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 .."

r€^

.r?

oi,$-V^ vl^^^iK

"Bi

Given By

SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHARGES
AND COUNTERCHARGES INVOLVING: SECRE-
TARY OF THE ARMY ROBERT T. STEVENS, JOHN
G. ADAMS, H. STRUVE HENSEL AND SENATOR

J JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and

;fi FRANCIS P. CARR

HEARING ' ^ z^UX

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL SUBCOMMinEE ON
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

PURSUANT TO

S. Res. 189

PART 56

JUNE 8, 1954

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46620° WASHINGTON : 1954

Boston Pubik j^i .rary
Superintendent of Documents

OCI-2 7 1954

COMMITTEHON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idalio
EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan

RiCHAttD J. O'Melia, General Counsel
Waltbe L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk

JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
HENRY M. JACKSON, WaslUngton
JOHN P. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
THOMAS A. BURKE, Ohio

Special Subcommittee on Investigations

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman
EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel

Thomas R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel

SoLis Hoewitz, Assistant Counsel

Charles A. Maner, Secretary

CONTENTS

Index _ ^""^l

Testimony of —

Cohn, Roy M., chief counsel, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations 2245

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

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1954

United States Senate,
Special Subcommittee on Investigations
OF THE Committee on Government Operations,

Washington, D. G.

'The subcommittee met at 10:45 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the
caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt,
chairman, presiding.

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

Also present : Ray H. Jenlrins, chief counsel to the subcommittee ;
Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel ; Charles Maner, assistant coun-
sel ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.

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

Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order.

The Chair regrets that we were late in starting this morning, but we
had an executive session which took a little time, so we couldn't
avoid it.

The Chair would like to welcome our guests who are attending the
hearing this morning and to remind them of the standing committee
rule that any audible manifestations of approval or disapproval of
anything taking place in this committee room are strictly forbidden
by the committee rules. The uniformed officers in the room and the
plainclothes men seated among you have a prevailing set of orders
from the committee to remove from the room immediately, politely
but firmly, any of you who elect to violate the terms by which you
entered the room, namely, to refrain entirely from audible manifesta-
tions of approval or disapproval.

The Chair again instructs our plainclothes people and our uni-
formed guards, without any further instruction from the Chair and
without any interruption to the proceedings, to carry out the orders of
the committee should there be any violation of those rules.

2243

2244 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Our audiences have been uniformly courteous and cooperative. We
have every confidence they will continue to be that way.

As we concluded yeste/day, we had finally terminated the long task
of crettin- the monitored phone calls into tlie record and, Mr Counsel,
we'have Mr. Cohn back on the stand, and we will start our 10-minute
go-around with you, if you have any questions to ask at this time.

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson?

Senator Jackson. May I follow im on what had been discussed in
part yesterday, namely, that Mr. Clifford be called as a witiiess, so that
ZUuc understancls. 1 made a motion this "--ing^n e^^^^^^^^^
session that he be called, and it was seconded by Senator McClellan.
The mo on was defeated'by a substitute on a 4 to 3 vote. I just wanted
the public fully to understand what has transpired since the request

""VeifatofiiuNDT. What Senator Jackson says is entirely correct
The substitute motion means that wecontmue the rules by ^vhlch the
■committee has operated up until this time, to the effect that those
called before the committee will be subpenaed on the recommenda-
tion of counsel to the Chair. As the Chair announced in executive
session, he now announces publicly : If we determine to mn these
hSgs beyond the specific number of witnesses requested by Mr
Welch, representing one side of the controversy certainly the Chair
vil servJa subpena on Mr. Clifford and have him called as one of
the witnesses if that is the desire of any member of the committee or
anv principal to the controversy. . .

Seiiator Symington. Mr. Chairman, a parhamentary inqunT- Does
vour statement mean that Mr. Clifford is going to be called? And if

" .19

^^Senator Mundt. IVIy statements stand on their own, and that is— -
Senator Symington. Would you be good enough to answer that?

Is Mr Clifford goimr to be called ; and if so, when?

Senator MuNrrr. Mr. Clifford will be called if the committee decides

to run these hearings beyond the specified number of witnesses sug-

oested by the Army's side of the controversy. As to when, of course,

I couldn't anwer that question. j • f at,. Plif

Senator Symington. A lot of charges were made against Mr Ciit-
ford yesterday, and I would suggest now that you tell us whether or
not you are going to call Mr. Clifford, or whether you are going to
conthiue on The v^te which was a party-line vote, 4 to 3, not to call
1 ' ?

^"senator Mundt. There was no such vote not to call him I must
correct the record. The vote will ultimately be published and we
must have the record correct. The vote, which passed by 4 to 3, was
that we continue exactly the procedure we have followed iq) to now
and that is to subpena witnesses on the advice of counsel. Ihe Cliair
will then subpena them and, of course, they will appear.

Since this has come up I might give a word or two of background
as to what transpired at the executive meeting. The purpose of the
meeting was to determine whether or not it would be possible now m
the interest of time to terminate these hearings at some foreseeable
date, to agree upon a list of witnesses to be called and having agreed
upon that, to set a target date for the complete adjournment sine die
of these hearings.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2245

^ It was brought out by some of the committee members, and the
Chair thought with complete validity, that before they could vote
intelligently on such a motion they should have an opportunity to
read the executive testimony of the witnesses who have appeared in
private session. So the Chair is today having transcribed and de-
livered to the counsel's office all of the testimony of all of the witnesses
who have appeared in executive session.

When committee members have had a fair chance themselves as
has counsel, to examine that testimony, the Chair is then going to call
another executive meeting of the committee to go around the table
and find out just what witnesses the principals involved or commit-
tee members feel should be called before we terminate these hearings

At that time I am very hopeful that we can agree on a list, however
large or however small, so that we won't have to be held here intermi-
nably and forever by these committee hearings which have a tendency
to spread and to expand without any guidance whatsoever, unless by
now we can sit down among ourselves and agree on the witnesses to be
called.

At that time certainly the name of Mr. Clifford will be before us
and if it IS decided to go beyond the witnesses that Mr. Welch now
tells us he wants to have called adequately to present his side of the
case, then certainly Mr. Clifford will be called.

You have no questions. The Chair has none. He yields, then, to
Senator McClellan for his 10-minute period.

TESTIMONY OF EOY M. COHN— Resumed

Senator McClellan. Mr. Cohn, if vou could refer to your docu-
ment, again, we will go through this as rapidlv as we can. Accordin<^
to my document, we were on page 13, and your charge or specification

Mr. Cohn. I think we had gone beyond that, sir. I mean

Senator McClellan. No, sir, we were discussing 24 when we con-
cluded, if I recall correctly.

Mr Cohn. I sort of remembered, sir, you had asked me about—
yes, about 31.

Senator McClellan. I was on 31.

Mr. Cohn. That is right ; yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. I don't recall, but just to get the connection
will you state now the one he soudit to punish? I believe you said
that you mentioned specifically that Mr. Adams sought to punish!
was General Lawton. '

Mr. Cohn. That is the outstanding one.

Senator McClellan. Then that is sufficient. Then I think you
agree with me that General Lawton should be a witness here, to either
refute that charge or sustain it, don't you ?

Mr. Cohn. Pardon me, sir?

Senator McClellan. I think General Lawton should be a witness
nere, either to support their charge or refute it.

Mr. Cohn. Sir, I think it would be fine to have him, and I am sure
he would be glad to come.

Senator McClellan. Do you think we can make the record with-
out iiim ?

2246 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoTiN. I think the record is made, sir. Mr. Stevens and Mr.

Senato^McCLELLAN. I know, but you don't want him to be heard?
He is the man who was threatened.

Mr. CoHN. I didn't say he should not be heard sir

Senator McClelt.an. All riffht. I th.nk he should b^ and I thin
you should a-ree with me that he should be. Let's go to No. 32. 1 ou
char-e there that from mid-October tlwou-h January 1954, from mid-
October through January 1954, Mr. Adams sought on ^"f ^'o^f «^c^:
sions to secure from the chairman and subcommittee staff, a piomise
of silence, if he and Mr. Stevens "broke" General Lawton, com-
manding general at Fort Monmouth, and relieved him of his command.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. Is that true?

Mr, CoHN. Yes, sir ; it is. . . • „

Senator McClei.lan. Do you regard that as a serious act, a serious

4-1 > f 9

'Mr.'CoiiN. Yes, sir. I think that General Lawton was badly

^'senator McClellan. Could there be anything more reprehensible
than to threaten a general if he was simply cooperating in trying to
get the Communists out of the Army ?

Mr. CoHN. It is very serious, sir.

Senator McClellan. Very serious?

llna^nicaELLAN. All right. Let's go to No. 33. On or about
October 21, 1953, and on repeated occasions thereaftel^ Mr. Adams
used every effort to discover the names of persons reporting instances
of Coimiunist infiltration to the subcommittee, statincr that if j^e dis-
cove?S any in his Department, he would have their heads. Is that
true?

Sena^or^McSELri^ Do you regard that as coddling Communists,

'^Mr'coim. Well, sir, of course that gets into this question of in-
formants that we have had so much discussion about here.

Senator McClellan. I understand. But if true, I am talking about

Adams' action

Mr PoTiK I think he was quite wrong, sir. . ^ . ,

Senatm McClellan. That would be coddling Commumsts,
L^Tu9 T ran't Dlace any other interpretation on it. If you

:r iell'the cimltteS U the audiencl what it is, what other

"^S?^'n"S! si'r ^ U^k in'f airness to Mr. Adams, sir, I have
to say that at that point he took the position that he was going to
getthe liead of anybody working for him who was giving information

^^Satr^MctE^LAN^ At what point? You state on October 21.
Is that the point you are talking about ^

Mr OoHN Yes: I am very sure it was that night. .

Senatoi MgCleLlan. That was very early, then, in your acquaint-
ance with him, wasn't it?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. Quite early.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2247

Mr. CoHN. He took the position that if he found anybody in his
Department that was giving us information, he would have their
heads. He did not tie that in with any statement on his part that
he thought Communists should be protected or anything along those
lines. I have to say that in fairness to him.

Senator McClellan. He didn't say that, but he said he would get
the heads of anybody that gave information about it?

Mr. CoHN. His point was he did not want people in his organiza-
tion to give us the information ; yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. Well, that is an obstruction from your view-
point, wasn't it ? *■

]VIr. CoHN. I thought he was wrong, sir.

Senator JNIcClellan. You thought he was wrong, then.

Did that continue on from that date?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir; it did.

Senator McClellan. All the way through your acquaintance with
him until your relations were broken off, as you call it ?

Mr. CoHN. I remember October 21. I remember a few instances
thereafter. Certainly it continued through December.

Senator McClellan. All right, let's go to 34.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. I read from the next to the last sentence :

He was —

he refers to Mr. Adams —

He was told that in view of information which both he and the subcommittee
had, that numerous persons with Communist records had been cleared by this
board —

and I assume you are speaking about the loyalty board ; is that correct ?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.
Senator McClellan (reading) :

had been cleared by this board —

Mr. CoHN. Screening board.

Senator McClellan. Sir?

Mr. CoHN. It was the top loyalty board.

Senator McClellan. Top loyalty board —

a whitewash of them was impossible. At various times in December and
January he told Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr that he "would stop at nothing to
prevent the subcommittee from going into this."

Is that true ?

Mr. CoHN. It is, sir.

Senator McClellan. Didn't you regard that as a threat ?

Mr. CoHN. I regarded that as a statement that he was going to
do everything he could to stop us from examining the members of
the loyalty board.

Senator McClellan. He was threatening to obstruct, at least,
wasn't he ?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes.

Senator McClellan. Threatening to obstruct the committee's work ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. He certainly did not want us to examine the
members of the loyalty board.

Senator McClellan. That is correct. Now let's go to No. 36,

46620°— 54— pt. 56 2

2248 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

The following days —
I assume that refers to the statement in the previous paragraph,
to wit, in which January 19 is mentioned, does it?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan (reading) :

The following days Mr. Adams communicated with other members of the
subcommittee and stated that unless the chairman was P5f^''7l^^,"P«^^ .^^^^il^
his investisation and not to issue subpenas for those in the oyf/ty setup. Mi.
Adams would cause an embarrassing report to be circulated about Mr. Cohn.

Do vou regard that as a threat? It is true, isn't it?

Mr. CoHN. Oh, yes; I think the testimony of the Repubhcan Sena-
tors here has established that. , . . t

Senator McClellan. It is true he threatened to issue a report
against you unless the subpenas to the loyalty board were withdrawn {

Mr. CoiiN. I think that is the substance of it.

Senator McClellan. Will you name the members of the commit-
tee he went to and made that threat? ^ -n.- 1

Mr. CoHN. Sir, I have heard the testimony here of Senator Dirksen,
Senator Mundt, and particularly those two. I don't recall

Senator McClellan. Do you interpret their testimony as corrob-
orating that, that he did make such a threat to them ?

Mr. CoHN. I do. . ^ ,, , , •

Senator McClellan. That is the way you interpret the testimony

of the Senators you have named ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes ; I do, sir.

Senator McClellan. No. 40 :

On or about January 27, 1954, Mr. Adams told Mr. Carr that Mr. Adams
had to pieve^t the appearance of those connected with the loyalty procedure
and that this was one issue on which he would stop at nothing.

Is that true? ,, . rr\ *. r, ^-^^A

Mr. Cohn. That was not told to me personally, sir. Ihat was told

to Mr. CaiT. He told it to me. tit /■>>

Senator McClellan. Then it would be important to have Mr. Larr

testify on that point.

Mr. CoHN. Surely. , n ^ ^i i

Senator McClellan. To sustain or refute the charges.

Mr Cohn. I can tell vou this : Mr. Carr told me such a conversation

took place, and I know Mr. Carr and his record in the FBI, and i am

sure it did take place. „ , i t

Senator McClellan. Then we follow on down here— I am sure you
are familiar with them-No. 41, 42, and 43, where you mention other
dates that Mr. Adams had taken about the same position. Are tney

all correct ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir, I am sure they are. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. They are all correct.

In No 45, you refer to "this document" which you now hold m your
hand, the original of it or the originals of it, which were distributed
to members of the committee and later released. No. 45 :

This document was issued for the very purpose announced in advance by Mr.
Adams, to stop the subcommittee's investigation of Communist infiltration into
the Army.

Do you make that charge now and say that that was the very pur-
pose for which the document was issued ?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2249

Mr. CoHN. I am sure it was the purpose for which it was issued ;
yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. So you make that statement now.
Then you state further :

And it succeeded, at least temporarily.

Mr. CoHisr. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan (reading) :

It was issued in bad faith, as established by the fact that in spite of numerous
instances of actual intervention in military assignments by public oflQcials, never
before was such a report issued.

Do you charge now that it was issued in bad faith by the Secretary
of the Army and by Mr. Adams?

Mr. CoHN. Senator McClellan, I not only do, but I think that Mr.
Stevens' statement in the telephone conversation with Senator Syming-
ton on March 8, that this whole thing was grossly exaggerated and
there was nothin^j to it, is ample demonstration of the fact that it was
issued in bad faith.

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.

Senator Potter ?

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions to ask
Mr. Cohn. I don't want to take too much time because I would like
to allow Mr. Welch as much time as possible to conduct his cross-
examination.

I would like, however, to explain one thing to the people who are
here and the people who might be watching on television.

We have had several 4-to-3 votes in the committee. I regret that a
partisan connotation has been put on this hearing. I regret that all of
our actions can't be unanimous.

This is the 29th day of this hearing.

We have 8 Senators who are busy people, who were elected by their
States to represent them in the Senate of the United States, but who
are tied up here.

Ladies and gentleman, the end. is still not in sight. I am wonder-
ing whether we are carrying out our responsibilities as public servants
by not trying to find a method to bring these hearings to an honorake
conclusion. I say that certainly after 29 days and with the plans to
have Senator McCarthy and Mr. Carr give their testimony, if we
go back and pick up every witness that every member of this committee
would like to have heard and every principal would like to have heard,
we will be here until November 4.

I don't wish to suggest that our friends on the other side of the
table would like to have these hearings continue until November 4,
but I will say, for one on this side of the table, I am convinced we can
ascertain the facts, which is our job, and conclude these hearings in
a matter of days if we work with a singleness of purpose to do so.

There is no doubt that these hearings have more or less degenerated
from the basic issue of ascertaining the facts. We have personality
conflicts that are becoming hotter by the momentt and which do no
one any good.

So I would like to suggest to my colleagues on both sides, search
your conscience and your good reasoning in an effort to ascertain the
facts that are pertinent to this investigation and controversy and then

2250 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

bring these hearings to a condusion so we can carry out the oflier
functions of our duties in the Senate.

SenatoWuNDT. Thank you, Senator Potter, for those wise and
dispassionate words of confidence.

Senator jIckson. Mr. Chairman, might I^ust add a word or two to
the very fine remarks of my good friend, the distniguished Senator

^'T'lMnk'tha" probably the hardest thing to practice i" sitting here
before so many people is restraint. I know that I find it difficult to
follow as well as I should, being a human being. ,^.. .. ..-

I would like to say, however, that when names are brought "^to this
controversy not by some of us on this side of the aisle or by, I think,
any of the people at the head table here, the members of the coinmittee,
Senators both Republicans and Democrats, I think ]ust simple Amei-
ican fair play requires that the other side be heard.

If you lant to cut down and speed up these hearings, then let's avoid
brin^ving in additional people. I think everyone, not lawyers not
speakers on evidence or anything else but e^ery/'?\^^'^f,^' ^^^Ji^^^Mf^'
or low, certainly understands that when an individual has been dis-
cussed at great length before millions of Americans, that individual

'^The'lay lo a^okf adding witnesses is not to bring in the additional
names I think we can all agree on that, and I say, I think that all
of us who are sitting in iudgment on this have tried, both on the
Kepubicrn and Democra ic "side, to avoid bringing m additional

names

Now if we "are going to bring them in, then fair play dictates that
they l^Ve an oppo^tunfty to be feard That is why I made the motion
this morning. It is just that simple, with reference to Mi. Clark

^ Mr 'Cohn, now that we Senators have got out of the way our habit
of makino- a talk now and then, and I confess to that and I think all
of us wi^lfin^ here at the head table, may I revert briefly now to com-
plete my interrogation regarding Mr. Crouch, and the way this thing

'^ Mr.'^CoHN. Surely, sir. Mr. Crouch was not the way the thing

'^SenatoT Jackson. I know, but he was the first name that you re-
feiied to when this document was introduced of a thousand names.
I think you have stated that he did not give any indication of people
in radar laboratories in that statement. _

Mr. CoHX. Sir, I looked it over. I think there is a statement about
people in chemical laboratories and things along those l"^f • JJ^ "^
iee the word "radar" used, and you are correct m that. I know that
he did discuss the Signal Corps and the radar situation with us. in
the memorandum, you are correct, the word radar

Senator Jackson. By the way, did you make a memo of your con-
versation with Mr. Crouch? „ w A/r /^ 1 -Tko^ra

MrCoHN. No,Ididn't. Dave Schine talked to Mr. Crouch. Dave
Schine obtained this memorandum which you have. Senator from
him in March. I talked to Mr. Crouch on several occasions. I don t

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2251

think I have ever made a memorandum of my conversations. I am
not good at making memoranda, sir.

Senator Jackson. Well, I wouldn't try to challenge you on that,
because there are a number of memoranda that were released to the
press awhile back, and I believe that was— when was it, in March?
So that at least I think it is logical that I ask the question about
memoranda, because memoranda had been released to the press relatino-
to conversations that some of the staff had with different peopfe ^

Mr. CoHN. Surely, sir. ^

Senator Jackson. Noav, wouldn't it be important, though, for Mr.
Schme to make a note of the fact that he had mentioned— what do you
say, chemical laboratories and the Signal Corps ?

Mr. CoHN. I think that is in the report.

Senator Jackson. I have looked over this report, and they lust make
the blanket statement

Mr. CoHN. Could I see a copy of that, sir ?

Senator Jackson. I will let you have the only one I have, this one.
[Document handed.]

TiT^ ^liowsand names are given in the Army, which is pretty indefinite,
Mr. Crouch having left the Communist Party, I understand, in 1941
or 1942. I think what we need, Mr. Cohn, is some memoranda from
the files which would indicate that the hearing was initiated back in
March.

Mr CoHN. Well, I think you have this memorandum which came in
March— I can give this back to you, sir. [Document returned.] I
can also give you some testimony, if you wish, about some other people.

Senator Jackson. But 95 percent of Mr. Crouch's memorandum
relates to a trip to Russia in 1927 and 1928.

Mr. Cohn. I have what I want, sir. It is on page 3 of the memo-
randum. I believe it says :

I was reprimanded for neglecting the Navy yards and civilian workers in
munitions and chemical industries.

That is the sentence to which I have reference.

Senator Jackson. I know, but that is just like saying the Army as
a whole He doesn't mention Monmouth, he doesn't mention specific
places, he is just making the statement that the Communists have in-
filtrated. As a matter of fact, is it not true, Mr. Colin, that under the
Draft Act a member cannot be excluded from the draft if he is a
member of the Communist Party ?

Mr CoHN. No, sir; I believe you are right. He can't be excluded
by selective service. I don't think that stops the Army from takino-
any action. *

Senator Jackson. No ; but when he says there are thousands in the
Army, you would automatically say that if there are 25,000 or 50,000
Communists m the United States, and they have children, you are
automatically going to get a certain number of Communists into the
Army.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir; and that, of course, would raise the question of
commissioning them as officers and it would raise the question of their
treatment and observations once they are inducted into the Army.

Senator Jackson. Let's get back to whether there is any memo in the
files. You mentioned, I think, in your earlier testimony the other day

2252 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

that you or someone of the staff, I think someone on the staff, had talked
■with an Army officer

JNlr Cohn Yes sir

Senator Jackson. About an investigation in the Army. When was

Mr. CoHN. That, I think, was in Late February, as best I can give

it to you. „

Senator Jackson. Do you have a memo on that?

Mr. CoHN. No, I don't. I have a recollection on it, sir.

Senator Jackson. Do you have any memoranda at all ^vi li letei-
ence to the in.itiation of the investigation into the Army othei than
the Paul Crouch document?

Mr. CoHN. I think probably we do, sir; yes. ^ , . , ^, ^ .

Senator Jackson. Well, can we get that? I think that is vei-y im-
portant, as you know, to the question of when the investigation of the

^ul Cohn! Wdt^of course, as I say, you have here a memorandum
on Communist inhltration of the American Armed Forces, dated

^^In tidSon to that. Senator Jackson, I believe you have Senator
McCarthy's testimony that this two-and-a-quarter-page smnmaiy 1 l^L
information obtained from the Army came to us back around this
eHod of t me maybe a month or 2 after. That is another thing. We
^diryou ar^r^ht^^^^ talk to an Army intelligence officer toward the
end of February. I would not like to repeat his name here.

Mr. Stevens knows his name.

Senator Jackson. I am not asking for his name.

Mr CoHN. No, sir. Mr. Stevens knows his name because I sent this
Armv intellio-ence officer over to see Mr. Stevens m September.

Sator Jackson. I think I know who he is, but I am not asking
for h fname no V. But I would like to have the memoranda that is
available wh,ich would indicate a f ollowup on the conversation with
this major and anyone else that was interviewed on it.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. , . . , ,

Senator Jackson. I think that is important.

Mr. CoHN. I spent quite a lengthy eyeiiing with that ma]oi and
discussed these things tmvard the end of February, I believe I thiiik
I had someone call him and find out when. He says i -^^ the ^^IJ^ of
February. I remember where it was I don't recall that I made a
memorandum of that meeting, sir. I ^^^^^ think I did ...^^

Senator Jackson. Well, was any memorandum or any tollowup
mide of the two-and-a-quarter-page document? , . ^,

Mr CoHN Well, to get back to the other thing sir, there was a
foUowiurbe^aiVse I knofv I talked, for instance, to this ma^or I hav^
talked to him again since that date. I was aware of what he knew
and so was Dave Schine. I think he might have supplied some docu-
mentation at that time or shortly thereafter, or told us where to get

"orlrFBI memorandum, sir, when I got the name Aaron Cole-
man as I think I explained, I checked that back against the record in
r Rosenberg case.^ I thii'ik I bought a copy of the record in the

Kosenbero- case. And we followed it up ^

Senatoi" Jackson. You said you have documentation. Can you sup-

ply that?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2253

Mr. CoHN. You have the Crouch memorandum, sir. You have

Senator Jackson. But the Crouch memorandum, Mr. Cohn, I have
read it all the way through, that is just a general statement about the
fact that the Communists were trying to infiltrate the Army, and he
based that on a conference that he had in the Soviet Union in 1927
and 1928.

Senator McCarthy. May I, Senator, just to shorten this

Senator Jackson. I have read it very carefully.

Senator McCarthy. Senator, just to shorten it, may I say that if
there are any memoranda in the file you are welcome to them. I doubt
that you will find much because 1 was in constant verbal contact
with Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr every day. But if there is anything
there, you are more than welcome to it. I will order my staff right at
this minute to start a search. Keep in mind, they are pretty much im-
mobilized by this hearing.

Senator Jackson. I think it is very important in this case that we
have a file of memoranda relating to this, and if we should have it
right after lunch

Senator McCarthy. No, you won't have it right after lunch. You
cannot go through all the files and get everything by right after
lunch.

Senator Jackson. We were told before that the Senator's — when
the matters were brought up such as the two-and-a-quarter-page docu-
ment, that we could get it without any trouble.

Senator McCarthy. I will need Mr. Cohn to help to go through the
files. As soon as you get him off the stand, we will try to get you
whatever memorandum is there.

Senator Jackson. Don't we have somebody in the office who can get
this? How will we ever be able to get information when we need it?

Mr. Cohn. We will get it to you.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jackson, you will get what you ask for,
but you know very well that the committee is completely immobilized
by this hearing. I am now instructing the staff to proceed to go
through the files and try to get you — what do you want ? You want
memoranda in regard

Senator Jackson. Initiation of the Army cases. I don't see why
the staff should be immobilized working on this.

Senator McCarthy. To save some time, I am going to order them
right this minute to start going through the files and see what they can
get for you.

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, in the interest of expediting
the hearings, I will pass.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch?

Do I call on you first, or Senator McCarthy first ?

Mr. Cohn. Senator McCarthy first.

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy ?

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, normally I have a considerable
number of questions. However, in order to give Mr. Welch a chance
to cross-examine this witness in detail, I am going to pass to Mr.
Welch.

Let me say one of the reasons for that is that Mr. Cohn is being
called to the service Friday. He is being ordered to Mr. Zwicker's
command, incidentally.

2254 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

I would like to have Mr. Welch have every opportunity to examine
the witness before Mr. Cohn will get that preferential treatment under
Mr. Zwicker.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, you have 10 minutes.

Mv Welch. Mr. Chairman, Senator McCarthy has told me mtor-
mally that it was his intention to pass repeatedly today so that Mr. St.
Clair and I could make progress with this witness. In that connection,
Senator Potter, glancing down the table toward your smiling face,
it is the intention of Mr. St. Clair and Mr. Welch to do better for
everyone concerned than anyone could dream of. While the minutes
of this morning's executive session are not being made public as ot
now, I understand, the consequence of that session was that I was
filled with alarm lest we would meet some kind of adjournment or
recess without having at least some opportunity at the witnesses that

I deem essential. -, ^i • i .i j. i.i

Senator Mundt. In all fairness, you must state, 1 think, that there
was no suggestion whatsoever made by anybody that there be a recess
before the witnesses you suggested were called. . ^i i

Mr Welch. I understand, but time flies, and the days ot the hear-
incr build up. I want to make it clear that Mr. St. Clair and I both
wi'sh to see the Senator on the stand, and we wish to see Mr. Carr on
the stand. The consequence is that Mr. St. Clair and I are prepared
to drop out of our cross-examination, laboriously i^lanned and built
up, oreat gobs of it, so that we may proceed and at least have some
time with the other two witnesses that we have m mmd before some-
thing happens to these hearings. , ., -i. f
Mr Cohn has had my assurance that one large it^em or an item ot
his cross-examination is going to be dropped and, Mr. Cohn, 1 now
make good on that arrangement with you. You suggested to me last
night that your military record was reasonably long and that it was
immaterial: As a lawyer, Mr. Cohn, I cannot differ with that last
point. We fell into the habit in this room of talking about peoples
military careers, as you know, and when you stated your military
career in the National Guard, it seemed to me that you stated less than
all of it. But even so, whether my supporters, if I have any, ike me
for it or hate me for it, I have decided as I have told you, for the sake
of speed, not to go into that somewhat long story.

Mr CoHN. Mr. Welch, I will say this: I am, of course, prep^ed
to answer any questions you want to put to me about anything. You
and I have talked from time to time after the session about the elimi-
nation of various matters which might be immaterial and might take
u lono- period of time, and I am ready to talk to you at any time about
any of those and eliminate any matters or add any matters or speed
any matters to get these hearings to a conclusion.

Mr Welch. Thank you, sir. And, Mr. Cohn, it is quite clear, 1
think, that you and I have matters to discuss of more/mportance than
my military career, which was trivial, in World War I, or Mr. St.
Clair's, which was reasonably notable, in World War II, or yours, sir.
Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. I might say, you say we have gotten in the
liabit of doing it. I know neither Mr. Anastos nor Mr. Juliana ot our
s< aff , who have very fine records, much finer than mine— a lot ot people
have not gone into theirs.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2255

Mr. Wklcii. I do not wisli to preclude you from making some state-
ment about it at some time if you wish, but I have already stated what
I will do about examining you.

Now, Mr. Cohn, let us turn to the things that I think are of some
importance in this hearing.

First, I want a little discussion with you as a lawyer. We have
been sitting in this room trying what, on the face of it, looks like a
dispute between individuals. Do you not agree ?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir; sure,

Mr, Welch. One in substance says 'tis and one in substance saying
'taint,

Mr, Cohn, Sure.

Mr. Welch, That is right. In the course of that 'tis and 'taint so, I
would like to suggest to you, Mr, Cohn, that we have revealed and
illuminated certain constitutional problems. Would you agree with
me, sir, that we have revealed and illuminated certain constitutional
problems ?

Mr, Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr, Welch. May I say to you, Mr, Cohn, that probably you and I
would differ as to how those problems should be solved,

Mr, Cohn, No doubt,

Mr, Welch, But I would like to believe that we are in reasonable
agreement as to Avhat it is that we have revealed and illuminated.

We have in this hearing revealed what you might properly call a
constitutional question as to the line of demarcation between the
executive and the legislative; have we not?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr, Welch, And we have constantly found ourselves in a position
where executive directives or orders have been thwarting somet-imes to
both sides, haven't they?

Mr, Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr, Welch, The question as to where that line is drawn and what a
senatorial investigating committee may do about it is something that
you and I know can be revealed and illuminated in this room ; is that
right?

Mr, Cohn, Yes, sir,

Mr. Welch, But it cannot be decided.

Mr. Cohn. No, sir, I am sure there are a lot of things we can't
decide in this room.

Mr. Welch. The second thing that we have revealed and illumi-
nated is this : We have the question of the right of a Senator, whether
on this committee or any committee, to receive top secret documents
from governmental employees and give them immunity from ever
having their names known. We have that question, don't we ?

Mr. Cohn. That is a question, sir; yes, sir.

Mr. Welch, Right, and then a subsidiary question, a part of this
one, as to whether or not a Government employee who hands a top-
secret document to a Senator has violated some part of his oath of
office.

Mr. Cohn. A question has risen about that, sir.

Mr. Welch. That is right. Now, there is a second

Mr. Cohn. You know my view on it, sir.

Mr. WEiiCH, I understand, sir. And I take it, Mr. Cohn, you know
mine?

46620°— 54— pt. 56—3

2256 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. Co UN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Wklcii. My view, Mr. Cohn, so that we will understand each
other is this : If J. Ed^jar Hoover stamps on the top of a document
tlie words "Secret" and "Confidential"' for Welch that goes. You
understand that, don't you ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes ; I do, sir.

Mr. Welch. That goes. And I do not understand that there is on
it some invisible ink which says to whoever has tliat document :

Secret and confidential, but —

and then the invisible ink —

if anybody that sees it thinks Senator McCarthy ought to have it, it is okay to
give it to him some night.

Mr. CoHN. No, sir ; I don't think it is that simple.

Mr. Welch. Well, I like to make things dramatic. But it is a fact
that according to you and the Senator, those words, to me a little
magic and a little impressive, "Top Secret," are subject to be waived
by anyone that has the document if he thinks that not enough action
is being taken in respect to the document. And when the person
weighing the action gets tired of waiting, you and the Senator believe
that the person, the Government employee, who is tired of waiting,
may come and see the Senator or you and hand you the document?

Mr. CoHN". You do correctly state, sir, you have a very fine flair for
the dramatic. I do think on the issue here it is just not that simple
and maybe it is not that dramatic.

Mr. Welch. Well, let's try to make it sim])le. Doesn't it come
down to that ? When the Government em])loyee looks day after da}' at
his or her copy of this top-secret document, but can't see any action,
I understand it is the Senator's position and yours that when that
person, male or female, runs out of patience, it is time then to give the
document to the Senator or to you ?

Mr. CoiiN. No, sir. If I might say very briefly on that, I think
the question is this: This committee, Mr. Welch, under the Legisla-
tive Reorganization Act, has a mandate. We are in business to investi-
gate instances of dereliction of duty, of laxity, of failure to act, on
the part of Government agencies. Now, if the FBI has been warning
n Government agency about the presence of a Communist or a cell of
Communists, or a spy, or a cell of spies, in the agency, and we learn
that those FBI warnings have been ignored by people in that, the
heads of that Government agency, that is an example of laxity on the
part of the executive wliich Ave are not only privileged but wliich it is
our sworn duty to investigate.

Mr. Welch. Mr, Cohn, I have to be in complete agreement with
that, sir. I think when this committee finds a situation where, by
some curious accident, we have a governmental agency riddled with
Communists and nothing gets done about it, and this committee knows
it, they ought to move in. You don't think I disagree with that, do
you? You don't think I

Mr. CoHN. No, sir.

Senator Mundt. Counsel's time has ex])ired. You may answer the
question.

Mr. Corn. I don't think you disagree with it, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch. I think you have answered it when you say, "No, sir."

Mr. CoiiN. This is a big probleuL It is probably the only problem

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2257

1 knoAv anything about in this world. I do know a little about it. It
is a very complicated problem and it is just not that simple.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, I think you and I are ooino; to have to
have an agreement that you won't make a speech at the end of the
10-minute period.

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir, I will be glad to.

Mr. Jenkins. I will pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. In the interest of giving Mr. Welch as much time
as possible, the Chair will pass.

Senator McClellan?

Senator McClellan. All right, Mr. Cohn. I think we are down to

No. 46 in the document. I read it :

The pattern followed by Seoretary Stevens and Mr. Adams is clear. As long
as only individual Communists were the object of the subcommittee's investi-
gation, they made continuing offers of cooperation with the investigation. But
as soon as the probe turned to the infinitely more important question of who was
responsible for protecting Communist infiltration, and protecting Communists
who had infiltrated, every conceivable obstacle was placed in the path of the
subcommittee's search for the truth.

Is that true ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. Who placed that obstacle in the path ?

Mr. Cohn. Apparently a lot of people, sir.

Senator McClellan. Name some of them.

Mr. Cohn. I think Mr. Adams is certainly one of those who I can
give you as an outstanding example.

Senator McClellan. Can't you give me Mr. Stevens' name, too?

Mr. Corn. Yes. I can say to you that Mr. Stevens did not want us
to ffo into this, sir.

Senator McClellan. Beg your pardon?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir, I can tell you that Mr. Stevens did not want to
go into this.

Senator McClellan. Well, you charge there that they placed every
conceivable obstacle in the path of the subcommittee's search for
truth.

Senator McCarthy. A point of order, Mr. Chairman?

Senator Mundt. The Senator will state it.

Senator McCarthy. I didn't want to raise this after Mr. Syming-
ton left. Will the photographers

Senator McClellan. This is not taken out of my time? It is some-
thing extraneous to my question?

Senator McCarthy. It is a point of order.

Senator Mundt. The Senator will state the point of order. It will
not be taken out of the Senator's time.

Senator IMcCarthy. I would like to state the point, in view of yes-
terday, for example, we found new faces in sworn testimony respon-
sible for ])lacing obstacles in our path. It is impossible for this young
man to name all the new faces. He just can't do it. There are new
ones cropping up every day.

Senator MrNirr. Senator McClellan assures the Chair that he is
not asking that new names be introduced into this controversy.

Mr. Cohn. I will stand on Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams for this
limited purpose.

2258 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator McClellan. I am not objecting to new names, if you have
any, but I am simply tryino^ to have you swear to the charges you
have made. There is no objeclion to that ; is tliere ?

]\fr. CoHN. There is no objection, sir. But I am sure you want
matters within my own personal knowledge.

Senator JMcClellan. That is rigiit. That is what I am asking you
for. I will ask you specifically. Does this charge 40 apply both to
Mr. Adams and to Secretary Stevens?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellax. All right.

Now, I think I have read all of the substantial charges in here, save
those made ajxainst Mr. Hensel and possibly others, that I' thought
possibly were within your personal knowledge. I have not asked you
about any statements in here that apparently were not within your
personal knowledge. I want to ask you now, Mr. Cohn, whether you
now agree with me that these charges are serious.

Mr. CoiiN, Yes, sir.

Senator McCleelan. They are serious, and you made them in good
faith, because you thought they were very serious; did you not?

Mr. Cohn, We stated the facts, sir, as we knew them to be true.

Senator McClellan. Well, if you state a fact, and say a man is
coddling Communists, that is a charge against him; isn't it? Don't
you so interpret it as a law^yer ?

Mr. CoHN. It certainly could be interpreted as such; yes. I have
been trying to make very clear here. Senator McClellan, and the rec-
ord is made clear not only by me but a lot of other things that hap-
pened, we did not start this.

Senator IMcClellan. I understand. That is a little peculiar, too,
and I want to ask you a question. Are you saying now that had not
the Army issued this statement, that you would have never revealed
to the country that we did have a Secretary of the Army and a chief
counsel that was coddling Communists, would we never have known
about it, except that the Army issued this document?

Mr. CoHN. You would have known about it, sir.

Senator McClellan. Whent

jNIr Cohn. 1 think when the testimony on the Peress case came in
and we found out who promoted him and who

Senator McClellan. But you w^ould have never made a charge?

Mr. CoHN. 1 think we would have done it under the normal rules
of this committee, sir.

Senator McClellan. How long would you go along here? You
started out in October making memoranda of these things. Didn't
you think it was important, if these facts were true, to expose it
immediately so that we could get at the top?

Mr. CoHN. Sir, at the beginning, Senator McClellan, you had a
situation where Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams didn't want us to investi-
gate their Department. They wanted us to go elsewhere. That, I
must say frankly, was not an unusual experience, insofar as this or any
other investigation. The people wdio were being investigated would
be much hapjner if you would go some place else and leave them alone.
I did not feel that thei'e was any need of making any formal charges.
We could take care of ourselves. When we thought something should
be investigated, we did it.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2259

Senator McClellan. Well, the formal charges or informal, didn't
you think it was important to the security of this country, to expose
Mr. Adams and expose Secretary Stevens if these charges against
them were true ?

Mr. CoHN. No, I didn't think it was important to the security of
the Nation in October to expose Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams, sir. I
thouglit it was important to the security of this Nation that this
committee should continue its sworn obligation to investigate every-
thing that should be investigated, and if people who were being investi-
gated didn't want us to do it, or thought we should go elsewhere, it
was their privilege to try, as a lot of others in the past have.

Senator McCi^llan. Yes, but you said they were trying by means
that indicated that they were attempting blackmail — not indicating,
but you charged by means of blackmail and by holding a private in
the Army as a hostage.

Mr. CoHN. When that blackmail business came about and when Mr.
Adams went to see Senator McCarthy that night, I stopped talking to
Mr. Adams. You are correct in that.

Senator McClellan. All right. Then you did have the knowledge,
according to your charges and your sworn testimony, that Mr. Stevens,
Secretary Stevens, and Mr. Adams had gone to that extreme to try
to prevent the investigation of Communists; to use your case, to try
to prevent you from finding out who was responsible for the Peress
case. They were going to that extreme ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.*

Senator McClellan. Isn't that true ?

Mr. CoHN. That is true.

Senator McClellan. Don't you think it important that if we have
such a man at the head of the Army of this country, that it be exposed
immediately so that appropriate action might be taken to remove him ?

Mr. CoHN. Senator McClellan, we did go ahead immediately. .As
soon as the facts in the Peress case and the conduct became known,
Senator McCarthy wrote an open public letter setting forth those of
the facts he knew, and charging, stating that there had certainly been
mishandling and misconduct. He made that letter public I think 2
days after Peress appeared before our committee in executive session.

From that time on. Senator McCarthy took a considerable number
of steps to bring these matters, under the rules of this committee, to
the attention of the public in the form o^ a regular subcommittee
investigation.

Senator McClellan. Yes, but as I understood you, these charges
would never have been made had not this document been issued. Is
that true ?

Mr. CoHN. Sir. maybe I spoke too quickly on that. You are cer-
tainly right that the Peress matter and the role of certain people in the
Army in trying to cover up those who had been responsible for the
promotion and honorable discharge of Communists — those things
would have come out even if it were not for these charges, yes, sir.

Senator McClellax. You spoke of something else a while ago in
answer to Attorney Welch about what these hearings had pointed up.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. Don't you agree with me that if your testimony
is true, you have pointed out to the country that we have at the head

2260

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

„f fhe United States Army, as Secretary of the Army, a man who is
?Uw,^' Communists and ^ho is trying to protect those who protect

^ Mr'coHN I would answer that in this way sir : As far as coddling
Communists it concerned, I have never heard Mr Stevens say any-

"'SrsSrr^Ss^'"*«^^^

"|f?° "''Vrtti' I? s^yTl^:"sir --I ^eTertS'^rifer-say
Mr.CoHN. I w^anted '»^^y ™^^™ ^ that he liked Communists

"nnfheu^^r tl Toor'lhVt he warmed to protect Communi>^s in any
any '«'™ 5 ' , ,■ f ^ moment that he wanted to do that,
"'i^enato McCLELi^AN!°But haven't you charged that he did that

ClT r,„v T don't believe— I think we say this, sir: That on the
„ufs ion of uncoveingi dividual Communists and getting them out
?f tinnny, we were°sure that Mr. Stevens was ]ust as anxious to do

""on"'tJ™ second question you raise, Senator McClellan, insofar as

cocUlhTtl'ese Communists, and we have felt that he has been mistaken
'"senatof'McCLELLAN. Mr. Cohn, you are softening these charges
considerably. , • i t

Mr. CoHN. Yes, Sir.

Senator McClellan. Do you agree with me i

I^wanrto'sJy'this: I certainly don't want to soften or harden any
char™ i want to give you the truth and what was said to me, and

' liSXi^?have taken your statements, Il^ve^asked vou
the direct question upoij every charge you have made against Mi.
Stevens, and you have answered in the attirmative.

^emSr'MccSLLTso we may take the language of your charges
as your testimony now as against Mr. Stevens and against Mr. Adams

°'Mr"coHN Yes. I would want to stand on the testimony I have
given here^particularly. I will be glad to reaffirm the answers I have
^iven to vou, Senator McClellan. „c.Vo/l Trnn

"Senator McClkllan. You have given answers. When I asked you
if that statement was true, you said it was.

Mr. Coim. Yes, sir.

Senator MuNDT. Senator Dirksen « j

Se a or Dikksen. Mr. Chairman, I have only one observation. I
would rather address this to Mr. AVelch than to the witness.
Senator Mundt. You may do so. It is your 10 minutes.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2261

Senator Dirksen. Only to round out a little, I think, the line of
questioning that Mr. Welch was pursuing.

I rather subscribe to the general thesis that if you have wholesale
revelations in the executive branch of confidential material, you could
develop, I suppose, a kind of anarchy and a lack of devotion and fealty
to the job and the administration'in government. But a practical
consideration comes into the picture, and we had evidences of it in
connection with the Senate Finance Committee. I think nearly every-
one knows that Senator Williams, of Delaware, has, over a period of
time, been vigorously pursuing income-tax evaders and, in addition,
those people in government who made evasion or avoidance possible,
and in some cases were guilty of criminal connivance.

The Senate Finance Committee took cognizance of it. They passed
a rule which isn't exactly in my mind at the moment, but at least it
put a limitation on the disclosures that could be made.

Senator Williams, however, as 1 recall, went right ahead with his
disclosures on the Senate floor from time to time, and all of those
disclosures were based upon confidential information that was dis-
closed to him by someone in the Internal Revenue Service who is on
the rolls of the Government.

The very practical problem that arises is this : If the disclosure had
never been made, obviously neither the evasive taxpayers nor the
recreant governmental servant who made it possible could have been
brought to justice. So the question is as a practical matter always,
No. 1, where do you draw the line and, secondly, Avhere is the limit
beyond which an investigatory body in the Congress cannot go when
]t summons people from the executive branch to come and give testi-
mony ?

I must confess that the problem offers some difficulty, but I do
believe that m connection with your line of questioning, the practical
aspect of it must be revealed also, for otherwise graft and corruption
in these cases certainly Avould not have come to the light of day.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson,

Senator Jackson. Mr. Cohn, I don't have too many more questions.
I will soon be through and give way to Mr. Welch.

I just wanted to follow up on one point. You stated in answer
to a question by Senator McClellan that other departments besides
the Department of the Army have attempted to stop investif^ations.
I believe that was your response. °

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator Jackson. You have also stated in response to a question
that I ]3ut previously that you don't write memos. Why w^ere the
memos written in connection with the Army case ? There was a series
of memos.

Mr. Cohn. Sir, I said I don't write many. I certainly know if you
go through the files you will find what you might consider a consid-
erable number of memos written by me. You will not find memos
on each and every conversation I have had with everybody about
everything. I did not write a memo on each and every conversation
I had with Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams or other people over there.
I think I have already testified as to the circumstances of the writing
ot these. ^

2262 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator Jackson. I understand that, but the memos were quite
complete on the Army, commencing about the time when

Mr. CoHN. No, sir. _

Senator Jackson. ^Vhen thmgs were gettmg a httle hot.

Mr. CoiiN. No, sir : I don't think they were.

Senator Jackson. There was quite a long series of them.

Mr. CoiiN. No, sir. I think a lot of very significant events were
not recorded in the form of memorandums. i •« ^ Or.

Senator Jackson. One thing that I think should be clarified. On
the Meet the Press program. May Craig asked you «boii<:the mem-
oranda and you replied, on page ll-I think that was March 10

Mr. CoHN. I think it was.

Senator Jackson. Or the 14th. There was only one.

March 14, 6 p. m.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. 4=.! f?

Senator McCarthy. Do you have a copy ot that^

Senator Jackson. I have it right here. I need it. I will give it

to you in a minute. ,

Senator McCarthy. You don't have an extra copy ?

Senator Jackson. No ; I don't.

Mr. CoHN. Senator, our pages are not the same.

Senator Jackson. May Craig asked you :

Mr. Cohn, I take it you stand by all the ideas of the memorandum put out by
Mr. McCarthy.

Then :

Mr COHN. One or two I believe only were dictated by me. Others were from
Senator McCarthy to Franli Carr or vice versa.

Actually there are four that you have dictated; isn't that correct?

WhateveT' /said liere. I would have to count them up again
Whatever I said here. Somebody asked me about them and I went
through and counted them one by one. I think it came to 3 or 4.
Whatever I said is accurate, sir. , , , ^ j

Senator Jackson. Well, two of the memoranda that were released

to the press said from you to somebody ? -, u ^

Mr. CoHN. Well, they were certainly prepared by me.
Senator Jackson Then, 2 of them without any designation or more

than 2 maybe, but you state now that 2 of those that did not have any

tac on them, were dictated by you ? . • , „ ^,o

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. I know the November 6 one for instance was^
Senator Jackson. There is one other area and then I will be

through, in connection with the testimony of Lieutenant Blount.

Sena^OTjACKSoNl'^As I understand it, you state that you did not
request that Private Schine be taken off K. P. on the weekend of

January 10? i . j v.i, 4.

