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



JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 








S. Res. 189 

PART 21 

MAY 6. 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 






Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

JOSEPH R. McCarthy, Wisconsin, Chairman 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota 
EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois 

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 
HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington 
JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 
ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina 

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

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Daliota, Chairman 



Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel 

Thomas R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel 

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SOLis HoRwiTZ, Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maner, Secretary 




Appendix 822 

Index I 

Testimony of — 

Collier, Robert A., assistant counsel, Special Subcommittee on Investi- 
gations S19 

Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary, Department of the Army 784 


duced Appears 
on page on page 

14. Copy of prohibition on testimony by loyalty-security board 

before congressional committees 813 822 

15. Letter from Senator Karl E. Mundt, United States Senate, to 

Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., May 5, 1954 819 819 

16. Letter from Attorney General Herbert Brownell, Jr., to Senator 

Karl E. Mundt, May 6, 1954 820 820 



THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of tue 

commi'i'tee on government operations, 

Washington, D. C. 

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

Present : Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, Soutli Dakota ; Sen- 
ator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator Charles 
E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. Dworshak, Re- 
publican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; 
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, 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 Army; Joseph N. Welch, special 
counsel for the Army; James D. St. Clair, special counsel for the 
Army; and Frederick 13. Bryan, counsel to H. Struve Hensel, Assist- 
ant Secretary of Defense. 

Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order. 

The Chair would again like to remind our guests in the audience 
that we are happy to have you as our guests and that you come in in 
conformity with the standing committee rule that there shall be no 
manifestations of approval or disapproval at any time by any mem- 
ber of the audience, and that the officers in the audience have been 
instructed to politely escort from the room immediately anybody 
violating that standing committee rule. 

The Chair has been advised by Senator Symington that he would 
like to make a short statement at this time. 

Senator Symington. I yield to my distinguished colleague from 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan ? 



Senator McClellan, Before any statements are made, I would like 
to make a parliamentary inquiry. 

Senator Mundt. You may make it. 

Senator JMcClellan. Has this committee yet ordered a transcript 
of its proceedings in the course of these hearings submitted to the 
Department of Justice for its consideration and attention? 

Senator ]\Iundt. As far as I know, it has not, although at the b3- 
ginning of the hearings it was announced that a transcript would 
be sent to the Department of Justice. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I now move that an official 
transcript of all of the proceedings of this hearing to date be immedi- 
ately transmitted to the Department of Justice for such attention 
and consideration as it may merit, and that future testimony, the 
transcript thereof, be immediately transmitted to the Department 
of Justice for the same purpose as rapidly as the transcripts become 

Senator Mundt. Without objection, the motion will be approved 
in conformity with the committee policy. 

Mrs. Watt, if you will add the Department of Justice to the mailing 
list to receive the transcripts, that will take care of that. 

Senator Symington, you wanted to make a statement, am I right? 

Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Chairman, previous information I presented in these hearings 
about the membership of the Intelligence Advisory Committee to the 
National Security Council was incorrect. There have been some 
changes since I left that Council. The Intelligence Advisory Com.- 
mittee is chaired by the Director of the Central Intelligence Agency. 
Its membership includes the special assistant to the Secretary of State 
for Intelligence, the Deputy Director of Intelligence of the Atomic 
Energy Commission, the Deputy Director for Intelligence of the Joint 
Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Assistant Director of the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation, the head of G-2 of the Army, the Director 
of Naval Intelligence, and the Director of Intelligence of the Air 

Title 5, United States Code, section 16, reads as follows : 

Whenever any person is elected or appointed to any otBce of honor or trust 
nnder the Government of the United States, he shall, before entering upon the 
duties of his office, take and subscribe the following oath : "I do solemnly swear 
or affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States 
against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and 
allegiance to the same, that I take this obligation freely without any mental 
reservation or purpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge 
the duties of the office on which I am about to enter ; so help me God." 

According to testimony presented to this committee yesterday, the 
officer informant who gave this obviously fraudulent letter was guilty 
of sending secret information to somebody not authorized to receive 
it, and in so doing disobeyed the orders of his superiors. 

In view of the testimony, Mr. Chairman, I do hope that every effort 
will be made to find out who was the informer. But at least as im- 
portant should the knowledge on the part of the eight Government 
agencies who sit on the Intelligence Advisory Committee that they 
may now have in their midst someone who is willing, for whatever 
reason he considers proper, to distribute secret information to un- 
authorized people. 


Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Muxdt. Senator McCarthy, do you want to be heard on 
the point on which we have been having this discussion? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will hear you briefly. 

Senator McCarthy. Number 1, Mr. Symington knows he made a 
false statement just now. He said this was a fraudulent letter. J. 
Edgar Hoover said all parts of it were identical to the Hoover memo- 
randum, with the exception of the deletion of the security matters. 
When Mr. Symington makes the statement he is deliberately attempt- 
ing to deceive the people. 

I may say, Mr. Chairman, when ]\Ir. Symington left the committee 
I thought for a while it was a loss. When he came back on I thought 
it was a gain. I discover now since they have returned to the com- 
mittee they have been spending their time trying to obstruct any 
attempt to dig Communists out of Government. Why, I don't know. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair feels that the Senator should direct his 
remarks to the contents of Mr. Symington's statement rather than 
to the individual. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, when Mr. Symington makes 
a false statement I think I am entitled to give the reason for it. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair recognizes your comment about the 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. I say this is part, Mr. Chairman, of a sequence 
of efforts on the part of Mr. Symington and Mr. Jackson to obstruct 
this committee ever since they came back on. "When they came back 

I welcomed them. I thought they would work with us. Instead of 
that, I find that they are doing everything possible to keep this com- 
mittee from functioning and digging out Communists. 

This example of Mr. Symington this morning is just another ex- 
ample. He admits that Communists are mentioned in this letter. He 
is interested in trying to punish the individual who dared to give 
us information about espionage in the secret radar laboratory. 

I want to assure Mr. Symington that as far as I am concerned, any 
of the loyal people who have been exposing Communists will not be 
subject to his type of vengeance. He will not get their names. 

Senator Symington. Now, Mr. Chairman, in deference to the 

Senator Mundt. The Chair recognizes you again, but points out 
that when we get into these preliminary discussions it is not a process 
of expediting the hearings, but tends to delay things. 

Senator Symington. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman, and I might 
say that the amount of time that I have taken of this committee in the 

II days that Secretary Stevens has been on the stand has been very, 
very little. 

I do not want at this time to get into any discussion with the Senator 
from Wisconsin as to whether my record in attempting to build forces 
against Communist advancement equals or is superior to his. I would 
like to note that he got this letter many weeks before I left the com- 
mittee. I never saw it until these hearings started. I would like to say 
also, however, that I believe I am justified in saying that this letter is 


fraudulent. Its contents may be accurate. I did not read it because 
I was advised that it would be wrong to read it from the standpoint 
of my position and the laws of the country. But I did note in the 
letter that whereas the document Mr. Hoover said he sent said from 
or to General Boiling from Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. This fraudulent 
letter starts off "Dear General Boiling", and it is signed, presumably, 
"Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover." 

I do not question whether the facts are right or wrong with respect 
to the summary of the fraudulent letter, but I do say whoever put 
those facts in made up a letter which in itself was fraudulent because 
the salutation and the final words in the letter were never written by 
Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. I thank the chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized? 

Senator Mundt. These people are trying to attract the attention 
of the Chair. He hears them all, but he can recognize only one at a 
time. He will recognize counsel first. 

Mr. Jenkins. I advise the Chair to permit no further discussion 
with respect to that letter. The proof has thoroughly exploited the 
facts. Parties hereto in interest have thoroughly expressed them- 
selves. I think any further discussion, any further charges, counter- 
charges, constitute a waste of time. It is my suggestion that the Chair 
now order the proof to continue in this hearing. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair is proposing to do that. Senator Jack- 
son, whose name has been mentioned, has a personal privilege, and 
which the Chair thinks would be fair to hear. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I think it is high time that this 
hearing get on the track. We have been sidetracked for a long time. 
I am not surprised by the statement of the Senator from Wisconsin. 
That is an old stock-in-trade, and you can expect that all through the 
hearing. But I think it is high time we get back on the track. So 
let us get down to business. I am not disturbed by statements that 
he may make. He made a lot of them in the 1952 campaign, and that 
is well known to the American people, against Senator Symington and 
myself, and the people repudiated him. 


ARMY— Resumed 

Senator ^SIundt. The Chair suggests that we get on. Everybody 
now has had a chance to be heard on matters of personal privilege. 

Mr. Secretary, may the Chair inquire of you before we begin ? You 
had a day's rest yesterday which the Chair was happy to have you 
have, and before beginning this morning we would like to inquire 
whether you feel now that you would like to continue or whether, if 
you prefer to get more rest, to step aside and have the Chair call some- 
one else in the Army's case. The committee would like to be sure that 
you are refreshed and feel ready and able to testify. 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. I feel, Mr. Chairman, that I should leave this 
to the committee. I would carry on to the best of my ability, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Let the Chair say that we recognize that this is 
fatiguing work. If you or counsel will advise the Chair, or any mem- 


ber of tlie committee at any time that you feel that you would like a 
day or 2 days away from the stand, there are other Army witnesses 
to be called. The Chair will be gLad to accommodate you. You have 
had, as I say, 1 day free from that unhappy spot, and perhaps we can 
start in this morning 

Secretary Stevexs. I will remind the Chair that I was on the wit- 
ness stand yesterday. 

Senator Mundt. For a very brief amount of time, yes. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, but I was on. 

Senator Muxnx. That is the reason I am inquiring whether you 
felt you wanted to continue this morning, if you felt refreshed. And 
if not, we would try to find some other witness from your side of the 
case to relieve you for awhile. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I understood yesterday that the committee 
was going to give that matter some consideration on their own motion. 
Of course, I am prepared to abide by any decision that you make. 

Senator Mundt. We will have a short session this morning. May 
die Chair suggest that during the noon hour you consult with counsel 
and if you feel you would like to have the afternoon off, I am sure 
the committee would be happy to accommodate you. 

Secretary Stevens. All right, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins, have you further questions of Mr. 
Stevens ? 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, before we begin, I would like to 
make a point of order, by way of information to the members of 
the committee. This is the second week, I believe, or the conclusion 
of the second week, of this hearing. We are no closer to terminating 
the hearing today than we were a week ago. It has assumed the pro- 
portions of a treadmill hearing. I would like to emphasize to the 
members of the committee that the Senate also has other work which 
is of vital importance to the members of the committee. I am speak- 
ing now particularly of myself. We have on the floor of the Senate 
the Taft-Hartley Act amendments in which I, as one individual Mem- 
ber of the Senate, am vitally interested. I want to participate in the 
debates on the amendments. I feel that I have to do that, in all good 
conscience, representing the people of my State. So, I wish to suggest 
to the Chair and to the members of the committee that if this is going 
to be prolonged for weeks, maybe months, some effort will have to be 
made to allow members of this committee to take care of other essen- 
tial Senatorial duties. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair say simply that we tried valiantly, 
I think it was 2 days ago, at the suggestion of Senator Dirksen, to 
bring all parties around the table to see whether in the process of 
arbitration we could shorten the hearings by some equitable proceed- 
ings. The Chair stands ready to try again any time any member of 
the committee feels he has a formula to suggest. Of course, I might 
remind counsel that the motion unanimously adopted was, and it 
has never been rescinded, that counsel should continue to explore, 
with counsel for all sides, the evolution of a formula for expediting 
the hearings. I am sure that counsel will avail himself of every 
opportunity to do so. 

Mr. Stevens, the Chair has no questions. 

46620*— 54— pt. 21 2 


Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClkllan. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen or any Senators to my right? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Chairman, could I make a very brief com- 
ment on two items ? 

Senator Mundt. I see no reason v^hy you should not. Everybody 
else has this morning and we might as well include you in. 

Secretary Stevens. They are very brief. 

Senator Mundt. Surely. 

Secretary Stevens. The first one is in a telephone conservation this 
morning with Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. He au- 
thorized me to make the following statement : 

In conversations with IMr. Hoover from time to time since I have been in office, 
he has commented in the highest terms on the cooperation between his office 
and the G-2 Intelligence Division of the Army. 

That is the end of the quotation. 

At this time I would like to make a correction in my testimony 
appearing on page 1459 of the record. At that point, speaking of a 
conference in my office on February 24, 1 stated : 

I don't thinli that I saw anybody except some of my staff on that afternoon 
after I got back from this meeting. 

I have checked up the records and searched my memory, and I find 
that I got back to my office about 3 : 30, that I saw the press for about 
1 minutes, that some pictures were taken, and that at 4 : 30 I 
met with a group in my office. I now have a list of the people in- 
vited by my staff to be present. I made a report to them of what 
had happened at that luncheon. 

A list of those present is as follows. It is a list of 21 names, Mr. 

