Skip to main content

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

See other formats






Given By 



JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 








S. Res. 189 

PART 17 

MAY 4, 1954 

Printed for the uf3e of the Committee on Government Operations 

46620° WASHINGTON : 1954 

Boston PubL-c Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

SEP 8 -1954 


JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman 
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 




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

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

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman 


Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel 

Thomas R. Pkewitt, Assistatit Counsel 

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SoLis HoRwiTZ, Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maner, Secretary 



Index .......__ ^^^\ 

Testimony of Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary, Department" of ' the 

Army _ _ __ __._ qqq 


12 (a) Letter from Senator Joseph McCarthy, chairman, Senate duce°d Appears 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, to Hon on page on page 
Robert T. Stevens, March 15, 1954 667 * 

(b) Letter from Senator Joseph McCarthy, chairman, Senate 

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, to Hon. 

Robert T. Stevens, March 30, 1954 667 * 

(c) Telegram from Senator Joseph McCarthy, chairman, Senate 

Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, to Hon. 

Robert T. Stevens, April 12, 1954 667 * 

(d) Letter from Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary, Department 

of the Army, to Senator Joseph McCarthy, April 13, 1954. 667 667 
*May be found in the files of the subcommittee. 



TUESDAY, MAY 4, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington, D. C. 

The subcommittee met at 10 : 50 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the 
caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. ISIundt, 
chairman, presiding. 

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

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

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

Senator ]\Iundt. The committee will please come to order. 

The Chair would like to start with his opening salute to our guests in 
the audience, and advise them that they are welcome and to remind 
those that have not heard the chairman make the statement previously 
that they are here as the guests of the committee, with the admonition 
that tliey must conform with the committee rule, which holds that 
there shall be no manifestations of approval or disapproval of any 
kind at any time from the audience. And that the officers have been 
reminded and authorized that if we have people in the audience who 
violate that rule they shall be politely escorted from the room, so 
that those on the outside waiting to get in will have an opportunity to 
replace them. 



Yesterday I think tliere was not one sino;le deviation from the rule, 
and I hope that that will be true today, tomorrow, and the next day, so 
long as the hearings continue. 

The committee will please come to order. 

Senator Dirksen. 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I feel in view of the suggestion 
I made yesterday that some amplified explanation is necessary to the 
committee, and to the public, as to what has transpired since that 

I am not insensible of the fact that the role of the peacemaker is 
never a happy one, and yet I have been impelled by a constriction 
that where the prestige of the Senate is involved, and where the 
public interest is involved, and where there are so many tensions in 
the air at the present time, and where Army morale is involved, to do 
whatever is reasonable and honorably possible in order to shorten 
these hearings, consonant, of course, with the development of the 
truth and of the facts. 

It was impelled by that feeling, Mr. Chairman, that I made the 
suggestion yesterday that perhaps we should have a meeting to be 
attended by members of the committee and by counsel for the prin- 
cipals, for the purpose of exploring, as reasonable and prudent peo])le 
should do, some possibility of shortening these hearings if it could be 

It was in pursuance of that suggestion that we met last night in the 
regular committee room 357, and what I said was founded, I think, 
upon statements made both publicly and privately. In the first place, 
1 thought I heard counsel correctly yesterday, as recorded on page 
1370 of the hearings. 

Senator Mundt. Which counsel ? We have four counsels. 

Senator Dirksen. I should particularize and say Mr. Welch, to this 
effect.^ and I read now from the hearings : 

I v/ould say this : That if the hearings take the course that yon suggest, first 
the Secretary and then the Senatoi", I would either be content to let the case 
vest on these two witnesses, although that would give us a somewhat abbreviated 
hearing, or at most we wish to call but two more. 

Now, w^ith that suggestion publicly made, and some suggestions pri- 
vately njade, Mr. Chairman, I had hoped first that perhaps the number 
of principals could be reduced. And so" in the course of our conversa- 
tions last night and this morning, we did explore this question of 
whether or not the charges against Mr. Hensel might be withdrawn, 
probably to state it accurately withdrawn without prejudice on either 
side, and I for one believe that under parliamentary procedure the 
Senator from Wisconsin if he so desires is fully within his rights in 
Avithdrawing those charges, so that at least what is before us would 
be reduced by one principal and whatever testimony that would 

Secondly, it occurred to me that since Secretary Stevens has been 
on the stand now for nearly 8 days, so much of the background has 
already been explored in direct examination and cross-examination, 
that probably if the Senator from Wisconsin took the stand and sub- 
mitted to examination and cross-examination, that it wouldn't be nec- 
essary to call subordinate witnesses or imjjlementing witnesses, and 
thereby we could very substantially abbreviate these hearings. 


Now, that was the sugo-estion that I had in mind, and it was the su<^- 
gestion that I made. But I am afraid on the basis of what must be 
reported this morning, that it has not been altogether fruitful 

But I am going to suggest, openly now, Mr. Chairman, that the Sen- 
ator from Wisconsin is entirely within his rights if he wanted to with- 
draw tliose charges, and that I think he could do so without making 
any amplifying explanation of any kind so that if they were to be 
resumed or reinstated, or considered in executive session sometime 
later, tliat is a matter for the committee to decide. But he is entirely 
within his rights if he wanted to withdraw those charges. 

Secondly, it seems to me that it would be in the interest of expedition 
and there would be no forfeiture of truth and there would be no for- 
feiture of the facts in the case if the Senator then took the stand, and 
the conmiittee undertook to conclude that with the presentation of the 
testimony by Senator McCarthy, the hearing might then very well 
come to an end. It wouldn't be necessary for the committee to hear 
the testiinony of other witnesses who might otherwise be summoned. 

Senator McCarthy. I assume you were directing a question to me. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has agreed with members of the com- 
mittee and with counsel for all sides that because of the efforts which 
have been made to expedite the hearings through arbitration and 
because of the fact that no decision has been arrived at, that before the 
hearing begins he feels that any one of the committee members or 
any one of the counsel who cares to express himself on this subject 
should have the right to do so openly, so that we are proceeding with- 
out the rules of order and procedure obtaining at the moment. 

He will recognize, for the purposes stated, those who address the 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, with that understanding, you 
may proceed. 

Senator JMcCartht. I gather Senator Dirksen was directing a 
question toward me. May I say, Mr. Chairman, if the proceedings 
continue to the end, the Hensel matter I think will be a very important 
element in the case insofar as motive is concerned. However, if I 
may discuss what happened in executive session last night when I 
understood that Mr. Welch had offered both publicly on the stand 
and privately that the hearings would be terminated if we examined 
Stevens and. McCarthy, I agreed that that be done, that I take the 
stand any time, and that we could separate the Hensel case from 
this case, not on the ground that the charges are either true or untrue, 
but on the ground that that matter can be handled as a separate matter 
if the committee votes to conduct that investigation. 

If Mr. Hensel feels, in view of the charges, that this matter should 
be aired in public, then as chairman of the subcommittee, which I 
would resume to complete this, I would recommend, as I say, if 
I^Ir. Hensel wants it, that that be given first priority. 

I want to make it very clear, however, that if the charges against 
Mr. Hensel are withdrawn, it is only because I am separating it from 
this case and making it a separate case only because I want to live up 
to the agreement that I thought we had made last night, and I would 
be glad to do that — just one other word, Mr. Chairman. 


