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
BEFOKE THE
SPKCIAL SUHCOMMITTEK ON
JNVKSTKMTIONS OF THE COMMITTEE ON
GOVEKNMEiNT OPEKATIONS
UNJThl) 8TATKS SENATE
ElUHTY-THIKD CONGRESS
SECO.N'n SESSION
PURSUANT TO
S. Res. 189
PART 60
JUNE 10, 1954
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46620" WASHINGTON : 1954
■uperintcndsnt of Documents
OCT 2 7 1954
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota JOHN L. McCLELI.AN, Arkansas
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho JOHN P. KENNEDY, Ma!-sachuf:ctts
EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
JOHN MARSHALL EUTLER, Maryland THOMAS A. BURKE, Ohio
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan
Richard J. O'Mkt.ia, General Counsel
Wal'xee L. Rexnolds, Chief Clerk
Special Subcommittee on Investigation
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. Pkewitt. Assistant Counsel
Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel
SoLis HoRwiTZ, Assistant Counsel
Charles A, Maner, Secretary
n
CONTENTS
Page
Index I
Testimony ot —
McCartby, Senator Joe, United States Senate 2449
m
SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIftATION 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
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1954
United States Senate,
Special Subcommittee on Investigations
OF THE Committee on Government Operations,
Washington, D. G.
The subcommittee met at 10 : 12 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the
caucus room of the Senate Oflice Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt,
chairman, presiding.
Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota;
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. Dwor-
shak, Republican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat,
Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jaclcson, Democrat, Washington; and
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
Also present : Ray M. 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. Cohn,
chief counsel to the subcommittee; Joseph N. AVelch, special counsel
for the iVrmy ; and James D. St. Clair, special counsel for the Army.
Senator Mundt. The committee will please come to order.
The Chair would like to start out the morning, as is his custom,
by welcoming our guests who have come into the committee chamber
and to recall to you the committee ruling against any audible mani-
festations of approval or disapproval. I have asked again the uni-
formed members of the Capitol Police force, whom you see before
you, and the plainclothes men who are scattered among the audience,
to enforce the rule vigorously, to politely but firmly escort from the
room any individual or individuals violating the terms of the agree-
ment by which he entered the chamber, namely, to refrain from
making audible manifestations of approval or of disapproval.
The Chair would like to remind his colleagues again that by the
beginning of the afternoon session he hopes that any of them who have
any additional names to suggest to Counsel Jenkins as witnesses,
they will submit them to him in writing. Several of the committee
members have already submitted their recommendations either for
2447
2448 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
additional witnesses or sayinoj that they have none in mind, and the
Chair wants to remind his colleao;ues that they have until the opening
of the 2 o'clock session to make that list available to Mr. Jenkins, and
then we are going to have a meeting this afternoon at the conclusion
of the open session to discuss the road ahead as far as our committee
hearings are concerned.
I am happy to yield to Senator McClellan,
Senator AIcClellan. Am I understanding the Chair now to make a
ruling that unless names are submitted by noon today, members of
the committee then thereafter are to be precluded from making sug-
gestions or requesting witnesses?
Senator Mundt. That is exactly not what you are asked to under-
stand. The Chair is trying to get his colleages to cooperate to help
the counsel so we can have some orderly procedure, and he feels fairly
confident that his colleagues will endeavor to cooperate.
Senator McClpxlan. I didn't want to hear later that that was the
imjiort of what the Chair was saying. I w^anted the record clear.
Senator Mdndt. The record is clear now, public and open and
olivious.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?
Senator Symington. There is a very important meeting downstairs
of Armed Services, and I would like to excuse myself, if I may, for as
short a time as possible.
Senator Mundt. You may. I will assure you, as we assured Sena-
tor Potter under similar circumstances the other day, that insofar as
the Chair can, he will avoid having any committee votes while you
are away.
Senator Symington. Thank you.
Senator Dirksen. In that connection, may I say that the Appropri-
ations Committee is marking up the Armed Forces apj)ropri-
ation bill this morning, and I feel constrained to absent myself some
time a little bit later for that all important work.
Senator Mundt. Very well.
Senator McCYellan. Mr. Chairman, I am a member of that com-
mittee, too. We can't attend both of them. Some of us should stay
here, so I will remain here.
Senator Mundt. I think about all we can do is to divide our forces
that way, and again the Chair Avants to state that this points up the
importance of trying to find a reasonable and rational way and time
and manner in which to conclude these hearings because other im-
portant business is piling up of great importance to the country, and
of great importance to our individual States.
The minority leadership on the Democratic side on the Senate floor
and the majority leadership on the Republican side with the strange
majorities that we have — you can reverse those designations if you
want to— but on both sides have been very cooperative to defer matters
in which members of the committee are interested both in committee
and on the floor. But we are approaching the adjournment date of
the Senate and it is imperative I think that each of us search his
soul and his conscience to determine just what we want to have done
in t-he continuation of these hearings, how far we want to expand the
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2449
list of witnesses, how long we want to continue them. For that purpose
we are meeting this afternoon, and for that purjwse I have asked my
colleagues for the past few days to read the executive testimony which
has been taken, all of which is now available, and to try to find, I
hope, a formula for proceeding toward a termination date which will
be acceptable, number one and most important, to all of the prin-
cipals, and then I hope to all or most of the members of this committee.
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH E. McCARTHY, A UNITED STATES
SENATOE FEOM THE STATE OE WISCONSIN— Eesumed
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy is on the stand undergoing
direct examination at this time by Counsel Jenkins. In lieu of a pre-
pared statement, he made something of a speech and a presentation at
the beginning of his testimony yesterday, and now I understand Mr.
Jenkins is ready to begin the direct examination, to be followed by
cross examination.
Counsel Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, at this time, I desire to examine
you directly with reference to the charges of the McCarthy staff
against Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams.
I think it would be perhaps well at this time to specifically define
those charges so that examination may be kept within that particular
area of inquiry.
As we understand it. Senator, you as chairman of the committee,
and the members of your staff, have charged, first, that the Secretary
and his counsel sought to discredit the work of the McCarthy com-
mittee. Secondly, that the Secretary and his counsel sought to prevent
or to stop or to block your investigation of subversives in the Army and
at Fort Monmouth, and, thirdly, that Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams
sought to prevent your bringing before your committee the members
of the loyalty board for examination.
Substantially, Senator McCarthy, would you or not say that those
are the charges made by you and your staff against the Secretary and
Mr. Adams ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, Mr. Jenkins, except I don't like to quibble
about the question of charges. What we did was answer their charges.
Mr. Jenkins. And in doing so, and in the document drafted and
filed by you. Senator
Senator McCarthy. You stated that substantially correct, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Those statements or allegations were made, were they
not, substantially ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is a substantially correct state-
ment. I merely wanted to make it clear that we had nothing to do
with calling on this hearing. We merely made answer when the
charges were made against us.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you told us yesterday about when you were
made chairman of this committee. I think it is in the record that Mr.
Colin came to your committee shortly after you assumed the role of
chairmanship, that perhaps Mr. Scliine came within some 2 or 3 weeks
thereafter.
Mr. Carr came with your committee when ?
2450 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Carr came in July— was it Frank? July
16. I may say, Mr. Carr worked as head of the FBI subversive group
in New York until the night before he came with the committee.
Mr. Jenkins. You are anticipating a question of mine. I asked
Mr. Stevens for his background before he assumed the Secretaryship
of the Army. I asked Mr. Adams about his background. I asked you
something yesterday about yours.
In the selection of the members of your staff, Senator, did or not
you investigate their records, their background, their qualifications?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Jenkins. In short, Senator, and I think Mr. Cohn has pretty
well covered it, in short why did you select Mr. Cohn as your chief
counsel?
Senator McCarthy. A great number of reasons, Mr. Jenkins. I
was looking for a competent, hardworking young man, who knew
something about communism, who knew something about investigat-
ing, who had a background of FBI experience or Justice Department
experience. Mr. Cohn came to me very highly recommended from a
sizable number of people.
Mr. Jenkins. Did Mr. Cohn apply for this position, or did you seek
him out. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I believe I sought him out, Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. What about the bacicground of Mr. Schine?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Schine came almost exclusively on the rec-
ommendation of Mr. Cohn, except that I got an FBI name check on
Mr. Schine before I took him on the committee.
Mr. Jenkins. What about Mr. Carr?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Carr was a man we were trying to get for
quite some time. I had known about Mr. Carr's activities m pro-
ducing the evidence in the conviction of Communists in New York
over a number of years. I knew that he was head of the subversive
squad— I am not sure that that is the right name— I think they called
it the subversive desk— where he directed all the way from 100 to
several hundred investigators of communism.
I felt Mr. Carr was one of the most competent administrators I
could get. We spent a great deal of time trying to persuade Mr.
Carr to come with us.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, when did you first make plans for the in-
vestigation of subversives who are allegedly in the Army?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, it is impossible to give you a
date. Before I became chairman of the committee, I had received
complaints about the tyi^e of lectures, the type of material in the
Army War College, the type of indoctrination material being used to
indoctrinate our troops, to indoctrinate our intelligence oflicers. I
received complaints in regard to Fort Monmouth.
It would be impossible to fix a date. I would assume— I will put
it this way. Shortly after I made the talk on the Senate floor on
February 9, 1950, I started to get a great mass of material, much of
which I could not evaluate because I didn't have a staff. I would say
perhaps in 1950 or 1951, 1 started to get material on the attempted in-
filtration of the Army.
(Senator McCarthy conferring with aides.)
Mr. Jenkins. Had you finished your answer, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. JSo.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2451
May I say, Mr. Jenkins, I have been admonishing my stajff so long
to make short answers, I am afraid I am violating that rule myself,
but I believe in my hand I perhaps hold the controlling reason why
we decided to go into the military.
Keep in mind, Mr. Jenkins, that I feel that we do have a good Army.
1 feel that 99 percent, perhaps more, are great, loyal Americans, will-
ing to die for their country. I know, however
Mr. Jenkins. While you are on that subject, do you agree with
General Ryan, Senator, that we have the greatest Army in the world?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know if we have the greatest. I thinlc
we have a great Army.
Mr. Jenkins. Specifically and in order to get along, my question
is. When did you lay the groundwork or do the spadework after your
assumption of the chairmanship of your committee to investigate al-
leged subversives in the Army?
Senator McCarthy. Could I first hand the Chair a very brief
resume of the reason why I felt and still feel it is necessary to
Mr. Jenkins. I think it is proper, if you care to do so, for you to
state publicly what your reasons were for the plans that you laid
and which you say you carried into execution for the investigation of
subversives in the Army.
Senator JVIcCarthy. Could I do this, Mr. Jenkins? I hope this will
be the last long answer.
We have, starting back decades ago, the public statement by the top
Communists that one of their prime objectives was to infiltrate the
Army. Could I just read you 1 or 2 of those and I would like to hand
the other out to the press to save time.
For example, the program of the Communist International back
in 1936 :
An al)s<)lutely essential prerequisite for this form of action —
that is. Communist action —
is intensified revolutionary work in tlie Army and the Navy.
Then in the theses and statutes of the Third International, a book-
let reprinted by the Communist Party of America, quote:
In the most enlightened and free countries it is especially necessary to carry
on unlawful work in the army, navy, and police.
Again the program of the Communist International :
The Communist International must devote itself especially to organized work
in the Army and the Navy.
Skipping a few of these to save time, Mr. Jenkins, here is the
constitution and program of the Communist Party, published in 1921 :
The Communist Party of America will carry on a systematic agitation in the
American Army and Navy.
Again, Factors Governing Our Tactical Line :
The Communist Parties of all countries must increase their work in the
capitalist army.
Just one more, ^f r. Chairman, from the Daily Worker :
Let us take root in the factories ; let us penetrate into the Army and the Navy.
I could quote many more. You will find at least— not in this
resume, but you will find, Mr. Jenkins, at least 50, in fact all of the
46620°— 54— pt. 60 2
2452 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
top writers of the Communist Party stress the importance of the
Army. May I say I think it is no disgrace to a Secretary of the Army
to tind a Communist in the Army. 1 think the disgrace is when you
try to hide those who cover up that Communist,
Mr. Jenkins. Those are the reasons, then, as we understand. Sena-
tor, why you directed your energies toward an investigation of Com-
munists or subversives in the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. Those are some of the reasons.
JVlr. Jknkins. Yes, sir, some of the reasons.
Now, the next question (juestion, Senator, was. When did you ac-
tually start working with your staif in the preparation of an inves-
tigation of subversives or Communists in the Army 'i Approximately
when ?
Senator McCarthy. It was in the spring of 1953. I couldn't give
you the month. I would say perhaps May— what would you say, Roy ?
April — May, thereabouts.
Mr. Jenkins. The next question. Senator, is, What was done, gen-
erally, in the preparations made by you and your stall' to the end
that you might actually conduct hearings and determine whether or
not there were subversives or Communists in the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. Well, the usual thing, Mr. Jenkins, consisted
of questioning witnesses, checking whatever information we had, de-
ciding when we should start to hold ])ublic hearings, and taking the
matter up with the committee. I think I took the matter up with
the committee— I frankly don't know whether that was before or
after my Democrat friends left. Anyway, 1 took it up with the
committee, I think, at least 2 months before we started to hold public
hearings.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you have any idea of approximately how many
witnesses were questioned. Senator, preparatory to your having hear-
ings on the subject of inquiry?
Senator McCarthy. I would rather not rely upon my memory. I
have a very competent staff here, I think, which can give you the
ligures much better than I can.
Mr. Cohn tells me that they can't give us any figures, but I know it
was a very large number.
Mr. Jenkins. Can you give an approximate figure?
Senator McCarthy. Itwould be rather diflicult, Mr. Jenkins, for
this reason, that I do not work down in the office where my investiga-
tors have their headquarters. I get the end result of their work.
When they find a witness whom they think of importance, they come
up and tell me about him, and then they may interrogate 20 witnesses
before they find someone who they think has information of sufficient
nnportauce to pass it on to the committee.
I think that our annual report indicates that over the year of 1953,
there was considerably over a thousand witnesses interrogated. Some
of those were on the Voice of America, some on the Government
Printing Office, some on East-West trade. If I were to guess, it
would be purely a guess, I would assume two or three hundred. But
that is purely a guess.
Mr. JenkiVs. When, Senator, did you start actual sessions, execu-
tive or open hearings, in the investigation of subversives or Commu-
nists in the Army?
Senator McCarthy. I think the date was August 31.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2453
Mr. Jenkins. Was that an executive meeting? ^
Senator McCarthy. That was an executive meeting.
Mr. Jenkins. Held where ?
Senator McCarthy. Held in New York.
Mr. Jenkins. Up to that time, and between August 31 and the
date of the assumption of office by the Secretary of the Army, do you
know whether or not any subversives or Communists had been sus-
pended or discharged from the personnel, civilian personnel, of the
Army ?
Senator McCarthy. As far as I know, Mr. Jenkins, none were
suspended until after we started our investigation.
Mr. Jenkins. That would be, then, subsequent to August 31, is that
right. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. No, not necessarily August 31, but subsequent
to the date that the man in the Army knew that we were investigating
subversives in the Army. I believe they had some time in early
August — I couldn't give you the dates, because they don't give us
chose dates.
Mr. Jenkins. Prior to pinpointing your investigations at Fort
Monmouth, did or not you bring about, Senator, the suspensions of
any Communists or subversives or bad risks, in any other Army posts?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. "VMien you say did we bring it about —
they were suspended after we had them before the committee. The
answer is "Yes." There was a security guard in New York, a man
who was guarding the secrets, who had a Communist background.
There was an individual who was in the Quartermaster Corps. Let's
see. Just a second now. Peress was later. Mr, Cohn reminds me
of Peress. I just can't reel off the names, frankly. I may say that
I have a list
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, let me ask you this question. I had the
Secretary of the Army give his version of the story at Fort Monmouth.
Mr. Adams gave his story. Mr. Cohn his story. I am going to ask
you now to tell the committee, and as has frequently been said in
these hearings, the jury of perhaps twenty-odd million Americans,
your version of Fort Monmouth. What is the McCarthy version ?
Senator McCarthy. That is rather an all-inclusive question. My
version is that
Mr. Jenkins. Is the chart now on exhibition germane to that ques-
tion and answer ?
Senator McCarthy. The small chart would be. The large chart
covers all of the individuals who refused to answer whether or not
they were Communists, some as to espionage, some as to sabotage,
invoking the seal of incrimination provisions of the Constitution.
The small chart, you will notice, JNIr. Jenkins, sho\ys that there were
no suspensions at Fort Monmouth prior to our investigation. Follow-
ing the investigation, 35, and 1 restored to duty. Since that chart
was made, that was a few days ago, we find that Aaron Coleman has
been removed on loyalty-security grounds. So the chart is not accu-
rate as of today. It would be accurate as of a week ago.
Mr. Jenkins. Then, as we understand it. Senator, since you began
your investigation of Fort Monmouth, 35 subversives or bad risks,
have been suspended, is that correct ?
2454 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McC4Rthy. I don't like to correct your language, but 35
who had records which would indicate they were subversives or bad
risks.
Mr, Jenkins. Do you know how many of those are still under sus-
pension, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I understand from the information which we
get that only one case has been finally adjudicated, and that is Mr.
Aaron Coleman, and lie has been removed.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Senator, I will ask you to explain to the com-
mittee the significance of the large chart.
Senator McCarthy. The large chart, Mr. Jenkins, contains the
names of — will somebody remove that chair so 1 can see the chart —
I think it is 92 individuals who appeared in public session, and who
refused to testify, some of them as to Communist activities, some as
to espionage activities, some as to sabotage.
Now, let me make it clear that
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, do we understand that they were civilian
employees of the Army, those 92 individuals?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. They were merely witnesses, is that what you mean.
Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. No, they were more than that. Mr. Jenkins.
Some of them had never worked for the Government, but they were all
called because of alleged connections which they had with people
working in the Government.
Take, for example, Irving Peress, the first name. He was the fifth
amendment Communist. The next one, Doris Walters Powell, was
working for the Army in the Quartermaster Corps. The next one,
Edward Rothschild had been working in the Government Printing
Office, access to secret material for a great number of years, and on
down the line.
I do have an explanation of each one. I could read it in. I don't
know if you want that. Take, for example, No. 85, Louis Bortz.
Bortz appeared in executive session — maybe it was public session. I
think it was public session. Prior to that, an under cover FBI
agent had testified that Bortz had bragged that his job was to kill
the chairman of the committee.
Bortz came before the committee, invoked the fifth amendment. I
frankly wasn't much impressed by him. I think he was just bragging.
Mr. Jenkins. State whether or not the 35 suspensions are included
in that list.
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. Are any of them included in it ?
Senator McCarthy. Some of them are included in the list. Just
a minute. Others are not. I am not sure.
Mr. Jenkins. Go right ahead. I don't mean to cut you off.
Senator McCarthy. I am not sure that any are included in the
list. I don't believe any are included in that list. You see, we didn't
get the names from the military of the 35 they suspended. We only
got the numbers. The only way we could find out whether or not they
had been suspended was to call them. On this list, we only have those
who took the fifth amendment.
Mr. Jenkins. When did you first meet the Secretary of the Army,
Mr. Robert T.Stevens?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2455
Senator McCarthy. It was after the hearings commenced. I may
say, as far as pinpointing dates, that is impossible. It was some
time — do you know, Roy, what month, about — my chief counsel says
some time, he thinks, in the beginning of September, so I assume
that is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Would it be the date when he returned from
Montana ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. He had been out West, and sent me a
wire. When he came back, I met him.
Mr. Jenkins. As far as you recall, is that your first meeting with
the Secretary of the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. As far as I know. I may have met him — he
tells me I met him before that socially. If he says so, I am sure
that is the truth.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, when did you first realize that any pressure
was being brought upon you or the members of your staff by either
the Secretary or anyone under his jurisdiction to have you call off
your investigations of Fort Monmouth or the Army?
Senator McCarthy. Again, Mr. Jenkins, it is hard to give you a
specific date, because whenever you investigate a particular bureau,
I always find some opposition to it. If Ray Jenkins were the head
of a bureau, he perhaps wouldn't want a congressional committee
investigating what he was doing. I frankly didn't take the pressure
seriously until about tlie 21st day of January or thereabouts, when
some of the Senators called me and told me that Mr. Adams or Mr.
Stevens had been to them, had been trying to induce them to keep me
from calling the members of the old Truman loyalty board, which was
no longer in existence but still working in the Pentagon, as far as I
know — it reached its height on the night of the 22d of January when
Mr. Adams came to my apartment. Before that, I had heard a lot of
needling back and forth. I had lunch with him. John Adams used
to attend most of our hearings. I would hear Roy and him needling
back and forth, John suggesting the hearings be called off in a friendly
fashion, I thought.
We had a meeting over at the Pentagon called by Mr. Stevens —
what was the date of that, Roy — November 6. At that time the
Secretary made a rather good argument for calling off the hearings;
said that they would proceed to do this job themselves if we would
quit. I didn't think there was anything, frankly, improper about that.
He just argued we should quit the investigation and go on to some-
thing else.
I think the Army and the Air Corps were mentioned, as I recall,
the Navy perhaps.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I would like for you to tell the members
of this subcommittee, as near as you possibly can, precisely what was
said by the Secretary of the Army on November 6. You have gotten
ahead of the dates about which I expected to question you, but you are
on November 6, the meeting at the Pentagon. It has been thoroughly
aired here in these hearings.
Senator McCarthy. I can give you the substance of it, Mr. Jenkins.
I didn't take it seriously enough to remember the wording verbatim.
In substance, Mr. Stevens argued that the committee had performed
a function; that he was willing to take over and do the job; that we
were embarrassing the Army.
oin
.45G SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
I pointed out fo him th;it we had very little difliculty, if any, with
the luiifornied men; it was mostly with the civilians, the old holdovers
from the old administration. I pqinted out to him that we were
makin<T that very clear, that whenever we had a man before us we made
verv clear when he was bronoht into the administration.
U]) to that time, that is, before the Peress case, I don't think we had
called a single individual suspected of Communist activities who came
in under the Stevens administration.
He argued rather convincingly that he had been in office then about
10 months, and that if we were to continue, that he would take the
blame for it; th.at the American people would not separate the old
administration from the new, they would feel that he should clean
house overnight. In other words, when he went in one day, the next
day he should have a completely clean Army.
i told him I thought he was mistaken about that. He mentioned
something about this affecting his job if we continued.
]\Ir. Jenkins. What did he say about that, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I think he said if we were to continue he would
lose his job, or roughly something to that etfect.
Mr. Jenkins. As we understand it, you were there, Mr. Cohn, and
Mr. Carr.
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. Secretary Stevens and Mr. Adams?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. Five of you.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. Senatoi-, while on that subject, do you know whether
or not David Schine was invited to be present at that luncheon?
. Senator McCarthy. I am told that David Schine was invited.
Mr. Jenkins. You are told by whom ?
Senator McCarthy. I was told by either Mr. Carr or Mr. Cohn at
the time, that Dave was invited to come.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you have any recollection of being told that
Schine was invited by either the Secretary or Mr. Adams?
Senator McCarthy. Well, I know when we got there, there was one
vacant seat, and Mr. Stevens — I think it was Bob Stevens — mentioned
the fact that he was sorry that Dave could not be there. I don't recall
too much about that.
Mr. Jenkins. Getting back now to the conversation on that occa-
sion, while we are talking about November 6, what, precisely. Senator,
to the very best of your recollection, did the Secretary say or Mr.
Adams say in his presence about your going after the Navy or the
Air Force, if anything?
Senator McCarthy. Again, Mr. Jenkins, I can't give you the ver-
batim language. They indicated they were unhappy about any con-
centration on the Army. They indicated that they felt the Navy and
the Air Corps were just as bad as the Army ; that if there was infiltra-
tion in the Army, there must be in the Navy and the Air Corps.
As I recall, Mr. Adams — I heard Mr. Adams offer Mr. Cohn infor-
mation with regard to the Navy. Just w'hat language he used, I don't
know.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, going back, you first met the Secretary on or
about the 8th day of September, upon his return from the State of
Montana. That is correct, as we understand it. He had read in a
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2457
newspaper while visiting Montana that you were investigating some
subversives in the Army. I take it that he discussed that with you
Senator Mundt. The witness will have to answer audibly. You
nodded your head and it is a little difficult to put that in the record.
Senator McCarthy. You can't hear that rattle, huh ?
Mr. Jenkins. I believe, first of all, he sent you a telegram; did he
not ? You recall getting a telegram from the Secretary ?
Senator McCarthy. I recall getting a telegram from him indicated
he was disturbed — I may be wrong in this — that he was disturbed
about some news story that came from the Pentagon indicating he
would not cooperate in the investigation.
Mr. Jenkins. When he returned and you met him for the first time
and had this conference did the Secretary of the Army then directly
or by implication indicate to you that he wanted you to discontinue
your investigation of the Army and of Fort Monmouth and allow him
to proceed?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. No indication of that whatever?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. The next meeting, as I recall, Senator, between you
and the Secretary was at the Schine apartment in New York City on
September 16. Do you recall that meeting?
Senator McCarthy. I recall that meeting.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not on that occasion the
Secretary indicated any displeasure or any desire — any displeasure
over your investigation of subversives in the Army.
Senator McCarthy. Not that I recall, at that meeting.
Mr. Jenkins. Or any desire or indication that he wanted you to
turn that work over to him and allow him to proceed without your
assistance?
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall any conversation along that
line. 1 think the conversation there has some bearing upon this
investigation. Could I briefly recite that, Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. You certainly may, if you desire, Senator, at this time.
Senator McCarthy. At tliat time, there was the question of what
Dave Schine would do when we went in the military, and while Dave
was there and while Roy was there, I wanted to make my position very
clear. So I told the Secretary that I thought it would be a great
mistake if he were to give anything which would appear to be special
consideration to Mr. Schine. I told him to lean over backward. That
might have been unfair to Mr. Schine. I told him to lean over back-
ward in handling the Schine case because if he did anything which
might even remotely appear to be giving Schine some consideration,
that the left-wing press that had been trying to scream about investi-
gating committees would blame him, blame the committee. Mr.
Schine was there, agreed to that, and Mr. Cohn was there and made no
objection either.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, frankly I expect to ask you a little more
about that later on, but I am now trying to ascertain just to what
extent the Secretary of the Army and/or Mr. Adams attempted to
block your investigation of subversives in the Army.
Do you recall an executive session of your committee on or about
September 21, Senator, in New York, which was attended by the Sec-
retary of the Army ?
2458 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. September 21 ?
Mr. Jenkins. September 21.
Senator McCarthy. You would have to identify that meeting.
' Mr. Jenkins. At which time there was a discussion about Gen-
eral Partridge, and at which time perhaps he did testify or there was
some discussion allegedly betAveen you and the Secretary with respect
to General Partridge.
Senator McCarthy. Yes. That was the meeting at which General
Partridge was called in executive session.
Mr. Jenkins. Who was General Partridge and what position did
he hold in the Pentagon ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know his exact title. He was head
of Army Incelligence.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well. NoWj you may tell about any discussion
between you and the Secretary with respect to the head of the Intelli-
gence in the Army, General Partridge.
Senator McCarthy. Well, we had Mr. Partridge in that day, and
the Secretary listened to the executive session testimony. We were
questioning Mr. Partridge principally about Communist line litera-
ture being used to indoctrinate the Intelligence officers, stuff that
would be 90 percent Communist line and then 10 percent mildly anti-
Communist, the usual line so they could point to the anti-Communist
material. We were questioning Partridge about what he knew about
communism. This is all a matter of record, but I will try to recite
it as best I can.
Mr. Jenkins. Have the proceedings of that meeting been tran-
scribed ?
Senator McCarthy. They have been transcribed. _
Mr. Jenkins. Now, you may go ahead and tell just what occurred
and what was said between you and the Secretary.
Senator :McCarthy. At least, I think they are transcribed. First,
let me give you the background of the meeting, just in 1 minute.
Partridge, with Stevens present — and we always gave the Secre-
tary the right to ask questions also — Partridge was asked about this
particular literature produced by individuals with known Communist
records, one of whom, I believe, had been cited or convicted. The
head of Army Intelligence seemed to think that was unimportant;
he said the material was all right, as I recall, so we then questioned
Inm as to what he knew about communism. He admitted he had never
read Marx, Lenin, Engels, Stalin, any of the writers.
Mr. Jenkins. You are talking about General Partridge?
Senator INIcCarthy. Partridge, yes. Then we had a book which
was under the Secretary's hand, a book written by a Communist or a
Communist liner, 1 forgot the name of it, and I said to him, "Part-
ridge, have you ever read any book on Communists, in order to better
equip your self for this important job?" As I pointed out to him,
I knew he didn't ask for the assignment, he might have been a good
combat soldier; he perhaps is; but I felt he was a square peg in a
round hole. Put I said, "Partridge, have you ever read any book deal-
ing with communism?" And he said, "Yes; on the way back from
overseas, I read such and such a book," and the Secretary picked
up the book and said something to the effect, "My god, this is the
book he read." It was one apparently written by a Communist
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2459
author. After that the question arose principally between Mr. Colin
and Mr. Stevens as to whether or not
Mr. Jknkins. Senator, pardon the interruption.
Senator Symington. Excuse me. Senator, (Jeneral Taylor is about
ready to testify. He is the head of our great 8th Army in Korea.
I will be back as soon as I can.
Senator Mundt. Thank you.
Senator McCarthy. Senator Syminoton, will you make that clear
that is not Telford Taylor: that is the other Mr. Taylor?
Senator Symington. You make it clear, Senator.
Senator McCahtiiy-. Okay.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, you were telling about General F'artridge's
testimony.
Senator McCarthy. We had some conversations and it is rather
difficult, Mr. Jenkins, to separate the conversations which I had
with
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you were telling about a book which hap-
pened to be under the Secretary's hand and I didn't get what you
said.
Senator McCarthy. The Secretary picked it up and with a sense
of humor, I thought, said something to the effect, "My god, here is
the book he read to teach him about communism," It w^as one of
the books we were investigating, allegedly written by a Communist
writer.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Noav, you may go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. May I say it is difficult, Mr, Jenkins, to sepa-
rate the conversations which I had with Mr. Jenkins — with Mr.
Stevens about Mr. Partridge and what Mr, Cohn had and related
to me, but in substance here was- the conversation :
Mr. Stevens felt, and I agreed with him, that if we were to put
INIr. Partridge on public display, and show how incompetent he was
for that particular job, head of our Army Intelligence, and I think
I can quote Bob Stevens verbatim, he said, "This would give great
aid and comfort to the enemy."
We told Mr. Stevens that as long as he knew what the facts were,
he seemed to be as much disturbed about Partridge's lack of knowledge
as we were, we told him we felt it would be unnecessary to call Mr.
Partridge. However, we held a public hearing some time later
Mr. Jenkins. Before getting to that. Senator, do you know
whether or not the Secretary, Mr. Stevens, had appointed Partridge,
General Partridge, as head of G-2?
Senator McCarthy'. I don't know wdiether he did or not.
Mr. Jenkins. At that time, that is, on September 21, in this
executive session, did or not the Secretary request you not to have
General Partridge testify in an open session?
Senator McCarthy. He did.
Mr. Jenkins. He did?
Senator McCarthy. Eight.
Mr. Jenkins. For what reasons did he assign ?
Senator McCarthy. He felt that it would be no benefit, that he
had all the information, and that it would give the country lack of
confidence in our xVrmy Intelligence if they saw this man cross-
examined in public the way he was in executive session, and as he
4GC20°— 54— pt. 60 3
2460 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
said, he felt it would <;ive — I think he used the words "aid and comfort
to the enemy."
Mr. Jknkins. Senator, while we are on the subject of General
Partridcje and before passing; from him, do you know whether or
not he was in the list of those who were jjiven a permanent rank,
■which in a sense mif^ht be construed as a promotion?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, he was. Partrido;e got the consideration
which Law ton was refused. Lawton was on the same list. Lawton
was jiassed over, Partridge got the consideration.
ISIay 1 say, Mr. Jenkins, lest this be construed as a criticism of
Partridge, I know that a very good Army engineer, one of the best
in the Army, might be assigned to Intelligence, completely incompe-
tent there, no fault of his own. I know nothing about Partridge's
combat record. He may be an outstanding combat soldier for all
I know, but certainly completely, abysmally incompetent as head of
Army Intelligence.
Mr. Jenkins. As you stated a moment ago, it is your theory that
he was a square page in a round hole ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you have an open session in New York City on
the 28th day of September attended by General Partridge 1
Senator McCarthy. That was in Washington.
Mr. Jenkins. I wnll ask you to tell the members of this committee
what occurred at that time, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. We heard a number of witnesses in regard to
Communist-type literature being used for indoctrination purposes.
I had talked to Mr. Cohn beforehand and told him that we would
not require Partridge to be present in view of the fact that the Sec-
retary said that he was making arran^^ements for a new assignment
for him, and was as much shocked as we were by the testimony of
Partridge.
When we arrived for the hearing, I found Mr. Partridge and three
of his aides sitting back here behind the witness chair. I turned to
Mr. Cohn and I said, "I thought that they didn't want Partridge to
appear." He said, "I am sure they don't."
So he called Secretary Stevens and reported back to me that Stevens
said it was a mistake or snafu, or something like that, and asked that
we not insist that he go on the stand.
At the end of the hearings, I felt that I could not deny Partridge
the right to take the stand if he wanted to, so at that time — again I
am quoting from memory, but it all has been transcribed — I turned
to Partridge and said, "Now, General, if you w^ant to take the stand
today, you can, but I would suggest that you study this testimony
first and decide when you want to come back and testify."
He took the hint and decided he would study the testimony and
come back later.
Mr. Jenkins. As a consequence, he was never called before your
committee thereafter?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct, and was removed as head of
Army Intelligence.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, between that date, September 28, and the
date of October 19, which is tied in in my mind with a press release
or a proposed press release, was there anything of any consequence
■or significance said to you or to any member of your staff, to your
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2461
knowledge, by either the Secretary or his counselor, Mr. Adams, with
respect to the haltin<T or the callintr off of your investij^ation of Com-
munists and subversives in Fort Monmouth? I am covering now the
dates between September 18 and October 19.
Senator McCarthy. Let me check my dates here for a minute.
Senator McCarthy conferring with Mr. Cohn.)
Senator McCarthy. My chief counsel disagrees with me on this to
some extent, but I recall that there was some, what you would call,
mild needling back and forth between Mr. Adams, that is, from Mr.
Adams to Mr. Cohn. He would suggest that the hearings should be
called off, and they were ribbing each other that public hearings
would go on from 1 week to 6 weeks.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, at the time, did you regard Mr. Adams as
beins serious in those suggestions or in that needling, as you recall it?
Senator McCarthy. I think serious, but nothing improper. I think
he just honestly felt that the hearings should be called off. He felt
that they could do the job.
Mr. Jenkins. Can you recall anything specifically that Mr. Adams
said in his needling of Mr. Cohn with respect to these investigations?
Senator McCarthy. He would ask Mr. Cohn how long the hearings
would take, and ask me how long they would take. We would give
him an estimate, and he would tell us that he thought that was too
long; that Mr. Cohn should be more efficient and be able to end this
up in a day or two, that sort of thing, nothing of an unusual nature.
Mr. Stevens had lunch with us a number of times before that Octo-
ber 19 date — again, the what I would call mild urging that the hear-
ing should be terminated at the earliest possible date.
Mr. Jenkins. No feeling developed between you and the Secretary
in that period, did there. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. No. We were getting along very well.
Mr. Jenkins. You were getting along very well. You regarded
it, then, I take it. Senator, as simply the wishes, the desires of a
man in the position of the Secretary, to be allowed to do the job him-
self out of a sense of pride, perhaps ?
Senator McCarthy. Or let's put it this way : The usual opposition
which you find when you start to investigate any department.
Mr. Jenkins. Nothing out of the ordinary, nothing extraordinary
about it, to vour mind at the time ?
Senator McCarthy. Nothing extraordinary at that time.
Mr. Jenkins. I want you to tell the committee about the occurrences
of October 19 with respect to a proposed press release prepared, as I
remember, by Mr. John C Adams.
Senator McCarthy. Before that, there had been a press release
by the Secretary, you understand. No, I beg your pardon. My date
is wrong.
Mr. Jenkins. As I recall, the Secretary's press release was dated
November IB.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct, the 18th of November.
Mr. Cohn called me and told me that Mr. Adams had discussed a
press release with him, a press release which we were to issue after
the survey of the Fort Monmouth installations. I told Mr. Cohn that
I would have no objection to issuing a press release if it stated the
facts, and he could go ahead and work out a press release with Mr.
Adams.
2462 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Cohn, either then or later, I forp;et wliich phone call, told me
that the })ress release indicated that we would be calling ofT our hear-
ings. I told him that we of course could not issue such a press re-
lease. I believe the next conversation about the press release was
in the airplane on the way up to Fort IMonmouth.
Mr. Jenkins. That would be October 20 ?
Senator McCarthy. October 20.
Mr. Jenkins. I want you to tell the members of the committee
what that conversation was, if you will, please, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams had a press release, and he is a
pretty good salesman. He tried to convince me that I should issue
that press release after the Fort Monmouth survey.
I told him I could not for two reasons : No. 1, that the release indi-
cated we were calling off the hearings, and we of course were not.
Mr. Jenkins. Did the release state that, Senator, that you were
calling off the hearings?
Senator McCarthy. The release — I would have to read it — in so
many words I interpreted it to state that. The language of the re-
lease, for example — just a minute until I get it :
I believe that our receut hearings have brought their names out and that
from here forward the Army should he able to finish the job we have started.
I interpreted that to mean, and I think the press would have inter-
preted that as meaning, that the hearings were at an end.
Then I gave him one other reason for not issuing it. It tells what
we found at Fort Monmouth before we got there.
Mr. Jenkins. V/ill you read that part of the release ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. Keep in mind this is not my release.
It is Mr. Adams' :
I have been very favorably impressed by all that I have seen today at Fort
Monmouth and also I have been very impressed —
I think that is as far as we need go.
I have been very favorably impressed by all that I have seen today at Fort
Monmouth . . .
Mr. Jenkins. In other words, those are the words you say that Mr.
Adams was putting in your mouth for you to say before you ever got
to Fort Monmouth ?
Senator McCarthy. He didn't put them in my mouth. He sug-
gested them.
Mr. Jenkins. As I understand. Senator, you are telling us that he
tried to do it.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, that is right.
Mr. Jenkins. That was before you got to Fort Monmouth, of
course?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. For those two reasons you say you refused to issue
that press release.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you regard that
Senator McCarthy. And also I think I told Mr. Adams that it
would be unusual for me to read a press release, that the press knew
how I held a press conference and that it was extremely unusual for
me to hand out mimeographed releases. I may do it on rare occasions,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2463
but ordinarily I answer their questions, and that is the type of press
conference that I have.
I explained that to Mr. Adams.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you re^^ard that effort of Mr. Adams to p,et you
to issue such a release as indicative of his state of mind, to wit, that he
wanted you to call off your investigation, discontinue your work at
Fort Monmouth?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir.
]Mr. Jenkins. And turn it entirely over to the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you regard that as a serious effort on his part
to prevail upon you to do so?
Senator McCarthy. Not seriously-
Mr. Jenkins. All right, Senator, we will put it this way
Senator McCarthy. I knew it would have some effect.
Mr. Jenkins. All right, Senator, I Avill put it this way: Not only
judging by the context of the proposed press release, but in the light
of all that had gone on before, your conversations with the Secretary
and with Mr. Adams, and the conversations between Mr. Adams, par-
ticularly, and Mr. Cohn, in the light of all the antecedents, we will
say, did you regard that as a serious effort on the part of the Sec-
retary's counselor to get you to discontinue your investigation of Fort
Monmouth ?
Senator McCarthy. You and I may have different definitions of
"serious." I would say "not serious" because I paid no attention to it.
He certainly was trying very hard — and there is nothing dishonorable
about it, I don't think — he was trying very hard to get us to quit
investigating Communists in the Army. He always indicated, when
he would do that, that they would do the job which we were doing.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, had you ever met him prior to this appoint-
ment on or about October 1, 1953 ?
Senator McCarthy. I think I met him in Oregon during the
Dewey-Stassen campaign, I believe. At least, I believe I met him
sometime in the West at a meeting.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not prior to October 19
or 20, and indeed on the occasion of your first meeting or in the
early meetings between you and Mr. Adams, he told you what his
duties were that had been assigned to him by the Secretary of the
Army?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think he told me. Mr. Cohn told me
what Adams had told him.
Mr. Jenkins. What did Mr. Cohn tell you that Mr. Adams had
told him ?
Senator McCarthy. In effect that Mr. Adams was to be the con-
tact man between the committee and the Pentagon.
Mr. Jenkins. Was there ever anything said to you about whether
or not it was one of the specifics of Mr. Adams' assigiunent to some-
what make peace with the McCarthy committee and get you away
from Fort Monmouth?
Senator McCarthy. Not originally. As we went along, Mr. Cohn
recounted to me various conversations he had had with Mr. Adams,
in which Mr. Adams said — and I think I can quote Mr. Cohn verbatim
on this — that this was a new job for him, and that we could make him
2464 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
look good if we would taper off these hearings and shift to some
other investigation. Something to that effect.
Mr. Jenkins. What happened on the 20th of October, Senator,
when you did arrive at Monmouth?
Senator McCarthy. Secretary Stevens and I went through the in-
stallation. Senator Smith was there; Congressman Auchincloss — I
guess that is the way you pronounce it
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I want to know specifically what happened
on that date with respect to this proposed press release, or any effort
on the part of either the Secretary or Mr. Adams to get you to quit
Fort Monmouth and leave it to the Army.
Senator McCarthy. Yes; I will be glad to tell you that. When
we came into lunch, I found a stack of press releases perhaps a foot
high piled beside the table.
Mr. Jenkins. As we understand it, they had been mimeographed ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; they had been mimeographed. John
suggested that we hand them out to the press at the end of the day.
Mr. Jenkins. When you say "John" do you mean John Adams?
Senator McCarthy. John Adams. I told him that I would attempt
to say everything complimentary I could, and that I would read over
tlie press release, and that there were some things here about Stevens
trying to do a good job, et cetera, that I would be glad to say those
things, but that I couldn't, in effect, say we are calling off the investi-
gation. I told him also that I would look silly — I would look
very silly if I were to hand out a mimeographed release prepared by
the military. Before lunch, I said I was going in to wash my hands,
and John came in also, and I think Roy was there, as I recall. He
again urged me to issue the press release. I told him I just couldn't do
it. And I suggested to him that they be destroyed because if some of
them got into the hands of the press, and it became known that I re-
fused to issue the release, it may have the opposite effect from what they
hoped for.
Mr. Jenkins. Was the press represented there that day, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Not during the luncheon, and they were not
allowed inside the gates. There were guards at all the gates.
Mr. Jenkins. What did Mr. Adams say? You say he requested
you or urged you to issue the release. Can you recall his words?
Senator McCarthy. No, I couldn't recall his words, except that
Mr. Jenkins. To what extent was he insistent then. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Well, John is too good a salesman to be in-
sistent. He tried to be convincing. He told us that he thought the
hearings had served their purpose, that they would proceed now. that
Lawton had been alerted, had been given orders. He mentioned also'
(hat prior to your investigation, commanding officers could not suspend
individuals suspected of communism, that that had been changed,
that they could now, and suggested that if we would not call off the
hearings at least we take a (50- or 90-day vacation, I forget which lie
said, and let them go about it.
There was nothing vicious at all. It was just a good attempt to-
convince me that the hearings should not be continued.
Mr. Jenkins. Between October 20 and November 1?>, the day of
the Secretary's release, were there any events or conversations,
Senator, that you know about, either of your own knowledge or as a
result of your conversations with members of your staff
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2465
Senator McCarthy. Would you give me those two dates again, Mr.
Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. October 20, at Fort Monmouth, and November 13, the
date or the actual date of the Secretary's release, a period of some 23
days.
Senator McCarthy. Yes. There was a meeting on November 6.
Mr. Jrnkins. That is the meeting at the Pentagon as we under-
stand it?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. That is the only thing that I can think
of now. Then on November 13 there was the
Mr. Jenkins. November 6, Senator; now I think we have fully ex-
plored the events of that occasion, have we not?
Senator McCarthy. I think we have.
Mr. Jenkins. At v.'hich time you say a suggestion was made by
both the Secretary and Mr. Adams that some investigation be made
of the Navy and the Air Force?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, before we leave that date
Senator McCarthy. I perhaps should tell you this, Mr. Jenkins.
It will I think explain the monitored phone calls. I told the Secre-
tary that we would not call off any investigation where we knew Com-
munists were in existence. I told him we would keep him fully
informed through Mr. iVdams, give him copies of the transcripts.
I did tell him this: I told him that we were at that time conducting
a very intensive investigation of Communists in the defense plants,
that we considered that of great importance. I told him that I could
see no objection, if he thought it would take the spotlight off him
and off the Army, that we would hold the hearings concurrently
because we were all set to hold the hearings on defense plants
anyway.
That seemed to meet with his approval. He felt that by — and I
think somebody mentioned that the Navy was responsible
Mr. Jenkins. "Whose approval? The Secret ai^s, Mr, Adams, or
both?
Senator McCarthy. Both, I gather.
Mr. Jenkins. What did they say, Senator, when you made that
suggestion or that statement?
Senator IMcCarthy. I couldn't recall the exact words, but they
seemed to feel that next to calling off the hearings, that that would
help to take the spotlight off of them. One of them, I think it was
Mr. Adams, mentioned that the Navy, he thought, was responsible for
security in some of the defense plants we were going into. At that
time, Mr. Cohn — I asked Mr. Cohn to give a complete rundown of the
proposed hearings, the evidence we had. He did that again after
Matt Ridgway, Mr. Trewitt, and General — who was the other guy —
and Mudgett, General Mudgett came into the room. Roy again gave
a rundown of what we had. I may say, Mr. Jenkins, just so there can
be no question about this — I emphasized very, very clearly to Mr.
Adams and Mr. Stevens it would be a waste of time for them to ask us
to call off' any hearing of Communists. I told them, and I recall my
language, I said that 1 campaigned against members of the opposite
party because I felt they whitewashed things that were improper in
their party, and I said that is in effect what you are asking me to do
2466 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
now, and I said I just can't do it, I won't do it, and it is a waste of
time to discuss it.
There wasn't too much discussion after tliat.
Mr. Jenkins. Was that statement you have just related made in
consequence of tlieir suggestions that you go after subversives in de-
fense plants or in the Army — in the Navy or Air Force?
Senator McCarthy. They didn't suggest I go after subversives in
defense plants. I informed them about that hearing and told them
that the hearings were all set to go, and that it would not in any way
damage either hearing if we held the hearings concurrently, and that
that might take the spotlight off Stevens and the Army,
They indicated that as long as they could not get the hearings of the
Communists in the Army called otf, that that was satisfactory. That
is indicated by the monitored phone call, you will note, the next morn-
ing when I called Mr. Stevens and said "Were you satisfied with the
arrangement we worked out yesterday. Bob?" or something to that
effect.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you say that at that meeting a suggestion
was made that you go after the Navy and the Air Force, is that right?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall either you or a member of your staff
stating that you had no evidence of Communists or subversives in
either of those two branches of the military?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn made that statement.
Mr. Jenkins. In consequence of Mr. Cohn's statement that they had
no evidence of Communists or subversives in the Navy or Air Force,
what, if anything, did either the Secretary or Mr. Adams say ?
Senator McCarthy. Again, don't expect me to remember the exact
language, but something to the effect that if there was infiltration in
the Army, there certainly was in the other branches, and I think
Adams said he knew there wa^ a lot of dirt in the Navy also.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall what was said?
Senator McCarthy. As I recall — and I am not sure about this — as I
recall, I think he said something about giving Roy information about
certain naval installations. I do recall definitely the statement that
if there was infiltration in the Army, certainly in the other branches —
that certainly there was as much dirt there as in the Army, and that
■we should not concentrate on the Army. As 1 say, Koy told them
that we had nothing which w'onld justify an investigation.
Besides, it took long, weary months and many investigtors to get
an investigation to the point of a public hearing.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I ask you at this time to tell the members
of this subcommittee about a certain press release issued by the Secre-
tary of the Army on November 13.
Senator McCarthy. It was not a press release. He had a press con-
ference, and in that conference, while I can't quote him varbatim, the
interpretation was that he said that there was no current espionage at
Fort Monmouth.
Mr. Jenkins. When and where did you first learn of that press
conference ?
Senator McCarthy. I believe he said no espionage at Fort Mon-
mouth.
Mr. Jenkins. When and where did you first learn of that press
conference, Senator?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2467
Senator McCarthy. I believe it was in New York. I picked up one
of the New York papers.
INIr. Jenkins. What happened as a result of that press conference,
in which I believe you quote the Secretary as saying that there was no
current espionaoe at Fort Monmouth?
Senator McCarthy. First let me correct two things. I think he said
there was no espionage. I don't think he said "current."
My chief counsel tells me that he thinks I was not in New York ; that
I was up some place in New England. Where w^as it, Boston?
I believe I was giving a speech up in Maine, up in Bangor, Maine,
I believe.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well.
Now, as we understand it, Senator, the holding of that press con-
ference started a chain of events in motion that might be relevant to
the issues in this controversy, and I want you to tell what occurred.
Senator McCarthy. No, I wouldn't say that started any chain of
events. What happened, Mr. Stevens came over to New York. He
told me that he had been holding this press conference in which I
believe he said some 265 questions were asked. He said if you read
the entire transcript of the press conference, all the questions and
answers, that it would not be construed as an attack upon the com-
mittee, but he said that certain questions were picked out of context
and he felt that an unfair picture of the conference was created. He
said that— I can recall his language on this — he said that "First when
they asked me whether or not there was espionage at Fort Monmouth,
if i said 'Yes' the next question would be 'Why don't you have the
Attorney General prosecute?' "
He said, "I know what the situation is up there. I know it is a
dangerous situation. I have been following it."
We went over to the Merchants Club, I believe, and had lunch,
and after that Mr. Stevens made a statement to the press. In sub-
stance it was that what he meant to say was that the Army had de-
veloped no evidence of— and I think he used the word— "current"
espionage; that he would not speak for the committee on whether
or not espionage had been developed.
Mr. Jenkins. Is that the November 17 lunch in New York, Sen-
ator?
Senator McCarthy. That was the November 17, yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Did the Secretary change, certainly to some extent,
the context of the two press releases or conferences ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, the story was changed. I think
the Secretary tried to create the impression at both times— keep in
mind that the Secretary of the Army is a new man, not used to Wash-
ington press correspondents, not used to Washington politics, not
aware of the fact, I think, that certain correspondents would try and
needle him into a statement which could be construed as a fight between
the Secretary of the Army and the McCarthy committee, because up
to that point we were having perfect cooperation. I don't think it
was a case of his changing what he meant to say. The stories that
appeared were different, yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Up to that time were the relations between you and
the Secretary and Mr. Adams pleasant?
Senator McCarthy. Very pleasant. ..«.<,
Mr. Jenkins. Where did you go from New York on November 17 ?
2468 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. To Fort Monmouth. I beg your pardon. To
P'ort Dix.
Mr. Jenkins. I believe by plane?
Senator McCarthy. By a plane.
Mr. Jenkins. Who was in that party, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Let's see. There was the Secretary, there was
Mr. Adams I believe, there was Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr, I was along, the
pilots, of course, Jim Juliana — Jim was with us? Mrs. McCarthy was
along. Jim was not along. I think that is all.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall whether or not Dave Schine was at
the airfield Avhen that plane landed?
Senator McCarthy. He was.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, tell the members of this subcommittee what
you know about a photograph being taken on that occasion, in which
photograph the Secretary, Dave Schine, I believe a Colonel Bradley —
am I right about that ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. And perhaps somebody else. What do you know
about that photograph. Senator, and particularly at whose instance
such photogra))h was taken?
Senator McCarthy. The thing that impressed me was that the com-
manding officer held Dave's coat while the photograph was being
taken.
Mr. Jenkins. Who was the commanding officer ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall, but I asked who was holding
the coat and somebody said that is the commanding officer. Bradley
I believe was the commanding officer of the area, but it wasn't Bradley
who held the coat.
Mr. Jenkins. Dave Schine then of course was a private in the
Army and stationed at Fort Dix?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Having been inducted on the third day of November.
Senator McCarthy. Let me give you the background of this. As I
recall, Dave had a couple of coats along and he changed them. Wasn't
it a colonel who held his coat?
(Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn conferring.)
Senator McCarthy. In any event, as I say I was sort of impressed —
not impressed, I was amused to find a colonel holding a private's coat.
That isn't the way we did things in the Marine Corps. The Secretary
was in a hurry. There were photographers there. The Secretary
said, "Dave, come over here." I am not sure whether he called
Bradley over also, or not, or wdiether Bradley was standing there.
And the picture was taken. When the picture was taken — I believe a
number of pictures were taken. They posed for a number of pictures.
The Secretary was kind enough to let us have his plane to come back
to Washington or to go to our next — no, I think we were goinor to
Boston to a hearing the next morning, and he took a smaller plane
back to Washington.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you see this photograph taken, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. You say that the Secretary of the Army said to Dave
Schine, "Dave, come over here" ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2469
Senator McCarthy. It was something; to that effect. Either "Dave,
come over here," "Dave, I want a picture," or "Come here, Dave,"
or something like that.
Mr. Jenkins. Is that when the photograph was taken?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. Then they posed beside the plane and the
pictures were taken. There were a number of them taken.
Mr. Jenkins. Were there a number of other people there. Senator,
besides members of your party who had flown down in that plane?
Senator McCarthy. General Ryan was there. There were, per-
haps, a half dozen or a dozen enlisted men. There was another colonel.
1 think there were several officers. There was a captain whom I met,
a lieutenant — it made no impression on me. I know I met a number
of officers at the time.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know why the Secretary signaled Dave Schine
out and said in effect, "Dave, come over here," just prior to the taking
of that phohograph or when the photographs were being taken ?
Senator McCarthy. No, except I think the Secretary is a good
natured individual. He perhaps wanted to make Dave feel good.
1 don't know. It is quite an event for a private to have his picture
taken between the commanding officer of the entire area and the
Secretary of the Army. I know Dave considered it quite an event.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, when did you hold your first open hearing
on Communists or subversives at Fort Monmouth?
Senator McCarthy. Again, I have got to consult my notes to get
exact dates. It was November
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not it was November 24?
Senator McCarthy. November 24 is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Where were those hearings held ?
Senator McCarthy. May I make it clear, Mr. Jenkins, that we held
hearings on the Signal Corps before November 24, and Fort Mon-
mouth is merely a part of the Signal Corps.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well. But did you have an open hearing on
November 24?
Senator McCarthy. On November 24, we had an open hearing on
Fort Monmouth.
Mr. Jenkins. Where was that held ?
Senator McCarthy. That was held in New York City.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall whether or not Mr. Adams was present
at that open hearing?
Senator McCarthy. I am reasonably certain he was.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall whether or not the Secretary of the
Army was present?
Senator McCarthy. No, the Secretary was not present as I recall.
I think Mr. Adams came in the afternoon. General Lawton as I
recall was present.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I want you to tell the members of the com-
mittee whether or not Mr. Adams on that day and at that place had
any conversations with you with respect to General Lawton, and any
particular plans that the Secretary of the Army had made with
respect to General Lawton.
Senator McCarthy. Let me just get my dates straight again. You
see, we were holding hearings every day and it is hard for me to say
what happened on November 24.
2470 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jenkins. November 24, in New York.
Senator McCarthy. May I just check and see when Lawton first
testiiied?
Mr. Jenkins. Of course. You may confer with your counsel.
Senator McCarthy. This was a meetinoj about a week after Lawton
had testified. Lawton testified in October, didn't he? I am just
trying to get my dates straight here, Mr. Jenkins. This is the date
my counsel tells me that we read the Greenglass testimony, the testi-
mony that was taken down at the Federal penitentiary at Lewisburg.
