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

Full text of "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" 



"^^^HsU^IE 




I^T <? <:rr-D 



pr 



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 COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
PURSUANT TO 

S. Res. 189 




PART 5 



APRIL 26, 1954 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
46620» WASHINGTON : 1954 



PubVic Ubrary 
Superiatendet-t ol 

JUL 1 5 m 



COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

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

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine HUBERT H. HUMPHKEY, Minnesota 

HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 

EVERETT McKINEEY DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri 

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

RiCHAiiD J. O'Melia, General Counncl 
Walteu L. Reynolds, Chief 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 

Rat H. Jenkins, Chief Cotnisel 

Thomas R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel 

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SoLis HORwiTz, Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maner, Secretary 



L 



CONTENTS 



Page 
Testimony of Hon. Eobort T. Stevens, Secretary, Department of the Army_ 178 



ni 



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 



MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations or the 

Committee on Go\'ernment Operations, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The subcommittee met at 10 : 30 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the 
caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, 
chairman, presiding. 

Present: Senator Karl E. ]\Iundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. Dwor- 
shak, Republican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, 
Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; and 
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri. 

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

Principal participants : Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a United 
States Senator from the State of W^isconsin; Roy M. Colin, 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. W^elch, special counsel for the Army ; 
James D. St. Clair, special counsel for the Army ; and Frederick P. 
Bryan, counsel to H. Struve Hensel, Assistant Secretary of Defense. 

Senator JNIundt. The committee will please come to order. 

The Chair wishes to express its appreciation to Mr. Carroway for 
having installed a new loudspeaker system which I understand is 
operating much more effectively from the standpoint of our visitors 
in the room and the members of the press than the previous one. 

I have been asked to state that Senator Dirksen is attending an im- 
portant conference which will not detain him perhaps more than 15 or 
20 minutes at the outside. But he wanted me to explain the reason 
why has was not here at the beginning, but he w^ill be here shortly 
thereafter. 

The committee will now come to order, and Mr. Stevens is here and 
he is seated at the witness table. 

Here is Senator Dirksen in response to my promise. And our 
counsel, Mr. Jenkins, will proceed with the interrogatories. 

177 



178 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

TESTIMONY OF HON. EGBERT T. STEVENS, SECRETARY OE THE 

ARMY— Resumed 

Mr. Jenkins. Shall we proceed now, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. You may proceed. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, on last Friday, you had detailed the 
events of November 7 ; is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Had you or had you not fully covered the events of 
that day when you were dismissed from the witness stand ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir; I fully covered them, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you now to tell this committee when your 
next contact was with any member of the investigating staff at which 
time anything was discussed with reference to the issues in this case, 
and particularly whether or not any efforts were made on the part 
of any member of the staff to secure preferential treatment for 
G. David Schine? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. "Well, the next direct connection with any mem- 
ber of the staff came on the 16th of November. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you tell the members of the committee what 
occurred on that date and where those occurrences took place? 

Secretary Si'eaens. May I go back just a bit in doing that, sir? 

Mr. Jenkins. You certainly may. 

Secretary Stevens. Because the events of the 16th of November 
are related to those of the 13th of November, That was a news 
conference that I held in my office in the Pentagon. The newspapers 
were very much interested in the progress of the Fort IMonmouth 
investigation and in other items of Army business. The important 
thing, however, so far as this hearing is concerned, was the statement 
that I made in answer to a question to the effect that as of that 
date, November 13, I knew of no current espionage or spying at Fort 
Monmouth. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not you have an exact 
copy of the statement you made to the press on November 13, or are 
you speaking from memory ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am speaking from memory, but I think there 
possibly may be one available. I do not have it here, Mr. Jenkins. 

I beg your pardon. We do have it here. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you please read that into the record? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, this is a very long 

Mr. Jenkins. Only that part of it relating to your statement with 
respect to whether or not there was any current espionage at Fort 
Monmouth. 

Secretary Stevens. I will be glad to do that, sir, but I will have 
to go through it and find out where it was. I am giving you the 
recollection on what the really important point was in the press 
conference. 

Mr. Jenkins. While your attorney is finding that portion of the 
statement that is relevant, will you pass on to November 16, and then 
we will go back to the statement given the press. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, on November 16, Mr. Cohn came to 
my office with Mr. Carr, and they indicated that Senator McCarthy 
was very much displeased with my press conference. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 179 

Mr. Jexkixs. What, precisely, did they say, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Stevkns. ]\lr. Cohii said that Senator McCarthy was mad, 
that I had double-crossed him, and words to that effect. 

Mr. Jenkins. ]\Ir. Secretary, I think Senator McCarthy is trying 
to ^et the attention of the Chair. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I just came in and I missed 
whether or not you developed who instigated this meeting, whether 
Mr. Cohn did or INIr, Can- or Mr. Stevens? 

Mr. Jenkins. As of November IG, Senator? 

Senator INIcCartiit. The one that we are talking about now. 

Mr. Jenkins. Would you answer the question asked by the Senator 
from Wisconsin as to who initiated this meeting of November 16? 

Secretary Stevens. INlr. Cohn initiated it. 

Mr. Jenkins. ISIr. Cohn did. Now go ahead and tell the events of 
that meeting as you recall them. 

Secretary Stevens. As I say, Mr. Cohn indicated that Senator Mc- 
Carthy was very mad and felt that I had double-crossed him, and that 
he did not believe my statement to the press was a correct one. Of 
course, in the meanwhile the press had carried what I had said to a 
considerable extent; the impact of which was that I as of that date, 
November 13, did not know of any current espionage or spying at Fort 
Monmouth. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I ask you while you are that subject, did you 
state in your release to the press that there was no current espionage 
at Fort Alonmouth, or did you state there was none that you knew of? 

Senator Mundt. Before you answer, Mr. Secretary, the members of 
the committee are in difficulty because there is a new light added up 
there which shines in our eyes. From the left side of the chairman it 
is difficult even to see the witness. I think that light has either been 
moved closer to the table, or it has been made brighter, or something. 
It is very disturbing. That was not the case last week. "Wlioever is 
in charge of the light, please take the necessary corrective steps. 

We will proceed, 

I am sorry to interrupt and if you do not have the question, we will 
ask the reporter to repeat it. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, I could say, sir, I didn't make any state- 
ment, I gave out no press release as I recall it, and it was a question 
and answer period with the press. 

I think the important thing here is what I am quoting now from 
this draft, I said : 

So far as the Army is concerned, it did not have any proof that there was any 
espionage. 

Mr. Jenkins. Those were your exact words ? 
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Jenkins (reading) : 

So far as the Army is concerned, it has no proof of espionage. 

Secretary STE^T.NS. That is right. 
Mr. Jenkins. Is that correct ? 
Secretary Stevens. That is right. 
Mr. Jenkins. That was on the 13tli ? 
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

]\Ir. Jenkins. Now, you were discussing a conference between you 
and Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr on November 16. Had you fully related 



180 SPECIAL mVESTIGATION 



I 



wliat had been said to you on that date by either Mr. Cohn or Mr. 
Carr? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I stated the main points to Mr. Jenkins, 
that before and after Senator McCarthy came into the room, I said 
that I was sorry that Senator McCarthy felt as Mr. Cohn indicated 
that he did, but I certainly hadn't intended to have any such effect, 
and I inquired where he was and found he was in New York, and 
1 said I would go to New York and see Senator McCarthy, whicbi 
I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. Why did you go 



Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins- 



Senator MuNDT. The Senator will address the Chair rather than 
Mr. Jenkins, if he has a point of order. Is the Senator addressing 
the Chair? 

Senator McCarthy. With the young man here taking pictures, 
did I understand the Secretary to say that McCarthy was in the 
room at that time ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You said Mr. Cohn and Mr, Carr were in the room. 

Secretary Stevens. Correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Who did the talking, Mr. Cohn or Mr. Carr ? 

Secretary Stevens. Mostly Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you remember anything whatever that was said 
to you on that occasion by Mr. Carr ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say that my recollection is principally 
the points made by Mr. Cohn, and I can't recall what Mr. Carr said 

Mr. Jenkins. You made no memorandum of that conversation at 
the time? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you are speaking from recollection ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, as a result of what was said to you on thai 
occasion, that is November 16, you say that you went to New Yorh 
to see Senator McCarthy ? 

Secretary Stevens. I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. What was the purpose of that visit? 

Secretary Stevens. The purpose of the visit was that I felt that 
Senator McCarthy had misunderstood what I had said at the press 
conference, I felt what I had said at the press conference was cor- 
rect, and I thought I would like to face right up to it, discuss the 
matter out and see where we stood. 

Mr. Jenkins. In other words, make peace ? Is that what you mean, 
Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I wanted to 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well, what was the date of that visit to New 
York? 

Secretary Stevens. The I7th of November. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you tell what transpired on the I7th of Novem- 
ber between you and Senator McCarthy in New York City? 

Secretary Stevens. I flew to New York in the morning, and I 
took 

Mr. Jenkins. Did anyone go with you ? 

Secretary Stevens. Y'es, Colonel Cleary, of my staff, went with me, 
and Mr. Adams. I invited Senator McCarthy and his staff to have 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 181 

limclieon M'itli me once again at the Merchants Chib in New York, 
which I have mentioned previously. That luncheon I should say 
was around 1 o'clock. Senator McCarthy came with IMr. Cohn and 
Mr. Carr, and he also brought with him Mr. Sokolslfy, who joined 
with us throughout the period of the luncheon. I, of course, was 
there, and Colonel Cleary was there, and 'Mv. Adams was there. 

After a few preliminaries, I said to Senator McCarthy or inquired 
of him as to why he was so provoked with me, and he indicated that 
he thought that my press conference had been badly handled, shall 
we say; that I hadn't given a correct picture as to the situation at 
Forth INlonmouth, and he was quite put out about it. 

So we then discussed the question of what should be done about it. 
I indicated that I would be willing to consider issuing a clarifying 
statement if there was one that appropriately could be issued. That 
was discussed. I recall that Mr. Sokolsky, who sat at the far end of 
the table from where I was, took a piece of paper and pencil and 
began to write some notes down, I think trying to formulate some 
possible area of agreement, if you will. 

Mr. Jenkins. For the purpose of clarification, was that or not Mr. 
George Sokolsky, a newspaper columnist? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Go ahead now. 

Secretary Stevens. JMr. Cohn also, I believe, made a few notes on a 
piece of paper looking toward a possible statement, and so did Mr. 
John Adams. 

We had luncheon. As I recall it, that was the day when Attorney 
General Brownell v/as making his TV broadcast with respect to the 
White case. After luncheon we moved into the next room wliere I 
had asked television to be installed. "We watched that for a while, 
and finally there was, I think, general agreement on a program for 
Senator McCarthy and myself to hold a joint news conference. 

By this time I should add that the newspaper people had come to 
the Merchants Club in rather substantial numbers. Senator Mc- 
Carthy and I went out and visited with them, I should think along 
about midaf ternoon. 

The substance of my statement was that in saying that I had no 
evidence of current espionage or spying at Fort Monmouth, I was 
speaking for the Army, but I, of course, was not speaking for this 
committee. I made that distinction clear, which clidn't change in 
any way the substance of my statement at the press conference, to wit, 
that I knew of no current espionage at Fort Monmouth. That is the 
statement that I made. 

The Senator and I visited with the press for a few minutes, and 
then that adjourned. 
I Shall I carry on, sir? 

I Mr. Jenkins. Do you have any record of the exact statement you 
made to the press in Xew York City on this date, that is, November 17 ? 

Secretary Stevens. Of course, it was an extemporaneous statement. 
I am sure it is available in the press coverage of the event, but I don't 
think I have anything on it here, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is it your position that it was in nowise different in 
: substance to your first statement given to the press at the Pentagon ? 

46620"— 54— pt. 5 2 



182 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Si'evens. No difference in substance. That is the way 1 
felt about it. 

Mr. Jenkins. But worded differently? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Designed for the purpose of, shall we say, pacifying' 
or modifying the Senator ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. I have been cooperating right along with the 
Senator and his committee, and I wanted to continue to do it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did Senator McCarthy invite yon to come to New 
York City for the purpose of that conference and for the purpose of 
making any changes, if changes were made, in your release to the" 
press ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. I initiated it. 

Mr. Jenkins. You initiated that? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. sir. 

Mr. Jenkins, You asked whether or not you should continue, and 
my answer is yes, if you will, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Stevens, Then, with the meeting about to adjourn, it 
appeared that Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn and I think Mr. Carr 
were planning to hold hearings in Boston or in the Boston area the 
next day, and Mr. Cohn indicated that he wanted to see Private Schino 
before going to Boston. 

Senator McCarthy indicated that he also would like to see Private 
Schine. So I said, "All right, I am going back to Washington. I 
wnll fly you down as far as McGuire Air Base, which adjoins Fort 
Dix." 

So my party, along with Senator McCarthy's party, made that 
flight. We landed at McGuire Airbase, and we were met there by 
General Ryan, the commanding general of Fort Dix, by several mem- 
bers of his staff, and Private Schine was also there. 

JSIr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, did you ever see Mr. Roy Cohn person- 
ally subsequent to November 17 last year with reference to any issue 
in this controversy and particularly with reference to any effort on his 
part to secure preferences for Schine? 

Secretary Stevens. After the I7th of November? 

Mr. Jenkins. Right. 

Secretary Stevens. I think not, sir. ' 

Mr. Jenkins. Did he ever talk to you on the telephone with refer- 
ence to Private Schine, subsequent to November 17, either in a call 
initiated by himself or by you ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not recall any call at the moment. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did Senator McCarthy ever discuss Private Schine 
with you s-ubsequent to November 17? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. When was the next time, Mr. Stevens ? 

Secretary Stevens. The next time was on the 10th of December. 

Mr. Jenkins. Where did that occur? 

Secretary Stevens. That occurred at luncheon at the Carroll Arms 
Hotel here in Washington. 

Mr. Jenkins. What was said on that occasion by Senator Mc- 
Carthy to you or to anyone in your presence with reference to Schine ? 

Secretary Stevens. Senator McCarthy asked a number of times dur- 
ing the course of that luncheon if Private Schine could be assigned 
to New York. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 183 

IMr. Jexkins. Who was present at that luncheon, may I ask, Mr. 
Secretary ? 

Secretary STE^'ENS. Senator McCarthy, Mr. Carr, Mr. Adams, and 
myself. 

JNlr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Secretary Stevens. Senator ]\IcCartliy asked on several occasions 
why he couldn't be assigned to New York at the end of 8 weeks of 
basic training. 

Mr. Jenkins. Hoav many times would you say, in your best judg- 
ment, such a question was asked you or such a request was made by 
Senator McCarthy ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say about three, just as a guess. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not on that occasion I un- 
derstood that the Senator was quite insistent about the matter or 

Secretary Stevens. Yes 

Mr. Jenkins. Or were those statements made in a casual sort of 
way? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes; I felt that through repetition he was 
quite insistent about it. He also said that he knew of a number of 
cases where boys had been given assignments after 8 weeks of basic 
training. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you know of any case where a boy had been 
given such an assignment after only 8 weeks of basic training? 

Secretary STE^^5NS. No, sir; I didn't. 

Mr. Jenkins. What were your replies to the Senator ? 

Secretary Stevens. I told him that David Schine, like every other 
boy, would have to finish his 16 weeks of basic training. 

Mr. Jenkins. And what were the reactions of the Senator to 
that ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I am sure that, of course I am sure that 
the Senator knew that I meant it when I said that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did anything else of interest occur at the Carroll 
Arms on November 10? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that was the principal event. 

Mr. Jenkins. l^Hien next, if at all, did Senator McCarthy contact 
you or did you converse with him 

Senator McCarthy. I hate to interrupt, Mr. Chairman. But I 
wonder if Mr. Jenkins would again make it clear who initiated this 
meeting. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask this question now : You were talking about 
this conference at the Carroll Arms on December 10. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Was that meeting initiated by Senator McCarthy 
or any member of his staff or 

Secretary Stearns. By them. 

Mr. Jenkins. By them? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Secretary Stevens. Also, I recall one other item that the Senator 
was talking about ; an assignment for Private Schine in New York. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you stop there? 

Senator Mundt. The Senator has a point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. I just wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the Secretary 
would identify who he means by "them." I understood Mr. Adams 



184 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

initiated this. And I wish he would tell who initiated this meeting. 

Secretary Stevens. My recollection is, Senator, it was originated by 
your office. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well ; you may go ahead. 

Now, you say there was one other item of interest that occurred 
on the day of December 10 that you had not related to the committee. 
Will you do so now ? 

Secretary Stevens. "Well, in connection with a possible assignment 
of Private Schine to New York, Senator McCarthy suggested that 
he might be useful in checking West Point textbooks. 

Mr. Jenkins. And what was your reply to that ? 

Secretary Stevens. That Private Schine would have to finish his 
16 weeks' basic training. 

Mr. Jenkins. When next, if at all, did either the Senator or any 
member of his staff contact you or you contact them with reference 
to David Schine, if at all? 

Secretary Stevens. I think the next contact was the 14th of 
January. 

Mr. Jenkins. What occurred then, Mr. Stevens, and where did it 
occur ? 

Secretary STE^^NS. On that one I initiated that meeting 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Secretary Stevens. I was 

Mr. Jenkins. That is January 14, as we understand it? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. I was planning to leave for the Far East 
on the 17th, and I had an extensive trip to the Eighth Army, and other 
points in the Far East, coming up. I wanted to have a meeting with 
Senator McCarthy before I left so that I could tell him I was going. 
And he knew I would be out of circulation, so to speak for a while, so 
I asked for this meeting ; and it was arranged to meet at 5 o'clock in 
the afteruoon, or thereabouts, at the Carroll Arms Hotel. 

Mr. "V^ FECH. Mr. Chairman, I am under the impression that there 
was an item of contact in written form that the witness has passed by 
inadvertently. I call your attention, Mr. Stevens, to a letter that I 
now show you. 

Senator Mundt. He may revert to that and show it in the record. 

Secretary Stevens. I had not forgotten it, but I can answer your 
question which related to personal contact. The fact remains 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you have a letter in your possession from any 
party in interest to this controversy? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. From whom ? 

Secretary Stevens. From Senator McCarthy. 

JSIr. Jenkins. What is the date of that letter? 

Secretary Stevens. The letter is dated December 22, and it is one 
which has been previously referred to in this hearing. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr, Secretary, will you now read that letter into the 
record for the benefit of this committee and then file it? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. [Reading:] 

Hon. RonERT T. Stevens, 
Secretary of the Army, 

The Pentagon, Washington, D. C. 
Dear Bob : I have heard rumors to the effect that some of the members of my 
staff have intervened with your Department in behalf of a former staff con- 
sultant, Tmvid Schine. This they, of course, have a right to do as individuals. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 185 

However, as I have told you a number of times, I have an unbreakable rule that 
neither I nor anyone in my behalf shall ever attempt to interfere with or influence 
the Army in its assignments, promotions, et cetera. 

I have discussed this matter with members of my staff, some of whom feel very 
strongly tnat in view of the fact that Mr. Schine is over 2G years of age, attempted 
to enUst in the Army when he was 18, was refused because of a slipped disc in 
his back, and thereupon enlisted in the merchant marine, he would never have 
been drafted except that the extreme left-wing writers such as Pearson, et al., 
started screaming about his case, because he was a consultant for our committee. 
I realize that the decision of the draft board to reopen his case obviously was 
unknown to you and far below your level of operations. 

While I am inclined to agree that Mr. Schine would never have been drafted, 
except because of the fact he worked for my committee, I want to make it clear 
at this time that no one has any authority to request any consideration for Mr. 
Schine other than what other draftees get. I think it is extremely important 
that this be made very clear in view of the present investigation which our com- 
mittee is conducting of the Communist infiltration of the military under the 
Truman-Acheson regime. 

Let me repeat what T have said to you before, the course of this investigation 
will in absolutely no way be influenced by the Army's handling of the case of 
any individual, regardless of whether he worked for my committee or not. 

With kindest regards, I am 
Sincerely yours, 

Joe McCarthy. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will 3^011 file that, Mr. Secretary, as an exhibit to your 
testimony ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, I will. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, you had passed to the events of January 14, 
is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you tell the committee what occurred then? 

Secretary Stevens. I met Senator McCarthy at the Carroll Arms 
about 6 o'clock in the afternoon. 

Mr. Jenkins. Was that by appointment? 

Secretary Si-evens. Yes, sir, initiated by me. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, who was present on the occasion of that meet- 
ing, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. Senator McCarthy and I were present alone for 
the first part of the meeting, and we were later joined by a gentleman 
who Senator McCarthy introduced to me as Al McCarthy. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you know him ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, I did not. 

Mr. Jenkins. Have you later learned that he is not related to Sen- 
ator McCarthy, for the purpose of identifying him? 

Secretary Stevens. The Senator told me at the time. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now tell what occurred at the Carroll Arms at 5 
o'clock p. m. on January 14 of this year. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I explained my forthcoming trip to the 
Far East to the Senator, and I also told him about the fact that David 
Schine was going to be transferred at the end of 8 weeks of basic 
training to Camp Gordon, which is the provost marshal general's 
center at Camp Gordon, Ga. I told him that that was where the 
criminal investigation school of the provost marshal general's depart- 
ment was located, and I indicated that if David Schine applied and if 
he qualified, it was possible that he might finally be accepted in the 
school ; but that would depend first of all on David Schine himself and 
his record, and secondly, whether or not he qualified. 

During the course of this meeting, on 4 or 5 occasions Senator Mc- 
Carthy brought up the question of whether or not David Schine could 



186 SPECIAL mVESTIGATION 

be assigned to New York City when his training was over. I said that 
David Schine would linve to finish his training. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did the Senator tell you why he would like to have 
Schine assigned to the New York Citj area ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, he did not tell me why, but he per- 
sistently asked me. 

]\Ir. Jenkins. You said 4 or 5 times, Mr. Stevens ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir, that is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did anything of interest occur on that occasion ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I think possibly one item, and that was 
that I was somewhat sensitive to this being asked — this question about 
David Schine being assigned to New York City after his training— 
so when it came up it made an impression on me and finally I said to 
Senator McCarthy, "Now, you wrote me a letter dated December 22" — 
the one that I have just read into the record, Mr. Jenkins — "in which 
you said that there was not to be any pressure or anything of that 
kind put on the Army, and I would just like to remind you of that 
letter." The Senator dropped that particular point. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not you and Senator Mc- 
Carthy ever subsequently to that time discussed David Schine. 

Secretary Stevens. I left on the 17th for the Far East and I did not 
get back until the 23d of February, and I don't think we did. 

