Skip to main content

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

See other formats






Given By 


^>>5''^^^ .rw 


JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 









S. Res. 189 

PART 20 

MAT 5, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee ou Government Operations 

46620«> WASHINGTON : 1954 

Boston Public Library 
'uperintendent of Documents 

SEP 8 -1954 


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



EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massacliusetts 

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

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

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman 


Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel 

THOMAS R. Peewitt, Assistant Counsel 

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SOLis Hoewitz, Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Manes, Secretary 




ludex I 

Testiiunuy of — 

Collier, Robert A., assistant counsel, Special Subcommittee on Investi- 
gations 748 

McCartby, Senator Joe, United States Senate 7^8 

Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary, Department of the Army 774 




United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington^ D. G. 

AFTER recess 

(The hearing was resumed at 2 : 40 p. m., pursuant to recess.) 

Present : Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota, chair- 
man; Senator Everett McKinlej Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Sen- 
ator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry 0. 
Dworshak, Republican, Idaho ; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, 
Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; and 
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri. 

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

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 kvmy ; 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 come to order. 

The Chair was detained by a call from the Senate floor stating that 
the Sergeant at Arms is out looking for Senators, that they need 
some more for a live quorum. I relayed the message on behalf of the 
committee that we would very much like to get on with the hearings, 
that we are all trying to expedite ih^ hearings, and we wondered if 
it would be possible to get us enrolled. 

I don't know. I would suggest that ]\Irs. Watt, before we start, 
call the Senate and find out, because it is possible that we will have 
to go over and answer a quorum call. 

Otherwise, the committee will come to order. The Chair would 
again like to remind the audience to comply with the committee rule 
to refrain from all manifestations of af)proval or disapproval during 



the course of the hearings. As a group, you have been magnificent 
throughout the week, and I trust that nobody will so conduct him- 
self or herself today that the officers have to carry out the standing 
rule of the committee to invite you to leave the room because you 
have violated the conditions under which you entered it, namely, to 
refrain from all manifestations of approval or disapproval. 

The committee will come to order. Has Mr. Collier been recalled 
to the stand ? 

Mr. Jenkins. He has, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen? 

Senator Dirksen. Before you resume, Mr. Chairman, I dislike to 
be persistent about the matter, but I have made several futile attempts 
to get Mr. Hensel relieved from attendance here. Obviously, he as 
a principal in this controversy cannot ask to be relieved. He is not 
under subpena here, of course, but in view of the mounting workload 
at a time like this, it seems to me the committee should take cognizance 
of that fact and he should be relieved of attendance here. Certainly 
he could be represented by counsel, and that ought to be sufficient until 
such time as Mr. Hensel might be called. 

Senator Mundt. Will the Senator pardon the Chair a moment. He 
has been advised by Mrs. Watt that the Sergeant at Arms has reported 
if he can get two Senators from our group to come over, they can 
make a quorum. Do we have any volunteers ? 

Senator Symington". Mr. Chairman, I have already answered the 

Senator Jackson. Will the Senator from Wisconsin restate his 
request ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I said let Senator Jackson 
and Senator Symington go. 

Senator Jackson. I think my attendance record is a little better. 

Senator Mundt. Do you think we should recess the hearings and all 


Senator Jackson. In view of the request from my colleague from 
Wisconsin, I will be delighted to go answer the rollcall. 

Senator Mundt. Could you be induced. Senator Dworshak, to go? 
Thank you very much, sir. 

Senator Dirksen, you will have to restate your problem because tho 
Chair's attention was diverted. 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, this morning I suggested that 
perhaps Mr. Hensel ought to be relieved of attendance here without 
any prejudice whatsoever to him or to the hearing because of the 
mounting workload in the face of international tensions. I don't 
believe that the committee ought to ask him to make a request of the 
committee to be relieved. I think it is the committee's duty, if he can be 
spared, to let him resume his place. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel. 

Mr. Jenkins. I wish to express my ideas with respect to the subject 
that Senator Dirksen has referred to. First of all, none of us is 
unmindful of the importance of the work which is being transacted 
by Mr. Plensel at this time. 

No. 1, Mr. Hensel is represented by able counsel. No. 2, at the end 
of each session his counsel is furnished with a transcription of the 
entire proceedings. No. 3, no evidence can be introduced here touch- 


incr INIr. Hensel save on 2 points : No. 1, did he incite, procure, or insti- 
oa'te the bringing of these charges by Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams 
against the McCarthy committee? No. 2, was Senator McCarthy's 
committee investigating Mr. Hensel and his past activities to the 
knowledge of Mr. Hensel ? 

Those matters are more or less collateral to the main issues involved, 
and I see no earthly reason why Mr. Hensel should not leave if he so 
desires, leaving his able counsel here to look after his interests and 
attend to the matters to which Senator Dirksen referred. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say I think also, occupying the position 
Mr. Hensel does, he has much more important work to do than to sit 
here listening to this testimony. However, I think it would be a mis- 
take for us in any way to pressure Mr. Hensel to leave, because the 
involvement of Mv. Hensel in this, I feel is greater than Mr. Stevens. 

I do think Mr. Hensel could go back to his work and let his counsel 
rei)resent him. Counsel seems to be extremely competent. I know 
nothing of his background. 

]Mr. Bktan. Thank you. Senator. 

Senator ISIcCarthy. Along the same line, Mr. Chairman, if we 
could possibly cut down the number of fine military personnel sitting 
back here doing nothing except warming their heels, not by their own 
choice but because of orders from the civilians in the Pentagon, I think 
we should relieve them. 

Take, for example. General Reber who apparently has a good 
record over in Europe, who is in command over there now. Instead 
of being over there where he should be, quoting Senator Potter "with 
tlie world al3out to go up in flames," I would like to see General Reber 
back at his connnand. 

And General Young is here. General Young is charged with tre- 
mendous responsibilities. I am not suggesting that we deprive Secre- 
tary Stevens of any assistance which he needs, but I do think we are 
wasting an excessive amount of competent manpower in this com- 

I may be getting off your question. Senator Dirksen, but No. 1, I 
have no objection at all to Mr. Hensel leaving and I think it should 
be made clear that he is not leaving because he feels that he in any way 
agrees with the specifications we set forth, but he is leaving because 
ho has competent counsel to represent him. 

Right, Mr. Hensel? 

Senator Mdndt. Do you have a point of order, Mr. Bryan ? 

Mr. Bryan. Yes. In response to the chairman's question and 
Senator Dirksen's suggestion, which is most gratefully received, I 
would like to say that Mr. Hensel would like to attend to his duties 
and would be leaving, if he did, for the reason that he has important 
matters that required immediate attention. 

I would like to make only this one statement that if while I am 
here representing him, if any issue comes up which relates to him on 
which I require consultation with him, I be given an opportunity to 
do so before that issue is pursued further. 

Senator McCarthy. That is very reasonable. 
Senator Muxdt. Will that be all right, Senator McCarthy, mem- 
bers of the committee, and Mr. Welch ? 
Senator McCarthy. I think that is a very reasonable request. 


Senator Mundt. Nobody seems to object. I think Mr. Hensel, if he 
cares to, may leave mider those circumstances. 

May the Chair repeat again, because we want it distinctly under- 
stood that as far as we are concerned, the only people whose attendance 
is required in the room are those who appear on the witness stand 
and they are entitled to have with them such counsel and advisers as 
they may have. But the committee does not want to assume the respon- 
sibility of retainino; in the room anyone else except those under sub- 
pena and those on the witness stanch Everj'one is here according to 
the dictates of his own conscience or those associated with them. 

Mr. Welch. Mr, Chairman, could I say a word on behalf of the 
Army ? General Reber has not been here under my orders or anyone 
else's orders and has continually expressed a wish to go back to his 
European command. On the strength of what has been said here, 
I think General Reber should now understand he may leave and that 
nobody has any notion of calling him to the stand again. 

Senator Mundt. Let's settle that issue right now. Let's find out 
if anybody else on this committee or counsel on either side desires to 
call General Reber. If not, we will dismiss him permanently as a 
witness. Is there any objection to the permanent dismissal of General 
Reber as a witness? 

The Chair hears none. He may go back to his command. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, as to the other Army officers here, and 
this goes for the Secretary of the Army as well, my observation then 
is that the Army's work is being done, they work nights and week- 
ends, and on the whole it doubles up their work. I think I can assure 
the country that the Army is being run by what you might call over- 
time work. 

Senator McCarthy. General Reber, before you leave I think you 
can carry with you the well wishes of the entire committee. 

Senator Mundt. I am sure that is correct. 

All right. Senator Dirksen, we have accomplished something, at 
least. Whether this is in the nature of expedition or not, I do not 
know, but I think it is. I think we left off having dismissed Mr. 
Collier, and he has been called back. As the Chair understands, he 
continues to be sworn. 

You were not unsworn. You will continue to be sworn. 

Counsel will proceed with the questioning. 


Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Collier, since the noon recess, have or not you 
conferred with the office of Mr. Hoover ? 

Mr. Collier. I, during the noon recess, talked with Mr, Hoover on 
the telephone. 

Mr. Jenkins. You know that it was Mr. Hoover in person with 
whom you talked ? 

Mr. Collier. I do, sir. I have had other conversations with him 
on the telephone. I recognized his voice. 

Mr. Jenkins. During the noon recess, were you specifically re- 
quested by Senator McCarthy and his staff, through me, to obtain 
certain additional information from Mr. Hoover with respect to the 
Syo-page document and the 15-page document? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Jenkins. Are you now prepared to answer the questions asked 
of me by Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn during the noon hour? 

JNIr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

I believe, though, that I should recount to the committee the con- 
versation that I had with Mr. Hoover. At the conclusion of that, of 
course, any questions can be asked. 

IVIr. Jenkins. You are talking about the conversation between you 
and Mr. Hoover during the noon hour ? 

JVIr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

JNIr. Jenkins. Will you now relate in detail that conversation which 
I think will answer Senator McCarthy's questions. 

]\Ir. Collier. Upon your instructions, I communicated with the 
FBI and expressed my desire to talk with Mr. Hoover. Within a 
few minutes thereafter Mr. Hoover called me on the telephone. He 
stated that the letter to General Boiling of January 26, 1951, was 
classified by the word "Confidential" and he does not feel that he has 
any right to declassify it or to discuss its contents. May I point out 
at this time that the FBI in 1951 did not use the classifications 
normally attributed to the military. That is, "Kestricted," "Confi- 
dential," "Secret," and "Top Secret." They used either the character- 
ization "Confidential" or "Personal and Confidential." Therefoie, 
that confidential, in Mr. Hoover's opinion and in his statement to me, 
is the highest classification that can be put on a document by the FBI. 
He said further that the contents of the 214-page document as com- 
pared to the 15-page document are alike, are different, in the following 
respects. They are different in classification, that is, the 214-page 
document has the classification "Personal and Confidential." The 
15-page document has the classification "Confidential." They are 
different in salutation. The 15-page document carried no salutation, 
was merely an interdepartmental memorandum. The 214-page docu- 
ment carried a salutation "Sir." 

They are different in conclusion, in that the 2i/4-page document 
concluded with the statement "Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover, 
Director," whereas the 15-page document had no such statement on it. 
They are different in that the 15 page document reflected a carbon 
copy to the United States Air Force. The 214-page document did 
not. Now, they are alike or different as to substance, that was in form, 
as to substance in the following respects : The 214-page document and 
the 15-page document are alike in that paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are 
the same. 

