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


"j(9 9iMLjk^^ 



Given By 


JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 










S. Res. 189 

PART 19 

MAY 5. 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 

46620" WASHINGTON : 1954 

Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

2EP 8-1954 


JOSEPH K. McCAUTIIY, Wisconsin, Chairman 
KAKI. E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 

MAK(;AKET chase smith. Maine HUBEKT H. HUMPHKEY. AJiiuKsoia 


EVEKETT Ml KINI.EY DIKKSEN, Illinois JOHN K. KENNEDY. M.\ssacliusct is 

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

KiCHARD J. O'Melia, General Cuunnel 
Walteu L. Reynolus, C/Mf/ Clerk 

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman 
CHARLES E. POTTER, Miohijian HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 


Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Coi(u»ei 

THOilAS R. PltEWiTT, Assistant Counsel 

Robert A. Collier, Assistant (■ounscl 

SOLis HoiuviTZ, Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maneu, Secretary 



Index I 

Testimony of — 

Collier, Ivobert A., assistant counsel, Special Subcommittee on Investi- 
gations 720 

Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary, Departm-^nt of the Army 720 




United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington^ D. C. 

Tlie subcommittee met at 10 : 45 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the 
caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, 
chairman, presiding. 

Present : Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Sena- 
tor Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator Charles 
E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. Dworshak, Re- 
publican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; 
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, AVashington; and Senator 
Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri. 

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

Principal participants: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a United 
States Senator from the State of Wisconsin; Roy M. Cohn, chief 
counsel to the subcommittee; Francis P. Carr, executive director of 
the subcommittee ; Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army ; 
John G. Adams, counselor to the Army; H. Struve Hensel, Assistant 
Secretary of Defense ; Joseph N. Welch, special counsel for the Army ; 
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 please come to order. The 
Chair would like to begin the hearing this morning with the not alto- 
gether novel or startling announcement that the guests are here at 
the pleasure of our committee. We are happy to have you in the com- 
mittee room. We have a standing rule of the committee that there 
shall be no manifestations of approval or disapproval at any time, 
and the officers have a prevailing order from the committee to politely 
escort from the room those who decide for themselves to violate that 
committee injunction. May the Chair say he was very happy— and 
I believe his memory is correct — that there have been no interruptions 
from the audience of any kind this week. Nobody has violated the 
rules and made manifestations of approval or disapproval. 

We are ready to begin the proceedings. 

Itlr. Welch. Mr. Chairman. 



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

Mr. Welch. I have a statement bearing- on my relations with Mr. 
Jenkins that I would like to make. I have informed Mr. Jenkins of 
my desire to make it. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins has advised the Chair that you have 
so informed him that it deals with the general discussion we had 
yesterday morning. I think it perfectly appropriate that you should 
have the opportunity to make the statement. 

Mr. Welch. It is quite short. Yesterday in a open hearing I stated 
that by unanimous vote of the subcommittee at its executive session 
the previous evening a resolution was passed directing its special 
counsel, Mr. Jenkins, to confer with me and others in an effort to reach 
a formula to expedite or shorten these hearings. I stated that pur- 
suant to that resolution Mr. Jenkins conferred with me. I further 
stated that I would not be satisfied with a formula whereby Senator 
McCarthy would follow Mr. Stevens and be subjected to an, exam- 
ination and cross-examination and that the hearing would then be 

I stated that Mr. Jenkins concurred with me in my opinion that 
this should not be done. Mr. Jenkins has conferred with me about 
what was said and it is now^ my opinion that my statement of yester- 
day morning left an erroneous impression, all of which was inadver- 
tent on my part. What occurred was this : Mr. Jenkins agreed with 
me that the termination of this hearing on that formula would not 
enable any of the parties to present all of the facts pertaining to the 
issues. He did not express his opposition to such a formula, as he 
has always indicated that the question of curtailing or terminating 
this hearing was entirely up to the subcommittee. 

Senator Mundt, Does that conclude your statement, Mr. Welch ? 

Senator IVIcCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, a point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. Not exactly a point of order, Mr. Chairman. 
There are two matters I would like to bring up. No. 1, the question of 
how long Mr. Stevens has been on the stand has been raised very fre- 
quently. He has been here a long time now. At the rate we were 
going yesterday, it will take many, many days to finish the cross-exam- 
ination of ]\Ir. Stevens. I have had one of my staff give me an 
estimate of the time we spent on the questions and the time on the an- 
swers and the interruptions. 

Yesterday the best estimate we could get is that we spent between 
20 and 25 minutes asking questions and the rest of the time was used 
up on what I considered very length}^ answers — I assume the Secre- 
tary thought he was answering correctly — and with interruptions. 
Keep in mind, of course, that Mr. Stevens is the accuser and I have no 
choice but to ask the questions. My staff has been accused of using im- 
proper pressure. 

Nevertheless, Mr. Chairman, I think it is not exactly proper to keep 
one man on the stand as long as Mr. Stevens has been kept here. I 
would like very nuich, therefore, to have a meeting of the committee 
this noon to see if we cannot work out some system whereby w^e can 
give the Secretary a long weekend off so he can come back next Monday 
and start fresh. I just do not like to keep him here under these lights 
the rest of this week. I don't wish to discuss it now, Mr. Chairman, 


but T would like to have a meetiuo; of tbe committee tliis noon, if wo 
could, in executive session so we could discuss what I have in mind. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I move that we proceed with 
the hearings. 

Senator" MuNDT. The Chair would like to inquire, if I may, of 
Senator McCarthy whether this recjuest for an executive session deals 
with trying to find some way, if he understands it, either of ex])editing 
the heaVings or whether it is a suggestion that we find a way, if possi- 
ble, to change the order of witnesses so Mr. Stevens, who has been 
under the lights and before the committee for a long time, could have a 
refresher period — I understood 3'ou to say perhaps until next Monday. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. (Chairman, I was not suggesting 
the executive session for the purpose of ex]>editing. As I said before, 
I would not talk to Mv. "Welch except under oath after the breaking of 
the agreement which we made the other day. I merely want to talk to 
the members of the committee about some way of giving Mr. Stevens 
fi rest. He has not asked for one. He has not communicated to me 
that he wants one. I have had no indication from him that he wants 
a rest. I think he is entitled to one, and I would like to discuss with 
the committee a change in the ground rules without establishing a 
precedent so he can be taken off. 

Senator Jackson. We are not going to change the rules, are we, in 
the middle of the game ? 

Senator Mundt. I would think no, but if we could find a way, it 
seems to me, to call some other witness and give Mr. Stevens a rest, the 
Chair, speaking for himself alone, feels that Mr. Stevens is entitled to 
a rest. He has been here a long time. He would certainly be per- 
suaded tremendously by any suggestion which would not destroy the 
equity of the hearings or change the rules, but which would give Mr. 
Stevens a rest. 

Do you wish to have a committee meeting for that purpose? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that if we proceed to 
put the monitored telephone calls into the record, that will take some 
time, and it would give JNIr. Stevens an opportunity to defer his testi- 
mony until all those telephone conversations are placed in the record, 
which was acted upon by the committee so long ago I cannot remem- 
ber — over a week, I guess. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, in that connection I would like 
to ask a question, if I may. There will be a question of which moni- 
tored calls are competent as to testimony, whether they are accurate, 
whether we have all of the monitored calls. I understand — if 1 am 
wrong, Mr. Jackson, I wish you would correct me — I understand that 
someone in the Army has supplied you with copies of all monitored 
calls. I have never seen a single one yet. "Was I misinformed, Senator 

Senator Jackson. I have not received copies. 

Senator McCarthy. Have you seen copies of them ? 

Senator Jackson. I have not seen copies of the monitored calls. I 
have heard about them. 

Senator jSIcCarthy. In other words, you have seen them ? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will call an executive committee meet- 
ing at 2 o'clock in my office, and I hope from it will come some formula 
by which we can relieve Mr. Stevens for the rest of the afternoon, .uid 
we hope he can eet a rest, which he deserves. 


Senator McCarthy. I have another point, definitely a point of 

Senator Mundt. I want to be sure the committee members under- 
stand we will have an executive committee meeting in my office at 2 
o'clock. You may be there, Senator JNIcCarthy, and if you are there I 
think it is only fair for Mr. Welch to be there. We will be glad to have 
you come. 

Mr. Welch. The Senator has said such ungrateful things about me, 
sir, I think I should not care to attend. 

Senator Mundt. You may come, if you care to come. Have you a 
point of order? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I under- 
stand the committee met and decided, and I think rightly so, to put 
in monitored phone calls if it is proven that you have all the calls and 
that they are complete. I understand that at least some members of 
the committee on both sides of the aisle have either received copies 
of the calls or have been fully informed as to the contents of the calls. 
I have not seen any of the calls. I do not think in view of the fact 
that Mr. Welch has seen all the calls, some of the committee members 
have, I believe it is only fair that I have access to those monitored 
calls also, so that I can check with my staff and determine whether or 
not they think that all of the calls have been included, whether some 
Isave been held out. I think this is doubly important, Mr. Chairman, 
in view of the evidence we had yesterday in regard to file stripping. I 
want to be sure there is no monitored stripping. 

Senator Mundt, The Chair holds that is a proper request that you 
may place before the executive meeting at 2 o'clock. 

Senator McCarthy, I would like permission of the Chair to read 
into the record a wire which I sent to Mr. Stevens this morning. 

Senator Symington, I second the motion of Senator McClellan, It 
is now after 10 minutes to 11. I move the committee go to work. 

Senator Mundt, The Chair feels the wire should not be read, be- 
cause the Senator is not testifying at this time. He may release any 
telegram he cares to the press, if he cares to, but he does not believe 
it should be incorporated into the record. 

Senator McCarthy. Then I would like to pass this wire to the 
Chair Avith the request that he subpena the material mentioned 
within this wire. It has to do with the letter from J. Edgar Hoover, 
having to do with security risks at Fort Monmouth. May I pass that 
to the Chair? 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen? 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, as everyone knows. Government 
is a continuous process. I get a little distressed over the fact when 
high administrative officials are immobilized day after day if it isn't 

We haven't called on Mr. Hensel. It is undetermined as to when 
we shall get there. There are so many tensions on the international 
horizon and, as everyone knows, he is Secretary for the International 
Security Affairs. Certainly it isn't necessary to have both him and 
his counsel here. I wonder if the committee couldn't agree to let 
Mr. Hensel go back to work until such time as we have to have him. 