Senator Mundt. Is that the luncheon that you refer to now, the 
luncheon where the memorandum of understanding was reached? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. Do you want to read the list ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, I will be glad to read it. 

Senator Mundt. It is entirely up to you. I did not know whether 
you had concluded your statement or not. You may read the list. 

Secretary Stevens. I would like to read the list. Secretary Keyes, 
Secretary Milton, Secretary Roderick, Mr. Hensel, Mr. Adams, Gen- 
eral Kidgway, General Wibbel, General Lemnitzer, General Decker, 
General Young, General Trudeau, General Edelman, General Palmer, 
General Mudgett, Colonel Houck, Mr. Kane, Mr. Lehrbas, Mr. Mar- 
tyn. Secretary Seaton, Colonel BeLieu, and Colonel Delanoy. 

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

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Do any of the Senators to my left have any 
questions ? 

Senator Symington. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Co.. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, you are correcting the testi- 
mony given on May 3, is that right ? 

Secretary Stevens. On last Monday, yes. 


Senator McCarthy. You learned that last night and this morning 
there were two witnesses in executive session who testified that you 
were not telling the truth on page 1457 and page 1458 

Secretary Stevens. I beg your pardon, sir ? 

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish the question. Did you learn that 
last night and this morning two witnesses were called in executive 
session — let me finish — and their testimony was that your testimony 
on page 1457 and 1458 was completely untrue? Is that not why you 
decided to change your testimony ? 

Secretary Ste\t<:ns. It is not. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you learn 

Secretary Stevens. I have mentioned this 2 or 3 times to counsel, 
that I wanted to elaborate on the point when I got an opportunity 
to do so. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you learn that a witness was called last 
night and one this morning and that those witnesses gave testimony 
directly contrary to yours? 

Secretary STE^^l:NS. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You did not learn that ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Have you ever heard that Mr. Seaton was 
called this morning? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You don't know that until this time ? 

Secretary Ste\tens. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. You didn't learn that a newsman was called 
last night ? 

Secretary Ste\t2ns. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You never heard about that ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Are you as positive about this, Bob, as you 
were about that meeting on the 24th ? 

Secretary STE\rENS. I have answered the question, I think. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask you this 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, may I suggest that you get up to the 
microphone? Thank you. 

Senator McCarthy. Was not your counsel notified that Mr. Seaton 
was called this morning and a newsman was being called last night 
and this morning ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know whether he was or not. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you ask him ? He is sitting beside you. 
Would you ask him ? 

(Secretary Stevens conferred with his counsel.) 

Secretary Stevtns. Will the reporter read the question, please? 

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

Senator McCarthy. Just ask counsel whether he knew if these 
witnesses were called. 

Mr. Welch. Would it be appropriate, Mr. Senator, if I were to 
answer it? 

Senator McCarthy. No, it would be appropriate for the Secretary 
to answer. He is the man who is under oath. 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Welch says he knew nothing about a 


Senator McCarthy. How about Mr. Seaton? 

Secretary SrEVENS. He heard this morning that Mr. Seaton had 
been called but he has no knowledge of what he testified to. 

Senator JNIcCarthy. Your testimony is that this is the first time 
you knew that Seaton was called ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator McCartiit. Who prepared the statement you just gave? 
Who prepared it, Mr. Stevens? 

Secretary Stevens. It was a combination effort of Stevens and 

Senator McCarthy. It was a combination effort after counsel knew 
that Seaton w^as being called? The question I have in mind, Mr. 
Secretary, is this : When you learned that your testimony was inac- 
curate, why didn't you immediately 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator JNIcCarthy asked a question and did not give 
the witness an opportunity to answer. He is entitled to that 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will repeat the question there was no 
opportunity given to answer. 

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

Mr. Jenkins. There is a question prior to that, and I can restate 
it, if the chairman will permit me. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

Mr. Jenkins. The question by Senator McCarthy which you were 
not given an opportunity to answer was this: Was it a combination 
effort on the preparation of the statement you have read on the part 
of yourself and counsel, after your counsel learned that this witness 
had been called this morning to testify at an executive session? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, of course I can't testify as to what my 
counsel knew about Seaton. You will have to ask him. But it was 
a combination effort in my office this morning, with counsel, and 
mainly I would say it is my own work. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, did your counsel advise you prior to 
or during the preparation of that statement that he had been advised 
that this witness was called this morning to testify at an executive 
session ? 

Secretary Stevens. He did not. 

Mr. Jenkins. I think, Mr. Chairman, that fully explores the matter 
and we should pass to another subject of inquiry. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy? 

Senator McCarthy, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that this 
statement was made after Senator McClellan, and rightly so, suggested 
the entire transcript go to the Justice Department, m view of the fact 
that it was made after two witnesses testified positively that the Sec- 
retary gave incorrect testimony, in view of the fact that Mr. Welch 
helped prepare this statement, and says he knew that Seaton was 
going to be present, I would like to ask the Chair to swear Mr. Welch 
so I can examine him on this. 

I just wonder why, what on the face would appear to be perjury, 
was corrected only after it was known that we have gotten witnesses 
to testify to the fact. 

To me it seems impossible that any man of normal intelligence, 
and I think Mr. Stevens has at least normal intelligence, would forget 


a meeting of 21 of the top people over in the Pentagon, and tell us 
there was no such meeting. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, that is not a point of order. I think 
it entirely improper. The Senator may have Mr. Welch sworn at any 
appropriate time and cross-examine him with reference to whether 
or not he advised the Secretary prior to the preparation of that state- 
ment tliat he knew Mr. Seaton was here. I again suggest that we 
proceed with the interrogation of the witnesses on matters relevant 
to the issues. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that the counsel's statement is 
sound, and since Mr. Stevens is on the stand and we are trying to 
expedite the hearings so we can get on to other witnesses, if you want 
to interrogate Mr. Welch, that you wait until we have concluded with 
Mr. Stevens. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think this is 
one of the most important issues in question here, whether or not 
there was perjury or subornation of perjury. We have been follow- 
ing the practice constantly of having the Secretary step aside when a 
question comes up. I will not press the point, if the Chair wants to 
have Mr. Welch sworn at a subsequent time. I thought if he could be 
sworn now, it could give the Secretary time to have a rest also. I 
gather the Chair would not like to have Mr. Welch go on the stand 
at this time. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would like to follow the suggestions of 
counsel who has his plan for conducting the hearing. 

Senator McCarthy. That is agreeable. 

Mr. Secretary, on the 3d of May you were asked these questions: 

Senator McCarthy. You wc re unhappy when you stood there smiling and 
shaking my hand while the photograpliers were taking their pictures? 

Secretary Stevens. Unhappy, period. 

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

Secretary Stevens. I have no idea. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you talk to Hensel that night? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think I did. 

Question. Do you remember? 

Answer. I don't think I did. No, I am pretty sure I didn't. 

When did you first refresh your recollection and remember there 
was this 21-man meeting? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, Senator, as far as Mr. Hensel is concerned, 
he was one of 21 at the meeting. I didn't talk with him personally. 
I made 

Senator McCarthy. Did you hear my question? I said when did 
you refresh your recollection and suddenly remember the 21-man 
meeting which you did not remember 3 days ago ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, when I get through with the day's testi- 
mony, I think about it and try to search out my memory and see if 
anything needs correction or explanation. I remembered then, I was, 
I will admit, on my eighth day on the stand, there was some weariness, 
and I overlooked that point. I told my counsel not once but two or 
three times that as soon as I got an appropriate opportunity I would 
like to elaborate on that return to the Pentagon. 


Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, I have been tryin*? to cut this 
short to get you off tlie stand, but when you give long involved answers 
that has nothing to do with the question, there is no way I can get you 
off in a hurry. My question simply was : When did you first remember 
about this 21-man meeting in your office, the one which you did not 
remember last Monday? When did you first remember it? Monday 
night, Tuesday night? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say I can't remember precisely, but I 
would say I probably thought of that, maybe, on Tuesday, sometime. 
I don't know. I am guessing at it. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, if this testimony were to stand, 
and if you hadn't corrected it, with the other two witnesses testifying, 
it would be a clear-cut perjury case, so it is rather important to you. 

Mr, Jenkins. I suggest. Senator McCarthy, that instead of making 
a statement of fact, you simply ask questions of this witness. You 
have made a statement of fact which I don't think is proper. I think 
your line of inquiry was perfectly proper and for that reason no 
objection was made. 

Senator ]\Iundt. The Chair holds the point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, you are aware of the fact, you 
are aware of the fact now, that your testimony under oath on the 3d is 
directly contrary to the testimony of Mr. Seaton ? Are you aware of 
that, both under oath 

Secretary Stevens. I am not aware of anything that Mr. Seaton 
has testified to. 

Mr. Welch. I object to the question. That is an improper question. 

Senator Mundt. The question would be ruled out, because the 
witness would have no way of knowing about any testimony made by 
Mr. Seaton. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, of course he would avoid know- 
ing. Mr. Seaton is in his office. I understand the rule is if a man is 
called from the Pentagon, they notify the Secretary. Is that right, 
Mr. Secretary? When anyone is called from the Pentagon is there 
not a rule that ^^ou or your counsel be notified ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know of any such rule. 

Senator McCarthy. You don't know of any such rule? 

Secretary Stevens. No. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, let us get back to this. I said, "Did you 
talk to Mr. Adams?" 

Ansaver. "As a matter of fact, I went back to the office and then I 
went home, and I don't think that I saw anybody except some of my 
own staff on that afternoon." 

When dicl you first discover, Mr. Secretary, that that answer was 
completely in error, that instead of merely seeing a few members of 
your staff, you actually saw some 21 of the top men in the Pentagon, 
including Hensel ? 

Secretary Stevens. I considered that 17 out of the 21 were members 
of my staff. 

Senator McCarthy. And how about the other four ? 

Secretary Stevens. The other four were from the Department of 

Senator McCarthy. When you were testifying this morning, your 
testimony was that you did not remember that 21-man meeting; is 
that right? 


Secretary Stevens. I said, as I recall it, that I met with some mem- 
bers of my staff, and that is Avhat I did. Now I have spelled it out 
to you in detail as to just what that meant and who was there. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I think the Secretary has been fully 
questioned with respect to that and has given answers fully, and it is 
my suggestion that counsel now proceed to other points of inquiry. 

Senator McCarthy. What did you discuss with Mr. Hensel and the 
21 men that night ? 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. 

]Mr. Jenkins ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I have no further questions. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has none. 

Senator Symington or Senator McClellan ? 

Senator Symington. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Any Senators to my right? Any Senators to my 

Senator Symington. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn . 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, we now learn that IMr. Hensel 
was with you that night. The question is : What did you discuss with 
Mr. Hensel and the other 20 or 21 people? 

Mr. Welch. Objection. 

Senator Mundt. On what basis, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Welch. The counsel of the committee has just ruled that this 
has been fully and adequately exi)lored and suggested that the ques- 
tions move on to another item. 

Senator Mundt. You are incorrect, Mr. Welch. He counseled the 
chairman. The chairman will rule. The chairman is willing to rule 
that there should be no more questions about who were there or how 
many were there, but this is a different line of questions as to what 
was said. 

Secretary Stevens. I reported on the luncheon with you and Sena- 
tor Dirksen and Senator Mundt and Senator Potter. 

Senator McCarthy. In view of the fact that Mr. Hensel's specifi- 
cation indicates that was the night that he first heard any complaints 
against Mr. Cohn or against any of my staff, could you tell us who 
gave him that information ? Was it discussed there that night? 

Secretary Stevens. If you are still referring to the meeting of 
members of my staff plus four people from the Dej^artment of De- 
fense, Senator, it was not discussed. That was in the afternoon at 

Senator McCarthy. When Mr. Hensel says, "Not until February 
25, 1954, did I have any information that the Department of the 
Army had been having difficulty with Senator McCarthy, Mr. Cohn," 
et cetera, you say he did not get that information while you were 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. Will you tell us this, Mr. Secretary. At some 
time someone decided to issue a report charging Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr, 
and mj^self with improper conduct. When did that originate ? When 
did that originate and who originated it ? 


Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand that question. 

Secretary Stevens. May Ave have it read back ? 

Senator McCarthy. Did you understand it, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would like to have it read. 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question. 

(The question was read by the reporter.) 

Secretary Stevens. I have testified at length, Senator McCarthy, 
that there had been many inquiries from the Congress in regard to 
this whole situation, and it finally headed up on the receipt of Sena- 
tor Potter's letter. An answer was then made to Senator Potter and 
to all members of this committee and other Members of the Congress 
who had inquired about it. 

Senator McCarthy. When was the report prepared? Was that 
prepared after Senator Potter wrote you ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that the report, the so-called chronology, 
was prepared by Mr. Brown, of Mr. Hensel's office, along, I would 
say, starting about the 4th or 5th of March — somewhere in there. 
That is a guess. 

