Skip to main content

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

See other formats




Given By 




JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and 








S. Res. 189 

PART 55 

JUNE 7, 1954 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations 

46620O WASHINGTON : 1954 

Boston Public Library 
'uperintendent of Documents 

OCT 2 7 1954 

JOSEPH R. McCarthy, Wisconsin, Chairmnn 

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, ArltanFas 


HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaiio JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massacliusetts 



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

Special Subcommittee on Investigations 
KARL E. MUNDT, South Daliota. Chairman 



Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel 

Thomas R. Pbewitt, Assistant Counsel 

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel 

SoLis HoKWiTZ, Assistant Counsel 

Charles A. Maner, Secretary 





Testimony of — 

Glaucy, Miss Eleanor, secretary to Mr. John G. Adams, Counselor to 

the Department of the Army 220], 2218 

Gould, Miss Lucille, stenographer, Department of the Army 2213 

Lucas, John J., Jr., appointment clerk to the Secretary of the Army 2186 

Minis, JMrs. Frances Perry 2221 

Shinebarger, Mrs. Angel ine, secretary to Mr. Lewis Berry, Deputy 

Counselor, Department of the Army 2211 


Introduced Appears 
on paue on page 

34. Copy of memorandum from Jacy Lucas to the Secretary of 

the Army, October 1<J, IDO:'. 2194 * 

35. Original memorandum from Jqck Lucas to the Secretary of 

the Army, October 19, 1953 '___ 2194 * 

♦May be found in the files of the subcommittee, 




MONDAY JUNE 7, 1954 

United States Senate, 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the 

Committee on Government Operations, 

Washington^ D. C, 


(The hearing was resumed at 2 : 10 p. m., pursuant to recess.) 

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

Also present: Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel to the subcommittee; 
Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel; Charles Maner, assistant 

Principal participants present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a 
United States Senator from the Sfate of Wisconsin; Roy M. Colin, 
chief counsel to the subcommittee: Joseph N. Welch, special counsel 
for the Army; and James D. St. Clair, special counsel for the Army. 

Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order. 

As we come to order to resume committee activities this afternoon, 
the Chair would like to continue his customary routine of w^elcoming 
the guests who have come to the committee, who seem to be here in un- 
usually large numbers this afternoon, and we bid you welcome and 
take this opportunity of calling to your attention the standing com- 
mittee rule, which I am sure is already familiar to many of you, which 
forbids any manifestations of an audible nature of approval or dis- 
approval at any time or of any kind. 

The committee has instructed the uniformed officers whom you see 
before you, and the plainclothes people scattered throughout the 
audience, to act w^ithout any further word from the Chair, to politely 
but immediately and firmly remove from the room anyone who elects 
to violate the conditions under which he entered the committee room, 
namely, to refrain completely from manifestations of an audible 
nature indicating his approval or disapproval of what is taking 



place in the proceedings. I am sure tliat we can continue to count upon 
the 100 percent cooperation of the audience. 

Mr. Lucas, do I see you somewhere? Will you resume the chair, 
please ? 

Are Mrs. Pike and Mr. Ehodes with you ? 

I don't see Mr. Rhodes and Mrs. Pike. Does that mean that the rest 
of the monitored calls were all covered by you? 

Mr. Lucas. I understand they don't have any more, sir. 

Senator Mundt. The rest of them, including those of Mr. Carr, were 
covered by you ? 

Mr. Lucas. By others and me. 

Senator Mundt. And the others are here ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. Proceed, Mr. Jenkins, with your read- 
ing into the record of the monitored phone calls between Mr. Roy Cohn 
and Secretary of the Army Bob Stevens. 


Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, one very short word from me. Senator 
McClellan will now hear it. I see him entering the room. May I wait 
a moment? 

Senator McClellan, I am actually addressing a remark to you. Dur- 
ing the luncheon period, Mr. Lucas examined his notebook on your 
conversation, and 1 or 2 questions from you will, I think, elicit the re- 
sponses that you expect. That is one item. 

The second item is that the blue slip in connection with the Schine 
call which was under discussion is in the courtroom and the notes, the 
actual stenographic notes of the conversation with Mr. Schine are 
being photographed as fast as we could, and are being brought in here. 

As Mr. Cohn knows, Mr. Lucas' notebooks have top secret matter 
in them, and we prefer to photograph the pages dealing with the 
Schine conversation alone, and I see him nod his head showing that he 
understands that. They are being photographed here. It could be 
that the Senator would like to clear up his matter. 

Senator Mundt. Without objection, the Chair will seek unanimous 
consent for Senator McClellan to ask the 1 or 2 brief questions he 
wants to ask to conclude the questions about his individual monitored 

Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Lucas, I don't care to have the calls put 
in the record if it is irrelevant, I mean that part of it that is irrelevant 
to this hearing, but my recollection was that on that day I called 
Secretary Stevens regarding an ROTC unit in one of the colleges in 
Arkansas. Have you examined your notes with respect to that? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir, I have. 

Senator McClellan. Is that correct, or was it some other subject 

Mr. Lucas. That is correct. It was about an ROTC matter. 

Senator McClellan. I have no objection to the conversation going 
into the record, but it is irrelevant. If anybody wants to see it — I 
only want to establish the fact that the call I made was about another 
matter altogether, not this subject matter. 

Senator Mundt. Is that all, Senator McClellan? 


Senator McClellan. That is all. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins, you may continue with Mr. Lucas on 
the Cohn-Stevens conversation. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, just one matter. 

In complete fairness to Senator McClellan, I think this should be 

cleared up. T^r^rrr^o 

The balance of the conversation had only to do with the ROIC? 

Mr. Lucas, Yes, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Nothing on any other subject? 

Mr. Ltjcas. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. You are sure of that ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Senator McClellan. I have no objection to its going in the record 
if you want it in the record. 

Senator McCarthy. I don't ask for it. 

Senator McClellan. I know what I called him about. In the con- 
versation when I said I expected him to be around to see me and 
when I said I hadn't seen him around lately, he began to explain 


Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins will continue with the phone calls. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Welch, I would like to address this remark to you, please, sir. 
For the purpose of validating Senator Dirksen's monitored telephone 
calls which he read in the record last Friday, and in order to obviate 
the necessity of rereading those calls, I wish you would have Mr. 
Rhodes or Mrs. Pike, neither of who is on the witness stand, com- 
pare their transcriptions with the record and then be able to state, 
without reading those calls in the record, whether or not they are 
correct. We can validate the calls that way by one question with 
Mr. Rhodes or Mrs. Pike. 

Mr. Welch. I follow you, sir, and I think that had better be done 
the first thing tomorrow morning. They aren't here at the moment, 
as you know, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. I thought they were here. I am sorry. 

Senator Mundt. They are not here this afternoon. 

Mr. Welch. They are not here, because we have dealt with all calls 
monitored by them. 

Mr. Jenkins. Sometime during the course of the afternoon or even- 
ing, they can make those comparisons ? 

Mr. Welch. Yes. 

Mr. Jenkins. And with one answer to one question, those calls can 
be validated. 

Mr. Welch. That is right. 

Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. Lucas, you were on the stand at the time of the recess this 
morning, and we were putting in the record the monitored telephone 
calls between the Secretary of the Army and Mr. Cohn. 

"When is the next monitored call you have, Mr. Lucas, that has not 
yet been read into the record ? 

Mr. Lucas. October 27, 1953. 

Mr. Jenkins. You took that call yourself as the monitor? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And transcribed it ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Jenkins. You have your notes before you ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And they are correct? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you follow me now, Mr. Lucas, please, sir? 
Some complaint Avas made about me reading these calls too rapidly, 
Mr. Chairman, and I will try to slow down just a little. If I go 
too fast, I will ask Mr. Craig to slow me down. [Reading :] 

27 October 1953 (Tuesday), 4 : 02 p. m., Sec. Stevens returned call of Roy Cohn 
(reached at U. S. Courthouse in NYC) 
Cohn. How was your trip? I read all about it. 
Stevens. What did you read about it? 
Cohn. I read all about the new atomic cannons and 

Mr. Cohn. Inventions. 

Mr. Jenkins. The "v" is left out, Mr. Cohn, but I am sure it must 
be that. [Reading:] 

and inventions and everything. 

Stevens. Well, there it is for what it is worth. 

Cohn. I talked to John Adains, and he is going to talk to you. We have got 
a problem on this Gen. Reichelberger. Do you know him? 

Stevens. I think I know who he is. 

Cohn. He is the head of A. S. A. at Arlington now. He made the decision not 
to kick out Coleman in '46, when they found the documents in his home. Then 
you have a Gen. , 

and Mr. Cohn has asked me to delete the name of that general, and 
I now pass this document to the chairman and the other members of 
the subcommittee for their decision. 

Senator McCarthy. While the other members are examining that, 
Mr. Jenkins, I wonder if we could, just to keep the record straight, 
allow me to point out that the Mr. Coleman who is mentioned has been 
found unfit to work in a radar laboratory in the last 2 days on loyalty 
and security grounds. I am not asking the counsel to make that state- 
ment. I am giving that information for the record. That is the 
same Mr. Coleman mentioned in this conversation. 

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

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. I don't object to leaving these names out, any 
of the ones I have seen. I wanted to put all of mine in to be sure there 
was no question about withholding any information. I merely say 
this because several of the people who are in the room, whose names 
I did put in, with regret, but in order to get all the truth, have pro- 
tested this fact to me. This in no way interferes with my agreement 
to keep all these other names out, nor, incidentally, do I intend to tell 
anybody about them by leaking them afterward. 

Mr. Jenkins. May I inquire what the wishes of the committee are ? 

Senator Mundt. The wishes of the committee, as the Chair under- 
stands them, are that there is no need to identify the general whose 
name appears in that line. 

Mr. Jenkins. Then you have a general "blank line," General "X" 
we will call him, who got into the later stage. We want to get them 
in. [Reading :] 

Reichelborger, to find out why, when these . • 

two dots 


(telephone connection cut off) . . 
two dots. 

I don't know how sensitive a position this fellow is in, and whether you are 
Interested in him or what; so John is going to talk to you and let me know on 

Stevens. You know what my general policy is, that I want you to talk to 
whoever you want, but in this case I would like to talk to John, and I will give 
you an answer. 

CoHN. And on "X" too. 

The name of the same general. 

The only crises I see coming 

two dashes, 

the situation is not a happy one 

two dashes, 

there are a couple of new angles, but a situation has developed which is disturb- 
ing. I am going to give John the whole pitch on it. I gave John a couple of 
names. There is one fellow I think was definitely in espionage recently. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Jenkins, I don't think I underscored that name, but 
I think it should be left out. 

Mr. Jenkins. A fellow named Mr. "Y". Is that satisfactory with 
the committee ? 

Senator Symington. Could I see the name, please? 

Mr. Jenkins. Yes, Senator. 

Senator McCarthy. While the committee members are looking at it, 
I think it might be well if we make clear to the press and the jury that 
is watching this that the withholding of names is not keeping any 
information from the American people. It is merely in line with the 
policy of the committee that we make public no names of those accused 
of communism or espionage, unless and until they are allowed to 
appear and testify under oath. 

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I know the junior Senator from 
Wisconsin wouldn't want to apply that to the general whose name 
we have just agreed not to 

Senator McCarthy. I don't know which name you are referring to. 

Senator Symington. The previous one, Senator, before this one, 
which we agreed to delete. 

Senator McCarthy. That does not involve the general involved in 
the Coleman case. But as we go along, may I say. Senator Symington, 
there will be a sizable number of names of individuals, about whom 
there was evidence of Communist connections. Communist activities, 
and in each case we will ask that their names be kept out, and I hope 
we do not create the impression we are trying to keep information 
from the people. This is in line with the long-standing policy of the 
committee, and that is that we not make public names of anyone ac- 
cused of wrongdoing until he or she can appear under oath and deny 
the charges. That is why we are asking that certain names be kept out 
of this record. 

Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I am sure you have made that perfectly clear, 
and thus far I have religiously followed that program, or have tried to. 

Mr. Lucas, you are still following me ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins (reading-) : 

46620°— 54— pt. 55 2 


We've got the question of this screening board which reversed all these 
suspensions. The senator called Dave today from Milwaukee, and apparently 
he is going to insist on calling in some of the members of that screening board, 
and that will get into a question of directives and Executive Orders, and 
loyalties and all that sort of thing. I told John we have the names that we would 
want, but in the meantime, if you would want to start exploring that 

five dots — 

that will be held up. And the last thing, on our young friend up here whom 
we have been talking to you about. It will be next Tuesday. I have got two 
ideas in my head: One is this: The main thing I am concerned about, since 
nothing else can apparently be done, since we are in the middle of this thing 
here, we would like him around for a while. I was talking to Renfrew, and he 
said he could be furloughed for a couple of weeks — and I am thinking of 
this CIA thing again. Have you given it any further thought? 

I have deleted one word there which changes the meaning in no 
sense; is that right? 
Mr. Lucas. That is right, sir. 
Mr. Jenkins (reading) : 

Stevens. No, I haven't given it any particular thought because it was more 
or less on ice until you or Dave brought it up again. 

CoHN. For a while anyway, it might be a good idea because, with us going 
into the shop over there with such intensity, it might avoid embarrassment all 
around. I talked to .Joe and I talked to Dave, and they would be willing. 
The question is, could the people over there pick him up right away? At what 
point could they pick him up? How do you think we should go at that? 

Stevens. Do you want me to talk with Allen Dulles? I think I might do it. 

CoHN. I would appreciate that. It would give us a start on the thing if you 
would talk to him informally. Tell him .Toe has been talking to you informally, 
and we have this problem here, and how does it fit over in their place? I would 
appreciate this. 

Stevens. All right, Roy. Are you going to be in New York for the rest of the 

CoHN. Yes. 

Stevens. I will be right here except I will be in Greenville, North Carolina, 
on Thursday. 

CoHN. If anything develops that I haven't thought about, I will call you. Our 
main problem is this loyalty board. Joe is going to make a statement in Mil- 
waukee on that, using the usual string of adjectives. He has five cases in which 
he has gotten the transcripts in which they reversed suspensions of pretty bad 
people, and he will insist that he talk to the President himself, and these people 
be brought in. He is in Milwaukee, and we are here. But he is going to make 

that announcement. But that does not foreclose the issue at all Then 

you and John can talk and have John let me know on these two generals. 

Mr. Lucas, have I or not correctly read that monitored transcript? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. I have North Carolina, Greenville, N. C, in 
here, instead of South Carolina. 

Mr. Jenkins. Where is that, Mr, Lucas, may I ask? 

Mr. Lucas. It is the second from the last paragraph. 

Mr. Jenkins. You have North Carolina? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And so do I, Mr. Lucas, and I am in error. It is 
Greenville, N. C. With that exception, was it correctly read into the 
record, Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not you have — are they both wrong ? 

Mr. Lucas, some question has been raised about that. I don't know 
how important it is. But does your transcription show Greenville, 
N. C? 


Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Well, mine does, too, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Jackson. Isn't there a Greenville in Tennessee ? We could 
settle for that. 

Mr. Jenkins. The leading, outstanding Greenville is the one in 
Tennessee. [Laughter.] 

Senator Jackson. I don't know how we can leave Tennessee out 
when it is so close. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Lucas, state whether or not you have a monitored 
telephone call dated October 28, 1953. 

Mr. Lucas. Les, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Is that the next one in succession, in chronological 
order ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you monitored that telephone call personally ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jknkins. Transcribed it? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And do you have a correct copy of the transcription 
before you, Mr. Lucas ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Will you follow me as I read this, please, sir ? [Read- 

28 October 1953, 10 :38— Roy Cohn returned See. Stevens' call : 

SA. Are you going to Lewiston? 

RC. No, the weather has snafued that until tomorrow. 

SA. Roy, two things : First of all, I went over and saw Dulles the first thing 
this morning. 

RC. It was nice of you. 

SA. I went in there at 8: 15 and had quite a long visit. He claims they don't 
take anybody that is eligible for the draft. When they do take somebody, they 
try to get them to spend an extended number of years in the business because 
they don't feel they can train them and have them leave after maybe a couple 
of years. So he said he felt he ought not to go in on this because of the policy 
of not taking people eligible for the draft. This seems to be borne out by a 
fellow that was working over there that became a friend of my daughter. He 
was a nice young fellow, and he was drafted right out of there. 

RC. How about this deal of picking up somebody once he is in? Is that a 
question of not wanting to train them if they are not going to stay? 

SA. Now, Dave is not going to stay there all his life. So, on the question of 
the pick up, I can probably do a better job on that than he could. 

Now on the furlough business : It is an unusual procedure, but I am ac- 
customed to trying to do very unusual things, and I think I have got this in 
such shape that if Dave were inducted next week, I think I could put him cm 
temporary duty at First Army. I can't extend that, Roy. I have got to take 
a stand and tell him what I am going to do and stick to it. I could do that. 
I am willing to issue an order that I will do it. If that will give him a chance 
to carry on on this Army thing for another two weeks, I can do that and will do 

RC. That would be something, and I appreciate that a lot. When would we 
have to decide on that? 

SA. That is up to you, and it all depends on what the draft status is. 

RC. I would rather go ahead with the thing Tuesday ; and then the only 
thing I hesitate on it was that I would want to talk to Joe first, and I don't 
know when I can get to him. 

SA. I would issue orders that whenever he was sworn in, then I would assign 
him to duty at First Army so he could continue with you for the next couple 
weeks. All I want you to do is to let me know in time so I can get it through 
and so it doesn't get fouled up. 

RC. I can't tell you how much we appreciate the trouble you have gone to on 
this thing. It Is the only major headache we have. AVe have more than one 


SA. Judging by my situation tliat is true. 

RC. Let me talk to Joe and, as a matter of fact, we are trying to do some 
rearranging as far as his worli is concerned anyway ; and I will know in a 
couple of days how we come out on this. Frank is sitting with me right here 

SA. I will be in South Carolina one day, but I will be back here Friday, 
Saturday, and Sunday. 

RC. I will talk to you over the week-end, and I appreciate it very much. How 
is everything else? Have you had a chance to talk to Brown? 

SA. Yes . 

RC. How about the Generals? 

SA. I don't have the answer on that yet, Roy. If I had to make a curbstone 
opinion on it, I would say — and please don't hold me to it — I would say I would 
much rather not have this fellow Reichelderfer because of the work he is now in, 
but (O'Neal?) I am trying to make available. 

RC. You take your time and think about that. I noticed a couple of papers 
had something about the loyalty boards and this is the situation. I told you 
what Joe was going to say on this. Just like on the Partridge thing, don't 
worry about it. Just think about it, and let me know what you want. 

SA. Right. 

Mr. Lucas, was that or not read correctly ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Do you have a final monitored telephone call? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Between Mr. Cohn and the Secretary of the Army, 
I take it, Mr. Lucas ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And dated what date, please, sir? 

