h^^.^.^J^'^Jt.
i
Bi
4/'>fo
Given By
T.
^
11 INDEX
Page
Lawton, General 1137-1140, 1144, 1145
Loyalty board 1132, 1137
Loyalty pro.^ram 1107
Loyalty security board 1135,1130
Marder, Maurey (Iviauiie) ^ 1141,1143
McCarthy, Senator Joe 1105-
1100, 1111, 1112, 1114, 1115, 1121, 1124, 1126, 1128, 1129, 1132, 1133,
1136-1138, 1140, 1141, 1143-1146.
McCarthy committee 1105, 1108, 1114, 1136, 113S, 1140, 1141
McCarthy heariu!,' 1111, 1144
Meet the Press (television pro^uum) 1135
Members of Congress 1143
Members of the Senate _•__ 110M132, 1142
Memphis, Teuu 1141)
Merchants Club (New York City) 1128
Navy (United States) 1117
New England 1119
New Jersey elections 1104
New Year's holiday 1114,1124
New York 1104, 1119
New York airport 1128
New York-New Jersey area 1104, 1119
New York City 11J5, 1110, H-'-- 1125, 1127-1130, 1144, 1146
New York Herald Tribune 1140, 1141
New York I'ost 1142
Pearson, Drew 1142
Pentagon 1111, 1117, 1144
Plainfield, N. J 1104
Potter, Philip 1140, 1141, 1143
Potter, Senator 1143
Presidential directive 1136
Prewitt, Thomas 1140-1147
Russell, Rosalind 1127
Ryan, General 1104, 1105, 1112-1114, 1129, 1131
St. Clair, Mr 1120, 1127, 1138, 1139
Schine, G. David 1104,1105,1112-1114,1117,1124-1128,1131,1132,1142,1146
Secretary of the Army 1104-
1107, 1111-1117, 1119, 1121-1124, 1128-1131, 1133-1136, 1138-1140,
1144-1146.
Selective Service Act 1130
Senate Office Buildint? 1117, 1118, 1123, 1124
Senate of the United States 1109, 1132, 1142
South Dakotau 1143
Southern Army base 1119
Stevens, Robert T 110dH107,
1111, 1119, 1121-1124, 1128-1131, 1133-1136, 1138-1140, 1144-1146
United States Air Force 1117, 1118
United States Army 1104,
1106-1109, 1115, 1116, 1118-1120, 1122, 1123, 1125, 1128, 1130,
1132-1134, 113G, 1137, 1139, 1141-1144
United States Bureau of Internal Revenue 1128
United States Congress 1143, 1144
United States Department of Justice 1144
United States Government 1107, 1134, 1136, 1142
United States Government Printing Office 1137
United States Inspector General (Fort Dix) 1142
United States Senate 1109
WAC ( Women's Army Corps) 1144
Washington, D. C 1108,
1119, 1122, 1123, 1128, 1129, 1131, 1131, 1137, 1139, 1144, 1146
W^ashington lawyer . 1134
Washington Post 1141, 1143
"Wonderful Town" (stage show) 1127
Zwicker hearing 1127
o
SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHARGES
AND COUNTERCHARGES INVOLVING: SECRE-
TARY OF THE ARMY ROBERT T. STEVENS, JOHN
G. ADAMS, H. STRUVE HENSEL AND SENATOR
JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and
FRANCIS p. CARR
HEARING
BEFOUE THE
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INVESTIGATIOiNS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EKJHTy-THIRD CONCJRESS
SECOND SESSION
PUUSUANT TO
S. Res, 189
PART 32
MAY 14, 19.14
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46020° WASHINGTON : 1054
Boston Public Library
Superintendent of Documents
SEP 2 8 1954
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, WiscoTisin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, I-Illnols JOHN F. Kennedy, Massachusetts
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina
Richard J. O'Melia, General Counsel
Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
Special Subcommittee on Ikvestigations
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
Rat H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel
THOMAS R. Prewjtt, Assistaut Coiinnel
ROBERT A. Collier, Assistant Counsel
Sons HorwitZj Assista7it Counsel
II
CONTENTS
Page
Index I
Testimony of —
Adams, John G., Counselor, Department of the Army 1150
Dlrksen, Senator Everett McKinley, United States Senate 1170
Mundt, Senator Karl E., United States Senate 1186
m
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
FRIDAY, MAY 14, 1954
United States Sexate,
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the
Committee on Government Operations,
Washington^ D. C.
The subcommittee met at 10:15 a. m., pursuant to recess in the
caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt,
chairman, presiding.
Present : Senator Karl E. ISIundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Sen-
ator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator Charles
E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. Dworshak, Re-
publican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas;
Senator Henry ]\I. Jackson, Democrat, Washington, and Senator Stu-
art Symington, Democrat, INIissouri.
Also present: Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel to the subcommittee;
Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel ; and Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.
Principal participants present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a
United States Senator from the State of Wisconsin ; Roy M. Cohn,
chief counsel to the subcommittee ; Francis P. Carr, staff director of
the subcommittee ; John G. Adams, counselor to the Army ; Joseph N.
Welch, special counsel for the Army ; James D. St. Clair, special coun-
sel for the Army ; Charles A. Haskins, assistant counselor, Department
of the Army.
Senator ^Iundt. The committee will please come to order.
Senator Dirksen has asked me to state that he has been detained
briefly this morning, but will be with us about 11 o'clock. All the
other committee members being present, we are ready to proceed.
The Chair would like to begin as is his custom by welcoming the
guests who have come to the committee, and reminding them of the
standing connnittee order that tliere are to be no manifestations of ap-
proval or disapproval audibly of any kind at any time by any of the
people in the audience, and the officers in uniform and the plainclothes
men in the audience have been instructed by the committee without
any further notice to ])olitely escort from the room immediately any
of our guests who might decide to violate the terms under which they
are admitted here as guests of the committee.
I again Avant to say that audiences have been remarkably fine. The
officers have done a splendid job, and we hope that these favorable
conditions will continue throughout the hearings.
1149
1150 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Counsel, at the conclusion of the day yesterday Mr. Prewitt had
finislied his questionin*:^. The Chair would like to find out whether
you have other questions you want to ask Mr. Adams at this time.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, we have no further questions at this
time.
Senator Mundt. It then becomes under the 10-minute rule the
Chair's time to ask questions for 10 minutes.
Is the timekeeper in position and ready ? She will notify me when
my time has expired. We will 0:0 around the wheel under the 10-
m'inute rule until all questions have been asked.
TESTIMONY OF JOHN G. ADAMS, COUNSELOR TO THE ARMY—
Resumed
Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams, you were in the committee room, I
believe, throughout these hearings since the very start? Is that
right ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ; I have been.
Senator Mundt. So you are conversant with the line of questioning
that I asked the Secretary about Mr. Carr.
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ; I am.
Senator Mundt. I give you that simply as background for some
questions I would like to ask primarily for my own guidance, but I am
sure also for the guidance of the whole committee as to whether specif-
ically you have some charges to make against Mr. Carr concerning the
overall charge presented to our committee on April 13, which reads
that :
The Department of the Army alleges that Senator Joseph R. McCarthy as
chairman of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, United States Sen-
ate, and its chief counsel, Roy M. Cohn, as well as other members of its staff,
sought by improper means to obtain preferential treatment for one Pvt. G. David
Schine.
I want to direct my inquiries specifically to the point of what im-
proper means Mr. Frank Carr employed, if any, or if he did anything
else as a representative of our committee which the Army considers
to be improper and inappropriate. So I would ask you first, so we
can have it before us under the American concept of fair play, to
particularize the charges new that you make against Mr. Frank Carr
as part of these overall charges.
Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman
Senator Mundt. May the Chair say if there are any. I am not
trying either to clear Mr. Carr nor to convict him, but in fairness to
him it seems to me the time is certainly here now when we should
particularize his evildoing, if any.
Mr. Adams. There were incidents, Mr. Chairman, which I have al-
ready testified to in direct examination which occurred — I want to
break this down into prior and subsequent to January 20 for reasons
which I will explain later.
These were incidents which occurred prior to January 20.
Senator Mundt. May I ask, why January 20 ? Is there some
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ; I w^ill later explain.
Senator Mundt. Go right ahead.
Mr. Adams. There were incidents prior to January 20 when I had
conversations with Mr. Carr with reference to Mr. Schine. One of
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION" 1151
tliem I remember most pfirticiiliirly occurred on the train ride wlien
we returned from New York, frcm Newark, N. J., on the 25th of
November. We had a lonc^ talk about Schine. He was discussing at
some length the trouble that the Army was going to be in with ref-
erence to Schine and his feeling that the Army was m for continuing
trouble unless something was done with reference to Schine which
would satisfy Mr. Cohn. . _
Mr. Carr was more or less a passive participant in the luncheon of
December 17 and the train rido or the automobile ride uptown, at
which time there was considerable abuse. He was not a participant
insofar as he himself said something that I remember.
Senator Mfndt. Let me ask, then, whether as a passive passenger
in the automobile you alleg^^d that he was doing something improper?
Mr. Adams. I said he was not, sir.
Senator Mundt. Not on that occasion ?
JNIr. Adams. Not on that occasion.
Senator Muxdt. Very good. Flow about the train ride? Do you
allege that on the train ride he was doing something improper or was
he sort of serving as an intermediary pointing out
Mr. Adams. It seemed to me not only on that occasion but it seemed
to me on January 9 Avhen he called me at Amherst, Mass., and it
seemed to me when he called me at my home in Sioux Falls, S. Dak.,
to talk about Schine, I had the feeling that he was an agent, that
he was an agent of a principal, and tliat he felt obliged — I didn't know
that he had been directed to make these inquiries, but I had a strong
feeling that he was in the middle and had to take these actions either
because he vras trying to be helpful to me, pointing out the difficulties
which were facing us, or because he felt an obligation to a man who
seemed to me to be his superior. Although he may not have been, it
seemed to me as though he was. That was the situation which existed
up until about January 20.
Senator Mundt. All right. Now, is the Chair to understand that
up until January 20, there are no allegations on the part of the Army
that
Mr. Adams. No, sir, I didn't say that. I am trying, if I may, sir,
to establish
Senator Mundt. "Would you spell out the ones before January 20
where he engaged in improper means to influence the Army? ^
Mr. Adams. He was a participant, sir; he was a participant in the
luncheon of November 6 in the Secretary's office. I recall no precise
words. That was the luncheon in which it was asked that Schine be
made available weekdays.
Senator Mundt. May I ask whether, as a participant in the lunch-
eon of November 6, at which time you recall his having said nothing,
whether in that passive ca]:)acity he was more evil than in his passive
capacity as a passenger in the automobile.
Mr. Adams. I think that his— I think that they were different,
in this respect: I think that he was acutely uncomfortable in the
automobile that day, just as I was acutely uncomfortable in the
automobile that day.
Senator Mundt. *How about the luncheon. Vrere you comfortable
at the luncheon ?
1152 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr, Adams. I would like, sir, if you Avould permit me, without
interruption, to try and develop for you the pattern which you are
trying to have me develop.
Senator Mundt. You will develop specifically the charges, so that
we can put our teeth into something specific. That is what we are
trving to find, before January 20.
Ivir. Adams. As I have stated, he was a participant in the luncheon
on November 6. I remember no words. He did not seem to disagree
Avith the request Avhich was made. I do not isolate the instances, but I
know that he was at Fort Dix from time to time.
Senator Mundt. Before we leave, I want to get these point by
point so we can save time. We have taken any charge out as far as
the automobile is concerned?
Mr. Adams. That is right. He was as uncomfortable as I was.
Senator Mundt. At the luncheon, whether he was comfortable or
uncomfortable, are you charging him with improper activity'^
Mr. Adams. No, sir. He was a coparticipant with Senator McCarthy
in the luncheon of December 10, the prime and sole purpose of which
was to discuss the New York assignment for Schine.
Senator Mundt. And what did Carr do on that occasion that was
improper ?
Mr. Adams. I state, sir, he was a coparticipant with Senator Mc-
Carthy.
Senator Mundt. I understand that. I want to understand what
he was "co-ing" while he was at the luncheon. You have been rela-
tively specific about Cohn, relatively specific about McCarthy. Now
let's get specific about Carr. We have to call Carr to defend him-
self against something, and we want to find out what it is.
Mr. Adams. I am trying to recall, sir, my opinion of the Carr at-
titude prior to and subsequent to January 20.
Senator Mundt. This is December 10. That is prior to January 20.
Mr. Adams. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. What did he do on January 10
Mr, Adams. January 20 ?
Senator Mundt. December 10, that you w^ant to charge him with
as being improper ?
Mr. Adams. He was a coparticipant in the luncheon. The Senator
was the one who w\as making the request with reference to New York
assignments of Schine.
Senator Mundt. I am talking about Carr. "VVliat did Carr do at
the luncheon ?
Mr. Adams. He did not disassociate himself with the Senator's posi-
tion. He did not disassociate himself at the luncheon on November 6.
Senator Mundt. December 10 we are talking about.
Mr. Adams. I am speaking of both November 6 and December 10.
Senator Mundt. Let's make it December 10. What did he do on
December 10 other than the fact that he did not say to his chairman,
"Don't say that."
Mr. Adams. I would state that he was present; he did not dis-
associate himself.
Senator Mundt. All right. He was present. You charge him with
improperly using means to intimidate the Army because he was
present at the luncheon and said nothing. Is that a charge? Or do
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1153
you say that as far as that luncheon it concerned, there is no complaint
on the part of the Army 'i
Mv. Adams. I think the fact that he was present ; the fact that the
position of the chairman was being enunciated to us and that he was
sitting there quietly listening to it, made him a coparticipant.
Senator Muxdt. Are you charging him, then — I want to find out
so when we get him here we don't have to waste any time about the
automobile ride or waste any time about the luncheon of November
C — do we have to talk to him about December 10 and ask him, "Why
weren't you up and saying, 'Senator McCarthy, you can't say that in
my presence ? ' "
It seems to me that is asking a tremendous lot on behalf of an
employee of a Senator, but if you think that is improper, you cer-
tainly would interrogate him as to why he engaged in such impropriety
as intimidation of the Army.
Mr. Adams. On the luncheon of December 10, Senator McCarthy
made the representations. I saw Carr very often subsequent to that,
and he never disassociated himself with the Senator's position.
Senator Mundt. That I understand. You consider because he did
not, he was engaging in improper means to intimidate the Army ?
