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


r9i^e/. j^'^jj-/ 


Given By 





JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 









S. Res. 189 

PART 22 

MAY 6, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 

46620" WASHINGTON : 1954 

Eoston Public Li':rary 
Sunerintendent of Documents 

SEP 8 -1954 


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



EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massacbusetts 

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

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

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman 


Rat H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel 

THOMAS R. Prewitt, Assistunt Counsel 

ROBERT A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SOLis HORWiTZj Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maner, Secretary 




Index I 

Testimony of — 

Adams, John G., counselor, Department of the Army S38 

Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary, Department of the Army 829 



THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on In\^stigations of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

W ashing ton^ D. G, 


(The hearing was resumed at 2:45 p. m., pursuant to recess.) 

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

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

Principal participants: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a United 
States Senator from the State of Wisconsin; Roy M. Colin, 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 B. Bryan, counsel to H. Struve Hensel, Assist- 
ant Secretary of Defense. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has an announcement to make in con- 
nection with the monitored telephone calls. 

Before doing that, in calling the meeting to order, he wants to start 
with the customary word of welcome to our guests in the committee 
room and the cutomary word of caution that you are here as the guests 
of the committee under a firm committee rule that there shall be no 
manifestations of approval or disapproval from the audience at any 
tirne. The officers, who have done a splendid job, in the chairman's 
opinion, in controlling these whole hearings, a wonderful job, con- 
tinue to have the order from the Chair without further advice to 
remove from the room politely but firmly anybody violating the con- 
ditions under which you entered the room, that you are to refrain 
from manifestations of approval or disax:)proval. 



]Mr. Welch, I hope you Avill listen closely to the Chair as he en- 
deavors to state the status of things in connection with the monitored 
telephone calls, because the Chair is not entirely sure that he under- 
stands the picture. 

We subpenaed, in conformity with the agreement, all or any moni- 
tored telephone calls and transcriptions which might be in the posses- 
sion of any of the parties on either side of the current controversy. 
They were subpenaed some time ago with the instructions that at the 
time they were assembled and transcribed, the parties in interest in 
submitting them would make out a certificate subsequently to be sworn 
to under oath that these were in fact a total presentation of all of the 
monitored telephone conversations, all of the notebooks, all of the 
notes which dealt with the current controversy. 

Yesterday I told the press after our executive session of yesterday 
noon that we felt the time had come to finalize the presentation of 
those monitored conversations with the committee counsel and that we 
had advised the Army and advised Senator McCarthy's side that by 
this noon at the latest we wanted those presentations made. 

Now, Mr. Welch has advised the Chair that they have run into some 
delay and some clifliculty on the Army's side of this request, which 
stems from the fact that Mr. Lucas, who does the monitoring, monitors 
the telephone calls, as the testimony now shows, that come in from, 
wherever they come in with the exception of the White House, mem- 
bers of the Secretary's family or his personal friends, but he monitors 
them in the order in which they come and they are all in notebooks 
for the consecutive telephone conversations included where they are. 

Mr. Welch advises the committee that, as a consequence, when on 
occasion there is a security matter discussed which under the Executive 
order should not be disclosed, it appears in the notebook in the order 
in which the call happened to be taken on the switchboard rather than 
in some separate notebook. So he believes that it will be necessary 
for the Attorney General or somebody from his office to rule on each 
of the phone calls from the standpoint of security before they are 

So we run into the delay involved and we run into the difficulty of 
making sure that all of the phone calls pertinent to this controversy 
are received to the satisfaction of all parties concerned as to their 

We don't know just what the answer is, but that is the problem 
we confront. We still want to get the monitored phone calls. We 
still want to insert them in the record. I think a way must be worked 
out perhaps M-hereby a representative of the Attorney General's Office 
can be present to delete from the phone calls and the notebooks, black 
them out or something, because our subpona calls for the notebooks 
themselves — black them out so that we don't get information which 
we should not have, and some representation from the McCarthy side 
of the controversy present to make sure that we get all of the phone 
calls that are supposed to be included. 

That is the difficulty from the Army's side of the case. 

Now, Mr. Welch, if I have incorrectly stated that, I wish you would 
take the floor now on my time and straighten this out. We are 
simply trying to tell the public and the press where we stand on a 
problem which has been presented to the Chair over and over again, 
"When are you going to get the phone calls?" 


Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, you have presented it with your usual 
accuracy, sir. I would like to say a word about the position of Army 
counsel on the thing. I think everyone has understood we want all 
monitored telephone calls that are material in the case if it is proper 
to have them in, but we do have the serious security problem both 
as to Mr. Lucas' notebooks and perhaps as to some of the calls them- 

1 can see no comfortable answer to it except to adopt the suggestion 
that somebody from the Department of Justice sit in on the sorting 
and tell us when we have a security matter and then rule it out, if 
that is what has to be done. 

Nobody has approached the Department of Justice on it that I 
know of, but I think they surely will be of service to the committee, 
if asked. 

Neither Mr. Jenkins nor I have personally had time to read these 
monitored telephone calls, and I think I am correct in saying no one 
from Mr. Jenkins' staff has yet read any of them. They have been 
kept under lock and key both as to such transcripts as there are and 
as to the original notebooks. 

Therefore, I really add nothing to what you said, Mr. Chairman, 
except that I should think someone on the committee's behalf should 
approach the Department of Justice — I would much rather it was 
done by somebody on the committee — and state the problem to them 
and get their assistance in bringing these things, in sorting them so 
they can be brought into the courtroom and dealt with as the com- 
mittee wishes. 

Senator Mundt. Would counsel think this might be a helpful sug- 
gestion in removing this particular roadblock toward greater progress 
in our hearings: If Mr. Jenkins would assign somebody from his 
staff, and you permit Mr. St. Clair to act for your position, to meet 
after the hearing this afternoon to see whether we cannot work out 
with the Department of Justice and any other parties involved a 
modus operandi whereby we can start tomorrow on this long, laborious 

Mr. Welch. It may not be so long. I do not say it is, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Long or short, we have to get the job done and 
we have to get started. 

Mr. AVelch. If no storm blows up so that Mr. St. Clair is very, 
very badly needed by me or somebocfy else, I would be happy indeed 
to have him do that at perhaps 4 : 30 today. 

Senator Mundt. If not, he or perhaps some other member of the 
staff could be assigned from your standpoint. 

Mr. Welch. Surely we could assign someone. 

Senator Mundt. Would he meet with whoever is assigned in Mr. 
Jenkins' office after the hearing this afternoon? 

IMr. Jenkins. IVIr. Horwitz has already been given that assignment. 

Mr. Welch. All right. 

Mr. Bryan. Mr. Chairman, one further matter concerning tele- 
phone calls. Mr. Hensel was also served with a subpena in that mat- 
ter, and Mr. Hensel is prepared to make whatever appropriate cer- 
tificate under oath or otherwise counsel may suggest to the effect that 
he has no monitored telephone calls, no transcripts, and that his phone 
:was at no time monitored during any of the periods in question. 


Senator Mundt. Very good. That simplifies that problem very, 

Are we ready, then, to begin with the questioning? 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman this is beginning the third week 
or the end of the second week of the hearing. I do not know how the 
other members feel, but I feel as if I, by just sitting through these 
hearings, have been brainwashed, and I know that certainly the per- 
sons who have been more active in this controversy than I must be 
equally weary. 

We know that we have many other important duties to attend to. 
If I could foresee that this hearing would conclude in the foreseeable 
future, I wouldn't make the request that I am now about to make. 
But I can't see any end in sight for many days, weeks, or months. 

Therefore, I wish to move at this time, Mr. Chairman, that Ave, at 
the conclusion of the hearing this afternoon, recess until Tuesday morn- 
ing next in order for us to take care of some of our other important 
business. We have the Taft-Hartley Act amendments being debated 
on the floor of the Senate. Many of us would like to participate in 
that debate. Many of us would like to prepare for that participation. 
I believe that the participants, the committee and tlie public w^ll 
greatly benefit by recessing until Tuesday morning. I so move, Mr. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. Do I understand the Senator moves to recess 
tomorrow at noon until Tuesday noon ? 

Senator Potter. I move to recess at the conclusion of the hearings 
tonight until Tuesday morning. That will give us Friday and Mon- 
day to work on this vital piece of legislation, and take care of other 
duties which I know that all Senators have to take care of. I am 
sure that the participants and the Army would be desirous of that 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. I offer as a substitute motion that we recess 
tomorrow at noon until Monday morning. I do not need to discuss it. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair hears no second to any motion that has 
been made. 

Senator Jackson. I second the motion of the substitute. 

Senator Mundt. It has been moved by Senator McClellan and sec- 
onded by Senator Jackson in the nature of a substitute — — 

Senator Potter. Will the Senator from Arkansas yield? 

Senator McClellan. Gladly. 

Senator Potter. Do I understand your substitute to be that we 
recess from tomorrow noon until Monday morning ? In other words, 
the afternoon session tomorrow will be dispensed with and that is all ? 

Senator McClellan. Our discussion around the table here, before 
the session opened, I believe, was that there will be votes tomorrow 

Senator Potter. And ^Monday afternoon and possibly Tuesday 


Senator McClellan. That may be. But what I had in mind was 
that this committee should work at all times to expedite these hearinf^s, 
and we can work until tomorrow at noon, and then we can adjourn 
over until Monday morning and resume work, and if it is necessary to 
adjourn for the afternoon of Monday or the afternoon of Tuesday, we 

mav do so. ... 

But I am reluctant to postpone these hearings one minute that is 

not absolutely necessary. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter. 

Senator Potter. I would prefer my original motion, but rather 
than to have a discussion on it, I willaccept the amendment offered 
by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas. 

* Senator Mundt. There has been a motion made and seconded which 
I am sure is clear to all members of the committee, which adds up to 
meaning, in substance, that we recess the hearings tomorrow afternoon. 
Is there any further discussion? 

Are you ready for the question ? 

Those in favor say "Aye". 

Contrary "No." 

The motion prevails. 


ARMY— Resumed 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins, I believe this is your time. 

Mr. Jenkins. I have no further questions. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has no questions at this time. 

Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Any of the Senators to my right ? 

Any of the Senators to my left? 

We will get to Senator McCarthy in a second. 

Mr. Welch, any questions ? 