Senator McCarthy. Will you go a little slowly. Paragraph 1, 2, 

JSIr. Collier. Four. 

Senator McCarthy. And four. 

Mr. Collier. One, two, three, and four are alike in both documents. 
Paragraph 5, appearing on page 1 

Senator McCarthy. Could I at this point, for the record, in view 
of the fact that no one wants to read this, could I point out that 
paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 means all of page 1 and it contains all of 
page 2 down to the names. 

Mr. Collier. No, Senator, pardon me, One, two, three, and four are 
on page 1. 

4G020°— 54— pt. 20 2 


Senator McCarthy. You are calling the quotations of paragraph 4? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy, The quotations of paragraph 4 ? 

Mr. Collier. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. I am sorry. 

Mr. Collier. On page 1 you have 1, 2, 3, and 4 paragraphs, each of 
which are identical in both documents. On page 1 there is a paragraph 
6. That is different from paragraph 5 in the 15-page document. 

Senator McCarthy. You mean page 2. You said page 1. 

Mr. Collier. Page 1. The last paragraph on page 1 is a paren- 
thetical statement. 

Mr. CoHN. That is the first paragraph on page 2, isn't it? 

Mr. Coluer. On the copy I have, it is the last one. It must be 

Senator McCarthy. Your page 1 is apparently my page 2. I am 

Mr. Collier. I am referring to the document I have in my posses- 

Senator Mukdt. Do we agree it is paragraph 5 ? 

Senator McCarthy. Paragraph 5 is the j)arenthetical statement I 
referred to this morning. 

Mr. Collier. It is a parenthetical statement and it appears as the 
fifth paragraph on page 1. That paragraph is different in its entirety 
from paragraph 6 in the 15-page document. 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Collier. Now, on page 2, paragraph 6, the first paragi^aph 

Senator McCarthy. Could I interrupt out of order ? 

Senator Mukdt. No, I think we would like to have Mr. Collier's 
testimony, first. 

Senator McCarthy. I am trying to keep this absolutely clear, that 
the parenthetical paragraj^h, I assume didn't appear in Mr. Hoover's 
document at all. 

Mr. Collier. The paragraph is entirely different, I think that is all 
I can say. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, there is no parenthetical 
remark ? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair explain that ]\Ir. Collier is testi- 
fying to what he was told by Mr. Hoover and has no independent 
knowledge, I presume, of where these paragi"aphs appear or what 
is in them. 

Mr. Collier. I would like to make that clear. 

Senator Mundt. Very good, sir. 

Mr. Collier. On page 2, paragraph 6 is the first paragraph. That 
paragraph is identical in both documents. 

Following paragraph 6 on page 2 in the 214-page document is a list 
of 34 names, followed by an evaluation. In the FBI document, the 
15-page document, paragraph 6 was followed by a series of names, 
following each name there being a factual statement of security in- 
formation. There was no evaluation placed on that information by 
the FBI. I want to make it very clear to the committee that Mr. 
Hoover stressed to me, and it is well known, that the FBI does not 
evaluate information. It merely presents it. 


On page 2, following the list of names is paragraph 7, which para- 
graph extends over onto page 3 and is identical in both documents. 

On page 3, the last paragraph, No, 8, is identical in both documents. 

Mr. Hoover advised that he could not make an further comment 
upon the substance of either of these documents ; that it is still classi- 
fied, and that he still respectfully refers the committee to the Attorney 

He further advised that the original 15-page document was furnished 
to General Boiling's office by liaison representative on January 27 and 
that the original and one copy went to General Boiling's office, and the 
FBI this morning determined from that office that the original and 
one copy are in their files. 

A carbon copy was delivered by a liaison representative on January 
29, 1951, to the office of Maj. Gen. Joseph F. Carroll, United States 
Air Force. The FBI this morning ascertained that that copy is 
presently in the files of the Air Force. 

There were, in addition to those three copies, a yellow tickler copy. 
a white copy, and the file copy, a yellow copy, and both of those are 
presently in the files of the FBI. 

All copies that were prepared by the FBI are present and accounted 

In connection with the matter of the use of the classification "Espio- 
nage — R," I tried to make that as clear as I could this morning. Mr. 
Hoover commented that that is a routine, general classification used 
for investigations, that it does not mean than any of the individuals 
mentioned in the document are being investigated for espionage — R or 
are guilty of it or anything else. It merely is a routine, arbitrary 
classification that is placed upon an investigation when it is initiated. 
Because it is there does not mean that the names of the individuals or 
the individual mentioned in any document are in any way involved 
in that matter. 

He pointed out that the Bureau conducts investigations into kid- 
napings, extortions, and other types of cases; that when the initial 
complaint comes in, the case is opened, an investigation is initiated, 
say, under the word "kidnaping," but it does not mean that everybody 
whose name is mentioned in the document is guilty of kidnaping. 

That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Have you any questions, Mr. Counsel ? 

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

Senator Mundt. The Chair has none. 

Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Any of the Senators to my right ? 

Senator Dirksen. 

Senator Dirksen. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman. "With 
reference to the number of pages in the document, is this one complete 
memorandum or are some of the pages accounted for as fortifying 
letters or other memoranda, or is it a continuous, running documenti 

Mr. Collier. Are you speaking of the 15-page document? 

Senator Dirksen. That is correct. 

]\Ir. Collier. It is a complete running document. 

Senator Dirksen. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson? 

Senator Symington? 


Senator Jackson". I just wanted to rei)ort that was a false alarm 
that we attended. 

Senator Mundt. I am very sorry. We appreciate your volunteer- 
ing^, nonetheless. 

Senator Symington. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, any further questions? 

Mr. Welch. No further questions. 

Senator Mundt. Any further questions from Senator McCarthy 
orMr. Cohn? 

Senator ]\IcCartiit. Yes. In view of the fact that the television 
audience cannot follow the questioning, paragraphs 5, 6, 7, and 8 
are in view of the ruling that it not be read — and I will certainly 
respect that ruling — I would like at this time to make it clear that 
Mr. Collier refers to paragraph 1 being identical to the FBI report 
from J. Edgar Hoover, paragraphs 2, 3, 4, 5 

Mv. Collier. Paragraph 5 is different. 

Senator McCarthy. We will skip 5 and go back to that — 6, 7, and 
8. That is the entire letter, with the exception of paragraph 5, which 
I will discuss, and with the exception of the list of names — I cannot 
turn these toward these ambitious young men without their photo- 
graphing it. The paragi'aphs you have listed, leaving out 5, con- 
stitute the entire document, with the exception of the names which 
are listed on this document; right? 

Mr. Collier. And the factual security information contained 
therein regarding each individual. 

Senator McCarthy. As far as that part of the document which I 
introduced is concerned, this differs from the original FBI report, I 
understand, in that this merely contains the names with the evaluation 
after it of derogatory or not derogatory; whereas, the FBI report 
coniained pages of security information about these individuals. 

Mr. Collier. That is true. After each name in the 15-page docu- 
ment there was a factual statement of information of a security nature 
concerning each one ; whereas in this document the name is given and 
an evaluation of that information is made. 

Senator McCarthy. I think I can read paragraph 5 without vio- 
lating the Chair's instructions. 

Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, may I interrupt, please, sir 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has ruled that the letter should be sub- 
mitted to the Attorney General in conformity with the request relayed 
by J. Edgar Hoover through Mr. Collier and does not believe that we 
should permit any reading of it — none of the committee members have 
seen any of it — until we hear from the Attorney General. 

Senator McCarthy. That point may be very well taken, and I will 
be glad to go along with that. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel advises the Attorney General is being 
contacted today. 

Senator McCarthy. Paragraph 5 is the paragi"aph I asked you to 
read this morning, and you thought you could not under the instruc- 
tions of ]\fr. Hoover. I certainly do not differ with you on that, but 
I would like to make it clear that paragraph 5 is a parenthetical 
explanation of why certain information has been deleted from this 
letter. Obviously, paragraph 5 — let me finish, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that no reference 


Senator McCarthy. I am entitled to finish a sentence. Mr. Chair- 


Senator Mundt. You are not supposed to disclose the contents of 
the letter. 

Senator McCarthy. This has been referred to as a phony by INIr. 
Welch. That is one of the most serious reflections upon the integrity 
of the chairman that we have had so far, and I have had many reflec- 
tions upon my integrity. I think I am entitled, ISIr. Chairman, to 
point out that paragraph 5 is a parenthetical paragraph explaining — 
I don't intend to go into what is explained, but paragraph 5 explains 
why certain material from the FBI report is not contained in this 
report. Obviously, therefore, it could not have been in the original 
FBI report. 

I don't know if Mr. Collier can answer this or not, but let me ask 
you this, Mr. Collier. You have not read paragraph 5 ? 

Mr. Collier. I have not. 

Senator McCarthy. So you do not know that that is an explana- 
tion in parentheses? 

Mr. Collier. I only know that Mr. Hoover said that the paragraph 
was different from the 15-page document and that the two and a 
quarter page document had a parenthetical statement in place of a 

Senator McCarthy. "W^iich the Bureau report did not have? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, instead of putting in the 
security information, there is an explanation in parentheses why it 
could not be used here. 

Let me ask you this. I think you have answered this, and I don't 
want to keep you on the stand indefinitely. "V^Hien we take paragraphs 
1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, as you say, that is identical to the report of 
J. Edgar Hoover. That is the entire letter with the exception of the 
list of names, and in the document which I supplied I did not supply 
the information about each name with the security information. So 
if we took the FBI report and instead of just listing the names, if we 
listed the names and the information about each one, then we would 
have the identical report, is that right, as far as you know? 

Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, I am afraid that is a conclusion 
you will have to draw. I do not feel that I should. I will say that in 
substance the paragraphs are as I stated. The difference in form I 
have also stated. 

Senator McCarthy. You will have to pardon me, Mr. Chairman, 
for being repetitious in this, but in view of the serious charge made 
this morning that this was a phony, I think we should have this cleared 
up completely. Just once more. If we take out the parenthetical 
expression, which is paragraph 5, if we delete from this document — 
will you listen to this closely, Mr. Collier ? 

Mr. Collier. I am listening. 

Senator McCarthy. If we take out the parenthetical expression 
paragraph 5, if we delete from this document the names which are 
listed, then if we were to delete from the FBI report the names which 
they have listed, plus the information about each one of those names, 
the documents would be identical, would they not be, if you know 
that 2 You may not. 


Mr. Collier. From the information in my possession, I will say 
that paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 are the same; 5 is different, containing 
a parenthetical statement in place of a paragraph ; 6 is the same ; and 
following 6 in this document before me, the two and one-quarter page 
is a list of names taking up about a half page, whereas in the 15-page 
document there would have been the names and factual information 
taking up many pages 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Collier. That thereafter, following that, j^aragraphs 7 and 8 
are the same. 

Senator McCarthy. Just so we will have this one final question, 
is it the last paragraph in the letter ? 