If, however, we are not to terminate the hearings with the testimony 
of Mr. Stevens and Senator McCarthy, then of course I obviously 
could not remove the Hensel matter from this case. 

Mr. Bryan". Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Bryan. 

Mr. Bryan. With respect to the charges against Mr. Hensel, it is 
his position quite plainly that there is nothing to those charges and 
that they are in any event entirely collateral to the matters before this 
committee. However, he feels very strongly that a withdrawal of 
those charges without a statement by Senator McCarthy that he was 
in error in bringing them is entirely unacceptable to him. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, let me make it clear that the 
Senator from Wisconsin will under no circumstances say he was in 
error because he was not in error. All I would do in this case is to 
separate those charges, withdraw them for the purpose of presenting 
them to the subcommittee as a separate case. So if the committee 
decides to end the testimony with McCarthy and Stevens, it can do so, 
and I will withdraw them if the committee decides to vote to end the 
hearings with the testimony of Stevens and McCarthy — period. 

Senator Mundt. So that all of the facts may be out on the table 
on that point, I think it should be stated that in our discussion in 
executive session there was general agreement, perhaps unanimous 
agreement, I am not sure, but certainly general agreement among 
all parties concerned that the phase of the Hensel case that deals 
with his guilt or innocence in connection with some operations in a 
shipping concern taking place in 1942, 1 believe it was 

Mr. Jenkins. 1944. 

Senator Mundt. Yes, 1944. Are not properly before this commit- 
tee, and that we would engage ourselves interminably if we would 
have a separate investigation as part of this one, as to his guilt or 
innocence; that the part that the Hensel case plays, if any, is one 
dealing with motive, and I think there was general agreement among 
all concerned that this committee would not undertake under any cir- 
cumstances to conduct the full-scale investigation of the transactions 
in 1944 to determine whether or not there was guilt or innocence in that 

I believe that the Chair should also state two other things: That 
as he understood the processes of negotiation yesterday there was very 
serious consideration given to the possibility of limiting the testimony 
to Secretary Stevens and Senator McCarthy on the basis of a sug- 
gestion that Mr. Welch ha 1 made on page 1370 of the record, which 
motivated Senator Dirksen to come to the Chair to suggest that we 
explore with all parties the possibility of carrying out that suggestion. 
That after the suggestion was discussed at some length, Senator Mc- 
Carthy agreed that if that could be developed satisfactorily to all 
parties, and if the committee should so vote, he would ask no further 
questions of Secretary Stevens, but that Senator McCarthy himself 
would be sworn and take the stand this morning. 

The Chair finally understands from Mr. Welch, and Mr. Welch 
will correct the Chair now if he is wrong, that Mr. Welch told the 
Chair that he had withdrawn that offer made on page 1370, and pre- 
ferred to have the hearings go forward according to the original 
schedule of adjudication calling all of the 15 or 20 or 25 witnesses 
that may be involved. 


If the Chair is in error, Mr. Welch, 1 want you to correct me. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, Senator Dirksen read less than all of 
the statement that appears on ])age 1370. I would like now to read it 
all. It begins at the top A the page, and the speaker is Mr. Welch: 

Mr. Chainuan — 
This is Welch yesterday — 

I happened to think that my voice is quite a small voice, and I do not run 
the hearinsis and I can only make suggestions. I have been lioaid 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 confident 
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. 

The names of the two more would seem to me to be a minimum : 
Messrs. Cohn and Carr. 

JMow, may I review, last evening, I hope within the limits of what 
a gentleman may speak in respect to an executive session. There was, 
as every Senator knows, a vote. May I inquire, Mr. Chairman, if I am 
at liberty to state that vote? 

Senator Mdndt, The vote has been reported to the press, and all 
votes of our committee are reported to the press, and it was a unani- 
mous vote, and you may read it. 

Mr. Welch. That was that counsel confer with a view to inventing 
some formula that would shorten the hearings. Mr. Jenkins will 
inform you, I am sure, that tired though I was, I sought a conference 
last night and Mr. Jenkins said, "I think I am as tired as you; let us 
try it in the morning." 

We met this morning at 9: 15 as two, I would like to think, hon- • 
orable trial lawyers meet, and certainly on his side, and we conferred. 
We were unable to invent a magic formula for shortening the hear- 
ings and I am confident that Mr. Jenkins so reported to the committee 
in my absence. 

I still stand on my proposition that if the testimony of Mr. Stevens 
is concluded, and Senator McCarthy is called next, that it will greatly 
shorten the hearing. My good friend, Mr. Jenkins, does not share my 
optimjsm. Since he does not share my optimism, I have been forced 
to say that I think the American people will demand and should have 
the long, hard furrow ploughed. 

I began this case by saying I wanted all of the facts presented, con- 
sideration over the night has led me more firmly than ever to feel that 
must be done no matter how much time is required, and so Mr. Welch 
stands for the two propositions he has always stood for. First, that 
it will shorten the hearings if the Senator is called next — and Mr. 
Jenkins, I regret to say, does not agree — and secondly; first, last, and 
always, we must plough the long furrow. 

Senator Mdndt. To keep the record entirely clear so we all under- 
stand each other, Mr. Welch, I take it that you do withdraw that part 

46620°— 54— pt. 17 2 


of your siiii^estioii on pa<?e 1370 where you said that you would be 
content to let the matter rest with the two witnesses. 

Mr. Welcti. You can only read, Mr. Chairman, the whole state- 
ment of three paragraphs, to make sense out of it. And I think it is 
quite clear from the whole paragraph that I was continually suggest- 
ing that the way to shorten the hearings is to call the Senator next. 

I still think there will not be so many witnesses, but I can only guess 
about the number. 

Senator Dikksen. Mr. Chairman, if we go back to Mr. Welch's 
language — and I trust I do not do violence to the context — there was 
an alternative proposition made on page 1370 of the hearings by Mr. 
Welch. He said in effect, "I would either be content to let the case 
rest on these 2 witnesses or, at most, we would wish to call but 2 

Now it seems to me that that proposition was put in the alternative, 
and I simply assume, Mr. Chairman, that that proposition was pre- 
sented for whatever action the committee might take, and it was in 
pursuance of that suggestion that I thought it wise to convene counsel 
and all the principals around the table in the hope that some amicable 
arrangement might be contrived. 

I want to say in behalf of the Senator from Wisconsin that he sat 
in on the hearings, he sat in on that meeting last night, and likewise 
this morning, and I thought he approached it in perfectly good faith. 
So this has been a reasonable effort, I think, to sort of focalize the 
testimony, and it does occur to me, Mr. Chairman, after all the testi- 
mony we have had from Secretary Stevens, that if the Senator from 
Wisconsin does submit himself for direct and cross-examination, and 
that we forget about the Hensel charges and let them be dropped for 
the moment, which is, after all, all that the committee can require, 
we could expedite the hearings and probably conclude these open 
sessions before the week runs out. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. I think a word from me is perhaps proper. 

W are not in an ordinary lawsuit here, and we don't find the coun- 
sel in the position in which they ordinarily stand. 

Senator Mundt. Neither is the chairman in the position of a judge. 
I Avish you would add that, too. 

