[Senate Prints 107-84]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]



                                                         S. Prt. 107-84
 
                    EXECUTIVE SESSIONS OF THE SENATE
                       PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                    INVESTIGATIONS OF THE COMMITTEE
                        ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS

=======================================================================

                                VOLUME 5

                               __________

                         EIGHTY-THIRD CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                                  1954


                        MADE PUBLIC JANUARY 2003

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Governmental Affairs

                               -------

83-873              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                            WASHINGTON : 2003

































                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                     107th Congress, Second Session

               JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan                 FRED THOMPSON, Tennessee
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii              TED STEVENS, Alaska
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
                                     PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
           Joyce A. Rechtschaffen, Staff Director and Counsel
              Richard A. Hertling, Minority Staff Director
                     Darla D. Cassell, Chief Clerk
                                 ------                                

                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

                     CARL LEVIN, Michigan, Chairman
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii,             SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois          TED STEVENS, Alaska
ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey     GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
MAX CLELAND, Georgia                 THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah
MARK DAYTON, Minnesota               JIM BUNNING, Kentucky
                                     PETER G. FITZGERALD, Illinois
            Elise J. Bean, Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                 Kim Corthell, Minority Staff Director
                     Mary D. Robertson, Chief Clerk


                   COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
                     83rd Congress, Second Session

                JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota          JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas
MARGARET CHASE SMITH, Maine          HUBERT H. HUMPHREY, Minnesota
HENRY C. DWORSHAK, Idaho             HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois   JOHN F. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JOHN MARSHALL BUTLER, Maryland       STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan          ALTON A. LENNON, North Carolina
                   Francis D. Flanagan, Chief Counsel
                    Walter L. Reynolds, Chief Clerk
                                 ------                                

                PERMANENT SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS

                JOSEPH R. McCARTHY, Wisconsin, Chairman
KARL E. MUNDT, South Dakota          JOHN L. McCLELLAN, Arkansas \1\
EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, Illinois   HENRY M. JACKSON, Washington \1\
CHARLES E. POTTER, Michigan          STUART SYMINGTON, Missouri \1\
                       Roy M. Cohn, Chief Counsel
                  Robert F. Kennedy, Minority Counsel
                  Francis P. Carr, Executive Director
                      Ruth Young Watt, Chief Clerk

                           ASSISTANT COUNSELS

Thomas W. La Venia                                   Donald A. Surine
Donald F. O'Donnell                                  Jerome S. Adlerman
Daniel G. Buckley                                    C. George Anastos

                             INVESTIGATORS

                           Robert J. McElroy
Herbert S. Hawkins                                   James N. Juliana
                Karl H.W. Baarslag, Director of Research
               Carmine S. Bellino, Consulting Accountant
                   La Vern J. Duffy, Staff Assistant

----------
  \1\ The Democratic members were absent from the subcommittee from 
July 10, 1953 to January 25, 1954.


































                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                                Volume 5

PREFACE..........................................................    IX
INTRODUCTION.....................................................    XI
Waste and Corruption--Development of Alaska, January 13..........     1
    Testimony of Carmine Bellino.
Voice of America, January 13.....................................    29
    Testimony of Dr. Newbern Smith.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, January 19..........    31
    Statement of John Adams.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, February 18.........    33
    Testimony of Peter A. Gragis; Leo Kantrowitz; Max Finestone; 
      Frank M. McGee; Lt. Col. Chester T. Brown; Capt. W. J. 
      Woodward; and Brig. Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, February 23.........    63
    Testimony of Charlotte Oram; Sallie Fannie Peek; Genevieve 
      Brown; William S. Johnson; and Lamuel Belton.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, March 1.............    73
    Testimony of Pvt. David LaPorte Linfield; and Sidney 
      Rubinstein.
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage, March 10............    75
    Testimony of Harriman H. Dash.
American Citizens Behind the Iron Curtain, March 3...............    93
    Statements of Ben H. Brown, Jr.; W. Barbour; Alyn Donaldson; 
      Everett F. Drumright; Frederick Ayer, Jr.; Lt. Col. R. W. 
      Springfield; James H. Smith, Jr.; Capt. W. R. Smedburg; Lt. 
      Com. T. J. Martz; Lt. Col. Nihart; and Warrant Officer Jack 
      Goodall.
American Citizens Behind the Iron Curtain, March 9...............   139
    Statements of L. E. Berry; Col. Vernon M. Smith; Lt. Col. 
      Homer B. Chandler, Jr.; and Lt. Col. Charles M. Trammell, 
      Jr.
Alleged Threats Against the Chairman, March 4....................   165
    Testimony of William J. Morgan.
Communist Infiltration in the Army, March 4......................   177
    Testimony of Dr. Marvin Sanford Belsky.
Communist Infiltration in the Army, March 5......................   187
    Statement of Lt. Oscar Roy Weiner.
Communist Infiltration in the Army, March 10.....................   189
    Testimony of Lt. Oscar Roy Weiner.
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, March 16..................................   195
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, April 19..................................   197
    Testimony of J. Myer Schine; Florence D. Torrey; and Roy M. 
      Cohn.
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, April 20..................................   209
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, April 23..................................   213
    Testimony of George E. Sokolsky.
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, April 24..................................   223
    Testimony of Iris Flores.
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, May 5.....................................   241
    Testimony of James B. Reston.
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, May 6.....................................   245
    Testimony of Fred A. Seaton.
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, May 27....................................   253
    Testimony of John E. Pernice.
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, June 3....................................   259
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, June 8....................................   273
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, June 10...................................   291
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, July 15...................................   293
Confirmation of Subcommittee Personnel, July 15..................   295
Matters of Staff Organization and Committee Funds, July 20.......   317
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  January 15.....................................................   329
    Testimony of Leon J. Kamin; Theodore Pappas; Alexander 
      Gregory; Victor S. Boyls; Karl T. Nabeshka; Simon Pallet; 
      Lewis B. Thomas; Benjamin Alfred; Edwin Allen Cassano; 
      Renaldo Cavalieri; Rodney Avram Brooks; George Frederick 
      Moore; and Wendell H. Furry.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  February 19....................................................   359
    Testimony of Dante DeCesare; Helen Quirini; Lillian Garcia 
      Krummel; Louis Passikoff; William Vincent Delos; Robert H. 
      LaFortune; Cyril Sille; Allan E. Townsend; Michael Riggi; 
      and Charles Rivers.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  July 19........................................................   387
    Statements of Lawrence W. Parrish; and Charles Wojchowski.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  July 20........................................................   395
    Testimony of Edwin Garfield; and Yates C. Holmes.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  August 6.......................................................   411
    Testimony of Diantha Hoag; and Lawrence W. Parrish.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  August 11......................................................   423
    Testimony of Joseph O. Mattson; Waino E. Suokko; Waino S. 
      Nisula; Louis Passikoff; Joseph Mazzei; and Mary Mazzei.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  December 6.....................................................   471
    Testimony of Herman E. Thomas; Joseph A. Picucci; John Szabo; 
      Markus Kalasz; John Wallach; Philip Valli; John Babirak; 
      and Benito Seara Quintana.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  December 7.....................................................   521
    Testimony of Markus Kalasz; Philip Valli; Paul Ault; John 
      Babirak; Alvin Heller; Harold C. Allen; Maurice Slater; and 
      Andrew Nicko.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  December 8.....................................................   557
    Testimony of Thomas B. Russiano.
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and Industry, 
  January 3, 1955................................................   569
    Testimony of Frank Nestler; Mary Stella Beynon; Joseph 
      Slater; Peter T. Lydon; Theodore Wright; and Harold K. 
      Briney.





















                                PREFACE

                              ----------                              

    The power to investigate ranks among the U.S. Senate's 
highest responsibilities. As James Madison reasoned in The 
Federalist Papers: ``If men were angels, no government would be 
necessary. If angels governed men, neither external nor 
internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing 
a government which is to be administered by men over men, the 
great difficulty lies in this: You must first enable the 
government to control the governed; and in the next place, 
oblige it to control itself.'' It is precisely for the purposes 
of government controlling itself that Congress investigates.
    A century after Madison, another thoughtful authority on 
Congress, Woodrow Wilson, judged the ``vigilant oversight of 
administration'' to be as important as legislation. Wilson 
argued that because self-governing people needed to be fully 
informed in order to cast their votes wisely, the information 
resulting from a Congressional investigation might be ``even 
more important than legislation.'' Congress, he said, was the 
``eyes and the voice'' of the nation.
    In 1948, the Senate established the Permanent Subcommittee 
on Investigations to continue the work of a special committee, 
first chaired by Missouri Senator Harry Truman, to investigate 
the national defense program during World War II. Over the next 
half century, the Subcommittee under our predecessor Chairmen, 
Senators John McClellan, Henry Jackson, Sam Nunn, William Roth, 
and John Glenn, conducted a broad array of hard-hitting 
investigations into allegations of corruption and malfeasance, 
leading repeatedly to the exposure of wrongdoing and to the 
reform of government programs.
    The phase of the Subcommittee's history from 1953 to 1954, 
when it was chaired by Joseph McCarthy, however, is remembered 
differently. Senator McCarthy's zeal to uncover subversion and 
espionage led to disturbing excesses. His browbeating tactics 
destroyed careers of people who were not involved in the 
infiltration of our government. His freewheeling style caused 
both the Senate and the Subcommittee to revise the rules 
governing future investigations, and prompted the courts to act 
to protect the Constitutional rights of witnesses at 
Congressional hearings. Senator McCarthy's excesses culminated 
in the televised Army-McCarthy hearings of 1954, following 
which the Senate voted overwhelmingly for his censure.
    Under Senate provisions regulating investigative records, 
the records of the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations are 
deposited in the National Archives and sealed for fifty years, 
in part to protect the privacy of the many witnesses who 
testified in closed executive sessions. With the half century 
mark here relative to the executive session materials of the 
McCarthy subcommittee, we requested that the Senate Historical 
Office prepare the transcripts for publication, to make them 
equally accessible to students and the general public across 
the nation. They were edited by Dr. Donald A. Ritchie, with the 
assistance of Beth Bolling and Diane Boyle, and with the 
cooperation of the staff of the Center for Legislative Archives 
at the National Archives and Records Administration.
    These hearings are a part of our national past that we can 
neither afford to forget nor permit to reoccur.

                                   Carl Levin,
                                           Chairman.

                                   Susan M. Collins,
                                           Ranking Member.

                          Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.


















                              INTRODUCTION

                              ----------                              

    In 1954, the investigators found themselves the subject of 
investigation. Senator Joseph R. McCarthy stepped aside 
temporarily as chair of the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations after the United States Army accused him and 
chief counsel Roy Cohn of having demanded special treatment for 
the subcommittee's former consultant, G. David Schine, then an 
army private. Senator McCarthy rebutted that the army had held 
Schine hostage in order to silence the subcommittee's 
investigations.
    A special subcommittee, chaired by Senator Karl Mundt, then 
attempted to unravel these charges. Senator McCarthy, Cohn and 
executive director Francis Carr served as the principals in the 
investigation, along with Secretary of the Army Robert T. 
Stevens, Army Counsel John G. Adams, and Assistant Secretary of 
Defense H. Struve Hensel. The Army-McCarthy hearings were 
televised nationally and captured public attention. They 
resulted in an erosion of the senator's public standing, and 
contributed to his censure by the United States Senate that 
December.

                   Revising the Subcommittee's Rules

    In the months leading up to the Army-McCarthy hearings, 
Senator McCarthy faced several challenges to his chairmanship 
of the permanent subcommittee. Eight senators died in office 
during the Eighty-third Congress, including Majority Leader 
Robert Taft, which from time to time gave Senate Democrats a 
numerical advantage, even though Republicans officially 
retained their majority status and held the committee 
chairmanships. Complicating matters for the permanent 
subcommittee in July 1953 were the resignations of all three of 
its Democratic members--Senators John McClellan, Henry Jackson, 
and Stuart Symington--over the subcommittee's hiring practices.
    During their absence, Senator McCarthy was often the only 
subcommittee member to attend its closed hearings, many of 
which he held out of town with little advance notice. 
Republican senators on the subcommittee had other Senate 
business to attend to in Washington. Senator Everett Dirksen 
and Senator Charles Potter occasionally sent staff to represent 
them at the hearings, and Senator McCarthy allowed them to 
interrogate witnesses. Unaware of this development, Senator 
Potter eventually dismissed his staff delegate, Robert Jones, 
for misrepresenting his position. On a few occasions, even 
Senator McCarthy was not present and staff interrogatories 
replaced hearings. David Schine sometimes presided, with Roy 
Cohn conducting the interrogation and addressing Schine as 
``Mr. Chairman.'' \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Charles E. Potter, Days of Shame (New York: Coward-McCann, 
1965), 152-159; Staff interrogatory, October 30, 1953.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Democrats' continued boycott jeopardized the 
subcommittee's appropriation at the opening of the second 
session in January 1954. Arizona Senator Carl Hayden, the 
ranking Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, threatened to 
cut off the subcommittee's funds for lack of a ``majority 
vote.'' At the same time, Iowa Senator Guy Gillette called on 
the Senate to restrict the subcommittee's freewheeling scope 
and prohibit it from overlapping other committees' 
jurisdictions. Senator McCarthy described these efforts as ``a 
vote against the exposure of spies and saboteurs,'' and 
asserted that it was ``a natural thing for left-wing Democrats 
to try to stop the exposure of treason.'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ New York Times, January 15, 1954; Chicago Tribune, January 3, 
7, 15, 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Karl Mundt, a South Dakota Republican who served on 
the Government Operations Committee, sought to mediate between 
the chairman and Democrats. At a closed meeting on January 14, 
1954, Senator McCarthy agreed to the Democrats' demand that 
they be permitted to hire a minority counsel. The subcommittee 
formally adopted these rules:
    1. Future staff members as well as all present members 
shall be confirmed by a majority of the subcommittee.
    2. The minority shall select for appointment to the 
subcommittee staff a chief counsel for the minority who shall, 
upon being confirmed, work under their supervision and 
direction; who shall be kept fully informed as to 
investigations and hearings, have access to all material in the 
files of the subcommittee, and, when not otherwise engaged, 
shall do other subcommittee work.
    3. The minority counsel shall be hired at a salary not to 
exceed the maximum allowed Senate employees.
    An increase of $16,000 on Senate Resolution 19 will be 
requested to cover the salary and travel, per diem, allowance, 
and incidental expenses.
    4. A clerk already on the staff, acceptable to it, shall be 
assigned to the minority and it is understood that when she is 
not busy she will do any work assigned to her on the 
subcommittee.
    5. It is understood that before a voucher is submitted to 
the chairman for a new employee, that an FBI investigation be 
conducted--a full field investigation requested.
    6. No public hearing shall be announced or held if the 
minority members unanimously object, unless the Committee on 
Government Operations by majority vote approves of a public 
hearing.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Congressional Record, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1101.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    When Democrats returned to the subcommittee they selected 
as their counsel a former subcommittee staff member, Robert F. 
Kennedy, the younger brother of Massachusetts Senator John F. 
Kennedy. The full committee then voted unanimously to approve 
the subcommittee's appropriation. In the Senate chamber, 
Senator J. William Fulbright of Arkansas cast the sole vote 
against the appropriation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Congressional Record, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., 1085-1103.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    With criticism of investigative tactics mounting, the 
Republican Policy Committee in February 1954 proposed new rules 
under which a vote of the full committee would be necessary to 
authorize any subcommittees; hearings would be prohibited 
unless a quorum was present; and committees were restricted 
from delegating subpoena power, initiating an investigation, 
holding a hearing outside of the District of Columbia, or 
taking confidential testimony unless authorized by a majority 
of committee members. Witnesses subpoenaed would have the right 
to counsel. Only senators and authorized staff personnel could 
interrogate witnesses. The policy committee unanimously 
approved these rules and forwarded them to the Senate Rules 
Committee. The Rules Committee chose to let individual 
committees set their own investigative standards and 
procedures. The next year, the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations adopted rules similar to those that the policy 
committee had recommended:\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ Donald A. Ritchie, A History of the United States Senate 
Republican Policy Committee, 1947-1997, S. Doc. 105-5 (Washington, 
D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1997), 43-44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    1. An investigating subcommittee of any committee may be 
authorized only by the action of a majority of the committee.
    2. No investigating committee or subcommittee is authorized 
to hold a hearing to hear a subpoenaed witness or take sworn 
testimony unless a majority of the members of the committee or 
subcommittee are present: Provided, however, That the committee 
may authorize the presence of a majority and a minority member 
to constitute a quorum.
    3. An investigating committee or subcommittee may not 
delegate its authority to issue subpoena except by a vote of 
the committee or subcommittee.
    4. No hearing shall be initiated unless the investigating 
committee or subcommittee has specifically authorized such 
hearing.
    5. No hearing of an investigating committee or subcommittee 
shall be scheduled outside of the District of Columbia except 
by the majority vote of the committee or subcommittee.
    6. No confidential testimony taken or confidential material 
presented in an executive hearing or an investigating committee 
or subcommittee or any report of the proceedings of such an 
executive hearing shall be made public, either in whole or in 
part or by way of summary, unless authorized by a majority of 
the committee or subcommittee.
    7. Any witness summoned to a public or executive hearing 
may be accompanied by counsel of his own choosing, who shall be 
permitted while the witness is testifying to advise him of his 
legal rights.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Congressional Record, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., 2970.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         McCarthy and the Army