1 know that on that date Mr. Adams discussed in considerable detail
the possibility of relieving General Lawton.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Senator McCarthy, the members of the com-
mittee may regard that as a very important event, and I am going
to ask you, insofar as you possibly can, to relate in detail what that
conversation was and particularly what Mr. Adams said about the
relieving of General Lawton, and why such a plan had been formu-
lated.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams told me they were thinking of
relieving him. The reason he gave was not that he had cooperated
with the committee. He didn't give us that reason. He told us that
Mr. Lawton had told some of the officers, I don't think he even said
at a staff meeting, that most of the Comnumists that we were digging
out came from certain universities. I pointed out to Mr. Adams I
thought that was rather phony, that 3'ou didn't relieve an officer be-
cause he pointed out the school background of Communists.
Mr. Jenkins. What did you think?
Senator McCarthy. Exactly what I told him, that they were re-
lieving him because he was cooperating with us.
Mr. Jenkins. Because he was cooperating with your committee?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. What was Mr. Adams' reply to that? I want the
full context of the conversation. Senator, if we can possibly get it.
Senator McCarthy. He denied it, and said that had nothing to do
with it.
Mr. Jenkins. Is that the first time that Mr. Adams had ever dis-
cussed General Lawton wnth you, insofar as relieving him of his
command was concerned?
Senator McCarthy. I believe — I think that was the first time. Yes,
I am reasonably certain that was the first time.
Mr. Jenkins. What else was said on that occasion particularly with
respect to (leneral Lawton, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. That was about all. They wanted to know
what my reaction would be if Lawton were removed, sent to a dif-
ferent post.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know why they were asking you what your
reaction would be if General Lawton were removed from his post ?
Senator McCarthy. I think they knew that we felt very strongly
that there should not be any reprisal taken against any witness who
testified before our connnittee.
Mr. Jenkins. What had been General Lawton's attitude up to that
time and subsequent thereto with respect to cooperating with your
committee in the digging out of subversives or Communists in the
.Army ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2471
Senator McCautiit. Origintilly, I think the first trip that the in-
vestiivators made to Fort Monmouth, he refused to give them
very much information. Then, Secretary Stevens called General
Law ton
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know why he did ?
Senator McCarthy. On orders, apparently.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well.
Senator McCarthy. And then Jenner — Secretary Stevens called
liim. From that time onward, Lawton's cooperation was full, com-
plete, 100 percent.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you said that is about all, as far as you can
recall, that Mr. Adams said on the 24th of November. I wnll ask you
whether or not on the 25th of November Mr. Adams called yon long
distance from Washington with respect to General Lawton ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think he called me long distance. I
believe Mr. Adams was in New York at that time. He called me.
Again, don't tie me down to dates, but I think it was the 25th that he
called in regard to Lawton. The conversation was essentially the
same.
Mr. Jenkins. What did he say in that telephons call. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Again, just about what he said the day before,
that they felt they had to remove Lawton, that it was affecting the
morale, he said, because Lawton had made these statements about
the Communists we were digging out coming from certain universi-
ties, and wanted to know what I would do if they decided to break
Lawton.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, Senator, you certainly had nothing to do with
the promotion or demotion of Lawton, did you?
Senator McCarthy. Not personally. I think that he didn't get a
promotion because he worked with the committee.
Mr. Jenkins. Did he in fact fail to get a promotion ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you feel. Senator, that certain reprisals were
being taken against the general on account of his cooperation with
your committee ?
Senator McCarthy. Without question.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you so tell Mr. Adams ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you ever talk to the Secretary on this subject that
we are now discussing?
Senator McCarthy. I talked to the Secretary about this over in
the Carroll Arms at one time. I don't recall the elate.
Mr. Jenkins. I believe you have heretofore testified and it has
heretofore been put in the record that General Lawton was not pro-
moted or not given a permanent rank.
Senator McCarthy. That is right. He was passed over.
Mr. Jenkins. In failing to get the permanent rank, as we under-
stand it, an officer stays in the Army some 2 or 3 years less than does
one who is given a permanent rank ; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy, He stays in less. I don't know how many
years. I was under the impression it was 5 years. I might be wrong.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, did you hear Mr. Adams on his cross-
examination in an open hearing here in this room, state that General
2472 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Lawton was correct when Lawton gave a written statement, dictated
by General Lawton to Captain Corr, to this effect : That John Adams,
counselor to the Secretary, called General Lawton and asked him by
phone and stated over the telephonej "I hope you can see your way
clear to withdraw certain cases which you have recommended for
removal as bad security risks," and that to that request on the part
of Mr. Adams, Lawton replied that he would not, and further replied,
"Let the Secretary take the responsibility." Did you hear Mr. Adams
state here under oath that this was and is correct?
Senator McCarthy. 1 heard his testimony, and it was to that effect,
as I recall.
Mr. Jenkins. Was General Lawton ever removed from his com-
mand at Fort Monmouth ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes and no. General Lawton is still techni-
cally in command, but I understand that for the last 4 or 5 months
he is not in a position to give a single order; he is merely a figurehead.
In fact, Mr. Jenkins, he has been — the last time 1 heard about him,
he was in the very unusual position of being on sick leave from a
hospital. It is rather an unlieard of situation to be on sick leave
from a hospital.
So, as far as I know, Mr. Lawton, while he is still technically in
command, to a^l intents and purposes he has been removed completely.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall the Secretary's testimony here at these
hearings to the effect, in substance, that General Lawton was one
of his great or outstanding generals of the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. I recall that, and I would agree with that.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, what if anything, do you know about an
incident of December 9, at which time it is alleged that Mr. Adams
drew an improvised map of the United States divided into some
nine different areas?
Senator McCarthy. I have no personal knowledge of that except
that Mr. Cohn told me about the
Mr. Jenkins. What did Mr. Cohn tell you occurred at that time?
Senator McCarthy. Practically the same as he testified to here
under oath.
Mr. Jenkins. What was that. Senator, in substance?
Senator McCarthy. Namely, that Adams drew a map in, I believe,
nine sections, I think it was, and asked Roy if he would tell him in
what section we would have our next investigation into anything hav-
ing to do with the Army ; and if he would do that, Adams would give
him information in that ])articular section on, as I recall, the Navy,
or the Air Corps, something to that effect.
Mr. Jenkins. Particularly with respect to homosexuals?
Senator McCARTIIY^ That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. When did ]\Ir. Cohn
Senator McCarthy. May I say in that connection, as I understood
Mr. Adams, he said that the charges about homosexuals, in the
Army , that is, had proven false, or something to that effect.
]Mr. Jenkins. He testified to that here on the witness stand ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. The best of our knowledge is that one
of those individuals — is it a captain?
Mr. Carr. Major.
Senator McCarthy. A major, is now in jail as a result of that
investigation.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION' 2473
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall-
Senator McCarthy. I assume Mr. Adams is fair. I am sure he
didn't purposely deceive the committee.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall when Mr. Cohn related that conver-
sation between himself and Mr. Adams? The date it allegedly
occurred, to wit, December 9 ? Was it on that date ? Was it a day
or so thereafter? Was it weeks tliereafter?
Senator McCartiiy. I frankly wouldn't know.
Mr. Jenkjjs^s. Senator, your next allegation in your answer or
pleadings is that Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams sought to prevent j^our
bringing before your committee members of the loyalty board for
examinations.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Without going into detail, Senator McCarthy, I
believe the record shows that, subsequent to your assumption of the
duties of the chairman of this committee, you investigated the Gov-
ernment Printing Ofiice with respect to Communists and subversives;
is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Did that or not result in the suspension of a number
of employees in the Government Printing Office?
Senator jNIcCarthy. That did.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall about how many ?
Senator McCarthy. As I recall, it was 13, 1 think. I have to take
that by hearsay.
Mr. Jenkins. In the course of that investigation, did you subpena
and bring before your committee the members of that loyalty board ?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Jenkins. Which passed on those particular individuals that
were suspended?
Senator McCarthy. We did.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you encounter any opposition in bringing before
.your committee the members of that loyalty board?
Senator McCarthy. None whatsoever, and Mr. Jilattenberger, the
head of the Printing Office, told us that he wanted us to expose any-
thing by way of communism or wrongdoing in the Printing Office, and
he would take action.
We discussed the fact that we had the power of subpena, and he did
not have that power, and that, therefore, working together, we could
be of great service to him.
Mr, Jenkins. Senator, I believe the Secretary of the Army has
no poAver of subpena.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know of any Presidential directive in exist-
ence at the time that would prevent your bringing before you mem-
bers of a loyalty board, either in the Army, the Printing Office, or
any other department of the Government?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know of any directive that would pre-
vent their coming before the board. I think, under the old Truman
directive, there is certain evidence they could not give once they are
before the committee. I may say, Mr. Jenkins, I take the position
that there is no one except the President who can refuse a subpena.
Once they are before the committee, if they are asked questions the
answers to •which might violate any valid regulation or any law or
2474 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
the security of the Nation, then they can refuse to answer, but they
cannot refuse to appear.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know of any law that prohibits the subpena-
ing and bringing before j^our committee of a member of a loyalty
board ?
Senator McCarthy. No. In fact, may I say, Mr. Chairman, I do
know a law, however, which was passed at a time when there was
also a dispute. This was sponsored, incidentally, I believe, by Bob
La Follette, Sr., of Wisconsin, in 1912. As far as I know, this is still
in existence. It provides that :
The risht of persons employed in the civil service of the United States, either
individually or collectively, to petition Cougress or any Member thereof or to
furnish information to either House of Congress, or to any committee or mem-
ber thereof, shall not be denied or interfered with.
That, Mr. Jenkins, as far as I know, is the law of the land, and I
don't think that can be nullified by any Presidential directive.
Mr. Jenkins. Was it then and is it now your ])osition that under
that law you had a legal right to subi)ena and bring before your
committee a member of the loyalty board ?
Senator McCarthy. Absolutely.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not on or about December
16, you first discussed with Mr. Adams or advised Mr. Adams that
you were going to have brought before your committee members of
the loyalty board who had passed upon these Communists or sub-
versives whose sus])ension had been brought about.
Senator McCarthy. No; Mr. Jenkins, may I say that I don't recall
the first day I discussed it with him, but I publicly stated, and it is
in the record, time after time, beginning early in my — counsel hands
me some of the dates now where the pa])ers quoted me as asking me
the same question — as I started to say, time after time, Mr. Jenkins,
I have stated that while I felt it was extremely important to dig out
the individual Communists, that I felt it was 10 times more important
to get the individuals before the committee who were responsible for
their being in positions where they could damage the Nation.
As I said, just to have a counter and watch them go out doesn't do
much good. You have got to get at the source of it and find out why
they are in Government, who gets them in there.
That has been public information.
Now, Mr. Carr has just handed me a note here to the effect that the
various papers, first on September 2, again on September 3, September
4, September 9, Sej^tember 17, October 31, December 15 — that there
were news stories tb the effect that I was demanding that ultimately
we would have to get the old Truman Board before us.
May 1 make it clear, Mr. Jenkins, that that Board is no longer in
existence as a board. It has been abolished as a board. However,
as far as we know, they are still working in the Pentagon. Whether
tiiey are working on secret, top secret, other classified material, we
have no way of knowing.
Mr. Jenkins. Who, Senator, may I ask, appoints the members of
the loyalty board ?
Senator McCarthy. The Secretary of the Army, I believe. I think
they call it the screening board.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall a meeting on December 17 at which
Mr. Adams was present, and at which you had a discussion with
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2475
respect to bringing the members of the loyalty board before your
committee for examination ?
Senator McCarthy. December 17, I believe, is according to my
notes here the date of the car ride.
Mr. Jenkins. Precisely what I was going to say. To pinpoint that
event, it was the day of that automobile ride.
Senator McCarthy. In the forenoon, over in the courthouse at
Foley Square, I may well have mentioned to Adams that we would
have to have the board present.
May I just take 30 seconds to give you the background of this?
As we proceeded with this investigation, Mr. Jenkins, we discovered
that prior to our investigation some 35 individuals had been suspended
at Fort Monmouth. Then when the First Army Loyalty Board, they
first have to go through the First Army Loyalty Board, and those
85 had been found unfit by the First Army Loyalty Board, found
dangerous in the radar laboratory. Then they appealed to the old
Truman Screening Board, which incidentally, was disbanded during
our hearings, and that all except 2, that 33 were sent back to the
secret radar laboratory.
And when we got that information, from that time onward, I
became more and more insistent to Mr. Adams that we have before
us the loyalty board. We had heard rumors that there was graft and
corruption involved.
In fact, one of the members on the board had a Communist-front
record himself.
Now, you asked me about the 17th. On the I7th I may have dis-
cussed that in the morning at Foley Square. I did it almost every
day. But the conversation you have reference to is the conversation
over at Gasner's Restaurant, I believe. That was about General Law-
ton, about the breaking of General Lawton. The day before that,
Mr. Adams brought that matter up. Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr were
not in town. I called my office, not for that purpose alone but just
to make sure that it would not be forgotten, because I was leaving
the next day. I dictated a memorandum on the Lawton matter and
it was brought up the next noon and we discussed it in great detail,
may I say, and with considerable vigor on the part of some of the
participants.
Mr. Jenkins. Was there an animated discussion between Mr, Cohn
and Mr. Adams on December 17 with respect to General Lawton ?
Senator McCarthy. That is putting it mildly.
Mr. Jenkins. Did that discussion continue, Senator, while Mr.
Adams was being ridden or driven in an automobile by Mr. Cohn
to the railroad station ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Is that what that hassle was about. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. That was.
Mr. Jenkins. Was it about any other subject, any other subject
intertwined or integrated with that subject ?
Senator McCarthy. As I recall, Mr. Jenkins, that was the only
subject.
Now, there might have been other subjects brought up incidentally,
but that was the topic of conversation.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Now, getting back to the members of the
loyalty board and your difficulties with Mr. Adams with respect to
2476 SPECIAL INVEvSTIGATION
that, 1 want you to take that up, Senator, where we left off. That
would be in January, would it not?
Senator McCarthy. It started long before that
Mr. Jenkins. That is, there were announcements long before that,
that you would ultimately bring before your committee members of
the loyalty board for examination ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, and I had been telling Mr. Adams con-
stantly that he would have to arrange to have that screening board,
that loyalty board, before us. The matter reached a semihead, I would
say, when Bob Stevens called me and asked me to meet him over at
the Carroll Arms Hotel, and said he was leaving to go to the Far East.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, here is what I would like to ask you to do,
and I think it would be a time-saving device. That is to take up
chronologically any difficulties that you encountered with either Mr.
Adams or Mr. Stevens with respect to bringing before your com-
mittee members of the loyalty board.
Senator McCarthy. AVell, I wnll be glad to. It was something that
is like little Topsy, it grew. We started out, I think, on the 31st, when
we had the security guard before us over in New York. I believe that
is the first time I mentioned we would want the loyalty board. Each
time I would bring that up, Mr. Adams would object to it. He would
say that they are not entitled to come, or something to that effect,
under the Presidential directive; that they couldn't testify.
I told him that it had not merely to do with their handling of
loyalty cases, it had to do with their own personal backgrounds, wnth
allegations of dishonesty. I wonder if somebody could get me that
transcript? Dishonesty. That reached its peak, I would say, on the
20th or 21st of January, at which time some of the Republican Sena-
tors called me and told me that Mr. Adams had been contacting them,
and claiming improper conduct on the ])art of Mr. Cohn.
At that time, they had not thought up any charges against Mr. Carr.
That apparently was an afterthought. At that time, they had not
thought up the charges against me. Their principal target then was
Mr. Cohn.
For the benefit of the committee, could I just read one paragraph
from the transcript?
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, prior to that, prior to January 20 or 21,
state whether or not on January 19, 1 or 2 days prior to the events
about which you are now talking, January 19, Mr. Adams came before
your committee as a result of your request for him to be there with
members of the loyalty board and that the members of the loyalty
board were not with him.
Senator McCarthy. I believe that was the day.
Mr. Jenkins. What conversation ensued between you and Mr.
Adams on January 19, when he showed up before the loyalty board —
before your committee without members of the loyalty board being
with him ?
Senator McCarthy. ]\Ir. Jenkins, I had so many conversations with
him it is hard to pin down any date, but let me give you as best I can
remember. It was the usual explanation to him that he would have to
produce the members of the loyalty board. I have the record of that
proceeding here, I believe — yes, I have the record of that here, sir,
so ratl)Pi' than rely upon my memory
Mr. Jenkins. Are you talking about the January 19 meeting?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2477
Senator McCarthy. January 19.
I said :
At tins point I would like to make clear that we are calling the members of
the loyalty board not only to discuss with them why they have cleared people
who are obviously Communists, but we are also interested in matters of graft,
allewd graft and corruption and misconduct on the part of the individual mem-
bers of the board, having nothing to do with their official duties.
It is the same with General Reichelderfer. It does not merely concern loyalty
board procedures but it has to do with many otiier things over which this com-
mittee not only has the jurisdiction hut a duty to investigate.
That, I think, gives the complete picture of what I said to him at
that time.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall pnttino; a deadline upon his briniriniij
before your committee members of the loyalty lx)ard, to wit, Jan-
uary 22 ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that I fully aijreed to wait until Br-b
Stevens came back, I am not sure about that. Do you remember,
Koy?
I believe I did give him a deadline. j\Ir. Cohn says that he recalls
I said he had to have them in by Friday. 1 think ultimately I agreed,
as I recall, Mr. Jenkins, to hokl this up until Bob Stevens got back.
That is my best recollection.
Mr. Jknkins. Yes, Senator, but now I am talking about your
meeting with him on the 19th.
Senator McCarthy. Apparently on that day — if yon will just lot
me glance through this record, I can tell you. I am sorry, Mr.
Jenkins.
Here is what I said, Mr. Chairman, at page 2 of the record :
And then if John feels that the Department of the Army cannot do the sarne
as the other departments have done, namely, to order their people up here, then
Friday have your subpenas served.
Then there is some discussion, about how many we wanted. We
finally cut the number down to five so we would not keep them waiting.
We agreed to have 2 in the morning and 2 in the afternoon, and to
have the rest of them the following Tuesday. So there was a deadline.
Mr. Jf.nkins. Senator, was it between that date, the 19th of Jan-
uary and the deadline of Friday, w^iich would be, as I understand it,
the'22d — and if I am wrong you wnll correct me — that Mr. Adams
went to certain members of this committee now sitting in judgment
on this case?
Senator McCarthy. That is what I have heard here.
Mr. Jenkins. You heard their testimony given in court here?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; not only to members of this subcom-
mittee, but we find now there was a meeting in the Justice Department
with certain White House aides and the Attorney General and the
Assistant Attorney General present also.
Mr. Jenkins. That meeting being on January 21, as I recall.
Senator McCarthy. January 21, 1 understand.
Mr. Jenkins. The events of that meeting not being available by
reason of a Presidential directive?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. I certainly mean by that question no criticism of the
directive as far as I am concerned.
Senator McCarthy. I may say I very frankly criticize it.
2478 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, on the night of January 22 did you have a
meeting with Mr. Adams?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Jenkins. I believe that was in your apartment or at your
residence?
Senator McCarthy. That was in my apartment.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not later that night you
received a call from the director of your staff, Mr. Frank Carr?
Senator McCarthy. I received a call from Mr. Cohn while Mr.
Adams was there. I asked Mr. Cohn to call back later. Mr. Cohn
called back after Mr. Adams had left.
Mr. Jenkins. What did Mr. Carr advise you in that conversation,
Senator?
Senator McCarthy. It was in the morning that Mr. Carr told me
that Mr. Dirksen had called him and told him that if we didn't cancel
the subpenas, there would be something in the nature of embarrassing
charges made, public charges against Mr. Cohn which would embar-
rass the committee.
Mr. Jenkins. Did Mr. Carr advise you after your meeting with
Mr. Adams on January
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. Prior to that?
Senator McCarthy. Prior to that.
Mr. Jenkins. That if you persisted in calling the members of the
loyalty board before your committee, he, Mr. Adams, would cause
certain charges to be made involving Mr. Cohn?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Was anything said about the charges involving either
you or Mr. Carr ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. That information supposedly came to your informant
from Senator Dirksen ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, let me ask you this question rela-
tive to your answer and statements therein : In addition to the specific
questions I have asked you about your relationship with the Secretary
of the Army and Mr. Adams, are there other facts about which I have
not asked you and which you now want to tell the committee?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I think perhaps the most important
meeting was the meeting of the night of the 22d in my apartment.
That meeting lasted 3 hours, perhaps.
Mr. Jenkins. That is the meeting at which Mr. Adams was present?
Senator McCarthy". That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. All right. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. At that time, Mr. Adams made it very clear
to me that if we persisted in calling the members of the loyalty board,
charges against Mr. Cohn would be made public. There was no men-
tion of any charges against Mr. Carr or against me.
I had a long discussion with him. I told him that we just would
not be blackmailed out of this investigation in that fashion ; that if
they had any information about Mr. Cohn which the committee or
the public should know, that he could make it public if he wanted to.
I think we discussed that matter for, oh, at least 3 hours. It was
an unusual conversation. Adams would first attempt to convince
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2479
me that it was unwise to call the loyalty board from the standpoint
of public relations and the Army ; that we wouldn't get any informa-
tion anyway ; that under the Presidential directive they couldn't talk.
Then he would suggest that I wait until Bob Stevens came back. I
think I finally agreed to that. I am not sure. It was a combination
of salesmanship and threatening. He made it very clear to me that
if we would not call off the hearing on the loyalty board, he didn't
mention any individual Communist — it seems there was no concern
about our picking individual communists up by the scruff of their
neck and getting rid of them, but the pain was felt when we started
to find out who Avas responsible.
I recall I said to him, "John," I said, "We are not investigating
Bob Stevens. He hasn't been there long enough to clean house. You
can't clean house in 1 year where you have had this going on for 20
years." I said, "This is the old team." I recall very vividly his
answer, partly serious and partly in jest, I assume. He said, "Well,
Senator, I am part of the old team,'' which he was. He had been in
the Pentagon for some time.
It ended by my making it very clear to him that we intended to
proceed to call the loyalty board members. I frankly didn't think
then that Stevens would allow any false charges to be made. Mr.
Cohn called me. I told him about this over the phone. I talked
to him about it after that. We both heartily agreed that they could
go ahead and do whatever tliey wanted to ; that if we could be black-
mailed out of one investigation by this type of threat, it could set
the modus operandi for the same type of blackmail whenever we tried
to set rid of Communists, and that under no circumstances should we
accede to it.
Adams left, knowing that was our position.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, precisely what threat did Mr. Adams make
that evening at your apartment, January 22, as to what he would do
or cause to be done if you persisted in subpenaing and bringing before
your committee members of the loyalty board?
Senator McCarthy. He claimed that Koy had been using improper
influence to get special consideration for Dave Schine. He said that
he was calling him almost every night, calling Bob Stevens almost
every day on that, indicated that they had the phone calls which
would be extremely damaging and indicated that it might wreckthe
committee, that we would be better off to forget about this investiga-
ion, to go on to others instead of having our committee wrecked. I
think that is roughly the picture.
Mr. Jenkins. Was that the most direct, the boldest threat, that
Adams had ever made up to that time, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Was he apparently serious in making those threats?
Senator McCarthy. Anyone listening would say he was extremely
serious. I personally thought that maybe it was part of his sales-
manship, that it was a bluff. I didn't know. I couldn't conceive of
him doing what he finally did, namely, file these false charges. At
that time, may I say, Frank Carr was never brought into it, no in-
dication that Frank Carr had done anything improper.
Mr. Jenkins. And I believe you say you were not brought into it?
Senator McCarthy. I was not.
Mr. Jenkins. The threat was against your chief counsel, :\lr. Cohn ?
2480 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. No, in fact he made it very clear that he knew
I had repeatedly told him and the Secretary that they should lean
over backward to make sure that the element of the press which was
always criticizing any exposure of Communists could not criticize
them or couldn't criticize the committee.
Mr. Jenkins. While on that subject, had you done so, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I had, sir. In fact, I did it by letter, also to
make it a matter of record.
Mr. Jenkins. December 22 ?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, did you have other contacts with either the
Secretary or Mr. Adams subsequent to that meeting of January 22 at
your apartment?
Senator McCarthy. I called Mr. Adams on the 2d of February,
after this fifth amendment Communist had gotten an honorable
discharge.
Mr. Jenkins. Are you talking about Peress?
Senator McCarthy. Peress. And could I give you — again may I
apologize for giving answers which are a bit long, but I am afraid I
have got to in some of these cases. The reason for that was an follows :
No. 1, Mr. Cohn had notified Mr. Adams in 1953 about the Peress mat-
ter, that they had a fifth amendment Communist major, that he was a
dentist, and being a dentist he would have access to any Communist
who wanted to use that as a staging point. We pointed out, Mr. Cohn
told me he did, pointed out to Mr. Adams how dentists had been used
in the past for that particular purpose because a private or a general
can go into a dentist's office and no questions are asked. He suggested
that he be gotten out of there. That was in 1953.
Then, again, in 1954, I think the date was January 4, Mr. Cohn
again called Mr. Adams and urged that they do something. Nothing
was done. Finally on the 26th of January, we subpenaed Peress, or
at least we ordered him to appear. He appeared on the 30th. He
was asked — and we didn't pull these questions out of a hat, under-
stand. We knew he had been engaged in these activities.
Mr. Jenkins. Was that prior to his discharge. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. That was prior to his discharge. He was
asked, for example, whether he had attended a Communist leadership
school. AVhat is the name of that school, Roy, do you remember ?
The Inwood Victory School, a Communist leadership school. We,
of course, knew he had attended it. He graduated apparently, with
honors, as far as we know. He refused to answer on the grounds that
his answer might tend to incriminate him. He was asked whether he
was holding Communist meetings in his home, down at Camp Kilmer,
Again, the usual refusal to answer.
Mr. Jenkins. Was he then wearing a major's uniform ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct. That is correct. I am not
sure whether he had the uniform on that day, but he was a major then.
He was asked whether or not he was engaged in espionage. He took
the fifth amendment.
Didn't he, Roy »
I think he took the fifth on conspiracy to commit espionage but
maybe not on espionage. He took the fifth amendment as to whether
he was trying to recruit soldiers into the Communist Party. He took
the fifth amendment as to whether a Communist had gotten a change
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2481
iri his orders. He had been ordered to go to Yokohama. His orders
were suddenly changed. We asked if a Commimist in the military
had intervened for him. He refused to answer that on the grounds
that the answer might tend to incriminate him.
Incidentally, that change of orders was very unusual. All the
Senators sitting at the table know that we get letters every day Jrom
real hardship cases, cases where families are sick, someone about to
die, and there very seldom is a change of orders. But in this case,
he got a change of orders. The only reason he could give, Mr. Jen-
kins, was that his wife and daughter had been visiting a psychiatrist.
We asked him to give us the name of the psychiatrist. He couldn't
remember. Well, when that occurred — and we also found that he
had refused to answer almost the same questions, not in as much detail,
from the Army in August of 1953. He wrote across tho face of the
questionnaire, "refuse, fifth amendment," or something like that.
Mr. Jlnkins. Where was that file. Senator?
Senator JSIcCarthy. That was his personnel file which we, as a
committee are entitled to
Mr. Jenkins. In the Pentagon?
Senator McCarthy. That was gotten from the Pentagon; yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Now, I believe you say you called Mr.
Adams on February 2 about Peress?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. Before I did that, I did this, Mr. Jen-
kins : I wrote to the Secretary of the Army and called his attention
to this fifth amendment Communist.
Mr. Jenkins. Could you know the dates of that letter. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. The date of that was— I think it was the night
of the 30th. It was made public on the 1st of February, as I recall.
Mr. Jenkins. And that was before Peress' discharge?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you have a copy of that letter?
Senator McCarthy.Ycs, we have a copy here.
Mr. Jenkins. I wili ask you. Senator, to read a copy of that letter
into the record, giving the date, please.
Mr. VVelch. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mdndt. Mr. Welch?
Mr. W^elch. Could I remind you, Mr. Jenkins, that we long ago
decided not to try the Peress case, and we didn't go intp it. It seems
to me that we ought not to broaden the record now, in view of the
ruling, Mr. Jenkins, made so long ago.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, long ago I am sure you will recall we
agi-eed to hold the testmiony to the issues of this controversy, and,
further, long ago we went far afield and left the issues of the contro-
versy and we— and I do not say this critically, and I do not charge
you with it, Mr. Welch, nor do I assume responsibility for it— but
many new issues have been brought into this controversy, perhaps
some properly so, certainly from the standpoint of a salutary effect
on the public.
I do not propose to go into details, Mr. Welch. It occurred to me
that perhaps, and I think with the introduction of this letter I am
through, that perhaps the introduction of this letter might be of
interest to the committee as shedding light on the attitude of the Sec-
retary or those under his command with respect to this Cohn case.
2482 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
I think perhaps, Mr. Chairman, it might shed some light or the
committee might deem that it will. I want to ask the Senator to read
into the record a copy of that letter, and then, Senator, I state to you
and to you, Mr. Welch, that I propose to pass from that subject.
Mr. VVelcii. I think one more word is in order. You will remem-
ber, Mr. Jenkins, when the 25 names were submitted to you, there
was a recital in the letter of the way the evidence then stood, and I
have never known of any change in your ruling which was to the
effect
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I don't regard it as important. At
Mr. Welch's suggestion or request, Senator, I am going to withdraw
that question. The fact is that you did write a letter. I am not going
to ask you to read it into the record. I believe you say it is dated the
oOth of January?
Senator McCarthy. February 1. This letter
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you this one question and pass from Peress
as far as I am concerned.
Senator McCarthy. I didn't answer your other question. You
asked me what my next contact with Mr. Adams was. May I say the
contact was the result of the letter and subsequent acts.
Mr. Jenkins. The letter is dated February 1 ?
Senator McCarthy. February 1.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know the date of Peress' discharge?
Senator McCarthy. The morning of February 2.
Mr. Jenkins. The morning of February 2. Did you have a con-
versation with Mr. Adams on the morning of February 2 in con-
sequence of the letter to which you have just referred ?
Senator McCarthy. I had a conversation with him on the evening
of February 2.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I will ask you to relate to the committee
the substance or context of that conversation.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCarthy. I called Mr. Adams
Mr. Welch. May I first inquire?
Senator Mundt." Mr. Welch, do you have a point of order?
Mr. Welch. Whether or not that involves the Peress case? If
so
Mr. Jenkins. If so, Mr. Welch, I assure you that I will tell the
witness that, in my opinion, it sheds no light on the issues.
Mr. Welch. Thank you, sir.
Mr. Jenkins, Anything that was said by Mr. Adams with respect
to the loyalty board or any of the subjects relating to this inquiry,
Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I may say, it has this relation to the
inquiry : At that time I told Mr. Adams that we would get the names
of all those responsible for the coddling of Peress, and that neither he
nor anyone else on earth could stop us. We had a rather heated argu-
ment, and that, I think, had something to do with this investigation.
If I may give you the conversation. I called him and told him that
I thought that what they had done was completely improper, that
they all knew that I had asked for a court-martial of this major, and
a court-martial of eveiyone who had anything to do with his promo-
tion, his change of orders, knowing that he was a Communist, and
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2483
that what they did the next morning, within a matter of hours they
tried to put him beyond the jurisdiction of the Army, I told them I
thou<2;ht this was unfair to Bob Stevens, because Stevens was out of the
country at the time ; that the least they could have done was wait until
the Secretary got back and let him make the decision,
I told Mr. Adams that I had every reason to believe that he, Adams,
had a hand in this, and that I was going to try and find out the names
of all of those who had a hand in it.
That conversation, I believe, Mr. Jenkins, as well as our demand
for the members of the lo3'alty board, had considerable to do with the
false and fraudulent charges which have been filed here because, Mr.
Jenkins, let me say this in conclusion, there seemed to be no consterna-
tion, no fear when we would pick up an individual Communist and
expose him and help get rid of him, but there seemed to be an unex-
plainable amount of consternation whenever we talked about getting
the names of those responsible for the coddling and the special priv-
ileges for a Communist or the names of the loyalty board who sent
Communists back to the secret radar laboratory.
That. Mr. Chairman, is I think why we are in these hearings today.
Mr. Jenkins. That in your opinion. Senator, was the straw that
broke the camel's back and precipitated this open hassle, is that right,
an open breach ?
Senator McCarthy. This is one of the two straws. The other
straw was getting the 'oyalty board.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you ever have any contact with Mr. Adams or
the Secretary after February 2?
Senator McCarthy. I had a contact with Mr. Stevens on the 24th
day of February. I tliink that has been gone over in detail. I would
be glad to go over it again if you want me to.
]\Ir. Jenkins. Was that the chicken dinner?
Senator McCarthy. That was the chicken dinner.
Mr. Jenkins. I think that has been sufficiently aired.
Senator, are there any other statements you now desire to make
which you feel this committee should know about, and which will shed
light upon the issues involved in this controversy ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, there may be details which were
omitted, but I am sure that by the time the Senators and Mr. Welch
get through cross-examining me there will be nothing left out, so I
will leave that for the cross-examination.
Senator Mundt. May the Chair say that Counsel Jenkins has ad-
vised him that he has now concluded his direct examination and will
come back in his capacity of Dr. Jekyll wath his cross-examination
after lunch, so we will recess until 2 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 12 : 28 p. m. the hearing was recessed, to reconvene
at 2 p. m. the same day.)
INDEX
Page
Adams, John G 2449, 2450, 2455-2457, 2461-24S3
Air Corps (United States) 2455, 2456, 2465, 2466, 2472
American Communist Party 2451
Appropriations Committee (Senate) 2448
Armed Forces appropriation bill 2448
Armed services 2448
Army (United States) 2450-2468, 2465-2460, 2471-2473, 2477, 2470, 2481, 2483
Army Intelligence (G-2) 2458, 2450, 2460
Army Signal Corps 2469
Army War College 24;)0
Assistant Attorney General of the United States 2477
Attorney General of the United States 2467, 2477
Auchincloss, Congressman 2464
Bangor, Maine 2467
Blattenberger, Mr 2473
Bortz, Louis 24.:t4
Boston, Mass 2467
Bradley, Colonel 2468
Camp Kilmer 2480
Capitol Police 2447
Carr, Francis P 2450, 2456, 2468, 2475, 2478
Carroll Arms Hotel 2476
Civil Service (United States) 2474
Cohn, Roy M 2450, 2452, 2453, 2455-2457, 2459-2466, 2468, 2471, 2472, 2475, 2481
Coleman, Aaron 2454
Committee on Appropriations (Senate) 2448
Communist infiltration of the Army 2450
Communist International 2451
Communist leadership school -^ 2480
Communist line literature 2458, 2460
Communist major 2480
Communist Party 2450-2454, 2456-
2461, 2463, 2465, 2466, 2469-2471, 2473-2475, 2477, 2479-2481, 2483
Communist Party of America 2451
Communist writer 24o9
Communists 2450-2454, 2456-
2461, 2463, 2465, 2466, 2469-2471, 2473-2475, 2477, 2479-24S1, 2483
Communists in the Army 2452, 2453, 2463, 2466
Communists in defense plants 2465
Communists in New York ~"*'^?
Constitution of the United States 2453
Corr, Captain 2472
Counselor to the Army 2449, 2450, 2455-2457, 2461-2483
Daily Worker 2451
Department of the Army_ 2450-2463, 2165-2469, 2471-2473, 2477, 2479, 2481, 2483
Department of Justice 2450-2477
East-West trade 2452
Eighth Army in Korea 2459
Engels 2458
FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 2450
FBI subversive group (New York) 2450
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2450
Federal penitentiary (Lewisburg) _- 2470
Fifth amendment Communist 2454, 2481
Fifth amendment Communist major 2480
First Army Loyalty Board 247o
Foley Square (New York City) 247o
Fort Dix 2468
Fort Monmouth 2449, 2450, 2453, 2455, 2457, 2461-2469, 2471, 24 ro
G-2 (Army Intelligence) 2458, 2459, 2460
n INDEX
Page
Gasnei-'s Restaurant (New York City) 2475
Government I'rintiiig Office 2452, 2454, 247:^
Greeuj^lass tesliinony 2470
Intellisence officers 245.S
Inwood Victory School 24.S0
.Tenner 2471
Juliana, .liiu 2468
Justice I)e|)artment 2450, 2477
La Follette, P.oli, Sr 2474
I.awton, General 2460, 2464, 2409-2473, 2475
Lenin 2458
Lewishurg Federal penitentiary 2470
Loyally board 2473-2476, 2479, 2482, 24S8
Marine Corps (United States) 2468
Marx, Karl 2458
McCarthy, Senator Joe, testimony of 2449 2483
McCarthy, Mrs 2468
Merchants Clnh 2467
Military Intelligence (G-2) 2458-2460
Mndgett, General 2465
Navy (United States) 2451, 2455, 2456, 2465, 2466, 2472
New York City 2450, 2453, 2457, 2460, 2467, 2469-2471
Partridge, General 2458-2460
Pentagon 2455, 2457, 2458. 2463, 2465, 2474, 2481
Peress, Irving 245.3, 2454, 2456, 2480-2482
Powell, Doris Walters 2454
I'resi(Vnt of the United States 2455, 2473-2475, 2479
Presidential directive 2473, 2479
Quartermaster Corps (United States) 2453,2454
Radar laboratory 2483
Reichelderfer, General 2477
Kidgway, Matt 2465
Rothschild, Edward 2454
Ryan, General 2451, 2469
Schine, G. David 24.50, 24.56, 2457, 2468
Secret radar laboratory 2483
Secretary of the Army 2449, 2450,
24.52-2461, 2463-2467, 2469, 2471-2474, 2476, 2478-2480, 2483
Secretary Stevens' nress release (November 13) 2461,2466
Senate Appropriations Committee 2448
Signal Ccrps (U. S. Army) 2469
Stalin 2458
Stevens, Robert T 2449,
2450. 2452-2461, 2463 2467, 2469, 2471-2474, 2476, 2478-2480, 2483
Stevens administration 2456
Taylor, General 2459
Trewitt, Mr 2465
Truman loyalty board 245.5, 2474, 2475
United States Air Corps 24.5.5, 24.56, 2465, 2466, 2472
United States Army 24-50-2463, 2465-2409, 2471 247.3, 2477, 247!», 2481, 2483
United States Army Intelligence (G-2) 2458-2460
United States Army Signal Corps 2469
United States Assistant Attorney General 2477
United States Attorney General 2467
Un'ted States Civil Service 2474
United States Constitution 24.53
United States Department of Justice 24.50, 2477
United States Marine Corps 2468
United States Navy 2451, 2455, 2456, 2465, 2466, 2472
United States President 24.55,2473-2475,2479
United States Quartermaster Corps 2453, 2454
United States Senate 2448
Voice of America 24.52
White House 2477
Yokohama 2481
O
yi^
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 OE THE COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
UNITED STATES SENATE
EIGHTY-THIBD CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO
S. Res. 189
PART 61
JUNE 10, 1954
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Operations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
46620° WASHINGTON ; 1954
Ec3.on Fubli. .-"f
Superintendent of Documents
NOV 2 4 1954
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, Soutli Dakota JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idalio JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Hlinois 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 Cleric
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
n
CONTENTS
Page
Index I
Testimony of —
McCarthy, Senator Joe, United States Senate 24SG
III
SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHARGES 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
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1954
United States Senate,
Special Subcommittee on Investigations
OF the Committee on Government Operations,
Washington, D. O.
AFTER RECESS
(The hearing was resumed at 2 : 12 p. m., pursuant to recess.)
Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota, chair-
man; 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 M. Jenkins, chief counsel; 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 would like to begin, as has been his custom now for some
time, by welcoming the guests who have come to the committee room.
We are happy to have, you here watching one of the committees of
your Congress in action. As those of you who have been here before
know, M'e have a committee rule forbidding any audible manifesta-
tions of approval or disapproval at any time in any manner on the part
of the audience. The uniformed members of the Capitol Police force
that you see before you, and the plainclothes people scattered through-
out the audience, have received instructions from the committee to re-
move from the room, without further orders from the Chair, anyone
who violates the terms under which he entered the room, namely, to
refrain from audible manifestations of approval or disapproval.
I will ask the Capitol Police and the plainclothes men to carry
out that order if unhappily it becomes necessary during the course of
the proceedings. Everybody in the room is completely conversant
with the rules provided in this committee room.
2485
2486 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
As we concluded the mornin<2: session, Counsel Jenkins had just
finished his direct examination of the witness, who is Senator Mc-
Carthy of Wisconsin, and was about to begin his cross-examination.
Due to a number of questions raised by some fine young high school
students with whom I was privileged to have lunch this noon, I think I
should explain once again, in fairness to Mr. Jenkins, that he probably
has the most unusual assignment ever given an American attorney.
His job is twofold, and he wears two hats. One is to act as a defense
attorney, as it were, engaged in direct examination, helping the
witnesses present their case in the best possible light; and then he
takes off that hat and becomes a cross-examiner, something in the
nature of a prosecuting attorney, in which he does his best to demolish
the case which he has helped to establish.
So he switches now from the happy appellations of a direct examiner
to the harsh adjectives of a cross-examiner.
A number of years ago there was a popular refrain on Broadway
which went to the effect of "Absolutely, Mr. Gallagher; positively,
Mr. Schine." I think that might apply to Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Sheen.
I hope that Private Schine will not now rise to a point of personal
privilege. Mr. Sheen.
I think that is about the position you are in now. Counsel Jenkins.
I will remove you from one cast to another, and you will proceed as
Mr. Hyde and examine Senator McCarthy under cross-examination,
without time limit, after which w^e will go around the wheel 10 minutes
at a turn until all questions have been exhausted.
Mr. Jenkins?
TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCAETHY, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN— Resumed
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, the first thing I would like to say
publicly is that as a citizen of this country, I deeply and highly respect
the great office of United States Senator. I am sure you understand
that. I w^ant to make it clear to all who hear and to all who listen.
I am sure, Senator, that you further understand that my difficult
role as a cross-examiner of a witness is not a pleasant one. It has not
been a pleasant task to cross-examine the Secretary of the Army or
his counsel or your counsel, but I am sure that in all fairness you agree
with me that in the discharge of my duty it is proper for me to do so.
Is that right, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. Right,
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, at the very outset I want to discuss wuth
you briefly—
Senator McCarthy. First, Mr. Jenkins, could I say this : I have
received a great number of letters and wires from people in effect
saying "Is Jenkins going to get rough with you ?"
I want to make it clear to those people that you have a duty to cross-
examine as vigorously as you possibly can, that your cross-examination
of Bob Stevens and Mr. Adams, Mr. Cohn, and myself in no way
expresses your own personal feelings.
And I would like to say that as long as I have been a judge and the
chairman of a committee I don't think I have ever seen a more vigorous
and more intelligent cross-examiner, and I want my friends who are
w^atching this to know that I expect you to cross-examine as vigorously
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2487
as you have cross-examined anyone and tliat that reflects no feeling
between Mr. Jenkins and Joe IVIcCarthy.
Mr. Jenkins. I appreciate that, Senator, more deeply that I can
possibly ever express.
The first thing I want to discuss with you, Senator McCarthy, are
the things which I regard as two of the fundamentals of life itself.
One is character and the other is the value of a good name.
I have heard your direct examination all morning, Senator Mc-
Carthy. I heard you say little, if anything, as I recall it — and I
want you to confirm it or deny it — that really reflects fundamentally
upon the character of the Secretary of the Army. Am I right about
that, Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. You are right. May I say, Mr. Jenkins, if I
may add to that, I think the Secretary of the Army is a very honest
individual. He came down here with no experience in politics. I
think he got mousetrapped in the very rough politics being played
down here. I think what he did in connection with the issuance of
the charges was completely wrong. I think he was perhaps in the
position of the individual in whose mouth Shakespeare put the words
in the Macbeth play, 'T am in blood, stepped in so far that to wade no
more is as tedious as to go on."
I think Mr. Stevens was shoved into this to a certain extent and
from that point onward he felt he had no choice but to proceed.
Mr. Jenkins. I believe you say. Senator McCarthy, that the Sec-
retary of the Army, ]\Ir. Stevens, is an honest man ? Is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. He is, yes, but don't let us confuse that with
the charges made against Mr. Carr. I think that that was not honest.
And against Mr. Cohn and against myself. I think essentially he is
a very honest man.
Mr. Jenkins. Essentially and fundamentally an honest man, essen-
tially and fundamentally, Senator McCarthy, a truthful man?
Senator McCarthy. Essentially and fundamentally ; yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, in all probability, the Secretary of the Army
is listening to you and me now. I hope he is. I have been severely
criticized by many people who thought my cross-examination of him
was not justified. And now, at the very twilight of this drama, you
might say, when the curtain is rapidly falling, let's talk a little about
the Secretary of the Army. You stated, Senator, that he was funda-
mentallv and essentially honest and fundamentally and essentially
truthful?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. And I think that is demonstrated, Mr.
Jenkins, in the monitored calls which he made, one to Senator Mc-
Clellan, in which he said I am willing to testif}^ and tell the truth,
one to Senator Potter, and the one that he made to Senator — rather,
Senator Symington made to him, in which he said, "There really is
nothing to this." I think he was trying to be completely truthful.
Mr. Jenkins. Not only that, Senator McCarthy, but fundamentally
and essentially, you would say the Secretary of the Army is a man
of integrity, wouldn't you ?
Senator McCarthy. Fundamentally and essentially ; yes.
Mr. Jenkins. In all of your direct testimony given here today, you
never at one time mentioned a single threat made against you or your
staff by the Secretary of the Army did you ?
2488 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. I think that is correct.
Mr. Jenkins, Never at one time intimated that the Secretary of
the Army ever said, directly or by implication, that Schine was a
hostage ?
Senator McCarthy. Never the Secretary ; no.
.Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, in view of what we have said
about the Secretary of the Army, and I recall you have just quoted
a passage from f)erhaps the greatest philosopher that ever lived, save
the one of 2,000 years ago, and we are talking now about character
and the value of a good name, and other words of that philosopher
came to my mind :
Who steals my purse steals trash, but he who filches my good name takes
that which does not enrich him but makes me poor indeed.
So with that as perhaps the most classic commentary ever uttered
on the value of a good name, let's talk further, about the good name
and the character of this Secretary of the Army.
Senator McCarthy. Very good.
Mr. Jenkins. He holds a high position, a Cabinet officer
Senator McCarthy. I don't
Mr. Jenkins. Responsible, perhaps not technically, but responsible
to only one man between him and President Eisenhower.
Senator McCarthy. I think that is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. We have described him as a man who has never made
any threat against you or the members of your staff. He is a man
further, Senator, who, from the very beginning, demonstrated to you
that he hated Communists as you and I hate them. That is correct,
isn't it, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. And you stated that in public utterances, and you
state it now for all to hear and see ?
Senator McCarth. I am very happy to state it now.
Mr. Jenkins. Robert Stevens hates Communists as do you and I.
Senator McCarthy. I think that Bob Stevens dislikes Communists
as much as any man I know.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, hating or disliking Communists
as much as any man you know, when he had ascertained that the
McCarthy committee was busily engaged in hunting, pinpointing sub-
versives in the Army, he came running, he came flying, from the
State of Montana back to Washington and saw you immediately, and
tendered his fullest and his heartiest cooperation in your line of en-
deavor, didn't he ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. From that time up to the very instant, this very pre-
cious instant, Robert Stevens, the Secretary of the Army, has never
said or done one word to indicate to you that he was a Communist
coddler or that he was relaxing his vigilance to, on his own initia-
tive and in cooperation with you, rid the Army of Communists or
subversives. That is correct, is it not ?
Senator McCarthy. There I am afraid we have to part slightly,
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Stevens has indicated, and I think honestly so,
that he dislikes Communists. I think that is true. I fear that Bob
Stevens does not realize the tremendous interwoven Communist con-
spiracy. If he did, he would have been willing to work with us the
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2489
same as the Government Printing Office did, bring the members of
that okl Truman loyalty board who cleared Communists, and make
them explain why they sent Communists back to Fort Monmouth.
Mr. Stevens was, in my opinion, a good, loyal, honest American.
I could find no fault with his activities until the time when he
finally succumbed to the pressures — what pressures there were, I don't
know.
Senator Symington has monitored phone calls which indicate that
the political adviser of the Democrat Party was advising Bob Stevens,
that Senator Symington was. We hear about a meeting oA^er in the
Justice Department attended by a number of individuals at which
there was set in motion the machinery for the completely false charges,
and I may say fraudulent charges, against Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr.
I think if Mr. Stevens were a stronger man, if he didn't know it
beforehand, when he discovered from the witness on the stand that
Mr. Carr had nothing whatsoever to do with the Schine matter, I
think then the Secretary could have done himself and he could have
done the country a great deal of good if he had come forward and
said, "We were mistaken. Somebody misguided me."
When he finds now that Mr. Cohn has done nothing whatsoever
improper, I think a man of strong character would come forward and
say that, "We were mistaken. We want to drop those charges. Let's
get on with the investigation of those who would destroy this Nation."
^ So, may I say, Mr. Chairman, while I think there is nothing essen-
tially dishonest, nothing bad about Bob Stevens, he got mouse-
trapped somehow, whether it was by tlie political adviser of the
opposite party or who; and once he got in this, he insisted on going
forward.
I think the greatest mark of a strong character is to admit that
you have been mistaken, and come out publicly and try and redress
your mistakes, because what he has done — I don't think lie is at fault.
What he has done, he issued charges which would rob the two young
men, one sitting to my left, one to my right, who have done so much to
fight this Communist conspiracy — what he has done is to issue charges
which, if believed by the American people, it would rob them of their
reputation; it would rob them of their jobs.
I don't say they are so much concerned about their jobs, but I am
concerned about their reputations.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, do you recall the testimony of this Secre-
tary of the Army about whom we a-e talking, on that witness stand
w^here you now sit
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I do.
Mr. Jenkins (continuing) . In which he said that if he were sitting
lip liere where these United States Senators are sitting, as a judge,
that he, on the basis of the testimony about which he personally knew,
would render a verdict of "not guilty" against Mr. Frank Carr?
Do you recall the Secretary's so testifying?
Senator McCarthy. I don't believe that was exactly his testimony,
Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Wasn't that the burden of it, Senator McCarthy,
that he would acquit him on the basis of what he knew and on the
basis of the testimony that had been introduced up to that time?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is essentially it.
46620'— 54--pt. 61 2
2490 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jenkins. You think that is essentially correct?
Senator McCarthy. That is essentially correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, in answer to my last question
previous to the last one, you talked about poor advice that the Secre-
tary of the Army had. I am not concerned about his advisors, who
they are, whether it was sound or unsound advice that he had, but
prior to his coming to Washington at the invitation of the President
and accepting this high command, he was known as one of the great
industrialists of this country, wasn't he ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. As far as you know, Senator, his character and his
reputation as a businessman, as a family man, as a religious man,
and all of his relationships in life, were above reproach, weren't
they ?
Senator McCarthy. I frankly know nothing about his background
except that he is in the textile business.
Mr. Jenkins. As you say, he came here unschooled and unlearned
in this game of the ruthless politics.
Senator McCarthy. I think there is no question about that.
Mr. Jenkins. What do you say about that. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is true, except I believe he had
some small stint back in NKA. To just what extent, I don't know.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you say that in your opinion he has from
time to time been ill advised and you attribute his mistakes, his faults,
to false advice, to misguided advice on the part of his friends, so called.
That is essentially what you have said, isn't it. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, and may I say, Mr. Jenkins, I think the
monitored phone calls prove that definitely. They prove that. Bob
Stevens talking to the Senators, when he wanted the subpenas of the
loyalty board canceled, nevertheless he didn't build up a false story.
He said in effect, as you will recall, there is really nothing to this,
it is greatly exaggerated. If he were a dishonest man, he could have
very well built up a story.
Mr. Jenkins. Just further evidence of the inherent honesty of the
Secretary of the Army, isn't it. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. I think you are right.
Mr. Jenkins. His testimony is that while he was the accuser, he
nevertheless would render a verdict of not guilty against Frank Carr
on the basis of returns as of that moment. That is right, isn't it,
Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is essentially correct.
Mr. Jenkins. So we would say of the Secretary of the Army, Sen-
ator McCarthy, as of this moment, and in all sincerity and in all
good conscience, not for the purpose of making him feel good, not
for the purpose of soothing the wounds of his family, or of building
any fine tradition for him to leave his family, but from the depths
of the heart and conscience, that to the very core, to his very core
we believe that Robert T. Stevens is essentially and fundamentally
an honest, truthful man of integrity, don't we?
Senator McCarthy. May I say this, Mr. Jenkins, that aside from
the issuance of the report charging misconduct where there was no
misconduct, I found nothing remotely dishonest about Bob Stevens.
And may I say, Mr. Jenkins, I sincerely hope that when these hear-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2491
ings fire over I can again sit clown with Secretary Stevens and work
out the type of cooperation wliich we had for some time.
I have no ill feeling whatsoever toward Secretary Stevens. As
I say, and pardon me for repeating, I think he was badly monse-
trapped, if I can use that phrase. I don't believe he knew that he
was having the shots callecl by the political adviser of the opposite
party. I am not criticizing the political adviser of the Democrat
Party for doing that. If he could get away with it, if he could de-
stroy the Republican Party in that fashion, if he felt the party should
be destroyed, he may have felt that was his job.
But may I say this in conclusion: I do think, Mr. Jenkins, that
one of the things that we must get to the bottom of is to find out
who was calling the shots, because, if I may have 30 seconds, while
it may appear to be clever to have the chief political adviser of one
party calling the shots for the other party, if that were to continue it
would mean^the ruination of the two-party system. If we don't have
a two-party system, then 'this Republic can't survive.
Mr. Jenkins. And so, Senator McCarthy, as you now understand,
unless these charges were released, which Avas on March 10, I believe,
of this year — am" I correct about that, or approximately so?
Senator McCarthy. 10th or 11th.
Mr. Jenkins. From the very day upon which you met the Sjcre-
tary of the Army, to-wit the 8th day of September 1953, to the 10th
day of March 1954, you never saw one act on his part, nor did you
hear one word issued from his lips that would cause you to think
that he was anything but fundamentally and essentially an honest,
truthful, sincere man of integrity and high character. That is right,
isn't it. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. With the exception of the Zwicker incident;
Mr. Jenkins. With the exception of the Zwicker incident.
Well, Senator McCarthy, then in view of what you have Just said
about the Secretary of the Army, let me ask you this question — and
these are not trick questions. As I say. Senator, we are in the twi-
light zone of this drama, and the curtain will soon be down, and the
characters will walk from the stage, and the Secretary, I know, and
the members of his family and his friends are listening to what you
say — wouldn't you say. Senator McCarthy, that by and large, Robert
T. Stevens is a good Secretary of the Army ? I don't — I am not asking
you to say that he is perfect or that he lias made no mistakes. But
by and large, considering everything — he no doubt has made mis-
takes. I know of no high executive or low executive that doesn't,
but considering the things you have said about him, his attitude
toward Communists, his apparent devotion to the Army, his love
for the Army, his zealousness for the Army and its welfare and its
training, wouldn't you say now that by and large the Secretary of
the Army is a good one. as such ?
Senator ISIcCakthy. Let me put it this way, Mr. Jenkins. I think
that this experience will make him a much better Secretary of the
Army, No. 1. I will say he will be a much better Secretary because of
this experience.
Mr. Jenkins. In other words, he has the intelligence and good
sense to profit by any mistakes that he has made, is that what you
mean, Senator?
2492 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. I think lie will profit by the mistakes. I think
he went through a very rough school. I think he knows a lot more
about Washington politics now than when he came down. I think
that as of today, he would be an infinitely better Secretary of the
Army than 6 months ago.
Mr. Jenkins. And, Senator McCarthy, if you were the president
of the United States, knowing what you know, knowing what you
know of Robert T. Stevens today, you would not remove him as
Secretary of the Army, would you ?
Senator INIcCartiiy. Mr. Jenkins
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, honestly, and don't say it unless you mean it.
But now you have described his character, you have said that he has
been through this fire and brimstone, that he has made his mistakes,
that he has learned his lesson, that he is a devoted, faithful, loyal
man, truthful man, man of honor, man of integrity and a good Secre-
tary of the Army, I believe you said.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I am frankly in doubt as to what
effect it would have upon Bob Stevens' future if I were to advise the
President to keep him on. Do you mind if I don't answer that?