Mr. Lucas. November 2, 1953. 

Mr. Jenkins. Before reading it — did you say November 2 ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Before reading this, Mr. Chairman and members of 
the Committee, Mr. Cohn, has asked that one sentence be deleted, I 
believe it is one sentence, being the sentence beginning where I am 
indicating "Roy Cohn." 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. Could you, Mr. Jenkins or someone on your staff, 
write out the sentence you' have in mind? You see, we can't identify 
it at this table. 

Senator Mundt. We would be happy to have you come forward 
here and take a look. 

Mr. Jenkins. If you will come forward and just bend forward as 
I do in your direction we can exchange — I can hand you this paper. 

(Conference at committee table out of hearing of the reporter.) 

Senator Mundt. The committee has decided to include the sentence, 
but to take out the one word that is objectionable and leave out the 
name of the person. 

Mr. Cohn. Surely. Fine. 

Senator Mundt. Proceed, Mr. Jenkins. 

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Lucas, I believe you said the last one is dated 
November 2, 1953. 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Monitored and transcribed by you ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And you have a correct copy before you? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 


Mr. Jenkins. Is that correct? 
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. I will read this one and you will compare them, Mr. 
Lucas. [Reading:] 

Monday, 2 November 1953, 11 : 46 a. m. Roy Cohu phoned Sec. Stevens : 

RC. How did all those stories come out? 

SA. As well as could be hoped for. 

RC. I raised hell about it, and they said they would straighten it out; but 

to make sure the thing does look good, people are going to write an 

editorial on the thing-- 

I have left out one proper name, have I not ? 
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. And slightly changed the meaning of another word. 
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Which does not change the meaning of the context 
of this transcription ; is that right, Mr. Lucas ? 
Mr. Lucas. That is right, sir. 
Mr. Jenkins (continuing) : 

I will send you an advance copy. I assume you saw Joe's statement from out 
west. I think that is in shape and he has got everything set up for Friday. 
Nothing is going to happen on the other thing until you have a chance to talk to 
Joe about that. I was wondering if there was anything we were supposed to 
do on Dave's case. 

SA. Not a thing. After I talked with you the other day, I immediately got 
in touch with the office here and had arrangements made so he would be 
detached for duty with the First Army. I don't know of anything further 
to be done. Is it tomorrow he goes in? If it looks as if the thing isn't working 
as it should, I should be notified at once. And he or you should call the office 
here right away. The office will know how to get ahold of me, and they will 
know what to do. So if anything should go wrong, get in touch with me imme- 
diately. Where is the place he goes? 

RC. Reports at 39 Whitehall, at the induction station. I think it is a Colonel 
Hamilton at the induction station there. 

SA. It will be all set up when he gets there. I will guarantee you that. 
I started Saturday night when I talked to you, and I will check on that right 

I came to the Courthouse on Friday morning. What time? 

RC. Eleven o'clock. 

SA. You boys have lunch with me again Friday. 

Was that read correctly, Mr. Lucas ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Jenkins. Does that conclude all of the monitored telephone 
calls now, passing between Mr. Cohn and the Secretary of the Army ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

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

Senator Mundt. The last call read was of November 2, 1953. You 
have no other calls from then until the present date; is that correct? 

Mr. Lucas. That is, not with Mr. Cohn. 

Senator Mundt, I mean with Mr, Cohn. 

Mr. Lucas. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. I have no further questions. 

Senator McClellan. Senator Dirksen ? 

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Lucas, are you sensitive to indelicate lan- 
guage that comes over the telephone ? 

Mr. Lucas. No, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. What do you do about language that is so ex- 
plosive and sizzling it almost melts the telephone wire when you 
monitor a call? 


Mr. Lucas, I don't ihiiik 1 have run into that yet, sir, but ordinary, 
every-day profanity, I just write it into the book. 

Senator Dirksen. Is there an ordinary kind of profanity and an 
extraordinary kind? 

Mr. Lucas. Well, very explosive ; I imagine there wouldn't be much 
point to it, because it would be lengthy. 

Senator Dirksen. But if somebody gets unduly explosive over the 
telephone, do you make note of it? That is to say, do you record it? 

Mr. Lucas. Where it is just worked into the sentence ; yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. I don't quite understand that. I am just wonder- 
ing, when somebody gets unduly emphatic over the telephone, the 
emphasis goes down, no matter what the words are; isn't that correct? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. The reason for asking, Mr. Lucas, is this: Not 
that you are responsible at all, but there was a lot of testimony in 
this investigation to the effect that strong and emphatic and vitura- 
tive and profane language was used on occasion. So I have listened 
attentatively to these telephone calls read into the record. I expected, 
as a matter of fact, on the basis of some allegations, that there would 
be some vituperation and strong language. I haven't discovered it. 
So I wondered whether you deliberately left it out. 

Mr. Lucas. No, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. If it had been uttered over the telephone it would 
have been included in the transcription ; is that correct ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir; if it had any — if it was a matter of emphasis 
on the subject matter, I would have written it down. 

Senator Dirksen. Very w^ell. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson ? 

Senator Jackson. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter? 

Senator Potter. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ? 

Senator Symington. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak ? Mr. Welch and Mr. St. Clair ? 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Lucas, I show you what purports to be an office 
memorandum dated the 19th of October 1953 and ask you to iden- 
tify it. 

Mr. Lucas. This is an office memorandum to the Secretary from 
myself, dated 19 October 1953. 

Mr. Welch. Without going into it further at the moment, may I 
say, Mr. Chairman, there was not time at lunch to make copies of it. 
I do wish to offer it in evidence and have the witness testify about it. 
It is very short, and I think we can deal with it without any dis- 
comfort on the part of the committee by not having copies before 
them. We have a copy. (Document passed to the committee table.) 

(The copy of the document referred to was marked "Exhibit No. 
34," and the original document was marked "Exhibit No. 35," and both 
will be found in tli« files of the subcommittee.) 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Lucas, did you make out the office memorandum 
that you have before you, to which I have attracted your attention ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. On what date? 

Mr. Lucas. On the 19th of October. 

Mr. Welch. Of what year? 


Mr. Lucas. 1953. 

Mr, Welch. To whom is the memorandum directed? 

Mr. Lucas. To the Secretary. 

Mr. Welch. And from whom is it? 

Mr. Lucas. Jack Lucas. 

Mr. Welch. Do the words "To the Secretary" appear at the top of 
it, opposite a date ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. And "From Jack Lucas," the "From" being printed 
and the words "Jack Lucas" being typed ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Under that is the word "Subject" with a colon, is that 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. And then some typing. Did you type that ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Will you read to the committee what your typing 
says ? 

Mr. Lucas. "David Schine phoned from New York and would 
like a return call." 

Mr. Welch. Is that the complete memorandum ? 

Mr, Lucas. No, sir. There is some typing in the lower left-hand 

Mr, Welch. Would you be good enough to read that ? 

Mr. Lucas. It says : "Oper." for "Operator, #898, NYC, Murray- 
hill." Then I typed : "8-0110," and I crossed that out in pencil and 
underneath I wrote in pencil "8-0115." 

Mr. Welch. Do you know when you wrote in pencil "8-0115"? 

Mr. Lucas. It would have been shortly after typing up the note. 
I don't know whether it would have been on the 19th, 20th, or 21st. 

Mr. Welch. Was Secretary Stevens actually in Washington on the 
19th of October? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Did you call his attention to the fact that he had had a 
telephone call from Dave Schine on that day ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir, by means of this note. 

Mr. Welch. Did you take the call on the 19th of October? 

Mr. Lucas. No, sir. 

Mr. Welch. As a consequence of that, did you call this memoran- 
dum to his attention a second time? 

Mr. Lucas. I don't remember whether I did that or not, sir. I 
probably would simply have left it on his desk, where he keeps such 
notes, and I may or may not have called it to his attention personally. 

Mr. Welch. In any event, was the telephone call dealt with a sec- 
ond time, the telephone call from Dave Schine ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. And on what date was that ? 

Mr, Lucas. On October 21, 1953. 

Mr. Welch. That was what, 2 days later? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Would the call operator 398 ordinarily hold good over 
a 2-day period ? 

Mr. Lucas. No, sir. 


Mr. Welch. As a consequence, on the 21st did Mr. Stevens actually 
place the call, physically place the call, to Schine? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. And talked to him? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. And that call is the one where your notes are now 
being photogi'aphed to be sent to the hearing room, is that right ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. That is all, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I don't have what you would 
call a question of the witness, but I understand it is permissible to 
use my 10 minutes to raise a point. That is what I propose to do 
at this time, a point which I consider-— — 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would like to suggest since we have 
one more set of monitored calls, we would like to have them all in 
the record as close together as possible, and he would appreciate it 
if you could defer until the next 10 minutes, which would be after 
the reading of Mr. Carr's talks. 

Senator McCarthy. I would like very much to defer. I know that 
the Chair uses good judgment in trying to get the chronology in- 

However, I have been waiting all morning to get this in, and I 
think time is of the essence. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair feels it would be over in another 10 or 
15 minutes. 

Senator McCarthy. May I say this, if the Chair feels strongly 
about this, I will desist. Unless the Chair does, I would like to go 
ahead. It will take me about 5 minutes. However, in fairness to the 
Chair, this may provoke some argument which will take more than 
5 minutes. 

Senator Mundt. That is what the Chair has been advised about. 
How long will it take for Mr. Carr's calls ? 

Mr. Prew^itt. About 30 minutes. 

Senator McCarthy. How long will the Carr calls take, about? 

Senator Mundt. About 30 minutes. He is afraid the colloquy will 
take longer than that. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, in my judgment I feel time 
is very important. I want one of these witnesses subpenaed this 
afternoon and I want the subpena served on him immediately. 

However, I am going to overrule my own judgment and desist to 
the Chair. I perhaps will remind the Chair of this some time when 
I am chairman of the committee and I ask him to desist, also. 

Senator Mundt. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Prewitt, you may continue. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, may I hand you the original of the 
memorandum ? 

Senator Mundt. You may. 

Mr. Prewitt will read into the record the Carr calls. 

Mr. Prewitt, of Memphis, Tenn. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I could ask one question ? 
Could I have it understooH that if there is any attempt to spend a 
great deal of time on cross-examining on the Carr calls, that before 


we end tonight, that I will have the opportunity to do what I am 
about to do now ? 

Senator Mundt. I am perfectly sure we will get around to the 
10-minute rule before the end of the day. 

Senator McCarthy. Thank you. 

Mr. Prewitt. Did you monitor the call of February 25, 1954, be- 
tween Mr. Adams and Mr. Carr, Mr. Lucas ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Do you have a transcription of the monitoring before 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Will you follow me as I read it, please? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. That call is dated February 25, 1954, and the time 
is what? 

Mr. Lucas. 5 : 38. That would be p. m. It doesn't say so. 

Mr. CoHN. I am sorry to interrupt, but do I understand that Mr. 
Lucas monitored this call? 

Mr. Prewitt. He so testified. 

Mr. CoHN. I thought we were told, I don't know how much im- 
portance it will or will not have, but I thought we were told when 
Mr. Horwitz' oflBce, that a Miss Glancy did the monitoring and not 
!Mr. Lucas, that Mr. Adams was on another floor and Mr. Lucas did 
not monitor Mr. Adams' calls. 

Mr. PREwnr. I think you can cover that on cross-examination. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair understands that Mr. Lucas just testi- 
fied under oath that he monitored the call. Is that right, Mr. Lucas ? 

Mr. Lucas. That is correct, sir. 

Senator Mundt. If you have any doubt about that in cross-exam- 
ination, you may examine him. He did say that. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, just so the record will be 
straight, I would like to have it shown now that there were no calls 
between Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams monitored until the day after Mr. 
Adams came to my apartment. I beg your pardon. It was the day 
after the luncheon at which, as you may recall, Mr. Stevens blew 
up a bit. That was the time that the calls between Mr. Carr and 
Mr. Adams were first monitored. Many calls were had by Mr. Carr 
and Mr. Adams before that. I frankly don't know what is in those 
calls. It would appear that you may find a great deal of self-serving 
material. I think the record should be very clear on that. Do I make 
myself clear on that? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that is something that you 
should better bring out by cross-examination with Mr. Lucas. At 
that time you can ask Mr. Lucas specifically as to the authenticity 
of your convictions along that line. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I didn't make my- 
self clear. Just 10 seconds. I am not questioning Mr. Lucas about 
the authenticity of the calls. I merely want to make this point before 
they are put in, that while Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams were dealing 
over the telephone day after day after day during these hearings, 
there was no eavesdropping order until the day after Mr. Stevens met 
with you. Senator Dirksen, Senator Potter, and Senator McCarthy, 
and it was after that when the whole matter blew up, at a period when 

46620"— 54— pt. 55 3 


the witnesses would not apptar, that then for some reason the phone 
calls between Mr. Adams and Mr. Carr were order eavesdropped. 

I mention that to show that under the ordinary legal rules, they 
would not be admissible, on the ground of self-serving phone calls. 
Mr. Carr didn't know they were being eavesdropped. However, I 
talked this over with Mr. Carr, and he and I agreed that regardless, 
regardless of how unfair thi*^ proposition might be, regardless of the 
purpose of it, regardless of the fact that the eavesdropping started the 
day after the conference with INIr. Stevens, that nevertheless Mr. Carr 
should agree to have them put in. So at this time there is no objection 
to their Jbeing put in. 

I merely want to make that clear for the benefit of all the Senators. 

Senator Jackson. May we have the date ? 

Senator Mundt. Give us thr. date of th0 first call. 

Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Lucas, correct me if I am wrong. This call is 
dated February 25, 1954. Time 5 : 38 p. m., John Adams returned 
call of Frank Carr. Is that correct? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir; that ie correct. 

Mr. Prewitt (reading) : 

Carr. What a ruckus, hub? 

Adams. Yes. What is cooking? 

Carr. Nothing. There has been a rumor floating around that Annie Moss has 
been suspended. Is that right, John V Is there anything to that? 

Adams. As of this moment I can't say. I don't know. It is a little out of 
my ordinary bailiwick- 
two dashes — 

only because of the fact that I have been absorbed today on other matters, as I 
am sure you would understand. 

Carr. I sure can. Would anybody know that? Who would be in a position 
to say yes or no, or say- - 

two dashes 

Adams. Let me think for a minute. This goes right back to the trouble we 
had in New York, when I got ejected from the hearing. What are you able to 
tell about a security case under current regulations? 

Carr. Of course. 

Adams. Could we tell you about that when we did it at Monmouth? I guess 
we couldn't. 

Carr. At Monmouth, you uere very careful not to give any numbers or names. 
However, the numbers came out. 

Adams. The situation has deteriorated since those friendly days. 

Carr. I wouldn't say deteriorated. 

Adams. It is an understatement. 

Carr. It is a little bit out of hand. 

Adams. I have reason to believe that artillery is being directed at me. 

Carr. At you personally? 

Adams. Yes. 

Carr. I don't know, John. I know one thing-- 

two dashes — 

and I wish to hell it happened- 


I wish you had taken my advice that Friday night when I talked to you about 
telling Stevens about- 

two dashes — 


not to call him on that subject, and to call him in a spirit of compromise like i 
suggested. You know? 

Adams. Yes- 
two dashes — 

I don't think I really understand- 
two dashes — 

but time has passed since then. 

Caur. I said if he does call him, he could say, "Look, Joe, I can do this and 
this and this ; but I can't do this and this."- 

two daslies — 

Of course, then your people will not be able to say then, huh? 

Adams. I am not in a position to answer you. I have not been monkeying 
with it at the moment. Answer me another question. What is Roy doing? 

Carr. He is back in New York again. He is never here when the fireworks are 

Adams. You are sure you are not zeroing Adams in as a collateral target? 

Carr. No. 

Adams. I have reason to believe that is so. 

Carr. I am not. 

Adams. But do you know anybody else? 

Carr. No. 

Adams. Let me ask you a question. Do you think I have ever done anything, 
ever, to indicate that I discount the ability of the FBI? 

Carr. Never to me, John. No. 

Adams. Do you think I have ever done anything to indicate to you or to any- 
body else in the Committee that I thought the FBI had no capacity in the field 
of security ? 

Carr. I can't say for anybody else, John. Not to me. 

Adams. Fi-om yoilr conversations with me, would you think I was a supporter 
of what the FBI was trying to do for all of us in this field? I ask you that be- 
cause I have particular reason to believe that our mutual friend has told the 

Carr. That you are not a friend? 

Adams. Well, I can't isolate the day. I don't remember when it was- 

two dashes — 

but in one of those days when we were- 
two dashes — 

maybe even the afternoon when I got fired from the Committee- 
two dashes — 
it may have been before that- 
two dashes — 
in one of those violent things- 
two dashes — 

maybe in a hallway or over the phone- 
two dashes — 

I have a recollection it was in a corridor. Roy was flinging his head. He said, 
"The FBI told you, etc., etc.-" And in response to that perhaps, pushed to 
exasperation, beyond all bearing, I may have said something to him : "What the 
hellif we were? What is an FBI report? It is only a report." 

Carr. The only thing to do is to stand on your record. 

Ada:ms. I have rea.son to feel he has told that to the Director. 

Carr. I can tell you this : I don't know whether he has or not. I do know 
that he is close, of course, to him. 

Adams. Are you close to the Director? 

Carr. Me personally? 

Adams. Yes. 


Care. I would say I am on more friendly terms. 

Adams. I am not asking you to do this, because the artillery is firing in oppo- 
site directions, but the day might come when you would have an opportunity 
and my name would be discussed in front of the Director in your presence. I 
would appreciate it if you would tell him what you have told me in that regard. 

Carr. I will tell him exactly what we have said. 

Adams. That is all I want to tell you. If you have any liaison guys between 
the Committee and the Director - - 

two clashes — 

which I think you do have - - 

two dashes. 

Carr. Right. 

Adams. Guys that you are familiar with, if you wanted to pass that word 
on - - 

two dashes. 

Carr. Let me ask you this : is there an issue on this thing? 

Adams. I have reason to believe that the Director has the report. The Di- 
rector has been told that I consider FBI reports of no value and that I have 
so stated. , 

Carr. Do you say you have reason to believe somebody has made an issue? 

Adams. It has come directly to me from the Director. 

Carr. Well, then, there is definitely an issue on it. 

Adams. Right. 

Carr. No. I stick by my guns. You have never said anything to me that 
way. No. 

Adams. Have you ever had any reason to believe? 

Carr. Are you quoting me? No. The only thing I would say that would indi- 
cate that you ever had in any way - - 


two dashes- 
could in any way be involved, would be the fact that you were once an applicant. 

Adams. That is correct. 

Carr. On this other thing then you cannot say? 

