 
letter since about May 4, I believe, or May 6, whatever the date was, 
between that time and today ; have you seen that person ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I haven't seen him again. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. You have not seen him again ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I know that he doesn't work for the McCarthy com- 
mittee, because I went over that list. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. I am not asking whether he worked for the McCarthy 
committee, but have you seen him ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 161 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No ; I have not, sir. 

Mr. DE FuBiA. Have you tried to find out who he was ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I did when I was covering the story down here. I 
kept looking around the room nnd down the corridor and various 
places and seeing if I could find the man that I thought might be one 
of them that would have passed something to me. 

There had been several, as I told you, and Senator Watkins, in the 
office, who had been running errands every day for others, some people 
around the committee table, others among the spectators, who would 
pass along messages to me, and I tried to recap the various people, 
some of the ladies who were running errands for the Senate committee 
at the time, and I felt pretty sure that none of these people were the 
ones ; and yet I did not take a very good look at the person who passed 
me the j^aper. It was not the only piece of paper that I received in 
the corridor at that time. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Mr. Chairman, they are all the question from the 
committee counsel, sir. 

The Chairman. Are there any further questions? 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Mr. Winchell, was there a red border on the copy 
that you had on the cover page ? 

Mr. AViNCHELL. No, the only thing red. Senator, was the word 
"copy" in very huge letters. 

Senator Case. Do you recall whether or not there was any imprint 
on the cover page which started out with the word "Confidential," 
then followed with any warning or caution against the disclosure of 
the contents of the material within ? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. I am sure, Senator, there was no warning among 
those lines. 

Senator Case. In other words 

Mr. WiNCHELL. It wosn't even marked "Secret." It was just called 
"Personal-Confidential," just between us. 

I wish you all could see this. 

Senator Case. On occasion, I have seen a few confidential papers. 
They generally have wo.rning notices on them, frequently in red, with 
red border. And I am trying to determine merely whether or not 
what you had was a copy which had been prepared in that manner, 
or whether it was simply a carbon copy. This word "copy" that you 
referred to, would you judge that that was the label on the paper that 
was used just as a second sheet might 1be labeled "copy"? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. No, sir; it seemed to be stationery that was just 
made for copies and it v/as so distinctly marked. 

I think, too, that it wasn't solid : that there were lines for the C, 
and two lines to make an O, and so on — like sort of a red border for the 
C, with white space. 

Senator Case. Was the paper a tissue paper, such as is used for 
making carbon copies? 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Yes, what they call fishskin. 

Senator Case. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Are there any farther ouestions? 

If not, you will be excused, Mr. Winchell. 

Mr. WiNCHELL. Thank you, sir. 



162 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. DE FuRiA. Thank you on behalf of the committee counsel, Mr. 
Winchell. 

The Chairman. We thank you for coming because this matter had 
to be cleared up one way or the other. We wanted to get all the facts 
we could relevant to the matter. 

Mr. Winchell. Thank you. 

The Chairman. I assume it will be too much to ask if there are any 
witnesses among the newspaper people, or others, who saw the man 
who delivered this letter to Mr. AVinchell. You can volunteer after 
the meeting, if you wish to, and let us have your name in order to make 
a complete record of the event. 

We would like get someone wlio could identify the person who 
actually gave you that instrument. 

Mr. Winchell. Yes, sir. 

Am I excused now ? 

The Chairman. You are excused. 

Mr. Winchell. Thank you. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I make no formal motion at this time, 
but I think in the interest of having a wholly relevant record, the 
Chair might consider in its wisdom striking the testimony that has 
just been heard, for these reasons : 

Mr. Winchell, under any rules of evidence, has not identified the 
document which he had in his possession with the document which is 
in question in this hearing. 

Regardless of how loose the rules of evidence may be, there is no 
identification. There is no tying up of these two documents as being 
the same or similar. 

No. 2, Mr. Winchell, in his testimony, has made quite clear that his 
recollection of the events, as I understand his testimony, that neither 
Senator McCarthy, nor anyone identified with him, gave this docu- 
ment to Mr. Winchell so that his testimony becomes, insofar as the 
issues in this case are concerned, Mr. Chairman, I sincerely believe, 
very irrelevant. 

I do not make any formal motion because I think whether his testi- 
mony stands, or does not, is a matter pretty much of indifference to us, 
but I think in the interest of a clean record, relevant, germane testi- 
mony, the chairman might consider striking it. 

The Chairman. I admit that it is not very direct evidence with 
reference to this document. When it was before the committee in the 
first place, it seemed to be rather illusive, and if the testimony that 
Mr. Winchell has given here is somewhat indefinite and value, it is 
not much more vague than the situation was before the committee — 
I mean the Army-McCarthy committee — and we can give whatever 
weight we think should be attached to it. 

But we felt, as I said once before, that since this charge had been 
made, it would be our duty to get all the evidence, no matter how light 
in weight it might be, with respect to this particular matter. 

We have exhausted every resource in trying to discover whether 
there was any truth in that charge, or not, and this is the only 
evidence we have been able to find and such as it is, we have presented 
it, and I think it ought to stay in the record for whatever it is worth. 

At this point, I will state that our counsel advises us that with the 
introduction of the testimony just now concluded, the testimony with 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 163 

respect to point 3 is, as at present, completed ; and the staff has nothing 
further to offer on points 1, 2, 4, and 5. 

However, at the executive committee meeting this morning, uncer- 
tainty remained as to what other testimony might be taken this 
afternoon. It was agreed by the committee that for the convenience 
of both counsel for the committee and for Senator McCarthy, that this 
meeting would be recessed now, and that we would convene tomorrow 
at 10 a. m., at which time Senator McCarthy will go on with his 
presentation. 

The foregoing is subject to the reservation that the committee may 
reopen the hearings at any time, particularly as to matters developing 
or being developed at the hearings. In other words, this is not exactly 
as a court trial where, when you rest, you are through unless you can 
show some mistake or something of that sort, but we are interested in 
getting all the evidence, no matter whom it helps or hurts in this 
matter, and if certain matters develop in the hearing, in the presenta- 
tion by Senator McCarthy, whatever he is to present under the rules 
set forth, then we don't want to be precluded by anything we have said 
here from going on further and developing any new leads that might 
be shown to exist. 

The committee will now be in recess until tomorrow morning at 
10 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 3: 30 p. m., the hearing was recessed until tomor- 
row, Wednesday, September 8, 1954, at 10 a. m.) 



HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301 



WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee To Study Censure Charges Pursuant 

TO Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The select committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 :10 a. m., in the 
caucus room, 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins 
(chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson (vice chairman), 
Carlson, Case, Stennis, and Ervin. 

Also present : Senator McCarthy ; E, Wallace Chadwick, counsel to 
the committee ; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee ; 
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee; John W. Wellman, staff mem- 
ber ; Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Wat- 
kins' staff on loan to the committee; and Edward Bennett Williams, 
counsel to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and 
Brent Bozell. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in session. 

We will ask the photographers to desist in the taking of pictures. . 

Mr. Williams, you may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. JNIr. Chairman, will you call Gen. Kirke Lawton, 
please ? 

The Chairman. General Lawton, will you please come to the stand ? 

Raise your right hand and be sworn. Do you solemnly swear the 
testimony you will give in the matter now pending before this com- 
mittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

General Lawton. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF MAJ. GEN. KIEKE B. LAWTON, ACCOMPANIED BY 
HIS COUNSEL, JOHN E. PERNICE 

The Chairman. For the purpose of the record, give us your full 
name and your address. 

General Lawton. Maj. Gen. Kirke B. Lawton, retired; mailing 
address care of Fort Monmouth, N. J. 

I would like to introduce at this time Mr. John E. Pernice — 
P-e-r-n-i-c-e — who is the Chief of the Legal Division of the Chief 
Signal Officer of the Army, who I have asked to come here this morn- 
ing with me as counsel. 

The Chairman. You came here this morning under subpena ? 

General Lawton. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams, you may direct the examination. 

165 



166 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir. 

General, how long were you in the United States Army prior to 
your retirement ? 

General Lawton. Thirty-seven years, sir. 

Mr. Williams. When did you retire, sir ? 

General Lawton. August 31, 1954. 

Mr. Williams. What was your last post of command ? 

General Lawton. Fort Monmouth, N. J. 

Mr. Williams. When did you take over as commanding general of 
that post ? 

General Lawton. December 19, 1951. 

Mr. Williams. And for how long did you fill the position as Com- 
manding General of Fort Monmouth ? 

General Lawton. Until March 24, 1954. 

Mr. Williams. And thereafter, where were you assigned? 

General Lawton. Oh, I was on a combination of hospital, Walter 
Reed, and on sick leave, back at Fort Monmouth. 

Mr. Williams. Were you Commanding General of Fort Monmouth 
at the time when the Senate Investigating Committee conducted an 
investigation there of subversion? 

General Lawton. I was. 

Mr. Williams. And can you fix that in point of time ? 

General Lawton, October 1953. 

Mr. Williams. The month of October 1953 ? 

General Lawton. Yes. 

Mr. Williams, And for how long did that investigation, to your 
knowledge, continue ? 

General Lawton. Well, there were closed sessions at which I at- 
tended some in October. I attended no more. I remember reading 
in the press there were more closed sessions and then there were some 
open hearings in December of employees from Fort Monmouth, I 
would say, from the press, December of 1953. It may have continued. 

Mr. Williams. Do you know Brig. Gen. Ralph Zwicker? 

General Lawton. I do, 

Mr. Williams. What w^as his post of command in 1953 ? 

General Lawton. Camp Kilmer, N. J. 

Mr. Williams, Now, directing your attention, General Lawton, to 
December of 1953, did you have a conversation, sir, with Brig, Gen. 
Ralph Zwicker at Camp Kilmer ? 

General Lawton. I did. 

The Chairman. Can you fix the time more definitely than that, Mr. 
Williams? 

Mr. Williams. I will ask the General to fix it for us. 

General Lawton. I don't think I can. It was, I would say, late 
November, early December. I had occasion to go to his post on another 
matter, and I was half an hour early, I called on him, as a courtesy 
call, as a post commander, and I think it was the first time I had 
met him, 

Mr, Williams, And you fix that in the month of of December, 
General ? 

General Lawton. Or late November. 

Mr. Williams. Now, on that occasion, did you have a conversation 
with him regarding Senator McCarthy and the work of the Senate 
Permanent Investigating Committee at Fort Monmouth? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 167 

General Lawton. I will have to respectfully decline to answer that 
question on the basis of the Presidential directive of May 17, 1954, 
regulations based upon that which prohibits members of the executive 
department from revealing conversations between employees thereof. 

Mr. Williams. Do I understand, sir, that you refuse to answer the 
question which is directed to the substance of your conversation with 
General Zwicker? 

General Lawtoist. That is correct. 

Mr. Williams. And I understand you base your refusal on the 
order of May 17 ? 

General Lawton. Yes. 

Mr. Williams. Do you have a copy of that order with you. General ? 

General Lawton. I haven't; no. 

Mr. Williams. Don't you know. General, that order of May 17, 
1954, referred only to the Government Operations Committee and the 
hearing then in session which was commonly known as the Army- 
McCarthy hearing ? 

General Lawton. I recall exactly what you say, but I have taken 
advice from counsel and other sources and after that counsel, it is 
my belief that that directive not only applied to the so-called Mundt 
committee but it applies to this or any other; and, therefore, I still 
would have to respectfully decline. 

Mr. Williams. General, will you tell this committee, counsel, and 
myself, with whom you talked about this since Monday night? 

General Lawton. I will have to respectfully decline to answer that 
one on the basis that the same directive — conversations between two 
employees of the executive 

The Chairman. May I interrupt there a moment, Mr. Williams? 

Do you have a copy of that directive? 

Mr. Williams. I know what the directive says. I don't have a copy 
of it. 

General Lawton. My counsel has a copy of it. 

The Chairman. I would like to see a copy, and I think members of 
the committee would before we rule on this line of questioning. 

Mr. Williams. Do you have an extra copy of it there. General ? 

General Lawton. No ; I haven't. 

Mr. Williams. Senator Watkins, may I look at it with you ? May 
I look at that directive, please ? 

The Chairman. Yes; you may. I will advise you, however, that 
it was placed in the record yesterday as a part of the statement of 
our counsel, Mr. Chad wick, who so advises me now. It appears at 
page 359 of yesterday's record. You are welcome to look at it, here, 
if you wish. 

(A copy of the document referred to was handed to Mr. Williams.) 

The Chaiiuman. Tliere is nothing at the moment requiring a ruling 
by the Chair, so we will proceed. 

Mr. Williams. I believe the last question that I directed to General 
Lawton was whether or not he was predicating his refusal to answer 
on this order ; and then, following that, when he said "Yes," I asked 
him if he had had a conversation yesterday with anyone in the De- 
partment of the Army on this matter. That was the pending question, 
I believe. 

General Lawton. I saw counsel for various periods yesterday. 



168 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. You talked to Mr. Brooker, the General Counsel of 
the Department of Defense ; did you not ? 

General Lawton. I will have to respectfully decline to answer that 
one, on the same basis. 

Mr. Williams. Asa matter of fact, prior to your conversation with 
Mr. Brooker, you were prepared to testify on this subject which I am 
now interrogating you on ; is not that the fact ? 

General Lawton. The difference in the status between an active- 
duty officer and a retired officer, I have never been interested in or 
familiar with. I was under the impression that there Avas some, or 
there was more leeway as a retired officer ; and it might be that your 
statement is relatively true. But, to make sure, I never cross bridges 
until I come to them, and so, to make sure, before I appeared here, 
I did yesterday consult several counsel as to what regulations I am 
now operating under as a retired officer ; and as a result of those con- 
ferences with counsel, I am of the opinion that I cannot answer that 
question. 

Mr. Williams. Can you tell us. General, this much : Is it not the 
fact that counsel with whom 3'ou consulted yesterday was Army coun- 
sel or Defense Department counsel ? 

General Lawton. Yes. One of them is right here. 

Mr. Williams. As a matter of fact, Mr. Pernice is chief counsel, 
as I understood, and the chief officer, the chief counsel for the Signal 
Corps. Now, General, do I understand that you will refuse to testify 
with respect to any conversations that you may have had with Gen- 
eral Zwicker, on any subject, and particularly with respect to the 
subject at issue here today ? 

General Lawton. I will discuss that. I met him, and we passed the 
time of day away, and followed ball games, perhaps, and athletics and 
things like that. But the official answer is, I must respectfully de- 
cline to answer. 

Mr. Williams. You did tell me the substance of your conversation 
with General Zwicker, Monday night, did you not ? 

General Lawton. I did discuss the conversation with you; yes. 

Mr. Williams. And you told me the substance of it? 

General Lawton. Yes. 

Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Chairman, may I say this, sir? Here I 
think we have a very, very cogent illustration of what this case is all 
about. We have a witness here on the stand who has information that 
is relevant and germane to tliis inqur}''; and I, as a matter of fact, 
outlined to the committee, in executive session, in a very cursory way, 
what that evidence was, on yesterday; and now we find the Depart- 
ment of Defense gagging this witness on the basis, I say, Mr. Chair- 
man, of altogether incompetent advice. It is either incompetent ad- 
vice, or it is not even in good taste, because General Lawton — and I 
mean no criticism whatsoever of him, and I do not want my remarks 
to be construed that way, because I have the highest respect for him — I 
say that to the full committee — but General Lawton is obviously act- 
ing under orders, and those orders are either so predicated or in- 
competent, that is, or advice that is not given in good faith, because 
his attention is directed to an Executive order of May 17, 1954 ; and 
he is told that he may not testify on this inquiry, on the basis of that 
order. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 169 

The order says — and it is signed by the President, sent to the Sec- 
retary of Defense — 

You will instruct employees of your Department that in all of their appear- 
ances before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Government Opera- 
tions regarding the inquiry now before it, they are not to testify to any such 
conversations or communications or to produce any such documents or repro- 
ductions. 

I quote it exactly. In other words, an order which counsel for the 
Army has told General Lawton binds him, is an order which relates 
only to the Government Operations Committee, in the ino.uiry pend- 
ing as of May 17, 1954, which was the inquiry regarding Secretary 
Stevens, Senator McCarthy, and others ; and this order has no appli- 
cability, no relationship in the world to the inquiry which is presently 

pending. Furthermore 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman 

Mr. Williams. I would like to say this, if I may- 



The Chairman. Senator Case, will you wait a minute, until Mr. 
Williams has finished? 

Mr. Williams. I may say this, Mr. Chairman, and I will be 
through. The information that I seek to elicit from General Lawton 
has no more relationship to national security or national defense than 
the price of yogurt. It is totally, totally irrelevant to any questions 
of security or defense ; and it is absurd to say that such a conversation 
could be blocked from this inquiry. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman • 

Mr. Williams. And I say this : I have no criticism whatsoever, and 
I do not want my remark to be construed as such ; rather it is directed 
at the persons who, I say, gave him this wholly incompetent advice. 

The Chairman. There is just one inquiry I want to make of him, 
Mr. Williams. I understood you to say that he received an order 
from the Defense Department, or from Defense officials, who have not 
testified. Of course, what he said, as I recall it — and I think the record 
will show that I am right — was that he sought advice, and, on the 
advice of counsel, he declines to answer, because he thinks it would 
be a violation of that order. 

Mr. Williams. Is the Chair ruling that 

The Chairman. I have not ruled yet. Senator Case wished to be 
heard. I wanted to let you finish, first, and then I wanted to call that 
to your attention. And, now, I will recognize Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I note that counsel said that he was 
giving an exact reproduction of the passage from the letter of the 
President. I will ask counsel if he read the entire sentence. 

Mr. Williams. Are you directing your attention to me ? 

Senator Case. I am. 

Mr. Williams. No; I did not. I did not read the entire sentence, 
but I shall be glad to. 

Senator Case. Will you read the entire sentence? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir ; I shall be very happy to do so. I read : 

Because it is essential to (fficient and effective administration that employees 
of the executive branch be in a position to be completely candid in advising with 
each other on official matters, and because it is not in the public interest that any 
of their conversations or communications, or any documents or repi'odnctions, 
concerning such advice be disclosed, you will instruct employees of your Depart- 
ment that in all of their appearances before the Subcommittee of tlie Senate 



170 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Committee on Government Operations regarding the inquiry now before it tliey 
are not to testify to any sucti conversations or communications or to produce 
any sucli docifments or reproductions. 

That is tlie entire sentence. 

Senator Case. Now, will you read the sentence that follows, which 
concludes the paragraph ? 
Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Tiiis principle must be maintained regardless of who would he benefited by 
such disclosures. 

Senator Case. Now, Mr. Williams, directing your attention to the 
first part of the first sentence, the long sentence 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Case. And the clause which you did not read the first 
time 

]\Ir. Williams. Because I felt it had no relationship to the point 
I was making. 

Senator Case. I invite your attention to the clause — 

And because it is not in the public interest that any of their conversations or 
communications, or any documents or reproductions, concerning such advice 
be disclosed — - 

and that is with reference to advising with each other, which is in the 
first clause. 

Mr. Williams. On official matters. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. On official matters. And the final sentence of the 
paragraph : 

This principle must be maintained regardless of who would be benefited by 
such disclosures. 

I am wondering, if that principle is to be maintained, if counsel, in 
advising General Lawton, would not advise him just as he has been 
advised. While the instant case was an appearance before the sub- 
committee of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, that 
is the occasion of the letter from the President to the Secretary, but 
I am unable to see, personally, how that principle that employees in 
the executive branch must be in position to be completely candid in 
advising each other, that it is not in the public interest that any of 
those conversations between them be maintained — I don't see how that 
could be maintained unless it were applicable to other cases and ap- 
pearances before that particular subcommittee. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I believe, sir, that in any proceeding of 
this kind where there are accusations directed against one man, it is 
in the interest of justice that all the truth should come out, and I 
believe that all the relevant truth should be received in evidence here 
unless there is some rule or regulation which specifically tells an 
officer of the Army, as in this case, that he may not testify in this 
proceeding. 

Now, there is no such regulation; there is no such rule; and if orders 
of this kind. Senator Case, I respectfully submit, are to be construed 
so liberally that persons in the executive can come before a committee 
of Congi"ess and say that although there is no order which blocks you 
from getting my testimony, I have consulted counsel of the depart- 
ment which might be embarrassed by my testimony and they have 
suggested that I not testify — if that day comes, I say that the fact- 
finding, investigative agencies of this Congress will be stopped and 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 171 

the avenues of information that have heretofore been open to this 
Congress will no longer be open ; and the factfinding committees will 
be completely thwarted in their work. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I drew^ attention to this because it 
seems to me that this goes to the very heart of one of the big issues 
that was before the committee in the hearings conducted by Senator 
Mundt, and also to one of the issues that is involved here, and that 
is with respect to the privilege of conversations that are within the 
executive department, or conversations on the other side that are 
within the Congress. 

The committees in the Congress have been very jealous to preserve 
the right of committees to hold executive hearings when they want to. 

The committees of the Congress when they hold an executive hear- 
ing on appropriations or on other matters do not permit representa- 
tives of the executive branch to appear in those hearings except by 
invitation. 

The committees of the Congress are jealous to preserve the right to 
hold executive sessions and confidential discussions, and I can Under- 
stand how the executive branch can say, conversations between mem- 
bers of the executive branch that are in the category of official matters, 
are matters within 1 of the 3 branches of the Government. 

Of course, it is to be noted that in the last part of the letter by the 
President, he said that he was not in any way restricting the testimony 
of witnesses as to what occurred where the communication was directly 
between any of the principles of the controversy within the executive 
branch on the one hand, and the members of a subcommittee or its staff, 
on the other. 

Now, before interrogating the counsel for Senator McCarthy, I 
asked Mr, cle Furia, the assistant counsel on the committee staff here, 
whether he or Mr. Chadwick had talked with General Lawton. 

I would like to get the information, frankly, that I feel General 
Lawton can give us. I was hoping that possibly counsel for the com- 
mittee had talked with General Lawton, because if that were true, that 
I think that he would be free to testify with regard to conversations 
between him and members of this committee, or members of this com- 
mittee's staff under the terms of the President's letter. 

I recognize that there are a lot of ramifications of this question, but 
I think if we want, if we venture to assert the right of congressional 
committees to demand the conversation that goes on between two 
officials in the executive branch, then the committee must recognize 
that we may be infringing upon the confidence that we can maintain 
for executive sessions of congressional committees as opposed to re- 
quests from the executive branch or from the judiciary, 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this : I don't know 
what your ruling will be, sir, but I say this before you make it : 

There is no desire on the part of us to in any way embarrass General 
Lawton, or in any way put him in a position where he is affected detri- 
mentally in his relationship with the department which he served for 
these many years and with the department from which he is now 
enjoying his retirement. 

So, I will make a proffer of what we would have shown. 

The Chairman. I doubt that that would be proper. You have not 
asked for an order directing him to testify, to answer the questions. 

52461—54 12 



172 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Do you want to raise squarely the question so that we will have some- 
thing definite to rule on ? As the record now stands I think I am not in 
a position yet to rule. 

Do you now insist that he answer this question ? 

Mr. Williams. I will consult with Senator McCarthy on this and I 
will see what his disposition is, because I think to some extent there 
are personal considerations that must be kept in mind. I do not want 
to do anything to embarrass the general, but I would like to get the 
evidence. 

The CiiAiKMAN. You can understand that I do not want to rule 
on it unless there is an insistence that he be ordered and directed to 
answer the question. Then it will raise it squarely. 

Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Johnson. 

Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the witness : 

Is there any question whatsoever of national security involved in 
the conversation between you and General Zwicker which you have 
refused to divulge to this committee of Congress? 

General Lawton. I don't mean to be picayunish, but an answer to 
your question would then reveal the conversation between General 
Zwicker and myself, which I am not at liberty to disclose. 

Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, I think that is a very simple 
question and one that ought to be answered, and I don't think that 
the directive in May precludes the witness from answering that 
question. 

If there is anything of national security involved, why I can see 
where this committee would have no right to ask the question. 

If there is no matter of national security involved, it seems to me 
that this committee is being deprived of information that it should 
have. 

I want to remind the chairman, and I know I do not need to remind 
him, that the Senator's political life is at stake in the question before 
this committee and it is a serious matter indeed. If the national se- 
curity is not involved, then most certainly we should have help from 
the executive department in developing the true facts with respect to a 
Member of the United States Senate. 

The Chairman. Senator Johnson, I will say that, in a way, to a 
degree at least, the question you asked General Lawton involves the 
same general problem that has been raised with respect to Mr. Wil- 
liams' questions and I will say this : When we were advised yesterday 
that General Lawton would be questioned as a witness, we were not 
advised that he would raise any question about his right to testify. 

Mr. Williams. Let me hasten to say to you, Mr. Chairman, that I 
did not know that there would be any question about that, because 
when I talked to General Lawton before we talked to Mr. Brooker 
in the Pentagon, there was not any question about his testifying. So 
I could not give the committee that information. 

The Chairman. We were not advised and I did not know exactly 
what you knew about it, and for that reason the committee did not 
give consideration to what the possible ruling should be. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. You know that the chairman is only the voice 
of the committee. I hesitate to make a ruling about this question in- 
volved during the other hearings. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 173 

Mr, Williams. I may be able to help you. I have talked to Senator 
McCarthy during the last minute and he says to me that it is his posi- 
tion that he does not want to force the Chair to rule on this. 

He feels that General Lawton has suffered reparations for his testi- 
mony before the Government Operations Committee before and he 
does not want to put him in a position which would be embarrassing 
before this committee or with the Department of Defense, and we 
will not demand an order that General Lawton respond to this question. 

The Chairman. Even though you may not demand the order, 1 
think the committee sliould consider it because I think the committee 
does want to get all the information that it can lawfully get on the 
very important questions that have been raised by the charges against 
the Senator from Wisconsin, irrespective of whether you raise it or 
not. I think we should consider it. 

Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Johnson. 

Senator Johnson. I was not quite through, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. All right. Senator Johnson. I had to make a 
ruling on that matter. I was going to suggest to the members of the 
committee that we ought to probably have an executive session to see 
what the stand of the committee will be on this matter. 

You may proceed. Senator Johnson. 

Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman, in defense of my position I 
thought I heard yesterday, and I have not had a chance to go over the 
record of yesterday's hearing, but I understood that there was a ruling 
read yesterday with respect to the executive department and the execu- 
tive department's privilege of speaking and testifying, that there was 
to be no impediment on anything which did not affect the national 
security. I would like to have our counsel speak to that point. 

Was there not something read into the record yesterday with respect 
to the directive issued to the executive department that testimony 
€Ould be freely given except in cases where the national security was 
involved ? 

The Chairman. Well, Senator, I do not know just how much of 
this discussion can take place here at this moment, but I do think, how- 
ever, that the committee should consider this general question that 
has been raised. 

As I have indicated, it is important to the committee to get all the 
truth, no matter who it helps or hurts in this controversy, and even 
though Senator McCarthy is not going to press the question, it has 
been raised and I think we ought to develop it and that is the reason 
for the executive session. 

Senator Stennis. I have a question, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Stennis. 

Senator Stennis. General Lawton, I understand you base your po- 
sition solely on this directive dated May 17, 1954 ; is that correct ? 

General Lawton. In general, yes. 

Senator Stennis. In general. Now, you do not have any other 
directive in mind than that which causes you to decline to answer ? 

General Lawton. That is correct. 

Senator Stennis. Thank you. 

Senator Johnson. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Johnson. 



174 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator Johnson. A reference has been handed me with respect 
to the matter which I just referred to a moment ago, entitled "Removal 
From Classified Civil Service," and I am reading from yesterday's 
record : 

The attention of the committee is respectfully called to the last sentence of an 
act approved August 24, 1912 (37 Stat. 555; 5 U. S. C. : 652 (d), which reads: 

"The right of persons employed in the civil service of the United States, 
either Individually or collectively, to petition Congress, or any Member thereof, 
or to furnish information to either House of Congress, or to any committee, 
or member thereof, shall not be denied or interfered with." 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

Tlie Chairman. Just a moment until Senator Johnson finishes. 

Senator Johnson. That is not the passage that I had in mind, but 
it is somewhat in point. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I agree wholly with what the chair- 
man has said with respect to desiring to get this information. 

As I suggested earlier, I would like to see the information developed 
as we ought to develop any information that would be helpful in this 
matter. 

With that thought in mind, I suggest that the committee call General 
Zwicker. My understanding is that he is here, tliat he is available, 
and I believe that on direct examination of General Zwicker, the testi- 
mony can be developed that counsel for Senator McCarthy desires to 
develop, 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. I lost you there. Senator. If I cannot develop it 
through General Lawton w^ho is retired, I cannot see how I can develop 
it through General Zwicker who is on active duty and I do not believe 
General Zwicker would be eager to testify to the facts that he hopes 
to develop through General Lawton. I would be most surprised if 
he is. 

Senator Case. It seems to me that the information might be devel- 
oped by direct examination of General Zwicker as to what he did or 
positions he may have taken personally without reference to con- 
versations between him and General Lawton. 

The Chairman. Well, General, I think we could argue this back 
and forth and probably wouldn't get the matter settled officially so 
we could make a ruling. I suggest now, unless there is objection, the 
committee will go into executive session. 

Senator Johnson of Colorado. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Johnson. 

Senator Johnson of Colorado. May I have permission to insert in 
the record at this point, when I find it, the reference I mentioned a 
moment ago ? 

The Chairman. You may have such permission. 
(The reference referred to is as follows :) 

Section 18. Review within departments and agencies. 

The head of each department and agency shall designate a member or mem- 
bers of his staff who shall conduct a continuing review of the implementation 
of this order within the department or agency concerned to insure that no in- 
formation is withheld hereunder which the people of the United States have 
a right to know, and to insure that classified defense information is properly 
safeguarded in conformity herewith. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 175 

Section 19. Revocation of Executive Order No. 10290. 

Executive Order No. 10290 of September 24, 1951, is revoked as of the effective 
date of this order. 

Section 20. Effective date. This order shall become effective on December 15, 
1953. 

DwiGHT D. Eisenhower, 
The White House, 

Novemher 5, 1953. 

(FR Document 53-9553 ; filed, November 9, 1953 ; 9 : 55 a. m.) 

M. Constitution of United States of America, revised and annotated 1952, 
Senate Document 170, 82d Congress, 2d session, page 82. 

If Congress so provides, violation of valid administrative regulations may be 
provided as crimes. But the penalties must be provided in the statute itself. 

The Chairman. I started out to suggest that we take a recess, and 
that is what I am going to do now — recess 

Mr. Williams. JNIr, Chairman, please. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir. 

May I suggest this: If the committee wants an executive session 
before deciding the question before it, may we have, please, sir, while 
still in open session, an opportunity to call our next witness and get 
his testimony in, which is on the same subject matter, and in order to 
have that behind us ? 

He has been waiting here for a day and a half to testify. 

The Chairman. We will be willing to do that. 

General Lawton may withdraw for the moment and we will call 
the next witness. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, would you please call William J. 
Harding. 

The Chairman. Mr. Harding, will you please take the witness 
stand ? 

TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. HARDING, JR. 

Will you raise your right hand and be sworn ? 

Do you solemnly swear that you will in the evidence you will present 
here give the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God? 

Mr. Harding. I do, so help me God. 

The Chairman. You may take the witness stand. 

Give us your name and address. 

Mr. Harding. William J. Harding, Jr. 

The Chairman. And your address ?^ 

Mr. Harding. 525 Park Avenue, Borough of Manhattan, New York 
City. 

The Chairman. You may question the witness, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Harding, how long have you lived in New York 
City, sir ? 

Mr. Harding. Sixty years. 

Mr. Williams. Lived there all your life ? 

Mr. Harding. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Williams. In what business are you engaged ? 

Mr. Harding. I conduct a sales agency, a small sales agency. 

Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Harding, I want to direct your attention, 
if I may, to February 18, 1954, and ask you if on the morning of that 
date vou were at the Federal Courthouse in Foley Square, in New 
York: 



176 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Harding. I was, sir. 

Mr. Williams. Will you tell us approximately what time you ar- 
rived there? 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Williams. Will the witness 
pull the mike closer to him and lean forward, so that he may be heard? 

Mr. Harding. Yes, sir. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It is not as sensitive as it might be, and, for that 
reason, you have to get closer to it. 

Mr. Harding. Thank you. 

Mr. WiLi^Aisrs. Did you hear the last pending question? 

The question was : Approximately what time did j^ou arrive at the 
Foley Square Courthouse in New York on the date in question ? 

Mr. Harding. I believe I arrived there somewhere between 11 and 
11 : 15 a. m. I didn't look at my watch as to the exact time. 

Mr. WiLLiAivrs. Was the Senate Permanent Investigating Committee 
holding open session on that morning? 

Mr. Harding. They were. 

Mr. Williams. In what room was that open session ? 

Mr. Harding. It was in room 110 on the first floor of the Federal 
Court building, Foley Square. 

Mr. Williams. Did you go to that room ? 

Mr. Harding. I did. 

Mr. Williams. Were you admitted and seated in that room during- 
that hearing? 

Mr. Harding. I was finally admitted. When I arrived there, the- 
doors were closed, and the United States marshal was at the door,, 
evidently indicating that the room was very well filled with spec- 
tators. I asked to have pennission to go in. My recollection is that 
he went inside the door and within 5 or 10 seconds came back and 
said he found a space where I might sit down. 

Mr. Williams. Approximately what time was it when you gained 
your seat at the hearing ? 

Mr. Harding. Well, I still say it was somewhere betwen 11 and 
11:15. I didn't look at my watch as I sat down. 

Mr. Williams. Now, who was testifying at the time you gained 
entrance to the hearings ? 

Mr. Harding. A former major in the United States Anny named 
Peress. 

Mr. Williams. Maj. Irving Peress? 

Mr. Harding. I believe that was his first name, Irving. 

Mr. Williams. Who 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams at this point the Chair is in some 
doubt. Was this at a public hearing ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Who was interrogating Major Peress? 

Mr. Harding. At the time I entered the room ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, during the time you sat there. 

Mr. Harding. During the time I sat there he was interrogated, 
to my recollection, by Mr. Cohn, Senator McCarthy, and I believe 
a few questions were directed to him by the administrative assistant 
to General Dirksen, a man I believe named Rainville. 

Mr. Williams. You mean Senator Dirksen ? 

Mr. Harding. I meant to say Senator Dirksen. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 177 

And also the administrative assistant to Senator Potter, who I 
believe was a youns: man named Jones. 

Mr. Williams. Was anyone else there present on the stand or on 
the bench '^ 

I believe it was held in a courtroom. 

Was anyone else of the committee there ? 
. Mr. Harding. Anyone else from the committee ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

Mr. Harding. ]\Iy recollection is it Avas only Senator IMcCarthy 
there that morning as a member of the committee. 

Mr. Williams. Staff members now, to your knowledge. 

Mr. HvRDiNG. Pardon. 

Mr. Williams. Staff members now I am talking about. 

Mr. Harding. Oh, staff members. I believe there was a man named 
Juliana that was there. 

Mr. Williams. Now, did there come a time during the morning 
when a question was asked about someone who was seated in the 
audience? 

Mv. Harding. Yes, there was such a time came. 

Mr. Williams. And was that person who was seated in the audience 
identified? 

Mr. Harding. Yes. I believe that Senator McCarthy called out 
the name of Gen. Ralph Zwicker and asked if he would stand up. 

jNIr. Williams. Where was he seated with relationship to you ? 

]\Ir. Harding. He was seated in the row directly behind me and 
just a bit to my right. I would say about — in the Federal — in the 
first place, let me explain in the Federal court building there are 
not individual seats there. There are rows of benches. It is not — 
one person doesn't have any seat right behind another. You might 
have 3 people sitting in 1 bench, where 2 would be sitting at the 
bench ahead. But he was sitting at just a point where he was at 
my right elbow, in back of me. 

Mr. Williams. How was he seated in this chair? 

Mr. Harding. He was seated forward, for most of the testimony, 
in his chair, with an intent eagerness, I imagine, to listen to all the 
testimony, with his head bent forward, about the same position that 
I am in now, I'd say. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams, may I ask you a question? 

Do you intend to offer by this witness what happened in this public 
hearing ? 

Mr. WiLLL\MS. I don't intend to offer everything that happened^ 
because it isn't relevant, but I intend to offer one incident which 
happened which I think is very relevant. 

The Chairman. Would it ordinarily be a matter of record, that 
the reporter would have taken down ? 

Mr, Williams. No, sir. 

The Chairman. It was one of those matters independent of the 
record ? 

Mr. WiLLL\MS. This is not of record. 

The Chairman. I see. 

The reason I asked the question : Ordinarily, if it is a matter of 
record, the record, itself, would be the best evidence. 

Mr. Williams. This is not of record. 

The Chairman. I see. 



178 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

You may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Now, can you tell us, so we will have the time 
fixed, Mr. Harding, approximately what time it was that General 
Zwicker identified himself, or was identified by Senator McCarthy or 
Mr. Cohn? 

Mr. Harding. Well, again it would have to be from my best recol- 
lection. I didn't look at my watch at the time that Senator McCarthy 
asked him to stand up, but I would say it was possibly 15 to 25 
minutes after I had sat there in the room. 

Mr. Williams. So that you would fix it at about 11:30; 11:35? 

Mr. Harding. Somewhere in there. I mean I don't want to be 
positive on the testimony as to the exact time it was. It was some- 
where in there. 

Mr. Williams. Was there anyone accompanying General Zwicker? 

Mr. Harding. Yes. When I went into my seat, I noticed two 
other officers of the United States Army. First, I noticed, as I went 
through, there was one officer who sat there with brigadier general 
stars on his shoulders. To his right there were two other officers of 
lesser rank, I believe. They were lieutenant colonels or possibly one 
of them may have been a full colonel, but my best recollection is they 
were botli lieutenant colonels. 

Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Harding, did you hear General Zwicker 
make any remark relative to the chairman of the committee? 

The Chairman. You can answer that yes or no. 

Mr. Harding. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now 

Mr. Williams. Will you tell the committee what that was, sir? 

The Chairman. Now, just a moment. Let us be sure we have the 
identification of the general certain before he proceeds to answer that. 

Did you know General Zwicker? 

Mr. Harding. Did I know him ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Harding. No ; I did not know him. 

The Chairman. How was it you came to have the opinion it was 
General Zwicker ? 

Mr. Harding. I came to have the opinion because he stood up right 
at my right elbow when his name was called, and I didn't think some 
other general would stand up in the room. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. As I remember, you said Senator 
McCarthy asked him to stand up. 

Mr. Harding. That's correct, sir. 

The Chairman. And I assume, Mr. Williams, this would be in the 
record. 

Mr. Williams. That is in the record. 

The Chairman. Yes. I haven't read the record, so I wouldn't know 
on this particular hearing. 

You heard this gentleman, then, make some remark after he had 
been identified by the chairman and then stood up ? 

Mr. Harding. I heard him make the remark after he had identified 
himself as being General Zwicker ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. All right. You may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Would you tell the committee what the remark was 
that you first heard that General Zwicker directed toward Senator 
McCarthv? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 179 

Mr. Harding. I'd be glad to answer that question directly to you, sir, 
but I would like to respectfully ask that I be given an opportunity to 
relate the part of the conversation or part of Senator McCarthy's 
questions to General Zwicker ; and, as I remember, General Zwicker's 
answers to Senator McCarthy — I don't have them verbatim, but I 
remember them very well. 

Mr. Williams. They are, as a matter of fact, of record. 

The Chairman. That, of course, is the best evidence, and if you 
want to show that it would still have to be subjected to scrutiny to 
see whether 

Mr. Harding. If it's in the record 

The Chairman. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Harding. Those are the few sentences that I heard and, as 
General Zwicker finished 

The Chairman. Now, when you say he finished, you mean 

Mr. Harding. Pardon. 

The Chairman. You mean he finished answering the question that 
Senator McCarthy had asked ? 

Mr. Harding. The last question, or the last statement, let's say. I 
think the last, as I remember, was a statement by Senator McCarthy 
directed directly to General Zwicker. It was not a question, it was a 
statement, as I remember. 

The Chairman. Now, was General Zwicker still standing or did he 
sit down ? 

Mr. Harding. He then sat down. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Harding. As he sat down, his head — I was leaning back in my 
seat, like I am now, and his head passed my head, within, I would 
say, 12 to 14 inches of it, and I distinctly heard him mutter, undier 
his breath, "You S. O. B." 

Mr. Williams. Now, did you hear any further conversation? 

Did you hear — 

Mr. Harding. Did I hear — I beg your pardon. 

Mr. Williams. Did you hear any further conversation ? 

Mr. Harding. Within a few seconds thereafter, after he had sat 
completely down in his seat, I heard him turn to 1 or 2 of the officers 
to his right — I don't know whether he was directing his remarks to 
both of them, but at least to one of them — and he said, "You see, I told 
you this is what we'd get." 

Mr. Williams. Now, thereafter, what is your best recollection as 
to whether you heard any more remarks of that character from Gen- 
eral Zwicker? 

Mr. Harding. My best recollection is that I heard him mutter once 
more during the testimony under his breath, but I am unwilling at 
this time, under oath, to state definitely that I did hear him say it 
the second time. I think I did, but I will not swear definitely that 
I did. 

Mr. Williams. Now, this was before General Zwicker testified in 
executive session ; was it not ? 

Mr. Harding. It was the morning of the afternoon at which he 
had been told by Senator McCarthy that he was going to be called 
into executive or closed session, whatever you call it. 

Mr. Williams. So that General Zwicker had not yet testified as a 
witness before the committee? 



180 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Harding. Well, I don't know whether he had or hadn't at some 
other time, sir. but as of that day he had not. 

Mr, Williams. I ask the Chair to take notice of the fact that Gen- 
eral Zwicker's testimony, which is in issue here, did not begin until 
4:30 that afternoon in executive session and that the incidents that 
are being testified to took place in the morning in open session. 

Senator Stetstnis. Mr. Chairman, at that point — 

The Ch'Vtrman. Senator Stennis. 

Senator Stennis. It is not clear why Senator McCarthy was calling 
out for General Zwicker or addressing remarks to him while he was 
back in the audience. 

Mr. Williams. I think in proper context we ought to read that into 
the record at this time. 

Major Peress was on the stand and he was answering questions or, 
I should sav, refusing to answer questions, and finally, the chairman — • 
and I am reading from page 136 — turned and said : 

The Chairman. General Zwicker, may I ask you a question? You can stay 
ris-'ht there. 

Whenever I served as O. D. — and I think this has been general practice in 
the ^larine Corps, the Navy, and the Army — you normally had access to the 
encoding and decoding machines. Ordinarily an officer of the rank of major 
or above must take his stint at encoding or decoding. 

Could you tell me whether or not that has been the practice at Camp Kilmer? 

Brig Gen. Ralph Zwicker. It is not. 

The Chairman. In other words, so far as you know, this individual never 
had access to any confidential or secret material? 

General Zwicker. He did not. 

The Chairman. Your answer is what? 

General Zwicker. He did not. 

The Chairman. .Just one other question, General. I did not intend to im- 
pose upon you this morning. 

His Army file contains reference to his being considered for — and I think 
I am quoting it correctly — sensitive work in May of 195.3. Would you have any 
idea what that sensitive work was? If you do not know, we will show you 
the file to refresh your recollection. The file shows that in May, that is, after 
it was fully known that he was a Communist, the tile shows that he was con- 
sidered for sensitive work. 

The file does not show whether he was rejected or not. Just offhand, you 
wouldn't know what that sensitive work would be? 

General Zwicker. I do not. 
Tlie Chairman. I wonder if you can do this : You are appearing this after- 
noon in executive session. I would like to have you here to listen to all of 
this testimony. If you have an aide with you, I wonder if you could have 
somebody call Camp Kilmer and find out just what the sensitive work was 
that he was being considered fur. 

Mr. Peress then interjected: 

I might be able to help you on that. 

General Zwicker. Even if I did know, I would not be privileged to tell you, 
under the Executive order which forbids us to discuss matters of that nature. 

Mr. DE FuRiA. There is another sentence in there. 
The Chairman. One further sentence, counsel. 
Mr. Williams (reading) : 

The Chairman. I may say. General, you will be in difficulty if you refuse 
to tell us what sensitive work a Communist was being considered for. There is 
no Executive order for the purpose of protecting Communi.sts. I v/ant to tell 
you right now, you will be asked that question this afternoon. You will be 
ordered to make available that information. 

And then Mr. Peress speaks. 

Is that the testimony you had reference to? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 181 

Mr. Harding. That is the testimony I had reference to; yes, sir. 

Mr. Williams. You may examine. 

Mr. Chadwick. We have no questions, sir. 

The Chaibman. No questions. 

Mr. Harding. Am I excused? 

The Chairman. You are excused, Mr. Harding. 

Mr. Harding. Thank you. 

(Thereupon, at 11:05 a. m., the committee proceeded in executive 
session. ) 

(At 11 : 49 a. m., the committee being in recess, an announcement 
was made, as follows:) 

; Mr. Jex. The committee has asked me to announce that the Chair 
will change its order from an indefinite recess to a definite recess to 
2 p. m., at which time the committee will reconvene for public hearing. 

(Thereupon, at 11 : 50 a. m., the committee recessed until 2 p. m. the 
same day.) 

afternoon session 

Thereupon, at 2 : 07 p. m., the committee reconvened. 
. The Chairman. The committee will now be in session. 

The photographers will please leave the room. We will let them 
come back if they put their cameras away. 

With reference to the matter which was under discussion when the 
committee took a recess, the committee will continue a study of this 
situation and the matter connected with it. The fact involved is in- 
volved in the final decision which will be made by the Senate, probably, 
and in a lesser degree by this committee later on. It is involved in 
some of the charges which are under consideration. So that matter 
will not be presented at the moment. 

Mr. Williams, do you have any further questions of the witness 
who was on the stand ? 

Mr. Williams. No, sir ; I do not. 

The Chairman. You will then be excused. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy will stand the stand, sir. 

TESTIMONY OF SENATOR JOSEPH R. McCARTHY 

The Chairman. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will 
give in the matter now pending before the committee will be the truth, 
the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Senator McCarthy. I do. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, in the orderly sequence of things, 
we are going, with the Chair's indulgence, to address ourselves in 
the first instance to the so-called Zwicker case inasmuch as the com- 
mittee has heard testimony on that this morning. 

Would you please state your full name for the record? 

