Skip to main content

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

See other formats





Given By 




Rosenberg case 885 

Eyau, General 882, 887, 890, 892 

Schine, G. David 8G2-867, 869-874, 876, 878-887, 889-891 

Secret laboratory (Fort Monmouth) 872, 873, 875-877, 884, 885 

Secretary of the Army 8G0-892, 895 

Senate of the United States 885, 892 

Smith, Second Lieutenant 895 

Stevens, Robert T 860, 895 

Testimony of 861-892 

Taft-Hartley bill 894 

Trice, Mark 860 

United Nations 885 . 

TInited States Army 863, 864, 866, 869, 873-881, 884, 886, 889, 891, 895, 89o 

United 'States Attorney General 893 

United States Department of Justice 885, 892 

Wells, John A 860 

West Point 869 

White House 892 

Woodward, Captain 895 

X, Mr 889 

Zwicker, General 886, 892, 895, 896 

Zwicker affidavit 886, 895-896 





JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 









S. Res. 189 

PART 24 

MAY 10, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 

46620° WASHINGTON : 1954 

Boston i'uai.c _^.,rary 
Superintendent of Documents 

SEP 8 -1954 


JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman 

KARL E. MUNDT, Soiitli Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 



EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massacliusetts 


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

Richard J. O'Melia, General Counftcl 
Walter L. Reyxold.s, Chief Clerk 

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman, 
CHARLES K. POTTER, Michigan HENRY M. JACKSON, Washinf;ton 


Ray II. Jenkins, Chief Counsel 

THOMAS R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel 

ROBERT A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SOLis HORWiTZj Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maneu, ^^ecrctar!l 




Index I 

Testimony of Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary, Department of the Army. 898 



MONDAY, MAY 10, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee ox Ixvestigatioxs of the 

Committee ox Goverxmext Operatioxs, 

Washington, D. G. 

The subcommittee met at 10:40 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the 
Caucus Room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, 
chairman, presiding. 

Present: Senators Karl E. Mundt, Eepublican, South Dakota; 
Everett McKinley JDirksen, Republican, Illinois; Charles E. Potter, 
Republican, Michigan; Henry C. Dworshak, Republican, Idaho; John 
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, 
Washington; and Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri. 

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

Principal participants: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a United 
States Senator from the State of Wisconsin ; Roy M. Cohn, chief coun- 
sel 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 X. Welch, special counsel 
for the Army : James D. St. Clair, special counsel for the Army ; and 
Frederick P. Bryan, counsel to H. Struve Hensel, Assistant Secretary 
of Defense. 

Senator Muxdt. The committee will please come to order, and the 
Chair would like to begin this morning by once more welcoming the 
guests who have entered the committee room and he takes this oppor- 
tunity of advising them of the standing committee rule that in enter- 
ing the room you come in to comply with the standing rule of the 
committee Avhicli is to insist that no members of the audience mani- 
fest disapproval or approval at any time in any way in an audible 
manner ; and the officers, members of the police, have instructions from 
the Chair to politely escort from the room without further notice any- 
body violating the conditions under which he entered the room. 

In that connection the Chair would like to read a short paragraph 
which appeared in the New York Times a day or two ago, and I call 
this to the especial attention of the officers of the Capitol Police who 
have been doing such a splendid job in maintaining order and such 



a splendid job in ushering our guests in and seeing that they are 
treated as comfortably as possible. 

In this rundown which appeared, I think it was in Saturday morn- 
ing's issue of the New York Times, speaking of the committee pro- 
ceedings, it says: 

While the room is paclved daily with about 600 persons present at all times and 
others waiting; outside, oliservers report that better order and decorum has been 
maintained than in any similar hearing in memory. 

The Chair would like publicly to express his appreciation to the 
Capitol Police for their fine work in heading up that job and I think 
it is especially appropriate that he do so because after the unfor- 
tunate shooting aliair in the House of Kepresentatives, it seems to me 
the Capitol Police came in for an abundant amount of unjustiiied 
criticism. I think, consequently, it is only fair that they now be given 
their full share of justified praise. 

Also I want to express my appreciation to the audience for their 
splendid cooperation. In the past 50 years I have attended a great 
many hearings, some of them emotionally charged, perha})s almost to 
the point that this one has been. I want to express my appreciation 
of the fact that there have been only one or two deviations throughout 
the hearings from the audience of this committee rule. "We thank you 
for that. 

I see that we have Mr. Stevens back in the chair this morning and 
we will proceed with the committee business. 


AEMY— Kesumed 

Senator Dirksen. ]\Ir. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen. 

Senator Dirksen. I have 2 or 3 matters to address to the Chair 
this morning. 

The first is that there is a meeting of the Judiciary Committee to- 
day, and on the agenda for consideration is a bill reported from a sub- 
committee of which I am the chairman. I feel impelled, therefore, as 
soon as it is possible to secure a quorum of the Judiciary Committee, 
to attend that session and to present that bill. 

May I also suggest, Mr. Chairman, that tomorrow afternoon at 2 
o'clock the subcommittee on Inde])endent Offices of the Appropria- 
tions Committee of the Senate will mark up the independent offices 
bill. This involves money for the Veterans' Administration, the 
Tennessee Valley Authority, the Housing Administration, the Atomic 
Energy Commission, and many others, and I feel impelled, Mr. Chair- 
man, under the circumstances and because of the importance of the 
bill, to be on hand for the markup. So I shall probably absent myself 
from these hearings tomorrow afternoon for that ])urpose. 

The third thing I would present this morning, Mr. Chairman, is a 
motion, which is as follows : 

I move, Mr. Chairman, that the testimony of Secretary Stevens be 
now concluded, or I might modify that to say concluded after the inter- 
rogation this morning comes to an end, and it is my understanding 
that probably not over an hour of cross-examination remains. And 
that thereafter Senator McCarthy be called to testify and to submit 
to direct and cross-examination. That, at the conclusion of Senator 


McCarthy's testimony and examination, public hearings be recessed 
and that whatever additional testimony may be required from any 
of the parties to this investigation be taken in executive session. 

I mio-ht qualify that last expression, Mr. Chairman, by saying that 
it is entirely possible that even though we might go into executive 
session for additional testimony, we might adopt the technique that 
was employed in the MacArthur hearing Avhen testimony was made 
available at the end of every day's session. n . jt ^^ 

I submit that motion, Mr. Chairman, because I believe, hrst ot all, 
that it comes within the special rules that have been adopted by this 
committee for the conduct of these hearings. ,r ^ ,, 

Secondly, I think that out of the testimony of Senator McCarthy 
we will o-et the remaining answers inasmuch as the answer and the 
countercharges that were tiled by Senator McCarthy with this com- 
mittee is a joint document that speaks not only for himself, but for 

I feel also, Mr. Chairman, that additional testimony beyond these 
two principles would at the moment be highly repetitious and only 
enga<^e a lot of time. I think the Army charges thus far have been 
reasonably well ventilated. So this is a matter for the committee to 
determine in the interest of expedition and in the ascertainment of the 
truth or falsity of the charges that are before us. 

I feel impelled, therefore, Mr. Chairman, to make this motion m 
the hope that we can bring these to an expeditious conclusion, and at 
the same time determine the matters that are pending before the com- 
mittee. . _ , , 

Senator INIundt. The Chair has heard the motion. Is there a second 

to the motion? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator MuNDT. Senator McClellan. ^ , 

Senator McClellan. I would like to inquire of the principals or 
have the Chair inquire of the principals to this controversy and their 
counsel if they have entered into an agreement or consented to the 
motion just made. That is a parliamentary inquiry. I address it to 
the Chair. If the Chair does not know he can find out. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair does not know, and he will be happy— 
I think it only fair that the principals to this dispute or their counsel 
should have an opportunity to express themselves on any proposed 
changes in procedure or any formula in the hearing. Since this is 
somewhat different from the one we had before us last week I think 
the Chair should inquire, and he will proceed to do so now. 

Senator McCarthy, you are involved in this, and this suggestion, 
if the Chair understands it properly, is that we dismiss Mr. Stevens 
either summarily now, or at the end of the morning session at the 
latest; that you then come before the committee under oath and 
subject yourself to as long a series of questions as the committee 
and counsel for all sides and all hands should decide, after which the 
case would be considered complete before the committee as far as 
public hearings are concerned, and other witnesses, if any, who would 
be called would be in executive session and the public would be given 
the testimony and the facts on that in the same manner as the Mac- 
Arthur hearings, which as I recall, Senator Dirksen, was that about 
every hour they sent out a transcription of the notes. Is that right? 

Senator Dibksen. That is correct. 


Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, the Chair would be glad to 
hear your reaction to that suggestion. 

Senator McCarthy. I am not sure I understand Senator Dirksen's 
proposah May I say anything that will shorten the hearings so we 
can get back to our all-important task of getting the Communists 
known to the committee to be in defense plants and the Government, 
out, that is my objective. If this would shorten it, good. Is it Sena- 
tor Dirksen's proposal that we hold up all other hearings until you 
have finished the executive sessions, or that we could proceed witii 
our investigation of communism on the days that we were not holding 
hearings on Schine's shoes? 

Senator Dirksen. May I inquire of Senator McCarthy whether he 
is referring to the action that was taken by the subcommittee at one 
of the first hearings that the regular investigation of the permanent 
subcommittee be suspended until this controversy had been closed? 
Is that the matter you are referring to ? 

Senator McCarthy. I just wondered whether or not you embodied 
in your motion. Senator, that during these executive sessions, I don't 
know how long they will last — they may be held 2 or 3 days a week, 
I don't know how many days a week — did you embody in your motion 
that on the days we were not holding hearings, on this matter, we can 
proceed with the all-important matters that are piling up before the 
committee? Then, I would heartily favor that. But if it merely 
means to continue this in executive session, I don't think I would be 
too much in favor of that. May I say this, I do think that when 
Secretary Stevens has finished his testimony, Avhen all the Senators 
have finished cross-examining me and counsel, that what we get beyond 
that point will be repetition. I know that Mr. Jenkins has inter- 
viewed all of the witnesses suggested both by me, Mr. Cohn, and ISIr. 
Carr and by the militar3\ He knows what they will testify to, and I 
think beyond Stevens and McCarthy it will be repetition. However, 
iJ: we are going to go into executive session, where the public cannot 
£ee us and hold 1 or 2 sessions a week and do nothing the other days, 
it might hold up our work much longer. 

If, Senator Dirksen, you would provide that if executive sessions 
are held, that they be held every day until the matter is ended, then 
I would favor it. " Or if you provide in your motion that on the days 
that this committee was not sitting in this matter, that we could pvo- 
ceed on the matters that, as I say, have been piling up, a great number 
of Communists in defense plants, some in the military, we have dis- 
turbing reports about Communist infiltration of Army intelligence, 
there are many things we must go into if we are not held up, then I 
would favor your motion. 

Senator Dirksen. May I say, Mr. Chairman, that I fully share the 
solicitude of Senator McCarthy about a resumption of the regular 
work of the committee. However, action on that matter was taken 
independently of anything else, ancl, I suppose it ought to be handled 
on the basis of an independent motion. But insofar as the work of 
the committee does not relate to anything that is relevant to the con- 
troversy, it would occur to me that at the earliest possible date the 
committee ought to resume its regular work. 

Senator INIcCarthy. May I suggest. Senator Dirksen, you have the 
entire committee here. There is no reason why you can't incorporate 


that in your motion, just the simple addition that on the days, other 
than Saturday and Sunday, that this committee is not sitting, that we 
resume our old work. It is awfully important when the session is 
drawing to a close. If you do that, good. Or, if you would provide 
in your motion that we merely accept the offer made by Mr. Welch, 
I accepted that, in fact, as you know, I went a step further — Mr. Welch 
suggested that Ave hear Mr. Stevens fully and then hear McCarthy 
fully, I said I would not only accept that but I was willing to dismiss 
Mr. Stevens from the stand because I felt we were not getting too 
much information in view of the time consumed. 

You add a new element which could prolong the hearings and hold 
up our work, frankly, indefinitely, unless you provide in the motion 
that the hearings will be held every day until concluded or that you 
provide that on the days they are not held we can do our other work, 

Senator Dirksex. Frankly, I would have no objection to the inclu- 
sion of that item in the motion, provided, of course, that the regular 
work of the committee could be resumed in every field except where 
i,ome element of the present controversy might come into play. I 
think that would be only fair, of course. It is my understanding that 
there is plenty of work on the agenda to keep the committee busy in 
any other field. 

Senator McCarthy. A tremendous amount. 

Senator Mundt. In that connection, quite apart from any relation to 
the motion, the Chair has been advised that the prolonged investigation 
which has been taking place in Alaska for over 6 months is being viti- 
ated by the fact that the statute of limitations is running out this 
month and next on some of the charges. It was suggested to the Chair 
that he undertake the Alaska investigation, and he said, "No, thank 
you, we have work enough on this at once and at present." 

However, it presents a real problem. May I say, as the Chair he is 
primarily interested in one problem, and that is that he wants to be 
sure that any arrangement that we work out does not in the opinion of 
any of the parties to the dispute do violence to justice and equity 
insofar as your interests are concerned. 

I want to ask you that question and get a direct answer, if I can, 
and I would like to ask that question of all other parties to the dispute, 
because we want these hearings, when we finally have adjudicated 
them, to be adjudicated fairly and equitably. 

Do you feel that the arrangement suggested by Senator Dirksen 
vrould do violence to your position or the position of those associated 
with you from the standpoint of the principles of equity and justice? 

Mr. Bryan. Did you speak to me, sir? 

Senator Mundt. No, sir, I am talking to Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, let me discuss this with the 
other two young men involved. 

Senator Mundt. Surely. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy? 

Senator McCarthy. I am not sure if I fully understand Senator 
Dirksen's proposal. It is this: that we hear Secretary Stevens in 
public session, hear Senator McCarthy in public session, and then Ave 
go into executive session and hear other witnesses. 

46620°— 54 — pt. 24- 


Senator Dirksex. Whatever other witnesses the committee may de- 
cide to hear in order to dispose of the matter. That, of course, is a 
matter for the committee to determine. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say this is the first that that sugo:estion 
has been brought to my att^ention. At this moment, I can see nothing 
to be gained by a continuation in executive session. I think if you 
were tS accept *Mr. Welch's original proposal, I would go along with 
that. Once we get into executive session, we can prolong that all 
summer and never get to the work that we should be doing. I am 
inclined to think that public opinion is going to force the committee 
to cut these hearings oft' fairly soon and get back to our work. As 
the Senator knows, this is the first this suggestion has bsen made to 
me, I was under the impression from the news stories that he was 
going to make an entirely different motion, that is, that Secretary 
Stevens and I be heard in full. 

As I have said often, I think it would be a great mistake, not that T 
enjoy going on that stand, you understand, but I think it would be a 
great mistake to conclude the public hearings Avithout giving the 
Senators a chance to cross-examine me in as much detail as they 
would want to. But beyond that, if you would end the hearing after 
Stevens and I finished, I would go along with that heartily. 

May I say that my sole concern now is to get back to the all-impor- 
tant work we are doing. As Senator Munclt said, we have a very— 
I shouldn't say very, but a rather important matter, involving alleged 
fraud, corruption, and bribery in Alaska. The statute of limitations 
is about to run out on some of the alleged criminal violations. 

I would like to get back to that and I would like to get back to Com- 
munists in defense plants. r)Ut in conclusion. Senator Dirksen, 1 do 
not know that your proposal would speed things up. 

Senator Dirksen. The point is that there has to be a paving clause, 
for if the committee undertook to get some clarification on a particular 
point, it would have its hands tied unless there was a saving clause to 
the effect that clarifying testimony could be taken in executive session. 

Senator McCarthy. Could you put a time limit on the number of 
days or weeks in executive session ? If you could, I would go along 
with it. 

Senator Dirksex. I would have no objection to a reasonable time 
limit. But I may say that this motion is made entirely on my own 
responsibility, and I think all the principals agree that I have not 
explored it any further with them since the last session we had on 
Monday of last week. 

So I am doing this entirely on my own responsibility. I do not 
know what the reaction of other principals will be. But I do believe 
that it can be worked out so that in executive session, without spending 
too much time or having too many sessions, whatever clarifying and 
supplementary material may be necessary, could then be obtained. 

Senator Mundt. Quite apart, now, Senator, from the question of 
whether this saves time or does not save time, the Chair asked you a 
question which I do not believe you answered. 

Assuming the Dirksen amendment is approved, the Chair would 
like to know whether you, speaking for you and your two associates, 
■would feel that this in any way does violence to justice and equity 
insofar as your position and your interest in this case is concerned. 


Senator McCarthy. Can I have just 1 minute, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. You may. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cliairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. To answer your question, as the Chair knows, 
these charges were not brought by me, they were brought by Mr. 
Stevens and Mr. Adams, As the Chair knows, I claim they brought 
them to call off the hearings and they were successful in doing that. 
I don't want to give Mr. Adams and Mr. Stevens any more success 
in prolonging the hearings indefinitely. 

At this point may I say I am worried for fear if we go into executive 
session we may continue indefinitely, because once Secretary Stevens 
and McCarthy have finished testifying, whatever comes after that will 
be repetition. We can continue that repetition all summer or all next 

I believe that many of the Senators, I at least hope so, are smarting 
under the pressure ol public pressure to get this circus about Schine's 
shoes called oil'. As long as we are going to have hearings, Mr. Chair- 
man, I would prefer that they be in public. 

Senator Mundt. You still have not answered the question. 

I Avill ask you the third time. If you will answer it would be help- 
ful. If you won't answer it I can't compel you to. Do you feel that 
working out an arrangement along the lines suggested by Senator 
Dirksen, aimed for shortening tlie hearings and essentially discon- 
tinuing them with the testimony of Secretary Stevens and Senator 
JMcCarthy, except for such collaborative witnesses as it might be 
desired to call in executive session, do you think that would do violence 
to justice and equity insofar as your position is concerned ? 

The Chair is primarily interested in having this thing done equi- 
tably and justly. If we can work out through negotiation or arbitra- 
tion or a motion, something for shortening the hearings which will 
not vitiate tliat goal, the Chair would certainly support it. 

On the other hand, if any party to the hearings says "This will 
not be just or fair as far as 1 am concerned,'' then the Chair would be 
inclined not to so do it. 

I ask you that direct question now. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, it would do no violence to 
justice and equity insofar as the issues here are concerned. Unless 
there is some assurance, liowever, that the executive sessions be ter- 
minated within a reasonable length of time, it could do grave violence 
to justice insofar as holding up the committee's work is concerned. 
I want to get back to the some one hundred thirty-odd, my staff tells 
me, Communists in defense plants. I want to get back to the Alaska 

Your proposal, answering you directly, will do no injustice, no 
violence or injustice insofar as settling the issues in this case are 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Senator McCarthy. But I have one further concern — pardon me 
for repeating it over and over — and that is that there be something 
in Senator Dirksen's motion which will limit this so we won't be in 
executive session 1 day a week, 2 days a week until next fall, with all 
of the important work of the committee piling up. I think Senator 
Dirksen should put some limiting clause in his motion. It would be 


much more acceptable to me, altlioiifrh I am not voting on it, and I 
hope it would be more acceptable to the Senators— period. 

Senator Dikksen. Mr. Chairman, I don't believe the suggestion is 
unreasonable. I believe there is a point in it. It is a matter that 
deserves consideration. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, in line with the general line of inquiry 
suggested by Senator McClellan, you have heard my colloquy with 
Senator INIcCarthy, and will you please speak to the matter which 
is before us now. or if Mr. Stevens would prefer to speak for himself, 
the Chair will recognize either one or both. 

Mr. AVelch. I will speak first, Mr. Chairman, if I may. 

Senator Mundt. Surely. 

]\rr. Welch. I shall direct my first two answers to what I under- 
stood to be two separate inquiries by Senator McClellan. 

The first inquiry, if I understood him correctly, was as follows : Has 
the Army agreed to this proj^osition prior to its being presented here 
this morning? The answer. Senator ]\IcClellan, to that question is 
in the negative. 

The next question is, is Senator Dirksen's motion acceptable to the 
Army, to Mr. Stevens and to Mr. Adams. The answer to that ques- 
tion is in the negative. 

Senator Mundt. Let me ask you the same question, Mr. Welch or 
Mr. Stevens, that I asked Senator McCarthy. Do you feel that the 
suggestion as made by Senator Dirksen would do violence to justice 
and equity insofar as your clients in this controversy are concerned? 

Mr. Welch. The answer to that, question is in the affirmative. I 
think it would do violence to justice and equity. 

Senator Mundt. Does that mean that you feel that any change what- 
soever in the direction of shortening the hearings would do such vio- 
lence or that you simply object to the proposal made by Senator 
Dirksen ? 

Mr. Welch. I do not say that any move to shorten the hearings is 
hopeless, but I do say, as T have constantly said last w^eek and now this 
week, that we must hear the principals in this case plus such collateral 
witnesses as are obviously necessary either to support or subtract from 
the testimony given by those principals. 

The names of the principals are familiar to everyone: They are 
Adams, Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Just a minute, until I have finished with Mr. 

May I inquire further, Mr. Welch, so the record will be completely 
clear, whether in suggesting that the hearings continue until at least 
all those people whom you have named are heard, you are representing 
the position of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams or the Army or whoever 
you consider to be your client ? Do you speak with their "approval and 
authority? We are talking now about continuing the public hearings 
until we have explored completely the minds of the witnesses that 
you have mentioned. 

Mr. Welch. I did not say what I have said without conferring wnth 
Secretary Stevens and Mr. Adams. Of course, they authorized me to 
say what I have said. 

Senator IMundt. I expected that but I wanted that to be in the 


Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cliairmaii, could I ask the Chair- 

Senator MuNDT. May I call on Mr. Bryan tirst. Mr. Bryan, you 
may speak next. 

Mr. Brtax. Mr. Chairman, this is the 13th clay of these hearings. 
As far as I am concerned, I have heard nothing during these 13 days 
that involves Assistant Secretary of Defense Hensel in this situation. 
I have stated to this committee before that the so-called Hensel matter 
is entirely collateral to and not a part of this controversy at all. As 
far as Mr. Hensel is concerned, therefore, Mr. Hensel has no objection 
to any reasonable shortening of the hearings in the public interest. 

However, if there is at any point testimony directed at Mr. Hensel, 
then I feel very strongly that Mr. Hensel should have the right to 
answer that testimony in the same sort of forum in which it was given, 
namely, the public forum before this committee. 