Adams. It could have happened today, but I don't know whether it did. The 
rifles have been firing from all directions. 

Carr. I suppose I am putting you on the spot. If you say you don't know 
or can't know, I wog't even ask you. 

Adams. I know what is going on in this particular field. It is too hot, but our 
position is the same as it was in the Monmouth meeting. I am in no position or 
authority of the Secretary to tell you whether she has or has not been. 

Carr. I won't press you on it. 

Have I correctly read the transcription of the monitored call of 
February 25, 1954, between John Adams and Frank Carr, Mr. Lucas? 

Mr. Lucas. There is one remark by ]\Ir. Adams that is, I would 
say, about halfway up the last page you had there, which starts out, 
"Guys that," I believe j-ou read "familiar" and the word here is 

Mr. Prewitt. Yes ; you are correct. Is that the only correction you 
desire to make? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. I read it correctly except with that one change ? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Lucas, did you monitor any other calls between 
these two gentlemen, Mr. Adams and Mr. Carr? 

Mr. Lucas. No, sir, 

Mr. Prewitt. The other calls were monitored by — is it Miss Glancy ? 

Mr. Lucas. Miss Glancy is Mr. Adams' secretary. 

Mr. Prewitt. And Mr. Shinebarger? 

Mr. St. Clair. Miss. 


Mr. Prf:witt. Is Miss Glancy available? 

Mr. CoHN. Can I ask a question of Mr. Lucas on this ? Do you want 
to wait until all the calls are in? 

Senator Munut. Yes, let's have all three of them at once. 

Mr. Lucas, you will remain in the room, because there might be some 
questions of you a little later. 

Miss Glancy, will you please stand and be sworn? 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? 

Miss Glancy. I do. 


Mr. Prewitt. Will you state your full name ? 

Miss Glancy. Eleanor Glancy. 

Senator Mtjndt. May I have the attention of the officer in the door- 
way, please. There is some confusion and sound emanating from out- 
side the committee room. Will you ask those who are not in the com- 
mittee room to stand back a littl'e further from the doorway, please, 
and keep a quiet space between the doorway and the audience 
outside. It is not the people inside the room, but the noise is coming 
from the folks outside. It is quite all right as far as the folks inside 
the room are concerned. 

Mr. Prewitt. Is that Miss or Mrs. ? 

Miss Glancy. Miss. 

Mr. Prewitt. You are secretary to John Adams, is that correct? 

Miss Glancy. That is correct. 

i\Ir. Prewitt. And have been for how long ? 

Miss Glancy. Since October 1, 1953. 

Mr. Prew^itt. I take it you are an expert stenographer? 

Miss Glancy. Well, I am a secretary, sir. I am not a court reporter 
like Mr. Lucas is, 

Mr. Prewitt. Have you had much or little experience in taking 
shorthand notes? 

Miss Glancy. I have had a great deal of experience. 

Mr. Prewitt. Do you consider yourself able to monitor calls and 
take down substantially all that is said in shorthand? 

Miss Glancy. I didn't get every word, sir. 
_ Mr. Prewitt. Do the calls which you monitored and the transcrip- 
tions which you have in front of you represent substantially what 
was said ? 

Miss Glancy. Substantially. 

Mr. Prewitt. Do you have a monitored call, a transcription of a 
monitored call between Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams dated March 2, 1954 ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Did you take that call ? 

Miss Glancy. I did. 

Mr. Prewitt. You were on the line ? 

Miss Glancy. I was on the line. 

Mr. Prewitt. You took it down in shorthand ? 

Miss Glancy. I did. 

Mr. Prewitt. As the two gentlemen conversed, is that correct? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 



Mr, Prewitt. What you have there is substantially what was said ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes. 

Mr. Prewitt. What is the time of that call? 

Miss Glancy. 6 : 45 in the afternoon. 

Mr. Prewitt. I will read the copy that I have, if you will follow it 
with me, and see if I read it correctly. 

That is dated IVIarch 2, 1954, at 5 : 45 p. m. Is that the first call 
that you have ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes. That is the first I have. 

Mr. Prewitt (reading) : 

Mr. Carr. Hello, Frank Carr. 

Mr. Adams. Just a moment until I get my teletype running. My tape — my 
wire recorder. 

Mr. Carr. Your recorder. 

Mr. Adams. Rigrht. Shoot. 

Mr. Caer. Senator Symington 

Mr. Adams. Right 

Mr. Carr. Along with Senator Dirksen has requested that the thing be held 
off so that they can appear. Symington is in Europe and is expected back at 
any time and Senator Dirksen as he told»you so that the thing will be held off. 
The date we will agree on. Now that ought to take care of your situation. 

Mr. Adams. Right 

Mr. Carr. You have two men now. 

Mr. Adams. Good. 

Mr. Carr. I guess that is about it 

Senator Symington. May I interrupt my distinguished friend? 
I was just going to ask the date of that, as long as you referred to me. 
Mr. Prewitt. March 2, 1954, at 5 : 45 p. m. 
Senator Symington. Thank you. 
Senator Mundt. You may proceed. 
Mr. Prewitt (reading) : 

Mr. Carr. I guess that is about it except that I would very much like to get 
together with you on this so we could have a private chat some time while we 
have a quiet moment. 

Mr. Adams. I will give you a ring tomorrow and see if we can get together 

Mr. Carr. I would like to see if we can get together. 

Mr. Adams. Right, pal. 

Have I correctly read the transcription of the call between these 
two men on the date which we have already indicated ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes. 

Mr. Prewitt. That corresponds exactly to the transcription which 
you have ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes. 

Mr. Prewitt. That was taken from your shorthand notes? 

Senator Mundt. We can't hear you. You will have to speak into 
the microphone. 

Miss Glancy. I typed his copy from my shorthand notes. 

Mr. Prewitt. What is the next monitored call that you have be- 
tAveen Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams ? 

Miss Glancy. At 3 : 05 on the afternoon of the 3d of March 1954. 

Mr. Prewitt. March 3, 1954, the day following the first call % 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. I will read it and I will ask you if I read it correctly. 

Mr. Adams. How are you? 

Mr. Carr. Fine. John, would you arrange to have a man come here Friday 
morning — 

may I delete the name ? 


Mr. CoTiN. I think so, Mr. Prewitt. That would be the name of a 
suspected Communist, and if there is no objection, I would ask that 
the name be deleted. If there is any objection at all, if anyone wants 
it in, it is all rio;ht wnth us. 

Senator Mundt. Without objection, the name will be deleted. 

Mr. Prewitt. "He is stationed" — Mr. Cohn, it may be better if I 
don't give the descriptive information about this gentleman. 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. Mr. Prewitt, I would say this : It is all right, 

1 suppose, to give general description, but if, with the permission of 
the committee, you could stay away from names, addresses, phone 
numbers, and serial numbers, I would say that would probably be 
0. K. 

Mr. Prew^itt (reading) : 

He is stationed at Walter Reed Hospital in a neuropsychiatric section. 

Miss Glancy, I have omitted that portion of Mr. Carr's answer which 
describes the person. 
Miss Glancy. Yes. 
Mr. Prewitt (reading) : • 

Mr. Adams. What do you want him for? 
Mr. Carr. Have "X" here at 10 o'clock in the executive room. 
Mr. Adams. What room? 

Mr. Carr. 357. I'll tell you what. Don't have him come to 357. Send him 
to 101. 

Mr. Adams. Risht. O. K. Right. 

Then there is a notation at the bottom of this transcription as 
follows : 

Tried to reach Mr. Carr 9 : 16 3/4/54 — not in. 

Have I correctly read your transcription with the exeception of 
stating a fact which would identify the particular man who is the 
subject of this conversation? 

Miss Glancy. You have. 

Mr. Prewitt. What is the next call that you have between Mr. Carr 
and Mr. Adams? 

Miss Glancy. 9 : 25 on the morning of March 4, 1954. 

Mr. Prewitt. I will read it and I will ask you to follow me and 
see if I read it correctly. 

Mr. Adams. Frank? 

Mr. Carr. Tes. 

Mr. Adams. Frank Carr? How are you? Are you happy? 

Mr. Carr. I don't know why. 

Mr. Adams. What is this new investigation you have started? 

Mr. Carr. What new investigation? 

Mr. Adams. You have a fellow. I understand you subpenaed a fellow who 
works for us named X. 

Mr. Carr. Works for you? 

Mr. Adams. Works for the Army. I have just had a t)hone call that j-ou've 
called him, but I can't find him. They will probably get in touch with me about 

2 minutes after he gets to your place. Is that top secret? If a secret, I don't 
mind your telling me. I'll let it go at that. 

Mr. Carr. It is a secret. I can tell you this : I don't think it affects the Army. 
Mr. Adams. Does it affect his activities in World War II? 
Mr. Carr. I am being guarded because I don't want to tell you something not so. 
Mr. Adams. Is it in connection with someone famous a few years ago? 
Mr. Carr, No. It affects one piece of knowledge which he is supposed to have. 
Mr. Adams. The trouble is, if it affects his covert operations, which has been 
his business for the past 10 years, he is stuck by law. 


Mr. Cakr. I would say this in the first place so your mind is at ease. So far 
as any new investigation is concerned it does not in any way affect the Army. 
In the second place, any information we want is one bit of Information which 
he is alleged to have. 

Mr. Adams. You wouldn't be willing to tell me, 

Mr. Caur. I would be willing. I would have to tell you in a confidential status. 
I can't tell you over the 'phone. You are coming over, aren't you? 

Mr. Adams. No ; I ^ave a meeting in about 1 minute and 50 seconds. Lou 
Berry is coming over. You wouldn't want to tell Lou? 

Mr. Cakr. The reason I am being so cagey, Senator made it strict confidence. 
Other Senators don't know about it. They know but not in detail. 

Mr. Adams. The only reason I am interested is to help our employees in such 
a way that they can be of help to committee yet so as not to violate regulations 
in accidentally not answering questions, and in so doing get in trouble with the 

Mr. Cakr. What is your program? 

Mr. Adams. I have a 9:30 meeting, through at 11 : 00. I can come up and 
see you. 

j\Ir. Cark. When are you going to have lunch? 

Mr. Adams. I'll make a specific point. 

Mr. Cark. I want you to come over on other things. 

Mr. Adams. Is Roy in town? 

]\lr. Cakk. He is but not in the office. » 

]\Ir. AnA]\fs. Do you think it is better not to come to the office? Could you 
drop out of the building and meet me for lunch? 

Mr. Cakr. Yes; where? I prefer to do that. 

Mr. Adams. Do you want to walk across the street to the Methodist lobby? 

Mr. Cakr. Good place, nobody goes there. 

]\Ir. Adams. How about meeting you at the lobby at Methodist? 

Mr. Cark. Good. That will give you time on this. 

Have I correctly read from tlie transcript of your monitoring 
of the call of March 4, 1954, at 0:25 a. m., between Messrs. Carr 
and Adams? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

]Mr. Prewitt. There are no deletions in that call, are there, Miss 

Miss Glancy. Wherever I make a little dot, that means I didn't 
get everything, a word or two. 

Mr. Prewitt. Would you put the mike up a little closer to you, 

Miss Glancy. If I have some dots in, that meant I didn't get every 
word said. 

Mr. Prewitt, There were no deletions? 

Miss Glancy. No, sir; you didn't. I thought you meant mine. 

Mr. Prewitt. Did you monitor a call on March 5, 1954, at 5 : 25 
p. m., between Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Preavitt. Do you have a transcription of that call in front 
of you ? * 

Miss Glancy. I do. 

Mr. Prewitt. I will read from my transcription and I will ask 
you to follow me. [Reading :] 

Mr. Cakr. Hello. 

Mr. Adams. Hello, Frank. 

Mr. Carr. John, how are you? 

Mr. Adams. Fine; how are you? Where the hell have you been all day? 

Mr. Cakr. We had a hearing tliis morning, and after that I went downtown 
with Joe and went to the airport with Roy and stuff like that. 

Mr. Adams. Is Joe going on vacation ".• Tell me the truth. I won't repeat 
to the press. 

Mr. Carr. Answer if. oflBeial no. 


Mr. Adams. Is he going to be back for Wednesday hearings? 

Mr. Carr. Just a couple of days. 

Mr. Adams. Are you going to change signals on us? 

Mr. Carr. What do you mean, change signals? 

Mr. Adams. We are grinding away on what it is proper to tell . . . 

three dots. 

Mr. Carr. We are giving you ample time. 
Mr. Adams. In a very amicable manner. 
Mr. Carr. We are giving you adequate time. 
Mr. Adams. Are you recordin;: this conversation? 
Mr. Carr. Tliere is no sense of both doing it. Cut tape to fit in. 
You cut off yours and then I cut off and when we run have conversation that 
isn't understandable. 

Evidently you don't have the whole substance of that. 
Have I read that sentence right? 
Miss Glancy. Yes, that is correct. 
Mr. Prewitt (continuing) : 

Mr. Adams. What I want to know, I have a couple of questions I v^ant to ask. 
Did you make any headway on what we discussed at lunch? 
Mr. Cakr. I think yes. Let's put this way. I would say without talking too 
much on 'phone, generally yes. Specificlally . . . 

three dots. 

Mr. Adams. No. 

Mr. Carr. Maybe in certain instances, no. Generally, yes. A good deal of 
I\Ir. Adams. What are certain instances: 

Mr. Carr. i have another name of guy we would like to have you bring in. 
Mr. Adams. What is name? 
Mr. CARR. What is that? 
Mr. Carr. X. 
Mr. Adams. X. 
Mr. Car:. Serial X. 
Mr. Adams. X. 
Mr. CARR. He is of all places in the Gun Detachment 


Mr. Adams. What do you know about him? 

Mr. Carr. Same type of thing, John. Like these other people. 

Mr. Adams. I see. 

Mr. Carr. We would like to request also as expeditiously as possible the 201 
file on him and we would like to have him directed to come in for a brief execu- 
tive session on Wednesday. 

Mr. Adams. Or Thursday. 

Wednesday afternoon? 

Mr. Carr. No Wednesday morning. This is prior to other. Wednesday 
10 a. m., 

Mr. ADAMS. I see. 

Mr. CARR. Possibility this could be set back. Put back a couple of days? 

Mr. Adams. How can you do that? 

Mr. Carr. By notifying you. 

Mr. ADAMS. Do you think you could arrange that? 

Mr. Carr. Well, maybe. When I say progress, I do think definitely some 
progress has been made along that line. 

Mr. Adams. You would be interested to know that a guy came in. I won't 
tell you who. In control in area we were discussing and tells me something has 
happened to Dave. Everybody is very pleased with him. He is behaving in 
circumspect manner. Is very interested, is damned good soldier. For God's 
sake don't tell to Roy what I am going to tell you. They are considering him 
for leader.ship course. 

Mt. Caur. What is that? 

Mr. Adams. They take these guys that are going to leadership for school three 
or four weeks at completion of basic, before he goes any place he would go to 

4G620" - 54— pt. 55 1 


leadership school and the guy's fih is flagged wherever he goes that is a graduate 
of the leadership course. Appareiitly good . . . 

Three dots. 

Got rid of Cadillac went in to Augusta and got secondhand Chewy. 

Mr. Carr. That is being discreet. 

Mr. Adams. I think he was persuaded by big boys it was a wise thing to do for 
his own well being. They don't get to use cars much but when he does goes in 
secondhand Chewy. 

Mr. Caur. He has been behaving and as I told you he has never complained. 

Mr. Adams. I don't want you to tell Roy because I don't want him to think he 
has a commitment to leadership school. 

Mr. Carr. . . . 

three dots — 

he will be pestering me to know if anyone will change other things. 

Mr. Adams. What other things? What expected to do? 

Mr. Carr. I would like to report looks about same as before. This part I 

Mr. Adams. I think all you should report is they are pleased with Dave's 

Mr. Carr. This would indicate that he would get whatever he is supposed to • 

Mr. Adams.' I can't make any commitment, Frank. Reason I can't you remem- 
ber trouble we got in because I spoke before I knew the number of weeks he 
would have to stay in Gordon and Roy almost blew the roof off the building. 

Mr. Carr. Let me ask you, is this thing going through? 

Mr. Adams. I am very pleased Dave is behaving at Gordon vpay I was trying 
to persuade you and Roy he should behave at Dlx. 

Mr. Carr. I hope you turned off machine "way I tried to persuade you and 

Mr. Adams. Why? 

Mr. Carr. If this did, would it delay any? 

Mr. Adams. He is in fourth or fifth week of basic. He gets done with basic 
about April 1. I think a leadership course comes to about three or four weeks. I 
think school is April 17. It is my assumption that leadership course is some- 
thing that would be . . . 

three dots. 

into and would be done with. If he were selected for next school, that would 
be way to use time. It would occupy his time. If he graduated and did get 
leadership and did go to next CID School when he came out would not only be 
CID graduate but going to note he is guy who graduated from leadership and 
potential non-com and that is way they go up and become warrant oflScer. In 
other words, he is putting out, 
Mr. Carr. That sounds very good. 

Mr. Adams. Of course, four weeks does not make a man a general. 

Mr. Carr. But don't you tell this to Roy. 

Mr. Adams. I won't. 

Mr. Carr. I want a commitment on that. 

Mr. Adams. Reason I won't tell he would start calling me, "What about 
leadership school"? And Dave would start pestering to go through leadership 
school. Q 

Mr. Carr. I won't tell that everyone is pleased and should continue and if 
continues everything looked good for as much as the situation has always been. 

Mr. Adams. Well? Don't put anyone in the Army in the way of any commit- 
ment though. I have told you from the very beginning we absolutely could not 
make a commitment. As I tried to tell Roy 68 times, if he would let the guy be 
in the Army things would work out a hell of a lot better than if he kept haunting 
us. Now I want to talk to you about — 


Did it go beyond the scope you told me? 

Mr. Carr. No ; it didn't. 

Mr. Adams. Was he helpful or mystified? 


Mr. Carr. I would rather talk to you in private. I would say not too successful. 
Mr. Adams. It fired a somewhat . . 

two dots — 

Mr. Carr. I would say all I can tell you is It has to do with something strictly 
personal. Something under Civil Service and people get called up on something. 
Strictly personal . . . 

three dots — 

I don't want to talk generally on the 'phone but let's get together briefly some- 

Mr. Adams. Monday or Tuesday? 

Mr. Carr. Monday or Tuesday, preferably Monday. On the other situation I 
see general progress. 

Mr. Adams. Now you have — 


scheduled to come back Wednesday. 
Mr. Carr. That was because he wanted to. 
Mr. Adams. If you have him and this — 


Mr. Carr. I indicated Wednesday is day we wanted. 
Mr. Adams. You would put off to Friday? 
Mr. Carr. Officially Wednesday. On general situation this thing does not . . . 

three dots — 

with them. 

three dots — 

... in good position. In fact much better than when I talked to you before. 
Mr. Adams. I don't want to bring — 

down here from — 

Mr. Carr. I'U let you know. 


isn't too far. 