Mr. CoHN. No, sir ; you don't understand tiiat.
Senator Jackson. Pardon me? . ., ,

Mr. Cohn. No, sir ; I doirt believe that is quite accurate.
Senator Jackson. Well, what is your version of it? I will lead

* Mr'^CoHN. I don't believe it is my version, sir. I believe it is a
fact. " The fact is that as far as we were concerned, and as tar as i

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2263

was concerned, Private Schine could go on K. P. all night long or
anything like that. We didn't care. We had an arrangement made
with Mr. Stevens that he would be available over weekends to work
on these reports and do this committee work, and that nothing

Senator Jackson. For committee business ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. And that nothing would interfere with that.
I think that in all the time he was down there, there were one or two, or
I think probably this was the only one — one occasion on which he was
given some duty on a Sunday when he was going to work with us on
these reports. I believe that, as I have testified to here before, sir, I
called Lieutenant Blount and asked if they couldn't let him do that
same thing on Monday, or Tuesday, or Wednesday or Thursday or Fri-
day, some other time, and let him be available during the times that
Mr. Stevens had fixed to do this work.

Senator Jacksox. But you told them you wanted him for committee
business that weekend?

Mr. CoHN. Lieutenant Blount knew. Senator Jackson, that the ar-
rangement was about committee business and the only reason we
ever wanted him was on committee business. There was never any
doubt about that.

Senator Jackson. Let me read to you the colloquy that took place
between Senator McCarthy and Lieutenant Blount. That is on page
3523 of the transcript :

Senator McCarthy —

this is a colloquy with Lieutenant Blount.

Didn't he tell you that he made arrangements for Dave Schine to come back-
he understood he was coming back that weekend, that he was coming back for
the purpose of putting in writing some of the information he had in regard
to the radar laboratories at Fort Monmouth, that he needed him for that, and
that if you wanted to put Schine on K. P. duty, put him on some other day
if you could, because he felt he needed him that day? Wasn't that the
conversation?

Lieutenant Blount. No, sir. Mr. Cohn on that particular day never men-
tioned committee work. He did say that what we wanted to do with Private
Schine for Monday to Friday would be O. K. as far as he was concerned, but
he didn't see why Private Schine had to pull K. P. on Sunday.

Lieutenant Blount's testimony, as I read it from that record, is
directly contradictory.

Mr. CoHN. No, sir ; I don't believe it is contradictory at all. I had
talked to Lieutenant Blount on a number of occasions. He knew that
the arrangement had been made by Secretary Stevens to make Schine
available to work on these reports and other committee work. He
knew that that was the only reason for which I or any other member
of the staff would have the authority to contact him. " I don't think I
started off every conversation by saying :

I refer you to the arrangement of November 6, the terms of which are aa
follows :

He knew, sir, why I was calling, and it is perfectly possible I didn't
go into a speech about it on every occasion. The only reason I ever
called

Senator Jackson. I understand your testimony to be that you
asl^ed to get him for committee business?

Mr. CoHN. There is no doubt about it. Lieutenant Blount must
have known about it.

2264 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator Jackson. Was it implied or did you ask him?

Mr CoHN. I don't know what I said on that I do know that
Lieutenant Blount as General Kyan's aide wouldnt have had

Senator Jackson. Wasn't this a pretty heated conversation between
you and Lieutenant Blount?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir.

Senator Jackson. It wasn't?

Mr CoHN. I wouldn't say it was heated. „ , ,.^ n -,

Senator Jackson. General Ryan, you will recal^testihed and you
will find it on page 3452, he said that Lieutenant Blount told him ot
The coi versation^ will recall, that he had with you withm a couple
of dTys, and that Blount told him that you were extremely excited,
upse?f and very caustic in your remarks. That is General Ryan s

^^Mr! CoHN. That is General Ryan saying what somebody told him

^ ^Senator Jackson. But Lieutenant Blount reported immediately

^^Sr CoHN. I might have been excited and said, "We have made
preparations for him to do the work. Why is the arrangement being
Sonebackon? AVliy can't he do something else ^^ ^^^P^^^^ he do it
durino- the period that Mr. Stevens has set aside for this woik ( i

'''i!^^c::^'t^o.ln, the KP incident. Lieutenant Blount,
on page 3509, that was followup on your conversation on the KF
situation, said :

Pursuant to that-Mr. Colin didn't asi'ee with me. by the ^^ay. Pursuant
to that he said that some people at Fort Dix had been very cooperative but that,
Colonel liiuiiler and Lieutenant Miller—

and Lieutenant Miller is now Captain Miller, the company
commander —

had made things especially difficult for P-y^/l'l^f^j;^.^"' liSMSue^ ''^""'
had a very long memory, and was never jionig to toi,.,et riieu names.

Now, what about that testimony of Lieutenant Blount?

Mr. CoHN. The answer is the same I gave you the last time >ou
asked me about it. Senator Jackson.

Senator Jackson. I hadn't asked you about it.

Mr CoHN. I thought you did, sir. , , ^^ . +• .u^

Senator Jackson.^I am referring now to the latter part ot the
testimony that you are not going to forget their names.

Mr CoHN Yes, sir. I certainly had a conversation with Lieu-
tenant Blount I do know this Ringler incident whidi has been
brouSit n here, I am sorry it has, I don't know whether Lolone
Ser sa d tho^e thin<rs or whether he didn't say hose things, and
1 d d mei ion it, I recall at some point or other, to Lieutenant Bloun.
This St well have been the point. I have no dispute with that,

^^^eAfe^r^tn&you^ecihcally. L^^^
stated that you had been making— that Colonel Kinglei, tlie regi
mental comiLnder, and let's call him Captain ^iHer jvh^^^
company commander, had made things especially ^^^^11 U f«i Pin ate
Schine and because of that you were not going to forget then mame..
Is that true or is that false?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2265

Senator IMcCakthy. Mr. Chairman ?

Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order ?

Senator ]\IcCarthy. I don't like to interrupt here unless necessary,
but I thought we had passed a rule, and all the Senators knew it, that
it is improper to ask one witness to evaluate another witness' testi-
mony. I think you can ask Mr. Cohn what he did, what he said, about
any of his actions. But I don't think you can ask him to evaluate it.

Senator Mundt. I think the question was. Did he make the state-
ment or not.

Senator Jackson. I think it is a very fair question, and it is pretty
important because quite a point Avas made.

Senator McCarthy. Could I have the question reread ?

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. The question will
be reread and the witness may answer.

Mr. Cohn. I thought there was a true and false at the end of it.

Senator McCarthy. If the witness recalls the question

Mr. Cohn. I recall the question.

Senator Mundt. To save time. Senator Jackson, do you want to
restate the question ?

Senator Jackson. I will finish it when we go around again.

Senator Mundt. You may restate it.

Senator Jackson. It is very simple, Mr. Cohn : Lieutenant Blount
testified that you were not going to forget Colonel Ringler and Captain
Miller because — you were not going to forget their names — because,
to quote him, they had made things especially difficult for Private
Schine. I believe that is the substance of the testimony.

Mr. Cohn. That is the substance; yes, sir. And the substance of
what I tell you is that the conversation did take place, I did talk to
him, I know that undoubtedly on this occasion, if he says that it was,
he told me that Colonel Eingler had been making difficulty about it,
and I told him that, I reported to him the remarks I had heard attrib-
uted to Colonel Ringler. Whether I said I had

Senator Jackson. How would that apply to Captain Miller?

Mr. Cohn. I don't recall saying anything like that in connection
with Captain Miller. I never heard anything. I never met or saw
Captain Miller in my life. Colonel Ringler Tdo remember. Saying
I had a long memory and couldn't forget the names, I don't know
whether I said that or not. I do know, sir, that I just did put the
Ringler name through the mill on a routine name check sometime
thereafter.

Senator Jackson. Were you going to investigate him ?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir; we didn't investigate him. Whenever we have
information about somebody or something along those lines, what you
do is just what is known as a quick name check. If there is nothing
to it, it shows up in the form of negative. If there is something to it^
it shows up in the form of positive, and you go on from there.
^ Senator Jackson. You don't mean to tell me you are going to inves-
tigate the regimental commander and start an investigation of him
because he said some unkind words about Private Schine?

Mr. Cohn. Oh, no, sir.

Senator Jackson. It would be a sorry situation in America if people

can't speak out for fear of an investigation if they speak their mind.

Mr. Cohn. I fully agree with you. He could say anything he

2266 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

wanted to about Private Schine. There were not any comments about
Private Sehine that interested me at all.

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter?

Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman

Senator McCarthy. Before Senator Potter starts, I wonder, Mr.
Cohn, if you would make clear what conversation it was. I didn't

jret it at all. , , rr^^ -^

Senator Mundt. That wouldn't be a pomt of order. The witness
had that right and didn't take it. You may ask him that question
on your time, Senator McCarthy.

Senator Potter? , j u

Senator Poti^er. Mr. Chairman, in answer to the statement made by
my good friend and colleague, the junior Senator from \yashington,
on the first go-around about the witnesses to be called, I think Senator
Jackson said that when a person's name has been mentioned before
the public, before the television cameras, that person should have a
right to appear before the committee.

I thoroughly agree that a person would have a right, under our
standincr committee rule, to appear when his name has been mentioned
in a derogatory manner. I think that possibly we overlook one factor
in considering what witnesses should or should not be called. 1 think
if a witness can throw any new light on the controversy m question,
the committee should ascertain what information he has; but ]ust to
call witnesses for the sake of calling witnesses because their names
have been dropped at this hearing, I am fearful that we could be here
for many, many months. i i •

I just happen to recall a few names that have been mentioned during
the course of this hearing. I know that I have only a few of the

many. , . . ^^ .i

I would like to mention them at this time. Of course, there is
President Eisenhower, David Schine's chaufl'eur. General Reber s
brother, Aaron Coleman, a man by the name of East, also referred to
as "Mr X," Clark Clifford, Vice President Nixon, Gerry Morgan, Bill
Rof^ers General Lawton, Harriett Moore, the Rosenbergs— I assume
it would be a little difficult for them— Bill Remington, Sherman
Adams, Lew Berry, Harold Rainville, Bob Jones, Private Schine s
o-irl friends, the policeman who wouldn't let Cohn go to the railroad
station, Don Surine, the colonel who told Secretary of the Army
Stevens to shut up. Colonel Ringler, Joseph Alsop, Jack Bell, our
charming newslady, May Craig. . , , ^i j

Then we have the 11 top-string Commies, and we have the second
top-string Commies. We have George Sokolsky. We have Peter
Lawf orcL Patricia Kennedy, Al McCarthy, Mrs. Joe McCarthy We
have Private Schine's father and mother. We have Judge Cohn

Those are just a few of the names that have been mentioned before
the committee. I am just wondering when we would ever conclude
because, as one witness comes on, we find that about four more names
are dropped, and it would be not only a treadmill, but we wouldn t be
kee])ing up with the tread. n j u

I just mention that because I think witnesses should be called who
can throw new light on the controversy, and that is all.

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?

Senator Symington. I pass.

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2267

Senator Dworshak. One question, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Colin, in the statement which you and Senator McCarthy sub-
mitted, dated April 20, 1954, about the middle of page 17 you made
this comment, and I quote :

For example, when a Congressman intervened to have the overseas orders of
IVIaj. Irving Peress, a Commusist Party functionary, canceled, no report was
issued.

Mr. CoHisr. Yes, sir.

Senator Dworshak. And on the following page you made a similar
charge that the overseas orders of INIajor Peress were canceled after
intervention of a Congressman.

Are you prepared to testify as to the specific case?

Mr. CoHN. I am, sir, but it will inject a new name.

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests that you do not bring in the
names of any Congressmen. That would be violating the very fine
advice we just got from Senator Potter.

Senator Dworshak. I would submit to that ruling, Mr. Chairman,
and yet if we are trying to verify some of the charges and counter-
charges, it would seem to me that it would be a very relevant matter.

Senator Mundt. May the Chair say to his good friend — I think
this occurred before he became a member of the committee — that wei
sort of agreed among ourselves that two things we were not going to
go into were the rights and the wrongs of the Zwicker case or the ascer-
tainment of who it was who actually did promote and give preferen-
tial treatment to IVIajor Peress. Those are matters which we might
resume some day when we reassemble on that happy occasion when the
present incumbent of the Chair is no longer chairman.

Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, I will abide by that ruling, but
I want to state very emphatically that I cannot believe this counter-
charge that any Member of Congress could intervene in behalf of an
officer or an enlisted man in the Army, or in any branch of the armed
services, ancl succeed in preventing his assignment overseas. I cannot
believe that that is possible under the operations of the armed services.

I think the American people have a right to know whether such
preferential treatment is accorded te any member of the armed services
merely by the intercession of some Member of Congress.

Senator McCarthy. Will the Senator yield?

Senator Mundt. There is no occasion to yield. You have the next
10 minutes. You have 10 minutes.

Senator McCarthy. I would like to say to the Senator from Idaho
that the record shows that this fifth amendment Communist had orders
to go to Yokohama, and when he got to the port of embarkation his
orders were changed and he was given stateside duty. The record
shows that a Congressman did intervene

Senator ]Mundt. The Chair will say to you, please, do not mention
the name of the Congressman.

Senator McCarthy. I will not.

.Senator Mundt. Thank you.

Senator McCarthy. In fairness to the Congressman, it is impossible
to know how much influence that Congressman had because the Com-
munist major refused to tell us whether it was the Congressman or
some Communist who succeeded in getting his orders changed.

Mr. Cohn, we were talking about Mr. Ringler, and I am afraid it
was left up in the air. Is it correct that you reported to me that you

2268 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

heard that Eingler was condemning our exposure of the Communists,
referring to them as witch-hunts, and I told you at that time that we
couldn't broaden our investigation too much, that we were too busy,
but to get a quick name check on him, which you did ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. It was not just our committee. I believe the
comments allegedly made, or they might not have been made at all,
sir_he might have been the finest man who ever lived— were directed
toward the activities of exposing and investigating Communists.

Senator McCarthy. In any event, the name check had nothing what-
soever to do with Dave Schine ? -r^ ^ i •
Mr. CoHN. It had nothing whatsoever to do with Dave Schine.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch asked you a question. He said if
by some mysterious magic you find that a department is ridden with
Communists, do you feel it is the duty of the committee to expose
that fact, and you said* "Yes." Let me ask you this, first: It isn't
a question of the number of Communists. One Klaus Fuchs in a
proper spot can decree the death of hundreds of thousands or millions
of Americans; is that correct? . .

Mr CoHN. There is no doubt about it, sir. One Communist m the
right place could do the work of 10, 50, or 100,000 not in that place.
There is no doubt about it. , • . . i

Senator McCarthy. I think you and I would agree that itis rather
the addle-thinking who feel that only when a department is ridden
with Communists that we have a duty to go in. If we find 1 single
traitor, 1 single Communist, we have the duty to expose hira.

Mr. Cohn. There is no doubt about that, sir. The way the Com-
munist movement operates, very often they will place only one Com-
munist in a certain spot. There is no need for further duplication
to get the same type of information. „^ . , , ,. „

Senator McCarthy. Another question along Mr. Welchs line ot
questioning. He said if by some mysterious magic— there is nothing
mysterious or magic about the way the Communists operate, the way
they try to infiltrate; is there? . -^ xi. • i +

Mr. Cohn. No, sir ; there is nothing magic about it. ^ it is clue to
a deliberate, well-planned, well-thought-out design which goes back
many scores of years, which they have been following, unfortunately,
with remarkable success in many countries throughout the world.

Senator McCarthy. And sometimes they will take 5, 10, 15, 20
years to work a man up to a position where he can perform a service
for the Communist conspiracy?

Mr. Cohn. It has happened in our Government, sir ; yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. That is all for the time being. .

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, you have 10 minutes, or Mr. St. Uair.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, when you were under examination by Sena-
tor McClellan, the name Peress came up one more time.

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. ,, -r i • i -j

Mr. Welch. You understand, of course, that Mr. Jenkins h;.s said

we can't try that case here.

M^r Cohn Y^es sir.

Mr. Welch. I 'have the temerity to say 1 or 2 things about it,
or ask you 1 or 2 things about it, for this reason:^ I suspect, Mr.
Cohn, that there may be people listening on television who think
that Peress was right square in the middle of some radar laboratory

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2269

at Fort Monmouth, about which Ave have talked so much. Can you
see how someone might get that impression, Mr. Cohn ?

Mr. CoHN. Well, it depends how much that person has read about
the Peress case.

Mr. Welch. Or how carefully they have listened to us.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. Now, that isn't where Peress was?

Mr. CoHN. No. He was in the Dental Corps, sir.

Mr. Welch. I understand. And he wasn't anywhere near this
delicate installation at Fort Monmouth?

Mr. Cohn. Actually, he was near it, sir.

Mr. Welch. Well, I mean he wasn't physically

Mr. Cohn. I can say this, sir. I know of no tieup between Major
Peress and the Fort Monmouth situation.

Mr. Welch. And he had no unusual clearances to let him know high
secret stuff ?

Mr. CoHN. Well, there was no question about clearances. I would
say this, Mr. Welch. You are certainly right

Mr. Welch. If I am right, let's move along. I don't want to spend
much time on it. I just want to get it clear before the country that he
was not sitting right square in the middle of Fort Monmouth.

Mr. CoHN. You are correct.

Mr. Welch. And you will help me make that, as the Senator says,
"crystal clear"?

Mr. CoHN. I will, sir.

Mr. Welch. And secondly he was a dentist, wasn't he?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. And he was a dentist at a point of embarkation where
trooj[)S came in and moved overseas ?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir. Actually, he was stationed at Camp Kilmer,
N. J.

]\Ir. Welch. Well, I understand, and I may be misinformed, that
that was a staging camp for overseas troops. Well, I may be wrong.

Mr. CoHN. You may be right.

Mr. Welch. Well, he was, as I have said, a dentist?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, he was. I don't minimize the importance of the
Peress case, sir.

Mr. Welch. I don't intend to, sir, myself. Don't misunderstand me,
either. I don't like a Communist, even if he is in a dentist chair. Don't
misunderstand me. But I do want to get the guy in perspective. Could
I say one more faintly humorous thing about him, if it is possible
to say a faintly humorous thing about a Communist, in wherever there
is a Communist, the fear about them is that they may indoctrinate
other soldiers or other people, that is right, isn't it ?

Mr. CoHN. That is one of the dangers.

Mr. Welch. Now, whatever you say about indoctrinating other
people, it wouldn't be too happ^ a way to try to drill it into people
with a dentist's drill and an aching bicuspid, would it ?

Mr. CoHN. It might be an effective way, sir.

Mr. Welch. Well, you don't have the guy's attention very well, if
his tooth hurts. Isn't that right, Mr. Cohn ? Let's pass it fast.

Mr. CoHN. Well, Mr. Welch, it is hard to pass it fast. You have this
situation. You have a man with an open record as a Communist

Mr. Welch. We understand that Peress is a no good Communist.

2270 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, tlie Chair believes that when you ask
the witness a question, you should give him a chance to answer it.

Mr. CoHN. I will be short.

Mr. AVelch. All right, let's be short, because I want to get through
with Peress as far as this case is concerned.

Mr. CoiiN. Here is the importance of the Peress case

Mr. Welch. I didn't ask you about the importance of the Peress
case.

Mr. CoHN. Well, you have asked me a question and I am keeping
it short.

Mr. Welch. I want to run this as best I can. If you want me to
ask a question over again, I will. This is what I am saying to you,
that if you want to catch a young soldier and make a Communist out
of him, one pass at him in a dentist's chair isn't much of a pass, is
it? Isn't that right?

Mr. CoHN. Sir

Mr. Welch. Well, the answer is obvious, isn't it?

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, I am awfully sorry, but you asked the
witness a question, and he started to answer and you won't give him a
chance.

Mr. Welch. He scares me because of the way he takes the deep
breath. I only want yes or no. One pass at him in the dentist's chair
isn't very dangerous, is it, Mr. Cohn ?

Mr. Cohn. Well, sir, you have asked me a number of questions
which I haven't answered. If I can say a few sentences I can probably
give you

Mr. Welch. Let's just take one sentence.

Senator McCarthy. Let him answer.

Mr. Welch. No. He wants to make a speech.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, No.l, we should not be talking about
the Peress case at all. The Chair has given you an opportunity to do
so. In simple justice, when you ask the witness 4 or 5 questions about
it, and interrupt him every time, it isn't quite the way to treat a wit-
ness in a senatorial hearing. If you want to ask him the question,
which I don't think you should ask, and I am not stopping you, really,
you should give him a chance to answer it.

Mr. Welch. Could I have the question read, the last question?

Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, the Chair ruled that I could
not discuss anything relative to the case of Major Peress and now you
permit others to discuss it. What is the distinction ?

Senator Mundt. The distinction is this: I think Mr. Welch was
within his rights to try to point out that Major Peress was not at Fort
Monmouth.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman

Senator Mundt. Just a moment.

Now you are interrupting the Chair. That you can't do, I know,
successfully.

Mr. Welch. I was going to do something wonderfully •

Senator Mundt. We will give the witness a chance to answer the
question.

Read the question.

Mr. Welch. I will be equally glad to waive it or move forward, if
you wish.

Mr. Cohn. I don't have to have the question read.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2271

Mr. "VVelcii. Let's find the question, Mr. Cohn.

Senator Mundt. We will not take it out of 'your time. I want you
to be as happy as possible.

Senator McCarthy. I think there is a series of questions. I think
the witness remembers them.

Mr. CoHN. I do, sir.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, do you prefer to have them read?

Mr. CoHN. There were a few before the last, and I couldn't get
much in on it.

Mr. Welch. Maybe I didn't want you to get too much in, but I just
want a straight "Yes" or "No" answer.

Senator Mundt. The reporter will please read the question and
then the witness may answer it.

(Whereupon, the question referred to was read by the reporter.)

]\Ir. Welch. Can't you answer that quite simply, Mr. Cohn ?

Senator Mundt. Give him a chance, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch. I say, can't he answer it quite simply ?

Senator Mundt. We will never find out unless you give him a
chance to try.

Go ahead, Mr. Cohn.

Mr. Cohn. Sir, on your question about recruiting young soldiers
and the way in which it should be done, I can only say this to you :
Major Peress was a man with an open Communist record. In spite
of that open Communist record, which should have been well known
to any alert, intelligent people in the Army, he was commissioned a
captain, which gave him a rank as a commissioned officer.

After that he claimed the fifth amendment to the Army. In spite
of that, they promoted him to be a major, and they gave him other
preferential treatment. Being a major and a commissioned officer and
in contact, as an officer of some rank, with soldiers working under
him, I would say, sir, that you there had a situation which was suscept-
ible to the recruitment of people serving there who did not have his
rank and who were soldiers, into the party.

I do know when we asked him those very questions he invoked the
fifth amendment and refused to tell us whether he was using his rank
in the Army and his cloak to recruit soldiers into the Communist
movement.

We think, sir, finally, my last sentence on this: We think that the
mechanism of how it is possible for a man to get a commission in the
Army and then get a promotion, despite an open Communist record
and despite the fact he claimed the fifth amendment, must lead this
committee to inquire who in the Army, knowing that a man has a
Communist record, would promote him to the rank of major.

We felt that was an extremely important and relevant thing to us,
and that was the importance of the Peress case.

You are right, Mr, Welch, Peress did not work at Monmouth and,
as far as I know, he had no connection with Fort INIonmouth.

Senator Mundt. The time will be resumed and Mr. Welch may con-
tinue.

Mr. Welch. Thanks for the 'last few words.

Just one other question, Mr. Cohn.

Mr. Cohn. Sure.

2272 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. Welch. If yon were a lawyer in a courtroom and got the answer
you just gave me in answer to the question I asked you, would you
move to strike the answer as irresponsive?

Mr. CoHN. I would have objected to the question, sir, and I would
have objected to your failure to give the witness the right to answer.

Mr. Welch. One other thing on the preliminaries, and this, I think,
we have already touched on somewhat and can quickly agree on. One
other constitutional issue that has been revealed here and illuminated
is the question of Avhat your committee or any similar committee has a
right to do in respect to calling members of loyalty boards and review-
ing their actions.

Mr. CoHN". Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. You, Mr. Cohn, realize that you and I have a different
opinion on that and a right to differ ; don't we 'i

Mr. CoHN. I do, sir.

Mr. Welch. It is a very important question, sir ; isn't it ?

Mr. CoHx. It is important, sir.

Mr. Welch. Now, Mr. Cohn. I have a little section here in longhand
of my cross-examination of you before we come to some other things,
which has, I think, a very pleasant heading. It has the heading, "Let's
Make the Country Feel a Little Better," and see if you can't help me.

I will begin with this : Have you sometimes in this room been a little
dismayed, as I have, at the charges and countercharges that have
been flung around here, or does it all sound all right to you ?

Mr. CoHN. I have been dismayed by the whole thing, sir.

Mr. Welch. Thank you.

In that dismay or to allay that dismay which you and I share, and
I think some of the country shares, would you help me say to the
country, as I would like to have you help me, that our Government is
really in the hands of patriotic men?

Mr. Cohn. I am sure it is.

Mr. Welch. And it is not, Mr. Cohn, in the hands of traitors ; is it?

Mr. CoHN". I am sure it is not, sir.

Mr. Welch. Would you help me say to our country — and I think
they would like to hear you and me join in saying it — that our fighting
forces on land and in the air and on the sea are as wonderful today
as they were in World War I ?

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Welch^—

Mr. Welch. Would you mind "Yes" or "No"?

Mr. Cohn. Absolutely there is no doubt about it. We have made
it crystal clear time and time again.

Mr. Welch. And as wonderful as they were in World War II ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. And as wonderful as they were in the Korean con-
flict?

Mr. Cohn. Absolutely.

Mr. Welch. Would you join me in saying that our Armed Forces,
the Army included, recognizes, although it is a somewhat frighten-
ing thing to say — we used to try to skirt it — that the principal and
frightening enemy are the Communists ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. And that our first line of defense is our Armed Forces.
That is clear, isn't it ?

Mr. Cohn. It certainly is one of the most important, sir.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2273

Mr. Welch. And, Mr. Gohn, in spite of all the dismay others may
have felt in this room, or the dismay that the country may have felt
at all the language that has taken place here, the country and particu-
larly the motliers and fathers of the boys in the service, may rest easy,
it is a beautiful Army, Navy, and Air Force, isn't it?

Mr. CoHN. It certainly is, sir.

Mr. Welch. And it is ready to fight Communists abroad, isn't it?

Mr. CoHN. No doubt of it, sir.
- Mr. Welch. And ready to fight Communists at home ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator Mdndt. Your time has expired.

Mr. Jenkins. I will pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, while we are working in this area of
amity, which the Chair thinks is wonderful, I would like to have you
join me, if you would, now, in reassuring the public about our execu-
tive session this morning, because one of the reporters passed up a
note which leads the Chair to believe that something you said carried
an implication which I am quite convinced you did not intend.

Is it not correct that at our executive session this morning there was
no motion made and no attempt made to force you to preclude your
questioning of Mr. Colin or Mr. Carr or Senator McCarthy ; that we
were simply discussing the possibility of setting a target date that
would enable you to interrogate, as fully as you feel you should, the
three remaining witnesses that you said you wanted to hear, namely,
Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr and Senator McCarthy ?

There was no attempt made, was there, to try to prevent you from
doing that?

Mr. Welch. Senator, I am awfully happy to have a chance to answer
that. If I were to answer yes or no as I press witnesses to do, my
answer would be that nobody was trying, as I viewed it, to do me out
of the chance to have the other two witnesses on the stand that we
want. May I, however, as Avitnesses sometimes do, add a sentence?

I was somewhat troubled on the point that everybody seems to think
we better get in a hurry, and I was a little afraid that just by inad-
vertence, some way, we would drift along until we ran out of time.
It is because of that fear on my part, that I have made this solid de-
cision to move swiftly, so that we can at least have a look and let
the country have a look, at the other two witnesses that I deem to be
important

Senator Mundt. You have every assurance from the Chair, now
publicly stated, that he stated to you privately in the executive session,
that you will be given all the time that you want to interrogate the
three witnesses that you said you wanted to interrogate, Mr. Cohn, who
is before us. Senator McCarthy, and Mr. Carr, and the discussion that
we had this morning revolved around the difficult problem, and all of
the members of the committee confront it, and that is what to do
about this long list that Senator Potter read which could be supple-
mented, I am sure, name for name by either side, twofold, to deter-
mine what additional witnesses we might ultimately decide to call.

I simply wanted the record to be straight on that, because I knew
that the implication that was at least received by one of the reporters
who sent me a note was not the implication you intended to convey.

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, it is not out of my time, but
I want to make a remark about this. Do I understand that the tran-

2274 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

script of the hearings in that session this morning are to be released
as soon as they are transcribed, is that correct?

Senator Mundt. The Chair has ordered that the transcript be de-
livered to his office, in stenographic form, stenotype form, as usuah
A motion was made, and as the Chair recalls, not acted upon, to
release its full contents to the press.

Senator McClellan. I move that we release it to the press, then,
now and then there will be no misunderstanding. The record speaks
for itself. I do that because Mr. Welch used the term here "every-
body seemed to be" so and so. There is quite a lot of discussion there
that will clarify that, and not leave an implication that some of us
were trying to end these hearings before we got through.

Senator Stmington. I second that motion, Mr, Chairman.

Senator Mundt. It is moved and seconded that the entire transcript
of this morning's executive session be released to the press just as it
was taken down by the reporter. The Chair would be happy to vote
in favor of that, if the rest of the committee are. Are you ready for
the vote ? Those in favor say "aye" ; contrary, "no."

I will ask the reporter to make as many copies as you usually need
to make for the press, deliver them to my office, if you can, by 2 o'clock,
and bring them here by 2 o'clock. I am sure they will make interest-
ing reading.

Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, that was not an executive ses-
sion. I observed a large group of reporters asking members of the
subcommittee as they left the committee room, and they were all, not
all, but I saw several freely expressing themselves as to what hap-
pened. I did not do so, but I want the people to know generally that
it was not an executive session.

Senator Mundt. It certainly will not be after 2 o'clock this after-
noon. The motion has prevailed.

Senator McClellan. I understood, Mr. Chairman, that they were
to be released.

Senator Mundt. I did not understand a motion to be put.

Senator McClellan. The motion was not put, but that was the
general discussion.

Senator Mundt. It will be released at 2 o'clock, just as the reporter
hands it to me.

Senator McClellan?

Senator McClellan. Mr. Cohn, I want to follow up just a little on
this constitutional question.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan, I think it is a very serious one, and the only
purpose I have had in these proceedings was to point it up insofar as we
could in the hope that it might be resolved, or it will be manifest that
it needed to be resolved.

We have had before us in the testimony two documents with refer-
ence to the FBI, have we not? We have had testimony concerning
them, we have not had the documents properly before us.

One of them is a 15-page document that has been referred to, and the
other, I believe, we call it the two and a third or two and a half page
document ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. It contained excerpts from the 15-page docu-
ment?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2275

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator INIcClellan". As I refer to the 15-page document and the
two and a half or two and a third page document, you will know what
1 am talking about, will you not?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, Senator McClellan.

Senator McClellan. In this constitutional problem that we are
discussing, I want to ask you to further clarify your views, I am not
quarreling with them, I am simply trying to point this issue up, so that
all involved here, and others who are interested, will understand just
what is involved in it. The 15-page document, I believe we can
assume from the proof in this case and from the reports that have been
testified to from J. Edgar Hoover, is a top-classified confidential docu-
ment that the FBI will not release?

Mr. CoHN". It was marked confidential, sir.

Senator McClellan. Yes, sir.

Well, you understand that that means it is not to be given out, don't
you?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. That it is classified?

Mr. CoiiN. I understand that to mean that it is not to be given to
an unauthorized person.

Senator McClellan. All right. Then let's say now that you have
testified here that under the law creating this committee it is the duty
of this committee and the oath, the duty under the oath of members of
this committee and the staff, to undertake to investigate and see
whether the laws are being carried out with respect to this confiden-
tial information, is that correct?

Mr, CoHN. Yes, sir. We have the duty of investigating laxity, or
failure to act.

Senator McClellan. All right. Let's assume, and it may be true,
it may not be a violent assumption, that that 15-page document that
is down there, of which excerpts are now in the possession of the
chairman of the committee, is a committee document, as I understood
you, and yet the members of this committee refused to read it.

Now let me ask you if your position is correct, and we have that duty
under the law, why can we not subpena the other document, the 15-page
document now in the files of the FBI and have the benefit of all of the
information so that this committee can perform its duties?

Mr. CoHN. I believe we could subpena it, sir, but I think that prob-
ably, if the Truman order is still interpreted as being in effect, there
would be a refusal to give it on the ground that it contains loyalty and
security information which, under the 1948 order cannot be given
to congressional committees.

Senator McClellan. Well, let's talk about the Eisenhower docu-
ment a little. Can they give it under that?

Mr. CoHN. Sir, I don't know that there has been a decisive test of
just what

Senator McClellan. All right. What is your position, that we are
entitled to get it by subpena or that we are not ?

Mr. CoHN. My position, sir, is that we are entitled to ask for it. We
would then move on from there.

Senator McClellan. The next move is a subpena if we don't get it
by asking; isn't it?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir.

2276 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator McClellan. If be subpena, are we entitled to it?

Mr. CoHN. At that point, Senator McClellan, I would antiicpate we
would have to see what position would be taken by the recipient of the
subpena. He probably would have counsel advise him

Senator McClellan. All right, let's assume he takes a position, Mr.
Hoover takes a position that you can't have this document under the

law ...

Mr. CoHN. I don't think that would be Mr. Hoover's position.

Senator McClellan. Let's say it would be the President's position.
It would be somebody's and let's take it to the top of the Government.

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Hoover is the head of an investigative agency and
I don't think he makes policy on those things. He works for the At-
torney General, r^ 1

Senator McClellan. Do you want to say the Attorney General,

then ?

Mr. CoHN. I would say "yes."

Senator McClellan. Let's pin it down there. Suppose the Attor-
ney General takes the position, and we subpena this 15-page document
and it will supply what is missing in the 214 page document, and
therefore by getting that document by subpena, this committee would
be in a position of having information which would enable it to more
thoroughly investigate the matters involved. Under those circum-
stances, do you take the position that we can compel or should be
able to compel the Justice Department to release that document to this

committee .

Mr. CoHN. Senator, I think I gave you an incorrect answer to that
question. I don't think the Attorney General would come in at the

first j)oint. .

Senator McClellan. It doesn't matter what point. Let s get to

him. We get to him ultimately.

Mr. CoHN. Ultimately you get to the Attorney General.

Senator McClellan. We get to him. Where are we when we get
there? Can we compel him? Can this committee compel him by
contempt proceedings or otherwise to submit that document?

Mr. CoHN. That would depend on the circumstances.

Senator McClellan. Well, the circumstance is, he refuses.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. Can we compel him by contempt proceedings
to submit that document ? Do you contend that, that we have that au-
thority ?

Mr. CoHN. The committee could certainly make a test of it.

Senator McClellan. You can make a test, but do you contend that
the test would be successful or that it should be successful ? Is that
your position ? , ^ .

Mr. CoiiN. I don't know whether it would be or would not, sir.
That sets into-

Senator McClellan. I understand you don't know, and neither do
I know. Maybe the country doesn't know. Maybe that is the situa-
tion. I think that is where we are on this thing.

Do you contend that the attempt should be successful ?

Mr. CouN. Sir, once again, I am very hesitant about giving a
policy

Senator McClellan. It is going to be the policy of this committee

to get it or not to get it.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2277

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. Where are we?

Mr. CoiiN. I would say we are here, sir. My hope is that some ar-
ranfjement could be worked out whereby the Executive could make
available to this committee and other committees of the legislature

Senator McClellan. That isn't the point. Maybe something can
be worked out and maybe this issue w411 be resolved sometime.

Mr. CoiiN. That is right.

Senator McClellan. The point I am trying to make is, now do we
have the legal right to subpena and get that document, does this com-
mittee have it ?

Mr. CoiiN. That presents a legal question, sir.

Senator McClellan. I know, and you are a very good lawyer, I
understand. What is your position, that we do get it or that we don't,
under the law as it is now ?

Mr. CoHN. I would have to tell you on that, Senator, two things :

No. 1, it would depend on the circumstances of the case. ^

Senator McClellan. Irrespective of the circumstances, if this com-
mittee decided it needed that document to carry out its functions and
perform its duties. Just assume the circumstances in a case like that.
That is what I am trying to do, nothing more. I am not trying to place
you on the spot in any way. I am trying to get this issue clarified so
we can know whether we are operating legally, whether this committee
is going as far as it can go under existing law, or if it is not.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

I would say that on the question of law, the paramount obstacle is
the Presidential directive. The question then comes up as a matter of
law whether the Executive has the power.

Senator McClellan. What I am trying to determine, Mr. Cohn,
is this, and it is a very vital issue under the circumstances, as I see it.
Are the FBI files to be sacred, to be confidential, beyond the reach of an
investigating committee, or does the investigating committee have the
right and the subpenaing power to compel their production ? That is
where we are. That is the issue, and an issue that I think must be
resolved.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan, once again, I am sorry I am not helpful on this.
There are legal questions.

Senator McClellan. You had stated your views to Mr. Welch.

Mr. CoHN. I am afraid I am not good enough to resolve or even give
you what would be a sound opinion on the law. I can give you what
our general experience has been and what I think it adds up to. Sena-
tor, which is this : I don't see a reason why there should be a conflict.

1 think that each, both the executive and the legislative, have functions
to carry out. I know they both want to accomplish the same thing.

Senator McClellan. But you do know there is a conflict?
Mr. CoiiN. I hope, sir, that the conflict is not as serious as some
people have tried to make it.

Senator Mundt. It is 12:30. The Chair suggests we recess until

2 o'clock.

I would like to see the reporter who reported the executive session
for just a minute.

( Wliereupon, at 12 : 35 p. m., the hearing was recessed unXil 2 p. m.,
of the same day.)

INDEX

Page

Adams, John G 2257-22G1, 2245-2249

Adams, Sherman 22f;6

Air Force (United States) 2273

AIsop, Joseph 22(i(j

American Armed Forces 2252, 2272

Anastos, Mr 2254

Army (United States) 2246-2253, 2258-2262, 2267, 2271-2273

Armv intelligence officer 2252

Army loyalty board 2247, 2248

Army officer 2252

Army Signal Corps 2250, 2251

Attorney General (United States) 2276

Bell, Jack 2206

Berry. Lew 2266

Blount. Lieutenant 2262-2264

Camp Kilmer 2269

Carr. Francis P 2247-2249, 2253. 2262, 2273

Clifford. Clark 2244, 2245, 2250, 226S

Colin, Judge . 2266

Cohn, Kov M 2244

Testimony of 2245-2277

Coleman, Aaron 2252, 2266

Committee on Finance (Senate) 2261

Communist infiltration in the Army 2246, 2248, 2251, 2252, 2257

Communist major 2267

Communist Party 2246. 2247. 22.51. 2253, 2256-2260, 2266-2271, 2273

Communists 2246. 2247, 2251, 2253, 2256-2260, 2206-2271, 2273

Craig. May 2262, 2266

Crouch, Paul 2250-2253

Crouch document 2252

Crouch memorandum 2251, 2253

Dental Corps 2269

Department of the Army 2246-22.53, 2258-2262, 2267, 2271-2273

Dirksen, Senator 2248

Draft Act 22.51

East, Mr. (Mr. '"X") 2266

Eisenhower, President 2206, 2275

Eisenhower document 2275

Eleven top-string Communists 2206

FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 2248, 2252, 2256, 2274, 2277

FBI memorandum 2252

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2248,2252,2256,2274,2277

Fifth-amendment Communist 2267

Finance Committee (Senate) 2261

First World War 2254, 2272

Fort Monmouth 2240, 2251, 2263, 2209, 2270

Fuchs, Klaus 2208

Hensel, H. Struve 2258

Hoover, J. Edgar 2256, 2275, 2276

Internal Revenue Service 2261

Jackson, Senator 2266

Jones, Bob 2266

Juliana, Mr 2254

Kennedy, Patricia 2266

Kitchen police (K. P.) 2262-2264

Korean conflict 2272

K. P. (kitchen police) 2262-2264

INDEX

Page

Adams, John G 2257-22G1, 2245-2249

Aflams, Sherman 22(i6

Air Force (United States) 2273

AIsop, Joseph 22(JG

American Armed Forces 2252, 2272

Anastos, Mr 2254

Army (United States) 2246-2253, 2258-2262, 2267, 2271-2273

Armv intelligence officer 2252

Army loyalty board 2247, 2248

Armv officer 2252

Army Signal Corps 2250, 2251

Attorney General (United States) 2270

Bell, Jack 2206

Berry, Lew 2266

Blount. Lieutenant 2262-2264

Camp Kilmer 2269

Carr, Francis P 2247-2249, 2253, 2262. 2273

Clifford, Clark 2244. 2245, 2250, 2266

Colm, Judge 2206

Cohn, Rov M 2244

Testimony of 2245-2277

Coleman, Aaron 2252, 2266

Committee on Finance (Senate) 2261

Communist infiltration in the Army 2246, 2248, 2251, 2252, 2257

Communist major 2267

Communist Party 2246. 2247. 2251. 2253, 2256-2260, 2266-2271, 2273

Communists 2246, 2247, 2251, 2253, 2256-2260, 2206-2271, 2273

Craig. May . 2262, 2266

Crouch, Paul 2250-2253

Crouch document 22.52

Crouch memorandum 2251, 2253

Dental Corps 2269

Department of the Army 2246-2253, 2258-2262, 2267, 2271-2273

Dirksen, Senator 2248

Draft Act 22.51

East, Mr. (Mr. '"X") 2266

Eisenhower, President 2206, 2275

Eisenhower document 2275

Eleven top-string Communists 2206

FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 2248, 2252, 2256, 2274, 2277

FBI memorandum 22,52

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2248,2252,2256,2274,2277

Fifth-amendment Communist 2207

Finance Conmiittee (Senate) 2261

First World War 22.54, 2272

Fort Monmouth 2246, 2251, 2263, 2209, 2270

Fuchs, Klaus 2208

Hensel, H. Struve 22.58

Hoover, J. Edgar 2256, 2275, 2276

Internal Revenue Service 2201

Jackson, Senator 2266

Jones, Bob 2260

Juliana, Mr 22.54

Kennedy, Patricia 2266

Kitchen police (K. P.) 2262-2264

Korean conflict 2272

K. P. (kitchen police) 2202-2264

II INDEX

Page

Lawford, Peter '. 2266

LawtoD, General 2245, 2246, 2266

Legislative Reorganization Act 2256

Loyalty board (Army) 2247-2248

loyalty boards 2272

McCarthy, Al 2266

McCarthy, Senator Joe 224!).

2252-2254, 2256, 2257, 2259, 2262, 2263, 2265-2268, 2270, 2271, 2273,

McCarthy, Mrs. Joe 2266

McClellan, Senator. 2244, 2288

Meet the Press (television program) 2262

Member of Congress 2267

Miller, Lieutenant 2264, 2265

Moore, Harriett 2263

Morgan, Gerry 2266

Mundt, Senator 2248

National Guard 2254

Navy (United States) — _ 2251, 2273

Nixon, Vice President 2266

Peress, Maj. Irving 225S, 2259, 2267-2271

Peress case 225S, 225D, 2269-2271

President of the United States 2266, 2275

Rainville, Harold 2266

Eeber, General 2266

Reber's brother 22ti6

Remington, Bill 2266

Ringler, Colonel 2264-2268

Rogers, Bill 2266

Rosenberg case 2252

Rosenbergs 2266

Russia 2251

Ryan, General 2264

St. Clair, Mr 2254, 2268

Schine, G. David 2250, 2251, 2263, 2265, 2266, 2268

Schine's chaufneur 2266

Schine's father J 2266

Schine's girl friends 2266

Schine's mother 2266

Screening board 2247

Second top-string Communists 2266

Second World War 2254, 2272

Secretary of the Army 2246, 2249, 2252, 2257-2261, 2266

Senate Committee on Finance 2261

Senate of the United States 2249

Signal Corps (U. S. Army) 2250,2251

Sokolsky, George 2266

Soviet Union 2253

Stevens, Robert T 2246, 2249, 2252, 2257-2261, 2266

Surine, Don 2266

Symington, Senator 2249

Television program (Meet the Press) 2262

United States Air Force 2273

United States Army 2246-2253, 225S-2262-, 2267, 2271-2273

United States Army Signal Corps 2250, 2251

United States Attorney General 2276

United States Internal Revenue Service 2261

United States Navy 2251, 2273

United States President 2266, 2275

United States Senate 2249

United States Vice President 2266

Vice President of the United States 2266

Williams, Senator (Delaware) 2261

World War I 2254, 2272

World War II 2254, 2272

Yokohama 2267

Zwicker, General 2253, 2254, 2267

SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHARGES
AND COUNTERCHARGES INVOLVING: SECRE-
TARY OF THE ARMY ROBERT T. STEVENS, JOHN
G. ADAMS, H. STRUVE HENSEL AND SENATOR

JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and

FRANCIS p. CARR

HEARING

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

PART 57

JUNE 8, 1954

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46620" WASHINGTON : 1954

Boston Public Library
ouperintendent of Documents

OCT 2 7 1954

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL B MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas

MARGARET CHASE SMITH. Maine HENRY M. JACKSON Washington

HENRY C DWORSHAK, Idaho JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts

EVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Hlinois STUART SYMLNGTON, Missouri
JOhSmIrSHALL butler, Maryland THOMAS A. BURKE, Ohio

CHARLES B. POTTER, Michigan

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

Special Subcommittee on Investigations
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman
TTVERETT MCKINLEY DIRKSEN, Hlinois JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
Charles E. potter, Michigan henry M. JACKSON Washington

HENRY C DWORSHAK, Idaho STUART SYMINGTON. Missouri

Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel

Thomas R. Pbewii-t, Assistant Counsel

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel

SoLis Horwitz, Assistant Counsel

Charles A. Maner, Secretary

CONTENTS

Page

Index I

Testimony of —

Colin, Roy M., chief counsel, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on
Investigations 2286

III

SPECIAL SENATE INVESTICxATIOiN ON CHAKCtES AND
COUNTERCHAEGES 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

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1954

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

Washington^ D. G.

after recess

(The hearing was resumed at 2: 13 p. m. pursuant to recess.)

Present : Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota, chair-
man; 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 S^^mington, Democrat, Missouri.

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

Principal participants present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a
United States Senator from the State of Wisconsin ; Roy M. Cohn,
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 please come to order.

The Chair will begin this session in the usual way, by welcoming
the guests who have come to join us in the committee room, and telling
you that we are happy to take care of you to the extent of the rather
limited capacity of the committee room.

I must call your attention to a standing rule of the committee which
forbids any audible manifestations of approval or disapproval of any
kind from the members of the audience, and to advise you that the
uniformed officers of the Capitol Police who are in the room before
you, and the plain-clothes men scattered throughout the audience,
have standing instructions from the committee to escort immediately
from the room, politely but firmly, any of our guests who should
elect to violate the terms under which he entered the room ; namely,
to refrain completely from any manifestations of approval or dis-
tipproval.

So I am sure that we can count on the continued cooperation of
our audience in that connection.

2279

2280 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

The Chair would like to announce for the benefit of his colleagues
that he is requesting Senator McClellan and Mr. Alderson, of the
reportorial service, to meet in my office immediately after the con-
clusion of these hearings for the purpose of making available from
my custody in the safe, to Mr. Alderson, all of the stenotypic notes of
all of the executive testimony that has been taken, in pursuance of
the decision of the subcommittee to place a typewritten copy of those
executive hearings in the office of the counsel, Mr. Jenkins, where it
will be available to all of the members of the subcommittee or to the
minority counsel, Mr. Kennedy.

Since the Chair doesn't want to do anything in the dark, I want
to be sure that Senator McClellan is there when we empty out the
contents of the locked cabinet in my office. The Chair would like to
also announce to his colleagues that he is asking all principals, Mr.
Welch, and I want you to hear this, and Senator McCarthy, and Mr.
Cohn, he is asking all principals to this controversy, and all members
of the subcommittee to supply to Mr. Jenkins in writing, by Thursday
noon, a list of the witnesses that in your mind you believe should be
called before the hearings are terminated. After that is done, then
the Chair will suggest we have an executive meeting of the committee
to see whether at that time when there has been ample opportunity
to read the testimony we can agree upon a stipulated list of witnesses.

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire, either of you
or of counsel the names of the witnesses who will be called, who now
will be called, irrespective of the requests submitted?

