Skip to main content
SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHARGES
AND COUNTERCHARGES INVOLVING: SECRE-
TARY OF THE ARMY ROBERT T. STEVENS, JOHN
G. ADAMS, H. STRUVE HENSEL AND SENATOR
JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and
FRANCIS p. CARR
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMIHEE ON
UNITED STATES SENATE
S. Res. 189
APRIL 23, 1954
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46620" WASHINGTON : 1954
Boston Public Library
Superintendent of Documents
JUL 15 1954
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOSEPH K. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KAUL B. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCI.ELLAN, Arkansas
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine HUBERT H. HUMPH KEY, Minnesota
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina
Richard J. O'Melia, General Counsel
Walter L. Reynolds, Chiej Clerk
Special Subcommittee on Investigations
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman
EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel
Thomas R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel
Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel
SOLis HORWITZ, Assistant Counsel
Charles A. Maneh, Secretary
Testimony of —
Lucas, John J., Jr., appointment clerk to the Secretary of the Army__ 146
SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHARGES AND
COUNTEECHAEGES INVOLVING: SECRETAEY OF THE
AEMY EOBEET T. STEVENS, JOHN G. ADAMS, H. STEUVE
HENSEL AND SENATOE JOE McCAETHY, EOY M. COHN,
AND FEANCIS P. CAEE
FRIDAY, APRIL 23, 1954
United States Senate,
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the
Committee on Government Operations,
Washington, D. C.
(The subcommittee reconvened at 2:30 p. m., pursuant to recess.)
Present : Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota, chair-
man ; Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois ; Sena-
tor Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C.
Dworshak, Republican, Idaho ; Senator Jolin 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, executive director of
the subcommittee ; Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army ;
John G. Adams, counselor to the Army; H. Struve Hensel, Assistant
Secretary of Defense ; Joseph N. Welch, special counsel for the Army ;
and James D. St. Clair, special counsel for the Army.
Senator ISIundt. The committee will come to order, please.
The Chair has an announcement to make first of all concerning Sen-
ator Dworshak. He is attending a funeral of a friend and is temporar-
ily absent from the committee, but will be back with us soon after the
beginning of the afternoon session.
The second announcement is that since a question of legality seems
to have arisen under section 605 of title 47 of the act dealing with Fed-
eral communications, with a subhead, "Unauthorized Publication or
Use of Communications," a question which we believe the subcommit-
tee should go into with its counsel in execvitive session to be sure that
we know exactly the ground on which we are operating, it has been
decided not to proceed with the interrogation of Mr. Lucas at this
time, nor to proceed with Mr. Stevens from the standpoint of any
questions dealing with the monitored conversation, but to temporarily
144 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
dismiss Mr. Lucas and to ask Mr. Stevens to return to the stand, and
we will interrooate on other phases.
JNIr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, I am under the impression that the
legal question has disappeared because the Senator has consented to
the publication, and therefore no legal question remains.
Senator Mundt. The lawyers on the subcommittee seem to be in
some doubt as to the legal question.
Mr. Jenkins. If Senator McCarthy consents publicly for the publi-
cation of that communication, then it is my opinion, Mr. Chairman,
that Ave may proceed with Mr. Lucas. I think it is in order for Sena-
tor McCarthy to now make some public announcement with respect
to whether he does or does not consent.
Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to do that.
Mr. Chairman, my position is this: that if we publish one conversa-
tion between Mr. Stevens and Senator McCarthy, then we must pub-
lish all of the conversations between Mr. Stevens and McCarthy and
the members of the committee. I do not think Mr. Stevens can be in
the position of selecting one conversation and using that and hiding
Now, I would like to proceed with the interrogation of Mr. Lucas
at this time, to find out just how many conversations they have
For example, Mr. Jenkins, I know there are a great number of con-
versations with other members of the committee, and the interpreta-
tion of those conversations would be different, I know, using the words
of Mr. Stevens and mine. I feel they were for the purpose of trying to
keep us from proceeding with the investigation. Mr. Stevens, I know,
would interpret those conversations differently, and I would like to at
this time, if we could — and I don't feel strongly about it. Certainly I
will abide by the Chair's ruling — I would like to get from Mr. Lucas
a picture of just how they go about this monitoring, whether they do
it by mechanical devices ever, whether they have verbatim transcripts
of the conversations with all members of this committee on down the
I think that the Chair makes a good point when he says that you will
have to go into executive session to decide whether or not they should
In answer to your question, Mr. Jenkins, again I say that I do think
that all conversations, regardless of whether there was a violation of
the law in taking them, should be made a part of the record, but not
just one conversation on a specific date with McCarthy.
Mr. Welch. I quite agree with the Senator, and all monitored con-
versations will be made available to the committee counsel, and in
each instance where he considers them material to this inquiry they
will be introduced in evidence, provided the person on the other end of
the wire consents to their being admitted, as I understand the Senator
Senator McCarthy. Oh, no, Mister, you are not going to do that.
You are not going to select conversations — and just a minute, you are
not going to select conversations.
If we introduce one conversation in regard to this Communist in-
vestigation, we are going to introduce all of them. As far as I am
concerned I am not the chairman, but that is my position. My posi-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 145
tion is that no one person can keep any conversation out of this record
once we start to introduce it.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I say this
Senator Mundt. I think Mr. Welch has the floor.
Mr. Welch. I think the Senator misunderstood me. We are not
choosino; at this table what ones <^o in evidence. We are saying that
they will all be offered to committee counsel, and Mr. Jenkins may
put any or all in that he considers material, so long as he either has
the consent of the man on the other end of the telephone, or the com-
mittee orders the witness to state them irrespective of the consent.
Mr. Jenkins. In order to clarify the question, it is my opinion that
all conversations between the respective parties to this controversy
are properly admitted as evidence provided they are relevant, irrespec-
tive of the consent of either party. That all monitored conversations
and all transcriptions of monitored conversations are likewise prop-
erly admitted provided the party on the other end gives his consent.
if Senator McCarthy does now unqualifiedly give his consent to the
admission of a transcription of this monitored conversation of Novem-
ber 7, then I am ready to proceed with the introduction of proof.-
Senator JNIcCartht. I assume you want a comment from me on
Mr. Jenkins, until I question this witness and know whether it is an
Mr. Jenkins. That is one of the first things I plan to do.
Senator McCarthy. After that is done, as I have said, I think we
are entitled to the facts here and if we find that the ^
Mr. Jenkins. Preliminary to the introduction of it, I intend to
first qualify him and I say that Senator McCarthy is entitled to sup-
plement my examination if it isn't complete.
Senator 'McCarthy. Very good.
Sanator Mundt. And to withhold his decision on aclmissibility until
after the cross-examination.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator Mundt. Very well, Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. You understand that if the Senator does not consent,
it is still my opinion, which is of little importance, that the conver-
sation may still be admitted properly upon vote of the committee
that it must be.
Senator McCarthy. IMay I say that for the first time in 2 days I
agree heartily with Mr. Welch.
]Mr. Welch. Thank you, Senator.
Senator INIundt. And if the Senator does not consent, it w^ill then
be a matter for the committee to take up in executive session.
Mr. Welch. That would be my view, sir.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Counsel, will you call the first witness ?
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Lucas.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Lucas, do you solemnly swear that the testi-
mony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Lucas. I do, so help me God.
Senator Mundt. You may be seated.
146 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
TESTIMONY OF JOHN J. LUCAS, JR., APPOINTMENT CLERK TO THE
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY
Mr. Jenkins. State your name in full, please.
Mr. Lucas. My name ?
Mr. Jenkins. What is your name ?
Mr. Lucas. John J. Lucas, Jr.
Mr. Jenkins. What is your official position with the Army or with
Mr. Lucas. Appointment clerk to the Secretary of the Army.
Mr. Jenkins. How long have you been appointment clerk to the
Secretary of the Army ?
Mr. Lucas. Since December of 1949 on a full-time basis.
Mr. Jenkins. WTiat are your duties ?
Mr. Lucas. To in general help the Secretary in connection with his
appointments and his telephone calls.
Mr. Jenkins. Are you an experienced reporter, that is, I mean are
you experienced in the taking of a conversation or dictation in
]\Ir. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. How much experience do you have ?
Mr. Lucas. I went to shorthand school for about 5 or 6 months
Mr. Jenkins. When was that?
Mr. Lucas. In about 1934, and then sometime after I left short-
Mr. Jenkins. Have you ever been a court reporter ?
Mr. Lucas. Not in an actual court.
Mr. Jenkins. Have you ever held a position in which you were re-
quired to take dictation ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir ; and to make reports of hearings.
]\Ir. Jenkins. How much experience have you had in that par-
ticular line of work, Mr. Lucas ?
Mr. Lucas. During the war I was with the Joint Chiefs of Staff
for about 3 years and I sat in on meetings of committees of the Joint
Chiefs of Staff, and took notes of the proceedings and made transcripts.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not you consider yourself
an expert in taking notes from dictation and in transcribing those
notes to type ?
Mr. Lucas. Y^es, sir. I won the 200 Gregg diamond medal years
Mr. Jenkins. What preliminary or academic education do you have ?
Mr. Lucas. Four years of college.
Mr. Jenkins. You are a college graduate ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Are you able to state positively, Mr. Lucas — and I,
of course, know that you remember that you are under oath — are
you able to state positively that a report you took, if you did take
one, on November 7, 1953, being a telephone conversation, and taken
by you in shorthand, was accurately, word for word, verbatim, set
down in shorthand, on your notebook ?
Mr. Lucas. It was substantially accurate.
SPECIAL rNrV^ESTIGATION 147
Mr. Jenkins. Substantially accurate?
;Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. You will not tlien say that it was accurate, word for
word, verbatim ; is that correct ? Is that correct, Mr. Lucas ?
