Skip to main content

Full text of "Special Senate investigation on charges and countercharges involving: Secretary of the Army Robert T. Stevens, John G. Adams, H. Struve Hensel and Senator Joe McCarthy, Roy M. Cohn, and Francis P. Carr. Hearings before the Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate, Eighty-third Congress, second session, pursuant to S. Res. 189 .."

See other formats






Given By 




JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 








S. Res. 189 

PART 2 \ 

APRIL 22, 1954 


Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 

4C620 WASHINGTON : 1954 


JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 





CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina 

Richard J. O'Melia, General Counsel 
Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk 

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman 


Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel 

Thomas R. Prewitt, Ataistant Counsel 

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SOLis HORWiTz, Assistant Counsel 

CHARLES A. Manee, Secretary 


Testimony of — 

Reber, Maj. Gen, Miles, United States Army 67 

Smith, Gen. Walter iBedell, Under Secretary of State 83 

Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary, Department of the Army 79 





United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on In\:estigations of 
THE Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington, D. C. 

after PuECESS 

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2 : 30 p. m., pursuant to recess.) 

Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Eepublican, South Dakota; Sen- 
ator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois ; Senator Charles 
E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. Dworshak, Re- 
publican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; 
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; and Senator 
Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri. 

Also present: Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel to the subcommittee; 
Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel ; and Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk. 

Principal Participants: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a United 
States Senator from the State of Wisconsin; Roy M. Cohn, chief 
counsel to the subcommittee; Francis P. Carr, staff director of the 
subcommittee ; Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army ; John 
G. Adams, counselor to the Army ; H. Struve Hensel, Assistant Secre- 
tary of Defense; Joseph N. Welch, special counsel for the Army; and 
James D. St. Clair, special counsel for the Army. 

Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order. 

For the benefit of our guests who have not been here this morning, 
may the Chair remind you that there are to be no manifestations or 
expressions of approval or disapproval of any of the proceedings. We 
must insist definitely that that order be maintained. May I say, 
everybody was very fine this morning in that connection. 


Senator Mundt. General Reber is on the stand, and he has been 
sworn. The first man to ask questions is Mr. Cohn. 
Are you ready, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Cohn. I have just 2 or 3 very brief questions. 
Senator Mundt. You have 10 minutes if you care to consume it. 



Mr. CoHN. I don't know if you can see me, or if it is important if 
you can or not. 

Apparently the one point you make, as far as I am concerned, is 
that I called you frequently. Now, I wonder if I could ask you this : 
Is it usually possible for someone from the Hill to get you on the wire 
by calling you once? 

General Reber. Yes, Mr. Cohn, it is. 

Mr. CoHN. Well, sir, would you dispute the fact that my experience 
was, when I would place a call to you, I would sometimes — and I say 
this in no tone of criticism, and I know how busy you are, and you 
have many duties which took you out of your office over to various 
offices and committees on the Hill — would you dispute the fact that 
there were occasions when I tried to reach you which necessitated the 
leaving of a considerable number of messages until you got back to 
your office at the end of the day or the next day ? 

General Reber. No, indeed, Mr. Cohn. I very frequently was 
absent from the office up here at the Capitol. 

Mr. CoHN. I ask you that, sir, because I checked and I would sug- 
gest to you on the basis of that, that at times for as much as 2 or 3 days 
my office as a routine matter would place a call and when you were 
unavailable they would repeat the call until they got you. and there 
might be a lot of messages ending up in one conversation. That is why 
I brought that up. 

Now, I wanted to ask you this second question, if I may : The testi- 
mony which you gave this morning was embodied by iMr. Stevens and 
Mr. Adams and Mr. Hensel in a report as allegations Nos. 1, 2, and 3, 
I believe, of improper means to get preferential treatment. I am 
wondering whether or not you could tell the committee if a similar 
public report was issued in the course of business when the overseas 
orders of Major Peress, the Communist organizer, were canceled after 
intervention by a Congressman from New York State. Was a public 
report issued about that, do you know ? 

General Reber. As far as I know, Mr. Cohn, I don't know of any 
report that was issued in the case of Major Peress. I don't know any- 
thing about that because I was in Germany at that time and so I know 
none of the details whether a report was issued or not. I don't know. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, finallj^, in fairness. General, I did want to ask you 
this : Do you not know for a fact that after Mr. Schine and I dis- 
covered the fact, and I say this in no note of reflection, that we had 
had a rather unpleasant experience with j-our brother and that you 
were the brother of the man with whom we had that experience, that 
I talked with Gen. Walter Bedell Smith about it and asked him to 
review the way in which the application for a commission was proc- 
essed and whether it had been done in a prejudiced or biased way. 

Did that not ever come to your attention ? 

General Reber. I know that Gen. Walter Bedell Smith actually did 
make an inquiry to the Department of the Army, on the afternoon of 
Friday, July 31. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you not know that that inquiry by General Smith 
was made after I had talked with him ? 

General Reber. I frankly at that time did not know whether it was 
the result of your conversation, Mr. Cohn, or whether the Senator had 
called him. 


Mr. CoHN. Did you think there was anything improper in General 
Smith's inquiry, by the way ? 

General Reber. Absohitely not, General Smith did not make inquiry 
direct to me, and he made the inquiry direct to General Hull, and I, 
however, did talk with General Smith the following day on instructions 
from General Hull, 

Mr. CoHN. And you certainly did not feel there was anything im- 
proper in General Smith making the inquiry, I assume ? 

General Reber. No ; I certainly didn't. 

Mr. CoHN". I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ISIundt. Have you concluded yours ? 

Senator JNIcCarthy. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Is there any other question? 

Mr. Jenkins. I have one other question. 

General Reber, in view of a question asked you by Mr. Cohn in which 
there was an implication that one reason why he called you so many 
times was because he was unable to contact you, I wish to state that it 
was my understanding this morning and I ask you to correct me if I 
am mistaken, that Mr. Cohn called you rather an unusual number of 
times when he actually did contact you. 

"Were you speaking of the times that contact was made and you 
carried on conversations with him, when you testified that you con- 
sidered that he had made an inordinately large number of telephone 
calls, and am I mistaken in that or not ? 

General Reber. Mr. Jenkins, this morning I testified that Mr. Cohn 
had actually reached me; I believe that was my intent to signify that 
he had actually reached me by telephone on a considerably larger num- 
ber of times than was ordinarily the case. I do know that he made a 
lot of additional attempts to reach me when I wasn't in the office but I 
am speaking solely of completed telephone calls. 

Mr. Jenkins. As I understood further, it was the burden of your 
testimony that the thing that impressed you about those calls from 
Mr. Cohn was the persistency with which they were made, is that 
correct ? 

General Reber. That is correct, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is alL 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. General, I had not intended to ask this ques- 
tion because I thought we were concluding before noon, but in some 
part of your testimony this morning you used this expression, "Because 
of the particular importance of this case with respect to the application 
of Mr. Schine." ^^^lat did you mean with respect to the particular 
importance of this case, and how do you differentiate from any other 
application for a direct commission ? 

General Reber. As I said, Senator McClellan, part of my duties 
are to keep the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff informed 
as to the trend of our relationships with the Congress. In this particu- 
lar case, I happen to know of my own knowledge that publicly Mr. 
Schine was very well known to the people of the country. I knew 
from my own knowledge that any commissioning or request for com- 
missioning by Mr. Schine of a direct commission was an important 
public relations question to the Department of the Army. Therefore, 
I felt it my duty to inform my superiors as to a problem that had been 


placed in front of me, together with my recommendations. That is 
what I meant. 

Senator McClellan. Did you relate it in any way to the fact that 
so much effort was being made to get him a commission ? 

General Reber. At that time, sir, I did not, because this was the 
morning after my first contact and I had only had one contact at 
the time that I saw General Hull. 

Senator McClellan. So it was not related to that in any sense? 

General Reber. No, sir; not to any persistent telephone calls or 
anything like that. 

Senator Mundt. Anyone on the majority side? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I have one question. 

Did Mr. Cohn complain to you at any time during this period of 
any bias, alleged bias, that you might have against him by reason 
of your brother ? 

General Rebfr. No, none whatsoever. The first conversation that 
I have heard from either Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn about my 
brother occurred in this hearing today. 

Senator Jackson. That is the first time 

General Reber. That I have heard it from them. 

Senator Jackson. That you heard it mentioned. During all of 
this time that the matter of the commission was under considera- 
tion, did you or did you not have any bias toward anyone who had 
reqiiested that application be acted upon ? 

General Reber. I had absolutely no bias at all, sir. 

Senator Jackson, You feel that you can tell the committee con- 
scientiously that you were acting freely and without any desire to 
be unfair to anyone ? 

General Reber. I feel that I can tell the committee absolutely un- 
equivocably thyt I acted without any bias of any kind in this case. 

Senator Jackson. That is all the questions that I have at this point, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington, do you have a question? 

Senator Symington. General Reber, was there anything that you 
could have done within your power that was left undone to get the 
commission for Mr. Schine ? 

General Reber. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. I have nothing. 

Senator Mundt.. Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes; I have 1 or 2 questions. May I say, 
General, to beoin with, I think I should apologize, and I think we 
all should apologize to the general of the Army to keep you here 
questioning you about the private in the Army who is still a private 
despite all the special consideration he got. No. 2, let me say that 
this committee has nothing in its record that reflected adversely on 
you as far as I am concerned, as far as I know. However, I would 
like to ask you this question, and I think it should be on the record, 
for the benefit of the committee: Are you aware of the fact that 
your brother was allowed to resign when charges that he was a bad 
security risk were made against him as a result of the investigations 
of this committee ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Just a minute, General Reber. 


Mr. Chairman, I must object to that on the grounds that it is wholly 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, with as much respect as I have 
for the very able counsel, let me say that this question is of the utmost 
importance. The general here is testifying, and I get the impression 
at times, reluctantly, adversely to Mr. Cohn. I assume that he has the 
same aifection for his brother that the average man has. If his brother 
was forced to resign from a high position in the State Department as 
a result of activities on the part of this committee, resigned because 
he was a bad security risk, even by no reflection upon the General, 
he is not responsible for his brother and has had no close contact 
with him, I understand, for years, I do think that it is important to 
have that in the record insofar as the possible motive for his testi- 
mony is concerned. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, if the Senator will embrace those 
facts in his question, I will withdraw my objection because, in my 
opinion, those facts would make it a perfectly legitimate question on 
the issue of motive on the part of this witness. 

