(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 .."

^E. 



^iSSZZSB 



7 



Bl 




Given By 



B^ 



^ .„.,.. V 



^5iv 




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 
LNVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON 

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS 
UNITED STATES SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD COKGEESS 

SECOND SESSION 
PURSUANT TO 

S. Res. 189 



PART 15 



MAY 3. 1954 



Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 




UNITED STATES 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
46620" NYASHINGTON : 1954 



Boston Public Li'-rary 
Superintendent of Documents 

SEP 8 -1954 



COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OrERATIONS 

JOSEPH R, MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

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

MARGAIiET CHASE SMITH, Maine HUBERT H. HUMPH KEY, Minnesota 

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

EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massacliusetts 
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri 

CHARLES E. POTTER, Micliigan 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. POTTER, Michigan HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 

HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri 

Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counael 

Thomas R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel 

ROBERT A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SOLis HORWiTZ, Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maner, Secretary 

n 



CONTENTS 



Page 

Index I 

Testimouy of Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary. Department of the Army_ 577 



in 



SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHARGES AND 
COUNTERCHARGES INVOLVING: SECRETARY OF THE 
ARM Y ROBERT T. STEVENS, JOHN G. ADAMS, H. STRUVE 
HENSEL AND SENATOR JOE McCARTHY, ROY M. COIIN, 
AND FRANCIS P. CARR 



MONDAY, MAY 3, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington^ D. C. 

The subcommittee met at 10 : 40 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the 
caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, 
cliairman, presiding. 

Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator 
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 Symington, Democrat, Missouri. 

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

Also present : Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a United States Senator 
from the State of AVisconsin; Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel to the sub- 
committee 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 De- 
fense; 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. The committee will be in order. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order and the 
Chair would like to welcome the guests who have come to the committee 
room and to remind them once again that, as the guests of the com- 
mittee, they must conform with the committee rule which is to refrain 
from manifestations of approval or disapproval. 

The Chair would also like to express his appreciation to Mr. Gus 
Cook in the Architect's office, for providing a sounding board for the 
gavel, which he hopes will make the gavel sound more vigorous out 
through the audience, and in the ears of his colleagues and the counsel. 
At least it will protect the finish on this beautiful table, so it will 
serve some purpose, I know. 

573 



574 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Cliairman, since Sergeant Manchester testi- 
fied before this committee, he has given out a statement to the news- 
papers in response to certain questions that he had requested the 
picture of the group that had been introduced in evidence in this 
hearing. 

In order that the matter be clarified I would like to suggest that 
counsel, Ray Jenkins, arrange to have his staff interview Sergeant 
Manchester on this point. It was my recollection that this question 
was not asked when Sergeant Manchester was on the witness stand 
by any of the members of the committee for the reason that it was 
understood that Sergeant Manchester's testimony was to be limited 
to tne identification of the negatives and the prints which were subse- 
quently introduced as evidence in this hearing. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that is an excellent idea, and 
had asJied the counsel whether he felt that a point of order could be 
raised against that specific question, if Cliair asked it, and the counsel 
advised the Chair that he felt the question should not be asked of 
Sergeant Manchester due to the circumstances that you have described. 

I quite agree that he should be interviewed, so that we can determine 
whether he has information that he can provide the committee, testi- 
fying under oath, because obviously newspaper interviews and other 
interviews have no bearing on the hearing. But if he has information 
to which he is willing to testify under oath, we should call him back 
and get that information. 

Senator Dirksen. Now, Mr. Chairman, before the proceedings get 
underway this morning, I want to make what might be considered 
in the nature of a parliamentary inquiry. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator will state it. 

Senator Dirksex. Mr. Chairman, this is the 8tli day of the hearing, 
and I think this pattern before us is reasonably clear. Progress has 
been admittedly slow, and I think it is probably due to the procedure. 
AVe have here rather extraordinary mixture of judicial and legislative 
procedure, and one can readily understand perhaps why greater prog- 
ress has not been made. But, Mr. Chairman, I am concerned. I have 
certain overriding considerations, and there are four members of this 
committee that are on the Appropriations Committee, and Senator 
McCarthy is also on the Appropriations Committee, and we have 
neglected a good many of our functions and duties while these hear- 
ings are going on, and certainh^ something should be done to expedite 
the progress of these hearings, and so I make this inquiry, Mr. Chair- 
man, and it is addressed to you, and it would be addressed to all of 
the principals in this controversy as to how many witnesses we still 
have, and what we foresee as to the length of these hearings, and 
what n)ight be done. 

It is conceivable, of course, that subordinate witnesses might not 
be called and for the moment I have no idea who will or will not 
be summoned to the witness stand. I tried during all stages of the 
proceeding to not prejudge in any fashion so that a fair and impartial 
report can be rendered, but I think a question that addresses itself 
to this committee as to what can be done to expedite the matter, and 
w:hether there can be a change in procedure to which everybody in in- 
terest will agree that will bring these hearings to an end at a reason- 
ably early date. I need not add, Mr. Chairman, my own concern, such 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 575 

as it is, with respect to the fact that we are immobilized here for the 
moment, and there are some cleavages, and some dissident spirit that 
is beginning to develop, and it is a rather extraordinary thing that 
the counsel having done, I think, a superb job in a proceeding of this 
kind should be belabored first from one side and then another by 
telegrams and telephone and letters as to whether he has been too 
harsh or too severe, or too soft on first one witness, or another, and 
then, of course, we have rather a spectacular atmosphere in which 
this hearing is being conducted. All argue that the committee make 
some effort, Mr. Chairman, to see what can be done in the interest of 
expedition, and the resolution of the issues that are before us, and 
so I renew my inquiry, as to how many witnesses the principals are 
still going to produce in this proceeding, and what date, if that can 
be determined, we can bring this hearing to an end. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has heard the inquiry, and I think in 
order to even cast any intelligent light at all on the subject I would 
have to endeavor to explore the minds of the counsel of the various 
principals; and if that is what the Senator from Illinois would like 
to have me endeavor to do now, to determine about how many witnesses 
are to be called, if there is no objection from my colleagues, while 
this is not exactly a point of order, I will be happy to ask the ques- 
tions and see what answers we can get. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, Mr. Chairman, T think that is a proper 
function of the Chair for one thing, and secondly, if a decision is to 
be contrived the committee can at some stage today either during 
the recess hour this noon, or this evening hold an executive session 
for the purpose of exploring and discussing the matter. 

Senator Mundt. If there is no objection, the Chair will ask of 
Counsel Welch, if he can be of any help to the committee on this 
point, by indicating about how many major witnesses he feels he will 
be required to call in the course of the hearing. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, I happen to think that my voice is 
quite a small voice, and I do not run the hearings, and I can only 
make suggestions. I have been heard to say in this room and have 
been quoted in the press to the effect that if Senator McCarthy takes 
the stand as the next witness after Mr. Stevens, I am perfectly con- 
fident that the minor characters will move on and off the stage with 
amazing swiftness. 

Take, for example, the story at Fort Dix. General Ryan can tell 
us, I should think, in 20 minutes, how many passes Mr. Schine had, 
and how many telephone calls he made, and things of that sort. They 
cannot be seriously contested, as I view it. 

I would say this : That if the hearings take the course that I suggest, 
first the Secretary, and then the Senator, I would either be content 
to let the case rest on those two witnesses, although that would give 
us a somewhat abbreviated hearing, or at most we wish to call but 
two more. 

Senator ISIundt. Thank you very much, Mr. Welch. 

Senator McCarthy, I would like to direct the same question to you 
that I just directed to Mr. Welch. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, Mr. Chairman, the number of witnesses 
that we would suggest would depend largely upon the testimony that 
Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams put in. I might say that as far as the 



576 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

testimony that has been put in up to this time, I frankly wouldn't 
feel that I would put any witnesses on to disprove it. I think that the 
time may come when we will want to call, for example, some of the 
Senators. As the Chair knows, one of the contentions that I have 
made is that Mr. Adams and Mr. Stevens — and I said right along I 
didn't think that they were doing it from any evil motive — attempted 
to get the hearings called off. They contacted the Senators, certain 
Senators, and I wasn't there, and I don't know what was said, and I 
think it will be necessary to call those Senators, and I think the time 
may come when it will be necessary to call Mr. Stevens' predecessor 
to see how they handled these requests for special treatment, if any, 
and it might be necessary to call Mr. Symington, also, in that capacity, 
who was Secretary of the Air Force, to find out from him what 
knowledge he has of this. I think it is especially important, in view 
of the fact that Stu is one of the members of the committee. 

Frankly, until I hear Mr. Adams' testimony and the rest of Mr. 
Stevens', it will be almost impossible to even guess at the number of 
witnesses to be called. 

I may say that, as the Chair knows, I have only had a few 10-minute 
periods to question Mr. Stevens. Much of the time has been taken 
up by the Secretary in his answers, and I know that we should also 
keep in mind that I didn't start this; that it started as a result of 
the report filed by Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams. The charges against 
my staff in that report are very serious, and if they were true it would 
result in the loss of the job of these two men and the loss of their 
reputation. 

Therefore, while I dislike continuing the examination of Mr. Stevens 
to any great length, we are examining not on my charges, but upon 
his, and I anticipate it might take at least, I would say at least 3 days 
to complete the examination of Mr. Stevens. At the end of that time, 
I don't know how many witnesses we would have to call. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. May I suggest we are wasting time. Let us 
proceed. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hensel has been named as a party 
in this proceeding. In response to your inquiry, there has been no 
testimony that I have heard even remotely involving Mr. Hensel in 
this situation, and the way the testimony now stands I would see no 
necessity for calling any witnesses on behalf of that party. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. It is now 7 minutes of 11 o'clock. I would 
like to support Senator McClellan. Let us get to work. 

Senator ]\Iundt. The Chair was about to ask the first person in 
line to begin the questions. He attempted to respond to the parlia- 
mentary inquiry of Senator Dirksen. 

May the Chair say that over the weekend a great many suggestions 
have come to him as to how we can expedite the hearing. The two 
that were stated most frequently were as follows: Over and over 
again people have called up and written — and I appreciate tlieir sug- 
gestion — that we could expedite the hearings if we would hold the 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 577 

hearings in executive session and remove the photographers and the 
press and the television from the room. 

Tlie second greatest number of requests came in to suggest that we 
simply remove the photographers and the television people from the 
room and leave the press. 

The Chair must say in all candor he is not impressed by the sugges- 
tion that we run these hearings as a star chamber proceeding. It 
was decided to do it open and in the public, and we believe television 
and re])orters both have done an excellent job. We believe each helps 
to check on the others. We think if we are going to have open hear- 
ings they should be open. We don't want to get into a feud between 
those who want to throw the press out and keep the television and 
those who want to throw the television out and keep the press. 

I believe Senator McClellan was the next in line to ask questions. 

Senator McCarthy. Before you start the questioning, Mr. Chair- 
man, could I make it very clear that while I feel this will take a 
long time, I feel as strongly as anyone that this is a vast waste of time. 

The only position I can take in this is that when charges are made 
against my staff I have to defend them to the fullest extent. Beyond 
that I do think it is a great waste of time. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, I renew my suggestion for night 
sessions. 

Senator Mundt. Do any of the members now want to express them- 
selves on the suggestion for expediting the hearing before we start 
expediting them by beginning ? 

Senator McClellan, I believe it is your turn to ask questions if you 
have any. 

TESTIMONY OF HON. ROBERT T. STEVENS, SECRETARY OF THE 

ARMY— Resumed 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of expediting 
these hearings, I pass. 

Senator Munut. Senator Dirksen ? 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I raise another question, and that 
is this: It occurs to me that 10 minutes for the principals is all too 
short to develop a line of questioning, and if it is not in violation 
of the rule, I would surrender my time to Senator McC^arthy. 

Senator McCarthy. I thank the Senator very much. 

Mr. Cohn, will you proceed ? 

Senator Mundt. It would have to be accumulated and take it in 
turn, I believe. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, under the rules, I do not 
believe we can begin yielding each other's time to someone else. Let 
us proceed in order. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan believes that you cannot yield 
time. It will work out the same way anyhow. 