Mr. Adams. Is there possibility you won't want Mr. Stevens next week? 

Mr. Carr. I would say good possibility. I would say if I have authority to say 
such thing, sxo, but I would like, I will leave that to your negotiations. But just 
as a matter of thinking I would say damned good possibility no. 

Mr. Adams. We will shoot for Thursday morning just as nearly as can be. 

Mr. Caee. I would say keep the Indians working and you will be ahead. And 
I would say not until next week unless you guys press for it. 

Mr. Adams. Good. 

Miss Glancy, with the exception of the deletions to which I made 
reference, have I correctly read your transcription of the monitored 
call dated March 5, 1954, at 5 : 25 p. m. between Mr. Carr and Mr. 
Adams ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. The third line from the bottom you said 
"nearly" and it should be "early," I think. One time you left out "it," 
and it didn't change the sense at all. 

The fourth line from the bottom, excuse me. 

Mr. Adams. We will shoot for Thursday morning just as early as can be. 


Mr. Prewitt. On what page is that? 

Miss Glanct. The last one. 

Mr. Prewitt. What word did I use? 

Miss Glancy. "Nearly." 

Mr. Prewitt. Did I use "early"? 

Miss Glancy. No; you used "nearly." 

Mr. Prewitt. It should be "early"? 

Miss Glancy. That is right. 

Mr. Prewitt. In o^her words, that sentence should read : 

Mr. Adams. We will shoot for Thursday morning just as early as can be. 

Miss Glancy. That is right. 

Mr. Prewitt. With the exception of that one correction, did I read 
it correctly? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir; you did. 

Mr. Prewitf. What is the next call between these two gentlemen 
that you monitored ? 

Miss Glancy. Approximately 4 in the afternoon on the 8th of 

Mr. Prewitt. Do you have a transcription of that call in front of 

Miss Glancy. I have. 

Mr. Prewitt. I will read my transcription and I will ask you to 
follow me. [Reading:] 

Mr. Carr. Hello. 

Mr. Adams. Hello, Frank. 

Mr. Carr. John, I take it yon are not going to get a chance to get over here. 

Mr. Adams. "Gosh," Franlf. I have been sitting here working on a paper. 

Miss Glancy, I made a minor correction in that first word, an 
Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 
Mr. Prewitt (reading) : 

I am very apologetic. Until this second I forgot about it. I have been sitting 
here with pencil in hand writing up music. 

Miss Glancy, does the correction that I made materially affect the 
meaning of that sentence? 
Miss Glancy. No. 
Mr. Prewitt (reading) : 

Mr. Carr. It is either a blast — What do you think. It is about 4 : 00 o'clock. 

Mr. Adams. It is too late today. Maybe we had better do it tomorrow. 

Mr. Carr. Let's get together tomorrow. 

Mr. Adams. What do you have on your mind? 

Mr. Care. I want to continue our talk of the other day. I don't want to talk 
on the 'phone. I think I have been successful to some extent. 

Mr. Adams. Oh, do you? Joe going to be in Florida the rest of the week? 

Mr. Carr. Making a speech in New York tomorrow. 

Mr. Adams. Then coming down here? 

Mr. Carr. Wednesday we have this one guy of yours, "Mr. X." 

Mr. Adams. Uh uh. 

Mr. Carr. Plus the FTO. Thursday we probably will have more FTO. Hear- 
ings going on slowly. 

Mr. Adams. Uh uh. 

Mr. Cark. So I would say entirely up to you. I would say maybe you and I 
ought to have a chat sometime soon. 

Mr. Adams. Well, I will try and do it tomorrow. 

Senator McCarthy. The FTO should be FTL, meaning Federal 


Mr. Prewitt. Thank you, sir. [Eeading : ] 

Mr. Adams. I will try and do it tomorrow. I am very apologetic. I just 

Mr. Carr. Okey, John. Time is of the essence. 
Mr. Adams. Okey, Frank. 

Does that conclude tlie call of March 8, and have I correctly read it 
with the exception of the one change which we have already referred 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Pkewitt. My reading corresponds with your transcription of 
your stenographic notes ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Did you monitor a call between these two gentlemen, 
Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams, on March 9, 1954 ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir ; I did. 

Mr. Prewitt. Was that the next call ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir: 

Mr. Prewitt. What was the time ? 

Miss Glancy. 4 : 10 in the afternoon. 

Mr. PRE^VITT. I will read my transcription and I will ask you to 
follow me. [Reading : ] 

Mr. Carr. Hello. 

Mr. Adams. Hello, Frank. 

Mr. Carr. John, let me get my machine on. It is fouled up. 

Mr. Adams. Don't you have a machine that has a buzz? 

Mr. Carr. Not automatically. 

Mr. AuAMS. I see. 

Mr. Carr. I have the old kind. I have to switch it on. 

Mr. Adams. I see. 

Mr. Carr. John, I asked you a week or so ago about this "Mr. X," that morals 
case. What is the outcome of that? Is someone working on it? Are you going 
to get that ? Joe will ask me when he gets back. 

Mr. Adams. I should have by tomorrow noon. I had a target on that and a few 
other things. 

Mr. Carr. That will come over tomorrow noon, right? Sometime tomorrow? 

Mr. Adams. I don't know, Frank, that I indicated I would ever get you a paper. 
• You want to know what happened, where he is in the Army, what his duties are, 
something we can give. 

Mr. Carr. Just a second. I know damned well someone will ask him about that 
and he will be asking me. You will try to get that tomorrow, right? 

Mr. Adams. Right, I will give you facts where he is and what doing. 

Mr. Carr. Right. 

Mr. Adams. All right. 

Mr. Carr. The next one, can you give us the 201 file on this guy, "Mr. X."? 

Mr. Adams. "Mr. X."? 

Mr. Carr. Right. 

Mr. Adams. Right. 

Mr. Carr — 

the next line describes the man to which I have just referred; is that 
correct ? 

Miss Glancy. That is correct. 

Mr. Prewitt (reading) : 

Mr. Adams. Is he in the service now? 

Mr. Carr. No ; he is out. 

Mr. Adams. Then we will have to send to St. Louis for the file. 

Mr. Carr. Right. He formerly served— 

and the next few words also describe the man ; is that correct? 
Miss Glancy. That is correct. 


Mr. Prewttt (reading) : . 

Mr. Adams. Discharged — 

and there are also descriptive words immediately following that; is 
that correct ? 

Miss Glancy. That is correct. 

Mr. Prewitt (reading) : 

Mr. Carr. Right. 

Mr. Adams. Right. 

Mr. Cark. His service No. is . 

Mr. Adams. . 

Mr. Carr. He has previously had other serial numhers with the Army, why that 
would he, I don't know. 

Mr. Adams. Perhaps because he was an enlisted man in previous service. 

Mr. Carr. I have one, . 

Mr. Adams. Right. 

]\Ir.- Carr. And the other number probably enlisted, does not seem to be long 
enough, . 

Mr. Adams. That is long enough, I think. No, it isn't, 

Mr. Carr. I don't know if that is long enough, is supposed to be his last 

number. Born day. 

Mr. Adams. You know a lot about him. 

Mr. Carr. A little about him. Born in country. 

Mr. Adams. Right. 

Mr. Carr. Another thing you could do. Now, St. Louis takes time? 

Mr. Adams. I am sure it would he out there because he is out of service. I 
don't know where it is. We will have to find it. It probably never was in here. 

Mr. Carr. Put that in the works anyhow. I guess that is all. Okey, I have 
some other things. 

Mr. Adams. I see. Okey, what else. 

Mr. Carr. That is all. I take it you are not interested in getting together 
with me. 

Mr. Adams. That is not so. I am working myself to the bone. I am working 
my head off. 

Mr. Caer. I thought you possibly were when I talked to you last time. 

Mr. Adams. Frank, don't say that. 

Mr. Carr. I am serious, John. I have gone to great lengths. I am a little dis- 
turbed ... 

three dots. 

Mr. Adams. That is not so. I have not been able to get away from my desk. 
Mr. Carr. It is all right with me, John. It does not make that much difference 
to me. I thought I was working with you. 

Mr. Adams. I hope you are. I hope we are working on the same problem. 

Mr. Carr. I did want to talk to you. It is up to you, boy. 

Mr. Adams. I will be up to see you. 

Mr. Carr. I had gone ahead and got involved in a commitment. 

Mr. Adams. I am interested, Frank. 

Mr. Carr. This is my last offer, friend. 

Mr. Adams. Okay, bye. 

Does that conclude the call to which we have already made ref- 
erence ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt, And with the exception of the deletions which I called 
to your attention, have I correctly read your transcription of that call ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Now, Miss Glancy, where you put dots, does that mean 
that something was left out ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir ; it means I didn't get a word there. 

Mr. Prewitt. On all the calls I have read, on all the transcriptions, 
is it your testimony that those transcriptions substantially reflect the 
conversations between Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams? 


Miss Glancy. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. xVnd nothino; in a material way was left out? 

JNIiss Glancy. Not that I know of. 

Mr. Prewitt. And you, to the best of your ability, took down every 
word that was said ? Is that correct ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewtltt. Now, are there any more monitored calls that you 
took between Carr and Adams ? 

]\fiss Glancy. No, sir. There are two more calls, but I did not take 

IMr. Prewitt. Then we have concluded all the calls that you mon- 

Miss Glancy. You have. 

Mr. Prewitt. Mrs. Shinebarger ? 

Senator Mundt. Will you raise your right hand and be swor. , 


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 

Mrs. Shinebarger. I do. 


Mr. Prewitt. Will you state your name, please ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. AngeUne Shinebarger. 

Mr. Prewitt. Is that Miss or Mrs. ? 

Mrs, Shinebarger. Mrs. 

Mr. Prewitt. Mrs? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Right. 

Mr. Prewitt. Now, Mrs. Shinebarger, are you also secretary to Mr. 
Adams ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Sir, I am secretary to the Deputy Counselor. 

Mr. Prewitt. And who is the Deputy Counselor? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Mr. Berry. 

Mr. Prewitt. And do you on occasion take dictation from Mr. 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Yes, sir, I do, when his secretary is absent. 

Mr. Prewitt. And what experience have you had in taking short- 
hand notes and transcribing them from these notes? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. I have taken notes for many years. 

]\Ir. Prewitt. You, I take it, are an expert in that field now ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Well 

Mr. Prewitt. You have had a lot of experience ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Did you monitor any of the telephone calls between 
Mr. John Adams and Mr. Frank Carr, during the month of March 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Yes, sir, I did. 

Mr. Prewitt. How many calls between these two gentlemen did 
you monitor ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. One. 

Mr. Prewitt. And the date of that call was what ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. The 6th of March. 


Mr. PuKWiiT. Do you have a tnuiscriptioii of that monitoring in 
front of yoLi? 

Mr. Shinebarger. Yes, sir, I do. 

Mr. PREWiTr. And you only monitored the one call? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Right. 

Mr. Prewitt. March 6, 1954, and that was at what time of day ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. At 10 : 47 a. m. 

Mr. Prewitt. Is the transcription which 3'ou have in front of you 
an accurate transcription of what was said between these two gentle- 
men ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Yes, sir; except for a few dashes. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Prewitt, in order to save time, may I say 
that I am sure that I can, in the name of Mr. Carr, stipulate that all 
of the monitored calls which you have before you will be testified to 
as accurat:ely monitored by the witnesses. That will save us some time, 
and you can read them into the record. 

Mr. Prewitt. Thank you. Senator. 

I will read the transcri])tion which I have in my hand, and I will 
ask you to follow me and see if I read it correctly. 

This is a call dated March 6, 1954, time 10 : 47 a. m., is that correct? 

]Mrs. Shinebarger. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Between Mr. Adams and Mr. Carr. [Reading :] 

Mr. Adams. Man named 
X four dashes — 

yesterday. Are you sure you got right guy? 

]Mr. Carr. No ; that's why I told you we might let liim oX 

Mr. Adams. He is as clean as ivory soap. There is another man by that 
name. Lives in New York. Used to be in service, who is — 


Mr. Carr. In service recently? 

Mr. Auams. Long time ago. 

Mr. Carr. How long ago? 

Mr. Adams. 6 or 7 years ago. 

Mr. Carr. Do you have the file? 

Mr. Adams. No; I .iust had a call to that effect. They say the file is clean. 

Mr. Carr. That's why we wanted 201 file. 

Mr. Adams. I think you will find man by same name practicing in 


Mr. Carr. Blank? 

Mr. Adams. I think you have the wrong man. 

Mr. Carr. I am inclined to think so too. Is the young man's background in 
New Jersey? 

Mr. Adams. I don't know, haven't seen the file. That's what my people just 
told me. 

Mr. Carr. Can you send me the file? 

Mr. Adams. Yes; I can send you the file by Monday or Tuesday. Maybe 
by then you will tell me you have mistaken identity. 

Mr. Carr. Alright, fine. What's all this 


in the paper? 

Mr. Adams. I don't know why he resigned. 

Mr. Carr. What the hell. I think the guy must be on the whacky side. Is he 
trying to put himself in the position of prominence? 

Mr. Adams. He is public relations fellow. 

Mr. Carr. Unless he was guy that took over during recent fracas. 


Mr. Adams. I am comi)letely in the dark about it. Somebody may linow more 
about it than I do. I think 

two dashes. 

Mr. Cakb. He looks like an Indian. 

Does that coiichide the call of March 6 ? 

Mrs. Shinebaiujer. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Did I correctly read it with the exception of the 
deletions to which I made reference? 

]\Irs. SiiiNEBARGER. On the 10th to the last line, page 1, you said 
"why" and it should be "that's what my people just told me." 

Mr. Prewitt. Does that change the meaning of the call ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. I wouldn't say so. 

Mv. Prewitt. With the exception of that one correction, did I read 
it correctly ? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. That is right. 

Mr. Prewitt. As I understand it, that is the only call which you 
monitored between Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams? 

Mrs. Shinebarger. Eight. 

Mr. Prewitt. Thank you. 

Will you call — is it Mr. Gould or Miss Gould ? 

Senator McCarthy. Again, Mr. Prewitt, I am sure that in Mr. 
Carr's name I can stipulate that whatever you have before you is 
what this young lady took down. 

Mr. Prewitt. We will dispense with formalities. Senator, and I will 
just read the call. 

Senator Mundt. Would 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 ? 

Miss Gould, I do. 


Mr. Prewitt. State your name, please ? 

Miss Gould. Lucille Gould. 

Mr. Prewitt. And that is Mrs. Gould ? 

Miss Gould. Miss. 

Mr. Prewitt. Miss Gould ? 

Miss Gould. Yes. 

Mr. Prewitt. And, Miss Gould, do you have a transcription of the 
monitored call between Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams dated March 10, 
19i54, 9 : 35 a. m. ? 

Miss Gould. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. You monitored that call ? 

Miss Gould. I did. 

Mr. Prewitt. Will you follow me please as I read from the copy 
that I have in my hand. 

At the beginning is the following language, and I quote : 

Record of Telephone Conversation Between Mr. Frank Carr, Permanent In- 
vestigating Subcommittee of Senate, and Mr. Adams, Department Counselor. 

Mr. Cakr. Could I bother you for a couple of minutes on a couple of names? 
If you want us to, we will follow up with a letter. 

INIr. Adams. Go ahead. 

Mr. Carr. If you can, let us know where these are located. The first one — 

46620°— 54— pt. 55 5 


Miss Gould, I will omit readino; any further from that paragraph. 
Do you agree with me that is all in the nature of giving names and 
describing the persons whose names are given ? 

Miss Gould. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. The rest of that paragraph [reading] : 

Mr. Adams. They insi)ect meat. 

Mr. Cakr. Oh. WeU, find out where he is, what is the possibility of asliing 
him in for Thursday mornin.s. depending upon where he is stationed. 
Now, we would lilve to have the 201 files on these guys : Also, where they are — 

Do you agree with me that there follows the names of some five 
persons with certain descriptions following the names of each of the 
persons ? 

Miss Gould. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. And there is no other information contained on 
the first page of this transcription? 

Miss Gould. No, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt. Except the information about the names of these 
five pei-sons ; is that correct ? 

Miss Gould. That is correct, sir. 

Mr. Prewitt (reading) : 

Mr. Adams. If I ever get away from my desk, I'm coming over there. 
Mr. Carr. Good. We are having hearing at 10: 30 this morning, and another 
one tomorrow afternoon. 

Mr. Adams. I think Berry is catching the one this morning. You have got — 

Mr. X— 

this morning? 
Mr. Carr. That's right. 

Now, with the exception of the deletions to which we have mudo 
reference, did I correctly read the transcription of that monitored 
call, that is, the one dated March 10-, 1954, between Mr. Carr and 
Mr. Adams? 

Miss Gould. You did, sir. 

Mr. Pkewiti\ There are no other monitored calls between Mr. Carr 
and Mr. Adams ; is that correct ? 

I am addressing that not only to you but to the other two ladies who 

Miss Gould. That is correct. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. Is it intended to put in the one that Mr. Cohn has, or 
the other side has, at this time ? 

Mr. Cohn. No. If I might explain that. Senator Mundt, in our 
office we do not eavesdrop, we do not monitor calls, we never 
have, and we don't intend to, sir. When we want to get down some 
information to be quoted or for an appointment, to check on, what we 
will do is have the person saying it is Mr. Carr talking to Mr. Adams. 
Mr. Carr will say to Mr. Adams, "John, I can liave a girl get on the 
phone to get down this information." That happened in one case 
when we were trying to get a quote from Mr. Adams for use in our 
annual report on the Army security system. 

It is short. It has no particular bearing on this controversy. That 
is the only thing in this whole case. We don't care whether it goes 
in or whether it doesn't go in. It is available. 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, would you prefer to have it in? 


Mr. Welch. Oh tlie whole we would prefer to have it in, Mr. Cohn. 

Mr. Cohn. By fill means have it in. 

Senator Mundt. We are going to have a 5-minute recess. We can 
have the whole thing in. 

Mr. Cohn. Theii, we would be very glad to have it in. 

Senator Mundt. We will have a 5-minute recess and then we will 
have that phone call. 

(Brief recess.) 

Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order. 

I am sure our guests are all conversant with the connnittee rules 
forbidding audible manifestations of approval or disapproval on the 
part of the audience. It will not be necessary to repeat that now. Im- 
mediately prior to the recess it was agreed that the first item of busi- 
ness following the recess would be the reading into the record of the 
telephone call supplied by the so-called Cohn-McCarthy side of this 

Mr. Maner, do you have that call, and will you take care of that, 
or is there somebody else? 

Mr. Maner. Mr. Chairman, I have it. I want the party here who 
took it as a witness. I believe she is here. 

