Skip to main content

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

See other formats



^uj. hsk 




Given By 


3 s 








S. Res. 189 

PART 37 

MAY 24, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 

46630° WASHINGTON : 1954 


Boston Public Library 
Superintendent of Documents 

SEP 28 1954 

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


HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 



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

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman 


Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel 

Thomas R. Prkwitt, Assistant Counsel 

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

Sons Hgrwitz, Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maker, Secretary 


Index i 

Testimony of — 

Adams, John G., counselor, Department of the Army 1346 

Ryan, Maj. Gen. Cornelius Edward, United States Army 1379 

Stevens, Hon. Robert T., Secretary, Department of the Army 1336 


Introduced Appears 
on page on page 

21. Press release issued by James C. Hagerty, press secretary 

to the President, December 14, 1953 1 1336 1336 



MONDAY, MAY 24, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations 
of the Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington, D. C. 


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

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

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

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

Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order. The 
Chair will start by advising our guests that we are happy to have you 
here as our guests, in the conduct of public business. But the Chair 
feels he should advise you as he has advised your predecessors who 
have visited the chambers, that you come here in conformity with a 
standing rule of this committee, which is that there are to be no mani- 
festations of approval or disapproval of any kind at any time on the 
part of any of the members of the audience. The officers and the 
plainclothesmen in the audience have standing instructions from the 
committee to immediately and politely remove from the room anybody 
at any time who violates those instructions, because you will then have 
canceled the agreement by which you came here as our guests. 

The audiences have been magnificent. We trust they will continue 
to be so. The committee continues to appreciate the very splendid 



service rendered in that connection by the officers who are in control 
of the decorum in the rear of the room. 


ARMY— Resumed 

Senator Mundt. I believe that at the conclusion of the morning 
meeting, Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn had just concluded a 10- 
minute period, and with that conviction, I begin now by asking Coun- 
sel Jenkins whether he has any questions at this time. 

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

Senator Mundt. The Chair has none. 

Do any of my colleagues at my left have any questions at this time ? 

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I have received a copy of the 
White House release of December 14 which probably should be in- 
cluded in the record. 

Senator Mundt. It will be marked with an appropriate exhibit 
number and included in the record. 

No questions to my right. No questions to my left. 

Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn. 

Senator McCarthy. If there is something being put into the record, 
I would like to see it. 

Senator Mundt. It is a copy of the White House release. 

Senator Jackson, if you have another copy, would you send it down 
the table. 

Senator Jackson. I have only one copy. 

Senator Mundt. When Counsel Welch has concluded examining it, 
I wish he would pass it around the table so we can pass it around the 
table and to the other counsel. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, it is quite short. It might well be 
read into the record, perhaps. 

Senator Mundt. I would suggest Mr. Jackson read it. 

Senator Jackson. This is in response to the request that I made this 
morning of Mr. Welch, or of whoever would produce it. It is en- 
titled, "Immediate Kelease, dated December 14, 1953, James C. Hag- 
erty, Press Secretary to the President :'■ 

The White House. 

During the present recess of the General Assembly of the United Nations, 
Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., will serve here at the White House as 
special adviser to the President on United Nations' and other matters. Ambas- 
sador Lodge will have an office in the Executive Office of the President. He will, 
of course, continue his United Nations' duties and will attend meetings of the 
Security Council and any other sessions that might be held. 

(The document mentioned above was marked "Exhibit No. 21.") 
Senator Mundt. Your 10-minute period, now, Mr. Cohn, or Sen- 
ator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have just a very few ques- 
tions to ask. I frankly don't know until they are asked whether or 
not they will be pertinent to the circumscribed areas we are covering 
today. For the benefit of counsel and the chairman, may I say that 
I had proposed asking Mr. Stevens about the conversations he had had 
with certain Senators in regard to putting out the charges. Until the 


answer comes, I won't know whether or not those conversations had to 
do with putting out the charges or whether or not they had to do with 
something else. Specifically, I propose to ask him about the two 
conversations which he had with Senator Symington. May I say, I 
don't have any idea what was discussed. I don't know it it had any- 
thing to do with putting out the charges or not. I would like to ask 
a few questions on that. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I make a point of order? 

Senator Mundt. What is the point of order ? 

Senator Symington. I would like to say that the reason that the 
questions, the conversations, that I had with Secretary Stevens are 
known is because I told this committee that I had had several conver- 
sations with Secretary Stevens, resulting from, as I remember it, two 
visits with me ; one when he came to see me with General Kidgway, 
the Chief of Staff of the Army, at which time he protested the treat- 
ment of General Zwicker, another time he came to see me and I be- 
lieve also with Mr. Adams at the end of the conversation, at which 
time he also protested the treatment of General Zwicker. Inasmuch 
as I am also a member of the Armed Services Committee, and the 
morale of the United States Army in this world today is a matter of 
vital concern to me, I thought it only proper that I should tell this 
committee and also Senator McCarthy that I had had these conver- 
sations with the Secretary of the Army. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair interprets the remarks just made by 
his colleague to come under the heading of a point of personal priv- 
ilege rather than a point of order, and I think he is not objecting to 
the questions. 

Senator Symington. I will take any point that the chairman will 
let me take which will get the facts on the table. 

Senator Mundt. Yes, I felt that you were entitled to be heard on a 
point of personal privilege because your name had been mentioned, 
and I think that you are not lodging a protest against the asking of 
the questions. 

Senator Symington. Any questions which will bring out any truth 
with respect to this entire procedure and these issues is exactly what 
I have been trying to get and hope that we will get in these hearings. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy will proceed, and direct his 
questions to the conversations with regard to the point at issue, 
whether or not they had anything to do with the instigation of the 
charges, which is the thing which the Secretary testified about this 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that the Senator's de- 
scription of the conversations having to do with the Zwicker incident 
clearly throws them outside the scope of the limited inquiry that we 
are now engaged on. 

Senator Mundt. We can determine that, I presume, as the Secre- 
tary proceeds with the answering of the questions. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I by no means want to infer 
that these conversations only had to do with General Zwicker. These 
conversations had to do with Secretary Stevens' opinions as to what 
was happening to the United States Army as a member of the Armed 
Services Committee was glad to receive any comments that he had, 
and I was glad to talk to him about it. I just didn't want the counsel 


or the Secretary to think that in any way these conversations were 
limited to General Zwicker. 

Mr. Welch. Thank you for that, but it still remains true that I 
think it is outside the scope of inquiry about the press release that 
the Secretary made last week. If I am wrong, of course, we want it in. 

Senator Symington". At no time since it was decided to have these 
hearings have I been in touch, directly or indirectly, in any way, 
shape, or form, with Secretary Stevens or with any other principal 
in these hearings except Senator McCarthy and Mr. Colin and you and 
the others when they came before this committee in executive hearings 
or open hearings. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests that Senator McCarthy pro- 
ceed with his questions, and if Mr. Welch or Senator Symington or 
anyone else around the table raises a point of order, we will discuss 
the particular point of order with his relationship to the specific 

Senator McCarthy. May I say before I ask the questions, if there 
is any objection on the part of any Senator to my asking Mr. Stevens 
about conversations he had with such Senator, I will desist. I think 
that I should not at this time go into conversations with the Senator 
in question, if he objects. I understand Senator Symington has no 
obj ection. Is that right ? 

Senator Symington. I didn't hear the question. 

Senator Mundt. You may proceed, and we will find out if there is 
objection when the questions are asked. 

Senator Symington. Was the Senator addressing me ? 

Senator McCarthy. I say if you or any Senator objects to my ques- 
tioning the Secretary about conversations he has had with you, I 
shall desist. I think, however, it is important for me to ask him 
questions as to whether or not the conversation with you had anything 
to do with the issuance of the charges, and I would like to get that 
simple answer from the Secretary, and I understood you did not object 
to that. 

Senator Symington. Well, inasmuch as you detail it, Senator, I 
would like to say that I myself asked the Secretary of the Army to 
give me the charges that had been made with respect to Mr. G. David 
Schine — just a minute. You brought it up, and I want to tell you 
the facts. And on the telephone, I discussed that with him. Later, 
I received a letter from somebody in the Army, and I do not believe it 
was the Secretary, stating that in accordance with the request of 
Senator Potter, they were furnishing me the report with respect to 
Mr. G. David Schine. I believe that covers that point. 

However, I want to bring out another point, and that is that if I 
had any conversations with the Secretary of the Army based on his 
testimony, those conversations would be monitored along with yours, 
and your principals, and the other members of this committee, and 
for some days I have been trying to get those monitored conversations 
before the public, let the chips fall where they may. Therefore, it 
seems to me a little incongruous to be discussing 1 or 2 of the moni- 
tored conversations and not all of them in the chronological order 
that you requested they be in, in the beginning. 

Senator McCarthy. Just so that there is no doubt left in the mind 
of anyone as to the request for the monitored calls, it so happens four 
Republican members of this committee have requested that their 


monitored conversations be made available to the chief counsel, Mr. 
Jenkins, and the question arose as to whether or not they could be 
put in evidence, and Mr. Welch or someone raised the question of 
the security, and I understand that Mr. Jenkins has made arrange- 
ments now to go over the monitored conversations with the Justice 
Department, and decide what should be deleted, and what can safely 
be introduced without interfering with any security regulations, and 
I know that the Senator from Missouri, Mr. Symington, realizes that 
unless and until he does the same thing that the Republican Senators 
have done, Mr. Jenkins cannot submit those to the Justice Department 
and cannot eliminate the security matter, and the entire question of 
getting monitored telephone calls in is stymied. I sincerely hope that 
any Democrat members who have had phone calls with the Defense 
Department make the same type of request that we did, so that Mr. 
Jenkins can have the phone calls. 

In the meantime, Mr. Stevens 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order? 

Senator Symington. I have a point of whatever you would like to 
have it be, but I would like to make some comments with respect to 
those comments. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes we should proceed with the 
questioning, but if you have comments around the table we are not 
going to make much headway. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I rise to a point of personal 

Senator Mundt. You may do so. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, when we first signed a paper, 
according to Senator Potter who told me, and according to my under- 
standing we were signing a paper which put these calls into the public 
record, we thought. It developed that what we signed simply gave 
the right of Senator McCarthy and his counsel, and the Army and 
Secretary Stevens, to look at the cails. I understand all three have 
looked at some of the calls. 

Now, there was a general feeling around that because they had 
signed that paper, the Republican Senators, which did not in any 
way prophecy, predict or stipulate that the calls would be made public, 
nevertheless there was a general feeling that because they had signed 
it, the calls would be made public and because they had not signed it 
the calls wouldn't be made public. 

Now, I do not want to discuss what happened in executive sessions 
with respect to these telephone conversations, unless it becomes neces- 
sary. Therefore, I say, first I am very glad now to have Senator 
McCarthy ask any questions of any kind that he would like to ask 
of the Secretary of the Army, with respect to any discussions of any 
kind that I have ever had with him at any time in the last — since he 
has been on the job. I have had no discussions with him of any kind 
since -it was decided to hold these hearings. But I want to remind 
the chairman, and able counsel, that we are now going into the dis- 
cussion of monitored telephone conversations, unilaterally, despite 
the fact that the only people to the best of my knowledge who have 
ever signed anything with respect to publishing those telephone calls 
are the Senators on the Democratic side of this committee. 

46620°— 54— »t. 87 2 


Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary- 

Senator Mundt. Just to correct the record at that point, the Chair 
would like to say that he has written a letter to Counsel Welch, special 
delivery to him at his office, enclosing the statement signed by the 
Democrats, and calling attention to the statements which were signed 
at his suggestion by the Republicans, and have said to Mr. Welch we 
hope you can interpret this to be adequate to deliver these moni- 
tored phone calls in response to our subpena, to Counsel Jenkins. 
Mr. Welch told me this morning he had been in Boston, and while 
he arrived last night he did not go to his office until this morning, 
and he had not had the time to read my letter, and to make a reply to 
it, and just as soon as he does, the Chair will act in conformity with 
that letter. If he says, as I hope he can, that this is enough, we can 
deliver them to Counsel Jenkins, so be it. If he does not say that, 
the Chair hopes that we will have this in writing so we will have the 
record say exactly what he does want to have happen. 

Now, Mr. McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Before I ask a question of the Secretary, could 
I have this cleared up in the record : I understand that Counsel Jen- 
kins already has all of the monitored phone calls of any Republican 
members, monitored phone calls with Mr. Carr, Mr. Colin, and none 
with the Democrat members; is that correct? 

Senator Mundt. I don't think that is correct. But I think you can 
ask the counsel. I think that is in error. 

Senator McCarthy. Could I have that straightened for the record ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, we have only the monitored calls be- 
tween the Army and the McCarthy staff. Those have been examined 
by Mr. Welch's staff, by the committee staff, and by your staff. 

Senator McCarthy. And also the conversations with me, I under- 
stand ? 

Mr. Jenkins. That is correct. 

Senator McCarthy. I thank you. I wanted to get that straight- 
ened out. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry. 

Senator Mundt. You may state it. 

Senator McClellan. May I ask the counsel for the committee if 
those monitored telephone calls that you have in your possession are 
now available for the inspection of other members of this commit- 
tee under the orders that you have under the consent agreement. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, answering Senator McClellan's ques- 
tion, we have specific consent on the part of Mr. Welch and on the 
part of the Army, to disclose those monitored records to myself, to 
Senator McCarthy's committee, and to counsel for the Army. That is 
the limit of the permission given us by the Army and by the McCarthy 
staff. There was no consent given that those monitored records would 
be shown to the committee as a whole. I want to make it perfectly 
clear. Senator McClellan, that as far as I am personnally concerned, I 
would be happy for each member of this committee to see those 
calls and those records. But to date, I have only the consent to see those 
myself in the presence of Mr. Cohn and Mr. Welch. Is that right, Mr. 
Welch, your understanding ? 

Mr. Welch. Well, I don't know at the moment what the typewriting 
says. But, Mr. Jenkins, I am sure that you know and that every 


member of this committee knows, that it is the desire of the Army 
and of Mr. Adams, to have every monitored telephone call between 
the Secretary's office, Senator McCarthy, his staff, and if you gentle- 
men wish it, calls between the office and you Senators, admitted into 
evidence in this hearing, and we will sign any sensible piece of paper 
that accomplishes that result. I am under the impression we have 
already signed such a paper. But in any event, we have stated re- 
peatedly in this room that that is the result that we desire. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, I don't believe you answered my question. 
You state that it is your desire that those calls be put in the record. 
We understand that perfectly. But I am asked by Senator McClellan 
why the members of the committee, these seven members, have not 
seen those monitored calls and the record of them. My answer to him 
was that I had your consent and the consent of the McCarthy side of 
this controversy for me as General Counsel of the committee, for you 
representing the Army, and for Mr. Cohn representing Senator Mc- 
Carthy to see those calls, and that there was no consent that they be 
shown to the members of the committee. Is that correct? 

Mr. Welch. I will let Mr. St. Clair answer that, because he dealt 
with it. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. St. Clair, can you answer the question? 

Mr. St. Clair. My memory of it is, Mr. Jenkins, that we produce 
those calls. The question arose as to whether or not the adverse party 
would be willing that they go in evidence before they had a chance to 
look at them. The answer that I recall was that they would not be 
willing. We then agreed that at least we should agree that you could 
see them. There was no effort on the part of the Army to limit their 
distribution. If there was any such effort, it came from the other side 
of the table. 

Mr. Jenkins. There was no agreement on the part of the Army, 
Mr. St. Clair, that the members of this committee should see them, 
though, was there ? 

Mr. St. Clair. We are perfectly happy to now and were then. 

Mr. Jenkins. I did not ask you that. You are willing to do it now ? 

Mr. St. Clair. And were then. 

Mr. Jenkins. Were you then ? 

Mr. St. Clair. Absolutely. But you will recall that the other side 
of the table drew a line. 

Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Does that answer your question, Senator 
McClellan ? I do not have the permission, according to Mr. St. Clair, 
of Mr. McCarthy and Mr. Cohn to show you those telephone calls. 
I would do it personally, but I can't do it. 1 will not break faith with 
an agreement that I have with respect 

Senator McClellan. Let me ask another question. Are the moni- 
tored telephone calls of members of this committee being shown to 
the parties to this conference? 

Mr. Jenkins. I have not seen them. They have not been produced. 

Senator Mundt. They have not been delivered, and I think we can 
save a lot of time if we will let Mr. Welch have time to answer the 
letter that I sent to him last week which he didn't get because he was 
in Boston. I am sure that by tomorrow morning Mr. Welch will 
have an answer to that letter. 

Senator McClellan. I am perfectly willing, but let me say this, 
Mr. Chairman. I have a copy of the document before me which yotf 


asked the committee to sign. It does not give the members of the 
committee a right to see them. For that reason, I did not agree to it. 
I am willing for the committee to have all of them and irrespective 
of whose they are, and I am perfectly willing for them to go into 
the record. I signed a document to that effect this morning. 