Mr. Jenkins. I believe you stated that subsequent to November 17 
you never had any conversation with Mr. Roy Colin with reference to 
Schine, is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall any, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. So your last conversation with the Senator was on 
January 14, this year. 

Secretary Stevens. With respect to Schine, yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did Mr. Frank Carr ever contact you or discuss with 
you Schine subsequent to the 17th of November? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that he did, no, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Secretary, you state in your pleadings, as I 
recall, that no less than 65 telephone calls were made to you or to your 
subordinates with reference to favors or preferential treatment to 
David Schine. Is that correct or not ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. Telephone calls on the subject of David Schine. 

Mr. Jenkins. From the McCarthy investigating committee, you 
mean, or members of its staff ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. There were, I think, all told about 
that number. 

Mr. Jenkins. 65? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. As I recall you state that there were some 19 personal 
contacts with you or members of your staff with reference to David 
Schine, is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Making a total of 84 contacts either in person or by 
telephone with reference to either a commission or preferential treat- 
ment for Schine ; is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I would say, Mr. Jenkins, with reference 
to Schine. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 187 

JSIr. Jexkins. Witli reference to Schine ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. By that do you mean that not all of them were in 
the form of requests for leaves of absence, escaping KP, and things 
of that kind ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think a large number of them were — I know 
a large number of them were for that purpose, but I would not want 
to say that every one of those 84 contacts in which the subject of 
Schine Avas discussed was for specific preferential treatment. Most 
of tliem I think were. 

Mr. Jenkins. On the occasion of the last conversation you had 
with the Senator on the 14th of January you had then been in office 
approximately 1 year, lacking perhaps a couple of weeks; is that 
correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. About 3 weeks ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. During that year's period state whether or not you 
received calls or were contacted personally with reference to any other 
soldier, inductee, or draftee, in any comparable number of times ? 

Secretary Stevens. Positively not. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, I want to ask you this question: Did 
you feel that these efforts and attempts on the part of this staff on 
behalf of Schine were made by Senator INIcCarthy personally, indi- 
vidually, or as a United States Senator on the one hand ; or that they 
were made by him not only as a Senator but also as a member of the 
so-called McCarthy investigating committee, with all of its judicial 
powers, we will say? What were your impressions with respect 
to that? 

Secretary Stevens. My impression was, Mr. Jenkins, that Mr. 
Cohn 

Mr. Jenkins. My question was with reference to Senator McCarthy, 
to begin with. 

Secretary Ste\t;ns. Yes, sir. I was going to relate that, if I may. 
I was going to say my impression was that Mr. Cohn was tremendously 
interested in Mr. Schine and in having special treatment for Mr. 
Schine. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you mean Mr. Cohn as Mr. Roy Cohn individ- 
ually, or Mr. Cohn occupying the powerful position that he did as 
chief counsel for this investigating committee ? 

Secretary Stevens. I mean occupying the powerful position that 
he did of chief counsel for this committee. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you feel that he used his office in an attempt at 
a perversion of the rules of the Army with reference to the treatment 
accorded an inductee or draftee ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do. ' 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? 
Senator Mundt. Your point of order ? 

Senator McCarthy. I think it might be well, in view of this line 
of questions that Mr. Cohn "exerted," that Mr. Stevens be asked to 
produce the Inspector General's report on just what consideration 
Mr. Schine got. I am curious to know what special consideration he 
got. I think it should be in the record. I am suggesting that you do 
this out of order. ISIr, Jenkins may have in mind doing this later. 
I don't know. 



188 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cliairman, may I state I am about ready to cross- 
examine the witness, and I do ask the Senator to be patient. I think 
those matters will be clarified. 

Senator McCarthy. Certainly. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair remind all the members of the com- 
mittee and the counsel for both sides that under the rules by which we 
operate, the counsel is to proceed without interruption save only for a 
point of order, and it is a little bit disruptive of counsel's line of think- 
ing if members of the committee or members of the counsel endeavor 
to anticipate the questions he is about to ask. 

Senator McCaktht. I would like, if I may, for the record, to get 
some information from the Chair. We do not have nearly as many 
admirals here as generals 

Senator Mundt. That would not be a point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. There is a question I w^ould like to ask you. I 
would like to know whether any of these generals are here at the re- 
quest of the subcommittee, or whether they are here at the request of 
someone from the Pentagon. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will say that the only person here this 
morning at the request of the subcommittee is Secretary Stevens, who 
is seated behind the microphone. 

Senator McCarthy. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt. You may proceed. 

Mr. Jenkins. You have related your impressions and opinions with 
reference to elforts or pressure on the part of Mr. Cohn. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Getting back to my previous question with reference 
to Senator McCarthy, do you recall what the question is? 

Secretary Sti:vens. If it is not asking too much, I would appreciate 
having it repeated, Mr. Jenkins. 

Senator Mundt. Is counsel able to repeat it? 

]\Ir. Jenkins. I don't mind repeating it. 

Senator Mundt. You may repeat it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you consider that these requests, these conversa- 
tions, these statements you have related on the part of Senator Mc- 
Carthy with respect to Schine, were made by him as a person, an in- 
dividual, or a United States Senator on the one hand ; or, on the other 
hand, not only as a United States Senator but as chairman of the 
powerful investigating committee which he headed, with all of its 
judicial powers? In what capacity did you consider he was acting, 
Mr. Stevens, in these various requests made of you by him ? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Jenkins, at first I thought that it was, you 
might say, a sort of personal thing in some way. That was the way it 
began. But as it went along over a ])eriod of time and continued to 
recur, and the chief counsel, Mr. Cohn, showed the vigorous interest 
that he did in the subject, I finally had no other course than to con- 
clude that Mr. Cohn's activities were with the knowledge and approval 
of the chairman of this committee. 

Mr. Jenkins. I take it that you knew that these various requests 
and pressures you have detailed were occurring simultaneously with 
the investigation of this committee of a department of the Army, to 
wit. Fort Monmouth ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 189 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, ]\Ir. Secretary, I will ask you whether or not, 
in your opinion, Mr. Frank Carr, a party in interest, considering his 
participation in this general pattern you have detailed, sought to and 
did use his office in an effort to secure favors for David Schine? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say, Mv. Jenkins, that Mr. Carr's 
activities in this connection were extremely limited by comparison 
with INIr. Cohn's. I don't think that he had nearly the interest in 
the subject. He was present at times when it came up. I don't think 
he did anything to keep it from coming up. 

By the same token, in my particular firsthand contact with it, Mr. 
Carr did not have anything like the pressure approach to it that Mr. 
Cohn did. 

Mr. Jenkins. You would say, generally, his attitude was a passive 
one? 

Secretary Stevens. Very largely. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, I want to ask you this final question on 
direct examination and you may consult your counsel if you desire 
before you answer it. 

Is there any other fact or are there any other facts or circum- 
stances in support of the charges you have made against the investi- 
gating committee about which I have not asked you on direct examina- 
nation that you now want to relate to this committee ? 

(The witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Secretary Stevens. I think, Mr. Jenkins, that Mr. Adams has a 
great deal of information that will be presented and which is related 
to many of the areas or points which I directly came in contact with 
this thing. 

Mr. Jenkins. I am talking about the matters peculiarly within 
your own personal knowledge. 

Secretary Stevens. I think I have substantially covered that, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. This is in the form of a statement. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel may proceed. 

Mr. Jenkins. You appreciate the fact that my position, Mr. Stevens, 
is a peculiar one, representing the committee, representing neither 
the Army, nor the Senator or members of his staff. And that in a 
proper appraisal of the value of your testimony, a proper evaluation 
of it, a cross-examination is proper so that the committee's attention 
may be called to any matters that are proper to bring out on cross- 
examination. You appreciate that fact, do you not ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You further know the charges have been preferred 
against you and Mr. Adams by Senator McCarthy and the members 
of his staff? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You know what those charges are and you have read 
his document? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, your charges in the main against the 
Senator, indeed, as I recall, the only charge you made was that he, 
Mr. Cohn, and Mr. Carr sought to use undue and improper influences 
to secure preferential treatment for one G. David Schine, that is 
correct, isn't it ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

46620°— 54— pt. 5 3 



190 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 



' 



Mr. Jenkins. Now, I ask you this : In making a proper appraisall 
in what efforts, if any, were made by the Senator, and the members'j 
of his staff, is it not proper in yonr opinion to give consideration to 
the work in which David Schine was engaged with this committee and 
to the work in which the committee was engaged ? Is that right, in 
yonr opinion ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think they were entitled to give that consider- 
ation. 

ilr. Jenkins. In short, a dozen calls by Senator McCarthy or any 
member of his staff with reference, we will say, to me, who is not es- 
sential, might be considered unusual and extraordinary, and you might 
consider that unfair pressure was being brought to bear upon you, is 
that correct? 

Seretary Stevens. I am afraid, sir, that I didn't quite follow that 
question. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right, hypothetically, assume that Senator Mc- 
Carthy and the members of his staff put in, we will say, a dozen calls 
for a man who was engaged in nonessential work, a ditchdi,'i;ger, and 
I mean no reflection on a ditchdigger. Might that not be considered 
an extraordinary number of times for intercession on behalf of that 
particular individual ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

:Mr. Jenkins. Assume, on the other hand, that that number of calls 
and that number of contacts were made by and on behalf of a man 
who had special training in the investigation of espionage and of in- 
filtration of Communists in the Army and other departments of the 
Government, whose work of vital importance to the national defense 
and security. Under those circumstances, Mr. Stevens, is it not your 
opinion that the same number of calls put in for the latter-described 
man would not be considered extraordinary ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think it would be considered extraordinary. 
And, if I may, sir, I would like to go back to your first question on this 
subject, because I am not sure but what I misunderetood it. It seems 
to me 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, the question is this: What would be extraor- 
dinary for one man would not be extraordinary for another, de- 
pending on the character of work the man is in, am I right or not ? 

Secretary Sttevens. There could be a difference, yes, sir. 

]Mr. Jenkins. That is what I am getting at. 

Now, INIr. Stevens 

Secretary Stevens, Could I go back, because on your first question, 
dealing with this situation, you asked me a question about whether or 
not it was proper to take David Schine's qualifications into account 
or something of that sort. 

_ I think that the place and time to do that, [Mr. Jenkins, was prior to 
his being drafted and not after he was drafted by selective service 
which is a completely independent arm of the Government. I think 
once the selective-service process worked that it was then incumbent 
upon Senator McCarthy and his staff not to make calls, such as you 
referred to, to the Army. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then it is your opinion that after the processes of 
the draft have been fully completed, and executed, and the subject 
IS drafted and in the Army, that regardless of his qualifications or 
the character of work in which he is engaged, be it the investigation 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 191 

of espionage or otherwise, that any effort on the part of anyone 
on his behalf is improper? 

Secretary Stevens. I Avon't say any effort. I think it is perfectly 
all right, and it wonld all come out anyway through the testing that 
we do with all of the boys that come into the Army as to what his 
qualifications were. And if Senator McCarthy wanted to call it to 
jour attention, I would have no objection to it. But I do object 
\iolently to the amount of attention that was devoted in this par- 
ticular case. 

Air. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, is it not a fact that you did make 
concessions to David Schine with reference to leaves of absences, 
passes, and so on ? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Jenkins, we did, and the reason we did it is 
because, as I said on Friday, we did not want, or I did not want, the 
Army to be in the position of obstructing the work of a committee 
of Congress that at that time was engaged in investigating the Army. 
Therefore, since this consultant to this committee's staff had been taken 
by selective service, and had been inducted in the Army, or was about 
to be, my position was that in the tapering off process from the time 
lie left his assignment as consultant to this connnittee until he became 
100 percent Army private, that it was reasonable during that change- 
over or transition period that he should be made available for com- 
mittee business, for committee business alone, if it did not interfere 
with his training. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you did do that? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And he was given an extraordinarily large number 
of passes and leaves of absences, wasn't he? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And JNIr. Stevens, that was because he was a con- 
sultant on a committee attempting to and/or tracking down infiltra- 
tion of communism in the Army, wasn't it ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is right, isn't it ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, starting with that as a major premise, I ask 
you now to give the Stevens versions, if I may refer to it thusly, of 
the investigation by Senator McCarthy and his staff of Fort Mon- 
mouth. I want your version of the work that was done by the Sen- 
ator and his staff, the character of work they did, the importance of it 
in your opinion, and the necessity for it, or the lack of necessity for 
it as relating to Fort Monmouth. 

Secretary Stevens. All right, sir. The formal hearings which were 
in executive session of this committee in the case of Fort Monmouth, 
started on October 8, 1953. 

I assumed there had been work done by the staff of this committee 
prior to the opening of those hearings. The Army, itself, had, of 
course, been carrying on investigatory work at Fort Monmouth as well 
as elsewhere throughout the Army system, and continuously so. 

We were aware of the history at Fort Monmouth. We wanted to 
be sure that our security situation was in good shape and certainly 
that there was no espionage. We collaborated very closely with the 
FBI in respect of Fort Monmouth, We took up under the new criteria 



192 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

of the new administration matters of security, looking into cases where 
there could be any possible question. 

I think prior — in fact, I know that prior to the formal opening of the 
Fort Monmouth hearing, there had been six suspensions in Fort 
Monmouth for security reasons — in other words, cases where individ- 
uals — where there was no question of loyalty involved but for one 
reason or another, either because of derogatory information or because 
the person might talk too mucli, or something of that kind, those 
cases — it was that type of case that were the six that were suspended 
prior to October 8. 

]Mr. Jenkins. They would be poor security risks at Fort Monmouth, 
is that right ? 

Secretary Stevens. They might be. 

]\Ir. Jem KINS. I understand. You are saying now that they were 
suspended as a result of the efforts of your agency and not that of the 
McCarthy committee, is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir ; that is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Six of them ? 

Secretary Stevens. Six of them. 

Mr. Jenkins. Prior to the opening of the formal hearings by Sen- 
ator McCarthy ? 

Secretary Stevens. Following the opening of the hearings and up 
to this time there had been an additional 29 suspensions. 

]\Ir. Jenkins. As a result of the McCarthy investigation? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir ; as a result ; I would like to answer this 
way, if I may, because I think you have given me an extraordinarily 
difficult question and I would like to answer it to the best of my ability. 

Mr. Jenkins. You are entitled to explain. I think maybe we are 
entitled to a yes or no answer, and then you are certainly entitled to 
explain. But if you can't answer it yes or no, answer it the best way 
you can. You know my question. 

You say that you procured the suspension of six men, civilian em- 
ployees at Fort ]\Ionmouth ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. I think it is in this record abundantly that Fort Mon- 
mouth is the site of a radar installation, is it not ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir; for research and development of it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Research and development and it is tremendously 
important to the security of the Nation ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Primarily where defenses against the atomic and the 
hydrogen bombs are set up; is that right, Mr. Stevens? 

Secretary Stevens. I would 

Mr. Jenkins. It is one of the sites? 
^ Secretary Ste\tens. Yes, sir. I prefer not to elaborate on that, 
sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

You had procured the suspension of six men; is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Prior to the entrance of Senator McCarthy into the 
picture ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 



SPECIAL mVESTIGATION 193 

Mr. Jenkins. We are askino; you now for your version, and, of 
course, with tlie understanding that when the time comes we will get 
the McCarthy version. 

Secretary STE^T.NS. Correct ; that is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Have any of those six men suspended as a result of 
your efforts been reinstated ? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Jenkins, you asked me to give my story 
about Fort Monmouth, and I want to go through that to the best 
of my ability. On the other hand, if you want to go into the detail 
of every single one of those cases 

Mr. Jenkins. Xo, sir. I have no intention of doing that whatever. 
It is just the simple question: Were any of them ever reinstated? 
I am referring to the six men. 

Secretary Stevens. I can't answer that ; but I can say this : That 
out of the total of 35 who were involved, the 6 originally suspended 
and 21) later, 13 of those have been reinstated in nonsensitive posi- 
tions; that is to say, clerical or other type of jobs where classified 
material is not available to them. That is due to the fact that thus 
far no charges of sufficient substance have been put together to afTect 
these 13 people. 

So they have been reinstated in nonsensitive positions pending 
further investigation of their cases to see in a fair American way 
whether or not charges can be preferred. 

Now, in respect to the other remaining 22 cases, 16 of those have 
been heard by hearing boards in the First Army area. Those hear- 
ing boards are in process of making reports on these cases. I don't 
have any reports on any of them as of this present time. 

The six remaining cases of suspended employees at Fort Monmouth 
remain to be heard by a hearing board. 

I would like to say that thus far, and we have indication that 
this will continue, there has been no case in which any one of these 
35 people has pleaded the fifth amendment or refused to answer any 
questions that have been put to them. 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator Stevens — pardon me. Mr. Secretary, I 
don't know wliether that would be a promotion or not. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair didn't like that "pardon me." 

Mr. Jenkins, I will apologize to the chairman. 

Were there 27 suspensions as a result of the McCarthy investiga- 
tion? 

Secretary Stevens. My answer to that, if I have to answer it yes 
or no, would have to be no. Then I have to say but. 

Mr. Jenkin?. All right, say but and explain why. 

Secretary Stevens. The reason I say but is that I think it is prob- 
ably true that as a result of this committee's activities some of those 
suspensions took effect sooner than they otherwise would have. 

Mr. Jenkijss. How many would you say occurred sooner than — 
what you are saying to the committee now, I think, is that if Senator 
McCarthy had stayed out of the picture you would ultimately have 
accomplished the same result that he did ; is that right ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. But don't you consider, Mr. Secretary, that time is 
of the essence in the detection of infiltration of Communists in the 
Army? 

Secretary Stevens. I certainly do, sir. 



194 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 



' 



Mr. Jenkins. And that the expediting and the segregation and the 
pinpointing of one with communistic leanings is quite important ? 

Secretary Stevens, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You concede that the ]\IcCarthy committee brought 
about that result ? 

Secretary Stevens. They speeded up the suspension, yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Speeded it up ? How many ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think I could answer that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Twenty-odd ? 

Secretary Stevens. I jui^t don't know. 

Mr. Jenkins. Twenty-odd ? 

Secretary Stevens. I will try to give you an answer to that ques- 
tion, but I don't have an estimate of it now. 

Mr. Jenkins. At least there are twenty-odd still under suspension, 
aren't there ? 

Secretary Stevens. Twenty-two, yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Twenty-two still under suspension? 

Secretary Ste\t;ns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, for the purpose of clarification, I want to ask 
you this question: What person or group of persons or board is re- 
sponsible, is charged with the duty of making an order effectuating 
a suspension ? 

Secretary Stevens. The action originates with the commanding of- 
ficer of the particular installation. 

Mr. Jenkins. That was General Zwicker? 

Secretary Stevens. General Lawton. 

Mr. Jenkins. General Lawton at Fort Monmouth; is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. It originates with him ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is it consummated by him or is it reviewed by a 
board ? 

Secretary Ste^t:ns. It is reviewed by the First Army Headquarters 
and then reviewed here in the Department of the Army by what is 
known as a screening board. 

Mr. Jenkins. In other words the suspension is brought about by 
Army personnel exclusively ? 

Secretary Stevens. Army personnel either in or out of uniform; 
yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And neitlier Senator McCarthy, Cohn, nor Carr had 
one thing to do with determining whether or not a suspension should 
be made; they simply revealed the facts in an investigation, and then 
your personnel having those facts before them ruled that the facts 
were sufficient to justify a suspension ; is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct, but I would like to add to it that 
we had facts available, also. 

Mr. Jenkins. I do not know^ exactly what you mean by that state- 
ment. 

Secretary Stevt:ns. I was not sure from the way you stated it, Mr. 
Jenkins, as to whether you meant that the McCarthy committee had 
supplied all of the information on which these suspensions took 
place. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did the McCarthy committee supply any informa- 
tion that was before this board, the commanding general and the per- 
sonnel of the Army, when these suspensions were put into effect ? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 195 

Secretary Stevens. I would say they supplied some information. 

Mr. Jenkins. You would say they did ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you would say, and I believe you have said, that 
their efforts resulted in expediting the suspension of these men under 
question about whom there was some question ? 

Secretary Stevens. To some extent; yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is correct; is it not? 

Sscretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Secretary, you are not trying to minimize 
the efforts of the IMcCarthy committee; are you? 

Secretary Stevens. Am I trying to? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, that is what I am asking you. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, I don't feel that I am trying to minimize 
the efforts of the committee; I am simply trying to get out here, as I 
know you want me to do, all of 

Mr. Jenkins. This committee wants you to do it, and so do I. 

Secretary Si'evens. The facts I have in respect to Fort Monmouth. 
My own feeling is that it was a greatly overexaggerated situation. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, that reflects your feelings and opinions, does 
it not, of that very statement ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. That it was a greatly overexaggerated situation ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right, Mr. Stevens. I believe that you have al- 
ready stated that you as Secretary of the Army were vitally interested 
in cleaning out subversives or those about whom there was any ques- 
tion at the earliest possible moment. That is right ; is it not ? 

Secretary Ste^^ns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you concede that Senator McCarthy and his 
staff did that very thing; do you not? 

Secretary Stevens. I concede that Senator McCarthy and his staff, 
through the investigation, speeded up to some extent the suspension 
of some people; but we had information about all of these people 
and the action would have been taken, but they speeded it up to a 
certain extent. 

Mr. Jenkins. But the point is that it had not been taken, had it, 
Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Stevens. It was in the process. 

Mr. Jenkins. You had not? 

Secretaiy Stevens. It was in the process of being taken ; yes, sir. 
You see, under the new security regulations in the Government, all 
of these types of cases were automatically under a new review. 

Mr. tlENKiNS. Ultimately, you say you would have accomplished 
the same result ? 

Secretary' Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. But Senator McCarthy accomplished it before you 
had the opportunity to do it; is that it? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir; I do not quite agree that that is it. 

Mr. Jenkins. You do not agree to that. Now, I understood you 
did, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Stevens. I think that I stated — I do not want to in any 
way evade Mr. Jenkins in any questions. I want to call them exactly as 
I see them. As I see this case, through the efforts of the committee, 



196 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

there was expedited to a certain extent some of the cases in which 
the suspensions took place. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, very good, I think that answers the question. 
You would say, therefore, that Senator McCarthy and his staff did an 
important piece of work that enhanced national security — time being 
of the essence in the detection of Communists or Reds or "pinks" or 
whatever you want to call them — in the Army or any other branch 
of the Government, is that not correct? 

Secretary Stevens. That question, Mr. Jenkins, I will have to ask 
the reporter to read because it is a rather long one and I am not 
sure I can grasp it. 