Senator" McCarthy. Joe McCarthy. 

Mr. Williams. You are the junior Senator from the State of Wis- 
consin ? 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, are you presently serving in this, the 83d 
Congress, as chairman of the Government Committee on Operations^ 
the Senate Committee on Government Operations ? 



182 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator McCarthy. I am. 

Mr. Williams, Are you also serving as chairman of the Permanent 
Investigating Committee, which is a subcommittee of that Govern- 
ment Operations Committee? 

Senator McCarthy. I am. 

Mr. Williams. How long have you been so serving? 

Senator McCarthy. Since January of 1953, as our administration 
took over. 

Mr. Williams. Directing your attention, sir, to 1953, was your com- 
mittee engaged in an investigation of subversion at Fort Monmouth ? 

Senator McCarthy. We were. 

Mr. Williams. In that connection, sir, did you meet the man who 
testified here this morning, General Lawton ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

Mr. Williams. Now, while conducting your investigation into the 
subject about which I have just alluded to, did there come to your 
attention a situation that obtained at Camp Kilmer with respect to a 
Maj. Irving Peress? 

Senator McCarthy. There did. 

Mr. Williams. Who was the commanding general at Camp Kilmer 
at that time ? 

Senator McCarthy. General Zwicker. 

Mr. Williams. Gen. Kalph W. Zwicker, who is the subject matter 
of one of the charges in this case? 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. Would you tell the committee, Senator, when, in 
the first instance, the so-called Peress case came to your attention ? 

Senator McCarthy. It came to our attention, Mr. Williams, in 
November, I believe, of 1953. 

Mr. Williams. At that time, was General Zwicker the commanding 
general of Camp Kilmer? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir. He became commanding general in 
July of 1953. 

Mr. Williams. What, if anything, to your knowledge did you or 
members of your staff do with respect to the information on Major 
Peress that you have just described ? 

Senator McCarthy. We turned all of the information over to Mr. 
J ohn Adams, legal counsel for the Army. 

Mr. Williams. Can you fix that, sir, in point of time ? 

Senator McCarthy. Well, it would be by hearsay. My chief counsel 
turned it over to him, I think he reported to me, in December. In 
other words, shortly after we got the information. 

Mr. Williams. Was there any subpena issued for Major Peress in 
December of 1953? 

Senator McCarthy. There was not. 

Mr. Williams. Wliat was the next action that was taken by your 
committee with relationship to this case, and I direct your attention to 
the early part of 1954, the early part of January. 

Senator McCarthy. On January 4, 1954, my chief counsel again 
took the matter up with Mr. Adams, called his attention to the fact 
that they had a man who was a leader in the Communist Party in a 
rather key position at a port of embarkation and debarkation and 
suggested that the Army do something about it rather than have our 
committee go into the matter. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 183 

Mr. Williams. Thereafter, and I refer to January 4, thereafter, 
what, if any, action, did your committee take with respect to this 
particular situation at Camp Kilmer ? 

Senator McCarthy. Well, when nothing was done when Peress con- 
tinued to serve, we asked for his appearane before the committee. 
Request was made on the 26th day of January. He appeared in execu- 
tive session on the 30th day of January. 

]Mr. Williams. Where did he appear? I am calling about geo- 
graphically. 

Senator McCarthy. Courthouse, Foley Square, New York. 

Mr. Williams. That was on January 30 of 1954 of this year ? 

Senator McCarthy. Thafs right. 

Mr. Williams. Peress was called, as I understand it, in executive 
session ? 

Senator McCarthy. Correct. 

Mr. Williams. Was he interrogated at that time ? 

Senator McCarthy. He was in detail. 

Mr. Williams. Who was there present, sir ? 

Senator McCarthy. As I recall, Mr. Rainville, the administrative 
assistant for Senator Dirksen, was present; Mr. Jones, the admin- 
istrative assistant for Senator Potter; Mr. John — I am not sure if 
John Adams was present or not. It seems to me he did not come to 
the executive session meeting. I wouldn't know for certain, however. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, what was the general subject matter of that 
which Major Peress was interrogated on the occasion of this executive 
session ? 

Senator McCarthy. We asked him about his alleged Communist 
activities, whether he had graduated from a Communist leadership 
school, the name of the school was — let's see, what was that name? 

Mr. Williams. Inwood Victory School. 

Senator McCarthy. Inwood Victory School. Refused to answer 
that on the ground that if he answered it, it might incriminate him ; 
asked whether he was recruiting soldiers at Camp Kilmer ; again, the 
fifth amendment ; asked whether he held Communist meetings in his 
quarters at Camp Kilmer ; again refused to answer on the grounds of 
self-incrimination. 

He was asked about a change in duty orders that he got in February, 
I think, of 1953. He had been scheduled to go to Yokohama, Japan. 
He applied for a change in duty orders on the ground of hardship. He 
got that change in duty orders. We J:hought the circumstances were 
unusual. The only grounds he had, the only grounds were that his 
wife and daughter were visiting a psychiatrist. He could not even 
remember the name of the psychiatrist, and on the basis of that he 
was given duty in the United States, and I believe the Senators on 
the committee had letters from any number of young men who had 
much more pronounced hardship cases, cases of wives on the point 
of death. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams, may I inquire, this is preliminary, is 
it not, to the point ? 

Mr. Williams. To the testimony. I think it is necessary to set the 
backdrop. I am not going to pursue this in detail. I think it is 
necessary to set the backdrop for General Zwicker's appearance on 
February 18. That is what I am undertaking to do in these few 
minutes. 



184 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. With that understanding, I am not going to restrict 
you too much, but we don't want to try that case over. 

Mr. Williams. Now, would you tell us, Senator, in just a few words, 
what information you developed on this occasion of the executive 
session, the appearance of Major Peress ? You learned he was inducted 
into the Army January 1, 1953. 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. AViLLiAMs. He came in as a captain, did he not? 

Senator McCarthy. Captain ; as a captain. 

Mr. Williams. You found out in August of 1953 that investigations 
had been conducted of him by the Army in which he had taken the fifth 
amendment. 

Senator McCarthy. We learned to the best of our knowledge in 
April of 1953 the FBI had given the Army a complete report on Peress 
containing practically all the information which we developed at the 
hearings. 

Then in August of 1953 he was given a questionnaire and asked 
many of the questions which we asked him about Communist activities, 
and he wrote across the face of the question, '"Refuse to answer. Fifth 
amendment." 

In November 1953 he was promoted to major. 

Mr. Williams. He was promoted to major from captain ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; after it was fully known about all his 
Communist activities. 

Mr. Williams. At tliat time was he stationed at Camp Kilmer? 

Senator McCarthy. He was, and General Zwicker was his com- 
manding officer. 

Mr. Williams. How long had he been at Camp Kilmer as of August ? 

Senator McCarthy. You mean General Zwicker or Peress? Do 
you want Peress first? 

Mr. Williams. Peress first. 

Senator McCarthy. Peress went directly from the debarkation 
point in Washington to Camp Kilmer, and I believe that was in 
February 1953. So he had been there quite some time. 

Mr. Williams. How long had General Zwicker been commanding 
general ? 

Senator McCarthy. From July 1953. 

Mr. Williams. Now^ at the time that IMajor Peress appeared before 
you on January 30, of 1954, he was still on active duty at Camp Kilmer ; 
is that correct? 

Senator McCarthy. He was. 

Mr. Williams. As a result of the testimony developed in executive 
session on that occasion, was a request made for his appearance in 
open session ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes; that is right. 

Mr. WiLLL\MS. Do you recall when he was asked to present himself 
for interrogation and examination in open session? 

Senator McCarthy. I do not recall the date he was asked to appear. 
He appeared on the 18th day of February. 

I might say that in the meantime, Mr. Williams, a rather important 
occurrence having a direct bearing upon this Zwicker matter, after 
Peress appeared and refused to tell whether he was recruiting soldiers 
into the Communist Party, whether he Avas holding Communist meet- 
ings at his home, whether he was a graduate of a Communist leadership 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 185 

school, whether a Communist helped him to get his change in duty 
orders, I wrote to Secretary Stevens and suggested that this man be 
court-martialed. 

There were two grounds for the court-martial : 

No, 1 : When he entered, he signed a statement to the effect that 
he belonged to no subversive organization, specifically I believe that 
included tlie Communist Party. 

Under the code, that is the criminal code, that is a felony calling 
for a prison sentence up to 5 years. 

I felt also that his refusal to answer the questions about Commu- 
nist activities, while tliis refusal could not be accepted in a criminal 
court, contrary to the popular conception the use of the fifth amend- 
ment in regard to criminal activities can be used in a civil action. 

I suggested to Bob Stevens, and I cannot quote the exact language, 
that here was a chance to serve notice on all officers in the Army that 
there would be no more coddling of Communists, that if they had any 
information about Communist infiltration, that they would be ex- 
pected to give that information to the proper authorities that could 
be acted upon. That was done. 

Mr. Williams. On what date ? 

Senator McCarthy. I do not recall the date the letter was dis- 
patched. It was made public, as I recall, on February 1. 

Mr. Williams. Was that letter written, to the best of your recol- 
lection, on the date on which Peress had testified before your com- 
mittee ? 

Senator McCarthy. It was written that evening, as I recall, or 
the next morning. 

Mr. Williams. Now, in the January 30 executive session 

Senator McCarthy. Could I add something, Mr. Williams ? I do 
not like to make these answers lengthy, but Secretary Stevens was not 
there, was not in the country at the time the letter was made public. 
He arrived back in the States on the 2d of Februai'y. 

Before he set foot on American soil, Peress was removed from the 
jurisdiction of the military. When I say removed, I should explain 
that unless the penalty for a felony is over 5 years, tlie military does 
not retain jurisdiction in case of an honorable discharge. In this 
case the penalty was a 5-year period so they lost jurisdiction. 

Mr. Williams. Your point is that they lost jurisdiction to try him 
for an offense that he had committed during his service as an officer 
once they discharged him. They gav« him an honorable discharge. 

On what date was he honorably discharged? 

Senator McCarthy. On the morning of February 2. 

Mr. Williams. 1954 ? 

Senator McCarthy. 1954, the morning after my letter to Bob 
Stevens was made public. 

Mr. Williams. Now, coming to February 18 of 1954, this was the 
date on which Peress was directed to present himself for open session ? 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. That hearing was set for what time originally ? 

Senator McCarthy. I think the hearing Avas set for 10 o'clock in 
the morning. 

Mr. Williams. I notice here in the record that it, in fact, did not 
begin until much later than that. 



186 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator McCarthy. The reason for that, Mr. Williams, was that 
my wife was in a taxicab the night before and broke her ankle in 
three places. 

• I was up with her all night and had to take her to the hospital 
in the morning. 

Mr. Williams. What time did you get away ? 

Senator McCarthy. I think it was 11. Let me see, let me look at 
the record. It Avas about 11 o'clock. In other words, we Avere about 
1 hour off schedule. 

Mr. Williams. Did you go directly to Foley Square from Flower 
Hospital ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did not go to Flower Hospital. I got Jean 
in an ambulance and went directly from there to Foley Square. 

Mr. Williams. Who was the first witness heard at that meeting? 

Senator McCarthy. A Ruth Eagle. She was an undercover agent 
for the New York Police Department, specializing in Communist ac- 
tivities. 

In fact, she joined the Communist Party at the behest of the New 
York Police Department, as I recall. 

Mr. Williams. She identified Major Peress as a section leader in 
the party in New York. 

Senator McCarthy. She identified him : 

1. As a graduate of the Communist leadership school ; 

2. As a section organizer for the Communist Party. 

In other words, as an important functionary of the Coipmunist 
Party. 

Mr. Williams. Following her testimony. Major Peress was called 
to the stand, was he ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes ; he was called to the stand. That is our 
practice when somebody is identified as a Communist; we call them 
to the stand immediately, wherever possible, in order to permit them 
to admit it or deny it. 

Mr. Williams. Was Peress accompanied by counsel ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes ; he was. 

Mr. Williams. Did he respond to the questions that were pro- 
pounded to him regarding his Communist actvities in open session 
on this morning? 

Senator McCarthy. No ; he was very selective in his answers. He 
answered everything, as I recall, not having to do with Communist 
activities, but when we got to his Communist activities, why, there 
was the usual "I refuse to answer on the ground my answer might 
tend to incriminate me." 

' ^ Mr. Williams. Did there come a time in the interrogation of Major 
Peress when he was asked about an application that lie had made 
while at Camp Kilmer for sensitive work which required a security 
clearance, an extra security clearance for liim ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; there did come that time, Mr. Wil- 
liams. The reason for that question was that we had the file. We 
knew he had applied for security clearance to handle — I do not recall 
what classification, whether it was secret or confidential work. 

Mr. Williams. Did he respond to the questions that were pro- 
pounded to him on that subject? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, he gave us a rather unusual answer when 
I asked him what sensitive work he was trying to get into. Knowing 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 187 

he was a Communist, a Communist leader, I was curious to know 
what type of sensitive work he was trying to get into, and his answer, 
as I said, was unusual. 

He said he was applying for a different type of work on teeth. In 
other words, it was sensitive teeth he was dealing with, which did not 
make any sense to me. 

Mr. Williams. Did this provoke a question from someone on the 
staff during the hearing directed to his commanding general? 

Senator McCarthy. I asked his commanding general if he would 
tell us what sensitive work this Communist had applied for. 

Mr. Williams. I now direct your attention, Senator McCarthy, to 
the record which is before you. 

Senator McCarthy. What page ? 

Mr. Williams. Page 136, and I ask you if that was the first interro- 
gation of General Zwicker, in either open or closed session, by you or 
by any member of the staff, or of the committee. 

Senator McCarthy. This was the first interrogation by the com- 
mittee. However, he had been interrogated by members of the staff, 
Mr. Jim Juliana, prior to that time. 

Mr. Williams. I will come to that in just a moment. 

I now direct your attention. Senator, to the record, page 136, and 
ask you whether or not you requested General Zwicker to find out 
what the nature of the sensitive work was, for which Major Peress 
applied ? 

Senator McCarthy. That's right. 

Mr. Williams. Did he respond ? 

Senator McCarthy. No; he told me he would not give me that 
information. If I may quote him verbatim, he said 

The Chairman. Will vou read the question you asked him, as well? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. I said to him : 

I wonder if you can do this : You are appearing this afternoon in executivtj 
session. I would like to have you here to listen to all of this testimony. If you 
have an aide with you, I wonder if you could have somebody call Camp Kilmer 
and find out just what the sensitive work was that he was being considered for. 

General Zwicker. Even if I did know, I would not be privileged to tell you, 
under the Executive order which forbids us to discuss matters of that nature. 

May I say in connection with this, Mr. Chairman, the order upon 
which Zwicker relied was not the Presidential order, by an order of 
the Army, which, according to him, provided that they could not give 
security information, unless they had permission from the Assistant 
Chief of Staff. 

The Chairman. Do you have in your possession a copy of that 
order ? 

Senator McCarthy. No, I do not. He did not supply a copy of 
the order. 

I pointed out to him that I thought this was not security informa- 
tion, but asked him, in the event, assuming it was, would he ask 
the Assistant Cliief of Staff of G2 to give him permission to tell us 
the truth about this matter; and he said, "No, I will not." He refused 
to ask for permission to give us information, and said, "I would rely 
upon the order, and though I have information, I cannot give you 
the information." 

Mr. Williams. To your knowledge, then, or to your knowledge now, 
is there any Executive order which precluded General Zwicker from 

52461—54 13 



188 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

simply stating tlie nature of those sensitive works for wliicli Major 
Peress applied? 

Senator McCarthy. Definitely not, on a Truman order or on an 
Eisenhower order, so far as I know: and I think anyone versed in 
the law would state that neither applied to this question. 

Mr. Williams. Prior to General Zwicker's appearance before the 
committee — I am talking about his appearance in the courtroom at 
Foley Square, which was described for us this morning by Mr. 
Harding — prior to that time, had you had any member of the com- 
mittee staff interview General Zwicker? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Jim Juliana had interviewed him. 

Mr. Williams. Do you know how long prior to February 18 that 
was? 

Senator McCarthy. It was several days prior to that. I would not 
know the number of days. 

Mr. Williams. In your function as chairman of the coimnittee, was 
a report made to you as to General Zwicker's interview with Mr. 
Juliana ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. I discussed this in detail with Mr. 
Juliana. 

Mr. WiLLL\MS. What did you except to develop from General 
Zwicker when you requested his presence on the 18th of February 
1954? 

Senator McCarthy. Wlien he was not under oath, he was talking 
to Mr. Juliana, and he said 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I think, Senator, that is hearsay, 
without question. 

Mr. Williams. I offer it for this reason, ]\Ir. Chairman — and I see 
the point of your objection, of course. I offer it for this reason. Cer- 
tainly, in going to the state of mind of the chairman of the committee 
as General Zwicker took the stand, as you can appreciate, being a law- 
yer and judge yourself, Mr. Chairman — it is necessary to know what 
information he had been led to believe he would get from General 
Zwicker as a result of the interview of the staff. 

Now, in every lawsuit we learn, as you know, you cannot interview 
every witness. We have to rely on other people to interview the wit- 
nesses, and they bring us reports as to what the witness will testify to. 
Sometimes the witnesses "fence." Sometimes they don't say what we 
are led to believe they are going to say; and that, of course, often 
affects the vigorousness of the examination which we conduct; such 
as this morning, here. I had the very experience. I had been led to 
believe that a witness was going to testify to certain things, and when 
he took the stand, I was very much surprised. 

I think this goes to the state of mind of the examiner, and, for that 
reason, I respectfully urge you, sir, to allow this to go in. 

The Chairman. You think it has sometthing to do with the ques- 
tion of the conduct of the Senator from Wisconsin ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. I may say further 

The Chairman. Of course, I can readily understand that in a re- 
port of that kind, if it were permitted to appear in the record, it would 
involve a lot of other people and get off into all sorts of diversions. 
But I am just wondering where we are headed. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 189 

Mr. Williams. I assure you we are not headed anywhere but to a 
direct answer to a question as to what Senator McCarthy expected 
this witness would testify to, as a result of the official report made by 
the staff investigator who interviewed him a few days ago. 

The Chairman. And you are now referring to General Zwicker? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Juliana reported to me — I might say this 
was an official report from the staff member to the committee — that 
Zwicker said that he had objected to the discharge; that he talked to 
the Pentagon — he did not tell me who he talked to at the Pentagon — 
and that he was ordered to give Peress an immediate discharge after 
my letter to Stevens came out. 

The Chairman. One further observation in respect to this ruling. 
It is not permitted in testimony on the theory that what he was being 
told was the truth, or even as what General Zwicker said; but that 
it was reported to him by one of his examiners. With that under- 
standing 

Mr. Williams. Surely. 

The Chairman. I understand you are not claiming that when the 
agent reported it was the truth, or that General Zwicker even said it ? 

Mr. Williams. I do claim it was the truth, but I expect to prove 
that through others. 

The Chairman. I know, but you are not offering this for that 
purpose. 

Mr. Williams. Not for this purpose. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator McCarthy. In answer, without elaborating 

The Chairman. Is that classified material? 

]Mr. Williams. I think what the Senator has testified to is not classi- 
fied, if I understand that question. Pie is able to recount what his 
investigator told him. 

Senator McCarthy. A personnel matter, not a security matter. 

The Chairman. It is a report of one of your own investigators ? 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

The Chairman. All right, proceed. 

Senator McCarthy. And I might say, also, that this involves per- 
sonnel matters, not a security matter. In brief, he said that the dis- 
charge was the result of a call he had gotten from the Pentagon, 
ordering him to discharge — in other words, to remove him from the 
jurisdiction of tlie Army. I felt that was significant, especially in 
view of the fact that legal counsel for the Army had spent the previous 
afternoon with General Zwicker. 

The Chairman. Now, you are permitted to tell what this agent 
reported to you — not your own feeling. Let us get one thing at a time. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Mr. WiLLLVMS. Now, your session, your open session, recessed, 
according to the record, at 12 :15 ; is that right? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Williams. And that was the last open session that day by the 
investigating committee? 

Senator McCarthy. That's right. 

Mr. Williams. General Zwicker did not testify until much later in 
the afternoon ; is that correct ? 



190 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

If I can explain why the hearin<r was held up, I went over to the 
hospital and arranged for a different room for Jean and got a report 
on her injury from the doctor, discussed the matters in detail with 
the doctor, which took some time. 

Mr. Williams. So that General Zwicker, in fact, did not take the 
stand that afternoon until 4 : 80 ? 

Senator McCarthy. That apparently is correct. 

Mr. Williams. Can you tell us who was there present? 

Senator McCarthy. The record shows present: Koy Cohn, chief 
counsel ; Daniel Buckley, assistant counsel ; Harold Rainville, admin- 
istrative assistant to Senator Dirksen; Robert Jones, administrative 
assistant to Senator Potter, and James N. Juliana, investigator, and 
my memory would bear that out. 

Mr. Williams. Now, I want to call your attention, Senator 

The Chairman. May I inquire? 

I thought the witness said Senator Dirksen was there; is that right? 

Senator McCarthy. No. Dirksen's administrative assistant was 
there. 

The Chairman. I beg your pardon. I misunderstood you. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Rainville was there for Senator Dirksen, Mr. 
Chairman. 

I want to call your attention, Senator, for what I shall call, for 
purpose of identification, the first key question that was asked of 
General Zwicker, and I direct your attention to page 146 and to the 
question : 

You know — 

and I am quoting you — 

that somebody signed or authorized an honorable discharge for this man, knowing 
that he was a fifth-amendment Communist; do you not? 

Now, did you get an immediate response to that question? 

Senator McCarthy. I did not. The answer I got was he thinks 
he is. I asked him whether he knew the discharge was signed, knowing 
that he was a fifth-amendment Communist. His answer was : 

I know that an honorable discharge was signed for the man. 

No answer to the question. 

Mr. Williams. Now, I tliink this is very important, so I want to 
ask you some questions about the general context of this line of inter- 
rogation ; but, before I do, I want you to point out, if you will, Senator, 
to the committee where you got the first answer to this question. 

Senator McCarthy. I believe it is over on page 148, where I said — 
and I am not reading the entire question, just the pertinent part : 

Now, is it your testimony now that at tlie time you read the stories about 
Major Peress'tliat you did not know that he had refused to answer questions 
before this committee about his Communist activities? 

General Zwicker. 1 am sure I iiad that impresison. 

That was about a page and a half later, thereafter, of cross-examina- 
tion, 

Mr. Williams. How much later in point of time was it that you got 
your answer? 

Senator McCarthy. Could I just, Mr. Williams, point out some- 
thing which has a direct bearing upon this? On page 146 — I wonder 
if the committee has a copy of the testimony. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 191 

The Chairman. We are short of copies. I understand they are out 
of print, and we haven't been able to get them. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me 

Mr. Williams. I think it is important- 



Senator McCarthy. I wish the committee had copies of this. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to show the 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Senator McCarthy. I am sorry. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, may we have the answers to the ques- 
tions ? 

A few moments ago the Senator said he received an evasive answer. 
It seems to me the committee should have the benefit of a direct answer, 
whatever it may be. 

Mr. Williams. We are going to go through that. 

Senator Case. And let the committee judge whether or not it was 
evasive. 

The Chairman. Will you inform us what page 

Mr. Williams. I have directed the Senator's attention at the out- 
set to page 146, and the question I had reference to in my question 
is a question that appears at about two-thirds of the way down that 
page in the printed record, quoting the Chairman : 

You know that somebody signed or authorized an honorable discharge for 
this man, Ivuowing that he was a fifth-amendment Communist, do you not? 

General Zwicker's answer is : 

I know that an honorable discharge was signed for the man. 

That is the direct answer, Senator Case. 

Now, I am going to ask you, if you will 

Senator McCarthy. I think I should read the next few ques- 
tions 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. To put this in context. 

Question : 

The day the honorable discharge was signed were you aware of the fact 

Senator Stennis. Pardon me. Wliere are you? 

Senator McCarthy. Page 146. It is the last one-fifth of the page. 

The first question was : 

Do you know that somebody signed it? 

The question I am reading is : 

The day the honorable discharge was signed were you aware of the fact that 
he had appeared before our committee? 
General Zwicker. I was. 

And had refused to answer certain questions? 
No, sir ; not specifically on answering any questions. 

Now, I would like to have the committee — this will show why it 
was necessary to rather vigorously cross-examine this man — jump 
over to this question : 

Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his Communist 
activities? 

Specifically, I don't believe so. 



192 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. Here. 

Senator McCarthy. Oh, yes. I beg your pardon. I skipped one. 
One of the first we have is on page 146. He says, "No, sir", when asked 
whether he knew this man had refused to answer questions. 

Then on page 147, about 10 or 12 questions later : 

But now you indicate that you did know he refused to^ 
No. 

Mr. Williams (reading) : 

But now you indicate that you did not know that he refused to tell about his 
Communist activities; is that correct? 

The answer is : 

I know that he refused to answer questions for the committee. 

Senator McCarthy. So that here he changes his story. First he 
says: 

No, sir ; I didn't know he refused to answer questions. 

Then the next question: 

Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his Communist 
activities'? 
Specifically, I don't believe so. 

Then a number of questions later I said to him, in cross-exami- 
nation : 

Now, is it your testimony now that at the time you read the stories on Major 
Peress that you did not know that he had refused to answer questions before this 
committee about his Communist activities? 

General Zwicker. I am sure I had that impression. 

So, you find first the General says : 

I didn't know he refused to answer any question. 

Then he says : 

Yes, I knew he refused to answer questions, but not about Communist activ- 
ities. 

And then, finally, after being pressed, he says : 

Yes, I am sure I had the impression he refused to answer questions about 
Communist activities. 

I merely cite that. Senators, so you will realize the difficulty I had 
with this witness and why it was necessary to cross-examine him in 
detail when he changed his story three times. It was important for 
me to get the facts here. 

Mr. WiLLiAiMs. Senator, I want to direct your attention to page 147, 
and also members of the committee, about one-third of the way down 
the printed page where the chairman asks : 

Did you have that general picture? 

General Zwicker answered : 

I believe I remember reading in the paper that he had taken refuge in the fifth 
amendment to avoid answering questions before the committee. 

And what were the next questions. Senator ? 
Senator McCarthy. I said : 

About communism. 

The answer : 

I am not too certain about that. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 193 

Do you want me to read on here, Mr. Williams ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy (reading) : 

Do you mean that you did not have enough interest in the case, General, 
the case of this major who was in your command, to get some idea of what 
questions he had refused to answer? Is that correct? 

General Zwicker. I think that is not putting it quite right, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chaieman. You put it right, then. 

And here is the answer : 

I have great interest in all of the oflScers of my conunand, with whatever 
they do. 

Let's sticlj to fifth-amendment Communists. Let's stick to him. You told 
us vou read the press releases. 

I did. 

But now you indicate that you did not know that he refused to tell about 
his Communist activities; is that correct? 

Listen to this answer, if you will, especially you lawyers on the 
committee : 

I know that he refused to answer questions for the committee. 
Did you know that he refused to answer questions about his Communist 
activities? 

Answer : 

Specifically, I don't believe so. 

Then, shifting over to the next page, when asked practically the 
same question, he says : 

I am sure I had that impression. 

So, you have a general here who, for some unusual reason, is com- 
pletely evasive. First he says : 

I didn't know he refused to answer questions. 

Then he says : 

Yes, I know he refused to answer questions, but not about communism. 

And then later he says : 

Yes, I knew he refused to answer questions about communism. 

Mr. Wnj^iAMS. Now, would you tell the committee approximately 
how much time elapsed between the time you first put the question 
and the time that General Zwicker answered, "I am sure I had that 
impression" ? 

Senator McCarthy. I couldn't ^ive you that in time, Mr. Williams. 
It was a long, laborious truth-pullmg job. 

Mr. Williams. Now, General Zwicker, in response to a question 
that you propounded to him, said that he had read the press releases on 
the Peress case after Peress' appearance in executive session. 

Can you tell the committee when those press releases appeared? 

Senator McCarthy. It was prior to the press release, I believe, of 
February 1. The press releases dealt almost exclusively with his re- 
fusal to answer questions about Communist activities before the com- 
mittee. 

The Chairman. May I inquire for the purpose of the record, what 
press releases are you referring to ? Whose press releases ? 

Senator McCarthy. I am referring, Mr. Chairman, to the letter 
which I wrote to the Secretary of the Army Stevens in which I pointed 



194 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

out all of the facts, asked for his court martial and also, Mr. Chair- 
man, we have followed the practice wherever in executive session there 
are a number of individuals present where there is a lawyer present 
who can go on and give the story of calling in the press and giving the 
press the general picture without giving the name of the witness. 
However, Peress had given his name so that his name was in the press 
on the 30th of January and the press carried the story about all of his 
refusals to answer. So there were two stories. 

The Chairman. To be absolutely fair about it, do you know whether 
or not the newspapers published in full your press release? 

Senator McCarthy. I saw the press releases and they published 
them in detail, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. In what papers? Of course, we have a lot of 
papers. 

Senator McCarthy. All the wire services carried the stories and 
I think they carried very fair and very complete stories. 

The Chairman. Did you supply the general with copies of these 
press releases? I mean, General Zwicker? 

Senator McCarthy. No ; he said he had read the press releases. 

The Chairman. The reason I am asking you these questions is that 
sometimes people are supplied with a copy of the press release by the 
person who makes the press release and they get it that way; at other 
times they probably have to wait and get it in the paper and some- 
times the papers do not carry in full all the press releases — at least, I 
have had that experience. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, the reason Mr. Peress was 
given no press releases was 

The Chairman. I don't mean Major Peress; I mean General 
Zwicker. 

Senator McCarthy. I am sorry — was because I had addressed my 
letter to the Secretary of the Army; asked him for a court-martial 
of not only Peress but all of those who were responsible for his pro- 
motion, his plush-duty orders, knowing that he was a Communist; 
and I did not write to Zwicker because I could not conceive. Mr. Chair- 
man, Zwicker taking it upon himself to give an honorable discharge 
to a man guilty of a felony, guilty of Communist activities. 

Mr. Williams. I want to call the attention of the witness and the 
Chair to the question at page 148, approximately one-third of the way 
down the printed page: 

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 
courc-martialed ? 

General Zwicker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that what you based your answer on that Gen- 
eral Zwicker had seen the press release? 

Senator McCarthy. Not only that press story but the previous 
press story. 

Mr. WiLLTAiMS. I did not say Peress story. 

Senator McCarthy. The press; not only this press story but there 
was a previous press story about Peress in which the newspapers car- 
ried the information about his refusal to answer on the grounds of 
the fifth amendment. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 195 

Mr. Williams. Now, I want to call your attention, Senator, to a 
(question at page 148, and I am now referring to the last third of the 
page, of the printed record. 

Mr. Cohn asked : 

Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody? 

And the answer that is reported here emanating from General 
Zwicker : 

No; I did not. 

Was that in conformity with or at war with the report that you 
had received from your investigator, Mr. Juliana? 

Senator Ervin. That seems to be a conclusion rather than evidence. 

The Chairman. I would say to the Senator and also to Mr. Williams 
that considerable of the material that the Senator is bringing before 
use is alignment and I have not ordered him to desist on that. We 
would like to get a straight-out statement on evidence, if we can, but 
I realize the tendency is for lawyers to argue and to testify. I would 
be guilty of that myself in the same position. 

Mr. Williams. I do not intend to argue the case at this time, I 
assure you, but I think it is terribly important here for this witness 
to let us know what the atmosphere was of this proceeding as he went 
along; and to point out why it was necessary to cross-examine this 
witness vigorously as he saw it at that time. 

The Chairman. We will permit him to relate the facts. However, 
we are not inclined to be too strict with the interpretation of the rule 
but we think we ought to reasonably keep within it. 

Senator McCarthy. The answer is : This is in conflict not only with 
the report received from Mr. Juliana but also in conflict with the 
testimony of Major Peress who testified in the record which you 
have before you that he went in to see Zwicker, and that he asked for 
an investigation. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. He is contrasting this evidence with something else 
out of the record. 

Senator McCarthy. The Peress testimony is in the record. 

Senator Ervin. Let him call our attention to these things and let 
us draw the conclusions. 

Mr. Williams. That is what we are trying to do, Senator Ervin, 
but it is perfectly impossible to portiuxy what was in the mind of the 
cross-examiner unless we ask him the questions which motivated his 
interrogation and which motivated his cross-examination of General 
Zwicker as we are proceeding. 

I know of no other way to put defensive material in on this issue. 
So I must ask him about evasiveness on the part of General Zwicker 
and about the conflicts in the testimony of General Zwicker with other 
sworn testimony in the record and with the report that he had received 
about what General Zwicker would testify to when he was called before 
the committee. 

I am sure that Senator Ervin, as a lawyer, has tried many cases and 
has sat on the bench and can appreciate what goes on in the mind 
of an examiner when he is confronted with answers which he is led to 
believe which would be otherwise. 



196 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator Ervin. He has testified as to what he had been led to believe. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me read the record. 

Senator Ervin. Wasn't the statement made ? I think we can assume 
that we have enough memory to remember some of these things. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me read the record. 

The Chairman. Just a moment ; let Senator Ervin finish. 

Mr. Williams. Senator Ervin, the reason I am calling this to your 
attention is that the part of the record which we are now about to 
offer has not heretofore been introduced in evidence, so I don't assume 
that you have read it. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin, will you get a little closer to your 
microphone ? It is difficult for us to get your words. The microphones 
are not too sensitive and it means we have to get rather close to them. 

Senator Ervin. I may have misconstrued the evidence but what I 
understood was — you were asking the Senator whether a certain thing 
was in harmony with what he had been led by Mr. Juliana to expect 
the witnesss would testify to. 

Mr. Williams. That was one of my questions. Senator. The ques- 
tion now, what I am addressing the witness' attention to is the con- 
flict between this testimony and the testimony of the witness who had 
testified just previously to him. 

Senator Ervin. You are putting both together, as I understood it, 
though. The point I was making, the things you already testified you 
would agree for us to draw conclusions as to. 

Mr. Williams. I appreciate your ability to draw the conclusions if 
the part I had reference to were in the record, but it is not in here ; 
that is why I want to introduce it at this time. 

Senator McCarthy. Could I read the Peress testimony that I re- 
ferred to? 

The Chairman. Are you going to offer that in evidence ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wliy not do it now and we will have it before us. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir, that is what I want to do. 

Senator McCarthy. Can I read it ? 

The Chairman. If you will read it all without interruptions so we 
can get it ; then you can make your comment. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. As I said, Mr. Chairman, this was in conflict 
with Peress's testimony and I would like to read that testimony now 

on page 125. 

The Chairihan. Just a moment, now; page 125. That was m the 

public hearings? 

Senator McCarthy. Public session. 

The Chairman. Was General Zwicker there? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. When this testimony was given ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I mean the witness. I was asking the question of 
the witness. Mr. Williams. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; he was there. 

I am reading, Mr. Chairman, from the third question from the 
bottom. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 197 

« 

The Chairman. Who is the highest ranliing oflScer with whom you spoke after 
your appearance before the committee? 

Mr. Peress. General Zwicker. 

The Chairman. General Zwicker? What conversation did you have with Gen- 
eral Zwicker? 

And the record sliowr: that the witness conferred with his counsel. 
He says : 

Would you repeat that question, please? 

The Chairman. Will the reporter read the question? 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

which would have been, "What conversation did you have with General 

Zwicker ? " 

Mr. Peress. I don't recall the exact word-for-word conversation. I requested 
of General Zwicker, after the hearing before you on January 30, when I saw him 
on February 1, that an inquiry be made into these charges, that the newspapers 
had lambasted me with on Sunday and Monday. 

The Chairman. Did you tell him whether or not you were a Communist? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds 

The Chairman. You wanted an inquiry made as to whether or not you are a 
Communist; is that correct? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I wanted an inquiry of my conduct at Camp Kilmer. 

The Chairman. Did you want the inquiry to include the question of whether 
or not you had been holding Communist meetings at your home, whether you had 
attended a Communist leadership school, whether you had been recruiting military 
personnel there into the Communist conspiracy? Did you want that included? 

Senator McCarthy. Again the record shows the witness conferred, 
with his counsel. 

Then to go on reading on page 126, just about the middle of the 
page, Mr. Peress said : 

I could not tell them what to inquire about, but I asked for an inquiry of 
the charges generally. I didn't specify as to which charges to inquire into and 
which not to inquire into. 

And Mr. Chairman, I pointed that out, because this is important, 
if I may, not merely because it is in contradiction, if I may, with 
Zwicker's testimony, but also this indicates that if Peress were not 
perjuring himself, then he was not asking for 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, is it not for the committee to de- 
termine for what it is important? Let us get the evidence and let 
the committee draw the conclusions. 

Mr. WiLiAMS. We are anxious to call these things to the commit- 
tee's attention. Senator, so that the committee can better understand 
what was in the mind of the cross-examiner as he pursued his in- 
quiry with this witness. 

The Chairman. Have the Senator finish the reading of the testi- 
mony that he wants to read. I suggested that and I thought that 
was to be the arrangement, that he would read it through and then 
make such comments as would be within the rule of evidence. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. That is all of the Peress testimony that I 
have in mind. 

If I may say this, Senator: In answer to a question as to why I 
commented on this, I have been accused of the 

Senator Case. I beg the pardon of the Senator. I did not ask why 
you commented on it. I just suggested that the comment was in the 
nature of a conclusion and the committee should draw the conclusions. 



198 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator McCarthy. Would you bear with me for one minute, 
Senator Case? 

I have been accused of abusing General Zwicker. I am showing 
here that his testimony is in complete conflict with other testimony 
taken under oath that day, and in conflict with the reports gotten 
from the investigation. 

Senator Case. This Senator and the committee is interested in see- 
ing the conflicts. 

Senator McCarthy. Very w^ell. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I want to call your attention now, sir, to 
page 149 of the record, at the bottom, and I ask you to read that 
question and the answer that immediately follows. 

Senator McCarthy (reading) : 

The Chairman. Let me ask this question : If this man — 

meaning Peress 

The Chairman. Will you please indicate where you are starting? 
Senator McCarthy. The last question on page 149 : 

Let me ask this question : If this man — 

meaning Peress — 

after the order came up, after the order of the 18th came up, prior to his getting 
an honorable discharge, were guilty of some crime, let us say that he held up 
a bank or stole an automobile — and you heard of that the day before — let us say 
you heard of it the same day that you heard of my letter — could you then have 
taken steps to prevent his discharge, or would he have automatically been 
discharged? 

General Zwicker. I would have definitely taken steps to prevent discharge. 

Mr. Williams. Now, Senator, pursuing this so that we have the 
natural course of your line of interrogation, I want to direct your 
attention to the question that is propounded one-fourth of the way 
down page 150, beginning with the last sentence. 

Senator McCarthy. "You said"? Oh, I see, I will read that now: 

The Chairman. Let us say be went out and stole $50 the night before. 

General Zwicker. He wouldn't have been discharged. 

The Chairman. Do you think stealing $50 is more serious than being a traitor 
to the country as part of the Communist conspiracy? 

General Zwicker. That, sir, was not my decision. 

The Chairman. You said if you learned that he stole $50, you would have pre- 
vented his discharge. You did learn something much more serious than that. You 
learned that he had refused to tell whether he was a Communist. You learned 
that the chairman of a Senate committee suggested he be court martialed. And 
you say if he had stolen $50, he would not have gotten the honorable discharge. 
But merely being a part of a Communist conspii'acy, and the chairman of the 
committee asking that he be court martialed, would not give you grounds for 
holding up his discharge. Is that correct? 

General Zwicker. Under the terms of this letter, that is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Williams. Now, thereafter, did you ask the general whether 
there was anything — — 

Senator McCarthy. Could I read the next question, Mr. Williams; 
I think it is pertinent. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. This is the statement by the chairman : 

That letter says nothing about stealing $50, and it does not say anything about 
being a Communist. It does not say anything about his appearance before our 
committee. He appeared before our committee after that order was made out. 

Do you think you sound a bit ridiculous, General, when you say that for $50, 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 199 

you would prevent his being discharged, but for being a part of the conspiracy 
to destroy this country, you could not prevent his discharge? 

And may I say, Mr. Chairman, I think he looked extremely ridicu- 
lous. 

Mr. WiLT.TAMS. Did you ask him whether there was anything in the 
letter on the Peress di'scliaroe which gave him authorization to hold 
up the discharge for criminal conduct? 

The Chairman. Just a moment before you answer that. The letter 
itself will be the best evidence. Do you have a copy of that letter? 

Senator McCarthy. I do not. 

The Chairman. Was one offered to you at that time ? 

Senator McCarthy. I was allowed to read it at that time. I think 
it was handed back to the (ireneral. 

The Chairman. You did not receive it in evidence? You did not 
make it a part of the record ? 

Mr. Williams. The general was asked about it and answered fully. 

Senator McCarthy. I do not believe it is a part of the record. 

The Chairman. Ordinarily it is better if we have the letter so that 
we can know what it is about. 

Mr. Williams. I wish we had it, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I think possibly we can get a copy of it. I thought 
probably the Senator had received it at that time. 

Senator McCarthy. I do not believe it was produced. 

Mr. Williams. I would certainly appreciate it if the chairman 
would exercise his prerogative in obtaining a copy of the letter and 
placing it into this record. 

The Chairman. We will attempt to get a copy of that letter and 
will put it in the record as soon as we find it. 

Mr. WiLLL\MS. Senator, without going over this transcript question 
by question, let me ask you ihis by way of recap and by way of sum- 
mary : Was it General Zwicker's position as he testified here that if 
he had learned that Major Peress had stolen $50, he could have 
stopped his discharge and would have stopped liis discharge, but the 
knowledge of the fact that he had been a member of the Communist 
Party and had falsified his Army affidavits on that subject, that knowl- 
edge was not enough to preclude the honorable discharge that wa? 
given to him on February 1 ? 

Is that a fair statement of his position on this record ? 

The Chairman. That is calling for the conclusion of a witness and 
is more or less in the nature of argument. 

Can we get to the facts as they appeared ? 

I suggest. Mr. Williams, we ought to confine ourselves to the facts 
and not make arguments. 

Mr. AViixiAMS. Mr Chairman, the trouble with these facts are that 
you cannot state them without their sounding like a powerful argu- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Well, the record itself, I think, is a pretty good 
evidence and is probably the best evidence as to what was said and 
done. If there was anything else that was done or said that does 
not appear in the record, that can be given to the committee. 

Mr. Williams. AVhat I was trying to do was to cover a couple of 
pages of this colloquy by one yes or no answer and then get to the part 
in dispute here. 

The Chairman. Obviously it calls for an argument. 



200 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator McCarthy. Could I read the question that perhaps answers 
Mr. Williams' question which appears at the bottom of page 151, the 
last question, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. You may read it. 

Senator McCarthy. It reads as follows : 

The Chairman. Let's say one of the trusted privates in your command came 
in to you and said, "General, I was just downtown and I have evidence that 
Major Peress brolve into a store and stole $50." You would not discharge him 
until you had checked the facts, seen whether or not the private was telling 
the truth, and seen whether or not he had stolen the $50? 

General Zwicker. No, I don't believe I would. 

I would make a check, certainly, to check the story. 

Mr. Williams. Now, I want to ask you this. Senator: Did there 
come a time when you asked General Zwicker to state his position on 
the overall policy which permitted this kind of discharge to be made 
in the light of the known facts at the time it was made ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

Mr. WiTLiAMS. I direct your attention to page 152 and I ask you 
if you will read that question which immediately precedes the colloquy 
which is in dispute here. 

Senator McCarthy. You refer to the last question on page 152 ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy (reading) : 

The Chairman. Let us assume that John Jones is a major in the United 
States Army. Let us assume that there is sworn testimony to the effect that 
he is part of the Communist conspiracy, has attended Communist leadership 
schools. Let us assume that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee 
and says, "I cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I 
fear that might tend to incriminate me." Then let us say that General Smith 
was responsible for this man I'eceiving an honorable discharge, knowing these 
facts. Do you think that General Smith should be removed from the military 
or do you think that he should be kept on in it? 

Mr. Williams. Did you add to the hypothesis of that question on 
page 153? 

Senator McCarthy. I added to it the fact that we are referring to 
General Smith, who originated the order directing the separation and 
not a general who was merely following out orders. 

The Chairman. May I ask at this point, so it will be clear as we 
go along, Senator, since we do not have the letter here, did not the 
letter direct General Zwicker to release this man ? 

Senator McCarthy. It directed honorable discharge for this man 
within a period of 90 days. It gave, it apparently gave Peress the 
discretion to decide when he would be released, and that is why, Mr. 
Chairman, I read the testimony of Mr. Peress when he said he went in. 

I did not ask for his release. I asked for an inquiry. 

Zwicker knew that there could be no inquiry after his release. 
Therefore, it was not Peress who asked for the discharge, if we can 
believe Peress. 

Of course, I might say I do not believe a Communist under oath. 

The Chairman. That is hardly material here. Probably a lot of 
people would agree with you on that. What we are trying to get at 
are the material facts in this inquiry. 

Mr. Williams. This question that you posed to General Zwicker 
contained the hypothesis at page 152 and an added hypothesis on page 
153. 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 201 

Mr. Williams. You are asking him about liis attitude toward a 
general who originated the order that gave an honorable discharge 
to a known Communist after he had taken the fifth amendment before 
your committee; is that right? 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. Did General Zw^cker answer that question immedi- 
ately ? 

Senator McCarthy. No; he claimed he did not understand it. 

You will notice on page 153, let me see : 

The Chairman. The reporter will repeat it. 
And then a few lines down further it says : 
(The question was reread by the reporter.) 

So that it was repeated twice. 

Mr. Williams. This was the third time ; was it ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes; this was the third time it was repeated. 

Mr. Williams. Let me ask you this question : 

What was General Zwicker's answer as to whether or not the Gen- 
eral who originated the order, the policymaking general who origi- 
nated the order giving the honorable discharge to an officer who was 
a member of the Communist Party who had taken the fifth amend- 
ment while in the Army and before his discharge, what was his an- 
swer with respect to what should be done concerning that situation, 
that particular general? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, let me say this question does 
not contain all the facts I asked the General. I asked him : 

* * * Let us assume that there is sworn testimony to the effect that he is 
part of the Communist conspiracy, has attended Communist leadership schools. 
Let us assume that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee and says, 
"I cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear that 
might tend to incriminate me." 