Senator McCaethy. Mr. Chairman, may I say I used to think that 
I knew the rules of evidence very, very well. I have to admit I am 
learning some new rules of evidence. I think your objection is well 
taken. I think the question should be rephrased so that it contains 
the proper elements. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I raise this question as to its 

There has been no testimony that the statements that the Senator 
makes as facts are true, and until they are established in this record as 
facts, then the question is incompetent. 

Senator Mundt. Senator, we w^ill proceed in order. 

Senator McClellan. Let us have a ruling on this, because we may 
be trying members of everybody's family involved before we get 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, as an attorney for the committee, let 
me say that Senator McCarthy is entitled to ask General Reber wheth- 
er or not the statements embraced in his question are true. That is, 
was his brother forced to resign as a result of facts brought to light 
by the McCarthy committee. 

If he will ask that question directly, I advise this committee that 
in my opinion it is a perfectly legitimate question. 

Senator McClellan. If he asks it that way, yes. 

Senator Mundt. Very well, the Senator will proceed in order and 
rephrase the question. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask the question piecemeal, if I may : 
General, your brother has resigned from the State Department, is that 

General Reber. I believe he has retired from the State Department, 

Senator McCarthy. Do you know — I am not asking you for the 
reason, they can be improper or purely hearsay on your part — do 
you know why he retired? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I submit that that is not proper. Sen- 
ator McCarthy may ask him if he knows whether or not he retired or 

46620—54 — pt. 2 2 


resigned as a result of an investigation of him conducted by either 
Senator McCarthy or any member of his staff. 

Senator McCarthy. I will accept the wording of the question by 
the chief counsel of the committee. Would you answer the question 
as worded by the chief counsel, General ? 

General Reber. May I ask the counsel, please, to repeat that ques- 
tion ? And have the reporter read it ? 

Senator Mundt. Mr, Jenkins will repeat it. 

Mr. Jenkins. The question is whether or not your brother retired 
or resigned from the State Department as a result of his being investi- 
gated and have facts elicited from that investigation by Senator Mc- 
Carthy and/or any member of his staff. The question is, do you know 
whether or not that occurred. 

General Reber. Until the Senator brought this question up a few 
minutes ago, I had never heard a single word about my brother being 
investigated in any way by this committee. 

Mr. Jenkins. General, you have not, however, given a direct 
answer. You can answer it "Yes" or "No." Do you know it? And 
then make any explanation you desire. 

Do you understand the question ? 

General Reber. May I have the specific question read to me? 

Senator Mundt. I will ask that the reporter read the question. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Counsel, may I ask this question 

Senator Mundt. Let the reporter read the question and get an 
answer first. 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested). 

General Reber. I do not know and have never heard that my 
brother retired as a result of any action of this committee. The 
answer is "Positively no" to that question. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. General, I just have one other question, and 
may I say, first, that I very much dislike the idea of having to go into 
the record of your brother, because I think you have a good record 
and I don't think you are responsible for any record of your brother. 
Let us make that clear. But on the question of the motive for your 
testimony, I think that I must in fairness to my staff go into it. 

Let me ask this question: Do you know now or do you have any 
reason to believe that your brother resigned because charges involving 
security were brought against him ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry, I have to object. If that 
question embraces charges with respect to security brought by Senator 
McCarthy or his staff, it would be proper. Otherwise, it would not 
be proper because it would show no motive on the part of this witness 
to testify falsely against Senator McCarthy or any member of his 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I respectfully differ with 
our learned counsel. This committee has been dealing with security 
matters, and it is impossible for this witness to know whether or not 
a man was dropped because the chain of events was originated by 
this committee. 

May I have the Chair's attention ? 

If a man in the position of the — I must have the Chair's attention. 

Senator Mundt. Pardon me. 


Senator McCarthy. If a man holding a job so important that he 
was the Acting High Commissioner of Germany resigned because of 
security reasons after our committee staff had been over in Germany 
and had interviewed him, and after he made statements or his office 
made statements against my staff, I believe it is very pertinent to know 
whether or not General Reber knows whether or not his brother was 
dropped on security grounds. 

I think that does reflect upon motive. I think that he should be 
asked to answer that question, and I don't want to pursue this any 

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that this is something that I would not 
bring up — I think much of what we are doing is a waste of time, but I 
think I have an obligation to the committee to do that and to bring 
all of the facts to light. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair inquire of counsel now whether, 
having heard the statement from Senator McCarthy on the point of 
order, he restates his objection or withdraws it? 

Mr. Jenkins. So long as the question is whether or not the witness' 
brother resigned or was discharged from the Department by reason 
of an investigation of him or by reason of the fact that he was a bad 
security risk, counsel will be constrained to object as I have heretofore 
stated.' If the Senator will ask a question embracing the fact or a 
legal fact that such resignation occurred as a result, directly or indi- 
rectly, of an investigation by the McCarthy committee, my objection 
will then be withdrawn. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say 

Senator Mundt. The Senator will proceed in order. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say while I disagree with the very able 
counsel, I can see nothing to be gained by spending further time on 
this, and I will withdraw the question. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Does any other member of the Senate or counsel for the Army have 
any further question, or Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Cohn. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr, Welch, do you have a question ? 

Mr. Welch. I have a question. 

I would like to ask the witness kindly to state to the committee — 
I would like to ask the witness if he will kindly state to the commit- 
tee his knowledge of the reasons lying back of his brother's retirement 
from this position. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Unless the 
witness wants to do that, I think that is a completely unfair question. 
I would not ask him that question. It has to do with the type of se- 
curity, whether it is Communist activities. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I agree with you. Senator McCarthy, the ob- 
jection by counsel for the reasons stated by the Senator. 

Senator Mundt. On advice of counsel, the Chair, unless he is over- 
ruled by the committee, will sustain the objection. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say, if for some reason General Reber 
wants to volunteer the information, I have no objection, but I think 
it is a highly unimportant question. 

Mr. Jenkins. It would unnecessarily burden the record, and it is 
not germane, and I see no reason to do it. An objection is interposed. 


General Reber, May I ask a question as a witness? It is highly 
irregular, I know, but may I ask a question? 

Senator Mundt. You can ask it. I don't know what will happen 
to it. You can ask it. 

General Reber. As I understand this procedure, a very serious 
charge has been made against my brother in this room. I would like 
to answer publicly that charge right now, to the most honest extent 
of my knowledge of the situation. 

Senator Mundt. Does anyone interpose an objection ? 

You may proceed. 

General Reber. My brother retired from the Department of 
State, and 

Senator McCarthy. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. General Reber should have an opportunity to 
make his statement. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Chairman, if the general is 
going to — a point of order. 

Senator Mundt. One at a time. 

Senator McCarthy. A point of order. I just want to make the 
record clear that if General Reber is going to go into the grounds 
upon which his brother was separated, if that is considered pertinent, 
then I feel that I have a right to cross-examine him upon that subject. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel advises me, and I so advise General Reber, 
that if the general makes his statement, he will then be subject to 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I make this observation. Gen- 
eral Reber, I think is in error in stating that a serious attack has 
been made on his brother. Questions were asked with reference to 
his brother, but no proof or statement has been introduced with 
respect to his brother. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Counsel, may I say that the statement, Mr. 
Chairman, has been made in this room and is apparent to millions of 
Americans, that General Reber's brother was dismissed as a security 

Mr. Jenkins. If such a statement were made, it was highly improper 
and it was ruled out as being incompetent and the Senator was only 
permitted to examine or cross-examine the witness. Now, if the com- 
mittee feels that those questions carry with them such serious implica- 
tions as to leave the witness' brother under a cloud, then in all fairness 
to the witness, while it is not strictly relevant or proper, he should 
be permitted to clear his brother's name. 

I withdraw any objection I have interposed to it. 

Senator Jackson. I want to state in the record that the statement 
cannot be stricken from all of the newspapers tonight, or from the 
television audience, and radio audience, and I think in fairness he 
should be given the opportunity to answer the statement limited to 
that charge that his brother was dismissed as a security risk. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned with Gen- 
eral Reber's brother. I asked the question on the basis of motive. 
But if the General now denies that the brother was allowed or forced 
to resign because of security reasons, if the committee thinks that is 


pertinent, then I feel that I must demand the right — whether the de- 
mand is granted or not — I must demand the right to cross-examine 
the general on that subject and also produce witnesses from the State 
Department on that subject. 

I know that this may appear to be getting far afield. I merely 
asked the question first on the grounds of motive. But if Senator 
Jackson, who obviously does not know the facts, is going to accuse 
me of making an improper accusation, then we will let the Senator 
hear the testimony. 

Senator Jackson. I am not accusing anyone of any improper accusa- 
tion, Mr. Chairman. I want to keep the record straight. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan addressed the Chair first, I am 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, these extraneous accusations 
that are being made against people who are not parties to this pro- 
ceeding, do carry over the air and on television and in the press. It 
has been stated here that the general's brother was dismissed as a 
security risk. I contend that he has a right on the same forum at 
this time to either confirm or deny, and that should end it, because 
it is not important to these proceedings, whether he is dismissed as a 
security risk or as a chicken thief or as a gentleman. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, Senator McClellan has just 
stated that certain charges are carried over the air. My chief counsel, 
ni}^ chief of staff, and I have been accused of everything except mur- 
dering their great, great grandmother, over the air, and I maintain 
that I have the absolute duty, not the right but the duty, to show the 
motive of every witness. I would like to ask the Chair now whether 
or not, if he allows the General to attempt to tell us why his brother 
was separated from the State Department, whether I will have the 
right to cross-examine him in detail on that subject and bring forth 
witnesses on the matter. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Chairman, the witness has been asked the ques- 
tion as to whether or not his brother was discharged by reason of 
being a poor security risk. His answer was in the negative. Senator 
McCarthy takes the position, apparently, that his brother was dis- 
charged as a result of an investigation by Senator McCarthy and his 
staff'. It is my opinion that Senator McCarthy, or any other party or 
witnesses, is always entitled to show motive on the part of a witness. 
If Senator McCarthy is not satisfied with the answer of the witness 
in the negative, he is entitled to cross-examine for the purpose of show- 
ing a motive on the part of this witness. 