Senator Mundt. The Chair

Senator McClellan. There is no use to submit those, if you will
announce who they are. . • i tt •

Senator Mundt. The Chair has no specified list m mmd. He is
going to continue, until he gets the list from his subcommittee col-
leagues and the principals, to call the witnesses as they are proposed
to him by Mr. Jenkins, and we have followed the rule as you know
not to announce publicly in advance either the identity of the wit-
nesses to be called next or their number. r> ^^ 1 i.

To answer your question directly, there is no firm list prepared at
the present time. .

Senator McClellan. Then I will address the question to counsel,
if he will now announce whom he intends to call before the witnesses
are closed. So we may know, and there is no use to duplicate, if we
know whom you have in mind to call before we close these hearings and
we can consider what other witnesses we might regard as necessary.

Mr Jenkins. Addressing my remarks particularly to Senator Mc-
Clellan, I want to say this, that thus far I have called each and every
witness that I have been requested to call by Mr. Welch of the Army.
We are now putting on the side of Senator McCarthy— one of the prin-
cipals of Senator McCarthy's side of this controversy has been on the
witness stand a number of days. I have been requested to call addi-
tional witnesses as stated by the chairman, and it has not been my
policy to announce who they are; if it would be satisfactory with
Senator McClellan, I would be happy to inform him and all other
members of the committee privately now or withm a few minutes the
names of the witnesses that we expect to call before the hearings are
concluded.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2281

Senator Mundt. The Chair thinks that would be much better than
to relate them publicly at this time.

Senator McClellan. That is entirely satisfactory to me, but we
have had some discussions about some we know or we think we know
are going to be called. Now, I wouldn't want to omit those, if I sub-
mit a list. But if I can know who is going to be called anyhow, why,
then I could omit them.

Senator ]\Iundt. The Chair states that Mr. Jenkins was including
in the list of people who are supposed to submit a list of pros]iective
witnesses, so that he will have his own list before us at that time. It
is simply an effort to try to probe the minds of all of the parties to
tlie controversy, principals and committee members, looking toward
the hope that we can then meet and agree upon a stipulated list of
witnesses, and having agi-eed upon that perhaps we can agree upon
some target date for the conclusion of the hearings.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, on the question of witnesses the
other day I discussed what means could be used to induce Senator
Symington to testify and give the information he had about this, in
view of the phone calls he made to Secretary Stevens, and calls which
it appear on the surface, unless they are explained, that he was trying
to induce Stevens not to come before the committee. I have gone over
that in detail since that time, Mr. Chairman, with constitutional
lawyers, and the general agreement is that in view of the constitutional
provision, I cannot quote it verbatim, but it is to the effect that
a Senator can only be made to answer for his acts upon the Senate
floor, I don't believe that we can force Senator Symington to testify.

May I say I know that Senator Symington has not called for my ad-
vice, and he perhaps won't, but if the calls are left unexplained it will
appear to the average listener, and I know it does to the thousands of
people who write me every day, that Senator Symington was trying
to induce this fight.

Now, he may not have been, and he hasn't asked for my advice, but I
would strongly advise him, if he did ask for advice to take the
stand and testify. I think that would be very important testimony
to clear up a question that as of today is in the minds of a vast number
of people.

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?

Senator Symington. May t rise to a point of personal privilege ?

Senator Mundt. You may. Then the chair is going to suggest tTiat
after that we get on with the interrogatory, because the last thing he
had m his mind was to precipitate a renewal of this colloquy. He did
want to solicit from his associates a list of witnesses that they want to
have called.

Tlie Chair recognizes Symington on a point of personal privilege.

Senator Symington. I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

As I said before, I have no objections of any kind to saying anything
under oath that I say not under oath, because I tell the truth. I would
be very glad to go under oath, even though it is a rather extraordinary
situation to be a judge in a case of this character and then suddenly to
have one of the defendants in the case demand that the judge go to the
stand and take an oath and testify.

I have said, however, that I would be glad to discuss this with Sen-
ator McCarthy on the floor of the United States Senate. Since that

2282 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION ^

time I have checked with the leaders of the Senate on my side of the
aisle, and they completely a^ree with my position.

I have said even further that if Senator McCarthy would like
to agree to an arrangement between him and me— because I have
nothing to hide— I am sure he doesn't need my advice— I will make a
talk on the floor of the Senate and then come before this committee
and testify under oath, if he will make a talk on the floor of the Senate
and then come before this committee and testify under oath with re-
spect to the charges that were made against him in 1952, which were
unanimously signed by Democratic and Republicans on the committee.
Senator McCarthy. Will the Senator yield? Would Senator
Symington yield?

'Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I have made my statement. If
I still have time, I will be glad to yield.

Senator McCarthy. I would like to ask the Senator this : I think
he has made a very attractive offer there. I wonder if it is necessary
for me to make a speech on the floor of the Senate. I donjt see any
necessity for that. The question is whether or not you will testify
before the committee. You have now said that you will go under
oath if I am willing under oath to answer the old Benton charges of
1952. While I think those are not material to this case, I would con-
sent to let you or anyone question me in detail on those Benton
charges if by so doing we can get you under oath.

You mention a speech on the floor of the Senate. I just wonder,
Senator, if you couldn't narrow your offer to make it that we both
come before the committee. If you require that I make a speech, of
course I can go over and make a 5-minute speech on the floor to
get you to testify.

Senator Symington. We both don't come before this committee,
Senator.

Senator McCarthy. You made an offer

Senator Symington. I am not talking about the Benton charges.
I am talking about the charges that were made in the report that was
signed by all members on the Democratic side and the members on the
Republican side that had to do with the Lustron loan. It didn't have
anything to do with any charges that were made by Mr. Benton as far
as the report was concerned. _

You have picked your place where you would like to take a judge off
of a committee and have him come down and testify where you can
interrogate him, even though you are on the defensive here, and not I._

I say*^ in order that there will be not a shadow of a doubt about it,
you have your committee here. We will go on the floor of the Senate
and arrange a committee to hear you, and I would be willing to have
this committee hear me.

That is where it stands, and you can take it or leave it.
Senator McCarthy I don't understand. Mr. Chairman, may I
pursue this for a minute? Do I understand that your offer is to form
a different committee and not to testify before this committee? I am
trying to accept your offer so you will testify.

Senator Symington. You will have your opportunity. Senator.
Mr. Chairman, I believe it would be only fair, under the circum-
stances, if the committee that Senator McCarthy came before^ with
respect to the charges against him was the committee we could discuss
on the floor of the United States Senate, and the committee which

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2283

■would put me under oath with respect to this hearing would be a
committee that we would discuss before the United States Senate.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.

Senator JNIundt. The Chair believes this colloquy is getting us no
place.

Senator McCarthy, A point of personal privilege, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. I shall recognize just one more point of personal
privilege on this subject.

Senator McCarthy. This is very important, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Symington this morning in executive session said that he
would testify under oath if I would be willing to testify in regard
to all of the charges made in 1952. I understood he meant to testify
before this committee. No one else has any jurisdiction of Senator
Symington's testimony. AVhile I think it would be completely irrele-
vant to go into the Benton charges, the Maryland campaign, may I
say if in that way we could induce the Senator from Missouri"^ to
take the stand here and take the oath, I will consent here and now to
be questioned in detail about all of those Benton charges, the Mary-
land campaign, evei^^thing else.

If the Senator from Missouri is suggesting that at some time in the
future he is going to take the floor and try and get a different com-
mittee to find out what part he took in calling on these hearings,
what part he took in trying to induce Mr. Stevens not to testify and
to call off the investigation of communism, that is such an obvious
dodge that I don't think a single one of our jury of millions of people
will be deceived.

But let me repeat, Senator: You made an offer, I thought, that you
would take the oath and testify if I would lay myself open to cross-
examination on all of the Benton charges, all those, as you say, which
were covered in that report signed by some 5 or 7 Senators — I forget
which.

I will accept that offer and allow myself to be fully cross-examined
before this committee on that, even though I think it is irrelevant,
if you will take the stand. I don't intend to go into any of your
activities except your activities insofar as they deal with your getting
the Democrat political adviser, Clark Clifford, to advise Secretary
Stevens not to come and testify and the extent to which you were suc-
cessful. That is all I am concerned about. I am concerned about the
issues in this case.

However, if it takes 2 days or 5 or 10 of cross-examination about
my past life, I will be glad to submit myself to that in order to get at
the facts in this case — period, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will now recognize Senator Symington
on a point of personal privilege. After that, he is going to recognize
Senator Dirksen to continue with the 10-minute interrogatory.

Senator Symington. Nobody in the Senate knows more about how to
avoid testifyincr than the junior Senator from Wisconsin. And every-
body in the United States knows that that fact is true. If I come
before this committee which today in effect voted not to hear witnesses
that only yesterday were asked to be heard, then I certainly think
that he should go before the committee that investigated him. To
say that tliese are charges of the Maryland campaign is ridiculous.

46U20°— 54— pt. 57 2

2284 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

I have no interest whatever in the Maryland campaign. At the
same time that the charges with respect to the Senator from Wisconsin
were investigated, the charges with respect to the Senator from Con-
necticut, Mr. Benton, were investigated. It was a joint report.

Now, he knows that he did not come before that committee even
though he wasn't sitting on the committee like I am now. I will_ be
very glad to discuss this matter on the floor of the Senate with him,
anytime that he would like to, and I renew my offer.

Senator McCarthy. Just one more point of order.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will not listen to this because we are not
getting any place. I am sure that both of you have exhausted your
points of personal privilege, and argument which has been running on
now for several days.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have an important point to
call a point of order, then.

Senator Mundt. What is the point of order ?

Senator McCarthy. It will just take 30 seconds. It is this, Mr.
Chairman, that there has been a misstatement made. Mr. Symington
has said that no one knows better than the Senator from Wisconsin
how to avoid testifying. I have now at this time made the offer to go
on the stand and let him question me about everything, I don't care
how irrelevant it is, if he will merely consent to go on the stand and
tell us why and how it happened that. No. 1, he got the political ad-
viser of the Democrat Party to guide under cover the Republican
Secretary of the Army, and No. 2, while our friend, "Sanctimonious

Stu"

Senator Symington. Senator McCarthy, I object to that reference
to my first name, you better go to a psychiatrist. I want no psycho-
logical bribes from you. , .

Senator McCarthy. Why, Mr. Chairman, when he was advising us
that he wanted all of the facts laid on the table, when he was advising
the Republicans to testify, he kept secret the fact that Mr. Stevens
told him the day before the charges were issued, or a couple of days
before it, there is nothing to this, and Symington nevertheless suc-
ceeded in getting Mr. Stevens to issue those unfounded charges. That
is all I want from Mr. Symington, and I think that he should be will-
ing to do it when he says that I am a master at the art of avoiding be-
ing questioned. I have been under oath here, Mr. Chairman, and I
intend to take the oath again, and I will let him run as far afield as
he wants to if he will only go on the stand and answer those few ques-
tions and nothing further, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I want to reply.

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington, one final time on this continu-
ing colloquy which is ceasing to be as interesting to the rest of us as to
the participants in it, but I will recognize Senator Symington.

Senator Symington. I will say, in all due respect to the chairman,
it is not interesting to me, but I believe that any American has a right
to answer when false charges like the recent charges just stated by the
Senator from Wisconsin are made. I want again to remind him that
what he consistently calls my staff, although I thought that I had some
situation here with respect to this committee and the people that he has
around him, are certainly going to get the opportunity of questioning
me, provided the people who made that report about him which he
studiously and carefully avoid answering over a long period of

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2285

months — and I now have read the record. That is the arrangement,
and I will be ghiid to go throngh with it any time that he wants. I
will be glad to discuss it on the floor of the Senate any time he wants.
Now I suggest in the interest of these hearings that the charges are
often forgotten. The charges were: Did Senator McCarthy and
two members of his staff use improper pressure against Mr. David
Schine, or rather, for Mr. David Schine with the Army ? The counter-
charge was that there was blackmail on the part of the Army and the
use of Mr. Schine as a hostage.

Now, those are the charges that have been made. I have told Sen-
ator JMcCarthy again that anybody in this Government, even a Cabinet
member like Secretary Stevens, when they come to me the day before
I was to leave for Europe and ask for my help, I am going to give it to
them.

I also was agreeable to their having the advice of a good lawyer,
whose name seenied to fill this courtroom yesterday, and whose name
seems to be conspicuously silent today.

Now as far as the additional charge just made, with respect to my
finding out from Mr. Stevens when I got back, March 6 or thereabouts,
about an article, or rather, a group of charges which was in the press
about Mr. Schine, I called Mr. Stevens and asked him whether or not
he would give me the charges. On that I think it is fair to say he did
not agree that I should have them.

At that time, or before that or after that, I did not have the faintest,
most remote idea that I was going to get the document until I received
it with a letter stating in accordance with the request from Senator
Potter, it was being sent to me; nor did I have the remotest idea that
any charges of any kind were going to be preferred against this com-
mittee, nor did I have the remotest idea that any countercharges were
going to be preferred against the Army.

What I am standing on now is senatorial dignity. If the leaders
of the Senate believe that it is advisable for me to step off this com-
mittee and go on the witness stand in order that a defendant to very
serious charges have the right, with counsel, to interrogate me, I will
be glad to do it.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I hope we can get on with the hearing.

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen, you have 10 minutes.

Senator Dirksek. Mr. Chairman, I have no questions. I have only
an entreaty to members of the committee and to the principals in this
case that we avoid all these irrelevant and extraneous matters which
have no bearing on the issue before us, and that Ave can move on to a
conclusion of this proceeding. That is all I have got to say.

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson.

Senator Jackson. I pass.

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter.

The Chair should announce that Senator Potter has asked him to
announce to his colleagues that he has been called out of town for the
rest of the afternoon and will be back with us by tomorrow noon. He
requested that there be no committee votes taken in his absence, and
our colleagues have agreed to that, as I understand it.

Senator Dworshak?

Senator Dworshak, No questions.

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy ?

2286 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator McCarthy. No questions.

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

TESTIMONY OF EOY M. COHN— Eesumed

Mr. Wet.ch. Mr. Cohn

Senator McCarthy. May I take 2 minutes of my time on second
thought ?

Mr. Welch. I take it not out of my time?

Senator McCarthy. No; out of my time.

I am afraid I will have to wait until I get some material.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will abide by that first thought you had
and go ahead with Mr. Welch. Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, I have been interested in the course of this
hearing to hear the occasional description of Mr. Stevens as a per-
sonality, which emanates from the Senator and from you.

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. .

Mr. WiLCH. We have a difficulty about seeing each other again, Mr.

There isn't much room for you to move, sir. Could you hitch a little
to your left, Mr. Cohn ?

Mr. Cohn. Surely.

Mr. Welch. Unless that runs someone else into trouble.

I think it was stated yesterday that the Senator spoke of Mr. Stevens
in reasonably glowing terms. Do you remember, sir?

Mr. Cohn. I remember him speaking of Mr. Stevens, sir.

Mr. Welch. And you have from time to time.

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. .

Mr. Welch. In that connection, I would like to throw our minds
back to, shall I say, happier days when everybody thinks happier
thoughts and try to look at the individuals involved m this case as ot
the Christmas season last year.

Will you select that as a good, happy day, sir?

Mr. Cohn. Surely, sir. . i . ^^ a i ^

Mr Welch. I happen to know that on that date the Senator sent
5 pounds of Wisconsin cheese to the Secretary of the Army. Would
that be consistent with your thoughts on that occasion ?

Mr. Cohn. Sir, I know the Senator sends a lot of Wisconsin prod-
ucts around ; yes, sir. , ,1 , ^ ,•, .'t.

Mr Welch. And not forgetting Mr. Adams, he sent a hke quantity
to him. As for you, Mr. Cohn, I believe you restricted yourself to
ordinary Christmas greetings, and I don't criticize you for it. Is that

right, however ? , ,, .» T»r a i

Mr Cohn. I did not send gifts to either Mr. Stevens or Mr. Adams.

Mr Welch. Turning to the Senator and losing for Welch, where
I am not a candidate in the dairy States of New York and Vermont,
I too eat Wisconsin cheese, sir. -r ^ -. • ^i i

As of Christmas I take it that the words that I find m the record
of yours— and you may trust me to read them correctly—' I regard
Mr. Stevens as a fine, gentlemanly, courteous person," would certainly
apply, wouldn't they ? _

Mr. Cohn. As far as I am concerned, sir, they still apply. Mr.
Stevens never treated me in any way but with courtesy and I have
always thought him to be a very fine, courteous gentleman. Yes, sir.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2287

Mr. Welch. He is an extremely thoughtful person, isn't he?

Mr. CoHN, He is very pleasant, cordial.

Mr. Welch. He is an extremely cordial host ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. And he is a great person ?

Mr. CoHN. I think he is, sir.

]\rr. Welch. And a kind person ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. And an honorable person?

Mr. CoHN. He is certainly gracious and kind, sir.

Mr. Welch. And as of Christmas 1953, remembering that season,
it was your view that he was an honorable person ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Colin, in view of those simple statements, "^ want
to direct your attention to what I think is the toughest English in
this case. Will you look at the memorandum you dictated on Novem-
ber 6, Friday.

Mr. CoHN. Sure.

Mr. Welch. It is No. 2. Of a man that you thought was courteous
and gentle and kind and honorable, you wrote these words :

He-
meaning Mr. Stevens —

suggested that we go after the Navy, Air Force, and Defense Department instead.
We said first of all we had no evidence warranting an investigation of these
other Department. Adams said not to worry about that, because there was
plenty of dirt there, and they would furnish us the leads. Mr. Stevens thought
this was the answer to his problem.

Let me say to you again, Mr. Cohn, I think the stark nature of those
English words that you used are the toughest things in this case. You
know how I like to use simple and sometimes gutter language, don't
you?

Mr. CoHN. I have heard your comments.

Mr. Welch. Eight. Isn't this charge that I have read to you, in
the language of the underworld, an offer of Stevens to "rat" on the
other two services ?

Mr. CoHN. I don't think so. sir.

Mr. Welch. It is an offer, if I can read English — strike out "offer" —
it was a suggestion that you go after the Navy, the Air Force, and
the Defense Department, wasn't it ?

Mr. Cohn. As I have described that.

Mr. Welch. I know you have described it. When you said you
didn't have any evidence, Mr. Adams spoke up brightly and said :

Don't worry about that, there was plenty of dirt there, and they would furnish
us the leads. Mr. Stevens thought this was the answer to his problem.

Can that mean anything else, Mr. Cohn, except that Stevens offered
to betray the other two services, and that Adams would help turn up
the dirt and furnish the leads?

Mr. Cohn. Sir, I think it means just what it says.

Mr. Welch. Isn^t that what it says?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir. I think I have described the conversation.

Mr. Welch. Do you want to soften these words which seem to me
so tough ? I am glad to have you soften them.

2288 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoHN. I don't think it is a question of softening them, Mr.
Welch. I think it is a question of understanding the context in which
they were said, and what happened at that meeting. Mr. Stevens
and Mr. Adams wanted us to just go someplace else and leave their
Department alone for a while. They felt that if we spread things
around and let them alone for a while and spread things around so
that the Army was not singled out, so it didn't look as though the
Army was being singled out and that other branches were included as
well, it would not point things so directly at their Department, which
] assume they were trying to represent as best they could. It was in
those contexts that those statements were made, and they were made.

Mr. Welch. But the other place to which they wanted you to go
was the brother or the sister services, as you wished to name them.
That is to say here was Stevens the Secretary of the Army, and he
said in substance, "Sic your dogs on the Navy," or "Sic your dogs on
the Air Force, and I will have John Adams stand by and furnish the
leads and there is plenty of dirt." Wasn't it just that simple ?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir.

Mr. Welch. Well, he certainly said, Adams said m his presence,
Adams said not to worry, there is j)lenty of dirt there, and they would
furnish us the leads.

Mr. Cohn, did you ever have a finer informer offered to you than
this highly placed Secretary of the Army who said to you in sub-
stance, "I will rat on the other two services, Stevens and I or Adams,
and I will furnish you the dirt and the leads, and you crucify them
and let us alone."

Mr. Cohn. That was never said, sir.

Mr. Welch. I understand the word "crucify" was never said?

Mr. CoHX. No, sir. , n

Mr. Welch. But could anything be plamer than that this hne
courteous gentleman offered himself as the prize informer of all time,
one placed on the Cabinet level. Isn't it fair to say that that is exactly
the offer he made ? ttt i i

Mr. CoHN. I don't think it happened quite that way, Mr. Welch.

Mr. AVelch. I don't care how it happened. I am talking about the
English you used. Didn't you say, sir, in the plainest of English m
this' memorandum, of this fine courteous gentleman, that he offered
to be a traitor to the other two services ? . „ i

Mr. Cohn. No, sir; I don't believe I used the word "traitor then
or at any other time about Mr. Stevens, and I don't use that word

now. 1 , •.

Mr. Welch. If this memorandum of yours means what it seems
to me to say, it means just what I have said and that is that Adams
would furnish the dirt and Adams would furnish the leads and you
could investigate the other two branches and Stevens and Adams
could lean back and breathe deeply and softly. Isn't that what that
means?

Mr. Cohn. Not exactly, sir.

Mr. Welch. Well, if it doesn't mean that, do you want now to
change its meaning to something other than what seems to be the
fair meaning of it? . u . -j.

Mr. Cohn. No, sir, I want to let the meaning stand as what it

actually is.

SPECIAL rN\'ESTIGATION 2289

Mr. Welch. And do you want to go on telling us that as of
Christmas, 1953, after Stevens had offered to rat on his sister services,
you regarded him as a fine courteous gentleman ?

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman ?

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, your time has expired and the witness
may answer the question.

Mr. CopiN. The answer to the question is this, Mr. Welch: You
put some Avords in there which I have never used, such as "crucify,"
and "traitor," and things like that. What Mr. Stevens had suggested
we do was just not single out the Army, and he felt the Army was
being singled out as a target of the investigation, and he thought if
we could spread it around, and include in other branches of the mili-
tary, wherein there were the same situations, and problems which
the Army had, that would not leave him out in such bold relief.
That was what his suggestion was.

These other words, and characterizations are yours and not mine.
I think that I was very careful to say which was the fair and the
honest thing to say on direct examination, or at the very beginning
of my testimony, that neither Mr. Stevens nor Mr. Adams ever sug-
gested to me that there would be false information or that they wanted
any untrue or unfair or false thing done concerning the Navy and the
Air Force or any place else. They wanted us to spread this thing
around so that they would not be the whole target of what they
regarded as an embarrassing situation. That is what it is, sir.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Jenkins. Pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. The Cliair will pass in an effort to recapture some
of the time we lost earlier this afternoon and save it for Mr. Welch's
questions.

Senator McClellan?

Senator McClellan. Mr. Cohn, let us get back to the FBI just a
minute or two. I think we were discussing the two documents at the
time my time expired before, and I was trying to help point up this,
one of the most serious problems, I think, and controversies if there is
such between some of the legislative and some of the executive
branches of the Government. I am trying to ascertain, and you
stated your views very clearly to Mr. Welch on some aspects of this,
but what I am trying to ascertain is whether we can get by legal
processes from this committee documents that are marked classified
or secret or confidential which prohibits them from being released
insofar as the executive can control them.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. We can obtain some such documents.

Senator McClellan. I beg your pardon?

Mr. CoHN. We can get certain such information ; yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. You can get it by subpena ?

Mr. Cohn. Well, without even subpena, sir, there have been docu-
ments

Senator McClellan. But I am talking about one that will not be
released, and you can't get any documents you want from the FBI,
and you know that.

Mr. CoHN. We can't get any for this reason, sir, that the important
reason for keeping FBI reports in their original form from inspection
by committees or things of that kind is first of all that FBI reports

2290 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

will frequently contain the name of FBI informants, and if there were
publications of the name of those informants that would eliminate
that source of information to the FBI.

Senator I^IcClellan. Aren't there many documents down there
that are marked confidential that do not contain names of informants?

Mr. CoHN. There might be, sir.

Senator McClellan. Don't you know that to be a fact?

Mr. CoHN. I would say this, Senator McClellan : I have never seen
a full FBI document which does not either directly or indirectly con-
tain the name or identification of an informant ; no, sir. They usually
use, their investigative reports are usually based on information given
to them and they will usually, I think this is a matter of record, they
will usually begin with a reference direct or very often indirect to the
informant from whom the information might come.

Senator McClellan. Some of them use code names, do they not?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir ; they use symbols, they are the usual thing in
the case of certain names.

Senator McClellan. The point I am trying to make, and I thnik you
know what it is, is do you feel that this committee has a right to get
those documents otherwise if it can't get them by subpena ; if they
can't get them legally by subpena do you feel we have a right to get
them otherwise ?

Mr. CoHN. You are talking now. Senator

Senator McClellan. I am talking about classified documents in

the FBI. ,. , ^

Mr. CoHN. We have no right to get any documents directly from

the FBI ; no, sir.

Senator McClellan. Directly from the FBI ?
Mr. CoHN. No, sir.

Senator McClellan. But if you can do it indirectly ?

Mr. CoHN. It isn't a question of doing it indirectly. Senator Mc-
Clellan ; you have an additional step. You have the documents and
the reports and the information forwarded to a Government agency.
If that Government agency fails to act on the basis of this FBI infor-
mation which has come to"^it, it is not so much important for us to get
the FBI document or the document from the other agency, it is im-
portant for us to know that the agency has mishandled a situation.
As I say, protected Communists or _ , • o

Senator McClellan. It is originally an FBI document, isn t it?

Mr. CoHN. A document sent to another agency ?

Senator McClellan. Yes.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. .

Senator McClellan. It is an FBI document, and it is still marked
"confidential" when it goes there, isn't it?

Mr. CoHN. This letter you are talking about. Senator, was marked
"confidential."

Senator McClellan. That is not the character I am talking about,
not in that category. You know that.

Now I notice one thing that is pretty significant, and that is— I
am not criticizing anybody, and I am simply trying to bring or focus
on this thing— this difficulty that we are confronted with m the hope
that we may resolve it.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2291

Now, you have a two-and-a-third-pajje document here purporting
to be, or probably conceded to be, a document containing vital infoi^
mation out of a 15-page document; is that true?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellan. Now, I notice when it is presented here, coun-
sel would not read it, and no member of this committee would read
it, and yet it is a committee document.

If that document, or if this committee is legally entitled to it,
and to the use of it, for the life of me I can't see any reason why
members of the committee wouldn't read it and counsel wouldn't take
it and use it.

Mr. CoHx. I thought it was overcaution, sir.
^ Senator McClellan. Don't you see that is the very problem that
is presented, whether that constitutes a legal presentation, and a leo-al
use of an FBI document or not? I thought it was a little bit signTfi-
cant that not a member of this committee would touch it under those
circumstances.

Now, your contention is that they have a perfect right to it and

to use it ?

Mr. CoHN. My contention. Senator McClellan

Senator McClellan. Is that correct?

Mr. CoHN (continuing). Is that this committee has a perfect ri^rht
and a duty to investigate instances in which the executive has failed
to act on information just like that.

Senator McClellan. Just answer the question.

Mr. CoHN. Just like this very case that you are talking about
here.

Senator McClellan. Just answer the question. You know what
an evasive witness is. I said this committee, do you think that this
committee and the members of this committee have a right to use that
document to carry out the functions of this committee ?

Mr. CoHN. Sir, you are talking about evasive. I am trying not
to be evasive. You are asking me a question

Senator McClellan. You can answer that.

Mr. CoiiN. You are asking me some questions, Senator McClellan
which raise very long and complicated questions. '

Senator McClellan. You ought to be able to answer yes or no

Mr. CoHN They raise long and complicated questions, sir, and
some of which I am probably not even qualified to answer, and' I am
clomg the best I can to give you the information on it. These are
the type of questions and the area within which I would be over my
head if I tried to give you a yes or no answer.

Senator McClellan. So your contention is you don't know?

Mr. CoiiN. My contention is not that I don't know, sir. My con-
tention IS that it is a problem which requires a good deal of explora-
tion. I can discuss with you individual cases, individual

Senator McClellan. I am talking about this particular ca'^e We
need not wander around. Just take this one. Are we entitled, under
your theory, m your view of the law, to use that document for the
full purposes and functions of this committee, or were the members
ol the committee right in declining to use it ?

46620"— 54— pt. 57 3

2202 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoHN. I think the members, sir, if you press me on that,!
think the members of the subcommittee were perhaps overcautious in
not looking at this document.

Senator McClellan. You think they could have used it?

Mr. CoiiN. I think they could.

Senator McClellan. That is all I asked you, and you could have
answered that "yes" or "no." , . .1 ^

Mr. CoHN. I think there would have been no harm m the membersi
of the committee looking at the document.

Senator McClellan. Let me ask you one or two other questions,
and then I am through.

I believe you said that you have had access to FBI documents here-

Mr. CoHN. I have, sir. That was when I was with the Department

of Justice, I had.

Senator McClellan. That was while you were with the Depart-
ment of Justice ? . • 1

Mr CoiiN. Yes, while I was there ; that is right.

Senator McClellan. That is what I said. You did have access to
them then, such as in those files that were transferred to you to carry
out your official duties?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. -, . . , i

Senator McClellan. You have access only m those cases where
documents pertained to those cases that were assigned to you ; is that

correct .

Mr CoHN. No, not exactly, sir. I was for a good period of time
the confidential assistant to the United States district attorney up in
New York, which was the largest and busiest United States attorney s
office in the country, and as such I acted for him in a good many m-

st*i.ncGS

Senator McClellan. Just answer it this way. I am not trying
to pin down any details. You had access to any FBI documents you
wanted to while you were in the district attorney's office, and also while
in the Justice Department? Is that what you are saying?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir; any relevant to any matters pending m an
office in which I was working ; yes, sir. . , , , ^,

Senator McClellan. That is correct. Did you have access to them
in the Rosenberg case ? . . .^, ^ ,i

Mr CoHN. I couldn't have gotten the conviction without them, sir.

Senator McClellan. Did you have access to this 15-page document
in the Rosenberg case ? Was it a part of the file ?

Mr. CoHN. This one here? xi .. • •

Senator McClellan. Yes, sir; this 15-page document that is m

this case.

Mr. Corn. I have never seen it in my hfe, sir.
Senator McClellan, It was not in the file?
Mr. CoHN. No, sir.
Senator McClellan. So you had no access to it«

Mr. CoHN. I could not. ^ p .u ^

Senator McClellan. Although it referred to some aspects ot that
case,voudidn'thavethebenefitof itortheuseof it?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir. I believe— I don't know what the dates are.
I believe that that document was prepared after the Rosenberg prose-
cution.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2293

Senator McClellan. You never had the use of it then or had access
to it and did not see it while you were in the Department of Justice?
Mr. CoHN". I never saw it in my life, and I have not seen this 15-
paofe document to this day.

Senator McClellan. You haven't seen it?
Mr. CoHN. I have not.

Senator McClellan. So the information in here, in the two-and-a-
third page document, is information that was obtained other than
any information you obtained while you were in the District Attor-
ney's office or in the Department of Justice ?

Mr. CoHN. You are right, sir.

Senator JNIcClellan. You had never seen the document?

JNIr. CoHN. I had never seen it, sir.

Senator McClellan. The fact that you had been in the Depart-
ment and you had said that you had access to FBI files prompted
me to ask you that question.

!Mr. CoHX. Yes, sir.

Senator McClellax. Bscause you could have had, it was highly
probable that you could have had access to it while you were there in
the Department.

Mr. CoHX. Xo, sir, for this reason. Senator McClellan : I believe
that we had from Director Hoover

Senator McClellax. I thought it should be cleared up.

Mr. CoHX. Surely.

Senator IMcClellax. Here was the implication. You were there
in the Department and had access to FBI files. I thought you should
state under oath one way or the other whether you did have access to
this document or did not.

Mr. CoHx. Senator, Mr. Hoover in his letter or communication to
this committee made it very clear that the distribution of this particu-
lar 15-page document was, I believe. 1 copy to the Army, 1 copy to
the Air Force, and the other copy stayed in the FBI.

Senator McClellax. You have answered all I wanted to know.
You didn't have it and didn't see it?

Mr. CoHX. Senator, I am very glad to tell you under oath I never
saw it in my life before I came with the committee; no, sir.

Senator Muxdt. Senator Dworshak ?

Senator Dworshak. No questions.

Senator Muxdt. Senator Jackson ?

Senator Jacksox. Just one question.

Mr. CoHX. Yes, sir.

Senator Jacksox. Do you think FBI documents such as the 214-
page document should be turned over to newspapermen?

Mr. CoHx. Turned over to what, sir ?

Senator Jacksox. To newspapermen.

Mr. CoHx. By whom, sir?

Senator Jacksox. I am just asking. By anyone.

Mr. CoHX. No; I don't, sir.

Senator Jacksox. The reason I asked, I read something in the
paper that a newspaperman, at least one. had a copy of it.

Mr. CoHX. Sir, you can read a lot of things in the papers. I don't
know if any newspaperman had a copy of it or not. I have never
seen it published anyplace.

2294 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Seintor Jackson. No. It doesn't matter whether it was published
T nsked the Question : Do vou think that such a document Labeled
"Coitf ciSiar-I am refei^ing to the 2i/,-page document that was
oWi evidence, that was a"watered-down version of the 15-page
document which was offered in evidence on cross-examination. Do
you ink that document, which bore the label "Confidential " which
is the highest classification the FBI puts on a document should be
turned over to a newspaperman? I didn't say anything about

published.
Mr. Co I IN. No, sir; I do not.

Senator Muxdt. Senator McCarthy ?

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn, we have been having a lot o± con-
versation here about documents. Let's get down to this specific docu-
ment. We are talking now about a 21/2- or 21/4-page document which
I believe could be properly described as a warning from the J 131 to
Army Intelligence that there were potential espionage agents m the
important radar laboratory. Is that right ?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir. .• i • ^1 v. i

Senator McCarthy. And one of the men mentioned m tnit docu-
ment was Aaron Coleman. Eight?
Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir. ■, . .1

Senator I^IcCarthy. The document was headed, the one we re-
ceived was headed "Espionage— R," meaning "Espionage— Russian i

Mr. CoHX. Yes, sir. • -, .i ^ j ^-

Senator McCarthy. Prior to the time we received that document
until we started to hold hearings, Aaron Coleman still had access to
the radar material at Fort Monmouth ; right ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes. He was still working at Fort Monmouth.

Senator McCarthy. Is it correct that one theory of defense which
we have is that we build a huge radar screen, and Nike— I am not talk-
in*^ about anything secret— to use a machine called "Nike,' or how-
ever you pronounce it. When radar picks up the enemy plane, Nike
locks upon it and it fires automatically and knocks it out of the air.
That is one of the developments which has been made public. We
know there are many other developments which have not been made

public.

Is it correct, Mr. Cohn, to assume that if there are espionage agents
at Fort Momnouth, that that could well mean the loss of a war to this
country ?

Mr. toHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. In other words, next to your atomic-bomb
installations, it is pretty difficult to think of anything any more im-
portant or anything more secret than our radar experimentation and
ialjoratories, is that right?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir. One is the offense and the other is the defense.
It is very hard to

Senator >IcCarthy. Let me ask you this : In this 214-page docu-
ment do you feel there was any security information ?

In other words, did it give the names of any informants, any of the
investigative techniques of the FBI or anything like that?

Mr. CouN. As 1 recall it, it did not, sir.

Senator McCarthy. Do you feel that this committee had an abso-
lute duty upon the receipt of that document, which was only one of
many, ajiparently, sent by the FBI to the Army Intelligence, that we

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2295

had a duty which we couldn't duck to proceed to expose what was
referred to in that document as espionage — E, or espionage — Russian ?
Mr. CoHN". I thought we had a duty to go into the situation of Com-
munist infihration in those radar laboratories; yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. As far as you know, at the time we received
that document, none of the individuals named in it had been suspended
even though apparently it was available to all of the security officers
at Fort Monmouth ?

Mr. CoHN. Let me answer it to you this way. Senator, the best I can
without having the document before me. There were a number of
people named in that document with derogatory information who are
still working at the radar laboratories at Fort Monmouth and who
had not been suspended but who have now been suspended since we
began our investigation.

Senator McCarthy. Let's see if I can recap the Fort Monmouth
situation as you know it. I realize we have been denied the positive
information from the military so we have to take it piecemeal. Is it
roughly correct that over the past number of years prior to our
investigation there were some 35, I believe, the figure roughly was
35, individuals who were suspended by the commanding officer, most
of them found unfit to serve by the First Army Loyalty Board.

Then they appealed to the screening board in the Pentagon and
almost without exception— I believe there are two exceptions— they
were sent back to work in the secret radar laboratory.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. You were told in my presence by people high
in the military that the top screening board had been almost con-
sistently reversing the cases of people against whom there was power-
ful evidence of Communist activity and overruling the finding of
disloyalty by lower boards and commanding officers; yes.

Senator McCarthy. Just 1 or 2 other questions. It seems here that
I find myself more or less in the role of defense attorney for Mr.
Stevens, which is unusual for me, but Mr. Welch intimated that Mr.
Stevens offered to "rat" on the Air Force, and rat on the Navy and
offered to be a traitor to the other services. Is it not correct, Mr. Cohn,
that there was no such an offer made, and that all Mr. Stevens or Mr.
Adams offered to do was to give us information of what they thought
was wrong-doing and that there was nothing of a ratting nature "in-
volved, and nothing that you would even remotely refer to as treason or
being a traitor?

Mr. Cohn. Absolutely not, sir.

Senator McCarthy. In otlier \vords, they were off-ering the informa-
tion which any loyal American should get ?

Mr. Cohn. I certainly saw nothing in there, sir, which would justify
the words which Mr. Welch suggested.

Senator McCarthy. And as a final question, would you and I agree
that when Mr. Welch intimates that Mr. Stevens was trying to "rat"
on the other services, tliat is about as unfair a thing as has'been said
about Mr. Stevens either in or out of this committee room?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. I have nothing further.

Senator Munot. Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Welch. Once more, Mr. Adams said at that interview, and I am
looking at your memorandum :

There was plenty of dirt there.

2296

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Did Adams say that?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. i . i- i- 4-9

Mr Welch. Where did he mean there was plenty of dirt i
Mr CoHN. In these other branches of the military.
Mr. Welch. In the Air Force and the Navy i

Mr' W^CH.'Tncfh; said, "They." Who do you mean by "they"?

Mr. CoHN. I would apply that to Mr Adams

Mr. Welch. And Mr. Stevens. Is that right?

Mr Corn. I would say, sir, that you are probably caught by my

^X^^h!^ Y^ Ka^W^ pronoun improperly ; have you, sir 1

Mr. Cohn. I might very well have.

Mr. Welch. Do you want to tell us you did «

Mr Cohn. Pardon me, sir? . ,

Mr Welch. Do you want to say you used an improper pronoun?

Mr Cohn I am sure 1 have used a lot of them improperly.

Mr! wScH. What do you think the word "they" refers to unless it
refers to Stevens and to Adams ? • ^- „

Ml' Cohn. I think it referred to Mr. Adams and his organization,
the people who work with him. He was going to get us the mforma-

^^Mr. Welch. And now he refers to Adams; doesn't he?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, he does. .i i i ??

Mr. Welch. And, "They would furnish us the leads.

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
Mr. Welch. Did he say that ^

Mr Cohn. Yes, sir, he did. , „ ,, • ^ ^.^

Mr. Vvelch. Then,'isn't is just this simple: He says there is plenty
of dirt in the other two services. He says that; is that rights

Mr. wI'^H^And "We will furnish you the leads," that is right,

isn't it ?
Mr. Cohn. Yes, it is.

Mr. Welch. That is precisely what they said? . i . .i „^

Mr. Cohn. It is precisely— it is certainly the substance of what they

'"^ Mr. Welch. Now, Mr. Cohn, let us not duck it If you had taken
that offer, you could from then on when you wished go over to Stevens
and Adams and say, "We are in the other two services and we are
going soft with you, but come on, kids, let us see the dirt and the

^ You would have had a right to say that; wouldn't you? ^
Mr Cohn. I don't think we would have said it that way, sir.
Mr. Welch. And they had promised to show you the dirt and the

leads ; haven't they ? .

Mr Cohn. Yes, I think that that is an assumption.

Mr. Welch. And you want to say that doesn t sound to you like

ratting ?

Mr. Cohn. Sir , , , ,., ..j." „?

Mr. Welch. Just tell me. Doesn't that sound to you like ratting?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir, I would like to say that I can tell you what was
said on that occasion and leave it.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2297

'Mr. Welch. You just told me that tliey said there was plenty of
dirt and they would furnish the leads?

Mr. CoHX. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. And now I am asking you, Mr. Cohn, as one man to
another, doesn't that sound to you like ratting?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir, I don't think of it that way.

]\Ir. Welch. You don't think it is ?

Mr. CoHX. I don't think of tliat word.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, will you look at page 1866 of the record,
which is volume 10.

]Mr. CoHx. vSure, I will get it right away. Why don't you go ahead
and start reading it?

Mr. Welch. No, because I want you to look at it, Mr. Cohn.

Mr. CoHX. Surely.

Senator ^Muxdt. Time out while we are finding the record.

ISIr. Welch. Mr. Cohn. have you the page ?

Mr. CoHx. Yes, sir, I have it.

Mr. Welch. May I say, Mr. Cohn, tliis isn't an instance of where
I am_ going to say now look at your testimony and compare this.
This is a page where if you will look back, 1 tlinik 2 pages, you will
finding looking at 1864

Mr. Cohx. I have looked there already. It was Senator Mc-
Carthy speaking.

]S[r. Welch. Senator McCarthy was speaking?

jMr. CoHx. Yes, sir.

Mr. "Welch. And I am looking at the last full paragraph on page
1866, and I call your attention to these words, of the Senator :

I received information also to tlie effect— and Roy checked with me on this—
that in 19-19 there was a report made of the same nature from the FBI.

Did you check with the Senator on this while he testified?

Mr. Cohx. Now, let me see. Can I go back a moment? What is
the question, Mr. Welch ?

Mr. Welch. The question is: The Senator asked vou to check with
him, you notice that and he says, "And Rov checked'with me on this."
And you notice those words?

Mr. Cohx. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. Then he says that in 1949 there was a report made of
the same nature from the FBI. My question to you is, Did vou check
with him, as he testified ? ^ j j

Mr. Cohx. I think what happened, Mr. Welch, was the Senator
turned to me and said, ^'Follow this and see if I am correct "

Mr. Welch. Check with me?

]\fr. Cohx. Yes.

Mr Welch. There is no mystery about this, Mr. Cohn. Of course,
we all gather from that that in 1949 there was an FBI report of the
same nature; don't we?

Mr. Cohx. I would say tluit the page shows tliat the point of the
thing was that there were a number of warnings from the FBI

Mr. Welch. That is what I Avanted to develop.

IMr. Cohx. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. There was one in 1949 from the FBI, is that right «

Mr. C ohn. As far as I know, it is, sir.

Mr. Welch. And you or the Senator have it?

)

2298 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoHN. No, sir, I don't think we have it.

Mr. Welch. Well, you had at some time, did you not?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir.

Mr. Welch. Notice the next phrase, "complaining of what would
appear to be espionage." Do you notice that phrase?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir; I noticed it, sir.

Mr. Welch. Then September 15, 1950, did you check with the Sena-
tor when he spoke those words ?

Mr. Cohn. I don't remember whether I did or not.

Mr. Welch. The FBI report of that date.

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Welch, we didn't have FBI reports, what I was
checking against as I recall, we had some memoranda in the files giv-
ing the dates of FBI warnings, and not setting forth the details of
the warnings. We had in other words I think there are two or three
or four memoranda which say that in the following years, in some
cases you get it exact date and in some cases the month, the FBI sent
warnino;s to G-2 in the Army about this situation.

Mr. Welch. All right. Now let me read this whole sentence to
you, and then come back over it again, and may I, Mr. Cohn, because
I have certainly got a very wrong impression from it in view of what
you are now apparently saying

Mr. Cohn. I am sorry, sir.

Mr. Welch. To go back a ways, and read for several lines. The
Senator says:

Received information also to the effect —
and check with me on this —
that in 1949 there was a report of the same nature from the FBI.

Now that clearly is a reference to a 1919 FBI report, is it not?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir ; it is.

Mr. Welch (reading) :

Complaining of what would appear to be apparently espionage ; and Septem-
ber 15 1950 on October 27, 1950, December 1900, and again December of 1950,
and again June 5, 1951, and January 2fi, 1951, and I believe that is the one we
have here February 13, 1951 ; February 19, 1952, and June of 1952, and Septem-
ber of 1952 and January of 1953, and April 1, 1953, and April 21, 1953. And the
young man who gave me this information was deeply disturbed. That is why
"he gave it, because there was no action taken by the Army to get rid of the
indhiduals after the FBI had given a complete report.

Do you read that with me ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, I am right with you, Mr. Welch.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. A point of order?

Senator McCarthy. A request to the Chair. May I request that
the Chair now ask whoever is in charge, Mr. Adams or Ui\ Welch, or
Mr. Stevens to check the reports and see whether or not the dates that
I gave are accurate, and whether or not they received warnings^ on
those days, whether they had to do with alleged espionage at Fort
Monmouth. I think that that is very important because I gather
Mr. Welch here is trying to create the impression that because I did
not have the documents physically in my possession, that they might
not have been existent, and I think it is very important now, :Mr.
Chairman, to know that those documents were in existence, and if
they were not in existence, the record should be clear.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2299

I wonder if Mr. Welch wouldn't have his clients make a search and
tell us tomorrow morning whether or not those dates are correct.

Mr. Welch. I will tell you this, Senator, if there are FBI reports
of the nature that you talk about and the dates you give, under my
conception of the law, I will tell you nothing about them because I
believe an FBI report that is marked "confidential'' is confidential.

Senator McCarthy. May I ask the Chair to do this : Mr. Chair-
man, will you order

Senator ]\Iundt. In response to your earlier request, the Chair re-
calls approximately that same question was asked of either Mr. Adams
or Mr. Stevens many days back in the testimony, at which time they
agreed to check the files and determine whether or not those specific
reports were there. They were not going to disclose their contents.
They were simply going to indicate whether or not the information
was in their possession.

The Chair does not know whether that request has been complied
with. He says that subject to his memory. He will ask our staff to
go back in the record and determine whether or not such a request
was made and accepted, and if it was, then he thinks the information
should be forthcoming.

Mr. CoHN. Senator Mundt, this rings a bell. I did furnish, I think,
a written memorandum to somebody over on Mr. Welch's staff giving
the dates of these FBI communications the best I could fix them.

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that that question was asked
and that we were told we would get the information. We will hold
that in abevance until our staff has a chance to check the record.

Mr. Welch?

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, when the Senator asked you to check with
me on this, with what did you check, sir?

Mr. CoHN. I think I had there, Mr. Welch— and I don't have a
present recollection— I think I probably had there a memorandum
which is in our files which sets forth a sort of chronology of communi-
cations between the FBI and the Army concerning the Fort Mon-
mouth radar laboratory Communist infiltration situation.

Mr. Welch. Did you get that from the young man who was deeply
disturbed ?

Mr. Cohn. I believe that came to the Senator from this young man.

Mr. Welch. The young man who was deeply disturbed ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. I may have misunderstood this record, sir.

Mr. CoHN, Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. Did he or did he not give you some of the documents?

Mr. CoHN. No. So far as I know, Senator McCarthy would have
to answer this, sir. To my knowledge the only one he gave was the
one we have here.

Mr. AVelch. Of January 26, 1951?

Mr. Cohn. Yes. I think, as Senator McCarthy said a little earlier
in what you read, I received information also to the effect that there
was a report, and so on and so forth. I think, as I recall it, that he
told us that on such-and-such dates, reports had been sent over, there
had been communications back and forth, in which the FBI had
warned about the situation of Communist infiltration at Fort Mon-
mouth.

46620°— 54— pt. 57 4

2300 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. Welch. When this informant gave you and the Senator the

one dated January 26, 1951

Mr. CoHN. He gave it to the Senator, sir.

Mr. Welch. He gave it to the Senator. You must have learned

about it promptly ? p x i i i . -x

Mr. CoHN. I don't know how soon thereafter I learned about it.

Mr. Welch. Did you learn the date of these other ones that appear
in the record here ?

Mr. CoHN. I did learn that at some time, yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. Did you ask this informant for those ?

Mr. CoHN. No, I did not.

Mr. Welch. Did the Senator ever ask for them ?

Mr. Cohn. I don't know, sir.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, your time has expired.

Mr. Jenkins?

Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will pass.