Mr. Welch. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator IMcCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. IVIr. Chairman, as I advised the Chair prior to 
the recess, there is a matter that I wish to take up that may take some 
little time. But before I do that, I just wonder if the Chair misstated 
himself when he suggested that the monitored phone conversations be 
examined by counsel for Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams, and counsel for 
the committee, and I gathered from that that he was excluding anyone 
from my side of the aisle. 

Senator Mundt. This is a matter, may the Chair say, simply deal- 
ing with the security phases, which ones should be eliminated from 
the standpoint of security by the Attorney General. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I would want to know what is 
being blacked out, what type of security — if IVIr. Welch has "Q"' 
clearance, I think maybe my two men have "Q" clearance. 

Senator Mundt. I think the Chair suggested that someone from 
your committee could be present. 

Senator McCarthy. Okay, just so that is understood. 

46620'— 54— pt. 22- 


Senator Mundt. The Chair, of course, you understand has no au- 
thority to give "Q" clearance to either Mr. Welch or to you. That is 
up to the Attorney General and the Army. But as far as the com- 
mittee is concerned, we want all parties represented. 

Senator McCarthy. I must admit, Mr. ChairniJjn, Mr. Welch does 
not have "Q" clearance. The remark was facetious. 

Mr. Chairman, just before the noon recess, there was read a letter 
allegedly from Mr. Brownell, in regard to the 15-page document and 
the two and a quarter page document which I submitted. I note that 
Mr. Brownell's letter reveals that the material cannot be submitted 
in any form. As the Chair will recall, last night I suggested that we 
delete any security information, anything that would indicate the 
source of information, informants, et cetera. That has all been deleted 
from this two and a quarter page document, as far as I can tell. As 
the Chair knows, this has been authenticated, as to paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 
4, 6, 7, and 8, which is the entire body of the letter, or document, call 
it what you may, with the exception of the names, as an accurate 
i-esume of the memorandum from J. Edgar Hoover. 

Mr. Chairman, I think in view of the importance of this, Mr. 
Brownell should be called in executive session. I think he should be 
questioned as to whether or not there is anything in this two and a 
half page document other than the names which I suggest we delete, 
of a security nature. As I read it, Mr. Chairman, I am sure the 
Attorney General will have to agree that this may be embarrassing 
to some people, embarrassing to those charged with the security of 
our military, but that it in no way involves security. I may say, Mr. 
Chairman, that we have a precedent for releasing material. As the 
Chair knows, Mr. Brownell made a speech in Chicago some time ago. 
He named not the live spies that we are discussing here, who are still 
poised with a razor over the jugular vein of this Nation, as I said be- 
fore. He named a very important dead spy. I don't criticize him for 
that. I think that M'as information that the public should have had 
and should have had long ago. His veracity was questioned, he was 
criticized for that, he then made public FBI reports, I am authorized 
to say by Mr. Eobert Morris, Mv. Judge Morris, who was the chief 
counsel of the committee before whom he appeared, that at that time 
he made available to the committee portions of FBI rejDorts which 
had never been disclosed before. 

Again, I say I don't criticize him for that. He didn't make available 
the names of any informants and I think it was a job well done. But 
he has established a precedent. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that as the 
Chair well knows, I have never, during the entire course of my in- 
vestigation, I have never disclosed the name of a single informant, 
and the Chair will note that this document here was prepared very 
carefully to keep out the names of any informants or the sources of 
any information. I think the Chair knows also that I never obtained 
any information from the FBI. But when I received FBI material 
which is dissiminated and is in the hands of loyalty board members 
with Communist records, I can no longer respect any classification 
of that. 

In other words, once it is in the conduit, available to Communists, 
1 tliink maybe that I have no duty to keep this material secret, and 
1 don't intend to. 


May I say, Mr. Chairman, at this time, in connection with my re- 
quest which I am about to malce of the Chair, that as far as 1 per- 
sonally am concerned, there is no Truman directive or any other 
directive which is designed not for the security of this Nation, but 
to prevent embarrassment of those responsible for covering up Com- 
munists, no such directive will keep me from making available to 
the public the type of information which we have here showing gross 

Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come when we should decide 
as a committee, I address this to my Democrat colleagues as well as 
my Kepublican colleagues, whether or not we are to forever continue 
operating under that Truman blackout order of 1948. I would like 
to have Mr. Brownell tell us, for example, what progress has been 
made on reported attempts by the Justice Department — the Chair 
will recall there w^ere news stories, I believe about a year ago or maybe 
more, that the Justice Department had been ordered to study the 
Truman blackout directive with a view to trying to make more in- 
formation available to the committee. 

I would like to question Mr. Brownell as to what progress has 
been made. I would like to also make it very clear to the American 
people that I have made a solemn promise to them that I did from 
coast to coast last year that if they would get rid of my Democrat 
friends and elect us that we would no longer be honoring these black- 
out orders. I think this is a good time, Mr. Chairman, to test this 

I don't think that a congressional committee is bound — if I may 
have the Chair's attention — I don't think that any congressional 
committee is bound by the opinion of anyone in the executive as to 
whether or not they are entitled to certain information. I think the 
committee, ]Mr. Chairman, has that matter for themselves. Just in 
closing, Mr. Chairman, I want to again point out that this letter, while 
of not great significance in and of itself, is part of a sequence of 
letters showing that there has been espionage-Russian in our most 
secret radar laboratories and the sequence of reports, Mr. Chairman, 
in my opinion, will convince anyone who exercises good, common- 
sense that we have no secrets from the Communists insofar as the 
A- and H-bomb is concerned. That is a very serious statement to 
make, Mr. Chairman. If it is true, then we should get to the bottom 
and find out who is responsible. 

I may say that I am getting very, very weary sitting here and act- 
ing as though we are playing some little game when this committee's 
activities may well determine whether this Nation will live or die. 
We have to clean out those who are responsible, Mr. Chairman, in 
conclusion, those who are responsible, either knowingly or because 
they were simple dupes covering up Communists and traitors, not 
dead ones, but live ones. 

I ask that the Attorney General be called in executive session so we 
can question him as to what information can be made available to 
this committee and what information can be made available to the 
public, period. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's question is a little long, but the 
Chair will endeavor to answer it if he can. I think it has two parts. 

The first part is whether or not the Attorney General has ruled on 


the admissibility of the two and a quarter page letter, which the Chair 
must confess he has not read. The Chair will have to say that in his 
letter of transmittal he enclosed the letter which the Senator refers 
to and asked specifically the question of the Attorney General whether 
or not in his opinion it would be injurious to the national security to 
have it spread in the record, and the reply of the Attorney General 
was in the affirmative ; that he thought it would be injurious. 

If the Senator from Wisconsin desires me to write another letter 
indicating whether certain phases of that two and a quarter or two 
and three-quarter page letter can be introduced, I will be happy to do 

In answer to the second part of the question as to whether the Chair 
believes we should call the Attorney General in and put him under 
oath and ask him why he decided as he did, the Chair would answer 
that question in the negative unless he is overruled by his colleagues on 
the committee. 

Senator McCarthy. This is a most serious matter, Mr. Chairman, 
and I don't think it should be disposed of on the spur of the moment. 
I think, Mr. Chairman, it is a great mistake, keeping in mind that 
a vast number of clerical help in various bureaus have access to the 
distribution of these letters, I think it is a great mistake for the 
Senators to say we can't even peek at it. The Senators, if they are 
to perform their duty, must see the sequence of letters from the"^FBI 
in which they point out day after day after day what a dangerous 
situation we have in our top-secret radar laboratory. 

Mr. Chairman, unless we do that, unless the members of this com- 
mittee can see those reports after there have been deleted the names of 
informants, it will be impossible for this committee to determine the 
extent to which we have had gross negligence, putting it mildly, or 
worse, in various departments of our Government. 

Unless, Mr. Chairman, the members of this committee can see those 
excellent reports submitted by the FBI, it Avill be impossible for the 
members of this committee to know why tremendous efforts have been 
made to call this committee off the investigation, the disclosure of 
Communists in government. 

Mr. Chairman, again I say we are not playing any games here. 
You would think we were the way we have been bandying things 
back and forth. We are getting right down, Mr. Chairman, to the 
point where the blue chips are down, and if we neglect, Mr. Chairman, 
if we neglect to get to the bottom of the facts because of some Truman 
order of 1948, then everyone of us sitting at this table should not be 
in the Senate. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair is in no position to override the ruling 
of the Attorney General. He has submitted it in writing and has 
gotten an answer back in writing. We suggest, therefore, that the 
Senator continue with his interrogatories in conformity with the 
Attorney General's opinion. 

^ Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, does the Chair take the posi- 
tion that a committee of the Senate cannot differ with an appointive 
officer, the Attorney General ? Certainly the Chair does not take that 
position, Mr. Chairman. If the Attorney General has some good 
reason why these documents should not be made available to the 


committee, he should not be bashful about coming down in executive 
session and telling us why, Mr. Chairman. 

He can delete, as he did in the Harry Dexter White, in the case of 
the dead spies — he can delete the security information and give us 
the information showing the type of records the FlU did send, and 
then we can check into this matter and find out who is responsible 
lor ignoring, Mr. Chairman, those reports. 

There is no reason on God's earth, Mr. Chairman, why the Attorney 
General should not be called in executive session and made to answer 
why parts of these letters — not having to do with security but which 
might be awfully embarrassing, I will agree, to some people — should 
not be made available, No. 1, to the members of the committee, and 
then the next question, whether or not they should not be made avail- 
able to the public. I think both. 

I again ask the Chair not to rule upon this on the spur of the 
moment. It is too important. I ask him to call an executive session 
of this committee and to go into that in detail and make a decision. 
1 think the time has come, Mr. Chairman, when we should determine 
whether or not the Congress has the power to get the necessary infor- 
mation to guard the security of this Nation. 

Mr. Chairman, we can get information about dishonesty, about cor- 
ruption, about graft, but it seems we cannot get information about 
something a thousand times worse; namely, treason. Mr. Chairman, 
1 ask that you call an executive session and that we once and for 
all decide this question of whether or not we are the lackeys to obey 
and afraid to overrule a decision made by someone in the executive 

Senator Mundt. There is a standing rule that whenever any mem- 
ber of the committee or any of the counsel desire to have an executive 
session called to discuss the business of the committee, he will call 
one. I will be glad to call one since you present the request for an 
executive session. 

Senator McCarthy. I thank the Chairman. 