Mr. Lucas. I cannot state that it was absolutely word for word
verbatim. I may have missed a word here and there.
Mr. Jenkins.' Could you put your interpretation upon it? Are you
the man who is making yourself the judge of whether or not it was
substantially accurate or otherwise ? Now you say it was substantially
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. I take it by that that you are making yourself the
sole and the exclusive judge of just how much it missed the mark or
how close it came to getting a full, accurate, detailed, verbatim re-
port ; is that correct ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Then you won't say, as you sit there now, that — You
have, I take it, transcribed your notes to type ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. You will not say, as you sit there now, that your
Senator Mundt. Pardon me just a minute. There has suddenly
come up a new light that makes it impossible to see the witness. I
wonder if we could have that light over there turned down. Just
about 2 seconds ago it came on. We have been doing pretty well with-
out it and I hope we can continue to do without it.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, once again could I ask Mr. Jenkins
not to go too swiftly on his next question. Let the witness answer
if you will, sir. I think if you go a little more slowly you will per-
haps get answers that are more accurate.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Lucas, my question now is this: That as you
sit there now at this moment with your transcription of this tele-
phonic conversation of November 7 before you, you will not tell this
committee that it is an absolutely perfect recording, word for word
and verbatim, of an alleged telephone conversation between Senator
McCarthy and Mr. Stevens ; is that correct ?
Mr. Lucas. It is not a word-for-word recording of it.
Mr. Jenkins. I pass the further examination of this witness to
Senator Mundt. Did I understand your last statement, Mr. Lucas,
that it is not an accurate "word-for-word" verbatim account?
Mr. Lucas. I dropped a few words from the conversation in taking
the notes, a very few words, I believe.
Senator Mundt. May I inquire about just how this monitoring is
done? Do you listen on the telephone? Is it a recording and then
played back to you or how do you get the transcription ?
Mr. Lucas. I listen on the telephone and at that time write notes
in Gregg shorthand.
Senator Mundt. As they are taking place?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Is that your full-time task down there, monitoring
telephone calls of that type? Is that your primary duty and respon-
46620°— 54— pt. 4 2
148 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Lucas. It is one of my main duties. I also arrange or help
the Secretary with his appointments.
Senator Mundt. Is it customary procedure when telephone calls
are received from what is called the Hill, offices of Congressmen
and Senators, for you to be called in to monitor those conversations,
Mr. Lucas, or Avas this an exceptional procedure worked out for
Senator McCarthy in the instant case?
Mr. Lucas. That process is a part of my duties, sir.
Ssnator Mundt. For all calls coming from the offices of Senators
and CongTessmen ?
Mr. Lucas. All calls coming in from the Department of Defense
switchboard on which the Secretary of the Army speaks, unless the
Secretary of the Army asks me not to listen.
Senator Mundt. So that it is standing operating procedure in which
you are engaged, to sit there with your shorthand notebook when you
get calls which do not, for some particular reason, require the Secre-
tary to say, "Don't listen to this one," which might be a security
case or something of that type, the standard normal procedure is for
you to monitor these calls which come to you, regardless of where
they come from ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. It has been a normal procedure for years.
There is one other exception. For example, I do not monitor telephone
calls from or w^ith members of the Secretary's family.
Senator Mundt. Well, you said there were some exceptions. That
is perfectly all right. I am trying to get your standing operating
procedure. When did this procedure begin? I know many of my
colleagues are going to be interested in hearing this, and I want to have
it as clear as I can.
Mr. Lucas. Do you mean how long has it been done in the Office
of the Secretary of the Army and Secretary of War ?
Senator Mundt. How long have you been doing it?
Mr. Lucas. I have been doing it since the time — well, I started
during the time of Secretary Royal.
Senator Mundt. About what year was that ?
Mr. Lucas. About — well, in 1949. I was a substitute for Mr.
Shott, my predecessor, and he also listened on phone conversations,
and I understand his predecessor did.
Senator Mundt. So to your full knowledge, at least, you started in
1949, and that has been standing operating procedure since?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Your duties in that connection are limited to
listening to phone calls to the Office of the Secretary, are they, or are
there other monitored calls that you also listen to?
Mr. Lucas. My duty is to monitor the Secretary's calls.
Senator Mundt. I have no other questions.
Senator McClellan ?
Senator McClellan. As I understand, there has been no change
v.liatsoever in procedures and practice with respect to taking notes
on telephone calls since you began in 1949 ?
Mr. Lucas. There have been some changes, yes, sir.
Senator INIcClellan. What changes have been made under Secre-
tary Stevens ?
Mr. Lucas. Xo change made under Secretary Stevens.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 149
Senator JNIcClellan. In other words, you are now following the
same procedures and practices with respect to that part of your duties
that you followed under Secretary Stevens' predecessor ?
]\Ir. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. Now, you say these notes you made, the short-
hand notes you took of the conversation, are not complete, and they
do not record each word that is spoken by the parties talking?
Mr. Lucas. I attempt to make them just as complete as I can, but
the conditions are such that I cannot swear that they are word-for-
Senator McClellan. Well, let me ask you if you undertake to get
every word, or do you simply make sufficient notes so that you will
have the information that will enable you to carry out your further
duties with respect to the conversation ?
Mr. Lucas. That is what I try my best to do.
Senator JNIcClellan. You try your best to get enough information
from the conversation, and to make notes of it, for your guidance
thereafter with respect to dispatching that information to get the
further services rendered ; is that correct ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir ; that is correct.
Senator McClellan. Now, on the assumption of this conversation
that is in question, were you given any special instructions or any
different instructions in the taking of that telephone conversation, to
any others that you were taking in the course of your duties along at
that time ?
Mr. Lucas. No special instructions.
Senator ]\IcClellan. Were you particularly alerted to be on the
phone at that time, and to take notes of this conversation ? Did the
Secretary say to you, "Get on the phone and take notes of this" ?
Mr. Lucas. No, sir.
Senator McClellax. You did it in the normal course of duty ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellax. But you cannot say that you got it full, com-
plete, and accurate?
Mr. Lucas. That is correct, sir ; I cannot say that.
Senator McClellax. Mr. Chairman, I am satisfied.
Senator Muxdt. Senator Dirksen?
Senator Dirksex. I doubt very much whether any other questions
need to be asked here on this point, except for the principles involved.
Let me ask this, however, JSIr. Lucas : Do you have an opinion as
to whether the words which you may have dropped in the course of
the conversation and not set down, would in any way modify or distort
or substantially change the meaning and the substance of the conversa-
tion that was held ?
Mr. Lucas. My opinion is that I put down in my shorthand note-
book practically all of the conversation, and that the little that I may
have missed would have not altered the substance of what I did take
Senator Dirksex. Do you think even the best reporter can take
down perfectly everything that is said from two ends of a telephone
Mr. Lucas. No ; I do not think it is possible to be 100 percent ac-
curate in taking conversations over the telephone, or, for that matter,
in a large roundtable conference.
150 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Dirksen. That is all.
Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Lucas, let me see if I can get the procedure
clear. When you monitor a conversation, do you attempt to take
down the words spoken by the parties on each end of the line word
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir; I attempt to do that. Quite often, I have
found in the past, it may have a bearing on how I process calls where
I have to do something to help the Secretary.
Senator Jackson. Let me just get this point clear. Now, when you
take notes, is it my understanding from your testimony here that
you attempt as far as it is humanly possible to take down that con-
versation first in your shorthand notes word for word?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir; I do; except possibly for social greetings at
the beginning of the call. But where the business of the call is con-
cerned I attempt to get every word, word for word.
Senator Jackson. Now, when you say you attempt, what do you
mean by that ? Do you mean that all human beings are fallible, and
they may make an error on a word ? Is that what you mean ?
Mr. Lucas. I mean that, and I mean also that there may be a noise
in the room, and I may not be able to hear perfectly, and I may be
distracted and somebody might come up and try to talk to me.
Senator Jackson. Well, with reference to the telephone conversa-
tion in question now before the committee, do you have any recollec-
tion of whether you deleted certain words or you may have left out
words, or is it that you are trying to say you may have? Could you
say positively that you left out certain words ?
Mr. Lucas. I can say positively that I left out a few words.
Senator Jackson. All right. Now, why did you leave out those
Mr. Lucas. I don't know, at this point, sir ; I don't know exactly.
Senator Jackson. Did anyone ask you to leave them out ?
Mr, Lucas. No, no, sir.
Senator Jackson. How could you remember?
Mr. Lucas. Because I put a word in my book that indicated that I
had, at the spot where I did.
Senator Jackson. You made a note when you went along in con-
nection with the taking down of the conversation in shorthand, you
made a mark or some other notation that at that point there was some
incomplete transcription of it ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. Is that right?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir, in my shorthand notes I made that mark.
Senator Jackson. In connection witli this particular telephone con-
versation again, the deletions that you have referred to, the words that
may have been omitted, were they at the beginning, in the way of
salutations, or greetings ; or where did they occur in the conversation ?
Mr, Lucas. They were in the body of the call, sir, and not in the
Senator Jackson. They were in the body of the call ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. Now, is this sort of situation that you have
referred to in connection with the transcription of this telephone
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 151
conversation similar to your taking down of notes on other telephone
Mr. Lucas. You mean did I use the same ]irocess?
Senator Jackson. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. Well, do I understand then that in most of your
transcription of telephone conversations, monitored or however it
may be referred to here, are never complete ?
Mr. Lucas. I wouldn't say that they are never complete, but I
imagine I get a complete version in my shorthand notes on many,
Senator Jackson. But I take it that in this particular instance,
that at times you could not hear part of the conversation, or there may
have been some distraction in the room, and for that reason certain
words were deleted ?