Mr. AoAats. I do, sir.
Senator Mundt. All right. December 10. We have that charge.
What else?
Mr. Adams. He called me in Sioux Falls, S. Dak., and asked me
about Schine. He called me at Amherst, Mass., and asked me
Senator Mundt. Let's stay with the call to Sioux Falls, S. Dak.
On that occasion did you feel he was calling you as Frank Carr, trying
to voice Frank Carr's opinion, or calling as an intermediary for Roy
Cohn or Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Adams. I had no way of knowing. I was surprised to receive
the call from Carr.
Senator Mundt. ]\Iy time has expired. Senator Dirksen has not
returned. Senator McClellan?
Senator McClellan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Adams, I want to get at the crux of this controversy. I have
listened to your testimony and your response to cross-examination
with quite keen interest. I want you to state positively under oath
now whether you undertook to appease Senator McCarthy and Mr.
Cohn for the purpose of causing Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn
to call off the hearings at Fort Monmouth ?
Mr. Adams. I did not.
Senator McClellan. Why did you spend so much time, so much
energy — you and the Secretary of the Army — trying to respond to
and give some consolation or make concessions to Senator McCarthy
and Mr. Cohn with res])ect to ISIr. Schine if you were not trying to
appease them and get them to call off those hearings?
^Ir. Adams. The representations with reference to Mr. Schine were
that he Avas needed for committee business. Mr. Stevens made the
concession and stated unequivocally at the time that he did, and on
subsequent occasions, that he did not want it to be possible for anyone
to allege that he, by his action, had interfered with the committee or
im]:)eded the progress of their investigative Avork,
Senator McClellan. Do you know of any other private in the
Army, in your experience in Government or since you have been with
46620°— 54— pt. 32 2
1154 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
the Department of Defense or with the Secretary of the Army, who
has received as much attention from high sources as has this private,
Mr. Schine ?
Mr. Adams. I do not, sir.
Senator McClell.\n. Why did you give him so much attention?
Why did you waste so much time on him ?
Mr. Adams. Because the committee requested it, sir.
Senator McClellan. The committee requested it?
Mr. Adams. The committee requested the man's availability.
Senator McClellan. Did the committee request it or did Mr. Colin
request it?
Mr. Adams. Mr. Cohn requested it, and we were led to believe that
the request had the approval of Senator McCarthy. Once the re-
quests were made in the presence of Senator McCarthy, on N^ovember 6.
Senator McClellan. So you took it as a committee request?
Mr. Adams. I did, sir.
Senator McClellan. Did you think it was a proper request?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
Senator McClellan. Why ?
Mr. Adams. I felt that the soldier should have been dropped by
the committee when he was drafted. I felt that he should have been
left alone as a soldier. I often pleaded with Cohn and Carr to let
the soldier alone, to let him be a soldier.
Senator McClellan. You thought from the beginning that there
was no justification for the committee requesting his services after he
entered the Army?
Mr. Adams. I had no way of knowing, sir, just exactly what the
committee's needs for him were.
Senator McClellan. Have you ever been told up to now what his
needs were and why he was so necessary to continue serving the
committee ?
Mr. Adams. The only thing I have been told is the things that Mr.
Cohn has stated, which were to the effect that there was much investi-
gative matter which had been begun by Mr. Schine, and which Schine
and Schine alone knew about, many facts in his head, and that it was
going to be necessary from time to time to take witnesses from other
places to transport to Fort Dix to be interrogated by Schine.
Senator McClellan. Was any indication ever given to you how
long it would take him to complete his work ?
Mr. Adams. Mr. Cohn indicated that there would be a continuing
need. Mr, Stevens had tried to
Senator McClellan. What do you mean by "continuing need"?
How long, a week, 2 weeks, 2 months, or indefinitely?
Mr. Adams. When he had been first drafted, the indications were
indefinite, but for a long period of time. Mr. Stevens at that time,
in suggesting the 15 days of temporary duty, I think had attempted
by that to cut it off at that time, but on through the winter, as late
as the first week in January, Mr. Cohn had indicated to me that there
was committee business for which the soldier would be required when
he was at Camp Gordon.
Senator McClellan. You are charged here with undertaking to
appease in order to get these hearings called off. If you were under-
taking to appease, I want to know why you didn't give Mr. Schine a,
direct commission when it was requested?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1155
Mr. Adams. I wasn't, sir, in the Army at the time the direct com-
mission was a matter under consideration. I had nothing to do with
the decision on the direct connnission. It is my understanding
that
Senator McClellan. Let's sl^ip that. You had nothing to do
with it?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
Senator McClellak. Why did you not agree, then, to appease by
sending him up to West Point to read textbooks'^ Why did you not
agree to that ?
Mr. Adams. I guess as good a reason as any is that we had 25,000
men killed in Korea who didn't have the money or the influence to
get themselves a New York assignment.
Senator McClellan. You think they were undertaking to use
money and influence to get an assignment there ?
Mr. Adams. Particularly influence.
Senator McClellan. Particularly influence. Why do you inject
money into it ? There was no money offered, was there ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir. Perhaps the word "money" was incorrect.
He was a very wealthy young man.
Senator McClellan. Why didn't you assign him to the New York
area and appease and get it all over with ?
Mr. Adams. I considered it was improper. Senator, I would like
to say this : On one occasion I remember coming back from New York
after this subject had been under consideration — I think it was when
I was riding home in a cab after having come back from Newark with
Frank Carr. I thought to myself that I just must be out of my head
because this trouble, this pestering, all of this stuff could be solved
so simply if we would just go ahead and arrange for the assign-
ment
Senator McClellan. You had a feeling that if you would do
these things that would end it?
Mr. Adams. I had that feeling then. I have that feeling now.
Senator McClellan. Do you think it would have ended the
hearings?
]\Ir. Adams. I don't know whetlier it would have ended the hearings.
Senator McClellan. Is that what you had in mind, that it would
end the hearings ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir. I knew it would end the pestering.
Senator McClellan. End the pestering?
Mr. Adams. That is right. I was made aware by Mr. Cohn, Mr.
Carr, and Mr. Sokolsky of the fact that the Army's troubles would
continue with this committee as long as Schine's assignmentwas un-
satisfactory and I was also led to believe by conversations with those
people that if Schine's assignment suited Mr. Cohn, the xirmy's
troubles would be over, as they said.
Senator McClellan. Why didn't you agree not to send him
overseas ?
Mr. Adams. Why didn't I
Senator McClellan. You were asked to do that, were you not?
Mr. Adams. No. I was the one who brought up the subject of over-
seas duty.
1156 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McClellan. I thought they inquired what his next assign-
ment was going to be and they w anted to be sure he didn't go overseas.
That is your testimony.
Mr. Adams. Well, if I stated that, that is not correct. They asked
me what his next assignment would be, and they wanted to be sure
it was New York. That seemed to be their consistent target.
Senator McClellan. Did you not state that they did not want him
to go overseas ? Didn't you state that in your direct testimony ?
Mr, Adams. I stated how they had reacted to my suggestion that he
might go overseas.
Senator McClellan. When you suggested that he might go over-
seas you say the reaction wasn't pleasant?
Mr. AuAMS. Very unpleasant, sir.
Senator McClellan. Very unpleasant?
Mr. Ai^AMS. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. That gave you the impression, then, that they
didn't want him to go overseas ; is that correct ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. Why didn't you agree to it? That would
have settled the whole thing, wouldn't it?
Mr. Adams. I felt it was improper. I felt that we had an ©liga-
tion to all of the men in the service and that every soldier must take
his assignment however the assignment system developed it.
Senator McClellan. You did have the authority, you or the Secre-
tary, to grant him a direct commission, did you not ?
Mr. Adams. The Secretary had that authority ; yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. You also had authority to send him to West
Point to read text books ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. The Secretary did.
Senator McClellan. You had the authority to assign him to New
York area, didn't you ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. You do have authority to keep him from go-
ing overseas, don't you ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. '
Senator McClellan. Are you going to exercise that authority?
Mr. Adams. It is my understanding the Secretary of the Army in-
tends to do nothing with reference to the assignment of Private Schine
other than what develops as the normal process of the assignment
system.
Senator McClellan. Wliy didn't you feel that you should grant
this request in order to get along with the committee as you say ?
Mr. Adams. We have a responsibility to too many people, sir. There
have been 10 million people who have been in the Army in the last 10
years and there are going to be millions of men in the years ahead
cf us. They almost all of them eome in under the selective service
system. When the day comes, sir, when the people of this country
begin to mistrust the integrity of the selective-service system, the
Congress will take it off the books. The day the Congress takes the
selective-service system off the books, sir, the strength of the Army, the
strength of the Marine Corps, Navy, and Air Force, will deplete 50
percent.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1157
Senator McClellax. This is not an unusual request for the Depart-
ment to receive, is it, to keep some boy from going overseas? Don't
you receive those requests frequently ?
j\Ir. Adams. Requests of that sort come in, sir. They don't come
through me. I don't ordinarilv see them.
Senator McClellan. You don't ordinarily handle them ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
Senator ISIcClellan. Do you regard it as a request for preferential
treatment when such requests come in ?
IVIr. Adams. Under certain circumstances they are preferential treat-
ment and under some circumstances it is Avhat they call humanitarian
or compassionate reasons. There may be a situation where a young
man's mother is ill.
Senator McClellan. I understand.
Mr. Adams. There may be a situation
Senator McClellan. But except for hardship or compassionate
reasons, do you regard such requests just to keep somebody from going
overseas, do you regard it as a request for preferential treatment?
Mr. Adams. I do, sir ; yes.
Senator McClellan. Did 3'ou regard this request as preferential
treatment ?
Mr. Adams. Very definitely.
Senator jNIcClellan. Did you regard the request for a direct com-
mission in the Armj^ as a request for preferential treatment?
Mr. Adams. As I say, sir, I wasn't present during the time of that
request. Many such requests come in and the young men are evaluated.
Senator McClellan. Well, there is nothing wrong in making the
request, initially?
Mr. Adams. No, sir : there is nothing wrong with making the request
and there is nothing wrong with commissioning a man if he is quali-
fied. Many men are in special branches.
Senator McClellan. That is correct. So, if there is anything re-
lated to that, just the request for direct commission, that would be
misconduct here, it was not the initial request but the pursuit of it
after they knew or had been told that he didn't qualify ?
]Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir.
Senator McClellan. Noav, did they pursue that request after they
had been so advised ?
Mr. Adams. It is my undestanding that there was such pursuit, sir,
but I was not a participant.
Senator McClellan. Then, when that failed, they went to these
next requests, down the line as I have mentioned ?
Mr. Adams. May I have that question again, sir ?
Senator McClellan. Then when that failed, they couldn't get a
direct commission, they went to these next requests ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. Making further requests?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. How many times have you been called to try
to keep some private off of KP since you have been in the Army ?
Mr. Adams. Once.
Senator ]\IcClellan. By whom ?
1158 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Adams. Mr. Cohn. Mr. Cohn. Correction. Mr. Carr. And
I Scay once, it was twice. Once by Mr. Carr and I presume that the
call which I did not accept from Mr. Cohn was for the same purpose.
Senator McClellan. May I ask you if that is unusual for tiie call
to come into the higli level that you occupy witli the Secretary of the
Army requestin<2; that a private be kept off of KP ?
Mr. Adams. It is so unusual, sir, it is nothing short of fantastic.
Senator McClellan. Did it ever occur before that you know of?
Do you have any personal knowledge of it ever occurring before?
Mr. Adams. A call to anyone in the Army about that, do you mean ?
Senator McClellan. A call from any one at the high level of the
Secretary's office or the counsel's office, to keep a private off of K. P.
Mr. Adams. I have no personal knowedge, sir.
Senator McClellan. Do you have any information
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator McClellan. All right.
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter, you have 10 minutes.
Senator Potter. Mr. Adams, is it your testimony that if Private
Schine had received a commission or if he had received favorable as-
signments in New York, the hearings at Fort Monmouth would have
been discontinued ?
Mr. Adams. Well, I don't know about the hearings at Fort Mon-
mouth. I don't think that they would have been discontinued.
Senator Potter. Well, is it your testimony that your difficulties
with Mr. Cohn would have ceased ?
Mr. Adams. Well, there is no doubt about that in my mind, sir,
and subsequent to the first of the year I was made continuously aware
of the fact that the so-called abuse of the Army, which was coming
from the committee, would terminate if Schine's assignment to New
York was arranged.
Senator Potter. Now, Mr. Adams, I would like to have you refer
to the specifications presented by Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn
and Mr. Carr. On page 3, the last paragraph of point No. 4, 1 will
read the sentence on which I would like to ask questions later :
There are and were Communists and other security risks in the Army which
needed and received, until stopped, public exposure.
The question I would like to ask you, Mr. Adams : Are there now
Communists and other security risks in the Army ?
Mr. Adams. Well, sir, I don't Imcw how many Communists there
are. As Mr. Stevens stated earlier, we must always assume that there
is Communist infiltration. There is a continuing problem with
reference to security risks in all agencies of government just as there
is in the Army. We have a continuous number of investigations al-
ways underway at all posts, Army headquarters, and in the Security
Division of G-2 in Washington, of individuals who are alleged to be
security risks. So it must be admitted, sir, it must be assumed, that
there are Communists, and it must always be assumed, until proved
otherwise, that individuals against whom there are allegations, may
be security risks.
Senator Potter. Are you satisfied with the loyalty procedure that
now exists in the Army to root out Communists and other security
risks ?
Mr. Adams. Do you mean the investigative procedure?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION" llc9
Sentor Potter. Well, whatever procedure yon have. Yes, your
investigative procedure and I assume your loyalty board structure.
I am not too familiar as to ^Yhat the structure might be. But I want
to know if you, and I assume you would speak for the Secretary, are
satisfied with the present procedure.
Mr. Adams. Sir, that subject is always subject to review. It al-
ways can be improved. As recently as 2 months ago we have made
changes in regulations because of the fact that we discovered a defect
in regulations which permitted a security risk to remain in the service
longer than he should have after he was isolated. There is a constant,
a continuing effort to improve our programs.
Senator Potter. I believe that you have testified, and Secretary
Stevens has testified, that as a result of the investigation and hearings
at Fort Monmouth, security risks were removed much faster than they
normally would have.
Now, if that is the case, it would seem to me there conld be a tight-
ening up or a faster process for removing security risks within the
Army. Would you agree with that contention ?