    The subcommittee's investigation of Communist infiltration 
of the army eventually focused on two principal subjects: 
Irving Peress, an army dentist, and Annie Lee Moss, a Pentagon 
file clerk. Both appeared only fleetingly before the 
subcommittee, but with considerable consequence.
    During the autumn of 1953, the subcommittee had looked into 
charges of subversion and espionage at the Army Signal Corps 
laboratories at Fort Monmouth, New Jersey. Security officers 
abruptly suspended forty-two employees as security risks, and 
Senator McCarthy began calling them as witnesses. Many had 
graduated from the engineering program at the City College of 
New York (CCNY) where they had sat in classes with Julius 
Rosenberg. Since Rosenberg had worked at Fort Monmouth during 
the Second World War, suspicions arose that he had operated a 
spy ring within the laboratories. Army officials at first 
cooperated with the investigation, with Secretary of the Army 
Robert T. Stevens and the army's counsel John G. Adams 
attending executive sessions. Relations grew strained, however, 
when President Dwight D. Eisenhower refused to allow army 
security board members to be identified and questioned by the 
subcommittee. The president withheld other requested materials 
on the grounds of executive privilege.
    Discovering that an army dentist suspected of being a 
member of the Communist party had been promoted to major, and 
then honorably discharged, Senator McCarthy raised the 
question: ``Who promoted Peress?'' He further demanded the 
names of those who had cleared Peress' discharge. Peress' 
commanding officer, Brigadier General Ralph Zwicker, cited an 
executive order that forbade him from divulging such 
information. ``Then, General, you should be removed from any 
command,'' the chairman stormed. ``Any man who has been given 
the honor of being promoted to general and who says, `I will 
protect another general who protected Communists,' is not fit 
to wear that uniform, General.'' General Zwicker's executive 
session testimony was made public on February 22, 1954, and 
caused some alarm even among the senator's strongest 
supporters. An editorial in the Chicago Tribune suggested that 
McCarthy learn to ``distinguish the role of investigator from 
the role of avenging angel.'' Since McCarthy's clash with 
Zwicker has already been published, it is not included in this 
edition of executive sessions, but the volume does contain an 
exchange between the senator and Lt. Colonel Chester T. Brown 
that immediately preceded General Zwicker's testimony, when the 
senator used equally abusive language: ``I think, may I say 
this, that any man in the uniform of his country, who refuses 
to give information to a committee of the Senate which 
represents the American people, that that man is not fit to 
wear the uniform of his country.''
    Army counsel John G. Adams noted that Senator McCarthy's 
supporters on the Government Operations Committee initially 
tried to strike from the record his verbal assault on General 
Zwicker, but they had ``underestimated the efficiency of the 
stenographic company.'' The army had already received copies of 
the transcript. Learning this, the committee voted to release 
the controversial exchange.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ John G. Adams, Without Precedent: The Story of the Death of 
McCarthyism (New York: W. W. Norton, 1983), 79, 129.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The subcommittee had gotten the name of Annie Lee Moss from 
an FBI informant, Mary Stalcup Markward, who told them that she 
had seen ``a woman by the name of Annie Lee Moss on the list of 
card-carrying, dues-paying members.'' However, Markward could 
not recall having met Moss personally. Moss, an African 
American, had worked in a government cafeteria before getting a 
job as an Army Signal Corps communications clerk at the 
Pentagon in 1950. She had been cleared by loyalty boards of the 
General Accounting Office in October 1949 and by the army in 
January 1951. In September 1951, the FBI raised questions about 
Moss, and offered Markward's testimony as evidence, but the 
army did not reopen the case. Senator McCarthy described Moss 
herself as ``not of any great importance,'' but he demanded to 
know: ``Who in the military, knowing that this lady was a 
Communist, promoted her from a waitress to a code clerk?'' Due 
to ill health, Moss did not attend an executive session and 
made her first appearance before the subcommittee at a 
televised public hearing on March 11, 1954.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Army Signal Corps--
Subverision and Espionage, part 8 (Washington, D.C.: Government 
Printing Office, 1954), 314-29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The army described Annie Lee Moss' position as a relay 
machine operator who received and transmitted ``unintelligible 
code messages.'' When the charges against her became public, 
the army first transferred her to a supply room and then 
suspended her entirely. At the public hearing, Moss denied 
having been a member of the Communist party, having paid any 
dues, or having attended any party meetings. She testified that 
her late husband had received copies of the Daily Worker, 
although she was uncertain whether they had been addressed to 
him or to her. Moss had paid dues to a cafeteria-workers' union 
in 1943, but could not say whether the union had any Communist 
party connections. Appearing frail and perplexed at the 
hearing, she seemed an unlikely espionage agent even to Senator 
McCarthy, who left midway through her testimony. The hearing 
was replayed on Edward R. Murrow's popular See It Now 
television program and proved a public relations blow to the 
chairman. The army eventually reinstated Annie Lee Moss, 
placing her in its finance and accounts office. In 1958 the 
Subversive Activities Control Board confirmed Markward's 
assertion that Moss' name had appeared on the Communist party 
rolls in the mid-1940s. But the board conducted no further 
investigation of Moss, and the following year it concluded that 
``Markward's testimony should be assayed with caution.'' \9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Thomas C. Reeves, The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy (New York: 
Stein and Day, 1982), 548-50, 667-69, 766-67; David M. Oshinsky, A 
Conspiracy So Immense: The World of Joe McCarthy (New York: Free Press, 
1983), 381-85, 401-3; Arthur Herman, Joseph McCarthy: Reexamining the 
Life and Legacy of America's Most Hated Senator (New York: Free Press, 
2000), 333-37.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Reporter Ethel Payne, who covered the case for the Chicago 
Defender, an African-American newspaper, described Annie Lee 
Moss as a humble person of limited education. ``The three 
things in her life were her son, her grandson, and her church, 
beside her job. And other than that, she knew little about the 
world outside. She was a widow. In those days, when the 
Communist Party was really campaigning in black areas to 
recruit blacks to join the Communist Party, they were very 
active. I know in Chicago, when people were evicted, Communists 
would come and move their furniture and everything else back 
into these houses, and they would bring baskets of food. They 
launched a serious campaign in the black community. Well, Mrs. 
Moss' husband was one of those who had been contacted by the 
Communists. He was just a simple working man, but they were 
sending him free subscriptions to the Daily Worker, the organ 
of the Communist Party. And I don't know what he did with them, 
but when he died, they kept coming, these papers, and they 
piled up on her back porch, some with the wrappings still on 
them. She never paid any attention to it; the Bible was her 
thing.'' \10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Ethel Payne oral history, 1987 Washington Press Club 
Foundation, 39-40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Peress and Moss cases further eroded Senator McCarthy's 
relations with the army. Then the controversy escalated when 
the army charged that McCarthy and Cohn had demanded special 
privileges for the subcommittee's former chief counsel, David 
Schine. Ruth Watt, chief clerk of the subcommittee since 1947, 
had observed that Cohn and Schine operated outside the normal 
rules for Senate staff. Rather than work out of the 
subcommittee's limited quarters, they had rented office space 
in a nearby office building. Schine, as a consultant, was not 
on the subcommittee's payroll and could not be reimbursed for 
his expenses. Watt noted his ten-
dency to place long-distance calls to notify friends whenever 
he expected live television coverage of the subcommittee's 
hearings. ``Then when the bill came, it was personal, I wasn't 
going to pay it,'' she explained. ``So Roy Cohn ended up paying 
his telephone bills.'' Schine once signed Senator McCarthy's 
name to a letter to the Senate Rules Committee asking 
permission for Cohn and Schine to have access to the 
``Senators' Baths,'' a pool and steam room reserved exclusively 
for senators. When the chairman of the Rules Committee informed 
Senator McCarthy that the request could not be granted, 
McCarthy, who had known nothing about it, simply nodded and 
said he knew that and would inform his staff.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Ruth Watt oral history, 107-8; Nicholas von Hoffman, Citizen 
Cohn (New York: Doubleday, 1988), 177-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    That pattern of seeking special privilege continued after 
Schine was drafted into the army as a private. Schine made 
numerous requests for passes and release from basic training, 
which Cohn demanded of army officials. Senator McCarthy, by 
contrast, seemed indifferent to special treatment for Schine. 
During a monitored telephone conversation in November 1953, 
Senator McCarthy had told Army Secretary Stevens: ``For God's 
sake, don't put Dave in service and assign him back to my 
committee. If he could get off weekends--Roy--it is one of the 
few things I have seen him completely unreasonable about. He 
thinks Dave should be a general and work from the penthouse of 
the Waldorf.'' Secretary Stevens had expected Senator McCarthy 
to turn the Fort Monmouth investigation over to the army after 
the initial inquiry, but began to suspect that Roy Cohn was 
pursuing the investigation more aggressively as leverage to win 
favors for Private Schine.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Government 
Operations Committee, Special Senate Investigation in 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, 83rd Cong., 2nd sess., Part 10 (Washington, D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, 1954), 377-78.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The resulting Army-McCarthy hearings were played out before 
televised audiences. Only a few closed-door executive sessions 
were held. Rather than leading the questioning, both Senator 
McCarthy and Roy Cohn were called upon to testify. Reviewing 
his own testimony, Cohn saw things that had managed to elude 
him during his previous year as subcommittee counsel. ``I was 
rambling, garrulous, repetitive,'' he admitted. ``I was brash, 
smug, and smart-alecky. I was pompous and petulant.'' Cohn had 
a similarly negative assessment of Senator McCarthy's 
performance at the hearings: ``He complained bitterly of being 
interrupted . . . and yet he came charging in on everyone 
else's testimony time and again with his `point of order, Mr. 
Chairman, point of order.' He used the words so often they were 
taken up by countless comedians and had a vogue as a national 
catch-phrase. His language toward his opponents was often less 
than parliamentarian. He was verbally brutal where he should 
have been dexterous and light; he was stubbornly unwilling to 
yield points where a little yielding might have gained him 
advantage; he frequently spoke before thinking of the effect of 
his words; he was repetitious to the point of boredom.'' Cohn 
recognized that McCarthy was addicted ``to dramatic techniques 
in presenting information,'' and was ``impatient, overly 
aggressive, overly dramatic. He acted on impulse. He tended to 
sensationalize the evidence he had.'' The Senator ``would 
neglect to do important homework and consequently would, on 
occasion, make challengeable statements.'' These were the 
qualities that McCarthy revealed to television audiences, and 
that the army's counsel Joseph Welch employed so effectively 
against him.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ Roy Cohn, McCarthy (New York: New American Library, 1968), 
181, 208, 223, 275, 277.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

            Investigating Communists in the Defense Industry

    The Army-McCarthy hearings consumed the better part of the 
session and delayed other subcommittee business, but Senator 
McCarthy was anxious to develop a new investigation of 
Communist involvement in the defense industry. Both before and 
after the Army-McCarthy hearings, the subcommittee looked into 
the activities of the United Electrical, Radio, and Machine 
Workers (UE), which had organized workers at General Electric 
and Westinghouse plants. UE had once been the third largest 
union in the Congress of Industrial Organizations (CIO). In 
1941, UE president James B. Carey had been defeated for 
reelection largely after refusing to follow the Communist 
party's line on foreign policy. The union had supported the war 
effort throughout World War II, but in 1946 it conducted a 
massive strike against GE for increased wages. During the 
Eightieth Congress (1947-1948) enactment of the Taft-Hartley 
Act required union leaders to sign non-Communist affidavits, 
and several top UE officials had refused to comply. In 1948 the 
House Un-American Activities Committee had investigated the UE 
and heard testimony that the union's secretary-treasurer Julius 
Emspak and director of organization James J. Matles were 
members of the Communist party. Both Emspak and Matles cited 
the Fifth Amendment in refusing to answer the committee's 
questions. Senator McCarthy entered in the debate in 1950 when 
he denounced the United Electrical union as ``one of America's 
worst security risks,'' and accused the UE of representing the 
``interests of the Kremlin'' rather than of GE workers and 
management.
    Prior to the subcommittee's investigation, the Senate Labor 
Committee had also looked into the role of Communists in the 
UE. By then the CIO had expelled the UE for being Communist 
dominated. A rival International Union of Electrical, Radio, 
and Machine Workers (IUE), headed by the UE's former president 
Carey, won elections in most General Electric plants, although 
the UE remained the bargaining agent at GE plants in Lynn, 
Massachusetts; Erie, Pennsylvania; and Schenectady, New York. 
In 1952 and 1953, articles in the Saturday Evening Post and 
Reader's Digest had linked the UE with ``spies in our defense 
plants.'' In 1954, the IUE defeated the UE for the right to 
represent GE workers in Schenectady. As a result of this 
turmoil, General Electric concluded that its labor problems 
stemmed in large part from poor communications with its 
employees and the community. In September 1954, GE hired the 
actor Ronald Reagan (who at that time was known as a liberal 
anti-Communist) to promote better public relations through 
speaking engagements and by hosting its weekly television 
program, General Electric Theater.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \14\ Congressional Record, 81st Cong., 2nd sess., A7002; Herbert R. 
Northrup, Boulwarism: The Labor Relations Policies of the General 
Electric Company, Their Implications for Public Policy and Management 
Action (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Bureau of Industrial 
Relations, 1964), 7-49; Ronald L. Filippelli and Mark McColloch, Cold 
War in the Working Class: The Rise and Decline of the United Electrical 
Workers (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1995), 141-66; and 
Ronald W. Schatz, The Electrical Workers: A History of Labor at General 
Electric and Westinghouse, 1923-60 (Urbana: University of Illinois 
Press, 1983).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                               Aftermath