Senator Muxdt. Will you proceed with your questioning ? 

Mr. CoHN-. Mr. Secretary, over the lunch hour have you had the 
opportunity to refresh your recollections so you can now tell me 
whether or not you spoke with me on the telephone concerning the 
calling of a member of the loyalty board which had cleared 
Communists ? 

Secretary Stevens. No. I remember that you called me at my home 
occasionally, but 1 do not remember the substance of the conversations. 

Mr. CoHX. I would say, sir, I believe that this is the only time I 
ever called you at your home and the only time I ever spoke with 
you at your home, and I believe it was Saturday night, October 31. 
I might ask this, sir : Do you have a monitor on your home telephone 
as well as your office telephone ? 

Secretary Stevexs. No, sir. 

Mr. Coiix. Do you have any tj^e of recording machine ? 

Secretary Stem2ns. No, sir. 

INIr. CoHX. I see. To refresh your recollection, Mr. Secretary, I 
would suggest to you, sir, that on the night of October 31, following 
a conversation between Mr. Adams and m,yself, I had a conversation 


with you in which you stated it wouhl be personally embarrassing to 
you if the fact were made known that a member or members of your 
loyalty board themselves had Communist-front records. 

Secretary Stevens. I absolutely have no recollection of any such 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Secretary, may I now hand to you a news article 
which appeared, I believe, the night of October 31 concerning the 
exposure of a member cf your loyalty board having a Communist- 
front record and ask whether or not 3'ou did not discuss this article 
with me over the telephone. 

(Document passed to the witness.) 

Secretary Stevens. No, that does not help my memory as far as 
any telephone conversation is concerned. 

Mr. CoiiN. Sir, maybe I can approach it this way : Do you recall, 
feir, that there was a time when this committee at the direction of 
Senator McCarthy asked to have appear before it a member of the 
Secretary of the Army's screening board which had cleared Commu- 
nists. You recall that, do you not, sir ? 

Secretary Stevens. When was that ? 

]\Ir. CoiiN. The date of his appearance, sir, was October 20, 1053. 

Secretary Stevens. I think I remember that there was such a case 
that ap]Deared before your committee. 

Mr. CoiiN. And, sir, do you not also recall that this man who was 
II member of j'our top loyalty board was himself interrogated con- 
cerning Communist-front activities in which he himself had engaged ? 

Secretary STE^^3NS. lie appeared before your committee, didn't he? 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir; indeed he did. 

Secretary Stevens. I was not there, I believe. 

Mr. CoHN. I know you were not there, Mr. Stevens, but you dis- 
cussed this with us and you knew about it ; clid you not ? 

You removed him from the loyalty panel after he was called before 
our committee, did you not, sir ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that. I will look it up and see. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you mean, INIr. Secretary, you do not re- 
member whether you removed a man from the loyalty panel after 
he was called before our committee and after he was exposed to have 
had Communist connections ? 

Secretary Stevens. Senator McCarthy, I have a lot of things to do 
as Secretary of the Army, and I don't know about every move or every 
rotation that is made off of a loyalty board. I will look it up and 
see if I can find out the facts. But I do not carry around in my mind, 
I simply can't 

Senator IMcCaethy. Will you consult Mr. Adams so you can give 
us that information ? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Adams will testify on all of these points. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, you told us a dozen times you have 
all of these people around you so you can get the information you 
can't remember. I want to know whether or not you removed 

Secretary Stevens. Why isn't it better to let Mr. Adams testify on 
the things that he knows about firsthand ? 

Senator IMcCartiiy. Mr. Secretary, why be so coy? Just turn 
around and ask him, to refresh your recollection. You had to sign 
the order. 


Secretary Stevens. I think INIr. Adams should be around to testify 
on the things that he knows about tirsthand, and that is not a fair or 
proper procedure for me to continually have to be testifying on things 
that Mr. Adams knows and is supposed to have told me. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, may I just make a suggestion that I 
think will be helpful to you in answering that question. The ques- 
tion appears to be very simple, and it is whether or not you know 
that a member of your security loyalty board was removed from the 
board after he had been questioned in a session of the McCarthy in- 
vestigating committee. 

Now, do you know of your own knowledge or from what Mr. Adams 
told you or any other person told you, whether or not such a thing 
occurred ? 

Secretary Stevens. I know, Mr. Jenkins, that there are changes 
in those boards repeatedly. As to wdiether or not there was a change 
made immediately after a man appeared before Senator McCarthy's 
committee, I honestly don't know. 

]\Ir. Jenkins. Well, that is an answer, perhaps a partial answer. 

Mr. Secretary, it is probably not a full answer. Have I stated the 
question correctly? 

Mr. (^)iiN. Yes, of course, Mr. Jenkins. 

INIr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Secretary, there is no disposition on my 
part to prod any one. We are trying to get along. The question is 
this, I will repeat it: Do you either know of your own knowledge 
or do you have information from ISIr. Adams or any one under your 
direction or command, wdiether or not a member of your loyalty se- 
curity board was removed therefrom after he had been questioned by 
the McCarthy investigating committee? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir; I don't. I cannot remember whether 
or not he had been removed right after being questioned by this com- 
mittee. I cannot remember. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is an answer, !Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. It is a direct answer. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, is it true that you appoint the 
members of that board ? 

Secretary Stevens. There are recommendations made to me and 
I think it is my authority — isn't it? — it is appointed in my name. 

Senator McCarthy. And they are removed in your name? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. I just asked you, in view of the fact that you 
cannot remem'ber whether or not you removed this man, after he was 
before our committee, in view of the fact that you were the man w^ho 
had to take the action, I merely asked you to refresh your recollection 
by turning again to Mr. Adams, as you did just now, and have him 
refresh your recollection. I am not talking about anything after • 

Secretary Stevens. Senator McCarthy, there are many, many 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, let me finish. I am not talking 
about any action on Mr. Adams' part. I am talking about action on 
your part that you and you alone can testify to. 

Now, you say you don't remember. I ask you now, sir, if you won't 
refresh your recollection by turning to one of the bevy of aides that 
you have around you, and after doing that, if you still can't tell us, 
well and good. 


Secretary Stev-ens. I think Mr. Adams should testify on it. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, there is no objection on the part of 
anyone, I am sure not on the part of the committee, to you now 
turning to Mr. Adams and having him refresh your recollection on 
that i^oint of inquiry. 

Secretary Stevens. I would like to make it clear before I do, that 
there are thousands of actions taken in the name of the Secretary 
of the Army or the Air Force or the Navy tliat they know nothing 
about. It is just utterly inconceivable that a Secretary of a military 
department could possibly know of all the actions that are taken 
in his name, and if I don't know about the removal of 1 man from 
1 board, it is no unusual thing, let me assure you. 

Mr. Jenkins. And there would be no criticism of you, as far as 
I am concerned. I am merely suggesting that no harm can come now 
from a 10-minute conference with Mr. Adams to determine whether 
or not he can refresh your recollection and then we can pass on to 
something else. 

Senator Mundt. May I make it very clear, Mr. Secretary, on be- 
half of the subcommittee. We think your statement is a hundred 
percent correct, that there are a great many actions taken that you 
can't remember that are taken in your name, and certainly there is 
no criticism of you turning to your aides that you have brought with 
you, that we have suggested you properly brought with you, for that 
purpose, to consult with them. That is in the interest of moving the 
hearings along. If you need to consult, you simply ask. There is 
certainly nothing improper in your asking. 

Secretar}^ Stevens. Mr. Adams was brought here to testify, he is 
to be a witness. A lot of my associates are here because they have 
special knowledge in certain fields that I may want to refer to, and 
who are not expected to be witnesses. 

Senator Mundt. You may refer to any aide if he is here. 

Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, there is a difference between refresh- 
ing a man's recollection, which is always proper, and simply being 
told something that he does not recall and be expected to repeat it, 
parrot-like, to this committee. I don't suppose turning to Mr. Adams 
and asking him a question will actually refresh his recollection. 

Mr. Jenkins. We could have found it out long ago, Mr. Welch, and 
be on many other subjects by this time. I certainly see no objection 
to it. 

Mr. Welch. All right. 

Mr. Jenkins. We haA^e spent a lot of time discussing it and it 
could have been determined 10 minutes ago, I would say. 

Secretary Stevens. I just don't — this is a somewhat extensive dis- 
cussion I am having here. It is not just a yes or no business, and I 
don't feel I will be able to answer that question for a considerable 
period of time until I go into it and get the facts and come back here 
prepared to testify ,_ if that is what you want me to do, or put Mr. 
Adams on and let him testify. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I suggest a 5-minute recess. 

Secretary Stevens. I am not sure that will be long enough. 

Senator Mundt. The Secretary does not think that will be long 
enough. May the Chair suggest if that question requires a longer 
conference even than 5 minutes, that you make your conference with 


him during the course of the evenino; and v:e will defer the answer to 
that particular question until tomorrow. 

Senator McCarthy. Maybe I can refresh the Secretary's recollec- 

Mr, Welch. jMr. Chairman. May I be heard? That is the sim- 
plest thing, to call Mr. Adams now, and let him tell what is what. I 
have no objection. 

INIr. Jp:xkixs. Mr. Welch, there are certain facts that may be proven 
by more than one witness. Apparently, the Senator has the right 
to question the Secretary. He is on the witness stand. The fact that 
Mr, Adams knows about it does not preclude the Secretary being asked 
about it. Now, may I ask this question : Is there any objection on the 
])art of the McCarthy staff, Senator McCarthy's staff, for the pur- 
pose of refreshing the Secretary's recollection, and in order to enable 
us to get along, to write the name of that person, and not make it 
public now and pass it to him and let him see that name and let him 
tee wdiether or not 

Mr. CoHN. Not only did we write his name, but I think we furnished 
Mr. Steven's counsel with the transcripts. 

JMr. Jexkins. Could you write it now and pass it to him and not 
make it a matter of public record, and if that does not refresh his 
recollection, I would say that nothing would, and that we ought to pass 
to another point of inquiry. 

Mr. Coiix. Mr. Jenkins, I just wanted to make it clear. This is 
not one of a thousand cases. This is — I am sorry, sir. 

(Document handed to witness.) 

Senator McCarthy. After you look at this, Mr. Secretary, can I 
ask you whether or not you and I didn't discuss this particular case 
at the Pentagon the day you invited me and my staff over for lunch? 