Mr. Collier. That is correct, sir, and was the last paragraph in the 
15-page document. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion now ? 
The other day it was stated that Mr. Welch speaks for Mr. Stevens. 
Mr. Welch this morning, to millions of television viewers, called this 
a complete phony. If Mr. Stevens wants to let that stand as his state- 
ment, well and good. I think, however, Mr. Stevens should be given 
the opportunity to say that Mr. Welch was not speaking for him 
this morning, now that it has been established that this is a verbatim, 
a verbatim copy of the report from J. Edgar Hoover in regard to 
Communists in the military. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will remind the Senator that after we 
have concluded with Mr. Collier, which we hope will be soon, Mr. 
Stevens is the next witness. 

Senator McCarthy. I thought he might be given an opportunity 
now if he wants to avail himself of it. 

Senator Mundt. We will continue with Mr. Collier until he is con- 

Senator McCarthy. I am finished, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Symington". Mr. Chairman, may I make a point of order, 
in as much as we took a long time to find out about the picture, instead 
of recalling Mr. Stevens, trying to find out who furnished this 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I have every intention of pursuing 
the subject of this document until all of the information possible per- 
taining thereto has been fully elicited. 

Senator Symington. Then, Mr. Counsel, I think you would prefer 
to call somebody besides Mr. Stevens. 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator Symington, I have not indicated. The 
chairman, I regret to say, did state that Mr. Stevens was the next 
witness. Mr. Chairman, I take the responsibility for not having 
advised you that tl:kat is not in accordance with my plans. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. The Chair will correct himself. An- 
other witness is scheduled between this witness and Mr. Stevens. 

Senator Symington. I thank the Chair. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair was not aware of that change in plans. 
Do you have any further questions ? 

Senator McCarthy. No further questions. I thank Mr. Collier. 

Senator Mundt. Do any Senators to my right have any questions? 

Any Senators to my left ? 

Senator McClellan. Just one question, Mr. Chairman. 


From what you have seen of the 2 documents, the 1 that has been 
presented here, and the 1 that you discussed with Mr. Hoover, I will 
ask you to state whether it would be possible for anyone to compose or 
present the document now before us except that they had access to the 
original document or the original copy thereof wdiich still remains 
confidential and restricted. 

Mr. Collier. You are asking for my personal opinion on that? 

Senator McClellan. From what you have observed of the two. 
Would it be possible, except that the author of the document now 
before us must have had access to the original or the original copy 
thereof ? 

Mr. Collier. I would say that since seven of the paragraphs are 
identical, that the person who wrote this document must have had 
access to the original, because the identical language is contained 

Senator McClellan. It is still restricted so far as the FIB is 

Mr. Collier. IVIr. Hoover told me, and as I have stated to the com- 
mittee at the beginning of this testimony, that it carries the highest 
cJassilication the Bureau can place on a document, confidential, that 
he does not feel that he has any right to declassify it. 

Senator McClellak. Did Mr. Hoover express to you any concern 
about it having been released ? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir; he did not. He did not express that. I 
don't know how he feels about it. 

Senator McClellan. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Any other Senators to my left ? 

Senator Jackson. Just one question: I think Senator McCarthy 
will want to clarify one point, and that is that in addition to the fact 
that the paragraphs, all except one were the same, I think he will 
agree that — and I am sure Mr. Collier will agree — that there was one 
other matter overlooked, in which there is no similarity, and that is 
the salutations at the beginning and at the end. Am I right ? 

Mr. Collier. As I testified, the form is completely different in 
the two memorandums. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, instead of having Mr. Hoover's 
name at the end, it was at the begining? 

Mr. Collier. The 15-page document was an interdepartmental mem- 
orandum which does not require a signature. This one, if sent by Mr. 
Hoover, would require a signature at the end, sincerely yours, and 
he would have to sign lus name. 

Senator McCarthy. You asked me to clear something up. 

Senator Jackson. I said that part was left out of the question. 

Senator McCarthy. With your permission. Senator. There is no 
question that this came from J. Edgar Hoover and was directed to 
General Boiling regardless of whether his name was at the beginning 
or the end, and regardless of whether he signed it or not. 

Mr. Collier. There is no question that the 15-page document went 
to General Boiling? 

Senator McCarthy. That is what I mean. 

Senator Jackson. Mr, Collier, there is no question but that the 
21/4-page letter that is before the committee never c;une from Mr. 
Hoover in that form. 

Mr. Collier. It was not prepared by the FBI. 


Senator Jacksox. That is all. 

{Senator McCarthy. Let us get that. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, if Senator Jackson has concluded, is 
next in line. 

Mr. Welch. Just one question, Mr. Collier. Would you look at 
■u^hat I have referred to as the hot letter, again? Will you tell us, 
sir, if you have found anywhere in Washington an original letter of 
which the document before you could be said to be a carbon copy ? 

Mr. Collier. I have not found the original of any document pur- 
porting to be the original of this document, but I have not investigated 

Mr. Welch. You mean you haven't looked everywhere under the 
Bun, yes? 

Mr. Collier. No, sir ; I have not. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, do you have further questions? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. I would like to, Mr. Chairman, at this 
time, in view of the fact that a request has been made to the At- 
torney General that this material be made public, I would like to 
ask counsel for Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams whether or not they would 
object to this being made public now that we have established all of 
the letter except the security material is accurate, would be released 
if the Attorney General has no objection. I think this might be a 
guiding factor in his making his decision. If Mr. Stevens and ISIr. 
Adams object to this being made public, that might influence Mr. 
Brownell. I am not too sure of that. 

Mr. Welch, now that we know this is an accurate report from the 
FBI, would you join with me in asking that the American people 
know what is in it? 

Mr. Welch. Senator McCarthy, I will join with you in two propo- 
sitions. I will join with you in a search for the truth as to how 
your committee got it, and I will join with you in an effort to get 
the opinion of the Attorney General as to how much of what is here 
before us should be made public. 

Senator McCarthy. I guess you are not under oath, so I can't cross- 
examine you on that. 

Mr. Collier, do you know — strike that. Under ordinary — I may bo 
asking you some question you can't answer. I don't know. 

Mr. Collier. That is all right. Go right ahead. I will tell you. 

Senator McCarthy. Don't hesitate. Normally, when an FBI re- 
port is sent out, one such as we have here in the abbreviated form 

Mr. Collier. This is a memorandum, not a report. 

Senator McCarthy. A memorandum, let us call it a memorandum. 
I am sorry. It is neither a letter or report, but a memorandum. 
When you have the names of some 30 or 34 individuals, I don't know 
how many, some of them apparently, from this evaluation there is no 
derogatory information on, would it be the normal procedure for who- 
ever receives this, to make a copy or a summary, and have this put 
in the file of each individual wdio is mentioned in the report? 

Mr. Collier. Senator JSIcCarthy, I can only answer that by saying 
I think that depends upon the policies of the department or agency 

Senator IMcCarthy. I sec. Thank you very much. No further 
questions, Mr. Chairman. 


Senator Muxdt. Has everybody concluded the questioninjT of Mr. 
Collier? If so, you may step down and be unsworn, Mr. Collier. 
Thank vou, again. 

Mr. Collier. Thank you, sir. 

Senator JMundt. Mr. Counsel, you may call the next witness. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of further pursuing 
the inquiry relating to the two documents, the one referred to as the 
214 page document, dated January 26, tlie other referred to as a 15- 
page document, for that purpose and for that purpose only, I desire 
at this time to call as the next witness Senator McCarthy. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, take the stand. 

Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to take the stand. My counsel 
is getting some material ready. May we have it understood that 
perhaps the next witness will be Senator McClellan, who will divulge 
where he got the information about Dave Schine and any other Sena- 
tor who has any information — you will call them to the stand. 

I favor that. I want to take the stand, Mr. Chairman, but I want 
every Senator who from now on receives information, questioned 
yboiit it, be put on the stand and put under oath and questioned as 
to where he received that testimony. 

May I have a ruling on that ? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, will the Senator repeat what he 
said ? 

Senator McCarthy. I said No. 1, I am glad to take the stand. 

Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order, please, so we 
can hear the proceedings. 

Senator McCarthy. I said I am glad to take the stand on this sub- 
ject, but I would like to make sure this is to be the practice from 
now on : Take, for example. Senator INIcClellan the other day said he 
had information that Mr. Schine was examining some picture at the 
Colony — could we have order, please, INIr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Let us have order. 

Senator McCarthy. A picture of Stevens. The question was 
raised whether or not the CID or someone else gave Senator Mc- 
Clellan that information. He said he got it from private sources. 

While I have the highest respect for the Senator from Arkansas, 
let us make that clear. 

Senator McClellan. Do you want that information ? I will give 
it to you. You don't want it ? 

Senator INIcCarthy. Let me finish my statement. 

Senator oSIcClellan. Go ahead. 

Senator McCarthy. I have the highest opinion for the Senator from 
Arkansas and I know there is nothing improper about the way he re- 
ceived his information. I just want to make sure that we are now 
establishing the precedent of calling to the stand any Senator who 
indicates he has information, as I say, with the understanding that 
that is the precedent. I am not concerned about the specific infor- 
mation of ]\Ir. McClellan's, but the rule, if you follow me, John, but 
the rule. I want to make sure we are going to follow that. 

I will be glad to be the first of an array of Senators. I don't object 
to that at all. 

46620°— 54— pt. 20- 


Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, if I have any confidential or 
restricted information that goes to the security of this Nation in my 
possession, I am ready and willing to take the stand and disclose the 
source from which I have received. I will be glad to tell the Senator 
the source of the information that he asked for a while ago. 

Senator McCarthy. Do I get the Chair's ruling ? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has ruled a long time ago that in these 
hearings anybody would be called as a witness who had any informa- 
tion to shed on the truth of this matter, and he would be called when 
requested to do so by counsel at any time. 

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

Senator McCarthy. I do. 


Senator McClellan. A point of order. 

Senator Mundt. A point of order. Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. Now let us understand that as Senators take 
the stand if they are called, do they waive their senatorial immunity? 

Senator McCarthy. May I say if I have any immunity connected 
with the Senate I waive that and just act here as a witness who has 
been ordered before the Chair. Beyond that I desire no immunity 
of any kind. Let us make that clear. 

Senator Mundt, Mr. Jenkins. 

Senator McCarthy. May I ask that my chief counsel and chief of 
staff come down here? I may want to ask them for some informa- 
tion. Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr. 

Senator Mundt. You may. 

Under the rules of the committee with which you are now familiar 
every witness has the right to counsel. 

Senator McCarthy. It isn't exactly counsel. I just want the two 
young men with me. 

Senator Mundt. Would it be agreeable that Mr, St. Clair and I 
take the vacant seats at the end of the table ? 

Senator McCarthy. No; I don't want Mr. Welch examining my 
notes over there. 

Senator Mundt. I think you make a point of order that the Chair 
will have to sustain. 

Would you set yourself over on the other side of the Army officer, 
sir i 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, take a cold chair. 

Mr. Bryan. Come and take my chair, Mr. Welch. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Juliana, you may be seated at the counsel 
table if you want to, temporarily, to safeguard the notes, and every- 
body will be happy. 

Senator Mundt. Are you quite happy, Mr. Welch ? Is everything 
all right ? 

Mr. Welch. Yes, thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Are you ready. Senator McCarthy? 

Mr. Jenkins. For the benefit of the record you are Senator Joseph 
R. McCarthy? 


Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, I am sure you understand that 
I desire to make it perfectly clear to you and to all others concerned 
at this time that you are to be examined and examined only with 
respect to a document dated January 26, 1951 

Senator McCarthy. That is riofht. 

INIr. Jenkins. Referred to by Mr. Collier as a two-and-a-quarter- 
pa<ze document. 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Jenkins. And a 15-page document of the same date? 

Senator McCarthy. Right. 

Mr. Jenkins. We all understand that. 

Senator McCarthy. I am sure we do. 

]\fr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, yesterday afternoon there was 
presented to me, to be read — and I desire to state that I hastily read 
it, Mr. Chairman, and that my mind was completely shed of all 
knowledge of its contents last evening, which perhaps may absolve 
me of guilty knowledge. 

Senator Mundt. Immunity of wdiich the Senator has divested 
himself may be imposed upon you temporarily. 

Mr. Jenkins. There was handed to me. Senator McCarthy a letter 
dated January 26, 1951, and referred to herein as a two and a quarter 
page letter. As I recall, Senator, that letter was handed to me by 
you; is that correct? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. It was passed along the table 
by me. 

Mr. Jenkins. I am sorry, I did not get your last answer. 

Senator McCarthy. I said, yes, it was at least passed along the table 
from me to you. 

Mr. Jenkins. I understand. 

Senator Mundt. Will you pull the microphone a little closer to 
you ? It is hard to hear you. 

Senator ]\IcCarthy. That is the first time I had anyone complain 
they could not hear me. 

Mr. Jenkins. That letter was used as a basis by me in further ex- 
amination or cross-examination of the Secretary of the Army. 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. I believe, Senator, it was used by you and by Mr. Cohn 
as the basis for examination of the Secretary of the Army. 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, you are bound to be aware of the 
fact that some attack has been made upon that letter. 1 want to ask 
you at this time to tell this committee all of your knowledge, without 
my asking you any specific questions at this time, with respect to 
the two and a quarter page letter, particularly where you obtained 
possession of it, when you obtained possession of it, whence it came, 
and give any other knowledge that you may have pertaining to that 
two and a quarter page letter. 

Senator McCarthy. First let me make it very clear, Mr. Jenkins 
and Mr. Chairman, that I will not under any circumstances reveal 
the source of any information which I get as chairman of the com- 
mittee. One of the reasons why I have been successful, I believe, in 
some extent, in exposing communism is because the people who give 


me information from within the Government know that their confi- 
dence will not be violated. It will not be violated today. There was 
an attempt to get me to violate that confidence some 2 or 3 years ago, 
before the Tydings committee. I want to make it very clear that I 
want to notify the people who give me information that there is no 
way on earth that any committee, any force, can get me to violate the 
confidence of those people. 

May I say that that is the rule which every investigative agency 
follows. Mr. J. Edgar Hoover insists that no informants be dis- 
closed and brought up in public. They will not be brought up today, 
aside from that. I will give you the information that you request, 
Mr. Jenkins. This came to me from someone within the Army. 

As I recall the time, I do not recall the date, I recall he stated very 
clearly the reason why he was giving me this information was because 
he was deeply disturbed because even though there were repeated 
reports from the FBI to the effect that there was Communist infil- 
tration, indications of espionage in the top-secret laboratories, the 
radar laboratories, that nothing was being done, he felt that his duty 
to his country was above any duty to any Truman directive to the 
effect that he could not disclose this information. 

And may I say, Mr, Chairman and Mr. Counsel, now that I am on 
the stand, it has been now established that this is a completely accurate 
resume of all of the information in that FBI report, but that our in- 
formant, whoever he was, was very careful not to include any security 
information. I give him credit for that. 

I call the Chair's attention to the fact that there is no security in- 
formation in this, and I urge, Mr. Chairman, that this be made avail- 
able to the public. 

No. 2, if you will pardon me, Mr. Jenkins, I know I have objected 
to longwinded answers, but may I just answer you one bit further. 
You said to go ahead in chronological fashion. I received information 
also to the effect — and, Roy, check with me on this — that in 1949 there 
was a report made of the same nature from the FBI, com]ilaining of 
what would appear to be apparently espionage; September 15, 1"950; 
October 27, 1950 ; December 1950 ; again December 1950 ; again June 5, 
1951 ; January 2G, 1951 — I believe that is the one we have here — 
February 13, 1951 ; February 1952; June 1952; September 1952; Janu- 
ary 1'953; April 10, 1953; April 21, 1953. And the young man who 
gave me this information was deeply disturbed, that is why he gave 
it, because there was no action taken by the Army to get rid of in- 
dividuals after the FBI had given a complete report. 

Mr. Collier. Senator McCarthy, I am afraid that is a conclusion 
you will have to draw. I do not feel that I should. I will say that 
in substance the paragraphs are as I stated. The difference in form 
I have also stated. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is that the end of your answer, Senator? 

Senator McCarthy. That is the end of the answer. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then do we understand. Senator McCarthy, that you 
did not get the two and a quarter page document from the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation? 

Senator McCarthy. I not only, Mr. Welch, did not get this from 
the FBI, but let me make it clear that I 


Mr. Jenkins. You referred to Mr. Welch. You better apologize 
to Mr. Welch. 

Senator McCarthy. I certainly apologize if I called you Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Jenkins. To Mr. Welch. Then, Senator, you did not get the 
two and a quarter page document from the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did not, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I am not going to ask you, and I did not intend to ask 
you the name of the individual who gave you that document. 

Senator McCarthy. I thank you. 

Mr. Jenkins. But, as I do understand it, Senator McCarthy, and 
we are trying to pursue this question to its logical end so that the 
committee may know all of the facts, that two and a quarter page 
document was delivered to you by some one from the Army ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. I can go a step further, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. And perhaps in the Intelligence Department? Can 
you go that far ? 

Senator McCarthy. An officer in the Intelligence Department. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Senator, when was that letter, that two and a quarter page docu- 
ment, delivered to you? 

Senator JNIcCarthy. I will have to consult with counsel on that, 
if I may. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. You are entitled to that. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I would have difficulty giving 
you an exact date, but it was early last spring, roughly a year ago. 
Counsel says he thinks May or June, and Mr. Carr says he thinks 
also, perhaps in June. I tliink it was earlier. I think we had it 
before Mr. Carr came with us. Is that not right, Frank ? 

Mr. Jenkins. When it was delivered to you last spring, approxi- 
mately a year ago, which would be in early May 1953, were you then 
advised, Senator, that it was not a copy of an — an exact copy — of the 
15-page doT^ument in the files of the Intelligence Department, but a 
condensation of it, as we would call it? That is, what information 
did you receive at that time with respect to this two and a quarter 
page document in relation to a 15-page document, if you had any 
such information ? 

Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Jenkins, as I recall, I discussed 
with the officer who delivered this the fact that the document itself 
shows that there has been deleted security information. That will 
appear on page 2 

Senator Mundt. The photographers are getting between the counsel 
and the witness. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you get the answer ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I couldn't see you because of the photographers. 
I will ask you this to shorten and clarify it. At the time the two and 
a quarter page document was delivered to you by an officer in the 
Intelligence Department of the Army, state whether on not you were 
advised by him that the information he gave you in the two and a 
quarter page document was taken from a 15-page document 

Senator McCarthy. No, I was not. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right. What information did he give you with 
respect to the two and a quarter page document? 


Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, to the best of my knowledge, and 
keep in mind that I talk to a vast nmnber of people each day, to the 
best of my knowledge, and I can't quote him verbatim, I got the 
impression that this was the document that was circulated as a result 
of an FBI report, because it is obvious on the face of it that there had 
been deleted security information. That may be an incorrect impres- 
sion. Do you follow me on that, sir? In other words, if the FBI 
reports to the head of G-2 on some 30 individuals as they did here, 
the normal thing would be that G-2 would, I assume, either send a 
complete copy or a summary of this to be put into the files of each indi- 
vidual concerned. As I say, it is obvious that the security information 
has been deleted. Beyond that, it has been testified it is a complete 
word for word verbatim transcript of the FBI report. I was very 
happy to learn that this morning. I knew it would be the same ma- 
terial, and I am very happy to learn it is Avord for word, verbatim. 

Mr. Jenkixs. When did you learn of the existence of the 15-page 
document testified to by INIr. Collier? 

Senator McCarthy. About 11:30 last night, Mr. Cohn called me 
and tokl me he liad heard that this was merely a summary of a docu- 
ment, that I think he said was 11 pages, not 15, he had the figure 
wrong, and there were S other pages covering the security information. 
I told him that I assumed there were other pages, either addendum 
or something, covering the security information. At that time, if 
I may continue for a minute to be responsive, I told him to promptly 
contact you ; if it was too late last night, to contact you this morning 
arid tell you that, and also to send a wire to Mr. Stevens asking him 
to produce the balance of the material. 

Mr. Jenkins. I think in all fairness to Mr. Cohn and the com- 
mittee, I should state that Mr. Cohn did, in fact contact me last 
night with respect to that request. Now, then, Senator McCarthy, 
do we understand, does the committee understand, that at the time 
the two and a quarter page document w^as handed to me yesterday 
afternoon, you did not know of the existence of a 15-page document in 
the intelligence files of the Army ? Is that correct ? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkints. You did not know at that time the two and a 
quarter page document contained the information, the statements, the 
paragraphs, of the 15-page document with the exception in sub- 
stance of the information given opposite the names of each one of the 
parties listed thereon on page 2 thereof; is that correct ? 

Senator McCarthy. I think that is a correct statement. 

Mr. Jenkins. So at the time 

Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Jenkins, I don't want to pro- 
long this. 

JSIr. Jenkins. I understand. 

Senator McCarthy. I had reason to believe at that time that there 
was no security information in this. I assumed the original report 
might have had some security information in it. 

Mr, Jenkins. So at the time this two and a quarter page document 
was handed to me and used as the basis for cross-examination of the 
Secretary of the Army, it was your understanding — as far as you 
knew, that was an exact copy of the document then in the file of the 
Intelligence Department of the Army? Is that correct, Senator? 


Senator jMcCarthy. Tliat is correct. 

Mr. Jekkins. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. 

Senator Muxdt. I have just one. 

I want to ask it in such a way that I don't overrule myself on a point 
of order as I have insisted that the Senator do not read aloud what is 
in the letter. 

You have read the letter, and no member of the committee has. 
If the letter is nlthnately made a part of the exhibits of this commit- 
tee, which it will be if we get the permission of the Attorney General, 
is it your testimony that the letter will show on its face that part of 
the information which might be in some other report is not contained 
in that letter? 

Senator McCakthy. That is correct. That is the paragraph 5 to 
Avhich Mr. Collier referred 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan. 

Senator McCarthy. And also the latter part of 6. 

Senator McClelland. Just one question. Did I understand you 
to say this document was delivered to you as chairman of the 

Senator McCarthy. I was chairman. In what capacity it was 
being delivered I don't know. I was chairman of the committee. 

Senator McClellan. I ask you now, do you regard it as a com- 
mittee document or as a personal document? What is it? 

Senator McCarthy. It is available to the committee. 

Senator McClellan. Are all such documents delivered to you avail- 
able to the committee ? 

Senator McCarthy. I can't think of any that are not available to 
the committee. 