Senator Muxdt. May I ask you, Mr. Bryan, presupposing that Mr. 
Hensel is not brought into the controversy in sworn testimony by 
itself, by Mr. Stevens in his concluding testimony, or by Senator Mc- 
Carthy in his testimony, should the arrangement proposed by Senator 
Dirksen prevail, would you then feel that following the formula 
which you heard Senator Dirksen describe, would in any way do 
violence to justice and equity insofar as your client is concerned? 

Mr. Bryan. I would feel, Mr. Chairman, that under the circum- 
stances you have described Senator Dirksen's suggestion would do no 
violence to justice and equity insofar as my client was concerned. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you, sir. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter. 

Senator Potter. As a result of conversations this morning, it is 
evident that there is a great deal of divergence of views concerning 
how the hearings shall take place from here on. I share the view of 
Senator Dirksen and I think all members of the committee that we 
should conclude the hearings as soon as possible, recognizing the fact 
that all members of the committee — and I am sure all of those in- 
volved — are anxious and desirous of having the full facts presented. 
I would like to make two suggestions. My thought is the testimony 
of Mr. Stevens probably has given the full Army case. I may be 
wrong. That is something he would have to answer. But it would 
seem to me that a thorough examination of Mr. Adams would be 90 
percent repetition of the testimony of Mr. Stevens. 

I would like to make the suggestion that during the course of Mr. 
Stevens' testimony he step aside from time to time for another witness 
to testify on points raised, and that possibly during the interrogation 
of Senator McCarthy that same procedure be followed. I am thor- 
oughly convinced that, possibly with the exception of a few^ minor 
points, at the conclusion of Senator McCarthy's testimony the full 
story will be told. 

I want to reemphasize that this committee is not interested in a 
whitewash of any kind, and I am sure of that, as a result, when the 
hearings conclude, no person can accuse the committee of whitewash- 
ing this case. But I do want to emphasize the fact that as a commit- 
tee we have a certain responsibility to eliminate as much repetition 
as possible so we can conclude these hearings to the satisfaction of 
the public and get on with our more important work. 


Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that you contact all the 
principals in the case and arrange for an executive meeting of this 
committee itself during the noon hour or at the conclusion of our 
hearings tonight so that we will have a definite plan as to how our 
hearings will carry on in the future. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair say that he has followed 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, let me make this suggestion. It 
is quite evident, of course, that not only must the committee resolve 
this issue but it is the responsibility of the committee to resolve the 
issue. It is certainly current practice with Senate committees to de- 
tei-mine how much or how little testimony they are going to take by 
way of ventilation of a piece of legislation or an issue. And so I make 
this suggestion, ]\Ir. Chairman, that we have an executive meeting of 
this connnittee at 1 : 30 today, for the purpose of resolving it, at which 
time I will present the motion, maybe present it in refined form, but 
at that time we can vote it so that if the motion is made and there is a 
second, it then comes on for action. 

Senator Mundt. Which the Chair undertakes to interpret, then, 
that for the time being you are withdrawing your motion, which up 
to now has not had a second 1 That is as far as this morning's meeting 
is concerned? 

Senator Dirksen. That is right, only if there is an agreement to have 
an executive session at 1 : 30. 

Senator McClellan, Mr. Chairman, do I understand that the Sen- 
ator is now withdrawing the motion he made? 

Senator Mundt. As far as this morning's session is concerned. He 
has asked for an executive session to be held at 1 : 30. 

Senator McClellan. I have no objection to holding an executive 
session to discuss not only this proposed motion, and I assume it is a 
proposed motion now, since it is withdrawn, to discuss it, let the com- 
mittee get each other's views and undertake to resolve, if possible, the 
issues that it poses. 

But, Mr. Chairman, I shall urge that the motion be made in public, 
and the vote taken in public session. It amounts to a change in rules, 
and we have heard objections here to changing the rules in the middle 
of the game. I think the motion should be made in public. When 
it is made, Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to offer a substitute 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, the motion was made in public 
and the Senator from Illinois intends to press it in public. He is 
anxious to have a vote in public on the motion. 

Senator McClellan. That is all I want. But I do, Mr. Chairman, 
I understand now. Let's get the record straight. Is the motion pres- 
ently withdrawn? 

Senator Dirksen. There was no second to the motion, Mr. Chair- 
man, as I understand it, this morning. 

Senator McClellan. I know there was not, but I am trying to keep 
the record straight. 

Senator Mundt. To keep the record straight, the Chair will say he 
heard no second to the motion, so it is not before us. 

Senator Dirksen. The motion has not been withdrawn, however, 
Mr. Chairman, 

Senator Mundt. That is right. You have served notice that you 
intend to introduce it. 


Senator McClellan. There is a difference, Mr, Chairman, in a 
motion in public hearing and a motion in executive session. It is 
either before us or it isn't. That is what I want to settle. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will say that it was before us long 
enough for purpose of the record to be seconded and it was not 

Senator jMcClellan. There is no motion pending then ? 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, the motion has not been with- 
drawn, because only the author of the motion can withdraw it. 

Senator Symington. May I suggest that the motion be read ? 

Senator McClellan. Just a moment. I want to know, Mr. Chair- 
man, and I think we are entitled to a ruling on it, is there now a 
motion pending before this committee or is there no motion pending? 

Senator Mundt. As the Chair has ruled for the third time. Sena- 
tor McClellan, for want of a second there is no motion pending before 
this committee. 

Senator McClellan. Then the motion loses as made, for want of a 


Senator Mundt. I wouldn't say that. 

Senator McClellan. The author of it says he has not withdrawn 
it. I would like to get the record straight. They cannot be both. 

Senator Mundt. Would the Senator like to have the Chair sit here 
and wait longer for a second before he makes his ruling ? 

Senator McClellan. No, sir. Declare the motion lost for want of 
a second. That will take it off the record. 

Senator Mundt. I will declare that there is no motion before us, for 
want of a second. I cannot say it is lost as it has not been voted on. 

Senator McClellan. Then there is no motion before us ? 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, the motion will be re-presented 
both in executive session and in public hearings. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair understands that. 

Senator Jackson. Do I understand, Mr. Chairman, that the execu- 
tive session at 1 : 30 w^e are to discuss the proposed motion but we 
will not vote on it in executive session ? 

Senator Mundt. It is my understanding that we are to discuss it 
together with any other suggestion that may be brought up, but that 
any action which might be taken at executive session would be con- 
sidered tentative and would have to be confirmed in open session in line 
with Senator McClellaivs suggestion. 

Senator Jackson. It would have to be voted upon in public session ? 

Senator Mundt. Well, I Avould say confirmed or voted upon, yes. 
In other words, I think that Senator McClellan's position is that if 
we take a vote in executive session, it should not be finalized except 
by opening it up and discussing it again in public session. 

Senator Jackson. I want to make it clear that I personally feel 

Senator Mundt. You have no objection to that, have you ? 

Senator Dirksen. No, but I will press it in executive session and 
open session. 

Senator Mundt. Surely. We have an understanding out in public 
now", which we now have, that any decision made in executive is 
tentative and has to be finalized in public session. Certainly, the 
Chair would associate himself with that position, and he thinks that 
is a fair one. 


Senator McClellan. Mv. Chairman, that is not proper parliamen- 
tary procedure. If a motion in executive session is voted, then that 
is final action of the committee and you would have nothing before 
you in public session. 

Senator Mundt. Does the Senator from Arkansas have any idea 
of what the Chair can do to prevent a motion from being made in 
executive session? 

Senator McClellan. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Neither have I. 

Senator McClellan. I have no idea on what you can do to prevent 
it. I am merely presenting my position. I thought I had a right to 

do that. 

Senator Mundt. I thought I met that position. The Chair has 
gone a long way in suggesting that any action we took in executive 
session must be reiterated and reconfirmed in public session. 

Senator McClellan. I am talking about a parliamentary situa- 
tion. You either vote for something or you don't. If you make such 
a motion and take a vote in executive session, and it has to be condi- 
tioned that the motion is re-presented here, the only way to hold it 
up, and that the action here would be final 

Senator Jackson. If that is included in the motion, then it can 
come before the committee. But I don't see how it can come before 
the public session, if you have voted something, unless we are going 
to take up a motion to reconsider it. 

Senator Mundt. It seems to me we are wasting a lot of time dis- 
cussing an arrangement which we all seem to have accepted by mutual 

Senator McClellan. I have not accepted it, Mr. Chairman. I am 
protesting it now. I am trying to state my position. I want to offer 
a substitute motion. I want to offer that substitute motion in public, 
let it be voted on in public, and if you take that final action in execu- 
tive session, I would have no opportunity to do that. That is the 
only position I am trying to get straight. 

Senator MuxDT. It looks as though the author of the motion which 
was not seconded has gone to his other meeting. I am sure we can 
work out in executive session a procedure which will be satisfactoiy, 
since we all seem to agree that whatever is done finally can be done 
in public session. May the Chair make this additional statement, 
that Ave will meet in room 357, then, in executive session, at 1:30. 
?\rr. Welch will be invited to attend, Senator McCarthy will be invited 
to attend, Mr. Bryan will be invited to attend. The purpose of the 
meeting is to discuss, again, whether a satisfactory formula can be 
found for the problem of trying to shorten these hearings without 
doing violence to justice and equity. The Chair understands that ISIr. 
Welch speaking for himself and his client opposes the formula as 
])roposed, although not seconded, by Senator Dirksen. The Chair 
lias held that he thinks it is very important, as far as he is concerned, 
that these hearings proceed as expeditiously as possible, without in 
any way denying parties to this dispute what they consider a fair and 
equitable hearing. So, if it continues to be the position of Mr. Welch 
and his client that he wants these hearings to go on and on until we 
have succeeded in having the numerous witnesses who would have to 
be called, the chairman is certainly willing to continue to preside 


alone with that contention. But I do think it is important enough to 
justify an executive session and see whether there is still an opportu- 
nity for a meeting of minds before we commit ourselves to a procedure 
which seems certain to take another 3 or 4 weeks, with the speed we are 
making and the number of witnesses that have been proposed. If 
neither counsel nor anyone else wants to be heard on this suggestion, 
we will proceed. 

Senator Symingtox. What is the motion that was presented by 
Senator Dirksen ? 

Senator Mundt. I am sure you were here. You heard the colloquy. 
It is not before us now. If you would like to have it read, I would be 
happy to have the reporter read it. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, in order to expedite it, I would 
suggest that the reporter be requested to type up the motion and 
present it to us after recess. 

Senator Mundt. I think that is a splendid idea; and make copies 
enough for all the members of the committee. 

Senator Symington. What I would want to get, ^Mr. Chairman, is 
what it was that Senator Dirksen and presumably you want to be 
looked at at 1 : 30. I would like to have it and study it before I dis- 
cuss it. 

Senator Mundt. It seems like a reasonable request. We w^ill ask 
the reporter to make copies for all the committee. Although, if the 
Chair understood Senator Dirksen before he went out, he said he 
was going to refine it. 

Senator Symington. That is what I understood, and I would ap- 
preciate an opportunity to see it before the 1 : 30 meeting. 

I might add that my present position at this time is that I am 
strongly opposed to it. 

Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, may I make a brief comment ? 
Apparently there is a complete lack of agreement among the members 
of the subcommittee and the counsel for the principals, as to pro- 
cedural methods. But certainly we ought to have some agreement that 
having continued this hearing for 12 clays we have accomplished only 
about half as much as we should have accomplished. Ancl I think we 
ought to take some steps to continue the hearing with dispatch and 
expedition so that we can accomplish the original objectives. 

I think the public interest can best be served not by continuing 
indefinitely a public spectacle which distracts and diverts the members 
of this committee and the officials of the Department from more im- 
portant and vital business. 

I think that is our major objective, to attain the goal originally 
outlined without unnecessarily prolonging this public spectacle. 

Senator Mundt. That certainly is the Chair's objective; that is the 
reason he asked each party to the dispute directly, out in public, 
whether he felt these arrangements would do violence to their posi- 
tions from the standpoint of justice and equity. 

Senator McCarthy said it would be satisfactory and Mr. Bryan 
said it would be satisfactory. 

Mr, Welch said it would be unsatisfactory. 

The Chair has no disposition to superimpose upon the parties to 
the dispute a position which seems to be objectionable to one of the 
parties in the dispute. May the Chair say this much, finally, over 

46620°— 54 — pt. 24 3 


the weekend he received many phone calls from people in America 
whose thoughts he respects. It was suggested in answer to your sug- 
gestion, Senator Dworshak, that we change the procedure of this com- 
mittee to conform with that used in the Oppenheimer investigation. 
They told me that they considered these two investigations very 


Inasmuch as the Oppenheimer investigation was in security matters 
in connection with making the hydrogen bomb and this one deals 
with security matters in connection with the radar protection against 
the hydrogen bomb, they lead the chairman to the point where they 
said our committee might be doing a disservice by continuing to hold 
hearings dealing with security matters involving our protection 
against the hydrogen bomb. 

Consequently, the Chair is exceedingly pleased that we have had this 
public discussion about the procedures and the methods, because at 
least we do not want the country to believe that this continuation, if 
there is a danger involved to our security, grows out of a committee 
desire, relentlessly, to continue a hearing which the disputants think 
should be concluded. 

We have made available to the disputants an open forum to express 
themselves. The Chair has said repeatedly that he doesn't see how 
you can change the rules without action by the full committee to 
switch over to the Oppenheimer type of investigation which was to 
conduct the investigation in secret. 

If there is a danger to our security, I think we should do what we 
can to try to work out a procedure which will protect that. If 
there is none, of course, the analogy fails. We have — is anyone else 
going to be heard on this? 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, I think it well for all of us to 
recognize what the objective in this particular conflict is. Charges 
were made by the Army and counterstatements were made by Senator 
McCarthy and his statf. The purpose of the hearing was to ascertain 
the true facts. I am sure that that is the committee's sole purpose in 
holding these hearings. I was out of town over the week-end, and I 
noted a great deal of hysteria that the committee was going to white- 
wash somebody, somehow. I can assure you — and I am sure I am 
speaking for all members of the committee — there is no desire on 
anyone's part to whitewash the hearings, but we are desirous of bring- 
ing these hearings to an end as soon as i)ossible. 

The suggestion was made by Senator Dirksen that, after interroga- 
tion of Senator McCarthy, we go into executive sessions and have the 
transcripts come out as they did in the INIacArthur hearings — certainly 
no one can accuse the Armed Services Committee when they conducted 
the MacArthur hearing of whitewashing anybody. I think the true 
facts and the full facts came out as a result of that. I am confident 
that we will expedite the hearing considerably, and I can see no reason 
personally for not accepting a time limit on the executive sessions. 
I think everybody's interest will be well protected, and I sincerely 
hope that we can have some understanding on that point either in 
executive session or in open hearing, 

I want to emphasize again that there is no effort on anyone's part 
to hide any of the facts or to whitewash this hearing. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington? 


Senator Symixgtox. May I ask Senator Potter how are you going 
to shorten the hearings by simply putting them into executive 
session ? 

Senator Potter. Well, Senator Symington, I do not know whether 
it is the glare of those little old red bulbs on the television sets or not, 
but there is always a tendency for more questions that are not relevant, 
and more answers that are long when the little red bulbs are shining 
on that television set. 

Senator Jackson. May I suggest if we are gong to have a time 
limit, if that is the premise, then the time limit ought to be in public 
just as well as in executive session; I don't see how logically, if the 
word ''logic" has any meaning any more, I don't see how you can 
place a time limit on an executive session, but you cannot place a 
time limit on a public session. 

Senator Potter. I would 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter. 

Senator Potter. One of the reasons is equity. Secretary Stevens 
has been here — this is the 13th day, I believe — and I think on the 
other side there should be a time limit also. If we start in execu- 
tive session or in a continuation from here, everybody starts on an 
even keel. Otherwise, gentlemen, we are going to be here for 2 months 
and you might just as well make up your mind whether you are going 
to allow the Senate business that we are all engaged in and the busi- 
ness of running the Army, in which the Secretary is engaged, to go by 
the wayside while w'e continue this repetitious hearing or whether we 
are going to try to get down to the core of the matter and ascertain 
the facts as quickly as possible without doing injustice to any of the 
principals involved. That is the core of the whole discussion here 
this morning. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt, Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. I don't think there is any member of this com- 
mittee any more unhappy about this situation than I am. I have 
things I need to be doing, but I think there is a tendency to forget, to 
disregard the seriousness of the charges that we are investigating. 

I want to get on with investigating Communists and subversive ac- 
tion in government. That is highly important. But, Mr. Chairman, 
we have charges here that the Secretary of the Army has attempted 
blackmail, intimidation, and coercion to prevent an investigation of 
Communists in the Army. I say to you, Mr. Chairman, there could 
be no more serious charge made, and if we do have today as Secretary 
of the Army a man w4io would resort to the tactics and the conduct 
that he is charged with here, ]Mr. Chairman, the place to begin to clean 
house and clean out Communists is to clean out from the top where 
they are being coddled, if these charges are true. If you try to mini- 
mize these hearings and the importance of them, if these are reckless 
and irresponsible charges, then it ought to be ascertained immediately 
and remove the cloud of doubt or suspicion that these charges have 
brought upon the integrity of the Army under its present adminis- 

I didn't make the charges but they are here, and if this Secretary of 
the Army has been coddling Communists, has been trying to intimi- 
date a committee of the United States Senate whose duty it is to investi- 
gate these Communists and subversive activities in government, has 


been holding a private in the Army as hostage and refusing to give 
him what he was entitled to simply to ti-y to intimidate this commit- 
tee, it is time, Mr. Chairman, that the people of this country found 
that out and the place to start would be at the top and not at the 

On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, if the other charges are true, that 
members of the staff of this committee have made threats to wreck the 
Army and declare war on the Army if they couldn't get the assign- 
ment that they wanted for some friend or private, if those charges are 
true, then, Mr. Chairman, the American people are entitled to know ; 
and if they are reckless charges, if someone has testified to that and 
others may that those charges are false and they prove to be false, then 
I say that is a terrifically reckless and irresponsible charge and he who 
made it ought to be held accountable for it. 

I have no personal interest in it, but these charges go much further, 
much further than somebody shining his shoes or somebody with the 
name of Schine. They go to the integrity of this Government today, 
at this hour. If we cannot have integrity in high places, you can ex- 
pect continuous Communist infiltration faster than any congressional 
committee can expose and eliminate them. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. I would like to associate myself in every way 
with what Senator McClellan has said. As a matter of fact, I don't 
believe anybody in this Government has tried harder than I have in 
the last 13 yeare to develop strength with which to resist advancing 
Communist aggression strength inside and outside of our country. 

I told the people that I represent, the 4 million people in the State 
of Missouri, when these hearings started that I had just two main 
tenets as they started. The first was that these hearings were going 
to be conducted in a goldfish bowl and a goldfish bowl is never an 
executive hearing. The second was that each witness, subject to the 
approval of the chairman's rulings, was going to have exactly the same 
rights as every other witness, no more and no less. 

With all due respect, to my distinguished colleague from Michigan's 
sensitivity to the television aspect of lengthening these hearings, I 
do not agree. I believe that executive hearings at this time as these 
witnesses take the stand is in effect putting it under the rug. I am 
not for it under the rug. I completely agree with Senator McClellan 
with respect to the seriousness of these hearings, and I believe the 
American people have the right, if they want to and only if they 
want to, to look and to hear and to read about them. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch — and I think the Chair will have to 
deny Senator McCarthy and Mr. Hensel any further senatorial privi- 
leges at this time on this topic, because we are going to have an execu- 
tive session this afternoon at which you can all make your points 
extremely clear, and Senator Dirksen has indicated he is going to 
bring his motion up in public afterward, at which time you can be 
heard again. 

I do think that we will have to limit the committee discussion to the 
committee members who are going to be called upon to vote at this 
time. We have asked each of you to make your position clear. Each 
of you has done so. We respect your right to do so. 


I would like to say, however, so there is no misunderstanding, to 
those who may have tuned in at a particular time on the radio or 
television, as far as I know nobody on this committee and nobody in- 
volved in the dispute has said that these charges are to be minimized, 
that they are not important. They certainly must be important to 
the people who made them, and they must be irnportant to the people 
who are endeavoring to answer them on the radio. 

I have said repeatedly, as far as the Chair is concerned, I want these 
hearings to pursue the truth to arrive at a just and equitable con- 
clusion. I am motivated by that much more than I am about the 
particular committee procedure. I frankly am disturbed a bit when 
thoughtful friends of mine call up, as they did over the weekend, and 
say that we should give some thought to trying to handle this question 
of security risks as the Oppenheimer question of security risks was 
liandled. Apparently the people and the press unanimously applaud 
the Oppenheimer procedure in the Oppenheimer case. 

Many segments of the press and some elements of the public are 
criticizing our committee for doing this in public. I think it is well 
that we reappraise the situation, therefore, to make sure if security 
risks are involved in this terribly dangerous world in which we live, 
in connection with our best protection against the hydrogen bomb, 
namely, the aspects of radar. 

It merits an executive session to determine (1) whether we can 
refine our procedure better to protect the security of all Americans, 
and (2) just what each party to the dispute actually wants to have 
from the stand])oint of procedure. 

If it is desired by any element to get justice that we should continue 
for 2 months and keep the Senate and the Army tied up, that party 
has a right to make his position known publicly and our committee 
will then vote. 

As far as the Chair is concerned, he will continue to vote in the 
direction of providing a forum here which all parties to this dispute 
consider fair and equitable. Once the parties to the dispute, if they 
ever can, arrive at a procedure which will give some reasonable pos- 
sibility of terminating these hearings in the next 2 weeks or 2 months, 
then the Chair will certainly never be in position of voting to say, once 
the parties to the dispute are satisfied to adjudicate their differences, 
that we should prod them in the back and whip them over the wrists 
urging them to continue to accuse each other in public session. 

Unless there are other statements to come from committee members, 
we will proceed with the interrogation of Secretary Stevens. 

Senator Stsiington. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. I would like to make a very short observa- 
tion. I would be entirely willing to limit to whatever was considered 
appropriate by the committee the length of time that any witness was 
on the stand. It seems to me such a logical sofution of this problem 
that I am dismayed that it hasn't been taken up seriously before. 