    Although Senator McCarthy had planned to resume holding 
executive and public sessions in Boston after the Army-McCarthy 
hearings had ended, Senate Republican Leader William F. 
Knowland denied permission for committee hearings to be held 
outside of Washington for the remainder of the session. At that 
juncture, the subcommittee also underwent major changes in its 
staff.
    Under pressure, Roy Cohn resigned as chief counsel in 
August 1954. Cohn never again held a government post. As a 
private attorney he was frequently reprimanded for unethical 
conduct, and was tried and acquitted in 1964, 1969, and 1971 on 
charges of conspiracy, bribery and fraud. He was eventually 
disbarred in 1986, just prior to his death. In his books and 
later interviews, Cohn conceded that Senator McCarthy's 
``penchant for the dramatic'' and exaggerated claims and 
accusations had invited much of the critical storm that 
engulfed them, but he always insisted that McCarthy had 
performed ``a substantial service to the country by alerting 
the country to the menace of communism when most people in this 
country were not tuned in to how deadly it was.'' Cohn 
discounted charges that their investigations had ruined people 
and cost them their livelihood. ``Name one,'' he challenged. 
Looking back, Cohn concluded: ``I can live to be 300 years old 
and do all sorts of things. . . . and when I die, when I'm 
referred to, it's going to be as Joe McCarthy's counsel.'' \15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Cohn, McCarthy, 94-95; New York Times, August 3, 1986; 
Washington Post, December 22, 1985.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    G. David Schine, whose army service caused so much 
commotion, disengaged from the political sphere and spent the 
rest of his life in Hollywood as a motion picture producer, 
winning an Academy Award for The French Connection. He also 
made a guest appearance as himself on a television episode of 
Batman. In 1996 Schine and his wife died in the crash of a 
small plane piloted by one of their sons.
    As Cohn and Schine departed from the subcommittee, Robert 
F. Kennedy, who had resigned from the staff in 1953, returned 
as minority counsel. Kennedy wrote the final report on the 
Army-McCarthy hearings and then became chief counsel when 
Democrats took the majority in the next Congress. He rose to 
national prominence as counsel during the labor racketeering 
investigations, managed his brother's presidential campaign, 
served as attorney general, and was elected senator from New 
York in 1964. As a senator he served on the Government 
Operations Committee but not on the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations. In 1968, Robert Kennedy ran for the Democratic 
nomination for president of the United States. On the night 
that he won the California primary, he was assassinated in Los 
Angeles' Ambassador Hotel, by coincidence one of the Schine 
family's chain of hotels.
    In July 1954, Vermont Republican Senator Ralph Flanders 
introduced a resolution calling for the censure of Senator 
Joseph R. McCarthy for conduct unbecoming a senator. The 
resolution was referred to a select committee chaired by Utah 
Republican Senator Arthur Watkins. In September, after the 
Senate had recessed, the Watkins committee issued a report 
recommending the senator's censure. Following the November 
congressional elections, when Democrats won narrow majorities 
in both the Senate and House, the Senate returned in a lame 
duck session to debate the Watkins report and vote on censure. 
Friends from both parties appealed to Senator McCarthy to avoid 
censure by apologizing for his conduct, but he would hear none 
of it. On December 2, 1954, the Senate voted 67 to 22 to 
condemn McCarthy's conduct for having been ``contrary to 
senatorial tradition.'' With his party losing the majority, 
McCarthy also lost the chairmanship of the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations. Reporters ignored his speeches 
and press releases and his name disappeared from the front 
pages. His health and spirit declined rapidly and he died in 
1957 at the age of forty-eight.
    Senator McCarthy's most lasting legacy came in the form of 
judicial review of the rights of witnesses before congressional 
investigations. The chairman's single-minded focus on possible 
sedition and espionage had made him impatient over governmental 
efforts to treat the accused with due process. When informed 
that rules of the Civil Service Commission forbade the release 
of details of any loyalty hearing, Senator McCarthy said: ``I 
do not care what is in any loyalty review board memorandum. 
This man is ordered to produce certain information. He will 
produce it or his case will go to the grand jury.'' The loyalty 
boards, he insisted, ``are not running this committee. The 
senators on the committee are running it.''
    Along those lines, the senator defined the constitutional 
right against self-incrimination as incriminating in itself. He 
instructed witnesses that they could claim the Fifth Amendment 
only if they honestly felt that answering would incriminate 
them. Then he took the position that anyone who claimed self-
protection had admitted guilt, and demanded that they be 
dismissed from any government-related employment.
    At the time that Senator McCarthy made these assertions, 
the weight of judicial precedent was on his side. Dating back 
to the Teapot Dome investigations, the Supreme Court had ruled 
in McGrain v. Daughtery (1927) that a congressional committee 
could subpoena anyone, even those who were not government 
officials or employees, to testify. In Sinclair v. U.S. (1929), 
the Supreme Court recognized the right of Congress to 
investigate anything remotely related to its legislative and 
oversight functions. In 1940, Congress passed the Alien 
Registration Act (or Smith Act) that had made it illegal to 
advocate overthrowing the government by force or violence. In 
1948 the Justice Department indicted twelve Communist leaders 
for having conspired to organize ``as a society, group and 
assembly of persons who teach and advocate the overthrow and 
destruction of the Government of the United States by force and 
violence.'' In Dennis v. U.S. (1951), the Supreme Court upheld 
those convictions on the grounds that the government's power to 
prevent an armed rebellion enabled it to subordinate free 
speech. During the next six years, the government indicted 126 
individuals for being members of the Communist party. Congress 
had also passed the Mundt-Nixon Act in 1950, which barred 
Communist party members from employment in defense facilities, 
denied them passports, and required them to register with the 
Subversive Activities Control Board. In Rogers v. U.S. (1951) 
the Supreme Court ruled that a witness who admitted having been 
treasurer of a local Communist party could not claim privilege 
under the Fifth Amendment when asked to whom she had given her 
records. Her initial admission had waived her privilege and she 
was guilty of contempt for failing to answer.
    These rulings supported Senator McCarthy's operating 
assumption that those who belonged to the Communist party were 
committed to overthrowing the government by force and violence, 
and that those who claimed the Fifth Amendment must be guilty 
of the accusations made against them. He believed that the 
subcommittee gave him license to interrogate anyone regarding 
any possible links to communism, and that nothing could be too 
private or personal in nature to escape notice. The need to 
uncover disloyalty, in his mind, justified all means available, 
including the verbal abuse and intimidation of witnesses, and 
the firing of suspected subversives without due process.
    In 1957, the Supreme Court acted to restrict the 
government's ability to prosecute under the Smith Act and 
broaden the rights of congressional witnesses. On June 17, 
1957, a majority led by Chief Justice Earl Warren handed down a 
series of sweeping decisions. In Yates v. U.S. (1957) it 
reversed the convictions of fourteen Communist party members 
under the Smith Act, finding that joining the Communist party 
was not tantamount to advocating the overthrow of the 
government by force and violence. Thereafter, the Justice 
Department ceased all further indictments under the Smith Act. 
In Watkins v. U.S. (1957), the Supreme Court bolstered the 
rights of witnesses by insisting that an investigating 
committee had to demonstrate a legislative purpose in order to 
justify probing affairs, that public ``education'' was 
insufficient reason to force witnesses to answer questions 
under the penalty of being held in contempt, and that the Bill 
of Rights applied to anyone subpoenaed by a congressional 
committee. Despite Senator McCarthy's repeated threats that 
witnesses would be imprisoned for perjury or contempt, not a 
single witness went to jail for testimony given to the 
subcommittee during his chairmanship. Several were tried for 
contempt, but their convictions were all overturned on appeal.
    It was a noticeably subdued and cooperative Joseph McCarthy 
who attended the organizational meeting of the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations on January 24, 1955, as ranking 
minority member rather than chairman. In that executive session 
(not included in these volumes since it occurred outside of the 
Eighty-third Congress), the new chairman, Senator John 
McClellan, announced his intention to address unfinished 
business left pending from the previous Congress. As Senator 
McClellan turned to Senator McCarthy and to James Juliana, the 
new minority counsel, they engaged in these valedictory 
remarks:

    Senator McClellan. Let me say to you now that you two are 
certainly familiar with these files, and I mean the things that 
are unfinished and need attention. We want your wholehearted 
cooperation, Joe and Jim, in calling to our attention what in 
your judgment needs further work of this committee. I am not 
familiar with them.
    I want your wholehearted cooperation in these matters 
because there is no desire on my part to evade any 
responsibility that we have here. We are going through with it, 
whatever comes before us. I am not interested in any Democrat 
who has in the present administration or in the past 
administration as such, in no action that smacks of corruption 
or waste or inefficiency or anything else. I am prepared to 
defend or shield and I do not--there are a lot of things I 
don't know, and of course the work of the committee will find 
some other things as we go along. I am sure that every member 
of this committee will go into anything that needs our 
attention and any duty with which we are charged. I invite your 
wholehearted cooperation in this field.
    Beyond that now, I have nothing further.
    Senator McCarthy. I have already instructed Jim here to 
give you all the available information. He cannot do that just 
on the spur of the moment, but I think the chair knows that I 
have not tried to protect either the Eisenhower administration 
or the Truman administration. As far as I am concerned, I agree 
with the chair that politics plays no part in this. If we find 
a wrongdoing, I certainly will call it to your attention.

                                         Donald A. Ritchie,
                                     U.S. Senate Historical Office.











                   SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF IN JANUARY 1953

Francis D. Flanagan, chief counsel (July 1, 1945 to June 30, 
        1953)
Gladys E. Montier, assistant clerk (July 1, 1945 to November 
        15, 1953)
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk (February 10, 1947 to May 31, 
        1979)
Jerome S. Adlerman, assistant counsel (July 1, 1947 to August 
        3, 1953)
James E. Sheridan, investigator (July 1, 1947 to December 3, 
        1953)
Robert J. McElroy, investigator (April 1, 1948 to April 24, 
        1955)
James H. Thomas, assistant counsel (January 19, 1949 to 
        February 15, 1953)
Howell J. Hatcher, chief assistant counsel (March 15, 1949 to 
        April 15, 1953)
Edith H. Anderson, assistant clerk (January 26, 1951 to 
        February 9, 1957)
Willliam A. Leece, assistant counsel (March 14, 1951 to March 
        16, 1953)
Martha Rose Myers, assistant clerk (April 5, 1951 to July 31, 
        1953)
Nina W. Sutton, assistant clerk (April 1, 1952 to January 31, 
        1955)

                 SUBCOMMITTEE STAFF HIRED IN 1953-1954

Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel (January 15, 1953 to August 13, 
        1954)
Robert F. Kennedy, assistant counsel (January 15, 1953 to 
        August 31, 1953) chief counsel to the minority 
        (February 23, 1954 to January 3, 1955)
Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel (January 22, 1953 to July 
        19, 1954)
Marbeth A. Miller, research clerk (February 1, 1953 to July 31, 
        1954)
Herbert Hawkins, investigator (February 1, 1953 to November 15, 
        1954)
Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel (February 1, 1953 to 
        February 28, 1955)
Aileen Lawrence, assistant clerk (February 1, 1953 to September 
        15, 1953)
Thomas W. LaVenia, assistant counsel (February 16, 1953 to 
        February 28, 1955)
Pauline S. Lattimore, assistant clerk (March 16, 1953 to 
        September 30, 1954)
Christian E. Rogers, Jr., assistant counsel (March 16, 1953 to 
        August 21, 1953)
Howard Rushmore, research director (April 1, 1953 to July 12, 
        1953)
Christine Winslow, assistant clerk (April 2, 1953 to May 15, 
        1953)
Rosemary Engle, assistant clerk (May 25, 1953 to March 15, 
        1955)
Joseph B. Matthews, executive director (June 22, 1953 to July 
        18, 1953)
Mary E. Morrill, assistant clerk (June 24, 1953 to November 15, 
        1954)
Ann M. Grickis, assistant chief clerk (July 1, 1953 to January 
        31, 1954)
Francis P. Carr, Jr., executive director (July 16, 1953 to 
        October 31, 1954)
Karl H. Baarslag, research director (July 16, 1953 to September 
        30, 1954) (November 2, 1954 to November 17, 1954)
Frances P. Mims, assistant clerk (July 16, 1953 to December 31, 
        1954)
James M. Juliana, investigator (September 8, 1953 to October 
        12, 1958)
C. George Anastos, assistant counsel (September 21, 1953 to 
        February 28, 1955)
Maxine B. Buffalohide, assistant clerk (November 19, 1953 to 
        October 15, 1954)
Thomas J. Hurley, Jr., investigator (November 19, 1953 to 
        December 15, 1953)
Margaret W. Duckett, assistant clerk (November 23, 1953 to 
        October 15, 1954)
Charles A. Tracy, investigator (March 1, 1954 to February 28, 
        1955)
LaVern J. Duffy, investigator (March 19, 1954 to February 28, 
        1955)
Ray H. Jenkins, special counsel (April 14, 1954 to July 31, 
        1954)
Solis Horwitz, assistant counsel (April 14, 1954 to June 30, 
        1954)
Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel (April 14, 1954 to June 
        30, 1954)
Charles A. Maner, secretary (April 14, 1954 to July 31, 1954)
Robert A. Collier, investigator (April 14, 1954 to May 31, 
        1954)
Regina R. Roman, research assistant (July 15, 1954 to February 
        28, 1955)



















           WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION, 1954

Adam, John
Alfred, Benjamin
Allen, Harold C.
Ault, Paul
Ayer, Frederick, Jr.
Babirak, John
Barbour, W.
Bellino, Carmine
Belsky, Dr. Marvin Sanford
Belton, Lamuel
Berry, L.E.
Beynon, Mary Stella
Bolys, Victor S.
Briney, Harold K.
Brooks, Rodney Avram
Brown Ben H.
Brown, Lt. Col. Chester T.
Brown, Genevieve
Cassano, Edwin Allen
Cavalieri, Renaldo
Chandler, Lt. Col. Homer B., Jr.
Cohn, Roy M.
Dash, Harriman H.
DeCesare, Dante
Delos, William Vincent
Donaldson, Alyn
Drumright, Everett F.
Finestone, Max
Flores, Iris
Furry, Wendell H.
Garfield, Edwin
Goodall, Jack
Gragis, Peter A.
Gregory, Alexander
Heller, Alvin
Hoag, Diantha
Holmes, Yates
Johnson, William S.
Kalasz, Markus
Kamin, Leo J.
Kantrowitz, Leo
Krummel, Lillian Garcia
LaFortune, Robert H.
Linfield, Pvt. David LaPorte
Lydon, Peter T.
Maglin, Gen. W.H.
Martz, Lt. Com. T.J.
Mattson, Joseph O.
Mazzei, Joseph
Mazzei, Mary
McGee, Frank M.
Moore, George Frederick
Morgan, William J.
Nabeshka, Karl T.
Nestler, Frank
Nicko, Andrew
Nihart, Lt. Col.
Nisula, Waino S.
Oram, Charlotte
Pallet, Simon
Pappas, Theodore
Parris, Lawrence W.
Passikoff, Louis
Peek, Sallie Fannie
Pernice, John E.
Picucci, Joseph A.
Quintana, Benito Sera
Quirini, Helen
Reston, James B.
Riggi, Michael
Rivers, Charles
Rubinstein, Sidney
Russiano, Thomas B.
Schine, J. Meyer
Seaton, Fred A.
Sille, Cyril
Slater, Joseph
Slater, Maurice
Smedburg, Capt. W.R.
Smith, James H., Jr.
Smith, Dr. Newbern
Smith, Col. Vernon M.
Sokolsky, George E.
Springfield, Lt. Col. R.W.
Suokko, Waino E.
Szabo, John
Thomas, Herman E.
Thomas, Lewis B.
Torrey, Florence D.
Townsend, Allan E.
Trammell, Lt. Col. Charles M.
Valli, Philip
Wallach, John
Weiner, Dr. Oscar Roy
Wojchowski, Charles
Woodward, Capt. W.J.
Wright, Theodore
Zwicker, Brig. Gen. Ralph W.












                  PUBLIC HEARINGS OF SENATE PERMANENT

                    SUBCOMMITTEE ON INVESTIGATIONS,

                           PUBLISHED IN 1954

Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage: February 23-24, 
        1954
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage: March 1, 5, 1954
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage: March 10-11, 1954
Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage: November 4, 1954
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and 
        Industry,
Part 1: November 19, 1953, January 15 and 16, 1954
Part 2: February 19 and 20, 1954
Part 3: July 19 and August 12, 1954
Part 4: December 7, 1954
Part 5: December 8, 1954
Part 6: July 20 and August 6, 1954
Part 7: January 3, 1955
Part 8: January 3, 1955
Part 9: January 15, 1954

Special Senate Investigation on Charges and Countercharges 
Involving: Secretary of the Army Robert T. Stevens, John G. 
Adams, H. Struve Hensel, Senator Joe McCarthy, Roy M. Cohn and 
Francis P. Carr (Army-McCarthy Investigation), supplement: 
April 22, 1954; part 1: March 16, April 22, 1954; part 2: April 
22, 1954; part 3: April 23, 1954; part 4: April 23, 1954; part 
5: April 26, 1954; part 6: April 26, 1954; part 7: April 27, 
1954; part 8: April 27, 1954; part 9: April 28, 1954; part 10: 
April 28, 1954; part 11: April 29, 1954; part 12: April 29, 
1954; part 13: April 30, 1954; part 14: April 30, 1954; part 
15: May 3, 1954; part 16: May 3, 1954; part 17: May 4, 1954; 
part 18: May 4, 1954; part 19: May 5, 1954; part 20: May 5, 
1954; part 21: May 6, 1954; part 22: May 6, 1954; part 23: May 
7, 1954; part 24: May 10, 1954; part 25: May 10, 1954; part 26: 
May 11, 1954; part 27: May 11, 1954; part 28: May 12, 1954; 
part 29: May 12, 1954; part 30: May 13, 1954; part 31: May 13, 
1954; part 32: May 14, 1954; part 33: May 14, 1954; part 34: 
May 17, 1954; part 35: May 17, 1954; part 36: May 24, 1954; 
part 37: May 24, 1954; part 38: May 25, 1954; part 38: May 25, 
1954; part 39: May 25, 1954; part 40: May 26, 1954; part 41: 
May 26, 1954; part 42: May 27, 1954; part 43: May 27, 1954; 
part 44: May 28, 1954; part 45: May 28, 1954; part 46: June 1, 
1954; part 47: June 1, 1954; part 48: June 2, 1954; part 49: 
June 2, 1954; part 50: June 3, 1954; part 51: June 3, 1954; 
part 52: June 4, 1954; part 53: June 4, 1954; part 54: June 7, 
1954; part 55: June 7, 1954; part 56: June 8, 1954; part 57: 
June 8, 1954; part 58: June 9, 1954; part 59: June 9, 1954; 
part 60: June 10, 1954; part 61: June 10, 1954; part 62: June 
11, 1954; part 63: June 11, 1954; part 64: June 14, 1954; part 
65: June 14, 1954; part 66: June 15, 1954; part 67: June 15, 
1954; part 68: June 16, 1954; part 69: June 16, 1954; part 70: 
June 17, 1954; part 71: June 17, 1954; Composite Index: January 
3, 1956.