Senator Mundt. Will the reporter read the question. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I certainly agree it is correct to find the 
security risks, loyalty cases, and act on it fast. There is no question 
about that. We are all in accord on that completely. The only thing 
that I say in regard to this, Mr. Jenkins, is having said that in my 
opinion Senator McCarthy's investigation did speed up to a certain 
extent in a certain number of cases, I would go on and say that in 
respect of the whole overall situation which is referred to in your 
question, that I think it would have been far more effective if we had 
not pursued the publicity tactics that went with this investigation. 
I think that that did a lot of harm in a lot of ways. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you charge Senator IMcCarthy with the publicity 
that his investigations entailed ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, whenever Senator McCarthy holds an 
executive session 

Mr. Jenkins. The press is there, I am sure. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. The press is there, and they are not in 
the executive session, of course, but when the session is over. Senator 
McCarthy gives them a rundown of how he feels the thing transpired. 
And I feel that, right or wrong, a great deal of misinformation and 
excitement was caused by the reports that he developed after these 
executive sessions. 

Mr. Jenkins. And, Mr. Stevens, you wanted it stopped, didn't you? 

Secretary Ste\'t:ns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And, consequently, you wanted Senator McCarthy's 
investigation stopped, didn't you? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir ; I didn't want it stopped. 

Mr. Jenkins. You didn't want it stopped ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now,, one of the charges made against you is that 
you sought to discredit his conunittee and the importance of the work, 
and do you recall that? 

Secretary Stevens. I never did any such thing. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you, if you haven't here this morning, on 
the witness stand, damned him with faint praise, so to speak. Haven't 
you done that ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir; I think that I have given him credit 
for having expedited to a certain extent some of those cases at Fort 
Monmouth. 

Mr. Jenkins. Haven't you here on the witness stand this morning 
minimized the importance of his work in the investigation of Fort 
Monmouth ? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 197 

Secretary Stevens. I have told you that the work would have got- 
ten done anyhow. 

Mr. Jenkins. I understand it, but you further told us that time was 
of the essence, and it is always too late to lock the barn when the horse 
is stolen, you know that. And, Mr. Stevens, there are now 20 men 
still under suspension, after a lapse of 6 months, suspended by you 
and your personnel, partially as a result of the work of the McCarthy 
committee; is that not correct? 

Secretary S'rE\'ENS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I ask you at this point, who is responsible for 
the reinstatement of those men ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know that I can give that information 
under the Presidential directives. 

jSIr. Jenkins. If it violates a directive, or confidential information, 
I withdraw the question. Is that your answer ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir; until I have had a chance to look it up. 
And if it doesn't violate it, I would certainly like to put it in, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Stevens, you understood all along that one 
of the consultants of this very committee whose work we have been 
talking about was one G. David Schine ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You understood that, did you not? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you understand that he was somewhat of an 
authority on communism, and had written at least a pamphlet on that 
subject ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that I knew that he had written a 
pamphlet ; yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you ever ask him to mail to you that pamphlet ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall having done so. I might have; 
I don't recall having done so, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. I hand you a letter, if we can find it. [Laughter.] 

Senator Mundt. The Army has had similar difficulties, I might add, 
about finding letters. 

Mr. Jenkins. I withdraw the question. I am sorry. 

I hand you a letter dated September 21, 1953, rather, a copy of a 
letter reading as follows : 

Hon. J. P. Stevens, 

Secretary of the Army, 

Washincjton, D. C. 
My Dear Mr. Stevens: As I promised, I am sending to you a copy of the 
Definition of Communism which I hope you will find interesting. It was cer- 
tainly a pleasure to see you the other morning, and I hope to see you again in 
the near future. 

With very best wishes, I am 
Cordially yours, 

G. Da\td Schine, 
Chief Consultant, Senate Invcstiyating Subcommittee. 

Will you please examine that, Mr. St. Clair, and hand it to the 
Secretary. 

Then tell the committee whether or not you received the original of 
that letter, together with a pamphlet entitled, "Definition of Com- 
munism," by G. David Schine, which I likewise now hand you for your 
inspection. 



198 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, I think I recall this now, Mr. Jenkins. I 
am not J. P. Stevens, to whom this letter is addressed 

Mr. Jenkins. But you did receive that? 

Secretary Stevens. I assume that I must have received the letter, 
because I now recall having seen a copy of this pamphlet. I also 
recall that I attended a meeting of this committee in executive session 
on September 21, 1953, and no doubt Dave Schine must have spoken 
about this thing at that time. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you know, therefore, that David Schine was a 
consultant member of Senator McCarthy's investigating committee? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You knew prior to his induction in the service, which 
was on November 3, as we understand it 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. That he was actively engaged with Senator McCarthy 
and his staff in the investigation of Fort Monmouth ? You knew that, 
didn't you ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, the first knowledge that you had that 
the Army, of which you were the Secretary, was about to be investi- 
gated by Senator McCarthy, was when you were on the weekend of 
Labor Day in the State of Montana ; is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. It was, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You do not know, of course, when the Senator and 
his staff made their plans for the investigation of the First Army 
area, do you? 

Secretary Stevens. No, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. You read of the proposal of the Senator, to make this 
investigation, in a ncAvspaper in a drugstore in a town in Montana? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir; that was with reference to the three 
original cases in New York City. 

Mr. Jenkins. In the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Their names were given? 

Secretary Ste\tens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You immediately went to the railroad station and 
sent the Senator a telegram, did you not? 

Secretary Stevens. I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. Up to that time, you had never contacted him, had 
you? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You had never been to Fort Monmouth yourself ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. I went on October 20. 

Mr. Jenkins. But I say up to that time 

Secretary Ste\t3ns. Correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is, the early part of September, you had never 
been to Fort Monmouth, had you ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir ; I had not. 
_ Mr. Jenkins. Up to that time you had never directed your inves- 
tigating agency specifically to pinpoint Fort Monmouth and inves- 
tigate it, had you ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes ; I had. 

Mr. Jenkins. You had done so ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 199 

]\Ir. Jenkins. Was that a general order to investigate all of the 
Army posts, or particularly Fort Monmouth 'i 

Secretary Stevens. Well, as I told you, sir, we had extremely close 
contact with the FBI in regard to Fort Monmouth, and that was a 
little bit different from the usual run of directives that might go out. 

Mr. Jenkins. Asking my question again, had you at that time 
specifically called in your investigating agency and said : "Go to Fort 
Monmouth and see what is going on up there?" Had you done that? 

Secretary Stevens. I hadn't personally called them in and told 
them to go to Fort Monmouth, that is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. It was a general order to investigate everything and 
everybody connected with the Army, as we understand it, is that cor- 
rect? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir; that is not correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Secretary Stevens. That is not correct, on account of the reference 
that I made, and I liope I don't have to belabor this point because 
I just don't like to; but as I say, we had very close relationship with 
the FBI in regar<l to this particular matter. 

Mr. Jenkins. But you had no relationship at that time with Sena- 
tor McCarthy and the McCarthy committee, did you ? 

Secretary Stevens. No. 

Mr. Jenkins. So did you cut your trip short to come back ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You contacted Senator McCarthy ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Upon coming back, is that right, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Stevens. Immediately. 

Mr, Jenkins. Now, Mr. Stevens, the truth of the matter is that on 
that first meeting with Senator McCarthy you sought in every hon- 
orable way, I will say, possible to get him to desist and to let you 
carry on that work, did you not ? 

Secretary Stevens. In the first meeting with Senator McCarthy? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, 

Mr. Jenkins. You did not? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You say you never did at any time ? 

Secretary Stevens. Get him to cease and desist ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, let me ask you this question. I know 
you are human. Irrespective of what efforts you made or didn't make, 
you would rather he had not undertaken this investigation of Fort 
Monmouth and have left it up to you, had you not ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, I would not say that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, would you deny it? 

Secretary Stevens. What do you mean, would I deny it? 

Mr. Jenkins. You say you won't say it. I am asking you if you 
will deny it. 

Secretary Stevens. No, because I say 

Mr. Jenkins. You don't deny it ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, I say 



200 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Mv. Jenkins. You know what the question is. You would rather 
he had not initiated the investigation and left it up to you. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. I am perfectly agreeable to working 
with Senator McCarthy's committee or any other committee of the 
Congress on any subject that alTects the Department of the Army. I 
consider it not only a duty but a privilege to work with these com- 
mittees. 

I approached my whole relationship with the Congress on that 
basis. 

May 1 make one minor correction, Mr. Jenkins, because I think that 
inadvertently — this has just come into my mind — that I made a slight 
mistake in response to one of your questions. That is when you asked 
me if I cut my trip short in Montana. I think you asked me that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, I did. 

Secretary Stevens. I think I said yes as we were going along. I 
didn't. I had planned to leave there on Labor Day and fly back, and 
I did that. I think I indicated in my wire to Senator IVIcCarthy that 
I was returning by the following morning. That is a minor thing, 
but I don't want to have it on the record incorrectly. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, on numerous occasions in your direct 
examination you have told of initiating visits with the Senator and his 
staff and of calls with the Senator and his staff; have you not? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. You have told of initiating visits to New York City; 
is tliat right ? 

Secretary Ste\tkns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I believe — when did you first hear that there was a 
person in this world named G. David Schine ? 

Secretary Ste\tens. I believe that was on the 8th of September, Mr. 
Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is that the time that you had coffee at the breakfast 
table in the Schine apartment ; that is, the apartment of his father and 
mother ? 

Secretary Steven. No, sir ; this was when I returned from the West 
and first visited Senator McCarthy on the 8th of September. 

Mr. Jenkins. When was it tliat you had breakfast or coffee in the 
Schine apartment in New York City ? 

Secretary Stevens. That was the 16th of September. 

Mr. Jenkins. You knew then who David Schine was, did you not? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You knew that he Avas on the McCarthy committee 
and that he was subject to be drafted ? That is right, is it not ? 

Secretary Stevtsns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you knew that he was the son of a multimil- 
lionaire ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir ; I would not say I knew that. 

Mr. Jenkins. The son of very wealthy parents ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I do not think that I had any knowledge 
of the financial position of the Schine family other than walking into 
the apartment that morning and seeing that it was a very nice place. 

Mr. Jenkins. You knew then that he was a controversial figure, did 
you not, Mr. Secretary, and had been talked about on the radio and 
written up in newspaper columns, particularly with reference to his 
draft status? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 201 

Secretary Ste\Ti:ns. I know there had been considerable discussion 
about that. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you went with Senator McCarthy, or at the 
invution of the Senator, to the very home where this boy lived on Sep- 
tember 16, did you not? 

Secretary STE^'ENS. That is right. 

INIr. Jenkins. Did you not feel like such a visit might compromise 
you or cause some criticism ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. No, sir; I did not. I felt 

]Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Excuse me. Go ahead, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Stevens. I was going to say that I was in New York at 
that time. The first contact with Senator McCarthy was on the 8th of 
September, and I v/as anxious to follow it up and do all I could to 
expedite whatever actions miglit be necessary. I thought wdiile I was 
in New York I would like to see the Senator, and so I contacted him 
and he suggested that place of meeting. I would have met him any- 
where ; it did not make any difference to me. 

JNIr. Jenkins. ]\Ir. Secretary, did you ever at any other time become 
a guest in the Schine home in New York City ? 

Secretary Stfa-ens. Not in the home, sir. I referred Friday to the 
dinner that I attended in the Waldorf ; it was not in their apartment. 

Mr. Jenkins. Given by David's father and mother? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right, 

Mr. Jenkins. Attended by Mr. Cohn ? 

Secretary Stevens. I understood they gave it. 

Mr. Jenkins. By Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn and Mr. Cohn's 
father, a jurist in New York City, and attended by all of those parties 
and others, I believe you say. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Including a Mr. and Mrs. Berlin? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you identify them? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Berlin, I believe, is president of the Hearst 
publications in New York. 

Mr. Jenkins. Had pressure been brought to bear upon you at that 
time on behalf of Schine ; that is, at this dinner party given in New 
York? 

Secretary Stevens. Had pressure been brought to bear on me? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, the question had been up of a commission 
and various things which I have detailed in the course of my testi- 
mony, Mr. Jenkins ; yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you found out that calls had been coming in 
for David Schine since mid- July, did you not, and you knew it at the 
time ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you went for the second time and became a 
guest of this boy's father and mother? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, Mr. Jenkins, I was in New York. 

Mr. Jenkins. I don't say that there is anything wrong; it is up 
to the committee to decide that. 

Secretary Stevens. May I give you just a little bit of background 
on that ; that is, that I went to New York on my own initiative, with 
the invitation of the Senator, to attend the Fort Monmouth hearings on 



202 SPECIAL INl^ESTIGATION 

the 13th and 14th of October. I invited Senator INlcCarthy and his 
staff to liinclieon with me on both of those days. At some time during 
the course of October 13, Senator McCarthy invited me to come to 
dinner that night. Now, I think he had lunch -with me and I had 
dinner with him. I paid no particular attention, frankly, as to where 
1 was going or what we were going to do. 

Mr. Jenkins. Was it the next morning that David Schine drove you 
somewhere in his automobile ? 

Secretary Stevens. It was ; the morning of October 14. 

Mr. Jenkins. October 14 ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. Are you sure about that date ? 

Secretary Ste\t3ns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. October 14 ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Where did he drive you? 

Secretary Stevens. He drove me from the corner of 32d Street 
and Park Avenue down to the courthouse in lower Manhattan. 

Mr. Jenkins. And there was a discussion between you and him 
then with respect to his Army status, was there not ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And I believe you said you knew discussions had been 
carried on since mid- July. 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Or for a period of some 2 or 3 months ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you knew that he Avas, in all likelihood, a future 
draftee? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. Well, I thought he was going to be, 
but I did not know, of course. It was up to Selective Service entirely. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, did you ever have your photograph 
taken with G. David Schine ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, there were a lot of photographers around 
down there at that hearing, and it could be. 

Mr. Jenkins. But did you ever at your suggestion at a meeting 
anywhere, any time, say that "I want my picture taken with David" 
and have it done ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am sure that I never made a statement just 
like you made it there. I mean, if there was a picture being taken 
and there were people around, I might be very apt to say, "Well, 
let us all step in here and have a picture," but I do not think that I 
ever made any demand to have my picture taken with David Schine. 

Mr. Jenkins. I did not say "demand," but was your picture, after 
David Schine was drafted, ever taken with you alone at your sug- 
gestion, anywhere? 

Secretary Stea'ens. After he was drafted ? 

]\Ir. Jenkins. Yes. 

Let me show you a picture, Mr. Stevens, for the purpose of refresh- 
ing your recollection. I ask you whether or not that is a photograph 
of you, the Secretary of the Army, and David Schine, a private in 
the Army. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 203 

Secretary Stevens. I unfortunately can recognize myself, but I 
could not guarantee the soldier. 

Mr. Jenkins. My question is, Is that a photograph of you, the 
Secretary of the Army, and G. David Schine, a private in the Army'^ 

Secretary Stevens. That is me; that is certainly me, and I 
assume 

Mr. Jenkins. "What do you say about the soldier boy ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not knoAv whether that is Schine or not. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, Mr. Stevens, you know Schine, do you not? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

]\[r. Jenkins. You know him well? 

Secretary Stevens. That picture does not look very much like him. 

Mr. Jenkins. You have had meetings with him and have been in 
his home and have been in automobiles with him. What is your best 
impression about whether or not that was David Schine ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think it probably is. 

Mr. Jenkins. You think it probably is? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you remember when and where it was made? 

Secretary Stevens. This was made at the Maguire Air Force Base. 

Senator Mundt. The photographers will abide by the rule to take 
their pictures from a kneeling or sitting position. It is difficult for 
other people to see what is going on. 

Senator Jackson. I could not get the answer to that question. 

Senator Mundt. I will have to ask the photographers to abide by 
the rule, and that is pretty clear. 

Senator Jackson could not get the answer to the question. 

Senator Jackson. I heard something about Maguire field. 

Senator Mundt. The question was, Where was the picture taken ? I 
think the Secretary has not answered. 

Will you repeat the question, Mr. Counsel, and let the Secretary 
answer it all over again ? 

Mr. Jenkins. The question was, What was your best impression 
as to where the picture Vv'as taken ? 

WTiat about that, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am sorry, sir, I hate 

Mr. Jenkins. What is your best impression about that picture, 
where and when was it taken ? 

Secretary Stevens. My best impression of this picture is that it was 
taken, the title says, and I imagine that is correct, at Maguire Air 
Force Base, which I referred to earlier this morning, as having been 
the airport adjoining Fort Dix, where I stopped, and after the meeting 
in New York, on November 17, which I gave you the detail on this 
morning. And I would say that this is a picture of, undoubtedly, 
David Schine, and a rather grim looking picture of the Secretary of 
the Army. 

Mr. Jenkins. After the meeting in New York, of November 17 ; is 
that right? 

Secretary Stevens. May I hasten to say to you, sir, that I have 
many, many times had my picture taken with privates of the United 
States Army, and I hope that I may have that privilege for a long time 
in the future. 

Mr. Jenkins. How many would you say ? 



204 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. Yfell, if you took tliem by groups, like over 
there in Korea, it would run into the thousands. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, there are about IV^ million of them altogether, 
are there not ? 

What had occurred on that meeting of November 17, in New York, 
in short? 

Secretary Stevens. That was the meeting where I went up to see 
Senator McCarthy to see if we could get together on the news con- 
ference that I had held in Washington on the 13th. 

Mr, Jenkins. You went up to make peace with Senator McCarthy, 
didn't you, to stop this investigation? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, I didn't go up there to stop the 
investigation. 

Mr. Jenkins. It wasn't designed for that at all. 

Now getting back to Schine now, Mr, Stevens, isn't it a fact that 
you were being especially nice and considerate and tender of this boy, 
Schine — wait, wait, wait, wait — in order to dissuade the Senator from 
continuing his investigation of one of your departments ? 

Secretary Stevens. Positively and completely not. 

Mr. Jenkins. The treatment you accorded Schine then was just 
what you accorded every other private in the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. I certainly would treat privates in the Army, 
one and all of them, the same. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, why did you, the Secretary of the Army, having 
released a statement in which you said that there was no current 
espionage at Monmouth, why did you, when you found out from Cohn 
that the Senator was displeased, take it on yourself, in your high 
position, and having made that statement no doubt with the advice 
and consent of those around you, including your superiors, to go 
traipsing off to New York City, hunting up this man, to change your 
statement and make peace with him, and why then if you weren't 
afraid of him 

Secretary Stevens. I did it because I wanted to continue my policy, 
which is a complete one, of cooperation with the Congress of the 
United States. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, you did go up there, and you did make con- 
cessions in that statement, you gave it out worded differently, didn't 
you? 

Secretary Stevens. As I said, I don't think there was any change 
in substance, and I didn't so regard it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, it seemed to pacify the Senator. 

Secretary Stevens. He will have to speak for that, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Mr. Secretary, I call your attention 

Secretary Stevens. I beg your pardon. I didn't catch that. Did 
you ask me a question ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I am about to. 

Now, you have denied, emphatically, that, as I understand it, that 
you even wanted the Senator to discontinue his investigation of Fort 
Monmouth, is that right ? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Jenkins, may I take this opportunity, 
please, to make a little statement on this subject? I testified last 
Friday at length with respect to the luncheon meeting of November 6, 
in my office, where the subject of the Fort Monmouth inquiry was 
discussed at length. I also indicated  



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 205 

Mr. Jenkins. I don't think it is responsive to the question. And 
I object to it. 

Senator Mundt. Will you ask the question and see if we can get 
the Secretary to respond ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not this is a part of the 
testimony you have given in this case on Friday of last week. It is 
with reference to my question : Did you want him to lay off of you or 
Fort Monmouth or quit his investigating there. And you denied it. 

And I will ask you if you stated this : 

Well, we left here by plane and flew to, I think it was, Eatontown, N. J. There 
was a fair amount of discussion, of course, about the Fort Monmouth discussion, 
on the plane going down. I had gained the impression on the previous meeting, 
which was the l^ith of October, in New York, that Senator McCarthy was 
approaching the point where he felt i^hat he would turn the prosecution, if you 
will, of the investigation over to the Army. I think this was discussed some on 
the plane. 

So you did talk to him, I gather from that, about turning the 
investigation of Fort Monmouth over to the Army, is that correct or 
not? 

Secretary Stfvens. Certainly. But I still think that I am entitled 
to make a statement I was going to make. 

Mr. Jenkins. I certainly think so, too, and there is no disposition to 
deny you that privilege. 

Secretary Stevens. May I go ahead with that? 

Mr. Jenkins. Certainly. 

Senator Mundt. Proceed, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Stevens. The point I was going to make is this: that 
at the November 6 luncheon where the Fort Monmouth thing was 
discussed, I said I didn't like this constant hammering in the headlines 
of the Army, because I thought it gave a picture to the public of con- 
siderable espionage or spying at Fort Monmouth which was not in 
accordance with the facts. That is what I objected to. I therefore 
wanted to handle this job myself, but I specifically said, and I think 
you will find it in my testimony, that I wanted to make progress re- 
ports to Senator McCarthy and that if we weren't doing the job right, 
1 assumed that he would come right back into the picture. 

So at no time did I want him to cease and desist unless we were 
capable of doing the job ourselves, in which case there was no necessity 
for it, provided 1 kept him informed as to what was going on. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right, it was your idea — and 1 believe you just 
reiterated your position — that the time had then come for the Senator 
to let the Army take over on condition that you render to him from 
time to time progress reports, and if you weren't doing a masterful 
job of it, then he would step back in. Is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is about the way 

Mr. Jenkins. That is about the way it was. Then, Senator — Mr. 
Stevens 

Senator Mundt. We all get confused. We have so many generals 
and Senators and Secretaries. 

Mr. Jenkins. I don't know to whom to apologize. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure the recorder will record it properly. Let 
there be no apology. Just proceed. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then what you are saying is that you didn't ask the 
Senator to stop his investigation of Fort Monmouth, but merely to 



206 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

suspend it and give yon a cliance to carry on, and then if you failed, 
to tal^e over again; is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is correct. So insofar as his charge against you 
that you tried to stop the investigation of Fort Monmouth is con- 
cerned, that is not correct. You merely tried to get it suspended ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right, 

Mr. Jenkins That is right. I think that you wanted as long a 
suspension as possible, didn't you ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I suppose that I probably did. On the 
other hand, if we didn't do the job and do it properly, I wouldn't want 
a long suspension. The stakes here were too big. The security of the 
country was involved. I wanted all the help I could get on doing the 

Mr. Jenkins. Let me ask you this, Mr. Stevens: Is it not a fact 
that a suspension is in effect a stoppage just as the Senator has 
charged ? 