Secretary STE^^:Ns. I don't recall having seen that name discussed 
that da}'. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you recall that joii called me later — and 
if you don't recall I wish you would check your monitored calls on 
this — you phoned me and apologized for the statement Mr. Adams 
had made to the press in which he said this man had not been dis- 
charged after I told the press he had been discharged. 

Secretary Stevexs. No, sir, I have no recollection of that. 

Senator McCarthy. You have no recollection at all ? 

Secretary Stevexs. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. Now' that you have the name of this man, Mr. 
Stevens, in view of the fact that you are the individual who removed 
him if he was removed, you are the man who finally acted, could you 
turn around and talk to Mr. Adams? I assume he could refresh your 
recollection because Mr. Welch has just stated that Mr. Adams could 
testify to that. 

The reason I am asking you to testify is because it is your act, not 
Mr. Adams' act. Just turn around and talk to him about it. 

Secretary Stevexs. It will take some time. It is a complicated 
thing, and not just a yes and no answer. If you want to recess for a 
while and let me talk to Mr. Adams for a while I will be glad to do it. 

Mr. Jexktxs. May I suggest this now, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Muxdt. Mr. Jenkins. 

46C20*— 64— pt. 22 8 


INfr. Jexkins. For the purpose of resolving fully and finally and for 
all time the answer to this one question, I suggest that we do now have 
the Secretary stand aside and call Mr. Adams for the one specific 
question and one only, and that is Avhether or not a member of the 
loyalty security board Avas removed from that panel after ho had 
been questioned by the Senator McCarthy Investigating Committee. 

1 suggest that be done. 

Senator Mundt. Without objection, I think that should be followed. 
Mr. Adams will you take the stand and be sworn, please ^ 

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

Mr. Adams. I do. 


Senator Muxdt. You may be seated. 

Senator McCarthy, Mr. Adams is here as you know to testify on 
on one point alone. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Adams, on this one point alone, you have seen the 
name of the gentleman we are discussing, have you not ? 

Mr, Adams. I have. 

Mr. Coiix. You have seen that on the slip of paper we just handed 
up to JNIr. Stevens ? 

Mr. Adams, I have. 

Mr. Coirx. Had this man been a member of the loyalty security 
panel — the loyalty security screening board of the Office of the Secre- 
tary of the Army ? 

Mr. Adams. He had been. 

Mr. CoiiN". And, sir, were you present in New York on the 30th 
day of October 1953 when this member of the loyalty security screen- 
ing board of the Secretary of the Army gave testimony and answered 
questions put to him concerning his own Communist-front activities? 

Mr. Adaims. I was present this morning when this man was inter- 
rogated. Your question needs further amplification because there is 
some difference of opinion as to whether or not he was on the loyalty 
screening board at that time. May I explain it fully ? 

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir. I would first ask you this: Did he not state 
on that day that he was then and there a member of the loyalty security 
screening board, and I have reference to page 1420, I think, of this 
testimony, which was furnished to you at Mr. Welch's request some 

2 days ago so you could be prepared on the subject. Was that not 
the testimony of that gentleman on that day ? 

JNIr. Adams. Are you speaking of testimony from your stenographic 
transcript in New York on October 30 ? 

Mr. CoHN. Yes. I am asking you whether or not this man when 
he was interrogated by us in New York did not say, "I am still a 
member of the loyalty security screening board. I have never been 
notified that I am not. I am still eligible to sit." 

Mr. Adams. I have no recollection of it. If you have a transcript 
in which he said that, that is the best evidence; but I repeat, sir, 
I should like an opportunity to amplify my answer. 

]Mr. CoiiN. Certainly, sir. Say anything you think will cast light 
on it. 


Mr. Adams. x\11 ri<2;lit. The individual was a member of the Secre- 
tary's loyalty screeniiip; board. In about February of 1953 he sat 
on the last panel in which he ever participated. Durintr the summer 
of 1953, some facts of a minor derogatory nature against the indi- 
vidual came to the attention of the people who manage the operation 
of the board. At that time they ceased to select the man for 

Subsequent to the time that that information came to attention, he 
never again participated as a member of the board. His name was 
not removed from the board. A letter was submitted to this com- 
mittee in response to an inquiry in September over the signature of 
the Director of Legislative Liaison, Major General Reber, which 
listed among the members of the board this individual. 

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Adams. May I finish, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. CoHN. Surely. 

Mr. Adams. At that time the letter came to my attention, and con- 
sultation between my office and the officials in the Army who handle 
the loyalty security screening board matters was undertaken. Tlie 
officials at that time pointed out to me — I first pointed out to them 
the fact that this man had been submitted as being still a member, 
and I was assured that the individual was no longer participating. 
I was further assured that the simplest method of dropping the 
individual from the loyalty screening board was to wait until the new 
jDrocedures established a new board, which was due in a very few 
weeks, and in the meantime not to place the individual on any panels. 
That was the procedure which was followed. 

The lo3'alty security screening board was abolished in about Novem- 
ber of 1953, when a subsequent board with a different name was es- 
tablished, new individuals were on it, and that individual was not 
one of them. 

I repeat sir, subsequent to February of 1953 the individual sat on 
no loyalty panel. 

Senator Muxdt. Mr. Cohn, your time has expired. I wonder if in 
the interest of progress by unanimous consent we could agree to let 
INIr. Cohn have another 10 minutes to conclude his inquiry. Is there 

Mr. Cohn. If anybody else has any questions, sir, I would be 
happy to wait. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Adams, then if I understand the situation, this 
man whose name shall remain anonymous was merely technically a 
member of the loyalty security board and had not technically been 
removed therefrom, but had not participated in the hearing or pass- 
ing upon any cases whatsoever since February 1953; is that correct? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir, and for the reason that information 
had come to the attention of the proper official indicating that per- 
haps he should not serve until his own name was cleared or until he 
was removed. 

Mr. Jenkins. I understood you to say initially that there was in- 
formation of a minor derogatory nature. 

Mr. Adams. That is my understanding. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is all I have to ask Mr. Adams. 


Senator Mundt. The Chair has no questions. 

Senator McClellan? 

Senator IMcClellan. Just one question. This seems to be directed 
at Secretary Stevens. This man, I believe, was on the board, was 
he, at the time Secretary Stevens took office ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I think he was. I am not sure, but in Febru- 
ary he was 

Senator McClellan. I think we should clear that up. 

Mr. Adams. He was on the panel for a long time, maybe 18 months 
or so. 

Senator McClellan. February 1953 — you say he did not serve any 
after that? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct. 

Senator McClellan. When did Secretary Stevens become Secre- 
tary of the Army ? 

Mr. Adams. About the 1st of February 1953. 

Senator McClellan. About the 1st of February ? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Apparently he did not serve very long after 
the Secretary came into office; is that correct? 

Mr. Adams. He did not participate, sir. His name was still on the 

Senator McClellan. All right, we will call it "participate." 

Mr. Adams. You are correct, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Can you look up your records and ascertain 
in what meetings he did participate after Secretary Stevens became 
Secretary of the Army? 

Mr. Adams. That can be done, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Will you supply that information? 

Mr. Adams. I will be glad to, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen ? 

Senator Dirksen. One question, Mr. Adams: Do the members of 
the loyalty board enjoy a GSA rating? Are they classified? 

Mr. Adams. The loyalty security screening board consists of civil 
servants and officers of the Army, and the board is rather large. It is 
about 20 or 25 people. Groups are selected who are known as panels, 
to sit on the separate cases. A list of about 20 or 25 people may be 
selected to be on the loyalty screening board for a period of 2 years, 
and during that period, one of the individuals from the board may 
sit on only 3 or 4 panels, and may consider as few as 2 or as many as 
10 cases as a participant while the whole board, with the total 25 
people, may consider 250 between them. 

So this individual, Mr. X, may have participated in 3, 4, or 5 deci- 
sions during the time he was on, and it is extra-curricular activity 
that he did as a civil servant. 

Senator Dirksen. A member can, however, be dismissed for cause, 
can he not ? 

Mr. Adams. Dismissed from the Government service ? 

Senator Dirksen. Yes, entirely, or dismissed from sensitive work 
for cause. 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ; he can be removed from the loyalty board by 
an arbitrary action of the Secretary, which is done by Secretary as ho 
assigns the responsibility, or just' as any other civil servant he can 


be (lischarfred for any of the reasons that the civil service has, and an 
officer of the Army also can be removed from the loyalty board. 

Senator Jackson". Just one question: If he did not serve on — vrhat 
is it, the screening board ? 

]Mr. ConN. Loyalty security screening board. 

Senator Jackson. After February 1953, what did he do ? 

Mr. Adams. He was a permanent employee. 

Senator Jackson. I do not mean to give away his 

Mr. Adams. No, he is a permanent employee on other duties. He is 
still employed where he was employed. From time to time, maybe 
every 3 months he was called on the telephone and told "You are on 
another panel, you are supposed to come and listen to this," so his 
boss would let him go, and he would go and listen to the case, and 
reach a decision and then go back to work. 

Senator Jackson. In other words, the panel job was not a full-time 

Mr. Adams, Xo, sir ; just like going around and having the respon- 
sibility for collecting the community chest funds for your office. 

Senator Jackson. Is he doing classified work ? 

]\lr. Adams. I shouldn't answer you, sir, because I don't know what 
his assignment is at the moment. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter ? 

Senator Potter. Mr. Adams, has an investigation been made of 
the charges against this employee? You stated there was deroga- 
tory material of a minor nature. I was wondering if an investigation 
was made of him. 

Mr. Adams. Insofar as I know, it was. I do not know what the 
conclusion was. I should repeat, sir, I am not in the security business, 
and the matter was in the hands of the Security Division, which has 
the responsibility. What the ultimate decision in the case of that 
individual was, I do not know. I have not seen the individual since 
last October, and there has been no reason for his name to come up until 
the last couple of weeks. He does not work in the building where I 

Senator Potter . Do I understand you to say that he was a civilian 
employee ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Potter. And does your loyalty review of civilian em- 
ployees differ from that for the military employees ? 

Mr. Adams. There is a difference; yes, sir. 

Senator Potter. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator IMundt. Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, did you say that the last time this 
man ever served on the Loyalty Board was in February 1953 ? 

