Skip to main content

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

See other formats





Given By 




JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 








S. Res. 189 

PART 33 

MAY 14, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 

40620° WASHIXGTUX : 1954 


FPtlDAY, MAY 14, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

W ashington^ D. C. 

AFTER recess 

(The heariiio- wa.- resumed at 2 : 10 p. m., pursuant to recess.) 

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

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

Principal participants 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, executive direc- 
tor of the subcommittee; John G. Adams, counselor to the Army; 
Joseph N. Welch, special counsel for the Army ; James D. St. Clair, 
special counsel for the Army ; Charles A. Haskins, assistant counselor, 
Department of the Army. 

Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order. 

To our guests here this afternoon who were not here this morning, 
the Chair would like to remind you that you are here as the welcome 
guests of this committee, and you entered the room with the under- 
standing that you will comply with the committee rule, which is 
that all members of the audience shall refrain from any manifestation 
of approval or disa])i)roval in any audible manner at any time. The 
officers in charge of the committee room have standing orders to po- 
litely escort from the room immediately anyone who violates the terms 
by which you became a guest of the committee. I am sure that the 
audience, with that admonition, will continue to comply with the com- 
mittee regulations as you have done magnificently now throughout 
these long proceedings. 

The Chair announced at the conclusion of the morning session that 
Senator Potter, at his own request, was to be the next witness. He 



has been sworn, and the Chair will listen to him. The Chair would 
like to suggest that if we are not interrupted before 3 : 30 by a 
quorum call or roll call, if some member of the committee or counsel 
will remind me at that time, we will stand up for a seventh-inning 
stretch and take a 5-minute recess. 

Senator Dirksen ? 

(Discussion out of the hearing of the reporter.) 

Senator Mdnot. Senator Potter, you have been sworn, and you may 
proceed with your direct testimony, and then subject yourself to 


Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, at the morning session Senator 
Dirksen and Senator Mundt related to the committee their conversa- 
tions with Mr. Adams concerning the question of M'hether members of 
the Army's loyalty board should be subpenaed. I asked the chairman 
to be put under oath to relate to the committee my knowledge of that 

I was not contacted by Mr. Adams. Rather, I was contacted by Mr. 
Louis Berry, Deputy Counsel for the Army. Mr. Berry happens to 
be a close personal friend of mine, an outstanding attorney, and a man 
who, I believe, assumed his duties as Deputy Counsel in January of 
this year. 

Mr. Berry contacted me, I believe, the evening of January 22. At 
least it was the same day, I believe, that Mr. Adams contacted Senator 

I cannot recall whether it was in my home or his home, but I do 
recall it was a social evening rather than a formal appointment that 
Mr. Berry had with me. 

He informed me that he had been instructed by the counsel, Mr. 
Adams, to contact me relating to the possibility of having the com- 
mittee postpone the subpenaing of the members of the Army loyalty 
board. I well recall telling Mr. Berry that, from my experience on 
various investigating committees of the Congress, I felt that the 
challenge — that the authority of the Congress to issue subpenas and 
to call witnesses is quite absolute, that I believed that the Army would 
have to produce the bodies. 

In other words, the people under subpena would have to be presented 
to the committee. But if questions were asked that were in violation 
of an Executive order, then I felt that witnesses had a right to refuse 
to answer. 

I related that information to Mr. Berry. 

The following day, I believe, we had our meeting in Senator 
McCarthy's office, the meeting with Senator Dirksen, Senator Mundt, 
and myself, and Senator McCarthy, where this whole question was 

I might relate that, prior to the meeting in Senator McCarthy's 
office, Mr. Berry also discussed with me that there had been a consider- 
able effort, or so he had been informed, on the part of Mr. Cohn to 
secure preferential treatment for Mr. Schine. I am confident from 
the information that Mr. Berry gave that he wasn't too familiar with 


the facts, and he related those facts to me as general knowledge rather 
than effort to pressure me in any way. 

I would also like to state that Mr. Berry, while a close and good 
personal friend of mine, has never used our friendship in any way to 
intercede on behalf of the Army or anyone else. The following daj^ 
at the meeting in Senator McC^arthy's office, I recall we discussed the 
question of the charges that were brought up in my conversations 
with Mr. Berry and the conversations the other Senators had with 
Mr, Adams, concerning Mi-. Cohn and Mr. Schine. I remember at 
that meeting, I am sure tliat the other Senators present will agree — 
will attest to this^ that I stated if the charges were true, Mr. Cohn 
should no longer serve the committee. 

I also stated that if the charges were not true, a grave injustice had 
been done and those responsible for the charges should also be removed 
from their Government service. That, in essence, relates that incident. 

Mr. Chairman, I would also like to testify on another aspect of 
this controversy, a document which has been referred to several times 
during the course of the hearing, known as a "Potter letter." I hope 
sometime that that will be placed in its proper perspective. I think 
it well to state, as 1 have stated many times in the past, that this letter 
was written to the Secretary of Defense when it ci\\r>(^ to my attention 
many, many times from various sources, that the Army had docu- 
mentary statements concerning the efforts on the behalf of members 
of our staff to secure preferential treatment for ]\Ir. Schine. I had 
understood that this document was due to be submitted to other Mem- 
bers of the Congress. The other Members of the Congress that 1 had 
knowledge of that were to receive tliis report happened to be IVIembers 
on the other side of the aisle, or Members of the minority. I felt as 
a Member of the majority, a member of this committee, who had to 
assume responsibility for its conduct, that it would be not only desir- 
able but necessary that the Kepublican members of the committee, 
have the report at least as soon as the Democrat members. That was 
the reason for my letter to the Secretary of Defense. 

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have given all the pertinent facts that 
I have personal knowledge of concerning my own participation in 
this controversy. However, there may be some questions that other 
members of the committee or counsel will wish to ask me and I will be 
happy to receive their questions. 

Senator Muxdt. ISIr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. Counsel has no questions to ask Senator Potter. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has none. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen? 

Senator Dirksen. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak ? 

Senator Dworshak. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch? 

Mr. AVfxcii. No questions. 

Senator Mundt, Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. One question. I think in fairness to Senator 
Potter there should be made clear now the testimony over the past 2 
weeks which has sometimes indicated that the report was written 


because of the letter from Senator Potter. It is now clear — see if I 
am correct in this, Senator — tliat your letter did not set off the 
writing of this report. You only asked for the report after you knew 
from a sizable number of sources that certain newsmen had it, that 
certain Members of the Senate and House may have had it, and the 
only reason you asked for the report was not to have the report written, 
but to get a report which was already being distributed. Is that 
right ? 

Senator Potter. I asked for the report so that the majority of our 
committee could see it before other Members of the Congress and pos- 
sibly members of the press. 

Senator McCarthy. I ask this question just so the situation can 
be cleared up insofar as you are concerned. When you asked for the 
report, you had reason to believe that certain newsmen had already 
been given the report, and you were merely asking for what was 
already in existence ? 

Senator Potter. As the Senators know, it was more or less common 
knowledge for about a month before I wrote my letter that such a 
report existed, and when we found that the report was going to be 
made public, that it Avas going out to Members of Congress, I felt 
that we had the duty to secure it. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say. Senator Potter, one of the reasons 
I have asked this is because my office has been kept busy answering 
letfers about why Potter set this report writing off, and I have been 
keeping half my staff busy explaining that you did not do it, and I 
hope that this may settle it so it will at least relieve my staff of part 
of their work. 

Senator Potter. I felt that these were serious charges that were 
made, and if we could get the report and find out what the real charges 
Wire, then the committee could act to see whether the charges were 
so or not, and we would have done away with all of this hassle that 
we are now confronted with in this hearing. 

Senator McCarthy. Just one further question, Senator, the last 
on3: You were present at the meeting in my office, I believe, on the 
22d or 23d, I don't recall which date. 

Senator Potter. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. I think we all agreed that if the charges were 
true, then of course my staff was guilty of misconduct. 

Senator Potter. I understand the Senator said that. 

Senator McCarthy. I think we all agreed to that. At that time, 
let me ask, did I give the Senators a rundown, a resume, of the tre- 
mendous pressure that had b-een exerted upon me to try to get me to 
call off the hearings, the threats that Mr. Adams and Mr. Stevens 
W'ould issue reports, charges against Mr. Cohn — at that time they 
hadn't mentioned Mr. Carr yet — ^that is an afterthought, apparently — 
at that time, as I recall, see if this is correct, I told the Senators as 
far as I was concerned we couldn't be threatened and blackmailed out 
of this investigation because if we were, then we could be blackmailed 
out of any investigation, and I think the Senators all agreed with 
me pretty much on that statement. 

Senator Potter. I well recall that the Senator stated that, and I 
think it was the first time I heard the term "hostage" used. I believe 
you stated at that time that you felt that the Army was using Private 
Schine as a hostage in order to call off the investigation. 


Senator McCarthy. May I say this, to keep the record clear, Senator 
Potter. I think they were usin<r Private Schine — I think I made it 
cler.r at that time — to needle and heckle Koy Cohn. The word "hos- 
ta^'C'' was not my word. That is Mr. Adams' word. I think I pointed 
out that the pressuie on me had nothinj^ to do with Dave Schine. The 
]»r3ssiire on me was if I did not take steps to call cff the hearings, they 
would issue a report charging Mr. Cohn with improper conduct, a 
report which would embarrass the committee. In other words, I 
think it should be made clear at this time that the pressure on Mr. 
Cohn was the constant needling of him about his friend, Schine, whom 
he got to come with the committee and work for about a year for noth- 
ing, and the ])ressure on me — I used the word "blackmail" advisedly — 
\ as in connection with the threat that they would issue the report 
if we continued with the hearing. 

Senator Muxdt. Has the Senator concluded his questioning? 

Senator McC^arthy. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter, you are unsworn. 

I think the Chair had agreed to recognize Senator Symington to 
discuss his point of order at the conclusion of Senator Potter's testi- 
moy, so he recognizes Senator Symington for that purpose now. 



Senator Symington. I thank the Chair. 

Mr. Adams, have you the written directive that you said you would 
get for us with respect to why you cannot 

Mr. Adams. No, sir; I have not. I did not succeed in getting it dur- 
ing the noon hour. 

Senator Symington. When do you think you will have it? 

Mr. Adams. I wasn't ])resent during the discussions in the noon 
hour on the subject. I think Mr. Welch can tell you more about it 
than I can, sir. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, is it proper for Mr. Welch to 
tell us about it? 

Senator Mundt. I presume so. If nobody objects it is proper. 

]\Ir. AVelcii. My opening and principal comment is that the noon 
hour just isn't long enough to deal with this kind of a thing, particu- 
larly on the short basis that exists. I cannot say more or less than this, 
and that is that the situation that existed this morning still continues. 
That is as of 2 : 30 this afternoon, Senator. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Welch, I would like to ask you by what 
law or Executive decree do you believe that you are justified in not 
giving this information to the committee? 

Mr. Welch. I am only relaying instructions as to what the witness 
may testify to, and I would like to make it clear to you, Senator, what 
Ave have under discussion. We have under discussion what you might 
call intramural conferences of the executive department on the highest 
level, and as of this moment this witness is instructed that he should 
not develop those conferences beyond the point to which he has already 
developed them in this room. 

Senator Symington. With all deference to you sir, these names 
were brought in voluntarily by the witness. As I remember it, some- 

46020°— 54— i>t. 33 2 


body asked him if he was second in command, and he said, I believe, 
that he was 32d. I don't know at what point it jjets to be high level or 
middle level or low level. I would like to ask you, at the meeting that 
you had today was there any discussion of an Executive oraer or 
decree that would justify the position that you have allowed your 
counsel to take — your client to take. Excuse me. 

Mr. Welch. There was not any serious discussion, but the answer 
to your question as to an Executive order, the answer is in the negative. 

Senator Symington. Now, carrying your thinking to its logical 
conclusion, does it mean that the chairman of this committee could 
refuse to discuss parts of conversations that he had had with members 
of his staff wdiich were unfavorable and just give this committee parts 
of conversations which might be good for his cause ? 

Mr. Welch. Could I have that read, please? 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read it again. 

Senator Symington. I will read it again and shorten it. Carrying 
it to its logical conclusion, your thinking, does it mean that a chair- 
man of a committee could refuse to discuss parts of conversations that 
he had had with members of his staff which were unfavorable to him, 
the chairman, and just give excerpts which might be good for his 

Mr. Welch. Well, if I have to answer that, that would seem to be 
be very unfair, sir. Senator, could I say this to you : I am at the 
moment a bearer of messages, I am not a formulator of policies or 
executive rulings or orders or directives. As of this moment, a dis- 
cussion between you and me, I think, will not be productive. I have 
said once before in this room that I am used to being a trial lawyer 
and developing facts there in a courtroom, but this area, if you don't 
mind my saying it. Senator, seems to me a little beyond my depth. 

Senator Symington. If it is beyond your depth, figure how far it 
is beyond my depth. But I must say regardless of whether we have 
had trial law experience or not, I think what we are all interested in 
here is to get the truth with respect to these conversations. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, unless there is some Presidential directive or 
law that allows the witness to refuse to give the chairman and the 
committee the details of a conversation among people which he volun- 
tarily put into the record, I would respectfully request the chairman 
to instruct him to give those details. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, could I say one more word to the 
Senator ? 

In respect to what you said a moment ago by my relation to you, 
it is not possible, sir, that you could be as much of an amateur as I 
am. I am the world's leading amateur, I should say, in this field. 
As to the second point of ordering the witness to answer, we are to- 
ward the end, of an adjournment, with a weekend coming up, and I 
should say that with more time before us, the position with respect 
to this witness should be susceptible of clarification at the hands of 
people wiser than Welch is. So, Senator, if you would not mind 
passing the thing for the moment, we have a weekend coming up, and 
on Monday morning it would seem entirely proper for you to press 
that. I would appreciate the courtesy if you didn't press it now, but 
I have only the right to say "please." 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I am beginning to fall for 
Welch, too. 


Senator Mundt. Very well. We will pass that until Monday morn- 
ing, then, on agreement between I\Ir. Welch and Senator Symington. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Muxdt. Senator McClellan. 

Senator McClellan. Before you pass it, I want to make a brief 
observation. I shall not be able to remain throughout the afternoon, 
during all of the session. The matter obviously will have to go over 
until Monday. I am not very much impressed — this is not directed 
at Mr, \\'elch, he is not responsible for instructions that may have 
been given from some other source. I can appreciate the delicacies 
of this position at this time. But, Mr. Chairman, I want my position 
known. Unless there is some reason that I cannot now conceive that 
will be advanced why others should be excused from testifying in this 
hearing, or if any matter relevant to developing the whole facts and 
truth is being withheld by someone else, or this witness is being in- 
structed to withhold that information from this committee, I shall 
insist, Mr. Chairman, that those witnesses be subpenaed and brought 
here to tell what they know about it. 

I say that because, as I have repeated often, to me these charges 
are serious, and if there was someone higher than Mr. Adams and 
Mr. Stevens that was directing their actions, and if their actions are 
found to be wrong, this committee has a right to know, even from the 
high level, what transpired to cause, if the allegations are true, staff 
members of this committee and the chairman to be smeared. If that 
is true, we have a right to know who inspired it and who advised 
and counseled that it be dene. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, if 
the charges are true, that this Army was being pressured, and threat- 
ened, and intimidated and coerced into taking the action or the at- 
tempted action, to secure the attempted action, of a favorable assign- 
ment for the party involved, and was being threatened with hearings 
to put the Army in a bad light, drive the Secretary out of office, to 
wreck the Army, in the nature of a war against the Army, then we 
are entitled to know that. Insofar as I am concerned, unless some- 
thing can be shown me, some laAv — and I do not know that an execu- 
tive order will suffice in my case — I will not ask the President of the 
United States to come, no — but as to others who participated in it, 
Mr. Chairman, I think they are appropriate witnesses if their testi- 
mony is relevant to any issue that is now before this committee. 

Senator Symikgtox. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Muxdt. Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, is it my understanding from 
Mr. Welch or Mr. Adams that we will not pursue this subject this 
afternoon, which, incidentally is perhaps the most important confer- 
ence of all because it is where much, if not most of all this business 
started. It is my understanding that we will not pursue this matter 
this afternoon with the definite understanding that the position of 
Avhoever gave the orders to Mr. Adams will be furnished in writing 
to the committee on ISIonday morning ? 

INIr. Welch. I think it is fair to say that. There just wasn't time 
at lunch to do the thijig. 

Senator Symington. I just wanted to make the record straight on 
that. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. May the Chair suggest now that we 
proceed. We are proceeding a little bit out of order. The Chair 


is trying: to solicit some of his ccileagiies' support, to rule out of order 
all of these statements wliich tend to slow down the hearings and 
consume time. But the Chair recognizes that in the United States 
Senate a chairman is the presiding officer and does not have the au- 
thority of a judge. Have you something to say on the point of order ? 

Mr. Welch. I think so. I don't want Senator SyraingLon to over- 
estimate my authority or power. It seems to be normal to expect a 
written communication, if someone were to say, "No, an oral one 
will be it," I can't control it. But my own view is that of an in- 
dividual trial lawyer, that it is not unreasonable to hope for. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, with all great deference to Mr. 
Welch and to the chairman, we have not prolonged this hearing in 
the discussion. If they passed over the order which they said they 
w^ould get this afternoon, then we wouldn't have had any discussion. 

Senator Mundt. Proceed in order. 

Mr. Welch, I think the clock had gotten around to you to interro- 
gate Mr. Adams, if you havi questions to ask at this time, or Mr. St. 