Senator Mundt. Does any other Senator care to be heard before we 
start with the interrogation ? 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, Senator Symington indicated that 
he wasn't interested in sweeping anything under the rug. In the dis- 
cussion this morning, I believe no Senator made any statements that 
they wanted anything swept under the rug. I think it has been made 


perfectly clear and has been enunciated many times, tliat we are inter- 
ested in f^^ettinn; all the facts, but we are not interested in hearing the 
same story told in 10 different ways. 

Senator JNIundt. Any other Senator before we start with the inter- 
rogation of Mr. Stevens ? We are about to start. 

Mr. Stevens, you are back on the witness stand now and we will 
start with Counsel Jenkins if he has any questions. 

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

at this time. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair w^ill pass. 

Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. Pass. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen had to attend the executive meet- 
ing of the Jucliciary Committee and he so advised the Chair. 

Senator Jackson passes and all others. 

Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. I pass. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Secretary, will you now tell us the name of the 
person or persons who gave an honorable discharge to the Commu- 
nist major. Major Irving Peress ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, it is my opinion that that question 
and any answer elicited thereby w^ould be wholly irrelevant to the 
issues of this controversy. 

Mr. Cohn. May I be heard on that, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Briefly. 

Mr. Cohn. Thank you sir. I would respectfully direct the atten- 
tion of Mr. Jenkins to the specifications which we supplied in this 
case, in which we make as an allegation here the fact that one of the 
motivations of bringing about this proceedings, stopping the hearings 
of our committee, was a cover-up by Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams of 
the people responsible for the handling of the Peress case in the Army. 
We were told by Mr. Stevens that the Inspector General's report which 
took 3 months has finally been finished and that the names are now 
available. I think it is a very important test here to see whether Mr. 
Stevens even at this late date will give the American people the name 
of those who gave an honorable discharge to this fifth Amendment 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. The very fact that a specific allegation is made by 
Senator McCarthy's staff does not necessarily make it relevant. The 
same holds true with respect to Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams. Mr. 
Cohn is now attempting to go into a specific case, and for the reasons 
I have heretofore advanced I renew my objection. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I be heard ? 

Senator Mundt. Briefly. 

Senator McCarthy. Thank you for the "briefly" Mr. Chairman. 
I didn't think anyone was too brief here this morning. I would like 
to be heard in as much detail as I consider necessary. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will listen so long as you talk to the 
point of order. 


Senator McCarthy. I will be talking to the point of order. Mr. 
Chairman, one of the important charges here is that the allegations 
against Mr. Cohn, against Mr. Carr, against myself, were brought 
up and formalized the night after Mr. Stevens met with us. That 
was the night that he agreed to give us the names of those who were 
responsible for a plush dut}' order to the 5th amendment Communist 
major, the reports on the Congressmen who intervened to get the 
plush duty order for the 5th amendment Communist major who was 
destined to go to Yokohama, the orders changed, the promotion, the 
honorable discharge. As the Chair knows, Mr. Stevens promised 
us that information at that time. He now says that he has that 
information. I think it is very important to test his good faith to 
see whether he still wants to cover up those who got plush orders for 
this major. He is not at all hesitant, Mr. Chairman, to give all the 
details about a private who walks on the wrong side of a jeep, or who 
pays a dime to get his shoes shined. I think this is extremely impor- 
tant, to find out whether he is willing to give us those names now. If 
he has some reason why he doesn't want to give them in public, 
then I ask that he be ordered to send up to the Chair the names of 
those responsible. 

Mr. Chairman, this is the very heart and soul of this investigation, 
not to dig out the one Communist, but to dig out those who have 
covered, protected, and coddled Communists, and that information 
has been promised. Mr. Chairman, there is no reason on God's earth 
why those names should be kept secret at this time. 

Senator Mundt. Anything further to say, Mr. 'Jenkins ? 

Mr. Jexkixs. I certainly know no reason to reverse the position I 
have taken, Mr. Chairman. I think it is sound and still renew my 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Muxdt. Senator McClellan. 

Senator IMcClellan. I do not think it advisable, necessary, or 
proper to go into the details of each individual case. The statements 
the Senator has just made reiterate the charges against the Secretary 
of the Army and the integrity of the present administration of the 
Army. I think the Senator is entitled to have those names submitted 
to the committee if the Secretary is now in a position to do it. I 
want to expedite these hearings, but this question and this line of 
testimony reiterates how serious these charges are, and I think if the 
Secretary is in position to do it, the names of those through whatever 
processes occurred, or the routine of discharging folks from the Army, 
I think the names in the Peress case should be submitted to this 

Senator Mundt. The Chair is prepared to rule. He believes that 
it might be unwise to submit the names involved publicly. But he 
is prepared to rule that certainly involved throughout these hearings 
have been charges and countercharges about whether or not they were 
ever going to disclose the names of those responsible for the Peress 
promotion, and if those facts are now available, he believes that the 
Secretary, through counsel, should submit them to the counsel of our 
committee and without necessarily releasing them to the press, unless 
Secretary Stevens feels that he should release them to the press at 
this time. You may rephrase your question on that basis and the 
Chair will rule it in order. 


Mr. CoiiN. Mr. Chairman, I was going to state this so it may be 
very clear, if Ave may, exactly what we desire to obtain from Mr. 
Stevens at this time. I would like to point out that what we want 
is information bearing on allegations 41, 45, and 46, in the bill of 
specifications filed by Senator McCarthy in behalf of himself, Mr. 
Carr, and myself, specifically specification 41, Mr. Chairman, which 
alleges that on or about February 16 Mr. Adams advised, and he had 
on prior occasions, that if the investigation continued he, Mr. Adams, 
expected to be acutely embarrassed over the Peress case, as no followup 
action had been taken on it by him, Mr. Adams, aiid that he, Mv. 
Adams, might be charged with primary responsibility for allowing 
an honorable discharge to issue to Peress on February 2, 1954. 

We would want to know, Mr. Chairman, the full details supplied 
to Mr. Stevens as to what Mr. Adams' role was in the honorable dis- 
charge of Major Peress, particularly during the month of January 
and particularly between the time Peress appeared in executive session 
on January 30 and the time the discharge was issued on February 2, 
and whether Mr. Adams did anything to stop it 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has ruled on the point of order and 
suggested that you ask questions which will keep within the frame- 
work of that ruling. 

Mr. CoHN. Very well. 

I will now ask you, Mr. Stevens, with reference to the Peress case, 
whether or not Mr. Adams had any participation in the honorable 
discharge of Major Peress, specifically on February 1, 1954. 

Secretary Stearns.' I don't know. Mr. Adams can testify on that. 

Mr. CoHN". Mr. Chairman, I submit that Mr. Stevens has been 
telling us 

Senator Mundt. It was suggested that you ask the Secretary 
whether he knows of any connection. If he says no, that is as far 
as he can go with his own information. 

Mr. CoHN". Mr. Secretary, I might reword it this way : Mr. Secre- 
tary, you told us on last Friday that the Inspector General had sub- 
mitted to you finally a complete report as to the names of those re- 
sponsible for every step in the handling and mishandling of the case 
of this fifth amendment Communist major. Is that so, sir? 

Secretary Stevtens. No, you put a lot of words in my mouth on 
that statement that I did not make. Look it up in the record. 

Mr. CoHN. Would you please correct me, sir. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. "Wliat I said was that the report of 
the Inspector General was now ready. I add to that at this time, and 
I don't recall that I said it last Friday, but I will add now, that I 
have not had an opportunity to go through this report. It is a very 
voluminous document. I am going to go through it at the first possible 

I stated at the meeting on the 24th of February that I would in due 
course after the Inspector General's report had been submitted, supply 
the names that you have talked about. I have made public a letter 
on February 16 dealing with this whole matter, and I am prepared 
to submit those names to the counsel for this committee just as soon 
as I have gotten a chance long enough away from the committee to 
have a chance to go over the report myself, which I have not yet had a 
chance to do. 


Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, I might state I think the Secretary 
knows from the emphasis we have placed on it during this last week 
the great importance that we attach — I might address it to you, Mr. 

Senator Mundt. The Secretary has agreed to submit the names 
just as soon as he has a chance to go through the report and ascertain 
what they are. 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Secretary, is it not so that on the basis of meetings 
you have had with Senator McCarthy and members of this committee, 
on the basis of letters and telegrams which Senator McCarthy has 
sent to you, on the basis of the specifications we filed in this case, and 
on the basis of your questioning up to now, you have had every reason 
to know just how much importance we attach to the mishandling of 
the Peress case by your office. Isn't that a fair statement? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, I know you have had concern about it. 

Mr. CoHN. Then to help us along with your cross-examination and 
to try to wind this up, sir, would it not have been possible for you 
over the weekend to look at that report so you could answer those 
questions for us this morning? 

Secretary Stevens. Conceivably that would have been possible, 
Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, I can't conclude the examination until 
I can examine the Secretary on this information. 

Secretary Ste%t;ns. This is a very, very voluminous report. It is 
going to take a long time for me to go through it. I have made a 
commitment to submit the names to counsel for the committee and 
will do so at the earliest possible moment. 

When my testimony is finished I will say, Mr. Chairman, that I 
will try to get at that report just as quickly as I can consistent with 
my other duties in the Department. 

Mr. CoHN. That won't be much help to us in this case, I am afraid, 
Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. You obviously cannot interrogate the Secretary 
successfully on a report which he has not read. 

Mr. CoHN. I suggest, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the Secretary in 
fairness to us would have been prepared on these names, because he 
knows how much importance we attach to them in this case. I think 
we are entitled to that. 

Senator Mundt. At all events he says he has not read the report and 
if he has not read the rej^ort I don't see how he can answer questions. 
He has agreed to submit during the course of the hearings the names. 
After those names have been submitted then counsel for the committee 
can advise the committee as to the next best step. 

Senator Jackson. May I make a parliamentary inquiry? 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson. 

Senator Jackson. I note from the charges that Mr. Adams is one 
who is named in connection with the Peress matter. We can dispose 
of this by putting Mr. Adams on the stand. 

Mr. CoiiN. Mr. Stevens is named too. Senator Jackson. I respect- 
fully call your attention to allegation No. 46. It says : 

Messrs Stevens, Adams, and associates have been quick to publish and release 
a report calculated to smear the investigators and exposers of Communist 
infiltration, but despite the elapse of months, they — 


meaning Stevens and Adams and associates- 
have yet to produce for the American public the long-promised report naming 
those officials still serving under them who are responsible for the rise in the 
Army of a Communist conspirator against this country. 

It is on the basis of Mr. Stevens' direct participation in and laiowl- 
edge of this case that we seek to interrogate him. 

Senator Jackson. In charge 41 or paragraph 41, you state : 

On or before February 16, 1954, Mr. Adams advised, as he had on prior occa- 
sions, that if the investigation continued, he expected to be acutely embarassed 
over the Peress case if no followup action had been taken by him. 

I don't think it is necessary to read the balance. Your charge pri- 
marily in the Peress matter is against Mr. Adams. I just call that to 
your attention. 

Senator Mundt. It appears to the Chair that Senator Jackson is 
quoting from one charge and Mr. Cohn from another. So I think both 
of my distinguished conferees are correct. 

Senator Jackson. In charge 45, did you refer to 

Mr. CoHN. I was reading 46, the last paragraph in the specifica- 
tions. Senator Jackson. The very last paragraph. 

Senator Jackson. Yes, but you do not name the Peress case. You 
refer to individual Communists. In paragraph 46 you make no ref- 
erence to the Peress case. 

Mr. CoHN. If the Senator will read the entire specification I 
respectfully suggest in the paragraph before, "finally, a graphic 
example isthe case of Maj. Irving Peress." If you continue reading, 
sir, I think you will find, although I agree with you Mr. Adams cer- 
tainly had a part in it 

Senator Jackson. I am reading the main language of it. You tie 
Peress to Mr. Adams but I don't get that you tied him to Mr. Stevens. 

Mr. CoHN. We have specifically by name, sir, on the last page 
beginning with the first full paragraph. 

Senator Mundt. At all events it seems to me that there is no ad- 
vantage to be gained at the moment in interrogating Mr. Stevens about 
a report which he testifies under oath he has not read, Mr. Cohn. You 
can't get any information for the time being further than the fact that 
he will submit to us as quickly as possible, which I certainly assume 
will be before the hearings are over, the names which have been 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, the Chair makes a good point, 
and that is it is impossible to question you about a report if you re- 
fuse to read it or if you fail to read it. You understand 

Secretary Stevens. I haven't refused to read it. 

Senator McCarthy. You understand, of course, you cannot pre- 
clude us from getting information by merely avoiding looking at that 
report, and sometime you have to read it. 

Secretary Stevens, I have no such intention of avoiding anything. 

Senator McCarthy. How many days has that report been in your 

Secretary Stevens. I think I testified last Friday that it was 
finished about Thursday or Friday. 

Senator McCarthy. Who has been ordered to examine that report 
and give you a resume on it or rej^ort on it, if any ? 

Secretary Stevens. The Inspector General and our Assistant Sec- 
retary of the Army. 


Senator McCarthy. What is the Assistant Secretary's name? 

Secretary Stevens. His name is Milton, M-i-1-t-o-n. 

Senator McCarthy. Has he been working on that since Friday? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know. 

Senator McCarthy\ Did you order him to work on that full time ? 

Secretary Stevens. Xo, I did not. He has a lot of other duties to 
perform, and important ones. 

Senator IMcCarthy^ Mr. Stevens, you have been promising us over 
a period of months that sometime, some place you will give us the 
names of those who are responsible for the gross mishandling of this 
Communist case. Will you tell us when, what day, what week, you 
can come in here and tell us whether it was John Adams or who it 
was who was responsible. No. 1, for the change in duty orders. When 
he was destined to go to Yokohama, he requested to be kept in the 
United States^ 

Secretai-y Stevens. That was done as a result of the American 
Red Cross investigation. 

Senator McCarthy. Is that the I. G. report? Did the Inspector 
General say that was solely 

Secretary Stevens. As I say I have not read the Inspector General's 

Senator McCarthys You know he was asked the question whether 
or not Communists helped him get a change in duty orders. He said, 
"I refuse to answer on the grounds that it might incriminate me if 
I told the truth." Did you know^ that ? 

Secretary Sit.vens. Xo, I didn't know that. 

Senator McCarthy. Then why did you tell us it was Red Cross 
when you don't know what the testimony about the case was? 

Secretaiy Stevens. I know that the American Red Cross was asked 
to investigate this case and made a recommendation to the Department 
of the Army on it. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, you know, as a matter of form, 
the American Red Cross investigates every case, and the American 
Red Cross is not responsible for the change in duty orders. They 
make an investigation and submit a report. In many of the cases, 
the young men upon whom a report is made, are sent overseas. You 
understand that, do you not ? 

Mr. Welch. Objection. Mr. Chairman, may I point out that in 
spite of your ruling, we seem to be trying the Peress case. 

Senator McCarthy. I know it is distasteful to you to talk about 
the Communists, Mr. Welch. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair was upholding the validity in the ques- 
tion about the Red Cross. Is this about the Peress case ? 

Senator McCarthy'. I am trying to find out from this young man 
what, if anything, he knows about the report, if he has discovered 
up to this time who was responsible, if not, why doesn't he order 
someone — he seems to have a vast array of apparently competent young 
men behind him. Perhaps he could spare just one of that group, to 
go over and read the report and come back and say "Mr. Secretary, 
it was John Jones, it was Pete Smith, it was Nellie Gray." That 
shouldn't take weeks and weeks. 

Senator Mundt. Perhaps it will shorten this colloquy if the Secre- 
tary can give the committee some idea as to when he could provide 
the counsel with the information which the committee has requested. 


Secretary Ste\t:ns. I think that depends very largely, Mr. Chair- 
man, on how long I continue to testify. 

Senator Mundt. Would it be possible to have one of your aides read 
the report and get the information. INIr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. I will have to go over this report myself. I 
have told you and I will restate, I will submit the names to the coun- 
sel for the committee as soon as I am able to go over the report, 
and when I am able to go over it will depend on how long I continue 
to testify. 

Senator McCarthy. How many pages long is this report ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know the number of pages. Senator, but 
it is a very, very voluminous document. 

Senator McCarthy. Eoughly? 100? 200? 1,000? 

Secretary Stevens. I would be only guessing, but I suppose it would 
be 500, to pick a number. 

Senator McCarthy. You have a great number of aides behind you. 
Would any of them know ? Have any of them seen the report ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know. 

Senator McCarthy. Could you ask Mr. Adams if anybody has 
seen it ? 

Secretary Stevens. Why don't we let Mr. Adams testify on this 

Senator McCarthy. Have you discussed the matter with Mr. 
Adams ? 

Secretary Stevens. The matter of the Inspector General report ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think I have, because I haven't read the 
report myself, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Have you discussed with Mr. Adams the ques- 
tion of whether or not he took some part in the sudden honorable 
discharge of this Communist officer ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall any conservation on that at all. 
I would like to remind you that I was in the Far East and got back here 
after Peress was out of the Army. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes 

Secretary Stevens. So I think the testimony on it as far as Mr. 
Adams is concerned ought to come from him. 

Senator McCarthy. I believe you promised the Chair the other 
day that you would submit the memorandum that you received from 
Mr. Adams when you reached, I believe you said California. 

Have you submitted that to the Chair yet? 

Secretary Stevens. There isn't any memorandum. I was mistaken 
on that. The paper that I recall now turns out to be your letter to me 
dated I think February 1. 

Senator McCarthy. When you said that you got a report when you 
arrived in California 

Secretary Ste\'ens. I got your letter, and read that on the way 

Senator McCarthy. How did you get my letter when you stopped 
off on your way here ? 

Secretary Stevens. I got it because a courier from my office brought 
out a briefcase full of very important matters. This happened to be 
one of the items. Your letter was there. Actually, because it was 


the middle of the night, I didn't have much chance to do any work on 
the plane coming back. But the paper that I was thinking about 
was your letter. 

Senator McCarthy. That was February 2, Now, between February 
2 and — what day is today — the 10th of JNIay have you discussed this 
matter with Mr. Adams? 

Secretary Stkvens. Tlie Peress case? Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. And did you discuss with him the question of 
who was responsible for the sudden honorable discharge of JNIr. Peress ^ 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall and I think Mr. Adams ought to 
testify on that. He can testify whether or not he had anything to do 
with it. 

Senator McCarthy. The question is 

Secretary Stevens. I wasn't here at the time and I don't know. 

Senator McCarthy. You were in the Far East, yes. You have been 
back here since February 2. The question is, did you discuss with 
JNIr. Adams, your legal aide, this very important charge, the charge 
that he, himself, had something to do with the sudden removal of 
tliis fifth amendment Communist from the jurisdiction of the Army, 
from the jurisdiction of a court-martial. Did you discuss that with 

Secretary Stevens. I discussed the letter of February 16, which I 
worked out and sent to you, Senator McCarthy. I discussed that, of 
course, with John Adams. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. 

Counsel Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Secretary, I am not particularly questioning you, 
but I want to make a suggestion, if I may. It seems that we are losing 
a lot of time with respect to the inquiry as to whether or not Mr. 
Adams had any connection or participation in the honorable discharge 
of Major Peress. 

Secretary Stevens. I testified I did not know, and I repeat it. 

]SIr. Jenkins. I understand that, now, Mr. Secretary. I am not 
asking you. I am making a suggestion. I understand that you now 
have before you the report of the Inspector General with reference to 
the Peress case, is tluvt correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. Not before me, but it is available. 

I\Ir. Jenkins. I don't mean here physically today, but in your office, 
is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, where is the Inspector General? Where is he? 
Is he available to you, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes ; he or his deputy. 

Mr. Jenkins. He is perhajjs here in AVashington and perhaps has 
an office in the Pentagon, is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. I believe you stated it was a 500-page document and 
apparently the Senator, Senator McCartliy, is wanting to know 
whether or not Mr. Adams had any connection or participation with 
the honorable discharge of Major Peress. Can you not — I am now 
asking you a question — can you not go to the Inspector General and 
have him, who prepared it, point out specifically to you the informa- 
tion that Senator McCarthy now desires? Can you not do that and 
thus obviate the necessity of you reading that entire report and thus 


enable you to answer that question and pass on to something else in 
the interest of speed? We are still interested in that. Has that got 
any sense to it or not? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I don't know. Of course, there are names 
that Senator McCarthy wants. I have to study that report to get 
those names tof.ether to submit to you. 

Mr. Jenkins. As I understood it, specifically he wanted to know 
whether or not Mr. Adams had anything to do with it. And then the 
names, as I understand it, the chairman ruled are to be submitted to 
this committee or me, as its counsel, privately, and without exposing 
their names. They are not parties to this controversy. The chairman 
would probably hold that you are entitled to give publicly the informa- 
tion as to whether or not Mr. Adams had anything to do with it. I 
am just making a suggestion and asking you that in the interest 
of speed. It occurred to me that that would be a way out, a solution 
to the problem. Can you do it or not ? 

Secretary Stevens. I can do that, sir, but it seems to me that Mr. 
Adams can testify right here now as to what he had to do with it, 
if anything. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, the point is this : The very fact that Mr. 
Adams has knowledge does not preclude you also giving your knowl- 
edge or the Senator from asking you about your knowledge. 
Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is no criticism of you. It is merely a statement 
of fact. Now, can we leave it at that and can you this afternoon bring- 
that information so we can pass to another point of inquiry? 

Secretary Stevens. I am not sure I could bring it this afternoon. 
Mr. Jenkins. You could bring it in the morning, I imagine. 
Secretary Stevens. Mr. Jenkins, I want to cooperate with you the 
very best I can. I will supply any and all information that this 
committee wants just as quickly as I can possibly do so. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, that is all I care to ask the Secretary. 
Senator Mundt. I think that is a very constructive suggestion. If 
the Chair understands it, the Secretary is willing and desirous of 
expediting the securing of this information, and has agreed to talk 
Avith the Inspector General, who wrote the report, and Avho consequent- 
ly could tell you immediately the names involved. Insofar as Mr. 
Adams is concerned, that should be discussed publicly because he is a 
party to the dispute. The other names requested by Mr. Cohn should 
be submitted confidentially and to counsel for our committee because 
we don't want to expand the circle of witnesses any more than neces- 
sary. If you will agree to do that, that will certainly save us an 
enormous amount of time, because it will be quite a while, of course, 
before you could read 600 pages of testimony. But the Inspector 
General who wrote it can answer your questions, probably, in the 
course of a 2-minute conference. He obviously would know. The 
Chair has no other questions. 
Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. No questions, Mr. Chairman, but I make this 
suggestion, that if we want to expedite these hearings, let us ask the 
parties directly involved in these things, and Mr. Adams is present, 
you can get it that quick, if you want it. 