Mr. Adams. That is what I said, sir. I should say I don't know 
that from looking at the record myself. I know that from talking 
to the people who managed the Loyalty Board activities. I did not 
personally look at the file and see that his last participation was in 
February 1953. I was told that by the responsible officials. 

Senator Stimington. Will you check the record and find out? 

Mr. Adams. I will, sir. 

Senator Symington. You therefore certainly do not know the dates 
of the labt time he participated l 


Mr. Adams. I do not, sir. 

Senator Symington. What date did the Secretary of the Army 
become Secretary of the Army ? 

When was he confirmed and went to work? 

Mr. Adams. I think it was February 4, sir, but I am not sure. 

Senator Symington. Well, I don't like to continue a habit which 
is apparently to some of my coUea^^ues not too much approved, but 
would you mind turning and asking Secretary Stevens if he remembers 
the date that he was 

Mr. Adams. February 4, 1953, sir. 

Senator Symington. No further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak ? 

Senator Dworshak. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch? Or Mr. St. Clair? 

Mr, St. Clair. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I call your attention, Mr, Adams, to page 1440 of the same document 
that Mr. Cohn referred you, and ask you if it isn't the case that Mr. X 
testified under oath that the last panel he sat on was in February 
or the latest was March of 1953. 

]Mr. Adams. On page 1440 there is a statement from Mr. Cohn : 

Mr. Cohn. Now, for how long a period of time did you serve in any capacity 
on the screening board? 

Mr. X responded: 

From April 1952 until, I think, the last panel I saw on — 

I think it means I sat on — 

was along in February or March of 1953. I have not sat on a panel since 
February or March 1953. 

That is in the words of Mr. X from the transcript Mr. Cohn just 
has spoken of. 

Mr. St. Clair. When was it, Mr, Adams, that Mr. X testified before 
the so-called McCarthy committee? 

Mr. Adams. October 30, 1953. 

JNIr. St. Clair. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn ? 

]Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. 

Mv. Adams, is it not a fact that on the day that Mr. X, as we are 
calling him here, testified in New York, on October 30, he at that time 
had full security clearance to handle classified material and was a 
member of the Loyalty Security Screening Board, technical or how- 
ever you would have it ? 

]Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cohn, you have asked him two questions. 

Mr. Cohn. I am sorry. I will break it into two parts. 

Is it not a fact that Mr. X himself testified that he at the very mo- 
ment he was testifying had full security clearance ? 

Mr. Adams. I have not read the transcript — I don't think I have ever 
read the transcript. My recollection is that he did testify that he had 
security clearance. 

IVIr. Cohn. I might say, sir, Mr. Jenkins, we submitted this tran- 
script 2 days ago. 

Mv. Jenkins. You have it now with which to refresh his recollec- 


Senator INIuxdt. You have it now, and j'ou can refresh his recollec- 
tion with the transcript. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Adams, I would ask you if you can glance at the 
copy of the transcript to refresh your recollection and tell us whether 
or not Mr. X did not state that he had security clearance. 

Mr. Adams. "Will you give us the page, please ? 

Mr. CoHX. Yes, sir; I will. I will suggest you look at page 1420. 

Mr, Adams. 1420 is the number, Mr. Cohn ? 

]\Ir. Coiix. Yes, sir. One reference is the second question on page 
1420. Tlien I would ask you to follow that up with 

Mr. Adams. We weren't furnished the transcript of page 1420, sir. 
Our transcript begins on page 1428 — 1438. 

Mr. Coiix. jMay I see the copy of that ? 

Yes. I would like the record to note that the entire transcript was 
supplied. There is a difference in page numbering between the copy 
1 have and the copy that was made up for Mr. Adams. 

Senator JNIundt. Can you bring the page numbering in such shape 
that you can understand each other when you ask questions ? 

Mr. CoHN. I think we can do that rather promptly. 

I have now been furnished with a copy that corresponds exactly 
with the copy Mr. Adams has, insofar as page numbering. I will re- 
turn to him the copy we gave him. 

(Document handed). 

Senator Mundt. Then, if you will refer to the page number and 
exact language we should be able to move along quite rapidly. 

Mr. Adams. While we are waiting, sir, I have just had a note passed 
up to me that ]Mr. X sat on four panels, one on May 14, 1952, one on 
June 17, 1952, one on November 13, 1952, and one on February 19, 

Mr. CoHisr. February 19 what year? 

Mr. Adams. 1953. 

Mr. CoHN. Was Mr. Stevens Secretary of the Army on that day ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. He had been for 15 days. 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. Xow, Mr. Adams, may I direct 

Senator McCarthy. May I ask one question, Mr. Cohn ? 

INIr. Adams, we are concerned not merely with Mr. Stevens, but 
with all of those who have been handling these matters over the past 
number of years who are still there. Let me ask you this : Do you 
know whether or not this Mr. X voted in each one of the cases where 
he was a member of the security panel to clear individuals with 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, that would not be competent. 

Mr. Adams. In addition to not being competent 

Mr. Jenkins, That is attempting to bring discredit on Mr. Stevens 
and it is objected to. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, this is not a trial of Mr. Stev- 
ens. I am interested in those in the Pentagon who have been there 
over the past number of years, who are still there, who are charged 
with security, and who let a man like Mr. X sit on these panels with 
the record which he has. Let me finish, please. This is no trial of 
Mr. Stevens. I think he is one of the principals or characters in this 
inatter. It so happens that he is name the boss over there. But 


T am interested in the individuals who have been there and who have 
been clearino; Comnmnists for secret work. If you just restrict us 
to date Mr. Stevens took over, it is rather a useless investigation. 

Mr. Jenkins. The Senator is broadenino; the scope of inquiry now 
to perhaps include hundreds and thousands of additional parties in 

I say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Stevens is a party in interest and 
Mr. Adams is. and that those two parties are the only parties in inter- 
est now in the Pentagon. 

I think the Senator's question is entirely out of order, and I advise 
the chairman to overrule that question. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator JMuxdt. The Chair is prepared to rule. Do you want to 
be heard on a point of order ? 

Senator McCarthy. That pnts me in mind of the time I tried a 
lawsuit and the judge said "I will now rule for the plaintiff. Would 
the defendant like to be heard ?" 

Would you like to hear from me even though you have made up 
your mind ^ 

Senator Muxdt. I can't say that I covet the opportunity, but if you 
want to be heard, you have that right. 

Senator McCarthy. Touche. 

Mr. Chairman, the contention which I have made over and over the 
past number of months is that somebody is trying to cover up his 
improper conduct over in the Pentagon, that they are usin": a fine, 
not overly experienced Secretary as their tool. These individuals, 
who they are I don't know, but they are somebody deathly afraid of 
being exposed. 

In order to show the line of the issuance of the scurrilous reports, 
we have to go into the background of men like Plensel who was there 
long before he was, and other individuals. 

Mr. Chairman, unless we can show that men who themselves had 
long Communist records were passing upon the loyalty of other indi- 
viduals with Communist records, unless we can show who were re- 
sponsible for this, what position they hold now, we are losing a great 
opportunity — period. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, the point I am now called to make a 
ruling upon is perhaps in my mind the easiest one that has been pre- 
sented so far. 

I think it is clear to every member of the committee that Senator 
McCarthy's question is entirely improper, that Mr. Stevens and Mr. 
Adams are the only parties in the Pentagon against whom charges 
have been made, and that this committee surely will not now embrace 
all of the parties in the Pentagon in wdiich case we will be here until 

Let me add, Mr. Chairman, that the proof now shows, I think un- 
equivocally, that Mr. X sat on a panel for the last time in February 
1953, 15 days after the Secretary came into office. The proof is indis- 
putable that he was technically thereafter, merely technically a mem- 
ber of the board in that he had not been formally notified of his dis- 
missal and that he was never reelected to the panel thereafter and 
never sat on any case after February 19, 1953, and had not sat on a' 
case between that time and the October 30 hearing. 


I think Mr. Adams' kiioAvleclge of that matter has been fully ex- 
ploited and that we should now resume questioning on some other 

Senator Mundt. The Chair sustains the first point of order of 
counsel, but he cannot sustain the second. Both Senator McCarthy 
and Mr. Cohn are entitled to 10 minutes to interrog:ate the witness. 
They have that right. As long as they interrogate him in order that 
cannot be denied them under our rules of procedure. 

Mr. CoHN". I might say with great respect to Mr. Jenkins if he 
would give me the opportunity to develop the facts I think I can show 
to his satisfaction that Mr. X, on the day he was called some 8 or 10 
months after INIr. Stevens became Secretary, still had full security 
clearance, still was handling secret information 

Mr. Jenkins. You are entitled to ask that question and I suggest 
you do so now. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has ruled that you have 10 minutes. I 
wish you wbuld use them in interrogating the witness, not the Chair. 

Mr. CoHN. Senator Mundt, I hope you don't feel that I interro- 
gated you. 

Senator Mundt. You have the right to have 10 minutes and you 
may proceed. 

JMr. Cohn. Mr. Adams, I now direct your attention to page 1443 
and ask you whether or not Mr. X at the very time he appeared before 
our committee and after Mr. Stevens had been Secretary of the Army 
for some 10 months, still had full clearance and was working on 
classified material ? 

Mr. Adams. The answer to both questions is yes, he had full clear- 
ance at that time, he was working on classified material. 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, Mr. Adams. And you talk about some minor 
information or rninoF derogatory information. 

I will ask you, sir, if you feel that engaging in fund-raising activi- 
ties for organizations listed by the Attorney General as subversive 
to the United States — I will ask you, sir, if you feel that knowingly 
and willfully appointing a man you believed to be a Communist to a 
post which places him in close association with Government employ- 
ees, are minor pieces of derogatory information ? 

Mr. Adams. Your question is very long. It is very difficult to ans- 
wer. I do not remember that those allegations were made against 
the individual. They may very well have been. I point out to you, 
sir, however, that allegations of any sort against an individual may 
not be discussed by employees of the executive branch. No step of 
any participation or any facts with reference to an individual having 
to do with his loyalty or security may be discussed. 

I point out to you further, sir, that the individual security clear- 
ance was taken away from him in November for reexamination, and it 
was reinstated about December 1. Insofar as I know, the individual 
still has clearance. 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. It was taken away after he had been called 
before our committee, was it not ? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Adams, I might say you used the words "minor 
allegation." I am not talking about allegations, sir, I am talking about 
admissions. That is why we furnished you this testimony some days 


ago, SO you could look at it, because this is a matter you and I dis- 
cussed frequently, that I discussed |)ersoiia]ly with Mr. Stevens on at 
least three occasions. This is a matter which goes to the heart of this 
thing, sir. We think it is one of the most important matters in this 

Mr. Adams. What is your question? 