Mr. Welch. I think nothing at this time. 

Senator Mundt. Senator JMcCarthy or Mr. Cohn. You have 10 

Senator McCarthy. Just a few questions. 

Mr. Adams, I have been listening to your testimony, and I have an 
express interest in the threats that Mr. Cohn made to you. Do I 
understand the threats consisted of threats to try and continue the 
investigation of Communists ? 

Mr. Adams. No ; I don't think he ever made a threat that he would 
try and continue the investigation of Communists, Senator McCar- 
thy. I don't think he ever said that. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, were any of the threats fulfilled? 

Mr. Adams. Well, as I have testified, it seemed to me that the cul- 
mination of the threats was 

Senator McCarthy. Would you speak a little louder, sir ? 

Mr. Adams. I said it seemed to me that the culmination of the 
threats was the Loyalty Board ultimatum 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams, if you would draw the black micro- 
phone closer, we wouldn't have difficulty hearing you. 

Mr. Adams. It seemed to me. Senator McCarthy, that the culmi- 
nation of the threats was the Loyalty Board ultimatum. 

Senator McCarthys Mr. Adams, before the investigation of Com- 
munist infiltration in the Army, as you know, we conducted an in- 
vestigation of Communist infiltration in the Government Printing Of- 
fice. During that investigation I stated any number of times, as I 
did during the investigation — I wonder if the photographer would 
move to_ one side just a little bit — during the investigation of Com- 
munist infiltration in the Government Printing Office, I stated any 
number of times, as I did when you were there during, the investiga- 
tion of Communist infiltration in the Army, that while it was impor- 
tant to find the individual Communists, in other words, to take them 
up by the scruff of their neck and get them out of secret positions, it 
was infinitely more important to find out who allowed them to continue 
on in secret work. 


Xow let me apk you this: Were you not present any number of 
times when I made the statement that we would ultimately have to 
call the Loyalty Board, that is, the old Loyalty Screening Board, and 
find out who was responsible for ordering returned to secret radar 
work men with long Communist records ? 

JNIr. xVdams. Yes, I heard you make those statements. 

Senator JNIcCarthy. That was long before any argument that you 
inid Mr. Cohn had, wasn't it ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, and usually I had conversations with Mr. Cohn 
or INIr. Carr subsequent to those remarks of yours, and usually they 
vrould indicate to me that they were sure the matter would not become 
an issue. 

Senator jSIcCartiiy. "When you say the culmination of Mr. Cohn's 
threat was the demand to call the loyalty board 

JSIr. Adams. It seems so. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish. These are all matters of record. 
It now seems that I made the statement long before any arguments 
between you and Mr. Cohn that I said we would have to call the 
Loyalty Board. 

Mr. Adams. You made such statement; yes. 

Senator McCarthy. That statement was not the result of an argu- 
ment between you and Koy Cohn ? 

Mr. Ada3is. You mean that ultimatum on the loyalty boards? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Mr. Adams. In January? Or your original statement? 

Senator McCarthy. The sequence of statements. 

Mr. Adams. Your sequence of statements were not related, no, sir, 
to any difficulties I had with Mr. Cohn. 

Senator McCarthy. The sequence of statements were to the effect 
that sooner or later we would have to have the Loyalty Board before 

Mr. Adams. Those remarks were made ; yes. 

Senator McCarthy. Right. Do you feel there is anything im- 
proper with suspending the 35 security risks ? 

Mr. xVdams. No; I do not. 

Senator McCarthy. IMost of the 35 were suspended because of Com- 
munist connections and Communist backgrounds? 

Mr. Adams. That is substantially correct. I think 21 of them ulti- 
mately remained in suspension. Others were put back, and the reasons 
for their suspensions had to do with associations 

Senator McCarthy. AVith Communist organizations and Commu- 
nist fronts. 

Is it also correct that many of them had been working in the 
secret radar laboratories for a very sizable period of time? 

JMr. Adams. I can't recite to you the lengths of time that they 
worked there, but most of them worked in the laboratories at Fort 

Senator McCarthy. And some of them for 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, or 12 years ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. If it was proper to suspend them after our 
hearings started, if they should have been suspended, then can we 
safely say that somebody was derelict in his duty in not having 
suspended them before the hearings started ? 


Mr. Adams. I don't think so, Senator. I testified as to one of the 
reasons. The principal reason that these things were brought up 
again was the fact that the President's Executive order which had 
been published in the last week in April required a reexamination of 
all cases of this sort, and those reexaminations all over the country 
were going on. I have stated, I have admitted in testimony before 
this committee, that I felt that one of the results of the investigation 
which you conducted was the fact that the Army moved more quickly 
directed toward suspensions at that particular installation than would 
otherwise have been the case. 

Senator McCarthy. Do I understand, then, that the President's 
new order made it possible to get rid of peoj^le who should have 
been gotten rid of years before '^ 

Mr. Adams. The President's new order did one thing, and that was 
it required one principal thing which was a substantial ditlerence 
from the previous order, and that was that it required that in cases 
where there was doubt the case was then to be resolved in favor of 
the Government instead of in favor of the individual and that this 
required a reexamination of the cases of a great number of people 
whose cases might have been favorably resolved under the old 

This reexamination of many, many cases resulted in the suspension 
of new individuals who had not under the old orders been suspended 
or who, having been suspended, were reinstated. 

Senator McCarthy. For the time being let's forget about any par- 
ticular order. We are talking now about 35 people — I believe it is cut 
down to 21 now ; is that right ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Twenty-one individuals who have been sus- 
pended because of Communist connections. Forgetting about any 
order, if the suspensions are now justified — in other words, if they 
should not be working at the secret radar laboratories as of this 13th 
day of May 1954, then they certainly should not have been working 
there a year ago or 2 years ago or 3 years ago or 5 years ago ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Adams. I think that the President's Executive order was a 
proper one, and I think that the new procedures are proper. I think 
it required the suspension of some people who had not previously been 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, you feel that people who are 
dangerous to the security of this Nation have been gotten rid of 
because of the President's new order ? 

Mr. Adams. I think that is quite true, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Then you 

Mr. Adams. Whether or not they are dangerous, people who are 
suspect and who might previously have had doubts resolved in their 
favor, are now having doubt resolved in favor of the Government. 
That is the principal effect of the new order, and it is a good effect.. 

Senator McCarthy. Could we narrow it down now to a very simple 
proposition: The only reason we are getting rid of what you call 
security risks, or subversives, is because there is reason to believe that 
he might give our military secrets to someone who in turn give them 
to a potential enemy. 

Mr. Adams. That is the end objective. You are correct, sir. 


Senator IMcCartiiy. Eiolit. So as of the clay we started the hear- 
ings there were at least 21 people who were in that category ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Adams. There were 21, and I think 7 of those 21 already had 
been suspended. There were another 1-1 who were suspended. 

Senator McCartht. Let's keep the dates straight, Mr. Adams. 
Actually there were no susj^iensions until we started the investigation, 
were there ? I am not speaking about the hearings. 

Mr. Adams. Senator, I have no knowledge of the date of your inves- 
tigation preceding October 1. It may have preceded that date, but 
not to my knowledge. There were 6 or 7 suspensions in September, 
1 in August and G in September. 

Senator McCarthy. For your benefit I can tell vou that the inves- 
tiaation started long before that. I am sure that vou having conie in 
late would not be in a position to know it. 

Mr. Adams. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's go on to a different cjuestion. Can you 
tell us what witness was called who should not have been called? In 
other words, if Mv. Cohn, my chief counsel, did something that was 
improper, if he subpenaed witnesses who should not have been sub- 
penaecl, I would like to know the name of one. We called, I believe, 
some 500 — I can't recall the exact figure, over 500 witnesses in 1953. 
Out of that 500 if there is one that was called by Mr. Cohn out of a 
spirit of vengeance, or as a result of a threat, I would like to know 
about that one witness out of over 500. 

Mr. Adams. Well, I can't testify that anybody who was called 
should not have been called, sir. When you are having an investiga- 
tion of the sort that your committee ordinarily undertakes, in order 
to develop the pattern you have to call lots of witnesses, many of 
whom may give you no information at all. 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Senator Muxdt. The Senator's time has expired. 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator IMcndt. 'Mr. Adams, at the end of my 10-minute period 
I was interrogating you about specific charges that the Army, or you, 
or Mr. Stevens, speaking for the Army, would like to have our com- 
mittee consider as being directed specifically against Frank Carr. If 
I am correct, we were working up toward the date of January 20, 
which you said was the breaking point in the attitude of Mr. Carr. 
You were testifying as to dates and incidents prior to January 20. 
If I am correct, you said that as far as riding in the passenger auto- 
mobile was concerned, you felt that he had done nothing which would 
justify your leveling a charge against him on that occasion. I^ that 
correct ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I think you said the same thing was true concern- 
ing the luncheon of November 6 ; is that correct? 

Mr. Adams. That is not quite correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Will you straighten me out ? 

Mr. Ada^is. I considered that Mr. Carr was participant in the 
luncheon of November 6 just as he was in the luncheon of December 10 
and that it was a form of acquiescence. I did state to you, just as 
I stated to Senator McClellan in response to an inquiry when I was 


in his office in January, that as of the date of January 20 or there- 
abouts I had not felt that any actions by Mr. Carr had so far been m 
the category that I could call improper. They weren't burdensome 

to me. •j.-i c> . 

Senator Mundt. What was the day of your conference with Senator 


Mr, Adams. About January 19 or 20. 

Senator Mundt. Is it correct that the present chairman, the acting 
chairman, was not present at that conference, so I have no way of 
knowing about these private conversations you had with Senator 
McClellan ? 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. So I will have to try to find out from you con- 
cerning the situation that confronts us. 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Senator Mundt. So, if I am correct, then, your private conference 
with Senator McClellan was on January 20? 

Mr. Adams. 19 or 20. 

Senator Mundt. 19? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir; one of those days. 

Senator Mundt. 19 or 20. That was 2 days before your conference 
with me and 2 days before your conference with Senator Dirksen, 
is that right ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did I misunderstand you? If I did not, we can 
jump from that date as far as Mr. Carr is concerned, and come closer to 
the present. Did you sav that you had told Senator McClellan in that 
conference that up to tliat time Frank Carr had done nothing which 
you felt would justify the Army in making a complaint against him? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir. He specifically asked me whether I thought 
McClellan's action 

Senator Mundt. Not McClellan's. 

Mr. Adams. I am sorry. That Carr's actions had not been proper. 
They had not then been burdensome to me, although I had received 
many forms of persuasion from him. I stated to him — I didn't state 
to him, but I stated earlier to you during the day, that I felt up to that 
time that Mr. Carr was more or less an agent of another principal. 
And I had a feeling then that although he had spoken to me on some 
occasions, had made long distance call to me in South Dakota, a long 
distance call to me in Massachusetts, we had ridden back on the train 
and talked at some length, he had been a coparticipant at the luncheon 
on December 10, that those things in themselves at that time did not 
seem to me to be particularly burdensome. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams, perhaps we can shorten this up. You 
told all of that to us this morning. Let me say this: As far as the 
Chair is concerned, he has sort of an old-fashioned feeling about 
elemental justice, which may or may not be correct in your opinion or 
in the opinion of others, but that old-fashioned elemental opinion of 
justice is that any American who is charged with doing something 
wrong, has a right to have that charge made against him specifically. 
The Chair has been a member of the investigating committees of 
Congress now for well over 15 years. I know that investigating com- 
mittees are frequently accused of making charges which are not sup- 
ported, of attacking innocent people. But I must say that I have never 


been a member or have known of any investigating committee that ever 
to my knowledge has even accnsed any Americans, simply, and said, 
"You are a crook," and refused to tell him what crooked thing he did. 
I do not think the Army should take the position of saying Mr. Carr is 
a crook or was doing improper things certainly without giving us some- 
thing specifically that he did. I propose to continue through these 
10 minute periods with you until either you say, "This is what he did 
that was wrong." or say, that, "Xothing that he did was wrong." I 
do not think it is fair for any American to be charged with being a 
crook until you specify — did he steal a bank, did he write a false check, 
or what did he do ? What did Mr. Carr do prior to January 20, let 
us limit it to that period, that, to you, speaking from your point of 
view, resembles intimidation or a threat or improper means to secure 
preferential treatment for Dave Schine? 

Mr. Adams. Senator INIundt, both this morning and this afternoon 
I have tried to complete a statement to you which would develop at 
least insofar as I could develop it, the fact, that subsequent to January 

Senator Muxdt. Prior to January 20. 

I\Ir. Adams. Just a moment, sir. 

Senator Mundt. "Was there anything prior to January 20. 

Mr. Adams. Would you please let me finish ? 

Senator Mundt. Yes, but I would like to know if there was anything 
prior to January 20. 

Mr. Adams. I am trying to tell you. One cannot answer questions 
unless he is permitted to. I am trying to answer and I will try to 
do it in about three seconds. It was subsequent to January 20 that 
it appeared to me in looking back that these matters were part of a 
pattern. On January 20 and prior to January 20, they did not seem 
to me to be as bad. But, subsequent to January 20, in February, and 
in March, then it appeared to me that there were part of a pattern. 
On January 20, they did not concern me. On December 10, 
when I had lunch with Senator McCarthy and Mr. Carr and Mr. 
Stevens, that didn't bother me. On November 25, when I came back 
on the train from Massachusetts, it didn't bother me, from Newark, 
N. J. It was later that it appeared to me, on reflection, that it was a 
pattern. That is the thing I was trying to tell you, sir, this morning, 
and that is the thing I am trying to tell you now. 

Senator Mundt. Have you concluded your response ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Let me rephrase the question, then : 

Did Mr. Carr do anything or say anything prior to January 20 
which at the time he did it or said it seemed in your opinion to be 
improper or a threat or intimidation ? 

Mr. Adams. It didn't seem to me at the time. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Now we will move from January 20 down toward the present date, 
and will you tell me the first date and the first occurrence that you felt 
constituted improper action on the part of Mr. Carr? 

Mr. Adams. Well, I was curious during February at his urging that 
I should contact George Sokolsky, which he did through the latter 
part of the month of January and the first few days in February. 
I did contact George Sokolsky, at his persuasion, and subsequently 

46620°— 54— pt. 33 3 


urged me again that I talk to Sokolsky. That seemed to me to be 
strange. Those matters in themselves still wouldn't have been as bad. 

Senator Mundt. Before we leave Sokolsky, you finish what you 
have^to say about Sokolsky and I will ask you questions about him. 

Mr. Adams. All right. 

Senator Mundt. Are you through about Sokolsky ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you think it was improper for Mr. Carr to 
suggest that you talk to George Sokolsky ? 

Mr. Adams. No, I thought it was odd. It was strange. It was un- 
usual. I was not used to that sort of thing. 

Senator Mundt. The charge, however, was not that Mr. Carr was 
using unusual or odd means. It says he sought by improper means 
to obtain preferential treatment. So I ask you specifically whether 
asking you to talk to George Sokolsky was considered by you to be 
improper and whether you asked us to discipline Frank Carr for sug- 
gesting that you talk to George Sokolsky. 

Mr. Adams. What charges do you refer to, sir? 

Senator Mundt. The charge issued by the Army on April 13, 
signed by Joseph N. Welch, special counsel, as your specifications for 
tliese hearings. That is on the fourth line. 

Mr. Adams. The first page on the fourth line? 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. 

Mr. Adams. Well, this— on the fourth line? Yes, sir, that does not 

specify a date. 

Senator Mundt. Does not specify what? The date? Of course 
not. I am asking you to specify the date. 

Mr. Adams. I considered that it was— by the time that it was all 
done, as I have stated to you, sir, and this may not be a satisfactory 
answer, on reflection it seemed to me as though it was a pattern of 
improper action, at the end. 

Senator Mundt. Let me rephrase the question, flien, because sooner 
or later we will catch up with the date. At the time that INIr. Carr 
asked you to telephone George Sokolsky, did you interpret that as 
being an improper thing for him to do? 

Mr. Adams. Well, I think more odd than improper, sir. 
Senator Mundt. My time has expired. 

By unanimous consent, the Chair would ask permission to call on 
Senator Potter out of order, because he has to catch a plane. 

Senator McClellan. If the Chair will let me make one observation, 
I will be glad to yield. I have to catch a plane also._ I may say, 
Mr. Chairman, before I depart, that some of my questions, at least, 
will have to do with testimony that this witness presently is under 
inhibition not to disclose, and since his testimony, I assume, cannot 
be concluded this afternoon, but he will be called back Monday, 
then I shall defer any further questioning on my part until that date. 
Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Does the Chair have unanimous consent, then, to call on Senator 

Senator Potter. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Adams, in my previous 10-minute interroga- 
tion, I questioned you as to whether or not Private Schine received 
preferential treatment. I believe you testified that he received pref- 
erential treatment as a result of requests made for committee duty. 


Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Potter. Which in no way was to interfere with his training 
duties at Fort Dix? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Poiter. Did the treatment accorded Private Schine inter- 
fere with his training at Fort Dix? 

Mr. Adams. Sir, it is my understanding that it did. I am not 
really competent to answer that question, because the officials at Fort 
Dix know it in detail, and I have not read the reports of Fort Dix, so 
I cannot answer in detail. I know only that General Ryan, the com- 
mander at Fort Dix, did call me on the 8th of December and did indi- 
cate that he was afraid that the weekday availability of the soldier 
was going to interfere with his training. 