Senator McCarthy. That was before Senator Potter wrote the 

Secretary Stevens. That was before Senator Potter's letter was 
written ; that is right. 

Senator McCarthy. So this report was not prepared as a result 
of Potter's letter? 

Secretary Stevens. It was prepared as a result of mounting in- 
quiries from the Congress in regard to the matter of David Schine. 

Senator McCarthy. Who decided to prepare it? 

Secretary Stevens. Who decided to prepare it ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know who decided to prepare it. I 
know that Mr. Hensel got in touch with me and asked me to see Mr. 
Brown and discuss these matters with him and I did that. I assume 
that Mr. Hensel was probably acting under orders of the Secretary 
of Defense. I don't know. 

Senator McCarthy. These charges were put out entitled "Army 
Charges" or something to that effect. You were the Secretary when 
they were put out? That is obvious, isn't it? 

Secretary Stearns. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you order them put out ? 

Secretary S'tevens. No, sir ; I didn't order them put out. 

Senator McCarthy. Couldn't we, Mr. Secretary, find out who was 
responsible for making public charges against Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr, 
and myself? You must know that. 

Secretary Stevens. Senator, I have tried to cover it to the best of 
my ability. Maybe it isn't clear. I have told you how the thing 
evoluted from the inquiries that we received from members of the 
Senate and the House. It evoluted along and came to a climax 
somewhere about the time that, shall I say, somewhere in the early 
part of March, somewhere around the 4tli and 5th. In that period 
I would say is when this chronology was being compiled. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you say that Mr, Hensel was telling 
the truth when he says that he first learned about this report was 
being evoluted 


Mr. Jenkins. INIr. Chairman, that is not a proper question. "We 
cannot ask the Secretary to pass on the truth or veracity of anything 
Mr. Hensel says. 

Senator IMundt. The Chair upliolds that point of order. 

Senator ISIcCarthy. If the Chair would ^Yithhold his ruling until 
I complete the question. 

Senator JNIundt. You should avoid asking whether or not Mr. 
Hensel made an accurate statement. 

Senator McCarthy. It is imperative. If the Chair rules it out I 
will give the Chair my reasons for feeling this is a proper question. 

First, could I repeat the question ? 

The question, Mr. Secretary, is this: Mr. Hensel, who you say 
worked with you in preparing this, has filed specifications saying 
that the first time this matter of the so-called evoluted report came to 
his attention was the night of the 21-man meeting after you left the 
meeting with Senators Mundt, ISlcClellan — not McClellan, but Dirksen 
and Potter. 

Is it correct that that is the first time that this matter was brought 
to Mr. Hensel's attention as far as you know? 

I submit, Mr. Chairman, that is a perfectly proper question. 

Senator Mundt. It is perfectly proper as now stated. 

Mr. Jenkins. An entirely different question from the one which 
you previously asked. 

Secretary Stevens. There was no mention that there was any such 
thing. After the meeting was over and I wound up my duties I went 
en home and I did not see Mr. Hensel again for, I should think, 
probably 10 days or possibly 2 weeks. 

Senator McCarthy. Could you try to answer the question, Mr. 
Secretary ? 

Will the reporter read it to the Secretary ? 

Secretary Ste\-ens. Do you mean did I speak to Mr. Hensel that 
night? The answer is "No." 

Senator McCarthy. I just want you to answer the question, Mr. 
Secretary. Will the reporter read it ? 

("^^Hiereupon, the question referred to was read by the reporter, as 
above recorded. ) 

Senator Mundt. Would you restate it, Senator McCarthy, in the 
interest of saving time? He may not understand what you mean by 
this matter. Would you restate it ? 

Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to. 

]Mr. Secretary, we are referring now to the day of February 24. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy, Do you recall that is the day you had the 
meeting with Senator Mundt and three other Senators ? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. I do. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you recall that was the day that you met 
with 21 people from the Pentagon after you left our meeting? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, the question is this: Is it correct that 
insofar as you know, either from your own personal knowledge or 
from reports from your staff, is it correct that that was the first day 
that there was ever brought to Mr. Hensel's attention the question of, 

46620*— 54— pt. 21 3 


or the possibility of the issuance of a report chcarging misconduct 
on the part of Mr, Cohn, Mr. Carr, and myself ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I had not heard anything about it. Sena- 
tor, and I don't know when Mr. Hensel found out about it. 

Senator McCarthy. When did you first have any knowledge or 
discussion about these charges against Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, in the form of the so-called chronology, 
I would say that was about the 4th or the 5th of March, when Mr. 
Brown came to talk to me. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, you have stated a number of 
times that this originated — maybe I am not using your exact words — 
something to that effect at the time Senator Potter wrote you a letter. 
Is it not a fact that the report or a report was in the hands of certain 
newsmen before Senator Potter wrote you this letter ? 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. The record plainly 
shows that Senator Potter did not write a letter to Secretary Stevens, 
but wrote a letter to the Secretary of Defense. Therefore, the Sena- 
tor's question is based upon an assumption of facts contrary to those 
in evidence and is improper. 

Senator Mundt. The point of order is sustained. The letter was 
written to the Secretary of Defense. We will let the Senator re- 
phrase his question and specify a date or something that will make it 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, you understand what letter I 
am referring to, don't you ? 

Secretary Stevens. Senator Potter's letter? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. So there was no deception caused by that let- 
ter, was there ? You understand what letter I am referring to. There 
was only one letter from Potter; was there not? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right, so far as I know. 

Senator McCarthy. My question is this: Before Senator Potter 
sent that letter, is it not true that the so-called report or parts of it 
were already in the hands of certain newsmen ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I don't know. Senator McCarthy. I 
didn't have the report myself, and I have no way of knowing how to 
answer your question. I certainly had no contact with any news 
people about it at any time. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you have any knowledge, any reason to 
believe that the report or parts of it were handed to certain newsmen 
before Mr. Potter wrote his letter ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know anything about that. Senator 
McCarthy. I have heard rumors about it. It has been mentioned 
here during the course of the hearings. But as far as I ani concerned, 
it has been rumor with me, and I have had no contact with any news 
people myself on it. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I make a suggestion, Mr. Secretary? I think 
we can shorten this point of inquiry. It is just this simple question, 
it is a new question : Did you have any reason to believe that certain 
parts of this report, so-called advance, had been released to any news- 
man or any newsmen, prior to Senator Potter's letter of inquiry to the 
Department of Defense? Did you have any reason to believe that 
part of it had been released to newsmen ? 


Secretary Ste^-ens. I heard rumors about it, Mr. Jenkins, and I 
tliink that there were some indications of it somewhere in the press 
at some time. 

Senator McCarthy. In fact, you know that parts of the report 
appeared in the press long before Mr. Potter ever wrote a letter, and 
that is one of the reasons why he wrote that letter ? Don't you know 
that ? 

Secretary Ste^'ens. I had absolutely nothing to do with writing the 

Senator McCarthy. You said you heard rumors that the report 
had been released prior to the request of the Senator. Have you tried 
to run down those rumors ? Have you discussed them with Mr. Adams 
to find out whether they were true or not ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have talked with Mr. Adams and others about 
the whole situation, of course, Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Just about these rumors. Let's stick to those 
for a while. Did you talk to Mr. Adams about the rumors that you 
heard to the effect that a report charging my staff with misconduct 
went to the press or sections of it went to certain elements in the press 
before it came to Mr. Potter or any of the Senators ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that, if I may say so, Mr. Adams is the 
one that ought to testify on that, because I honestly don't know what 
he did. 

Senator IVIundt. This question, Mr. Secretary, was whether you, 
personally, had taken any steps to run down the rumors. If you didn't, 
you can say "no." If you did, you can say "yes." And had talked to 

Secretary Ste\'ens. Yes ; I talked to Adams about it. 

Senator Mundt. Very well, proceed. 

Senator McCarthy. And what did Mr. Adams tell you ? 

Secretary Stevens. As I got it from Mr. Adams, there had been no 
copy of any part of any report that had been given out. I gathered 
the impression that he may have talked with somebody of the press. 
I don't know who. 

Senator McCarthy. Did he tell you who he talked to ? 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. I don't recall. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, he told you he talked to some- 
body in the press about this report ? 

Secretary Stevens. My recollection is that he said he had talked 
with somebody in the press, but he said that there was nothing that 
had been given out. That is about all I know about it. I think that 
Mr. Adams can give you all the chapter and verse on it. 

Senator McCarthy. Did he tell you at least one member of the 
press had helped him prepare the charges ? 

Secretary Stevens. He did not. 

Senator McCarthy. Has he ever told you that ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. And he told you that he had not given out any 
part of the report but he had talked to certain members of the press 
about the report before Potter wrote you ? 

Secretary Stevens. It seems to me he told me that he talked with 
one member of the press. Whether he talked to any more or not, I 
don't know. 


Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. 

Counsel ? 

Mr. Jexkins. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair is accumulating a few, but he will pass. 

Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. Pass. 

Senator Mundt. Any Senators to his right ? 

Senator Potter. I have one question. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Secretary, I don't know whether you are in 
a position to answer this question or not, but do you have knowledge 
that the release of this report was to be made to certain Members of 
the Congress, both in the House and in the Senate, most of whom 
were not on this committee ? Do you have knowledge that this report, 
irrespective of my letter, was to be sent to those Members of the 
Congress ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir; I do, Senator. 

Senator Potter. You have that knowledge ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Potter. This may be repetitious of the inquiry that just 
ensued. You are familiar with the fact that, as I stated before, an 
open secret existed that a report was in the process of being written 
or had been Avritten for several weeks prior to my letter? I believe 
you have testified to the fact that you had knowledge of that to a 
certain degree. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, Senator Potter, I was in the Far East 
for several of those weeks immediately preceding February 3. 

Senator Potter. Prior to my letter, you had heard that certain 
newspaper articles had been written concerning this so-called report ? 

Secretary Stevens. In a general way, yes, sir, I had heard rumors 
of it, and I think probably had seen something in the press referring 
to somebody's report. 

Senator Potter. That is all I have. 

Senator Mundt. Senators to my left ? 

Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Brtan. Mr. Chairman 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a point of order ? 

Mr. Bryan. No. I would like to ask the witness a question or two, 
if I may. If it is going to cause the committee any difficulty, I will 
hold it up. 

Senator Mundt. I was wondering if we are operating in reverse 
from the standpoint of expediting. I can appreciate your reason for 
asking it, I don't want to say no, but I am worrying about whether 
if we get a three-cornered counsel table here, I am wondering if it will 
shorten it. If he wants to ask questions, I will not hold against it. 

Mr. Bryan. I will withhold any questions at this point, in view 
of the Chair's desire for expedition, but will reserve the right to ask 
them in due course if the necessity should appear. That is in defer- 
ence to the Chair's desire to expedite. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. And if you desire to ask questions 
again, you may, and the request will be granted. 


Senator McCarthy? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say in view of the fact 
that Hensel's name has been brought into this, I will be glad to sur- 
render part of my 10 minutes to Mr. Bryan to ask any questions. 

Mr. Bryan. I will pass at this time. 

Senator Mundt. It is not going to help much because you have an 
unlimited number of 10 minute periods. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, you say that the only reason that 
you know about this report, the report on communism, was by way of 
discussion between Mr. Adams and one newspaperman, is that right? 

Secretary Ste^tens. I remember he mentioned that he had talked to 
one. "\"\niether he talked to more or not, I do not know. 

Senator McCarthy. Who is that one ? 

Secretary Ste^t^ns. I do not know. 

Senator McCarthy. Will you turn around and ask him? You said 
you had these men along with you to advise you when your memory 
does not serve you. 

Secretary Ste\t:ns. Mr. Adams is prepared to testify when he is 
called, Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Wouldn't you like to refresh your recollection 
now and find out who that newspaperman was ? 

Secretary Stevt:ns. I don't know who it is, and I don't see why I 
should testify on what he is in a position to testify on, and I am not 
in a position to testify on. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, I asked you what discussion he 
had with you. You said that he told you that he had given this 
information to one newsman. You say you cannot remember that 
newsman's name. 

Secretary Stevexs. No, I do not remember. 

Senator McCarthy. I merely ask you to turn to Mr. Adams and 
refresh your recollection so that you will know who that newsman 
was, so you can tell us. 

Secretary Stevens. I think it would be better to swear IVIr. Adams 
and let him testify on it of his own knowledge. It is all hearsay with 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenejns. Mr. Secretary, I think perhaps Senator McCarthy is 
entitled to ask you to confer with Mr. Adams and to tell him the 
name of the newsman to whom Mr. Adams talked with reference to 
these events or a part of these events. I see nothing wrong about it. 

(Secretary Stevens and Mr. Adams conferring.) 

Senator Mundt. The photographers will be seated. The photog- 
raphers will please be seated. 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Adams said the name was Joseph Alsop. 