Senator McClellan ? ,

Senator McClellan. Mr. Cohn, just one other question to clear

the record.

Mr. Cohn. Surely.

Senator McClellan. On page 5384 of the testimony yesterday

Mr. Cohn. Why don't vou go ahead. Senator ?

Senator McClellan. First, I w^U ask you if you have any special
interest in Mr. Schine? ^ „ tt

Mr. Cohn. I don't know what you mean by "special interest. He
is a friend ol mine. .

Senator McClellan. I mean in friendship or anything else which
would bind you to him closer than to the ordinary friend.

Mr. Cohn. Nothing. He is one of a number of very good friends
whom I have. I am fortunate to have a large number.

Senator McCleixan. Now I want to read you this testimony on
page 5384 of the record of yesterday. Mr. Jenkins, as I recall, was
reading from one of the monitored calls of Senator McCaarthy.

It is one of the few things I have seen him completely unreasonable about.

That is quoted from Senator McCarthy's telephone call, and "him"
refers to you, as I understand it.

He thinks Dave should be a general and work from the penthouse of the
Waldorf.

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. . , ^. ,.

Senator McClellan. Your boss testified to that. That is, that is his

statement.

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Senator McClellan. Would you say that is true or not true i

Mr. Cohn, No ; I don't believe he has testified to that yet, ^r.

Senator McClellan. That is a statement that is sworn to here m
the record. This is sworn testimony that he said it.

Mr. Cohn. That is one statement in a lot of statements m the course
of this phone conversation.

Senator McClellan. You can take any of the others you want to
and answer as to them. I am just asking you about that, if it ^s true
or false.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2301

Mr. CoHN. Is it true or false that Senator McCarthy said that to
Secretary Stevens?

Senator McCmllan. No. Is what he said true ?

Mr. CoHN That I was completely unreasonable ?

Senator McClellan. Yes.

Mr. CoHx. I will say this, sir : As I explained before, we have had
discussions about staff problems, and I did make the point that I
thoufi^ht Schine was

Senator McClellan. Do you consider that you were completely
unreasonable ?

Mr. CoHN. No ; I did not think I was beins: completely unreasonable.

Senator McClellan. You don't think so ?

Mr. CoHN. No ; I did not.

Senator McClellax. He says that you thoueht that Dave shoidd
be a general and work out of the penthouse of the Waldorf. You
don't think that, do you ?

Mr. CoHN. No, of course not. And I never said it and Senator
McCarthy never said that seriously here, sir.

Senator McClellan. You mean Senator McCarthy never said that ?

Mr. CoHN. I never heard of a general working from a penthouse
in the Waldorf.

Senator jNIcClellan. Of course. That is an exaggeration. That
is an extreme. But you don't say Senator McCarthy didn't say that.
It has been sworn here.

Mr. CoHN. Sure he might have said it, sir. He probably did.

Senator McClellan. You think that was just facetious?

Mr. CoHN. I don't think it is a question of being facetious, sir. I
think if you read the whole conversation you would see that it was
certainly a good-natured conversation.

Senator McClellan. I thought we read them all as far as we had
them monitored. They read mine.

Mr. CoHN. I am saying, sir, if you read the whole conversation,
I think you will see that there was light talk and kidding back and
forth.

Senator McClellan. I realize the last part of it is facetious, but
the first part of that statement wouldn't appear to be there facetious.
He found you very unreasonable about Dave Schine. Isn't that true ?

Mr. CoiiN. Senator, this was the question of finishing up the com-
mittee work. Whether I was completely unreasonable or not in think-
ing he had to do the work is somethii"i,'sir, which I would rather have
you ask Senator McCarthy about.

Senator McClellan. Senator McCarthy is going to testify.

Mr. Co JIN. Sure.

Senator McClellan. He will be subject to question on this point.
I want to get your version of it before you leave the stand.

Mr. CoHN. All right, sir. My testimony is that I don't think I was
unreasonable in believing that he had to write these reports and finish
this work ; no, sir.

Senator McClellan. Do you know why the statement was made
that you were unreasonable ?

Mr. CoHN. I would imagine it was made then, sir, because Senator
McCarthy thought I was unreasonable and some of this work might
be done without Dave Schine. That is my interpretation; what my
interpretation would be.

2302 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator McClellan. That is all.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen?
Senator Dirksen. I have no questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson ?
Senator Jackson. I have no questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak?
Senator Dworshak. I have no questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy ?

Senator McCarthy. I have just a half-minute, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
Welch, I gathered, and I am sure not purposely so, I thought was try-
ing to create the impression that I claimed to have all of those FBI
documents, the dates of which were given. He said he misunderstood
the testimony, and I would suggest to Mr. Welch then that he read the
request which I made at that time, and I requested at that time, as I
recall, to have the Army intelligence check and see whether those
were the correct dates and whether those were not FBI documents,
and as I say, I am sure it is an honest mistake on your part, Mr. Welch.
But you, I fear, created the impression that I had said that we had
all of those documents in our possession, which is not true. I have
nothing further.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, you have 10 minutes.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, I was misled, and is the two and a quarter
page document from the FBI that we kicked around this room the only
FBI confidential top secret document you or the Senator or anyone
on your staff ever received ?

Mr. CoHN. You mean pertaining to this subject matter here, sir?
Mr. Welch. Yes; or any FBI documents. ^ _

Mr. CoHN. I can-t say anyone, sir. I can say as far as I know it is
the only one we received in connection with this list here, and as I
understand it the fellow came in and said that there were reports on
such and such years, and such and such dates, and here is one of
them, or here is part of one of them, or whatever it is. I think that
is the only one we got there.

Now, there have been, I think, a small number of instances m
which we have received officially FBI information on matters of some
little importance.

Mr. Welch. Could I ask you, sir— strike that out. Some weeks
ago, in this room, the Senator said over the radio, "I want to notify
Government employees that they may bring such documents to me,
and that I will never reveal their names." Do you remember that,

sir? . ,

Mr. Cohn. I don't remember him saying that ; no, sir.

Mr. Welch. I could find it for you.

Mr. Cohn. "Such documents" I don't believe he said tliat, sir, and
I believe that he said Government employees bringing information
concerning laxity and failure to act in the executive branch.

Mr. Welch. In a moment, I will look up the reference, and I may
slightly overstate it, but my question to you is this : Since those words
went out over the radio, has there been an increase in your intake of
information from informants?

Mr. Cohn. Sir, you would have to ask Senator McCarthy what he
has received. I frankly must admit that I have not been able to
keep up to date with the subcommittee work and the investigation of
Communists because all of my time has been taken up in connection

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2303

with these ]iearino:s, and so I can't tell you just what information and
how much of it has come in durin<^ the past couple of weeks.

Mr. Welch. I think it would be of some interest to know whether
or not the flow of information from informants has increased or di-
minished or stayed constant. Is there any way to tell us since that
got discussed ?

Senator Mundt. The Chair suggests you ask that question of Sena-
tor McCarthy when you have him on the stand because he would be
the one who would know.

]\Ir. Welch. I judge the Senator has been busy, too.

Let me ask you this, Mr. Cohn. As I understand it, and let us see
if we can't get this down quite simply — as I understand it it is just
this simple. If the FBI sends a top secret document to some Govern-
ment department, and some employee over there sees it gathering dust,
as that employee thinks for too long, do you believe, sir, they have a
perfect right to bring it to the Senator or to you ?

Mr, CoHN". No ; the answer is, it is not that simple, sir.

Mr. Welch. I don't know why you make it difficult for me. Cer-
tainly, under certain circumstances you believe that person may bring
it to the Senator ?

Mr. Cohn. Mr. Welch, sir

Mr. Welch. Can't you answer that "Yes" or "No" ?

Mr. CoHX. I can answer it this way : I am not concerned about the
actual bringing of the document. What I am concerned about is learn-
ing of situations in which FBI information about Communists and
other information about Communists is being ignored by a Govern-
ment agency which is letting those Communists stay on the job,
whether that is done in the form of saying, "Here is a memorandum,"
and here is this, or whether it is in the form of someone coming over
and telling us that there are Communists over here, and the FBI and
other people have been yelling their heads off about it, and no one is
doing anything about it, I don't care much.

Mr, Welch. Assume that, in the judgment of the Government em-
ployee at the receiving end, the situation in his mind is just as you now
describe it, and it is time then, according to you, for him to make a
copy of it and bring it over to the Senator or to you ?

Mr. Cohn. Not necessarily, sir.

Mr, Welch. Why do you always qualify it ? It is all right to do it
then, isn't it?

Mr, Cohn. Sir, what I have been trying to tell you is this : I think it
is perfectly all right, and I think it is his duty

Mr. Welch. You have answered it. It is perfectly all right. That
is good enough for me. Now, let me look at the other end of it, Mr.
Cohn.

Senator McCarthy. May I suggest that the witness be allowed to
answer his question, and I don't know what he was going to say.

Mr. Welch. He was going to say it was perfectly all right, because
that is what he did say.

Senator Mundt. Had the witness concluded his statement?

Mr, Cohn. I have not, Senator.

Senator Mundt, You may finish.

Mr. Cohn. I would say, sir, that it is perfectly all right for the
Government employee to tell, I think it is his duty under the law, to
tell this committee about the existence of a situation in the executive

2304 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

where there is covering up and hixity in acting against Communists
in the executive branch. I think that much is very clear in everybody's
mind.

Mr. Welch. But the nicest, and most complete way to tell you is to
bring over the FBI documents showing the date on which they re-
ceived it, and the information they got ; isn't that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Not necessarily, sir.

JNIr. AVelch. Well, it is a beautiful way to do it, isn't it?

Mr. CopiN. No, sir ; in the Government

Mr. Welch. You can see the date, Mr. Cohn, of the document, can't
you^

Mr. CoHN. Well, sir, in the Government Printing Office

Mr, Welch. Can you answer that. If they bring over the docu-
ment, you can see the date on which they received it?

Mr. CoHN. Sure.

Mr. Welch. And you can see the information that is involved ?

Mr. CoHN. Sure.

Mr. Welch. And you can tell how long the time has been?

Mr. CoHN. Sure.

Mr. Welch. And you yourself can form some judgment as to
whether the Government agency is moving too slowly or not, can't
you ?

Mr. CoHN. That would be one factor, sir.

Mr. Welch. So a very nice way to do it, and I don'i: see why you
have to fence with me, is for the employee at the receiving end, when
that employee thinks it has gathered enough dust, it is all right with
you to get it out and dust it off and bring it to you. That is right,
isn't it.

Mr. CoHN. No, sir.

Mr. Welch. Why do we have so much trouble? On the one

hand

Mr. CoHN. We have trouble, Mr. Welch, because you are gomg, as
I know you are well aware, sir, you are going into a question that is
a long one and a complicated one, and I am trying to give you the
best answers which I can on it. I don't want to sit here and give long
answers to these questions ; on the other hand, the giving of one clipped
word I can't convey to you the situation as it is.

Mr. Welch. Let us "try it this way : This one surely we can agree
on. As to the 214-page document, this much we can certainly answer
directly, Mr. Cohn, may we not— as to the 214-page document which
the Senator had in the room, as to that one, you surely felt it was
time for the disturbed young man to bring it over ?

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. A point of order ?

Senator McCarthy. Yes ; a very important one.

Practically all the Senators here, both Democrat and Republican,
have desisted from asking irrelevant questions, hoping we can get
this investigation ended. Now, the issues here are very clear:
Whether or not Mr. Cohn or myself or Mr. Carr exerted undue pres-
sure upon the Army, or whether the Army tried to blackmail us out
of a hearing on communism.

Now this question of documents gathering dust, and what docu-
ments had been brought ov::r, is an interesting subject and Mr. Welch

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2305

mcay be able to look clever on this, but it is a vast waste of time when
we have all given our time to Mr. Welch so as to expedite this.

Senator Mundt. You may continue, Mr. AVelch.

Mr. Welch. Now, Air. Cohn

Mr. Cohn. I have forgotten the last question, sir.

Mr. Welch. My question was: When that 2i/4-page document
came over, marked at the top "Confidential," which is the highest
FBI marking, is it not ?

Mr. Cohn. I think it was the only FBI marking, sir.

Mr. Welch. It is top secret, isn't it ?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir, it is not.

Mr. Welch. At any event, it is secret ?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir, it is not.

Mr. Welch. You don't mean it was just public stuff?

Mr. Cohn. It was confidential, sir.

Mr. Welch. Confidential?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. Now, when that came over, it was all right with you to
have the Senator take it, wasn't it ?

Mr. CoHN. I wasn't consulted on it, and I certainly think

Mr. Welch. It is all right w^ith you ?

Mr. Cohn. Do I see anything wrong in his taking it?

Mr. W^ELCH. That is right.

Mr. CoHN. No, I don't.

Mr. Welch. I don't see why it takes us so long to say it.

Now let me ask you about the other thing. Suppose an employee
in the FBI, watching on the other end of the deal, had seen no action,
and felt that that employee wanted to tell you about it. Would that,
too, have been all right with you ?

Mr. Cohn. Let me see if I "understand that, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch. Have it read to you, because it is easily understood.

Mr. CoHN. Yes.

(Whereupon, the pending question was read by the reporter as
above recorded.)

Senator Mundt. The reporter will read the question. Time out.

(The reporter read from his notes as requested.)

Mr. Cohn. Let me see if I understand.

Senator Mundt. Time back in.

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Welch, do you mean no action within the FBI or no
action on the part of the other agency ?

Mr. Welch. No action on the part of the receiving agency.

Mr. CoHN. I think in a large number of instances, sir, 'the FBI
would not know what follow-up action had been taken by the re-
ceiving agency so the situation would not be within the knowled^^e
of the FBI.

Mr. Welch. Just suppose, Mr. Cohn, that at the FBI end there was
a disturbed young man who felt no action had been taken, would it
be all right if he brought a copy

Mr. CoiJN. I don't think it could go that way, sir, because I think
at the FBI end they would not know just what follow-up action

Mr. Welch. Suppose a disturbed young man felt that no action
was being taken and brought it to you, would you accept it?

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, your time has expired.

You may answer the question.

2306 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. Welch. Will you answer it?

Mr. CoHN. I am saying to you, Mr. Welch, I don't think anybody
in the FBI could know just what follow-up action was taken by the
people in the other agency. I don't think you could have a situation
such as you suggest. The way M'e find out, like in the Government
Printing Office here, is from the receiving agency.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins.

Mr. Jexkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. The Chair w411 pass. Senator McClellan.

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I am going to pass, but with
the assumption that after the documents that Mr. Schine worked on
during the time he was off from military duties for the purpose of
serving this committee are made available so that there may be the
opportunity for cross-examination regarding them.

Mr. CoHN. Senator McClellan, you may have them right now, sir.

Senator Mundt. The Chair would like to say he was advised by the
witness as of yesterday morning that the documents are ready when-
ever anybody wants to ask questions about them and calls for their
production.

Mr. CoHN. Surely. They are available.

Senator McClellan. I understood they would be available. I
wasn't questioning that. But I am sure as far as I am concerned, at
least, I have had no opportunity to see what has finally been submitted.
When were they submitted ?

Mr. CoiiN. We have had them ready subject to the call of the com-
mittee since yeserday morning, sir.

Senator McClellan. I suggest that the committee call if it takes
that to get them so we will have an opportunity to see them.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will have them delivered at this time
if that is what you wish to have.

Senator McClellan. I wish you would deliver them so we have an
opportunity to see them. I don't know that there are any questions I
want to ask about but I want to see what the product of those days
off were.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will ask that they be delivered to Mr.
Jenkins at this time, so that any member of the committee or counsel
may examine them.

Mr. CoHN. You want them sent to Mr. Jenkins' office ?

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cohn, I suggest that they be brought right in
this room at this time, or at the earliest possible moment.

Senator McClellan. We can't examine them here unless you want
to recess these hearings.

Mr. CoTiN. We have (hem all ready.

Senator McClellan. Place them somewhere, whatever they are,
where they are available.

Senator Mundt. Would it be agreeable with the Senator from
Arkansas if they were delivered to the counsel's office where they would
be available to all members of the committee and to Mr. Welch?

Senator McClellan. Either to counsel's office or to your office.

Senator Mundt. I prefer to have the traffic in counsel's office. We
have interruptions enough down in my office without adding to the
unnecessary traffic.

Senator McClet-lan. That is entirely satisfactory. Where is the
counsel's office? I want to know.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2307

Senator Mundt. Rifilit down the hall, two doors from me, in the
Government Operations Committee office, where Mr. Reynolds has his
office.

Senator IMcClellax. Thank you.

Senator Muxdt. Senator Dirksen.

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make one observa-
tion for the purpose of clearing the record a little with respect to the
FBI, and then I shall have one question to ask.

Mr. Chairman, it was in the course of a radio panel about 2 months
ago, with 4 or 5 very dextrous minded reporters hurling questions at
me for 30 minutes or whatever it was, that I think inadvertently I
mentioned something about FBI files. I think that inadvertence of
mine is one which one can easily drop into when one talks about files
in one committee or another and suddenly mentions FBI files.

The strict fact of the matter is that in nearly 20 years of legislative
experience I have seen only one FBI file, and that one, Mr. Chairman,
I was entitled to see because it was a file on a nominee that had offi-
cially come to my attention. So if there is any inadvertence or any
erroneous impression that FBI files are sliding around within the
Government for all to see, so far as the Senator from Illinois is con-
cerned, I want to correct it right now.

That is the foundation, Mr. Cohn, I think for one question. Insofar
as you "know from your experience in the Department of Justice over
a period of time, just how available are these files throughout the
Government ? Are they in great quantities that are stuck here, there,
and everywhere, and accessible to literally hundreds of thousands of
people; or are they in the main modest in number and pretty well
guarded in the first instance so that when we speak about FBI files
and their availability to people it is not quite of the dimensions that
one might think?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir ; it is not quite of the dimensions one might think.
I don't think I actually ever saw an FBI file as such. The only thing
you might see in the Government would be FBI reports which would
be circulated officially to a certain class of people who have business
concerning, who must take action on the basis of those reports, such
as the one experience you had acting on a nomination, or in the case
of the Government agencies acting on the basis of those reports to
get the people named in them given a loyalty hearing or put out or
whatever else might be the case. But they certainly are not in any
wise floating around, and I have never known of any instance where
the FBI or any one within the FBI has given a report or any part of
it to any unauthorized person.

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I can conclude this by simply
saying in full justice to John Edgar Hoover that whatever files come
to the committees on which I serve, are available only under an iron-
clad rule so they are pretty carefully guarded, and there is some diffi-
culty in even Members of the Senate ever seeing a file even where there
may be a presumjition that they are entitled to see it.

So I simply conclude by saying that in all that time I have seen
exactly one file pertaining to a nominee for a Federal position.

Senator INIundt. We have reached the seventh inning, and we will
take our customarj^

Senator Jacksox. May I make one comment before we do?

Senator Muxiyr. Senator Jackson.

46G20— 54— pt. 57 5

2308 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator Jackson. I think, Senator Dirksen, you broiio;ht out a very
important point, and I believe you may want to correct one thing in
fairness to the FBI, and tliat is that the FBI to my knowledge has
never submitted an FBI file to the Congress, They submit reports,
as Mr. Cohn pointed out very properly.

Senator Dirksen. That is correct.

Senator Jackson. I think we want the record that way, because of
the FBI file as such would give the source of their information and
would give details that Ave would never release beyond their own
agency. I don't believe they let an FBI file even over to CIA or to
the Atomic Energy Commission. I am not trying to support any case
here. But during my 4 years' service on the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy we received many reports from the FBI but never
an FBI file.

Senator Dirksen. I am afraid we have fallen into the habit of using
the Avord "file" and "report" rather interchangeably. I certainly
stand corrected by the distinguished Senator from Washington.

Senator Jackson. We have talked a lot about files in the committee
room. I guess that may have caused some difficulty. I think that
should be said in fairness to the Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Senator Mundt. We stand in recess.

(Brief recess.)

Senator Mundt. The committee will be in order.

As we concluded for the recess, the Chair was about to recognize
Senator Jackson, for he understood his previous comment was in the
nature of committee business.

Senator Jackson. I pass. That was only an observation.

Senator Mdndt. Senator Symington?

Senator Symington. I pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, have you any questions of Mr.
Cohn at this time?

If not, we will be glad to go to Mr. Welch. Mr. Welch you have 10
minutes.

Mr. Welch. I am going to ask you 1 or 2 questions, and then have
some by Mr. St. Clair.

W^hen you were on the stand the other day and I was questioning
you about Mr. Schine's w^ork product while he was at Camp Dix, you
indicated to me that you thought there would be very little in the way
of memoranda or perhaps none.

Did your search turn out that way, or have you found some?

Mr. CoiTN. We do have, sir, some notes on drafts of reports, a draft
of the notes on a draft of the annual report of the subcommittee, and
we have, sir. a witness, things dealing Avith confidential informants
and Avitnesses, which Ave have in a separate folder, the names of which
we Avill disclose to the committee and Ave will not make public, though.

We do have, sir, I believe, some memoranda and contents of files
that were discussed by investigators with Mr. Schine Avhich contained
confideiitial information, and they are available to Mr; Jenkins and the
conniiittee, and Ave would not want those made public.

Maybe I can give you a shorter answer. I would say in the way of
memoranda dictated by him, "No." In the Avay of notes on a dra:ft of
the annual report prepared by him, "Yes."

Mr. Welch. Is that about "the limit of it?

Senator McCarthy. Could I correct my chief counsel?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2309

Mr. CoHN. Sure.

Senator McCarthy. I understood you to say that we would j^ive the
folder containing the names of confidential informants to the com-
mittee. May I say that I must correct you on that.

Mr. Corix. Yes, sir.

Senator Mundt. Go ahead, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch. The memoranda pertaining to the annual report or
re])orts, tliey are separate and together; are they, Mr. Cohn?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. So they can be examined by me?

Mr. CoHiSr. Surely.

Mr. Welch. At 5 o'clock?

Mr. Cohn. Surely, sir.

Mr. Welch. O. K. Mr. St. Clair will ask you some questions.

Senator Mundt. They will be delivered to Mr. Jenkins' office.

Mr. Cohn. They are there already.

Mr. St. Clair. The name of Aaron Coleman has been mentioned
many times in these hearisigs, and I don't know whether or not you
testified to this, but it is a fact, is it not, that Aaron Coleman's
clearance for security reasons was lifted in January of 1952? Isn't
that correct?

Mr. Cohn. As I understand it, I know it was one of General Law-
ton's first acts on becoming commanding general, and his predecessor
refused to do it and he had done it.

Mr. St. Clair. And so that he liad no clearance at all from January
1952 until today, as far as we know?

Mr. Corn. No: but he was still working out at Fort Monmouth.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, actually, he was working in a building that
wasn't even on the ))Ost at Fort Monmouth; isn't that the fact?

Mr. Cohn. I don't know that, sir.

Mr, St. Clair. You don't know that?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You know he was working in a building that wasn't
at all guarded?

Mr. Cohn. No: I don't know that either.

Mr. St. Clair. You didn't know that ?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. But you are reasonably clear that this man had no
clearance wliatsoever from January 1952 on?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. And you know that the acts with which he had been
charged had been committed several years prior to the Secretary
Stevens' administration of the Army ; do you not?

Mr. Cohn. But the acts had been committed.

Mr. St. Clair. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. Certainly most of them had, sir, and I am jusc wonder-
ing whether there wasn't one thing that had occurred. I would say
they had occurred prior to Mr. Stevens' administration.

Mr. St. Clair. And several years prior to that?

Mr. Cohn. Yes; the most recent thing which I recall is the inter-
view he had with tlie FBI in which he admitted to us he Jiad not been
truthful, to the FBI.

Mr. St. Clair. AVhen was that ?

2310 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoHN. That, I think, was 1951 or 1952, and it would be before
Mr. Stevens' administration, and 3'ou would be rif^ht, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. That is correct : and Mr. Stevens took office as
Secretary of the Army, I believe, in February of 1953.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

]Vlr. St. Clair. Now, I would like to talk with you, Mr. Cohn, a
little bit about the Fort Monmouth investigation. It is quite a com-
plicated subject, is it not^

Mr. CoiiN. Yes; it is, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You stated, I believe, that your preliminary inves-
tigation started in early sprino; of 1953^

Mr. Cohn. Around that |)eriod of time.

Mr. St. Clair. And, as I believe, your first hearings were actually
held commencing October 8, 1953?

Mr. Cohn. Are you drawing a distinction between Fort Monmouth
physically and the Army Signal Corps?

Mr. St. Clair. We will get to that in a moment, but the first hear-
ings at Fort Monmouth were on October 8, 1953, is that right?

Mr. Cohn. 1 would say yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. On August 30, you lield a hearing which involved
an employee of the Signal Corps, isn't that correct?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. That employee was employed as a guard in Long
Island, N. Y., was he not ?

Mr. Cohn. He was a security guard.

Mr. St. Clair. That is correct, in Long Island, N. Y. ?

Mr. Cohn. At the Signal Corps Photographic Laboratory.
\^ Mr. St. Clair. That is correct. And now as I understand it, Mr.
Cohn, you in substance state that since we interrogated a guard at an
instalhition of the Signal Corps in Long Island, N. Y., we are respon-
t?ible for all suspensions that were made by the Army following that
date; is that correct?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Certainly, if the Army Signal Corps in California
had suspended any security risks, you would not claim credit for those,
would you ?

Ml. Cohn. I know of no instances in which we

Mr. St. Clair. Just answer the question. Would you?

Mr. Cohn. Would we claim credit for those?

Mr. St. Clair. Y^es.

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Mr. I^ir. Clair. So that because

Mr. Cohn. Unless we had investigated them particularly, in that
situation.

Mr. St. Clair. Would you like to finish?

Mr. Corn. I say I know of no situation in California involving
the Army Signal Corps which we had investigated; no, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, insofar as the Army was concen\ed, and in-
sofar as you know, the Army didn't know about the Fort Monmouth
investigation until early in October, isn't that correct?

Mr, CoiiN. No; that is wrong, sir. They did know.

Mr. St. Clair. Are you sure of that?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2311

Mr. ConN. I am positive.

Mr. St. Clair. When do you think Secretary Stevens first learned
of the impending Fort Monmouth investi<iution?

Mr. CoHN. I know that he knew it as of September 16.

Mr. St. Clair. Are you sure of that?

Mr. CoiiN. I am dead positive.

Mr. St. Clair. You had a conference with him, Mr. Cohn, on Oc-
tober 2 in his office, did you not?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. What was the subject matter of that conference?

Mr. Cohn. There were 2 or 3 things discussed. The thing dealing
with Fort Monmouth, which I assume you want me to talk about,
Mr. St. Clair, was this

Mr. St. Clair. My question at the moment is simply : What was the
subject matter of the discussion? You can go beyond that if you
care to, but it is not contemplated by the question I asked you.

Mr. Cohn. Fort Monmouth, General Partridge, Communist litera-
ture, personnel in Army Intelligence, Dave Schine.

Mr. St. Clair. The memorandum of that date which Mr. Frank
Carr is said to have written refers, however, to the fact that you met
with Secretary Stevens to discuss General Lawton at Fort Monmouth
and his blackout order, isn't that correct?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Isn't it true, sir, that the principal subject discussed
at this conference on October 2 was Fort Monmouth ?

Mr. Cohn. I think you are right. I think it was.

Mr. St. Clair. That is right. This was a conference that was made
as a result of a request for an appointment by you, isn't that correct?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. We had some telephone conversations about that
yesterday, didn't we?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. I call your attention to the transcript of a telephone
conversation on the 25th day of September 1953. I don't know
whether you have copies of these or not, but I assure you 1 will en-
devor to read them accurately.

Mr. Cohn. I am sure you will,

Mr. St. Clair. I am going to read only the portion of it that I think
is material. Perhaps others will differ. But I am sure I will be fair
enough about it. In part of that conversation, Mr. Cohn, you said in
substance — no, you said in fact :

There is a new situation involving a part of your thing that I will tell you
about when I see you that looks pretty bad. I know they are trying to cover
up so you won't even know about it.

In all fairness, Mr. Cohn, that new thing was the Fort Monmouth
investigation.

Mr. Cohn. No, sir ; it was not.

Mr. St. Clair. It was not?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You did say that you would talk with him when you
saw him?

Mr. Cohn. I did, sir.

2312 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr St Clair. On the 30th day of September, asain I will read to
you, sir, a portion of the transcript of that tele])hone call :

Mr CoHN Two things. No. 1, that thing I told you about I will probably
be n.;dyrotell7ou about in a d'ay or so. it is a i-retty big situation. I will
check the final word on it toni^'lit.

A<Tain, Mr. Cohn, in all fairness, what you were talkino: about at
thatlime was the Fort Monmouth iuvesti.iiatiou, was it not i

Mr C«uiN. To this extent, Mr. St. Clair: It was not the fact that
we were investi-atincr Fort Monmouth. Mr. Stevens knew that, it
was an aspect of that investigation. ., . ,r ^ i u <- t

Mr St Clair. You say Mr. Stevens knew that, Mr. Cohn, but I
will read to you again a portion of your telephone conversation with
him :

I will probably be ready to tell you about it in a day or so.

This was September 30, was it not, Mr. Cohn ?

Mr ST."cLAiR^^i think I will summarize the rest of it You asked
for an appointment, and then in substance you said, Is l^riday a

good day"?

Mr. Cohn. I remember that.

Mr. St. Clair (reading).

Whv don-t I call you tomorrow and make an appointment for Friday? You
see tonight this other thing should crystallize, and I possibly should get an
accumulation of things to talk to you about.

As a result of that, you had a conference on Friday with the Secre-
tary, which was October 2, in which you discussed the Fort Monmouth
situation. Isn't that right?

Mr. Cohn. That is right, sir. , -, . c^ .

Mr St Clair. Do you still say, Mr. Cohn, that you told Secretary
Stevens for the first time as early as September 16 that you were going

to Fort Monmouth? ^.^^u^A

Mr. Cohn. It might have been before that. I know we talked

about it on September 16. , . ■. j ^„ „«f

Mr St. Clair. But vou were pretty vague about it and were not

eoinjr' to talk much on the phone on September 30

Senator Mundt. Your time has expired, Mr. St. Clair. You may

answer the question. i. 4.u- „o

Mr Cohn. Mr. St. Clair, we are talking about two different^thmgs.
When I talked to Mr. Stevens on the 16th— and it might have been be-
fore that— we had discussed the Fort Monmouth investigation with
Mr Stevens. What I was talking about over the phone and what 1
talked to him about in person was a specific situation which had de-
veloped in the course of that investigation on which I thought, he telt,
I hoped, he was going to take some action, which he did.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins?

Mr. Jenkins. I pass. Mr. Chairman. „,. .^ . , , -,.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will use part of his 10 minutes to dis-
tribute to the press now, Mr. Beckley, these executive sessions which
have arrived, and to the young man who will take them for the radio.

All the committee members have them, Mr. Welch has them. Senator
McCarthy has them. The Chair will retain copies for absentee mem-
bers.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2313

If you will do that as quietly as possible, we will continue with the
hearings.

Senator McClellan, have you any further questions at this time?

Senator McClellan, Only one other question, I believe, at this
time.

Mr. Cohn, there have been statements published and certain state-
ments have been made around here by members of the press, I believe,
that they have seen this 2i/^ page document. Did you release it to the
press ?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir.

Senator McClellan. Do you know how tlTey got it?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Senator McClellan. How many copies of it did you have in your
file?

Mr. CoiiN. I think there was just the one. I think after that. Sena-
tor McClellan, probably addiional copies Avere made, because I know
we gave one to somebody on Mr. Jenkins' staff. I don't know how
many were made after that.

Senator McClellan. Then if some member of the press does have it
and did get it, it had to come from this original document of yours,
did it not ?

Mr. (a)HN. I don't know, sir. I know I didn't give it to them.

Senator McClellan. Do you know any other way they might have
gotten hold of it?

Mr. Cohn. I don't know how they got hold of it, if they did get it.
I don't know that they did.

Senator McClellan. Isn't that one of the dangers of getting this
secret information, that it gets out to the public ?

Mr. Cohn. I don't know it did, sir.

Senator McClellan. You don't think that is any danger?

Mr. Cohn. I know of no instance in which this information got out
to the public. I will say this, sir : There is nothing in this particular
document, I would say, sir, that could not go out.

Senator McClellan. It is confidential. That is all I want

Mr. Cohn. I don't think there is anything in that part that we had
that couldn't go out to the public. 1 don't know that any went to
the public. We certainly did not release it.

Senator McClellan. You don't know about that?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Senator McClellan. You don't know about it? You hadn't read
about its being in the hands of the press, any member of the press?
Did you read that article?

Mr. Cohn. Yes; I think there was some discussion here. I think
Senator Symington and Senator Jackson

Senator McClellan. I am not talking about what they said. I am
talking about : Did you read an article in the press

Mr. Cohn. I don't think I read

Senator McClellan. That a member of the press had a copy of
it

Mr. Cohn. I don't think I read the article.

Senator McClellan. And discussed it with Mr. Hoover personally ?

Mr. Cohn. I remember the colloquy about that yesterday.

Senator McClellan. I am not talking about the colloquy. I am
talking about an article in the paper.

2314 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr CoHN. I did not read that particular article.
Senator T^IcClellax. You don't know about it?
Mr. CoHN. Yes ; I know about it from the colloquy I heard hei e. i
did not read that particular article. , p ..u

Senator T^IcClellan. You dichvt know that that member of the

^^Mr.'coHN. I did not know that he had it. If he says he had it,
I assume he did have it.

Senator McClellan. That IS all. ^^i-r «9

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak, any questions at this time {

Senator Dwurshak. No questions.

Senator Mdxdt. Senator Jackson?

Senator Jacksox. No questions.

Senator Mundt. Senator Syminjzton?

Senator Symington. No questions.

Senator Mundt. Senator T^IcCarthy ?

Senator McCarthy. No questions. _ . . , ,

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair, either one, you have

10 minutes.

Mr. St. Clair. Thank vou, Mr. Chairman. , ,^ ^ , ,

Gettincr back to the question at Fort Monmouth, Mr. Cohn, one of

the reaso^is whv you called there was to get the so-called blackout

order lifted that (:ieneral Lawton had placed on all the personnel at

Fort Monmouth ; isn't that correct ?

Mr.CoHN. That is roughly it, sir. i wu„

Mr St Clair. That was the first time you had approached the

Secretary or anybody other than General Lawton to get that blackout

order lifted: isn't that correct? . , , .

Mr CoiiN. That is the first time I directly had; yes, sir.

Mr St. Clair. Oranvbodv on your staff, as far as you knowj

Mr. CoriN. No. I think that members of our staff had made in-

oueries elsewhere, sir. i t ^ a

Mr St (^lair. James Juliana had called on General Lawton and
had been told he wasn't goino to get anything; isn t that rights

Mr. CoiiN. I don't recall that. sir.

Mr. St. Clair. That is th^t subject, m substance, of this memoran-
dum of October 2, is it not ?

Mr. ConN. Let me look at it.

Mr. St. Clair. I will read it to you.

Jiin .Inlia.m had been advised by Colonel Allen that he couldn't talk with any-

one

Mr. CoiiN. Yes.

Mr. St. Clair (continuing) :
B,.,.=.use of an order by General Lawton forbidding talking to the McCarthy
coinniittee.

Mr. (^)HN. That is right.

Mr St (^lair. It was an oidcr of General Lawton right i

Mr! Coiix. 1 doirt think the order came directly from General

^%T^v (^LATR. The mr:morandum so states, does it not. Mr. Cohn?

Mr" (\.nN.' It savs bectuise of an order by Genera Lawton; yes, sir.

Mr". St. Clair. The SMcreta- y lifted up the telephone and counter-
manded that order, did he not?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2315

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. The way it happened-

Mr. St. Clair. I didn't ask you that. I just asked you if he didn't
countermand it.

Mr. CoHN. It wasn't a question of countermanding General Law-
ton.

Mr. St. Clair. In any event he instructed General Lawton to give
you anything you wanted within security regulations?

Mr. CoHX. I don't know what he said, sir. *" .

Mr. St. Clair. You were there ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes ; but 1 could only hear one end of the conversation.

Mr. St. Clair. I didn't ask you if that wasn't what the Secretary
said.

Mr. CoHN. What I heard was this, Mr. St. Clair : You are right, the
Secretary said let them talk to witnesses. That is perfectly all right.
Then there was was a long, long silence, 2 or 3 minutes, in which Gen-
eral Lawton was doing the talking apparently asking the Secretary
"Can I give them this, can I tell them that." And when he was fin-
ished I recall Mr. Stevens saying, "No ; I didn't say that. Don't tell
them that. Don't give them tJiat," things along those lines. ]\Ir. Carr
and I looked at each other and gathered from that that whereas at
the beginning the convei-sation sounded pretty good, the end sounded
as though we weren't going to get very much.

Mr. St. Clair. Is that your testimony, Mr. Cohn ?

Mr. CoHx. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair, Well, now, at the beginning of the memorandum it
says that General Lawton wasn't going to give you anything ; is that
right ? Just answer the question.

Mr. Cohn. General Lawton. The memorandum speaks for itself.

Mr. St. Clair. I thought so, too, and the last paragraph of the
memorandum is as follows, is it not :

I think tbat you should know that Mr. Stevens was very helpful and certainly
indicated that he had no intention of allowing General Lawton to place his
blackout of Army personnel re their possible contact with this committee.

Mr. Cohn. That is right.

Mr. St. Clair. That is a fair statement of what went on, isn't it?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. There is no indication there that the Secretary was
being at all uncooperative, is there?

Mr. Cohn. No; the Secretary had said with reference to talking
to witnesses, which is the obstacle we had run into at that particular
moment, and I would make that very clear, he said that it was per-
fectly all right for us to do that and we told him other departments
had allowed us to, and he called General Lawton and said, "General,
as far as I am concerned, it is perfectly all right if they want to talk
to people on your post, people who work there."

Mr. St. Clair. How do you want to leave it, Mr. Cohn, that the
Secretary called on the telephone, and then offered cooperation, and
took it back, or do you want to leave it as this memorandum at least
does to me, that the Secretary was very cooperative?

Mr. Cohn. If you produce the monitored call which we have asked
for

Mr. St. Clair. Just answer the question.

Mr. Cohn. If you produce the monitored call which we asked for,
we would know the answer without any speculation on my part.

2316 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. St. Clair. All right, sir, I will only ask you Avliat your testi-

^^m. CoHN. My best testimony to you is that Mr. Stevens did say,
to General Lawton, that the general had authority to let us talk to
his people, and I have the very strong impression, ±rom sitting m this
room, that there were other things which General Lawton asked if
he could do for us, that Mr. Stevens told him he could not do for us
And if you would produce that monitored call, we would know the
answer to it very quickly. . , ,

Mr St. Clair. So that when Mr. Carr says m the memorandum
Mr Stevens was very helpful, you don't necessarily agree with that^
Mr CoHN. I would like to look at the monitored call hrst.
Mr St. Clair. Just answer, do you agree with the statement made
bv Mr. Carr that Mr. Stevens was very helpful?

%lr CoHN. Insofar as letting us talk to witnesses, the answer is
"Yes " Insofar as what he was keeping from us I cant know that
until' you show us the monitored call, and I can hear what General
I.awton was ordered not to give us. ,. , . i- . j t will

Mr St Clair. Well, it is a very complicated subject and I will
T.ick that'up in a moment. It is of some importance and you and
i both realise this, as to just when the Fort Monmouth investigation

started, isn't it ?

Mr. CoiiN. I know when it started, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You know when it started; is that rights

Mr ST^'cLA^^'Well, you do also know that the Army suspended
several employees, in the last week of September don t you^

m\? CoiiN. I don't know the dates. I certainly take your word

*°Mr' St Clair Well, I don't know the exact dates either but there
were 5 or" 6 suspensions, in the last week of September.

Mr CoiiN. Yes; I think that you are right.

Mr St Clair. 'And so it would be nice if jou do say that you
started your investigation of Fort Monmouth prior to that date,

wouldn't it? , Ti •

Mr CoHN. The fact IS that we did, sir. ., . . ^, ^

Mr S? CiAiR. I understand, and you base that on he fact that you

intoogated at a hearing an employee of the Signal Corps m Long

^tli'^C W.'No, sir; we do not. There are other facts which I will
be glad to tell you about. We had talked to Monmouth employees,
long prior to the first suspensions.
Mr. St. Clair. Is that right ?

Jll^- 'srS,.T,r'Th^'':hy wS1i necessary to call upon Secretary
Stevens to set the blackout order lifted, Mr. Cohn?

M^ CoiiN. Because the second time we went back to one of the
eniplovees who had talked to us freely the first time, he said some-
?hing iuid happened, and there was a blackout order and he was no
Imio-pr ncrmitted to talk freely to us. ,t , c ^

Mi-^t! Clair. Are you suggesting that General Lawton was first
onen with you and then closed the door on you ^ . .

X CoiIn. I am suggesting, sir, and it is only my opimon here,
that they were first opeH with us and then something happened, and

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2317

General Lawton was told that his people could not talk to ns, and
that the second time we tried to talk to witnesses who had been free
before, they were no longer free. And then I went down and asked
Mr. Stevens why that happened.

Mr. St. ClxMr. In any event, you want to state that you first starred
the Fort Monmouth investigation on August 30, when you interro-
gated a guard at Long Island ?

Mr. Coiiisr. No, sir; it started long before that.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, I understand that you say that you started
your preliminary investigation in February or March, isn't that right ?

Mr. CoiiN'. I would say the spring, sir ; yes, sir,

Mr. St. Clair. All right, the spring. But that is something that
is not known to the world, is it ?

Senator McCarthy. Mr. St. Clair, if we can interrupt, if we can
save some time, Mr. Chairman, if this cross-examination is to deter-
mine whether or not the committee or someone else should get credit for
the suspension of a bunch of Communists, I would be glad to concede
that someone else should get credit for it. I don't care who gets
credit for it. I think that we should get down to the issues in this
case. I know the Chair can't order those questioning to do that, but
if there is any stipulation I can make that will cut down this question-
ing, I will be glad to make it. This all seems to me a question or who
shall get the credit for getting rid of the 35 individuals, with Com-
munist records at Fort Monmouth. If that will make Mr. St. Clair
happy, if we can get rid of this line of questioning, I will be glad to
stipulate that anyone whom he will name can get the credit for the
suspensions of those individuals with Communist records.

Senator Muxdt. Proceed, Mr. St. Clair, and perhaps that will be
helpful. I don't know.

Mr. St, Clair. You recognize, as I do, that in this room the charge
has been made that the Army was derelict in their duty in getting rid
of these security risks. You recognize that, don't you ?

Mr. CoHN. I do, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. As a matter of fact, there have been several state-
ments made to the eifect that the Army had ignored FBI warnings
over a period of years, isn't that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, I am very uninitiated in this business, Mr.
Cohn, but I had understood the FBI does not issue documents entitled
"Warnings," and as a matter of fact they make no evaluations, do
they ?

Mr. Cohn. They don't; I have never seen anything labeled "warn-
ing." When we use that word, sir, if the FBI sent over a communica-
tion to the Army saying :

Yon have working in secret laboratories at Fort Monmoutli in New Jersey
people on whom we have the following information : (1) That they were associ-
ates of atom spy Julius Rosenberg; and (2) that they had been swiping papers —

and so on and so forth, I would consider that a warning, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You would?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir; I would.

Mr. St. Clair. I would agree with you but at least it is not entitled
"FBI warning," but it is simply a recital of facts.

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. To be evaluated by the recipient ?

2318 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. i . ^i j:

Mr St Clur. Now, you learned, did you not, during the course ot
these hearings that Secretary Stevens had requested the FBI to make
a full-scale investigation of Fort Monmouth m April ot 1953 i

Mr. CoHN. I heard Mr. Stevens say that.

Mr. St. Clair. And you believe it, don't you?

Mr. CoHN. Tliat they asked the FBI to do it then t

Mr. St. Clair. Yes.

Mr. CoHN. Sui-e. c. ■, ^ ^ xi

Mr. St. Clair. Well, now, that would b2 a mr.tt?r of what, 2 months

after he came into office?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. .

Mr St Clair. Now, Mr. Colin, let me put it to you, do you consider
that Secretary Stevens ignored any FBI warnings, m view ot that

fact ?
' Mr. CoHN. Mr. Stevens personally, sir?

Mr. St. Clair. Yes. ^ , ,r o. i

Mr CoHN As long as I can't tell you whether Mr. Stevens knew
about this situation personally, I certainly cannot m conscience say
that he ignored warnings. I would first have to know if they were

called to his attention. ^ <• n i • +•

Mr St. Clair. Now, if he asked the FBI to make a full-scale mvesti-
o-ation, that is about the best thing he could do, isn't it ?
^ Mr. CoHN. No, sir; not at that point.

Mr. St. Clair. It isn't?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir. n ^ i „«

Mr. St. Clair. Well, it is something that you would certainly rec-
ommend, isn't it, Mr. Cohn ?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Just answer the questions.

Mr. CoHN. No ; the answer is "No."

Mr St Clair. You wouldn't recommend it ^ ....

Mr Cohn. Mr. St. Clair, that is just not the situation m this case.

Mr St. Clair. If you were the Secretary of the Army, and you
thought that you had a situation at Fort Monmouth, ^vouklivt it
occu? to you that a nice thing to do would be to ask the FBI to

^^Mr ^S)HN. The first thing I would try to do is find out if the FBI
had alreadv investigated it, and give me sufficient information on
wliich to act. If they had done that, writing them another letter
and saying investigate it again probably would mean another delay
of G months before any action were taken.

Mr. St. Clair. Some of the information was a little stale, wasn t

^*'Mr?CoHN.' It is very hard to say that information about the con-
nections with Communists is stale.

Mr St. Clair. In any event, if Mr. Stevens asked the FBI to make
a full-scale investigation within a matter of 2 months from the time
he took ollice, you^don't think that that was a bad thing to do, do

^"^Mr CoiiN. I think, sir, that probably it was an unnecessary thing
to do"if the FBI had made such an investigation already and was on
record about it. All that the Army had to do was act on the basis
of the results.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2319

Senator Mundt. Mr. St. Clair, the time has expired.

Mr. Jenkins, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Jenkins. I pass.

Senator Mundt. The Chair wiU pass.

Any Senators on my left ?

Senators on my right ?

Senator McCarthy.

Senator JNIcCarthy. I have just one question.

The job of investigatincr, Mr. Cohn, communism and subversion
and dishonesty in the military, would include Fort Monmouth, and
that would normally be the job of G-2, is that right?

Mr. CoHN. There is no doubt about it, this was a G-2 responsibility,
and not an FBI responsibility, in the main.

Senator McCarthy. And we discussed in some detail, did we not,
the report which indicated that G-2 was quite badly infiltrated by
Communists ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir; I am aware of that report.

Senator McCarthy. And we had General Partridge before us, as
head of G-2, and he admitted that he knew practically nothing about
the Communist movement, is that right ?

Mr. CoHN. I think that is a very fair characterization of his testi-
mony; yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. So that you had a very unusual setup here,
where you have the Secretary of the Army not utilizing his own intel-
ligence agency, namely G-2, but asking the FBI to do what should
be done by the Army Intelligence ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. Don't you think that that might need a bit of
explanation as to why he didn't have enough confidence in his own
intelligence agency, and he had to call upon the FBI ?

Mr. Cohn. There is definitely a situation there. Senator, and you
are very correct. This was primarily a G-2 responsibility, and it
should have been handled within the Army, and I would say, sir, since
the matter has been brought up there was an element of trying to
pass the buck in this case. I am sure that there was sufficient infor-
mation on the basis of which the Army could have taken action, with-
out any further investigation from the FBI.

Senator McCarthy. In other words, is this correct, Mr. Cohn, that
as far as we know there was sufficient information in the files to imme-
diately take action against certain individuals in the secret radar
laboratories, and that on the surface it would appear to be rather a
phony action to try to pass the buck on to the FBI, I might say in that
connection I doubt very much that Mr. Stevens himself knew that was
being done. But there is no reason for that except to again hang on
the coattails of Mr. Hoover, and I may say that over the past 26 or 29
days I think Mr. Hoover's shoulders must be getting awfully lame
with the number of people who have been putting all of their weight
upon his coattails.

That is all, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Mr. St. Clair or Mr. Welch, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. St. Clair. Mr. Cohn, I don't like to engage in verbal arguments
with the Senator, but the coattails of J. Edgar Hoover are pretty good
coattails to hang onto, aren't they, in this business ?