Senator Mundt. I don't think Mr. Adams, probably, has read the 
full report immediately, and the names wouldn't be available to him. 


Secretary/ Stevens. The question is, Did it have anything to do with 
him ? Mr. Adams is competent to testify on that point right now. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr Chairman. 

Senator Mdndt. Counsel advises the Chair that the fact that Mr. 
Adums can testify on this does not preckide the importance of getting 
the Inspector General's information. 

Secretary Ste\'ens. I understand that. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen? Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter? 

Senator Potter. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. I have no questions. 

Senator ]\Iundt. Senator Dworshak? 

Senator Dworshak. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch? 

Mr, Welch. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn or Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Just one question on the I'eress matter, before 
we drop it. Cojnsel Jenkins made, I think, an excellent suggestion. 
I would like to expand on that, Mr. Secretary, and see if you can get 
this information over the noon hour or before tomorrow morning. 
As you will undoulitedly recall, there was an order giving an honorable 
discharge to ]\Ir. Peress. That order was signed early in January. 
As you undoubtedly will recall from the testimony, Mr, Peress testi- 
fied that he was going to take the full 90 days, stay in as long as lie 
could, which would let him out sometime in late March or early April, 
I forget which. As you recall, I wrote you the letter, which you said 
you got in California, asking that you take action in the Peress case, 
and have a court martial of him for his conduct unbecoming an officer 
in refusing to tell whetlier he was in Communist leadership schools, 
forming Communist cells at the Army base, holding meetings in his 
house, et cetera. As you will recall, before you got back to the United 
States, immediately after that letter was made public, Mr. Peress got 
an honorable discharge. Now, what I would like to have you supply 
to the committee : No. one, the question of whether Mr. Adams had 
anything to do with that sudden removal of Peress from the military, 
or, if not, who did. Who was the activating force in removing this 
man from tlie jurisdiction of the Army before you could return from 
the Far East. 

I want that, if possible, from the Inspector General's report. There 
would be nothing classified, no security information, involved in that, 
would there be? 

Secretary Sten-ens. Well, I wouldn't think so, but I don't know 

Senator McCarthy. Could you do this? Could you ask one of 
your aides there — you don't need them all now, I gather — to get on 
the phone and call someone whom you would designate and ask them 
to search out that information. It should not take more than 5 or 10 

Secretary Stevens. It will take more than that. Senator, I am sorry 
to say. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests if we follow the recommeda- 
tion of counsel we would have a much better program for getting that 


because he is going to ask the Inspector General who wrote the report 
to give him the information. Tliat can be done much more quickly 
than to have anybody search a 500-page document. 

Proceed with other questions. 

Senator McCarthy. I think that is a better suggestion. I under- 
stood the Secretary to say he would talk to the Inspector General ; did 
you say this noon or tonight? 

Secretary Stevens. I didn't say, Senator. I am going to talk to 
him just as soon as I possibly can. How long it will take me to get 
the exact authorization this committee wants I cannot forecast at this 
moment. I just don't knoAV. I want to supply it as quickly as I can. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, as soon as possible is too in- 
definite in your language, because "as soon as possible" has meant 4 
months, 5 months, or 6 months in the past. I ask you the simple ques- 
tion, when wnll you talk to the Inspector General in accordance with 
Mr. Jenkins' suggestion? Can you do that this noon? If you are 
tied up this noon, can you do it this evening? When can you do that? 

Secretary Stevens. I think I can do it this evening. 

Senator McCarthy. So tomorrow morning you should be able to 
shed some light on this? 

Secretary Stevens. I can't commit myself to tomorrow morning be- 
cause this is a very large job that you have given me here. 

Senator McCarthy. I merely w\ant you to commit yourself to the 
time when you will ask the Inspector General for this authorization. 

Senator Mundt. He has said he would ask him this evening. 

Senator McCarthy. You will ask him this evening? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. ]\[r. Stevens, Mr. Cohn has some further ques- 
tions to ask you. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Secretary, of the people suspended at Fort Mon- 
mouth, of the 35 people, has any one single case pending before a 
loyalty board been finally resolved to this date? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think so. I don't believe — I think they 
must be pretty near that stage, but I haven't seen any of those cases 
come in. 

Mr. Cohn. Once again, sir, these suspensions occurred beginning 
on the 19th of August, 33 of the 35 occurred by the 30th of October. 
I believe some 9 of these people have been restored to some type of 
duty, although you say nonsensitive. Apparently they are still at 
Fort Monmouth. Thirty-three suspended by October 30. This is 
now the middle of May. 

Don't you think a little too much time has been taken without an 
adjudication on any one single case? 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Cohn, we are trying to do a good job and 
to give all of these people a chance to be fairly heard in the good 
old American way. I think that in these cases particularly where 
the people are suspended and can be of no possible harm to the Gov- 
ernment, that it is better to go a little more slowly and get the right 
answer than it is to shove fast and maybe get the wrong answer. 

Senator McCarthy. May I interrupt, Mr. Cohn ? Mr. Stevens, you 
said there could be no possible harm to the Government because of this 
long delay as long as you proceeded in the good old American way. 
If they are innocent — I assume some of them will be able to prove that 


tliey are not bad security risks — you are doing a rather grave injustice 
to the individual, are you not ? 

Secretary Stevens. How do you mean, Senator? I don't think I 

Senator JNIcCarthy. I want to remind you of this, that some of 
those who were suspended were called before our committee. As a 
result of their testimony before the committee, they apparently con- 
vinced you and they convinced me and the others sitting in the com- 
mittee that these individuals had satisfactorily explained their Com- 
munist connections, and if they had been Communist inclined they 
had completely reformed, and they were reinstated. They were only 
out, some of them, a week or 2 Aveeks. I ask you this question : Some 
of those individuals have been suspended, have been out or 10 months. 
Is that tlie usual time lag in handling a suspension case 'i Isn't there 
some way of speeding it up ? 

Secretary Stevens. We would like to speed it up as much as we can 
consistent with doing justice to the individuals. 

Mr. Jenkins. INlay I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. I am not sure that I get precisely what the Senator 
has in mind, but if I do it seems to me — may I ask this : Am I correct 
in that the McCarthy committee is taking credit for getting suspen- 
sions of some 30 or 35 emploj^ees at P'ort Monmouth ? Is that correct, 
Senator ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, let me answer that in this way: 
I am not taking credit for it. We know that they were all suspended 
after our investigation started. 

J\[r. Jenkins. Veiy well. 

Senator McCarthy. Some of them were suspended after they ap- 
peared before the committee, the day they appeared, some of them the 
day after. Whether or not they would have been suspended otherwise 
I don't know. There was no indication that they would be. Just 
one other thing, jSlr. Jenkins : 

The only testimony we will have on that will be Mr. Lawton, who 
is the commanding officer. He has testified and I understand will 
testify that the suspensions would not have been possible had our 
investigation not been conducted. 

Mr. Jenkins. My point is this : Apparently the McCarthy inves- 
tigating committee is taking credit for its bringing about the suspen- 
sion of poor security risks numbering thirty odd at Fort Monmouth, 
on the one hand, and apparently now is criticizing Secretary Stevens 
for not reinstating those suspensions. 

Senator McCarthy. Just a minute. 

Mr. Jenkins. I just want to know wdiether I am right about that, 
or not. 

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

Senator Mundt. You may answer the question. 

Senator McCarthy. ]Mr. Jenkins, I would suggest that you listen 
to the questions a little more closely. I pointed out that of the 35 
suspensions undoubtedly some of them might be able to prove that 
they were not bad security risks, and when that proof was entered 
obviously they would be reinstated. Your statement that I was taking 
credit for the suspension and criticizing him for not reinstating them 
is not quite fair, Mr. Jenkins. I have pointed out also that some of 


the suspended individuals were called before the committee. This 
committee put them under oath. It did not take us 9 months 
to find out that the charges against them would not stand up. As 
a result of our hearings, not only with individuals suspended, but 
some of those who were suspended had the opportunity to be put 
under oath, to be thoroughly cross-examined, and they convinced 
the Secretary they should go back to work and they were put back 
to work. 

I am criticizing, if you can call it criticism, the Secretary for wait- 
ing 9 months and doing nothing about getting a final adjudication 
in any of these cases. Either they are Communists, Communist 
sympathizers, dangerous in that work, or they can explain their back- 
ground. There is no reason for this to be dragged on until after 
this hearing is over. 

I would like to ask the Secretary : Have you told the loyalty screen- 
ing board to expedite these cases or has there been an order that there 
be no final adjudication until after these hearings are ended ? 

Secretary Stevens. There has been no such order. 

Senator McCarthy. No order to expedite? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr, Chairman, before the Secretary is asked any- 
thing further I think I have a right to ask Senator McCarthy 

Senator Mundt. You may, and then may the Chair suggest that 
further interrogatories between counsel and Senator McCarthy be 
suspended until Senator McCarthy is testifying as a witness under 

Mr. Jenkins. I again ask the question : Did not Senator McCarthy 
in his charges criticize the Secretary for being too slow in removing 
subversives or in suspending subversives, and is he not now criticizing 
the Secretary by his very line of cross-examination for not reinstating 
the alleged subversives who were suspended as a result of the Mc- 
Carthy investigation ? 

I ask that question in all fairness to the Secretary of the Army. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's repeat it now, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy will explain the question. 

Senator McCarthy. I think it is very clear by now that we have 
pointed out that there were no suspensions until we started the investi- 
gation, that as of now there has been no final adjudication even though 
nine of them have been reinstated, I would like to know why the 
nine have been reinstated with no final adjudication. I would like 
to know why there has been no final adjudication on the others. 

The criticism, if counsel will listen to this carefully, is twofold. 
No. 1, tlie failure to remove Communists, security risks, from the top- 
secret radar laboratory, and having removed them under pressure 
from this committee, the failure to take any action to finally arrive 
at an ultimate decision. 

The commanding officer at the radar laboratory is entitled to know 
what the final decision in these cases is, the individuals are entitled to 
know, this committee is entitled to know. So it is a criticism of a 
twofold complete lack of interest in the case. 

Senator Jackson. Parliamentary inquiry. How many questions are 
before the Secretary ? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has just suggested that he thinks we 
Bhoukl return to the procedure whereby the Senator from Wisconsin, 


on his time, asked questions of the Secretary. I respectfully suggest 
to the counsel that he defer his questions to Senator McCarthy until 
Senator McCarthy is under oath and testifying as a Avitness. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, in fairness to all parties, I want to 
make this statement: If Senator McCarthy's question is this, whether 
rr not nine of these suspended risks have been reinstated, and whether 
or not any final adjudication has been made with respect to their guilt 
or innocence, certainly he has a right to ask that question. 

I understood he was asking a question about whether or not a final 
adjudication had been made with respect to those who had not been 

Senator McCarthy. The question included all 35. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator will continue with his interrogation 
of the Secretary, the last one which, I think, was a double-edged 
question which the Secretary didn't understand. 

I wish he would ask it again as to whether or not he had given an 
order. You asked the question as to whether or not he had given an 
order, No. 1, to expedite the loyalty proceedings, and, No. 2, whether 
or not he had given an order not to give a report until the committee 
concluded their hearings. If you will ask those two separately we 
can proceed. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you give an order to expedite the 35 cases? 
That includes the nine that have been reinstated. 

Secretary Stevens. No, I didn't give such an order. I wanted it to 
take the usual course, Mi\ Senator. With respect to the nine, I wish 
to make it clear that the reason they were restored to nonsensitive 
duties was that we were unable to bring charges against them. So, 
})ending further investigation to see whether charges could be made 
against these people, they were restored to nonsensitive jobs, the nine. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, how about the ones that Lawton was 
asked to reinstate, who he refused to reinstate, in that conversation 
with IMr. Adams ? 

Secretary Stevens. You will have to ask Mr. Adams about that. 

Senator McCarthy. Has Mr. Adams told you about those ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall discussing the matter with him. 

Senator McCarthy. I think we are getting away from the other 

Secretary Stevens. He is here and can testify about the telephone 

Senator McCarthy. We will get back to that in a minute. The 
Chair asked me to ask this question. Did you give an order or do you 
know that an order was given by anyone else in authority to hold up 
tlie final adjudication of the 35 cases until after this hearing had been 

Secretary Stemsns. I never gave such an order, Senator, and I don't 
believe anyone else did. I would like, also, if I may, to straighten out 
one point with respect to the element of the time. You have referred 
here to 10 months. Actually, most of these suspensions took place in 
the month of October, and if my arithmetic is correct we are talking 
about 6 months and not 10 months. 

Senator McCarthy. You said you didn't think such an order had 
been given. Had you ever heard that such an order had been given? 

Secretary Stevens. Never. 


Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, the other clay Mr. Cohn was ques- 
tioning you in some detail about a conversation which you had with 
Mr. Adams while Mr. Cohn and I were present in the room. You 
couldn't recall that conversation, as I recall, at the time. This had 
to do with the request that General Lawton reinstate certain cases 
that had been suspended. Have you talked to Mr. Adams to refresh 
3'our recollection on that ? 

Secretary Stevens. No; I haven't. 

Senator McCarthy. I will let Mr. Cohn take over the questioning. 

Mr. CoiiN. Thank you. Mr. Secretary, was General Lawton ever 
given a direction not to prefer charges against these nine people? 

Secretary Stevens. Not so far as I know. 

Mr. Cohn. Pardon me ? 

Secretary Stevens. Not as far as I know. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, did you ever make any inquiry about that after 
the testimony in this room the other day ? 

Secretary Stevens. No; not after the inquiry, the questions in the 
room the other day. I have testified at great length about Fort Mon- 
mouth all the way through these 13 days. But if the question is : Did 
I have any conversation since it came up the other day, no, I did not. 

Mr. Cohn. Here is my point, sir. A memorandum was introduced 
prepared by General Lawton's aide in which General Lawton stated 
that Mr. Adams had told him over the phone that he thought he, Mr. 
Adams thought, General Lawton should reinstate certain security 
risks and that General Lawton refused to do this, and said, "I will 
not take the responsibility." After you heard that very serious charge, 
didn't you take that matter up with Mr. Adams ? 

Secretary Stevens. I may have discussed it with him. I thought 
you were talking about testimony last Friday. But I haven't had any 
lengthy discussion with Mr. Adams about it. I am unfamiliar with 
what was said on the phone, and I think it seems to me that as long 
as it was Adams talking to Lawton on tlie phone, those are the two 
men that ought to testify to bring out the facts. I don't know what 
they are. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn's time has expired. Any questions. 
Counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair passes. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. Pass. 

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

Mr. Welch. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn may continue. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Secretary, Mr. Adams is your legal counsel, is that 
right, sir ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr, Cohn. Would not an instruction by him to a commanding 
general in one of the most sensitive radar bases in the country to 
reinstate security risks, wouldn't that be a serious matter, sir ? 

Secretary Stevens. I recall no conversation with Mr. Adams about 
that point, but he can testify on it as to what he knows about it. I 
don't know about it myself. 

Mr. Cohn. My question to you was after you saw produced here by 
Mr. Jenkins a written memorandum dictated by General Lawton 


makinor tlie charge tliat Mr. Adams had teleplioned him in November 
and asked General Lawton to reinstate security risks and that Gen- 
eral Lawton had refused and said "Let the Secretary take the re- 
sponsibility," have you not inquired of Mr. Adams concerning that 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think I have liad any particular dis- 
cussion with Mr. Adams about it. I think it will be an important 
point in Mr. Adams' testimony. 

JNIr. CoiiN. Sir, it mif^ht be a very important point, we suggest, in 
3'our testimony. 

Secretary Stevexs. x\11 right. Suppose, then, that I talk with Mr. 
Adams during the noon hour? I will be glad to do it. 

]\[r. CoiiN. We would very much appreciate it if we could get an 
answer to that question. I wish you would also talk with him, sir, as 
to whether or not these nine people have been restored to duty despite 
derogatory information of Communist activities as a result of any 
instruction given by anyone in your office to General Lawton. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I will try to find that out. 

Mr. CoHN. Very well, sir. 

]Mr. Secretary, as we Avere concluding on Friday, I was asking you 
about these monitored tele]ihone conversations and I believe we were 
interrupted just at the point where you told the committee that you 
did monitor conversations between yourself and Members of Congress, 
but not between yourself and people over at the White House. I think 
you said the reason was that people in tlie Congress might want in- 
formation and things of that matter. Is that correct ? 

Secretary Stevens. I think that is what I said, yes. 

JNIr. CoiTN. Well, would it not b? equally true, sir, that people on 
the White House staff would want just the same type of information, 
and that the reasoning would apply to them just as well as Members 
of Congress ? 

Secretary Stevens. Xo, I don't think it is quite the same. 

]\Ir. CoHN. Could you tell us what the difference would be, sir? 

ISIr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, that is purely a question of argument 
and not relevant. He said that he did not monitor telephone calls to 
the White House. All of this, I think, is purely repetitious, and has 
been gone over many, many times. I hope Mr. Colin will pass to 
another subject of the inquiry. 

Mr. CoHN, Mr. Jenkins, you might remember — I will try to, but 
you might remember I was interrogated in executive session con- 
cerning the exact extent 

Senator Mundt. The Chair upholds the point of order and suggests 
that the question be put to the Secretary as to which calls are mon- 
itored and which calls are not monitored, as being appropriate, but it is 
not appropriate to ask him for his reasons as to why he might monitor 

Mr. CoHN. ]\Iight that not, Mr. Chairman, have a bearing on the 
hearing here, if there was a failure to monitor certain calls? 

Senator Mundt. I don't think it would, unless j'^ou would bring 
that out by questioning. 

Senator McCarthy. I believe, Mr. Chairman, it might have some 
bearing on the question of whether or not the monitored calls will 
be received in evidence. One of the important matters to determine 
is whether or not all calls in regard to this matter were monitored. 


Senator Mundt. The Cliair has held that you have a right to inter- 
rogate the Secretary as to which calls were monitored and which were 
not, so that the whole committee can know exactly how extensive was 
the monitoring which took place. I don't think it is legitimate to ask 
him his reasons for that. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Stevens, are there any other exceptions which you 
care to make at this time? 

Secretary Stevens. No; I think I have testified at that at complete 
length. The whole process has been described in the record not once, 
but I think at least twice. 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, and w^e have had different testimony, I might sug- 
gest, sir. 

Secretary Stevens. The meat of it is that telephone conversations 
were monitored with the exception of family calls and calls of close 
personal friends. 

Mr. CoiiN. And the White House, sir? 

Secretary Stevens. And the White House. 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. Was this monitoring without the consent of 
the party at the other end, in violation of the letter or the spirit of a 
Defense Department directive by which you were bound ? 

Mr. Welch. Objection. It calls for a conclusion of law. 

Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order? 

Mr. Welch. Yes. The question calls for a conclusion of law. 

Mr. CoHN. I don't think it was. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair's attention was diverted by the two 
Senators leaving. What was the question? 

Mr. Welch. If Mr. Jenkins will hear the question 

Mr. Jenkins. I heard it. The question w-as whether or not, as I 
recall, the monitoring of these telephone calls as described by the 
Secretary, was violative either directly or indirectly, or in letter 
in spirit of a directive prohibiting the monitoring of calls. Is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Cohn. Exactly correct, and I have the directive in my hand. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman; I do not think that calls for a ques- 
tion of law, Mr. Welch, a directive. If he had asked him whether 
or not it was a violation of a law or statute, certainly you would 
be correct, but the Secretary knows the import and the contention 
of a directive. 

Mr, Welch. Also it involves the Federal Communications Act. It 
is a matter of law what can or cannot be done about putting moni- 
tored calls 

Mr. Jenkins. That was not the question. You and I have been 
trying to decide that question many, many days, as to whether or not 
it violates the Federal Communications Act, but the question to the 
Secretary was whether or not it violated a directive, that is, the moni- 
toring of calls. 

Mr. Welch. Once again, isn't that a matter of construction of a 
written document which is for the committee rather than for the 
witness ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I think, Mr. Welch, the Secretary of the Army would 
know the spirit and the meaning of a directive. I am sure of that. 
I think it is a proper question, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel holds that the question is proper. The 
Chair not having heard the question certainly will accept the advice- 
of counsel and rule that it is pertinent. 


Secretary Stevexs. As far as 1 know, it is a violation of nothing. 
If it were, t wouldn't be doing it. 

]\Ir. CoHN. Your testimony, INIr. Stevens, is that you know of no 
Defense Department directive stating in spirit certainly that there 
hall be no recording of a conversation without the consent of the 
other party to the conversation ? 

Secretary Stevens. Did you say spirit only ? 

Mr. Coiix. Sir, I would like you to look at the directive and tell me 
whether, after reading this directive, you think you are obeying or 
disobeying the direction of the Secretary of Defense in having an 
eavesdropper on the line without notifying the party at the other 


Secretary Stevexs. Mr. Colin, if there was any directive of t'.iat 
kind and it were known to me. I Avould certainly never do anything 
in the way of disobeying a directive. I am quite certain that there 
is no such directive out. 

(Document handed to Secretary Stevens.) 

INIr, Welch. ISlay I suggest we go ahead with the questions ? 

Secretary Stevexs. This memorandum, the title of it is: "Use of 
Telephone Recording Devices." 

Mr. Coiix. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Stevexs. I used no telephone recording devices. 

]\Ir. CoHX. Mr. Stevens, my question was the spirit of this direc- 
tive, and I direct your attention to the last paragraph of the direc- 
tive, a sentence which is underscored — I am sorry, the last paragraph 
of the hrst page, Mr. St. Clair — a sentence which is underscored in 
this directive by the Secretary of Defense. I ask you to tell us 
whether or not that does not mean to anybody reading plain English 

Mr. Jexktxs. Mr. Chairman, the question now is whether or not 
the monitoring of these calls violates the spirit of a directive. A])- 
parently the Secretary now is asked to enter the spiritual realm, which 
1 don't think he ought to be required to do. I held against Mr. Welch 
a little while ago that I thought iSIr. Cohn was entitled to ask him 
whether or not it was violative of a directive- 

Mr. CoHX. I will let the question stand that way. 

Mr. Jexkixs. I don't think the Secretary ought to be called u])on 
to construe a thing spiritually. I now reverse — I now hold that the 
question as stated is improper. 

