special senate investigation on charges
and countercharges involving: secre-
tary of the army robert t. stevens, john
g. adams, h. struve hensel and senator
joe McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and
francis p. carr
SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
UNITED STATES SENATE
S. Res. 189
MAY 17, 1954
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46620° WASHINGTON : 1954
Boston Public Li'rary
Cuperintcndent of Documents
SEP 2 8 1954
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOSEril R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina
Richard J. O'Melia, General Counsel
Walter L. Reynolds, Chicj Clerk
Special Subcommittee on Investigations
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
Ray II. Jenkins, Chief Counsel
Thomas R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel
Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel
Sons HOSWITZ, Assistant Counsel
Testimony of —
Adams, John G., counselor, Department of the Army 1248
EXHIBITS duced Appears
on page on page
19. (a) Letter from Senator Karl E. Mundt, United States Senate,
to Hon. Herbert Brownell, Jr., May 10, 1954 1246 1268
19. (b) Letter from Hon. Herbert Brownell, Jr., Attorney Gen-
eral, to Senator Karl E. Mundt, May 13, 1954 1246 1246-47
20. (a) Letter from Hon. Dwight D. Eisenhower, President of the
United States, to the Secretary of Defense, May 17,
1954 1248 1249
20. (b) Memorandum for the President of the United States from
the Attorney General, May 17, 1954 1248 1269
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
MONDAY, MAY 17, 1954
United States Senate,
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the
Committee on Government Operations,
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met at 10 : 10 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the
caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt,
Present : Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Sena-
tor Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois ; Senator Charles
E . Potter, Republican, Michigan ; Senator Henry C. Dworshak,
Republican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Ar-
kansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; and
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
Also present: Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel to the subcommittee;
Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel ; and Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.
Principal participants: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a United
States Senator from the State of Wisconsin; Roy M. Colin, chief
counsel to the subcommittee; Francis P. Carr, executive director of
the subcommittee ; John G. Adams, counselor to the Army ; Joseph N.
Welch, special counsel for the Army ; James D. St. Clair, special coun-
sel for the Army ; and Charles A. Haskins, assistant counselor, Depart-
ment of the Army.
Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order.
The chairman would like to begin the week as he begins each session,
by welcoming our guests to the committee room and advising our
guests of a standing rule of this committee, which is that there are
to be no manifestations of approval or disapproval of any audible
kind at any time during the course of these hearings. These are
important hearings. We want to conduct them in an atmosphere of
seriousness and, while you are welcome here as our guests because
this is public business, the officers and the plainclothes men in the audi-
ence have a standing instruction from the committee to politely escort
from the room immediately anybody who violates the conditions under
which he entered the room, which was to agree to refrain from any
manifestations interfering with the hearing.
1246 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
With that admonition, we are happy to have you here.
We will begin this morning by announcing that the Chair has re-
reeeived his reply from the Attorney General to a letter which was
written some time ago in connection with the so-called Q^-page docu-
ment, and in the interest of time I shall not read my letter of May
10 in its entirety. It is a little long. But I will ask to include it in
the record as an exhibit appropriately marked, and I shall read the
(The letter referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 19 (a)" and will
be found in the appendix on p. 1268.)
Senator Mundt. For the purposes of recapitulation, you will recall
that this dealt with the 2 1 / 4-page document— by the way, it has been
returned, and I will ask that it be passed down to Senator McCarthy,
since it is his property — in which, paraphrasing my letter, I asked
the Attorney General whether his admonition against publishing or
releasing the contents of that document in toto held for all portions
and all paragraphs. The significant part of my letter, after review-
ing our previous interrogatory of the Attorney General, was this :
Would it be possible for you to authorize or clear for use as an exhibit before
our subcommittee any of the paragraphs or portions of the enclosed 2 1 / 4-page
document? It has occurred to some members of the subcommittee that the
fact that the 2%-page document may contain the names of some of those still
under investigation or being used as informants could be the basis on which
you requested the contents be not divulged. If so, perhaps such names could
be deleted and other portions of the document released.
Will you please write me your reaction to this request, and if you feel it is
against the best security interests of the United States to permit any portion
at all of the 2Vi-page document to be used as an exhibit before our subcommittee,
1 am sure it will be helpful to us if you will give your specific reasons for
making such a determination. We, of course, do not want to make public
anything which is deemed to be injurious to our national interest to disclose,
but in our search for truth in the current hearings, on the other hand, we would
like to have available for our consideration every fact and document which can
be included in our record without doing violence to essential security con-
siderations. . •
We will appreciate a reply as soon as possible.
I talked about the enclosures.
I have here a reply from the Attorney General :
May 13, 19G4.
Honorable Karl E. Mundt,
United States Senate, Washington, D. C:
In reply to your letter of May 10, 1954, for the reasons set forth in my
letter of May 6, it is my opinion that it would not be in the public interest to
release the two and one-fourth page document which purports to be a copy of
a letter or to release any part thereof.
As I pointed out, the document is not authentic in that no such letter was
written by Mr. J. Edgar Hoover. The portions of this document which were
taken verbatim from the fifteen page interdepartmental FBI memorandum dated
January 26, 1951, by an unidentified person are classified "Confidential." By
law this means they must not be disclosed "in the best interests of the national
If the "Confidential" classification of FBI reports and memoranda is not re-
spected, serious and irreparable harm will be done to the FBI. This principle
applies with equal force to the release of portions of the FBI memorandum which
are contained in the two and one-fourth page document as well as to the memo-
randum as a whole.
The Department has under consideration at the present time possible viola-
tions of the criminal law as a result of the referral of the transcript of the hear-
ings to the Department by your Subcommittee. The two and one-fourth page
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1247
document is involved and its declassification at this time might affect adversely
or even defeat the proper prosecution of offenses involved in its preparation and
dissemination. This consideration confirms my original opinion that it would
not be in the public interest to declassify the document or any part of it at the
Herbert Brownell, Jr.,
I ask that my letter in full, and the Attorney General's letter in
full, be entered in the record, and properly identified.
(The letter from the Attorney General was marked "Exhibit
19 (b).") , ,
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, before you hand over that let-
ter, could I see it ? I would like the one from Brownell.
( Document handed. )
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. May I say that I don't think this committee
is bound by any letter from the Attorney General. He says now that
the letter or document, call it what you may, the 2^-page document,
contains— it is taken verbatim from the 15-page memorandum.
I think, Mr. Chairman, and I am not going to ask for a ruling upon
this this morning, because I think we should get on with the testimony,
I do think the committee should go into executive session and read this
214-page document now, in view of the fact that it is established as
having been taken verbatim from an FBI report. You will find, Mr.
Chairman, that it states that an individual at the Signal Corps lab-
oratory was in close touch with a Russian spy even up to the time of
his trial, apparently, or right close to it. Without discussing this
any further, I wish the Chair would call an executive session, read this
letter to the committee, and determine what portions of it should be
made public. I think portions of it should be made public. There is
nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. The Chair, of course, has discussed in the execu-
tive committee meetings, which we have periodically, the letter and
what the committee desires to do with it. The Chair had agreed with
Senator Symington, I believe, at the conclusion of our hearings on
Friday, to permit him to proceed with a discussion with Mr. Adams in
the general area of a point of order situation which has arisen because
of some difficultv in finding out from Mr. Adams, and for Mr. Adams
finding out for "himself, exactly his relationship to certain informa-
tion which we began to discuss in earlier hearings. So the Chair will
recognize, out of order at this time, for that purpose, Senator Symmg-
ton. And the Chair would also like to announce that there has just
been sent to him, which he has distributed to the members of the sub-
committee a letter from the White House on that subject, which he
assumes has been made available to the press. I have one more copy,
Mr. Welch. I will send that over to you. Otherwise, I have just
enough copies for the subcommittee members. It says "Immediate
Release" and it has the name of James C. Hagerty, the Press Secre-
tary to the President, at the top. I assume it has been made available
lo the press.
1248 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
TESTIMONY OF JOHN G. ADAMS, COUNSELOR TO THE ARMY—
Senator Symington. Mr. Adams ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. Have you the written instructions that you
were going to deliver to the committee ?
Mr. Adams. I do, sir.
Senator Symington. Would you deliver them, please ?
Mr. Adams. Could I deliver them, did you say I
Senator Symington. Will you deliver them ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. This is the document here, sir.
Do you want it read, sir ?
Senator Symington. What is the document ?
Mr. Adams. It is a letter to the Secretary of Defense from the Presi-
dent of the United States.
Senator Symington. I see.
Mr. Chairman, in the last minute I have seen this document for
the first time. May I say respectfully to the committee that in thinking
about this over the weekend there appeared to be only two reasons
why Mr. Adams, a member of the executive branch, would bring this
matter up voluntarily, these names up voluntarily in these hearings.
The first would be carelessness which, because he has been legally
trained and has eminent counsel, I would doubt. The second would
be that for whatever reason it was, perhaps he wanted support. More
probably, based on my experience in the executive department, he had
worked it out that if the names came in, the information with respect
to the meeting would be available. Inasmuch as all this committee
is trying to do is find the truth, I was very glad to cooperate with what
I thought were the desires of the administration in bringing this in-
formation into the hearing voluntarily, to get the truth of that meet-
ing, which apparently, based on Mr. Adams being there, was called in
order to discuss those situations and those matters which are of such
great interest to this committee in attempting to find the truth.
Not having had an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to read this direc-
tive or this letter from the President of the United States prior to any
further comments on this matter, on my part, I would appreciate the
opportunity of reading the letter and perhaps discussing it further
Senator Mundt. Very well.
And may the Chair suggest by unanimous consent that the copy
of the letter also be inserted in the hearings at this point and marked
with an appropriate exhibit number.
Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I point out that there is about a 10-
page memorandum from the Attorney General attached to the Presi-
dent's letter and it also should be inserted.
Senator Mundt. The Chair agrees. Is this the entire document,
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. That will be exhibit No. 20, then, the letter with
attached pages of memorandum.
(The documents referred to were marked "Exhibits Nos. 20 (a) and
20 (b)." Exhibit No. 20 (a) appears on page 1249. Exhibit No.
20 (b) will be found in the appendix on p. 1269.)
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1249
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have not seen the letter. I
am very curious to know what is in the letter. I wonder if it could
not be read.
Mr. Adams. Do you wish me to read the letter?
Senator Mundt. We would not want to read the whole memo-
randum. It is a pretty long memorandum.
Senator McCarthy. I mean just the letter and not the memorandum.
Senator Mundt. I think there is no objection. Do you have a copy
of the letter, Mr. Adams?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And right after that we will put in the memo-
Mr. Adams. This is a letter signed Dwight D. Eisenhower addressed
to the Honorable, the Secretary of Defense, Washington, D. C :
Dear Mr. Secretary : It has long been recognized that to assist the Congress
in achieving its legislative purposes every Executive Department or Agency
must, upon the request of a Congressional Committee, expeditiously furnish
information relating to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Committee, with
certain historical exceptions — some of which are pointed out in the attached
memorandum from the Attorney General. This Administration has been and
w'll continue to be diligent in following the principle. However, it is essential
to the successful working of our system that the persons entrusted with power
in any one of the three great branches of Government shall not encrouch upon
th > authority confided to the others. The ultimate responsibility for the conduct
of the Executive Branch rests with the President.