Mr. Adams. Well, I not only agree with that contention, sir, but I
remind you I think Mr. Stevens testified, and I think that I made
reference yesterday to the fact that when Senator — when Secretary
Stevens became first aware of the Fort Monmouth investigation, of
the facts about Fort Mcmmouth, he caused a reexamination to be made
of the procedures by which security risks are suspended, and he
caused — I am not sure I said this yesterday — he caused a special new
instruction to go out on October 29, which he directed on October 9
or October 8. The instruction was an instruction to commanders
on the spot to exercise the authority which already had been delegated
to them to suspend, if they felt reason to, without waiting for recom-
mendations to go through the machinery to Washington which might
take a great deal longer time.
Senator Potter. Has this new procedure resulted in any better
action in removing subversives in the Army ?
Mr. Adams. Well, it resulted in Fort Monmouth in the actions
which General Lawton took in suspending during October about 30
people, and action which otherwise, under the old practices, might
have taken much longer.
Senator Potter. Is the Army in charge of the security of all Army
personnel? Someplace I was informed that the screening boards or
loyalty boards are designated by geographical location. In other
words, the Air Force has a certain part of the United States, the
Army another psirt, and the Navy another part. Is that correct ?
Mr. Adams. Sir, may I describe it? I think there is a little con-
fusion. If I may, I would like to describe it.
Senator Potter. That is not unusual.
Mr. Adams. I don't attribute it to you, sir. It is very naturally a
matter of confusion.
The Army has a responsibility for the security of all Army per-
sonnel, and in handling security matters of Army personnel they are
processed through a hearing board initially at the Army area, and
then they are reviewed b}' the review board or screening board in
Washington.
The thing to which you refer, and in which there is a geographical
distribution, with the responsibility belonging to one service in one
1160 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
area, is the industrial security program, which is the responsibility of
the boards which hear the cases of civilian employees of defense pla its.
For instance, in New York, in the New York area, the Air Fcrce
miglit be or the Navy might be — the Army in the New York area has
the responsibility. If there is a defense contract given to a private
firm in tlie New York area by the Air Force and there are secuiity
matters involving employees of that private firm, they are heard by
fin industrial security board which it is the responsibility of the Army
to staff. By the same token, in another part of tlie country the Navy
may have the responsibility. There may be an Army contract given
to a private firm, we will say, in Chicago
Senator Potter. This deals entirely with civilian personnel?
Mr. Adams. Industrial security ; yes, sir.
Senator Potter. Who are working on defense contracts?
Mr. Adams. That is right. That is the difference.
Senator Potter. If you will turn to page 6 of Senator McCarthy's
specifications. No. 10, 1 wish to read the latter part of that specifica-
tion. It states :
Without spending unnecessary time on the charges of Mr. Stevens and Mr.
Adams that their treatment of Mr. Schine influenced the investigations, it
should be noted that Mr. Schine is still a private in the Army, and news stories
quoting reliable sources have stated that the reason he was not given the con-
sideration to which he would otherwise have been entitled was because of his
connection with the committee.
The first question I would like to ask you, Mr. Adams : Did Private
Schine receive preferential treatment ?
Mr. Adams. The only treatment which he received which was out
of the ordinary was in making him available to the committee for
committee business.
Senator Potter. But there has been testimony — I believe by your-
self and also by the Secretary — that that wasn't necessarily prefer-
ential treatment.
Mr. Adams. No, Mr. Stevens considered that he was making — that
he was taking a step which was to assist the committee in its work.
Senator Potter. Did Mr. Schine himself ask for special consid-
eration from you ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir. I know Mr. Schine very slightly. I saw him
in New York. I sat next to him at lunch one clay. I saw him inter-
rogate during 2 days of hearings. I spoke to him after 2 meetings
for maybe as long as 2 or 3 minutes. I shook hands with him when
I got off the airplane on November 17 at Camp Dix. That is about
the extent of my acquaintance with Mr. Schine.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Jackson, 10 minutes.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Adams, were you convinced that Mr. Carr
initiated any of the requests that he made to you from time to time ? I
am speaking now in general.
Mr. Adams. I never had the feeling that he had been instructed to
talk to me, no. I felt that he — I felt that they were voluntary con-
versations on his part.
Senator Jackson. I mean, did you really believe that in the overall
setup which you understood pretty well, in wdiich Mr. Cohn was
general counsel, Senator McCarthy being the chairman of the com-
mittee, Mr. Carr the executive director — did you really believe that
]\Ir. Carr was as an individual putting any pressure on you ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATIOX 1161
Mr. Adams. As I started to state to Senator INIundt, I felt that the
pattern chanoed after January 20. Mr. Carr did call me in Sioux
Falls, S. Dak. He did call nie at Amherst, Mass. Both of those
incidents were before January 20. He did talk to me at some length
about Schine when we came back on the train from New York.
Senator Jackson. I mean, did you interpret those calls as being
initiated by ]\Ir. Carr, or was he merelj^ relaying a request from
Mr. Cohn?
Mr. xVdams. Frankly, Senator Jackson
Senator Jacksox. I want you to be as candid as you possibly can.
Mr. Adams. I am trying to be.
Senator Jackson". And try to give your state of mind at the time.
What did you think?
Mr. Adams. Frankly, I often puzzled to myself as to whether or
not this was one technique, while Mr. Cohn's tactics were another
technique, or whether or not he was assigned to make these calls,
or whether or not he felt that he was giving me friendly advice. It
was a puzzling situation.
Senator Jackson. Up until January — let's sny prior to the Sioux
Falls call — did you believe in your own mind, were you convinced
in your own mind that he was initiating any of these calls himself,
or that any of his conversations
Mr. Adams. The conversation we had on the train coming back from
Newark, which took quite a long time, I am sure he hadn't been
instructed that he was to talk to me when he got on the train. The
subject came up naturally. I remember thinking to myself about the
time the train came through Baltimore that we had talked about prac-
tically nothing else. There had been some other allusions, but it
seemed most unusual to me that so much time would be devoted to
Schine. I had no feeling that he had been instructed when he got on
the train that he should discuss that matter with me.
Senator Jackson. Did he ever use any vituperative language or
was he demanding?
Mr. Adams. No, he never did.
Senator Jackson. Actually, don't you think maybe he was just
carrying out instructions or relaying a recpiest ?
Mr. Adams. I don't know, sir. I was puzzled about it. It was a
puzzling situation. It really was.
Senator Jackson. You mean you were puzzled in your own mind
just what his role was?
Mr. Adams. What his — well, he always said to me, "I have no
personal interest in this, but I really (hink you ought to understand
the trouble you are going to be in and the continuing trouble you are
going to be in unless "
Senator Jackson. But he wasn't threatening you?
]\Ir. Adams. No. He didn't threaten me.
Senator Jackson. Would you say that he was merely relaj'ing
requests from ]Nrr. Cohn ?
^Ir. Adams. No. He wasn't relaying requests. He was relaying a
request, I think, at the time he called me at Amherst. I had a feeling
that his inquiry when he called me at Sioux Falls, S. Dak., was because
he f erhaps had been instructed to make the call. I didn't know,
16020°— 54— pt. 32 3
1162 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
however. But in his conversations he persistently drove at the point
in a very diiTerent way.
Senator Jackson. Yon can't say for certain that his words were
his own? I mean in reference to his personal conversations and
telephone
Mr. Adams. I think they were his own. I think he was telling me
things that he wouldn't have told Cohn. I think he was telling me,
"You are going to be in trouble with Cohn continuously."
Senator Jackson. You really think he was doing it on his own?
Mr. Adams. Up until the 20th of January, I really felt that he was
an agent and that he was more or less transmitting requests, and
at the same time trying to advise me of the trouble we faced.
But the situation changed after January 20.
Senator Jackson. After January 20 ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. You would say positively that prior to January
20, the goings-on were pretty much of a relay nature between Mr.
Carr and yourself?
Mr. Adams. I didn't find it personally obnoxious, and I think I so
stated to Senator McClellan when I talked to him about that time,
that I hadn't felt up to then that Mr. Carr's behavior or attitude with
reference to Schine had been in any way improper. But I think
that the pattern changed subsequent to January 20.
Senator Jackson. When he talked to you about what he thought
was good advice to you, do you believe that he was trying to put pres-
sure on you or do you think he was trying to convey to you what he
thought was the wisest course for you to follow in this, not being his
judgment but a judgment based on what he knew the position of the
committee might be ?
Mr. Adams. I think there was a little of both. In some part of it
he was conveying to me his judgment. I don't think that his telephone
call at Amherst had anything to do with judgment. I don't think
his telephone call to me in South Dakota had anything to do with
judgment. But I think that the accumulative effect could be con-
sidered in the final analysis of all we came to Icnow by the first of
March, as a form of pressure.
Senator Jackson. Isn't there a serious question in your mind
whether Mr. Carr was doing any of these things on his own ?
Mr. Adams. There was a doubt in my mind, as I have stated. I
felt if there had been no Cohn pressure, there could have been no
Carr pressure.
Senator Jackson. Now, turning to Fort Dix a moment, as I under-
stood the testimony previously, General Ryan was contacted in the
beginning, and was advised that Private Schine should be made avail-
able from time to time for committee business. ,
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. f
Senator Jackson. Did you make any attempt to find out whether
Private Schine was working on committee business?
Mr. Adams. Did, I ? No, sir. We took the committee's word for it.
Senator Jackson. Let me ask you this: You are aware of — what
was this — the long Thanksgiving weekend ?
Mr. Adams. The long weekend of November 18 ?
Senator Jackson. It started on a Wednesday or Thursday, over
until Monday or Tuesday.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1163
Mr. Adams. Over to Monday ; yes.
Senator Jackson. "Was that the Thanksgivino; weekend ?
;Mr. Adams. No ; it preceded the Thankso;ivin<i: weekend.
Senator Jacksox. Do you know if that was on connnittee business?
ISIr. Adams. I don't know; no, sir. The request came to General
Ryan from a member of the committee staff. That is all I know, sir.
Senator Jacksox. The thini,^ that I don't quite understand in con-
nection with this operation at Fort Dix is who determined when he
was to leave. Did Private Schine simply request of his company com-
mander, 'T have committee business toni^^ht, I take off." What was
the approach ?
Mr. Adams. It was my understanding that telephone calls ordi-
narily came from a member of the committee staff to General Ryan's
aide. Lieutenant Blount, and were by him transmitted to the company
commander.
Senator Jackson. How many calls ?
Mr. Adams. I don't know, sir. I don't have those facts.
Senator Jacksox. You testified there was a request to get off KP.
]\Ir. Adams. Yes, sir ; that was on January 9, a telephone call to me.
Senator Jackson. What day of the week was January 9 ?
iMr. Adams. It was a Saturday. Schine was in New York On Satur-
day and had been instructed that he had to be back on Saturday night
for KP duty on Sunday, and it was on Saturday afternoon that I re-
ceived the call.
Senator Jacksox. Were you requested to get him off KP to engage
on committee business on Sunday ?
]\Ir. xVdams. I was told that he was in New York, and I don't re-
member the exact conversation but the inference, I thinlv, the sugges-
tion, was made that he was working with Mr. Cohn and that he had
to go back to KP and tliey didn't want him to.
Senator Jacksox. The inference was
Mr. Adams. That it was committee business.
Senator Jacksox. That he was to work on committee business on
Sunday and therefore he shouldn't be on KP ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ; I think so.
Senator Jacksox. Or shouldn't be on duty ?
]\Ir. Adams. I am not quite sure, but that was the inference.
Senator Jacksox. He was to be given a pass for Christmas or New
Year's, but not both ?
Mr. Adams. That is my understanding ; yes, sir.
Senator Jacksox. Well, when he got a pass on both occasions, did
you attempt to follow u]) whether he was working on committee busi-
ness on Christmas and New Year's ?
Mr. Adams, No, sir; I didn't know about those incidents to my
recollection until subsequent to New Year's. I found out about it
because ISlr, Cohn telephoned me and told me that Mr. Schine was
under investigation. I telephoned General Ryan to find out what it
was about, because Cohn was concerned about it. I merely wanted
the information myself. General Ryan told me in very short order
that there had been an investigation started but the facts were so
confused that they decided to drop the matter, that there was some
doubt as to where the fault lay.
Senator Jacksox. During all of these calls, you had a lot of them
with General Ryan to arrange a pass and to do this and to do that.
1164 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Why was it necossary to keep calling if this arrangjement had been
worked out for Private Schine with General Ryan to work on com-
mittee business?
Mr. Adams. Well, I didn't call General Ryan to arrange a pass
other than on that date of November 18, as a result of his call to me.
I called him on about November 10 to advise him of the Secretary's
concessions, and then my recollection is that the next time I called
General Ryan was on December 28 for the purpose of inquiring as to
what Schine's future assignment would be. Then, I called him on
January 4 for the purpose of asking him about this investigation
which Cohn w-as concerned about. But I didn't — I didn't call to
arrange passes, I didn't call to report, to inquire about KP or about
Schine's duties generally.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Dworshak?
Senator Dwokshak. Mr. Adams, Secretary Stevens and you spent
a great deal of time in contacting members of the staff of the sub-
committee and holding conferences with members of the staff to dis-
cuss the status of Schine immediately prior to his induction and after
his induction. Did you ever make any contacts with other members
of the cbmmittee other than the chairman ?
Mr. Adams. Prior to his induction ?
Senator Dworshak. Yes.
Mr. Adams. Not to my knowledge, sir.
Senator Dworshak. Afterward?
Mr. ADAivrs. The contacts I made with reference to Schine were
made with the committee in the middle of January.
Senator Dworshak. You had been contacting members of the staff
prior to his induction ? You held many conferences with Roy Cohn
concerning David Schine?
Mr. Adams. Well, prior to his induction, I don't think it is correct
that I held many conferences with Mr. Cohn. The subject was dis-
cussed concurrently with other matters. I don't recall that there was
any meeting or conference initiated for that sole purpose.
Senator Dworshak. Well, you have testified that you were greatly
disturbed because of your failure to mollify or, you. might say, ap-
jDease, Roy Cohn, and because he displayed anger over the lack of
cooperation he recefved from the Department of the Army; is that
true ?
Mr., Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Dworshak. Did you think throughout this interim period
that Mr. Cohn was representing the subcommittee in any contacts he
made with you concerning the status of Mr. Schine?