Senator Mundt. Is there any objection from any member of the 
committee to dismissing Mr. Hensel until he is called by the com- 
mittee ? 


Senator McCleixax. Mr. Cliainnan, I don't know whctlier Mr. 
Hensel has requested that he be released from attendance. If he 
has, then I am willinoj to ^rant it. If Mr. Hensel feels that his 
presence here is needed in his own interest and in defense of the 
charoes aoainst him, I don't think this committee has any ri<>ht to 
order him to stay away until he is called. 

Senator Mundt. Does the Chair understand any implication on the 
part of the Senator from Illinois that we were orderin<r Mr. Hensel 
to leave the room? I didn't get that. I thou^dit it was that we were 
not ordering him to be here. 

Senator Dirksf.x. That is right. 

Mv. Bryax. Mr. Chairman, it is certainly true that as Assistant 
Secretary of Defense for International Security Aftairs, Mr. Hensel 
has numerous matters of prime importance to the Nation piling up 
on his desk. 

I would say this: That if we can have an understanding that Mr. 
Hensel's nanie will not be brought into the hearings in his absence, 
he will be prepared to return at any point and on any day or at any 
time wlien the suggestion is made that his name may come into these 
jn'oceedings, and we shall come back. 

If that is satisfactory to the Chair, satisfactory to everybody here, 
Mr. Hensel, I am sure, would appreciate the opportunity to attend 
to his important official duties. 

Senator Muxdt. Mr. Bryan, may I have your attention? ISIay the 
Chair ])ut it this way: It is obviously ]3retty difficult to be sure that 
Mr. Hensel's name might not be mentioned. But we should be able 
to aaree that none of the issues involving him would be discussed. 
If the Chair can get unanimous consent now from all members of 
the committee and staff, and counsel for all parties involved, that he 
may raise a point of order and sustain it against any discussion of the 
issues involving Mv. Hensel in his absence, if I can get that assurance 
now, then I would think Mr. Hensel might safely absent himself from 
the hearing. 

Does the Chair hear any objection to that ? 
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 
Senator INIuxdt. Senator McCarthy? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't quite understand tlie Cliair's sugges- 
tion. Do you mean in cross-examining witnesses we cannot mention 
Mv. Hensel's name ? I may say in that connection I intend to examine 
the Secretary this morning on a question which he was clearly being 
generous in, I will say, in error yesterday. He testified yesterday ISIr. 
Hensel was not present when he returned from a meeting with the 
Chair, myself, Senator Dirksen, Senator Potter. The night that some- 
one thought np the smear, apparently, on Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr, I 
find out Mr. Hensel was present and that Mr. Stevens apparently had 
a considerable conference with him. So I will bring up that question. 
Senator Muxdt. I would assume for such questions Mr. Hensel 
ought to be present. I don't know. 

Senator McCarthy. I want to make it clear that I will not refrain 
from asking witnesses pertinent questions about Mr. Hensel. When 
Mr. Adams is on the stand, I will ask him about Mr. Hensel. I will 
say this, Mr. Chairman, I certainly will be glad to go along with the 
Chair insofar as not raising any new issue as far as Mr. Hensel is 
concerned, but I can't refrain from questioning these witnesses as 

4GG20°— 54— pt. 19 2 


they appear. It is doubly true, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact 
that one of the allegations -which we have is that Mr. Hensel master- 
minded the smear. I don't think Bob Stevens did. I can't help, 
therefore, but ask questions about him. May I say also, Mr. Chair- 
man, for the benefit of ]\Ir. Hensel and his counsel while they are here, 
I am not sure this has been set forth clearly and concisely enough so 
that they are fully warned. I do think the allegations in our specifica- 
tions are broad enough to cover it, and I want to notify Mr. Hensel 
that Avhen he gets on the stand, and when other witnesses are on the 
stand, I will discuss in some detail, from the stand])oint of motive on 
his part, his activities in Europe after he was notified that he would 
be given the job he has now got. From the standpoint of motive. 

Senator Mfndt. The Chair believes, Senator Dirksen, in view of tlie 
type of questioning that the Senator said he is going to be engaged in 
this morning, Mr. Hensel might properly want to be here. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, I think we will at least remain through 
this morning. 

Senator Mundt. Very well, sir. Counsel Jenkins? 

IMr. Jenkins. Mr. Cliairman, yesterday afternoon the committee 
instructed me to confer with J. Edgar Hoover with respect to a copy 
cf a letter allegedly in the files of the Intelligence Department of the 
Army, and to clarify that issue this morning. I am now prepared to 
do so. Prior to so doing, I desire to ask the Secretary one question. 



Mr. Jenkins. Mr, Stevens, since yesterday afternoon, have you or 
not, through yourself or those under your command examined the files 
of the Intelligence Department at the Pentagon with special reference 
to the original of the letter about which you were questioned yesterday 
afternoon ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not such a letter was found in that 
file or any other file. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now", Mr. Chairman, I desire the Secretary to stand 
aside momentarily and let me clarify that issue. I desire to call as 
the next witness my assistant counsel, one of my assistant counsel, and a 
member of my staff, Mr. Robert A. Collier. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Collier, will you take the witness stand, please. 

Mr. Collier, will you raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear 
the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, 
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ? 

JVIr. Collier. I do. 

Senator Mundt. You may be seated, sir. 


]\f r. Jenkins. Will you please state your full name ? 
]Mr. Collier. Robert A. Collier. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, you are a member of my staff, assistant 
counsel ; is that correct? 
Mr. Collier, Yes, sir. 


]\rr. Jenkiks. ]\rr. Collior. formerly have you or not been employed 
by the Federal Bureau of Iiivesti<2;ation'^ 

\Mr. CoLLiEK. I was, sir. 1 was employed from April 1, 1911, until 
October 2G, 1951. 

Mr. Jexkixs. You were present yesterday afternoon when a dis- 
cussion occurred with respect to a letter. Will you give the date of 
the letter, Mr. Collier? It has escaped me. 

Mr, Collier. January 26, 1951. 

]\fr. Jexkins. At which time the committee instructed me, either 
myself or by some member of my staff, to confer personally with Mr. 
J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. 

JMr. Collier. I was present, 

Mr. Jenkins. Were you present? 

Mr, Collier, Yes, sir, 

Mr. Jenkins, I will ask you whether or not at the close of the 
meeting I assigned that task to you. 

Mr. CoixiER. You did, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not pursuant to that, Mi'. Collier, 
you conferred with Mr. Hoover personally. 

Mr. Collier. I did. 

]\rr. Jenkins. At what time, approximately, yesterday afternoon 
or evening? 

Mr. Collier. From approximately 5 : 15 until approximately 7: 15, 

Mr. Jenkins. During the course of your conversation with Mr. 
Hoover, I will ask you whether or not he called upon j'ou to procure 
ajid show to him tlie copy of the letter about which we are talking, 

]VIr. Collier. Yes, sir; he did. 

Mr, Jenkins, I believe dated January 

]\fr. Collier. Twenty-sixth, 1951. 

Mr. Jenkins. January 26, 1951. As a result of that recpiest of Mr. 
Hoover, did or not you go to Mr. Cohn's office and procure that copy ? 

Mr. Collier. I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. And then take it to Mr. Hoover? 

JVIr. Collier. I did. 

JMr. Jenkins. Was it shown to him? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mv. Collier, now at this time, without my taking the 
time and still in the interest of expediting the hearing, I ask you to 
chronologically relate the incidents of that conference with INIr, 
Hoover, what was done ]Hirsuant to the request of the connnittee, and 
what was said to you by Mr. Hoover. 

Mr. Collier. Upon receiving your instructions, I con.imunicated 
with the FBI and Avithin a very short period of time obtained an 
ni)pointment with JMr. Hoover. I went to see him, having advised 
liim of the date and the type of letter involved. Mr. Hoover at that 
time informed me that they had not found such a letter. He did have 
another letter of the same date. 

In order to be perfectly sure that they had obtained the correct 
letter, I returned to the Senate Office Building and obtained from Eoy 
Cohn, in Senator McCarthy's office, the letter wdiich I now have in my 
hand and which was the one produced yesterday by Senator JMc- 
( "arthy. I took that letter to JMr. Hoover, and at that time he com- 
pared this letter with the letter in his possession of the same date. 


I can now report to you that Mr. Hoover advised me that this letter 
is not a carbon 

Mr. Jenkins. Identify the letter when you say "this letter." 

Mr. Collier. This is the letter produced yesterday by Senator Mc- 
Carthy. This is not a carbon copy or a copy of any communication 
prepared or sent by the FBI to General Boiling on January 26, 1951, 
or any other date. The FBI has in its files a letter 

Mr. Jenkins. Are you now stating what Mr. Hoover personally 
told you ? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. You may proceed. 

Mr. Collier. The FBI does have in its files a file copy of a letter 
dated January 2G, 1951, the same date, prepared and sent by the FlU 
to General Boiling, which Avas a 15-page interdepartmental memoran- 
dum. A carbon copy of that Avent to Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Carroll, 
United States Air Force. 

Mr. Hoover, in comparing the two documents, advised me that the 
form of the carbon copy which I have, the one introduced, and the 
yellow copy of the FBI memorandum prepared on January 26, are 
materially different in form. 

I can recount for you, as Mr. Hoover advised me, the difference in 
that form. 

For purpose of identification, I will refer to the document intro- 
duced yesterday as the carbon copy and to the yellow copy in the 
FBI files, the 15-page memorandum, as the FBI original. On the 
FBI original the words "Federal Bureau of Investigation"' is printed 
in large block letters across the top of the page. On the carbon copy 
the words "Federal Bureau of Investigation" is typed. The date, 
January 26, 1951, appears directly beneath the type "Federal Bureau 
of Investigation" on the carbon cop}^, and is in a different position 
on the page of the FBI original. 