Senator McClellax. Mr. Chairman, it is now past 12 : 30 and you 
have an executive meeting for 1 : 30. I suggest that the Secretary 
be given an opportunity to study the document before we resume. I 
move that we recess until 2 : 30. 

Senator Muxdt. We will recess until 2 : 30. 

At 1 : 30 an executive committee meeting will be held in room 357. 
The Chair calls attention to the fact that Mr. Welch, Mr. Stevens, 
Mr. Hensel, and Senator McCarthy are invited to be present. 

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 2:30 
p. m. the same day.) 



Adams. John G 00.3-905, 914, 91G-923. 927-929 

Alaska 901-90:i 

Alaska iuvestigatioii 901 

American Red Cross investigation 919 

Armed Services Committee 910 

Army ( United States) 899, 900, 901. 905, 910-915, 917, 918. 920. 921 

Army Intelligence (G-2) 900, 92:', 

Assistant Secretary of the Army 918, 919 

Assistant Secretary of Defense 905 

Atomic Energy Conunission 898 

Bryan, Frederick P 908, 909 

Capitol Police 897, 898 

Carr. Francis P 899, 900. 904, 915 

Cohn. Roy M 899, 900, 904, 915, 922, 92.3 

Communist leadersliip schools 923 

Communist major 915, 916, 918, 920 

Communists 900, 903, 911, 912. 914-920, 923, 925, 92G, 929 

Congress of the United States 029 

Congressmen 915 

Department of the Army 899, 900, 904, 905, 910-915, 917, 918, 920. 921 

Dirksen, Senator 899, 903, 905, 909, 912 

Dirksen amendment 902 

Dworshak, Senator !»lit 

Far East 920, 921, 923 

Federal C'ommunications Act 930 

Federal Government 911, 912, 925 

Fifth-amendment Communist 914 

Fort Monmouth 924, 925, 928 

Government of the United States 911, 912, 925 

Hensel, H. Struve 905, 912, 9:!1 

House of Representatives 898 

Housing Administration 898 

Hydrogen homli 910, 913 

Independent Offices Approiiriations Subcommittee 898 

Inspector General's report 914, 916, 918-924 

Intelligence (Department of the Army, G-2) 900, 923 

Lawton, General 925, 928, 929 

RlacArthur hearings 899, 910 

McCarthy, Senator .Foe 898-905, 908-912. 914-928, 931 

IMembers of Coni:ress 929 

New York Times 897, 89S 

Oppp'ilifiQic>r investigation 910, 913 

Pentagon 921 

Peress case 914^921, 923 

Red Cross investigation 919 

St. Clair, James D , 931 

Schine. G. David 912 

Secretary of the Army 898-931 

Secretary of Defense , 931 

Senate Independent Offices Ai)propriations Subcommittee 898 

Senate of the United States 911, 913 

Stevens. Robert T., testimony of 898-931 

Tennessee Valley Authority 898 

Top secret radar laboratory 926 

United States Army 899, 900, 904, 905, 910-915, 917, 918, 920, 921 



"United States Atomic Energy Commission 8J»8 

United States Congress , !)29 

United States Government 911, 912, 925 

United States House of Representatives 89S 

United States Housing Administration 898 

United States Senate 911, 913 

United States Veterans' Administration 898 

Veterans' Administration 898 

Washington, D. C 921 

White House 929, '.r.W 

Yokohama 910,918 



JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 









S. Res. 189 

PART 25 

MAY 10, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 

46620" WASHINGTON : 1954 

Boston Piibi;^ w,. .ary 
Superintendent of Documents 

SEP 8 -1954 


JOSEPH R. McCARTHi', Wisconsin, Chairman 
KARL E. MUNDT, Soutli Dakota JOHX L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas 




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

RiCHAUD J. O'Melia, Oencral C'outtsel 
Walter L. Reyxolus, Chief Clerk 

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman 
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan HENRY M. JACKSON, Vv'ashington 


Rat H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel 

THOitAS R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel 

ROBERT A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SOLis HoRWiTz, Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maner, Secretary 




Index I 

Testimony of Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary, Department of tlie Army_ 939 



MONDAY, MAY 10, 1954 

Uniit>d States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington, D. C. 


(Whereupon, the committee reconvened at 2: 50 p. m. pursuant to 

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

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

Principal participants: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a United 
States Senator from the State of Wisconsin; Roy M. Cohn, chief 
counsel to the subcommittee; Francis P. Carr, executive director of 
the subcommittee; Hon. Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army; 
John G. Adams, counselor to the Army; Joseph N. Welch, special 
counsel for the Army; James D. St. Clair, special counsel for the 
Army ; and Frederick P. Bryan, counsel to H. Struve Hensel, Assist- 
ant Secretary of Defense. 

Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order. 

We are late in starting because the executive session has just con- 
cluded, and we had to wait a little while for the reporter to type out 
a new version of a new motion which Senator Dirksen has advised the 
Chair he would like to discuss at this time. The Chair will recognize 
Senator Dirksen. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you yield for just 10 seconds? 

I would like to suggest to the committee the name of the man who 
has come up here today, it is a very important day in his life, he 
is celebrating his 30th anniversary as head of the FBI. I think he 
has done an outstanding job. I wonder if it would not be in order 
for the committee as a committee to express their admiration and con- 
gratulations to this greatest of Americans, J. Edgar Hoover, if we 
could do that as a committee. 



Senator Muxdt. Without objection, all the members of the com- 
mittee will join in e\i)ressing tlieir appreciation and approval of the 
great American, whom we all admire, J. Edgar Hoover. 

Senator McCarthy. Could this be transmitted to the Director of 
the FBI by counsel ? 

Senator Mundt. I am sure he is following the newspapers. I am 
sure he Avill get it. I am sure Mr. Welch, as counsel for the Army, 
wishes to join in the solicitation. 

Mr, Bryan. May I join also? 

Senator Mundt. You certainly may. Up until now we are still 
proceeding unanimously. 

Senator Dirksen ? 

Senator Dirksen, Mr. Chairman, I am sensible to the fact that 
since I made a suggestion this morning, that some new suggestions and 
new ideas have occurred, which have been incorporated in the draft 
that is before the members of the committee at the present time. I 
thought perhaps under the circumstances that if we could make an 
arrangement whereby it is definite that tomorrow morning, as the 
first order of business in the committee session, this can be offered as 
a formal motion, and that we can get a vote on it, assuming that I 
can get a second for the motion, and I trust one of the members of 
the committee will do me the honor of agreeing to second this to- 
morrow morning. 

Senator Dwoeshak. INIr, Chairman, I propose to second this motion. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will state that he has followed the rule 
continuously, that any time a Senator makes a motion which is sec- 
onded, he certainly will not decline to put it after there has been 
adequate opportunity to discuss it. 

Senator Jackson. Should not the motion that is being seconded be 

Senator Mundt. He is not making it. He has said he will make 
the motion tomorrow morning, and inquired if the Chair would recog- 
nize him for that purpose, and I said "Yes." 

Senator Dirksen. For public information, IMr, Chairman, I think 
that it should be read so that all parties in interest and everyone else 
is fully advised of the text that is proposed. It reads as follows, and 
this will be a motion that will be made as the first order of business 
tomorrow morning for a formal vote by the committee in public 
session : 

I move that the testimony of Secretary Stevens be concluded on the adoption 
of this motion ; that Senator McCartliy be then called for testimony and for 
direct and cross-examination ; that on the conclusion of Senator McCarthy's 
testimony the public hearings be recessed ; that committee counsel be instructed 
to survey the charges and the testimony, and interview all witnesses sugsested 
by any party concerned as well as any other witnesses whom the chairman or 
counsel deems necessary and then report a r^sum^ of the statements of all 
witnesses and any other facts brought to the attention of counsel to the sub- 
committee, which subcommittee shall then determine whether further public 
hearinss are necessary ; that at the conclusion of the testimony by Senator 
McCarthy, the regular subcommittee shall resume its normal functions under the 
rules of the Senate with respect to any matters not related to the pending 
controversy; and that subcommittee counsel conclude his survey and make his 
report to the subcommittee not later than June 10, 1954. 

I doubt whether this needs any elaboration on my part, Mr. Chair- 
man. It is done in the interest of expedition and I think the public 


■well-bein<^, and I sincerely hope that when this matter is considered 
tomorrow morning, formally, as a motion, that it will prevail. 

Senator Mundt. Do any of the other committee members want to 
be heard before we proceed with the order of the witnesses ? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I think it only fair to advise 
the Chair and others who may be interested, that I shall oppose this 
motion. I shall offer a substitute. This motion I am not yet prepared 
to substitute, but since this shall be offered in the morning, I shall 
have the substitute ready at that time. This motion, said by its 
author and those who may support it, is designed to shorten these hear- 
ings. In my opinion, it will have just the opposite effect. It wall 
delay and prolong the hearings indefinitely, and I shall oppose it 
primarily upon the ground, in addition to that, that it denies the 
rights of principals to this controversy, some who are accused, of 
having the opportunity to testify in open and public hearings, and 
refute the charges made against them. It also denies them the oppor- 
tunity to appear and support, by testimony, the charges they have 
made against others. 

Mr. Chairman, this motion will not expedite ; it will only confuse 
and further delay a determination of vital issues before this country, 
and I repeat again, there are no more serious charges, there are no 
charges pending against Communists- in any segment of this Govern- 
ment, that are more important to the security of this country than 
the charges now pending against the Secretary of the Army that he 
is coddling Communists, and that he is attempting blackmail in order 
to cause legitimate hearings of a regular committee of the United 
States Senate to be suspended, and charges that he is holding as 
hostage a private in the Army in order to compel this discontinuing 
of the investigation of Communists and subversiveness in Government. 

Mr. Chairman, if these charges are true, there is no more important 
work for this or any other committee to do in the Congress than to find 
out the truth of these charges so that appropriate action may be 
immediately taken. 

Senator Mundt. Does the Senator care at this time to discuss the 
general outline of the substitute motion so that we could have all the 
information before us for study, and so counsel for the various dis- 
putants can also be thinking about it between now and tomorrow 
morning ? I mean in a general way. 

Senator McClellan. Yes. I will read it here, leaving out the 
time. It is very simple. I shall reword it and will probably revise 
it some. 

Senator Mundt. Surely. 

Senator McClellan. This will be in substance the substitute motion : 

That after each of the principals to this controversy as witnesses have 
testified in chief, that each Senator have — 

and this is subject to change — 

1 hour (six 10-minnte periods) for interrogation of the witness, and that each 
principal side or their attorney have 4 hours each for questioning said principal 
and witness. When all sucli time has expired, the witness shall then be 

Senator Mundt. Have you concluded, Senator McClellan? 

Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman 


Senator McClellan. I may say, Mr. Chairman, this does not affect 
the present rule that chief counsel shall continue to question. 

Senator Mundt. Without time limitation ? 

Senator McClellan. Without time limitation, and in his discretion. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I merely want to make a brief 
observation at this time, because I do believe that it is most important 
that comment be made so that all of us can have an opportunity to 
think this matter over carefully when we meet tomorrow morning to 
vote on the motion by the distinguished Senator from Illinois and my 
distinguished colleague from Arkansas's substitute motion. 

I think that any change that is to be made in the rules should have 
as its obvious objective simple justice and fair play to all principals 
to this controversy. 

I think it is understandable to the man in the street that when 
charges have been made in public against people, those individuals 
have the right to reply in public. The right to face the accuser face 
to face is elementary justice in this country and from our British 
forbears for generations. I do not believe that we can substitute that 
objective by providing an alternate means whereby that alleged objec- 
tive will be achieved over a typewriter interviewing witness. 

In the motion mention is made about interviewing witnesses. All 
T can say is that the witnesses principals to this controversy have 
already been interviewed. I take it that the motion ought to be re- 
worded to provide for the reinterview of witnesses. 

I sincerely believe that the substitute motion offered by Senator 
McClellan goes to the heart of this problem, and that is to cut down on 
unnecessary time on irrelevant issues. 

Let us not cut down the principals to this controversy who have 
asked the right to be heard. The right to a fair hearing is something 
that I think we all understand is an indispensable part of any kind 
of rules of fair play. 

Senator Mundt. Is there any other Senator who desires to be heard 
on the subject matter before us before we proceed with the interview- 
ing of the witness ? 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. I have a very short comment to make. 

First, to me the logic and the reasoning behind the substitute amend- 
ment of the distinguished senior Senator from Arkansas is unanswer- 
able. Senator Jackson said that every public servant has the right 
to answer any charges made against him. Every principal in this 
case happens to be in public service. 

I would like to add one simple thought to that, to anybody who 
expects to be of any use in the service of their country in the future : 
He not only has the right ; he has the duty. 

Senator Mundt. Does any other Senator desire to be heard? 

The Chair feels that he should not call on the principals or their 
counsel at this time to express themselves, but he will do so tomorrow 
morning before any votes are taken. In fairness to Mr. Stevens, for 
example, he has not seen this motion until he came to the committee 
room. He was not at the meeting. Neither was Mr. Hensel. None 
of the principals I am sure have heard the substitute motion made 


•which Senator McCleHan offered for the first time here today. How- 
ever, he will listen to any other members of the committee if they wish 
to express themselves on this point. Senator Potter? _ 

Senator Potter. I think Senator Dirksen is wise in postponing 
action on this resolution until tomorrow to give all principals, par- 
ticularly Secretary Stevens, and members of his team, an opportunity 
to look over the resolution, and also the substitute resolution offered by 
Senator McClellan. There is no easy solution to this problem. This 
is the 13th day, and the first witness is still on the stand. 

I can well appreciate the pressure that the Secretary of the Army, 
Mr. Stevens, has been under during this 13-day period. If it takes 
13 days for Mr. Stevens, and he is still on the stand, I cannot see 
where Mr. Adams or Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn or Mr. Carr 
would be expected to get oft' the stand in any less time than 13 days. 
So my simple arithmetic projects this into a hearing of more than an 
additional month. 

I am convinced there is a great deal of repetition in the hearing, and 
I hope it can be eliminated, I am fearful that Avith other witnesses 
presented by either side there will be constant repetition of the testi- 
mony which has been given before. I do think, however, that all new 
facts must be brought out in this case. Therefore, I hope that what- 
ever device we use to expedite and speed up the hearings will in no 
way affect the full and impartial fairness of the hearing. 

If anybody has any panaceas for bringing this about, I know as 
one member of the committee I would be most happy to receive their 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen, do you have anything to say ? 

Senator Dworshak ? 

Secretary Stea'ens. May I make a brief statement, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes, Mr. Secretary, that if we 
engage the principals in this discussion now we may protract this for 
some time because obviously if I recognized you for that purpose — 
and I will if you insist — I Avill have to recognize Senator McCarthy 
and Mr. 13ryan. It would be the hope of the Chair that all principals 
and all counsel would make no precipitate judgment at this time on 
either of these suggestions, in the hope that during the opportunity 
accorded you throughout the evening you could consult with your coun- 
sel, perhaps consult under the leadership of our counsel with each 
other, in an effort to determine whether either of these suggestions or 
a modification of them or a combination of them in some way could 
work in the interest of expediting the hearings. The Chair very 
much fears that if principals in this dispute or their counsel make a 
precipitate judgment now, all of this labor will have gone for nought 
because you may be committed before you have an opportunity to 
consult fully with the various entities involved. 

Having said that, if the Secretary insists on being heard, of course 
the Chair will recognize him. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I make a point? I be- 
lieve that it is important that Senator McCarthy give his position, 
that Mr. Welch give his position, and that anybody give their posi- 
tions, because there is another person here and that is public opinion, 
as to whether these hearings should be limited to a few people or 
whether the time that people can be asked questions should be limited 

40620"— 54— pt. 25 2 


and we should hear all the principals involved. After being on the 
stand for 13 days, the Secretary, or Senator McCarthy, or anybody 
else involved in these hearings, wants to make a statement prior to 
this motion being submitted for final passage tomorrow, I respectfully 
state, Mr. Chairman, that I think he should have that right at this 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has said that he proposes to begin the 
discussion tomorrow morning by giving all principals and their 
counsel an opportunity, after having matured judgment formed on 
the basis of studying the various proposals, to arrive at a conclusion, 
and he asked further 

Senator Symington. I would be very much interested in the posi- 
tion of the Army, for example, as to help form my conclusions. 

Senator Mundt. He has done that, and he has said that if any of 
the principals now insist on discussing these determinations without 
having an opportunity to consider them carefully, of course he will 
grant them the courtesy of the floor and if he grants it to one, he will 
grant it to all. He is simply trying, in trying to arrive at a conclusion, 
to suggest that before any enunciation of decision on this, they have 
at least an opportunity to read the Dirksen proposal carefully and 
to see the McClellan proposal in writing. Having said that, if there 
are people who want to be heard outside the committee, to address 
the chairman, of course he will let them. 

Secretary Ste\tns. I would like to be heard, sir, if I may. It is a 
very brief statement, but I want the position of the Army to be un- 
mistakably clear. Mr. Welch stated that position this morning and 
I reaffirm it this afternoon. I have testified on this stand before and 
I now testify again, that I think every witness who has a place in this 
hearing should be brought here and should testify, and should get all 
the facts on this table. This committee undertook this series of hear- 
ings. It was your own decision. You made the rules. One of the 
rules certainly had to do with the fact that they were going to be 
public hearings. You later said that they would be televised. I see 
no reason to change the rules at this time unless there is a means by 
which some real expediting of the hearings can be carried on. I 
would just like, speaking for the Army, to say that we have appeared 
here in the best of faith to trv to get all these facts in front of this 
committee, and we are satisfied to continue that process no matter 
how long it takes. 

Senator Mundt. Do any of the other principals now want to be 
heard? If not, we will proceed with the interrogations. 

Senator McCarthy. ]\Ir. Chairman, I would make one suggestion, 
that perhaps if we had a rule that there be no more speeches about 
expediting the hearings, that that might expedite them more than 
anything else. 

Senator ]\Iundt. The Chair is rapidly approaching the point where 
he can concur with that observation. But hope does spring eternal 
in the human breast. We will begin in the morning, then, with the 
consideration of motions which may be made or not made ; if they are 
made, we will consider them, on the general subject of expediting the 
hearing. The Chair's position remains unchanged. He thinks these 
hearings should be expedited, he thinks that the world has some tre- 
mendous challenges confronting it, and so does our country, to which 


he believes both the. Senators and the people representmg the Army 
might better be devoting their attention. 

He believes, however, that no system for shortening the hearings 
should be superimposed upon the disputants so long as the entities 
involved claim that so doing would be unfair or unjust to them. 
So, unless we can have a meeting of minds, I presume we will have 
a long continuation of testimony. I think that at the conclusion of 
our meeting this morning, Mr. Cohn, you had 5 minutes remaining. 
We Avill start with you, therefore. 



Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, we discussed with you, did we 
not, the necessity of checking into the Communist infiltration in 
Army intelligence; is that correct? In other words, before you 
issued these charges on Mr. Colin, Mr. Carr, and myself, we dis- 
cussed with you the fact that it might be extremely important for 
us to do it, if you would not do it, that is, to go into the question of 
Communist infiltration of Army intelligence? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, that is under constant study, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you hear my question, Mr. Secretary? 
The question is did I discuss with you what I considered as the neces- 
sity of our committee investigating Communist infiltration of Army 
intelligence, if you, yourself, or your subordinates, did not do that 

Secretary Stevens. I do not recall that, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Of course, you have a great interest in any 
Communist infiltration, have you not? 

Secretary Stevens. I certainly have. 

Senator McCarthy. Are you aware, Mr. Secretary, of a report 
issued under the chairmanship of Mr. Ray J. Madden, chairman of 
the House committee? Mr. Madden, incidently, was the Democrat 
chairman of the committee. This was in 1952. Are you aware of 
that report in regard to Communist infiltration of Army intelligence? 
. Secretary Stevens. I don't think that I am, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. How long have you been in office noAv ? 

Secretary Stevens. Since February 4, 1952. 1953. 

Senator McCarthy. That is about a year and a half ? 

Secretary Stevens. About a year and a quarter. 

Senator McCarthy. About a year and a quarter. 

Do you think it rather unusual that you have never learned of this 
report by the House committee in regard to Communist infiltration? 
Let's put it this way, just so you won't be deceived. 

The report is not labeled a report on Army intelligence, it is labeled 
"The Katyn Forest Massacre." In this report they go into the ques- 
tion of Communist infiltration — apparently somebody thinks this is 

Senator Mundt. Perhaps the Chair was derelict this noon and had 
other matters on his mind. He forgot to make his opening speech 
to the audience. May I do it now ? 

May I announce to the audience that we h^ve a standing rule in the 
committee that there will be no audible manifestations of approval or 


disapproval of any kind, of any type, and tliat the officers have a 
standinj:^ rule to politely escort from the room anybody entering it 
and violating the conditions under which he came. I -will not ask 
the officers to eject the people who interrupted the hearing at that 
time, because the Chair did not repeat that warning at the beginning 
of the meeting. It has now been repeated and I will ask the officers 
to enforce it firmly. 

Senator IMcCarthy may continue. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, we have a sizable number of 
people here in the audience. Ninety-nine percent of them have been 
very orderly and realize they are the guests of the committee. They 
followed Senator Mundt's suggestion. When I asked you about Com- 
munist infiltration in the Army, I heard a loud guflfaw back in the 
room. Apparently somebody thinks it is funny. Do you think there 
is anything funny about Communist infiltration in our Government? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir; I certainly would not. 

Senator McCarthy. I am sure you wouldn't. 

Mr. Secretary, is it your testimony that you never heard of this 
re]iort put out under the chairmanship of Congressman Madden which 
makes reconmiendations insofar as Communist infiltration is con- 
cerned. Communist in G-2, Army Intelligence ? 

Secretary Stevexs. When was it put out ? 

Senator McCarthy. The date of this, Mr. Chairman, or Mr. 
Secretary, was 1952. The exact date, December 22, 1952. That will 
be several months before you took over. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir ; I am not familiar with that report. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you know if anyone in your Department 
has gone into the matters suggested in this report ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not know that of my own firsthand knowl- 
edge, but I would be pretty sure they have. 

Senator McCarthy. Could I read you from this report? I read 
this to you in connection with the conversations you and I have had 
with regard to the investigation of G-2 : 

More amazing to this committee is testimony — 

I am reading from page 8 — 

More amazing to this committee is testimony of three high-ranking American 
Army otHcers who were stationed in Army Intelligence during General Bissell's 
command of this agency. 

That, I believe, was 194:4 and 1945. 