That is my opinion. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take any more 
of your time, but let me say this: When your counsel objected to my 
question, I withdrew it. My position now is that if the general is 
going to give us a statement about the reason for his brother's dis- 
missal, gratuitously, then I should have the right to cross-examine 
him, period. 


Senator Mundt. The Chair has been advised by counsel, and you 
gentlemen of the committee have heard that, that if General Reber 
avails himself of the opportunity which is his, to talk about his 
brother's resignation or retirement, that Senator McCarthy should 
then have the right to cross-examine. 

The Chair believes that the counsel has advised us wisely and will 
so rule unless there is objection. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I want to understand this a 
little further. Are we going now to try General Reber's brother? If 
so, I ask that a subpena be issued for him immediately. Let him be 
here in his own defense. 

Senator Jackson. ISIr. Chairman, it seems to me that the statement 
that General Eeber should make, or if he desires to make it, should 
be limited to answering the statement brought out in the question by 
Senator McCarthy, namely that his brother was separated from the 
State Department as a security risk. I think that he is entitled to 
answer to the extent of the statement made against his brother and not 
any further. Otherwise, we will go on indefinitely. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then the question is. Is Senator McCarthy entitled 
to cross-examine him with respect to the truth or falsity of his answer, 
Senator ? 

Senator Jackson. He certainly is. 

Mr. Jenkins. I agree with you. 

Senator Jackson. But limited to answering the statement made 
against his brother. 

Senator Mundt. Gentlemen, I believe now everybody understands 
the procedure. 

General Reber, you will try to limit your response to the question, 
your statement. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, just one-tenth of a second. I 
would suggest that you tell General Reber that as of now there is no 
question pending, that whatever he volunteers now is being volun- 
teered gratuitously. 

Senator Mundt. General Reber has asked the opportunity to speak 
about his brother and we have granted it to him. You have heard 
the discussion. General, and I am sure you will govern yourself ac- 

Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, everybody else has interrupted 
General Reber. I would like to interrupt the hearing. I do not under- 
stand yet what General Reber's brother has to do with General Reber. 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator, may I answer that ? 

Senator Symington. I would be glad if counsel will explain that to 
me. I would like to ask him if I am to understand that the statements 
made by General Reber with respect to telephone calls have been made 
properly or improperly because his brother was a security risk? 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator Symington, this witness has given testimony 
against Mr. Cohn, we will say, Senator McCarthy and others. He has 
a brother. The motive of every witness is always a subject of an 
inquiry. It is the theory of Senator McCarthy that this witness' testi- 
mony is colored, or is perhaps untrue, because of a controversy that 
has heretofore existed between Senator INIcCarthy and this witness' 


brother. That is the implication of the charge. That, in my opinion, 
makes it competent to pursue that line of inquiry. 

Senator Symington. I am clear and I thank the counsel for his 

Senator Mundt. General Keber, you may proceed. 

General Reber. I merely wanted to say that, as I understand my 
brother's case, he retired, as he is entitled to do by law upon reaching 
the age of 50. That is all I wanted to say. I know nothing about 
any security case involving him. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

Now, are there any other questions, or may we dismiss the witness ? 

General Reber, you are dismissed, and may I say to you as an old 
friend that we apreciate the frank and cooperative manner in which 
you have handled your part of this discussion. 

General Reber. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. Wliat was that ? Pardon me. 

General Reber — may I say, Mr. Chairman, I have, I think, more 
respect for the acting chairman of this committee than almost any 
other Senator here. I think he is one of the most intelligent, one 
of the most honest, sincere Senators we have. May I say, however, 
that when he talks about the frank testimony of this witness, when 
the witness has said that he knew Mr. Frank Carr on the 8th of July, 
and when Frank Carr was head of the FBI Subservice Group in 
New York, and he later admits that he never knew Mr. Carr until 
he came before the committee in September, when he makes accusa- 
tions, I just think the Chair should perhaps wait until the balance of 
the testimony is in before 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair say that he appreciated the frank 
manner in which General Reber changed his testimony when he 
found out his mistake. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say this, that I 
requested this morning that we get for the record when Mr. Carr 
came with the committee. I can say of my own personal knowledge 
that Mr. Carr's appointment I know positively was announced on July 
10. He appeared in the committee on the day the three Democrats 
left, and that was July 10. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me correct the Senator, if I may. 

Senator Jackson, That is when the announcement was made. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me correct the Senator, if I may, and I 
know any mistake he makes is a completely honest mistake. As far 
as I know, the announcement was made the date that Mr. Carr came 
to the committee; he was working for the ITBI running the office — 
what do you call it — on security matters in New York, and had super- 
vision of some hundred-odd people, on the night of the 15th. On 
July 16, the announcement was made, and he came with the com- 
mittee. I know it is only a matter of 6 days. Senator, and I know 
any mistake you make there is a completely honest mistake. 

Senator Jackson. Is it not a fact that when we met on July 10, 
Mr. Carr was present? He is here now and he will recall we were 
all there. The announcement was made that he would be the new 
executive director of the staff. 

Senator McCarthy. Senator, as far as I know, as I say, I do not 
know whether 6 days would be too important, as far as I know, 


there was no announcement made until the 16th. The point is, when 
General Reber said he knew him on the 8th, he was not here, he 
did not know him, and General Eeber himself very honestly and 
frankly admits that he made a mistake. I do not accuse him of 
an}'^ misconduct. It is a mistake he could have very easily made. 
I think that he is making mistakes about other things. I think when 
further testimony appears he may admit that. But the point is 
the general was very honest about this this morning. He first said 
he knew Frank Carr on the 8th, and finally said he did not meet 
him until September 23. There is nothing as far as I know. General, 
that indicts you because of that. It is just a mistake of memory, 
and God knows we all make them. 

Senator Jackson. I want the record to show, Mr. Chairman, that 
I can recall positively, by association of events, that Mr. Carr — 
and the minutes will so disclose it, I am sure — was before the com- 
mittee on July 10, and whether a public amiouncement was made 
later, I do not know. 

Senator McCartht. The Senator is in error, and that is not true. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests that this is something we 
should be able to establish documentarily a little later. 

Senator McCarthy. I think it is completely unimportant, but I 
want to make the point that what the Senator from Washington 
has said. Senator Jackson, is completely untrue — period. The record 
will show that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that Senator McCarthy 
will have an opportunity to tastily before this hearing shall have 
concluded, and then may give testimony with respect to that fact, 
and Senator Jackson will likewise have the same opportunity. I do 
not think that those statements made by either party are proper at 
this time. 

Senator Sy]mington. ISTow, Mr. Counsel, I would like to make this 
statement : Mr. Chairman, I do not know anything about the minutes, 
nor do I remember the day that I left the committee, but I do know 
that I met Mr. Carr at a meeting of the committee before the Demo- 
crats left the committee. Of that I am certain. 

Mr. Jenkins. Those are questions of proof, subject to being estab- 
lished or disproved during the course of this hearing. And I might 
suggest that no party who has made any statement with reference to 
that fact has been under oath. 

Senator Mundt. General Reber has advised the committee that he 
might be in error as to memory on that point, and we have accepted 
his testimony on that basis. 

Thank you. General. You are dismissed. 

Counsel will call the next witness. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I desire to call a witness at this time 
whose testimony will be lengthy. I am advised that another witness 
whom I desired to put on this afternoon, hj reason of the fact of prior 
commitments, may be compelled to be absent from the committee until 
3 : 30. With the understanding that the witness I am now about to 
put on will be permitted to step aside at 3 : 30, I desire to call as the 
next witness Mr. Robert T. Stevens. 

Senator Mundt. Before the Chair swears in the present witness, he 
would like to have the unanimous consent of the committee to comply 


with the request of counseL We will ask Mr, Stevens to step aside 
and put on this other witness and interrupt the testimony of Mr. 
Stevens, and then put Mr. Stevens back on the stand. Is there 

There is none. 

Will you raise your right hand ? 

Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 

Secretary Ste\'ens. I do, so help me God. 

Senator Mundt. You may be seated. 

The photographers may take their pictures now, and then there 
will be no more liashbulbs during the testimony. 



Senator Mundt. Mr. Stevens, do you have extra copies of your 
statement available for members of the committee ? It will be helpful 
if you could have them circulated now before we start. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, there are only two questions I desire 
to ask this witness prior to his reading a statement. 

Will you please tell the committee your full name ? 

Secretary Stevens. Robert Tenbrook Stevens, S-t-e-v-e-n-s. 

Mr. Jenkins. What official position do you hold with the United 
States Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. Secretary of the Army. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, have or have not you a prepared written 
statement which you desire to read to this committee prior to being 
questioned ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do have such a statement, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You are asked to now read or state whether or not 
that is identically the same statement you submitted to Chairman 
Mundt and myself yesterday morning, some 24 hours ago ? 

Secretary Stevens. Identically, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. There have been no changes whatever made in that 
statement ? 

Secretary Stevens. None whatsoever. 

Mr. Jenkins. You aro requested to now read that statement, if it is 
the desire of yourself and your counsel, to the committee. 

Secretary Stevens. I see. 

Senator Mundt. You may proceed. 

Secretary Stevens. And I understand that I will be interrupted at 
the time you will indicate; is that correct, sir? 

Senator Mundt. You will be interrupted when the other witness 

Secretary Stevens. All right. 

Gentlemen of the committee, I am here today at the request of this 
committee. You have my assurance of the fullest cooperation. 

In order that we may all be quite clear as to just why this hearing 
has come about, it is necessary for me to refer at the outset to Pvt. 
G. David Schine, a former consultant of this committee. David Schine 
was eligible for the draft. Efforts were made by the chairman of this 

46620— 54— pt. 2 3 


committee, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, and the subcommittee's chief 
counsel, Mr. Roy M, Cohn, to secure a commission for him. Mr. Schine 
was not qualified, and he was not commissioned. Selective service then 
drafted him. Subsequent efforts were made to seek preferential treat- 
ment for hnn after he was inducted. 

Senator Mundt. Pardon me, there is something wrong in the picture 
gallery. Will you kindly stop that squeaking, whatever it is? 

I am sorry ; you may proceed. 