Senator Potter. Can you testify as to whether he did or did not 
receive preferential treatment which interf erred with his training? 

Mr. Adams. I can't testify from my own knowledge, sir. I believe 
that those questions can be better answered by General Ryan or his 
aide, because I have not made a detailed study of what happened at 
Fort Dix. 

Senator Pot'it;r. I would like to refer again to the stipulations made 
by Senator McCarthy, ]\Ir. Cohn, and Mr. Carr. Stipulation No. 10 
states this : 

"News stories quoting reliable sources have stated that the reason he — 

referring to Private Schine — 

was not given consideration to which he would otherwise have been entitled was 
because of his connection with this committee. 

The question I wish to ask you, Mr. Adams, is : "Was Private Schine 
discriminated against because of his former association with this 

Mr. Adams. I have no knowledge of it, sir. I do not believe that 
he was. I have never heard that he was, from any source at all. 

I have never heard anything to indicate that, sir. 

Senator Potter. From your knowledge of the Army, if Private 
Schine had not gone in with all the fanfare, would he have received 
any higher rating, would he have received a commission, would he 
have received a more desirable duty ? 

Mr. Adams. I think the answer to that, sir, is in the negative. I 
think if Private Schine had been Private Smith, his application for 
a commission would have been rejected, I think he would have been 
drafted, I think that living in New York he would have spent his 
first 8 weeks of basic training at Camp Dix, I think that with his back- 
ground he probably would have been considered qualified for the same 
sort of additional training and that he probably would have gone to 
Camp Gordon. So I would say that I don't think anything happened 
to him 

Senator Potter. It is my understanding that Private Schine has 
a college education, is that true? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Potter. I assume that Private Schine received the aptitude 
tests or intelligence tests 

Mr. Adams. Yes. 

Senator Potter. That every other soldier receives. 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 


Senator Potter. Is my assumption ri<^ht that he is certainly above 
average in intelligence? 

Mr. Adams. I don't know, sir. I don't know anything about his 
I. Q. or anything of that sort. 

I would say, sir, with reference to whether or not he should have had 
a commission, that the Army was conunissioning people only in certain 
special branches, such as Medical Corps, Dental Corps, Judge Advo- 
cate General Corps, people who had to have a special educational 
background. I don't think that direct commissions generally are 
available to men by reason of having the degree of bachelor of arts. 

Senator Potter. The reason I am asking this series of questions is 
the fact that we want to make sure whether Private Schine was dis- 
criminated against or not. 

Mr. Adams. So far as I know, sir, he was not. 

Senator Potter. All right, let's revert, then, to stipulation No. 15. 
It is broken down into several parts, and I would like to read sub- 
section (a) : 

After Mr. Adams and Mr. Stevens claimed that they were threatened and 
induced by the Chairman and Mr. Cohn, they extended hospitality to and ac- 
cepted hospitality from the Chairman and Mr. Cohn. 

Is this true ? 

Mr. Adams. That is true. 

Senator Potter. If that is true, then why ? 
_ Mr. Adams. The simple answer is the one I gave you yesterday, 
sir : No head of an executive agency is anxious to remain in a state of 
hostility with a committee chairman or with the staff of a committee 
with which he must work. It is the normal thing to attempt to con- 
ciliate after there is difficulty. That is what occurred in this instance. 

Senator Potter. The purpose of accepting the hospitality of the 
chairman and Mr. Cohn following the claimed, the alleged threats, 
was in order to better your relationships with the committee ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Adams. To keep our relationship, which generally was good. 

Senator Potter. Despite the threats ? 

Mr. Adams. We managed to conciliate Mr. Cohn. I think this 
refers to the incident of October 20, and I think we managed to recon- 
cile the differences which developed on that day. 

Senator Potter. Point (b) : 

The day after Mr. Cohn is alleged to have made threatening and fighting state- 
ments to Mr. Adams, Mr. Adams dined with Mr. Cohn and his family in Mr 
Cohn's home. 

Is that true ? 

]\Ir. Adams. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Potter. Was that done for the same purpose? 

Mr. Adams. No. If I may give you about a three-sentence descrip- 
tion of the incident, Mr. Cohn was in Washington that afternoon, and 
I went to New York on the same airplane with Mr. Cohn and Mr. 
Carr We were going to arrive about dinnertime in the evening, and 
I had suggested that we go to a prizefight that night. Mr. Cohn indi- 
cated that the tickets would be at his house. So when we were in 
New York, I think as we were in a cab, and Mr. Cohn said, "We will 
have dinner at my house", I had an obvious choice— "No, I will eat at 
a drugstore and you can pick me up," or I could go to his house. 


Senator Potter. That was the night you attended the prizefight 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. His family were very gracious to me — his 
mother and his father — as was Mr. Cohn. 

Senator Potter, (reading) : 

After Mr. Cohn is alleged to have set about wrecking the Army and causing 
the dismissal of IMr. Adams' boss, Mr. Adams continued to invite Mr. Cohn to 
lunch and to discuss a law partnership with him. 

I believe you testified yesterday that your discussion of the law 
partnership was done in jest, that you weren't serious about it. But 
the series of meetings, of social meetings between yourself and Mr. 
Cohn during the period of time when the so-called threats were 
being made — were they because you just considered the threats were 
being set aside and you thoroughly enjoyed the social friendship of 
IMr. Cohn, or did you feel that by fraternizing to that extent you 
would be in a better position to heal the wounds, so-called, or to stop 
the threats ? 

Mr. Adams. This particular specification was about the last time 
we saw each other. We went to lunch together that day in the 
restaurant in the Senate Office Building, and I went back to his office 
that afternoon when that incident occurred. That was on about the 
13th of January. I don't recall that I saw Mr. Cohn very much or 
very often after that. I saw him at a hearing in New York on Feb- 
ruary 18, and I think he had gone to Florida on January 20 or there- 
abouts. January 16 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams, I have another request that you speak 
a little more loudly or pull the microphone closer to you. 

Mr. Adams. If I pull it forward, it will fall off. It is just that I am 
not leaning close enough to it. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Adams, yesterday I asked you if it was your 
contention that if the Army had given Mr. Schine a commission or 
an assignment in New York, your problems or difficulties with the 
committee would have ceased, or I believe I asked you if you felt that 
the investigation of Fort Monmouth would have ceased. I believe 
you answered that you felt that the difficulties with the committee 
would have ceased if that had been done. Am I correct? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I certainly was led to believe that by Mr. Carr. 
I certainly gained that impression. I don't think that I testified that 
the Fort Monmouth investigation would have terminated if Mr. 
Schine had been given a commission, because by the time I came to 
know Mr. Schine or came into the problem, Mr. Schine was in the 
Army or shortly going to go into the Army. 

Senator Potter. Now, let me just ask one more question. Assuming 
that Senator McCarthy's charges are true, if the Army had given 
Private Schine a commission or located him in New York, wouldn't 
it have been a fact that the Army then would have lost a bargaining 
power with the committee to call off the investigations at Fort Mon- 
mouth ? 

Mr. Adams. No, the Army never considered Private Schine as a 
piece of bargaining power. I never considered him as that. I never 
considered Private Schine in any way other than a soldier who should 
serve as a soldier. 


Senator Potter. You never considered Private Scliine as a pawn 
to be used ? 

Mr. Adams. I did not, sir. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. 

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, I should like to state that I have 
to leave the hearings at this time and catch a plane. 

Senator Mundt. You may be excused. 

Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Adams, I would like to ask you now a series 
of questions which I trust will go to the heart of the difficulties between 
you and some of the principals to this controversy, and I think they are 
questions that are quite material. I am asking the same form of ques- 
tions, not the same questions, but the same form of questions, of all the 
principals in an effort to get at the meat of the controversy, similar to 
questions that I put to Mr. Stevens. 

Chapter 79, title XVIII, section 1621 of the United States Code 
deals with perjury. It states in effect that any person that testifies 
under oath and willfully and contrary to such oath, states or sub- 
scribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true is 
guilty of perjury and shall except as otherwise expressly provided by 
law, be fined not more than $2,000 or imprisoned not more than 5 years. 

There are a number of allegations and statements concerning you, 
Mr. Adams, that I believe are material to the controversy. None of 
these statements and allegations against you have as yet been made 
under oath. If those responsible for making them do repeat them 
under oath and you deny them under oath, before this subcommittee, 
then someone is guilty of perjury. 

I know you realize that this is a most serious matter, and I hope that 
you will consider deeply as you answer these questions that I am about 
to put to you. 

The first question: It was stated by Mr. Cohn on March 12, 1954, 
that you tried to blackmail him into calling off the subcommittee in- 
vestigation of the Army. Is this allegation of Mr. Cohn true or false ? 

Mr. Adams. It is false. 

Senator Jackson. You were quoted in the New York Times of 
March 13 as labeling this charge of blackmail "fantastic and false." 
The fantastic and false is your quote. Do you maintain that position 
under oath? 

Mr. Adams. I do, sir. 

Senator Jackson. The next question : It is stated by Mr. Frank 
Carr, in a memorandum to Senator McCarthy of December 9, 1953, 
that is December 9, 1953, for your reference — would you like to have 
that first 

Mr. Adams. I have it, sir. 

Senator Jackson. I quote, December 9, 1953, from Frank Carr, a 
memorandum to Senator McCarthy: 

Even though they — 

the Army — 

said he — 


deserved a commission, they did not give it to him because of the left-wing 
press, and they keep trying to dangle proposed small favors in front of us. 


Did you ever make a statement that Private Schine deserved a com- 
mission ? 

J\lr. Adams. No, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Did you ever hear Secretary Stevens make that 
statement to any member of the McCarthy committee or McCarthy 
committee staff? 

Mr. Adazvis. No, sir. 

Senator Jackson. "Would you label that allegation as true or false? 

Mr. Adams. I ^vould label the allegation as false. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Roy Cohn is quoted in U. S. News & World 
Report of jNIarch 19, 1954, as stating, and I quote : 

No improper influence was ever exerted by me — 

me being Cohn — 

or by anyone else on behalf of Schine. 

Is that statement true or is it false? 

Mr. Adams. That statement is false. 

Senator Jackson. On Meet the Press on March 14, 1954, Mr. Cohn 
answered a question of Mr. Jack Bell of the Associated Press, and I 
quote, I am quoting now : 

The only conjmunication we had with tbe Army — 

this is Mr. Cohn speaking — 

The only communication we had with the Army about Schine, when he was 
down at Fort Dix, was pursuant to our arranjjements that after his training 
was over at the end of the day, and over weeliends, when he was doing no 
training, he would, instead of recreational activities, devote himself to worli, 
and that was the only purpose of any communications we had with the Army 
whilj he was at Fort Dix. 

Is this statement of Mr. Cohn's true or false ? 

Mr. Adams. If I am considered part of the Army, sir, I will state 
that he did have communications wdth me for purposes other than that, 
so that the statement is false. 

Senator Jackson. The next question : Mr. Cohn is quoted on Meet 
the Press on March 14 as stating in answer to Larry Spivak, and I 
quote, this is Mr. Cohn's quotation : 

As I said, Mr. Spivak, we did not ask for special treatment for him— Schine. 

End of quote. Is that statement true or false ? 

Mr. Adams. That statement is false. 

Senator Jackson. In a memorandiuii from Eoy Cohn to Senator 
McCarthy, dated December 9, 1953, the following was stated. This 
is December 9, from Roy Cohn to Senator McCarthy. This is 
December 9, 1953. The following was stated, and I quote : 

John Adams said today that following the idea about investigations of the 
Air Force he had gotten specific information for us about an Air Force Base 
where there are a large number of homosexuals. He said he would trade us 
that information if we would tell him what the next Army project was \/e 
would investigate. 

Is that statement true or false ? 

Mr. Adams. That statement is false. 

Senator Jackson. You have stated under oath, Mr. Adams, that 
Mr. Cohn used extremely obscene and vituperative language at vari- 
ous times, and said the Army had doublecrossed him — that is, Cohn — 
when he felt Schine was not receiving the treatment that Cohn felt 
the Army should have afforded him. Am I correct ? 


Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Jackson. On Meet the Press on March 14 of this year, 
Mr. Jack Bell asked Mr. Cohn the following question : 

Question, Bell. Did you ever use vituperative language as noted twice in this 
report in discussing tbis tiling, or say that the Army had doublecrossed you? 

Answer, Cohn. I think some of the other people at the table with you have 
known nie for some time and watched me, although that whatever else I might 
do, I am not a type who would use vituperative language. I tried to be a 
gentleman and I think I was in my dealings with Mr. Stevens and with the 

Is Mr. Cohn's statement that he never used vituperative language 
true or false ? 

Mr. Adams. It is false. 

Senator Jackson. In your testimony on May 12, Mr. Adams, of 
this year, you stated at page 2606 that Mr. Roy Cohn, when he heard 
that David Schine was liable to be sent overesas, stated, and I quote : 

"Stevens is through as Secretary of the Army," and then added with even 
more force, "We will wreck the Army." 

On Meet the Press on IMarch 14, 1954, the following colloquy took 

Mr. Jack Bell. Mr. Cohn, did you at any time under any circumstances say 
yon would wreck the Army? 

]Mr. Cohn. That statement on its face is so ridiculous that it is even hard for 
me to answer. Of course I didn't, and of course I couldn't. 

Is the denial of Mr. Cohn that he never said he would wreck the 
Army true or false? 
Mr. Adams. His denial is false. 
Senator Jackson. Jack Bell then asked as follows : 

Mr. Jack Bell. Mr. Cohn, did you say that you would see to it that Secretary 
Stevens would be through? 

Ml'. Cohn. That again is so ridiculous just on its face. How could I, one 
employee of a Senate committee, bring about the wrecking of an Army which had 
beaten Hitler and Tojo? 

Is the denial of Mr. Cohn that he ever said that "Stevens would be 
through as Secretary of the Army," true or false ? 

Mr. Adams. The denial is false. 

Senator Jackson. In Eoy Cohn's Frank Carr's, and Senator Mc- 
Carthy's bill of particulars in paragraph 24, page 12 — find that — in 
paragraph 24, page 12, it is stated, and I quote : 

On or about October 13, 1953, Mr. Adams suggested that the subcommittee go 
after the Navy and Air Force and drop its probe of Communist infiltration in 
the Army. 

Mr. Adams is that true or false ? 

Mr. Adams. It is false. 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. 

Senator Dirksen ? 

Senator Dirksen. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. I have no questions at this time, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak? 

Senator Dwobshak. No questions. 

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

Mr. Welch. Nothing at this time. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn or Senator McCarthy? 


Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams, as you know, I have often told 
you tluit Ave are wastino; far too much of my time and yours and 
Mr. Stevens' on Private Schine, but we will have to waste a little bit 
more, I believe, and ask these questions of you after tlie questions 
Senator Potter asked you. 

You have been fairly close to the reporters for the Washington 
Post, which I have referred to often as the Washington Dt.ily Worker, 
haven't you ? 

Mr. Adams. I am acquainted with two reporters of the Washington 
Post. \ 

Senator McCarthy. You have had them ttavel witli 3'ou on trips? 

Mr. Adams. I traveled once with Mr. Friendly — twice, I beg your 
pardon. I have traveled with him twice. 

Senator McCarthy. I quote from the issue of Thursday, March 25, 
1954, an article in the Washington Post or Daily Worker, depending 
on which you want to call it: 

A top Pentagon official said that tlie former unpaid consultant to Senator 
Joseph R. McCarthy's investijiatins committee and close friend of Hoy M. Cohn, 
chief counsel of the group, will become a student at the Army Criminal Investiga- 
tion School at Camp Gordon, Georgia, next week. 

I quote from the same sheet the next day, the following day, 
March 26, a front-page story : 

The Army has backtracked on assigning Pvt G. David Scbine to its Criminal 
Investigation School after the White House intervened in the case. 

Will you tell me whether this is true or whether it is completely 

Mr. Adams. I have no knowledge of how those stories came about. 
I had no knowledge of the elforts with reference to — correction, not 
the efforts. I had no knowledge of any of the program or planning 
with reference to Private Schine. I am unable to give you any helj) 
on those news stories, sir. 

Senator McCartfiy. I wonder if you could do this for us, Mr, 
Adams: There is a claim here that Schine got S{)ecial consideration. 
There are news stories by one of the papers that you favored with a 
preview of the charge against Cohn, carrying the story that Schine 
was entitled to go to the Criminal Investigation School, but that the 
AVhite House intervened. In view of the fact that this — I can't 
believe this is true, I can't believe the White House would intervene in 
the case of a private. But you a])parently are friendly with this 
paper. It so happens I am not. Do you think you could find out for 
me the basis for this story and tell me if you can't find the basis — I know 
you can't ask for the source of their information, but could you come 
back Monday and tell me if there is any truth to the story ? 

Mr. Adams. What is it you want me to come back and tell you ? 

Senator McCarthy. Whether there is any truth to the original 
story that Schine was slated for Criminal Investigation School, No. 
1, and No. 2, 1 quote : 

That the Army has backtracked on assigning G. David Schine to its Criminal 
Investigation School after the White House intervened in the case. 

If you could do that over the weekend and give me that information 
Monday I would appreciate it very much. 

40020°— 54— pt. 33 4 


Mr. Adams. I don't think I could do it, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You don't think you could do it? 

Mr. Adams. No. 

Senator McCarthy. Couldn't you find out whether or not he had 
been slated to go to Criminal Investigation School and whether or 
not somebody intervened and blocked it? 

Mr. Adams. Did you say could 1 ? 

Senator McCartify. Yes, could you. 