Secretary Ste\tens. No, I wouldn't think so. 

Mr. Jenkins. You wouldn't think so ; you wouldn't so consider it ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think the staff work would go right along, 
and presumably they would be in constant touch with them. They 
would give us additional information as it was available. No, I 
wouldn't say that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you belong to a social club in New York City 
called the Merchants Club ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not at the very inception 
of this matter you, as a member, made arrangements at the Merchants 
Club for the McCarthy committee to be entertained there, to get 
their meals there from time to time without any limitation, and that in 
the end the sum total of the bill was to be sent to you ? 

Secretary Stevens. I said that I would like to have them use the 
club, which was near the courthouse, during that week that hearings 
were being held, which I think was the week of the 12th to the 16th of 
November ; including the 13th and 14th when I was there. I wanted 
those facilities to be available to the Senator and his staff if they 
wanted to use them. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then your answer to my question is "Yes." 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. That he, investigating you or the Army, and his staff 
were to eat at your expense, without let, without hindrance, with no 
limitation. 

Did you think, Mr. Secretary, that it was within the bounds of 
propriety for you to do that ? 

Secretary Stevens. Completely. 

Mr, Jenkins. Completely ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. That was not done for the purpose of mollifying or 
pacifying him or anything? 

Senator Symington. I didn't hear the question. Will you repeat 
it, counsel? 

Mr. Jenkins. I said the arrangements to have the Senator and his 
stall' be his guests at his expense, eating and so forth, was not done for 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 207 

the purpose of mollifyino; or pacifying the Senator to get him to sus- 
pend his investigation of Fort Monmouth. 

Senator Symington. Thank you. 

Mr. Jenkins. AVhat do you say about that ? 

Secretary Stevens. I say it certainly was not done for that purpose, 
Mr. Jenkins. 

JNIr. Jenkins. What purpose was it done for ? 

Secretary Stevens. A friendly matter of convenience, when you get 
right down to it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, ]\Ir. Stevens, there was quite a scene at Fort 
Dix on October 20, was there not ? 

Secretary Stevens. You mean Fort Monmouth. 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to request counsel, if he would, for 
fear the wrong impression may have been created, to ask the Secretary 
whether or not we ever accepted the invitation, whether we actually 
ate at the Merchants Club 

Mr. Jenkins. Did they or did they not avail themselves of that 
privilege ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes; they did. 

Mr. Jenkins. They did? All right. 

Senator McCarthy, Mr. Chairman, I would like 

Senator Mundt. This has to be a point of order, the Chair insists. 
Counsel has requested that he not be interrupted in his interrogatories 
except for a point of order. 

Senator Jackson. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. I will recognize Senator McCarthy if he has a 
point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. I have, Mr. Chairman. I would like 

Senator Mundt. What is the point of order ? Will you state it first ? 

Senator McCarthy. I am not sure if you and I have the same im- 
pression of what a point of order is. 

Senatf>r Mundt. May I say that the Chair's impression is that a 
point of order has to go to the relevancy and the materiality of 
question?. 

Senator McCarthy. Let the Chair decide whether this is a correct 
point of order. I would like very much that Mr. Jenkins question the 
Secretary as to whetlier or not we ever availed ourselves of that invi- 
tation when Mr. Stevens 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair say he would not construe that to 
be a poijit of order but it would be a perfectly proper question for 
Senator McCarthy to ask Mr. Stevens when lie is cross-examining him. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, could I finish my request that 
counsel go into that matter because I think otherwise there will be the 
impression created that the Chair and the staff were eating at Mr. 
Stevens' expense when he was not present. We were his guests on 
several occasions. He was our guest on several occasions. I think 
that should be cleared up. 

Senator Mundt. That would not come under the heading of a point 
of order as far as the chairman is concerned. It is a proper question 
for Senator McCarthy to ask ; it is a proper question for anybody to 
ask. But the rules of procedure are that tliere be interruptions only 
for points of order. 

Senator Jackson, have you a point of order ? 



208 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator Jackson. I have this point of order. I would like, and I 
think it is important, that a clarification be made as to the rules that 
apply to all of us up here at the head table. Do I understand 

Senator Syimington. Can we fix the microphones so that the ques- 
tions are asked and understood ? 

Senator Jackson. Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that I can make 
a point of order and request that a question be asked by counsel ? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has just ruled on that to say tiiat a point 
of order can be asked only dealing with questions of materiality or 
relevancy. So I would think not, on v\'hether you could challenge any 
question being asked on that basis. 

Senator Jackson. I think these rules should be strictly enforced. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has ruled on the point of order in con- 
formity with Senator Jackson's position. Counsel may proceed. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Stevens, you have told about the events 
of October 20 when you say there was an explosion on the part of 
Eoy Cohn ; is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. That was at Fort Monmouth ? 

Secretary Stevens. Fort JMonmouth ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. When he was not admitted to the holy of holies, so 
to speak? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you were told the substance of the statements 
made by Mr. Cohn on that occasion, were you not? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Why, Mr. Stevens, did you see fit, considering your 
high office, to publicly there and in the presence of all who were con- 
vened, offer an apology for what you had considered a proper and 
correct act on your part ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, first of all, it wasn't public. 

Mr. Jenkins. It was in the presence of all those assembled there, 
was it not? 

Secretary Stevens. It was. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is what my question embraces. 

Secretary Stearns. Yes ; but it was not a public statement. 

Mr. Jenkins. Wliy did you do that? 

Secretary Stevens. And also, the question came up about it the 
other day, about whether or not that was an apology, and I said I 
would like to think that over; that first I said it was, but I wasn't 
sure that was exactly the right word. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I read your testimony. It is brief, and the 
committee will decide whether it is an apology or not. 

Well, I said it was too bad there wasn't time available at the door of the 
laboratory to make all of the necessary inquiries about who was cleared for 
what, and therefore I made that on-the-spot decision, and I certainly did not 
intend to offend anybody by it, but I did the best I could and I did not intend 
it as any offense to Mr. Cohn or anyone else. 

Mr. Jenkins. Was that in the nature of an apology, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say that it was. 

Secretary Stevens. Will you read on, sir ? 
Mr. Jenkins (reading) : 

Very well, you may proceed. 

Secretary Stevens. I would say it was in the nature of an apology. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 209 

Now, if I am not reading correctly, I invite your counsel to come 
up here and check it. 

I d(iu"t know, sir. I am trying to rethink that one over as to whether "apology" 
is the ri.sht word. I think that I had not done anything that was wrong on the 
one hand, and I felt it in my heart I had dune what was right, and I tried to 
prt>tect the interests of the United States. 

Now, that is it in full. 

Now, Mr. Secretary, the question is this: Why did you, in your 
exalted position as head of the Army, so to speak, there on that 
occasion, after you had done what you said was right and proper, 
in the presence of all tliose assembled humble yourself, so to speak, 
or kowtow to this young man, and make that statement, whether it 
could be construed as an apology or not, if it wasn't designed, if it 
wasn't a part of a pattern on your part to at all times keep the good 
will of the McCarthy committee so that they would lay off of you 
and Fort JMonmouth? What is your explanation of that? 

Secretary Stevens. My explanation is that it was part of my desire 
to work with the committees of Congress. I had no thought, in trying 
to smooth over the feelings of Mr. Cohn, that I was in any way 
attempting to stop the investigation. I think from the latter part 
of the language you read from my previous testimony, that that 
word "apology'' hit me pretty fast, and as I look back on it, Mr. 
Jenkins, I am not sure I know exactly what the right word to use 
en the darned thing is. I think it was — I know it was an effort on 
my part to smooth over a situation which had gotten a little bit out 
of hand as far as Mr. Cohn was concerned, and I guess we have all 
been faced with situations like that, where we tried to make some 
appropriate remark that would make the fellow who feels he was 
offended feel a little bit better about it, and that is what I attempted 
to do. The word that applies to it, I leave to you, sir, in those 
circumstances. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you know a lieutenant named Corr? 

Secretary Stevens. I met him, and I don't know him. 

Mr. Jenkins. Have you learned that when that alleged explosion 
took place, and I wasn't there, and I don't know what was said, that 
a lieutenant in the x\rmy named Corr went to a high-ranking officer 
there, and said, "Why do we have to take such insults from Mr. Cohn ; 
why do we have to cater to him?'' and have you learned that young 
man said that? 

Secretary Ste^'ens. I heard that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Have you promoted him? 

Senator McClellan. Let us get his answer, and I don't know what 
he said. 

Senator ISIundt. To the last question. 

Secretary Stevens. As far as I know he has not been promoted. 

Senator Symington. Can we identify whom we are talking about? 

Secretary Stevens. He is the aide to General Lawton, the com- 
manding general. 

Senator Symington. Apparently the Democratic microphones 
aren't working ; they are getting a little better now. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Secretary, we have discussed the ques- 
tion of whether or not you sought to discredit the McCarthy com- 
mittee, and the other charge is that you sought improperly to stop 
its investigation of Fort Monmouth. 



210 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

I read you now an excerpt from your testimony given last Friday, 
and I ask you to state Avhether or not it is correct, to wit : 

Now, at the luncheon, I discussed with them the Fort Monmouth investigation, 
and I told them that I felt that it had served its purpose. 

AVhat does that mean if it doesn't mean that you told them that it 
was at an end or should be suspended ? 

Secretary Stevens. By that I meant, Mr. Jenkins, that it served 
the purpose of certainly bringing this thing to the forceful attention 
of the Department of the Army, and the Secretary, and all of us. 
That is what I meant by "served its purpose," as I think you will find 
there. 

Mr. Jenkins. Noav let me read on and see if that is what it means. 

That we were on top of everything that they had given us, and we were 
following up, and we had had information on every name that had been turned 
up anyway, and that I wanted to have the Army carry out, and if you will, 
subject of this committee, in the sense that I said I would render progress 
reports as to how we were doing. 

That, in substance, is what you said, and 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And I repeat, wasn't that a request for a suspension 
by tlie Senator of his activities? 

Secretary Steat^ns. "Well, as I have explained before, sir, I didn't 
like this hammering of the Army over the head, and that is the thing 
that was bothering me, and it wasn't the investigation itself. I 
wanted the Army to handle this, and try to get the situation back into 
reasonable perspective insofar as the public was concerned. 

In addition, we had a morale problem. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right, do you recall that their charges, some men- 
tion is made about you appealing to the Senator personally on the idea 
that you would be driven from your job if he didn't quit and let you 
alone and discontinue his investigation ? 

Secretary Stevens. I testified on Friday that if this thing was pur- 
sued and the erroneous impression was getting out to the public, if 
that was continued, that it could well result in driving me from office. 

Senator McCarthy said that that isn't Avhat he wanted. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you remember the specifications in his charge that 
you at the Pentagon in your office told the McCarthy committee that 
if they did not lay off of you and discontinue these investigations that 
you had been in office only 10 months and it would result in your dis- 
missal from office ? Was such a charge made by them ? 

Secretary Stevens. That language, INIr. Jenkins, I do not accept 
at all. 

Mr. Jenkins. But that is the charge made in substance in the 
writing, in the specification ? 

Secretary Stevens. And I do not accept it at all. 

Mr. Jenkins. I understand that. Now let us see how close, Mr. 
Secretary, you come to having made that statement. I repeat your 
testimony of last Friday. This is Secretary Stevens : 

It isn't cut off, Mr. Jenkins, but I think this is important, that in respect to the 
matter that I mentioned before, namely, the hammering over the head of the 
Army persistently, creating the impression that there was espionage in a big 
way at Fort Monmouth which I say was not so, that I told Senator McCarthy 
and his associates that I had btHin in office for 10 months, and I had some 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 211 

responsibilities that I had assumed, and that if they kept on with these headlines 
which in my opinion were utterly unfair, that they could drive me out of otiice 
if they wanted to. 

You did say that, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir ; I certainly did, and I stand on it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Wasn't that, Mr. Stevens, a personal appeal to a 
United States Senator and the members of his staff to at least sus- 
pend, which I believe you have already admitted you asked them to 
do ? Wasn't this an additional appeal to quit or suspend so that you 
could continue your tenure of office beyond that 10-month period ? 

Secretary Stevens. I wasn't thinking a thing about my tenure of 
office, Mr. Jenkins. I didn't ask for this position. 

Mr. Jenkins. I understand that, but why did you mention it ? You 
said you had been in office only 10 months. 

Secretary Stevens. I wanted to have the Department of the Army 
and the United States Army treated fairly, and I felt it was not being 
treated fairly. 

Mr. Jenkins. Was this investigation of Fort Monmouth an unfair 
treatment of the Army, considering the results obtained ? 

Secretary Stevens. The results so far as the publicity was con- 
cerned were extremely unfair. 

Mr. Jenkins. But as far as the results obtained outside of the pub- 
licity, was it unfair to the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. Oh, no ; it was not unfair to the Army to speed 
up the suspension by a certain length of time of a certain number of 
cases. That was perfectly O. K. But it was not fair to the Army, 
and it was not fair to the American people, to create in the minds of 
the public and of the services the idea that there was a lot of current 
espionage going on at Fort Monmouth when such was not the case. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel advises he wants to start on another line 
of questioning. It is 12 : 30, so we will suspend until 2 : 30 this after- 
noon. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 30 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 2 : 30 
p. m. of the same day.) 

X 



l-'i^'^b't'^'^ 



^felf 



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 COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 
PURSUANT TO 

S. Res. 189 



PART 6 



APRIL 2G, 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 R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

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

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine IHIP.ERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnei-ota 

HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idalio 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, Chief Clerk 



Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman 

EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 
CHARLES E. I'OTTER. Michigan HENRY M. JACKSON, V/ashington 

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. Maner, Secretary 

n 



CONTENTS 



Page 
restimony of Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary, Department of the Army_ 214 

III 



SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHAEGES AND 
COUNTEECHARGES INVOLVING: SECEETAEY OF THE 
AEMY EOBEET T. STEVENS, JOHN G. ADAMS, H. STEUVE 
HENSEL AND SENATOE JOE McCAETHY, EOY M. COHN, 
AND FEANCIS P. CAEE 



MONDAY, APRIL 26, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington, D. C. 
after recess 

(The hearing was resumed at 2 : 40 p. m.) 

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 John L. McClellan, Democrat, 
Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; and 
Senator Stuart Svmington, Democrat, Missouri. 

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

Also present : Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a United States Sena- 
tor from the State of Wisconsin ; Roy M. Colin, chief counsel to the 
subcommittee ; Francis P. Carr, executive director of the subcommit- 
tee ; 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; James D. 
St. Clair, special counsel for the Army; and Frederick P. Bryan, 
counsel to H. Struve Hensel, Assistant Secretary of Defense. 

Senator Mundt. We will proceed. 

Mr. Welch. I want to say a word of thanks to you, sir ; and I spoke 
of your great power a day or two ago, and on that occasion I had no 
microphone and now I have not one and not two but three. 

Senator Mundt. That is good. 

Before the questioning resumes the Chair would like to make a 
statement on behalf of the committee. When I returned to the office 
this noon, I found that we have had a great deluge of telegrams from 
across the country accusing the committee of stopping some of the live 
TV broadcasts, and they are complaining because the broadcasts that 
they were receiving on Thursday and Friday are no longer available. 

The Chair simply wants to restate the policy of the committee con- 
cerning television and radio. We stated that the hearings would be 
open for television cameras and for radio reporting provided it was 

213 



214 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

done without revenue to tlie broadcasting companies in the nature of 
sponsored advertising. 

We have no control, nor do we desire to exercise any, over which 
networks carry the programs and which do not. Certainly the tele- 
vision cameras are no convenience to tlie witnesses, I am sure, and no 
convenience to the committee members. But we labor in this higlily 
illuminated atmosphere solely in the, interest of giving the public tlie 
full set of facts on television, on radio, if the networks clesire to provide 
them as a public service. 

Neither does the committee assume any responsibility for any broad- 
casts which are screened or cut or replayed which do not cover the 
entire proceedings of the hearings. Any complaints that the public 
has to make concerning prejudice or bias for partial and fragmen- 
tary reports should be directed to the broadcast companies and not to 
the committee. 

Mr. Jenkins may proceed with the questioning. 

TESTIMONY OF EOBEET T. STEVENS, SECEETAHY OF THE 

APtMY — Resumed 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, before proceeding with further cross- 
examination of Mr. Stevens, I think it proper at this time to state 
for the purposes of identification that the gentleman sitting on the 
immediate left of iSlr. Struve Hensel who has now been declared a 
party in interest to this controversy is his personal attorney, Mr. 
Frederick Bryan, of New York City. 

Mr. Stevens, as I recall, the last question I asked you prior to 
adjournment for the lunch hour was whether or not in your opinion 
this investigation of Fort Monmouth was unfair to the Army consider- 
ing the results obtained. A transcript of the record discloses that 
your answer was as follows : 

The results insofar as the publicity was concerned were extremely unfair. 

Do you recall giving that as your answer to that question ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you this, Mr. Stevens: Do you not think 
that it was a salutary thing for the American public to know that 
there was an active agency such as the McCarthy committee investi- 
gating alleged infiltration of Communists in the Army and other 
departments of the Government? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir; I think it was a good thing. 

Mr. Jenkins. A good thing for the public and a bad thing for the 
Army? 

Secretary Stevens. A good thing for the public to know, sir ; and, 
as I said before, I completely favor working with these committees in 
investigations, and the only thing that I objected to was the manner 
in which the hearings were held and the publicity was generated. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Stevens, on or about the 10th day of March 
of this year, you released a document called A Series of Events, and 
which was published in the newspapers, as I recall, on March 11; is 
that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. Wlien you say "released," sir, we sent them to 
the members of this committee and to the Members of the Congress 
who had asked for it, and we did not make it public. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 215 

Mr. Jenkins. It was made public, however, on the 11th day of 
]\Iarch, was it ? 

Secretary Ste'st^ns. Yes, sir. 

!Mr. Jenkins. And the countercharges or certain memoranda of the 
McCarthy committee were released the following day 2 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And I believe that this series of events which you 
sent to certain members of this committee contained how many differ- 
ent events? Anyway, it was embodied in approximately 34 pages; 
is that correct ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And it was published in the newspapers? 

Secretary Stevens. It was published. 

Mr. Jenkins. When did you begin the preparation of that, Mr. 
Stevens, of that document, consisting of 34 pages? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I didn't prepare it. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I ask who did prepare it ? 

Secretary Stevens. It was prepared in the office of or under the 
General Counsel of the Department of Defense. 

Mr. Jenkins. What is his name ? 

Secretary Stevens. His name is Mr. Hensel. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Struve Hensel ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now a party of interest ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. You say it was prepared in his office? 

Secretary Stevens. I said under his supervision in his office. 

Mr. Jenkins. Who did prepare it ? 

Secretary Stevens. The gentleman that I talked to was Mr. Brown. 

Mr. Jenkins. And the preparation of that was supervised by Mr. 
Struve Hensel ? 

Secretary Stevens. That I believe is correct. And I think it is 
covered by the letter that transmitted the chronology to Senator 
Potter. 

Mr. Jenkins. Have you read Mr. Hensel's reply ? 

Secretary Stevens. Actually I have not read it in detail ; no, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Have you read of it in the newspapers and you know 
what it is in the main ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

INIr. Jenkins. Do you know that he disclaims any personal knowl- 
edge whatsoever of the events that occurred from mid-July up until 
your last contact with Senator McCarthy on January 14 ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think he had any connection with it 
at all. 

Mr. Jenkins. Not only had any connection with it, but he had no 
knowledge of it, did he ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think he had any knowledge of it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Any knowledge of it ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Can you explain why he supervised the preparation 
of it? 

Secretary Stevens. Why he supervised the preparation of it? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes ; not having any personal knowledge ? 



216 SPECIAL IN^^ESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. AVell, he later began to have knowledge of it, 
and I think that you said up to January 14, and I think Mr. Hensel 
began to have knowledge of it somewhere around about the 26th or 
25th of February. 

]\Ir. Jexkins. You say there was a Mr. Brown who actually pre- 
pared it? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Brown, I understand, is in the General 
Counsel's office in the Department of Defense. 

Mr. Jenkins. Where did Mr. Brown get his information upon 
which he prepared that 34-page document ? 

Secretary Stevens. He called upon the Department of the Army to 
submit its files containing the material related to it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did the files contain all reports of all these conversa- 
tions, Mr. Stevens, or was the report made by you or Mr. Adams 
from memory ? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. I only know about the part that I was con- 
nected with myself. That is, Mr. Brown came to the office and we 
discussed the parts of which I had direct knowledge. 

Mr. Jenkins. From time to time, in early September, beginning 
with your trip from Montana back to Washington, did you daily, or 
upon the occurrence of these events, make a memorandum of them, 
or did you later, just prior to March and in early March, from 
memory compile a record of these events? 

Secretary Stevens. Most of my material was from memory. Some 
of it was from memoranda, letters, and other things. 

Mr. Jenkins. You have testified about a meeting in the Schine 
apartment on September 16. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you if it isn't a fact that that meeting is 
not mentioned in either this 34-page compilation of events nor in the 
specifications? 

While your attorney is looking for that information, will you give 
us the full name or the initials of the Mr. Brown who prepared this 
34-page document under the supervision of Mr. Hensel, and his of- 
ficial position with the Department of Defense ? 

Secretary Stevens. I will get it for you, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very good. 

I ask you if it isn't a fact — as I understand it, you testified here 
last Thursday or Friday — Friday, I am sure — that on the occasion of 
this meeting in the Schine apartment in New York City on Sep- 
tember 16, Senator McCarthy asked you for a commission for David 
Schine? Isn't it a fact, JNIr. Stevens, that in neither this 34-page 
document entitled "Events" or the specifications filed as charges here 
was sucli a meeting mentioned ? Is that correct or not ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think it is, but that is being checked, Mr. 
Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Can you explain to this committee why such an im- 
portant event as that, in which this first request allegedly was made 
by the Senator to you was omitted from both the events and tlie 
specifications? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. I don't know why it was. 

Mr. Jenkins. You don't know why? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 217 

Mr. Jenkixs. Do you think that your recollection now as you 
testify here under oath is better than it was when these events and the 
specifications were prepared? 

Secretary STE^^:NS. I suppose as I have thought about this thing, 
my memory naturally has been sharpened up, Mr. Jenkins, on some 
points. As to why that particular item was not in, if it was not in, 
I just don't know. 