Senator McClellan. That was discussed, but another party sitting 
here may have some questions, and his questions should come in order. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. 

Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. No questions. 

46620»— 54— pt. 15 2 



578 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator IVfuNDT. Senator Potter ? 

Senator Potter. In order to expedite the hearings, I have no 
questions. 

Senator MuNDT. Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. I have no questions. 

Senator JMundt. Senator Dworshak ? 

Senator DwoRSHAK. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, you or Mr. Cohn. Ten 
minutes. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn. 

]\Ir. CoHN. ]\Ir. Secretary, I want to refer very briefly to the meeting 
November 6 again as the basis of another line of questioning. Could 
you tell US, sir, why you asked Senator McCarthy and his staff to 
come to your office on November 6 ? 

Secretary Stevens. To discuss the Fort JSIonmouth situation. 

Mr. Cohn. What suggestion did you have in mind concerning the 
Fort Monmouth situation ? 

Secretary Stevens. I was worried about the manner in which the 
hearings were being conducted. 

Mr, Cohn. Did you ask us on that day, sir, to suspend hearings at 
Fort Monmouth ? 

Secretary Stevens. I said that I didn't like to have the Army ham- 
mered over the head in the type of hearings which were being held. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you ask us to suspend the type of hearings which 
were being held ? 

Secretary Ste\^ns. I would say that would be the clear implica- 
tion. I don't recall the language that I used. The type of hearing 
was the thing I was concerned with. 

Mr. Cohn. Very well. 

Mr. Stevens, prior to this occasion, prior to November 6, did you 
or any authorized representative of yours ask directly that Senator 
McCarthy stop the hearings on Communist infiltration in the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. The only thing that I recall at this moment, 
Mr. Cohn, is that I got the idea at the 14th of October meeting that 
Senator McCarthy was about to turn the investigation over to the 
Army. 

Mr. Cohn. That was the idea you got from him, sir, is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. I got it from that meeting. 

Mr. Cohn. My question, sir, was this: Prior to the November 6 
luncheon, did you or any duly authorized representative of yours 
directly ask Senator McCarthy and the staff to stop hearings on 
Monmouth and Communist infiltration in the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. I know that we were greatly concerned over the 
type of hearing that was being held, Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. I am awfully sorry. I 
don't want to prolong this, but I can't get an answer. 1 am trying 
to find out — maybe it is my fault. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you repeat the question ? 

Mr. Cohn. Maybe I don't make myself clear. What I am trying 
to find out from the Secretary is if on any occasion prior to November 
6 he, the Secretary, or any authorized representative of his, directly 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 579 

asked Senator McCarthy to stop hearings on Monmouth and Com- 
munist infiltration in the Army. 

Mr. Jenkins. That, of course, is a legitimate question. 

Secretary Ste\tens. I can speak 

Senator JNIundt. The witness can answer "yes" or "no," and then 
explain. 

Secretary Stevens. I can speak only for myself. I don't recall 
having done so; no, sir. 

]Mr. CoHN. Your testimony is that you do not recall having done so ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you recall a trip we all took up to Fort Monmouth 
on October 20 ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. That was in a plane which you supplied, is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. Which the Air Force supplied. 

ISIr. CoiiN. Which the Air Force supplied. You arranged the flight, 
is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. My office did. 

Mr. CoiiN. You were there, and Mr. Adams? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. CoiiN. Senator McCarthy was there? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

^fr. CoHN. I was there? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. Senator Dirksen's assistant, Mr. Rainville, was there? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. And Senator Potter's assistant, Mr. Jones? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. On that occasion, Mr. Stevens, did you ask Senator 
McCarthy to stop holding hearings on Communist infiltration at Fort 
Monmouth and in the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that I asked him to stop any hear- 
ings. I know there was a good deal of discussion on that plane going 
up there with respect to the plan from there on, and what type of 
statement might be given out in regard to the Fort Monmouth hearings. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Stevens, I suggest to you, sir, that on October 19 
at your instruction Mr. Adams sent to Senator McCarthy a written 
statement which you wanted Senator McCarthy to make, in which 
Senator McCarthy was to say that he would stop all hearings on 
Communist infiltration at Fort jNIonmouth and in the Army. Is that 



so, sir? 



7 

Secretary Ste\t.ns. I don't know. I know that Mr. Adams had some 
kind of a suggested statement on the plane on the 20th. I don't 
know about the 19th that you are referring to. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Stevens, on October 19, did Mr. Adams discuss 
with you a statement which he brought over to the Senate Office 
Building and asked Senator McCarthy to make ? 

Secretary Stevens. I know that he had been trying to work up some 
kind of a statement to discuss with Senator McCarthy on the plane, 
and just what he did with it prior to being on the plane I don't know, 
but I remember it was discussed on the plane. 

Mr, CoHN. Mr. Stevens, did not that statement which was drawn 
up the day before, and which I agree with you, sir, was discussed on 



580 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

the plane, did not that statement suggested by your office call for 
Senator McCarthy to make a public announcement that he was, as of 
October 20, stopping hearings on Monmouth, and did not Senator 
McCarthy flatly refuse to make that statement ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that. Most of the discussion, I 
think — I had very little if any discussion — and I think it was mostly 
between Mr. Adams and members of the staff, of your staff, and as I 
say on the 14th of October, 6 days prior, I gained the impression that 
Senator McCarthy was going to turn the hearing over to the Army. 
And this was 6 days later and it would have been very natural that it 
was discussed. 

Mr. CoiiN. Mr. Stevens, you say 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cohn, one moment, please. 

And now, Mr. Secretary, first of all I want to say Mr. Cohn asked 
you two questions, and now if he will separate those questions, his 
first question you probably recall, I think calls for a "yes" or "no" 
answer. It is a simple question, and that is whether or not a statement 
was prepared by Mr. Adams for Senator McCarthy to sign in which 
he stated that he was calling off the investigation of Fort Monmouth. 
That is question No. 1. 

Now, do you or not know whether or not such a statement was pre- 
pared by Mr. Adams and submitted to Senator McCarthy for his 
signature? I think that you can answer that question. 

Secretary Stevens. I know there was a statement discussed on the 
plane, Mr. Jenkins, and I do not know exactly what was in the state- 
ment, and I couldn't tell you what was in it; and I could give you my 
general impression of it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then your answer to Mr. Cohn is, to his question, 
that you do not know whether or not that is true ; is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. My recollection is that we had the statement on 
the plane, Mr. Adams did, and it was discussed on the plane. That 
is my recollection of the event. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you see the statement ? 

Secretary Stevens. I must have seen it, but I don't recall what was 
in it particularly. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, definitely and particularly, do you recall 
whether or not in it Senator INIcCarthy was to say that he was discon- 
tinuing or calling off his investigation of Fort Monmouth ? 

Secretary Stevens. That point I do not recall, because it was the 
type of hearing that I was interested in and I do not recall. 

Mr. Jenkins. Your answer is that you do not recall ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, his next question was whether or not Senator 
McCarthy refused to sign that statement. Did he or not? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think anybody asked him to sign it. 

Mr. Cohn. It was a question of issuing the statement, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did or not Senator McCarthy refuse to issue such 
a statement publicly ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think on the plane, and I was in the con- 
versation very little, myself, on the plane, going up to Monmouth, 
my recollection or my impression of it was that Mr. Adams, and mem- 
bers of Senator McCarthy's staff, were making progress in the prepa- 
ration of some kind of statement. I don't think on the plane Senator 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 581 

MeCarthy said that he wouldn't issue such a statement, and if he 
did I didn't hear it. 

Mr. Jenkins. The only reason I interrupted was that your question 
embraced two questions. 

Mr. CoHN. I am sure you are rij2:ht, and I hope any time I do that 
that you will interrupt me, and please feel free to do so. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Colin may proceed and the interruption by 
Counsel Jenkins will not be taken out of his 10 minutes. 

JNIr. Cohn. 

INIr. Cohn. Mr. Stevens, I want to oet back to October 19, sir, if I 
may. Did Mr. Adams confer with you on October 19, and did he — 
I will stop right there. Did Mr. Adams confer with you on October 
19 about the trip that was to be made to Monmouth the next day? 

Secretary Stevens. I would have to check up my records to see 
whether or not he did. I think it would be a natural thing if he had 
sjjoken to me on the 19th. 

Mr. CoiiN. Did he discuss with you a proposed statement which he 
was to attempt to get Senator McCarthy to make, announcing that 
Senator McCarthy was stopping hearings on Communist infiltration 
at Monmouth ? 

Secretary Stemcns. Now, wait a minute, there are several pieces to 
that question, too. I am quite confident that Mr. Adams was pre- 
paring a statement, but as to whether it contained the language that 
you are talking about or not, I don't know. 

Mr. CoiiN. "Wouldn't it be inconceivable in the light of other testi- 
mony you have given here if that testimony of yours is accurate, that 
on October 20 you would have asked Senator McCarthy to stop with- 
out any qualifications, just to stop holding hearings on Fort Mon- 
mouth, and not change the type of hearing, but stop holding hearings? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think that that would follow at all. 

Mr. CoiiN. In other words, sir, j'ou feel it would be consistent with 
other testimony you have given here that on October 20, you would 
have asked Senator McC^arthv to announce publicly he was stopping 
hearings and not changing the type, but stopping the hearings on 
^Monmouth ? 

Secretary Stevens. T think that the idea of a statement was to try 
to have a statement that could be jointly, if you might say, issued, 
which would show that we were working together, and we were going 
forward jointly with this work, but I recall no statement about 
stopping the investigation. 

Mr. Cohn. Mv. Jenkins, I believe the question to which I was 
trying to get an answer and perhaps I worded it badly, sir, was 
whether it would be consistent with Mr. Stevens prior testimony 
given here, that on October 20, he asked Senator McCarthy to stop 
hearings at Fort Monmouth. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens answered that, Mr. Cohn, just previous to 
your last question and answer, and stated that he did not neessarily 
think that that would follow. That that was a natural consequence. 
Am I right about that, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I think lie has answered your question, Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Can you tell us this, so that we can leave this tojjic, sir, 
to your recollection did Mr. Adams with your authorization, come over 



582 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

here on October 19, and ask Senator McCarthy to make a written state- 
ment prepared by Mr. Adams, and I don't know Avhether you helped 
prepare it or not, the following day, calling for the stoppmg of hear- 
ings at Fort Monmouth ? 

Secretary Si'Evens. I don't know whether he came over or not. Mr. 
Adams can testify to that. 

Mr. CoHN. Do you know whether he submitted to Senator McCarthy 
a statement calling for the stopping of hearings at Fort Monmouth? 

Secretary Stevens. I know there was a statement discussed on the 
plane, Mr. Cohn, and that is my recollection of the statement. 

Mr. Cohn. Did that statement, sir, contain language calling for 
the stopping of hearings at Fort Monmouth ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have no recollection that it did. 

Mr. CoiiN. Mr. Jenkins, sir. in view of the fact that this is crucial to 
our case, I would ask now as I believe it is perfectly proper procedure, 
that the Secretary be directed to produce the original of a draft state- 
ment submitted to us by Mr. Adams on October 19, a draft of a state- 
ment to be made by Senator McCarthy on October 20, so that we can 
let it speak for itself. 

Mr. Jenkins. You are entitled to ask him to do so, and it is not 
necessary for me to do so. You are cross-examining. 

Mr. Cohn. With the leave of Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Stevens, I would 
ask, sir, that you produce for this committee a copy of a statement. 

Secretary Stevens. I don't have any such statement, Mr. Cohn. 
Jf Mr. Adams' office has, we will ask him. I don't have it. 

Senator Mundt. Your time has expired. 

Mr. Jenkins. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has none at this time. 

Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. I have none. 

Senator ]\Iundt. Senator Dirksen. 

Senator Dirksen. I have none. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter. 

Senator Potter. I have none. 

Senator Mundt. There are none from the Senators on my right. 
Does Mr. Welch have any ? 

Mr. Welch. None. 

