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

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

rG" 



SSSZU^ii^ 



/ 



Bn 




Given By 



as. 



UMKNTR 



3^ 





^7^^^'r^ 



1 




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 



HEARING 

BEFORE THE 

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON 
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMIHEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
PURSUANT TO 

S. Res. 189 



PART 4 



APRIL 23, 1954 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 




UNITED STATES 
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 

II 



CONTENTS 

Page 
Testimony of — 

Lucas, John J., Jr., appointment clerk to the Secretary of the Army__ 146 

m 



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. 

AFTER RECESS 

(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 

143 



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 
all others. 

Now, I would like to proceed with the interrogation of Mr. Lucas 
at this time, to find out just how many conversations they have 
monitored. 

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 
line. 

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 
be published. 

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 
now consents. 

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 

that. 

Mr. Jenkins, until I question this witness and know whether it is an 
accurate transcript 

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. Stevens? 

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 
shorthand ? 

]\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 
during 

Mr. Jenkins. When was that? 

Mr. Lucas. In about 1934, and then sometime after I left short- 
hand 

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 



ago. 



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 
accurate. 

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 
transcription 

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 
the chairman. 

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- 
sibility ? 

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- 
word complete. 

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 
down. 

Senator Dirksex. Do you think even the best reporter can take 
down perfectly everything that is said from two ends of a telephone 
line ? 

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 
for 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 
words ? 

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 
greetings. 

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 
conversations ? 

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, 
many calls. 

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 
conversations ? 

Mr. Lucas. No, sir. 

Senator Potter. "W^ien do you transcribe the telephone conversa- 
tions ? 

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- 
tary ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir ; I would have a record that that call had been 
made. 

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 
you ? 

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 
conversation ? 

Mr. Lucas. That system that I use for locating the call would be; 
yes, sir. 

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 
decision ? 

]\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, 
roughly ? 

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 
with counsel. 

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 
point. 

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 
occurred. 

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 
admissible. 

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 
line. 

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 
words. 

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 
congressional hearing? 

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 
mean. 

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- 
mately ? 

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. 

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 
dispute. 

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- 
tures ? 

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? 

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 
film proper? 

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 
ma<>;azine. 

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 
paragraph? 

JNIr. Lucas. That is correct, sir. It was just part of a sentence, in 
my opinion. 



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- 
plete? 

]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- 
Carthy. 

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 
correct ? 

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 
comment ? 



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 
raise one. 

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- 
tion. 

]\Ir. Lt'Cas. I don't understand the question, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Would the reporter read the question to the 
witness? 

(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 
many, sir. 

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 
summary. 

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 
McCarthy? 

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 
transcribed it. 

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- 
tary Hensel. 

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 
tliose. 

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- 
versations. 

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 
used. 

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 
order. 

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 
this case. 

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 
now. 

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. 

Mr. Chairman? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 165 

Senator Muxdt. Do you liave another comment to make on the point 
of Older? 

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 
Pentagon ? 

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 
correct ? 

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 
conversation. 

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. 

Senator McClellan? 

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 
controversy? 

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 
monitored message. 

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 
made. 

Mr. Jenkins. By whom ? 

Senator Jackson. That was by Senator McCarthy. 

Mr. Jenkins. Of course, those matters will be requested, Senator 
Jackson. 

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 
correct ? 

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 
committee. 



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. 
For example 

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 
evidence. 

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 
order. 

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 
as well. 



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 
from Arkansas. 

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, 
too. 

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 
principals ? 

Senator McCeellan. They are all here. 

Senator Mundt. We might find out, if that is included in the mo- 
tion. 

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 
or recorded. 

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 
where 

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 
the contrary 

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 
vice versa. 

All right, they are all here. They said they consented to it, as I 
understood it. 

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 
right. 

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- 
mitted. 

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 
that time, 

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 
counsel. 

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 
second. 

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 
interrogation. 

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 
this one. 

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- 
sation ? 

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 
chronologically. 

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.) 

X 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05442 1738