Senator McCarthy. Did Mr. Adams teil you that Mr. Alsop had 
helped him prepare the charges ? 

Secretary Stevens. He did not. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, the day that we had the meet- 
ing, you and Senator Mundt and the other three Senators, we dis- 
cussed the difficulty being caused, the disruption of the orderly work 


of the committee by the constant leaks of erroneous stories and other 
stories from the Penta<2;on 

Secretary Stevens. What meeting are you referring to now, Senator ? 

Senator McCarthy. Pardon ? 

Secretary Stevens. What meeting are you referring to ? 

Senator McCarthy. The meeting 

Mr. Jenkins. February 24. 

Secretary Stevens. February 24. 

Senator McCarthy. At that time did you not agree that you would 
do everything you could to stop these unofficial leaks, leaks reflecting 
upon the committee, and that any releases would be official releases 
which you yourself approved? 

Secretary Stevens. Senator, I do not recall that particular conver- 
sation, but it is certainly in line with my policy because I do every- 
thing I can to prevent leaks. 

Senator McCarthy. You returned to the Pentagon that night, and 
after this meeting, or while it was going on, there was released to the 
press the statement that you would have made had you not made the 
agreement with us. Can you tell us who released that statement? 

Secretary Stevens. What statement is that? 

Senator McCarthy. Don't you recall? The night of the 24th. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Counsel Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. I regret to have to interpose so many objections, but 
the question presupposes the fact that a release was made on the night 
of the 24th. I suggest that the Senator first ask the Secretary whether 
or not such a release was made. As I recall, there is no proof what- 
ever that any release was made on the night of the 24th. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel is correct. The point of order is upheld. 
He suggests to Senator McCarthy first to establish the basis on which 
to ask the second question. 

Senator McCarthy. I think the point is well made. I assumed 
the Secretary knew all about that. It was an effort to cut down the 

Mr. Secretary, the night of the 24th, was there released to the press 
the statement which you had planned on making had you not made 
the agreement with Senator Mundt and myself, Senator Dirksen, and 
Senator Potter ? 

Secretary Ste\'ens. The facts are these: I had worked 

Senator McCarthy. Answer yes or no, will you? 

Senator Mundt. I think the witness is entitled to express the facts. 
I hope that they will include a yes or no to the question, but he might 
want to make some explanation. 

Senator McCarthy. May I make a suggestion, Mr, Chairman? I 
think the witness should, if possible, first tell us yes or no and then 
go ahead and explain the yes or no answer. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair inquire, is it possible for the Secre- 
tary to preface his remarks with a yes or no answer ? Is he in a position 
to answer that yes or no ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think it is very difficult to do. If the Chair 
insists, I will try. 

Senator Mundt. I don't want to insist if you can't do it. If you 
know wliether you issued one or didn't, then you should say yes or no 
and then proceed. 


Secretary STE^^NS. Then I will say "Yes," but • 

Senator Mundt. All riijhtj then proceed. 

Secretary Stevens. The facts are these: When the General 
Zwicker case came up, which involved the abuse by Senator McCarthy 
of an army g-eneral, I took violent exception to it, and I ordered 
General Zwicker not to appear at a hearino; of this committee which 
was going to take place at 10 o'clock the following Tuesday morning, 
the day after Washington's birthday. 

Senator McCarthy informed me that I would appear, which was 
O. K. with me. In the meanwhile, I went to work to prepare a state- 
ment that I would use when I came before this committee giving all the 
facts in the Zwicker case and stating why I had instructed him not to 
appear at that one hearing, because I felt that he had been abused on 
the 18th of February. 

That statement was just about complete at the time that we had the 
luncheon which Senator Mundt has referred to. When I went home 
that night some of my friends came in. We had the statement there. 
We looked it over. I remember that Arthur Hadley was there, of 
Kewsweek. There was a good deal of telephoning. I think Mr. 
Hadley testified himself that he called somebody, I don't know who 
it was, and read them about 3 paragraphs out of that statement which 
was a statement, as I recall it, of some 10 or 12 pages that I prepared 
to use at the hearing. There may have been other telephone calls 
made by Mr. Hadley or maybe other friends who were in there that 


As far as I am concerned, I didn't give out any statement myself, 
but those are the facts dealing with that situation and I hope that 
you understand the difficulty of putting a yes or no answer on it. But 
I did put the question "yes" and then ask for the right to explain. 

Senator Mundt. The "yes" applies to a portion of the statement, 
but not all of it. 

Secretary Stevens. I think about three paragraphs. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Were there any newsmen or columnists at the 
meeting of the 21 ? 

Secretary Stevens. I beg your pardon. Senator ? 

Senator McCarthy. This meeting of the 21 on the 24th of Feb- 
ruary were there any newsmen present ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Are you sure of that ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you have a diary written in your office so 
you can tell who was present ? 

Secretary Stevens. I read you the list of names of those who were 
present. I have already put that in the testimony. 

Senator McCarthy. The question is, do you have a diary or any- 
thing in your office showing who was present ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, I got this information from the records 
in the office. That is how I can tell you exactly who the 21 people 

Senator McCarthy. You had no trouble at all being sure that you 
are accurate about that ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 


Senator McCarthy. I am going to ask you to do this, Mr. Stevens, 
if you will, either this afternoon or night have someone check that 
diary again and if you want to revise your testimony any further I 
think you should be entitled to do that before it goes to the Justice 

Secretary Steahens. Very good. We will check it again. 

Senator McCarthy. Good. 

Mr. Chairman, I had not planned on going into the matter of 
Zwicker. However the Secretary has stated a number of times that 
Mr. Zwicker was abused, which is a statement that I cannot very well 
let pass unchallenged. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would suggest if he has something to 
say, in response to that, that when he resumes the stand and makes 
his preliminary statement, if he cares to, or under interrogation of 
his own counsel, which will be available to him, if he cares to answer 
that specific statement by the Secretary that w^ould be in order; not 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has made a state- 
ment here. I think I should have the right to cross-examine on that. 
The reason I wanted to inform the Chair of this is because I nor- 
mally would not feel this was the proper proceeding. 

We have the testimony of Mr. Zwicker here. Mr. Zwicker played 
a fairly important part, as the Chair knows, in the course of events 
which culminated in the charges made against Mr. Cohn. I would 
like to ask him a few questions, keeping them as brief as we can. 

Did you get an affidavit from Mr. Zwicker, Mr. Secretary? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I say this? 

Senator Mundt. Counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I regret very much that all parties who are testifying, 
all parties who are questioning, are from time to time making gratui- 
tous statements which constitute charges of fraud, of unfairness, and 
of abuse, and which are in nowise responsive to the questions asked. 
I observed in the Secretary's answer to Senator McCarthy's question, 
and I appreciate the fact that the Secretary undoubtedly is exhausted 
physically and mentally, that he made a statement which was in 
nowise responsive to the question asked, that Senator McCarthy had 
abused General Zwicker. That is a charge, perhaps a serious charge. 
Other charges have been made here which are more serious. 

I foresaw trouble at the time that statement was made. In view 
of the fact that Senator McCarthy has been accused of abusing Gen- 
eral Zwicker, it may be that the Senator is entitled, certainly to some 
extent, to go into the facts and have that question resolved as to 
whether or not he did abuse General Zwicker. 

May I make this suggestion : That the Secretary omit or delete or 
retract that statement about abuse. Perhaps that will avoid going 
into the question of whether or not such a thing did occur. I ap- 
preciate the fact that it has already gone out over the radio, television 
and all that sort of thing, but that is just what is occurring here, 
and that is, in my mind the principal thing that is unnecessarily 
prolonging these hearings. Am I right or am"l not right, Mr. Chair- 

Senator Mundt. I think the counsel is eminently right. I was a 
little bit worried when I heard that word "abuse." I know that in- 
volves another and a different controversy which has been running on 


between certain elements in the Army and certain elements on our com- 
mittee. But the Chair does hope we can keep these hearings to the 
particular issues in controversy. I recognize the merit of what the 
counsel says. If the charge is made that the Senator abused General 
Zwicker, natur; lly the Senator from Wisconsin would want to inter- 
rogate him about the charge. I don't know, Mr. Secretary, 1 am sure 
you didn't intend it as a charge at this time. You have said that in 
many other places and many other times. I think the country knows 
your position on the General Zwicker incident, and I think it knows 
Senator McCarthy's. I wonder if it would be satisfactory for the pur- 
pose of this record if we would just agree among ourselves that that 
was not considered to be a charge at this time, when it was brought into 
this controversy, that it was simply a restatement of the position you 
had stated ])reviously and I believe that Senator McCarthy responded 
to previously. 

Secretary Stevens. The reason, Mr. Chairman, that it came in was 
because there had to be — in answering Senator McCarthy's jn-evious 
questions involved the matter of what was this all about, why was I 
])reparing the statement, on what subject. And I thought, in order to 
be fully frank with the committee that I would give you all the facts 
connected with it. 

Senator Mundt. I understand that. 

Secretary Stevens. That is the reason it went in. As far as ex- 
pediting this hearing is concerned, I of course am anxious to do that, 
too, and willing to cooperate in any way that you suggest along that 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, could we resolve it this way : 
Could we assume for the purpose of this record in these hearings tliat 
there was no new element of charge in what the Secretary said about 
the abuse of General Zwicker? He has said that many times before, 
you have answered him many times before, and it is not a part of this 
particular controversy to determine whether or not such abuse has 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary has made the 
statement, I think, 7 or 8 times in the course of his testimony, that I 
abused the general. If that were the only thing in this case, I would 
say yes, let's not waste any time on it and make the Zwicker case a 
part of the record. 

However, I would like to question the Secretary as to what steps 
he took to notify Senators about the Zwicker case, what efforts he used 
in using Zwicker in trying to get us to call off the subpenas of those 
responsible in the Peress case. That makes it, I believe, a rather im- 
portant incident, and that is in our specifications also. 

Senator Mundt. Let us not go into a restatement of the Zwicker 
testimony and the Zwicker controversy, because, after all, we are not 
called upon to adjudicate that, I understood that you were going to 
refer to that part that was in your specifications. It is there, as to 
whether or not the case itself was used in an effort to get the hearings 
called off. That is quite different from going into whether or not you 

Senator McCarthy, Mr, Secretary, in previous discussions you 
understand the purpose of this line of inquiry now, I assume. Did 
you get an affidavit from General Zwicker at one tdme ? 

46620°— 54— pt. 21 i 


Secretary Stevens. I did. 

Senator McCarthy. How widely did you distribute that affidavit? 

Secretary Stevens, I didn't distribute it at all, that I recall. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, to who all did you send it to? 

Secretary Stevens. I didn't send it to anybody that I recall. I 
think that General Ridgway and Mr. Adams and probably 3 or 4 
other people might have seen it, but it certainly wasn't distributed. 

Senator McCarthy. When I talked to you about the Zwicker mat- 
ter originally, did I suggest to you that you just keep your feet on 
the ground and wait and read the testimony, that you had all weekend 
to do that, and we weren't calling Zwicker until the following Tues- 
day and that the testimonj^ would be sent to you ? 

Secretary Stevens. You were pretty emphatic, Senator, may I say. 

Senator McCarthy. The question is didn't I suggest to you before 
you went off half-cocked that you read the testimony, something to 
that effect ? Isn't that roughly our language ? You had it monitored, 
so I assume you know. 

Secretary Stevens. What is that? 

Senator McCarthy, You had it monitored, didn't you, so you 
should know ? 

Secretary Stevens. Tliat is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Have you got that monitored conversation ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't have it here. 

Senator McCarthy. But you can get it and refresh your recollec- 
tion, can't you? 

Secretary Stevens. I could. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask you this : Without using that moni- 
tored conversation, do you now know that I did suggest to you that 
you keep your feet on the ground, read the testimony, not get excited 
about it until you read the testimony, and talk to Mr. Rainville and 
talk to Mr. Jones, who were present at the time? I told you that you 
had all weekend to do that, that he wouldn't be called back until 
Tuesday, isn't that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. I recall part of that, not all of it, by any 

Senator McCarthy. Roughly that? 

Secretary Stevens, I know that you were. Senator, highly dis- 
pleased with the idea that I had ordered General Zwicker not to ap- 
pear at a hearing on the following Tuesday morning at 10 o'clock. 
And you so stated, and it was made very clear to me that you thought 
I was doing this wrong. 

Senator McCarthy, I pointed out to you that you had no right 
to order him not to appear, that he would have to appear, and that 
then, if he were asked any questions, the answers to which would vio- 
late Army regulations or violate any law, then he could refuse to 
answer, but he would have to honor the subpena. That is what I told 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think that was in the conversation. 

Senator McCarthy. Wasn't that roughly the conversation? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think so. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's get back to the affidavit; you got an affi- 
davit from Zwicker? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 


Senator McCarthy. That was sworn to, was it not? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you compare that affidavit with the sworn 
testimony later? 