Senator McClellan. Have you ever made that available to the 
committee before ? 

Senator McCarthy. I doubt whether you were on the committee 
then, Senator. 

Senator McClellan. I have been on it since. 

Senator McCarthy. This would be available to any member of the 
committee. May I say all the tiles are available. I don't go down 
to the files, Senator. May I make it clear that this is one of, I assume, 
hundreds of thousands of documents in our files. I do not take it 
upon myself to go down to the files and dig them out and hand them 
fo the Senators. 

That is why I urged that you have a minority counsel, a very 
competent young man. The files are all available to him. 

Senator McClellan. That is all I wanted to know. I just wanted 
to know if such material as you are proposing to introduce here is 
available to all members of the committee, such as you have or if you 
treat it as a personal document or information. 

Senator McCarthy. Senator, I treat nothing that I receive as per- 
sonal. The only thing I consider as personal is the name of the in- 
formant. That I consider personal. Aside from that everything 
that we have is available to any member of the committee. 

Senator McClellan. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen? 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman. 


Senator McCarthy, is it unusual or extraordinary for confidential 
documents of this nature to come to you either as chairman of the 
Senate Permanent Investigating Committee or as an individual 
Senator ? 

Senator McCarthy. It is a daily and a nightly occurrence for me 
to receive information from people in government in regard to Com- 
munist infiltration. 

Senator Dikksen. That is true of many agencies of Government? 

Senator McCarthy. That is very true. 

Senator Dirksen. That is all. 

Senator JMundt. Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. Senator McCarthy, I understand that the letter 
as introduced yesterday came to you in that form last April. 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. I am not sure about April. 
It may have been May or June. 

Senator Jackson. Whenever it arrived. I am not asking you the 
exact month. 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Senator Jackson. Was it delivered to you personally or to any one 
of the staff initially? 

Senator McCarthy. There may have been some member of the 
staff present; I don't know. The letter came into my possession 

Senator Jackson. You do not know whether your informant gave 
it to you directly or a member of the staff received it first and then 
gave it to you ? 

Senator McCarthy. I am reasonably certain. Scoop, that this was 
handed to me personally. Keep in mind that I talk to so many people 
every day that I just cannot remember who handed me something a 
vear ago. 

Senator Jackson. I mean, to your !)est knowledge and belief it 
came to you personally and not through the staff'? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Senator Jackson. You recall meeting the person or seeing him? 

Senator McCarthy. Very, very well. 

Senator Jackson. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter? 

Senator Potter. Senator McCarthy, do I understand that this letter 
referred to a Mr. Coleman? 

Senator McC arthy. Aaron Coleman. 

Senator Potter. Did I also understand you to say there are several 
otlier names on that report? 

Senator McCarthy. There are 34 names. If I do not violate the 
Chair's order, I can tell you they all involve people connected with 
the Sobel-Rosenberg spy ring, and 17 of them were still working at 
the radar laboratory at the time our investigation commenced. Are 
those figures correct ? 

Mr. CoHN. I would have to check that. 

Senator McCarthy. At least, it is approximately 17. 

Senator Potter. Does that two and a half page report you have deal 
with just Mr. Coleman in particular, or does it deal with the general 
nature with all? Possibly that is a question you cannot answer, I 
don't know. 


Senator McCarthy. The general letter deals principally with Mr. 
Coleman. As far as the individuals listed are concerned, I don't have 
the report on each individual. All I have here is the evaluation. It 
is an evaluation placed on this letter by my informant or an evaluation 
placed on by some other agency. All I have here is the notation after 
each name, "Derogatory," "Not Derogatory" — rather, "No Deroga- 

Senator Potter. I asked that question to learn if the 15-page re- 
port was broken down and placed in individual files of the persons 
named. If the report is in that nature, I think that might shed a little 
light on the controversy. 

Senator McCarthy. I get your thought on that. It would appear, 
Senator Potter — in other words, your question is whether or not this 
appears to be an excerpt of information with regard to 1 of the 34 ? 

Senator Potter. That is right; if they named a group and then 
dealt exclusively with Mr. Coleman. 

Senator McCarthy. No. This is the general letter, the general 
covering letter explaining — rather, setting forth the situation. It 
does not excerpt the information about any one individual, except 
there is mention of Mr. Coleman and certain members of the Rosenberg 
spy ring and the connection between people at — strike that. I am 
afraid I am violating the Chair's rule. 

Senator Potter. Senator McCarthy, did your informant advise 
you as to whether that report had been given to any other persons 
other than people within the Pentagon who I would assume were 
within the G-2 Section or the Air Force? I believe it has been men- 
tioned that the Air Force had a copy of the 15-page report. Do you 
know whether any other person has received a copy of this report? 

Senator McCarthy. Again keep in mind I cannot recite the lan- 
guage verbatim, but he was very positive about the fact that this 
information was well known to all of those responsible for the condi- 
tion which was existent, and he mentioned not only this letter but 
the others that I have enumerated, all memoranda, letters, reports, call 
it what you may, all dealing with potential sabotage, espionage, the 
contacts between individuals there with the old Rosenberg spy ring, 
and the very, very bad security situation. 

That is at Fort Monmouth. I believe this is restricted almost 
exclusively to Fort Monmouth. It is not; it covers other areas, but 
largely Fort Monmouth. 

Senator Potter. To your knowledge, no one else has that report 
other than yourself ; the Army personnel who have a right, I would 
assume, to have it ; and the Air Force possibly ; and the FBI ? 

Senator McCarthy. As far as I know — Let me say. No. 1, Senator 
Potter, that I do not know what circulation it got in the Army. If 
they were on their toes, certainly there is a copy in the file of each of 
the 34, certainly. Beyond that, I would not know who has a copy 
except myself. The Senators all should have a copy. A copy is 
available. I think it is not so hot they should not read it, because it 
deals with espionage, sabotage, and there is no reason why the Senators 
should not know what is in this letter. 

Senator Potter. Does your file just have the one copy? 


Senator McCarthy. I think there is only one copy in the files, yes. 
I believe that is this copy. 

Senator Potter. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. I have called on Senator Jackson. 

Senator Symington? 

Senator Symixgton. Senator, I have two questions. 

First, did you discuss this article or letter with Mr. Hoover, or the 
FBI, before you offered it for evidence ? 

Senator McCarthy. I did not. Can I give you the reason why. I 
often come in possession, in this investigation, going to the various 
departments, of reports which apparently originate in the FBI. I 
will never put Mr. Hoover in the position of either saying yes or no 
as to whether I should make use of this material. I don't think he 
would want to be put in that position. I have never discussed with 
him, let me make it clear — I know this is not responsive to your ques- 
tion, but in view of the question having been raised — I have never 
discussed with Mr. Hoover any report that appeared to have origi- 
nated in the FBI. I have used my own judgment and the ones that 
I thought should be used I have used. 

Senator Symingtox. Now my next question : Am I correct that you 
got this around 1953 ? 

Senator McCarthy. It would be April, May or June. It was last 
spring, about a year ago. 

Senator Symington. At least twice today you mentioned this as a 
Truman directive. Do you not think that if what you call a Truman 
directive is in the opinion of this administration considered wrong, 
that by now they have had enough time to change it ? 

Senator McCarthy. May I say I am just as unhappy with that di- 
rective since we have the new administration as when we had the old. 

I hope sincerely that directive is changed. I frankly can see no 
reason, Senator, why a committee of Senators representing the people, 
should not have information about communism, sabotage, espionage, 
the same way that we get information about robbery, crooks, graft 
and corruption. So if your question is do I like this directive any 
more since President Eisenhower has been in office, the answer is no. 
1 thought it was wrong then. I still think it is wrong. 

The only encouraging thing is that we can get a more liberal inter- 
pretation of this so we can get more information. I do think the 
order should be repealed. 

Senator Symington. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. Did I give you more than 

Senator Symington. If I may say very respectfully, I think there 
was some talk about yes and no answers, but I will go along with the 
Chairman, as I often have. 

Senator McCarthy. I got the impression that maybe you wanted a 
little campaign material. 

Senator Symington. I think you are furnishing enough as it is. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak? 

Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. Senator McCarthy 

Senator Mundt. Yes, Mr. Welch. Senator McCarthy, I take it, is 
a committee witness, not one called by himself, so I will call on you 


Ml'. Welch. I beg your pardon ? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair is momentarily wondering whether you 
should proceed, or Mr. Colin. I think I am correct that you are first. 
You go ahead. Senator McCarthy is a committee witness and he was 
not called either by you or by himself. 

Mr. Welch. Senator McCarth}', when you took the stand of course 
vou understood vou were going to be asked about this letter, did you 
not ? 

Senator McCakthy. I assumed that would be the subject. 

Mr. Welch. And you, of course, understood you were going to be 
asked the source from which you got it? 

Senator McCarthy. I never tried to 

Mr. Welch. Did you understand you would be asked the source? 

Senator McCarthy, I will answer that. I never try to read the 
minds of the Senators to know what they will ask you. 

Mr. Welch. Did you not understand from Mr. Jenkins' attitude 
that he intended to ask you from whom you got the letter? 

Senator McCarthy, I don't know what Mr. Jenkins' attitude would 

Mr. Welch. Could I have the oath that you took read to us slowly 
by the reporter ? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, that does not seem to be an appropriate 
question. You were present. You took the oath yourself. He took 
rhe same oath you took. 

Mr. Welch. The oath included a promise, a solemn promise by 
you to tell the truth, comma, the whole truth, comma, and nothing but 
the truth. Is that correct, sir ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, you are not the first individual 
that tried to get me to betray the confidence and give out the names 
of my informants. You will be no more successful than those who 
have tried in the past, period. 

Mr. Welch. I am only asking you, sir, did you realize when you 
took that oath that you were making a solemn promise to tell the 
whole truth to this committee? 

Senator McCarthy. I understand the oath, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. And when you took it, did you have some mental 
reservation, some fifth- or sixth-amenclment notion that you coulcl 
measure what you would tell ? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't take the fifth or sixth amendment. 

Mr. Welch. Have you some private reservation when you take the 
oath that you will tell the whole truth that lets you be the judge of 
what you will testify to ? 

Senator McCarthy. The answer is there is no reservation about 
telling the whole truth. 

Mr. Welch. Thank you, sir. 

Then tell us who delivered the document to you. 

Senator McCarthy. The answer is no. You will not get that in- 

Mr. Welch. You wish, then, to put your own interpretation on 
your oath and tell us less than the whole truth ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, I think I made it very clear to 
you that neither you nor anyone else will ever get me to violate the 
confidence of loyal people in this Government vrho give me informa- 


tion about Communist infiltration. I repeat, you will not get their 
names, you will not get any information which will allow you to 
identify them so that you or anyone else can get their jobs. 

Mr. Welch. Did you tell your informer under oath that you would 
never reveal his name ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. "Welch, you know that my informant 
wouldn't have the right to put me under oath. 

Mr. Welch. You didn't tell him under oath, then ? 

Senator McCarthy. Let us not be silly, mister. You know I was 
not under oath when an informer brought over a document. 

Mr. Welch. When you stepped in that chair, you went under oath, 
is that right ? 

Senator McCarthy. Is there any doubt in your mind I am under 
oath ? 

Mr. Welch. I think not, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. All right, good. 