Mr. Cohn. I can think of none better, sir.

2320 SPECIAL ESn^ESTIGATION

Mr. St. Ct.air. So you don't really condemn the Secretary for call-
ii,(T in the FBI at Fort Monmouth in April, do you?

Mr. CoHN. I don't know if he called them in, sir.

Mr. St. Clatr. He testified he did.

Mr. CoHN. Did he say he directed it, sir?

Mr. St Clair. Yes. ' I will give you the page and the verse on it
tomorrow morning.

Mr. CoHN. I didivt know whether he meant it was a personal action
or whether he signed a letter written by somebody in his organization
over to the FBI.

Mr. St. Clair. You don't condemn G-2 in the Army for cooperating
with the FBI, do you?

^Ir. CoHN. Sir, you know very well I don't condemn anybody for

cooperating

Mr. St. Clair. That is right. I thought you did. I tliouoh.t we
could agree on a few things, and that is one of them.

As a result of ^r ^i • • q

Senator McCarthy. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman, again ^

Senator Mundt. Have you a point of order?

Senator McCarthy. To move a little more weight from Mr. Hoov-
er's coattails, Mr. St. Clair talks about cooperation between G-2
and the FBI. It would seem to me that when the FBI sends over to
Army Intelligence repeated reports indicating, and I quote, "Espion-
ao-e-JR," meaiiing "Fspionage-Kussian," and no action is taken until
this committee calls hearings— that may be Mr. St. Clair's idea of

cooperation . . ^ j.

Senator J^Iundt. The Chair does not not believe that is a pomt ot

Older. -T P

Senator McCarthy, That is not my idea of cooperatiou.

Senator Mundt. You may continue, Mr. St. Clair.

Mr. St. Clair. Thank you, I\Ir. Chairman.

You learned also that following the request that the FBI make a
full-scale investigation at Fort ]\'lonmouth, the first suspension took
place around the middle of August of 11)53; did you learn that?

Mr. CoHN. I know that on the mimeographed sheet submitted here,
they listed one suspension, I think August 19. I don't know of any of
the details of that suspension.

Mr. St. Clair. At least as to that one, that was before you interro-
gated the guard on Long Island?

Mr. CoHN. That was before we interrogated the guard. It was
after we commenced the investigation at Fort Monmouth.

Mr. St. Clair. I understand. To put this thing in its proper per-
spective, you know and I know that President Eisenhower changed
the rules of the game in AjH-il, do you not ?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir. There was a new Executive order.

Mr. St. Clair. That is right. Whereas before April 1953, doubts
as to the security risks of a person were resolved in favor of the
person, after that date they were resolved in favor of the Government;
is that correct?

Mr. CoiiN. I will take what you say on that.

Mr. St. Clair. This is your business, Mr. Cohn. I am just an inter-
loper. Isn't that true?

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

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2321

Mr. St. Clair. I know it is oversimplified, but substantially that is
it, isn't it?

Mr. CoHN. That is a part of it, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. So it would be almost a logical thing to do to review
the files of Fort Monmouth to see if the change in the rules would re-
quire further suspensions Avhich prior to that date might not have
fitted the bill, isn't that right?

Mr. CoHN-. There is certainly no complaint about them having been
reviewed, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. As a matter of fact, Mr. Cohn, you don't have any
complaint about Secretary Stevens' handling Communists in the
Army, do you ?

Mr. CoHX. That is a very broad question.

Mr. St. Clair. It is, but let's see if you can answer it.

Mr. CoHJsr. As far as handling individual Communists or anything
along those lines are concerned, I am sure that Mr. Stevens was
anxious to get them out.

Mr. St. Clair. Just as anxious as you were ?

Mv. CoHN. I am sure of that, sir. When you get down to the ques-
tion of the Peress case and things along those lines, I feel that Mr.
Stevens has probably been imposed on by people who are advising him
that it is smart to keep from this committee the names of the people
who are responsible for the coverup of the Peress case. I would on
my level respectfully disagree with what has been done there. I am
sure Mr. Stevens has no use for Communists.

Mr. St. Clair. Thank you for that.

Secretary Stevens told you and the Senator and the country that he
would furnish those names, did he not ?

Mr. CoHN. I am still waiting for them, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. I didn't ask you if you are still waiting. He said he
would furnish them, didn't he?

Mr. CoHN. He has been saying it for many months, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. All right. You believe him when he says he will
lurnish them ? Don't you ?

Mr. CoHN. I would very much like to.

Mr. St. Clair. You know that Mr. Jenkins has them ?

Mr. CoHjf. But they are in a sealed envelope and he can't show
them to me.

Mr. St. Clair. You know Mr. Jenkins has ruled that that case is
another case, and we are not going to try the Peress case here, don't
you?

Mr. CoHx. I say this, Mr. St. Clair

Mr. St. Clair. Don't you know that ?

Mr. CoHN. If you tell me that those names will be made public and
we can go into it as soon as this investigation here is over, I would be
very much pleased.

Mr. St. Clair. I wish I had enough authority, but just a minute; I
will ask the man to my left.

(Mr. St. Clair and Mr. Welch conferring.)

Mr. St. Clair. As far as we know, the answer is "Yes," but all I
am going to say is this : The names have been delivered to the coun-
sel

2322 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator McCarthy. Could I interrupt there? Do I understand
counsel for the Army has no objection to having Mr. Jenlnns turn- —

Senator Mundt. The Chair doesn't believe that was the question.
The question was whether or not, after these hearings had been con-
ckided, the names would be released to the public, to the regular com-
mittee; and he understood Mr. St. Clair and Mr. Welch to say they
believed the answer to that question was "Yes."

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I would like to get it tor the
record I am not asking that the names be made public. Do I under-
stand now Mr. Welch to say, as attorney for the Secretary ot the
Army, that he has no objection to that envelope being turned over
to the regular Investigating Committee? ^ -^ rp, i^,,^

Mr Welch Here is what I can and do say about it: The envelope
containin<T the names has been turned over to counsel for this com-
mittee. There is no intention or notion of withdrawing those names.
They are in the hands of the committee. n ^, r.

If and when the committee takes up the investigation of the Feress
case, it will be for the committee to decide then what they do about
the envelope with the names in their possession.

Senator MuNDT. Proceed, Mr. St. Clair, and that colloquy will not

be taken out of your time. . ,i j/i-+- ,,„!

I will ask the timekeeper to give him approximately one additional

minute. .

Mr. St. Clair. Just one more question, then.

You recognize, Mr. Cohn, as I do, that if we were to try the 1 eress
case here, we would be here for several days ?

Mr. Cohn. We might very well be, sir.

JNIr. St. Clair. Thank you. .

Through the month of October you held hearings on Fort Mon-
mouth, did you not?

Mv. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. And through November i

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. And part of December i

Ur S?"clair^ i think you have testified here that in substance you
have no doubt that Secretary Stevens and Mr. Adams did everything
they could, in substance, to get you to stop that investigation ; isn t that

right? .^ .

Mr. CoHN. They wanted us to stop it, sir.

Mr St Clair. They wanted you to stop it, and they expio^F^ed that
desire to you, did they not ? Is that your testimony ?

Mr. CoHN. It is, sir. i. j. v?

Mr. St. Clair. Did they do anything about getting you to stop it«

Mr CoHN. They asked us to stop it. -,.-,,, ht

Mr St Clair. I think you went further than that, didn t you, Mr.

Cohn? You said they started to break generals and do everything

else to get you to stop it, is that right ? ,. ^ , -i-u

Mr Coim. I think that-ves, I think that the action taken with

respect to General Lawton certainly was not designed to encourage us

in our investigation. , . * +. fU^f Mr

Mr St Clair. And there were other instances of acts that Mr.

Adams and Mr. Stevens did to try to get you to stop, is that right i
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2323

Mr. St. Clair. Are you sure about that ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes; I am going through my mind. I think of a few
things.

]Mr. St. Clair. Just a few things ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Then their efforts weren't very great, were they, Mr.
Cohn?

Mr. CoHN. It is very hard for me to characterize, Mr. St. Clair.

Mr. St. Clair. Now you state just a few things that they did, is
that right ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr, St. Clair. Any act that they did to get you to stop the hearings
on Fort Monmouth would be an act of uncooperation with you,
wouldn't it? I think that is a poor choice of words, but if they tried
to get you to stop the investigation they certainly were not cooperating
with you, were they ?

Mr. CoiiN. I don't think that would follow, sir. If they tried to
get us to stop and we went ahead anyway, it didn't mean that they
were eoinj; to withhold the information from us as we went ahead.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, if they tried to get you to stop and took action
to get you to stop, you mean to say that is consistent with cooperating
with you ?

Mr. CoHN. No ; I am saying this, Mr. St. Clair, that they tried to get
us to stop, and if we told them we couldn't stop, we were going ahead,
their acts in trying to get us to stop would not preclude them from
cooperating with us as we did go ahead.

Mr. St. Clair. Do you mean to say that in one moment they will try
to stop you and then they would lose and so they go ahead and be
nice to you for awhile and then they try to stop you again and they
lose, and then be nice to you for awhile ?

Mr. Cohn. Even when they were trying to get us to stop, at the
beginning certainly, they were not unnice about it.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, Mr Cohn, let me see if we can do this rather
simply. Can you tell me whether or not Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams
cooperated with you at Fort Monmouth ?

Mr. CoHN. To some extent, yes, and to some extent, no, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. To some extent they did not, is that right ?

Mr. Cohn. That is right, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, now, Mr. Cohn

Mr. Cohn. And I would emphasize

Mr. St. Clair. There is no question.

Mr. Cohn. To some extent, they did cooperate with us.

Mr. St. Clair. There is no question. Mr. Cohn.

Mr. Cohn. And I have said that they

Mr. St. Clair. There is no question, please.

Mr. Cohn. Well, I wanted to say this, Mr. St. Clair

Mr. St. Clair. I know what you wanted to say.

Mr. Cohn. To complete my answer, I think that not only here but
on other occasions in the past, I have said for the record, and off the
record, that as we went through the investigation we have received
cooperation from Mr. Stevens and on occasion even from Mr. Adams,
and there is no doubt about it.

Mr. St. Clair. Did they cooperate or didn't they, Mr. Cohn?

2324 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoHN. They certainly cooperated with us to some extent. There
is no donbt about it.

Mr. St. Clair. To some extent?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. ^- • 4.1 4.

Mr. St. Clair. They didn't give you 100 percent cooperation, is that

Mr. CoiiN. No; I would say if you compared it to the Govern-
ment Printing Office, it was not 100 percent.

Mr. St. Clair. No; all right, to some extent they did cooperate, is
that the way you want to put it ?

Mr.CoHN. Yes, sir; I think that I have said that.

Mr St Clair. When you were speaking for the record, on December
8 1053 you put no limitations on the fact that they cooperated with
you, did you '^ Are you familiar with what I am talking about ^

Mr. CoHN. No, sir ; I am not.

Mr. St. Clair. I have in front of me i ,.

Mr CoHN. I think Mr. Stevens read into the record here tlie state-
ment bv Senator McCarthy and possibly one by me m which we said
at a public session, at the beginning or at the end, that we were sure
Mr. Adams and Mr. Stevens were cooperating, and wanted to coop-
erate with us. .^ . TT ., AT„

Mr. St. Clair. You meant what you said, then, didn t you. Mi.

Cohn?

Mr. CoHN. Surely. . • i -^ r i 9

Mr. St. Clair. You had no reservations when you said it, clui you «

This was important, and this gets published, doesn't it?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, it got published; surely. _ , . ,. , ^ ^, ,

ISIr. St. Clair. Well, this is important, isn t it, this document that

I have here? _ , ^ 1 -^ • -i ur

Mr CoiiN. I better look at it. It is December 8, and it is the public

record of the Army Signal Corps subversion and espionage hearing.

1 think that was the day Aaron Coleman ,

Senator Mundt. Your time has expired, Mr. St. Clair.

Mr. Jenkins? . ^ -, . , .-t l

Mr Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, at this time I desire to utilize a part
of my time, not in questioning Mr. Cohn further, but in making a
statement. Several days ago, the Secretary of the Army delivered
to me a sealed envelope containing certain information that had been
requested of him pertaining to the Major Peress case. ^ That envelope
is in my hands at this time, addressed to me, and it is froni the L>e-
r,artment of the Army, Washington, and it is marked Confadential
and in the first ]dace,' Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
the information contained in that envelope would shed no light what-
ever on the issnes of this controversy and would not be germane to the
inquirv now being conducted. ^ -, . ,

111 the second place, Mr. Chairman, it is a confidential communica-
tion containing information about which Mr. St. Clair has ]ust
oiiestioiied the witness, or to which some reference has been made.
' In the next place, Mr. Chairman, I am not cleared for confidential
information. On at least more than one occasion heretofore, I have
made an attempt to completely and permanently disassociate myself
from this document. I see no point whatever in it remaining m my
custody further. I have no intention whatever of breaking this sealed

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2325

envelope. I here and now publicly desire to tender this envelope
back to the Army through the person of Mr. Welch. And I ask the
permission of the chairman of this committee to be allowed to do so.

I see no reason why I should be burdened by being required to con-
tinue to keep in my possession a document that could possibly never
at any time be of any value whatever in pursuing this inquiry, and
Mr. Chairman, I respectfully and humbly request the committee to
now permit me to do so.

Senator Muxdt. The Chair regrets that he cannot oblige his dis-
tinguished friend from Tennessee. The document was tendered to
the committee in response to a request by one of the committee members
or one of the principals. I have forgotten just exactly whom. We
are very happy to note that you still have it with an unbroken seal.
You have kept the faith splendidly, and I am sure you will continue
to do so to the end of the hearings.

I take it you have no comment ?

Mr. Jenkins. I have no questions.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will pass to Senator McClellan or the
Senators to my right, and the Senators to my left and to Senator
McCarthy.

Senator McCarthy. I have just 1 or 2 questions.

Mr. Cohn, Mr. St. Clair was asking you about the attempt to call
off the hearings which were exposing Communists in the military
and defense plants, and there is no question in anybody's mind I guess
that Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams were successful or perhaps 1
shouldn't say Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams, but it appears now that
Mr. Stevens may have been willing to cooperate but we had the polit-
ical adviser of the Democratic Party pulling the strings, but there
is no question about the fact that someoocly succeeded in calling off
the exposure of Communists in the military in the defense plants.

Mr. CoHN. No, sir.

Senator McCarthy. So that regardless of what the efforts were as
of this 8th day of June, the efforts are still successful, and have been
successful for a number of weeks.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir ; there is no doubt about it.

Senator McCarthy. In view of the statement, Mr. Cohn, by Mr.
Stevens on page 5311 of the record, I won't take the time of the com-
mittee to read it, but he says in effect that there is really nothing
to this, all of this talk about the Cohn-Schine aft'air, and in view of
that there isn't much doubt, is there, but what there has been a fraud
practiced upon the members of this committee in getting us to sit here
and investigate a charge made a clay or so after the man making the
charge said that there is really nothing to it?

Mr. Cohn. There is no doubt about it, sir.

Senator McCarthy. Now, Mr. St. Clair was asking you about co-
operation. Is it correct as set forth in the answer to the Adams-
Stevens charges, that we did get what appeared to be rather good
cooperation when we were digging out the individual Communists,
but we got absolutely no cooperation, and complete opposition, when
we started to expose or tried to expose those who were responsible for
the clearance of those individual Communists.

Mr. Cohn. That is right, sir.

2326 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator I^Iundt. There appears to be a rollcall vote. The Chair
will suggest since it is almost 5 o'clock now, that we recess to vote
and stay in recess until 10 o'clock tomorrow morning, and we will start
with Mr. St. Clair in the morning, if you will remind the Chair you
are the first one.

(Whereupon, at 4: 55, the committee was recessed, to reconvene at
10 a. m. the following day, Wednesday, June 9, 1954.)

(On June 8, 1954, the Special Subcommittee on Investigations made
public the executive session of the subcommittee held at 9 : 40 a. m.
June 8, 1954. The record of this executive session follows below :)

TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1954

United States Senate,
Special Subcomimittee on Investigations of
THE Committee on Government Operations,

Washington, D. G.

The subcommittee met at 9 : 40 a. m., pursuant to notice, in room
357 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, chairman,
presiding.

Present : Senator Karl E. Mundt, Kepublican, South Dakota ; Sen-
ator 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 ; Senator Stuart
Symington, Democrat, Missouri.

Also present: Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel to the subcommittee;
Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel ; Charles Maner, assistant coun-
sel ; Ruth Y. Watt, chief clerk.

Principal participants present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a
United States Senator from the State of Wisconsin; Roy M. Cohn,
chief counsel to the subcommittee; Joseph N. Welch, si)ecial counsel
for the Army ; James D. St. Clair, S]:)ecial counsel for the Army.

Senator Mundt. The meeting will come to order.

Mainly why we have this meeting this morning is that Mr. Jenkins
suggested that we ought to have a meeting and decide to cast up the
dimensions of this case as far as the witnesses are concerned so we
can all begin to make some plans now as to who has to be heard and
if there are any prospects of getting it over in a designated amount
of time, or whether it is going to go on interminably with a constantly
increasing cast of characters.

We ought to find out from all hands who they want to have heard,
how many witnesses, and what they think the program should be,
because all of us are going to have to start making plans as to what
is going to happen, at least, daring July, if we are not going to do
anything during June.

2327

2328 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

I have no ideas on the subject, but I do think, as intelligent people,
we have gone far enough now so that we can sit down and sort of
figure out the length of the road ahead.

We are the ones that have it in our control. This is to me the kind
of thing that if we do not begin exercising sonie guidance in it pretty
soon, it could conceivably go on all summer, because every day different
people get mentioned.

Mr. Jenkins, I will be glad to hear from you or Mr. Welch, or any
member of the committee.

Mr. Jenkixs. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: Mr.
Welch and Mr. St. Clair and I conferred yesterday. After that con-
ference I conferred with Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn.

Mr. Welch advised me at the time that "he felt — that he felt that
the Army would be satisfied if, after the cross-examination of Mr.
Cohn is concluded, Senator McCarthy and Mr. Carr were put on the
witness stand, and end the hearings with their testimony.

Pursuant to that, I conferred, as I said, Avith Senator McCarthy and
Mr. Cohn. After some discussion, they stated that they would be
agreeable to that formula.

Mr. Welch was of the opinion, I think a little optimistic, we can
stay at night until it is concluded.

Senator Jackson. Before there can be any decision on that, Mr.
Chairman, I want to revert to the testimony that has been taken in
executive sessions of witnesses who have appeared before the com-
mittee. I do think, as I pointed out earlier, that we should have that
information.

I do not want to conclude these hearings and have someone tell me
later that so-and-so testified and "Do you mean to tell me you knew
nothing about it?" I feel very deeply about that.

I presume from what I have been told that there is nothing in it.
But I do want, as a matter of conscience, to be able to say that we have
gone through it. I think those transcripts or notes should be typed
up without delay. I think it makes the committee look difficult.

Senator Mundt. We almost arrived at our last meeting at a formula
and then the bell rang.

Senator Jackson. If we could allow our assistants to look at it, it
would be helpful. It is impossible for me to go down during the lunch
hour and at nights to try to read through transcripts. It is ridiculous.
I will do it under one stipulation, that everybody be required to look
at it starting at 5 in the morning, or 6. But I don't like to do it at
night. I dislike to get up early and do it. but I will do it under that
stipulation. I am still in good health.

Air. Jenkins. A young man like you

Senator Jackson. I think that should be disposed of readily, Karl.

Senator Mundt. Personally, I would like to have everybody on the
committee read that stuff and hear it. I am a little bit under obliga-
tion to guys like Joe Alsop, and Jim Weston, and some of those
fellows.

Senator McClellan. You are not under obligation to them as a
committee.

Senator Mundt. No, but to release it to the public. It seems to me
if you are going to turn over all the administrative aids, and so forth,
you are going to be going into public.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2329

Senator Jackson. I have no desire to make it public, but I do be-
lieve we would be derelict in our duty if we do not look at the sworn
testimony.

I am not talking about interviews that the staff has had. But when
you call someone in, in executive session, and take notes in the presence
of a Senator, I feel very strongly we are shirking our duty ; at least
I am.

Senator Pottee. Why don't you do this: After you have con-
cluded with the witnesses for this week, set a day aside, or a morning,
to take it up in executive session.

Senator Jackson. Charlie, it should have been done a long time
ago. You see, you need it in case there is something relevant you
need on cross-examination. You don't want to read this at the end
of the thing.

Senator Mundt. Suppose, Scoop, we have it all typed up and de-
livered to Mr. Jenkins' office.

Senator Jackson. All right.

Senator Mundt. I have not had it typed.

Senator McClellan. Did you say something about whether we
see it or not ?

Senator Mundt. To give it to Mr. Jenkins and let people go there
and look at it.

Senator Jackson. Let us get it typed up right away. Is that
agreeable ?

Senator Mundt. Yes. By unanimous consent — I haven't done it —
if there is no objection, we will get it typed up right away and have
one full set delivered to Mr. Jenkins.

Senator Jackson. Let us get it typed up. We can delegate one
person to look at it for the three of us.

Senator Mundt. AVithout objection that will be done.

Mr. Jenkins. Let me get this straight. If you delegate somebody,
Scoop, I know it will be my friend Bob Kennedy. It is all right
for Mr. Kennedy to look at it or Senator Jackson, Senator Syming-
ton, and Senator McClellan ?

Senator Mundt. They will have to assume that responsibility.

Senator Jackson. We will have to assume it, we will assume it, and
it wall be in accordance with the rules.

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, did I correctly state your position?

Mr. Welch. First may I make a comment on this last item. I
think it must be apparent to everyone in the room. We don't know
what has been testified to in these sessions. We couldn't know, since
there was no transcription. It seems to me entirely proper that that
material should be before this conmiittee.

Now on the other point, it is true that Mr. Jenkins and I talked
yesterday and on earlier occasions

Senator McCarthy. Before you go into that, could I ask, is it
understood that we also have a chance to see those transcripts?

Senator Jackson. I would assume so.

Mr. Jenkins. And, of course, Mr. Welch.

Senator McClellan. The parties in interest certainly have a right
to see it.

Mr. Jenkins. I think so. Senator.

Senator McClellan. Of course.

2330 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator Mundt. All right. It is so understood. Go ahead, Mr.
Welch.

]Mr. Welch. Here is the thing about these hearings that begins
to somewhat appal me.

Looking at you, Senator McCarthy, you have, I think, something of
a genius for creating confusion, throwing in new issues, new accusa-
tions, and creating a turmoil in the hearts and minds of the country
that I find troublesome. And because of your genius, sir, we keep
on, just keep on, as I view it. creating these confusions. Maybe
I am overimpressed by them. But I don"t think they do the country
any good.

Not only that, we on this side of the table began the hearings with
the feeling that there were certain witnesses or parties that were
indispensable, and we all know what we have been talking about.
That really meant the parties.

And the President said he thought those people should be heard.

It is now quite clear that they are going to be heard. Mr. Cohn,
of coui-se, is on the stand. Mr. Carr and the Senator, in some order,
are going to take the stand.

When you have heard those witnesses, if you start bothering the
field thereafter to rebuttal and additional witnesses, etc., I must say
I just don't see wdiere the dickens the case ends. We could put on
witnesses and the Senator could put on witnesses for a long, long
time.

Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that this hearing can-
not actually resolve and solve some of the things that have been
presented in it, to wit, the constitutional issues as I view them, which
can only be revealed to the public, and thought about, and settled in
the course of the next year or 5 years or 10 years or our lifetime.

Those constitutional issues have actually been revealed. There is
no doubt about it.

Lawyers and Senators and executives — members of the executive —
can differ as to what the result ought to be, but the issues are revealed.

As to the personal conflicts here of who is saying what, I hesitate
to say this but as a lawyer it would seem to me that neither side is
bound to have a 100 percent clearcut victory in that. That is going
to be left in some kind of balance from the way the committee looks
and acts, and probably the way the country reacts.

It follows that looked at from the viewpoint of the United States
of America, that I think we do no good in continuing the hearings
beyond the point that Mr. Jenkins has suggested.

I am therefore prepared to say, and have said to Mr. Jenkins, un-
officially — and in view of what he has now said I say it officially —
that if the two witnesses we have in mind take the stand in any order,
that the other side wishes, and are content at that, we would be content.
And there, I think, I have all.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, may I ask a question? If we move on
that formula, w^ould you be able to have in mind clearly enough ques-
tions or the type of questions and the length of questions you w^ould
want to ask so we could couple with that a target date for conclusion?

Mr. Welch. On that point, Senator Mundt, I would hope — Senator
Potter, I would hope that we wouldn't try for night sessions and Satur-
day sessions.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2331

Senator Potter. I will grant you it is not particularly desirable.
But I tliink if we don't have a target — for example, Roy is on the
stand. I, for the life of me, do not have another question to ask Eoy
if he is there for 6 months. But I assume that you do have. I do not
know how long. For example, if you cut out the Senator's time, how
long would it take?

Mr. Welch. On that point, I am certainly prepared to say that we
have no slightest ambition, Mr. Cohn, to retain you on the stand in any
sort of marathon.

Senator Muxdt. I did not hear you.

Mr. Welch. I was saying to Mr. Cohn that we have on this side of
tlie table no desire to keep him on the stand for any sort of a marathon.
If tlie Senators are out of the way, so to speak, or get out of the way,
so that he comes steadily to Mr. St, Clair and to me, and we will split
our cross-examination, it seems to me, granted steady work on the
things we want to ask, that it is only a matter of hours. Neither St.
Clair nor Welch have ever been noted for long cross-examinations.

Senator McCarthy. What is that ?

Mr. Welch. I said neither St. Clair nor Welch have ever been noted
for long cross-examination. I think we have had iust about 30 or 40
minutes, not very much.

Mr. Cohn, Well, about 40 minutes.

Mr. Welch. That is pretty trivial.

Mr. Cohn. Much more than we took on Mr. Adams.

Senator Jackson. How about Stevens? How long were you on
Stevens ?

Mr. Cohn. I don't think you will find we took too much time on
Stevens.

Senator IMundt. Let us stick to the subject.

Mr. Welch. In any event, to talk about a target date, I would not
think it would be wise to fix a date like next Tuesday and crowd it in,
if it kills us. I would personally think, and let us say a word about
Mr, Carr, also, the things that interest me about Mr. Carr's testimony
are quite limited.

If he does not have a broad direct by you, ISIr. Jenkins, and a broad
cross by you, I should think Mr. Carr would be a short witness.

As to the Senator, I know your plans about a direct and cross,
Mr. Jenkins, which you have promised will be vigorous, and after a
vigorous cross by you I would say that there would be very few passes
by us, with a rather modest pair of lawyers and a United States
Senator.

I have also predicted, as you gentlemen have known, that once we
could get the case rolling, it would go. I must say my prediction has
never to this moment come true as to any particular witness, but I
still think the case ought in some way to be gotten rolling and moving.

Mr. Jenkins. It rolled yesterday, Joe, We got all the monitored
calls in.

Mr. Welch. I will admit that, but we didn't do much after that.

Senator Symington, It was 5 o'clock at that point. How much do
you want to work ?

Senator Dirksen, Mr, Welch, if you don't have the compulsion of
the target you are just out in the middle of a deep, blue sea, almost.

Senator Mundt, The trouble is, Mr. Welch, if there is no time tar-
get, I could sit here and ask questions of Cohn or any of these ivit-

2332 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

nesses on the basis of 28 days of testimony, I suppose I could ask
questions for a week. Or if I thought I could only have a couple of
cracks at him, I would pick out the ones that I thought were good and
get done with him in 20 minutes.

Mr. Welch. But if you have a target and the Senators take big
cracks at these witnesses, we would get almost no chance.

Senator Mundt. We would have to divide up the time, I quite agree
with you on that. It would not be fair to have a target and then
limit you, say, to 30 minutes.

Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, as far as I am concerned, you are bound
to have known for several days that I am through wnth Mr. Cohn. So
1 will consume none of your time. You can eliminate me. Now it is
a question of the Senators and you.

^Ir. Welch. Mr. St. Clair says to me it is fair enough to talk about
a target and aim for it, and we will help aim for it, but we don't
think we ought to have a curtain fall when the clock reaches a certain
time.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, just so my position is com-
pletely clear in this : Mr. Jenkins is right when he says he talked to
me the other day in regard to limiting the time of the witnesses. I
gave that some thought later and called back and told Mr. Prewitt
that I believed — I would not consent to limiting the witnesses unless
there was a limitation on time. If there is a limitation on time then
I would be frankly walling to not call some of the witnesses that I
feel should be called. If there is to be no limitation on time, then I
wnll want, for example. General Lawton, Clark Clifford. I will want
Senator Symington.

I felt all along motive was the all-important thing here. We find
now that Mr. Symington

Senator Symington. Let us get off all that and get on the issue.
You know that is just a lot of bunk. Why don't you get on the issue
and talk about the time element?

Senator McCarthy. We find out from the record that Stevens was,
the day before the charges were made

Senator Symington. Why go into all of that? You said it all yes-
terday. This is an executive hearing and it is 10 o'clock.

Senator McCarthy. Don't interrupt me.

Senator Symington. I stated my position. You can talk for an
hour.

Senator McCarthy, So the Chair can have my position. Mr, Chair-
man, I have always felt that motive was all-important. We now find
that this thing has apparently been directed by the very competent
political adviser of the opposite party, that Mr. Symington was trying
to — he wanted to hold his coat while he had a fight with me. If there
is a target date, if there is a definite cut-off date, so we can get back to
the Communist issue, then I think I would consent to the type of
limitation of the witnesses that Mr. Jenkins mentions.

If there is no cut-off date so we can start planning our work, I would
consent to no limitation of the witnesses.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, could we approach it from another way,
which would seem to me the same thing?

iSenatrr Mundt. Mr. V^elch?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2333

Mr. Welch. That is that we guaranteed a certain number of
passes — that we be guaranteed a certain number of passes at these
witnesses and a certain amount of time.
Sena^or Potter. I think you should.

Senator Mundt. I think that would be fair. I see your point.
If you are working with long-winded Senators who are going to do
some talking, I certainly see your point.

JNIay I have your attention, Stu, and Mac ? The Chair would appre-
ciate some kind of a routine, because I am up against this proposition :
As you know, I told all sides all the way through that I would subpena
anybody where there was a legitimate reason to subpena, providing the
request was channeled through the counsel. I subpenaed a witness
yesterday at the request of Mr. Welch. As Mr. Welch points out and
Joe points out, I think, in new witnesses there have been an awful lot
of them.

Senator Symington". Did you subpena the rest of them without tell-
ing the rest of the committee about them ?

Senator Mundt. I haven't told the committee about them. We are
going to make all of these hearings available so you can see everybody
who has been subpenaed. I know^ you are going to agree that on most
of them you do not want to sit around all summer and hear them.

Senator Symington. You have to discuss these charges and you
don't know anything about who has been seen or what has been said.
It makes it difficult.

Senator Mundt. You are going to get the hearings, and you can
read them or have Mr. Kennedy read them.

The point I am making is this : I am up against a deadline. Am I
going to serve a subpena on Clifford or not? If we are going to dif-
ferent issues, I have no basis for not doing it. I didn't do it yester-
day, I haven't done it yet. I am hopeful that we can agree on a bunch
of witnesses. I am hopeful that the one Joe gave me yesterday is
not going to — I am hopeful that he is not going to insist on calling him
up in public.

Senator Symington. Who is the witness that you are not going to
insist on calling up in public ? We are not having secrets ; are we ?

Mr. Welch. No. Are you talking about a witness we asked for
yesterday ?

Senator Mundt. Yes.

Senator Dworshak. Are you planning to call Schine?
Senator Dworshak. Are you planning to call Schine?
Senator Jackson. Schine is not proposed to be called. There are
just two more witnesses, as I understand the agreement.

Senator Mundt. If you don't give me some kind of dimensions, then
I have to keep standing on subpenas. Are we going to have Schine
as a Avitness or not? That involves more subpenas and more char-
acters. Are we going to have General Lawton? If you do, you have
to have his aide. Captain Corr. So where do we end? It is like you
said yesterday, when you and Joe were having your altercation. I
tried to keep it in balance the best I could, but it is pretty hard to end
the thing.

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, first, all of this is new to me.
I didn't know what had been planned. I am hearing it here for the
first time.

Senator Mundt. Nothing has been planned.

2334 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator McClellan. I am going to say to you now that I am not
going to agree prematurely to any motion that would set a deadline
date to terminate these hearings. I am ready to cooperate and move
along here and call those that you know you want to call, get them in
here. I will try to do as I think I have done in the past, help to
expedite it. I haven't too many questions to ask any of them.

This thing about other witnesses, now, is next. We have an execu-
tive session here and there has been a lot said in public about another
witness or two. I suggest this is the time, if anybody wants them, to
make the motion and let us vote on it right here in executive session
as to whether they will be called or not. I am ready to vote on it, if
the motion is made, but I am not going to vote here this morning for
any deadline and to limit witnesses until you have gotten these prin-
ciples through.

I just don't think we can do that.

So far as working to a deadline for next Friday or Tuesday, I will
Vvork with you every way in the world. But I am not going to tie
my hands here this morning.

Senator Mundt. Let me find out from you, then, are there some wit-
nesses that you want to have called ?

Senator McClellan. I have no other witnesses to call, Mr. Chair-
man. I haven't asked for a subpena for a witness since I have been
in the matter. But I say if there is anybody that wants a witness
called, this is the time and place to make the motion for a subpena,
while we are all here.

Senator JNIundt. Are we talking about Cohn and McCarthy and
Carr?

Stu, are there any witnesses that you want to have called?

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman?

Senator Mundt. Just a minute.

Stu, are there any other witnesses that you want to have called?

Senator Symington. I don't see why you ask me. People have
asked about witnesses. Let's get it on the table.

I want everybody called that can add any influence — or, rather, add
any light to this controversy.

Senator Mundt. Have you any in mind?

Senator Symington. I will be glad to consider and make up a list
of those witnesses that I think ought to be called.

Senator JNIundt. Can't you tell us now ?

Senator Symington. I don't think I know right now the details of
the list. I would like to have my counsel look through the testimony
and see what the record shows and put a list up based on the record.

Senator Mundt. Scoop?

Senator Jackson. No; I haven't anyone that I personally want to
call at this point. I just assumed that certain people would be called,
and I am still assuming it.

Senator Syimington, Would you yield to me a second? I am sure
of this: I want some more witnesses called, and I will give you a care-
fully delineated list. But I would like to have Bob Kennedy look
the testimony over. I am operating here too much on my own.

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, requests have been made by other
people to this controversy for witnesses, and I am ready right now
to vote on those requests.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2335

Senator Mundt. I am coming down the line. Charlie, have you
any witnesses that you want ?

Senator Potter. No.

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak ?

Senator Dworshak. I think in view of the inability to agree on any
procedural methods that we ought to recess until a few days after
Congress adjourns, and then take it up. We can then stay here until
Christmas.

Senator Dirksen. Ray, how long would you take with Roy and
Carr and Joe ?

Mr. Jenkins. Senator Dirksen, I am through with Roy. Mr. Welch
and I discussed the length of time that we anticipated it might take
with the Senator and with Mr. Carr. Necessarily their testimony
will be shorter than that of Mr. Colin. I would say that as far as I
personally am concerned, I will get through with the Senator cer-
tainly in a day's time, less time, perhaps, no more than a day — if I
took, say, a day with the Senator and Mr. Welch and the committee
a day, Mr. Carrs testimony is shorter, I think, than the Senator's.
Tf the hearings were concluded at the conclusion of the testimony of
those respective witnesses, I would say that these hearings would be
concluded by not later than Saturday of this week. If yow had night
sessions — no, that is out, Mr. Welch. I wouldn't say any more about it.

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Welch, how long will you take, first on Mr.
Cohn ?

Mr. Welch. I was just putting down here my own estimate. It
seems to me these are maxima. I would think that Mr. Cohn's cross-
examination would be bound to be finished in 2 days, and I think less.
The Senator, direct and cross, in 2 days, and very likely less, and Mr.
Carr, I would like to say a day, but if you want to talk about maxima
all along the line, you woukl have 6 days on these maxima, which
would mean 4 days left this week and 2 next.

Mr. CoHN. You want me 2 days more ?

Mr. W^ELCH. I don't know. I don't think so.

Senator Mundt. How many days did you say as a maximum ?

Mr. Welch. A maximum of 6 days. Mr. Cohn just asked me if I
wanted him 2 days more. The answer would be if Mr. St. Clair and
I had you without interruption, it would be a lot more like 1 day
than 2.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Are you through ?

Senator Dirksen. Well, I was trying to get a picture here, insofar
as the junior Senator from Illinois is concerned. There are no ques-
tions that I want to ask of Roy or Frank. I might take 10 minutes to
praise the Senator from Wisconsin, but that is about as far as I would
go. Mr. Chairman, I want to say to you very frankly that after
Friday this committee is probably going to have to dispense with my
services because we have some very important matters coming up in
appropriations. Foreign-aid hearings are going to begin very soon.
I have to start hearings on the District of Columbia appropriation
bill early next week. I will be the only one there. I will have to run
them and take all the testimony myself. That is my job, and I in-
tend to do it.

Senator Mundt. I have a very real problem coming up. I am the
Chairman of the Legislative and Judicial Appropriations Subcom-

2336 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

mittee. They have been deferring their hearings and deferring their
hearings, and 1 have to run them. , , i i * u-n a

Senator Dihksen. There are going to be hundreds ot bills, and
whatever you do, I guess you are going to be without my services, be-
cause these other things must be done at the same time.

Senator Dworshak. Could we eliminate day sessions and run only
evening sessions?

Senator MuNUT. Joe ^ , . , i xi T^ +

Senator J^IcCarthy. INIr. Chairman, I think unless the Democrats
ao-ree to a target date, I think it would be a mistake to have a 4 to 3
vSte, or anything like that, cutting off the hearings. I think if the
Democrat side wants to continue these, I think frankly we have no
choice to continue them. No. 1. No. 2, Mr. Welch made a statement
that I want to comment on. He said Mr. McCarthy had a genius tor
creatino- confusion. I assume by that he means a genius for bringing
out the^'facts which may disturb the people, for example, showing up
that phony chart, showing up the change in date of the letter 1 think
that confiises people, showing up that Mr. Symington and Mr. Clif-
ford were behind this. That may create confusion, but I have no
choice but to bring out those facts. ,. . , .

Mr Chairman, I think that if we do not limit this as to witnesses,
and I frankly hope that we don't, although I will go along with what-
ever the committee does, I think it is imperative that Senator Syming-
ton take the stand. He has advised on the record the Republicans
should do that. It now appears that he played a much bigger part
than the Republicans did in this. I have gone over the parliamentary
situation here, Mr. Chairman. I find that apparently this com-
mittee has no way of forcing him to do it. The Constitution says
that a Senator w"ill be made to answer for his actions only on the
floor of the Senate. That has been construed to mean that he cannot

be subpenaed. -, , n. r o • i. t

I think, however, in view of the fact that Mr. Symington— I mean
from all the mail I get, people are confused. They know that Stu—
Mr Symino-ton, I mean, and Mr. Clifford, were engineering this deal
which called off the hearings of the Communists. I am going to
continue urging that he take the stand. I hope that finally public
opinion, public pressure, makes him do what he so sanctimoniously
told the Republicans they should do, namely, put all the facts on the

^So I may say, I will go along with whatever the committee does,
if they call a target date, so we can get back to our work. Otherwise,
I would not CO along with any limitation of witnesses, Ao. 1. ^o. 2,
Friday of this week Mr. Cohn is being called into service. He is
goino- to be called to 2 weeks duty down, incidentally, under General
Zwicker. He is one of the very important principals in this case.

Senator Dworshak. Going when?

Senator McCarthy. Friday of this week.

Mr. CoHN. Saturday.

Senator I^IcCartiiy. I don't know how the committee can con-
tinue while one of the principals is away. Whether you will take
a recess or what you will do, I am just giving you that fact now, so
you will know.

Senator Symington. Have you finished?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2337

Senator McCarthy. Obviously, we cannot ask for any deferment,
because that would be asking for special favors, and we do not want
any investigation of this committee for granting special favors for
Mr. Cohn.

Senator McClellan. There would not be any harm in doing that,
would there ? Not a bit.

Senator Symington. Have you finished?

Senator McCarthy. For the time being, yes.

Senator Symington. I will make a deal with you. I will go on
the floor of the Senate and make a speech, and then I will take the
stand, see, and I will go under oath and let this committee examine
me, if you will make a speech and if you will go on the stand on the
charges you never answered in 1952. There is your deal, and I will
make it with you right now.

Senator McCarthy. Let us first get the record straight. The
Senator made a misstatement yesterday when he said I was asked to
go on the stand in 1952. That is incorrect.

Senator Symington. You were invited to answer the charges.

Senator McCarthy. I was told that I could go on the stand.

Senator Symington. You were invited to answer the charges.

Senator McCarthy. Let us not have any of this phony stuff.

Senator Symington. Any time you want to pull me, going on the
stand — I will make a deal with you right now. I will get on the
floor of the Senate and I will give my position in this matter, and
I will go under cross-examination by this committee, which would
be a very unusual thing for a Senator to do, if you will go under cross-
examination with respect to the charges that were made against you
by a committee which was unanimously signed by Democrats and
Republicans in 1952.

There is your deal. I will make it here, and if you want to, I will
make it on television, whichever way you want to do it, or both.

Senator McCarthy. Your deal is to retry the 1952 case.

Senator Symington. There was no retrial, because he never ap-
peared.

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Symington. I am going to answer you just that way, so
long as you feel he understands.

I make a motion that these minutes be published today, that they
be written up and published today, so everybody will know what we
are talking about.

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest there is a
motion to adjourn, which is not debatable.

Senator Symington. Just a minute.

Senator McClellan. We have a request before the chairman to
call a witness. Are we going to do it ? It is made in public. Do you
want a motion ?

Senator Mundt. I don't want a motion on that.

Senator McClellan. Let us settle it. He was injected in here yes-
terday. Let us settle it. Are we going to call that witness or not?

Senator Mundt. Which one are you talking about?

Senator McClellan. I am talking about Mr. Clifford. Do you
want him ? The motion was made, the request was made in public.
Let us settle it here this morning. Does anybody want to make a
motion to call him ?

2338 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator Symington. Don't you want to make a motion to call
him ? That is what you told the Chair yesterday.

Senator McCarthy. I am not making a motion. The Chair has
the request.

Senator Symington. Let us put it to a vote now.

Senator Mundt. It will be the first time you subpenaed anybody by
a vote. You can if you want to.

Senator McClellan. It was played up before the public. Let
the committee vote on it.

Senator Potter. Is there a motion before the Chair on subpenaing
Clifford?

Senator Mundt. Not that I know of.

Senator Jackson. I move that we call Mr. Clifford.

Senator Mundt. Is there a second?

Senator Potter. I move it be placed on the table.

Senator McClellan. I will second the motion.

Senator Mundt. The move has been seconded that we call Mr.
Clifford.

You have a motion to place it on the table.

Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, I think this is out of order. I
think Everett Dirksen made a motion to adjourn.

Senator Jackson. There was no second to that motion.

Senator Symington. Wait a minute. Here is a motion that has
been made, moved and seconded, to call Mr. Clifford. How are we
going to vote?

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that up until now
the Chair has called all witnesses requested by Mr. Welch. I assume
the Chair will follow the same procedure insofar as witnesses re-
quested by me are concerned?

Senator Mundt. The Chair has already announced that if we are
going to run this hearing on interminably

Senator Dworshak. I will second the motion to lay on the table.

Senator Mundt. Very well. I think the appropriate thing to do
is to lay it on the table.

Senator Symington. It is not to lay it on the table, and you know
it, because everybody in the American public thinks that Senator
McCarthy has asked Mr. Clifford to come before this committee and
testify now due to a lot of this, that, and the other, and we are running
out on the fact of whether we even take a vote on it. That is a fane
way to run a committee.

Senator Mundt. Stu, at least you should control yourself, no matter
how angry you feel about it

Senator Symington. I am not angry at all.

Senator Mundt. Then let us act like Senators. You cannot be pop-
ping off all the time.

Senator Symington. I beg your pardon.

Senator Mundt. You don't have to beg my pardon.

Senator Symington. I will apologize for that.

Senator Mundt. You don't have to apologize. I was going to say
I think it is appropriate to lay this on the table until we can liave
a meeting to determine how many witnesses you want in have. You
have the promise of the Chair if these hearings continue, he is cer-
tainly f^oincr to subpena Mr. Clark Clifford in conformity with the

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2339

regular practice. But you have the Lawton thing and the same situa-
tion. You have a lot of other witnesses.

I think you have a good point. You have n right to read these hear-
ings and see how many you want to call in public.

Senator McClellan. Yesterday you had a big play about Clifford.
You have had it before millions of people. Do you want to take the
responsibility of doing nothing about it? The motion is made here
to try to take it off of you, and let the committee decide. I am ready
to vote on it. Let us settle it.

Senator Jackson. And two Democrats have made the motion to
call him.

Senator Dworshak. Will you yield?

This is my approach. I can see no consistency in deciding whether
we call one witness. I think we have tried unsuccessfully to outline
a plan for a target date, and call all witnesses or no more witnesses
than the principals who have been in the picture heretofore. I think
w ought not to approach this in a piecemeal manner, but determine
how far we want to go or how far we want to restrict the hearings
in the future.

Senator Mundt, Very well. I think we all recognize that parlia-
mentarians are debating a motion which should not be debatable, a
motion to lay on the table.

Senator McClellan. All right, if the Chair wants to rule it out.

Senator Muxdt. I am not ruling it out. I am pointing out that it
is 10 : 20.

Senator Symington. Charlie, do you want to be in a position w^here
you are blocking this vote ?

Senator Potter. Let me say this. If you are going to call Clifford,
then you are going to call 15 other people.

Senator Symington. But the big play was made yesterday that
Clifford and Symington were the ones which had done this, which is
totally and completely false.

Senator Potter. I will be frank with you. I would like to see what
Clifford has to say.

Senator Symington. Then why do you throw the block at it?
What are you afraid of ?

Senator Potter. I am not afraid of anything.

Senator Symington. Let us vote, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Potter. I will withdraw my motion.

Senator Dworshak. I will withdraw my second.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, it is completely unfair to the
Cohn-Carr-McCarthy side of this if you call all witnesses requested
by Mr. Welch, and then whenever I ask for a witness, the Democrats
try to vote it down. The Chair has a power to subpena. That is the
committee rule. Unless you change the rules during the middle of this
proceeding, which I was promised you would not do, I was promised
at the time I got off this committee that the rules would remain the
same all during the hearing. Now, for some reason or other there
seems to be some deathly fear on the part of Mr. Symington that Mr.
Clifford may be here under oath. He knows that he can't invoke the
type of senatorial immunity that Mr. Symington has.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the Chair not to entertain that motion because
it would be changing the rules, it would be a violation, a complete

2340 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

violation of the agreement made with me at the time I stepped off
the committee.

This one final word, Mr. Chairman. The Chair will remember,
both over the phone from Arizona, and before the committee, I said
I will step off with the understanding I shall depend on the honor of
the Senators that they not change the ground rules after I am oft the
committee. And that would be changing the ground rules, if you
could block the witnesses that I want called.

Senator Symington. Do you want to call Mr. Clifford?

Senator McCarthy. Of course I do.

Senator Symington. We have a motion here to call him.

Senator McClfxlan. The Democrats are trying to help you.

Senator Mundt. May the Chair make this suggestion? The Chair
will eive you his word, if you will withdraw your motion, that he will
call Mr. Clifford. It is very unusual that you have a motion for one
particular witness.

Senator McClellan. Since when cannot a committee move to call
a witness?

Senator Mundt. Certainly you can.

Senator McClellan. That is not violating any rule. That is just
voting on it.

Senator ]\rcCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, if you do that, then whenever
I request to have Lawton called or anybody, it means — well, so far,
and Mr. Welch, I think, will confirm the fact, whenever he wanted a
witness called, that witness was called, and if after he was called Mr.
Welch found that his testimony was of no value, he did not ask to have
him called in public. That has been the procedure.

Now, Mr. Chairman, it is grossly unfair to put me in a position
where each time I want a witness the Democrat members, and Mr.
Symington voted— Mr. Symington, you cannot get away from the

fact

Senator Symington. Let's not make speeches here. You are not
on television. Stick to the facts. Don't get all excited. You are not
on television. We are in executive hearings.