And then I say : 

The Chairman. Let us say he is the man who signed the orders. Let us say 
General Smith is the man who originated the order. 

I asked whether he should be removed from the military. 
And then down in the middle of page 153 the answer of General 
Zwicker is given as: 

I do not think he should be removed from the military. 

Mr. Williams. "Wliat did you say in response to that? Will you 
read that? 

The Chairman. Let me be clear on that. Wlio are you speaking 
of who should be removed from the military? Is this Peress or the 
General ? 

Senator McCarthy. I said : 

Let us assume that John Jones is a major in the United States Army. Let 
us assume that there is sworn testimony to the effect that he is part of the 
Communist conspiracy, has attended Communist leadership schools. Let us 
assume that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee and says, "I 
cannot tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear that 
might tend to incriminate me." Then let us say that General Smith was re- 
sponsible for this man receiving an honorable discharge knowing these facts. 
Do you think that General Smith should be removed from the military or do 
you think he should be kept on in it? 



202 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. Tliat is what I wanted cleared up, whether you were 
referring to the Major or General Smith being removed. 

Senator McCarthy. I refer to the General. I make it clear on page 
153 that I am not referring to a general obeying orders but one 
originating orders. 

The Chairman. The purpose of that question, obviously, was to 
get the attitude of General Zwicker with respect to some other general. 

Senator McCarthy. It was to find out, Mr. Chairman, whether 
there was Communist infiltration, whether it was condoned, whether 
the commanding officer condoned it and allowed an honorable dis- 
charge. 

I wanted to get his attitude, and that is part of the Government 
Operations Committee, to investigate efficiency, economy ; well, intelli- 
gence, if you please, of those operating in the Government at all levels, 
and I was concerned to find out why they allowed it to continue. 
I wanted to get the attitude of this general who was the commanding 
officer. 

And he said : 

I do not think he should be removed from the military. 

And then you asked for my answer to that. I said, which appears 
near the bottom of page 153 : 

The Chairman. Then, General, you should be removed from any command. 
Any man who has been given the honor of being promoted to general and who 
says, "I will protect another general who protected Communists" is not fit to 
wear that uniform. General. I think it is a tremendous disgrace to the Army 
to have this sort of thing given to the public. I intend to give it to them. I 
have a duty to do that. I intend to repeat to the press exactly what you said. 
So you know that. You will be back here. General. 

Mr. Williams. Now then, did you say, "You are not fit to wear 
the uniform" ? 

Senator McCarthy. No, I said he was not fit to wear the uniform of 
a general, and I think he was not. I think any man who says that 
it is right to give honorable discharges to known Communists is not 
fit to wear the uniform of a general. 

I said it then. I wall say it now. I will say it again. I feel that 
as strongly as I feel anything. 

Mr. Williams. Has this statement been quoted, or should I say mis- 
quoted, to read frequently "Is not fit to wear the uniform"? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, it has been quoted to that effect. 

Mr. Williams. By that statement were you impunging his judg- 
ment, or were you impunging liis loyalty? 

Senator McCarthy. Not his loyalty. He might be completely loyal 
and feel that Communists could get honorable discharges. 

I felt that his judgment was bad beyond words when we have such 
a tremendous military force spending billions of dollars to defend this 
country against communism, and then have a general say in effect: "It 
is all riffht to give Communists honorable discharges." 

Mr. Williams. Did General Zwicker thereafter in the interrogation 
change his position? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, he did. 

Mr. Williams. Would you point that out ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 203 

Senator McCarthy. On page 154 he says, or, rather, I said : 

Do you think that the higher authority would be guilty of improper conduct? 
General Zwicker. It is conceivable. 

The Chairman. Do you thinlj they are guilty of improper conduct here? 
General Zwicker. I am not their judge, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think to order the honorable discharge for a Com- 
munist major was improper conduct? 

General Zwicker. I think it was improper procedure, sir. 

Mr. WiixiAMS. Then I call your attention to page 154, immediately 
above that wliere _vou say, "Let me ask one question." 
Will you read that colloquy? 
Senator McCarthy (reading) : 

Let me ask one question. 

In other words, you think it is proper to give an honorable discharge to a 
man known to be a Communist? 
General Zwicker. No, I do not. 

Senator Stennts. Where is that, please? 

Senator McCarthy. That is on page 154, about one-fourth of the 
way down the page. 

Mr. Cohn asked the question. I beg your pardon; the Chairman 
asked the question. 

The Chairman. Senator, just so we will not miss getting all of this 
matter before us so that we may properly evaluate it, I call your at- 
tention to page 152, after the long question when you were talking 
about John Jones as a major, maybe you omitted the question inten- 
tionally, but you did not read General Zwicker's answer when he 
said: 

He should be by all means kept if he were acting under competent orders to 
separate that man. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, but then I pointed out. Senator, that I 
referred to, I said, to the man who originated the order directing the 
separation. 

Mr. Williams. The question as shown on page 153, and as read 
by the reporter over twice was that the question was directed to the 
man who originated the order, not the man who was acting under 
competent orders. That was the purpose of the clarifying question 
at page 153, the man who originated the order, and that was the ques- 
tion posed the next two times on that page to which the final answer 
was given. Senator. 

• I want to call your attention in this^ record to page 155. Was there 
a question propounded again to General Zwicker as to whether he 
had talked to anyone in Washington about the Peress case? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, about one-fourth of the way down the 
page you will find the question : 

Did you talk to anyone in Washington? 
General Zwicker. No, sir, about this case. 

Mr. Williams. The next question is what? 
Senator McCarthy (reading) : 

Within the week preceeding his discharge? 
General Zwicker. No, sir. 

Mr. WiLLL\.MS. Senator, I want to ask you to describe if you will 
in the most accurate manner, but in a very brief time the demeanor, 
the attitude, of this witness as he testified before the committee. 

524^^l— 54 14 



204 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

• 

Senator McCarthy. I would say he was one of the most arrogant, 
one of the most evasive witnesses, that I have ever had before my 
committee, one of the most irritating. 

The Chairman. Just what did he do, other than answer the ques- 
tions? Was there something with respect to his manner? We have 
the record before us as to what he said. It is somewhat in the nature 
of a conchision, but if you can get us some of the facts that helped 
you to arrive at that conclusion, we would appreciate it, because we did 
not see it. We were not there. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, you have been a judge for 
quite some time. It is impossible to describe in detail the arrogance 
of a witness. He shows it when he appears before a committee. He 
displayed it that morning when he sat in the audience calling me 
a S. O. B. because 

The CHi^iRMAN. You did not know about that. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chahiman. You did not know about that at the time you were 
examining him. 

Senator McCarthy. I did not, but the attitude was in complete 
keeping with it, Mr. Chairman. All you do is to look for demeanor 
of a witness, his attitude, his evasiveness, and you know as a judge 
and as a lawyer that you cannot put your finger on specific items. 
You have got to sum the whole attitude up in one parcel, and I merely 
mentioned the morning because I knew about that, to show that 
his attitude in the afternoon was in keeping with his attitude in the 
morning. His attitude on the stand was about the same as ii\ the 
morning; in other words, that the chairman was an S. O. B. and he 
wouldn't answer unless he had to. 

The Chairman. Of course, we heard the other witness. You are 
assuming, of course, that what he said was the truth. We do not 
know all of the meaning that he had in connection with it. At any 
rate, that is before us, to be considered. In all good faith, I asked 
if there were anything in his mannerism that you could give us as a 
fact, what he did — his tone, and a lot of things, I mean, which might 
tend to make a man conclude that he was arrogant. 

I mean, aside from tlie answers that he gave, the factual matters 
with the statements and the answers, themselves — I wonder if there 
was anything in his physical appearance or his physical action at the 
time, that you used as a basis for concluding that he was arrogant. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that his whole 
attitude when you talk with him, in connection with his refusal to 
answer questions and his evasiveness, you would get the picture, but 
you cannot get it from the printed record; and all I can say is, the 
full attitude was one of complete arrogance, complete contempt of 
the committee. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I have completed my direct exam- 
ination. I urge and invite the committee members to cross-examine 
Senator McCarthy vigorously on this subject. I believe that a vigor- 
ous cross-examination is the greatest instrument that has ever been 
devised for eliciting the truth; and I turn him over to you, sir, as 
your witness. 

The Chairman. I think we may expect that members of the com- 
mittee will be given an opportunity to cross-examine with some vigor. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 205 

However, I think we will place some limitations, not on tlie degree 
of vigor which they may use. I do not think I have to pass on that. 
But I think, possibly before they start — I assume you meant that the 
connnittee counsel could question, as well. 

Mr. Williams. Oh, surely. 

The Chairman. So probably, unless members of the committee 
want to talk now, or proceed to the examination — and I will ask them 
if they do. 

Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions, now, but 
before we leave this record here, do I correctly understand that this 
testimon}' now of General Zwicker, and the examination by Senator 
McCarthy, is all in the record ? If it is not, I think it should be. 

Mr. Williams. I think so, too. Senator. 

Senator Stennis. Because that is the only way we have of getting 
the picture all together. Is it already in, Mr. Chairman? 

The Chairman. A good deal of it is in the record. A good deal 
of what seemed to be pertinent material at the time was placed in the 
record the otlier day, when counsel was reading from this record. 

Senator Stennis. As I recall, the attorneys for the committee 
placed in the record Senator McCarthy's report. I feel that it all 
ought to go in the record. 

The Chairman. You mean this entire printed hearing? 

Senator Stennis. Well, there is a viewpoint that is missed unless 
it is in there. 

The Chairman. Some of it may be considered to be irrelevant and 
immaterial, if we eliminate that. 

Mr. Williams. It is my suggestion that we offer the Peress testi- 
mony in open session, and the Zwicker testimony in executive session 
in toto, and I think we shall then have the whole picture. Mr. de Furia 
indicates there is no objection. 

The Chairman. I think that offer will be accepted. We have most 
of it now. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chaieman. To be sure we have got it all, we will accept that 
offer and will print all the Peress testimony, in the open hearing, and 
the Zwicker testimony in the executive hearing. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Stennis. Let all the Zwicker testimony appear in one 
place, in the present record, as it does in this printed record before 
us. That is the only way to get it into the record. 

The Chairman. That is just what we will do, whenever it appears. 
It should appear in the record, about now, on that point. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. So the testimony of those two men that I refer to 
will be received in evidence. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. As a part of the record. 

Senator Stennis. Certainly. I thank you. 

The Chairman. So that will cover that. Thank you for the sug- 
gestion. 

The testimony of Major Peress and of General Zwicker is as follows : 



206 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

TESTIMONY OF MAJ. IRVING PEEESS, AEMY DENTAL CORPS, 
CAMP KILMER, N. J., ACCOMPANIED BY STANLEY FAULKNER, 
ATTORNEY 

The Chairman. Major, would you raise your right hand and be 
sworn, please. 

In the matter now in hearing, do you solemnly swear that the tes- 
timony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Major Peress. I do. 

The Chairman. Will counsel identify himself for the record? 

Mr. Faulkner. Stanley Faulkner, 9 East 40th Street, New York 
City. 

The Chairman. And would you give your telephone number in case 
the staff has to get in touch with you ? 

Mr. Faulkner. Lexington 2-7780. 

Mr. CoHN. Could we get your full name ? 

Major Peress. Irving, I-r-v-i-n-g Peress, P-e-r-e-s-s. 

Mr. CoHN. Where do you reside ? 

Major Peress. 6139 79th Street, Middle Village, N. Y. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, what is your current rank in the Army? 

Major Peress. Major. 

Mr. CoHN. For how long a period of time have you held that rank ? 

Major Peress. Almost 3 months. 

Mr. CoHN. And when did you enter the Army? 

Major Peress. On active duty, you mean? 

The Chairman. Let me interrupt. Do I understand you were pro- 
moted 3 months ago ? 

Major Peress. That is right. On November 2, 1953. 

The Chairman. When did you go on active duty? 

Major Peress. January 1, 1952. 

The Chairman. A little over 2 years ago ? 

Major Peress. No, I am sorry, January 1, 1953. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, what were the circumstances of your going on 
active duty. Did you apply or were you called ? 

By the way, any time you want to you can consult with counsel. He 
can talk to you or nudge you and you can do likewise. I don't know if 
you have been before tlie committee before. 

(Witness consults with counsel.) 

Major Peress. I registered under the doctor draft law; I think it 
was the 1950 law. I was called up in July of 1952 to take a physical 
examination, which I passed, and I was tendered a commission in 
approximately October 1952 as captain. I got orders to go on active 
duty January 1, 1953. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you apply for a commission as captain ? 

Major Peress. Yes, the procedure was the draft board notified you 
of your impending induction and between the enlistment on my part — 
the coinciding of dates coining in 2 weeks — I was informed the enlist- 
ment was not recognized so that I went under the normal channels of 
draft induction. 

Mr. CoHN. Then you applied for a commission, and after you filled 
out certain application forms, that commission was tendered as 
captain. Is that right? 

Major Peress. Yes. 



HEARENGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 207 

Mr. CoHN. And you accepted the commission. 

Major Peress. I did. 

Mr. CoHN. Where did you enter on duty ? 

Major Peress. Fort Sam Houston, Tex. 

Mr. CoHN. For how long a period were you down there ? 

Major Peress. I left home January 1 and left there February 7. 

Mr. CoHN. "W^iere did you go from Fort Sam Houston ? 

The Chairman. Let me interrupt. Apparently, Major, the situa- 
tion was — see if I understand you correctly. Correct me if I am 
wrong. You did register for the doctors' draft. 

Major Peress. Every physician and dentist had to register under 
the 1951 law. 

The Chairman. Then there came a time when the draft board noti- 
fied you you had been called up. You were put in a certain priority 
depending on whether the Goverment had helped finance your edu- 
cation or depending on the time you served in the last war. 

Major Peress. Yes. 

The Chairman. After you were classified in one of those priorities, 
you attempted to enlist in the Army. They told you due to the prox- 
imit}^ of enlistment to the time of your classification, they hadn't 
recognized your enlistment and you were about to be inducted ; then 
you applied for a commission — they allow you sufficient time to apply 
for a commission — a commission of captain was tendered to you and 
you accepted it. Is that right ? 

Major Peress. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. In effect you attempted to volunteer for the service. 
Is that correct. 

Major Peress. In effect, yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How did you serve in the last war ? 

Major Peress. I had a commission tendered to me and at the last 
moment they discovered I had a physical defect which they would not 
waive and they would not accept me. 

The Chairman. But your physical defect was waived on this oc- 
casion ? 

Major Peress. That is right. 

The Chairman. Had the Government financed, in any way, your 
education ? 

Major Peress. No. 

Mr. CoHN. From Fort Sam Houston, where did you go after that? 

Major Peress. I had orders to go^to Yokohama, Japan. When I 
got to the port of embarkation at Fort Lewis, Wash., I had an emer- 
gency leave to come back home. 

The Chairman. Was it a medical question? 

Major Peress. Yes, sir, a medical question. 

I came home and had further communication with the Department 
of Defense, the Pentagon, I received new orders to report to Kilmer. 

Mr. CoHN. Wliose illness was it ? 

Major Peress. My wife and daughter. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, you said something about the Department of De- 
fense. Who did you see in the Department of Defense ? 

Major Peress. Well, I guess I went through the Adjutant General's 
Office in the Pentagon. 

Mr. CoHN. You wrote to the proper authorities and requested a 
change of assignment? 



208 HEARINGS OX SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Major Peress. They did. 

Mr. CoHN. Wliere did they station you ? 

Major Peress. Camp Kilmer, N. J. 

Mr. ConN. How far is that from New York ? 

Major Peress. Thirty miles. 

The Chairman. See if I have this picture correctly in mind. You 
were assigned to Yokohama ; you got as far as the port of embarkation 
and received emergency leave because of illness on the part of your 
wife and daughter. 

Major Peress. That is right. 

The Chairman. When you arrived home you applied for a transfer 
to some other station in the United States ? 

Major Peress. I applied for what is called compassionate 
reassignment. 

The Chairman. Who did you correspond with on this subject? 

Major Peress. The Adjutant General. I don't know who handled 
it in the office — in the Office of the Adjutant General. 

The Chairman. Did you have correspondence other than through 
official channels? 

(Witness consulted with counsel.) 

Major Peress. Before I answer that question, Mr. Senator, I would 
like to state, at this time I am on active duty with the Army and under 
the sole jurisdiction of the Army and the President, who is the Com- 
mander and Chief of the Armed Forces, and do not feel that I come 
under the jurisdiction of this committee. 

The Chairman. Did you have any correspondence with anyone with 
regard to the change of your orders other than through official 
channels ? 

Major Peress. In regard to the change of being assigned to Yoko- 
hama to being assigned to the United States, did I have correspond- 
ence — you mean did I write to friends ? 

The Chairman. You understand the question. Did you have cor- 
respondence other than through official channels ? 

Major Peress. The answer is "No." 

The Chairman. In other words, no Congressman, no Senator, no 
one to your knowledge intervened in your behalf to promote your 
change of orders? 

Major Peress. Well, I wrote to nobody, but my wife asked my Con- 
gressman about the advice of how to proceed. There was no official 
correspondence, no intervention. He merely suggested to us the Red 
Cross as a means of coming back from Fort Lewis, Wash., to New 
Jersey. 

The Chairman, Who was your Congressman? 

Major Peress. I believe his name was Holtzman. 

The Chairman. And he is from where ? 

Major Peress. Queens, where I live. 

The Chairman. You say you had correspondence with him when 
you were on your way to Yokohama ? 

Major Peress. I had no correspondence with him. 

The Chairman. Who did have correspondence with him ? 

Major Peress. Well, I don't remember exactly but my wife either 
called him or wrote to him because he lives in the neighborhood and 
got a telegram back from him to the effect that I get in touch with the 
Red Cross in order to secure time that my apj^eal be considered. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 209 

As it was, because of the element of time, nothing could be done and 
I would have had to go to the Far East and take it up in the Far 
East. He suggested the Red Cross as an instrument of delaying the 
transfer overseas. 

The Chairman. Do you have copies of the correspondence and the 
application you made at that time? Do you have copies of corres- 
pondence with your Congressman, the Red Cross, Department of 
Army — any correspondence in connection with the delay or change of 
orders ? 

Major Peress. I should say 

The Chairman. Do you or do you not have the correspondence ? 

Major Peress. Well, I made copies but I am not real sure I have 
them. 

The Chairman. You don't have any along with you ? 

Major Peress. Let's see. 

(Witness examines record.) 

The Chairman. Any documents having to do with the change of 
orders ? 

Major Peress. I do not have them with me. 

The Chairman. Did anyone in the Army ever ask you whether 
you were a member of the Communist Party or a Communist Party 
organizer ? 

Major Peress. I decline to answer that question under the protec- 
tion of the fifth amendment on the ground it might tend to incriminate 
me. 

The Chairman. You decline to answer whether or not they asked 
you ? Are you a member of the Communist Party today ? 

Major Peress. I again decline, claiming the privilege for the reason 
previously stated. 

The Chairman. Were you a member of the Communist Party at 
the time you were inducted ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. Did any Communists intervene to have your orders 
changed so you would not have to leave the country ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. You are entitled to the privilege. 

Is your wife a member of the Communist party ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

Mr. CoHN. Your wife's name is Elaine, is that correct ? 

Major Peress. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. How many children do you have? 

Major Peress. Two. 

The Chairman. How old are they ? 

Major Peress. Six and a half and eight and a half. 

The Chairman, And you said your orders were changed because 
of illness. What was the illness ? 

Major Peress. It is a personal matter I'd rather not discuss. The 
Army has official information on it. 

The Chairman. If it is an illness which is in any way embarrassing, 
we would not require you to discuss it. Otherwise, we will have to 
ask you about it. 

I am curious to know how Communists can get their orders changed 
so easily. The average man would be sent to Yokohama. You can 
suddenly have your orders changed and kept in this country. I am 



210 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

curious to know whether the ilhiess was real or imaginary. I am 
curious to know if that was the real factor; if you were telling the 
truth, or you were lying. You told the Army your wife and daugh- 
ter were sick. If the sickness would be embarrassing to discuss it, 
we will not ask about it ; otherwise I want to know about it. 

Major Peress. The Red Cross made an investigation of the nature 
of the illness and the validity of the reason of the change and these are 
on file in the Army records. 

The Chairman. What were the reasons? If the Red Cross made 
an investigation, there is nothing confidential. Wliat were the 
reasons ? 

Major Peress. I would still rather not discuss it. Senator, because it 
is personal, and I feel it invades the privacy of the medical profession 
and is not pertinent. 

The Chairman. Mister, I don't know whether the reason is suf- 
ficient. Every day in my office I have young men writing in saying 
tlieir wives are sick, very ill, asking to have their orders changed so 
they will not have to go overseas. They are sent overseas. I just 
wonder how you Communists have such tremendous luck clay after 
day when you come before us. There is no consideration too great. 
I want to find out how you stopped at the port of embarkation ; who 
stopped you when he knew you were a Communist ; whether another 
Communist did it for you, and I am going to order you to tell us what 
the alleged illness was. 

Major Peress. The reason is simply that my wife and daughter 
were undergoing psychiatric treatment, and I am not a psychiatrist 
and couldn't detail the reasons. He felt it would be desirable for the 
health of the family to have me stay. 

I'he Chairman. In other words, there was no physical illness except 
that they were under the care of a psychiatrist because of some emo- 
tional disturbance. Is that correct? 

Major Peress. I don't know if you feel there is a difference between 
physical and mental illness — if there is a different level of the validity 
of illnesses. As I said, they were under psychiatric treatment. 

The Chairman. How old was your daughter when she was under 
this treatment? 

Major Peress. She was at the time just under 6. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, Major, you are a graduate of the leadei-ship train- 
ing course of the Inwood Victory Club of the Communist Party, are 
you not? 

Major Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you attend courses in leadership of the Inwood Vic- 
tory Club of the Communist Party at 139 Dyckman Street? 

Major Peress. I claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. Let me ask you this. When you say you claim th(i 
privilege, you are claiming it under that part of the fifth amendment 
which provides that you need not give testimony that you feel might 
tend to incriminate you. Is that correct? 

Major Peress. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You understand that you can only claim that privi- 
lege if you feel a truthful answer might tend to incriminate you ; you 
cannot claim the privilege if you feel perjury would incriminate you. 
Do you understand ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 211 

Major Peress. I understand your question. 

The Chairman. Is your position that you feel a truthful answer 
to this question might tend to incriminate you ? 

Major Peress. That is correct. Since the Constitution, I believe, 
states I may believe my answer may tend to incriminate and not that 
it will incriminate me, I am exercising the right under the fifth 
amendment, which so stated. 

The Chairman. I asked you a simple question, before I can deter- 
mine whether you are entitled to the fifth amendment privilege. The 
question is : Do you feel a truthful answer might tend to incriminate 
you ? If you do, you are entitled to refuse. If you do not, then you 
must answer. 

Major Peress. Yes, I do feel a a truthful answer might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. And that is what you mean is your answer to all 
these questions when yon say 

Major Peress. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. At the leadership training course of the Inwood Victory 
Club, were you taught the doctrine of forcible overthrow of the 
United States Government? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you yourself deliver talks at Communist discussion 
groups at which you discussed the doctrine of Marxism and Leninism 
urging the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force 
and violence? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

Mr. CoHN. When you went down to Camp Kilmer, specifically, 
when at Camp Kilmer, did you attempt to recruit any of the military 
personnel there into the Communist Party ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege for the same reason. 

Mr, CoHN. While stationed at Camp Kilmer did you have Comnum- 
ist Party meetings at your home, attended by one or more military 
personnel from Camp Kilmer ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilesre. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, you attended City College from 1933 to 1936. I3 
that right? 

Major Peress. Yes, sir. 

Mr. CoHN, And then you went to NYU Dental School from 193G 
through 1940? 

Major Peress. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. While you were at Camp Kilmer, were you taking orders 
from any functionaries of the Communist Party ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

Mr. CoHN. In addition to your work in the Dental Corps, did you 
have any other assignment, extra duty, or anything else in connection 
with Army service? Were you ever on any board or special detail? 

Major Peress. Repeat the beginning of that question. 

Mr. CoHN. In addition to your regular dental duty, did you ever 
carry out any other assignment, extra duty, or anything else in connec- 
tion with Army service on a part-time basis ? 

Major Peress. I carried no assignment, but in the preliminary train- 
ing at Fort Sam Houston it was not all dental work. I had to learn 
hoAv to conduct medical battalions in the field and take over first-aid 
duties. 



212 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. CoHN. Did you ever sit on a board ? 

Major Peress. I took regular duty when my turn came around, that 
is, dental duty. 

Mr. CoHN. You had no duty other than dental duty ? 

Major Peress. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. While at Camp Kilmer, did you, in fact, recruit military 
personnel into the Communist Party ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

The Chairman". Were you promoted after the Army had you in 
and questioned you about your background ? 

Major Peress. You mean in service? 

The Chairman. I mean were you before the security officer, a board, 
or your commanding officer and questioned about your background? 

Major Peress. I was never before any board in the Army for ques- 
tioning. 

The Chairman. You say you were never before a board of inquiry 
or questioned about your background by any officer of the Army ? 

Major Peress. If this is what you mean, I was never before any 
board of inquiry of one or more members. 

Mr. CoHN. In August of 1953, that is August of this last summer, 
were you asked any questions or given interrogatories concerning Com- 
munist Party affiliations ? 

Major Peress. Would you repeat whether you are asking about 
orally or in writing? 

Mr. CoHN. We will let it cover both. My question was, Were you 
asked written or oral questions concerning Communist Party affilia- 
tions? 

Major Peress. Was I asked these questions ? 

Mr. CoHN. In August of 1953 you were given interrogatories by the 
Army which you refused to answer. Isn't that a fact ? 

Major Peress. I answered them. 

Mr. CoHN. You answered all of them ? 

Major Peress. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you ever refuse to answer interrogatories put to you 
by the Army ? 

Major Peress. What is the meaning of refuse? I was given an in- 
terrogatory and I returned it. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you answer every question on the interrogatory? 

Major Peress. Yes ; or it would not have been accepted. 

Mr. CoHN. I am talking about August 1953. 

Major Peress. It would not have been accepted if I had not an- 
swered all the questions. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you give information in response to every question? 

(Witness consults with counsel.) 

Mr. CoHN. You were given an interrogatory by the Army in Aug- 
ust 1953. You declined to answer certain of the questions on the basis 
of the fifth amendment. That is a matter of public record, isn't it? 

Major Peress. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. How many questions did you decline to answer on the 
basis of the fifth amendment ? 

Major Peress. (No answer.) 

Mr. CoHN. Is this a fair statement? Let me see if I can save time. 
You refused to answer, under the fifth amendment, any questions deal- 
ing with Communist affiliations or associations. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 213 

Major Peress. If I may see the interrogatory, I can answer that 
question. 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

Major Peress. Well, do you have a record on it ? 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

Major Peress. I claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer. 

Major Peress. I have no privilege on this question? 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer the question. You can 
consult with counsel if you like. The question is. On this applica- 
tion, did you refuse to answer questions relating to Communist Party 
affiliations? 

Major Peress. If you will repeat the specific questions on the in- 
terrogatory to me 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer counsel's question. 

Major Peress. I claim the privilege on the questions that were pre- 
sented to me on the interrogatory. 

The Chairman. Have the record show that the witness was ordered 
to answer counsel's question. In view of the fact that it is a matter 
of public record, there is no privilege. After the chairman ordered 
him to answer, the witness persisted in refusing to answer. 

Mr. Faulkner. He did answer the question, Mr. Senator. 

Major Peress. I answered the questions on the interrogatory they 
refer to by claiming the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. With reference to those questions on the interroga- 
tory, you answered them to the Army by claiming the fifth amend- 
ment? 

Major Peress. That is right. 

The Chairman. In what connection was the interrogatory filled 
out? Was it in connection with a loyalty investigation or a promo- 
tional investigation? 

Major Peress. There was no discussion by the colonel who gave 
them to me. 

Mr. CoHN. Who was that? 

Major Peress. He was in the G-2 office. I don't recall his name. It 
was a short name. Smith or something like that. It might have been 
Smith. ^ 

Mr. CoHN. Did you hear anything further from this colonel after 
you filled out the interrogatory ? 

Major Peress. They gave them to me 1 day and I filled them out 
and gave them back the next day. 

The Chairman. You heard nothing from him after that — after 
you refused to answer ? 

Major Peress. After I resubmitted the interrogatory with the ques- 
tions answered in writing, I never heard from him again. 

The Chairman. After you refused to answer questions concerning 
Communist Party affiliations, claiming the fifth amendment, in this 
questionnaire, you heard nothing more about the matter from any 
Army officials and you were subsequently promoted; is that correct? 

Major Peress. That is correct. 

The Chairman. Did any Communists aid you in getting this promo- 
tion? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege, but I will tell you how the 
promotion was effected if you want to know. 



214 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. Do you know any Communist in the military 
today ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

The Chaikman. How much of your salary, if any, do you contribute 
to the Communist Party ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege for the same reason. 

The Chairman. Did you attend a Communist Party meeting within 
the last week ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. Have you attempted to recruit soldiers into the 
Communist Party in the last week? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. Is there a Communist cell at Camp Kilmer of which 
you are a member ? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. Did you not organize a Communist cell at Camp 
Kilmer? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. Do you think Communists should be commissioned 
in our military? 

Major Peress. I again claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. You are not entitled to any privilege on that ques- 
tion. You are ordered to answer. 

Major Peress. Do 1 think Communists should be commissioned in 
the Array, I haven't thought about it. I don't feel one way or the 
other. 

The Chairman. Do you think if the Army finds out you are an or- 
ganizer for the Communist Party, organizing a cell, soliciting soldiers 
in the party, they should oust you from the Army or leave you in or 
do you have any opinion on that? 

Major Peress. I feel I haven't any opinion ; that that is a policy for 
the Army to say. 

Mr. Cohn. 1 meant to ask this. Is the psychiatric treatment of your 
wife and daughter continuing up to the present time? 

Major Peress. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Continuing steadily without interruption? 

]\fajor Peress. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. What is the name of the doctor who gives that psychi- 
atric treatment ? Do you recall that ? 

Major Peress. I am not sure. I know it is connected with NYU. 
There is a clinic at NYU. I don't know if it is affiliated with NYU. 

The Chairman. You don't know the name of the doctor who has 
been treating your wife a year or two. 

Major Peress. There has been more than one physician involved. 

The Chairman. What was the name of the first one you knew ? 

Major Peress. I am not sure. 

The Chairman. You are not sure. You are not sure of the name 
of any doctor or psychiatrist who treated your wife for an ailment 
so serious ? 

Major Peress. Dr. Schecter was involved. I think he is treating 
my daughter, and Dr. Gerwin, who, I think, is treating my wife, or 
the other way around. One is treating my wife and the other my 
daughter. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 215 

The Chairman. Now, when was the last treatment for either your 
wife or daughter ? 

Major Peress. Tuesday and Friday they go. 

The Chairman. And what doctor was treating your wife and 
daughter at the time you received this change of orders? 

Major Peress. It is a German name. I don't recall. 

The Chairman. Wliere is his office ? 

Major Peress. It is in the midwest Manhattan section, and I be- 
lieve in the eighties. 

The Chairman. How long before the application for change of 
orders was your wife and daughter being treated for this psychiatric 
ailment ? 

Major Peress. I couldn't say for sure. My wife, I believe, had been 
seeing this doctor for a year or 2 years. 

The Chairman. How long had your daughter been taking treat- 
ments ? 

Major Peress. It may have been at the age of 4 or 3i^ or 41/2- 

The Chairman. You say you refuse to tell us whether or not a 
Communist helped to get this change of orders ? 

Major Peress. Under the privilege. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to appear in Washington, in 
room 357, Senate Office Building, on the 16th of February. 

(The chief counsel consults with the chairman.) 

We will change that place and date to the 18th of February in New 
York City, in this courthouse. Now, I don't know what room here it 
will be. Counsel will notify your lawyer what room, and make that 
10 : 30 in the morning, unless your counsel is notified of a different time. 

Mr. Faulkner. Will that be executive session ? 

The Chairman. That will be public session. 

Mr. Faulkner. I think the record should show the witness appeared 
here voluntarily without subpena. Will he be subpenaed ? 

The Chairman. He is ordered now. 

Mr. Cohn. You understand if a man is notified to appear before a 
congressional committee and given sufficient time, regardless of 
whether he is notified by telephone, telegram, or formal subpena, that 
is a subpena. Now, if you prefer — sometimes counsel prefers subpena. 

Mr. Faulkner. That is what I am coming to. The witness, being 
in the Armed Forces, I think a subpena 

Mr. CoHN. We will be glad to do tliat. 

The Chairman. Now, Counsel, the committee would like to look at 
the correspondence of the witness relating to military service and 
various assignments he had. I assume he has that with him. 

Mr. CoiiN. We just want to look at it. We will return it. We will 
have a copy made if we need it. 

Mr. Faulkner. This has been turned over to me as counsel, and as 
his counsel I am not prepared to turn it over. It is confidential. 

Mr. CoHN. He can't make it a confidential privilege merely because 
he turns it over to you. If it is under his control and in his possession, 
he has to produce it. This is clearly under his control. 

Mr. Faulkner. On the other hand, I don't see why he should have 
any objection to that. Everything we have here you have a copy of in 
the files. These are just copies of letters going back to 1940, if you are 
interested in 1940. 



216 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. CoHN. All we will do is have an investigator look through it. 
Why don't you stay there with them to see that nothing is removed. 
If anything is of sufficient importance, arrangements will be made with 
you to have it photostated, so you will be sure to have it back. 

Major Peress. These forms I filled out when I entered service, that 
I believe is confidential between me and the Army. 

The Chairman. There is nothing confidential between a member 
of the Communist Party and the Army when the committee is 
investigating. 

Major Peress. I just made copies of them. 

The Chairman. Anything in the hands of the Communist Party is 
no longer confidential, because being in the Communist Party, if tney 
tell you to turn things over to the Communist Party, you know you are 
bound to do it, so we don't give the Communist Party any special 
privilege before this committee. The witness is ordered to turn the 
papers over to counsel. 

In case any questions arise, have the record show that the major has 
the material in his hands and will turn it over to his lawyer and he will 
produce it. 

You haven't been asked to resign, have you? 

Major Peress. Yes, I have. 

The Chairman. Who asked you ? 

Major Peress. Colonel Moore. I am not sure of that name. It 
might be some other name. 

The Chairman. Did you refuse to resign ? 

Major Peress. No, I accepted the request. I have a day of termina- 
tion. 

The Chairman. Wliat date are you due to resign ? 

Major Peress. It is no later than the 31st of March, but I can move 
it up if I so desire. 

The Chairman. You are being given an honorable discharge? 

Major Peress. I haven't been given — — 

The Chairman. So far as you know, you are being allowed to resign 
with no reflection on your record ? 

Major Peress. There was no discussion of that. 

The Chairman. Why were you asked to resign ? 

Major Peress. They wouldn't tell me the reason. 

The Chairman. Did you ever refuse to resign ? 

Major Peress. No, I was never requested to before. 

The Chairman. When were you requested to resign? 

Major Peress. A week ago today. 

The Chairman. In other words, you were asked to resign after you 
were ordered to appear before this committee ? 

Major Peress. I was ordered to come before this committee yester- 
day morning. 

Mr. CoHN. That was the first time you had ever been asked to 
resign ? 

Major Peress. The first time was a week ago this morning at 11 
o'clock. 

The Chairman. O. K., you may step down. 

(l^^iereupon, the hearing adjourned at 11 : 30 a. m.) 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 217 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand? In this matter 
now in hearing before this committee, do you solemnly swear to tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

Mr. Peress. I do. 

TESTIMONY OF IRVING PEKESS (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
STANLEY FAULKNER, NEW YORK CITY) 

The Chairman. You said you were not a major. When did you 
last have the rank of major? 

Mr. Peress. I would like, if possible, to make a statement before 
testifying before the committee. I have a brief statement I would 
like to make. I will answer the question. I stopped being a major 
February 2, 1954. 

The Chairman. February 2, 1954? 

Mr. Peress. May I read a statement before the committee? 

The Chairman. If you have a statement your attorney is aware of 
the rules of the committee. The statement must be submitted 24 hours 
in advance. In other words, if you will hand the statement up, we 
will glance at it and see whether you can read it. If it is pertinent to 
the hearing, you will be allowed to read it. 

(Document handed to chairman.) 

The Chairman. You may read it. Is this an extra copy ? 

Mr. Peress. Yes. 

I have been subpenaed to appear before this committee presumably 
to answer certain questions concerning my political beliefs, both past 
and present. So that there may be no mistake about my position in 
this regard, I shall decline to answer any such questions under the 
protection of the fifth amendment to our Constitution. 

The Chairman. May I interrupt you there? You are not being 
subpenaed to answer in regard to your political beliefs. You are here 
to answer in regard to the part you played while an officer in the 
United States Army in the conspiracy designed to destroy this Nation. 
That is what you are being called about. You are not being asked 
about any of your political beliefs. You will not be asked about any 
political beliefs. 

You may proceed. 

Mr. Peress. From my earliest schooling I have been taught that the 
United States Constitution is the highest law of our land and that one 
of the strongest provisions is the protection afforded to all persons of 
the privilege under the fifth amendment. My education has also 
taught me that anyone, even a United States Senator, who would deny 
this constitutional protection to any individual or who under his cloak 
of his immunity would draw inferences therefrom, and publicly an- 
nounce such inferences, is subversive. I use that word advisedly. By 
subversive I mean anyone who would undermine the strength of the 
Constitution and thereby weaken our democratic form of government. 
"When I appeared before you, Senator McCarthy, on January 30, 1954, 
at an executive session of your committee, you, acting as a committee 
of one, made certain charges concerning my promotion in rank and 
pending honorable discharge. Just to make the record clear, I was 
promoted and honorably discharged under Public Law 84 of the 83d 



218 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Congress, wliicli incidentally was passed when you, Senator McCarthy, 
were a Member of the Senate. In recognition of my honest and faith- 
ful service to my coimtry I was awarded an honorable discharge on 
February 2, 1954. In the period of my service, no one either within 
or witliout found it necessary to question my loyalty. 

Another bit of schooling which I had as a Jew^ was a study of the 
Old Testament, which I highly recommend to you, Senator, and your 
counsel, and i:)articularly Book 7 of the Psalms, which reads : 

His mischief shall return upon his own head and his violence shall come down 
upon his own pate. 

The Chairman. Major, you just heard a policewoman for the city 
of New York testify that you attended a Communist leadership school. 
Is that testimony on her part true or false? 

Mr. Peress. I must decline to answer that question. Senator, under 
the protection of the fifth amendment on tlie ground that it might tend 
to incriminate me. I would also like to say. Senator, that I am not a 
major. The title is "Dr. Peress," not "Major Peress." 

Tlie Chairman. Let me make this very clear: You have been ac- 
cused. Major, of the most dishonest, the worst conduct that anyone in 
the Army can be guilty of. You have been accused under oath of 
being a member of a conspiracy designed to destroy this Nation by 
force and violence. You are here this morning, you are given an op- 
portunity under oath, to tell us whether or not those charges are true 
or false. If you are a part of this treasonous conspiracy, if you have 
attended leadership schools of the Communist conspiracy, obviously 
3'ou will take the protection of the fifth amendment. If you are inno- 
cent, you will tell us that. Now, let me ask you this question: Is it 
true that as of this moment and during all the time that you were an 
officer in the United States Army, you were an active member of the 
Communist conspiracy ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. At the time you received your commission in the 
Army, were you a section organizer for the Communist conspiracy? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. What privilege? 

Mr. Peress. The privilege to decline to answer under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. On the ground of self-incrimination? 

Mr. Peress, On the ground that it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. At the time you were promoted from captain to 
major, were you then an active, knowing member of the Communist 
conspiracy? 

Mr. Peress. I claim the privilege. 

The Chairman. You will have to tell us each time under what 
privilege. 

Mr. Peress. I must decline to answer that question under the pro- 
tection of the fifth amendment on the ground that it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Did you hold Conmiunist meetings in your home while you were 
an officer in the United States Army ? 

Mr. Peress. I claim the first amendment on the gi"Ound that it 
might tend to incriminate me. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 219 

The Chairman. Who signed your honorable discharge? 

Mr. Peress. John J. McManus, major, Infantry. 

The Chairman. Is that your discharge? 

Mr. Peress. That is a photostat of it. 

The Chairman. Will you hand it up? 

(Document handed to the chairman.) 

The Chairman. Where is John J. McManus located ? 

Mr. Peress. I have no idea. 

The Chairman. Who notified you that you would receive an honor- 
able discharge? 

Mr. Peress. I don't believe I was officially notified. It was just 
tendered to me when I left. 

The Chairman. It was handed to you ? 

Mr. Peress. Yes ; as part of my records. 

The Chairman. Let's have the record show that this is signed 
February 2, 1954. This was handed to you on what date ? 

Mr. Peress. February 2, 1954. 

The Chairman. Let us have the record show that this was signed 
and handed to this fifth amendment Communist, Major Peress, after I 
had written the Secretary of the Army suggesting that he be court- 
martialed, suggesting that everyone having anything to do with his 
promotion, with his change of orders, be court-martialed. I did that 
feeling that this would be one way to notify all the officers in the 
Army and all the enlisted men, that there has been a new day in the 
Army, that the 20 years of treason have ended, and that no officer in 
the Army can protect traitors, can protect Communists. I want the 
record to show this was given to you after that letter had been made 
public, before the Secretary of the Army, Kobert Stevens, returned 
to the United States. I ask, Mr. Adams, where is John J. McManus 
now? 

Mr. John Adams (legal counsel to Department of the Army, Wash- 
ington, D. C). I don't know, Mr. Chairman. I presume he is an 
officer in headquarters. First Army. 

The Chairman. AVill we have to subpena him, or will he be pro- 
duced ? 

Mr. Adams. He will be produced. 

The Chairman. Good. We will want him in executive session this 
afternoon, unless he feels that he needs additional time to get a lawyer 
to represent him. If he wants additional time, we will give him any 
time that is within reason that he wants. If he doesn't need time to 
get a lawyer, I want him here this afternoon at 2 : 30 o'clock, in ex- 
ecutive session. 

Have you met John J. McManus ? 

Mr. Peress. Not to my knowledge. 

The Chairman. Who handed you this honorable discharge ? 
^ Mr. Peress. I am not sure. I think it was a sergeant at the separa- 
tion center. I don't know — or it could have been a warrant officer. 

The Chairman. Who is the highest ranking officer with whom you 
spoke after your appearance before the committee? 

Mr. Peress. General Zwicker. 

The Chairman. General Zwicker? "WHiat conversation did you 
have with General Zwicker? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Would you repeat that question, please ? 

52461—54 15 



220 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. Will the reporter read the question ? 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Mr. Peress. I don't recall the exact word-for-word conversation. I 
requested of General Zwicker, after the hearing before you on Janu- 
ary 30, when I saw him on February 1, that an inquiry be made into 
these charges, that the newspapers had lambasted me with on Sunday 
and Monday. 

The Chairman. Did you tell him whether or not you were a Com- 
munist? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds  

The Chairman. You wanted an inquiry made as to whether or not 
you are a Communist ; is that correct ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I wanted an inquiry of my conduct at Camp Kilmer. 

The Chairman. Did you want the inquiry to include the question 
of whether or not you had been holding Communist meetings at your 
home, whether you had attended a Communist leadership school, 
whether you had been recruiting military personnel there into the 
Communist conspiracy? Did you want that included? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress, I could not tell them what to inquire about, but I asked 
for an inquiry of the charges generally. I didn't specify as to which 
charges to inquire into and which not to inquire into. 

The Chairman. Did you tell them whether or not you would tell 
them the truth if they made such an inquiry ? 

Mr. Peress. I told General Zwicker, as you asked me, that I would 
like an inquiry into the charges. I didn't tell him anything further. 

The Chairman. They made an inquiry in August, did they not? 
They sent you a questionnaire. They came to the best witness they 
could find on this, assuming a Communist is a good witness. They 
asked you practically all the questions this committee has asked you. 
They asked you about all of your alleged activities in this Com- 
munist conspiracy. That was in the inquiry. Did you tell them 
the truth at that time? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Did you answer the questions as to whether or not 
you were a member of the Communist conspiracy at that time? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer. It is a matter of 
public record. You cannot decline. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. If it is a matter of public record, then I decline to 
answer. 

The Chairman. You decline to answer? You decline to answer 
that? 

Mr. Peress. You said it is a matter of public record. 

The Chairman. Are you declining to answer? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Could you repeat the question, please ? 

The Chairman. The reporter will read it. 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 221 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Have the record show, so that there can be no claim 
of lack of knowledge at a future legal proceeding 

Mr. Peress. On the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. That the witness was asked whether or not he 
answered an Army questionnaire, as to whether or not he was part 
of the Communist conspiracy. He declined, invoking the fifth amend- 
ment. The Chair ordered him to answer on the grounds that this 
is an improper invocation of the fifth amendment. Have the record 
show he still declines. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, in executive session this witness, after 
you overruled his privilege, did answer this question and stated, "I 
answered the questions on the interrogatory by claiming the fifth 
amendment." 

In other words, when the Army submitted interrogatories to this 
witness in August he refused to answer to the Army the pertinent 
questions on Communist activity, and claimed the fifth amendment 
in the Army inquiry at that time. 

The Chairman. Thank you. Counsel, for calling that to my atten- 
tion. Have the record show that an additional ground for the 
Chair's ordering him to answer is the fact that he has already waived 
the fifth amendment privilege as to this area of investigation. Have 
the record show that he still refuses to answer. 

In November 1953, were you promoted to major? 

Mr. Peress. Was I promoted to major in November of 1953? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Peress. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did anyone in the military, between August 1953 
and January of 1954, ever ask you about any alleged Communist 
Party activities on your part? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Would you read that again, please? 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer. 

Mr. Peress. I decline on the grounds of the fifth amendment, that 
the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. After our hearing here in New York, I believe it 
was about 2 weeks ago, I read a statement which you allegedly made to 
the press, to the effect that the charges that you were a Communist 
were false. Now, I know that you fifth amendment Communists sing 
a different tune under oath. You can lie as much as you like when 
you are not under oath. Do you want to tell us now whether or not 
that statement to the press was a lie, or whether you were telling the 
truth when you told the press you were not a Communist? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds of the 
fifth amendment, that the answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. You are entitled to the privilege. When you at- 
tended Communist leadership school, were you, among other things, 
taught the necessity of the destruction of our Constitution, including 
the fifth amendment upon which you rely today ? 