Senator Mundt. You may continue, Mr. Cohn, for another 10 
minutes. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, in line with the last question 
asked by Mr. Cohn, was there a press release which you prepared and 
mimeographed, and gave to me asking me to have it released, and I 
refused, and did you keep a copy of that on file ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall. I don't think I have it in my 
file, and mavbe Mr. Adams has. 

Senator McCarthy. You don't know ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't have it. Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. I know you don't have it in your pocket. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. But is it on file ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know. I don't think that there is any 
in my files. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, now, could you ask one of the youngsters 
here to cli3ck and let us know. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 583 

Mr. Welch. For tlie information of the men who should know, 

is the fact 

Senator Mundt. You will address the Chair. 

Mr. Welch. I beg your pardon. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a point of order? 

Mr. Welch. My point of order — it is not a point of order — I am 
just trying to say we have no such statement in our files, Senator. 
That is the information that I get from men behind me who ought 
to know. 

Mr. Jexkins. Mr. Chairman, in view of the Secretary's statement, 
he has no such document, but Mr. Adams might have such a docu- 
ment, I think it would be perfectly proper to give him time to confer 
with ]SIr. xVdanis now and state whether or not Mr. Adams has such 
a document. 

Mr. CoHX. That is perfectly agreeable. 

Mr. Jenkins. That would expedite matters. 

Senator Mundt. You may do so, Mr. Secretary, on advice of our 
counsel. 

(The witness conferred with Mr. Adams.) 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Adams advises me 

Senator Mundt. Secretary Stevens. 

Seci-etary Ste\'en8. Mr. Adams advises me that he doesn't have 
anything in his files. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Jenkins, sir, may I then ask, as has been the prac- 
tice, that you issue a subpena for the stenographic notebooks from 
Mr. Adams' office for the date October 18, 1953, from his secretary, 
so that we may establish the crucial wording of this statement which 
Mr. Adams brought over here and asked Senator McCarthy to issue ? 

Mr. Jenkins. That will be done, Mr. Cohn. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

Proceed, ]Mr. Cohn or Senator McCarthy. You have part of your 
lU minutes left. 

Senator McCarthy. I will turn the questioning back to Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Jenkins, with your leave, I will leave this particu- 
lar line of questioning and return to it after we have had the oppor- 
tunity to get the exact wording of that statement. I will then wish 
to examine Mr. Stevens on that because we feel that it is crucial to 
the issue in this case. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cohn, let me remind you that you do not have 
to have my leave 

Mr. Cohn. All right, sir. 

]\Ir. Jenkins. Consent or that of any member of the committee 
so long as the line of examination is within the range of the issues. 

Mr. Cohn. Very well, thank you. 

Mr. Secretary, returning to a topic which we were in the middle 
of on Friday afternoon when we concluded on General Lawton, did 
I understand your testimony to be this, sir: That on November 25 
General Back submitted to you a written explanation as supplied by 
General Lawton explaining what he had said in a speech concerning 
which you expressed some displeasure. Is that right? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. And based on that written explanation you decided to 
retain General Lawton in command and have done so since, is that 
correct, sir ? 



584 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. He has been continued in command. 

Mr, CoHN, Did you decide on the basis of that statement submitted 
by General Lawton that his explanation was satisfactory ? 

Secretary Stevens. It was not tied to that statement at all, Mr, 
Cohn. That was one of the many considerations that I took into 
account in coming to a conclusion in the matter to continue General 
Lawton on as commanding general at Fort Monmouth. 

Mr, CoHN. When did you reach the conclusion that you would 
continue General Lawton, sir ? 

Secretary Stevens, When did I reach it? 

Mr. CoHN, Yes, sir. 

Secretary Stevens, It was a conclusion that developed as we went 
along when I had an opportunity to observe as to how General Lawton 
would operate. 

Mr. CoHN, Maybe I don't make myself clear on that. 

We have that on November 24 and November 25 you were giving 
serious consideration to dismissing General Lawton from his com- 
mand at Fort Monmouth, is that so ? 

Secretary Stevens, Yes, I gave that serious thought. 

Mr. Cohn. All right. When did you conclude that you would not 
at that time relieve General Lawton ? 

Secretary Stevens. No specific date.. 

Mr. CoHN, Approximately when did you reach that decision? 

Secretary Stevens, No specific date. I observed to see how the 
thing got along, how he was doing, and as he went along I felt that 
General Lawton had demonstrated that he could do the job, so we 
left him on the job, 

Mr, CoiiN, You will agree with me that there w^as a crisis on 
November 25 

Secretary Stevens, No, I won't agree there was any crisis at all. 
I have testified that on the 31st of October I had General Back in 
and discussed General Lawton with him in detail at that time. There 
wasn't any crisis, 

Mr, CoHN. Did you not tell us on Friday that on November 24 you 
telephoned Mr. Aclams in New York to get, I think your word was. 
Senator McCarthy's reaction to the possibility of dismissing General 
Lawton ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. I testified that I asked Mr, Adams to advise 
Senator McCarthy, in line with my cooperation with him and his 
committee, that I would like to know what his reaction would be, 

Mr. CoHN, Did you not, on November 24, send for General Back 
and ask a written explanation from General Lawton as to certain 
things which he had said? 

Secretary Stevens. I asked General Back to find out what the sub- 
stance of the speeches were that General Lawton had been reported 
to have made at Fort Monmouth, 

Mr, CoHN, Did you not indicate to General Back that you were 
then and there considering relieving General Lawton of his command? 

Secretary Steatsns. I told him I was giving the matter thought, 

Mr. CoiiN. On the next day, sir, did not General Back return to 
your office, to your outer office, with General Lawton ? 

Secretary Stevens, He did, 

Mr. CoiTN. Did you not see General Ba€k? 

Secretary Stevens. I saw General Back. , 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 585 

Mr. CoiiN. Did you not refuse to see General Lawton? 

Secretary Stevens. I did not refuse to see GiMiernl Lawton. I am a 
very busy man with a i2;reat deal of problems to carry on for the De- 
partment of the Army, and 1 just can't see everybody who wants to 
see me, 

Mr. CoiiN. Weren't j'ou talkinn; to General Back about General 
r.awton ? 

Secretary Sit.\ens. I was. 

Mr. CoiiN. Would it have taken any more time to have General 
Lawton in there so he could talk to you face-to-face about this matter? 

Secretary Stevens. I would have talked with General Back first 
privately about such a matter in any event. 

Mr. CoHN. Granted that, sir, after you talked to General Back 
privately, did you then talk to General Lawton? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I did not. 

Mr. CoHN. Why, sir? 

Secretary Stevens. Because I didn't have the time. I felt the situa- 
tion was in hand with the conversation that I had had with General 
Back. 

Mr. CoHN. By sayin<T that the situation was in hand, did you feel 
that the written explanation supplied satisfied you? 

Secretary Stevens. I testified, Mr. Colin, that that was one of the 
considerations. Now, there were a lot of other considerations. That 
wasn't the only thintr. It wasn't the only consideration. This is 
somethino; that had been goin<j on over a matter of weeks. 

]\Ir. CoHN. Was there any other occasion when General Lawton was 
called to Washington and brought to your outer office and asked to 
furnish a written explanation in the face of being relieved of his 
command? 

Secretary Stevens. No, there was not. 

Mr. CoiiN. Then wouldn't you say this was a crisis? 

Secretary Stevens. I would not, and it was not. The fact remains 
that General Lawton was continued on his job and is still on it. 

Mr. CoHN. Well, sir, what I want to explore now is the reason for 
that. Was it not of sufficient importance for you to reacli Mr. Adams 
in New York and ask for an immediate reaction from Senator Mc- 
Carthy for the dismissal of General Lawton ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have testified repeatedly, and I now do it 
again, that I asked Mr. Adams to inform Senator McCarthy that I 
was giving thought as to whether or not to continue General Lawton 
on the job; that I would like Senator McCarthy to know that because 
of my j)olicy of cooperation with him, and I would be interested in 
knowing what his reaction was. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you not, sir, advise Mr. Adams that you were wait- 
ing only on approval from Senator McCarthy before acting to relieve 
General Lawton? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think I did. 

Senator McCarthy. Roy, may I interrupt. 

I am not sure if you made clear wdiether his call to Adams was 
after he refused or failed to see Lawton, or before that. I think that 
is ratlier important. 

Mr. CoHN. Was your call to Mr. Adams before or after you refused 
to see or before you did not see General Lawton? 

46620°— 54— pt. 15 3 



586 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. I just doirt remember. I think it was on the 
same day, but I don't recall. I think I could check it up and find out, 
but I don't recall at the moment whether it was before or after. 

Mr. CoHN. I wonder if I could get the question before the last 
which the Secretary answered? I think I asked him whether or not 
he was waiting only on Senator McCarthy's approval before dis- 
missing General Lawton. I wonder what his answer was to that. 

(Whereupon, the question and answer referred to were read by the 
reporter as above recorded.) 

Mr, CoHN. I was wondering if it would be possible, sir, for you to 
give us a direct answer to that very important question. Could you 
tell us yes or no to that ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I don't recall that I did, Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. You don't recall whether or not the only thing that you 
were waiting for before dismissing General Lawton was Senator 
McCarthy? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall, but I would be quite confident 
that such was not the case. 

Mr. Cohn. Sir, did you not know that Mr. Adams came to see 
Senator McCarthy on the night of November 24, at the television 
studio where the Senator was delivering an address at 10 : 30 at night, 
saying he must have an answer for you by the next day because you 
desired to relieve General Lawton of his command on the very next 
day? 

Secretary Stevens. That would be all hearsay with me, and I don't 
know what Mr. Adams did on that night. 

Mr, Cohn. Did he not report to you, sir? 

Secretary Stevens. I recall no efforts at any television studio or 
anything of the kind. 

Mr. Cohn, Do you recall the telephone call from Mr. Adams to you 
the following afternoon, reporting Senator McCarthy's reply to your 
request ? 

Secretary Stevens. I know that he called me back. 

Mr. Cohn. Did he tell you at that time that Senator McCarthy 
would not agree to the dismissal of General Lawton? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that he said that Senator McCarthy, my 
recollection of what he said was that he was very nice about it, but 
felt that he probably would be criticized somewhere, somehow, if 
General Lawton was relieved or something of that kind. 

Mr. Cohn. That was on the afternoon of November 25? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that was the date. 

Mr. Cohn. That was the same date that General Lawton was in 
your outer office? 

Secretary Ste\^ns. I think the same date, yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Sir, is the reason you did not see General Lawton was 
because you were angry at him and displeased with him? 

Secretary Stevens. The reason I didn't see him ? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Stevens. The reason I didn't see him, primarily, was, 
(a) I didn't have the time at that particular time; and (&), I was 
giving thought to whether or not to maintain General Lawton on the 
job. And it seemed to me that I would like to continue my thought on 
that subject and collect together such additional information as I 
could and in due course come to my own conclusion. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 587 

Mr. CoHX. I see, and can you tell us when vou came to that conclu- 
sion, after the immediate problem^ 

Secretary Stevens. No particular date. 

Mr. CoiiN. Mr. Stevens, is it a fact that in the 6 weeks following 
November 25 on repeated occasions to your knowledge, Mr. Adams 
iMitreated Senator McCarthy to give approval to the dismissal of 
(jeiieral Lawton'!; 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know whether that is a fact or not. 

Senator 'Mundt. Mr. Cohn's time has expired. 

Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Jenkins. I have no questions. 

Senator Munut. Do any of the Senators to my right have any 
liiestions at this time'^ Do any of the Senators to my left have any? 

Mr. "Welch, do you have any? 

Mr. Weecu. None. sir. 

Senator MuNivr. Mr. Cohn or Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator JMcCarthy. Mr. Secretary, at the opening of the hearing, 
(he Chair and rightly so suggested that all of us had a very heavy 
responsibility, and he mentioned at that time that the press also had 
a heavy res))onsibi]ity, and I just wonder from some of the stories I 
have read whether, as I sat here, I didn't hear your testimony which 
was reported in one of the papers, April 29, a statement that Private 
1 r David Sclnne w^as depicted today as a recruit Avho wore tailormade 
uniforms. That is the day you testified. 