Mr. CoHN. My question to you, sir, is this: Do you consider the 
fact that a man who was a member, technical or otherwise, of a loyalty 
security screening board, the top board of that kind in the Pentagon, 
in the Secretary's Office, and a man who had full security clearance 
and was working on secret material — do you consider the fact that 
that man had engaged in fund-raising activities for organizations 
listed by the Attorney General as subversive to this country and that 
that man had knowingly employed a Communist and put him in close 
proximity to Government employees, do you consider those tw^o pieces 
of information minor derogatory information? 

Mr. Adams. Those two pieces of information are not described by 
you in the way that they were described to me. 

Mr. CoHN. My question to you, sir, is do you consider those two 
pieces of information minor derogatory information, because maybe 
we have a different definition of what minor derogatory information 
is about a man passing on the loyalty of Government employees. 

Mr. Adams. Very respectfully, Mr. Chairman, I know you prefer a 
yes or no answer. I do not believe this question is susceptible of a 
yes or no answer. May I make a little more full explanation? 

Senator JMundt. You may, if you are unable to answer it yes or no. 

Mr. Adams. Loyalty information and security information on in- 
dividuals is collected and presented to the board which considers the 
individual. They make their evaluation, and after they make their 
evaluation there are proper review authorities which make the ulti- 
mate decisions. I did not make the evaluation on the individual. I 
did not make the review of the individual. Those officials who did 
have determined that the individual is competent to continue in 
his employment and with the classification and clearance that he has. 
That is the only answer I can give you, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Proceed. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, Mr. Adams, may I have an answer to my question, 
sir. I asked you whether or not yoi: regard those two pieces of con- 
crete information which I put to you as minor derogatory information. 

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I point out to the Chair again that 
specific information w4th reference to the loyaltv of any individual 
is not within my purview to discuss under the Executive order. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, may I get an answer to that question? 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair inquire whether you are quoting 
from some sw^orn testimony and admissions by Mr. X, or are these 
hypothetical questions? 

Mr. CoHN". I would have to admit they are a little more than hypo- 
thetical. I w^ould say the transcript has been furnished to Mr. Adams 
so he may refer to it as I did. But Mr. Adams, sir, referred to minor 
derogatory information. I am now asking Mr. Adams whether he 
regards those two facts which I have named as instances of minor 
derogatory information. 

Senator Mundt. In what way are those facts connected with Mr. X? 

Mr. CoHN. They are connected with Mr. X, because they are Mr. X. 


Senator MurDX. Yon hare sworn testimony that Mr. X was in- 
volved in those two practices ? 

Mr. CoHx. There was testimony, sir. It was a staff interrogatory. 
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, just one question. The fact 
that somebody may swear something against someone else does not 
necessarily establish it as a fact. If there has been any adjudication 
of a fact that this man is Mr. X that is described in the question, then 
it would be proper to ask the witness. 

But just chari^es or even a sworn statement by someone else that 
might be denied by the party accused does not of itself establish it as 
a fact. 

Now, this may be that this man has admitted that. If the sworn 
testimony shows he has admitted it, or any proper tribunal has made 
a finding those rre the facts, then it would be proper. 

Senator Mundt. It was the Chair's understanding that Mr. X had 
admitted those statements. 

Senator McClf.llan. That is what I wanted to ascertain. 
Senator Mundt. Let us find out for sure. Did Mr. X admit those 

Mr. CoHN. I would not like to characterize. I think the testimony 
speaks for itself. We would be glad to furnish the Chair with a 
transcript as we did furnish Mr. Adams with a transcript some 2 
days ago. 

Mr. Adams. I did not get it. 

Mr. Jenkins. For the purpose of the Chair's edification to try to 
get the question and answer in its proper perspective before the 
committee, may I try to do that? 

Senator Mundt. You may try, and my good luck goes with you. 
Senator Jackson. May I incj[uire how many of these cases are we 
going into ? 

Senator Mundt. Just ISIr. X, I hope. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Adams, did or not Mr. Cohn refer to you or 
furnish you a few days ago purported testimony or testimony con- 
cerning Mr. X ? 

Mr. Adams. The transcript was furnished to me, to the counsel to 
Secretary Stevens. I did not read it. If I am derelict in that respect, 
I apologize to the committee. I have not read it. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you this : State whether or not you know 
of any evidence that was introduced against Mr. X to the effect that 
he solicited funds for an organization condemned by the Justice 

Mr. Adams. I remember INIr. X's testimony in Xew York. I think 
the thing that disturbs Mr. Cohn is the fact that I said "minor de- 
rogatory-' — let me finish, Mr. Jenkins, I am not trying to 

Mr. Jenkins. I understand. You are not trying to evade. 
Mr. Adams. The thing that disturbs Mr. Cohn is that I said "minor 
derogatory information." Perhaps I should have said "derogatory 
information" which in the final analysis was not sufficient in the opin- 
ion of the responsible officials to cause the individual's removal. If 
the word "minor" disturbs the counsel for Senator McCarthy, I with- 
draw that. 

JMr. Jenkins. Mr. Adams, was there testimony to the effect that 
Mr. X solicited funds for an organization listed by the Attorney 


General's office as being a subversive organization? Was tliere such 
testimony, either by Mr. X or any other person, aaginst him? 

Mr. Adams. Mr. X himself was interrogated; the date was October 
30; I was present. The transcript was supplied to the Pentagon 
shortly thereafter. Insofar as I can recall, I have never since read it. 

1 am not competent to answer your question without reading tlie 
transcript. For that I do apologize, for not having read it in the last 

2 days. I do not remember such testimony. 

Mr. Jenkins. You do not remember such testimony? 

Mr. Adams. I do not, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you remember any testimony that Mr. X employed 
a Communist or subversive? 

Mr. Adams. I remember testimony to the effect that Mr. X was one 
of the officials of the Greenbelt cooperative housing organization out 
in Northeast Washington about 10 years ago, and that while he was 
an official, an ex officio mayor or something of that sort, they em- 
ployed a physician to work for them, and that the physician was 
brought in to be the doctor for the community, and it developed that 
the physician had a subversive background. That is my recollection 
of the transcript. As I state, sir, I have not read it. 

Mr. Jenkins. But you have no recollection about whether Mr. X 
solicited funds for such an organization or not ? 

Mr. Adams. I did not say he didn't. As I said, that hapi)ened last 
October. I have not read the transcript. For that I have apologized 

twice. . 1 . 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Adams, the question is this, not whether 
Mr. X is guilty or not, but the question, as I conceive it is this: You 
stated that there was information concerning ISIr. X, information, 
and that embraces what I have asked you. It does not imply that he 
is guilty or innocent. But you stated there was information con- 
cerning Mr. X. That is hearsay testimony or direct testimony or cir- 
cumstantial testimony that was of a minor derogatory nature. 

Mr. Adams. I have qualified the word "minor." That disturbed 
Mr. Cohn. I now say not of sufficient consequence 

Mr. Jenkins. It might disturb members of the committee, too. 

Mr. Adams. That is correct. I now say, information tliat was not 
of sufficient consequence in the opinion of proper authorities to cause 
his removal. 

Mr. Jenkins. If the information was that he solicited funds for 
an organization wdiose aims were inimical to this Government, and 
that he had had employed a Communist at one time, then you now 
say that the information concerning him, not whether he is guilty or 
innocent or not, but the information concerning him was of a deroga- 
tory nature, leaving out the word "matter." Is that correct, now? 

Mr. Adams. The information was of a derogatory nature; that is 


Mr. Jenkins. It was of a derogatory nature. Does that answer 

your question ? 

Mr. CoiiN. That relieves me, certainly, on that one point. 

Now, sir, having agreed that there was information of a deroga- 
tory nature, I will ask you, Mr. Adams — I believe you told us that 
when this man was called before our committee on October 30, he 
had a full security clearance. That is correct, is it not, sir ? 


Mr, Adams. That is correct. 

Mr. CoiiN. And is it a fact tliat that security clearance was revoked 
on the instructions of Secretary Stevens after you acquainted him 
"with the testimony of that man before our committee ? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct. 

Mr. CoiiN. That is correct, is it not, sir ? 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. And is it further correct 

Mr. Adams. Just one moment, sir, I don't think that the security 
clearance was revoked because of the individual's testimony before 
the committee, not for that reason alone. 

Mr, CoHN. Do you mean there were other reasons as well ? 

Mr. Adams, This was the first time that the facts with reference to 
this individual had directly been brought either to my attention or to 
the Secretary's. I do not have a good recollection that I spoke di- 
rectly to the Secretary about it. I think I spoke to the official who is 
his superior, and that that official did the revoking of the clearance. 
Again, such a revocation would have been in the name of the Secretary. 

Mr. CoiiN. Such a revocation would have been in the name of the 
Secretary ? 

Mr, Adams. That is right. 

INIr, CoHN. And that revocation 

Senator Mundt, Would you pull that long, slender mike closer to 
you? We can't hear some of your answers. Go ahead. Go ahead, 
Mr, Cohn. 

Mr. CoHN. And that revocation was made after October 30, as a 
result of your being present during the interrogation of this man; 
is that correct ? 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Mr. Coiix. Mr. Adams, did you hear ^Mr. Carr and me interrogate 
this man who on October 30 had a full security clearance as to whether 
or not he had consistently voted to clear Communists working for the 
Army and working in the Army Signal Corps? 

Mr. Adams. My recollection of the interrogation of this individual 
was that on each occasion when inquiries were directed to him about 
his participation in the Loyalty Board, I interposed an objection to 
such inquiries, I don't know whether the transcript shows that, but 
I think that when this individual went to New York, he went sepa- 
rately from me, but I pointed out to you before he was interrogated 
that we had no objection to any interrogation of the individual with 
reference to his own background but that we would consistently object 
to any interrogation of the individual as to any participation he had 
in any phase of the loyalty program, and tliat that objection was 
based upon Army regulations which in turn were based upon pertinent 
Executive orders then in effect. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn's time has expired. 

Does counsel have any questions ? 

The Chair passes. Senator McCIellan ? 

Senator McClellaist. Pass. 