JNIr. Lucas. Yes, sir, omitted.
Senator Jackson. You have gone over, I assume, your notes and
is there any change in the substance of the conversation as a result
of those deletions?
]Mr. Lucas. I don't believe so, not in my opinion.
Senator Jackson. That is all.
Senator INIundt. Senator Potter.
Senator Potter. Mr. Lucas, do you transcribe all of your telephone
Mr. Lucas. No, sir.
Senator Potter. "W^ien do you transcribe the telephone conversa-
Mr. Lucas. When the Secretary of the Army asks me to do so, or if
his Department counselor would ask me to do so when I figured that
he would be acting on instructions from the Secretary.
Senator Potter. I assume there are many calls going into the Office
of the Secretary every day ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Potter. Now, do j^ou catalog your book in such a way that
you can readily secure the call that the Secretary is interested in ?
Mr. Lucas. I don't know about readily ; I have a system that I can
locate certain calls ; yes, sir.
Senator Potter. When was this particular call transcribed ?
Mr. Lucas. I don't remember exactly, Senator Potter. I imagine
it was somewhere around March 10, around in there, but I am not sure.
Senator Potter. Of this year ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. I am not sure. It was not transcribed at the
time, I do not believe.
Senator Potter. Mr. Lucas, you monitor outgoing calls as well as
incoming calls from the Secretary's office?
Mr. Lucas. I monitor the calls on which the Secretary talks. It
doesn't matter which way they were initiated, sir.
^ Senator Potter. In other words, you hear all telephone conversa-
tions that the Secretary has with his office, with whatever parties he
may be talking to ; is that correct ?
Mr. Lucas. All calls that go over the Department of Defense switch-
board, where he does not say, "Do not listen to this one."
152 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Potter. If the Secretary's office is like mine, your ears must
burn many times.
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?
Senator Symington. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundi'. Mr. Welch ? ^
Mr. Welch. I have just one simple question, sir. If you were to
take your notebook and read your notes, Avould everybody in this room
have a perfectly good picture of that telephone conversation?
Mr. Lucas. I believe so.
Mr. Welch. That is all.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn ?
Senator McCartht. Just a few questions. Do you monitor the
calls of Mr. Adams also?
Mr. Lucas. If they are made over the Department of Defense
switchboard. Most of them I would not monitor, because they would
be made over the buzz-box, or dictograph system, I believe it is called.
Senator McCarthy. Can I ask you this question : One of the issues
here today, of course, will deal with what, if any, phone calls the
Secretary, Mr. Adams, and others may have made to various ISIem-
bers of the Senate to try and call oif the hearings. Would you have
an index to indicate what Senators were called on a certain day, what
Congressmen were called ?
]Mr. Lucas. Do you mean that if you asked me did a certain Senator
phone or talk on the phone on a certain specific day with the Secre-
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir ; I would have a record that that call had been
Senator McCarthtt. In other words, you could go back through
your books now and over the past 6 or 8 months you could give the
names of the different Senators who either called the Secretary or
whom the Secretary called in regard to this particular matter, could
Mr. Lucas. I couldn't do it right now, no, sir, because the records
are rather large.
Senator McCarthy. But given time, you could do that?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. I still do not have completely in mind just how
this works. When you take notes, you say you try to get the con-
versation of both parties other than the social greetings?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. When you write up your report, do you write
it up as nearly as you can, a verbatim report of the conversation or
do you write your version of what went on during that conversation?
Mr. Lucas. What report are you referring to. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Let's take the conversation between myself
and Mr. Stevens?
Mr. Lucas. The transcript being referred to on the call of No-
vember 7, sir?
Senator McCarthy. That call or any other call. In other words,
the normal procedure.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 153
^ Mr. Lucas. The normal procedure? I will, at tlie time, if possible,
right at the conclusion of the cull, if I am not pushed into doing
sometliing else more important, I will then write on a slip of paper —
this size [indicating] that is, using my shorthand notes, the time of
da}', the date is at the top, and I would indicate who called who and
simply the subject. For example, if you phoned Secretary Stevens
on November 7, and talked about the Schine matter, I would say on
that little slip such and such time, Senator McCarthy called Secre-
tary' Stevens, re Schine matter, period.
Senator ]McCarthy. So that your report of the phone conversation,
then, is your own personal idea of the important part of the telephone
Mr. Lucas. That system that I use for locating the call would be;
Senator McCarthy. Before my next question, I would like to make
this very clear, that while this forenoon I made some comments upon
the impropriety of listening in on telephone conversations, I want to
make it very clear that none of that onus should be borne by you. You
are just a reporter doing the job you are ordered to do, right?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, you did not make the policy
]\Ir. Lucas. That is correct, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Now, could you tell us whether or not on Oc-
tober 2 you monitored a call between Secretary Stevens and General
Lawton? General Lawton is the commanding general at the radar
installation at Fort Monmouth.
Mr. Lucas. I would be unable to tell you at this time.
Senator McCarthy. Have you been asked to transcribe that con-
versation since the hearings began ? Do you follow my question ?
In other words, it was a very important telephone call between Bob
Stevens and General Lawton, in my opinion. I am just curious to
know whether or not when the Secretary asked you to transcribe the
conversation between McCarthy and Stevens whether he also asked
you to transcribe the conversation between Lawton and Stevens.
Mr. Lucas. I don't believe it was put that way, sir. When I was
asked to do my first bit of transcribing in connection with this matter
at hand here, I Avas told — this is my best recollection at this moment —
I was told to transcribe the calls, or the conversations, with the prin-
cipals in the case. I don't believe it was spelled out. I don't think
anybody said, "Transcribe just the calls of Senator McCarthy or Mr.
Carr or Mr. Cohn, if any," at that point. I believe on the second^
and then on this second occasion, when I was asked to transcribe con-
versations with regard to the matter at hand here today, I was told
to go through my book and transcribe all the conversations having
any bearing whatsoever. No, General Lawton was not mentioned.
Senator McCarthy. How many conversations did you transcribe,
JNIr. Lucas. I don't recall, sir, just how many.
Senator JSIcCarthy. Could you give us an estimate: 5, 10, or 20?
Senator Mundt. I am sorry, the Senator's time has expired.
Senator McCarthy. You mean the time for questioning, I assume.
154 SPECIAL ESrVESTIGATION
Senator MuNDT. Yes. There is a rule. We will proceed again now
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mundt. Do you have any further questions, Mr. Counsel?
If not, the Chair wants to hear from you with our counsel for the
committee, but under our rule we must first inquire if anybody else
has any question of the witness.
Mr. Jenkins. I have no other questions, but I desire to make a
statement at this time.
Senator Mundt. You may.
Mr. Jenkins. This witness admits that he di'opped, to use his
words, from his transcription some of the words of the conversation,
whether by inadvertence or otherwise does not appear. We, as law-
yers and as laymen, know that sometimes the dropping of a comma, a
semicolon, or a period will entirely change the meaning of the sentence.
In view of the fact that this witness now says that his transcription
is not accurate, that he made himself the judge of what was material
and what was not, I do not deem it fair to the committee or to Senator
McCarthy, and especially this committee investigating this contro-
versy, that it be admitted as evidence. I no longer insist upon it. I
ask that it be excluded, and that Secretary Stevens be called back to
the witness stand,
]\Ir. Welch. JMr. Chairman.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. I think Mr. Welch addressed the Chair first.
Mr. Welch. I do not wish to compete with the Senator, sir. Would
you like the microphone'?
Senator JMundt. There is no competition. We will take the ques-
tions in chronological order and you were first.
Mr. Welch. Thank you. I cannot agree, Mr. Jenkins, in spite of
my great respect for you, that the witness said the transcription is not
accurate. His testimony, I think, would be, if he were asked, that
it is 99.44 percent accurate, and I do not agree that he made himself
the judge of what was important and what was not important. I think
we have in this courtroom a witness as completely prepared to testify
to a telephone conversation as any witness I ever looked at in my life.
And if we do not put this telephone conversation in today, I wish it
understood that I shall urge with all my power at executive session that
it be admitted in evidence.
Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, I believe.
Senator McCarthy. I have further questions to ask.
Senator ]Mundt, We will revert to the questioning procedure under
the 10-minute rule that we are discussing. The counsel's recommenda-
tion is that Senator McClellan would like to address himself to that
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I substantially agree with
counsel in his conclusions with respect to the admissibility of this tes-
timony. I do say that it would be admissible if both parties to the
conversation would consent to it. There can be no doubt about that.
The fact that it is not in full and complete is what disturbs me. Prob-
ably no reporter is 1,000 percent accurate, but the very fact that he
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 155
omitted or left out words and his record or notes, of shorthand notes,
now indicates that Avords w^ere missed that might have some meaning,
might alfect the validity of his testimony, and for that reason I agree
with counsel that, it not being complete, it is not admissible unless
both parties agree to it. It can be used, however, by the gentleman
who took the notes, and by the other party who heard the conversa-
tion, to refer to to refresh their memory, and they should be able,
therefore, under oath, to testify from memory as to what actually
Senator Mundt. A point of order ?
Senator Jackson. I assume we have rotated. On this very point
I think it would be helpful to know how many other monitored con-
versations are to be introduced in evidence, and whether additional
monitored conversations, if there are such, fall in this same category.
I do not know. Could you answer that ?
INIr. Welch. I will answer it this way : There are others, and I as-
sume that Mr. Jenkins will have as passionate interest in them as I
have, and that he will want them in evidence.
Senator Jackson. I merely wanted to ask this: Are there similar
deletions which appear in the notes of Mr. Lucas ?
Mr. Welch. Senator, there are no deletions. This witness is a care-
ful witness wdio does not want to take an oath to say, "I am sure I
have very word absolutely."