Mr. Welch. I would like to say that when Senator Symington pro- 
duced the paper this morning, I thought it unlocked all doors. But 
I spoke to counsel for the minority members before we started after 
lunch and pointed to him that I thought the phrasing of it was not 
quite happy to achieve the result that this table would like to see 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would like very much to have a dis- 
continuation of the conversation which is very time-consuming, and 
give Mr. Welch a chance to answer a letter which I wrote to him last 
week, which he assured me he would answer tomorrow morning. Let 
us proceed with the questioning. 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, before we dispose of this tele- 
phone call business, we have pleaded this as a mass project. It seems 
to me that everyone of these is individual in character and, Mr. Welch, 
if you will get up some good Boston language that will for the junior 
Senator from Illinois devise and bequeath all of these calls that I 
may have made, get them on the table, you can put them into the 
record right now. I see no virtue of signing a mass document with 
everybody's name on it. You are free to release any telephone call 
that I have made, and you are free to read it in this room, so far as I 
am concerned. If everybody else wants to do likewise, that is all 
right with me. If nobody wants to do it, it is still all right with me, 
so you can bring them on and put them into the record. Because as 
a general proposition, telephone calls are not very revealing anyhow. 
I don't think there is much pay dirt in it. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, proceed with the questioning, 

Senator McCarthy. Let me see what we were talking about now. 

Senator Mundt. Anything but telephone calls. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens, I understand you had several 
telephone conversations with Mr. Symington before these charges 
were made public, is that correct, or given to the Senators ? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes; I have talked with Senator Symington on 
a number of subjects. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a point of order? 

Senator Symington. I have a point of something. I want to point 
out to the Chair, and to eminent counsel, that now, despite the fact 
that some of us have signed a general release of all monitored tele- 
phone calls without a lot of legal doubletalk around them, and some 
haven't, that the Chair is now permitting the Senator from Wisconsin 
to interrogate the witness with respect to some of the telephone calls 
and not all of them. If the Chair and the counsel think that that is 
proper, it is all right with me, because I certainly have never said any- 
thing with respect to the Army, or to the Secretary of the Army, that 
I won't stand behind. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I desire to make this statement with 
reference to the statement just made by the Senator from Missouri: 
The Senator from Missouri is under the impression that because his 



conversation with the Secretary of the Army was probably monitored, 
or his conversations were monitored, the Secretary should not now be 
questioned about them. That is not the point. That is beside the 
point. The very fact that they were monitored does not preclude the 
Secretary of the Army from testifying with reference to those conver- 
sations. The man who did the monitoring could not come into court 
and testify before this committee without, of course, the consent of 
Senator Symington, and the fact that they are monitored does not 
in any wise preclude the Secretary from divulging the contents of 
those conversations, assuming that they are relevant to the present 
issue, and that is, whether or not Senator Symington made any sug- 
gestions or had any influence with the Secretary in the preparation 
or release of these charges. The inquiry is confined to that aspect of 
the case. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I would like to point out that 
the best evidence of what is going to be asked of the memory of the 
Secretary of the Army will be in the monitored conversations them- 
selves. I would also like to say that at no time and in no way did I 
ever suggest that any charges were to be made against anybody. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Secretary, you have been questioned, of 
course, in detail as to any conversation you might have had with me. 
I am now questioning you about some conversations with Senator Sy- 
mington. I consider that completely proper, and I don't think that 
one Senator has any special privilege another Senator does not have. 

The question is this : No. 1, did you have conversations with Senator 
Symington prior to the issuance of the charges against Cohn, Carr, 
and McCarthy ? 

Secretary Stevens. I have conversed with Senator Symington a 
good many times, I would say, since I took office. 

Senator McCarthy. A good many times. 

Secretary Stevens. And, therefore, prior to the issuance of the 

Senator McCarthy. About how many of those conversations had 
anything to do with the charges against Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr, or 
against me? 

Secretary Stevens. I personally recall it coming up only one time. 

Senator McCarthy. How about the telephone conversations ? 

Secretary Stevens. The telephone conversations that I remember 
were on entirely different subjects. 

Senator McCarthy. You had no telephone conversations with Sen- 
ator Symington that had anything to do with the charges against Mr. 

Secretary Stevens. I can't say that, Senator. I just don't remember 
right at the moment. It could have been mentioned. 

Senator McCarthy. Would you have any idea as to how many times 
in telephone conversations you could have mentioned to Mr. Syming- 
ton the charges against Mr. Cohn ? I refer to times before the charges 
were made public. 

Secretary Stevens. I would think it would be very, very limited. 

Senator McCarthy. I don't want to pin you down if your memory 
is bad. Would you say 1 time, 2 times, 5 times? 

Secretary Stevens. I am sure it wasn't five times. I would say I 
don't remember any of it on the telephone, but it could have been 


Senator McCarthy. When yon came up to see Mr. Symington, did 
you discuss at that time the charges against Mr. Carr or Mr. Cohn 
or against me? 

Secretary Stevens. I think on one occasion it was mentioned, and I 
came up to see Senator Symington in regard to the General Zwicker 

Senator McCarthy. And you discussed 

Secretary Stevens. My recollection is that before I left the office, 
the subject of Schine and Cohn came up. 

Senator McCarthy. Was Mr. Symington on the committee at that 
time ? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, that was, if my memory is correct — that 
would have been about the 19th of February, and he was on the com- 
mittee, wasn't he, at that time ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan advises the Chair that the 
Democrats returned to the committee on the 26th of January. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you discuss with Mr. Symington the ques- 
tion of whether or not you were going to make public the charges 
against Mr. Cohn ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall having discussed that. 

Senator McCarthy. In other words, you don't recall ever having 
discussed with Senator Symington the question of whether or not 
you would make public the charges? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't recall that, and I certainly know that 
Senator Symington had nothing to do whatever with what finally 

Senator McCarthy. I haven't even remotely accused him of that. 
Did you tell him charges were being prepared? 

Secretary Stevens. No ; I don't think so. 

Senator McCarthy. Did you tell any Senators that charges were 
being prepared ? 

Secretary Stevens. I don't think so. 

Senator McCarthy. Do you know ? 

Secretary Stevens. Do I know? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Secretary Stevens. As I said, I remember one case in talking with 
Senator Symington, the matter came up of Cohn and Schine, and I 
don't remember anything about any charges. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, this forenoon I called the Sec- 
retary's attention to the fact that his testimony under oath on two 
different occasions was directly opposite, and I pointed out that un- 
less he had a bad memory this would mean that there was perjury in 
one case or the other, and he resented that very much. 

May 1 suggest it is improper and if it is untrue, of course it would 
be improper. And if it is not true, I intend now to read the testimony 
while the Secretary is on the stand, and see if he agrees with me 
that it is completely contradictory. At one time he was either in 
error — and I assume that that is what it is, and I assume he is in 
error and I can see his memory has been very bad — or that there was 
perjury. It has to be one or the other, and I shall now read the testi- 
mony and ask the Secretary if he cares to comment on it, 

Senator Mundt. Do you have a point of order ? 

Mr. Welch. The record is the record. I have a point of order. If 
this distinguished witness has committed perjury, the record goes to 


the Department, to the Attorney General's office, for appropriate 
action, and there is no point in contrasting what it says on one page 
now with what it says on another. That is for the Attorney General. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair is unable to anticipate the question 
about to be asked by the Senator from Wisconsin, and we will have to 
wait until the question is asked before we can rule on the point of 

Senator McCartfit. Now, Mr. Secretary, I am going to read to you 
your testimony from page 1949, on May 6, 1954: 

Senator McCarthy. Did yon order them put out? We are referring to charges 
at that time. 

Secretary Stevens. No, sir, I did not order them put out. 

Then May 24, 1954, page 3214, Secretary Stevens said : 

Secretary Stevens. The responsibility for these charges being put out is mine, 

Senator McCarthy. You just told tne you ordered them put out, Mr. Secre- 
tary. Now, did you or did you not? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator McCarthy. When did you order them put out? 

Mr. Welch. You skipped a question. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch says you skipped a question. If you 
did, you should go back and pick up. What page, Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. 3214. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me get the complete transcript. 

Senator Mundt. Time out. 

Senator McCarthy. Page 3214 

Senator Mundt. Time back in. 

Senator McCarthy. Page 3214. Let's start back a few questions. 
Here we are. Page 3214 : 

The responsibility for these charges being put out is mine completely. 

Is that as I read it? 

Mr. Welch. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy (reading). Question: 

You just told me you ordered them put out, Mr. Secretary. Did you or did 
you not? 

Secretary Stevens. Yes, sir; I did. 

Question. When did you order them put out? 

Secretary Stevens. Well, we put them out, we sent them up to the committee 
here, I think it was on the 10th of March. 

I want to say to Mr. Welch, when he says I skipped a question, he 
is in error. If I skipped a question, have him read it to me. 

Mr. Welch. It was the last one, Senator, that I thought you 
skipped. I may have been in error, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. If we all agree there is no skipping of 
questions, we may proceed. 

Senator McCarthy. Will the reporter read back my original ques- 
tion ? I don't like to be accused 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch retracts his allegation of skipping a 
question. Do you, Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. I do, Mr. Senator. I do not wish to do you a wrong. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. No question was skipped. 

Senator McCarthy. Very well. That was this morning. 


Later this morning, on page 3264, Mr. Cohn was questioning tha 
witness — have you got that transcript? 

Mr. Welch. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. Page 3264, Mr. Cohn is quoting — we will start 
at the beginning: 

I am sure of that, sir, and I am very sorry this is taking so long, but we still 
don't have the answer to a very crucial question that caused this committee to 
adjourn for a full week. The question is, Who did give the order? You were 
definite when you were here, the last time. I might read this to you to refresh 
your recollection. 

Then Mr. Colin quotes from a previous record : 
"Did you order them put out?" That was a question by Senator 

Then he quotes the answer of Secretary Stevens : 

No, sir; I didn't order them put out. 

Secretary Stevens then makes the answer this morning : 

We did not put them out, Mr. Cohn, and I have explained that at least 25 times. 
We did not put them out. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, after reading the testimony of May 6, when 
Mr. Stevens said, "No, sir; I didn't order them put out," the testimony 
this morning when he says "Yes, sir ; I did," And the testimony about 
an hour later when he says, "We did not put them out, Mr. Cohn," I 
confess I must throw up my hands. I can see nothing to be gained 
by further examining this witness, period. 

Senator Mtjndt. The Chair understands that concludes your inter- 
rogatory of the witness. Does that go for Mr. Cohn ? 

Senator McCarthy. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. Does that go for members of the committee and 
counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins. That is correct. 

Senator Mundt. You are dismissed, Mr. Stevens. May I say you 
are still under oath because we have that one question you agreed to 
bring back a reply to, about the Peress report. If you can do that as 
quickly as possible, we hope we can dismiss you as quickly as possible. 

You may call your next witness, Mr. Counsel. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Adam will resume the stand, Mr. Chairman. 



Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams, as the Chair understands it, you were 
dismissed because of the developments around the Executive order, 
but you were not unsworn. Is that your understanding ? 

Mr. Adams. I was not unsworn. 

Senator Mundt. You will continue to testify under oath. The 
counsel has no further questions at this time, nor has the Chair. 

How about the Senators to the left ? 

Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. I want to ask you one question, Mr. Adams. 

At the conclusion of your testimony last Monday, or during your 
testimony last Monday, I asked you specifically whether, as to that 
meeting on January 21 the responsibility shifted from the Army for 


the conduct or actions regarding this controversy. You at that time 
on the advice of your counsel, declined to answer because you stated 
you thought it might violate the directive of the President prohibiting 
you from giving that information. 

I asked you at that time if the Army took the full responsibility up 
to that date and you said it did. Is that correct ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Now, subsequently, I believe your superior, 
the Secretary of the Army, has not only issued a press release but has 
testified that the Army has the full responsibility after that date. Is 
that correct? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Therefore, this delay in proceedings was 
caused by that misunderstanding as to whether you did have the au- 
thority to give out that information or not ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. The press release — I mean the directive has 
in no sense been changed, has it ? 

Mr. Adams. The President's directive ? 

Senator McClellan. The President's directive; since you testified 
here last Monday. 

Mr. Adams. It has not, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Then you could have very well answered the 
question at that time, couldn't you, and saved all this delay ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. If I may state, I told you, sir, that I had seen 
it for only about 20 minutes more than you had at that time, and the 
delay was because of the necessity for all of us to study and interpret it. 

Senator McCeellan. That is all. You could have answered. That 
is the only point I made. You could have answered it that day and 
saved all of this time. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. No questions. 

Senator Mttndt. Senator Dworshak or Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. I have no questions at this time. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. None. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Adams, do you subscribe fully to the statement made 
by Secretary Stevens under oath this morning that the acts and deci- 
sions in this controversy were those of the Army and the Army alone ? 

Mr. Adams. I do, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Who suggested that you go to see Senator McClellan on 
January 20 or whatever day it was ? 

Mr. Adams. As I have stated earlier, a suggestion was made to me 
to go. I made the decision to go. I did not need to follow the 

Mr. Cohn. Would you have gone if the suggestion had not been 
made ? 

Mr. Adams. Probably not, It was a good idea, so I did it. 

Mr. Cohn. Who gave you this good idea ? 

Mr. Adams. Mr. Kogers, I think I previously testified. 

Mr. Cohn. And the good idea was to go to see the distinguished 
Senator from Arkansas, is that correct ? 

40620°— 54— pt. 37 3 


Mr. Adams. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. He was not then a member of the committee, was he? 

Mr. Adams. No, he was not. 

Mr. Coiin. Of the subcommittee, I am talking about. 

Mr. Adams. He was not. 

Mr. Coiin. You were advised to go to see a distinguished Senator 
who was not a member of this subcommittee; is that right? 

Mr. Adams. I wasn't advised, sir. It was suggested to me that that 
was a step that I might take. I thought it was a good idea, so I did it. 

Mr. Coiin. "Will you tell us why you thought that would be a better 
idea than going to people who were members of the committee? 

Mr. Adams. Well, 1 can't say now that I can remember what my 
thinking was in January on that particular subject. That is a deci- 
sion I took, a step I took at that time. 

Mr. Cohn. Didn't Mr. Rogers ask you to go to see Senator 
McClellan ? 

Mr. Adams. I don't consider that it was an order, a direction, or any- 
thing other than a suggestion. Had I chosen not to go, I wouldn't 
have to. 

Mr. Cohn. My question was this, sir : Did he ask you to go to see 
Senator McClellan ? Did he merely say, "Maybe } t ou ought to think 
about this," or did he ask you to go to see Senator McClellan ? Did 
Mr. Rogers ask you to go to see Senator McClellan ? 

Mr. Adams. Well, we are in the field of semantics, now, which word 
he used. "Whatever he said, whether it was asked, suggested, or what- 
ever it was, the decision as to whether or not I should go was mine. 

Mr. Cohn. Who made the appointment? Did you or Mr. Rogers? 

Mr. Adams. Mr. Rogers. 

Mr. Cohn. Had you known Senator McClellan before this ? 

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

Mr. Cohn. You had not known him at all ? 

Mr. Adams. No. I had met him once but he wouldn't have remem- 
bered me. 

Mr. Coiin. Mr. Adams, do you still stand on your testimony given 
on page 2618? Page 2618 of the record, Mr. Welch. [Reading.] 

Later that afternoon Mr. Rogers telephoned me and asked me if I would go and 
see Senator McClellan whom I did not know, and tell him the story and how 
these matters seemed to me to be related. He arranged the appointment. 

Mr. Adams, That is right. The mere fact that he asked indicated 
that he was leaving the decision to me. 

Mr. Cohn. In other words, what you are saying to the committee 
here is since you have the option of refusing, the thing doesn't count; 
is that right ? 

Mr. Adams. No, I didn't say that. You said that. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, how would put it, Mr. Adams? 

Mr. Adams. I had the option of refusing. That made it an Army 
decision as to whether or not I went. 

Mr. Cohn. And you made the decision ; is that right? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct. 

Mr. Coiin. And I believe, sir, you said you w T ere the second in com- 
mand in the Army ? Is that right ? 

Mr. Adams. That is a little facetious. I don't think one knows 
where I stand. I am an adviser to the Secretary of the Army. I am 
reallv not in the echelon. 


Mr. Cohn. Did you consult any superior in the Army before making 
that decision? 

Mr. Adams. I am not sure whether I consulted any superior before 
making that decision. Mr. Stevens was out of the country. The Un- 
der Secretary of the Army was acting as Secretary of the Army and 
I was in regular consultation with him during that period. I cannot 
tell you whether or not I actually advised him of the fact that I in- 
tended to make that call prior to the time I did it. 

Mr. Cohn. But in any event, so we can move on, you will agree 
with me that you were asked by the Deputy Attorney General, who 
was not connected with the Army in any way, to go to see a United 
States Senator who was not a member of this committee? 