Secretary Stevens. Over the past several months it became known 
that the Army was having its difficulties in regard to Private Schine. 
Several Senators and Congressmen requested information from the 
Army regarding the Schine matter. 

Finally, the Secretary of Defense received the following letter from 
Senator Charles E. Potter, dated March 8 : 

I have received many inquiries concerning external pressure for preferential 
treatment in behalf of Pvt. G. David Schine, a former member of the staff of the 
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations and now a member of the 
Armed Forces. Fragmentary information which has reached me has been most 

I request the following information as a member of the above-named sub- 
committee ; 

1. Has Private Schine received any preferential treatment whatsoever since 
becoming a member of the Armed Forces? 

2. Has any effort whatsoever been made by any source aflSliated with the above- 
named subcommittee to exert pi'essure for the purpose of gaining preferential 
treatment for Private Schine? 

3. If such intercession has been made, please advise me fully of the source, 
type, and date of such efforts. 

If there is no foundation for the information coming to my attention, it is no 
more than proper and fair that Private Schine as well as the subcommittee be 
so informed. In the event there is substance to the charges, however, the com- 
mittee should have in its possession all of the facts upon which it may base imme- 
diate action. 

On March 10, the Department of Defense replied to Senator Potter, 
giving him the answers to his questions in the form of a chronology 
covering the period from July 8, 1953, to mid-February 1954. 

I wish to make clear here that this statement was furnished only to 
members of the committee and to Members of the Congress wlio had 
specifically asked for it. It was not made public by the Army. How- 
ever, it became public information and Senator McCarthy attacked it. 
I am here to verify the answers to Senator Potter's questions. 

The chronology of March 10 discloses what you may find to be sub- 
stantial and undue efforts on the part of Senator McCarthy and mem- 
bers of his staff to have preferential treatment given to G. David 
Schine by the Army. The Senator and his staff claim that no such 
pressure was exerted. They dealt with the matter by making charges 
against Department of Army personnel and by attempting to draw 
attention to situations either totally irrelevant or only remotely rele- 
vent to the Schine matter. 

In this statement, I shall deal first with the issue raised by Senator 
Potter, those pressures which were exerted on the Army on behalf of 
Schine. Second, I shall comment briefly on other matters raised by 
Senator McCarthy in this case. 

Before getting into the Schine story I want to make two general 


First, it is my responsibility to speak for the Army. The Army is 
about a million and a half men and women, in posts across this country 
and around the world, on active duty and in the National Guard and 
Organized Reserves, plus hundreds of thousands of loyal and faith- 
ful civil servants. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy has a point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens is not speaking for the Army. 
He is speaking for Mr. Stevens, for Mr. Adams, and Mr. Hensel. 
The committee did not make the Army a party to this controversy, 
and I think it is highly improper to try to make the Army a party. 
Mr. Stevens can only speak for himself. 

Secretary Stevens. May I answer, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. We will hear from counsel first. 

Mr. Jenkins. Nothing Mr. Stevens has said indicates that the 
Army is a party to this controversy. It is entirely proper, and indeed 
I asked Mr. Stevens what his official connection with the Army is, his 
answer being that he was the Secretary. He is stating here facts with 
reference to the Army by reason of the fact that he is Secretary to 
the Army. 

I wish to call the chairman's attention to this further fact: That 
when this statement was filed with the chairman, the chairman and 
Senator McClellan and myself went over it thoroughly and in detail 
and decided that it, in its entirety, was a relevant and proper state- 
ment to be read to this committee. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say that, regardless of what the Chair 
and Mr. McClellan decided, when Mr. Stevens says "It is my respon- 
sibility to speak for the Army," he is not speaking for the Army here. 
All we were investigating has been some Communists in the Army, a 
very small percentage, I would say much less than 1 percent. And 
when the Secretary says that, in effect "I am speaking for the Army," 
he is putting the 99.9 percent of good, honorable, loyal men in the 
Army into the position of trying to oppose the exposure of Com- 
munists in the Army. 

I think it should be made clear at the outset, so we need not waste 
time on it, hour after hour, that Mr. Stevens is speaking for Mr. 
Stevens and those who are speaking through him ; when Mr. Adams 
speaks, he is speaking for Mr. Adams and those who are speaking 
through him, and likewise Mr. Hensel. 

I may say I resent very, very much this attempt to connect the great 
American Army with this attempt to sabotage the efforts of this 
committee's investigation into communism. 

Mr. Jenbjns. I again say, Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this 
statement from which an inference can be drawn that the Army has 
become a party in interest to this controversy. We are in accord with 
the Senator, that the parties in interest are Mr. Stevens, Mr. Adams, 
and Mr. Hensel. 

Senator McCarthy. If that is understood, then I have no objection. 

Senator Mundt. That is definitely understood, and I think the Sec- 
retary for the Army, frequently the Secretary speaks for the Army 
on appropriations arid matters that he might want tb speak about. 


For the purposes of this inquiry, he speaks for himself, for Mr. 
Adams and for Mr. Hensel. 

Secretary Stevens. May I say, sir, in this regard, that I was ap- 
pointed Secretary of the Army by the Commander in Chief, that I 
was confirmed by the Senate of the United States, that I work as a 
member of the team in the Department of Defense under Secretary 
Wilson, that it is my responsibility, as I have said here, to speak for 
the Army. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, may I remind you that the chairman has 
ruled that you may read your statement. Arguments will be made on 
it at the conclusions of this hearing. 

I suggest that in order to conserve time Mr. Stevens proceed with 
the reading of his statement. 

Senator Mtjndt. Your statement has been ruled in order, Mr. 
Stevens. You may proceed. 

Secretary Stevens. It is many millions of officers, noncommissioned 
officers and men who have in the past worn its uniform. It is millions 
of others who will one day wear the same uniform. The Army is a 
great and nonexpendable institution, a proud legend, a common force 
against common dangers. The valor, integrity, loyalty, and capa- 
bility of the Army are beyond question. It is serving the country 
today, as it has throughout our history, in a dependable and devoted 

I speak for the Army today out of a pride and confidence that grows 
greater every day I spend on the job. There are personal reasons, too, 
for my pride in the Army and for my resentment of any slur asrainst it 
or any of the armed services. The 2 oldest of our 4 sons enlisted in 
the N'avy during World War II. Our third son enlisted in 1952 as a 
private and is now a corporal with the Seventh Army in Europe. He 
has been overseas 21 months. 

Second, I want to affirm here my full belief in the right of Conirress 
to investigate — and that means scrutinizing the activities of the Army 
or any other department of the executive branch of the Government. 
The conscientious exercise of this obligation is one of the checks, con- 
templated by the Constitution, against the possibility of unlimited 
executive authority by the executive branch of the Government. 

As a member of the executive branch, it is my dutv to do everything 
I properly can to help this and other committees of Concrress. I have 
such a profound regard for elective office in this countrv that it comes 
very easily for me to cooperate with the Senators, the Representatives, 
and the committees of Congress. 

Let me now turn to the point at issue and first summarize the 
Schine story. I have been informed that — 

1. From mid-July of last year until March 1 of this year, David 
Schine was discussed between one branch or other of the Deioartment 
of the Army and Senator McCarthy or members of his staff in more 
than 65 telephone calls. 

2. During the same period, this matter was discussed at approxi- 
mately 19 meetings between Army personnel and Senator McCarthy 
or members of his staff. 

3. Requests made on Schine's behalf ranged from several for a direct 
commission before he was inducted into the Army to many for special 


assignments, relief from routine duties such as KP, extra time off, and 
special visitor privileges. 

4. From November 10, 1953, to January 16, 1954, Schine, by then a 
private in the Army, obtained 15 passes from the post. By way of 
comparison, the majority of other newly inducted personnel obtained 
three passes during the same period. 

The history of the Schine case begins, where the Army is concerned, 
on July 8, 1953. I had been informed that Maj. Gen. Miles Reber, 
then chief of the Army's legislative liaison office, had been called to 
Senator McCarthy's office. Senator McCarthy asked him if a direct 
commission could be obtained for Schine, then a member of the Sena- 
tor's staff. The Senator stated that speed was desirable since Schine 
might soon be drafted. Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel on the Senator's 
staff, was present and reiterated the need for speed. 

The next day General Reber called Cohn and told him that in order 
for Schine to be considered for a commission he would have to come in 
and fill out a formal application, which he did. On July 15, Schine, 
himself, talked to Lt. Col. Fred J. Bremerman in the Army office of 
legislative liaison and asked whether he could come over to the Penta- 
gon that afternoon and "hold up his hand," to be sworn in for liis 

Mr. Jenkins. Pardon me, Mr. Stevens. 

Mr. Chairman, at this time the other witness is present in the 
committee room. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Secretary, we will have you back as soon as 
we finish with the next witness and counsel will call the next witness 
who has just come into the conmiittee room. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will Gen. Walter B. Smith please come to the witness 

Senator Mundt. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about 
to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God ? 

General Smith. I do. 

Senator Mundt. You may be seated. 

All right, the flash-bulb period is over and, counsel, you may proceed. 


Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman and General Smith, I desire to make 
this statement before the examination of General Smith. 

In view of the fact that General Smith is engaged in many pressing 
matters vital to the Nation, I wish to announce that I will make my 
examination and any cross-examination as short and as much to the 
point as possible, and it is requested that the members of the com- 
mittee and those interested do likewise to the end that his testimony 
may be concluded this afternoon, it being my understanding that there 
is a possibility that he will be called to a foreign country perhaps 

For the benefit of the record, will you please state your full name ? 

General Smith. Walter B. Smith, general. United States Army, 
retired, presently Under Secretary of State. 

Mr. Jenkins. General Smith, were you retired as of July 1953 from 
the Army ? 


General Smith. I was. 

Mr. Jenkins. What position did you hold as of July 1953 ? 

General Smith. Under Secretary of State. 

Mr. Jenkins. You are personally acquainted with Senator Mc- 
Carthy ? 

General Smith. I am. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you, General Smith, first of all, whether 
or not Senator McCarthy in person, by telephone call or otherwise, 
ever contacted you with reference to one G. David Schine? 

General Smith. Not directly, to my recollection. 

Mr. Jenkins. Please state whether or not counsel for Senator Mc- 
Carthy, Mr. Boy Cohn, or any member of Senator McCarthy's staff 
did contact you with reference to Schine. 