Did you ever testify that Schine had tailormade uniforms? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. And the fact is as far as you know, this is 
completely without foundation? 

Secretary Stevens. I know I didn't testify to that. 

Senator McCarthy. As far as you know, and you were testifying 
that day, as far as you know this story is completely without 
foundation? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't have any knowledge about that story, 
Senator ]\IcCarthy, and all I know is I never said any such thing. 

Senator McCarthy. In vieAV of the fact that people read these 
stories, and many people believe them, I would like to ask you : Do 
you have any information you received at any time from any source 
that Mr. Schine wore tailormade uniforms? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't have any personal knowledge of it, no, 
sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You say personal knowledge. Let us not qual- 
ify. If you got it by hearsay or any other way, let us hear about it. 
1 just want to know if there is any basis in fact for this story. 

Secretary Stevens. Personally I have heard nothing about tailor- 
made uniforms. 

Senator McCarthy. The only thing you heard about im])roper uni- 
form was that he couldn't get shoes to fit his large feet and he bought 
his own shoes; isn't that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. That was mentioned here the other day. 

Senator JSIcCarthy. That is the only deviation from the regular 
uniform that he bought shoes that fit him ? 

Secretary Stex^ns. I can't testify that is the only deviation. I just 
don't know. It isn't possible for me to know what every private in the 
Army wears. Senator McCarthy. 



588 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator McCarthy. But yon are making a great deal abont this 
|)articnlar private, and you testified about the fact about his uniform 
and I am asking you the simple question, isn't it a fact that the only 
complaint about the uniform is that he bought shoes that fit him? 

Secretary Stevens. I haven't testified about anything about what 
Private Schine wore or didn't wear. I heard the other day about 
the shoes. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, may I make a suggestion in the interest 
of getting along. Senator McCarthy's question was whether or not 
you heard or received information that the only deviation from the 
"regular uniform was shoes that Schine had purchased, that were not 
regulation shoes. Now, the question goes to your information, and 
you can answer that, and we will get along whether or not you received 
such information. Did you or not? 

Secretary Stevens. I received information about the shoes. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, the question has been asked and answered, 
Senator. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would like to sustain the point of order, 
by suggesting to counsel and committee members, if he will try to 
ask questions which are susceptible to a yes or no answer, and if 
witnesses will try and make a yes or no answer, we can certainly move 
forward much more rapidly than we now are. 

Senator McCarthy. I am sure the Chair will agree with me that 
the question was susceptible to a yes or no answer. 

Now, again having reference to the Chair's statement, about the 
duty upon the part of the press to tell the truth, I find here a story 
written by the North American Newspaper Alliance, dated April 27, 
1954, and it says 

Mr. Jenkins, Noav, Senator, is that the basis of a question that you 
are about to ask the witness? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. I think it is perfectly proper. 

Senator McCarthy. This is the day you testified, Mr. Stevens. 
"G. David Schine was enjoying filet mignon and cham])agne at the 
Stork Club in New York, when he should have been jjeeling potatoes 
at Fort Dix." Now, if this is untrue, it is rather a vicious reflection 
upon the Army's handling of this private, and if it is true we should 
know it. Did you ever testify or do you have any knowledge to the 
effect that this private was enjoying "filet mignon and champagne 
at the Stork Club in New York when he should have been peeling 
potatoes at Fort Dix"? 

Mr. Jenkins. You can answer that yes or no. 

Secretary Stevens. I didn't testify to that effect. 

Mr. Jenkins. You can answer that yes or no. 

Secretary Stevens. Then, I would like to have the recorder read it 
back. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me restate it for you. 

Secretary Stevens. No, I would like to have it read. 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read it and perhaps we can get 
a yes or no answer. 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Secretary Stevens. I certainly never testified to that effect, Mr. 
Jenkins. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 589 

Mr. Jenkins. The quostion also embraced whether or not you testi- 
fied. You say you didn't and that is a definite answer. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. And he likewise asked you whether or not you had 
any knowledge that such was the fact. You can answer that "Yes'' or 
"No." Did you have any knowledge that such w\as the fact? 

Secretary Stevens. The "Yes" or "No"' business is very difficult, 
Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Surely; it seems to be. I am not arguing with you, 
Mr. Secretary, please understand that. We are trying to get along and 
bring this thing to a conclusion sometime. Do you know whether or 
not anybody ever told you, any person, any newspaper account, 
whether or not you luid any knowledge that Private Schine was en- 
joying filet mignon when he should have been peeling potatoes? Did 
anybody ever tell you that? Did you have any knowledge of such a 
thing as that, even from hearsay ? That is what the Senator is asking. 

Mr. Stevens. The question has certainly been raised with me as to 
whether or not Private Schine was not in New York at times when he 
should have been at Fort Dix. 

Mr. Jenkins. This question is whether or not he is eating steaks in 
New York City when he should have been down at Fort DJx peeling 
potatoes. Did anybody ever tell you such a thing as that? 

Secretary Stevens No, I don't think I ever heard that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now we have an answer. Go ahead ? 

Senator McCarthy. Then as far as this story is concerned, it is false 
and manufactured out of whole cloth. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, I instruct you and suggest that you 
do not have to answer that. You don't have to pass on the question 
of the truth or falsity of what some newspa])er wrote. I think Senator 
JNIcCarthy overstepped the bounds of propriety when he asked you 
that question. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair upholds the point of order. You may 
proceed. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask you this question : Is the statement 
that Schine was enjoying filet mignon and champagne at the New 
York Stork Club in New York when he should have been peeling 
potatoes at Fort Dix, as far as you know, completely false, regardless 
of who made it'? 

Mr. Jenkins. ]\Ir. Secretary, I recall that you have answered that 
question definitely. You said first of all that you had no personal 
knowledge of it. Then you said, secondly, no one had informed you 
of sucli a fact. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right, 

Mr. Jenkins. It is repetitious and I hope, Senator, you will pass 
to .tnother line of interrogation. 

Senator ]\Iundt. Proceed, Senator McCarthy. 

Counsel holds that question has been answered definitely in the 
negative. 

Senator McCarthy. Do I understand you have no knowledge what- 
soever of such an occurrence and never testified to such an occurrence ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I again remind you that the Secretary has 
given a definite answer, and I do request that you pass to another line 
of interrogation. 



590 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator McCarthy. 1 respect counsel, hut if counsel doesn't mind, 
I will conduct the interrogation until I f^et the answer. I don't think 
I have an answer to this. If I have, it is very simple for Mr. Stevens 
to repeat it. 

I just read a statement to you. I asked you whether or not you 
have any knowledge of any kind from any source that there is any 
truth in that statement. 

Mr. Jenkins. Apparently Senator McCarthy did not hear you or 
understand your answer, Mr. Secretary. I am sure you won't mind 
re|)eating your answer, and I now res]:)ectfully request you to do so. 

Senator IMcCartht. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you read that so I am sure? 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question. The Chair 
again suggests that those who ask the questions ask them so they can 
be answered "Yes'' or "JSTo,"' that those who answer them say "Yes" 
or "No," and that those who ask them listen to the answer. 

Read the question, please. 

Senator Mundt. Would we save time if you restated the question? 

Senator McCarthy. Oh, let it go. You have heard about the 
Peress case, Mr. Stevens? 

Secretary Stevt:ns. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Have you taken the time to check into the 
facts, and the background of that case? 

Secretary Stevens. Not all of the details, no. Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, you had a meeting at one time with 
Senator Mundt, and myself, and Senator Dirksen, and Senator Potter, 
at which time we discussed the Peress case, is that right? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. (^hairman, at this point I desire to call the com- 
mittee's attention to the issues involved in this controversy. It is 
])roper for Senator McCarthy to show the number of subversives that 
were either discharged or suspended at Fort Monmouth, as a result 
of his committee's investigations. It is not proper to go into the 
merits of each individual case. That would lead us into an inquiry in 
Avhich Senator McCarthy would be permitted to introduce ]n'oof and 
the Secretary would be permitted to introduce proof as to whether or 
not the discharge or suspension was meritorious, and pro])er. There 
was as this committee knows, a board which passed upon the question 
as to whether or not a discharge was indicated as a result of testimony 
uncovered. The fact that the board did discharge or suspend is as 
far as this committee can go. It was a legally constituted board, and 
its decision was final, and the fact that it suspended is in itself suffi- 
cient proof and all of the proof this committee wants as to justification 
for the suspension. I wanted to make that clear so that we would not 
get into an erroneous side inquiry with respect to the merits of each 
individual thirty-odd cases, if indeed there were thirty-odd cases. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, counsel has just called my at- 
tention to tlie specification No. 46, which shows this inijuiry is strictly 
within the issues, and if I )nay read that, "Tlie pattern followed by 
Secretary Stevens and Mr. Adams is clear, as long as only individual 
Communists were the object of the subcommittee's investigation, they 
made continuing offers of cooperation with the investigation, but as 
soon as the problem turned to the infinitely more im])ortant ques- 
tion, to the infinitely more important question, of who was respon- 
sible for protecting Communist inliltration, and protecting Commu- 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 591 

nists who had infiltrated everv conceivable obstacle was placed in the 
path of the subcommittee search for tlie trutli. An illustration of 
this technique is the invest ij^at ion \)f the iVrniy Signal Corps where 
cooperation was ofi'ered, and exposure of individual Communists, but 
where every etfort was made to impede the subcommittee's attemi)ts 
to examine those who had consistently cleared Communists, and had 
•liven to them a })rotective cover to continue and keep posts in sensi- 
tive radar laboratories. FinallV; o;raphic example, is the case of Maj. 
Irving Peress, the Com.munist Party functionary who was commis- 
sioned a captain in spite of an open record of Communist Party 
activities, who claimed the fifth amendment, on questions involving 
lii^ loyalty to his country, and who in the face of this fifth amend- 
ment claim was promoted to the rank of major, and whose overseas 
orders were canceled after interver.tion of a Congressman. 

Then, we go on, and I don't want to take any more time, but let 
me read the next paragraph on second thought : The names of those 
people responsible for what the Department of Defense has now 
conceded to have been gross mishandling of this case, to the detriment 
of our national security, have never been made available to the sub- 
committee by Secretary Stevens or Mr. Adams, despite frequent de- 
mands for such information orally and in writing by this subcom- 
mittee. Messrs. Stevens, Adams, and associates have been quick to 
publish and release a report calculated to smear the investigators and 
exposure of known Communist infiltration, but despite the lapse of 
months they have yet to produce for the American public the long- 
promised report naming those officials still serving under them wdio 
are responsible for the rise in the Army of a Communist conspirator 
against this country. 

Xow, Mr. Jenkins, may I sav for your information, and I know 
that you can't foresee the line of questioning, but the purpose of 
this questioning is to show that after Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams 
knew that w^e were going to press for the names of those who know- 
ingly promoted a Communist, individuals much more dangerous than 
rhe Communists themselves, that then is where they said, "If you don't 
stop, we will issue you a smear report on Mr. Cohn," and he didn't 
think of McCarthy, he dragged him in later. Mr. Chairman, this is 
the whole part of this controversy, whether or not after Mr, Adams 
knew that they were down to the line, that they had to give us the 
names of those whose names we still don't have, who have been respon- 
sible for all of the Peresses and the rest being in the Department, that 
]s when they started to issue the reports and successfully, Mr. Chair- 
man, successfully called off the hearing by the issuance of that smear 
report, and again let me finish : It is very important to show when 
they first threatened to issue the report, why they decided to issue it 
at the time they did, and unless I go into this, it is impossible to 
develop that. 

Mr. Jenkixs. Mr. Chairman, may I state this. No. 1. the fact that 
such a charge is made in the specifications of Senator McCarthy does 
not necessarily make it a relevant issue. No. 2, I have held with 
Senator ]McCarthy, and I see no reason to belabor the point, that if 
as a result of his investigations, any one subversive, or any number 
of subversives were discharged or suspended, that matter is res 
adjudicata. A duly constituted board passed upon it, held as far as 



592 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

this committee is concerned that the proof was sufficient to justify a 
suspension. 