            WITNESSES WHO TESTIFIED IN PUBLIC SESSION, 1954

Alfred, Benjamin
Allen, Harold C.
Arsenault, Jean, Jr.
Ault, Paul
Babirak, John
Belgrave, Gordon
Belsky, Dr. Marvin Sanford
Beynon, Mary Stella
Bolys, Victor
Brandshear, Dewey F.
Briney, Harold K.
Dash, Harriman
DeCesare, Dante
Eagle, Ruth
Fernandez, Emanuel
Friedlander, Sidney
Furry, Wendell H.
Garfield, Edwin
Gebhardt, Joseph Arthur
Glatis, James W.
Gragis, Peter A.
Gregory, Alexander
Heiston, William L., Jr.
Heller, Alvin J.
Hoag, Diantha
Inslerman, Felix A.
Kalasz, Marcus
Kamin, Leon J.
Kantrowitz, Leo
LaFortune, Robert
Linfield, David LaPorte
Lydon, Peter Tom
Markward, Mary Stalecup
Mattson, Joseph
Mazzei, Joseph D.
McGee, Frank Mason
Middleton, Rufus E.
Moss, Annie Lee
Nestler, Frank
Nisula, Waino S.
Northrop, Robert Pierson
Oram, Charlotte
Owens, Arthur Lee
Pallet, Simon


              WASTE AND CORRUPTION--DEVELOPMENT OF ALASKA

    [Editor's note.--In an effort to end the investigation of 
Fort Monmouth, Vice President Richard Nixon met with Senator 
McCarthy on December 30, 1953, and urged a widening of the 
subcommittee's probes beyond the issue of communism in 
government. Senator McCarthy then told reporters that he 
planned to pursue fraud and mismanagement in government 
operations in the territory of Alaska, and that he was 
considering going to Alaska once the weather had improved. 
Scheduled for March 1954, the public hearings were never held 
due to the subcommittee's preoccupation with matters related to 
Fort Monmouth. The subcommittee then referred the Alaska 
investigation to the Senate Banking and Currency Committee, 
which conducted its own hearings.
    A certified public accountant, Carmine Bellino (1905-1990) 
had served as a special agent in the Federal Bureau of 
Investigations from 1934 to 1945, becoming an administrative 
agent to FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover. From 1945 to 1947 he was 
assistant director of the Reconstruction Finance Corporation 
and the War Assets Administration. He established a private 
accounting practice in 1947 but soon afterwards was called back 
to government service by the Truman committee and continued to 
assist its successor, the Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations. He was later an investigator during the 
Senate's labor racketeering investigation in the 1950s, special 
counsel to Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, 1961-
1964, chief investigator for the Senate Watergate Committee, 
1973-1974, and chief investigator for the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, 1978-1981.]
                              ----------                              















                      WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 10:00 a.m., in room 357, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; Karl Baarslag, research director; Herbert 
S. Hawkins, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.

                  TESTIMONY OF CARMINE BELLINO

    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bellino, you are consulting accountant for 
the committee? Is that right?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you and Mr. Hawkins, an investigator for the 
committee, been in Alaska in the last few months?
    Senator Dirksen. Roy, would you mind--I wonder if it 
wouldn't be well, for the purpose of the record, to qualify the 
accountant with respect to background.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you tell us briefly something about your 
accounting experience. I believe you were with the FBI, and 
some other valuable experience.
    Mr. Bellino. I am a certified public accountant in the 
State of New Jersey and the District of Columbia. I had seven 
years of public accounting with a public accounting firm in New 
York City; seven years in my own business; eleven years with 
the FBI; five and a half as administrative assistant to Mr. 
Hoover; assistant director of the investigation division of the 
RFC and WAA; and I have been on the Hill since 1947 on various 
major investigations.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, you and Mr. Hawkins were up in Alaska. When 
did you arrive there?
    Mr. Bellino. I arrived in Juneau about November 2, 1953.
    Mr. Cohn. And from that time, did you conduct an 
investigation of various expenditures of money and situations 
involving the expenditure of government funds in connection 
with the development of Alaska?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And from that investigation, as a result of that 
investigation in which Mr. Hawkins participated, did you 
uncover evidence of waste and corruption?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, I wonder if you could tell us the name of 
the principal person involved in the transaction which you 
addressed yourself to?
    Mr. Bellino. I might explain this way, Senator. I was sent 
to Alaska at the initiation of the Department of Interior on 
the basis of suspicions of their man, Don R. Wilson, who is 
head of the Alaska Public Works Administration, which has under 
the law an authorization of $70 million. They have spent up to 
the present time approximately $45 million and have about $7 
million more authorized and appropriated.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Bellino. In looking into Wilson, we found that Mr. 
Kenneth Kadow----
    Mr. Cohn. He is the man involved in this?
    Mr. Bellino. I will explain just how we got into him. Mr. 
Kadow was interested in certain housing developments in 
Fairbanks and Anchorage, Alaska, and he was able to get from 
Mr. Wilson the installation of utilities, street paving, 
sidewalks, water mains, etc., and we couldn't understand how a 
private venture could get government funds and pay only 50 
percent of the actual cost. It was learned that Mr. Kadow had 
been chairman of a field committee----
    The Chairman. I missed something. You said government funds 
and pay only 50 percent of the cost----
    Mr. Bellino. Under the Alaska Public Works Act, the 
communities and public bodies that participate in public works 
may be charged at the discretion of Alaska Public Works 
Administration anywheres from 25 to 75 percent of the cost. 
They have established a policy of only 50 percent because the 
law said on an overall basis it should not be any more than 50 
percent. What they have been doing is putting in utilities and 
have the public body pay 50 percent to the government by giving 
them notes at interest of about 2 percent.
    Kadow was sent to Alaska, according to his initial 
statement--and I am emphasizing this, at the request of former 
Secretary of the Interior, [Julius] ``Cap'' Krug. He has put 
that in a letter that ``Cap'' Krug sent him up there. When I 
started questioning him with a tape recorder he changed 
immediately and said it was Mr. Warne, William A. Warne.
    Mr. Cohn. He is now the head of the Stassen Mission in 
Iran?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Kadow's job in Alaska was to coordinate all the activities 
of the Interior Department agencies. Now, there is a point that 
is unusual and that is that the governor's function in Alaska 
is to coordinate all activities, including the territorial 
units and agencies of the Interior Department.
    Senator Dirksen: Kadow, was he on the Interior payroll?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. And he had the title of coordinator----
    Mr. Bellino. Director of the field service. He was the only 
one in the office besides D'Epiro, his assistant and a 
secretary. Later on he had a public relations man that was on 
the staff of the field service.
    However, in addition to the governor, in the development of 
Alaska, they also had a board of which George Sunbourg was 
consultant. They had the existing function of developing 
Alaska.
    Kadow was sent up there especially to initiate various 
projects, one of the first being housing and I found in going 
through the various records and documents that we have here 
that he was not only interested in getting people to become 
interested in Alaska, but he would go so far as to take them by 
the hand, get cost prices, write letters, analyze financial 
set-ups and get financing for them. He did everything possible. 
In fact, at one point George Megrath, public relations man 
wrote a letter----
    Senator Dirksen. He wrote a letter to whom?
    Mr. Bellino. William Dougherty, who is head of the public 
relations office, Interior, here in Washington.
    Senator Dirksen. When was that letter written?
    Mr. Bellino. We have a copy of that.
    Senator Dirksen. Identify it for the record.
    Mr. Bellino. This is a letter dated May 5, 1959, to William 
J. Dougherty.
    Senator Dirksen. 1959?
    Mr. Bellino. It is typed 1959, but it should be 1949, in 
which he states:

    Particularly, did I warn Kadow against continued traffic 
with a Mr. Cole with whom he had a joint housing proposition 
and who is a shareholder in the Newcastle Engineering Company 
of Newark, Delaware, a corporation having Kadow as president 
and Mrs. Kadow as vice-president along with Cole who is another 
vice-president. Incidentally, the man whom Kadow has been 
attempting to locate in Alaska as the Department Counsel is 
another officer and stockholder in the same corporation, a Mr. 
Mackey.

    As he pointed out----
    Mr. Cohn. Let me see if I can ask you about a couple of 
points which will interest them particularly and then you can 
go on.
    One project which you told us about, that is involving the 
U.S. Tin Company--is that right?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Does the U.S. Tin Company operate a mine or 
attempt to operate a mine up in Alaska?
    Mr. Bellino. The U.S. Tin Corporation--I might say that tin 
was discovered on the property in about 1903.
    Senator Dirksen. Tin was discovered in 1903. Where?
    Mr. Bellino. At Lost River, Alaska. That is ninety miles 
northwest of Nome, possibly forty miles from Siberia.
    Senator Dirksen. And how extensive was the discovery?
    Mr. Bellino. The ore has been of a very poor grade. 
However, in 1944 the Bureau of Mines, by drilling, discovered a 
granite cupola where they believed that possibly there was a 
higher grade of ore, but the exploration was discontinued until 
1950 when the Defense Material Procurement Act was passed which 
permitted acquiring critical material and the government 
advancing funds in that connection. In other words, apparently 
they were of the belief it was not necessary that a corporation 
be financially sound, but merely that here is critical material 
which we could use for our stockpile.
    Mr. Cohn. They selected this one company, the U.S. Tin 
Corporation, and the government has given to that a 
considerable amount of money?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Who is the U.S. Tin Corporation?
    Mr. Bellino. The U.S. Tin Corporation was organized in 
1949. The principal officer is one Harry Fishnaller. The other 
two principal officers at that time were Fred Furey and a 
Robert A. F. McIntosh. They were the principal ones.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Kadow in that company now?
    Mr. Bellino. He is now president.
    Mr. Cohn. When did he become president?
    Mr. Bellino. He became president about October 2, 1951.
    Mr. Cohn. How long after he left the government was that?
    Mr. Bellino. Well, in connection with his employment, I 
might point out first in connection with Kadow's employment. 
Kadow left Interior March 15, 1951. He started to plan on 
leaving Interior in July 1950. We have a letter which he wrote 
to Cash Cole and in the letter he asked Cash Cole to talk to 
the Mortensen Construction Company, who was one of those 
interested in housing, to see whether they would be favorable 
to Kadow's joining up with them.
    The Chairman. Who is Cash Cole?
    Mr. Bellino. Cash Cole is the Alaskan who owned the land 
Kadow initially wanted to buy--either to buy from him and start 
a housing development or get him started in a housing 
development. Kadow is--actually the letters indicate he was 
financial advisor to Cash Cole.
    The Chairman. Was Kadow in a position to influence or aid 
U.S. Tin in getting the federal monies to start this mining 
project?
    Mr. Bellino. Here is a letter dated January 27, 1951, from 
Harry Fishnaller to the other officers of U.S. Tin, Bob and 
Henry, in which he says:

    Alaska representative of Secretary of Interior (Kenneth 
Kadow) of great help to me. He says Lorain thoroughly sold on 
our property and has convinced him (Kadow) of magnitude.

    The Chairman. Do you know how much money Kadow has drawn 
out of the corporation since he went in?
    Mr. Bellino. He was supposed not to get a salary. However, 
in October 1952, he arranged it so that he would get $1,500 a 
month. I might say that under the contract no officer is 
supposed to get anything until the mill and mine are in full 
production, which was a period of thirty days.
    The Chairman. Is he still getting $1,500 a month?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And no tin is being produced?
    Mr. Bellino. No tin at all. In fact, this one statement--
about June 5th, a telegram was sent from the mine 
superintendent indicating the mill was operating on a test 
basis. In other words, up to that point, 1952, they had not 
been able to get the mill operating and suddenly they make it 
operate on a test basis. It is not in production; it never has 
been in production but Kadow told GSA that they were producing, 
mining and milling, and on the basis of that mining and milling 
they should begin to pay him $1,500 immediately.
    From that point on they were supposed to be mining and 
milling. Actually GSA went to Lost River and found they haven't 
mined or milled one ton of ore whatsoever through the lode 
operation.
    The Chairman. Up to now, we have sunk about how much into 
it?
    Mr. Bellino. A little over $2 million.
    The Chairman. And the U.S. engineer has long since 
recommended that the project be dropped as a hopeless project; 
that there was no tin there?
    Mr. Bellino. There have been two recommendations to drop 
the project on the part of GSA. However, as he wrote in one 
letter that we have, he points out that ``I had a nice talk 
today.'' This is a letter from Kadow.
    The Chairman. The question is: Did the engineer recommend 
that the project be closed up?
    Mr. Bellino. This is after the project was to be closed up. 
I want to mention who he said helped them.

    Had a nice talk today with the guy that has been trying to 
kill us off--he acts so friendly and nice that you'd never 
guess he actually tried to cancel our contract two months ago--
Maull and Gumbel stopped it in its tracks with Nicoll's help. 
Nic sure is our real friend.

    The Chairman. Who is Nichols?
    Mr. Bellino. J. S. Nichols, who is employed by the credit 
and finance division, and who we have evidence of private 
correspondence and who came to Kadow's office----
    The Chairman. Was there a difference between our government 
engineers as to whether or not the project should continue?
    Mr. Bellino. There has been a difference to this extent. 
One group felt that what they should do was explore the mine--
let's find out whether the granite dome has got valuable ore, 
then consider putting money into it. Let's not put any 
development into it. The other group wanted both. That was the 
difference.
    Senator Dirksen. Then to summarize one phase. While Kadow 
was in government, he helped this corporation, the U.S. Tin 
Corporation get money. After he had the money transferred over 
to U.S. Tin, while there is a provision in the agreement of our 
government that no officer can get money until thirty days 
after tin is produced, he wrote untruthful letters to GSA, 
which said he was now producing tin and on the basis of that 
got $1,500 a month. Is that correct?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Does he have any other occupation?
    Mr. Bellino. That is the important thing too. I might 
mention when he submitted his resignation, about January 25, 
1951, then he came to work--in fact, January 27, 1951, he 
contacted Fishnaller as to definite employment. Fishnaller 
agreed to take him on, while he was still in government 
service.
    He submitted his resignation as of January 27, 1951, 
effective March 31, 1951.
    The Chairman. Is he getting money besides the $1,500?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. In fact he was getting money----
    The Chairman. How much money is he getting and from whom?
    Mr. Bellino. Mortensen Construction Company. Under 
agreement of a partnership, he gets 25 percent interest in 
anything done. Mortensen has interest in anything Kadow does.
    The Chairman. Is Mortensen doing work for the government?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes.
    The Chairman. Was it doing work for the government when he 
was a government official?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir, he helped them.
    The Chairman. Did he have 25 percent interest at the time 
he was a government official, who was negotiating with them?
    Mr. Bellino. Senator, in that connection Mr. Kadow operated 
on promises for the future so there is nothing definite to show 
he definitely had an interest.
    The Chairman. Then there was an agreement, was there? You 
have letters to show it?
    Mr. Bellino. Not that particular one. Another instance 
gives inference that he must have had that agreement with 
Mortensen.
    The Chairman. Has he billed the government for liquor and 
collected money for it?
    Mr. Bellino. My recollection on some of the entertainment 
for liquor and business dinners, as he called it--in fact, 
Lorain, Bureau of Mines, I believe those were paid for but the 
letters that I recall seeing from that time on, he was not 
going to charge U.S. Tin anymore.
    The Chairman. How much did he get from the government for 
liquor and that sort of thing?
    Mr. Bellino. Roughly, the bill on which that appeared 
amounted to $1,600. However, the major portion of that was for 
travel. I'd say roughly $200. I am not certain of that.
    The Chairman. Did he also make claims for money with the 
statement that he had water available when there was no water?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Would you give us the story on that?
    Senator Dirksen. There is a break here somewhere that we 
have to pick up.
    Number one, let's summarize for a moment. Tin was 
discovered in Alaska, low grade form, way back----
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen [continuing]. And somebody made the 
suggestion that perhaps it ought to be developed.
    Mr. Bellino. They had developed----
    Senator Dirksen. Did the Bureau of Mines or anybody in the 
government make a suggestion this might be developed?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir, the Bureau of Mines and the U.S. 
Geological Services both.
    Senator Dirksen. Number two, in 1949 three men organized a 
company called the U.S. Tin Corporation.
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. It had no corporate life before that time?
    Mr. Bellino. No, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. It was organized under the laws of what 
state?
    Mr. Bellino. The state of Washington.
    Senator Dirksen. Before that it was the Lost River Tin 
Company, which just folded up without going through 
liquidation.
    Mr. Bellino. They just didn't do anything more on that.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, this corporation had to have money to 
sink a shaft and develop tin?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Where did they get the money and how did 
they get it?
    Mr. Bellino. When they began to operate it was merely a 
placer operation. They didn't need much money. There was water 
available to run it down the creek and then put it through the 
mill and get it in concentrated form and ship it out.
    Senator Dirksen. So out of their own capital structure they 
probably raised that money?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Did they come to the government for money?
    Mr. Bellino. They came to the government for money in the 
latter part of 1950.
    Senator Dirksen. To what agencies?
    Mr. Bellino. They had to get the approval of the Department 
of Interior on the basis of it being a critical item but the 
money was----
    Senator Dirksen. Did the Department of Interior approve it?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. I presume it was in the form of an 
application under the old Exploration Act for funds with which 
to go ahead with exploration. How much did they ask for?
    Mr. Bellino. Initially over $300,000.
    Senator Dirksen. U.S. Tin Corporation asked for $300,000. 
To whom was that application directed?
    Mr. Bellino. I might mention in connection with the 
application, Senator, in one of his letters, Harry Fishnaller's 
letter to Bob and Henry, he stated:

    Am enclosing an application blank. Don't think we can 
answer all requirements as to statements, etc. Consult with 
Henry Schaefer and Fred Loomis as to how we might answer or 
side-step where we need to.