The carbon co]xv has across the top "Personal and Confidential via 
liaison." The FBI original has in the upper righthand corner the 
words "Confidential via liaison." 

The memorandum, the FBI original, is in the form of a interde- 
partmental memorandum. It is not signed. It merely carries the 
name of the Director and the FBI. The carbon copy would indicate 
a signature was to be affixed. 

The FBI original was addressed to Maj. Gen. A. E. Boiling. The 
carbon copy is addressed to Major General Boiling, the initials "xV. R." 
being left out. 

The same words "Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the 
Army," appear on both documents. In the FBI original the addi- 
tional words "The Pentagon" appear. That is not on the carbon 
copy, and the words "Washington, D. C." appear on both documents. 

The FBI original has the word "From" and then the words "John 
Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation." That is 
not on the carbon copy. 

The FBI original has the word "subject" and then typed thereon 
"Aaron, A-a-r-o-n, Hyman H-y-m-a-n Coleman, C-o-l-e-m-a-n, Es- 
pionage — K." The "R" stands for Russian and 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am not sure I understood. 
You say that is the FBI copy you are talking about. 


ISIr. Collier. Yes, sir. In otlipr words, tlio siil)]cct Aaron Coleman, 
Espionaoe — K, appears on the FBI oriji'nial. It does not appear on 
the carbon copy. 

This carbon copy carries the salutation "sir." The FBI original 
carries no salutation. 

This carbon cop}' is two and one-cpiarter pages in length. The 
FBI original is 15 pages in length. 

The carbon copy at the end carries the words "sincerely yours, 
J. Edgar Hoover, Director." That, of course, did not a])])ear at the 
end of the FBI original, but actually a[)peared in the "To" "From" 
relation in the beginning. 

The carbon co])y shows no carbon copy being sent to anyone else. 

Senator j\1cCarthy. Could I interru])t, Mv. Chairman? 

Senator ]\[unut. Have you a point of order? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. I think it would be proper at this time, 
as a point of order, that we rhow that I had vrired Mr. Stevens and 
asked him to produce the additional pages that we did not have. I 
thought it was eight pages. Now, the young man sa3'S it is 15 pages. 
I believe I asked for eight pages. I think the record should show 
that I had wired INIr. Stevens and told him that I would ask to 
have the additional Dages subpenaed. 

Senator IMrNor. The Chair suggests you bring that out in your 10- 
minute period that you have for questioning. 

Senator McCarihy. Let me ask the Chair, has the Cliair acceded to 
my request, the request made to Mr. Stevens also by wire, that the 
additional pages be subpenaed, the pages which I do not have? I 
think they should be sub])enaed. 

Senator ISIuxdt. The Chair has not had time to examine the tele- 
gr;\m which you sent to the desk. 

Mr. Collier. I would like to pass to the Chair the diagram which 
I have drawn which will give you a more visual reference to the two 
letters which I have brought out. 

Senator Symixgton. Mr. Chairman, may I make a point of order? 
When the witness discusses the carbon copy, he might say the alleged 
carbon copy. 

Senator IMcCarthy. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I would 
like to know who alleged it to be a carbon copy. We have never 
alleged it to be a carbon copy. 

]\ir. Je>;kixs. Mr. Collier, you may proceed. 

Senator jMuxdt. Proceed, Mr. Collier. 

INIr. Collier. The FBI original, on the last page thereof, shows the 

CO, Jliijor General Joseph F. Carroll, Director, Special Investigations, the 
Inspector General, U. S. A. F. 

Now, that is the difference in form alone. I am distinguishing 
between form and substance. Mr. Hoover advised me, and examined 
the 2 documents in my presence, advised me that the substance of 
the original FBI 15-page memorandum and the substance of the 2^/4- 
page carbon copj^, contain information relating to the same subject 
matter, and that in some instances exact or identical language appears 
in both documents. 

(^ther than that, Mr. Hoover feels that to further clarify it v.ould 
reveal, possibly reveal, the substance of the documents themselves. 


On that point, Mr. Hoover asked me to inform you that he respectfully 
refers the committee to the Attorney General for his opinion as to 
whether or not the contents can be made public in line with security 
requirements. And since the language is, in some instances, identical, 
that would apparently go for both documents. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, have you in detail related all of the 
events transpiring in your conference with Mr. Hoover? 
Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 
Senator Mundt. Just one question. The Chair is not certain, and 
I am not sure that you can answer this question, but did you determine 
whether the FBI original was in the files of the military and available 
to Secretary Stevens? 

Mr. Collier. I will go back to tlie question that Kay asked me. I 
did not complete it. On that point, I determined that the yellow 
copy in the FBI file, which is the file copy, carries the following hand- 
written notations concerning the original : 
Delivered to Colonel Cramer, G-2, 1-27-51, W. R. P. 

Those initials are those of a liaison representative of the FBI, 
Wesley P. Reynolds. 

The carbon copy to Major General Joseph F. Carl, according to a 

handwritten notation on the yellow, was delivered to Gill Levy, 

O. S. L, 1-29-51, E. S. S., the initials standing for Ed S. Sanders. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, those originals were apparently 

delivered in 1951? 

ISIr. Collier. They were, sir. 

Senator Mundt. And were delivered to G-2 at that time? 
Mr. Collier. The memorandum is dated January 26. It was de- 
livered personally by Mr. Wesley P. Reynolds to Colonel Cramer on 
1-27-51. The carbon copy was delivered personally by Mr. Ed 
Sanders to O. S. L, on 1-29-51. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair understands that the white papers that 
you hold are not an exact duplicate or replica of the yellow sheets 
which you held. 

Mr. Collier. The yellow being my notes. 

Senator Mundt. The yellow being from the files of the FBI and the 
white from Senator McCarthy ? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir. The yellow sheets are merely my own notes, 
my handwritten notes. The yellow copy of the 15-page document I 
did not examine because it contains security information. I did not 
go into the substance of the document itself. I did not feel entitled 
to. I received my information from the examination made by Mr. 
Hoover. That yellow copy is now in the possession of the FBI. 

Senator Mundt. Now I understand. You were quoting Mr. Hoover, 
then, when you said that in some instances the language was identical, 
that the subject matter was identical, and that as Mr. Hoover inter- 
prets the security laws, the subject matter, both of the FBI copies and 
of the copies from Senator McCarthy's files, because they deal with 
an identical subject, should not be revealed in public short of a ruling 
of the Attorney General. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Collier. I want to make it clear. INIr. Hoover did not, of 
course, refer to this carbon copy when he stated that, because actually 
this is not a carbon copy of any FBI document. He was referring to 


his own document, the 15-pa^e memorandum, when he su<!;<2;ested that 
"I respectfully refer you to the Attorney (General for his opinion," 

Senator Mundt. lou were speakintr for yourself, then, when you 
said that because J. Edgar Hoover had told you in some instances the 
Linouajje was identical, the subject matter was identical, that you be- 
lieved that without authorization from the Attorney General we 
should not discuss the subject ? 

]\rr. Collier. That is correct. Mr. Hoover made no comment con- 
cerninir this carbon copy. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mdnut. Just a minute. The Chair would then think, 
jMr. C/Ounsel, that we would not want to subpena the FBI original, 
certainly, without getting some opinion from the Attorney General. 

Mr. Jenkins. Counsel entirely agrees with the chairman. 

Senator ]\Iundt. Have you a point of order? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out, 
I think this should be ex])lored with INIr. Hoover. As far as I know, 
if the Chair Mill refer to page 2 of the hearings where this letter 
lists the names of individuals at Fort Monmouth, I understand the 
FBI report gives the names of informants and information. That 
security information was omitted from this copy, call it what you 
may, which I have. 

I would like to know, Mr. Chairman, and the witness has not 
covered that, apparently he can't because he says he has not examined 
the letter, whether or not all portions of this document, which was 

Senator Mundt. That is a question which you should address to the 
witness, not to the Chair. It would not be a point of order, I don't 

Senator McCarthy. No, Mr. Chairman, it is a request of the Chair, 
raid this is a very, very important matter, Mr. Chairman. It is a 
request of the Chair that I am making. 

I am making the request that someone from the FBI be called to tell 
ns whether or not all of the language in the document submitted yester- 
day is not identical to the language in the document submitted to the 
military, with the exception of where we list the name of an individual 
and put the word after it "derogatory," in some cases not derogatory, 
that tlie FBI report actually contains all the information. 

I should think we should ask Mr. Hoover whether or not he would 
object to having put into the record — this is a request I am making 
of the Chair. May I finish, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Is it a point of order? 

Senator IMcCarthy. I am making a request of the Chair, a very im- 
portant request. The request is this : We have a document here con- 
cerning Fort Monmouth, Communists at Fort Monmouth, and a warn- 
ing relating to them. I want to know, Mr. Chairman, if the Chair will 
not now call someone from the Bureau who can bring down the docu- 
ment they have, not for public exhibition, and tell us whether or not all 
the language is not identical, except that in this document the indi- 
viduals are merely named and all security information is left out of 
this document, where in the FBI document the security information 
is included. 

Senator Mdndt. The Chair would suggest that the Senator from 
Wisconsin first interrogate the witness, when lie comes to his time, as 


to wlietlier he can proTide that information. It is possible that he can, 
Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCartht. All ri2;ht. 

Senator MuNDT. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClfxlan. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that 
the document that is presented to us here, ^Yhich we have not read, if 
incomplete, if it contains only 3 pa^jes out of a 15-page document, then 
the best eviclence is the document itself, which is available unless it is 
prohibited for security reasons. 

If it is prohibited by security reasons, then these excerpts from it are 
not admissible at this hearing. If it is not prohibited, under the 
security order and directive of the President, then the original docu- 
ment in full and complete is the best evidence and should be produced. 

I therefore, Mr. Chairman, suggest that this document that is not 
identified other than as containing some of the names and some state- 
ments in the original document, has no place in these hearings until it 
is established that the original document is not available or, if, for 
security reasons it cannot be made available, then no part of it can be 
made available at this hearing. 