Within this Constitutional framework each branch should cooperate fully with
each other for the common good. However, throughout our history the President
has withheld information whenever he found that what was sought was con-
fidential or its disclosure would be incompatible with the public interest or
jeopardize the safety of the Nation.
Because it is essential to elticient and effective administration that employees
of the Executive Branch be in a position to be completely candid in advising
with each other on official matters, and because it is not in the public interest
that any of their conversations or communications, or any documents or repro-
ductions, concerning such advice be disclosed, you will instruct employees of
your Department that in all of their appearances before the Subcommittee of
the Senate Committee on Government Operations regarding the inquiry now
before it they are not to testify to any such conversations or communications or
to produce any such documents or reproductions. This principle must be
maintained regardless of who would benefit by such disclosures.
I direct this action so as to maintain the proper separation of powers between
the Executive and Legislative Branches of the Government in accordance with
my responsibilities and duties under the Constitution. This separation is vital
to preclude the exercise of arbitrary power by any branch of the Government.
By this action I am not in any way restricting the testimony of such witnesses
as to what occurred regarding any matters where the communication was
directly between any of the principals in the controversy within the Executive
Branch on the one hand and a member of the Subcommittee or its staff on the
/s/ Dwfght D. Eisenhowlb.
To the letter, sir, is attached a 10-page memorandum from the
Attorney General to the President.
Senator Mundt. Thank you.
Of course, none of us have had an opportunity to read the memo-
randum. It is rather lengthy. From a quick look at it, the Chair
notes it begins with a line" of precedents starting March 1792, under
the administration of President Washington, and includes a great
many references down through history, including several under the
46G20'— 54— pt. 34 2
1250 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
administration of President Roosevelt and 10 cases under the admin-
istration of President Truman.
The Chair believes, along with Senator Symington, we would want
to have a little time to look over this memorandum and the attached
exhibits before trying to make any quick, snap judgment.
Mr. Adams. I might state, Mr. Chairman, that the letter is dated
May 17, 1954, which is today.
Senator McCarthy. May I see the letter, Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mundt. You may have my document to survey it, if you
want to. The Chair will then proceed with the ordinary 10-minute
rule and we will start with Mr. Jenkins if he has further questions of
Mr. Jenkins. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. The Chair has one or two that he will ask at this
time. He may have some a little later. You will recall, Mr. Adams,
since you were in the room during this entire hearing, that a number
of questions were asked Secretary Stevens about a telephone call
that he had with you and you had with him involving, if the Chair
recalls correctly, two calls the same date, at which time you were at the
New York or New Jersey end of the line and Secretary Stevens was
here, and involving the status of General Lawton's command?
Mr. Adams. I do, sir.
Senator Mundt. The Secretary at that time suggested
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. The Chair is endeavoring to ask a question.
Senator McCarthy. I have a question of the Chair.
Senator Mundt. The Chair is asking a question. Please do not in-
terrupt him unless it has to do with the question.
Senator McCarthy. I don't think the Chair has disposed of the
previous business yet.
Senator Mundt. The Chair has disposed of it temporarily and would
like to continue with his question. During your 10-minute period
you may get back to that business or Senator Symington may, but he
is endeavoring to ask a question now.
Senator McCarthy. I would like to ask the Chair a question here.
Senator Mundt. The Chair really wishes you would not interrupt
him in the middle of a question when he is asking the question.
Senator McCarthy. When the Chair finishes that question
Senator Mundt. He would like to continue without interruption
unless you object to the question.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I don't object to your question.
Senator Mundt. All right, let's wait until we get an answer and at
an appropriate time I will recognize you. How would that be ?
Senator McCarthy. When the Chair finishes.
Senator Mundt. I will recognize you at the appropriate time.
Will you read the question as far as I had gotten before the inter-
(The reporter read from his notes as requested)
Senator Mundt (continuing). That he was unable to recall fully the
conversations and that we ask you about them. Could you recapitu-
late as briefly as possible, the nature, first of all, of the original call,
which, I think, came from the Secretary to you %
Mr. Adams. My recollection, sir, is that on the afternoon of Novem-
ber 24, 1 am not sure whether it was the 24th, but the calls were on two
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1251
different days, I was in my hotel room in the Commodore Hotel at the
end of the day, and I had telephoned the Secretary for the purpose
of reporting to him the occurrences of the day. And during the course
of the conversation, he stated to me that a matter had come to his at-
tention which disturbed him, and that if it were true, it might be
grounds for him to have to relieve General Lawton of his command.
He did not detail it, but he pointed out to me that it was not concerned
with the fact, it was not related to the fact, that General Lawton had
been cooperating with Senator McCarthy and this subcommittee.
He asked me to see if I could find the time to see Senator McCarthy
and point this out to him, and see if I could make Senator McCarthy
understand that if the move proved to be necessary, that is, if the alle-
gations proved to be true, if he found it necessary to take this action,
that Senator McCarthy would understand that his action was based on
the fact that — on facts different from the fact that General Lawton
had been cooperating with the committee. That was about the sub-
stance of the first conversation.
Senator Mundt. Would it be a fair summary to say that what the
Secretary asked you to do was to discuss with the Senator the possi-
bility that General Lawton might be removed
Mr. Adams. That is right, sir.
Senator Mundt. And to determine the Senator's reaction ?
Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir.
Senator Mundt. That was the nature of the first call ?
Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir.
Senator Mundt. Now, would you go to the second call which I think
originated with you to the Secretary?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. I might describe to you the intervening
events, if I may. Senator McCarthy made a radio broadcast or tele-
vision broadcast that night, and I saw him after the broadcast and I
saw Mr. Cohn also. I don't recall that I mentioned it at that time,
but I very well may have. I saw them the following morning. I saw
Mr. Cohn before I saw Senator McCarthy. At least I mentioned the
matter with Mr. Cohn before I mentioned it with Senator McCarthy.
Senator Mundt. Did you discuss with Mr. Cohn the fact that the
Secretary was thinking of relieving General Lawton?
Mr. Adams. I did. I mentioned the fact that the Secretary had
called me and he was disturbed about matters which had been brought
to his attention and he asked me to talk to Senator McCarthy. Mr.
Cohn suggested that I let him talk with Senator McCarthy about it
first, which I did not do. Sometime within the next half day, I talked
or within the next few hours, I brought the matter up to Senator
McCarthy. I told him that Mr. Stevens had had these allegations and
that he might find it necessary to relieve the officer, and that he had
asked me to tell him about it, and to assure him that if this relief
became necessary, that it would not be because of the fact that the
officer had cooperated with the committee. My recollection of our
conversation is that Senator McCarthy was a little bit — wasn't non-
committal, but had indicated that if the Secretary found it necessary
to do that, he would understand. Later on in the day, we talked about
the matter together at lunch, I think, Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn,
and at that time Senator McCarthy indicated some reluctance, indi-
cated to me that he hoped that if Mr. Stevens found it necessary to
1252 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
take this step, that he would not do it that day or that week, because of
the fact that there would be conclusions drawn by newspapers un-
friendly to Senator McCarthy that perhaps it had been an action
merely because of the fact that General Lawton had been friendly
with the committee.
Later in the day, in the middle of the afternoon, I was back in Mr.
Cohn's office, and in the presence of Mr. Cohn and Senator McCarthy I
called Mr. Stevens back and I reported this conversation to him. I
told him that there was some reluctance and that Senator McCarthy
felt that although he wouldn't want to say anything, he might be
forced into a position where he would have to make comment about it,
and that he had asked or hoped that if it were necessary for the Secre-
tary to do this, he could defer it until about the first of the year, by
which time probably the investigation of Fort Monmouth would have
been over for 5 or 6 weeks, or so, and that there would not be this
speculation in the press.
My recollection is that Mr. Stevens stated something to the effect
that he couldn't promise ; it might be that these things would be proved
and that they would be of a serious nature and that he would have to
I, of course, did not relate that statement to Senator McCarthy, but
the conversation was more or less — or Mr. Stevens' attitude was more
or less left up in the air, and I think Senator McCarthy was left with
the impression that I had advised Mr. Stevens of his reluctance to the
move. That is the conversation as I remember it.
Senator Mundt. You say Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn both
heard your end of the conversation ?
Mr. Adams. They were in the room, sir. The room was not large.
There were other things going on in the room, but there was no reason
why they shouldn't have overheard what I said. I made no effort to
Senator Mundt. They knew you were calling Secretary Stevens at
that time on that?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Mundt. And, as a matter of fact, General Lawton was not
removed, was he?
Mr. Adams. No, sir ; he was not.
Senator Mundt. And I believe is still in command at Fort Mon-
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, he is.
Senator Mundt. Passing to another topic, do you know of your own
personal knowledge, Mr. Adams, whether, in fact, Private Schine
received preferential treatment at any time to which he was not en-
titled as a soldier in the United States Army ?
Mr. Adams. From my own personal knowledge, sir, I do not.
Senator Mundt. I ask you this question as counsel for the Army :
In the event it develops, through checking the investigation, checking
the Inspector General's report, through a study of the facts, in the
event that it develops that Pvt. G. David Schine did in fact receive
preferential treatment as a member of the United States Army to
which he was not entitled, who would be responsible for that fact, the
Army officers who gave him the preferential treatment or the members
of the committee staff that asked for it 2
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1253
Mr. Adams. Sir, you are asking me a question that is very difficult
Senator Mundt. That is right down your alley, because you are the
counsel to the Army. You would have to advise somebody on that.
This is the one question which, it seems to me, to which you could say,
''Now }"ou are talking my language."
Mr. Adams. May 1 have the question read again, please?
Senator Mundt. Surely. Will you read the question?
(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)
Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I think the fair answer is that the Army
is responsible for administering the Army. The ultimate responsi-
bility is in the Secretary. Subordinate commands have responsibili-
ties delegated to them. It would be necessary to determine who in
each instance was responsible. It may be decided that there had
been fault on my part in passing on information to the various eche-
lons of command and indicating that there was a desire for prefer-
ential treatment. If that is so, I would be at fault.
If it were to be determined that the Secretary had directed prefer-
ential treatment he would be at fault.
Senator Mundt. The purpose of the Chair, may I say, is not to
single out any particular individual in the Army to hold responsible
for preferential treatment which may not have taken place, but to
establish, if he can, for the record, that if such preferential treatment
were actually accorded David Schine, it would be a responsibility of
somebody, let us say, in the Army. Just leaving it that way, would
that be correct ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir; I think it is correct that it is fundamental in
the Government that where an individual has the authority, he also
has the responsibility.
Senator Mundt. Thank you. That is a very good answer, a
My time has expired.