    Henry Schaefer was connected with the Seattle Trust and 
Savings Bank at that time.
    I want to get to the point where he said what should be 
left out of the application to get their thinking.
    Senator Dirksen. That can come later.
    They filed an application to a federal agency for $300,000.
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you know who signed the application?
    Mr. Bellino. I believe it was Mr. Walsh from the Emergency 
Procurement Service.
    Senator Dirksen. No, it would have had to be somebody in 
the Tin Corporation.
    Mr. Bellino. From the U.S. Tin Corporation, Harry 
Fishnaller.
    Senator Dirksen. This went to the Department of Interior?
    Mr. Bellino. It went to the GSA, which was Jess Larson's 
outfit.
    Senator Dirksen. You said the Department of Interior had to 
first approve it.
    Mr. Bellino. They had to approve it. The project itself was 
one coming under the Defense Procurement Act, you see. It 
involved no money as far as the Department of Interior was 
concerned.
    Senator Dirksen. They did approve it under the Exploration 
Act; then the application had to go where?
    Mr. Bellino. The application went to GSA, which is now GSA, 
it was then the Emergency Procurement Service.
    Senator Dirksen. When was the application filed?
    Mr. Bellino. It was filed in the early part of February 
1951.
    Senator Dirksen. February 1951! Was Mr. Kadow still in the 
government service?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes. In fact, we have a telegram to Harry 
Fishnaller at government expense asking him to send the 
application blank to him here in Washington and second to 
advise him whether he could be at a meeting of the Geological 
Services in Washington.
    Senator Dirksen. This was 1951 or before?
    Mr. Bellino. 1951.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, when the application got to GSA, what 
happened to it?
    Mr. Bellino. When it got to GSA, it was reviewed and 
eventually recommended on the basis of a 25 ton mill per day 
project.
    In other words, there was a considerable difference of 
opinion whether the government should put a lot of money in 
this project so they agreed to permit them to go ahead on a 
test basis. ``Let's see if it is feasible to operate up 
there.'' The climatic weather conditions were terrific, the 
shipping and everything else. They felt it would not be 
feasible to put it in full production. They permitted them to 
start on a 25 ton basis. However, Mr. Lorain of the Bureau of 
Mines in Juneau was against the 25 ton mill. The money they 
were permitted to have would only be sufficient to operate that 
type of mill. He was against the 25 ton mill. Mr. Kadow got his 
instructions, but he said, ``Let's disregard the 25 tons; we 
are going to build up to 100 tons on the basis of what we have 
got.'' We have a letter where Mr. Lorain doubted the 
feasibility of that very much.
    As a result of proceeding on a 100 ton basis, they got 
money for 25 tons, and naturally they had to ask for more money 
later on. That is what happened. When GSA finally approved the 
application for 25 tons test--they approved it about March 23, 
1951----
    Senator Dirksen. When was the money disbursed?
    Mr. Bellino. The first money was a guarantee by GSA to the 
bank, Seattle Trust Company. The bank was willing to stand 10 
percent of this loss while the government would stand 90 
percent. The bank, however, was willing to do that provided the 
company got in production and produced by a certain time. When 
the time came and the company failed to go into operation, the 
bank said, ``We will not give them any more money.''
    At that time $157,000 out of $300,000 some odd guaranteed 
had been spent, so they came back to Washington and they got 
GSA----
    Senator Dirksen. Wait. How long after this was approved, 
namely in February or March 1951 was it before the bank 
indicated they could get no more money under this guarantee?
    Mr. Bellino. About August 1951.
    Senator Dirksen. They had roughly six or seven months to 
operate?
    Mr. Bellino. Actually, their operation would not have begun 
until July. If it was a mine which had been able to operate and 
able to deliver what they said they could deliver, they should 
have begun to operate by the first of July.
    Senator Dirksen. By August there was no actual production?
    Mr. Bellino. No, sir. Never has been. The Seattle Bank said 
they would disburse no more money. GSA, however, got them to 
agree to loan $10,000 more but this time GSA was responsible 
for 95 percent so the bank's loss, on the outside, would be 5 
percent. At 6 percent interest, the bank was doing pretty good.
    Senator Dirksen. Was that money all spent--approximately 
$250,000 or $300,000?
    Mr. Bellino. $257,000, I think, was gotten and spent.
    Senator Dirksen. With that additional money, how long did 
they run?
    Mr. Bellino. They have been trying to run ever since 1951. 
They came back into Washington in the latter part of November 
1951 for a $35,000 advance. In fact, on one of the letters he 
says:

    I had a new idea. Sell GSA on this.

    Instead of having the bank give them money to pay interest, 
the government was paying the interest, the corporation never 
did pay interest, they said:

    Let's have GSA advance the money to use monthly as we need 
it and pay GSA interest unless they indicate we don't have to 
pay interest.

    It was finally agreed that they pay 4 percent interest. 
They never did pay the interest.
    Senator Dirksen. With this $35,000 was any tin produced?
    Mr. Bellino. There was never any tin produced.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, they came back for more money?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. How much?
    Mr. Bellino. I believe the next amount was two hundred and 
some thousand.
    Senator Dirksen. What happened to that application?
    Mr. Bellino. That was the time about February 1952 when Mr. 
Bourret recommended that they stop giving any more funds to the 
development.
    Senator Dirksen. Who is Mr. Bourret?
    Mr. Bellino. He is with the GSA, one of the mining 
engineers.
    Senator Dirksen. Did they get the money or didn't they?
    Mr. Bellino. They got the money.
    Senator Dirksen. Notwithstanding his objection?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Was the money spent?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. How long did they take to spend that 
money?
    Mr. Bellino. It didn't take them long because they were 
back in July for about $900,000 more.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, by fall 1952, they had spent $2 
million?
    Mr. Bellino. I wouldn't say--they were getting close to it.
    Senator Dirksen. How much tin was produced between November 
1951 to November 1952?
    Mr. Bellino. Never tin--placer tin on placer ground 
producing tin of a very poor grade.
    Senator Dirksen. How much?
    Mr. Bellino. They have gotten on an average about forty 
tons.
    Senator Dirksen. Altogether forty tons?
    Mr. Bellino. A year--not out of this project however. In 
that area.
    U.S. Tin operated that also.
    Senator Dirksen. Out of these funds?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. They got forty tons of tin?
    Mr. Bellino. Concentrate. They ran out of the next $200,000 
and came back for $900,000.
    Senator Dirksen. When did they come back?
    Mr. Bellino. They came back for the $900,000 sometime in 
the latter part of 1952.
    Senator Dirksen. What happened to that application?
    Mr. Bellino. That was also approved.
    Senator Dirksen. So they got another $900,000. How long did 
that run, if you know or roughly?
    Mr. Bellino. Well, they were back in--well, that would be 
for 1953.
    Senator Dirksen. Up to the present time they have spent 
around two million dollars altogether?
    Mr. Bellino. That is including the money they are spending 
at the present time.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, what is the value of the ore 
concentrate--you say they got forty tons?
    Mr. Bellino. Approximately forty tons a year. I don't have 
the actual value in dollars.
    Senator Dirksen. Have you any notion as to what ore 
concentrate is worth in tons?
    Mr. Bellino. Of course, the concentrate has to be put into 
tin and the tin price now is at least $1.05 a pound. There 
never has been more than enough to do any more than pay off 
part of the bank loan. That is the most they have ever been 
able to do.
    Senator Dirksen. Let's find out what the market is for ore 
concentrate. We have the actual amount of the sales?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, I have got one other question. This 
is with reference to Mr. Kadow. He filed his resignation in 
January 1951, effective March 31, 1951. Did he actually go off 
the rolls in March 1951?
    Mr. Bellino. Subsequent to that resignation letter, he sent 
a telegram about March 13th requesting that his resignation be 
effective March 15th. Then he entered into an agreement with 
Mortensen and U.S. Tin on March 16th.
    Senator Dirksen. When did he become president of U.S. Tin?
    Mr. Bellino. He was general manager on March 16, 1951. He 
became president about the latter part of September or October 
2, 1951.
    Senator Dirksen. Now then, after he became general manager 
on March 16th, 1951, the company actually then got the $200,000 
you referred to in 1952?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. So your recollection would indicate that 
U.S. Tin got $1,100,000 within a short period of time after Mr. 
Kadow's resignation from the government service became 
effective.
    Mr. Bellino. Senator, altogether he got $2,900,000.
    Senator Dirksen. I am speaking about these two items?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Senator Dirksen. Did he have a written contract with U.S. 
Tin when general manager?
    Mr. Bellino. I think initially it was oral and eventually 
he entered into a written contract.
    What I want to explain in connection with U.S. Tin was that 
what I did there is take everything I could. I did not look at 
the records or audit the record. The GSA auditor was going to 
do that and we haven't gotten his report as yet.
    The Chairman. Do you know when he went with U.S. Tin on the 
sixteenth of March if he had a contract either oral or written, 
and if so, how much he was to get?
    Mr. Bellino. How much stock he was to get?
    The Chairman. What was he getting from U.S. Tin the day 
after he left the government?
    Mr. Bellino. The records indicate that the corporation gave 
him gratis 8,500 shares of stock in this corporation.
    The Chairman. How many shares were outstanding?
    Mr. Bellino. Three hundred thousand authorization. There 
was outstanding, I believe, somewheres around 180,000; balance 
was all optioned.
    The Chairman. So he got about 10 percent of the outstanding 
stock?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. And do you know what that stock was worth, if 
anything?
    Mr. Bellino. The stock had book value of $1.00 a share. The 
stock had a par value of $1.00 a share. The book value was 
minus zero. However, they were selling the stock not less 
than--from $3.00 a share to as much as $6.00 a share. The 
market value was between $3.00 and $6.00 a share.
    The Chairman. Were they actually selling stock at that time 
at that figure?
    Mr. Bellino. At that date I do not know. Subsequent to 
getting the money from the government they began to sell stock 
to other individuals from $3.00 to $6.00 a share.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Kadow sell his?
    Mr. Bellino. Kadow, according to tax returns, sold some of 
his.
    Mr. Cohn. How?
    Mr. Bellino. Not less than $3.00 a share.
    Mr. Cohn. And he paid zero?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What was his consideration?
    Mr. Bellino. Actually, it had been his help to the 
corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Bellino, Senator Dirksen very correctly 
points out here, I think the pattern is very clear. Senator 
Dirksen makes this point: What, very specifically, did Kadow 
have to do with giving of any monies or any other benefits to 
this company prior to his leaving this government?
    Mr. Bellino. He definitely contacted officials in both 
Interior and GSA and helped them get the loans.
    The Chairman. You have told us that. Was that his job?
    Mr. Bellino. No, sir. He says this. He says, ``I was up 
there to develop Alaska.'' Everything he did was for the 
purpose of----
    The Chairman. I am trying to find out whether in his 
official capacity he was supposed to contact people or not. It 
makes a big difference. Was part of his job to advise that 
money be given to deserving developing companies? If not, what 
was his job? He was on the government payroll. He had a job. Do 
you follow me on this, Carmine?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Let's say I went to Alaska, while Kadow was 
holding his government job and if I had some vision of 
developing a certain project and I needed federal funds, was 
Kadow part of the chain of command through which I would go to 
get those funds. Was he the man who would recommend for or 
against it.
    Mr. Bellino. Senator, Kadow injected himself into 
everything that he desired. I might say on that, he would go to 
extremes making sure they got the funds--whether it was 
government, Stettinius or any fund.
    The Chairman. What I want to know--if that was his job. If 
not----
    Mr. Bellino. His job isn't spelled out at all--just 
development of Alaska. Anything he could do to develop Alaska 
was his job.
    The Chairman. Then if the government sent him up there to 
develop Alaska, he is the man who would be depended upon, 
relied upon for recommendations for loans.
    Mr. Bellino. It would appear from the Alaska field service 
that he was in an advisory capacity. However, he went much 
further than that.
    The Chairman. He advised the government to give loans to 
worthy projects?
    Mr. Bellino. No, I wouldn't say that.
    The Chairman. Who would he advise?
    Mr. Bellino. His staff was made up of heads of various 
government agencies, Bureau of Mines, Geological Survey----
    Mr. Cohn. The fact is that one of his jobs was to recommend 
to his superiors what would be good and what bad; which ones 
they should finance and which ones they shouldn't. Is that 
correct?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Here is a man who was in Alaska when U.S. Tin 
wanted money. One of his tasks was to advise his superiors 
whether or not they should get the money. He did that, didn't 
he?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. In fact, on February 27, 1951, he was down here 
with Harry Fishnaller seeing Mr. Ellis in the Bureau of Mines 
about money for the corporation.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any statements that he advised his 
superiors, made recommendations on contracts?
    Mr. Bellino. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't?
    Mr. Bellino. No, unless--no, nothing.
    That was not part of his official duty, Senator. He took 
that all upon himself and his own interpretation.
    The Chairman. How do you know?
    Mr. Bellino. I will say that this way. When he started out, 
started doing that, rumors came down about his activities, so 
Warne wrote him a letter calling his attention to being like 
Caesar's wife, vulnerable, above suspicion.
    The Chairman. Above suspicion of what?
    Mr. Bellino. In developing Alaska, of having any personal 
interest in any way or seeking to have any personal interest.
    The Chairman. I didn't ask about that. I didn't ask about 
personal interest.
    Listen to me a minute. I am not talking about personal 
interest. I am trying to find out whether there is a conflict 
here, taking over a company which he had promoted and fostered 
while a government agent--whether or not he did that. In order 
to find that out, I must find out from you or someone else 
whether he did perform the function of advising his superiors, 
advising GSA, advising Interior, the Bureau of Mines or anyone 
else, when they should or should not give a company some aid. 
It had nothing to do with personal interest.
    Mr. Bellino. Senator, this is his job description. I could 
read that.
    The Chairman. I can read it.
    Let's read it into the record. This is the job description 
for Kadow dated July 8, 1948:

    Under the general direction of the Secretary of the 
Interior to serve as Director of the Alaska Field Staff, 
Chairman of the Alaska Field Committee, and ex officio 
Commissioner for Alaska for the Department. To be responsible 
for integrating the activities in Alaska of the bureaus and 
offices of the Department and for increasing the effectiveness 
of the Alaskan program of the Department. Will report to the 
Secretary through the Director of the Division of Territories 
and Island Possessions.
    To serve as the representative of the Department and of the 
Secretary in Alaska in dealing with other Federal agencies, the 
Territorial government, and other public or private groups or 
persons on matters of common interest.
    To make continuous study of the operations of the bureaus 
and offices of the Department in Alaska and of questions of 
common interest in such operations; to act as a point of 
contact and a channel for the exchange of views and information 
in regard to such questions; to initiate and endeavor to secure 
common agreement on measures necessary to ensure, integration 
and economical execution of departmental programs; and to 
report promptly to the Secretary on any situations which may 
require departmental action.
    To resolve directly, wherever possible, differences in 
matters crossing bureau lines or affecting more than one bureau 
or office.
    In conjunction with the Alaska Field Committee to prepare 
and submit for the Secretary an annual report covering the 
following:
    1. The general aspects of the entire program of the 
Department in Alaska and of the programs of each bureau or 
office.
    2. Obstacles encountered in the realization of an effective 
program in Alaska and recommendations for overcoming such 
obstacles.
    3. Recommendations as to steps needed to accomplish an 
adequate program for Alaska.
    In conjunction with the Alaska Field Committee to prepare 
and submit to the Secretary a comprehensive long-range 
departmental program for Alaska on a 6-year basis; and, 
subsequent to the adoption of such a program, suggest such 
annual revisions as may be required to maintain a program on a 
6-year basis.
    To supervise and direct the activities of the employees of 
the Alaska Field Staff and to perform related duties as 
assigned.