Mr. Adams. Yes, I can. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you do that for me? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. Insofar as I know, that is not true. 

Senator McCarthy. Will you check it? In other words, you say 
the story is untrue? 

Mr. Adams. I say insofar as I know, tliat is initrue. 

Senator JNIcCarthy. You will get in bad with your favorite paper, 
if you aren't careful. 

Mr. Adams. My favorite paper is the New York Times. 

Senator Mundt. There is a rule against connnercials during the 
course of the broadcast. 

Senator McCarthy. Just one question, Mr. Adams, along that line : 
If that is your favorite paper, why did you leave them out of your 
preview of the charges against Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Adams. Senator, I think it is only fair to state that nobody 
was given a preview of any charges, because at the time I talked 
to these newspapermen I had no knowledge that any charges would 
be prepared. 

Senator McCarthy. At least you didn't give your favorite paper a 
preview of the charges? 

Mr. Adams. I gave no newspaper a preview of any charge. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's see if we understand what the term means. 
You gave Mr. Alsop a complete rundown of the charges months 
before the Senators got them, did you not? 

Mr. Adams. I told Mr. Alsop what facts I had. It was not a run- 
down of charges. I had no knowledge that any charges were going 
to be prepared at that time. 

Senator McCarthy. Didn't you show him your files? Didn't you 
call him over to the office ? 

Mr. Adams. No, I didn't call him over to the office. He came into 
my office. 

Senator McCarthy. In his testimony — for your protection, I want 
to tell you that his testimony is that he was shown all your files — 
I believe that is correct. Is that true ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, I said that. That is true. I have admitted that. 

Senator McCarthy. About a month ahead of time. 

Mr. Adams. I showed him all my files about the 10th of February. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you have authority to do that from Mr. 

Mr. Adams. No, I don't have any authority, and I don't have any 
lack of authfirity. That was an inclependent act on my part. It was 
a description to a newspaperman of personal experiences, substan- 

Senator McCarthy. Let's go to another subject, and we will get 
back to that again perhaps. 


Mr. Adams, I am sure you will a^ree with me that it is a serious 
matter as far as 1 am concerned, when members of my staff are ac- 
cused of impro])or conduct. 1 very carefully recruited what I con- 
sider an outstandino- staff, all of them witli a background of FBI 
training, Justice Department, Secret Service, with the exception of 
one. Mr. Cohn, as you know, has had a tremendous background in 
prosecuting Communists in the Kosenberg case, the Kemington case, 
and the top Communists, exposing Communists in the U. N. 

Mr. Carr, as you know, w^as head of the security matters desk of the 
FBI in New York, and left it to come with my committee. So if they 
have done anything im])roper I Avould like to know about that. 

We have been talking about the conversations you had with Mr. 
Cohn. For the time being could we forget about the conversations 
and get down to what he did that was improper. In that connection 
let me ask you this: Didn't I tell you that Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr 
were following my instructions, carrying out my orders in digging 
out Communist infiltration of the military ? I told you that, didn't 1 ? 

Mr. Adams. I don't remember such a statement but I always as- 
sumed that they were your employees. 

Senator McCarthy. Good. Now, aside from the conversation, the 
threats that you talk about, what act did Mr. Cohn do to follow up 
the threats 'i 

Mr. Adams. Senator, were you in the automobile on the 17th of 
December 'i 

Senator McCartmt. I was. Would you like to discuss that? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. All right. Let us discuss that. We are get- 
ting off my question. We will get hack to the question. You and I 
and Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr, two friends of mine, had lunch at Gas- 
ners, is that right ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Gasners is a restaurant a short way away from 
Foley Square in New York ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. And at that time, we spent a great deal of time 
discussing General Lawton, did we not!^ 

Mr. Adams. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You say we did not discuss him? 

Mr. Adams. He was discussed for a very short length of time. 

Senator McCarthy. How long were we in that restaurant, sir? 

Mr. Adams. We were in that restaurant about 2^/4 hours. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, to refresh your recollection, Mr. Adams, 
did you not bring up the subject of Dave Schine? 

Mr. Adams. I did, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You brought up the subject, right? 

Mr. Adams. I did, sir, for the purpose of getting you to restate 
what you had told me 3 hours earlier. 

Senator McCarthy. All right. You brought up the subject. 
When you brought it up, did not Mr. Cohn say, "Let's discuss Lawton 
because I want Senator McCarthj^ to know what Adams and Stevens 
are trying to do to Lawton" ? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir, he did not. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, we did get onto the question of Lawton, 
didn't we? 


Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCaktiiy. And you indicated to me that Lawton was to be 
relieved of his command? 

Mr. Adams. On that occasion, sir? 

Senator McCakthy. Yes. 

Mr. Adams. The answer is in the negiitive. 

Senator McCarthy. Well, what did you tell me about Lawton ? 

Mr. Adams. I said very little about Lawton on that occasion. The 
remark, as I remember, was bouj^ht out by Mr. (^ohn, and about my 
only statement with reference to it was to protest and say that the al- 
legation he made with reference to the Secretary's ])lans concerning 
General Lawton was not true, and that Mr. Colin should be ashamed 
of himself for saying that. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, Mr. Cohn pointed out to me 
that General Lawton was to be broken rather than lose his command, 
because of his cooperation with the committee, and you said he was 
being relieved of his command for a difl'erent reason, and you asked 
me what I would do if Lawton Avere broken ? 

Mr. ADAiNrs. Not on that occasion ; no, sir. 

Senator M( (earthy. Then, we started to ride downtown, seeing you 
want to discnss that ride, right ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. And we came to a place where there is no left 
turn allowed ? 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Senator McCarthy. There was a policeman on the corner ? 

Mr. Adams. o4th Street. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn liad a card, he held out the card for 
the policeman and said, "Mr. Adams wants to go to tlie railroad sta- 
tion, can I turn left here?" And tlie policeman said, "Who in the 
something or other is Mr. Adams, go on ahead" ? 

Mr. Adams. That didn't happen. Senator, 1 regret to correct you. 
He said he wanted to turn left, and the policenuni said, "No, don't 
pull that card on me. Go straiglit ahead." 

Senator McCarthy. He tried to turn left to take you to the depot ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, your time has expired. Mrs. 
Watt reminds me that it is just past 3 : 30. We will stand for a 5- 
minute recess at this time. 

(Brief recess) 

Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order. Are you 
ready. Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy's time has expired, so we will 
start around the clock again and start with Counsel Jenkins, if he has 
any questions to ask. 

Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams, we were interrupted by the expiration 
of my 10-minute period last. As the Chair recalls we had gotten be- 
yond the period of January 20 over to some unnamed date on the oc- 
casion of a telephone call with George Sokolsky, which, if the Chair 
understood your answer correctly did not involve what you considered 
to be any improper means on the part of Mr. Carr. You simply said 
that at the time it occurred, you thought it was a bit unusual, is that 


Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir. 1 certainly tlioii<];ht the entrance 
of Mr. Sokolsky was im|)ro])er. 

Senator ]\Iundt. Mr. Sokolsky is not a witness at this time. We are 
tryinjT to determine what charges are to be made aj^ainst Mr. Carr. 
Will you search your memory now, or your files — what date was that, 
by the way, if you have it? 

Mr. Adams. I talked to Mr. Sokolsky, as I recall it, on the 5th of 
February, the 12th of February and on the l(>th of February. 

Senator Mundt. Then up to the 5th of February, then, there had 
been nothino- at the time it was takinp; place you considered to be im- 
pro])er on the part of Carr? 

]\Ir. Adams. That is ri*]^ht. 

Senator Mundt. Now, will you move to the present date from the 
5th of February and specify tlie first date and the nature of the first 
action or conversation on Carr's part that you allejie is improper, or 
that it comprised a threat or that it was an effort to intimidate the 
Army ? 

Mr. Adams. Well, my calls with Sokolsky Avere always a result of 
Carr's urginjjs. I have stated to you I thouf>;ht they were odd. I did 
not think in themselves they constituted a threat. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. We will eliminate, then, the calls of 
Sokolsky. That takes us to February 16. 

Mr. Adainis. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Will you keep on coming down toward May and 
tell us the date of the first occasion, then? 

Mr. Adams. On February 18, in New York. 

Senator Mundt. February 18. Go ahead. 

Mr. Adams. February 18, on the occasion of the Zwicker incident. 
I was told by Mr. Cohn that he could no longer negotiate with me, that 
it was Mr. Carr or Sokolsky with whom I would have to negotiate. 
That is no act on Mr. Carr's part ; it is merely for the purpose of show- 
ing you the pattern of how these things developed. 

Senator Mundt. Very well, leave February 18 and keep on moving 
toward May and determine when Mr. Carr did first inject himself 
improperly into 

;Mr. Adams. In March, I\Ir. Cnrr 

Senator Mundt. Could you give us the date in March, approx- 
imately ? 

Mr. Adams. In the early days of March, I talked to Mr. Carr on 
the telephone on a number of occasions. On the 4th of March, he said 
that he was anxious to see me, that it was important to the Army, that 
it was important to me. He made it clear that I should come and see 
him. We' agreed to meet at the Methodist Building for lunch, and we 
did go there for lunch. I don't recall whether I picked him up in his 
office first or not. But in any event, at the luncheon, he told me, 
through the entire luncheon, for the better part of a long luncheon, 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. This is not a point of order. I merely want to 
call the Chairs attention to the specifications of Mr. Adams and Mr. 
Stevens. On the last date here on which they allege nny improper 
conduct was February 16. I don't make a point of orili'r; I merely 
call that to the Chair's attention. 


Senator Mundt. No. Subsequent to tlie issuance of that statement, 
however, Mr. Adams has testified under oath that down to the date of 
March 4, there was nothing done by Mr. Carr that, he considered to be 
in the nature of a threat or to constitute intimidation or improper 
means. We are now discussinoj March 4, an occasion in the Methodist 
Building, and he is going to tell us whether or not he thinks Mr. Carr 
did inject himself improperly into the affairs of the Army on that date, 

Mr. Adams. Thn last s|-,ecifi:'ation. ^Ir. Chairman, to which Senator 
JMcCarthy refers. No. 21), says : 

On or about February 16, and on several other occasions * * * 

Senator Mundt. This is one of those other occasions ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. On the 5th of March, I had lunch with Mr. 
Carr in the Methodist Building. The entire— not all, but substan- 
tially all of the conversation during that lunch period was devoted to 
discussion of the problems the Army was having with the committee, 
and Mr. Carr stated to me on numerous occasions on that day that he 
felt that I should understand that so long as Mr. Cohn was not satis- 
fied with the assignment status of Mr. Schine, we were in for trouble. 
He stated further that he was making progress, as he put it, in alleviat- 
ing the irritation which Senator McCarthy at that time had against 
the Army, 

He coupled the two together: 

I am making progress in relieving this situation insofar as I am concerned — 

he said, on the one hand, and on the other he said — 

You have got to understand that until Mr. Cohn is satisfied with reference to 
Private Schine, the Army is in continuing trouble. 

That is the incident of March 5. We had 2 or 3 telephone con- 

Senator Mundt. Are you leaving March 4 or 5 now ? 

Mr. Adams. March 5 ; yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams, I know you will pardon me if I appear 
a little persistent, I am a South Dakotan and you are a South Da- 
kotan. You recognize that when you and I were young men out there 
in the early thirties. South Dakota was plagued by drought, by dust 
storms, by a depression, by Democrats, and we managed to survive 
most of those difficulties and conquer them and consequently became a 
sort of persistent people. 

Perhaps I am persevering and persistent, and I expect you to be. 
We must stick to March 4 now and determine whether or not on that 
occasion anything was said in the nature of a threat. 

Am I incorrect in recalling your direct testimony to the effect that 
in recounting, yesterday or the day before, the luncheon in the Meth- 
odist Building, you stated that Carr was reporting to you as a sort of 
l)rogress rejwrt in the direction of placating McCarthy and Cohn, and 
that you felt at that time Carr had no personal interest in Schine, but 
was rather serving as an intermediary trying to make peace? 

Mv. Adams. That is correct. Not so much as an intermediary try- 
ing to make peace, but as an agent passing on to me his evaluation 
of what faced the Army unless 

Senator Mundt. It was an interpretation or his understanding of 
what may have been the opinion of Mr. Cohn, rather than his own 
opinion ? 


Mr. Adams. I think so. 

Senator Mundt. In other words, Avhat I am tryin<ij to determine is 
whether it was possible that Mr. C.arr, with relationship to his asso- 
ciates on the committee, had a position which was rather analogous 
to the position that yon had with yonr associates in the Ariny. You 
had re])eatedly testified that you Avent out of your way to initiate phone 
calls with I^Ir. Colin and to see him at different luncheons, and to call 
him even after he had made threats, because you had to do business 
with the committee and you felt that was in your line of duty; that 
you were not in any way doing that because you were tryinj^ to call 
off hearings. 

Is it not conceivable that Mr. Carr, in his capacity, was conversing 
with you much in the same fashion that you conversed so fre(|uently 
with members of our committee ? 

Mr. Adams. It is conceivable, sir. That is conceivable. 

Senator Mukdt. In other words, you would not be prepared to deny 
that hypothesis at the moment ? 

Mr.' Adams. No. Of course, I felt— I began to feel and I certainly 
felt after Senator McCarthy's charges against the Army were pub- 
lished, that the pattern became more clear. It is wrong for an agent 
to transmit threats, it seem to me, and the incidents of the next week 
subsequent to the 5th of March certainly crystallized 

Senator Mundt. You give us the new date and the new locale and 
the new report. We will pass away from March 4, on the basis that 
that certainly conceivably could have been in friendly discussion with 
you and in the common interest that you and he shared, of trying to 
have respectable and peaceful relations between the two entities. 

]\Ir. Adams. The place we proceed to is the publication of Senator 
McCarthy's memoranda on March 12. 

Senator Mundt. ]\Iarch 12 ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. Those memoranda, 3 or 4, which carried Mr. 
Carr's name, I presume, were published with his authorization, I pre- 
sume were written by him, and those memoranda are false. They are 
so false, so patently false, in my mind, from my knowledge 

Senator Mundt. Very well, before we get to March 12, then, does 
the Chair understand that up until that date there were no actions on 
the part of Carr which at the time they were made could reasonably 
be interpreted by you as being threats against the Army, as being 
efforts to intimidate the Army or as being improper means to influence 
the decision of the Army — up until March 12 ? 

"We still have a week between March 5 and March 12. Maybe there 
is some other incident I don't know. 

Mr. Adaisis. I had one other — I say one, I had at least one tele- 
phone conversation with Mr. Carr on about the 8th of March. 
Senator Mundt. Tell us about that. 

Mr. Adams. In which he was urging me to come up and see him. 
He was telling me : 

You said you would come up yesterday and you haven't done it. You said 
you would come up the day before and you haveu't done it. This is my last 
offer, friend. 

I didn't know exactly what he meant, but it was a strange thing 
to say. 


Senator Mundt. Would you want to indict Mr. Carr before the 
American public on the basis of a statement of which you say you did 
not know what it meant? Surely I don't know what it meant. I 
didn't hear it. I have no more interest in Mr. Carr than I have in 
all of the rest of the parties in this dispute, all of whom, incidentally, 
us you Avell know, Mr. Adams, including yourself, are friends of 
mine. I am just looking for the truth. I don't feel that the execu- 
tive agencies, any of them, should engage in attacks on people without 
specifying the charges any more than I feel congressional committees 
should do that. Congressional committees have been freely criticized 
by the press for having done it. I would expect the press to react the 
same way if the executive agencies do it. I hope that it is not done. 
So I ho])e tiiat either we do specify some charges against Mr. Carr 
or w^ithdraw them, in the interest of decency and fair play. 

Now we are on the telephone conversation which you could not 
understand, and which I couldn't understand. Do you want to say 
under oath that you feel that that should be considered as an indict- 
ment of Mr. Carr, on the 8th ? 

Mr. Adams. I felt that that was an indication to me that if I didn't 
get up there Mr. Carr's eii'orts to assist — not to assist, his efi'orts that 
he persisted in telling me that he was undertaking to reduce the fire, 
the temper which Senator McCarthy was expressing against the Army, 
would cease. You just don't make an offer like that for nothing. 

Senator Mundt. My time has expired. We will start in at March 
5 when we resume. 

Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Adams, I would like to resume the previous 
line of questioning, and I would like to invite your attention to para- 
graph 25 on page 12 of the bill of particulars submitted by Mr. Cohn, 
Mr. Carr, and Senator McCarthy. 

In paragraph 25, page 12 of this document that I referred to, I 
quote : 

On or about October 21, 1958, Mr. Adams renewed his suggestion that the 
subcommittee conduct an investigation of the Navy and Air Force and drop the 
investigation of his department. 

Mr. Adams, is that allegation true or false ? 
Mr. Adams. The allegation is false. 

Senator Jackson. Paragraph 26 on page 13, again referring to 
the same document, states, and I quote : 

On or about November 6, 1058, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams suggested that 
the Navy, Air Force, and Defense Establishment proper would be appropriate 
objects of investigation instead of their administration of the Army, and Mr. 
Adams offered to supply information about them. 

First, Mr. Adams, did you ever hear ]\Ir. Stevens make such a sug- 
gestion to any Senators on the subcommittee or to any of the sub- 
committee staff ? 

Mr. Adams. I did not, sir. 

Senator Jackson. Second, did vou ever make such a suggestion to 
any of the Senators on the subcommittee or anv of the subcommittee 

Mr. Adams. I did not. 