Senator Mundt. If the Chair understands the suggestion of Senator 
McClellan, it is this : That we have our counsel undertake to determine 
now from the Attorney General whether we can have made available 
the 15 sheets, and if so, we can then make our own comparison as to 
whether or not the material is left out, what was left out, and what is 
retained. If we are not able to get the 15 sheets, and since they deal 
with identical subjects, then none of the material should be admitted 
for security reasons, is that right? 

Senator McClellan. That is correct. 

Senator Muxdt. Do you have a point of order, Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, while I agree considerably with 
what the Senator from Arkansas said, I would say that I think it 
should be made clear that we are not now requesting and never have 
requested that the security information about these specific individuals 
be made a part of the record. That is in line with the ruling of coun- 
sel, My. Jenkins. I do think that the language of the letter, if this 
language is correct and verbatim — and I have every reason to believe 
it is — that the language of the letter contains nothing of a security 
nature except that it warns, admonishes those in charge of Fort 

Senator Mundt. The letter is not admissible. 

S?nator McCar-jht. The Chair has stated that unless the entire 
15 ])ages could be made a part of the record, none of it could. I want 
to disagree with that, Mr. Chairman. I think you can delete, as there 
apparently was deleted in this letter, the security reports on each 
specific individual. The rest of the letter, I think, is extremely im- 

Senator Mundt. Tlie Chair is ready to rule. Unless his ruling is 
upset by his colleagues on this committee, he will rule that the counsel 
for the committee should seek from the Attorney General the permis- 
sion suggested by Senator McClellan, which has been restated by him 
and by the Chair. 

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

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson. 


Senator Jackson. Dops not the committee have the responsibility, 
in view of the fact that there is now or was introduced yesterday 
afternoon a letter which purports to have come from Mr. J. Edgar 
Hoover and which we are now advised did not come from him — does 
not this connnittee have the responsibility to ask the Attorney General 
or somebody where that letter came from ? Mr. Hoover's name is being 
used, and 1 take it from the witness that he — that is, Mr. Hoover — 
has denied the existence of this letter. Is that correct? 

Mr. CoLUEK. This letter is not a copy of any document prepared 
by the FBI. 

Senator Jackson. Or one that he sent out? 

Mr. CoLLiKR. That is correct. 

Senator Jackson. 1 think the committee has a grave responsibility 
here to determine where that letter came from. 

Senator Mundt. I think that would be a separate request, and it 
might well be a proj^er one, but I think what we want to find out im- 
mediately is w^iether or not we have a letter or a letter in a memo- 
randum, an inner office communication, which is admissible in evidence. 

Mr. Counsel, if you will determine that and try to get it available for 
evidence, if it does not violate rulings of the Attorney General. 

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

Senator Mundt. That will be done. I may state a point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. The Chair 
says you should request of Mr. Brow^nell permission to use the entire 
15-page document. I would like to ask the Chair to request that if 
you cannot use the entire 15-page document — I assume he will rule 
against you on that because it contains the names of informants — ask 
him whether or not we can use that portion of the document which was 
submitted yesterday. Find out whether this is a verbatim copy of the 
FBI memorandum or letter and, if so, whether there is any objection 
to introduction of the part of the document, omitting the names, which 
I submitted yesterday. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests that that would be perfectly 
proper to find out whether we could include any or all or at least 
enough to find out Avhether that is a verbatim copy. We will get from 
him whatever we can for use as evidence in this case. 

Have you a further point of order? 

Senator McCarthy. I have. Mr. Jackson has made a completely 
false statement. He said I represented yesterday that this came from 
Mr. Hoover. I made it very clear that I had never received anything 
from J. Edgar Hoover ; that this was not received from Mr. Hoover. 
Mr. Jackson knows that. 

Senator Jackson. I am not saying that you said it came from Mr. 
Hoover. Here is a letter purporting to come from Mr. Hoover. It is 
signed by him. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you like to get the evidence on it before 
you make wild statements ? 

Senator Jackson. I am not making wild statements. The commit- 
tee — and certainly it was pretty clear from the testimony yesterday or 
the discussion here that this was a letter purporting to have been 
signed by J. Edgar Hoover. I think we ought to know where it came 

40620°— 54— pt. 19 3 


Senator McCartht. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. Mr. Jackson 
has tried very deliberately to create the impression that this did not 
come from J. Edgar Hoover. I am sure the evidence will show that 
this did come from J. Edgar Hoover and that there has been omitted 

from it . , , 

Senator Mundt. You can take that up in testimony with the witness. 
Senator McCarthy. If Mr. Jackson is going to testify, I have to 

correct his misstatements, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. He has testified. You have testified and neither 

testimony has been under oath. The Chair suggests that counsel 


Senator Jackson. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I want the rec- 
ord to show that on yesterday, so that we have clear the understand- 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair suggest if you are willing to wait 
until your 10-minute time comes, because it will be just a minute. 

Senator Jackson. I want to make the ]wint in connection with the 
point of order previously made. 

Senator Mundt. Very well, a point of order. 

Senator Jackson. That on page 1722 of the record of yesterday, I 
asked the question : 

May I ask this question? I am a little confused. This is a copy of a letter 
that is being introduced. 

That is quite clear. I made that statement. It wasn't denied. 
Again, this is what Mr. Jenkins said on page 1723. 

Senator McCarthy. Are you reading what you said, Mr. Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. I just read what I said. Now, I am reading 
■what Mr. Jenkins said on page 1723 : 

Mr. Jenkins. I am getting ready to. I hold now on the basis of the copy of 
this letter, and on the assumption that no party in interest and no counsel would 
refer to a spurious, manufactured document that Senator McCarthy's cross- 
examination of the Secretary with reference to this letter is wholly competent—? 

And again, on page 1724, Senator McCarthy said this — 

I want to question the Secretary as to whether or not the original of this and 
other letters like it are in his file. 

Then again, on page 1725 of the record, this is what Senator 

McCarthy said : 

If Mr. Welch is going to say that there is not a copy of this in the Army files, 
he should be sworn, because that statement is untrue. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Jackson. That is pretty clear-cut. May I repeat that, 
Mr. Chairman? 

Senator McCarthy. Is this a point of order? 

Senator Jackson. It is a point of order. The point is that the 
representation was made that yesterday this was not represented as 
a copy of a letter from ^Mr. Hoover. This is Senator McCarthy's 
statement on page 1725 : 

If Mr. Welch is going to say that there is not a copy of this in the Army files, 
he should be .sworn, because that statement is untrue. 

That is Senator McCarthy's statement. 
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 
Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order ? 


Senator McCarthy. I very definitely have, of the same nature as 
Mr. Jackson's. We have a docinnent here which, according to all the 
information I have, is verbatim, a report given from the FBI. It 
should be in the Army files. I sent a wire this morning to the Sec- 
retary asking for the addendum showing the derogatory material on 
each side. I think it is important for Mr. Jackson not to make these 
statements and try to create these impressions when he hasn't seen the 
letter. If he will look at it, I believe he will find each and every word 
is identical to the original letter with the exception of the fact that 
where there is listed the names of Fort Monmouth employees and the 
word "derogatory" put after it in the FBI report you will find the 
derogatory information and perhaps the names of the informants. 
If that were included in this letter, Mr. Chairman, then it would be 
objectionable. We would be violating the rule by submitting it to 
the committee. That security information is not in the letter. The 
meat of the letter is here, and I would suggest that we proceed now 
fo examine this young man and see if he can give us this information 
or not. 

Senator Jackson. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will state that he has already ruled that 
"ounsel is to secure from the Attorney General the eviclence which 
we can get if available to us, which will determine the answers to the 
questions now being discussed under the guise of a point of order. 
Once we get that evidence, certainly the documents before us can be 
compared and the facts brought out. I suggest. Senator McClellan, 
you proceed with the questioning. 

Senator McClellan. Did you discuss with Mr. Hoover or inquire 
of him how many copies of that 15-page memorandum were made? 

Mr. Collier. The FBI presently has in its file the yellow file copy. 
The original was sent to General JBolling and a carbon copy was sent 
to General Carroll. To my knowledge, no other copy is in existence. 

Senator McClell^vn. Did he state to you specifically whether any 
other copies were released or transmitted to anyone else at the time ? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. The yellow copy indicates the distribution 
of all copies, and the only distribution shown on the yellow copy was 
that the original went to General Boiling and a carbon copy went to 
General Carroll. The other distribution would not be shown. 

Senator McClellan. In other words, the records of the FBI, ac- 
cording to Mr. Hoover, indicate that there w^as only the original which 
went to General Boiling and the yellow carbon copy which was placed 
in the permanent FBI files. Is that correct? 

Mr, Collier. That is what the yellow shows. I don't want to speak 
for Mr. Hoover, It may be that 

Senator McClellan. I think it is pretty important to find that out. 
I would like for you to inquire of Mr. Hoover about that. 

Mr. Collier. All right, sir. 

Senator McClellan. I would like to trace this letter or this memo- 
randum. If this information that is alleged to be a part of that docu- 
mem did not come from Mr. Hoover, and no other letter was released, 
then the only source it could have come from was the security files of 
the Army. 

Mr. Collier. Let me say, again, Senator McClellan, that Mr. Hoover 
said that this w^as not a carbon copy or a copy of any communication, 


Senator McClellan. I am talking about the information in this 
document that has been presented to us. It had to come from either 
the carbon copy in the FBI files or from the original that went to the 

Mr Collier. I will check on that. The United States Air Force 
received a copy. 

Sen fit or McClellan. All right. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen? 

Senator Dihksen. Mr. Collier, you did not have opportunity to ex- 
amine the text of the copy in the FBI files? 

Mr. Collier. Senator Dirksen, I purposely avoided examining it. 

Senator Dirksen. You would therefore have no opportunity or did 
not have opportunity and would not know whether language was 
identical insofar as the pages available are concerned ? 

Mr. Collier. Well, Mr. Hoover did say that it contains information 
relating to the same subject matter and that in some respects the exact 
hmguage in both documents is the same. 