Mr. Welch. I think my position is quite clear that I want all the 
facts developed. If Senator Dirksen were to say to me now, and if 
1 were in the position to make a bargain on behalf of the Army or 
the American people, I would say that AVelch would not be discontent 
if we concluded Secretary Stevens, and then had the Senator and Mr. 
Cohn and Mr. Carr. That would certainly materially shorten the 
trial, and I personally would be content if we had those, plus such 
witnesses as automatically have to be called to check points in their 
testimony — as, for example, if I may put an example, suppose one of 
those witnesses said that we had a rainy day on a certain date, and it 
seemed very material to show it was a fair day, I would like to be able 
to call the weatherman to show what the weather was. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair inquire, Mr. Welch, if you are now 
submitting another possibility, so we have it firmly in mind. You 
suggest as a new alternative now that perhaps we conclude with Mr. 
Stevens and then call Senator McCarthy, Mr. Cohn, and Mr. CaiT, 


and then quit. What do you propose about Mr. Adams? Did you 
i*oro:et about him, or why didn't you mention him? 

Mr. Welch. I don't care. Certainly it would be greatly to the 
advantage of the McCarthy side of the case to give them 3 witnesses 
to my 1, which I am content to do, but let me make this clear, Mr. 
Chairman : I do not fancy myself in a position to bargain about this 
hearing. I can only make suggestions. Mr. Jenkins' voice is much 
more important than mine, and in the last analysis it must be a com- 
mittee vote if there is a difference of opinion. 

I would like to add, from my observation of this case, I should think 
a committee vote that was too close in numbers would not leave the 
American people happy. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair suggest that all our committee votes 
up to now have been unanimous, and we hope to keep them that way. 
We cannot be sure, but we certainly hope that that will be. 

Senator Dirksen ? 

Senator Dirksen. IMr. Welch, I hope I do not trespass on propriety 
if I refer to the meeting we had last night in room 357. I came away 
with a fixed impression that if Secretary Stevens concluded and Sena- 
tor McCarthy then took the stand, that would be agreeable to you. 
I thought everybody had that impression before we got through. And, 
as a matter of fact, I thought the Senator from Wisconsin had more 
or less agreed — informally, of course. There was no vote taken. All 
of this was discussion that ran on until 7 o'clock. 

If I am in error on the thing, I want to be corrected, and then, too, 
perhaps I am not at liberty to say it, but I thought that was the gist 
of the proposition that you had outlined to counsel for the committee. 

i\Ir. Welch. Senator Dirksen, the trouble with that is that when 
Mr. Jenkins and I got together this morning to talk over what had 
happened, it was agreeable neither to him nor to me that the hearings 
should take that course, and I apprehend it would not be agreeable 
to several members of the committee. 

Senator Dirksen. Well, Mr. Welch, I can only say this: I have no 
right to inquire as to why there was a change of heart, because that is 
not before us at the present time, if there w^as a change of heart, but 
it does appear to me that it is still incumbent on counsel and on the 
principals and on this committee to undertake to expedite these hear- 
ings and to content themselves with the principals and wind up, if at 
all possible, this week. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair heard someone at the end of the table 
addressing him and I am not sure if it was Mr. Bryan or Senator Mc- 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have a request which may 
seem unusual but I think it is very important. Secretary Stevens has 
much at stake here, and I think that he should make it clear whether 
or not jNIr. Welch speaks for him for this reason, if I may have the 
Chair's attention — if I may have the Chair's attention — may I have 
the Chair's attention? 

Senator Mundt. Pardon me. sir. 

Senator McCarthy. I think Mr. Stevens should make it clear 
whether or not Mr. Welch speaks for him, for this reason, that one 
of the charges you know made against Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams 
was that they tried to instigate these hearings to call off the investiga- 
tion of Communist infiltration, and now it appears that Mr. Welch has 


"welched" on an agreement he made, which would cut the hearings 
down, so we can get back to our important work. 

So, we find this morning apparently the people who instigated these 
hearings are trying to prolong them, and I think Mr. Stevens should 
make it very clear in the record whether or not Mr. Welch speaks for 

Senator Mundt. I think Mr. Stevens has made that clear earlier, 
unless he wishes to challenge it at any time, that he has Mr. Welch as 
his counsel, and the Chair will so understand it unless Secretary 
Stevens at any time will say, "I want to be heard on my own behalf." 

Senator McCarthy. That is agreeable. 

Secretary Stevens. The only thing I have to say on that, Mr. Chair- 
man, is that I think that every fact from every witness that bears on 
getting the material necessary for this committee to make its determi- 
nation should be brought out one way or another. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair state his position now, as he did to 
the press conference which followed the executive meeting, at which 
I limited my discussion as to what took place in the executive meeting 
to reporting on the resolution which was unanimously passed. But I 
said we confront three alternatives as the Chair sees it in these hear- 
ings. One is to proceed with the slow processes of adjudication in 
which we are now engaged; and the (^Ihair w^ould like to say that at the 
closed session he asked counsel for all parties and they were all there 
yesterday, whether they felt that there were any rule changes which 
could be made in equity to all parties concerned which would ex- 
pedite the hearings. No rule changes were reconmiended or suggested. 
We realized the process of adjudication is slow, and laborious, and the 
way it now appears, may require 2 weeks or 3 weeks longer. But if 
that is the process to follow to get the facts, I think the facts ulti- 
mately can be secured in that direction. It is a little bit disturbing to 
find so many of the newspapers, and so many of the people urging 
us to use the process of adjudication, now beating us over the head 
because we are doing it, and because it takes time to do the thing hon- 
estly and fairly. 

I think that I speak for the full committee when I say that if we 
continue with the processes of adjudication we are not going to be 
stampeded into injustice because newspaper people now say, "We wish 
it hadn't been started," although it w^as started primarily in con- 
formity with their recommendation. 

The second procedure would be the process of abdication; the com- 
mittee could walk out. Nobody on the committee has suggested that, 
and none of the counsel of any of the parties has suggested that, and 
I am sure that such a dishonorable procedure w^ould not be followed. 

The third is the process of arbitration. We tried with the sugges- 
tion that Senator Dirksen made, developing out of Mr. Welch's state- 
ment on page 1370 of the record, to bring together all of the parties for 
a process of arbitration, to see whether we could narrow the field, 
reduce the number of witnesses, or limit it as has been suggested as an 
alternative to Secretary Stevens and Senator McCarthy. 

Kegardless of what may have been felt or may have been under- 
stood yesterday, no other motion was made. We did go around the 
room several times to find out whether that would expedite the hearing 
and secured a definite commitment from Senator McCarthy that if that 


proceeding Avere followed he would dismiss, as far as he was concerned, 
Secretary Stevens this mornino; and assume the stand himself. It 
appears that that process of arbitration has not worked out satisfac- 
torily because it is quite obvious that at least some of the parties to the 
discussion now feel that they would not like to follow that procedure. 

We have consequently tried 3 methods or had 3 suggestions before 
us for expediting the hearings. The first is to rule out the press and 
to have a star chamber session. It has been recommended the way the 
Oppenheimer case has been tried, that we conceal the facts from the 
public until it is over, and then possibly reveal them or not. We feel, 
as a legislative body, it is proper that the public know what is going 
on, and wliether or not the Oppenheimer case ultimately gives its 
report to the public as a finding or releases all of the facts as it prob- 
ably will, that is not the procedure we can follow at this stage of the 

The second suggestion made from the outside was that we admit 
the press, but rule out the photographers and television. As the Chair 
said yesterday, he believes that both the press and the photographers, 
with a few exceptions when they bob up when they shouldn't, and 
television, have done a remarkably fine job of covering the hearings. 
I think it has been done with fairness and with much patience, and 
without much prejudice, and the Chair believes the press has a good 
influence on television; and the Chair believes television has a good 
influence on the press, because people having seen and heard a hear- 
ing, want to read, of course, what they saw, and what they heard. 