Mrs. Mims. 

Senator Mundt. Is Mrs. Mims in the room? 

Mrs. Duckett, will you send for Mrs. Mims ? I think she is on the 

While we are waiting we can start the questions around with these 
last monitors in case anybody has any questions. The Chair has none. 

Do you have any, Senator McClellan ? You have none. 

Senator Dikksen. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson? 

Senator Jackson. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter? 

Senator Potter. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington? 

Senator Dworshak? 

Mr. Welch? 

Mr. St. Clair? 

Senator McCarthy is not here so we are back to the same point now 
waiting for Mrs. Mims. 

Mr. Cohn, we are waiting for Mrs. Mims. 

Mr. Cohn. I called her a few minutes ago and asked her to be up 

Senator Mundt. I wonder, Mr. Maner, if w^e could do the same with 
her call as we did with Senator Dirksen's? Kead it and then swear 
her afterward. 

Mr. Cohn. If you want to go ahead reading it without her being 
here, I don't care. 

Senator Mundt. How about you, Mr. Welch? 

Mr. Welch. That would be all right, except I probably will have 
1 or 2 questions to ask. 

Mr. Cohn. She is on the way. 

By the way, Mr. Chairman, I did want to ask a question or two of 
Mr. Lucas. 


Senator Mundt. We worked our way throu^li the 10-minute periods 
to Senator McCarthy. Mr. Lucas is here and you can ask him those 
questions now. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Lucas, will you get by a microphone, please. 
You can do it from the committee table if you want to. Mr. Cohn has 
a question of you. 

Mrs, Mims, you take the witness stand. 

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Welch tells me Miss Glancy has left. 
I did want to ask her a few questions to establish that she does not 
monitor for Mr. Adams in the regular course of business, that this 
was a special little job done after the blowup on the 24th of February. 

Senator Mundt. We can have Miss Glancy come back, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. Will you do me the courtesy of saying you released 
her or at least we had a conversation 

Senator Mundt. No, I don't recall releasing her, but I don't recall 
telling her to stay, either. So if you will just have her come back, 

Mr. Welch. I got the impression that you were all through with 
her. I wouldn't have had her go if I had known. 

Mr. CoHN. Maybe I don't even need her back. All I want to bring 
out from Miss Glancy — maybe Mr, Welch will concede it — is that she 
does not monitor Mr. Adams' calls as a matter of regular course of 
business; that she did only a special monitoring job on Mr. Carr here 
so as to give Mr. Adams the opportunity to try to build a record for 
himself of self-serving declarations on his part. 

Mr. Welch. If Mr. Cohn would put it quite a lot differently from 
that he might understand how I would or would not agree to it. I am 
willing to say she wasn't his regular secretary. Wait a moment. 

Mr. Cohn. She is his secretary. 

Mr. Welch, Perhaps what you waiJit from me is that there isn't a 
fixed policy in that office of monitoring calls as there is in the Secre- 
tary's office. That I would agree with. 

Mr. Cohn. Can you tell me whether or not there are any other in- 
stances prior to this time when she did monitoring calls? 

Mr. Welch. I can't tell you either way on that, sir. I just don't 
know. If you would rather have her up, you certainly can have her. 

Mr. Cohn. That is all I wanted to estalDlish, if Mr. Welch can get 
a written statement to that effect. What we want to establish, Mr. 
Chairman, is it a fact that this is the first and only little job of monitor- 
ing done in Mr. Adams' office and was it done after this luncheon in 
Senator Dirksen's office ? So the significance of it will be quite clear. 

Mr. Welch. We will either produce her, Mr. Cohn, or a statement 
from her along the lines you suggest. 

Mr. Cohn. All I want to ask of Mr. Lucas, Mr. Chairman, is this : 
Mr. Lucas, you monitored the February 25 call between Mr. Adams 
and Mr. Carr, is that right, sir? 

Mr. Lucas. That is right. 

Mr. CbHN. Do you work for Mr. Adams ? 

Mr. Lucas. No, sir ; I don't work in his office. 

Mr. Cohn, Do you work on the same floor with Mr. Adams ? 

Mr. Lucas. No, sir. 

Mr. Cohn. You work for Mr. Stevens, don't you ? 

Mr. Lucas. That is correct. 


Mr. CoHN. How did you happen to monitor Mr. Adams' phone 

Mr. Lucas. Because he is the Department counselor and he was up 
in our office and asked me to monitor a call which we made from our 


Mr. CoiiN. Oh, In other words, he was up in Mr. Stevens' office 
when he spoke to Mr. Carr and he asked you to monitor the call ; is 
that right? 

Mr. Lucas. That is ri^rht. 

Mr. CoHN. Did you ever monitor any other phone call for Mr. 
Adams ? 

Mr. Lucas. No, sir. 

Mr. CoHN. So this one call the day after the blowup is the first and 
only call which you have ever monitored for Mr. John Adams; is 

Mr. "Welch. Mr. Chairman, I don't quite understand the word 
"blowup." If he will give a date and then state 

Mr. CoHN. Surely. I am talking about the fact, Mr. Chairman, 
that this was the day following the luncheon attended by Mr. Stevens 
over here and the memorandum of agreement and the day of his re- 
action to that memorandum of agreement, and his subsequent state- 
ments. That is what I am referring to. It was the day after the 
open unpleasantness. 

Senator Mundt. Can you answer the question now ? 

Mr. Lucas. Could I have the question repeated? 

Mr. Con X. Surely. The question was this : 

It it a fact that this monitored call is the first and only time that 
you monitored a telephone call for Mr. John Adams? 

Mr. Lucas. That is correct. 

Mr. CoHN. I have no further questions. 

Senator McCarthy. Just one. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. I am sorry. 

Did Mr. Adams come up there for the sole purpose of making that 
call and have you monitor it ? 

Mr. Lucas. I don't recall, sir. I don't think I would know whether 
that was the sole purpose. I don't recall the circumstances, except 
that he asked me to monitor a call that he was going to make to Mr. 

Senator McCarthy. You see, this is rather important. There 
were no calls monitored with Mr. Carr until after the meeting with 
Mr. Stevens on the 24th. I am curious to know whether or not Mr. 
Adams came up to that office for the purpose of making that call and 
having j'ou monitor it. If you could tell us that it would be helpful. 

Mr. Lucas. I don't know for what purpose he came up to our office, 
or what else he might have done while up there. 

Senator McCarthy. How long was he there? 

Mr. Lucas. I don't recall, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. In any event, he came up and said "monitor 
this call between me and Mr. Carr"? 

Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir. That is what he did. 

Senator McCarthy. Thank you. 

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch. 


Mr. Welch. Hy some occult or electronic power, Miss Glancy was 
stopped on her way down and is in the courtroom. 

Senator Mundt. Very good. I suggest, then, that she take a posi- 
tion either at the witness table or at the table, and I see another young 
lady there, Mr. Adams' regular secretary, and I believe if Mr. Cohn 
or Senator McCarthy has any questions to ask her or Miss Glancy, we 
can ask them now and these witnesses will be dismissed. 

Miss Glancy ? 

Miss Glangt. I am here. Senator. 


Mr. Cohn. Miss Glancy, just some short questions. You moni- 
tored some calls between Mr. Adams for whom you worked and Mr. 
Frank Carr, after the 25th of February ; is that right? 

Miss Glancy. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Did you ever monitor any calls between Mr. Adams and 
Mr. Carr before that ? 

Miss Glancy. Before the 25th of February? 

Mr. Cohn. Yes. 

Miss Glancy. No, I did not. 

Mr. Cohn. You did not? 

Miss Glancy. I did not. 

Mr. Cohn. Is it a regular practice in Mr. Adams' office to have calls 

Miss Glancy. It was not prior to that. 

Mr. Cohn. It was not prior to that? 

Miss Glancy. Yes. 

Mr. Cohn. When did Mr. Adams start monitoring calls for the first 
time ? 

Miss Glancy. In the latter part of February or early March. 

Mr. Cohn. In the latter part of February or early March? 

Miss Glancy. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Did he have all calls monitored? 

Miss Glancy. Not all calls. 

Mr. Cohn. What calls did he have monitored besides calls with 
Mr. Carr? 

Miss Glancy. With some other committees. 

Mr. Cohn. With some other committees of Congress? 

Miss Glancy. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. I see. With anyone else ? 

Miss Glancy. I don't recall anyone else. 

Mr. Cohn. In any event, the picture is that prior to this February 
24 date, when the unpleasant experience occurred between Mr. Stevens 
and the committee, at least Mr. Stevens thought it was unpleasant, 
there was no monitoring, as far as Mr. Adams' office was concerned ? 

Miss Glancy. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. And after that, there was monitoring? 

JNIiSs Glancy. That is correct. 

Mr. Cohn. Now, do you know whether there was anything to stop 
telling Mr. Carr, "I have Miss Glancy on the phone to take down 
the call"? 

Miss Glancy. The first time I took a call, he said he had a recorder, 
and I thought INIr. Carr understood. 


Mr. CoHN. He said he had a wire recorder or tape recorder? 

Miss Glancy. Yes. 

]\lr. CoHN. Didn't that sound to you as if there was some joking or 
something going back and forth ? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, but they did wait for a while. 

Mr. CoiiN. Because as you know, the fact is we did not have any 
recorder and we were not recording. I don't think I have any fur- 
ther questions of Miss Ghmcy, Senator. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen has a question for her. 

Senator DirivSen. Miss Glancy, in the course of monitoring calls, 
I presume you do on occasions hear profanity over the phone? 

Miss Glancy. Yes, sir. 

Senator Dirksen. Do you record it exactly as it comes over the line ? 

Miss Glancy. I didn't used to, but I believe I did record a word or 
so in those calls that you have. 

Senator Dirksen. 'Would you say in the course of the calls that are 
instantly before us, that there was an undue amount of profanity 
or vituperation? 

Miss Glancy. Not in those at all, no. 

Senator Dirksen. Nothing beyond what you are ordinarily accus- 
tomed to? 

JSIiss Glancy. I wouldn't say ordinarily accustomed to, either. 

Senator Dirksen. That is all. 

Mr. CoHN. Nothing more. 

Senator McCarthy. No questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Miss Glancy, you are now dismissed. How about 
the other young lady who monitored calls ? 

Mr. CoHN. I have no questions of her. 

Senator ]\Iundt. We are all through with Mr. Lucas then, too ? 

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. St. Clair. Mr. Chairman, I think I have two questions, if I 

Senator Mundt. Yes, you may. 

Mr. St. Clair. Miss Glancy, you did not monitor calls between Mr. 
Cohn and Mr. Adams, did you? 

Miss Glancy. Well, not — I don't know whether Mr. Adams knew 
that I was or not, when Mr. Cohn, his first call, I believe, to Mr. Adams, 
it had been the custom in our office to monitor calls. Mr. Adams was 
not in his own office, he had not moved into his own office yet, and I 
did monitor the tag end of a call, got the telephone numbers where we 
could reach Mr. Cohn, after Mr. Adams 

]\Ir. St. Clair. When was that, please ? 

Miss Glancy. Early in October. 

Mr. St. Clair. Do you have the notes for that ? 

Miss Glancy. Somewhere, I would. I did not get in on the first of 
the call at all. Mr. Adams was not at his desk, and 1 was not at my 

Mr. St. Clair. Other than that, then, have you monitored any calls 
between Mr. Cohn and Mr. Adams? 

Miss Glancy. I liave not. 

Mr. St. Clair. AVell, now^, when you monitored the first call between 
Mr. Adams and Mr. Carr that you have already testified about, there 
was no doubt in your mind but that Mr. Carr knew the call was being 
monitored either by machine or by you, w^as there ? 


Miss Glancy. Do you mean Mr. Carr or Mr. Cohn? 

Mr. St. Claie. Mr. Carr. 

Miss Glanct. I thought he knew it was being monitored. 

Mr. St. Clair. Thank you. 

Senator McCarthy. Just one question there, Miss Glancy. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. May I say, while I don't like this monitoring 
practice, I want to make it very clear that we certainly can't blame a 
competent secretary for doing what her boss tells her to do, so that 
there is certainly no blame on you. But the only conversation that 
Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams had which might indicate that either of 
them knew about monitoring was when one said, "Have you got your 
machine on?" And the other one said, "No, have you got yours on? 
Is there a buzz on it ?" And they were kidding back and forth. 

Beyond that, there was never any conversation of any kind that 
would indicate that Mr. Carr knew the phone calls were being mon- 
itored ? 

Miss Glancy. I don't recall any. 

Senator McCarthy. And as far as you known, when Mr. Carr — 
when Mr. Adams would call Mr. Carr, and they started to have a con- 
versation, "Hello, John," "Hello, Frank," there was nothing to indi- 
cate to Frank Carr that there was a monitor on the phone, was there ? 

Miss Glancy. No, sir. 

Senator McCarthy. Just one other question. Mr. St, Clair asked 
you whether or not you had monitored any calls between Mr. Adams 
and Mr. Cohn. There were no calls between Mr. Cohn and Mr. Adams 
after the 25th, were there ? 

Miss Glancy. Of February ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Miss Glancy. I don't recall any. 

Senator McCarthy. Eight, so you could not have monitored any ? 

Miss Glancy. I don't recall any. 

Senator McCarthy. That is all. Thank you very much. 

Senator Mundt. Are we now through with these people engaged 
in monitoring so they can go back to their offices ? They will be dis- 
missed as witnesses. 

Mrs. Mims, will you stand and be sworn ? 

Mr. St. Clair. Mr. Chairman, I don't like to belabor this, but as I 
go through my notes on the conversations of March 5, 1954, I would 
like to ask the witness if there is not in the text of that conversation 
evidence that Mr. Carr knew the telephone conversation was being 

Senator McCarthy. I think the conversation will speak for itself, 
if Mr. St. Clair wants to read it. I don't think Miss Glancy should 
be called upon to pass upon it. 

Mr. St. Clair. In that event, I would like to read a portion of it. 

Senator Mundt. You may read it, 

Mr. St. Clair. You follow me. Miss Glancy, in case I don't do it 
properly. [Reading :] 

Mr, Adams. Are you recording this conversation? 
Mr. Carr. There is no sense both doing it. Cut tape to fit in. 
Mr. Carr (continuing). You cut off yours and then I cut off and when we run 
have conversation that isn't understandable. 


I believe that is all that ]iertains to monitoring; is that right? 

Miss Glancy. That is correct. 

Mr. St. Clair. I have read it properly and correctly? 

Miss Glancy. Yes. 

Senator McCarthy. No questions. 

Senator Munot. Is that all, Mr. St. Clair? 

Mr. St. Claih. Thank you. 

Senator Mundt. For the fourth time, we will dismiss these three 
people engaged in monitoring and you may go back to your offices, 
unless someone has another question. 

Mrs. j\Iims, will you stand and be sworn. 

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 ? 

Mrs. INIiMS. I do. 


Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, I will waive the ordinary preliminary 
questions as to ability and experience and get direct to the monitored 

Senator Muxdt. Very well, sir. 

Mr. Maner, will you proceed to get this monitored call into the 
record in appropriate style ? 

Mr. Maner. Will you state your name, please? 

Mrs. Mtms. Frances P. Minis. 

Mr. Maner. Mrs. Mims, you have testified here before? 

Mrs. Mims. Yes ; I have. 

Mr. Maner. Do you have before you a copy of the monitored call 
about which you are testifying? 

Mrs. Mims. No, sir; I do not. 

Mr. Maner. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that will handicap us some- 

Senator Mundt. May the Chair suggest that you sit beside Mrs. 

Mr. Maner. That, Mr. Chairman, will be a pleasure. 

Senator Mundt. Mayl>e you could have her read it. 

Mrs. Mims, please read slowly and carefully, making very sure that 
you read exactly what is there, and indicating where there are omis- 
sions indicated by dots on the manuscript — indicate that as you read. 

Mr. Maner. Before beginning to read, Mrs. Mims, is it a practice 
in your office to monitor telephone conversations? 

Mrs. Mims. No, sir. 

]\Ir. Maner. What was the reason for monitoring this particular 
telephone conversation? 

Mrs. Mims. As I recall, Mr. Maner, it was Mr. Carr's wish to secure 
from Mr. Adams, if possible, a statement of disapproval or approval 
of that portion of our annual report which we had ready for the final 
mimeographed draft. I think he wanted an O. K. from Mr. Adams 
on that particular portion pertaining to the Army and our investiga- 
tion of Communist infiltration into the Army. 

Mr. Maner. Was it at Mr. Carr's request, then, that you monitored 
the call? 


Mrs. MiMS. Yes, sir. He advised me that at some time during the 
conversation he would ask me to come on the wire, and to make prepa- 
rations to take any dictation which Mr. Adams might give. 

Mr. Maner. Do you know whether or not Mr. Adams knew that 
you were on the telephone and monitoring the call ? 

Mrs. MiMS. I am certain that he did, although I cannot recall the 
exact words Mr. Carr used. 

Wlien I came on the wire, he either asked, "Are you on?" or some- 
thing to the effect. I had the impression that Mr. Adams knew I was 
on the telephone. 

Mr. Maner. Now will you proceed to read the call ? 

Mrs. MiMS (reading) : 

Telephone conversation between Mr. Carr and IMr. John Adams (Washington, 
D. C, to Amherst, Mass.) January 9, 19 — 

I have 1953. It should be 1954. 

Carr. ... In the report, we are talking about the loyalty setup. 

(Mr. Carr read that portion of the annual report of the subcommittee having 
to do with the Army loyalty program.) 

Carr. . . .Is that correct so far? 

Adams. No, that is not correct. 

Carr. What is correct? 

Adams. Under the directive established by Executive Order 10450, the Depart- 
ment of the Army Loyalty Appeal Board has been abolished and has been super- 
seded by the Loyalty Review Board and the personnel is entirely different. 

Carr. Is that the result of an Executive order? 

Adams. The result of the Executive order. The thing was in the mill before 
the Monmouth hearings. 

Carr. The Loyalty Board set up in the Department of the Army has been 

Adams. If you are trying to create the impression that the loyalty setup 
was changed as a result of the Monmouth hearings, I am not going to say it. 
I tell you the whole thing was in the mill before the Monmouth hearings began. 

Carr. It had not actually happened before though, had it? It was just in 
the mill. Was East released before the hearings on Monmouth began? . . . 

I have indicated at this point that I missed a few words. 

Carr (continuing). What about East? 

Adams. East? Oh, he had been released before. 

Carb. Was he removed, or did he become inactive? 

Adams. He was removed ... in July. 

Carr. I want a statement to use in finishing up our report; something you 
approve that we can go on ; not something you will fight about later. 

Adams. Anything you want to say along this line I just told you is cleared 
if you say it that way. But East was removed and his services terminated in 
July. His services had been terminated about July. 