Senator Dirksen. That is- all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. In talking with Mr. Hoover, did he say that the 
two letters were similar? That is, the one presented here yesterday 
and the interdepartmental memorandum, that is; that the FBI for- 
warded to the Army and a copy to the Air Force? Or were they 
entirely different? 

Mr. Collier. I don't want to put words in his mouth. He did not 
use the word "similar"; no. But, again, I will use his language, that 
in some respects the language in both documents is the same. 

Senator Jackson. In one case it is a three-page letter, I believe. 

Mr. Collier. Two and one-quarter pages. 

Senator Jackson. Two and one-quarter and the other is 15 pages? 

Mr. Collier. Fifteen pages; yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Is the letter that was presented to the committee 
yesterday a synopsis of the interdepartmental memorandum that the 
FBI sent? 

Mr. Collier. Well, to answer that question, I would have to char- 
acterize it myself. If you w^ant my characterization, based upon 
what my examination of it 

Senator Jackson. Based on your conversation with Mr. Hoover. 

Mr. Collier. This is, understand, my opinion. He did not make 
this statement and it is not to be attributed to him. Don't indicate 
that in any way. It is purely my statement. It is my opinion that 
the document presented here yesterday is a summary of the 15-page 

Senator Jackson. In the form of a letter ? 

Mr. Collier. The form as distinguished from the substance was 
materially changed ; yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. The point is that it is represented that these two 
documents are the same. 

Mr. Collier. They contain the same language in some respects. 

Senator Jackson. Yes; but I am talking about throughout. 

Senator Mundt. I believe Mr. Collier testified he did not have an 
opportunity to read the 15 pages. It is a bit unfair to him to ask 
him to tell if it is the same if he didn't read it. 


Senator Jackson. I mean based on your conversation -with Mr. 

]\Ir. Collier. They do relate to the same subject matter, that is what 
Mr. Hoover said, that they do rehite to the same subject matter. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator IMundt. Does the Senator have a point of order? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; a point of order. 

Mr. Jackson has just stated without qualification that it was repre- 
sented that this was a carbon copy of the same. If he had examined 
the letter, he Avould find that on paije 2 it is indicated in parentheses 
that security information is omitted in two different places. 

I think before the Senator makes these statements he should exam- 
ine yesterday's document unless he has the reluctance that Mr. Stevens 
had to glance at it. 

Senator Jackson. Well, I haven't had a chance to see a copy of it. 
It was marked "personal," I believe, and "confidential" on the letter, 
and it was su<i;n:ested that the matter be first taken up with the FBI 
before we all started reading it. I didn't read it. 

Did Mr. Hoover indicate to you where this letter that was intro- 
duced and presented to the committee yesterday might have come 
from ? 

Mr. Collier. That was the first time, of course, that he ever saw it. 
The only document in the Bureau files is the carbon copy or the yellow 
copy of the 15-page memorandum. This is not a copy of any docu- 
ment in the Bureau files. 

Senator Jackson. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter? 

Senator Potter. Mr. Collier, did Mr. Hoover in his conversation 
with you state that it was possible that they could give a summary of 
the 15-i3age document without having a copy of this document in their 

Mr. Collier. Xo. 'No; I would say that Mr. Hoover searched the 
files, had the files searched, and the only memorandum that was sent 
to General Boiling on that date was the 15-page memorandum and 
there is no other — there is no copy of this [indicating], or anything 
like it in the Bureau files. The only thing is the 15-page interdepart- 
mental memorandum that was sent to General Boiling and a carbon 
copy to General Carroll. 

Senator Potter. Is it my understanding that that letter that you 
hold in your hand is not signed but it is typed "J. Edgar Hoover"? 

]\Ir. Collier. The difference, basically, is that this is in the form of 
a letter. It starts out with a salutation of "Sir" and at the end "Sin- 
cerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover, Director." 

"Whereas, the FBI original 15-page document was in the form of 
"Date: January 26, 1951; to: Major General A. R. Boiling; From: 
John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation," and 
that was set out. 

Xo signature appeared on that document. That is not the type of 
document that is signed. 

Senator Potter. Did Mr. Hoover express to you any interest about 
that document? 

Mr. Collier. Xo, sir. ^ I merely talked to him concerning the facts 
as to whether or not this was authentic. I did not get an opinion 
from him. I did not ask for it and he did not volunteer it. 


Senator Potter. Did he express any opinion as to whether the Army 
or the Air Force, who had, I assnnie, tlie large 15-page document, 
could have made a synopsis of the 15-page document in the 
21/2-pf^ge letter that you now have and sent it out as a report from 
J. Edgar Hoover ? 

Mr. Collier. I can state categorically that Mr. Hoover in my 
presence did not venture any such opinion. 

Senator Potter. Thank you. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. Mr. Collier, am I correct that Mr. J, Edgar 
Hoover asked you or suggested to this committee that prior to the 
publication of this document, that it be — that the matter be consulted 
with the Attorney General of the United States to see whether the 
publication of the document was in the interests of the security of 
the United States ? _ 

Mr. Collier, That is correct. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, 1 hope that v»e carry out the 
recommendations of Mr. Hoover in that regard prior to releasing the 

Senator JNIundt. The Chair ruled that he would do that, at the 
suggestion of Senator Symington, some 10 minutes ago. 

Senator Symington. ^lay I then say that I reemphasize that it be 
done, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator IVIundt. It will be done. 

Senator Symington. I would like to point out, if I may, to the 
committee that yesterday I made a notice of the fact that the docu- 
ment was not signed by JNIr. Hoover. One of the reasons for doing 
that is that I have received a great many documents from Mr. Hoover 
during my term of office in the executive branch of the Govermiient. 
I never received one in this form. 

That is all I have, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator ]\Iundt. Senator Dworshak ? 

Senator Dworshak. Mr. Collier, do you know enough about the 
procedure in the FlU to know whether it has been customary when 
carbon copies of any letters are furnished to have the Director sign 
his name or whether the name is merely typed by the stenographer? 

Mr. Collier. I spent a little over IQi^ years in the FBI. The 
last six I spent in an administrative capacity writing such memoranda 
as this, so I have some knowledge of them. The memorandum that 
was sent on January 26, 1951, is, as I said, an interdepartmental 
memorandum. It does not, on the original, carry any signature or 
any initial. The yellow copy in the Bureau files does carry the sig- 
nature of the person who actually prepared the memorandum, dic- 
tated it, and the ty])ist who typed it, as well as those approving that 
memorandum. In some instances those go all the way to ISIr. Hoover, 
and he personally initials them. In some instances when he is out 
of town on business, someone else does it in his behalf. 

Tliis memorandum which I have in my hand, which is the one 
brought in, is in the form of a letter — "Sir" and "^"ery sincerely 
yours" — which would require, then, a signature, J. Edgar Hoover. 
The memorandum is different from the form being used at that time. 
The interdepartmental memorandum, may I adcl, is the type that 
"Was then and is used by the FBI in corresponding with other Gov- 


ernment departments and agencies in tlie general course of its 

Senator Dworsiiak. Is it customary or not for Mr. Hoover to sign 
a carbon co|\y of a letter like that ? 

Mr. Collier. He would not sign the carbon copy of a letter that 
goes out over his signature. He would sign the original. 

Senator Dworsiiak. His name would be typed by the stenographer 
on such a copy ? 

j\Ir. CoLLiKR. Yes, sir. 

Senator jMundt. Mr. "Welch ? 

Senator jNIcCartiit. Mr. Chairman, just a question on the order 
of questioning. 

Senator Muxdt. You will follow Mr. Welch. 

Senator ^McCarthy. I understood the Chair to say at the opening 
of the session that ]Mr. Welch would have the first opportunity to 
question his witnesses, that I would have the first opportunity to 
question mine. This young man is called for the purpose of testify- 
ing in regard to a document which I asked to have introduced. While 
I don't— — 

Senator JMuxdt. The Senator is right as far as understanding the 
rule of the Chair is concerned, but Mr. Collier was here neither as 
an Army witness nor as Senator McCarthy's witness but as a com- 
mittee witness; so the Chair, exercising his jurisdiction, has called 
on Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Collier, am I correct in thinking that you did not 
read the 15-page document in the files of the FBI 'i 

Mr. Collier. You are correct. I purposely avoided it because it 
contains security information. 

Mr. Welch. I do not know what your answer will be, but may I 
ask whether or not you read the short document about which I shall 
question you in a moment ? 

Mr. Collier. It has been a little hard, I will admit, to carry it 
around all night and not read it to some extent. However, I will 
say truthfully that insofar as possible I have avoided reading the 
entire document. I merely read it with the idea of identifying it. 

Mr. Welch. That, Mr. Collier, is because you are as sharply aware 
as I am that it is a crime to hand these documents around, is that 
right 'i 

Mr. Collier. That, I am afraid, sir, will have to be your character- 
ization, not mine. 

Mr. Welch. You know it is a crime to disclose this security in- 
formation, do you not? 

Mr. Collier. As I understand it, there is a Presidential directive 
which requires all personnel to refrain from disclosing any informa- 
tion containing loj'alty or security data. 

Mr. Welch. Were you in the courtroom yesterday when I declined 
to read the letter? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. And when Secretary Stevens declined to read the 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. I have observed as of now so far as it was humanly 
possible for you to do so, you have declined to read the letter, is that 
right, sir ? 


Mr. Collier. I have, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Would you hand me this hot document which I will 
not read '^ I wish to call your attention only to what I saw yesterday. 
You, of course, have read the address, haven't you ? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir, I have. I read the address and part of the 
form rather than the substance. 

Mr. Welch. Right. I think I will do no wrong if I read the head- 
ing: "Federal Bureau of Investigation, Janu.ary 1^6, 1951." Are you 
following me, sir'^ 

]\lr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Then appears the words which I read yesterday and 
which startled me so: "Personal and Confidential via Liaisoiu" Is 
that right? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct. 

Mr. Welch. Then this purported carbon co])y of a letter has this 
appearing: "Major General Boiling, Assistant Chief of Stall', G-2, 
Department of the Army, Washington, D. C, Sir." Is that correct? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct. 