222 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question under the protection 
of the fifth amendment to the Constitution on the ground that tlie 
answer might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Is it a fact, Mister, that you have attended Com- 
munist schools, leadership schools, you spoke there, your wife spoke 
there, you advocated the destruction of the Constitution, you advo- 
cated the destruction of the very amendment behind which you so 
cowardly hide today ? Is that not a fact ? 

Mr, Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that 
the answer might tend to incriminate me. 
The Chairman. You are entitled to decline . 

I may say that if you were an officer in the Russian Army instead 
of the United States Army, if you were charged with treason against 
Communist Russia, you would not have any fifth amendment there,. 
Mister. And you life insurance would be rather high. 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 
The Chairman. Mr. Cohn? 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Peress, were you, Avhen commissioned in January of j 
1958, section organizer for the Communist Party in Queens County ? 

Mr. Peress. I must decline to answer that question under the pro- 
tection of the fifth amendment on the ground that it might tend to 
incriminate me. 

The Chairman. While you were in the Army, did you contribute a^ 
percentage of your pay to the Communist Party? 

JNIr. Peress. I decline again on the same privilege. 
Mr. Cohn. Did you attempt to recruit any military personnel into] 
the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer; the same privilege. 
The Chairman. Wil you speak a little louder, sir? 
Mr, Peress. I decline to answer the question under the protections! 
of the fifth amendment on the grounds that it might tend to incrim- 
inate me. Shall I go through that whole sentence every time, Senator f\ 

The Chairman. If that is what you are relying upon, you will stat 
the grounds for your refusal. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you ask officers stationed with you to attend Com- 
munist Party meetings with you? 

Mr, Peress. I must decline to answer that question under the fifth 
amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you make a contribution, through the Daily Worker, 
to the defense fund for the indicted Communist leaders? 
Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 
Mr. Cohn. I will hand you a copy of page 12 of the Daily Worker 
for November 22, 1949, and direct your attention to an article entitled 
"Dollars Keep Coming for Defense Fund." It concludes with a state- 
ment from the Daily Worker — "To all of you wonderful people, 
thanks, thanks a million." There is a short list of names, and on that 
list of names is the name Irv Peress, Queens. I would like for you to 
examine that and tell the committee whether or not you are the Trv 
Peress of Queens who received this commendation from the Daily 
Worker for a contribution to the Communist defense fund. 

The Chairman. While he is examining that, may I have the record 
show that Senator Potter is represented here by his very able assistant, 
Robert Jones. Senator Dirksen is rej^resented by his equally able 
assistant, Mr. Rainville. I want Mr. Rainville and Mr. Jones to know 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 223 

that as the representatives of the two Senators, you have the same 
right to ask questions which any Senator would have. 

Mr. CoHN. Are you the Irving Peress who received the thanks of 
the Daily Worker for this contribution to the Communist defense 
fund? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer on the grounds that it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Will you speak a little louder ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer. 

Mr. CoHN. Of course, Mr. Chairman- 



Mr. Faulkner. Did you read into the record that this is dated 

The Chairman. We will not hear from counsel. If you want any- 
thing read into the record, Mr. Peress can read it in. We will not 
hear from counsel. I may say, Mr. Counsel, that this rule was not 
made for you. It was made by the committee and made unanimously. 
We give the witness the right, which he would not have in a court, a 
right to confer with counsel, at any time he cares to. Counsel can 
coach him in his answers, which is a right he would not have in court. 
We do not allow counsel to take part in the proceedings. The reason 
for that is obvious. And I am not speaking about you, Mr. Counsel, 
but I speak about the general situation. If we allowed Communist 
lawyers to take part in a filibuster proceedings, we could never hold 
an intelligible hearing. So if there is anything you want to say, you 
will have to abide by the same rule, which is not directed against you 
personally, but you will have to talk through your client. 

Mr. Faulkner, May I say something on that, what you just referred 
to. Senator? 

The Chairman. No, I said we will not hear from counsel. 

Mr. Faulkner. Not on this point. That is all. 

The Chairman. I will not hear from counsel on any point. I did 
not make the rule. We have 4 Republicans, 3 Democrats. We unani- 
mously passed that rule. I must abide by that rule the same as you 
must. If you have something to say, you can tell your client and he 
will say it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, as I indicated when this article was first 
referred to, I read the date into the record, which was November 22, 
1949, and I ask that this entire article and the page from the Daily 
Worker be received into evidence. I might state that an examina- 
tion of the article indicates that Irv Peress, of Queens, had sent in a 
dollar contribution to the defense fund for the Communist leaders to 
accompany an entry which he had made into a contest being run by 
the Daily Worker at that period of time. All of that is set forth on 
this page. I ask that that be received into evidence. 

The Chairman. It will be received. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 6" and may be 
found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

Mr. CoHN. I would call to your attention, Mr. Chairman, the fact 
that this was obtained by the committee from a public record which, 
of course, would have been available to the Army well before this man 
was handed a commission. It was listed in the public files. 

Now, referring to public files, Mr. Peress, did you take an ad in 
the 15th anniversary edition of the Journal of the Abraham Lincoln 
Brigade, which journal was sponsored by the Communist Party and 



224 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

sent greetings to comrades on the celebration of the 15th anniversary 
of the Abraham Lincohi Brigade ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you take an ad in the 10th anniversary, appearing 
on the back page of the 10th anniversary edition of the Journal of the 
Abraham Lincoln Brigade ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. CoHN. Have you been a subscriber to the Daily Worker for the 
last 14 years ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer on the grounds that it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Mr. CoHN. While you were a captain and a major in the Army, up 
until this month, did you receive the Daily Worker ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you take the Daily Worker with you to your Army 
assignment ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you show the Daily Worker to officers stationed 
with you ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Mr. Jones? 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Peress, when you became an officer of the Army of 
the United States, I assume that you took the regular oath of office? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Peress. Could I have the identification of who is question- 
ing me ? 

The Chairman. Will you try and speak up, sir ? 

Mr. Peress. Could you identify the gentleman who is making the 
inquiry ? 

The Chairman. Mr. Robert Jones, administrative assistant to Sen- 
ator Potter. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Is he empowered by the Senate to question me ? 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

Mr. Peress. The question is did I take the regular oath of office 
when I was commissioned, first commissioned ? 

Mr. Jones. Do you want to read the question back ? 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Mr. Peress. Yes. 

Mr. Jones. You did take the regular oath of office. In other words, 
you did take the oath ? 

Mr. Peress. I don't know what you mean by the regular oath. 

Mr. Jones. The regular oath to uphold and defend the Constitution, 
you took that oath, is that correct ? 

Mr. Peress. That is right. 

Mr. Jones. Did you ever refuse to take an oath ? 
(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. An oath to uphold the Constitution? 

Mr. Jones. Exactly. Did you ever refuse to take it ? 

Mr. Peress. No. 

The Chairman. May I have the record straight. Did you ever re- 
fuse to sign any oath or affidavit for the Army ? 
(The witness conferred with his coimsel.) 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 225 

Mr. Peress. None that I can recall. 

Mr. Jones. Now, Mr. Peress, when you took the oath to uphold and 
defend the Constitution, were you a member of the Communist Party 
at that time ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the fifth amend- 
ment, on the grounds that it might tend to incriminate me. 

Mr. Jones. Would you while an officer of the Army of the United 
States having taken the oath to defend the Constitution, oppose any 
group that advocates the violent overthrow of the Government? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I would defend and uphold the Constitution of the 
United States, as taken in the oath. 

Mr. Jones. That isn't answering the question. In other words, 
you took the oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United 
States. Having taken that oath, would you then oppose any group 
that advocates the overthrow of this Government ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I would oppose any group that would seek to overthrow 
the 

Mr. Jones. In other words, you would oppose the Communist Party ? 

Mr. Peress. You are answering for me? I would oppose, as my 
oath states, any group that would seek to overthrow the United States 
Government by force and violence and unconstitutional means. 

Mr. Jones. In other words, then, you would oppose the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Peress. Is that a question or a statement ? 

Mr. Jones. I am asking you. Would you oppose the Communist 
Party? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Mr. Peress, at the time you attended Communist 
leadership schools, were you not taught the necessity of the overthrow 
of this Government by force and violence ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. The witness will be ordered to answer the question 
on the grounds that he has waived the fifth amendment privilege by 
his answer to the previous question. 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer on the grounds that it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Just so that counsel and the witness will be fully 
informed, the Chair takes the position that where you answer a ques- 
tion, you have waived the fifth amendment privilege as to that entire 
area of investigation. I have asked the Attorney General for an 
opinion upon that matter. If the Attorney General sustains the view 
of the committee, then we will heavily decimate the ranks of the 
Communist conspiracy by way of contempt actions, and convictions, 
against Communists like you, Major. If the Attorney General ren- 
ders a favorable opinion, we intend to ask for a contempt citation 
against every Communist who comes here and, by answering certain 
questions, waives the fifth amendment, and then tries to invoke the 
fifth amendment in the same area of investigation. 

I tell you that so that you cannot plead ignorance at some future 
legal proceeding. 

I assume you still refuse to answer ? 



226 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Peress. I do. 

The Chairman. Is that correct? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer under the fifth amendment. 

The Ch.vjrman. I am going to hand you an exhibit — do you want to 
mark this? 

Mr. CoHN. Exhibit 7, Senator. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 7," and may 
be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 

The Chairman. I am going to hand you exhibit 7, and ask you if 
this is the oath you signed, either at the time you got your commission 
or about that time ? 

(Document handed to the witness.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to identify this paper under the grounds that 
it might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. The witness will be ordered to identify it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. This is a blank paper, and I would have to decline to 
ansAver on the identification of it. 

The Chairman. Is that the type of oath you signed? 

Mr. Peress. I couldn't recall. I would have to decline to answer. 
I would have to see the papers I signed. 

The Chairman. You are declining because you cannot recall? 

Mr. Peress. No. I decline to answer on the grounds of the fifth 
amendment, that it might 

The Chairman. Would you read that oath? Read it out loud so 
I can hear it. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to read the oath. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to read it to refresh your rec- 
ollection so that you may be able to answer the question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to acknowledge that I have seen this state- 
ment before or signed such a paper, on the grounds that it might tend 
to incriminate me. 

Tlie Chairman. You will be ordered to read it. 

Mr. Peress. I decline to read it. 

The Chairman. Hand that back to me, please. 

(Document handed to the chairman.) 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Peress, you have already stated that you took the 
oath to uphold the Constitution when you Avere connnissioned a cap- 
tain ; is that correct? 

(The Avitness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. To my recollection, on getting my commission as a cap- 
tain I Avas sent a number of forms, and I signed them and sent them 
back. There Avas no official SAvearing-in ceremony. 

Mr. Jones. You just said a fcAv minutes ago that you took the oath 
to u])hold the Constitution. That is in the official record. 

(The Avitness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. If the oath Avas in there, I took the oath. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Jones. Mr. Peress, Avill you please examine this statement? 

The Chairman. Those Avill be made exhibits 8 and 9. 

(The documents referred to Avere marked "Exhibits Nos. 8 and 9," 
and may be found in the files of the subcommittee.) 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 227 

(Documents handed to the witness.) 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. While the witness is examining that, may I ask a 
question of Mr. Adams, the legal counsel for the Army ? 

The information we have is that this man signed affidavits as to 
nonmembership in the Communist Party and subversive groups. Is 
it the position of the Army that by the honorable discharge which 
he received after he was before the committee, that he had been re- 
moved from the court-martial jurisdiction of the Army; or does the 
Army take the position they have jurisdiction to court-martial this 
fifth-amendment Communist for false swearing, of which he is ob- 
viously guilty? 

Mr, John Adams (legal counsel to the Department of the Army, 
"Washington, D. C). I am not quite sure that I know the question. 

The Chairman. The question is — you are the legal counsel for the 
Army, and I assumed you discussed this. I know you are aware of 
the fact that I have been discussing it now since he got the honorable 
discharge. The question is, Has he been removed from the court- 
martial jurisdiction of the Army, or does the Army take the position 
that even though he received his honorable discharge, he can still be 
court-martialed for false swearing or any other crime of which he is 
guilty ? 

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, a separation such as Major Peress re- 
ceived on February 2 is a final action. Under the Uniform Code of 
Military Justice, there is a section in the law which permits the Army 
to court-martial an individual for offenses which call for penalties in 
excess of 5 years, provided the offenses are known. 

I submitted the questions raised by 3-our letter to the Judge Advo- 
cate General of the Army, who has the responsibility, by statute, in 
the Army for military justice, and he gave me an opinion that prob- 
ably a court-martial against the individual could not be sustained on 
the facts now before the Army. 

The Chairman. In other words, on the grounds that this would not 
call for a penalty in excess of 5 years, he has been removed from the 
jurisdiction of the Army? 

Mr. Adams. He has been removed from the jurisdiction of the Army, 
and the Army is not aware of any offenses which have been brought 
officially to its attention under which he could be tried. 

The Chairman. You sav the Army is not aware of any offenses, 
Mr. Adams ? " ^ 

Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir. 

The Chairman. I do not pretend to cross-examine the legal counsel 
for the Army. You are here as a guest of the committee. But this 
matter disturbs me very greatly. I have heard that statement before. 
You have the evidence, the sworn testimony, that this man was part 
of the Communist conspiracy. You have that from a policewoman 
of the city of New York. It has been available to the Army for years, 
ever since she has been filing her reports. You have the information 
that he took a false oath when he swore that he was not a member of 
the Communist Party. You have his refusal to answer questions 
before a Senate committee. His refusal to answer questions by the 
Army would certainly constitute conduct unbecoming to an officer. 

I do not think you want the record to stand, John, as saying that 
you were not aware of any offense. You said that was not brought 



228 HEARmGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

officially to your attention. May I say that you were here in an official 
capacity. Everything that this committee develops, including what 
we develop in an executive session, is your official knowledge. 

As I say, I do not want to put you on the stand here and cross-exam- 
ine you, but I am just curious about this fantastic procedure where we 
have this man before us, and we invited the legal counsel for the Army 
to sit in, listen to all of his testimony. He refused to answer, invoking 
the fifth amendment. I wrote to the Secretary of the Army and asked 
for his court martial. Before Secretary Stevens could get back to 
the United States, somebody in the Army — and I cannot conceive they 
were acting in good faith — gave him a hurry-up honorable discharge^ 
My letter was made public on Monday, February 1 ; and Tuesday morn- 
ing, February 2, this man — about whom you have so much testimony 
about organizing Communist cells, holding Communist meetings in 
his home, attencling Communist leadership schools, his refusal to 
answer — was given an honorable discharge. 

As you know, John, every Senator receives dozens of letters every 
month from young men who have good reasons for not wanting to 
serve. They want honorable discharges. If this is the pattern that 
is to be followed, if all you need to do is to join the conspiracy against 
this Nation to receive the stamp of honor from your country, get an 
honorable discharge, then the Communist Party perhaps should go out 
and recruit all the — well, although I do not think they would have 
much success, go out and try to recruit the young men who would like 
to get out of the Army. 

I am going to ask you this, but I am not going to ask you to answer 
it now : I am going to ask that you give us the names of every officer, 
every member of the military personnel or any civilian who had any- 
thing to do with this man's promotion, knowing that he was a Com- 
munist ; anything to do with his change of orders, knowing that he was 
a Communist ; anything to do with his honorable discharge, knowing 
he was a Communist, knowing I have suggested a court martial for 
him. 

I am curious to know whether or not that information will be forth- 
coming without a subpena. If not, this is something which will not 
be allowed to drop. I want to assure everyone concerned, if it is 
humanly possible I intend to get to the bottom of it. 

I think here you have the key to the deliberate Communist infiltra- 
tion of our Armed Forces, the most dangerous thing. And the men 
responsible for the honorable discharge of a Communist are just as 
guilty as the man who belongs to the conspiracy himself. 

So may I ask you, will the information be forthcoming without 
subpena ? If not, I intend to take this right to the very limit to get 
the names of all of those individuals, John. If you are not in a posi- 
tion to answer that today, I want to know when you can answer it. 

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has given you a letter, 
which you received yesterday, which discussed the facts of this case 
as he now knows them. He is investigating to determine such addi- 
tional facts as he can. 

If there can be developed any indication of conspiracy of a sub- 
versive nature with reference to the handling of this or any other 
officer assignments, those matters will be prosecuted by the Army. 

The Chairman. John, I will not take any double-talk, any evasion 
on this. Either the Army is going to give me the names of the indi- 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 229 

viduals responsible for coddling and honorably discharging a known 
Communist — not only a run-of-the-mill but an important member 
of the Communist conspiracy — or the Army is going to refuse. 

I may say now, for the benefit of everyone concerned, if the Army 
refuses, I intend to take this to the floor of the Senate, and I intend 
to try to have cited for contempt any man in the military — and I do 
not care whether he is a civilian or an officer — who tries to cover up 
those responsible for this most shameful, most f antatistic situation. 

If you cannot answer that today, I would like to know when I can 
get the answer. It is a simple decision. I want to know whether or 
not there is a new day in the Army or not. I have a lot of respect for 
Secretary Stevens, and I received a letter which I cannot conceive of 
Secretary Stevens having himself written. He may have. 

Complete double-talk does not answer any of our questions. We 
are not going to take this, John, in this case. We are going to make 
an example here and see if we cannot set the pattern for a cleanout 
of those who have been invited into the military. 

If the new Secretary wants to do that himself, very good. I tliink 
he will. But I will want to know within 24 hours whether or not the 
Army is going to give us the names of those whom I just indicated. 
We will ask for that information by tomorrow night. 

If that period of time you think is unreasonable, we will give you 
additional time. I will be in Albany holding hearings tomorrow,, 
and I will want to get that information there. 

Mr. Peress, just 1 or 2 more questions. Wliile you were an officer 
in the Army, did you ever have access to any decoding or encoding 
machines ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. No. 

The Chairman. Were you ever O. D.? Were you ever officer of 
the day ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Yes. 

The Chairman. How often did you serve as officer of the day? 

Mr. Peress. Dental O. D. That just covers the dental clinic for 
emergency treatment that may come up. There is no administrative 
responsibility. It is just to take care of emergency dental situations. 
I was O. D. in rotation. It came up depending on the number of 
dental officers. If we had 20 dentat officers, it was every 3 weeks. 
Wlien we were down lower, it would come around more frequently. 

The Chairman. Your testimony is, then, that during all the time 
you were in the military, you never had access to any encoding or 
decoding machines? 

Mr. Peress. I don't even know what they are. 

The Chairman. You say you don't know what they are? 

Mr. Peress. I have never seen such a machine. 

The Chairman. Do you know what an encoding machine is? 

Mr. Peress. No. 

The Chairman. You don't know what is meant by an encoding 
machine ? 
Mr. Peress. No, I don't. 

The Chairman. Do you know what is meant by a decoding 
machine ? 

Mr. Peress. That I can figure out. 



230 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. You can figure that out. 

Did you ever see any messages, either before or after they were 
decoded, either while you were an officer of the day or otherwise? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Unless you mean my orders to take a leave of absence 
or to take part of my annual leave. I don't know if that is a coded 
or decoded message. I thought it was mimeographed. 

The Chairman. I think you know what I mean. I am just trying 
to get the facts. 

Is it your testimony that, as far as you know, other than routine 
orders, change of station, leave orders, other than orders of that kind 
you never saw any material, either before or after it was decoded? I 
have special reference to the times when you served as O. D. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. There is just a dental O. D, form, the name of the 
patient, serial number, and what you did for him. That is the only 
official printed material that you handle on O. D. 

The Chairman. General Zwicker, may I ask you a question. You 
can stay right there. 

Whenever I served as O. D. — and I think this has been general prac- 
tice in the Marine Corps, the Navy, and the Army — you normally had 
access to the encoding and decoding machines. Ordinarily an officer 
of the rank of major or above must take his stint at encoding or 
decoding. 

Could you tell me whether or not that has been the practice at Camp 
Kilmer? 

Brig. Gen. Ralph Zwicker (commanding officer, Camp Kilmer, 
N. J.). It is not. 

The Chairman. In other words, so far as you know, this individual 
never had access to any confidential or secret material ? 

General Zwicker. He did not. 

The Chairman. Your answer is what? 

General Zwicker. He did not. 

The Chairman. Just one other question. General. I did not intend 
to impose upon you this morning. 

His Army file contains reference to his being considered for — and 
I think I am quoting it correctly — sensitive work in May of 1953. 
Would you have any idea what that sensitive work was? If you do 
not know, we will show you the file to refresh your recollection. The 
file shows that in May, that is, after it was fully known that he was a 
Communist, the file shows that he was considered for sensitive work. 

The file does not show whether he was rejected or not. Just offliand, 
you wouldn't know what that sensitive work would be? 

General Zwicker. I do not. 

The Chairman. I wonder if you can do this: You are appearing 
this afternoon in executive session. I would like to have you here to 
listen to all of this testimony. If you have an aide with you, I wonder 
if you could have somebody call Camp Kilmer and find out just what 
the sensitive work was that he was being considered for. 

Mr. Peress. I might be able to help you on that. 

General Zwicker. Even if I did know, I would not be privileged to 
tell you, under the Executive order which forbids us to discuss matters 
of that nature. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 231 

The Chairman. I may say, General, you will be in difficulty if you 
refuse to tell us what sensitive work a Communist was being consid- 
ered for. There is no Executive order for the purpose of protecting 
Communists. I want to tell you right now, you will be asked that 
question this afternoon. You will be ordered to make available that 
information. 

Mr. Peress. I think I might know the answer to that, though I never 
heard about it. May I answer? 

The Chairman. You may. 

Mr. Peress. Apparently I was considered the best dentist at the 
post there, and they needed an extra prosthodontist. And where I was 
doing general dentistry, which is filling and routine dentistry, they 
needed another man to help the prosthodontist. 

In approximately May 1953, 1 was unofficially promoted to the pros- 
thetic section, where I worked through August; and then, because 
there was a falling off in operative work, I was put back to doing 
operative work, because of the production there. The records will 
show that my production in operative was also the greatest in the 
clinic. 

The Chairman. Let us return to the questions. 

Mr. Peress. This referred to a change of M. O. S., they called it. 

The Chairman. We are dealing, not with sensitive nerves in the 
teeth ; we are dealing with a security matter, I asked whether or not 
the general knew what sensitive security work you were being con- 
sidered for. You say that had to do with the teeth. 

Mr. Peress, Well, it was approximately May 1953, that the colonel 
called me down and said that they had been considering me — not 
a promotion in rank, but a promotion in work — to go up to prosthetics 
and work there. It is my own opinion that I was very good. 

The Chairman. Mr. Peress, the record shows that you signed a 
document identical to exhibit 9, which I will show you. You signed 
that under oath, certifying nonmembership in subversive organiza- 
tions, naming the organizations 

Mr, Peress. I decline to answer that question. 

The Chairman, Let me finish before you decline. 

When you signed that, were you falsely swearing, or were you 
telling the truth '? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr, Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth 
amendment. 

The Chairman. You are entitled to decline. 

Mr, Rainville. I am Harold Rainville, from Senator Dirksen's 
office. While the Senator is seeking certain material which he wants 
to question you on, may I just develop one thing which I think has 
been overlooked here. 

Did you ever serve overseas? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel,) 

Mr. Peress. No, 

Mr, Rainville, Were you ever ordered to go overseas ? 

Mr. Peress, Yes, 

Mr. Rainville. Were your orders then changed ? 

Mr. Peress. Yes, 

Mr, Rainville. Do you know why they were changed ? 

Mr. Peress. I can only surmise. I was given no official reason. 



■232 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

I Mr. Rainville. Were you ever interrogated after the change, any 
discussion as to your future assignment ? 

Mr. Peress. i had orders to go to Fort Lewis and to proceed from 
there to Yokohama, Japan. I got to Fort Lewis, and I got in touch 
with the Red Cross. They secured an emergency leave for me. I had 
compassionate reasons to request a reassignment. Tliere are Army 
regulations under the title of "Compassionate Reassignment." 

The Red Cross got — after investigating the case — got the time for 
me, and through channels I was reassigned to Camp Kilmer. 

Mr. Rainville. Do you mind telling us what the emergency was? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Well, as you know, sir, they are part of the record, and 
I do mind telling you, because I don't feel it is integral to the investi- 
gation that you are carrying on now, the reasons for it. But they 
are part of the official records. 

Mr. Rainville. Well, if I am correct in my information, it was 
because your 6-year-old daughter needed psychiatric treatment ; is that 
right? 

Mr. Peress. She was undergoing it at the time. That was one of 
the reasons. 

Mr. Rainville. Did you get any aid in receiving that cancellation 
of your embarkation orders, other than the Red Cross ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Could you be more specific about that, sir ? 

Mr. Rainville. Let me be a little bit explanatory. We in the Sen- 
ators' offices are frequently called upon for emergency help whenever 
there is a situation of this kind. We frequently find that in situa- 
tions which are much more critical, a dying wife who is dying of can- 
cer or a dying child, it makes it very difficult for us to stop an em- 
barkation order even for a temporary reason. 

I have no doubt your daughter needed the treatment. Neverthe- 
less, it seems a little odd to me that you should be completely re- 
assigned. A man with the ability as a dentist such as you have would 
certainly have been needed abroad. I wanted to know. Did you know 
somebody in the Adjutant General's office? You didn't speak to any 
Congressman or Senator, and yet just the Red Cross was able to stop 
it? 

Mr. Peress. I didn't speak to any Congressman or Senator, and the 
reasons are not as far-fetched as you attempt to seem to understand 
them at this point. As I say, the authority exists in the Army regu- 
lations, which are also available to you, and the Red Cross does the 
investigating as to whether there is really a compassionate need for 
consideration of the case as to stop an embarkation. 

The Chairman. I think in fairness to the Red Cross — I do not Iniow 
who investigated this case — as I understand it, the Red Cross merely 
makes an investigation and does not take any active part in getting 
a change or cancellation of orders. The Red Cross merely reports 
the facts. I believe that is correct. I may be wrong in that. 

Mr. Peress. As I was saying, the Red Cross reports on whether 
there exists sufficient reason to warrant a consideration by the Army, 
because otherwise the orders cannot be halted in time. 

Mr. Rainville. Very f requentlv the Red Cross comes to us and asks 
for our aid because very frequently they alone cannot get these things 
•done in the time allowed. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 233 

My question is, if the Ked Cross did this, and did it alone for you, 
from my experience in handling hundreds of these cases a week, for 
what is trivial compared to other things — not to you, of course, a 
trivial reason — I would like to know if you did not know someone 
some place, somebody in the Adjutant General's office, perhaps a party 
member ? 

Mr. Peress. To my knowledge, I know nobody in the Adjutant 
General's office, without qualification. 

Mr. Rainville. In 1949, did you serve in a Communist cell with 
anybody who might have had influence in the Army, who was an 
officer in the Army ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. That question I decline to answer, on the fifth amend- 
ment. 

Mr. Rainville. I presume it is useless to ask you whether or not 
that person still is in the Adjutant General's office ? 

Mr. Peress. Wliich person ? 

Mr. Rainville. The person you decline to answer about. 

Mr. Peress. Does such a person exist because of the posing of the 
question ? 

Mr. Rainville. I would presume if he didn't exist, it would be easier 
for you to say no than to decline to answer. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. You will either talk for the record or you will talk 
only to your counsel. I will hear none of these speeches off the record 
from you. If you want to discuss any matter with your counsel, you 
will do it in an undertone so that only you and he can hear it. Other- 
wise you will speak for the record. 

Mr. Rainville. Just one last question. Your daughter is still 
undergoing these treatments, and that is the reason you were still 
here until February 2 ? 

Mr. Peress. I don't know the reason I am here, but my daughter is 
still undergoing the treatments. 

The Chairman. There is one further question. Did a member of 
the Communist Party help you get your orders changed from Yoko- 
hama to Camp Kilmer? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds that it 
might tend to incriminate me. 

The Chairman. Were you successful in forming a Communist cell 
at Camp Kilmer ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Did your wife attend a Communist leadership 
school ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question. 

The Chairman. Just to refresh your recollection, we will give you 
the name of the school. 

Mr. CoHN. It was the leadership training course at t>»e Inwood 
Victory Club, which was conducted at 139 Dyckman Street. 

The Chairman. With your memory refreshed, did you attend that 
leadership school ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question on the grounds thar 
it might tend to incriminate me, under the fifth amendment. 



234 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman, How long have you been married? 

Mr. Peress. What is the question ? 

The Chairman. How long have you been married, just rouglily? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Is that relevant to this investigation ? 

The Chairman. Answer the question. 

Mr. Peress. Since June 7, 1942. 

The Chairman. Does your wife have any brothers or sisters work- 
ing for the Government ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Or for any Government agency? 
 Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question. 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. You go right ahead, Mister, and decline. 

Do you have any brothers or sisters working for any Government 
agency ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer. 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer. 

The Chairman. Give us the names of your brothers. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. William 

Tlie Chairman. What is his last name? The same as yours? 

Mr. Peress. The same as mine. 

The Chairman. What is his address? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Brooklyn, I will have to look it up. 

The Chairman. Is he a member of the Communist Party? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that. 

The Chairman. Whereabouts in Brooklyn does William live? 

Mr. Peress. I don't know the name of the section. 

The Chairman. The last question was: Where does William live 
in Brooklyn? 

Mr. Peress. I said I don't — what do you mean; the street? 

The Chairman. Yes, as best you can tell us. 

Mr. Peress. I don't know. 

The Chairman. You don't know what street he lives on? 

Mr, Peress. I am not sure. I know how to go there. 

The Chairman. How do you go there? 

Mr. Peress. I drive on the Belt Parkway from my house and go 
down Flatlands Avenue. I don't know the streets where I turn over 
to go there. 

The Chairman. What is your brother's occupation? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it. 

Mr. Peress. I decline, sir, under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. Does he work for the Government, the United 
States Government? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer. 

Mr. Peress. I decline. 



i 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 235 

The Chairman. How many other brothers do you have ? 

Mr. Peress. One. 

The Chairman. What is his name? 

Mr. Peress. Same last name; Abraham Herbert. 

The Chairman. And where does Abraham work ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

Mr. Peress. Where does he work? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Peress. 10 Hillside Avenue. 

The Chairinian. 10 Hillside Avenue. Wliat kind of work does 
he do? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Let's put it this way: Does he work either in a 
defense plant or for any Government agency ? 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question under the fifth amend- 
ment. 

The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to tell us the truth in answer 
to that question that answer might tend to incriminate you ? 

Mr. Peress. It might. 

The Chairman. Do you feel it might? 

Mr. Peress. I feel it might. 

The Chairman. Do you feel if you were to tell us the truth as to 
where William worked that answer might tend to incriminate you? 

Mr. Peress. I feel it might. 

The Chairman. Again, while I don't think I owe any duty to mem- 
bers of the Communist conspiracy, I do want to let you know what this 
committee intends to do, insofar as I, as chairman, can get them to 
do it, so you cannot claim you were entrapped or claim ignorance at 
some future proceedings. I intend to find out, obviously, what your 
two brothers are doing. If their occupation could in no way tend 
to incriminate you, I will ask that you be cited for contempt. I just 
want you to know that. I just want you to know that you Communists 
cannot play with the fifth amendment before this committee. 

Do you have any sisters ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. While Mr. Peress is consulting with his counsel, 
Mr. Adams, what I would like to have this afternoon is the name of 
the individual who has been in charge of Peress' personnel file which 
we subpenaed. I would like to have him before us under oath on the 
question of the completeness of the file. 

I want to tell you, in view of the fact that we have always been 
laying our cards strictly on the table with you and with Mr. Stevens, 
that we have an inventory of the file at the time we subpenaed it, and 
we have compared that with the file as handed to us. So I will want 
the man who was in charge of this file, who answered the subpena and 
presented it — I want him here under oath to explain the discrepancy 
between the inventory which we received from another Government 
agency and the inventory as the file was handed to us. 

I assume that you might have some difficulty getting him in here 

this afternoon. If possible, I would like to have him this afternoon; 

and if not, we will want to hear him in Washington next week. 

Mr. Peress. I will decline to answer that under the fifth amendment. 

The Chairman. You decline to answer whether you have any 

sisters ? 

52461 — 54 16 



236 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Peress. I thought you were back on the other point. No; I 
have no sisters. 

The Chairman. You have no sisters. Is your father living ? 

Mr. Peress. Yes. 

The Chairman. Is he working for the Government? 

(The witness conferred with his counseh) 

Mr. Peress. I decline to answer that question. 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. What is you father's first name ? 

Mr. Peress. On the last question, my father is not working at all. 

The Chairman. Your father is not working ? 

(The witness conferred with his counsel.) 

The Chairman. Mr. Peress, I realize this as a waste of the com- 
mittee's time to ask you this question, except that we want the record 
complete. Can you tell us, can you shed any light at all on the ques- 
tion of why you were commissioned, why you were promoted, why 
you were given an honorable discharge after the public records dis- 
closed that you were a Communist Party leader; after the record 
shows as early as April of 1953 your commanding officer and the com- 
manding officer of the First Army joined in a recommendation to have 
you immediately separated after you refused to tell the Army whether 
you were a part of the Communist conspiracy ? 

As I say, I realize it is a waste of time asking you to answer the ques- 
tion, but I want to have the record complete. Wliat is your answer? 

Mr. Peress. I really couldn't make a question out of it. Would 
you repeat it please ? 

The Chairman. No, it is not necessary. 

Mr. Peress. What was the significance of April 1953 ? 

The Chairman. May I say, for the benefit of your counsel, while 
this fifth amendment Communist may have been removed from the 
court martial jurisdiction of the Army, he has not been removed from 
the jurisdiction of our civil courts. I am referring the entire record 
in this case, both in executive session and in public session, together 
with the affidavits which he has signed, obviously false affidavits, 
to the Justice Department with the suggestion that this be submitted 
to a grand jury for criminal prosecution. 

I may say to counsel, as a courtesy to counsel, if you will keep in 
touch with the chief counsel of our committee, Mr. Roy Cohn, he will 
keep you informed as to the steps that we take in Mr. Peress' case. 

Mr. Peress, you are not released from the subpena. You will con- 
sider yourself under subpena. 

Let me ask counsel, when we want this individual again would 
you prefer that we notify you, or would you prefer that the notice 
go directly to Peress ? 

Mr. Faulkner. You may notify me. 

The Charman. We try to give sufficient notice so that it can fit into 
your other work. 

I assume 4 or 5 days or a week's time would be sufficient? 

Mr. Faulkner. We are ready, willing, and able to testify at any 
time we are called upon. We came down here the last time without 
subpena, in executive session. 

Tlie Chairman. Yes. You were ordered down by the Army. 

Mr. FAUiiKNER. There was no order, Mr. Senator. 

The Chairman. We will not waste any time on that. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 237 

You understand, ]\Ir. Peress, you are under subpena. Your coun- 
sel will be notified when you are to return before the committee. 

This afternoon at 2 : 30, we will hear the Army, certain Army offi- 
cers, in executive session. 

Again, may I say that the legal counsel for the Army is invited to- 
be present, if he cares to. 

Mr. Faulkner. Are we requested to remain for the rest of the day ? 

The Chairman. No. You will be notified when you are wanted 
again. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 15 p. m., the public hearing was recessed, subject 
to call.) 

TESTIMONY OF BRIG. GEN. RALPH W. ZWICKER, UNITED STATES 
ARMY; ACCOMPANIED BY CAPT. W. J. WOODWARD, MEDICAL 
CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY 

General Zwicker. I do. 

Before we start, there is no need for a medical officer to be in here. 

The Chairman. That is O. K. 

Mr. CoHN. A man who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client, 
and it is the same thing with a man who tries to be his own doctor. 

General, could we have your full name? 

General Zwicker. Ralph W. Zwicker. 

Mr, CoHN. General, to see if we can save a little time here, isn't the 
situation this — by the way, you have been commanding officer at Kilmer 
since when? 

General Zwicker. Since the middle of July last year. 

Mr. CoHN. Has the Peress case come to your attention since that 
time ? I am not asking questions about it. 

General Zwicker. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. It has come to your attention and you have a familiarity 
with that case? 

General Zwicker. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, general, would you like to be able to tell us exactly 
what happened in that case, and what steps you took and others took 
down at Kilmer to take action against Peress a long time before action 
was finally forced by the committee ? 

General Zwicker. That is a toughie. 

Mr. CoHN. All I am asking you now is if you could, if you were at 
liberty to do so, would you like to be in a position to tell us that story ? 

General Zwicker. Well, may I say that if I were in a position to do 
so, I would be perfectly glad to give the committee any information 
that they desired. 

Mr. CoHN. You certainly feel that that information would not 
reflect unfavorably on you ; is that correct? 

General Zwicker. Definitely not. 

Mr. CoHN. And would not reflect unfavorably on a number of other 
people at Kilmer and the First Army ? 

General Zwicker. Definitely not. 

The Chairman. It would reflect unfavorably upon some of them, 
of course ? 

General Zwicker. That I can't answer, sir. I don't know. 

The Chairman. Well, you know that somebody has kept this man 
on, knowing he was a Communist, do you not ? 



238 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. You know that somebody has kept him on know- 
ing that he has refused to tell whether he was a Communist, do you 
not? 

General Zwicker. I am afraid that would come under the category 
of the Executive order, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. What? 

General Zwicker. I am afraid an answer to that question would 
come under the category of the Presidential Executive order. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question. 

General Zwicker. Would you repeat the question, please? 

Mr. CoHN. Read it to the general. 

(The question referred to was read by the reporter.) 

General Zwicker. I respectfully decline to answer, Mr. Chairman, 
on the grounds of the directive, Presidential directive, which, in my 
interpretation, will not permit me to answer that question. 

The Chairman. You know that somebody signed or authorized an 
honorable discharge for this man, knowing that he was a fifth amend- 
ment Communist, do you not? 

General Zwicker. I know that an lionorable discharge was signed 
for the man. 

The Chairman. 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 ansAver certain questions? 

General Zw^icker. No, sir, not specifically on answering any ques- 
tions. I knew that he had appeared before your committee. 

The Chairman. Didn't you read the news ? 

General Zwicker. I read the news releases. 

The Chairman. And the news releases were to the effect that he had 
refused to tell whether he was a Communist, and that there was evi- 
dence that he had attended Communist leadership schools. It was on 
all the wire service stories, was it not ? You knew generally what he 
was here for, did you not? 

General Zwicker. Yes; indeed. 

The Chairman. And you knew generally that he had refused to tell 
whethei^fte was a Communist, did you not? 

General Zwicker. I don't recall whether he refused to tell whether 
he was a Communist. 

The Chairman. Are you the commanding oflScer there? 

General Zwicker. I am the commanding general. 

The Chairman. Wlien an officer appears before a committee and 
refuses to answer, would you not read that story rather carefully? 

Genera] Zwicker. I read the press releases. 

The Chairman. Then, General, you knew, did you not, that he 
appeared before the committee and refused, on the grounds of the 
fifth amendment, to tell about all of his Communist activities? You 
knew that, did you not? 

General Zwicker. I knew everything that was in the press. 

The Chairman, Don't be coy with me. General. 

General Zwicker. I am not being coy, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you have that general picture? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 239 

General Zwicker. I believe I remember reading in the paper that 
he had taken refuge in the fifth amendment to avoid answering 
questions before the committee. 

The Chairman, About communism? 

General Zwicker. I am not too certain about that. 

The Chairman. Do you mean that you did not have enough interest 
in the case, General, the case of this major who was in your command, 
to get some idea of what questions he had refused to answer ? Is that 
correct ? 

General Zwicker. I think that is not putting it quite right, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. You put it right, then. 

General Zwicker. I have great interest in all of the officers of my 
command, with whatever they do. 

The Chairman. Let's stick to fifth-amendment Communists, now. 
Let's stick to him. You told us you read the press releases. 

General Zwicker. I did. 

The Chairman, But now you indicate that you did not know that he 
refused to tell about his Communist activities. Is that correct '? 

General Zwicker. I know that he refused to answer questions for the 
committee. 

The Chairman. Did you know that he refused to answer questions 
about his Communist activities? 

General Zwicker. Specifically, I don't believe so. 

The Chairman. Did you have any idea? 

General Zwicker. Of course I had an idea. 

The Chairman. What do you think he was called down here for? 

General Zwicker. For that specific purpose. 

The Chairman. Then you knew that those were the questions he was 
asked, did you not? General, let's try and be truthful. I am going 
to keep you here as long as you keep hedging and hemming. 

General Zwicker. I am not hedging. 

The Chairman. Or hawing. 

General Zwicker. I am not hawing, and I don't like to have anyone 
impugn my honesty, which you just about did. 

The Chairman. Either your honesty or your intelligence; I can't 
help impugning one or the other, when you tell us that a major in your 
command who was known to you to have been before a Senate com- 
mittee, and of whom you read the press releases very carefully — to 
now have you sit here and tell us that you did not know whether he 
refused to answer questions about Conununist activities, I had seen 
all the press releases, and they all dealt with that. So when you do 
that. General, if you will pardon me, I cannot help but question either 
your honesty or your intelUigence, one or the other. I want to be 
frank with you on that. 

Now, is it your testimony now 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 Zwicker. I am sure I had that impression. 

The Chairman. Did you also read the stories about my letter to 
Secretary of the Army Stevens in which I requested or, rather, sug- 
gested that this man be court-martialed, and that anyone that pro- 
tected him or covered up for him be court-martialed? 



240 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

General Zwicker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairiman. That appeared in the papers on Sunday and Mon- 
day, 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 whoever got him special 
consideration ? 

General Zwicker. If the time jibes, I was. 

The Chairman. Were you aware that he was being given a dis- 
charge on February 2? In other words, the day he was discharged, 
were you aware of it ? 

General Zwicker. Yes ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Wlio ordered his discharge? 

General Zwicker. The Department of the Army. 

The Chairman. "Who in the Department? 

General Zwicker. That I can't answer. 

Mr. CoHN. That isn't a security matter ? 

General Zwicker. No. I don't know. Excuse me. 

Mr. CoHN. Who did you talk to? You talked to somebody? 

General Zwicker. No, I did not. 

Mr. CoHN. How did you know he should be discharged ? 

General Zwicker. You also have a copy of this. I don't know why 
you asked me for it. This is the order under which he was discharged, 
a copy of that order. 

The Chairman. Just a minute. 

You are referring to an order of January 19. 

General Zwicker. I am not sure, sir. Just a moment. 

The Chairman. January 18. Will you tell me whether or not you 
were at all concerned about the fact that this man was getting an 
honorable discharge after the chairman of the Senate Investigating 
Committee had suggested to the Department of the Army that he be 
court-martialed ? Did that give you any concern ? 

General Z\\^CKER. It may have concerned me, but it could not have 
changed anything that was done in carrying out this order. 

The Chairman. Did you take any steps to have him retained until 
the Secretary of the Army could decide whether he should be court- 
martialed ? 

General Zavicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did it occur to you that you should ? 

General Z"\^t:cker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Could you have taken such steps ? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. In other words, there is nothing you could have 
done ; is that your statement ? 

General Zwicker. That is my opinion. 

Mr. Eainville. May I interrupt a minute? Doesn't that order 
specifically state that this is subject to your check as to whether he 
is in good health and can be discharged ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 241 

General Zwicker, May I read it ? 

Mr. Rainville. I read the order. It is in there. 

General Zwicker. Paragraph 5 of this order states : 

Officer will not be separated prior to determination that he is physically quali- 
fied for separation by your headquarters. 

Mr. Rainville. That is a decision that yon must make ? 

General Zwicker. Not me personally. My medical officers. 

Mr. Rainville. But he would report to you. He would not make 
the decision without giving you, the commanding general, the order 
for final verification ? 

General Zwicker. It would not be necessary. If something were 
found wrong physically with the man, he would be retained. 

Mr. Rain\t[lle. He would report to you ? 

General Z"wicker. No. He would be retained. 

Mr. Rainville. It would be automatic, and you would not have to 
sign anything? 

General Zwicker. I would not personally, no. The medical officer 
would make such a report. 

Mr. Rainville. But there was somebody in your outfit who could 
say, "This man can go out or can't go out," and that was the doctor? 

General Zwicker. He could not keep him in if he were physically 
qualified for separation. 

Mr. Rainville. But he could say he could not go out, so that there 
was discretion within that 90-day period. 

The Chairman. Let me ask this question: If this man, after the 
order came up, after the order of the 18th came up, prior to his get- 
ting an honorable discharge, were guilty of some crime — let us say 
that he held up a bank or stole an automobile — and you heard of that 
the day before — let us say you heard of it the same day that you heard 
of my letter — could you then have taken steps to prevent his discharge, 
or would he have automatically been discharged ? 

General Zwicker. I would have definitely taken steps to prevent 
discharge. 

The Chairman. In other words, if you found that he was guilty of 
improper conduct, conduct unbecoming an officer, we will say, then 
you would not have allowed the honorable discharge to go through, 
would you ? 

General Zwicker. If it were outside the directive of this order ? 

The Chairman. Well, yes, let us s^iy it were outside the directive. 

General Zwicker. Then I certainly would never have discharged 
him until that part of the case 

The Chahcsian. Let us say he went out and stole $50 the night 
before. 

General Zwicker. He wouldn't have been discharged. 

The Chairman. Do you think stealing $50 is more serious than being 
a traitor to the country as part of the Communist conspiracy ? 

General Zwicker. That, sir, was not my decision. 

The Chairman. You said if you learned that he stole $50, you would 
have prevented his discharge. You did learn something much more 
serious than that. You learned that he had refused to tell whether he 
was a Communist. You learned that the chairman of a Senate com- 
mittee suggested he be court-martialed. And you say if he had stolen 
$50 he would not have gotten the honorable discharge. But merely 
being a part of the Communist conspiracy, and the chairman of the 



242 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

committee asking that he be court-martialed, would not give you 
grounds for holdnig up his discharge. Is that correct? 

General Zwicker. Under the terms of this letter, that is correct, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Chairman. That letter says nothing about stealing $50, and it 
does not say anj'thing about being a Communist. It does not say any- 
thing about his appearance before our connnittee. He appeared before 
our committee after that order was made out. 