Senator McClellan ?
Senator McClellan. Mr. Adams, under the letter you read this
morning from the White House to the Secretary of Defense, accord-
ing to my hurried interpretation of it — and I have only glanced at it
once — do you consider that you are now under direct orders through
channels from the White House not to divulge any conversation that
took place in the conference which I believe you say was held on
January 21 ?
When I say conference, I refer to that meeting held in Mr. Brown-
ell's office, attended by the Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Kogers,
Presidential Assistant Mr. Sherman Adams, and others. Do you
consider now that you cannot give any information to this committee
in view of that directive with respect to what occurred there at that
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. And the conversations that took place?
Mr. Adam :. Yes, sir ; I do, sir. Senator McClellan, I saw this
memorandum about 20 minutes before you did. I place the inter-
pretation on it at this time that I am now prohibited from speaking
about the conferences which I have had, that I have been so
1254 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCleixan. That you are prohibited from saying what
occurred, any conversations that took place. You are not prohibited
from saying that a conference was held, are you?
Mr. Adams. I am not — I don't think I am prohibited, sir, from
saying that a conference has been held. I have already stated that.
Senator McCleixan. You have already stated that. And it was
a conference regarding this controversy that has been held. That
was the subject matter of it, was it not?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator McCleixan. I am led to ask you this question, in view
of that statement, Mr. Adams. Was the action taken thereafter, after
that conference, taken on the basis of the independent decision and
judgment of the Secretary of the Army, or was it taken as the result
of decisions made at that conference ?
Mr. Adams. May I have that question read, please?
(Whereupon, the question was read by the reporter as above
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Mundt. Counsel Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Of course, it is a very difficult thing to interpose an
objection to a question asked by a member of this subcommittee. How-
ever, the question asked by the distinguished Senator from Arkansas
would elicit from this witness indirectly information that he is not
permitted to give directly, and I fear would impinge upon the Presi-
I desire to call that to the attention of the committee, and of Mr.
Adams, in all fairness to all parties concerned. I fear any answer
Mr. Adams gave to that question might involve Mr. Adams in a
violation of the directive that was issued by the President this
Senator McClellan. I am waiting for an answer.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch.
Mr. Welch. I happen to share the view of Mr. Jenkins, and had
he not spoken would have said the same thing, in less graceful and
less cogent language.
It seems to me, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Jenkins is correct, and that
I have the somewhat distasteful duty of construing the document that
is before us and instructing the witness that, in my opinion, he ought
not to ansAver.
Senator McClellan. The witness, then, follows the instruction of
his counsel, does he, and declines to answer on the ground that it
might be violating the directive under which he is now operating in
Mr. Adams. That is my opinion, sir.
Senator McClellan. That is your opinion, also ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator McCleixan. Then if your opinion prevails and the advice
of your counsel prevails and his interpretation and the interpretation
of the counsel of this committee is correct, then it is impossible for
this committee, for lack of testimony, because testimony is being
withheld, to determine where the final responsibility lies for the action
that was taken on January 21. Is that correct ?
Mr. Welch. Could that be read, please, sir ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1255
Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question. ( Whereupon,
the question was read by the reporter as above recorded.)
Senator McClellan. On January 21 and following January 21.
Mr. Adams. I just don't think I can answer your question, sir.
Senator McClellan. You cannot answer that. What I am trying
to determine is — and I think we are entitled to know it without going
into any detail — is when did the responsbility shift from the Secre-
tary of the Army, from the date of that conference, to the higher level
authorities? In other words, who must take the responsibility for
the actions which have been taken by the Secretary of the Army with
respect to this controversy since the 21st day of January when you
held this high-level conference? I don't want to blame the Secretary
for it if he is not to blame, if he is under orders, any more than I
want to blame you for not answering the questions, because you are
Mr. Adams. Once again, Senator McClellan, very respectfully, I
feel that the letter from the President consists of instructions which
I may not violate, and of course I cannot take from the record remarks
I have already made, and they are on the record for the committee to
read, but nothing can be added to it insofar as I can see.
Senator McClellan. Well, I understand it. I haven't had time
to really study this directive, but as I understand it, it precludes from
telling what occurred down there at the conference. I am not asking
you now what occurred down there, what was said, who gave orders
or didn't give orders. I am simply trying to determine whether the
Secretary of the Army and you, under his orders and directions,
whether you two are now responsible for what may have occurred in
connection with this controversy since January 21, when that high
level conference was held. If you are carrying out orders and the
Secretary carrying out orders from higher authority, you must be
absolved from any blame. I am trying to determine where the re-
sponsibility lies. Now, you tell me that you can't tell that under this
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, as this committee well knows, I have
interposed but very few objections to any question asked by a mem-
ber of this committee. Mr. Adams is in a dilemma this morning. He
has an order which has come to him through proper channels from
the President of the United States, directing him to divulge nothing
that occurred in the conference of January 21. My distinguished
friend from Arkansas is now asking him for a result of that confer-
ence of January 21, the question being whether or not, since the con-
ference of January 21, he and the Secretary were responsible or some
other authority in the executive branch of the Government was
Mr. Chairman, I call the committee's attention to the fact that
that would elicit from this witness a fact, and a fact that would
naturally flow from that conference of January 21, and to that ex-
tent would be violative of the Presidential direction of this morning.
That Senator McClellan, is the last objection I shall interpose with
respect to that question, but I do want to make my position clear with
respect to that matter. I do not think under the circumstances that it
is a proper question. I do not think that Mr. Adams can properly
answer that question unless he violates the instructions he has re-
ceived from the highest executive officer of the land this morning.
1256 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan ?
Senator McClellan. I am going to ask the questions. They may
be objected to and I may not get the answers. The witness may be
quite proper, for him not to answer the questions, but I am going to
try, as I started out to do in the beginning of these hearings, to place
the responsibility where it belongs insofar as it is possible for this
committee to get the proof. And I say to you now, Mr. Chairman,
if we are going — if the committee is going to be left in a dilemma
of not knowing whether the Secretary is responsible for the action
taken after that date, or whether the responsibility is at a higher level,
then Ave will never be able to completely discharge our responsibility
in this proceeding. I ask you again, Mr. Adams, the simple question :
From that date on, were you operating, you and the Secretary operat-
ing, under the directions of higher authority or were you making the
decisions upon your own responsibility in your respective positions?
You can refuse to answer, if you like, but the record will simply
show that this committee is unable — I am not asking what occurred
down there that day. I am not asking you anything that was said,
any advice that was given, I am simply asking from that day on
were you acting on your own or were you acting under orders from
higher sources. I think the committee is entitled to know that. It is
just a simple yes or no.
Mr. Adams. May I confer a moment, sir, with counsel ?
Senator Mundt. The Chair thinks he should pass upon the objec-
tion raised first by our counsel. May the Chair say he shares com-
pletely the point of view of counsel. He recognizes also the right of
Senator McClellan to propound the questions. The Chair thinks he
should advise the witness of his position, although he has able counsel
to do that. He has the directive. The Chair is not going to insist
that he violate the directive. The Chair believes answering the ques-
tion would violate the directive. But if the witness elects to violate
it, it is his responsibility not that of the Chair or the committee.
Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I believe that I must respectfully de-
cline to answer and to state that I feel I am bound by the directive
of the President of the United States and to state further that I be-
lieve that the conclusions I would have to draw for Senator McClellan
and in answering his questions would be violative of the spirit of
Senator McClellan. Let me ask you another question, then, and
see if this violates it. Did you act on your own responsibility, you
and Secretary Stevens, prior to January the 21st in the decisions and
actions you took? You can answer that.
Mr. Adams. Our negotiations prior to January 20th, sir, were
strictly within the responsibility of the Army.
Senator McClellan. The responsibility of the Secretary, you mean ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan. Thereafter you decline to say because of this
directive, is that correct ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. I would respectfully decline to answer, sir.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, that is all.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen ?
Senator Dirksen advised the Chair he had to go upstairs to help
make a quorum of the Judiciary Committee. He will return. We
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1257
will hoar him for questioning at the end of the cycle, if he is back
by that time.
* Senator Jackson ?
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, first I want to apologize for being
a little late this morning. I delivered a talk at the Industrial College
of the Armed Services, at the War College, at Fort McNair, at 8 : 30
this morning. So, for that reason, I was delayed in arriving.
Senator Mundt. Very good.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I want to say at the outset, that,
as a preface to a possible question to Mr. Adams, I respect the right
of the President under this constitutional authority to refrain from
giving information that may be requested by the Congress from time
to time that would interfere with the efficient and proper operation
of the executive branch of the Government.
I do believe, however, that in this situation we have before us the
fact that the Secretary of the Army in his testimony, if my memory
serves me correctly, did make reference from time to time to conver-
sations and discussions that he had with other people in the executive
branch who were not necessarily principals to this controversy.
I think, very clearly, that if it were in our power as a court, we
would say that the President and the executive branch has waived its
right to object insofar as it relates to this specific subject matter.
1 am fully aware, however, that it is entirely within the discretion
of the President of the United States under the Constitution, to with-
hold this information if he so desires.
I conscientiously believe, Mr. Chairman, that he may not be using
his discretion wisely in this situation. I believe it fair to say that
the principals to this controversy should have been directed not to
give this information prior to their taking the witness stand. It
seems rather unique that we get this letter — what is the date — May 17,
today, when we are well along in the hearings.
I think that any such directive should have been issued at the
outset. It seems manifestly unfair to me, and I believe it may be
manifestly unfair to all the principals to this controversy, including
Mr. Adams and the Secretary of the Army, not to be able to tell the
whole story when part of the story is in the record.
The committee is in a dilemma of passing on testimony that is
incomplete. I think, if I may humbly submit that the executive
branch is doing a great injustice to this committee and to all of the
principals to this controversy by exercising the power which the
President has, very late in the proceedings.
I think it is a bit difficult to explain to the American people why
it is necessary to invoke constitutional rights at a stage of the pro-
ceedings where, according to the directive, the constitutional rights
of the President have already been invaded without any objection
until a certain incident got a lot of publicity.
I assume, Mr. Chairman, that it would be impossible for me to put
any questions to Mr. Adams that he could answer. I think there
should be someone from the executive branch, maybe the Secretary
of Defense, to explain why this letter was issued on May 17 and not
prior to the hearing. I hope that will not be construed as an invasion
of the President's right to withhold information he deems appropriate
to the running of his branch of the Government. I deeply respect
46G20 — 54— pt. 34 3
1258 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
the right of the President under the doctrine of separation of powers
to do that which has been outlined in the long series of precedents
which date, I believe, from Washington through Truman. But I
do sincerely believe that there has been a bad abuse of that discretion
in this situation. I think it may result in more injustice than it will
in aiding any constitutional doctrine that the President finds necessary
to invoke at this time.
Senator Mundt. I take it that was not a question directed to the
Senator Jackson. No. I can ask questions, but I am not going
to take up any more time. I do believe, Mr. Chairman, the record
should be made clear on this point. I am fearful of the injustices
that will inevitably flow from this situation.