Senator Mundt. Any Senators to my right or left ? 

Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair? 

Mr. Welcpt. No questions. 

Mr. Mundt. Mr. Cohn. 


Mr. Adams, did you interpose any objection to Mr. X physically 
appearing before our committee? 

Mr. Adams. I did not, and the reason I did not is, is that you 
pointed out to me that your interrogation of the individual was going 
to go to his personal background. 

Mr. CoiiN. To possible Communist-front activities on his own part; 
is that right, sir ? 

Mr. Adams. I don't know that you said, quote, "to possible Com- 
munist-front activities," but I made it clear that it was interrogation 
as to his personal background. 

Mr, CoHN. Will you now agree that I interrogate him about pos- 
sible Communist-front activities? 

Mr, Adams. I will agree that you did. 

Mr. CoHN. Will you agree that he made some admissions in that 
regard ? 

Mr. Adams. I think the transcript speaks for itself, and as I state 
to you, sir, I have not read the transcript. It was given to us. For 
that I apologize. Perhaps I should have. You have the transcript, 
and you know what he said. I presume that the best way to bring 
this out would be to read the transcript. 

Mr. CoiiN". If I am given permission of the Chair to do that. 

Mr. Adams. If you do that 

Senator Mundt. That might save time. 

Mr. Adams, I believe you should substitute the name "X" for the 
name of the individual. 

Senator Mundt. The chair agrees. We don't want to disclose the 

man's name. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, just so there will be no viola- 
tion of security I have been going over this and I refer you, Mr. 
Adams, to page 1454 of the transcript. I wonder if ours are numbered 
the same? 

Mr. Adams. 1454 is stamped, and number 17 is typed. 

Senator McCarthy. Will you look at the first part? Will you 
read to yourself that first paragraph and tell us whether or not he 
admitted that his home was used for a meeting for a Communist-front 
organization listed as a Communist front by the Attorney General ? 

Mr. Adams. My recollection of the transcript 

Senator McCarthy. Just read it. 

Mr. Adams. I don't think those two sentences are the whole story. 
Senator McCarthy. The individual stated that he had permitted 
somebody who lived in the Greenbelt housing project with him to use 
his yard as a picnic to get money for the Spanish Loyalists. 

Mr. Jenkins. That does not violate any security risks that I can 
see as far as I know it is all ought to be read and let the committee put 
its own interpretation upon it. 

Senator Mundt, The Chair agrees that he thinks you should delete 
the names of the people. Otherwise, you can read it, 

Mr, Adams. I believe it would be better, Mr. Chairman, if the 
transcript were read a few lines ahead of where the Senator proposes 
to start. 

Senator Mundt. Let the witness read it and let Senator McCarthy 
check the reading. Will the witness avoid the reading of any proper 


Mr. Adams. I think it -would be best to start on page 1453 at the 
middle of the page. 

Senator Mundt. You may start where you desire. 
Mr. Adams. (Reading) : 

Mr. CoHN. Did you know that Y — 

I am substituting a name here — 

was a Communist or a Communist sympathizer? 

This is the middle of page 1453. 
Mr. X answers: 

No, sir. In no way, shape, manner, or form did I ever suspect that he had 
any such leanings whatsoever. 

Mr. CoiiN. When did you last see Mr. Y ? 

Mr. X replies : 

I last saw Mr. Y in June of 1951. 

Mr. CoHN. Had you known him socially? 

Mr. X replies : 

Not even as much as I knew Mr. Z. 

Mr. CoHx. Now, did you yourself ever give a lawn party for the benefit of the 

Spanish Loyalists? 

Mr. X replied : 

No, I did not. 

This is the sentence Senator McCarthy wants read : 

I was living in a farmhouse Instead of right in the town of Greenbelt, and I 
allowed my premises to be used by Mrs. B to hold such a benefit for Spanish 
refugees. She had been a nurse with the Spanish Loyalists. 

Mr. CoHN. When was that? 

Mr. X replied : 

I am afraid I cannot fix the date exactly. I think that it was sometime in 1949 
or 19.50, I don't know for sure. 
Mr. CoHN. Did you attend that party? 

Mr. X said : 

"Well, I did not attend as a guest, but I was there since I allowed it to be held 
on my premises. 
Mr. CoHN. Under the auspices of what organization? 

Mr. X replied : 

I did not know it was held under the auspices of any organization and still 
don't know if it was. She simply said she would like to do something, having 
been in Spain. She said she would like to do something for the Spanish refugees. 
As far as I know, it was a personal thing with her. 

Senator ^IcCarthy, Xow could I refer you back to page 1447 so 
we can identify Mrs. B who used his home ? 

Mr. Adajis. "Wlio do you want, B, X, Y, or Z ? 

Senator McCarthy. You referred to a Mrs. B whom he allowed to 
use his home. I think we should identify JNIrs. B. So refer back to 
page 1447. 

Question. Was 

Mr. Adams (reading) : 

Was Dr. B a pretty-well-known Communist sympathizer? 
Senator McCaetht. Yes. 


Mr, Adams. Mr. X said : 

As I state, looking back I thiuk he was. I presume there were some statements 
earlier as to why lie now thinks he was, whereas he did not then. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams, would you do this? You will be 
on tlie stand here again. Will you do what you did not do the last 2 
days? Will you read this and then come back and answer this ques- 
tion : Whether or not the evidence does not show that this Dr. B was 
a known Communist; that Mr. X knew that he was treating Govern- 
ment employees handling secret work; that when he was asked 
whether or not he had ever made known to any Government agency 
that this man was a Communist sympathizer, and he said he did not, 
that he felt his political beliefs — I am not quoting now — were of no 
concern. This is the man who was on the Loyalty Board. 

Mr. Adams. I will be glad to read the transcript, Senator. I think 
on page 1448 it is. Mr. Cohn asked Mr. X, "Now, Mr. X, did you know 
at that time he was a Communist?" 

Mr. X replied, "I certainly did not." 

Senator AIcCarthy. I think it is important to know what you con- 
sider minor and major. 

Mr. Adams. As I said, Senator McCarthy, I have withdrawn the 
word "minor" which seemed to disturb you, and I apologize for saying 

Senator McCarthy. I do not think you can withdraw what you 
think from the record, Mr. Adams. You have characterized the 
questioning of Mr. X on the loyalty panel deciding who should handle 
secret materials and who should not — you have characterized the 
information against him as minor. Let me ask you this hypothetical 
question: If a man who is on this important loyalty panel — the 
top panel in the Pentagon, I believe, isn't it? — if he knew that a man 
was a Communist sympathizer, if he knew he was treating Govern- 
ment employees who were handling secret work, and if he being on 
the Loyalty Board did not notify the FBI or any other Government 
agency, would you consider that minor or major? 

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

Senator Mundt. On what ground, Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. The hypothetical question seems to me to embody facts 
that are not proved in evidence. 

Senator Mundt. I thought it was a hypothetical question instead of 
one based on fact. 

Senator McCarthy. That is what it is. I am trying to ^et Mr. 
Adams' idea of what is minor and major insofar as Communists are 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, this seems to me a sample of what is 
going to happen to us if we pursue the individual cases and seek to 
try them in this room. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair may have misunderstood the question, 
Mr. Welch. I do not think it was directed this time to Mr. X, or 
Y, or B. It was directed to Mr. Adams, in the hypothetical form 
in an effort to determine what basis he considered a major or minor 
infraction of security. 

Mr. Welch. Like many other lawyers, when I start to save time, 
I waste it. 


Senator Mundt. If j^ou can, answer the question, Mr, Adams; you 
may want it read back. 

Mr. Adams. I do want it read back. 

Senator Mundt. Will you read back the question, please? 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Mr. Adams. The answer to that is if those facts were true, with 
reference to this individual, I would think it was serious. 

Senator McCarthy. You think he would be unqualified to sit on 
that loyalty board ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, but I think it is only fair to qualify it by saying, 
Senator McCarthy, one, I do not select the people to the Loyalty 
Board; and, two, I do not clear them for security. I M'as not the 
official who was in any way in the chain of command with reference 
to this individual. He was considered and the facts against him were 
considered by the responsible board and by the review organizations, 
and whatever action was taken against him was taken by the officials 
who have that responsibility assigned to them. 

Senator McCarthy. Your answer is 3'ou would consider him un- 
qualified if those facts were true? 

Mr. Adams. That is right, if those facts are true as stated. I would 
consider it serious. 

Senator McCarthy. You would consider him unqualified to sit on 
that loyalty board ? 

Mr. Adams. Well, again I must state, Senator McCarthy, I do not 
select and I don't know what my decision would be if I were on the 
Loyalty Board. When you study loyalty matters and when you live 
with them all the time, you are able, much better than an individual 
on the outside, to make decisions Avith reference to them. 

Senator SIcCarthy. Mr. Adams, you are the legal adviser to the 
Secretary who selects the Board. Would you rather not answer that 
question ? It is a very simple question. Would you consider him 
unqualified or qualified assuming those facts to be true ? 

Mr. Adams. Assuming the facts to be true exactly as you have stated 
them, I personally would not select the individual to be on the Board. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you consider him to be unqualified? 

Mr. Adams. I would consider that I wouldn't select him and I vrould 
consider him unqualified, if I considered that there was that informa- 
tion of a serious nature. 

Senator McCarthy. And if you added to that, again we have a 
political question, the fact that he allowed his home to be used for 
funds raising 

Mr. Adams. His yards to be used for a picnic, do you mean ? 

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish my question. 

It isn't much of a picnic in my book, to be raising money for a 
Communist cause. 

Mr. Adams. That is what his testimony. Senator McCarthy, says, 
tliat the yard was used for a picnic. 

Senator McCarthy. I am asking you a question. Please be quiet 
and then you can say what you want to. 

Mr. Adams, proceeding with the hypothetical question, assuming 
that this man allowed his home to be used for a lawn partv, quoting 
the testimony, for the purpose of raising funds for an organization 


which had been previously listed as a front for and doing the work 
for the Communist Party, assume that the person who held the party 
was known to him to have been a Communist sympathizer, would you 
say this additional fact would completely disqualify him to sit on 
the Board ? 

Mr. Adams. I would say it would be serious, it would be another 
factor to be considered. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you think that would disqualify him? 

Mr. Adams. It would disqualify him with me, if the facts were 
exactly as you have stated them. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I would like permission now, 
to shorten this 

Senator MuNDT. The Senator's time has expired. 