Senator Jackson. Mr. Welch, there are two situations. First of all,
I am sure that no stenographer who takes notes by hand or by steno-
type could positively testify that each and every word was absolutely
taken down. Human beings are fallible, and it follows that they are
capable of committing errors.
I tried to raise that question with Mr. Lucas, and I take it that his
testimonj^ and his answer to my question did not fall in that cate-
gory. On the contrary, when I asked him whether or not any words
had been left out, he said that in his transcribed notes there appears,
in the shorthand notes, a notation here and there where a word was
missing, or that he didn't get for some reason or another.
Xow, the latter situation is far different than the first one. I agree
completely that human beings will commit errors, and there isn't any
stenographer that could testify that everything taken down is abso-
lutely correct. We would not be able to introduce in evidence the
transcription of any testimony if you followed that rule.
That is not the situation, as I understand it, that is before the com-
mittee. The situation is that Mr. Lucas has testified that going along
through the taking down of the telephone conversation, something
happened, and he did not get certain words.
Am I correct in that analysis?
Mr. Welch. I do not quite think you are correct.
Senator Jackson. Let me ask Mr. Lucas.
]Mr. Lucas, let me repeat the cpiestion so that we can
Senator McCarthy. Would you yield for a moment ? I just wonder
if we couldn't revert, Mr. Chairman, to the usual system of question-
ing before we start determining whether or not the material is
Senator Jackson. This is on the question of whether it is admissible.
46620*— 54— pt. 4 3
156 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Mundt, We are a little bit out of order, but the Chair has
recognized Senator Jackson. We can revert to the ordinary pro- ||
cedure, and will Senator Jackson conclude, and we will go down the
Senator Jacksox. Mr. Lucas, do I understand that it is your testi-
mony that in taking down the notes, shorthand notes, of the conversa-
tion between Senator McCarthy and Secretary Stevens, on Xovember
7, that you took all of the conversation down word for word to the
best of your ability ?
Mr. Lucas. To the best of my ability ; yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. Now, by that do I understand that there was no
premeditated or willful deletions of words?
Mr. Lucas. There were no premeditated or willful deletions of
Senator Jacksox. Do I understand that your notes disclose certain
words did not appear because of some interference that made it im-
possible for you to hear the words spoken by either of the parties ?
Mr. Lucas. At this point I don't know just why it was, but I made
a little mark which to me indicates that I left a few words out there.
There is an incomplete sentence in my shorthand notes.
Senator Jackson. Would it be because sometimes human beings
do not always complete sentences ? Have j'ou ever listened ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir ; I know exactlj^ what you mean.
Senator Jackson. Have you ever read the transcribed notes of a
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir ; they are beautiful and I know that they cannot
be word for word.
Senator Jackson. Do you think all of the sentences have a subject
and a predicate?
]\Ir. Lucas. No, sir ; I know they do not.
Senator Jackson. Then, to get to the point here, you say some of
the sentences were not complete. Do you mean that they didn't make
sense, or that it appears that you positively may have dropped words
through inability to pick it up? You understand, I think, what I
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir ; I dropped a few words through inability to put
them down on my notebook; just exactly why that was I don't know
at this point.
Senator Jackson. What is that notation that you referred to in your
transcribed notes normally mean? You say you made a mark.
Mr. Lucas. A little "x.""
Senator Jackson. What does that normally mean to you in trying
to type ?
Mr. Lucas. At the end of a good sentence down at the bottom of a
line it means a question mark, and in this case it is up above the line
and it means I left something out.
Senator Jackson. You mean something was spoken?
Mr. Lucas. Something was spoken which I didn't get down there,
and I don't know why, just what it was, whether I was too slow to get
it, or whether I couldn't hear it, or what.
Senator Mundt. AVe will now proceed under the.lO-minute rule,
and counsel, if he cares to, may ask questions without limit of the
witness, and if he has none then it comes to the Chair.
SPECIAL LNVESTIGATION 157
Do you have further questions, Mr. Jenkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. I have one question.
I am correct, am I not, in the assumption that you stated a while
ago that you dropped or omitted some words in this conversation ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Just how many you don't know ?
Mr. Lucas. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. That is all.
Senator Mundt. I have just a question or two.
There is nothing in this symbol, this X that you put above the line,
that will indicate whether "^ you dropped 2 words, or 6 words, or 8
words, but it simply means the thought was incompleted and you
don't recall how many words might be dropped ; is that correct ?
Mr. Lucas. That is correct, sir; at the time of taking the notes
I realized — for what reason now I do not remember — I realized that
I had left something out. Whether I was too far behind to recall
it, or whether it was noise because I didn't hear it, I don't know now.
I made the mark to indicate that I was leaving something out and
I wanted tliat to show by my notebook.
Senator Mundt. You'put that down more or less to protect yourself,
so that if, at some future time, there was a transcription, that would
remind you that that thought was not completed?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan?
Senator McClellan. Just one question. Can you tell us the number
of places on your notes recording this conversation where you indi-
cated that something was omittecl?
]Mr. Lucas. Once.
Senator McClellan. Just once?
ISIr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen ?
Senator Dirksen. No questions.
Senator ]\Iundt. Have you any more, Senator Jackson?
Senator Jackson. Only this: Where did that appear in the tran-
scription, in your shorthand notes?
]\Ir. Lucas. In the body of the call.
Senator Jackson. In the body of it?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. Do you know roughly how many words were
taken down ? You can tell
Mr. Lucas. May I look, sir?
Senator Jackson. Sure, you can refresh your recollection.
]Mr. Lucas. There were 4i/2 pages of my notes.
Senator Jackson. And roughly how many words to a page, approxi-
Mr. Lucas. It is harder to figure it from the shorthand than the
transcript. Could I look at that?
Senator Jackson. You can refresh your recollection, sure.
Mr. Lucas. I would guess that there are about three to five hundred.
Senator Jackson. To a page ?
IMr. Lucas. Yes, sir
Senator Jackson. To a page?
Mr. Lucas. Xo. sir. It is this much [indicating].
158 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Jackson. How many words are missing out of that 500 ?
Senator IMcCarthy. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I think that
the photographers should not photograph what you have not admitted
in evidence. May I suggest the Chair order the photographers
Senator Mundt. The point of order will be u])held. The photog-
raphers will discontinue photographing the evidence which is in
Senator McCarthy. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that in view of
the fact that the Chair has not decided whether or not this document
is admissible, that the photographer who just photographed it be
ordered to turn the film over to the Chair until it is decided whether
it is admissible ?
Senator Mundt. May the Chair inquire how many took the pic-
Senator McCarthy. Just one man. Let me make it clear I am not
accusing this young man of any improper conduct. He is a very
ambitious photographer and is entitled to take a picture of that kind.
Senator Mundt. If that will destroy the whole roll, if I can have
the assurance that it will be destroyed, it will be all right.
News Photographer. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. It is the whole roll of film, is it not ?
News Photographer. It is the beginning of it.
Senator Mundt. You better destroy the roll.
Senator Jackson. Do I understand— —
Senator Mundt. If anybody else wants to contribute a roll to the
conscience fund, they may do so.
Ne^vs Photographer. Mr. Chairman, in my opinion, it would be
impossible to read anything.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, were those pictures taken of the
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Mundt. Your point of order has been upheld.
Senator McCarthy. May I have the record very clear that I do not
accuse this enterprising young photographer of anything improper.
I think he did what many young men would like to do to set a scoop
on that document. I merely felt that it should not appear in Life
Senator Jackson. There is one over here that took one, too, that
put his plate in.
Now, my question: Do I understand that about 600 words were
taken down ?
Mr. Lucas. I would estimate three to five hundred. I am not sure,
sir. I am not familiar with that.
Senator Jackson. And how many words, if you know, in your
opinion, were not taken down?
Mr. Lucas. In my opinion, it was part of a sentence, probably 5 or
10 or maybe 15. I just don't know. l3ut in my opinion — I know I am
not so bad as to leave out a whole sentence.
Senator Jackson. As I understand it, then, the words that you were
unable to take down were part of a sentence ? They were not an entire
JNIr. Lucas. That is correct, sir. It was just part of a sentence, in
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 159
Senator Jackson, Do I understand your testimony to be that maybe
5 to a nuiximum of 15 words might be missing out of a total of between
three and five hundred words?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir, that would be my opinion on it.
Senator Jackson^. Then other than for this particular sentence, to
your best knowledge and belief all of the other sentences were com-
]Mr. Lucas. I believe so ; yes, sir.
Senator Jacksoj^. That is all.
Senator IMundt. Senator Potter ?
Senator Potter. Mr. Lucas, just one question. Whose conversa-
tion was the omission made in? Was it made in Secretary Stevens'
conversation or in Seiiator McCarthy's conversation?
Mr. Lucas. At the \ery beginning of a remark by Senator Mc-
Senator Potter. That is all I have, sir.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ? Pardon me. Senator Symington.
Senator Symington. I would like to ask you just one set of questions.
What j'ou try to do, as much as you can, is get all the words in any
conversation; is that correct, Mr. Lucas?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir; I try my darndest because I want to get those
details down so if necessary I can help the Secretary by doing so.
Senator Symington. Often when you put somebody on the line in
any office, the person talks too fast for them to take it, occasionally, and
they have to say, "You are talking too fast," is that correct?
Mr. Lucas. I am sorry, I didn't follow.
Senator Symington In other words, sometimes a person will talk
too fast — I am sorry. Sometimes a person Avill talk too fast for you
to take it, is that correct ?
Mr. Lucas. That is correct ; yes, sir, sometimes. It is a rare occasion,
but it does happen.
Senator Symington, Well, that is common practice in recording
anything on the telephone?