Mr. Welch. This man that gave it to you was an officer in the In- 
telligence Corps, is that right? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Mr. Welch. And he was young? 

Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't give you any information that 
might enable you to identify him. 

Mr. Welch. You testified that he was young. 

Senator McCarthy. If I did, then, that will be true testimony. 

Mr. Welch. Will you tell us where you were when you got it? 

Senator McCarthy. No. 

Mr. Welch, Were you in Washington ? 

Senator McCarthy. The answer was I would not tell you, I would 
not give you any information which would allow you to identify my 
informant. That has been the rule of this committee. 

Mr. Welch. How soon after you got it did you show it to anyone? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't remember. 

Mr. Welch. To whom did you first show it? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't recall. 

Mr. Welch. Can you think of the name of anyone to whom you 
showed it? 

Senator McCarthy. I assume that it was passed on to my staff, 
most likely. 

Mr. Welch. Name the ones on your staff who had it. 

Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't know. 

Mr. Welch. You wouldn't know ? 

Senator McCarthy. No. 

Mr. Welch. Well, would it include Mr. Cohn ? 

Senator McCarthy. It might. 

Mr. Welch. It would, wouldn't it? 

Senator McCarthy. I say it might. 

Mr, Welch. Would it include Mr, Carr? 

Senator McCarthy. It might. 

Mr. Welch. It would, wouldn't it? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, let me make it clear, I receive 
information from people 10, 15, 20 times a day. I don't recall a year 
later to just exactly which one of my very competent investigators 
I pass that information on to. Ultimately that information was 


brouaht to the attention of my Chief Counsel, Mr. Cohn. My chief 
of statf was not with me then, Mr. Carr. They were asked to proceed 
■with the investi2;ation of Commnnist infiltration at Fort Monmouth. 
This was only one of the many reasons, this was only one of the very, 
very many reasons and — let me finish. So if I tell you that as of a 
year ago 1 can't tell you who it was handed to, I just don't know who 
it was handed to. 

Mr. Welch. Mister Senator, when it was handed to you, was it put 
in the files of the subcommittee? 

Senator ^McCarthy. I assume it was. 

Mr. Welch. Like any other paper ? 

Senator McCarthy. Like any other of a thousand of papers. 

Mr. Welch. And it became a document belonging to the subcom- 
mittee ? 

Senator McCarthy. It now belongs to the subcommittee. 

Mr. Welch. So that if the subcommittee now votes that you reveal 
the name of the man who gave it to you, you w^ill be bound by that 
vote ? 

Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't anticipate the action of the sub- 

Senator DiRKSE>r. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Muxdt. A point of order, Senator Dirksen? 

Senator Dirksen. ^May I raise a point of inquiry here, for my own 
information, and I address this to the Chair and also the counsel. 
Would it be required of a witness consonant with his oath, that he 
reveal the source of a document when he had pledged himself to re- 
spect the confidence and not reveal the source ? Is it required under 
his oath that he make a revelation of that kind? I think the Chair 
ought to rule on it, and I think the advice of counsel ought to be taken 
on that matter, because this matter may recur again in the course of 
these hearings. I think we ought to dispose of it now. 

Senator Muxdt. The Chair is prepared to rule, but we will hear 
from counsel first. 

Mr, Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, it is elementary that the Senator does 
not have to reveal the name of his informant. That is one of the most 
elementary principles engrafted in the law. Otherwise, law-enforcing 
officers would be so hamstrung and hampered as that they would never 
been able to ferret out crime. I unhesitatingly rule that Senator 
McCarthy does not have to reveal the name of his informant. That 
is why I did not pursue the matter further with the Senator. 

Senator McCellan. A point of order, Mr. Chairman, a parliamen- 
tary inquiry, addressed both to the counsel and to the Chair. Does 
the Chair's ruling or the counsel's ruling suggested to the Chair in- 
clude all witnesses who may testify at this hearing ? 

Mr. Jenkins. It depends entirely, Senator McCellan, upon the char- 
acter of evidence a witness is required to give. My point is that, to 
illustrate, an officer of the law goes before a judicial body, he swears 
out a search warrant used as the basis for the confiscation of contra- 
band liquor. We have that down in Tennessee. Upon the trial of 
the case, he is not required to give the name of his informant who im- 
parted to him the information used in procuring the search warrant. 
Otherwise, he would never be able to detect crime. 


Similarly, and in this case, Senator ISIcCarthy, who is engaged in a 
character of work we all know about, and must necessarily rely on 
tips as law-enforcing officers do always in the detection of crime —  
Senator McCarthy, in the very nature of things, must rely upon infor- 
mation that he gets. If he were required to state publicly the name of 
his informants, I dare say the efficiency of his work would be impaired 
99 percent. 

Senator McClellan. Just one further question, Mr. Chairman. 

Why do we single out Senator McCarthy ? How about other mem- 
bers of the committee ? Are they entitled to the same privileges ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator McClellan, you have asked me a general 
question. When any specific question comes up I hope then I will 
be able to give you an intelligent answer. 

Senator McClellan. Maybe the Senators would like to know before 
they vote. So far as I am concerned, you can have my file and all the 
information I have. We are going to make a ruling here that is going 
through this hearing. Wait a minute. I just want to determine if 
this is going to apply to all of us. If so, it is O. K. with me. 

Mr. »Tenkins. My answer. Senator McClellan, if I may be permitted 
to speak again, is that as each individual case comes up, then and not 
until then could I possibly give what I would consider an intelligent 

Senator McClellan. We are suggesting that each one may offer 
to stand on that confidential relationship of any informer. 

Senator Mundt. Do you want to be heard on a point of order ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. May I say. Senator McClellan, I would 
take the position that any Senator on the Investigating Committee 
would not have to reveal his source of information. 

Senator McClellan. May I say to you I am not trying to protect 
myself. You can have my information. I will give it to you 

Senator IMcCarthy. I don't want it. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair is prepared to rule. He unhesitatingly 
and unequivocally rules that in his opinion, and this is sustained bj' 
an unbroken precedent so far as he knows before Senate investigating 
committees, law-enforcement officers, investigators, any of those en- 
gaged in the investigating field, who come in contact with confidential 
information, are not required to disclose the source of their infor- 

The same rule has been followed by the FBI and in my opinion 
very appropriately so. It is difficult for the Chair to rule on a hypo- 
thetical question. Senator McClellan, but I think if something analo- 
gous occurs, we can discuss it at that time and certainly any Senator 
has the same rights to receive confidential information as does the 
chairman of the committee engaged in the same work. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I point out to you one other 
thing. As Secretary of the Army, it is the duty of the Secretary, I 
take it, also to try to discover Communists and root them out of the 
organization. Then I assume that the same rule would apply to him 
with respect to confidential documents he may have in his possession. 

Senator Mundt. There isn't any question but that under similar 
sets of circumstances the Secretary of the Army, if engaged in similar 
investigative work, should have the same consideration. 


Senator Jackson. Just one question, Mr. Chairman, that I want to 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson. 

Senator Jacksox. When the files were turned over to the committee, 
was this letter included in the files? The files were turned over to 
Senator Mundt. 

Senator McCarthy. The files have never been physically moved, 
so far as I know. The files are still down in the committee room. 

Senator Jackson. I am trying to clarify 

Senator McCarthy. The files, anything having to do with the 
pressure exerted by Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams upon the committee 
to get us to call off the hearings may have been physically turned over, 
but we did not physically move all of the files having to do with 
Communist infiltration. 

Senator Jackson. I meant bearing on the matter contained in the 
controversy that this committee is now investigating between the 
Army on the one hand and you and Mr. Colin and Mr. Carr. Sena- 
tor Mundt does have or did receive some files. I just want to get the 
record clear on that. 

Senator McCarthy. You will have it clear, Senator. I know in 
view of your refusal to read this letter, it is impossible for you to 
know what is in it, impossible for you to know — let me finish my 
answer, please- 

Senator Jackson. Yes, but- 

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish my answer, please. 

Senator Jackson. If it is in response to my question. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish my answer. 

Senator Jackson. Respond to the question. 

Senator McCarthy. It is impossible for you to know whether this 
bears upon the contest insofar as the attempt to get this committee 
to call its hearings off is concerned. I will tell you now that this 
letter does not bear upon that. This is a report or a memorandum, 
a letter, call it what you may, from the FBI, to Army Intelligence 
setting forth the situation at Fort Monmouth. This, so far as I 
know, never has been turned over to Senator Mundt. It is available 
to Senator Mundt or any other Senator on the committee, as are 
all of the vast number of documents in the committee room. 

Senator Jackson. You understand, my only purpose in asking 
the question is whether or not this has been turned over. To your 
knowledge, it is in the other files ? 

Senator McCarthy. That is right. 

Senator Jackson. Because it is a part of the 

Senator McCarthy. It is in no file now ; it is here. 

Senator Jackson. I know. It was taken from the regular com- 
mittee files. 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Senator Jackson. And the material turned over to Senator Mundt 
related entirely to the immediate controversy? 

Senator Mundt. If you are directing the question to the Chair, 
the material turned over to Senator Mundt was turned over by Mr. 
Carr in a sealed brown envelope which is turned over to Mr. Jenkins 
without the seal ever having been broken. The material that the 
Chairman asked for was the original of the documents from which 


a press statement was made by Senator IVIcCarthy in response to 
the array of items issued, 34 in number, by the Army. 

Senator IMcCarthy. May I say, Senator Jackson, for your informa- 
tion, the staff lias been ordered to give Mr. Jenkins anything that he 
wants from the files, to give him full cooperation. I think Mr. 
Jenkins has stated here the other day that he has gotten 100 percent 
cooperation from my staff. We have not tried to physically move all 
the heavy files up into Karl's office. 

Senator Muxdt. At our original meeting with counsel for the Army, 
we asked the Army whether all of its material and documents would 
be made available to the committee. The Army said yes. Mr. Welch, 
sj^eaking for his client, said yes. Counsel Jenkins has advised the 
Chair privately and the committee publicly that he has had 1,000 

5 percent cooperation on that score. The same request was made of 
\lr. Cohn and Mr. Carr, who were then before our committee, and 
the Chair has been advised privately and the committee publicly 
by Counsel Jenkins that we have had 1,000 percent cooperation from 
the Cohn-Carr-McCarthy side of this controversy on that score. So 
far as we know, neither side had deliberately withheld from the com- 
mittee any pertinent information. 

The Chair sustains the point of order raised by Senator Dirksen, 
and Counsel Welch will proceed in order. 

Senator Symington. A point of order. 

Senator Mundt. A point of order by Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. Senator, based on the ruling of the Chair and 
the counsel on the opinion of Senator Dirksen, I am entirely satis- 
fied with the decision and the ruling. Yesterday I was trying to make 
a point on the investigative relationship of G-2 under the National 
Security Council with the FBI. I would like to present to you that a 
good many minutes, if not hours, have been taken in discussing mat- 
ters of an investigative character with the Secretary of the Army 
from the standpoint of investigation files of G-2. My point of order, 
Mr. Counsel, is if you decide that the concept of the G-2 files and 
their relationship to the National Security Council and the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation are totally different from the concept of the 
files of this Senate Investigating Cominittee? 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair remind the Senator that his point 
of order made by Senator Dirksen dealt with the specific question 
of whether a man engaged in investigative work would have to dis- 
close the sources of his information. It was on that point the Chair 
made his ruling. 