Mr. Adams. I was asked, but not required. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, if I may interrupt for a mo- 
ment, could I ask if Mr. Stevens is still in the room? 

Mr. Welch. I think he has gone. 

Senator McCarthy. He has left? 

Mr. Welch. I think, Senator, he has left. 

Mr. Cohn. Very well, sir. So we have it on this day you were asked 
by the Deputy Attorney General not connected with the Army to go 
to Senator McClellan, and not a member of this committee? 

Mr. Adams. Your language says on page 2618, "Mr. Rogers tele- 
phoned me and asked me if I would go." 

Mr. Cohn. That is right. He asked you if you would go, and I 
understand that, and you did go ? 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, the next day, you attended a meeting in the De- 
partment of Justice, with the Deputy Attorney General, and Sherman 
Adams, and Gerald Morgan of the White House staff, and United 
Nation's Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge; is that correct? 

Mr. Adams. That is right, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Did that meeting conclude with a decision, with the 
decision that you should call on the Republican members of the sub- 
committee, and talk to them about the subpenas for the loyalty board, 
and in the same conversation about the so-called Schine matter? 

Mr. Adams. That is right, and the decision, sir, was subject — the 
decision was subject to my disagreement, and had I not agreed to it, 
and had I not favored it, I w T ould not have gone. 

Mr. Cohn. In other words, your concurrence was sort of a condi- 
tion subsequent, the decision was made ? 

Mr. Adams. It was a condition precedent, and had I not agreed to 
it I would not have gone, and no such decision could have been made. 

Mr. Cohn. In other words, as I understand it then, your testimony 
is that the decision was made by the Attorney General, Deputy At- 
torney General, the two Presidential assistants and the U. N. Ambas- 
sador, and it did not become operative or effective until you gave 
your agreement? 

Mr. Adams. That is quite correct, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, who was it who suggested that you prepare this 
report which has led to this controversy? 

Mr. Adams. I previously testified, sir, that that was a suggestion 
made to me by Governor Adams. 

Mr. Cohn. That was made to you for the first time by Governor 
Sherman Adams, the Assistant to the President; is that right? 


Mr. Adams. What do you mean for the first time? I could have 
made the suggestion to myself, about 6 times in the last 6 weeks, and 
I just didn't get around to doing it. 

Mr. (John. You didn't get around to doing it but when Sherman 
Adams suggested it to you, you then got around to it ? 

Mr. Adams. It is not quite that simple, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Would you correct me? 

Mr. Adams. Ever since mid-December, I had been feeling that I 
was guilty of laches, as the lawyers like to say, in not having pre- 
pared contemporary memoranda of the experiences through which I 
was going, and I think the thing which more than anything else 
convinced me that I should go ahead with the preparation of these 
papers was not the suggestion of that day, but the meeting of the fol- 
loAving day in Senator McCarthy's apartment, on which I wrote a 
memorandum the following morning, and then I decided that I would 
try and reconstruct the situation of the previous few months, and 
there is no doubt about the fact that because an official from outside 
of the Defense Department had observed that it would be a good idea 
for me to have that memorandum, those memoranda, I took a step 
which I might have been a little bit derelict about, and I took it 
perhaps a few days earlier, but there is no doubt in my mind that 
I ultimately would have prepared those^ memoranda. 

Mr. Cohn. But in any event, the specific preparation was at the 
suggestion of Sherman Adams ; is that right ? 

Mr. Adams. Not quite, sir. It was after it had been discussed. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, were you testifying truthfully, Mr. Adams, when 
you say 

Mr. Adams. I testified truthfully from the beginning of this hear- 


Mr. Cohn. And then it would follow that you gave a truthful an- 
swer to this question of Senator Symington's: I believe this comes 
from volume 17, page 2914, I believe and I am not quite sure of the 
page. I have here 2912 through 2915. The quote I have is this 

Mr. Welch. Would you wait just a moment, sir? 

Mr. Cohn. I will be glad to wait. 

Senator Mundt. Time out. 

Mr. Adams. Go ahead. 

Mr. Cohn. At the bottom of page 2912 : 

Now, Mr. Adams, you said that at the suggestion of Gov. Sherman Adams, 
you made up this report with respect to Mr. Schine, is that correct? 
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Do you stand on that statement that it was at the suggestion of 
Sherman Adams that you made up this report ? 

Mr. Adams. That is the statement I made the other day and I think 
that my statement of today is more accurate. 

Mr. Cohn. In other words, you are changing your statement then 
to what you said today and you say you now tell us that it was more 
accurate ? 

Mr. Adams. I think today is an elaboration of what I said the other 

Mr. Cohn. And you want to stand on what you said today? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct. I have no requirement of Governor 
Adams which was the line of testimony seems to elicit, and I have no 
requirement as a result of that conversation. 


Mr. Cohn. I wasn't so much interested in the requirement; I was 
interested in Mr. Stevens' statement that all of the acts and decisions 
were those of the Army and the Army alone. I am trying to reconcile 
that as best I can with the many steps that were taken only on the 
suggestion or advice or whatever you want to call it, of higher-ups 
not connected with the Army. That is why I am asking you these 
questions, sir. 

Now, after this decision was reached at this meeting, the decision 
by the Attorney General, Deputy Attorney General, to White Housers 
and the United States Ambassador, which decisions I know you say 
would not have been operative unless you concurred in it, you did 
go to some of the Republicans on the subcommittee, didn't you, sir? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Was that an act of the Army and the Army alone ? 

Mr. Adams. I was accompanied on one of the visits, on the first 
evening, by Mr. Morgan, and on the next day I went alone, to see 
Senator Mundt. 

Senator Mundt. The time has expired. 

Mr. Jenkins, do you have any questions ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I pass. 

Senator Mundt. Any Senators to my left? 

Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Adams, I didn't send for you to come to 
my office, did I ? 

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

Senator McClellan. I simply gave you an appointment at the re- 
quest of Mr. Rogers ? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Prior to his request, did I have any knowledge 
so far as you knew of this problem that you have been relating? 

Mr. Adams. Not from me, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Did you come there for the purpose of talking 
to me about that? 

Mr. Adams. I came there for the purpose of talking to you about 
that, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Were you at that time concerned about sub- 
penas being issued? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I was. 

Senator McClellan. For the loyalty board? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Did you discuss that with me at that time, 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I did. 

Senator McClellan. Were you also concerned about alleged treat- 
ment of General Zwicker, at that time? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir, General Zwicker incident was about a month 
later. On the occasion when I called on you, sir, as I recall, I talked 
about the loyalty board subpena, and about the Cohn-Schine matter. 

Senator McClellan. At that time, I was not a member of the sub- 

Mr. Adams. No, sir. 

Senator McClellan. And I so stated to you ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. 


Senator McClellan. Were you concerned or were you at that time 
contemplating and did you so advise me, refusing to let the loyalty 
board appear in response to a subpena ? 

Mr. Adams. We were contemplating that, sir, and I so advised you. 

Senator McClellan. And you were discussing that with me ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. Now, were you advised by me, or was this 
matter discussed that if you did refuse and the committee desired to 
take any action upon your refusal, the subcommittee, the resolution 
for citation for contempt would have to come before the full com- 
mittee ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I think you did tell me that. 

Senator McClellan. Did I then tell you after you had related this 
story to me, that I wouldn't use this information that you had given 
me unless you put it in writing ? 

Mr. Adams. That is right. You were quite specific about that, sir. 

Senator McClellan. I was very specific about it? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, and you said you would have to have a written 
report, and that you would have to be back on the committee, and both 
of those things would have to occur before you would be able to do 

Senator McClellan. That is on the subcommittee ? 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Senator McClellan. But I am talking about if a citation resolution 
came to the full committee that I would not make use of this informa- 
tion unless you placed or gave it to me in writing. 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I am not sure that they were connected that 
way, but I know you did tell me that you, if you didn't say so in so 
many words, but it was clear we hadn't met before and I was relating 
to you a rather unusual story, and you felt that you ought to have a 

Senator McClellan. I wasn't going to use any information you gave 
me unless you backed it up in writing, isn't that true ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. You understood it that way ? 

Mr. Adams. That is exactly what you said. 

Senator McClellan. And I also advised you to then go to talk to 
your Republican members ? 

Mr. Adams. You did, sir. 

Senator McClellan. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Any questions ? 

Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, in the executive hearing I stated 
that to the best of my recollection you and Secretary Stevens came to 
see me one day in my office ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Was I correct in that statement? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I think it was. 

Senator Symington. You were outside, I think, and at the end of the 
conversation you came into the office, is that correct ? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Symington. Was that the same day, according to Mr. Ste- 
ven's testimony, that he visited five Senators? 

Mr. Adams. I think it is, sir, and I think we saw you first, in Senator 
McClellan's office and then walked to your office with you. 


Senator Symington. From Senator McClellan's office? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I think so. 

Senator Symington. Now, Mr. Adams, the question was asked you 
whether in the discussion in my office there was any discussion of Mr. 
Colin or Mr. Schine. To the best of my recollection, I do not remem- 
ber any. Do you remember any, and if you do, be very frank. 

Mr. Adams. I was out of the office, you will recall, sir, for 15 or 20 
minutes. And I came back into your office, and when I came back you 
asked me one question, sir, and you said, what is the worst thing that 
ever happened, what do you think is the worst thing that was done by 
Mr. Colin in this Cohn-Schine matter, and I ruminated for a moment 
and then said to you, "Well, I think, sir, the day he said that he would 
wreck the Army and Mr. Stevens would be through as Secretary," was 
as bad as any. That was the extent of the conversation, sir. 

Senator Symington. I want you to be very frank with the commit- 
tee and you are under oath, is there anything else with respect to Mr. 
Colin or Mr. Schine, if there is I would like you to tell the committee 
now with respect to our conversation. 

Mr. Adams. I don't remember it, sir, and I don't remember there 
was any discussion with reference to Mr. Colin and Mr. Schine, while 
we were in Senator McClellan's office with you, while we were walking 
down the hall, or during the time that I as in the room, at all, other 
than that one sentence or so. 

Senator Symington. Now, Mr. Adams, I would like to ask you this 
question : To whom do you report ? 

Mr. Adams. To the Secretary of the Army, sir. 

Senator Symington. Is there anybody else in the Army or in the 
Pentagon building or the executive branch of the Government who 
can give you any orders ? 

Mr. Adams. In the absence of the Secretary, the Acting Secretary. 
While the Secretary is here, I take my orders from the Secretary of 
the Army only. 

Senator Symington. Well, when the Secretary of the Army is ab- 
sent, the Acting Secretary of the Army is the Secretary of the Army, 
isn't he? 

Mr. Adams. That is correct, sir. That is right, sir. 

Senator Symington. Now, Mr. Adams, as I listened to your testi- 
mony, I gathered you tried to get along with Senator McCarthy and 
Mr. Colin and other members of the subcommittee staff, because you 
felt that was necessary in order to do the job you Avere hired to do for 
the Army ; is that right ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. Did you think that asking Mr. Colin to do 
personal favors for you, to get you theater tickets, and so on, would 
make him feel friendly to you ? 

Mr. Adams. Well, I asked Mr. Colin once to get theater tickets for 
me. I didn't think 

Senator Symington. Would you mind giving me a direct answer 
to the question ? Let me repeat the question : Did you think that ask- 
ing Mr. Colin to do personal favors for you, to get you theater tickets, 
and so on, would make him feel friendly to you ? 

Mr. Adams. Well, I don't think I gave that a thought, sir, as to 
whether it would make him feel friendly. In that respect, our rela- 


tionsliip was satisfactory. He was in New York, I was in Washington, 
and from time to time I would ask him to do minor favors. 

Senator Symington. Is it your habit to ask favors of people after 
they have been abusive to you ? 

Mr. Adams. As I have stated on a number of occasions, sir, excepting 
on the matter of Schine, I got along very well with Mr. Cohn, and 
when I could divert the subject away from Schine, our relationship 
was fairly normal. I felt that I had a continuing problem of getting 
along with Mr. Cohn. After we had a very serious break-out, a break, 
in January, I still came back in February and placed a call to him 
for the purpose of seeing if I couldn't reestablish that relationship. 

Senator Symington. Now, Mr. Adams, you have discussed quite a 
little bit the Fort Monmouth investigation. I would like to know just 
what you thought was wrong with the way the McCarthy subcom- 
mittee was conducting itself in the Fort Monmouth investigation. 
And to that interest, or to that end, rather, I would like you to answer 
specifically the following questions "Yes" or "No," if you feel you 
can answer them that way. 

I preface this because I think at times we get away from the basic 

Did you feel that Senator McCarthy was abusing Army officers? 

Mr. Adams. Not during the Fort Monmouth investigation, sir. 

Senator Symington. At any time? 

Mr. Adams. Well, not until the time of the Zwicker incident, sir. 

Senator Symington. At the Zwicker incident ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. I felt — I wasn't present while General Zwicker 
was being interrogated. I was present when another officer was being 
interrogated, and I thought that officer was given a difficult time. 
I was ordered from the room before General Zwicker was interrogated. 

Senator Symington. I ask you to follow the questions, and I would 
appreciate your answering them "yes" or "no." I will repeat the 
question. No ; I will pass that one. 

Did you feel that Senator McCarthy was disrupting the morale of 
Army officers? 

Mr. Adams. Of Army officers? 

Senator Symington. That is what I said. 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ; I think so. 

Senator Symington. Did you feel that Senator McCarthy was mis- 
representing to the public the extent of the problem of Communist 
infiltration at Fort Monmouth ? 

Mr. Adams. I did, sir. 

Senator Symington. Did you think that this was bad for the Army 
of the United States and the country ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir; I did. 

Senator Symhstgton. Did you think that Senator McCarthy was 
misrepresenting and distorting what went on at the subcommittee 
hearings to the press and to the public? 

Mr. Adams. I did, sir. 

Senator Symington. Can you recall specifically what was said which 
misrepresented or distorted what went on at these hearings? 

Mr. Adams. There were a number of things, sir. I can recall 

Senator Symington. Give two. 

Mr. Adams. Sir? 

Senator Symington. Give two. 


Mr. Adams. I can recall two right off, and they can not be answered 
in just a few words, sir, if you will excuse me for a slightly longer 

There was an individual interrogated, and the press made a lot over 
the fact that he had broken down and was going to tell all about a 
Communist spy ring and about espionage and that sort of thing. 
I think the executive transcript would indicate that the individual 
had left the room upset and he came back and that what he had to 
tell the committee when he came back was far, far short of the existence 
of an espionage ring, and his breakdown was partially brought on by 
the fact that he had left home, his mother had died the day before 
and he was home with his family in bereavement and had come down 
to this interrogation and was struck by the interrogation. The head- 
lines had made a big point of the fact that he had broken down and 
was going to tell all about espionage and all that sort of thing. 

The executive transcript on that day and subsequent days just did 
not bear it out in my opinion. 

Senator Symington. That is the first one, is that right? 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Senator Symington. What was the second one? 

Mr. Adams. There was another incident of a man who was first 
referred to as a scientist and who was a defector from East Germany. 
The headlines made a lot over the fact that he had come from East 
Germany and was going to tell about American classified informa- 
tion which was in the hands of East German technical plants. Well, 
as time went on, it developed that he was not a scientist, but that he 
was a technician, 21 years of age, and also that the facts which he 
had given earlier in intelligence interrogations fell far short of what 
the headlines indicated he had to give. And also, his veracity was 
open to question. 

Senator Symington. Now I want to ask you, Mr. Adams, to be 
specific and tell me just how this publicity in your opinion was harm- 
ful to the Army. Therefore, I want to ask you these questions : 

Did you feel that General Zwicker was being unjustifiably abused? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir; I felt that he was unjustifiably abused. 

Senator Symington. Did you think that his treatment by the sub- 
committee was a disgrace to his uniform? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mtjndt. Point of order? 

Senator McCarthy. No, not exactly. I merely made the point the 
other day that if we were going to go into the Zwicker case, I will have 
to go into it in detail. I will not let Mr. Symington make statements 
like that, and Mr. Adams, without cross-examining him fully. The 
other day, I desisted to save time, from going into the Zwicker case. 
If you want to retry the Zwicker case, good, let's retry it right here. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes we have had several other col- 
loquies about the General Zwicker case, and I thought the subcom- 
mittee had agreed that we would classify it much as the Peress case, 
as something that we would not endeavor to explore in detail during 
these hearings. And the Chair is a little bit afraid that if we start 
interrogations about General Zwicker we will be beginning a long, new, 
diversionary trail. I would like to suggest to Senator Symington, 

46620 •— 54— pt. 37 4 


if it is not imperative in his mind, that he ask no questions about the 
Zwicker case. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Chairman, I hope Mr. Syming- 
ton does pursue all of these individual cases. If he does, it will give 
me an opportunity to bring out the facts in them. I have no objec- 
tion to his going into any of these cases whatsoever. I merely want 
it to be made known that if he does, I will bring out the facts. 