Do you think you sound a bit ridiculous, General, when you say that 
for $50, you would prevent his being discharged, but for being a part 
of the conspiracy to destroy this country you could not prevent his 
discharge ? 

General Zvncjs.F,R. I did not say that, sir. 

The Chairman. Let's go over that. You did say if you found out 
he stole $50 the night before, he would not have gotten an honorable 
discharge the next morning? 

General Zwicker. That is correct. 

The Chairman. You did learn, did you not, from the newspaper 
reports, that this man was part of the Communist conspiracy, or at 
least that there was strong evidence that he was. Did you not think 
that was more serious than the theft of $50 ? 

General Zwicker. He has never been tried for that, sir, and there 
was evidence, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Don't you give me doubletalk. The $50 case, that 
he had stolen the night before, he has not been tried for that. 

General Zwicker. That is correct. He didn't steal it yet. 

The Chairman. Would you wait until he was tried for stealing the 
$50 before you prevented his honorable discharge ? 

( reneral Zwicker. Either tried or exonerated. 

The Chaikman. You would hold up the discharge until he was tried 
or exonerated? 

General Zwicker. For stealing the $50 ; yes. 

The Chairman. But if you heard that tliis man was a traitor — in 
other words, instead of hearing that he had stolen $50 from the corner 
store, let us say you heard that he was a traitor, he belonged to the 
Communist conspiracy ; that a Senate committee had the sworn testi- 
mony to that effect. Then would you hold up his discharge until he 
was either exonerated or tried ? 

General Zwicker. I am not going to answer that question, I don't 
believe, the way you want it, sir. 

The CHAHiMAN. I just want you to tell me the truth. 

General Zwicker. On all of the evidence or anything that had been 
presented to me as Commanding General of Camp Kilmer, I had no 
authority to retain him in the service. 

The Chairman. You say that if you had heard that he had stolen 
$50, then you could order him retained. But when you heard that he 
was part of the Communist conspiracy, that subsequent to the time the 
orders were issued a Senate committee took the evidence under oath 
that he was part of the conspiracy, you say that would not allow you 
to hold up his discharge? 

General Zwicker. I was never officially informed by anyone that he 
was part of the Communist conspiracy, Mr. Senator. 

The Chairman. Well, let's see now. You say you were never offi- 
cially informed? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 243 

General Zwicker. No. 

The Chairman. If you heard that he had stolen $50 from someone 
down the street, if you did not hear it officially, then could you hold 
up his discharge? Or is there same peculiar way you must hear it? 

General Zwicker. I believe so, yes, sir, until I was satisfied that he 
had or hadn't, one way or the other. 

The Chairman. You would not need any official notification so far 
far as the 50 bucks is concerned ? 

General Zwicker. Yes. 

The Chairman. But you say insofar as the Communist conspiracy 
is concerned, you need an official notification ? 

General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; because I was acting on an official order, 
having precedence over that. 

The Chairman. How about the $50 ? If one of your men came in a 
half hour before he got his honorable discharge and said, "General", I 
just heard downtown from a police officer that this man broke into a 
store last night and stole $50," you would not give him an honorable 
discharge until you had checked the case and found out whether that 
was true or not ; would you ? 

General Zwicker. I would expect the authorities from downtown to 
inform me of that or, let's say, someone in a position to suspect that 
he did it. 

The Chairman. Let's say one of the trusted privates in your com- 
mand came in to you and said, "General, I was just downtown and I 
have evidence that Major Peress broke into a store and stole $50." 
You would not discharge him until you had checked the facts, seen 
whether or not the private was telling the truth and seen whether or 
not he had stolen the $50 ? 

General Zwicker. No; I don't believe I would. I would make a 
check, certainly, to check the story. 

The Chairman. Would you tell us. General, why $50 is so much 
more important to you than being part of the conspiracy to destroy a 
nation which you are sworn to defend ? 

General Zwicker. Mr. Chairman, it is not, and you know that as 
well as I do. 

The Chairman. I certainly do. That is why I cannot understand 
you sitting there, General, a General in the Army, and telling me that 
you could not, would not, hold up his discharge having received 
information 

General Zwicker. I could not hold up his discharge. 

The Chairman. Why could you not do it in the case of an allegation 
of membership in a Communist conspiracy, where you could if you 
merely heard some private's word that he had stolen $50 ? 

General Zwicker. Because, Mr. Senator, any information that 
appeared in the press or any releases was well known to me and well 
known to plenty of other people long prior to the time that you ever 
called this man for investigation, and there were no facts or no alle- 
gations, nothing presented from the time that he appeared before your 
first investigation that was not apparent prior to that time. 

The Chairman. In other words, as you sat here this morning and 
listened to the testimony you heard nothing new ? 

Mr. CoHN. Nothing substantially new? 

General Zwicker. I don't believe so. 



244 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The CsAniMAisr. So that all of these facts were known at the time 
he was ordered to receive an honorable discharge ? 

General Zwicker. I believe they are all on record ; yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think, General, that anyone who is respon- 
sible for giving an honorable discharge to a man who has been named 
under oath as a member of the Commimist conspiracy should himself 
be removed from the military ? 

General Zwicker. You are speaking of generalities now, and not 
on specifics — is that right, sir, not mentioning about any one par- 
ticular person ? 

The Chairman. That is right. 

General Zwicker. I have no brief for that kind of person, and if 
there exists or has existed something in the system that permits that, 
I say that that is wrong. 

The Chairman. I am not talking about the system. I am asking 
you this question, General, a very simple question : Let us assume that 
John Jones, who is a major in the United States Army 

General Zwicker. A what, sir ? 

The Chairman. Let us assume that John Jones is a major in the 
United States Army. Let us assume that there is sworn testimony 
to the effect that he is part of the Communist conspiracy, has attended 
Communist leadership schools. Let us assume that Maj, John Jones 
is under oath before a committee and says, "I cannot tell you the truth 
about these charges because, if I did, I fear that might tend to incrimi- 
nate me." Then let us say that General Smith was responsible for 
this man receiving an honorable discharge, knowing these facts. Do 
you think that General Smith should be removed from the military, 
or do you think he should be kept on in it ? 

General Zwicker. He should be by all means kept if he were acting 
under competent orders to separate that man. 

The Chairman, Let us say he is the man who signed the orders. 
Let us say General Smith is the man who originated the order. 

General Zwicker. Originated the order directing his separation? 

The Chairman. Directing his honorable discharge. 

General Zwicker. Well, that is pretty hypothetical. 

The Chairman. It is pretty real. General. 

General Zwicker. Sir, on one point, yes. I mean, on an individual, 
yes. But you know that there are thousands and thousands of people 
being separated daily from our Army. 

The Chairman. General, you understand my question 

General Zwicker. Maybe not. 

The Chairman. And you are going to answer it. 

General Zwicker. Repeat it. 

The Chairman. The reporter will repeat it. 

(The question referred to was read by the reporter.) 

General Zwicker. That is not a question for me to decide. Senator. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer it. General. You are 
an employee of the people. 

General Zwicker. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You have a rather important job. I want to know 
how you feel about getting rid of Communists. 

General Zwicker. I am all for it. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 245 

The Chairman. All right. You will answer that question, unless 
you take the fifth amendment. I do not care how long we stay here, 
you are going to answer it. 

General Zwicker. Do you mean how I feel toward Communists ? 

The Chairman. I mean exactly what I asked you, General ; nothing 
else. And anyone with the brains of a 5-year-old child can understand 
that question. 

The reporter will read it to you as often as you need to hear it so that 
you can answer it, and then you will answer it. 

General Zwicker. Start it over, please. 

(The question was reread by the reporter.) 

General Zwicker. I do not think he should be removed from the 
military. 

The Chairman. Then, General, you should be removed from any 
command. Any man who has been given the honor of being promoted 
to general and who says, "I will protect another general who protected 
Communists," is not fit to wear that uniform. General. I think it is a 
tremendous disgrace to the Army to have this sort of thing given to the 
public. I intend to give it to them. I have a duty to do that. I 
intend to repeat to the press exactly what you said. So you know 
that. You will be back here. General. 

Do you know who initiated the order for the honorable discharge 
of this major? 

General Zwicker. As a person, sir? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

General Zwicker. No, I do not. 

The Chairman. Have you tried to find out ? 

General Zwicker. No, I have not. 

The Chairman. Have you discussed that matter with Mr. Adams ? 

General Zwicker. As a person, no, sir. 

The Chairman. How did you discuss it with him other than as a 
person ? 

General Zwicker. I mean as an individual. This is a Department 
of the Army order. 

The Chairman. Have you tried to find out who is responsible ? 

General Zwicker. Who signed this order? 

The Chairman. Who was responsible for the order ? 

General Zwicker. No, sir ; I have not. 

The Chairman. Are you curious ? 

General Zwicker. Frankly, no. 

The Chairman. You were fully satisfied, then, when you got the 
order to give an honorable discharge to this Communist major? 

General Zwicker, I am sorry, sir ? 

The Chairman. Read the question. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

General Zwicker. Yes, sir ; I was. 

Mr. Cohn. General, I have just one or two questions. 

The Chairman. Let me ask one question. 

In other words, you think it is proper to give an honorable dis- 
charge to a man known to be a Communist ? 

General Zwicker. No, I do not. 

The Chairman. Wliy do you think it is proper in this case? 

General Zwicker. Because I was ordered to do so. 



246 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. In other words, anything that you are ordered to 
do, you think is proper? 

General Zwicker. That is correct. Anything that I am ordered 
to do by higher authority, I must accept. 

The Chairman. Do you think that the higher authority would be 
guilty of improper conduct? 

General Zwicker. It is conceivable. 

The Chairman. Do you think they are guilty of improper conduct 
here? 

General Zwicker. I am not their judge, sir. 

The Chairman. Do 3'ou think to order the honorable discharge for 
a Communist major was improper conduct? 

General Zwicker. I think it was improper procedure, sir. 

The Chairman. Do you think it is improper? 

Mr. CoHN. General, I just want to ask you this: Peress was dis- 
charged on February 2, which was a Tuesday. 

General Zwicker. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. He appeared before the committee on Saturday. On 
Monday or Tuesday, did you speak to anybody in the Department of 
the Army in Washington, telephonically, about the Peress case ? On 
Monday or Tuesday ? 

General Zwicker. Let me think a minute. 

It is possible that I called First Army to inform them that Peress 
had changed his mind and desired a discharge as soon as possible. 

Mr. CoHN. Who would you have told in the First Army? Wlia 
would you call ? G-2, or General Burress ? 

General Zwicker. I don't think in that case I would call General 
Burress. 

Mr. CoHN. General Seabree? 

General Zwicker. No. It would have been G-1, or Deputy Chief 
of Staff. 

Mr. CoHN. Who is that? 

General Zwicker. General Gurney. 

Mr. CoiiN. You don't remember which one it was? 

General Zwicker. I don't recall that I called. 

Mr. CoiiN. Did you talk to Mr. Adams in those days ? 

General Zavicker. No, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you ever talk to Mr. Adams before yesterday? 
You recall whether or not you spoke to him. 

General Zwicker. I know Mr. Adams, yes. There was one call, 
but I think that came from a member of your committee, from Wash- 
ington, requesting that this man appear before your committee first. 

The Chairman. You understand the question. Did you talk to 
Mr. Adams before yesterday ? 

General Zwicker. I don't recall. I don't believe so, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you talk to anyone in Washington? 

General Zwicker. No, sir, about this case. 

The Chairman. Within the week preceding his discharge? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you at any time ever object to this man being 
honorably discharged ? 

General Zavicker. I respectfully decline to answer that, sir. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer it. 

General Zwicker. That is on the grounds of this Executive order. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 247 

The Chairman. You are ordered to answer. That is a personnel 
matter. 

General Zwicker. I shall still respectfully decline to answer it. 

The Chairman. Did you ever take any steps which would have aided 
him in continuing in the military after you knew that he was a Com- 
munist? 

General Zwicker. That would have aided him in continuing, sir? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

General Zwicker. No. 

The Chairman. Did you ever do anything instrumental in his ob- 
taining his promotion after knowing that he was a fifth-amendment 
case ? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you ever object to his being promoted? 

General Zwicker. I had no opportunity to, sir. 

The Chairman. Did you ever enter any objection to the promotion 
of this man under your command? 

General Zwicker. I had no opportunity to do that. 

The Chairman. You say you clid not ; is that correct ? 

General Zwicker. That is correct. 

The Chairman, And you refuse to tell us whether you objected to 
his obtaining an honorable discharge? 

General Zwicker. I don't believe that is quite the way the question 
was phrased before. 

The Chairman. Well, answer it again, then. 

General Zwicker. I respectfully request that I not answer that 
question. 

The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer. 

General Zwicker. Under the same authority as cited before, I can- 
not answer it. 

Mr. CoHN. Did anybody on your staff. General — Colonel Brown or 
anyone in G-2 — communicate with the Department of tlie Army on 
February 1 or February 2? In other words, in connection with the 
discharge ? 

General Zwicker. I don't know, but I don't believe so. 

Mr. CoHN. To the best of your knowledge, no? 

General Zwicker. No. 

Mr. CoHN. In other words, on January 18, 1954, you received a 
direction from the Secretary, signed by the Adjutant General, I as- 
sume that is General Bergin, telling you to give this man an honoral)]e 
discharge from the Army at any practicable date, depending on his 
desire, but in no event later than 90 days; that that was the order, and 
you had nothing from the order to change that order in view of his 
testimony before the committee ; and therefore, when the man came in 
and wanted an honorable discharge, you felt under this order com- 
pelled to give it to him as a decision that had been made by the 
Adjutant General. Is that correct? 

General Zwicker. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. And you received no additional words from the Adju- 
tant General on February 1 or February 2, and before you gave the 
discharge you did not call and say, "In view of all of tliis, and his 
testimony on Saturday, and Senator McCarthy's request for a court- 
ma rf in 1. fliis man i<? in here now, and is that all right?" You never 
made any such call ? 



248 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

General Zwicker. No ; I did not. 

Mr. Rainville. General, I think at one place there you said he 
changed his request to an immediate discharge ? 
General Zwicker. That is correct. 

Mr. Rainville. Then he had previously objected to the discharge 
or at least he wanted the full 90 clays ? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. He requested to be discharged on 
March 31, 1 think, which would make it 60 days from receipt, rather 
than the full 90. He did not ask for the full 90, but he asked for 
what amounted to 60 days, 2 months. 

Mr. Rainville. Then he came in as soon as he testified, and asked 
for an immediate discharge and it was processed routinely ? 

General Zwicker. That is correct. 

Mr. Rainville. But you never thought it necessary after he ap- 
peared before the committee or when he made that request to discuss 
his appearance before the committee with him ? 

General Zwicker. I am sorry. 

Mr. Rainville. My question is this : After he appeared before the 
committee and he was still a member of your command, even though 
he was on separation, you didn't ask him to come in and report what 
he testified to ? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

Mr. Rainville. And you didn't think it was necessary when he 
came in and asked for an immediate discharge instead of 60 days to 
ask him what transpired so as to get some kind of an idea as to why 
he wanted it immediately, or why he is in a rush to get out now instead 
of taking the 60 days that he wanted before that ? 

General Zwicker. That was beyond my prerogative. I did not. 

Mr. Rainville. As an officer of your command, certainly what we 
usually call the old man's privilege there, prerogative, they may ask 
that sort of question, and so forth, so long as he is one of your com- 
mand. But you didn't do it? 

General Zwicker. No. He told me he wanted to be released and 
I said, "All right." 

Mr. Jones. General, did the counsel of the Army advise you not to 
discuss the Peress case? 

General Zwicker. He did not. 

Mr. Jones. He did not advise you ? 

General Zwicker. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Who did advise you ? 

General Zwicker. No one. 

The Chairman. What did you and Mr. Adams talk about yester- 
day? 

General Zwicker. Mr. Adams and I talked about the various pro- 
cedures of prior meetings such as this. He tried to indicate what I 
might expect. 

Mr. Jones. Did Mr. Adams advise anyone not to discuss the Peress 
case to this committee? 

General Zwicker. I am sorry. He did not advise me. 

Mr. Jones. I mean to your knowledge, did he advise any other 
person ? 

General Zwicker. To my knowledge he did not. 

Mr. Jones. General, what is your considered opinion of this order 
here forbidding you to assist this committee in exposing the Com- 
munist conspiracy in the Army ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 249 

General Zwicker. Sir, I cannot answer that, because it is signed by 
the President. The President says don't do it and therefore I don't. 

Mr. Jones. What is your considered opinion of that order? You 
see now, here is a perfectly good example of a Communist being pro- 
moted right in the ranks, all because of this Executive order here, in 
many respects, where we could not get at these things earlier. What 
is your considered opinion of an order of that nature ? 

General Zwicker. I won't answer that, because I will not criticize 
my Commander in Chief. 

The Chairman. General, you will return for a public session at 
10 : 30 Tuesday morning. 

General Zwicker. This coming Tuesday ? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

General Zwicker. Here? 

The Chairman. Yes. 

General Zwicker, At what time ? 

The Chairman. 10 : 30. In the meantime, in accordance with the 
order which you claim forbids you the right to discuss this case, you 
will contact the proper authority who can give you permission to tell 
the committee the truth about the case before you appear Tuesday, 
and request permission to be allowed to tell us the truth above the 

General Zwicker. Sir, that is not my prerogative, either. 

The Chairman. You are ordered to do it. 

General Zwicker. I am sorry, sir, I will not do that. 

The Cpiairman. All right. 

General Zwicker. If you care to have me, I will cite certain other 
portions of this. 

The Chairman. You need cite nothing. You may step down. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 15 p. m., the committee was recessed, subject to 
the call of the Chair.) 

Mf ^ ^ 4: 4: 4: ¥ 

The Chairman. Counsel tell me they are prepared to treat this 
as an overall matter; they do not want to take it in installments. 
They want to see what the witness has testified to. 

Some members of the committee would like to ask questions, now, 
but counsel will reserve cross-examination until the entire testimony 
of Senatory McCarthy is in. 

Mr. Williams. This will be more orderly, if we were to hear this 
issue, direct and cross. 

Now, that is the only reason I suggested it. 

The Chairman. They indicated they were prepared to cross- 
examine, when you had finished with his direct. 

Mr. Williams. I see. We certainly yield to Mr. Chadwick's wishes. 

The Chairman. Does any Senator wish to ask questions at this 
point ? 

Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Carlson. 

Senator McCarthy. But before you start, I wonder if I could im- 
pose on the Chair for a brief recess. 

Tlie Chairman. We will take a 10-minute recess at this point. 

(Whereupon, at 3 : 32 p. m. a 16-minute recess was taken.) 

The Chairman. The committee will resume session. 

Senator McCarthy. I want to thank the Chair for that recess. 

The Chairman. The Chair appreciated the recess as well. 



250 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator Carlson was askino- for recognition as we recessed. 

Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I wonld just like to ask a few 
questions on the methods of operation and committee procedure. 

I note from the hearin<^s — and I think the Senator also testified — 
for instance, on the ]iearino;s on Thursday, Febnuiry 18, it is stated 
that present were : 

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Roy Cohn, Daniel Buckley, James 
Juliana, Harold Rainville, administrative assistant to Senator Dirk- 
sen, and Robert Jones, administrative assistant to Senator Potter. 

Now, in checkinj>- throu«>h these hearinj>-s, I note, for instance, on 
page 130 Mr. Jones, the administrative assistant to Senator Potter, 
participated in the interrogation, and I noticed on page 137 a rather 
extensive cross-examination by Mr. Rainville of Mr. Peress. I would 
like to ask the Senator if it has been the policy of the committee to 
permit administrative assistants to participate in the cross-examina- 
tion of witnesses. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. Whenever a man was present represent- 
ing a Senator, I felt that he should be entitled to ask questions. 

Senator Carlson. ]\Iay I ask the Senator if that is based on com- 
mittee action? 

Has any action on the part of the Connnittee on (iovernment Opera- 
tions, an official motion, given this authority? 

Senator McCarthy. There Avas no formal action taken on that. 
It was a four-man committee then, you understand. The Democrats 
were not on the connnittee, but it was understood I would allow the 
administrative assistants to cross-examine. That was agreed in by, 
I believe, the connnittee unanimously. 

Senator Carlson. Do I understand there was official action taken, 
for instance, by the subcommittee of (lOVQrnment Operations Com- 
mittee? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't know if you would call it official or not, 
but it was not a formal meeting at which a motion was passed. How- 
ever, I told the Senators, if it \vas all right with them, in view of the 
fact they were out of the city during the recess, I would allow their 
administrative assistants to appear and represent them and speak for 
them and notify them each night, or as often as I felt necessary, as to 
what had transpired during that day. 

One of the Senators, Senator Mundt, i-equested additional informa- 
tion. He requested that the chief of staff wire him after each hearing 
and give him a resume of what had transpired. The other two Sen- 
ators were satisfied to let their administrative assistants represent 
them. 

Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, I bring this up because I am a 
member of the subcommittee headed by Senator Jenner, of Indiana, 
and also another member of the committee is Senator Carl Play den 
of Arizona, which has been holding extensive hearings on rules and 
changes of committee procedure, and it seems to me this is one of the 
important matters that should be given some consideration, not only 
by our committee, but I think, in view of the criticism we are receiv- 
ing over the Nation, not on just the conduct of this particular com- 
mittee, but committee procedure generaly, there ought to be some 
firm decision made, which I assume, of course, would have to be a 
Senate decision on permitting administrative assistants to sit for 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 251 

Senators appointed to the United States Senate on committees and 
participate in the proceedings. 

I can readily understand where an administrative assistant might 
bo assigned to listen in and get testimony and report, but I would 
have a serious question about administrative assistants, unless by 
unanimous action of the committee, participating in cross- 
examination. 

Senator McCarthy. ^lay I say. Senator, we allow counsel for the 
committee — we alloAv staff members — to cross-examine w^here they 
are aware of the facts, and I can frankly see no objection to having 
an administrative assistant present and represent a Senator and ask 
questions. 

Senator Carlson. IMr. Chairman, my only point was : If we fol- 
lowed this thing and continued it, not only as a practice in the United 
States Senate but continued to expand on this method of procedure, 
the time will come when we might as well let the administrative assist- 
ants sit and the rest of us go fishing. It seems to me it is something 
that ought to have serious consideration, not only by this committee, 
but I think by the Senate as a whole. 

That is the reason I wanted to bring it up. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say to the Senator from Kansas the 
reason we did this was because the other Senators were extremely 
busy. We felt they should be kept informed from day to day as to 
what we were doing and the administrative assistants were there 
principally as observers; but we did allow them the courtesy of ask- 
ing questions. Whether that is a proper procedure or not is certainly 
open to debate. 

Senator Carlson. Mr. Chairman, this will probably be ruled by the 
chairman as very immaterial and very irrelevant, but I think I should 
state for the record that committees operate differently. 

I happen to be a member of the Finance Committee and during the 
illness of Senator Butler of Nebraska, it was suggested by the Senator, 
himself, that his administrative assistant be permitted to sit in the 
hearings, and the chairman of the committee, Senator INIillikin, as 
well as the ranking minority member Senator George, stated not only 
at this time but in all past sessions they have refused to permit admin- 
istrative assistants to sit in as a representative of a Senator and par- 
ticipate in any way in the hearing. 

The Chairman. I would say, Senator Carlson, one of the matters 
referred to us in Senate Resolution .301 was the amendment offered 
by Mr. Bush, which consisted of a set of rules that he was proposing. 

Now, while the matter discussed here today is entirely different than 
the Bush amendment, still, at the same time, that is one of the subjects 
before us, and I think, inasmuch as the i-ecord did show these admin- 
istrative assistants as participants in the cross-examination of wit- 
nesses there, including, as I recall, General Zwicker, it would be a 
pro]>er question to ask Senator McCarthy in the overall picture, the 
overall problem that has been placed before us. 

Senator McCarthy. At the proper time, I would like to comment on 
Senator Bush's proposal. I assume the chairman doesn't want that 
now. 

The Chairman. No, not now. We will probably make disposition 
of it otherwise than by holding hearings. 

Senator Stennis. 

52461—54 17 



252 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator Stennis. I have no question now, Mr. Chairman. I did not 
address the chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Johnson. 

Senator Johnson of Colorado. No questions. 

The Chairman. Senator Case ? 

Senator Case. No questions now. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Sentaor Ervin. No questions. 

The Chairman. I have 1 or 2 questions, Senator McCarthy, I would 
like to ask you with respect to your views on the investigating power 
since this question, this particular issue, we have been talking about 
today, goes directly to the conduct of hearings and the matter of in- 
vestigations. 

What is your view with respect to the right of Senators to lecture 
witnesses, or sort of pass judgment on them, whether they are guilty 
and all that sort of thing, in comiection with these hearings ? 

I notice not only in this record we have before us, but in other records 
of other committees occasionally a Senator takes out after a witness 
who has come in there to testify, even on some legislative matter — and, 
of course, this particular investigation we were conducting, I think, 
comes squarely within the investigative power with respect to 
investigation. 

What is your view with respect to the right of a Senator to go 
beyond the questioning in getting material ? What right does he have 
to go beyond that in the conduct of these hearings? 

Senator McCarthy. I think it is part of the cross-examination. He 
can nuike comments. He can try to induce a witness to tell the truth 
and oftentimes you have a witness that you can induce to tell the 
truth. 

Take, or example, if I may give you an incident, we had a man be- 
fore us in New York. We talked to him. After some discussion, he 
said that he could come in and give us all the facts that he had at his 
command. 

I don't think strictly from the standpoint of lecturing, no, but if it 
is part of the cross-examination, I think there should be considerable 
latitude in cross-examination. That is the only way you can get at the 
facts. 

The Chairman. You mean in the way of questions and in the way 
of statements ? When I said "lecturing," maybe I put it too severely. 
I am very curious about this whole thing because I have held a num- 
ber of hearings myself as a member of the Internal Security Commitee. 

Incidentally, those were one-man hearings involving Communists 
and Communists that have infiltrated into labor unions and all that 
sort of thing, and I know the exasperation and irritation and the 
provocation there in a very strong degree with some of the witnesses. 
But I have always wondered how far I dared to go. I don't think I 
have come to the extent yet of finding him guilty of anything. I 
simply permitted them to make the record and answer the questions 
and let it go at that. I know other chairmen — I am not calling this 
to your attention because you have said things about witnesses here, 
but because it is a general practice, I noticed in some committees, it to 
be a practice for the interrogator to take after the witness, not with 
questions but with statements. That is what I would like to get your 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 253 

attitude on, because it had a bearing on your attitude in this particular 
instance, this episode we are discussing now. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say this, that I don't 
think you can endow any chairman with ability or brains by any rules 
that you pass. I think it is up to the chairman of each committee to 
use his own judgment in trying to get at the truth. I have been a 
judge; you have been a judge. I have seen cross-examiners use vari- 
ous different techniques in attempting to get a witness to tell the truth, 
and I just don't know of any rule that you can pass along that line. 

In this case, we did find that after I told the general what I thought 
his duties were, he did change his position and come through with a 
different story which I hope was the truth. 

As I say, it is just the question of technique of cross-examination. 
I don't think that any man here at the table has the same technique. 

The Chairman. I understand that. Each examiner will have a 
different approach, but I am talking about questions now. You were 
mentioning questions with respect to the cross-examination itself. Do 
you think it is a proper part of cross-examination or an examination of 
a witness — and I am asking this in good faith, because I want to get 
the points of view — to say derogatory things or to pass judgment in a 
way, in a measure upon the witness who is being examined. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is that when you 
are cross-examining a witness, if you are honestly and sincerely trying 
to get to the facts, if you have got an obstreperous witness, in your 
question you may have to make statements which will try to induce 
him to give you the truth. I don't call it lecturing. 

The Chairman. Let's say observations, making comments and ob- 
servations. Let's make it as mild as we can. 

Senator McCarthy. I think it is all right to make observations. 

Take, for example, I know we had a woman before us, Ruth Levine, 
who was in the telecommunications, if I may give an example, handling 
top-secret material for some 10 years. I made observations. I begged 
her to come forth and tell the truth, give us the facts ; told her that the 
country had treated her well ; that I thought she owed a duty not to 
take the fifth amendment. She said she wanted one day to think it 
over and discuss it with her lawyer and she might come back and give 
us the names of the fellow members of the conspiracy. I supposed that 
might be considered as a lecture. I would consider it as a part of 
questioning, part of an attempt to get the truth. If you were question- 
ing her, you might take an entirely different tack ; I don't know. I 
think it is up to the individual who is doing the questioning. 

I think you certainly should not abuse the witness, no question about 
that, but there are times when, as you know, you must get very vigorous 
in your cross-examination. Wlien you know that a witness is not 
telling the truth, you know he is hiding the facts, then you have got 
to use whatever technique you think is the best way of getting the 
truth. 

As Winslow said, cross-examination is a process of winnowing the 
facts and trying to arrive at the truth and sometimes you may coax, 
you may beg a witness to tell the truth ; you may suggest to them what 
the effects of perjuring themselves are. I think that is all proper. If 
you talk to a witness and tell them what will happen if they are guilty 
of perjury, the effect upon their families and that sort of thing, that 
might be considered a lecture. 



254 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

I think it is proper if yon think it is the best way to get the facts in 
an important case, especially when you are dealing with treason. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, if you are dealing with any crime, 
or any particular matter that you think is important to the country, 
and important to the Senate, for the purpose of getting information, 
the facts of the matter will aid in the passing of legislation, I think 
that you are entitled to ask the questions necessary to get that. 

Now, do you feel that you are entitled to have more leeway in an 
examination in a Senate committee than, we would say, you would be 
entitled to if you were before a court and were cross-examining a 
witness in court on the judiciary side of the Government? 

Senator McCahtiiy. You are not bound by the rules of evidence, of 
course, in a committee, so that there is more leeway. 

The Chairman. That is with respect to that other matter. 

Senator McCarthy. I am trying to answer your question. Senator, 
but all I can say is this, that you, as a lawyer, would employ one method 
of cross-examination ; Senator Johnson, Senator Stennis, Senator Case, 
Senator Ervin, Senator Carlson, might employ methods entirely 
different. 

Instead of asking a short, brief question as you are inclined to do, 
they might ask a long question which could be considered by some as 
a speech, but would be considered by them as a question. 

I just think it is impossible to answer that question, Senator, except 
to say that when you are cross-examining a Avitness, anything that you 
can legitimately and honorably do to try and induce that witness to tell 
the truth is legitimate cross-examination. 

The Chairman. Let me give you an example. 

In court, would it be proper for a cross-examiner to say to a witness 
that just gave him an answer to just tell him (the witness) he was 
lying, if he got an answer he believed to be untrue ? 

Senator McCarthy. I have heard it done often in my court. I have 
heard lawyers saying that I think you are perjuring yourself. I am 
going to ask the judge to have you committed for perjury. I have 
heard that done. 

If it is done before a jury, there is a request for a mistrial. If it is 
not done before a jury, it is a difl'erent situation. 

The Chairman. Well, it is a very interesting subject, to me, at 
least, to know the views of Senators, and particularly in this case, 
because that is one of the charges against you Avith respect to your 
conduct, the treatment of witnesses. I have wanted to know just 
what your view is. 

I am not asking this to be critical; I am asking it sincerely to get 
your point of view with respect to Senate investigations. 

1 know the charges ai-e made against us that we mistreat witnesses. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say. Senator, that we try to give a wit- 
ness every conceivable consideration. We give him a lot more con- 
sideration than he gets in court. For example, in a court of law, a 
lawyer cannot sit beside a witness and counsel witli him after a ques- 
tion is asked — in effect, coach him. It cannot be done before a grand 

jury- 
Before our committee, we allow every witness to have counsel, let 
him talk freely with his counsel regardless of whether he is a fifth 
amendment Communist or not. We inform him that if they want a 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 255 

private room at any time to have a consultation, they can have it — 
something you cannot have in a court of law. 

We try to, we try to give a witness every consideration. However, 
when you get an obsterperous witness, a witness that changes his story 
from page to page to page, it is entirely possible that sometimes you 
may get a little too impatient with him but you are trying to get the 
truth from him. 

The Chairman. Is it not a fact that sometimes we get very provoked 
and we may lose our tempers ? 

Senator McCarthy. I have tried not to lose mine. 

The Chairman. I realize that in this matter of communism, you 
had this particular subject before you when you examined the witness, 
that there are some very, very provoking answers and attitudes and 
conducts on the part of those who are responding. I personally have 
had them shout at me and call the Senate and the country everything 
they could think of. I never did feel that I quite had the right to pass 
judgment on them right there and then. I felt I was there as a part 
of the Senate, an arm of the Senate to ask them questions. I did not 
go beyond that, but I am interested to know just how far a Senator 
could go under the circumstances. 

I may have been wrong in my opinion. It might have been that 
I could say that because they refused to answer, sought the protec- 
tion of the fifth amendment, that I could say right there and then that 
they were Communists and as good as convicted. I may have felt 
that way and I, at times, believe I did, but I don't believe I told them 
they were Communists simply because they claimed the protection 
of the fifth amendment. 

Senator McCarthy. I don't think I ever called them Communists; 
I have referred to them as fifth amendment Communists. It is an 
evidence, you see, of communism when you take the fifth amendment 
in a civil court, but, Senator, let me show you the effect of wiiat you 
might call lecturing. In this case that I speak of, General Zwicker 
had asked me to read over, I think 3 times, 2 or 3 times, a very simple 
question. I said to him, "General, a 5-year-old child can understand 
that question ; you must answer it." 

That might seem like lecturing him, but he then answered it. 

I might say that I tried it out on a 6-year-old child last night. I 
had little Virginia Thompson, who is a guest in our home — I didn't 
try it out; Mr. Williams tried it out h«re — he called her down and he 
read that question to her in perhaps simpler language, but in essence 
the same and she didn't have to have it reread. She answered instanter. 

Well, now, some people might think that is lecturing a general when 
you say a 5-year-old child can understand it, but after a general says 
you have got to read it over, you have got to read it over, you have 
got to react it over, the lecture, if you can call it that, brought the 
answer. He didn't ask for it to be read over again. 

Now, you might not approve that type of cross-examination. I don't 
know. 

Pardon me for taking so much of your time. 

The Chairman. I asked the question and you had a right to respond. 
I expected you to respond. 



256 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

I call your attention to a question I asked you before, and that is on 
pape 152, at the bottom of that page. 

General Z wicker was replying to a long question just before, asked 
by you. 

Let VIS assume that John Jones is a major in the United States Army. Let us 
assume tliat there is sworn testimony to the effect that he is part of tlie Com- 
munist conspiracy, lias attended Conmiunist leadership schools. Let us assume 
that Maj. John Jones is under oath before a committee and says, "I cannot 
tell you the truth about these charges because, if I did, I fear that mi.i^ht tend 
to incriminate me." Then let us say that General Smith was responsible for 
this man receiving' an honorable discharge, knowing these facts. Do you think 
that General Smith should be removed from the military, or do you think he 
should be kept on in it? 

And then the answer : 

General Zwicker. He should be by all means kept if he were acting under 
competent orders to separate that man. 

Don't you think. Senator, in that situation that probably the general 
had one state of facts in mind and you had another? That seems to 
be indicated by his answer, and I assume that he might have had also 
in mind the letter he had from wlioever he had it from directing him to 
release Peress, discharge him. 

In other words, getting back to that thing, using that as an illustra- 
tion, he may have felt — I don't say he did, but I assume there is some 
possibility he may have felt that you had in mind a man who had 
orders to do a certain thing, and that was probably the reason for his 
response. 

At least, it is open to interpretation, don't you think ? 

Senator McCarthy. No, Senator ; let me say this, that I had the in- 
formation, the officihl report from my investigator that the general 
did not feel that way, that he felt it was improper to give this man an 
honorable discharge — I thought the general was not telling me the 
truth. 

You Avill notice after I made this statement to him which I strongly 
felt, he changed his position. That is cross-examination. When you 
have reason to know that a man is not telling the truth, you try to 
induce him to tell the truth. He did change his position after I made 
this suggestion to him. 

The Chairmax. I think probably you have given me your idea of 
how far a Senator can go in investigations under the investigative 
authority of the United States Senate which it has under the Consti- 
tution ; so that is all the questions I have. Senator. 

Are there any other questions ? 

Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Not at this time. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin, No, 

The Chairman. Are there question from the gentlemen on this side? 

Senator Stennis. As I understand it, Mr, Chairman, all this cross- 
examination is deferred until all the answers are in on all the charges. 

The Chairman. That is true for the staff and counsel of the com- 
mittee but it is always proper for the Senators if they want to ask 
questions. I think Senators have the right to ask all the questions 
they want any time they want. It is a Senate investigation and we are 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 257 

therefore in the same position as the court would be trying a case, 
to break in any time and ask questions of the witness. 

Now, you may proceed with your further direct. 

Mr. Williams. JNIr. Chairman, the next case to whicli I will address 
myself is going to be quite lengthy and I might suggest at this time, 
if the Chair is willing, to take it up in the morning. 

The Chairman". If there is no objection from the committee, we will 
recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 4 :15 p. m., the hearing was recessed until Thursday, 
September 9, 1954, at 10 a. m.) 



HEAEINGS ON SENATE EESOLUTION 301 



thursday, september 9, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Select Committee to Study Censure Charges Pursuant 

To Senate Order on Senate Resolution 301, 

Washington^ D. C. 

Tlie Select Committee met, pursuant to recess, at 10 : 10 a. m., in the 
caucus room, 318 Senate Office Building, Senator Arthur V. Watkins 
(chairman) presiding. 

Present: Senators Watkins (chairman), Johnson (vice chairman), 
Carlson, Case, Stennis, and Ervin. 

Also Present: Senator McCarthy; E. Wallace Chadwick, counsel to 
the committee; Guy G. de Furia, assistant counsel to the committee; 
John M. Jex, clerk of the committee; John W. Wellman, staflf member; 
Frank Ginsburg and Ray R. McGuire, members of Senator Watkins' 
staff on loan to the committee; and Edward Bennett Williams, counsel 
to Senator McCarthy, with his associates, Agnes A. Neill and Brent 
Bozell. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in session. 

Mr. Williams, you may proceed with your examination. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCAETHY 

Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy, at the close of yesterday's session, 
Senator Watkins directed some questions at you concerning the subject 
of commenting upon a witness' testimony and the manner of handling 
an evasive witness. Mr. Justice Black, of the Supreme Court, while he 
was chairman of the Senate Investigations Committee, commented 
upon this subject. I think it might be helpful. It is only one 
paragraph. 

The Chairman. Wliat was that? My attention was momentarily 
diverted. 

INIr. Williams. I ask, Mr. Chairman, because I thought it might be 
helpful to the committee, to have this in the record, because it is only 
one paragraph, about the comment of Mr. Justice Black, relative to 
the manner in which a chairman of a Senate committee should handle 
an evasive witness, a subject in which I understood we had an interest 
on yesterday. 

The Chairman. We are interested in the Senator's own viewpoint. 
I think you could submit this as a part of your brief, instead of making 
it a part of the testimony. 

Mr. Williams. It is not lengthy. 

259 



260 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The CiiATEMAN, I realize that. It is not the length I am calling 
attention to, but it is a matter of examining a man as a witness, regard- 
ing his own statement. But I do not think it is proper. 

Mr. Williams. I wanted to ask him, Mr. Chairman, if he is in agree- 
ment with this, because I think this sums up and expresses his views 
on it, as I understand it — a thing which I understood you were inter- 
ested in. 

The Chairman. Well, what I was interested in here was not Mr. 
Justice Black's views at the moment. Of course, later on, in the legal 
argument, we should be glad to hear what Mr. Justice Black had to say 
about questions of that kind. 

Mr. Williams. In other words, you do not want to hear this on 
redirect examination ? 

The Chairman. I do not want to hear what Mr. Justice Black has 
to say 

Mr. Williams. No. 

The Chairman. But I think we ought to hear what Senator Mc- 
Carthy has to say. 

Mr. Williams. I intended to ask the Senator whether he agreed 
with this as the proper procedure in handling an evasive witness. 

The Chairman. It has been called to my attention that it is a lead- 
ing question; but I do not object to that, because I am sure counsel is 
not intending to lead Senator McCarthy. 

Mr. Williams. No, sir, I am not. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. In connection with the examination of Senator 
McCarthy, I may say, as an old cross-examiner myself, that I am very 
much intrigued by something that occurred very early in the cross- 
examination of General Zwicker, namely, the statement by Senator 
McCarthy, found on page 147. 

Senator McCarthy. Will you hold that, until I get the file ? Is it 
page 147? 

Senator Ervin. Yes — where the Senator made this statement to 
General Zwicker : 

Don't be coy with me, General. 

Now, I rather admired that, in a way. Personally, I would never 
have been bold enough to have made that observation on a cross- 
examination of anybody in the military service, unless perhaps it were 
a WAVE or a WAC, and I then would have been bold enough to do it 
only under romantic circumstances, where I was surrounded with soft 
music, moonlight, and roses; and I am satisfied I never would have 
been bold enough to give that admonition to either a general or a top 
sergeant. But I merely want to ask the Senator whether he considered 
that a proper method of cross-examining a general — that is. General 
Zwicker. 

Senator McCarthy. I did, because he had been trying to be coy — 
coy and evasive. If you will note the previous question. Senator 
Ervin, I said : 

Then, General, you knew, did you not. that he appeared before the committee 
and refused, on the grounds of the fifth amendment, to tell about all of his 
Communist activities? You knew that, did you not? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 261 

His answer was not "Yes" or "No." His answer was : 

I knew everything that was in the press. 

And I said : 

Don't be coy with me, General. 

It was the same type of evasiveness that I encountered all through 
my cross-examination of General Zwicker. 

Senator ER^^N. Now, this is a part of the cross-examination, only. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Senator Ervin. The Senator testified yesterday that General 
Zwicker did not cooperate in the cross-examination. Now, I should 
like to ask the Senator if he thinks that this remark, asking or sug- 
gesting to the general that he not be coy, was something which he 
thought was calculated to encourage the general to cooperate with 
him in the cross-examination. 

Senator McCarthy. When you have an antagonistic witness and he 
refuses to answer a question, and gives you an evasive answer, you 
might use this language, Senator Ervin; but I asked him the simple 
question. I said: 

Then, General, you knew, did yon not, that he appeared before the committee 
and refused, on the grounds of the fifth amendment, to tell about all of his 
Communist activities? You knew that, did you not? 

I was trying to find out whether he knew that ; and his answer was 
the usual evasive answer. He said : 

I knew everything that was in the press. 

I said : 

Now, don't be coy with me. General. 

That was my system of cross-examination. You might use different 
language, Senator Ervin, when you have an evasive answer. That 
was my system of trying to pull teeth. I finally pulled some of them 
and got some of the information. 

Senator ER^^N■. That is all. 

The Chairman. You may proceed, Mr. Williams. 

Senator McCarthy. What is our question, Mr. Williams? 

The Chairman. I think the Chair had ruled that the excerpt from 
Mr. Justice Black's statement would not be inserted as part of the 
redirect examination because that is a matter of legal argument which, 
of course, I think we would be very glad to have before the committee 
but I don't think it would be proper to read it in. We would like the 
Senator to give his own views ; that is what we are interested in, the 
testimony of the Senator himself. 

Mr. Williams. Since the Chair has ruled, I will proceed imme- 
diately to charge involving solicitation of information on wrongdoing 
in the executive department by Senator McCarthy. 

Senator, there was read into the record last week certain statements 
that you were alleged to have made during the Army-McCarthy hear- 
ing. I want to address your attention to a couple of these this morn- 
ing and ask you about them. 

Did you say, on May 27, 1954 : 

Mr. Chairman, in view of Senator McClellan's statements and his request, 
I would like to make it clear that I think that the oath which every person in 
this Government takes to protect and defend this country against all enemies, 



262 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

foreign and domestic, that that oath towers far above any Presidential secrecy 
directive. 

Did you say that, sir ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

The Chairman. Will yon kindly give us the page numbers as you 
are calling his attention to these matters? 

Mr. Williams. Page 3915. 

The Chairman, Of the hearing record in the Army-McCarthy 
controversy ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Did you say this on May 27, 1954, at page 3918 : 

Again I want to compliment the individuals who have placed their oaths to 
defend the country against enemies, and certainly Communists are enemies, above 
and beyond any Presidential directive. 

Did you say that, sir ? 

Senator McCartpit. Yes. 

Mr. Williams. On the following page, as reported on page 4260 
of the Army-McCarthy hearings, did you say : 

As far as I am concerned, I would like to notify those 2 million Federal 
employees that I feel that it is their duty to give us any information which they 
have about graft, corruption, communism, treason, and that there is no loyalty 
to a superior officer which can tower above and beyond their loyalty to their 
country. 

Did you say that, sir ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did, and may I call your attention, Mr. Wil- 
liams, to the fact that I was not asking for general classified informa- 
tion. I was only asking for evidence of wrongdoing. 

I was asking these people to conform with the criminal code which 
requires they give that evidence. 

Mr. Williams. Did you say. Senator McCarthy, on June 16, 1954, 
during these same hearings — and I refer now to page 7014, addressing 
a remark to Senator McClellan : 

Senator, may I make it very clear, so that there is no question about it, regard- 
less of who tries to sustain me, or vice versa, while I am chairman of the com- 
mittee, I will receive all the information I can get about wrongdoing in the 
executive branch. I will give that information to the American people. 

Senator McCarthy. As I recall, that is a correct quotation. 
Mr. Williams. On that same day, making reference to a statement 
made by Senator Dirksen, did you say : 

Jlay I say. Senator Dirksen, I think you have raised and covered the point 
so well it doesn't require any answer of any kind. I personally feel that the 
oath which every individual takes to defend this country against all enemies, 
foreign or domestic, places upon him the heavy responsibility to bring to the 
Congi-ess any information of wrongdoing where the matter is not being taken 
care of properly by his superiors. 

Senator McCarthy. Correct. 

Mr. Williams. On that same day, reported at page 7022 of these 
hearings, did you say : 

I am an authorized person to receive information in regard to any wrong- 
doing in the executive branch. When you say "classified documents," Mr. 
Symington, certainly, I am not authorized to receive anything which would 
divulge the names of. we will say, informants of Army Intelligence, anything 
which would in any way compi-omise their investigative technique, and that sort 
of thing, but as chairman of this watchdog committee, I think that is what you 
call it, I feel I am dutybound to receive any information about wrongdoing. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 263 

Did you say that, Senator ? 