Mr. Welch. Now, passing the body of it and going only to the con- 
clusion, it appears at the bottom of it : "Sincerely yours," comma, and 
then typed in capital letters "J. Edgar Hoover, Director." Is that 
right ? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Welch. INIr. Collier, as I understand your testimony this docu- 
ment that I hold in my hand is a carbon copy of precisely nothing, is 
that right ? 

Mr. Collier. I will say that Mr. Hoover informed me that it is 
not a carbon copy of a memorandum prepared or sent by the FBI. 

INIr. Welch. Let us have it straight from the shoulder. So far as 
you knoAV, it is a carbon copy of precisely nothing? 

Mr. Collier. So far as I know, it is, yes, but that again is a con- 

Mr. Welch. So far as you know, this document in this courtroom 
sprung yesterday by Senator McCarthy is a perfect phony; is that 

Mr. Collier. No, sir. That is your conclusion. I will not draw 
such a conclusion. 

Mr. Wel(^h. You just told us it is a carbon copy of precisely noth- 
ing, haven't you ? 

Mr. Collier. I have said it is not a copy of a document in the FBI 
file. I will not say that it is a copy of nothing because if it was typed 
as a carbon there must have been an original. 

Mr. Welch. You would think so, but we can find no trace of an 
original, can w^e? 

Mr. Collier. Not yet. 

Mr. Welch. Anywhere? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir. 

IVIr. Welch. No, sir. If no original of this document can be found, 
will you go along with me, sir, with my quaint English when I say 
it is a copy of precisely nothing ? 

Mv. Collier. You are assuming that the original cannot be found? 

Mr. Welch. Tliat is right. ^ 

Mr. Coi.LiKR. My investigation yesterdav was to determine whether 
this was an authentic document. I have made no investigation to 


determine whether the original can be found or not. It may be that 
it can be found. 

Mr. Welch. You can't find a copy of it in the FBI place, can you? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir. 

INIr. Welch. No^y, you do not on your investigation — strike it out. 
You are not as you sit in this chair in possession of a sirigle fact 
which will allow you to believe that the document which I now 
show you is a carbon copy of any existing original letter? 

Mr. CoLLiEK. I made an examination yesterday to determine whether 
this was a copy of a document prepared or sent by the FBI. I have 
not made any examination to determine whether it is a copy of an 
original now in existence. 

Mr. Welch. Have you any doubt, sir, that it was presented in this 
room as if it were a carbon copy of a letter signed J. Edgar Hoover, 
Director, and addressed to Major General Boiling? 

Mr. Collier. I was present when it was presented, and I do not 
now remember the exact manner in which it was presented. 

Mr. Welch. Did you have any doubt, sir, that your superior, Mr. 
Jenkins, was handed a document which he believed to be a carbon 
copy of a letter ? 

Mr. Collier. That would be for Mr. Jenkins to say. 

Mr. Welch. Did you believe it was a carbon copy of a letter when 
you first heard it in this room? 

Mr Collier. It was referred to as a copy of a letter. 

Mr. Welch. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Collier And I observed it. I can draw no further conclusion 
from it. 

Mr. Welch. And now, as you sit in this room, you are unable to 
tell us on all the information you have been able to obtain last 

Senator Mundt. Somebody raised a point of order from the audi- 
ence, which the Chair will overrule. I will ask the audience to please 
refrain from any audible comment. 

Mr. Welch. I don't know whether we have a radio audience or not, 
but I was disturbed by someone in the back of the room. 

Senator Mundt. One of the officers, I think, spoke a little loudly 
in talking to one of our guests. W^ould you repeat your question, Mr. 
Welch, or have the reporter do it. 

Mr. Welch. Would you read it as far as I have gone ? 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Mr. Welch (continuing). Whether or not this letter is a cari)on 
cop3' of any letter actually in existence ? 

Mr. Collier. I am unable to make that statement, because my exam- 
ination last night was directed at one pur))ose and one purpose only, 
and that was to determine the authenticity of this particular docu- 
ment with documents in the Bureau files. 

Mr. Welch. All right. Now I want to try some more simple 
language on you, sir: You know what we have here purports to be a 
carbon copy of a real letter, don't you ? 

Mr. Collier. It is a carbon copy of a letter. 

Mr. Welch. Now, if I were to use the simple words which I think 
you will understand, and say to you is this document the real McCoy 
or a phony, which of those two words would you use ? 


Senator McCaruiy. Mr. ( hairman? 

Mr. Collier. 1 would pick neither. Mr. Welch, may I say to you 

Mr Welch But suppose I asked you to choose bet wen the two, 
which would come more nearly to the point 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairnicin. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator from Wisconsin is addressing the 
Chair and so is counsel. I will recognize counsel first. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Y\''elch, I must say that Mr. Collier has answered 
that question you have just asked him, and I do not think your last 
question is a proper question because it has hertofore been answered 
by Mr Collier. 

Mr. Welch. I do 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, have you a point of order? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. I think the Chair should insist upon 
certain rules of honesty on the part of counsel for Mr. Stevens and 
Mr. Adams. If he examined this document wdiich he considers so 
hot he wouldn't ask these questions of the young man, because he would 
see that on the second page it very clearly indicates that there is 
omitted security information. He knows that and should know it, and 
as I say, I think there should be certain rules, even on your part, Mr. 
Welch, certain rules of honesty in cross-examination. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has not read the letter and Mr. Welcli 
has not read the letter, so I suppose we labor under some difficulties. 

Mr. Welch. We do. I have higher standards in respect to my own 
conduct in respect to these documents than the Senator and his staff 
does. I do not think it is proper for Mr. Collier to read it and he has 
declined to read it. I do not think it would be proper for Mr. Welch 
to read it and he has declined to read it. I await watli much interest 
the Senator's explanation of how it reached his hands and whether 
he read it. 

Senator Mundt. Have you concluded your questions? 

Mr. Welch. 1 have. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy has 10 minutes. 

Senator McCarthy. JNIay I make it very clear that as far as I am 
concerned, the Truman directive, or any other directive, will preclude 
me from examining material bearing ui)on the security of this Nation. 
I am very surprised when I find Mr. Welch here worried about dis- 
closing information on Communists, sitting back and slyly approving 
the violation of the law insofar as eavesdropping is concerned and 
monitoring. So there is no question about Mr. Collier, Mr. Chairman, 
there will be no ])ersonal and confidential material where it shows that 
someone is covering u]) and hiding Communists. 

Now, Mr. Collier, I am going to ask you, in view of Mr. Welch's 
questions, to examine the second page of this letter, the top of it — I 
am not going to ask you to read what you find there, but ask you 
whether that does not indicate that there has been omitted background 
security information on an employee, the parenthetical expression. 

]\Ir. Collier. Senator, I am unable to say whether anything has been 
omitted, because I have not examined the original document. 

Senator JNIcCarthy. I will ask you to examine the co]5y which you 
have, look at the top of the page and see if you do not find in paren- 


tlieses the explanation that security information on a certain employee 
has been omitted from this letter. 

JVIr. Welch. JNIr. Chairman, I think 

Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order? 

Mr. "Welch. Yes. Counsel should rule as to whether or not this 
■witness may properly examine this document. It is not in my prov- 
ince to rule. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Muxdt. May the Chair sugfiest to Senator McCarthy that 
if we succeed as we hope we will, in gettinf^ from the Attorney General 
the material which has been requested, we will then all have before 
us the document so we can make a comparison. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, we are interested in the truth 
here. ]\[r. Welch is apparently afraid of it. I am asking the sim])le 
question of whether or not the document on its face doesn't show that 
security information was omitted, and that it does not show that 
this never could deceive anyone, to indicate that all of the FBI security 
information was included. I ask this question of the witness. 

I will insist. Mr. Chairman, that it be answered unless the committee 
votes me down on that. There is no reason why anyone should be 
afraid of the truth insofar as this document is concerned. 

Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, may I say that I, as an assistant 
counsel to Mr. Jenkins, am here to get the facts. I don't think it is our 
purpose nor our right to draw conclusions in any form. I have ex- 
amined this document, as I have so testified, at the beginning and at 
the end, in order to establish what kind of document it is, in order to 
identify it. I have not read the contents. 

The part you speak of is on page 2. I feel that in view of the security 
requirements I should not read that second page. 

Senator AIcCarthy. I am asking you to look at the top of page 2, 
which contains nothing in regard to security, but shows that the secu- 
rity infoi-mation was omitted. I ask you to look at that parenthetical 
expression. It is very important to establish that fact now, in view of 
the repeated statements by Mr. Welch that this was a phony, and that 
anyone had a right to believe that all of the security information was 
in it. 

]\Ir. Chairman, it is important to get at the truth of this right now. 

Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, I feel that I must respectfully 
decline to read it and determine those facts from it. 

Senator McCarthy. I am going to ask the Chair 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes the witness has a right to de- 
cline to read confidential information if he prefers not to read it and 
the Chair will not order him to read it if he so declines. 

We are waiting for a ruling from the Attorney General to cover 
precisely the points that the Senator is now discussing. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Collier, let me ask you this question, drop- 
ping down to page 2, to the end of paragraph 2, do you find in effect, 
that the information concerning the individuals listed has been 
omitted ? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir; I have not made that observation. I have 
looked at page 2 ; I find tiiat on page 2 there are a list of names. 

Senator McCarthy. Noav, if you have looked at page 2 before you 
should not refuse to look at it right now. 


Mr, CoLMFR. I only looked at it to determine what it looked like. 
T can identify page 2 by the list of names on it and nothing more. And 
I don't know the names. I merely know that there are a series of 
names on the page. I have not read it. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Collier, you were appointed by Mr. Jen- 
kins to find out whether or not this is a du])lioate of information or a 
summary of information in regard to Communists at Fort Monmouth 
or in the military. 

I now apk you to look at page 2. You will find a list of names. I am 
not asking you to read those names off, but I am asking you to tell 
us whether or not this copy does not clearly show, that there was 
omitted from page 2 all of the FBI reports and these individuals, that 
their names are merely listed and the notification after them as to 
what was shown, derogatory or not derogatory. 

Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, as far as I am concerned person- 
ally, that goes to the substance of the memorandum itself, and without 
a ruling by the Attorney General, which ]\Ir. Hoover has suggested 
that the committee secure, I do not feel entitled to read the document 
for the purpose of ascertaining the facts you suggest. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Collier, do you mean to tell us you did not 
read this document ? 

Mr. Collier. I purposely avoided reading this document in its en- 
tirety, as I so testified. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I wonder how ridiculous we 
can get here. I am trying to have this young man just look at the 
letter, he has carried it around in his pocket all night, and tell us 
whether or not on page 2 it isn't made very clear that there has been 
omitted from this document the FBI security information, and that 
there is no security information in this document. 

It is a very simple request to be made, Mr. Chairman, and I think 
I am entitled to get that answer. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington, have you a point of order? 

Senator Symington. I bow- to the chairman with great respect. 

Senator Mundt. The witness has stated that he declines to read the 
letter. He has been instructed by J. Edgar Hoover that it contains 
information which is identical to the information which he felt the 
Attorney General should rule upon, and the Chair is not going to order 
the witness to do something that he thinks he should not do. 

Senator IMcCarthy. JNIr. Collier, you say that the Director told j^ou 
the language was identical in some respects; is that correct? 

ISIr. Collier. That is correct, in some respects. 

Senator McCarthy. Did he tell you that the language Avas identical 
in all respects 

Mr. Collier. No. 

Senator McCarthy. Except that this three-]">age document omitted 
the security reports furnished by the FBI ; that other than that the 
document is complete? 

]\Ir. Collier. No, sir ; he did not state it in that way. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, now, what did he tell you? 

Mr. Collier. He told me that the language is identical in some re- 
spects and that it relates to the same subject matter; that both docu- 
ments relate to the same subject matter. That was as far as he felt he 
was entitled to go. 


Senator IMcCartiiy. Did lio toll you tlierp -was any twistinf;, any 
distortinfif, tiny violation of the ]anoua<i;e used in the report that he sent 
over, exoe]5t to eliminate the security information? 

Mr. Collier. He made absolutely no connnent concerning the lan- 
guacfe. He did not characterize it in any manner. 

Senator ]\[cCartiiy. Mr. Collier, Avere you not interested Avhen you 
Avent over there in finding out whether or not this did in any way 
twist or distort or violate any of the original language? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, I was originally, but when I determined that the 
Director felt that the document was of a security classification and 
that he deferred to the judgment of the Attorney General as to whether 
or not that should be read by anj'one, including myself, I did not pur- 
sue that line of inquiry. 

Senator ]\IcCx^rthy. May I ask counsel for the Army, so the At- 
torney General will know the attitude of the parties to this dispute, 
■whether counsel for the Army will consent to having the 15-page 
document, with the security information deleted, and this document 
made public so that the press and the public can compare the two 
documents ? 

Mr. Welch. Thank j^ou, Senator, for finally referring to me as 
counsel for the Army. 

Senator McCarthy. It was a mistake. I apologize. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch has the floor. 

Mr. Welch. It is not in my jurisdiction, sir, to pass on the security 
matters. The Attorney General will have to do that. 

Senator ]\IcCartiiy. I know. I just asked whether or not we can 
transmit to the Attorney General the information that both counsel 
for Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams, as well as Senator McCarthy, re- 
quest that they make the 15-page document public if there is deleted 
any security information, and that also we make public the document 
which I have submitted after deleting the names on page 2. 

Mr. Welch. I have not read the document that is referred to. It is 
impossible for me to form any judgment of that sort. That would 
have to be left to the Attorney General. 

Senator McCarthy. I get your attitude very clearly. 

Mr. Collier, I assume that you are unable to contact General Boiling 
to see whether or not someone in his office had ever made a summary 
of the 15-page report. 

Mr. Collier. That is correct. I did not make that line of inquiry, 

Senator ]\rcCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that Mr. Collier 
or someone be designated to contact General Boiling's office and find 
out whether or not they made a summary and, if so, the distribution of 
that summary and whether or not this is an accurate summary made 
bv Boiling's office. 

" Senator Muxdt. The Chair will take that suggestion along with 
the ones earlier made by Senator Jackson and bring them before the 
subcommittee in its executive meeting which we will hold in my office 
this afternoon at 2 o'clock. 

Senator McCarthy. In any event, Mr. Collier, is it your testimony 
that you are of the impression— and you are not attributing this to 
Mr. Hoover, but it is vour own perronal impression after talking 
with Mr. Hoover— that' this is a summary of the 15-page document? 


Mr. Collier. Again may I say that ISIr. Hoover did not so char- 
acterize it. He did not make any connnent on it. I was asked for my 
personal opinion. I give it as such : My personal opinion is that this 
document, this carbon copy, is in the nature of a summary of a 15-page 
document prepared by the FBI. 

Senator JSIcCarthy. Just in closing, ISIr. Collier, may I make it 
very clear that in my vigorous examination of you I do not want that 
to be construed by anyone to mean that I do not have confidence in 
your ability. I am fully aware of your background. I think that 
you would make an excellent addition to any staff, period. 

Mr. Collier. Thank you. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn has some questions. 

Senator Muxdt. Have you finished? 

Mr. CoHN. I have some questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Coiix. Mr. Collier, is this much very clear from what you have 
been able to tell us at this time: That on the date Senator McCarthy 
mentioned yesterday, January 26, 1951, there was transmitted, under 
the name of John Edgar Hoover, to Army Intelligence a document? 

]Mr. (>)LLiER. I will restate it, Mr. Cohn. Under date of January 
26, 1051, a 15-page FI^I memorandum was prepared. The original 
of that memorandum was transmitted to General Boiling's office via 
liaison on January 27, and the carbon copy to General Carroll's office 
via liaison on the 29th. 

Mr. Cohn. Sir, did this memorandum go to the Army under the 
name of John Edgar Hoover? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. On the memorandum there are the printed 
words "date, to, from, and subject"; and beside the word "to" was the 
identification, "Major General A. R. Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, 
G-2, Department of the Army, The Pentagon, Washington, D. C," 
and beside the word "from," "John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal 
Bureau of Investigation." 

Mr. Cohn. You say printed. Were they not typewritten? 

Mr. Collier. They were typed. 

Mr. Cohn. Typewritten words, "From, John Edgar Hoover, Direc- 
tor, Federal Bureau of Investigation"? 

Mr. Courier. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. And, sir, is it a fact, on the basis of what you can tell 
us now, the subject matter of this 15-page memorandum from Mr. 
Hoover to the Army on that date \vas Aaron Coleman, then at Fort 
Monmouth, espionaging? 

Mr. Collier. I will say this: That after the word "From" and the 
designation "John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of In- 
vestigation," there followed the word "Subject" and typed thereon 
was "Aaron Hyman Coleman, Espionage — R." For your informa- 
tion the R stands for Russian. 

Mv. Cohn. The "R" stands for Russian. 

Senator Mundt. Your time has expired, Mr. Cohn. 

Does counsel have further questions? The Chair has none. Any 
Senators to my right? Any questions by Senators to my left? 

Mr. Welch, any further questions ? 

Mr. Welch. Just one question. 


The typewritten document that we have had in the courtroom this 
morninii; does not purport to be a summary of anything; does it? 

Mr. Collier. I think the document speaks for itself. 

Mr. "Welch. INIy question is: It doesn't jnirport, it doesn't say at 
the top of it, "Summary,'' does it ? 

JNIr. Collier. No, sir; it does not. 

INIr. AVelcm. It just looks like a letter beginning with a salutation; 
is tliat right ? 

Mr. Collier. The salutation "Sir." 

Mr. Welch. And ending with 

]Mr, Collier. '"Sincerely yours." 

Mr. AVelcm. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn or Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator IMcCartiiy. Just 1 or 2 questions. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair expresses the hope we can finish with 
Mr. Collier before the lunch hour. 

Senator McCarthy. In view of Mr. Welch's question that this doe? 
not appear to be a summary, I ask you to look en page 2 and tell us 
Avhether or not it does not clearly appear to be a summary, that you 
have in parenthesis the definite information that there have been 
deletions from this document, of security information. In view of 
the fact that you, I assume, do not feel you can answer that, Mr. 
Collier, I will state for the record that that is the case, and I hope that 
all the Senators will examine this. 

I have just one other question to ask of the Chair. In view of Mr. 
Welch's statement that was a phony, I ask that the Chair write a letter 
to the Director of the FBI, J. Edgar Hoover, and ask him whether 
or not this is not an accurate summary merely having deleted the 
security information. 

Senator Muxdt. The Chair has already stated that he would take 
up your earlier suggestion, the suggestion of Senator Jackson and 
now your present suggestion, at the executive committee meeting we 
have called for 2 o'clock. 

Senator McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Cohn has a few questions. 

]Mr. Cgiint. I think we left at this point : This memorandum sent 
under the name of John Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI, to the 
Army, dated January 26, and I believe you said delivered on January 
27, sir? 

]Mr. Collier. That is correct. 

IVIr. Cohn. Bears the heading "Aaron Coleman, Espionage-R." 

]\Ir. Collier. Aaron Hyman Coleman. 

INIr. Cohn. Espionage-iK, and you now tell us that the word "R"' 
stands for Russian. 

Mr. Collier. Mr. Hoover told me I could say that the "R" stands 
for Russian. 

Mr. Cohn. So you can tell us this morning that the 15-page memo- 
randum was a communication from Mr. Hoover to the Army concern- 
ing Aaron Coleman and Russian espionage. Is that a fair statement ? 

Mr. Collier. That is what the "To" and the "From" read, and the 
subject is Aaron Hyman Coleman, Espionage-R. 

Mr. Cohn. Can you, Mr. Collier, as having been present in the 
room and a member of Mr. Jenkins' staff, tell us from the testimony of 


yesterday and the public record, that on the day this memorandiun 
was sent over from jMr. Hoover, Aaron Hyman Coleman was the 
section head in tlie secret radar laboratory at Fort IMonmouth'^ 

Mr. Collier. Mr. Cohn, I cannot tell you that of my own personal 

Mr. Cdiix. I wonld ask the Chair, then, to take judicial or chairman- 
wise notice of the public hearin<i;s of this committee of December 8, 
1953, which indicate that. I believe I read the job description of Mr. 
Coleman into the record yesterday. 