Mr. Jenkins. I didn't ask you that question. Senator. I didn't ask
you that question. The people in the country are tremendously in-
terested in their Army
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't want to advise the President.
Mr. Jenkins (continuing). And in its integrity and in the top
man. If you were the President — Senator McCarthy, you like Robert
Stevens, don't you ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I do.
Mr. Jenkins. I seem to have come to the conclusion in hearing your
cross-examination of him over a period of several days, that there
was some bond of friendship, even bordering on affection, at times,
between you and the Secretary of the Army.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I can safely say that as of this moment I
have no ill-feeling whatsoever toward Bob Stevens. But, Mr.
Jenkins, I would like to beg off on answering whether or not the
President should keep him on
Mr. Jenkins. If it is an unfair question, I will withdraw it.
Senator McCarthy. Very seriously, I would say No. 1, he is honest,
I think that insofar as Washington politics were concerned, he was
very naive. I think he may have learned a lesson. I am sure that
he will be more hesitant to take the advice of my Democrat friends
when it comes to trying to wreck the Republican Party in the future.
Mr. Jenkins. But, again. Senator, I ask you, and I perhaps have
covered it, that in all of your testimony given during the late hours
of yesterday afternoon's session and the morning session — as I recall
it. Senator McCarthy, there was not a word, not a single charge, of
dishonesty or misconduct on the part of the Secretary himself, but
your charges were directed, as I remember, solely and exclusively
against Mr. Adams and perhaps other advisers. Is that not a fair
statement. Senator McCarthy?
Senator McCarthy. Let me recap it this way: Aside from the —
as I recall it now — aside from the Zwicker incident, where he took an
affidavit, instead of waiting until I could send him a transcript, and
took it around to the Senators, and tried to get them to call off the
investigation, and aside from the charges which were finally issued,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2493
and I don't know what part he played in that at all aside from that I
don't know of any misconduct on the part of — not even remotely any
misconduct — on the part of Mr. Stevens.
Mr. Jenkins. And of course, Senator, you know that these charges
were prepared and, as I recall, under the admission in a pleading filed
in these proceedings, under the direction and supervision perhaps of
members of the Defense Department ?
Senator McCarthy. I am not too sure
JNlr. Jenkins. Without naming any names.
Senator McCarthy. I am not too sure about that, Mr. Jenkins.
It appears now that newsmen who have always been against the ex-
posure of Communists, who have always been against the Eepublican
administration, were the chief advisers of Mr. Adams long before
this matter was brought to Mr. Steven's attention. What part they
played in the drafting of the charges, I frankly don't know. I am
inclined to think that Stevens had very, very little to do with the
drafting of the charges.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Senator, we have discussed character and the
value of a good name, I think sufficiently, certainly insofar as I am
concerned.
The charges here against you, Senator, and the members of your
staff, are that you sought by improper means to get preferential treat-
ment or dispensation for one particular private out of the millions
of other soldiers in the Army. Senator McCarthy, I am sure you
realize the gravity and the seriousness of those charges, .and they are
grave and serious, are they not ?
Senator IMcCarthy. The charges were extremely serious.
Mr. Jenkins. They go to the very honor of a United States Sen-
ator and the integrity of this subcommittee, do they not ?
Senator McCarthy. If true, they would be extremely serious.
Mr. Jenkins. And serious charges, whether true or untrue, insofar
as the charges are concerned. That is right, isn't it. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. The charges are extremely serious.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, you had G. David Schine as a
member of your staff.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. I believe you told us this morning that he was recom-
mended by I\Ir. Boy Colin, your chief counsel.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn; and others may have also recom-
mended him.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall, Senator, anyone else recommending
this young man, other than Mr. Cohn ?
Senator McCarthy. I would rather not give their names. I checked
with a sizable number of newsmen in New York and asked them what
they knew about him. I had the FBI giv^e me a name-check investiga-
tion. I would say that he was hired largely upon the lecommendation
of Mr. Cohn.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cohn came with you in January 1953, as we
miderstand it ?
Senator McCarthy. I think it was in January.
Mr. Jenkins. This young man Schine followed by a few days
thereafter, as we understand.
Senator McCarthy. A few days or a few weeks.
2494 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jexkins. You did not know Schine prior to the time he came
"with your committee, did you, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I did not.
Mr. Jenkins. You did not ascertain that he had ever had any ex-
perience as a member of an investigating staff in running down
Communists ?
Senator McCarthy. Not as a member of an investigating staff. I
found that he had been doing some writing on communism. I found
that
Mr. Jenkins. What had he written on communism, Senator, besides
a pamphlet
Senator McCarthy. He had written A Definition of Communism.
Mr. Jenkins. That is that 2-page pamphlet that I handed the Sec-
retary of the Army, is it not, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; a fairly important pamphlet. It shows
a lot of study.
From talking to him, I found that he had been spending a vast
amount of time on the question of psychological warfare, perhaps
otherwise known as the information program. He apparently had
been discussing that subject with a great number of people. It was
his hobby, his avocation, call it what you may.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, he had never had 1 day's experience in in-
terrogating or intervening witnesses, as far as you know, had he?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know that he ever had been interro-
gating witnesses.
Mr. Jenkins. And he came down here upon the recommendation of
Mr. Colin as an unpaid consultant?
Senator McCarthy. As unpaid consultant.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you not think it unusual. Senator, that a young
man of his supposed qualifications would leave his work in New York,
or wherever his work took him, and come down here to Washington
and join your staff as an unpaid man ?
Senator McCarthy. No. I was very much impressed by the fact
that this young man, who could have been spending his time in the
sunshine of Florida where they had a hotel, would be willing to spend
long hours every day working for nothing, paying his own expenses,
trying to help us develop facts having to do with the enemies of this
country. I was very much impressed, and may I say there is nothing
unusual about that. You recall during World War II, there were a
great number of "dollar-a-year" men. We didn't even pay Dave a
dollar.
I might say that Mr. W^elch here, for example, I understand is work-
ing for nothing in representing IMr. Stevens and Mr. Adams. So there
is nothing unusual about that.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you know that he was subject to the draft when
he joined your staff. Senator McCarthy?
Senator McCarthy. It had never occurred to me.
Mr. Jenkins. You ascertained that fact definitely, I believe, in the
early part of July ?
Senator McCarthy. I think sometime in early July, either Eoy or
Dave told me that Dave had been in Korea for a while with the rank
of, I think they call it assimilated rank of lieutenant; that he had
applied to get in the Army and the Navy, but because of a ruptured or
slipped disk in his back he was classified as IV-F.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2495
I heard they were going to reexamine him. I think that was in
July, "wasn't it, Roy ? I believe that was in July.
Mr. Jenkins. So, Senator, j^ou knew in the early part of July and
certainly before or not later than July 8, that Dave Schine had met
all the necessary requirements and qualifications and would ultimately
become an inductee in the United States Army, didn't you ?
Senator McCarthy. Xo; I didn't know that, Mr. Jenkins, until
after I heard that he had passed his physical.
INIr. Jenkins. Is that when you went to General Reber, Senator, or
had him come to your office, and discussed with General Reber the
question of a direct commission for this young man, Schine? That
is correct, isn't it. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I think that I asked the informa-
tion from Reber before Dave passed his draft test, but I am not sure.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall discussing the question of a commission
for Schine with General Reber, do 3^011 not. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Let's put it this way : I talked to Reber and
asked him if he would tell Dave how to apply for a commission. I
made it very clear to him that during all of my history in the Senate
I had never asked for a commission or a promotion for an3^one, and
that held as far as Dave was concerned, that I merely wanted him to
show Dave what forms he should fill out. That is the usual pro-
cedure. That happens often.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, are you saying that during your career as
a Senator j'ou had never asked for a commission for any individual?
Senator McCarthy. As far as I am concerned — I mean, as far as
I know, that is true. I don't recall ever having asked for a commission.
Mr. Jenkins. You know General Reber? You know him? You
heard him testify here ?
Senator McCarthy. I met him for the first time I think when he
came to my office.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, isn't it a fact that then in this one case and
this one case alone, you asked General Reber on the 8th day of July
for a direct commission for this young man Schine ?
Senator McCarthy. No, no.
Mr. Jenkins. You deny that, Senator McCarthy?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir,
Mr. Jenkins. I read you General Reber's testimony at page 24 :
At that time Senator McCarthy informed me that he was very much interested
in obtaining a direct reserve commission for his consultant, Mr. G. David Schine.
Senator, did you do that or not ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. You deny that ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know why General Reber would have so testi-
fied. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. I never would try to probe anyone else's mind.
Mr. Jenkins. And reading further :
^&
The Senator pointed out as I recall that he felt that Mr. Schine because of
his background of investigative experience with the committee was fully qualified
for a commission.
Did you tell him that, Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I gave him the background of Dave Schine
and asked him whether or not he would qualify for a commission.
2496 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
I told him otherwise it would be a waste of Dave's time to apply.
And Reber at that time told me that he would be unquestionably
qualified for a commission.
Mr. Jenkins. Then you were talking to him about a commission
for this young man, weren't you ?
Senator McCarthy. Certainly. I asked him, No. 1, how to apply,
and, No. 2, whether he would qualify.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, wdiy wovdd you have asked a
general in the Army how a man would apply for a commission?
Senator McCarthy. Because, Mr. Jenkins, the Army has an office
here in the Senate Office Building. They have a liaison man over
here. He is here for the pur]30se of answering the questions of the
Senators. I have often had General Fenn, for example, up to my
ofHce to get information from him which was requested by some of
my young men back in Wisconsin or in any other part of the country.
But may I make it clear, Mr. Jenkins, and I am sure that General
Fenn will testify to this, I have always made it clear that I felt it
was completely improper to exert any political influence to get a
commission, a promotion, a change of duty orders for anyone. But
we do have a duty, I feel, to the young men who write me, to the
wives or the mothers, who want information, that we call the liaison
man — he is there for that purpose, he is working full time — to get
the information which they request. That is all I did for Dave
Schine.
Mr. Jenkins. Wasn't it simply a question of filling out a form,
Senator, and applying for a commission in the United States Army ?
Senator McCarthy. I frankly don't know.
Mr. Jenkins. You don't know. And so your inquiry with General
Reber was how would he go about applying for a commission; is that
right. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. It was more, that I asked him if he would
explain to Dave and Roy how he would go about making application,
where he would file it, what particular branch of the service he might
qualify in, and if he would qualify in any branch that he should
apply for a commission in that branch.
May I say, Mr. Jenkins, I think that is the duty of any Senator.
If you get a letter from a young man who is an expert engineer, you
send the information over to the military and say, "Can you use hun
anyplace in the military?"
Mr. Jenkins. Well, Senator, had Schine written you such a letter
requesting that you intercede for him ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. At whose instance did you make this intercession on
behalf of Schine with the general in the Army?
Senator McCarthy. Schine told me he wanted to apply for a com-
mission and asked me how to go about it and I told him there was a
liaison man, I would call him up and get the information for him.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you. Senator McCarthy, if, whether or
not, on the occasion of your first conversation with General Reber
you told him that time was of the essence, that this boy was about
to be drafted.
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall
Mr. Jenkins. And stressed the importance of speed.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2497
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall that. But I only had one con-
versation. You said the first conversation.
Mr. Jenkins. You only had one conversation ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Senator, did you or not at that time tell General
Reber that it was important, that you stressed speed with him at that
time?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I don't know. If Mr. Reber tes-
tified to that, I may very well have said that if he was entitled to a
commission he should proceed to apply immediately.
Mr. Jenkins. May I read to you General Reber's statement about
it?
It was emphasized to me that there was a very definite necessity for speed in
looking into the possibility of obtaining this commission, because the status of
Mr. Shine under the Selective Service Act was apparently about to change.
Is that correct, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I frankly-
Mr. Jenkins. Did you stress to him the importance of speed?
Senator McCarthy. I frankly don't know. I spent about 2 minutes
with Reber and asked him to tell Mr. Schine— and I think j\[r. Cohn
was there, I am not sure — how to proceed to apply. I asked him
whether he was entitled to a commission with these qualifications. He
said "Yes." That ended the interview.
Mr. Jenkins. Then, as we understand it, you neither admit nor
deny what General Reber says about that? That you may have or
you could have stressed the importance of speed in the granting of
this commission to this young man on your staff; is that right, Senator?
Senator McCarthy."^ All I can say, Mr. Jenkins, is that I don't
remember it. But if ^Ir. Reber says I did say it, I think Mr. Reber
was most likely telling the truth. ';
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir. And, Senator, I will ask you further if you
did not tell General Reber on that occasion to keep Mr. Cohn posted
thoroughly on the progress that he was making in getting a commis-
sion for G. David Schine.
Senator McCarihy. No, not in that language. It was just a very
casual meeting. He came in, I was very busy, I told him what Dave's
qualifications were, I said, "Is he entitled to a commission ?"
He said, "Yes."
I said, "Will you explain to Dave and Roy how he goes about it?"
That was the end of it. I don't think he" was in my office any more
than, at the most, 2 minutes, I would say.
Mr. Jenkins. But didn't you tell him to keep Mr. Cohn posted,
Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think so.
Mr. Jenkins. You don't think so?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think so.
Mr. Jenkins. Will you deny it. Senator ? Yes or no, or would you ?
Senator McCarthy. No. Mr. Jenkins, I don't think I told him that.
Mr. Jenkins. You don't think so?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you whether or not you remember on that
occasion Mr. Cohn coming in and joining in the conversation and Mr.
46620°— 54— pt. Gl— 3
2498 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Cohn stressing upon this general the importance of speed in granting
a direct commission to this young man? Did that happen or not,
Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I hate to duck any of your ques-
tions, but I frankly don't recall any conversation between Mr. Cohn
and Mr. Keber. It was a completely unimportant meeting as far as
I was concerned. It was very brief.
Mr. Jenkins. I am reading, Senator, from page 24 of the record,
General Reber :
And about that time, as I recall it, a few minutes after I initiated my con-
versation with the Senator, Mr. Roy Cohn came into the room. Mr. Cohn also
emphasized it.
Now, Senator, did he or not ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Eeber seems to have a phe-
nomenal memory of the exact conversation. I do not have that mem-
ory. All I can say is I don't — all I remember of that conversation,
Mr. Jenkins, if I may repeat, is that I asked that the liaison man
come up. I didn't know who he was ; I thought it would be General
Fenn. Wlien he came, I gave him the outline of Mr. Schine's back-
ground, the fact that he was a college graduate, the president of a
hotel corporation, that he had been a lieutenant, an assimilated
lieutenant, served in Korea, and I asked whether, under the circum-
stances, he should apply for a commission, whether he would be
entitled to one. Mr. Reber said, "Yes, he would be entitled to one."
So I said, "Good. Will you explain to Dave,"— and I think Roy
was there — "how to go about it ?"
That is the last conversation I had with Reber, as far as I know.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, did you hear General Reber testify here —
I don't believe I am mistaken — that the latter part of that month,
that is, July, you. Senator McCarthy, called him on 2 or 3 occasions,
making inquiry with respect to this direct commission for this young
man?
Senator McCarthy. I heard him testify. I frankly don't recall
what his testimony was. But may I say, so far as I know, I had no
further contact with him.
Mr. Jenkins. But, Senator, he says, and I read from page 38, "It
embraced the period "
Senator McCarthy. Will you hold that, Mr. Jenkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. Page 38, the bottom of the page, Senator ; the bottom
of the page. Senator.
General Reber is testifying, the last paragraph, talking now about
these pressures being brought upon the Army to do something a little
extra special for this one private.
General Reber. It embraced the period from approximately July 17 until the
end of the month, approximately July 30 or 31. In this connection, I also re-
ceived 2 or 3 telephone calls directly from the Senator on the same situation.
That, Senator, is the direct and positive testimony of General Reber,
that you not only on July 8 asked for a direct commission for this
young man, but that at least 2 and maybe 3 more times during that
same month you called him and asked about the progress that he was
making to the end of getting a commission for this boy.
Did you. Senator, do that, or did you not, sir ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, to the best of my knowledge, I
had no contact with Reber except that one day he was in the office.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2499
To the best of my knowledge, I made no phone calls to him. It is
possible he may be mistaken. Someone in my office, Mr. Cohn or
someone, may have called him. I don't know. Bnt I am reasonably
certain that if I had called him, I would remember that.
Mr. Jenkins. Yet 3-011 are not dead certain about it, Senator, as we
get from your answer ?
Senator JNIcCarthy. I can't be dead certain about anything that
happened a year ago.
Mr. Jenkins. Then, Senator, if you, a United States Senator,
talked to this general, who was the liaison officer between the Army
and the Senate, at least three times about a private, about a man who
was then a civilian subject to the draft, in an effort to get a direct
commission for him, let him go into the Army with an advantage
insofar as his rank was concerned over the thousands of other boys
going in every day. Senator, that would have been some considerable
pressure, some pressure to say the least, that was being exerted on the
Army of the United States, wouldn't it ?
Senator McCaethy. Mr. Jenkins
Mr. Jenkins. If you did do that — I don't say that you did. He
said you did it, and, as I understand it, you don't deny it. You say
you don't remember it. But if it is true, wouldn't it have been a
rather unusual situation?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, the proof that I did not is the
fact that I not only told Secretary Stevens but wrote him and told
him to lean over backward not to give Schine anything that would
even appear to be a special consideration.
That, may I sav, Mr. Jenkins, was unfair to Mr. Schine, because
when I was saving lean over backward that meant don't give him what
you would give the normal draftee. I did it, however, in the presence
of Mr. Schine, in the presence of IMr. Cohn, and that is a complete
contradiction of anything here which would indicate pressure.
May I say, Mr. Jenkins, the monitored phone calls — may I finish — •
the monitored phone calls, while I don't like eavesdropping, I think
those monitored phone calls performed a very valuable service. If
you will check that monitored call, you will find that I then said,
"Don't give Dave anything that you wouldn't give any other private,"
in effect.
I gave him three reasons for that.
My attitude toward Dave Schine did not change during all this
period of time. I knew that if anyone in my committee were to get
anything which appeared to be any special consideration, that every-
thing would break loose, and my efforts were not to get something for
him ijut to make sure that he would not get something which would
appear to be any special consideration.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, perhaps you are arguing your case some now.
I think 3'ou are, frankly. I don't want to argue with 3'ou. I want to
ask you questions and I want answers. We will get to this subject
you are discussing about these phone calls to the Secretary and others
in which you made }'our position clear, including the call of Novem-
ber 7.
Here is this general. There is certainly no motive as far as you
can think of on the part of General Reber to testify falsely against
you, is there, Senator McCarthy l
2500 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I will not go into the question
of motive. I think it is unimportant. I will say that my staff had
great difficulty with his brother over in Germany. I don't accuse him
of doing anything improper because of that. All I can tell you is
that to the very best of my recollection I only had one contact with
Reber. I feel completely certain if I had any other contact I would
remember it. That is all I can tell you, Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you know, Senator, that from July 8 to the latter
part of July Mr. Roy Cohn called General Reber a number of times
about this commission for Schine? ^
Senator McCarthy. I don't know how many times Roy called
Reber.
Mr.* Jenkins. Do you recall Reber's sworn testimony on that sub-
ject?
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall, but
Mr. Jenkins. Let me read it to you, Senator. We are talking now
about whether or not there was some pressure being brought _
Senator McCarthy. If you say he so testified, I will assume he did.
Mr. Jenkins. I want to read it to you. Page 38.
General Reber.
Mr. Jenkins.
Well, going back :
During this period and up until the end of July, I received numerous calls
from Mr. Cohn, urging speed in this case, and urging a favorable result as soon
as possible.
Now, Senator, Mr. Cohn was then your chief counsel, wasn't he?
Senator McCarthy. He was, and is. , j, r -i
Mr. Jenkins. And you heard this man testify here that from July
8 the day you first talked to him, until the end of the month, he
received numerous calls from Mr. Cohn, urging speed, and further,
in answer to my question. General Reber says this: "I could only make
an estimate, Mr. Jenkins, because, of course, I did not keep a record
of those telephone calls, but I would say I received 2 and 3 tele-
phone calls a day."
Senator McCarthy, don't you think that that was at least pressur-
izing the Army or making the Army conscious of the fact that here
was a boy, a young man, with the backing of a United States Senator
speaking to the Army through your mouthpiece, through your attor-
ney, time and time again over that period of some 22 days, calling this
general in the Army and impressing upon him the importance of
giving this boy a commission, speed, speed. Wasn't that, Senator,
in your opinion, certainly making the Army quite conscious of the
fact that you were interested, and your staff was interested, rather
inordinately in getting this boy a commission to start with ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, you are assuming that what you
read is the truth. Mr. Cohn tells me that this is greatly exaggerated.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, did Mr. Cohn tell you that he did call General
Reber? As I remember, he said he did. Senator. Some time during
the month of July or on occasions during the month of July._
Senator McCarthy. He may well have. I just asked him now
whether or not this is exaggerated or not, and he said grossly exag-
gerated.
Mr. Jenkins. Grossly exaggerated?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2501
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know, Senator McCarthy — Senator, I hand
you a chart, which has been filed as an exhibit in tliis case, showing
that from the 10th day of July 1953, to the 29th day of July 1953,
Schine and Mr. Cohn, together, called General Reber 13 times long
distance, there being no record of local calls over that period about
which the General testified. Do you know of any possible business
that Mr. Schine and Mr. Cohn could have had with General Reber,
a liaison officer, and who I understand had nothing whatever to do
with the work of your committee, except to discuss with him Dave
Schine and a commission for Dave Schine ?
I want you to examine that record and state whether or not it shows
13 long-distance telephone calls.
Senator McCarthy. Wait a minute, Mr. Jenkins. I am getting
rather sick of these charts that are being prepared at great expense.
If you say that the record shows there are 13 calls, we don't need to
have a chart for that.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Here are the toll checks.
Senator McCarthy. May I say, Mr. Jenkins, as chairman of the
Government Operations Committee, I am going to find out at some
time who is drafting these unnecessary charts. If you have the phone
calls slips there — just a minute — if you have the phone call slips there,
Mr. Jenkins, I know this is not your work, if you have the phone call
slips there, that is sufficient. If you say there are 13 phone call slips,
I will take your word for it.
Mr. Jenkins. I say that.
Senator McCarthy. Your question is
Mr. Jenkins. I think that is beside the point. Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Your question is why did he call ?
Mr. Jenkins. Thirteen times from the 10th day of July, after you
talked to Reber on the 8th of July, to the 29th of July, or 19 days,
riearly a call every day, from Cohn or Schine, long distance, to say
nothing of any local calls, if there were any.
Why, Senator, would they be calling him except to talk about Dave
Schine ?
Senator McCarthy. I will have to guess on that, but I will say,
Mr. Jenkins, that if you were applying for a commission, if I were
the liaison officer in charge of advising people applying for commis-
sions, and if you were being shunted from the transport command to
X and Y command or Z, I think you would call me and say "What do
I do now, General McCarthy."
I am not a general, but I don't think 13 calls would be too many.
Mr. Jenkins. In 19 days. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. No, I don't think so.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, wasn't it practically the equivalent of a call
from Senator Joseph R. McCarthy every time Mr. Roy M. Cohn
called him?
Senator JNIcCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. In view of his identity with you ?
Senator McCarthy. No. Mr. Reber knew that Dave was taking
examinations, he was being shifted from one place to the other. Upon
the advice of Mr. Reber — for example, I know he had to go to New
York or some place to take an examination for a proposed commission
in the transport command, different places. The logical thing for
him to do would be to call Mr. Reber.
2502 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
No. 1, you say is this the equivalent of McCarthy calling. The
answer is "no". Because I made it very clear to Reber, to Stevens,
to everyone involved, that I didn't want any special consideration for
this young man. I went further. I advised them that they would get
a lot of unfavorable criticism if they gave him any special considera-
tion.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you ever, Senator, ask Secretary Stevens for a
commission for Dave Schine?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. You heard the Secretary's testimony on that, did you
not, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I heard his testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. You heard his testimony that at least on one occasion
you asked him to give to this young man a commission in the Army;
is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. The Secretary is mistaken if he so testified.
I discussed the question of a commission with the Secretary in the
Schine apartment in New York. At that time I was very, very posi-
tive in advising the Secretary to, as I say, and I used the words, "lean
over backwards" to avoid giving Dave what might be construed by
his enemies and our enemies as special consideration. There were
witnesses there for that.
I wrote him a letter later and suggested essentially the same thing,
Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. But, Senator — pardon me, I don't mean to cut you off.
Senator ]\IcCarthy. That is all right.
Mr. Jenkins. While you were telling the Secretary of the Army
and others to lean over backward to do nothing for him, the fact re-
mains that these 2 members of your staff called General Reber 13 times
in 19 days wdth respect to a commission for this boy. That is the
truth, isn't it, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, if you say they called 13 times,
I know that you are completely truthful. There is no doubt about the
fact they called 13 times if you have the calls there.
May I say that I don't know what was said at that time, but I would
say that a man who is applying for a commission, taking various
examinations, filing applications with various departments of the
Army — that 13 calls would not be too many calls.
I may say this, Mr. Jenkins, that I have gotten calls, I think as
many as 15 to 20, from wives who want their husbands to get hardship
discharges, and that sort of thing, even though I tell them the first
time there is nothing I can do.
In this case, the opposite was true. Eeber said, "Yes, you are en-
titled to a commission." He said that positively in the office, "You are
entitled to a commission."
Then they were shifting Dave from place to place to take examina-
tions, and it would be only logical that he would call him a number of
times. Whether the number should have been 5 or 10 or 15, I don't
know.
Mr. Jenkins. I am talking now. Senator McCarthy, about the month
of July only.
Senator McCarthy. I know it.
Mr. Jenkins. In which, apparently, there was at least 1 conversation
between you and Reber, and 13 between Cohn and Schine and Reber.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2503
Senator McCarthy, Mr. Jenkins, I can add nothing to what I
have said.
Mr. Jenkins. During the month of July only. We are talking
about whether or not improper conduct has characterized the ett'orts
to get this boy some special treatment over the millions of other
privates who are in the Army. Senator, can you give any explana-
tion whatever of why this young man would be so brash — I am talk-
ing about Mr. Schine — would be so brash as to call the Pentagon and
say, "Shall I come over and hold up my hand" or "When can I come
over and hold up my hand?" Do you know of any reason why Dave
Schine would have done that? You say he is a college graduate.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, first let me say that Dave Schine
has worked for the committee a long time, and I have never seen him
brash. I think he is the most modest young man I have seen. You
have seen him on the witness stand.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, if he did that, it would border on brashness,
wouldn't it, if he did it?
Senator McCarthy. No. 1, 1 don't know whether he said it. No. 2,
if someone told him, "You can get your commission tomorrow," then
he might well have called up and said, "When do I come over and
be sworn in ?" That is, holding up my hand.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, did someone tell him he could get his com-
mission ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know, Mr. Jenkins. You will have
to ask him.
Mr. Jenkins. You didn't tell him?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. As far as you know, Mr. Cohn didn't tell him?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I know nothing about the matter
after Mr. Reber
Mr. Jenkins. You heard the testimony here. Senator, on the part
of
Senator McCarthy. The answer to your question is "no."
Mr. Jenkins. The answer is no, that you don't know why he should
liave said "Let me come over and hold up my hand."
Do you know. Senator, that when this young man did go over to
the Pentagon to hold up his hand, to get his commission, he was told
that he would have to fill out an application that he, this college
graduate — I believe a graduate of Harvard University, isn't he, or
do you know, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. That is not my favorite university.
Mr. Jenkins. All right.
That this college graduate partially filled out an application, leav-
ing out substantial parts of it as though it were unimportant, and
that a general in the Army had to call him up and get him back and
have him come back over there at a later date and really fill out, as
other applicants have to fill out, an application, a form for a com-
mission in the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know the slightest thing about the
application he filled out.
Mr. Jenkins. You don't know one thing about that ?
Senator McCarthy. I never saw it.
Mr. Jenkins. You never heard anything about it?
2504 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. Oh, I heard the testimony here. That is all.
Mr. Jenkins. "Well, Senator, I will ask you this question with
further reference to efforts to do somethin<T extraordinarily special
for this boy. Did you know that your chief counsel, when finally
advised by the Secretary of the Army that no commission would be
forthcoming for this boy, went to the Department of State and talked
to Gen. Walter Bedell Smith about interceding and using his high
office to get something done for this young man ?
Senator McCarthy. I am informed by my chief counsel that he
was never informed by the Army that he would not get a commission,
but that because of the
Mr. Jenkins. Delay ?
Senator McCarthy. No — the difficulty encountered between Mr.
Reber's brother and Mr. Schine and Mr. Cohn in Europe, Mr. Cohn
contacted INIr. Smith, and I think Mr. Smith has testified on that
contact with him, to make sure, not that he get special consideration,
but that the matter go through the regular channels and if he were
entitled to a commission he would get it.
I think that is a perfectly proper thing for a man to do for his
friend and, as I say, General Smith testified on it.
Mr. Jenkins. All right. Here to date is one call in July by the
Senator from Wisconsin to General Reber. Here apparently are 13
long-distance telephone conversations to General Reber by members
of your staff, to say nothing of local calls, if there were local calls.
I don't say there were any. I wasn't there. Then here is Gen. Walter
Bedell Smith saying this. Senator, at page 147 of the transcript — and
this is still in that first month of July, from the 8th day of July to
the 31st day of July, making apparently 15 distinct efforts or overt
acts on behalf of his young man. Here is General Smith talking:
Mr. Cohn telephoned me on the afternoon of July 31. He stated that Mr.
David Schine of the committee staff was about to be drafted, and that he,
Mr. Cohn, and Senator McCarthy
He is talking about you there, Senator
felt that he should have a direct commission for which they considered him
qualified by education and by reason of the fact that during the last war he
had, as a civilian employee, held a substantive or corresponding rank of
lieutenant. I asked Mr. Cohn why he came to me
Senator McCarthy. Would you give me the page ?
Mr. Jenkins. Page 117 :
I asked Mr. Cohn why he came to see me, as I was no longer in active military
service. He replied that the Army authorities had not been cooperative; that
General Reber had promised to arrange for a commission for Mr. Schine and
had not done so ; that I knew all the senior officers in the Pentagon and would
know who to talk to.
Senator, I am talking to you now about the events of the month of
July from the 8th day on to the 31st, and here is Gen. Walter Bedell
Smith — and you know him, I am sure.
Senator McCarthy. I do.
Mr. Jenkins. You know he is a man of unimpeachable character
and reputation, don't you, holding a high position in this administra-
tion, and a veteran of the Army, I believe he said, of some 40 or 50
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2505
years, saying that Roy Cohn on the last day of that first month when
you knew this boy was going to be drafted, said :
Schine is about to be drafted. They are not doing him right over at the
Pentagon, and I want you to use your influence to get him a commission, and
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy wants it.
Senator, I am not asking you whether it happened or not, but if
tliat did happen, these events of this 1 month only, Senator
Senator McCarthy. I am listening.
Mr. Jenkins. State to this committee whether or not in your
opinion that would at least make Secretary Stevens conscious of the
fact that a United States Senator and liis staff had an unusual interest
in getting this boy some kind of a commission with some rank in the
Army right at the very inception of his service? Don't you think,
Senator JNIcCarthy, in all fairness, that from those activities of that
1 month alone, to say nothing of what followed subsequently thereto,
the Secretary of the Army was justified in saying that improper
activities were brought to bear upon him, unusual activities, in getting
a commission for this young man ?
Wouldn't he be justified in that. Senator, in all fairness, and in all
good conscience ?
Senator McCarthy. If we can divide your question into two parts,
first, Mr. Jenkins. Any attempt that Dave Schine or any other young
man makes to get a commission, as long as he does it in his own name,
is completely proper. Your son, any other young man who tries to
get a commission, who tries to go to West Point, and Annapolis, what
have you — they have a perfect right to do it and I know some young
men who have been trying for 5 yeai'S to get into Annapolis.
There is nothing improper about that, no matter how many phone
calls they make. I don't know how many phone calls Mr. Schine
made.
May I say it was very very clear to all those involved that I was
asking for no special consideration. Mr. Jenkins, that is made very
clear by the monitored phone calls, phone calls I didn't know were
being monitored.
Let me quote General Smith on page 155. He was asked the ques-
tion by Mr. Jenkins :
This final question : Do you regard anything said by Mr. Cohn to you on either
of the two occasions you mentioned as being improper?
General Smith. I do not.
If General Smith doesn't think there is anything improper, I cer-
tainly wouldn't veto that.
Mav I say again there is nothing I can add to this, Mr. Jenkins,
except that I made it clear to the Secretary of the Army, both verbally
and in writing, that my advice to him was to lean over backwards— I
dislike having to repeat this over and over— lean over backwards not
to give Mr. Schine anything which would appear to be any special
consideration. They knew diat. There was never any question in
Mr. Adams' mind or Mr. Stevens' mind. You will note that Mr.
Adams on the stand never once testified, as I recall, that he thought
that I was looking for any special consideration for Schine. That is
from memory. I hope I am correct in that. But be that as it may,
46620'— 54— pt. 61 i
2506 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
let me quote from the letter of December 22. This is the position that
I took all along. This is to Bob Stevens. I will leave out the first
two paragraphs.
While I am inclined to agree that Mr. Schine would never have been drafted,
except because of the fact he worked for my committee, I want to make it clear
at this time that no one has any authority to request any consideration for
Mr. Schine other than what other draftees get. I think it is extremely important
that this be made very clear in view of the present investigation which our
committee is conducting of the Communist infiltration of the military under the
Truman-Acheson regime.
I am still quoting :
Let me repeat what I have said to you before, the course of this investigation
will In absolutely no way be influenced by the Army's handling of the case of
any individual regardless of whether he worked for my committee or not.
With kindest regards, I am,
Sincerely yours,
Joe McCaktht.
And then, Mr. Jenkins, I want to call attention to what Mr. Stevens
said. Here is the man that should know. May I finish this, if I may,
Mr. Jenkins. I know these answers may seem long but we are going
over this ground so often. I am trying to give you all I know about it.
On page 5311, Secretary Stevens is talking to Senator Symington
about the claim that there was some special influence exerted to get
Schine some special consideration.
He says :
I personally think that anything in that line would prove to be very much
exaggerated. That is my opinion. In other words, I think there has been some
talk around that has been very much exaggerated over anything that is there.
I am the Secretary, and I have had some talk with the committee and the chairman
and so on, and by and large, as far as the treatement of me Is concerned, I have
no personal complaint.
He says :
In other word, when he got after Zwicker, of course, then I hollered. But as
far as I personally am concerned, I don't have a lot of stuff so far as my contact
with Joe or the committee is concerned.
Mr. Jenkins, just finally let me tell you that I have gone over this
and over and over with my staff after the threat by Mr. "Adams was
made. I have discussed this in the greatest detail with Mr. Cohn, and
as far as I know, there was not one iota of improper influence used
in this case. I will admit that Mr. Schine, as any young man is entitled
to do, took all the examinations which he thought he could take, he
contacted Mr. Reber to find out how to take them. There is no ques-
tion but what Mr. Schine wanted a commission, but he was not
speaking for our committee, and everyone involved knew that.
Mr. Jenkins. And. Senator, there is no question but what you
wanted a commission for Schine, is there? You talked to General
Reber about it on July 8, and if you hadn't wanted it, you wouldn't
have talked to him about it. You are a busy man.
Senator McCarthy. No, let me answer that for you, ]\Ir. Jenkins.
I asked Mr. Reber whether he was entitled to a commission. Mr.
Reber said he unquestionably was. Then, when the question arose as
to whether or not he might not be entitled to a commission, in talking
to Mr. Stevens, the first time I ever talked to Mr. Stevens about this,
after — there was some question as to whether he was entitled to a
commission — I said, "Bob, lean over backwards and don't give him a
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2507
commission unless you are sure he is entitled to it, unless you are sure
he is justified in getting- that commission,"
And Mr. Schine was present, Mr. Cohn was present, and I may
have, by that conversation, have done a grave injustice to Mr. Schine.
I don't know. He may have gotten a commission if I hadn't urged
the Secretary to be 10 times certain before this young man got a
commission.
Mr. Jexkins. And all the time, your chief counsel was talking the
other way ?
Senator McCarthy. Xo. No.
Mr. Jenkins. You say no to that ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, Senator, you will say that all during that time
you were investigating subversives in the Army, weren't you?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. And you say that the Secretary did not want that
done ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. You say the Secretary is truthful and is honest.
I think we got that in the record pretty clearly in the very beginning.
That essentially and iiiherently.
Senator McCarthy. The charges filed in the Secretary's name were
completely untruthful, completely dishonest, completely fraudulent.
Mr. Jenkins. And the Secretary of the Army testified here posi-
tively and definitely under oath. Senator McCarthy, that in addition
to 65 telephone calls by members of your staff, urging special dis-
pensation for Dave Schine, and 19 personal contacts, that the United
States Senator from Wisconsin asked him on at least one occasion for
a commission for this boy. You heard that, didn't you?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, you have some false premises in
your question. You say the 65 phone calls were urging, I believe,
special consideration.
Mr. Jenkins. Let's delete that from my question. Senator, you
heard the Secretary of the Army who you have described as essentially
honest and truthful, say that on one occasion you asked him for a com-
mission for Dave Schine. Did you not, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. That is not true.
Mr. Jenkins. All right, that is not true.
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer about the 65 phone calls. May
I say, Mr. Jenkins, that I was surprised when I found there were only
65 phone calls to Dave Schine down at Fort Dix. Any number of
times during the day, when we were drafting the interim reports, the
three reports on the information program, upon which Dave did more
work than anyone, any number of times a question would come up
about whether a certain witness should be called, whether he had fur-
ther information, whether certain information was correct or incor-
rect, and I would tell the staff, "Get in touch with Dave. He is the
man who did all of the interviewing." When I found they only had
called him 65 times, I was very much surprised. I thought there
would have been very many more calls, and, Mr. Jenkins, let's make it
clear, those calls were not asking, and there is no testimony that they
were asking, for any consideration. Those calls were to get informa-
tion from the young man who more than anyone else was responsible
for the exposure of communism, Communist books, and the proposed
2508 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
waste of $18 million in the information program. And when we were
writing those reports, I had to be 10 times sure that everything was
correct, because I knew that every comma, every period, would be
jumped on. So when I heard that only G5 phone calls had been made,
may I say I was surprised. I thought that many more phone calls
would have been made to Mr. Schine.
Senator Mundt. It being past the hour of 3 : 30, we will take our
customary seventh-inning stretch. We will have a 5-minute recess.
(Brief recess.)
Senator Mundt. The committee will come back to order, please.
We will resume, and I presume we are reconvening in the presence of
primarily the same audience who were here when we I'ecessed. If
not, I want to remind you of our committee rules against interruptions
by the audience in the form of audible manifestations expressing your
approval or disapproval. They are forbidden, and the uniformed
members of the Capitol Police and the plain-clothes people in the
audience have the instructions to remove from the room immediately
anyone violating the rule.
In order that we may have an executive session this afternoon, be-
fore two of our members who have to be absent tomorrow leave town,
we are going to recess a little early, Counsel, along about 4 : 30, or
4 : 40j sometime around there, anytime you come to some convenient
terminating point, or some convenient point in your cross-examination.
We have as our witness Senator Joe McCarthy and he is in the
process of being cross-examined by our Chief Counsel, Mr. Jenkins.
You may proceed.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, some time during the course of
the day, at which time you made reference to Mr. Schine, did or not
you make a statement that Mr. Schine had served in Korea or had
been in Korea? I want to clear that matter up. Some questions
have been asked me about it.
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Jenkins. What was that, Senator? I did not get it, I confess^
Senator McCarthy. It was not during the Korean war. It was
before the Korean war. He had the — I don't know quite how you
describe it — the assimilated rank of lieutenant in the Army Transport
Service and he spent some time in Korea. But it was not during the
Korean war.
Mr. Jenkins. I take it. Senator, that there is no claim that he
was a member or the Armed Forces at that time? His status was
that of a civilian, was it not ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I frankly don't know. I have
asked some of my
Mr. Jenkins. Would you consult with your Chief Counsel in order
to clarify that matter?
Senator McCarthy. I have already consulted with people in the
Pentagon and I have asked them how he could be a lieutenant and
be a civilian. They say "Well, he was not a civilian, he was a lieuten-
ant. He was in the Army Transport Service."
I frankly don't know how you would describe his situation. We
have some Army officers here. They might be able to give me some
help on that, but I don't know.
Mr. Jenkins. His first actual military service, Senator, was on No-
vember 3, wasn't it, as far as you know ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2509
Senator McCarthy. I think that is a correct statement.
Mr. Jenkins. And he had served prior thereto in what is called
the Army Transport, but as a civilian employee? And was not in
Korea as a soldier ?
Senator McCartpiy. I think that you could say a civilian, although
they gave him the rank, what they call assimilated rank, of lieutenant.
Just what that means, I frankly don't know. But he was not in
combat. He never has been in combat. The first time that he has
been a full-fledged member of the Armed Forces was on December 3,
whatever date he was drafted.
Mr. Jenkins. And, Senator, he never at any time had a commission
from the United States Army as a lieutenant in the Army Transport?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins-
Mr. Jenkins. As far as you know, that is your understanding
about it, isn't it. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I don't know what this sort of
two-way commission is. I want to be very clear that he was not
in combat, it was not an Army commission. It is what they call
an assimiliated commission in the Army Transport. Beyoncl that
I can tell you nothing about it.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, let us pass, if you will, to the events of
October 20 at Fort Monmouth. You remember the occurrences of
that day, do you not?
Senator McCarthy. I do.
Mr. Jenkins. You recall that you and the Secretary and a United
States Senator and a United States Congressman entered a highly
secret laboratory at that installation on that occasion?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. You recall that your chief counsel, Mr. Colin, was
not given admittance to that installation on that occasion, do you
not?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you know that your chief counsel became
very highly incensed and belligerent on that occasion, do you not ?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't describe it as highly incensed and
belligerent. He was extremely irritated to think that he had been
invited down to inspect the radar laboratories, he was the chief counsel
of the committee investigating the laboratories, and then he was not
allowed to go into the lab.
Mr. Jenkins. But for whatever reason, whether justified or not,
Mr. Cohn became incensed on that occasion ? He became angry, didn't
he ? You heard Mr. Cohn testify to that on the witness stand, didn't
you, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I would describe it as thoroughly irritated and
disgusted.
Mr. Jenkins. And he was so mad he didn't remember what he
said.
Senator McCarthy. I don't think
Mr. Jenkins. You don't think he said that ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know what he said. I am describing
what I saw. I saw Mr. Rainville, Senator Dirksen's administrative
assistant, Mr. Jones, who is Senator Potter's administrative assistant,
and Mr. Cohn, all of whom had been invited down there to inspect the
laboratories, barred from the laboratories, and I think they were all
2510 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
irritated. I would describe Roy Cohn as being disgusted and irritated
with the procedure.
Mr. Jenkins. But, Senator, you never did hear of either Mr. Jones
or Mr. Rainville making any threat against the Army, did you, on
that occasion, regardless of the degree of their irritation, if any ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. That is true, isn't it?
Senator McCarthy. No; I didn't hear any.
Mr. Jenkins. You didn't hear any. You were on the inside of the
laboratory ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. And you personally did not hear the words of Mr.
Cohn on that occasion. That is correct, isn't it?
Senator McCarthy. I heard his words before I went in.
Mr. Jenkins. What were they. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. They were to the effect that he hoped that
someday he might have the same right of inspecting the laboratory
that the Communists had; that they had Communists inside the labs,
and he hoped maybe the chief counsel for a committee that was in-
vited down there to inspect them might be able to get inside, or words
to that effect.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cohn does have a high, quick temper, doesn t he *
That is the fact about it. Quick to anger? Maybe quick to get back
in a good humor, but he is somewhat inflammable, isn't he. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Well, I have very seldom seem him display
any great temper. I have seen him get irritated at times. I think
he is just a normal young man. He is very brilliant. I don't think
that he has a hotter temper than anyone else.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, he is a strong-willed young man, isnt he?
Let's just appraise him properly, and I don't mean to be critical.
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't say very
Mr. Jenkins. He is known
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't say very strong ; no.
Mr. Jenkins. But he is a strong-willed young man and sometimes,
as a matter of fact. Senator, seeks to and maybe does superimpose his
will upon that of Senator McCarthy, doesn't he? That is the truth
about it, isn't it? ■, i • ji <• . a j
Senator McCarthy. I have a chief counsel and chief of stall, and
we discuss things very freely, and sometimes it is true that they con-
vince me that a certain course of action, which they believe should be
followed, should be followed. I don't find any superimposing of their
will upon mine. I am open-minded. I have a very, very competent
staff, and any one of them can come up and convince me, or rather,
try to convince me, of the importance of a certain investigation.
Sometimes I agree ; sometimes I disagree.
Mr. Jenkins. On October 20, as of October 20 and for weeks prior
thereto, months prior thereto, your committee had been investigating
subversives in the United States Army, had you not. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. And you were in full progress as of that date, Octo-
ber 20?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. This young man, chief counsel for the Senator as
chairman of this Investigating Committee, allegedly, by the sworn
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2511
testimony of Colonel BeLieu and perhaps others, there at Fort Mon-
mouth when the Secretary of the Army, Robert Stevens, was tliere, a
man whom you describe as being fundamentally and essentially honest,
and a man of chaiacter and integrity, when denied admission to that
secret laboratory, in a fit of anger cried out there for all to hear,
"This is war."
Senator McCarthy. No; that is-
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I am not asking you whether you heard it
or not.
Senator McCarthy. No; it is incorrect to say "a fit of anger." I
have never seen Mr. Cohn in any fit of anger. I have seen him —
Mr. Jenkins. Never in a fit of anger, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I have seen him thoroughly irritated, thor-
oughly disgusted with a situation. "A fit of anger" indicates that
you would be not using your best judgment. I don't think Mr. Cohn
ever lets his emotions run away with him to the point where his good
commonsense does not prevail.
Mr. Jenkins. If he were so angered or irritated or upset that he
testified here on the witness stand that he would neither admit nor
deny the testimony of Colonel lieLieu about his making a declaration
of war on Secretary Stevens and the Army, then Senator, wouldn't you
say that he was at least to some extent beside himself in a fit of rage?
Senator McCarthy. No. 1. up until Truman only the Congress could
declare war. I don't think Mr. Cohn could. No. 2, I think that Mr.
Cohn has been very, very generous with the other witnesses who have
appeared in not positively putting them in a position where they might
be guilty of perjury, as noticed where he and a number of his'friends
are present and only one of the opposition, he still refuses to put any-
one in a position of being indicted for perjury unless he is completely
positive.
I assume that at this late date it is impossible to know what was
saicl but I am sure if it was "declare war," I am sure if Roy said it
obviously it had to be said in jest.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator I am not talking about the things included
in that answer. I am talking about the situation here on October 20
when the IMcCarthy committee was doing a thing that you say the
Secretary and his counsel didn't want you to do, to wit, investigate
subversives in the Army, when you say Mr. Adams came around with a
release that you were to give to the pi-ess in which you stated that
you were quitting that work ; my question is whether or not under those
circumstances if your chief counsel while angered or while irritated, to
use your word, said in the words of this Colonel BeLieu, "this is it."—
I am reading from 3554 of the recordr-"this is war with the Army."
Senator McCarthy, if he said it, do you now publicly repudiate
it or do you adopt and ratify it and approve it ? I think it is a fair
question.
Senator INIcCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I don't believe he said it. There
is no war between the McCarthy committee and the Army. I have
tremendous respect for our Armed Forces. I think 99-plus percent
are great Americans. All we are doing is trying to get out the few
rotten apples.
May I say, Mr. Jenkins, if there is a declaration of war, then I would
suggest that someone tell us what Avitness we called that we should not
2512 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
have called, what situation we exposed that we should not have ex-
posed, what Communist who was called before the committee who
should not have been called before the committee. You see, we hear
all of this talk about a declaration of war, undue influence. Up to
this point there is no one who can give us the name of any individual
or describe a situation which was not properly handled by the com-
mittee. The force of the investigation, Mr. Jenkins, didn't change
one iota from before Monmouth until after.
Mr. Jenkins. I know. But, Senator, I do respectfully say to you,
sir, that you have not answered my question, and I will ask it again.
Senator McCarthy. O. K.
Mr. Jenkins. It is my understanding that Mr. Cohn, if I remember
his testimony correctly, would neither admit nor deny the testimony
of Colonel DeLieu, the burden of his testimony being that he was
angered or upset or irritated, and that frankly he didn't remember.
And here are the words of this young man, with this war record, with
these battle scars, "This is war with the Army" words from the lips
of your chief counsel there on that occasion that were conveyed to
this good man, as you have described him, the Secretary of the Army.
Now, Senator McCarthy, if Mr. Cohn did, while angered or irritated,
make that threat, "This is war with the Army," would you regard that,
Senator, as proper conduct on the part of your chief counsel on that
occasion, and under those circumstances?
Now, you can answer that. Senator, "yes" or "no" and explain.
Would you or not? Is it proper conduct under those circumstances
for this young man, in his position as your chief counsel, with this
investigation going on, and in a fit of anger or temper or while irri-
tated, say there, "This is war with the Army." Now Senator, is that
in your openion improper conduct ? Then you can explain. Senator.
I think we are entitled to a "yes" or "no" answer to that.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, that is like asking me, "Have you
quit beating your wife?"
Mr. Jenkins. I don't agree with you. I don't agree with you. You
know the circumstances and you know them well.
Senator McCarthy. I know the testimony of Mr. Cohn was that
he didn't recall anything like that. He didn't think he said any-
thing like that.
Mr. Jenkins. But he didn't deny it, and wouldn't deny it.
Senator McCarthy. He was very generous in not calling the young
man who made that statement a perjurer, and I was very happy to
see him do that. I don't think he made that statement. No. 1. No. 2,
there is no war between this committee and anyone except Com-
munists and those guilty of graft and corruption.
Mr. Jenkins. Granted. But if I — I will ask it again — if under
the circumstances the things that had preceded October 20, your
chief counsel, while the United States Senator from Wisconsin was
there, no doubt within a few feet of him, said, while angered, "This
is war with the Army," I ask you, Senator, and I think we are entitled
to a yes or no answer, whether or not you regard that as proper or
improper — whether you regard that as proper conduct on the part
of Mr. Cohn.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I will not speculate on something
which is not a fact and tell you whether it is proper or improper.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2513
Mr. Colin, as far as I know, never made that statement. I was there.
I didn't hear him make any such statement. JVIr. Cohn has never
acted as though he felt he was at war v.itli the Army. Mr. Cohn, I
think, has treated every individual in the military with the utmost
consideration. We have only gone after those guilty of subversion,
communism, dishonesty. This question of whether or not we have
declared war on the Army, Mr. Jenkins, I think is just a great waste
of time.
Let me say this, Mr. Jenkins, and I have tremendous respect for
you as counsel, I think you have done an almost impossible job here
of keeping this thing on a fairly even keel.
May I say, Mr. Jenkins, the charge here is that Mr. Cohn, McCarthy,
and Carr used improper influence to try and get special consideration
lor Dave Schine, which, of course, has been proven untrue. What
was said when Mr. Rainville, Mr. Jones, and INIr. Cohn were excluded
from the radar laboratories, which they were invited to visit, as far
as I am concerned, has nothing to do with this case. I will not
speculate on something that I know is untrue.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, let me ask the question this way, a hypo-
thetical question : Assuming, whether it is true or whether it isn't
true, assuming that you were at Fort Monmouth on October 20 under
the circumstances described ; assuming that the relationship between
you and Mr. Adams had been as has been testified ; assuming that your
chief counsel was denied admission to a place where you and another
Senator and a Congressman were allowed to go with the Secretary
of the Army; assume the chief counsel became angered or incensed
or irritated over it; that at that time the chief counsel was conducting
an investigation of subversives in the Army, that John Adams was
trying to stop or that they claimed didn't exist, and that it was hurt-
ing the morale of the Army, and that this young man there within
a few feet of the man for whom he was working, to wit, a United
States Senator, made that statement publicly, in the presence of many
people, "This is war with the Army," I will ask you again. Senator,
Avhether or not, assuming that those facts exist, whether they do or
not — now, you know what a hypothetical question is; you are a
lawyer — assuming that they exist, would you say. Senator McCarthy,
that that Avas proper conduct on the part of the chief counsel on that
occasion 'i
Senator McCarthy. So there is no doubt in your mind, so we can
end this, let me say this, Mr. Jenkins, if I had been invited down as Mr.
Cohn had been, to waste a day, then excluded from the laboratories
that Communists were working in, I would have used language, I
think, much, much stronger than any described here. And I don't
care what he said, I don't care what he said at that time, it was a
gi'oss insult, it was complete incompetence, it was unheard of, to in-
vite Senator Dirksen's administrative assistant. Senator Jones' ad-
ministrative assistant, I mean Senator Potter's administrative
assistant, my chief counsel, down to visit those laboratories and then
tell them that they could not go into them.
Now, I don't know what language he used. I didn't hear him say
he declared war on the Army. I feel sure he did not. He has indi-
cated he didn't. But no matter what language he used, no matter how
strong it was, I would say it was too weak for the occasion.
46620°— 54— pt. 61 5
2514 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jenkins. So vou ratify and approve any language that Mr.
Cohn might have used on that occasion at Fort Monmouth on October
20, is that what we understand ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't ratify or approve anything, Mr. Jen-
kins. I say YOU had a fantastic situation, and if those people who
were barred from the laboratories after being invited down there were
irritated and used strong language, I think it is not a subject for a
senatorial investigation.
Mr. Jenkins. Suppose that he said. Senator, on that occasion, m
addition to the things that I have incorporated in my hypothetical
question, that "I have been cleared for classified information. I have
access to FBI files when I want them. You are doing this just to
embarrass me. We will investigate the heck out of you."
Senator, weren't those rather fighting words and threatening words,
if Mr. Cohn did use them ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I will not speculate on any words
that might have been used.
Mr. Jenkins. But if he did use them, you say, as I understand it.
Senator, that you regard them as too mild under the circumstances?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, the investigation had nothing
to do with his being barred from the plant.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I didn't ask you that question.
Senator McCarthy. That is all I can tell you.
Mr. Jenkins. Whether they do or do not might be
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I will not speculate, I will not
ratify, I will not talk about, I will not speculate on any language
used "by those people who were barred from the plant
Mr. Jenkins. Did you ever
Senator McCarthy. Period.
Mr. Jenkins. I understand you put a period to that answer.
Did you ever at any time reprimand Mr. Cohn for anything he
might have said or done on that occasion at Fort Monmouth?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Never called him on the carpet ?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir ; I did not.
Mr. Jenkins. Never criticized him ?
Senator McCarthy. I did not.
Mr. Jenkins. You heard all about it, didn't you, Senator. You
knew all about it before the day ended ?
Senator McCarthy. I talked to him about it.
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir, and others told you what he said ?
Senator McCarthy. No. He told me he had made no such state-
ment. Mr. Rainville and Mr. Jones said no such statement had been
made. i t i •
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, when you went to wash your hands during
or just before the lunch period, Mr. Adams and Mr. Cohn were there,
and both of them followed you into the washroom, did they not?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. And Mr. Cohn told you then
Senator McCarthy. I think
Mr. Jenkins. Not to make that press release, didn't he ?
Senator McCarthy. I think I asked Mr. Adams and Mr. Cohn to
come in with me.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2515
_ Mr. 'Texkt>.-^ ^^^l^^r- 1 ^ill ''^'^1^' Jon if it isii^ a fact tlint tliat very
mcident and ]\Ir. Colin s outburst on that occasion were responsible
for your refusing to make the press release that you and John Adams
had discussed ?
Senator McCarthy. Oh, no, Mr. Jenkins, definitely.