General Smith. Mr. Cohn did. 

Mr. Jenkins. Wlien was that ? 

General Smith, pardon me, I have been requested to ask you to 
identify the gentleman sitting on your right and the gentleman sit- 
ting on your left. 

General Smith. On my right is Assistant Secretary Thruston Mor- 
ton, and on my left is Mr. Scott McLeod. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now you may proceed and refer to any document you 
desire to refer to for the purpose of refreshing your recollection, and 
without asking you specific questions I will ask you to state chrono- 
logically when the first contact was made with you by Mr. Cohn or 
anyone on Senator McCarthy's staff with reference to Schine; what 
was said, and so on down the line. 

General Smith. Mr. Chairman, I can do this best by reading the 
carbon copy of a letter which I sent to the Secretary of Defense some 
days ago, and if I may do so I will read it, which completes my knowl- 
edge of the incident. 

May I do so ? 

Senator Mundt. If there is no objection, you may. 

Mr. Jenkins. First, General Smith, are you about to read from a 
letter you have written with reference to this incident? 

General Smith. I am, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. T\nien was the letter written, may we ask? 

General Smith. On April 10, 1954. 

Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not in that letter you undertake to 
the best of your ability to recount the events of July 31, 1953, and 
immediately subsequent and immediately prior thereto. 

General Smith. I do. 

Mr. Jenkins. Under what circumstances was this letter of April 10, 
1954, written? 

General Smith. It will be self-explanatory, I think, INlr. Counsel, 
if you will let me read it. 

Senator Mundt. Would you pull the microphone a little closer to 
you. It is hard to hear your answers. 

General Smith. I think the letter will explain it, I say. 

Senator Mundt. You may proceed. 

General Smith (reading) : 

Dear Mb. SecretAky : At the request of the Secretary of the Army, I transmit 
to the Department (jf Defense the followinj;, which is my recollection of the 
principal points iu a telephone conversation and interview with Mr. Hoy Cohn, 
of the staff of the Senate Committee on Government Operations, and a telephone 


conversation with Gen. John E. Hull, Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, which 
took place on July 31 and August 1, 1953. 

Mr. Cohn telephoned me on tlie afternoon of July 31. He stated that Mr 
David Schine, of the committee staff, was about to be drafted, and that he 
(Mr. Cohn) and Senator McCarthy felt that he should have a direct commission, 
for which they considered him qualilied by education and by reason of the fact 
that during the last war he had, as a civilian employee, held the substantive or 
corresponding rank of lieutenant. 1 asked Mr. Cohn why he came to me, as 
I was no longer in active military service. He replied that the Army authorities 
had not been cooperative, that General Reber had promised to arrange for 
a commission for Mr. Schine and had not done so, that I knew all the senior 
oflicers in the Pentagon and would know who to talk to. I answered that 
I would phone General Hull and find out what the possibilities were, and gave 
Mr. Cohn an appointment to see me in my office the next day. 

I phoned General Hull about 4 : 30 on July 31. He informed me that direct 
commissions were being issued only in a few of the technical services, such as 
the Medical and Judge Advocate General's Departments, that Mr. Schine's 
qualifications did not justify his direct commissioning in any of these branches. 
General Hull said that the opportunity to qualify for oflScer candidate training 
was open to Mr. Schine as it was to any other citizen drafted into the Armed 
Forces, and that the Secretary of the Army, who was aware of all the facts in 
the case, had directed that the treatment accorded and the opportunities afforded 
Mr. Schine after his entry into the military service should be the same as for 
any other American citizen — no more and no less. 

Mr. Cohn came to my office at 11 : 20 a. m., on August 1, 1953. I told him the 
substance of General Hull's reply to my inquiry. He said that for Mr. Schine 
to proceed through basic training and officer candidate school would increase 
his time of military service and absence from his duties with the committee, 
which needed him. I asked if Mr. Schine had had llOTC, and if he had attempted 
to obtain a commission in any other branch of the armed services. Mr. Cohn 
replied that Mr. Schine had no ROTC training and that there appeared to be no 
chance of a commission in one of the other branches except at the expense of 
a protracted term of service. Mr. Cohn then asked if the CIA could not arrange 
to have Mr. Schine commissioned, as he had investigative experience. I replied 
that CIA drew a few commissioned personnel by detail from the armed services, 
but gave them additional training and required a longer tour of duty. However, 
I offered to telephone Mr. Allen Dulles, Director of Central Intelligence, and 
ask about the possibilities. Mr. Cohn said that I need not do this The CIA, 
he said, was too juicy a subject for future investigation, and it would not be 
right to ask them to get Mr. Schine commissioned, and then investigate the 
organization later. 

Very sincerely, 

(Signed) Waltee B. Smith. 

Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not, General Smith, that letter em- 
braces all of the facts that you remember with reference to those two 
conversations with Mr. Cohn? 

General Smith. It does, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not, on those two occasions 
or on either of those occasions, you considered that Mr. Cohn was 
acting as an individual or was acting officially as counsel for the 
McCarthy investigating committee ? 

General Smith. I assumed he was acting in both capacities, as the 
counsel for the McCarthy committee and officially as the friend of 
the young man for whom he was seeking a commission. 

Mr. Jenkins. How long were you actively connected with the 

General Smith. Forty-one years, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not, during all of your years of 
experience with the Army you have been contacted from time to time 
by United States Senators, Congressmen, administrative officials, and 
others, with reference to procuring or causing to be given a commis- 
sion to an inductee, or a member of the Armed Forces. 


General Smith. I have been contacted many, many times, on a 
number of occasions, by Members of the Congress. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you regard these requests by Mr. Cohn on behalf 
of Schine as extraordinary or unusual or improper ? 

General Smith. I did not. 

Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not on either of those occasions you 
felt that Mr. Colm was being too persistent or was trying to high pres- 
sure anyone. 

General Smith. Not me, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did Mr. Cohn advise you that Schine was an ex- 
perienced consultant to the staff of Senator McCarthy, with respect to 
especially the investigation of infiltration of Communists and those 
who were poor seciu'ity risks, in the Army and other departments of 
the Government? 

General Smith. Not to my recollection, sir. He simply mentioned, 
as I recall, that Mr. Cohn, as I knew had investigative experience — 
or that Mr. Schine had investigative experience. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Schine had investigative experience along the 
lines I have mentioned. General, is what you mean ? 

General Smith. That is what I understood it to be, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not that is one of the reasons 
assigned by Mr. Cohn at that time in asking that you intercede on 
behalf of Schine. 

General Smith. Not specifically. 

Mr. Jenkins. Had you heard at that time. General Smith, that an 
investigation had been planned of the alleged infiltration of Commu- 
nists at Fort Monmouth? 

General Smith. I have read a good deal about the alleged infiltra- 
tion of Communists at Fort Monmouth, but my recollection does not 
place the two together and I do not know the dates. 

Mr. Jenkins. You, of course, would not know when Senator Mc- 
Carthy or his staff laid their plans to make that investigation, I 
take it? 

General Smith. I would not, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You have no recollection now that at that time that 
investigation was either actually underway or was on a preferential 
list to be carried into effect? 

General Smith. I did not. 

Mr. Jenkins. I take it. General, you now know that Senator Mc- 
Carthy and his staff did investigate Fort Monmouth ? 

General Smith. I do. 

Mr. Jenkins. It was given wide newspaper publicity and was a 
matter of interest to you in the State Department as well as every 
other citizen in this country ; that is correct, is it not ? 

General Smith. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall that that investigation resulted in some 
33 civilian employees at Fort Monmouth being either discharged or 
dismissed ? 

General Smith. I do not recall the exact results, Mr. Counsel. I 
know that some were dismissed and some were suspended, yes. 

Mr, Jenkins. General Smith, as an Army man and occupying your 
present position, I will ask you if it isn't a fact that you regard the 
work of investigating the infiltration of poor security risks in the 



Army as extremely important and having top priority rating in this 

General Smith. I regard the investigation of poor security risks 
anywhere, and especially in Government, as very important. With 
regard to priority rating, you are asking me to rate it by comparison 
with other events now taking place, and I am not competent to do that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Would you especially regard it as important at Fort 
Monmouth in view of the fact that Fort Momnouth is an Army signal 
installation ? 

General Smith. I paid very little attention to it. I would not re- 
gard it as more important there than I would anywhere else in any 
other sensitive place. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you know. General Smith, as a matter of fact, that 
the defenses being set up by this country against atomic and hydrogen 
bomb warfare are centered in radar plants and other plants at Fort 
Monmouth ? 

General Smith. I do not. 

Mr. Jenkins. You do not know that as a fact ? 

General Smith. That doesn't mean that they are not. I simply do 
not know it. 

Mr. Jenkins. One other question or two other questions. I believe 
you say that at no time did Senator McCarthy ever contact you with 
reference to G. David Schine? 

General Smith. I am speaking from very long-term recollection. 
It is possible. I talked to Senator McCarthy about another matter the 
day before, and it is possible that on that occasion the Senator may 
have asked me to give an appointment to Mr. Cohn. But I do not 
recall that specifically he mentioned the subject or that he mentioned 
Mr. Schine in connection therewith, and I am not certain that on that 
occasion he asked me to receive Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Jenkins. Nor do you state it as a fact ? 

General Smith. I do not. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then eliminating Senator McCarthy, your only con- 
tacts were with Mr. Cohn ? 

General Smith. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. This final question : Do you regard anything said by 
Mr. Cohn to you on either of the two occasions you mentioned as being 
improper ? 

General Smith. I do not. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The last question asked by the counsel was the 
first and only question that the chairman desired to ask. So I yield to 
Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. There is nothing improper in the individual 
himself or any Member of Congress, any other friend, requesting a 
direct commission for an individual in the armed services, is there? 

General Smith. If he believes that the individual is qualified, will- 
ing to bear arms, and to serve, there is not. I have done so myself. 

Senator McClellan. So to make such a request is not within itself 
asking for preferential consideration, is it ? 

General Smith. It is not. 

Seiiator McClellan. If, however, it becomes established that the 
individual does not possess the requisite qualifications and then one 


insists that he be granted a direct commission, would you regard that 
then as asking for a preferential consideration? 

General Smith. As an Army officer, I would, but no such request 
has been made to me. 