Senator Jackson. Third, did you, Mr. Adams, ever offer to supply 
information about the Navy, Air Force, or Defense Establishment 
proper, to the subcommittee for their investigation ? 


Mr. Adams. I did not, sir. I never had such information to supply. 
I -wouldn't have done it had I had the information. 

Senator Jackson. Now, referring back to the allegations in para- 
|]jraph 26 that I read to you just a moment ago, is that allegation true 
or false? 

Mr. Adams. It is false. 

Senator Jackson. Paragraph 27, on page 13, and I continue to 
read from this same document, states, and I quote : 

On or about November 14, IJ);"^, Mr. Adams advised that in his opinion the 
time is ripe for the investigation to turn to the Navy. 

Mr. Adams, is that statement true or false? 
Mr. Adams. That statement is false. 

Senator Jackson. Keferring again to the same document, para- 
graph 28, page 13 states, and I quote : 

On or about November 17, li)~):i, Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams renewed their 
request that the subcommittee should investigate the Navy and Air Force. 

Did you, Mr. Adams, hear Mr. Stevens make such a request to any 
member of the subcommittee or subcommittee staff? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir; I did not. 

Senator Jackson. As far as you are concerned personally, Mr. 
Adams, is this statement true or false ? 

Mr. Adams. It is false. 

Senator Jackson. I call your attention now to page 13, the same 
document, paragraph 29 states, and I quote : 

On or about November 80. 1958, Mr. Adams made a specific suggestion, and 
offer of assistance, in switching the subcommittee's probe from his Department 
to another brancli of the service. 

Is this statement, Mr. Adams, true or false? 
Mr. Adams. That statement is false. 

Senator Jackson. Page 13, again the same document, paragraph 
30 states, and I quote : 

On or about December 9, 19.").3, Mr. Adams again urged that the subcommittee 
begin to investigate security risks in the Air Force, and offered si>ecific informa- 
tion in return for certain information he desired from us in forestalling a 
further investigation of his department. 

Did you, Mr. Adams, urge that the subcommittee investigate se- 
curity risks in the Air Force on or about December 9, 1953 ? 

Mr. Adams. I did not. 

Senator Jackson. Did you offer specific information with regard 
to this matter? 

Mr. Adams. I did not, sir. I never had such information. I 
wouldn't have offered it if I had had it. 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Cohn stated on Meet the Press on March 14 
of this year, in answer to a question by Larry Spivak that you, Mr. 
Adams, stated that you would furnish the subcommittee with infor- 
mation concerning an Air Force base where there were a number of 
sex deviates and you, Mr. Adams, thought this would make an excel- 
lent hearing for the subcommittee. He went on to say and I quote 
Mr. Cohn as follows : 

I might say I remember that very clearly because Mr. Adams took out a pad of 
paper, and drew a map of the country, and divided it into sections and numbered 
them, 1 through 9, as I recall it, and told Mr. Carr and myself that if we would 
indicate on that map the location of the Army base which we were about to 


iuvestiyate, that he would mark on that map the location of an Air Force 
base vvheielu this mess existed and that we would then be able to so after that. 

End of quote from Mr. Cohn's statement on Meet the I^ress on March 
14 of this year. Is this allegation of Mr. Cohn's true or falser 

Mr. Adams. The statement is false. 

Senator Jackson. That is all of mv questions at this time, Mr. 
Chairman. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. 

Senator Dirksen? 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Adams, in addition to all the telephone calls 
to Mr. Sokolsky, did a meeting with Mr. Sokolsky ever eventuate'^ 

Mr, Adams. Between me and Mr. Sokolsky as a result of those 
calls, sir? 

Senator Dirksen. Either that or a meeting at which you and Mr. 
Sokolsky may have been present. 

Mr. Adams. Mr. Sokolsky was present at the luncheon in the Mer- 
chants Club on the 17th of November. 

Senator Dirksf.n. Was there any other occasion ? 

Mr. Adams. There was no other occasion when I was in Mr. Sokol- 
sky's presence that I now remember, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. So you did attend one luncheon session in New 
York when Mr. Sokolsky was present ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. I notice in connection with your testimony that 
you Avent to the Methodist Building to have lunch Avith P^rank Carr 
on an occasion ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. Noav, in addition to that, I piTsume that on 
occasions there were luncheon sessions at the Carroll Arms Hotel, 
in the dining room. 

Mr. Adams. There was one lunclieon in the Carroll Arms Hotel on 
the 10th of December, Avith Senator jNlcCarthy, Mr. Stevens and 
Mr. Carr and me present. That, at this moment, is the only one I 

Senator Dirksen. Were there any subsequent luncheons ? 

Mr. Adams. At the Carroll Arms Hotel, sir ? 

Senator Dirksen. Yes. 

Mr. Adams. I don't now recall them. There may have been, but I 
don't now recall them. 

Senator Dirksen. I raise the question for only one reason, because 
in my mind now is this whole incantation of social events, the prize 
fight — by the way, after the prize fight was the hospitality of the 
Stork Club enjoyed on that occasion ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. So there was the prize fight, the Stork Club, 
Gasner's Restaurant, the Merchants Club in New York? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. The Carroll Arms in Washington? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. The Methodist dining room ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir 

Senator Dirksen. The dinner or the luncheon at which Mr. Sokol- 
sky was present ? 


Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. That was in the Merchants Club. 

Senator Dirksen. Were there any other social occasions while 
this heady fend was developing and going on? 

Mr. Adams. While this what feud was going on? 

Senator Dirkson. This rather heady feud, as one might call it. 
I will withdraw that and just say while these developments were in 

Mr. Adams. I was in New York, sir, a total of I think 12 days, 
during October and November, and a day or so in December. On 
about f) or 7 of those occasions we had lunch together. We went to 
Fort Monmouth together, and we had lunch together at Fort Mon- 
mouth. When — we had lunch togetlier at Gasner's Restaurant on 
6 or 7 occasions. We lunched in the Merchants Club twice with Mr. 
Cohn present and another time when Mr. Cohn was not present. 
Once Mr. Cohn was the host to Mr. Carr and me and a newspaper- 
woman whom he had known all his life, he said, at the Stork Club. 
I think that was on November 23. We went to the prize fight one 
evening, and then on the night of November 23 or 24 after Senator 
McCarthy had had a television broadcast, I was not with him during 
the evening but I went over at 11 :30 at night to watch the television 
broadcast and subsequent to that, a fairly large party, 6 or 7 of us 
went to the Stork Club. And on one or two occasions, subsequent 
to evening hearings in New York, we would ride uptown together. 
On one occasion we stopped in the lounge of the Waldorf-Astoria 
for an hour or so, and on one occasion we went to the apartment of a 
friend of Senator McCarthy. 

Senator Dirksen. The only reason for this question, Mr. Adams, 
was this : When Secretary Stevens was on the stand I raised the 
question of whether or not a good deal of this discussion back and 
forth over a period of time wasn't in the nature of ribbing and banter. 
And in that atmosphere and that temper, of course expressions are 
used which, when reduced to cold print have a significance that prob- 
ably was not intended. So what I am trying to rationalize is the 
alleged threats and condign promises by Mr. Cohn that he was going 
to wreck the Army and that sort of thing, against a very interesting 
and almost continuous social background which would remind one of 
that old play that was jiopular years ago, Friendly Enemies, and that 
perhaps some of the steam would be taken out as a result. 

That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, I have been listening with interest 
to the questioning of the Chairman with respect to Mr. Carr. Our 
counsel for the committee said these charges were made up very 
quickly at his request, and I think Mr. Welch at some point verified 
the fact that they were made up quickly. 

In all frankness, if you had a chance now to revise those charges, 
would you take Mr. Carr's name out ? 

Mr. Adams. Sir, I would not, for the principal reason of the memo- 
randa which he permitted to be published over my name as much — 
which he permitted to be published over his name as much as any- 
thing else, and which suggest certain actions on my part which are 
not true. That was the hardest thing of all for me to take. 


The other specifications I tliink are specifications which the com- 
mittee itself will have to decide whether they should remain in or 
come out. 

Senator Symington. What memorandum are you referring to* 

Mr. Adams. I am referring to memoranda published on the 12th of 
March, there are four of them, which refer to actions on my part with 
reference to Schine, actions which are not accurate. 

Senator Symington. You feel that you are going to develop some- 
thing in the future with respect to Mr. Carr? 

Mr. Adams. Do I what, sir? 

Senator Symington. Do you feel that you are going to develop 
something in the future with respect to Mr. Carr? 

Mr. Adams. I don't think I understand. 

Senator Symington. Are there any charges that you plan to make 
against Mr. Carr that you have not yet made ? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir. 

Senator Symington. Because, if there were, I think you should 
make tliem now. There aren't any, is that correct? 

Mr. Adams. Excepting the denial we have made of the memoranda 
of Mr, Carr. 

Senator Symington. Specifically, on December 9, 1953, I notice a 
memorandum from Frank Carr to Senator McCarthy which says : ' 

Again today John Adams came down here after the hearings and using clever 
phrases tried to find out "What's There in it for us" if he and Stevens did some- 
thing for Schine. He refers to Schine as our hostage or the hostage whenever 
his name comes up. 

Is that statement of Mr. Carr's in this memorandum true or false ? 

Mr. Adams. That is false, sir. I would like to state one thing 
further. The first time in my life — correction, not the first time in 
my life. The first time in relationship to this committee that I can 
remember having heard the Avord "hostage" was when it was reported 
to me — hostage insofar as it concerned Schine — was w4ien it was re- 
ported to me subsequent to the meeting of the members of the com- 
mittee on January 22 that Senator McCarthy had referred to Schine 
as a hostage. I telephoned Frank Carr a few days after that and 
asked him if it was true, and expressed great concern. I was very 
shocked at that development. I had never heard that before, that I 
can remember, and it was very hard for me to take. It was an entirely 
new pattern. 

Carr admitted that he had heard that remark made, and he said 
something to the effect that unfortunately he thought that Senator 
McCarthy was now coming around to that point of view. 

But here is a memorandum which is much earlier than that, that 
I just cannot reconcile with the facts as I recall them. 

Senator Symington. You anticipate my next question. Did you 
ever use the word "hostage" to Mr. Carr with respect to Schine'^ 

Mr. Adams. Well, subsequent to the time that I heard it on January 
22, it may have been used between Carr and me once or twice, because 
we saw some irony in that new attitude by Senator McCarthy; but 
prior to January 22, insofar as I can recall, it was never used. 

Senator Symington. Do you remember any specific time when you 
used it with ]\Ir. Cohn or Senator McCarthy ? 


Mr. Adams. No, I am quite sure that I didn't. It was too much 
of a touchy subject with Mr. Cohn. I wouldn't have done that with 

Senator Symington. So your recollection is that if you used the 
word "hostage," you only used it to Mr. Carr, and you are not sm-e 
whether you used it at all ; is that correct? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, and if I used it with Mr. Carr, it was subse- 
quent to January 22, which was the first time it was ever brought 
into the picture insofar as I can recall, and it would only have been 
when we were alone together, because we both saw the same sort 
of irony in this new development. 

Senator Sy^iington. Mr. Adams, do you think — 1 don't want to ask 
a hypothetical question, and I will leave it up to you whether you 
believe it is one. Do you think that just because Mr. Carr charges 
you with wrongdoing, you have the right to charge liim with wrong- 
doing, even if up to that time you did not feel that he was guilty of 
any wrongdoing ? 

Mr. Adams. Sir, it is a kind of hypothetical question, and I can 
only answer it in the same manner that I have answered Senator 
Mundt. I fear it will not satisfy you. 

By the time Senator McCarthy's charges were out, when I re- 
viewed all of the incidents of the past few months, they seemed to me 
to establish a pattern which, on the occasion of the occurrence of any 
one specific incident, had not bothered me. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, when did you first join the Array ? 

Mr. Adams. As an employee ? 

Senator Symington. When did you first join the Army? 

Mr. Adams. I was commissioned in the Army as an officer when I 
graduated from college, ROTC, in 1934. I went on active duty in 
the Army in 1942, early in World War II. 

Senator Symington. When did you leave the Army ? 

Mr. Adams. I served on active duty for about 3% years. I think 
my separation papers are about the 1st of January 1946. 

Senator Symington. AAHiat branch of the service were you in ? 

Mr. Adams. My basic branch was infantry, sir. 

Senator Symington. When did you come back to the Department 
of Defense ? 

Mr. Adams. I entered the Department of Defense as a civil servant, 
as an attorney adviser to Mr. Forrestal while he was Secretary of 
Defense, on about the 1st of February 1949. 

Senator Symington. Weren't you with the Armed Services Com- 
mittee in the Senate ? 

]\Ir. Adams. Yes, sir. I was chief clerk of the Armed Services 
Committee of the United States Senate from about January 10, 1947, 
until the time that I went to work for the Secretary of Defense. 

Senator Symington. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak? 

Senator Dworshak. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. Just one minute. 

Just one or two questions. Senator Symington asked you about 
your term of service. May I ask you where you served, Mr. Adams ? 

Mr. Adams. I served initially at Camp Edwards, Mass. I was there 
about 5 weeks. Then I went overseas to England and was there for 


about 6 weeks until I participated in the landinoj in Africa in Novem- 
ber of 1942, and then I went to Fifth Army Headquarters shortly after 
the landing in Italy. 

I was with the Fifth Army in Italy until the summer of 1944, when 
I went to France with the Sixth Army Group when it made its landing 
in France in 1944. I stayed with that organization until about V-E 
Day when I came home for duty after V-E Day as a student at the 
Command and General Staff School at Fort Leavenworth, Kans. I 
completed that service on just about V-J Day and the balance of my 
service was in the Army service forces in Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Welch. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, or Mr. Cohn. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams, I was asking you when my 10 
minutes ran out, not what threats Mr. Cohn made, but what threats 
Avere carried out. You called my attention to an automobile ride up- 
town. We have now established that he did not take you to the rail- 
way station. He made you take a cab. But let's forget about when 
you had to take a cab and things like that. I would like to know 
what threats in regard to the hearings, the calling of witnesses, and 
this investigation were carried out by Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Adams. May I have the question read ? I didn't hear it. 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will please read the question. 

Senator McCarthy. Maybe I can restate it briefer. 

Senator Mundt. All right. Restate it. 

Senator McCarthy. What threats on the part of Mr. Cohn having 
to do with the investigation of Communists were actually carried out ? 
If any? 

Mr. Adams. Mr. Cohn didn't make any threats having to do with 
the investigation of communism. His threats were generalized and, 
as I have stated to you before, they culminated in my mind in this 
Loyalty Board matter. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's get that straight. You know, don't you, 
Mr. Adarns, that I had repeatedly told you and said publicly that we 
would ultimately have to have the Loyalty Board before us to find out 
who was clearing Communists to handle secret radar work. You 
know I have made that statement any number of times before there 
was any misunderstanding between you and Roy Cohn. Don't you 
know that? 

Mr. Adams. I do know that, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. All right. So then 

Mr. Adams. I know also, sir, that Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr used to 
discuss the matter with me, and I had statements from them which 
were in the nature of assurances to the effect that they knew that this 
would not become an issue between us. They knew how concenifd 
I was about it in November. 

Senator jNIcCarthy. In other words — pardon me, if I interrupted 

JNIr. Adams. They knew how concerned I was about it in Novem- 
ber, and they knew that I felt it was a fundamental constitutional 
issue, and although the opinion which I might have might not be the 
same as the opinion of someone else, that it was a very knotty problem, 
and it was one which I hoped woulcl not become an issue. 

Senator McCarthy. All right. You may be getting down to the 
facts, then. In other words, you say that 'Mr. Cohn and JNIr. Carr 


told you in effect that they would try and keep me from insisting upon 
the calling of the Loyalty Board. Is it correct that you say this 
is improper conduct on Mr. Cohn's part — let me finish — because he 
"was not successful, that I maintained the same position from the 
beginning of the hearings until I finally said, "Mr. Adams, you have 
got to produce them." You don't blame Mr. Cohn for what I had 
been insisting upon for months and months and months, do you? 

Mr. Adams. No. I testified before, Senator McCarthy, that it 
seemed to me that this ultimatum resulted from — I don't disagree 
with your right, sir, to issue an ultimatum of that sort, please under- 
stand that. But it seemed to me as though this erupted as an issue 
because of the news that Mr. Cohn got with reference to the assign- 
ment of Private Schine. And when I inquired of Mr. Carr about 
how this had come about, he stated to me that Mr. Colin had returned 
the night before from Florida, and that there was nothing he, Carr, 
could do about it. 

Senator McCarthy. All right, let's get back out of the field of 
speculation into the field of fact. I had told you repeatedly, Mr. 
Adams, that I would ultimately insist upon the calling of the whole 
Loyalty Board that had been sending Communists back to the secret 
radar school. I told you that was much more important than picking 
up the individual Communists. Now, do you say it is improper con- 
duct on Mr. Cohn's part because he couldn't influence me to forget 
about calling those members of the Loyalty Board who failed to do 
their duty ? Is that improper conduct ? 

Mr. Adams. No, I think he could influence you, and I think he did. 

Senator McCarthy. When did he start to influence me ? When I 
originally make the statement ? 

Mr. Adams. On the case of the Loyalty Board, I think he influenced 
you on the day he came back from Florida. This is in the realm of 
speculation, you understand, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's get down to the facts, sir. ^ You know, do 
you not, that I told you and I had publicly stated time after time, 
that this investigation could not end until we had the members of the 
Loyalty Board before us. Those statements were made long before 
Schine was drafted, and I finally became impatient with you and 
said, "Mr. Adams, you must produce five of the members of the 
Loyalty Board," Isn't that the situation? 