Now, we have tried arbitration, and it has apparently failed, and 
so as far as the Chair is concerned, I think, having put our hand to 
the plow, we will have to go through to the bitter end. But I trust 
that this discussion has been salutary, so people know we did try to 
shorten the hearings. 

We tried every honorable way and we refused to suggest or try any 
dishonorable way or any way which is not fair to the various dispu- 

Senator McClellan, you adressed the Chair, and I am sorry to have 
taken so long. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I only w'ant to make a brief 
comment. We here on the Democratic side are caught in a kind of 
crossfire in this quarrel, and it is not our purpose to be contentious 
or to do anything to obstruct the processes of justice in speeding up 
this hearing to a conclusion. In view of what has been said about the 
executive meeting last night, however, I may say that the only agree- 
ment that was reached was confirmed by a vote. There was a great 
deal of discussion, but the statement that the committee gave serious 
consideration to limiting these hearings to only two principals. Secre- 
tary Stevens and Senator McCarthy, does not apply to all of the com- 
mittee. I stated at that time in the executive session that, in my judg- 
ment, all principals to this controversy should be heard, should be re- 
quired to take the witness stand and testify under oath, because these 
charges are serious. They are not just related to whether a private 
in the Army got some passes, was kept off of KP, or whether he drank 
champagne in the Stork Club in New York. But the charges and the 
countercharges that have been made and are still before this committee 
strike at the integrity of the administration of the United States Army, 


and also at the integrity of a standing committee of the United States 

Gentlemen, in my opinion, you just cannot wipe these charges off and 
at the same time do our duty. 

I feel that at least the principals to this controversy should be heard. 

I hope we can expedite the hearings. This is not a pleasant task 
for us. It is a disagreeable task. But the paths of duty are not al- 
ways pleasant. We are not responsible for these charges. There are 
those present who are, and they are principals to this controversy. If 
these charges are unfounded, they go to the damaging of character 
and reputation of high public officials, and they should be cleared up. 

Mr. Chairman, may I say to you again that the Democrats of this 
committee are here to be helpful and to help you expedite these 

I may say that since this is on television and on radio and before 
the public in open hearings, it will not be difficult for the public to de- 
tect who is guilty of dilatory tactics and who is undertaking to ob- 
struct the hearings, and I say, Mr. Chairman, that so far as I am con- 
cerned, I will restrain myself from asking any questions except those 
that are directly relevant and necessary to develop the truth and to re- 
veal that which is false. I think we are compelled to go on with the 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, yesterday after the public hear- 
ing we had an executive hearing, and at that hearing we discussed the 
possibility of limiting these open hearings to two witnesses. I was 
opposed to that at the beginning of the hearing yesterda}', I was op- 
posed to it at the end of the hearing, and I am opposed to it this 

Last evening a statement was made on the radio which I confirmed 
with the press that one of the members of the committee had stated that 
serious consideration was being given to having only two witnesses 
and then terminating the hearings. I immediately called my senior 
colleague, Senator McClellan, and we agreed that a statement should 
be put out provided we could get hold of Senator Jackson. Senator 
Jackson was not available, but we knew how he felt, and therefore we 
issued a statement that serious consideration had not been given to 
having two witnesses only by the Democratic members of this com- 

Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that these hearings should never 
have been started, but inasmuch as they have been started I think we 
owe it to the American people that they go to the end so the people 
know the truth. 

There has been considerable writing down of the importance of 
these hearings from the standpoint of those facts which my senior 
colleague has so recently brought up — champagne, shoes, and clothes. 

In my opinion, something far deeper is now before the American 
people in these hearings, and that is the proper relationship between 
the legislative branch of the Government and the executive branch. I 
know a little bit about this side of it and more about the other. 

There have been statements that these hearings are disheartening 
to the ]5eo]ile. There have been statements that the American people 
are disgusted with these hearings. Well, many times something that 


is disgusting or disheartening nevertheless has to be done so that we 
have good in the long run. 

Nobody has asked on the committee that these television sets be in 
this room. Nobody has asked that the press be represented. Nobody 
has asked that the" hearings be packed with the people who are inter- 
ested this morning. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would say, regardless 
of whether or not these hearings are or are not disheartening or dis- 
gusting to the American people, the American people want them to go 

Just prior to the start of the hearings I made two points only to the 
people I represent in Missouri, and they were that I intended with all 
my heart to see that these hearings were conducted in a goldfish bowl 
so that the people know what were the facts, and I have consistently 
opposed any talk of any executive hearings, and the second point made 
was that there should be no witness who had an advantage or a dis- 
advantage over any other witness, that everybody should appear 
equal in these hearings in an effort to obtain the truth. 

Mr. Chairman, that is the way I felt when the hearings started, as 
that is the way I feel now, 

I thank you. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter. 

Senator Potter. This seems to be the morning for testimonials, and 
1 would like to add mine. It has been disconcerting to me when the 
world is on fire to see an important conference such as the Geneva Con- 
ference pushed off on the back pages of our paper, and placed as 
second-class news on our television newsreels compared with this 
controversy. I do believe that the public is entitled to and the commit- 
tee should have the full facts in the case. However, it is difficult for me 
to envision how the testimony of say, Mr. Adams, or any others that 
might be presented by the Army, will in any material sense add any- 
thing new to the testimony that has been given by Secretary of the 
Army, Mr. Stevens. 

It is also difficult for me to understand how the testimony of, say, 
Mr. Cohn or Mr. Carr, can add anything to what Senator McCarthy 
might give when he is a witness before this committee. 

Therefore, I personally believe that Secretary Stevens represents 
the entity of the Army on this side of the controversy, and I think 
Senator McCarthy represents the entity of that side on the contro- 
versy. The other witnesses will do nothing more than add a great 
deal of repetition, and prolong this investigation. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, and we sometimes call it personal privilege — 
I had assumed that my part in this present controversy was well 
known. Much reference has been made to a letter that I wrote to 
Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson asking certain questions. In 
order to put this in its proper perspective, I would like to restate the 
facts as related to my letter. 

I think it is well understood, and it has been testified to, that certain 
newspaper columnists had received and printed portions of an Army 
statement weeks prior to my letter. It was more or less an open 
secret that the Army had prepared this statement, known as the 
chronological order of events. It was also my understanding, and I 
believe it has been testified to, that certain Members of Congress had 


requested this statement. It was also my understanding that in a 
press conference some official of the Department of Defense had 
been asked by certain members of the press whether it would be 
made available to the Members of Congress who had requested, it. It 
is my understanding that this official said that it would be made avail- 
able. This all prior to my letter to the Secretary of Defense. 

I thought it incumbent upon the members of this committee, and 
certainly those who after all have to assume their responsibility as 
majority members, to obtain that report or chronological order of 
events prior to some other Member of Congress receiving it and sur- 
prising us on the floor by a speech or news conference. Therefore, I 
requested this report and I received it. I believe I received it 24 hours 
prior to any other Member of Congress. 

