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


C^'^LAyi^t 


ri^PECIAL  SENATE  INVESTIGATION  ON  CHARGES 
""AND     COUNTERCHARGES     INVOLVING:     SECRE- 
TARY OF  THE  ARMY  ROBERT  T.  STEVENS,  JOHN 
G.  ADAMS,  H.  STRUVE  HENSEL  AND   SENATOR 

JOE  McCarthy,  roy  m.  cohn,  and 

FRANCIS  p.  CARR 


HEARING   '^ 

BEFORE  THE 

SPECIAL  SUBCOMMITTEE  ON 
INVESTIGATIONS  OF  THE  COMMITTEE  ON 

GOVERNMENT  OPERATIONS 
UNITED  STATES  SENATE 

EIGHTY-THIRD  CONGKESS 

SECOND  SESSION 
PURSUANT  TO 

S.  Res.  189 


PART  21 


MAY  6.  1954 


Printed  for  the  use  of  the  Committee  on  Government  Operations 


46620« 


UNITED   STATES 

GOVERNMENT  PRINTING  OFFICE 

WASHINGTON  :  1954 


wy 


Boston  Public  Library 
Superintendent  of  Documents 


COMMITTEE  ON  GOVERNMENT  OPERATIONS 
JOSEPH  R.  McCarthy,  Wisconsin,  Chairman 


KARL  E.  MUNDT,  South  Dakota 
MARGARET  CHASE  SMITH,  Maine 
HENRY  C.  DWORSHAK,  Idaho 
EVERETT  Mckinley  DIRKSEN,  Illinois 
JOHN  MARSHALL  BUTLER,  Mnryland 
CHARLES  E.  POTTER,  Michigan 


JOHN  L.  McCLELLAN,  Arkansas 
HUBERT  H.  HUMPHREY,  Minnesota 
HENRY  M.  JACKSON,  Washington 
JOHN  F.  KENNEDY,  Massachusetts 
STUART  SYMINGTON,  Missouri 
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 

EVERETT  MCKINLEY  DIRKSEN,  Illinois      JOHN  L.  McCLELLAN,  Arkansas 
CHARLES  E.  POTTER,  Michigan  HENRY  M.  JACKSON,  Washington 

HENRY  C.  DWORSHAK,  Idaho  STUART  SYMINGTON,  Missouri 

Ray  H.  Jenkins,  Chief  Counsel 

Thomas  R.  Prewitt,  Assistant  Counsel 

Robert  A.  Collier,  Assistant  Counsel 

SOLis  HoRwiTZ,  Assistant  Counsel 

Charles  A.  Maner,  Secretary 

n 


CONTENTS 


Page 

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 

EXHIBITb 

Intro- 
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 

III 


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 


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 
Arkansas. 

Senator  Mundt.  Senator  McClellan  ? 

781 


782  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 
available. 

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 
Force. 

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. 


SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION  783 

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 
statement. 

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 
committee 

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 


784  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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. 

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

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- 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  785 

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 


780  SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION 

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 0  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. 
Chairman. 

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. 


SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION  787 

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 
newsman. 


788  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 
counsel. 

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 
opportunity. 

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 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  789 

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. 


790  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 
Defense. 

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


SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION  7G1 

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 
left? 

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 
4:30. 

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 
present? 

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  ? 


792  SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION 

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 
letter? 

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 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  793 

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 


794  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 
clear. 

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  ? 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  795 

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 
letter. 

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 
Adams. 

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. 


79G  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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. 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  797 

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 
me. 

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 


798  SPECIAL   mVESTlGATION 

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 
time. 

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. 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  799 

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 


evening. 


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 
were. 

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

Secretary  Stevens.  That  is  right. 


800  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 
Deioartment. 

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 
now. 

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- 
man? 

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 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  801 

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 
line. 

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 
occurred. 

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 
agree. 

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 


802  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 
means. 

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 
you. 

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. 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  803 

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 
affidavit 

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 
McCormick? 

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 


804  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 
Senators? 

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- 
Carthy. 

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? 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  805 

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- 
mony  

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- 
porter  

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 


806  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 
affidavit. 

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 
cross-examination. 

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


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  807 

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. 


808  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

Secretary  Stevens.  Thank  you,  sir. 

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

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 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  809 

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 


810  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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. 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  811 

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. 


812  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 
which 

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- 
mission? 

Secretary  Stevens.  He  was  acting  on  his  own. 


SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION  813 

]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 
memorandum. 

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 
exists. 

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


81-4  SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION 

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 
night 

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 
answered. 

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. 


SPECIAL   ESrV'ESTIGATION  815 

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 
here 

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. 
Chairman. 

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 
accurate. 

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. 


816  SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION 

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 
time. 

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. 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  817 

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- 
abandoned. 

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 
predicate. 

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 
questions. 

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  ? 


818  SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION 

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 
questions? 

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 


SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION  819 

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

Mr.  Collier.  I  do. 

Mr.  Jenkins.  Mr.  Chairman? 

Senator  Mundt.  Mr.  Jenkins. 

TESTIMONY  OF  ROBERT  A.  COLLIER 

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 
today. 

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 
Subcommittee. 

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 


820  SPECIAL   INVESTIGATION 

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 


SPECIAL    INVESTIGATION  821 

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 
permission. 

Senator  Muxdt.  Make  your  statement. 

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

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 
things. 

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.) 


INDEX 


Page 

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 


II 


INDEX 


Page 

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 


INDEX  III 

Page 

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 

O 


BOSTON  PUBLIC  LIBRARY 


3  9999  05442  1746 


■d