Mr. Jexkins. It had nothing to do with it ^^
Senator McCarthy. Definitely not. Mr. Jenkins, may I explain
The mimeographed sheet showed that I. was telling-I don't have it
here— what I saw at Fort Monmouth before I went there It indi
cated I was calling off an investigation. I have made it clear over
and over and over that I would not call off the in vesti oration No 1
No. 2, 1 pointed out to Mr. Adams, and I think he agreed with me'
I am not sure, that it would look rather silly if we i)nt out a mimeo-
graphed release showing that I told what I had seen before I had
gotten to I ort Monmouth.
We had a very friendly discussion, the three of us. I told Mr
Adams that I was very much impressed by the cooperation that
Creneral Lawton was giving, and that there was much in this pres«
release that I could discuss, but I wouldn't hand out any mimeo-
graphed release. *^
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, did you hear the Secretary of the Armv
apologize to Mr. Cohn on that occasion ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I didn't.
^¥li '^''^:^'!',^- I^icl you learn that day that the Secretary actually
did that m the presence of approximately 25 people? Didn't you
hear that. Senator McCarthy? ^
Senator McCarthy. I don't think I learned that day. I think on
the way back, Roy or someone told me that he had apologized
Mr. Jenkins. That he had apologized?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. The Secretary, old enough to be this young man's
lather Senator, was guilty of nothing there that, as far as you could
see, callecl for an apology on the part of a man in that high position to
your chief counsel, was he? If so, what was it «
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, in fairness to the Secretary, I
think— 1 didii t hear it personally— I think it was more of an explana-
tion He had failed to get the clearance for the peoijle who were
invited down to Fort Monmouth or someone had failed. I think he
was very much embarrassed by that, by the fact that two Senators^
administrative assistants were barred from the plant aftpr beino- in-
Anted down, and that Mr. Cohn was. Somebody called it an apok)OT
As it was recited to me, I would call it more an explanation, that he
was embarrassed by it, that he felt the situation should never have
occurred,_and that he hoped that the whole thing would be forgotten
about, as it was. '^
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, he was patently disturbed over the conduct
and the words of your chief counsel, wasn't he ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I think he was more disturbed, Mr. Jen-
kins, over the situation. He and I talked about it inside the labora-
tory. He said that he was, quoting him, "caught between the devil
and the deep," that someone failed to get clearance for all those who
were brought down. He thought maybe he made the wrong decision,
that he should have allowed them to come in because, after all, there
was nothing of any really top secret nature that he saw.
2516 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
I^Ir Jenkins. So what happened was that the Secretary of the
Arinv, who really made, as he called it, a spot decision there as to who
would have clearance in this highly sensitive plant, excluded your
chief counsel; and your chief counsel, while irritated, did make some
statements if this young man. Colonel BeLieu is to be believed, and
which I say, Senator, were not denied by Mr. Cohn, to the eftect that
it was war, war on the Army; that he had clearance; that he had
access to FBI files, that they would investigate the heck out ot the
Senator, as I understand it, the situation was that for what the
Secretary had done or omitted to do, to wit, allow Mr Cohn to go
in that plant, he publicly and in a gentlemanly and humble way either
explained or, to use Mr. Adams' words, apologized and to this good
day. Senator McCarthy, neither you nor Mr. Cohn nor any member
of your staff has ever said one word to the Secretary o± the Army
indicating your regret for that outburst and display of temper.^ Ihat
is the sum and substance of the occurrence of October 20, isirt it i
Senator McCarthy. No. The sum and substance, Mr. Jenkins, is
that as far as I know the Secretary explained that there was an over-
sight on the part of someone, that he regretted it very much, that he
hoped it would be forgotten, and I think it was forgotten by Mr.
Cohn, by Mr. Kainville, by Mr. Jones and every one concerned.
It was a matter, Mr. Jenkins, in my opinion, of no importance at
all. It was a case of a mistake having been made, an oversight, an
explanation, some irritation, and once the explanation was made, I
think that every one just dropped it. .
Senator Mundt. It being past the hour of 4 : 30, we having an exe-
cutive committee meeting, the Chair would like to say that the com-
mittee, Senator McCarthy and his associates, Mr. Welch and Mr St.
Clair, and the staff of the committee will reassemble m room 357, in
5 minutes.
We stand in recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o clock.
(Whereupon, at 4 : 35 p. m., the committee was recessed, to recon-
vene at 10 a. m., the following day, Friday, June 11, 1954.)
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
(On June 10, 1954, the Special Subcommittee on Investigations held
an executive session. On the same date the record of this executive
session was made public, and follows below :)
THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1954
United States Senate,
Special Subcommittee on Investigations
OF THE Committee on Government Operations,
Washington, D. C.
The subcommittee met at 4 : 55 p. m., in room 357, Senate Office
Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, chairman, presiding.
Present : Senator Karl E Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Sen-
ator Evei^tt McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois ; Senator Charles
E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. Dworshak, Re-
publican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas;
Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; and Senator
Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
Also present : Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel to the subcommittee ;
Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel; Charles Maner, assistant
counsel ; and Sol Horowitz, 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 ; Francis P. Carr, executive director
of the subcommittee ; Joseph N. Welch, special counsel for the Army ;
and James D. St. Clair, sj)ecial counsel for the Army.
Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order. The chair
would like to express the hope, now that we have time enough to do this
in sort of a leisurely way, that we all stay kind of calm and dispas-
sionate and easy-going and see if we can't consult together as brothers
and Senators about the picture that lies ahead, in the hope that we
can agree, I hope unanimously, but if not unanimously, that we can
agree on something, and I know nothing about any suggestions that
have come up, on some kind of program for concluding the hearings
on an equitable basis and terminating them. I think we are all con-
fronted, however, with the same problems. We have important com-
mittee work to do. There is a lot of work in the Senate. There are
important matters from our own States demanding our attention.
2517
2518 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
We are committed to concluding this job on a basis that is fair, that
is equitable, and that, above all, will leave all of the principals m
this argument in a position where they can say that they have had
the witnesses that they need in order completely or adequately to
present or to defend their position.
That is all the Chair has to say to begin with, except to inquire
of Mr. Jenkins whether any besides Mr. Welch and Senator Mundt
have communicated with him in writing concerning witnesses that,
as far as they are concerned, they feel should be called in order to
meet the criteria which have just been enunciated by the Chair.
Mr. Jenkins. Nobody has, Mr. Chairman, communicated with me
in writing, with the exception of the letter of Mr. Welch
Senator Mundt. If thev are short, I suggest you read those two
letters. They are brief. It may be that other members will want
to comment. . n -inf-^ j
Mr. Jenkins. Heading one from the chairman, June 9, 1954, ad-
dressed to me :
Dear Rat : Insofar as I am concerned, I am ready to conclude our current
hearings just as soon as we have fully heard whatever witnesses the remaining
principals to this dispute insist upon having called in order that their side of
the controversy is adequately presented or defended.
I have no special witnesses of my own to propose beyond those whom the
principals feel it is essential to fairness and justice to call.
My personal feeling is that our committee should not unnecessarily prolong
these hearings by insisting on calling witnesses not demanded by the principals
in the dispute and not essential to the shedding of additional light on the basic
issues which are in controversy before us.
Cordially yours,
Karl E. Mundt, Chairman.
Then, on June 10, 1954, a letter addressed to the Chairman :
Dear Senator Mundt:
And it is a letter from Mr. Welch.
This letter is in response to your request that each side name the additional
witnesses which it feels should be called. The Army has consistently taken the
position that the case cannot be fully tried without the appearance of the prin-
cipals When Mr. Carr testifies, he will complete the list of those who were
originally principals. If the hearings continue beyond the area of the original
principals, the Army would doubtless wish to call a substantial number of
additional witnesses. Unless and until the decision for a more extended hearing
is reached, there is, as I view it, no point in listing those witnesses now.
Respectfully yours, „ . , ^ „i
J. N. Welch, Special Coiwsel.
Those are the only two written communications I have received,
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman ?
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen.
Senator Dirksen. We had some similar discussion at the last ex-
ecutive session of this committee, and if memory serves me correctly,
Mr. Welch indicated at that time that if he had Mr. Cohn, Mr. Mc-
Carthy, and Mr. Carr that would exhaust the list m which the Army
was presently interested. That is one consideration that has been
in my mind for some time.
The second is that whether I will or no, the end of the hscal year
rapidly approaching. I shall have to absent myself from the com-
mittee a substantial portion of the next week, if this should run into
next week, because I can no longer delay starting hearings on the
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2519
District of Columbia appropriations bill. It is the rule that that work
must be completed and the bills gotten out of conference and down
to the White House in time for signature before the fiscal year closes,
which is the 30th day of June.
One personal consideration enters into it. I broke a bridge ir,
M'hat dental facilities I have left, and I have been trying for weeks
to get to a dentist and I have found it impossible to do so. I am
stacked up with work, up to my ears. As you have observed from
my various absences from the committee, I have to shuttle between
what Ave are doing and the Judiciary Committee, which finds it so
difficult to make a quorum. And Senator McClellan is a member
of that committee. I went there yesterday afternoon and I think
we favorably reported over 60 bills. I try to keep a weather eye on
appropriations and particularly on the marlmps where I have a par-
ticular interest.
I was on the Subcommittee on State, Justice, and Commerce, so I
got to sit in on the hearings in part. They had to mark up this
morning on the armed services bill which involves roughly about
$291/2 billion.. Those are no easy tasks, and there are responsibilities
that one must pursue. And so, whether I like it or not, I become
then a creature of a circumstance that impells me to search my own
soul in the hope that I can contrive alone or by association some prac-
tical formula whereby we can ultimately bring this to an end.
I might add one other observation, and that is I think we have
pretty well gotten the blood out of the turnip. It becomes highly
repetitious from here on. So on the basis of those considerations,
Mr. Chairman, I have penciled out a proposal
Senator Mundt. Would the Senator yield? I would appreciate it
as chairman if, before anybody proposes any motions, we could sort
of discuss this around the table and see if we can bring about a meeting
of minds. If you are thinking of making a motion, I would like to
call on our ranking Democratic member. Senator McClellan.
Senator McClellan. I would like to hear from the other prin-
cipals first.
Senator Dirksen. It was suggested at this time, Mr. Chairman,
for only one reason, and that is that this may serve as the nucleus
for such thinking.
Senator Mundt. Why do you not just read the suggestion without
making a motion, because I am hopeful that we can have a meeting
of minds.
Senator Dirksen. I had in mind that we find a definite terminal
date. I am not at all sure that that is practical. And so I have
modified my earlier reflection somewhat, and this is the ultimate
result: Mr. Dirksen moves that the public hearings of this com-
mittee shall be concluded after the completion of the examination and
cross-examination of Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr, and Senator McCarthy.
That is the first part of the motion.
Secondly, that the testimony of any other witnesses who may be
summoned with the approval of a majority of the subcommittee shall
be taken by sworn deposition and made a part of the record, and that
such deposition shall be submitted on or before June 19, 1954.
And the third part of this motion, Mr. Chairman, is that: Any
unfinished business of the subcommittee shall be disposed in executive
session.
2520 spf:cial investigation
So it is there now, crentlemen, for your consideration.
Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan, you say before making any
comments you would like to hear as to the other principals?
Senator McClellan. I would like to know what the principals
positions are.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy or Mr. Cohn ?
Senator McCarthy. Just off the record.
Senator Mundt. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Mundt. Back on the record.
The Chair will try to summarize— go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I will abide by anything the
committee decides to do.
Senator Mundt. Good.
Senator McClellan? ^ . . ,
Senator McClellan. Well, Mr. Chairman, from my viewpoint there
are four more essential witnesses to this controversy. I don't know
how many more. But as a minimum, and in order to expedite the
hearings and to conclude them, I would suggest four witnesses, includ-
ing the further cross-examination of the witness now on the stand.
Senator McCarthy. Will you speak a little louder?
Senator McClellan. I will suggest four witnesses m addition to
the cross-examination of the witnesses now on the stand and the con-
cludino- of cross-examination of Mr. Cohn. I think Mr. Carr is a
necessary witness. I think Mr. Schine is a necessary witness. And I
do not think we can leave this thing as it is with respect to General
Lawton without him testifying. , . -,^1-1
I heard part if not all of his testimony m executive session. 1 think
I know if it is reaffirmed in open session who it will probably favor.
And I think it is important and necessary corroborating testimony.
■ And then I will insist that Mr. Clifford be called, whose name was
mentioned, referred to over and over, and one of the principals urged
his calling. Those are the four. When their testimony is concluded,
so far as I know now, I would have no other witness m mmd. I do
not think you should absolutely shut the door to other witnesses. No
one knows what might develop. But I again say to you frankly, and
I believe I am sincere in it, that I am just as anxious to get this ]ob
done and get through with as anyone else.
Now I iiave made my statement based upon a little experience as a
lawyer, based on mv services here in the Senate, and my knowledge, or
slight knowledge, at least, of public opinion and what I think the
public would expect. . „ . ■, .
Therefore, I do think that since this question of motive and who
inspired this, that the other, since Mr. Clifford has been mentioned,
and charged with inspiring, I think it would be unfair to him not to
give him the opportunity to testify. ,
I think Joe is absolutely right, if he feels that his charges against
him, that he did inspire it, are true, he has a right to have him, and
1 don't think this committee should deny him that right. But I think
those four are the minimum.
So far as I know now, without absolutely precluding myself or
any other member of the committee, if some development arises that
would indicate another, by a majority vote of the committee they
could be called. If a majority votes not to, that is the majority rule.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2521
Senator Mundt. That would be adding only three more, John. We
have agreed to McCarthy, Cohn, and Carr, and you suggested adding
Schine, Lawton, and Clifford, to bring it to six.
Senator ]\IcClellan". What ?
Senator Mundt. You suggest adding only three more.
Senator Jackson-. Three in addition to Carr.
Senator McClellan. That is all. I said the four I considered
material. You are all agreed on them. I was just making my state-
ment in full.
Senator Mundt. Now if we may get to Mr. Welch, because of his
letter, whether, if we w^ere to add those, would that be interpreted by
you as opening the doors to the point where you might say you have
a substantial number of additional witnesses?
Mr. Welch. Well, I had that feeling as I wrote the letter to you, sir.
Senator Mundt. Well, you heard what Senator McClellan said, so
I was wondering whether you would, if that were done, feel that that
meant you had to have a substantial number of witnesses.
Senator Jackson ?
Senator Jackson. May I merely supplement in a small way what
Senator McClellan has just said. It has been understood that all
the principals would be heard. Mr. Schine, in effect, has been deemed
almost to be a principal. He at least is the major subject matter of
this controversy. I don't know under what kind of reasoning you
could conclude these hearings without calling him.
Secondly, Mr. Clifford, in the last 3 or 4 days, and this afternoon
in particular, has been, for all practical purposes, made a principal
to this controversy, based on the testimony this afternoon. His name
was mentioned, I think, 6 times in 30 minutes.
Then, thirdly. General Lawton has been brought into this contro-
versy time and time again. There have been some serious charges
evolved around General Lawton.
In view of that fact, Mr. Chairman, again I think he is the subject
matter in that area of controversy, and I think in fairness to General
Lawton and to the American public who have listened to all this, I
don't see how we can avoid calling him.
I think, Mr. Chairman, you will agree that we on our side have tried
to cut clown our questioning to a minimum. I, for one, want to co-
operate with the Chair in every way possible to bring these hearings
to an early conclusion. I might say that, going over the record, and
trying in sort of a half-way, lawyer-like manner, I came up with a
list, I think all of us did, on our side, of about 12 or 13 names. We
deliberately pared them down to three, in addition to Mr. Carr. We
did that in an effort to balance all of the problems involved in this
controversy. We are all aware of the urgency of legislative business.
However, we cannot use that problem, that difficulty, as the basic means
of terminating these hearings. I do think we can reach a reasonable
balance and exclude people that we find that we can, in justice, elimi-
nate, much in the same way, Mr. Chairman, that we try, all of us try,
I think, to cut out questions that just merely are repetitive or add to
supplement that which has already been done.
It is in the spirit of trying to reach an early and a just conclusion
that I think these three additional names in addition to Mr. Carr are
absolutely indispensable to a just conclusion of this long hearing.
Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman ?
2522 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Muxdt. May the Chair if he may, ask Mr. AVelch, again:
I saw him conferring with Mr. St. Clair. We can all discuss this more
intelligently with the additional three names, and I think there is
good reason, I may say, why each of them might be entitled to be called,
but I am worried lest we lead from one to too man3\ Mr. Welch's
letter implied to me that if he went beyond ISIcCarthy, Cohn, and Carr,
it was conceivable that we might pick names, and I can well appreciate
it, that would want to lead him to call a great many more witnesses.
I wouldn't assume, Mr. Welch, that calling INIr. Schine would particu-
larly mean any additional witnesses one way or the other. But would
it, that would lead him to want to call a great many more witnesses,
man who has had his name mentioned a great deal, and if I were
Schine, I think I would want to be called, as far as that is concerned.
What is your opinion of that?
Mr. Welch. Well, I can only say that if he were called, there is some
testimony in executive session in respect to him and his activities
which would naturally lead to calling or could lead to calling some
other witnesses.
And now that I am
Senator Mundt. Hoav about General Lawton ?
Mr. Welch. General Lawton, I think, is the most difficult name,
because it seems to me that would open up so wide an area. The con-
versation here would lead me to think that the testimony in respect to
Lawton would be to this effect: He cooperated with McCarthy and
therefore was discriminated against and we would need to show that
that discrimination, that charge, is not correct. So that would open
up what seems to me a somewhat painfully wide field.
As to Clark Clifford, for all I know that would, I think, be a single
witness, for all I know. And Mr. Carr doesn't seem to me to open
up any field of additional witnesses.
Senator Mundt. Thank you very much.
Now Senator Potter.
Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one question :
Mr, Clifford's name has been mentioned during this hearing. I
have no knowledge that Mr. Clifford has asked to appear. Has he
asked to appear as a witness? I think if he has asked, I think he
should be a witness.
Senator Mundt. He has not asked the Chair. I don't know about
the counsel.
Mr. Jenkins. He has not asked me.
Senator Jackson. The serious part of this thing is that I think the
record will disclose, in tlie testimony this afternoon, that Clark
Clifford is alleged to be one of the individuals who conspired to write
up these charges, and so he is no longer just an incidental name that is
brought in. We have had a tremendous number of names and it is
only because of the statements that have been made in public or now
in the record that really almost, for all practical purposes, as I see it,
makes him a principal to this controversy.
Senator Potter. I would just as soon have Clifford testify, but I
wonder if he has requested to aj^pear. If we want to open it up because
a person has been mentioned, we would bring in many more than we
would care to have. As I understand, General Lawton has testified
in executive session. I am wondering if it is possible to have that
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2523
executive session made public. I do realize by doin^ that you cut
off the cross-examination of General Lawton. I don't know whether
that is desirable.
Senator DiRKSEN. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Muxdt. I will call on Senator Dirksen in a moment.
You have read, by now, the executive testimony of General Lawton ?
Mr. Welch. I have not. I have had it described to me riding in
an automobile.
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, it is available to you in my office.
Mr. Welch. Colonel jNIurray has a copy of it in his possession, or
has read it or something.
Senator Mundt. May I say, Mr. Welch, that in substance your
assumption was correct, it does pretty well corroborate what you have
heard in open testimony. The question I wanted to raise with you
was whether or not you felt under the Dirksen formula of filing deposi-
tions in reply thereto, which would become part of the printed record
and the public record — whether that would suffice or whether you felt
if he were to be called he should be subjected to cross-examination and
the regular long, laborious routine that we go through with any wit-
ness who appears before us.
Mr. Welch. Would you wait one moment ?
Senator Mundt. Surely.
Mr, Welch. Mr. Chairman, as I understand your latest remarks
in respect to General Lawton, they are to the effect that a deposition
could be introduced or a statement in executive session of some sort
if we desire to do so after his current examination introduced in evi-
dence. That would seem to me to be much swifter than any other
method, and would tend to compress what would look to me like a
pretty big and somewhat difficult field. So it seems to me Lawton
could be handled that way.
Senator Mundt. Could Schine be handled that way ?
Mr. Welch. Yes, perhaps so. I don't understand that Schine has
been examined.
Senator Mundt. No, he has not.
Mr. Welch. I am not sure I quite understand Senator Dirksen's
motion, but in any event, because of its three layers and because I am
tired, as I often am at this time of day, my own view of the case is
that the evidence is being addressed to eight gentlemen who are in
this room.
Senator McCarthy. Will you speak a little louder, Mr. Welch?
Mr. Welch. The evidence is being addressed to 8 Senators in this
room, and I have the view that after we have the witnesses that we
now have in mind, not many converts are apt to be made among the 8.
As to the country, which I suppose has a stake in the hearing, God
knows they have seen as much of Mr. Welch as it seems to me to be
good for them, and I suppose as much of anyone else. It has become,
I suppose, a kind of a cliff-hanger affair on the radio that people
would love to see continued forever. But there comes a point at
which all litigation has to end.
My own view is that if we conclude with the witness we have now,
which I think will not be a long witness, either under the rest of
your cross or our cross, plus Mr. Carr, who I think will, again, not
be a long witness, we could find ourselves, if we exclude this other
area in what I heard Mr. Jenkins describe as the twilight of the case.
2524 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
There will have to be some work done, as I say in submitting the
additional evidence in executive session, but I think my position is
clear
Senator Potter. Do you think any new facts would be brought out
bv these other witnesses ?
Mr Wflch I will put it a little differently. I suppose some new
facts would be brought out, but the way I put it, I didn't think many
converts on the committee or not many in the country would be made
bv any additional new facts.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I want to be a little responsive
to Senator Jackson about the mentioning of names m this contro-
versv The mention of a name once or 50 times does not make a person
a pi-incipal in any sense. We are dealing here with formal charges
in which the principals have been on notice. Ihe Presidents name
has been mentioned perhaps a hundred times or 50 times m these
weeks, but it doesn't make him a principal. The Attorney General s
name has been mentioned, but that doesn't make hmi a principal.
And while Mr. Clifford's name has been mentioned, that certainly
doesn't make him a principal. -, ^ a
Now coupled with that, the mere mention of a name does not amend
the complaint that is before us in any sense. I cunnot see it from any
other standpoint. Now, that is the first answer I make
Secondlv Mr. Chairman, there is no formal request on this com-
mittee from Mr. Lawton that I know of; there is no formal request
m the mrT of Mr. Clifford to appear. And I doubt whether there
is upon us the onus of taking cognizance of anybody s name that may
be mentioned unless, by telegram or letter or telephone or by personal
em^sarv he feels that' he has to come before the committee, be sworn
andlestify. And there is no showing that there is anything material
about the mentioning of Mr. Cliff orcVs name
I wouldn^t have the slightest notion m what respect he may have
fi^nired. Obviously, I prefer not to dignify the mentioning of a
name by making him a witness thinking that fainiess requii^s him^
Names are so freely bandied about, even on the Senate floor. But
I don't know that that particularly includes a person as a principal
^^Tl^^lh!^ ;:.hiU woSake, Mr. Chairman, is thaf^ all this could
be handled bv deposition. I have no pride as to how it shal be dennecl
m the mo ion. All sides can prepare interrogatories tha they may
want to address to the individual in question. They wil be made
Tmrt of the record without delay. They will.be available to the
pres<. and to the public, even as all other transcripts are made avail-
able so that the public certainly will lose nothing.
Anc? finally, I think Mr. Welch puts his finger on the very se.isitive
consideration that is before us, because if you enlarge the domain
beyond the three witnesses that we have been discussing, one leads
to another, and there is no telling how many will be called, no telling
what is suggested in the course of succeeding tesf:imony. 1 may tind
it necessary to be thinking up witnesses that, in my very humble
judgment, might have testimony that is competent or relevant or ma-
terial to the issue.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2525
But it seems to me that Ave have belabored it over and over and
over again until the repetition is becoming thoroughly Aveary.
And I make this one other suggestion, Mr. Chairman. It is not
only Mr. Welch who is becoming weary, and I think somewhat
fatigued, because there is an attritions force about living under the
lights week after week, and the examination and cross-examination
and the degree of alertness that seems to be required on everybody's
part, and that becomes something of a fatiguing experience, particu-
larly when it is coupled with other work that must be done. I think
every consideration is on the side of limitation to the three witnesses
that I mentioned in the motion, take the rest of the testii^ny by depo-
sition if a majority of the subcommittee feels that something material
and relevant can be contributed; and finally, whatever unfinished
business there is — and that would not necessarily be testimony, but
perhaps discussions or anything else that comes iip— can be done in
executive session.
I think this is practical. I think it is feasible. I think it serves
every useful and constructive purpose that we may have in mind.
All the facts will have been ascertained for such judgment as we must
make.
And I so earnestly hope that we can now agree upon this limitation,
because if this door is open, Mr. Chairman, I am not at all certain in
my own mind that another 2 or 3 weeks may not go by as other names
may be suggested from time to time.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, could I add one word?
Senator Mundt. Yes. And then we will hear Senator Symington,
and then Senator Dworshak. Mr. Welch ?
Mr. Welch. This is a little sadly, and that is this : I think everyone
here will recognize the name of Fred Fisher. Mr. Jenkins was good
enough to say publicly today that if he wished to appear openly be-
fore this committee, I think he went so far as to say that he would
try to see to it that the opportunity is given.
I don't trust my judgment in that case, but I would like to have
it open to have Fred Fisher submit an affidavit or a statement of some
kind to this committee, if he desired, in executive session. Whether
or not you will ever see fit to deal with it, I do not know. But I would
like to reserve that right.
I might add that if we opened up the door of witnesses, he seems
to me to have the right to be heard above and beyond almost any man
whose name I have heard mentioned in this room. I do not propose
to make that decision on his behalf, but I say that he strikes me as a
man who could conceivably become a witness.
Senator DiRKSEN. Before we go further, Mr. Chairman, let me
include this one thought for any discussion. It is not so imperative,
in my judgment, that the last proviso in this motion be kept in the
motion, namely, that any unfinished business of the subcommittee shall
be disposed of in executive session, because if the first two provisions
are in the motion and are adopted, the rest of it, it does seem to me,
takes care of itself, and I certainly am not anxious to offend propriety
or good taste or any feeling that this is an effort to get it behind
closed doors.
I think we have gone as far as we dare go. Before too long, we
shall run into an anticlimax situation under which the public will
2526 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
run out on everybody on this committee, before we get through. We
have about reached the straining point, I think. t, • ,
But I just say that this is an earnest endeavor without any political
motive, because from that standpoint it is important.
Senator MuNDT. Senator Symington?
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I view some of these matters
with intense personal distress. I did what I thought was my duty.
1 have said nothing in this meeting until now, and I would like to
tell the committee a couple of the thoughts that are running through
my mind. . ^ , ,
Senator Sl#les Bridges and I were going to Europe. I was leav-
incT on Saturday, February 20, for New York to have an evening with
my children and their wives, and the next day with my grandchildren.
And on Thursday, as I have reconstructed it, the 18th, Mr. Stevens,
Secretary Stevens, and General Kidgway, came to my oftce to see me,
at which time the general problem of this committee came up.
On Friday, I believe in the office of Senator McClellan, I saw Mr.
Stevens and Mr. Adams, and 1 believe they came down to my office
with me after we left Senator McClellan's office.
It is fair to say that Mr. Stevens was extremely upset about the now
well-known so-called Zwicker hearing. This was, to the best of my
knowledge, Friday the 19th. .
After listening to him talk, I said, m effect— and I have previously
told the committee that I knew him fairly well, having been with him
in college, he was two classes ahead of me, and having seen him several
times as a member of the Armed Services Committee, and I had had
lunch with him at least once— I told him that the next day I was
leavincT for Europe, through New York, and that I thought what he
needed was a good lawyer. I tried to get him a fellow on the Re-
publican side of the aisle, as I remember it. Bill Rogers, who 1 had
met first many years ago as chief counsel for this committee under
Senator Ferguson, and who I had cause to admire as a result of the
way he handled an investigation with respect to the Air Force. He
was not available, and therefore I suggested, to my now great per-
sonal regret, my friend and my personal lawyer, Mr. Clittord.
Those two met and talked. It was agreed between Mr. Stevens and
me, as I understood it, that everything would be done to prevent fur-
ther hearings with respect to General Zwicker or the Army until 1
returned to1:his country in 12 to 14 days, as I think Styles and I had
planned it, because I wanted to be in on the hearings.
I only had one side of the story, but it worried me a very gi'eat deal
from the standpoint of the security of the country. I tried to get hold
of the chairman of this committee, and he was not available. He was
not in town. That was the way it was left and, so far as 1 knew, that
was all I was going to hear about it. , , ^ -, .e
The next day, Saturday, which was the day that I was leaving tor
Europe through New York, Mr. Stevens called me, highly agitated,
because he himself, he said, had been subpenaed by the chairman of
the committee. I talked with him and told him the best thmg he
could do, in my opinion, as to follow the advice of Mr. Clifford, with
whom I take full responsibility for putmg him m toucli.
And then we had, Mr. Stevens and I, two or three talks that clay, and
it was my understanding that he was going to do anything and every-
thing not to have any further Army hearings until I got back.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2527
The next day, from New York, I picked up the papers and, to my
astonishment, I found that the papers said that Mr. Stevens was ask-
ing to testify.
So I called him up and said, "What is going on here?" in effect. "I
thought we understood each other. I thought you were going to try
to prevent testifying or, anybody from the Army, including yourself,
until I got back."
It is my recollection that he said, "That is right, and the story is
wrong."
I said, "O. K.," and left for Europe, never realizing that these
heariiigs would start, never having the remotest idea there would be
anything like this.
When I was in Europe, the now famous "chicken dinner" story,
"chicken luncheon" story, broke. I came back here and never com-
municated, to the best of my recollection and knowledge, in anyway
whatever with Bob Stevens. However, there began to be stories
around, shortly after I got back. I think I was back in 12 or 13 days.
And I do believe that Mr. Stevens sent me a wire explaining his posi-
tion, and that I replied to that wire.
Mr. Welch, to be sure of that, I would like to have those wires put in
as a matter of record.
He wired me while I was abroad, and I answered it. When I got
back in March, the story about the Schine report was "all over town,"
and so I called him up and asked him to give me a copy. And for
some reason he was evasive about it, and he said he would call me back.
He never did. I never have been in touch with him in anyway, directly
or indirectly, since that telephone call of March 8, except, of course,
in these hearings.
Now, to the best of my knowledge, I wanted to tell the committee the
facts as I remember them, because, on my honor, they are correct.
Accusations have been made in public that there was some form of a
conspiracy, an effort to hurt the Republican Party, which I have been
and am quite closely associated with, although I am a Democrat, and
that there was conniving between Clark Clifford and me to destroy,
perhaps, my friend Mr. Stevens, or in any case to make this a political
move.
I want to pledge to my colleagues, some of whom I believe know me
better than others, that nothing could have been farther from my
thought. I was a member of the Armed Services Committee. Some-
where in my mind, and I am going to check it, is some information
that has to do with this committee's operations that came up in the
Armed Services Committee, with Mr. Wilson testifying with Mr.
Hensel, because at that time there was agitation for these hearings to
go in to the Armed Services Committee. I didn't particularly care.
Senator McClellan felt very definitely it should stay before this com-
mittee, and he is my senior colleague and I respect his opinion.
Now, those are the facts with respect to any possible collusion with
respect to the situation.
As to Mr. Clifford's relationship with Mr. Stevens — which I estab-
lished literally the day before I went abroad, I said "Bob, you need
a good lawyer," and tried to get him first a good Republican lawyer
and couldn't. That relationship would have to be asked of Mr. Clif-
ford. But I believe that Mr. Clifford, who is my friend and who I
regret getting into this matter— it has given him unfavorable pub-
2528 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
licity — is a man who would come up here and tell the truth. Because
of the serious charges, in effect, charges that have been made against
him, it would be absolutely unthinkable, to me, that this committee
didn't give him a chance to tell whatever the facts are.
I have another feeling about it which is sort of theoretical, but
it is the way my mind runs, always has, and I hope always will, and
that is that you shouldn't arbitrarily stop getting the truth, regard-
less of the problem that this is getting to me — It is a very grave prob-
lem with me now, but you just can't arbitrarily stop, before the
American people, before you get to the truth of the situation. There-
fore, I am opposed to any arbitrary stopping of the witnesses unless
there is complete agreement and the truth has been arrived at.
And also, I have taken a position with the people of my State and in
the press that I thought we should not have executive sessions. I think
executive sessions are misleading. People will talk from them. They
are misunderstood. People would never know, for example, that we
didn't call Mr. Schine or, rather, even if we did, in executive session,
they would never know what Mr. Schine said. And Mr, Schine, to my
mind, is a very important person in these hearings.
Now finally, without injecting any politics in it, because it isn't
a political matter with me, if the hearings stop now it would look
as if two people in the Democratic party attempted to do something
that had sort of a cheap aspect to it, when, as a member of the Armed
Services Committee I received into my office the Secretary of the
Army and did my best to guide him. He was bitter in his complaints
about the other committee I was serving on, namely, this Government
Operations Committee.
You Republicans, and I say this with great respect, you are happier
than you were. I read in the paper that you had a party the other
night, and I saw pictures of happiness. There was the Secretary of
Defense, Mr, Wilson, with the chairman of this committee. Senator
Mundt, and one of the principals. Senator McCarthy, and there was
a picture taken, and you w^ere all very happy.
The only part of the article — well, as a matter of fact — I think
that the article also stated that our esteemed counsel who was wise
enough and foresighted enough to bring a Democrat up with him,
whom I have grown to admire a good deal, Mr. Prewitt — I also
noticed that Mr. Jenkins was at that party.
Mr. Jenkins. That is a mistake. I was not there. I know you
read that in the papers.
Senator Symington. I am very happy to know that. The article
put your name in the story. I am very happy to be corrected.
Mr. Jenkins. Neither Tom, nor Charley, nor I were there.
Senator Symington. You know I wouldn't say it unless I had seen
it in the paper.
]\Ir. Jenkins. I am sure of it.
Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Jenkins.
However, and I am nearly finished and I thank our gracious chair-
man for letting me talk, if we stop here the record would show that a
person who was only trying to help me in a problem since I had to
leave promptly to go abroad, had connnived to hurt, in my opinion,
the United States.
I just can't accept the idea that this committee would be so cruel
as to prevent him from having an opportunity to state his position.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2529
Now, in addition to that, I understand that General Lawton's testi-
mony, and it has never been offered to nie and I have never seen it,
favors Senator McCarthy's position. I think in the interest of the
country and the country's interest in this situation, that testimony
should go in.
If I may say, I think that to leave Mr. Schine out of this situation
■would make us all look a little silly. I am opposed to executive
sessions. I am sorry to have taken so much time in expressing my
position, but there it is, and if it has been badly put, at least it is
completely sincere.
Senator Mundt. May the Chair ask, then, if you will go along with
John's list of three ?
As I understand it, you would be tempted to conclude with John's
list of three additional ones — of Schine, Lawton, and Clifford?
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I would say this, I don't think
at this time we should arbitrarily state the witnesses that we are going
to hear. I believe Mr. Welch's point is very well taken, that if we
have the testimony of a man like Mr. Schine, and we have somebody
who will say that testimony is wrong, then it is the duty of this com-
mittee, in open session, to hear the other testimony. Nobody is more
fed up with these hearings than I am, but I just don't think that you
can cut the hearings off. I would like to see them finished as soon
as possible, but I don't like to see them ended, just arbitrarily ended.
I will say that I will vote right now for Mr. Carr — I beg your
pardon. Mr. Lawton, General Lawton, Mr. Schine and I think
Mr. Clifford ought to be heard.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak?
Senator Potter. Will the Senator yield ?
Senator Symington. I will be very glad to yield to my friend,
Senator Potter.
Senator Potter. What if Mr. Clifford submitted to the committee
a deposition as to his activity ? My point is this : Here you bring a
man in who hasn't asked to appear. I agree with you that his story
should be told — his activity should be
Senator Symington. W^ill the Senator yield to me just a minute ?
Senator Potter. Yes.
Senator Symington. Mr. Clifford has asked me to tell the committee
that he is entirely available at any time the committee would like to
have him.
Senator Jackson. Just on this one point, I think it is important,
Senator McCarthy as a principal has requested that Mr. Clifford be
called as a witness. I think that is the record. I believe under all
the circumstances, in view of the fact that this afternoon it is alleged
in the testimony that he is probably one of those who conspired
make these charges, I don't see how the committee can avoid it when
those things come up.
Senator Symington. If I may proceed on that, I am happy that
Senator Jackson made that point. I never suggested, nor do I believe
Mr. Clifford did, although he should be asked, in any way, at any time,
that any charges should be made against this committee.
I believe the last conversation I had with Mr. Stevens, which is the
last time I have ever been in touch with him directly or indirectly,
proves conclusively that there wasn't the remotest idea in my mind that
there were going to be any Army charges published.-
2530 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
I will go further than that. I would guess that it proves there
wasn't any idea in his mind that there were going to be any charges
that were going to be made before this committee.
Senator Poti'er. I think one of the things we have to keep in
mind
Senator Mundt. The Chair would like to call on Senator Dworshak,
but go ahead, Senator Potter.
Senator Potter. I think one of the things we have to keep in mind
is the purpose of this investigation in the first place. That is to ascer-
tain the facts relative to this controversy. We can go far afield. I
could well imagine, for example, that it might be logical as a result of
General Lawton's testimony to bring in his aide. Captain Corr, and
possibly other people then would be involved. I believe we would
end up after the conclusion of General Lawton with 3 or 4 more
witnesses. It is a little bit like pregnancy, one day your child has to
be born. And I think the time for the birth is at the conclusion of the
three witnesses mentioned.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak?
Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, I have very little comment to
offer. I think that the subcommittee has become the hostage of the
public which thinks that w^e are putting on a first-class TV spectacle,
and we have reached the point where the public is completely unaware
of the fact that eight Senators and others, but eight Senators pri-
marily have other duties to discharge. I have taken w^idespread
criticism because from the first I thought it was our very specific duty
to hear the charges and the countercharges and try to reach some
reasonable decision considering those specific charges and counter-
charges.
I have been trying to get a target date, but every time we propose
it, all of these newspaper editors who one day cuss us vigorously
because we are trying to hold some control and restraint over the
procedure in the hearing, the following day condemn us because we
are trying to do something else.
There is inconsistency all the time. They want a short hearing, but
they want all of the witnesses called in.
Well, it is difficult to satisfy these critics, these editorial and radio
critics. I think the public has a right to listen in, but not indefinitely.
I think we ought to have a target date. I believe that maybe we have
to call in a few more witnesses. If we don't there will be inplications
and charges that will be hard to refute.
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we can have in mind some kind
of a target date, but have a mutual understanding among ourselves
that if we call a witness we won't keep him on the stand for a day
or 2 or 3 days, that we ought to try to be reasonable and develop
the facts. We have not done that. I don't want to be critical of
anvbody connected with the hearing. I think Mr. Jenkins has done
a fine job. The counsel cooperated and all that. I mean for the
other parties.
Put I think we have reached a point where we are all dragging
anchor and we are not serving any good purpose.
I am certainly anxious to get a target date and release this man-
power for other important work. How to attain that without offend-
SPECJAL IKVESTIGATION 2531
ing the sensitive public, I don't know. But I think we ought to try
to do something now. We should have done it prior to this time.
Senator Mundt. I doubt if we could have done it, prior to this
time, because at least I have held, as you know, that until the princi-
pals could agree, it would not be proper to try to arrive at any point
of conclusion^ We have now reached a point where the principals
at least are in pretty good agreement as to how to end them. So
it becomes committee business in consultation with the principals as
to how we are going to get it ended.
When we started this, Ave must all have faced the fact that we must
end it some day.
Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, we have other duties to dis-
charge that they do not know about. They think tliis is our sole
responsibility and that we could run on indefinitely.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, let me ask a question.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen ?
Senator Dirksen. If you summon Clark Clifford to testify and he
has only said according to Senator Symington that he is available
but he has not demanded that he appear, how can you logically avoid
recalling Secretary Stevens ? It goes to the heart of that matter.
Mr. Welch, is that correct ?
Mr. Welch. Well, it seems to me a possibility. But something
more scary to me on durability than that is Lawton. That seems
to me to open up so big a field.
Senator Dirksen. We will take them one at a time.
Stu, getting back for a moment to what you say about Clark, that
he is available but has not demanded to come
Senator Symington. Karl just reminded me of something I would
add that Jim Carey be called with respect to the charges made against
me yesterday.
Senator Dirksen. How could you avoid calling Stevens back to
the stand ?
Senator Symington. I do not care about that. Stevens is not my
problem. My friend is my problem, whom I got into this because I
was leaving for Europe and wanted to get some advice.
Senator Mtjndt. On the Carey problem, I looked at the record and
found that nobody made any derogatory statements about Carey at
all. You brought his name in in a very complimentary way. You
did not make an accusation.
Senator Syiviington. No, but the statement was made that I did
one of the most awful things I ever heard of in my life, which was
to have some kind of a deal with a labor leader whereby I gave him
money in order not to give the people that I was working with a raise.
It is an incredible story and it is totally and completely false. There
is not a grain of truth in it. Therefore, I would like to have the man
who knew this whole labor situation as president of the national
union, who was my old friend, I would like to have him clear the
record on that.
Senator Mundt. The difficulty, when you get into that kind of hear-
ing, and I appreciate your point of view, is you get into something
pretty anologous to the Hensel thing. Now, Carey sent me a wire
and said he demanded the right to be heard as his name has been
used. I thought maybe I misunderstood and I went back and read
2532 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
the record. There was nothing of a derogatory nature said about
Carey, granted it was about you. But there was nothing derogatory
about Carey at all.
If we are going to open it up to everybody whose name has been
mentioned in a laudatory fashion or derogatory fashion, boys and
girls, Ave are going to commemorate Christmas in the committee room.
Senator Symington. I worked in some plants where Carey's union
had them organized. Carey, putting it mildly, is anti-Communist.
When I first went to Missouri the guy who ran the show m Missouri
and adjoining States was known as the head of the Communist Party
in that part of the country. So there is nothing that I did of any
character but what was done with the full approval of Carey. In
fact, I told Jim that I would not even go with that company unless
he would watch it and underwrite every labor move, which he agreed
to do. We had a meeting to that end before I even joined up with
the company. n , n, i ^ £ r
The charge is a very serious charge. It would badly hurt me it i
went back in private business. I think that I have the right to have
one of the great labor leaders of the country clear my name.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen? „. , , . ,
Senator Dirksen. Well, Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Welch is abso-
lutely correct. If you bring in Lawton, then you have to bring m
Con\ And, ISIr. Welch, you have to go further. The predecessor of
Mr. Lawton at Monmouth was General Reichelderfer, as I recall. Is
that correct ?
Mr. CoHN. Yes, sir. . , , i . -,
Senator Dirksen. His name has been mentioned a halt-dozen times.
I do not see how you can escape calling Reichelderfer. And maybe
other names will be mentioned. If you call Clifford, you have to call
Stevens. I do not see how you can avoid it, and maybe you have to
call Adams again, and then we are full tilt on the circle for the second
time, precisely where we started 6 weeks ago. And as I say, the men-
tion of a name does not confer a right upon anybody nor a duty upon
the committee to have them appear. But the door is open for all ot
them. , , .J
Senator Mundt. Nor does the charge mean that you have evidence
against somebody.
Senator Dirksen. Does the committee agree that there must be
something in the record from Lawton ? Get a sworn statement from
him Inferrogatories can be addressed to him just like you do to a
commissioner in a Federal court. That would be true of Chttord.
That would be true of Carey. When you go beyond where we have
gone here at the present time, then the door is opened and then there
is tlie vista of v. eeks ahead.
Senator Potter. And another month. , „ i
Senator Mundt. May the Chair add to that that if we all approach
this in a cooperative spirit we can end it, as I would hope it could
be ended, by a unanimous agreement or mutual consent. I am sti I
hopeful maybe we can write one committee report— maybe we will
not have to have a majority and minority report. I would like to
take a whack, at least, to trying to write a committee report. But
in all events, if we do not approach it in a cooperative spirit, it goes
on and on and on until some time somebody has to do something
arbitrarily. I have held out all the way through on that angle. As
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2533
you fellows know when we had a big issue a long time a<ro, I voted
with the Democrats, right out in the open, because I do^'not think
It IS fair to close this shop up until all of the principals say they have
had a fair chance to present their witnesses and defend themselves.
That has been my position all the way through.
If Joe Welch were to sit there today and give me a list of 15 wit-
nesses, I would say, "I don't like Joe Welch's judgment, but that is it
and if he is going back to Boston and say this committee is unfair
because we wouldn't hear them, I will order a ton of coal for winter
and we will stay."
But I do think everybody around the table has been very reasonable
and cooperative, and we are not very far apart.
Senator Dworshak. I think we should have unanimous action
Heretofore, everybody on the outside, regardless of whether they
represented one party or the other has been trying to put a partisan
flavor on this, and trying to inject politics into this whole subject and
our conclusions. I think it would be very good if we could arrive
at some mutual understanding that would completely reject any
partisan approach and try to be realistic and fair and equitable and
fair in this matter.
Senator Mundt. I think so, Henry. Last Sunday the issue was
pretty hot. I was the only one in town. Some people said this is
getting pretty partisan. I said there was some on both sides, of course.
But I said I do not know of a single congressional committee that has
met as consecutively as we have with as little partisanship. I am
surprised there has not been more. I quite agree, it does not do any-
body any good to line up 4 to 3 on the questions in issue. If we can,
by cooperation, giving and taking a little bit, we should try to arrive
at a formula, based on the major premise that this is what the dis-
putants want to have happen.
Senator Dirksen. I am watching the clock. Senator Dworshak has
to leave and before he does, I think Ray Jenkins ought to say some-
thing about this before he leaves.
Senator McClellan. May I interject one thing now, if you are
really trying to get an agreement and keep it unanimous.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I unfortunately have to go.
I am overdue. The young man here will speak for me. O. K ?
Senator McClellan. I want to make one suggestion.
^ Senator Mundt. I wish you could stand by about 10 minutes more,
if you can.
Senator Dirksen. Eoy is here.
Senator McClellan. I have General Lawton's name on this list.
I do not want to unduly extend these hearings. If Senator McCarthy
and Mr. Welch are satisfied not to have him, then if we can reach a
unanimous agreement here, I will eliminate him. I personally think
that it is a pretty bad mess to not get his testimony in. I think his
testimony as I heard it and interpreted it is inclined to favor Senator
McCarthy's position. I have not any ax to grind, whatever the score \s
1 wanted to get it in. I have stated that position over and over again.
If the principals are satisfied, however, to drop that one, as between
themselves, because that is an issue between them as I see it, primarily,
then I will eliminate him from the motion that I intend to make. But
I cannot agree on the other two.
Senator Potter. If I could just •
2534 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator I^Iundt. Senator McCarthy, if yon have to go, would you
like to make a statement ? . . i a r
Senator McClellan. I said about General Lawton, if you and Mr.
Welch af^ree that the general's testimony was not important to either
side of YOU, I would eliminate him from those that I would suggest.
But I thought I said here, if you were not listening, I thought his
testimony was inclined favorably to you, and I had no ax to grind
except to get the truth. -r .i • i i • ^ .• ^A
Senator McCarthy. May I say, John, I think his testimony would
be very favorable to us. I am willing to abide by whatever the com-
mittee does. If the deposition proposition were not m here, I would
be opposed to the motion. In other words, if you are just to end with
Carr and McCarthy. But as long as the committee can decide, 1
understand Stu Symington wants a deposition from Carey, if Jack-
son wants a deposition from Mr. "X," if Mr. AVelch wants depositions
from other people, and the committee will vote to put them m, good.
If we had nothing else to do, there is nothing I would like better
than just to run this thing out to the bitter end. But we have an
awful lot of work. I have a lot of investigations to go into. I will
abide with whatever the committee does.
Let me say this : If the witnesses go beyond the ones suggested by
Senator Dirksen, and Mr. Welch, I would want then the right to sug-
"•est additional witnesses. I do not want to open up a hassle now
about Clark Clifford. I hope you and I have had our last say on
that, Stu. But if Clifford comes in, then there are additional wit-
HGSSBS.
Senator Jackson. That is at your request.
Senator Symington. Don't you want Clifford to have a chance to
clear his name?
Let us talk, Roy?
Mr. CoHN. I didn-t say a word, sir._
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this.
Senator Symington. Don't you want him to
Senator T^IcCarthy. Let me say, Stu, and I have to go; let me say
that I would like to have both Clark Clifford and Stu Symington on
the stand and others. I would like to have Lawton ; I would like to
have Carr ; I would like to have Dave Schine. I could name perhaps
offhand 15 witnesses I would like to have. They would call for an-
other 15, I assume. I do not want to be responsible for prolonging
this and holding up the work of the Senate. Therefore, even though
I think some witnesses might be important— let's put it this ^yay : I
will abide by any decision the committee makes except if additional
witnesses are called besides those suggested by Mr. Welch, ISIr. Dirk-
sen, and Mr. Jenkins, then I would want the right to call other
witnesses.
Senator Mundt. I would interpret that to mean you have no objec-
tion to this deposition proposal but you might want to suggest some
depositions from people that you have in mind?
Senator Dirksen. They have to be passed on by a majority of the
subcommittee.
Senator McCarthy. If you may say this off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Mundt. Back on the record.
SPii-CIAL INVESTIGATION 2535
I think we should hear from Kay Jenkins. I am sorry I didn't call
on him sooner.
Counsel Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, first
of all I want to make it perfectly clear that the members of my staff
and I want more than anything else that we can think of to get home.
That IS natural. It may be called selfish. But we came up here to
serve the committee to the best of our ability. We have done the best
job, I think, that we could.
We came in with our heads up, intend to walk out with our heads
up, and intend to do the best job within our power, realizing that we
have not and cannot please everybody.
I don't want to say anything to influence any member of the com-
mittee to take any action to shorten these hearings, but I do want to
say this :
I am an American citizen, I am a Republican, but I do hope and
I believe, am conscious of this, deep down, that my loyalty and fidelity
to my country supersedes that of my loyalty to my party, and I think
for the good of the country the hearings should be terminated as
quickly as possible.
That is based on reactions that I get from many people on whose
judgment I rely. From the President of the United States, to whom
I have never talked, of course, with whom I have had no communica-
tion directly or indirectly, but I do read the papers occasionally.
He expressed the hope and the desire that all the principals in this
case would be heard and the hearings then terminated as quickly
as possible. And when Mr. Carr shall have testified, then all of the
substantial principals have been heard.
Senator Symington. Will the counsel yield to me right there?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, indeed.
Senator Symington. Just for one observation. The record will
close by showing that the reason for these charges might well have
been a conspiracy between a Senator and a former member of this
Government, who has been out of Government for over 4 years.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I haven't finished. I was going to put
a "but."
Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, I have to catch a plane. I
would appreciate it if you would yield, Mr. Jenkins.
I will leave my proxy with the chairman to vote any way he wants.
Senator Mundt. Wait a minute. We have to rule on proxies, so
before the Chair accepts that responsibility he wants to get unani-
mous consent from his colleagues.
Senator McClellan. Personally, I waive it.
Senator Jackson. I hereby agree that the Chair shall vote your
proxy, Senator Dworshak.
Senator Dworshak. I have a plane reservation.
Senator Mundt. That is unanimously approved, and the Chair
will do it.
Good luck. Senator Dworshak.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, may I raise one inquiry ? I may have
misunderstood Senator Dirksen, but I thought he said something to
the effect that anyone wishing to introduce a deposition could do so
only upon majority vote of the committee.
Senator Dirksen. That is in the motion, Mr. Welch.
2536 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Welch. That puzzles me a little. On the Lawton situation,
for example, either we ought to leave the whole story out or it ought
to be opened without a majority vote to submit contra depositions.
Senator Dirksen. If there was an agreement here, certainly it
would never be violated, and the committee would be dutybound, it
seems to me, to reject it.
Mr. CoHN. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Mundt. Back on the record.
Mr. Jenkins. And I feel
Mr. Welch. Back off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Mundt. Back on the record. ^ , », «.
Mr. Jenkins. Frankly, I don't know where I left off.
( The reporter read from his notes as requested. )
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mr. Chairman, and members of the coiumittee,
I feel very strongly that when Mr. Carr has testified after Senator
McCarthy has concluded his testimony, and the further cross-
examination of Mr. Cohn is concluded, substantially the facts wil
have been developed and aired before the public. I feel very strongly
that these hearings should be concluded for the good of his country
at the earliest possible moment. The names of a few additional wit-
nesses have been suggested. I have talked to Gen^^/^ Law on I
hive talked to Mr. Schine. I have not talked to Mr. Clark Clittoid.
I am lound to know generally the range of Mr. Clifford's Imowledge.
I think that Senator Symington is entitled to have Mr Clifford s evi-
dence in, that the committee is entitled to have Mr. Schine's evidence
in as well as that of General Lawton if it is so desired though I want
to state to this committee in no uncertain terms that m my opinion
the knowledge of General Lawton and of Mr. Schine will not ma-
terially affect the final result of this controvery insofar as the facts
are concerned. I feel, gentlemen, rather strongly that after Mi. Carr
has testified, on the assumption, of course, that Senator McCarthy is
concluded and Mr. Cohn is concluded, the statements, the evidence ot
the three gentlemen named as well as any additional ones who may be
suggested can be taken by deposition to use Senator Dirkseii s ex-
t)r?ssion, or in executive session, and made public, and that their
testimony can be as thoroughly explored in an executive session as it
could be openly in an open session; that by that means, and by follow-
ing that formula, no possible injustice can be done to any of the par-
ties in interest in this case. We are all human. I believe Mr Chair-
man, that that formula would enable us to reach the ends of justice
without cutting off or precluding the introduction of the testimony
of any material witness, and would very materially shorten these iiear-
ings and enable us no doubt to conclude these hearings at some date
i think" I finished. Senators. I am assuming that those hearings,
Mr Chairman, that those hearings taken m executive session wilf be
made available to the newspapers immediately after they are trans-
cribed. , . 1 . '4. „
Senator Symington. I think there are two things about it, now,
as I see it : One thought bears directly on what you stiid.
Take my friend, Mr. Clifford, whom I am responsible for getting
into this, and take full responsibility. We indict him before 10 mil-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2537
lion people on television. You acquit liim in a bulky Senate report
I don t see it.
Another point is, how about Surine ?
Mr. Jenkins. What about him ?
Senator Symington. We agreed we were going to call him It is
on the record. Wliat do we do about him ?
Mr. Jenkins. Are you now submitting his name ?
Senator Symington. Yes, sir, I think he should be called, too.
Mr. CoHN. I think that should not be done in Senator McCarthy's
absence I think, with all respect, Senator Symington knows how
deeply Senator McCarthy feels about a smear job which some people
have suggested is being attempted on someone who has no possible
connection with this case in any way. I am not equipped to defend
Mr. Surine here. Senator McCarthy feels very deeply. I would
respectfully ask Senator Symington to bring that up in Senator
McCarthy s presence.
Senator Symington. Mr. Cohn, I would be glad to do that. I for-
got about Mr. Carey. It is pretty late. It is 6: 30. I forgot about
Mr. Surine.
So far as any smear job is concerned, the remotest thing from my
mind is any smear job on Mr. Surine. We went right up to the
picture and then Ave stopped.
I might add, off the record
{Discussion off the record.)
Senator Mundt. Back on the record.
Mr. Jenkins ?
^ Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, I have always been on the record. I
]ust can sum it up by saying this : That after we have concluded with
the testimony of Mr. Carr, I believe that the formula for bringing
these hearings to some reasonable end within a reasonable length of
time is to take the remaining proof of witnesses who know of any
facts that shed light on the issues, in executive session, and make that
public. And that, Mr. Chairman, sums up my views about it. At
some time or other we have to adopt that formula, even though some
individual on the committee may feel that by so doing his rights have
been trespassed upon.
^ I wish that it was possible to go on and hear them all in open hear-
ings. But as has been said, Senator, when you bring on a certain
witness, that causes you to call on others.
Senator Potter. I am sorry, I was telephoning during part of your
statement. Did I understand you to say that you would have Mr.
Clifford appear in public session ?