Senator Mundt. Inasmuch as the charges and countercharges do 
not involve the details of the Zwicker case, the Chair believes that we 
should not get ourselves involved now in a whole new set of charges 
and counter-charges about an incident which might better, it seems to 
me, be discussed by some other forum than this. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I respect the Chair's posi- 
tion. We have wasted, in my opinion, some 8 days in trying to find 
out whether President Eisenhower or Sherman Adams or Ambassador 
Lodge or Secretary Wilson, or somebody, was responsible for the 
meeting on the 21st of January which in turn was responsible for these 
charges being made. As I understand it, Secretary Stevens, who re- 
ports in direct line to the President, made a statement which the Presi- 
dent referred to in his press conference last week. 

Now, for many hours we have been questioning the accuracy and 
the truth of those statements. I, for one, do not see how and why 
it is fundamental to the pursuit of the basic charges of improper action 
and the counter-charges of blackmail and hostage. I, for one, do not 
see why it is essential that we spend so many days and hours today in 
finding out whether these charges were charges which were drawn up 
by Mr. Stevens, by the group in the Pentagon or by the entire executive 
department. It seems to me that the question, if I am correct — and 
we are getting to the end of the day — the question came up of my 
conversations with Secretary Stevens. I said or I told this committee, 
including the junior Senator from Wisconsin, that I had discussed 
matters with Secretary Stevens, and in fact I volunteered it at execu- 
tive hearings. I know that the matter which was on his mind was 
the problem that he had with his Army here and abroad, as a result 
of the Zwicker testimony. Nevertheless, I believe there is merit in 
what the junior Senator from Wisconsin said about bringing in Gen- 
eral Zwicker, if that will further prolong these hearings, and therefore, 
with the Chair's advice, I will withdraw this line of questioning. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you very much. 

Now, have you any other questions, Senator Symington? 

Senator Symington. I have no further questions. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, do you have any questions? 

Mr. Welch. None. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Cohn. Before beginning, I had understood that the first thing 
we were going to cover with Mr. Adams was this limited subject we 
covered with Mr. Stevens, the responsibility for and the acts and deci- 
sions of the Army. I might have been wrong about that. I did 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Adams is here for whatever general inquiry 
there is, and we hope to conclude with his testimony when we conclude 
with this line of questioning. 

Mr. Cohn. Very good, sir. 


I may say this : In response to a question by Senator Symington, Mr. 
Adams has given two examples of what he calls, what I think he called 
.misrepresentation of some kind by Senator McCarthy find the com- 
mittee in connection with the Fort Monmouth hearings. I suppose this 
is something we can cover on our side of the case, but I don't want 
the record to stand now without some statement from us that Mr. 
Adams has grossly misrepresented the facts in both of those instances 
here this afternoon. I hope that we will have the opportunity to put 
those facts on the record in the right way. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will say, when you take the stand as a 
witness under ooth you will have the opportunity of saying what you 
care to say, in direct testimony, or of preparing a statement to be 
read, provided you follow the committee rule of submitting the state- 
ment 24 hours in advance. 

Mr. Cohn. We will be able to deal with these matters Mr. Adams 
has raised? 

Senator Mundt. Any questions injected into the controversy, you 
have the right to comment upon when you get on the stand. 

Mr. Cohn. Thank you. sir. 

Now, Mr. Adams, I think we were at a point where we had this 
meeting of the 21st in the Attorney General's office, attended by the 
five individuals whose names were well known, and a decision was 
made and you went to call on Republicans on the subcommittee. 
Would you "have made the visit to those Republicans on the subcom- 
mittee if it had not been for advice you had received at that meeting 
that afternoon with the White House representatives and the Justice 
Department officials? 

Mr. Adams. I wouldn't have made the trip that day. There is little 
doubt in my mind but that we were moving inexorably to the point 
where we would have to call on those members some day. I wouldn't 
have made the trip that day. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Adams, when Mr. Stevens said in his state- 
ment this morning that the acts were the acts of the Army alone, 
do you consider a visit by you to Senator Dirksen, accompanied by 
a White House assistant, as an act of the Army alone? 

Mr. Adams. Well, the White House assistant couldn't have gone 
without me. 

Mr. Cohn. Could you have gone without him? 

Mr. Adams. Well, there is some doubt in my mind as to whether 
or not I would have had as ready access. There was at that time. 
Senator Dirksen has indicated that I probably would have been able 
to get in on the call. And so, in view of that, it appears to me as 
though I could have gone to see him alone. I was pleased to have Mr. 
Morgan accompany me for the very reason I was not personally ac- 
quainted with Senator Dirksen. 

Mr. Cohn. Had vou been personally acquainted with Senator Mc- 

Mr. Adams. As I stated, I had met him once a few years ago, but 
he wouldn't have remembered it. 

Mr. Cohn. But you went to Senator McClellan alone, did you not? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. But the next day you couldn't go to see Senator Dirksen 
alone ? 

Mr. Adams. I could have gone to see Senator Dirksen alone. 


Mr. Coiin. Why didn't you, sir? Why did you bring along a White 
House representative if this was an act of the Army alone? 

Mr. Adam*. Why did I bring along a White House representative? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes; if this was an act of the Army alone. 

Mr. Adams. My recollection is that he said to me, or I said, "Well, 
I don't know Senator Dirksen," and he said, "I do, I will go with 
you." Or something like that. 

Mr. Coiin. Had you ever intended to get an appointment with Sena- 
tor Dirksen and be turned down? 

Mr. Adams. No; I had not. 

Mr. Coiin. His office is always open, is it not, sir, to you or anybody 
else having business with him? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. I have always found it to be so, and I know that. Now, 
your explanation is, then, that Mr. Morgan wanted to go along to 
perform the introduction, is that right? 

Mr. Adams. Well, I am not sure he wanted to go along, he offered 
to go along because we were not acquainted for the purpose of per- 
forming the introduction. 

Mr. Coiin. Did Mr. Morgan just introduce you, and then leave the 
room and let the Army alone carry out its business? 

Mr. Adams. On that occasion I think that Mr. Morgan, who knew 
Senator Dirksen much better than I, who had a long acquaintance with 
him, I think Mr. Morgan did more of the talking than I did, but he 
talked about the Army's problem. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, would you say this was an act of the Army alone? 
When you go to see a Senator accompanied by a White House repre- 
sentative and get into his office and the AVhite House representative 
even out-talks you on the matter, w 7 ould you still say that was an act 
of the Army alone ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes; it was an Army — it was a pilgrimage made on 
behalf of the Army by an official of the Army who had the responsi- 
bility. I was taken there by somebody who could perform the intro- 
duction and who could tell them the story if he chose to, or could 
remain quiet, and he happened to have spoken more than he remained 
quiet, and I think he did more than half the talking on behalf of the 
two of us. 

Mr. Cohn. You think that is reconcilable with the statement this 
was an act of the Army alone? 

Mr. Adams. Yes; I think it is, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Adams, following the events of these few 

Mr. Adams. Will you repeat that? I didn't hear you. 

Mr. Cohn. Following the events of these few days, did you ever 
communicate directly or indirectly with any of the persons who had 
attended that January 21 meeting, or did they ever communicate with 
you directly or indirectly? 

Mr. Adams. I respectfully say, sir, I believe the directive of the 
President would preclude me from discussing that. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Adams, this is a crucial issue here, and we are 
trying to decide whether the Army, and I know the committee wants 
to decide, whether it is true that the Army was acting alone, or 
whether the fact is this was part of a plan instigated by other persons, 
and now I would like to know. 


Mr. Adams. You can make all of the questions you want, but this 
was not part of a plan that was instigated by people outside of the 
Pentagon. Your interrogation can go any way it wants, but you will 
not develop that because that is not true. 

Mr. Cohn. Sir, I can't go any way I want to if I can't get any 
answers, and now my question to you was: Following this January 
21 meeting, at which a decision was made for persons to go to members 
of this committee and try to kill the investigation of loyalty boards 
which cleared Communists, coupling those requests with these stories 
about myself and staff members — following that meeting did you ever 
communicate again with the people who participated in that meeting, 
or did they ever communicate with you on this subject? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, his question was not what was said to 
him by the members of the executive department who attended the 
meeting of January 21. The question was whether or not he ever at 
any time thereafter, subsequent to January 21, consulted with any 
of the members of the executive department or the Justice Department 
who were present on the day of January 21. Is that right, Mr. Cohn ? 

Mr. Cohn. Exactly, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, if he asks later what was said, then I would say 
your point would be well taken. The question now is : Did he ever or 
not, subsequent to January 21, consult with Mr. Sherman Adams, Mr. 
Bogers, Mr. Brownell, Mr. Lodge, or Mr. Morgan? 

Mr. Welch. I would suggest, then, that it be asked in respect to one 
gentleman at a time. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. We will have Mr. Cohn ask it with 
respect to one gentleman at a time. 

Proceed, Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. I was trying to save time, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Proceed with one gentleman at a time. 

Mr. Cohn. I will be glad to. 

After the January 21 meeting, did you ever communicate directly or 
indirectly with Mr. Sherman Adams on this question? 

Mr. Adams. I must ask for time. Because I believe this line of ques- 
tioning is violative of the fourth paragraph of the President's 

Mr. Welch. Could I read it, Mr. Jenkins ? It is the third— I don't 
know whether you have it before you or not. 

Mr. Jenkins. I do not have it. 

Mr. Welch. I am reading the last — I am reading now from the 
Presidential directive : 

You will instruct 

I will wait a moment. Mr. Jenkins. 
Mr. Jenkins. I will follow you. 
Mr. Welch (reading) : 

Ton will instruct employees of your Department that in all of their appear- 
ances before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Government Opera- 
tions regarding the inquiry now before you, they are not to testify to any such 
conversation or communication, or to produce any such documents or reproduc- 
tions. This principle must be maintained regardless of who would be benefited 
by such disclosure. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, I will have to stand by my original rul- 
ing. You specifically said "conversations," and what else? 
Mr. Welch. Any such conversations or communications. 


Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Cohn did not ask him about any conversa- 
tion or communication. He merely asked this witness whether or not, 
subsequent to January 21, he ever consulted with any of the members 
of the executive department or the Justice Department who were pres- 
ent on January 21. If he asked for a conversation or a communica- 
tion, then I would certainly advise the Chair to rule with you. The 
question is : Did they meet, did they talk ? Not what was said. 

Mr. Welch. It seems to me the mere fact of meeting is a communi- 

Mr. Jenkins. Not necessarily. We meet a lot of people with whom 
we do not communicate, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. If the question is just this: Did you meet him on the 
street or in the theater, or something of that sort, I can see no objec- 
tion. I do not think that is what Mr. Cohn intended to ask. 

Mr. Jenkins. I think he can ask if they met or had a communica- 
tion, but he certainly cannot ask what the communication or conver- 
sation was. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair suggest, Mr. Welch, if you read 
up a little further in that paragraph — and this is one of the matters 
wnich Mr. Jenkins and I discussed with the Attorney General — it says : 

It is not in the public interest that any of the conversations or communica- 
tions, or any documents or reproductions concerning such advice, be disclosed. 

It was our understanding that the Executive order goes to the dis- 
closure of what occurred ; not whether or not there were such meetings, 
not whether or not there were such communications. It was made clear 
to us that there were to be no discussions about the disclosure, about 
what was said, about what was in the communications. The Chair 
is inclined to believe that Mr. Jenkins has interpreted the Executive 
order in line with the understanding we received from the Attorney 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy? 

Senator McCarthy. I hate to find myself on the side of Mr. Welch, 
but may I say, Mr. Chairman, that I think the Chair should avoid 
ruling that these questions must be answered or must not be answered. 

I feel that with adequate time the Senate must determine that we 
are entitled to all of this information. One of the reasons why I have 
agreed to advise my staff to testify and to testify myself is to avoid 
the necessity of this committee going into this question of just what 
the Executive can deny to the Senate, and what Mr. Jenkins says 
here as counsel, what you say as chairman, can be quoted as precedent 
in the future when we decide just how far the President can go in 
a secrecy order. 

May I say that I think if the witness asserts a type of fifth-amend- 
ment privilege 

Mr. Adams. I am not asserting fifth-amendment privilege, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. Some Presidential privilege, I think the Chair 
should allow him to do it, rather than to get into this question which 
will take us months to decide. 

Ultimately I think this is infinitely more important than anything 
we bring out at this hearing. It is a question of just what a Presi- 
dent can do. I disagree, as the Chair knows, with the Truman black- 
out order of 1948. I think that Eisenhower has been badly advised. I 


think he has been extremely busy on matters far more important than 
this. I don't think we should, however, in this limited hearing, estab- 
lish a precedent as to how far a President now or in the future can go. 

For that reason, Mr. President — pardon me for taking your time 
in this — for that reason I have agreed to advise my staff to go on the 
stand, and to go on the stand myself, so as not to put the Chair into 
the position of having to decide this question and drag these hearings 
out over months. 

I would frankly advise the Chair, if I may, to allow Mr. Adams to 
refuse even though we may feel he is not entitled to refuse. It is 
the only way we can get through with this in a hurry. 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair say first of all that up to this point, 
at least, Mr. Adams has neither said yes or no. He is exploring with 
his counsel and with our counsel whether or not he desires to claim 
this Presidential Executive order. If the Senator from Wisconsin 
believes that the question should not be asked, it 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I think counsel cannot object to 
the question. I think there is only one person that can claim a privi- 
lege, whether it is a fifth amendment privilege, whether it is a Presi- 
dential privilege or any other. 

Mr. Adams. Just a moment, sir. I don't like the Senator from 
Wisconsin inferring that I am claiming the fifth amendment privilege, 
because I am not, and I am not claming any privilege on this memo- 
randum. This is an instruction from the President of the United 
States and I consider myself bound by it, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I think it is very 
important that we follow the time-worn rule of law that no one can 
exert a privilege except the witness. I don't care whether it is the 
fifth amendment privilege, whether it is this new privilege we have 
today, or what it is. Mr. Welch cannot assert it. I understood, from 
the Chair's statement this morning, that he was not going to rule upon 
that but let that go until some future time. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. But, of course the counsel has a 
right to advise his witness, and he was conferring with him and trying 
to arrive at some determination. Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, a parliamentary inquiry of 
Mr. Cohn. 

Will you tell me what term or what word you used in your question ? 
Did you consult, are those the words you used? 

Mr. Cohn. I think the word was communicate, first, Senator Mc- 
Clellan. Was there any communication 

Senator McClellan. I thought you used the word consult. Just 
what word did you use? 

Mr. Cohn. It has been so long ago, I don't remember. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I don't know what is going to 
happen here, but I want to make my position clear. I may not agree 
with the Presidential order, I may not think it should have been issued. 
But since it has been issued, I don't think you can consult with a per- 
son without communicating with him, and so forth. That is the way 
1 feel about it. As the order was read, I don't think the question 
would be proper if we are going to observe the Presidential order. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I suggest that the reporter read the question? 
Are you suggesting that he withdraw his question? 

Senator McCarthy. No, sir. 


Mr. Jenkins. I would like to have the question read and get a ruling 
of the Chair on it. 

Senator McCarthy. May I make my position clear ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I think you have. 

Senator McCarthy. No, I have not. 

Mr. Jenkins. The question was held to be proper and legal and 
then, Senator, you took a position opposite to the position taken by 
the chairman. 

Senator McCarthy. No, I did not. Let's make this clear. I take 
the position that the Presidential order is completely improper, that 
this committee is not bound by it, that this committee should order, 
under ordinary circumstances, the witness to testify that there is no 
type of fifth amendment privilege which is being exerted here. How- 
ever, as I advised counsel and the Chair, the length of time consumed 
in doing that would be so great. Number one, the only way of enforc- 
ing it would be to cite the witness for contempt. That would mean 
going to the full committee, to the Senate floor, to the grand jury. It 
would take, and I believe the Chair expressed it very well this morn- 
ing, longer than the term of this Congress to get to a final result. For 
that reason, in order to get rid of this show, to get back to our work, 
I have agreed that, as far as I am concerned, any witness who wants 
to exert this privilege, even though I think it is improper, is telling 
the people that he has something to hide. As far as we are concerned, 
we will put everything on the stand. I think if there is any commit- 
tee ruling here, Mr. Chairman, then I think we have to go into this in 
detail. I think we should merely let the witness exert the privilege 
and recognize he is exerting it with no ruling whatsoever. 

Senator Mundt. I do not think we have any disagreement among 
ourselves at all, and let us simply permit Mr. Adams to determine, 
after consulting with his counsel, whether he feels he can answer this 
question or not. I would like to have the question read by the reporter, 
and we will know what it is. 

We will start over, de novo. 

Mr. Cohn. My question to Mr. Adams, is, following this January 
21 meeting, Mr. Adams, were you in communication with any of the 
persons who attended that meeting on this same subject at any subse- 
quent time ? 

Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, very respectfully, sir, I believe that the 
directive of the President of the United States, dated May 17, would 
inhibit me from discussing that. It would prohibit me from answer- 
ing the question, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I should like to state the position, I 
think, of both the chairman and myself, that the question is not what 
was the communication between Mr. Adams and any member of the 
Executive or Justice Department who attended the meeting of Janu- 
ary 21. His question is merely whether or not at a later date there was 
a communication between Mr. Adams and any member present on 
January 21. It has been asserted by the Secretary of the Army that 
the Army and the Army alone was responsible, both prior to and sub- 
sequent to January 21 for the preparation and the prosecution of these 
charges, and, apparently, the inquiry now being pursued by Mr. Cohn 
is looking into the question of whether or not Mr. Adams or Mr. Ste- 
vens was advised or was influenced by any member who was present 
on January 21 to prepare and pursue those charges. 

Mr. Cohn. Exactly. 


Mr. Jenkins. Is that correct? 

Mr. Cohn. Exactly, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Jenkins. He is merely asking a very simple question, did he 
at a later date, subsequent to the 21st day of January, have a com- 
munication with any member present on January 21, and I advise the 
chairman and the chairman agreed with me that it was a perfectly 
legal question, and I reiterate that should Mr. Cohn pursue that and 
ask what that communication was, or the conversation, or the context 
of a conversation was, we would be the first, I am sure, to agree with 
Mr. Welch that it would be improper and violative of the President's 

Mr. Cohn. If I may, sir, I think Senator McCarthy's point on that, 
and a very sound point, was that there is nobody here who can rule 
on the admissibility of the question. It is all up to the witness as 
to whether he will answer the question or not. Now, if he can answer 
the question about the communication, whether there were communi- 
cations, that we all agree he must answer, but you next get to the 
point, and I believe I have the right to ask him what were those com- 
munications and what did they advise you to do, and the question is 
not objectionable. But I believe, sir, the witness may then under this 
directive refuse to answer the question on the ground an answer is 
precluded by the terms of the directive. 

That is the way I understand it. 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. 

Senator Jackson. A parliamentary inquiry, and I wonder if I could 
ask of Mr. Welch as to his interpretation of the word as used in the 
third paragraph of the President's letter to the Secretary of Defense, 
with reference to the word "communications." Is it his understanding 
that the word "communications" prevents the witness from asking a 
question, "Did you see so-and-so after January 21 ?" 

Mr. Welch. Yes, sir, Senator Jackson. The answer is in the affirma- 
tive. You see the directive uses two words, and it uses the word 
"conversations," and it says they may not be disclosed and then it 
goes on and says "communications" which is an even broader word. 

Senator Jackson. It is a broader term. 

Mr. Welch. Yes, so I can only take the view that the President 
intended that this witness should not even testify that there was a 
communication. I would like to say to you, Senator, that I do not 
count myself the greatest constitutional lawyer in the world, and this 
is a question of some importance. I hate to differ with Mr. Jenkins, 
but I happen to on this occasion, and this could be referred to the 
Attorney General and you would certainly have an opinion far more 
valuable than Mr. Welch's opinion, but I cannot sit at this table and 
advise the witness that he should answer this question on my study 
and my understanding of the record. I am not saying that I could 
not be wrong, but I have often been beautifully wrong, but I think 
at the moment I am right, and I must act in accordance with my best 

Senator Symington. May I make a suggestion with a provision 
inasmuch as there is a difference of opinion between counsel for the 
Army and our distinguished colleague, the Senator from Arkansas, 
I suggest that the matter be referred to the Attorney General, and 
the provision is that we do not give 7 days' recess to get the answer. 

Senator McCarthy. Before that is done, I would like to ask, if 
that suggestion might be followed, I would like to ask Mr. Adams, 


have you had any meetings with anyone from the Attorney General's 
office since that meeting of the 21st ? 

Mr. Adams. I would think that that was equally covered by this. 
People in the Attorney General's office are in the executive branch, and 
I think my instructions, or the instructions of this memoranda, cover 
that equally, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. We have a rather unusual situation here, then, 
Mr. Adams, and perhaps you could help us out on it. I am curious to 
know, in view of the fact that Mr. Rogers advised you what to do in 
the first place, at the inception of these charges, according to your 
sworn testimony — unless we know how many times 

Mr. Adams. Now, Senator 

Senator McCarthy. Don't interrupt until I get through. We have 
all of the time in the world. We have spent 13 days now 

Mr. Adams. How much ? 

Senator McCarthy. In view of the fact that, according to your 
testimony, Mr. Rogers advised you, and you followed his advice — and 
the advice had to do with calling off the hearings — I think it is rather 
important for everyone concerned to know how many times you have 
consulted with Mr. Rogers since then, if any time, and how many 
times you have consulted with Mr. Brownell, and whether they have 
taken the position they took on the 21st right up to today, because 
when we refer to Mr. Rogers, as Mr. Symington suggests, the question 
of whether or not Mr. Adams can tell us about the conversations with 
Mr. Rogers, we get into an unusual situation. 

May I say, Mr. Chairman, that we had this identical situation, I 
think, practically, back in 1924. At that time the Attorney General 
was trying to advise Mr. Coolidge to keep certain information from a 
congressional committee. Mr. Coolidge took the position that the 
Attorney General was an interested party, and he asked the Attorney 
General to resign, and asked all of the information to be made public 

Now, I am not even remotely suggesting that Attorney General 
Brownell resign, but I would be very surprised to find that Brownell 
himself had anything to do with this. I have a lot of respect for him. 
But I think it is unfair to the Attorney General unless we can get the 
information, and we do know that Mr. Rogers, a Deputy, is the man 
who is acting upon these requests we send over, and if we follow Mr. 
Symington's suggestion and send to Mr. Rogers the question of whether 
or not we can get the information about what part Mr. Rogers played 
in this, I am just a little bit doubtful about how much weight we can 
place upon that very sympathetic answer which we will get. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, my suggestion was only made 
in an effort to get the hearings expedited, and I withdraw the sugges- 

Senator Mundt. The suggestion is withdrawn, and the Chair under- 
stands from Mr. Cohn that if the witness says he is going to stand on 
this Presidential directive, that then from their standpoint they are 
satisfied to drop the question. 

Mr. Cohn. No, Senator Mundt. If I might — and I can be just 
as wrong about this anyone else here, and probably am — but the ques- 
tion which I have now asked as to whether or not there were such 
communications, without going into their details, is not covered by 
the Presidential directive, and Mr. Adams must answer that question, 


whether he wishes to assert the directive or not. If he refuses to, 
Mr. Chairman, I would respectfully ask that you direct an answer to 
the question. If then I ask him for the substance of the communica- 
tions, and Mr. Adams asserts a refusal, then that refusal to give the 
substance of the conversations or communications might be proper 
under the directive. Under the directive I could not ask you to direct 
an answer. 

I might be wrong, but that is the way I see it. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will say that his understanding of the 
directive conforms completely with that of the counsel, Mr. Jenkins, 
and I am sure we obtained that understanding, right or wrong, as 
a result of our conversations with Attorney General Brownell. At 
that time we discussed various interpretations, and it was made very 
clear that they held that there were to be no disclosures of any of the 
confidential flow of information passing among the Presidential 

We did not understand at that time that that would preclude stating 
whether or not meetings were held or conferences were held or com- 
munications were passed, but it did preclude going into the contents, 
or their purpose, or what was said. 

Now, if you are placing a broader interpretation on this executive 
directive than the one that the counsel has, and the one that the Chair 
has, why then, of course, you have a right to advise your witness in 
conformity with your own interpretations of the directive. 

Senator McClellan. May I suggest you submit the question to the 
committee. I do not agree with the Chair. The Chair may have a 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would much prefer to have the ques- 
tion submitted directly to the Attorney General. 

Mr. Welch. Could I say one thing more. There is a very practi- 
cal difficulty with this, that I am not sure the members of this com- 
mittee see as clearly as I do. There was an occasion within a week 
or two when I happened to see the Attorney General, whom I know, 
and Mr. Rogers, in the Pentagon, and they were conferring with some- 
one in the Pentagon. I happen to know they were not conferring 
about this matter, but they were conferring about something. 

Now, if they saw Mr. Adams on that occasion, as they may well 
have done for all I know, and he says "Oh, yes, I saw Mr. Brownell 
and Mr. Rogers 2 weeks ago," the inference would be that they were 
talking about this matter when they were certainly, to my knowledge, 
I know they were not talking about this matter. 

The consequence is that it is possible to give a very wrong im- 
pression here. The executive departments are constantly in touch 
with each other. They constantly must ask advice from the Attorney 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Have you concluded, Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Cohn. I can clear that up very rapidly. We are not interested 
in conversations about things other than this proceeding. In my 
original question, I used the word "communications" on this subject. 
If they talked about something totally unrelated, I have no interest 
in that, sir, if there was a social meeting in the theater — I want to 
find out just who was behind this thing and who was in on it. That 
is why these questions are being asked. 


Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I agree with my distinguished 
colleague the Senator from Arkansas. If in any way one of the prin- 
cipals feel that in submitting this to the Attorney General, or to people 
in his department, to somebody who might be present, as prejudicial, 
then I would suggest that the committee rule with respect to this 
particular question and we can rule now and get on with it. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins? 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, in further conference with the witness, 
I think he can make a statement as to what contacts he has had that 
should satisfy the committee and the Senator and Mr. Cohn. 

Senator Mundt. We certainly hope the witness will make that effort, 
at least. 

Mr. Adams? 

Mr. Welch. I think he can. Will you allow another moment of 
conference ? 

Senator Mundt. Surely. 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, Mr. Chairman, I have seen or talked to 2 or 
3 of the people who were at that meeting subsequent to January 21. 
On no occasion did I discuss with them either by personal interview 
or telephone or by other form of communication, anything having to 
do with the bringing of these charges. 

Senator Mundt. That seems to be a forthright answer to the direct 
question. You may continue, Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss with them anything pertaining to any 
of the matters discussed on this controversy at the meeting of Jan- 
uary 21? 

Mr. Welch. Objection. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you restate that question ? 

Mr. Cohn. Could we have it read ? 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question. 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Mr. Welch. That calls for a discussion or a conversation and here 
we go again. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would feel, Mr. Welch, that that goes to 
the contents and the disclosure, which both Mr. Jenkins and the Chair 
has ruled earlier obviously was covered by the Executive order. It 
was a different question from the first one which says, was there a 
meeting, was there a conference, was there a communication. If you 
start asking about what was not included, of course, then you are close 
to asking what was included and it would seem to me that would be 
impinging on the Executive order. Other questions, Mr. Cohn ? 

Senator McCarthy. I didn't understand the Chair's ruling. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair's ruling was that in conformity with the 
agreement that we have all reached, which was articulated, I think, 
best by Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn, that if the witness, not the 
counsel but the witness, felt that his answer was in violation of the 
executive agreement, that we would accept it without passing upon 


Senator McCarthy. May I state this so the record may be clear for 
the future, Mr. Chairman, and it has nothing to do with the hearing 
today. I understand, then, that the Chair is merely ruling, and I 


think rightfully so, on whether or not he feels that the answer would 
violate the Executive order. He is not ruling on whether or not that 
Executive order is proper, whether we should be bound by it. He is 
merely ruling on whether or not the question comes within the Execu- 
tive order ? 

Senator Mundt. That is correct. 

Proceed, Mr. Colin. 

Mr. Cohn. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I cannot ask Mr. Adams 
whether or not the January 21 matters which are the heart of this 
controversy were discussed in these subsequent meetings? 

Senator Mundt. You cannot. 

Mr. Cohn. I cannot. Very well, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask this. Pardon me, Mr. Cohn. I 
would like to have the witness exert his privilege. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, once again this is not a privilege. This 
is an order from the Chief Executive of this country. And no wit- 
ness, sir, may treat it lightly and no Senator may treat it lightly. 

Senator McCarthy. Let's have him exert the privilege, then. 

Mr. Welch. He is not exerting anything. He is obeying an order. 

Senator McCarthy. He is exerting a privilege. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has ruled that if the witness will decide 
he cannot answer the question because of the Executive order, we will 
accept that. 

Senator McCarthy. I am going to ask the Chair to allow the witness 
to exert his privilege or answer. He is the only person who can do 
that. That is an elementary rule of law. If he has a privilege be- 
cause of the Presidential order, he must assert it himself. 

Mr. Adams, let me ask you this question : Did you, subsequent to 
January 21, meet with any of the individuals who were at that meeting 
and discuss the subject that was discussed at that meeting, namely, 
the hearings this committee was conducting, the charges that were 
being made, were about to be made, against Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr, and 
myself, or any other subject related to these two matters? 

Mr. Adams. Please read the question again. I believe that I can 
answer it, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question. 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Mr. Adams. Insofar as I can now recall, Senator McCarthy, I met 
with none of them subsequent to January 21. 

Senator McCarthy. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. Does that conclude the questioning of Mr. Adams? 

Senator McCarthy. No. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Adams, you have told us that you showed your 
files on this matter to Mr. Joseph Alsop; isn't that right? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. And you know Mr. Alsop to be a newspaperman who was 
to put it mildly distinctly unfriendly to Senator McCarthy and this 
committee, is that right? 

Mr. Adams. I don't think I had that impression. I considered him 
to be a columnist whom I admired. 

Mr. Cohn. You might have admired him, sir, others might have 
other views about it but that is not the issue here. For this purpose, I 


am asking whether we can agree that he is quite hostile to Senator 

Mr. Adams. Well, you would have to draw that conclusion, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. You won't draw that conclusion ? 

Mr. Adams. No. sir. 

Mr. Cohn. I see. 

Senator McCarthy. From your conversations with him, did you 
think he was friendly to me and our committee? 

Mr. Adams. I didn't think he was a warm friend, at least. 

Mr. Cohn. When did Mr. Alsop come to see you ? 

Senator Mundt. Your time has expired. 

Are there any questions, Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins. I have 1 or 2, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Adams, you heard Mr. Stevens testify this morning, did you 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you heard him say that the preparation 

Senator Mundt. Pardon me. I think Mr. Welch is trying to signal 
the Chair he made an agreement that there would be a recess ; is that 
correct ? 

Mr. Welch. It is a long pull from 2 to 5. 

Senator Mundt. Very well, we will take a recess for 5 minutes. 

(Brief recess.) 

Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order, please. 

I think that the admonition that the Chair has given the audience is 
understood by all of our guests here today and I presume that you are 
about the same fellow citizens who were here when we went into recess 
and you know there are to be no manifestations of approval or disap- 
proval of an audible nature, at any time, by our guests in the com- 
mittee room. 

At the time of the recess, the Committee Counsel Jenkins was about 
to proceed with some questions he wanted to ask Mr. John Adams who 
is on the stand. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Adams, as we understand it now, you and the 
Secretary of the Army assumed full responsibility, full responsibility 
alone, for the preparation and the prosecution of these charges against 
the McCarthy investigating committee; is that correct? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And I further understand your testimony today, and 
that of the Secretary's that these charges were prepared on your own 
initiative; is that correct? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. I think, Mr. Jenkins, the word "preparation" 
has given you a little difficulty today, and that ought to be discussed 
for a moment, if I may, 

Mr. Jenkins. Certainly, you may. 

Mr. Adams. Ordinarily, a document like this probably would be 
prepared by the Department Counselor. 

Mr. Jenkins. To what document do you refer ? 

Mr. Adams. The Army 

Mr. Jenkins. So we will know we are talking about the same thing. 

Mr. Adams. The Army chronology, the 34-page chronology of events 
which w r as submitted on the 10th of March. But in this particular 
case, the Department Counselor was so closely related to the matter, 
he was a party in interest, that I think there was a general feeling 


among those officials who were discussing the matter with Mr. Stevens, 
and it was subscribed to by Mr. Stevens, that I probably wouldn't be 
able to do the job as objectively as I should. And it was for that 
reason that Mr. Brown was assigned to do it. And the actual writing 
was done by Mr. Brown, who was an Assistant General Counsel of the 
Defense Department, and he did it through the medium of interview- 
ing me, Mr. Stevens, and other officials in the Army, and studying 
various files and memorandums including my files, and the actual 
physical act of preparation and putting together was done by Mr. 
Brown, you see. It was in consultation with us and it was brought 
back to us in kind of semifinal form, and we went over it. So, although 
the full responsibility was the Army, we had assistants, and that is 
the point. I think that is a little confusing and I am trying to 
straighten out by giving you that narrative. 

Mr. Jenkins. The assistance came from the Defense Department? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And then the preparation of these documents and of 
the chronological events, of the 34-page document, was done by those 
in the Pentagon, including yourself ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And done independently of all other agencies or 
employees of any other department of the Government ? 

Mr. Adams. That is quite true, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. That is correct ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And the chronological events consisting of 34 pages, 
and which was released to the public on March 11, I believe 

Mr. Adams. Was released, sir, to the committee; not to the public 
by the Army. 