Carr. You are saying there has been a change in the Loyalty Appeal Board, 
and that it has now been superseded by the Loyalty Review Board, and that the 
personnel is entirely different ; the personnel of the Loyalty Review Board is 
entirely diiferent. That comes from an Executive order. You mean we cannot 
take credit for any of it? 

Adams. That is true. From April to about December we were operating . , . 

and I skipped words there — 

struggling to operate between two directives of . . . 

and more words skipped — 

our switchover was firmed up in about October . . . 

words are deleted here, too. 

Adams (continuing) : We were between two agencies of the Army while our 
program was firming up under the new Executive order, but security has nothing 
to do with Board procedures. 

Carr. Maybe. If . . . 


and some words omitted — 

I am amazed. It is an amazing coincidence. 

Adams. Maybe so. 

Cauk. Amazing coincidence. It sure makes it hard to put the report together. 
The Loyalty Board has been revised in accordance with lOxecutive order 104,'30, 
and then the Appeal Board has been replaced by the Ix)yalty Review Board. 

Adams. That Is correct. 

Cark. You removed nobody? 

Ada MS. Nobody. 

Cark. Everybody on the Loyalty Appeal Board had his services terminated 
when the Board was abolished? 

Adams. That is correct. 

Cauk. Do me a favor, will you? Fix me up a statement on all this in writing 
so I can talk to Roy and Joe and get this thing finished up for the report. Will 
you do that for me as soon as you can? 

That was the end of that, because I received a signal to leave the wire. 

Mr. Maner. That was not the end of the conversation ? 

Mrs. MiMS. So far as I know, no, sir. 

Mr. Maner. In some 4 or 5 places you stated that words were omit- 
ted. Will you state to the committee the reason those w^ords were 

Mrs. MiMs. I did not understand them or one of the parties was 
going so fast I couldn't take it. I am not a court reporter. 

INIr. Maner. Other than those omissions which you indicated, is 
that a complete and correct transcript of the telephone call as you 
heard it? 

Mrs. MiMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Maner. No further qitestions, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Is that the only telephone call, Mrs. Mims, that 
you monitored? 

Mrs. Mims. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. In this whole controversy? 

Mrs. Mims. Yes, sir. 

Senator Mundt. No further questions from the Chair. 

Senator McClellan? 

Senator McClellan. No questions. 

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen? Senator Jackson? Senator 
Potter? Senator Symington? Senator Dworshak? Mr. Welch or 
Mr. St. Clair? 

Mr. Welch. Just one or two. 

Mrs. Mims, would it make any difference to you if you sat in the 
other chair? The reporter is locked in where he is. He can't move 
very well either way. Let's see if that hurts anyone else. Does that 
bother you, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Not a bit. 

Mr. Welch. Thanks. 

Mrs. Mims, only one or two questions. There was a portion of the 
conversation on that day that you did not monitor, is that correct? 

Mrs. Mims. That is true, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. Are you in a position, Mrs. Mims, to tell me whether 
it was tlie first ])art that you did notinonitor or the last part, or did 
you perhaps monitor in the middle so that there were two segments, 
one earlier than yours and one after yours? 

Mrs. Mims. I know there was one earlier, Mr. Welch, because I had 
been advised that w^hen he gave me a certain signal on the intercom, 


I was to come on the wire. How long lie talked with Mr, Adams 
after I left the wire, I can't say. 

Mr. Welch. Did you ever learn that the subject of that unmoni- 
tored part of the conversation was Mr. Schine ? 

Mrs. MiMS. I have no knowledge whatever of what the conversa- 
tion was about. 

Mr. Welch. You never learned anything about it ? 

Mrs. MiMS. No, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Do you ordinarily — strike that out. 

I think attached to the transcription of your monitored call are 
you own stenographic notes, is that right? 

Mrs. MiMS. That is true. 

Mr. Welch. Do you recall or could you establish by looking at a 
calendar that January 9, 1954, was a Saturday ? 

Mrs. MiMS. I remember it without referring to the calendar, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Do you ordinarily work on Saturdays ? 

Mrs. MiMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. T observe you all seem to work very hard. Could I ask 
you this, Mrs. Mims : How many people — strike that out. 

You reside, I judge, at the address 101 in this building? 

Mrs. MiMs. That is right. 

Mr. AVelch. How many secretaries or stenographers are there 

Mrs. Mims. Seven or eight, Mr. Welch. I am not sure. 

Mr. Welch. Do you have the assignment system so that each man 
has a sort of priority on one of the stenographers or secretaries, or 

Mrs. Mims. No, sir. I think that isn't true generally in our office, 
but as a rule I take the dictation that Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr give. 

Mr. Welch. I was going to ask you that next. So ordinarily if 
Mr. Cohn alone is in Washington and working in that office and wishes 
to dictate, you would take his dictation? 

Mrs. Mims. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welch. If Mr. Carr is in Washington alone and at that office, 
you take his dictation? 

Mrs. Mims. That is true. 

Mr. Welch. Primarily, I judge, you would always take Mr. Cohn's 
dictation if he were around ? 

Mrs. Mims. I think so. I know of no exceptions. I can't recall 
right now. 

Mr. Welch. You tell me there are roughly half a dozen other 
stenographers ? 

Mrs, Mims. That is true. 

Mr. Welch. One thing more. Perhaps I was inattentive, but did 
your testimony indicate the time of day at which vou monitored this 

Mrs. Mhvis. It does not, Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. Have you any recollection about it? 

Mrs. Mims. It was in the afternoon. I would say between 2 and 3 
o'clock, roughly. 

Mr. Welch. How do you place that, Mrs. Mims? 

Mrs. MiMS. For the reason that during the morning I tried to locate 
Mr. Adams and then later in the afternoon when Mr. Carr did reach 
him, I know thnt it was afternoon. 


Mr, "Wklcii. Do you have some recollection of how late you and 
Mr. Carr worked that day? 

Mrs. MiMs. That would be very difficult to recall. No, I don't. 

Mr. Welch. In view of your remembering the time of the after- 
noon, I thought perhaps you could. 1 take it you were both busy 
about, the annual report, and that is why you were callin<^? 

Mrs. INIiMS. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Welcil And the annual report went to Conj^ress how much 
later than that, if you recall? 

Mrs. MiMS. iVIr.* Welch, since I am not the one who submits it, I 
don't know. I know that we were just preparing our final draft at 
that time, and we were quite busy in preparation. 

Mr. Welch. I take it your recollection is that you and Mr. Carr 
worked a good part of the afternoon, probably all the afternoon; is 
that right? 

Mrs.^TMS. I have no specific recollection as to how long we worked, 
Mr. Welch. 

Mr. Welch. But it is your recollection that you worked together 
until you both quit, being tired,- and went home? 

Mrs. Mtms. I imagine that we did. We usually do. 

Mr. AVelch. Your answer, then, is yes; is that right? 

Mrs. MiMS. I don't know how late we worked on Saturday. That 
is my answer. 

Mr. Welch. My question is that you kept dogging along on Satur- 
day afternoon until you both felt you had had a long enough week, 
and then got up and put on your hats and went home? 

]Mrs. Mtms. I still say I don't know how long that was on that 
particular Saturday, Mr. Welch. 

]Mr. Welch. I understand. I am only trying to get at this point 
that at some time you must both have felt you had done a week's work, 
and you knocked off. 

Mrs. MiMS I am sure that we did at some time go home. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, for your benefit, my office staff 
also, as you say, dogs along all Saturday. 

Mr. WelchI Dogs along is what I was saying. That just means 
it is a dog's life, and I think it is, to work on Saturday afternoon. 

I miglit add, I have done some of it since I got into this case. One 
other thing, I think Mr. Colin was not in room 101 at all that day, 
so far as you recall ? 

Mrs. MiMS. As I recall, he was not, sir. 

Mr. Welch. Do you have a knowledge or recollection that he was in 
New York on that day ? 

Mrs. MiMS. I know that he was not in Washington. I am not sure 
about where he was. 

Mr. Welch. Thanks. I think that is all. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn, you have 10 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions of the wit- 
ness, but I would use my 10 minutes now for the purpose I have been 
waiting for all day long. , 

Senator Mundt. IMay I inquire first, then, w^hether anybody else 
has any questions of the witness or may she step down? 

Is there any objection to dismissing the witness? 

You may step down. 


Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to now request that 
the Chair subpena a witness, a witness whom I consider absolutely 
necessary if we are to present the evidence on the Cohn-McCarthy side. 

Incidentally, at this time I am not speaking of Senator Symington. 
I felt it was urgent that this witness be subpenaed for tonight. How- 
ever, it took us a lot longer than I expected to get in the monitored 
phone calls, so I assume it will be impossible to get him in here to- 
night. I would very much appreciate if he could be gotten in tomor- 
row morning, that is, if he is in AVashington — I think he is — before we 
have a session of the committee. 

Mr. Chairman, I have felt all along that the question of motive in 
calling on these hearings, which Avas to call off the investigation of 
Communists in Government, was of the utmost importance. The ques- 
tion of where the principal motive lies has shifted from week to week 
as the Chair knows. This particular witness is not under any Presi- 
dential directive not to testify. He can give us a great deal of impor- 
tant information. I understand it is the practice of the Chair to 
subpena any witness requested by either side. 

So I wish the Chair to consider this a formal request for the sub- 
pening of this witness. I will explain why I want him subpenaed. 
The man I want subpenaed is mentioned on page 5295 of the testimony 
taken on June 4, mentioned in one of the monitored calls of Mr. Sym- 
ington. At that time, Mr. Symington was talking to Mr. Stevens as 
to how Zwicker could be prevented from coming to testify; testify, 
that is, about who was responsible for the fifth-amendment 

He said, "I will get into that with Clifford." 

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

Senator McCarthy. I will not yield for any point or order. 

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

Senator Mundt. May the Chair remind the Senator that we have 
followed the practice that when a point of order is made, we have al- 
lowed it to be stated so that we can determine whether it is one. If 
you have one. Senator, you may state it. 

Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I dont' see anything about fifth-amendment Communists in this 
testimony here. The implication of the junior Senator from Wiscon- 
sin was that there was some mention here of a fifth-amendment Com- 

Senator McCarthy. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. We will have to go into one point of order at a 

Senator McCarthy. Point of order that this is not a point of order. 

Senator Mundt. Let's clarify the record. Are we on the same 

Senator Symington. 5294 and 5295. May I read the testimony on 

age 5295, Mr. Chairman, to the point of order? That was the page 
e brought up. It is very short. It is only about four sentences. 

Senator Mundt. You may read four lines, certainly. 

Senator Symington (reading) : 

Secretary of the Army. That is one reason why I am calling you. 
Senator Symington. I will get into that with Clifford. 



Skckf.taky of the Aumv. I put in a call for John McClellain, too, and I talked 
to him jnst hefore your call came in. 

Senator Symington. I just wouldn't go. Let me talk to Clifford about it and 
I will call you. 

Now% Mr. Chairman, my point is that I don't see anything in there 
about fifth-amendment Connnunists. 

Senator Muxdt. The Chair would have to ride that there was 
nothina; in what you said that said anything about fifth-amendment 

Senator McCarthy may continue. 

Senator McCarthy. Is it understod that when I have these inter- 

Senator Mundt. They will not ])e taken out of your time, if they 
are point -of -order interruptions. If you yield, they will be taken out 
of your time. 

Senator McCarthy. I will not yield to the Senator from Missouri. 
I know he may be rather uncomfortable 

Senator Symington. I never was more comfortable in my life, Sena- 
tor McCarthy. If you have any point to make, you worry about what 
you are thinking and not how I feel. 

Senator ]\IcCarthy. Was that taken out of my time, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. It was an interruption which was not appropriate, 
because it was not addressed to the Chair. The Chair has been re- 
minding his colleagues for some time that the proper way was to ad- 
dress the Chair. We will forget it this time and not take iit out of your 
time, so everybody will be happy. 

Go ahead, Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, as I started to say, on page 
5295, where Mr. Symington is talking about getting in touch with 
Clifford, he is talking about getting in touch with Mr. Clifford in re- 
gard to the calling of Zwicker. The only reason Zwicker was being 
called was to give us information about who promoted, who honor- 
ably discharged, who gave special assignments to a fifth-amendment 

Now we find, Mr. Chairman, that there is nothing beyond the state- 
ment, "I will get in touch with Mr. Clifford," which means, of course, 
to the average individual, that Mr. Symington had discussed Clifford 
with Mr. Stevens before. What went on before, we don't know. But 
we know that if someone calls the Chair and says "Now, I will talk 
to Clifford," you would say "Clifford who or Clifford what." It 
wasn't done here. 

Clifford, incidentally, is Clark Clifford, who was the chief political 
adviser of President Truman at the time they were most vigorously 
fighting my attempts to expose Communists in the last administration. 

We now find that Mr. Symington — and I can't say whether he is 
running for the presidency or not, many papers say he is, we find — 
and this is no reflection upon him, that is a right of any American — 
we find that Mr. Clark Clifford is also the adviser of Mr. Symington, 
and without the knowledge of this committee, the adviser of the 
Republican Secretary of the Army. That makes it very important, 
Mr. Chairman, that we have him here. But I would like to have him 
here for additional reasons, and I would like to read from some of 
the excerpts of Mr. Symington's monitored phone calls on page 5299. 
Senator Symington says : 

Everybody in my — 


I will start at the beginnin";. 

Senator Symington. It isn't a question of politics at all. It is a question 
of the integrity and fighting morale of the Army and, . . . 

I call the Chair's attention to this — 

therefore everybody, in my opinion, who has a concept of what is decent will 
break their back to help you in any way they can. . . 

Now, I don't suggest Mr. Symington has broken his back yet. 

Going on to the next statement, we find, Mr. Chairman, on page 
5305 — this should be taken, Mr. Chairman, in connection with the 
monitored calls of Mr. Potter at the time Mr. Stevens, as I recall, said 
he was perfectly willing to come down and give the committee the 
evidence we needed. As I recall, the monitored calls' put in this 
morning, I believe it was of Mr. McClellan, it also showed that Mr. 
Stevens was completely willing to come down and give the evidence 
we needed, that is, about Communist infiltration, about those members 
of the loyalty board who had cleared Communists to go back to the 
radar laboratory. 

We must take that in connection with this statement on page 5305, 
again by Senator Symington, and this was after Senator Symington 
had complained that there was a story in a Washington paper that 
Mr. Stevens had agreed to come before the committee ; and again keep 
in mind, Mr. Chairman, that all except one of the calls were originated 
by Symington, not by Mr. Stevens, and he says this, after he learns 
that Mr. Stevens might come down and testify before our committee 
and give us the information which we all agree that we must have, 
he said : 

If you and I are going to work together, we have got to be on the table with 
each other. Phil Potter told me he got it out of the Pentagon. 

What Phil Potter got was the story, apparently, that Stevens might 
come down and testify. So we find Symington calling and saying — 

Let's keep this on the table. You can't testify without letting me know. 

Further on the page, Mr. Chairman, we have a very interesting 
statement by the very fair-minded Senator from Missouri, where he 

If you are going to play with McCarthy, you have got to forget about any of 
these Marquis of Queensberry rules. 

As the Chair knows, the Marquis of Queensbury rules are the rules 
for fair fighting, the rules that provide that you must not hit below the 
belt, you must not cheat, you must not lie, you must not gouge. So 
we have the Senator from Missouri who is advising with the political 
adviser for the Democrat Party saying to the Secretary of the Army — 

If you are going to work with McCarthy, if you are going to play with McCarthy, 
you have got to forget about any of these Marquis of Queensberry rules. 

I may say in that connection, Mr. Chairman, the Senator from Mis- 
souri certainly is following that advice. While he has advised Re- 
publicans, and so there is no question about this let's refer to the page, 
on page 2948, May 14 — he advised Senator Dirksen. Senator Dirksen 
indicated that he had some information with regard to how these 
hearings were called on. We find Senator Symington there saying 
this : 


Mr. Chaifinan, this is getting so interesting that I wish I had heen on the 
committee at this time. But I would like to say that inasmuch as Senator 
Dirksen, for whom I have great respect, has been very fine and forthright 
with respect to his position, and the problem involved and liis thoughts about 
it, I think it only fair that the other members of this subcommittee who were 
interrogated or questioned or visited, or whatever you might call it, by Mr. Adams, 
also give their side of the position. 

So you liave the Senator from Missouri who is advising the Repub- 
licans that tliey should go on the stand and testify, which they did. 

Incidentally, his idea of avoiding the rules of fair fighting is that he 
is not bound by the same rule. 

I miaht say in that connection the Senator from Missouri, according 
to the Times' of INIarch 21, 1954, had this to say, and I think this has 
some bearing upon this statement of his advising the Secretary not to 
abide by the rules of fair fighting 

Senator Mundt. I am sorry, the Senator's time has expired. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I am making a point here, I 
think, of personal privilege. I am sitting here as an individual who 
is charged. I am defending two of the members of my staff who are 
charged with conduct which, if true — it is not — would result in the 
loss of their reputations and their jobs. I would liketo make this 
point of personal privilege which has to do with calling witnesses. 
it has to do with 

Senator Mundt. The Chair would like to say as far as your time 
for interrogatories is concerned, it is off. If you have a point of 
personal privilege and state your point of personal privilege, the 
Chair will rule as to whether you are entitled to speak on it. 

Will you state your point of personal privilege ? 

Senator McCarthy. This, in my opinion, is a point of personal 
privilege that I am now discussing with the committee, the situation 
in which I personally find myself, in which I find the 2 young men, 
the 2 top men on my staff, with 1 of the judges an individual who 
has instigated the charges, who has gotten the top counsel of the 
Democratic Party to pull strings from behind the scenes. 

I would like, if I may, to proceed with this in chronological order 
and give the complete picture of why I feel so strongly about this, 
and why I feel that Mr. Clifford should be subpenaed forthwith, 
and why other action should be taken. 

Senator Symington had this to say 

Senator Mdndt. The Chair would like to say in response to a 
whispered inquiry he had from the Senator from Missouri, that after 
hearing you state your point of personal privilege he is then going 
to recognize the Senator from Missouri on a point of personal 

Senator McCarthy. I certainly think the Chair should recognize 
the Senator from Missouri on a point of personal privilege. 

Senator Mundt. With that understanding, the Chair recognizes 
Senator McCarthy. 

Senator McCarthy. As I said before, I have a story from the New 
York Times which, as I have said before, is not exactly my favorite 
paper, on March 21, 1954. That was at a time when there was a 
question of the ])art that Senator McCarthy would play in the 
hearings on the charges against my staff, and let me quote the story : 

Senator Symington Issued a statement holding that "the good name of the 
Senate is at stake. I feel confident," he declared, "that Senator McCarthy does 


not want to appear in the triple role of accusing witness as well as prosecutor 
and judge, and therefore I anticipate that he will step off the subcommittee and 
have another Republican member of the full Government Operations Committee 
serve in his place." He said he was confident that unless this was done, Demo- 
crat members would put the request to the parent committee, which Senator 
Mc(;'arthy also heads. If Republicans insist on his filling this triple role, he 
declared, he will recommend that the investigations be undertaken by the Armed 
Services Committee. 