Mr. Jenkins. Xo, I didn't say that. I said let's go on with Senator
McCarthy ; perhaps they are not finished with Mr. Cohn, finish with
him; finish with Mr. Carr; and then take whatever other proof we
have in executive session, and release it to the public, because ulti-
niately we will have to do that. Ultimately we will have to do that,
in order to complete these hearings.
Senator Jackson. May I ask one question, Mr. Jenkins? I can't
for the life of me figure out on what kind of a theory you are going
to not call Mr. Schine, who has been deemed by the record as a prin-
cipal in this controversy. It has been said that all the principals
should be called. Mr. Cohn has given part of the testimony, the where-
abouts of Mr. Schine. But there is a lot that remains unanswered.
2538 SPECIAL rm'ESTIGATION
I am not going to be a party to the elimination of testimony that to
me— and I am sure to millions of Americans— can never be explained.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I don't fall out with you on account of that.
I respect your judgment and opinion. ^ , p . ,xr ,
Senator Jackson. I am just being fair, trying to be fair. )V e have
tried to cut down the number of witnesses. Someone has said some-
thing about getting a unanimous agreement. I don't see how we
could be more cooperative in trying to reach this.
Now, if you want to eliminate General Lawton, based on the under-
standing here, that is all right by me. But I don't see how you can
eliminate Mr. Clifford and Mr. Schine. I just for the life of me don t.
Mr. Jenkins. I might say. Senator Jackson, that one consideration
that motivates my statement, Mr. Chairman, is the fact that the two
principal parties to this controversy, as I understand it, would be
satisfied with that kind of a formula.
Senator Potter. I would have no objection to that.
Mr. Jenkins. That is one consideration that motivates me, Senator
Jackson.
Senator Jackson. The what? , , ,xi -j
Mr Jenkins. One consideration that motivates what i have said
is that it is my understanding that for several days such a formula
has been satisfactory to the two principal parties, to wit, the Army
on one side and Senator McCarthy and his staff on the other
Senator Jackson. Yes, but it is not unreasonable, however, tor the
people who have to sit in judgment on all this to suggest 2 additional,
3 additional, names. And if these requests were unreasonable, I could
cee where it makes some sense. But when it is admitted m the record
that (a) Schine, for all practical purposes, is deemed a principal,
when it is also said by all the parties that all the principals should
be called, that statement, that position, has been made clear by three
of us on our side from the very beginning, later conhrmed by the
President of the United States, and I don't see how anyone is going
to be able to read this record and then say that when a man has been
deemed a principal, and therefore all principals should be heard, you
are not going to hear him. _ , , o i • j
Senator Mundt. Scoop, is it your position that Schine was named
as a principal? . . , -, •^ ^ £ n i
Senator Jackson. It is mv position that, while not formally named,
if you ^o through the record— and I will be able to find it— that Mr.
Schinelias been deemed, for all practical purposes, as a principal.
Mr. Welch. I don't agree.
Senator Jackson. You don't agree ?
Mr. Welch. I don't think that is so.
Senator Mundt. He hasn't had counsel, he hasn t been at the com-
mittee table. If he is a principal he has been abused abysmally,
because he hasn't been able to defend himself as have all the others.
Senator Jackson. He is the subject of the controversy. _ I ]ust
want to say that I am not going to be a party to eliminating the
subject of the controversy. I would like to see the erudite explain
to the American public how vou hold a hearing for weeks and weeks
and then eliminate from the hearing the subject matter ot the
controversy.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2539
Senator McClellax. I have two motions separately, and I wish to
vote on them, or if Senator Dirksen wants to offer his first I will
make two substitutes. There is no use to sit here and talk for hours
I just want to get the parliamentary situation straight.
I have two names here that I would call. You can vote them down
if you want to. I have two names. If you offer your motion, then
I want to be sure that I can offer two substitutes.
In other words, let one be voted on, and then the next. If you
offer two names, someone would say, "Well, I will call one but not
the other." So I want it voted on separately.
Senator Mundt. May the Chair suggest that you let Senator Dirk-
sen offer his first, and then you offer yours as an amendment.
Senator McClellax. I want to oiffer separate motions, offer one
substitute motion and let it be voted on, and then offer the other
substitute and have it voted on.
Senator :Mundt. I just wondered if you could offer it as an amend-
ment.
Senator McClellan. I am offering it as a substitute. That is a
j)arliamentary privilege.
Senator Mundt. I thought you were going to offer some more names.
Senator McClellan. I may not agree to all the things in his motion.
For that reason, I have to offer it as a substitute.
Senator Potter. If you will tell us what it is, it may be somethino-
that we can go along with. ^
Senator McClellan. I am going to offer in separate motions to
call Schine and Clifford. I want to offer them separately, and vote on
them separately. If you offer them together, someone will say no.
His motion includes Carr.
Senator Symington. From the conversation, I want to offer a sub-
stitute, with the additional names of Surine and Carey.
Senator McClellan. They can be offered as substitutes after I offer
mine. 1 ou can offer as many substitutes as you want to.
Senator Dirksen. They would be offered properly, I think, as
amendments rather than substitutes.
Senator McClellan. If I disagree with your whole motion or any
part of it, I would have to offer it as a substitute. The vote is all
the
Senator Mundt. If you offer yours as an amendment, I think it
would be better.
Senator McClellan. It is the same. If you vote down the substi-
tute, the original still stands. And if you vote down the amendment,
the original stands.
Senator Mundt. I wondered if you wanted to amend it with your
names. You don't give us a chance to do that.
Senator McClellan. I was just trying to get a parliamentary situ-
ation clear where I won't be precluded
Senator Mundt. I will guarantee you won't be precluded.
Senator McClellan. All right, with the understanding that I will
offer them as an amendment to his motion, and if I am defeated, I am
not precluded from offering separate motions to call Schine and
Clifford. I just don't want to get hooked with a parliamentary gig.
2540 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Mundt. I have just assured Senator McClellan that he
■w'ould not be prechided from offering his names, I hope as an amend-
ment.
Senator McClellan. I will offer them both as an amendment, if I
can.
Senator Symington. "Wliat can I do with mine?
Senator Dirksen. To get the parliamentary situation straight, when
we start tomorrow
Senator Mundt. Let's do it here, and not wait until tomorrow.
Senator Dirksen. That provision with respect to executive sessions,
by agreement is stricken, I take it. You see, that was the third
Senator IMcClellan. I will have to have your motion stated.
Senator Dirksen. I was going to make it, but I wanted to explore
the areas of agreement.
ISIr. "Welch. Both Mr. Cohn and I, and I tliink I speak correctly,
feel. Mr. Jenkins, that the device of adding interminably to the record
by depositions is not fittractive; that the case is better decided if it is
decided on tlie evidence that is put in in public, whatever that may
turn out to be.
Am I correct, ]\f r. Cohn ?
Mr. Cohn. Sure. I am agreeable to anything. I don't care.
Mr. Welch. And neither he nor I see any point in first offering
the depositions or sworn statements that have been taken already,
and then adding to them by depositions. We think we just as well
do away with all of that and let the record stand on the public testi-
mony. Am I correct ?
Senator Dirksen. There is only one proposition in the motion.
Senator ]\Iundt. Stite your motion so John can hear it.
Senator Dirksen. Everything falls by the wayside except the first
clause.
Mr. Dirksen moves that the public hearings of this committee shall
conclude after the completion of the examination and cross-examina-
tion of Senator McCarthy, Mr. Carr, and Mr. Cohn.
Senator Mundt. If nobody
Senator Jackson. You eliminated the portion previously read?
Senator Dirksen. Yes.
Senator McClellan. As I understand, I can offer two amendments,
to include the names of Schine and Clifford.
Senator IMundt. You can do that separately or together.
Senator McClellan. Well, I want — with all of the rest of that out
of there, I will offer each name separately, and then I don't have to
offer any more.
Originally I didn't understand it. I said I might disagree.
Therefore, if this is seconded, then I will offer two amendments.
Senator Dirksen. Do you want it done here ?
Senator Mundt. I think you should do it here.
Senator Potter. I second it.
Senator Symington. Can I offer one ?
Senator Mundt. The Chair has agreed to recognize Senator
McClellan. Now I will recognize you.
Senator McClellan. I offer an amendment, that the names of wit-
nesses in the motion include Mr. Clark Clifford as a witness to be
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2541
called and testify in public hearings. I offer that as an amendment,
that his name be included among those mentioned in the original
motion.
Senator Jackson. I second the motion.
Senator Mundt. Any discussion ?
The Chair would like to make one inquiry. Maybe he hasn't any
right to. The Chair is perfectly willing to vote for those two names
if those two names being added would induce you to vote for the
amendment.
Senator McClellan. I am going to vote for the motion ; yes, sir.
Gosh, I thought everybody understood that.
Senator Mundt. I didn't want to put you on the spot, but if you
are, I am perfectly willing to vote for that.
Senator McClellan. You didn't put me on the spot. My mind is
wide open.
Senator Potter. Before we vote on this, I think we should get a
statement from the two principals and find out whether that is
acceptable.
Senator Mundt. I think that is a good point.
Senator Jackson. Yes, and I think there ought to be some kind of
understanding that we are not going to have other names brought into
this controversy by the principals to the controversy.
Senator Mundt. Do you mean if some new name pops up ?
Senator Jackson. Yes.
Senator Mundt. We are doing this on the basis of what we have
before us. ]\Ir. Welch or Mr. Cohn, and Senator Potter, may I inquire
whether adding these two names that you have heard will get us to a
point, then, where we can say this thing is closed up and will be satis-
factory to you ?
Senator Dirksen. What was this inquiry that was made about
ascertaining the wishes of the principals ?
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter.
Senator Potter. The attorneys for the principals, Mr. Welch and
Mr. Cohn.
Mr. Cohn. I think Mr. Welch and I probably agree on this, too,
that we both represent principals in this case. As I have said many
times the thing can go on from now until after election day, until
doomsday. We all think it has to end sometime. We both feel that
with the testimony of Senator McCarthy and Mr. Carr, we will have
had repeated time and time again the facts which the public has al-
ready heard. _ We both seem to feel that there will be no violence done
to justice on either side if the case is closed down after those two wit-
nesses are heard.
I think we both feel if new witnesses are to be added such as has been
indicated here, both of us would want to call additional witnesses, and
we will be here for many, many months.
Senator Dirksen. That premise
Senator Symington. When do I offer mine ?
Senator Mundt. We will vote on one at a time.
Senator Potter. Let's hear from Mr. Welch.
_ Mr. Welch. I am in quite strong agreement with Mr. Cohn, except
his words "many, many months." I don't believe it would be that
long. But it would be a painfully long time, in my opinion.
2542 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Dirksen. Your notion is, Mr. AVelcli, that if other wit-
nesses are included this is an interminable proceeding, the end of which
one cannot definitely foresee.
Mr. Welch. Interminable is a strong word, but a durable proceed-
ing, the end of which you would not reasonably prophesy.
Mr. CoHN. Senator McCarthy instructed me to state that if these
witnesses are to be added and Mr. Clifford is to be called, he will move
for the recall of Secretary Stevens and for the calling of Senator
Symington.
Senator Symington. He has already moved for the call of Senator
Symington, and he is plenty cognizant of my position on that. All
he has to do is sign a piece of paper.
Mr. CoHN. Senator, I am repeating instructions.
Senator Mundt. The Chair would very much like to vote for some-
thing that would bring us in agreement. If voting for the McClellan
amendment is going to put us in further disagreement, and move us
further away, then he would vote negative. If it would bring us closer
to agreement he has stated he would vote in the affirmative. But in
view of what Mr. Welch says and what Mr. Colin says, it seems to me
that we would open up a Pandora's box.
Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I think we understand all the
implications. The hour is late. I trust this has not been a
Senator McClellan. If there is any misunderstanding about the
implications, I will explain them.
Senator Mundt. There is a motion made and seconded. Is there
further discussion?
Senator Jackson. Call the roll.
Senator Mundt. The Chair will call the roll.
Senator McClellan?
Senator McClellan. Aye.
Senator ]\Iundt. Senator Dirksen ?
Senator Dirksen. No.
Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson ?
Senator Jackson. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter ?
Senator Potter. No.
Senator ]\Iundt. Senator Symington ?
Senator Symington. Aye.
Senator Mundt. The Chair believes under the circumstances he
would vote no, and I don't know — I suppose if I am going to cast
Dworshak's vote I would cast in the negative, no.
Senator ]\IcClellan. Do you?
Senator Mundt. I do.
Senator McClellan. All right.
I offer one more amendment: I now move that the name of Mr.
Schine be added to the motion as a witness to be called to testify in
public hearings.
Senator Mundt. Is there a second to that motion?
Senator Jackson. I second the motion.
Senator Mundt. Is there discussion ?
The Chair will call the roll.
Senator McClellan?
Senator McClellan. Aye.
Senator JMundt. Senator Dirksen ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2543
Senator Dirksen. No.
Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson ?
Senator Jackson. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter?
Senator Potter. No.
Senator Mundt. Senator Symington ?
Senator Symington. Aye.
Senator Mundt. The Chair will vote no, and on the assumption
that Senator Dworshak is expected to vote with his Republican col-
leagues will vote no. There are no specific instructions. The Chair
would like to say this : In voting his own individual vote, he reserves
the right to change that in the event he gets a letter from either
Private Schine or Clark Clifford asking that they be called. He has
not had such a letter from either one of them as yet. If he does get
one, he reserves the right to change his position.
Senator McClellan. I think a motion from a member of the com-
mittee is just about as important as a letter from a man outside. You
got a wire now from another man asking to be called. We ignored
him.
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I make a short statement,
as long as you did?
Senator Mundt. Yes.
Senator Symington. It is absolutely unbelievable to me that the
four Republicans on this committee, after listening to the charge
that there was collusion by Mr. Clark Clifford, in order, in effect, to
start these hearings, will now not vote to give him a chance to come
before the committee.
Senator Mundt. The Chair has already stated that if he advises
the Chair by letter that he would like to come before us, that he re-
serves the right to change his vote.
Senator Symington. He advised me to tell the committee that he
was available to testify.
Senator Mundt. That is quite different from advising the commit-
tee that he would like to be called. If he advises the committee he
would like to be called, then he is expressing a desire that he wants
an opportunity to tell his side of the story.
The Chair reserves the right to change his vote.
Senator McClellan. We have voted, but I may say this: I was
absolutely sincere. I think in view of the charges made that you
cannot shut him out. If so, I will have to write a report, I don't care
who knows it, discounting, disregarding every bit of testimony made
against him, and say because the majority of this committee refused
to hear him on my motion.
Senator Sy3IIngton. Mr. Chairman, may I make my amendment ?
I move in the proper fashion that Mr. Don Surine be called before
this committee.
Senator McClellan. Move it as an amendment.
Senator Symington. I move it as an amendment.
Senator Mundt. It was moved by Senator Symington that we add
Don Surine. Is there a second ?
The Chair will declare the motion lost for want of a second if there
is no second.
The motion is lost for want of a second.
Have you another motion, Senator Symington?
2544 SPECIAL IXVESyiGATION
Senator Sysiington. No.
Senator Mundt. We have not voted on the motion that is before us.
Senator McClellan. That is right.
Senator Mundt. You have a motion before you. Do you want to
discuss that before we vote?
Senator Dirksen. We know what it is.
Senator Mundt. The Chair will call the roll.
Senator McClellan?
Senator McClellan. No.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen ?
Senator Dirksen. Aye.
Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson?
Senator Jackson. No.
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter ?
Senator Potter. Aye.
Senator IMundt. Senator Symington?
Senator Symington. No.
Senator Mundt. The Chair will vote "aye," and understanding as
best he can the proxy of Senator Dworshak will cast the voting "aye,"
and in so doing says again he reserves the right to change his vote
if he is officially requested by either Mr. Schine or Mr. Clifford that
they want to be heard. He makes no promise, but he makes the reser-
vation.
Anything further?
Senator McClellan. How much of this is executive?
Senator Mundt. Wait a minute. Why doesn't somebody
Senator McClellan. I make a motion that it all be made public.
Senator Jackson. I second the motion.
Senator Mundt. Before you walk out, we have a motion, to make
these hearings public.
Senator McClellan. Grant it.
Senator Mundt. I assume by unanimous consent it is agreed they
will be made public, and I would suggest that the recorder give a
copy to each member of the committee and to the counsel so that they
can examine it and then, if you will, return it to my office.
Senator Symington. One more important point. Senator Jackson
corroborated the fact that one time when I meant to say "Republican,"
I said "Democrat." The reporter has been kind enough to say he will
examine the transcript for me.
Senator Mundt. All right.
(Whereupon, the committee recessed at G : 50 p. m., to reconvene
subject to the call of the Chair.)
INDEX
Page
Acheson 2506
Adams, John G 2486, 2493, 2494, 2505, 2506, 2511, 2513-2516, 2526, 2532
Air Force (United States) 2526
American Kepublic 2491
Annapolis 2505
Appropriation bill for the District of Columbia 2519
Armed Forces 2508, 2509
Armed Services Committee (Senate) 2526-2528
Army (United States) 2488,
2491, 2493-2496, 2498-2500, 2502-2513, 2516, 2518, 2526-2529
Army commission 2509
Army officers 2508
Army Transport Service 2508, 2509
Attorney General of the United States 2524
BeLieu, Colonel 2511, 2512, 2516
Bridges, Senator Styles 2526
Cabinet officer 2488
Capitol Police 2485, 2508
Carey 2531, 2532, 2534, 2539
Carr, Francis P 2487, 2489, 2490, 2518-2524, 2529, 2534-2537, 2539-2541
Charley 2528
Clifford, Clark 2520-2522, 2524,
2526, 2527, 2529, 2531, 2532, 2534, 2536-2538, 2540, 2542-2544
Cohn, Roy M 2486, 2487, 2489,
2493, 2495, 2507, 2509-2516, 2518-2522, 2536, 2537, 2540, 2541
Commerce Depai'tment 2519
Committee on Armed Services (Senate) 2526-2528
Committee on the Judiciary (Senate) 2519
Communist books 2507
Commimist conspiracy 2489
Communist infiltration of the military 2506
Communist Party 2488, 2489, 2491, 2493, 2506, 2507, 2510, 2532
Communists 2488, 2489, 2491, 2493, 2506, 2507, 2510, 2532
Corr, Captain 2530
Counselor to the Army„__ 2486, 2493, 2494, 2505, 2506, 2511, 2513-2516, 2526, 2532
Defense Department (United States) 2493
Definition of Communism (pamphlet) 2494
Democratic Party 2489, 2491, 2528
Department of the Armv 2488,
2491, 2493-2496, 2498-2500, 2502-2513, 2516, 2518, 2526-2529
Department of Commerce ' 2519
Department of Justice 2489, 2519
Department of State 2519
Dirksen, Senator 2509, 2513, 2523, 2539
Dvporshak, Senator 2525, 2543, 2544
Eisenhower, President 2488
Europe 2504, 2526
FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 2493, 2514, 2516
FBI files 2514, 2516
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2493, 2514, 2516
Federal court 2532
Fenn, General 2496, 2498
Fei'guson, Senator 2526
Fisher, Fred 2525
Fort Dix 2507
Fort Monmouth 2489, 2509, 2511-2515, 2532
II INDEX
Page
Four-F (Army physical rating) 241)4
Germany 2500
Government Printing Office 2489
Harvard University 2~>{)3
Hensel, H. Struve 25:^1
Hyde, Mr 2486
Jones, Mr 2509, 2513, 2516
Judiciary Committee (Senate) 2519
Justice Department 2489, 2519
Korea 2494, 2498, 2508
Korean vi-ar 2508
Lawton, General 2515, 2520-2524, 2529-2534, 2536, 2538
Macbeth play 2487
McCarthy, Senator Joe, testimony of 2486-2544
McCarthy committee 2488, 2510
McClellan, Senator 2487, 2519, 2526, 2527
Monitored phone calls 24S7, 2499, 2505
National Recovery Administration (NRA) 2490
Navv (United States) 2494
New York City 2493, 2494, 2502, 2526, 2527
NRA (National Recovery Administration) 2490
Pandora's box 2542
Pentagon 2503-2504
Potter, Senator 2487, 2509, 2513
President of the United States 24S8, 2490, 2492, 2506, 2524, 2535, 2538
Prewitt, Mr 2528
Radar laboratories (Fort IMonmouth) 2509, 2510
Rainville, Mr 2509, 2510, 2513, 2516
Reber, General 2495-2502, 2504, 2506
Reber's brother 2500, 2504
Reichelderfer, General 2532
Republican lawyer 2527
Republican Party 2490, 2492, 2527
Ridgwav, General 2526
Rogers, Bill 2526
St. Clair, Mr 2522
Schine, G. David 2486, 2489, 2493, 2494,
2499, 2501-2508, 2518, 2521, 2523, 2528, 2529, 2536-2540, 2543, 2544
Second World War 2494
Secretary of the Army 2486-2494, 2499, 2502,
2504-2507. 2509, 2511, 2513, 2515, 2516,, 2526, 2528, 2529, 2532, 2542
Secretary of Defense (United States) 2528
Selective Service Act 2497
Senate Committee on Armed Services 2526-2528
Senate Judiciary Committee 2519
Senate of the United States 2499, 2534
Shakespeare 2487
Sheen, Mr 2486
Smith, Gen. Walter Bedell 2504, 2505
State, Justice, and Commerce (subcommittee) 2519
Stevens, Robert T___'_ 2486-2494. 2499, 2502,
2504-2507, 2509, 2511, 2513, 2515, 2516, 2526, 2528, 2529, 2532, 2543
Surine, Don 2537, 2.5.39, 2543
Symington, Senator 2487, 2489, 2506
Tom 2528
Truman, President 2.506, 2511
Truman-Acheson regime 2506
TV spectacle 2-530
United States Air Force 2.526
United States Army 24SS,
2491, 2493-2496, 2498-2500, 2502-2513, 2516, 251 S, 2526-2529
United States Attorney General 2.524
United States Congress 2511
United States Department of Commerce 2519
United States Department of Defense 2493
United States Department of Justice 2489, 2519
INDEX HI
United States Department of State _ _ 2519
United States Navy "IIZI I~III_IIIZ 2494
United States President. 24?8r2T90r2T92725?6" "252472535, 2538
United States Secretary of Defense 9528
United States Senate II_IIIIIIIII~~Z 2499
University of Harvard ~~ _Z ~I_ZIIIIZ~ 2503
Washington, DC ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ"2488Z2490, 2492
vVashmgton politics 9492
West Point IIII_I"_ __~ ~~~ 2505
Wliite House I_Z_ ~ ~_Z~ 2519
Wilson. Mr ~"II~~II •>")'~7 vv>q
World War II _"_ ~_ "___"_ _Z.Z.ZZ'_" ' ^494
Zwicker incident Z'2491,~2492r2'50~6, 2520
O
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-THIED CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PURSUANT TO
S. Res. 1 89
PART 62
-I * ■ ■ ■
iC
JUNE 11, 1954
Printed for the use of the Committee ou Government Operations
UNITED STATES
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
4662U° WASHINGTON : 1954
Superintendent of Documents
NOV 2 4 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 B. POTTER, Michigan SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina
Richard J. O'Melia, General Counsel
Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
Speciai, 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
Rat H. Jenkins, Chief Counsel
Thomas R. Prewitt, Assistant Counsel
Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel
SoLis HoRwiTZ, Assistant Counsel
Charles A. Maimer, Secretary
n
CONTENTS
Page
Index ^
Testimony of —
McCartby, Senator Joe, United States Senate 2-->4(>
III
SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON CHAKGES AND
COUNTERCHARGES INVOLVING: SE(^RETARY OF THE
ARMY ROBERT T. STEVENS, JOHN G. ADAMS, H. STRUVE
HENSEL AND SENATOR JOE McCARTHY, ROY M. COHN,
AND FRANCIS P. CARR
FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1954
United States Senate,
Special Subcommittee on Investigations
OF the Committee on Government Operations,
Washington, D. C. ^
The subcommittee met at 10 : 17 a. m., pursuant to recess, in the
caucus room of the Senate Office Buikling, Senator Karl E. Mundt
(chairman) presiding.
Present : Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota ; Sen-
ator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator Charles
E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L. McClellan, Demo-
crat, Arkansas ; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington ;
and Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
Also present : Ray M. Jenkins, chief counsel ; Thomas R. Prewitt,
assistant counsel; Charles Maner, Assistant counsel; and Ruth Y.
Watt, chief clerk.
Principal participants present: Senator Joseph R. McCarth}^ 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 would like to welcome, on behalf of the committee, the
guests who have come here today, and the Chair would like to call to
your attention, if you are here for the first time, the fact that there
is a standing committee rule forbidding audible manifestations of
approval or disapproval, and to warn you that the uniformed mem-
bers of the Capitol Police force whom you see before you, and the
plainclothes people scattered in the audience, have standing instruc-
tions from the committee to remove from the committee room immedi-
atel}'', firmly but politely, any of you who, for reasons best known to
yourselves, elect to violate the conditions under which you entered the
room.
We have had just wonderful cooperation from the audiences for
these 61 or 62 sessions that we have had of the committee, and I am sure
that as we enter what Mr. Jenkins calls the twilight area, you will con-
tinue to give us that type of cooperation.
We have Senator McCarthy on the stand. Counsel Jenkins has
completed his direct examination. He spent most of yesterday in
2543
2546 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
cross-examination, and ^Yill continue at this time the cross-examina-
tion of Senator McCarthy.
Mr. Jenkins?
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, A UNITED
STATES SENATOR EROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN— Resumed
Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman.
Senator McCarthy, continuing onr cross-examination with respect
to the charges filed against you and your staff by Mr. Stevens and
Mr. Adams, I believe you stated yesterday. Senator, that you knew as
early as July 8 that Schine was a possible inductee or draftee. That is
correct, is it not?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, were you aware of the fact that as of Octo-
ber 27, approximately 1 week before the date of the induction of
this young man, Mr. Cohn asked the Army officials for a 2-week
furlough for Mr. Schine beginning as of the date of his induction,
to wit, November 3 ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn mentioned that he was going to ask
for a delay in Mr. Schine's induction so he could finish up some work.
At first I told Roy that I thought that was all right. However, we
talked about it a few days later and decided it would be unwise
from the standpoint of the Army's press relations.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, as a matter of fact, Mr. Cohn did make that
request, as we understand it, and a few days later you more or less
countermanded that request. Am I correct now in that assumption?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I talked it over with Roy and Dave,
and we agreed that it Avould be unwise to have him with the committee
after he had been inducted, and tliat he could do his work on his
evenings after training, on his weekends when he was not on duty.
Mr. Jenkins. And you so advised either the Secretary of the Army
or Mr. Adams, Senator, did you not ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that Dave advised them. I may have
advised them.
Mr. Jenkins. Anyway, you knew or understood
Senator McCarthy. They were advised.
Mr. Jenkins. Yes. Chronologically now, the request was made
by your chief counsel for a 2-week furlough. You or some members
of your staff a few days later countermanded that request. That is
correct, isn't it ?
Senator McCarthy. It wasn't technically a furlough. It was tem-
porary duty in the New York area. We asked them to cancel that
temporary duty and assign him to his active duty at Fort Dix, or
wherever they wanted to send him.
Mr. Jenkins. Very Avell.
After that, after you had made known to the Secretary or Mr.
Adams that you did not think such a program would be wise, Mr.
Colin subsequent to your making that fact known to the Army, Mr.
Cohn requested that Schine be allowed the weekend off or a part of
the first week or the first week off of his tour of duty.
Senator McCarthy. I think what Mr. Cohn did, as I recall the
testimony, and as I recall my conversation with Roy, he suggested
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2547
that in view of the fact that it was Thursday or Friday at that time,
that nothing would be accomplished over the weekend and that there-
fore Dave should stay and work on the reports over that weekend
and be inducted on Monday morning.
Mr. Jenkins. So there were three different conversations with the
Army, or with the Secretary and Mr. Adams during the week of
October 27 to November 3, w^ith reference to Dave Schine, and with
reference to granting or denying some unusual privileges or dispen-
sation. That is correct, isn't it, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. There were three conversations
Mr. Jenkins. Three conversations. Then, Senator, on November 6,
this day of the luncheon at the Pentagon wuth Mr. Stevens and Mr.
Adams and attended by you, Mr. Cohn, and Mr. Carr, the subject
of Dave Schine was discussed, was it not ?
Senator McCarthy. On December 6?
Mr. Jenkins. I beg your pardon. I beg your pardon, Senator.
I meant November 6 instead of December 6.
Senator McCarthy. You are referring now to the luncheon at the
Pentagon ?
Mr. Jenkins. Correct.
Senator McCarthy. I think Dave Schine's name may have been
mentioned. However, that was not the subject of the conversation.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, Senator, as w^e understand it, one of the sub-
jects of the conversation was the investigation you were then conduct-
ing of subversives in the Army, and particularly at F'ort Monmouth.
That is correct, isn't it ?
Senator McCarthy. I am sorry, I didn't get the full question.
Mr. Jenkins. As we understand it, one of the subjects discussed at
that luncheon at the Pentagon on November 6 was your investigation
of subversives in the Army and particularly at Fort Monmouth ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. We also discussed the investigation of
the information program, of the Government Printing Office, com-
pared the type of cooperation we were getting from Mr. Stevens with
the type we had gotten in those other two investigations.
Mr. Jenkins. And another subject, Senator, was Dave Schine,
wasn't it?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, as I recall there w^as some dis-
cussion about allowing Dave to have off the time that he Avould not be
in training to work on committee work. Now, again, don't tie me
down to dates because November 6 doesn't mean anything particu-
larly. But I know we did on occasion, when Mr. Stevens agreed
fully, he and I agreed that it was no favor to Dave Schine to allow
him to work on committee work when the other draftees were engaging
in recreation. I think he said there were five recreation centers at
Fort Dix.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, allow me to refresh your recollection, and
I am quoting from a memorandum from Mr. Cohn dated Novem-
ber 6
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute until I get the memorandum,
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, indeed.
Senator McCarthy. All right, Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins (reading) :
"NVe told him —
2548 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Keferring to Stevens —
we were jammed up trying to get onr reports to file, and with the Monmouth
investigation, and that Dave Schine was about to enter the Army and had much
information and material on the reports and investigation that we could not
get along without. Mr. Stevens said he would arrange for Dave to complete
the work over weekends and after training hours.
Senator McCarthy. I think tliat is a correct resume of tlie situa-
tion. Mr. Stevens said he could do this work after hoiu's when he
was not on training duty.
JNIr. Jenkins. So, Senator, that is four times now that the subject
of Dave Schine was discussed between you and your staff and the
Army staff composed of the Secretary and Mr. Adams within the
period from October 27 to November 6, isn't it ?
Senator McCarthy. That is four
Mr. Jenkins. Four ?
Senator McCarthy. That is four you have mentioned.
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir. Senator, 4 months had then ehapsed from
the time it was known that Schine was to be an inductee until this
request was made in your presence by Mr. Cohn of the Secretary of
the Army at the Pentagon on November 6, that is correct, isn't it.
Senator McCarthy. I assume
Mr. Jenkins. August, September, October, and November, 4
months I
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. Why, Senator McCarthy, was this young man not
required to complete his work and get it up to date and get his re-
ports in during that 4-month period when it was known by you and
vour staff that you would lose him as of approximately the 1st of
K^ovember?
Senator McCarthy. Well, Mr. Jenkins, keep in mind he was work-
ing for nothing. We had very limited funds for our committee. So
what I did, I hired a researcher, and a very competent man, Mr.
Karl Barslaag, and told Karl I would like to have him proceed to
write the reports, that I would rather have Dave interviewing wit-
nesses. He was very patient, doing that, worked all day long doing
it, paid his own long-distance phone calls when he called witnesses.
So I did shift, I tried to shift that work to Mr. Karl Barslaag.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, do you mean to tell the committee that this
boy had piled up such a tremendous mass of work that he could not
bring it up to date, and get his work completed in a 4-month period
of time when it was known that at the end of that 4 months you would
lose him ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, may I say that if at that time we
told him to knock off all work and spend all of his time working on
the reports, he could have had those reports ready, I believe, by the
time he was inducted.
However, I felt that he was more valuable interviewing witnesses.
I hired a researcher to do the job of drafting the reports. I found
out later that that just didn't work out. That is no reflection upon
Mr. Barslaag. I found that a man who merely read the record, had
not worked and lived with this subject, could not write the reports.]
Nov/, we had a number of reports. We had the report on Baker
East-Baker West. That involved a proposed waste of some $18 mil-
lion, which was canceled out during our hearings. We had the re-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2549
port on the Voice of America, which is the radio phase, as you know,
of the information program. We had the interim reports on the
information program as a whole. We also had two other projects
which, incidentally, we had to drop when Mr. Schine left because
he was the man who was supervising it. One was the investigation
of that phase of the information program which had to do with
movies, and the other with press. So that it was just a question of
judgment.
Now, whether I used good judgment or bad judgment may be open
to argument, but instead of having Dave quit working on all of these
witnesses, interviewing them, and spend all of his time on the report,
I hired a researcher to try to do the reports.
Mr. Jenkins. Do we understand. Senator, then, that your explana-
tion is that Schine was engaged during that 4-month period in inter-
viewing witnesses rather than bringing his reports up to date and
completing his work against the day when you knew he would leave
your committee ?
Senator McCarthy. No. 1, may I say, Mr. Jenkins, that I person-
ally can't tell you what any investigator did each day. I have the job
as chairman of a Subcommittee on Appropriations, chairman of the
full Committee on Government Operations. I have an office with a
tremendous amount of work. I get the end result of the work. All
I can tell you is that the question arose and Mr. Cohn and I discussed
it, and Mr. Carr, the question of whether or not we should have Dave
discontinue all work and spend his time Meriting the reports, or
whether we should hire a researcher to write the reports and let Dave
continue doing what he was doing. We decided to have Dave continue.
How many days he spent interviewing witnesses — I know some days
he attended hearings, hearings of witnesses he had interviewed and
that sort of thing. But I just can't tell you what each investigator
was doing every minute of the day.
]\Ir. Jenkins. Senator, in short, here is the picture presented : That
a young man on your staff was known to be subject to the draft for a
period of 4 months prior to his actual draft ; that during that 4-month
period, apparently numerous telephone calls and personal contacts
were made on his behalf ; that during the week preceding his induc-
tion and for several days thereafter, at least, I think you and I have
now mentioned some four personal contacts on behalf of this boy in
an effort to get a furlough or passes over the weekend in order that he
might get his work up.
Senator McCaithy, isn't it a rather, to say the least, lax way to
run an office and to do business, to allow this boy to go on during this
period of time without requiring him, even though an unpaid con-
sultant, a member of your staff, to get his work done so he would go
right in the Army like every other private and serve like every other
private ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, may I heartily disagree with you.
We utilized his services — this young man was working for nothing,
and paying his own expenses — as I saw best. AYe agreed he could help
us write the reports on his off-time over weekends when he was not in
training. He did that. It worked out very well.
He graduated, as you know, with a superior rating from Fort Dix.
His commanding officer at Camp Gordon, I believe it was General
46620°— 54— pt. 62 2
2550 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Howard, was his name — General Howard made a public statement
that he considered him one of his — I can't quote this verbatim, but
one of his outstanding draftees.
So it has been proven, Mr. Jenkins, that we did follow the right
course; that Mr. Schine did do his work. Otherwise, he could not
end up with a superior rating as a trainee and one of the outstanding
soldiers at Camp Gordon.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you recall this monitored call of November
7 which was read into the record, I am sure.
Senator McCarthy. You will have to identify it. Could I have a
copy of it ?
Just one minute until I have a copy of that.
Mr. Jenkins. That is the day following this luncheon of November
6 in the Pentagon, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I recall the
Mr. Jenkins. You recall it now ?
Senator McCarthy. Could I have a copy of it before you start
questioning me ? It is in the record, I know. I wonder if one of the
staff there could get me
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, in the record it is page 5384.
Senator McCarthy. Could I have either the record or the original ?
I think we have it right here. If you have an extra copy, perhaps
we could save time.
Mr. Jenkins. Page 5384. I am sorry, I do not have an extra copy,
Senator.
Senator McCarthy. I think we have it right now. All right, Mr.
Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. I am reading now from Mr. Lucas' testimony with
respect to that monitored call :
Mr. Jenkins. "If he could get off weekends — Roy — ." Is that right?
Mr. Lucas. Yes, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. "It is one of the few things I have seen him completely un-
reasonable about."
Senator, of course you made that statement in your conversation
with the Secretary on November 7 ?
Senator McCarthy. I am inclined to think that I did.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, that statement reflects the truth
that it is one of the few things, that is, the subject of Dave Schine
that Mr, Colin was unreasonable about.
That is correct, isn't it, Senator McCarthy, in all fairness and in
all candor ?
Senator McCarthy. In all fairness and all candor, Koy and I dis-
agreed. He felt that it would be necessary for Dave to spend all
of his off time working on the reports. I felt that our researcher,
Mr, Barslaag, could write the report without too much aid from
Dave. I thought he could use the record. However, Roy was proven
right. I found that no matter how competent Mr. Barslaag was, the
cold record did not give him a picture.
After Mr. Barslaag had written a draft of the report, I sent it
back downstairs and said "Send this down to Dave, and have him
work on it."
We had, I think — how many ? Three or four drafts, Roy ? Three
or four drafts of the report before we got a report that I was satis-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2551
fied witli. While I thoiio;ht that Roy was wrong, I think the word
"unreasonable" should not be used. I should say wrong. I thought
Ivoy was wrong. I thought we could get along with maybe one or
tATo weekends a month, that Barslaag could go down and talk to
Dave. I found that Mr. Cohn was right and that we had to have this
work done by Mr. Schine because he had been living it and eating it
and sleeping it and breathing it for months and months, interviewing
all the witnesses.
If you will check the reports, I think you will agree with me, ISIr.
Jenkins, that he did end up with an excellent job, and also may I say
that in view of his superior rating in training it appears that this
work certainly did not interfere with his training.
May I say, Mr. Jenkins, I just can't see how it is any special favor
to a private to allow him to work when the other privates are out on
recreation, going to dances, going to the recreation hall. As I recall
tlie testimony, Mr. Schine never avoided any duty of any kind. It
was when he was off duty that he worked. I think he should get
great credit for that instead of criticizing him.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, has he finally completed his work with your
committee ? Is it current ? Up to date ?
Senator McCarthy. On the reports, Mr. Jenkins, yes. But there
are occasions, I would say within the last week, I have asked Roy
to contact Dave and ask him about certain individuals over in the
Voice of America, or the information program, who have certain
additional information. I think I better not go beyond that. But
I assume that as long as we keep a weather eye on the information
program, and we intend to, I will have to ask Mr. Cohn to call Mr.
Schine. Those calls will not interfere with his duty, I guarantee you.
Mr. Jenkins. But, generally, Senator, after Schine went to Camp
Gorclon, your committee functioned right on smoothly and efficiently,
did it not ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins
Mr. Jenkins. It didn't disrupt the whole organization, did it,
Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, we dropped two investigations.
"VVe dropped the investigation of the motion picture branch of the
information program, we dropped the investigation of the press sec-
tion of the information program. If Mr. Schine had not left our
committee, he would have continued on those two investigations. I
still think they are very important investigations. As far as func-
tioning is concerned
Mr. Jenkins. And Dave Schine, was that essential to your com-
mittee. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Every investigator, Mr. Jenkins, is essential.
"We can get along without any one, without any two. There is no man
who is indispensable.
Mr. Jenkins. Have you tried to replace him ?
Senator McCarthy. To replace him with an unpaid
Mr. Jenkins. No, with a consultant or investigator or an additional
member of your staff?
Senator McCarthy. I hired Mr. Barslaag to do the work that Mr.
Schine was doing.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Senator, in addition to you telling the Secretary
of the Army on November 7 that one of the things that Roy was com-
2552 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
pletely unreasonable about was the subject of Dave Schine, in this
further, and I quote :
He-
meaning Roy —
thinks Dave should be a general and work from the penthouse of the Waldorf.
Senator McCarthy, that really reflected Senator Joseph R. Mc-
Carthy's estimate and appraisal of Dave Schine at that time, didn't it?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I am sure no one reading this
would think this is a serious comment. Bob Stevens and I were on
good terms. We ribbed each other back and forth. We ribbed Roy.
He certainly and no one could think that I thought there should be
a o-eneral working from the penthouse of the Waldorf.
1\Ir. Jenkins. No, but, Senator McCarthy, you were discrediting
the importance of Dave Schine then in your talk with the Secretary.
You had been there the day before, and you had heard Mr. Cohn ask
the Secretary to allow Schine to have the first 2 weeks that other
privates spent in the Army off and away from the Army and sta-
tioned in the New York City area. You had heard that, hadn't you?
Senator McCarthy. I have heard the testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir, and. Senator, do you mean that the testi-
mony isn't correct about that ?
Senator McCarthy. You asked me one question which I haven t
answered. You said was I discrediting Dave Schine. The answer
is no.
Mr. Jenkins. The answer is no ?
Senator McCarthy.- I told Bob Stevens in his letter, and it is rather
chopped up in this record here — if we can get the letter. I said that
he was a good man but he wasn't indispensable.
Mr. Jenkins. I will ask you further. Senator, if you didn't state
this as reflected by the monitored calls —
I think for Roy's sake
Senator McCarthy. Would you give me your page?
Mr. Jenkins. Page 5B89 of the record.
Senator McCarthy. Right, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Quoting it all: Mr. Jenkins talking to Mr. Lucas.
Mr. Lucas speaking :
Mr. Jenkins, (reading) "And the President would be calling you not to play
favorites because anyone is on a committee. I think for Roy's sake if you can let
him come back for week-ends or something so his girls won't get too lonesome —
Maybe if they shave his hair off, he won't want to come back."
Now, Senator McCarthy, you are there asking the Secretary of the
Army to let this young man, whom you say Roy is wholly unreasonable
about, and who you say Roy wants to be a general running the Army
from a penthouse on the Waldorf
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, let's not beat that too much.
We both know that had to be a facetious remark.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well. But was it facetious when you asked the
Secretary to let this young man off for weekends or something so his
girls wouldn't get too lonesome ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, of course it was facetious, but
let me say that the day before that, on the 6th, we had discussed the
matter with Bob Stevens. Stevens knew that Roy and I differed,
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2553
tliat Roy thoiiglit that no one else slionld be able to write the reports,
and Roy was proven right. I felt that our new researcher could
write the reports. So you have got to take this conversation in con-
nection with that.
Obviously, the Secretary wouldn't think that after I had told him
to give this young man no special favors that I wanted him to release
him so he could see his girl friends, because every private is released
certain weekends and they can see their girl friends wherever they
want to, I believe.
Mr. Jexkins. That is the fifth time, then, that a discussion was had
with respect to Schine between the dates October 27 and November 7,
for a period of about 11 days ?
Senator IMcCarthy. Since you mentioned it, Mr. Jenkins, I think
that we should read the first paragraph of this monitored call into
the record so there can be no question about the tenor of the
conversation.
Mr. Jexkixs. I have no objection to yon doing it. Senator, but first
answer my question, please, sir. That is the fifth time, now, that Dave
Schine has been discussed with the Secretary of the Army or Adams
during the period October 27 to November 7, or a period of about
11 days. That is correct, isn't it ?
Senator McCarthy. I believe that is the testimony that has been
mentioned.
Mr. Jenktxs. Very well. You may read the first paragraph.
Senator McCarthy. Here is the monitored call. And as I say, I
don't like this idea of eavesdropping, but here I think it has performed
a valuable service. Keep in mind tliat the Secretary knew that the
call was being eavesdropped on ; I did not. You will note I started out
by saying :
Bob, did that work out all right to yonr satisfaction jesterday?
Yes, it did, Joe.
"We go on down. I say :
I would like to ask you one personal favor. For God's sake, don't put Dave in
service and then assign him back to niy committee, from three standpoints : One,
I couldn't get away with it any more than a week. The newspapers would be
back on us.
Apparently there is some garbling in that.
And you would have to send him back into uniform anyway. Two, this thing has
been running along so cleanly so far they have not been able to beat your brains
out. There is nothing the left-wingers would like better. They don't like thi?
cooperation between the committee and the Army. And the third thing, tl.e,
would say I asked for it. He is a good boy, but there is nothing indispensable
about him. From my desk today I can pick up letters from perhaps a half-dozen
mothers whose boys are in worse shape than Dave, and it would be embarrassing
if held to me.
Apparently there is a garble there. Embarrassing, that apparently
means if I were asking for something for Dave and not for these other
boys.
You will find there, Mr. Jenkins, that I made it very clear that there
were a vast number of cases, letters in my desk, as I said, this very
day, of young men who needed special consideration far worse than
Dave Schine did, and I said "For God's sake, don't give him any."
Keep in mind, Mr. Jenkins, I didn't know this was being monitored.
So I think this does serve a rather useful purpose. Any conversation
2554 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
beyond that I think should be taken in the light of this request, this
request that he not give him special consideration.
I point out that there are many other young men who have much
greater reason to get special consideration.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, did Mr. Adams ever come to you and com-
plain about Roy Cohn's abuse of him on account of Dave Schine ?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall the testimony of Mr. Adams that on
December 9 he went to you and complained that Mr. Cohn had been
abusing him about Dave Schine ? Do you recall Mr. Adams' sworn
testimony in that regard ?
Senator McCarthy. I recall his testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. To refresh your recollection, Senator, I want to read
it to you, page 2578 of the record :
I went into his office —
referring to Senator McCarthy's office —
and I told him that I had fulfilled my commitment to him, In that I had not told
Cohn his attitude with reference to Schine, but that it had reached the point
where I just no longer was able to take this abuse, this constant — this pressure
was difficult — and that I just didn't think that I should take it, and I asked him if
there wasn't some way in which he could speak to Cohn, speak to Cohn in such
a manner as not to anger Cohn with me at the same time and thus cause a
deterioration of my relationship with the committee staff with which I had
worked, and at the same time make Mr. Cohn aware of the fact that this sort of
treatment should discontinue.
Senator McCarthy, did Mr. Adams make that statement to you on
December 9, or any other date ?
Senator McCarthy. He did not make that statement. I would like
to give you a resume of the conversation on December 9, if I may.
Mr. Jenkins. Did he. Senator, make that statement in substance?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Not in substance ?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir. May I tell you what the conversation
was, Mr. Jenkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. I think. Senator, you are entitled to state what the
conversation was.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams came to me on the 9th. He told me
that he had been working on the staff, that Frank Carr told him that I
was the only man who could call off the hearings, that if he felt that
should be called off he should come directly to me.
He said that Bob Stevens w^as very, very much disturbed by the bad
publicity the Army was getting. He said that the Secretary just felt
that he should call these hearings off, that they had served their pur-
pose. I told Mr. Adams at that time that what I would like to do
is to talk to Mr. Stevens with him, with my staff, and explain to him
why we could not call off the hearings, and discuss that entire situation,
tell him why it would be impossible for us to chop it off and have a
whitewash.
Then either Mr. Adams or I, I forget which one, suggested that
we meet for luncheon the following day. We did that, at the Carroll
Arms Hotel.
Mr. Jenkins. On December 10?
Senator McCarthy. On December 10.
SPECIAL ESH'ESTIGaTION 2555
Mr. Jenkins. Was Dave Schine's name mentioned in the conversa-
tion of December 9 between you and John Adams ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't recall that it was, Mr. Jenkins. It may
have been. If it was, it left no impression on me.
Mr. Jenkins. You deny specifically making the statements about
which Mr. Adams testified to in thesehearings and attributed to you,
Senator, and which I have just read to you ?
Senator McCarthy. I think you read Mr. Adams' statement, not
mine, Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Did I not read Mr. Adams' statement to the effect
that he went to you on December 9 and complained about Mr. Cohn's
treatment of him ?
Senator McCarthy. That is incorrect.
Mr. Jenkins. You say that no such conversation occurred between
you and Mr. Adams ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
JNIr. Jenkins. And nothing substantially approximating those
statements were made?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. And that ISIr. Adams is entirely in error in his testi-
mony in that regard ?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't evaluate Mr. x\dams' testimony and
accuse him of perjury. Undoubtedly that is what he remembers. I
don't recall any statement made by ]Mr. Adams about Mr. Schine.
The meat of the conversation was that Mr. Adams felt the hearing
should be called off. There was nothing dishonest about his actions.
He tried to convince me the hearing should be called off. He tried to
convince me that they would do the job. I felt they would not. I
felt that we had certain witnesses we had to call. Above all, the
loyalty board.
I mentioned that to him. I told him that I thought we should
meet with Mr. Stevens, that we had been having what appeared to
be good coooperation up to that point. Either he or I suggested
luncheon at the Carroll Arms the next day.
As far as Dave Schine is concerned, if Adams says Dave Schine
was discussed, I wouldn't say that Adams was guilty of perjury. I
recall no conversation about Dave Schine on that day.
Mr. Jenkins. You do recall the meeting at the Carroll Arms with
the Secretary of the Army on December 10, the day following?
Senator McCarthy. I do very well, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, do you recall that Mr. Stevens,
the man that you yesterday said was, 'in your opinion, essentially
truthful and honest, swore under his oath here on the witness stand
that at that meeting you asked him to assign Dave Shine to the New
York area after he had completed his 8 weeks of training at Dix?
Senator McCarthy. He is in error on that.
Mr. Jenkins. He is in error ?
Senator ISIcCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, did or not you make such a request of the
Secretary of the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Jenkins. Your answer is definitely "No?"
Senator McCarthy. Kight.
2556 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jenkins. Do you know why the Secretary would have so testi-
fied, Senator McCarthy?
Senator McCarthy. The Secretary has proven that he has a very,
very bad memory here on the stand. He has changed his testimony
from day to day. I think that is because of bad memory, not because
of any willfuhiess. I assume that any misstatement he made about
that meeting was solely because of bad memory.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall, Senator, reprimanding Frank Carr
in New York City on December 17 in the presence of Mr. Adams or
out of his presence, on account of these various intercessions that
had been made by Mr. Cohn on behalf of Mr. Schine?
Senator McCarthy. No. The only time that I recall reprimanding
Mr. Carr, if you can call it a reprimand, and I don't recall the date,
was — I hope you don't resign after this, Frank — was one night when
I felt they had called in too many witnesses, more than I could take
care of, in executive session, and I had to keep the witnesses waiting
there in the afternoon and send them home that night without being
heard. I told Frank that I thought that they should be a bit more
careful and be sure that they did not have more witnesses present
than I could handle.
Frank pointed out that there was no way of knowing how much
time I would spend with a witness. He pointed out that if I spent
very little time and I ended up at 3 : 30 with no further witnesses and
had to come back and spend another day, perhaps I would be more
irritated than if they had extra witnesses.
I think Mr, Adams was present at that time.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I want to read to you an excerpt from Mr.
Adams' testimony at page 2586 of the record.
Senator McCarthy. Will you wait just 1 minute until I get it.
Okay.
Mr. Jenkins (reading) :
Mr. Carr was in the room. When we walked into the room he began to speak
to Mr. Carr about the subject, and he began to criticize Mr. Carr about the
matter that he had spoken to me about.
Perhaps I had better read back before that, Senator, so we will
know precisely what Mr. Adams was talking about. I am now reading
from 2585 of the record, next to the last paragraph on that page:
Mr. Adams. Senator McCarthy stated to me
Senator McCarthy. Will you wait just a minute, Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. 2585.
Senator McCarthy. IMr. Jenkins, will you wait just 1 minute?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, indeed.
(Senator McCarthy conferring with Mr. Cohn.)
Senator McCarthy. All right, sir, go ahead.
Mr. Jenkins (reading) :
Senator McCarthy stated to me that the purpose of his call the night before
was that he had just learned, I deduced on the previous day, of the amount of
Interference with the officials at Fort Dix which his staff had accomplished,
and that he wished to tell me that as of then and now it was through, it had
ceased ; that he was not going to permit it any more. I told him I was gratified
to get that information, but it would be absolutely of no value to me unless he
Stated it to Mr. Cohn in front of me.
Senator, did you hear what I read ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I have.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2557
Mr. Jenkins. Did or not, Senator, that conversation take place?
Senator McCarthy. No, the conversation — I did not get Mr. Adams
that night. The reason I was trying to call him, Mr. Jenkins, was
in regard to the Lawton matter. Mr. Adams discussed Lawton with
me that afternoon, the afternoon of, I believe it was the 16th.
I didn't take it too seriously at the time he was discussing it. I
thought it over after I got back to the Waldorf. I began to realize
the very serious import of this and he was apparently actually serious,
and I wanted to call him up and talk to him about this. I tried to
get him all over. I couldn't get him. The next noon we had a very
extended discussion about this matter.
Mr. Jenkins. About what matter, Senator?
Senator McCx\rthy. The Lawton matter. May I say, Mr. Jenkins,
that on that particular night, the night of the 16th, you will find that
when I was talking to my office, I didn't call them for that specific
purpose alone, when I was talking to my office I dictated a memoran-
dum on the Lawton matter. On the 16th, that is the night I tried
to get ahold of Mr. Adams. You may wonder why I dictated the
memorandum to my office, for Mr. Carr and Mr. Cohn. One of the
reasons was that I was leaving the following day, I planned to be gone
for some time, and I wanted to make sure that Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr
knew about this situation. I did try to get Mr. Adams all evening to
discuss this Lawton matter because I thought it was very serious.
Mr. Jenkins. But the conversation to which Mr. Adams testified
under oath here, and which I have just read to you, and set out on
page 2585 of the record, did not occur, Senator, is that what you are
saying, directly?
Senator McCarthy. No, Mr, Adams is mistaken on that.
Mr. Jenkins. Was anything. Senator, said that approximates that
in substance? Did Mr. Adams complain to you on that occasion that
Mr. Cohn had abused him with respect to Dave Schine?
Senator McCarthy. There was no complaint, Mr.
Mr. Jenkins. Well, was there any statement by Mr. Adams?
Senator McCarthy. Let me give you this, Mr. Jenkins. There was
no complaint that Mr. Cohn had abused him. There came a time, I
think it was a much later date, when the inferences were made when-
ever I discussed calling the loyalty board, that if we did, there would
be a report issued, claiming that j\Ir. Cohn had interfered, but that was
much later than this date, I believe.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you tell Mr. Adams on the day about which we are
talking, set out in 2585 of the record, that you had learned about these
conversations with reference to Schine, interference with the officials
at Fort Dix, and that it was ceasing as of then ? Did you say that,
Senator? Did that occur?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir,
Mr. Jenkins. And you say that you did not speak
Senator McCarthy. May I say in fairness to Mr. Adams that at
some time, and 1 can't recall dates in this, that some time I did discuss
news stories that were appearing in regard to the Schine matter. I
wouldn't want to accuse him of perjury on this particular morning.
We may have discussed some of those news stories, but there was no
claim on Mr. Adams part, ever, that Mr. Cohn actually did anything
improper.
40020°— 54— ut. 62 3
2558 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Jenkins, Senator, did you on that day or the 17th day of
December, or at any other time, criticize Mr. Frank Carr because of
the interference with the officials at Fort Dix on behalf of Dave Schine ?
Senator McCarthy, No, because there was no reason to. He
hadn't interfered. I wonder if you would refer to the memorandum
that I asked Mr. Carr to submit in regard to this, dated December 21,
Mr. Jenkins. This may shed some light upon the matter,
Mr. Jenkins. Well, Senator, I am not asking for it now. Is that
the date, the date we are talking about, December 17, of this cele-
brated automobile ride in New York City, Senator McCarthy?
Senator McCarthy. That was the date of the automobile ride.
Mr. Jenkins. You and Mr. Carr and Mr. Adams and Mr. Cohn were
in the car?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. You had had, as we understand, quite an animated
discussion, to use Mr. Cohn's words, before that ride started.
Senator McCarthy, I think that is a correct description.
Mr. Jenkins. You recall Mr, Adams' testimony with respect to that
automobile ride, do you not. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. I do.
Mr. Jenkins, That Mr. Cohn was berating him and castigating him
and that sort of thing, and that his temper would rise and fall because
of the doublecrosses on the part of the Secretary of the Army with re-
spect to Schine ?