Mr. Jenkins. Released to the committee on March 11 ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Was prepared certainly to some extent from ground- 
work that you laid, from memorandums that you have dictated, and 
from a compilation of events that you had brought about immediately 
following your being at Senator McCarthy's apartment on the 22d 
day of January ; is that correct, Mr. Adams ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And that was done on your own initiative ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

There is one thing I might state further that I haven't remembered. 
One of my people reminded me that on the 20th of January, which 
is preceding the meeting in the Attorney General's Office, I had 
placed a telephone call to Fort Dix, at which time I asked them to 
give me a narrative, a list, of all of the passes which Private Schine 
had had while he was at Fort Dix indicating that there was crystal- 
lizing in my mind then, prior to the meeting in the Attorney General's 
Office, the feeling that I should put these memorandums together. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then taking into consideration the things that had 
been crystallizing in your mind over a period of several weeks, plus 
the information that you got as a result of your telephone call to Fort 
Dix, plus the statements allegedly made to you by Senator McCarthy 
on the evening of January 22, taking into consideration all of those 
things, you as a result of those things, and on your own initiative, be- 
gan compiling data, documents, memorandums, events, in your mind 


and on paper, from which the 34-page document evolved ; is that right, 
Mr. Adams? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And it evolved solely, the 34-page document, from 
what had been compiled by you by way of data and documents and 
dates and events ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. A point of order, Senator McCarthy? 

Senator McCarthy. Just a point of information. May I say to 
Mr. Jenkins that I had indicated to you that we only had one or two 
questions of Mr. Adams. In view of this testimony on the part of 
Mr. Jenkins, it will take me quite some time to straighten this out. 

Mr. Jenkins. It may be that when I am through you won't care to 
examine him any further, Senator. I would like to pursue this line 
of cross-examination, if I may. 

Senator Mundt. You may proceed. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is that correct, Mr. Adams? 

Mr. Adams. I am afraid you will have to have the question read 


Senator Mundt. Read the question. 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.) 

Mr. Adams. I think the word solely is incorrect, sir, because there 
were other documentations, records, memorandums of files and diaries, 
which also were used, in addition to personal interviews in the prepa- 
ration of the 34-page documentation. 

Mr. Jenkins. And they were diaries, documents, and memoran- 
dums, not only compiled by you but by the Secretary and perhaps 
others in the Pentagon ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. So that you say that you are correct, and the Secre- 
tary is correct, in your sworn testimony, that the charges were pre- 
pared, and the groundwork for the charges was prepared, solely on 
the initiative or the volition of you and the Secretary of the Depart- 
ment of Defense ? Is that correct ? 

Mr. Adams. I think that is substantially correct. 

Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Adams, I ask you and your counsel to turn 
to page 2912 of your testimony, and I read from your testimony. 

Mr. Welch. Would you wait one moment, sir ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, I will, Mr. Welch. 

And at the bottom of that page, the last paragraph : 

Now, Mr. Adams, you said that at the suggestion of Governor Sherman Adams, 
you made up this report with respect to Mr. Schine, is that correct? 
Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Have I correctly read that question and your answer ? 

Mr. Adams. You have, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. How do you reconcile that ? That is 

Mr. Adams. I stated earlier 

Mr. Jenkins. Just a minute. Let me finish, please. How do you 
reconcile your previous sworn testimony, that at the suggestion — 
and I am using the exact words— that at the suggestion of Governor 
Adams you made up this report with respect to Mr. Schine, with your 
statement as of now, a moment ago that it was done solely and entirely 
on groundwork and on the events that were released to the committee 


on March 11, on the initiative and volition of those in the Pentagon, 
and those solely ? 

Can you reconcile your sworn statement that I have just read from 
the record with your sworn statement as now given to this committee 
in public? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. This question was asked me about an hour 
ago, and I answered it about an hour ago. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, I didn't get your answer and I wasn't satisfied 
about it. And I want you now to reconcile those two statements. You 
say you can. 

Mr. Adams. I stated then, sir, that I felt that the statement I was 
making today was an elaboration on the statement I made the other 
day, and that when I talked to Governor Adams, he made a suggestion 
to me which was not a directive, and that that suggestion coupled with 
the events of the occurrences of the week probably galvanized me to 
action in the preparation of this report more quickly than otherwise 
would have been the case, but I felt that I would have prepared it. 

Mr. Jenkins. You state now that your testimony as of this moment 
is pn elaboration of your testimony previously given, is that correct? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, Mr. Adams, did you not state definitely and 
positively in the testimony that I have read to you that you prepared 
the report on Schine at the suggestion of Sherman Adams? You can 
answer that yes or no. 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Jenkins. All right. And didn't you state positively just now, 
a moment ago, in response to my question, that the report on Schine 
and the groundwork from which that report was prepared, was made 
and prepared solely and exclusively on the initiative and volition of 
you and others in the Pentagon? Didn't you say that? 

Mr. Adams. I did, sir. 

]\Ir. Jenkins. All right. Isn't one a direct contradiction of the 

Mr. Adams. I don't think so, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Rather than an elaboration on it ? 

Mr. Adams. I don't think so. 

Mr. Jenkins. You don't think so. That, Mr. Adams, is a question 
for this committee to decide. 

I have no further questions to ask you, sir. 

Mr. Adams. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair has none at this time. 

Senator McClellan ? 

Senator McClellan. No questions. 

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

Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch.- I think not.- 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, as far as I am concerned, the line I was 
pursuing, the contradiction is just there and I don't think anything 
more I can ask about it will make it any plainer than it is. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. 

Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. I think I did promise the Chair that I would 
try and get through with this witness in a very short period of time. 


I will try and fulfill that promise. I have many questions here that I 
think would be a waste of time to ask him, actually. I will just try 
and eliminate 90 percent of them. 

Senator Mundt. Good. We will take time time out while eliminat- 

Senator McCarthy. While doing that, Roy has one question. 

Mr. Coiin. There is one point which I don't think will be repetition. 
I might by a long question cover everything I think we have been get- 
ting at here, Mr. Adams. We first have the statement by the Secre- 
tary to which you say you subscribe that the acts and decisions in this 
controversy were those of the Army and the Army alone. 

Now, in the face of your sworn testimony that you made up this 
report with respect to Mr. Schine at the suggestion of Governor Sher- 
man Adams, the White House assistant, and in face of the fact that 
you call on Senator McClellan at the suggestion of the Deputy Attor- 
ney General of the United States, a member of the Justice Depart- 
ment, in view of the fact that you were accompanied on a visit to 
Senator Dirksen by Gerald Morgan, a White House assistant, having 
no connection with the Pentagon, in view of the fact that the decision 
to try to kill the investigation on the loyalty boards and bring up 
the Schine matter was reached at a meeting attended by the Attorney 
General, the Deputy Attorney General, two top White House assistants 
and the U. N. Ambassador, is it still your testimony to this committee, 
sir, that the acts and decisions were those of the Army and the Army 
alone ? 

Mr. Adams. Which acts and which decisions ? 

Mr. Coiin. Sir, you and Mr. Stevens said that all of them relating 
to this controversy were those of the Army and the Army alone. If 
you want to change it 

Mr. Adams. Wait, Mr. Colin. I think the thing Mr. Stevens said 
was the decision of the Army and the Army alone was the preparation 
of the Army chronology. That had nothing to do with the meeting 
of January 21, nothing at all. 

Mr. Coiin. Would you want now, for the purpose of clarification, 
to state that the events taking place at and after the January 21 meet- 
ing with reference to killing the loyalty boards investigation and 
bringing up the Schine matter to members of this committee, that those 
things were at the instigation of people outside of the Army and the 
Pentagon ? 

Do you want to tell us that ? 

Mr. Adams. I lost the question. I will have to have it read. 

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question. 

(The reporter read from his notes as requested. ) 

Mr. Adams. Now which is it ? 

Mr. Coiin. That is what I am trying to find out, Mr. Adams. 

Mr. Adams. Why don't you restate the question. I don't follow it. 

Mr. Cohn. We are trying to find out this : I now have the Secre- 
tary's statement before me, and he says : 

I wish to make it perfectly plain that the decisions and the acts on the part of 
the Army concerning the controversy presently being heard were the decisions 
and acts of the Department of the Army alone. 

I am asking you, sir, if you can reconcile that statement of the 
Secretary with the sworn testimony that the Deputy Attorney General 
sent you to see a Democratic member of this committee who was not 


even then a member of the committee, with the fact that a decision 
of the subcommittee, with the fact that you have previously testified 
that you prepared this report at the suggestion of a White House 
assistant, with the fact that as a result of a meeting attended by two 
White House advisers and Justice Department advisers you decided 
to come to the -Republicans on the committee, linking an attempt to 
kill the Loyalty Board investigation with talk about the so-called 
Cohn-Schine matter, and that you were accompanied on one of those 
visits by a White House assistant. I am asking you, sir, how you can 
possibly reconcile that 

Mr. Adams. I can do it very easily. 

Mr. (John. With the statement that the acts and decisions have 
been those of the Army and the Army alone ? 

Mr. Adams. I can do it very easily, sir. The acts and decisions to 
which Mr. Stevens was alluding is the preparation of the Army 
chronology, which took place sometime after the 1st of March, and 
which was submitted to the members of the committee around the 
10th of March. You are coupling it to the actions which I took in 
Mr. Stevens' absence from this country, around the 20th of January, 
with reference to the Loyalty Board matter. Each of those cases, I 
have stated to you that there would have been no interview with any 
member of this committee had I chosen not to come. I was the offi- 
cial of the Army who had the responsibility in the area. I made the 
calls on the Senators. The actions were actions of the Army, and if 
the Army hadn't gone, and if the Army hadn't participated, there 
would have been no acts. 

But the action of the Army with reference to the Loyalty Board 
matter on the 21st and 22d of January does not properly couple itself, 
as you are attempting to, with the action of the Army in preparing 
charges in the first week of March. 

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Adams 

Mr. Adams. There is a 50-day difference between the two. 

Mr. Cohn. And I suggest if you would read Secretary Stevens' 
statement — and I would like to continue reading it to you now — you 
will find your interpretation of it, I respectfully suggest, fs not war- 
ranted by the plain wording of that statement. He goes on to say : 

At no time did the Army or I as its Secretary receive any orders from anyone 
in respect to the preparation of the presentation of the Army's case. Specifically, 
the conference of January 21 was only for the purpose of obtaining an inter- 
pretation of existing directives. 

That statement isn't accurate, is it? "Specifically, the conference 
of January 21 was only for the purpose of obtaining an interpreta- 
tion of existing directives." That is not an accurate statement, is it? 

Mr. Adams. I think it is. 

Mr. Cohn. Well, isn't it a fact that at that January 21 meeting, 
at Mr. Rogers' request you told this whole story about Schine? 

Mr. Adams. I previously testified to that; yes. 

Mr. Cohn. Doesn't that show that the statement that the 

Mr. Adams. The initial purpose of the meeting, and what subse- 
quently developed at the meeting, might well be two different things. 

Mr. Cohn. Very well, sir. You say there might be a dual purpose, 
and Mr. Stevens said the conference was only for the purpose of ob-> 
taining an interpretation of directives. 


Mr. Adams. That is the reason I called the Attorney General and 
that is what I wanted to get. That is what I was after when I went 
over there. 

Mr. Cohn. And then the dual purpose arose only after the meeting ? 

Mr. Adams. It wasn't a dual purpose. The matter arose 

Mr. Cohn. The Schine matter just arose at the meeting. 

Well, the day before the meeting, you told Mr. Rogers about the 
Schine matter, and he made an appointment for you to go up and see 
Senator McClellan about it ? 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. That was before the meeting, wasn't it? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. Now I go to the next sentence : 

Actions taken by the Army, prior or subsequent to the meeting, were inde- 
pendent actions, taken on the Army's own responsibility. 

Mr. Adams. That is right. 

Mr. Cohn. Is that true, sir ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. How can the Army take any of these actions 
without taking the responsibility for them? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. Well, Mr. Adams, the point is that Sherman 
Adams did not physically make you sit down and write the report, and 
that you were not physically taken over to Senator Dirksen's office, 
and I suppose there might be something. Otherwise, I am not going 
to ask any more questions, and just submit the record to the com- 
mittee the way it now stands, to see if there is any possible way of 
reconciling this. 

Senator McCarthy. I have one or two questions, Mr. Chairman. 
I have eliminated about 90 percent. 

Senator Mundt. That is good work. 
_ Senator McCarthy. After listening to your urgent advice to get 
rid of this witness, so we can move on. 

Mr. Adams, you were at my apartment on the 22d of January ; is that 
right ? 

Mr. Adams. I was, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You had the meeting with the Justice Depart- 
ment on the 21st ? 

Mr. Adams. I did, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Between the time you had the meeting with 
the Justice Department and the meeting in my apartment, you had 
called on some Senators and urged them that they do what they could 
to kill the subpenas for the Loyalty Board which had been clearing 
the individuals over at Fort Monmouth with Communist records? 

Mr. Adams. Well, that is a little longer — I didn't — that wasn't the 
conversation. I wasn't talking about clearing the Loyalty Boards 
who had been clearing Communists. 

Senator McCarthy. Maybe my question was too long. You and I 
may differ as to whether they were clearing Communists, but in any 
event one of the subjects of conversation up in the apartment was — 
as I recall, it was a completely friendly conversation. 

Mr. Adams. It w 7 as, indeed. 

Senator McCarthy. Was that you thought we should not call the 
members of the old loyalty board. 


Mr. Adams. I think, sir, every time you brought the subject up, I 
suggested that it be deferred for decision until Mr. Stevens returned 
from the Far East. 

Senator McCarthy. In any event, you didn't want subpenas to 
issue, did you ? 

Mr. Adams. No; but I don't think you and I discussed the issuing 
of the subpenas at your apartment that night. I may be wrong, but 
I don't recollect that. 

Senator McCarthy. Didn't we discuss in some detail, Mr. Adams, 
the comparison between how you were handling the old loyalty board 
in this case, with the way Mr. Blattenberger handled the lo}\alty board 
in the Government Printing Office case, and I pointed out to you there 
that we had found the fifth-amendment Communists, and that Mr. 
Blattenberger had ordered the loyalty board to appear; when he 
found that they were mishandling the cases, he removed them 
promptly. And didn't I suggest to you that the loyalty board we were 
concerned with was part of the old discredited team, and that it had 
already been removed? I was curious to know where they were and 
what they were doing, and whether they were handling security work, 
and wasn't that the general subject? 

Mr. Adams. I don't think, sir, at this meeting— that was 4 months, 
and I don't recall that you talked relative to the Government Printing 
Office, and I don't recall that conversation took the tenor that you are 
now describing. 

Senator McCarthy. At that time you didn't tell me that you had 
seen the other Senators ? 

Mr. Adams. I did not. sir, but you knew it. 

Senator McCarthy. Pardon me ? 

Mr. Adams. I didn't tell you, but you knew it. 

Senator McCarthy. I didn't know it. 

Mr. Adams. You didn't ? 

Senator McCarthy. No. 

Mr. Adams. Oh. 

Senator McCarthy. I will repeat it under oath, if you want me to. 
We didn't discuss the fact that you had visited the other Senators? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You did not tell me that you had this confer- 
ence at the White House? 

Mr. Adams. I did not, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. And you, of course, knew I didn't know that ? 

Mr. Adams. I don't know that you didn't know it, and I assumed 
that you did know it. 

Senator McCarthy. Now, there is sort of an interesting sequence 
of events here, and you talked to me that night, and the next day you 
started to prepare the charges. Is that right? 

Mr. Adams. Yes. The first thing I did the next day, sir, was to 
dictate a memorandum for the record, of my meeting at your 

Senator McCarthy. Let me ask you this : How often 

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired, and we will re- 
turn to you. 

Mr. Jenkins ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Pass. 

Senator Mundt. The Senators to my left ? 


Senator McClellan. Since we are just about to conclude with you, 
I want to ask you one question regarding some of your previous testi- 
mony, some several days ago when you were on the stand. You testi- 
fied, as I recall — and I think that this is an exact quote — that you 
found at some time in the course of these events, you found, and I 
quote, "that Mr. Colin had the capacity to control the committee." 

Is that your testimony ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir, I think it is. 

Senator McClellan. As I recall, I have no transcript, that is in 
substance at least, correct, if not an exact quote of it now. We are 
talking about reconciling things here a little and I want to get that 
reconciled. Did you include the Democratic members of this com- 
mittee when you said that ? 

Mr. Adams. I included, sir, in my own mind, the people who were 
then on the committee, and at that time, sir, it was October, I believe, 
when that remark was made, and I don't believe the Democrats were 
members. And I believe, also, sir 

Senator McClellan. Don't you know they were not members ? 

Mr. Adams. Well, I am not quite sure when they left, sir. 

Senator McClellan. They left in July. 

Mr. Adams. Then they evidently were not members. 

Senator McClellan. I wanted to know whether you are casting 
that aspersion on the Democratic members or not ? 

Mr. Adams. I am not, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Are there any questions ? 