Now, in the face of that, as I. understand, the Senator proposes 
now to go into the merits of certainty one individual case, to wit 
the Major Peress case. 

If he is permitted to go into the merits of that one case, he will be 
permitted to go into the merits of whether or not there was justifica- 
tion for a dismissal of 33 employees, if 33 employees were dismissed 
or suspended. 

Going further, the Senator says that his line of questioning is de- 
signed to bring out, to elicit information, as to who is responsible for 
retarding his work, of for retaining these subversives who were dis- 
charged, and they are now branded as such by reason of their being 
discharged temporarily, at least. 

Certainly, the Chair holds — I beg your pardon — that counsel holds, 
and I am not trying to usurp the prerogatives of our able and dis- 
tinguished chairman, and let me make that clear. But one of the 
charges is, and I think it is germane to this issue, that not only was 
there an attempt made to stop the investigation of Fort Monmouth, 
but that there was an attempt made to stop Senator McCarthy's com- 
mittee from exposing those who allegedly were responsible for the 
failure to detect the existence, the presence of these subversives at 
Fort Monmouth. That subject is one of proper inquiry. 

Now, I have held with the Senator on about three-fourths of his 
points of objection, and I hope we won't belabor this point. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, may I say to the very able counsel 
that I am not sure you have completely gotten the point that I tried 
to make. 

Mr. Jenkins. Only one objection, Senator, and tliat is going into 
the merits of each individual case, including the Major Peress case. 
You have apparently been vindicated insofar as your investigation 
is concerned if your efforts resulted in the suspension of one or more 
bad security risks. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Jenkins. I do not intend to go 
into the merits of the Major Peress case. Incidentally, Major Peress 
was honorably discharged, not suspended. I dp not intend to go into 
the merits of that case. The position I take, and I would like to 
make this clear once and for all, is that the opposition of the Secretary 
and Mr. Adams, Avith Mr. Hensel in the back-ground, reached its 
height at two points: Once when we tried to find out who was re- 
sponsible for returning Communists to the radar laboratories, and 
the next time when we tried to find out who was responsible for the 
special treatment for this fifth amendment Communist. 

As I say, I do not intend to ex]:»lore the merits of the Peress case, 
but the facts surrounding the promises made to us, our demands for 
additional witnesses, what happened when those demands were made 
and when those demands were not honored. 

Perhaps if I go ahead with the questions, if counsel will listen to 
me I am sure he will agree that these questions are proper. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCarthy just made a refer- 
ence to Mr. Hensel in the background. There is no evidence of that 
kind. That is a gratuitous statement by Senator McCarthy, and 1 
object to it as a statement of fact by counsel which has no support 
whatsoever. 



SPECIAL im^ESTIGATION 593 

Senator Mundt. The Chair hopes that we can continue to keep Mr. 
Hensel in the background until he is brought into the case by some 
specific testimony or being called to the stand. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, just so there is no inference 
left that we are unfair to Mr, Hensel, the testimony has been that he 
was the man who prepared or helped to prepare the charges against 
Mr. Cohn. 

Senator Muxdt. The committee is aware of the fact that that is 
included in your specifications. We are not interrogating, at the 
moment, Mr. Hensel. He- made a rejoinder, but that is not before 
us for the time being. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, Mr. Jenkins makes the point 
that we should not go into the merits of any individual case, I agree 
with him on that, I am not concerned about the merits of this fifth- 
amendment case. They were disposed of. But let's go a step further. 
We did discuss with you, did we not, the question of calling before 
the committee the people in the Pentagon who were responsible for the 
special treatment received by this fifth amendment Communist after 
his record disclosed he was a Communist? We discussed that with 
you, didn't we? 

Secretary Stevens. When do you mean. Senator? 

Senator McCarthy. At a meeting in the Capitol restaurant, a meet- 
ing attended by you. Senator Mundt, myself, and Senator Potter, 

Secretary Ste\'ens. That is correct. The Peress case was discussed. 

Senator McCarthy. After considerable discussion back and forth, 
it was agreed that the committee Avas entitled to the production of 
those responsible; that while you had a right to instruct them not to 
answer any questions which would violate any Army Regulations, 
which would violate security, that you had no right to order a witness 
not to appear, and agreed that — maybe the question is too long. I 
will stop there. 

Secretary Stevens. That was discussed, and I told you. Senator 
McCarthy, that as soon as I had gotten back from the Far East — 
let me say I didn't know anytliing about the Peress case until after he 
was out of the Army. Then I learned a lot about it. I stated at that 
meeting that you referred to that — the Inspector General's report, 
which I had instructed be made with res])ect to the Peress case — 
and I had given that instruction 

Mr. Jenkins. May I warn the Secretary that perhaps you are about 
to make the merits of the Peress case relevant by discussing it your- 
self and presenting your side and your conclusions. 

I want to say that it is not a proper subject of investigation, and this 
committee does not want to hear it; and I suggest, Mr. Welch, that Mr. 
Secretary not refer to the merits of the Peress case. It could be made 
relevant. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, I am in agreement with Mr. Jenkins, 
and I think this particular inquiry should now be terminated, I will 
take the responsibility of instructing the witness that under the rul- 
ings of the counsel, he need not testify further in respect to the 
Peress case. 

Senator Mundt. That may be going a little bit beyond counsel's 
admonition, I might suggest, but at least the Chair believes the Secre- 



594 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

tary has answered the Senator's question about the hmcheon, and sug- 
gests to the Senator that he continue with his questioning. 

Senator McCarthy. Will you proceed Avith your answer, omitting 
what counsel suggested to you, JVIr. Stevens ? 

Mr. Welch. A point of order. 

Senator Mundt. Will you restate the question? It occurs to the 
Chair he had already answered the part you asked him. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a point of order, Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. I have. I am under the impression that Mr. Jenkins 
has foreclosed this line of inquiry and, if so, I don't want to proceed 
with it. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I suggest that the reporter read the question, 
and then we will know, Mr. ^Yelc]l, whether or not it is a pro]ier ques- 
tion at this time. 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question that the Secre- 
tary was answering at the time of the interruption. 

(Whereupon, the question was read by the reporter as above 
recorded.) 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, I don't believe the Secretary answered 
that question, and I believe it is proper and I suggest that you give 
the Senator an answer to that question, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Stevens. I said to the Senators, to Senator McCartliy, 
that when the Inspector General report was complete, that whatever 
names were available from that report, I would make available to the 
committee. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, you told us that you would 
have an "investigation made, that you would give the committee the 
names of those who were responsible for the special treatment or call 
it what you may, of Peress? 

Secretary Stevens. We were trying to run the whole thing down 
and would make available the names to you. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, have you ever made those names 
available? 

Secretary Stevens. The Inspector General report has not been com- 
pleted the last I heard. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you know at this time ? 

]Mr. Jenkins. You can answer "Yes" or "No." Have you made 
the names available ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very good. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you order the Inspector General to make 
an investigation ? 

Senator Symington. I take a point of order on that. 

Senator McClf.llan. He has a perfect right to state why. 

Mr. Jenkins. Certainly he does, and no one has precluded him that 
right. 

Senator Mundt. You want to expand your answer to that? 

Secretary Stevens. I am a little nonplussed here to "Yes"* and "No" 
business, because I am anxious to give the right kind of answers and 
not prolong the hearing. 

Yes, the reason they haven't been submitted is because the Inspec- 
tor General has not yet submitted his report, in which those names 
would be made available, and I don't know who they are. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 595 

Senator McCarthy. Now, Mr. Secretary, as I recall, when you re- 
turned to the United States and found that Peress had not even an 
honorable discharge, you were interviewed by the press and you said at 
that time that this was a completely improper act, that is, giving liim 
an honorable discharge or something to that effect. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, again repeating what I have said, 
that question is directed to the merits of the Major Peress case, and it 
is my ruling that you do not have to answer it. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr, Chairman, the Peress case, may 1 have the 
attention of the Chair — Mr. Chairman, the Peress case, along with the 
Fort Monmouth cases go to the very heart of the charges. Mr. 
Stevens made certain promises to us and the Chair knows that he 
was present, and it is very important now to find out whether he 
thought this was an important case, and if so, why he hasn't checked 
into who gave this man a promotion, an honorable discharge, and on 
down the line. 

This goes to the motive in attempting to call off the hearings and 
may I say, Mr. Chairman, that I shall ask all of the questions I think 
are pertinent, and if the Chair rules that they need not be answered, 
well and good, but I must make the record so that we will have very 
clearly in mind what the contentions of Mr. Carr and Mr. Cohn and 
myself are. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary's opinion of the Peress 
case one way or the other, is wholly immaterial in that any answer 
would reflect his opinion of the guilt or innocence of Peress, and that 
is not in issue, and it is objected to. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will sustain an objection to any ques- 
tion asking the Secretary to express himself or. the guilt or innocence 
of Major Peress. That on the basis — the Chair has the floor — on the 
basis that he has ordered an Inspector General report and he has 
advised the committee it is not complete and until it is complete the 
Chair feels that the Secretary has a right to withhold his judgment. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am not asking the Secretary 
for an opinion on the guilt or innocence of ]\Ir. Peress. I am asking 
what he publicly said about the handling of this case, what he publicly 
said previously is not privileged in any way. I then want to And 
out why he didn't do something about it, and why he tried call off 
our hearings when we were doing something about it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, if Senator McCarthy's question is 
what the Secretary said about the manner in which the Peress case was 
handled by either the Army or by Senator McCarthy, that question 
would be proper because one of the charges is that the Army or the 
Secretary and/or Mr. Adams failed to t^ake such proper steps as were 
necessary to bring about the detection of subversives at Fort 
Monmouth. 

Now, if that is the burden of your question. Senator, I think that 
you are entirely right about it. Is it or not ? 

Senator McCarthy. I think it is, and if the question were reread, 
we would find it is. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is a different question to what you just asked 
prior thereto. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Will you rephrase your question ? 



596 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Mr. Jenkins. The question is now whether or not the Secretary 
made any criticism of the way the Army handled the Major Peress 
case, is that right ? 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. Let me rephrase the question. 

Rather than taking the time to have it reread, when you returned 
to the United States, Mr. Secretary, and got off your plane, did you 
make a statement in regard to the handling of the Peress case, a state- 
ment for the press ? 

Secretary Stevens. May I explain that, just what transpired, in 
order to give all of the facts? 

Mr. Jenkins. If it is possible to tell him whether or not you made 
a statement, that would be a "Yes" or "No" answer and then you have 
a right to explain. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, I made a statement. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, then. 

Secretary Stevens. What happened was that I said, I didn't know 
about the Peress case until after he was out of the Army, and he went 
out on the 2d of February and I got back on the 3d of February, to 
Washington, and when I landed I was met by the press. They asked 
me about this case and I of course had no knowledge of the case. I 
think I received a letter or something like that, to give me a little 
bit of information, but fundamentally I knew nothing about it. So 
I said, after listening to the press, put the questions around as they 
did, I finally said that if all of the things you boys say are true about 
this case, and now this is what I think I said, I am pretty clear on it, 
then I would say that I do not think Major Peress should have had an 
honorable discharge. Is that correct. Senator? 

Mr. Jenkins. That was not the question, and you now made it com- 
petent by stating that 3'ou think that he should have had an honorable 
discharge and we are trying to steer aw^ay from that, Mr. Secretary. 
The question is, did you state that it was mishandled or make any com- 
ment on how the Army had handled the Major Peress case? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir ; I stated it exactly as I recalled it and on 
which I just testified. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you want now your answer about his not being 
entitled to an honorable discharge to remain in the record? 

Secretary Stevens. Surely. 

Mr. Jenkins. It is not responsive to the question. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, that is what I said, and I am only trying 
to tell what I said. 