Senator McCarthy, I recall the testimony, yes,
JNIr. Jenkins. You recall Adams' testimony?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Did that occur. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir.
Mr. Jenkins. Was anything said on that automobile ride with
respect to Dave Schine ?
Senator McCarthy. Nothing that I recall,
Mr. Jenkins. What was that animated conversation about?
Senator McCarthy, (jeneral Lawton.
Mr. Jenkins. And no other subject?
Senator McCarthy, No other subject of any importance. There
might have been — other names might have cropped up, but the meat
of the conversation was all about Lawton.
Mr. Jenkins. No substance, then. Senator, whatever in the testi-
mony of John Adams with respect to that automobile ride, I take it?
Senator McCarthy. Pardon me, I am sorry.
Mr, Jenkins. Strike the question.
Senator, you wrote a letter
Senator McCarthy. Could I say, before vou ask that question,
Mr. Jenkins, if you will check the phone calls at Fort Monmouth,
you will tind that I called General Lawton. I don't recall the exact
date. But I called Lawton, and may I recite that conversation be-
cause I think it has to do with this, I called Lawton and reminded
him that on a ride into New York he said, "This cooperation which
I am giving the committee will perhaps mean I won't get my
promotion."
I called him and said, "Well, you were rather prophetic, General.
I feel duty-bound to call you and give you the facts. This does not
have to do with your promotion."
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2559
I learned later he had not been promoted, of course. I said, "The
plan now is to break you, is to remove you from Fort Monmouth."
I said, "I don't know what I can do." I said^ "I do think we have
a duty to try and protect the witnesses who help us die; out Com-
munists. I can see no reason for this except youi- cooperation with
the connnittee."
I said, "What suggestion do you have, General," or something to
that effect.
And his answer, and I think I can quote him verbatim, demonstrates
again what a good soldier he is, he said, "I want no interference by
anyone." He said, "If I get broken for doing my duty that is a good
way of ending my Army career."
Mr. Jenkins. Is that all. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. That is roughly all. We had other conversa-
tions. Eoy called. I think, the night of the l7th, the night of the
Cohn ride. I don't believe he talked to General Lawton. I believe
he talked to his aide. Is that right, Roy ?
And Lieutenant Corr came down the next day, didn't he? And we
were disturbed enough about this that Roy called, with my knowledge,
I knew who he was going to call, called Lawton, and his aide came
down, and Roy recited the situation to the aide. I think Mr. Cohn
will have to tell you about that conversation. But it was a matter
of grave concern to us, Mr. Jenkins, because there was no doubt what-
soever but what Mr. Lawton was being broken because he was willing
to help us expose, dig Communists out of the radar laboratory.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, on December 22, you wrote a letter to the
Secretary of the Army; did you not?
Senator McCarthy. I did.
Mr. Jenkins. I quote from the first sentence. It is addressed to
the Honorable Robert T. Stevens, and it is dated December 22 :
Dear Bob : I have heard rumors to the effect that some of the memhers of my
staff have interveued with your Department in behalf of a former staff con-
sultant, David Schine.
Now, Senator, as of December 22, 195'
(Senator Flanders entered the hearing room and handed the wit-
ness, Senator McCarthy, a letter.)
Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order, please.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Flanders.
Will the Chair ask Mr. Flanders to remain in the room?
Senator Mundt. The committee will be in order.
Senator McCarthy. Will the Chair ask Mr. Flanders to remain?
Senator Mundt. Senator Flanders, Senator McCarthy is trying to
get your attention.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Flanders, you have just handed me a letter,
and I read it. I think this brings up an important point. You say:
This is to inform you that I plan to make another speech concerning your acti-
vities in the Senate this afternoon as soon after the morning hour as I can
get the floor.
If you so desire, I would be glad to have you present.
Number 1, 1 will be unable to be present because I will be testifying.
Number 2, I don't have enough interest in any Flanders speech to
listen to it.
Number 3, Senator, may I have your attention? Number 3, you
have gone on the Senate floor and have indicated you have information
2560 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
of value to this committee. You suggested the committee was not
getting at the heart of this matter. I thovight it was an extremely
scurrilous speech.
Let me finish, Mr. Flanders.
At that time you did not have the courtesy that you have today of
letting me know that you were speaking. I think, Senator, if you
have any information of value to this committee, what you should
do is do what my tliree Republican colleagues have done, what lam
doing now — take the oath, raise your right hand, let us cross-examine
you. If you have nothing except the usual smear, gleaned from the
smear sheets, then you should tell us that. Senator, and I think you
should do it, do it here under oath, rather than on the Senate floor.
I would be glad to step aside and let you testify under oath as to
any information that you have.
Senator Mundt. The Chair will have to rule that the committee has
control of these proceedings. We will have to ask Senator Flanders
to retire to the rear of the room where the other spectators are. I am
sorry, we can't permit this kind of feuding to go on here.
Senator Flanders. I retire under compulsion.
Senator McCartht. May I say, Mr. Chairman, this is not feuding.
Senator Mundt. We can't have this proceeding become an open
forum for senatorial debate. The chairman has the control of the
hearings, and I am very sorry
Senator INIcCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I have no feud
with Mr. Flanders. I have said that I thought it was not the result
of viciousness but perhaps senility that he is making these unfounded
attacks. I feel, Mr. Chairman, however, that where any Senator
has information of value to this committee, that then he should be
willing to come before this committee and take the oath and be cross-
examined. However, as the Chair says, I am merely a witness here,
the Chair is running the committee. So I will abide by any decision
made by the Chair, obviously.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Jenkins may resume the cross-examination.
We seem to be good for one surprise a day. We have had it now.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I was asking you about the letter of Decem-
ber 22, in which you state that you had heard rumors to the effect that
some of the members of your stall' had intervened with the Depart-
ment of the Army on behalf of a former consultant, Dave Schine. 1
have correctly quoted from the first sentence of that letter, have I
not. Senator McCarthy ?
Let's now get away from Senator Flanders and talk about the issues
of this controversy, Senator, if we may.
Senator McCarthy. I am sorry, Mr. Jenkins.
Yes, you have correctly quoted it.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, that is December 22 ?
Senator McCarthy. That is December 22.
Mr. Jenkins. Five months. Senator, ai)proximately, 41^ months,
we will say, from the time that you first discussed Schine with Gen-
eral Reber?
Senator McCarthy. I am sure your calculation is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Senator, as a matter of fact, had or not this
business of intervention on behalf of Dave Schine with the Depart-
ment of the Army gone far beyond the rumor stage ?
Senator McCarthy. No, sir.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2561
Mr. Jenkins. From whom had you heard such rumors, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Mr, Jenkins, tlie morning that this letter was
written one of the greatest Communist-line smear artists that I know,
a man who had on his payroll for 4 years a member of the Communist
Party, according to the testimony of an undercover FBI agent, Mrs.
Markward, testified to that — let me finish so you will get this ques-
tion of the rumor and why this letter was written.
As I say, the morning the letter was written, a newsman who had
on his payroll one man identified by an undercover FBI agent as a
Communist, he had him on his payroll for 4 years, this Communist
was covering the House Un-American Activities Committee during
all of Avhicli time our smear artist friend was condemning the House
committee. He had on his payroll another man who has been named
under oath as a Communist.
This individual who, as far as I know, has done more to serve
the Communist cause and led the vanguard of smears against those
who dare to fight communism than perhaps any other man, any other
writer I know, and some run him a close second, on that morning wrote
a column, the usual smear column about Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine.
The individual I refer to is Drew Pearson. I saw this article — I think
I had seen some before that. I don't recall by whom. I think that
Alsops might have written some. I thought even though I had told
the Secretary verbally a number of times what my position w^as, when
the Communist liners started to loose their attack I thought I should
put in writing what my position was so there could be no question
about it ever in the future.
Mr. Jenkins. And that, now, Senator McCarthy, is where you got
these rumors.
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't say only from this smear article.
I think there were a number before that.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you knew as of December 22 that there had
been a lot of talk, telephonic and personal, between the members of
your staff and Adams and the Secretary with reference to Schine?
Senator McCarthy. I think I had asked Mr. Carr, my chief of staff,
Mr. Jenkins, to run down these rumors and tell me wdiether or not
there was any basis in fact to them. I think you will find a memo-
randum on that. What date is that ?
A memorandum on the 21st. That was the day before I wrote thi^
letter. If you will refer to that memorandum, that may also shed
some light upon it.
So it was a combination of circumstances that induced me to try and
head off the smear as much as I could.
May I say, Mr. Jenkins, at that time and up until even the 22d of
January, up to the 24th of February when we met with IMr. Stevens,
there was no claim ever that Mr. Carr had been guilty of any wrong-
doing. That was thought up — that apparently was thought up at
the last minute with the hope that they could get not only my chief
counsel but with the hope that they could also get my chief of staff,
knowing that in that way they could to a great extent wreck the
committee.
Mr. Jenkins. But as of the 22d day of December, now, 41/2 or
nearly 5 months from July 8, you say that the question of inter-
vention for Schine was still in the rumor stage. That is right.
Senator?
2562 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCautity. Mr. Chairman, it is still in the nnrior staoje as
of this date. Insofar as I know, no one on my staff has ever used
any improper means to ijet any inflnence for Mr. Schine.
Mr. Jenkins. I believe, Senator McCarthy
Senator McCarthy. May I in that connection, Mr. Jenkins, ask you
for those telephone slips you had the other day? I think those are
sia-nilicant. -i i i o ^
Mr. Jenkins. I am askincr that they be made available, Senator.
I am sorry I don't have them at this particular moment. Shall 1
proceed ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, please.
O. K., Mr. Jenkins.
Mr. Jenkins. Is there any further statement. Senator, you would
care to make at this time, now. in answer to my last question, now that
you have those telephone slips before you ?
Senator McCarthy. Not at this particular time.
Mr. Jenkins. Not at this particular time.
Now, Senator, you o-o further in this letter. In the next sentence
you say "This they of course have a rioht to do as individuals."
Is it your idea iiow. Senator, that Mr. Cohn, your chief counsel,
Mr. Carr, your chief consultant or the director of your staff, had a
right to, from time to time, intervene with the Department of the
Army and the Secretary, Mr. Stevens, on behalf of Schine, if they
did it as individuals?
Senator McCarthy. First, Mr.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, can't you ]ust answer that " i es or N'.r
and then make an explanation. Is that what you mean? Is that
rK'"ht ^
Senator McCarthy. Yes; I will answer it "Yes" or "No."
Mr. Jenkins. What is the answer. Senator? Is it "Yes' or is
it "No"?
Senator McCarthy. First, Ur. Jenkins, when you ask a question
that implies facts which are not in the record, I must correct you.
There is no evidence. No. 1, that Mr. Carr ever intervened. There
Mr. Jenkins. Let me read my question. Senator.
This they of coiu'se have a right to do as individuals.
Now, do you mean by that that they had a riojht to do the thinp
set forth in the first sentence of your letter, to wit, intervene with the
Department in behalf of a former staff consultant, David Schine?
Do you mean that Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr, or other members of your staff
had a right to do that if they did it as individuals? Now, Senator,
I think you can give us _ , -, ,
Senator McCarthy. The answer is "Yes." Yes, anybody has a
rif^ht to do it. May I at this point, Mr. Jenkins, read into the record
a recommendation of an individual who holds a position much higher
than Mr. Cohn or Mr. Carr, Mr. W. J. Bender, the dean of Harvard
College. May I read his recommendation ? I think you can call this
intervention,'! think there is nothing improper about it.
He says :
I am very happy to recommend Mr. Gerard David Schine for a commission
in the United States Navy. I have known David for almost 10 years. Hfe was
a student at I'hillips Academy, Andover, when I taught there before entering
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2563
the Navy in the last war. 1 had him for a year in one of my American history
classes and saw a great deal of him at that time. Since then, I have seen
hi 111 as a student of Harvard. I came hack to Harvard in 1D45, and he was
under my jurisdiction until his graduation a year ago last summer. I believe
that he has exceptionally strong qualifications for a naval officer. He has de-
veloped greatly in the last few years, and is now a person of unu.sual maturity
and thoughtfulness. There is no question whatever of his integrity or of his
loyalty to the United States. His greatest talent lies in the field of business
management. I know of no person of his age who has as much business ability
as he has. He has a very orderly mind, capable of understanding complicated
problems and of working out practical solutions to them. He has an unusual
amount of initiative and imagination about affairs and has, I think, a promising
future ahead of him. He is a good judge of human beings and can work well
with others. From the point of view of reliability, intelligence, energy, and
initiative, I can imagine few people better qualified for an officer's commission,
I say this on the basis of many discussions with him and a long acquaintance-
ship. I recommend him strongly and with reservation.
Sincerely yours,
W. J. Bendek,
Dean of Harvard College.
May I say, Mr. Jenkins, 1 read that in jnst to — as an addendum,
if yoii can say, to my statement, that I feel that anyone has the right
to recommend any other individual for a commission if he thinks
that individual is qualified in so long as he does not exert any im-
proper pressures, and there were no improper pressures in this case.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you read a letter from a man in no wise
connected Avith any branch of the Government of the United States
of America, haven't you?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think he is connected with the
Government.
Mr. Jenkins. Your staff, of course, is a part of the legislative
branch of the Government, isn't it?
Mr. McCarthy. I think that is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. How, Senator, will you tell, was the Secretary of
the Army, Mr. Stevens, or Mr. Adams, as counsel, to differentiate
between a call or a talk or a request on the part of Mr. Cohn and
Mr. Carr in their official capacities, and in their individual or private
capactities? How could he do it. Senator? How would he know?
Senator McCarthy. I can tell you very simply, because I told him
repeatedly that while my — while anyone on my committee had a right,
of course!^ to apply for a commission, anyone on my committee who
had any knowledge of the individual had not only the right but the
duty to transmit that information to the proper authority. I told
him, and I quote again —
to lean over backward in not giving any commission to Schine unless he was
dead certain he was entitled to it.
So there was no question whatsoever in Mr. Stevens' mind, and
Mr. Cohn and I agreed on that. Mr. Cohn, as far as I know, his
conversations — as far as I know, there was no special consideration
asked by anyone on my staff. There were inquiries made as to the
status of Mr. Schine. I was curious as to whether he would go into
the military.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, when Mr. Cohn or Mr. Carr or you or any
member of your staff talked to the Secretary or his counselor, did any
of you, as far as you know, say, "Now, Mr. Stevens, we are not here
officially, not here as a United States Senator. My chief counsel is
2564 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
not here in that capacity. But we are here as individuals." Was
that ever done to your knowledge ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, in my talk to the Secretary I
made it very clear I was speaking as chairman of the committee and
made it very clear — and I hate to repeat this over and over — that
because of that I wanted him to lean over backward and not give
any special consideration to Mr. Schine. Mr. Carr, as far as the testi-
mony is concerned, never spoke to Mr. Stevens about this matter and I
think the best testimony in this, Mr. Jenkins, is Mr. Stevens' own
testimony under oath, on page 65311, Mdien he says all his conversa-
tion about Cohn trying to get special consideration for Schine is
greatly exaggerated.
In effect, he says there is nothing to it. Now, wdien the Secretary
says that, I heartily agree with him.
Mr. Jenkins. I believe you say. Senator, that you told the Secre-
tary and Adams, on several occasions, to lean over backward, to
do nothing for Schine; is that right?
Senatory McCarthy. I told the Secretary specifically on the date
of the breakfast in the Schine apartment. I told him in a letter
substantially the same thing; the letter which you have before you.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Senator
Senator McCarthy. I think that about covers it.
Mr. Jenkins. Let me call your attention to the specific times when
you are alleged to have told him that. Mid-October, page 2503 of the
record.
Senator McCarthy. Will you wait until I get that, Mr. Jenkins?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, indeed.
Page 2503.
Senator McCarthy. Now we have it.
Mr. Jenkins (reading) :
He made a remark to the effect that Schine was of not much use to the com-
mittee, and was only interested in being photographed, and that he hoped that
nothing woiild happen to interfere with the processes of the draft, and that
Schine would be drafted.
You are alleged there by Mr. Adams to have said as early as Oc-
tober 15 that you hoped Schine would be drafted. That is No. 1 on
your part, if that occurred.
Did that occur, Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. That is hardly asking for special consideration.
Mr. Jenkins. That is what I understand now. I am reviewing the
number of times in which you are asking them to lean over backward
and maybe, as you say, doing Schine an injustice. If that occurred.
Senator, then you took the position that Schine should receive the
same treatment as any other boy; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. I took the position that Schine should receive
only what he was entitled to.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well.
Senator McCarthy. I went a step further and, as I say, I may have
been unfair to Dave in this when I suggested that they lean over back-
ward. That means, in effect, that if there was any doubt, that he not
be given the benefit of the doubt.
I did that, however, in the presence of Dave Schine. He agreed
with me. Otherwise, I would not have done it.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2565
Mr. Jenkins. Now I refer you, Senator, to page 2529 of the
record
Senator McCarthy. Keep in mind, he is still, after all these promo-
tions, after all this special consideration, he is still a private.
Mr. Jenkins. We understand that.
I am asking you to refer to page 2529 of the record.
Senator McCarthy. Were you asking a question about 2503 ?
Mr. Jenkins. The question, or rather, the statement was, Senator,
that on that occasion, as early as October 15, you were telling Adams
not to do anvthing for Schine.
Senator McCarthy. I don't think that I ever told— m fact, I am
sure I never told Adams that I hoped Dave would be drafted.
Mr. Jenkins. You discussed Dave with him, I take it, on that occa-
sion, and indicated that you wanted nothing special done for him;
is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Very well.
Proceeding, Senator, to November 3, page 2529 of the record.
Senator McCarthy. 2529.
Mr. Jenkins. On which, at the bottom of the page, Adams says this :
I am quite sure it was not a telephone call, but Senator McCarthy said to me
that he did not feel that this temporary duty for Schine was a good thing; that
he felt that people, members of the press, who might be critical, hostile with him,
or critical of Schine or Mr. Cohn or this committee, might consider that it was
a form of preferential treatment and he would prefer, and he asked if I would
arrange to have the temporary duty canceled.
That is the second time, Senator, that you have taken the position
with Mr. Adams that you wanted nothing in the way of preferences
done for Dave Schine. That is correct, isn't it?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Then on November 7, the third time, when you called
the Secretary of the Army and the call was monitored. _ In that con-
versation you requested that nothing be done for Schine. That is
correct, isn't it?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Then, Senator, on or about December 17, you were
alleged to have reprimanded a member of your staff for intervening
for Schine, according to the testimony of John Adams. I will ask you
whether or not you took the same position on December 17 as you had
theretofore taken, as you say, that is, that you wanted nothing done
for Schine?
Senator McCarthy. I never reprimanded any member of the staff
because
Mr. Jenkins. Didn't you take the position at that time, namely,
December 17, that you wanted him to have the same treatment as any
other private in the Army ought to have ?
Senator McCarthy. I have taken that position, Mr. Jenkins, at all
times, including that I7th day of December. At all times.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, by the count, that would make at least four
different times in this record that you took that attitude.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator McCarthy, why was it necessary for you,
a United States Senator, to talk, according to this record and your
2566 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
admission, at least four times to the Department of the Army re-
questing them to do nothinfr that would be considered preferential
treatment for Schine, if you didn't know and have certain knowledge
that efforts on the part of somebody, perhaps members of your staff,
were being made witli the Department of the Army to give preferences
for Schine?
Senator McCarthy. I think we have fully explained the letter al-
ready. That was a result of false stories b,y — let me finish.
Mr. Jenkins. But, Senator, these requests were made long before
this letter was written.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish, Mr. Jenkins. We have explained
the letter fully. We have to take them separately, you see.
As far as the monitored phone conversation is concerned, I decided
then that it would be unwise to have Dave given temporary duty with
my committee. I felt I should tell the Secretary that. Mr. Cohn and
I had discussed that matter.
The same thing on the conversation with Mr. Adams, the question
of whether or not he should get T. A. D. with the committee, and I
thought he should not. What was the other occasion? You said I
reprimanded somebody. That is not true. I did not reprimand any-
one.
Mr. Jenkins. No, but I say on that occasion you did say you wanted
no preferences given Schine. I don't want to misquote you, but the
record will show.
Senator McCarthy. I say that at all times I have taken the position
that no one on my committee — I believe I said Mr. Schine sbould get
no special treatment. That is just the position I take— Period.
Mr. Jenkins. But, Senator, my question is, why was it necessary
for you and why did you on these occasions that we have just recounted
here talk to the Department of the Army through either its Secretary
or its Counselor, and on all these various occasions say, "Now, here,
Schine is just another boy to me. Don't do anything out of the
ordinary, extra special for him."' Why, Senator, did you do that or
did you find it necessary or advisable to do that, if you didn't know
that Mr. Cohn or somebody was putting a little too much pressure on
the Army to get something out of the ordinary done for this boy?
Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to tell you.
Mr. Jenkins. That is what I want you to do.
Senator McCarthy. I will try to do it over again, Mr. Jenkins.
We have to take the instances one by one. The first one over in the
Schine apartment, Mr. Stevens brought up the matter of a commis-
sion. I couldn't stand mute. I had to give him my position. I did
that.
The next time, when I talked to Mr. Adams about not having Schine
assigned to temporary duty, it was because they had assigned him to
T. A. D. with my connnittee, temporary duty with my committee.
1 discussed that with Mr. Schine and Mr. Cohn, and we decided that
was unwise. So either I sat mute and not tell him, or to give him the
facts on that.
The other date which you mentioned, December 17, nothing occurred
on that date, so you must knock that out.
What is the third occurrence? I think the third was the letter.
I have explained that in full to you.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2567
You see, Mr. Jenkins, as chairman of the committee, when Mr.
Adams would bring up a matter, I had no choice but to tell them how
I felt about it, and I did that. There is nothing secret about this.
Mr. Jenkins. Then your explanation to the committee is that on all
these occasions — you know how many there were — when you were
forced in self-defense to say, "Don't favor him," as 1 understand it
now you were doing it in self-defense.
Senator McCaimuy. No, I wasn't.
Mr. Jenkins. You say. Senator, that you did do it, that on every
occasion that you ever talked to Mr. Stevens or Mr. Adams you said,
"Do not favor this boy." And, as T understand it noAv, you are telling
the members of the committee that you did it because Mr. Stevens or
Mr. Adams initiated a proposition of doing something out of the
ordinary for them. Am I right about that ?
Senator McCarthy. I learned, for example, that Mr. Stevens
called Mr. Schine and told him he Avas discussing with Mr. Wilson
a special assignment for him. I didn't like that. 1 felt that was im-
proper, I had no choice but to make that known to Mr. Adams and
Mr. Stevens. When, as Mr. Adams says, he brought up the question
of Dave's draft in the subway I couldn't stand mute.
I said if he is to be drafted, he should go in as any other young
man, just the logical answer.
When Mr. Stevens over in the Schine Hotel, rather in the Waldorf
Hotel, brought up the question of a commission, I could either stand
mute or tell him how I felt. I told him how I felt and I called Dave
over and made sure Dave was standing there.
Mr. Jenkins. That was as early as September 16?
Senator McCarthy. I think that was the date.
Mr Jenkins. In the Waldorf Hotel, in the Schine apartment in
New York City. ^
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Stevens brought up the subject I did
not.
Mr. Jenkins. Of giving Dave Schine a commission on that oc-
casion; IS that right. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. In the subway also Mr. Adams brought up
the subject. I did not. You can't accuse me for answeriiK*-, Mr
Jenkins. I had to answer.
Mr. Jenkins. I am not accusing you of anything. I am merely
asking you for the facts with reference to this subject of inquiry You
recall the Secretary's testimony that you brought up the subject of a
commission for Schine on September 16 in the Schine apartment
lou say that didn't happen?
Senator McCarthy. That is completely incorrect, if he said that
Mr. Jenkins. You say that the Secretary himself, Eobert Stevens"
suggested m the Schine apartment on September 16 that Dave Schine
get a commission; is that right. Senator?
Senator McCarthy. In fairness to Mr. Stevens so we don't appear
to accuse him of perjury, Mr. Stevens said he was very hazy about the
conversation that morning. I am not hazy about it. Mr Stevens
brought up the subject of Dave Schine. I don't want to o-q over the
conversation again. I have done that 10 times. Mr. Stevens brought
up the subject— period. ^
Mr. Jenkins. Do you recall a meeting with Mr. Stevens on Januarv
14 at the Carroll Arms, Senator ? '
2568 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. Which meeting was that?
Mr. Jenkins. January 14. , ^ ^ . „
Senator McCarthy. That is before he left for the Far East, was it i
Yes, I recall that meeting. ^ . .1 ^ ^r
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I call your attention to the tact that Mr.
Stevens testifieci
Senator McCarthy. Would you give me the page?
Mr. Jenkins. Page 390. I am sorry. That the Secretary of the
Army testifieci before this committee that at that meeting of January
14, 1954, at the Carroll Arms, Senator McCarthy, during the course
of 'this meeting, and I am reading verbatim—
on four or five occasions, Senator McCarthy brought up the question of whether
or not David Schine could be assigned to New York City when his training
was over.
Did that occur. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. No, that did not occur.
Mr. Jenkins. Did you ask that this be done one time ? The Secre-
tary says four or five times, or occasions.
Senator McCarthy. Would you wait one minute until I read
this
Mr. Jenkins. Page 390.
Senator McCarthy. Would you wait a moment until 1 read tlie
monitored call when Stevens called me that day ?
Mr. Jenkins. Do you understand my question ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, I do. I was reading this monitored call
of the same date so I could have all the facts in mind. The question is
did I ask him to assign Dave Schine to New York. The answer to
that is "no."
Mr. Jenkins. The answer is "no" ?
Senator McCarthy. Eight. .
Mr Jenkins. Did you ask him one time on that occasion i
Senator McCarthy. No. Mr. Stevens asked to see me that day.
I did not ask to see him. But just so there is no question about this
New York thing. Bob Stevens that day was talking about the trij),
principally, to the Far East, principally the question of whether or
not we would desist in our calling of the loyalty board while he was
away I told him we couldn't, I told him it wouldn't hurt him any-
way. Then he did bring up the question of the inconvenience to
the committee of having to go down to see Dave at the camp.
Mr. Jenkins. Are you talking about on January 14?
Senator McCarthy. On January 14. I believe he was at Camp
Gordon or Dix, I don't know where then. And he asked where I
thought that Dave could be of most benefit. I told him that I thought
they would have to follow the usual apptitude tests and decide that
themselves. He brought the question of our investigation of Army
intelligence, the textbooks, and we discussed the possibihty, the wis-
dom o^f their having a team. We agreed that it would have to be
headed by an officer of sufficient rank so he would have access to all
the material. He suggested, and I agreed with him, that if they could
o-et 15 or 20 young nien who were competent in this field to make a
survey of the Army War College, I told him about the various com-
plaints we had had about the use of Communist-line material in the
Army War College, the type of lectures, the type of indoctrination
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2569
material we had complaints about, gave him examples of that, told
him that while we had very little on West Point we had some com-
plaints about that, but I knew nothing about that, and we just had
a general discussion about whether or not they couldn't do that them-
selves without our doing it. He suggested that he perhaps could use
Dave in that particular type of work.
I said to him, and he agreed with me, I said to him that if he did,
that he had to be very, very careful not to appear to be creating any
plush berth for Dave Schine because it would be misunderstood. It
would be bad for the committee, bad for us, and the names New York,
Washington, West Point, Army War College, all was mentioned.
I made no request that Dave be assigned any place, period. The only
request I made was — rather, advice I gave the Secretary, was that he
be veiy careful in handling anyone from my committee so it wouldn't
appear that we were using our committee to get any special considera-
tion for him.
Mr. Jenkins. So as we understand it now, the very reverse of the
Secretary's testimony is true ? He suggested that Schine be assigned
to the New York area or perhaps elsewhere in that meeting on Janu-
ary 14, and not you ; is that correct now. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. It goes beyond that. It isn't a question of the
New York area. We had a long discussion about
Mr. Jenkins. Was he the one that initiated the conversation about
Schine ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think it had to do with New York so
much. Of coiu'se, these installations aj?e all in this area.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, so we can get along, you say positively and
definitely you did not ask the Secretary of the Army to assign Dave
Schine to the New York area, that you didn't even ask him even one
time, is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. But that the subject of an assigimient for Schine was
discussed ; that is correct, isn't it ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. And that the Secretary of the Army initiated that
discussion ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. That is correct. The Secretary — I will not ask you
to evaluate his testimony. You may strike that answer.
Senator McCarthy. I think the Secretary has admitted that he
initiated the Schine subject, in his testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, you will recall the testimony of Mr. Adams
with respect to the meeting in your apartment on January 22 ?
Senator McCarthy. I recall his testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. It is set out on page 2621 of the record, and in which
he says that on that occasion — page 2621 —
On a mimber of occasions during the evening, the Senator restated his inquiry
as to why we couldn't assign Schine to New York, and on 2 or 3 occasions he
attempted to extract a commitment from me to that effect.
Did that happen. Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. No, John is badly mistaken in that.
Mr. Jenkins. John is badly mistaken?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
2570 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
INIr. Jenkins. There is no substance in that whatever? Nothing
like that occurred, you say ?
Senator McCarthy, There is no substance whatever to that.
Mr. Jexkins. You heard the testimony, Senator McCarthy, of this
young man Blount?
Senator McCarthy. I heard his testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. Aide to General Reber ?
Senator McCarthy. I heard his testimony.
Senator Jackson. Aide to General Ryan.
Mr. Jenkins. Thank you, Senator Jackson. You are entirely
correct.
Senator McCarthy. AVhat page are you reading from now, Mr.
Jenkins ?
Mr. Jenkins. 3509. I desire, Senator ^McCarthy, to read from this
young man's sworn testimony introduced in this case, starting at the
bottom of page 3508. Do you have the record ?
Senator McCarthy. That is all right. I am sure you will cor-
rectly read it.
Mr. Jenkins (reading) :
Lieutenant Blount. At approximately 4 o'clocli or 4 : 30 on the afternoon of
January 9, I returned to my quarters and my wife told me that I had a phone call
from Mr. Cohn in New York City and would I please call him back. I called Mr.
Cohn back. We got into a discussion which later turned into an argument about
Private Schine being on KP •
Senator McCarthy. If we could save some time, Mr. Jenkins-
Mr. Jenkins. I want to read this to you, if you will allow me to do
so.
Senator McCarthy. I know nothing about it.
Mr. Jenkins (reading) :
On January 10. We discussed the terminology used in the agreement that we
had. I told Mr. Cohn that the decision to put Private Schine on KP had been
made by the regimental commander, and that the division commander, General
Rvan, was completely cognizant of that fact. I told Mr. Cohn that we considered
KP part of Private Schine's training and that as far as we were concerned, he
was not going to get off KP on January 10.
Pursuant to that — Mr. Cohn didn't agree with me, by the way.
Pursuant to that, he said that some people —
and I want to call this to your attention particularly, Senator
McCarthy —
Pursuant to that, he said that some people at Fort Dix had been very coopera-
tive but that Colonel Ringler and Lieutenant Miller had made thmss especially
difficult for Private Schine, and that he, Mr. Cohn, had a very long memory, and
was never going to forget their names.
Senator, you heard the testimony of this young officer of the
Army
Senator McCarthy. I heard his testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. In which he swore that your chief counsel made those
statements. I will ask you. Senator, whether or not you have
discussed— is that the first time. Senator, that you had ever heard that
such a statement, such a conversation had ensued between Mr. Cohn
and this young man Blount ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that was. In fact, I am reasonably
certain it was.
Mr. Jenkins. Right here on the witness stand several days ago,
several weeks ago it seems to me.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2571
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, have you talked to Mr. Cohn about that
since ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I have not.
Mr. Jenkins. You have not?
Senator McCarthy. Except when I questioned him on the stand.
Mr. Jenkins. You have not made any inquiry of him as to the truth
or falsity of that statement ?
Senator McCarthy. No. I heard him testify that it was false. I
was satisfied with his testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. Didn't you hear him testify that he might have said
that in substance, or did say it in substance, but his explanation was
that he had heard that Colonel Ringler had made a disparaging remark
about this committee or discredited its work or had made some state-
ment indicating that Ringler was not altogether a loval American
citizen ? Don't you remember that. Senator McCarthy ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't believe that is a correct resume of his
testimony. We perhaps should get it. As I recall his testimony, it
was that he had heard that Ringler
Mr. Jenkins. Said you were on a witch hunt. I remember the
words. Isn't that right ?
Senator McCarthy. Ringler referred to the exposure of Com-
munists as a witch hunt.
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir.
Senator McCarthy. That is the jargon to which we — and Mr.
Cohn told me that he had heard that Mr. Ringler had been referring
to Communist exposure as witch hunts and condemning them. We
discussed that. Mr. Cohn agreed with me that we had too much
work to do to go into that matter, but that we should run a name
check on him to see what, if anything, there was on Ringler.
As I recall, it turned up negative. The name check was negative,
I believe.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, did Mr. Cohn ever tell you why he told this
young officer that he would long remember the name of his company
commander, Lieutenant, now Captain Miller ?
Senator McCarthy. He told me on the stand here under oath, and
I am fully satisfied with his testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. Wliat was it he said here on the stand under oath ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins
Mr. Jenkins. About Miller, not Ringler. Miller.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, I would not try to recap his
testimony. I think it speaks for itself. It is here in the record. If
you want it, I will dig it up. I will try to dig it up, that is.
Mr. Jenkins. I am asking my aides to dig it up. Senator. I don't
want to misquote Mr. Cohn.
Wasn't that a threat. Senator, in the light of all that had occurred
before these conversations ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, No. 1, you are asking me about
phone conversations about which I know nothing except what I have
heard here on the stand. I am satisfied with Mr. Cohn's testimony.
I would not construe his testimony even remotely as a threat.
Mr. Jenkins. This young man swore here, the aide to General
Ryan, that that conversation, that statement, that "I have a long
memory. I will long remember the names of Ringler and Miller" —
2572 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
he says that occurred in a conversation that was linked with an argu-
ment between him and Mr. Cohn over Schine doing k. p. duty.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, if I didn't have absokite and
complete confidence in Mr. Cohn, he would not be my chief counsel.
I have complete confidence in him. I have confidence that he was
telling the absolute truth the other day when he explained that con-
versation. Beyond that I can give you no further information. I
wasn't there. I know nothing further about it. If he can point out
something improper that Mr. Cohn did after that, if he can point out
that Mr. Cohn called a witness who should not have been called, if
Mr. Cohn examined a witness that he should not have examined, if he
did anything improper, then I would be glad to hear that. I know
of nothing improper that Mr. Adams or Mr. Stevens had pointed out
on Mr. Cohn's part except when Mr. Adams was pinned down he
said Mr. Cohn did not succeed in getting McCarthy to call off the
subpenas for the members of the loyalty board, and Mr. Cohn knows,
Mr. Carr knows and all of the members of this committee, I am sure,
know that that is one thing that I felt had to be done.
There is no one who could get me to call it off except a majority
vote of this committee. That is the only way the exposure of those
who have been covering up for Communists can be called off. If the
committee votes that I must call it off, I will have no choice. I sin-
cerely hope they will not do that.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, will you refer to your memorandum of De-
cember 17, just so you have it before you.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. As I understood you, Senator — before you read that,
let me ask you this question. May I have your attention, please,
Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, certainly.
Mr. Jenkins. As I understood yesterday you stated that this violent
argument that ensued between Mr. Cohn and Mr. Adams on Decem-
ber 17, the day of the automobile ride in New York City, grew out
of an argument over General Lawton ?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Jenkins. And that Adams was assigning as the reason General
Lawton was to be relieved of his command was the fact that he had
made certain talks or speeches about certain colleges or universities.
That is correct, isn't it ?
Senator McCarthy. Not speeches, talks, staff talks.
Mr. Jenkins. Staff talks ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Jenkins. Senator, I thought I remembered that correctly and
now I want to read to you an excerpt from this memorandum of De-
cember 17. I am reading that part of it which is printed on page 5
of the Army's compilation of these memoranda :
To Messrs. Cohn and Carr from Senator McCarthy, dated December 17, 1P53.
In talking to John Adams today I learned that General Lawton who as you re-
call coopei'ated fully with the committee in the exposure of subversives at Fort
Monmouth is about to be relieved of his command. I questioned Adams very
closely on this in a friendly manner and find that the only reason that he can
give is that Lawton embarrassed the military by helping to make it possible
for us to expose the incredibly bad security setup which has existed at Fort
Monnioutb.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2573
Senator McCarthy, isn't that in direct contradiction of your testi-
mony here yesterday under oath ?
Senator McCartht. No, sir.
Mr, Jenkins. Didn't you yesterday, Senator McCarthy, on that wit-
ness stand testify that while Adams argued to you or stated to you
and the members of your staff that the consideration of relieving
Lawton was being given because of statements, talks or speeches that
he had made about certain colleges and universities ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. That is correct ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is a correct statement.
Mr. Jenkins. And didn't you, Senator, yesterday, say that you
said that you thought at the time, or said at the time, "Oh, John, you
know those are not the reasons," or words to that effect ?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is a correct resume.
Mr. Jenkins. But in this memorandum of December 17, you state
that Adams told you that the only reason they were considering the
relief of Lawton was on account of his cooperation with your com-
mittee in exposing these incredibly bad risks in the Army. Read it,
Senator, and state whether or not I am correct about it and if this
testimony isn't in direct contradiction to this memorandum of Decem-
ber 17.
Senator McCarthy. It is not. Do you want me
Mr. Jenkins. Go ahead and read it, certainly.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jenkins, as I have discussed with my staff
over and over, I never placed any credence on the phony claim that
they were going to break a general because at a secret staff' meeting
he mentioned that most of those who were suspended came from cer-
tain colleges. I knew that was completely phony. I questioned John
in detail, and as I say, in a friendly manner, if you can call it ques-
tioning, I discussed with him the only reason, the only reason that I
could hnd for their attempted proposed breaking of Lawton was
because he had cooperated with the committee. I think that it was
set off, Mr. Jenkins, at the time Mr. Lawton, in executive session, when
Adams was there, when asked why they didn't suspend these security
risks, with Communist backgrounds, previously, he pointed at me and
he said, "Mr. Chairman, you are the reason why we can do it now."
And I did not put any of these phony, completely phony, reasons,
advanced in this memorandum, because I knew then, I know now, that
the only reason, the only reason why they were going to break General
Lawton, was because he dared, he dared to work with us. I know that
they have claimed, they have claimed over and over, they have claimed
here on the witness stand that they were going to break this man be-
cause he made some statement, and I emphasize this at a secret staff
meeting, that most of those who were suspended because of Com-
munist backgrounds came from certain colleges. I discussed it with
Mr. Adams. He admitted that was a perfectly proper statement.
There was nothing wrong with it. There was nothing wrong when a
general was discussing with his staff security problems, to point out
how many of those suspended came from X college, how many from
y college, how many from Z college.
And Mr. Adams and I — while he used the words that the reason
was because of that speech — we understood each other fully. There
2574 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
was no question in Mr. Adams' mind or in my mind then, nor is there
in his mind or my mind now, Mr. Jenkins, that Mr. Lawton would have
been broken, would have been broken, because of this cooperation,
and that is why they proposed to break him. May I say this memo-
randum, incidentally, was dictated on the night of the 16th and
apparently was transcribed on the I7th, and therefore dated on
the 17th.
Mr. Jenktxs. Senator, let's get it absolutely straight. You say in
the memorandum of December 17 :
I questioned Adams very closely on this in a friendly manner, and find that
the only reason that he can give is that Lawton embarrassed the military by
helping to make it possible for ns to expose the incredibly bad security setup
which has existed at Fort Monmouth.
Yesterday, Senator, you stated that the reason advanced by Adams
for the proposed relief of La\yton was that he had made statements,
talks, or arguments, or speeches, about colleges and universities.
That is correct, isn't it ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Jenkins. You now say, as I understand it, Senator, by way of
an explanation
Senator McCarthy. I say the same as I said yesterday.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you now say. Senator, that Adams advanced both
reasons as the motive on the part of the Secretary to relieve Lawton,
to wit, that La^Yton had cooperated with the Army, No. 1, or
Lawton had cooperated with your committee and had talked too much
about colleges and universities ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams
Mr. Jenkins, What about that? Did he assign both reasons,
Senator ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Adams never admitted that he was being
broken because he cooperated with the committee, but in questioning
him there was no doubt in his mind then, there was no doubt in my
mind, he knew that I knew exactly why he was being broken. John
Adams knew that he was not trying to fool me. He was not trying
to fool me. He knew that I knew exactly the reason why Lawton
was to be broken, and we had predicted, may I say, long before
that, in our ride to New York with General Lawton, that the result
of his cooperation would be that he would not get a promotion. We
didn't know they would go so far as to try to break him.
Mr. Jenkins. All right, then.
John Adams did not state on that date that the reason Lawton
was going to be relieved was because of his cooperation with the com-
mittee. That is right, isn't it?
Senator McCarthy. John has never admitted either on that date
or any other date to me personally that that was the reason.
Mr. Jenkins. Yes, sir. And
Senator McCarthy. He has made it very clear, he has made it very
clear in our conversations that he realized how phony this other
excuse was. It was so phony that I would not put that in a memoran-
dum, even.
My staff knew, my staff knows, I know, that this staff meeting at
which he made some remark about certain colleges, had nothing to
do witli his beiiiir broken.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2575
"Mr. Jenkins. But he never admitted and never stated that the
reason Lawton was being relieved was because he was cooperating with
your committee. That is right, isn't it ?
Senator McCarthy. Not in so many words.
Mr. Jenkins. Let me read you
Senator McCarthy. He has made it very clear.
Mr. Jenkins. Let me read you what you swore as I requested yes-
terday, page 6157, Senator McCarthy. Are you ready, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I am always ready.
Mr. Jenkins. Do you mean for any eventuality ?
Senator McCarthy. I would not go so far as to say that.
Mr. Jenkins. ( Heading) :
Mr. Adams told me they were thinking of relieving him. The reason he gave
w as not that he had cooperated with the committee —
and that is what I understand now you are testifying this morning.
Senator McCarthy. That is still my testimony.
Mr. Jenkins. Now, Senator, let me read this one more time, and
I take it your memory was probably fresher then than now, I don't
know.
Senator McCarthy. I think my memory is pretty good on this
subject.
Mr. Jenkins. I am not questioning that. I am reading from the
memorandum of December 17, from you to members Cohn and Carr :
I questioned Adams very closely on this in a friendly manner, and find that
the only reason that he can give —
and I repeat it —
and find the only reason that he can give is that Lawton embarrassed the military
by helping to make it possible for us to expose the incredibly bad security setup
which had existed at Fort Monmouth.
Senator, isn't that saying that John Adams gave as the reason, and
the only reason he could give, for relieving this great general
Senator McCarthy. That wasn't the only reason
Mr. Jenkins. As you said, was the fact that he cooperated with
the committee ?
Now, Senator, if that is not a direct contradiction of your testimony,
then I invite you here and now to explain to this committee why it
isn't. As far as I know, Mr. Chairman, that is the last question I
care to ask the Senator on cross-examination.
Senator McCarthy. Let me tell you, Mr. Jenkins, and I think you
know it. I assume you have written memoranda in lawsuits already.
When you find that a witness comes in and gives you a long story, you,
in writing a memorandum to your assistants, if you do that, you
evaluate it, and you give what reasons the man gave and what he
actually knows. That was my evaluation of his story to me at that
time. It still is. And there is nothing that has occurred since then
to change my mind on that. I gave my staff here an evaluation of my
conversation with Adams, and the only reason, the only reason that I
feel he had then, the only reason that I feel that he could give then,
that he has given up to now, is because he has cooperated with the
committee and plus the other reasons which I set forth in this
memorandum.
I do not now, I never have, placed any credence in the phony claim
that they were going to break a man they describe as a great general
2576 SPECIAL mVESTIGATIOX
because, at a secret staff meeting he mentioned where the Communists
that we found came from. Mr. Adams in his conversation with me
admitted, in effect, that that would not be a valid reason. He still
persisted in claiming that was the reason. We went over this in detail,
and I considered it of such importance that I had Mr. Cohn call Mr.
Lawton the following night. Wlien I talked to Mr. Lawton, we gave
him the reasons, I believe the same as assigned here. I think I also
may have told Lawton of the phony reasons they advanced.
Mr. Jexkixs. Mr. Chairman, I have concluded my cross-examina-
tion and I pass the witness to the chairman.
Senator IVIundt. Very well.
Under the 10-minute rule, the Chair has the first 10 minutes, and
we will then pass to Senator McClellan, and that will probably take
us to 12 : 30, which is the usual time for the noontime recess.
Senator IVIcCarthy, you have said several times in these hearings,
and quite emphatically this morning, that you told Mr. Adams or Mr.
Stevens that the only way that you could ever be induced to call off
the hearings at Fort Monmouth would be by a majority vote of your
committee, which, if it were taken, would leave you no other recourse;
is that correct ?
Senator ISIcCartht. That is correct.
Senator AIuxdt. I want to establish for the record that such a vote
was never taken by the committee. I believe it was never even sug-
gested to the committee that it take such a vote. Is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. No, that is incorrect, Senator.
Senator Mukdt. Did you suggest to the committee that we call off
the hearings at Fort Monmouth ?
Senator McCarthy. No. Unless I felt they should be called off, I
would not make a motion that they be called off. I thought you were
talking about calling them on.
Senator INIundt. No ; I am talking about calling them off.
Senator McCarthy. Oh, no.
Senator ]\Iundt. I wouldn't want any onus to attach itself to the
committee if that is correct.
Senator IVIcCarthy. You are correct. I would not make a motion
to call off the hearin2:s, because I think it is urgent that they continue.
Senator ]\Iundt. So far as I recall, there was no presentation made
to the committee about calling it off ; no suggestion.
Senator McCarthy Nothing about calling it off.
Senator Mundt. No message conveyed that somebody had indicated
that they should be called off ?
Senator McCarthy. No. It was called on by the vote of the com-
mittee.
Senator ]\Iundt. Correct. It was called on by vote of the committee.
It is true that neither at the time the Democrats were off the com-
mittee nor at any time after the returned to the committee, was there
any vote taken by the committee to call off the hearings.
Senator McCarthy. There was never any vote nor any motion to
that effect.
Senator JNIundt. Very well.
During the first part of the investigation, I think the record shows
pretty clearly that there was a considerable degree of cooperation
between the Army, represented by Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams, and
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2577
our committee, represented primarily by you and ]\Ir. Colin and Mr.
Carr ; that they attended executive hearings, that you consulted with
them about different matters, that they supplied different records,
brought in different files.
I "want to establish, if I can, just what, in jour opinion, destroyed
that era of cooperation?
Senator McCarthy. Senator Mundt, there seems to have been what
appeared to be complete cooperation on the surface as long as we were
only digging out the individual Communists. When we started try-
ing to get the information as to who was responsible for the special
treatment of a fifth amendment major, when we tried to find out why
the old Truman Loyalty Board had reversed some 33 out of 35 cases and
sent individuals back to the radar laboratories with Communist rec-
ords, when We wanted to know who did that, why they did it, and get
the reason for it and find out whether it was because of an order from
higher up or because of sympathy on the part of those on the Board,
then we ran into almost what you would call a blank wall.
Senator Mundt. Partly for purposes of establishing the record of
the past and partly for purposes of looking ahead, I want to pinpoint
this as clearly as we can. Let me ask you first whether you agree that
the best way in which to conduct an investigation of a situation exist-
ing in the executive agencies is to do it with the type of cooperation
which was manifest, at least through the early stages and the early
weeks, I believe the early months, of the investigation of the Signal
Corps ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I think perhaps a better example, Mr.
Chairman, would be the type of cooperation we got from the Govern-
ment Printing Office. There the members of the loyalty board were
allowed to be called. They testified why they cleared certain indi-
viduals.
For example, we found for the first time when Mr. Mellor was on
the stand in one particular case, the case of Rothschild, who had at
one time secret clearance and was handling secret materials — that
while there were some 43 individuals who could testify in regard to
his Communist activities, that none of them were called.
I asked Mr. Mellor — again, I can't quote it verbatim, but it is all a
matter of record — why they didn't call any of those who could testify
as to his Communist background. He said they weren't all avail-
able, which is true. Some of them, I assume, are still underground.
Senator Mundt. I believe
Senator McCarthy. May I finish on that ?
We showed a letter from the FBI saying that one of their under-
cover agents would be available to testify about the Communist activi-
ties of the wife and I believe the husband, too.
I asked him the question — as I say, I can't quote it verbatim, but
ahnost verbatim — I said, "Mr. Mellor," — he was the secretary of the
board, you understand.
Senator Mundt. The board of the Government Printing Office?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; of the Government Printing Office, I
said, "JNIr. Mellor, why didn't you call any of those individuals who
.were available?"
His answer was roughly this : "It was not om- practice to call any-
one who would give derogatory information."
2578 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION"
Mr. Blattenberger, the new head of the Printing Office, was as
shocked at that as we were. Since then he has completely overhauled
that setup. ::r
To take it one step further, talking about cooperation which is ef-
fective, keep in mind that the Printing Office handles classified,
secret, and confidential material from almost every department, as
far as we know, so a Communist spy there would be as valuable as a
Communist spy in perhaps 10 other departments.
We had Mr. Hipsley, who was the acting chairman of the board, on
the stand, and I asked him — and I believe the Chair was there at the
time I asked him this question — I asked him the question — could I just
quote this — I said:
Let me ask you this : The other day, as I recall, you said your board operated
under the general rule, the general rule that mere membership in the Communist
Party was not sufficient to bar a worker under your loyalty program. Is that
the general rule under which you operate?
The answer, on page 89, of Mr. Hipsley :
That is true.
He said :
I went further, sir, if I may take another moment, and told you that Seth
Richardson —
as the Chair knows, Seth Richardson was the top man in the Truman
loyalty program. He said:
I went further, sir, and told you that Seth Richardson gave us the philosophy
behind that. He gave us a long-winded story about the fact that some time ago
he wanted to become a member of an organization, and he had no knowledge of
the charter and bylaws, and he wanted to be a member, not because of its charter
and bylaws, but because it has a nice library and books he wanted to read. He
said it was the purpose of membership, why you belong, that was important.
That was the explanation. He was our guide.
I left out the name of the organization.
Mr. Chairman, we found here, I think to the consternation of the
new head of the Printing Office, that they were operating under a rule
that even if they found a man were a member of the Communist Party,
a member of the Communist conspiracy, under Communist Party dis-
cipline, that he could not be barred under this misnamed loyalty
program.
What you could get beyond that, I don't know, unless you could
find him setting off a bomb.
I am talking about the type of cooperation.
Senator Mundt.; The Chair doesn't care to go into the Government
Printing Office any further than simply to establish the fact that
there was a cooperative situation that operated well; that you had
one that operated well in the Signal Corps in the Army investigation
up to a certain point.
As the Chair recalls, under the chairmanship of the late Senator
Hoey, we also operated under the formula quite frequently in this
investigating committee of seeking and sometimes securing the cooper-
ation of executive heads of agencies. For example, the General
Services Administration. I think you will recall we investigated that
agency, headed by Mr,; Jess Larson, a Democrat; but operating
cooperatively with the committee, they enabled us to achieve a great
deal of good in that dej^artment. Is that correct ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2579
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Mr. Chairman, may I say one word on this. Mr. BLattenberger
went a step further. He got rid of the loyalty board, as far as we
know, and when a man came before the committee at 9 o'clock in
the morning and took the fifth amendment about communism, he
didn't shout and scream at the committee. He just fired him in-
stantly. He has cleaned up and made it unnecessary to continue that
investigation.
Senator Mundt. That was the Edward Rothschild case w^ith which
the Chair is familiar. Now I want to pinpoint where it was that
this cooperation broke down. It has been demonstrated both under
Democratic and Republican administrations that it can exist. Where
it does exist you get salutary results and you get them quickly with
a minimum of embarrassment but with a maximum of vindication.
You say it broke down in the first place because of your continued
efforts to disclose who was responsible for what happened to Major
Peress. That was one point, is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. I can pinpoint it as to a definite date, perhaps.
Mr. Stevens called, I believe it was on a Friday night, and that call
was monitored, objected to what he said was unfair treatment of
Zwicker. I had been trying to get Zwicker to give us the names of
those who were responsible for the special treatment of Peress.
Specifically, I wanted to know who the morning after we asked that
Peress be court-martialed got rid of him, got him beyond the juris-
diction of the Army. That was when everything broke loose.
Senator Mundt. May the Chair say his time has expired. I want
to ask you more specifically to pinpoint it. I will wait until my next
10-minute period so it will be in one place.
Senator McCellan?
Senator McClellan". Mr. Chairman, first I wish to announce that
I shall have to leave this afternoon at 3 o'clock. I do understand
that the committee intends to recess early today.
Senator Mundt. That is correct. Mr. Welch has asked for that, and
Senator Dirksen also has to leave.
Senator Jackson. What time do you plan to recess ?
Senator Mundt. Sometime between 4 : 30 and 6 o'clock.
Senator McClellan. I just want to make that observation. It
will not be possible, I presume, from the limited time, when you re-
convene this afternoon, for me to conclude. The questions I should
like to ask, I assume it would take until Monday anyway to conclude
the cross-examination, at which time I would like to resume.
Senator Mundt. I assure you we will not conclude with the Senator
until you have a chance to question him on Monday.
Senator McClellan. Beginning, Mr. Chairman, I wish to make
this observation, that there has now developed here in these hearings
one of the strangest paradoxies that I have ever witnessed or ex-
perienced before any tribunal, and especially is that true where people
in high official Government positions are involved. And it shall be
my purpose to try to bring back some measure of clarity and proper
understanding of just what is involved in this controversy. I shall
therefore undertake to direct my questions at this time to that end.
To do so, I shall make use of the official documents that constitute the
charges and the countercharges, and I should like to interrogate the
2580 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator particularly reo-arcliiii^ his countercharges in view of the
testimony that he gave yesterday regarding Secretary Stevens and his
appraisal of him as an honest man. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I
should like to ask, and I do ask the Senator from Wisconsin, to refer
to his document. I shall refer to it as charges or countercharges,
because that is what it is to me. He may refer to it as a statement of
fact or use any other terms he may choose. But to me it is charges.
I read the second paragraph of that document. Senator ;
We are submitting herewith what we consider to be pertinent data con-
cerning the attempt by two Army civilians, Mr. Robert T. Stevens and Mr. John
G. Adams, to discredit the investigations subcommittee and to force a discon-
tinuance of our hearings exposing Communist intiltration in their Department.
Senator, is that charge true?
Senator McCarthy. That is true.
Senator McCi.ellan. Then, Senator, is that charge, if true — if
those charges are facts and true, do you tell this committee now that
they are the acts of an honest man, a man of integrity?
Senator McCarthy. Just so you don't misquote what I said yester-
day, I said that except for the Zwicker incident and the filing of these
fraudulent charges, other than that, I have found nothing in Bob
Stevens conduct to discredit him.
Senator McClkllan. Do you regard those acts that you allege there
an attempt to discredit this investigating committee and to force a
discontinuance of hearings exposing Communist infiltration into the
Department of the Army ?
Senator McCarthy. Not only was it an attempt, but it was a suc-
cessful attempt. IMr. ]M^-Clellan, you know that it was successful.
Senator McClellax. I know. I know the whole story. It is all
here before us. We don't have to argue it. Do you regard that as an
act of a patriotic official of this Government ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I think that was a gross mistake, highly
improper. However, may I say that at the time we drafted the charges,
we did not know that he was being advised by the chief political
adviser of the opposite political party.
Senator McCf.ellan. I ex])ected you to inject that. That is no
surprise. May I say to 5'ou that your colleagues on this committee
have refused to call him as a witness, when I have twice — your
Republican colleagues — when the Democrats have twice made a motion
to call him. I want you to have that evidence, if it is true. And
I will help you get it.
Senator McCarthy. May I say the reason that I consented he not
be called was that I felt that unless Senator Symington also took the
stand, the picture would not be complete. And up to this time, my
good friend from Missouri has not consented to take the stand.