JNIr. Jenkins. You certainly gave it serious consideration before 
that list of events was prepared, did you not, IMr. Stevens? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I don't know that I did. I don't know 
that that chronology originally published was necessarily intended to 
cover every single thing. Mr. Brown will have to tell us about that. 

Mr. Jenkins. As we understand it, that is the first overt act on the 
part of the Senator in seeking preferential treatment for David 
Schine. Now, is your explanation of the leaving of that out in the 
events and the specifications, a lack of memory on the subject; or 
that you forgot to include it ? Is that your explanation ? 

Secretary Stevens. I just don't know why it was left out. 

Mr. Jenkins. You testified further about a meeting on September 
21 here in Washington. I will ask you whether or not on that occasion 
General Partridge was present ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think he was. 

Mr. Jenkins. Isn't it a fact that likewise in both your 34-page 
document entitled "Events" and your specifications, that meeting was 
entirely omitted ? 

Secretary Stevens. That was an executive meeting of this com-« 
mittee. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is that your reason for having omitted it in your 
events as well as in the specifications, the fact that it was an executive 
meeting ? 

Secretary Stevens. It was an executive meeting, yes, and I didn't 
consider, since the issues here were not discussed, that there was any 
particular reason to include that executive meeting of this committee. 

Mr. Jenkins. You have included in both your events and specifica- 
tions, references to certain executive meetings, have you not, Mr, Sec- 
retary. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right ; yes. 

Mr. Jenkins, Then do we understand that the reason it was omitted 
was not because it was an executive meeting, but because there was 
nothing of interest discussed? Is that now your explanation? 

Secretary Stevens. I wouldn't say that there was nothing in the 
course of the hearing that was not of interest discussed, but it was an 
executive session and I would not have felt at liberty to discuss it. 

Mr. Jenkins. There were discussions bearing upon the issues of this 
controversy, were there not, Mr. Stevens, and to which you testified 
in your direct examination? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that General Partridge did appear as a 
witness, yes. I don't know whether it had to do with the issues which 
we are talking about here or not. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you identify General Partridge and where he 
fitted into your scheme of things in the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. General Partridge was the Assistant Chief of 
Staif G-2, which is in charge of intelligence. 

Mr, Jenkins, In charge of intelligence? 

46620°— 54— pt. 6 2 



218 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins, It was a part of his duty to investigate the infiltra- 
tion of Communists or espionage in the Army, wasn't it ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you later remove him from that post? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. We had a new Chief of Staff come in 
in August of last year, and in the course of the new Chief of Staff 
taking over, it is the perfectly normal procedure for him to make 
changes in the Chief of Staff positions. He made a number of them, 
including General Partridge. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you know when General Partridge was relieved 
from his post of intelligence ? 

Secretary Stevens. I can't remember the exact date. 

Mr. Jenkins. Approximately. 

Secretary Stevens. I should think it was probably November. 

Mr. Jenkins. While the McCarthy investigation was in progress, 
wasn't it, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Si"evens. I think so, yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You think so. Isn't it a fact that you told Senator 
McCarthy and members of his staff that Partridge knew nothing what- 
ever about intelligence or the duties pertaining to that particular 
post ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is positively not a fact. 

Mr. Jenkins. Positively not the fact. He was removed not by you 
but by the Secretary of Defense or Chief of Staff? 

Secretary Stevens. The Chief of Staff. General Ridgway made 
changes in his staff and he brought in General Trudeau from Korea as 
G-2 in charge of intelligence. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, you further testified on direct exami- 
nation about a meeting of September 28. Do you recall that? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I don't recall that. 

Mr. Jenkins. You don't recall that? 

Secretary Stevens. At the moment, no, I don't. Could you refresh 
my memory on it? 

JNIr. Jenkins. Be that as it m.ay, the meeting of September 28 is 
mentioned neither in the 34-page compilation of events nor the speci- 
fications. That is correct, isn't it? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. The record will show, of course, what your testimony 
was about the meeting of September 28. 

Now, on September 29 I will ask you whether or not that was the 
occasion of the wedding day of Senator McCarthy ? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. It w\as. 

Mr. Jenkins. You attended that wedding? 

Secretary Stevens. I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. Upon the invitation of the Senator ? 

Secretary Stevens. Correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you if you didn't sit at that wedding or 
stand with one G. David Schine. 

Secretary Stevens. In very close proximity to him. 

Mr. Jenkixs. In close proximity to him, and talked to him on 
that occasion ? 

Secretary Sitlvens. That is right. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 219 

Mr. Jexkins, Did you make an engagement to see him at a later 
date on that occasion ? 

Secretary Stevexs. I don't think I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. You don't think you did? Do you deny that you 
did^ 

Secretary Stem^ns. I do not recall that I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. If you did, would you have any idea of the purpose 
of a future meeting between you, the Secretary of the Army, and 
this boy who was not then in the Army ? 

Secretary Stev-ens. Yes. I think it entirely possible that David 
Schine, if he wanted to talk to me, wanted to talk about his future 
military position. 

Mr. Jenkins. But didn't you initiate the conversation and tell him 
that the following day, or shortly thereafter, you wanted to see him 
and talk to him, and that it was no time or place to talk to him on 
the wedding day of the Senator ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that. 

Mr. Jenkins. You don't recall it and you don't deny it ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall it and I do not deny it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you examine there, and I am sure your lawyer 
will assist you, your events of October 2. And while that is being 
done, let me ask you the question : Isn't it a fact that in the document 
referred to as "Events," you state that Roy Cohn spoke to you about 
David Schine on October 2, whereas in your specifications you say 
that both Cohn and Carr sought special favors for David Shine ? 

State whether or not that is the fact. And if you have any ex- 
planation of that discrepancy, you may give it to the committee at 
this time. 

Secretary Stevens. "Well, I think that I said, in my testimony on 
this point, that Mr. Cohn did most of the talking on the subject. I 
do not recall. 

Mr. Jenkins. Your specifications are before you, and you may be 
positive about it, Mr. Secretary. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, could I say a word about this case — 
now I hear myself. Mr. Jenkins would be quick to say that our 
specifications were prepared with great speed and under great pres- 
sure. I am frank to say they were finished in the small hours of the 
morning. I think Mr. Jenkins would do me the credit of saying we 
were more closely on schedule on our specifications than was the 
other side. 

Be that as it may. They were also the specifications, or also based 
on information from Mr. Adams. But I would like, although it is not 
comfortable for me to say so, that if there are defects in the speci- 
fications of omission, the chances are very good that my young friend 
whom I so greatly admire, and myself, are very much to blame. 

Mr. Stevens did not stand at my standup disks late at night while 
we whipped those out. It was Mr. St. Clair and I who did it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, it is of course a difficult task to inter- 
rupt such a gracious gentleman as Mr. W^elch, but those are proper 
matters for him to show on cross-examination; and your opportunity 
will come. 

Now, Mr. Stevens 

Mr. Welch. I beg your pardon. 



220 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Stevens, did you not go to Mr. Allen Dulles 
on October 15, with reference to David Scliine, and particularly with 
reference to getting a commission for him ? 

Secretary Stevens. I went to Mr. Dulles, but it was not on October 
15. 

Mr. Jenkins. When was it? 

Secretary Stevens. It was on the 28th, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I beg your pardon. 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. October 28. 

Mr. Jenkins. You went personally. Who was Allen Dulles at 
the time? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. He was director of the Central Intelligence 
Agency, and still is. 

Mr. Jenkins. And that is a Department of the Army where men 
especially qualified in investigations are sent for training and for 
commissioning? 

Secretary Stevens. No. It is a completely independent agency, 
and it has nothing to do with the Army, except to the extent that its 
work is coordinated with Army and other military services. 

Mr. Jenkins. You say that was on October 28 ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Nearly 2 months after you say these importunities 
started by the committee for favors for Schine, is that right? 

Secretary Sitsvens. That is right, yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. At whose instance did you go to see Allen Dulles, 
was it your own, or that of the Senator, or Mr. Cohn, or anyone else ? 

Secretary Stevens. This matter came up on the telephone, and 
Mr. Cohn called me and said that he had two matters in mind with 
respect to Mr. Schine. One was a possible furlough that might be 
granted immediately on Mr. Schine s being inducted, and the other 
was the possibility that CIA might have some use for Mr. Schine. 

I said, "Well, I will go and ask Mr. Dulles if he can use Mr. 
Schine." And I did that. And he said that he could not use him, 
and I so reported to Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Jenkins. If he could use Mr. Schine in what capacity? 

Secretary Stevens. In any capacity. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, did you consider that an act on your part 
designed to favor David Schine ? 

Secretary Ste\-ens. I considered it as an act of cooperation as a 
result of the telephone conversation when ]\Ir. Cohn called me with 
res]-)ect to David Schine. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not mention is made of that 
act on your part, regardless of how this committee construes it, in 
either the 34-page compilation of events or the specifications? 

Secretary Ste\-ens. I will ask if I may, that the attorney look that 
up and see. I can't answer it at the moment. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you ever tell Schine, yourself, that you wanted 
him in Intelligence? 

Secretary Stevens. That I wanted him in Intelligence? 

Mr. Jenkins. Right. 

Secretary Stevens. No, I don't remember that. I have talked, I 
remember, in the early part of this thing there was a good deal of 
discussion like the time 1 rode down with him in the car from uptown 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 221 

New York, which I discussed on Friday. Intelligence matters were 
discussed. 

Mr. Jexkins. With Schine? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

^Ir. Jenkins. And that was during the period of the McCarthy 
investigation, wasn't it? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Secretary, that was not a part of your pat- 
tern to hold this boy Schine as a sort of a hostage, and use him as a bait 
for the pui'i^ose of abating this investigating, was it? 

Secretary Stevens. Certainly not, and if he was a hostage, so are 
hundreds of thousands if not millions of young American hostages 
when they are doing their duty in the service of their country. 

Senator Mundt. May I inquire whether the counsel has produced 
the information so that the Secretary can answer the question which 
is being held in abeyance ? 

Mr. St. Clair, are you ready ? 

Mr. St. Clair. I cannot find it, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jenkins. I believe you had a meeting about which you testified 
on November 6, Mr. Secretary, in your office; did you not? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And will you tell us again who was there? 

Secretary Stevens. Senator McCarthy, Cohn, Carr, Adams, and 
myself, for one-half of the meeting ; and then for the last half of the 
meeting General Ridgway, General Trudeau, and General Mudgett. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you w'hether or not, Mr. Secretary, you on 
that occasion likewise invited one G. David Schine to attend as your 
guest, November 6, at wdiich time you had the table set and had a chair 
there for G. David Schine and then expressed great disappointment 
that he did not attend with the Senator and his staff ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, David Schine at this time was in the 
Army, and he had gone in on November 3, and he was assigned as you 
know in the first instance to temporary duty. First Army, in New York, 
with the idea of being available for committee work. 

Now, if David Schine was in Washington, on that particular day, 
I would have been glad to have him come along as a member of the 
staff of this committee. I do not recall having specifically invited him 
to the luncheon. 

Mr. Jenkins. You say he was in the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Don't you know that he did not report to Fort Dix 
until November 10, 4 days after the date about which I am questioning 
you? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, I know that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Now, Mr. Secretary, I observe that in 
answer to certain questions I ask you, you are extremely positive, and 
here you don't appear to be, apparently. 

I ask you again, isn't it a fact that you specifically requested Sena- 
tor McCarthy and Roy Cohn to bring G. David Schine to the Penta- 
gon to your office on November 6, for a luncheon with you ? 

Secretary Stevens. If he was in town, I would have been delighted 
to have him. 

Mr. Jenkins. That I submit, Mr. Chairman, is not an answer to my 
question. 



222 SPECIAL INVESTIGATIOISr 

Now, I ask it a^ain, did you or did you not, on November 6, invite 
David Schine to the Pentagon to your office for lunch with Senator? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. I definitely do not recall having done so. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, to refresh your recollection, do you remember, 
Mr. Secretary, that you had a table set with food, all ready for all 
your guests, and that there was one vacant chair there ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that detail. It may well have 
been. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you remember that that was for the absent 
invitee, G. David Schine ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, I do not recall that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you remember telling Senator McCarthy and 
Roy Cohn that you were especially disappointed that David Schine 
did not attend ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you deny it ? 

Secretary Stevens. Do I deny it ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you deny inviting David Schine to your 

Secretary STE^'ENS. I have no recollection of having invited David 
Schine. I would have been delighted for him to come. 

Mr. Jenkins. You would have been delighted for him to come? 

Secretary Stevens. If they wanted to bring him as a member of 
the staff. 

Mr. Jenkins. In spite of all of these terrific efforts to high-pressure 
you, you still would have been delighted for David Schine to come on 
November 6 ? 

Secretary Stevens. For the reason that the Fort Monmouth investi- 
gation was the principal subject for discussion. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you not tell Senator McCarthy and Eoy Cohn on 
that occasion, the 6th, that you wanted your picture taken with David 
Schine? 

Secretary Stevens. I doubt very much that I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you doubt any other event of November 6 about 
which I have asked you ? You seem to be pretty positive about the 
picture, and rather hazy about whether you invited him there or not? 

Secretatry Stevens. I do not recall having invited David Schine. 

Mr. Jenkins. If the Senator and Eoy Cohn and others testify 
that is the fact, you are not in a position to deny it ? Is that what you 
are saying? 

Secretary Stevens. I would like to hear the testimony. 

INIr. Jenkins. You would like to hear their testimony. 

What possibly could have been your purpose in inviting David 
Schine there on the 6th day of November to lunch with vou, the Secre- 
tary of the Army, if it were not for the purpose of offering tidbits, 
so to speak, sweet morsels of tidbits to lull to sleep this three-headed 
monster that you say was about to devour you ? 

Secretary Stevens. I certainly had no such idea, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Why would you have wanted him there if not for that 
reason ? 

Secretary Stevens. Only because he was a member of Senator Mc- 
Carthy's staff, and if Senator McCarthy wanted him to come, it would 
have been perfectly all right with me. 

Mr. Jenkins. He was then a draftee in the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION" 223 

TSlv. Jenkixs. Great pressure had been exerted upon you, you 



Secretary Stev-ens. That is ri^jlit. 

]Mr. Jexkins. For preferential treatment. 

Secretary Stevens. Right. 

Mr. Jenkins. And yet in spite of all that, and in spite of all this 
investifration that was going on, you now deny that the only purpose 
you could possibly have had in mind in getting him there was to pacify 
the Senator and get him off of your neck at Fort Monmouth? 

Secretary Stevens. I completely deny tliat. 

;Mr. Jenkins. Of that, now, you are positive ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am 100-percent sure. 

Mr, Jenkins. Is that right? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

I\[r. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, thank goodness I am about through. 
One other serious charge has been made against you, and that is, from 
time to time you offered up a bigger bait even than David Schine to 
this committee to let you alone, to wit, the Air Force or the Navy, it 
being alleged that you tried to divert this committee from the Army 
to the Air Force or the Navy. What do you say about that charge ? 

Secretary Stevens. I say it is an unequivocal lie. 

Mr. Jenktns. That is one phase of this investigation about which 
your memory hasn't failed }'0u ? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. It certainly has not. 

Mr. Jenkins. I want to read you an excerpt from your testimony. I 
believe you have admitted that you did try to prevail upon the com- 
mittee to suspend the operations as far as the investigation of Fort 
Monmouth is concerned. 

Secretary Stevens. I wanted to change the type of hearing. As 
far as the investigation was concerned, it could go right along. 

;Mr. Jenkins. This is from the record of April 23 : 

Question : 

Now you were telling about a statement you made to the effect that if this 
thing continued and these headlines were emblazoned upon the front page of the 
papers, it would drive you out of oflSce. 

I believe you admitted that. Here is the answer you gave : 

I said that it could ; that such a thing could happen. And Senator McCarthy 
said that that was not his intention. We discussed further the question of how 
to handle this Fort Monmouth situation. Senator McCarthy then said that he 
was planning to look into some situations in industrial plants, and I stated that 
the Army and in fact the whole Defense Department was very much interested 
in that subject and had problems connected with it. 

I will ask you, wasn't that, Mr. Stevens, an invitation on your 
part 

Secretary Ste\-ens. It was not. 

Mr. Jenkins. Wait. I haven't finished. 

[Continuing:] To seek to divert Senator McCarthy and his staff 
from the Army to industrial plants and other phases not connected 
with the Army? Wasn't that there your intention when you stated 
that? 

Secretary Stevens. It definitely was not. If you want me to give 
you a little background on that 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you ever intimate or suggest or did your at- 
torney, Mr. Adams, to your knowledge ever suggest, that there was a 



224 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

ripe, juicy field in other departments of the Army or in the Air Force 
or in the Navy for investigation ? 

Secretary Stevens. Never. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you know of a map that was on one occasion 
drawn by your attorney, Mr. Adams ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have heard of it. I never saw it. 

Mr. Jenkins. It was drawn during the course of a conversation 
between him and Roy Cohn, wasn't it? 

Secretary Stevens. That is what I have been tokl. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you make an investigation of tliat ? 

Secretary Stevens. An investigation of the map? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, of why your Lawyer woukl draw a map in the 
presence of Roy Cohn, showing the different departments of the 
United States Army, the different areas. 

Secretary Stevens. No, I didn't make any investigation about it. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right, then you deny that what you said to the 
Senator with respect to investigating industrial plants was designed 
to get a suspension or to divert him to some other field of endeavor? 
Is that your testimony ? 

Secretary Stevens. Exactly. 

Mr. Jenkins. I believe, Mr. Chairman, you may take the witness. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. In approximately 90 
minutes you will have another chance. 

In my 10 minutes I would like to start, Mr. Stevens, by reading the 
first paragraph of your specifications, dated April 13. It says : 

The Department of the Army alleges that Senator Joseph 1{. McCarthy, as 
chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations (hereinafter called 
tlie subcommittee) of the United States Senate, and its chief counsel, Roy M. 
Cohn, as well as other members of its staff, sought by improper means to obtain 
preferential treatment for one David G. Schine, United States Army, formerly 
chief consultant of the subcommittee, in that 

Then it lists 29 specifications. 

I would like now to break down the specific parts, insofar as your 
own personal knowledge is involved, that each of the three, to wit, 
Carr, Cohn, and McCarthy, may have played in the specific manner 
of utilizing improper means to obtain preferential treatment. Let's 
go first to Mr. Carr. 

Are there any specific occasions, to your personal knowledge, that 
Mr. Carr used improper means to obtain preferential treatment for 
Private G. David Schine? 

Secretary Stevens. I indicated this morning that in the meetings 
that Mr. Carr attended, he w^as 

Senator Mundt. Passive. 

Secretary Stevens. Passive about it, and Mr. Cohn did most of the 
talking. However, Mr. Adams had far more meetings with Mr. Carr 
than I did. 

Senator Mundt. I am questioning you solely now from the stand- 
point of your own personal knowledge. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Part of the task of this subcommittee is to find out 
one by one about these three individuals, whether they used improper 
means. I am talking now strictly about Mr. Carr and strictly about 
your own personal knowledge. At any time did Mr. Carr engage in 
improper means, in your opinion, to seek preferential treatment for 
G. David Schine? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION , 225 

Secretary Stevens. Not nearly to the extent that Cohn did. 

Senator Mundt. To what extent and on Avhat occasions? 

Secretary Stevens. It is very hard to define, Mr. Chairman, and I 
am not trymo; to evade it. I think Frank Carr took a relatively inac- 
tive part in the whole situation that we are discussing so far as my 
personal knowledge is concerned. 

Senator Mundt. In all events, Mr. Carr has been charged in this 
presentation with some very serious misbehavior. 

Secretarv Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator IMundt. In justice to you and in justice to him, I think our 
connnittee should know specifically when and what he did Avliich was 
improper. 

Secretary Stevens. I think that will no doubt come out-- 

Senator Mundt. Insofar as you know. 

Secretary Stevens. Insofar as I know, a relatively inactive part. 

Senator JNIundt. Does the Chair understand that insofar as you 
know, you absolve him of engaging in improper means, and if not, 
when and where did he do something improper? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I would say this : I think Mr. Carr might 
have been a little more active in trying to stop some of the conversa- 
tions that went on, and he did not do that. 

Senator Mundt. What did he do positively that was improper? 

Secretary Stevtjns. Well, he would sit there and listen to Cohn 
make these statements and possibly in a mild way take part, but 
nothing, I saj^, of more than a passive or inactive nature so far as my 
personal knowledge of Carr is concerned. 

Senator Mundt. Well, may I say, Mr. Stevens, that I think that you 
owe it to the committee and to INIr. Carr, either to say that insofar as 
your own personal knowledge is concerned you absolve him of charges 
of improper treatment, or that you specify the way and the time in 
which he was improper. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I will have to do a little thinking about 
that, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. You may think. 

Secretary Stevens. Do you mean I have to think right now ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

ISIr. Carr is being charged right now and I think you should be 
specific about it. 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. He is being charged by the Department of the 
Army, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. I am not trying to absolve him as a result of your 
testimony, but I am trying to find out whether your testimony impli- 
cates him or absolves him. 

Secretary Stevens. I would say the testimony of others would 
implicate him far more than any testimony of mine. 

Senator Mundt. Let us stick to the testimony of Bob Stevens and 
the information that Bob Stevens has for our committee. 

Of your own personal knowledge, are you charging him with im- 
proper treatment, improper means or improper inducements, or in- 
timidation ; or are you as far as your own personal relationships are 
concerned absolving him? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I say, I think that Carr could have stepped 
up and stopped some of this conversation that went on, and he didn't 
do it on the other hand. 

40620'— 54— pt. 6 3 



226 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator Mundt. Is that the extent of your charge, that Mr. Carr 
failed to step up and stop either Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn from 
saying things that you think they should not have said? 

Secretary Stevens. If he had given any indication of doing that, I 
would ahsolve him. 

Senator Mundt. Is that the extent of your charge, that he failed to 
step up to stop them from saying things that you thought were 
improper? 

Secretary Stex-ens. As I say, Carr took part in a minor way, in these 
discussions that took place. 

Senator Mundt. What did he do beyond failing to step up to stop 
Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn from saying things that you thought 
were improper ; what else did he do, if anything ? 

Senator INIcCartiiy. Mr. Chairman, one very brief point of order, 
I think that the record should show that Mr. Carr has no jurisdiction 
over my chief counsel, Mr. Cohn, nor over the chairman. 

Senator Mundt. That is something that you may bring up in cross- 
examination, and I don't believe that is a point of order. I don't 
suppose that Mr. Stevens would be in possession of that information. 

I am trying to find out, in justice to Mr. Carr, and I am sure that 
you want to be fair 

Secretary Stevens. I do. 