Senator Symington. IMay I remind the chairman that Gen. Joseph 
F. Carroll of the Air Force, who received a copy of this, was an in- 
vestigator in the Federal Bureau of Investigation, first lent, and then 
given, to the Air Force by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. If the Chair does 
not want to consider my point of order, then I would be glad to 
withdraw it. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would say that in the event General 
Carroll is called, and asked to disclose an informant and refused to 
do so, the Chair would certainly sustain a point of order defending 
his right. If no one else made it, the Chair would make it himself. 

Senator Symington. I wonld certainly hope that this Chair won't 
take a position which means that an informant to this committee does 


not have to be told on, -svliereas an informant to tlie Intelligence De- 
partment of the Army or the FBI on the Investigating Advisory 
Committee of the National Security Council does have to be informed 

Senator Mundt. Should General Carroll appear as a witness, the 
Chair has stated what his position will be, if an analogous case 

Senator Syiviingtox. I am not calling the witnesses, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel Welch, you may proceed in order. 

Mr. Welch. In view of the ruling, I have only 1 or 2 more questions. 
Senator. In view of everything that has been said now, if I were to 
go to the Army files looking for the original of a paper of which you 
I)urport to have a carbon copy of, you now know I would not find it, 
do you not ? 

Senator McCarthy. You are asking wdiether or not you would find 
the original of this in the Army files ? 

Mr. Welch. Yes. 

Senator JMcCartht. I wouldn't have any idea. 

Mr. Welch. You wouldn't expect me to, would you, Senator ? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't know whether you would or not. You 
would find the same material — don't be coy with me, Mr. Welch. You 
would find, and you know it, you would find exactly the same material. 
It has been testified hj counsel this morning that every paragraph of 
the letter is identical to the document which the military received, 
except that the security reports on some 34 individuals have not been 
included, 17 of them or roughly that working at the radar laboratories, 
doing top secret work or other classified work. You know that so 
let's not waste our time asking these questions. 

You know the report is there. You should. I understood you said 
last night you would appoint 14 colonels for 14 days to find the reports. 
If vou did, if those 14 colonels are competent you found not only this 
1 FBI report, but you found 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11—11 other FBI 
reports all having to do with this same subject. 

Mr. Welch. Do you now understand. Senator, that the document 
that you have in your hand is an exact carbon copy of some letter that 
was both sent and received? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, I intend to question your client, 
Mr. Stevens, about that. I want to know — I want to know whether 
or not he has seen this, whether he has had it in his files, whether he, 
like his predecessor, ignored it. I can't answer what is in Mr. 
Stevens' files. At least, I can't answer about everything that is in 
the files. 

Mr. Welch. I am asking only as to your own understanding, Sena- 
tor. ^ Do you understand that there should be in the Army files the 
original of a document, a carbon copy of which you claim to have in 

Senator McCarthy. I don't know what is in the Army files. You 
have access to them ; I do not. We have had testimony tliat this docu- 
ment went from the FBI, whether paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, went 
from J. Edgar Hoover to the military intelligence, so if it is not in the 
files, someone is grossly derelict and I intend to question your client, 
Mr. Stevens, about that. 

Mr. Welch. By this document, you mean the 15-page document? 


Senator JSIcCartht. You heard what I said, I think. It has been 
testified under oath that Mr. Hoover has stated tliat all the paragraphs 
in this letter are verbatim from a report that he sent to the Army, 
that the only difference between this letter and the 15-page document 
is paragraph 5, which is a parenthetical explanation of why security 
material has not been included in this letter, and the fact that in this 
letter, instead of giving all the derogatory material, merely the names 
of the individuals are involved. You can go over that again 10 times, 
if you like, and you will get the same answer. 

Mr. Welch. All right. I would like to go over it just one more 
time and have you listen to the question. 

Senator McCarthy. Go right ahead. 

Mr. "Welch. Do you understand that J. Edgar Hoover sent to the 
Army a document 214 pages in length? Just "Yes" or "No." 

Senator McCarthy. I don't know the length of these other docu- 

Mr. Welch. Let us face up to it, Senator. Do you understand that 
J. Edgar Hoover sent to the Army a document 21/4 pages in length ? 

Senator McCarthy. As far as the document on January 26 is con- 
cerned, the answer is "No." 

JNIr. Welch. Thank you, that is all. 

Senator McCarthy. As far as the other documents are concerned, 
I don't know their length. 

Mr. Welch. That is all. 

Senator McCarthy. Is that all, sir? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would like to inquire whether Senator 
McCarthy desires now to interrogate himself or if one of his counsel 
desires to interrogate him. It is their turn. 

Mr. Cohn". I have no questions to ask the chairman at this time. 

Senator Muxdt. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. No further questions, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I won't ask myself a question, 
but I will give an answer to one. I would like to explain why this 
document was brought to this committee. It was brought yesterday 
originally, and I used it in refreshing Mr. Steven's recollection. I 
consider it of tremendous importance, now that the authenticity has 
been established, that this is a verbatim copy, a verbatim copy, from 
the 15-page report, to show the committee and the people of this 
country the extent to which the FBI has done their usual outstand- 
ing job, tried to get action by sending through the reports, and the 
usual discouraging results, no action, nothing until a congressional 
committee took over. Nothing further, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Any of the Senators to my right? Senator 
Jackson or Senator Symington? Mr. Welch, you have concluded, 
and you have concluded, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, you may step down. 


Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order. The 
Chair would like to say, Mr. Secretary, that while it has not been 


exactly accordinc: to plan, he is liappy that you have had virtually 
1 full day removed from the stand. 

Have you any questions, Mr. Jenkins ? 

Mr. Jenkins. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has none. 

Senator McClfxlan. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Anv Senators to my right? Any of the Senators 
to my left? Mr. Welch? 

Senator ]\IcCartliy or INTr. Cohn, 10 minutes. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Secretary, have you or some of your subordinates 
located a copy of a memorandum from John Edgar Hoover to your 
Intelligence Dejiartment dated January 26, 1951, the original copy, 

Secretary Stevens. That is right, we have. 

Mr. Cohn. Has that been brought here into this room ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not know whether that is here or not. It 
may be here. 

Mr. Cohn. In any event, that is available for counsel if and when 
we secure the permission of the Attorney General to have those parts 
which do not deal with security made public ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

!Mr. Cohn. I do not know if I am doing this properly, Mr. Jenkins, 
but we would lilce to call for the production oi the other FBI warn- 
ings — I do not know whether they are letters or memorandums — on 
the Fort Monmouth situation to the Army between 1950 and 1953. 

Mr. Jenkins. They likewise, of course, will have to be subpenaed. 

Mr. Cohn. I understand that, Mr. Jenkins. In other words, they 
will be held available assuming we get the permission of the Attorney 
General to tell this whole story and put the whole picture on the 
record ? 

Mr. Jenkins. AVill you ask the Secretary to produce the specific 
documents you have in mind, so that I will have those to submit to 
the Attorney General, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. CoiiN. Mr. Secretary, I will formally ask that there be pro- 

Mr. Welch. Could I suggest that this be submitted in the way of 
a memorandum ? We will save time if you do that. 

Mr. Cohn. I will be glad to do that, Mr. Welch. I will give you a 
memorandum at the end of the day listing the 11 FBI reports. 

Senator ]McCarthy. First, may I ask a question, Mr. Secretary ? In 
your search for this FBI memorandum — letter, report, call it what 
you may — of January 26, how many other FBI reports on Fort Mon- 
mouth did vou find ? 

Secretary Stevens. The only one that I have actually looked over 
is the one to which you referred, January 26, 1951. I know there are 
others there. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, it is rather important for us to 
know how many times the FBI sent over a report on espionage — R — 
meaning espionage, Eussian — concerning Fort Monmouth, and 
whether or not action was taken on those reports before our committee 
started their hearings^ For that reason, if you have not done it now, 
could you tonight or tomorrow assign someone to go through the 


files and not give ns the content of tlie reports, you understand, but 
give us the dates of tlie reports ; and if counsel and the chairman de- 
cide they want them, make them available ? Can you do that ? 

Secretary Stevens. We will ask somebody to get that up. It might 
interest you to know, Senator McCarthy, that on April 10, 1953, the 
Army asked the FBI to undertake a full-scale investigation of Fort 
IMonmouth. I regret to have to bring that fact out, but in view of 
the insinuations there have been with respect to Fort Monmouth I now 
advise you that that is a fact. 

Senator McCartiit. The question is not whether or not the FBI 
has investigated. We know we have been investigating, not starting 
in April 1953, but long before that, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Stevens. I am telling you what the Army did under my 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, we know that under your prede- 
cessor they were requested to do likewise. Hence, the summary of a 
report dated January 26. So you don't clear your skirts by merely 
saying "we asked the FBI to give us a report." 

The question is 

Secretary Stevens. I think you will agree the FBI is the finest 
investigatory body there is, won't you, Senator, and that is where 
we went. 

Senator McCarthy. On that we will heartily agree, Mr. Stevens. 

Let me ask you, then, if you have before you the report of January 
26, 1951, if that has been in the files ever since, this report entitled 
"Espionage — Russian," will j'ou tell us why some action wasn't taken 
against the various individuals named until our committee started 
its investigation? Why did you hold up action when you had this 
report ? 

Secretary Stem^ns. We did not hold up action. We were working 
on it all the time. We asked the FBI to make a full-scale investigation 
on the 10th day of April 1953, before we knew anything about your 
going into Fort Monmouth. 

Senator McCarthy. Were you working as rapidly on this, Mr. 
Secretary, as you are working on the Peress case now ? 

Secretary Stfatsns. We are working rapidly on Fort Monmouth, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Will you answer this question: You had a 
complete detailed report on January 26, 1951. That was available to 
you. That set forth the Communist background, the Communist 
connections, of a sizable number of individuals working in the secret 
radar laboratory. Can you tell me — in fairness to you I think it should 
be made clear that I know that you can't do all of the work. You 
must rely upon subordinates. But can you tell me why some of your 
subordinates, Mr. Secretary, did not take action to have these in- 
dividuals suspended at least? 

Secretary Stevens. Senator McCarthy, I have testified repeatedly 
with respect to the situation at Fort Monmouth and the 35 cases. 
I can go over that again if you want me to do so. 

Senator McCarthy. With just one more question I will turn this 
over to Mr. Cohn. 

You say you testified repeatedly. You saw a report, did you not, 
in your files showing that a man holding an important job at Fort 
Monmouth was a part of the Sobel-Kosenberg— rather, indicated as 
part of the Sobel-Rosenberg spy ring? 


Secretary Stevens. I will not discuss that now. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Colin. 

Mr. CoiiN". Mr. Secretary, INIr. Welch, your counsel, who you said 
speaks for you, showed considerable disturbance this morning over 
the fact that the Senator had in his possession a document indicating 
the Army had been warned some time a<i;o about Communist infiltra- 
tion at Fort ]\Ionmouth. !Mr. Welch made indications of illegality 
and thought it was highly improper. 

I wonder, sir, if you can explain to this committee your consistent 
violation of section 605 of title 47 of the United States Code in having 
an eavesdropper on your telephone without notifying the other party 
to the conversation ? 