Senator McClellan. I understand there has not. Have any other 
requests been made to you since you have been Under Secretary of 
State and since you have left the Army to assist in procuring a direct 
commission for anyone else? 

General Smith. Yes. 

Senator McClellan. By Members of Congress? 

General Smith. No. 

Senator McClellan. How riiany; just in general terms? 

General Smith. I cannot recall. Possibly two. 

Senator McClellan. Possibly two. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen. 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, within the limits of recollection, I 
think General Smith's statement speaks for itself. I see no reason why 
I should refer any questions that might elicit opinions that might be 
only remotely approximate to what is before us. Consequently, I will 
let tlie statement stand for itself. I have no questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson. 

Senator Jackson. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter? 

Senator Potter. The only question I have, General Smith, is, when 
you contacted the Department of Defense, was Mr. Cohn in your 
office at the time, or did you contact the Army or the Department of 
Defense and then report back to Mr. Cohn as to the results of your 
intercession ? 

General Smith. As I recall it, I contacted the Department of De- 
fense, or, rather. General Hull, the Vice Chief of Staff of the Army, 
immediately after my telephone call with Mr. Cohn. 

Senator Potter. Did you notify Mr. Cohn as to the information 
that you secured from the Army ? 

General Smith. On my recollection, not until he called on me the 
next day. 

Senator Potter. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. I have no questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak. 

Senator Dworshak. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, I do not see you from where I sit ; do 
you have questions ? 

Mr. Welch. None. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think it would be a great 
imposition for me to keep the general here longer questioning him. 
I think the picture is very clear. He came here and very frankly 
stated that he felt that no improper pressure was applied to him. In 
fact it is very difficult to apply pressure to the general. I think he 
has very many more important things to do than to discuss a private in 
the Army who has been promoted consistently until he is still a private. 
I have no questions of the general and I want to thank the general. 

Mr. Cohn. I have no questions of the general. 



Senator Mundt. General Smith, you do not look very happy sit- 
ting there, and I know we interrupted a busy day for you. 

Mr. Jenkins. I have one other question. 

General Smith, you have stated that you do not regard these two 
requests by JNIr. Cohn as being out of the ordinary or suggesting any- 
thing improper. May I ask this: Whether or not in your opinion 
the significance of those two requests made by Mr. Cohn and detailed 
by you may be properly evaluated as two isolated instances, or whether 
or not they are to be evaluated in the light of other and succeeding 
events, or a chain of events. 

General Smith. Mr. Chairman, I am not a person to evaluate those 
things. I am only able to testify what I know. 

Mr. Jenkins. You may stand aside. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you very much. We regi'et to have to call 
you up here but this is an unpleasant business wliich is interrupting 
a lot of things for a lot of busy people. 

General Smith. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Stevens ? 


ARMY— Resumed 

Senator Mundt. You may proceed from the statement from the 
point you left off. Thank you very much for stepping aside. 

Secretary Stevens. May I start at the beginning of the paragraph. 

The next day General Reber called Cohn and told him that in order 
for Schine to be considered for a commission he would have to come in 
and fill out a formal application, which he did. On July 15, Schine 
himself talked to Lt. Col. Fred J. Bremerman in the Army Office of 
Legislative Liaison and asked whether he could come over to the 
Pentagon that afternoon and "hold up his hand," to be sworn in for 
his commission. Schine was told he would have to complete the appli- 
cation which he had previously begun but not completed. This he did. 
Consideration was given to his application. He was turned down as 
not qualified, and was so notified by letter on July 30. 

Toward the end of that same month, Cohn asked General Reber to 
explore the possibility of obtaining a Reserve commission for Schine 
in either the Air Force or the Navy. These explorations were under- 
taken with negative results. Cohn was informed. General Reber is 
available to give such further information in this regard as the com- 
mittee may wish. 

General Reber, of course, has testified. 

On July 31, Cohn telephoned Gen. Walter B. Smith, Under Sec- 
retary of State, and made an appointment to see him. Cohn stated 
that he (Cohn) and Senator McCarthy felt that Schine should have 
a direct commission. He stated that the Army authorities had not 
been cooperative and that General Reber had failed to obtain a com- 
mission for Schine. General Smith passed this information along 
to Gen. John E. Hull, then Vice Chief of Staff. 

The following day. General Smith was advised that Schine was 
not qualified for a direct commission. He was further advised that 
the Secretary of the Army had directed that the treatment accorded 
and the opportunities afforded to Schine, if he entered the Army, 


would be the same as for any other American — no more, no less. 
General Smith passed this information along to Cohn when he called 
on him later that day. 

On September 16, I talked with Senator McCarthy at the Waldorf 
Towers in New York, where he was visiting in the Schine family's 
apartment. Our meeting was to discuss Army matters then under 
investigation by the Senator's committee. 

It was on this occasion, as I recollect, that the Senator asked me 
for a commission for Schine. I reminded Senator McCarthy that, 
as he knew, Schine's application had been turned down. I told him 
that the Army was commissioning very few people. 

In order that there may be no misunderstanding as to whether or 
not Senator McCarthy did in fact take up with me the matter of a 
commission for David Schine, I quote in full a telegram from him 
to me dated March 12 : 

In view of news stories this morning re Colin and Schine. Would appreciate 
if you would make it clear to the press that the only time you and I ever dis- 
cussed the subject of a commission for David Schine was in his presence, at 
which time I urged and you fully agreed that his case had to be treated the 
same as the case of any other draftee and that we agreed that any other handling 
of the case in view of the investigation of the Army would be extremely bad 
for the committee and the Army and that David Schine was present and fully 
agreed with us in the matter. 

The important thing to note is that he admits having taken up 
with me the matter of a commission for Schine. 

The Senator asked me at the September 16 meeting in the Schine 
apartment if the Army could use what he called "Schine's special 
qualifications." He suggested a direct assignment such as special as- 
sistant to me or to the Army's Intelligence Division with particular 
reference to Communists. I told him that such assignments were not 
possible for young men of draft age. 

On October 2, 1953, Cohn and Francis Carr, of the Senator's staff, 
conferred with me in my office for approximately 35 minutes. This 
meeting was to discuss the forthcoming investigation at Fort Mon- 
mouth. I informed them that the Army would assist in every way 
with the investigation. In the presence of these men, I telephoned 
Maj. Gen. Kirke B. Lawton, commanding general at Fort Monmouth, 
and instructed him to give every assistance to the committee, subject, 
of course, to the prohibitions relating to disclosure of loyalty-security 
information as set forth in Presidential directives. 

During this discussion, as Senator McCarthy has confirmed in his 
memorandum of October 2, which he made public March 12, the 
subject of Schine's induction into the Army came up. Cohn asked 
me to assign Schine to the New York City area when inducted. He 
stated that the committee must have Schine available to complete 
committee work with which Schine was familiar. He said that the 
Army certainly must have several places in the city of New York 
area where Schine could perform Army work without the necessity 
of taking basic training. I said it would be impossible to excuse 
Schine from basic training. 

Mr. John G. Adams, of Sioux Falls, S. Dak., became counselor of 
the Department of the Army on October 1, 1953. One of the things 
that appealed to me in appointing Mr. Adams was his excellent war 
record. He served overseas for 34 months during World War II, 


starting with the North African infantry landings. He had also 
had wide experience with the legislative matters, first as chief clerk of 
the Senate Armed Services Committee during the 80th Congress and 
later as head of the Legislative Division of the Office of the Secretary 
of Defense. I charged him, as department counselor, with the pri- 
mary duty of liasion between the Army and this committee and di- 
lected him to cooperate with the committee. I thereafter received 
much of my information about the activities of the committee from 

Mr. Adams will tell you at first-hand what he knows about the mat- 
ter at issue here. I shall mention some of the incidents he reported 

Mr. Adams advised me in mid-October that Senator McCarthy had 
become irritated with Schine because of his continuous efforts to have 
his picture taken along with the Senator and others at the hearings 
in New York. Senator McCarthy stated that Schine was useless to 
the committee, was interested in personal publicity, and was becoming 
a pest. The Senator hoped that Schine would be drafted and that 
nothing would occur to stop the draft procedure. He asked particu- 
larly that Cohn not be made aware of his attitude toward Schine. 

On October 27, Cohn called me from New York, and told me that 
Schine was due for induction on November 3, He expressed two 
ideas of his own as to Schine's future status. One was a furlough at 
the outset of Schine's induction into the Army. Cohn said he had 
been talking with General Renfrow, Deputy Director of Selective 
Service, who, he said, had agreed that a 2-week furlough might be pos- 
sible. The other idea was the possibility of a job at the Central In- 
telligence Agency provided CIA could pick him up before the draft 
got him. 

After talking with Mr. Allen Dulles, Director of CIA, the follow- 
ing morning, I called Cohn and told him there was no chance of 
Schine's obtaining a job in CIA. I told Cohn that Schine could be 
assigned to temporary duty at First Army in New York prior to start- 
ing his regular basic training, if actually needed for committee work. 
I told him I could not extend the period. He said he wanted to 
talk with Senator McCarthy about this. 

On October 31, Cohn phoned me to say that this arrangement was 
satisfactory. I gave instructions to effect the necessary details. 
Schine was inducted as a private in the Army on November 3 and 
went on temporary duty that day with First Army in New York. 

Almost at the same time. Senator McCarthy asked Mr. Adams to 
have Schine's temporary duty in New York cancelled because he 
thought that the newspaper men might pick up the story and this 
might prove embarrassing to Senator McCarthy. Upon learning this, 
Cohn requested that the temporary duty be extended over the first 
weekend of this arrangement, which was done. 

On November 3, 1 paid an official visit to Fort Dix. On that day I 
advised Maj. Gen. C. E. Ryan, Commanding General, that he would 
shortly receive, as an inductee, a former staff member of this committee 
who might turn out to be a problem for him. I told General Ryan 
that Schine should be made available upon the request of the com- 
mittee staff over weekends when required to complete Schine's work 
for the committee and provided it did not interfere with his training. 