Mr. Adams. Not in the context that you give it. Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Is there any other threat that you say Mr. 
Cohn carried out besides his inability to get me to desist from calling 
the Loyalty Board ? Wliat else did he do, not what he said, but what 
else did he do with regard to the hearings which you consider im- 
proper or the carrying out of a threat ? 

Mr. Adams. Again, we are in the field of speculation, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's get to facts. 

Mr. xVdams. All right. You are asking me to think, and I have got 
to tell you what is in my mind. 

Senator McCarthy, That is not unreasonable, Jolui, to ask you to 

]\Ir. Adams. But then when I try to give you an answer, from my 
own thoughts 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams, you made the charges. You must 
have done some thinking before you made them. I am asking you 


the very simple question now : What did Mr. Cohn do that you consider 
improper aside from what he said that he was going to do? 

Mr. Adams. Other than the Loyahy Board thing? 

Senator McCarthy. Other than the Loyahy Board thing, yes, which 
obviously was my act. 

Mr. Adams. I don't at the moment recall specific incidents that I can 
state resulted from Mr. Cohn's anger. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Adams, on the question of the Loyalty Boards, is it 
not a fact, sir, that you had willingly produced one member of the 
Loyalty Board on October 30, and you had not asserted this objection 
which you suddenly asserted in January? 

JNIr. Adams. I did produce the member of the Loyalty Board and I 
produced him because it was clearly indicated that the interrogation 
of the individual was going to go to his background and behavior 
and not his participation on the Loyalty Board. 

Mr. Cohn. Did not Senator McCarthy indicate to you, sir, on Janu- 
ary 19, that the interrogation of other members of the Loyalty Board 
would go to their personal backgrounds, too ? 

]\Ir. Adams. He did. 

Mr. Cohn. I quote. 

We are interested in matters of graft, alleged graft, corruption and misconduct 
on the part of the individual members of the Board having nothing to do with 
their official duties. 

Mr. Adams. He did. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, can you tell me the difference between that, on 
January 19, and between the situation on October 30 when you will- 
ingly produced the Loyalty Board members ? 

Mr. Adams. No, if the facts were true that they were to be inter- 
rogated about graft and personal misconduct, they should be inter- 

Mr. Cohn. Did you know that the facts were not true? 

Mr. Adams. No. 

Mr. Cohn. You did not know that? 

Mr. Adams. No. 

Mr. Cohn. But nevertheless you went to members of this committee 
and said, and coupled, I think the words of Senator Dirksen was 
"coupled," a request to this committee to kill those subpenas with a 
story about myself and about you. 

Is that not the fact ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. 

Now, Mr. Cohn, let me state something further. 

Mr. Cohn. Surely. 

Mr. Adams. The indications were to me, not that there were only 
five people to be interrogated but that the whole Board was coming 
up. The problem which I was facing had to do with this whole 
Board. And the problem on which I had my conferences with officials 
outside of the Department of Defense had to do with the whole Board 
and its problem. And the interrogation on this particular day, inso- 
far as I knew, were virtually a series of interrogations, and I was at- 
tempting to crystalize the position which the Army would take. It 
was made clear to me, by all of the officials to whom I talked, and I 
think the legal memorandum which we supplied the committee a few 
days ago reflects that, that if an individual is going to be interrogated 


about matters having to do with his personal misconduct, obviously 
he must respond to a subpena. The overall problem was the prob- 
lem which concerned us. It happened that there were five individuals 
who were to be interrogated the next day, or on Friday of that week, 
and that it was suggested that they had graft and personal misconduct 
in their background. It was the overall problem that faced us. 

Mr. CoHN. Well, Mr. Adams, if I might get back to the question 
here, did you then know or do you know now of any provision in law 
which gives immunity from service of subpena and response to subpena 
to members of the Loyalty Board ? 

Mr. Adams. I do not. The only thing 

Mr. CoiiN. You do not know that? In other words, there was no 
legal basis? 

Mr. Adams. The only thing I knew then and the only thing I know 
now is that there is a substantial body of opinion in the Government 
that under the theory of constitutional separation it is within the pur- 
view of the executive to decide whether or not he will make the in- 
dividual available. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Adams, I might suggest, sir, there might be two 
ways of pursuing something. One way might be to prepare a legal 
opinion and present that to the committee. Another way, apparently 
the way you choose, would be to go to the committee and say in effect 
or substance, "Either these subpenas are killed, or else." 

Isn't that what you did, sir ? 

Mr. Adams. There was no "Either or else." 

Senator Mundt. The time has expired. 

Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Jexkixs. Pass. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams, I am hopeful that with this round we 
can conclude our interrogatory as far as Frank Carr is concerned. 
When we left off, you were telling me about a phone call on March 8, 
which if the Chair understood you correctly, you said that you had 
some difficulty in interpreting, and if the Chair further understood 
you, you felt that you would not want to make an allegation of mis- 
conduct against Mr. Carr solely on the basis of a telephone call that 
you could not interpret, but that you were making your allegations in 
connection with a memorandum that he issued — that was issued by 
Senator McCarthy on Mr. Carr, and Mr. Cohn, on March 12. Is 
that correct now? 

Mr. Adams. Did you say I was making it solely on that? 

Senator Mundt. Yes. 

Mr. Adams. IS^o, I stated 

Senator Muxdt. If I am wrong, correct me. 

Mr. Adams. No, I stated I had a feeling, not a feeling— I had the 
occasion to review the pattern of the months on March 12, and in the 
light of all that had happened by all of the principals, and in the 
light of the memoranda to which I have referred, I could not in my 
own mind escape the fact, and I cannot now escape the fact, that Mr. 
Carr's action constituted participation. 

Now, if the committee decides that that is not so, it is within the 
committee's purview, of course, but that is my personal opinion. 

Senator Mundt. When I said "solely,"' you will recall, Mr. Adams, 
I was doing it on the basis of our long and continuing colloquy ask- 
ing you specifically on each occasion whether at the time of the event, 


not in restrospect, at the time of the event, you felt that his actions or 
his statements were either threats to the Army, or attempts to intimi- 
date, or attempts to improperly influence the Army to do something. 

In that regard I understood you to say that insofar as the conversa- 
tion on March 8 was concerned, you weren't sure just how to interpret 
it, but you would not make an allegation that that was a threat to the 
Army. If I am wrong in that understanding, will you tell me how 
1 am wrong? 

Mr. Adams. You are correct, sir. 

Senator Mdndt. Thank you. We come then to March 12. 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. As the real time when you felt that Mr. Carr had 
taken an overt act or had done something which you would consider 
improper; right? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Let me point out, No. 1, that on March 11 there 
Avas sent to the committee by Colonel Houck a statement of items, 
34 pages long, a statement of events. In those events Mr. Carr's name 
was mentioned nine times. That was, of course, before March 12. 
Those nine items, I might say, are in the main reviewed and condensed 
m your statement of April 13, which was your specific charge, but I 
simply point out that according to your testimony under oath today, 
none of these items in this communication of March 11 in the 34 pages, 
insofar as they refer to Mr. Carr, were, in your opinion, threats 
against the Army or reasons for this committee to conclude that he 
had used the Army improperly. It was something he did the day 
following the release by the Army of this document to the members 
of the committee. That is correct, is it not ? 

]Mr. Adams. Not exactly, sir. 

Senator JMundt. If it is wrong, correct me. 

Mr. Adams. I regret to prolong this discussion. As I stated to 
you, when the Army — when the whole pattern was developed, it 
seemed to me as though it was a threat. If you do not agree, sir 

Senator Mundt. Let me go back. It may be that you have access 
to Senator McCarthy's files. Did you know on March 11 that there 
was a document or memorandum from Mr. Carr in the McCarthy files 
that was subsequently released on March 12 ? 

Mr. Adams. No. 

Senator Mundt. Did you know about that? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Did you learn about it the first time that the chair- 
man learned about it, when you read about it in the paper following 
the press conference? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. So it could not have influenced any of the judg- 
ments of Mr. Carr certainlv prior to March 12 ? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir; it did not. 

Senator Mundt. May I point out that in the specifications signed 
by Mr. AVelch, under date of April 13 you have mentioned Mr. Carr 
under the heading of "Items By Which Senator McCarthy, Counsel 
Cohn, and Other Members of the Stafl' Sought By Improper Means 
To Obtain Preferential Treatment For One Pvt. G. David Schine." 
You mention him in this specification dated April 13 eight different 


As I have asked you about these events specifically and individually, 
you have stated now under oath that at the time they happened you 
did not believe that they were acts of intimidation or threats or im- 
proper means to obtain preferential treatment. 

I point out to you that in this item of April 13, issued a month and 
a day after March 12, no reference of any kind is made there to the 
documentation you refer to now as the reason why you believe Mr. 
Carr acted improperly. It does not appear in this specification. Why 


Mr. Adams. Well, as Mr. Welch has stated, I did not participate in 
the preparation of that series of specifications, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Were you not consulted by Counsel Welch at the 
time he was x)reparing it ? 

Mr. Adams. In a very cursory manner; we were all very busy at 
that time, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Surely Mr. Welch did not, out of his own creative 
imagination on record of facts, prepare these specifications, because 
he had come recently from Boston and knew nothing about this of his 
own personal experience. He must have gotten it from your files or 
from you or from your records or from your associates; right? 

Mr. Adams. He got it from interviews, from our files, records, and 
from our associates. But I did not see it before 

Senator Mundt. At all events, the document, the specifications, as 
they stand before us, are entirely silent insofar as the latest charge is 
concerned, that your allegations and accusations of impropriety 
against Mr. Carr grew out of something that was released on March 12. 
There isn't any dispute about that fact ; is there ? 

Mr. Adams. I think I have succeeded in creating a false impression, 
Mr. Senator. 

Senator Mundt. I am trying to get the correct one. I want to point 
out again that I have no more interest in Mr. Carr than I have in Mr. 
Adams. All of the people involved in this controversy are friends of 
mine. I can tell you honestly that I certainly have no preconceived 
prejudice in this case. I wouldn't know how to get one and, if I had 
one, I wouldn't know on which side to put it, because everybody here 
is a friend of mine, I am trying to get at the facts. 

I would like to have the reporter read my last question, which has 
not yet been answered. Will the reporter read it and get the atten- 
tion of the witness. If I have overlooked in my reading something 
m this document of April 13, I want Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair or 
Mr. Adams to correct me. If I have not overlooked it, I want him to 
answer the question. 

(The reporter read the question as recorded.) 

Senator Mundt. Will you answer the question now ? 

Mr. Adams. Well, what I started to say was the incident occurred 
which are in the original Army paper, March 10 or 11, whichever it is. 
And the memoranda which were issued subsequently gave me obvious 
reason to reexamine and search every one of those incidents for the 
purpose of ascertaining in my own mind as to what the motive was, 
and in view of my own attitude with reference to the memoranda to 
which I have referred, it was obvious — not that it was obvious, but it 
became apparent to me that I had to reevaluate my opinion.^ I did 
reevaluate my opinion as to the effect or the force of these isolated 
events, and it appeared to me quite clearly very shortly after the 12th 


of JNIarch, that 1 had to consider Mr. Carr as an active participant, 
even though the specific event had not seemed significant at the time. 

Senator Mundt. I am sorry, Mr. Adams, but may I respectfully 
remind you that you have not answered the question. I asked you 
why in this process of reevaluation, after a month and a day, when 
you prepared the specific accusations under date of April 13, the docu- 
ment stands completely silent on the one charge that you now say you 
believe sufficient to cause concern to this committee — on the release of 
the document. You knew^ nothing about them before March 12 and 
neither did we. 

Mr. Adams. Again I must state, sir, I did not participate in the 
preparation of that document. If it stands silent in that respect, I 
consider it a defect in the document. 

Senator Mdndt. You do not deny that it stands silent in that re- 
spect, do you ? 

• Mr. Adams. I don't r.emember the document well enough. I cer- 
tainly take your word that it stands in defect. 

Senator Mundt. I certainly stand ready to be corrected by a point 
of order, if I am misquoting the document. I hear no point of order. 
1 assume it stands silent. May I say that after this same line of in- 
quiry with Mr. Stevens, he made what I thought was a fair state- 
ment. After his complete inability to document a single charge 
against Mr. Carr, he said, "If I were one of the committee members 
on the basis of my testimony, I would acquit Mr. Carr." Let me ask 
you sir — forgetting now the document of March 12 which you have 
said in your opinion you do consider important, on the basis of these 
9 other statements in the document of events, and the 8 statements 
in the specifications, not one of which were you willing under oath to 
say you considered a matter of sufficient importance to be an intimi- 
dation or a threat against the Army — would you feel the committee 
would be justified on the basis of that evidence, apart from the docu- 
ment of March 12, to acquit Mr. Carr ? 

Mr. Adams. I think on the basis of my experience with Mr. Carr, 
prior to the publication of these documents, they had not seemed to 
me, these specific incidents in themselves, to be improper. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. I think I will not have to talk to 
you further, about Mr. Carr. We are agreed we will have to ask him 
about the document of March 12. My time has expired. 

Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. No questions at this time. 

Senator Mundt. We will go around. We will finish this round, 
Mr. Welch, and let you go. 

Senator Dirksen ? 

Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, would you ask your counsel — 
strike that. As I remember the testimony, both you and Secretary 
Stevens state that you did not see these charges when they were, ac- 
cording to counsel, hurriedly gotten together. Would you ask your 
counsel if he had more leisure to get the charges up, and, based upon 
what he now knows, whether he would remove Mr. Carr from the 
charges ? 

Mr. Adams. My counsel advises me that he would not. 

Senator Symington. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak? 


Senator Davorsh.ak. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Have I asked you, Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. Yes. I passed. 

Senator Mundt. Very well, Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair ? 

Senator McCarthy? Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn, 10 minutes. 
And after this 10 minutes, I suggest that we recess until 10 o'clock on 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ? 

Senator McCarthy. I have just witnessed a very unusual spectacle 
here and I wonder if you are going to let it stand over the weekend. 
I listened to the very pointed questioning of Senator Mundt, and I 
find that you admit that as of the date you issued the charges against 
Mr. Carr, April 13, in which you say he sought by improper means 
to obtain preferential treatment for Schine, et cetera, and then you 
talk about threats, you now say that it was not until I issued my an- 
swer to your charges that you felt that Mr. Carr was guilty of any 
improper conduct. So we have the record, unless I misunderstand you, 
the record now establishes that at the time these charges were made, 
at the time the original charges were made, you then had no knowledge, 
no inclination to think, that Mr. Carr had done anything improper, but 
in your memorandum there are charges. 

This seems to me to be far beyond the point of decency, and when 
Mr. Welch, your counsel, says even though you had no evidence to 
back that up, he would still charge Mr. Carr with improper conduct. 
I think the committee should, not today but sometime, put Mr. Welch 
on the stand and find out why he feels that even though you had no 
knowledge of any improper conduct, and Mr. Stevens had no knowl- 
edge of any improper conduct on the part of Mr. Carr, somebody 
sets out to get the reputation, the job, of this young man who has had 
such an outstanding record, not only with the FBI but with my com- 
mittee. This is not a question, but I think that you should not let 
this stand over the weekend. If you want to comment on it, I think 
you should. 

I will turn the questioning over to Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Corn. Just 1 or 2 things here, I believe yesterday you were 
asked by Mr. Jenkins whether or not it is a fact that the members 
of the loyalty board of the Government Printing Office came and 
appeared before this committee without asserting any legal objection 
whatsoever. You know that to be a fact, don't you, sir? 

Mr. Adams. I don't know much about it, but I heard that that hap- 

Mr. Cohn. You heard a good deal of discussion between us? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, I heard. 

Mr. Cohn. We said that after we found some security risks, Com- 
munists, in the Government Printing Office, this committee called in 
the members of the loyalty board and they were questioned and 
they asserted no legal objection; isn't that right, sir? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. In view of that, it was certainly not a consistent Gov- 
ernment policy to deny to congressional committees the right to ques- 
tion these people, was there ? 


Mr. Adams. I cannot state the consistent Government policy, bnt 
I can point out that it is part of the legislative branch and not the 
executive branch. 

Mr. CoHN. That is what you pointed out. Bnt isn't it a fact that 
the Government Printing Office is under the very same Presidential 
directive that the Army is, and that the Director of the Government 
Printing Office is an appointee of the President? 

Mr. Adams. The Director is an appointee of the President. I think, 
and I am subject to correction here, I think that the Presidential di- 
rective refers to the executive branch. But I am subject to correction 

Mr. CoHN. I won't take the time now but over the weekend, JMr. 
Adams, if you will look at the publislied hearings of this committee, 
for August 19, 20, 22, and 29, you will find in the appendix set forth 
directives of the Government Printing Office and this same Presi- 
dential directive, which makes it clear that the Printing Ollice is in 
precisely the same boat as the Army, subject to the same directives, 
and what is valid for one is just as valid for the other. 

Senator Jackson. A point of order. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson. 

Senator Jackson. Am I correct in under, landing that the Gov- 
ernment Printing Office is under the supei'vision of the Senate and 
House Committee on Printing? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair certainly is in no position to give yo^i 
a curbstone answer on that. I understood that the Government 
Printer was appointed by the President. I may be wrong. 

Senator Jackson. I think it is a part of the legislative branch. 

Senator Mundt. That part dealing with the Congressional Record 
certaiidy is under the jurisdiction of the legislative branch. 