Mr. Welch. Objection. That is a legal conclusion. 

Mr. Jenkins. I likewise object. 

Senator Mundt. The objection is sustained. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Jenkins, is the objection to the form of the question 
or to the content ? If I phrased the question incorrectly, I would like 
to phrase it properly. I think it is a relevant issue here. 

Mr. Jenkins. You have askea the Secretary a question of law in 
the first place, and not a question of fact. The Secretary is not a 
lawyer. Secondly, your question presupposes the existence of a fact 
that has not been established. On those two grounds and perhaps 
ethers, the question is objectionable. 

Mr. CoHN. I will try to abide by that, Mr. Jenkins, and see if I 
can get this in proper form. 

My first question in response to Mr. Jenkins' comment, sir, is : Is 
it a fact that, without notifying the other party to the telephone 
conversation you have somebody on another extension in your oiSce 
listening to what the person calling you is saying? Has that been 
done, sir '? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, I advise you not to answer it on the 
third ground that it is repetitious, and you have heretofore been ques- 
tioned about that. 

Mr. CoHN. But, Mr. Jenkins, you just said there was nothing in 
the record to show that this practice w^as engaged in. That is what 
I understood you to say. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair understood the counsel to say that the 
first question dealt with questions of law. The question has already 
been asked whether or not he has a man listening on the extension. 
The man has been identified as Mr. Lucas. The man has testified. 
The question has been answered in the affirmative. If the Chair is 
wrong, if the Secretary tells the Chair he is wrong, he may answer 
the question. Otherwise, it is repetitious. 

Senator McCarthy. May I raivse a question, ]\Ir. Chairman? I 
think ]\Ir. Jenkins is completely right when he says the question in and 
of itself is repetitious. However, in order for us to determine wliether 
or not we have all of the monitored conversations, I have asked 
Counsel Cohn to go into this question to question the Secretary as 
to whether or not all conversations were monitored. Laying a basis 
for that and assuming he might have forgotten the question the other 
day, I assume Mr. Cohn asked a question which was repetitious. I 
would like to ask Mr. Cohn to proceed to question Mr. Stevens as to 
whether or not all of the conversations to him and from him have 


been monitored. I think tliat is important in determining whether or 
not you will admit the monitored conversations in evidence. 

Senator Mundt. If the Senator is in doubt as to whether the Secre- 
tary's previous answer dealt with all conversations, I think he has a 
right to bring that out, because we are attempting to get all moni- 
tored conversations, and Ave want to know we have a complete file. 
You may continue. 

Mr. CoHX. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Secretary, is it a fact that all conversations to you and from 
you are monitored without your notifying the party on the other line 
that such is the case ? 

Mr. Jenkins. The Chair has ruled that the witness should answer 
that question. 

Secretary Ste\"ens. I testified on that and explained in detail. 

Mr. Jenkins. I know you have, Mr. Secretary. 

Secretary Stevens. The full procedure, exactly how it works, is all 
in the record at great length — on my first day's testimony, as I recall. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Secretary, the Senator points out that we still don't 
have the answer, sir. Maybe I will restate the question. Is it a fact, 
sir, that every conversation, telephone conversation, in which you par- 
ticipate, calls to you and calls from you, are monitored without the 
consent of the party on the other end ? 

Mr. "Welch. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. A point of order, Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. Those facts were testified to by Mr. Lucas. You will 
recall he said there were certain conversations he did not monitor. 

Senator Mundt. If the questions were not testified to by the Sec- 
retary, then the Chair rules the Secretary should be entitled to answer. 

Senator McCarthy. What is your answer, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. Exactly the same as Mr. Lucas testified. 

Senator McCarthy. What is your answer, sir ? 

Secretary Steat;ns. My answer is just the same as his, that there are 
certain calls that are not monitored. 

Senator McCarthy. How do you select the ones that are not 
monitored ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, it is principally family calls. 

Senator McCarthy. Principally ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. Any other calls ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say that practically all of them, so far 
as I know. Senator, are monitored, except family calls. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that was the same testimony 
he heard the first day. That should be satisfactory on that point that 
all calls are monitored except family calls, and certainly we are not 
interested in those. 

Senator McCarthy. The Secretary says practically all. I want to 
know whether or not there are any times when you make a phone 
call that it is not monitored, other than calls to your family, and I 
am not concerned with those. 

Secretary Stevens. There may have been calls from friends occa- 
sionally that were not monitored. In general the answer to your ques- 
tion is that outside of family and immediate friends, they are mon- 


Senator JMcCartht. ]Mr. Secretary', so you know tlie purpose of this 
question, we are jroing to have the question of whetlier or not moni- 
tored calls should be introduced in evidence. And we want from you 
the simple information as to whether or not all calls havinf^ anything 
to do with the work of this committee or calling off the work of this 
committee, any calls of our stali' with the TMiite House, with any one 
else, with regard to this situation, were monitored and are available. 

Secretary Stevens. Certainly not the "White House. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words you wouldn't monitor 

Secretary Stevens. But any calls affecting the business of this com- 
mittee would have leen monitored. I tried to explain to you that 
the only ones that were not, and Mr. Lucas testified to this, too, were 
with respect to calls from members of my family, and I would say 
maybe a few pereonal friends that would call me from time to time, 
but not in relation to committee business. 

Senator ISIuxdt. The Senator's time has expired. 

Mr. Jenkins ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has only one ques-tion, with which he 
hopes to bring a termination to this cpestion of monitored calls. Is not 
the Chair correct in his belief that either you or Mr. Lucas or both 
have testified that all of the calls coming to your office or leaving your 
office, except those involving your family or friends or social engage- 
ments are monitored by Mr, Lucas? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. That does not include the White 
House, however. 

Senator McClellan. And that has been the practice of your 
predecessors, as testified to by Mr. Lucas ? 

Secretary Ste\^ns. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. As a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think 
somebody is creating the impression here that it is unlawful to monitor 
a telephone call. 

Mr. CoHN. It is, sir. 

Senator McClellan. That is not true. Any man can have a tele- 
phone call monitored if he wants to. The question arises as to the 
legality of disclosing it and not that he had someone take notes so 
that he might refresh his memory. 

Senator IMcCarthy. May I 

Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. For the benefit of the Senator from 
Arkansas, may I call his attention to section 605, title 47, which makes 
it illegal to monitor calls. 

Judge Hand has interpreted this to mean both the mechanical 
monitoring and monitoring by a stenographer. 

If the Senator wants the decision, we can get it. I will read it : 

No person not being authorized by the sender shall intercept any communi- 
cation and divulge or publish the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect, 
or meaning of such intercepted communication to any person. 

And the balance of it is along the same line, if the Chair cares to have 
me read it. But this would seem to make it illegal to eavesdrop on 
telephone calls. 


Senator McClellan. I take tliis position, that I will have a tele- 
phone call monitored any time I want to in my office and I will not 
violate the law ; and I am going to do it again. 

I do not see how these businessmen and these officials can possibly 
operate without doing so. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, since the Senator from Wisconsin and 
the Senator from Arkansas are discussing a question of law, I feel it 
my duty to now advise the Chair, as I have heretofore done, that the 
mere monitoring of a telephone call is not in itself illegal. 

It is the divulgence of the contents, the context, of that call, without 
the consent of the parties at both ends of the line, that makes it illegal. 

Senator McCarthy. Do I understand 

Senator Mundt. The Chair understands that the only point of order 
raised was a rather hypothetical point of order that Senator McClel- 
lan raised. He does not feel called upon to rule on this point of order. 

Have you finished your question, Senator McClellan ? 

Any questions of the Senators from my right? Any questions of 
the Senators to my left ? 

Pardon me — Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. I would like to ask, Mr. Chairman, are we 
going around again or are we ^oing to recess? 

Senator Mundt. We are going around until 4 : 30. It is 4 : 30 now. 

It is 26 minutes to 5, the Chair is advised. 

What is the pleasure of tlie committee? Do you want to recess at 
this time ? 

Senator Symington. I was only asking the chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you, sir. 

We will recess until 10 : 30 tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4: 35 p. m., the committee was recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10 : 30 a. m. the following day, Thursday, May 6, 1954.) 



Adams. John G 74u, 756 

Air Force (United States) 749, 751, 765, 772 

Army (United States) 760-762, 765, 771-777 

Army Intelligence (G-2) 761, 762, 765, 768, 771-773, 775 

Attorney General 751, 752, 756, 763, 775 

Bolliu?;, General 749, 755 

r.rownell, Mr 756 

Carr, Francis P 758, 761, 768, 769, 771, 772 

Carroll, Maj. Gen. Joseph F 751, 772, 778 

CID 757 

Cohn, Roy M 749, 758, 762, 767-769, 771, 772, 774, 778 

Coleman, Aaron Hyman 764, 765 

Collier, Robert A 746, 759, 762, 763 

Testimony of 748-757 

Colony Restaurant (Washington, D. C) 757 

Communists 754, 760, 764, 76S-771, 776, 777 

Department of the Army 760-762, 765, 771-777 

Directive (Truman) 760, 766 

Eisenhower, President 766 

Espionage-R 751, 775, 776 

Europe 747 

FBI reports 749-756, 760, 762 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 749-753, 760-762, 765, 766, 770-776 

Federal Government 764, 767 

Fort Monmouth 765, 769, 771, 775-777 

G-2 (Army Intelligence) 761, 762, 765, 768, 771-773, 775 

Government of the United States 764, 767 

Hand, Judge 779 

Hensel, H. Struve 746-748 

Hoover, J. Edgar 748-755, 760, 766, 772-775 

Hoover document (personal and confidential) 749-756, 760, 761 

Hoover letter to General Boiling 749 

Intelligence Department (Army) 761, 762, 765, 768, 771-773, 775 

Investigating Advisory Committee (National Security Council) 773 

Investigating committee 770 

Juliana, Mr 758 

Karl's office 772 

Lucas, Mr 777-779 

McCarthy, Senator Joe 746-750, 752-757, 775-780 

Testimony of 758-774 

McCarthy committee (Senate Permanent Investigating Committee) 764 

National Security Council 772, 773 

Pentagon 747, 765 

Peress case 776 

Potter, Senator 747 

President of the United States 766 

Radar laboratory (Fort Monmouth) 764,776 

Reber, General 747, 748 

Rosenberg 764, 765, 777 

Rosenberg spy ring 764,765,777 

St. Clair, James D 758 

Schine, G. David 756, 757 

Secretary of the Army 747,754.756.757,759,762,770,771,773-778 

Senate Permanent Investigating Committee (McCarthy committee) 764 

Senate Sergeant at Arms 745, 746 

Senate of the United States 745, 758 



Sergeant at Arms (Senate) 745,746 

Sobel-Rosenberg spy ring 764, 776 

Stevens, Robert T 747, 754,756, 757, 759, 762, 770, 771, 773, 774 

Testimony of 775-778 

Truman directive 760, 766 

Tydinsis committee 760 

United States Air Force 749, 751, 765, 772 

United States Army 760-762, 765, 771-777 

Uniteu States Code (sec. 605, title 47) 777 

United States Government 764, 767 

United States President 766 

United States Senate 745,758 

Washington, D. C 756,768 

White House 779 

Young, General 747 




3 9999 05442 1738