Senator McCarthy. Now you are trying to block my calling wit-
nesses. It is the most grossly dishonest thing I have seen in ages. _

Senator Symington. The worst you have ever seen. Everybody is
upset. Everybody is upset. Let us vote.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I ask the chairman not to enter-
tain that. That is changing the rules.

Senator Symington. It is the same result, anyway.

Senator McCarthy. The Chair has an absolute duty to call the
witnesses we request.

Senator Mundt. Has anybody a copy of the ground rules?

Senator Symington. Do you want to vote or not on calling Mr.

Clifford?

Senator Mundt. I want to find the rules.

Senator McClellan. Do you mean we have a rule that the com-
mittee cannot call a witness? .1 ,. .

Senator Jackson. We are trying to comply with his request.

Senator Symington. You have said a lot of things to me, and I
don't like them. Don't bluff ; say them.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2341

Senator McCarthy. I am going to say over and over, Mr. Senator,
if you have any honesty, you will appear on the witness stand under
oath.

Senator Symington. You better be worried about what I am ffoinsr
to say.

Senator McCarthy. I am not worried about what you are going to
say.

Senator Symington. Yon will not intimidate me about anything.

Senator McCarthy. I just want you to give the facts, Mr.
Symington.

Senator Symington. I have never lied yet. I will give them.

Senator McClellan. Do you rule us out of order, that we can't
make a motion?

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that that last
altercation be stricken from the record by Mr. McCarthy and me.

Senator McCarthy. It should be left in.

Senator Symington. All right ; leave it in. You said there was a
lot more than you had to say about it, and so on. If you want to
leave it in, leave it in.

Senator McCarthy. I am going to question you in detail, Stu, as
to what part you took in playing in calling this on.

Senator Mundt. I don't find it in here either way. Do you want to
vote ?

Senator Jackson. Let us vote and have it in.

Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute.

Senator Symington. Let us vote, Ev. It is half past 10.

Senator Dirksen. I offer as a substitute motion, Mr. Chairman,
that the Chair, after consultation with counsel, shall call and subpena
any witness requested by the principals to these proceedings, if such
witness is deemed to be material to a resolution of the issues.

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order that
is not a proper substitute. It isn't relevant to this. That motion
could prevail without defeating the other.

Senator Mundt. I believe it is a proper substitute.

Senator McClellan. It isn't a proper substitute. It isn't in lieu
of it.

Senator Dirksen. It is a proper substitute, Mr. Chairman, because
it goes to the basis of the substance of the earlier motion.

Senator Jackson. It doesn't give the members of the committee a
right to call witnesses.

Senator Mundt. Is there a second to that motion ?

Senator McClellan. All right, vote on the substitute. You have
overruled the point of order.

Senator Mundt. Is there a second ?

Senator Potter. Would you include members of the committee ?

Senator Dirksen. No, I included only the principals to the pro-
ceeding.

Senator McClellan. That denies to the committee the right. If
that is the way you want to have it

Senator Mundt. The Chair will declare the motion lost for want
of a second.

Senator Potter. If you include the members of the committee, or
a member of the majority committee, I will second it.

2342 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator Dirksen. Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will be willing to

include not only those who may be requested by the principals

Senator Mundt. Restate the motion so we know what we are talking

about. .

Senator Dirksen. I move that the Chair, after consultation with
counsel, call and subpena any witness who may be requested by the
parties in interest, and the principals in interest, and the members of
the subcommittee, if such witnesses are deemed to be material to a
resolution of the issue.

Senator Potter. I second it.

Senator Mundt. You have heard the motion made and seconded,
in the nature of a substitute. Is there any discussion?

Senator Dworshak. What is that?

Senator Mundt. Read it, Mr. Reporter.

(Portion of the record read by the reporter.)

Senator Mundt. It is moved by Senator Dirksen and seconded by

Senator Potter.

Senator Dworshak. Commenting on that, Mr. Chairman, it seems
to me we are opening the door wide with absolutely no possibility of
ending the hearings under another month or more.
Senator Mundt. This keeps it in control —

Senator Potter. Actually, this is what it is now. It is the very
same thing we have been operating under.

Senator Mundt. The Chair has said over and over again, publicly
and privately, that he believes Clifford should be called and a lot of
others should be called, if we are going to protract the hearings. If
we can agree among ourselves on limiting the number of witnesses,
very good. I can assure you, with or without this motion, I will follow
tht' p*ractice I have followed all the way through, of calling the wit-
nesses requested.

Senator Dworshak. Does that means no end in sight i

Senaiir Mundt. I don't know. As I understood Senator McClel-
lan's position, and Senators Jackson and Symington, if I understand
their position, they do not want to vote now to stop the hearings of
Cohn, McCarthy, 'and Carr, until they have read the witnesses of the
executive session.

Senator Dworshak. I think we should have a target date.

Senator Mundt. I think it is a reasonable point. I think they want
to see any testimony taken in executive session, to see if there is some-
thino- they would like to see spread on the public record. I think that
is a reasonable request. I don't think we should change the rules at
this late stage of the game, because I don't think there is any justifica-
tion in our not calling witnesses. We have called everybody they
wanted. Any further discussion?

Senator McCleli^n. Call the roll, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen?

Senat(T Dirksen. Aye.

Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan?

Senator McClellan. No.

Senator Mundt. Senator Potter.

Senator Potter. Aye.

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson.

Senator Jackson. No.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2343

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak.

Senator Dvvorshak. Aye.

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington.

Senator Symington. No.

Senator Mundt. The Chair votes aye. The motion prevails.

We better reassemble upstairs now. It is 10 :30 and a little late.

(Thereupon at 10 :30 a. m., the executive session was concluded.)

INDEX

Page

Adams, John G 2286-2289, 2295, 2296, 2298, 2299, 2323-2325, 2331

Air Force (United States) 2287-2289,2293,2295,2296

Aldersou, Mr 2280

Allen, Colonel 2314

Alsop, Joe 2328

Army (United States) 2280,2285,2287-

2289, 2293-2295, 2298, 2299, 2304, 2309-2311, 2315-2321, 2324, 2328

Army Intelligence (G-2) 2294,2298,2311,2319,2320

Array personnel ., 2315

Army Signal Corps 2310, 2316

Atomic Energy Commission 2308

Atomic Energy Joint Committee 2308

Beckley, x\Ir 2312

Benton, Mr 2282-2284

Benton charges (1952) 2282-2284

Capitol Police 2279

Carr, Francis P 2304, 2315, 2328, 2330, 2335, 2339, 2342

Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2308

Christmas, 1953 2287, 2289

CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) 2308

Clifford, Clark 22&i, 2332, 2;)33, 2336-2340, 2342

Cohn, Koy M., testimony of 2286-2343

Coleman, Aaron 2309, 2324

Communist iuliltration of Fort Monmouth radar laboratory 2299

Communist literature 2311

Communist Party 2295, 2299, 2303, 2304, 2311, 2317-2321, 2325, 2336

Communists _ 2295, 2299, 2303, 2304, 2311, 2317-2321, 2325, 2336

Communists in the Army 2321

Communists in the executive branch 2304

Communists in military defense plants 2325

Constitution of the United States 2336

Corr, Captain 2333

Counselor to the Army 2286-2289,2295,2296,2298,2299,2322-2325,2331

Defense Department (United States) 2387

Department of the Army 2280, 2285. 2287-

2289, 2293-2295, 2298, 2299, 2304, 2309-2311, 2315-2321, 2324, 2328

Department of Justice 2292, 2293, 2307

District attorney's office 2293

District of Columbia appropriation bill 2335

Eisenhower, President 2320

"Espionage-R" (Russian espionage) 2294,2295,2320

Europe 22S5

Executive order 2320

FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 2278-2294,

2297-2299, 2317-2320

FBI communications 2299

FBI confidential document 2305

FBI document 2290-2294, 2302-2304

FBI files 2293, 2307, 2308

FBI informants 2290

FBI reports 2289, 2297, 2298, 2307

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2289-2294,

2297-2299, 2302-2309, 2317-2320

First Army Loyalty Board 2295

Fort Monmouth 2294. 2295. 2298. 2299. 2309-2312. 2314. 2316, 2320-2323

H INDEX

Page

G-2 (Army lutelligence) 2294, 2298, 2311, 2319, 2820

Goverumeut Printing Office 2304, 2306, 2324

Hoover, J. Edgar..__ 2293, 2307, 2313. 2319

Hotel Waldorf (New York City) ^-^01

Infiltration of Fort Monmouth radar laboratory ^299

Joinc Committee on Atomic Energy 2308

Till 1*111*1 JtiniBS— _— — — — __———_— — — ——————— — — — — — __— — ^oX'x

Justice 'Department:::. 22!)2 2293, 2307

Kennedy Boli '^-^"' ^^-^' ^'^'^^

Lawton?Genera"l 2311, 2314-2317 2332, 2333, 2339

Le<'islative and Judicial Appropriations Subcommittee (Senate) 23o5

Eong island, N. Y :_ 2310, 2316, 2317. 2320

Loyalty board (First Army) 2-J5

Lustrou loan --— -.!t

^SSX.1S:rjoe::::::::::-:::::::iii5:i2i6:ii9i:iiii^

2309. 2312, 2314, 2317, 2320, 2322, 2325, 2328-2330, 2332, 2334-2342

Military intelligence (G-2) 2294,2298,2311,2319,2320

Monitored phone calls o.4o'^oo^ Ztla

Navy (United Stc^tes) 2289, 2295, 2296

Nike (radar machine) — - ^-^^

Partridge. General '^■^^^' ^^^

Pentagon —- TW'

Peress case ^ij;-|' ^f

Peress Maior ^o-x, ,io-^

Photographic Laboratory (Signal Corps, Long Island, N. Y.) 2310, 2316

Potter, Senator 238o, 2330

President of the United States jf-^l' j±^

Radar laboratories (Fort Monmouth) '9004

Kadar Nike machine --^*

Eadar screen and Nike j^;^

Reynolds, Mr -'^'j'^

Rosenberg, Julius f'^;^'

Rosenberg prosecution oon'i'ooor o^oa

Russian espionage ("Espionage R") ^oonof^^'oiSi

St niiir Mr ^^DO, Zrf.3i, — 300

schine G Davki:::::::::": 2285, 2301, 2306, 2308, 2311, 2325,^2333

Secretary of the Atnny iisi:iS9:ii9B:2259:2i59:23i2:2iIi:5i25,life

Senate Legislative and Judicial Appropriations Subcommittee—---- 2335

Senate of the United States 2281-2284, 233b, 26^i

Signal Corps (United States Army) z,"-;-:^-: oqia Ztir

Signal Corps Photographic Laboratory (Long Island, N. Y.) ------ 2310, 23lb

Stevens, Robert T__ 2281,2283-2289, 22U5, 2296, 2299, 2309-2312, 2314-232o, 2332

Symington, Senator ^^-^

Ton secret document (FBI) ■^'^""^

Sn^tld States Tr Force___ 2287-2289, 2293, 2^_5, 2296

Tlnifpfl States Armv _ ^JbU, ZJNj, z<i&(-

^ 2289 2293-2295, 2298, 2299, 2304, 2309-2311, 2315-2321, 2324, 2328

United States Army Signal Corps 2310, 2316

United States attorney's office (New York) ^^^^

United States Constitution ^^^!2

United States Defense Department "oooVwo-? 9^07

United States Department of Justice 2^J^, --Jrf, -^u^

United States district attorney (New York) ^-^-

United States Navy 2287-2289, 22 Jo, 2^Jb

United States President o9qT"2osI 2330 2337

United States Senate 2281-2284, 23ob, ZMi

Waldorf Hotel (New York City) ^■r,;^

Washington, D. C tiZ^

Weston, Jim ^?~f.

Zwicker, General ^-"^^

SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHARGES
AND COUNTERCHARGES INVOLVING: SECRE-
TARY OF THE ARMY ROBERT T. STEVENS, JOHN
G. ADAMS, H. STRUVE HENSEL AND SENATOR

JOE McCarthy, roy m. cohn, and

FRANCIS p. CARR

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SPECIAL SUBCOMMITTEE ON
INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON

GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE

EIGHTY-THIRD CONGKESS

SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO

S. Res. 189

PART 58

JUNE 9, 1954

Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations

UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46620° WASHINGTON : 1954

Boston Public Library
Superintendent of Documents

OCT 2 7 1954

COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman

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

MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

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

EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland THOMAS A. BURKE, Ohio

CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan

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

Special Subcommittee on Investigations

KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota, Chairman

EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington

HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri

Ray H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel

Thomas R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel

Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel

SoLis HORWiTZ, Assistant Counsel

Charles A. Maner, Secretary

CONTENTS

Page

Index I

Testimony of —

Cohn, Roy M., chief counsel, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Inves-
tigations -316

III

SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHARGES AND
COUNTERCHAKGES 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

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 9, 1954

United States Senate,
Special Subcommittee on Investigations
or the Committee on Go\t:rnment Oterations,

Washington^ D. C.

The subcommittee met at 10 : 17 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the
caucus room of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt,
chairman, presiding.

Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota;
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Sen-
ator 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 ; Thomas R. Prewitt,
assistant counsel; Charles Maner, assistant counsel; and Ruth Y.
Watt, chief clerk.

Principal participants present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, a
United States Senator from the State of Wisconsin; Roy M. 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 please come to order.

The Chair would like to begin this morning by welcoming the guests
who have come to the committee room. We are pleased to have you
here.

I want to call your attention, if you are here for the first time, to
a standing committee rule which has prevailed throughout these hear-
ings. The rule forbids any audible manifestations of approval or dis-
approval of any kind at any time from our guests in the audience, and
the connnittee has instructed the Chair and the Chair has instructed
the uniformed members of the Capitol Police and the plainclothes
people scattered in the audience that they are to remove immediately
from the committee room, politely but firmly, any one of you who, for
reasons best known to yourself, elects to violate the terms under which
you entered the room, namely, to conduct yourselves like ladies and
gentlemen and to refrain from interfering with the proceedings by
making audible manifestations of approval or disapproval.

2345

2346 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Now tliat we understand each otlier, I am sure all of you will comply
with the committee rule just as all your predecessor audiences have
complied, with very, very splendid 100 percent cooperation.

As the Chair recalls, at the conclusion of the day it was Mr. Welch
or Mr. St. Clair's time to have 10 minutes. So we will begin with them
on the go-around.

Before doing so, I should announce that Senator Dirksen is de-
tained at a meeting of the Appropriations Committee, where they are
marking up a bill. As announced yesterday, Senator Potter was
called out of town but will be back this noon. I am sure that our col-
leagues, Senator Dworshak and Senator McClellan, will be here
shortly.

Now, Mr. Welch, if you want to proceed with 10 minutes, you or
Mr. St. Clair, you are recognized first this morning.

TESTIMONY OF EOY M. COHN— Resumed

Mr. St. Clair. Thank you, Mr, Chairman.

Mr. Cohn, yesterday we were on the subject of whether or not Mr.
Stevens and Mr. Adams had cooperated with you and Senator Mc-
Carthy in the conduct of the Fort Monmouth investigation, and I
believe it is fair to state that this question and answer I will read
to you pretty well sums up your testimony. If that is not so, I am
sure you will tell me.

I asked you :

Well, Mr. Cohn—

This is on page 5825.
Mr. Cohn. Go ahead.
Mr. St. Clair (reading) :

Well, Mr. Cobn, let me see if we can do this rather simply. Can you tell me
whether or not Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams cooperated with you at Fort
Monmouth?

And your answer was :

To some extent yes, and to some extent no, sir.

Is that a fair picture of your testimony yesterday ?

Mr. Cohn. I don't know if it is fair, Mr. St. Clair. Once again,
it is a short answer to a very long problem.

Mr. St. Clair. You will stand by the answer, nevertheless, won't
you?

Mr. Cohn. With a lot of qualifications which you don't want to hear
now. For purposes of moving along, I think it is a pretty accurate
summary. As I told you, I think I have said on the record before
that, both here and at other meetings, that we have had cooperation.
I think I have said on the record, too, that there have been instances
in which we have not had cooperation.

Mr. St. Clair. That is what bothers me, Mr. Cohn. You seem to
blow a little hot and cold on it. But as of yesterday, under oath,
you stated to some extent yes, to some extent no ; is that right ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Now, yesterday, when we adjourned, I was about
ready to read to you a portion of the official reports of this committee
for December 8, and I think you looked up your copy of it; is that
right ?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2347

Mr. CoiiN. Yes ; I did, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. On page 56, I want to read part of it to you, and
ask you — if you will follow me, I think maybe we can get along.
Mr. CoHN. Sure. Why don't you go ahead ?
Mr. St. Clair. It is on page 5G.
Mr. CoHN. You go ahead. I will have it in a minute.
Mr. St. Clair. This is the chairman speaking :

I think for the record at this time we should make it clear that we have been
getting what I considei" good cooperation from the Army, and all of the indi-
viduals who will be questioned here as to their alleged Communist activities
have been individuals who have been in the Signal Corps for a number of years,
and the Army has indicated that they are just as anxious to get at the bottom
of this as we are ; is not that correct, Mr. Cohn?

And, Mr. Cohn, you answered :

Yes, Mr. Chairman, absolutely.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You meant there, did you not, to say that the Army
had been absolutely cooperative with you in this matter, that is right?

Mr. Cohn. The "thing speaks for itself. I think the point there was
that the people

Mr. St. Clair. Well, you said it spoke for itself?

Mr. CoiiN. Sure. The people who were being exposed were
people

Mr. St. Clair. If it speaks for itself, Mr. Cohn, it speaks for itself.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. St. Clair, could we possibly have a gjentle-
men's agreement here that when the witness is answering, even if you
don't like his answer, he be allowed to finish his answer ?

Senator Muxdt. The Chair believes that that is the procedure, unless
the witness consumes too much time in answering. But he does not
feel the witness this morning has given any long answers and he
thinks it is proper when questions are asked the witness should be
given an opportunity to at least conclude a single sentence in reply.

Mr. St, Clair. If the witness wants to go beyond the answer that
the document speaks for itself, of course, I will bow to the chairman's
rule.

Mr. CoiiN. All I wanted to tell you, Mr. St. Clair, the point was that
people who were being exposed had come in there before the present
administration, which is largely correct, and I would further stand
by the statement, we have received cooperation in getting these people
in and interrogating them, from Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams. Then,
Mr. St. Clair, finally, I was going to direct your attention to the very
next day, where in the public record you will find we indicated to Mr.
Adams an instance where we thought he was not cooperating with the
committee.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, let's follow along. On December 15, in the
official record of the proceedings of this subcommittee, which is on
page 101, if you care to get it, I would like to read to you another
statement from the chairman which apparently was made in your
presence, and by the "chairman"' I, of course, mean Senator McCarthy,
who says as follows :

I may say, Just so this vrill not be interpreted as an attack upon Secretary
Stevens, or those who are now in charge, they have been cooperating fully with
us, and I think are just as concerned as we are about the very, very unusual
picture that is unfolding. More important, they are doing something about it.

2348 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

And then Senator McCarthy says :

Call the next witness. Mr. Cohn.

You were there when the chairman said that?

Mr. Cohn. That was December 15 ?

Mr. St. Clair. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. No doubt, sure.

Mr. St. Clair. You were there, weren't you ?

Mr. Cohn. If the record says so, I am sure I was.

Mr. St. Clair. And you heard Senator McCarthy say that Mr.
Stevens and those in charge had been cooperating fully, and I em-
phasize the word "fully," Mr. Cohn ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir; I heard him praise Mr. Stevens on many

occasions.

Mr. St. Clair. How do you handle this proposition that under oath
you say that they cooperated to some extent, and to some extent they
didn't; and yet the chairman. Senator McCarthy, on December 15
said they cooperated fully. Are those consistent statements, to you?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, they are.

Mr. St. Clair. Do you consider those to be consistent?

Mr. Cohn. Sure. Do you want me to express myself further?

Mr. St. Clair. No. I haven't asked you any further questions other
than whether or not you consider those to be consistent.

]Mr. Cohn. Very well, sir. Any time you want me to answer that, I

will.

Mr. St. Clair. Now speaking of the situation at Fort Monmouth,
there was a lot of talk about espionage, was there not, Mr. Cohn, dur-
ing the course of the hearing?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Is it fair to state, so we can cover a rather large
subject rather briefly, that espionage being referred to was espionage
that had occurred in the past?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. That is not fair to state ?

Mr. Cohn. No.

Mr. St. Clair. Is it your position, Mr. Cohn, that in the course of
vour hearings you uncovered evidence tliat you would consider, as
a lawyer, evidence of espionage that was currently being committed
at Fort Monmouth ?

Mr. Cohn. Mr. St. Clair, the way I can answer that is this: As I
have outlined here in some detail, through the witnesses we had and
the evidence we had produced, we uncovered a situation of people
who have been found to be security risks with Communist affiliations,
disappearance of documents and other things, which certainly would
give a reasonable person pause as to whether or not there was current
espionage, whether or not the situation was ripe for espionage. The
thing that concerned us Vv'as, it was a dangerous situation.

Mr. St. Clair. It was a presently existing dangerous situation?

Mr. Cohn. Before our investigation, I would say very much so.

Mr. St. Clair. And during the course of your investigation ?

Mr. Cohn. I would say so ; yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You are sure now that you weren't talking about acts
that had happened back in prior years ?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2349

ISIi'. CoHN. No. I think the thing started back when the Julius
Rosenberg ring went to work down at Fort Monmouth.

JMr. St. Clair. When did Julius Rosenberg go to work at Fort
Monmouth ?

Mr. CoHN-. As I recall it, he joined the — I could be wrong on this —
he joined the Signal Corps around 1940-41.

;Mr. St. Clair. I am sorry. Go ahead.

Mr. CoHN. He went to school down at Fort Monmouth. After that
lie was based at the Sig— he was based at Philadelphia, went to Mon-
mouth from time to time, remained in the Signal Corps working at
Monmouth subsidiaries and subinstallations through the year 1945, if
I am correct.

Mr. St. Clair. As a matter of fact, he was at Fort INIonmouth at the
school for a period of 10 months in 1941 ; isn't that right?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, I think that is right.

;Mr. St. Clair. Thereafter, he was connected with the Signal Corps
in Philadelphia until 1945 ?

IMr. CoHN. That is where he might have been based, sir. I know he
was over at ISIonmouth. I know he was at various other Signal Corps
installations.

Mr. St. Clair. At least until 1945 ?

Mr. CoHX. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. When was he apprehended, sir, if vou know ?

Mr.CoHN. In 1950, 1 believe, 1949, or 1950.

Mr. St. Clair. 1949 or 1950. And that was certainly long before
Mr. Stevens' administration of the Army ?

Mr. CoHX. Oh, yes. I think it was 1950.

Mr. St. Clair. I would like to read to you, sir, in view of your tes-
timony that you think you found evidence of espionage, an article
from the New York Times, Wednesday, November 18, written by Mr.
William R. Conklin, which attributes certain statements to Senator
McCarthy. I will read part of it. You will have to trust me to read
it accurately.

Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army, agreed yesterday with Senator
Joseph R. McCarthy (Republican of Wisconsin) that espionage in the Signal
Corps laboratories at Fort Monmouth, N. J., had extended through the postwar
years and possibly as late as 1951.

Mr. CoHisr. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. 1951 was long before Stevens' administration of the
Army, isn't that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. I would like to look at that article if I may.

]\Ir. St. Clair. Certainly. You may have it. Will you hand it to
him?

Mr. CoHN". Yes. 1951 is before Mr. Stevens' administration. I
thought there was something about not knowing when it stopped or
how long after the war it continued or something like that, or if it did
stop.

Mr. St. Clair. Are you trying to say there were suspicions of
espionage ?

Mr. CoHN. I think it is a little more than suspicion, sir. I believe
we had some witnesses before the subcommittee who refused to tell
the subcommittee under oath whether there was espionage at Fort
lilonmouth

46620°— 54— pt. 58 2

2350 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator McCarthy. Could I see the document ?

Mr. CoHN. Sure, Senator. Claiming the fifth amendment on ques-
tions whether there was espionage at Fort Monmouth or whether they
were engaged in a conspiracy to commit espionage at Fort Monmouth
on the ground if they answered truthfully their answers would tend to
show they were guilty of a crime. Frankly, that was enough to put me
on notice there. There were a number of other circumstances.

Mr. St. Clair. Let's examine that, Mr. Cohn. Isn't it true of the
thirty-five odd cases that were suspended at Fort Monmouth, not one
of them pleaded the fifth amendment ?

Mr. CoHN. I don't know the names of the 35.

Mr. St. Clair. I didn't ask you the names. Isn't that a true state-
ment?

Mr. CoHN. I don't know whether it is or not.

Mr. St. Clair. You are referring to persons who claimed the fifth
amendment ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Isn't it true that not one of the employees at Fort
Monmouth — may I finish the question ?

Senator Munut. You may finish the question. The witness may

answer.

Mr. St. Clair. I think I would rather stay it.

Senator Mundt. Very well.

Mr. Jenkins, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Do any of the Senators to my right have any
questions ?

Any of the Senators to my left have any questions ?

Senator Symington. Yes; I have. I would like to take some of
my 10 minutes. I asked for personal privilege and the chairman felt
it madvisable. I would like to take some of my 10 minutes to read a
letter, if I may. It is very short.

Mr. Chairman, I have decided to testify under oath before this
committee, and, therefore, I am addressing the following letter to
Senator McCarthy and I will read it :

Dear Senator McCarthy : On yesterday you agreed to take the stand to tes-
tify under oath with reference to the matters considered by the Subcommittee
on'Privileges and Elections of the United States Senate. You will recaU that this
committee was chaired by Senator Hennings and although requests were made to
you to appear before it, you persistently refused. You agreed to do this if I
would take the stand with respect to my connections and dealings with Secretary
Stevens and Mr. Clark Clifford, which have been testified to in the present pro-
ceedings. I have considered your statement, and I present herewith a plan by
which it can be carried out.

I believe that I will have performed a public service of overwhelming impor-
tance if any action of mine can induce you to answer under oath the allegations
formally preferred against you by the Senate subcommittee and to which you
have heretofore persistently refused to respond, except to denounce the sub-
committee.

Accordingly, I propose that we agree on the following points :

1. You will agree to an investigation by a committee of the Senate to be
appointed by the Vice President, upon recommendation of the majority and
minority leaders of the Senate, despite your previous refusals you will agree
to testify under oath before this connnittee and to furnish all relevant docu-
ments and materials without resort to any inmnniity or privilege. This investi-
gation will cover the following subjects, all of which are included in the report of
the subcommittee :

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2351

1. Whether, under the circumstances, it was proper for Senator McCarthy to
receive $10,000 from the Lustron Corp.

2. Whether funds supplied to Senator McCarthy to fight communism or for
other specific purposes were diverted to his own use.

3. Whether Senator McCarthy used close associates and members of his family
to secrete receipts, income, commodity and stock speculations and other financial
transactions for ulterior motives.

4. Whether Senator McCarthy's activities on behalf of certain special interest
groups such as housing, sugar, and China, were motivated by self-interest.

5. Whether loans or other transactions Senator McCarthy had with Appleton
State Puink or others involved violation of the tax and banking laws.

6. Whether Senator McCarthy violated Federal and State corrupt practices
act in connection with his 1944-46 senatorial campaigns or in connection with
his dealings with Ray Kiermas.

This investigation will commence as soon as the members of the com-
mittee are appointed and are available.

If you will agree to the foregoing, I will agree to take the stand in the present
proceedings, and to testify as to my conversations and dealings with Secre-
tary Stevens and Mr. Clark Clifford, relating to the events preceding the insti-
tution of these hearings. I trust that you will confirm your agreement with this
program. If you are in accord, please sign as indicated below.

Senator, here is the letter, and if you will sign it, then we can get
this matter settled. [Document handed.]

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman?

Senator Mundt. Senator, may I suggest, if you are going to dis-
cuss the letter of Senator Symington — -

Senator McCarthy. An important point of personal privilege.

Senator Mundt. Just a minute. May the Chair suggest if you are
going to discuss the letter of Senator Symington, which I think we
will all agree has nothing to do with the controversy here or the issues,
that you comply with the request of the Chair as Senator Symington
did when he asked me earlier this morning for a point of personal
privilege. I said :

I don't know how I can grant you a point of personal privilege at the beginning
of the session, when nobody said anything about you. I wish you would wait
until j'our time comes.

He agreed to do that. You will have your 10 minutes in about 2
minutes, because it goes directly to you.

Would you agree to that ?

Senator McCarthy. No, Mr. Chairman. This very vicious smear
of Mr. Symington's must be answered now as a point of personal
privilege. He has raised everything now that the Daily AVorker

Senator Mundt. The Chair feels that if you feel that it is so im-
portant — —

Senator McCarthy. I think, Mr. Chairman, as a point of privilege,
T should be allowed to answer this.

Senator Muxdt. There is no question but what your name has been
mentioned

Senator McCarthy. I am glad we are on television. I think the
millions of people can see how low^ a man can sink. I repeat, they can
see how low an alleged man can sink. He has been asked here to come
before the committee and give the information which he has in regard
to this investigation. He retorts by saying that he wants all of the
old smears investigated.

Now, may I say this, Mr. Chairman : If that is necessary in order to
get Symington on the stand, that will be done. If the Vice President
or the Senate wants to appoint a committee to investigate these

2352 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

smears, if they ask me to testify, I will, period. And that is a firm
commitment.

I will not sign any of JSIr, Symington's letters for him. But let me
repeat, while this has nothing to do with this hearing, if, in order to get
Symington to be a decent, honest individual, and get on the stand here
where the subject of perjury — where he will be made to tell the truth
so I can cross-examine him, I will do almost anything in the world. If
that includes the creation of a special connnittee, I will now consent
to go before that special committee, and I will be glad to answer any
of these smears that appeared in the Daily Worker or any place else.

]\Ir. Symington, I think, has intelligence enough to Imow that what
he brings up has nothing to do with this hearing. He knows that now
it has appeared crystal clear to the American people that he is the
individual who got the chief adviser of the Democrat Party under-
ground to deceive an honest Secretary of the Army, who was not used
to the rough, dirty politics he might run into,

Mr. Symington knows that Mr. Stevens offered on at least three
occasions to come before the committee and give us the truth. He
knows that he urged him not to do that. That is, upon the urging of
Clark Clifford.

Now, Symington seems to be deathly afraid of going on the stand
and taking the oath. Again I say, Mr. Chairman, if a condition of
that is that we will reinvestigate— and I have been investigated about
as thoroughly as anyone should be by Mr. Symington's administration,
if they had anything against me they certainly would have presented
that to a grand jury. They did not.

He now raises the same old smears. As I say, so this will be crystal
clear, Mr. Chairman, if it is necessary to form a special committee to
reinvestigate those smears, to get Stu Symington on the stand, as I
intend to take the stand, as I have taken it, as my Republican col-
leagues have taken it, I will now make the firm commitment to go
before that committee. I will sign no Symington document.

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

privilege.

Senator Mundt. May the Chair say. Senator Symington— ]ust a
minute. The Chair still has the floor.

The Chair is going to recognize you, but the Chair would like to
say if we are going to continue this mid-morning madness every
morning of first you and then Senator McCarthy saying something
about the other and then saying, "I have to have a point of personal
privilege," it is very difficult for the Chair to know how to stop that
kind of waste of time as far as the rest of the members of this commit-
tee are concerned and the country is concerned. I will do the best I can
to keep it in balance, and that is all. ^

N'ormally when somebody is attacked, a point of personal privilege
is granted to the person to defend himself. It is the usual procedure
then to give the attacker another point of personal privilege.

What I am trying to do is to do this thing as equitably as I can from
the vantage point of the chairman, who believes it is a waste of time
and shouldn't take place, but who has no control over the tempers or
the dispositions or the words of his colleagues.

So rather arbitrarily— that is all I can do now— is to say I will grant
you a point of personal privilege. I suppose you are going to use it

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2353

to attack Senator McCarthy, and then he will have to have a point of
personal privilege. So whatever time you consume, I will give him,
and then grant neither of you any more personal privilege opportuni-
ties to continue your personal feud this morning.

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington?

Senator Symington. I have listened carefully to what you have
said, and I will be glad to wait, in accordance with your wishes, until
my time comes.

Senator Mundt. Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

Senator Dworshak, you have 10 minutes.

Senator Dworshak. No questions.

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy, you have 10 minutes in which
to interrogate the witness.

Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Pardon me. I asked the Senators to my left, and
I thought you passed, Senator Jackson.

Senator Jackson. I will waive my time.

Senator INIundt. Very well, Senator Jackson waives his time.

Senator McClellan ?

Senator McClellan. All I wanted to say, I appreciate the Chair —
I believe the Chair explained why I was temporarily absent this
morning. I was testifying before another committee on a bill that I
introduced. I regret to say, Mr. Chairman, that I will have to be
absent after 12 o'clock after the Senate convenes. A bill is up in the
Senate this morning which will require my presence on the floor.

I do not know how early I can return this afternoon, but that will be
the occasion of my absence if I am absent, looking after this legisla-
tion. I will have to leave at 12 o'clock.

Senator Mundt. I am happy that you stated that, and I had men-
tioned earlier about that.

I should like our television people to understand one thing. We
want the country to know there is as much interest in these hearings as
far as the Members are concerned as ever. We are reaching that stage
in the session of Congress, however, where there are tremendously im-
portant bills to be voted on in committee and on the floor every morn-
ing and every afternoon, making it virtually impossible for there to be
the full attendance at the hearings which has been possible to maintain
as a rather unusual record up to now. That is one reason that all of
us, I am sure, are conscientiously trying and endeavoring to get a
termination date on the hearings and a list of witnesses so we can
know and measure our time as against the tremendously important
duties all of us have to attend to on the floor of the Senate.

The Chair will excuse any of his colleagues, of course, at any time
when they have matters of vital concern to their particular specializa-
tion or their particular State. They should be on the floor attending
to them.

Senator McCarthy, you have 10 minutes in which to interrogate the
witness, if you want to use it. Otherwise, I will be glad to recognize
Mr. Welch.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, the Chair mentioned a personal
feud between myself and Mr. Symington. I want to make it clear

2354 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

there is no personal feud. I have merely been trying to get the infor-
mation from Mr. Symington. That he has resented a great deal.

Senator Mundt. The Chair understands that, and I think everybody
understands your position and Senator Symington's. I wish you
would either interrogate the ^Yitness or let Mr. Welch have his time.
I wouldn't like to have this explosion erupt again right now it it la

avoidable. , ,r ^, • • • £ J.^ ^ i. ^■^ ^4.

Senator McCarthy. I think, Mr. Chairman, in view of the fact that
I have 10 minutes— Mr. Symington read a letter which he had not
sent to me which I have never received, which I assume was prepared
either by Clark Clifford or someone from the national committee.
Mr. Symington did, again I say, read it rather well. ^

I believe I am entitled now to mention some ol the things

Senator Mundt. You recall the Chair did not recognize you on a
point of personal privilege. ,..,,. .

Senator McCarthy. I will put this m the form of a question.

Mr Cohn, if it develops that an individual here who happens to
insist' on being a judge has a background of having dealt with a man,
Mr Sentner, who got 5 years last week for conspiring to overthrow
this Government by force and violence; if it appears that a number
of years ago, I don't recall the year— 1943-this man Sentner, who
has now been convicted, and who at that time made it public and
bra^ro-ed about the fact that he was a member of the Communist
conspiracy, called a strike; if it appears that one of the men who
asked to be a judge here dealt with that man and the strike was an
attempt to get higher wages for the workingman, that they made a
deal whereby instead of giving the workingman higher wages, he
eave Mr Sentner a certain amount of money each month out ot eacli
man's paycheck which reduced their wages and that on that condition
the strike was called off, and that this man who bragged about bemg
a Communist was part of a study club which one of the judges here,
who insists upon being a judge, they attended the study club con-
stantly and they announced that one of the things they discussed
was the dissolution of the Comintern, the dissolution of the Commu-
nist Party and forming the Communist Association, that was a public
announcement— would you say that might possibly give some slight
tip to the American people as to why that judge this morning comes
to the stand and repeats all of the old smears, why he tried so hard
and got the chief adviser of the Democrat Party to force an end to our
investigation of Communists, which he has succeeded m doing <

That question was too long, Mr. Cohn, and I won t ask you to

answer it. , , ,, ^ i. *. -i.

Senator Mundt. I hope you won't ask the reporter to repeat it,

either.

Senator McCarthy. I have no other questions. , ^ . ^

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch and Mr. St. Clair, you have 10 minutes.
Mr. St. Clair. Back to the business at hand, Mr. Cohn :
I think my last question to you was if it wasn't the truth that of the
35 persons who were suspended at Fort Monmouth m September and
October, not one of them plead the fifth amendment. Did you know

that? . . ^

Mi\ CoiiN. As far as I know, that is right.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2355

Mr. St. Clair. There were some persons who plead the fifth amend-
ment in the course of those investigations. That is also true, in fair-
ness to you; isn't that right?

I^Ir. Coiix. Yes. It went a little deeper than that, Mr. St. Clair.
Some of those persons worked at places near Fort Monmouth which
were doing work for Fort ]\Ionmouth, such as the Federal Telecom-
munications Laboratory down at Nutley. I remember on December
16 we had a lady with a top-secret clearance, I believe, who invoked
the fifth amendi'nent on conspiracy to commit espionage.
Mr. St. Clair. That was Ruth Levine ?
Mr. Coiix. Eight.

Mr. St. Clair. The Federal Telecommunications Laboratory
sounds like — is one of those elusive names. If you listen to it you
might think it is a Department of the Government, but it is not, it is?

Mr. ConN, AVell, yes and no. It is owned by the International Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co., but I believe it does about 100 percent defense,
war work for the United States Government. So I suppose it has
that in-between status.

Mv. St. Clair. It is not under the direct control of the Army ?

Mr. CoHX. No.

Mr. St. Clair. That is right. She pled the fifth amendment, ia
that right?

JSIr. Coiix. Yes. By the way, I better say the International Tele-
phone & Telegraph Co. has cooperated fully with us in the investiga-
tion of that laboratory.

Mr. St. Clair. This lady had a top-secret clearance, you say?

Mr. CoHX. She had a top-secret clearance. Then she was doing
work on other secret work. She had pretty much the run of the place,
I believe, on secret work.

Mr. St. Clair. I just wanted to ask you this question: That clear-
ance was not clearance given by the Army, was it ?

Mr. CoHX. I think the top-secret was an Air Force clearance. I
think she also did secret work on Army Signal Corps work. I could
be wrong.

Mr. St. Clair. I am just trying to get this thing in some under-
standable form. This young lady did not work at Fort ISIonmouth.
That we agree on ?

Mr. Coiix. Xo, she worked at the

Mr. St. Clair. She had a clearance that was not given by the Army.
That we can agree on?

Mr. CoHx. Xo, I can't agree on that. I think I recall

Mr. St. Clair. All right, if you can't agree Ave will pass to another
thing. And slie worked at the Federal Telecommunications Labora-
tory, which was in Xutley, N. J., some 50 miles away ?

Mr. CoHX. Right.

Mr. St. Clatr. Now, we have had some talk about some other
people here who have been alleged to be Communists, and I think so
that we can get this thing perhaps back into some perspective, I
am now talking about the Voice of America, Information Service,
investigation.

Mr. CoHX. Yes, sir.

IMr. St. Clair. I think you mentioned the name of a person there
that vou alleged as a Communist or had that background.

2356 SPECIAL mYESTIGATION

Mr. CoHN. No-

Mr. St. Clair. In any event, all I wanted to establish is that that
person was not in any way connected with the Department of the

Army ?

Mr. CoHN. I concede that right offhand.

Mr. St. Clair. That is very clear?

Mr. CoHN. Sure. _ . . ^^ .

Mr. St. Clair. And that the Government Printing Office investi-
gation we have heard a lot about that. That is likewise in no way con-
nected with the Department of the Army ? , n ^ ,

Mr. CoHN. No, sir. They did some work, secret work, for the Army,
but I will agree with you, for the purposes here, it was in no wise
connected with our investigation of the Army.

Mr. St. Clair. The responsibiUty for the security matters ol the
Government Printing Office did not rest on Mr. Stevens' doorstep, did

they ? " .

Mr. CoHN". Certainly not primarily; no, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Now, we were talking about whether or not m the
course of your investigations you uncovered any espionage— it has
been referred to as current espionage at Fort Monmouth, and I gath-
ered you didn't quite agree with me when I suggested you did not
uncoverany such evidence, is that correct?

Mr. CoHN. I said, sir, it is a topic which is very difficult to defane.
I told you that there was there, from my experience in espionage— m
handling espionage cases— there was there a very dangerous situation.
We were' very clear that there had been espionage, that it had continued
until at least a fairly recent time, and that a potential espionage situ-
ation still did exist. It was a bad situation. I am not going to split

hairs about it. . ,. , . , , „ i i j? • i.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, let's don't split hairs, but let's also be fair to
both sides. There is always potential espionage in the military as
w^ell as in other sensitive portions of the (Tovernment.

Mr. CoHN". Yes, but this went much further than just a potential
that might be any place. There is a specific situation here.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, as the secrecy goes up, the potentialities go

up, isn't that right ? . ,. i ^i

Mr. CoHN. Even on top of that, sir, there were specific people there
who iiad records and who had done things which would put any
security officer on notice.

Mr. St. Clair. Are you referring to Aaron Coleman?

Mr. CoHN. I think he is a pretty good example.

Mr. St. Cl.\ir. I thought we agreed yesterday that his clearance
had been lifted and he had been working in a building not even on the

post. - ^

Mr CoiiN. Sir, that doesn't mean too much to me.

Mr St Clair. All right. It doesn't mean too much to you, but
perhaps it means something to other people. Isn't it true that if you
had uncovered evidence of espionage, it would have been the duty
of the FBI and the Department of Justice to submit that evidence to
a grand jury and seek an indictment on it ?

Mr. Coim. It doesn't work quite that way, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You won't answer that yes or no ?

Mr. CoiiN. I wish I could ; I can't.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2357

Mr. St. Ci.air. In any event, insofar as you know, the FBI and
the Department of Justice did not submit any of the cases that you
uncovered to a j^rand jury seeking an indictment?

Mr. Coiix. For espionage?

Mr. St. Clair. For espionage.

JNIr. CoiiN. I don't know whether they have on not ; no, sir.

INIr. St. Clair. You know they did not ?

Mr. Cqhx. No, I don't know they did not.

Mr. St. Clair. You don't know that ?

Mr, CoiiN. No, sir.

I\Ir. St. Clair. And by the same token, you don't know that they
did?

Mr. CoiiN-. That is right, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. And you would trust the judgment of the FBI to
evahiate whether evidence constituted espionage or not, would you
not?

Mr. CoHX. When the facts were given — when the full facts were
developed by and given to the FBI by the people having responsibility,
I would trust their judgment, on anything.

Mr. St. Clair. Do you think you had facts the FBI did not have ?

INIr. CoHN. It might be possible, sir, that in the course of our in-
vestigation we would develop certain things by use of our subpena
power, which the FBI does not have, which would be helpful to them ;
yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Did you turn those facts over to the FBI?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Then they did have the facts that you had, is tliat
right?

Mr. CoiiN. Well, to this extent, sir

Mr. St. Clair. You turned the facts over to them, you say.

Mr. CoiiN. When I say we turned the facts over, I believe, sir, we
furnished copies of our transcripts to the FBI.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, that is turning facts over, isn't it?

Mr. CoHisr. Sure.

Mr. St. Clair. In all fairness to you, Mr. Cohn, you did the same
thing to the Army ?

Mr. CoHN". AVe certainly tried to, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You furnished transcripts to the Army of what went
on?

Mr. CoHN. \ es, sir, I believe we did.

Mr. St. Clair. So you now can't tell us whether or not the FBI and
the Department of justice sought indictments against any one then
employed at Fort Monmouth ?

Mr. CoHX. For — do you mean for espionage ?

Mr. St. Clair. Yes.

Mr. CoHX. No, I can't, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. There has been a lot of talk about General Lawton.
I think you and I can agree that he is a fine professional soldier.

Mr. CoHN. I certainly believe it, sir.

INIr. St. Clair. You have the authority of no one other than Robert
T. Stevens for that ?

46620'— 54— pt. 58 8

2358 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoiiN. I think it goes beyond being a fine professional soldier.
I think he has been a great anti-Communist, which is vei'y important.

Mr. St. Clair. All right, I will go along with you on that.

Now, I believe it is your testimony, sir, that on October 14, in an
evening session. General Lawton testified before your committee, on
the evening of October 14 ?

Mr. CoHN. That is right, sir.

ISIr. St. Clair. If you will wait a mmute, I will get the page and
follow it.

Mr. CoHN. I am pretty familiar with it. Do you want to ask me
about what he said on the question of espionage at Fort Monmouth ?
I am ready to talk to you about that.

Mr. St. Clair, Well, I think I have the transcript. If you will
wait just a minute, I will get it. I think it is a little more accurate.

Mr. CoHN. Sure. If you want to ask me the questions I will prob-
ably give you the answers you want anyway.

Mr. St. Clair. Do you have there the page of the transcript?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, I have it, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. What page is it? I have it here. It is 814. Are
you ready, Mr. Cohn ?

IMr. CoHX. Yes, sir. I am asking for something else which I will
want to call to your attention in a minute.

Mr. St. Clair. I suggest to you, sir, that you can call things to my
attention if they are responsive to questions. Otherwise you will
have to wait until a recess.

Mr. Cohn. Sure. I am with you now.

Mr. St. Clair. On page 814 of the transcript of that session, the
chairman, which is Senator McCarthy, asked this question :

Could you tell us wliy it is only in the last 2 or 3 weeks that you are getting
these effective results?

I think you remember that question.
Mr. CoHN. Very well, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. I am sure you do. The answer by General Lawton
was:

Yes, but I had better not. I know this so well, but I am working for Mr.
Stevens.

I think you remember that answer ?

Mr. CoiiN. Very well, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Now, I want to ask you, INIr. Cohn, whether when
you heard that question and that answer, you thought that General
Lawton was being critical of Robert T. Stevens.

Mr. Cohn. I would answer it this way, Mr. St. Clair

Mr. St. Clair. Well, first, you know in the past we have had the
rule that you have to answer "Yes" or "No," but then go and say any-
thing you want.

Mr. Cohn. Surely.

Mr. St. Clair. Will you try and follow that rule?

Mr. Cohn. Surely, I will, sir. The answer is "Yes." I think he
was. In giving a truthful answer he had to be critical of the people
for whom he worked who had made it difficult for him to suspend pro-
Communists in the radar laboratories. I think he was reluctantly
critical and critical in response to a question which he had answered.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2359

Mr. St. Clair. Yon think he was reluctantly critical ?
Mr. CoHN. I do, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Let me read ,you the preceding question. Tlie Chair-
man, which is Senator McCarthy :

And you have the complete cooperation of the Secretary of the Army in this,
I understand?

And General Lawton answered —

Absolutely, and things are moving.

Mr. CoHN". Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. In the preceding question do you think that General
Lawton was being critical of the Secretary of the Army?

Mr. CoHN. I think the

Mr. St. Clair. Can you answer that in accordance with the usual
rule, either "Yes" or "No," but, and tlien say anything you want?

Mr. CoiiN. No, I think what he was saying there is, in the whole
thing, is that when SenatorMcCarthy entered the picture and put the
pressure on Mr. Stevens about the situation, Mr. Stevens then began
to cooperate and things were moving. But before Senator McCarthy
came along, nobody could get anything done.

Mr. St. Clair. So that the net effect of it is, as you heard it then,
and mind you, you were there and I was not, that this general was
being critical of the Secretarv of the Army ?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir ; the net effect of it, to me, was that General Law-
ton said :

I have known about this security risk, Communist infiltration situation for
a long period of time. I have been able to do something about it only in the
past 2 or 3 weeks, since Senator IMcCarthy and his committee came on the
scene. Since they came on the scene, I have been getting cooperation from Mr.
Stevens and his outfit. Before that I wasn't getting help from anybody.

Senator Muxdt. Your time has expired.

Mr. Jenkins?

Mr. Jenkns. Pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Muxdt. The Chair will pass.

Senator McClellan?

Senator McClellan. Pass.

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak ?

Senator Dworshak. Pass.

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson?

Senator Jackson. Pass.

Senator Mundt. Senator Symington?

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I have a few notes here.