Mr. iiUCAS. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. What you say is that to the best of your abil-
ity you take down everything that is said on both sides, is that
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. Often I omit the greetings at the beginning
of the conversation. It is pretty easy to tell when a man starts the
business of his phone call. There may be a few social remarks about
dinner or something of that sort, purely social and then often in a
phone call a man will say, "I hate to bother you, but " And then
I know that is the business of the call.
Senator Symington. I have no further questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak has not returned yet.
Mr. Welch, have you any further questions ?
Mr. Welch. I have only this to say, that I think we are at a cross-
roads in this case.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman?
Mr. Welch. Could I finish. Senator, please?
Senator McCarthy. May I suggest we finish with the questioning
before we hear the speeches?
]\Ir. Welch. I thought I was asked for comment. Was I asked for
160 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Mitxdt. You were asked whether you had further questions
to ask the witness.
Mr. Welch. I have no further questions.
Senator Mundt. You may speak to a point of order if you care to
Mr. Welch, I wish to speak to a point of order.
Senator Mundt. You may do tliat, sir.
Mr. Welch. The point is I think we are at the crossroads in this
case. I am not a hiwyer without experience. I have dealt with
hundreds of telephone calls and never in my life have I seen one
offered in a courtroom in which I had more confidence as to its com-
plete accuracy than I have in this one.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy has 10 minutes.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Lucas, when I quit questioning the last
time I was in the middle, I believe, of a question. The question was
about how many conversations did you transcribe in this matter of
the promotion of Schine?
Mr. Lucas. I am not sure, sir. I would say 50 or a hundred tele-
phone conversations were transcribed that might have just some re-
mark about it. '"How are you doing with Senator McCarthy," or
something of that sort, with "I am doing fine."
That is the total number of conversations that had any mention
of yourself, Senator, or your staff or your committee or anything in
connection with it.
Senator McCarthy. In other words, do I understand that you
transcribed all conversations in which there was mentioned either the
work of the committee, myself, or the staff, and that number is some-
where between 50 and 100?
Mr. Lucas. That is my guess, sir. I just don't know how many
there were, but I transcribed a stack that high [indicating].
Senator McCarthy. I am not trying to pin you down to a definite
number. I know that it is impossible for you to give the accurate
number at this moment.
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Let me ask j^ou this : How many conversations
were there between the Secretary or Mr. Adams and other members
of this committee?
]Mr. Lucas. 1 don't recall, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Would you have any idea how many?
Mr. Lucas. No, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Were there occasions upon which Mr. Adams or
Mr. Stevens called other members of the committee in regard to the
wisdom or the possibility of calling off the investigation of com-
munism in military establishments? I am asking Mr. Lucas a ques-
]\Ir. Lt'Cas. I don't understand the question, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Would the reporter read the question to the
(The rojiorter read from his notes as requested.)
]\Ir. Lucas. I don't recall any, sir.
Senator ]\IcCartht. You recall Mr. Stevens was absent for some
time over in the Orient. During that time, was Mr, Adams making
phone calls to Senators with regard to the investigation ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 161
Mr, Lucas. I wouldn't know anything about that, sir. His office is
not in the same room with the Secretary and I don't handle his phone
calls unless he happens to be up in the Secretary's office.
Senator McCarthy. Did he make any from the Secretary's office ?
Mr. Lucas. I don't recall, sir.
Senator McCarthy. You do not recall ?
Mr. Lucas. During the period w^hen he was absent, when the Sec-
retary was in the Far East ?
Senator IMcCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. I don't recall any, sir.
Senator McCarthy. When you transcribed these conversations, who
did you give them to ?
Mr. Lucas. I believe I gave them either to Colonel BeLieu or Colonel
Wood in our office.
Senator McCarthy. And how many conversations were there with
Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Lucas. I am not sure. I would say 1, 2, or 3. There weren't
Senator McCarthy. Do you have the transcripts of those conver-
sations with you ?
Mr. Lucas. I don't, no, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Now, what type of index do you keep? In
other words, let us say that Secretary Stevens calls you in tomorrow
and says, "Mr. Lucas, I would like to know whether or not I called
Senator Jones or Senator X or Y 6 months ago." Do you have an
index so that you can go to your book and report back to the Secretary
the date, the time the call was made ?
Mr. Lucas. I have two ways to locate a call. I m.entioned the little
slips that I make which are chronological.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Lucas. I staple together my notes on things that I might have
to refer to, 1 day to a stapled pad. Then at a later time, when I have
a chance— and I am far behind right now — I go over these chronologi-
cal notes of who called who, and simply the subject, and I try to post
that on cards, and only if I think there might be a future reference to
it. If it seemed to be a minor call or an invitation to dinner, or some-
thing, I wouldn't post it on the card. I would have it in the daily
Senator McCarthy. I am just trying to find out what type of index
you have. Do you have a card index, then ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir, a 3 by 5 card index, which, as I say, is not even
complete on all of his phone conversations, but it is some of them,
the ones I think that he might or his staff might want to refer to.
Senator McCarthy. But by referring to the card, you could then
refer to your notes ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. And get the transcript ; is that right ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Are those cards serialized ; are they numbered
so that you can tell if any of the cards are missing ?
Mr. Lucas. No, sir, tiiey are constantly being added to because the
Secretary will talk to some new people.
Senator McCarthy. I am not sure if you got my question. In other
words, let us say the Secretary has 10 conversations today, or 20. Do
162 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
you make a card index of each conversation, and do yon number them
1,2, 3, 4, 5, and 6?
Mr. Lucas. No, sir.
Senator INIcCarthy. So that you have got no permanent
Senator Muxdt. The Senator's time has again expired.
Are there any other Senators who have any questions to ask ? Does
counsel have any, and does Mr. Welch ?
Mr. "Welch. Not now.
Senator Muxdt. Have you any other questions to ask, Senator
Senator McCarthy. Do you have a record of a telephone call —
strike that. I believe you have answered you do not know whether
you have a record of a call between General Lawton and Stevens
on the 2d of October ; it that correct ?
JNIr. Lucas. I don't know. I believe the Secretary may have talked
with General Lawton, but I don't remember at this point, and my
records are not here.
Senator McCarthy. Did you transcribe that, do you know ?
Mr. Lucas. I am not sure. I may have.
Senator McCarthy. Do you recall a telephone conversation between
Mr. Cohn and Secretary Stevens on the 27th of October? I realize it
is hard for you to recall specific dates, but do you recall anything about
that time ?
Mr. Lucas. I couldn't recall calls and place them in any period.
There are so many little details that I don't believe I could recall that
any conversation was had around a particular week, we will sa}^, and I
wouldn't know as far as time is concerned.
Senator McCarthy. Could you check your records and, if the Chair
agrees with this suggestion, give us the number of calls between Mr.
Cohn and Secretary Stevens in the month of October, and the dates of
those calls, and have the conversation transcribed ?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir ; I could do that.
Senator McCarthy. Has that been done up to this point? I had
understood you to say it has been ordered by someone, to transcribe.
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir; if Mr. Cohn talked on the phone, I am sure I
must have transcribed it ; if he talked during October I must have
Senator IVIcCarthy. Offhand you cannot tell us roughly how many
conversations there were?
]\Ir. Lucas. No, sir ; I don't remember.
Senator McCarthy. Have those all been given to Secretary Stevens ?
]\lr. Lucas. I am not sure. I believe I gave them to Colonel Wood.
Senator McCarthy. Who ordered you to transcribe the calls?
Mr. Lucas. Colonel Wood. Colonel BeLieu I think on the first
occasion, and Colonel Wood on the second, relaying orders that I knew
came indirectly from the Secretary or with his permission from Secre-
Senator McCarthy. Would you recall a ])hone call made by Secre-
tray Stevens to Mr. Schine on October 28 ?
Mr. Lucas. I believe I recall that there was a conversation with Mr.
Schine, but I don't recall the date.
Senator IMcCarthy. Do you recall ]Mr. Stevens made the call?
Mr. Lucas. AVhat was the dateof it?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION" 163
Senator ^McCarthy. It is either October 21 or October 28 ; and Mr.
Colin says October 21 and my notes indicate 28, so let us use both of
Senator ^f undt. ]\fay the Chair suggest that on the matter of addi-
tional telephone calls, and monitored conversations, that we await
further questioning on those until we decide whether to admit this
one or not.
If we are not going to accept as evidence this conversation, why then
there would be no point in pursuing other possible telephone con-
Senator INIcCartiiy. ]\[r. Chairman, Senator IMcClellan indicated,
and I think rightly so, that while perliaps the conversations would not
be properly admissible, and would have to be excluded unless both
parties agreed to it, I think that is correct no matter how improper
the transcript might ordinarily be if both parties agreed it could be
It is impossible for me to decide whether or not we should admit
a partial recording until I have some picture of the other conversa-
tions that were made and may I say, Mr. Chairman, I think it is of
the utmost importance to have all conversations that are substan-
tially accurate in form, admitted if we are sure that we have all of
tlie conversation. I think it would be extremely enlightening.
Now, I don't want to impose upon the time of the committee, but
this matter was brought up by Mr. Stevens who offered one particular
conversation, and there are some prior conversations which would
seem to be certninly as important if not more so and I would like to
spend another few minutes on that if I may.
Senator Muistdt. Proceed as briefly as possible.
Senator McCarthy, Thank you, I will.
Do you know how many conversations there were between Secre-
tary Stevens and other members of tliis subcommittee in regard to
either Mr. Colm or this investigation?
Mr. Jekkins. Mr Chairman, may I remind the committee that
the inquiry at this time is whether or not to admit as evidence a
recording or a transcription of tliis conversation allegedly occurring
between Senator McCarthy and Mr. Stevens on November 7.