Testifying in executive session, all three agreed there was a pool of pro-Soviet 
civilian employees and some military and Army Intelligence who found explana- 
tions for almost everything that the Soviet Union did. These same witnesses 
told of tremendous efforts exerted by this group to sui>press anti-Soviet reports. 
The committee likewise heard testimony that top-ranking Army ofScers who 
were too critical of the Soviets were bypassed in Army Intelligence. 

Have you ever made any attempt to see whether or not those individ- 
uals are still there or whether they have been removed? 

Secretary Stevens. Was that, did you say, in 1944 and 1945, Senator 

Senator McCarthy. This report was issued in 1952. 

Secretary Stevens. But what period are they talking about? 

Senator McCarthy. This is referring to General Bissell's command. 
As I recall, General Bissell was in command of G-2 in 1944 and 


1945. I may be mistaken. You can ask one of your aides back 
there what years he was in command, if you like. 

You understand, Mr. Secretary, I am not blaming you for what 
General Bissell did. You were not here. But I am asking you 
whether or not — let me finish. In view of the fact that this report 
was made in 1952 about 2 months before you took over, let me ask 
you whether you instituted any proceedings, any step, either after 
this report or after my conversation with you, to find out who the 
three Army officers were and call them in to get their testimony, and 
then try to remove those Communists if they were still there? Did 
you do anything at all? 

Mr. Welch. Objection. 

Senator Muxpt. On what basis? 

Mr. Welch. These inquiries are directed to officers in 1944 and 
1945, embodied in a report years later, it is true, but before the Sec- 
retary took office. How can it be material what went on in 1944 or 
1945 in this hearing ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I will tell ]\Ir. AYelch why it 
is material. 

Senator Muxdt. The Senator's time has expired. The Chair will 
rule, however, on the objection that if the question goes to the point 
of whether or not officers alleged to have been soft toward communism 
in 1944 and 1945 are there now, and whether the Secretary has de- 
termined to find out whether or not they are there now, it would be a 
pertinent question. However, the Senator's time has expired, so he 
will have to rephrase it on his own time. 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. I pass. 

Senator Mundt. I pass. Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. Pass. 

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

Senator Symington. I have one question. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. Where were you in 1944, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. I was in the office of the Quartermaster General, 

Senator Symington. You were in the Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. What was your rank ? 

Secretary Stevens. My rank was colonel. 

Senator Symington. Where were you in 1945 ? 

Secretary Stevens. I was in the office of the Quartermaster General, 
except for a brief tour in the European theater. 

Senator Symington. When did you leave the Army before you 
came back as Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. I left the Army in September, I think it was, 

Senator Symington. No further questions 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. I believe you passed, Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn or Senator McCarthy ? 


Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, I gathered from Senator 
Symington's questions that he apparently feels that since you were 
not in Army intelligence in 1944 and 1945, that perhaps you might not 
be responsible for what is going on today. I suggest that Senator 
Symington listen a little more closely and follow the question. 

Senator Symington. I suggest, Senator McCarthy, that you handle 
your questioning of the witjiess and I will handle mine. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes, Senator McCarthy, that you 
should not comment on the questions oti'ered by other members of the 
committee, but limit your interrogatories to the Secretary. 

Senator IMcCarthy. Mr. Secretary, you understand that we are not 
talking about what you might have done in 1944 and 1945. We are 
discussing what you might have done after you became Secretary of 
the Army. You understand that? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. I am sure that you and I will agree that if there 
were Communists in high positions in Army Intelligence in 1944 and 
1945, that they just would not fold up their tents and of their own 
free will steal away and leave that very important position. We 
would agree on that, would we not? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, Senator, but in 1944 and 1945 we had allies, 
didn't we, in the form of the Soviets ? 

Senator McCarthy. I am not talking about the justification for 
having them in there in 1945. I think it is wrong, but I am asking 
you this question : You agree with me, I assume, that if this report 
is correct that there were Communists who had infiltrated G-2 and 
were in key positions in 1945, that the odds are that they are still 
there unless someone has removed them. ]\Iy question was to the 
point of whether or not, since you have taken over, whether you took 
any steps to remove them. 

Secretary Stevens. I would say the odds are they are definitely 
not there. 

Senator IMcCarthy. What do you base that on, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. I just thinlv there is a continuing process going 
on all the time in G-2 of investigation and recheck, and I think if 
there were Communists in there — I don't know, it w^oukl have to be 
proved on that one — if there were I doubt very much if they are there 

Senator McCarthy. General Partridge, the head of G-2, I assume 
would be charged with the responsibility of removing Communists? 

Secretarv Stevens. Anv head of G-2 whether it is Partridge or 
Boiling or anyone else. 

Senator McCarthy. General Partridge, while he was head of G-2 
under your command, had the responsibility of removing Communists. 
Is that correct? 

Secretary Stevens. Surely. 

Senator McCarthy. And did you remove him because you found 
that he was completely incompetent? 

Secretary Stevens. I did not. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you tell me, Mr. Secretary, that you did 
not want us to call him before the committee, that you intended to 
remove him because you felt he was incompetent in the job he was 
holding ? 


Secretary Stearns. We covered all this in previous testimony, 
Senator McCarthy, but I will be glad to do it again if you want me to. 

Senator McCarthy. You can say "Yes" or "No" and we will cover 
it quickly. 

Secretary Stevens. We have covered it before. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I am quite sure the Secretary is cor- 
rect. That has been covered thoroughly before and apparently has 
been worn threadbare. I object to any further questioning with 
respect to General Partridge's competence or incompetence. 

Senator Mundt. If the questions have been covered, the Chair 
thinks they should not be repeated. Have you asked those questions 
before ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, there is nothing worn thread- 
bare if we are talking about Communists running our intelligence. 
If we can waste time on speeches for an hour this morning and an 
hour this afternoon, telling how different Senators feel about ex- 
pediting the hearings, then I can have 2 minutes, I think, in asking 
the Secretary about the removal of the man who now claims to have 
removed the Communists. The Secretary has just now told me that 
he feels the Communists were removed, and I want to question him 
as to what type of an individual was in charge of the removing of 

Secretary Stevens. Are you suggesting that General Partridge was 
a Communist? 

Senator McCarthy. I certainly am not. Will you now answer my 
question ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I say again that on yesterday and last 
week, the Secretary was examined very closely with respect to the 
qualifications of General Partridge. I heartily agree with the Secre- 
tary on that and I think it is an unnecessary waste of this committee's 
time to repeat those questions with respect to General Partridge. I 
suggest that Senator McCarthy be required to pass on to some new 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, since you have been in office, 
have there been any security risks, suspended from G-2 ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would have to check that up. Senator, and get 
the facts for you. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you know of any at this time ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't have it in my head; no, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, at this time, you are not aware 
of a single security risk who was suspended from G-2 ? 

Secretary Stevens. Senator McCarthy, I can't carry all the facts 
about every part of this great Army spread all over the world in my 
head. There are just thousands of things that I don't know about. I 
can get you the information. 

Senator McCarthy. I realize, Mr. Secretary, that you, of course, 
have a very selective memory, so we will go on to something else. 

On page 14 the report states : 

The United States Congress should Investigate the wartime and postwar opera- 
tions of Army Intelligence and the Counter Intelligence Agency. It was pointed 
out to our committee in executive session that quite a number of employees in 
G-2 who were suspected of Communist or left-wing sympathies were transferred 
to CIA. 

Did anyone ever bring this to your attention ? 


Secretary Stevens. I said I was not familiar with the reports, Sen- 
ator McCartliy, for the third time. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, didn't I call this report to your 
attention and urge you that action be taken? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not recall any such thinoj. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you recall that I ever discussed with you 
the necessity of your taking action in G-2 ? Just to refresh your recol- 
lection, didn't I tell you that if we started to check into G-2 there 
would be the usual hassle about what was security information and 
what was not, and that I thought that your Department, and I thouglit 
you were anti-Communist, and I thought you could assign somebody 
to do that. Don't you recall that ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not. 

Senator McCarthy. In any event — let me ask you this : The other 
day you said that you had asked the FBI to make the investigation at 
Fort Monmouth. Now, am I correct in this, that that is not the usual 
function of the FBI, that the unit which should do that would be the 
Army Intelligence? I am curious to know whether you didn't have 
confidence in your own intelligence agency or why you bypassed Army 
Intelligence and asked the FBI to clo it? May I say I think it is a 
good idea to ask the FBI to do it, if you followed their 

JSIr. Jenkins. May I ask a question of the Secretary before j'^ou 
answer that? 

Mr. Secretary, did you or not say the other day that you had asked 
the FBI to investigate Fort Monmouth ? 

Secretary Stevens. I did. . . 

Mr. Jenkins. You did ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will kindly read the question so the 
interruption will not confuse the Secretary as to what the question 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Secretary Stevens. That is a long and complicated question, Mr. 
Chairman. I will try to answer it the best I can. 

We certainly did not bypass the Army Intelligence. They Avere 
in it fully and completely at all times. We have a very close work- 
ing arrangement with the FBI, as I pointed out before. We have a 
full-time representative in our G-2 Intelligence Division of the FBI, 
and we utilize their facilities and they utilize ours. There is a close 
working relationship. And when we invited the FBI on the 10th of 
April 1953, to make this investigation, it M'as not bypassing our own 
people at all, it was simply supplementing and making sure that the 
proper kind of a job was done so far as we were able to do it, using 
all means. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, you said you did not recall my 
discussing with you the necessity of an investigation of Army Intelli- 
gence from the standpoint of determining whether or not there had 
been Communist infiltration. To refresh your recollection, did I 
not on September 28, last year, give you the name of a major and told 
you that he could give you great detailed information about current 
Communist infiltration? Did you not then, at my suggestion, call 
that major? Did you not spend about 2 hours with him discussing 
Communist infiltration of Army Intelligence? 


Secretary Stevens. Not Army Intelli^rence any more than infiltra- 
tion anywhere in the Army. 

Senator IMcCautiiy. Do you recall the Major's name? I am not 
asking for the name now, but do you recall the name? 

Secretary Stevens. No, but I am sure I could look it up. 

Senator McCarthy. I will pass it back to you. I would just as soon 
that this not be made public unless the Chair so orders. 

Just to refresh your recollection — will j^ou put that in your pocket or 
tear it up, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. O. K. 

Senator McCarthy. Now that you see that 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator JNIcCarthy. After discussing Communist infiltration in 
Army Intelligence, I suggested to you that you see that particular 

Secretary Stevens. I remember your suggesting this particular 
fellow, yes. I don't remember all the other words that you used about 

Senator McCarthy. You did see him ? 

Secretary Stevens. I did. 

Senator McCarthy. You spent about 2 hours with him? 

Secretary Stevens. No, not that long. 

Senator McCarthy. How long? 

Secretary Stevens. I should think, just as a guess — it is hard to 
remember — I think maybe about 40 minutes, something like that. 

Senator McCarthy. Forty minutes. Now that your memory is re- 
freshed, do you recall that I gave you his name during the course of 
a conversation which we had in regard to Communist infiltration of 
Army Intelligence, at which time I suggested that you conduct the 
investigation and relieve us of that burden, and that I told you we 
couldn't investigate everything ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not recall that. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you recall, Mr. Secretary, why I asked you 
to talk to this major? 

Secretary Stevens. Because you said that you thought that he had 
some information on matters that it would be a good thing for me 
to kno\^ about. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you think he had information for you ? 

Secretary Stevens. I dislike to say this, but I was not particularly 
impressed with it. 

Senator McCarthy. Did he discuss current Communist infiltration 
in Army Intelligence? 

Secretary Stevens. Not in Intelligence exclusively ; other things. 

Senator McCarthy. Not exclusively. Did he discuss that one 

Secretary Stevens. He discussed that as well as other things, many 
other things. 

S'^nator McCarthy. And he gave you names and events, didn't he? 

Secretary Stevens. He mentioned various incidents. As I say, my 
evaluation of the information was not — maybe my evaluation was 
inaccurate, but I didn't evaluate it too highly. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's forget how you evaluated it. Did this 
major give you the names of individual* whom he considered Com- 

46620°— 54— pt. 25 S 


niunists who were at that particular day, September 28, 1053, in Army 
Intelligence having access to our Intelligence reports? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that he did, no. I do not recall 
that he did. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you think it might be a good idea for you 
to call him back in and get that information ? 

Secretary Stevens. As I said, I did not evaluate the information 
too highly. Senator McCarthy. I have other sources of information 
that I think are infinitely superior, and on which I would rather rely. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you make a memorandum on what the 
major had told you? 

Secretary Stevens. I think I may have scratched a note or two. 

Senator McCarthy. You make very lengthy memorandums about 
Dave Schine, the private. I was just wondering whether you made 
any memorandum about this major who gave you the names about 
Communists in Army Intelligence? 

Secretray STE^^NS. Just something on a scratch pad, something 
like that. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. I have no questions. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair passes. Any of the Senators to my left ? 

Senator Symington. I have some figures, Mr. Chairman. I have 
taken very little time at these hearings, I think less than 1 percent, but 
I am a little sensitive about the thought that the Senators are taking 
a great deal of time in making speeches about expediting the hearings. 
I have some figures here that I would like to read into the record at 
this time. 

At the hearing Thursday morning. May 6, there were 18,800 plus 
words. Senator McCarthy and his counsel took 6,200, or 33 percent. 
All the others who talked, some 11 as an average, including the counsel, 
who is not limited, as you know, by time, who has all the time he wants 
to establish the facts, took 12,640, or 67 percent. 

The hearing the afternoon of May 6, 35 percent of the words that 
were at that hearing were uttered by Senator McCarthy or his counsel. 

On Friday, May 7, the last hearing before today, out of 15,377 Avords, 
7,403, or 48 percent, were uttered by Senator McCarthy and his coun- 
sel. All the others, including counsel for the committee, some 11, 
uttered 30,796, and so forth, or 60 percent. 

I do not raise these figures in a spirit of contention, Mr. Chairman, 
but I think it is fair to say that the Senators on this committee have 
had very little to do with the length of the testimony with respect to 
Secretary Stevens. 

That is all I have to say, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Do any of the Senators to my right have any ques- 
tions ? Senator Jackson ? 

Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. No questions. 

Senator JSIundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, Senator Symington has ap- 
parently been counting words. That is his privilege if he wants to. 
Let me ask you this: Regardless of the number of words that were 
uttered, I assume you will agree with me that we still have been unable 


to get from you the names of those who <jave special duty assignments, 
promotions, honorable discharges, to a Communist major? 

Mr. Welch. Objection. 

Senator JMcCartiiy. We will strike the question. 

Senator Mundt. The objection is sustained. 

Senator McCarthy. If the objection is sustained, then I would 
like — I had withdrawn the question. If the Chair wants to sustain 
the objection after the question is Avithdrawn, I would like to ask 
you this 

Senator Mundt. If you have withdrawn the question, the same re- 
sult has been achieved. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, you understand, of course, that 
when Mv. Symington counts words, if this is important, apparently 
he is counting — let me ask you this, if I may, Mr. Symington. When 
you count words, not that this is important, you also counted the Avords 
of Mr. Stevens and ascribed those to me, did you ? 

Senator Symington. I am grateful. Senator McCarthy, that you 
bring that point up. Senator Jackson pointed it out. The facts ai-e 
that ail the words of the 52 percent as against the 48 percent for your 
side at the hearing Friday included the words of the Secretary of the 
Army and eveiybody else who had anything to say of any kind what- 

Senator McCarthy. I don't think you can blame me for the words 
of the Secretary. I certainly don't endorse them. 

Senator Mundt. I\Iay the Chair suggest that we get on with the 
questioning. I don't believe this colloquy among members around the 
table is conducive to expediting the hearing. 

Senator Symington. A point of order, Mr. Chairman. So long as 
the Senator can understand. 

Senator Mundt. State your point of order. 

Senator Symington. Just for clarification, the percentages I gave 
included everything that was said by Secretary Stevens and every- 
body else who testified at the hearing. 

Senator McCarthy. All right, all right. 

Senator Symington. I only brought this up, Mr. Chairman, because 
I wanted the Senator to consider that I thought his charge that the 
Senators had delayed the hearings was a little unfair. 

Senator McCarthy. All right. 

Mr. Secretary 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will not rule on that point of order. 
It is a little obtuse and he will let it go. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, Earl Browder testified — this 
was long before you were Secretary of the Army so you obviously 
were not responsible for the condition that was existent at that time. 
Let's make that very clear. I am asking you these questions : Do you 
agree with me if members of the Communist conspiracy get into a 
key position in the military that would be one of their ideal berths 
as far as the Communist party is concerned ? 

Secretary Stevens. I agree. 

Senator McCarthy. So when we find a certain number there in 1 
year, unless there is proof that they have been removed we can assume 


that they did not resign 2 or 3 or 4 yccars later, is that correct, except 
to get a more important position ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am not clear about that question. Senator. 
I just don't believe there are any of those kinds of folks there. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask you this question : You are the 
Secretary of the Army. You have indicated a number of times that 
you are interested in removing Communists. 

Secretary Stevens. Correct. 

Senator McCarthy. You and I have had a sizable number of dis- 
cussions about that, most of them in a completely pleasant vein, is 
tJiat right? 

Secretary Stevens. I wouldn't say sizable number, no. Some. 

Senator McCarthy, We have had some anyway. 

Secretary STE^'ENS. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you agree with me that if you find Com- 
nmnists in the military as of a certain date, that it is a fair assumption 
tliat they are still there unless it can be shown that they have been 
rcjnoved ? 

Is that a fair assumption, Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. That they are still there? No, it is not a fair 
assumption, and I don't believe they are there. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, you think it is a fair assump- 
tion to say they resigned or left even though there is no proof that 
they have been forcibly removed ? 

Secretary Stevens. Any number of things could have happened, 
not the least of which is that they could have been transferred to 
some other 

Senator McCarthy. Department. 

Secretary Stevens. Department or nonsensitive duty. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, we do have the committee statement that 
some of them were referred to CIA. You wouldn't consider that non- 
sensitive, would you? 

Secretary S^E^^2NS. No, sir. I would consider that very sensitive. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, Mr. Secretary, here is the testimony of 
Mr. Browder, and I take this from a report dated — let's see, just a 

Secretary Stevens. Does this mean I am a Communist, Senator? 

Senator McCarthy. That is awfully funny, isn't it, Mr. Secretary. 
That is terribly funny. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests that we proceed in order. 

Senator McCarthy. I am asking you, Mr. Secretary, not about any 
Communist activities on your part. I know of none. I doubt very 
much they would accept you as a member, I doubt that very much. 
But we are talking about your attempts to call off the hearing which 
was exposing Communists in your command, and you have been ac- 
cused here of trying to protect and cover up those who are responsible 
for keeping the individual Communists in those jobs. There has 
been no claim by anyone, and you know it, that you were a Communist, 
that you were a Communist sympathizer. I have made that very clear 
to you at all times, that I felt you were anti-Communist. I have also 
made it very clear to you that I thought you were very naively and 
unintelligently anti-Communist and you know that, Mr. Secretary. 
Now, let's get back to the question. Mr. Browder testified 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman? 


Senator Mundt. Mr, Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. If the Senator from Wisconsin is about to read the 
testimony of one Earl Browder, I must respectfully object. It is 
competent on no possible theory in the determination of these issues. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, to supplement that 

Senator Mundt. The Chairman believes that the testimony of Earl 
Browder is scarcely competent testimony before this committee. 

Senator McCarthy. Would the Chair like to hear from me on 
this, on the objection that Mr. Jenkins raised? I would think the 
Chair would want to. I have been engaged in this for a long time, 
Mr. Chairman, and I think I Imow what I am doing. I have been 
chairman of this committee while we dug out a sizable number of 
Communists. I have been a lawyer and I have been a judge, and I 
am not asking the questions idly. I would suggest that the Chair 
would just take the time, w^hich he would do if he were in a court of 
law, to hear me before he rules. The reason I am reading some lines 
from Browder's testimony is so that I may ask the Secretary a ques- 
tion. Neither Mr. Jenkins nor the Chair knows whether that question 
is competent or not until I ask it. 

Senator Mundt. You may ask it. I simply want to point out that 
nobody around this table, including yourself, I am sure, gives any 
credence to the testimony of Earl Browder. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I might add further that I do not 
think it proper to read any excerpt, any part of the testimony of one 
Earl Browder. As I understand it, that is about what the Senator 
is about to do. Now, if you can show us why you are doing it, 
Senator, what your theory is, and in what respect it is competent. I 
certainly reserve the right to reverse my advice to the chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. If the very able counsel — I don't say that 
facetiously. I think he is one of the most able people in his job. If 
he would listen to my question, and then if he thinks it is not com- 
petent, he can object and the Chair can rule on it. I hope that I may 
now get down to asking the question. 

Senator Mundt. Proceed. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, in 1945 there was a report by 
the Committee on Military Affairs, quoting the testimony of Mr. 
Browder on page 2, and I quote : 

there actually are some 13,000 Communists in the Armed Forces. 

Of course there are Communists holding commissions in the United States 

Now let me ask you this: If your reports from your intelligence 
agency do not show that the 13.000 were removed, can we safely 
assume that some of them are still there as of today ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy is making the point that because 
Earl Browder testified in 1944 or 1945 that there were 13,000 Com- 
munists in the Army, including some officers, that that is a true state- 
ment of fact. I say this committee cannot accept it as true. Neither 
does the Secretary of the Army have any right to assume that it is 
true. Neither is he bound by any conclusion that it is true because 
Earl Browder said it under oath or any other way. I do not think 


it is a proper line of cross-examination of the Secretary and I renew 
my objections. 

Senator Mundt, The Chair will sustain the point of order on the 
ground that the testimony of Earl Browder is not considered to be 
factual by the members of this committee. I am sure that that goes 
also for the Senator from Wisconsin. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, are you aware of — Again, this 
was before you were in office, and I ask this as a prelude to another 
question — are you aware of the fact that on February 22, 1945, tlie 
War Department made public the information that it had inaugurated 
a new policy by removing the ban on Communists? Are you aware 
of that order ? 

Secretary Stevens. I am not, no. I don't recall it. I don't recall 
it. But I may possibly have seen it. Senator. 

I have seen an awful lot of papers over there That is in 1945^ 
you say ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. February 22, 1945. 

Secretary Stevens. And what is the subject ? 