On November 6, Senator McCarthy, Cohn, and Carr lunched with 
Mr. Adams and me in my office. The Senator's own memorandum of 
November 6, published on March 12, states, and I quote : 

* * * we told him (Stevens) we were jammed up trying to get out our reports 
to file, and with the Monmouth investigation and that David Schine was about 
to enter the Army and had much information and material on the reports and 
investigation that we could not get along without. Mr. Stevens said that he 
would arrange for Dave to complete the work over weekends and after training 
hours. * * * 

The next day, on November 7, Sei\ator McCarthy called to ask me 
not to assign Private Schine back to his committee. I never had any 
intention of assigning Private Schine back to his committee, but only 
releasing him for committee business at times which did not interfere 
with his military training. In this conversation the Senator inti- 
mated that the committee had little actual use for Schine's services. 

I call your attention to the inconsistency between this statement and 
the statement made to me the day before, as confirmed by the memo- 
randum from which I have just read. I do not account for this 
inconsistency. I simply recite the facts. My order to General Ryan 
was that Private Schine was to be released only for committee work 
when it would not effect his training. Under the circumstances, I had 
t'o trust Senator McCarthy and his staff not to abuse this arrangement. 

I may say here that, however, had I known that the order given to 
General Ryan in my effort to assist this committee would be abused 
by the staff of the committee to the extent that it was, the order would 
never have been issued. General Ryan is here and is prepared to 
relate the difficulties my order caused him as the commanding officer 
at Fort Dix. 

On December 10, at Senator IMcCarthy's request, I lunched with 
Senator McCarthy, Carr, and Mr. Adams in Washington at the Car- 
roll Arms Hotel. Senator McCarthy asked whether it would be 
possible to assign Private Schine to New York at the end of 8 weeks of 
training. He said he knew of cases where only 8 weeks of training 
was required. He suggested that Schine might be assigned to check 
textbooks at West Point. I told the Senator that Private Schine 
would have to complete his full 16 weeks of basic training. 

Senator McCarthy wrote me a letter dated December 22, 1953, which 
he has made public, purporting to disclaim any effort on behalf of 
Private Schine. I hand you a copy of this letter. 

Senator Mundt, Would you read it into the record, please, Mr. 
Stevens, so we will all have the same information before us? 

Secretary Ste%^ns. The letter reads as follows 

Senator Mundt. Do you have extra copies available for the com- 

Secretary Stevens. We have them. 

Senator Mundt. Would you send them to the table, please, so we 
can follow the reading? 

Secretary STE^^:NS. Do you want me to read this. Senator? 

Senator Mundt. In just a minute. We would like to have the letter 
here, if we could. 

You may begin the reading. 

Secretary Stevens. Of the letter, Senator? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 


Secretary Stevens (reading) : 

Dear Bob : I have heard rumors to the effect that some of the members of my 
staff have intervened with your Department in behalf of a former staff con- 
sultant, David Schine. This they, of course, have a right to do, as individuals. 
However, as I have told you a number of times, I have an unbreakable rule that 
neither I nor anyone in my behalf shall ever attempt to interfere with or influence 
the Army in its assignments, promotions, et cetera. 

I have discussed this matter with members of my staff, some of whom feel 
very strongly that in view of the fact that Mr. Schine is over 26 years of 
age, attempted to enlist in the Army when he was 18, was refused because of a 
slipped disk in his back, and thereupon enlisted in the merchant marine, he would 
never have been drafted except that the extreme left-wing writers, such as 
Pearson, et al., started screaming about his case because he was a consultant 
for our committee. 

I realize that the decision of the draft board to reopen his case obviously was 
unknown to you and far below your level of operations. While I am inclined to 
agree that Mr. Schine would never have been drafted except because of the fact 
that he worked for my committee, I want to make it clear at this time that no 
one has any authority to request any consideration for Mr. Schine other than 
what other draftees get. 

I think it is extremely important that this be made very clear, in view of the 
present investigation which our committee is conducting of Communist infil- 
tration of the military under the Truman-Acheson regime. Let me repeat what 
I have said to you before: The course of this investigation will in absolutely 
no way be influenced by the Army's handling of the case of any individual, 
regardless of whether he worked for my committee or not. 

With kindest regards, I am 
Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCartht. 

The letter just read indicates that Senator McCarthy did not think 
Private Schine would have been drafted except for the fact that he 
worked for the Senator's committee which was investigating the 

Let me make it clear that the Selective Service System and the 
draft boards are of course wholly independent of the Army. I am 
told, however, that the draft boards which at one time or another had 
Schine's case had considered him eligible for the draft ever since the 
beginning of the Korean War in 1950. This was 2i/^ years before he 
went to work for Senator McCarthy and 3 years before the Senator 
began to investigate the Army, The statements in Senator Mc- 
Carthy's letter of December 22 are also in striking contrast with the 
numerous efforts made both before and after that day to obtain pref- 
erential treatment and special assignments for Private Schine, to say 
nothing of the attempts to obtain a direct commission for him. 

Toward the end of December, Mr. Adams advised me that he had 
checked with the Adjutant General's Office, and that Schine was 
headed for the Provost Marshal General Center at Camp Gordon, 
Ga. Mr. Adams mentioned that Private Schine might possibly 
qualify for the Criminal Investigation School which is located there. 
Cohn, on being so advised, asked Mr. Adams many questions with 
reference to Camp Gordon, such as the length of time Private Schine 
would be required to undergo training there, whether he would have 
to live on the post, the points of contact to be used in order to arrange 
for making Schine available for committee business if necessary, and 
the likelihood of Schine's going overseas at the end of his tour. 

Mr. Adams told Cohn that the chances were that Private Schine 
would face overseas duty after completing his tour at Camp Gordon, 
just like every other boy. Mr. Adams said Cohn thereupon stated 


that, if this occurred, it would wreck the Army and I would be through 
as Secretar3\ 

On January 14, 3 days before I departed for the Far East, I met 
Senator McCarthy at the Carroll Arms Hotel here in Washington and 
told him of my forthcoming trip. After about a half hour's dis- 
cussion, a friend of his joined us. 

The question of Private Schine's length of service at Camp Gordon 
was discussed. So was the Criminal Investigation School. I said 
Private Schine could apply for the school and it would depend on 
his record and qualifications whether or not he would be accepted. 
Four or five times during the conversation Senator McCarthy brought 
up the possibility of obtaining a New York assignment for Schine. 
I reminded the Senator that in his letter to me of December 22 he 
had stated that he had an unbreakable rule that he would never at- 
tempt to interfere with or influence the Army in its assignments. 
The Senator dropped the subject. 

I left for the Far East on January 17, and when I returned Private 
Schine had been transferred to Camp Gordon, Ga., to complete his 
basic training. The efforts to obtain special treatment for Private 
Schine from Mr. Adams continued through the end of the month. I 
may say that during my tenure as Secretary of the Army, there is no 
record that matches this persistent, tireless effort to obtain special 
consideration and privileges for this man. 

Now, I turn to other events that are related to the Schine story. 
President-elect Eisenhower asked me to become Secretary of the 
Army in mid-December, 1952. I was sworn in at the White House on 
February 4, 1953. 

On my very first day in office, I sent the following memorandum 
totheCliief of Staff: 

I would appreciate it if you would arrange for a briefing to be given me on 
Friday, February 6, 1953, covering the Army's loyalty and security programs 
for both military and civilian personnel. The presentation should set forth what 
steps are taken to prevent disloyal or subversive persons from infiltrating the 
Army and what steps have been taken to discover and remove any such persona 
who may have found their way into the Army Establishment. 

On February 13, 1953, I lunched with Mr. J. Edgar Hoover in the 
office of the Secretary of Defense. On March 2 I called on Mr. Hoover 
in his office to discuss Army security matters. Army liaison with 
the FBI has been close and effective. 

On September 15, 1953, I issued a letter-directive throughout the 
Army stating that, as Army policy, it is not consistent with the in- 
terests of national security to employ or to retain on the job any 
civilian who, in response to a proper question by proper authority, 
refuses to state whether he is or has been a member of the Commu- 
nist Party or other subversive group or organization. In this step 
the Army took the initiative throughout the entire Government. 

On the 13th and 14th of October I spent 2 days in New York 
attending the executive hearings of this committee regarding Fort 
Monmouth. I wanted to obtain all of the additional information I 
could about Fort Monmouth and the security situation there. I 
invited Senator McCarthy and his staff to lunch both days. 

I cite the foregoing incidents as evidence of my awareness of the 
problem of subversion and my determination to do something about 
it. I did not need spurring by anyone. By the same token, I wel- 


corned assistance from any source, including this committee. The 
executive and legisL^tive branches of our Government must, in my 
opinion, work together, as I have previously stated. 

jNIy firet connection -with this committee and its chairman occurred 
in September 1953. I was spending a few days before Labor Day 
in Montana and liappened to notice a news item in a local paper — 
the Great Falls Tribune — reporting comments by Senator McCarthy 
with respect to three Armj' employees in the New York area. I imme- 
diately went to the railroad station in Harlowton, Mont., and wrote 
out a telegram to the Senator, telling him that I was returning to 
Washington the following Tuesday and wanted to correct anything 
that might be wrong. My telegram stated, in part — and I quote : 

* * * Tou may be sure I will opiwse Communist infiltration of the Army to the 
limit of my ability * * *. 

That was on September 4. 

I got back to Washington on the evening of September 7. The 
next morning I phoned for an appointment. I had lunch with Sen- 
ator McCarthy and discussed the cases which the Senator was inves- 
tigating in the First Army area. I attended an executive hearing of 
this committee held that afternoon. There I met David Schine for 
the first time. 

On October 20, accompanied by Senator McCarthy; Maj. Gen. 
George I. Back, Chief Signal Officer; Col. Kenneth E. BeLieu, my 
executive officer ; Mr. John Adams ; two employees of Senators who are 
members of this committee ; and Cohn, I flew to Fort Monmouth. 

I was again looking for firsthand knowledge of the security situa- 
tion, which was then being investigated by Senator McCarthy. I also 
wanted to get a feel of the morale on the post. The hearings had 
resulted in newspaper headlines of an alarming character. Upon 
arrival we were joined by Senator H. Alexander Smith, Congressman 
James C. Auchincloss, of the Third New Jersey District, and General 
Lawton, commanding general. 