Now, the Senator is making an exploration of many other alleged
recordings or monitoring of other alleged conversations and I don't
think it is in order at this time, and it is objected to.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy will be heard on the point of
Senator INIcCarthy, Mr. Chairman, may I say that if you want to
restrict the interrogation of this witness at this time, to one particular
conversation, well and good. However, it now appears that we have
a witness who can be of great value to the committee, a witness who
monitored the t*-:lephone conversations between Mr. Stevens and mem-
bers of the committee and other individuals in the administration.
I will have to question him about all of those other conversations.
If the Chair feels that we are going to take this piecemeal, and
at this time we will only inquire about one conversation and call him
back later about all of the other conversations, I have no objection
to that, except that it seems like a very time-wa&ling device.
164 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Mundi'. Very well.
May the CliaJr say that lie not goin": to request the Senator from
Wisconsin to reply to the question at this time as to whether or not
he would appruve the admissibility of this evidence. I think if the
Senator from Wisconsin will abstain now temporarily until we hear
from counsel and make a tentative ruliufij on this point, we can all
save time. I assure the Senator from Wisconsin that if it is ulti-
mately decided that this particular monitored conversation is to be
brought into evklence, that the same ruling under the same circum-
stances will apr-ly to all of the monitored conversations occurring in
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to take addi-
tional time. I think we are wasting far too much time now with
many people with regard to a private in the Army who should be
on more important business. I did not suggest these hearings.
Tliis witness does have information which no one else has — infor-
mation with regard to conversations witli Mr. Stevens and members
of this committee and other members of the administration.
I am now, Mr. Chairman, if you please, not questioning him on
this particular conversation between myself and Bob Stevens. I am
trying to find out what information he has which might shed some
light upon this investigation. We are in it and we must go through it
I think it would be a great mistake to deny the Senator from Wis-
consin the right to find out just what this young man has in the way of
notes. After I get through, I would like to suggest to the Chair and to
counsel that they subpena all of his original notes from the date that
the investigation of communism in military installations began. I
will ask the Chair to have those notes submitted to competent court
reporters, go over them with this young man, and glean from those
notes all the information they can. What those notes will show, I
frankly don't know. That is why I have got to, as Mr. Jenkins said,
more or less explore. I know it takes time, but we are in this thing if
it takes time, period.
Senator Jackson. On the point of order, I think it is an excellent
idea, and I think that all notes that relate to conversations on both
sides of this controversy ought to be subpenaed and made available
to the committee. That would include the memoranda previously
released to the press by the committee and the staff. I think that all
notes relating to telephone conversations by all of the principals or
parties to this controversy ought to be subpenaed at the same time.
I think it is an excellent idea.
Mr. Welch. Could 1 comment on the point of order?
Senator Mundt. ]\Ir. Welch.
Mr. Welch. Nothing will delight the Army more than to make
every such telephone conversation available.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mundt. Senator INIcCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I don't think Mr. Welch can
speak for the Army any more than I can. I think you can speak for
your civilian clients but not for the Army. I think I represent the
Army just as much as you do; in fact, I think more so; and I am not
trying to speak for the Army today. So let's speak for your clients.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 165
Senator Muxdt. Do you liave another comment to make on the point
Senator McCarthy. If the Chair's desire is that we not pursue this
interrogation further at this time, I will abide by the ruling of the
Chair. I think we sliould get back to the Secretary of the Army. I
do think there is one important question, though, that I would like to
ask. That is this:
Do you take any conversation by any mechanical devices in the
Mr. Lucas. I don't know about the Pentagon, sir. I don't have
anything to do with any mechanical devices.
Senator McCarthy. Do you know, or do you have any reason to
believe, that conversations are taken by any mechanical devices any-
where in the Pentagon ?
Mr. Lucas. I just don't know, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Have you heard that they were?
Mr. Lucas. I haven't heard anything on the subject, except that I
understand an order has been issued recently that no mechanical
recording shall be made, issued by the Secretary of Defense.
Senator McCarthy. Well, prior to that order there had been me-
chanical recordings; is that correct?
Mr. Lucas. I wouldn't say so. I just don't know. I have never
seen any mechanical recordings made except,. I believe, one, and I
don't know whether it had anything to do with this case or not, but
it wasn't the Secretary's conversation. I suppose whoever had it
made had the permission of the man on the other end of the line. But
other than that, I do not know anything about mechanical recordings
of phone conversations. I haven't seen any.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
I would like to hear from counsel of the committee, if I may, speak-
ing on the point of order which was raised some time ago by Mr.
Welch, about the admissibility of these monitored conversations.
Mr. Jexkins. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding at this time
that Mr. Welch, representing Mr. Stevens, and Mr. Adams, agrees
that all monitored recordings, transcriptions, which Mr. Stevens or
Mr. Adams has may be admitted in evidence, provided the committee,
headed by Senator McCarthy, makes the same agreement with respect
to any recordings or monitored conversations that he has, is that
Mr. Welch. You are incorrect in only one respect, sir. I under-
stand that I am retained by the United States Army.
Mr. Jenkins. We will not argue that point.
Mr. Welch. Everything else you say is agreed to.
Mr. Jenkins. We will not argue that point. In order to shorten
the time, may I ask the Senator from Wisconsin, do you or do you
not agree to that proposition. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I thought I made it very clear
that I must question this witness to know what information he has.
He has talked about a buzz-bcx, and Adams' buzz-box and dictaphone.
I want to know what that is, when they have used it. He has talked
about Mr. Hensel. I want to know about the conversations of Mr.
Hensel. It is impossible, if you will pardon me.
Mr. Jenkins. I am not going to argue with the Senator at all,
Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that it is admitted that this tran-
166 SPECIAL ESTVESTIGATION
scription of this telephone conversation of November 7 is not full
and complete and accurate and correct; it is still my opinion that
the transcription should not be admitted in evidence.^ However, it
is not my opinion in view of additional information elicited from this
witness, since I made or rendered my original opinion, that this wit-
ness who allegedly listened in on that telephone conversation, may
testify now as to that conversation, allegedly occurring between the
committee chairman and JSIr. Stevens, and that he may use the notes
which he took at that time for the purpose and the purpose only of
refreshing his recollection, and with the further statement to this
connnittee that the objections raised with respect to it not being tech-
nically accurate in every respect go to the weight of the testimony
rather than to its admissibility. _
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I complete my cross-
examination of the witness before the Chair makes any decision as
to whether or not he will be allowed
Senator Mundt. The chairman has not yet commented that you
have used up your 10 minutes. There may be questions by other
members of the committee or by Mr, Welch.
IMr. Jexkins. Mr. Chairman, let me go one step further, please,
in order to be technically correct. It still could not be admitted because
it is a monitored report, that is the testimony of this witness could not
be given by his refreshing his recollection from the notes since it is
a monitorecl report, without the consent given in this open hearing by
Senator McCarthy, in view of the statute pertaining to such monitored
Senator Mundt. Very well. Now, before we rule on the point of
order, we have the witness before you, if there are other questions.
Counsel, do you have any ?
I have none.
Mr. Jexkixs. I have none.
Senator ISIcClellan. Well, I have this point of order. I want to
inquire whether we are going to take his testimony or not going to
take it. If we are, I am ready to question him. If you are going to
keep him on the witness stand all afternoon, notwithstanding this
legal situation or technical difficulty we have encountered as to whether
his testimony is admissible, and if we are going to keep him on the
witness stand, I would probably like to ask many, many questions.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McClellan, we cannot ask this witness about
that monitored telephone conversation without the consent of Senator
McCarthj^, in view of the statute applicable thereto.
Senator McClellan. I may say to the chairman, I am simply
withholding my questions simply to expedite these hearings and in
the interest of getting on to what we can take this afternoon. If we
are going into all of this, I would like to ask many, many questions
about many other conversations, and get the correct number he has
monitored, and whether he has them and whether they are available,
and whether they can be made available to this committee.
Senator Mundt. The Chair is prepared to rule, as far as the ad-
missibility is concerned.
EPECIAL INVESTIGATION 167
Senator Jackson. A point of order. Was there a ruling on the
request for the submission to this committee of all of the transcribed
notes, and the shorthand books, from all of the parties to the
Senator IMundt. I understood counsel to say that the admissibility of
such evidence from the standpoint of its legality would depend upon
the willingness of Senator IMcCarthy to accept it.
IMr. Jexkixs. Assuming they are monitored. If they are not moni-
tored, then of course any transcription made of that conversation by
the party who received it, directly, in order to make a record of it,
would, in my opinion, be admissible testimony, and that is not a
Senator Jackson. Mr. Counsel, I am not raising the question of
admissibility. I am merely pursuing the request originally made that
the Army furnish all of the shorthand notes and notebooks and the
transcribed notes of conversations, and that the other j)rinciiDals to
the controversy do likewise.
Mr. Jenkins. You mean unmonitored conversations ?
Senator Jackson. No, monitored. That was the request originally
Mr. Jenkins. By whom ?
Senator Jackson. That was by Senator McCarthy.
Mr. Jenkins. Of course, those matters will be requested, Senator
Senator Jackson. I assume we have the right to have those notes
and transcriptions subpenaed, because that does not go to the question
of whether they are going to be admitted in testimony, but merely
goes to our right to have the information.
Mr. Jenkins. As each witness is presented, it is proper for this
committee to inquire of that witness what notes he has made, and
what memoranda he has made, and to have those introduced by that
witness, assuming that they are competent and relevant.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Jenkins, only this point : The Army agreed,
as I understand it, to submit this information to the committee ; am I
Mr. Welch. That is correct.
If I may be heard one more moment, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ?
Mr. Welch, This telephone conversation of November 7 can go to
this committee this afternoon, on either one of two bases : If Senator
McCarthy will consent to its admission, it goes in. If this committee
by majority vote says you wish to hear it, I will advise this witness
that he must testify to it. So you may have it on either basis.