Senator McCarthy. As I recall, I did, and I would repeat it. 
Mr. Williams. Did you say on that same day, speaking to Senator 
McClellan at page 7028 of these hearings, and I quote : 

Senator, could we do this, and I don't want to pursue this any further because 
we are all trying to end up these hearings, can we agree that if anyone in 
Government knows of any wrongdoing, whether it is theft, whether it is treason, 
whether it is Communist inhltration, that if they come to you or if they come 
to me, that we will consider that they are doing their duty and that they are 
not guilty of any crime because the law says they have the right and the duty 
to do it? They take an oath of office to protect this Nation. If we could agree 
on that. Senator 

then you are broken off. Did you say that, sir ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

May I say, Mr. Williams, that I recognize these quotations, and I 
assume that they are verbatim quotes. They certainly expressed my 
feelings, then; they express my feelings now. 

Mr. Williams. Now, Senator, at this time, I would like to present 
the members of the committee and counsel with our legal position on 
this matter which we shall develop throughout the morning in the form 
of a brief. 

I think that will help the committee in following the course of the 
testimony so that you will have certain of these matters before you. 

The Chairman. Did you desire to present the outline of it orally ? 

Mr. Williams. I think we can cover it here, sir, during the testi- 
mony. I thinly: that is the most effective way for the committee to fol- 
low it because this states Senator McCarthy's position on this matter, 
which is the defense of this case. 

Now, in the charges that have been filed against you. Senator Mc- 
Carthy, in the second category, the Fulbright amendment states, in 
part, that you invited and urged employees of the Government to 
violate their oath of office. 

The Morse amendment states, in part, that you invited and incited 
employees to violate their oaths of office. 

And the Flanders amendment states, in part, that you incited em- 
ployees to violate their oaths of office. 

Now, I would ask you, Senator, if you know what the oath of office 
is that a Federal employee takes upon entering the service of his 
country. 

Senator McCarthy. First, let me say that the charge that I invited 
them to violate their oaths of office is completely false. It has no basis 
in fact whatsoever. 

They are being invited to conform to their oaths of office and to 
conform to the Criminal Code. 

I thought they made the oaths : 

I do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the 
United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true 
faith and allegiaHce to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any 
mental reservation or purpose of evasion, and tiiat I will well and faithfully 
discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter, so help me God. 

And may I say, Mr. Williams, when I asked Federal employees to 
give the chairman of the "watchdog committee," the committee set up 
by the Reorganization Act, to disclose wrongdoing in the Government, 
when I invited them to give the chairman of that committee evidence of 



264 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

wrongdoing, I am inviting tlieni not to violate tlieir oath of office but 
to conform to their oath of office. 

Also, ma_y I say, Mr. Williams, there is a Federal law which makes 
it a crime to 

Mr. Williams. I will come to that in just a moment. Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Pardon me. 

Mr, Williams. I am interested now in the question of whether there 
was an invitation to Federal employees to violate their oaths of office 
which they take on entering the service. 

Senator McCarthy. The answer to that is no. 

Mr. WiLiAMS. Now, in the charges as specified by Senators Fiil- 
bright, Morse, and Flanders, in addition to the allegation that you 
urged employees to violate their others of office, there is the companion 
allegation, and I shall I'ef er to these charges themselves, that you urged 
them to violate the law, as Senator Fulbright put it; and as Senator 
Morse put it, openlj^ invited and incited employees to violate the law; 
and as Senator Flanders put it, to violate their oaths. Senator Fland- 
ers made no reference to a violation of the law. 

But there are two references ; one by Senator Fulbright and one by 
Senator IN'Iorse in which you are charged with urging employees to 
violate the law. 

Now, Senator, are you familiar, sir, with the United States Code, 
title V, section 652 (d) and its provisions, and were you familiar with 
it at the time you made the statements that I have quoted to you earlier 
this morning? 

Senator McCarthy. I am and I was. 

Mr. Williams. What is that provision to which I have just referred ? 

Senator McCarthy. May I read it to you, Mr. Williams ? It reads : 

The right of persons employed in the civil service of the United States, either 
individually or collectively, to petition Congress or any Member tliereof, or 
to furnisli information to either House of Congress, or to any committee or 
Member thereof, shall not be denied or interfered with. 

May I say that as I recall, this law was introduced by my predecessor 
Bob La Follette, Sr., and passed, I believe in 1912, reenacted in 1948 
after the Truman secrecy order. 

Mr. Williams. The fact is, is it not, Senator, that Congress re- 
enacted this statute 4 months after the secrecy directive of President 
Truman ? 

Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't know the length of time, but I un- 
derstand it was reenacted after Truman's secrecy order, which cer- 
tainly would negate his order. 

Mr. Williams. In what respect? 

Senator McCarthy. Well, that there is nothing in the courts or 
nothing in statute law to give the President the power to permit em- 
ployees to give information on wrongdoing or graft, corruption, or 
treason to Congress. 

The Chairman. Mr. Williams, I realize it is difficult for you to 
present the views of Senator McCarthy without getting into argu- 
ment. The witness should testify to the facts, which I hope will be 
rather liberal, with the approval of the committee, as long as you do 
not get off into a complete argument and nothing else. 

If there are various items in it as a matter of aiding the committee, 
we will allow you to go on, but I want to call attention to the fact that 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 265 

I do not think it is quite within the field of testimony. It is hirgely an 
argument. But you may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. I might say, Senator, there is no other way in which 
to put a defense in against this charge. Senator McCarthy is charged 
with being in a wrong position on the law, and urging that position 
on others. We do not take the position, and we are not here to deny 
the position that was taken, and we can show what the law is, in our 
opinion, and there is no other way to defend this than in this manner. 

The Chairman. I think it could be defended by argument by his 
lawyer. At the present time he is sworn to testify, and largely it 
would be on factual matters. 

I want to call it to your attention that we do not necessarily agree 
that it is the proper kind of testimony, but since we will have to listen 
to the argument sometime or other, we might as well have that mixed 
in with the facts to which he testifies. So you might as well proceed. 

Senator McCarthy. I would say I think it is necessary to have the 
committee know what my interpretation of the law was when I made 
these statements with respect to wrongdoing. 

Mr. Williams. Now, this statute to which we have just made refer- 
ence sets out, as you understand it, I take it, the right of employees to 
give information to members of the legislative branch regarding the 
executive branch. 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Williams. As I understand your testimony, Senator, your 
solicitation is for information, so that we will have your position 
clear, and that was confined to a solicitation of information on graft, 
corruption, communism, wrongdoing in the executive; is that correct? 

Senator McCarthy. I confined this information with regard to il- 
legal activities on the part of Federal employees. It did not include 
general classified material. 

In other words, I was not asking them for atomic bomb secrets or 
any of our military secrets. I was merely asking for information of 
illegal activities and I may say, Mr. Williams, that as chairman of the 
Government Operations Committee and the Investigations Committee, 
if I did not try to get that information, then I should be subject to 
censure. 

Mr. Williams. Now, in addition to the right of employees to 
give information to Members of Congress as spelled out in this and 
other statutes to which we shall refer, was it your conception, Senator, 
and is it now, that there is a duty on their part to give such infor- 
mation ? 

Senator McCarthy. The law so provides. 

Mr. Williams. What law do you have reference to ? 

Senator McCarthy. Section 4 of the United States Code. May I 
quote that to you, Mr. Williams ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. It states : 

Whoevei", having knowledge of the actual commission of a felony, cognizable 
by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible make 
known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority 
under the United States, shall be fined not more than $500 or imprisoned not 
more than three years, or both. 

I was advising them to conform to the Criminal Code. 



266 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. Now this statute, Senator, says tliat it is the duty 
of citizens to bring forward this information and make it known 
to some judge or other person in civil or military authority. Did you 
conceive yourself to be, and do you, sir, one within the category "civil 
authority" ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, the Supreme Court has so held. 

Mr. Williams. Would you tell the committee in what case that 
was and we will not go into the details of it ? 

Senator McCarthy. In the case of Lamar v. U. S. (241 U. S. 102), 
in which it was held that a Senator was a person in "civil authority". 

I could read the code but I think the Senators all have the code 
before them, on page 4 of the brief which we have submitted, and 
I doubt whether it is necessary to burden them with reading the quota- 
tion. 

Mr. Williams. Now, in that case the Supreme Court was constru- 
ing a statute comparable to the one about which we are talking? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Williams. So that because of title XVIII, section 4, and the 
case of Lamar against the United States, Supreme Court case, you 
felt and you feel that where there is evidence of wrongful conduct, 
criminal conduct, it is the duty of persons in the executive to come 
forward to someone within the scope of his statute, the judge, or some- 
one else in civil or military autliority ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, I feel very strongly that if 
someone in the executive knows of wrongdoing, of a crime being com- 
mitted, and they do not bring it to someone who will act on it, they 
are almost equally guilty. 

May I go further and say it would be impossible for me as chair- 
man of the investigating committee, set up under the Reorganiza- 
tion Act, to do my work, it would be impossible to dig out and expose 
wrongdoing unless loyal Federal em])loyees came forward — and let 
me emphasize again I am not asking for general classified informa- 
tion ; I am merely asking for evidence of wrongdoing. 

I maintain that you cannot hide wrongdoing, that the head of a 
department cannot hide wrongdoing by using a rubber stamp, stamp- 
ing "Confidential,*' "Secret," or "Top Secret"^ — I don't care what 
classification they stamp upon it — as long as it is evidence of wrong- 
doing. 

Mr. Williams. Now, at the time that you urged Federal employees 
to come forward with information on graft, corruption, communism, 
or treason, you were then serving as chairman of the Government 
Operations Committee; were you not? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Williams. And you were serving as chairman of the sub- 
sidiary committee, the Committee on Permanent Investigations? 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. Over and above your status as a Senator, did you, 
by virtue of those assignments, have a more particular status in rela- 
tion to this information? 

Senator McCarthy. A status and a duty, very important duty, Mr. 
Williams, one that was assigned to me by the Senate unanimously. 

Mr. Williams. Now% we have shown what the right of employees 
is to go to Members of Congress and we have shown the scope of their 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 267 

duty in that respect to take evidence of wrongdoing to someone in 
authority. 

Did the Legislative Reorganization Act of 19-i6 impose a particular 
duty upon you and members of your committee^ 

Senator McCarthy. It did, and you will find that set forth on page 
6 of a compilation of the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946. 

Mr. Williams. Yon are reading from, I take it, section 102-G? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, and may I just read very briefly. 

One of the duties of our committee is "studying the operation of 
Government activities at all levels, with a view to determining its 
economy and efficiency," and, obviously, if security officers are allow- 
ing Communists to hold important positions, they are not efficient. 

Mv. Williams. Now, Senator, when you took the position which 
you did, in fact, take, and which Mr. Chadwick has offered evidence 
on and which we have corroborated here this morning, was that a new 
position in the history of the Senate? Was it an unprecedented posi- 
tion by the chairman of a Senate committee? 

Senator McCarthy. No. It is not new or unprecedented. In fact, 
the Vice President took a position much stronger than the one I took. 

Mr. WiLiJAMS. Before we get to that, I want to ask you in particu- 
lar about the chairman of the conniiittee which was in all respects 
identical with the committee of which you are chairman now, back in 
1934, Senator Hugo Black, chairman of the Government Investiga- 
tions Committee then. 

I want to ask you what position he took in the munitions investi- 
gation of that year. 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to quote him, if I may, Mr. Wil- 
liams. He said: 

In the munitions investigation something new was tried. A munitions manu- 
facturer said its correspondence in many cases referred to Government muni- 
tions business and that this was confidential to the Government. It produced 
its papers under com[iulsion, but all over every document was "Contidential by 
Order of the War Department." Needless to say, the committee paid no attention 
to this stamp. 

I might say that because Hugo Black paid no attention to that 
phony stamp he exposed much wrongdoing and did a great job for 
the country at that time. 

Mr. Williams. That was in 1934? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Williams. Now, I want to ask ^ou, sir, about the chairman of 
another committee. I want to ask you about Senator John Williams,, 
of Delaware, who exposed fraud and corruption in the Bureau of 
Internal Revenue. I ask you whetlier or not he has expressed him- 
self on this very subject 

The Chairman. Just a moment, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Which is before this committee. 

The Chairman. Before he answers, I think that is getting out of 
the line of legal argument. 

Mr, Williams. I think, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. That would be hearsay. 

Mr. Williams. I feel most strongly on this, sir. There is a mo- 
tion pending in this Senate, before this committee, to censure Sen- 
ator McCarthy for making certain statements. 

.52461 — 54 18 



268 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Now, certainly we should be able to show that other men who sit 
in the United States Senate today, who have sat there before, have 
taken the identical position, to show that the position he has taken 
is not unprecedented and that it is an expression of a solid constitu- 
tional position, and that is the only way we can put our defense in, 
sir. 

The Chairman. I think you are probably belaboring the point a 
little too much for the simple reason we are not here now investigating 
Senator Williams or Senator Williams' views. 

We are willing to listen to the law on this matter. The commit- 
tee knows, of course, a widespread discussion of this has been a con- 
troversy for many years, as to what Congress should get and what 
the executive department is willing to give. 

Let's confine it not to the matters other Senators have done, because 
we are not investigating those charges. 

We could go off into the bypaths here for hours and days if you 
wanted to go into all of these things that Senators have done in the 
past. 

Now, there were no charges filed ; no controversy arose with respect 
to that particular thing. \'\niether it was objected to or not, we don't 
know; but, at any rate, we are getting off into a side field. 

I think you are perfectly in order, in accordance with the ruling 
made a moment ago, to go along the line of the law on this question, 
but just because somebody else did some of these things is no indica- 
tion it was always right. 

Mr. WiLLiiN.Ms. Mr. Chairman, may I say, sir, first of all, we are 
going to show that Senator McCarthy knew of these things, that 
his position was in all respects parallel with the expressions of opinion 
of these Senators and that, therefore, when he expressed his opinion, 
he was expressing an opinion which he believed represented the views 
and opinions of other chairmen of other committees, including his 
own. 

I may say to you, Senator, we listened for 3 days when the evi- 
dence went in on these charges. Now, we have had only 1 day. 

The Chairman. We are not going to cut you down on time. 

Mr. Williams. We are not trying to take time, but I think it is 
imperative that we have an opportunity to be heard on these charges 
and a ruling of this kind forecloses a fair opportunity to be heard, Mr. 
Chairman, and I respectfully urge you to allow us to go forward and 
show these precedents; otherwise, we just can't put this defense in. 

Mr. Chairman, I tried to make legal argument the first day, and 
was not permitted to do it. 

The Chairman. You have been given the right to file a brief, and 
we also told you before we concluded this hearing that you could make 
an oral argument. 

Now, you are having a witness testify and he is attempting to 
testify as to what Senator Williams did, and then you might go 
on with Senator Jones and Senator Brown and Senator Smith, and 
go on down the line for I don't know how many years back, clear 
to the beginning of the history of the Senate. 

We think that is not quite a proper subject for testimony. 

This committee is made up of men who are in the Senate. We have 
to take judicial notice of what Senator Williams and all these others 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 269 

have done. We do take judicial notice of the fact that there has been 
a Congress and some of this information has come in that way. 

So, I do not see how you could claim this to be a part of the testi- 
mony on Senator McCarthy. 

Mr. Williams. I do claim it is part of the testimony, Mr. Chair- 
man, and I think it is the most relevant part of the testimony with 
respect to this charge because the proposition that is before this 
committee is whether or not Senator McCarthy did wrong; whether 
he did a willful and intentional wrong in his statements that have 
been quoted here this morning. 

Now, certainly, we are entitled to show that he was acting on 
precedent, long-established precedent, and that he believed that what 
he said was the law and that he had reason to believe that, as a result 
of the precedents of the Senate. 

The Chairman. You can see, can't you, that if we start on individ- 
ual Senators' activities and records, we would have to bring them 
in to see whether they did get any of this type of information from 
executive departments. 

We are going to side issues that I don't think will be helpful to 
the committee because the matters with respect to what Senators have 
done, at least they brought matters to the attention of the Senate, 
is well known to the Senate. It is well known to this committee. We 
take judicial notice of that. But how they get that information is 
not so well known, and I don't know that Senator McCarthy can 
testify personally to how they get it. 

Mr. WiLLL^MS. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCarthy is being tried 
for violating the rules of the Senate. Now, all I am trying to show 
is what the practice of the Senate was and I cannot conceive of the 
fact that we should be stopped on this kind of a showing. 

The Chairman. I think it is improper testimony to go into these 
matters, what other Senators have done. There has been no question 
raised on those Senators. 

Mr. Williams. I know that, and that is the heart of our defense. 

The Chairman. That is all right. We are not investigating them. 
We cannot go into all these bypaths and all these diversions. 

Mr. Williams. This is not a diversion, sir. This goes to the very 
heart of this defense, and I urge you to listen to this testimony, and 
if you won't listen to it in the form of testimony, then I ask for the 
risrht to be heard in argument on this. . 

Tlie Chairman. I have made my ruling. We will allow you to 
make an argument, yes, but I don't think this is proper testimony. 
It is hearsav. I think the Senator well knows I am willing to let 
him go ahead on the law, but when we get into individual Senators' 
conduct, that is another matter entirely because we will have to find 
out if you are going to use that as a precedent, how they got that 
information. There isn't anything in the record before us that would 
indicate they got any of their material illegally or by solicitation or 
involved anybody giving out classified information. I say you are 
getting out into a lot of diversions. We don't intend to do that. 

Now, I don't think you are aiding to cite the other precedents of 
what other Senators have done over the years, whether they are right 
or wrong in what they did; whether they have been challenged or 
not is, I think, somewhat beside the point. 



270 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. I want to say to you, Senator, that this ruling from 
the Chair — and I say this most respectfully to the Chair — this ruling 
effectively prevents us from putting in a defense to this case because 
I have been stopped from showing what was in Senator McCarthy's 
mind when he made these statements, and that is part of the charge 
here, that he was acting in a manner that was willfully wrong, that 
was in the teeth of precedent and in the teeth of the law when he made 
this charge, and now I have been stopped from showing what was in 
his mind. 

The Chairman. You can quarrel with the decision if 3^ou want to, 
but we are not going to take the time to quarrel with you. That is 
the ruling. I call your attention, also, that in this memo you sub- 
mitted to us, what you are saying about what Senator Williams said 
about it was not said in the Senate at all but was said in an interview 
Avith the United States News and World Report. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 seconds? 

The Chairman. This committee — let me make myself clear on this 
matter — this committee has been given a special job to do; it had to set 
up special rules. Now, when you get into this subject, Mr. Williams,, 
all of these matters you are talking about can be reviewed before the 
Senate itself, for the simple reason that you don't have to be confined 
to material or relevant matter. You can talk to anything you want to 
talk to when you have the floor as long as you don't violate the rules,, 
and there is no rule against immaterial or irrelevant matter. But we 
have had to set up certain rules here, and we don't intend to go into this 
question of finding out what each Senator has done in his individual 
capacity. The official actions of the Senate are another matter ; so I 
think the ruling is clear, and I will stand on it. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I have 30 seconds? 

The Chairman. We have a rule. Senator. I called it to your at- 
tention the other day, that only you or your counsel might argue 
the matters, not both of you. Your counsel has made your 

Senator McCarthy. May I beg your indulgence, because that is 
awfully important to us. 

The Chairman. I will give you the 30 seconds, even if it is in viola- 
tion of the rule. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am charged with violating 
the rules and the precedents of the Senate. I think it is extremely im- 
portant for me to show what the precedent has been, and show that I 
was entitled to rely upon what eminent Senators, chairmen of com- 
mittees, had urged Government employees to do, that there was noth- 
ing different in what I did from what the other chairmen of com- 
mittees did, not different from what the Vice President did, and in 
fact, the Vice President went much further than I did. I <;hink it is 
important for this committee to know whether or not I was establish- 
ing a new practice, and I do wish the Chair would consult with the 
members of the committee before he rules on this extremely impoi-taut 
subject, because I feel, Mr. Chairman, I feel strongly, that unless T 
can show that I knew what the precedent was, that I knew it had never 
been questioned. I knew it had been relied upon by the Senate, ap- 
proved by the Senate, that I was following that approved practice : 
unless I can do that, I think I am precluded from submitting the 
defense, and I wish the Chair would, because this is so all-important 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 271 

to me, I wish the Chair would just go in a huddle with the other 
Senators so we will know this is a decision of the Senate as a whole. 
I have great respect for the Chair. I know he is trying to rule fairly. 
I know he is trying to expedite these hearings, but I hope he doesn't 
expedite them at the expense of our being able to present a defense. 

The Chairman. As stated in the beginning of this matter, this 
hearing, the Chair did state that if there were any rulings made by 
the Chair that were questionable, the committee in executive session 
would consider those matters and if the Chair was in error, he would 
reverse the ruling. 

Now, I have not had an opportunity, and I don't want to have an 
executive session right at this moment, but I have permitted you — if 
you will go back in the record, you have been permitted to go along 
with the chairmen of the committees and the Vice President, but 
when you get over to Senator Williams who was never a chairman of 
a committee and is not now the chairman of a committee, it is another 
matter, and getting out into the individual conduct of various Senators. 

We could go on for months here. 

Mr. Williams. We are not going on for months. 

The Chairman. But if I open that door and permit that type of 
testimony, we could be going on and on, and there is some question, the 
same question would com.e back as to whether they had been doing the 
right thing or not. I want to make the position clear that I am think- 
ing about: The members of this committee recognize, just as you do, 
and Senator McCarthy does, that there has been a controversy over 
the years ; that is one of the things that will have to be settled eventually 
by the Senate itself. 

We are trying to take as much testimony that would throw light on 
those matters as we can within the limited time that we have. You 
are in the field almost entirelj^ of argument — Senators so-and-so and 
so-and-so did this — and you might say that to get all the truth, all the 
facts connected w^ith it with respect to Senator Williams, we would 
have to call in Senator Williams. Senator Williams, did you, or did 
you not, get information from sources that might be objectionable or 
within the field of the Executive? 

We would have to go into whether or not he did what Senator 
McCarthy claims he did. Senator McCarthy obviously cannot testify 
as to what Senator Williams did and what he said in an interview is 
■only hearsay evidence. That is the hearsay ruling. And I have per- 
mitted you to go on with an argument here and I have not objected to 
where you have called the attention of the committee to the action of 
the chairmen of committees. Going on into the field of individual 
Senators is quite a diffei^ent thing, I think, at least in degree. 

You cannot try all these matters, to find out whether each individual 
Senator did the same thing that Senator McCarthy thinks he did, and 
something that he has followed. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman — — 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, I think it is obvious that, with the 
number of Senators that there have been and the number of points 
that you have taken, it would be possible to find some Senator who had 
expressed himself in various ways on practically every subject. I 
think the committee could be interested in any actual precedent of 



272 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

action by the Senate on the tiling, I do not regard the statement of a 
Senator as a precedent. It would be the adoption of a resolution by 
the Senate or some foi-mal ruling by the Senate in some respect. If 
the witness has any actual precedents of the Senate, any decisions in 
the matter, I think those would be helpful to the committee. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, in light of the ruling here, I should 
like to request a 10-minute recess, to permit me to confer with Senator 
McCarthy. 

The Chairman. All right. We will take a 10-minute recess. In 
the meantime, the committee will endeavor to confer here — if they will 
leave us alone — at the table. 

(Whereupon, at 11:02 a. m., a 21-minute recess was taken.) 

The Chairman. The committee will resume sessions. 

The committee met in a brief executive session and they have unani- 
mously upheld the decision of the Chair. 

I may say now, so that there will not be any misunderstanding of 
it, that the Chair attempted to be as liberal under the rules adopted 
for this proceeding as he felt he could be, and still keep to the main 
purpose of this investigation. 

The Chair permitted the argmnent on law to follow in connection 
with the testimony. I think that would ]:)robably aid the committee. 

Now, we get into the field of individual Senatoi-s' activities and usq 
that as an argument for precedence. The Chair had permitted the 
statement of Justice Black and the statement was made that was sup- 
posed to have been made by Vice President Nixon. I did not catch it 
at the time, but I believe it was a statement made by him at the time 
he w^as a Member of the House of Representatives rather than while 
he was Vice President. 

The Chair and the committee will permit precedents, actions of the 
Senate, or any official group within the Senate. It will take judicial 
notice of those activities, and I have gone so far as to permit the state- 
ment of chairmen of various committees of the Senate made in con- 
nection with their official activities on any given matter, and that will 
be permitted now, but as we see it it would be an endless job to permit 
the consideration of the actions of individual Senators because we 
know as a matter of experience that you can find some precedent for 
almost anything under the sun when it comes to statements and activi- 
ties of Senators and Congressmen. 

They have talked on many subjects, and you will find speeches on 
both sides of the question as to whether or not it is proper to solicit 
the contributions or the statements from people in the executive de- 
partment and, also, you will find statements probably on both sides 
as to whether the chairman of a committee would have the right to 
certain information, whether he was authorized as a person to have 
that right. 

We have 96 Senators, and sometimes we have 9(\ different views, and 
so we feel that that is going too far into what individual Senators have 
done. But within limitations that I have mentioned, I will allow you 
to proceed. 

Sir. Williams. ]\Ir. Chairman, I am dee]:»ly sorry that the committee 
has taken this view of our evidence. I think candor dictates that I 
say to you, sir, that I am shocked at this ruling. I must also say 
that— 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 273 

The Chairman. We have made tlie ruling. Of course, if you want 
to criticize the committee, why 

Mr. Williams. I certainly have no desire in any way to criticize 
the members of this conunittee, but I do say again to you, sir, candor 
dictates that I say that I am shocked by the ruling. 

The Chairman. The record will show your statement. 

INIr. Williams. I must also say to you that the ruling of the Chair 
effectively prevents us from introducing the evidence which we be- 
lieve constitutes the very heart and soul of our defense on the charges 
with respect to solicitation, on the charges with respect to the FBI 
letter. 

I must say to you, Mr. Chairman, why that is. 

The Chairman. Do you want to reargue it ? 

]Mr. Williams. No, sir, I do not want to reargue it, but I want to 
tell you, sir, wliy we cannot go forward with our defense to these 
charges. 

Senator McCarthy is being charged with wrongful conduct, conduct 
that is against the precedents of the Senate, that he has done some- 
thing that other Senators have not done. 

We were prepared to show, and we have not shown in this brief 
that we submitted, and I say it is a most ineffective instrument inso- 
far as presenting the sole side of our case, because we cannot present 
Senator McCarthy's mind in the form of a brief. What we had ex- 
pected to show was that the chief policy-making Members of the Sen- 
ate had taken the exact position, the Vice President of the United 
States, the chairman of the Republican Policy Committee, you, your- 
self. Senator Watkins, have taken the exact position that was taken 
here, and unless we can show that the leaders of the Senate, the lead^ 
ers of the Senate have taken 

The Chairman. You are not referring to me as a leader of the 
Senate, I hope. 

Mr. Williams, Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman, 

The Chairman. I disclaim any such responsibility. However, I 
thank you for the compliment. 

]Mr. Williams. But unless we can show that the leaders of the Sen- 
ate have taken precisely the same position time and time again and 
that Senator INIcCarthy knew this, which he did, and that he was act- 
ing in complete compliance with Senate precedent, which he was 

The Chairman. Well, you can show that, and Senate precedent 
is shown by the official actions of the Senate or its committees. You 
cannot go around and call the roll of all the Senators. 

It seems to me the precedent is very clear. In a courtroom, if a 
defendant sought to prove in a case in which he probably is charged 
with stealing a pig that somebody else, one of his other neighbors 
stole a cow or a horse, that would be incompetent hearsay, and would 
have nothing- to do with the issue in the matter. 

Mr. Williams. May I ask your indulgence this far, ]Mr. Chairman. 
I realize that the Chair has ruled, and I am not asking the Chair or 
the committee to reopen this thing at all. 

The Chairman. Well, then, vour remarks, if von are not asking 
that, are nnmaterial at this time. 

Mr. Williams. I think they are not, sir, because I want to lay in 
this record our position. 



274 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The CiiAiKMAisr. Just a moment. Let us do it in an orderly way. 
If yon are not goino- to reargue this thing, I do not know what is 
before this committee at this time. We made the ruling, and you 
are not asking to reargue it, and I think your remarks would be out 
of place at this time. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, it may be that the full Senate will 
disagree with the ruling of this committee. 

The Chairman. That is perfectly possible they will do so. 

Mr. Williams. And unless I can state, sir, why we cannot put our 
defense in, then there is nothing in this record on this subject. 

The Chairman. You have already said so. 

Mr. Williams. I have not completed my remarks, sir. You 
stopped me before I had finished. 

I asked simply for the right to state for this record why we cannot 
go forward at this time. May I have that right, sir? 

The Chairman. Keep within the rules established for this hear- 
ing, and you may proceed. If you want to state a position why you 
cannot go forward with your defense 

Mr. Williams. We cannot on the second count, which is the solici- 
tation count, because our whole defense turns around the fact that 
this has been the unbroken precedent of the Senate for many years, 
as illustrated by the expressions of those men Avho have sat in the 
Senate. 

We cannot go forward with regard to our defense on the FBI letter, 
because one of the most important parts of our case was a showing 
of what action Congress had taken in an almost identical situation 
in 1948. 

The Chairman. You mean the Congress itself? 

Do not be misleading. 

If the Congress took that action, the ruling is that you can go 
ahead and show it. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I am not being misleading. 

The Chairman. You say that the Congress itself did it. If they 
did that, Mr. Williams, you can put that into the record. 

I do not want the position of the committee to be misrepresented, 
even inadvertently. 

Mr. Williams. I wonder if I may 

The Chairman. You may proceed, but I am going to stop you if 
I think you are misrepresenting the position of the committee. 

Mr. Williams. We were prepared to show that in 1948, April 22, 
Vice President Nixon, then Congressman Nixon, spoke about a letter, 
an FBI letter, that he, as a member of the House Un-American Activ- 
ities Committee, had knowledge of, which had been received and which 
was not the full context of the letter, an FBI letter on the security of 
one of the projects in which security regulations applied, a letter relat- 
ing to one Dr. Condon. 

We are prepared to show that letter was received, that it was intro- 
duced into a record of the House of Representatives, namely, a report 
of the House Un-American Activities Committee, and that thereafter, 
when the charge was made that that letter was not the full and com- 
plete text of tile FBI letter, Congressman Nixon asked the House to 
secure that letter from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and when 
the argument was made that that was in the teeth of the secrecy order 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 275 

of President Truman, Mr. Nixon made a very vigorous statement on 
the floor of the House that that secrecy order was unconstitutional. 

I say, sir, that that becomes very important as one of the precedents 
which we wanted to call to the attention of the committee. 

The Chairman. AVas there an action of the House on that matter 
that was brought before it by Mr. Nixon? 

Mr. Williams. There was no action of the House, Mr. Chairman, on 
Mr. Nixon's expression that the secrecy directives w^ere unconstitu- 
tional ; but the House of Representatives, by a unanimous vote, passed 
a resolution asking for the letter from the FBI on which the charge 
centered, the charge having been that the House committee had gotten 
the letter through illegal channels. 

The Chairman. All right. You can bring in legal action of the 
House on that matter as a precedent. However, it doesn't control the 
Senate, as you know ; but at tlie same time w^e will take it for whatever 
its weight is, whatever weight it has in connection with this matter 
here; but just to take the speech of Mr. Nixon will not be enough. 

We don't feel the speech of Mr. Nixon on that matter is relevant 
testimony here in this case. It is completely hearsay. 

Mr. Williams. I understand that, sir. 

The Chairman. But we will take judicial notice of the actions of the 
House and the Senate and of its component parts, the committees. 

Mr. Williams. I understand. 

The Chairman. And I have allowed you to go as far as to take the 
statements of the chairmen acting in accordance with their official posi- 
tions as chairmen. 

It seems to me that is enough, 

Mr. Williams. I understand the ruling of the Chair is we may not 
offer in evidence here what other Senators and other Congressmen 
have said on this subject 

The Chairman. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. For which Senator McCarthy is being censured. We 
may not do that. 

The Chairman. That is right, because they are not under charges 
here. 

We are not going to investigate the remarks of every fellow, every 
Member of the Senate and the House, pro and con, on these various 
matters. 

We take judicial notice of the fact there is -hardly anything that 
comes before either the House or the Senate that you don't have very 
strong views on by proponents and opponents. 

Mr. Williams. Our jDOSition, JNIr. Chairman, is that Senator Mc- 
Carthy, as a member of the Senate, knew of the positions that had 
theretofore been taken. There had never been any effort by anyone 
to censure any of those men for the positions they took and expressed 
on and off the floor of the Senate on this very subject, many times in 
much stronger language than Senator McCarthy, many times holding 
that the directives were not constitutional and that tlie whole classi- 
fication system was unconstitutional ; and I am referring now to the 
chairman of the Republican policy committee, who took that same 
position. 

Now, we think we should be able to show that as part of our de- 
fense, because if Senator McCarthy knew of these precedents and 
he was simply following what the leadership of the Senate had done, 



276 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

certain!}' no one would argue that he sliould be censured, if the state- 
ment I made be true, and we ask the right to show that it is true, but 
your ruling has precluded that and, therefore, we can't go forward 
with our defense on the second or third count of these charges. 

The Chairman. You are then ready for cross-examination on what 
has been presented ? 

Mr. Williams. Well, you can't cross-examine nothing, I guess, Mr. 
Chairman. We haven't been able to offer anything but a couple of 
statutes. 

The Chairman. Oh, we have had the testimony with respect to 
General ZwicJcer and the general statements made. We have been 
here now for a long time. 

Mr. Williams. Apparently you misunderstood me, Senator. I 
did not say at any time we were not going to present evidence on 
charges that had no bearing to your ruling. We are not taking an 
arbitrary position such as that. 

The Chairman. I am glad you clarified that because you left it 
somewhat in doubt. 

Mr. Williams. I don't tliink it was in doubt, sir. I said with re- 
spect to the second and third category charges. 

The Chairman. I accept that explanation, but I will say now on 
the testimony already given, if you are going to try to go any further, 
in view of the committee's ruling, all that has been presented up to 
this point by Senator McCarthy in his testimony will be open to cross- 
examination. 

Mr. Williams. We do not decline to go further. We can't go fur- 
ther, sir. 

We want to go further, but we cannot go furthei', in the light of 
your ruling. 

The Chairman. Of course, if we rule that certain evidence is not 
admissible, you cannot bring it in; and if that is your case, we have 
ruled you cannot bring in individual views and statements and ac- 
tivities of individual Senators or Congressmen. 

]Mr. WiLLiA^Nis. Now, Mr. Chairman, we had expected 

The Chairman. Now, you may proceed, then, with your next cate- 
gory. I thinl: we have argued this enough. You have made your 
general offer, which I think is sufficient. 

Mr. Williams. We had expected, Mr. Chairman, to take up the 
morning and complete both the second and third cases by 12 :?)0 and 
complete the last two cases this afternoon early. 

So, we weren't going to burden the committee by taking much time. 
We were going to be finished by 12 :30; but in the light of the ruling 
we are not prepared to go forward on the next two charges. 

Because we had set those up for this afternoon, I would ask you 
to recess at this time. 

The Chairjman. We will recess 

Senator Case. Just a moment, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

Senator Gasp. Before the Chair rules on that, I should like to ask 
the Chair if, under his ruling, testimony would be permissible which 
is, in effect, the statement adopted by the so-called Internal Security 
Subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary and then adopted 
by the full committee, if it bore upon this question of inviting informa- 
tion or getting information from Federal employees. 



BEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 277 

The CiiATRisrAx. I think it is obvious that it would be permissible 
to take the action of any of the subdivisions of the Senate, official sub- 
divisions, committees, or subcommittees. 

Senator Stennis. Were you through? 

Senator Case. I will jdeld to the Senator from Mississippi. 

Senator Stejstnis. No, not unless you are through. 

Senator Case. Then, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the state- 
ment of counsel that he could not proceed with the expression of 
what he intended to do in view of his earlier statement that he intended 
to present such a statement and now declines to do so. 

The Chaiemajst. Are you calling attention to the memo that was 
submitted ? 

Mr. Williams. Senator Case, I will be glad to outline for you, sir, 
right now what evidence we were going to put in, if you want to, 
hear it. 

The Chairman. I would say, the chairman of the committee mak- 
ing his ruling, tliat if we are not going to permit it, the Senator to 
-argue it, T don't see any reason we should permit you. It is still 
immaterial if you are going to bring in these other matters and 
argue it. 

Make your offer of proof in a general way without going into all 
the details. 

Mr. Wii-LL\]MS. I understand the ruling : neither Senator McCarthy 
nor I may present argument on these. 

The Chairman. You can argue at the proper time, but we are not 
going to break into the taking of testimony to make the argument on 
each one of these proffers. 

Mr. Williams. I thought the Chair said I could not argue these 
precedents. 

The Chairman. These individual precedents, no. I have given 
you time to argue about the individual precedents, but I am not going 
to permit you to go in and recite each one, the details, at least. 

Senator Stennis. Mr. Chairman, while you were ruling here, and 
during the colloquy back and forth expressed by Mr. Williams, ISIr. 
Williams seemed to emphasize the things he could not do, and he 
is concerned about that, I am sure; but I just jotted down here the 
ruling of the Cliair as I understood it, of the things that will be per- 
mitted to be put in evidence, and of course that includes any law that 
might have anv bearing on the subject, or any rule of the Senate, or, 
I suppose, of tlie House either. 

The Chairman. It does not have the same weight. 

Senator Stennis. If it is pertinent to the subject matter, but also 
anything in reference to action by the Senator or the House, or any- 
thing that is pertinent here, in the form of a policy of the committee 
or the actions of a committee or a subcommittee. 

Mr. Williams. Senator 

Senator Stennis. May I see here if I correctly understood the out- 
line of the ruling. As I understand, what is ruled out is merely the 
■statements of individual Senatoi^s or Membei'S of the Congress. 

The Chairman. Or their actions. 

Senator Stennis. Or their actions. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, why my hands are tied, I may say, is that 
there was no formal action taken by the Senate because the Senate 
never attempted to censure any of these many other people who made 



278 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

these statements, so that there was no formal action on their 
statements. 

Senator Stennis. I was merely trying to clarify the ruling, and as 
I understand the chairman, he admitted statements of a subcommittee 
chairman, the former Senator Black. 

The Chairman. In his official capacity. 

Senator Stennis. In his official capacity, comparable to that of 
Senator McCarthy. Those and like matters would be admitted, as I 
understand from the Chair. 

The Chairman. I think that is pretty clear from what I said, and I 
repeat it here several times. Then you may proceed with whatever 
category you are ready to take up next at 2 o'clock this afternoon. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The committee will be in recess until 2 p. m. 

(Whereupon, at 11 : 45 a. m., the hearing was recessed until 2 p. m., 
the same day. ) 

AFTERNOON SESSION 

Thereupon, at 2 : 10 p. m., the committee reconvened. 
The Chairman. The committee will now be in session. 
Mr. Williams, you may proceed with your presentation of evidence. 
Photographers will kindly leave the room. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I should like, if I may, to now submit 
to the committee our brief on our point of law, which was raised on the 
first day, namely, the propriety of going into conduct that antedated 
the present Congress, and looking toward a censure move. I have 
prepared a written brief on this, and I would like to present it for the 
committee's consideration. 

The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Williams. It will be received and 
distributed to members, and will be printed at an appropriate place in 
the record. 

Mr. Williams. I have also, Mr. Chairman, at this time, another 
brief regarding the Gillette committee, and the resolution under which 
it was operating, which I should like to submit to the committee's 
consideration at this time, since we are going into that phase of the 
matter. 

The Chairman. That is still on the first category ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Both of these briefs are on the first category? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. That may be received. We will have an attendant, 
please, take the briefs and distribute them. 

Mr. Williams. I would now like, sir, to go into the oral testimony. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy, I direct your attention to Senate 
Resolution 187, of the 82d Congress, which has already been intro- 
duced into evidence in this proceeding, and ask you, sir, if you were 
aware, when you were corresponding back and forth with the Sub- 
committee on Privileges and Elections of the 82d Congress, of the 
scope of this resolution, under which that committee was purporting 
to operate? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 279 

Senator McCarthy, Very fully so. 

Mr. Williams. And would you tell the committee, for the purpose 
of the record, what the scope of that resolution was, with respect to 
its powers of investigation? 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to read the final paragraph of this, 
which contains the resolution, if I may, Mr. Chairman. It is very 
brief. I read : 

Resolved, That the Committee on Rules and Administration of the Senate is 
authorized and diiected to proceed with such consideration of the report of its 
Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, with respect to the 1950 Maryland 
senatorial general election, which was made pursuant to Senate Resolution 
250, 81st Congress, April 13, 1950, and to make such further investigations with 
respect to the participation of Senator McCarthy in the 1950 senatoiial cam- 
paign of Senator John Marshall Butler, and such investigation with respect to 
ills other acts, since his election to the Senate, as may be appropriate to enable 
such committee to determine whether or not it should initiate action with a 
view to expulsion from the United States Senate of the said Senator Joseph 
McCarthy. 

And, Mr. Williams, I call your attention to the fact that is calls 
for an investigation of the Maryland election, and of McCarthy's 
activities since he was elected to the Senate, and nothing beyond 
that. 

Mr. Williams. I now hand you a letter captioned "The United 
States Senate, Committee on Foreign Relations," bearing the signature 
of Guy M. Gillette, dated September 17, 1951, and ask you if you re- 
ceived this letter from Senator Gillette, regarding the work of this 
committee. 

Senator McCarthy. I assume that I did, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Would you look it over and tell us what your best 
recollection is. Senator ? 

Senator McCarthy. I have previously looked, it over, and my best 
recollection is that I received it. May I look it over again, now ? 

(The letter was handed to Senator McCarthy.) 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Mr. Williams. This letter, Mr. Chairman, has not been offered here- 
tofore. I offer it now, and ask that it be included in the record. 

The Chairman. I just want to see it, to examine it for its materiality. 

Mr. Williams. Certainly [handing letter to the chairman]. 

The Chairman. The letter will be received in evidence. 

Counsel calls my attention to the fact that it is already in evidence. 
But whether it is or not, I think it is material. 

Mr. Williams. It is not on the list of printed exhibits. 

Mr. Chadwick. If we are sure of that, then my thought is wrong 
about it. 

Mr. Williams. The list of printed exhibits 

The Chairman. Do you wish to read it into the record ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

]Mr. Williams. The letter is as follows : 

McCarthy Exhibit No. 1 

September 17, 1951. 
Hon. .Joseph R. McCarthy, 

United States Senate. 
My Dear Senator : I have just received your letter of inquiry dated Septem- 
ber 17, in which reference is made to the consideration of the resolution Intro- 



280 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

duced by Senator Benton of Connecticut making certain charges which referred 
to you. This resolution, No. 187, was referred by the Senate to tlie Senate 
Committee on Rules and Administration. This standing committee, in its turn, 
referred the resolution to the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. Senator 
Benton has asked for the privilege of appearing before the subcommittee in 
support of his resolution. 

There has been no time fixed for the consideration of the resolution because 
of other matters that have prior claim on the time of the subcommittee. Thurs- 
day of this week has been suggested for the consideration but it is doubtful that 
the matter can be reached by that date. I am calling the subcommittee to meet 
Wednesday, September 19, at 10 o'clock in the morning to determine when they 
wish to take up the resolution for consideration, whether they wish to conduct 
hearings in connection with the resolution, and what procedure they wish to 
follow in discharging their responsibilities. I shall be very glad to call your 
letter to their attention and the request that you have made in the letter. 

I am sure that the subcommittee will approach their responsibilities in the- 
consideration of this resolution in the spirit of the utmost fairness to all 
concerned. 

Sincerely, 

Guy M. Gillette. 

Mr. Williams. What request had you heretofore made, Senator 
McCarthy? 

The Chairman. Do you have the letter ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Is that in evidence? 

Mr. Williams. No, sir ; that was not in evidence. 

The Chairman. The letter will be the best evidence. 

Mr. Williams. I am going to read that into evidence, with your 
permission, sir. 

Senator McCartht. The letter of September lY, 1951, Mr. Wil- 
liams, which I will hand you, and 

The Chairman. I assume you do not have the original. 

Mr. Williams. The original must be in the hands of the recipient, 
Senator Gillette. We have only a copy, of course. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say this, that this is an exact copy. 

Tlie Chairman. JNIay we see that, too ? You may proceed with the 
letter. 

Mr. Williams. The letter is : 

McCarthy Exhibit No. 2 

United States Senate, 
Committee on Expenditures in the Executive Departments, 

September 17, 1951. 
Senator Guy M. Gillette, 

Chairman, Suhcommittee on Privilecies and Elections, 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Senator Gillette : I understand that your subcommittee is planning on 
starting hearings Thursday of this week on the question of whether your sub- 
committee should recommend that McCarthy be expelled from the Senate for 
having exposed Communists in Government. I understand further that the only 
two witnesses who have asked to appear to date are William Benton, former 
Assistant Secretary of State, and a friend and sponsor of some of those whom I 
have named, and the American Labor Party, which has been cited twice as a 
Communist front. 

I understand that, under Senate precedent, members of a full committee have 
always had the right to question witnesses who appear before a subcommittee of 
their own committee. This I propose to do in the case of witnesses who appear 
to a.sk for my expulsion because of my exposure of Communists in Government. 
In view of the fact that your subcommittee, without authorization from the 
Senate, is undertaking to conduct hearings on this matter, it would seem highly 
irregular and unusual if your subcommittee would attempt to deny me the right 



HEARINGS OX SENATE RESOLUTION 301 281 

to question the witnesses, even had I not been a member of the full committee. 
If there is any question in your mind about my right to appear and question the 
witnesses, I would appreciate it greatly if you would inform me immediately. 
If your subcommittee attempts to deny me the usual right to appear and 
question the witnesses, I think it might be well to have the full committee meet 
prior to the date set for your hearings to pass upon this question. For that 
reason, it is urgent that you inform me immediately what your position is in 
the matter. 

Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCarthy. 

The Chairman. For the purpose of the record, I think the letters 
ought to be marked as exhibits, so that we can keep track of them. 
Have you introduced any exhibits heretofore, Mr. Williams ? Is that 
the first of your exhibits ? 