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter?
Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, this controversy has run head-on
into that twilight zone defined or implied under the doctrine of separa-
tion of powers between the legislative branch of the Government and
the executive branch. The location of this zone has been a contro-
versial matter throughout our history, whether the issue was an inva-
sion of the executive branch by the legislative branch of our Govern-
ment or a question of the executive branch hindering the due functions
of the legislative branch of the Government.
I feel that as a congressional committee we would have no right,
for example, to subpena a member of the President's Cabinet and have
him reveal to us what took place in a Cabinet meeting, what various
members of the Cabinet had to say. I don't know, Mr. Chairman,
whether the high-level meeting that took place in the office of the
Attorney General falls in that category or not. That is something that
will have to be decided, I assume, in one of our executive sessions.
I do feel that the committee has a right to know whether the decision
to make public the document now known as the Chronological Order
of Events was taken on behalf of the Secretary of the Army, Mr.
Stevens, and Mr. Adams, the two principals on that side of the con-
troversy, or whether it was a directive from a higher level.
I would regret to have the Secretary of the Army, Mr. Stevens, and
Mr. Adams, the Counsel for the Army, used as whipping boys when
they were ordered to carry out a procedure which was the responsi-
bility of a higher office.
I think it is a very serious decision that we of the committee have
to make, and I would hope that we can continue the hearing this
morning without prying into that twilight zone or forcing the witness
to make decisions which it would be most difficult for him to make
when he has an order signed by the President on the one hand, and
he is under oath to tell the truth before this committee on the other,
which makes his position most untenable.
I think in order for the committee to treat the witnesses in all fair-
ness, Ave should make our own decision as to what questions are proper,
what questions he can answer without violation of the order of the
That is all I have, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. I take it that was not a question.
The Chair sincerely hopes that at least after this first 10-minute ;
round, my colleagues will once again refrain from these long comments
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1259
and engage only in questioning the witness, because otherwise we are
going to continue these hearings interminably.
The Chair recognizes he cannot control the situation. He can sim-
ply endeavor to persuade his colleagues to desist.
Senator Symington ?
Senator Potter. We will revise and extend.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, in the letter, which I have now
read briefly, from the President, it says :
Throughout our history the President has withheld information whenever
he found that what was sought was confidential or that its disclosure would be
incompatible with the public interest or jeopardize the safety of the Nation.
Mr. Chairman, this is a grave world and those are fundamental
words. I would like to say here that I have great respect for the
problems of the President of the United States, and also for him
Mr. Adams, I would like to ask you two questions which I trust
are in order; and if they are not, then objection can be made and
The first question is: Why did you bring up these names volun-
tarily in your testimony?
Mr. Adams. Sir, I had no instructions that I could not bring
Senator Symington. The second question is, Did anybody in the
conference on January 21 know that you were going to bring these
names up ?
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. Counsel Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, with all due deference to the dis-
tinguished Senator from Missouri, Mr. Adams is now being asked
a question which would elicit certainly some information, some fact
with reference to the meeting with the executive officers on January
21. He is being asked now whether or not they knew or any member
present knew that he would gratuitously mention their names in giving
his testimony before this committee. That would elicit from Mr.
Adams a fact that occurred at that conference and I respectfully sug-
gest, Mr. Chairman, that it is an improper question in that it would
require Mr. Adams to impinge upon the Presidential direction of
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, one of the rewards of these
distressing hearings has been an opportunity to get to know this dis-
tinguished son of Tennessee, and if that is the way he feels about it,
I will withdraw the question.
I would like to say, however, that I deeply respect the chairman's
position. I trust he will practice what he preaches about making
talks. I would like to point out to him that if these names had not
been voluntarily brought up by the witness, this subject would never
have been dwelled on at all.
Now, Mr. Adams, I have some questions here that I would like to
ask with respect to the Loyalty Review Board. As I understand your
testimony, the Army had' no objections to the subcommittee investi-
gating acts of graft or any personal dishonesty on the part of mem-
bers of the Loyalty Review Board of the Army ; is that right ?
Mr. Adams. No, we could not, sir, object to interrogating indi-
viduals about matters of that sort.
1260 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Symington. What did you object to ?
Mr. Adams. On the occasion when this developed the indications
to me were that this was just the first increment of the entire Loyalty
Board. As I have testified before, sir, the matter had been rather a
subsurface problem which I had reason to believe might sooner or
later become the principal issue, and when these individuals were
called and I was told that they were to be interrogated on January 19,
I think the date was, or some time thereabouts, I instructed the mem-
bers of the Board that if they received subpenas — I did not instruct
them not to go. I instructed all the members of the Board — I don't
isolate this meeting exactly — if they received subpenas they were to
make contact with me because I as yet didn't know whether or not
they would have to respond. My plan was to accompany any of them
to any interrogations so that I could instruct them as to what matters
under existing regulations and orders they might not answer. But
w T hen the call came to me on the morning of the 19th asking for these
names, I did not transmit the request to the 5 or 6 individuals who
were involved, but I came myself, and it was during the afternoon
when they were supposed to appear that Senator McCarthy first made
me aware of the fact that he wished to interrogate these people about
graft and corruption in their personal discharge of their official duties.
That did not change my opinion of the fact that this still remained
the first increment of the 25 or 26 who probably would be called within
the next few weeks. It was for that reason that I undertook to estab-
lish the position.
Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, you suppose that anyone has de-
rogatory information relating to the honesty of a member of the
Loyalty Eeview Board. What does the Army think he should do
with that information ?
Mr. Adams. Do you mean supposing one civil servant has deroga-
tory information about another civil servant?
Senator Symington. May I repeat the question and would you an-
swer it instead of asking me ?
Mr. Adams. I don't know who you mean by "someone." That is
the reason I asked you the question.
Senator Mundt. Would you like the question reread?
Senator Symington. No. I will change it and say "anyone." I
don't believe I did change it. Suppose anyone has derogatory infor-
mation relating to the honesty of a member of the Loyalty Review
Board. What does the Army think that he, anyone, should do with
that information ?
Mr. Adams. Bring it to the attention of the Army.
Senator Symington. How?
Mr. Adams. Well, if he is a member of the Army, by memorandum
to his superior. If he is outside of the Army by a communication to
the Secretary of the Army or to a responsible official of the Army.
Senator Symington. My next question is, if you received any such
derogatory information about a member of the Loyalty Board or if
it were received in your office, what would you do?
Mr. Adams. I would bring it immediately to the attention of the
Security Division of G-2 of the Army, which I have had occasion
to do on one or two occasions in the last 6 months.
Senator Symington. Is it then the Army's opinion that the respon-
sibility to see that all members of the loyalty review board are honora-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1261
ble and honest men, and so conduct themselves, lies with the xVrmy
and the Department of Defense ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir.
Senator Symington. To whom are the members of the loyalty re-
view board accountable?
Mr. Adams. For their performance as members of the loyalty secu-
rity board, sir, they are accountable to the Secretary of the Army.
Senator Symington. Would you agree that the only way in which
these loyalty review boards can retain their independence and do
justice to the persons concerned is to have them specifically responsible
Mr. Adams. Very definitely, sir.
Senator Symington. Has anyone communicated to the Army any
derogatory information relating to graft or dishonest acts, on the part
of any members of the loyalty review boards in question, and, if so,
who and when ?
Mr. Adams. With reference to the individual to whom we have
referred earlier in this hearing as Mr. X, subsequent to the time that
he was interrogated, the transcript of the executive sessions concerning
his questions and answers was given to the Army by the subcommittee.
Senator Symington. Was there any graft or dishonesty or any dis-
honesty including graft, that resulted from that ?
Mr. Adams. To my recollection, sir, no.
Senator Symington. If there is an^vthing in error with respect to
your last answer, would you check that and let us know ?
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. I think I have recently read the testimony
with reference to that individual, and his interrogations was directed
toward his associations, not graft and corruption, but whether or not
he had associations with people of a Communist leaning.
Senator Symington. If there is any such derogatory information
on him or on anyone else on a loyalty review board, what would the
Army have done ?
Mr. Adams. Well, I can't speak for the Army prior to October 1, sir.
But when I was there, or since I have been there, which is about 1
months, although there is no announced policy, it is very strongly —
it is a very strongly held opinion by the officials whose responsibilities
include selecting panels and selecting people for participation in the
loyalty board, that immediately on receipt of derogatory information,
either of a loyalty security nature or having to do with graft or cor-
ruption, the individual should be immediately taken from the loyalty
board and if the charges are of a serious nature, he also, additionally,
should have whatever security clearance he has lifted, suspended.
Senator Symington. You are going far afield, I think, in answer to
Mr. Adams. I beg your pardon.
Senator Symington. I asked you if the Army had received any such
derogatory information with respect to graft or any dishonesty, what
would the Army do with respect to that member of the loyalty board.
Can you give me a short answer to that ?
Mr. Adams. I think, sir, they would relieve him from the loyalty
board. If the charges were serious, they would susoend him and at
the same time an immediate investigation of the charges would be
undertaken by proper authorities.
1262 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Symington. I thank yon. Now, Mr. Adams, did the Army
attempt to persuade members of this committee not to subpena the
membership of the loyalty review board in question ?
Mr. Adams. Read the question, again, sir.
Senator Symington. Did the Army attempt to persuade the mem-
bers of this committee not to subpena the membership of the loyalty
review board in question?
Mr. Chairman, I understand my time is up. May I have an answer
to this question ?
Senator Mundt. You may.
Mr. Jenkins. Incidentally, Mr. Chairman, that calls for a yes or
no answer, apparently. Is that what you want, Senator ?
Senator Symington. I would like as short an answer as possible,
Mr. Counsel, that gives the facts.
Mr. Adams. I think, sir, that my previous testimony has been that
I did call on certain members of this committee and that I did ask that
these individuals not be subpenaed.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I have a couple of other ques-
tions. I will await my turn.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak?
Senator Dworshak. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ?
Mr. Welch. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, we have this morning a most
unexpected and most unusual development. I don't know whether
any further questioning of Mr. Adams will be of any benefit. We
find now that Mr. Adams was in a conference with the Ambassador to
the United Nations, with the Attorney General, the Deputy Attorney
General, that they were the ones, according to Mr. Adams' indications,
who instigated the charges against Mr. Carr and Mr. Cohn. We find
now the charges against Mr. Carr were a complete fraud upon the
committee, that the Army's case is in and there is no evidence against
I frankly thought all along Mr. Adams and Mr. Hensel were the
people who had instigated this. Mow there is no way of knowing
who did. There is no way of checking motives. We have the at-
torney general who was present at that conference ruling upon what
documents can be admitted in evidence, a most unusual ruling this
morning, in which he says that a document is not authentic but ver-
batim. I don't quite follow that.