    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. When did he have the agreement with U.S. Tin, 
if you know, to get the stock or anything else?
    Mr. Bellino. About the stock, that just appeared in the 
minutes. I don't know when he made the agreement.
    The Chairman. When did it appear in the minutes?
    Mr. Bellino. I do not recall. However, about January 27, 
1951, he has admitted speaking to Fishnaller about the job. He 
says it wasn't until after he told Fishnaller he would work for 
the company that he began to help the Tin Company.
    The Chairman. How much salary was he supposed to get as 
general manager?
    Mr. Bellino. I haven't seen any salary, Senator.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him?
    Mr. Bellino. No, sir.
    The Chairman. That is an important thing, isn't it.
    Mr. Bellino. Certainly, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. That should be in the record.
    Mr. Bellino. From what I could see, he hasn't received any 
salary. The agreement was that he would not receive a salary 
while with the government.
    The Chairman. What type of deferred salary did he receive? 
If I go to work for your corporation, I don't go to work for 
nothing, even under an agreement with the mortgagee. If I don't 
get money as of today, certainly I am going to pile up salary.
    Mr. Bellino. He said he wasn't interested in such, that he 
was interested in capital gains and for that reason felt 
eighty-five hundred shares of stock was his salary.
    The Chairman. Did you ask him?
    Mr. Bellino. I went there by what the records showed in 
connection with his signing the contract--his agreement to sign 
the contract gave him eighty-five hundred shares.
    The Chairman. Do you have documents, letters or anything 
else to show the date that he became interested in becoming 
part of this company?
    Mr. Bellino. The first document that I found of this 
corporation, which was called to his attention, was about 
October 2nd.
    In October, I am not sure of the date, 1950, at which time 
a copy of a letter written by Mr. Lorain was sent to Mr. Kadow.
    The Chairman. Setting out what?
    Mr. Bellino. It showed this corporation was anxious to get 
money and begin doing business.
    The Chairman. Have you identified Mr. Lorain?
    Mr. Bellino. Mr. Lorain was director of Bureau of Mines in 
Juneau.
    I might explain to the senator, actually we jumped to the 
tin mine and you can't follow Kadow's activities. If we were to 
follow his prior activities we could understand his 
thinking,when he was ready to leave the government and go to 
work for Mortensen and U.S. Tin. For instance, in 1947, October 
21, 1948, which was about three months after he arrived in 
Alaska--he went there, got there about July 15, 1948, Mr. Warne 
wrote a handwritten memo for the files pointing out:

    Director James Boyd of the Bureau of Mines came to me this 
morning, having returned this week from Juneau, Alaska, where 
he was early in October, and other mines field stations. He 
said that his man Germain at Juneau, some in Geological Survey, 
and the governor, were worried because Ken Kadow had given the 
impression that (1) he was in Alaska to make a personal 
killing, (2) had endeavored to make a personal arrangement with 
a firm of architects for a cut on future building, and (3) had 
in mind trying to participate personally in mineral 
developments that he is promoting as a part of a development 
program. Mr. Boyd says all his information is hearsay, but he 
thought such rumors and reports ought to be investigated. He 
does not think they are widespread in Alaska.

    As a result of that, the only action taken was a letter 
from Mr. Warne to Mr. Kadow and he starts off:

    It perhaps is natural that the representatives of the 
Interior Department assigned to aid the development of Alaska 
should be watched closely by Alaskans, but I do not want you, 
through inadvertence or otherwise, to invite suspicious 
attitudes nor to be made the butt of gossip. It would hurt both 
you and our program for the development of Alaska.
    Like Caesar's wife, as I have said before, anyone in your 
position must be above suspicion.
    Some nasty rumors have gained some currency and apparently 
are being spread. They run something like this: that you have 
said that you were in Alaska `to make a killing'; that you 
sought a silent partnership and a 10 percent cut in a proposed 
building project; and that part of your interest might be 
personal in the proposed mineral developments. In the light of 
the exchange of letters--yours of August 27, mine of September 
21, and yours of September 24--I cannot credit such rumors, 
which are based on hearsay so far as any who have repeated them 
to me freely admit.
    I imagine, however, that the suggestion you made at the 
October 7 Field Committee meeting that the limestone deposit 
might be protected through a dummy company to hold it for 
appropriate later use by bona fide developers is being 
distorted and may be repeated with garnishment to your 
disadvantage. The voicing of such a suggestion, it seems to me, 
is ill-advised since it puts Caesar's wife in a not-totally 
invulnerable position, against thoughts, that is.
    No government employee may use his official position, 
directly or indirectly, for personal gain nor can he afford, 
for example, to say that he would like to do so, even in jest, 
nor to propose anything that has the color of preparation for a 
situation in which would be created the opportunity for him or 
others to profit personally because of the government's 
business.
    I have been very pleased with the way you have started the 
field program. Perhaps we both underestimated the amount of 
resistance that a field coordinator would meet in our 
department, in other departments, and outside of government. 
That may account for some of the pot-shotting. I thought, 
however, that you should know and be forearmed. The government 
service is exacting in its demands for personal self-sacrifice, 
and is remunerative only in the satisfaction of having rendered 
service. Forgive me for seeming to lecture. Especially do I 
apologize since I believe there is no reason for me to be 
saying such things to you.

    Mr. Warne ended up apologizing.
    Senator Dirksen. What was the date of that letter?
    Mr. Bellino. October 21, 1948.
    Senator Dirksen. Let's get the sequence of dates clear in 
the record. Mr. Kadow went to work for the Department of 
Interior what month?
    Mr. Bellino. July 1948.
    Senator Dirksen. And he went to Alaska when?
    Mr. Bellino. He arrived in Alaska about that time.
    Senator Dirksen. In July?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. What was his prior experience?
    Mr. Bellino. Prior thereto he was connected with Stettinius 
and his work in Liberia; before that he was with Nelson A. 
Rockefeller in South America.
    Senator Dirksen. What you mean to say is: His earlier 
government employment consisted of work with the State 
Department in Liberia and later with the Rockefeller committee 
in South America.
    Mr. Bellino. From September 1947 to August 1948, he was 
with the Stettinius Associates in Liberia, Inc., and the 
Liberia Company, in charge of planning and development. It was 
his responsibility to present practical operating plans for the 
development of Liberia. ``These two corporations were organized 
for the purpose of developing Liberia both economically and 
socially.''
    Prior to that time he was with the International Basic 
Economy Corporation and American International Association. His 
immediate supervisor was Mr. Nelson A. Rockefeller, president 
of the above corporations. He was also with the Coordinator of 
Inter-American Affairs, Food Supply Division in Rio de Janeiro, 
Brazil. Before that all of his work was in connection with 
agriculture, either at the University of Delaware or the 
University of Illinois, Urbana, Illinois. From September 1931 
to December 1948, he was associate plant pathologist, 
Department of Horticulture, University of Illinois. Before that 
he was assistant to plant pathologist, Washington State 
College, Pullman, Washington.
    Senator Dirksen. All right then, he entered the Department 
of Interior in July of 1948?
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. And was dispatched almost immediately to 
Alaska?
    Mr. Bellino. Within two weeks he was on his way to Alaska.
    Senator Dirksen. He was in Alaska then roughly five months 
when this rather lecturing letter was written by a Mr. Warne, 
and Mr. Warne's full name is William E. Warne, and his title?
    Mr. Bellino. Assistant Secretary of Interior.
    Senator Dirksen. Which means within five months after Mr. 
Kadow assumed employment with the Department of Interior, 
rumors had come back from Alaska as far as Washington and 
became the foundation for a letter by Mr. Warne.
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir.
    Senator Dirksen. All right. Now you can proceed.
    Mr. Bellino. On October 28, 1948, there appears a letter in 
the file from Mr. Warne, in which he says:

    I talked with Governor Gruening by phone on October 22 
relative to Dr. Boyd's conversation with me and mine with John 
Reed of the Geological Survey about Mr. Kadow and the situation 
at Juneau. The Governor said he had heard rumors and had 
discussed the subject of the rumors with Mr. Kadow and that he, 
the Governor, was satisfied. He said no investigation or other 
action was warranted at this time, that Mr. Kadow had not had a 
long background of government employment but was learning 
rapidly.

    In that connection, Governor Gruening on August 16, 1948, 
wrote to Mr. Kadow and he said:

    I am dropping a line on the subject of a communication 
which George Sundborg mailed you. It has to do with a birch 
products project, the principal of which is a man named 
Franklin Lanum. The project is discussed in the enclosed 
memorandum.
    It seems to me that other than housing and the cement 
plant, no other single project is so much in line with the 
thoughts that we were developing.
    Here is a man who has gone quite a distance in seeking to 
develop and process an Alaska native product which hitherto has 
been unutilized. He can develop it as a raw-material exporter; 
that is, shipping out the logs; and is doing so. But this is 
scarcely desirable. If he could get the financing--and the 
amount would not seem to be large--$170,000--he can establish a 
birch manufacturing and producing plant which will (1) supply 
Alaska with finished products needed in the construction 
industry; (2) obviate the high cost of transportation for 
corresponding materials; (3) aid in the solution of the housing 
problem; (4) establish another year-round industry, employing 
local labor.

    This shows the Governor asking Kadow to help this man with 
his financing, which was what Kadow was doing up there--help in 
financing--but as indicated in other memoranda, he was looking 
also for his own personal interest whenever he did help with 
financing.
    Now, Kadow wrote a note to Governor Gruening on August 28, 
1948, in which he said:

    I received your letter and George's regarding Franklin V. 
Lanum of Anchorage. I have read carefully his business 
prospectus. I have discussed it with several of my friends and 
believe that financing for this enterprise is definitely 
possible. I can not, however, work it out until I have a 
detailed breakdown of Mr. Lanum's financial statement. 
Considering the time that I have left here, I would suggest 
that you have Mr. Lanum meet me in Juneau sometime shortly 
after my return, which is now scheduled for the 11th. He should 
come prepared to discuss the whole thing in detail. It is my 
opinion, from what I read of his business prospectus, that I 
can propose a much more satisfactory capital structure for him 
than the one he has already.
    I have asked some of my partners in the New Castle 
Engineering & Construction Company to help work out the 
financing for this company. Whether they put their money in or 
not is beside the point. I am reasonably sure that they will 
come up with a satisfactory working formula.

    The governor had knowledge of this activity of Kadow, but 
nevertheless a few months later the question came up as to his 
activities and whether an investigation should be made of it. 
The governor said he didn't think this should be done and it 
stopped right there.
    Senator Dirksen. Who was the New Castle Construction 
Company to which he refers and in which he refers to partners?
    Mr. Bellino. The New Castle Construction Company was 
organized and incorporated in June of 1948, just before he 
obtained his job with Interior. He organized it for the purpose 
of using it in the development of housing in Alaska.
    In that connection he claims that when he first--well, I 
could read his confidential letter from Mr. Warne to Mr. Kadow.
    Senator Dirksen. First, the letter is to whom?
    Mr. Bellino. Mr. Warne.
    Senator Dirksen. By whom?
    Mr. Bellino. This letter is dated October 26, 1948 from Mr. 
Kadow to Mr. William E. Warne, Assistant Secretary of the 
Interior.

    Thank you very much for yours of the 21st. I appreciate it 
more than words can tell. You are absolutely correct in 
assuming that my letter of the 24th was a statement of policy 
on my part. It is true, however, that ``Caesar's wife was very 
nearly seduced.'' This was a function of misunderstanding on 
our parts. I had definitely expected to make investments in 
Alaska when I came here. You knew this as did Secretary Krug. 
As a matter of fact, I can tell you without reservation, I 
would not have taken this job had I known that this policy 
would have been reversed. I could not have afforded to do so. 
However, that is all water over the dam. I am here as 
Interior's representative. I will do everything in my power to 
promote the best interest of the Interior Department and of 
Alaska, and you have my word that as long as I am a government 
employee, I will not personally take part in any of the many 
opportunities that I see.
    So much for the record. Now for what I consider to be 
additional pertinent information. In the first place very few 
people in the government seem to know how a business project is 
born. They seem to think that if you publish some sort of a 
report, that almost immediately business as a whole will take 
it up. Personal conferences and actual solicitation of interest 
on the part of a person who has the facts are a very integral 
part of business development, as you well know. Of course, some 
projects will be developed in the other manner, but by and 
large, the road must be smoothed for the proper business 
psychology. Trying to smooth this road in Alaska is one of the 
toughest problems I have yet tackled primarily because of laws 
and stands taken by the government which the people consider 
inept. Most of the people in the government simply cannot 
understand how important little things are to the businessman's 
point of view. A typical example is the necessity for a man who 
is going to make a sizable investment to own the piece of 
ground on which he makes it.
    Another point that has been somewhat disconcerting to me is 
the endless chain of rumors and absolutely foundless remarks 
that float around. For instance, it came to my attention 
through Reed Salisbury the other day that two different people 
in Agriculture are supposed to have made a statement to Rex Lee 
that I told them if they did not cooperate 100 percent with us, 
I would see that they were fired. I expect to hear all sorts of 
crazy things, some good and some bad. This is always the case 
when a fellow is really out getting something done. It 
distressed me particularly, however, to hear that Agriculture 
might be complaining because I have been bending over backward 
to get what I regard as a healthy relationship with them. I 
have made no such comment to anyone.
    The greatest trouble I am having in Alaska to date is 
avoiding the press, and when they finally corner me for a 
speech or a statement, getting them to quote me correctly. I 
enclose herewith two articles written as a result of a speech I 
made in Ketchikan. If I do say so myself, the speech was fairly 
good, which is not always the case, but the article in the 
Ketchikan Daily News misquoted me badly. Frequently some of the 
misquotes seem to be intentional and are definitely popular 
with the people, but it irritates me, nevertheless, that they 
see fit to garble one's remarks.
    Your reference to our meeting at which time I proposed to 
form a corporation with the authorization of the Field 
committee just about floors me because I do not see how anyone 
could possibly have misunderstood my motive. I stated very 
clearly that all the stock of the company would be assigned to 
the government and held by it until such a time as it saw fit 
to develop the project to the greatest public good. It was 
simply a suggestion of a mechanism whereby we could move at 
once. Had we followed it, the lime deposits would have been 
under our control. As it is, it is under somebody elses. In my 
opinion, any person who misconstrued my intention with regard 
to that recommendation is doing so deliberately. Had I wished 
to be two-faced, or had I been concerned about personal 
investment possibilities, I should certainly not have discussed 
it as I did in the meeting.
    In closing, I want you to know that I will appreciate every 
bit of information you can send me that would indicate my 
motives or methods are being misunderstood. You have my word of 
honor, however, that I will not betray your faith in me nor 
will I abuse my position in the government. As a matter of 
fact, I will fight like a wildcat and raise particular hell 
with anyone who does. You must appreciate, however, that in all 
the appraisals that come to your attention, I speak as a 
businessman. It must be remembered that a businessman's 
psychology of view should be misunderstood by some bureaucrats 
is not a great surprise to me. However, if it becomes 
misunderstood by the average citizen, I will then definitely be 
surprised and disappointed.
    Your continued confidence and support are greatly 
appreciated.

    Now, I would like to read in connection with his stock, 
what Mr. Kadow said to his lawyer. This is a letter dated 
September 24, 1948, to Mr. Jim Mackey, Rockville Center, New 
York.
    The Chairman. How does that date compare with the letter 
you just read?
    Mr. Bellino. This is September 24, 1948; the other letter 
was dated October 26, 1948.

    As you will recall, I told you I had gotten permission from 
Krug and Warne to have The Newcastle Engineering and 
Construction Company do business in Alaska. As an afterthought, 
it occurred to me that I had better have that permission in 
writing, and accordingly I enclose a copy of a letter I 
received from Bill Warne after consultation with the Solicitor. 
The thing is so goddamn stupid, it makes me boil, but I shall 
of necessity take steps to comply.
    I shall be sending along in a few days or at least before 
any actual business activity of The Newcastle Engineering and 
Construction Company takes place, the transfer of stock and the 
corporate books. At the same time I shall let you know the 
additional officers so that the company can get on with its 
business. At your first convenience I wish you would prepare a 
rough draft of an agreement which is adequate to indicate that 
you will hold the stock and that you will transfer it back to 
me at my request. We cannot do this as you once proposed that 
the corporation actually indicate on its books that the stock 
was being held for me or Dal since this would obviously be 
circumventing the provisions of the Solicitor's judgment. It 
will be necessary for the stock to be yours and the agreement 
should simply indicate that I have the right to purchase back 
`x' number of shares when I choose. I would like to see your 
draft of this as soon as it is convenient.