Now, sir, can j'ou tell us whether Senator McCarthy stated with 
completely accuracy yesterday that this 15-page memorandum, that 
this memorandum by Mr. Hoover, was a warning to the Army that at 
the secret radar laboratories at Fort iSIonmouth a group of associates 
of Julius Rosenberg and people with Communist records were oper- 
ating on a secret link and chain radar project at that time? 

Mr. Collier. Mr. Cohn, I cannot tell you of my own personal knowl- 
edge. I was busy on some other matters, I Avas in and out of the 
room. I didn't hear that complete statement. The record would 
speak for itself. 

Mr. CoHX. Mr. Collier, I think a key question at this point ''3 this: 
Have you also ascertained whether or not the Army has in its fiies at 
this time the original of this memorandum from ,1. Edgar Hoover, 
concerning Russian espionage and Aaron Coleman of the radar lab- 
oratory at Fort ]\Ionmouth ? 

Mr. Collier. I did not ascertain that. Mr. Stevens was asked to 
furnish that information this morning. As I recall, his testimony 
was that he hfid not found this document, but he did not say whether 
or not he had the original of the 15 pages. I only know what the 
records of the FBI revealed, and that is that the document was deliv- 
ered on January 27, via liaison. 

Mr. CoHx. Mr. Chairman, at this time might Ave request that an 
additional series of documents which Ave have reason to believe Avere 
transmitted to the Department of the Army over a period of time in 
January — from January 3, 1951, up through the present day, concern- 
ing Communist activities of people em])loyed at Fort Monmouth, 
memoranda such as this from John Edgar Hoover, Director of the 
FBI, to the Army, may Ave ask that those likewise be produced by ^Mr. 
Stevens here this morning or this afternoon, that they be made a part 
of the record but be Avithheld until such time as a request is made of 
the Attorney General, but that the documents be made available and 
held in readiness, so that the public may have the story of the FBI 
warnings to the Army on the subject. 

Senator Mukdt. The Chair suggests that you have Senator Mc- 
Carthy make that request of us at executiA^e session. We have already 
announced that we Avill subpena all records, all documents, all indi- 
viduals connected Avith this case, provided, of course, no security 
regulations are violated. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Collier, just one question. In discussing 
this matter with Mr. Hoover, did you get the impression Avhich I may 
say I have gotten, that the FBI transmitted all of the information 
which they had in regard to Russian or Communist espionage to the 
pro])er departments and that any failure to act, any failure to remove 
people like Aaron Coleman or anyone else, was not the fault of <he 
FBI because they gave all the information they had, conducted 


tliorou<rli iiivestijiations. but was tlie fault of the people involved as the 
sii])ervi?;oi's to the susi->ected espiona<;e aijents^ 

iSIr. Coi,i,iKi{. ]\Ir. Hoover did not make any such statement to me, 
and did not talk about that to me. 1 -will tell you from my personal 
experience in the FBI that all information of a security natuie is 
promptly forwarded to all interested Government ajjencies, and that 
it is not evaluated, it is merely furnished as facts <i;athered. The FBI 
does not make any evaluation. It merely furnishes the information as 
it i« obtained. 

Senator McCArxHY. Just one further question : I ask this bccauso 
so many peoi^tle try to blame the FBI when we find Communists in 
various dei)artments. It is true, is it not, that the FBI has no power 
to hire or fire anyone, their only power is to send down the report, 
conduct the investiojation, and hope that the security agencies involved 
will act: is that correct? 

Mr. CoLLTKif. A^ain, Senator McC^arthy, I am speaking for myself, 
from my experience in the FBI. The FBI does not have any power 
to hire or fire anyone other than its own personnel. It gathers infor- 
mation, in a factual form, forwards that information either in reports 
or memorandums to the interested Government officials, and it is in- 
cumbent upon them, to properly evaluate it in line with the desires that 
they have to use the information. 

Senator JNTcCartiiy. One other question now. The fact that the 
memorandum had the notation, "espionage, Kussian," would indicate 
it was a report upon Russian espionage, would it not ? 

J\lr. Goi.rJFK. Again, may I speak from my personal experience. T 
am not contributing this in any way to Mr. Hoover, I want to keep that 
clear. Fiom my personal experience in the FBI, in pre]")arino' reports 
and in gathering information, it is necessary to classify it. We, I say 
we meaning the Bureau, arbitrarily has set up certain classifications, 
internal security and espionage, and tlien the ''K'' which in this case 
stands for Russian, identifies the nationality group. 

Senator JMcCarthy. So that then there can be no doubt in anyone's 
mind that this report upon a man who is head of the important section 
in the secret radar laboratories, was being reported on, a 15-page re- 
port, and that had to do with Russian espionage? 

Mr. CorxTFR. "Well, I don't want to leave any false impression. The 
"espionage-R." is routine. It is not abnormal in any way to be on a 
document. That is used under the proper designation and is a rou- 
tine classification placed thereon. 

Senator McCarthy. By routine, you mean if it deals with Russian 
espionacfe, it would be routine to put the "R" on it. 

Mr. CoLTJF.R. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. If it dealt with any other type of espionage, 
it would not be routine to put the "R" on it? 

Mr. CoiJ.TER. The proper designation would be put on it. 

Senator ^VIcCarthy. So when you say it is routine — let me get this 
straight. We are dealing here now with a secret radar laboratory, 
dealing with a report on a man who is head of an important section. 
There can be no doubt in anyone's mind, the "R" indicated that the 
information in the 15-page report dealt with Russian espionage and 
also dealt with Aaron Coleman ? 


Mr. Collier. That is liard tc answer because you say it dealt- with 
Eussiaii espionage. The espionage R is an arbitrary designation that 
is given to the type of investigation. Now, it might well be that an 
investigation starts out with the allegations that there was espionage 
and it would turn into some other type. The espionage R is merely 
for filing purposes and for the use of the Bureau in determining how 
to carry on the investigation, how to classify it. This is not an un- 
usual document in that it has espionage R. Many documents emanat- 
ing from the Bureau carry the classification "espionage R." 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I know that the Chair has 
ruled on this, to some extent^ before, but I think this testimony makes 
it doubly iin])ortant that we strongly urge the Attorney General to 
make available for the public those parts of the document which show 
that this did deal strongly with Communist espionage at the radar 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has already ruled on it over an hour 


Senator McCarthy. No further questions. 

Senator Mundt. Does anybody have further questions of Mv. Col- 
lier? If not, Mr. Collier, you are dismissed and it is fair to say you 
have been an excellent witness and we appreciate the forthright, 
prompt, decisive answers you have made. 

Mr. Collier. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Counsel and members of the committee, I be- 
lieve it is 12 : 20. I believe we have an executive meeting at 2 o'clock. 
What is the pleasure of the coimnittee ? Do you want to recess now ? 

We will recess until 2:30 this afternoon, with an executive com- 
mittee meeting in my office at 2 o'clock. 

(Whereu])on, at 12: 20 p. m.. the committee was recessed, to recon- 
vene at 2 : 30 p. m., the same day.) 



Adams, John G 710, 730, 7:59 

Air Force (United States) 722, 723, 730, 732 

Army (United States) 720, 722, 728-730, 732-734, 739-742 

Army files 72S, 729 

Armv Intel lisence (G-2) 722, 734 

Assistant Chief of Staff (G-2. Army) 722, 734 

Assistant Secretary of Defense (International Secnrity Affairs) 719 

Attorney General ('United States) 724-727, 729, 732, 737-739, 742 

I'.oUing, Maj. Gen. A. R 722, 729, 731, 734, 73r,, 739, 740 

F.rownell, Mr 727 

Bryan, Frederick P 719 

Carl, Maj. Gen. Joseph F 724 

Carr, Francis P 719 

Carroll. Maj. Gen. Joseph F 722, 723, 7.31, 740 

Cohn, Roy M 719, 721 

Coleman, Aaron Hymau 722, 723, 740-743 

Collier, Robert A., testimony of 720-744 

Communists 72."», 730, 73S, 742, 744 

Cramer, Colonel 724 

Department of the Army 720, 722, 72S-730, 732-734, 739-742 

Dirlvsen, Senator 710 

Europe 720 

i'ederal Bureau of Investigation (l^Bl) 721-72."), 

727, 729-731, 733-735, 737, 738, 740-743 

Federal Goyernment 718, 732, 743 

Fort Monmouth 718, 72.'), 72(5, 729, 738, 740, 742 

G-2 (Army Intelligence) 722, 734 

Goyernment of the United States 718, 732, 743 

ITensel, H. Struye 718-720 

Hooyer, J. Edgar 718, 721-72.J, 727-735, 738-743 

Inspector General (USAF) 723 

Intelligence Department (Army) 720 

International Security Affairs 718, 719 

Leyy, Gill 724 

McCarthy, Senator Joe 710-719, 721-729, 731, 733, 734, 736-744 

McClellan, Senator 718 

OSI 724 

Pentagon 720, 722, 740 

Potter, Senator 719 

Presidential directiye 72(i, 733 

Radar laboratories (Fort Monmouth) 742, 744 

Reynolds, Wesley P 724 

Rosenberg, Julius 742 

Russian espionage 741-743 

Sanders, Ed S 724 

Secretary of the Army 710, 720, 723, 724, 728, 731, 73(;, 739, 742 

Secretary for the International Security Affairs 710 

Special Inyestigations (Inspector General, USAF) 723 

Steyens, Robert T 716, 723, 724, 728, 731, 733, 736, 730, 742 

Te.stimony of 720 

United States Air Force 722, 723, 730, 732 

United States Army 720, 722, 728-730, 732-734, 739-742 

United States Army (Intelligence Department) 720 

United States Attorney General : 724-727, 729, 732, 737-739, 742 

United States Goyernment 718, 732, 743 

Washington, D. C 722, 740 




3 9999 05442 1738