Secretary Stevens. Not in detail. I turned my attention to the 
transcript when it was published. 

Senator McCarthy. You sent a copj of that, did you not, by air- 
mail to Colonel McCormick wlio was down in Florida at the time? 

Secretary Stevens. Sent a copy of what? 

Senator McCarthy. The affidavit. 

Secretary Stevens. I did not. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you call him and read the affidavit to 
him ? 

Secretary Stevens. I did not. 

Senator McCarthy. You are sure you didn't send a copy of the 

Secretary Stevens. I did not. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me <:?et it straioht so it is in the record. 
Did you not at any time send a copy of the Zwicker affidavit or 
a resume of it — please include that, a resume of it — to Colonel 

Secretary Stevens. I did not. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you take that affidavit to any of the Sen- 
ators who are sittin*; at this table? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I don't think I did. I went up and saw — 
coidd I make a brief statement to r!:et these facts on the table? 

Senator McCarthy. I would have no objection. 

Senator IIundt. May the Chair simply admonish you not to get 
into any new phases of controversy. If you make a statement about 
the controversy in issue that is all right. 

Secretary Stevens. I want to be responsible to Senator McCarthy's 
question. I don't want to prolong the thing, but I do want to give 
the facts on it. 

Senator Mundt. You may make the statement. 

Secretary Stevens. When I first heard about the Zwicker case on 
the morning of the 19th of February following the testimony on his 
appearance before the committee the previous afternoon, I came over 
on the Hill that afternoon. Senator McCarthy was out of town. I 
would have gone to him first if he had been there. I decided I would 
call on each member of this committee who was available, and I did 
so do, and every one was available except Senator Jackson and Sen- 
ator McCarthy. 

I explained to them what had happened in the Zwicker case hearing 
the previous day in New York. I advised the few Senators that I 
did not think I ought to be called upon to stand for the abuse of Army 
witnesses, that I felt this witness had been abused and I was not 
going to have hi)n ajijiear at the hearing on Tuesday. 

The reaction of the Senators, I think I could summarize by saying, 
was that if what I said was true, and I take it they didn't have any 
way of knowing at the time except what I was telling them, then 
they quite agreed that there should not be abuse of witnesses. There 
wasn't any argument about it. 

I came over to forewarn the members of the committee of the action 
I contemplated in regard to General Zwicker. I continued to try to 


get hold of Senator McCartliy on the plione. He Avas holding hear- 
ings in upper New York State and I reached him on Saturday morning 
about 9 :30, as I recall, and I explained to Senator McCarthy why I 
was calling him, that I had ordered General Zwicker not to appear, 
that I wanted him to have all the facts in the matter, that I had gone 
over on the Hill and had conferred individually with you Senators, 
and bringing him up to date. 

That was the conversation to which Senator McCartliy recently hn.s 
referred, and lie summarized the conversation, part of which I recall 
and part of w^Iiich I don't. 

Senator McCarthy. Now will you answer the question, Mr. Sec- 
retary ? 

The question was : Did you take the Zwicker affidavit to any of the 
Senators ? 

Secretary Stevexs. I don't think I had it at that time, Senator, so 
I am pretty sure I didn't have it with me. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you at any time take the Zwicker affidavit 
and show it to any Senators who are at this table or any other 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think I ever have. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. 

Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I have been asked, Mr. Secretary, to ask you to 
identify — is it Colonel McCormick? 

Senator McCartfiy. Colonel McCormick. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you identify him, please? I was busy and did 
not hear the question and did not lioar your answer in its entirety. 
I heard no reference to a Colonel McCormick but evidently you did 
refer to him. 

Senator McCarthy. I was referring to Colonel McCormick, the 
publisher of the Chicago Tribune. 

Mr. Jenkins. I see. Perhaps I should ask you that question, Sen- 
ator, instead of the Secretary. He is now identified as Colonel Mc- 
Cormick of the Chicago Tribune, is that correct ? The publisher of a 
newspaper. Very well, I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan, do you have any question? 
I presume not. 

Any Senators to my left? 

Senator McClellan. No questions. I went for some fresh air. 

Senator Mundt. If there are no questions by others, Senator Mc- 

Senator McCarthy. When I was asking you whether you sent the 
Zwicker affidavit to Colonel McCormick, you understood I was re- 
ferring to the publisher of the "Chicago Tribune"? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you call the Colonel or write him in regard 
to this? 

Secretary Stevens. I never did anything, Senator McCarthy, in 
regard to the affidavit whicli you are asking about. I sent Colonel 
McCormick a wire quoting the public release that I made from the 
Pentagon on Sunday, the 21st of February, and I sent him a telegram 
quoting the release. 

Senator McCarthy. Did the public release contain excerpts from 
this affidavit? 


Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. It did not. Did you call the colonel, also ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCutTHY. The only contact you had with him was this 
■wire ? 

Secretary Ste-\t:ns. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Where is the affidavit as of today ? 

Secretary STE^^NS. The affidavit is over in my office, I presume. 

Senator McCarthy. When you said you went down and you gave 
the Senators a story about wliat happened during the Zwicker testi- 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you first take the time to read the testi- 
mony ? 

Secretary STE^^ENs. It was not available to me. 

Senator McCarthy. Was this the day after Zwicker testified ? 

Secretary Stevens. Tliat is right. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you call anyone to try to get a copy ? 

Secretary Stevens. It was an executive session, and I had not seen 
it. It took place on Thursday afternoon, and this is Friday morning 
we are talking about. 

Senator JVIcCarthy, You know that all executive testimony was 
made available to you. The question is, before you went down to tell 
the Senators what happened, did you call anyone, the official re- 

Secretary Stevens. No, I did not call him. 

JVIr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I desire at this time to make a ruling 
which I hope the committee will accept. It is now my considerecl 
opinion that the merits of the General Zwicker case constitute a col- 
lateral issue. The Secretary of the Army has said that General 
Zwicker was abused. Senator McCarthy has said that he was not 
abused. I do not think it proper, after further consideration, for 
this committee to allow proof to be introduced with reference to the 
General Zwicker case and with reference to whether or not anything 
Senator McCarthy might have said to him or about him was proper 
or improper, my ruling being based upon my conclusion now that it is 
entirely a collateral matter and that we should proceed to investigate 
the pertinent issues involved in this investigation. 

Senator McCarthy. ]\Ir. Chairman, I may say that while I do not 
agree with the ruling, I do not think the Zwicker matter, this phase 
of it, is sufficiently important to take any more time. So I will not 
question the suggested ruling. 

Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that there is an affidavit made by 
General Zwicker, that the press release put out by Mr. Stevens' office 
would indicate that that affidavit is contra to the sworn testimony 
of General Zwicker, if this is true — and I have never seen the affidavit, 
you understand; all I have seen is the press release on it — then Mr. 
Zwicker signed a false affidavit. 

Mr. Jenkins. I object to that, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. 

Senator INIcCarthy. I am therefore asking that the affidavit be sup- 
plied to the committee. Let me make it very clear. I do not know 


what is in the affidavit. I have never seen it. I have asked Mr. 
Stevens for it repeatedly. All I can go on are the press releases. 

If he did sign a false affidavit, that would be one reason why the 
Secretary has been trying to call off these hearings, because we told 
him we were calling Mr. Zwicker back again to check with him on 
this particular matter of the affidavit. This would have to do with 
motive. So I ask the Chair to call for that affidavit and have the staff 
compare it with the sworn testimony. 

Mr. Jenkins. Are you calling for the affidavit, Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. I am asking 

Mr. Jenkins. That it be produced and introduced here in evidence ? 

Senator McCarthy. Not introduced, Mr. Jenkins, but produced and 
given to you so you and your staff can check the sworn affidavit with 
the sworn testimony. It bears upon the question of motive. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you do that, Mr. Secretary? We think that 
is entirely proper. 

Secretary Ste\^ns. Surely. I also would like to say that I have 
no recollection of Senator McCarthy's ever having asked me for that 

Senator Mundt. It will be produced and turned over to counsel. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, I think every one here has been 
talking about expediting the hearings. We spent a great deal of time 
talking about how we were going to expedite them. Your counsel 
the other day, and I understood he speaks for you; is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. My counsel ? 

Senator McCarthy. Your counsel speaks for you, does he? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. The other day, on page 1370, he said this : 

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

Taking this suggestion of his that he was willing to let the case 
rest on those two witnesses, at that time did you agree with him? 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, the Senator has read only a portion 

Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order ? 

Mr. Welch. I have, because if the Senator is going to refer to what 
I said, he should read all of it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr Welch, you are entitled to cross-examine on that 
point. I think the Senator's question is a full question. The ques- 
tion now is whether or not you represent him — of course, that is a 
foregone conclusion. You speak for him, that is a foregone conclu- 
sion, and he is asking your client now whether or not at that time, 
at the time you made that statement, the Secretary agreed with you 
or was willing for that formula to be adopted. I see nothing wrong 
with that. 

Mr. Welch. But, Mr. Chairman, the formula is 3 paragraphs long, 
not 1 paragraph. 

Mr. Jenkins. He read one sentence. You are entitled to further 

Senator ]\Iuxdt. If the counsel feels liis client cannot answer tlie 
question without the full three paragraphs, I suggest they be read, but 


it is not going to shorten the hearings. However, M'e want to have 
all the facts out. AVould you read the full statement of Mr. Welch ? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, could I suggest you have be- 
fore you page li'TO. If you feel I have done violence to the context, 
let me know, will you ? Have you got it before you ? 

Senator INIcClellan. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellax. We have been over this more than once and 
CA'eryone has expressed their opinions about it, and all of their opin- 
ions and views are in the record. Must we go over it again? The 
hearings are proceeding and this is not calculated to expedite them 
but only to bring out a repetition. 

Senator IVIcCartiit. I am not questioning the Secretary about this. 

Senator Mundt. I don't believe the Secretary has been asked any 
questions about it. The rest of us engaged in a roundtable colloquy 
one day, but the Secretary did not attend the meeting. He was in- 
vited but did not attend. 

< Senator McClellan. His attorney has spoken for him. Are we 
going to question everybody whether they agree with their attorney, 
whether the attorney is authorized to speak for them ? Are we going 
to drag these hearings out to that extent ? We accept counsel as his 
attorney. His attorney has spoken for him and this has been gone 
over in the record, over and over again. It can do nothing but clelay 
the hearings. It will throw no light on any issue before this com- 
mittee. I object to it, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I say this : As best I remember, 
this is the first time that the Secretary has been asked whether or not 
he assented or consented to such a formula. I can see no possible 
point in interrogating the Secretary with reference to that matter 
except to shed light on the frame of mind of the Secretary as to 
whether or not he desires to present all of his evidence or have his 
evidence at the conclusion of his testimony, and whether or not he 
desires all of the evidence on the Senator's side to be presented or 
would be content for only a part of it. 

The only possible relevancy of it would be on the question of motive 
or the frame of mind of the Secretary. And for that purpose only, it 
seems to me, and I do believe and hold that the Senator is entitled 
to ask that one simple question, get an answer from the Secretary, and 
not pursue that matter any further. 

Senator Syimington. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Jenkins, I testified the other day that I 
wanted all the facts in this case brought out from all the witnesses 
and I stand on that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir. 

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

Mr. Jenkins. I think he has answered the question now and I don't 
think it should be pursued any further. He wants all of the evidence 
on both sides introduced. 

As far as counsel for the committee is concerned, I am in accord 
with you, Mr. Secretary. 


Secretary Stevens. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Mundt. A point of order has been raised by Senator 

Senator Symington. I believe that the point of order may have 
been disposed of. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say the reason why I 
propose to ask the Secretary questions on this point is for this reason : 
As the Chair knows, the principal contention made by me, and Mr. 
Cohn and Mr. Carr, is that the two men in the military, the civilians, 
Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams, have followed a deliberate course of 
trying to keep this committee occupied in this hearing, starting in 
the first place with making their charges and now a continuation of 
it. I propose to go into this, Mr. Chairman, to show that as of now, 
Mr. Welch objects to Saturday hearings, to expedite the hearings, 
that there was bad faith at the time Mr. Welch made this original 
oifer, that he accepted — let me finish — that we accepted that offer. 

I didn't make it, but we accepted that. He said he was speaking 
for the Secretary. The Secretary did not attend the meeting. I 
would like to know why the change of heart overnight in order to 
prolong the hearing. 

If that were a reasonable — let me finish, please — I am not saying 
that it was or was not, but if that were a reasonable agreement, made 
the night before, the offer by Mr. Welch, the acceptance by me, in 
fact I went a step further and I said I would dismiss Mr. Stevens from 
the stand and take it myself the following morning if that were a 
good way of disposing of the matter that night. I would like to 
know who decided between 6 o'clock at night and 9 : 30 the next morn- 
ing that they should not follow that course proposed by Mr. Welch, 
but should follow a course that will prolong the hearings indefinitely. 