First, tliese charges presented in a new diversion and a new attack
against me by Senator McCarthy, were presented to the people of Mis-
souri in the main on television by Senator McCarthy in the 1952 cam-
paign, and I am reassured by the fact they will think as little of them
now as they did then.

Now let me get my notes together here, which I have written hastily.

Mr. Sentner was the head of the United Electrical Workers. He
was the international vice president in Missouri. By law he had rep-
resented for some time the people in the plant tliat I went to originally.
Everybody knew tliat he was the head of tlie Communist Party in that
part of the United States, because he often said so.

2360 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION"

As soon as any war work came into my plant, I believe in 1940, with
respect to Mr. Sentner and all other subversives I worked very closely
with the FBI. The charge that any money ever in any way passed
between Mr. Sentner and me is totally and completely false, just an-
other diversion and just another attack.

The meetings referred to by Senator McCarthy which I at times
attended with Mr. Sentner were also attended by leading citizens, Re-
publicans and Democrats, of St. Louis. They were instigated and
cliaired by one of the most beloved men that I have ever known, Bishop
Emeritus Will Scarlett, of Missouri, formerly bishop of Arizona.

I would ask anybody who has any questions about tliat beloved
clergyman to ask Senator Barry Goldwater of Arizona what he thinks
about him.

I might add that Bisliop Scarlett was not on the list of E]^iscopal
clergy drawn up in a recent controversial article by Mr. J. B. Mat-
thews.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, there was never a step taken with respect
to these negotiations that wasn't approved in its entirety, if it was of
any importance — negotiations in my plant — by one of the greatest
Americans that I have ever known and one of the men who have suf-
fered as much from the Communists as any man I know — Mr, James
Carey, the head of the United Electrical AVorkers or, rather, the new
union that took its place. They nearly destroyed him. He won out.
He knows this story in complete detail, and I would suggest most
earnestly to the Chair that in order to clarify some of the terrible pas-
sions that are sweeping through the people at these hearings, that he be
called before the committee to tell the truth with respect to this latest
diversion and this latest attack on me.

Someone handed me, days ago, a little card that I would like to
read to the American people.

It would appear that some, under the frnise of heing the foremost anti-Com-
munist, are doing the worlj of the Communist movement in tliis country.

Mr. Chairman, I have no questions to ask of Mr. Colin, but I would
ask the Chair, especially because of these dreadful attacks that have
been made upon me by the Senator from Wisconsin — I would ask the
Chair to ask the Senator if he will sign the letter so we can both
testify under oath to the po,ints which both of us think are most im-
portant.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will have to say, in all due deference to
his colleague from Missouri, that he realizes, as I am sure the Senator
from Missouri must realize, that the charges dealing with Bill Sentner
and some unnamed company of which, apparently, the Senator from
Missouri

Senator Symington. Oh, no, the company is not unnamed. If you
remember, the other day when the question of Mr. Greenglass and
Mr. Rosenberg was brought in, the company "Emerson" was named,
and several people, including you — may I complete the statement —
several people, including you, said it was too bad those Communists
had worked in my plant. The facts are that I never had anything to
do with that company in any May, of any kind whatever. I never
owned a share of stock in it. I never worked for it an hour, a day,
or a miiuite. That is the Emerson Rad,io Co.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2361

The company we are now talking about — and I take pleasure in
telling the American people about it, because I worked with it and for
it with great pride — is the Emerson Electric Manufacturing Co. of

St. Louis.

Senator Mundt. Very well. That isn't going to change the Chajr's
ruling at all. It is the Emerson Electrical Co., then.

I don't want to get into an argument with the Senator from Mis-
souri. I don't wMut to make him any wager. But I will tell him what
1 will do. I will give him a nice, brand-new five dollar bill if he will
tind anyplace in the record where I said anything about its being too
bad that Communists were working in his plant, if that is what he
thinks I saj'i

Senator Symington He didn't say it in the record. He turned to
me and said, "Did you hear Roy just mention your plant?

Senator Mundt. Yes. I thought you would want to know about it.

Senator Symington. May 1 say, I hope the chairman always stands
beside what he says, regardless of whether it is on the record or off the
record.

Senator Mundt. Surely 1 will. I will not even go so far as to re-
peat what \ou made me promise not to say.

Senator Symington. 1 will repeat it. I asked you not to mention ,it ;
that a mistake had been made, because when Mr. Cohn came up to
me, also off the record, and said, "I am sorry that I had to mention
your plant,'' I said, "Roy, I am too."

Senator Mundt. Very well.

Now back to the ruling. The Senator from Missouri certainly re-
alizes, and 1 am sure his colleagues realize, that any altercation that
grows out of some experiences between Senator Symington and Bill
Sentner and this Emerson Radio or Electrical Corp.

Senator Symington. Please, Mr. Chairman, get it right. P'merson
Electric Manufacturing Co. of Missouri.

Senator Mundt. Very well. Stuart Symington, president.

Senator Symington. Former president and sometimes wishes he
still w^as.

Senator Mundt. Very well.

At least that di&|3ute is certainly not one of the problems to be
adjudicated by this committee. Neither are the matters that you
mentioned in your letter to Senator McCarthy problems to be settled
by this committee. So the Chair is not going to recommend as far
as he is concerned that we bring in Mr. James Carey or any of the
other people who might testify on altogether irrelevant controversies
existing between you and the Senator from Wisconsin.

Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, since your comments are taken
out of your time

Senator Mundt. You had discontinued your time and said you
would yield.

Senator Symington. I beg your pardon. I did not.

Senator Mundt. Very well. They will not be taken out of your
time.

Senator Symington. Thank you very much.

First, all I was trying to do was to accede to the agreement which
was suggested in combination by Senator McCarthy and me, and I
would like to know if he would like to sign that letter and if he will
sign that letter.

2362 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Secondly, I think it is most extraordinary, considering^ the fact
that we have tried practically every Communist in America in these
hearings, when an attack is made against me of this character, not to
call a great American who could answer all the charges himself far
better than I could, because he is so much closer to the problem. I
therefore respectfully question the Chair's decision immediately in
this matter not to call Mr. Carey. I again ask that Mr. James B.
Carey, secretary of the CIO, be called to answer this latest attack
upon me made by the Senator from Wisconsin.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will have to give the same answer on
the same basis, that if he were to call all of the witnesses to answer
all of the charges that Senator McCarthy has made against you and
all of the witnesses to answer all of the charges that you have made
against Senator McCarthy, we would be here well beyond that No-
vember 4 date that Senator Potter has suggested might conceivably
be the target date for adjourning these hearings, as far as some mem-
bers are concerned. Those are completely irrelevant controversies.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn •

Senator Mundt. You have 10 minutes.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn, Mr. St. Clair read to you from an
article by Mr, William Conklin. I will requote what he read :

Robert T. Stevens, Secretary of the Army, agreed yesterday with Senator
Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican of Wisconsin, that espionage In the Signal
Corps laboratory at Fort Monmouth, N. J., had extended through the postwar
years and possibly as late as 1951.

Mr. St. Clair omitted the following quoting Mr. Stevens:

There was espionage in the Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth in the late stages
of the war, and in later years, he said. Whether it was cut off in 1949, 1950,
or 1951 is difficult to determine.

Still quoting Stevens :

When I stated at a press conference last Friday that the Army has no proof
of current espionage, I want to make it unmistakably clear that I was speaking
of the Army investigation only and not of the inquiry by the Senate Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations, of which Senator McCarthy is chairman.

Then, he was asked this question :

The implication has been drawn from your press conference that you said
that there had been no espionage at Fort Monmouth since the war years.

The reporter told the Secretary :

That is entirely incorrect. As the record of that conference will show, he
replied.

Then, dropping down to the subhead :

Torpedo secrets missing: A former security officer In the General Electric
plant at Schenectady, N. Y., testified yesterday that 20 to 30 secret documents
on a new type of torpedo had been found missing in August 1952. Senator
McCarthy said evaluation of these documents resulted in the conclusion that
they were sufficiently revealing to compromise the entire torpedo project.

Now that I have read the entire — not all the article, but the meat of
it, would you say that is roughly what Secretary Stevens said that
day ?

Mr. Cohn. That is about it, sir.

Senator McCarthy. And that he said that he didn't know whether
es]")ionage, as he said, whether it was cut off in 1949, 1950, 1951, it is
difficult to determine?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2363

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. Also, Mr. Colin, Mr. St. Clair makes much of
tlie point that there were no indictments for espionage, and again
brings J. Edgar Hoover into this matter. Is it correct that there has
been no conviction for espionage since back some time in 1942 or 1943 ?

Mr. CoHN. I think that is right, sir.

Senator McCarthy. In other words, the German cases in the early
1940's?

Mr. CoHN. I think that is right, sir.

Senator jNIcCarthy. And even the Eosenbergs were not convicted of
espionage ?

Mr. Cohn. No, they were not, sir.

Senator McCarthy. They were convicted of conspiracy to commit
espionage?

Mr. CoHN. That is right. They were not convicted of espionage.
They were convicted of conspiracy to commit espionage. There are a
lot of elements of technical proof involved under the espionage
statute.

Senator McCarthy. Is it correct to assume. Mr. Cohn, that in view
of the fact that all of the 35 individuals who were suspended had
Communist background, some of them of long standing, that the
reason, of course, for their suspension was the fear that they might be
committing espionage?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. That is certainly one. And as I say, in some
cases it went further than that. There was a case of actual disappear-
ance of documents and removal of documents.

Senator McCarthy. x\nd, again

Mr. Cohn. And there were other things which I don't want to go
into any detail on.

Senator McCarthy. It is almost impossible, is it not, to get a con-
viction for espionage unless you have a number of witnesses actually
see the man take the material and hand it over to a foreign agent?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir, and that is not even enough. There are other
elements of technical proof under that statute which make the prob-
lem a very, very difficult one.

Senator McCarthy. But if you have Communists handling secret
radar material, that radar material is, in effect, in open conduits,
available to the Communist Party ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. I think that any distinction would be just
splitting hairs about it. There was a dangerous situation, a badly
dangerous situation.

Senator McCarthy. Now, Mr. St. Clair seems to try to minimize
the fact that a fifth- amendment Communist was found in Telecom-
munications Laboratory. I gather he feels that unless the spies are
at Fort INlonmouth, they are not important. I may be doing him an
injustice by that. He said it Avas 50 miles away from Fort Mon-
mouth. A Communist spy would be just as dangerous in the Tele-
communications which is handling Signal Corps work, handling work
from Fort ]\Ionmouth, as though that spy were on the physical plant
at Fort ISIonmouth ?

Mr. Cohn. The distinction as to whether they worked at Fort Mon-
mouth or 50 miles away, or were based at Fort Monmouth or based
with the Army Signal Corps is to me a very unimportant distinction,
sir.

2364 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator ^McCarthy. And this individual who was handling top
secret work, had top secret clearance, and which means a clearance
known in this room to be the highest clearance yon can get, was work-
ing in the Telecommunications until the day that we asked the
security officer to produce her ?

Mr. CoHisr, That is right, sir. It was the middle of December of
this past year, just a few months ago.

Senator McCarthy. December 13, I believe, to be accurate.

Mr. CoHN. That is right, sir.

Senator McCarthy. And she api)eared on December 16 and refused
to tell whether or not she was engaged in a conspiracy to commit
espionage ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, she did. She invoked the fifth amendment on
whether or not she was engaged in a conspiracy to commit espionage
and on a lot of other things.

Senator McCarthy. And we explained to her, as you will recall, that
she could not refuse to testify regarding espionage unless she felt that
her answer might honestly incriminate her ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. And then she refused to tell us whether she had
been giving secret material to people known to her to be agents of
Communist Russia ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. She refused on the grounds of self-incrimina-
tion?

Mr. CoHisr. That is my recollection, sir.

Senator McCarthy. I note Mr. St. Clair also tries to minimize the
fact that Mr. Coleman's secrecy clearance has been lifted. Actually,
he was working on the post, associating with individuals who hacl
secrecy clearance, and to all intents and purposes apparently had
about as much access to secret material, practically as much, as when
he was physically working on it himself?

Mr. Cohn. Sir, that is particularly true in Mv. Coleman's case,
because his past records shoAved that he was not above asking other
people to take classified information from the laboratory and give
it to him.

Senator McCarthy. Just one other question: Senator Dworshak
yesterday raised a very important que.stion, and could I have your
attention. Senator? He raised a very important question, and that
was the question of the fifth-amendment Communist doctor. Is it
correct that the investigation has shown that this fifth-amendment
Communist, who had gone to a Connnunist leadership school, not just
a rank and file Communist, that he had been scheduled to go to Yoko-
hama, Japan, and that when he got to Seattle, Wash., his orders were
changed with no apparent reason for their being changed ?

Mr. Cohn. That is right, sir.

Senator McCarthy. In fact, the only reason he could think of was
that his wife and daughter had been going to a psychiatrist, and he
couldn't even think of the name of the psychiatrist that they had
been visiting?

Mr. Cohn. That is right, sir.

Senator McCarthy. And beyond that he had nothing to make this
a hardship case?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION ZdOO

Mr. CoiiN. No, sir.

Senator McCarthy. And our investigation showed that just a vast
number of young men, with real hardship cases, who applied for state-
side duty were refused, while this Communist on this phony excuse
got a plush berth back at Camp Kilmer?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. The Senator raised the question of whether or
not a Congressman could have succeeded in getting this special con-
sideration. I don't think anyone tried to tell this committee that they
knew how effective the Congressman was

Senator Muxdt. The Chair rules that the Congressman's name will
not be injected.

Senator IMcCarthy. It will not be. But the only information we
had about the Congressman was that he made the application. We
don't know whether that was just a routine request that came from
his office, whether he knew that the letter was signed or not. But
when we asked the fifth-amendment Communist major whether it was
some member of the Communist Party who actually helped him get
his orders changed, he refused to answer on the ground that his an-
swer might tend to incriminate him, is that right ?

Mr. CoHX. That is my recollection ; yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. So as of now, neither you nor I nor anyone on
the staff have anyway of knowing of what importance the Congress-
man's request was, whether it was made by his office, whether he made
it himself, whether it was a routine request, or whether he took an
active part in the change of duty.

Mr. CoHN. We don't have the final answer on that; no, sir.

Senator McCarthy. I ask those questions, incidentally, in view of
the question that Senator Dworshak raised yesterday, and I think it
was a good question raised by the Senator.

No further questions, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt, Very well. The answers to most of your questions
are in the envelope sealed up carefully. You still have that, Mr.
Jenkins ?

Senator McCarthy. We hope.

Mr. Jexkins. Mr. Chairman, I am in the position of a man who is
holding a tiger by the tail. It is dangerous to hold him. It is danger-
ous to turn him loose. In my case it seems it is impossible to turn
him loose.

Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Chairman, I will be very sur-
prised if there is any information in that envelope.

Senator Muxdt. j\Ir. Welch or INIr. St. Clair, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. St. Clair. Mr. Cohn, you don't think that I have been trying
to minimize the danger of a Communist in Government, do you ?

Mr. Cohx. I am sure you wouldn't want to, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. It is apparent to me, at least I hope I have been
trying to get the idea across, I just want to get these things spread
out so we can determine responsibility for them and not lump them
all together. That is right, isn't it ?

Mr. CoHX. I am sure it is.

Mr. St. Clair. You said that there was no evidence of espionage
or at least no indictments for espionage, and you quite properly point

46620°— 54— pt. 58 i

2366 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

out to me that espionage and conspiracy to commit espionage are
different things. I agree with you.

Did you uncover any evidence that would back up or even support
an indictment for conspiracy to commit espionage?

]\Ir. Coiix. Sir, there was sufficient evidence for us to submit it to
the FBI.

Mr. St. Clair. And did the FBI, to your knowledge, take any
action?

Mr. CoHN. I assume that they are taking action.

Mr. St. Clair. You assume that they are, but as of this moment
you know of no action ?

Mr. CoHN. I know — the only thing I would know about, Mr. St.
Clair, w^ere if there were a public indictment. I know of no such
public indictment at this time.

Mr. St. Clair. We were talking about General Lawton.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. I think you testified that General Lawton's testi-
mony on the night of October 14, you considered was critical of Secre-
tary Stevens.

Mr. CoHN. I said, sir, that he — maybe I should not characterize
what General Lawton said. The picture he was trying to convey was
that he knew about the situation, he had been trying to do something
about it. It was only when Senator McCarthy and the committee
came on the scene that he had any success in doing something about it.
That is what he said.

Mr. St. Clair. As a matter of fact. General Lawton, in making the
reference that he had better not talk to you, was really saying in
substance, "I am bound by security regulations, and therefore I can't
tell you some of these things." Isn't that what he said, in substance ?

Mr. CoHN. He said what he said, sir. You are asking me to read
his mind about that, and I think that is a question which only General
Lawton can answer.

Mr. St. Clair. You and I know that when you read a transcript in
cold, hard print, it doesn't always read the way it was said. I have
the transcript here, and I wasn't there, so I have to interrogate you
as to whether or not it isn't the fact that General Lawton really meant
to convey the thought, as far as you know, that he was bound by
security regulations and couldn't answer all the questions ?

Mr. CoHN. I can only give you an opinion on that, Mr. St. Clair.

Mr. St. Clair. You were there. I would like your opinion, sir.

Mr. CoHN. My opinion was that that was not what he meant.

Mr. St. Clair. Thank you.

Mr. CoHN. You are welcome.

Mr. St. Clair. That was on October 14; right?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. I believe in one of the memoranda that has been
submitted to the press and has been brought into evidence here, it is
stated that you and the Senator thought that Secretary Stevens was
incensed about this testimony. I think I use the right word, don't I ?

Mr. CoHN. You might very well be right, sir. Yes ; December 17.

Mr. St. Clair. December 17. The reference is to the fact that the
Secretary was incensed about this testimony, isn't that right?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 26bi

Mr. St. Clair. As a matter of fact, Mr. Cohn, the first time — and
you so testified, I believe — that the question of removing General
Lawton was brought to your attention or the Senator's, was on No-
vember 24?

Mr. CoHN. That is the first time that there were actual plans to
remove him, that I knew of.

Mr. St. Claik. That you knew of ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes.

Mr. St. Clair. It was first brought to your attention at that time ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Between October 14 and November 24, it is a fact,
is it not, that General Lawton made speeches about certain large uni-
versities in this country ?

Mr. CoHN. I do know, sir — I would rather get

Mr. St. Clair. Certainly, you may look at anything you like.

Mr. CoHx. I know that he had some staff conferences with people
up at Fort Monmouth in which he discussed the investigation.

Mr. St. Clair. And that included the university you went to and
the one I went to, didn't it ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir ; I think it did.

Mr. St. Clair. What was the name of that ?

Mr. Cohn. I don't know where you went, Mr. St. Clair. I think
it is Harvard, is that right ?

Mr. St. Clair. You went to Columbia ?

Mr. CoHN. I went to Columbia.

Mr. St. Clair. Both fine institutions.

Mr. CoHN. I am sure they are fine institutions, sir. I would say

Mr. St. Clair. We don't have to argue.

Mr. CoHN. I would say if they had a little prompter action in
kicking out some Communist professors, I would be much happier
about them.

Mr. St. Clair. Let's not argue. Your friend Dave Schine went to
Harvard, too ?

Mr. CoHN. I am sure you are right, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Let's not argue about it. When did these speeches
occur ?

Mr. CoHN. Would you give me about a minute to look at something
here, and then I will try to answer your question.

Mr. St. Clair. My time is up, anyway.

Senator Mundt. No ; your time is not up. We will take time out
so he can identify the evidence.

Mr. St. Clair. Oh, certainly.

(Mr. Cohn examining documents.)

Senator Mundt. You have 5 more minutes, Mr. St. Clair.

Mr. St. Clair. If I could help you in any way, Mr. Cohn, I would
be glad to.

Mr. Cohn. I will be with you in just 1 minute.

(Mr. Cohn examining documents.)

Mr. Cohn. O. K., sir.

Senator Mundt. Time back in again. Go ahead.

Mr. St. Clair. It was sometime about the middle of November;
wasn't it ?

Mr. Cohn. I don't know the date. Whatever you say.

2368 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. St. Clair. Mr. Juliana can help you.

Mr. CoHisr. I will take your date.

Mr. St. Clair. Mr. Juliana has a photostat of a document which
will help you. What is the date on it ?

Mr. CoHN. The middle of November would be fine.

Mr, St. Clair. Is that all right with you ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes.

Mr, St. Clair. I want to be very fair with you. It wasn't until
after the announcement of those speeches came along that you heard
anything about relieving General Lawton ; isn't that so ?

Mr. CoiiN. You are confining yoursef to the question of actually
relieving him?

Mr. St. Clair. That is right.

Mr. CoHN. That is right. I had heard nothing about it before,

Mr. St. Clair. That is right. If the Secretary was particularly
incensed about the testimony on October 14 to the extent that he was
going to relieve the general for that, he is pretty slow to anger ; isn't he,
Mr. Cohn?

Mr. CoHN. I wouldn't say so, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. From October 14 to November 24 is about 40 days ;
isn't it?

Mr. CoHN. A lot- happened during those 40 days, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. That is right. A lot happened, and one of the things
that happened was certain speeches were made about certain univer-
sities.

Mr. CoiiN. Other things had happened, sir. I am sure you want

Mr. St. Clair. I will give you every chance, as you know, to say
everything you want, but I must insist you answer my question first.

Mr. CoHN. I am trying to answer this. You said a lot of things
happened, and I am trying to tell you what happened.

Mr. St. Clair. I didn't ask you what happened,

Mr, CoiiN. May I tell you what happened?

Mr. St. Clair. After I am through, sir, you can do anything you
want as far as I am concerned, but I assume the chairman is still
running the committee.

Mr. CoHN. I am not disputing that in any way, sir. I am merely
sa3'ing I would like to give you a full answer to your question.

Mr. St. Clair. I am sure you would. I am simply asking you if it
isn't true that one of the things that happened is that certain speeches
were made about certain large universities.

Mr. CoHN. No, sir ; it is not.

Mr. St. Clair. That is not one of the things that happened,

Mr, CoHN, The speeches were not about large universities.

Mr, St. Clair. In part at least?

Mr. CoHN. I wouldn't even say in part.

Mr. St, Clair. You will now take the position that General Law-
ton never mentioned any universities in his speech?

Mr. CoHN. I would say he did mention them.

Mr. St. Clair. He didn't mention them in a complimentary way,
did he?

INIr. CoHN". I don't think he mentioned them in a derogatory way,
sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You don't?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2369

Mr. CoHN. I do not.

Mr. St. Clair. To infer that they teach communism is not very
complimentary ?

Mr. CoHN. I don't believe he said that, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. All right. Anyway, it was after those speeches that
you first heard of any plans to relieve him, isn't that right?

Mr. CoHN. Chronologically, yes.

Mr. St. Clair. Chronologically, yes. And you heard of no plans
to relieve him before those speeches, isn't that right ?

Mr. CoHN. I heard no definite plans to relieve him. I heard plans
about other things.

Mr. St. Clair. All right, but I am talking about plans to relieve
him. Is that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Sir

Mr. St. Clair. And it is your testimony — I am sorry. Did you
want to make an answer ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes. What I am trying to tell you, Mr. St. Clair, is that
a lot of things happened, a lot of action was taken against General
Lawton during those 40 days, leading up to his eventual removal.
They ordered him — they told him he could no longer come to execu-
tive sessions of our committee, that he could no longer submit ques-
tions to these people who had Communist records; they told him he
couldn't get up and talk to David Greenglass ; they told him he could
not in any way get direct, first-hand information on Communist in-
filtration at the laboratories at Fort Monmouth.

He had his wings clipped and he was humiliated in one way after
another during those 40 days.

ISIr. St. Clair. Are you through ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. It still remains true, does it not, Mr. Colin, that you
heard of no plans to relieve General Lawton until after certain
speeches were made?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. And that you heard of no plans to relieve him
before those speeches were made ?

Mr. CoHN. That is right, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Do you still say that General Lawton was to be re-
lieved because of his cooperation with your committee ?

Mr. CoHN. I don't have the slightest doubt in my mind about it,
sir.

Mr. St. Clair. All right. Even though the testimony that you pin
that on occurred more than 40 daj's before you first heard that he
was going to be relieved.

Mr. CoHN. I don't pin it only on that testimony. I pin that on

Mr. St. Clair. Primarily on that testimony ?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir, I pin that

Mr. St. Clair. The memorandum said that the Senator thought
that the Secretary was incensed about it, isn't that right ?

Mr. CoHN. I am pinning that on what John Adams told me, told
Senator McCarthy, told Frank Carr, and undoubtedly told other
people.

Mr. St. Clair. Yes, but this memorandum of December 17 simply
says that apparently they were particularly — particularly, mind you —

2370 SPECIAL ESrVESTIGATION

Incensed about Lawton's statement in executive session that it was impossible
to get necessary cooperation for the cleanup until our committee hearings com-
menced —

Isn't that right?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Now, whoever wrote

Senator Mundt. Your time has expired.

Mr. St. Clair. May I finish the question ?

Senator Mundt. You may.

Mr. St. Clair. Whoever wrote that memorandum had in mind that
that is what he was pinning it on, isn't that right ?

Mr. CoHN. One of the things, sir, yes.

Mr. St. Clair. It is the only thing he mentioned.

Mr. CoHN". Pardon me?

Mr. St. Clair. It is the only thing he mentioned.

Mr. CoHN. No ; I think he said particularly

Mr. St. Clair. My 10 minutes are up.

Mr. CoHN. He said particularly, and that means other things and
I can tell you what they were.

Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. The Chair passes. Anyone to my right ?

Anyone to my left ?

Senator McCarthy ?

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I haven't any questions to ask.
However, Mr. Cohn will be leaving the committee Friday to go to
Camp Kilmer, and I assume the committee will not be able to continue
with one of the principals absent. For that reason, I will desist and
hope that finally, at long last, maybe my two good friends over here,
representing Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams, will ask questions that have
to do with the issues so that we can get through with some of the
witnesses before Mr. Cohn leaves Friday. I think we have had a great
waste of time involved in giving up our 10 minutes so that you might
cover the issues. You have not been doing that.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, let's see where we were. On this occasion of
November 24 and 25, Mr. Cohn, when you say Mr. Adams talked to
you about relieving General Lawton, was Mr. Carr present ?

Mr. Cohn. I am sure he heard some of the discussion, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You are sure of that ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir, I am. I am reasonably sure, I am reasonably
sure of that. We will put it that way.

Mr. St. Clair. Now, I want to talk to you about an entirely differ-
ent subject. Perhaps not as earth-shattering as some that have al-
ready been talked about, but I think of some importance. You recall
the occasion of October 21 on which you testified that Mr. Adams
asked you to get some tickets to a fight ?

Mr, Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. You said that on that occasion, Mr. Adams, Mr.
Carr, and yourself were present? You went to the fight?

Mr, Cohn. There was a fourth person at the fight,

Mr. St, Clair, There was a fourth person, yes. Who was that ?

Mr, Cohn. Pardon me?

Mr. St. Clair. Who was the fourth person ?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2371

Mr. CoHN. I don't know his name. He M'as a friend of Mr. Carr's.
You will have to ask him.

Mr. St. Clair. A friend of Mr. Carr's?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Now, that person remained with you almost through-
out the entire evening, did he not?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir. Mr. Adams, Mr. Carr and I came up from
Washington on the plane together. The fourth person was not there.
We went to my house for dinner. That fourth person was not there.
We spent some time after dinner; he was not there. As I recall it,
Mr. Carr left tlie ticket for him at Mr. Adams' hotel on the way to
the fight and he joined us at the fight some time — —

Mr. St. Clair. And remained with you through the balance of the
evening ?

Mr. CoHN. Later. I am inclined to think that he did not, sir. I
am not sure about that, though.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, now, incidentally, you testified, I believe, you
paid for those tickets?

Mr. CoHx. Yes, I did.

Mr. St. Clair. Did you tell Mr. Adams that you paid for them ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, I did.

Mr. St. Clair. On that occasion ?

Mr. CoHN. I am sure I did.

Mr. St. Clair. Then the question for paying for the tickets came
up on that occasion, did it not?

^Ir. CoHN. No, there was no — he asked me to get the tickets and
there was some discussion.

Mr. St. Clalr. Did you tell him you paid for them on that occasion ?

Mr. CoHN. There was some discussion before I got the tickets as
to how the tickets were going to be gotten. He asked if I could get
them free. He asked something else

Mr. St. Clair. What did you answer to the first question ?

Mr. CoiiN. I told him I didn't think I could, but that I would get
the tickets.

]Mr. St. Clair. I take it you say he was your guest on that occasion
so you don't want to raise any issue about it, is that right?

Mr. CoHN. About his not paying for the ticket ?

Mr. St. Clair. No.

Mr. CoHx. None at all, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Did he also ask you to get a hotel room for him
that evening ?

Mr. CoHN. He had asked me to get a hotel room for him, sir. I
am not sure whether it was that evening. I tliink it probably was.

Mr. St. Clair. If I would suggest to you that it was, would you
agree with me?

Mr. CoHN. Well, there were 2 or 3 times he asked me to get hotel
rooms for him. This certainly might have been one of the occasions;
yes, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. When did he ask you that?

Mr. CoHN. About the hotel rooms ?

Mr. St. Clair. Yes.

Mr. CoHN. There were at least 2 or 3 times.

Mr. St. Clair. No, on October 21.

2372 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoHN, I don't remember.

Mr. St. Clair. Was it before you went to New York ?

Mr. CoHN. I imagine so. I don't remember.

Mr. St. Clair. And did you make a reservation for him?

Mr. CoHN. If he asked me to, and he got it, I am sure I did.

Mr. St. Clair. Did he ask you anything about you paying for that
room or anything ?

Mr. CoHN. Pardon me ?

Mr. St. Clair. Did he ask you to pay for that ?

Mr. CoHN. There was a discussion, and I am not sure that this was
the occasion, Mr. St. Clair, although it very well might have been and
jDrobably was. Mr. Adams said the first time he was in New York,
at the Waldorf, I believe, and he found it was rather expensive. He
then asked me if Dave Schine could not get a rate at some other place,
because Dave was in the hotel business. I agreed with him the Wal-
dorf probably was expensive. I spoke to Dave — I don't know whether
I talked to Dave personally, I talked to Dave's office about it, and it
occurs to me that they made a reservation for him at the

Mr. St. Clair. Drake Hotel?

Mr. CoHisr. At the Drake Hotel. It also occurs to me on that that
Mr. Adams said if there were to be a discount or something like that
he did not want the bill sent to Dave Schine, he would rather have it
sent to me, and that he would pay me for it. I then recall that after
he stayed at the hotel, he told me — and I gave those instructions to
Dave's secretary — after he stayed at the hotel, Mr. Adams told me
that when he went to pay the bill, they were not giving him a dis-
count, and it was a blank high price, and he just paid them right then
and there, and felt that the price had been too high, and that he had
taken care of it himself right then and there, and there had been no
discount. And that

Mr. St. Clair. In any event, you left instructions at the hotel to
have the bill sent to you ?

Mr. CoHN. No, I (didn't, sir.

Mr. St. Clair. Well, indirectly?

Mr. CoHN. No, as I recall it, I spoke to Dave Schine's office, told
them to get John Adams a hotel room, see if they could get a discount
or whatever you call it in the hotel business, for it, have the bill sent
to me, not to Dave Schine, and that Mr. Adams would pay me for it.

That didn't happen, though, because he paid the bill himself and
he said they didn't give him any discount. I never checked to see
whether they had given him one or not, I don't know.

Mr. St. Olair. The instructions the hotel received were that the
bills were to be sent to you ?

Mr. CoHN. That would be right. I don't know

Mr. St. Clair. Wlien Mr. Adams checked out, he paid it directly
himself ?

Mr. CoHN. That is what he told me.

Mr. St. Clair. You have no doubt about it, do you ?

Mr. CoHN. No, not at all.

Mr. St. Clair. On the theater tickets, you testified that you were
very happy to get these for Mr. Adams and his two aunts; is that
right?

Mr. CoHN. Sure. Certainly.

SPECIAL ESrVESTIGATION _ 2373

Mr. St. Clair. You said you would send him a bill for them ?

Mr. CoHN". He was going to pay me for them.

Mr. St. Clair. You never did send him a bill for them, did you ?

Mr. CoHN. No, I didn't.

Mr. St. Clair. Is there any reason why you didn't, Mr. Cohn ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, there is,

Mr. St. Clair. Does the reason have to do with Private Schine ?

Mv. CoHN. Xo, not at all.

]Mr. St. Clair. Xone ?

Mr. CoHN. No, absolutely not.

Mr. St, Clair. Then what is the reason you never sent him a bill ?

Mr. Conx. The reason is, before I sent him a bill I had to go to my
office and get the bill and track it down and have to know what the
amount was in order to have something to present him. I had not
done that up to the time he paid me for it.

Mr. St. Clair. That was a matter of 2 months ?

Mr. CoHN. That might very well be so.

Mr. St. Clair. Did you have any intention of ever sending him that
bill?

]\Ir. Cohn, I had every intention of sending it.

Mr. St. Clair, Did it take you 2 months to send a bill out ?

Mr. CoHN. It usually takes me, if I collect money from someone I
get tickets for, I would say it might take me 4 to 6 months. It will
depend on — first of all, I have to go to my office. The bills come, I
assume, not after the tickets are bought, but would come every month
or every 2 months or whatever the arrangement is. I then have to
get the bill. The girl up in my office will mark out what it is or what
it is for. When I get around to that, I will forward the bill to the
person for whom I got the tickets.

I had better say here, sir, that I don't make a specialty of getting
tickets, because since this came up I have gotten wires from people
asking me to get theater and World Series tickets.

Mr. St. Clair. That is all for the moment, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch ?

Mr. Welch. Is there time left ?

Senator Mundt. Your time has not expired.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, I think I ought to help you fend off the
possible requests you will have from a nationally televisioned audience
for theater tickets. I will warn everybody now, please don't do it.

Mr. Cohn. Thank you, sir.

Mr. Welch. Now, Mr. Cohn, will you turn to volume 24 of the
record here ?

Senator Mundt. Time out while the record is being obtained.

Mr, Welch, Page 4398.

Mr. CoHN. I don't have that, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch, JMr, Juliana will find it for you.

Mr. Cohn. Why don't you go ahead and save time and start read-
ing it?

Mr. Welch. While you are looking for it, Mr. Juliana, wiU you
get page 2606, which we may or may not need.

Mr. Cohn. The first is

Mr. Welch. The first is 4398, from volume 24.

Mr. Cohn. Wliat is the next one ?

2374 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. Welch. We may need page 2606. I am not so sure we will. _

We are o-oing to have to correct a date in connection with 4398, if
my impression is correct.

Mr. CoHN. I see a mistake in date right offhand.

Mr. Welch. You have a very quick mind, Mr. Cohn. The date
that appears there as October 14

Senator Mundt. Time back in.

Mr. Welch. Should be January 14?

Mr. CoHN. That is right. That is a mistake in the transcript. It

should be January 14. ui i -nr u i, ;»

Mr. Welch. Let's not make the reporters blush. We have had

very few mistakes in these transcripts for the speed with which they

come out.

Mr. CoHN. The reporters do an outstanding ]ob, sir.

Mr. Welch. They do indeed, end I have noticed it, because I have
seen a lot of transcripts. .

That is the only date I have seen wrong m the transcript, and it
could even be that you stated it wrong by mistake, for all you and I
know now, is that not right ?

Mr. CoHN. It could be, sir.

Mr. Welch. In any event, we do know the date should be J anuary

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. That is the date.

Mr. Welch. Calling your attention to your testimony, would you
run your mind down on page 4398 and turn over and read at the top
of page 4399?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. I will do that.

I^Ir. Welch. I am particularly interested in the first two lines at
the top of page 4399. What was being discussed, Mr. Cohn, on this
occasion ?

Mr. Cohn. A lot of things, sir. .

Mr. Welch. What was being discussed that is particularly re-
ferred to on the page to which I call your attention ?

Mr. Cohn. That was the overseas visit, sir.

Mr. Welch. From what gentleman, for what man?

Mr. Cohn. For Schine.

Mr. Welch. Overseas for Schine?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. . . i.^ u 4.

Mr. Welch. That was being discussed. There is no doubt about

that is there ?

Mr. Cohn. No. There is no doubt. AVhen you say it was being

discussed, it was brought up by Mr. Adams.

Mr. Welch. You wish to tell me that?

Mr. Cohn. He said so, too.

Mr. Welch. On page 4399, he not only brought it up but, as i
understand your testimony, he brought it up pretty nasty like, is that

right? ^ ^ . .

Mr. Cohn. I would say that is a pretty good description, sir, yes.

Mr. Welch. Is that right, sir?

TVTr Cohn Y^es.

Mr'. Welch. I would suppose that was as critical a conversation
with Mr. Adams in respect to Mr. Schine as you would ever have,
was it not?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2375

Senator Mundt. You may answer the question. The time has
expired.

Mr. CoHN. I wouldn't say that.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins.

The Chair will pass. Members to my left? Senators to my right?
Senator McCarthy ?

Senator McCarthy. I have 1 or 2 questions.

Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn, Mr. St. Clair was referring to
speeches made by General Lawton. I now have the newspaper ac-
counts, and I find they were not speeches ; that he was talking to the
staff with regard to security, and that this is a restricted meeting and
somebody took notes and gave them to the press. Is that correct?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir ; that is correct, as I understand it.

Senator McCarthy. So we may get an idea of what he said, here
is the story.

The remarks by General Lawton were taken down by one of the scientists In
the laboratory and made available. Authenticity was checked with other per-
sons who atended the same lecture and other lectures were delivered by the
general.

Here is an account of what he said :

He gave unqualified support to Senator McCarthy and his methods and, asked
in effect: were there any subversives thrown out of the university before
McCarthy, was anything done at the Signal Corps before McCarthy?

At the same time the general praised the laboratory personnel and cited the
importance of their work. . .^^ ,

He also reportedly praised Senator William Jenner and his committee for

rooting out the Reds. , ^. , ^ ^ •

He then said that McCarthy had done a good job in the Signal Corps hearing

in New York and added that he sat in and was impressed by McCarthys

fairness and courtesy to all the witnesses, it was reported.

General Lawton also said the Army's investigation and handling of Army

security cases was hampered by regulations until McCarthy forced Stevens to

change the ground rules.

Let me see if we can find what he said about these schools.

General Lawton, it is reported, said that his talks with GI's at the laboratory
indicated that those GI's who got into trouble in the Army were from certain
universities.

So the record is clear, when Mr. St. Clair was talking about speeches,
actually he was referring to staff talks with the staff, people who
worked in the laboratory, closed meetings.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir ; I believe they were. ,. , • j-

Senator McCarthy. Have you seen the memorandum which indi-
cated that Mr. Stevens asked Mr. Lawton for an explanation of why
he would praise McCarthy and why he would blame certain colleges
for the Communists they might have turned out? t j-/i

Mr. Cohn. I have not read the memorandum m detail. I did
get a glance at the section in which General Lawton had to explain
what he said about congressional committees investigating communism
doing a good job; yes, sir. And particularly a section, I believe it
was 9, in which he had to explain to Mr. Stevens what he meant by
saying that Senator McCarthy had been responsible for getting out
Communists, and things along those lines.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, as I recall— my memory may
not be correct in this— as I recall, Mr. Stevens or m\ Adams or Mr.

2376 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Welch were ordered bv the Chair to produce that memorandum This
same question has been -one over before If I am correct m that, I
wonder if the memorandum has been produced. If I am not correct, 1
wonder if they could be ordered to produce that now.

Senator Muxdt. The Chair is advised by Mr. Pi-ewitt that we have
the memorandum. It has been delivered to the staff office

Senator McCarthy. I assume that is not classihed secret, i wonder
if I could see that, Mr. Prewitt. -^ .^

Senator Mundt. Mr. Prewitt says he does not have it in the com-
mittee room but he will <ret it and make it available to you.

Senator McCarthy. Thank you.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, you have 10 minutes.

Mr Welch. Now, Mr. Colin, referring you once more to the two
lines that I have read to you about the conversation about Schme

coins overseas

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. . -, , ' ^•

Mr. Welch. You stated you characterized the conversation as

follows :

Mr. Adams threw that in right then at this point I think as an example of
how he could get —

Mr Cohn, will you be good enough to center your attention on the
conversation as you know a witness should and tell us m substance as
best you can call it back to your memory what Adams said to you and

what you said to him? . t -n *. -f

Mr. CoHN. I am sorry— I lost that transcript again. I will get it.
Do you want everything said on that day, sir ? ^i , -, ^

Mr Welch. I want in simple English what was said on that date

in substance by Mr. Adams to you and by you to Mr. Adams about

Dave Schine.

Mr. CoHN. About Dave Schine ?

Mr. Welch. Right: just that part. ^ ■,,■,. . 4.

Mr CoHX. Sure. As I recall it, sir, that part followed a statement

by M'r. Adams to us that he didn't think we were cooperating with

him, that this investigation was going on and on, the loyalty board

members were coming in, and , ^ .i j. i.

Mr Welch. Mr. Cohn, you don't need to tell me about that part.

You had a discussion about'calling loyalty board members, didn t you i
Mr. CoHN. Not only that, sir. We had a discussion — -
Mr. Welch. Didn't you just have that, a conversation about loyalty

boards ?

Mr. CoHN. That was discussed.

Mr. Welch. And a very bitter or certainly a complete disagree-
ment about whether they could or couldn't be called ?

Mr. CoiiN. There was disagreement, sir. I might say

Mr. Welch. Putting that behind you, just move forward to the
talk you had about Dave Schine, if you will.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. In giving that talk, I have to put it m con-
text, because it related to something else.

Mr Welch. We know what the context is, because you had been
discussintr loyalty boards. Tell us what was said about Schine ; what
was said by him\nnd about Schine, and what was said by you about
Schine, in everyday simple English.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2377

Mr. CoHN. It was the general area of the Fort Monmouth investi-
gation, why we were not stopping it, why the loyalty boards were
coming in, and Mr. Adams said we were not cooperating with him.
He then came out in substance and said how would we like it if he
sent Schine overseas, that he could be uncooperative, too, things along
those lines.

Mr. Welch. Not along those lines. Tell us what he said?

Mr. CoHN. I can't tell you his exact words, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, you and I are lawyers. We know what a
witness has to do. All he has to do is recall the substance of what
is said.

Mr. CoHN. That is what I have given you.

Mr. Welch. I think you said he said how would we like it if he
sent Schine overseas ?

Mr. CoHN. I am giving you the substance. The substance was he
was going to do something about changing

Mr. Welch. No; what he said. I don't want to know what he was
going to do. I want to know what he said. Did he say in substance,
How would you like it if

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I have been trying to be very
patient with Mr. Welch here, but I think he should not repeatedly
interrupt the witness. I think this witness by comparison to Mr.
Adams and Mr. Stevens has been extremely short in his answers and
he should be entitled to make the answer that he wants to make.

Mr. Welch. Let's try it once more, Mr. Cohn. Would you just try
to use the English language and tell us in substance what Adams said
to you that you heard about sending Schine overseas? Just tell it
to us at long'last. How would you like it— is that the way he began ?

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Welch, I am sorry, sir. You said once before you
wanted to be fair. You say at long last. It is not at long last. I
told this conversation to Mr. Jenkins the first time he ever asked me
about it.

Mr. Welch. I mean at long last in this colloquy. Now, let's get
it said, please, sir. Tell it to me.

Mr. CoHN. I have said it to you twice today, I will tell it the third
time. The substance of what was said was Mr. Adams had been talk-
ing with us about failure in cooperating with him in getting the loy-
alty board investigation and Monmouth investigation called off. We
had a discussion about that and what he said in substance was, "Well,
how would you people like it if I arranged to have Schine sent over-
seas? I can be uncooperative, too." Think along that line. That
is the way that conversation came about.

Mr. Welch. ''How would you like it if I were to send Schine
overseas?"

Mr. CoHN. That was the substance of it; yes, sir.

]\Ir. Welch. Did you think Adams was making the overseas assign-
ments for soldiers ?

Mr. CoHN. I knew, sir, he was making

Mr. Welch. Did you think so ? Yes or no ?

]Mr. CoHN. I thought, as an ordinary course-

Mr. Welch. Just yes or no. Did you think he was making over-

seas assignments ?

2378 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator IMcCartiiy. ISIr. Chairman, I think the Chair instructed
Mr. Welch to let the witness answer the question.

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes the question can be answered
"Yes" or "No" and then an explanation.

Mr. CoiiN. I can't possibly answer it yes or no. I will answer it
this way, Senator Mundt. I knew ISfr. Adams was not in the or-
dinary course of business making overseas assignments for soldiers.
No. 1. No. 2, I knew in the case of Private Schine, Mr. Adams had
made a point of telling us that what was or was not going to happen
to Schine was going to depend on how Mr, Adams felt about it.

]Mr. Welch. Then, did you think he Avas deciding whether Schine
went overseas or not ?

Mr. CoHN". I thought he could have some influence on that ; yes, sir.

]Mr, Welch. Could have some influence. Now this, you tell us, 3 ou
thought was a nasty statement, is that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Well, I thought, sir ; yes, I thought this

]\Ir. Welch. You thought it was nasty, is that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Here is what I thought about it, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch. Once again, Mr. Cohn, you thought it was nasty, didn't
you?

Senator McCarthy. I believe the word nasty was yours, not Cohn's.

Mr. Welch. Yes, it was. He said it was an occasion when Mr.
Adams got nasty.

I\Ir. Cohn. What I said was this. My reaction to his statement was,
and I think I told him, I didn't care whether Schine went overseas
or did not go overseas. I did not like the idea of Mr. Adams linking
that up with an accusation that Mr. Carr and I jvere not cooperating
with him in killing an investigation.

Mr. Welch. It didn't make any difference to you, did it, whether
Schine went overseas ?

]Mr. Cohn. Not the slightest.

Mr. Welch. And the suggestion that he might go overseas, wasn't
a nasty one? It wasn't a nasty one?

Mr. Cohn. Any suggestion that his assignment was going to be
affected because Mr. Adams didn't like the way Mr. Carr and I were
not stopping the investigation, was to me a thoroughly unpleasant
suggestion to make.

Mr. Welch. My question was simple: Was the idea that Schine
might go overseas — did that strike you — strike that question out.
When Adams said to you, "Schine may go overseas," was that a nasty
thing to say?

Mr. Cohn. Standing by itself, no, sir.

Mr. AYelch. But standing in the context, you thought it was; is
that right?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir. I did, and I do.

]Mr. Welch. And I am sure that is one of the sharpest exchanges
that you ever had with Adams on this point, isn't it ?

JSIr. Cohn. No. You are quite wrong.

Mr. Welch. In any event, it was a sharp exchange, wasn't it ?

Mr. Cohn. I don't think it was a particularly sharp exchange.

Mr. Welch. You remember, Mr. Cohn, that you made a memoran-
dum of that conversation, did you not ?

Mr. Cohn. If there is a memorandum, I did make it ; yes, sir.

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2379

Mr. Welch. You did, didn't you ? You made such a memorandum ?

Mr. CoHN. No doubt I did; yes. I don't think I made a memo-
randum of the conversation.

Mr. AVelch. I think you did. I will come to that in a moment.

Mr. CoHN. No ; I think

Mr. Welch. Where were you when you talked to him ?

Mr. CoHN. I think, Mr. Welch

j\Ir. Welch. Where were you when you talked to him ?

May I ask you where you were when you talked to him ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes.

]Mr. Welch. Where were you ?

Mr. Cohn. Several places.

Mr. Welch. Were you in room 101 ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. Was that where the nasty suggestion was ?

Mr. CoHN. No, I don't think so.

Mr. Welch. You weren't in Senator McCarthy's office while any
of this went on, were you ?

Mr. CoHN. No, we were not. We were in 101 and then as I recall
it we stopped off some place and then we went down to the basement
cafeteria in the Senate — I think that is where we went — we had lunch,
then we came back up into the office.

Mr. Welch. Wliat office, 101 ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. By the way, 101, I take it, means first floor, is that
right, in this building ? Or the second floor ?

]\Ir, CoHN. No, it is a little complicated because there is an "S",
meaning street.

Ithink-

Mr. Welch. In any event, the committee offices are in 101 ; is that
right, or at 101 ?

Mr. Cohn". That is one of the committee offices. There are 3 or 4

Mr. Welch. And the Senator's office is what munber ?

Mr. CoHN. 428, 1 believe.