Senator Mundt. Just exactly the extent of the charge that you are 
now leveling from your own personal knowledge against Mr. Carr. 

You have said that you charge him with sitting there passively and 
not trj'ing to stop Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn when they talked 
to you about Schine. 

Secretary Stevens. And taking minor parts in the conversation. 

Senator Mundt. The chairman's time has expired. 

Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Secretary, what authority do you have 
with respect to granting commissions in the Army ? 

Secretary Stfa'ens. Commissions? 

Senator McClellan. Yes. Direct commissions as was requested 
for Mr. Schine? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. Well, I never have granted one. 
_ Senator ]\IcClellan. Who has the authority ? And I want to de- 
cide the source of the appeal and of whom it was made, and what you 
did about it. 

Assuming that his application had been found proper and he was 
qualified, who would have made the decision to grant a commission 
or who made the decisions to reject the request? 

(Tlie witness consulted with his counsel.) 

Senator ]\IcClellan. Do we have to have that much conference to 
find out who had authority to grant a direct commission? 

Secretary Stevens. Most of that, most of that was delegated, the 
authority for that delegated to the technical services, that is, like 
the Corps of Engineers, or the Judge Advocate General, or the Chemi- 
cal Corps. 

Senator McClellan. Well, who, what position, or who occupies 
what position can accept or approve an application for a direct com- 
mission and grant it? 

Secretary Stevens. The chief of a technical service in my name. 

Senator McClellan. In your name? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 227 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Do the}^ come to you directly ? 

Secretary Ste\^ns. No. 

Senator McClellan. Do they ever reach you ? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Do you ever pass judgment on them? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. It is done by somebody under your command 
or under your direction? 

Secretary Stevens. And I delegate it. 

Senator McClellan. Wlien they make the decision, if they make a 
decision rejecting an application for a commission, is it then carried 
to you for your approval, for your review, or for any action whatso- 
ever ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator JSIcClellan. Well, tell us exactly what happened in the 
case of Schine ? Who undertook to prosecute the request for a direct 
commission for him 'i 

Secretary STE^•ENS. Well, General Reber was first contacted by 
Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McClellan. Well, he was just a liaison man between the 
Hill over here, between the Congress and the Department? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. So he conveyed the message to someone? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. To whom ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, he filled out an application, and it was 
the Adjutant General's Office that processed it. 

Senator McClellan. The Adjutant General processed it? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. Schine went there to fill out the application? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. And he did fill it out there? 

Secretary Stevens. Finally he did ; yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Finally he did. How many trips did he make 
down there to fill it out ? 

Secretary Stearns. I think two. 

Senator ]\IcClellan. Do you know why he didn't fill it out com- 
pletely the first time ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Well, you took no action on it until he made 
the second trip and completed it ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. Now, what action was taken on that applica- 
tion after he completed it, tell us what happened to it ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, it was referred to the technical service, 
in this case, the Transportation Corps. 

Senator McClellan. Who is the technical service now, who is at 
the head of it and who passed on the application ? 

Secretary Stevens. General Yount was the head of it. 

Senator McClellan. General 

Secretary STE^'ENS. Yount, Y-o-u-n-t. He is Chief of Transpor- 
tation. 



228 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator McClellan. Is he the one that rejected the application? 

Secretary Stevens. He said that having looked over the applica- 
tion and seen wliat tlie qualifications were, and what the needs of 
his service were, that they had no place open for a commission for 
that particular qualification. 

Senator McClellan. Who did he ^ive that report to? 

Secretary Stevens. Back to the Adjutant General, I would assume. 

Senator McClellan. He reported to the Adjutant General after 
examining the application that he wasn't qualified or that they had 
no place for an officer of his qualifications? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. Then what occurred? Did you pass on it 
at that time? 

Secretary Stev^ens. Then the Adjutant General would have notified 
General Reber, and he in turn would notify Mr. Schine. 

Senator McClellan. When it was taken up with you direct, either 
by Senator IMcCarthy, or by Mr. Schine, or Mr. Cohn, what did you 
do, if anything, to try to get him a direct commission? Did you 
take any action, any positive action to try to prosecute that applica- 
tion successfully? 

Secretary Stevens. No, the action was turned down by the Depart- 
ment of the Army. That was the end of it as far as we were concerned. 

Senator McClellan. Did you have the authority, if you had wanted 
to do it, as Secretary of the Army, to overrule the action that had 
been taken by j'our subordinates in turning down the application and 
grant him a commission? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say that I had the authority to do it, 
but I couldn't conceive of doing such a thing. 

Senator McClellan. You couldn't conceive of doing that? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. You have never done it for anyone else? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Therefore, you risked their judgment and 
relied upon their decision with respect to whether an applicant is 
qualified? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. So I want to ask you this question : State 
whether you did everything you and your subordinates, with respect 
to this application of Mr. Schine for a direct commission, that you 
would do and have done for all others who have so applied? 

Secretary Stevens. Everything. 

Senator McClei-lan. Do you spend as much time on every one of 
them as you have spent on this one ? 

Secretary Stevens. I never had one that was in the same possible 
category as this one. 

Senator McClellan. Well, what has placed this one in a different 
category to the others? 

Sjcretary Stevens. This constant and repeated contact in regard 
to Schine as represented by my summary of 65 telephone calls, 19 
meetings, and so forth. 

It was a question of accumulated effect of many, many individual 
actions, winch totaled up to pressure that we were under. 
Senator Mcndt. Sorry, the Senator's time has expired. 
Senator .McClellan. I was just getting started. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 229 

Senator IMuxdt. Senator Dirksen, of Illinois. 

I think the Senators will learn to apj^reciate the value of 10 minutes. 

Senator McClellan. I still favor unlimited debate, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Well, we will all have another turn at bat, approx- 
imatelv an hour and a half hence. 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Secretary, I have just a few questions. First 
let us refer to the Fort Monmouth meeting at which time some 
members of the oroup who were there could not gain admission to the 
toji-secret laboratory. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. What type of clearance is required to enter that 
laboratory ? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. That would be very top clearance. 

Senator Dirksen, Is that what they call Q clearance? 

Secretary Stevens. No; that wouldn't be a Q clearance. Top 
secret. 

Senator Dirksen. Top-secret clearance? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator " Dirksen. Now, do Senators automatically have that 
clearance ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think they do. Senator Dirksen._ 

Senator Dirksen. But in any event, some distinction might be 
made between a Senator and a member of his staff ? 

Secretary Stevens. That was my feeling, that anybody that had 
been elected to Congress was entitled to visit the laboratory. 

Senator Dirksen. The party left Washington and went to Fort 
Monmouth, and I just assume that evidently the clearances were not 
provided for before they left Washington. Was that it? 

Secretary Stevens. We didn't know exactly what our plans for the 
day would be until we got there. Senator. As far as I know, no par- 
ticular preliminary planning was done. The result was that when we 
came to that particular lab the question of proper clearance came up. 
We couldn't settle the whole business in a matter of 3 or 4 minutes, so 
I made my on-the-spot decision and unfortunately Mr. Cohn didn't 
like it. 

Senator Dirksen. Where would clearance have to be obtained to 
enter that particular establishment? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. I would say that clearance would have to be 
made by our Intelligence people. 

Senator Dirksen. And made on an individual basis in each case? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator Dirksen. Somewhere it was not made for the staff; obvi- 
ously they could not enter that particular structure. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator Dirksen. The only reason for the question is that the 
record indicates that you apologized about the matter, and I just 
wondered whether that fact entered into your apology, some frustra- 
tion that having made the trip up there is was impossible for every- 
one to go into the laboratory. 

Secretary Stevens. That wasn't it. I dislike the use of the word 
"apology" even though I used it as Mr. Jenkins read it from the 
record. I have rethought about it and I feel that it was much 
more in the nature of an explanation than it was an apology. It 
wasn't anything to do with the fact that plans had gotten compli- 



230 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

cated there or anything. I was sorry that Mr. Cohn or anyone else 
was distressed. 

Senator Dirksen. Yoii testified a little while ago that General 
Partridge was shifted from his position as Chief of G-2. There 
were also other changes in the staff? 

Secretary Si-evens. That is right. 

Senator DiRKSEX. But you didn't particularize and say how many. 

Secretary Stevens. For example, the Vice Chief of Staff, and the 
Chief of Information, to mention two that I can think of offhand. 

There have been a lot of other changes, too, which I can particu- 
larize for you if you would like to have them, Senator. 

Senator Dirksen. It is not material except to indicate whether this 
stood by itself 

Secretary Stevens. Oh, no. 

Senator Dirksen. Or whether there were a number of changes. 

Secretary Stevens. There were a number of changes made. It is 
routine procedure with an incoming new Chief of Staff to so staff his 
organization that he has the people that he wants to handle that tre- 
mendous job in the way that he thinks it should be handled. 

Senator Dirksen. Going back for a moment to the application of 
Mr. S^'hine for a commission, did you examine the written applica- 
tion and are you familiar with Avhat is in it? 

Secretary Stevens. No; I am not personally familiar with that 
written application. 

Senator Dirksen. There has been very little testimony thus far 
Avith respect to qualifications, but if you are not familiar with the 
application itself, what the principal recitals are, namely, the facts 
that would have to be the foundation for consideration for a com- 
mission or for intelligence duty, I presume that question ought to be 
directed to some other person. So if you have no firsthand familiarity 
Avith the application, I shall not press it. 

Secretary Stevens. No. I haven't studied the application person- 
ally. 

Senator Dirksen. That is all for the moment, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Secretary, what gave rise to the release of the 
so-called chronology of events which I think was released on March 
11? 

Secretary Stevens. What gave rise to it? 

Senator Jackson. Yes. 

•Secretary S'it:\t:ns. I would say. Senator Jackson, that it was an 
increasing interest on the part of the Senators and Congressman on 
this Hill that gave rise to it. 

_ Senator Jackson. At what time did you reach the so-called break- 
ing ])oint 111 your relations with the chairman of the committee and 
the stu f r ? I have listened very carefully to all of the events, meetings, 
teleplionc calls, and so on, that occurred over a period of time dating 
back to your return from ]\Iontana, and until after your return from 
the Far East. About what time did you decide to put down on paper 
what was going on and to do something about it? 

Sccretai-y Stevens. This chronology that you referred to was pre- 
pared, I would say, during the first week or 10 days of March. 

Senator Jackson. What I am trying to get at, what was the break- 
ing point ( 1 on had all these meetings and conversations which later 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 231 

resulted in serious charges. What happened, what took place, that 
made it necessary for you or someone under your direction to send the 
chronology of events and charges? 

Secretary Stevens. I am afraid I have been slow in getting your 
question. 

Senator Jackson. Maybe my question was not very clear. I am 
sitting over at this side of the table trying to find out just what went 
on. 

Secretary Stea-exs. What had happened was that the question of 
Schine's training at Fort Dix had become a matter of some interest 
to the Congress of the United States. We had received a fair number 
of letters in regard to the matter, extending over a period of several 
weeks. We acknowledged those letters and said we were looking into 
the matter and would supply information later on. 

Time went by, and more inquiries came in, and it finally got to the 
point where this information had to be made available to this com- 
mitte and to other Members of the Congress who had inquired about it. 

Senator Jackson. At what point in this chronology of events did 
you come to the conclusion that the requests and demands made of you 
were improper and had gone beyond the point of propriety ? Do you 
have any idea ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say that that information started to 
accumulate back during the early period of training of Scliine at 
Dix, and it built up increasingly as time went on. 

Senator Jackson. You had reservations from the very beginning 
that it was a cumulative sort of thing? 

Secretary Stearns. I won't say that I had reservations, but it began 
to be apparent that ISIr. Schine, Private Schine, was something of a 
problem to the commanding oilicer at Fort Dix, and this began to 
become public property over a period of time, and Members of the 
Congress got interested in it. 

Senator Jackson. Word was being rumored around that requests 
of an unusual nature were being made in behalf of Mr. Schine? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, that was rumored around. 

Senator Jackson. Who prepared this chronology of events? Do 
I understand that it was a Mr. Brown in IMr. Hensel's office? 

Secretary Steatsns. That is right. 

Senator Jackson. According to the statement appearing in U. S. 
News & World Eeport of March 12, 1954, in which your charges and 
the charges of Senator McCarthy and the staff were printed, it was 
stated that : 

It is not a report. It is John Adams' version of the situation — 

This is coming from, I believe. Senator McCarthy and Mr. Colin and 
Mr. Carr. This is a direct quote : 

It is not a report. It is John Adams' version of the situation. There has been 
issued a twisted, distorted, untrue version written by a man who has a special 
interest in the situation. 

Secretary Stevens. Of course, I think that is a completely inaccu- 
rate and, in itself, unfair statement. 

Senator Jackson. That statement is not true ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Could you tell the committee — as I understand it, 
Mr. Brown in Mr. HensePs office prei)ared this ? 



232 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. That is rijrlit. 

Senator Jackson. Why was it sent to the Department of Defense ? 

Secretary Stevens. You see, Senator Potter wrote the Secretary of 
Defense a letter on this subject, dated, I think it was the 8th of March, 
and he put down some very pointed questions. The Secretary of 
Defense wanted to be in a position to answer Senator Potter's letter. 
The chronology 

Senator Jackson. Normally— Mr. Secretary, I do not mean to break 
in, but normally wouldn't you send the material, that is, prepare it in 
your office and send it to the Secretary of Defense for his reply « That 
is what confused me. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired, but you may an- 
swer the question. 

Secretary Stevens. Could I have it read, Senator? 

Senator Jackson. I will state it again very briefly : 

Normally when a letter is sent to the Secretary of Defense, a letter 
of inquiry, relating to the Army, wouldn't the Army normally prepare 
that information and forward it to the Secretary and let the Secretary 
send tiie reply covering the information sent by the Army? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, that frequently happens, Senator. That is 
normal procedure. 

Senator Jackson. In this case, however, it was not done ? 

Secretary Stevens. John Adams is the Department Counselor, and 
I think that had a bearing of why it went up to the Department of 
Defense. 

Senator Jackson. I understand I had only 6 minutes. 

Senator Mundt. I beg your pardon. I was told the time was 
up. The timekeeper was in error. You have 4 minutes more. 

Senator Jackson. I understand I have 4 minutes in which to expire. 

Mr. Stevens, can you tell us about this agreement whereby the Army 
granted passes at Fort Dix to Private Schine? Now, let me just con- 
tinue that by stating that according to the Army report : 

On Decemlier 6, 1053, General Ryan telephoned Mr. Adams from Fort Dix and 
stated the matter of handling Private Schine was becoming increasingly difficult 
since the soldier was leaving the post nearly every night. 

Now. on page 11 of your statement of Friday, I mean of your state- 
ment of charges, you are quoted as saying that you had told General 
Ryan that Schine should be made available upon the request of the 
committee staff over week ends when required to complete Schine's 
work for the committee and provided that it did not interfere with his 
training. 

Then the statement of charges submitted by Senator McCarthy's in 
paragraph 13 of the charges state that, and I quote : 

to call participation in arrangements to have Private Schine devote many hours 
over and al)()ve Army training which could otherwise have been spent in recrea- 
tion, tn tlie completion of vital committee work, a request for preferential treat- 
ment defies reason. All such arrangements were made with the full concurrence 
of Mr. Stevens. 

Now, can you just tell the committee about this arrangement or 
whatever it was at Fort Dix? First, Avas it understood that Private 
Schine could leave the fort at night after the completion of his training 
or was it just week ends, or Avas it any time the committee requested 
his release for committee work? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 233 

Secretary STE^^:NS. Senator Jackson, it was at any time that the 
committee actually needed him for work, providin*; it didn't interfere 
with his training and also providing that it was under General Kyan's 
jurisdiction to make a determination on whether or not it complied 
with those provisions. 

Senator Jackson. But you see on your statement of charges, I 
believe on page 11, you stated that you told General Ryan that he 
should be made available upon the request of the committee staff over 
weekends. 

Xow, what was the operating arrangement at Fort Dix? I realize 
that it may not have been a written document, but what sort of an 
understanding was the general operating under? I take it that Gen- 
eral Ryan found it a bit difficult to carry out his directives. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. The original arrangement, you 
will recall, Senator Jackson, was temporary duty to New York. 

Senator Mundt. I am sorry, this time it is official and your time 
is up. 

Secretary Stevens. I hadn't finished my answer. 

Then, that was changed to being available for committee work, from 
Fort Dix when actually needed by the committee and providing it 
didn't interfere with his training. At first that was believed to be 
needed on an evening during the course of a week, would he be made 
in the nature of weekends, but when the question came up that if he was 
available providing it was legitimate committee business and did not 
interfere with his training, that also Avas permitted subject to General 
Ryan's view of the individual situation. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the Chair 
that I have something which I consider of extreme importance in 
regard to this investigation and if m.y turn comes up when I am absent, 
Mr. Cohn will take it. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

May the Chair ask the timekeeper not to take from Senator Potter's 
time the answer of Secretary Stevens, and we will charge that time 
to Mr. Jenkins because he has time to spare, and nobody else has. 

Senator Potter. I think it generous action of the chairman. 

Mr. Secretary, I have to preface my question. I would like to state 
this, that I am neither a counsel for any of the parties nor am I a 
devil's advocate in this controversy. 

I would like to ask this one question : Is it not a fact that there 
was an original chronological outline of the order of events that was 
prepared in your office, or in the Department of the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say there was a file of papers, Senator 
Potter, containing a lot of material, which was subsequently put 
together into this chronology, and everything that was in that 
file is available to this committee. 

Senator Potter. Is it not a fact that certain statements which now 
appear in your statement of specifications were made available to the 
press, or were printed in the press, several weeks prior to the time 
that the Members of Congress received the chronological outline of 
the order of events which you have submitted ? 

Secretary Stevt.ns. That may be so, Senator Potter, but if so I don't 
know how it was done. 

Senator Potter. You have no knowledge as to whether that so-called 
leak came from the Army or from other sources ? 



234 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevexs. All I can say is that I can only speak for myself, 
and I assure you that it did not come from me. 

Senator Poiter. Have you heard that a leak had occurred in the 
Department of the Army concerning this chronological order of events 
before Members of the Congress received the report? 

Secretary Sj'evexs. Oh, you mean the chronology of events as finally 
submitted to the committee? 

Senator Potter. Not as finally submitted, but in its original form. 

Secretary Ste\-ens. Will you repeat that question for me. Senator, 
or can it be read by the reporter? 

Senator Potter. The question is whether you had any personal 
knowledge as to whether members of your staff had leaked this infor- 
mation to the press prior to the time that the Members of Congress 
received the chronological order of events in its final form; I am 
speaking now of the information contained in its original form or as 
you cite in the files. 

Secretary Stevexs. I know, of course, that there was original form, 
as you call it, Senator, and I have heard that there were newspaper 
people who were aware of what was in that. But I personally didn't 
have a copy of it, and I certainly had nothing to do with any leak in 
connection with it. I did hear rumors that it had leaked. 

Senator Poiter. Did you question any of your staff as to whether 
they had leaked this information to the press? 

Secretary Stevexs. I didn't personally question them, no; but evi- 
dently from what you said it did leak. "\Anio saw it and when, I don't 
know. 

Senator Potter. I am sure you are familiar with the fact that it 
was more or less an open secret for a month that the Army had in its 
possession this report, and the fragmentary information that came to 
my attention — and, I assume, to the attention of other Members of 
Congress — was the basis for my request that, if the Army had this 
information, the committee certainly should receive it and take what- 
ever action was necessarj-. 

Secretary Stevexs. Sure, I certainly agree with that. Senator. I 
know a number of people who saw the report that you are referring to. 
Evidently, from what you say, some newspaper people saw it. I 
would be surprised if any of them had a copy of it. 

Senator Potter. When did it come to your knowledge that the 
Department of the Army was keeping a chronological report of this 
controx ersy ? 

Secretary Stevens. It came to my knowledge after my return from 
the Far East on the r;d of February. 

Senator Potter. You had no knowledge of it prior to that time ? 

Secretary Stevexs. That is correct. 

Senator Potter. If I may switch to another subject, during the 
cross-examination this morning there was much discussion concerning 
the number of persons let out at Fort Monmouth because they were 
security risks. 

Secretary Stevexs. Yes, sir. 

Senator PorrER. How many of the men -who were suspended as 
security risks Mere suspended without the Army having any prior 
knowledge that they were security risks until Senator McCarthy's 
conunitlee stai'ted this investigation? 

Secretary Stevens. Not a single one, as far as I can recall. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 235 

Senator Potter. In other words, it is your testimony that the Army 
had a report, and they were investigating all the persons that were 
later separated as security risks. 

Secretary Stevens. As far as I know, that is correct ; all of them. 

Senator Potter. I would like to revert to your statement which had 
some interest to me. I would like to ask this one question on your 
report of chronological events : How many other Members of Congress 
requested this report? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that there was something like 8 or 10, 
Senator. 

Senator Potter. Eight or 10 Members of Congress? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Senator Potfer. I think as long as my name has been brought into 
this question of asking for the report, I should state this : When I 
received the report, the only persons who saw it, other than myself, 
were Senator McCarthy, Senator Dirksen, and Senator Mundt. So 
the publication of this report did not come from my office. 

Mr. Stevens, I was interested in your statement in which I believe 
you made four points of the efforts made in behalf of the committee 
staff to secure preferential treatment for Mr. Schine. I note that 
efforts were made to release Mr. Schine from KP duty. Would you 
elaborate on that, because it happened that in my first 24 hours in the 
Army I served 17 hours on KP, and I have a little personal interest in 
how that could be done. 

Secretary Stevens, Senator Potter, I can't give you the detail on 
that because I just don't have it. General Kyan, however, is available, 
and will testify if you wish him to, with respect to all the details of 
this matter. I personally have not been able to follow all the day-by- 
day activities of Private Schine or other privates in every camp that 
we have in the United States Army. We have some other problems 
we have to deal with too. General Ryan would be glad to give you 
the detail on that. 

Senator Potter. Do you know whether Private Schine was relieved 
from KP duty or not ? 

Secretary Stevens. It is my impression that he was relieved, but I 
am not sure of that. I would rather have General Ryan testify on it. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington is recognized for 10 minutes. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Secretary, I have just a few questions 
here. 

As I understand it, you testified that the draft boards, the records 
and the organization itself, are not under the Army, is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator STmNCTON. At a point you mentioned that the Army at 
Fort Monmouth is working with the Federal Bureau of Investigation 
in connection with espionage at Fort Monmouth. I do not want to 
take my 10 minutes in having you explain that to me, but I would 
appreciate your making up for the record some details with respect 
to that situation which you feel the public could know about. In 
other words, what was the nature of the relationship, how were they 
working with the Army at Fort Monmouth. Will you do that, please, 
for the report ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. Senator Symington, may I coordinate 
that with ISIr. Hoover of the FBI in doing it ? 