I think that sheds light upon the other issues. But if the Chair 
doesn't agree, I will not pursue that any further. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that the Secretary has answered 
the Senator's question, and Mr. Welch has a right to withdraw any 
offer that he might have made, and we do not believe it is a proper 
function for the committee to investigate as to any reasons which 
might have changed his mind, if change his mind he did. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard upon that? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. In the interest of fairness. Senator McCarthy now 
introduced a new thought. It is my opinion that Senator McCarthy — 
if I may, I will ask the question. 

Mr. Secretary, this is the thought, apparently, motivating the last 
question by Senator McCarthy, and I will ask it. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to raise a point 
of order. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests that you wait until the counsel 
asks the question. 

Senator Symington. I would like to raise it now, I would like to 
raise it before the counsel's question, not against it. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I believe that if a question is 
asked on part of the evidence which has been read by Senator Mc 


Carthy, and the counsel for the Secretary of the Army says that in 
effect it has been taken out of context because it is not the entire story, 
then prior to the question being rephrased, and thereupon reasked 
the Secretary of the Army, the counsel for the Secretary of the Array 
should have the right to present the details of the case as he sees it 
by reading all the testimony he gave bearing on the question and not 
having read just part of it by the Senator from Wisconsin. 

Senator Mundt. If the question of counsel deals with the quotation 
that the Senator refers to, the Chair will uphold his point of order 
and suggest that it be read in full. But the Chair cannot rule on the 
points of order of a question which has not yet been asked. You may 
ask the question, 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, you have been asked and I now ask, 
whether or not you have sought to prolong this hearing for the pur- 
pose of curbing or curtailing the efforts of Senator McCarthy and 
his staff in their investigations of Communists and infiltration of 
Communists in the Army and particularly whether or not you may 
have, and I do not suggest that you have or have not, repudiated any 
agreement made by jour attorneys, looking to the shortening or ter- 
mination of this hearing, and for the purpose expressed in the first 
part of my question. Do I make it clear ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir, and the answer is positively not. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right. 

Senator Mundt. The answer is in the negative. The Senator from 
Wisconsin will proceed on some other line of interrogatory. 

Senator McCartht. I did not understand the answer. You say, 
no, you did not repudiate Welch's agreement. 

Secretary Stevens. Positively not. 

Senator McCarthy. Then I would like to know, did he discuss the 
agreement with you ? 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, I would like a firm rule from the Chair 
that this should be inquired into no further. It was stated in this 
room by me that we have set our hands to the plow to plow the long, 
hard furrow. I suggest that if these hearings are moving slowly, 
it is because of the tactics of the Senator from Wisconsin at the far 
end of the table. For days I have passed when I have been given 
the opportunity to ask questions. For days the committee members 
have passed when given that opportunity. I suggest that it is time 
the country heard this simple thought: that the Senator is now en- 
gaged in a filibuster by the device of cross examination. 

Senator Mundt. Now you are testifying, Mr. Welch, not raising a 
point of order. 

Senator McCartht. Mr. Chairman, I think this is an important 
question, the repudiation of the agreement. I do not question Mr. 
Welch's right to repudiate it. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, there was no agreement, and every 
member of this committee knows there was no agreement. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins. 

!Mr. Jenkins. The Secretary has been asked the one question only 
with respect to any alleged repudiation of the agreement that could 
possibly be germane to the issues in this controversy; to wit, did he 
or not repudiate an agreement, and I do not imply that he did or did 


not, for the purpose of prolonging this inquiry, and thus curbing or 
hamstringing the efforts of Senator McCarthy in his quest of Com- 
munists or subversives. His answer was definitely in the negative, 
and I think that the inquiry should now be entirely discontinued on 
that subject and pass to another subject. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that is an entirely proper posi- 
tion. The Senator from Wisconsin has been permitted to ask relevant 
questions in that connection, and the Chair has stated that the com- 
mittee has no disposition to place counsel under oath for any purposes 
involving what may be his type and suggestion for conducting the 
hearing. He has a right to his own opinion. 

Senator McCARTHr. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Stevens has stated in 
answer to IMr, Jenkins' question that he did not repudiate the agree- 
ment to shorten the hearings. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. I think I am entitled to ask him whether or not 
he discussed that agreement with counsel, w^hether counsel had taken 
it upon himself to do it. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish, please. 

Mr. Chairman, I think this is very important because that decision, 
whether it was wisely or unwisely made, will prolong the hearing 
several months. I think that we should find out when the Secretary 
says he did not repudiate the agreement — I would like to know who 
did, whether there was a change of heart on the part of Mr. Welch. 
I think that is a perfectly proper line of inquiry. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan has a point of order. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I remember a little elementary 
rule of law. Conversations and information gained or expressed as 
between client and attorney are privileged. Am I correct, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Entirely so, Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. Let's proceed with the hearing. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will consequently uphold the point of 
order. I think it is very analogous to the one he upheld yesterday 
about the relationship between investigators and informants. 

You will proceed. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, if Mr. Stevens wants to claim 
the privilege, he is entitled to do it, but I do not believe that the privi- 
lege can be accorded him unless he claims it any more than you can 
afford a fifth amendment privilege. I think it is a very important 
question if he discussed this agreement with Mr. Welch. If he wants 
to claim the privilege, all right. 

Senator Jackson. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I have been 
sitting here listening to the agreement. If we are going into this, I 
want to ask counsel about another elementary rule of law. I suggest 
that we proceed, then, if we are going to follow down this diverse 
track, away off the track, to establish first whether agreement existed. 
I think that is proper. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is that a question ? 

Senator Jackson. It is a point of order directed to the question. 

Mr. Jenkins. It is a question to me? 

Senator Jackson. Yes. 


Mr. Jenkins. Senator Jackson, the record speaks for itself. The 
record is in writing in a transcript. ^ I do not feel that it is my 
prerogative to interpret it. This committee must do so. 

Senator Jackson. My only point is, I assume if there are any 
agreements, the committee has to pass on them. I just wonder what 
the agrreement is. It is a unilateral statement, but isn't there some 
rule about acceptance m contracts s 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator Jackson, answering that, Senator McCarthy 
alleges that Mr. Welch made an agreement, made a proposition for the 
shortening or curtailment or the discontinuance of this hearing. 
Senator McCarthy further alleges that he accepted it, that an agree- 
ment was made. As I understand it, Mr. Welch denies that. Any 
further inquiry with respect to that matter is wholly immaterial and 
an unnecessary consumption of time. 

Have I made myself clear, Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. I just want to say, of course the committee de- 
cides on the approval of agreements, I hope. Otherwise, we would 
not know what is going on. Counsel cannot decide that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Certainly counsel cannot decide. 

Senator Jackson. I meant you as counsel, but I mean counsel for 
the Army. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy will proceed in order. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, I would like to hand to you a 
paper with six names on it. 

Mr. Counsel, Mr. Chairman, I am handing the Secretary a list of 
six named individuals who are 

Senator Mundt. The Chair cannot hear the Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. I just handed the Secretary a list of six names, 
individuals in the Pentagon, according to Pentagon authority, who 
have been ordered produced before the day the charges were made 
public against Mr. Cohn, myself, and Mr. Carr. I think it would be 
improper to have those names made public at this time. The rule of 
the committee has been that names in executive session named are not 
made public until they are allowed to appear. Hence, the reason for 
handing him the names and not reading them off. 

Mr. Stevens, you told us the other day that one of the reasons you 
wanted the hearing suspended was so that you could go ahead yourself 
and do the job of exposure. 

Senator Mundt. We are talking now Mr. Secretary, I believe, about 
the hearings at Fort Monmouth. Let us be sure about that. Is that 
right ? Not the hearings here. 

Senator McCarthy. Let us rephrase it. Was it your testimony 
that you wanted all hearings in Communist infiltration in the Army 
called off so you could do the job yourself? 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, this must have been gone into at least 
six times. I don't think it need be gone over again. I call for a ruling 
from the chair. 

Senator Mundt. I think that question has been asked and answered 
and will b? found in the record. The point of order is upheld. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn will proceed. 


Mr. ConN. Mr. Secretary, is it not a fact that the day before this 
report was issued a list was sent over to Mr. Adams to your knowledge, 
containing the names of additional Communists ? 

I had better withdraw that and say : A list was communicated to 
Mr. Adams either in writing or telephonically containing six names 
of Communists in the military and that we asked for the production 
of those people before this subcommittee? 

Mr. AVelch. Mr. Chairman, I do not understand what Mr. Cohn 
refers to as this report. Do you mean 

Mr. CoHN. I am referring to the Army events making charges 
against Senator McCarthy, Mr. Carr, and myself, which have brought 
to a halt the work of our committee and occasioned the presence of 
all of us in this room, sir. The report of March 11, 1954, purporting 
to be a chronological account of events, some 34 pages long. That 
is the matter to which I refer. 

My question to tlie Secretary, Mr. Welch, is whether or not he knows 
that the day before that report was released the Secretary's office 
was asked to produce before this committee six additional Commu- 
nists then currently in the military ? 

That is my question to the Secertary. 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Adams informs me that there was a request 
made in connection with six people. I don't know whether they were 
Communists or not. 

]\Ir. CoHN". Now, sir, my next question to you is this, Mr. Secretary : 
Did Mr. Adams likewise inform you that he had told Mr. Carr that, 
if we would stop the hearings and call no more of these Communists 
or people who had covered them up, this report would not be issued? 

Secretary Stevens. I never heard any such thing. 

Mr. CoHN. Did Mr. Adams tell you he had called Mr. Carr and 
invited him to lunch and taken him to the Methodist Club for lunch 
a few days before this report was issued ? 

Secretary Stevens. I should think that you would ask Mr. Adams 
these questions. I don't know about them. 

Mr. CoHN. Sir, I am inquiring about very important matters 

Secretary Stevens. I know, but I don't know about them. Why 
don't you ask the witness ? 

Senator Mundt. The witness has said he does not know about them. 

Mr. Jenkins. The question is. Did Mr. Adams tell you ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have no recollection of Mr. Adams telling 
me that. 

JMr. CoiiN. All right, sir. 

Is it your testimony here, and see if I understand this, that you 
have no recollection of Mr. Adams telling you of a luncheon meeting 
with Mr. Frank Carr of our staff a few days before this report was 
issued ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't remember that at all. 

Mr. CoHN. You don't remember it ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, I do not recall. 

Mr. CoHN. If Mr. Adams made any representations at that luncheon 
meeting, was he acting with your permission or without your per- 

Secretary Stevens. He was acting on his own. 


]Mr. CoHX. He was acting strictly on his own? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Mr. CoiiN. In other words, he would have had no authority from 
you to say that if our hearings were stopped and we asked for no 
more Communists in the Army or people who covered them up, a 
report which would be embarrassing to us would not be issued ? 

Secretary Stevens. He certainly would have no such authority to 
speak for me in that way at any time at any place in any lunch room. 

Mr. CoiiN. I see, andhe did not discuss with you any communica- 
tion with Mr. Carr, myself, or Senator McCarthy on this ground ; is 
that right ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have answered that question. 

Mr. ConN. I see. I just wanted to get that very clear sir, in case 
there is contrary testimony. 

Secretary Stevens. I have answered that. 

Mr. CoiiN. Very well. 

Xow, sir, the next question is this : Have you had a chance to con- 
fer with your counsel and have they been able to advise you whether 
there is any provision in the laws of this land which gives immunity 
from a subpeona to members of the loyalty board of your office? 

Mr. "Welch. Mr. Chairman, that I think was the subject of a memo- 
randum — that was the subject of a memorandum which I believe has 
been delivered to Mr. Cohn this morning. 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir, and I find in that memorandum not one cita- 
tion or word indicating that there is any such immunity from response 
to subpena and that is why, having examined that memorandum I am 
now, if I may, Mr, Chairman, proceeding to question the Secretary 
on this field. 

Senator JSIundt. Are you asking that the memorandum be made 
part of the record ? 

Mr. CoHN. That is certainly agreeable with me. 

Senator Mundt. It will be made a part of the record and marked 
with the proper exhibit number. 

(The document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 14" and will 
be found in the appendix on p. 822.) 

Senator Mdndt. You may proceed with your questioning, Mr. Cohn. 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, just for a point of information, 
there was a question raised or a statement made — I am just trying to 
get this clear — by Mr. Cohn, that there were no citations in the 

Mr. Cohn. I say, Mr. Jackson, sir, that I read this memorandum 
and I see in there not one citation giving immimity from physically 
responding to a subpena, which was my question to a member of a 
loyalty board. If I am wrong, sir, I would like to be corrected. 

Senator Jackson. I am referring to citation on page 4. I have not 
read the language. 

Mr. Cohn. I see no citations in there. 

Senator Jackson. If there are no citations, I suppose there could 
not be any, if there are no cases available. 