Mr. Adams. Well, I was always aware of the fact that he repre-
sented the chairman, and the meetings which occurred during that
period of the committee were almost invariably attended only by the
chairman, to my knowledge, and it was never out of my mind, sir.
Senator Dworshak. At any time did you confer w^ith other mem-
bers of the subcommittee ?
Mr. Adams. During that period ?
Senator Dworshak. Yes.
Mr. Adams. No, sir ; not to my recollection at this moment.
Senator Dworshak. Well, if you encountered great difficulty in your
efforts to maintain friendly relations with the committee staff, why
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1165
did you not confer with other members of the subcommittee or ask
for an official meeting so that you, representing the Secretary, might
submit some of these matters and try to resolve any difficulties which
may have existed at that time ?
Mr. Adams. Well, as I previously stated, sir, the situation did not
become oppressive to me until subsequent to November 10, which
was the occasion that Schine arrived at Fort Dix and 1 month after
that, on December 9, I did speak to Senator McCarthy about it, and
then another 40 days later, on January 20, as a result of this ultimatum
on the loyalty board matter and my feelings that it was related to
Cohn's feeling about Schine, I talked to members of the subcommittee,
those who were then on the subcommittee and I think at that time the
Democratic members were not participating.
Senator Dworshak. The members individually rather than some
official means?
Mr. Adams. That is right, sir. I had already talked to Senator
Mundt and Senator McCarthy, and a representative of mine talked
to the other members.
Senator Dworshak. Notwithstanding the hearings being conducted
by either the subcommittee or the activities of the Department of the
Army concerning subversives, security risks at Fort Monmouth, did
it not occur to you that it might be advantageous in trying to main-
tain friendly relations to have a thorough understanding with the
subcommittee concerning the status of David Schine, to what extent
the subcommittee was interested in his welfare in the Army?
Mr. Adams. "Well, I cannot say, sir, that that occurred "to me ; no,
sir. I felt that the method we were using was the best method to
use. It may not have been.
Senator Dworshak. In other words, you thought it might be not
advisable to go over the head of Roy Colin. I think you testified you
did that on one occasion
Mr. iVpABis. I did that. I did go to Senator McCarthy and then
later I did go to members, to some of the Republican members of the
subcommittee, and subsequent to my visit to them it is my understand-
ing that those members met together to discuss this very problem on
the 22d of January.
Senator Dworshak. Don't you think you might have avoided some
of this unfriendliness and this friction if you had conferred with mem-
bers of the subcommittee concerning this subject ?
JSIr. Adams. Sir, it seems to me as though I did confer with them.
Senator Dworshak. You exhausted all reasonable means to ascer-
tain the views of the members of the subcommittee concerning David
Schine ?
Mr. Adams. I brought the matter to the attention of the Chairman
one month after it became oppressive to me, and then another 5 weeks
later, 5 or 6 weeks later, I brought the matter or the matter was
brought to the attention of the other members of the committee, who
were participating on the committee at the moment.
Senator Dworshak. So you do think that you discharged your
duties in an efficient manner
Mr. Adams. I beg your pardon. I didn't quite hear that.
Senator Dworshak. You do think, then, Mr. Adams, that you dis-
charged your duties as liaison or representative of the Secretary of
1166 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
the Army in trying to maintain cordial relations with the sub-
committee ?
Mr. Adams. Well, matters of this sort which deteriorate as this
matter did are always subject to second-guessing, and looking back
now you can speculate as to whether other methods might have been
better. That seemed to the people with whom I was associated and
with whom I consulted to be the best means by which to attempt to
bring this matter to the attention of tlie committee. It may not have
been. It may not have been done quickly enough.
Senator Dworshak. It would seem to me, from what I have ob-
served during the past 2 weeks, that you were not quite as effective
as you shoukl have been in trying to contact the members of the sub-
committee. If you considered it highly desirable that you have this
friendly relationship, certainly you should have submitted this en-
tire matter, it seems to me, to the full subcommittee so that if there
were any misunderstanding, you might have eliminated it.
Mr. Adams. Senator, I might state that during the fall the Con-
gress was not in session. The members were not m town. The mat-
ter during the last 8 or 9 weeks of the calendar year was a matter
which probably could not have been brought to the attention of the
subcommittee. Three weeks after the Congress reconvened the matter
was brought to the attention of those members who were participating.
Senator Dworshak. Mr. Adams, I was greatly disturbed by the
apparent indecisive action by the Department of the Army and Secre-
tary Stevens m trying to follow through on the inspector's report of
conditions at Fort Monmouth. Probably this question should have
been asked of Secretary Stevens, but are you prepared to tell us why
there has been no decisive action in following through at Fort Mon-
mouth to expose and to take the proper action concerning subversives
and security risks which may be found there ?
Mr. Adams. I will have to have the question again, sir, because I
thought you were talking about For Dix and I was thinking in terms
of Fort Dix.
Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question, please.
(The reporter read from his notes as requested)
Mr. Adams. Do you mean action prior to October 1st or action now ?
Senator Dworshak. Action at any time. It has been testified that
the Inspector made an investigation. The report has been available
to the Department of the Army and yet there has been no action, or
has there been any action ?
Mr Adams. I am a little confused, sir, because you are using a
term which is unfamiliar to me, an inspector's investigation. If you
are asking what action has the Army taken and was it taken during
the latter half of last year or thereabouts with reference to Fort
Monmouth, I will answer that question. Is that what you are try-
ing to find out, sir ?
Senator Dworshak. I was specifically referring to the investiga-
tion that was made, as I understand it, by an inspector representing the
Department of the Army of the security risks at Fort Monmouth.
Has any action been been taken on that report?
Mr. Adams. Sir, I don't mean to be — I am not trying to evade this
question but I don't know what you mean by the inspector's report at
Fort Monmouth. May I confer a moment with my associates ?
(Mr. Adams conferred with his associates.)
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 11C7
Mr. Adams. Sir, there was — 1 ■wonder if you are talkiiifj about the
Inspector General's report of the matter having to do with INIajor
Peress at Camp Kilmer. There is such an inspector's report. There
was no inspector's report at Fort JSIonmouth, and that is the reason
I am confused.
Senator Dworshak. Has the Army followed up at Fort Monmouth
after the activities of this subcommittee?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, the Army, as I think the Secretary stated,
had been required by the promulgation of President Eisenhower's
new Executive order in April of 1953 to reexan ne all loyalty and
security cases which might have been favorably decided, on the basis
of the new criteria which the President's executive order promul-
gated.
Senator Dworshak. Have you taken any effective action yet?
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. Adams. May I finish this answer?
The President's Executive order made one principal difference
between what was to be done in the future and what had been done
in the past, and that was a determination that doubtful cases were to be
resolved in favor of the Government rather than in favor of the
individual where the matters were sensitive. That caused a reexami-
nation of many cases. Those reexaminations had begun, not only at
Fort Monmouth but in one hundreds of other installations all over
the world. They were going forward, and are continuing to go for-
ward. Every day and every week, I think new cases are taken from
the files and reexamined to see whether or not, under the new criteria,
further steps should be taken.
Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?
Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, the primary charge against the
Army would seem to be blackmail, the accusation that the Army stated
it would issue these charges against the staff and Senator McCarthy
if Senator McCarthy did not call off his investigation of the Army.
According to the bill of particulars, most of these threats were made
to the various principals, that is, the threat by Adams to Colin and
Carr, for instance.
But there is one time when this threat to the subcommittee is alleged
to have been made to disinterested persons, and that is charge No. 36,
which I will ask you to follow with me. This charge states, quote :
The following clays, Mr. Adams communicated witli other members of tlie
subcommittee, and stated that unless the chairman was prevailed upon to drop
his investigation, and not to issue subpoenas for those in the loyalty setup, Mr.
Adams would cause an emliarrassing report to be circulated about Mr. Cohn.
My question to you, sir, is : Is that true ?
Mr, Adams. My answer to you, sir, is that that is false. The people
to whom I talked are gentlemen who sit on that committee. I have no
remembrance of making such a statement. My judges in that respect
will have to be the gentlemen to whom I talked, three of the members
of the committee.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, this would seem to go to the
very heart of the matter, and therefore I think the members of the
subcommittee who were contacted, either by Mr. Adams or his deputy,
should say now, or at the earliest opportunity, whether or not the Army
threatened to issue this report unless the members of the subcommittee
116S SI ' JIAL INVESTIGATION
coiikl prevail on Senator McCarthy to call off his investigation of the
Army.
Mr. Aclariis, I would like to ask you this : You mentioned that some-
time before January 21 you talked with the Deputy Attorney General
about the question of the loyalty board members answering subpoenas.
Did you at that time discuss the case of Mr. Schine?
Mr. Adams. On that occasion, I did, yes, sir.
Senator Symington. You say you talked to the Deputy Attorney
General at the suggestion of Mr. Hensel?
Mr. Adams. I did, sir.
Senator Symington. Did you discuss Mr. Schine at that time with
Mr. Hensel ?
Mr. Adams. I did not, sir.
Senator Symington. You did not?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
Senator Symington. You say you discussed this matter with Mr.
Hensel a month prior to this which would have been in December?
Mr. Adams. I discussed the matter of the loyalty board problem
with Mr. Hensel in December.
Senator Symington. Did you discuss Mr. Schine?
Mr. Adams. No, sir.
Senator Symington. Did you discuss — correction. One of the points
of these questions is — did you feel the loyalty board situation would
be better or worse from the standpoint of the Army based on what
you did with Mr, Schine?
Mr. Adams. Did I feel that it would be better or worse ?
Senator Symington. Yes, based on what you did with Mr. Schine.
Mr. Adams. Well, by that time, sir, on January 20, I think the die
was cast and we had already done
Senator Symington. Would you answer the question a little more
directly?
Mr. Adams. May I have the question asked again, sir?
Senator Symington. Yes, sir. One of the points of these questions
is did you feel the loyalty board situation would be better or worse
from the standpoint of the Army, based on what you did with Mr.
Schine? I am talking about the time you discussed this with Mr.
Hensel.
Mr. Adams. Well, that is in December, I think.
Senator Symington. Well, it would be either in December or it
would be in January.
Mr. Adams. The loyalty board matter in December was not an im-
mediate issue insofar as I Imew. It was below the surface and I don't
think I had a feeling at that time that Schine, or Schine's treatment,
would afl'ect what happened with reference to the loyalty board mat-
ters, but I did have a feeling then that everything adverse to the
committee desires or Mr. Cohn's request with reference to Schine,
would result in difficulties for the Army.
Senator Symington. So your testimony is that both in December
and January you discussed the loyalty board situation, that Army
problem, with Mr. Hensel, but you did not discuss the question of Mr.
Schine, is that correct?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Why didn't you discuss it with Mr. Schine?
Mr. Adams. With Mr. Hensel ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1169
Senator Svmixgton. Why didn't you cPJ5uss Mr. Schine with Mr.
Ilonsel?
Mr. Ada:\is. Well, it was an Army problem. I was talking only
about the loyalty board matter and the fact that it was something
that was continuously before us. It was below the surface but we
might have to make a decision on it someday, and I was trying to
clarify the Defense Department's position. I wanted to be sure that
whatever position the Army took would be the same as the Navy and
Air Force. I wanted to be sure it was tlie same as the Office of the
Secretary of Defense would take. Mr. Hensel was the official who
would make the decision in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. It
was the sole matter I was discussing. It was a legal matter.
Senator Symington. Wliv was Ambassador Lodge at the meetinir
on January 21 c
Mr. Adams. I don't know, sir. I didn't arrange for his presence.
Senator Symington. Was there anything that you discussed that
had to do with the United Nations?
jMr. Adams. Anything that we discussed?
Senator Symington. Yes.
Mr. Adams. With the United Nations? I don't think the United
IVations was discussed ; no, sir.
Senator Symington. What do you think he was there for?
Mr. Welch. Mr, Chairman?
Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order, Mr. Welch?
Mr. Welch. I have a point of order.
Senator Mundt. You may state it.
Mr. Welch. This was a high-level discussion of the executive de-
partment, and this witness has been instructed not to testify as to the
interchange of views on people at that high level at that meeting.
Senator Symington. Does that mean we are going to get the
information about low-level discussions but not about high-level
discussions?
Mr. Welch. That is only, sir, what I have been informed. If the
committee wishes to summon people w4io were at that meeting, they
can deal with it.
Sc^nator Symington. Mr. Counsel, is there any particular reason
that 3^ou object to Mr. Adams' stating why Mr. Lodge was there if he
knows, and what Mr. Lodge said ?
Mr. Welch. I do not object to his stating why Mr. Lodge was
there, if he knows. I think he answered already to the effect that
he doesn't know.
Senator Symington. I was going to ask him what Mr. Lodge said.
Mr. Welch. That is the point of my objection.
Senator Symington. You do not like that?
Mr. Welch. It isn't a point of what I like. It is a point of what
the witness has been instructed.
Senator Symington. Mr. Welch, as I remember the testimony, Mr.
Adams volunteered that Mr. Lodge was there. Is that for window
dressing as far as Mr. Lodge is concerned ? Haven't we a right to know
what he said? I think once he volunteered Mr. Lodge was there, I
think we have a right to know why he was there, if he knows, and
what lie said when he was there.
46G20°— 54- -pt. 32 4
1170 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Welch. I can only say, sir, that the instructions from the execu-
tive department are to the effect that the witness should not answer
this line of questions as to what took place at that interview.
Senator Stmtngton. What do you mean by the executive depart-
ment? Whose instructions are they?
Mr. Chairman, does this discussion have to come off my time?
Senator Mundt. The Chair will take time out.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. Time back in. Go ahead.
Mr. Welch. As you know, I was ill yesterday, not very ill but ill
enough
Senator Symington. I am beginning to regret
Mr. Welch. I didn't hear you.
Senator Symington. I am beginning to regret your illness more
today than yesterday, and that was plenty.
Mr. Welch. The instructions came, as I understand it, yesterday,
through the Department of Defense, or at least were delivered to the
witness by somebody in the Department of Defense.
Senator Symington. Who?
Mr. Welch. I do not know, sir.
Mr. Adams. The instructions came to me orally, sir, and the indi-
cations were that they were instructions from the Deputy Secretary
of Defense.
Senator Symington. Who is that?
Mr. Adams. Mr. Robert B. Anderson.
Senator Sy;mington, Will you find out for the hearing this after-
noon why Mr. Robert B. Anderson has taken it upon himself to tell
you what you could and could not testify before this committee'^
Mr. Adams. It was my understanding, sir, that he w'as transmitting
instructions.