Senator IMcCarthy, once more, sir, if you will consent, this commit-
tee and the country will hear it today; and if you will not consentand
the committee votes that my witness can testify to it, this committee
and the country will hear it today.
Senator IMcCarthy. I think Mr. Mundt is still the chairman of the
committee, Mr. Welch.
Mr. Jenkins and Mr. Chainnan, may I suggest this : That I think
the notes this young man has, and the notes over the past year, during
which time we were investigating Communist infiltration in the mili-
tary, notes of telephone conversations would be of great benefit to the
168 SPECIAL IXVESTIGATION
I agree with the counsel, ]\Ir. Jenlvins, that the taking of the notes is
illegal, and that therefore, normally it would not be admissible. I
would like to call counsel's attention to the fact, however, that an in-
vestigating committee is not bound by the usual rules of evidence.
Senator Mundt. The counsel advises the Chair he did not advise
the taking of the notes was illegal, but it might be illegal to admit
them in evidence.
Senator McCarthy. As the Chair knows, the rules of evidence be-
fore a committee are considerably different than before a court. I
think that regardless of how proper or improper it might have been
to monitor the telephone conversation, I do think the committee should
get all of the telephone conversations over the past year having to do
with this subject, even remotely, and I think those telephone conversa-
tions should be examined by the counsel; and the ones Mr. Jenkins
considers pertinent testimony otherwise should be put in the record.
I have nothing further to say at this time.
Mr. Jenkins. May I make one other remark? In order to clarify
the matter now under consideration by the committee, it is not the
violation of the law to monitor a telephone conversation sent in inter-
state commerce. It is only a violation of the law for the party at the
other end of the line to whom it is sent to divulge that without the
consent of the sender.
I say to this committee that the only way such a monitored tele-
phone conversation may be proven legally Avithout this committee
running afoul of the law and taking the chances of getting in jail,
would be for Senator McCarthy to agree that it might be presented in
Now, Mr. Welch has stated that he will permit it to go in, either by
Senator McCarthy's consent, which would make it perfectly legal, or
upon a vote of this committee to receive it, which to my mind simply
means that Mr. Welch is willing to take the chance of it being ad-
mitted if this committee will assume responsibility for it. But as
attorney for this committee I say that without Senator McCarthy's
consent you violate the law when and if you admit in evidence that
monitored telephone conversation.
Senator INIcCartht. May I have counsel's attention? ^lay I say
that there is no question about Senator McCarthy's position; I want
all telephone conversations having to do with this great promotion of
Schine, and the controversy with Adams and Cohn or myself, or any-
one in the military ; I want them all made a part of the record.
I will under no circumstances allow Mr. Welch to select 1 monitored
telephone conversation out of 100 which he says he has, and offer to
put that in the record. That would be about as highly improper as
anything I have ever heard of before any committee.
I want them all in and I want this whole picture laid clear on the
table, and I want everything that Bob Stevens or anyone in the mili-
tary said to any Senator, or anj^one in the administration or anywlvire
else, in regard to this investigation, made a part of the record.
And I will not consent to have put in isolated pieces, 1 letter out of
100. Let us make that perfectly clear at this time.
Mr. Welch. If I may answer the Senator, and we are now in perfect
agreement, they will all be made available, but they can only actually
go in evidence one at a time.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 169
So I sufrg'est we now take the one we have got here.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee
accept the agreements of the participants to this controversy, and now
rule that they shall all go in the record.
Senator Symington. I second the motion.
Senator IMcCartiiy. All at the same time.
Senator Jackson. What is meant by all?
Senator McClellan. All that they have pertaining to this contro-
versy, directly or indirectly.
Senator Jackson. I assume that includes all parties.
Senator McClellan. All parties.
Senator ISIcCarthy. May I ask the Senator who made the motion,
does the motion assume that they will all be put in at the same time ?
Senator McClellan. I don't know how you can do it; if you can
figure out the physical way to do it, I agree.
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this, I don't know what is in this.
Senator McClellan. I don't either. If both sides agree, let us put
them in the record.
Senator McCarthy. May I say I don't know what is in this incom-
plete conversation. Regardless of how incomplete it may be I am
willing to have that go in the record if all of the conversations go in
at the same time. I think it would be highly improper.
Senator Mundt. May the Chair say the motion is very clear that
all of the monitored conversations dealing with the points raised
by the Senator from Wisconsin, are included in the motion made by
the Senator from Arkansas as the Chair understands it.
Senator McClellan. All of them, and no exclusions. Put them
all in and let the committee weigh them as to what part they think
is relevant, and what part is irrelevant.
Senator McCarthy. A point of order.
Would the Senator from Arkansas amend his motion to say they be
put in in chronological order ?
Senator ]\Iundt. The question was whether you would amend the
motion to say in that these conversations be put in in chronological
Senator McClellan. Yes ; I have no objection to that, if the parties
will agree to it. I just want to get them all in the record.
Senator Mundt. Is the amendment agreeable to the Secretary ?
Ssnator Jackson. And do I understand it will include the short-
hand notebooks from which the shorthand remarks are transcribed,
and this will include, this request applies to all of the principals of
this controversy ?
Senator JMundt. That is correct on both sides.
Mr. Welch. May I point out one thing.
Senator Mundt. Is that amendment agreeable to the man who sec-
onded the motion ?
Senator Symington. That amendment is entirely agreeable to me.
Senator Mundt. Very well. Do you want to speak before we vote
on this motion ?
Mr. Welch. A point of order. It seems to be essential for the
record that we have similar assention from Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr,
paralleling the assent of the Senator. We should have their consent
170 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. Is it your position, Mr. Chairman, if I may, is
it your position that you must get the consent of everj^one who is
called; in other words if Stevens called Senator X, Senator Y, or if
he called 10 people somewhere else in the Hill, is it your position
that you will withhold those telephone conversations unless we can
induce those people to consent to have them put in the record?
Mr. Welch. I will withhold nothing, sir.
Senator Mundt. I don't believe your point of order is raised to
the motion. It is raised to the admissibility of the evidence, Mr.
Welch. The motion says that the committee should secure all of
this evidence ; and now on the matter of admissibility, you might have
to o;et consent.
Senator Jacksoi^. Do I understand that will also — some testimony
was made by Mr. Lucas in connection with the indexing and certain
descriptive index titles that he made, and I think that that ought
to be included and all memoranda to all of the principals in this con-
troversy relating to telephone conversations.
Senator Mundt. I think that is correct.
Senator Jackson. Some of it may be in memorandum form, mem-
oranda, and part of it may be a verbatim transcript.
Senator Mundt. May the Chair suggest that the word "all" is a
mighty inclusive term and that was the word employed by the Senator
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I meant every document, every
scrap of paper relating to any conversation, with me included.
Senator Jackson. Tliat requires the consent of all the principals,
Senator Mundt. Not for the committee to subpena them and secure
them. It might require the consent to admit them as evidence.
Senator Jackson. Do I understand they are consenting now, all the
Senator McCeellan. They are all here.
Senator Mundt. We might find out, if that is included in the mo-
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy.
Senator McCarthy. Do I understand that the motion made by the
Senator from Arkansas means all conversations having to do with
the investigation of Communists in the military?
Senator McClelean. I said all pertaining to this controversy, and
the controversy here is defined by the charges that have been filed and
the specifications accompanying them by the j)arties in this contro-
versy, the parties have been named, a new one was added to the record,
added to the proceedings after Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn filed
their charges and specifications. I asked at the time that he be made
a party to the proceedings. All parties, all principals, are here.
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I was just asking. I was not object-
ing to your motion. I was asking for some enlightenment. Do I un-
derstand that this would provide for all the monitored telephone con-
versations having to do with our committee's investigation of Com-
munists in the military installations?
Senator JNIcClellan. Relating only to the issues before this com-
mittee and involved in this investigation. If it is relevant to the in-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 171
quiry now in progress, they are included. If they are wholly irrele-
vant to it, they would not be included.
Senator Mundt. I think the members of the committee understand
the motion, but the Chair wants to make sure that they do before
he puts it.
Is any member of the committee desirous of further enlightenment
on the motion at this time ?
Senator Jackson. Do the principals agree to it, first?
Senator Mundt. They are not. The question is now, before you
put the motion, do you want to ask the principals to agree about the
admissibility of the evidence?
Senator McClellan. I understood they had agreed.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch said Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr have not
been asked, and he is correct.
Mr. Welch. Let me state it this way : The Secretary is seated be-
hind me and has said I may speak for him and give his consent
on his end of any and all material telephone calls that are monitored
Mr. Hensel is slightly on my right and has indicated that I may
now give his consent to all such calls. Mr. Adams is in sight, and
I observe him nodding his head so that we have his consent.
We are lacking only Messrs. Cohn and Carr.
Senator McClellan. Just a minute.
Mr. Welch, I would like those consents.
Senator Mundt. The Chair would like to find out whether we have
the consent, then, of Messrs. Cohn and Carr.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think that Mr. Carr and Mr.
Cohn, I assume, will have the same position I have, and that is this,
that I not only consent but want all of the monitored conversations,
all of the other conversations made available to the committee. But
I don't want to have this contention upon getting the consent of some
15 or 25 people that Mr. Stevens or Mr. Adams may have called;
for example, during a course of this I know Mr. Adams called mem-
bers of this committee other than myself.
He called any number of people on the Hill. I am not going to
consent to put in only conversations involving Cohn and Carr and
McCarthy unless it is understood. And I don't think this should be
based upon the consent of anyone, I think that it really
Mr. Jenkins. ]\Iav I
Senator McCarthy. May I finish ? I think the committee by a vote
should order the production of all those documents, regardless of who
objects or consents to it. The committee has the unqualified right to
do it. I approve of that heartily, but I will not give any consent, Mr.