Senator Dirksen. I am not sure that Mr. Adams can answer this, 
but I recall in the earlier testimony that a distinction was made 
between the loyalty board and the Government Printing Office and 
the loyalty board with any other agency in the executive branch. 
That was on the theory that the Government Printing Office was 
under the control and direction of the legislative branch of the Gov- 
ernment. Was that about the testimony, Mr. Adams ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. Isn't it true that all of the employees in the 
Government Printing Office have civil-service ratings, and find their 
way into the Federal establishment like any employee in the execu- 
tive branch ? 

Mr. Adams. I don't know, sir, and I don't know much about the 
Government Printing Office. 

Senator Dirksen. I believe it is correct, and I believe they have 
ratings similar to that of anybody else. I know of no administra- 
tive function that the Joint Committee on Printing exercises over the 
personnel in the Government Printing Office. The Senate confirms, 
of course, the Public Printer, but other than that we have no ad- 
ministrative duties with respect to them. Insofar as I can recall 
the functions of the Joint Committee on Printing, it relates, of course, 
to the character and the format of printing, the timing, and what 
goes into the Congressional Record and that sort of thing. So specu- 
lating there, I would say that there would be no essential distinction 
between a loyalty board in the Government Printing Office than in 
any other executive establishment. 

Mr. Adams. It is my understanding and this is subject to correc- 
tion, of course, that the Executive order and the method of admin- 


istering the Executive order with reference to loyalty boards in the 
executive branch, of course, is mandatory on the executive branch. 
I understand that the Government Printing Office uses the same 
procedures, and conforms to the Executive order. I understand, how- 
ever, that that is an arbitrary decision of the Public Printer, and 
it is my understanding that he need not if he wished not. The Gov- 
ernment Printing Office is not considered to be a part of the execu- 
tive branch. Now, I am speaking from partial knowledge, sir, and 
so I shouldn't want what I say to be taken as gospel. 

Senator Dirksen. In all candor, I have not explored it any fur- 
ther, but I wondered whether the distinction that was made was a 
valid one. But it is something, probably, that the committee ought 
to take cognizance of. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak ? 

Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. Mr. Adams, when you mentioned the names 
of these people at the meeting on the 21st of January, and I opened 
the question the next day about it, it was with the idea that you 
could have mentioned them only for three reasons : The first was that 
you had been careless, and that seemed to be hard to believe because 
you are a trained lawyer, and you have eminent counsel on both 
sides of you. 

The second was that you felt a little lonely down here from the 
standpoint of your position in the executive department and that you 
were sort of feeling around for a little support. 

The third was that you mentioned them because it was part of a 
plan and that you wanted to get the names on the record. 

Which one of those three is the reason that you did mention them ? 

Mr. Adams. Well, would you state the three again, sir ? 

Senator Mundt. Do you want the reporter to read the question? 

Senator Symington. No, I will state them. We will put them in 
three words : Carelessness, loneliness, or plot. 

Mr. Adams. Well, I don't think it was any of the three, sir. 

Senator Symington. Then would you mind telling us why you 
mentioned the names ? 

Mr. Adams. I was narrating the incidents as they occurred. 

Senator Symington. Just by coincidence ? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir. It occurred and I related it. 

Senator Symington. Just by carelessness ? 

Mr. Adams. Not by carelessness. 

Senator Symington. By design ? 

Mr. Adams. Of course I put it in. It was part of my experience. 

Senator Symington. Consciously, subconsciously, or unconsciously ? 

Mr. Adams. Consciously. 

Senator Symington. That is design, is it not ? 

Mr. Adams. I put it in because it happened, sir, it was true. 

Senator Symington. You thought it should go in ? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. So you volunteered it? 

Mr. Adams. Yes, sir. 

Senator Symington. You must have had — as a lawyer, you must 
have realized what the implications of it would be, did you not? 


Did you not think the committee might be interested in why the 
head of the United Nations was down here discussing problems with 

Mr. Adams. Well- 

Senator Symington. I have a reason for this line of questioning and 
I want to get to it in a minute. 

Mr. Adams. I don't think that I would — I don't think that Senator 
Lodge, to me, was the United Nations delegate in that instance. 

Senator Symington. So you had no reason, you just did it? 

Mr. Adams. That is right, sir. I just narrated — I tried to narrate 
everything that occurred. 

Senator Symington. Now, Mr. Adams, some time back, as our 
eminent counsel has pointed out, you said that you made up these 
charges, in effect, at the suggestion of Mr. Sherman Adams, and later 
on, as I followed the efforts and very fine efforts of our counsel to de- 
fine the issue precisely, you said that they were made up at the sugges- 
tion of the Army. You wouldn't want to find yourself facing possible 
perjury, would you, as a result of a Presidential directive that occurred 
between those two pieces of testimony on your part ? 

Mr. Adams. No, sir. 

Senator Symington. Do you want to clarify further the answers 
that you made to the questions that Mr. Jenkins put to you ? 

Mr. Adams. I really don't think, sir, that I know exactly what it is 
you want. 

Senator Symington. Well, as I understand it, at one point before 
the Presidential directive, you said that you made up the charges in 
question at the suggestion of Mr. Sherman Adams, and after the 
Presidential directive you said that you made the charges up as part 
of the Army and with the Army. It seemed to me that the two 
thoughts don't go together from the standpoint of fact. 

Mr. Adams. Well, this is the third, very respectfully, sir, this is the 
third time, this afternoon 

Senator Symington. I don't want to take any more time on it, but I 
would like you to do this, so I can study it. I would like you, if you 
will, prepare a record for the committee with respect to the apparent 
discrepancy in your testimony that has been pointed out by the counsel 
for this committee and furnish it to the committee. If it is the third 
time and you are tired, I will be glad to pass it at this time. 

Mr. Adams. No, I am not tired, Senator. As I stated, Governor 
Adams made his suggestion. That didn't obligate me 

Senator Symington. I understand. 

Mr. Adams (continuing). To make this record. My earlier state- 
ment did say that. I prepared it at his suggestion. I just a half hour 
ago, in discussing further, pointed out to you that previous to that 
meeting I had begun to draw together certain facts. 

Senator Symington. Excuse me. If I may refer to a word that you 
just used. You said that Governor Adams did not obligate you. 

Mr. Adams. His suggestion did not obligate me. 

Senator Symington. I understand that. Who obligated you ? 

Mr. Adams. Nobody except me, sir. 

Senator Symington. In other words, you had no orders from Sec- 
retary Stevens to make up these charges? 

Mr. Adams. Are you referring to my original file or the charges of 
March 10 ? 


Senator Symington. I am referring presumably to the original file. 

Mr. Adams. I had that largely completed before Mr. Stevens got 
back from the Far East. 

Senator Symington. At the suggestion of Mr. Sherman Adams? 

Mr. Adams. Well, he made a suggestion. I had the matter in my 
mind, as I have stated before. I felt that he galvanized me into more 
quick action than might otherwise have been the case. But I think I 
would have prepared them myself. 

Senator Symington. One final question : In other words, your posi- 
tion with respect to this particular question has not been changed in 
any way or any form of Presidential directive; is that correct? 

Mr. Welch. Could we have the question read? 

Senator Symington. I will be glad to repeat it. 

In other words, your position with respect to the issues at hand have 
not been changed in any way in your testimony by the Presidential 
directive ; is that correct ? Your position with respect to these charges. 

Mr. Adams. They haven't been changed by the Presidential direc- 
tive ; no, sir. 

Senator Symington. No further questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak ? 

Mr. Welch ? 

Mr. Welch. None. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, you have time now for those 
two questions. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, if the Chair is going to call 
another witness, I will be glad to drop my questioning now. 

Senator Mundt. We have another witness who is ready to testify. 
May the Chair then dismiss Mr. Adams? 

Mr. Adams, before dismissing you, I would like to revert to a prac- 
tice that the Chair followed back in 1948, when we had a very serious 
and controversial set of hearings over which the Chair was called upon 
to preside. 1 would like to ask you before you are dismissed and un- 
sworn whether you feel that you have now had a complete and full and 
fair opportunity to testify before this committee? 

Mr. Adams. I feel that I have, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you. You may be dismissed and we will 
call the next witness. 

Mr. Counsel ? 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, we desire now to call as the next wit- 
ness, General Ryan. 

Senator Mundt. General Ryan, will you raise your right hand, 
please ? 

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

Genera] Ryan. I do. 



Senator Mundt. You may proceed. 
Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. Before you start, may I say we have apparently 
a good, competent combat general here. I have never met him before 


and know nothing about him. I know he must obey whatever orders 
the Commander in Chief issues. I think before he starts to testify 
we should know whether or not he would be able to testify in full. I 
know it won't be his decision; it will be the decision of the legal 
counsel of the Army, whether he can testify to conversations he had 
with Mr. Adams, with other generals, with Mr. Stevens, with officers 
in the Army or privates in the Army. I think it is important we know 
that before he starts to testify, because I do not like to get any bob- 
tailed testimony here. Again, may I say, this is no reflection on the 
general. He is a good soldier and would follow the orders the Com- 
mander in Chief issues. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I suggest those questions be resolved 
when they are raised. I think it would save time to do it that way. 
I might state that this witness is a short witness and I think we can 
conclude his testimony this afternoon. 

Senator Mundt. The counsel has already interviewed him so he 
has in mind 

General Ryan. I have had no restrictions placed on me whatso- 

Senator Mundt. Very well. 

Mr. Jenkins. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Mr. 
Thomas R. Prewitt to interrogate this witness. He has talked to him 
in my presence. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Prewitt of Memphis, Tenn., will assume the 
position of counsel for the purposes of interrogating General Ryan. 
We are glad to have you back with us, Mr. Prewitt. 

Mr. Prewitt. General, state your full name for the record. 

General Ryan. Cornelius Edward Ryan. 

Mr. Prewitt. And your rank is major general in the Army? 

General Ryan. Major general, United States Army; yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. You are the commanding general of what Army in- 

General Ryan. I am the commanding general, Fort Dix, N. J. 

Mr. Prewitt. Tell the committee the nature and purpose of that 

General Ryan. Our principal mission at Fort Dix is to train the 
newly inducted soldiers who come into the Army under the Selective 
Service Act. And during their first 8 weeks we give them training 
in individual basic Infantry training. And then after 2 weeks' leave 
of absence, they return for advance Infantry training when we train 
them to take their places in rifle companies, special weapons companies, 
and give them special training for specialist duties, such as truck 
drivers, mechanics, radio operators, field wiremen, cooks, and mess 

Mr. Prewitt. Were you the commander at Fort Dix in November 
of last year? 

General Ryan. I was. 

Mr. Prewitt. When did you first hear that G. David Schine was 
going to be assigned to your base? 

General Ryan. I first heard of Private Schine on November 3, 1953, 
when Secretary Stevens visited Fort Dix. He told me that Private 
Schine had been inducted into the Army that day, and he would arrive 
at Fort Dix in a week or 10 days. 


Senator McCarthy. Could I interrupt, Mr. Chairman ? I certainly 
am happy that General Ryan is under no inhibitions in regard to his 
testimony, but as we go along I am getting more and more confused 
by this Presidential directive. We find that Adams can't tell us what 
he told Stevens, and we are informed that Lawton can't tell about what 
conversation he had with Adams or Stevens, and we find that Ryan 

Senator Muxdt. That is only with the problem of monitored tele- 
phone calls with General Lawton. 

Senator McCarthy. Could I ask this: Is it correct now that the 
interpretation of Mr. Welch and Mr. Adams is that General Lawton 
can testify in full? I don't like to have certain generals precluded 
from testifying and others not. We have got General Ryan on the 
stand, and lie apparently is willing to give us all of the information 
he has. That is good. I just wonder now if Mr. Welch or Mr. Adams 
will tell us whether General Lawton, whose testimony I consider of 
the utmost importance, will be able to follow the same rule that General 
Ryan follows, and otherwise it is going to be extremely difficult for us 
to anticipate what is going to happen here. Could we ask that ques- 
tion, Mr. Chairman, of the counsel? 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman. I should think, Senator, that the 
answer to that was "Yes." I will say in respect to this witness, I think 
he has very little of this type of thing that he could possibly testify to, 
and at the risk of being inconsistent — and if I am, I think the simple 
thing is to get by it — I don't think he had 

Senator McCarthy. Could you ask the Army counsel who has been 
advising General Lawton, whether or not General Lawton will be 
operating under the same rule as General Ryan? I sincerely hope so, 
and I like the way General Ryan has taken the stand. I don't want 
different rules for different witnesses. 

Mr. Welch. I don't anticipate any different attitude then than now. 

Senator Mundt. Counsel will suggest the same rule will apply to all. 

Proceed, Mr. Prewitt. 

Senator McCarthy. That is good. 

General Ryan. Secretary Stevens at that time told me that Mr. 
Schine had been a member of this committee or a member of the staff 
of this committee, a consultant, and that the committee had requested 
Mr. Stevens to make Private Schine available to the committee staff 
to complete certain unfinished work that was then in process. And 
Mr. Stevens told me that he wanted to cooperate with this committee 
in every way that he possibly could. And he authorized me to make 
Private Schine available to the committee on weekends when it didn't 
interfere with training. He said that otherwise Private Schine was 
to be treated the same as any other trainee. 

He said that he desired that I give this my personal attention in 
order that it be properly handled. 

I accepted this directive and these instructions most enthusiasti- 
cally, because I had returned from Korea just a short time before, 
where I had spent 2 years seeing the forces of communism and the 
Communist aggression on the battlefield, and in government there, 
and if I could help this young man in any way to run down Commu- 
nists, I was 100 percent for him. 

Secondly, I felt that it was my duty as a Government officer to co- 
operate with any Government committee, especially a committee of 
our highest legislative body, the United States Senate, And thirdly, 


of course, the Secretary of the Army gave me these instructions, and 
I had to carry them out. 

Mr. Prewitt. General, when was your next contact with anyone 
concerning G. David Schine ? 

General Ryan. Private Schine arrived at Fort Dix on the 10th of 
November. On that day Mr. Adams called me up and asked me 
whether or not I knew Private Schine was there. I told him that I 
didn't, because I don't keep track of every private that comes into 
Fort Dix. And he told me that whether I knew it or not Private 
Schine was there. And I said that I had discussed this matter with 
the Secretary at length, and the Secretary told me that I could let him 
off weekends, provided it didn't interefere with his training. He 
said in addition to the weekends, the Secretary also indicated that the 
committee might desire him on week nights, and also that members 
of the committee staff might desire to come to Fort Dix to consult him 
after duty hours, in the evening when he was available and it didn't 
interfere with any work that he had set up for that time. 

Now, I might say in connection with these passes, Private Schine 
was given 16 passes while he was at Fort Dix. I authorized 12 of 
them. In each instance at the request of a member of the committee 
staff. Six of these passes were for weekends. Four of the passes were 
for week nights for the purpose of doing business or conducting com- 
mittee business off the post, and one was on November 17 when mem- 
bers of the committee and the staff visited a nearby installation, Ma- 
guire Air Force Base, and one was on Thanksgiving Day. Four 
passes were granted Private Schine by his unit commander, just regu- 
lar ordinary passes that they had authority to grant. That is the pass 
situation. He had a pass every weekend that he was at Fort Dix. 

Mr. Prewitt. General, when did you first confer with any member 
of the McCarthy committee ? 

General Ryan. On November 10 I received a telephone call from a 
member of the committee staff, stating that Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr 
were coming to Fort Dix on November 11, and they would like very 
much to see me. And I said I would be very happy to see them. They 
said that they would arrive about mid-afternoon, and I told them to 
come to my headquarters and I would be there. 

During the morning of the 11th, my duty officer received a telephone 
call saying that Mr. Carr and Mr. Cohn would arrive about 2 o'clock. 
I planned to be at my headquarters, being Armistice Day, all duty 
except guard and fatigue was suspended, and it was celebrated as a 

Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr arrived at 1 : 30 and not finding me at my 
headquarters they came out to my quarters. I invited them in, and 
we sat in my living room, and had a very pleasant conference. They 
told me that Private Schine was needed very badly for important com- 
mittee business that was in process and that he had special personal 
knowledge about a great deal of the business in process and they 
wanted him to be made available in order to finish this work. I told 
them exactly what the Secretary had given me instructions to do, and 
indicated that as far as I was concerned we would make him available 
on weekends provided it didn't interfere with his training. The con- 
ference ended on that note, and it was very cordial all of the way 
through, and it was very pleasant, and we had a perfect agreement 
that whenever they wanted Private Schine they would call my head- 


quarters and let me know and the arrangements would be made that 

Mr. Prewitt. General, what if anything -was stated on that occa- 
sion that you have just related with reference to how long the com- 
mittee would need the services of Private Schine? 

General Ryan. Mr. Colin gave me to believe that the committee 
business was in the nature of unfinished business, and that Private 
Schine was needed in order to complete it, and they indicated that it 
would not be very long. They weren't going to harass us very much, 
and they would ask for him from time to time and he said they wouldn't 
ask for him any time that they didn't actually need him. But they 
made no specific date and there was no agreement as to a week or a 
month or 2 months but I very generally got the impression that this 
was in the nature of unfinished business, and that it would be finished 
in a matter of weeks, I would say. 