Senator McCarthy. The War Department made public the in- 
formation that it had inaugurated a new policy by removing the ban 
on Communists. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, all I can do then is testify that Commu- 
nists have no place in the Army now. I don't know what it was in 

Senator McCarthy. You are not aware of that order ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall specifically about the order. I 
think I may have heard some talk about it, Senator. But what I 
have been interested in, since I have been in office, was to get these 
people out, if there were any. 

Senator McCarthy. I wonder if your aides would produce the let- 
ter which 3^ou wrote me, when I wrote you in regard to this particular 
order. You wrote back and referred to it as an order banning people 
because of political beliefs. Could you have that letter produced 
now ? 

Mr. Welch. Could we have the date. Senator? 

Senator McCarthy. I don't know the date. 

Mr. Welch. Then you don't give us much help. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask the Secretary. 

Mr. Welch. If the letter was written to the Senator, let's have it 
from your files. 

Secretary Stevens. You must have it there. 

Senator McCarthy. I don't have it here, but we will get it, I assure 
you. Let me ask you this : Do you recall having written me in regard 
to this specific order. Let's go back a minute. Mr. Secretary, did 
I discuss with you the number of times the fact that it appeared 
not to be your fault that there was so much infiltration when you 
took over office, and I pointed out this order of 1945, and we agreed 
that that was the time the door was opened up to Communists ? They 
were allowed to get in to key positions, and we agreed it was an unwise 
order, and you agreed with me that that would present a problem for 
the next 10, 15 or 20 years, because no matter how diligent you were, 
you could not get to them. Don't you recall that conversation ? 

Secretary Stevens. I certainly don't, Senator. 


Senator McCarthy. Do you recall the letter you wrote me, Mr. 
Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. I recall having written you a letter, yes, in 
connection with the Peress case, I think it was. 

Senator McCartfiy. In that you referred to this, and using lan- 
guage, and I stated publicly that I thought it was not yours. You 
referred to this as opening the doors of the Connnunists, you referred 
to it as a removal of a ban against people because of political beliefs. 
Do you recall that ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have some vague recollection of it, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, let me ask you this question, and 
I think in fairness to yourself you sliould answer this very concisely. 
You don't think that the Communist conspiracy is nothing but a politi- 
cal belief, and that language in the letter was not yours, do you? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, most of the language in the letter was 
mine, I know that. I don't know whether the specific thing you are 
talking about was or was not. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say it did not sound like yours ? 

Secretarj^ Stevens. I worked with INIr. Adams on getting up the 
letter to you. 

Senator McCarthy. The date of the letter was February 16. 

Could we get that out of our files ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would also like to, if I may, Senator, while 
you are looking at that paper, say that a moment ago you said some- 
thing about indicating an awful lot of infiltration into the Army at 
the time I came into office. I do not accept that, and I would like 
to say right here and now that this is a great Army and it is not 
full of Communists, and we don't coddle them. And I think a very 
unfair impression is being created, again, in the minds of the American 
people with respect to this matter of what you call Communist in- 
filtration in the Army. I object to it. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has again expired. 

Mr. Jenkins, any questions ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair passes. Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. Pass. 

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

Senator Symington. Pass. 

Senator Mundt. ]\Ir. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. Pass. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn or Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, you just made a statement in 
regard to the Army. I can agree with a great portion of what you 
said. I agree, and I have long stated that we do have a gi-eat Army. 
] think 99 percent, at least, if not more, are loyal Americans, willing 
to die for their country. May I say that gives us no excuse to keep 
a few Communist apples in the barrel of healthy apples. That is 
what we are after. 

You understand that. You understand that we are not making any 
attack upon the Army. It is upon those who belong to the Commu- 
nist conspiracy who have infiltrated into the Army. I am sure you 
will agree 

Secretary Stevens. You speak as if you are the only one who is 
interested in getting these people out. 


Senator JMgCarthy. No. 

Senator Mundt. Order, please. 

Senator McCarthy. No. Let me ask you, Mr. Secretary, do you 
agree with me that it is a service to the Army, a service to the Nation, 
to expose and dig out of the military, Communists? Do you agree 
with me on that ? 

Secretary Stevens. We want all the help we can get from any source 
to get rid of any Communists. There is no question about that. 

Senator McCarthy. You agree it is not an attack upon the Army 
to expose some "fifth-amendment majors" 

Secretary Stevens. I say that the publicity that came out from 
your statements at the time of the Fort Monmouth hearings was 
utterly unfair to the Army, utterly unfair to the Army. 

Senator McCarthy. I might agree with you that some of the pub- 
licity from day to day may be unfair to various people, but as it so 
happens as of today I don't edit the New York Post, the Washington 
Post, Time Magazine, Life Magazine, any of those sheets. I have 
no control over what they say, no control over their headlines. 

Getting back to your letter of February 1, 1954—1 beg your par- 
don. My letter is February 1. You answered on February 16. AVe 
were talking about the previous order of the military which we had 
discussed before, to allow the commissioning of Communists. You 
say, and I quote from your letter : 

In your telegram you spoke of a War Department order of December 30, 1044, 
prohibiting discrimination against military personnel because of political beliefs. 

Do you consider communism, the Communist conspiracy, a political 
belief? I ask you this, Mr. Secretary, because I was disturbed by 
this, because this is the jargon we hear, not from good Americans 
like you, but from the Communists w^ho appear before our committee. 
They all refer to communism as a "political belief." That is why I 
say this cannot be your language, and I w^ould like to know whose 
it is. 

Secretary Ste%t!ns. I would like to read on. "I have investigated 
the files on that matter and have ascertained that the directive in 
question was rescinded on March 4, 1946, during the tenure of the late 
Robert P. Patterson as Secretary of War." 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. We discussed that in detail, 
didn't we? We discussed that the door was open for a while, didn't 

Mr. Secretary, just refresh your recollection, A final question on 
this : Didn't you and I discuss in detail the fact that your difficulty 
m 1953 was the result, to a great extent, of the softness toward com- 
munism and this order of 1944, plus another order, Mr. Secretary, 
the order providing for the destruction of the files on all those who 
were accused of Communist activities ? We discussed that in detail, 
didn't we? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that we discussed it in detail. I 
think there was some mention of it. I know you said after you got 
this letter of February 16 that you didn't think I had written the letter. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you ever check to determine whether or 
not the people w^ho were responsible for the order to destroy the files 
on Communists — whether or not they are still in the Pentagon? 


Secretary Stevens. Senator, I say we have constant studies going 
on on this thing, and I just don't believe that there are any of those 
kind of people there. If they are, we are just as interested as you are 
in getting rid of them. When you go back 10 years, that is getting 
back quite a ways before this hearing for me to have to try to testil'y 
on what went on then. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you think the last Communist was Major 
Peress, and that when he left there were no more in the military? 

Secretary Stevens. I didn't say that, but I say there are doggone 

Senator McCarthy. Will you agree with me that one Communist 
in a key spot could result in the death of this Nation ? 

Secretary Stevens. You mean a key spot like Major Peress? 

Senator McCarthy. No. If you want to be coy and clever, it is all 
right, but I asked you the simple question : Do you agree that one 
Communist in a key spot in a radar laboratory, in telecommunica- 
tions, one Communist having access to the top secrets of this Nation, 
could result in the death of this Nation ? Do we both agree on that ? 

Secretary Stevens. There could be such a spot where it would be 
very serious. I certainly agree with that 100 percent. 

Senator McCarthy. You do not mean to tell us now that you hon- 
estly think that Peress was the last Communist in the military? 

Secretary Stevens. I didn't say that. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, we can both assume there are 
still some in the military ; can't we? 

Secretary Stevens. I think we have to assume it and keep relent- 
lessly at it, which is exactly what we are doing. 

Senator McCarthy. And you revised your regulations during our 
investigation to try and weed out any other Communists in the mili- 
tary; didn't you? 

Secretary Stevens. We revised regulations several times since I 
have been in office. I started on that on my very first day in office, 
February 4, 1953. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, did you ever discuss with me 
the Personnel, Research and Procedure Division of the Army? Let's 
get the complete title. The Personnel, Research, and Procedures Divi- 
sion of the Army Plans, and just to refresh your recollection so you 
will know what I am talking about — I assume this is not security 
information — their tasks are research. Army mobilization. Let me 
just pass this to you. This might be claimed by some to be security 
information, describing the function of this Division. [Paper handed 
to Secretary Stevens.] 

Mr. Chairman, while the Secretary is looking at that, I wonder if 
the Chair could ask for a copy of the statement made by Gen. Mark 
Clark a few days ago in regard to Communist infiltration. I am in- 
clined to think that that should be available to the committee. I may 
say I have a tremendous respect for General Clark. I have heard so 
many rumors about his statement I would like to know what it was. 

Senator Mundt. Does that deal with the subject matter of the in- 
quiry, may the Chair inquire? I am not familiar with the statement. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes; it deals with Communist infiltration, I 
understand. I haven't seen the statement. I have heard at least a 
dozen rumors. A dozen people have passed by and told me to get 


Mark Clark's statement made a couple of days ago in regard to Com- 
munist infiltration. 

Senator Mundt. I think you would be entitled to ask the Secretary 
wliether he has that statement on file and if so if he would produce it. 
1 don't know whether he has it or not. 

Secretary Stevens. What was that, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. The Senator was inquiring whether you had a 
statement made by Gen. Mark Clark on the subject of Communist 
infiltration into the Army. 

Secretary Stevens. When ? 

Senator Mundt. A few days ago. 

Secretary Stevens. No ; he is retired. I wouldn't have any of that 

Senator Mundt. You wouldn't have the statements ? 

Secretary Stevens. I ])robably can get it for you, if you want it. 

Senator McCarthy. I wonder if you would do that. 

Secretary Stevens. We will do that. I don't recognize, Senator, the 
title on this. I just don't recognize that title. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you pass it back to me ? Is there any- 
thing in there of a security nature? Is there anything on this slip 
of a security nature ? 

Secretary Stevens. In that slip ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. It describes the work of the Personnel 
Research, and Procedures Division of the Army. Would that be 
security information, to read the function of that particular Division ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I don't know, frankly, Senator, about 
that. I would like to, as far as we can, resolve all of these matters in 
favor of getting the facts out on the table, so why don't you go ahead 
and read it, if you would like to. 

Senator McCarthy. On your suggestion, I will. 

Mr. elENKiNS. Senator, may I inquire of the date of that document 
from which you are now reading? 

Senator McCarthy. This is merely my own description of a func- 
tion of a certain division in the military. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I inquire just what you expect to establish by 
that, Senator McCarthy? 

Senator McCarthy. I expect to establish, Mr. Jenkins, that there 
are individuals in that all-important section as of this particular mo- 
ment, as of 4 o'clock on this 10th day of May 1954, with such Com- 
munist connections and background that they are dangerous to the 
security of this Nation, extremely dangerous, and that Mr. Stevens' 
office has been negligent in examining these cases, and that the infor- 
mation has been brought to his attention, to the best of my knowledge, 
and I think this all goes to the motive in issuing the smear against Mr. 
Cfohn, Mr. Carr, and myself, in order to call the hearings off, because 
this is something that would have been exposed sooner or later. I 
would like to ask the Secretary a few questions on this. I think the 
purpose will be very clear as we proceed. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I make an observation ? 

Senator Jackson. May I make a point of inquiry at this point ? 

Senator Mundt. All right. 

Senator Jackson. If I understand, and I have been listening pa- 
tiently all afternoon on this to find out just what the theory was, I 


would say that certainly Senator McCarthy has a right under his 
charges to attempt to prove that Secretary Stevens tried to stop 
investigation of Communists in the Army, If that is the purpose, it 
seems to me it is in order, but if it isn't, then, of course, "\ve are going 
on and on. I suggested the other day, on Thursday, when we start 
in on one personnel case, that was to be the last one, and we have been 
on I don't know how many since, and that is all we have been on. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, may I follow up what Senator Jack- 
son has said ? As I get it, there is an effort now on the part of Senator 
McCarthy, to establish the fact that there are Communists in the 
Army ; is that right. Senator ? 

Senator McCarthy. No, not in this particular hearing, Mr. Jenkins. 
But I think it is important to show at this time the number of times 
we called attention, tlie attention of those in charge, to dangerous 
situations, the number of times they ignored us, and the fact that they 
knew that if we were not hamstrung in our investigation, if the investi- 
gations were not stopped, that dereliction of duty would be brought 
to the attention of the public, and that is the motive for issuing the 
smear which so effectively stopped our investigation. In other words, 
it goes to the question of motive behind the issuance of the smear on 
Cohn, Carr, and McCarthy. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you mean you are attempting to show that you 
have called the attention of this witness. Secretary Stevens, the fact 
that there are Communists in the Army, and that he has done nothing 
about it, or not doing it rapidly enough ? Is that the idea. Senator ? 

Senator McCarthy. You are almost correct in that, Mr. Jenkins, 
brought to the attention of this witness or his subordinates who nor- 
mally should report to him, and that the information, even if not 
brought to his attention, should have been known by him and his 
subordinates. In other words, Mr. Chairman, the purpose is to show 
the dereliction, the fact that they knew this would be brought to the 
attention of the public if they were not successful in calling off the 
hearing. It is a question of motive. May I say I only have — if I 
can get answers — I only have about two or three questions on this 
and then I intend to turn the matter over to Mr. Cohn for some 
questions on another matter. 

Mr. Jenkins. You don't claim. Senator, now that Secretary Stevens 
is responsible — and there was no objection made to your examination 
of it awhile ago, and perhaps it was dereliction of my duty — you do 
not claim that he was res])onsible for a war directive 8 or 10 years ago, 
putting a ban on people getting in the Army because of political 
affiliations, do you? 

Senator McCarthy. Political affiliations ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's not use that term. 

Mr. Jenkins. That was the term that was used, political beliefs. 

Senator McCarthy. No, not in the order. It is Communist con- 

Mr. Stevens in his letter refers to political beliefs. The order refei"S 
to Communists. Just to ansAver Mr. Jenkins' question, I have made 
it very clear to Mr. Stevens, not only here but in our conversations 
with him a number of times, that I could never obviously blame him 
for an order which opened the gates to Communists and invited them 
in 8 or 9 years ago. I have discussed that with him, however, be- 


cause that is a key to his problem today, and this is one of the reasons 
why he must be extremely vigilant in getting them out. 

But I am not referring now to a war directive, Mr. Chairman, I am 
referring to a matter of an entirely different nature. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair understands from your last question that 
was directed to the Secretary, that you desire to determine whether 
in his opinion it would be any violation of security for you to read the 
description of the responsibility in that paper that you are hohling 
in your hand. 

Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you look at that, Mr. Stevens? Can you 
answer that question ? 

Secretary Stevens. I said to go ahead and read it, if the Senator 
would like to. 

Senator McCarthy. Very well. Proceed. 

This is not a document in any files, except it is my own description 
of the function of this })articuLar department. The department of 
Personnel, Research, and Procedures Division of the Army. You 
have heard of that Division, I assume ? 

Secretary Stevens. I do not recognize the title of that division. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you ask your aides if there is such a 
division ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have already done so. 

Senator McCarthy. And they know of no such division ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. What words have I got wrong in this? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't know, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask you, then, would you give us the 
name of the department which conducts research, makes plans for 
Army mobilization, setting quotas for men available, plans which are 
used by the Chief of Staff in preparing total war plans? What is the 
name of that division, if that is not security information. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, that sounds to me like security infor- 
mation. I would like to make that comment. 

Senator McCarthy. The Secretary told me to read it. 

Senator Mundt. If the Secretary says it is, we will accept it as 
being so. I thought he said it was not. 

Secretary Stevens. I said to go ahead and read the paper. But 
on the further information that Senator McCarthy wants, if he will 
give me that paper, I will take it over to the office and try to identify 
what it is he is talking about. I don't know. 

Senator McCarthy. Don't you know now ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. So you could not answer the question as to 
what division does this work ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. 

Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Any Senators to my right? 

Any Senators to my left? 

Mr. Welch? 

Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn. 

Senator McCarthy. Just one or two questions on this. 


]\Ir. Secretary, if there is such a division and if there were Com- 
munists lioldin^ Icey positions in that division, that would constitute 
an extremely, an extremely danp;erous situation; is that ri<^ht? 

Mr. Welch. Objection. There is no evidence on which to base 
that question. 

Senator Mundt. Well, I think the question is clear. He said if 
(here were such a division, and if Communists were there. Now, he 
can say there is no division, if he cares to, or he can answer hypotheti- 

]\ir. Jenkins, I think it ou<2:ht to be confined to the time of the 
tenure of office of the Secretary. 

Senator McCarthy. This is confined to today. 

JSIr. Secretary, so you won't be answerin^jj in the dark, can I hand 
you the names of two individuals, and I wish you would put that 
in your pocket after you have glanced at them. Do you recognize 
those names? 

Secretary Stevens. No; I don't personally recognize them. 

SLMiator ]\IcCarthy. Is there any one of your aides who could tell 
you what jobs they hold? 

Secretary Stevt.ns. I can look it up for you. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, would one of your aides — I assume they 
all have security clearance. Could you hand Mr. Adams or one of the 
generals those two names and ask them what jobs they hold ? 

Secretary Stevens. We will have to do some more — we will have 
to get some more information together for you, Senator, because we 
don't recognize the names here at the moment. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask you to get this information for us, 
if you will, in regard to tlie second name on the list. The question of 
whether or not he has had reports made covering alleged Communist 
connections in his part, and his secret and top-secret clearance was 
removed, but he is still allowed to direct programs that are secret. 
If this is correct, I would like to know it. It seems like a very unusual 
setup, if true. 

Secretary Stevens. Well, I don't know anything about it. Senator, 
but we will check it up and get the information. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn? 

Mr. CoiTN. Mr. Secretary, on the issue of whether or not you were 
trjung to get this committee to stop its investigation at Fort Mon- 
mouth, I direct your attention, if I may, sir, to specification or allega- 
tion No. 11 in the charges which you and Mr. Adams made, and to the 
following language : You charge that: 

On or about November 14, 1053, Mr. Cohn threatened to continue the sub- 
committee's Investigation at Fort IMoumouth. 

In the next charge you say that : 

On or about November IG, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr renewed the threat — 

namely, the threat to continue the investigation of Fort Monmouth, 
personally to you. 

I will ask you, sir, if you state that the statement on the part of 
Mr. Carr and myself that the investigation will be continued is a 
threat, does it not follow, sir, that you clid in fact want that investiga- 
tion stopped and regarded its continuation as a threat to you? Isn't 
that what that says? 


Secretary Stevens. I have testified on this repeatedly, Mr. Cohn, 
probably a dozen times, and you know the answer just as well as I do, 
and that is — I am going to state the answer again — that I wanted 
the type of hearings stopped that was giving the American people 
and the Army such an unfair picture of what the facts were at Fort 
Monmouth. I wanted the type of hearings stopped. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Secretary, there is not one word in this charge 
which you made about changing the type of hearing. It says — 

threatened to continue the subcommittee investigation on the Army installation 
at Fort Monmouth, which had theretofore resulted in exaggerated headlines 
damaging to the morale of personnel at Monmouth. 

That is the first one. The second one states that threats 

Senator Mundt. Do you have an answer to make, Mr. Secretary? 

Secretary Stevens. It seems hopeless to try. 

Mr. CoHN. That threats were made personally to you, namely, to 
continue these investigations at Fort Monmouth. 

Secretary Stevens. Mr. Cohn, I have explained repeatedly, and I 
will do it again, if you want, that I wanted that type of hearing 

Mr. CoHN. What type of hearing did you want, sir ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. Every member on this committee, I am sure, is dead 
certain that the Secretary has repeatedly answered that question and 
explained fully his position, and I do respectfully insist that Mr. 
Cohn pass to a new subject, if there is anything new. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Jenkins, if I may respectfully say so, I think there 
is a lot unanswered. This charge is made against Mr. Carr and me, 
a charge that we threatened to continue the investigation. I think I 
can point, if I may, sir, to a plain inconsistency between the Secre- 
tary's testimony and a charge which he himself has made. That is 
what I am trying to do now, sir. I don't believe I have ever done it 

Senator McCarthy. Could I add to that, Mr. Chairman, that the 
testimony on the first day, I believe it w^as the first day, page 442, 
the testimony of Mr. Stevens is directly contradictory to what he says 
today. He then said he wanted the hearings suspended. Then after 
thinking it over and talking it over, that story is changed so that now 
he says he wanted a different kind of hearing. 

Mr. Chairman, in view of the inconsistency in the Secretary's sworn 
testimony, I may say the only way that we can get at the truth, if we 
ever can with the selective memory, is to cross-examine in detail, and 
I personally hope that counsel is allowed to do that. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins ? 

Mr. Jenkins. If Mr. Cohn will ask a new question and point out 
specifically any alleged discrepancies in the testimony heretofore given 
by the Secretary and testimony given thereafter, including today, I 
would say that it is a proper question, 

Mr. Cohn. Very well, sir. I will do that right now. 

Senator Mundt. Reframe your question, then, so it avoids the ob- 
jection made by counsel. 

Mr. Cohn. No. 1, Mr. Secretary, you have today testified that all 
you wanted was a change in the type of hearing. I now direct your 


attention, if I may, sir, to your testimony at page 442 of the record, 
and ask you whether or not you did not categorically admit then that 
you wanted the hearings suspended ? 

Secretary Sti:vens. I wanted the type of hearings changed. 

Mr. CoHN. Sir 

Senator Mundt. You could quote his testimony direct and ask him 
whether or not he said that. 

Mr. CoHN (reading) : 

Mr. Jenkins. That is cori'cct. Insofar as his charge against you that you 
tried to stop the investigation of Fort Monmouth is concerned, that is not cor- 
rect. You merely tried to get it suspended. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Secretary Stevens. I wanted to suspend the type of hearings that 
were being held, and I have testified on that at least a dozen times 

Mr. ConN. Yes, sir. 

Secretary Stevens. I will leave with this committee to judge 
whether my testimony is consistent or accurate or not. 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir; and I believe that under the rules of cross- 
examination I have the right to call to the committee's attention the 
cases where there is a plain inconsistency in testimony on this key 
issue. That was the purpose of my question. 

My next question is whether or not allegation No. 11 stating that 
"Mr.^ Cohn threatened to continue the subcommittee investigation at 
Monmouth" is not further inconsistent with testimony you have given 

Secretary Stevens. I have said repeatedly that I wanted the type 
of hearing changed. I now repeat that that is what I wanted. 

Mr. CoiiN. Did you want the hearings suspended ? 