This report was seen by four people, myself, Senator McCarthy, 
Senator Mundt, Senator Dirksen, and no one else. It was my under- 
standing that this report was due to be issued, as a result of the state- 
ments that had been made in a press conference, to other Members of 
the Congress, not on the majority side of this committee. 

The purpose of my letter was to keep from having a spectacle such 
as we are having now. I had hoped that this controversy could have 
been resolved, and the committee or the Army take the proper action 
to remove people if shown to have been guilty of misconduct. I never 
envisioned that we would have parades of special attorneys. I had 
assumed that this matter could be handled quickly, and would shortly 
have been over with. I did not pull the trigger for this hearing. I 
was trying to keep from having a hearing such as we are having now. 
I want that definitely understood, by any who may have heretofore 
mistakenly sought to place upon me the burden of starting this hear- 
ing. My effort was directly to the contrary, believing this to be a 
controversy where we could ascertain the facts quickly, possibly call- 
ing Mr. Adams and Mr. Cohn, and then getting it over with. 

Mr. Chairman, I regret I have taken so long, but I wanted my part 
made very clear. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has ruled, that for the purposes of il- 
lumination any counsel and members of the committee may speak 
without the rules of order prevailing for the time being. 

I think Senator Jackson has indicated he would like to speak next. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with 
every possible effort to expedite these hearings. I think that some 
of us have tried to show our good faith by passing when our turn 
came to cross-examine. I hope that the principals to the controversy 
will show their good faith by trying to cut down the time for cross- 
examination. It is only through the cooperation of all the principals 
to this controversy that we can hope to achieve an early end to this 

Cooperation, however, in this connection does not mean the elimi- 
nation or the covering up of charges previously and supposedly, and 
I take it to be made in good faith. We are here today because serious 
charges were made, not mere idle charges about some minor matters. 
But we are here today because serious charges were made. 

To expedite the hearing time of this controversy does not include 
the elimination of testimony material to the controversy. If we are 
only interested in expediting and nothing else, we woiild have total 


expedition by calling the hearing off now, I think that ought to be 
clear to everyone. 

But the truth is that we are here because of some very serious charges 
made by the principals to this controversy. Lest someone think that 
these original charges were light, let me refer for the record now 
very briefly to some of the serious charges that have been made on both 
sides of this controversy. 

These are the charges that were made on the basis of which the 
subcommittee decided to employ special counsel and hold open hear- 
ings to investigate their truth or veracity. 

Originally there was a charge by the Army in its chronological re- 
port tTiat the subcommittee on investigations was being used by Mr. 
Cohn and to a lesser extent by Senator McCarthy to gain preferential 
treatment in the Army for a former employee, G. David Schine. 

There were contained in this Army report allegations that Roy 
Cohn stated that he would wreck the Army and cause Secretary 
Stevens to be through as Secretary of the Army unless G. David 
Schine was given the assignment to which he thought he was entitled. 

As the subcommittee, with Roy Cohn as chief counsel, was then in 
the midstreet of a vigorous investigation of alleged subversives in 
the Department of the Army, this was clearly no empty threat. 

Senator McCarthy, Roy Cohn, and Frank Carr thereupon charged 
that Secretary Stevens and John Adams had attempted to blackmail 
them into stopping their investigation of the Army. Senator Mc- 
Carthy is quoted in an AP story on March 13, 1954, and I quote : 

Adams, while he didn't say so in so many words, warned me, McCarthy, that 
unless the investigation of the Communists in the Army was discontinued, we 
would be embarrassed by a report that was being prepared. No investigation 
will be ended because of threats of blackmail. 

I invite to your attention the fact that blackmail is a felony pun- 
ishable with a penitentiary sentence. 

Roy Cohn stated, in speaking about their report, and I quote from 
the Army report his quotation : 

It is an unprecedented thing, obviously leaked out by the Army as they had 
failed at prior blackmail attempts. 

It was also claimed by Mr. Roy Cohn that the Army was holding 
G. David Schine as a hostage in order to force the subcommittee to 
terminate their investigations into the Army. 

It was alleged by Senator McCarthy and Mr. Roy Cohn that the 
Secretary of the Army, Robert Stevens, and John Adams attempted 
to divert the investigation of the subcommittee into the Army to an 
investigation of the Air Force and the Navy. 

They claimed that Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams offered to turn over 
derogatory information on these other services if the subcommittee 
would call off the investigation of the Army. 

Specifically, Mr. Roy Cohn stated that John Adams offered to give 
him the name of an Air Force base where there were a grou]) of homo- 
sexuals in return for Mr. Roy Cohn's promise that the subcommittee 
would not further pursue its investigation of the Army. 

In addition to these most serious charges and countercharges that 
were the basis on which the subcommittee decided to hold open hear- 
ings and investigation, there have been most serious statements made 
since that time in connection with this hearing. If the investigation 


is terminated now, there will be many questions of truth and veracity 
completely unresolved. 

I only hope, Mr. Chairman, that every effort will continue to be 
made as the members of this committee are tryintr to do, to find a 
way to speed the testimony that must be brought before the com- 
mittee. But let us never forojet that to expedite this hearinoj, to speed 
the testimony, does not mean the elimination of testimony that was 
deemed so material at the outset that we found it necessary unani- 
mously to undertake this investigation. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson? 

Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, I shall be very brief. Already 
servinjj on 12 committees and subcommittees of the Senate, I was most 
reluctant to accept this additional assignment and fill in temporarily 
on this subcommittee I had not followed the prehearing develop- 
ments very closely, but I was fully aware that if any controversy 
existed, it might well have been resolved without a public spectacle. 
Now we observe that we are facing much difficulty because of the 
threat of a prolonged hearing at a time when the officials in the De- 
partment of the Army and the members of this subcommittee have 
far more important business to transact. I think that it is the over- 
whelming sentiment of the American people that everything possible 
should be done to terminate these hearings just as quickly as possible. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, as counsel for this committee, I feel 
impelled at this time to make a statement. 

Yesterday afternoon at 5 o'clock this committee held an executive 
session. The members of the committee have revealed to some extent 
at least what transpired at that session, and I therefore feel at liberty 
to now likewise do so. 

In that session I was called upon to make a statement, and in sub- 
stance and to the best of my recollection I stated this: That initially 
I was employed by seven United States Senators comprising this sub- 
committee, that at that time I did not look upon the members of this 
committee as being either Democrats or Republicans, that I regarded 
them as loyal, patriotic Americans. 

I stated then, and I state now publicly, that nothing has been said 
and nothing has transpired to change my opinion of a single member 
of this committee which I am trying to serve to the best of my ability. 

Mr. Welch was present at the time, and he made a statement. It 
does not lie within my province to interpret the words of Mr. Welch. 
They are transcribed, I might say in reference thereto, that "The mov- 
ing hand has writ, and having writ, moves on." 