Senator Symington. From where?
Mr. Adams. I don't know, sir, but I understand he was trans-
mitting
Senator Symington. Is this embarrassing to you ?
Mr. Adams. It is not embarrassing to me, sir.
Senator Symington. Do you think it is embarrassing to anybody
else?
Mr. Adams. I don't know, sir.
Senator Symington. Would you find out where Mr. Anderson's
instructions came from ?
Mr. Adams. I will be glad to, sir.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Mundt. Mr. McClellan, a point of order?
Senator McClellan. You have before you a point of order.
Senator Mundt. What is your point of order, Mr. Welch? For
your information, may the Chair state that the name of Ambassador
Lodge was brought into this controversy and this discussion by Mr.
Adams voluntarily yesterday, not by any of the members of this
committee.
Mr. Welch. That is correct, sir.
Senator Mundt. That being correct, it seems to me that Senator
Symington is quite entitled to pursue his line of questioning so long
as Mr. Adams undertook to bring in the name of Cabot Lodge. Had
Mr. Symington initiated it, the Chair would rule otherwise. But it
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1171
seems to me that the questions are appropriate insofar as Mr. Adams
said Mr. Lodge was in on the discussion.
I recognize that you were not here yesterday.
And in all events, I think Mr. Adams has agreed to find out for
you, Senator Symington, the answer to the question that you asked.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, may I make the further point
of order
Senator Mundt. Let me find out first of all whether we are satisfied
on that point of order.
Mr. Welch. What is the current question, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Munot. The current question is that the Chair has decided
that Senator Symington has a right to ask Mr. Adams about Mr.
Lodge or anybody else that Mr. Adams brings into this controversy
voluntarily. I think that is correct.
Mr. Welch. I quite agree that Senator Symington may ask ques-
tions. I am informing the Chair that the witness has been instructed
not to deal furtlier with that conference in respect to which lie has
testified, beyond his testimony of yesterday.
Senator Muxdt. The Chair, of course, has no control over those
instructions. I think that Senator Symington is correct in asking
the question. Do you have a point of order, Senator Jackson ?
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I make this further point of
order, that the witness waived any right to claim immunity from
discussing what went on at this conference when the matter was
brought up by him yesterday and when no objection was interposed
on his side against relating such conversations. Now, I think that
maj-be this testimony may be embarrassing to the administration, and
1 do not think that because it is embarrassing to the administration
and favorable to Senator McCarthy, that it ought to be deleted. I
think we should get all the facts out on the table and I think we should
know whether new instructions have been issued, because there may
be some information that went on within the Defense Department
and between the Defense Department and the White House that is
now embarrassing. I think this issue has to be settled immediately
if we are going to get all the facts out on the table.
Now, the Army has testified, Mr. Chairman, heretofore, to con-
versations
Senator Mundt. Will Senator Jackson state his point of order first,
before he argues it ?
Senator Jackson. I am making the point of order.
Senator Mundt. The Chair has already ruled on the point of ordei-
that you have raised, that the question Senator Symington asked was
appropriate. The Chair cannot force any witness to testify if he say-
he will not or cannot, or has to consult with somebody first. I undei-
stood Mr. Adams to say he would consult over the lunch hour to sec
whether he could answer Senator Symington's question.
Senator Jackson. I think it goes to the whole question from here
on out. The Army has permitted testimony which went on within
the Defense Establishment within the executive branch, heretofore,
when it may be favorable to them. Are we from now on not going
to permit testimony relating to conversations which took place within
the executive branch because it may not be favorable to their side?
Senator Mundt. May the Chair say that he was just as surprised
as anybody in this committee to find that the American Ambassador
1172 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
to the TTnited Nations hud been brouj^ht into a discnssion about what
to do about Private Schine. [Laughter.] Since that was the testi-
mony of Mr. Adams under oatli, I certainly feel you have a riglit to
ask him questions; but I feel that Mr. Adams does have the right to
find out what his instructions are before he testifies.
Senator Jackson. Then I make the furtlier ])oint
Senator Mundt. I don't require him to testify immediately.
Senator Jackson. The committee ought to be advised if there has
been an Executive order issued, and if instructions have been issued
1 think this connnittee should find out now whether it covers just
this conversation or whether it covers all conversations that went on
between the various official within the executive brai-.ch of the (xov-
ernment, because we are going to be foreclosed here immediately from
asking any further questions relating to conversations between offi-
cials within the executive branch. Heretofore, those conversations
liave been coming in when they iiave been favorable. Now that they
are unfavorable, are they to be excluded ?
Senator Mundt. In tlie interest of ex])editing the hearings, he does
not believe that points of orde- should be argued after they have been
ruled upon. The Chair has ruled.
Senator Symington. These points of order have got me a little
dizzy now. I would like you to tell me when 1 can start to interro-
gate the witness.
Senator Mundt. You will be advised as soon as the Chair has con-
vinced Senator Jackson that he has ruled on the point of order and
he is not asking to plead it any further. The Chair has said that
he thinks ]Mr. Adams has made an appro])riate request tliat he have
an opportunity through the lunch hour to find out just what his in-
h-tructions are and where they came from, and then he will reply to
your question when he has the information.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, could I add one other remark ?
Senator Mundt. The Chair believes now, if we are not going to go
hack to the policy of having prolonged discussions on the ))art of coun-
sel, you should make your remark after you have stated your point of
order. What is your point of order, sir ?
Mr. Welch. It is very short. Mr. Jackson indicated that the testi-
mony, if pursued, would be unfavorable to the Army side. Quite the
contrariwise, in my mind.
Senator Mundt. That isn't a point of order, sir. You are not here
as a witness. What is your point of order, Senator Jackson, if you
have one?
Senator Jackson. I have made my point of order.
Senator Mundt. The Chair has ruled on it.
Senator Symington may continue. Time back in.
Senator Symington. I thank the Chair. Incidentally, these ques-
tions are being asked, not to embarrass anybody, only to try to get the
truth before the committee.
Now, Mr. Adams, you said that at the suggestion of Gov. Sherman
Adams you made up this report with respect to Mr. Schine; is that
correct ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. What was the position of Mr. Lodge with re-
spect to that report? Did he approve it or did he disapprove it?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1173
Mr. Adams, It was a very casual conversation, sir, but I think this
falls within the same inhibitions that I have, which Mr. "Welch has
stated earlier.
Senator SYMiNGTOisr. In other words, you feel he was just there for
the ride, or did he say anything; and if so, what did he say?
]\Ir, Adams. Senator Symington, very respectfully, sir, I would like
to state that I believe that within the instructions I have, I would
like your permission to defer answering matters having to do with
that until subsequent to the lunch hour.
Senator Symington. Very well, sir.
Will you tell the committee what the position was at this meeting
that was taken by the Attorney General, Mr. Browneli 'i
Mr. Adams. Sir, I take the same position, I must answer you in
the same way, that my instructions encompass the entire meetings.
Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, I have a little experience on the
Executive side. You say something about some or all remark or sug-
gestion or order that was given to you. Will you bring something
in writing this afternoon ?
JSlr. Adams (conferring). You mean something in writing with ref-
erence to whether or not I shall answer ?
Senator Symington. Yes.
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I will.
Senator Syimington. In other words, will you bring, in writing,
instructions signed by somebody ?
Mr. Adams. I wilL sir.
Senator Symington. With respect to why you are unable to tell us
what the people said at the meeting, you being the person who told us
they were at the meeting, voluntarily.
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I will.
Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, does your position of this morn-
ing also include Mr. Gerald Morgan ?
Mr. Adams. He was at that same meeting, sir. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Didn't he come down also and talk to mem-
bers of the subcommittee ?
Mr. Adams. He came with me and talked to one member of the
subcommittee.
Senator Symington. Yet you are not allowed to say what he said
to a member of the subcommittee ?
Mr. Adams. Oh, no. My instructions don't include what he said
to members of the subcommittee.
Senator Symington. It is just what he said at this meeting to you,
is that it ?
Mr. Adams. The instructions include conversations between mem-
bers of the executive branch.
Senator Symington. What were the recommendations or instruc-
tions that were given you at the end of the meeting ?
Mr, Adams. I think I must give you the same answer, sir, until
subsequent to lunch.
Senator Symington. But you have already told us some of those.
You said it was suggested
Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir. I am sorry. I am in error. I
am permitted to restate matters that I have already testified to.
Senator Mundt. May the Chair say that he believes if the witness
is going to select certain statements out of the discussion that he
1174 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
thinks are not dear, he can sny he has o;otten hhnself into a, very
mconf^ruons position. If he is goin^ to discuss the conversation at
all, the Chair thinks he should discuss it in its entirety.
]\Ir. Adams. That is correct, sir. I started to say to Senator Sym-
ino-ton that my instructions permit me to discuss what I have ah-eady
discussed, and so far as that is concerned, I can answer Senator
Symin<>;ton's question.
Senator Symington. I would like to make a personal sug<restion
to you, and that is, I su<:^gest that you advise the executive hranch that
I am sure at least some members of the subcommittee, tell the execu-
tive branch that they think it is right that you be allowed to tell the
truth at this meeting about things that you have already brought up.
Mr, Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Symington. I am sorry about that. We have had quite
a few interruptions.
Senator Mundt. If you want to argue with the timekeeper, you
may do so, but the timekeeper has told me your time has expired.
Senator Symington. I will be glad to accede to the timekeeper's
instructions.
Senator Jackson. The timekeeper is a lady, and I advise against
arguing.
Senator Mundt. All I want to say, if the time is up, it is up, as
far as the Chair is concerned. If any member wants to argue with
the timekeeper, that is his privilege.
Senator Dirksen, we will call on you now. You were inadvertently
out of the room when your time came.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I am going to ask Mr. Adams
a few questions, and then I shall ask the committee to have Mr. Adams
stand aside and I would like to have the chairman swear me and I
would like to tell what I know about this case.
First, I want to ask Mr. Adams this: As I get it from your testi-
mony, you stated that the Schine matter became oppressive some time
in early November.
Mr. Adams. I think that is correct, sir.
Senator Dieksen. And it continued through November and Decem-
ber on into January ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. You did not cail on any members of this subcom-
mittee until the 19th of January.
]\rr. Adams. The 19th or 20th, sir.
Senator Dirksen. The 19th is the day that you called on Senator
McClellan, according to your direct testimony.
Mr. Adams. I may be off a day or so, but it is in that week.
Senator Dirksen. What time of the day was it that you called on
Senator McClellan?
Mr. Adams. About 6 o'clock or 5 : 30 in the evening.
Senator Dirksen. There had been a meeting of the subcommittee
and staff that day, the same day ?
Mr. Adams. I clon't remember, sir. There may have been.
Senator Dirksen. I have before me here a transcript of the execu-
tive session on January 19, 1954, and I assume that that meeting took
place either in the morning or in tlie afternoon. Do you recall whether
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1175
yoii appeared before Senator jVCcCarthy and the staff with respect to
the subpenas that they intended to issue ?
Mr. Adams. That is ri^^ht.
Senator Dikksen. For certain members of the loyalty board ?
Mr. Adams. Let me ^let my dates straight, sir. I don't ^Yant to give
you the wrong date. That was on the afternoon of the 19th.
Senator Dirksex. The executive session was on the 19th?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Dirksex. In the afternoon?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. You called on Senator McClellan about 6 o'clock?
Mr. Adams. I think that was on the 19th.
Senator Dirksen. Tlie same day?
Mr. Adams. I think that was on the 19th ; yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. It is not for me particularly to ask you what you
may have discussed with Senator McClellan except the direct testi-
mony shows that you went there at the instance of the Deputy Attorney
General, Mr. Eogers.
Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir.
Senator Dirksen. That is correct?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. There are 26 members of the loyalty board as I
understand, Mr. Adams. There are or there were or that is substan-
tially the number of members of the loyalty board?
Mr. Adams. That is correct ; somewhere around there.
Senator Dirksen. As I recall, about 19 of those are civilians and 7
of them are Army officers.
Mr. Adams. I don't have the figures, sir. That is probably correct.
Senator Dirksen. I have the list here as of September 8, 1953. It
indicates there are 26 members of the loyalty board and that 19 are
civilians and 7 are Army officers.
Are the civilian members of the loyalty board holdovers from the
prior administration?
Mr. Adams. I think that most of them are people who have been in
the civil service for some time.
Senator Dirksen. So it is a fair assumption that they have been in
Government for quite some time ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir; I don't Iniow the exact lengths of time.
Senator Dirksen. Now^, Mr. Adams, the loyalty board operates on
a panel basis. They get a few at a time to sit on a given number of
cases ?
Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir.
Senator Dirksen. In the testimony on the 19th of January when
you appeared before the committee it was intended that certain mem-
bers of the Loyalty Board were going to be summoned ?
Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir.
Senator Dirksen. Among them, although he is not on the board,
(jeueral Keichelderfer was to be summoned, is that correct, if you
recall ?
Mr. Adams. I think the name of Reichelderfer was offered to me,
I am not sure, as a name that I was told on the telephone that they
w^ould want to interrogate in the next few days, yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. And it was indicated by the chairman that a
Lieutenant Colonel Hodges was going to be called ?
117G SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Adams. The indications came from Mr. Carr, but that is cor-
rect, Senator.
Senator Dirksen. The record also shows that Mr. Malcolm Sea-
well, Mr. Gordon D. Taft and Doctor IJeichley were all to be called on
the executive hearinjr on January 19, the same day that you called on
Senator McClellan ? '
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. Will you speak a little more loudly, please?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. So you had a session with the committee on the
afternoon and at 6 o'clock on that day, you went to discuss something
with Senator McClellan and at the instance of the Deputy Attorney
General?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. On the 22d of January, you came to my office?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. About what time of the day was it?
Mr. Adams. It was about 5 : 45 in the afternoon.
Senator Dirksen. And you cahie with some other ])erson?
Mr. Adams. With Mr. Gerald Morgan of my staif.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Gerald INIorgan, that is correct.
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. The person who could probably best testify as to
the discussion that took ])lace at that time would be somebody who
was there at the time ; is that correct ?
Mr. Adams. One of the three of us.
Senator Dirksen. And you would agree it is the responsibility of
a member of this subcommittee if he has some special knowledge that
would have a bearing on the issue, that he ought to testify to that
effect ?
Mr. Adams. I agree; yes, sir.