Mr. Cohn. I would think there could not be, because none such 

Senator Jackson. Why would the question be asked if there are no 
citations ? 


Senator Mundt. Are yon raising a point of order? 

Senator Jackson. The question was most confusing and maybe 
Mr. Colm can clarify it. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would suggest to Mr. Cohn that he read 
the final paragraph on page 5 in which the Attorney General seems to 
summarize his position, and ask Mr. Stevens if that is correct or not. 

Mr. CoiiN. Do I understand this is from the Attorney General ? I 
thought it was from Mr. Welch. 

Senator Mundt. I don't know who submitted it, but whoever sub- 
mitted it it seems to be summarized in tlie final paragraph. 

Mr. CopiN. Is this from the Attorney General ? 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, I simply do not know. It is not from Welch. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Secretary, from whom did you get it and who 
prepared it? 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, I better say at the outset that this docu- 
ment was given to me by one of Mr. Welch's assistants, in case Mr. 
Welch is going to make charges about fraudulent charges. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, there is no such charge. Mr. Cohn 
asked to have a memorandum prepared. It was prepared by lawyers 
at the Pentagon. I am trying the lawsuit and I don't study law at 

Senator Mundt. I think the Chair explained at the time the memo- 
randum was requested that probably Mr. Welch and Mr. St. Clair 
were not the proper ones to do it, but I think the committee is entitled 
to know who did it. 

Secretary Stevens. I don't actually know. I assume it was pre- 
pared in the office of the Department Counsel. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I make a suggestion? I think 
it would be well to get back to the original question, which seems to be 
simple and proper, and it is this: Have you, Mr. Secretary, had an 
opportunity to confer with your counsel and receive advice from them 
as to whether or not there were any directives or laws prohibiting 
the issuance of a subpena to be served upon a member of a loyalty 
board ? That is a simple question. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir; I have not had that opportunity. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you have received no advice from your counsel 
as to whether or not there is such a directive or is such a prohibitory 
law. Is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. I haven't even seen this memorandum. We 
have tried to prepare it and get it in here. I know that this is a sub- 
ject in which the Attorney General has a great deal of interest. And 
the matter has been given to him. 

Mr. Jenkins. Was not that your question, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir; and, Mr. Jenkins, I might say this,'sir, I would 
very much like, if I may, to respond to Senator Jackson's question. 
I think he is entitled to an answer to that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cohn asked a question of the Secretary, and the 
Secretary has given a direct answer. I am not trying to cut off any- 
body from any further questioning, but that question has been 

Senator Mundt. I think Senator Jackson did ask Mr. Cohn a ques- 
tion mider a point of order? 

Mr. Cohn. I think Senator Jackson is entitled to an answer and 
I hope I can give him one. 


Senator Jackson, the purpose of our asking these questions and the 
purpose of my raising this point is this : 

I fully agree that there is no citation in the law of this land which 
gives immunity from response to a snbpena to members of the loyalty 
board. It is our theory, and we hope we will prove it rather rapidly, 
that the reason that Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams tried to stop us from 
calling members of the loyalty board, was because the appearance of 
those members of the board would prove personally embarrassing 
to Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams, in that it would show that members, 
some members of this board themselves, had records of Communist- 
front activity and had been consistently voting to clear Communists. 

Now, that is the purpose of this line of interrogation. It is cited 
in our specifications and it is one of our very strongest charges 

Mr. Jenkins. The Chair has held with you that you are entitled 
to pui-sue that, Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. CoHN. I will now ask you, Mr. Secretary, if you can tell us of 
any regulation in the law of this land which would give legal authority 
to the request by yourself and Mr. Adams that members of the loyalty 
board be held immune from physical response to subpena? 

IMr. Welch. Objection. That calls for a conclusion of law, Mr. 

Senator Mundt. I am sorry. The Chair did not get the question. 
Will the reporter repeat the question ? 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Senator Mundt. That is a perfectly proper question. You may 
not be able to answer it. He is not a lawyer, and he can say he does 
not have the information, if he doesn't have it. 

Secretary Stevens. I am not a lawyer and do not have the informa- 
tion. But I would like to restate that this matter of the loyalty board 
is something in which the Attorney General has a great interest. 

Mr. Jenkins. The question is, Do you know of any regulation ; do 
you know of any regulation governing whether or not a member of a 
loyalty board is immune from answering a subpena to appear before 
the McCarthy committee ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't personally know about that, but not 
being a lawyer, sir, I just don't feel competent to answer it. 

Mr. Jenkins. That appears to be an answer to the question. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Jenkins, I might say, sir, we can move right on if I 
can get a stipulation from Mr. Welch or any other counsel represent- 
ing Mr. Stevens that there is no such provision in the law of this land, 
and I believe that is the indisputable fact. 

Senator Mundt. I do not believe that Mr. Welch — I say this with 
all respect — I do not believe he is a Washington lawyer or a War De- 
partment lawyer, and I don't see how he could give you a curbstone 
opinion unless he is a lot wiser than I think he is, about all of the laws 
dealing with the War Department. You can try if you want to. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, your appraisal of Mr. W'elch is very 

Senator Mundt. I think if you are going to direct questions to 
counsel for the Army about Army regulations, that Mr. Stevens 
would have the right to confer with the military counsel, the regular 
established military counsel. 


Mr. CoHN. IMr. Clmirman, this was the Avliole purpose of our de- 
ferriii<? this inquiry for 2 or 3 days, to give Mr. Stevens the oppor- 
tunity to get tliis information, so that we can show that there was no 
legal authority for his attempts to stop us from calling the members 
of the board and go on to show, sir, that he and Mr. Adams tried to 
stop us from calling these members for other reasons. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I state this. As I remember, 
the Secretary has stated that he did advise members of the loyalty 
board not to res]:)ond to his subpena. Mr. Cohn's theory is that the 
McCarthy committee had a right to subpena members of the loyalty 
l)oard and have them appear and testify. Mr. Secretary's position 
was that perhaps it was violative of a directive or of a law. That, 
therefore, is a legitimate point of inquiry and it is open to proof, and 
Mr. Colin or Senator McCarthy would be entitled to proof whether 
or not there was such a directive or such a law. That is susceptible 
of proof by others other than the Secretary. The Secretary has 
answered that he knows of no such restrictions himself or such laws 
himself, and I suggest that since he has no knowledge of it, counsel 
for the McCarthy committee resort to other means of establishing 
that fact. 

Mr. CoiiN. I will proceed to do that right now, Mr. Jenkins. I 
think that has answered my ])oint. 

]Mr, Secretary, as Mr. Jenkins has stated, if you now advise us that 
you know of no such regulation or law, would you please tell us what 
occasioned you in your attempts to stop this committee from subpena- 
ing members of the loyalty board which cleared Communists ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have testified, Mr. Cohn, that the Attorney 
General is very much interested in this matter. 

Mr. CoHN. We are very much interested in it, too, Mr. Chairman, 
if this board cleared Connnunists. The question is not whether the 
Attorney General is interested in it. The question is why Mr. Stevens 
tried to get us to stop our hearings on members of the loyalty boards. 

Senator Symington. May I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman ? 

The question, Mr. Secretary, you are not responsive to the question. 
Twice you have said that the Attorney General was interested in the 
matter, but you haven't said why. What do you mean by the answer 
that you just made? What are you getting at? 

Secretary Stevens. The loyalty boards for all of these departments, 
Senator Symington, presumably must have some general guidelines 
under which they operate. 

Senator Stmington. Are you implying that you are operating now 
on a guideline from the Attorney General ? 

Senator McCarthy. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. By what 
rule does Mr. Symington interfere wuth the questioning by Mr. Cohn ? 

Senator Mundt. The point of order is well taken. 

It is due to the leniency of the Chair. 

Senator Symington. I would like an answer from Mr. Cohn. 
^ Mr. Cohn. I would be very happy to yield a few minutes of my 

Senator Jackson. I think a precedent has been established for 
interrupting witnesses. 

Mr. Cohn. I will be very happy to yield all the rest of my time to 
Senator Symington. 


Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that if we engage in the prac- 
tice of yielding, we will prolong the hearings and not shorten tneni. 
If such a precedent has oeen established, I hope it "will be quickly- 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator Symington might have been out of order, 
but he was asking the very question that had occurred to counsel and 
I think they are pertinent and may I repeat the question ? 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cohn's question was this, Mr. Secretary, which 
I regard as a simple question, and that is it is our understanding that 
you have stated that you know you have no personal knowledge of 
any Presidential or other character of directive or any law rendering 
members of the loyalty board immune from answering a subpena 
issued by the McCarthy committee. We start out with that as a 

Then, his question is that if those are the facts what was your justi- 
fication, what was your reason for advising the members of the loyalty 
board not to respond to a subpena ? 

Have I correctly stated your question ? 

Mr. CoHN. I will certainly take that, Mr. Jenkins. You probably 
stated it better. 

Mr. Jenkins. Assuming that you did not know — and Senator 
Symington asked you this — that you did not know that there was a 
prohibitive directive or law and assuming that you had advised a 
member or members of the loyalty board not to appear, why did 
you do that ? 

Secretary Ste-\^ns. I didn't, as I recall it, personally take any 
action in regard to this matter. It is all more or less secondhand 
with me. We can produce testimony that will be firsthand for you 
and would like to do so. But I do know that we are trying to coordi- 
nate our policy in the Department of the Army through the Attorney 
General with the policies affecting all loyalty boards in all depart- 
ments, and we have been guided accordingly. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, I will ask it another way : Why did 
you or any member under your command, any of the personnel in your 
command, issue an order to any member of the loyalty board not to 
respond to such a subpena? 

Secretary Stevens. I thought I answered that, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. If that is your answer, then I have no further 

Secretary Steatens. Yes, it is. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. CoHN. Is it my time again, sir? 

Senator Mundt. I think so. Nobody has advised the Chair the 
time is up. 

Mr. CoHN. Senator, do you want any time ? 

Senator Symington. I appreciate that very much, counsel. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will repeat we will not follow the sen- 
atorial practice of yielding time. 

Mr. Cohn. Very well. 

Mr. Stevens, is it not a fact, sir, that from the very early stages of 
our investigation, going back to October, you felt it would be per- 
sonally embarrassing to you if this committee exposed the fact that 
members of your loyalty board had been clearing Communists ? 


Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you not ever make such a statement to Senator 
McCarthy or to me? 

Secretary Stevens. I never did. 

Mr. CoiiN. Did you have any telephone conversations with me about 
that from your home? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall any. 

Mr. CoiiN. Do you recall, sir, having any telephone conversations 
with me from your home concerning possible embarrassment to you 
in the calling of a member or members of the loyalty board which 
had cleared Communists? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not recall that. 

Mr. ConN. Do you recall any telephone conversations you had with 
me from your home concerning the calling of members of the loyalty 
board and the manner it would be treated in the press ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that, Mr. Cohn. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn's time has expired. Does counsel have 

Mr. Jenkins. No further questions. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has one he would like to ask in line 
with this memorandum which has been entered as an exhibit coming 
from the legal department of the War Department. I would like to 
read, Mr. Secretary, this final paragraph. I think this will clear it 
up. Then I will ask you to have your regular legal talent, as divorced 
from your special legal talent for these hearings, your regular legal 
talent in the War Department at the Pentagon find any flaw, if there 
be one, with this paragraph, because if this paragraph is correct as 
quoted from your memoranclum, it seems to me it answers the ques- 
tions Mr. Cohn has been asking. The final paragraph, page five : 

To this statement, Mr. Brownell added one qualification. He — 

meaning Brownell — 

stated that if a congressional committee indicated a • bona fide intention to 
interrogate security board members about fraud or misconduct in the perform- 
ance of their official duties, the board members would probably be required to 
respond to subpenas, although they should be instructed to refuse to answer 
any question relating to their participation in the loyalty program. 

Mr. CoiiN. We will take that statement. 

Senator Mundt. You have a copy of this, I presume. I think you 
should have your legal department find out whether that does correctly 
summarize the situation or not, and then the committee will know and 
we can go on with expediting the hearings. 

Counsel would like to call to the stand Mr. Collier. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Bob Collier, if that is satisfactory. 

Senator Mundt. For the purpose of reading the Attorney General's 
report on the legality of the procedure. You may step down, Mr. 
Stevens, and Mr. Collier will take the stand. 

We will immediately recess, the Chair will add, after the reading 
of the letter from the Attorney General, or the exchange of corre- 
spondence with the Attorney General. 

Mr. Collier was unsworn yesterday, and he will have to be sworn 
again. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are about to give will 


be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 

Mr. Collier. I do. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins. 


Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask at this time that 
my assistant counsel, Mr. Prewitt, interrogate the witness. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Tom Prewitt will take over as counsel for the 
committee and interrogate Mr. Collier. 