Chairman, to the introduction of a few of the 100 telephone conversa-
tions, and I think I speak for Mr, Carr and Mr. Cohn.
Mr. Jenkins. May I remind, Mr. Chairman, the Senator from Wis-
consin that it is only necessary to get the consent of both parties to a
telephone conversation which is monitored, that this committee has
power without the consent of parties to a conversation to subpena and
bring to court a record that they made, that they made and not some
third party made, a record or a memorandum that they made at the
time. Therefore, the only— I repeat— the only instance in which a
consent is necessary is where a telephone conversation is monitored.
Senator Mundt. Are you ready for the question ?
172 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCabtpit. Mr. Jenkins, I dislike prolonging tliis, but let
me ask you this : Let's assume, then, we find that Mr. Adams called
General Zwicker to discuss certain matters with him. Do I understand
that it is your thought that we would have to get the consent of Gen-
eral Zwicker before we
Mr. Jenkins, If that conversation were monitored, Senator, cer-
tainly so. Otherwise we would all be violating the law. I am sure that
Mr. Welch agrees with me and that your attorney will agree with me.
Senator McCarthy. That, of course, leads us right back to
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Zwicker himself may testify to the conversation,
but any third party on the line who is monitoring that conversation
may not testify to it without the consent of the party on the other end
of the line.
Senator McCarthy. May I point out, Mr. Jenkins, we are right back
where I started. This means that only the material which Mr. Adams,
Mr. Stevens, et al., consider favorable will be put into the record. How
about the calls to Peress, to Zwicker, to Colonel Brown, all up and
down the line ? Does this mean the committee has to go and receive
a written consent from the vast number of people ?
JNIr. Jenkins. If they are monitored, the answer is "Yes."
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I know this must be a bit con-
fusing to a lot of people, but do I — let me finish this one point.
Senator Mdndt. Senator Jackson has the floor.
Senator Jackson. As I understand it, all we need to decide now is
to subpena these monitored conversations. We have the right to get
those conversations. We do not need the consent of any of the parties.
Senator JNIundt. That is correct.
Senator Jackson. The only possible question of doubt as to legality
relates to the possible release in a public hearing or in a court.
Senator Mundt. The Senator is right.
The Chair has so ruled.
Senator Jackson. We have the right to subpena all of these records
that are relevant to this hearing. I think we ought to confine it to
that and act on it.
Senator Mundt. That is as far as the motion goes, may the Chair
say, and I do not feel the necessity of getting consent is a point at
issue at this time. Are we all apprised now of what the motion
]:)rovides? Is the committee ready to vote? Hearing nothing to
IMr. Jenkins. May I ask just one question? What is the motion?
Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the motion as amended.
May the Chair suggest that the Senator from Arkansas restate
his motion and we will vote on the motion as restated. The transcript
has been sent downstairs.
Senator McClellan. INIr. Chairman, I will try to restate it.
Mv. Chairman, I move that all memoranda, all documents, all notes
of monitored conversation as between the parties in this controversy
and all others that are relevant, including all parties to this con-
troversy, be subpenaed and brought here and presented to this com-
mittee for introduction into evidence in their chronological order
if they are found to be material and relevant to the issues this com-
mittee is now considering.
Senator jMcCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 173
Mr. Jenkins. I should like to say this, Mr. Chairman, if I may.
Senator Mundt. Counsel for the committee.
Mr. Jenkins. That part of Senator McClellan's motion embracing
the bringing of all records before this committee, monitored or other-
wise, is "not necessary, because this committee has that power, and
may do so and will do so. The only question that I desire to specif-
ically call to you members of this committee is the question of admissi-
bility of monitored telephone conversations without the consent of
the parties to that.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan ?
Senator McClellan. We can take up each document at the time
with respect to the parties involved. But we have the principals
here and, therefore, I am making this motion for the purpose of
getting all conversations between these principals, irrespective of
when they were or whether the call came from one to the other or
All right, they are all here. They said they consented to it, as I
Mr. Jenkins. To the introduction of the monitored conversations?
Senator McClellan. I want them to either consent or object. If
they consent, I am going to make the motion and let the committee
vote on it.
Senator INIcCarthy. Mr. Chairman, speaking for myself, Mr. Carr,
and Mr. Cohn, I heartily approve of the motion just made by the
Senator from xVrkansas.
Senator Mundt. May the Chair inquire, Mr. Carr, whether that is
also acceptable ?
JVIr. Carr. Yes, sir, it is.
Senator Mundt. May I make the same request of Mr. Cohn?
Mr. Cohn. I will be pleased to accept.
Senator Mundt. And do you agree that the monitored conversa-
tions may be incorporated as part of the sworn testimony.
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute now, Mr. Chairman. I want
the committee to get all of this material. I want all of it in the record.
I will not consent to picking two or three or five conversations out
of a hundred telephone conversations, and having those made a part
of the record. We have seen an example of that today. We saw the
Secretary come in and, out of some 50 or 100 conversations, he tries
to introduce 1.
I want the committee to first go over the first hurdle and get all
of the monitored conversations. Then it is up to the committee to
decide what they will put into the record. If they decide, over my ob-
jection, they will select a few and put them in, the committee has that
But I would not consent, and I would advise Mr. Carr and Mr.
Cohn not to consent, to allow a few civilians over in the Pentagon to
ruffle through these conversations and pick out what should be sub-
Mr. McClellan's motion, I understand, was merely that they be
subpenaed and that the committee have all of this information ; and
the Senator I think said you can take them up one by one and decide
what to do with them.
174 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McClellan. I only said that with respect to relevancy or
materiality. That question may be raised at any time when any testi-
mony is presented. But I am making the motion to include all, not to
select one or two or a half dozen but to include all that are relevant and
material to this controversy.
Senator McCarthy. I would agree to that completely.
Senator McClellan. I am not excluding anything except some
document that is offered in evidence and an objection is raised as to
its relevancy or materiality, then the committee can decide that at
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, could I be heard ? We wish to make
every and all such telephone conversations available, and there will
be no selection at this table as to which ones go in, and if less than
all go in that will be because Mr. Jenkins thinks that some are not
material. They will all be available, and the consent of every human
being on my side of this controversy is now in your hands, and Mr.
Jenkins is the boss. They go in if he says so, and not if he does not.
Senator McClellan. You mean that you offer them in evidence ?
Mr. Welch. I produce them for Mr. Jenkins to select and offer in
evidence, and there will be no objection at any point in respect to
any monitored telephone conversations, on my behalf as the Army's
Senator Mundt. May the Chair suggest that since the motion made
by the Senator from Arkansas has not yet been seconded, that he now
restate it so that we will have it clearly before us.
Senator Symington. I second the motion.
Senator Mundt. The Senator from Arkansas for the benefit of his
motion will now restate the motion.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I think every member of the
committee understands my motion, and if anyone does not under-
stand it, I will restate it, or agree that the stenographer may read it.
(The motion was read by the reporter.)
Senator Mundt. We will restate it so that we will be sure to have a
Senator Potter. I second the motion.
Senator Mundt. You have heard the motion and it has been sec-
onded. Are all of the committee members ready to vote ?
Senator McClellan ?
Senator McClellan. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen ?
Senator Dirksen. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson?
Senator Jackson. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter?
Senator Potter. Aye.
Snator INIundt. Senator Symington ?
Senator Symington. Aye.
Senator IMundt. Senator Dworshak ?
Senator DwoRSHAK. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Aye.
It is unanimously approved and the counsel may proceed with the
Mr. Jenkins. INIr. Lucas, I now ask you to present and read from a
transcription of tlie notes V.nxt you took of a telephone conversation
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 175
between Senator IMeCarthy and Mr. Stevens on November 7, 1953.
Will 3'ou now do that?
Senator JMcCartiiy. Mr. Cliairman, this is in direct violation of
the motion you just passed, and Senator McClellan moves that the
material be submitted in chronological order, and this is taking com-
pletelv out of order.
I submit. Mr. Jenkins, that that would be highly improper. You
have sot 100 monitored conversations, and I don't know what is in
Mr. Jenkins. May I ask that, is that the first monitored conversa-
tion that you have of a telephone conversation between Senator Mc-
Carthy, and Mr. Stevens? Is it the first monitored telephone conver-
Senator :McCartht. May I suggest, Mr. Jenkins
Mr. Jenkins. Or is it the first monitored telephone conversation
that you have between any of the principals in this case, to wit, Senator
I^IcCarthy, Mr. Cohn, or Mr. Carr, or :Mr. Adams, or Mr. Stevens, or
Mr. Hensel ? Is it or not ? You know ? _
Senator McCarthy. I don't believe it is, sir.
Senator Mundt. If it is not, the Chair would have to sustain the
point of order because the motion said it should be submitted
Senator ]McClellan. Then I move, ISIr. Chairman, that this witness
be dismissed for the present, with instructions to proceed to compile
and arrange all of those monitored conversations in order, and to ap-
pear at such time as the chairman may direct for further questioning
and for introduction of them in choronological order ; bringing with
him the original notes and his transcripts of such conversations.
Senator Mundt. Is there a second to the motion ?
Senator Jackson. I second.
Senator Potter. I second the motion.
Senator INIundt. Without objection, the motion will be approved,
and you are dismissed for the time being, and Mr. Stevens may return
to the stand.
Mr. Welch. I don't know if you can see a clock or not, but I had
hoped I would get to Boston tonight. Are you going to run late ?
Senator Mundt. It is now 4 : 30, and I think without objection we
can recess until Monday morning at 10 : 30.
(Whereupon, at 4 : 25 p. m., Friday, April 23, 1954 the hearing was
recessed until 10 : 30 a. m., Monday, April 26, 1954.)
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05442 1738