Mr. "Williams. This is the first exhibit that we have offered, of a 
factual nature. So I will mark these, if I may, as McCarthy Exhibit 
No. 1, the letter of September 17, 1951, and as McCarthy Exhibit No. 
2, which will appear as the letter from Senator McCarthy to Senator 
Gillette, the same date. 

The Chairman. That will be sufficient marking, and then if you 
have other exhibits, you can show in order the numbers you have just 
introduced. 

(The letters were marked "McCarthy Exhibits 1 and 2.") 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I want to ask you if you received a reply 
to your letter to Senator Gillette, in which you asked for the right 
to appear and cross-examine the witnesses appearing against you in 
the expulsion proceedings. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, I did. I received a reply on September 
25, 1951. It was dated September 25, received September 28, 1951. 

Mr. Williams. It was received on what date ? 

Senator McCarthy. September 28, 1951. 

Mr. Williams. Were you given, by Senator Gillette, the right to 
cross-examine witnesses appearing against you ? 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Do you have those letters ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Are those letters in evidence now? 

Mr. Williams. This particular one has been introduced. 

The Chairman. Then it should not be necessary to introduce it. 

Mr. Williams. I am not going to read it. I am just summing up 
the contents so that we can move on. 

The Chairman. So that it will be f-resh in the minds of the com- 
mittee and others, I think you had better read it. 

Mr. Williams. This is a letter addressed as follows : 

September 25, 1951. 
Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy, ^ 

United States Senate. 

My Dear Joe : I promised to tell you the decision of the Subcommittee on 
Privileges and Elections as to procedure as soon as they made the decision. 
They are going to take up the B3nton resolution at 9 : 30 a. m. Friday, September 
28, in room 457. At that time, they are going to hear Senator Benton's state- 
ment. They voted to hear the Senator in executive session, but also voted that 
you could be present if you so desired and if time permitted, to make a state- 
ment at this same meeting. It was also decided that there should be no cross- 
examination except by the members of the subcommittee. 

A further decision was made that if additional evidence is taken, it will be 
governed by rules of procedure determined after this first meeting. 

With personal greetings, I am 
Sincerely, 

Guy M. Gillette. 



282 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. Now, I want to call to your attention, Senator, to an 
error that you made wlien you testified concerning this. This indi- 
cates it was received September 26, 1951, not September 28. 

Senator McCarthy. I believe you are right. It is the 26th instead 
of the 28th. 

The CiiArRMATsr. I understand we also have that same letter pre- 
sented in evidence. It was presented by the committee some time 
back. 

Mr, Williams. As of this time. Senator McCarthy, had there been 
a request from Senator Gillette or any other Senator on this subject 
that you be present at this meeting? 

Senator McCarthy. There had not. 

Mr. Williams, may I tell you something else about this? 

I had discussed this matter with Senator Gillette on the Senate 
floor. He assured me this would be an executive session. I told him 
if it was to be an executive session, I would not attend, that I w^ould 
be in Arizona taking a few days' vacation. 

Mr. Williams. The letter which you received on September 26 
states it will be an executive session, does it not? 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. Now, on September 28, 1951, to your knowledge, 
did the committee meet? 

Senator McCarthy. I read in the newspapers that it met. 

Mr. Williams. I ask the Chair to take legislative notice at this 
time from the evidence that has been heretofore admitted that the 
committee met in open session and heard Senator Benton on Septem- 
ber 28, 1951. 

The Chairman. That is already in evidence? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Now, I ask you, as of this time, had there been any request by anyone 
of you to appear? 

Senator McCarthy. There had not. 

May I call to your attention, Mr. Williams, while I was notified that 
Benton ayouIcI appear in executive session, after I left town he was 
called in open session. 

The Chairman. Is there a record of evidence for that? 

I think the committee would w^ant to know : Is there a record of 
evidence that they met in open session? 

Mr. Williams. There is. 

The Chairman, Are you prepared to supply it? 

Senator McCarthy, The hearings will so indicate, Mr, Chairman, 

Mr. AViLLiAMS, The records of the Subcommittee on Elections and 
Privileges show and this committee can, of course, judicially notice 
them — that the "charges which were preferred by Senator Benton on 
September 28, 1951, were preferred in open session. 

The Chairman. Well, the reason I am asking is for information, 
for the convenience of the committee. 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. I am not challenging. 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. I just want to know: Is it a matter of evidence 
now? 

Mr. Williams. I will have to ask Mr. Chadwick if he has introduced 
it. My memory doesn't serve, me. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 283 

The Chairman. If they have, it is a matter of record. What I want 
to be sure is we have these matters in the record. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Tlie Senate will want to know about these matters. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And we want to be sure we have the complete 
record. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, if you will look at a letter from Sena- 
tor Gillette to Senator McCarthy, dated October 1, 1951, and read by 
us in evidence, as exhibit No. 4— — 

Mr. Williams. That is right. 

Mr. Chadwick. You will find the verification both of the fact that 
the meeting was held and that it was a public one. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chadwick is absolutely right. The next exhibit does show that 
Senator Benton testified in open session. 

The Chairman. I was trying to be sure the record was complete. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Thank you. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Thank you, sir. 

Now, I want to call your attention. Senator, to an exhibit which 
Mr. Chadwick offered the other day and which we have just referred 
to in the past moment, which was introduced as exhibit 4 originally, 
and ask you if in that letter from Senator Gillette there is a request 
of you to appear before what we shall call for easy identification the 
Gillette committee. 

Senator McCartht. Pardon me while I read this, if you will. 

The Chairman. Is the letter in evidence now? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir. 

The letter speaks for itself, if you want to be technical. 

The Chairman. I do not want to be technical. 

The counsel calls my attention to the fact that the letter speaks 
for itself, but if the Senator wants to summarize it 

Senator McCarthy. No. Mr. Gillette tells me here, "if you desire 
to come before us." 

He said I had no right to cross-examine, however, but there is no 
request to appear in this letter. 

!^Ir. Williams. Now, did you respond to that letter on October 4, 
Senator? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, I did. 

Would you like to have me read that response? 

It is very brief. 

Mr. Williams. No ; because it has already been read. 

In that letter you tell Senator Gillette that you do not wish to ap- 
pear ; is that right, in response to his invitation ?, 

Senator McCarthy. It wasn't an invitation. It was an offer to 
allow me to ap])ear if I cared to ap]:)ear. It was not an invitation. 
I told him that I acknowledged his offer to give me the opportunity to 
appear and that I was not accepting. I was not requesting an 
opportunity. 

52461—54 19 



284 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. And that was on October 4 of 1951 ? 

Senator JMcCarthy. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. Up until this time, had there been, from anyone, 
staff member or committee member, a request that you appear'^ 

Senator McCarthy. No. 

Mr. Williams. Now, I want to direct your attention, Senator 
McCarthy, to December of 1951. I want to direct your attention 
spec-fi?ally to the investigation which was being conducted by the 
committee of which you had personal knowledge and ask you to 
tell the committee those things of which you had personal knowledge. 

Senator McCartpiy. Well, I had 

The Chairman. Which committee? May I interrupt there? 
Which committee are you now talking about? 

Mr. Williams. I want him to tell your committee, Senator Watkins, 
the 

Senator IMcCakthy. The Gillette committee. 

Mr. Williams. The scope of the investigation of the Gillette com- 
mittee, insofar as he has personal knowledge of it, as of the date^ 
December 6, 1951. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, I had— —  

The Chairman. Just a minute. 

Senator McCarthy. I had personally 

The Chairman. Just a minute. A question has been called to 
my attention. Are you testifying to what was actually being done? 

Mr, Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. And not what the resolution covered? 

Mr. Williams. Yes ; what was actually being done. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, is it the subject matter of the letter 
of December 6, 1951, which was introduced and read as an exhibit? 

Mr. Williams. No, sir. I am before that, Mr. ChadAvick. I am 
aeking the Senator now, before he wrote this letter, what, to his 
personal knowledge, was beinc; done in the way of investigation by this 
committee acting purportedly pursuant to the resolution which is 
in evidence here, 187. 

The Chairman. I assume you will qualify him so it will be clear 
he is speaking from personal knowledge. 

Senator McCarthy. I will be able to speak from personal knowl- 
edge. 

Mr. Williams, while the resolution — and I don't concede this is a 
valid resolution, but assuming it is for the time being — restricts the 
investigation to an investigation of the Maryland election and acts that 
I committed since my election, I was aM^are on December 6, 1951, that 
the committee was going back as far as 1935, at least, that they were 
investigating acts in my life long before I was old enough to be a 
Senator, that they were investigating the income-tax returns of those 
who had contributed to my 1944 election, that they were investigating, 
for example, the income-tax returns of my father who had died before 
I was elected, 

Mr, Williams. Now, did you call this fact to the attention of the 
chairman of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections? 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

Mr. Williams. Did you call to his attention the fact that the com- 
mittee investigative staff was exceeding the scope of the resolution 
under which they were purporting to act ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 285 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

Mr. Williams. And did you do that by letter? 

Senator McCarthy. Both by letter, Mr. Williams, and orally. 

Mr. Williams. Was that on December 6, 1951? 

Senator JNIcCarthy. My letter on December 6, yes. 

The Chairman. That is one of the letters that is in evidence? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Xow, prior to the time that that letter was written, which was intro- 
duced here by Mr. Chadwick as exhibit No. 6, had you received direct 
knowledge from a staff member of the conmiittee as to the method in 
which the investioation was beinp; conducted? 

Senator McCarthy. I had. 

The Chairman. Well, now, I think you ought to probably identify 
it since we don't have it as part of the record, you might identify the 
staff member and the time and place and so on. 

Mr. Williams. I might call the chairman's attention also to the fact 
that part of the record which the Chair has judicially noticed, part of 
the record which the Chair has already judicially noticed, covers the 
subject of Senator ]McCarthy's 1944: primary campaign. 

The Chairman. It AA'as admitted for the purpose of showing juris- 
diction, for that limited purpose. 

Mr. Williams. And 1 think, if I may say, sir, that the fact that that 
is covered is evidence in this record of an investigation that was going 
back behind Senator McCarthy's coming to the Senate in 1947 ; in other 
words, they reported fully on his 1944 campaign. I call the Chair's 
attention to that. 

The Chairman. I think we have seen the record and, as I recall, 
it does indicate that they had been making some investigations back 
there. 

JNIr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator JNIcCarthy. In answer to your question, Mr. Williams 

Mr. Chadwick. Excuse me just a minute, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Certainly. 

( Discussion oft" the record.) 

The Chairman. I take it you are offering this on the theory that 
the defense you interposed here that the committee lacked jurisdiction. 

Mr. Williams, I offer it on the theory. Senator Watkins, that this 
committee was exceeding its authorization under Senate Resolution 
187 as early as December 1951, by the investigation which it was 
conducting. 

The Chairman. That is was exceeding ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I assume you mean by that the committee was 
illegal because it was exceeding its jurisdiction. 

Mr. Williams. I have not reached that point in our discourse yet, 
but I did want to demonstrate this point as of December 1951, that it 
was exceeding its jurisdiction already in going into the matter which 
there was, for which there was no authorization and rule. 

The Chairman. All right. 

Senator Ervin. Your position is at the present moment that even 
assuming the resolution to be valid, the resolution would at least con- 
fine the committee to activities which did not antedate the election of 
1946. 

JNlr. Williams. Exactly, Senator Ervin. 



286 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

In other words that the resokition did not authorize the committee 
to go behind January 3, 1947. 

Now, the last (juestion that I asked you, Senator, was this : Prior 
to the communication that you acklressed to Senator Gillette on Decem- 
ber 6, 1951, did you have a conversation with a staft' member of the 
subcommittee in question on the scope of the investigation ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

Mr. Williams. Would you state the facts surrounding that con- 
versation, the identity of the staff member ? 

Senator McCarthy. It was Mr. Daniel Buckley, one of the staff 
members. 

He reported to me, and I had never met him before, that he was sent 
to Wheeling, W. Va. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. You are getting into what he was 
doing. We wanted to know primarily whether this is com})etent 
evidence or not. 

Mr. Williams. I offer it for this reason, Senatoi' : I tliink it becomes 
very germane to show Senator McCarthy's motive in his relationship 
with this committee. 

Charge has been made that he was contemptious of the committee. 
Now, I think we have to look at his mind in relationship to each com- 
munication that he had with the committee and what infornuition 
he had at the time that he had such connnunication with the connnittee, 
and I think this goes very nmch to the heart of what his state of mind 
was as of December 6. 

Now, I hasten to say to Senator Watkins that I am not departing 
from the record because the matter which I am going into is right in 
the report of the committee which is already in evidence. 

The Chairman. I think it is probably proper to go on with the 
question of the state of his mind. 

However, I think you should identify the time and place and name 
the person with whom he talked. That has not been done yet. I 
think that should be done before he proceeds to say what he learned 
or what he thought he learned. 

Mr. Williams. I do, too, and I have just asked him to identify the 
person and the circumstances under which he talked to that person. 

Senator McCarthy. It was Mr. Daniel Buckley, one of the coimnit- 
tee investigators. He called either me or Jean — I ffirget which one — 
said he had information which disturbed him a great deal. He came 
to see me and I think he saw me over at Jean's house. He reported to 
me that he had been sent to Wheeling, W. Va., to get the facts sur- 
rounding the Wheeling speech, question of whether I had said two hun- 
dred five or fifty-seven, that he came back with, I believe, 8 affidavits 
and that all except 1 completely contradicted Senator Benton's con- 
tention; that after he was back — I am relating this from memory, Mr. 
Chairman — after he was back in the office, he received a call from Sen- 
ator Tydings who is not a member of the committee, castigating him. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. I think that probably is outside 
of the scope of the investigation. I ruled that that is immaterial. 

Mr. Williams. What he did. 

Senator McCarthy. That he was criticized for not receiving affi- 
davits which would uphold Benton's position ; that he was then rele- 
gated to a position at a desk, no longer — strike that — first, he went 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 287 

back; he was taken back down to Wheeling with some of the other 
investioators; attempt made to get some of the people who signed the 
affidavit to change their affidavits, to uphold Benton's position. They 
were unsuccessful. 

After that, he was relegated to a position at a desk, no longer an 
investigator; after that he quit. 

Mr. Williams. Now, do you have this information concerning 
Buckley's experiences in Wheeling ? 

The Chairman. Just a minute. Maybe I have slipped one, but did 
you give his name ? 

Senator McCarthy. Daniel Buckley. 

The Chairman. That's right. I beg your pardon. 

Mr. Williams. Did you have this information regarding Buckley's 
experiences in IVlieeling before your communication of December 6 
to Senator Gillette ? 

Senator McCarthy. All except possibly his quitting. 

I am not sure if he had quit by December 6. I wouldn't know the 
date that he quit. 

Mr. Williams. Now, on December 6, you did write to Senator Gil- 
lette ; did you not ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

Mr. Williams. And that letter is already in evidence so I won't ask 
you to reread it, but in that letter, you pointed out to him, did you not, 
that you felt that his committee w^as way outside the scope of its au- 
thorization ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, I pointed it out and I felt that at the time 
very strongly. 

Mr. Williams. As of this time, and I now address myself to Decem- 
ber 6, 1951, had there been a request from any member of the committee 
or any staff member, that you appear before the committee ? 

Senator McCarthy. There had not. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, it was thereafter, was it not, that you wrote 
to Senator Gillette and requested of him the names of the persons who 
Mere working on the investigation that was being conducted pursuant 
to Senate Resolution 187 ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, that is right. 

Mr. Williams. And the communications that you had with him 
over the next week related to that subject matter; did they not? 

Senator McCarthy. Apparently so. 

Mr. Williams. Would you look at that now, sir? 

Senator McCarthy. December 7, yes; December 11, yes; December 
19, yes. Let's see — December 7, 1 asked for the information. Decem- 
ber 11, 1 got a letter not giving me the information, giving me some of 
it. December 19, 1 again write and ask for the information. I guess 
that would cover the week. 

Mr. Williams. Now, I call your attention to a letter which has 
already been introduced into evidence as exhibit No. 11 by Mr. Chad- 
wick, a letter dated December 21, 1951, addressed to you and bearing 
the signature of Senator Guy Gillette. I ask you, sir, if in this letter 
there is any request of you to ap]3ear before this committee. 

Senator McCarthy. Could I take a minute to — no, he says on 
page 66 of Mr. Chadwick's exhibit, as I have told you before, if you 
care to appear before the subcommittee, we shall be glad to make 
the necessary arrangements as to time and place. 



288 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

May I say, Mr. Williams, that I infoniied Mr. Gillette that I had 
no desire to appear before the committee. I was very frank in telling 
him I thouirht they were beyond their jurisdiction but I would honor 
a subpena if they served one on me. I said, either a subpena or' an 
order — I forget which — I told the press, also, that I would not appear 
unless I was ordered to appear because I had no desire to appear 
before that committee. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Mr, Chadwick. Will j^ou clear up with your client whether or 
not he said it appeared in any letter or any other evidence before this 
bodv, or whether it is simply from his recollection? 

Mr. Williams. They appear in the record and in evidence now 
because he just testified to the fact which he has knowledge of regard- 
ing his conversation with Senator Gillette. It is clearly germane here. 

The Chairman. It is germane all right. The point is, he was 
asking for information, if it appeared in any letter. 

Senator McCarthy. I would have to go through all of the letters 
to find out. 

The Chairman. I would like to know for the record when it was 
he talked to Senator Gillette and where. 

Mr. Williams. Do you have a recollection on that? 

Senator McCarthy. I talked to Guy Gillette a number of times. 
He told me by letter that if I wanted to appear, I could appear; 
told me I could not cross examine. He told me the same thing on 
the Senate floor. I told him unless I had the right to cross examine, 
which is an inherent right in any hearing to expel a Senator, that 
I had no desire to appear but that if I were ordered to appear, I 
would appear. 

I am not sure that I used the "order" or "subpena." I think I 
used the word "subpena." I am sure Senator Gillette would confirm 
that. 

Mr. Williams. So that, at this time, you had told Senator Gillette 
that if an order were issued, or a subpena — which is, in fact, an 
order to appear — you would do so ? 

Senator ^IcCartity. Mr. Williams, I cannot tell you as to time. 
I can tell you that I did tell Guy Gillette a number of times that I 
would not appear; on my own motion, I would not request the right to 
appear, but that if there were a subpena or an order, I would honor 
such subpena. That was told to the press, also, that I would honor 
a subpena, even though the Parliamentarian had informed me that 
they had no right to subpena a Senator during the session; and I 
have been so informed again. 

Mr. Williams. Now, taking you down to the first part of January 
1952 : as of January 1952, had there been any request from any mem- 
ber of the committee or any staff member that you appear before the 
Gillette committee? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, I hate to hold you up, but 
there is a letter, here, of Januai^ 10. I would like to glance through 
it and make sure whether there was no request. 

Mr. Williams. That is already in evidence. 

Senator McCarthy. No, there was no request as of January 31, 
1952. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 289 

Mr. WiTxiAMS. Now, directing your attention to March 1952, when 
there was another exchange of correspondence between yon and Sen- 
ator Gillette and Senator Hayclen, I ask you the question as to whether 
or not, as of that date, there had been a request by any staff member 
or any member of the committee — I include anyone connected with 
that committee — for you to appear. 

Senator McCarthy. There had not. 

Mr. Williams. Now, in April of 1952, a resolution was adopted 
by the Senate, which gave this committee the right to conduct an 
investigation under Senate Resolution 187; is that right? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. I voted for the resolution. 

Mr. Williams. Did that resolution extend the scope of investiga- 
tive power of this committee beyond January 3, 1947 ? 

Senator McCarthy. Well, if you will read the resolution, Mr. Wil- 
liams, you will find that it is restricted strictly to an investigation 
under Senate Resolution 187 — no extension of power. 

Mr. Williams. Now, as of this time, did you have knowledge — 
personal knowledge — of the scope of the investigation that was con- 
tinuing by the investigative staff of the Gillette subcommittee? 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

Mr. Wuj-iAMS. Can you tell us whether or not the investigation of 
you went back of 1947 ? 

Ssnator McCarthy. Far behind 1947 — I say dates at which I was 
not old enough to be a candidate for the United States Senate. 

May I say, .Mr. Williams, I had no objection to their investigating 
my life from birth to date, if they were doing it under a valid Senate 
resolution; if the Senate voted to have me investigated, they could 
do that. 

They have not so voted ; therefore, the committee was conducting 
an illegal and improper investigation. 

Mr. Williams. Now, on May 7, 1952, you received a letter from 
Senator Gillette, did you not? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

Mr. Williams. I refer to the letter which has already been intro- 
duced as exhibit No. 17, of Mr. Chadwick's. In that letter you were 
advised that "A hearing will be held on May 12." Is that not right? 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. There was a demand that you be present ? 

Senator McCarthy. No. The language of the letter is : 

I do wish to extend to you the opportunity to appear. 

Mr. Williams. Is there a request that you be present ? 

Senator McCarthy. No request; there is just an extension of the 
opportunity to appear, and "''hope you will act as a spectator" — which 
I would have a right to do at a public hearing, without the invitation. 

Mr. Williams. Now, as of May 7, 1952, had there been from any- 
body, either on the committee or on the staff of the committee, a 
demand or request — I use the two terms significantly — a demand or 
a request to be present ? 

Senator McCarthy. Neither a demand nor a request. 

All I had received up to that time was a number of letters from 
Senator Gillette telling me that if I desired to appear, I could appear, 
and in some cases, apparently, whether as a spectator ; but he made it 
■clear that I could appear as a witness, if I wanted to. 



290 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. Well, now, in that letter of May 7, 1952, which is 
referred to in this hearing as exhibit No. 17, you were advised that 
the committee would take evidence on what tliey called case No. 2 the 
Lustron matter ; is that right ? 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

IMr. Williams. Did you write a letter on May 8, 1952, giving the 
committee pertinent information on the Lustron matter, and calling 
'their attention to matters of record on that subject? 

Senator McCarthy. I did, and gave them all the information that 
I had at my command on the Lustron matter. 

Mr. CiiADWicK. Mr. Williams, that, I take it, is the letter which has 
heretofore been read, called exhibit No. 18 ? 

Mr. Williams. That is right, sir. 

Now, did there come a time when you did, in fact, appear before this 
particular subcommittee and testify ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes ; I appeared before the subcommittee and 
testified. 

Mr. Williams. And on what date was that ? 

Senator McCarthy. I frankly would not recall the dates. I know 
that I appeared and testified. It would be impossible to recall the 
dates. 

]Mr. WiLiAMS. Let me, in the orderly seq.uence of things, then, ad- 
dress your attention. Senator, to a letter dated May 10, 1952, signed 
''Guy Gillette" addressed to you, which is of record as exhibit No. 20, 
and ask you whether or not any demand or request is made of you to 
appear in connection with Senate Resolution 187. 

Senator McCarthy. No. There is merely repeated the statement in 
his letter of the 7th, in which he says — I quote : 

I shall extend to you an opportunity to appear at the hearings for the pur- 
pose of presenting testimony related to tliis charge. 

ISIr. Williams. That is quoted from the previous letter ? 
Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

Mr. Williams. Now, would you look at the fourth paragraph of 
that letter? 

Senator McCarthy (reading) : 

It seemed the courteous thing to do to invite you to appear, to attend, so you 
could have full opportunity to present additional evidence, or, at a later period, 
to present any evidence you might wish to make available to us in refutation or in 
explanation of any evidence which you adduced at the hearings. That was the 
purpose of my letter to you, and you are assured that the opportunity will con- 
tinue to be yours to present such matters as you wish. 

In other words, he says, here : 

The opportunity will continue, to appear and present such matters as you 
wish, to refute Benton's charges. 

Mr. Chadwick. The evidence you desired to present was in connec- 
tion with this hearing — if you desired; is that right? Is that the 
idea ? 

Senator McCarthy. "If you desire to do so."' I think that should 
be part of it. So he emphasized that this was only if I desired to 
come — u]) to tliis point. 

Mr. Williams. Now, thereafter, without going into detail, did you 
have an exchange of correspondence with Senator Gillette regarding 
an appearance in connection with Senate Resolution No. ?>04? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 291 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

Mr. Williams. And is that the resolution on which you testified 
on July 3, 1952? 

Senator McCarthy. I assume that is the correct date. 

Mr. Williams. And that was your Senate Resolution 304? 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Williams. Xow, up until the time that you had testified on 
July 3, 1952, liad there been either a command or a request that you 
appear in connection with Senate Resolution 187 ? 

Senator McCarthy. No; there had not, Mr. Williams, either oral 
or written. 

Mr. Williams. Had you had any conversation with any member of 
the committee on the subject of a subpena by Senator Gillette? 

Senator JNIcCarthy. I had only conversation with Guy Gillette, as 
far as I know. 

Mr. Williams. Now, directing your attention. Senator 

Senator McCarthy. That is with regard to the subpena. 

Mr. Williams. With regard to the subpena. 

To September of 1952, as of this date, had the resignations of an- 
ther staff member and a committee member come to your attention ? 

Senator ^McCarthy. JMr. Williams, T am afraid you will have to 
refresh my recollection as to the date of the resignations. 

I know tliat Senator Welker resigned, pointing out that the com- 
mittee was being used for political purposes. 

Two staff members resigned, pointing out that the staff was being 
dishonestly used — and I don't know they used the word "dishonestly," 
but that was the purport of it. 

Ultimately 3 of the 5 committee members resigned. 

]\Ir. Williams. Now, it was at this time, was it not, that Senator 
Gillette also resigned? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, Senator Gillette resigned one day — yes, 
now that I think of it, I believe Senator Welker resigned on Sep- 
tember 9 ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Pointing out that he would not serve on a com- 
mittee that was being used for political purposes, being dishonestly 
used. 

Guy Gillette resigned the following day. 

Senator Monroney resigned a short time later. 

Mr. Williams. That was in November, was it not ? 

Senator McCarthy. I believe in November. 

The Chairman. You have in your possession letters of the resig- 
nations ? 

Mr. Williams. I have them in the record, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I think it is rather immaterial to this issue whether 
anybody resigned or not, but I do not mind it being in evidence. 

However, I would like to have the letters. The letters would be the 
best evidence. 

Senator McCarthy. I think it might be material for this reason, 
Mr. Chairman, if I may say so : 

There was a five-man subcommittee. Once three of the members had 
resigned there was no longer a legal subcommittee. 

Mr. Williams. Senator Welker resigned on September 9, 1952, by 
a letter which appears in the record, exhibit No. 36. 



292 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

I refer to the report of the Gillette coniinittee. Senator Gil- 
lette 

The Chairman. Is that in evidence now'^ 

Mr. Williams. Well, I understood that you took judicial notice 

The Chairman. Well, we will take judicial notice 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. But we did not take everything and put it in this 
hearing record, to take judicial notice of. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We said we can take judicial notice of these 
matters. 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman, But I think for this hearing record which we are 
building up for the use of the Senate 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. We ought to have such material that is pertinent 
introduced in evidence. 

Is tliat in tlie liearing record at all — I mean the hearing record of 
the so-called HHH Committee ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir 

The Chairman. I had not examined it thoroughly with respect to 
all the letters. 

Senator McCarthy. Page 94. 

The Chairman. May I ask our counsel : Was that letter of Senator 
Gillette's put in evidence ? 

Mr. Chadwick. I think not, sir. I don't recall that it was, but I 
will gladly consult the record and see if there is a letter on that sub- 
ject and call it to the chairman's attention for his disposition. 

The Chairman. You claim it is material, do you ? 

Mr. Willl4Ms. I think 

The Chairman. You might tell us your theory on it as to why you 
think it is material. 

Mr. Williams. I think I can tell you that in very short order, Mr. 
Chairman. 

The Benton resolution of August 6, 1 believe, of 1951, was referred 
to the Committee on Rules and Administration and then, in turn,^ 
referred to the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections. 

At that time a five-man committee undertook to conduct hearings 
pursuant to that resolution. The investigation hearings continued 
over a period of a year. 

At the end of the year there were only 2 of the original 5 present. 
Not only were there only 2 of the original 5, but the committee mem- 
bership was changed with no authorization from anyone from a 5-man 
committee to a 3-man committee. 

Senator McCarthy. Without committee approval. 

Mr. Williams. Without committee approval. 

The Chairman. Can you establish that as a matter of record? 

Ordinarily it is assumed that things will be done according to rules 
and regulations unless the contrary is shown. 

So, I think it would be obligatory upon you to show a failure of 
action. 

Mr. Williams. I call the attention of the Chair to page 95 of what 
the Chair calls the H-H-H report, and to exhibit 37, a letter dated 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 293 

September 10, 1952, and I offer that as evidence of the things which 
I have just stated. 

The Chairman. Whose letter is that? 

Mr. Williams. A letter directed to Senator Carl Hayden, chairman 
of the Committee on Rules and Administration, signed by Senator 
Guy Gillette. 

The Chairman. May I examine the letter for a moment ? 

It is only evidence, of course, of what Senator Guy Gillette says 
about it, but it does not clear up the matter I called to your attention. 

What was the action of the full committee, or the chaii'man, who 
has the power to appoint these committees, create the size of them? 

Mr. Williams. So far as we can determine. Senator, this happened : 

Senator Welker and Senator Gillette stepped down. That left Sena- 
tors Monroney, Hennings, and Hendrickson, and then Senator Mon- 
roney stepped down and Senator Hayden substituted himself therefor. 

So, No. 1, the actual constituency of the committee was changed in 
the middle of the expulsion hearing, 3 of the original members no 
longer being on it when the report was signed, but. No. 2, the numbers 
of the members was changed from a committee of 5 to a committee of 
3, and there is nothing that we can find by way of authorization of 
that in the records of the committee itself. 

The Chairman. You have made an investigation ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin. I would like to ask Mr. Williams if he has any law 
for his position, because recently as a member of the Supreme Court of 
North Carolina I had to write an opinion involving the questiort 
whether the power of a board or committee ceases by reason of deaths 
or withdrawals from the group, and I came to the conclusion and 
wrote an opinion to the effect that as long as the majority of the group 
continue, the legal power can be exercised by the majority. 

Mr. Williams. I would subscribe to that. Senator Ervin, but the 
majority didn't last here, because only 2 of the 5 lasted. 

Senator Ervin. Senator Hayden was the chairman, wasn't he ? 

Mr. Williams. He was not in any way concerned with these pro- 
ceedings, until after 

Senator Ervin. That is true. 

Mr. Williams. 1952. 

Senator Ervin. That is true. I 'haven't been here long, and you 
haven't been here at all, but I will ask, as a matter of fact, this ques- 
tion: Who appoints the members of the subcommittee? 

Senator McCarthy. The full committee. 

Mr. Williams. I understand the full committee does, by vote. 

Of course, you pointed out, I haven't been here at all. 

Senator Ervin. AVell, I haven't been here long enough to find that 
out. 

Mr. Williams. But I was always told the full committee appointed 
the members of tlie subcommittee. However, I have to yield to the 
superior knowledge around me. 

Senator Ervin. If you are right in your position 

Senator McCarthy. Mav I 



294 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator Ervin. If you have a subcommittee of 5, and especially on a 
closely divided Senate, and 3 of the majority and 2 of the minority, 
the minority can just resign and then you would paralyze the action 
of the subcommittee ; wouldn't it ? 

Senator McCarthy. May I, Senator, for your benefit,. say,.as far as 
I know, from consulting with the Parliamentarian, the chairman 
nominates the members of the subconnnittee ; the full conunittee must 
confirm them or they are not legally acting as membei-s of the sub- 
committee. That is to the best of my knowledge. So, therefore, you 
had 2 members of a 5-man committee acting. 

Senator Ervin. And then to Mr. Williams another legal question : 
You may have a de facto committee even if you do not have a de jure 
committee. That is just something to think about. I have no opinion 
on law, but there are some legal problems that strike me as pertinent. 

The Chairman. I will say the connnittee stalf will be directed to 
make an immediate investigation of that situation. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The committee wants to know the legal status. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We will try to dig up whatever facts there are. 

Mr. Williams. You will, I am sure, be more successful in getting 
the facts than I in directing the staff to look into this. 

The Chairman. We will get what facts there are, if they are in 
existence. If they are not 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Casp:. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, was the letter of Senator Gillette 
resigning from the committee introduced into the record? 

Mr. Williams. I think it should be. I have offered it. 

Senator Case. I think it should be, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. I think so, too, and, if we have finally finished the 
discussion, if you will now offer it, we will receive it in evidence. 

Mr. Williams. I will offer it. 

The Chairman. The letter will be received as McCarthy exhibit 
No. 3. 

MoCauthy Exhibit No. 3 

Septembee 10, 1952. 
Senator Carl Haydbn, 

Chainnan, (Jommittee on Rules and Administration, 
United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Carl : Doubtless you are seriously distrubed, as I am, over the 
recent action of Senator Welker and Investigator Poorbaugh. Both of these 
resignations were given to the press before I received them. 

The situation that has developed with reference to the subcommittee work, 
seems to indicate a purpose on the part of some colunniists and adherents of 
both Senator Benton and Senator McCarthy to discredit the work of the sub- 
committee. Recently, the efforts have been directed to attaclcs on me pe^rsonally. 
While, of course, I can take my share of abuse, I do not want the fine work 
that the sulicommittee has done, and is doing, to be impeded or jeopardized by 
me. As you liuow, I tried to resign as cliairman earlier last spring, l)ut you 
pointed out the situation with reference to membership on the Rules Committee, 
which made it difficult to fill my place with a new assignment from the Demo- 
cratic side of the committee. I have definitely concluded that the best interests 
of the .subcommittee, and its future work, would be for a new chairman to be 
selected to handle its work. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 295 

Realizing the difficulty, which you presented before, of lindins a replace- 
ment for me in the membership of the Rules Committee, may I suggest that 
the membership of the subcommittee be again limited to three members. 
You will recall, that 2 members were added, at my request, at the time 
the subcommittee was investigating the Maryland case, and Senators Monroney 
and Smith had requested that in view of the fact that they were not lawyers 
that 2 attorneys be assigned. It was for this reason that the membership 
was increased to 5, and a membership of 5 has distinct disadvantages. It is 
quite essential that the subcommittee work in harmony and its actions be taken 
with unanimous support so far as possible. This has necessitated trying to 
get the fiveman membership together or in contact so that they can present 
their views. It has meant postponement after postponement of action, as the 
membership of the subcommittee was scattered, or one member or other absent 
from Washington, and subcommittee sessions postponed awaiting the members 
return. 

When the subcommittee membership consisted of three members, we had 
little difficulty in this regard, and I feel strongly that it should be restored to 
this number. 

If Senator Welker carries out his announced intention and sends his resigna- 
tion to you, the opportunity is clear for a return to a three-man meml)ership. 
My resignation would be clearly indicated and would leave Senators Hennings, 
Monroney, and Hendrickson. As you know, there are no three members of the 
Senate who are more capable, or more high minded, that these men. They 
have always been scrupulously fair in their consideration of the difficult prob- 
lems laid before the subcommittee. There is no doubt in my mind that it would 
be in the best interest of the work of the subcommittee to take the action I 
have suggested. 

I have called a meeting of the subcommittee in Washington, the 26th of this 
month, if would be of special advantage if this action of reduction in mem- 
bership, and the acceptance of my resignation, could be consummated in time 
for that meeting. I will, of course, be there to bow out and help in plans to 
carry out the work, so far as I could properly participate in the plans. 

I am sending a copy of this letter to the other members of the subcommittee, 
and I surely hope that you will see the matter as I do. I realize, of course, 
that I will be attacked severel.v for alleged "running out on responsibilities" 
but the integrity of the election processes, and the value of the subcommittee's 
work, are far more imiiortant than my own feelings in the matter. 

With warm personal greetings, I am 
Sincerely, 

Guy M. Gillette. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, may we have a 5-minute recess? 

The Chairman. We will be liberal. We will take 10 minutes. 

(Whereupon, at 3: 15 p. m., a 20-minute recess was taken.) 

The Chairman. The committee will resume session. 

You may proceed, Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Williams. Senator McCarthy, exhibit No. 21 was introduced 
last week by Mr. Chad wick. It is abetter dated May 11, 1952, regard- 
ing the open hearings that M'ere scheduled in the month of May 1952 
in Senate Resolution 187. 

What were the circumstances surrounding the writing of that 
letter ? 

Senator McCarthy. Well, the committee had received a staff report 
that a Mr. Robert Byers 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

I think probably that is hearsay and that it is incompetent evi- 
dence, immaterial as well, and I strike that out. 

Mr. Williams. I want to show w^hat was in the writer's mind when 
this letter was written, because that was introduced as being relevant 
by Mr. Chadwick to these charges ; therefore, I think it becomes most 
relevant as to what facts were in his mind at the time the letter was 
written. 



296 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 



I don't think the letter standing alone is the final answer to the 
charge. 

The Chairman. What the Senator was testifying to is that this man 
had become incompetent, or sometliing of that sort. 

Now, clearly, that is a statement of fact. That is not a statement 
of what was in his mind. That is irrelevant, immaterial. 

Mr. Williams. I will ask him what his information was at the 
time he wrote this letter which was introduced by Mr. Chadwick. 

The Chairman. Suppose the situation were that this man actually 
were insane. What difference would it make in this case ? 

I am asking that sincerely. I want to know what is your point of 
view on the materiality. 

Mr. Williams. I think it goes to the kind of investigation that was 
being conducted here. 

If a witness was called who was so unstable he was mentally incom- 
petent, as a supporter of some of the charges that were being leveled, 
then it seems to me it goes to the investigative techniques of the com- 
mittee, and the manner in which this investigation was being con- 
ducted under Senate Resolution 187. 

The Chairman. I do not see that that is material. The letter, of 
course, speaks for itself, but I should say in addition to that, the 
matter is immaterial, the matter that is material here is whether the 
committee, in view of the rules, whether tlie committee had jurisdiction 
and whether an investigation was actually going on. 

We are not going to investigate whether the charges — whether the 
charges that were being investigated were true or false, or whether 
the evidence was good, bad, or indifferent. 

The only matter this committee is interested in is whether a reso- 
lution had been introduced authorizing the investigation, and second, 
was it being carried on, and did it have jurisdiction. 

That has been raised by you. But I do not think whether an in- 
vestigator was incompetent, whether he was insane, or not insane, has 
anything particularly to do with this particular investigation we are 
now conducting. 

Senator McCarthy. May I have 30 seconds on this? 

The Chairman. We did have a rule once that only one of you was 
to speak to these matters, and I have waived it several times, if you 
recall. 

I will waive it again. Go ahead Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. I merely want to point out that the star wit- 
ness was known to the committee to be this has to do with 

whether or not I would volunteer to appear as a witness. 

The Chairman. I tliink what you said about "smear job," and all 
that — that it go out of the record. 

Mr. Williams. There is one other thing. Senator. 

Senator Ervin. I believe the same thing about what the Senator 
said about the committee. I believe that the Senator should tell us 
about the facts and let us di'aw the conclusions as to whether the 
committee had the state of mind he stated. 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to tell the facts. 

Mr. Williams. There is one other thing I want to call to jouv 
attention, Mr. Chairman. You said we were concerned solely with 
whether this committee was exceeding its jurisdiction. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 297 

We are also concerned with whether or not they ever requested 
Senator McCarthy to be present, as we unfold the facts. 

The Chairman. That may be one phase of the case. 

Of course, there is a legal question that will be involved. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. We have shown that already by our investigation, 
probably, and we are not passing on that yet, finally, as to whether 
that is "right or wrong, that you wouldn't necessarily have to bp 



f your personal 



subpenaed or ordered in or even requested. 

Mr. Williams. Now, as of 1952, September, o 
knowledge, can you tell us whether or not the committee was conduct- 
ing an investigation back behind 1947 ? 

Senator IVIcCarthy. They were. 

The Chairman. Let's find out just what the basis of his knowledge 
is. That is a conclusion. On the face of it, it would appear maybe 
the Senator would not have personal knowledge of it, but let's find 
out. I do not want to have to discover 

Mr. Williams. Do you know whether or not your bank records in 
1935 at the Shawano Bank in Wisconsin, were being looked into? 

Senator McCarthy. My correspondence with the bank was run 
in serial form in the opposition press in my State, letters having 
nothing to do with misconduct, letters asking for extension of time to 
pay interest, the response from the bank president, letters gotten by 
the committee. 

That was given to the opposition press. It had nothing whatso- 
ever to do with any election. It is all a matter of public record 
that they gave= 

The Chairman. Just a moment. Senator. I have asked you about 
whether you knew personally, or not. 

Now, you have not indicated how you happened to know. You 
want to tell about these things. That is not direct evidence of what 
the committee did. 

You say these things were run in the paper. Of course, you can 
read the newspaper, but whether or not the committee read the paper 
would be an eiitirely different thing. 

Senator McCarthy. I was advised by Mr. Gillette. 

The Chairman. That, of course, is hearsay again. 

It seems to me that unless we are going to waive the hearsay rule 
completely that that is not the way to prove that these things were 
done. 

You say you know of it personally and your own personal knowledge 
is what you get from somebody else telling you. That is hearsay 
under the rule. 

Senator McCarthy. The chairman of the committee, Mr. Gillette, 
would not be hearsay. They are in the record now. 

Mr. Williams. Now, Senator 

The Chairman. If it is in the record, there is no necessity for your 
testifying to it. 

Senator ISIcCarthy. Very well. 

The Chairman. I do not know that it is, but if it is there, it is 
there. 

Senator McCarthy. Very well. 



298 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

The Chairman. All I am trying to do is keep this im^estigation on 
its tracks and observe some of the rules with respect to hearsay, 
materiality, and relevancy. 

Proceed. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, I want to come down, sir, to November 
of J.952. I direct your attention to a letter written on November 7, 
which was offered in evidence here by Mr. Chadwick, signed by Paul 
Cotter, the chief counsel of the Privileges and Elections Subcom- 
mittee. 

I ask you, first of all, whether there is any demand or request 
that you appear before the subcommittee. 

Senator McCarthy. I do not so interpret it. 

Mr. Williams. I ask you whether or not 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, the letter does contain the word 
"invite"; does it not? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

What is your point, Mr. Chadwick ? 

Mr. Chadwick. The word has not been used. You eliminated two 
other words not used in the letter. 

Mr. Williams. Do you want to conduct your cross-examination on 
this now ? 

Mr. Chadwick. No, sir, Mr. Williams; that was directed to you. 
I do not cross-examine you. 

Mr. Williams. I ask you w^hether or not. Senator, your presence 
was requested or demanded ? 

Senator McCarthy. No, it was not. 

Mr. Williams. By this letter of November 7 ? 

Senator McCarthy. It was not. 

Mr. Williams. I ask you whether or not you were in the District 
of Columbia at the time that that letter was sent to your office and to 
refresh your recollection on that, I will show you a letter dated Novem- 
ber 10, 1952, which purports to be a response to that. 

Senator McCarthy. No, I was not, and Mr. Cotter was so informed. 

Mr. Williams. And that was a letter dated November 10, 1952, is 
that correct ? 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Williams. And that letter is signed by Ray Kiermas, admin- 
istrative assistant to Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Williams. And that letter was introduced as exhibit 40 by Mr. 
Chadwick. 

Senator McCarthy. Correct. 

Mr. Williams. Now, Senator, I want to call your attention, sir, to 
a letter which was introduced by Mr. Chadwick, dated November 21, 
1952, signed by Senator Hennings, sent to the Senate Office Building, 
room 254, Washington 25, D. C., and ask you whether or not you 
received that letter which purports to have been delivered by hand 
on that date ? 

Senator McCarthy. It was apparently received on the 28th of the 
month. 

Mr. Williams. Wliere were you on November 21, 1952 ? 

Senator McCarthy. Up in northern Wisconsin, deer hunting. 

Mr. Williams. Can you tell us where you were in northern 
Wisconsin ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 299 

Senator McCarthy. I believe it was at Kings Gateway, out beyond 
the Eao^le River. 

Mr. Williams. Now there appears as exhibit 42 in the Hennings- 
Hendrickson-Hayden report a telegram which is undated wherein you 
are requested to appear. 

Did you ever receive such a telegram ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Williams, in connection with this, I would 
like to compliment counsel for the committee in that they very 
honestly gave us information which we did not previously have; 
namely, that this was marked "Not sent." It was not sent. The inclu- 
sion of this in the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson report was com- 
pletely dishonest. That wire, as indicated on it, was not received. 

The Chairman. Senator McCarthy, there is something that stiikes 
me there right now. You draw the conclusion that that was com- 
pletely dishonest. It could have been a mistake, could it not? 
Senator McCarthy. I do not think it was a mistake. 
The Chairman. You seem to draw the conclusion outright that 
this is completely dishonest. 

Mr. WiixiAMs. I would like to have the wire that we gave to Mr.. 
Chad wick so that we can see the difference between the two wires.. 

The Chairman. There is a possibility that that could have been 
included. Sometimes those things happen, that exhibits do sometimes 
get mixed up. I want the record to show whether you think it is 
completely dishonest because it is in there. 

Senator McCarthy. I think to put in the record, Mr. Chairman, 
the wrong wire when they had the wire that they sent, I frankly think, 
that was dishonest. 

The Chairman. Well, you have your opinion. 
Senator McCarthy. There is always a possibility of a mistake. 
The Chairman. Surely. 

Mr. CiiADwiCK. Mr. Williams, may I say that such investigation 

as we could make did not elicit a copy of that other wire. I think 

it was the Senator's own letter that led us to call for the original. 

Mr. WiiJLiAMS. Now, I want to ask you this, when you received 

the wire that is dated the 22d of November 1952, which is addressed 

to Appleton, Wis. 

Mr. CiiADwiCK. The telegram of the 21st was apparently received 
in Appleton on the 22d. 

Senator McCarthy. I received that when I returned to Washing- 
ton the 28th day of November, I believe. 

May I say, Mr. Williams, this is the first correspondence that might 
indicate a request to appear. It placed a time limit in which I was 
not in the city. The staff knew I was not in the city. I received it 
after the time limit had expired. 

Mr. Williams. November 21, I ask the committee to judicially 
notice, was a Friday. The letter which purports to have been deliv- 
ered by hand on November 21, and which has been introduced in 
evidence, was delivered on a Friday to room 254, Senate Office Build- 
ing. In that letter there is a request of Senator McCarthy to appear 
on Saturday, November 22, through but not later than Tuesday, 
November 25. 