Mr. Jenkins. The question was, what did you say about the way 
the Peress case was handled or mishandled and not whether he should 
have had an honorable discharge or not. That leads us into an inquiry 
as to the merits of each individual case, and I know this committee 
wants to steer clear of that unless it wants to stay here until Christmas. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, Senator JNIcCarthy asked me a question 
about what I did say to the press when I got back here, 

Mr. Jenkins. About how it was handled, that was embraced in 
his question, Mr. Secretary. Is that not right, Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. Yes, but I would like to raise a point, Mr. Jenkins. 
What difference does it make as to what he said as to how it was 
handled. Here he was coming back from abroad. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is one of the issues, Mr. Welch, and that is 
whether or not the Army was properly handling these alleged sub- 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 597 

Tersives and was takinfr proper steps to detect them, and to bring 
about their suspension, and not whether or not they were guilty, but 
whether or not tlie Army had the machinery set up to do it as effi- 
ciently and expeditiously as the McCarthy investigating machinery. 
Am I not right about that ? 

]\Ir. Welch. I think that that is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Secretary, did you have a further statement 
to make ? 

Secretary Stfat:ns. I answered the question about what happened 
when I got off the plane. 

Senator Mundt. Senator, time has expired. Are there any ques- 
tions from counsel? Are there any questions from Senators to my 
right ? Are there any Senators to my left who have any questions ? 

Mr. Welch. None. 

Senator JMundt. You have 10 minutes, Mr. Cohn or Senator 
McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, your counsel, Mr. Welch, has 
just stated he didn't know what difference it makes how you felt 
about the handling of this case. I think, so you will know wliy I am 
asking you these questions, I will tell you what difference I think it 
makes. The question is whether 

Mr. Jenkins. I beg your pardon. If it is a question it is perfectly 
proper, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. The question here is whether you felt that this 
case was mishandled; if you did, whether or not you or someone 
else is now trying to protect those who mishandled the case. I am 
not going into the details of the Peress case. I am not asking what 
you think about it today. I am inquiring whether you felt it was 
mishandled then and, if so, whether you or someone else is refusing to 
give us the names of those who mishandled it. Just so Mr. AVelcli and 
you will know the purpose of the question. 

I am going to ask you this question : Did you make this statement 
when you asked about the Peress case : 

I stated quite emphatically to members of the press when I was interrogated 
on my return from the Far East on February 3 that I had the personal feeling 
that an officer should not get an honorable discharge from the service if he 
refuses to answer questions properly put to him by a congressional committee. 

Did you make that statement? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, that is not a proper question, in my 
opinion, and I instruct you that unless you care to do so voluntarily, 
you do not have to answer that. That is an expression of your opinion 
relative to the merits of the Peress case, whether or not he should 
have been honorably discharged. It is respectfully objected to, Mr. 
Chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. One of the all-important questions here, one 
of the issues raised, is that certain civilians in the Pentagon have 
tried, are trying, to cover up, protect those who promoted, honorably 
discharged, gave favorable duty orders to Major Peress. If that 
contention is correct, someone in the Pentagon is guilty of gross mis- 
conduct. If that contention is incorrect, then I have made a gross 
misstatement of fact. I am now trying to interrogate the Secretary 
about what I consider to be one of the all-important issues. The second 



598 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

all-important issue, Mr. Chairman, will be the protection and coverup 
of those who protected and sent back to work Communists or people 
with Communist records to the radar laboratory. The third will be 
whether or not when we tried to get to the protectors of Peress, the 
protectors of the Communists at Fort Monmouth, then we were 
threatened by Mr, Adams, with the full knowledge of Mr. Stevens, 
that unless we quit, they would issue the smear report which they did 
issue. Mr. Chairman, if I can't go into that question, we are just 
precluded from getting at the issues. We have wasted 2 days here on 
the question of why Mr. Carr was clipped off a picture by a photog- 
rapher at the Air Base, and why the commander was clipped off by 
Mr. Juliana. We spent 2 days on that. I would like to spend a little 
time on the real issues, if I could. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. Senator McCarthy is entitled to elicit 
from this witness any information as to whether or not the Army or 
the Secretary threw any roadblocks in his way in the investigations 
of these cases. He is entitled to question him as to whether or not 
a threat of smear was made. 

What I am trying to do is to steer clear of the guilt or innocence 
of Major Peress or any one of the so-called 33 employees at Fort 
Monmouth who were suspended. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. It is a very important question to determine 
whether or not Mr. Stevens publicly stated and felt that the Peress 
case was mishandled. 

Mr, Jenkins. That is proper. I agree with you. Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Here is my question, then. 

Senator Mundt. Will you ask the question again? Perhaps it was 
misunderstood. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I suggest 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan has the floor. 

Senator McClellan. As I heard the question I thought it was 
proper. I would like to have it reread. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has just suggested that it be reread. It 
is possible counsel did not hear it all. 

Senator IMcCartiiy. Let me reread it. 

Mr. Stevens, did you make the following statement, and for your 
benefit I am reading from your letter of February 16, 1954. At least 
that is the date of its receipt in my office. 

Senator Mundt. Addressed to you ? 

Senator McCarthy. Addressed to me. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

Senator McCarthy. From page 3 of the letter : 

I stated quite emphatically to members of the press when I was interrogated 
on my return from the Far East on February 3 that I had the personal feeling 
that an officer should not Ret an honorable discharge from the service if he 
refuses to answer questions properly put to him by a congressional committee. 

Senator McClellan. Is that the question ? 

Senator McCarthy. That is the question. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I think it is proper for the 
witness to say "Yes" or "No" to that question. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr, Chairman, I defer to the opinion of the dis- 
tinguished Senator from Arkansas. 



SPECIAL ES'VESTIGATION 599 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will rule that the question is proper, 
and if the Secretary understands it, he may answer it now, and we 
will have it reread if you care to have it reread. 

Secretary Stevexs. Yes, it is true, and I would like to continue on. 

Senator Mundt. You may. 

Secretary Stevexs. That letter of February 16 to Senator McCarthy 
in re<rard to the Peress case, I made public myself, because I wanted 
the American people to know how I felt about the Peress case. It is 
a matter of public record, and it is certainly true what Senator Mc- 
Carthy just quoted from. 

Senator Symington. I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. 
Stevens has testified that he never heard the name Peress until after 
the man, Peress, was out of the Army, and he has also testified that 
he has not yet had the Inspector General's report. In an effort to 
expedite these hearings, might it not be better to ask witnesses who 
did know about the Peress case before he w^as out of the Army, if it 
is relevant to this hearing, and who do know about the Inspector 
General's report, with respect to what it says in this particular 
situation? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair does not believe that questions dealing 
with the Inspector General's report would be proper at this time, 
inasmuch as the report is not complete, as I have been advised by 
the Secretary. 

Senator Symington. If there are people who know these things, 
the Secretary says he doesn't know them, he did not hear the name 
of Major Peress until after he was out of the Armj', presumably there 
will be witnesses called later who do know more about it. I am simply 
raising this point in an effort to expedite these hearings. 

Secretary Stevens. General Caffey, the Judge Advocate General, 
is thoroughly familiar with all the details of this case. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I make this statement? 

Senator Mundt, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins. It is a good time to restate the issues. 

Mr. Secretary and Mr. Adams accused the McCarthy committee 
of using undue influence to get preferential treat for G. David Schine. 
The merits or the demerits of the Peress case shed no light whatever 
on that issue, as I see it. Countercharges are made by Senator Mc- 
Carthy's committee against Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams, in which, 
among other things, it is charged that they sought to discredit this 
committee, No. 1. No. 2, that they sought the cessation of the investi- 
gating committee's investigation at Fort Monmouth. No. 3, that they 
sought to stop Senator McCarthy and his committee from investigating 
the machinery of the Army and exposing its lack of efficiency in 
bringing about an expeditious investigation of the infiltration of 
Communists in the Army. 

Frankly, I fail to se where the Peress case in any respect sheds any 
light on those issues. 

Senator McCarthy. May I 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator, pardon the interruption. 

It might be proper to interrogate this witness with respect to the 
Major Peress case in order to elicit from the witness his ideas of what 
constitutes a subversive, a bad security risk, or what constitutes such 
a given state of facts as would justify the suspension of an employee 
from the Army ? 



600 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator McCarthy, Mr. Chairman, one of the very important 
issues here is whether or not this report of the charges against Mr. 
Cohn and Mr. Carr and myself were made in order to hold up the work 
of the committee, to protect those who in turn are given special con- 
sideration to known Communists. 

Unless I can go into that and develop that, we are wasting our time. 
That is the issue. That is one of the all-important issues. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I agreed with Senator Mc- 
Carthy a moment ago that that question was proper and should be 
answered, and it went to the policy and attitude of the Secretary of 
1 he Army. As to going into details of the Peress case, it has no proper 
place in this proceeding. 

Senator McCarthy. I don't intend to go into details of the Peress 
case. 

Let me make my position clear again, and I don't like to be repeti- 
tious, but I have no intention of going into the facts of the Peress case. 
I do want to go into this question, the question of why the attack was 
launched against Mr. Cohn, and did it have any connection with an 
attempt to cover up and protect those who mishandled or gave special 
consideration to Peress. 

It goes to motive in this case, and I think it is all-important. If I 
am precluded from going into this, then it is only logical that I cannot 
go into the motives surrounding the attacks made in connection with 
our attempt to get those who covered up Communists at Fort Mon- 
mouth. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair suggest now that I think all mem- 
bers of the committee and counsel should have pretty clearly before 
them what we consider relevant and germane and proper questions. 
So long as the questions on Peress or anyone else deal with the matter 
of motive and the specific charges before us, well and good. 

Insofar as they go into trying to decide the Secretary's attitude as 
to the guilt or innocence of any of these individuals, they are im- 
proper, because we are not trying at this time to decide the guilt or 
innocence of any of the people charged. 

Senator McCarthy. I agree with the Chair, 

Senator Mundt. I think the Senator has stated he doesn't intend to 
go into that. And so, if the question will be made clear as to the 
target, I think we can move ahead. 

Secretary Stevens. May I make a statement ? 

Senator McCarthy has suggested repeatedly here that I or somebody 
representing me was protecting somebody, or covering somebody up, 
or something of that kind, and I want it here and now completely clear 
to this committee that I am not covering up for anybody, at any time. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. 

Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy, I believe you stated, Mr. Secretary, that you 
had never heard about the Peress case before you came back to the 
United States. Isn't it a fact that you received a communication from 
Mr. Adams in regard to the Peress case when you were in the east? 

Secretary Stevens. In the Far East? 

Senator McCarthy. Or aiiy place before your return ? 

Secretary Stevens. I received I think it was a memorandum at a 
fueling stop at California in the middle of the night on the way back 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 601 

to Washington. And that is the first I heard of it; and he was out 
of the Army by that time. 

Senator McCarthy. You received a memorandum on the Peress 
case before you made your statement to the press? 

Secretary STE^'ENS. I had a memorandum on the Peress case which 
I looked quickly at on the plane before I got off, but I had no real 
working knowledge of the Peress case. 

Senator McCarthy. Did that memorandum tell you who ordered 
his honorable discharge? 

Secretary Stevens. No. 

Senator McCarthy. You are sure of that, Bob ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. As far as I can remember, as a matter of fact, 
I didn't have really time, Senator, to study the memorandum, and it 
was in the middle of the night when it came on board and I didn't 
make any particular attempt to familiarize myself with the Peress 
case prior to returning to Washington. 

As soon as I got back here, then I made it plenty of my business to 
get into it and find out what had transpired. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you study the memorandum after you got 
back? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think that I studied the memorandum. 
No, I started talking with the people who knew about the case because 
it had become a matter of public interest and I wanted to familiarize 
myself. 

Senator McCarthy, Mr. Secretary, did not that memorandum tell 
you who was responsible for the honorable discharge ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that it did. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you have that memorandum ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think we do. 

Senator McCarthy. You mean you didn't save that? 

Secretary Stem^ns. I don't think that — well, I don't know. 

Senator McCarthy, Could you find it? 

Secretary Stevens. We will find out. 

Senator McCarthy. How soon could we know ? 