Mr. Prewitt. How long was Private Schine stationed at your base? 

General Ryan. He arrived at Fort Dix on November 10, and left 
on January 16. 

Mr. Prewitt. That would be approximately when? 

General Ryan. He took the regular 8- week course. 

Mr. Prewitt. And did you state he was granted 16 passes during 
that period? 

General Ryan. Yes, sir; 16 passes. 

Mr. Prewitt. And what is the normal number of passes awarded 
an average trainee in that length of time ? 

General Ryan. The normal number of passes would probably run 
3 or -A during that period, for the normal trainee. 

Mr. Prewitt 1 . Have you ever had any other trainee at Fort Dix, 
during your service there, receive a comparable number of passes as 
Private Schine? 

General Ryan. No, I have never had another trainee receive a com- 
parable number of passes, and I have never had another trainee that 
was working on Senate committee business. 

Mr. Prewitt. And the sole reason for Private Schine's receiving 
these 12 additional passes was because committee members had re- 
quested those passes ? 

General Ryan. In each instance, a member of the committee staff 
would call my headquarters and indicate that Private Schine was 
needed, and in most cases was needed for very urgent business. 

Mr. Prewitt. Now, General, is it a fact that prior to December 8 
Private Schine was permitted to leave the post on weekday nights? 

General Ryan. Private Schine was permitted to leave the post on 
December 1, December 3, December 4, and December 7, on week nights, 
and in each instance at the specific request of a member of the com- 
mittee staff, for the purpose of working on committee business. 

Mr. Prewitt. Was that weekday privilege terminated by you on 
December 8 ? 

General Ryan. It was terminated by me on December 8 ; yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. General, did you ever make any investigation to de- 
termine whether or not Private Schine in fact was engaged on com- 
mittee business while he was off the post on these 12 passes? 

General Ryan. I accepted the word of the committee staff fully 
and completely, as far as Private Schine being made available for 


work, and I personally never questioned it, and I personally didn't 
make any attempt to find out. 

However, my inspector general has been looking into some allega- 
tions that appeared in a newspaper in New York, alleging preferential 
treatment to Private Schine, and he hasn't found out anything. 

Mr. Prewitt. Now, General, do you know for a fact that Private 
Schine made many long-distance telephone calls from Fort Dix while 
he was stationed there ? 

General Evan. Private Schine received telephone messages con- 
tinuously while he was at Fort Dix. Some of these telephone mes- 
sages would be in the form of calling a committee member immedi- 
ately, in which case he would be released from training long enough 
to make the committee phone call. Others that would say they were 
urgent calls, and the company commander would try every way 
that he could to get Private Schine to the telephone exchange as fast 
as he could. In some instances when they were getting ready to 
march in, he would let Private Schine go to the exchange directly, in 
order to save time, to get this urgent telephone call in to the 

And then other cases of telephone calls that weren't urgent, were 
delivered to Private Schine and he made those, I presume, on his 
own time after supper. 

I should say roughly that the telephone calls came an average of 
one a day. That would be my estimate. 

Mr. Prewitt. General, what effect, if any, if you know, did this 
unusual treatment in the way of passes and telephone calls, which 
were accorded Private Schine, have on the other trainees ? 

General Ryan. I can say from a division level it had no effect. At 
regimental level it had no effect. At battalion level it had n effect. 
But company level and platoon level, it did have some effect. Private 
Schine was a man set aside. He was a man that entered the Army 
in a fanfare of publicity, with his picture on every page of the local 
press. When he arrived at Fort Dix there was a newspaper reporter 
to meet him, wanting to get an interview with the man. 

About a week after he was there, a United States Senator came to 
see him. And the following day, all the local papers had his picture 
in the paper, with big headlines, "Private Schine visited by United 
States Senator." 

He had weekend passes. He was allowed to go home Thanksgiving. 
He got off Christmas and New Year's. He had members of this com- 
mittee staff come there to meet him and talk with him in the evening. 

The collective situation was such at a company and platoon level 
there was bound to be some repercussions and thought, or bewilder- 
ment, wonderment, and question in the minds of the other trainees. 
There Unquestionably was a situation there that wasn't normal, and 
Private Schine was looked upon as a man apart. And I might say 
that Private Schine himself contributed by indicating to his company 
commander that he was at Fort Dix to study the reorganization of the 
United States Army along modern lines. 

Mr. Prewitt. General, there has been a good deal of testimony 
about a K. P. incident that occurred in January. Tell us what you 
know about that as briefly as possible. 

General Ryan. Well, the newspapers have been filled with K. P. 
incidents. Private Schine arrived at Fort Dix at 4 o'clock on the 


10th, and Private Schine was on kitchen police at 4 : 30 on the morning 
of the 11th. The story that there was a red carpet rolled out for 
Private Schine or he was coddled or shown favors or given preferen- 
tial treatment, with the exception of work with this committee, at Fort 
Dix, is false. Private Schine arrived at this organization for duty 
on the 22d. He started his formal training on the 22d. On the 
night of the 22d, Private Schine was in the kitchen on kitchen police, 
supplementary kitchen police. With certain work done that day, 
they needed extra men and Private Schine was one of the men that 
went in there, and he performed the dirtiest job in the kitchen, clean- 
ing out the stove. 

On the 8th of December, he had his regular turn on kitchen police, 
and he was in the kitchen at 4 : 30 in the morning, and he stayed there 
until 9 : 30, when I sent for him to come to my office to tell him that he 
could not have any more week night passes. 

I must admit that I didn't know he was on kitchen police. I hadn't 
the slightest idea what job he was on, except that I was not going to 
permit him to be absent any more either. 

Now, to answer your question, there was an incident of kitchen 
police on the 31st of December. On the 31st of December, there was 
a telephone call that came to my headquarters from the company com- 
mander of this young man, asking whether or not a pass had been 
granted. My aide came in and I said, "No, I didn't receive any request 
for a pass, and there hasn't been any granted." And then he called 
me at my quarters. This was New Year's Eve. He called me at my 
quarters about half-past twelve and said the regiment just called and 
said that it looks as though Private Schine is absent without leave, 
he left without proper authority. And he said that he had talked 
to the company commander, and he though possibly that there was 
a misunderstanding. He said that in his opinion that it was one of 
those things that we might investigate when Schine came back on the 
4th of January. 

I asked whether or not Private Schine had a pass, a written pass, 
and he said, "Yes, Private Schine had a pass." 

So I decided then that I didn't think it was necessary to send a tele- 
gram to have him come back. If he left early there was a possibility 
of a misunderstanding, and he had a legitimate pass in his pocket, that 
we could investigate it, or that the regiment could investigate it, on 

My aide called me back a little while later and said that a telegram 
had already been sent by the company commander, ordering this man to 
come back. So I said, "That is perfectly all right. If the company 
commander wants to bring him back, it is all right with me, that I 
will not countermand that telegram. Let him bring him back." 

I said, "However, if the committee calls up or a member of the staff 
calls up and asks for him for committee business, I have an agreement 
with Mr. Cohn that I must keep, and let him go." 

So at 3 o'clock Mr. Cohn called up and said he was needed for com- 
mittee business and Private Schine was permitted to remain over until 
the night of the 3d. Now, at that particular time, I didn't know that 
Private Schine was due for guard on New Year's Eve, and also for 
kitchen police on the 3d. Had I known that, Private Schine would 
liave been brought back. But that information was not passed to me. 


Mr. Prewitt. General, to refresh your memory, I will ask you if it 
isn't a fact that Private Schine was scheduled for kitchen police duty 
on January 10. 

General Ryan. At the investigation that was held on the morning 
of the 4th, the regimental commander decided that there had been 
a misunderstanding, but it was all on Private Schine's part, and that 
Private Schine would do kitchen police on the 10th. That was the 
following Sunday. 

Mr. Prewitt. Did he actually serve ? 

General Ryan. He did not serve that kitchen police, due to adminis- 
trative difficulties on a company level. 

Mr. Prewitt. On the next day, General, January 11, 1 will ask you 
if your aide, Lieutenant Blount received a call from Mr. Cohn. 

General Ryan. Lieutenant Blount received a call from Mr. Cohn 
on the afternoon of the 9th, that was Saturday, and he told me about 
it on the 11th. 

That afternoon, Mr. Cohn was very much upset. He was very ex- 
cited and he was disturbed and disappointed. He said, my aide 
reported to me that he said, there were some people at Fort Dix who 
were very cooperative, but Colonel Ringler and Lieutenant Miller had 
been doing everything they could to make it difficult for Private 
Schine, and that he was not going to forget their names. 

Mr. Prewitt. Is that the statement that Lieutenant Blount made 
to you ? 

General Ryan. Yes. Lieutenant Blount reported that to me on 
Monday, the 11th. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Prewitt advises me that he will not be able 
to conclude his questions in the next few minutes, so the Chair would 
like to make 2 requests of Mr. Welch and then suggest that we recess 
until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning. 

The first request is, Mr. Welch, will you try to have delivered to 
my office by hand tomorrow morning before 10 o'clock a reply to 
my letter ? 

Mr. Welch. I will, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Secondly, will you convey to Mr. Stevens the re- 
quest of the committee that he advise us when he is ready to come in 
and testify on this one Peress matter that he agreed to provide so 
we can get that one bit of testimony out of the way ? 

Mr. Welch. I think you will find that that has been dealt with, 
with Mr. Jenkins. 

Senator Mundt. All right, We will recess until 10 o'clock to- 

morrow morning. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 08 p. m., the committee recessed, to reconvene 
the following day at 10 a. m.) 



Acting Secretary of the Army 1353 

Adams, John G 1337, 1341, 1381 

Testimony of 1346-1379 

Adams, Gov. Sherman 1349, 1350, 1356, 1359, 1370, 1371, 1374, 1378, 1379 

Alsop, Joseph 1307, 1368, 1372 

Ambassador to the United Nations 1336, 1349, 1351, 1350, 1359, 1372, 1378 

Armed Services Committee (Senate) 1337 

Armistice Day 1382 

Army (United States) 1337-1342, 1345-1349, 

1351, 1353-1359, 1362, 1363, 1369, 1372-1374, 1378-1381, 1384 

Army Assistant General Counsel 1369 

Army Chief of Staff 1337 

Army chronology 1372 

Assistant to the President 1349 

Attorney General (United States) 1345, 

1349, 1351, 1357, 1360, 1363-1366, 1369, 1372, 1374 

Attorney General's Office 1345, 1357, 1364, 1369 

Blattenberger, Mr 1375 

Blount, Lieutenant 1386 

Boston, Mass 1340, 1342 

Brown, Mr 1369 

Browned, Mr 1359, 1364, 1365 

Carr, Francis P 1340, 1343, 1344, 1367, 1382 

Chief of Staff (Army) 1337 

Christmas 1384 

Civil-service ratings 1376 

Cohn, Roy M 1338,1340,1341, 

1343, 1344, 1346, 1347, 1354, 1360, 1368, 1376, 13S2-1383, 13S5, 13S6 

Commander in Chief 1380 

Communist aggression 1381 

Communist infiltration (Fort Monmouth) 1354 

Communist records 1374 

Communist spy ring 1355 

Communists 1354, 1355, 1359, 1374, 1375, 1381 

Congress of the United States 1362 

Congressional Record 1376 

Coolidge, Mr 1364 

Counselor to the Army 1337, 1341, 1346-1381 

Defense Department 1339, 1350, 1370 

Department of the Army 1337-1342, 1345-1349, 

1351, 1353-1359, 1362, 1363, 1369, 1372-1374, 1378-1381, 1384 

Department of Justice 1339, 1349, 1357, 1359, 1360, 1362, 1373, 1374 

Deputy Attorney General 1349, 1351, 1364, 1372 

Dirksen, Senator 1357, 1358, 1372, 1374 

East German technical plants - 1355 

East Germany 1355 

Eisenhower, President 1356, 1360 

Executive Office of the President 1336 

Executive order 1360-1362, 1366, 1367, 1376, 1377 

Far East 1375, 1379 

Fort Dix, N. J 1369, 1380, 1382-1386 

Fort Monmouth 1354, 1357, 1374 

General Assembly (United Nations) 1336 

Government Printing Office 1375-1377 

Government Printing Office (Loyalty Board) 1375-1377 

Hagerty, James C 1336 



Infantry training 1380 

Joint Committee on Printing 137G 

Justice Department 1339, 1349, 1357, 1359, 1360, 1362, 1373, 1374 

K. P. (kitchen police) 1384-138G 

Korea 1381 

Lawton, General 1381 

Lodge, Ambassador Henry Cabot 1336, 1349, 1351, 1356, 1359, 1372, 1378 

Loyalty Board (Government Printing Office) 1375, 1376 

Loyalty boards 1349, 1351, 1353, 1359, 1372, 1374-1376 

McCarthy apartment 1350, 1369 

McCarthy, Senator Joe 1336-1347, 1349, 

1350, 1353-1357, 1360-1364, 1366-1372, 1374, 1375, 1379, 13S1, 1382 

McCarthy committee 1340, 1344, 1354, 1382 

McClellan, Senator 1348, 1353, 1357 

McGuire Air Force Base 1382 

Memphis, Tenn 1380 

Miller, Lieutenant 1386 

Monitored telephone calls 1339-1343 

Morgan, Mr 1357-1359 

Morgan, Gerald 1349, 1372 

New Years 1884, 1385 

New York City 1354. 1384 

Pentagon 1353, 1356, 1359, 1365, 1369-1372 

Peress case 1346, 1355, 1386 

Peress report 1346 

Potter, Senator 1338, 1339 

President of the United States 1336, 1347, 1349, 1356, 1358-1365 

Presidential advisers 1365 

Presidential assistant 1349 

Presidential Executive order 1361, 1362, 1367 

Presidential privilege 1360-1361 

President's directive 1347, 1358, 1359, 1363-1365, 1378, 1379 

President's letter to Secretary of Defense 1363 

Press release (White House, December 14, 1953) 1336 

Press secretary to the President 1336 

Prewitt, Thomas R 1380 

Printing Committee (Joint) 1376 

Public Printer 1376, 1377 

Ridgway, General 1337 

Ringler, Colonel 1386 

Rogers, Mr 1347-1349, 1359, 1364, 1365, 1374 

Ryan, Maj. Gen. Cornelius Edward, testimony of 1379-1386 

Schine, G. David 133S, 1344, 1349-1351, 1353, 1354, 1370-1374, 1380-13S6 

Secretary of the Army 1336-1346, 1348, 1349, 1351, 1353, 

1356, 1357, 1362, 1368-1370, 1372, 1373, 1375, 1378, 1380-1382, 1386 

Secretary of Defense 1363, 1370 

Security Council (United Nations) 1336 

Selective Service Act 1380 

Senate Armed Services Committee 1337 

Senate committee business 1383 

Senate of the United States 1360, 1362, 1376, 1381 

Special adviser to the President (United Nations) 1336 

Stevens, Robert T 1348, 1349, 1351, 1353, 

1356, 1357, 1362, 136S-1379, 1372, 1373, 1375, 1378, 13S0-1382, 1386 

Testimony of 1336-1346 

Symington, Senator 1344, 1350, 1357 

Thanksgiving Day 13S2, 1384 

Truman, President 1360 

Truman blackout order (1948) 1360 

United Nations 1336, 1349, 1351, 1356, 1359, 1372, 1378 

United Nations (American Ambassador) __ 1336, 1349, 1351, 1356, 1359, 1372, 1378 

United Nations (General Assembly) 1336,1349 

United Nations (Security Council) 1336 

United Nations (Special adviser to the President) 1336 

United States Army 1337-1342, 1345- 

1349, 1351, 1353-1359, 1362, 1363, 1369, 1372-1374, 1378-1381, 1384 
United States Army Assistant General Counsel 1369 



United States Army Chief of Staff 1337 

United States Attorney General 1345, 

1349, 1351, 1357, 1360, 13G3-13G6, 1369, 1372, 1374 

United States Attorney General's office 1345, 1357, 1364, 1369 

United States Congress 1362 

United States Department of Defense 1339, 1350, 1370 

United States Department of Justice 1339, 

1349, 1357, 1359, 1360, 1362, 1373, 1374 

United States Deputy Attorney General 1349, 1351, 1364, 1372 

United States President 1333, 1347, 1349, 1356, 1358-1365 

United States Secretary of Defense 1363, 1370 

United States Senate 1360, 1362, 1376, 1381 

Washington, D. C 1354 

White House 1336, 1349, 1351, 1357, 1358, 1372, 1373, 137-5 

White House advisers 1373 

White House release (December 14, 1953) !_. 1336 

Wilson, Secretary 1356 

Zwicker, General 1337, 1338, 1344, 1351, 1354-1356 




3 9999 05442 1746