Mr. Welch. And that sounds to me as if it is up 3 flights, you
go from 1, 2, 3, 4, up 3 flights ; is that right ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. Now, when you got ready to make a memorandum of
the conversation that you had had with Mr. Adams, you went up those
three flights before you made it, is that right ?

INIr. Cohn. No, sir.

jMr. Welch. Well, to whom did you dictate your memorandum ?

3,Ir. Cohn. Mary Driscoll, I imagine.

Mr. Welch. AVhere was she ?

]Mr. Cohn. Outside of Senator McCarthy's desk, office.

Mr. Welch. Right, up on the fourth floor ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. My question is, when you got ready to dictate a memo-
randum in respect to this conversation, you went up to her office?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir ; I didn't go up to her office to dictate a memo-
randum. To answer your question, I did not go up there when I got
ready to dictate a memorandum.

Mr. Welch. I don't mean so much that you went up there for that
purpose. Have you looked at your memorandum of January 14 1

2380 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoHN. No, I haven't. Why don't I do tliat now, sir ?

Mr. Welch. Right.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. It has three paragraphs, hasn't it, Mr. Cohn ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. The first paragraph says in substance that Adams had
been in the office and you had been discussing the loyahy board matter,
is that right?

Mr. CoHN. No, he said

Mr. Welch. Wait a moment, 1 just want to know the subject mat-
ter. One subject is he had been in the office, is that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. That means 101?

Mr. CoHN. Sure.

Mr. Welch. Then he talks about the i^rmy hearings and loyalty
boards and that he was going to resist that ?

Mr. Cohn. He said :

If we keep on with the hearings on the Army and particularly if we call in
those on the loyalty boards who cleared Communists, he will fight us in every way
he can.

Mr. Welch. Did I misrepresent that when I shortened it in some
way to get along ?

Mr. CoHN. It speaks for itself.

Mr. Welch. You were discussing the Army hearings and loyalty
boards, weren't you ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes.

Mr. Welch. And you dealt with that in the first paragraph ?

Mr. CoHN. That is right.

Mr. Welch. In the second paragraph you have something to say
about a man named Haskins who was once on a board and somebody
else who was on the board prior to that ? Is that right ?

Mr. CoHN. That is right, sir.

Mr. Welch. And then lastly you have five lines in which you say
that Adams talked about a law partnership ?

Mr. CoHN. That is right. He did.

Mr. Welch. Now, Mr. Cohn, we don't find a single word

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, your time has expired. I suggest you
defer completing the question.

Mr. Welch. I think I better start it when I come again.

Mr. Jenkins. Pass, Mr. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. Do any Senators to the left have any questions ?

Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, one question.

Mr. Cohn, do you now have the memoranda that I requested yes-
terday

Mr. Cohn. What was that. Senator Jackson ?

Senator Jackson. I say do you now have the memoranda that I
requested yesterday that you furnish relating to the initiation of the
investigation into the Army a year ago?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir ; I don't.

Senator Jackson. Can we have that by after lunch ?

Mr. Cohn. Sir, it is going to mean going through a lot of files.
Do you want that after lunch ?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2381

Senator Jackson. Well, we better reorganize our files in this com-
mittee room. I thought it shouldn't be so difficult to get tlie memo-
randa that set off the investigation of the Army.

Mr. CoHN. Sir, the investigation of the Army was not set off by a
memorandum.

Senator Jackson. Well, you made memoranda, notes, of the inter-
views and information that came to you. At least I am asking this
only on the basis of the fact that you told me that there is supposed
to be some memoranda available.

]Mr. CoHN. No, sir. I recall that the first interviews I had with
witnesses who had information on Communist infiltration into the
Army — I know who I talked to, I know roughly when I talked to
them, I know where I talked to them.

As far as I recall, I did not make notes or memoranda of those
talks. We do have the Crouch memorandum, you have that. There
is this two and a quarter page thing. Just what else there is in
writing, I don't know.

Senator Jackson. Well, Mr. Cohn, I am merely making the request
now based on what I understood you were going to furnish, and I
thought it was going to be furnished yesterday. That is why I am
renewing the request. You say now in your judgment all of the
memoranda has been introduced, namely the Crouch letter and that
two and a quarter page FBI document, which is not introduced but
was attempted to be presented to the committee, is that

Mr. CoHN. I don't know, sir. I don't know just what

Senator Jackson. As you know, I have been passing, and I may
want to ask some questions. If I can see the memoranda. I don't
want to request that you be recalled later.

Mr, Cohn. I am not very clear on just what memoranda you mean.
I know as far as the initiation of the Army investigation is concerned,
we talked to a number of witnesses. We interviewed a number. We
did get some material, Senator.

Senator Jackson. That is what I am talking about. I understood
you had interviewed some people.

Mr. Cohn. Yes ; that is right.

Senator Jackson. You personally, and that Mr. Schine had inter-
viewed someone. I don't recall. Was it Mr. Crouch?

]Mr. Cohn. He interviewed Crouch. He interviewed someone else
I can think of. Of the people I interviewed, I can tell you this. Sen-
ator : I did not make memoranda. I did not dictate memoranda of
the interviews. I can give you the rough time, because I checked back
with the people whom I interviewed, and they have given me their
recollection as to when we had gotten together for the first time about
Communist infiltration in the Army. I did not dictate memoranda of
those interviews.

Senator Jackson. Can you have someone check the files and find
out if there is any memoranda available on this subject which
relates

Mr, Cohn. Sure.

Senator Jackson. To the original initiation of the charges or inves-
tigation into the Army on up to the time you started the hearings at
Fort ISIonmouth ?

jNlr, Cohn. Oh, yes, sir. I am sure on that.

2382 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator Jackson. I wouldn't make much point of tliis except that
it is very important in view of the fact that the statement has been
made that the investigation of the Army started early in 1953, around
February, March, April, in there. On the other hand, the inference
has been made or the allegation, I believe, has been made that the
charges against the Army did not— that the investigation of the Army
did not get under way until Mr. Schine had been turned down for a
commission.

Mr. CoHN. That is untrue, sir.

Senator Jacksox. I say I am trying to get the record straight.
Mr. CoHN. The answer to your problem is right here. Fh-st of all,
you have the Crouch memorandum. If you want, we will have Mr,
Crouch come in before the committee and testify under oath that he
submitted the memorandum to Schine back in March, long before this
commission thing arose.

You have my testimony under oath that I talked to witnesses on
Communist infiltration in the Army in February. One of those wit-
nesses I think would be glad to come in here and testify and tell you
that he talked to me in February.

There is no doubt as to when the investigation began.

Senator Jackson. You see, I am greatly concerned about the point,
because this FBI document relating to o5 names who were supposed
to be, alleged to be, subversives at Fort :Monmouth, was presented in
April and nothing happened until in September. I don't know of
anything that has come before the committee that is any more serious
than what was contained in that document.

I am interested in what was done to follow it iip. because no one —
at least on our side — was ever advised of this investigation of the
Army while we were on the subcommittee.

Mr. CoHN. Senator, the reason for that was this : \Ve had a number
of preliminary investigations under way. Each time we had one,
under the rules of the committee they would be under the direction of
the chairman himself, and not the other members of the committee.
Therefore, each time there was a preliminary investigation, we would
not go running around to all the committee members bothering them
about it. We would get the material and develop it until such a
point that it was ready for executive session hearings, and then the
chairman would convene a meeting of the committee and put the
matter to the committee.

Senator Jackson. What more did you need to do on these 35 names
than the fact that you had the information in this report? What
more needed to be done ?

I\Ir. CoHN. We needed this, Senator Jackson : There was some ma-
terial. No. 1, we had to check out. No. 2, there was a question of other
investigations which had priority. For instance, sir, we were in the
middle of public hearings on the Voice of America investigation

Senator Jackson. No ; that ended in March.

I^Ir. CoiiN. No, sir; I am sorry, sir.

Senator Jackson. Are you sure ?

Mr. CoHN. I am positive.

Senator Jackson. What hearings were held after November 1?

INIr. CoiiN. I am sure the liearings were held in May, sir.

Senator Jackson. On the Voice program ?

SPECIAL INVESTIGATIOlSr 2383

Mr. CoHN. On the Information program, yes, sir. I am positive
of it.

Senator Jackson. On the Information program?

Mr. CoHN". Yes, sir.

Senator Jackson. You went to Europe in April ?

Mr. CoHN. That is right. After we came back, there were hearings.
Tliat was in May. There was an investigation of East-West trade.
I don't know just when the liearings were hekh I think it was some-
time during that period of time.

Senator Jackson. Mr. Cohn, what actual steps were taken after you
received the 35 names in the document ? "What steps did you take to
follow up on these 35 names relating to people at Fort Monmouth?

Mr. CoHN. The first thing I did was this, sir, as I recall it. The
name Aaron Coleman rang a bell, and I went back and got the record
of the Eosenberg trial. I knew that I had heard the name. I knew
it had figured in the Rosenberg case in some way. I was not sure of
the detail. So I remember that I got hold, and I had a little difficulty
getting it — I got hold of a copy of the trial record in the Eosenberg
case. I checked the testimony, and I found the place where there was
reference to Aaron Coleman by — it happened it was a reference by
Julius Eosenberg himself, who named Coleman as one of his Fort
Monmouth friends.

1 then went over and I remember I reread the Greenglass testi-
monv and some other things. That was one of the first steps which
I took.

We also checked with other people who we thought might have
information on this situation. We heard another congressional com-
mittee had done some work on this. We obtained from that com-
mittee some files and documents

Senator Jackson. Which committee was that?

Mr. CoHN. I am not sure. I think it was the House Committee
on Un-American Activities.

Senator Jackson. When did you do that ?

JNIr. CoHN. I don't know the exact date. I could probably get that.

Senator Jackson. Why would you want to go to the House Com-
mittee on Un-American Activities when you have the epitome of in-
formation in the form of an FBI report? What are you going to
find over there that would be superior to the information that you
had in the FBI report?

Mr. CoiiN. It wasn't a question of superior, sir. It was a question
of getting a complete picture so we knew where Ave were going.

Senator Jackson. No, but you have emphasized in the previous in-
terrogation that after these names it had "E," Avhich meant "Eus-
sian,'' I am talking about this 214 pfige document. It has been em-
phasized in connection with the interrogation by you or by Senator
McCarthy that the importance of this document should not be over-
looked because of the fact that it had "E," and I believe something
else which indicated ''Espionage — Eussian." Isn't that right? That
all has been brou2;ht out here in public.

Mr. CoHN. It IS an important document, surely.

Senator Jackson. I understand. You had that in March. For the
life of me, I can't understand

2384 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. CoiiN. I don't know that it was March, sir. I think it was
given to Senator JMcCarthy in the spring sometime.

Senator Jackson. I think he testified around maybe March or
ApriL

Mr, Coiw. Aronnd that period.

Senator Jackson. Mr. Stevens had been in office only a couple of
months ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes.

Senator Jackson. Wouldn't the logical and sensible thing to do be
to say, "Look, Mr. Secretary, maybe I haven't seen this information.
Here are 35 names. Can't we work together and find out immediately
what this is all about? If these people are questionable characters,
let's see if you can't suspend them right now." Wouldn't that be the
reasonable thing to do?

Mr. CoiiN. No, sir ; I don't think it could have been done that way
then.

Senator Jackson. But Mr. Stevens had been in office only 2 months
and he couldn't possibly have gone through the files of G-2 where
this report was located.

Mr. CoHN. No doubt about it, sir, but the man who came in and
gave Senator McCarthy the information as I understand it, said that
the people over there wdio had the say on these things knew all about
it, that they had known about it for some period of time and that they
had not done anything about it, and apparently weren't going to do
anything about it. It seemed like a little bit — there didn't seem much
point at that stage in our going back to them.

Senator Jackson. Mr. Colin, isn't that all the more reason why you
then ought to go to the top man, the Secretary of the Army, based on
the fact that these people down below you you knew wouldn't do any-
thing about it ?

Mr. CoHN. No, sir. It was the chairman's judgment at that time
that what we ought to do that we were in the middle of hearings on
other things, that we should develop the case, get as much information
as we could, build it up and then give it a priority order for hearings
by this committee in carrying out its responsibilities.

Senator Mundt. Your time has expired.

Mr. CoHN. And that is what we did.

Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak ?

Senator Symington ?

Senator McCarthy?

Senator McCarthy. Just one question.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. We kept :Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams fully
informed during all the stages of the hearings. We even invited them
to attend all our executive sessions ; is that correct ?

INIr. CoHN. There is no doubt about it.

Senator JMcCarthy. As an example of the type of cooperation we
gave, you called Mr. Adams and told him about the Peress case in 1953 ?

Mr. CoHN. That is right.

Senator McCarthy. And called him a number of times. And finally
\shen no action w^as taken, we called hearings ; is that right ?

Mr. Cohn. That is right, sir.

Senator IMcCarthy. And that has been the method of operation
with the military during all the times that we have worked with them

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2385

lip until we found that they were deliberately trying to call off the
hearings ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Senator McCarthy. No further questions.

Senator ]\Iundt. Mr. Welch, you have 10 minutes.

Mr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, I was fascinated with the questions that
Senator Jackson was asking you. As I understand it, you got this
purloined document in March or April of 1953 ; is that right ?

]\Ir. CoHN. This what document, sir ?

Mr. Welch. This FBI document.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. It was in the spring of 1953.

Mr. Welch. Did you hear the word I applied to it ?

Mr. CoHN. I wasn't sure I understood it correctly.

Mr. Welch. Do you want to hear it ?

Mr. CoHN. That is your option, ]\Ir. Welch, not mine.

Mr. Welch. Purloined. You got it in March or April; is that
right?

Mr. Cohn. Sir, I don't know whether the document was purloined
or whether it wasn't. I know that due to that and some other things
there are 35 subversives who are out of Fort Monmouth and who were
in there before we came along.

Mr, Welch. I understand that. You had a new Secretary of the
Anny over there, didn't you ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir.

Mv. Welch. And this document long antedated his being Secretary ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes ; some 2 or 3 years.

Mr, Welch. And when you saw it, you must have thought it was a
frightening document ; is that right ? _

Mr. CoHN. I thought it was a disturbing situation ; yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. And one involving a situation where time is of the
essence ; is that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Any situation, surely.

Mr, Welch. That is right, isn't it?

Mr. Cohn, Surely.

Mr. Welch. And you had a brand new Secretary of the Army,
didn't you ?

Mr. Cohn, Yes, sir,

Mr, Welch, He was either 4 weeks in office, say, 8 weeks in office,
or something like that ; is that right ?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.

Mr, Welch. Now, with this frightening information in your hand^,
if you could hail a taxicab, you could get Bob Stevens on the job
about these Communists within whatever time it takes to drive from
here to the Pentagon ; is that right ?

Mr, Cohn. No, sir.

'Mv. Welch. That is not right?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Mv. Welch, Well, at least you could have gone over. Do you think
you would have got near him if you had gone over in the front door
of the Pentagon and yelled out loud to some receptionists, "We got a
lot of hot dope on Communists in the Army" ?

Don't you think that would have taken you right straight to
Stevens ?

2386 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr, CoHX. If I had what, sir?

Mr. Welch. If you had gone over to the Pentagon and got inside
the door and yelled to the tirst receptionist you saw, "We got some
hot dope on some Communists in the Army" don't you think you
would have landed at the top?

Mr. CoHN. Sir, that is not the way I do things.

Mr. Welch. It may not be the way you do things, but you were
counsel to the committee, weren't you ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir ; I was.

Mr. Welch. And the Senator was a Senator?

Mr. CoHN. And a very good one, sir.

]\Ir. Welcpi. Yes, sir. And have you the slightest doubt that you
could have gotten Bob Stevens' ear the moment you got ahold of that
document ?

Mr. CoHX. It is perfectly possible I could have, sir.

Mr. Welch. You know you could have, don't you ?

Mr. CoHN. I don't dispute it for one minute.

Mr. Welch. And you tell us now that you were busy with hearings
in other cases, is that right?

Mr. Con X. Yes, sir ; we were.

]\Ir. Welch. And although you had this dope and a fresh and
ambitious new Secretary of the Army, reachable by the expenditure
of one taxicab fare, you never went during March, if you had it in
March, did you, is that right?

Mr. CoHX. Mr. AA'elch

INIr. Welch. Just answer. You never went near him in March?

Mr. CoHX. No, I

Mr. Welch. Or April ? Did you ?

IMr. CoHN. Mr. "Welch

Mr. Welch. Tell me, please.

Mr. CoHX. I am trying, sir.

Mr. Welch. Or April ?

Mr. CoHX. No, sir.

Mr. Welch. Or May ?

Mr. Cohx. I never went near him, sir.

Mr. Welch. Or June ?

Mr. CoHx. The answer is never.

Mr. Welch. Eight. Or July ?

Mr. Cohx. I communicated

Mr. Welch. Or July?

Mr. Cohx. No, sir

Senator Muxdt. I think we have covered July.

Mr. Welch. I think it is really dramatic to see how these Commu-
nist hunters will sit on this document when they could have brought
it to the attention of Bob Stevens in 20 minutes and they let month
after month go by without going to the head and saying, "Sic 'em,
Stevens."

Mr. Cohx. Senator Mundt

Mr. Welch. Now, turning back to my other matter.

Mr. Cohx. May I answer that last statement ?

Mr. Welch. I only said you didn't say, "Sic 'em, Stevens," and
you didn't, did you ?

Mr. Cohx. Mr. Welch, you said a few days ago that you wanted to
be fair. If you do want to be fair, sir, you will let me correct what

SPECIAL IN\'ESTIGATION 2387

is an erroneous impression which yon are trying to convey here.

Mr. Welch. I am not trying to convey the impression that you actu-
ally said, "Sic 'em, Stevens," you miderstand that, don't you?

Mr. CoHN. I think I understand what you are trying to do, sir.

Mr. Welch. And I am actually trying to convey the impression
that you did not say, "Sic 'em, Stevens," is that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Sir

Mr. Welch. Is that right ?

Mr. CoHN. Mr. Welch, if you want to know the way the tilings
work, I will tell you.

Mr. Welch. I don't care how it works. I just want to know if it is
right that you did not say, "Sic 'em, Stevens."

Mr. Cohn. No, sir, you are right.

Mr. Welch. I am at long last right once, is that correct ?

Mr. Cohn, Mr. Welch, you can always get a laugh. You are prob-
ably right a thousand times more often

]\rr. Welch. Mr. Cohn, we are not talking about laughing matters.
If there is a laugh, I suggest to you, sir, it is because it is so hard to get
you to say that you didn't actually yell, "Sic 'em, Stevens."

Mr. Cohn. Senator Mundt, may I give an answer to this whole
string of questions which Mr. Welch has been throwing at me?

Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, I suggest that there is no pending
question, and that there is nothing that needs an answer, unless it be
those slowly creeping months when we had that Secretary over there
anxious to be turned loose and nobody would say, "Sic 'em, Stevens."
May I go ahead to another matter, Mr. Cohn, or would you prefer
not

Senator Mundt. The Chair believes that there is no question pend-
ing, and if there is a question to be asked, your counsel will have 10
minutes in due course to ask any questions.

]Mr, Cohn. Senator Mundt, if you feel, sir, that it is fair for Mr.
Welch /

Senator Mtjndt. I wasn't ruling on whether I considered it fair.
I was simply ruling oii this fact that I saw no pending question. He
was simply making some dramatic statements about "Sic 'em,
Stevens," as far as I understood. You have a counsel here, and the
Chair interprets one of the functions of counsel is that when his time
comes to ask questions, he will elicit from you the information that
Mr. Welch desires you to state.

Senator McCarthy. An important point of order, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Welch knows that my counsel wouldn't call up and say, "Sic
'em. Stevens."

That may sound funny as all get out here. It may get a laugh.
He knows it is ridiculous. He is wasting time doing it. He is trying
to create a false impression. I would suggest that after this long
series of ridiculous questions, talking about why he wouldn't go over
to the Pentagon and yell out "Sic 'em, Stevens," that Mr. Cohn
should be able to tell what happened after the document was received.
That is the only fair thing, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, that is an answer to Mr. Welch's questions.

Senator Mundt. May the Chair say in answer to the point of order
that Mr. Welch said he was not concerned about what happened,
except whether or not he said "Sic 'em, Stevens."

2388 SPECIAL INVESTIGATIO?T

Yoli are the counsel for :Mr. Cohn, I think it wonld be highly appro-
priate in your 10 minutes to ask him ^vhat did happen, and he can
then answer.

Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, every other witness has been
allowed to answer at length. Mr. Cohn, I think, has been answering
every question as briefly as any human being could, and as truthfully.
Now Mr. Welch has a series of 6 or 7 questions, and answers his own
questions, and plays to the gallery here, as though this were a vaude-
ville show, which it isn't. This is a pretty serious matter, Mr. Chair-
man. While we are having fun here while Mr. Welch is trying to put
on a circus, there are Communists in defense plants handling secret
work, there to sabotage the work of this Nation, Communists who may
at this very moment be decreeing the death of the sons of some people
in this vei-y audience, in this building. We go through this long,
ridiculous series of questions about "Sic 'em, Stevens." I think that
Mr. Cohn should have the right to answer the implied question. The
question that he was asking was what did Mr. Cohn do wdien he got
a resume of an FBI report which showed that there were Communists
in the secret radar laboratories and why didn't he go to the door of
the Pentagon and yell, "Sic 'em, Stevens." I think, Mr. Chairman,
that is a question he sliould be entitled to answer at this time.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will restate his position. As he under-
stands the preceding record, ^Mr. Welch said he was not interested in
what happened beyond the point of whether or not he stood in front
of the Pentagon and said, "Sic 'em, Stevens." Mr. Cohn said he did
not say, "Sic 'em, Stevens." Mr. Welch is interested in no other phase

of it. . . ^

'Wlien you have your 10 minutes, as counsel you may ascertain that

information from Mr. Cohn.

Senator I^IcCarthy. :Mr. Chairman, I will insist that every witness
be treated fairly here. He asked him what happened in March, what
happened in April, what happened in May. Before Mr. Cohn could
even answer one word, our clever little friend here, playing to the
vaudeville audience, as he thinks it is— it is not a vaudeville audience;
it is the American people, interested in the facts— interrupts for the
purpose of getting a laugh. You can get laughs here but they are
rather expensive laughs, Mr. Chairman, and I think this young man
should be entitled to answer that series of questions whicli were asked.

Senator Mundt. The Chair understands the question to have been
simply, "Did you see Mr. Stevens in May, in June, in July?" and the
answer of the witness was, "Never," which seems to cover that. The
Chair restates the fact that you, as counsel for Mr. Cohn, may ask
him the questions to elicit the information which Mr. Welch says is
of no interest to him, and that is, what actually did happen. Mr.
Welch is interested in whether he said, "Sic 'em," or not, and he said
he did not. Mr. Welch, you may continue. The point of order is
overruled. ISIr. Welch.

Senator McCarthy. Another point of order, then.

Senator Mundt. You may state it.

Senator McCarthy. Can we have a ruling from the Chair now that
the same rule applies to Mr. Welch that applies to all the Senators,
and that is when he asks a question, he remains quiet until the witness
can answer ?

SPECIAL IN\'ESTIGATION 2389

Senator Mundt. The Chair will do his best to enforce that rule.
Go ahead, Mr. Welch.

Senator McCarthy. Is that the rule now that applies to Mr.
"Welch ? If so, I intend to raise a point of order every time he violates
it, because I am getting sick of this circus. I am getting sick of this
filibustering. I have given up my time so that we could get through
with this, and instead of trying to get through, Mr. Welch is trying
to create a circus and filibuster. Whether he is intrigued by the tele-
vision lights or Avhat, I don't know.

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, you have 10 minutes, or the remaining
part. How much time does he have ? You have 6 more minutes.

Mr. Welch. jNIt. Chairman.

Senator Mundt. I am listening to you, Mr. Welch.

Mr. Welch. This is quite a solemn moment with me.

Senator Mundt. I am happy we have arrived at a solemn moment.

Mr. Welch. I don't often say anything on my own behalf. If I
have appeared to the Senators in this room or this audience or even
on teleA^ision — of which happily I am generally unaware — as seeking
to be a cloAvn or to make a funny joke or to catch a headline, may I
disclaim that. I am only trying to dramatize the fact that we had a
new Secretary of the Army over there, described in this room as a
Communist hater, and it seems to me that it would have been simple
to have gone over and gotten his help. If, Senator, in tiying to
dramatize, it has seemed to you that I was playing for a laugh, I beg
of you, believe me, I was not.

Senator McCarthy. Would you yield, Mr. Welch? I think, then,
what you should do is let this young man tell what he did. You say he
should have gone over and got some help.

Mr. Welch. May I move along? May I?

And similarly solemnly at the moment, Mr. Cohn, we have heard
many days ago that there were 130 Communists in defense plants,
and a letter was written by the Army saying, "Let's have the names
of those." I haven't yet heard that they have gone over. Is it correct
that, as far as you know, they have not gone over ?

Mr. Cohn. As far as I know, sir, Senator McCarthy has offered
those names to the Defense Department under the rules of this com-
mittee. If there has not been an acceptance of the offer, that is some-
thing of which I don't know.

Mr. Welch. Let's have it simply. They just haven't gone over.

Senator JNIcCarthy. He doesn't have to answer that.

Mr. Cohn. The answer to you, Mr. Welch, is that the last I heard
of it was that Senator McCarthy had offered the names and that there
had not been an acceptance of the offer. I don't know that there has
been any change in the situation.

Mr, Welch. Let me go back to the memorandum that I was asking
you about on January 14. You remember, Mr. Cohn, that I Avas just
on the point of asking you whether you — strike that out. You were
down in room 101 when you talked to Adams; is that right?

Mr. Cohn. Pardon me, sir?

Mr. Welch. You were down in room 101 when you talked to Adams.

Mr. Cohn. Part of the time, yes, sir.

Mr. Welch. And there are six stenographers there.

Mr. Cohn. Pardon me, sir ?

2390 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Mr. Welch. And there are six stenographers there.

Mr. CoHN. I don't think that there ^Yere stenographers there at
that time, sir. I am not sure.

Mr. Welch. You mean it wasn't business hours ?

Mr. CoiiN. No, it isn't that. There was an arrangement made,
a chanfje made by Mr. Carr — I am inclined to think it was the begin-
ning ot February — under which he moved the stenographers over intp
room 101, which had formerly been occupied by staff members, and
he moved some staff members who had been in 101 down to another
room.

Mr. Welch. In any event, you went upstairs and dictated this
memorandum to Mrs. Driscoll, is that right?

Mr. CoHN. I did go upstairs, yes, sir, and I did dictate the memo-
randum to Mrs. Driscoll.

Mr. Welch. To Mrs. Driscoll. How soon after the conversation
did you go up and dictate it?

Mr. CoPiN. I haven't any idea, sir. I know that I went up to see
Senator McCarthy and he wasn't there, and I dictated this.

Mr. Welch. Don't you ever dictate anything down in the room on
the first floor ?

Mr. CoHN. Yes, I dictate some things there, sir.

Mr. Welch. But not this?

Mr. CoHN. No, I did not.

Mr. Welch. Not this?

Mr. Cohn. No, sir.

Mr. Welch. Was there anything peculiarly secret about this?

Mr. CoHN. About this? No, I wouldn't say there was anything
particularly secret about it.

Mr. Welch. Anything peculiarly odd that would make you go up
three flights of stairs to dictate it to someone when you had
stenographers

Mr. CoHN". I didn't go up there to dictate it, sir.

Mr. Welch. I see. Did you intend to dictate it after you heard
Adams talk about it?

Mr. CoiiN. I think the answer to that is no, sir.

Mr. Welch. No. And you made up your mind later to dictate it ?

JNIr. CoHX. I think what happened, INIr. Welch

JNIr. Welch, You can answer that. You made up your mind later?

]\Ir. Cohn. I don't even know if I made up my mind. I went up to
see Senator McCarthy and tell him something. When he wasn't there,
I left a message, a memorandum, with his secretary, leaving word as
to what I wanted him to know.

Mr. Welch. This is that memorandum?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes, sir, it is.

Mr. Welch. You dictated it to her, is that right?

Mr. Cohn. Yes, I did.

Mr. AVelch. When did you next see it?

Mr. Cohn. I don't think I ever saw it after that, sir.

Mr. Welch. Not until March 11 or thereabouts, or did you even
then ?

Mr. Cohn. Probably I saw it around that time, sir.

Mr. Welch. Around March?

Mr. Cohn. Yes. I don't think I saw it before that.

SPECIAL INVESTlGATIOlSr 2391

Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, your time has expired.

Mr. Jenkins ?

Mr. Jenkins. I have no further questions.

Senator Mundt. The Chair will pass. Senator Jackson ?

Senator Jackson. I have just one question, Mr. Chairman.

We referred to this matter when my time expired, Mr. Cohn. You
stated in the course of the hearings that Mr. Coleman, I believe, was
an espionage agent and in contact with high espionage agents.

Mr. CoHN. You say I said that, sir ?

Senator Jackson. Yes.

Mr. Cohn. No; I didn't.

Senator Jackson. Haven't you referred to him as being in contact
with high espionage agents ?

Mr. Cohn. No. Being in contact with them ?

Senator Jackson. Yes.

Mr. CoHN. I have referred to that, and I will stand by that state-
ment, and I will prove it, sir.

Senator Jackson. Wouldn't that make him an espionage agent ?

Mr. CoHN. The fact that he was in contact with them?

Senator Jackson. Yes.

Mr. CoHN. It might and it might not.

Senator Jackson. The implication is, if he is in contact with high
espionage agents, he is not in contact with them about social matters
or something like that.

Mr. CoHN. That is the question of drawing an implication. I
would say the contact would probably be enough not to have him work-
ing in a secret radar laboratory. As to whether it is enough to say he
is guilty of violating the espionage laws, that would depend on some
other evidence, sir.

Senator Jackson. I understand, but it is a pretty serious implica-
tion if you make a statement and say that he is in contact with high
espionage agents. I mean, the implication that comes from that is
very serious. If you said that he had met such people socially and
didn't know who they were, but maybe he is a little naive, that would
be another kind of statement, wouldn't it?

Mr. CoHN. Sure. Well

Senator Jackson. My point is very simple. If Mr. Coleman was
of this type of character — and I believe you have criticized Mr.
Stevens, the Secretary of the Army, for not acting promptly on
security matters in various situations that have been before the com-
mittee — how can you be critical of Mr. Stevens when these 35 names
were known to you and not to the other members of the committee for
months ?

Mr. CoHN. I don't understand that, sir.

Senator Jackson. Well, it is very simple. You knew of these 35
names that were contained in this shortened FBI

Mr. CoHN. No, sir. Senator Jackson

Senator Jackson. You didn't know about this two and a quarter
page memorandum ?

Mr. CoHN. I knew about it, sir. But I don't think that the 35
names in that memorandum are identical to the names of the 35 people
who have been suspended at Fort Monmouth, sir.

2392 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

Senator Jackson. All right. Let's just talk about Mr. Coleman.
That was the serious one in that list of 35.

Mr. CoiiN. He was one of the serious ones. There is one other

Senator Jackson. Let's talk about Coleman first. There is one
other I would say who is probably just as serious.

Let's talk about Coleman. You knew about Coleman in March or
April?

Mr. CoHN. Around that time ; yes, sir.

Senator Jackson. And from March until September nothino; was
done about it, in getting him removed, so far as the committee was
concerned ?

INIr. CoiiN. I wouldn't say that, sir.

Senator Jackson. Well, as a matter of fact, you first learned about
it in March or April, is that right ?

Mr. CoiiN. Yes. It was in the spring.

Senator Jackson. Then if you knew about this man being in con-
tact with high espionage agents, why didn't you tell Mr. Stevens who
had just been in the Army as Secretary for 2 months, the Attorney
General, who was in charge of the overall operation of FBI ?

Mr. CopiN. Because, sir, I knew from this that the Attorney General
and the FBI knew all about it already, Xo. 1. No. 2, I knew that
they had given api:)ropriate notice to the people in Mr. Stevens' organ-
ization who were charged with this responsibility, not once but on a
great number of occasions, and that despite the ample evidence and
warnings which I am sure were far more persuasive coming from
the FBI than they would have been from me, there was no action
taken over there in the Army.

Senator Jackson. Let's pin one thing down right now. Did Mr.
Brownell know about this in April ?

Mr. CoHN. I don't know if Mr. Brownell knew about it.

Senator Jackson. You said the Attorney General knew.

Mr. CoHN. Sir, when I say the Attorney (jeneral, I don't expect
Mr. Brownell as Attorney General or ]Mr. Stevens as Secretary of
the Army, to know the contents of every file or document or any-
thing like that in his organization.

When I refer to Attorney General, sir, I mean the Office of the
Attorney General. When I refer to the FBI, I mean the organiza-
tion of which J. Edgar Hoover is Director. I don't mean that the
head of each organization knows the contents of every file or every
pending case in the office. I don't

Senator Jackson. INIr. Colin, you have stated that the radar labo-
ratory at Fort Monmouth is one of the most important in the whole
country, that it is the key to our security against a hydrogen-atomic
attack. Here is a man, Mr. Coleman, in contact with high espionage
agents. Isn't that, if it involves the very heart, as I think Senator
McCarthy said, and I agree with him, one man may be able to destroy
this country, why didn't you go to Mr. Brownell with that
information ?

IMr. CoHN. Because, sir, I knew that the organization headed by Mr.
Brownell, which includes the FBI and Mr. Hoover, not only was
aware of that information, but had passed that information along to
G-2 of the Army, not once but on many occasions, so it

SPECIAL ESrVESTIGATION 2393

Senator Jackson. Do you know that it was turned over to Mr.
Brownell ? He is the officer that is responsible.

Mr. CoHN. Sir, I could not see what advantage there would be m
my going back to people who had already turned over the informa-
tion1;o the right place and say— what could I say to them ? They had
already done their job. . , , i

Senator Jackson. Mr. Cohn, if you can't get action from the people
down below, isn't it just a rule of commonsense you go to the top man?

Mr. Cohn. But there had been action on the part of the top in the
FBI and in the Justice Department.

Senator Jackson. No. I want you to state whether you know of
your own knowledge that this information, that this man Coleman,
a high espionage agent, that information

Mr. Cohn. You said a high espionage agent.

Senator Jackson. All right, an agent or an individual in contact
with high espionage agents in this country, whether this information
had been turned over to the boss of the overall organization that
collects the information, the FBI, and the organization that institutes
prosecution, Mr. Brownell.

Mr. Cohn. My answer to you, Senator ;-

Senator Jackson. I think it is a fair question. ^

Mr. Cohn. Surely, sir, and I will try to give you a fair answer,

if I may. ,^ . . , ,, .

As far as I loiow, Mr. Brownell did not personally know about this
particular case. As far as I know, Director Hoover might not even
have known personally or had in mind at that moment this particular
case. I did Imow, sir, that the Justice Department and the FBI had
carried out their job by sending over the information to G-2 of the
Army. So that their responsibility was at an end, and there would
have' been no point in my communicating with them about this.

Senator Jackson. Mr. Cohn, I am just trying to be fair to this new
administration, and I want to say to you that when you have such
information, it seems obvious to me that it is not a matter of law, we
don't have to be technical, it is just commonsense if you have such
information that it would seem to me that it should have gone directly
to Mr. Brownell from you.

Xow this next question

Mr. Cohn. Sir, you say directly to Mr. Brownell from me. Mr.
Brownell or Mr. Hoover or their respective organizations are the
ones who had gotten the information and sent it to the Army with a

request for action. . . , . i v

Senator Jackson. Wait a minute. Lets pm that down. You say
Mr. Brownell and his organization sent it over? \Vlien was tins
report sent to G-2 ? .

Mr. Cohn. This was sent in 1951. Tliere were others m 1952.
I assume there were others in 1953. I don't know.

Senator Jackson. How do you know they sent other reports?

Mr Cohn. I told you, sir, that this same man who went to see
Senator McCarthy told him that this 1951 report was but one of a
long series which had been sent by the FBI to the Army for action.
I gave dates of some additional ones.

Senator Jackson. How can you say that Mr. Brownell sent them
over, the Attorney General ? Obviously he doesn't know, can t know

2394 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

about every detail. But sometliinfj as alarming as this, this is a matter
for interest and really doing something about it. Let's go to the
top man. The allegations that have been made in this controversy
relate to the fact that Mr. Stevens had coddled Communists. He had
only been in office 2 months, and you knew about this information.
"Wouldn't the proper thing to do be to give this directly to Mr. Stevens ?
He couldn't possibly know of all of the files in G-2, literally thousands
and thousands of them.

IVlr. CoHN. Senator Jackson, nobody has said here that Mr. Stevens
did know or even should have known at that point about this par-
ticular situation, and we were not investigating Mr. Stevens' personal
knowledge or lack of knowledge. What we were investigating was
whether a department of which Mr. Stevens was at that time the head,
had then or in the past and continuing to the present, failed to take
action on warnings that had been sent over by the FBI.

I do not say, and no one in this room has said, that Mr. Stevens
was derelict in not having knowledge. "We do say that people in
Mr. Stevens organization should have acted on the basis of this in-
formation, and we say, sir, that people who had been Mr. Stevens' —
who had worked under the predecessors of Mr. Stevens, likewise,
should have taken action on the situation.

Sir, without prolonging this any more, perhaps I can say it to
you this way : "\Ve get a lot of cases, we get information on a lot of
Communists, we process it as best we can, we can only handle one
investigation at a time, we do the job as effectively as we can. Whether
we followed the right or wrong approach here, no one will ever
know. All I do know is that wlien we got into this investigation,
these people were fired. Before we did, they were not fired.

Senator Jackson. Mr. Cohn, what was more important at the time,
to try to prove that Mr. Stevens and his organization was negligent,
or to go directly with this information about these alleged Commu-
nists and give them the names and put them right on the spot? Then
you would have a record, saying, "Here, we turned them over in
April. You did nothing about it."

Mr. CoHjsT. Sir, we were not trying to make a record.

Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.

Senator Dworshak ?

Senator ISIcCarthy ?

Senator JMcCartiiy, Mr. Cohn, I was rather amused, as I sat here
and listened to my friend from Washington State demand that we
take this FBI document and take it over to BroAvnell, especially after
the people on his side of the aisle have been demanding over the past
number of days that the j'oung man who gave us the information
should be indicted. I just can't quite following this blowing hot and
blowing cold. One day

Senator Jackson. A point of order.

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish my question.

Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson has a point of order.

Senator Jackson. I just want the record to show that I did not state
that Mr. Cohn should bring the document over. I said that the in-
formation that they had should be made available to tliem.

Senator McCarthy. As I started to say, Mr. Cohn, I am rather
amused when I find my Democrat friends here criticizing you for not
taking to Brownell information which you knew came from Brownell's

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2395

office and went to Army Intelligence. The inference is that you were
derelict. In one breath, they accuse you of being derelict in that.
In the next breath they say that the young man who gave us the in-
formation about these Communists should be indicted and in fact I
believe it is suggested that I should be indicted and jailed for having
received this information about Communists. The simple fact of the
matter is that we knew that all this information had gone to the
proper authorities in the military. There is no way we could order
them to act upon it.

The only thing we could do is to develop the facts, bring them out
publicly and force them to act, because of the pressure of public
opinion. That was done. After we made the facts public, some 35
individuals who were suspected of violating the Espionage Act, were
suspended, is that correct ?

INIr. CoHX. That is about right, sir.

Senator McCarthy. Could we draw a parallel, perhaps, with the
Hiss case ? In the Hiss case it was found that the information given
by Whittaker Chambers as early as 1939 or '40, I forget which — the
FBI, according to information that has been made public in news-
papers, sent over additional reports time after time. Finally, when
Senator JNIundt and Vice President Nixon on a committee made the
information public, as you may recall, there was speculation as to
whether they would indict "Whittaker Chambers for having given the
information about this Communist spy, or whether they would indict
Alger Hiss.

You will recall that at that time, even though the information was
available to the State Department for years, Mr. Hiss was not de-
moted or suspended because of it, but got the highest job, perhaps,
which the State Department could offer him. "What was the title —
Secretary

Mr. CoHN. He was Secretary General of the United Nations Con-
ference at San Francisco, sir.

Senator McCarthy. And also had a very important job in the
State Department.

Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. Before that, he had, sir.

Senator McCarthy. The information was called to the attention
of Mr. Berle, Assistant Secretary of State. I believe his testimony
was that he called it to the attention of others. It was only when a
congressional committee forced the facts out so the American people
could see them that they finally indicted and convicted Mr. Hiss.

Mr. Coh?^. Senator, the answer to that, sir, is "Yes," and I can
state here and now, I hope, once and for all, just what the situation is.

Perhaps Mr. Welch doesn't understand. We have a very small
staff of young men downstairs who do this work. We have maybe
9 or 10. As against that. Army Intelligence and people like that
have, I believe, thousands of people working for them. We get a lot
of information, serious information about Communists in radar lab-
oratories and defense plants and the Government Printing Office and
other places. We cannot develop every case at once. We can only
do one at a time.

They work hard and they do it as well as they can. We move along
with as much speed as we can. I think as far as the young men
downstairs are concerned, the statistics of the number of Communists

2396 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION

tliey have eliminated from the United State Government and defense
plants is the best testimony as to how successful they have been.

It is very hard to define a method of operation and say, looking
back, just at what point you take what steps. We try to do these
things in order of their importance and priority. We did the Gov-
ernment Printing Office. Then we did this investigation here. There
are about nine people downstairs. They work hard, and I think
they do a very, very effective job, and I think they have gotten a lot
of Communists out of Government and defense plants.

I think that should be the basis for the judgment as to their efficiency.

Senator Mundt. Senator, my attention has been called to the fact
that we have run past 12 : 30. I suggest we recess now, and you may
have the rest of your 10 minutes this afternoon.

We are adjourned until 2 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12 : 45 p. m., the hearing was recessed until 2 p. m.,
of the same day.)

INDEX

Page

Adams, John G 2346, 2347, 2370-2372, 2374-2379, 2384, 2389, 2390

Air Force (United States) 2355

Appleton State Bank 2351

Appropriations Committee 2346

Army (United States) 2347, 2349,

2355-2357, 2362, 2363, 2375, 2380-2382, 2385, 2386, 2389, 2392-2395

Armv Intelligence (G-2) 2392-2395

Army Signal Corps 2347, 2349, 2355, 2362, 2363, 2375

Assistant Secretary of State 2395

Attorney General of the United States 2392-2394

Berle, Mr 2395

Bishop of Aiizona (former) 2360

Browuell, Mr 2392-2394

Camp Kilmer 2365, 2370

Capitol Police 2345

Carey. James B 2360-2362

Carr, Francis P 2369-2371, 2378, 2390

Chambers, Whittaker 2395

CIO (Congress of Industrial Organizations) 2362

Clifford, Clark 2350-2352, 2354

Cohn, Roy M., testimony of 2346-2398

Coleman, Aaron 2356, 2364, 2383, 2392

Columbia 2367

Comintern 2354

Committee on Appropriations (Senate) 2346

Committee on Un-American Activities (House) 2383

Communist association 2354

Communist conspiracy 2354

Communist infiltration in the Army 2381, 2382, 2385, 2386

Communist infiltration of Fort Monmouth laboratories 2369

Communist Party 2348, 2354, 2355,

2358-2365, 2369, 2375, 2380-2382, 2385, 2386, 23S8, 2389, 2394-2396

Communist Russia 2364

Communist spy 2395

Communists 2348, 2354, 2355,

2358-2365, 2369, 2375, 2380-2382, 2385, 2386, 2388, 2389, 2394-2396

Communists in the radar laboratories 2358

Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO) 2362

Conklin, William R 2349

Counselor to the Army 2346, 2347, 2370-2372, 2374-2379, 2384, 2389, 2390

Crouch, Mr 2381, 2382

Daily Worker 2351, 2352

Defense Department (United States) 2389

Department of the Army__ 2347, 2349, 2355-2357, 2362, 23G3, 2375, 2380-2382, 2385,

2386, 1:389, 23D2-2305

Department of Justice 2356, 2357, 2393

Dirksen, Senator 2346

Drake Hotel 2372

Driscoll, Mary 2379

Dworshak. Senator 2346

Emerson Electric TJanufacturhig Co. (St. Louis) 2361

Emercon Radio Co 2330

Espionage Act 2395

"Espionage-Russian"' 2.SS3

Europe 2383

U ESTDEX

Page

FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 23r>6,

2357, 2366, 2381-23S3, 2385, 2388, 2391-2394

FBI 2381, 2382, 2385, 2394

FBI report 2383, 2388

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2356,

2357, 2366, 2381-2383, 2385, 2388, 2391-2394

Federal Telecommunications Laboratory 2355, 2363, 2364

Fifth amendment Communist doctor 2364

Fifth amendment Communist major 2365

Fort Monmouth 2346, 2348-

2350, 2354-2358, 2362, 2363, 2369, 2377, 2382, 2383, 2385, 2391-2393

G-2 (Army Intelligence) 2392-2395

General Electric plant (Schenectady, N. Y.) 2362

Goldwater, Senator Barry 2360

Government Printing OfHce 2356, 2395, 2396

Greonglass, David 2360, 2369

Haskius 2380

Hiss, Alger 2395

Hiss case 2395

Hoover. J. Edgar 2392

Hotel Drake 2372

House Un-American Activities Committee 2383

Information Service (Voice of America) 2355

International Telephone & Telegraph Co 2355

Jenner, Senator ^Yilliam 2375

Juliana. Mr 2368, 2.373

Justice Department 2356, 2357, 2393

Kiermas. Ray 2351

Laboratory (Nutley, N. J.) 2355

Lawton. General 2358, 2359, 2366-2370, 2375

Levine, Faith 2355

Loyalty boards 2371, 2380

Lustron Corp 2351

Matthews, J. B 2360

McCartlir, Senator Joe 2346-2354, 2358-2366, 2375-2379, 2384, 2387-2390, 2395

McClellan, Senator 2340

Military Intelligence (G-2) 2392-2395

Mundt, Senator 2.395

New York City 2.372

New York Times 2349

Nixon, Vice President 2395

Nutley, N. J 23.55

Pentagon 2385, 2.386, 2388

Peress case 2384

Philadelphia, Pa 2.349

Potter, Senator 23i'.2

Prewitt, Mr 2376

Privileges and Elections Subcommitee (Senate) 2.350

Radar laboratories 2358, 2.388

Rosenberg, Julius 2349, 2300, 2383

Rosenberg trial 2383

Rosenbergs 2363

Russian espionage 2383

St. Clair, Mr 2363

St. Louis, Mo 2,360, 2361

San Francisco 2395

Scarlett, Bishop Emeritus Will 2;;60

Schnectady, N. Y 2362

Schine, G. David 2367, 2372-2374, 2376-2378, 2381, 2382

Seattle, Wash 2.364

Secret radar hiboratories 2388

Secretary of the Army 2346-2352,

2357-2359, 2362, 2306, 2370, 2375, 2384-2388, 2391, 2392, 2394

Secretary General (United Nations) 2395

Senate cafeteria 2379

Senate Committee on Appropriations 2346

Senate Subcommittee on I'rivihges and Klectiiiis 2;'.50

INDEX III

Page

Senate of the United States 2350, 2351, 2353

Sentner, Mr 2354, 2360

Signal Corps (United States Army) 2347, 2349, 2355, 2362, 28G3, 2375

Signal Corps Laboratories (Fort Monmouth) 2349, 2362

State Department 2395

Stevens, Robert T 234(3-2352,

2357-2359, 2362, 2366, 2370, 2375, 23S4-2388, 2391, 2392, 2394

Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections (Senate) 2350

Symington, Senator 2351, 2354

Symington, document 2352

Telecommunications Laboratory (Federal) 2355, 2363, 2304

Un-American Activities Committee (House) 2383

United Electrical Workers 2359, 2360

United Nations Conference (San Francisco) 2395

United States Air Force 2355

United States Army 2347,2349,

2355-2357, 2362, 2363, 2375, 2380-2382, 2385, 2386, 2389, 2302-2395

United States Army Signal Corps 2347, 2349, 2355, 2362, 2363, 2375

United States Attorney General 2392-2394

United States Congress 2353

United States Department of Defense 2389

United States Department of Justice 2356, 2357, 2393

United States Department of State 2395

United States Senate 2350, 2351, 2353

United States Vice President 2350

Vice President (United States) 2350, 2351-2395

Voice of America (Information Service) 2355, 2382

Washington, D. C 2371

World series ticl^ets 2373

Yokohama, Japan 2304