This wire of November 21, 1952, which was addressed to Appleton,. 
Wis., requests Senator McCarthy to appear tomorrow, Saturday^ 
November 22, but not later than Tuesday, November 25. 

52461 — 54—^20 



300 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

I would like to read the two wires in evidence which are in dispute 
here since the question has been raised on that. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, if I were permitted to, I would object 
to reading this other wire, because it was never offered in evidence. 
Without objection from me, you might read the telegram which yon 
have in your hand, if you want to. It has already been read once. 

Mr. Williams. I would like to read, Mr. Chadwick, the wire which 
appears in the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson report. 

The Chairmax. You mean the one that was not sent ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir ; because I think the sharp contrast between 
the two wires is indicative of something which might interest the 
committee. 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

Mr. Williams. I read this, Mr. Chairman, because this is the wire 
on which the report is based, and which the report makes reference 
to when it calls attention to the request made of Senator McCarthy to 
appear, and that is in evidence, that part of the report. This wire 

The Chairman. It is in evidence for the limited purpose. If you 
want it for any other purpose, of course, you would have to offer it 
for those purposes. 

Mr. Williams. This wire is addressed to Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy, room 254, Senate Office Building, Washington, D, C. : 

Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, 

Appleton, Wis. 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, 

Hotel Desert Hills, Phoenix, Ariz. 
Reference is made to our letter of November 7 again inviting you to appear 
before this subcommittee and to the reply of your administrative assistant 
received today. You are advised that this committee does not consider the 
aforementioned letter of your assistant to be an adequate or satisfactory answer. 
This committee desires an opportianity to examine you under oath to clarify, if 
possible, certain questions that have been raised on facts at liand, particularly 
with respect to your intricate financial transactions and certain of your activ- 
ities. Your continued refusal to cooperate with the committee in its efforts to 
carry out the instructions of the United States Senate would appear to present 
a conscious 

and this is what it says : 

a conscious disregard by you for the Senate's authority and a desire to prevent 
a disclosure of the facts. Failure to receive a reply by return wire that you will 
appear before this committee in executive session no later than November 20 
can only be construed as a final refusal to testify under oath before this com- 
mittee. 

That is the wire that concededly was never sent. 

The Chairman. And, of course, under those circumstances it would 
probably not be the action of the committee. It may have been pre- 
pared by a clerk or someone else, and it may have been prepared by the 
committee. We just don't know. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman, might I bring to the attention of 
counsel that from an examination of that letter, it was not being pre- 
sented, because it was evident in it that the dates referred to could not 
liave bsen cons' stent with the text of the other correspondence that was 
introduced. To support my conclusion, I may say that that particular 
telegram had been prepared on the 14th of November; and the reason 
for that is that the first sentence refers to "the reply of your adminis- 
trative assistant, received today." 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 301 

Now, if you refer back to the exhibit which was marked exhibit 41 
in the Hennings report, you will note that there is a paragraph w^iich 
starts : 

On November 14, 1952, the subcommittee received the following communication, 
dated November 10, 1952. 

And then there follows the letter from Ray Kiermas to Mr, Cotter, 
to which reference has already been made. 

If you put those two together, it makes clear that this telegram, 
which was prepared on the date that the reply from the administrative 
assistant was received, it must have been prepared on November 14, 
1952, The thing which led me to suspect the telegram was the fact 
that it called for a reply not later than November 20, and yet it appears 
in sequence after the letter of November 21. Obviously, it could not 
have been properly in sequence, asking for an appearance on November 

20, and appear after a letter of November 21. That was what led me 
to try to identify the date of it; and that, in turn, led to the discovery 
that the copy of the telegram was in the files and marked "not sent'''; 
and that, in turn, led to the request of Senator McCarthy, or of you, as 
his counsel, to see if there was a telegram that intervened between 
November 21 and that date, and what telegram it was that was referred 
to in the letter by Senator McCarthy, which was marked exhibit 45 — 
•or rather, it was that telegram wdiich is referred to apparently in the 
letter by Senator McCarthy, dated November 28, that led to the call 
for the telegram which you did produce, and which has previously 
been put in evidence. 

Mr. Williams. The significant thing about the wire in the record 
is that, of course, it is contained, and from reading it, it appeared, as 
you pointed out. Senator Case, that it was sent on September 14 ; and 
ill the report 

Senator Case. Pardon me, November 14. 

Mr. Williams. I am sorry ; November 14. Then, the report, of course, 
makes a reference to this wire and suggests that Senator McCarthy 
was given an opportunity to appear on the 22d, 24th, and 25th of 
November; whereas we now find that the wire was sent on November 

21, that it was sent to a place where Senator McCarthy was not, and 
that it gave him an opportunity to appear "tomorrow or Monday 
or Tuesday.'' Tomorrow being Saturday or Monday or Tuesday, 
Avhereas, in fact, he did not get it until November 28. 

Wliy I think this is significant is because the letter of November 21 
and the wire of November 21 are the first requests by this committee 
of the Senator to appear. The charge is here that he failed to comply 
with the request of the committee to appear. We find that there was 
no request that was communicated to him, wherein he was given a 
date to appear which ]ie could comply with. That is why I offered 
this; and I think it is most relevant and germane to this particular 
charge. 

The Chairman. You mean the telegram that was unsent? 

Mr. Williams. No ; I man the telegram that was sent. Senator. 

The Chairman. Oh, received? 

Mr. Williams. Or received 7 days later, because they sent it to a 
place where he was not. 

The Chair3Ian. I am talking about the fact that the committee 
received it, not that somebody else received it; and, as I say, we 
received that in evidence. 



302 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

]\Ir. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. No niatter where it was sent to, it is in the record. 

Mr. Williams. That is correct. 

The Chairman. A)id the other was not accepted in evidence — was 
not even offered. 

Mr. Williams. That is correct. I was just pointing out what I 
considered to be the significance of these wires. I should now like 
to offer 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Williams, do you recall that, at the time we 
were covering this, I stated that I was unable to accept the endorsement 
on that telegram as proof positive that it had not been sent, and I 
reserved the right — and I reserve it now — if further reference comes 
up to it, to produce it at the time, before us ? And I will state to you 
that I have not yet found any other evidence of its sending. 

Mr. Williams. In other words, you are saying, I take it, Mr. 
Chadwick, that you still may want to offer evidence that this myste- 
rious wire, of no date, which appears on page 99, may have been sent? 

Mr. Chadwick. Yes, sir; but that, at some time tomorrow or the 
day after, if you msh to show it to the committee, I assure you it 
would be within its power to consider it. I assure you we will do that. 
At any rate, I hope the committee will pursue the thing further. 

The Chairman. At one stage in this proceeding, I think there was 
an opportunity to stipulate that these letters had been sent, but counsel 
did not accept the stipulation. 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Case. 

Senator Case. In view of the fact that the telegram — what purports 
to be a telegram — has been read into the record, and the question was 
raised with regard to the use of the word "prevent," at one point in 
the telegram, and I think it is only fair to point out that a copy of the 
telegram — which is not a copy, but which is its original typewritten 
copy, which is marked "not sent," which was obtained from the files 
of the committee — at that point it uses the word "reflect" ; so that it 
reads : 

"Would appear to reflect the wishes, disregarded by you," and so 
forth. And then I call attention to the fact that on page 99 of the 
printed form of the purported telegram, the word "prevent" appears 
directly above — or, let me say, the words "to prevent" — appear directly 
above the words "to prevent disclosure of the facts," and it seems a 
fair deduction, to me — and I have read proof of copy at different 
times — that actually that is a typographical error there, in that the 
words "to prevent" are put in that line of type, whereas the copy from 
which it aparently was obtained would read, "to reflect." 

I do not know that this is material, but in view of the fact that we 
are trying to straighten out the record here, I think that should be 
called to the attention of the committee. 

The Chairman. All right. Proceed. 

Mr. Williams. I will ask you now. Senator, so there will be a record 
on this, whether or not you have received, at anytime, this wire which 
appears as exhibit No. 42 in the Hennings-Hayden-Hendrickson 
report. 

Senator McCarthy. The answer is "No." 

Mr. Williams. At no time ? 



r  HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 303 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Williams. Did you ever receive a request to appear before this 
-committee, after the wire that you got on November 28, which gave you 
dates of November 22, 24, and 25 ? 

Senator McCarthy. The only re^T^est I er^er received to appear be- 
fore the committee was a wire sent to Appleton, Wis., where I was not, 
incidentally. I received it when I got back to Washington on the 28th. 
The time limit for my appearance was, I believe, the 25th; so I could 
not have complied with this. I received no other request at anytime to 
appear before this committee. 

I might say that Mr. Cotter, on the committee 

The Chairman. That, of course, is hearsay. That last statement, 
and it will go out. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, let me say, Mr. Chairman, I did not re- 
ceive that wire that was sent on the 21st; to the best of knowledge, I 
was up deer hunting, up in northern Michigan. I could not receive 
the wire. My letter indicates I received it on the 28th, which was 
3 days after the time limit they set. So that the only request I ever 
received to appear was during a 3-day period of time when I could not 
possibly have appeared. That is the only request to appear. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, you said all that once before. It 
will all be stricken out, except what you have stated in your last state- 
ment. 

Mr. Williams. Now, did you answer this wire, which has been 
identified by Mr. Chadwick, dated November 21 ? 

Senator McCarthy. No, I did not answer the wire offered by Mr. 
Chadwick, because I never received that. You have a wire, Mr. Wil- 
liams, which I answered, which as received — which was sent to Apple- 
ton, mailed to my office in Washington. I answered that wire. I do 
not believe that has been read into the record. . I said : 

I just received yonr wire of November 22, in whicli yon state you would like to 
have me appear before your committee between November 22 and 25. As you 
were informed by my 

Senator Case. Mr. Chairman. 

The CiiAiR^iAx. AVill the Senator from Wisconsin yield to the 
Senator from South Dakota for an observation or to ask a question? 

Senator McCarthy. I yield. 

Senator Case. I simply wish to point out that Senator McCarthy 
said that he had not read the letter or telegram that was read by Mr. 
Chadwick, and actually he did not receive the telegram that was 
offered by Mr. Chadwick. Mr. Chadwick did not offer the letter or 
the telegram that appears in the Hennings-Hayden report. At the 
time, Mr. Chadwick called attention to the fact that he was not to 
appear 

Senator McCarthy. Just so there is no confusion, I did not receive 
the wire marked "not sent." I received the w^re Avhich we have offered. 

Senator Case. And that is the wire which Mr. Chadwick offered. 

The Chairman. And that was produced by you. Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. I did not know Mr. Chadwick offered that. 

The Chairman. Yes, it is in the record. 

Senator INIcCarthy. I am sorry. I am sorry I did not know he had 
offered that. 



304 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Chadwick. I cnll attention to the fact that the telegram seems 
to be dated the 21st as if from Washington, and on a receipt stamp, it 
is in Wisconsin, on the 22d. I think, when you refer to a telegram of 
the 22d, which is the exact date of the telegram, you are necessarily 
referring to a telegram dated Washington, November 21. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir. May I apologize, Mr. Chadwick. I 
didn't know you had offered that wire. 

I just received your wire of November 22 in wliich you state you vv^ould like 
to have me appear before your committee between November 22 and 2.5. 

As you were informed by my office prior to tlie time you sent this wire, I 
was not expected to return to Wasliington until Thursday, November 27, on which 
date I did return. 

Sincerely yours, 

This was sent to Hennings. 

May I say, Mr. Chairman, this was the only request that I ever re- 
ceived at any time to appear before the conmiittee. 

It was sent to Appleton. I was not in Appleton. I did not receive 
it until the 28th. Therefore, I could not possibly have appeared, and 
they never extended to me any subpena or order to appear after that 
time. 

Mr. Chadwick. Mr. AVilliams, will you tell me the date of that 
letter you just read again ? 

The Chairman. And will you; place the copy in the record? 

Mr. Williams. November 28, 1952. 

The Chairman. I take it you have a carbon copy of that? 

Mr. Williams. That is what I have. 

The Chairman. Place that as an exhibit so we will have the con- 
tinuity. 

Have you marked it ? 

We will place it in evidence at this point as McCarthy exhibit No. 4.. 

McCarthy Exhibit No. 4 

November 28, 1952. 
Senator Thomas C. Heknings, Jr., 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections, 
Senate Office Building, Washington, D. C. 

Dear Senator Hennings : I just received your wire of November 22 in which 
you state you would like to have me appear before your committee between 
November 22 and 25. 

As you were informed by my oflice prior to the time you sent this wire, I was 
not expected to return to Washington until Thursday, November 27, on which 
date I did return. 

Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCaetht. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I assume we can receive back 
all of these exhibits because I assume I will be investigated again 
after this committee is through. 

I would like to have them back. 

The Chairman. I can't bind anyone in the future as to whether you 
will get them back or not, but I assume, if you are investigated again 
they will be on hand. 

Senator McCarthy. Thank you. 

Mr. Chadwick. May I inquire from the stenographer whether he 
has identified the letter just read by Senator McCarthy from copy, 
a letter dated November 28, 1952, as exhibit 3, McCarthy ? 

The Reporter. I have not. I will. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 305 

Mr. Williams. At any time did you receive a request to appear 
before or after these two exhibits, a letter and a wire ? 

Senator McCarthy. I never received a request either before or after 
this wire. 

Mr. Williams. At any time did you receive a subpena before or 
after November 21 and 22? 

Senator McCarthy, I did not. 

Mr. Williams. Did you have any conversations with Senator 
Gillette regarding a subpena? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, I did. 

Mr. Williams. What did you tell him 

The Chairman. Now, first 

Mr. Williams. Regarding the subpena ? 

The Chairman. Name the time and place, so we will have a record 
of it. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I can't name the time. I can 
name the place. 

The Chairman. You can give it with reference to the occurrences 
happening. 

Senator McCarthy. I talked to Guy Gillette on the floor of the 
Senate, told him that I would not appear unless I was ordered to 
appear, or siibpenaed. I forget which word I used. I told him I 
had no desire to appear before that committee and that his extending 
an opportunity meant nothing to me. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. When was that. Senator, with reference to these 
last telegrams, the one in November 1952 

Senator McCarthy. It would have been considerably before that 
time because it would have been during the session of the Senate while 
Gillette was chairman. 

The Chairman. Well, it would have been in 1951 or 1952? 

Senator McCarthy. In 1952. 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, I would like to pass into a new mat- 
ter. I see the hour is late and I was wondering if you would recess at 
this time. 

The Chairman. Just as a matter of housekeeping now, working out 
the schedule, are you in a position to tell us about how much more time 
you would require ? 

Mr. Williams. I tliink that we can complete this direct examination 
in maybe half an hour. 

I would like to haye an opportunity to go over some of these matters 
with the Senator. Maybe we can expedite that. 

The Chairman. I see. 

Some of the members of the committee want to make arrangements, 
some appointments. 

Mr. Williams. We can do it tonight, if you want. I mean I am 
passing into a new matter, and we have been adjourning at this time. 
T didn't know what your disposition was. 

The Chairman. If we could continue to sit a little longer, we would 
appreciate it. 

Mr. Williams. All right. 

The Chairman. However, if it is going to work a hardship on you, 
we will recess now. 



306 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Senator McCarthy. It will not. 

The Chairman. Proceed, then. 

Mr. Williams. Did you have a conversation with Senator Hend- 
rickson regarding the report that was filed by this committee ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did. 

The Chairman. Name the time and place. 

Senator McCarthy. Pardon ? 

The Chairman. I say, give us the time when this happened, and the 
place where it happened. 

Senator McCarthy. It was the night the report was filed. I don't 
recall that date. 

The Chairman. Was that in January, January 9, 1953 ? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't recall the date tlie report was filed, Mr. 
Chairman, but 1 called in the night the report was filed and talked 
to him over the phone. 

Mr. Williams. That was January 2, 1953, Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. January 2? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. You mean the date of this conversation ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. The date the report was filed, as I under- 
stood your 

Senator McCarthy. That was the date of the conversation. 

Mr. Williams. Wliat conversation did you have with Senator 
Hendrickson regarding the report ? 

Senator McCarthy. I called Bob up and pointed out to him that 
they were stating facts that were wrong, and I asked him whether or 
not he was going to sign that report. 

I told him I tliought it was completely dishonest to sign a report 
that was factually wrong, that I didn't "argue with any conclusions 
which he arrived at based upon correct facts, but I didn't like to have 
him state the facts improperly. 

At that time he said he was signing it, but that he would not agree— 
and I think I can quote him verbatim, because it impressed me very 
much — that he would not agree insofar as the report differed from 
the proven facts. 

Mr. Williams. He would not agree. What do you mean by that? 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, he would sign the report, 
but that he would not agi'ee with it insofar as it differed from the 
])roven facts. 

I thought this was a fantastic ]:>osition for a man to take in a semi- 
judicial position, who says, "I will sign the report," meaning I ap- 
prove of it, but then .saying, "I do not agree insofar as it differs from 
the proven facts." 

I said to him, "Bob, have you read the report? ^Vliy don't you sign 
a minority report, then, pointing out where the facts are wrong?" 

And he said, "I haven't time "to read the report as of now." 

Mr. Williams. Thereafter did you make the remark that has been 
put in evidence in this case concerning Senator Hendrickson? 

Senator McCarthy. I either made that remark, or one substan- 
tially the same as that. 

Mr. Williams. Wlien that was made, were you referring to what 
he had told you on the telephone concerning his actions in relationship 
to this report ? 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 307 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, yes ; I was, and I referred directly to his 
position on that report. 

Mr. Williams. I would like to offer at this time, Mr. Chairaian, 
the Congressional Eecord, or, in the alternative, to ask this committee 
to judicially notice the Record insofar as Senator Flanders' remarks 
are concerned concerning Senator McCarthy on Jiuie 1, June 11, July 
20, of 1964. 

I have no desire to burden the committee by reading that material, 
but I think it is germane here in consideration of the issues involved 
in the fourth charge. 

The Chairman. May 1 ask if you have reference now to the speeches 
that Senator Flanders made on the floor of the Senate while the 
McCarthy-Army controversy was being heard ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. You are not asking for permission to have them 
all printed in the record, are you ? 

Mr. Williams. Well, I was asking for that permission in lieu of 
reading them here. 

The Chairman. I am inquiring as to 

Mr. Williams. I don't like to add to the size of this record, but I 
feel that they are so germane to the issues here that they should be 
before this committee when it makes its consideration of these charges. 

The Chairman. There may be some doubt as to their relevancy 
but I think on the theory that you seem to be moving on, on the provo- 
cation — is that the guide you have in mind ? 

Mr. Williams, Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I think that while this committee may possibly — I 
can only speak for myself, however — may be in some doubt on the 
weight to be given to the charge with respect to Senator Flanders, 
at the same time we should either have it in the file or in such a way in 
the record that there won't be any question about where the matter is 
stated and so that it can be easily referred to by the Senate. 

Senator Case. May I make a suggestion? 

I would suggest that the s])eech of Senator Flanders, or speeches, if 
it was more than one, which antedated in point of time the remark 
which Senator McCarthy is said to have made about Senator Flanders 
in one of the charges, be put in. At least, I think the record should 
include the speech by Senator Flanders which was made before Sena- 
tor McCarthy made the remark attributed to him. I don't know if 
the record needs to be burdened with the speech made afterward. 

The Chairman. I understood they were all made before. 

On the theory that you are offering them, that they were provoca- 
tion, it would have to be before to be 

Mr. Williams. My recollection is. Senator Case, that the newsman 
who testified in here, testified that he showed the final copy of the 
speeches to which I have referred to Senator McCarthy before tii« 
colloquy took place which has been read into evidence her^ 

Senator Case. Anything that was heard before, 

Mr. Williams. I realize that. 

Senator Case. To support the question of provocation. I was under 
the impression that Senator McCarthy's alleged statement was mad*^ 
fairly early during the exchange. 

Mr. Williams. I have not offered the numerous speeches that Sen- 
ator Flanders has made, nor the press releases he has issued each day 



308 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

diirino; the liearin*^ beause I felt that only things that antedated this 
"wero germane. 

The Chairman. The Chair understood that they did antedate. 

]VIr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. I am willing to admit them. The only thing T was 
asking about is the. mechanical job of getting them before the Senate. 
They are not too long and we can have them included as part of the 
record and save all the argument. 

They will be received. 

(The speeches referred to are as follows:) 

Statement of Senator Ralph E. Flanders on the Floor of the Senate 
June 1, 1954, Faces 6976-6977, Daily Record 

colossal innocence in the senate of the united states 

Mr. Flanders. Mr. President, I propose for a few minutes to address this l)()dy 
on tlie subject of the colossal innocence of the .iunior Senator from Wisconsin 
[Mr. McCarthy]. 

I am not using the word "innocence" in the meaning of freedom from guilt 
for no question of guilt is involved. Rather the meaning is that of the blithe 
heedlessness of the young, who blunder innocently into the most appaling situ- 
ations, as they ramble through the world of adults. Perhaps the best illus- 
tration of this kind of innocence is to be found in a popular cartoon series 
published daily under the title "Dennis the Menace." 

Our busy Senator does get us adults into all kinds of trouble. His construc- 
tive activities consist largely in pulling personalities out of the FP>I tiles and 
displaying them under the television lights. This is certainly a labor-saving 
operation, but it is not his only activity. Besides this, and while doing tliis, 
he spreads division and confusion wherever he goes. Note, for instance, the 
foreboding he inspires in our fellow citizens of Jewish blood and faith. Among 
them this is well-nigh universal, in spite of tlie fact that some of his closest 
associates are Hebrews. In seeking the origin of this foreboding, I have been 
led to remember the part the Senator played in the investigation of the Malmedy 
massacres, and the strange tenderness he displa^red for the Nazi ruffians involved. 

Perhaps this would not have been enough to perpetuate foreboding, but his 
anticommunism so completely parallels that of Adolf Hitler as to strike fear 
into the heart of any defenseless minority. We sliould always remember, by 
the way, that communism, nazism, and other dictatorships resemble each other 
far more closely than any of them resembles the free world into which we were 
born, and in which we hope that our children and grandchildren will live. 

It was not the Jews alone who had i-eason to be troubled. The former chief 
of staff of the Senator's committee, without a word of rebuke from his superior, 
charged the Protestant ministry with being, in effect, the center of Communist 
influence in this country. Here the attack was on a vigorous, indignant majority, 
and the chief of staff had to go. 

But the ghost of religious intolerance was not laid. Clearer and clearer evi- 
dence came to light of the danger of setting church against church. Catholic 
against Protestant. At a recent communion breakfast of the New York police 
force, the Senator made a characteristic speech, blaming the Pentagon for not 
compelling the release of the remaining prisoners of the Chinese Communists. 
He did not say how this could be done short of renewing the war. Then he 
referred to his own proudest achievement — the detection of the pink dentist. 
Loud cheers from most of the audience — others silent. 

Then Monsignor McCaffrey went into a eulogistic oration on the public service 
of our Senator. More cheers and silences. 

Cardinal Spellman entered during the Monsignor's introduction and shook 
hands with our Senator. He arrived lat;^ and left early, but he did shake hands. 
Did this mean that the imprimatur of "nihil obstat" had been set by the church 
on these debonair campaigns to divide Americans from each other on religious 
lines? It looked like a pretty serious business. 

But soon, thank God, from Cliicago another voice was heard. It was that of 
a high and respected memlter of the Catholic Church, Bisho]) Shell. He said that 
our Senator is doing more harm than good, and is dividing the United States 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 309 

instead of uniting it in a cause that of itself is supported by every good citizen. 
Continuing, the l)ishop said : 

"An America which has lost faith in the integrity of the Government, the 
Army, the schools, the cluirches, the labor unions, and most of all an America 
whose citizens have lost faith in each other — such an America would not need to 
Mother about being anti-Communist ; it would have nothing to lose. 
"Such an America — " 

He added — 
"would have nothing to recommend it to freedom-loving men — nothing at all, not 
even the shining image of its victorious junior Senator from Wisconsin." 

Thus it liecame evident that Dennis the Menace had driven his blundering ax 
deep into the heart of his own church. 

His success in dividing his country and his church is paralleled by his unpar- 
alleled success in dividing his own party. While only a minority leader, his 
following is faithful and loud. This again raises uncomfortable comparisons 
with dictators elsewhere in the world. Not so long ago our Senator made one — 
just one — Republican speech. It was extreme, but it contained some painful 
truths. There were hopes that he might rejoin the party. But he soon dissipated 
these hopes, and instead resumed his ax-happy efforts to split it. 

He has achieved the incredible .success of persuading Republican Senators into 
a detailed and relentless search for some significant evidence of subversions in 
the Republican administration — and this in an election year. The search has no 
limits in minuteness or altitude. It reaches into the White House itself. 

The cooperating group in the Senate is not large. It is not completely hyp- 
notized. It is led on by the pitiful hope that some magic means may be found 
whereby Dennis the Menace will be transformed into a Republican asset. 

Meanwhile, the investigation goes on and on. There are new synthetic and 
irrelevant mysteries served up each day, like the baker's breakfast buns, delivered 
to the door hot out of the oven. But the committee has not yet dug into the 
real heart of the mystery. That mystery concerns the personal relationships of 
the Army private, the .staff assistant, and the Senator. 

This hubbub centers on the Army private. What is it really all about? His 
usefulness as an investigator is continually asserted, but never documented. 
Let him also be investigated. When he is released for committee work, what 
does he do hour by hour? Whom does he see? What material does he analyze? 
What does he report? These questions are important and iinanswered. 

Then, there is the relationship of the stalf assistant to the Army private. It 
is natural that he should wish to retain the services of an able collaborator, but 
he seems to have an almo.st passionate anxiety to retain him. Why? 

And, then, there is the Senator himself. At times he seems anxious to rid 
Iiimself of the whole mess, and then again, at least in the presence of his assist- 
ant, he strongly supports the latter's efforts to keep the Army private's services 
available. Does the assistant have some hold on the Senator? Can it be that our 
Dennis, so effective in making trouble for his elders, has at last gotten into 
trouble himself? Does the committee plan to investigate the real issues at stake? 

Let us now leave these interesting domestic details and look at the worldwide 
strategy of communism. Let us begin by remembering that a while ago the 
Senator from Maine (Mrs. Smith) was denounced by the Moscow press as an 
enemy of the people — that is, of communism. I have myself been honored by the 
same accolade. If the junior Senator from Wisconsin has ever been attacked 
by Pravda, it has not come to my attention. 

In every country in which communism has taken over, the beginning has been 
a successful campaign of division and confusion. Race is set against race, party 
against party, religion against religion, neighbor against neighbor, and child 
against parent. Until lately we have lieen free of that. We are so no longer. 

We have marveled at the way in which the Soviet Government has won its mili- 
tary successes in Asia without risking its own resources or its own men. It has 
been willing to continue the conflict until the last Chinese Communist is killed. 

What we are now seeing is another example of economy of effort and expansion 
of success in the conquest of this country for communism. The preliminary 
campaign is successfully underway. One of the characteristic elements of 
Communist and Fascist tyranny is at hand, as citizens are set to spy upon each 
other. Established and responsible government is besmirched. Religion is set 
against religion, race against race. Churches and parties are split asunder. AH 
is division and confusion. 

Were the junior Senator from Wisconsin in the pay of the Communists, he 
could not have done a better job for them. 

This is colossal innocence, indeed. 



310 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Statement of Senator Ralph E. Flanders on the Flook of the Senate, 
June 11, 1954 (pp. 7594-7595, Daily Record) 

IN contempt of the senate 

Mr. Fla'ndeus. Mr. President, there has coine to my liaiuls in the last few- 
days a committee print of the iuvestijiations of Senators Joseph R. McCarthy and 
William Benton, pursuant to Senate Resolution 1.S7 and Senate Resolution .'504 of 
the 82d Congress. This is not the tirst time that I have heard of this material. 
A bootlegged edition was sent me many months ago, but since I do not patronize 
bootleggers in any commodity I paid little attention to it. This publication, how- 
ever, was official, and its contents are such that I feel they must be taken into 
account. 

The charges against the junior Senator from AVisconsin were sununed up in 
six questions, which the committee worded, as follows : 

"Whether under the circumstances it was proper for Senator McCarthy to 
receive .$10,000 from the Lustron Corp. 

"Whether funds supplied to Senator McCarthy to fight communism or for other 
specific purposes were diverted to his own use. 

"Whether Senator McCarthy used close associates and members of his family 
to secrete receipts, income, commodity and stock speculation, and other financial 
transactions for ulterior motives. 

"Whether Senator McCarthy's activities on behalf of certain special interest 
groups, such as housing, sugar, and China were motivated by self-interest. 

"Whether loan or other transactions Senator McCarthy had with Appleton 
State Bank or others involved violations of the tax and banking laws. 

"Whether Senator McCarthy violated Federal and State Corrupt Practice Acts 
in connection with his 1944-46 senatorial campaigns or in connection with his 
dealings with Ray Kiermas." 

I now quote from the first two full paragraphs on page 10 of the subcommittee 
report : 

"In Senate Resolution 187, this subcommittee had before it, at the outset, 
merely the issue of determining the merits of Senator Benton's charges relating to 
Senator McCarthy's fitness to sit in the Senate. As indicated. Senator McCarthy 
was invited to attend subcommittee hearings on six occasions to present his 
explanations of the issues raised in Senate Resolution IN" and the investigation 
made pursuant thereto. Three of the invitations were extended prior to the 
Senate vote on April 10, 1952, and three invitations were extended subsequently. 
Senator McCarthy should have known that the most expeditious way to re-solve 
the issues would have been to appear before the subcommittee to make such state- 
ments and refutations of the charges as he saw fit. For reasons known only to 
Senator McCarthy, he chose not to accept this course, but to charge that the 
allegations were a smear and that the subconmiittee was dishonest and doing the 
work of Communists. Between October 1951 and April 1952 he refused to honor 
the invitations of the Subcommittee on Pi'ivileges and Ejections on the grounds 
that it lacked jurisdiction and that the members of said subcommittee were dis- 
honest in their motives for insisting on any investigation, which, he contended, 
was solely because of his exposure of Communists in Government. Subsequent to 
April 10, 1952, and in the face of the Senate's GO-0 vote confirming the integrity of 
the members of the subcommittee and its jurisdiction to investigate the matters 
Involved Senator McCarthy continued to reject the invitations of the subcom- 
mittee to appear before it for the piu'pose of presenting testimony in explanation 
of the issues raised by the investigation, and continued his attack upon the 
members of the subcommittee. 

"Such action on the part of Senator McCarthy might appear to reflect a di.sdain 
and contempt for the rules and wishes of the entire Senate body, as well as the 
membership of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections." 

It is surely clear that the junior Senator from Wisconsin treated the members 
of the subcommittee, Messrs. Hennings, Hayden, and Hendrickson, with contempt. 
The Senate, on April 10, 1952, by a GO-to-0 vote, confirmed the integrity of the 
members of the subcommitte and its jurisdiction to investigate the matters in- 
volved. Therefore, the original contempt of the junior Senator from Wisconsin 
extended to the whole Senate. 

It is no defense to call the charges a smear. A smear is a mo.st annoying thing 
and one which is perhaps — I would not speak definitely — not unknown to the 
junior Senator from Wisconsin. But there is this about a smear : It can be 
removed by a dry-cleaning process which involves a vigorous application of the 
truth. That process the Senator was unwilling to apply. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 311 

Mr. Welker. Mr. President, will the Senator from Vemaont yield to me? 

Mr. Flanders. I yield. 

Mr. Welker. Does tlie Senator from Vermont have any information that the 
junior Senator from Idaho served also on that committee? 

Mr. Flanders. He was a member of that committee, as I recall. 

Mr. Welker. Does the Senator from Vermont realize that the Senator from 
Idaho resigned from that committee on the ground and for the reason that it was 
a political smear? 

Mr. Flanders. I would ask the Senator from Idaho to wait until he hears my 
dissertation on the subject of smearing. 

Mr. Welker. I shall be happy to do so. I am sorry I interrupted the Senator. 

Mr. Flanders. That is quite all right. 

Mr. President, as I was saying, there is this about a smear : It can be removed 
bj a dry-cleaning process which involves a vigorous application of the truth. That 
process the junior Senator from Wisconsin was unwilling to apply. The smear 
remains. Of course, there are some character discolorations which are not 
smears. They may be the outward evidence of inner corruption. I>ady Macbeth 
f oiuid this out when she was smeared with the blood of Duncan and cried out : 

"All the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand." 

The Senator has quite evidently placed himself in the contempt of his peers 
and will so remain until he dry cleans his smears. He should be given a reason- 
able length of time to purge himself by this means before the Senate takes further 
action. 

To indicate what the action should be, I am sending to the desk at this time 
a motion which I will ask the clerk to read "distinctly with a loud voice that 
the people may hear," as the minister is admonished to read in the ancient English 
prayer book. For this occasion we want no rapid, indistinct mumbling of the 
words. 

The Presiding Officer. The motion will be read. 

The LEfiisLATi\'E Clerk. It is moved — 

"That Senator McCarthy be separated from the chairmanship of the Com- 
mittee on Government Operations, and furthermore be prohibited from being 
chairman or vice chairman of any subcommittee thereof." 

INIr. Flanders. INIr. President, it is intended that the motion lie on the table 
until sufficient time has been given for the Senator from Wisconsin to purge 
himself of contempt, by answering specifically and in detail the charges in the. 
numerous questions I have read. To allow this time is only fair to him. 

When I call up the motion, I shall hoiie for a goodly show of hands on this 
side of the aisle in support of the request for a yea-and-nay vote. 

The Presiding Officer. Without objection, the motion which will be reduced 
to writing in the form of a resolution, will lie on the table, as requested^by the 
Senator from Vermont. 

The motion of Mr. Flanders was ordered to be printed in the form of a resolu- 
tion ( S. Res. 261) and to lie on the table, as follows : 

"Resolved, That Senator McCarthy be separated from the chairmanship of the 
Senate Committee on Government Operations and furthermore be prohibited from 
being chairman or vice chairman of any. subcommittee thereof." 

Mr. Williams. Mr. Chairman, this morninor there was a colloquy 
concerninjr certain portions of our defense which were ruled out. I 
do want to offer certain factual information on one of the charges 
that was made here, namely, the charjje re^ardin^ the so-called FBI 
document. Insofar as I can proceed witliout transgressing your 
ruling, I shall do it. I shall address myself to the charge of spuri- 
ousness of this document and interrogate this witness on that subject 
because I feel that does not transgress in any way your ruling. 

The Chairman. What you have brought before us at the time was 
not on that question at all. 

Mr. Williams. No, 

The Chairman. You may proceed. 

We will rule on the evidence as it is presented. 

Mr. Williams. Senator, the document which you held in your hand 
and which you passed to the committee counsel, Ray Jenkins, in the 



312 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Army-McCarthy hearings on May 4, 1954, I ask you to examine 
that, sir. 

Is that it? 

Senator McCarthy. It is unnecessary. I have examined it in 
detail. 

Mr. Williams. When you passed that to Mr. Jenkins, did you pass 
it to him as a document whicli purported to give certain information 
whicli you in fact liad received in 1953? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, that's right. 

Mr. Williams. Does this document on its face show that materials 
have been deleted which related to security information and clas- 
sified information ? 

Senator McCarthy. It does very definitely do so. 

Mr. Williams. Now, I direct your attention to paragraph 5 of this 
document, the one alluded to by Mr. Collier as the one paragraph 
wherein the first change takes place in his comparison with the 
memorandum in the FBI files, and I ask you if in the fifth paragi-aph 
it does not clearly indicate that materials have been omitted of a 
security nature. 

The Chairman. Just before you answer that, the document you are 
now talking about is the one that has been marked "Classified"? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. And was ruled to be classified in the other hearing, 
the Army controversy hearing? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Just a moment. And is that the two and a fourth 
page document? 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. The reason I am calling this to your attention, I 
am going to permit Senator McCarthy to give his interpretation of 
it as lon!7 as he does not reveal any so-called classified information. 
Obviously, we cannot cross-examine him as to wdiether he is giving a 
correct interpretation of the letter because if it is classified, we cannot 
even examine it. 

Mr. Williams. I know of no way. Senator 

The Chairman. And the evidence so far that has been placed in 
the record from the Army-McC^arthy hearing record indicates that 
it was classified and so considered by the Attorney General and by 
Mr. Hoover of the FBI. 

Mr. Williams. I know of no way to defend the charge of the 
spuriousness of this document 

The Chairman. I am not objecting to your proceeding that way, 
but I am Dointing out that we will be unable to cross-examine on that 
point. 

Mr. Wii,LiAMS, Now 

Senator Ervin. Mr. Chairman. 

The Chairman. Senator Ervin. 

Senator Ervin, If Mr. Williams M'ill pardon tlie suggestion, it 
would tend to defend the charge of spuriousness, to show how Senator 
McCarthy came into the possession of these documents and to show 
that he accepted it as a valid document 

Mr. WiLi.TAMS. I intend to ask those questions. Senator Ervin, if 
I am permitted to conduct the examination. I was just about to go 
into that aspect of the case. 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 313 

Of course, Senator McCarthy will be available for full cross-exami- 
nation on that subject. That is the purpose of my asking these ques- 
tions now ''o tliat there can be a full cross-examination on that. 

The Chairman. Of course, under the rules of this committee, it 
is more or less informal. Whether it is presented at all or not, the 
conmiittee, might want to know about it anyhow, even if you didn't 
oiler it. 

Mr. WiLi.iAMS. I ai)preciate your position, sir, and I intend to 
cover that ground. 

Xow, I ask you again whether or not this document 

The Chairman. Just a moment. 

I take it for granted, of course, the press is very curious about 
this, but I hope they will not attempt to take a look at it, because if 
it is marked classihed even though it was testified here that there 
were 35 copies, possibility of 35 copies circulated, we are still going 
to observe, do all we can to keep it from being — just a moment — 
being read by ])eople who haven't any right to read it. 

We are going to observe the ruling of the other committee on that 
and to follow their steps, 

I am not reflecting on anybody, but I just wanted to make that 
clear. 

Mr. Williams. I ask you whether or not the first paragraph to 
which Mr, Collier referred when he said that there had been changes 
in the content'^ of this document in comparison with the FBI docu- 
ment, that the Department of Justice does not reveal that the security 
information therein has been deleted. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; that statement on the background 
of a certain individual has been deleted. It is a parenthetical expres- 
sion. 

May I say, Mr. Williams, in answer to what the Chair said, that 
Mr. Hoover has never classified this document. Mr. Hoover classi- 
fied the 15-page document which contained the security information. 

This document has never been classified by Mr. Hoover. 

The Chairman. The Attorney General passed on it and said it 
was classified and refused to permit it to be used or disclosed. 

Mr. Williams. I ask you 

The Chairman. And we are relying on that. We are not trying 
to go back of it and start all over again. We take what the other 
conunittee did as evidence. 

Mr. Williams. Now, Mr. Collier's testimony — and this is a matter 
of record in this proceeding — is that the first four paragraphs were 
in all respects identical and that there was a change in paragraph 5. 

That is why I addressed my question to Senator McCarthy as to 
whether security information had been deleted from paragraph 5. 

Now, with respect to paragraph 6, Mr. Collier's testimony was that 
that was in all respects identical with the document to which Mr. 
Hoover compared it. 

Is that right? 

Senator McCarthy. That's right. 

Mr. Williams. Now, I ask you whether or not paragraph 7 does not 
clearly indicate on its face that security classified information has 
been deleted therefrom? 

Senator McCarthy. By paragraph 7, Mr. Williams, you refer to 
this section ? 



314 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, it shows that all of the security infor- 
mjition in regard to the Fort Monmouth radar employees has been 

deleted. 

Mr. Williams. Then I call your attention, sir, to parao-raphs 8 
and 9 and the testimony in the hearinojs have been that they were 
in all respects identical with the paraf^raph in the document to which 
they were compared; is that correct? 

Senator McCarthy. That's correct. And let me say this, Mr. 
Williams, that I hope the members of the committee examine this 
document. They will find that there is no security information in 
it. They Avill find tliat this is a warninc; of subversion at the radar 
laboratory. 

Mr. W1L1.1AMS. I don't see, Mr. Chairman 

The Chairman. Question has been raised as to the propriety of the 
Senator i-eadiniz: certain i)ortions. It has been ruled in the other 
committee that it was classified. It was regarded as a classified 
document. 

The Attorney General said it could not be made public and I do 
not think the committee is going to read this document under the 
circumstances. 

Mr. Williams. Then I ask, Mr. Chairman, if at this time, this 
committee will not look at this, I don't see how it can pass upon 
whether it is spurious or not. I just don't know how^ to defend our 
charge without showing it is, showing you that it is not spurious, 
that it purports to be just what it is, something with the security and 
classified information deleted from it. 

And it is clearly deleted from it and there was no attempt to indi- 
cate otherwise, because that is right on the face of it. 

The Chairman. Well, of course, I say all of this I could strike out 
as being completely incompetent because the document itself would 
speak for itself, but under the peculiar circumstances pertaining to this 
entire transaction and the document itself, the committee does not feel 
it ought to do that. We allowed you to testify in a general nature with 
respect to it. 

Now, we will take under advice the matter you have offered, if you 
have offered it. Evidently you are going to offer it into evidence or you 
{^re wanting to read it. 

Mr. Williams. I want to read it, sir, because there is no security 
information in it. 

The Chairman. Are you offering it in evidence ? 

Mr. Williams. Yes. 

The Chairman. At this moment I will say, on behalf of the com- 
niittee,that we will take the matter under advisement. 

Mr, Williams. Thank you. 

The Chairman. And in the meantime, before we decide whether 
to read it or not, the possession of the document will be left where it 
came from, Senator McCarthy, in his possession. 

Now, if the committee has another view on that after our delibera- 
tions in executive session, we will make that known. 

Mr. Williams. I may say to you, Senator, and it seems to me that 
I am making an admission that nobody else made, that I have the docu- 
ment in my possession, and I have to say to you that I have read it 
because I knew not how^ to defend this document against the charges, 



HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 315 

and I can tell you that everything that is of a classified or security 
nature is manifestly deleted herefrom, and I urge you with all the 
power in my command to look at it. 

I do not, of course, ask you to drop the charges of the spuriousness 
of the document because the committee cannot look at it. I hope you 
will look at it so that this thing can be cleared up. 

The Chairman. We have great respect for your judgment and your 
sincerity and honesty, Mr. Williams, in saying that we are not going 
to take a look at it even though you have made that statement. 1 hope 
you will not think we are reflecting on you. 

Senator Ervin. I want to say this to Mr. Williams. I think some- 
times folks have got to know what a word means, in what sense they 
use the word. You used the word "classified." In other words, it 
might be susceptible to two meanings. The first is, it might be re- 
stricted to the method by which intelligence is obtained or it might 
mean both that and the information which is obtained as a result of 
it. In what sense do you use the word "classified" so that I can under- 
stand your position ? 

Mr. Williams. There are no investigative techniques revealed 
herein. There are no informants revealed here. There is no informa- 
tion here that in my opinion can in anywise affect the security of the 
country. 

Senator Ervin. Well, suppose the Intelligence Service, either the 
FBI or the Central Intelligence Agency, conducted an investigation 
by their techniques and discovered that John Doe in the Government 
was a Communist. Would that fact that John Doe was a Communist 
be classified information, or would merely the technique which they 
have used, by which they made that discovery, be classified informa- 
tion ? I want your understanding. 

Mr. Williams. I wouldn't say that the fact as to whether John Doe 
was a Communist would be classified. 

I would agree with you, Senator Ervin, that the document and the 
FBI files which contained that information might well be classified. 

Senator Ervin. Do I understand you to mean, then, that the part 
of the document or report or data collected by the FBI that John Doe 
was a Communist would not be classified information? 

Mr. Williams. No, sir. I say I will certainly readily agree with 
the position you are taking. Senator, that a document in the FBI files 
which contained the facts of Communist affiliation of Joe Doe or 
William Roe might very well be classified, and I would accede to 
that proposition. 

Senator Ervin. Is it your position that if I were a governmental 
efnployee and I had access to such a document and I copied a state- 
ment from the document that John Doe has been discovered to be a 
Communist, is it your position that what I said about it, that would 
not be classified information ? I admit that the paper would be classi- 
fied, but would the information be classified ? 

Mr. Williams. I will not make that statement. Certainly if I have 
access to information, as a Government clerk, to classifiecl informa- 
tion, and I copy wdiat is in fact classified information, it does not be- 
come less classified by reason of the fact that I simply copied it. 

Senator Ervin. Just explain it to me. Maybe my impression of it 
IS not correct. Explain to me what you mean by classified informa- 
tion, so that I may comprehend it. 



52461—54 21 



316 HEARINGS ON SENATE RESOLUTION 301 

Mr. Williams. I think you and I mean the same thin^. We mean 
information which atfects the national security which has been re- 
(stricted by Executive order and illustrative of which would be in- 
formation containing investigative techniques, names of informants, 
names of individuals w^hose identity might thus not be known for one 
reason or another in the context of our national security considera- 
tions. 

Senator Ervin. In other words, what I am trying to get concrete, 
and an understanding of because I am not certain that 1 understand 
myself, but I have to understand your meaning to understand your 
position. 

I understood from the testimony that was offered that some of these 
paragraphs were identical with paragraphs in some original docu- 
ment in the FBI. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. And that those paragraphs made some statements 
Vidth reference to persons, alleged Communists, in the installation at 
Fort Monmouth. 

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Ervin. Then you use tlie word to mean that the result of 
the technique, when divorced from the technique, is not classified? 

Mr. Williams. I think maybe I can say it tliis way simplest ; I agree 
pretty much with Vice President Nixon in his statement wherein he 
said that he did not regard a certain FBI letter which was not com- 
plete and from which certain portions had be excerpted, when he said 
he did not regard it as classified because the investigative technique, 
the names of the informants, the modus opeitindi of the FBI was in 
no way revealed as a result of the excerpts whicli were taken from it. 
I think I pretty much subscribe to his view on that. 

Senator Ervin. My understanding of it is this : Suppose the FBI 
had documents, the hrst paragraph of which states that Joe Doe, a 
Communist, held a certain governmental position, and the second para- 
graph said that we found out that John Doe, a Communist, held an 
important position by tapping his wires. 

According to your understanding, the first paragraph would not be 
classified information, but the second paragraph would. 

Mr. Williams. I can well imagine that situation obtaining. We 
have a document and the conclusion of that document that is reached 
is tliat John Doe is a Communist, and then the background of the 
infor