    The Chairman. This New Castle Engineering Company, was it 
doing business in Alaska?
    Mr. Bellino. It was organized to do business--in September 
he put $1,000 in the corporation.
    Senator Dirksen. When was that?
    Mr. Bellino. September 1948. He and his wife were the 
principal officers. He intended to have Reed Salisbury an 
officer of the corporation, but Salisbury eventually got out of 
the corporation, some difference of opinion, and he did not 
continue.
    The corporation, as far as I can see, never did operate.
    The Chairman. It had no government contract?
    Mr. Bellino. Never as New Castle Engineering. Actually, the 
Delaware Corporation was organized to do business in Alaska or 
anywhere, but never did get up there and operate under that 
name.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether it operated under any 
other name?
    Mr. Bellino. There was another name, whether or not it 
might be tied into it--NEDCO. It might be an abbreviation.
    The Chairman. It sounds as though it might be.
    Mr. Bellino. That was incorporated in Alaska. What they 
did, I don't have that information.
    The Chairman. You don't know if they had contracts with the 
government?
    Mr. Bellino. No.
    At any rate, Senator, on September 2, 1949, Mr. Kadow 
submitted a financial statement to J. E. Dougherty, vice 
president of the Farmers Trust Company in Newark, Delaware. He 
showed net assets of $264,000, among which were stocks of 
$179,000.
    This is what he said under stocks:

    Including controlling stock in the new housing project, the 
$179,000 figure represents the actual purchase value of the 
stock. Since none of these stocks are listed on the market, 
their true par value today can only be judged by their worth in 
capital assets which materially exceed the $179,000 figure. 
Some of the companies are fairly new and have not yet paid 
dividends.

    The Chairman. Does that statement or anything else show how 
he got the controlling interest in the housing project?
    Mr. Bellino. No, sir, his explanation of this, Senator, was 
a very confusing one. He claimed this was the New Castle 
Engineering and Development Company.
    The Chairman. In other words, he claimed New Castle 
Engineering and Development had gotten controlling interest in 
the housing project.
    Mr. Bellino. He claimed what he was referring to, not what 
he said here they were new corporations and hadn't paid 
dividends.
    He said the new corporation was New Castle Engineering and 
Construction Company.
    The Chairman. I am talking about the $179,000 stock 
interest in the housing development. Did he say that belonged 
to New Castle Engineering and Development Company or him 
personally?
    Mr. Bellino. He said that New Castle was the company he was 
referring to.
    The Chairman. You say the company he was referring to. Did 
you mean New Castle owned the controlling interest in the 
housing project?
    Mr. Bellino. He says the housing project is the New Castle 
Company. In other words, New Castle obtained it.
    The Chairman. Does he say how New Castle got it? Who did 
they buy it from?
    Mr. Bellino. There is no question in my mind that New 
Castle had no part of it.
    The Chairman. Did he say that?
    Mr. Bellino. He couldn't give me any details whatsoever.
    The Chairman. He didn't give you any explanation of how New 
Castle acquired interest?
    Mr. Bellino. He got the bank account of $1,000. He put in 
$1,000 and nothing was paid out. I know it is not that. That 
was his explanation.
    Senator Dirksen. Did it have an actual physical value of 
$179,000?
    Mr. Bellino. I don't know what he had reference to. All he 
would say was that it was New Castle. If he had admitted these 
interests and given us the names of the companies, it might 
have been Bay View, West Juneau, Gastineau and other companies 
with which Cash Cole was identified involving housing projects 
that he (Kadow) was pushing, contrary to what he said to his 
superiors. He may have been getting an interest in these 
companies. That is what this indicates. He would not admit 
this.
    The Chairman. In other words, in his statement to the bank, 
he said he had $179,000 interest in the housing project. By 
housing project, do you know what project that is?
    Mr. Bellino. No, sir.
    The Chairman. But he said he owned the controlling stock?
    How many projects are there in the area?
    Mr. Bellino. Well, I'd say there are at least twenty at the 
minimum. At this time there might have been five or six.
    The Chairman. When you asked him he said he didn't know--
New Castle owned it and he knew nothing more about it?
    Mr. Bellino. He just said this was New Castle.
    The Chairman. Would he identify the housing project?
    Mr. Bellino. No, sir.
    The Chairman. He said he didn't know the name of it?
    Mr. Bellino. He just said this was New Castle Company he 
was talking about; that was the new housing project and its 
business, but he said it had to do business in Delaware.
    The Chairman. Did he tell you what housing project New 
Castle had?
    Mr. Bellino. He said a housing project in Delaware, where 
he owned about sixty lots.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Senator Dirksen. Just in general, what, besides the tin 
mine and the New Castle Engineering Company--what other 
interests does it appear Mr. Kadow may have had in Alaska, if 
any?
    Mr. Bellino. He has interest in housing projects. At this 
time he definitely has interest in the Island Home Project in 
Fairbanks.
    Senator Dirksen. Those are privately constructed and 
operated, I take it.
    Mr. Bellino. Privately constructed, private corporation. 
However, practically all of the money came from the government.
    Senator Dirksen. You mean the money came from the 
government, FHA plan, under which money is loaned from private 
sources and insured, depending on the time, up to 90 percent.
    Mr. Bellino. The Alaska Housing Authority funds came out of 
the government revolving fund, similar to Housing and Home 
Finance.
    Senator Dirksen. I suppose the Alaska Housing Authority 
referred to is the same kind of authority that is set up in any 
community, in the United States under the authority conferred 
by state law, which is in conformity with the federal act. It 
can then get funds out of the U.S. Housing Authority, that is a 
loan, or it can be a contribution. They get the loan, get the 
money from the Housing and Home Finance. The sponsor gets the 
Alaska Housing--they are actually government funds or bank 
funds?
    Mr. Bellino. Actually Alaska Housing Authority funds. 
However, at the present time the Alaska Housing Authority is 
getting out of it by having Fannie Mae take over the mortgage. 
Now, it is still government funds, but you see where a public 
housing project is built they issue bonds and the Housing and 
Home Finance----
    Senator Dirksen. When it has been constructed bonds have 
been marketed the paid off only federal funds might be 
contributions in the form of economic rent. In other words, if 
a house should normally rent for, let's say $100.00 a month, 
but the man's pay check is such that he only earns an amount 
that would justify rental of $80.00 a month, under the 
consideration you dip into the contribution for $20.00 a month. 
Those would actually be the only funds represented. I can't 
tell exactly how this might be set up. The territories like 
Puerto Rico and Alaska are authorized to set up housing 
authority just as the states of the Union.
    Mr. Bellino. Yes, sir. From the Island Home Project, what I 
can see, is principally Alaska Housing Fund which came through 
the Housing and Home Finance and in December of this year 
Fannie Mae would take the responsibility. Getting mortgages 
transferred to Fannie Mae, that has been his principal 
activity.
    There is one I might mention--how he started with Cash Cole 
in the West Juneau Company in Juneau, Alaska on a few lots. He 
got the Alaska Housing Authority to buy the land for some 
$17,400. It was appraised at $4,200, the highest evaluation the 
appraisers would give it. The Alaska Housing Authority paid for 
this project $17,400. Part of that money, when it was paid, 
went to the Gastineau Utility Company, which was the water 
company organized by----
    The Chairman. I missed the land deal.
    Mr. Bellino. Cash Cole and an individual by the name of 
Everett Nowell, two persons owned a large tract of land.
    The Chairman. You don't know whether Kadow had an interest?
    Mr. Bellino. No, sir. That was land Kadow wanted to buy or 
help get developed and he induced the government to pay $17,400 
when the appraisers said it was worth $4,200. Then when they 
organized it they found it had no water. A Juneau gold mining 
company had a stream getting water and they diverted the water 
from the stream so it would get down to this housing 
development.
    Kadow was interested in Gastineau Utility Company, Inc. 
Nowell put $10,000 up and Cash Cole was supposed to put up 
$10,000. Kadow said he advanced the money to pay for a house. 
The company eventually built two houses they were trying to 
sell. Kadow bought one of them.
    Out of this land money, $17,400, $8,800 went to the 
Gastineau Utility Company. At this time, July of 1951, Kadow 
was general manager of West Juneau Company, Inc. Everett Nowell 
is president of the West Juneau Company, Inc.
    The Chairman. Let me ask this. Would you say it is correct 
that he appears to have an interlocking interest in both of the 
companies up there which received federal assistance?
    Mr. Bellino. I would say everyone he was urging, promoting 
personally, he endeavored to get some sort of promise or 
interest. That is what our documents revealed.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. I think what we should do is try to make 
arrangements to bring Kadow down.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    [Whereupon the committee adjourned for lunch at 12:05.]


                           afternoon session


    [The committee met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2 p.m., 
January 13, 1953.]
    Mr. Bellino. Here is one point, a photostat dated March 4, 
1952, from Kadow to Fishnaller.

    Harry, please get Executive Committee backing of this 
letter I have written to Wilder. I must take action now if I'm 
to get the housing and other materials needed this summer. If 
we get our exploration program, I have the money in the budget. 
If we do not, I can get $20,000 by using individual natives or 
by using a native cooperative. We will have to underwrite 
repayment of the funds advanced by A.H.A. Once we have proven 
the ore, this will be simple, either as an advance from G.S.A. 
or by increasing monthly pay of natives to cover rent and 
deducting it from their payroll. In either case we can own the 
houses once the native notes are paid. If the native actually 
pays the note from his own present earnings, the house would be 
his. Even this procedure could be evolved to our satisfaction, 
but I prefer us paying for the housing and owning it ourselves. 
It would be easier for us to handle.
    All A.H.A. and I want is a legal vehicle to accomplish our 
goal of getting about one-half million dollars worth of 
building materials to our property. It is estimated to cost us 
about $200 per unit to land materials on our property, but 
please do not stipulate in Executive Committee action any 
particular amount. If the boys feel that a limit is necessary, 
then see if they will approve $500 per unit which is the amount 
A.H.A. will loan each employee. While I want Executive 
Committee approval of my housing plans, I do not want this 
action to become part of our corporate minutes. In other words, 
I don't want our auditor to pick this up as a corporation 
liability at this time. A little later on it will be O.K., but 
not now.
    Just get me authority to go ahead and lick our housing 
problem through A.H.A. or any other manner possible. Scotty 
will know what I need.

    The Chairman. What is A.H.A.?
    Mr. Bellino. Alaska Housing Authority. That, of course, 
indicates his scheming to Fishnaller to get, as he says, one 
half million dollars worth of building materials through A.H.A. 
He eventually succeeded but he had a call under the service 
assistance of Alaskan Native Service and he just helped himself 
to considerable surplus property. I will read one of those 
letters. This is a letter dated March 13, 1952 from Kadow to 
the United States Tin Corporation.

    I have been holding the check for $2,425 as a ``wind fall'' 
and as per our agreement. Looks like we need it now. I 
certainly don't understand how we managed to get $6,000 in the 
hole. There must be something wrong some place. When I arranged 
the financing for this winter, I saw to it that we had an 
actual surplus over all our recorded obligations plus 
anticipated needs of about $5,000 per month. Paul must be 
building up his Nome account. There certainly better be a good 
answer to this one. If we can't budget better than it looks, we 
had better take some drastic action.
    In any event, do not show any such obligation over our 
funds on hand on your February statement. If you do all hell 
will break loose in D.C.
    I want to know from Henry and Spence if this shortage is 
due to orders from the mine or from old bills that were not 
listed or cleaned up at the end of January.
    When can Spence go to the mine? We must get this thing 
straightened out before we get in too much deeper. If we can't 
operate on $29,190 per month at this stage of the game, we 
must, at once, start looking for and plugging all holes. I 
don't understand it unless we undershot our winter supplies. 
Have Spence give me his schedule for Lost River so I can plan 
accordingly.
    Enclosed please find copy of my letter to Lomens and Bureau 
of Mines check for $2,425.

    In other words, they paid him for transporting the stuff to 
his own mines. The Bureau of Mines paid him to transport stuff 
to his own mine. In other words, he watered the budget. We have 
another letter later on where he says that, simply calls it 
watering the budget.
    The Chairman. What does he mean by ``Paul must be building 
up his Nome account''?
    Mr. Bellino. I will explain that. I have another 
photostatic bank account up in Nome. He was granted lots of 
leaveway and not too many could see what was going on.
    The Chairman. That is a personal account, huh?
    Mr. Bellino. Corporation accounts, but a lot of things he 
wanted to change to mine operations without anyone knowing the 
details.
    This is a letter dated September 18, 1951 from Kadow to 
Harry, Fred, et al. They are officers of the U.S. Tin 
Corporation.

    Just a short note to let you know that I have the beaches 
on Spenser piled a `mile' high with things we need now or will 
need in the future. I have lumber, iron pipe, wooden pipe, 
electric cable, BX electric cable, telephone wire, houses and 
Pacific huts, iron rods and strips, iron plate, nails, bolts, 
electric fixtures, 80 octane gas for an outboard motor and many 
other items too numerous to mention. When I come down I'll try 
to have some idea of the replacement value to give you a better 
idea of its value and also with the hope that it may help us 
with our financing.
    By the way, I don't remember if I asked Caidill to have you 
and the other members of the Board O.K. Paul and me to write 
checks against a new account at the Nome bank called U.S. Tin 
Corporation--Special. This account is the one I'm using to 
finance all the things I'm doing. I need lots of leeway and not 
too many people in possession of all the details. When I get 
through this fall, I'll have everything done I set out to do 
and I hope a little money left over. So far I've been on the 
point nine days and no barge has been here to haul away a 
thing.
    I sure agree with Paul this human service is awful but 
we've had lots of wind and that may be the reason. I'm going to 
the mine today and then to Nome. If I don't have news of the 
barge. My whiskers are ever getting gray trying to keep this 
end of our show running smoothly. The progress here is great, 
but we sure aren't getting all the breaks so far as the mine is 
concerned. I can't stay here much longer so maybe I'll get 
someone to take my place here and be in Seattle fairly soon. 
I'll wire my arrival date. Keep your chin up. I still say we 
got a first class winner.

    The main thing on that was the bank account I wanted to 
bring out.
    The Chairman. Sounds like he got a pretty good deal, 
doesn't it?
    Mr. Bellino. Now, just to give you another idea on possible 
bribery, this is a statement of Clinton C. Staples, head of 
Federal Housing Administration. It is very lengthy so I won't 
go into the whole thing. I will point out what happened when 
Staples went there in connection with Kadow.

    I arrived in Fairbanks early Sunday morning by plane and 
later that morning Mr. Kadow came to my room in the Nordale 
Hotel and began to tell me exactly what he wished the Director 
to do in the way of approving the Weeks Field area. At this 
point I informed Mr. Kadow that my opinions were not going to 
be molded by either him or any other official in the Territory, 
that I would later proceed to Weeks Field and would then make a 
decision. This I did in company with the then present Mayor and 
several of the Councilmen of the City. Mr. Kenneth Kadow more 
or less took over this meeting on the Field and I finally 
stated that if the City would allow our land planning analyst 
to land plan this section of land, which would consist of 
providing sewers, water and utilities, together with the 
removal of the present air field, that I would be favorably 
inclined to having this section of land developed. This was all 
agreed to and our land planning did proceed and in the meantime 
I committed a 608 project now known as Fairview, but only 
committed this project after a responsible builder entered the 
picture. This office would have refused to have committed this 
particular 608 project to the original sponsors as it did not 
consider that they were, first, builders of experience, nor 
possibly had the necessary finances that would be required to 
make a commitment for $3,080,000.00; but, during this period 
Mr. Kadow and Mr. Cash Cole made repeated visits to my office 
here in Juneau, and while this proposal was pending presented a 
second project in Juneau known as Silver Bow, which never 
matured. The land in Weeks Field was to be given to the project 
on a lease basis for a period of seventy-five years at a stated 
annual rent, and I definitely stated to the City Council that 
this lease was to be made to the Fairview Corporation; and 
under date of December 10, 1949, under the signature of the 
Mayor we have in our possession a letter addressed to the 
Bayview Realty Inc., P.O. Box 331, Juneau, Alaska, stating that 
the City will lease the twelve acres of land for a period of 
seventy-five years at a base rental of $250.00 a year, also 
stating that the City would make application to the General 
Service Administration for the installation of utilities 
including streets, sidewalks, curbs, sewers and water, with the 
understanding that the City will purchase, maintain, and 
operate these utilities with the normal service charge; that 
the City Council will direct that light, power, and telephone 
facilities be installed and will provide fire and police 
protection, and signed by the City of Fairbanks, Maurice T. 
Johnson, as Mayor.

    On page 3 and 4:

    Upon arriving at the site and inspecting it comments were 
made by me but all of the advantages of this site were highly 
played up by both Mr. Wilder of the Alaska Housing Authority, 
and Mr. Kenneth Kadow. I did not know, upon the return to the 
hotel in Anchorage, just what the decision of Mr. Cassidy or 
Mr. Woods would be in reference to the selection of this Goose 
Lake site, but when I brought up the subject I definitely told 
them that I, as Director, would not approve this site at the 
present time under any circumstances and for the reason that I 
had been offered thirty thousand dollars for the building of 
the so mentioned three hundred houses by Mr. Wilder and Mr. 
Kadow, and that I was quite sure who the sponsor was and that 
if they decided to recommend this site for the building of 
these three hundred homes I would resign as Director of Federal 
Housing. This conversation took place in one of the rooms at 
the Westward Hotel in Anchorage and in the presence of Mr. 
Cassidy, Mr. Woods, Mr. Beall, Mr. Sutton and Mr. Roy Sumpter, 
President of the Washington Mortgage Company of Seattle.
    Therefore, Goose Lake was not approved and I have now 
learned that when Mr. Kadow found that I was not susceptible to 
receiving bribes of any type that he reported this to Mr. 
William Warne of the Department of Interior and to Mr. Thomas 
J. Nally, Resident Agent of the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. In my opinion, the only reason for his taking 
this action at that time was to clear his own skirts of an 
offer of bribe to me.