Then Mr. Symington said he is a member of that committee, also. 
Then one other brief comment from the same paper the next day : 

Senator Stuart Symington (Democrat, of Missouri) has asked that Mr. 
McCarthy not be allowed to sit with the subcommittee. 

As the Chair will recall, Senator Symington took the strong posi- 
tion also that I should not have the right to examine witnesses. He 
said that would not be fair because he felt that Mr. Stevens was not 
as good a lawyer as I was. That was publicized in all the papers. 

Mr. Chairman, when we find that the Senator from Missouri is 
urging the Secretary of the Army, after the Secretary has told two 
Senators that he feels he should appear and give this committee in- 
formation, urging him, No. 1, not to appear, and No. 2, urging him 
not to fight fair, I just wonder if he feels he is qualified to sit as a 
member of this committee? 

I might say in that connection. President Eisenhower also, and very 
wisely so, made the statement that he felt that an accuser should not 
also jit as a judge. Let's quote a little further, if we may, Mr. Chair- 
man. Again on page 6306, and again this is a call made by Mr. 
Symington to Secretary Stevens, again after it appeared that Secre- 
tary Stevens might come to testify, Senator Symington says this: 

The only thing I want to do is this ; don't put me in a box by going up there 
Tuesday. I would not go. 

Now listen to this significant sentence : 

We can throw the blocks in this thing. 

This is Symington calling the Secretary, saying — 

Don't go up there. We can throw the blocks in this thing. 

Then I was curious to know how he felt he could throw the blocks in 
this thing. You read further and you find out what Mr. Symington 
had in mind. On page 5306 he says : 

Here are the rules we drove through — 

the Chair will remember that we all leaned over backward to let the 
Democrats adopt any rules that they felt they needed, if they felt a 
one-party committee was unwise. He said : 

Here are the rules we drove through. 

At that time when I consented to their driving through those rules, 
I felt they were coming back to help us fight Communists, not to 
"throw the blocks in this thing." This thing was the attempt to get 
the members of the old Truman loyalty board before us and find out 
why they sent Communists back to the radar laboratories. Commu- 
nists such as Coleman, who was found unfit to serve by the new 
loyalty board within the last couplg of days. 

What was the method ? Here is the statement from Senator Syming- 
ton. He says: 


He can't subpena you. Here are the rules we drove through; if the three 
Democratic members of the conunittee are unanimous in opposing a hearing, 
then (he hearing will not be held, unless the majority of the full committee 
agree to it. 

Another significant sentence: 

Now, I think I have got it so the majority of the full committee will not agree 
to it. 

How Senator Symington tliought he had gotten the full committee 
to agree to call off the hearing of Communists, I don't know. I am 
curious to hear him on the stand on that. I don't think that he has 
succeeded in getting any Republican to agree with him on that. If 
so, I would like to hear about it. 

Senator Symington. A point of order. 

Senator Mundt. State your point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. May I finish, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Symington. I have sat here quietly while my colleague has 
been paying me all these great distinctions, and I would just ask him, 
if he would, to read the whole paragraph from that part. 

Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to. What page, Mr. Syming- 

Senator Symington. Senator, at the bottom of page 5306 you say : 

Now, I think I have got it so that the majority of the full committee will not 
agree to it. 

Let me just read this now, myself: 

However, I just ask you not to make me look silly. If you decide to go up 
before I get back 

Senator McCarthy. Hold it just a second. Will you start at the 
beginning, Mr. Symington, so I can follow you ? 
Senator Symington. Sure. Let's get this straight. 

Senator Symington. He can't subpena you. Here are the rules we drove, 
through ; if the three Democratic members of the committee are unanimous in 
opnosing a hearing, then the hearing will not be held, unless the majority of the 
full committee agree to it. 

You read the next line. What I am asking you is, I said — 

However, I just ask you not to make me look silly — 

the point being that he wanted to wait until I got back, and so did I, 
based on the charges in the Zwicker testimony as he gave it to me. 
Then I say : 

If you decide to go up before I get back, that is 100 percent with me. I would 
talk to McClellan about it if it might make me look silly. 

SA. I am not going to do that. I am not going to put you in any box. 

Senator Syjiington. The only thing is, I don't want him to unload on me 
while I am gone. 

There is the full paragraph in context. 

Senator McCarthy. Let me then read what I read again so there 
can be no question about this being taken out of context. I read. 
This is Symington talking to Stevens after it appears that Stevens 
would come down and testify, namely, give us the truth, which we 
are entitled to. He said : 

He can't subpena you. 


Tliat is incorrect. We can subpena him, but we won't argue that 
here. He says : 

Here are the rules we drove through ; if the three Democratic members of the 
committee are unanimous in opposing a hearing, then the hearing will not be 
held, unless the majority of the full committee agree to it. Now, I think I have 
got it so the majority of the full committee will not agree to it. 

That is something I will want to question Mr. Symington about 
under oath. Here is the portion that Senator Symington wants me 
to read. He says: 

However, I just ask you not to make me look silly. 

By making him look silly, he means to come down and testify. 
How would it make the Senator from Missouri look silly if the Re- 
publican Secretary of the Army came down and told us about this 

Senator Syiviikgton. Mr. Chairman, the witness is making state- 
ments. He is testifying, and when he makes a statement of that char- 
acter, I think I can make a point of order and clarify it. 

Senator McCarthy. O. K., go ahead. 

Senator Symington. The Secretary of the Army came in to see 
me and he was desperate about the situation with respect to General 
Zwicker. He knew that the next day I was going abroad. I wanted 
to see this matter deferred until I got back, and, therefore, I said, 
after I read in the paper the next day that he had asked to appear, 
when it was my understanding that he would ask no people from 
the Army to appear until I got back, I said, "Don't make me look 
silly," because it seemed to me that what he wanted to do was to wait 
until I got back on the committee. I notice that both Senator Dirksen 
and I, according to some of the testimony here, were anxious to have 
the hearings deferred. 

Certainly I was anxious to have the hearings deferred only until I 
returned, and then I was very glad that the hearings should continue. 
• Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, may the Chair suggest — it is 
certainly at the hour of recess. The Chair has agreed with Senator 
Symington that he would recognize him on a point of personal priv- 
ilege. You are presenting a request to the Chair concerning the sub- 
pena. The Chair would recommend that you limit yourself now on 
your point of personal privilege to the minimum amount that you 
think is justified in your standpoint. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say I think this is the 
most important matter that has come before this committee in the 
27 or 28 days since we started. I have desisted in taking any time 
all day, except a minute here and there. I will try and cut this down, 
but I do think this is of the utmost importance and I would like a 
decision from the Chair on certain matters before we get through. 
As I started to say. Senator Symington asked me to read, "However, 
I just ask you not to make me look silly." By making him look silly, 
it means that if Stevens would come and testify. 

How it would make him look silly, I don't know. Then, he says, 
"If you decide to go up and testify before I get back, that is 100 per- 
cent with me. I would talk to Senator McClellan about it." 

The Secretary then makes a pfomise he will not come up. He says, 
"I am not going to do that. I am not going to put you m a box." 

Symington says, "The only thing is I don't want him to unload on 
me when I am gone." 


May I say, Mr. Chairman, Senator Symington wrote me and said 
he wanted "to be present when Stevens testified, and in accordance 
with the usual rule of the committee I a<^reed to hold up tlie heariii<jjs 
until he pot back. By that time, apparently, his adviser, Mr. Cliffoixl 
and others, had progressed to the point where we never could get 
back to the hearings. 

But, ]Mr. Chairman, here is the final and I think most significant 
quote. On page 5311 — and keep in mind, again, Senator Symington 
is calling the Secretary of the Army, and I think this proves what 
I have often said; namely, that Secretary Stevens, in my opinion, 
is a fine, honest individual, a businessman. He came down here not 
at all acquainted with the rather rough and sometimes very dirty 
and underhanded politics we play, and that he was not the man who 
called down the hearings which called off the exposure of Communists. 

Mr. Symington was asking him about a report on Mr. Cohn and 
Mr. Schine, and here is what Mr. Stevens says, on page 5311, if you 
will follow, Mr. Symington. Here is Secretary Stevens. He says: 

I personally think that anything in that line would prove to be very much 
exagsierated. That would be my opinion. In other words, I think there has 
been some talk around that has been very much exaggerated over anything 
that is there. 

Still quoting the Secretary, he says : 

I am the Secretary and I have had some talks with the committee and the 
chairman, and so on, and, by and large, as far as the treatment of me is con- 
cerned, I have no personal complaint. In other words, when he got after 
Zwicker, of course, then I hollered. But as far as I personally am concerned, 
I don't have a lot of stuff, so far as my contact with Joe or the Committee is 

Now, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that we have proven here 
beyond any peradventure of a doubt that Secretary Stevens was 
willing to come up and cooperate with the committee, that he said only 
24 hours or roughly before the charges were issued that there was 
really nothing to the charges, and that Senator Symington, with Clark 
Clifford, the chief political adviser of President Truman — and I as- 
sume the chief political adviser of a man who would be President on 
the Democratic ticket in 1956 — is doing the advising. I believe the 
next day, whether it was the 9th or 11th, anyway, a matter of within 
a day or two — these charges were issued, issued under the Secretary's 
name, charging Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr, and myself with almost every- 
thing except murdering our great-great-grandmother. 

We find here, however, when he is talking to Stevens he says, "How- 
ever, there is really nothing to it." 

For this reason, Mr. Chairman, I request that Mr. Clifford be sub- 
penaed immediately so that we will know what part he played in this 
motive that is important. 

No. 2, in view of the fact that Mr. Symington was active in telling 
the Republicans, and I refer to page 2948, that they should testify 
if they knew anything, the Republicans did that, that Mr. Symington 
should be subpenaed. If he refuses to honor that subpena, he has been 
talking about taking matters to the Senate floor, then I would suggest 
that we take this to the Senate floor in accordance with his sugges- 
tion and see whether or not the Senate will order him to give us the 
truth. At that time, I will quote in detail all the statements made by 


sanctimonious Stu when lie told about how everything had to be laid 
on the table. 

And, No. 3, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Symington should do exactly what 
I did. He should disqualify himself because never before in the 
history of this Senate as far as I know have we had the man who 
instigated the charges insist upon sitting as judge. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, there are those who suggest that I take 
this to the full committee, and force Mr. Symington off this commit- 
tee. I have been strongly advised to do that, and then take it to the 
Senate floor. 

I have made no decision on that. My present inclination, however, 
is that we should leave it up to the Senator who, in his own words, was 
so active in calling on the hearings, who was so sanctimonious in 
asking me to remove myself from the committee, and not even cross- 

I can understand that now. I think we should leave it up to him 
to decide in his own conscience whether he can honestly sit on this 
committee. And as a last word, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Syming- 
ton, you should explain to the committee why, when you sat in those 
executive sessions, you did not tell us that you were the man who was 
calling Bob Stevens day after day and telling Bob Stevens, "We can 
block this thing, I have got the committee fixed. We can hold it off. 
Don't appear before that committee." 

I think that is something we are entitled to, and I think, Mr. 
Symington, we are entitled to it not where you sit behind the table. 

I think we are entitled to that on the witness stand, and I think 
tonight. I think tonight, within the next 1 minute, you should tell 
the American people whether you are willing to raise your right hand, 
as I and the other Republicans have done, and take the witness stand 
and be cross-examined as we have been cross-examined, or whether 
your statements, day after day, that you wanted all the facts brought 
out, let the chips fall where they may, that you were satisfied — until 
it would appear that some of the chips may hit Symington. 

Senator Mundt. The Chair understands from Senator Symington 
he wants to be recognized on a point of personal privilege and he will 
so recognize him at this time. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

There were some points brought up by the junior Senator from 
AVisconsin. First, based on some of the statements he made, some of 
which were incorrect, I think it should be proper to put into the rec- 
ord that Mr. Clifford left the Government and became a private at- 
torney in, I believe, January 1950, over 4 years ago. 

Then, Mr. Chairman, the distinguished junior Senator from Wis- 
consin made some remark about the Marquis of Queensbury rules, 
implying that I was suggesting to Secretary Stevens that he should 
not use rules that were decent and right and fair, as I remember his 
statement. Nothing could have been further from my mind. My 
suggestion to Secretary Stevens was that he better look out because, if 
he got in a scrap, he might find that the junior Senator from Wiscon- 
sin would not use rules which were decent or right or fair; and I 
based that on things that I have seen as a member of this committee 
and also in the campaign of 1952 in Missouri. I had no idea when 
this Republican Cabinet member came to me and asked for help, 
because he told me of the Army's problem — I had no idea that we 


would be here today, nor did he. But the record stands, and I stand 
behind it. 

As I said before, my chief interest, based on what was said to me by 
Secretary Stevens, was not to have the Military Establishment of the 
United States hammered any more while I was gone. That was my 
advice to him when he came to see me. 

I left for New York to go to Europe, and read in the morning 
paper the next day that he had asked to a])pear after he was the one 
who wanted me to be at the hearing, wanted me to be with him at the 
hearings or with any other Army witnesses. 

That is all I meant when I said in effect. "Make up your mind, and 
don't make me look silly." 

Now with respect to this question about me being subpenaed and 
about Senator McCarthy's threatening to take it to the Senate floor. 
Rest assured, Mr. Chairman, and the people within the sound of my 
voice, that I would be only too glad to discuss this matter with 
Senator McCarthy on the Senate floor. 

Senator McCarthy. How about under oath? 

Senator Symington. I can remember when he was invited to discuss 
charges with respect to him. I don't think he even accepted the 
invitation. I am certain he accepted no subpena. However, I shall 
be very glad to discuss it on the Senate floor, especially as I always 
tell the truth. 

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

Senator Mundt. State your point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. Could we find out from the Senator from Mis- 
souri now whether he is willing to take the oath or whether he will 
not take the oath unless the Senate forces him to ? 

Senator Symington. I will be very glad to take the oath, something 
you have never done. Senator McCarthy, with respect to charges about 
you, if the Senate decides that I should. We are talking about a 
matter that has to do with Senate regulations now. You take it to 
the floor any time you want, and I will meet you there with pleasure. 

May I continue, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington. 

Senator Symington. I wrote a letter on February 20 to 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. 

Senator Symington. I was very patient with Senator McCarthy 
when he got off some of his typical line of talk. 

Senator Mundt. State your point of order. Do you have a point 
of order ? 

Senator McCarthy. Yes. 

Senator Mundt. State your point of order. 

Senator McCarthy. The Senator from Missouri interrupted me 
constantly. Just so I will know what to do tonight, I would like to 
get the Senator from Missouri to answer the simple question. Will he 
be willing to do what the Republican Senators have done, what I 
have done; namely, take the oath and give us his evidence, or does 
he take the position that he will refuse unless we go through the long, 
laborious procedure of forcing him to do so on the Senate floor? 

Senator Symington. Senator, I am going a lot further with the 
charges that you have made agaii>6t me than you went with the 
charges that were made against you. As I understand it, you wouldn't 


even reply to an invitation to discuss the matter. I would be delighted 
to discuss the matter. 

As to whether I take an oath under a subpena from this committee, 
I don't know why the Republican Senators took the oath. They got 
up voluntarily and did it. There have been some 4-to-3 situations 
here, but I believe that they probably did it in good faith, without 
any collusion with you, based on what you are now saying. I am 
confident of that. But I want to point out to you that this is a serious 
matter, and if you would like to take it to the Senate floor, I would 
like to take it to the Senate floor. I would be glad to testify under 
oath, because I always tell the truth, but it seems to me very peculiar 
that you want me now to be under oath when your career has proved 
that you yourself don't want to get under oath when charges come up. 

No charges have been made against me in these hearings. Let's 
get these hearings over. The hearings have two fundamental situa- 
tions. Was improper influence used by you and your staff in order 
to get things for Private Schine, and did the Army blackmail you? 
When we get through with that, then let's go to your and my problems 
with respect to this subpena. 

May I continue, Mr. Chairman ? 

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington, you have the floor. 

Senator Symington. Senator McCarthy has demanded that I with- 
draw from this subcommittee because I had several conversations with 
the Secretary of the Army. All those conversations are on the record. 
I don't propose to retire from this committee. 

Secretary Stevens and General Ridgway, Chief of Staff of the 
Army, came to see me. Secretary Stevens protested the abuse the 
Army had received from Senator McCarthy as chairman of this sub- 
committee. Secretary Stevens said the morale of the United States 
Army was being seriously impaired by the actions of Senator Mc- 
Carthy. Later I met with Secretary Stevens in Senator McClellan's 
office, and then the Secretary came to my office. Secretary Stevens was 
bitter about the treatment given General Zwicker. 

I understand that Secretary Stevens also visited other members of 
the committee and told them the same thing and also so advised Sen- 
ator McCarthy. 

Mr. Chairman, I was shocked and profoundly aroused by these 
accusations. Mr. Chairman, may I have the attention of the Chair? 

Senator Mundt. Surely. 

Senator Symington. It is hard for me to read when you are interro- 
gating Senator McClellan. 

Senator Mundt. Go right ahead. 

Senator Symington. I understood that Secretary Stevens also vis- 
ited other members of the committee and told them the same thing, 
and also so advised Senator McCarthy. 

Mr. Chairman, I was shocked and profoundly aroused by these 

Also, about the same time Senator McCarthy was issuing public 
statements charging that high officials in the Pentagon were coddling 

If these statements are true, Mr. Chairman, they are of overwhelm- 
ing importance to the security of our country. 

Now, obviously it would have been unthinkable for me or for any 
other Member of the United States Senate to disregard this situation. 



I am a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee as well as 
this committee. I have served as Secretary of the Air Force. I have 
no interest in life that surpasses my great concern for the vitality of 
our Armed Forces. 

I felt that Senator McCarthy's charges that our defense officials 
were coddling Communists, along with Secretary Stevens' counter- 
charges, precipitated a great and fundamental danger to the United 
States. These charges and countercharges play directly into the hands 
of the Communists today. 

The Communists' aim in this country is to undermine the confidence 
that people have in their leaders and their Government. They have 
to achieve that, certainly, before the overthrow of this Government 
by force and violence is undertaken. 

They would like nothing better than to degi'ade the United States 
Army and the United States Navy and the United States Air Force 
and the United States Marine Corps and the United States Senate 
and our entire Government, so as to destroy the morale of all. 

In these circumstances I of course assured the Secretary of the 
Army I would do everything in my power to see to it there was a 
full and fair consideration of the matter by the full membership of 
the subcommittee. 