Secretary Stevens. This afternoon. 

Senator McCarthy. You don't recall what was in the memorandum 
at all ? I am not asking you what was in it. 

Secretary Ste\t2ns. This was the first I had heard of the Peress case, 
and, actually, I don't remember even whether I fully read the memo- 
randum. But I know as soon as I got back and landed, and these 
questions were asked me, which have been referred to, then I made 
it my business to get into the Peress case, and I ordered the inspector 
general to get on it and give me the unmistakable facts about it as 
soon as he could. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, that was quite some time ago, wasn't it? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir, that was about, that was probably 
around the 10th or 12th of February. 

Senator McCarthy. Up to this time, Mr. Secretary, have you dis- 
covered who Avas responsible for the honorable discharge ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would ask the inspector general to give me the 
report. 

Senator McCarthy. Will you answer the question ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I don't know who was responsible. 



602 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Senator McCarthy. You don't know up to this time? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know who was responsible. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, you said you got into it ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Wouldn't the first logical thing you would do 
would be to find out who was responsible for the honorable discharge ? 

Secretary Stevens. The first logical thing for me to do was to get 
the Inspector General to make a complete report for me on the Peress 
case, and then know exactly, and so far as the facts could be estab- 
lished, as to who had in any way, at any point, touched the Peress case, 
and when that information is available if there is any dereliction of 
duty in connection with the Peress case, I can assure you it will be 
properly dealt with. 

Senator McCarthy. You said you talked to the people who knew 
about the Peress case when you came back ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you not ask the simple question, who 
ordered an honorable discharge for this man ? 

Secretary Stevens. As I recall, it was a routine action, in the Adju- 
tant General's office, which handled thousands of cases per day. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you not ask and find out whether or not 
Mr. Adams was the man who phoned and ordered the honorable 
discharge? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. No, sir, I don't recall that at all. And Mr. 
Adams would have had no right to order an honorable discharge. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me just without going into the details of 
the case again, but as a background for a question, there had been an 
honorable discharge ordered, I believe, around January 1, and he was 
given 90 days to accept, and so when I talked about who ordered the 
honorable discharge I think the record should be corrected to refer 
to the speeding up or expediting of it, the day after he appeared 
before our committee. Did you find out who did that? 

Secretary Stevens. Will you restate that, or let the reporter read it? 

Senator McCarthy. I will restate it. The discharge was ordered, 
as I recall, sometime around January 1 of 1954. It gave Mr. Peress 
90 days in which to accept that honorable discharge. He did not ac- 
cept it until the day after I wrote you suggesting a court-martial in 
his case. The question is : Who arranged for his honorable discharge 
after I had written that letter, which was made public incidentally 
the day before he got the honorable discharge. Did you find out who 
was responsible for that act? 

Secretary Stevens. No; I didn't. Senator, and I expect that will all 
be in the inspector general's report. 

Senator McCarthy. Are you interested in that now, Bob? 

Secretary Stevens. I am interested in all phases of this thing, to 
see how 

Senator McCarthy. Are you interested in that ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. Good. Now, you met with Senator Mundt, and 
Senator Potter, and Senator Dirksen and myself on February 24; is 
that right? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. That is the conversation we are talking about? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 603 

Senator McCarteit. Now, did 3'ou after you left that office, decide 
that you would have issued a report concerning charges against Mr. 
Colin, and Mr. Carr, and myself? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns, I did not. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me read from Mr. Hensel's specifications, 
if I may. Keep in mind that it was testified Mr. Henscl either helped 
prepare or guided the preparation or something of this charge. He 
said: 

Not until February 24, 1954, did I have any information that the Department 
of the Army had been having- difiiculty with Senator McCarthy, Roy Cohn, or 
anyone else witli respect to G. David Schine. 

This indicates that after you had the meeting with Senator Mundt, 
myself, and the other two Senators, someone then for the first time 
talked to Mr. Hensel who prepared the report. Is that correct ? 

Secretary Sitcvens. Evidently, if that is a quote from Mr. Hensel, 
that must have been correct, but 

Senator McCarthy. Did you order the report prepared after you 
left the conference 

Secretary Stevens. I did not. 

Senator McCarthy. "Were you pretty unhappy when you left that 
conference. Bob? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman ; Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. I don't think this airing of a conference be- 
tween Republicans is quite fair to the Democrats. We didn't have a 
chance to be in on it. I think we ought to confine it to the issues here 
or we are going to prolong these proceedings indefinitely if we are 
going into all these family quarrels. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am very interested in know- 
ing, and I think it is very important to know, why it was only after 
this conference with the Senators that Mr. Hensel was contacted and 
told to prepare this report. It goes to the motives. It is a very im- 
portant issue in the case. 

Mr. Bryan. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. There is no evidence 
that Mr. Hensel was told to prepare that report at that time or any 
other. 

Mr, Jenkins. Mr, Cliairman, Senator McCarthy is reading from a 
document and I must assume that he is reading that document cor- 
rectly. That is a statement made by Mr. Hensel in writing that he 
<Jid not know that there was difficulty between the Army and the 
McCarthy committee until February 24. Is that right, Senator? Is 
thai what you read ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. He has asked the Secretary about a meeting on Feb- 
ruary 2-1- at which time the Secretary was present and his question 
w^as whether or not the Secretary determined as of that date or imme- 
diately thereafter to release this document making the charges against 
the McCartliy committee. I think that it is entirely proper. 

Senator ^Iundt. The Chair agrees. We will have to overrule the 
point of order he had made by counsel for Mr. Hensel. 

Senator McCarthy. 

Secretary Stevens. I did not do any such thing. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask you this, Mr. Secretary : When did 
you first tell Mr. Hensel to prepare this report ? 



604 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. I never told Mr. Hensel to prepare the report. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask this, Mr. Chairman : Is there any 
evidence at this time, a letter to Mr. Potter, in which it is stated that 
Mr. Hensel either supervised or helped prepare the report? Is that 
in the record ? 

Senator Mdxdt. The Chair does not recall of his own individual 
memor3^ 

Mr. Jenkins. There is no such 



Senator Potter. There is no such letter. 

Senator McCarthy. Isn't there a letter to Potter from Hensel or 
someone saying Hensel helped prepare it? 

Senator Potter. I assume you are referring to the letter which I 
wrote to Secretary Wilson, and I believe, if I am not mistaken, that 
the letter was signed by a liaison officer. Possibly it was signed by 
Mr. Hensel. I am not certain. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a point of order? 

Mr. Bryan. To clarify this thing and perhaps expedite it: The 
letter in response to Senator Potter's letter of March 8, I believe it 
was, transmitting the chronological statement of events, was signed 
by Mr. Hensel as counsel to the Department of Defense. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

The letter was signed, you say, by Mr. Hensel? 

Mr. Bryan. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. May I read the letter into the record? 

Senator Mundt. The letter to Mr. Potter then was signed by IMr. 
Hensel. 

Very well, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. May I read the letter into the record, Mr. 
Chairman? I will ask Mr. Hensel to follow this to make sure this 
is a correct copy : 

Dear Senator Potter: In response to the request made, in your letter of 
March 8, 1954, to the Secretary of Defense I am enclosing herewith a chrono- 
logical statement of the discussion with Private G. David Schine and the 
manner in which he was assigned and treated. This chronological statement 
has heen compiled under my supervision by examination of various files of the 
Army and after oral examination o*f the individuals mentioned who were 
available to the men assigned by me to prepare the document itself. 

I believe this chronological statement will furnish the answer to the three 
specific questions requested by you, and all facts stated therein have been 
verified in the manner above-mentioned. If you wish any further information 
will you please call upon me. , 

Sincerely yours. 

And I call attention again to the one line : 

This statement has been compiled under my supervision. 

Signed, "H. Struve Hensel." 

Mr. Bryan. I may say that letter is dated March 10, 1954. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. The date of the letter has been estab- 
lished. 

The time of the Senator from Wisconsin has expired. Counsel, 
have you any further Questions? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, one question. You stated that after 
you returned from the Orient, you first learned of the Peress case. 
Is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 605 

Mr. Jenkins. When was that, ]\Ir. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. That ^vas during the night of the 2cl and 3d of 
February. 

Mr. Jenkins. When did you request the Inspector General to in- 
vestigate the Peress case and give you a report on it ? 

Secretary Stevens. Within a few days after I returned. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then you made that request early in February of 
this year? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. So February, March, and April, some 3 months, have 
elapsed since you made the request of the Inspector General for a 
report on the Peress case ; is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. A little less than that, yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. A littb less than 3 months' time. 

How long does it ordinarily take an Inspector General to make an 
investigation and give you a report on a case comparable to the Peress 
case? 

Secretary Stevens. First of all, I don't recall any comparable to 
the Peress case. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Secretary Stevens. Secondly, it depends upon the amount of terri- 
tory that has to be covered and the number of people who ha,ve to be 
interviewed. 

]Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, in the interim, have you ever requested 
the Inspector General to speed up his investigation or to give you any 
report on it ? 

Secretary Stevens. I know that the Inspector General knows of 
my interest in this case. I have never spoken to him personally and 
told him to do anything except get this report for me as soon as he 
could do a good job on it, and give me all the facts. 

Mr. Jenkins. You contacted him personally a little less than 3 
months ago ? 

Secretary Stevens. I didn't contact him personally. I sent in- 
structions that I wanted to have this report made. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right. The same result was accomplished. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. That has been nearly 3 months ago? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. In the meantime, have you received any interiirf re- 
port on it? 

Secretary Stevens. I picked up 

Mr. Jenkins. Any partial report? 

Secretary Stevens. I picked up information from time to time, 
yes, about the Peress case. I have, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Has the Inspector General given you any report? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Partial or otherwise? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Have you requested him to make any report on it, 
since your first message to him early in February ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I don't think that I have. I wanted to 
have a complete, wrapped-up job done on this thing. But you see, 
if I could explain for just a moment, the number of people that would 
handle the papers in a case like this, might run into very substantial 



606 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

numbers and they might run — it might be very hard to identify and 
we are trying our best to get the names of the people that handled 
the papers, which is what Senator McCarthy asked me for. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, wasn't the investigation of the Peress case 
apparently a fairly simple matter ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, it was complicated matter. 

Mr. Jenkins. A very complicated case? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say that it was a big job to get all of the 
facts together in regard to just how the Peress case was handled. 

Mr. Jenkins. So for that reason it has never occurred to you that 
the Inspector General has been derelict in his duty ? 

Secretary Stevens. Not at all. 

Mr. Jenkins. Or slow in making his investigation in giving you 
a report ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you have any idea when you will get a report 
on the Peress case ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think it could come at any time. 

Mr. Jenkins. You are expecting it momentarily? 

Secretary Stevens. At any time. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then probably before the termination of this 
hearing ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would guess so ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. Any of the Senators on my right have 
any questions? 

JDo any of the Senators on my left? 

Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. None. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn ? And the chair- 
man would suggest after this next 10-minute interval, that we would 
undoubtedly want to recess for lunch. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, you realize, of course, with the 
directly conflicting stories, the committee members may have difficulty 
arriving at the truth of this case, and therefore I must go into some 
of these details which seem to be the key or the tipoff of what has 
happened from time to time. 

Now, I find Mr. Hensel again, it wasn't until the night after the 
conference with me and the other Senators, that this matter was 
brought to Mr. Hensel's attention. Mr. Hensel: "I supervised the 
preparation of the report." 

Do you think that is merely coincidence, or was it because when you 
went back to tlie Pentagon some of your people back there were very 
unliappy about this and decided to get every report then on Mr. Cohn? 

Secretary Stevens. That had absolutely nothing to do with it. 

Senator ]\IcCartiit. Let me ask you this : When you went back to 
the Pentagon, is it a fact that some of them were very unhappy with 
the agreement you made with the committee ? 

Secretary Stevens. If so they didn't say so to me. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, weren't you extremely disturbed your- 
self later that evening? 