Mr. Jenkins. I have no further questions. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has none. Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. Just one question. 

Did I understand you to say this Mr. X sometime last October or 
November had his security clearance removed? 

Mr. Adams. His security clearance was lifted in about the first 
week of November. 

Senator McClellan. You call it lifted ? 

Mr. Adams. Well, I say "lifted." It was removed. 

Senator McClellan. All right, whatever the term is. 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Then when was it restored or let back down ? 

Mr. Adams. In about a month, after reexamination of the indi- 
vidual's background was obtained. 

Senator McClellan. After the proper authorities considered the 
evidence against him, he was restored to security privileges? 

Mr. Adams. That is my understanding ; yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. You say your understanding. Are you testi- 
fying from knowledge ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. I will qualify it only to this extent, sir 

Senator McClellan. If you are not qualified to answer the question, 
I don't want you to. But I do not want this record left clouded. I 
understood you to say a while ago he was restored. If you don't know, 
I don't want that testimony, but want you to find out. 

Mr. Adams. He was restored. 

Senator McClellan. All right; when? 

Mr. Adams. About a month after his security clearance was sus- 
pended, he was suspended for about a month, from about the 1st 
of November to about the 1st of December 1953. 

Senator McClellan. Thank you, that is all I wanted. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen? 

Senator Dirksen. One question, Mr. Adams. What does full se- 
curity clearance entitle him to see, by way of documents ? 

Mr. Adams. Full security clearance is a rather inaccurate descrip- 

Senator Dirksen. It is a term that Mr. Cohn used. 

Mr. Adams. That is right, and that is the term that is used in the 
transcript. Any individual who has a security clearance, he is en- 
titled to see documents of that classification. If he has a top secret 
clearance, or a secret clearance, he can see documents of that classi- 
fication provided he has a need to see them, to do his work. And if 


he does not have a need to see them to do his work, the fact that he 
has the clearance does not entitle him to them. So this individual, 
with whatever his clearance was, was entitled, within the scope of 
his work, to see documents of that classification. 

Senator Dirksen. If he had top secret clearance he could see re- 
stricted, classified, confidential and top secret? 

Mr. Adams. If he had top secret he could see restricted, confiden- 
tial, secret and top secret when necessary in the pursuit of his work. 

Senator Dikksex. Do you know whether he had top secret 
clearance ? 

Mr. Adasis. It is my recollection that he had top secret clearance. 

Senator Dirksen. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jacksox. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Any Senators to my right ? 

Senator Symixgton. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair? 

Senator jMcCarthy or Mr. Cohn ? 

Senator McCartht. One request of the Chair, and I think Mr. 
Cohn has one or two questions. In view of the fact that this was 
testimony taken before this committee, I wonder if it M'ould not be 
a good idea if we would either have someone on my staff or someone 
on the committee staff take out the parts that are pertinent to Mr. X's 
case, present that to Mr. Welch or Mr. Adams so they can be sure 
that we have the entire picture, and then have that made a part 
of the record, deleting the names. I think it is rather important in 
this one typical case to show the type of individual who was 

Senator Mundt. INIay the Chair inquire ? I thought the Army had 
been supplied with a transcript of the entire thing. 

Senator McCarthy. They have been supplied with the transcript, 
Mr. Chairman, but my thought was was : There is much immaterial 

Senator Mundt. I think that would be a function that your staff 
might perform, then, to submit to Mr. Welch whatever documentation 
you want to inquire about at a later session. 

Senator McCarthy. And he will offer that for the record. 

Senator Mundt. If the name is deleted. 

Senator McCarthy. We will have it available for the public record 
within a day or so, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Y/elch. Mr. Chairman? I would think if the Senator's staff 
made a selection and the people on my staff thought that ought to be 
augmented some, it would be agreeable to augment it ? 

Senator Mundt. Entirely so, and you should be presented with 
a full set of hearings as well as the selections. 

Mr. Cohn? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, a point of order. I am sure 
the committee reserves the right to check on deletions and to com- 
pare the full thing. This is a document of the committee, as I under- 
stand it. 

Mr. Oohn. It is, definitely, Senator. 

Senator McClellan. So we would have access to it if the occasion 

Senator Mundt. No question about that. 


Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, another point of order. I am 
sure the Chair agrees that anything tliat will be deleted from the 
monitored conversations by the individual, unilateral or cooperative 
attitudes of the various counsels will be submitted to the committee 
prior to its deletion. 

Senator Mundt. Unless they involve security matters, I might say. 
That has to be ruled upon by the Attorney General. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I protest that. I think if 
they are so high in security that they cannot be shown to the com- 
mittee, I do not see how they can be shown to the committee counsel 
or other counsel. I think anything that is deleted by the agreement 
of counsel between the Army and this committee, and Senator ISIc- 
Carthy and his staff, should be deleted only with the approval of this 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, all I had in mind was 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair inquire first of Senator Symington 
he raises a very pertinent point, but the Chair must confess he does 
not know how w^e are going to solve this jigsaw puzzle, exactly, unless 
we give to the Attorney General the right to determine the security 
clearance. I am not sure — you have been in the Secretary's Office, 
but I am not sure whether I could determine what was security or not. 

Senator Symington. May I raise another point of order? 

In my opinion, if the Attorney General of the United States is 
interrogated with respect to the matters brought out this afternoon, he 
should be interrogated in an open hearing and not in an executive 

Senator McCarthy. I would agree with that. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair did not understand the Senator from 
Missouri to say that on these monitored calls we interrogate the At- 
torney General? 

Senator Symington. I said I would like to make anotlier point of 
order at the end of the day. One had to do with the monitored tele- 
phone conversations and the other had to do with the discussion with 
respect to Mr. Brownell. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn has given the Chair some happy in- 
formation. I think he said he had one or two more questions of Mr. 
Adams. If that is possible, I think he should get started. 

Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. You have a point of order or a suggestion be- 
fore you with reference to Mr. Brownell's testimony. My under- 
standing was that the executive meeting w^as not to take testimony 
but was simply to be in the nature of a conference to ascertain how 
to proceed with respect to the request of the Senator from Wisconsin. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator is correct. 

Senator McClellan. I never consented to what I regard as im- 
portant testimony in executive hearing. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator is exactly correct. 

Senator Symington. The Senator is correct, but if we do decide in 
executive hearing to talk to Mr. Brownell, it was brought up this 
afternoon that that talking would be done in executive hearing. 
Therefore, I thank my colleague from Arkansas. The point I want 
to make is if the decision is to bring up these matters with the At- 
torney General, that it bo done in open hearing after the decision is 
made and not in executive hearing. 


Senator Muxdt. I am sure all those things can be worked out, Sena- 
tor, in our executive session when we determine whether to ask the 
Attorney General to come to testify. Now, Mr. Cohn, I do hope that 
these interruptions have not changed your plan to be able to conclude 
with Mr. Adams with a few more questions. 

Senator McCarthy. One more interruption, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Muxdt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Symington raised a well-taken point. We 
were talking about deletions with regard to Mr. X. I want to make 
it clear that as far as I know there is no security information of any 
kind or nature in this particular matter. I was merely referring to 
deletions of the names, which follows the committee procedure not to 
make public names discussed in executive session. 

Senator Muxdt. The Chair has understood that. Mr, Cohn. 

Mr. CoHX. Very well. Mr. Adams, has Mr. X been restored to 
the Loyalty Security Screening Board ? 

Mr. Adams. No. 

Mr. CoHX. He is no longer on that Board ? 

INIr. Adams. He is not. 

Mr. CoHx. Is that right, sir ? 

]Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Mr. CoHX. Now I have no further questions of Mr. Adams. 

Senator Muxdt. Has anj'body else any questions for Mr. Adams? 
If not, the Chair is about to dismiss him and unswear him once again. 
You are dismissed and unsworn, Mr. Adams. 

It is 4: 25, almost 4: 30. What is the pleasure of the committee? 
We will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 : 30. 

(Whereupon, at 4:30 p. m., the committee was recessed, to recon- 
vene at 10: 30 a. m. the following day, Friday, May 7, 1954.) 



Adams, John G 829, 833-837 

Testimony of 838-857 

Air Force (United States) 836 

Army (United States) 826, 828, 830, 834, 836, 840, 849, 855, 856 

Army regulations 849 

Army Signal Corps 849 

Army's screening board 833-835, 840-842 

Attorney General 826, 829-833, 845-848, 850, 856, 857 

Briiwnell, Herbert 830, 831, 856 

Browuell letter 830 

Carr, Francis P 849 

Chicago speech (Brownell) 830 

Cohn, Roy M 851, 852, 856 

Communist I'arty 854 

Communist sympathizer 851 

Communists 830, 831, 833, 834, 843-845, 848, 850-852, 854 

Congress of the United States 833 

Democrat colleagues 831 

Department of the Army 826, 828, 830, 834, 836, 840, 849, 855, 856 

Department of Justice 827, 831 

Espionage^Russian 831 

Executive orders 846, 849 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 830, 832, 833, 852 

Federal Government 832, 840, 846, 848, 852 

Government agency 852 

Government employees 846, 852 

Government of the United States 832, 840, 846, 848, 852 

Greenbelt, Md 851 

Greenbelt cooperative housing organization 848, 850, 851 

G SA rating 840 

H-bomb 831 

Hensel, H. Struve 827,844 

Hoover, J. Edgar 830 

Horwitz, Mr 827 

Justice Department 827, 831 

Legislative Liaison (Director) 839 

Loyalty Security Screening Board 833-835, 840-842, 849, 852, 853, 857 

Lucas IMr _ 826 8*^7 

McCarthy, Senator Joe. 826, 829, 830, 832-835, 83~7, 838, 844, 845, 850^853, 855-857 

McCarthy staff 837 

Morris, Robert (Judge Morris) 830 

Navy (United States) 836 

New York 842, 847, 849 

Northeast AVashington 848 

Pentagon 837, 844, 846, 848, 852 

President of the United States 831, 832 

*'Q" clearance 829, 830 

Reber, IMajor General 839 

Republican colleagues 831 

St. Clair, James D 827 

Secretary of the Army 826, 829-838, 840, 842-846, 849 

Security Division « 841 

Senate of the United States 832 

Signal Corps (United States Army) 849 

Spain 851 


3 9999 05442 1746