Promptly after my meeting with Secretary Stevens and General 
Ridgway I wrote Senator McCarthy and told him that I had talked 
with Secretary Stevens. There was no secret about that. I have 
the letter here, and I will read it right at this point. It is dated 
February 20, the day before I went to Europe, actually the day I 
did go to New York to sail. 

Dear Mr. Chairman : Dick O'Melia of your staff called this morning to say 
you were agreeable to postponing the Zwicker hearing until March 10 or there- 
after. Thank you very much. 

Secretary Stevens also told me this morning you said you were going to sub- 
pena him for next Tuesday, February 23. Because of my great interest in this 
entire matter, I would deeply appreciate your also postponing any hearing with 
respect to Secretary Stevens or the Army until my return. 

Stuart Symington. 

I sent a copy of that to Senators McClellan, Humphrey, Jackson, 
Kennedy, and Lennon, members of the full committee on the Demo- 
cratic side. 

Promptly after my meeting with Secretary Stevens and General 
Ridgway, I wrote Senator McCarthy and told him I talked with Sec- 
retary Stevens and would appreciate McCarthy's postponing any 
hearing with respect to Secretary Stevens or the Army until I re- 
turned from a brief trip to Europe on official business with Senator 

I would like to say at that point, it was my understanding on that 
day and that was the reason that I called the next day that Secretary 
Stevens not only didn't want to appear before the committee, that 
he didn't want to go to any luncheon, and that he wanted to wait until 
I got back and the matter could then proceed in orderly fashion. 

When Senator McCarthy pretends to be surprised, therefore, at 
this late date, to learn that I had talked with Secretary Stevens, he 
is not stating the facts. He knew about our conversations from the 
very beginning, and in one of the monitored calls Senator McCarthy 


was told by Secretary Stevens that he, Stevens, had visited me as well 
as other members of the committee. 

My other conversations with Secretary Stevens on February 20 
and 21, had to do entirely with this same subject, namely, my desire 
that these grave charges and countercharges should be heard by the 
full subcommittee and not by just one of the members involved, Sena- 
tor McCarthy. 

These phone conversations had nothing to do with G. David Schine, 
or with the subject matter of these proceedings. I first mentioned Mr. 
Schine in a conversation of March 8, when I unsuccessfully attempted 
to get a copy of the report — of the report that the press said the Army 
had drawn up. All my calls were prior to the time that anyone ever 
remotely conceived that these hearings would be held. 

My conversations had to do solely with my desire to make sure that 
the matters raised by Secretary Stevens and Senator McCarthy were 
presented to the full subcommittee, including myself. And I am 
sure that any Senator, regardless of party, would feel duty-bound to 
do the same. 

This was no question of politics. It w'as a question of the loyalty 
and integrity of our Armed Forces. 

Mr. Chairman, these hearings which now have gone on for some 
6 long weeks completely demonstrate that I was right to be funda- 
mentally disturbed about these charges and countercharges. I was 
in Europe visiting with various offices of the United States Army and 
Air Force when press reports came through that following the now 
famous chicken luncheon, Senator McCarthy was purported to have 
said that the Secretary of the Army could not have given in more to 
him if he had crawled to him on his belly. And I shall never forget, 
Mr. Chairman, the consternation and the amazement of those fine 
officers of our great Army and our great Air Force when this news 
came through. In these proceedings, to the best of my knowledge, for 
the first time in our history our people have been urged to entertain 
serious doubts as to the dedication and loyalty of our Armed Forces 
from top to bottom. 

We have heard testimony that some of our military leaders are cod- 
dling Communists and traitors. Think what that means to the se- 
curity of the United States. Not only that, we have also heard it 
said, under oath, that the power of a committee of the great United 
States Senate has been perverted to obtain preferential treatment 
for a young man. But the vilification has not stopped with the 
United States Department of Defense. 

Millions of Americans have been told by Senator McCarthy that 
the Eisenhower administration, this Republican administration, has 
added a year of treason to our proud history. The Attorney General 
of the United States, Mr. Brownell, has been compared with another 
Attorney General, Harold Dougherty, who was indicted for one of the 
most scandulous thefts in our history. 

I want to say that I felt badly about some of the things that the 
Attorney General has said about my party, but I would be the first 
to say that he is a good American, that he is neither a Communist 
nor a crook. 

The CIA, which is our worldwide intelligence agency, and abso- 
lutely fundamental to our security, because all preparations and all 
our budgets are made on the basis of what we think the enemy is 


doing, and the problem of the CIA is to find out what the enemy is 
doing — the CIA, as I say, which is our worldwide intelligence agency 
and fundamental to our security, has been charged by Senator Mc- 
Carthy with being infiltrated with Communists. 

It has also been charged here, under oath, that there are Communists 
in our atomic bomb plants and hydrogen plants. And it has been testi- 
fied that there are 135 Communists in our defense plants. But the 
witness who gave this testimony said there would be no point in turn- 
ing over their names to Secretary Wilson, our Secretary of Defense, be- 
cause he wouldn't do anything about getting rid of them. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I want to say in all honesty, and sincerity, I 
have had my differences with Mr, Wilson about the size of the Air 
Force and the entire Military Establishment. But I believe with all 
my heart that he is a good American, and that he would do something 
about it if he felt there were Communists who were against the 
security of the United States. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I am a Democrat. But first and fore- 
most I am an American. It is little comfort to me that these terrible 
charges are directed against a Kepublican administration. Republican 
officials, and our Republican Commander in Chief. It would appear 
some of us want to end up in this country with just plain anarchy. 

And when the facts are in, Mr. Chairman, I will make my own de- 
cision as to the issues in this proceeding. My decision will be based 
on the facts and all of the facts, and not just those we know as of today. 

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan. 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair recognized Senator McClellan, and then 
he will say that the difficulty with one of these points of personal pro- 
cedures is that they reach no logical point of termination. 

Senator McCarthy. Could I have a minute, Mr. Chairman? 

Senator Mundt. The Chair will hear Senator McClellan, and then 
we will allocate arbitrarily 2 minutes to Senator McCarthy and then 
2 minutes to Senator Symington, after which time we will recess. 

Senator McClellan will be recognized, first. 

Senator McClellan, Mr. Chairman, the only purpose for which I 
seek recognition is to clarify one assertion that has been made that 
the Democrats drove through a rule that permits, if three Democrats 
object or any three members of the committee desire, whether Repub- 
licans or Democrats, object to the holding of a public hearing, then 
the matter has to go before the full connnittee. 

I may say that rule, as it now stands, was adopted by the four mem- 
bers, Republican members, before the Democrats returned to the com- 
mittee. But to put it in its proper perspective, prior to the time that 
Senator McCarthy became chairman of this suocommittee, the rule 
under both Senator Ferguson, who was chairman of this subcommittee 
when it was first organized, and also under Senator Hoey, during the 
time he served as chairman of this subcommittee, was that unless the 
subcommittee unanimously agreed to hold public hearings, they would 
not be held, except that the matter was taken before the full commit- 
tee and the full committee, by a majority, voted that the public hear- 
ings should be held. 

So the rule that prevails now is much weaker in one sense than the 
rule that prevailed under both the first Republican administration over 


this committee and under the Democratic administration that suc- 
ceeded it. The rule that now prevails was adopted along at the time 
that the former rule denying the Democrats any right or any other 
member of the committee any right to participate in the selection or 
discharge of staff members. These rules were adopted at the same 
time so that the Democrats would come back on the committee. I may 
say that the Democrats were no more anxious to get back on the com- 
mittee than the Republicans were to have us come back. Actually it 
resulted in a compromise on that one aspect of the rule that we were 
seeking to get restored. 

I think every member of the committee will agree with me in the 
statements I have just made. 

Mr. Chairman, that is all I wanted to clarify, the rules. 

Senator Mundt. Very well. The timekeeper will be ready. The 
Chair will recognize Senator McCarthy for 2 minutes, after which, if 
Senator Symington wants to be recognized, we will recognize him for 
2 minutes, after which we will recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morn- 

Senator McCarthy ? 

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I will not need the 2 minutes. 
I may say I was rather amused to hear Senator Symington worrying 
about the Republicans, when he has been conniving secretly to get the 
top political adviser of the Democrats to try to get the Republicans to 
commit suicide. 

It may seem very clever to Senator Symington at this time that he 
got Clark Clifford to mislead a fine, naive, not too brilliant Republican 
Secretary of the Army. But in the end, that is going to be bad for his 
party and the country, because the two-party system cannot survive if 
you have the chief political adviser of one calling the shots for the 
other. If our two-party system does not survive, our Republic cannot 

In closing. Senator Symington made a rather — rather, he read a 
long speech. Who wrote it, I don't know. He read it rather well 
today. He still hasn't answered the three questions : No. 1", will he, 
Symington, be willing to go under oath, the same as the rest of us are 
going under oath, the same as I have gone under oath, and will go 
under oath, the same as the Republicans have been under oath, and tell 
us the truth of what part he had to play with this ? He shouldn't be 
afraid to do that, unless he has been guilty of some wrongdoing. If he 
has been guilty of wrongdoing, he should, of course, take the senatorial 

No. 2, I will ask the Chair tomorrow morning, I will ask him to- 
night, to immediately subpena Clark Clifford ; and, No. 3, perhaps it 
is useless to direct my question to the Senator from Missouri, he has 
shown that he has already judged this case, he has apparently answered 
that he will not disqualify himself, he wants to sit in and cast a vote, 
but there are three questions that the American people can ask the 
Democrat Party. They owe a duty here. If Senator Symington 
doesn't recognize his duty, the Democrat Party does have a duty. 

No. 1, will they put their presidential candidate under oath; No. 
2, will they force him to disqualify himself ; No. 3, will Mr. Clifford 
come in and testify under oath ? Period. 

Senator Mundt. The time has expired. Senator Symington, you 
have 2 minutes. 


Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, the first thing 1 want to say — 
you said something about being afraid. 

I want you to know from the bottom of my heart that I am not 
afraid of anything about you or anytliing you got to say, at any time, 
any phice, any where. That is No. 1. 

Now, No. 2, with respect to the oath, let's take it to the Senate floor. 
There have been times when they Avanted to put you under oath and 
you didn't want to go. I always tell the truth. But you have a sena- 
torial problem here. Let's take it to the Senate floor, as you ask. 
The next thing is I hap])ened to note that you say we were getting 
together, the Senator from Wisconsin says, and conniving witli this 
])0()r, innocent Secretary of the Army, who, you say, coddled Coin- 
munists, and you have had some pretty rough things to say about it, 
about it and about him. But here is something that neither ISIr. 
Clifford nor Secretary Stevens nor I have much to do with, the charge 
by the Senator from Wisconsin, the junior Senator from Wisconsin, 
that we have had another year of treason under President Eisenhower, 
the charge that the CIA is infiltrated and infested with Communists, 
the charge that the Department of Defense is full of Communists, 
the charge that the Department of Justice, that the Attorney General 
of the Department of Justice, there is something phony about him, 
and the charge that the hydrogen bomb plants and the atomic bomb 
plants are full of Communists. 

Well, where do we go from here, as the American people ? 

That is all I have to say tonight, Mr. Chairman, except I believe 
in America, every bit of me believes in America. You will always, as 
Hap Arnold once said, find a rotten apple in a barrel, but that doesn't 
mean that there is anything wrong with the United States of Amer- 
ica, and that is the great and basic difference between the junior 
Senator from Wisconsin and the junior Senator from Missouri. 
Thanks a lot. 

Senator Mundt. At 9 : 30 tomorrow morning, in room 357, we will 
have an executive meeting of the committee. We will stand in recess 
until 10 o'clock. 

(Whereupon, at 5 : 40 p. m., the committee recessed to reconvene the 
following day at 10 a. m.) 



Adams, John G 2188, 21S9, 2197-2214, 2216-2224. 2229 

Air Force (Unittnl States) 2237-2239 

American Republic 2240 

Amherst, Mass 2222 

Arlington 2188 

Armed Forces 2237-2238 

Armed Services Committee (Senate) 2230, 2237 

Army (United States) 219], 

2193, 2203, 2204, 2206, 2209, 2214, 2221, 2222, 2228, 2232, 2234-2239 

Army Chief of Staff 2236 

Army Loyalty Appeal Board 2222 

Army security system 2214 

Armv witnesses 2235 

Arnold, Hap 2241 

A. S. A. (Arlington) 2188 

Attorney General of the United States 2238, 2241 

Augusta 2206 

Berrv, Lou 2204, 2211 

Bridges, Senator 2237 

Brown 2192 

Brownell, Mr 2238 

Camp Dix 2206 

Camp Gordon 2206 

Carr, Francis P 2186, 2192, 2196-2214, 2216-2225, 2233 

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2238, 2239, 2241 

Chief of Staff (Army) 2236 

CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) 2238, 2239, 2241 

CID School 2208 

Civil Service : 2207 

Clifford, Clark ^ 2234, 2240, 2241 

Cohn, Roy M 218('>-2193, 

2199, 2204-2200, 2214-2216, 2218-2220, 2223-2226, 2233 

Coleman 2188, 2189, 2230 

Coleman case 2189 

Committee on Armed Services (Senate) 2230, 2237 

Communist infiltration into the Army 2221, 2228 

Communist Party 2189, 2203, 2226-2228, 2230, 2231, 2233, 2237-2239, 2241 

Communists 2189, 2203, 222;)-2228. 2230, 2231, 2233, 2237-2239, 2241 

Counselor to the Army 2188, 2189, 2197-2214, 2216-2224, 2229 

Craig, Mr 2188 

Department of the Army 2191, 

2193, 2203, 2204, 2206, 2209, 2214, 2221, 2222, 2228, 2232, 2234-2239 

Department of Defense 2238, 2241 

Department of Justice 2241 

Deputy Counselor of the Army 2211 

Dirksen, Senator 2202 

Dougherty, "Harold 2238 

Duckett, Mrs 2215 

Dulles, Allen 2190, 2191 

East, Mr 2222 

Eisenhower, President 2230 

Eisenhower administration 2238 

Europe 22;)2, 2235, 2237 

Executive orders 2190, 2222, 2223 

FBI report 2199, 2200 



Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2199, 2200 

Federal courthouse (New York City) 2188, 2193 

Federal Telecommunications (FTL) 2208 

Ferguson, Senator 2239 

Fifth-amendment Communists 2226, 2227 

First Army (United States) 2101, 2193 

Fort Dix 2206 

Fort Monmouth 2198, 2222 

FTL (Federal Telecommunications) 2208 

FTO 2208 

Glancy, Miss Eleanor 2197, 2200, 2216 

Testimony of 2201-2211, 2218-2221 

Gould, Miss Lucille, testimony of 2213-2214 

Greenville, N. C 2190 

Greenville, Tenn 2191 

Gun detachment 2205 

Hamilton, Colonel 2193 

Hoey, Senator 2239 

Horwitz, Mr 2197 

Humphrey. Senator 2237 

Hydrogen bomb plants 2241 

Jackson, Senator 2237 

Justice Department 2241 

Kennedy, Senator 2237 

Lennon, Senator 2237 

Levpiston 2191 

Loyalty Review Board (Army) 2222 

Lucas, John J., Jr 2219 

Marine Corps (United States) 2237 

Marquis of Queensberry rules 2228, 2234 

McCarthy, Senator Joe 2187-2193, 

2196, 2197, 2199, 2204, 2208, 2212, 2213, 2215-2218, 2220, 2223, 2225-2241 

McCIellan, Senator 2227, 2231, 2236, 2237 

Member of the United States Senate 2236 

Memphis, Tenn 2196 

Methodist Building (Washington, D. C.) 2204 

Military Establishment of the United States 2235, 2239 

Milwaukee 2190 

Mims, Mrs. Frances P 2215 

Testimony of 2221-2225 

Monitored phone calls 2186-2214, 2216-2235, 2237 

Moss, Annie 2198 

Navy (United States) 2237 

New York City 2188, 2190, 2195, 2198, 2199, 2212, 2225, 2235, 2237 

New York Times 2229 

O'Melia, Dick 2237 

O'Neal 2192 

Partridge, General 2192 

Pentagon 2228, 2236 

Pike, Mrs 2186, 2187 

Potter, Mr 2228 

Potter, Phil 2228 

President of the United States 2190, 2226, 2227, 2230, 2233, 2238 

Presidential directive 2226 

Radar laboratory — 2188, 2230 

Record of Telephone Conversations Between Mr. Frank Carr, Permanent 
Investigating Subcommittee of Senate, and Mr. Adams, Department 

Counselor 2213 

Reichelberger, General 2188, 2192 

Republican Cabinet member 2234 

Republican Commander in Chief 2239 

Republican Secretary of the Army 2227, 2232 

Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) 2186,2187 

Rhodes, Mr 2186, 2187 

Ridgway, General 2236, 2237 

ROTC (Reserve Officers Training Corps) 2186,2187 

St Clair, Mr 2215, 2219-2221 



St. Louis, Mo 2209 

Schiiie, G. David 2186, 211)0, 2191, 2195, 219G, 2205, 2206, 2224, 2236, 2238 

Second World War 2203 

Secretary of tlie Air Force 2237 

Secretary of the Army__ 21S6-2196, 2198, 2207, 2217, 2218, 2226-2238, 2240, 2241 

Secretary of Defense 2239 

Senate Connnittee on the Armed Services 2230, 2237 

Senate of the United States 2233-2238 

Shinebarger, Miss Angeline 2200 

Testimony of 2211-2213 

Stevens, Robert T 2186-2196, 219S, 2207, 2217, 221S, 2226-2238, 2240, 2241 

Syminston, Senator 2227, 2230, 2233, 2234, 2237, 2240 

Truman, President 2227, 2230, 2233 

Truman Loyalty Board 2230 

United States Air Force 2237-2289 

United States Armed Forces 2237,2238 

United States Army 2191, 

2193, 2203, 2204, 2206, 22U9, 2214, 2221, 2222, 2228, 2232, 2234-2239 

United States Army Chief of Staff 2236 

United States Attorney General 2238 

I'nited States Congress 2218 

United States courthouse (New Yorli City) 2188,2193 

United States Department of Defense 2238, 2241 

I'nited States Department of Justice 2241 

United States First Army 2191,2193 

United States Marine Corps 2237 

I'nited States Military Establishment 2235, 2239 

United States Navy 2237 

United States President 2100,222(1,2227,2230,2233,2238 

T'nited States Secretary of the Air Force 2237 

United States Secretary of Defense 2239 

United States Senate 2233-2238 

Walter Reed Hospital 2203 

Washington, D, C 2195,2222,2224-2226,2228 

Washington paper 2228 

Wil-son, Secretary 2239 

World War II 2203 

Zwiclier, General 2226, 2227, 2231-2233, 2236, 2237 




3 9999 05442 1720