Senator Dirksen. Now, I think, Mr. Adams, we ought to ask you
to stand aside. If it is agreeable to the committee, I would ask the
chairman to instruct the counsel that he ask me what happened in
my office on the 22d of January, and without interruption, and I would
like to tell the story.
Senator Mundt. Is there objection to having Senator Dirksen sworn
at this time? The Chair hears none. You will stand and be sworn,
please.
I think he might as well testify from where he is.
Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and noth-
ing but the truth, so help you God ?
Senator Dirksen. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HON. EVEEETT McKINLEY DIEKSEN, A UNITED
STATES SENATOE FEOM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins, will you now interrogate the witness,
Senator Dirksen from Illinois?
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to interrogate the wit-
ness directly. I confess that I have no disposition to cross-examine
one of my clients. I will confine it to direct examination.
For the benefit of the record, Senator, I will ask you to state your
full name.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1177
Senator Dirksen. My name is Everett McKinley Dirksen.
Mr. Jenkins. We have all heard your examination of Mr. Adams
with respect to a conference in your office about 5 : 45 p. m., on January
22, 1954, at which time, you, Mr. Adams and Mr. Morgan were present,
is that correct, Senator?
Senator Dirksen. That is correct.
]Mr. Jenkins. Was anyone else present on that occasion ?
Senator Dirksen. No, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you now. Senator Dirksen, to tell the com-
mittee what transpired on that occasion, and the conversation in full.
Senator Dirksen, Mr. Chairman, by way of preliminary, let me
just say for the benefit of the record, and for those who may be watch-
ins; this proceeding, that there arrives at my office about 2,500 letters
and telegrams a day. Some of them are so intemperate and so abusive
and so unrestrained, that my office force is afraid they might affect
my finer sensibilities and they don't even show them to me. It would
occur, from an examination of this outpouring of mail, that I have
been charged with being belligerently partial on one side or on the
other.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I esteem it my duty to tell what I know about
this matter and what I have to say relates entirely to this question of
the issuance of subpenas for members of the Loyalty Board. I am
generally familiar with the operation of the Board, its complexion,
and I know from my examination of the transcript of the executive
testimony on January 19 what transpired and who was to be sum-
moned, and generally why.
But, Mr. Chairman, I was not honored by any visit with respect
to the Schine matter until the afternoon of Januaiy 19, 1954. Frankly,
I knew nothing about the incubation of this controversy or that it had
become oj^pressive, or that there was such a controversy, as a matter
of fact. And so in the afternoon, there came to my office Mr. Adams
and Mr. Gerald Morgan. I have known Mr. Gerald Morgan for a
long time. He was a member of the legislative counsel's staff in the
House of Representatives when I served there, and I esteem him, Mr.
Chairman, as a friend. I think he is a fine citizen and a brilliant
lawyer, and a very skilled legislative draftsman. So, I want nothing
to reflect upon Mr. Morgan. He is a friend and I can only assume
that he was contacted for the purpose of bringing Mr. Adams to my
office. I know of no reason why Mr. Adams shouldn't have come
on his own. I have been a member of this subcommittee for a long
time. My door is always open. And it doesn't require the interven-
tion of anybody to influence my conduct or my behavior or my judg-
ment. I don't say it was done :^or that purpose. But that was the
first time that I have ever been honored by a visit from Mr. Adams,
notwithstanding the fact that it appears that this controversy was in
the development stage for a period of nearly 2i/^ months.
The question came up, Mr. Chairman, about the subpenas which
were to be issued for certain members of the loyalty board, as I recall
from the testimony before the executive session of the committee on
the 19th of Januaiy, only five members of the loyalty board were
to be summoned at that time, and in addition. General Reichelderfer
was to be summoned with respect to an individual at Fort Monmouth.
It serves no purpose for me to comment upon that matter. But,
1178 SPECIAL INVESTTGATION"
frankly, as I reconstruct tlie conversation in my office on that after-
noon, JNIr. Adams came to my office for the purpose of enlisting my
influence to kill those subpenas and to stop them. I can place no
other construction, I can place no other interpretation upon that ac-
tion. And in pursuance of that, wanting to do what I thought was
the right thing, being interested in the Army and in the maintenance
of its morale, I promptly called Frank Carr of the committee and
I could not get him, because it was evidently too late.
I went to my office early the next morning, because I was thoroughly
agitated about it. I should go back for a moment to say that in con-
nection with this effort to stop those subpenas, that is the first time,
Mr. Chairman, that I heard about the Cohn-Schine controversy. I
knew nothing about it up to that time that I can recall, but that matter
came out, and it came in the form of a hearing, and it disturbed me
so greatly that I went to my office early the next morning to make sure
that I would get ahold of Mr. Carr before any action might have been
taken upon those subpenas. I think Mr. Carr may have monitored
my conversation, and may I say for the record, Mr. Chairman, I never
monitor telephone conversations, I speak entirely from memory. I
have no diary, I have no notes to refresh my recollection. AVhat I say
to the committee, I say wholly on the basis of what recurs to me with
respect to that conversation and what ensued thereafter.
The next morning I got hold of Mr. Carr. I expressed to him my
distress of spirit, and I said simply, "Mr. Carr, I trust that if the sub-
penas have not been issued, that you will hold them, because it is my
understanding that the chairman is out of town."
The chairman was, in fact, out of town, and if I recall correctly,
and he can correct the record if this is not right, I believe the night
before he had been in Cicero, 111., to make a speech. But at 11 o'clock
that night he called me and over the telephone to him I expressed
my gi-eat distress of spirit. I said, "Mr. Chairman, I trust that no
untoward or precipitive action will be taken with respect to these
subpenas until we can have a session."
And it was arranged then and there over the telephone that we meet
in his office at 2 o'clock that afternoon. I still draw on memory, Mr.
Chairman, but it runs in my mind that at the session in Senator
McCarthy's office that afternoon, there was present Senator Potter,
I was present, I am not sure but, Mr. Chairman, I think j^ou were
present, and Senator McCarthy was present.
I opened the conversation and I said, "Mr. Chairman, I am greatlj^
distressed over what I learned yesterday afternoon in my office that
here are some allegations that may have some effect upon the ultimate
credibility and the effectiveness of this committee in the future. It
is an important instrument of Government in ferreting out subversion
and communism and if its credibility is impeached or if it is destroyed,
we must take judicial notice of this matter that came to my attention
yesterday afternoon,"
And I said, "Mr. Chairman, if what was revealed to me in my office
yesterday afternoon is correct, I think Roy Cohn ought to be fired
forthwith and I think every member of the committee will bear me out.
I think I said on that occasion that if this thing goes in that direction,
and it becomes something of a public scandal, that maybe we ought to
recommend to the Department of Defense that ]\Ir, 'Adams be fired
along with him,"
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1179
That session continued for perhaps an honr and a half, and we went
into it pretty thoronghly. So that is the jumping-off place.
I just left it at this : that Mr. Adams came to my office on the after-
noon of January 22 for the purpose of enlisting my interest and my
influence, if possible, to at least suspend the issuance of those subpenas
for members of the loyalty board and perhaps to kill them.
I was not sure about the legal premises that were involved at the
time, because I went into that matter later as to whether or not they
could be rightly summoned. But I should say that I was familiar
with the fact that in the hearing on January 19, the chairman certainly
did not limit himself to questions concerning the actions of the Loyalty
Board in reversing the decisions of lower loyalty boards or reinstating
people who had been found guilty of disloyalty by lower boards, be-
cause I think the transcript will indicate that there were some ques-
tions of graft and some questions of corruption that he intended to
raise.
So it wasn't clear, certainly, whether the members were going to be
summoned only for the purpose of investigating and exploring the
action that they may have taken in their review of the actions of lower
loyalty boards. But I can only say, on the basis of conversation, that
Mr. Adams came to my office to see what I might be able to do in order
to divert attention from the subpenas and probably stop their issuance.
Period. That is all I have got to say.
Senator Mundt. Counsel, have you any questions ?
Mr. Jexkins. Mr. Chairman, that very full, restrained, and appar-
ently complete statement of Senator Dirksen's requires no cross-ex-
amination as far as I am concerned.
Senator Mundt. The Cliair has only one question. He would like
to inquire of Senator Dirksen : On the occasion of the visit to your
office by Mr. Adams and Mr. Morgan, primarily from the standpoint
of trying to, as you say, avert the calling of members of the Loyalty
Board before our committee, how did a discussion of Schine and Cohn
get into that conversation ? Did you bring it up or did Mr. Adams
bring it up, or did Mr. Morgan bring it up ? Why was it brought up ?
Senator Dirksen. Frankly, I knew nothing about the Cohn-Schine
controversy until it was brought up at that time, and as I recall, it was
first alluded to by Mr. Adams. It might have been by Mr. Morgan,
but I think it was Mr. Adams.
Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan?
Senator ]\1cClellax. No questions.
Senator Mukdt. I presume the Senator has none for himself, so
we will go to Senator Potter.
Senator Potter. No cjuestions.
Senator Muxdt. Senator Jackson?
Senator Jackson. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak?
Senator Dworshak. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?
Senator Sy^iington. I have no questions.
Senator Mundt. Mr. "Welch ?
Mr. "Welch. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy?
Senator McCaktuy. Just one or two questions.
1180 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION"
Senator, you said that you were very disturbed when Mr. Adams
hinted something to you. Is it correct that you called Mr. Carr and
told him that Mr. Adams had either hinted or indicated that if the
subpenas were not killed, they would issue a report about Mr. Cohn
whicli would be embarrassino; to Mr. Cohn and the committee?
Senator DiRKSEN. May I say that my recollection is slightly vague
on that point. I am not sure that it was said that a report was going
to be circulated. It may have been. But I know what ray own agita-
tion and .spirit was at the time when I first heard it. I thought if such
a report were going to be issued and ventilated on the front pages,
that it would seriously reflect upon the credibility of this committee
and its usefulness in the future, and had it not been for that fact, Mr.
Chairman, I certainly would have made no endeavor to contact Mr.
Carr that night, and I would not have gone to my office three-quarters
of an hour earlier the next morning — in fact, I think I got there at
8 o'clock, and my first business Avas to contact Mr. Carr to make sure
that I ascertained wdiat the status of the prospective subpenas was.
Senator McCarthy. This may be repetitious, Senator, but let me
ask you this so we have this absolutely clear on the record: You had
the feeling, from what was said, that if the subpenas were killed, no
report about Mr. Cohn would be made public. If they were not killed,
then there would be a report alleging misconduct on Mr. Cohn's part
made available at least to part of the public?
Senator Dirksen. I am not sure I came to any conclusion on that
point at the time, but I will say this : that this was the first time that
a question of stopping the subpenas was coupled with the Cohn-Schine
story as it came to me, and it was the first I knew of it.
Senator McCarthy. You said that there was a hint which dis-
turbed you. I assumed that hint was that if the subpenas were iasuecl,
these charges would be made public.
Senator Dirksen. Well, it was a case of whether or not this would
finally come out into the open and reflect upon the whole committee.
Obviously, Mr. Chairman, I think this ought to be added : It has been
stated here that on many occasions the subcommittee met when only
the chairman was present, and I think that is correct. That ensues
from the fact that I, along with other members of this committee, are
members of other committees. I know that Senator McClellan and
Senator Mundt were probably busy last nigiit marking up an appro-
priation bill at a rather late hour. That was my first chore this
morning.
Consequently, because of our other senatorial responsibilities, we
cannot always be on hand, so a good many of these meetings take
place when only the chairman and the staff are there.
Senator McCarthy. One further question. Senator:
As you stated, we met in my office the following day. I believe
the only people present were you, Senator Potter, Senator Mundt,
and myself.
Senator Dirksen. I believe that is correct.
Senator McCarthy. No member of the staff, as I recall.
Senator Dirksen. None.
^ Senator McCarthy. Mr. Carr w^as there part of the time. At that
time did I relate to the subcommittee the tremendous ])ressure brought
upon me to call off the hearings, the threats that they would issue
charges against Mr. Cohn if I didn't ? Did I tell the other three mem-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1181
bers in the strongest language I could possibly use, I believe, that as far
as I was possibly concerned I would not be blackmailed out of any in-
vestigations by any threats, that regardless of how embarrassing any
charges might be, let them make them, that I intended to proceed
unless I was outvoted by the members of my committee. In other
words, did I give the committee the complete story of the pressure
used upon me to call off these hearings at that time ?
Senator Dirksen. I think that is right, and while I cannot re-
construct the language I know we discussed the whole subpena issue
at great length.
Mr. Chairman, may I make this suggestion. This proceeding has
got to be fair. It was insisted that it be an open hearing and that
everything be revealed. I am ready and I think Mr. Adams ought
to have an opportunity to cross-examine me if he desires with respect
to the conversation that took place in that office.
Mr. Welch was not there. Mr. Adams was there. He may dis-
agree. In the interest of complete fairness, I am perfectly willing,
if you want to afford that right, that Mr. Adams may cross-examine.
Senator Mundt. I think he should accord him that right. May I
inquire, Senator McCarthy, if you have concluded your questions ?
Senator McCarthy. Just one minute.
(Senator McCarthy conferred with aides.)
Senator McCarthy. Just this one question, in regard to the con-
versation with Mr. Carr. Do you recall, Senator — I know it is diffi-
cult to recall things that occurred months ago — do you recall that you
did call Mr. Carr and suggest, No. 1, that he kill the subpenas and
not have them issued
Senator Dirksen. I can answer right there.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish, if you will.
Senator Dirksen. Very well.
Senator McCarthy. Which I think is a reasonable request when
you were disturbed about this situation, that he told them that you
and I and other members of the committee could get together No. 1.
No. 2, that you were told or led to believe by Mr. Adams that if he
did not kill the subpenas then there would be issued a report charging
Mr. Cohn with misconduct.
Is that roughly what you told Mr. Carr, do you recall ?
Senator Dirksex. With respect to No. 1, may I say that I specifi-
cally asked Mr. Carr if the subpenas are not already been issued, not
to issue them until the chairman returned to Washington. The sub-
penas had not actually been issued at that time, and they were not
issued. I just must follow through on that point that after the dis-
cussion the following afternoon in your offices I took no further
action and made no further suggestions with respect to the matter of
subpenas.
With respect to the second part of your question, I can only say
that if there was no such hint, the story might go out with respect to
Mr. Carr and Mr. Cohn tliat at least I developed in my mind the
belief and the feeling that the story might go out and that was based
entirely upon the conversations had in my office the previous after-
noon with Mr. Adams and with Mr. Morgan.