We asked what portions of this could be made available. Obviously
there are portions having nothing to do with security but would be
extremely embarrassing to those charged with security.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have a 5- or 10-minute recess to
decide, or to conferr with Mr. Carr and Mr. Cohn to see what we
should do under this unusual situation in which we can only hear
the evidence about that conference which might be damaging to Mr.
Cohn, Mr. Carr and myself, and suddenly, halfway through the testi-
mony we cannot get the complete story.
I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have about a 5-minute recess to deter-
mine what action I should take in view of this unprecedented, com-
pletely unusual, almost unbelievable situation we are confronted with
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION .1263
May I have a 5-minute recess to consult with Mr. Colin and Mr.
Senator Mundt. I think that is a fair request. It was an unexpected
and an unanticipated development. We will declare a 5-minute recess
Senator Mcndt. The committee will please come to order.
We will resume the business of the hearing. At the time of the
recess, Senator McCarthy had the floor under the 10-minute rule. The
Chair will recognize Senator McCarthy or Mr. Colin.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I must admit that I am some-
what at a loss as to know what to do at the moment. One of the sub-
jects of this inquiry is to find out who was responsible for succeeding
in calling off the hearing of Communist infiltration in Government.
That the hearings have been called off, no one can question. I fear
that maybe in my mind I was doing an injustice, possibly, to Mr.
Adams and Mr. Hensel.
I strongly felt all along that they were the men responsible for it.
At this point, I find out there is no way of ever getting at the truth,
because we do find that the charges were conceived, instigated, at a
meeting which was testified to by Mr. Adams.
Now for some fantastically strange reason, the iron curtain is pulled
down so we can't tell what happened at that meeting. I don't think
the President is responsible for this. I don't think his judgment is
that bad, Mr. Chairman.
There is no reason why any one should be afraid of the facts, of the
truth, that came out of that meeting. It is a very important meeting.
It doesn't have to do with security matters. It doesn't have to do with
national security. It merely has to do with why these charges were
We find now that admittedly the charges against Mr. Carr were a
complete fraud upon the committee. The case of Mr. Adams and Mr.
Stevens is in. They admit they have no evidence against Mr. Carr.
Last week I couldn't understand why Mr. Welch and Mr. Adams
would not agree to withdraw their charges against Mr. Carr, very
serious charges. I find now that maybe they were not free agents.
I don't know.
At that meeting, there was one individual who was not a member
of the White House staff. He was confirmed by the Senate to a posi-
tion with the U. N., Ambassador to the U. N. If he were there as the
emissary of the President, if he will testify under oath or give an
affidavit that he was there representing the President — I frankly
would hesitate in insisting upon calling him, but I don't believe that
that can be established. That is not his function. The question is
how far can — I am not talking about the present occupant in the
White House. But we have a tremendously important question here,
Mr. Chairman. That is, How far can the President go? Who all
can he order not to testify ? If he can order the Ambassador to the
U. N. not to testify about something having nothing to do with the
U. N., but a deliberate smear against my staff, then any President —
and we don't know who will be President in 1956, 1960, 1964 — but any
President [laughter] — I won't repeat that. Any President can, by
an Executive order, keep the facts from the American people.
1264 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
As I say, I don't believe that this is the result of President Eisen-
hower's own personal thinking. I am sure if he knew what this was all
about, that he would not sign an order saying that you can't tell the
Senate committee what went on when they cooked up those charges
against Mr. Colin, Mr. Carr, and myself.
Mr. Chairman, there is also another very important aspect of this.
We find that the Deputy Attorney General, who I know wrote the
letter the other day — I don't know about the one today — was one of the
individuals who advised Mr. Adams to write out these charges. The
Attorney General and his Deputy must every day pass upon ques-
tions, questions of evidence. They must ultimately decide who is lying.
The testimony will be completely contradictory here. There is no
question about that. Somebody will be lying. I think it is unheard of
that you have an Attorney General and a Deputy Attorney General
calling on a smear like this, if they did. If they did not, they should
be down here telling us they did not. The evidence now is that they
did. And then have them passing upon all of the important questions.
Mr. Chairman, may I say that it will be completely impossible for
me to question the witness now until the committee meets and de-
termines what the ruling will be, whether, for example, individuals
not connected with the White House, like Mr. Lodge, and others, are
exempt from coming down here and telling us the truth merely be-
cause the President says they should not come.
If the President can order Mr. Lodge, for example, who has nothing
to do with the White House as far as we know, to seal his lips, then
the President can order any witness we have.
We have heard the case of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams. We find,
if you will pardon me for some slight repetition here, Mr. Chairman,
we find they have no case at all against Mr. Carr except that he gave
Mr. Adams friendly advice. We find that Mr. Adams said Saturady —
after all the testimony was in, I said, "What did Mr. Colin do that was
wrong ?" The only thing that he did except talk, according to Adams,
was to fail to persuade me to call off the subpenas of the loyalty board.
Now we are getting clown to the meat of the case, Mr. Chairman, and
that is, who was responsible for the issuance of the smear that has held
this committee up for weeks and weeks and weeks, and has allowed
Communists to continue in our defense plants, Mr. Chairman, handling
top-secret material, as I said before, with a razor poised oyer the jugu-
lar vein of this Nation? Who is responsible for keeping all these
Army officers down here and all the Senators tied up while the world
is going up in flames ?
I do think, Mr. Chairman, that we should go into executive session.
1 must have a ruling as to what will be behind an iron curtain and what
facts we can bring out before I can intelligently question the witnesses.
I do think that someone, for his own benefit, should contact the Presi-
dent immediately and point out to him, perhaps, that he and I and
many of us campaigned and promised the American people that if they
would remove our Democrat friends from the control of this Govern-
ment, then we would no longer engage in Government by secrecy,
whitewash and coverup.
I think that these facts should be brought to the President, because
the American people will not stand for such as this, Mr. Chairman.
They will not stand for a coverup half-way through a hearing.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1265
I have asked, Mr. Chairman, that we dispose of this without these
lengthy hearings. That was turned down, turned down by the repre-
sentative of the Executive. Once it is turned down, I say let's go
through it and lay all the facts upon the table. We can't lay the facts
upon the table if we are going to draw an iron curtain when we are
half-way through the hearings.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask for an executive session, a meeting
of the committee, so I will know just to what extent the committee is
going to honor this order or any other order like it.
Ssnator Potter. Mr. Chairman, I move that we recess until tomor-
row morning at 10 o'clock, and in the meantime that we have an
executive session to take up the controversy which is now in dispute.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, 1 would like to be heard on the
Sanator Mundt. Senator McClellan?
Senator McClellan. I think in view of the fact that I asked some
questions trying to place the responsibility, I should make my position
clear at this time before this motion is passed on.
For the present at least, I am not disagreeing with the Executive
directive with respect to conversations that may have taken place at
this meeting. The President may be within his rights to say that you
cannot inquire into how a decision was arrived at in the executive
branch of the Government at the President's level. But I do not
agree — I wholly disagree, and I shall insist upon making this record
clear with respect to what was the result of the decision made at that
rime, whether responsibility shifted from the Secretary of the Army
to higher authorities. That we are entitled to know, because unless we
can get that information, we will not have the evidence here upon
which to make a decision that will place the responsibility.
If the Secretary is acting under orders from higher authority, the
Secretary cannot be censured for carrying out those orders. Without
regard to how the decision was arrived at, if a decision was made at
that time, this committee is entitled to know it and entitled to know
where the responsibility lies for what occurred thereafter in carrying
out that decision.
I shall ask at the executive hearing, when it is held, Mr. Chairman,
that this committee determine whether we are going to insist on
answers to those questions as to the result of the conference, and not
how the decision was arrived at.
S?nator Mundt. Is there a second to the motion made by the Senator
from Michigan ?
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I will oppose that motion be-
cause in my opinion it is the duty of this committee to get the truth.
If it cannot get all the truth, then it is still the duty of the committee
to get as much of the truth as possible. I do not believe that the hearing
should be recessed or postponed. I believe that the hearing should
proceed at the same time that these problems are discussed and ad-
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I move — it is 10 minutes of 12 — as a
substitute motion, that we adjourn and reconvene at 2 o'clock, or recess
and reconvene at 2 o'clock.
Senator Mundt. The attention of the Chair was temporarily di-
verted. Are you suggesting that we simply recess now, Senator
Symington, and not have an executive session, and meet at 2 ?
1266 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Symington. I didn't say that, Mr. Chairman. I said instead
of recessing until tomorrow, that now we recess and reconvene at 2
o'clock this afternoon in the normal procedure, so that we proceed
with these hearings — correction. My distinguished colleague, the
senior Senator from Arkansas, suggests that we make it 2 :30, in order
that we have full time for an executive hearing. I would modify my
substitute motion to that extent, Mr. Chairman.
Senator McClellan. I second the substitute motion.
Senator McCarthy. Could I make a suggestion, Senator Syming-
Senator Mundt. Let the Chair report for the record that the sub-
stitute motion as made by Senator Symington has been seconded by
Senator McCarthy. Will Senator Symington yield for a minute?
Senator Symington. I will be glad to.
Senator McCarthy. Instead of making that 2 :30, I wonder if you
won't make your substitute motion 3 o'clock, because it will take us
some time to thresh out these problems. I think we should give our-
selves sufficient time.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, in an effort to extend every
consideration possible to the junior Senator from Wisconsin, I will
now further revise my substitute motion and recommend that we
continue, that we recess until 3 o'clock this afternoon.
Senator Mundt. Is the amendment satisfactory to the seconder?
Senator McClellan. I accept the amendment.
Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, I think this is a major question
which has to be discussed. I feel that it would be foolhardy for us
to walk into this accidentally. I think — I know, as one member of
the committee, it is a serious question. Rather than to set a time limit
that we meet at 2 :80 or 3 o'clock, there is no need of our coming back
here and meeting until this question has been resolved. So I say,
I don't care whether it is 3 o'clock or tomorrow morning, but I think
the main question is to resolve this controversy. So I would like to
suggest that we recess now, have an executive session, and come back
at the call of the Chair after the decision has been made by the
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I speak to that? I do not
agree with Senator Potter. I believe that these hearings shall go on
and should go on regardless of whether this matter is adjudicated to
the satisfaction of the committee or anybody else. Therefore, the
motion which has been moved and seconded I believe is now before
Senator Mundt. Is there any further discussion ?
As the Chair understands the motion — and he will repeat it as
best he can and call for a vote if there is no further discussion — it
is that we recess now and reconvene at 3 o'clock, and that the Chair
call an executive session during the interim for the purpose of dis-
cussing the situation which has arisen with regard to the executive
order and the testimony of Mr. Adams.
Is there any further discussion ? Are you ready for the vote ?
May the Chair say before the vote that if it prevails, he will call
the executive session in room 357.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1267
Those in favor of the motion made by Senator Symington and sec-
onded by Senator McClelJan, will signify by— Do you want a rollcall
Very well, we will have a rollcall vote.
Senator McClellan ?