Senator Symington. Of course. 



236 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

I would like to ask this question : Are you the head of the Army, or 

is General Ridf^way ? , , <. i » 

Secretary Stevens. I am the head ot the Army. 
Senator Symington. Do you believe in civilian control of the mili- 
tary services ? 

Secretarv Stevens. I do. . . i j. . j. , 

Senator Symington. Do you consider that it is the function of the 
Secretary to have the Department put in the best possible, most proper 
position with tlie Congress and the people? 
Secretarv Stevens. Yes, I do. 

Senator "Symington. AVould you consider it proper to do your best 
to have the Army, which you head, and yourself be in the best pos- 
sible position with this committee ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am not sure I follow that, sir. 

Senator Symington. I will repeat it. Would you consider it proper 

to do your best to have the Army, which you head, and yourself, to in 

turn be in the best possible position it can be with this committee? 

Secretary Stevens. I want to do the best I can along that line, sir, 

with tliis committee and the other committees. 

Senator Symington. Was your interest in stopping the committee's 
investigation at Fort Monmouth, or stopping the publicity, or both, 
or what? 

Secretary Stevens. I did not want to stop the investigation. I 
wanted to change the nature of the hearing, or at least to have the 
publicity that was given out come nearer to reflecting the actual facts 
than was tlie case at Fort Monmouth. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Secretary, if a committee of the Congress 
witli proper authority expresses interest in any particular situation, 
does not tliat mean that that particular situation is automatically ex- 
pedited in the Army itself? 
Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. The next question I would like to ask, Mr. 
Secretary: As I understand it, you did not prepare these charges, is 
that correct ? 

Secretary STE^^:Ns. That is right. 

Senator Symington. If you had prepared them — as I remember it, 

they were signed by your counsel, Mr. Welch 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. That is right. 

Senator Symington. If you had prepared them following the ques- 
tioning of the Chairman, would you have left the name of Mr. Carr 
out? 

Secretary S'it.vens. Would I have left the name of Mr. Carr out? 
Senator Symington. Yes, as one of the three principals. 
Secielary S'ravENS. No, I don't think so. 

Senator Symington. I woukl like to say in Mr. Carrs interest, Mr. 
Secretary, tliat I wasn't very happy about your replies to those ques- 
tions, personally. I do not know whether it is in order to say that. 
Now I would like to ask this question: I believe you said that Mr. 
Schine was assigned to New York before November 10 and then the 
counsel said something about Mr. Schine not being in the Army until 
November 10. Clear that up for me, will you? 

Secretary Stevens. The original plan was to put him on temporary 
duty with the First Army in New York on the day he was inducted, 
which was November :). Shortly thereafter. Senator McCarthy indi- 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 237 

cated that he would like to have that temporary duty in New York 
canceled, and thereafter Mr. Cohn indicated that as long as the week 
had moved along a certain length of time, he thought that Schine 
should stay off over the weekend in order to do committee work, and 
that was done. 

Senator Symingtox. I did not mean to interrupt you. Had you 

finished ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. Yes. 

Senator Symington. I would like to ask the question another way, 
then : At the time you had the lunch in the Pentagon, was Mr. Schine 
in the Army or was he not ? 

Secretary Stevens. He w\as. 

Senator Symington. My final question, Mr. Secretary: Whatever 
the agreement was with respect to Mr. Schine, why was it made and 
how was it violated ? In other words, if it was agreed that Mr. Schine 
should be off every night, then why is there any complaint when he 
did get off? If it is not agreed that he should get off, then why did 
General Ryan have to telephone to get permission to get him off? 
There seems to be some difference there. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, the agreement w\as that Mr. Schine was 
to be available for committee business, and frankly there seemed to 
be a lot of committee business. 

Senator Symington. Well, I don't wish to pursue it, but if an 
agreement was that he could be off for committee business, and the 
statements made were that he was going to be off for committee 
business, then why is it violation of an agreement? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, perhaps there may be involved a question 
of what is committee business. 

Senator Symington. Well, who decided that is wasn't committee 
business ? 

Secretary Stevens. Who decided that it wasn't? 

Senator Symington. Yes. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, there was a further provision that it 
could not interfere with his training. Senator, and so, of course, with 
that provision General Ryan had that. 

Senator Symington. That was part of the agreement? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator Symington. And the decision was made that the number 
of times he was asked to get off for committee business did interfere 
with his training ? 

Secretary Stevens. If it did, then he was not supposed to get off. 

Senator Symington. Well, did it, in your opinion, or General Ryan's 
oi^inion? 

Secretary Stevens. Interfere with his training? 

I would rather have General Ryan testify on that because he actually 
knows. 

Senator Symington. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman, 
at this time. 

Senator IMundt. Senator Dworshak. 

Senator Dworsiiak, I have no question. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, you now have 10 minutes and 3 micro- 
phones. 

Mr. Welch. At this moment, I want to ask only one question, which 
I unhappily dealt w^ith in the form of a statement of my own. Is it 



238 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

a fact, Mr. Stevens, that the specifications that were drawn and signed 
by me as your counsel, were drawn without your active participation ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct, on short notice. 

Mr, Welch. And did you learn that Mr. St. Clair and I worked 
overtime and a way after dark on the night that they were prepared ? 

Secretary Stevens. I did. 

Mr. "Welch. That is all at the moment. 

Senator Muxdt. Now, Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Stevens, there is one matter that concerns me very 
deei)ly here, and that is the matter of Frank Carr. I was one of 
those Vho, I might tell you, attempted to persuade him to give up one 
of the top jobs in the Federal Bureau of Investigation to come with 
our committee, and now in the specifications filed by the Army there 
is a charge that improper means Avere used to get preferential treat- 
ment for Mr. Schine by Mr. Frank Carr on October 2, 1953, in that 
Mr. Carr on that date, and I quote : 

Sought to induce or persuade the Secretary of the Army to give Schine some 
kind of special assignment and some liind of special treatment. 

Xow, is that charge made by you true or is it false? I think in 
justice to Mr. Carr that should be acknowledged at this time. 

Secretary Stevens. I just want to check the reading. 

Well, Mr. Cohn, it is like I said before, in my mind, that ]\Ir. Carr 
was not nearly as active in that conversation as you were, but he was 
there, and in my opinion took a lesser part in it. 

Mr. CoHN. JNIr. Stevens, will you tell Senator INIundt, please, sir, 
and the committee any one word that was spoken by Frank Carr 
about Dave Schine on that day ? 

Secretary Stevens. I can't recall the exact words. 

Mr. Cohn. Do you recall that any words were spoken by him about 
Dave Schine on that date? 

Secretary Stevens. I recall that he, in a minor way, backed you up 
in connection with the statements you were making. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Stevens, is it not a fact that in the series of events, 
this o4-page report released by the Army, under date of March 11, 
1953, in giving a detailed recital of what took place on October 2, you 
si)ecifically said that all of the talking about Dave Schine had been 
done by me and you did not even mention Mr. Carr's name? 

Secretary Ste\ens. I said that Mr. Carr played a minor part. 

Mr. CouN. Sir, I am trying to ask now whether Mr. Carr played 
any i)art, and if he did, I would like you to tell the committee just 
what part he did play. 

Senator Mundt. the Chair believes in fairness to all of the ques- 
tuiners, and it is perfectly proper that the witness have time to consult 
notes and counsel; that those considtations the timekeeper should 
take out of (he 10 minutes so that nobody is deprived. 

Mr. Cohn. Thank you very much. 

Senator M(Cai;tiiy. Mr. Chairman 

Senator Mindt. lie is about to answer a question. 

Senator McCaiithy. AVhile Mr. Stevens is consulting his notes may 
1 explain to the Chair that I was absent for a number of minutes 
here because I was interviewing a witness whom I think will have 
jnfonnation of tivmendous importance to this committee, and I am 
seeing him again tonight, and 1 will give the Chair a report tomorrow 
morning. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 239 

Senator Mundt. That statement will have to come out of Mr. 
Cohn's ten minutes, but that is all right. 

Mr. Stevens. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, my recollection remains as I have indi- 
cated; namely, that Mr. Carr took a minor part in this particular 
discussion. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Stevens, in the Army events, and I want to start 
with this first; you are the only possible witness on your side as to 
this particular conversation, are you not, and the only three people 
who were present were yourself, Mr. Carr, and myself; is that right? 

Secretary Stevexs. That is right. 

Mr. CoHisr. So that there — by the way, do you have a monitoring 
machine installed in your office to take down what is said? 

Secretary Stevexs. I do not. 

Mr. CoHN. I see. So that the only three people there were your- 
self, myself, and Mr. Carr; is that right ? 

Secretary Stevexs. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. So that if there were any improper conduct by Mr. 
Carr, and if he had used any improper means to get preferential 
treatment for Private Schine or anyone else, you would be the only 
one in position to know that other than us; is that right? What I 
mean to say is you would be the only source of information for Mr. 
Welch, and the other people drawing up this account of what hap- 
pened in your office on October 2, when only three people in the world, 
Secretary Stevens, Cohn, and Carr were present ? 

Secretary Stevexs. That is right. 

Mr. CoHX. I would now ask you, sir, whether or not it is a fact that 
when you gave a full account of what happened on that day in the 
Army event number G, dated October 2, 1953, you specifically said 
that the discussion about Schine was stated by Mr. Cohn, and that 
there is no mention whatsoever of Mr. Frank Carr having partici- 
pated in that conversation ? 

Secretary Stevexs. Certainly, that is true; but that doesn't mean 
that Mr. Carr didn't participate in the conversation. 

Mr. CoHX. Are you now saying he did, sir ? 

Secretary Stevex'^s. In my opinion, he did, that is my recollection. 

Mr. CoHX. Would you tell the committee what he said, please ? 

Secretar}^ Stevexs. I cannot tell you. I said you did most of the 
talking, and Carr backed you up in what I have referred to as a minor 
or lesser way. 

Mr. CoHX. Can you remember one word that Mr. Carr said on the 
subject of Schine? 

Secretary Stevexs. I say in a very minor way. 

Senator INIcCarthy. May I interrupt, Mr. Cohn ? 

Secretary Stevens, I have been trying to follow your answers, both 
to Senator Mundt and to other Senators, and Mr. Cohn, when asked 
you about this, and you say that Carr backed up Mr. Cohn. 

Do I understand that you mean he backed him up by silence or 
backed him up by conversation, and if he backed him up by conversa- 
tion, then let us have the conversation. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, first of all, he did nothing to stop the 
conversation. 

Senator McCarthy. All right, now we have silence. From there 
let us go on. 



240 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Ste\t:xs. And secondly, Mr. Cohn did most of the talk- 
ing, as the chronology indicates but Mr. Carr, in my recollection, also 
in a lesser way, a far lesser way, brought up the same thing. 

Senator McCarthy. Look, Bob, you are accusing Frank Carr of 
something very serious. 

Secretary Stev-ens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. You say that he tried to improperly influence 
you. Now, if he said something that was improper, we should know 
what he said. If he didn't say anything improper, and if you can't 
remember anything improper, then you should tell us. Let me say 
this : I think that j^ou are tiying to give us an honest account. 

Secretary Ste\t-ns. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Some of my friends don't agree with that, I 
may say. 

]Mr. CoHN. I am not one of those, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. I think it is only fair to ask of you to tell 
us what Frank Carr did that was improper. 

Secretary Stevexs. AVell 

Senator McCarthy. What you are doing here. Bob, j^ou are asking 
a young man to be discharged from his job because of improper 
conduct. And you can't tell us what it is. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, Senator, the Department of the Army 
has put in this bill of particulars, and I think that there will be other 
material that will come before the committee that will bear on this. 

Senator McCarthy. Just a moment. If Mr. Cohn will yield for a 
moment, you say the Army put in this bill of particulars. No. 1, 
may I have it, the Army did not put in the bill of particulars. You 
and Mr. Adams put in the bill of particulars, and we are talking 
about one specification on or about October 2. That is a conversation 
between you, -Mr. Carr, and Mv. Cohn, and here is what your bill of 
particulars says. It says: 

On or about October 2, 1953, Mr. Cobn and Mr. Francis Carr, executive di- 
rector of tlie subcommittee, while discussing detailed plans for the conduct 
of investigation by the subcommittee at Fort Monmouth, N. J., sought to induce 
or persuade the Secretary of the Army to arrange for the assignment of Mr. 
Schine to a post in the New York City area, upon his induction into the Army, 
on the ground that it was considered desirable by Mr. Cohn to have Mr. Schine 
availal)le for consultation with the staff of the subcommittee to complete certain 
work which was alleged Mr. Schine was familiar. 

Now, the only witness other than JSIr. Carr and Mv. Cohn who can 
testify to that is 3'ourself. 

Secretary Stevexs, That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. This specification must be based upon your 
statement, I assume, to your coimsel ? 

Secretary Stevexs. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, just for your own benefit, and I am not 
trying to entrap you at all, I think the Secretary will agree with me 
on that, on page 226, Mr. Secretary, ]Mr. Jenkins asked this question : 

Did Mr. Carr make any statement whatever insofar as your recollection enables 
you to answer that question? 

Secretary Stevens. Do you mean with respect to David Schine? 

Mr. Jenkins. Did Mr. Carr make any statement at that conference, and did he 
intercede for Schine? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 241 

Answer — this was only last Friday, Bob — 

I do not recollect that he did, I think the conversation on Schine was entirely — 
was entirely — 
with Mr. Cohn. 

Now, I think you should tell us today whether you are changing 
that testimony, and if so why, and why since Friday only a matter of 
a limited number of hours you suddenly want to implicate Frank Carr 
in this. 

Has something occurred to make you change your mind? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, Senator, of course as I ponder over these 
events and attempt to probe my memory and get the facts before the 
committee 

Senator McCarthy. Could I ask the young man to move to one side 
so I can see the witness, or if he can get down a little lower. Will you 
do that? 

Senator Mundt, Go ahead. 

Secretary Stevens. As I say. Senator, when one is probing a mem- 
ory, as hard as I am probing mine, in order to get all of the facts before 
this committee, you do sharpen up things as you go along. I didn't 
in that direct examination, I couldn't recollect any specific thing that 
Frank Carr had said on this particular date, and I cannot recollect the 
specific thing now. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, can I interrupt you, here is a 
most serious charge made against my chief of staff, a young man with 
a record of 10 years with the FBI, head of their subversive squad. 
And you make this charge, and you say that Frank Carr improperly 
tried to influence you. You do that in your specifications 1 day. 

Senator Mundt. Senator, your timie is finished. 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to finish the question so when it 
comes around he can answer. You make the charge 1 day that Frank 
Carr did something improper and then you appear, under oath, and 
you say he said nothing. And then 3 days later you say yes, maybe 
he said something, and maybe he didn't, and you don't know, and you 
think he did, and maybe it was his silence. 

Now, I won't have a chance to ask you questions again for about 90 
minutes. In the meantime, I wish you would have your counsel or 
someone ponder that question and try it and give me an answer to it. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, I will ask you this question by way of 
further cross-examination : Did Senator McCarthy ever at any time 
threaten you in case you did not do things for Schine ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did he ever use any vituperative language? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did Mr. Cohn ever at any time make any threats 
against you if you did not do the things for Schine that he asked you 
to do? 

Secretary Stevens. According to my information, to which I have 
testified, he made some threats against the Army. 

Mr. Jenkins. But did he personnally ever make any threats to you? 

Secretary Stevens. Personally to me ? No. 



242 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Mr, Jexkins. I take it that you mean the threat or alleged threat 
at Fort Monmouth on October 20? Are those the threats to "which 
you refer i 

Secretary Stevens. That is part of them ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. A declaration of war? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. And a further complete investigation of the Army? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you ever communicate those threats to his boss, 
his superior, Senator McCarthy? 

Secretary Stevens. I think Senator McCarthy knew all about 
them, I would think. 

Mr. Jenkins. I didn't ask you that. Did you ever yourself con- 
vey those threats to Senator McCarthy ? 

Secretary Sn:vENS. I did not personally, but Senator McCarthy 
was right there on the occasion at Fort Monmouth when this all 
happened. 

Mr. Jenkins. I believe that Senator McCarthy was in the labora- 
tory with you, was he not ? 

Secretary SrEVENs. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. When this alleged explosion took place? 

Secretary Ste\^ns. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. You did not tell Senator McCarthy what you under- 
stood Mr. Cohn had said on that day ? 

Secretary Stevens. I didn't personally tell him, no. 

Mr. Jenkins. The Secretary of Defense is your immediate superior, 
is he not ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did vou convey those threats to him or inform him 
that such threats had been made, Secretary Wilson ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think that I did, probably. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you convey them to the Commander-in-Chief of 
the Army? 

Secretary Ste\tns. To 

Mr. Jenkins. To the President? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you convey that information to anyone? 

Secretary Stevens. Oh, yes, sir, people within my own organiza- 
tion who knew about it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, you have told about tendering your 

Slane to Senator McCartliy and the members of his staff to go to 
loston, is that right? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. What was the date of that? 

Secretary Stevens. That was on the I7th of November. 

Mr. Jenkins. How did you return to Washiiigton? 

Secretary Stevens. The Maguire Air Force Base there was kind 
enough to send me down on a small plane they had there. 

Mr. Jenkins. You tendered the services of your regular plane to 
the Senator and his staff to use in being conveyed to I3oston on that 
occasion ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't have a regular ])lane. 

Mr. Jenkins. The plane that you initially went up in? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 243 

Secretary Stevens. This is a United States Air Force plane tliat 
comes out of what they call the pool. 

Mr. Jenkins. What was the purpose of that, Mr. Secretary, if it 
wasn't to court favor with this committee ? 

Secretary Stevens. The purpose of it was to cooperate and make it 
possible for Senator McCarthy and his staff to get to Boston at some 
reasonable hour. They had committee business there the next 
morning. 

Mr. Jenkins. That was on November 17 ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. After these threats had been made by Mr. Cohn, you 
say ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. And after all of this controversy had been going on 
between you and the committee for weeks and weeks ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. In your specifications No. 8, which were filed, as I 
recall, on the 13th of this month, it is stated thusly, and I ask you to 
refer to specifications No. 8 in your bill of particulars : 

These requests were coupled with promises to limit or terminate hearings of 
committee on Fort Monmouth — 

Secretary Stevtsns. Wait until I catch this. What is the number, 
sir? 

Mr. Jenkins. No. 8. Will you now read to the committee your 
specification No. 8 filed against the LIcCarthy investigating com- 
mittee ? 

Secretary Stevens. "On or about November 6", sir? Is that the 
one you mean? 

Mr. Jenkins. Specification No. 8, if you will read that. 

Senator Mundt. Of your presentation dated April 13. Perhaps 
you are looking at the wrong memorandum. 

Mr. Jenkins. Not the events, but the specifications. 

Secretary Stevens (reading) : 

On or about November G, 1953, Senator McCarthy, Mr. Cohn, and Mr. Carr 
sought to induce and persuade Secretary Stevens and Mr. Adams to arrange for 
the assignment of Private Schine to New York City to study and report evidence, 
If any, of pro-Communist leanings in West Point textboolis. Mr. Cohn, in the 
presence of and with the consent of Senator McCarthy and Mr. Carr, sought to 
induce and persuade Secretary Stevens and Mr. Adams to arrange to make 
Private Schine available for subcommittee work while he was undergoing basic 
training at Fort Dix, N. J. These requests were coupled with promises reason- 
ably to limit or to terminate subcommittee hearings on Fort Monmouth. 

Mr. Jenkins. In other words, that was the consideration they of- 
fered you. In their request of you to assign Schine to the New York 
area, the inducement or consideration offered you on that occasion, 
according to you, was to limit or terminate hearings of the committee 
on Fort Monmouth, is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir ; I wouldn't say that was correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is that not wdiat is stated there, that they offer you a 
consideration with promises to limit or terminate the hearings of the 
committee on Fort Monmouth ? Is that not what you have said in that 
specification ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have been talking about the hearings, Mr. 
Jenkins, not the investigation. I have tried to make it clear 



244 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Mr. Jexkixs. To limit or terminate the hearings of the committee 
on Forth Monmouth. That is the consideration offered you, is it not, 
Mr. Stevens, according to you ? 

Secretary STE\'E]SiS. It is the hearings that I have been complaining 
about, not the investigation. 

Mr. Jenkins. Does not that indicate that you wanted these hear- 
ings — isn't it further evidence that you wanted these hearings 
terminated ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have testified that I wanted the hearings got- 
ten under control so they would not have the very bad effect that they 
were having, both in the public mind and on the Army. 

Mr. Jenkins. I believe you further testified that you wanted the 
hearings as well as the investigation suspended. 

Secretary Ste%'ens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You have not thus testified today ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, not the investigation, sir. The investi- 
gation, I said, should continue on, and I would make progress reports 
from time to time. 

Mr. Jexkins. Then you deny that that statement in your specifica- 
tion No. 8 indicates that you wanted the hearings limited or termi- 
nated ? You deny that ? 

Secretary Stevens. I said that — I think I used the language that I 
thought that the Fort IMonmouth hearings had served their purpose. 
In other words, they pointed the thing up, they focused the Army's 
attention on this matter. We were getting into it. We wanted the 
investigation to carry on, but to let us handle the thing unless and 
until we demonstrated that we couldn't handle it and clean this 
situation up. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you know why Senator McCarthy or his staff 
would have said to you, "Now you assign Schine to the New York area 
or let him study the context of the West Point textbooks, and if you 
will do that we will limit or terminate the hearings of our committee 
on Fort Monmouth" ? Do you know why they would have held out 
such a consideration to you if you had not previously asked for it? 

Secretary Stevens. As I said — I seem to have difficulty, Mr. Jen- 
kins, in trying to make this point clear — at the meeting in New York 
on the 14th, at the luncheon, I got the impression that Senator 
McCarthy and his committee were about ready to turn this investiga- 
tion, the prosecution of this investigation, over to the Army. We are 
now talking about the Gth of November. My thought was if they had 
anything in mind along about the 14th of October of turning the 
investigation over to the Army, certainly by the 6th of November that 
would be true. 

IVIr. Jenkins. IVIr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

Senator IVIundt. Mr. Secretary, I dislike to revert to this discussion 
about Frank Carr, but I think that I should temporarily do so, in 
justice to Mr. Carr ; because part of the reason for asking for specifica- 
tions on both sides of this was so that this committee could know spe- 
cifically what it was that was being charged against each one of the 
principals, so that the principal could in turn resi^ond and reply to the 
charges. 