Senator Jackson. I think it is under the Joint Committee on Print- 
ing, of which Senator Jenner is chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Is Senator Jackson of the opinion that the Joint 
Committee on Printing appoints the Government Printer? 

Senator Jackson. It is sort of like the General Accounting Office. 
It is sort of in between the legislative and the executive. I don't 
believe it is in the same category. 

Senator McCarthy. I don't understand the point of order. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson raises the point of order, I think, 
if I understand, that because the Joint Committee on Printing has 
certain jurisdictional functions with the Government Printing Office, 
which I know to be true certainly in the limited category of Govern- 
ment hearings, because I have had a lot of contact with them lately 
about these hearings — the pertinent point seems to be whether or 
not the directive is applicable all the way around. 

Mr. CoHN. I so stated and I state that the public hearings of this 
connnittee contain copies of various directives of the Government 
Printing Office which state that they are under 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would suggest, if you have such a 
directive or such a stipulation, it may be entered as an exhibit in the 
record because it does not seem to be subject to debate. It is a matter 
of fact. 

Mr. CoHN. I pass it over to Senator Jackson. I have another copy. 
"With your permission, may we put it in the record. 



Senator Mcndt. It will be made a part of the record and given the 
appropriate exhibit number. 

(The administrative order mentioned above was marked as "Ex- 
hibit No. 18" and will be found in the appendix on p. 1239.) 

Mr. CoHN. I am referring here in this exhibit to part 2 of our 
Government Printing Office hearings, Senator Mundt, page 152, No. 3, 
which is an administrative order referring to the Executive order 
with which we are concerned here. 

Just 1 or 2 or 3 things, Mr. Adams. 

I believe you described in some detail a telephone conversation 
which you say you had with me on about December 11. Do you 
remember that, sir ? 

Mr. Adams. Was that tlie telephone conversation with reference 
to Schine's weekday availability or Saturday morning availability? 

Mr. CoHN. Yes; that is what j^ou say it was about. 

Mr. Adams. I stated that there was a series of conversations on 
either the afternoon of December 4 or December 11. 

Mr. CoHN. Yes. I believe you originally stated it was December 
11. I don't care much which day. 

Mr. Adams. No, I think I stated consistently that I wasn't sure 
which of the 2 days it was. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Adams, in the original report I believe you indi- 
cated it was the afternoon of December 11. Am I not correct in that? 

Mr. Adams. If that is what the charges say, that is right. 

Mr. CoHN. You may check that, sir, and if I am wrong, you or 
Mr. Welch might correct me. 

In that conversation, I believe you say that I abused you, used 
vituperative language, and it was a thoroughly unpleasant affair. 

Mr. Adams. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. Is that right, sir ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. 

Mr. CoHN. It would be thoroughly inconsistent with your story, 
then, sir, would it not, if in that same conversation you asked me to 
contact some relatives of yours in Brooklyn and procure theater tickets 
for them and for you ? You certainly wouldn't do that if I had been 
abusing you and using obscenities and there had been a thoroughly 
unpleasant conversation ? 

Mr. Adams. There were three conversations, I think, that after- 
noon, Mr. Colin. And, as I have testified before, when we had diffi- 
culties over the telephone or face-to-face, it would ebb and flow. 

Mr. CoiiN. I see. 

Mr. Adams. There could be some pleasant conversation and then 
it would erupt. 

Mr. Coiix. During the ebb, you think you might have asked me to 
get these theater tickets for you? 

Mr. Adams. It is conceivable. 

Mr. CoHN. I see. Did you cancel the order during the flow ? 

Mr. Adams. I don't recall this conversation exactly. 

Mr. CoHN. I see. 

Mr. Adams, do you think you might have forgotten to tell the com- 
mittee there was considerable talk about General Lawton on that 
afternoon ? 

Mr. Adams. I don't think I would have forgotten to, because I 
don't remember it. 


Mr. CoiiN. Do you remember any now, sir? 

Mr. Adams. I do not. 

Mr. CoiiN. Don't you remember asking me to talk to any people in 
New York and New Jersey about General Lavv'ton and possibly ar- 
ranging; an appointment for you and me jointly to talk to some people 
about him the next week? 

Mr. Adams. I remember a conversation we had. I don't isolate the 
date. I remember the reason that you said you were concerned about 
General Lawton, a reason which was new to me. 

Mr. CoHN. Was this December 11, sir? 

Mr. Adams, I don't remember. 

Mr. CoiTN. Maybe over the weekend you could think about that 
and tell us. 

Mr. Adams. I don't think I could isolate when that conversation 

Mr. CoHN. Could you tell us, this, then, sir? Do you recall now 
that the conversation in which you asked me — and I don't object to 
it and I don't think it was improper — to call some aunts of yours in 
Brooklyn and arrange a theater party for the next week when you 
expected to be in New York — coukl you recall for us whether that was 
not the very conversation in which you said yesterday I abused 
you and used obscenities and a thoroughly unpleasant situation was 
created ? 

Mr. Adams. I don't remember, Mr. Cohn. As you knoAv, we talked 
many times. 

Mr. CoHN. This is pretty important to me, Mr. Adams. This one 
is pretty important to me. 

Mr. Adams. I understand that. 

Mr. CoHN. I would suggest to the committee that if in fact I had 
abused you and used these obscenities, it would be quite inconsistent 
for you in that same conversation to ask me to put myself out to the 
point of contacting your aunts in Brooklyn. 

Mr. Adams. My recollection, Mr. Cohn, is that on that afternoon 
we talked about three times. My record — what records I have indicate 
that we talked many times. As I have stated, our relationship would 
ebb and flow. There were times when we would talk in very friendly 
relationship, as you well know. There were times when that was not 
the case. 

Mr, Cohn. I am addressing myself particularly, sir, now 

Mr. Adams, What happened on that particular — when it was that 
I talked to you about that theater party that I was planning to 
arrange, I don't remember. 

Mr, Cohn. Sir 

Mr. Adams. It was in December. 

Mr, Cohn, I am suggesting to you, sir, it was in this very conversa- 
tion in which you say that I abused you and used all sorts of obscenities 
and created a thoroughly unpleasant situation. I am wondering if 
you can't give me some help and search your memory on that point. 

Mr. Adams. I can neither agree nor disagree because I don't re- 
member what conversation it was. 

Mr. Cohn. Can you recall whether or not you asked me to call 
your aunts and see if I could get tickets for a certain show and then 
call you back in Washington and report whether or not 1 had suc- 
ceeded ? 


Mr. Adams. I recall a conversation about that. I recall that you 
agreed to do it. You were very gracious about things like that. You 
always were. 

Mr. CoHx. This was during the ebb? 

ISIr. Adams. That is right. I am not sure it was one of the difficult 

Mr. CoiiN. I see. Anyway there was this difficult conversation on 
December 11; is that right, or before that? 

Mr. Adams. Oh, yes, there was, 

Mr. CoHN. Did this little theater party actually come off on De- 
cember 16 ? 

Mr, Adams, Yes, it did. 

Mr. CoHX. In any event, I did get the tickets and did arrange this 
thing for you after this abuse and after tliese obscenities. 

Mr. Adams. If you remember, Mr. Cohn, we sat together in your 
office in New York on December 16, and I said that I had decided I was 
going to go to the theater that night and I had no luck on tickets. 
You telephoned two or three friends of yours in my presence — I don't 
know who it was you telephoned — and one of them gave you a choice 
of two or three theaters for which tli^re were tickets, and I selected 
Wonderful Town, a play that Rosalind Russell was in. You arranged 
for the tickets, and I picked them up. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Adams, didn't you go a little bit further? I again 
want to make it very clear I don't think there was the slightest im- 
propriety in it, and I was very happy to do it. Didn't you ask me 
to arrange for a little dinner for you and your family prior to that at 
Sardi's restaurant and call up and make reservations? 

Mr. Adams. That is quite correct. I asked you if you could make a 
reservation for me so I could get a table there. 

Mr. Cohn. This was after I had heaped these obscenities and abuses 
upon you ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Adams. Oh, yes. It was between them. 

Mr, Cohn. It was between them, I see, I assume, Mr. Adams, too, 
that your code of life would be such that you felt no reluctance in 
accepting the hospitality of myself and my family the night after 
you claim you were threatened by me at Fort Monmouth. 

Mr. Adams. I have already described the circumstances of accepting 
the hospitality of yourself and your family, and I have stated that I 
thought your mother and father were very gracious to me, and they 

Mr. Cohn. Thank you for that. I appreciate it. That was the day 
after all these threats had taken place. 

Mr. Adams. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. I see. Mr. Adams, let's come up to recent times. You 
have testified here — in fact, you said, I think, I abused you more than 
all other people you talked to. 

Senator Mundt. I am sorry, your time has expired, Mr. Cohn, and, 
since you are going to a new subject, we will stand in recess until 
10 o'clock Monday morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 p. m., the hearing was recessed, to reconvene at 
10 a. m., Monday, May 17, 1954.) 



No. 3 

[Administrative Order No. 90, May 28, 1953— Revised September 1, 1953] 

Employee Security Program; 

Pursuant to the authority contained in the Act of August 26, 1950, 64 Stat. 
476, and Executive Order No. 10450 of April 27, 1953, I hereby prescribe the fol- 
Icwing regulations relating to the security program of the Government Printing 

Section 1. Definitions 

(a) As used herein, the term "national security" relates to the protection and 
preservation of the military, economic, and productive strength of the United 
States, including the security of the Government in domestic and foreign affairs, 
against or from espionage, sabotage, and subversion, and any and all other illegal 
acts designed to weaken or destroy the United States. 

(&) As used herein, the term "sensitive position" shall mean any position in 
the Government Printing Office the occupant of which could bring about, because 
of the nature of the position, a material adverse effect on the national security. 
Such positions shall include, but shall not be limited to, any position the occupant 
of which (1) may have access to security information or material classified as 
"confidential," "secret," or "top secret," or any other information or material 
having a direct bearing on the national security, and (2) may have opportunity 
to commit acts directly or indirectly adversely affecting the national security. 

Section 2. Policy 

It shall be the policy of the Government Printing Office, based on the said 
Act of August 26, 1950, and the said Executive Order No. 10450, to employ and 
to retain in employment only those persons whose employment or retention in 
employment is found to be clearly consistent with the interests of the national 

Section 3. Security Standards 

(0) No person shall be employed, or retained as an employee, in the Govern- 
ment Printing Office unless the employment of such person is clearly consistent 
with the interests of the national security. 

(6) Information regarding an applicant for employment, or an employee, in 
the Government Printing Office which may preclude a finding that his employ- 
ment or retention in employment is clearly consistent with the interests of the 
national security shall relate, but shall not be limited, to the following : 

(1) Depending on the relation of the Government employment to the national 
security : 

(i) Any behavior, activities, or associations which tend to show that 
the individual is not reliable or trustworthy. 

(ii) Any deliberate misrepresentations, falsifications, or omissions of 
material facts. 

(iii) Any criminal, infamous, dishonest, immoral, or notoriously dis- 
graceful conduct, habitual use of intoxicants to excess, drug addiction, or 
sexual perversion. 

(iv) An adjudication of insanity, or treatment for serious mental or 
neurological disorder without satisfactory evidence of cure. 

(v) Any facts which furnish reason to believe that the individual may 
be subjected to coercion, influence, or pi'essure, which may cause him to 
act contrary to the best interests of the national security. 



(2) CoiHiiiission of any act of sahotase, osi)ionai,'e, treason, or sedition, or 
attempts thereat or preparation therefor, or conspiring with, or aiding or al)etting, 
anotlier to commit or attempt to commit any act of sabotage, espionage, treason, 
or sedition. 

(3) Establishing or continning a sympathetic association with a saboteur, spy, 
traitor, seditionist, anarchist, or revolutionist, or with an espionage or other 
secret agent or representative of a foreign nation, or any representative of a 
foreign nation whose interests may be inimical to the interests of the I'niled 
States, or with any person who advocates the use of force or violence to over- 
throw the Government of the United States or the alteration of the form of- 
govenuiieiit of the United Slates by unconstitutional means. 

(4) Advocacy of use of force or violence to overthrow the Government of 
the United States, or of the alleration of the form of government of the United 
States by unconstitutional means. 

(5) Meniljership in, or affiliation or sympatlietic association with, any foreign 
or domestic organization, a.ssi elation, movement, group, or combination of per- 
sons which is t(jta!itarian, Fascist, Coninuniist, or sul»versive, or which has 
adoi)ted, or shows, a policy of advocating or approving the commission of acts 
of force or violence to deny otiier persons their rights under the Constitution 
of the United States, or which seeks to alter the form of government of the 
United States by nnconstitutional means. 

(0) Intentional, unauthorized disclosure to any person of security informa- 
tion, or of other information disclosure of which is prohibited by law, or willful 
violation or disregard of security regulations. 

(7) rerforming or attempting to perform his duties, or otherwise acting, so 
as to serve the interests of anotlier governmeiit in preference to the interests 
of the United States. 

Skction 4. Security InvcsUnatiovs 

(a) Security investigations conducted pursuant to these regulations shall be 
designed to develop information as to whether employment or retentionin em- 
ployment by the Government Printing Oflice of the person being investigated is 
clearly consistent with the interests of the national security. 

(ft) Every appointment made within the Government Printing Office sliall be 
made subject to investigation. The scope of the investigation shall be determined 
in the first instance according to the degree of adverse effect the occupant of the 
position sought to be filled could bring about, by virtue of the nature of the posi- 
tion, on the national security, but in no event shall the investigation include less 
than a national agency check (including a check of the fingerprint tiles of the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation) and written inquiries to appropriate local law- 
enforcement agencies, former employers and supervisors, references, and schools 
and coUcgi'S attended by the person under investigation: Pi'ovidcd, That to the 
extent authorized by the Civil Service Commission a less investigation may suffice 
with respect to per diem, intermittent, temporary, or seasonal employees, or 
aliens employed outside the United States. Should information develop at any 
stage of investigation indicating that the employment of any such person may 
not be clearly consistent with the interests of the national security, there shall 
1)0 conducted with resjject to such person a full field investigation, or such less 
investigation as shall be sufficient to enable the I'ublic Printer to determine 
whether retention of such person is clearly consistent with the interests of the 
national security. 

(c) No sensitive position in the Government Printing Office shall be filled or 
occupied by any person with respect to whom a full field investigation has not 
been c(»nducted : Trovided, That a person occupying a sensitive position at the 
time it is designated as such may continue to occupy such position pending the 
completion of a full field investigation, subject to the other provisions of these 
regulations: And provided further. That in case of emergency a sensitive posi- 
tion may be filled for a limited period of time by a person with respect to whom 
a full field preappoint ment investigation has not been completed if the I'ublic 
Printer finds that such action is necessary in the national interest. Such finding 
shall be made a part of the personnel record of the person concerned. 

(d) Whenever a security investigation being conducted with respect to an 
employee of the Government I'rinting Office develops information relating to any 
of the matters described in subdivisions 2 through 7 of subsection {h) ot section 
3 of these regulations, or indicates that an employee has been subject to coercion, 
influence, or pressure to act contrary to the interests of the national security, 
the matter shall lie referred to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for a full 
field investigation. 


(c) Investigntive reports received from the Civil Service Commission or the 
Federal Bureau of Investigation shall be evaluated by the Security Officer of the 
Government Printing Office. 

Section 5. Suspension and Termination 

(a) The authority conferred by the act of August 26, 1950 (64 Stat. 476), upon 
the heads of departments and agencies to which such act is applicable to suspend 
civilian employees, ■without pay, when deemed necessary in the interests of the 
national security and recomended by the Security Officer is hereby delegated 
with respect to employees of the Government Printing Office to the Director «f 

(6) Upon receipt of an investigative report containing derogatory informa- 
tion relating to any of the matters described in subsection (&) of section 3 of 
these regulations, the Security Officer of the Government Printing Office shall 
Immediately evaluate the report from the standpoint of the security of the 
Government Printing Office. 

(c) The Security Officer shall make an immediate positive determination as 
to the necessity for suspension of the employee in the interests of the national 
security. If he deems such suspension necessary, and so recommends to the 
Director of Personnel, the employee shall be suspended immediately. If he does 
not deem such suspension necessary, a written determination to that effect shall 
be made a part of the investigation file of the person concerned. 

(fl) Factors to be taken into consideration in making the determination re- 
quired by subsection (e) of this section shall include, but shall not be limited to, 
(1) the seriousness of the derogatory information developed, (2) the possible 
access, authorized or unauthorized, of the employee to secui'ity information or 
material, and (3) oppdrtunity, by reason of the nature of the position, for com- 
mitting acts adversely affecting the national security. Pending final determina- 
tion in cases in which ameliorating circumstances are present, the employee may, 
with the approval of the Security Officer, be transferred temporarily to a posi- 
tion in which the interests of the national security cannot be adversely affected 
by the employee. 

(e) In case the employee is suspended, the Chief, Employee Relations Section, 
shall notify the suspended employee as soon as possible of the reasons for his 
suspension. Such notice shall be in writing, and .shall be as specific and detailed 
as security considerations, including the need for protection of confidential 
sources of information, permit. 

(/) A suspended employee shall have the right to submit, within 30 days 
after notification of his suspension, to the Security Officer, statements and affi- 
davits I'efuting or explaining the stated reasons for suspension. Such statements 
and affidavits shall be considered by the Security Officer for sufficiency, and a 
recommendation for the disposition of the case shall be made to the Public 

(g) On the basis of the recommendation, the Public Printer shall make his 
determination of the case as follows : 

(1) If he finds that reinstatement of the suspended employee in the position 
from which he has been suspended is clearly consistent with the interests of the 
national security, he shall restore the suspended employee to duty in such posi- 
tion, and the employee shall be compensated for the period of suspension. 