Senator McClellan. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen?
Senator Dirksen. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson?
Senator Jackson. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter ?
Senator Potter. No.
Senator Mundt. Senator Symington?
Senator Symington. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak ?
Senator Dworshak. Aye.
Senator Mundt. The Chair votes "aye."
The motion prevails. We will meet at 1:30 in room 357. We
willl reconvene at 3 o'clock here.
(Whereupon, at 11 : 55 a. m. the committee was recessed, to reconvene
at 3 p. m. the same day. )
No. 19 (a)
United States Senate,
Washington, D. C, May 10, 195$.
Hon. Herbert Brownele, Jr.,
United States Attorney General,
Department of Justice, Washington 25, D. C.
Dear Herb: This letter is with further regard to our recent exchange of
correspondence whereby in a communication dated May 6, you responded to a
letter I wrote you under date of May 5, soliciting your opinion in connection
with a 15-page interdepartmental memorandum dated January 26, 1951, from
John Edgar Hoover to Gen. A. R. Boiling, and also a 2 1 / 4-page letter dated
January 26, 1951, addressed to Major General Boiling and closing with the
typewritten reproduction of the name "J. Edgar Hoover."
In your letter of May 6, you gave it as your opinion that it would not be in
the public interest to enter as an exhibit in our current hearings either of these
2 documents. You are aware, I am sure, of the position taken by Senator Mc-
Carthy before our committee in which he held that it would not violate the
public interest to include as an exhibit the 2 1 / 4-page document, and at which
time he suggested the possibility of calling you before our subcommittee in
executive session for the purpose of ascertaining precisely why you felt the
disclosure of the contents in the 2% -page letter would not be in the public in-
terest. Since you are receiving daily transcriptions of our hearings, you un-
doubtedly have also had your attention called to the suggestion of Senator Mc-
Clellan that if you were to be called to testify on this point, it should be in
public session rather than in private session. Senator McClellan has also asked
me privately to state in this letter that if you are to be called, he would like to
request that you bring J. Edgar Hoover with you at the time of such a meeting.
At a meeting of the subcommittee Friday afternoon, however, it was decided
before any action of any kind was taken on Senator McCarthy's suggestion
that I should write you this letter again conveying to you the 2 x /4-page docu-
ment in question together with the following request :
Would it be possible for you to authorize or clear for use as an exhibit before
our subcommittee any of the paragraphs or portions of the enclosed 2^4-page
document? It has occurred to some members of the subcommittee that the
fact the 2 1 /4-page document may contain the names of some of those still under
investigation or being used as informants, could be the basis on which you re-
quested the contents be not divulged. If so, perhaps such names could be
deleted and other portions of the document released.
Will you please write me your reaction to this request and if you feel it is
against the best security interest of the United States to permit any portions
at all of the 2 1 /4-page document to be used as an exhibit before our subcommit-
tee, I am sure it will be helpful to us if you will give your specific reasons for
making such a determination. We, of course, do not want to make public
anything which it is deemed would be injurious to our national interest to dis-
close, but in our search for truth in the current hearings, on the other hand, we
would like to have available for our consideration every fact and document
which can be included in our record without doing violence to essential security
We would appreciate a reply as soon as possible.
With best wishes and kindest personal regards, I am
Karl E. Mundt, United States Senator.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1269
No. 20 (b)
For : The President.
From : The Attorney General.
One of the chief merits of the American system of written constitutional law
is that all the powers entrusted to the Government are divided into three great
departments, the executive, the legislative, and the judicial. It is essential
to the successful working of this system that the persons entrusted with power
in any one of these branches shall not be permitted to encroach upon the
powers confided to the others, but that each shall be limited to the exercise
of the powers appropriate to its own department and no other. The doctrine
of separation of powers was adopted to preclude the exercise of arbitrary
power and to save the people from autocracy.
This fundamental principle was fully recognized by our first President, George
Washington, as early as 1796 when he said: "* * * it is essential to the due
administration of the Government that the boundaries fixed by the Constitution
between the different departments should be preserved * * * ". In his Farewell
Address, President Washington again cautioned strongly against the danger
of encroachment by one department into the domain of another as leading to
despotism. This principle has received steadfast adherence throughout the
many years of our history and growth. More than ever, it is our duty today
to heed these words if our country is to retain its place as a leader among the
free nations of the world.
For over 150 years — almost from the time that the American form of govern-
ment was created by the adoption of the Constitution — our Presidents have
established, by precedent, that they and members of their Cabinet and other
heads of executive departments have an undoubted privilege and discretion
to keep confidential, in the public interest, papers and information which re-
quire secrecy. American history abounds in countless illustrations of the refusal,
on occasion, by the President and heads of departments to furnish papers to
Congress, or its committees, for reasons of public policy. The messages of our
past Presidents reveal that almost every one of them found it necessary to
inform Congress of his constitutional duty to execute the office of President,
and, in furtherance of that duty, to withhold information and papers for the
Nor are the instances lacking where the aid of a court was sought in vain
to obtain information or papers from a President and the heads of depart-
ments. Courts have uniformly held that the President and the heads of depart-
ments have an uncontrolled discretion to withhold the information and papers
in the public interest ; they will not interfere with the exercise of that discre-
tion, and that Congress has not the power, as one of the three great bram-hes
of the Government, to subject the executive branch to its will any more than
the executive branch may impose its unrestrained will upon the Congress.
PRESIDENT WASHINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION
In March 1792, the House of Representatives passed the following resolution:
"Resolved, That a committee be appointed to inquire into the causes of the
failure of the late expedition under Major General St. Clair; and that the said
committee be empowered to call for such persons, papers, and records, as may
be necessary to assist their inquiries'' (3 Annals of Congress, p. 493).
. This was the first time that a committee of Congress was appointed to look into
a matter which involved the executive branch of the Government. The expedi-
tion of General St. Clair was under the direction of the Secretary of War. The
expenditures connected therewith came under the Secretary of the Treasury.
The House based its right to investigate on its control of the expenditures of
public moneys. It appears that the Secretaries of War and the Treasury
appeared before the committee. However, when the committee was bold enough
to ask the President for the papers pertaining to the General St. Clair campaign,
President Washington called a meeting of his Cabinet (Binkley, President and
Congress pp. 40-41).
Thomas Jefferson, as Secretary of State, reports what took place at that
meeting. Besides Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, Henry Knox, Secretary of
War, and Edmond Randolph, the Attorney General, were present. The com-
mittee had first written to Knox for the original letters, instructions, etc., to
1270 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
General St. Clair. President Washington stated that he had called his Cabinet
members together, because it was the first example of a demand on the Executive
for papers, and he wished that so far as it should become a precedent, it should
be rightly conducted. The President readily admitted that he did not doubt the
propriety of what the House was doing, but he could conceive that there might
be papers of so secret a nature that they ought not to be given up. Washington
ind his Cabinet came to the unanimous conclusion :
"First, that the House was an inquest, and therefore might institute inquiries.
Second, that it might call for papers generally. Third, that the Executive ought
to communicate such papers as the public good would permit, and ought to refuse
those, the disclosure of which would injure the public ; conseqently were to
exercise a discretion. Fourth, that neither the committee nor House had a
right to call on the head of a department, who and whose papers were under
the President alone; but that the committee should instruct their chairman to
move the House to address the President."
The precedent thus set by our First President and his Cabinet was followed in
1796, when President Washington was presented with a resolution of the House
of Representatives which requested him to lay before the House a copy of the
instructions to the Minister of the United States who negotiated the treaty with
the King of Great Britain, together with the correspondence and documents
relative to that treaty. Apparently it was necessary to implement the treaty
with an appropriation which the Houre was called upon to vote. The House
insisted on its right to the papers requested, as a condition to appropriating the
required funds (President and Congress, Wilfred E. Binkley (1947), p. 44).
President Washington's classic reply was, in part, as follows :
"I trust that no part of my conduct has ever indicated a disposition to with-
hold any information which the Constitution has enjoined upon the President
as a duty to give, or which could be required of him by either House of Congress
as a right ; and with truth I affirm that it has been, as it will continue to be while
I have the honor to preside in the Government, my constant endeavor to har-
monize with the other branches thereof so far as the trust delegated to me by
the people of the United States and my sense of the obligation it imposes to
'preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution' will permit" (Richardson's
Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 1, p. 194) .
Washington then went on to discuss the secrecy required in negotiations with
foreign governments, and cited that as a reason for vesting the power of making
treaties in the President, with the advice and consent of the Senate. He felt that
to admit the House of Representatives into the treatymaking power, by reason
of its constitutional duty to appropriate moneys to carry out a treaty, would be
to establish a dangerous precedent. He closed his message to the House as
"As, therefore, it is perfectly clear to my understanding that the assent of the
House of Representatives is not necessary to the validity of a treaty ; * * * and
as it is essential to the due administration of the Government that the boundaries
fixed by the Constitution between the different depai'tments should be preserved,
a just regard to the Constitution and to the duty of my office, under all the
circumstances of this case, forbids a compliance with your request" (Richard-
son's Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 1, p. 196).
rRESiBENT jefferson's administration
In January 1S07, Representative Randolph introduced a resolution, as follows:
"Resolved, That the President of the United States be, and he hereby is,
requested to lay before this House any information in possession of the Execu-
tive, except such as he may deem the public welfare to require not to be dis-
closed, touching any illegal combination of private individuals against the peace
and safety of the Union, or any military expedition planned by such individuals
against the territories of any Power in amity with the United States; together
with the measures which the Executive has pursued and proposes to take for
suppressing or defeating the same" (16 Annals of Congress (1806-07), p. 3o6.)
The resolution was overwhelmingly passed. The Burr conspiracy was then
stirring the country. Jefferson had made it the object of a special message to
Congress wherein he referred to a military expedition headed by Burr. Jef-
ferson's reply to the resolution was a message to the Senate and House of
Representatives. Jefferson brought the Congress up to date on the news which
he had been receiving concerning the illegal combination of private individuals
against the peace and safety of the Union. He pointed out that he had recently
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1271
received a mass of data, most of which had been obtained without the sanction
of an oath so as to constitute formal and legal evidence. "It is chiefly in the
form of letters, often containing such a mixture of rumors, conjectures, and
suspicions as renders it difficult to sift out the real facts and unadvisable to
hazard more than general outlines, strengthened by concurrent information or
the particular credibility of the relator. In this state of the evidence, delivered
sometimes, too, under the restriction of private confidence, neither safety nor
justice will permit the exposing names, except that of the principal actor, whose
guilt is placed beyond question" (Richardson's Messages and Papers of the
Presidents, vol. 1, p. 412, dated January 22, 1S07).
SIMILAR ACTIONS BY PRESIDENTS JACKSON, TYLER, BUCHANAN, AND GRANT
On February 10, 1835, President Jackson sent a message to the Senate wherein
he declined to comply with the Senate's resolution requesting hiin to communi-
cate copies of charges which had been made to the President against the official
conduct of Gideon Fitz, late Surveyor General, which caused his removal from
office. The resolution stated that the information requested was necessary both
in the action which it proposed to take on the nomination of a successor to Fitz,
and in connection with the investigation which was then in progress by the
Senate respecting the frauds in the sales of public lands.