When we had General Smith and General Reber here, I think they 
both testified in your presence that they did not consider it improper 
for Members of Congress or individual citizens or friends or relatives 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 245 

of inductees to request consideration for a commission provided that 
tliey felt that they had the qualifications for a commission. 

Do you share that reaction as expressed by Generals Reber and 
Smith? 

Secretary Stevens. I think it is perfectly all right for it to be asked 
for, one time. 

Senator Mundt. So that merely being present at a meeting where 
such a commission was being solicited would not, I take it, in your 
opinion, comprise on the part of Mr. Carr the utilization of improper 
means? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, Senator, I am trying my best. And one 
thing I don't want to do is I don't want to be unfair to Mr. Carr or 
anyone else. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure that that is correct. 

Secretary Stevens. I want to have it exactly, the truth out just 
exactly as it was. I cannot recall specific language by Mr. Carr. 
I therefore have to go on my recollection of the meeting in which the 
conversation with respect to Mr. Schine was definitely led by Mr. 
Cohn, and in my opinion Mr. Carr in a much lesser way was interested 
in the same thing. 

Senator JNIundt. You keep using the phrase, I believe, that Mr. 
Carr played a minor part. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Now, I ask you, sir, if we leave it as ambiguous as 
that, just how are we going to find out from Mr. Carr, when he is a 
witness, whether or not he played that minor part which you seem 
unable to define. 

Don't you think in justice to him that you should search your 
memory to the point where you discover what minor part he played or 
else insofar as your testimony is concerned state that you are not 
endeavoring to implicate him as being guilty of improper methods? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Chairman, I agree with that completely. I 
think that I certainly should search my memory to the very limit of 
my ability and I can assure you that that is what I am trying to do. 
I dislike to the nth degree to say or do anything that would be unfair 
to anybody like Mr. Carr. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. Because it is almost impossible for 
this committee to interrogate him about the charges until they are de- 
fined ; you appreciate that. 

Very well. I am not sure, Mr. Secretary, that this question should 
be directed to you, and if it should not you may tell me to whom it 
should be directed. But in your statement on page 152 which you read 
on Frida}^ 30U said that Schine had obtained 15 passes from the post, 
and that the majority of new personnel received only 3 passes. Are 
you in position to tell us why those 15 passes were procured, and what 
for, and in response to what pressure, and what he did at the time he 
took those passes ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am not personally. But we have witnesses 
that will be available. 

Senator Mundt. Will you name the witness to whom I should direct 
those questions ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say General Rielly and 

Senator Mundt. General Kielly and 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 



246 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator Muxdt. I want to read you now the telegram that you 
included in your testimony, dated JMarch 12, and it is the telegram 
which you stated you received from Senator McCarthy, That is on 
page 161 of the transcript. 

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

Your only comment in your statement was that the "important 
thing to note is that he admits having taken up with me the matter of a 
commission for Schine." The Chair agrees that that is important, and 
he thinks it is also important to know whether or not the statements 
contained in that telegram were correct or incorrect. 

Secretary Stevens. I think that they are incorrect, in the latter 
part of the telegram. 

Senator Mundt. Will you point out where the inaccuracies or the 
inadequacies were? 

Secretary Stevens. Because I don't think Senator McCarthy — I 
have no recollection of Senator McCarthy, and I would have had a 
recollection of it, stating that all of this business, it could all be 
handled just like everybody else. That part of the telegram is not in 
accordance 

Senator Munext. To the best of your recollection, he never made 
any such statement ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Otherwise the telegram is correct? That is the 
statements in the telegram? 

Secretary Stevens. I have, I believe, testified to the fact that Sen- 
ator McCarthy on at least one occasion, took this up. He states here 
"that the only time," and I am not prepared definitely 

Senator I^Iundt. It would not make any difference in the chairman's 
mind from "the only time" or "at least once." 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I mean 

Senator Mundt. Unless you are sure there was a second time. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Senator ]\Iundt. Are you sure there is a second time ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am not testifying to that effect now, sir, no. 

Senator Mundt. To the best of your present recollection, the state- 
ment in the telegram is correct, except the parts to which you have 
already drawn our attention? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, including tliat reference to "only took it 
up one time." I am not subscribing to that at this time ? 

Senator JMundt. Are you denying that at this time ? 

Secretary Stevens. Xo, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You are just saying you are not sure? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator :Mundt. There has been a lot of testimony about Fort 
Monmouth, atid the fact that some of the ]5ersonnel employed in the 
defense establishments may have been guilty of subversive conduct. 
May I ask, are some or most of the secret devices which are developed 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 247 

in the laboratories at Fort Monmouth ultimately processed or fabri- 
cated by private defense establishments? 

Sacretary Stevens. A lot of it is ; yes, most of it. 

Senator Muxdt. So that if unhappily there are subversive elements 
in private defense establishments working on the processes developed 
at Fort Monmouth, that would be placing the security of our country 
in jeopardy, would it not? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right, and that is the point that came 
up at the luncheon on November 6, when I said this was a problem 
for the whole Defense Establishment. 

Senator Mundt. One other question. On page 245, we have had a 
lot of discussion about the apology or explanation or whatever word 
most aprpopriately fits your conversation in which you said you 
tried to calm down Mr. Cohn. You have said nothing up to now 
as to what Mr. Cohn might have said in response. Did your explana- 
tion placate him, or was he as irritated as ever after you concluded? 

Secretary Stevens. From where I sat, I couldn't hear that he 
said anything, and if he did it was not within my hearing. 

Senator Mundt. This explanation must have been made to him in 
his hearing? 

Secretary Ste'\t:ns. Oh, yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. You directed your remarks to him ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. And as far as you can recall, he did not say any- 
thing ? 

Secretary Stevens. I didn't hear him say anything. 

Senator Mundt. Could you tell by looking at him whether he 
seemed placated or whether his irritation was there? 

Secretary Stevens. I think maybe it helped a little, but I think 
Mr. Cohn was still very provoked. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. To get this back in proper perspective, I have 
listened to this testimony and, according to my recollection of it there 
are some eight specific requests and different requests, requests of a 
different nature, for preferred treatment for Mr. Schine. I want to 
ask you about these. I will try to ask you in their chronological order 
as I remember the testimony, and I will ask you to answ^er and state 
whether they are true. 

The first request that came to you was for a direct commission in 
the Army ; is that correct ? 

Secretary Stev-ens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. The second request was for a direct com- 
mission in one of the other branches of the service ; is that correct ? 

Secretary Ste\"ens. That was another occasion. I am trying to 
think of the chronology of it, Senator. 

Senator McClellan. Maybe the chronology is not all-important. 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator McClellan. Such a request was made. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. The third I have here is a commission in the 
intelligence service under Mr. Dulles, and you said you went over 
yourself to try to secure that for him. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 



248 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator McClellan. That is three. The fourth I have here is 
that if he was inducted into the service, they wanted him then re- 
assigned to the committee to do committee work. Was that a request 
for a peimanent reassignment to the committee? 

Secretary Stevens. Tliere were several requests. One was lor tem- 
porary duty in New York 

Senator McClellan. I know about the temporary duty, but I 
understood from the testimony — if I am wrong I want to be cor- 
rected — tluit there was a request when lie got into the service to be 
reassigned to the committee, to serve the committee as he had before. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senat(~.r McClellan. Is that true ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, but there was a request when he got into the 
service to have him assigned directly to New York without basic 
training. 

Senator McClellan. I know that. But there was no request for 
him to be reassigned back to the committee to serve the committee? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. I was mistaken about that. Then there was 
a request that he be assigned to the New York area. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. What service was he to perform there under 
that request? 

Secretary Stevens. One suggestion was to check West Point 
textbooks. 

Senator McClellan. That was a letter request, was it not? What 
was he to do when he was first to be assigned there and when the 
chairman changed his mind about it and said that he considered that 
it might not be well to do that — what was he to do on that first 
request ? 

Secretary Stevens. That was to do committee work. 

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

Senator Mundt. State your point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. There is no testimony, Senator McClellan — 
I am sure you are mistaken on this — that the former chairman ever 
asked Mr. Schiiie to be assigned to the committee or that he ever 
changed his mind. The only testimony on that is that when I heard 
he was assigned to the committee I requested he not be assigned to 
the committee. 

Senator McClellan. This may have been in the preinduction 
period that he was to be assigned there. You testified — someone has 
testified, and I think you — that later the information came to you, 
I think through Mr. Cohn, that the chairman had changed his mind 
about that and thought it might not be advisable because the press 
would get hold of it and make something out of it. Didn't you so 
testify ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. I learned about that from JMr, Adams. 

Senator McClellan. Anyway, you learned of that. You have 
so testified. I know it is in the record somewhere. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. All right, that is another request. 

The fifth I have here I believe was to be assigned to New York 
or assigned to West Point to check the textbooks at West Point with 
respect to any Communist propaganda in them; is that correct? 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 249 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Senator McClellan, I don't want to impose 
on your 10 minutes, but I just wonder as a personal favor if you 
would request- of the Secretary, and make it very clear, that at no 
time did I ever request that Mr. Schine be assigned to my committee, 
that the only conversation I ever had with the Secretary was when I 
called and told him it would be a great mistake to draft a man and 
assign him back on the committee. 

Senator Mundt. Points of order will not be counted against the 
10 minutes. 

Senator McClellan. I am asking the Secretary to testify. I am 
asking him the questions. I assume he will undertake to state the 
facts. That is all I want. I am trying to get the number of different 
requests for what may be or may not be preferred treatment for 
Mr. Schine. I have mentioned five of them. 

The sixth one, I believe, was that you have testified that he wanted 
special privileges after he was in the service in that he was to be given 
liberty or was to be given leave contrary to the general leave gi'anted 
to other enlisted men. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. You granted that. 

Secretary Stevens. For committee work, yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. I think you testified, unless I am wrong about 
this, that Mr. Schine himself suggested to you that he would make 
a good Undersecretary or Assistant Secretary of the Army, did he, 
when he drove you over to camp that morning ? 

Secretary Stevens. Words to that effect, yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. So it adds up to about seven specific requests. 
Did anybody follow up Mr. Schine's request to you about how well 
he could serve you in your office ? I don't want that charged against 
anyone else if no one else followed that up. Was any such request 
ever made of you or any suggestion made to you by either Mr. Cohn 
or Mr. Carr or Senator McCarthy with respect to that, that you take 
him in your office ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir ; Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McClellan. Senator McCarthy did ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. So we have established here at least definitely 
seven special requests for assignments for privileges for Mr. Schine. 

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

Senator Mundt. The Senator will state his point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. I wonder if the Secretary would make the 
record clear as to whether I asked for an assistant secretaryship or 
under secretaryship for Mr. Schine. 

Senator McClellan. That is what I asked him. 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to know which. State which it 
was. 

Secretary Stevens. He said that he thought it would be a good idea 
to make use of what he called Dave Schine's special qualifications, 
and in that connection he suggested either as a special assistant to me 
on matters of communism or as a special assistant to the Chief of 
the Intelligence Division of the Staff, our G-2. 

Senator McClellan. Then for special assistant instead of just 
assistant ? 



250 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. Special assistant. 

Senator McClellan. Is that the only difference? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I didn't get the idea that he suggested 
that he should be made Assistant Secretary of the Army. 

Senator McClellan. Well, I wanted to clarify it. He was to be 
made a special assistant to you but not Assistant Secretary of the 
Army. 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator McClellan. Is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Now let us clear it as to Mr. Schine, also. Did 
Mr. Schine request that he be made a special assistant to you, or as 
an Assistant Secretary of the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. Not an Assistant Secretary of the Army, a spe- 
cial assistant to me. 

Senator McClellan. A special assistant? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. So that no request was made of you to make 
him an Assistant Secretary of the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. No request. 

Senator McClellan. All of the requests were as special assistants 
to you, to perform a specific service. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right, sir. 

Senator McClellan. That was in connection with his alleged quali- 
fications as Communist investigator, is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator McClellan. Did you look into his qualifications to de- 
termine whether he was suitable to perform that service in your 
office ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I felt that no young man of draft age should 
be brought into my office as a special assistant on anything. 

Senator McClellan. So you did not undertake to inquire into his 
qualifications ? 

Secretary Stevens. Not for that purpose, no, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Not for that purpose. Now, let me ask you, 
reverting back to my former questioning at the other 10-minute pe- 
riod that I had, you did have and you do have the authority if you 
want to do it, to overrule the subordinates to whom the applications 
are referred if they reject an application for a direct commission; as 
Secretary you have the authority if you want to exercise it, to over- 
rule their decision and to order a direct commission granted, do 
you not ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am sure I must have that power, Senator. 

Senator McClellan. You do have that power ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is the way I understand it, yes, sir, that 
I could do it, but it is academic with me because I never would do it. 

Senator McClellan. You never would do it? 

Secretary Stevens. No. 

Senator McClellan. All right, if you had done it in this case, do 
you think that that would have satisfied the request ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well 

Senator McClellan. What I am pointing out, the implication is 
here, you just as well face it, sir, the implication is here that you were 
trying to buy off this committee from investigating the Army. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION" 251 

Now, if thcat is true, you did have the authority to grant the com- 
mission, and order it granted, didn't you? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan". You refused to go that far ? 

Secretary Stevens. I certainly did. 

Senator McClellan. Now, if you were undertaking to influence 
them, and that was your purpose, and all of these associations with 
them and permitting all of these, what you are terming, impositions 
on your about special requests, then you did have the power to grant 
what they were seeking, didn't you i 

Secretary Stevens. I did. 

Senator McClellan. Is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct, Senator McClellan. 

Senator McCarthy. A point of order. 

Senator JNIundt. The Senator's time has expired, and I will listen 
to the point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. I think that question is completely improper 
and unfair and the implication is that this chairman could have been 
Ibought oflf. All of the evidence is that this chairman could under no 
circumstances have been bought off on this investigation. 

Senator McClelan, You can take whatever you want from it, but 
the implication is here, and he has been questioned about it, as to his 
efforts to try to stop an investigation ; and I am asking him the ques- 
tion if that was the purpose according to implications of questions 
that have been asked him he did refuse to do what he could have done 
that might have satisfied the situation. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I just want 
to point out that the implication there is that the chairman could 
have been bought off, and there is no evidence that this chairman ever 
could have been bought off any hearing, and never will be bought off 
any hearing. 

Senator Mundt. IMay the Chair remind the audience that they are 
here as the guests of the committee and there will be no manifestations 
of approval or disapproval. That is the first violation that we have 
had from the audience, and I am not going to ask at this time that the 
officers remove from the room those participating, but I am going to 
ask that hereafter without further instructions from the Chair those 
violating our standing orders, the officers will kindly correspondingly 
remove them from the room. 

Senator Dirksen. 

Mr. Welch. I believe it is a point of order. It is that it is 4 : 40 
p. m., and I am a strong believer in union hours when I am working 
in a courtroom. 

Senator Mundt. INIay the Chair say that at the request of his col- 
leagues on the committee who have not gone around the table the 
second time, he has suggested that each member of the committee 
be given his additional 10 minutes; unless I am overruled by the 
committee, of course, your point of order will be sustained. But I 
would like if we could give those at the edges of our committee the 
same opportunity those in the center have had. 

JNIr. Welch. I bow to that. 

Senator Mundt. We will try to go around the table including your 
10 minutes and then Senator McCarthy and then recess. 



252 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator Dirksex. Mr. Secretary, I assume that if passes were 
granted to private Schine, that they were in writing from day to day, 
very likely, and signed by his immediate commanding officer. 

Secretary Stevens. I think they were. 

Senator Dirksen. Was there any formal memorandum to the com- 
mandant at Fort Dix sugesting that he be given passes day after day 
to carry on committee assignments ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. There is nothing in writing then to cover that 
matter? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. No, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. Was there anything in writing with respect to 
assignment to kitchen-police duty? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. As I say, Senator Dirksen, I really don't know. 
I just haven't been able to follow all of the details of Private Schine 
and other privates, and General Ryan I am sure will be able to answer 
those questions. But I just can't do so because I don't have the 
information. 

Senator Dirksen. But insofar as you and General Ryan are con- 
cerned, there is no written memoranda covering weekend passes, non- 
assignment to KP duty, and that sort of thing? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. That was all verbal, if there was an under- 
standing? • 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator Dirksen. Now, Mr. Secretary, I want to return to one 
matter that came up last week. There are 96 Senators. Can you, in 
a general way, state how many times you have received telephone or 
other requests from other Members of the Senate on either side of the 
aisle, with respect to direct Reserve commissions in any branch of the 
Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. I cannot recall a single instance personally. 

Sejiator Dirksen. Let us put it on this ground, and say, were the 
request many, or were they few ? 

Secretary Stevens. So far as my knowledge of it is concerned, 
almost total absence of them. In other words, I don't recall a single 
call by a Senator to ask me for a direct commission. 

Senator Dirksen. Now, would those requests more properly go to 
the Adjutant General, General Bergen? 

Secretary Stevens. They would go first into our Office of Legisla- 
tive Liaison. 

Senator Dirksen. General Reber ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, and then they would be processed around 
and based on the qualifications, and in due course the information 
would come back to General Reber, or Colonel Houck, currently Colo- 
nel Houck's office, and he would get back in touch with the Senator. 

Senator Dirksen. The question has only two purposes, and that is 
this : By contrast to decide what the situation was with respect to other 
requests for commissions? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. And secondly, the general practice that is in- 
volved. There has been some comment in the press and in the 
columns to the effect that this may have run into the thousands, and 
I am trying to reconstruct my own recollection over a longer period of 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 253 

time which covers nearly 20 years in the House and in the Senate, to 
decide how many times I may have called the Army or the Navy in 
the interest of a commission. And if I ever did, I want it known to all 
of the world that you are free if there is any telephone call to cover it, 
to lay it right out on the table. And I shall freely confess my sins in 
public, if that is the case, because I don't want to do that which is 
improper or ever get to the point where we have a political Army. 

Now, I have an idea that I have called the Army on some cases. 
OfFhand, I wouldn't remember what they are. Offliand, I would 
say that I don't think that I have pressured too much, although I 
shouldn't make that confession in public, because some of my con- 
stituents who might be interested in commissions might feel that I 
am not doing my duly if 1 don't pressure you. But, having been a 
private in the Army long ago, and having bsen a humble shavetail 
long ago, I can readily understand the attitude of people. But I am 
just Avondering now about the general practice of Members of both 
the House and the Senate calling either the heads of the various mili- 
tary establishments, the heads of the various bureaus, or the Secre- 
taries themselves, what the practice is, and to what extent they do 
bear down and what the comparison would be between those and the 
instant case that is before us, insofar as the allegation and the testi- 
mony are concerned. 

Secretary Stevens. I can't recall another instance of where Sen- 
ators have called in connection with a commission. Certainly there 
is nothing with any pressure attached to it. 

Senator Dirksen. So your answer would be that the number of 
calls that you have received, by and large, are rather few in number ? 

Secretary Stevens. Very few. 

Senator jDirksen. And devoid of pressure, generally. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator Dirksen. In other words, they are more nearly the nature 
of an inquiry? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator Dirksen. In the hope, perhaps, that the situation is such 
that there might be favorable consideration given ? 

Secretary Stevens. Senator Dirksen, I am speaking as the Secre- 
tary, you see, and I am not speaking to the communications that may 
go into the Office of Legislative Liaison. I am talking about the stand- 
point of the Secretary, what pressure is the Secretary under from the 
standpoint of and in the matter of direct commissions in the Army. 
And I would say in m_y experience that practically none. 

Senator Dirksen. I talked to General Eeber about it on occasions, 
I am sure, and we alw^ays like to maintain pleasant relationships with 
your liaison officers. But I am wondering, out of your conversations 
with your bureau heads, with the other Secretaries, Secretary for Air 
and Secretary for the Navy, whether out of the general information 
t!iat has come to your attention there have been many requests, much 
pressure, or whether the statements that one has seen in the j)ress from 
time to time are not on good ground. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I, of course, can only speak for the De- 
partment of the Army, of my firsthand knowleclge, and I have had 
practically no pressure, as I have said, and I think if there had been 
any substantial pressure in the Air Force or the Navy I would have 
known about it, because Secretary Talbert and Secretary Anderson 



254 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

are both good friends of mine. We meet regularly, and a thing like 
that would undoubtedly have come up, Senator Dirksen. 

Senator Dirksen. To be more specific, Mr. Secretary, I have great 
regard for Dave Lawrence, of the U. S. News & World Report. He 
is a very objective and factual reporter. It runs in my mind that 
he did do a column recently in which he indicated that this whole 
story ought to be made public about all the requests that have been 
referred to the Army, N^avy, and Air Force by Members of the Ho.ise 
and Senate in behalf of commissions, compassionate discharges, and 
that sort of thing. 

I would just like to know the truth of it, now, whether we are 
such sinful people that we have been trying to convert this into a 
political Army, because if we have, I want to do penance and get 
on sack cloth and ashes right now. So you make a general state- 
ment on that, Mr. Secretary, if you will. 

Secretary Stevens. I see no evidence of making it a political Army 
at all, Senator Dirksen. There is a large volume of matters that are 
handled by the Office of Legislative Liaison which handles in- 
cidentally, correspondene from all kinds of sources in large volume, 
mostly inquiries for information. If it got to be a case of tremendous 
pressure, I would think in due course I probably would know about it. 

Senator Dirksen. l\niether this question is particularly germane 
to the instant inquiry, I leave for counsel to decide and object if 
he sees fit, but has the custom grown up when a Senator or a Con- 
gressman calls with reference to a matter of this kind, that a little 
note is inserted in the file with just two letters on it, "P. I."; and 
that doesn't mean Philippine Islands, that means "political influ- 
ence." Are those inserted in the files when requests are made for 
commissions? 

Secretary Stevens. I have never seen one. 

Senator Dirksen. That answers the question, I think. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair say that he has consulted with the 
members of the committee, and out of deference to our union friend 
from Boston, we are going to resume in the morning with questions 
from Senator Jackson, and will adjourn at this time. 

May the Chair have the attention of the Secretary long enough to 
be sure that we understand, as I think I am correct, that during the 
interim you are going to search your mind concerning Mr. Carr, 
and in the morning either particularize the charge or withdraw it 
against Mr. Carr. 

Secretary Stevens. I am certainly going to search my mind and 
try to do that. 

Senator Mundt. We stand in recess until 10 : 30 tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 55 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 : 30 
a. m.j Tuesday, April 27, 1054.) 

X 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05442 1738