It is the prerogative exclusively of this committee to interpret what 
was said. I further said to the committee that I felt it my duty to 
inform the committee of a fact of which it was then well aware, and 
of which it is well aware this morning, and that is that messages that 
are being received in my office by myself and my staff, messages from 
people in high places in the Government, messages from people in 
less important places but people who to my mind are equally great 
and who equally reflect the sentiment of the American public, indi- 
cate that the public is greatly disturbed over the results and the effects 
these open hearings are producing upon the minds of tlie people. The 
undercurrents of the emotionalism of the people are so swift and so 


strong as to, in my mind, in many instances almost dethrone reason 
from its citadel. I told the committee that. The committee is well 
aware of that. I reminded the committee that in no sense did I make 
any recommendation nor did I intend to say anythinj^ from which 
the committee mif^ht infer my opinion as to whether or not the inves- 
tigation should be discontinued, should be curtailed, or should be con- 
tinued minutely and in detail to its bitter end. That is exclusively 
the province of the committee which I serve. 

I further stated at that time, and I state now to the committee, and 
to all of the American people, that if the committee decides to cur- 
tail this hearino; and to discontinue it and to cut it short, I graciously 
bow to the will of the committee for which I am workin<^. But I 
made it clear then, and I desire to make it equally clear and emphatic 
now, that if the committee decides in its wisdom that this case must 
be presented in all of its details re^rardless of the consequences and 
regardless of the time that will be consumed, and the faithful mem- 
bers of my staff will be here assistinj^ in our humble way in the expo- 
sition of the facts as lon^i; as there is breath in our bodies. 

Senator Mundt. Is there anybody else who wants to be heard before 
we return to the 10-minute rule and the order of questioning? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Very briefly I would like to make it clear that 
I did not make the suggestion that we limit the hearing to Secretary 
Stevens and myself, I agreed to that suggestion when I felt the ma- 
jority of the committee felt it was wise. 

One of the principal reasons why I agreed to the shortening in that 
fashion was because as of now, Mr. Chairman, this committee has in 
its files a vast list of individuals, Communists working in defense 
plants, with a razor, if you please, poised over the jugular vein of 
this Nation. We have individuals in the Army, six of them, whom 
we ordered called the day before this report was issued. 

The reason why I was willing to consent to this abbreviated proce- 
dure, suggested by Mr. Welch, incidentally, w\as because I felt we had 
vastly more important work to do. 

As far as I am concerned, I am still willing to abide by the agree- 
ment which we made last night. If Mr. Welch wants to "welsh" 
on that that is perfectly all right. I think something has been accom- 
plished, Mr. Chairman. Even though we do continue for weeks and 
months on this hearing, something has been accomplished. It now 
appears very clear who wants to prolong the hearings, who wants to 
drag them out. 

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I am not too impressed by some of 
my colleagues here who tell how they w^ant to shorten the hearings by 
passing when the real issues of the case are up, by taldng hours of our 
time, days if you please when we are talking about some young man's 
boots or some photograph. I am not impressed by it at all. 

Senator Muxdt. Does anybody else want to be heard before we 
resume under the 10-minute rule? If not, may the Chair say that 
there is this happy note that can be added: that our meeting yester- 
day was all conducted in a friendly spirit. The Chair did not have 
to sound the gavel a single time. We were gathered around the table 
to explore the possibilities through arbitration, of finding a mutually 
satisfactory formula for shortening the hearings. 


It is now apparent, certainly, to the public, as it should be, that 
that formula was not arrived at. 

There is oner other hapj)y note. Not one single charge has come 
from any of the parties to this dispute, not one single criticism from 
any of the parties to this dis})ute or their counsel, that the committee 
or its counsel has at any time been unfair or manifests any prejudice. 
I want to say in behalf of our committee that we are happy that tliat 
situation has prevailed. It may well be that the wheels of the gods 
grind slowly, but they grind exceedingly fine. Time is important. 
The truth is much more important. We are going to continue to 
search for the truth by all of the tactics and capacities that we have. 

We will ask that the counsel continue to consult together if they 
can find some fair and equitable manner for expediting the hearings. 
If not, we will continue with the rules and the procedures and the 
plans and the policies with which we began. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy? 

Senator McCarthy. May I make it clear now when the Chair says 
that counsel should consult together, as far as I am concerned I 
have only consulted Mr. Welch when he was under oath. I will 
not consult with a man who makes an agreement and breaks it. As 
far as I am concerned, it is bad faith. He made a suggestion. I ex- 
tended myself to accept that. And I would like to know and, Mr. 
Chairman, I think you should consider — I am not making a request 
now, but I think you should consider whether or not Mr. Welch should 
not be put under oath and have the committee find out what happened 
between the time that he said that he was willing to shorten these 
proceedings and this morning when he changed his mind. 

As I say, I am not making a request, Mr. Chairman, but I wish you 
would give that some thought. 

Senator Mundt, The Chair will suggest that we now continue with 
the order of the day. 

Mr. Welch. Mr, Chairman, that is not satisfactory to me, sir, that 
accusation of bad faith on my part. There are three, six, eight people 
at the head table, at your table, who know what went on. The allega- 
tion or the suggestion of bad faith on the part of Welch is false, and it 
is known to you gentlemen at the other side of this table to be false. 
Either the chairman or the counsel should add his word to mine on 
this point. 

Senator Mukdt. The Chair has no intention whatsoever of follow- 
ing the suggestion to put the people who were at the executive session 
under oath to try to determine anything further than we have been 
able to discuss among ourselves here in public, where everybody has 
had his chance to say what he wanted to say on his own responsibility, 
with no rules of relevancy, no rules of time termination, no rules of 
procedure applying. 

Mr. Stevens is back on the stand. We will start with Counsel Jen- 
kins, if he has any questions. 


ARMY — Resumed 

xMr. Jekkins. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 
Senator Mundt. The Chair has none. Senator McClellan. 


Secretary Stevens. May I make a brief statement, Mr. Chairman ? 
It is directly relevant to my questioning yesterday. 

Senator Mundt. Without objection, you may. 

Secretary Stevens. Senator McCarthy questioned me yesterday 
with respect to the two letters that he had written me during the 
month of March in regard to the report of the Inspector General in 
connection with the Peress case. I told him that I thought that I had 
acknowledged those letters, but I wasn't sure about it. I would like 
the opportunity to check up and make sure. 

I have in front of me here a copy of a letter which I wrote Senator 
McCarthy on the 13th of April, and it is a brief letter and with your 
permission I will read it : 

Senator Mundt. You may read it. 

Secretary Ste\t:ns (Eeacling:) 

Deiar Mr. Chairman : This is in reply to your recent correspondence regarding 
the case of Major Peress. As you have been previously advised, this case is under 
investigation by the Inspector General of the Army. The investigation has not 
yet been completed, however, according to present expectations, it vpill be com- 
pleted this month. As soon thereafter as practicable, we will notify you and be 
prepared to present the matter to the Permanent Subcommittee on Investiga- 

Sincerely yours, 

Egbert T. Stevens, 
Secretary of the Army. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, would you consider inserting 
in the record together with this letter, the dates of my letters, namely 
March 15, and March 30, and the wire of April 12, and the Secretary's 
letter of April 13 ? 

Senator Mundt. That is your reply, April 13 ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will receive all of the letters in evidence 
marked serially so that they can be identified if they are referred to in 
the future. 

(The documents referred to were marked as "Exhibits Nos. 12 (a), 
12 (b), 12 (c), and 12 (d)." Exhibits Nos. 12 (a), 12 (b), and 12 (c) 
will be found in the files of the subcommittee. Exhibit No. 12 (d) 
appears above on this page.) 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I pass. 