The President declined to furnish the information. He stated that in his
judgment the information related to subjects exclusively belonging to the execu-
tive department. The request therefore encroached on the constitutional powers
of the Executive.
The President's message referred to many previous similar requests, which he
deemed unconstitutional demands by the Senate :
"Their continued repetition imposes on me, as the representative and trustee
of the American people, the painful but imperious duty of resisting to the utmost
any further encroachment on the rights of the Executive" (ibid., p. 133).
The President next took up the fact that the Senate resolution had been
passed in executive session, from which he was bound to presume that if the in-
formation requested by the resolution were communicated, it would be applied
in secret session to the investigation of frauds in the sales of public lands. The
President said that, if he were to furnish the information, the citizen whose
conduct the Senate sought to impeach would lose one of his basic rights; namely,
that of a public investigation in the presence of his accusers and of the wit-
nesses against him. In addition, compliance with the resolution would subject
the motives of the President, in the case of Mr. Fitz, to the review of the Senate
when not sitting as judges on an impeachment; and even if such a consequence
did not follow in the present case, the President feared that compliance by the
Executive might thereafter be quoted as a precedent for similar and repeated
"Such a result, if acquiesced in .would ultimately subject the independent con-
stitutional action of the Executive in a matter of great national concernment to
the domination and control of the Senate ; * * *
"I therefore decline a compliance with so much of the resolution of the Senate
as requests 'copies of the charges, if any,' in relation to Mr. Fitz, and in doing
so much be distinctly understood as neither affirming nor denying that any such
charges were made; * * * (ibid., p. 134).
One of the best reasoned precedents of a President's refusal to permit the
head of a department to disclose confidential information to the House of Repre-
sentatives is President Tyler's refusal to communicate to the House of Repre-
sentatives the reports relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians and to
the frauds which were alleged to have been practiced upon them. A resolution
of the House of Representatives had called upon the Secretary of War to com-
municate to the House the reports made to the Department of War by Lieutenant
Colonel Hitchcock relative to the affairs of the Cherokee Indians together with
all information communicated by him concerning the frauds he was charged to
investigate ; also all facts in the possession of the Executive relatiug to the
subject. The Secretary of War consulted with the President and under the
latter's direction informed the House that negotiations were then pending with
the Indians for settlement of their claims ; in the opinion of the President and
the Department, therefore, publication of the report at that time would be in-
consistent with the public interest. The Secretary of War further stated in his
answer to the resolution that the report sought by the House, dealing with
alleged frauds which Lieutenant Colonel Hitchcock was charged to investigate,
contained information which was obtained by Colonel Hitchcock by ex parte in-
1272 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION"
quiries of persons whose statements were without the sanction of an oath, and
which the persons implicated had had no opportunity to contradict or explain.
The Secretary of War expressed the opinion that to promulgate those state-
ments at that time would he grossly unjust to those persons, and would defeat the
object of the inquiry. He also remarked that the Department had not been
given at that time sufficient opportunity to pursue the investigation, to call the
parties affected for explanations, or to determine on the measures proper to be
The answer of the Secretary of War was not satisfactory to the Committee on
Indian Affairs of the House, which claimed the right to demand from the Execu-
tive and heads of departments such information as may be in their possession
relating to subjects of the deliberations of the House.
President Tyler in a message dated January 31, 1843, vigorously asserted that
the House of Representatives could not exercise a right to call upon the Executive
for information, even though it related to a subject of the deliberations of the
House, if, by so doing, it attempted to interfere with the discretion of the
The same course of action was taken by President James Buchanan in I860
in resisting a resolution of the House to investigate whether the President or any
other officer of the Government had, by money, patronage, or other improper
means, sought to influence the action of Congress for or against the passage of any
law relating to the rights of any State or Territory. (See Richardson, Messages
and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 5, pp. 618-619. )
In the administration of President Ulysses S. Grant the House requested the
President to inform it whether any executive offices, acts, or duties, and if any,
what have been performed at a distance from the seat of government established
by law. It appears that the purpose of this inquiry was to embarrass the Presi-
dent by reason of his having spent some of the hot months at Long Branch.
President Grant replied that he failed to find in the Constitution the authority
given to the House of Representatives, and that the inquiry had nothing to do
with legislation (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. VII,
president Cleveland's administration
In 1S86, during President Cleveland's administration, there was an extended
discusson in the Senate with reference to its relations to the Executive caused
by the refusal of the Attorney General to transmit to the Senate certain docu-
ments concerning the administration of the office of the district attorney for the
southern district of south Alabama, and suspension of George W. Dnrkin, the
late incumbent. The majority of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary con-
cluded it was entitled to know all that officially exists or takes place in any of
the departments of government and that neither the President nor the head of
a department could withhold official facts and information as distinguished from
private and unofficial papers.
In his reply President Cleveland disclaimed any intention to withhold official
papers, but he denied that papers and documents inherently private or confidential,
addressed to the President or a head of a department, having reference to an act
entirely executive such as the suspension of an official, were changed in their
nature and become official when placed for convenience in the custody of a puhlic
department (Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 8, pp.
378-379, 381 ) .
Challenging the attitude that because the executive departments were created
by Congress the latter had any supervisory power over them, President Cleveland
declared (Eberling, Congressional Investigation, p. 258) .
"I do not suppose that the public offices of the United States are regulated or
controlled in their relations to either House of Congress by the fact that they
were created by laws enacted by themselves. It must be that thess instrumen-
talities were created for the benefit of the people and to answer the general
purposes of government under the Constitution and the laws, and that they are
unencumbered by any lien in favor of either branch of Congress growing out of
their construction, and unembarrassed by any obligation to the Senate as the
price of their creation."
PRESIDENT THEODORE ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION
In 1909, during the administration of President Theodore Roosevelt, the ques-
tl©n of the right of the President to exercise complete direction and control over
heads of executive departments was raised again. At that time the Senate
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1273
passed a resolution directing the Attorney General to inform tne Senate whether
certain legal proceedings had been instituted against the United States Steel
Corp., and, if not, the reasons for its nonaction. Request was ilso made for any
opinion of the Attorney General, if one was written. President Theodore
Roosevelt replied refusing to honor this request upon the ground that "Heads of
the executive departments are subject to the Constitution, and to the laws passed
by the Congress in pursuance of the Constitution, and to the directions of the
President of the United States, but to no other direction whatever" (Congres-
sional Record, vol. 43, pt. 1, 60th Cong., 2d sess., pp. 527-528).
When the Senate was unable to get the documents from the Attorney General,
it summoned Herbert K. Smith, the head of the Bureau of Corporations, and
requested the papers and documents on penalty of impiisonment for contempt.
Mr. Smith reported the request to the President, who directed him to turn over
to the President all the papers in the case "so that I could assist the Senate in the
prosecution of its Investigation." President Roosevelt then informed Senator
Clark of the Judiciary Committee what had been done, that he had the papers
and the only way the Senate could get them was through his impeachment.
President Roosevelt also explained that some of the facts were given to the
Government under the seal of secrecy and cannot be divulged, "and I will see to
it that the word of this Government to the individual is kept sacred (Corwin,
The President — Office and Powers, pp. 281, 428; Abbott, The Letters of Archie
Butt, Personal Aide to President Roosevelt, pp. 305-300).
PRESIDENT COOLIDGE'S ADMINISTRATION
In 1924, during the administration of President Coolidge, the latter objected
to the action of a special investigating committee appointed by the Senate to
investigate the Bureau of Internal Revenue. Request was made by the committee
for a list of the companies in which the Secretary of the Treasury was alleged to
be interested for the purpose of investigating their tax returns. Calling this
exercise of power an unwarranted intrusion, President Coolidge said :
"Whatever may be necessary for the information of the Senate or any of its
committees in order to better enable them to perform their legislative or other
constitutional functions ought always to be furnished willingly and expeditiously
by any department. But it is recognized both by law and custom that there is
certain confidential information which it would be detrimental to the public
service to reveal" (68th Cong., 1st sess., Record, April 11, 1924, p. 6087).
PRESIDENT HOOVER'S ADMINISTRATION
A similar question arose in 1930 during the administration of President Hoover.
Secretary of State Stimson refused to disclose to the chairman of the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee certain confidential telegrams and letters lead-
ing up to the London Conference and the London Treaty. The committee
asserted its right to have full and free access to all records touching the nego-
tiations of the treaty, basing its right on the constitutional prerogatives of the
Senate in the treaty-making process. In his message to the Senate, President
Hoover pointed out that there were a great many informal statements and
reports which were given to the Government in confidence. The Executive was
under a duty, in order to maintain amicable relations with other nations, not to
publicize all the negotiations and statements which went into the making of
the treaty. He further declared that the Executive must not be guilty of a
breach of trust, nor violate the invariable practice of nations. "In view of this,
I believe that to further comply with the above resolution would be incompati-
ble with the public interest" (S. Doc. 216, 71st Cong., special sess., p. 2).
PRESIDENT FRANKLIN D. ROOSEVELT'S ADMINISTRATION
The position was followed during the administration of President Franklin
D. Roosevelt. There were many instances in which the President and his execu-
tive heads refused to make available certain information to Congress the dis-
closure of which was deemed to be confidential or contrary to the public interest.
Merely a few need be cited ;
1. Federal Bureau of Investigation records and reports were refused to con-
gressional committees, in the public interest (40 Op. Atty. Gen. No. 8, April 30,
2. The Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation refused to give tes-
timony or to exhibit a copy of the President's directive requiring him, in the
1274 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Interest of national security, to refrain from testifying or from disclosing the
contents of the Bureau's reports and activities (hearings, vol. 2, House, 78th
Cong., Select Committee To Investigate the Federal Communications Commis-
sion (1944), p. 2337).
3. Communications between the President and the heads of departments were
held to be confidential and privileged and not subject to inquiry by a com-
mittee of one of the Houses of Congress (letter dated January 22, 1944, signed
"Francis Riddle, Attorney General, to Select Committee," etc.).
4. The Director of the Bureau of the Budget refused to testify and to pro-
duce the Bureau's files, pursuant to subpena which had been served upon him,
because the President had instructed him not to make public the records of the
Bureau due to their confidential nature. Public interest was again invoked to
prevent disclosure. (Reliance placed on Attorney General's Opinion in 40 Op.
Attorney General No. 8, April 30, 1941.)