Senator McClellan. May I say this to you : I said it to the press
yesterday, I shall wholly disregard both the charges and any evidence
that you may give against him if this committee will not hear him
and give him the opportunit}^ to defend himself against your charges.
I shall not condemn any man who is accused — I am speaking of Mr.
Clifford — who is accused here in this forum, who is not given an
opportunity to defend himself.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. McClellan, the evidence against him has
not been given by me.
Senator McClellan. I thought it was given by you.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2581
Senator JNIcCarthy. It was given in the monitored calls.
Senator McClellan. I refer you to your testimony yesterday,
Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Let's be clear.
Senator McClellan. I am being clear.
Senator McCarthy. The evidence is very clear. It is in the
monitored calls between Mr. Symington and Mr. Stevens. Yes, Mr.
Symington and Mr. Stevens. That is the evidence against Clifford.
It shows that Mr. Symington starts out by saying I will get Clifford.
There is no question by Stevens as to who Clifford is.
Senator McClellan. As far as I am concerned, you are not im-
pressing me with this.
Senator McCarthy. I don't care if I am impressing you or not,
Senator McClellan. It isn't whether I am impressing you or not, but
I want to correct it when you do not correctly state the facts, I know
inadvertently. The testimony here is — the first mention of Clifford
is when he talks about Clifford, and it is unusual, I think it is reveal-
ing, with no explanation as to who Clifford is. So apparently they
had been discussing this before. Finally, we find the final day, on
the 8th of March, that is 2 or 3 days before the fraudulent charges
were filed against my staff and me, at that time we find Mr. Symington
calling Mr. Stevens, not Stevens calling Symington, we find Stevens
saying that day in effect there is practically nothing to this. I don't
think there is anything to this.
We find that apparently the urging was by the lawyer for the — the
political adviser of the Democrat Committee. If he were called, and
I have discussed the question of whether he should be called, even if
Mr. Symington does not appear, the point has been raised that he can
take the lawyer-client privilege, he can refuse to answer. Whether
he would or not, I don't know\ But I think the important link there
would be to have both Mr. Symington and Mr. Clifford appear.
Senator McClellan. Senator, I will help you get Mr. Clifford.
Senator McCarthy. How about Senator Symington ?
Senator McClellan. I am trying
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I make a point of order ?
Senator McClellan. Wait a moment. I don't care what he says.
I just w\ant him to know that I will help him get Mr. Clifford. I think
you are entitled to him and I will do my best.
Senator McCarthy. Will you help me get Senator Symington ?
Senator McClellan. I am not going to help one Senator against
another. You know their privileges, you know their rights. And I
am not going to help Senator Symington get you to testify. I am
neutral, so far as your fuss is concerned. May_ I keep it that way?
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, may I rise to a point of per-
sonal privilege ? I won't take but a minute.
Senator McClellan. You will have your time. Let us proceed.
You can take it in your time.
Senator Symington. I withdraw my request, Mr, Chairman.
Senator Mundt. All right. The Chair accepts the withdrawal.
Senator McClellan. I am trying to be neutral between you two
Senators, and I trust that I am, but I do think with the charges being
made here against Mr. Clifford, he should have the chance to answer
it, and I think Senator McCarthy should be able to persuade his
2582 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
colleagues, his Republican colleagues on the committee to reverse their
position and let us get him.
Now let us move from that — since you mentioned that, though, may
I say this to you: When was Mr. Clifford first contacted?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know when he was first contacted.
Senator McClellan. Well, I mean so far as your monitored call.
What is the date of it, just to get our bearings here, if you want to
talk about it?
Senator McCarthy. I believe it was around the 21st. Mr. Syming-
ton could say when the first monitored call was.
Senator McClellan. Was it the 21st of February ? The only thing
I want
Senator McCarthy. Here we are.
Senator McClellan. (Continuing.) Tlie only thing I wanted to
get, if that is the date, the first thing you have in evidence about Mr.
Clifford. I want to ask you if every incident alleged in these charges
and countercharges didn't occur long prior to Mr. Clifford ever being
consulted.
Isn't that a fact?
Senator McCarthy. No, no. It
Senator McClellax. All of this controversy arose before Mr. Clif-
ford's name was ever mentioned or before he was ever consulted or
called by anyone?
Senator McCarthy. No, it was months after. The first call here,
the first monitored call, I don't know when the first contact was, the
first monitored call was — just 1 minute.
Senator McClellan. They tell me my time has expired. You can
look it up and answer it this afternoon.
Senator Mundt. It is 12 : 30. We will stand in recess until 2 p. m.
(Whereupon, at 12: 30 p. m., the committee was recessed, to recon-
vene at 2 p. m.)
INDEX
Page
Adams, John G 254&-2548, 2554-2558, 2563-2567, 2572-2576, 2580
Andover 2562
Appropriations Subcommittee (Senate) 2549
Army (United States) 2546,2547,2552-2554,
2559, 2560, 2562, 2565, 2568, 2569, 2572, 2573, 2576, 2577, 2579, 2580
Army Intelligence (G-2) 2568
Army Signal Corps 2577
Army War College 2568, 2569
Baker East, Baker West 2548
Barslaag, Karl 2548, 2550, 2551
Bender, W. J 2562, 2563
Blattenberger, Mr 2578, 2579
Blount, Lieutenant 2570
Camp Dix 2547, 2549, 2555, 2556, 2558, 2568, 2570
Camp Gordon 2549, 2551,2568
Capitol Police 2545
Carr, Francis P 2549, 2554, 2556-2558, 2561-2564, 2572, 2575, 2577
Carroll Arms Hotel 2555, 2567, 2568
Clifford, Clark 2581, 2582
Cohn, Roy M 2546-2559, 2561-2566, 2570-2572, 2575-2577
Communist conspiracy 2578
Communist infiltration into the Army 2580
Communist-line material 2568
Communist-line smear artists 2561
Communist Party 2559, 2561, 2568, 2571-2573, 2577, 2578, 2580
Communists 2559, 2561, 2568, 2571-2573, 2577, 2578, 2580
Corr, Lieutenant 2559
Counselor to the Army 2546-2548, 2554-2558, 2563-2567, 2572-2576, 2580
Dean of Harvard College 2562, 2563
Democratic Committee 2581
Department of the Army 2546, 2547, 2552-2554,
2559, 2560, 2562, 2565, 2568, 2569, 2572, 2573, 2576, 2577, 2579, 2580
Far East 2568
FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 2561,2577
FBI agent 2561
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2561,2577
Flanders, Senator 2559, 2560
Fort Dix 2547, 2549, 2555, 2556, 2558, 2568, 2570
Fort Monmouth 2547, 2558, 2559, 2572, 2574-2576
G-2 (Army Intelligence) 2568
Government Printing Office 2547, 2577, 2578
Harvard College 2562, 2563
Hipsley, Mr 2578
Hotel Waldorf 2552, 2557, 2567
House Un-American Activities Committee 2561
Howard, General 2550
Kitchen police (KP) 2570
KP (kitchen police) 2570
Lawton, General 2557-2559, 2572-2574, 2576
Loyalty board 2557, 2577
Loyalty board (Truman) 2577
Lucas, Mr 2550, 2552
Markward, Mrs 2561
McCarthy. Senator Joe, testimony of 2546-2582
Mellor, Mr 2577
11 INDEX
Pago
Military lutelligence (G-2) 2r)68
Miller, Lieutenant 2570, 2571
Monitored phone calls 2550, 2553, 2565
Navv (United States) 2562,2563
New York City 2546, 2552, 2555,2556, 2558,2568-2570, 2572, 2574
Pearson, Drew 2561
Pentagon 2547, 2548
Ppross_ — — — — — — — — ^^ i*j
Phillips Academy, Andover 2562
President of the United States 2552, 2577, 2578
Kadar laboratory (Fort Monmouth) 2559
Reber, General 2570
Eichardson, Seth 2578
Ptingler, Colonel 2570, 2571
Ilothschild, Edward 2577, 2:)79
Rvan, General ___-____^_^— __ — 2570, 2.>71
Schine, G. David 2546-25-55, 2557, 2558, 2560-2562, 2564-2570
Schine Hotel — : 2o67
Secretary of the Army_ — 2546-2548,
2551-2556, 2558-2560, 2652-2569, 2572, 2574, 2576, 2580, 2581
Senate Subcommittee on Appropriations. — ■—— 2549
Senate of the United States..— ^- 2559, 2560
Signal Corps (U. S. Army) 2577
Stevens, Robert T 2546-2548,
2551-2556, 2558-2560, 2562-2569, 2572, 2574, 2576, 2580, 2581
Symington, Senator ——,.— — 2580, 2582
T. A. D .-----■ 2566
Truman Loyalty Board 2577
. Truman loyalty program., 2578
'Un-American Activities Committee (House)—. . 2561
United States Army .-.. 2546,2547.2552-2554,
2559, 25(i0, 2562, 2565, 2568, 2569, 2572, 2573, 2576, 2577, 2579, 25S0
United States Army Signal Corps.. _.__-_---_t.-:.-_-i.-_-_ 2577
United States Navy ....:: 2562, 2563
United States President 2552, 2577, 25<8
United States Senate.. ._ 2559, 2560
Voice of America 2549, 2551
Waldorf Hotel 2552, 2557, 2567
Washington, D. C . 2i*69
West Point - — 2.')6^
Zwicker, General ^__^^^_.:^- 2579, 2580
O
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-THIED CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
PUBSUANT TO
S. Res. 189
PART 63
JUNE 11, 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
NOV 2 4 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, Wasliingtou
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
EVERETT Mckinley DIRKSEN, Illinois STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maiylaud THOMAS A. BURKE, Ohio
CHARLES B. POTTER, Michigan SAM J. ERVIN, Jr., North Carolina
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. Pkewiit, Assistant Counsel
Robert A. Collier, Assistant Counsel
SoLis HoRwiTZ, Assistant Counsel
Charles A. Maner, Secretary
U
CONTENTS
Pago
Appendix 2G21
Index I
Testimony of —
McCarthy, Senator Joe, United States Senate 2584
EXHIBITS
Introduced Appears
on page on page
37. Shine plan outline 2618 2621
m
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
FRIDAY, JUNE 11, 1954
United States Senate,
SrECiAL Subcommittee on Investigations
OF THE COMMITI'EE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS,
Washington^ D. G.
AFTER RECESS
(The hearing was resumed at 2:15 p. m., pursuant to recess.)
Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota, chair-
man; Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Sena-
tor Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L. Mc-
Clellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat,
Washington ; and Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
Also present : Ray M. Jenkins, chief counsel ; 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 is happy to acknowledge the presence of an old personal
friend, Gen. Joe Foss, who is well known to many people in the audi-
ence, I am sure, because of his outstanding record in World War II
in having shot down the same number of planes as Eddie Rickenbacker.
We are happy to have him in the committee room and, because of the
rule of no politics, I will not mention the fact that he is Republican
candidate for Governor of the State of South Dakota.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that I served in the
Pacific where Joe Foss was giving us fighter cover, and all through
the Pacific we considered Joe Foss the greatest Marine fighter pilot
that the Marine Corps or any unit ever produced. [Applause.]
Senator Mundt. We will now come to order seriously, and the Chair
will welcome the guests of the committee who have come to the com-
mittee room on this Friday afternoon, and again remind our friends
in the audience of the outstanding and prevailing rule of the com-
mittee which forbids any demonstrations of approval or disapproval
on the part of the audience concerning any of the matters seriously
2583
2584 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
being considered by the committee. The uniformed members of the
Capitol Police force and the plainclothesmen in the audience have
the painful duty, under orders of the committee, to escort from the
room immediately, politely but firmly, any of our guests who violate
the committee rule.
If Mr. Harold Beckley will come forward now, and also the radio
representative of the press gallery, we have the copies of the executive
hearing of yesterday available for the press. They are here in, I am
sure, sufficient numbers so that each of you may have a copy.
The Chair would like to say that they come to you a little later
than usual for only one reason, and that is, as you know, the Chair
has operated under the rule when Ave release executive testimony,
simply to have it transcribed and released. Senator Dirksen called
attention to an omission of a syllable in one word that he uttered the
other day which changed the meaning considerably by making it
read "praise" instead of "appraise,"' and while it may not be consoling
to Senator McCarthy, he says that he did not say that he was going
praise Senator McCarthy's work, but was going to appraise it when it
came to testimony.
The committee members felt, and the Chair thought rightfully,
that before releasing it they should have a right to correct any
omissions or deletions.
I don't want this to be a criticism of our re]:)ortorial service. I
think Mr. Alderson's group have done a splendid job. But we meet
down there around a big table. There are no micro))hones. We meet
rather informally, with several Senators sometimes talking at the
same time, and it is a little difficult to get it exactly correct.
I Avould like to say that the meeting yesterday was a very harmon-
ious meeting. There was no ill temper, there were no harsh phrases,
and the transcript that 3'ou have is a faithful transcript of what took
place down there.
Senator McClellan had just concluded, I believe, his 10 minutes
with Senator McCarthy, so I will call next on Senator Potter, who
has 10 minutes at this time, going around the 10-minute go-around.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, A UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN— Resumed
Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, I think that when we concluded
the morning session, Senator McClellan made a statement concerning
the Republican members of this committee refusing to ask or subpena
Clark Clifford to appear as a witness. That is true. We voted in
executive session yesterday not to subpena Mr. Clifford as a witness.
It hasn't been our practice to subpena a witness who hasn't been re-
quested by the ]:)rincipals involved. At the meeting of yesterday,
neither Senator McCarthy nor his staff' requested Mr. Clifford, nor
did Mr. Welch and his cohorts request Mr. Clifford. If we made
a practice of having for a witness every name mentioned in this hear-
ing, it would go on for weeks and weeks and months and months.
Mr. Clifford is not known as being a man who is not articulate. He
has never requested to appear before the committee and testify. I
assume if he made a request to be heard, that it would be honored.
But that has noi: been the case. Mr. Clifford in this case acted as
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2585
counsel for, apparently, Mr. Stevens and Senator Symington, accord-
ino- to my information, as a result of the telephone conversation that
was put into the record.
It is an unusual practice to have a lavi-yer testify as to what took
place when the principals that he was to advise haven't themselves
given their position concerning the advice that the counsel was to give.
So until Mr. Clifford asks to be heard, I feel that we have no right to
<ro in and subpena him just because his name has been mentioned.
Also at the meeting, there was mention made of calling General Law-
ton. If General Lawton were called, certainly that would bring out
other witnesses who would also have to be called. The same thing
Avould be true with Private Schine.
I think it well to consider in understanding the emotions of the
Republican members of the committee, that we had decided long ago,
and the President stated in his statement to the press, that all princi-
pals should be heard. All principals will be heard. When we go
beyond that, we will be continuing the hearings for many weeks. Let
no one tell you otherwise.
So that was the position of the Republican members of the commit-
tee. I am confident that by the time Senator McCarthy and Mr.
Cohn and Mr. Carr have concluded their testimony, we will have all
the facts pertinent to this controversy that we ever will have. I think
that is also the view of the counsel. Mr. Welch, who represents Mr.
Stevens and Mr. Adams of the Army, and the Senator and Roy
Cohn representing their side of the controversy, stated that they
were willing to conclude their calling the principals involved. They
both stated that if we start calling collateral witnesses, that this will
drag on for many, many days and weeks. That is the position of
this Senator and I am sure of the other Republican members of this
committee. We have no desire to leave out any facts in the case. But,
ladies and gentlemen, we have an obligation to our constituents, we
have an obligation to our responsibilities as United States Senators,
to conclude this as soon as possible. We heard the President of the
United States last night make a wonderful address, appealing to the
Congress and to the country for his legislative program.
I say to you it is most difficult for these 8 Senators who are tied
up on this hearing, to carry out our responsibilities to the President,
and enact his legislative program, when we are tied up 8 hours a day
in this hearing.
We guaranteed that we would bring out the facts. This we are
doing. We didn't guarantee that this was going to run until Novem-
ber 4.
I think we Republican members of this committee performed a
great service by voting to conclude the hearings after the principals
that I mentioned have been called.
Apparently many people have misconstrued the position of the
members of this committee. Unfortunately, I am afraid they would
like to see blood drawn, and they think that every member of this
committee should be out to draw blood on Senator McCarthy or
Secretary Stevens or on some one.
Actually, members of this committee sit in a semijudicial capacity.
It is our position to ascertain the facts. It is most difficult to ascer-
tain the true facts if you are carrying the torch for any one side in this
controversy. It is our job to get the facts with as little heat as pos-
2586 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
sible. Unfortunately in the course of these hearings we have had
some unfortunate situations where personality clashes have developed.
I say that is most unfortunate. This committee acts as a jury and
should not be acting either in a partisan manner or to enter into the
various personality conflicts. Therefore, I sincerely appeal to the
individual members of the committee and to the principals involved,
and to the counsel involved, to recognize that heat doesn't necessarily
produce light, and we can ascertain the facts much better in a cool,
calm, collected manner, and carry on with dignity and fair play.
By doing that, I am sure that the people who are watching will
be able to form in their own minds their opinion as to what this
controversy is all about. And I think possibly it might be well at
this time to restate just what is the controversy here. It has been
charged on one hand by Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams that Senator
McCarthy, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr used the investigating arm of
Congress in an effort to secure, or attempt to secure preferential
treatment for David Schine.
The counterstatement by Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn and
Mr. Carr is to the effect that Mr. Stevens and Mr. Adams were in
effect blackmailing or attempting to blackmail the committee in an
effort to get them to call off its investigation.
Those are serious charges, and I wish now to direct a question to
Senator McCarthy, having concluded my speech. I would like to
direct this question
Senator McCarthy. I don't object to speeches.
Senator Potter. Do you agree with me — this is a question I have
asked Mr. Cohn, I have asked Secretary Stevens, and Mr. Adams — do
you agree with me that the charges made by the Army against your-
self, Mr. Cohn, and Mr. Carr are serious charges?
Senator McCarthy. Are of the most serious nature.
Senator Pgtteb. Whether the charges are true or false, they are
still serious.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Senator Potter. Secretary — Senator McCarthy, I wish to ask this
question
Senator McCarthy. I hope that was a slip of the tongue.
Senator Potter. I wish to ask you this question, which was also
asked of the other principals who have appeared before the committee.
Do you state that the charges made against you and Mr. Cohn and
Mr. Carr — and I am going to ask you these individually — that the
Army charges or ]\Ir. Stevens and i\Ir. Adams' charges against you
that you used the investigating arm of the Senate in an effort to
gain preferential treatment for Private Schine, are true or false?
Senator McCarthy. False.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Jackson, you have 10 minutes.
Senator Jackson. Senator McCarthy, as I understand from your
letter of December 22, the first two sentences of which I will quote
Senator McCarthy. Will you wait a minute until I get that letter?
Senator Jackson. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. I have it now.
Senator Jackson. The first paragraph. You state:
I have heard rumors to the effect that some of the members of my staff
have intervened with your Deiiartment in behalf of a former staff consultant,
David Schine. This tliey, of course, have a right to do as individuals.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2587
As I understand it, your position is that anything they wanted to
do as individuals was fine, but they had no right to represent the
committee in this matter or to represent yourself as Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir. Putting it this way, I feel they do
not lose any of their rights as citizens when they become a member
of the staif of my committee.
Senator Jackson. 1 think we can agree that it is perfectly proper
for a Senator or Congressman to ask the Department of the Army,
the Navy, or the Air Force, to consider the application of any qualified
individual for a commission. I think certainly a Senator or Congress-
man should not have any right less than a citizen. I think we can
agree on that.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Senator Jackson. I also
Senator McCarthy. Will you make that "less than any other
citizen"?
Senator Jackson. Less than any other citizen.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
Senator Jackson. We won't strike that from the record. We will
just correct the record at that point.
As I understand it, you stated yesterday on page 6219 of the
record
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute. I wonder if I could have that.
Senator Jackson. I can give it to you very briefly, in substance,
and if you want to refer to it, fine.
That Schine came in only as an unpaid consultant, and tliat he paid his own
expenses.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Jackson. I believe you also stated today at page G2
Senator McCarthy. May I say, IMr. Jackson, that as far as I know,
we paid no expenses for Mr. Schine. It is possible that we may have
paid some secretarial help or phone calls, but I don't know of any.
Senator Jackson. Then today, I believe you confirmed that on page
6201 of the record, this morning. You state
Senator McCarthy. Will you wait until I get the record?
Senator Jackson. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. Do we have that ?
Senator Jackson. You state down along the middle of the page,
referring to Schine :
He was very patient doing fliat, worked all day long doing it, paid his own
long distance phone calls when he called witnesses.
I have just seen the telephone record of the committee for the period
running from July 10 to July 20. I notice that there are 13 calls made
between Mr. Schine and Mr." Cohn to (Teneral Keber or to an assistant
in his office, and all but two of these calls were charged to the
committee.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jackson, just so the record will be straight,
you will find any number of times, for example, that I may take a
plane trip or someone else on the staff may, and the committee gets
a ticket. At the end of the month, Ruth Young straightens it out
and bills people for the calls.
Whether or not Dave Schine paid for these calls, I don't know.
46020° -54— i)t. 03 2
2588 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Jackson. Let me point out to you this. Of course, these
calls were in connection
Senator McCarthy. We would have to ask Ruth Young whether
or not at the end of the month he was billed for those calls.
Senator Jackson. I think it is very important, because it is not a
question of the calls themselves, but whether he was calling and Mr.
C'ohn was calling in a representative or committee capacity. Why
would he call from New York, where I assume he has pretty good
credit, at his home— why would he call from New York to the Penta-
"•on and then charge the call to the committee on the Hill ?
^ Senator McCarthy. All of the committee staff, as far as I know,
have telephone credit cards, isn't that right, Roy, and they can use
those. As far as I know, let me tell you that I— this is a detail that
Ruth over here would have to testify on. As far as I know, Dave
paid for all the calls he made. It is possible that
Senator Jackson. Why should he— I assume he is calling from his
own home. One number in here is IMurray Hill 8-0117. Is that Mr.
Schine's home telephone number ?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't know. I can find out in a minute.
Senator Jackson. What I am trying to get at, I can see if he is out
some place away from his home town, but why would he call from his
home area, call the Pentagon, and charge the telephone call to the
committee if he was acting in an individual capacity ?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't have any idea. _
Senator Jackson. This is in connection with his own application,
which we all a<>ree he had a perfect right to do. There is no dispute
about that. I^think it is quite significant that he would charge these
phone calls, and Mr. Cohn did the same. All but 2 out of the 13 were
charged to the committee, in calling from New York where they had
thei^own telephone accounts and their own residences.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jackson, if we want to start figuring up
the account between Dave and the committee we would have a tre-
mendous bill to pay. I hope Ave don't have to do that.
Senator Jackson. No, Senator McCarthy, I am not quibbling over
the telephone calls. •, . r^ , » j? t
Senator McCarthy. Let me tell you this. Senator : As tar as 1
know, he paid all of his expenses. It is entirely possible that some
expenses were paid by the committee. I know this, that as you knoAv,
a]iy committee member, including yourself, is entitled I believe it is
a total of $9 a day when you are out of town. I am sure that Dave
never put in a bill of that kind. I think all the Senators— at least I
l^ope so— put in their bill. That doesn't come anywhere near cover-
in o- it, as you know, Senator Jackson. Let's say you come over to
Boston for an investigation. All you are allowed is $9. That doesn t
anywhere near cover your expenses of your hotel room, your taxi fare,
^^Senat"or Jackson. I don't think there is any dispute about that.
The point I am getting at, Senator McCarthy, is not so much the dol-
lars and cents question. The question is that when the calls are
charo-cd to the committee, isn't he in effect, isn't that evidence, for-
getting the dollars and cents. I haven't mentioned how much the
falls are. That is not the point with me.
The point, it seems to me, is that when he charged these calls to
tlie committee, when both Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine called the com-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2589
inittee, isn't that clear evidence that we were acting in a committee
capacity, or otherwise why would they charge the calls to the com-
mittee when they are calling from their home base in New York, to
Washington, D. C. ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator Jackson, I dislike going over this over
and over, but Secretary Stevens, John Adams, everyone here knew that
as far as the committee was concerned no one had any right to speak
for the committee insofar as Dave's commission was concerned, and
I think I made it clear, I think he was perfectly within his own rights
in trying to get a commission.
Senator Jackson. I am not disputing that part. I am just pointing
out that as far as these individuals are concerned, Mr. Cohn and
Mr.
Senator Mundt. Pardon me a minute, Senator Jackson. Kuth has
announced for the benefit of soriie of the Congressmen who are our
guests today, that the Sergeant at Arms has just sent over the in-
formation that they are having a rollcall in the House. As an old
House Member, I thought I should give you that information and let
you take care of it.
Senator McCarthy. Incidentally, Kuth, I know you can't do it
today, but can you check and see whether or not Dave at the end of
the month paid those calls or not ^ I don't think it is of any great
importance, but it is just for Senator Jackson's benefit.
Senator Jackson. I think the record speaks for itself. I don't see
any point of pursuing it further at this time.
Senator McCarthy. The record may not speak for itself. Take,
for example, if Senator Jackson takes a trip and asks the committee
to arrange for it. If it is not on connnittee business, you would be
billed for that trip the minute you came back.
Senator Jackson. Yes, but I have never made such arrangements.
The point I am making, Senator McCarthy, is this situation here is
so dilferent. Here is a case of Mr. Schine and Mr. Cohn, who have
their own home telephones and office nmnbers in New York. Why
would they charge it to the connnittee in Washington, D. C, when
calling AVashington. I think we have gone into that.
Senator McCarthy. Why they used that credit card, I don't know.
Senator Jackson. It wasn't a case of using a credit card.
Senator McCarthy. It would have to be, to charge it to the
committee.
Senator Jackson. Well, I think we don't want to call in experts
from the telephone company, but if you have a telephone account in
your home area, and you are calling from another area, you can call
another telephone number in that same city and charge it to that
account. I don't think there is any question about it.
Senator McCarthy. May I say. Senator, if Dave did charge calls
to the office, as far as I am concerned, that is perfectly all right, be-
cause he worked completely free, worked long hours, did a tremendous
job for the committee, and if he charged 1 or 2 calls to the committee
and did not pay for them, I know that it is of no importance at all.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine both charged these to
the committee which I think would be evidence that they were acting
in a committee capacity in calling General Reber.
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't argue the point with you.
2590 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION"
Senator Jackson. I think you have testified, Senator, that Mr.
Schine had spent considerable time — and if I am wrong in this, you
correct me — dealing with problems of psychological warfare.
Senator INIcCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Jacksox. What has been his experience in this field? Edu-
cation and background and experience.
Senator McCarthy. Well, I discussed it with him. He told me
that he made a study of that for years.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired. You may con-
clude your answer.
Senator McCarthy. It has been more or less his hobby, this ques-
tion of how we can win the war against communism without using
blood ; how we might be able to win it by means of information and
therefore save lives.
Senator Jackson. But he Avas never employed in any such capacity
or business?
Senator McCarthy. No. I understand, he told me, he submitted a
plan to, I believe, the information bureau or someone, a plan that he
had drafted himself. He submitted a ])lan to the State Department.
Roy says we have a copy of that here in case you would like to see it.
Senator Jackson. Could we have a copy of it?
Senator Mundt. Senator, your time has expired.
Senator McCarthy. May 1 say, I have not read the plan in detail
myself; not recently.
Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen and Senator Dworshak are neces-
sarily absent this afternoon, so. Senator Symington, you have the next
10 minutes.
Senator Symington. Senator INfcCarthy, you testified, did you not,
that you first met G. David Schine about the time he came with the
committee; is that correct?
Senator McCarthy. It was about that time.
Senator Syihington. And you said Mr. Roy Colm introduced you to
him; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is correct.
Senator Symington. And that he was employed by the subcom-
mittee as an unpaid consultant, around Febrnary 1, 1953; is that
right?
Senator McCarthy. It was around that date.
Senator Symington. Who besides Roy Cohn recommended he be
employed by the subcommittee ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator Symington, I employed him upon the
recommendation of Mr. Cohn. I called various friends of mine
whose names I would rather not mention today, and asked them what
they thought about him. But before he was employed, or at the time
he was employed, I asked the FBI for the usual FBI name check on
him.
Senator Symington. Did you examine his qualifications before you
employed him on the subcommittee staff?
Senator McCarthy. I discussed his backgrf)und with him. By ex-
amining his qualifications, I am not sure by that what you mean. I
knew he was a graduate of Harvard; that he was president of a large
hotel corporation. I knew that he had been interested in the infor-
mation pi'ogrnm, and, frankly, that is what interested me mostly be-
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2591
cause we had been receivino; so many complaints from Senators, Con-
gressmen, about what they considered waste, incompetence. Com-
munist infiltration, in this information program.
As I recall, I think the day that I first saw him, he had an article
which was entitled "Is This the Voice of America or Is It the Voice
of Moscow ?" He convinced me that he had a good background know-
ledge— in fact, better than any man I have met — of the information
program.
Senator SrMiNGTON. Did he tell you that he had had any experience
as an investigator before he came with the committee ?
Senator McCarthy. He had no experience as an investigator.
Senator Symington. I am correct, am I not, that you said he had
not served in the FBI. Right ?
Senator McCarthy, He had not.
Senator Symington. Had he ever worked for any local police force
or in any way as an investigator besides
Senator McCarthy. 1 don't think so.
Senator Symington. Is he a lawyer?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Senator Symington. I think you have already answered the next
question. He graduated from Harvard University around 1949 or
1950; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. I can check on the date. Is that the correct
date?
I wouldn't know the date he graduated.
Senator Symington. I understand he published a pamphlet en-
titled "Definition of Communism," distributed by the Schine hotels.
Is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
I think — just a moment. Let me check on this. I just checked
with my chief counsel. He tells me that was distributed by Naval
Intelligence, also.
Senator Symington. Is this the little six-page pamphlet, this
printed document I have here?
Senator McCarthy. This is. Senator. I can anticipate your next
question. You are going to point out three errors the New York
Post claims they find in this.
Senator Symington. Would you let me proceed, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. I will.
Senator Symington. May I say that you may be a good prophet
sometimes, but you weren't that time.
Senator McCarthy. Is that right?
Senator Symington. Do you know whether he had any help in
preparing that pamphlet?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't know.
Senator Symington. Well, inasmuch as apparently we are not
going to call him, would you find out for the record who, if anybody,
helped him prepare this six-page pamphlet ?
Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to.
Senator Symington. Do you know whether before he came to the
subcommittee he published anything else on the subject of commu-
nism?
Senator McCartuy. Nothing that I know of.
2592 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Symingtox. Would you also find out for the committee
liow many, if any, books or pamphlets or articles he published on
communism or any other subject?
Senator ]\IcCarthy. I will, but I think I can answer that now,
Senator. I don't think he published any books on communism other
than what you have before you. However, I do know that he drafted
a plan for psychological warfare and submitted that to the State
Department. I am not either endorsing that or otherwise. He was
spending a great deal of time before he came with the committee,
before he had any thought of coming Avith the committee, studying
the question of the use of information to win a war rather than to
win it with blood and bullets.
Senator Symington. Senator McCarthy, do you have applicants
coming to you for jobs with the subcommittee as investigators?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Symixgtox. Do you ask the FBI to recommend investiga-
tors for the subconnnittee ?
Senator McCAin-iiY. I don't think I have ever asked the FBI to
recommend anyone. We ask for a name check, however, on anyone
that we decide "might be qualified to work with the subconnnittee.
Senator Symixgton. What of Mr. Schine's experience and qualifi-
cations made you choose him as an investigator in preference to other
applicants ?
Senator McCarthy. Two things: No. 1, that our funds were very
limited, and he was willing to work for nothing. No. 2, I felt that
he knew more about the information program than any other young
man I have met.
Senator Symington. You didn't employ him just because he was
willing to work for nothing, did you ?
Senator INIcCarthy. I gave you the two reasons.
Senator Symington. If he "demanded the same salary that other
investigators received, would you still have employed him?
Senator McCarthy. I think I would.
Senator Symington. Now could I ask again, Senator, when did
Mr. Cohn tell you that Mr. Schine was eligible for the draft?
Senator McCarthy. I couldn't give you the date. I believe some-
time in Julv, I think the question came up. It might have been June.
Senator "Symington. You testified, did you not, about the efforts
made by Mr. Schine to get a direct commission with the assistance
of Mr. Cohn ?
Senator McCarthy. I have testified about Mr. Schine's application
for a commission ; yes.
Senator Symington. When did Mr. Schine tell you that he had
been unable to obtain a direct commission ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I frankly don't know.
Senator Symington. If you could try to find out and put it in the
record at your convenience, or if you just can't remember
Senator McCarthy. I couldn't. It wouldn't be of sufficient im-
portance that it would linger in my mind.
Senator Symington. When the question of the New York assign-
ment came up, who first brought it up with you ?
Senator McCarthy. You say the New York assignment?
Senator Symington. Of Private Schine.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2593
Senator McCarthy. I am not sure if I know what you mean by
"the New York assignment."
Senator Symington. The idea that he Avould go to New York for
the first part of his induction.
Senator McCarthy. Do you mean the temporary duty witli the
committee ?
Senator Syiviington. That is right.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn either called me or talked to me in
the office and suggested that he and Bob Stevens had discussed whether
or not it would be advisable to have Dave spend a couple of weeks
cleaning up his work. Originally I made no objection.
A couple of days later, after thinking it over, I decided that Avas
unwise, and told Mr, Cohn to tell Mr, Schine.
Senator Symington. Did Mr. Cohn thereupon suggest to you that
it would be a good idea if Mr. Schine could be assigned to the New
York area ?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Senator Symington. Senator McCarthy, you testified, didn't you,
that on September IG you told Mr. Stevens he should give no
preferential treatment to Private Schine?
Senator McCarthy. Was that the 16th or the 13th?
Senator Symington. If I have made a mistake
Senator McCarthy. You are referring to the luncheon — rather,
the breakfast in the Schine apartment?
Senator Symington. Yes. If I made a mistake, I stand corrected.
Senator McCarthy. Eoy says that was the 16th. I thought it was
the 13th.
Senator Sy3iington. That was your testimony, wasn't it?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Symington. Did Roy Cohn tell you that he had been dis-
cussing the military career of Private Schine with the Secretary of
the Army at that time ?
Senator McCarthy, I knew he had discussed it with Mr, Adams.
I didn't knoAv whether he had discussed it with Mr. Stevens or not.
Wait a minute. Let me stand corrected. On the 16th of Sep-
tember— I am not sure he had discussed it with John Adams then or
not. I frankly don't know.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator McCarthy, May I say, to com])lete that answer, that
matter was not of sufficient importance that the date, the 9th, 10th, or
11th of a certain month has much meaning to me.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator McClellan has to leave and wants to make a short statement.
Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I only want to auLOunce that
I have to leave at this time in order to catch a ])lane.
Senator Mundt. Very good. We will see you Monday morning at
Mr. Cohn, you have 10 minutes, if there are questions you care to
ask your client.
Mr. Cohn. I pass, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt, You pass.
Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair?
Mr. Welch. Mr, Chairman, I would like to address my first remarks
to you, if I may.
2594 SPECIAL IlS^'ESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. Could 1 first finish an answer to Senator
Symington 'i
Senator Symington". Mr. Chairman, I am entirely agreeable to that.
Senator ]\Iundt. Surely.
Senator McCarthy. We were talking about the 16th of September.
I don't believe that John Adams at that time was with the military,
so therefore there could have been no discussion with Mr. Adams.
I am not sure. 1 think Adams came with the military later.
Pardon me, Mr. Welch.
Senator Mundt. Very well, ]\Ir. Welch. You have the attention
of the Chair.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, I was going to say a word to you, if
I could, along the line that I discussecl with you privately before we
started the hearing.
It is always a little dangerous for me to say on Fridays that I am
anxious to get to Boston because that creates a certain amount of inter-
est at that end of the line. There is a gentleman whose interest I
would like to create, if possible. I wish I could think of some way
of getting word to my dentist — no Communist, by the way — that a
part of one of my teeth fell off in an automobile today, one of my
aging rear ones, and that makes me somewhat anxious to get to
Boston, too.
Senator Mundt. I will try, Mr. Welch, to recess the hearings a
little early today because three of our colleagues have to be absent
ncessarily, and we don't want you to suffer from a toothache.
Mr. Welch. I might say it doesn't ache. I would like to add that
I have said to you that I thought by Monday I should have a sort of
an outline for what I think will be quite a short, and I hope an orderly
and economical, cross-examination of this witness. In view of what
I have said about this afternoon, it could even be that I will take less
than all of my time, if the witness comes back to me again and again
it might be the case with so small a committee, but without of course
waiving the right to ask some things later.
I have 1 or 2 questions that I can ask, Senator, that are pretty
much formal.
In the first place, you haven't had the chance, nobody has asked
you this question, and I would like to ask you now as of this moment
is there anything in your testimony that you would like to change ?
Senator McCarthy. Nothing that I can think of offhand.
Mr. Welch. I think if you reviewed yesterday's testimony last
night — —
Senator McCarthy. No.
Mr. Welch. Or had Mr. Colin reviewed it ?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know.
Mr. Welch. In any event, your confidence in it is such that you
are quite clear you wish to make no change in it?
Senator McCarthy. I have no changes at this time that I desire to
make.
Mr. Welch. There is a phrase that has drifted in and out of the
room that is not important, but you constantly speak of making a
name check on someone. Would you be good enough to tell me what
that means? You roll it oft' as if you fully understood it and every-
body else should, and I just don't.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2595
Senator McCarthy. Yes. When we hire anyone on the committee,
Mr. Welch — let's put it this way : The committee has passed a resolu-
tion asking for a full field investigation of all of the committee em-
ployees. The FBI has taken it up with the Attorney General, who
of course is the boss of the FBI, and up to this time I don't believe
they have decided whether or not they are in a position to conduct
a full field investigation of all investigators. However, they are
willing to do what is known as a name check. They check through the
file to see whether or not there is any derogatory information in the
file at that time. That is what is known as a name check.
Also we occasionally make a name check with the House Un^
American Activities Committee. They have an excellent file. They
have been completely cooperative. So if we want to make a name
check, if it is a situation in which we cannot get it from the FBI, we
refer it to the House Un-American Activities Committee and ask
them to give us all the information which they have about that par-
ticular individual in their file.
Mr. Welch. Well, the thing came to my attention
Senator McCarthy. May I make it clear that we don't get name
checks from the FBI on individuals under investigation. We get
the name checks from the FBI only on people whom we have proposed
to hire as investigators or staff workers. So when I refer to a name
check on an investigation, I refer to a name check through our own
files, through the Un-American Activities Committee's file. I think
that pretty much covers it.
Mr. Welch. I am not sure that you have enlightened me too much
because of what you added at the end. I will get there, I think, in a
moment. I take it when you hire an investigator, you do want the
most thorough investigation of him made before you take him on, do
you not?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Welch. I am not suggesting by the remotest means that there
could be anybody wrong or a rotten apple on your corps or on your
staff. And please believe me, sir, when I say that that would be a
devastating thing to have it, wouldn't it?
Senator McCarthy. Devastating to have what ?
Mr. Welch. A subversive on your own staff.
Senator McCarthy. It would be extremely bad.
Mr. Welch. The consequence is, I take it, that you exercise extreme
care in those checks?
Senator McCarthy. I do.
Mr, Welch, And that extreme care is not accomplished by what you
call a name check, is it, the ordinary name check ?
Senator McCarthy, I get the background of the individual as
fully as I can, find out who he is, what he has been doing. Then we
ask the FBI to give us a name check. We have been asking the
Bureau, the FBI, for a full field investigation, in accordance with the
resolution passed— I think Senator Mundt made the motion that we
should have a full field investigation, and we all agreed, maybe it was
Senator Jackson — we all agreed that it would be wise.
However, up to this time, they haven't, the Attorney General has
not, yet notified us as to whether or not they can give us a full field
investigation. I hope I am not using a term that people don't under-
46620°— 54— pt. 03 3
2596 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
stand. By a full field investigation I mean an investigation wherein
they assign investigators to go out, go through a man's background, his
previous life, interview his neighbors, his business associates and then
issue a report on that. Where a name check merely means that they
go through the files to see whether or not they have in their files, as of
that moment, anything of a derogatory nature.
Mr. Welch. Well, let's take a sample where I think you have testi-
fied there was a name check. Let's take Colonel Kingler. Do you
recall ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Welch. Now, just what was the name check ? What constitutes
the name check that was done on him ?
Senator McCarthy. We checked our files. We check with the
House
Mr. Welch. Wait a moment. Let's stop there. You checked your
files?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Mr. Welch. That means, I take it, that you have large alpha-
betically arranged lists of names of people, is that right?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know how large it is. I very seldom
get down in the file room. In fact, I don't think I have been in the
file room. We have files.
ISIr. Welch. In any event, that is where you start?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Mr. Welch. And you take what I suppose to be an alphabetical
list of names, and take Ringler, and you iind his name or don't find
it, and if you find it, that takes you to a file, and you see what is in it,
is that right ? That is the first thing ?
Senator McCarthy. I believe that is the way. I am not a file clerk.
Mr. Welch. Senator, I am not suggesting that you ought to know
what the filing system ought to be. But your first step is to call your
own office, the office of this committee, ask them to look in their
alphabetical list and see if you have anything?
Senator McCarthy. No; that isn't the first thing. I would tell
either Roy Cohn or Frank Carr to make a name check on Mr. X or
Mr. Y and they would do the job.
Mr. Welch. Do you know what they would do then?
Senator McCarthy. I would asume they would check our files and
see if there is any information.
Mr. Welch. Then the Jenner committee ?
Senator McCarthy. Then call the House un-American Activities
Committee.
Mr, Welch. Is that what I would call the Jenner committee ?
Senator McCarthy. No; that is the Velde committee. And they
may call the Jenner committee also. I may say in fairness to Colonel
Ringler, the name check was completely negative. There was nothing
of a derogatory nature found in any files on Mr. Ringler.
Mr. Welch. But from some source you turned up something about
him that you thought you didn't like, is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. It was reported to me that he had been con-
demning the exposure of Communists as witch hunts. I can't certify
to the truth of that. That came second or third hand. Because of
that, I said, "Run a name check on him and see if there is anything
we know about this man,"
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2597
Mr, Welch. Then if I went clown to your files now and looked on
the card that said "E" for Ringler, and his initials, I would now find
that there, is that right?
Senator McCarthy. No; the files were completely negative insofar
as Ringler is concerned.
Mr. Welch. But now you know, now it would be in your files,
would it not?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't know.
Mr. Welch. That is an item of information about him of some
interest, is it not?
Senator McCarthy. I can't tell you what is in the files. I don't
profess to check with the file clerks. I have, as you know, three com-
mittees of which I am chairman. This is one. I leave it up to my
chief counsel, my chief of staff, to handle the work. They bring me
the end product.
Senator Mundt, Mr. Welch, your time has expired.
Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. I think that the curiosi.ty that Mr. Welch has about
the phrase "name check" is a very understandable one, and I would
like to interrogate the witness a little bit on that, just to help bring
out the information for the benefit of Mr. Welch and for the benefit
of the country.
No. 1, would the witness agree with the chairman that a name check
is just a preliminary and a rather cursory type of investigation, it is
not conclusive either way ? You can find names in a name check which
indicates derogatory information which is later disproved as a con-
sequence of a field examination.
Senator McCarthy. That
Senator Mundt. And you can also find cases of very serious espion-
age cases which would not show up necessarily in a name check.
Senator McCarthy. The Chair is 100 percent right.
Senator Mundt. The names, Mr. Welch, that would normally ap-
pear in a name check are those who have operated in some capacity
or another above ground, and a large segment, and the most important
segment, of subversive activities in this country, of course, is below
ground. If it is a below-ground activity it is not likely, certainly,
to come up in the name check of one of our investigating committees.
It might or might not come up in a name check of FBI files, because
they have files assembled in part from the information they get from
the House committee on Un-American Activities. And, Mr. Welch,
you may be interested in learning that during the many years that
I was a member of the House Committee on Un-American Activities
the FBI constantly kept not less than 1 and frequently 2 agents sta-
tioned in the 5 rooms in which we kept our files, going through them
■just to get the names out of them which they might add into their
files, in case we had discovered something which they overlooked.
Because a name is in the file does not necessarily prove him to be a
bad American. It is an indication that it deserves a little further
exploration and examination.
Mr. Welch. Senator, would you give me just a moment to ask the
Senator to instruct his staff to get Colonel Ringler's card for me now
so I can have it when I examine him next ?
Senator Mundt. I will be glad to ask him if he can find the card.
My independent guess would be, and I have never been in our file
2598 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
room — I think I was in the Un-American activities file room 2 or 3
times in all the years I served there — my guess would be if our files
are run like the files of the Un-American Activities Committee, if
there is no derogatory information, there is probably no card and no
file.
Mr. Welch. There appears to be some about Colonel Ringler, so we
should find his name.
Senator JNIundt. Well, I will ask Senator McCarthy to have some-
body look through the files and see if they do have his card and see if
they do have a file. I am sure if they do have, it can be made available
to us.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say I would be very
surprised to find that a file had been opened on Mr. Ringler when it
was found that the name check was negative. I will check, but as I say,
I would be very surprised to find any file open on a man where there
was no derogatory information.
Senator Mundt. In that connection, Mr. Welch, the Chair one day
when he was on the House Committee on Un-American Activities
suggested to our committee that we establish a sort of "Good House-
keeping" name check of people about whom questions had been raised
and on whom we were unable to find any substantiating evidence. In
the main, we abandoned the idea, because it might convey sometime
an indication of innocence which was not justified, because no field
investigation had been held.
In a few cases, I do know in the House files they have put in the
files letters from Senators and Congressmen and from investigative
agencies indicating that there are some good qualities and good fea-
tures about an individual to offset some of the derogatory information.
1 have in mind a prominent citizen of New York, for whom I did that
very thing about 2 years ago, due to the fact that a member of his
family with a similar name had frequently found his way correctly
into the address files, and we put in a letter saying that does not indi-
cate that there is anything adverse concerning this individual.
By and large, there is no such thing that I know of any place in
Washington as a sort of "Good Housekeeping" label where you list
the good Americans or the Americans against whom charges are not
made.
If the Senator can find in the file anything on Mr. Rnigler of a
derogatory nature or a commendatory nature, I hope he will produce it.
Senator McCarthy. May I say, I am reasonably certain that they
would not open up a file having found nothing of a derogatory nature.
Senator Mundt. But you will have somebody who is conversant
with the file room make a check so we will know?
Senator McCarthy. I certainly will.
Senator Mundt. Senator McCarthy stated that Senator Jackson
or I have moved one time to have a field check made of all potential
employees. I think that is correct. I know I made that motion back
in the days when Senator Hoey was chairman of the committee and
I was a minority member. The motion prevailed then, and I believe
I recall Senator Jackson making it after he came on the committee
some years later. The motion carried both times.
One of the things that I hope may come from a hearing of this knid
is a little better relationship of a practical natui'e, a relationship
which is splendid as far as cordiality is concerned, between the FBI
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2599
and our committee, but if we could develop a working arrangement —
which seems impossible at the present time — whereby the FBI had
the authority to make a complete field check of all of our staff members,
I certainly would favor it.
About a year ago I wrote Mr. J. Edgar Hoover and told him that
since I realize anybody in the Communist-chasing business was always
suspect, I would appreciate it if he would make a field check of the
10 young people working in my office, and I received back a very
polite letter saying that under the authority of the FBI, they had
no authority to make that kind of check for an individual Senator
or for a committee. I do think we might give some attention to a
change in the legislative picture so that the FBI would have the
authority. I am sure they would be very happy to cooperate in that
connection.
Senator McCarthy. I wonder if the Chair would make it very
clear for the benefit of our listening public that it is not the P"BI that
refuses this field investigation ; that that is entirely up to the At-
torney General. Mr. Hoover would, of course, conduct such an
investigation
Senator Mundt. That is correct. That is not the fault of the FBI,
and I don't think it is the fault of the Attorney General. The basic
act under which the FBI is created assumes primarily that it is an
executive agency, and one of the difficulties of this coordination
between executive and legislative and judiciary is that there is some
question which can legitimately be raised about the desirability or
the propriety of an executive agency making a check of the staff of
legislative Members of the Congress. It isn't an easy answer, but
certainly there is no fault with anybody because the fact that the
Attorney General has refused or that the FBI has refused it.
We have not developed a workable pattern which has proved ac-
ceptable to the present time.
Senator McCarthy. May I say to the Chair that I do think it
would be extremely important if we could make an arrangement
that our investigative agencies could have a full field investigation of
all employees ? It would be of great benefit.
I think some of the agencies would feel much freer about giving
us information then than they do perhaps now.
Senator Mundt. The Chair would like to add that when he had
the responsibility of conducting this hearing or investigation, or call
it what you w^ill, he called the FBI and asked Mr. Hoover whether
he could recommend to Mr. Jenkins a group of staff members ■
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. The Chair has the floor.
Senator McCarthy. I just want 2 minutes.
Senator Mundt. You will have your 2 minutes in due time. I have
the floor now.
Senator McCarthy. Can I take that while you have the floor?
Senator Mundt. You may not. You may leave if you want to; yes.
The Chair called Mr. Hoover and asked him if he could recom-
mend some investigators to Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Hoover was very
sympathetic with tlie approach but said he had to follow exactly the
rule he has followed with the House Committee on Un-American
Activities, with the Jenner Committee, and with our conunittee, and
refrain from making specific recommendations.
2600 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
I presume we will stand in recess for 2 or 3 minutes. How long
will you be gone, Senator McCarthy ?
We stand in recess until the witness returns.
Why don't we make this the midafternoon break, and all of us
will take 5 minutes.
(Brief recess.)
Senator Mundt. We will come back to order.
Senator McCarthy. May I apologize to the Chair for so
Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order, please. The
committee members will take their seats. The audience, I am sure,
is the same as it was when we recessed, and we will not have to
reiterate the customary admonition.
Yes, Senator McCarthy?
Senator McCarthy. May I apologize for so abruptly asking for a
recess. I had received a message, as the Chair saw, from my secretary,
and I felt it was of sufficient importance that I did want to take
2 or 3 minutes off.
Senator Mundt. Very well. We had to have a midafternoon recess
anyhow. We have had it. The timekeeper advises the Chair has
just 26 seconds left of his time, so I will yield that 26 seconds and
call on Senator Jackson for 10 minutes.
Senator Jackson. Senator jNIcCarthy, I have looked at the docu-
ment that you handed me, the Schine plan outline in connection with
the study that he made regarding psychological warfare. I think
you stated that it was the bloodless type of warfare.
Senator McCarthy. I understand that is one document he sent to
the State Department. May I say, Mr. Jackson, 1 have not read
it. So if you want to cross-examine me on that, it is a great waste
of time. I have not read it.
Senator Jackson. I just glanced through it, in fact I have gone all
the way through it, with great interest, and I notice
Senator McCarthy. If you are going to question me on that, I
would want a copy of it.
Senator Jackson. I can read to you from it directly.
Senator McCarthy. No, I would want a coj^y of any document you
are questioning me on.
Senator Jackson. Do you have an extra copy of this ?
Senator McCarthy. No, I haven't an extra copy. I gave you the
only copy in the file.
Senator Jackson. It was submitted to me and I think it is really
an amazing document. I think we ought to have a copy made im-
mediately. You sent it to me.
Senator McCarthy. We can have someone make a copy.
Senator Jackson. I did not have an opportunity to read it except
during the recess.
Senator McCarthy. Will you give that to Ruth and she will have
a copy made.
Senator Jackson. You say if I read this to you item by item you
couldn't
Senator McCarthy. No, I would not want to be examined on a
document which I have not read, unless I have the document before
me. I will be glad to have Mrs. Watt take it down, or Mary take it
down.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2601
Senator Jackson. All right. See if I Ccan have it back by the next
go-round.
Senator McCarthy. Will you rush that, if you can. so I can have
a copy, too ?
Senator Jackson. I will revert. Senator McCarthy, to that phase
of the inquiry as soon as the copies are back. In the Army bill of
particulars, charge 8, and I read it to
Senator McCarthy. Wait, again, until I get the bill of particulars.
Senator Jackson. Charge 8.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, Senator.
Senator Jackson. This is the Army charge :
On or about November 6, Senator McCarthy, Mr. Cohn, and Mr. Carr sought
to induce and persuade Secretary Stevens and Mr. Adams to arrange for the
assignment of Private Schine to New York City, to study and report evidence, if
any, of pro-Communist leanings in West Point textboolis.
Is that allegation true or false ?
Senator McCarthy. That is false.
Senator Jackson. Refer now to
Senator McCarthy. In fact. Mr. Stevens has admitted that he does
not recall any such attempt on the part of Mr. Carr.
Senator Jackson. Now please turn to allegation 18.
Senator McCarthy. 18? Certainly.
Senator Jackson. Are you ready ?
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Senator Jackson (reading) :
On or about December 10, 1953, Senator McCarthy and Mr. Carr sought to
obtain a spetial assignment for Private Schine in New Yorlj City for the purpose
of studying textbooks at West Point.
Is that allegation true or false ?
Senator McCarthy. False.
Senator Jackson (reading) :
On or about January 14
Senator McCarthy. Which one are you reading ?
Senator Jackson. Excuse me. I beg your pardon. Charge No, 25.
Senator McCarthy. Right.
Senator Jackson (reading) :
On or about January 14, 1954, Senator McCarthy directly requested Secretary
Stevens to cause Private Schine to be assigned to the New York City area at the
conclusion of his tour of duty at Camp Gordon, Ga.
Is that allegation true or false ?
Senator McCarthy. False.
Senator Jackson. Allegation 28 :
On or aljout January 22, 1954, Senator McCarthy requested Mr. Adams to
obtain a special assignment for Private Schine in New York, and suggested that
Mr. Colin would continue to harass the Army unless this demand was acceded to.
Is that allegation true or false ?
Senator McCarthy. False.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions at this
time. I will wait until the copy of the document comes up.
Senator Mundt. Senator Potter, you have 10 minutes.
Senator Potter. At the last 10 minutes. Senator McCarthy, I had
asked you, based upon the charges made by Secretary Stevens and
2602 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Mr. Adams, what your answer was to the charge that you had used
tlie investigating committee of the Senate in order to secure or to
attempt to secure preferential treatment for Private Schine. If I
recall your answer, you said that was false.
Senator McCarthy. False. I think that has been proven by the
monitored phone calls and the testimony of Mr. Stevens and Mr.
Adams.
Senator Potier. I would like
Senator McCarthy. I might say, if I can take 10 seconds, if this
were a court of law, I would have moved for a directed verdict, but it
is not, so we must proceed, I assume.
Senator Potiicr. You agree with me that if the charges are not
true, an unconscionable act has been committed?
Senator McCarthy. Very serious. But, Senator Potter, I think we
should say in turn, as to Secretary Stevens, that in these monitored
phone calls, time after time, I believe once in a call to you and in a
call to Mr. McClellan, a number of calls to Mr. Symington, Mr. Stevens
made it very clear that he felt there was nothing to this.
What induced him between the 8th of March, when he said there
was nothing to this, and the 11th, when the formal, very vicious charges
were filed — what induced him to consent to have them filed or if he
knew they were being filed, I don't know.
Senator Potter. Senator, in order that the record will be complete,
what is your answer to the charge that your chief counsel, Roy Cohn,
used his position as a member of the staff of this committee in order
to secure or to attempt to secure preferential treatment in behalf of
David Schine?
Senator McCarthy. Keep in mind on that, I have to rely on what
Roy told me and on the evidence I heard here. I am firmly con-
vinced, after discussing this in detail with Mr. Cohn, that there is
absolutely nothing to it; and I might say in that connection. Senator
Potter, if they could point their finger to something improper that
Roy did, if they could point their finger to some investigation that he
induced us to start which should not have been started, some witness
who should not have been called, something that was improper, then
I would be a little more curious about these charges.
You may recall when I pinned Mr. Adams as to what, if anything,
Roy did that was wrong, the only act that he could put his finger on
was that Mr. Cohn had failed to get me to call off an investigation to
show why the members of the old loyalty board had cleared people
with Communist records for work in the radar laboratories. Roy
never tried to get me to call that off. If he had, it would have been
unsuccessful.