Senator Mundt. Any of the Senators at my left desire to inter- 
rogate ? 

Mr. Welch. I will pass. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Secretary, overnight have you checked your files 
concerning the matter of the loyalty board and can you now tell us 
whether or not there is any provision of law which gives immunity 
from service of subpoena to members of loyalty boards which have 
cleared Communists? 

Mr. Welch. Could I answer on behalf of the Secretary? 

Senator Mundt. Xou may suggest to the Secretary, the informa- 
tion, but you ard not under oath and the Secretary is. 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Cohn, I said that we would prepare a 
memorandum as quickly as we could, and that memorandum is in 
process of preparation and I hope to be able to submit it to the com- 
mittee during the course of the day. We have been working very hard 
on it late last night and during the day. 


Mr. CoHN. In other words, now, sir, you are preparing that memo- ■[ 
randmn and you can't tell us now whether or not you know of any 
provision of law which gives immunity to members of a loyalty board 
from service of process of a subpoena. That is all I wanted to know, 
and I wonder if you could answer that much so that we could move on. 

Secretary Stevens. I think that I had better wait until I have the 
memorandum so I could speak definitely. Not being a lawyer. 

Mr. CoiiN. Very well, sir. Mr. Stevens, I might ask you this : Do 
you not know and have you not been advised of the fact that members 
of loyalty boards of other departments have responded to subpoenas 
by this committee, and have appeared before this committee, and have 
given us full testimony in response to questions by this committee? 

Secretary Stevens. I am not familiar with that; no. 

Mr. ConN. Were you not advised by Senator McCarthy, sir, in 
September and on other occasions, and I refer in September to a meet- 
ing at the Carroll Arms Hotel, on September 8, 1 believe, and on other 
occasions that members of the loyalty board of the Government Print- 
ing Office had appeared freely and voluntarily, before the svibcom- 
mittee and had given full testimony with no objection from anyone? 

Secretary Stevens. I remember there was some discussion about 
the Government Printing Office. 

Mr. CoHN. And do you recall some discussion about the loyalty 
board of the Government Printing Office, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I recall that Senator McCarthy indicated 
that the Government Printing Office officials had made a very favor- 
able impression, in their appearances, but I don't recall the loyalty 
board part of it. 

Mr. CoHN. You don't recall that part of it? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I don't. 

Mr. CoHN. I might suggest then, sir, that your counsel in the course 
of their legal research might examine the records of our committee, 
to see that members of loyalty boards have never before refused to 
appear before this subcommittee and give testimony. The record 
for August of 1953, containing testimony by members of a loyalty 
board of the Government Printing Office. And, Mr. Chairman, I will 
leave this particular line of interrogation until such time as Mr. 
Stevens has had the opportunity to look at this memorandum. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

INIr. CoHN. We can go on from there. 

Mr. Secretary, is it not a fact that from the date you went into office 
as Secretary of the Army until the day this committee went into the 
Fort Monmouth situation, no action had been taken against a large 
number of security risks concerning whom the FBI had submitted 
numerous reports to your office ? 

Secretary STE\rENS. No, I would say there had been a lot of in- 
vestigating and action going on, and in conjunction with the FBI. 

Mr. CoiiN. Sir, your office receives reports from the FBI, I assume, 
like every other Government agency, containing derogatory informa- 
tion indicating certain of your employees are Communists or have 
engaged in Communist activities ; is that right ? 

Secretary Stevens. We receive FBI reports, yes, sir. 

IMr. CoHN. Now, would you agree with me further that tlie Fort 
Monmouth radar laboratories, and subsidiaries, are among the most 
sensitive spots in this Nation? 


Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN". Would you further aj^ree with me, sir, that a large num- 
ber of members of the Julius Rosenberg spy ring were employed in the 
1940's, at the radar laboratories at Fort Monmouth? Do you know 
that to be a fact ? Do you not, sir ? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. I have been told that there were some there, in 
the 194()'s, and I don't know it of my own certain knowledge, and of 
course my concern with it has been since I have been in office. 

Mr. CoHX. Well, you know, sir, there has been public testimonj^, and 
documentation supplied by your office to us indicating that the master 
atom spy, Julius Rosenberg himself, was working 

IMr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I must say that any testimony relative 
to the conditions prevailing at Fort Monmouth in 1940 is wholly 
irrelevant and is therefore objected to. 

Mr. CoHN. May I address myself to counsel on that ? 

Senator Mundt. You may be heard on a point of order. 

Mr. CoHN. I think it is very relevant to show this background and 
lead into the fact that associates of Julius Rosenberg were still working 
at the radar laboratory when Mr. Stevens was Secretary, and that no 
action was taken against them. 

Mr. Jenkins. The counsel agrees with you if you will confine your 
question as to whether or not such subversives were employed at Fort 
^Monmouth when Mr. Stevens took office, and I hold it is perfectly 

Mv. CoHN. Very well, sir, and I am trying to lay the foundation for 

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests you embrace in your question 
those other facts so that we will know what it is. 

Mr. CoiiN. It might be a long question, but I will try to embrace the 
full set of facts in one question, if I can. 

Mr. Stevens, this will necessarily be a long question and so you ask 
me afterwards to break it down if you feel it is necessary. 

Mr. Stevens, is it not a fact that a majority of members of the 
Julius Rosenberg spy ring, namely Julius Rosenberg, Joel Barr, Alfred 
Surand, Vivian Glassman, and others worked personally for the Army 
Signal Corps at the radar laboratories at Fort Monmouth, and that 
associates and friends of these spies continued to work for the Army 
Signal Corps at radar laboratories until this committee came along 
and occasioned their dismissal ? 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, you have given a lot of names and facts 
there, that I am personally not familiar with in detail as to when they 
were or what they were. But I will say this: That in regard to 
the 35 cases with which we have been concerned at Fort Monmouth, as 
far as I know they are not Communists, any of them, and none of them 
have pleaded the fifth amendment. 

Mr. Cohn. IMr, Secretary 

Secretary Stevens. So t don't quite get the connection between the 
1940 picture that you are bringing in here, and the particular group 
we are now talking about. 

Mr. Cohn. Maybe, sir, I can try to show you that connection and 
agree with you that there is a connection. 

First of all, sir, as to your statement about the fifth amendment, 
I agree with you. If one claims the fifth amendment, we can attach 
much importance to that as a signpost of communism and Communist 


Party membership. But, sir, is it not a known public fact, in response 
to your statement, that a great many people who have been found to 
be Communists and Communist spies, such as Alger Hiss and William 
Eemington, have not claimed the fifth amendment? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that is true. 

Senator McCarthy. May I interrupt, Mr. Counsel. Just so the 
record will be clear, I don't want the record to stand that none of 
these individuals took the fifth amendment. Some of them did. The 
Secretary should know that. For example, a Ruth Levine, in Tele- 
communications, handling secret radar work for 10 years. 

Secretary Stevens. Not at Fort Monmouth, Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Just a minute. If you attach a great deal of 
significance to location — I am attaching significance to the radar work. 

For your information, if you don't know it, a Ruth Levine, with 
"Top secret" clearance in Telecommunications, which does a great deal 
of radar work for Fort Monmouth, was subpenaed on December 13, 
appeared before the committee on the 16th, took the fifth amendment 
as to conspiracy to commit espionage, as to whether she was giving 
secret material. I don't think you want to make that misstatement of 
fact, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Stevens. Is she 1 of the 35 who have been suspended at 
Fort Monmouth ? 