Mr. Prew^itt. Mr. Collier, at the instance of the committee, did you 
on yesterday deliver the two and one-quarter page reported copy of a 
memorandum from the Federal Bureau of Investigation to the office 
of ]Mr. Herbert Brownell, with the request that he give this committee 
an opinion on the question of whether or not that information could 
be released publicly ? 

Mr. Collier. I did. At approximately 5:15 yesterday afternoon, 
I delivered a letter from Senator Mundt together with the two and 
one-quarter page document, which I personally handed to Mr. Kobert 
Minor, Assistant to the Deputy Attorney General. 

Mr. Prewitt. Do you have an opinion in writing from Mr. 
Brownell ? 

Mr. Collier. I do. It was delivered at approximately 12 o'clock 

Mr. Prewitt. Will you read it? 

Mr. Collier. This is a letter 

Senator McCarthy. I wonder if we can first have Mr. Mundt's 
letter so we can understand what the answer is. 

Senator Mundt. You may read my letter of transmittal first. 

Mr. Collier. Mr. Prewitt has that. 

Mv. Prewitt. This letter is dated May 5, 1954, and addressed to the 
Honorable Herbert Brownell, Jr., United States Attorney General, 
Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. 

As Cbairman of the Special Investigating Subcommittee and by its direction, 
I request your opinion as to whether or not the contents or any part thereof can 
be released by tliis committee to the public of the following documents : 

1. A 15-page interdepartmental memorandum dated January 26, 1951, from 
John Edgar Hoover, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation, to Major General 
A. R. Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2. Department of the Army, The Penta- 
gon, Washington, D. C. — Subject : Aaron Hyman Coleman, Espionage — R. This 
document was classified "Confidential." 

2. A 2ii-page letter dated January 26, 1951, from J. Edgar Hoover, Director, 
to Major General Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army, 
Washington, D. C. This document was classified "Personal and Confidential." 
This document was furnished to the committee on May 4 by Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy and is being furnished to you for your perusal by the bearer of this 
letter, Mr. Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel of the Special Investigating 

Your expeditious attention to this matter will indeed be appreciated. 
With best wishes and kindest personal regards, I am 

Cordially yours. 
Signed "Karl E. Mundt." 

(The above letter was marked "Exhibit No. 15.") 

Mr. Collier. The Communication from the Attorney General is on 


the letterhead of the Office of tlie Attorney General, Washington, D. C., 
dated May 6, 1954 : 

Hon. Karl E. Mundt, 

United States Senate, Washington, D. C. 

My Dear Senator : Upon receipt of your letter of May 5, 1 inquired concerning 
the lif teen-page memorandum referred to tlierein, and was advised that under 
date of January 26, 1951, a fifteen-page memorandum was addressed to iMa.ior 
General A. R. Boiling, Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, with a copy to Major 
General Joseph F. Carroll, Director, Special Investigations, the Inspector Gen- 
eral, USAF, by Mr. J. ISdgar Hoover, Director of the FBI. This memorandum 
is classified "Confidential", which means, under existing law that its contents 
must not be disclosed "in the l>est interests of the national security." It was 
delivered by hand to the appropriate officials of the Air Force and the Army. 

I inquired further to determine whether or not the Federal Bureau of Investi- 
gation or any person on its behalf had ever authorized the delivery of this 
memorandum to others and was advised that the FBI has never released or 
authorized the release of the memorandum or any portion thereof to anyone 
except as above stated. 

The question as to whetlier or not this memorandum can now be declassified 
and made public has been presented to me by your letter. 

xhe FBI has a duty as the principal intelligence agency of the Government, 
operating within the United States and territorial possessions, to call to the 
attention of other agencies of the Executive Branch of Government information 
of interest to such agencies. This is particularly true insofar as the investigative 
and intelligence branches of the Armed Services are concerned. The Director 
of the P^'BI and other intelligence and investigative agencies must be free to 
exchange information, one with the other, without the fear that information of 
a classified nature will be made public. The FBI with its enormous responsibil- 
ities to the President, the Congress, and the American public must have the full- 
est cooperation from all persons who possess information bearing upon the 
internal security of our country. This it cannot have unless it is in a position 
to give assurances that its fileS will be kept confidential. 

It has been the consistent and I believe wise policy of the Department of 
Justice, therefore, not to disclose the contents of FBI reports or memoranda 
or any part thereof. The only exception has been in the rare case where the 
information contained therein has been fully testified to by a witness or witnesses 
in Court or before Congressional Committees under eath, so that no element of 
disclosure was in fact involved, and where no confidential sources of information 
or investigative techniques would be disclosed. 

The fifteen-page memorandum, if made public, would reveal confidential sources 
of information on the FBI, and confidential investigative techniques. It contains 
the names of persons against whom no derogatory material has been shown and 
unevaluated data as to others. Its publication would be harmful to matters now 
under consideration. 

I must therefore conclude that the memorandum should not be declassified and 
that publication of the memorandum would be contr^ary to the public interest. 

Your second request refers to a two and one-fourth page document, dated 
January 26. 1951, a copy of which was delivered to us by Mr. Robert A. Collier, 
Assistant Counsel of your Subcommittee, and which is returned herewith. This 
document purports to be a copy of a letter with a salutation : "Major General 
Boiling. Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, Department of the Army, Washington, 
D. C, Sir :", It is marked "Personal and Confidential". It closes with the 
following typewritten signature; "Sincerely yours, J. Edgar Hoover. Director." 

Mr. Hoover has examined the document and has advised me that he never 
wrote any such letter. However, this document does contain pliraseology w-hich 
is identical in words and paragraphs with those contained in the fifteen-page 
memorandum referred to previously. In addition this document contains the 
listing of names identical with names contained in the fifteen-page memorandum. 

After these names there appear the words "derogatory" or "no derogatory" 
which were not contained in the original memorandum. Although the two and 
one-fourth page document purports to be a letter signed by J. Edgar Hoover, 
Director of the FBI, these evaluations of "derogatory" or "no derogatory" were 
not made by him nor by anyone on his behalf. In fact, there is nothing con- 
tained in the two and one-fourth page document to show who made such 


evaluations. In view of these facts and because the document constitutes an 
unauthorized use of information which is classified as Confidential, and for the 
reasons previously stated, it is my opinion that it should not be made public. 
Sincerely yours, 

/s/ Herbert Buowxell, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

(The above letter was marked "Exhibit No. 16.") 

Senator Mundt. You may step down and be unsworn. 

The committee will stand in recess until 2 : 30 this afternoon. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, before the recess, I have a 
request to make. 

Senator Muxdt. !Make it after we reconvene. 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to make it now, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Muxdt. The committee is in recess, unless we have enough 
here. What is your request ? 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to be heard on the request before 
the recess, I think it is a very important request with the Chair's 

Senator Muxdt. Make your statement. 

Senator McCarthy. Will the Chair sit down ? It will take a little 

Senator Muxdt. If we can get the committee back together, I will 
listen to your request. 

Senator McCarthy. I think time is of the essence in many of these 

Senator Muxdt. Make it as briefly as possible, because we are run- 
ning overtime. 

Senator McCarthy. Would the Chair prefer that I wait until after 
the recess ? It will take about 10 minutes. 

Senator Muxdt. Yes. 

We will recess now until 2 :30. 

( Whereupon, at 12 : 45 p. m., a recess was taken until 2 : 30 p. m., of 
tlie same day.) 



Adams. John G 788, 790, 7&5, 797, 802, 812, 815, 816, 823 

Adiuiuistrative assistant to the President 822 

Air Force (United States) 782, 820 

Air Force Intelligence 782! 

AIsop, Joseph 797 

Appeal of Hartranft (case) 823 

Armed services 820 

Armv (United States)— 782, 7S4-7SG, 791, 792, 802, 811, 813, 815, 817, 819, 820, 823 

Army Intelligence (G-2) 782,786,819,820 

Army regulations 802, 815 

Assistant Chief of Staff 819, 820 

Atomic Energy Commission (Director of Intelligence) 782 

Attorney General 814-821, 823 

BeLieu, Colonel 786 

Boiling, Maj. Gen. A. R 819, 820 

Boske V. Cominyore (case) 823 

Brown, Mr 792 

Browuell, Herbert 818, 819, 821, 823 

Cr.rr, Francis P 791, 792, 794, 808, S11-S13 

Carroll, r>Iaj. Gen. Joseph F 820 

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 782 

Chicago Tribune 804 

Cohn, Roy M 786, 791, 792, 794, 796, 800, 808, 811 

Coleman, Aaron Hyman 819 

Collier, Robert A 818 

Testimony of 819-820 

Communist infiltration in the Army (hearing) 811 

Communists 783, 809-813, 816-818 

Congress of the United States 792, 796, 820, 823 

Cougress'cnal committees 820 

Decker, General 786 

Defense Secretary 792, 794 

Delanoy, Colonel 786 

Department of the Army 782, 

7S4-7S6, 791, 792, 802, 811, 813, 815, 817, 819, 820, 823 

Department counsel (Army) 814 

Department of Defense 790, 791, 794 

Department of Justice 782, 788, 820 

Deputy Attorney General 819 

Dirksen, Senator 785, 786, 791, 793, 798 

Edelman, General 786 

Eisenhower, President 822, 823 

"Espionage-R" 819 

Executive branch of Government 820 

Executive Order No. 10450 (April 27, 1953) 822 

Far East 79€ 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 782,786,819,820 

Federal Government 782, 783, 820, 822, 823 

Fort Monmouth 811 

G-2 (Army Intelligence) 782,786,819,820 

Government of the United States 782, 783, 820, 822, 823 

Hadley, Arthur 799 

Hensel, H. Struve 786, 789-794 

Hill (Capitol Hill) 803 




Hinds Precedents (House of Representatives) 823 

Hoover, J. Edgar 783,784,786,819,820 

Hoover document ("Personal and Confidential") 784,819,820 

Houck, Colonel 786 

House of Representatives 792, 796, 823 

Inspector General (Special Investigations) 820 

Intelligence Advisory Committee (National Security Council) 7S2 

Intelligence of the Air Force (Director) 782 

Intelligence of the Atomic Energy Commission 782 

Intelligence Department (Army) 782,786,819,820 

Intelligence of the Joint Staff of the Joint Chiefs of Staff 782 

Jackson, Senator 783 

Joint Chiefs of Staff (Intelligence Director) 782 

Jones, Mr 802 

Justice Department 782, 788, 820 

Kane, Mr 786 

Keyes, Secretary 786 

Kilbourn v. Thompson (case) 823 

Lehrbas, Mr 786 

Lemnitzer, General 786 

Marttiry v. Madison (case) 823 

Martyn,' Mr 786 

McCarthy, Senator Joe 783, 784, 786-813, 816, 818, 819, 821 

McCarthy committee 816 

McClellan, Senator 788, 793 

McCormick, Colonel 803, 804 

Members of Congress 792, 796 

Methodist Club 812 

Milton, Secretary 786 

Minor, Robert 819 

Mudgett, General 786 

National Security Council (Intelligence Advisory Committee) 782 

Naval Intelligence 782 

New York 803 

New York State 804 

Newsweek ( publication ) 799 

Opinions of the Attorney General 823 

Palmer, General 786 

Pentagon 789, 790, 798, 804, 811, 818, 819 

Peress case 801 

Potter, Senator 791-795, 798 

Potter (letter) , 792-795 

President of the United States 820, 822, 823 

Presidential directive 817, 822 

Presidential documents 822 

Presidential letter (April 3, 1952) 822 

Prohibitions on testimony by Loyalty-Security Board members before con- 
gressional committees 822 

Fiainville, Mr 802 

Ridgway, General 786, 802 

Roderick, Secretary 786 

Rogers, Deputy Attorney General 823 

St. Clair, James D 814 

Schine, G. David 792 

Seaton, Secretary 786-788, 790 

Secretary of the Army 784-818 

Secretary of Defense 792, 794 

Secretary of State 822 

Senate of the United States 785, 792, 796, 820 

Stevens, Robert T., testimony of 784-818 

Taft-Hartley Act 785 

Touchy V. Raf/en (case) 823 

Trudeau, General 786 

Truman, President 822 

United States v. Reynolds (case) 823 

United States Army 782, 784-786, 791, 792, 802, 811, 813, 815, 817, 819, 820, 823 

United States Code (title 5, sec. 6) 782 



Uniterl States Congress 7C2, 706, 820, 823 

United States Department of Defense 79(3, 7U1, 794 

United States Department of Justice 782, 788, 820 

United States Government 782, 783, 820, 822, 823 

United States House of Representatives 792, 796, 823 

United States President 820,822,823 

United States Senate 785, 792, 796, 820 

United States War Department 815, 818 

Vogcl V. Gruaz (case) 823 

Washington, D. C 820 

"Washington, President 823 

Washington's Birthday 799 

White House 822 

Wihbel, General 786 

Young, General 786 

Zwicker, General 799-806 



3 9999 05442 1746