Secretary Stevens. I was worried about it; yes, sir. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 607 

Senator McCarthy. All yoii ai^reecl to do in the agreement was to 
furnish us the names of those responsible in the Peress case, and make 
them available to testify. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Why would you be so disturbed about that? 
That is a right that a committee has always had and should have and 
why would you be so disturbed about that ? 

Secretary Stevens. I was disturbed primarily on account of the 
General Zwicker case, where General Zwicker had been abused, and 
I was very anxious that Army witnesses, whether in or out of uniform, 
be not abused by you in the future. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, but that condition hadn't changed from 
the time you left the meeting with us, until the time you got to the 
Pentagon, did it? In other words, as far as Zwicker was concerned, 
his situation had not changed at all on the 24th ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, it had changed to the extent that it was 
popularly considered by the press and others, that I had forgotten all 
about General Zwicker and my fundamental principle of fighting to 
have my witnesses from the Department of the Army not abused, and 
treated properly, and I never gave that principle up, and I don't now. 

Senator McCarthy. I think maybe there, Mr. Secretary, you are 
putting your finger on the trouble. You weren't disturbed about what 
you had agreed to do, but you were disturbed about what the press 
said about what you had agreed to do. 

Secretary Stevens. I was disturbed there wasn't more in that mem- 
orandum, too. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, now, you helped write the memorandum. 

Secretary Stevens. I was present. 

Senator McCarthy. And Senator Mundt read it over to you very 
carefully. 

Secretary Stevens. Senator Mundt typed it. 

Senator McCarthy. And we spent a great deal of time looking 
over the memorandum and striking out a word here and then adding 
one there, isn't that right, and striking some out at your suggestion 'i 

Secretary Stevens. There was a lot of discussion. 

Senator McCarthy. And we made some deletions at your 
suggestion ? 

Secretary Stevens. But there were a lot of things I did suggest 
that you didn't put in. 

Senator McCarthy. All right, now, the substance of the mem- 
orandum was that you agreed to give us the names of those responsible 
in the case of this fifth-amendment Communist and they would be 
called before the committee. Beyond that, we didn't go, did we, 
in the agreement ? I am wondering why you would be disturbed so 
deeply that you had agreed to give us the key, the lead, back to those 
responsible. 

Secretary Stevens. I was disturbed because of the fact that the 
abuse of witnesses was my fundamental problem that I was having 
with you at that time, and it continued to be a problem and it just 
appeared from that memorandum that I had apparently, I had for- 
gotten about that, which was not the case, and accordingly I spoke 
from the White House the next evening, in order to clear the situation 
up on that point, and you will recall what you said about my state- 



608 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

ment right after I had made it. You said it was a complete falsehood. 

Senator McCarthy. Now let us get back to this, liobert. Yovi had 
on the 24th. in other words, the date that Mr. Hensel said he first 
learned about the charges against Mr. Cohn here, and others, and 
that was the date you left the meeting, and you said you went to the 
Pentagon after that, did you ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. And when did you start to become unhappy 
about the agreement you made? 

Secretary Stevens. I was unhappy about it right from its inception. 

Senator McCarthy. You were unhappy when you stood there smil- 
ing and shaking my hand w^iile the photographers were taking 
pictures ? 

Secretary Stevens. Unhajipy, period. 

Senator McCarthy. All right. Then you got back to the Pentagon. 
Would you tell us how there was originated that particular night 
the charges against Mr. Cohn ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have no idea. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you talk to Hensel that night? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think I did. 

Senator McCartjiy. Do you remember? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think I did, no; I am pretty sure I 
didn't. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you talk to Mr. Adams ? 

Secretary Stevens. As a matter of fact, I w^ent back to the office, 
and then I went home. And I don't think that I saw anybody, ex- 
cept some of my own staff on that afternoon, after I got back from 
this meeting. 

Senator McCarthy. You went from the meeting to the Pentagon ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is my recollection. 

Senator McCarthy. And you say you did not see Mr. Adams that 
niMit? 

Secretary Stevens. No; I didn't say I didn't see Mr. Adams. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you know" whether you did or not? It is 
rather important, Mr. Secretary, to know how come on this particu- 
lar night there ap])arently was conceived the idea for this smear 
campaign against my staff. And I would like to know who origi- 
nated and who talked to Avhom ? 

Secretary Stevens. If it was originated then, or any other time, 
which I very much doubt, I have no knowledge of it; and I had 
nothing to do with it. 

Senator McCarthy. You say you had nothing to do with it? 

Secretary Stevens. Absolutely nothing to do with it. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you ever discuss with Adams the prepara- 
tion of these charges ? 

Secretary Stevens. Discuss with — what is that? 

Senator McCarthy. Did you ever discuss with Adams the prepara- 
tion of these charges ? 

Secretary Stevens. Of course I discussed with Adams. 

Senator McCarthy. You discussed the preparation of the charges 
with Adams? 

Secretary Stem^ns. But IVIr. Hensel has outlined how this or what 
this chronology was prepared under his supervision. 



SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 609 

Senator McCarthy. Try and stick to my question, will you? The 
question is : Did you discuss with Mr. Adams the preparation of 
these charges? 

Secretary Ste\T!:ns. Which charges do you mean ? 

Senator McCarthy. The ones against Mr. Carr, Mr. Cohn and 
myself "i 

Secretary Stevens. As far as I know, there was no discussion the 
24th of February or for a considerable period of time thereafter 
about any charges. 

Senator McCarthy. All right, let's forget about the time lapse. 

Secretary Stevens. You have been asking me about the 24th of 
November. 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

The question is : Did you ever discuss with Mr. Adams the prepara- 
tion of these charges? 

Secretary Stevens. Actually, the charges were prepared by counsel. 

Senator McCarthy. Oh, answer my question. 

JMr. Jenkins. You have not answered the question, may I respect- 
fully call to your attention that fact. The question is simple: Did 
you ever discuss wnth Mr. Adams the preparation of these charges? 
I am sure he means the release of March 11, 1954. Did you discuss 
that with Mr. Adams? 

Secretary Stevens. I will tell you all I know about it, Mr. Jenkins. 
One of Mr. Hensel's men came in my office and asked me what I knew 
about certain of these events, and I told him. I contributed to the 
preparation of this chronology of events in answer to Senator Potter's 
letter by recalling and putting in whatever information I had on 
the subject. 

Mr. Jenkins. Did you discuss it with Mr. Adams? Did you talk 
to him about the contents? 

Secretary Stevens. I am sure I must have talked to Mr. Adams 
about it. After all, he was the Department Counselor. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right. Very well. There has been a question 
asked and a specific answer given. We are getting along. 

Senator McCarthy. Now that we have that answer, Mr. Secre- 
tary, will you tell us whether you and Mr. Adams discussed whether 
or not such charges should be made public ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall having discussed that with Mr. 
Adams. 

Senator McCarthy. Did Mr. Adams ever discuss with you the ques- 
tion of whether or not making public these charges might hold up 
the investigation of the committee ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you ever personally go to the office of any 
of the Senators on this committee at the time we were asking for the 
production of certain people in the Loyalty Board and discuss the 
charges against ]Mr. Cohn ? 

Secretary Stevens. I called on five individual members of this com- 
mittee at the time that General Zwicker had been abused. That was 
on the lOtli day of February I called on five members of this com- 
mittee. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you read the question to the Secretary ? 

Mr. Jenkins. AVithout having it read, Mr. Secretary, I again call 
your attention to the fact that you have not answered the question. 



610 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 

Secretary Stevens. This is the only time I ever recall having gone 
up and talked to members of this conniiittee. 

Mr. Jenkins. The question Avas whether or not you ever called on 
any members of this committee with respect to charges you have made 
against Mr. Cohn. Is that correct, Senator ? Is that wdiat you asked ? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Your answer was not responsive, patently, Mr. Sec- 
retary. It is simple : Did you call on any of the members of this com- 
mittee with respect to your charges against Mr. Cohn wliich have 
been filed? 

Secretary Stevens. I called on the members of this committee with 
respect to General Zwicker. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right. Again that isn't an answer. You called 
on them with respect to the alleged abuse of General Zwicker. That 
can be true, and still you could have called on the members of this 
committee with respect to the charges against Mr. Cohn. 

Secretary Stevens. I did not call on the members of this committee 
in regard to the charges against Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now we have a direct answer, Senator. Will you 
please pass to something else ? 

Senator McCakthy. If you didn't call on them, did you ever discuss 
with any members of this committee the charges against Mr. Cohn? 

Secretary Stevens. It seems to me that in maybe 1 or 2 cases 
the question might have come up about, oh, Schine and Cohn and so 
forth, but I had no pai)ers in connection with it. 

I didn't go there for the purpose of discussing that, and if it came 
up it was purely an incidental or corollary discussion. I didn't go 
there for that purpose. 

Senator McCarthv. Mr. Secretary 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. The Sergeant of 
Arms is calling for all Members of the Senate and it is almost recess 
time. So we will recess until 2 : 30 this afternoon. 

(Whereupon, at 12 : 35, the hearing was recessed until 2 : 30 p. m. 
the same day.) 



INDEX 



Page 

Adams, Jolin G 575, 576, 579-587, 590-592, 595, 598-GOO, 602, 608, 609 

Adjutant General's Office 602 

Airltase 598 

Air Force (United States) 57(5^ 579^ 59g 

Appropriations Committee (Senate) \ ' 574 

Architect's Office (Capitol) 573 

Army resnlations 593 

Army Sisnal Corps 591 

Army (United States) 578-580, 585, 587, 591, 593, 595-597, 599, 601, 603, 607 

Back, General 583-585 

Caffey, General 599 

Capitol IJestaurant 593 

Carr, Francis P 595. 598, 600, 603, 609 

Cohn, Roy M 591, 593, 595, 597, 600, 603, 606, 608-610 

Committee on Appropriations (Senate) 574 

Communist infiltration in the Army (hearings) 578, 579 

Communist Party 59I 

Communists 578, 579, 590-593, 598, 600 

Cook, Gus 573 

Democrats 603 

Department of the Army 578-5S0, 585, 587, 591, 593, 595-597, 599, 601, 603, 607 

Department Counselor 609 

Department of Defense 591, 604 

Dirksen, Senator 59(), 602 

Far East 593, 597, 598,' 600 

Fort Dix, N. J 575, 588, 589 

Hensel, H. Strove 576, 5'J2, 593, 603, 604, 606, 60S, 609 

Inspector General 593-59"., 599, 605, 606 

Inspector General's report 593-595, 599, 605 

Jones, Mr 579 

Judge Advocate General 599 

Lawton, General 583-587 

Letter to Secretary Wilson (Potter) 604 

Loyalty Board 609 

Manchester, S. Sgt. Herhert Richard 574 

McCarthy, Senator Joe 574, 575, 577-604, 606-610 

McCarthy committee 599, 603 

McCarthy investigating machinery 597, 598 

Mundt, Senator 602, 603, 607 

New York City 584, 585, 588, 589 

North American Newspaper Alliance 588 

Number 46 specification 590 

Orient 604 

Pentagon 593, 597, 606, 607, 608 

Peress, Maj. Irving 591-602, 604-607 

Potter, Senator 579, 590, 593, 602, 604 

Radar laboratories 591, 598 

Rainville, IMr 579 

Republicans 603 

Ryan, General 575 

Schine, G. David * 575, 587-5S9, 599, 603, 604 

Secretary of the Air Force 576 

Secretary of the Army 575-610 

Secretary of Defense 604 



II INDEX 

Page 

Senate Committee on Appropriations 574 

Specification No. 46 r)!)0 

Stevens, Robert T 575, 576 

Testimony of 577-610 

Storlf Club (NYC) 588, 589 

United States Adjutant General's Office ("02 

United States Air Force 576, 579, 598 

United States Air Force (Secretary) 576 

United States Army 578-580, 585, 587, 5')1, S;)!'., 595-597, 599, 601, 603', 607 

United States Army Signal Corps 591 

United States Judge Advocate General 599 

Waslunston, D. C 596, 601 

Wliite House t:07 

Wilson, Secretary 604 

Zwicker, General 607, 609, 610 

O 



BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY 



3 9999 05442 1738