Senator McCarthy. May I say for the record, so there is no miscon-
struction of my questions, I feel that everything Senator Dirksen
1182 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
did here was completely proper, completely normal, to call
Mr. Carr, to ask for the hold-up of certain subpenas for a few days
time, the discussion of them. For the record and for the public, I think
it is the normal procedure. Many times during the course of inves-
tigations certain Senators call and say, "Let's discuss this matter
further before we bring in certain witnesses."
I want to make it clear that there was absolutely nothing in my
mind even remotely improper about what Senator Dirksen did.
Senator Mundt. Have you concluded your questions? Mr. Adams,
do you have a question for Senator Dirksen ?
Mr. Adams. I defer to my counsel, Mr. Welch.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, do you have any questions ?
Mr. Welch. I have a few very short ones.
Senator Mundt. You may ask them.
Mr. Welch. Senator Dirksen, it is, of course, a somewhat delicate
matter for one in my modest means.
Senator Dirksen. It isn't, Mr. Welch, and you don't have to be
restrained at all.
Mr. Welch. There will be no edge to the questions that I ask you,
sir.
Senator Dirksen. And if there were, I wouldn't mind.
Mr. Welch. My first question is a very simple one, I don't happen
to know, are you a lawyer, sir ?
Senator Dirksen. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch. Then, I am sure that when the question of the sub-
penas to the loyalty board was presented to you, you realized that
that had in it constitutional implications; did you not?
Senator Dirksen. I am not sure that I did, because I had seen some
memoranda which Avere inconclusive with res])ect to that question.
But there was in my mind at the time the fact that they were goiug
to be called for some other purpose besides the question of action that:
had been taken by members of the loyalty panel.
Mr. Welch, You and I as lawyers both knew that if they were to
be called and questioned as to whether or not they had taken bribes
to make a certain decision, that line of questioning should be allowed.
Do you not agree ?
Senator Dirksen. I think so.
Mr. Welch. And on the contrary, if they were to be called and
examined as to the reasons which caused them to reach a decision on
the merits of the case, that line of inquiry under our Constitution
would have been impro])er ?
Senator Dirksen. I am not so sure about that, Mr. Welch.
]\Ir. Welch. Well, INlr. Dirksen, in any event, it is an area which
I)resents grave questions.
Senator Dirksen. That I admit freely.
]\lr. Welch. And in respect to which not everyone is in agreement ?
Senator Dirksen. That is correct.
Mr, Welch, And it follows from the fact that you who are not only
a Senator but a lawyer, and with some knowledge of constitutional
law, probably exceeding mine, that you knew that question alone was
a grave and agitating question ?
Senator Dirksen. I do indeed, Mr, Welch, but that question did not
agitate me quite so much as the fact that it was coupled with a matter
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1183
that had not been directed to my attention before, and that is the con-
troversy which is the essence of this hearing.
Mr. Welch. That is right. That is the one to which I now wish
to tnrn my attention. The second thing which you heard in that inter-
view was some recital to the effect that Mr. Colin had placed remark-
ably undue pressure on Mr. Adams?
Senator Dirksen. What was that again ?
Mr. Welch. Strike it out. I don't like my question too well. In
that interview, you also heard something to the effect that Mr. Adams
had been placed under cruel pressure by Mr. Cohn in respect to one
David Schine ?
Senator Dirksen. Yes. I think there was a very considerable dis-
cussion about the matter,
Mr. Welch. And that was also a matter of agitation to you ?
Senator Dirksen. Indeed, it was.
Mr. Welch. You knew, sir, that if that was true, it was so improper
that Mr, Cohn's employment by the committee should not continue
until sundown, didn't you?
Senator Dirksen. I wouldn't
Mr. Welch. Your answer?
Senator Dirksen. Will you restate the question ?
Mr. Welch. May it be read to him, please ?
Senator Mundt. The reporter Avill read the question.
Senator Dirksen. It is a short question. Repeat it, please.
Mr, Welch. All right. You knew if what was said about Mr. Cohn
was true, his continuation as an employee of this committee should
not continue until sundown, didn't you ?
Senator Dirksen. Well, I indicated in the meeting that we had in
the chairman's office that if it were true, and I had no way of knowing
the truth or falsity of the matter, that I thought Eoy Cohn had out-
lived his usefulness of the committee, and may I say for public con-
sumption riglit now, that at the moment certainly I take back what
I said about that, and I shall review it in my own mind.
Mr, Welch, I am only saying this, sir, that if the charges of the
cruel pressure on Mr. Adams were true, you, sir, as a Senator and as
a gentleman, would have known INIr. Cohn's value to the connnittee
was at an end ?
Senator Dirksen. Well, Mr, Welch, it occurs to me that the cruel
pressures were not discussed, as I recall the conversation we had that
afternoon. The thing that stuck in my mind mainly was not pressure
but rather the fact that here was an effort to secure preferred — or an
alleged effort — to secure preferred treatment for a private, which
certainly would not look good on the front page and might enmesh
every member of this subcommittee if it could be established, and
that we might find ourselves charged with laches umbrage and with
neglect of cluty that it had not come to our attention and that some-
thing had not been done about it before. But that was the first time,
coupled with the subpena matter, that it was ever directed to my
attention.
Mr. Welch. That I fully understand, sir. May I now ask you,
Senator, how long you have lived in Washington ?
Senator Dirksen. I have been here nearly 20 years in the House and
Senate, and maybe longer.
1184 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr Welch. Aiifl did it not occur to you, sir, that if there was a
word of truth in what you were being told about pressures that Cohn
had put on Adams, that that secret in this kind of a city would soon
be out?
Senator Dirksen. Well, I have an idea that, on the basis of experi-
ence, that some of it would leak, and particularly if you want a full
answer, when newspapermen are called in and told about this a month
before a m.ember of the Senate ever discovers what the real allega-
tion and the chronological charges are, because it is apparent from
the t^estimony that Mr. Alsop knew about this at least 30 days before
the junior Senator from Illinois was ever advised about it, except
in his office on the 22d of January.
Mr. Welch. I am not discussing that with you, sir. I am only ask-
ing you if it is not your experience based on 20 years in Washington
that if a man reaches a point where he comes to the office of a Senator
and recites the kind of pressures Mr. Adams recited, that you know
that kind of thing is not going to remain a secret?
Senator Dirksen. Well, that is a moot question. If it has any
bearing upon this matter.
Mr. Welch. It is not very moot, is it, Senator? You know per-
fectly well this thing could not have been bottled up very much longer
if it got over your threshold and two gentlemen of standing were
telling it to you.
Senator Dirksen. But, Mr. Welch, in all fairness to all sides, and
since certainly my conduct has been impugned on occasions, it has been
alleged that I have been bending over backward to shield the Army,
that I have been bending over backward to shield Senator McCarthy,
and if you have any doubt about it all you have to do is read Drew
Pearson's column yesterday morning, I am determined that this story
go into the record, because the subpena question and the matter of
enlisting my services in order to stop them was coupled with the
Cohn-Schine controversy and a subpena is an indispensable weapon
in a matter of investigation by a committee of the Senate.
Mr. Welch. I beg of you, Senator, let's not be disturbed with the
attacks and the praise that you get.
Senator Dirksen. I am not. I have been here too long for that,
JMr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. Even as mild a gentleman as Mr. Welch, catches it
from both sides, I assure you.
We can none of us escape.
Senator Dirksen. But I want to add this one thought, and it is
for the record, the Senator from Illinois as the confidential transcript
that was issued yesterday morning will indicate, the junior Senator
from Illinois did his best to stop an open hearing. He did say that
perhaps everything could be served by recommending to the Army
that they dispense with the services of Mr. Adams, that the committee
dispense with the services of Mr. Cohn without prejudice. I wanted
it stopped. The reason for the motion that I brought in here this week
was to ring down the curtain, because I am just as much interested
to prevent the demoralization of the armed services and the develop-
ment of dissident spirit in this country as anybody, and I still stand
on it, and it will be one of my greatest regrets in my legislative career
that I failed to get it done. But now that it has got to be in the open,
SPECIAL rm'ESTIGATION 1185
we just as well have the whole stoiy so that nobody can take umbrage
and say that the junior Senator from Illinois departed from a straight
line.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Dirksen, may I say to you as a gentleman, from
what I would like to believe is another one, you and I are in total
agreement. I have always thought the total story should be told.
Senator Dirksen. I thank you, sir.
Mr. Welch. Now, sir, may I sum your testimony as gracefully as
I can. You first heard that there was this question of subpenas
and you, as a lawyer and a Senator, knew that that was an agitating
mattter. Is that right, sir? That is correct ?
Senator Dirksen. Yes, that is correct.
Mr. Welch. We have to have a word from you.
Senator Dirksen. Yes.
Mr. Welch. And secondly you heard this astonishing story of pres-
sure by the chief counsel on Mr. Adams, and that, too, was an agitating
story ?
Senator Dirksen. Yes. But, Mr. Welch, let's add for the purpose
of this testimony that the two were coupled and that my services
were requested to kill those subj^enas if I could do them.
Mr. Welch. And you have no regret that you helped kill them,
have you, sir ?
Senator Dirksen. I did not kill them, as a matter of fact, my good
sir. I got them suspended long enough so that we could have a meet-
ing of some members of the committee so that the whole matter might
first be discussed to ascertain what all the equities and the varieties
were in the case.
Senator Mundt, Any further questions ?
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order ?
Senator Symington, I have a point of order.
Mr. Welch. Could we wait a moment ?
Senator Mundt. I will listen to your point of order, Senator Sym-
ington.
Senator Symington. I will 'prefer to wait until Mr. Welch has
finished.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, your time has expired. Do you have
some other questions? I will go around the table again, if you do,
sir.
Mr. Welch. Would you come back to me ? I might have one, but
I doubt it.
Senator Mundt. Do any Senators to my right have any questions ?
Counsel ?
Do any Senators to my left have any questions ?
Senator McCarthy, have you any questions ?
Senator Symington. Just a minute, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, this is getting so interesting
that I wish I had been on the committee at this time, but I would like
to say that inasmuch as Senator Dirksen, for whom I have great
respect, has been very fine and forthright with respect to his position
and the problems involved in it, and his thoughts about it, I think it
only fair that the other members of this subcommittee who were
1186 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
interrogated or (|uo.stioiie(l or visited, or wluitever you might call it,
by Mr. Adams, also give their side of the position.
Senator Mundt. The Chair -was about to request that he be sworn
as the next witness.
Have you further questions, Mr. Welch ?
Mr. "Welch. I think not, sir.
Senator Mundt. Will the committee, before swearing the Chair,
give the Chair unanimous consent to ask one question of Mr. Adams,
which is : What was the date when you and, was it Mr. Gerry Morgan,
called in my office ?
Mr. Adams. No, sir, I called on you alone, sir.
Senator Mundt. You called on me alone ?
Mr. Adams. I called on you alone, sir, at noon, at about noon on
January 22. I saw you in your office for about 30 minutes.
Senator ]\Iundt. That is correct.
Senator McClellan has asked to clear up the date you called on him.
Mr. Adams. I called on Senator Symington on the night
Senator Mundt. Not Symington — McClellan.
Mr. Adams. I called on Senator McClellan in the evening at about
5 : 30 or 6 o'clock on January 19. I called on Senator Dirksen on the
date which we have established. I called on you at noon, on
January 22.
Senator Mundt, Thank you.
The Chair would like to be sworn at this time. Senator McClellan,
will you swear me so I can testify ?
Senator McClellan. Do you solemnly swear that the evidence you
are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God ?
Senator Mundt. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HON. KARL E. MUNDT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
Senator Mundt. The Chair didn't know he was going to have the
opportunity of being a witness today. He rather felt he might be
sooner or later, and regrets he didn't put on his television shirt for
this purpose.
Senator Potter. You can put it on for the afternoon session.
Senator Mundt. The Chair first of all would like to recap, to the
best of his memory, the conversation he had with Mr. Adams in his
office on January 22.
May the Chair begin by saying that he never attended any of the
hearings of the Fort Monmouth investigation because most of them
took place during the congressional recess when the Chair was out
in South Dakota, and following that on a speaking tour to the west
coast. Reading as much as he did about them in the pajDers, he made
a telephone call to Frank Carr one day, stating that he felt as long as
hearings were being held and he was being interrogated periodically
by the press about them, he would like to get a daily telegraphic
condensation or synopsis of each day's hearings. I received those
from that time on, every day, with a short synopsis of what took place
at the executive hearings and the hearings which were held on the
Fort Monmouth case. Other than that, I had only a newspaj)er
reader's amount of information about them.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1187
So, when Mr. Adams came to my office at noon, shortly after noon
I think it was, on tlie 22d of January, he did not have a very wide
background as to what had taken place. I did not think that Mr. Mor-
gan was witli him, and I am happy to have Mr. Adams confirm that.
There was no reason he should be. Mr. Adams is a South Dakotan. I
am a South Dakotan. We have known each other for a long time.
There would be no reason for him to bring anybody to my office when
he came to see me. It was his first visit to my office, insofar as I can
recall, about the Fort Monmouth investigation.
On that occasion, the Chair will say, he opened the conversation by
discussing substantially what Senator Dirksen has reported in his
discussion — the matter of the subpenas which had been issued for
certain members of the loyalty board. The Chair stated that in his
exjoerience as a member of investigating committees dating back to
the time when he served on the Dies committee with Martin Dies of
Texas as chairman, he had always done everjihing which he could to
try to maintain the strength and the position of Congress to have all
of the available information before committees; that he felt inclined
always to be on the side of a congressional committee endeavoring by
subpena or any other device to get all of the available information.
I have made that position very clear. I have made it in a great
many news statements. I have made it in a great many speeches.
1 have protested, for example, against the so-called Truman Executive
order which I felt tended to keep from congressional committees that
which, in my opinion, as a coordinate branch of Government, they
have the right to know — the facts.
I have stated that I was hap])y to find the relaxation in that order
vrhich was made by President Eisenhower. I was disappointed that
the relaxation was not more complete, because I believe that Congress
as the people's representatives are entitled to the facts, whether they
deal with graft, whether they deal with corruption,' whether they deal
with subversion, or homosexuality, on the part of officials in the execu-
tive branch of Government.