5. The Secretaries of War and Navy were directed not to deliver documents
which the committee had requested, on grounds of public interest. The Secre-
taries, in their own judgment, refused permission to Army and Navy officers to
appear and testify because they felt that it would be contrary to the public
interests (hearings, Select Committee To Investigate the Federal Communica-
tions Commission, vol. 1, pp. 46, 48-68).
president teuman's administration
During the Truman administration also the President adhered to the tra-
diitonal Executive view that the President's discretion must govern the surrender
of Executive files. Some of the major incidents during the administration of
President Truman in which information, records, and files were denied to the
congressional committtees were as follows :
Date Type of document refused
Mar. 4, 1948 FBI letter-report on Dr. Condon, Director of National Bu-
reau of Standards, refused by Secretary of Commerce.
Mar. 15, 1948 President issued directive forbidding all executive depart-
ments and agencies to furnish information or reports con-
cerning loyalty of their employees to any court or com-
mittee of Congress, unless President approves.
Mar. 1918 Dr. John R. Steelman, confidential adviser to the President,
refused to appear before Committee on Education and
Labor of the House, following the service of 2 subpenas
upon him. President directed him not to appear.
Aug. •">, li 'IS Attorney General wrote Senator Ferguson, chairman of
Senate Investigations Subcommittee, that he would not
furnish letters, memorandums, and other notices which
the Justice Department had furnished to other Govern-
ment agencies concerning W. W. Remington.
Feb. 22, 1950 S. Res. 231 directing Senate subcommittee to procure State
Department loyalty files was met with President Truman's
refusal, following vigorous opposition of J. Edgar Hoover.
Mar. 27, 1950 Attorney General and Director of FBI appeared before
Senate subcommittee. Mr. Hoover's historic statement of
reasons for refusing to furnish raw files approved by At-
May 16, 1951 General Bradley refused to divulge conversations between
President and his advisers to combined Senate Foreign
Relations and Armed Services Committees.
Jan. 31, 1952 President Truman directed Secretary of State to refuse to
Senate Internal Security Subcommittee the reports and
views of Foreign Service officers.
Apr. 22, 1952 Acting Attorney General Perlman laid down procedure for
complying with requests for inspection of Department of
Justice files by Committee on Judiciary :
Requests on open cases would not be honored. Status
report will be furnished.
As to closed cases, files would be made available. All
FBI reports and confidential information would not
be made available.
As to personnel files, they are never disclosed .
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 1275
Date Type of document refused „
Apr. 3, 1952 President Truman instructed Secretary of State to withhold
from Senate Appropriations Subcommittee files on loy-
alty and security investigations of employees — policy to
apply to all executive agencies. The names of individ-
uals determined to be security risks would not be di-
vulged. The voting record of members of an agency
loyalty board would not be divulged.
THUS, you can see that the Presidents of the United States have withheld
information of executive departments or agencies whenever it was found that the
information sought was confidential or that its disclosure would be incompatible
with the public interest or jeopardize the safety of the Nation. The courts, too,
have held that the question whether the production of the papers was contrary
to the public interest, was a matter for the Executive to determine.
By keeping the lines which separate and divide the three great branches of our
Government clearly defined, no one branch has been able to encroach upon the
powers of the other.
Upon this firm principle our country's strength, liberty, and democratic form of
Government will continue to endure.
Abbott (letters of Arebie Butt) 1273
Acting Attorney General 1274
Adams, Jobn G 1247
Testimony of 1248-1267
Adam, Sherman 1253
Annals of Congress 1269, 1270
Appropriations Committee (Senate) 1275
Armed services (United States) 1257
Armed Services Committee (Senate) 1274
Army (United States) 1252,1253,1256,1259-1262,1264,1274
Army officers 1252, 1264, 1274
Attorney General (United States) 1246-1249,
1258, 1262, 1284, 1268, 1269, 1272-1274
Attorney General's opinions 1273, 1274
Biddle, Francis 1274
Biddle letter (January 22, 1944) 1274
Binkley, Wilfred E 1269, 1270
Boiling, Gen. A. R 1268
Bradley, General 1274
Brownell, Herbert, Jr 1247, 1253, 1268
Buchanan, President James 1271, 12721
Bureau of the Budget 1274
Bureau of Corporations 1273
Bureau of Internal Revenue 1273
Burr conspiracy 1270
Butt, Archie (personal aide to President Theodore Roosevelt) 1273
Carr, Francis P 1262-1264
Cherokee Indians 1271
Chief Executive 1258
Chronological Order of Events (document) 1258
Clark, Senator 1273
Cleveland, President 1272
Cohn, Roy M 1251, 1252, 1262-1264
Commodore Hotel 1251
Condon, Dr 1274
Confidential FBI reports 1246
Congress, Annals of 1269, 1270
Congress of the United States 1249, 1257, 1269, 1270, 1272-1274
Congressional committee 1249
Congressional Record 1273
Constitution of the United States 1257, 1269, 1270, 1272, 1273
Collidge, President 1273
Corwin (The President — Office and Powers) 1273
Counselor to the Army 1247-1267
Department of the Army 1252, 1253, 1256, 1259-1262
Department of Defense 1261
Department of Justice 1246, 1268, 1274
Department of War 1271, 1272
Deputy Attorney General 1253, 1262, 1264
Director of the Bureau of the Budget 1274
Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 1273
Durkin, George W 1272
Eberling congressional investigation 1272
Education and Labor Committee (House) 1274
Eisenhower, Dwight D 1249, 1204
Executive department heads 1273
Executive departments 1249. 1265
Executive directive 1265
Executive order 1263
Expedition of Major St. Clair 1269
Farewell Address (President Washington) 1269
FBI Director 1273, 1274
FBI memorandum (January 26, 1951) 1246
FBI reports 1246, 1247, 1274
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 1246, 1273, 1274
Federal Communications Commission Investigation (1944) 1274
Ferguson, Senator 1274
First President of the United States 1270
Fitz, Gideon (Senate resolution on) 1271
Foreign Relations Committee (Senate) 1273, 1274
Fort McNair (War College) 1257
Fort Monmouth 1252
G-2 (Army Intelligence) 1260
Government agencies 1249, 1258, 1274
Grant, President Ulysses S 1271, 1272
Hagerty, James C 1247
Hamilton, Alexander 1269
Hensel, H. Struve 1262, 1263
Hitchcock, Lieutenant Colonel 1271
Hoover, J. Edgar 1246, 1268, 1274
Hoover, President 1273
Hoover letter (January 26, 1951) 1268
Hotel Commodore 1251
House Committee on Education and Labor 1274
House of Representatives 1269, 1270, 1271, 1272
House Select Committee to Investigate the Federal Communications
"Immediate Release" (White House letter) 1247
Industrial College, Armed Services (War College) 1257
Inspector General's report 1252
Jackson, President 1271
Jefferson, Thomas 1269, 1270
Judiciary Committee (Senate) 1256, 1272-1274
Justice Department 1246, 1268, 1274
King of Great Britain 1270
Knox, Henry 1269
Lawton, General 1250-1252
Legislative branches of the Government 1249
Lodge, Mr 1264
London conference 1273
London treaty 1273
Long Branch 1272
Loyalty Review Board of the Army 1259, 1260-1262
McCarthy, Senator Joe 1246, 1247, 1249-1252, 1260, 1262, 1263, 1266, 1268
McClellan, Senator 1268
Messages and Papers of the Presidents (Richardson) 1270-1272
Minister of the United States to Great Britain 1270
Mundt, Senator Karl E 1246, 126S
National Bureau of Standards 1274
Navy (United States) 1274
Navy officers 1274
Opinions of the Attorney General 1273, 1274
Perlman, Acting Attorney General 1274
Personal aid to President Theodore Roosevelt 1273
President Cleveland's administration 1272
President Coolidge's administration 1273
President Hoover's administration 1273
President Jackson's message (en Gideon Fitz) 1271
President Jefferson's administration 1270
President Franklin D. Roosevelt's administration 1273
President Theodore Roosevent's administration 1272
President Truman's administration 1274
President Washington's administration 1269
President — Office and Powers (Corwin) 1273
President of the United States 1247-1200, 1234-1259, 1263-1265, 1260-1275
Presidential assistant 1253
Presidential directive 1278, 1280-1282
President's Cabinet 1258, 1260
President's letter 1247, 1248, 1255
President's message (Jackson) 1271
Press secretary to the President 1247
Randolph, Edmond 1260, 1270
Remington, W. W 1274
Richardson's Messages and Papers of the Presidents 1270-1272
Rogers, Deputy Attorney General 125a
Roosevelt, President Franklin 1250, 1273
Roosevelt, President Theodore 1272, 1273
Russian spy 1247
St. Clair, Major General 1260, 1270
Sehine, G. David 1252, 1253
Secretary of the Army 1250-125S, 1261, 1264, 1265
Secretary of Commerce 1274
Secretary of Defense 1248, 1240, 1253, 1257
Secretary of State 1269, 1273, 1275
Secretary of the Treasury 1269, 1273
Secretary of War 1269, 1271, 1272
Security Division (G-2, Army) 1260
Select Committee To Investigate the Federal Communications Commission
( House) 1274
Senate Armed Services Committee 1274
Senate Committee on Appropriations 1275
Senate Committee on Foreign Relations 1273
Senate Judiciary Committee 1256, 1272-1274
Senate resolution (on Gideon Fitz) 1271
Senate of the United States 1246, 1268, 1270-1273
Signal Corps Laboratory 1247
Smith, Herbert K 1273
State Department loyalty tiles 1274
Steelman, John R 1274
Stevens, Robert T 1250-1258, 1261, 1284, 1265
Stimson, Secretary of State 1273
Surveyor General 1271
Svmington, Senator 1247, 1250, 1267
Truman, President 1250, 1258, 1274, 1275
Tyler, President 1271, 1272
United Nations 1262, 1263
United States Acting Attorney General 1274
United States armed services 1257
United States Army 1252, 1253, 1256, 1259-1262
United States Attorney General 1246-1219, 125S, 1262, 1264, 1268, 1269, 1272-1274
United States Bureau of Internal Revenue 1273
United States Congress 1249, 1257, 1269, 1270, 1272-1274
United States Constitution 1257, 12G0, 1270, 1272, 1273
United States Department of Justice 1246, 1268, 1274
United States House of Representatives 1269
United States Navy 1274
United States President 1247-1250, 1254-1250, 1263-1265, 1269-1275
United States Secretary of Commerce 1274
United States Secretary of Defense 1248, 1249, 1253, 1257
United States Secretary of State 1269, 1273, 1275
United States Secretary of the Treasury 1269, 1273
United States Secretary of War 1269, 1271, 1272
United States Senate 1246, 1268, 1270-1273
United States Steel Corp 1273
United States Surveyor General 1271
United States War Department 1271, 1272
War College (Fort McNair) 1257
War College (Industrial College, Armed Services) 1257
War Department 1271, 1272
Washington, D. C 1246, 1268
Washington, President 1249, 1258, 1269, 1270
Washington's administration 1269
Washington's Cabinet 12C9, 1270
Washington's Farewell Address 1269
White House 1247, 1253, 1263, 1264
White House letter 1247
White House staff 1263
BOSTON PUBLIC LIBRARY
3 9999 05442 1746