Secretary Stevens. I wanted the type of hearing that was being 
held suspended ; yes. 

Mr. CoHN. You wanted the type of hearing 

Secretary Stevens. Tlie type of hearing; yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. What type of hearing did you want us to conduct and 
when ? 

Secretary Stevens. I wanted one conducted where the American 
people would get a fair and accurate idea of v/hat was being produced 
instead of having practically no relation or very little relation to 
the facts. 

You were making people think that Fort IVIonmouth was a bed of 
espionage, and that was not in accordance with the facts. 

]SIr. CoHN. Mr. Secretary, let's see now. First of all, is it a fact 
that either you or IVIr. Adams was present or invited to be present 
at every single executive session or public session of our subcommittee 
on Fort IMonmouth? 

]Mr. Welch. Objection. That has been covered. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair's attention was diverted talking to 
the Senator from IMissouri. You will have to restate the question. 

Mr. CoHN. May Ave have that read, please? 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Secretary Stevens. That has all been covered thoroughly. 

Senator Mundt. Is it the contention of Mr. Cohn that that question 
lias not been answered in earlier testimony 2 


Mr. CoiiN. I think it can be settled in one second by a "Yes" or "No" 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, the obvious purpose of the question 
is this : The Secretary says that he objected to the type of hearings 
being conducted by the McCarthy investigating committee. Mr. 
Colm is now asking him whether or not he and Mr. Adams attended 
every executive session, the obvious purpose being to show that the 
Secretary did not know all the time of the exact type of hearing 
that was being conducted. Is that correct ? 

Mr. CoHN. With one further statement, Mr. Jenkins : I would like 
to show that following some of these very executive sessions which Ave 
were discussing Mr. Stevens met the press along with Senator Mc- 
Carthy and heard what Senator McCarthy said and never once 
objected to a single statement Avhich Senator McCarthy made. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I ask the Secretary a question to clear it up ? 

Senator Mundt. I believe if no objection is raised, Mr. Cohn is 
entitled to have an answer to his question before I recognize you. 

Mr. Cohn. I defer to Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens, did you and Mr. Adams attend every 
executive session of the McCarthy committee? 

Secretary Stevens. I certainly did not. There "were very, very 
few that I attended. I don't know about Mr. Adams. He attended 
many more. 

Mr. Jenkins. He attended many more than you did? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. But are you certain whether or not he attended all 
of the hearings? 

Secretary Stevens. I would say about half of them. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then all of the hearings were not attended by you 
and/or Mr. Adams ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Proceed, Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Secretary, may I ask whether after any of those 
hearings which you attended when you met the press along with 
Senator McCarthy you ever made any objection to anything which he 
had said ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't ever recall having met the press with 
Senator McCarthy except on the one instance at Fort Monmouth, 
when w^e went down there for the inspection and after that meeting 
was over — it wasn't a hearing in the usual sense, I would say, in that 
witnesses were not called, as I recall it — and there I joined with 
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall any other instances. 

Mr. Cohn. I am going to try to produce some newspapers to see if 
we can refresh your recollection on that. 

Secretary Stevens. Very good. 

Senator Mundt. Proceed, Mr. Cohn, or Senator McCarthy. 

Mr. Cohn. Is your objection to the type of hearing addressed to 
those sessions which you attended or those which you did not attend ? 

Secretary Stevens. Both. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you make the objection at the time 

Secretary Stevens. Primarily, however, to the ones that I did not 
attend, because I only went to a very few, and the reports on those — 
I got the same reports that the people did, namely, in the newspapers. 


Mr. CoiiN". From those that you attended? 

Secretary Stevens. On those that I did not attend. 

Mr. CoiiN. How about those that you attended? Did you ever 
Pugo;est to Senator McCarthy that there was anything wrong with 
the type of hearing when you Avere there? 

Secretary Stevens. I think I went to possibly two. I think I went 
to two. 

Mr. CoHN. Two rather important ones; is that right? 

Secretary Steatns. I don't know if they were any more important 
than your others. 

Mr. CoiiN. You heard Aaron Coleman testify, did you not? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. That was important, was it not? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

INIr. CoHN. Did you find anything objectionable in the manner that 
that Avas conducted? 

Secretary Stevens. As I understood your question it was, did I 
take part in press conferences witli Senator ^McCarthy after the hear- 
ings were over, and my answer to that was I did not. 

]\Ir. CoHN. That was a question about three questions ago. You 
said 3'ou didn't recall and I am going to try to get some newspapers 
together and see if I can't refresh your recollection. My last ques- 
tion was whether or not the executive sessions which you did attend 
tliat you ever made any characterization at all to Senator ^IcCarthy 
about the manner or conduct of the hearing or to anvthing at all 
which you saw at the hearing. 

Secretary Stevens. I testified over and over again that I wanted 
this type of hearing stopped, the hammering over the head, and I 
said it repeatedly in the hearing and I now said it again. 

JNIr. CoHN. I can't get an answer to the question, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jenkins. That, Mr. Chairman, is not wholly responsive. Mr. 
Secretary, you could tell him whether or not at the time of the hear- 
ing or immediately thereafter you made any objection to the manner 
in which Senator McCarthy conducted the hearing, anything that 
w^as said or done. Now, that is a simple question. 

Secretary Stevens. As I recall it, I went to hearings on the 13tli 
and 14th of October, which was very early in the Fort Monmouth 
investigation, and I made no comment to the press or to Senator 
McCarthy as far as I can now recall. 

Mr. Jenkins. And made no objections at the time? 

Secretary Stevens. Not at that time. 

Mr. Jenkins. Or immediately thereafter with respect to the type 
of hearing? He has answered the question. 

Senator Mundt. He answeA'ed the question. 

;Mr. ConN. Isn't it a fact, Mr. Secretary, that the first time the ob- 
jection to the type hearing has been raised has been right here in this 
room ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Mr. CoiiN. When do you say the first time you raised an objection 

Secretary Steat.ns. Well, at our meeting, for example, on the 6th of 
November, I said that I wanted this hammering of the Arnn' over the 
head stopped. That was one very clear time. 


Mr. CoHN. Well, I was asking you about an objection to a type 
of hearing — you see, our charge, Mr, Secretary,, if I make this clear, 
is that you have tried to get us to stop the investigation, to stop hold- 
ing hearings. You first stated on page 442 of the record, no, you didn't 
want to stop it, you merely wanted to suspend it. Later on your testi- 
mony became no, you didn't want it suspended but you wanted to 
change the type of hearing. I would now like to know the first 
occasion which you made any complaint about the type of hearing 
and I would like you to tell us what specifically the complaint was 
and what suggestion you made as to the type of hearing which would 
be satisfactory to you. 

Secretary Stevens. I say I covered it at length on November 6, at 
the luncheon. 

Mr. CoHN, Was that the first time, sir? 

Secretary Stevens. I will have to refresh my memory to see whether 
it was or not. But I know about that one. 

Senator Mundt. Your time has expired. 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. Pass. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will pass. Senators to my left ? Sena- 
tors to my right ? Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. Pass. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn, you may continue. 

Mr. CoHN. By the w^ay, Mr. Stevens • 

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests that now it is 4 :20, so we will 
probably have to conclude after this 10-minute session. 

Mr. Cohn. Isn't it a fact that the principal reason you named 
Mr. Adams as liaison to the committee was to have him try to get the 
hearings stopped? 

Secretary Stevens. Positively not. 

Mr. CoHN. Will you explain to us why you did name Mr. Adams 
liaison in view of the fact that the committee already has and has 
had General Fenn, a perfectly competent liaison? 

Mr. Jenkins. I remember specifically asking the Secretary that 
question myself. It has been asked and answered. 

Senator Mundt. It would be impossible for the Chair to recall 
all the questions asked. He does recall that one, and it is repetitious. 

Mr. CoHN. I don't like to go on the limb, but I would suggest that 
General Fenn's name has not been mentioned and this question has 
not been asked. 

Senator Mundt. The question is on the point of order. 

Mr. CoHN. The Secretary denied it was for this purpose. I am now 
trying to cast doubt on that denial by showing there was already a 
liaison to the committee and there was no need for any additional 
liaison. I am asking the Secretary whether it is not a fact that 
General Fenn was the regular liaison to our committee and still is. 

Secretary Stevens. He works for our office of legislative liaison and 
has had contact with the committee, that is true. But I wanted a 
member on my own personal staff to handle the relationship with 
this committee which I had started to handle myself personally on 
the 8th day of September, and so when Mr. Adams came into the 
picture on the 1st of October, I gave him that as one of many other 

Senator Mundt. Proceed, Mr. Cohn. 


Mr. CoHN. Mr. Secretarj'', you testified here at some length about 
the meeting of November 6, and that is one of the allegations in your 
bill of specifications. You agree, do you not, that you were the one 
who invited us to your office on November 6 ? 

Mr. Jenkins. That question has been asked and answered, Mr. 
Chairman. I believe we ought to explore a new subject. 

Senator Mundt. That point of order will be sustained. 

Mr. CoHN. I am trying here, if I might, and I am sure I can't do it 
as well, to match the chain of questions that Mr. Jenkins put to the 
Secretary in repetitious form on Friday morning concerning a pat- 
tern, and I would like to show that various of these charges here 
which the Secretary says involve threats to him, were actually meet- 
ings in one way or another called by Mr. Stevens and not by us. 

Senator Mundt. You are trying to establish the fact that he called 
the meetings? If that is a new element, you are entitled to ask the 
question. The Chair is not able, I am sure, is not able to recall every- 
thing that is said in the hundreds of thousands of words of testimony. 
But where he is sure, he will have to rule that repetitious questions 
will be ruled out. You may proceed. 

Mr. CoHN. I cannot pursue this line of interrogation? 

Senator Muxdt. I am not sure as to the exact question that was 
asked. Counsel thought lie heard it asked before. If he is positive 
he has, the Chair will rule it out. 

Mr. CoHN. Very well. 

Mr. Stevens, allegation No. 13 by you against us is a meeting of 
November 17, Is it not a fact that that meeting was at your request 
and at your suggestion and not at ours? 

Secretary Stevens. I have testified at great length on that, and 
the reason for that meeting was because of Senator McCarthy's dis- 
pleasure on my press statement of November 13. 

Mr. CoiiN. Who asked for the meeting, sir, you or Senator 

Secretary Stevens. You asked for the first meeting, which was on 
the — which was on, as I recall it, on the IGth, You asked for it and 
out of that grew the meeting with Senator McCarthy. 

Mr. CoiiN. Mr. Stevens, my question to you, sir, if I may, is who 
asked for the meeting of November 17, which is allegation No. 13 in 
your complaint? Did you recast 

Secretary Stex'ens. I said I would go to New York and see Senator 
McCarthy because you indicated that he thought I had pulled the rug 
out from under him on my statement of November 13. I have testi- 
fied on this repeatedly. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you ask for that meeting, sir ? 

Secretary Stevens. I said that I suggested that I go to New York, 
and I did. 

Mr. CoiiN. Did I ask you to come to New York to see Senator 
McCarthy or did you ask me to go to Senator McCarthy and see if 
he would not see you ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall anything like that. 

Mr._ CoHN. Well, Mr. Stevens, could you not try to recall that? 
That is awfully important. You recall other things. 

Secretary Stevens. I have already testified that when you — you 
sought me out, after my press conference of November 13, and you 


came to my office, and you said that Senator McCarthy felt that I had 
pulled the rug out from under him, I said that was not my intention 
and that if Senator McCarthy was disturbed about it, I would go and 
see him and talk to him about it. 

Mr. CoHN. When did I seek you out, sir ? 

Secretary Stevens. And I have testified on this at great length 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir; and I might say not to our satisfaction because 
we don't believe the facts have been shown yet. Would you now tell 
me, sir, when I sought you out following your press conference of 
November 13? I would like to know. Was it by telephone? Was 
it in person ? 

Secretary Stevens. You came to my office on the 16th. 

Mr. CoHN. Now, my question : You held a press conference on the 
13th, is that right? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Mr. CoHN. And between the 13th and 16th did I seek you out? 

Secretary Stevens. On the telephone, one of the days in between 

Mr. CoHN. When was • 

Secretary Stevens. Either directly through me or through John 
Adams, I don't recall which at the moment. 

Mr. CoHN. Can you recall Avhether or not I communicated with you 
in any way ? 

Secretary Stevens. I can check that up and find out. 

Mr. CoHN. Could you not check up, Mr. Secretary, and then come 
back and see whether the fact is not that Mr. Adams called me at your 
request on Sunday, November 15, and asked me to be in your office 
the next morning at 10 : 30 a. m. ? 

Secretary Stevens. Why don't you ask that of Mr. Adams? He 
can testify on it. 

Mr. CoHN. Because you said I sought you out and I suggest the 
contrary is true, and I think I am entitled to have that clarified. 

Secretary Stevens. I disagree with that. 

Mr. CoHN. Then could you answer my question, sir? Is it not a 
fact that at your request — I believe Mr. Adams said you had returned 
from the country, returned from out of town — he called me on Sunday, 
November 15, and asked me as a personal favor to you to be in your 
office at 10 : 30 the next morning ? I have the telephone slip of that 
call, too, I might say. 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, I think Mr. Adams called you following a 
call of yours, if I remember correctly, the day before. 

Mr. CoHN. Did Mr. Adams call me and say he was doing so at your 
request and that you desired me to be in your office ? 

Secretary Stevens. You ask that of Mr. Adams. I don't know. 

Mr. CoHN. All right, sir. Thank you, if that is the best you can do 
on that. 

Secretary Stevens. It is. 

Mr. CoHN. In any event, we are clearly in agreement that on No- 
vember 16 it was you who asked for the meeting with Senator Mc- 
Carthy the next day. 

Secretary Stevens. I said that I wanted to see Senator McCarthy if 
he thought that I had pulled the rug out from under him.; 


]\Ir. CoiiN. You said you wanted to see him. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

]Mr. CoHN; Fine. Allegation No. 27, Mr. Secretary— I am sorry. 
It is not allegation No. 27. It is allegation No. 25, concerning a re- 
quest made by Senator McCarthy for an assignment to Private Schine, 
recounting a meeting between you and Senator McCarthy on January 
14, 1954. This is your charge. I will ask you who asked for that 
meeting on January 14. 

Secretary Stevens, I did. 

Mr. CoiiN. You asked for that, did you not, sir? 

Secretary Stevens. I did, the reason being that I was going to the 
Far East, and I wanted to see the Senator before I left in regard to 
all these different matters. 

Mr. CoHN. Senator ;McCarthy wants to follow up on that. 

Senator McCarthy. I would like to ask you a few questions on that 
meeting, Mr. Secretary. We met over at the Carroll Arms. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. And spent an hour, more or less, there. 

Secretary Stevens. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. The purpose, you said, was to tell me what? 

Secretary Stevens. What is that? 

Senator 'McCarthy. The purpose of the meeting was to tell me 

what ? 

Secretary Stevens. My main purpose in going over there was to 
tell you thkt I was leaving shortly for the Far East and would be gone 
for *3 or 4 weeks. I thought you might call up the next Tuesday 
morning and would want to speak to me and I wouldn't be there. 

Senator McCarthy. To refresh your recollection, didn't you ask me 
not to call any members of the loyalty panel until you came back ? 

Secretary STE^^;NS. I did not. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you discuss that? 

Secretary STE^T.NS. We did not. 

Senator McCarthy. O. K. So you came over, busy as you are, to 
see me and tell me you were going to the Far East. You could have 
done that by telephone or by message. Was there any other purpose 
for asking for that meeting? 

Secretary Stev-ens. The principal purpose was to tell you that I was 
going away and would be gone 3 or 4 weeks and to talk over matters 
of mutual interest between the Department of the Army and this 

Senator McCarthy. AVhat were those matters of mutual interest, 
Mr. Secretary ? 

Secretary Stevens. I would have to check up and see just what was 
current at that particular time. 

Senator McCarthy. The average person would assume that it was 
rather important when the Secretary of the Army, busy as you were, 
took time out to come all the way over from the Pentagon and arrange 
a meeting with me. Was it important enough so you would remember 
why you asked for that meeting ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes ; I have stated the principal reason. 

Senator McCarttiy. I know, besides telling me you were leaving, 
which you could have done by a wire or phone call. 

Secretary Stevens. I also told you during the course of that meeting 
approximately — I think I told you at that meeting tliat Private Schine 


was going to go from Dix to Camp Gordon and complete his basic 
training, and that if he completed it successfully and qualified, he 
might be sent to the Provost Marshal General's School there. 

Senator McCarthy. Did I tell you at that time, Mr. Secretary, that 
I felt that you were wasting far too much time on one private in the 
Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. You did not. 

Senator McCarthy. I didn't ? 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Didn't I indicate to you, Mr. Secretary, that 
we had much more important business to discuss than a private in the 
Army ? 

Secretary Stevens. You brought up a New York assignment for 
Private Schine 4 or 5 times during the course of that meeting. 

Senator McCarthy. Who brought up Schine's name to begin with ? 

Secretary Stevens. Who brought up Schine's name? I told you 
what the rest of his training program would be. 

Senator McCarthy. Then you came over to talk about Schine, is 
that right? 

Secretary Stevens. I came over primarily to talk to you about my 
trip to the Far East. I also told you what the program was for 
Schine's completing his basic training. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's narrow it down. 

Secretary Stevens. You brought up 4 or 5 times, couldn't he be 
sent to New York for an assignment. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's narrow it down. As far as your going 
to the Far East, if that were the only thing you were going to talk 
about you would not have arranged a meeting to come over and tell 
me, "McCarthy, I am leaving for the Far East." 

Secretary Stevens. I very likely might have done that, sure. 

Senator McCarthy. You and I haven't been great social friends, 
have we? In other words, we have been tlealing almost exclusively 
with the business of the committee and the military ? 

Secretary Stevens. That is right, and I didn't think that I ought to 
be gone for 3 or 4 weeks with important matters pending between 
your committee and the Department of the Army without at least 
letting you know I was going. 

Senator McCarthy. Aside from the important matter of Private 
Schine and this other important matter that you were leaving the next 
day, were there any other matters that we discussed ? 

Secretary Stevens. Those are the ones I recall principally. _ 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, you came over and discussed 
those two matters? 

Secretary Stevens. I came over primarily to discuss the trip to the 
Far East. That was my principal reason for coming. 

Senator McCarthy. You didn't discuss it except to tell me you were 
going, did you ? 

Secretary Stevens. Oh, yes, I did. I discussed it at considerable 
length and told you where I was going. There was considerable dis- 
cussion about my trip to the Far East. 

Senator McCarthy. You did not come over so that I could try to 
threaten you or pressure you on Private Schine ? That was not the 
purpose ? 


Secretary STE^^:NS. All I can say is, Senator, tliat you brought up 
4 or 5 times the question of a New York assignment for Private Schine. 

Senator McCarthy. Who brought up Schine's name? 

Secretary Stevens. I finally reminded you of your letter of De- 
cember 22 in which you said that there wasn't to be any pressure or 
special favor for Schine. 

Senator McCarthy. Who brought up Schine in the case? 

Secretary Stevens. I told you what the completion of his training 
program would be. 

Senator McCarthy. But you brought that matter up? 

Secretary Stevens. I told you what his training program would be, 
and then you started talking about this Xew York assignment. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. Tlie hour of 4 : 30 
having arrived, we will adjourn until 10 : 30 tomorrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 4 : 37 p. m., the hearing was adjourned until 10 : 30 
a. m., Tuesday,'May 11, 1954.) 



Adams, John G 937, 951, 957, 959, 960, 9G1, 9G4 

Armed Forces 949 

Army (United States) 934, <J35. 93S-946, 949. 951-95G, 958, 901, 965, 966 

Armv installation (Fort Monmouth) 958 

Army Intelligence (G-2) 940,942-946 

Army mobilization _ 953 

Army Personnel, Research, and Procedure Division 953, 954, 956 

Armv plans 953 

Bissell, General 940, 941 

Boiling, General 942 

Browcier, Earl 947-950 

Brvan, Frederick P 937 

Camp Dix 966 

Camp Gordon 966 

Carr, Francis P 937,939,954,955,957,958 

Carroll Arms Hotel (Washington, D. C.) 965 

Chief of Staff 956 

CIA 948 

Clark, Gen. Mark 953, 054 

Cohu, Koy M 937, 939, 941, 954-956 

Coleman, Aaron 961 

Committee on Military Affairs (Kept. 1945) ^ 940 

Communist conspiracy 947, 951 

Communist infiltration in Army's intelligence 939, 940 

Communist major 947 

Communists 9.35, 939-955, 957 

Congress of the United States 943 

Counter Intelligence Agency 943 

Department of the Army 934, 935, 938-946, 949, 951-956, 958, 961, 965, 96S 

Dirk.sen, Senator 937 

Euroi>ean theater 941 

Far East 965, 966 

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 933,934,944 

Federal Government 935, 940 

Fenn, General 962 

Fort Monmouth 944, 952, 957, 957-959, 961 

Fort Monmouth investigation 961 

G-2 (Army Intelligence) 940,942-946 

Government of the United States 935, 940 

Hensel, H. Struve 9.36 

Hoover, J. Edgar 933,934 

House subcommittee investigating Katyn Forest massacre 939 

Intelligence reports 946 

Katyn Forest massacre (House investigation) 939 

Life magazine 9.>2 

Madden, Ray J 939 

Madden report 940 

McCarthy, Senator Joe 933, 934, 937-958, 960, 961, 963-967 

McCarthy committee 960 

McClellan proposal 938 

New York 963. 966, 967 

New York Post 952 

Partridge, General 942, 943 

Patterson, Robert P 952 

Pentagon 952 


roress case 951, !)r>3 

Personnel, Research, and Procedure Division of the Army G53, 954, 95(5 

Provost Marshal General's School (Camp Gordon) 9(j(; 

Quartermaster General 941 

Schine, G. David 94G, 905-9(57 

Secretary of the Army 934-9()7 

Secretary of War 1)52 

Senate of the United States 9;;5 

Soviet Union 940 

Stevens, Robert T 981-938 

Testimony of 939-9;i7 

Time maj^azine 952 

United States Army 934, 935, 938-946, 949, 951-956, 958, 961, 905, 966 

United States Congress 943 

United States Government 935, 940 

United States Secretary of War 952 

United States Senate 935 

United States War Department 950, 952 

War Department 950, 952 

AVar Department order (December 30, 1944) 952 

Washington Post 952 



3 9999 05442 1746