Mr. Adams pointed out to me — he is a lawyer and I am not — that
members of the loyalty board in his opinion had a sort of quasi-judicial
capacity. He felt perhaps they should get some other treatment than
ordinary members of the executive branch of the Government. The
Chair was in no position to pass upon that but simply said as far as
he was concerned he felt that if it were possible and productive to
bring those people before a congressional committee, he could see no
reason why they should be included out.
After discussing that for some length, Mr. Adams brought up before
me the discussion of Cohn and Schine and the fact that a great many
efforts had been made by Mr. Cohn to try to get preferential treatment
for Mr. Schine in the United States Army. Frankly, I felt a little bit
uneasy about the juxtaposition of those topics, which in my opinion
were entirely unrelated. We didn't discuss them at any great length,
but I do recall getting up from my desk and walking to the outside
door of the office with Mr. Adams and saying this: That if I were
running the United States Army, that would be no problem with me
at all after the second time a committee staff member called me up.
I would tell him fi'om that time on, "I am running the Army. You
run your committee." And I wouldn't talk Avith him on the subject
one single additional time.
1188 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
I pointed out further that, speakino; for myself as a member of the
committee, Dave Schine was just another John American, that I
wasn't one bit concerned what happened to Dave Schine. They could
put him — and I think I used this phrase — on KP duty for the rest
of his natural life as far as I was concerned if the Army felt that was
the proper function to assipn to him. I said I hoped that because he
was a member of the staff of tlie committee he would not be given any
discriminatory treatment against him, and I was sure he would not,
and certainly as a member of the committee staff he was not entitled
to any preferential treatment as far as I was concerned.
I said that I felt that that was true of the other members of the
committee, but I knew it was true as far as I was concerned.
I attended the meeting to which Senator Dirksen alluded in Senator
McCarthy's office. I said at that time, as Senator Dirksen said, that
certainly if a member of our staff was using improper means to try
to procure for a friend of his, preferential treatment in the United
States Army, I felt that was something our committee should not
countenance and I think he should be asked to resign as a member of
the staff. I said I didn't know whether it was true or not. I had
heard the allegation.
At that meeting for the first time I heard from Senator McCarthy
tlie fact that he had written a letter to the United States Army
stating that he had requested that Schine be given just the regular
treatment of any other prospective draftee. I suggested that Senator
McCarthy read us the letter. He picked up the phone to the outside
office and asked somebody in his office to find the letter. It took a
little time to find it. She finally came in. Senator McCarthy read
the letter which is now a part of the record.
I simply think that it is only right that the chairman should state
his part in both of those two conversations. He now submits himself
to the usual line of questioning, and, Mr. Counsel, you may question
the chairman.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, there is one question that I desire to
ask on that conference with Mr. Adams with respect to the subpenas
to be issued for members of the loyalty board. Did or not Mr. Adams
on that occasion or on any other occasion raise the question with you
that there was any directive or order prohibiting the issuance and
the service of a subpena on a member of a loyalty board?
Senator ]\Iundt. I am not sure that he did. JHe talked to me as a
friend and as a fellow South Dakotan and as a lawyer giving me as
his opinion — and perhaps he mentioned that there were directives,
I am not sure, but endeavoring to convince me at least that these
people held a quasi-judicial position and that they consequently should
not come under the same concept of the subpena power which I had and
wliicli 1 still have, and that is that the subpena power of the United
States Congress should be available to us to use almost always. There
may be exceptions. I don't know. I am not a lawyer. If there are
exceptions, it is very difficult for me to understand why there is any
justifiable exception whatsoever unless to exercise the subpena power
would be to jeopardize the national security.
As far as the Chair is concerned, he has never been able during the
16 years that he has been in the House of Representatives or in the
Senate to find any other valid reason for denying the people's repre-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1189
seiitatives in CoDgress all of the facts, regardless of whom they may
embarrass.
Mr. Jenkins. This further question, Mr. Chairman: Did you feel
at the time tliat Mr, Adams was enlisting or attempting to enlist your
aid and your influence as a United States Senator in bringing about the
desired result, to wit, that no subpena should be issued for members
of a loyalty board ^
Senator Mundt. That of course was the purpose of his visit. If I
recall correctly — and I may be wrong about this — I think he mentioned
that one reason he was concerned was that his innnediate supervisor,
Secretary Stevens, was out of the country, that this had fallen upon
him, it was a pretty serious responsibility, and he was naturally con-
cerned to see that the subpenas were either suspended or deferred
until some other time.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, if it isn't out of order, I would like
to ask one simple, short question of Senator Dirksen while I am on
my feet, if I may clo so.
Senator Mundt. Without objection, you may do so.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator Dirksen, I will ask you whether or not in
your conference with Mr. Adams and Mr. Morgan, Mr. Adams raised
the question that there was existing any Presidential directive pro-
hibiting the issuance of a subpena upon a member of the loyalty board.
Senator Dirksen. It could have been. I know that we discussed
the matter at very considerable length. That question could have
been raised for all I know. It does not definitely recur to me at the
moment.
Mr. Jenkins. No further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator ]\Iundt. Senator Jackson has called to the attention of the
Chair that he misspoke himself a moment ago, and I wish the record
to be correct. When I referred to Mr. Cohn as a member of the com-
mittee, I meant the committee staff. I wish you could correct that.
Senator McClellan, you may interrogate.
Senator McClellan. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen ?
Senator Dirksen. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?
Senator Sy^mington. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter?
Senator Potter. No questions.
Senator Jackson. No questions.
Senator ]\Iundt. Senator Dworshak ?
Senator Dworshak. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ?
Mr. Welch. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Mr. St. Clair ?
Mr. St. Clair. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams ?
Mr. Adams. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy?
Senator McCarthy. Just one or two questions. This is a very
unusual experience to cross-examine the Chair.
Senator Mukdt. For all of us it is unusual.
1190 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator ^IcCartiiy. When Mr. Adams came to you on the 22d of
eTaniiary, did he convey to you the fact that I had told him, or rather
that I stated to him as follows in regard to the subpenas :
The Chaiu. At this point I would like to make clear that we are calling the
members of the loyalty board not only to discuss why they have cleared people
who are obviously Communists but we are also interested in matters of graft,
alleged graft, corruption, and misconduct on the part of individual members of
the board having nothing to do with their official duties. It is the same with
General Iteichelderfer. It does not merely concern loyalty boards procedures,
but i; has to do with many other things over which this committee not only has
the jurisdiction but the duty to investigate.
My question is : Did Mr. Adams convey to you substantially this
information, namely, tliat we wanted these individuals not merely as
members of the loyalty board but in connection with alleged graft and
corruption ?
Senator Mundt. I do not recall that he did. I do not recall the
details as to why they were subpenaed, because very franklv that part
of his explanation did not take very long. Because I said, "Well, John,
I want to tell you my position right now. I believe in the subpena
l)Ower of Congress, and exercising it just about every chance we get."
Senator McCarthy. Just one or two other brief questions. We met
in my office on the 22d or 23d, I believe it was.
Senator IVIundt. I recall the meeting.
Senator McCarthy. And at that time, we discussed the matter of
issuance of subpenas, and the charges against INIr. Cohn. Do you
recall that I gave the committee a resume of the situation; that at that
time I told you that I would agree that if Mr. Cohn had been guilty
of what Mr. Adams charged him with, he certainly had lost his use-
fulness to the committee, but that I had been living with this matter
for months, I was completely convinced that Mr. Cohn's conduct was
completely proper, and at that time I told the committee about the
constant needling by Mr. Adams of JNIr. Cohn, the constant attempt to
force me to call off the hearings ; that I told the three members at that
time that as far as I was concerned, if we could be blackmailed out of
an investigation of Communists in the Army by a threat to attack our
staff, that then we coidd be blackmailed out of any investigation. And
that as far as I was concerned, I personally would not succumb to it ;
and as I recall, the Senators pretty much agreed that under no cir-
cumstances should we be blackmailed out of any hearings.
Is that roughly the conversation that you recall ?
Senator Mundt. I recall that after you read your letter you gave a
quick rundown of substantially what you have said from that end of
the table riixht now.
Senator McCarthy. No further questions.
Senator Muxdt. Does anybody else have any further questions? If
not. the Chair will unswear Senator Dirksen, and ask Senator Mc-
Clellan to unswear the Chair.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, you are now unsworn.
Senator Mundt. Thank you.
We will proceed now.
Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman.
Senator IVIundt. Senator Potter ?
Senator Potter. As long as this is testimonial day, again, would
the Chair swear me ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1191
Senator Muxdt. Senator Potter, do you solemnly swear that the
testimony you are about to ^jve will be the truth, the whole truth,
and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Senator Potter. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HON. CHARLES E. POTTER, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question?
Senator Mundt. Yes, you may.
Senator Symington. It is now 25 minutes after 12, and I understand
we are reconvening at 2 o'clock.
Senator Mundt. That is correct.
Senator Symington. Would the Chair be gracious enough to let us
have a little lunch now and let Senator Potter resume after the
recess ?
Senator Potter. ]\Iay I during the lunch period be unsworn ?
Senator Mundt. Yes.
We will stand in recess until 2 o'clock, when Senator Potter will be
the first witness.
( Whereupon, at 12 : 27 p. m., the committee was recessed, to recon-
vene at 2 p. m. the same day.)
INDEX
Page
Ulams, Jobn G 1177-1190
Testimony of 11.jU-1176
\dams. Gov. Sherman 1172
Ur Force (United States) 1156, 1160, 1169
\lsoi), Mr 1181
American Ambassador to tlie United Nations 1171, 1172
\mlierst, Mass 1151, 1153, llGl
\.nderson, Robert B 1170
Army (United States) 1150-1160,
1164-1169, 1171, 1172, 1175, 117S, llSl, 1187, 118S, 1190
Army Intelligence (G-2, Security Division) 1158
Army officers 1175
Army personnel 1159
Attorney General (United States) 1173
Baltimore, Md 1161
Blount, Lieutenant 1163
Brownell, Attorney General 1173
Camp Dix 1152,
1154, 1160, 1162, 1163, 1165, 1166
Camp Gordon 1154
Camp Kilmer 1167
Carr, Francis P 1150-1155,
115S, 1160-1162, 1167, 1176, 1178, 1181, 1182, 1186
Chicago, 111 1160
Christmas ll.'!3
Cicero, 111 1178
Cohn, Roy M 1150, 1151-1155,
1158, 1161-1165, 1167, 1168, 1178-1181, 1183, 1184, 1187, 1189, 1190
Communist infiltration 1158
Communists 1158, 1190
Communists in the Army 1190
Congress of the United States 1156, 1166, 1187, 1188, 1190
Constitution of the United States 1182
Counselor to the Army 1150-1176
Defense Department 1154, 1169-1171, 1178
Democratic members (McCarthy committee) 1165
Department of the Army 1150-1160, 1164-1169,
1171, 1172, 1175, 1178, 1184, 1187, 1188, 1190
Department of Defense 1154
Deputy Attorney Cieneral 1168, 1175, 1176
Deputy Secretary of Defense 1170
Dies, Martin 1187
Dies committee 1187
Dirksen. Everett McKinley 1187, 1188
Testimony of 1176-1185
Eisenhower, President 1167, 1187
Eisenhower's Executive order (April 1953) 1167
Executive order (April 1953) 1167
Fort Dix 1152, 1154, 1160
Fort Monmouth 1153, 1158, 1165-1167, 1186, 1187
G-2 (Army Intelligence, Security Division) 1158
Hensel, H. Struve 1168, 1169
Hodges, Lieutenant Colonel 1175
House of Representatives 1177, 1183, 1188
Inspector General 116G, 1167
Inspector General's report 1167
II INDEX
Page
Korea 11 -"'-j
Kr (kitcheu police) ll-'u, 1158, 1103-1104, 11S8
Lnwtoii, General lir/J
Lodge, Ambassador Cabot 1109-1172
Loyalty Board 1168, 1175, 1177, 1179, 1182, 1188, 1190
Marine Corps (United States) llSr;
RlcCartby, Senator Joe 1159,
1152-1154, 1158, 1100, 1105. 1107, 1108, 1171, 1175, 1178-1181, 1184,
1185, 1188-1190.
McCarthy siibcorainittee 1150, 1105
McCIellaii, Senator 1174, llsO
Morgan, Gerald 1173. 117G, 1177, 1179, 1181, 1187, 1189
Miindt, Senator Karl E 1105, 1180
Testimony of 1186-1191
Navv (United States) 1150,1109
New York City 1151, 1152, 1155. 1158, 1160, 1161
New Years 1103
Newark, N. J 1151, 1155, 1101
OfGce of Secretary of Defense 1109
Pearson. Drew 1184
Peress, Major 1107
Potter, Senator 1178, 1180
President of the United States 1107, 11S7
Presidential directive 1189
President's Executive order (April 1953) 11.17
Prewitt, Thomas 1150
Reiclielderfer, General 1175, 1177, 1190
Keichley, Dr 1175
Rogers. Deputy Attorney General 1175
livan. General 1102-1104
Schine, G. David 1150-1150,
1158, 1100-1105, 1108, 1109. 1172. 1174, 1177-1179. 1183. 1184, 1187.
1188.
Seawell, Malcolm 1176
Secretary of the Army 1150,
1151. 1153, 1154, 1150, 1158-1100, 1164-1166, 1189
Secretary of Defense 1109
Security Division (G-2, Army) 1158
Selective Service System 1158
Senate of the United States 1150, 1183
Sioux- Falls. S. Dak 1151, 1153, 1101
Sokolsky, Mr 1155
South Dakotan 1187, 1188
Stevens, Robert T 1150,
1151, 1153, 1154, 1156, 1158-1100, 1164-1166, 1189
Symington, Senator 1186
Taft, Gordon I) 1170
Truman, President 1187
Truman Executive order 1187
United Nations 1109. 1172
United N.-.tions (American Ambassador) 1171, 1172
T'nited States Air Force 1150
United States Army ll.lO-lir.o,
1104-1109, 1171, 1172, 1175, 1178, 118 1, 1187, 1188, 1190,
United States Attorney General 1173'
United States Congress 1156
United States Constitution 11S2
United States Department of D 'fense 1154
United States Deputy Attorney General 1108
United States House of Representatives 1177
United States Marine Corps 1156
United States Navy 115G'
United States President 1107
United States Secretary of Defense 1109
Ignited States Senate 1150
Washington, D. C 115S, 11.59, 1181, 1183
West Point 1155, 1156
White House 1171
O
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05442 1746
TVNews
OpenLibrary