(2) If he does not find that reinstatement in the position from which he has 
been suspended will he clearly consistent with the interests of the national secu- 
rity, but that employment of the suspended employee in another position in the 
Government Printing Office is clearly consistent with the interests of the national 
security, he may restore the employee to duty in such other position. 

(3) If he does not find that reinstatement of the suspended employee to any 
position in the Government Printing Office is clearly consistent with the interests 
of the national security, he shall terminate the employment of the suspended 

(4) If the employment of the suspended employee is terminated the employee 
shall be given a written notice of such termination, to be signed by the Chief, 
Employee Relations Section. 

(h) In addition to the protection granted by subsections (e) through (g) of 
this section to all employees of the Government Printing Office, any employee 
who is a citizen of the United States and who has a permanent or indefinite 
appointment and has completed his probationary or trial period shall be entitled 
to the following : 


(1) A written statement of charges shall be furnished the employee within 
30 (lays after his suspension. The statement shall be signed by the Chief, Em- 
ployee delations Section, and shall be as specific and detailed as security con- 
siderations, including the need for protection of confidential sources of informa- 
tion, permit, and shall be subject to amendment within 30 days of issuance. Tlie 
letter of charges will contain a statement advising the employee that deliberate 
niisrepri'seutations, falsifications, or omission of material facts may constitute 
sufficient basis for removal. 

(2) An opportunity shall be afforded the employee to answer, within 30 
days after issuance of the statement of charges or within 30 days after 
the amendment thereof, such charges and submit affidavits. Statements in 
refutation of the charges and supporting documents shall be forwarded to the 
Security Officer, who shall determine the sufficiency of the answer. The Secu- 
rity Officer shall make a recommendation to the Public Printer. 

(3) The employee shall be given a hearing before a hearing board composed 
of at least three impartial, disinten>sted persons, selected in accordance with 
the procedure set forth in section 8 of these regulations. The hearing shall be 
conducted in strict accordance with the procedure set forth in section 9 of these 
regulations. The decision of the hearing board shall be in writing and shall be 
signed by all members of the hoard. One copy of the decision shall be sent to 
the Public Printer and <me copy shall l)e sent to the suspended employee. 

(4) The entire case shall be reviewed by the Public Printer before a decision 
to terminate the employment of a suspended employee is made final. The 
review shall be based on a study of all the documents in the case, including 
the record of the hearing before the hearing board. 

(5) The employee shall be furnished a written statement of the decision of the 
Public Printer. 

(i) Copies of all notices of personnel action taken in security cases shall he 
supplied at once by the Security Officer to the Civil Service Commission. 

Section 6. Rcadjudication of Certain Cases 

The Security Officer shall review all cases of employees of the Government 
I'riuting Office with respect to whom there has been conducted a full field in- 
vestigation under Executive Order No. 9.S35 of March 21, 1947. After such 
further investigation us may be appropriate, such of those cases as have not been 
adjudicated under a security standard commensurate with that established by 
Executive Order No. 10450 of April 27, 1053, and these regulations shall be read- 
judicated in accordance with the said Act of August 26, 1950, and these regula- 

Section 7. Recmploiimcnt of Employees Whose Employment Has Been Ter- 

No person whose employment has been terminated l)y any department or 
agency other than the Government Printing Office under or pursuant to the 
provisions of the said Act of August 26, 1950, or pursuant to the said Executive 
Order No. 9835 or any other security or loyalty program, shall be employed in 
the Government Printing Office unless the Public Printer finds that such employ- 
ment is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security and unless 
the Civil Service Commission determines that such person is eligible for such 
employment. The finding of the Pul)lic Printer and the determination of the 
Civil Service Commission shall be made a part of the personnel record of the 
person concerned. 

Section 8. kiecurity Hearing Boards 

(a) Security hearing boards of the Government Printing Office shall be com- 
posed of not less than three civilian officers or employees of the Federal Govern- 
ment, selected by the Public Printer from rosters maintained for that purpose 
by the Civil Service Commission in Washington, D. C., and at regional offices of 
the Commission. 

(h) No officer or employee of the Government Printing Office shall serve as a 
member of a security hearing board hearing the case of an employee of the 
Government Printing Office. 

(c) No per.son shall serve as a member of a security hearing board hearing 
the case of an employee with whom he is acquainted. 

(d) The Security Officer of the Government Printing Office shall nominate 
three civilian officers or employees to the security hearing board roster main- 
tained in Washington by the Civil Service Commission. The Security Officer 
shall nominate three civilian officers or employees to the security hearing board 


roster maintained at the appropriate regional office of the Civil Service Com- 

(e) Officers and employees nominated to security hearing board rosters 
maintained by the Civil Service Commission, both in and outside of Washington, 
D. C, shall be persons of responsibility, unquestioned integrity, and sound judg- 
ment. Each such nominee shall have been the subject of a full field investigation, 
and his nomination shall be determined to be clearly consistent with the interests 
of the national security. 

(/) The Security Officer shall whenever appropriate provide stenographic 
facilities to the security hearing boards of the Government Printing Office when 
needed to provide an accurate stenographic transcript of the hearing. 

ig) The Security Officer shall be responsible for the preparation of the charges 
against the employee to be presented to the security hearing board. Whenever 
possible the Public Printer shall be represented at the hearing. Such represent- 
ative shall not act as prosecutor, but shall aid the board in its determination as 
to procedure, and shall advise the employee of his rights before the board upon 
request of the employee. 

Section 9. Hearing procedure 

(a) Hearings before security hearing boards shall be conducted in an orderly 
manner, and in a serious, businesslike atmosphere of dignity and decorum, and 
shall be expedited as much as possible. 

(&) Testimony before the hearing boards shall be given under oath or affirma- 

(c) The hearing board shall take whatever action is necessary to insure the 
employee of a full and fair consideration of his case. It is the responsibility of 
the board to make sure, within a reasonable time prior to the hearing, that the 
employee has been Informed of his right (1) to participate in the hearings, 
(2) to be represented by counsel of his choice, (3) to present witnesses and offer 
other evidence in his own behalf and in refutation of the charges brought against 
him, and (4) to cross-examine any witness offered in support of the charges. 

ill) Hearings shall be opened by the reading of the letter setting forth the 
charges against the employee, and the statements and affidavits by the employee 
in answer to such charges. 

(e) Both the Government Printing Office and the employee may introduce 
such evidence as the hearing board may deem proper in the particular case. 
Rules of evidence shall not be binding on the board, but reasonable restrictions 
shall be imposed as to the relevancy, competency, and materiality of matters 
considered, so that the hearings shall not be unduly prolonged. If the employee 
is, or may be, handicapped by the nondisclosure to him of confidential informa- 
tion or by lack of opportunity to cross-examine confidential informants, the 
hearing board shall take that fact into consideration. If a person who has made 
charges against the employee and who is not a confidential informant is called 
as a witness but does not appear, his failure to appear shall be considered by the 
board in evaluating such charges, as well as the fact that there can be no payment 
for travel of witnesses. 

(/) The employee or his counsel shall have the right to control the sequence 
of witnesses called by him. Reasonable cross-examination of witnesses by the 
employee or his counsel shall be permitted. 

(r/) The hearing board shall give due consideration to documentary evidence 
developed by investigation, including party membership cards, petitions bearing 
the employee's signature, books, treatises or articles written by the employee, 
and testimony by the employee before duly constituted authorities. The fact 
that such evidence has been considered shall be made a part of the transcript 
of the hearing. 

ill) Hearing boards may, in their discretion, invite any person to appear at 
the hearing and testify. However, a board shall not be bound by the testimony 
of such witness by reason of having called him, and shall have full right to 
cross-examine him. 

(i) Hearing boards shall conduct the hearing proceedings in such manner 
as to protect from disclosure information affecting the national security or tend- 
ing to disclose or compromise investigative sources or methods. 

(j) Complete verhathn stenographic transcript shall be made of the hearing 
by qualified reporters, and the transcript shall constitute a permanent part of 
the record. Upon request, the employee or his counsel shall be furnished, at 
reasonable cost, a copy of the transcript of the hearing. 


(fc) The board shall reach its conolusious and base its determination on the 
transcript of the hearing, together with such confidential information as it may 
have in its possession. The board, in making its determination, shall take 
into consideration the Inability of the employee to meet charges of which he has 
not been advised, because of security reasons, specifically or in detail, or to 
attack the credibility of witnesses who do not appear. Tlie decision of the board 
shall be in writing, and shall be signed by all members of the board. One copy of 
the decision of the board, together with the complete record of the case, includ- 
ing investigative reports, shall be sent to the Public Printer and one copy of the 
decision shall be sent to the employee. 

(1) Hearings shall l)e private. There shall be present at the hearing only ti)e 
members of the hearing board, the stenographer or stenographers, the employee, 
his counsel. Government Printing Office employees concerned and the witnesses. 
Witnesses slmll be present at the hearing only when actually giving testimony. 

Administrative Order No. 45 of November 14, 1047, and supplements thereto 
and all other orders and regulations or parts thereof which are inconsistent with 
the foregoing are hereby rescinded. 

Raymond Blattenuergkr, PuWw Printer. 



Adams, John G 1194-1193 

Testimony of 1197-1237 

Administrative Order No. 45 (November 14. 1947) 1244 

Administrative Order No. 90 (May 28, 19.33) 1239 

Africa 1226 

Air Force (United States) 1211, 1212, 1220-12'22 

Air Force base 1211, 1221 

Alsop, Mr 1214 

Armed Services Committee (Senate) 122.5 

Army (United States) 1194-1197, 

1199, 1200, 1202, 1204-1213, 1217-1221, 1223, 1226, 1228, 1230, 1232 

Army base 1221 

Army Criminal Investigation School (Camp Gordon) 1213 

Army Loyalty Board 1194 

As.sociated Press 1211 

Army Service Forces (Washington, D. C.) 1226 

Bell, Jack 1211, 1212 

Berry, Louis 1194, 1195 

Blattenberger, Raymond 1244 

Boston, Mass 1231 

Brooklyn, N. Y 1235, 1236 

Camp Dix 1207, 1211 

Camp Edwards, IMass 1225 

Camp Gordon, Ga 1207,1213 

Carr, Francis P 1196, 1203, 1212, 1215-1227, 1229-1233 

Carroll Arms Hotel (Washington, D. C.) 1222 

Civil Service Commission 1240-1242 

Civil Service Commission (investigative reports) 1241,1243 

Cohn, Roy M 1194-1197, 1200, 1201, 1203, 1207-1230 

Command and General Staff School (P^'ort Leavenworth, Kans.) 1226 

Committee on Printing (House 1234 

Committee on Printing (Senate 1234 

Communist infiltration in the Army 1200, 1212, 1215 

Communists infiltration in the Government Printing Office (investi- 
gation ) 1200 

Communist organizations 1201 

Communist records 1201 

Communists 12f!0. 1201, 1202, 1212, 1215, 1226, 1227, 1233, 1240 

Communists in the Government Printing OfTice 1233 

Communists (United Nations) 1215 

Congress of the United States 1194-1196, 1204 

Congressional committees 1220 

Congressional Record 1234 

Constitution of the United States 1240 

Counselor to the Army 1197-1237 

Criminal Investigation School (Camp Gordon, Ga.) 1213, 1214 

Daily Worker 1213 

Defense Establishment 1220 

Democrat members (McCarthy committee) 1195 

Democrats 1218 

Dental Corps (United States) 1209 

Department of the Army 1194-1197, 

1199, 1200, 1202, 1204-1213, 1217-1221, 1223, 1226, 1228, 1230, 1232 

Department of Defense 1225, 1228 

Department of Justice 1215 



D('i)uty Counsel for the Army ll'jt 

Diroctoi- of the Goveruniout I'riuring Office 1l:',4 

Director of Personnel (Government Printins Oilice) 1241 

Dirksen, Senator VIOi, 122:5 

Emitloyee Relations Section (Coverniuent Printing Office) 1241, 1242 

Employee security program 1231) 

England 122.'. 

Executive order ll'.j.S. 1202, 1235, 1239, 1242 

Executive Order No. 983r) (March 21, 1P4T) 1242 

Executive Order No. 104,10 1239, 1242 

Fascists 1240 

P'ederal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 12M. 1233, 1240, 1241 

Fifth Army Headquarters 122r; 

Foley Square (New York City) 1215 

Forrestal, Mr 1225 

Fort Dix 1207, 1211 

Fort Leavenworth, Kans 122G 

Fort Monmouth 1201, 12(j9, 1223, 12,37 

France 1226 

Friendly, Mr 1213 

Friendly Enemies (stage play) 1223 

Gasners (restaurant. New York City) 1215, 1222, 1223 

General Accounting Office 1234 

Government Printer 1234 

Government Printing Office 1200. 1233-1235, 1239, 1241-1244 

Government Printing Office (Director of Personnel) 1241 

Government Printing Office (Employee Relations Section) 1241. rj42 

Government Printing Office (Security Officer) 1241-1243 

Hitler I2i2 

Hotel Waldorf-Astoria (New York City) 1223 

Houck, Colonel 1230 

House Committee on I'rinting 1234 

House of Representatives 1196 

Investigative reports (Civil Service Commi.ssion) 1241, 1243 

Italy 1226 

Jenner, Senator 1234 

Joint Committee on Printing 1234 

Judge Advocate General Corps (United States) 120S 

Justice Department 1215 

Lawton, General 1215. 1216, 1235, 1236 

Loyalty Board 1200, 1201, 1226, 1228, 1229, 1233 

Loyalty Screening Board 1201 

McCarthy, Senator Joe 1194-1197, 

1200-1203, 1205, 1207, 1209-1220, 1222-1230, 1233, 1234 

McCarthy committee 1195, 1211 

McCarthy committee (Democrat memliers) 1195 

McCarthy committee (Republican members) 1195 

McClellan, Senator 1203, 1204 

Medical Corps (United States) 1209 

Meet the Press (television program) 1231, 1212, 1221, 1222 

Members of Congress 119.5, 1196, 1204 

Merchants Club (New YorkCitv) 1222. 1223 

Methodist Building (Washington, D. C.) 1-17, 1218, 1222 

Methodist dining room 1222 

Navy (United States) 1212, 1220, 1221 

New York City 1207-1209, 1215, 1217, 1222, 1223, 12,37 

New York Times 1210, 1214 

Newark, N. J 1205 

Pentagon 1213 

Potter, Senator Charles E 1193, 1213 

Testimony of 1194-1197 

"Potter letter" 1195 

President of the United States 11!)9, 12,34 

Presidential directive 1198, 1234 

President's Executive order 1202 

Public Printer 1240-1244 

Radar work (secret) 1226 



Eemington case 1215 

Kepublican members (McCarthy committee) 1195 

Restaurant (Senate Office Building) 1209 

Rosenberg case 1215 

ROTC 1225 

Russell, Rosalind 1237 

Ryan, General 1207 

St. Clair, Mr 1200, 1212, 1231, 1233 

Schine, G. David 1194-1197, 1205-1213, 1215, 121S. 1224, 1227, 1230, 1233, 1235 

Second World War 1225 

Secret radar work 1226 

Secret Service 1215 

Secretary of the Army 1196, 

1199, 1205, 1208, 1210-1217, 1220-1224, 1232, 1233 

Secretary of Defense 1195 

Security hearing boards 1242 

Security officer (Government Printing Ollice) 1241-1243 

Security matters desk (FJ5I, New York) 1215 

Senate Armed Services Committee 1225 

Senate Committee on Printing 1234 

Senate Office Building restaurant 1209 

Senate of the United States 1190, 1200, 1212, 1225 

Sixth Army Group 1226 

Sokolsky, George 1205, 1206, 1216, 1217, 1222 

South Dakotan 1218 

Specifications (signed by Mr. Welch, April 13) 1230 

Spivak, Larry 1211, 1221 

Stevens, Robert T 1196, 

1199, 1205, 1208, 1210-1217, 1220-1224, 1232, 1233 

Stork Club (New York City) 1222, 1223 

Tojo 1212 

United Nations 1215 

United States Air Force 1211 

United States Army 1194-1197, 

1199, 1200, 1202, 1204-1213, 1217-1221, 1223, 1226, 1228, 1230, 1232 

United States Code (ch. 79, title XVII, sec. 1G2) 1210 

United States Congress 1195-1196, 1204 

United States Constitution 1240 

United States Dental Corps 1209 

United States Department of Justice 1215 

United States Fifth Armv Headquarters 1226 

United States Government Printing Office 1200, 1233-1235, 1239, 1241-1244 

United States House of Representatives 1196 

United States Judge Advocate General Corps 1208 

United States Medical Corps 1209 

United States Navy 1212, 1220, 1221 

U. S. News & World Report (March 19, 1954) 1211 

United States President 1199 

United States Secret Service 1215 

United States Secretary of Defense 1195 

United States Senate 1196, 1200, 1212, 1225 

United States Sixth Army Group 1226 

V-E Day 1226 

Waldorf-Astoria Hotel 1223 

Washington, D. C 1208, 1222, 1226, 1236, 1242, 1243 

Washington Daily Worker 1213 

Washington Post 1213 

White House 1213 

Wonderful Town (stage play) 1237 

World War II 1225 

Zwicker incident 1217 




3 9999 05442 1746