Senator Potier. Along that line, if David Schine had secured a
commission in the Army or if he had been assigned to a position in
New York, would you have called off the hearings at Fort Monmouth ?
Senator McCarthy. Schine's situation would have in no way af-
fected our investigation.
May I say that I am very happy now tliat Mr. Schine is still a
private because — maybe he might not like this if he is listening — it
sliows that he got no special consideration of any kind. The onlj''
spcM'ial consideration that Dave Schine got, taking'all the evidence of
all the advei'se witnesses, was that he was allowed to work on his off-
houi's instead of ejiiraijinir in recreation.
0"in'
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2603
Senator Potter. Do you contend that David Schine has been dis-
criminated against because of his former connection with this com-
mittee?
Senator McCarthy. I wouldn't want to pass on that. I read a
story in a Washington paper that 1 wouldn't want to be an authority
for tl)eir veracity, in which they say he was scheduled for some special
school in intelligence. They said the White House intervened and
kept him from getting that particular training.
I frankly can't believe the AVhito House would intervene, I don't
know, however. We are in the dark, you see, Senator Potter,
Tliere was a meeting on January 21 in which the machinery was
set in motion for these smear charges to be made. I think the Presi-
dent, being ver^', very badly advised, has decreed that no one can tell
what ha})pened at that meeting. Then we have the good Senator
from JNIissouri, Senator Symington, who got the top Democrat ad-
viser to advise us how to commit suicide. Senator S3'mington has
decided not to take the stand. I am not going to criticize him for that.
May I take now 30 seconds to make one thing clear, Mr. Chairman,
if I may. I would like to make it clear that my appearing on the
stand should be no precedent in the next 10, 20, 30, 40, or 50 years for
forcing Senators to appear. I want it clear that 1 appear here uiwn;
my own volition. If I had been subpenaed, frankly I would not have;
appeared. I think under the constitution you cannot force Senators'
to testify, and I think it should be made very clear in the record at
this time that this should not be a precedent for forcing a Senator
some time in the future to appear. For that reason, I may say to the'
Senator from Missouri I have no intention of attempting to force him
to testify. I wish he would, but if he decides not to he may be right,.
I may be wrong.
Senator Potter. I have no further questions.
Senator Mu>;dt. Senator Symington? You have 10 minutes.
Senator Symington. Senator McCarthy, did INIr. Cohn tell you
that when he talked to Secretary Stevens on October 27, he S]>oke to
him about getting a 2-week furlough for Private Schine after his
induction?
Senator McCarthy. Mr, Cohn told me that he discussed with Ste-
vens not getting a furlough but getting temporary duty with the com-
mittee in order to clean up his work.
Senator Symington. Did you tell Mr. Cohn that you thought
Private Schine ought not to be treated dilt'erently from any other
American boy who was drafted?
Senator McCarthy. We agreed on that.
Senator Symington. You agreed on it ?
Senator McCarthy, Yes.
Senator Symington. Did Mr. Cohn tell you that he spoke to Sec-
retary Stevens at that time about having Mr. Schine sent to CIA
and said he would appreciate if Mr. Stevens would talk to Allen
Dulles about it?
Senator IMcCarthy. As I recall, Mr. Cohn told me that Mr. Stevens
brought it up originally, and that the first time Mr. Cohn agreed to it,
and then later, as I recall — and correct me if I am wrong, Roy — later
Mr. Cohn suggested that he should not do that because we were at
46620°— 54— pt. 63 *
2604 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
that time conductin"; a preliminary investigation — is that correct? —
of CIA. Isn't that substantially correct? Let me check with my
chief counsel to get the facts straight.
Senator Symington. You bet.
Senator Mundt. Time out for the consultation.
Senator McCarthy. All I can tell you, Mr. Symington
Senator Mundt. Time back.
Senator McCarthy. Is that Mr. Cohn did discuss with me the fact
that he had talked to Stevens about whether or not Schine, with his
experience with our committee in investigating Communists might
not be of benefit in the CIA. They discussed this. And JNIr. Cohn
brought up the question of whether or not that would be wise in view
of the fact that we were currently and still are as of today conducting
a preliminary investigation of what looks like a very, very dangerous
situation in the CIA.
Senator Symington. I might add, and I know you will agree with
me, that I hope it is wrong if there is any such infiltration of com-
munism, because a very large majority of our military budget is based
on analysis of foreigri military effort, some $291^ billion. I think
Senator Dirksen mentioned it was.
Senator McCarthy. I think, Senator Symington, to your credit,
when we brought this matter up some time ago, the question of
whether or not we should have a public investigation, I think you
were the individual who suggested that we shouldn't get into a public
hassle unless we knew we would get wholehearted cooperation from
the executive branch. I believe before I had a chance to report back,
my Democrat friends had left the committee.
Senator Symington. I thank the Senator.
Senator McCarthy, did you tell Mr. Cohn you didn't think — I beg
your pardon. I read that question before. When did you first learn
that Private Schine was going to have a 2-week furlough after his
induction ?
Senator McCarthy. I couldn't give you the date. I know that
Koy told me that he was going to be inducted, and that Stevens had
agreed to give him 2 weeks to finish his work with the committee.
Senator Symington. On November 7, you spoke to Secretary
Stevens, did you not, and asked him not to put Schine in service and
assign him back to the committee?
Senator McCarthy. I think that is what the monitored call would
show.
Senator Symington. You said at that time, did you not, that there
was nothing indispensable about him?
Senator McCarthy. I said that he was a good man but not in-
dispensable. No one is indispensable. I think even the Senator from
Missouri is not indispensable.
Senator Symington. You were telling Secretary Stevens at the
time, were you not. Senator, you were telling him the facts as you saw
it, the truth, that there was nothing indispensible about Mr. Schine?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct. I feel that no one is
indispensable.
Senator Symington. Did you ever tell Mr. Cohn to stop asking for
special weekend passes for Mr. Schine?
Senator McCarthy. No.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2605
Senator Symington. Did you ever suggest to Secretary Stevens
that he should revoke the orders making special arrangements for
Private Schine's weekend leaves?
Senator McCarthy. No.
Senator Symington. On September 7, didn't you tell Secretary
Stevens that this was one of the few things you had seen Mr. Colin
completely unreasonable about?
Senator MoC'arthy. I think that was November 7.
Senator Symington. I beg your pardon. It is November 7.
Senator INIcCarthy. November 7. Yes; I discussed with Stevens
the day before that — I think you have to take the discussion the day
before with the conversation on the 7th. I frankly told Bob Stevens
that Roy and I differed, that I felt that the new research man we had,
Karl Barslaag, could write the reports, and that we would not need
Dave Schine every weekend. Roy differed. He felt that no one else
■could write the report except the man who had been working on it
full time, and I have to admit this was one of the times that Roy was
Tio-lit.
Senator Symington. Did you tell Mr. Cohn that he was being
unreasonable about Private Schine?
Senator McCarthy. I don't think I used the word "unreasonable."
Senator Symington. Didn't you order Mr. Cohn to quit being un-
reasonable about Private Schine?
Senator McCartht. Oh, no; because I didn't think he w'as unrea-
sonable.
Senator Symington. At no time, you didn't order him to cease
his requests or withdraw his requests for special weekend passes ; is that
right?
Senator McCarthy. No. Let's get this straight, if we may, Sena-
tor. When you talk about special weekend passes, you are talking
about his right to work instead of play, when he w-as not in training.
T don't think that is any special favor for a private.
Senator Symington. On November 7, didn't you say, "I think for
Roy's sake you can let him come back for weekends or something
so his girls don't get too lonesome and maybe if they shave his hair
off he won't come back"?
Senator McCarthy. I may have said that in a facetious
Senator Symington. You wouldn't regard Private Schine keeping
his girls from becoming lonesome as urgent committee business, would
you ?
Senator McCarthy. No ; I would not.
Senator Symington. You heard Mr. Cohn testify repeatedly that
the only purpose of his requests for leaves was so that Mr. Schine
could do committee work ; right ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Symington. When you talked to Secretary Stevens, which
were you interested in, the work of the committee or the girls gettino-
lonesome ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, this may seem humorous to you, but
I felt that Bob Stevens would make a mistake if he were to assign
Mr. Schine to temporary duty with the committee after he was in-
ducted. You will find that is made very clear in that monitored call.
I felt it would be bad for the committee, bad for the Secretary. I
2606 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
discussed that ^Yith Mr. Schiiie and Mr. Cohn, and they agreed with
me.
Senator Stimington. You will agree that it would not be justifiable
to ask for sj^ecial weekend passes for a soldier so he could see his girl
friend ; right '':
Senator McCarthy. I don't think he spent an_y of those weekends-
seeing his girl friends. And every soldier has a certain number of
weekend i)asses. I think you will find that Dave Schine, even in those
weekends that the avera.^ie draftee would get, was working. Take,
for example. New Year's "Eve. You will find, I believe, Mr. Cohn has
testified, that he was up in the apartment working on a report which
I had given them a deadline upon getting out. I wanted all those
reports out before the new Congress convened.
Senator Symington. If you, yourself, wouldn't ask for special
passes for a soldier to see a girl friend, why did you ask such favor,
and I quote, "for Roy's sake"?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, you know that was a completely face-
tious remark, along with the statement that he should be a general
working out of the Waldorf. You have heard me — you and I have
had discussions. You have heard my talk to the Secretary. You
know that if somebody took down everything we have said and 6
months later reported that as something said in all seriousness, it
wouldn't look — for example, I have ribbed you, I have said, "Stu, let
me be your campaign manager." AVell, obviously, you know I am
not going to be your campaign manager. You don't want me to be
your campaign manager, and things like that that are said in jest,
read seriously later, mean nothing.
Senator Symington. Senator, you meant the committee, not Roy
Cohn, didn't you?
Senator McCarthy. I think I did.
Senator Symington. Do you know whether Schine did keep his
girls from being lonesome when he came back for weekends?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know anything about Schine's private
life. I know that he did a vast amount of work on the committee
reports.
Senator Symington. Did you see Private
Senator McCarthy. In fact, I think. Senator, he did perhaps more
work on those weekends than the average individual would do working
all week long.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Mr. Cohn, have you any questions you would like to ask the witness?
Mr. Cohn. No, sir; I can't think of a one.
Senator Mundt. You might be passing up a wonderful opportunity.
:Mr. Welch or Mr. St. Clair.
INIr. Welch. Have you or your counsel now produced, can you
produce, the card on Colonel Ringler?
Senator McCarthy. Yes. I called Frances Mims down in the
office, and she said that there is no file on Ringler, there is no file
opened on him.
Mr. Welch. And no card ?
Senator McCarthy. No card, no file. We don't keep that type
of indexes.
Mr. Welch. No name of any kind ?
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2607
Senator McCarthy. Pardon ?
Mr. Welch. No name ?
Senator McCarthy. I said there was no file on Ringler. We only
open a file where there is sufficient information to justify it.
Mr. Welch. AVhat was this story we were told about his thinking
that the committee activities were a witoh hunt^ Where does that
come from?
Senator McCarthy, That came from a report which we received.
Mr. Welch. Who received them ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Cohn received them.
Mr. Welch. Will 3'ou ask Mr. Cohn now where he got them and
have him
Senator McCarthy. If he does
Mr. Welch. Ask him, please.
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute. I will tell him not to tell you.
Mr. Welch. I am asking him only to tell you.
Senator McCarthy. No. Mr. Welch, I will give you — as I have
said here before time after time, you will get the names of no person
who gives us confidential information. Unless this wasn't confidential.
Mr. Welch. Do you want to stand on that?
Senator McCarthy. The answer stands.
Mr. Welch. Do you want to stand on that? Are you unwilling
to ask Mr. Cohn where he got this information about Colonel Ringler?
Senator McCarthy. You can wait until Mr. Cohn is on the stand
and ask him.
Let me make this clear, Mr. Welch. If I ask him — I don't mind
asking him, but if I do, I will not give you the name of any man who
gave Roy confidential information.
Mr. Welcpi. Then you think that informer on Colonel Ringler
was of the type whose name must be protected, is that right?
Senator McCarthy. Let me talk to Roy for a minute.
Mr. Welch. Right. I wish you would.
Senator McCarthy. Since you want that so badly, maybe we can
get it for you.
Senator Mundt. Time out.
(Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn conferring.)
Senator Mundt. Time back in.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, the information came from people
in Mr. Ringler's command. I would not make their name public
at this time.
]\Ir. Welch. Was one of them named Schine?
Senator McCarthy. I would not give 3^ou the names of the indi-
viduals.
Mr. AVelch. Senator McCarthy, if you should make out a card on
Colonel Ringler, would 3^ou put on it that his decorations include
the Legion of Merit, sir?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch
Mr. Welch. Just "Yes" or "No." If you make out a record, will
you put it on?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, you injected Ringler's name into
this hearing. Don't try to be clever with me. I told you that we made
a name check. We found nothing of a derogatory nature about
Ringler.
Mr. Welch. You did, too.
2608 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish.
Mr. Welch. You found he said this committee was conductmg
witch hunts, sir.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish. We found nothing of a derog-
atory nature.
Mr. "Welch. Isn't that derogatory?
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish.
Mr. Welch. Will you tell me, isn't that derogatory to say this
committee is conducting witch hunts?
Senator McCarthy. Now can I answer ?
Mr. Welch. Sir
Senator McCarthy. Now can I answer ?
Mr. Welch. You are not iroinir to answer
Senator McCarthy. I say now may I answer?
Mr. Welch. Yes. I will put it to you again. Isn't it derogatory
information if a man wearing the United States uniform with the
rank of colonel says that this committee is conducting witch hunts?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, we made a name check of the vari-
ous committees and found nothing of a derogatory nature. We were
impressed w^ith the fact that Mr. Ringler ap))arently was a good
soldier. We found nothing in his record to indicate otherwise. For
that reason we did not open any file on him. We felt that the matter
was dead, dropped, until your witnesses and you brought his name
into the picture.
As far as I am concerned, the reports wliich we heard about his
saying this was a witch hunt have been dropped. His other record
would indicate that there is nothing about him wliich would indicate
he is friendly toward communism.
Mr. Welch. Then would you like now to set the record straight,
sir, and I would bow to you ?
Senator McCarthy. You are the man who is trying to twist it.
Mr. Welch. You are the man who can help. Would you like to
set the record straight in respect to Colonel Ringler and say there
is nothing against him, nothing at all ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, all I can tell you is that we have
no information of any derogatory nature against Mr. Ringler. It
is not my function to try to tell you whether there is something
against him or not. I know of nothing of a derogatory nature
against him. For that reason we didn't even bother to open a file
on him.
Mr. Welch. Senator, aren't you capable of a simple affirmative
kindness? Can't you say a kind word now about Colonel Ringler?
Senator McCarthy. Now, Mr. Welch, you go ahead and put on
your vaudeville act, if you like, I have told you about five times
that we have no information of a derogatory nature about Mr. Ring-
Jer; that after a name check we were convinced that he is a good
soldier. We have no information other than that. That is all I can
give you.
If you want to beat that for another 10 minutes, go right ahead.
Mr. Welch. Would you mind if I stated for the record in my voice,
smaller than yours, his other decorations ?
Senator McCarthy. Do I mind if what?
Mr. Welch. If I state for the record his other decorationSj
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2609
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, I don't care what you do.
Mr. Welch. His other decorations include the Oak Leaf Cluster
to the Legion of Merit, the Bronze Star Medal, two Oak Leaf Clusters
to the Bronze Star Medal, and the Combat Infantryman's Badge.
Senator, you have interested me — and I am not criticizing you for
it-
Senator McCarthy. Thank you.
Mr. Welch. But you have interested me in the fact that there is
actually no FBI check on your staff. Understand, sn-, I do not blame
you for that. You understand that, don't you Senator?
Senator McCarthy. What is your question ?
Mr. Welch. My question is, You understand that I do not blame
you for having no FBI check on your staff ?
Senator McCarthy. You can hardly do that becau-se T have asked
for such a check and the Attorney General says as of this moment
he cannot give it.
Mr. Welch. That is right. I think that is unfortunate and you
do, too ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; I think it would be a good thing if we
could work out a procedure whereby we would have a full field investi-
gation of all investigators on the staff. I hope that can be worked
out some time in the future.
Mr. Welch. How big is the staff ?
Senator McCarthy. I will have to get the exact number. A total
of 25, including the minority counsel.
Mr. Welch. Is there anything done about their clearance except
to make these name checks we have discussed?
Senator McCarthy. Before I hire anyone I try to get a complete
picture of his backgTound and then we get, as I sa}^, an FBI name
check. We had hoped to get a full field investigation, but have not
been able to do that.
Mr. Welch. You realize, don't you. Senator, that those people that
5^ou have described have the custody of copies of FBI documents
market "Confidential"?
Senator McCarthy. I don't know that.
Mr. Welch. Didn't we have in this room something called a 214-
pao-e document that had at the top of it "confidential"?
Senator McCarthy. That was a resume
Mr. Welch. My question is, Was there not such a document in this
room?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Welch, if you will listen to my answer I
will answer the question.
Mr. Welch. I would be happy also if you would listen to my ques-
tion.
Senator McCarthy. I heard .your question. We had a 214-page
document which contained the information excerpted from a 15-page
document which, according to my best judgment, contained no security
information. There had been deleted from that the names of all in-
formants, as I recall. There is nothing in it to show any investigative
technique. That document showed principally that the FBI was
sending reports to Army Intelligence indicating to anyone who could
add 2 and 2 that there was an extremely dangerous situation at Fort
Monmouth and that was only one of a series of documents, Mr. Welch.
2610 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
As far as I am concerned, that document could be spread on the
front pages of every paper in the country and would do no damage
whatsoever. I think it would do a lot of good. I think it would give
one small picture of the efficiency of our FBI and how they do try to
alert the various departments when they find sabotage, potential sabo-
tage, espionage, in their organization.
Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, your time has expired.
Mr. Jenkins, have you any questions?
Mr. Jenkins. I pass, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mundt. I would like to revert now, Senator McCarthy, to
the line of questioning we were pursuing before the 10-minute period
before the last one I had. We devoted that primarily to trying to
straighten out the record on name checks and field investigations by
the FBI. I was asking you about this era of cooperation which had
existed for a while, happily, between you and your associates and the
members of the Army interested in the Fort Monmouth situation. I
referred to the Jess Larson case in the General Services Administra-
tion, under the previous chairman, the late Senator Hoey, where we
worked out a splendid cooperative arrangement, and with a successful
investigation, and you brought up the one in the Government Printing
Office.
I asked you then to pinpoint the incident or incidents by which this
formula of cooperation began to fall apart. If I recall, your earlier
testimony you said it was largely two different incidents:
The first is the Peress situation, which we are not going to go into in
this investigation, except that you have pointed out that your in-
ability to get the information you desired concerning who was respon-
sible for the Peress promotion and the alleged preferential treatment
for Peress was one of the incidents ; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator Mundt. We now have that information, or we think we
have it in the sealed envelope that Counsel Jenkins puts under his
pillow by night and fastens in his pocket with a safety pin by day,
and it is still in the charge of this subcommittee until we have an
executive committee meeting to determine what disposition to make of
it.
The other incident, I think you said, was the fact that when you
got into the area of who was responsible for the failure to act at
Fort Monmouth, you wanted to get the loyalty board members to
testify, and that your inability to get them developed a series of
irritations which helped to break up this area of cooperation ; is that
correct ?
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Mundt. So we have those two specific items. Are there
others ?
Senator McCarthy. I think those two are the principal items.
Senator Mundt. Turning from the past to the future, then, is there
any reason that you can think of why your committee might not be
able to resume a formula of cooperation in concluding whatever in-
vestigation needs to be made at Fort Monmouth or any other investiga-
tion involving allegations of Communist infiltration into the Army?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, that
Senator Mundt. Provided we can find a formula for meeting the
difficulties growing out of the loyalty board.
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2611
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, that depends entirely upon the
executive branch. I take the position that the American people are
entitled to all the information, if it is information which will not in
any way endanger the national security. I think if the executive
branch will agree with that, there will be no difficulty at all.
However, Mr. Chairman, I am not encouraged. You may say — may
1 take 30 seconds to show you what has been developing?
I have, for example, a directive that goes beyond the Presidential
directive. I assume this is the sort of information which I should
not get also. This effective date is March 26, 1954. This provides
how you can keep secret material in the FOA, that is the foreign
aid program, even if it does not come within the Presidential secrecy
order. And they talk in this about this protective device. The pro-
tective device is that where the Department feels that they cannot
stamp something "secret," "confidential," "top secret," under the
Presidential order and keep it from the public, that they have a new
device, and this is no Presidential order, you understand.
I assume the President knows nothing about this. A new stam])
now is "official use only." And here is some of the material that will
be stamped for official use only and, of course, kept from the Congress.
May I just read one paragraph from this, Mr. Chairman:
Information pertaining to administrative, organization, personnel, fiscal or
opei'ating policies, policies, procedures and plans where temporary protection
prior to firm establishment is in the public interest.
In other words, you find now, instead of heading toward more
cooperation Avith the committee — and I call the attention of my
Democrat friends to this especially because I think this is not a matter
of Republican or Democrat policy — you have here an agency in effect
saying that anything having to do with fiscal policies, that means
money policies, operating policies, proceedings, et cetera, before it
becomes firm policy, will be stamped "for official use only."
Mr. Chairman, this is the most dangerous trend — I should say this
is an indication of a most dangerous trend. If this continues, it will
mean that the Congress will operate completely in the dark, it won't
have any idea of what is going on.
Senator Mundt. That, however, does not involve the Army.
Senator McCarthy. I might say, Mr. Chairman, in answer to your
question, we can work out, we should work out a program whereby
congressional committees can get information which in no way, No. 1,
endangers the national security ; No. 2, which does not give the names
of informants of our investigative agencies; No. 3, which does not
disclose investigative techniques.
Other than that, the American people should know exactly what is
going on. If they don't, if they don't, Mr. Chairman, this Republic
mio;ht not have too long to live.
Senator Mundt. The Chair understands, however. No. 1, that that
document you have just read in no way involves the Army.
Senator McCarthy. This in no way involves the Army.
Senator Mundt, No. 2, the Chair understands it is not a White
House directive.
Senator INIcCarthy. It is not a White House directive. I merely
mentioned this to show you the trend toward secrecy, ]\Ir. Chairman,
2612 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
and we are a]so invcstifrating, may I say — this concerns us because
we iiave been invest! oatin<]: matters in the F'OA.
Senator Mundt. The Chair woukl like to point out to the Senator
from Wisconsin that one swallow doesn't make a summer and one
document does not necessarily establish a trend. Furthermore, the
Senator from Wisconsin, and the Senator from Arkansas, Mr. Mc-
Clellan, the Senator from Illinois, Senator Dirksen, and the chairman
of this committee are all members of the Appropriations Committee.
I am sure we can speak as one voice in insistin<T that there be no
validity whatsoever to the kind of document you now have, because
in our Appropriations Committee, certainly we have to have access
to the financial facts before passino: on FOA or any similar proo^ram.
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir. I would like to, without taking un-
due time, I would like to point out to the chairman that this is the
sort of information which I have been requestin^r that Federal em-
ployees give us. This is the type of information
Senator Mundt. May the Chair inquire — that does not deal with
classified information, as the Chair understands it. That is simply
information about public business which the Chair has just as much
right to have as the bureaucrats running that particular division of
the Government?
Senator McCarthy. That is right, except they are giving it a new
classification now.
Senator Mundt. But it is not classified as security information,
certainly, what is being done with the public money?
Senator McCarthy. Absolutely not, but a device to keep it from
the Congress.
Senator Mundt. I think the device will fail.
Senator McCarthy. I hope so.
Senator Mundt. May the Chair turn to something else now, dealing
with the Fort Monmouth press release. Did you at any time indicate
to Mr. John Adams or to anybody else in the Army that you had in
mind issuing some press release which they could prepare for you to
make available to the press after your survey of the installation at
Fort Monmouth ?
Senator McCarthy. No; but I told Mr. Cohn that if he and eJohn
could work out a press release that would be acceptable, I would issue
it. I didn't accept any press release.
Senator Mundt. In other words, this was not necessarily an idea
then, germinating in the mind of Mr. John Adams?
Senator McCarthy. Yes; it germinated in Mr. Adams' mind. He
conveyed it to Mr. Cohn. Mr. Cohn conveyed it to me. I told him
I would not issue the type of press release they had. But if they
could issue a press release praising up Stevens and praising up Adams,
I would have no objection
Senator Mundt. The Chair is trying to retrace the steps by which
we got into this press release. The first idea, you tell us. did germinate
in the mind of John Adams? He thought a press release might be
issued at Fort Monmouth, indicating a happy relationship existing
between the committee and the Army ; is that correct ?
Senator McCarthy. The idea came from Adams,
Senator Mundt. And nothing was essentially wrong with that
idea ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes ; except
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2613
Senator ISIuxdt. The idea was not necessarily wrong ?
Senator IMcCarthy. The idea of a press release is not — there is
nothing necessarily wrong with that.
Senator IVIundt. Senator Welker is aiding the timekeeper by vigor-
ously pounding me on the back. My time is up and we will move to
Senator Jackson.
Senator Jackson. ]\Ir. Chairman
Senator JNIcCarthy. Could I finish answering your question?
There is nothing wrong with the idea of the press release. I merely
objected to the idea of indicating that we call off
Senator Mundt. The investigation.
Senator McCarthy. The hearing ; yes, sir.
Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if copies have been
made now of the so-called Schine plan outline which Senator
McCarthy gave me as an example of the background and study that
he had made, that is, Mr. Schine, in the field of psychological warfare.
I wonder if we could have time out while Senator McCarthy could look
at the document, if he has a copy of it.
Senator ]\Iundt. Time out.
Senator McCarthy. Are they ready?
Senator Jackson. They have been delivered.
I don't want it out of my time.
Senator Mundt. Time out.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, we have 10 minutes before we
adjourn. If you want me to take that 10 minutes reading this docu-
ment, I will do it.
Senator Jackson. I don't think it takes that long, Senator.
Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, I am informed that at Senator
McCarthy's desk there are several copies of this. I would count it a
courtesy if I could have one.
Senator IMcCarthy. I am sorry. You certainly should. I am not
sure that it is too valuable a document.
Senator Mundt. Are there copies enough for the other committee
members, too ?
May I ask the strong, silent, hungry man if there are enough copies
for the rest of us ?
Senator McCarthy. I think I have glanced through this sufficiently,
Mr. Jackson
Senator Mundt. Time back in. Senator Jackson.
Senator McCarthy. To try to answer any question.
Senator Mundt. If the Senator will read any particular passage he
is interested in and identify it, I think you can find them and read them
together.
Senator Jackson. Senator, as you know, I did not introduce this
document in evidence. This is the first time I have had a chance to
see it. It was introduced by you as an example of the study that Mr.
Schine had made in the field of psychological- —
Senator McCarthy. I have not introduced it.
Senator Jackson. I think it ought to be introduced in evidence.
Senator McCarthy. I mentioned that he submitted this to the State
Department. You asked for it, and I think you are entitled to it._
Senator Jackson. Up at the top of the Schine plan, the first
sentence :
This is a plan of long-range strategy for immediate execution.
2614 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator M(CARTnY. You are apparently reading from something
diii'erent tlian 1 am. Mine says:
Fight fire with fire
Senator Jackson. No, no; the "Schine Plan Outline," the first
sentence in the document.
Senator McCarthy. I beg your pardon.
Senator Jackson (reading):
This is a plan of long-range strategy for immediate execution.
Then down under "Strategy" he says that —
The "grass roots" approach is basic. We must create a "Deminform" or
association of democratic parties on the basis of mutual cooperation free of the
charge of American imperialism. Democracy must be sold globally.
Isn't that word "Deminform" pretty close to "Cominf orm" ? Aren't
some of the people going to get mixed up ?
Senator McCarthy. Your question is what ?
Senator Jackson. I just asked the question, isn't "Deminform"
pretty close to "Cominf orm" ?
Senator McCarthy. This description that he gives certainly has
nothing to do even remotely approaching connnunism. Let's read the
whole thing. Let's be fair, Mr. Jackson.
Senator Jackson. I just asked the question, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Let's read the entire— let's not take it out of
context.
Senator Jackson. I am not taking it out of context.
Senator McCarthy. He says under "Strategy"— you picked out part
of it and I have no objection to what you picked out, except he says :
Fight fire vvitli fire, that is, inspire native leaders, everywhere to express
democracy in every field of social action and to develop democratic groups and
parties.
I assume he is not referring to the Democratic Party in the country?
Senator Jackson. I was going to ask you that. Right at that point
you remember when we had the Voice hearings, to refresh your re-
collection now, Mr. Schine said— and the point was made I think by
a number— that the Communists used the word "democracy," freely
and some of the ])eo]5le in the Voice program were condemned for
using the word "democracy."
Senator McCarthy. You don't think anyone was condemned for
using the word "democracy" ?
Senator Jackson. No, but isn't it true that the Communists have
used the word "democracy" to exploit it for their own use ?
Senator McCarthy. My God, man, you run for office under that
label.
Senator Jackson. Senator, you remember very well in the hearnigs
in connectioii with the activities of the Latin American desk quite a
oint was made of the use of the words "democratic" and "democracy"
y the Communists. Isn't that true? The records will bear that out.
Senator McC'arthy. I don't know what you are talking about.
Senator Jackson. All right. Let's go on through. Down under
"Tactic," he has :
Use all instruments and concepts that enlighten and form the spirit of men.
I
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2615
He has a list of various items. He lias "Religious groups (all faiths) ."
He then has "(b) Higher clergy, pastoral letters." Is he going to
infiltrate the clergy?
Senator McCarthy. What do you mean, infiltrate ?
Senator Jackson. I don't know. This is a document
Senator McCarthy. Senator Jackson, you know that he is talking
here about fighting communism. He says to use all religious groups to
fight communism. I think you and I could agree that the religious
groups are perhaps the strongest in fighting communism.
Senator Jackson. There is no dispute about that. Look at (d),
"Separation of church and state." Is he for it or is he against it?
What does that mean? This is a document that is all ready to put
this plan into action. In Europe one Protestant Church, the Lutheran
Church, believes in church and state. So does the Catholic Church
in Europe. Is he for it or is it going in there and upset it? I don't
know.
Senator McCarthy. Is that a question ?
Senator Jackson. Yes. This is a document that is all set to go,
This is the plan. I am trying to figure this out.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jackson, this is the first time I have seen
this. This would indicate that he is for complete separation of church
and state.
Senator Jackson. Wouldn't that be bad in those countries of the
world where they believe — for instance, in some areas in democratic
countries, both Protestant and Catholics don't believe in sepa-
ration
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jackson, that has nothing to do with the
issues here and I would not get into an argument with you as to
whether you should separate church and state in certain countries.
In this country we have complete separation of church and state.
Senator Jackson. All right, now let's look under "Trade associa-
tions."
Senator McCarthy. All right.
Senator Jackson. He has "Free entry to a free market." What
does that mean?
Senator McCarthy. You can see it the same as I do. I haven't
discussed this with him.
Senator Jackson. What does it mean? This is a document all
ready to go. I don't understand it. I am just asking you. You
handed it to me. It is not my document.
Senator McCarthy. You asked for it. I told you he had handed
one document having some suggestions on psychological warfare to
the State Department. You will have to discuss it with him.
Senator Jackson. On page
Senator McCarthy. He has some pretty good ideas in here, I think.
Senator Jackson. Senator, let me ask a question. I don't think
that is responsive. Let me ask: Look under item 9, under "Armed
Forces, (c)," he has 'Members of Democratic Partv in key positions."
Aren't you leaving out the Republicans? Let's tate item 10.
Senator McCarthy. Do you want me to answer your question ?
Senator Jackson. This is the plan that has been handed to me. I
am trying to figure it out.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jackson, one thing that you can say about
Jackson, he is not dumb. Dave makes the mistake I never make of
2616 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
referrino: to the non-Coinmunist republican type of goverment as a
democratic form. I wisli he wouldn't make that mistake.
Senator Jackson, This is in the international field. Look under
"Community Leaders." He said :
Special appeal to leaders of community thought —
this is all around the world —
(heads of fraternal and veterans organizations, etc. — Elks
Senator McCarthy. What number?
Senator Jackson. That is 10 (a) . He has the Elks and the Kni^^hts
of Columbus. I don't know whether they have an Elks lodge in
Pakistan. I belong to the Elks.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jackson, you apparently think this is
humorous. Let's see what he says here. He suggests that in the
information program you have
Senator Jackson. Where do you read that ?
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish.
Senator Jackson. Where do you read tliat ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jackson, you must let me finish.
Senator Jackson. Yes, but where are you readhig from?
Senator McCarthy. I am reading from this document. He is setting
forth what he thinks should be done. You will find that he lists one
of the things to make special appeals to the leaders of community
thought. He says through fraternal and veterans organizations. He
gives an example of two : Elks, Knights of Columbus, et cetera. What
is wrong with that ? Isn't that a good idea ?
Senator Jackson. I understand, but he is talking about the native
areas of the world. Is there an Elks lodge in Africa and Pakistan,
and so on ?
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Jackson, you know that he is talking here
about the utilization of local organizations. He says fraternal and
veterans organizations.
Senator Jackson. This is all over the world. It is psychological
warfare he is talking about.
Senator McCarthy. Certainly, and he talks about making a special
appeal to fraternal and veterans organizations. What is wrong with
that?
Senator Jackson. X want it explained how he is going to do it with
these groups. Let's turn to the periodicals.
Senator McCarthy, Let me ask you — could I ask you this question?
Senator Jackson. I would like you to answer my question.
Senator McCarthy. In order to answer it, I have to have it clari-
fied. Do I understand that you feel there is something wrong with
making an appeal, giving information through fraternal and veterans'
organizations? Is there something ridiculous, is there something
funny about that?
Senator Jackson. No, but I am asking you how he was going to do
that. This is just an outline. Let's turn to "Periodicals," JHe has
here under "Periodicals"
Senator Mundt. What page ?
Senator Jackson. Page 4.
Senator McCarthy. Give me the number, would you, Mr. Jackson?
Senator Jackson. It is (b) under 15.
SPECIAL HSrS^ESTIGATION 2617
Senator McCarthy, Go a little slowly, will you?
Senator Jackson, Then subsection (b) under that. He has "Per-
iodicals." Then "Universal appeal — pictures, cartoons, humor, pin-
ups."
Senator McCarthy. What is the question ?
Senator Jackson. What kind of a program is he going to carry
out
Senator McCarthy, What is the question?
Senator Jackson, For the use of pinups?
Senator McCarthy, Mr. Jackson, pictures and cartoons can have
an important place in any information program.
Senator Jackson. I am directing the question to pinups.
Senator McCarthy. As to pinup, I don't know Avhat he is re-
ferring to as a pinup.
Senator Jackson. We can all laugh on that one, I think. Senator.
Senator ISIcCarthy. But if you go through this, you will find — as
I say, it is the first time I have seen it — here is a pretty detailed sug-
gestion as to how you can put across the anti-Communist ideas. I
would say, Mr, Jackson, it is much, much better than putting out the
thirty-thousand-odd books written by Communist authors which we
found in our investigation.
Senator Jackson, Just this last question. You also notice under
"Advertising media" he has "billboards" and "car signs."
Really, Senator, when you look at this document, in all seriousness
do you think that this qualified a man to investigate a multi-million-
dollar information agency? In all seriousness, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Senator Jackson
Senator INIundt. The witness may answer the question. The Sen-
ator's time has expired.
Senator McCarthy. Senator Jackson, in looking this over, I
couldn't subscribe to every item here without going into it in more
detail. This shows me that this young man, who could have been
vacationing, was giving a great deal of thought to the information
program, and I might point out, Senator, that in your State, if you
will pardon me
Senator Jackson. This is not my pamphlet, you know. You gave it
to me. I am not offering it.
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator McCarthy. I am going to answer your question. In our
State, his investigation causecl the cancellation of a $10 million radio
station. The evidence was that that could have been built for about
10 percent down outside of the magnetic storm area with the same
result. His investigation, regardless of what you may say about this,
did save the American taxpayers about $18 million.
Senator Jackson. Senator, the truth of the matter is that as a
result of having this man go into it, it did not give us the information
that RCA and MIT had endorsed this project. We did not have any
of that information given to us as a committee. I think that is a big
mistake.
Senator McCarthy. You are completely incorrect.
Senator Jackson. I will be glad to go over the record with you on
Monday, and I will show you conclusively that he did not give us that
information.
2618 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Mundt. The Senator's time has expired.
Senator Potter, you have the floor.
May the Chair say that he was going to adjourn at 4 : 30. He has
been assured by Senator Potter that he has 3 or 4 questions, and Sen-
ator Symington wants to ask about 3 or 4 questions. I do think in fair-
ness to Private Schine, that we sliould offer this as an exhibit, and
good or bad it should be standing on its own merits. We will insert
this with the proper exhibit number into the record.
(Tlie above-referred-to document was marked "Exhibit 37" and
will be found in the appendix on p. 2621.)
Senator Potter. Senator McCarthy, I would like to call your atten-
tion to that now famous automobile ride from the courthouse in New
York, on December 17, made by yourself and Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr
and Mr. Adams, when Mr. Adams testified he missed the train three
times on that date. Mr. Adams testified that the conversation was
quite animated at the time between himself and Mr. Cohn. He testi-
fied that the conversations concerned Dave Schine, and Mr. Cohn
testified and I believe you have testified that the conversation related
to General Lawton. But irrespective of that conversation, what I
wish to direct your attention to is the statement that Mr. Adams made,
and I believe I quoted it correctly, after, at a later date, he talked to
Mr. Carr concerning the animated conversation that he had with Mr.
Cohn, when Mr. Adams stated that he Avas let out in tlie middle of the
street and had to catch a cab to get to the depot, and Mr. Carr said,
"If you were treated badly, you should have seen what happened to
Senator McCarthy."
My curiosity has gotten the best of me. What did happen to Sen-
ator'McCarthy? . . . •
Senator McCarthy. Just 1 minute. I am sorry, I was just trying
to make some plane arrangements here with my wife, by way of Jim
Juliana.
Senator Potter. I certainly wouldn't want my question to inter-
fere with the domestic situation.
Senator McCarthy. The situation insofar as the ride was roughly
as follows: We arrived at a tunnel— I don't know New York City
well enough to tell you what street it was on— we felt we should turn
left there in order 'to get Mr. Adams over to the depot so he could
make his train. I think there was a no-left-turn sign. Mr. Cohn
asked the policeman if we could turn left, and I believe showed him
a police badge or something he had. The policeman used language
which I wouldn't want to repeat here, in regard to the badge that Roy
had, and told him to go ahead. We went on down through the tunnel.
When we got through that— I was also racing to get to the Waldorf
to pick up my bags to catcli a plane — we told John that the quickest
way to do this would be if he would get out and take a cab and go
to the depot and Eoy and Frank would take me on to the Waldorf.
We got there and there was nothing of an unusual nature about the
ride. We continued to discuss the Lawton matter, I believe, almost
all the way to the hotel.
Senator Potter. Then after Mr. Adams left the car, you had no
difficulty with Mr. Cohn?
Senator McCarthy. None
SPECIAL mVESTIGATION" 2619
Senator Potter, I believe the testimony of Mr. Adams was to the
effect that at the entrance of the Waldorf, you left the car in quite
a hurry.
Senator McCarthy. I may have left the car in a hurry. I think
Roy carried my — I am not sure whether he did or not. Somebody,
either Frank or Roy, I believe, carried my grip into the hotel. One
of the things we discussed on the way to the hotel was the fact that
Mr. Cohn would call General Lawton and tell him about this con-
versation. As I understand, he did.
Senator Potter. It is your testimony there was no argument be-
tween yourself and Mr. Cohn?
Senator IMcCaethy. None whatsoever. Not even remotely.
Senator Potter. No questions.
Senator Mundt. Senator Symington?
Before recognizing him, at the suggestion of Senator McClellan,
the Chair neglected when he had this executive testimony released
to the public, he neglected to have it incorporated in the public record.
I wish to have it incorporated into the public record.
Ruth, will 3'ou put this in at the beginning of the afternoon session ? *
Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I have just four short questions
to complete the pattern of the questions I was asking.
But first, with the Chair's permission, I will make an observation.
Something was said about injustice to Mr. Schine. Some of us felt
that in justice to Mr. Schine he should be allowed to testify at these
hearings in his own defense. It seems rather paradoxial that we have
somebody with apparently as little interest in the proceedings as Mr.
Carr and do not plan now to call IMr. Schine.
Senator ]\lcCarthy, I have four short questions here. Did you see
Private Schine on any of the weekends that he had off from Fort Dix ?
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer the first part of your question.
You talked about Schine's defense. There has been no claim of im-
proper conduct on the part of Schine and therefore he would not be
justified in taking up the time of the committee in a defense of some-
thing which does not exist.
Senator Symington. You don't think
Senator McCarthy. If he must defend the fact that he worked with
the committee — I just don't think that is necessary.
No. 2, you said did I see him on any of the weekends. I don't think
so. I saw him down at Fort Dix — was it, or was it McGuire Air Base,
Avhich is right next to Fort Dix, one evening.
Senator Symington. You don't think he is of enough interest in
these proceedings to come here and testify, that his name isn't impor-
tant enough in the proceeding ?
Senator McCarthy. I think it is important, but I think much more
important, Senator Symington, would be for you to get on the stand
and tell me how come you got the political adviser to the Democrat
Party to guide these hearings. I think that there are many witnesses
who could be called. If you and I wanted to name them off, we could
name 25.
Senator Symington. My only comment was that we have been talk-
ing about Schine for many days.
Senator McCarthy. We could talk about Symington, too.
1 Will be found In pt. 61, June 10, 1954.
2620 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
Senator Symington. My question was did you do any work with
liini on weekends ?
Senator McCarthy. No ; I did not. It was done by my staif .
Senator Symington. I assume Roy Colin told you that Schine was
getting his passes and working on weekends, is that right?
Senator McCarthy. I knew that he was working weekends.
Senator Symington. All you know about how he spent these week-
ends, then, was what Mr. Cohn told you about it; is that right?
Senator McCarthy. No. I said no.
Senator Symington. I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Mdndt. The Chair has one announcement to make before
we recess. I have been advised by the Sergeant at Arms of the Senate
that the air alarm which is going to take place Monday at 10 : 01 is
not going to include the House and Senate Office Buildings, so that
those who come here will know that we can proceed with our customary
business and that air alert does not include us.
We stand in recess until 10 o'clock Monday.
Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman?
Senator Mundt. By the way, I should announce in Mr. Cohn's
behalf we have heard from General Kelly and your deferment has
been granted. Is that right?
Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
Mr. CoHN. Mr. Chairman, I don't want to be excused from Na-
tional Guard training or anything else. I would like my regular round
before the afternoon is over, to ask some questions which might de-
velop true facts about some of the things which Mr. Jackson said
here this afternoon.
Senator Mundt. We had agreed to recess at 4 : 30.
May the Chair say this much, and I am sure the press will deal
with it fairly, that the document prepared by Mr. Schine has now been
released in its entirety. And as the man who happened to write the
Voice of America Act, let me say that it is not indeed a ludicrous piece
of work. I read it over. It has some very worthwhile suggestions, Mr.
CoJm, I agree to that.
You may ask what questions you care to on Monday about that
documejit.
We will stand in recess until 10 o'clock Monday morning.
( Whereuj)on, at 4 : 45 p. m., the committee was recessed, to reconvene
at 10 a. m., Monday, June 14, 1954.)
APPENDIX
Exhibit No. 37
ScHiNE Plan Outline
This is a plan of long-range strategy for immediaie execution. It is designed
to operate in a sector tlie democracies have left unguarded and in wliicli tlie
enemy has established a salient of terrifying scope. The program outlined here
is designed to complement, not supplant, existing measures of military defense,
mutual aid, and economic cooperation.
The liroad battlefield is the globe and the contest is for men's .souls. We can
fill their bellies, as we must, but man does not live by bread alone. We re(iuire
of the free peoples of the world, their hearts, their consciences, their voices,
and their votes. How to do this?
A. STRATEGY
"Fight fire with fire," that is, inspire native leaders everywhere to express
!mocracy in every field of social action and to develop democratic groups and
i^arties. The grassroots approach is basic. We must create a "Deminform" or
association of democratic parties on the basis of mutual cooperation, free of
the charge of "American imperialism"— democracy must be sold globally.
dem
par
B. TACTIC
Use all instruments and concepts that enlighten and form the spirit of men:
1. Schools (devoted to democratic principles) :
(a) State-supported (nursery through university)
(a) Parochial and private
(c) Adult education classes and forums
(d) Exchange of teachers and students
(e) Cultivation of parent-teacher groups (family training)
(f) Teachers loyal to democracy
2. Religious groups (all faiths) :
(c) Local ministers (priests, rabbis)
(1) Sermons
(2) Home visits
(&) Higher clergy
(1) Pastoral letters
(2) Official pronouncements
(c) Tolerance of all beliefs
{d) Separation of church and state
3. Unions :
(a) Democratic policies
(6) Democratic organizations and leader.ship
(c) Guarantee of right of collective bargaining
(d) Voice in industry
(e) Voice in government
(/) Exchange visits of union leaders
4. Trade Associations :
(a) Free entry to a free market
(b) Profit system, but recognition of responsibility to community
(c) Cooperation with unions and government
(d) Exchange visits of business and industrial leaders
2621
2G22 SPECIAL INVESTIGATION
5. Political or^nnizjitions :
(a) Native demociatic parties
(l>) Increased role of people in politics
(1) Free elections by universal secret ballot
(2) Full information on government proceedings (due regard
for security)
(3) Forums on political issues
(c) Ri.iibts of tbe average man — equality, etc.
{(l) Education in democracy (see Schools)
(e) Hights of political dissent
6. Economic Organization:
(a) Social security without station or paternalism
(b) Ideal of an expanding "full employment" economy
(c) Keward for individual initiative
(d) Democracy without uniformity or leveling
7. System of law, courts, and police:
(a) "All innocent until proved guilty"
(b) Protection of individual rights including property rights, habeas
corpus, etc.
(c) Equality of all before the law
(d) Speedy and inexpensive procedures
(e) Police to be representative cross section of population
(1) Instruction in democracy
(2) Not to be used as "domestic security" force (not an FBI)
(3) Avoidance of brutality
8. Civil service :
(rt) Merit system as basis
(b) Thorough training in civics
(c) Members of Democratic Party in key positions
9. Armed forces :
(a) Training in principles of democracy
(ft) Privilege of "rising from the ranks"
(c) Members of Democratic Party in key positions
10. Community leaders :
(«) Special appeal to leaders of community thought (heads of fraternal
and veteran organizations, etc.— Elks, Knights of Columbus)
(6) Democratic Party members active in civic organizations and com-
munal affairs
11. Financial institutions, travel and express companies:
(rt) Special emphasis because their scope is international
(&) Job of selling democracy as well as business service
12. Trades people (barbers, tailors, taxi drivers, etc.) :
(a) Emphasize stake of the average individual in the free enterprise
society
(6) Preaching democracy at the grassroots
13. The entertainment and sports world (see also No. 15 on Communication) :
(«) Emphasis on individual achievement along with —
(b) Voluntary cooperation in the form of team play
(c) Enroll celebrities as members of a Democratic Party
{(l) Entertainment and recreational facilities to be available to all (low
price)
14. Social service and health agencies:
(a) Medical and hospital services available to all
(6) Training of doctors, nurses, social workers, etc., in "public relations"
(c) Avoidance of "charity" stigma — respect for dignity of individual
15. Media of expression and communication :
(«) Daily press :
(1) Independent national daily in every country— devoted to
democracy :
(«) Liberal use of cartoons and comic strips
(6) Appeal to masses — e. g., sports news
(2) A "democratic party" line — uniformity of thought, diversity
of expression
SPECIAL INVESTIGATION 2623
(b) Periodicals:
(1) See points under "daily press," but add
(2) And international magazines of freedom published in many
different tongues simultaneously :
(a) Popular in nature, yet sul)tly instructional
(b) Universal appeal — pictures, cartoons, humor, pin-
ups
(c) Radio-television:
(1) Complement Voice of America by a Voice of the Free World.
(2) International radio and television networks
(d) Movies:
(1) Movie-making center in every nation
(2) A "Hollywood plan" to advise and cooperate with centers
abroad
(3) Moral implicit in film — no outright propaganda
(e) Literature and the arts:
(1) Books and pamphlets
(2) Painting and sculpture
(3) Music (popular through symphonic)
(4) Enroll key artists in democratic party
(5) Summary; Achievements under freedom
(/) Science:
(1) Better living through science
(2) Enroll key scientists as adherents
(3) Summary: Achievements under freedom
(g) Advertising media :
(1) Sloirans
(2) Billboards
(3) Car signs
(4) Press, radio, and movie advertisements in praise of freedom
(70 Prize contests:
(1) Essays
(2) Siieeches
(3) (iraphic arts (sketches, cartoons)
(t) The U. N. as forum :
(1) Deliates in assembly and security council
(2) Popularize the U. N. bill of rights
(3) Use of atliliated agencies and organizations such as Inter-
national Labor Organization and Food and Agricultural
Organization
C. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
A sweeping mobilization of the best talents and brains in the country is required
to mount an offensive against the insidious infiltration of Communist doctrine in
the free countries — if the ^larxist ideology is not challenged at every point, it
will triumph without the firing of a single shot. We face the very real danger
of finding our country an island isolated in the midst of a totalitarian sea. The
tentacles of the monster extend into every phase of social thought and organiza-
tion— they may be cut off only by the sword of persuasive truth.
INDEX
Page
Adams, John G 25S5, 25SG, 2589, 2593, 2594, 2601, 2602, 2612, 2618, 2619
Advertising media 2617
Africa 2616
Air Force (United States) 2587
Alderson, Mr 2584
American imperialism 2614, 2621
American Republic 2611
Appropriations Committee (Senate) 2612
Armed Forces 2615
Army (United States) 2585-2587,2601,2602,2610-2612
Army bill of particulars 2601
Army Intelligence (G-2) 2609
Attorney General of the United States 2595, 2599, 2609
Barslaag, Karl 2605
Beckley, Harold 2584
Boston, Mass 2594
Bronze Star Medal 2609
Camp Gordon 2601
Capitol Police 2584
Carr, Francis P 2585, 2586, 2596, 2601, 2618, 2619
Catholic Church 2615
Catholics 2615
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) 2603,2604
CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) 2603,2604
Clifford, Clark 2584, 2585
Cohn, Roy M 2585-2590, 2593, 2596, 2601-2607, 2612, 2618, 2620
Combat Infantryman's Badge 2609
Cominform 2614
Communist authors 2617
Communist infiltration, information program 2591
Communist infiltration into the Army 2610
Communist Party 2591, 2594, 2596, 2599, 2602, 2610, 2614, 2617
Communists 2591, 2594, 2596, 2599, 2602, 2610, 2614, 2617
Community leaders 2616
Congress of the United States 2585, 2599, 2606, 2611
Counselor to the Army 2585, 2586, 2589, 2593, 2594, 2601, 2602, 2612, 2618, 2619
Definition of Communism (pamphlet) 2591
Deminform 2614,2621
Democracy 2614
Democrat adviser 2603
Democratic Party 2614, 2615, 2619, 2622
Department of the Army 2585-2587, 2601, 2602, 2610-2612
Department of State 2590, 2592, 2613
Dirksen. Senator 2584, 2590, 2612
Dulles, Allen 2603
Dworshak, Senator 2590
Elks 2016, 2622
Elks lodge (Africa) 2616
Elks lodge (Pakistan) 2616
Europe 2615
FBI (Federal Bureau of Investigation) 2590-
2592, 2595, 2597-2599, 2609-2611, 2622
FBI confidential documents 2609
FBI files 2597
II INDEX
Page
FBI name check ^^^^
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) 2590-
2592, 2595, 2597-2599, 2609-2611, 2622
Federal employees — 2612
FOA (Foreign Operations Administration) 2611,2612
Food and Agricultural Organization 2623
Foreign Operations Administration (FOA) 2611,2312
Fort Dix 2619
Fort Monmouth 2602, 2G09, 2610, 1612
Foss, Gen. Joe 2.)83
G-2 (Army Intelligence) ^^'09
General Services Administration 2610
Good Housekeeping (name check) 2598
Government Printing Office 2610
Governor of the State of South Dakota (candidate) 25S3
Harvard University 2590, 2.j91
Higher clergy, pastoral letters 2olo
Hill (Capitol Hill) 2588
Hoey, Senator -^
Hollywood plan "^-7^1
Hoover, J. Edgar — — ^'^^
Hotel Waldorf 2006, 2619
House of Representatives 2.)89
House Un-American Activities Committee 2.j9d-L5JJ
International Labor Organization 2023
Jackson, Senator 2u98
Jenner couiuiittee Z'^ii
Juliana, Jim -oi8
Kelly, General :;^>;^
Knights of Columbus onrt
Larson, Jess ~^^^
Latin American desk ^ ~^^^^
Lawton. General 2585, 2jn8, 2619
Legion of Merit ' o ma
Loyalty board members -''j^
Lutheran Church --^l^
Marine Corps (United States) --j^;^
Marine fighter pilot ~^]Y)i
Marx, Karl - I^;^
Marxist ideology ^*'"^
Mary i- ^600
McCarthy, Senator Joe, testimony of o''ai~^c?o
McClellan, Senator -'^"2, -bl„
McGuire Air Base 201.)
Members of Congress --.ja)
Military Intelligence (G-2) 200J
Mims, Frances 2oOb
jyjjrp 2()17
Monitored phone calls 20[|2
Naval Intelligence -'J-^i
Navy (United States) -'^^1
New Year's i:ve -^ 2fa0n
New York Citv 2588, 2589, 2592, 2598, 2598, 2601, 2002, 2618
Oak Leaf Cluster 2(|09
Old Loyalty Board 2W;
Pacific __-_...----.-__--- ^
Pakistan
Pentagon ~-'°\'
Peress. 2610
President of the United States 2.j85, 2603, 2011
Presidential order -'^|^
Protestant Church 2blD
Protestants %^}2,
jj(j^ ^01 (
Reber, General 2587, 2589
INDEX III
Page
Religious groups (all faiths) 2615
Republicaus 2583-2085, 2611, 2615
Rickeubacker, Eddie 2583
Rinirler, Colouel 2596-2598, 2606-2608
St. Clair, Mr 2593, 2603
Scliine, G. David 2585-2593, 2600-2608, 2613-2615, 2618-2021
Schiue hotels 25<)1
Schiue Plan Outline (document) 2614,2621
Second World War 2583
Secretary of the Army 2585-2587, 2593, 2601-2603, 2605, 2612
Senate Appropriations Committee 2612
Senate of the United States 2602
Sergeant at Arms 2589
State Department 2590, 2592, 2613
Stevens, Robert T 2585, 2586, 2589, 2593, 2601-2603, 2605, 2612
Strategy 2621
Symington, Senator 2585, 2602
Un-American Activities Committee (House) 2595-2599
United States Air Force 2587
United States Army 2585-2587, 2601, 2602, 2610-2612
United States Attorney General 2595, 2599, 2609
United States Congress 2585, 3599, 2606, 2611
United States Department of State 2590, 2592, 2613
United States Marine Corps 2583
United States Navy 2587
United States President 2585, 2603, 2611
United States Senate 2602
Universal appeal pictures, cartoons, humor, pin-ups 2617
University of Harvard 2590, 2591
Voice of America 2591, 2614, 2620, 2623
"Voice of America Act 2628
Voice of the Free World 2623
Voice of Moscow 2591
Waldorf Hotel 2606, 2619
Washington, D. C 2589, 2598
Watt, Mrs 2000
Welker, Senator 2013
West Point 2601
White House 2603, 2611
White House directive 2611
World War II 2583
Young, Ruth 2587-2569, 2600
o
Live Music Archive
Librivox Free Audio
Metropolitan Museum
Cleveland Museum of Art
Internet Arcade
Console Living Room
Books to Borrow
Open Library
TV News
Understanding 9/11