Senator McCarthy. Are you asking me ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. I thought you were still the Secretary, Mr. 
Stevens, and I thought you knew who was suspended. You have 
refused to tell me or give me the names of those you suspended. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. May I call the committee's attention to this fact, as 
well as Senator McCarthy's. Senator McCarthy is now, by that line 
of questioning, going into the guilt or innocence and the degree of guilt 
of tliose suspended at Fort Monmouth as a result, allegedly, of his 
investigation. I again remind the committee that under all the rules 
of evidence that is not a proper point of inquiry. It would lead us 
into the merits and demerits of each of the individual 35 cases. I 
again remind Senator McCarthy that there was in existence a board 
having jurisdiction to pass upon the question of whether or not, in 
view of the evidence uncovered by the McCarthy investigating com- 
mittee, any one or all of those 35 were suspended. That matter be- 
came adjudicated, the adjudication being that the evidence was suffi- 
cient to justify a suspension. That is the limit to which this committee 
sJiould conduct its inquiry, and I must again object to any testimony 
relative to the degree of innocence of any of the individual cases. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator JNIundt. A point of order, Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. The Secretary of Defense has volunteered the 
information, without being asked the question, that none of the indi- 
viduals were Communists, that none of them took the fifth amendment. 
I agree with counsel that ordinarily we should not investigate these 
ijidividual cases, but when the Secretary of the Army makes a state- 
ment which is so clearly false, known to us to be false, the only waj- I 
can correct it is to pick up a few of the individual cases which show 
he is not speaki]ig the truth, and I may say, Mr. Jenkins, otherwise 


I ^voiild not have gone into the individual cases and had no intention 
of doing it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do I understand, Mr. Stevens, that you have stated 
that none of those 35 suspensions was a Communist ? 

Secretary Stevens. So far as I now know, that is the fact. 

Mr. Jenkins. Your statement 

Secretary Stevens. And none of them plead the fifth amendment 
that I know of. 

Mr. Jenkins. I am not asking about the fifth amendment. Your 
statement is that none of them was or is a Communist, as far as you 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. Of course the investigations are 
going on, on those people, as you know, Mr. Jenkins. We don't yet 
know the outcome on all of them. 

Mr. Jenkins. ]Mr. Chairman, one of the charges of the McCarthy 
committee is that Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams sought to discredit the 
committee and to belittle its work, and if the Senator is now pursuing 
a line of interrogation designed to show that there was in fact a 
Communist or Communists there, it is my opinion that such proof 
is perfectly competent. 

Senator INIundt. Counsel withdraws his point of order. The Sena- 
tor may continue. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary 

Secretary Stevens. May I be sure that we are talking about Fort 
IMonmouth. I am not sure that Senator McCarthy isn't talking about 
some other place. 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator, do you mind advising the Secretary whether 
or not you are talking about Fort Monmouth ? 

Senator ISIcCarthy. I am talking about the Army Signal Corps. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Secretary Stephens. That is quite a lot different. 

Senator McCarthy. It is ? 

Secretary Stevens. It covers a lot more territory. I have been di- 
recting my remarks to Fort Monmouth. 

Senator Mundt. I will ask the Senator to restate his question so 
the Secretary knows for sure whether it includes one segment or 
another of his jurisdiction. 

Senator McCarthy. Where is the headquarters of the Army Signal 
Corps, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. Eight here in Washington. 

Senator McCarthy. Is Fort Monmouth under the jurisdiction of 
the Army Signal Corps ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. You are aware of course of the fact that Tele- 
communications does a sizable amount of not only secret but top 
secret work. 

Secretary Stevens. I thought you were talking about Fort Mon- 

Senator McCarthy. Just answer my question. Are you aware of 
the fact that Telecommunications does a great deal of classified work 
for the Army Signal Corps, including top secret work ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. Senator McCarthy, I still say that my remarks, 
so the record will be clear, were directed to Fort Monmouth, which is 


what I was talking about and now you are talking about something 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. Before going 
around the wheel again, the Chair would like to inquire from his col- 
leagues their desires in connection with the fact that a joint session 
of Congress has been called at 12 : 30 because of a distinguished visitor 
from Canada. It might be that we would want to recess early enough 
to pay our guest the courtesy of being present at his address. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I suggest, then, that if we 
desire to attend the joint session, that we now recess until 2 o'clock 
instead of 2 : 30, and therefore not lose any time. 

Senator Symington. I second that motion, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Without objection we stand in recess until 2 

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p. m. a recess was taken until 2 p. m. the 
same day.) 



Adams, John G 657, 661-6G3, 671 

Air Force (United States) 663 

Air Force base 663 

AP story 663 

Army (United States) 652,636,659,602-665,669,671 

Army Signal Corps 669, 671 

Associated Press (AP) 603 

Barr, Joel 669 

Bryan, Frederick P 657 

Carr, Francis P 655,656,661,663 

Carroll Arms Hotel (Washington, D. C.) 668 

Cohn, Roy M 655, 656, 661-663 

Communist Party 670 

Communist spies 670 

Communists 657, 668-670 

Congress of the United States- 661, 662, 672 

Democratic members 660 

Democratic side 659 

Democrats 659, 660, 664 

Department of the Army 652, 656, 659, 662-665, 669, 671 

Dirksen, Senator 653-655, 658 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 668 

Federal Government 660, 664, 668 

Fort Dix ^^ 655 

Fort Monmouth 668-671 

Geneva' Conference 061 

Glassman, Vivian 6G9 

Government Printing Othce 668 

Government of the United States 660, 664, 668 

Hensel, H. Struve "652-654, 656 

Hiss, Alger 670 

Inspector General of the Army 667 

Jackson, Senator 660 

K. P. (kitchen police) 659 

Levine, Ruth * 670 

McCarthy, Senator Joe 652-659, 661-663, 665-668, 670, 671 

McCarthy committee 671 

McClellan, Senator 660 

Members of Congress 061, 662 

Navy (United States) 663 

New York City 659 

Oppenheimer case 659 

Peress, Maj. Irving 667 

Radar laboratories (Fort Alonmouth) 608, 669 

Radar work (secret) 670 

Remington, William 670 

Republicans 664 

Rosenberg, Julius 669 

Ryan, General 655 

Schine, G. David- 655, 663 

Secretary of the Army 652-659, 601, 663, 665-672 

Secretary of Defense 661, 662, 670 

Senate of the United States 652, 660, 664 

Signal Corps 669, 671 



Stevens, Robert T 652-659, 661, 663, (565 

Testimony of 658, 666-672 

Stork Club (New York City) 659 

Suraud, Alfred 669 

Telecommunications 670, 671 

Top Secret (clearance) 670 

Ignited States Air Force 663 

United States Army 652, 656, 659, 662-665, 689, 671 

United States Army Si.i;nal Corps 669, 671 

United States Congress 661, 662, 672 

United States Department of Defense 662 

United States Government 660, 664, 668 

United States Navy 663 

United States Secretary of Defense (i61, 6(52 

United States Senate 652, 660 

United States Senators 664 

Washington, D. G 671 

Wilson, Charles 661 




3 9999 05442 1738