The following incident occurred during the course of our inspec- 
tion of the laboratories at Fort Monmouth. Entrance to one of these, 
a laboratory engaged in secret work, required special security clear- 
ance. I made an on-the-spot decision that I would take the responsi- 
bility for inviting those who had been elected to public office to enter 
with me. This included Senator McCarthy, Senator Smith, and 
Representative Auchincloss, but excluded the other members of the 

Upon leaving the laboratory, I could see that Cohn was extremely 
angry at not having been allowed to enter. Colonel BeLieu informed 
me that Cohn, upon being denied entrance, had in substance said : 

This means war^Don't they think I am cleared for classified information? I 
have access to FBI files when I want them * * *. They did this on purpose just 
to embarrass me. We will really investigate the Army now. 

I subsequently learned that Cohn made a statement, "This is a decla- 
ration of war," within the hearing of John J. Slattery, Countermeas- 
ures Director at Momnouth, and Lt. Joseph E. Corr, Jr., of General 
Lawton's staff. 

This outburst by Cohn was the same type reaction as when later 
on Mr. Adams in early January mentioned the possibility of overseas 
duty for Schine. 


I now turn to the charges made by Senator McCarthy : 

1. That I urged the Senator to go after the Navy and the Air 
Force; and 

2. That I am guilty of blackmaiL 

I would like first to recall briefly at this point certain events arising 
out of the General Zwicker incident. 

On Thursday evening, February 25, 1 made a public statement from 
the Wliite House. In that statement I said that from assurances which 
I had received from members of this committee, I was confident that 
Army witnesses would not be abused in the future. 

Shortly after my statement of February 25 became public, Senator 
McCarthy said that my statement was "completely false." This was 
widely quoted in such papers as the New York Times, the Baltimore 
Sun, and the Washingion Evening Star. 

In contrast to this, the Washington Post of February 26, the very 
next day, carried the following comment : 

Subcommittee Member Karl E. Mundt (Republican, South Dakota), however, 
said he "agreed entirely" -n-ith Stevens' statement. Mundt said he felt Stevens 
was justified in saying he received "assurances" from "members" of the subcom- 
mittee, meaning "individual members," about the treatment of witnesses. 

A United Press dispatch, also dated February 26, reported as fol- 

Senator Charles E. Potter (Republican of Michigan) also told newsmen 
"Stevens was absolutely correct" in saying he had received assurances that 
Army witnesses "would not be browbeaten and humiliated." 

Against this background of confirmation of my statement from two 
members of this committee, I submit for your determination the cor- 
rectness of Senator McCarthy's charge of "complete falsehood". It 
is well to bear this incident in mind as we turn to the new attack wliich 
Senator McCarthy has made against me. 

Now, as to the Senator's charges that I urged him to "go after" the 
Navy and the Air Force and that I was guilty of blackmail, I call 
your attention to the fact that these charges have nothing whatsoever 
to do with the issue raised by Senator Potter's letter as to whether 
undue influence was used by Senator McCarthy and his staff to obtain 
preferential treatment for Private Schine. 

The first of these charges relates to my luncheon with Senator Mc- 
Carthy, Cohn, Carr, and Mr. Adams in my office on November 6, which 
I mentioned earlier. 

At this luncheon I commented on the lengths to which I had gone 
in working with the committee. I said I felt the inquiry by the com- 
mittee at Fort Monmouth had served its purpose. I thought the Army 
should itself follow up the suggestions of the committee and take what- 
ever further steps were necessary to eliminate any possible security 

I added that I would make progi^ess reports to the committee. How- 
ever, I did not welcome the damaging effect upon the Army of Senator 
McCarthy's statements to the press which gave the impression that 
there was much current espionage at Fort Monmouth, when such was 
not the case. 

The Senator then brought up the plans the committee had to investi- 
gate subversion in certain industrial plants engaged in Army work. 
I told him that the question of security in industrial plants engaged in 


secret work was of real concern not only to the Army but to the entire 
Defense Establislnnent, 

The memoranda released March 12 by Senator McCarthy state that I 
had at this luncheon suggested that the committee "go after" the 
Navy and the Air Force. At no time on that day, or at any other time, 
did i suggest that the committee "go after" the Navy and Air Force. 
The Senator said that the Army would furnish information about the 
other services. I never made any such statement. I never had any 
such information. I never supplied any such information. 

Gen. Matthew B. Ridgway, Chief of Staff ; Maj. Gen. G. C. Mudgett, 
Chief of Information ; and Maj. Gen. A. G. Trudeau, Chief of Intelli- 
gence, were present during approximately half of the 3-hour meeting. 
General Trudeau is presently overseas, but General Ridgway and Gen- 
eral Mudgett are available to answer any questions that may be asked 
of them regarding the discussion that took place while they were 

The second episode in this connection began on November 16, when 
Cohn, accompanied by Mr. Adams, came to my office. Cohn referred 
to a statement by me at a press conference on November 13 to the 
effect that I was not then aware of any current espionage at Fort 
Monmouth. Cohn said that Senator McCarthy was considerably upset 
as he felt that my statement had "pulled the rug out from under him." 
I told him that had not been my intention. I said that I thought I 
had been more than fair to Senator McCarthy and his investigation 
of Fort JNIonmouth. 

I flew to New York the next morning and again invited Senator 
McCarthy to lunch. He was plainly provoked at the comments I had 
made regarding the lack of any current espionage at Fort Mon- 
mouth. We finally agreed on a statement that I would make at a joint 
press conference which Senator McCarthy and I held following lunch. 
It boiled down to my saying that the Army had no evidence of cur- 
rent espionage, and, in making that statement, I made it clear that 
I was speaking only for the Army and not for the committee. This 
was no different in substance from my statement of November 13 to 
which Senator McCarthy had objected. I still have no evidence of 
current espionage at Fort Monmouth. 

An unsigned memorandum of November 17, also made public March 
12 by Senator McCarthy, states it was at this luncheon in New York 
that I again suggested the committee go after the Navy and Air 
Force. That is not true. Colonel Cleary and Mr. Adams were 
present throughout. They heard no such suggestion and are available 
to supply information regarding what was said at this luncheon. 

My oath of office requires me to do everything in my power for the 
defense of the United States. That means the most forthright and 
honorable dealings with the Navy, the Air Force, and the Marines. 
That kind of cooperation I have both given and received. If con- 
firmation is needed, I suggest you check with those services. 

It is a singular thing to me that this serious charge — that I tried 
to persuade the chairman of this committee to investigate the Navy 
and the Air Force — was kept secret so long. Why should it have 
only come to light 4 months later on the day after the Army chronol- 
ogy of events became public? 

Now as to Senator McCarthy's charge of blackmail. 


This charge was induded in the Senator's memorandum dated De- 
cember 9 and also made public March 12. In this case, for more than 
3 months, this most serious charge — that the chairman of this com- 
mittee had been blackmailed by the Secretary of the Army — was kex)t 
secret not only from the public but from the other members of this 
committee, as I understand it. 

I do not know what the Senator had in his mind when he made this 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 

The Secretary, and I assume by an honest mistake, or whoever wrote 
this, is constantly referring to my being blackmailed. There was a 
charge that there was an attempt to blackmail, a very, very unsuc- 
cessful attempt, and I think the record should be cleared on that at 
this time. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator will have a chance on cross-examina- 
tion to bring that out when he interviews the Secretary of the Army. 

Secretary Stevexs. I do not know what the Senator had in his 
mind when he made this charge. But during the 90 days when he 
kept it secret, he continued to make flattering remarks about me in 
]niblic. On December 16 Senator McCarthy was quoted by the New 
York Times as follows : 

I may say, just so this will not be misinterpreted as an attack upon Secretary 
Stevens and those who are now in charge, they have been cooperating fully with 
us, and I think they are just as concerned as we are about the very, very unusual 
picture unfolding. More and more they are doing something about it. 

On February 23, the Senator was quoted in the Washington Evening 
Star as follows : 

I don't think Bob Stevens wants Communists in the Army any more than this 
committee does. 

On February 26, the Washington Daily News quoted the Senator 
as saying : 
I think on the overall he (referring to me) has done a very good job. 

On March 11, the day before the blackmail charge was made public. 
Senator McCarthy was quoted in the Washington Times-Herald as 
follows : 

Bob Stevens is doing a good job. We have disagreed and will disagree in the 
future. It's impossible to do a job without having some disagreements. 

The occasion of the blackmail outburst on March 12 was, of course, 
publication of the Army's chronological account of the Schine affair. 
Nevertheless, 6 days later — on March 18 — Senator McCarthy was 
quoted in the New York Herald Tribune as saying that he had no 
'411 feelings" against me, that I was a "very fine fellow" and "honest." 

Is that the description of a blackmailer ? 

The fact remains that this most serious charge is still on the record. 
I therefore state that it is absolutely false. 

By way of summary may I say again that I am proud to have had 
this chance to speak for the Army today. The Army is of transcend- 
ent importance to this Nation and to the friends of freedom and jus- 
tice and peace around the world. Its integrity and morale are price- 
less commodities in these times, and I count it a welcome duty to 
testify to their soundness here today. 


The Scliine case is only an example of the wrongful seeking of privi- 
lege, of the perversion of power. It has been a distraction that has 
kept many men from the performance of tasks far more important to 
the welfare of this country than the convenience of a single Army 

In conclusion, I want to make it clear that the United States Army 
does not coddle Communists. This committee knows that. The 
American people know that. I share the view of Senator Leverett 
Saltonstall, chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services 
when he said on March 24 this year : 

* * * as one who has served and as a parent whose children have served, I 
share the disbelief and the resentment felt by millions that there were either 
significant numbers of Americans whose loyalty was not in our finest tradition, 
or that disloyalty was coddled by the very uniforms whose heroic sacrifices in 
Korea have spoken so eloquently * * * 

Senator INIundt, The Chair would like to announce that we will 
have two meetings of the committee tomorrow, both in public hear- 
ings, one starting at 10 : 30 in the morning and the other beginning at 
2 : 30 in the afternoon. 

It is now approximately the hour of 4 : 30, and so we will reconvene 
at 10 : 30 with Mr. Stevens back on the witness chair and counsel 
beginning the questioning. 

We stand in recess until 10 : 30. 

(Thereupon at 4: 35 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene at 
10 : 30 a. m., Friday, April 23, 1954.) 



Jlllllil fil , 

3 9999 05442 1738