    Now, what Kadow did after he offered the bribe, he went to 
one of the FBI agents and claimed that Staples had tried to 
bribe him. There was no motive for Staples trying to bribe him. 
Kadow told me about that incident. He knew I would hear about 
it sooner or later. I asked him what would be the motive for 
Staples trying to bribe him. He said Staples figured he would 
be getting out of government service some day and ``I could 
help him.''
    To show his guilt, there was an investigation going on by 
Mr. Ramey of the Housing and Home Finance and when he ran into 
Kadow's activities, he began to look into his activities a 
little bit and he re-interviewed Kadow. You might want to read 
the letter he wrote to Cash Cole after Ramey interviewed him.

    A Mr. Ramey from D.C.--Housing and Home Finance, came over 
to see me yesterday and is really digging into FHA--your 
affairs and mine. I think he's trying to get something on you 
or me more than Staples. I admitted that Staples had asked for 
a `bribe' and that I appeared to be playing along with him, 
then never went back after that until a few days ago. He is 
trying to link me with you on Fairview, West Juneau and 
Bayview. I told him I owned no stock in anything in Alaska 
except the U.S. Tin Corporation but that I did represent both 
you and Everett on occasion when neither of you were here to 
represent yourself. I also said I hoped someday to buy an 
interest in West Juneau or at least to buy some lots for a 
building project. I admitted helping you and Everett on many 
problems but at no time doing anything I did not do for others.
    Lee Bettinger, Mayor of Kodiak, seems to have made some 
remarks that at least suggest that you, Rushlight and I were 
all working together and that we tried to `bribe him' on the 
Kodiak project. I can see how he might think the first part but 
where in the hell he got the notion of a bribe has got me beat. 
He said we could get $1,500 for the land and would split it 
with him. I remember writing him an official letter saying 
F.H.A. would allow $1,500 for the land with all utilities in 
but that is all I ever said to him. I don't remember even 
discussing the value of the land with him when you, Dick and I 
were in Anchorage. Do you? I told this Ramey that I had hoped 
to go into business with Rushlight but Staples' attempt to 
bribe me changed all of that. I said that I never had an 
understanding with you or Rushlight or anyone else as to 
details of how I would fit into any project. I had no 
intentions working out such details until I was out of the 
government. I said that my Department knew I was looking around 
for a new connection and that I may go into housing.
    I told him I reported the Staples incident to Warne and 
local FBI. I told him also that I learned of Staples' action on 
reporting it to Washington, D.C. about three weeks ago.
    I give you all the above because I think he will be in to 
see you very soon and that you'd want my views and remarks to 
help.
    I'm not positive but I'm quite sure that he is more after 
you and me than Staples.

    Senator, now to show the connection which subsequently 
continued between Cash Cole and Staples and Kadow, this is a 
letter dated September 6, 1950, which is about the time Staples 
was going to leave the organization and Cash Cole tells Kadow 
the results of his conversation. This letter shows how Cole is 
now with Staples.

    I had a big session with Staples last night, and got a 
totally different picture than what he has been putting out. 
First, he doesn't intend to let Rushlight have any jobs that 
amount to anything, he said he offered him a small 207 at 
Palmer, or one at Kodiak, about 20 or 25 units. There are just 
three people going to do any building, Lewis, Anderson, and 
Baldwin.
    He will have nothing to do with the Railroad job if Sherman 
shows in it any place. He will not approve anything in the 
Goose Lake Area. He is off-setting this by putting more housing 
closer in with one or all the three. Lewis is coming up with a 
new one on Railroad land leased at a rental of $1,600 a year, 
and a building some place close to Turnigan Arms, with a 134 
units. He has been singing the blues about 207's in order to 
let these fellows get a big head start. He has the same plans 
for Fairbanks.
    He told me Chris Berg was not going ahead with the Valdez 
deal, which is the ARC Building. He says they are clearing the 
tract and putting in the utilities. Check with Noyes on this. 
That should be a good deal for Dick, and a steady income earner 
for ownership.
    He said he would write you the letter. I asked him if he 
was going to announce his departure from the Territory before 
the trip, and he said no, he knew that he was leaving it all 
depended on Cassidy. If he said stay he would stay. I asked him 
what prompted the change, and he either had a letter or phone 
call from Harry Lewis telling him that he would go to the 
President if necessary to help him hold his job. He was all 
steamed up and cocky again, sick or no sick. It would look like 
he is going whole hog or none, so I don't know if he should 
have as much protection as we felt he should have. Maybe there 
should be two meetings, one for each side. I feel you should 
nail the Railroad deal down, or we will lose it, he is very 
friendly to Allied Credit Bunch, and will use Sherman as an 
excuse to throw it out. I started to phone you last night, but 
got a little leary about telephoning this information. He is 
death on any deal Wilder has, or anything to do with it.

    Here is a letter dated May 13, 1950, when Kadow was still 
in the government service, from Cash Cole to Kadow:

    The plans we are sending you today were furnished us by 
Rushlight, President of a plumbing and construction firm in 
Portland, His establishment is over a million dollar concern, 
and he is more our type doing business, free wheeling and 
doesn't want it all himself. I think we can make a deal whereby 
he would put up all the front money, give us five or ten 
percent of the profit, and we would own all the houses, of 
course it would be up to us to handle the land deal, by paying 
for the lots as we sell the houses, or on a lease basis.
    Ruth and I spent two days going over the housing situation 
and getting some information on him and his firm, and it was 
all of the best, while we were in Portland. I feel sure I laid 
some successful plans for an immediate substitute for Cliff, if 
he doesn't get something done on a lender. Rushlight said he 
would very willingly put up a $125,000 front money if he could 
get a contract like the Fairbanks deal.
    As I told you on the phone for the first time we had a 
meeting with all the Mortensen Firm, and the old man and 
Henderson agreed with Everett and I that the lender should have 
been had a long time ago, but in the finish Cliff seems to run 
the thing. He signed a commitment which allows until the 
eighteenth, but the whole thing hinged on our using plaster 
instead of plasterboard. Frank Henderson agreed with us, but 
that was as far as we were concerned a definite refusal, but 
Cliff insisted that we wait until the 18th as his broker 
thought he could change their opinion on that score. Everett 
tells me this morning on the phone that his broker phoned that 
he trying to place it with some banks of which there would have 
to be three. That would take from a month to two months. We 
have the same offer here. Definitely Cliff can't get better 
than four percent money, and all this time has been wasted by 
Cliff trying to chisel part of the Broker's commission.
    I had a conference with some financial people in Portland, 
who told me that Cliff's type are listed as chiselers amongst 
the lenders, and they are posted as such and that he will wind 
up with all the big fellows closing the door on him, and this 
seems to be verified by the fact that Cliff came up Saturday 
with three lenders instead of one, and when the word is passed 
on to them they will drop him. We are going to have a meeting 
again with them Monday morning, and have something definitely 
understood and done immediately. They will have to make up 
their mind that they are in the contracting business and not in 
the three ball business.

    Cliff is Cliff Mortensen. Cliff Mortensen is an officer of 
the Mortensen Construction Company from Seattle.
    This is a letter dated July 6, 1951, after Kadow left 
government service, addressed to Cliff Mortensen, written as a 
result of statement in a note from Cliff Mortensen to Kadow 
where he said Bob Slater, who was associate in the construction 
of Island Home Project, is writing you and said ``you are not 
worth your salt. Send him a good letter.'' He didn't say what 
he was writing about, but Kadow's mind went that way. He says:

    I'm a little amazed at your comment from Bob Slater that he 
can't see how I will earn my salt. I suppose this means he 
wishes to renege on his promise of stock. When Bob and Howard 
offered me ten percent of the stock obtained in Island Homes by 
them, they did so according to the words of Bob and Howard 
``out of appreciation for what you already did for us.'' As Bob 
and Howard both know, it took a lot of fixing to get AHA, 
Alaska Public Works, and the Mortensens to go on the Island 
Homes Project with them.

    The Chairman. Who are Bob and Howard?
    Mr. Bellino. Bob Slater is one officer. Howard is Howard 
Hollingsworth, another officer in Island Homes. What happened 
in that, Senator, Slater wanted to start development but didn't 
have the proper backing. It got into Kadow's hands and Kadow 
maneuvered Mortensen in with this. He fixed the rest. That is 
what he means it took a lot of fixing with the A.H.A., Alaska 
Housing Authority, and Alaska Public Works and Mortensen to go 
in on this deal.
    The Chairman. On July 6th, was he still working for the 
government?
    Mr. Bellino. He was out of government service. On March 
15th he was out and on March 16th he went in. He repeated that 
in another letter to Slater right after that. I asked him what 
he meant by fixing A.H.A. He said he probably used a wrong 
word.
    I just want to bring out one more thing on the mine. The 
important thing in the mine was water. When they filed a 
questionnaire back on February 14, 1951, with the Bureau of 
Mines, their answer to Item No. 11 was: ``There is an 
excellent, constant supply of water from the main winze, and 
from a spring near by. The spring gives 120 gallons per minute 
and never freezes. In addition, Cassiterite Greek and Lost 
River water is available for about six months per year.''
    At any rate, in the letter on ``tears,'' he says, ``The 
only water in sight are the tears in my eyes and they are big 
ones.''
    This is what he said also on water on February 23, 1952, in 
a letter to Sorensen:

    Washington, D.C. was still stewing about our water supply. 
I told them to quit worrying, that we had pumped the spring for 
several hours at 300 gals p/m with no visible effect on the 
supply. I know I told a little `white one', but you were so 
sure we had plenty of water there that I just took a chance. If 
asked, I would appreciate something that backs me up if your 
conscience won't hurt too badly. I said we did so in December, 
and if an actual test doesn't bear me out, we could say 
conditions are always worse in March; hence, the difference in 
results.

    This is Kadow writing to Sorensen, the Superintendent of 
Mines. They still don't have enough water. Two miles of pipes 
to get water from the creek. After they got the water, the mill 
still won't work.
    The Chairman. Why won't the mill work?
    Mr. Bellino. Breakdown of something or other. Right now the 
main reason is the gears are jammed up. They put rock, stone, 
tin in there and it goes so fast it makes the gears jam up. 
They can't do anything.
    The Chairman. I think, number one, you are going to have to 
take all the stuff and read it over. What we should do is draw 
out the letters that give a sequence, for example, attempted 
bribery.
    Mr. Bellino. That is what I am trying to do.
    The Chairman. You have picked out some excellent ones 
there. For example, where this fellow got eighty-five hundred 
shares of stock worth over $3.00 a piece. This is $30,000 
clearly a bribe. I think this looks like a clear cut criminal 
case. I think we should be very careful in view of the fact 
Interior Department originally sent you up there. I don't think 
we should do anything without keeping them fully informed on 
it. You work very closely with Don Wilson, don't you?
    Mr. Bellino. William Strand.
    The Chairman. Tell him what we are doing, Carmine. Tell 
them we would like to call him down sometime and if they want 
to be present here, they may have additional questions they 
would like to ask and that sort of thing. If they have any 
serious objections we won't guarantee to follow their 
suggestions but we will lean over backwards in view of the 
facts in this case.
    Mr. Bellino. I think they have considerable confidence in 
you, Senator.
    The Chairman. I think you have done a tremendous job on 
this, Carmine. I might say you do a hell of a good job on 
everything except being short-winded.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 2:45 p.m.]


                            VOICE OF AMERICA

    [Editor's note.--In January 1954, Washington Senator Henry 
M. Jackson questioned a claim in the subcommittee's annual 
report that its investigation of the Voice of America had saved 
the nation $18 million by causing the termination of 
construction of two radio transmitters. Senator Jackson noted 
that after the subcommittee held hearings on the issue in 1953, 
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology had submitted a 
report that contradicted the testimony of the subcommittee's 
key witness, Lewis McKesson and had raised doubts about 
McKesson's criticism of the planned locations of the 
broadcasting transmitters. See Congressional Record, 83rd 
Cong., 2nd sess., 1096-98.
    Dr. Newbern Smith (1909-1987) had previously testified in 
executive session on February 14, 1953, and at a public hearing 
on February 16, 1953.]
                              ----------                              


                      WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 13, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 3:00 p.m., room 357, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.

      TESTIMONY OF DR. NEWBERN SMITH, BUREAU OF STANDARDS

    Mr. Cohn. Dr. Smith, as reminded by the chairman, you are 
still under oath.
    Now, we have asked you to come in today because Senator 
Jackson, a member of the full committee, and formerly a member 
of the subcommittee, has supplied a correspondence file 
concerning the Bureau of Standards and the Baker West project. 
Senator Jackson has called our attention to your previous 
testimony with particular reference to the fact you said the 
Bureau of Standards had not been asked to make this detailed 
analysis and recommendation as to the location of Baker West.
    Now, is it a fact that the Bureau of Standards was not 
asked to make the detailed analysis from the auroral zone 
standpoint, and make recommendations as to the location of 
Baker West?
    Dr. Smith. As far as I know, there was never any request 
made to make a complete study like that.
    Mr. Cohn. You have glanced at this correspondence, have you 
not?
    Dr. Smith. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it a fact the correspondence does show a 
Mr. Gautier of the Central Radio Propagation Laboratories was 
in touch with somebody up at the Voice of America about Baker 
West?
    Dr. Smith. Yes, sir. That is right. After I had appeared 
before this committee, I was shown by Mr. Gautier the 
correspondence, which I believe is the same you have there, and 
until that time I was not aware of it. That went out when I was 
away, I believe, and he signed the letter.
    Mr. Cohn. What did that correspondence, in brief, indicate?
    Dr. Smith. The correspondence, as I remember it, indicated 
some verbal request from somebody in the Voice of America to 
make some maximum usable frequency and field strength 
calculations across the Pacific.
    Mr. Cohn. Did the bureau, in connection with that, make a 
detailed study of that auroral zone problem as you did for the 
committee.
    Dr. Smith. It did not. As I recall, Mr. Gautier's analysis 
included some auroral zone information taken from the National 
Bureau of Standards circular on atmospheric propagation, which 
came out in 1947 or 1948.
    Mr. Cohn. That did not reflect current evaluations, is that 
right?
    Dr. Smith. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. It did not embrace anywheres the job you did at 
the request of the committee?
    Dr. Smith. No. For the committee we did a detailed study 
not done before.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, then to sum up here, it is clear that when 
you said that the Voice had never contacted the Bureau of 
Standards when considering the location of Baker West, and I am 
quoting from page 11, part 1 of the record, your testimony was 
inaccurate to the extent that it later developed that at a 
period when you were away one of your subordinates had been in 
touch with the Voice about certain problems relating to Baker 
West. Is that right?
    Dr. Smith. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. However, you were correct in telling the 
subcommittee that the Bureau of Standards had never been asked 
and never did in fact conduct a detailed 1953 analysis of the 
auroral zone question, on the question of mislocation.
    Dr. Smith. I don't recall the exact figures, but the report 
stands for itself.
    Mr. Cohn. Right. Nothing has come up that would change your 
opinion about that or change any of the facts in the report 
submitted to the committee?
    Dr. Smith. I have no subsequent information which would 
change that.
    Mr. Cohn. You stand on the report in all respects?
    Dr. Smith. Yes.
    [Whereupon, the hearing adjourned at 3:30 p.m.]


              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Executive director Francis P. Carr 
telephoned army counsel John Adams on the morning of January 
19, 1954 to demand that five members of the army's loyalty-
security appeals board testify before the subcommittee that 
afternoon. Adams pointed out that Secretary of the Army Robert 
Stevens was out of the country at the time. Instead of 
complying with the request in Stevens' absence, Adams himself 
appeared before the chairman that afternoon. The following day, 
Adams met with Senator John L. McClellan, ranking Democrat on 
the Government Operations Committee to outline the army's 
objections to the Fort Monmouth investigation and the special 
privileges that the subcommittee's chief counsel, Roy Cohn, had 
sought for former staff member G. David Schine, who had been 
drafted into the army as a private.]

                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, JANUARY 19, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 2:45 p.m., pursuant to call, in 
room 357 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis P. Carr, 
executive director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. The subcommittee will be in order.

           STATEMENT OF JOHN ADAMS, COUNSELOR TO THE

        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (ACCOMPANIED BY LOUIS E.

         BERRY, DEPUTY COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY)

    The Chairman. At this point I would like to make clear that 
we are calling the members of the loyalty board not only to 
discuss with those why they have cleared people who are 
obviously Communists, but we are also interested in matters of 
graft, alleged graft and corruption and misconduct on the part 
of the individual members of the board having nothing to do 
with their official duties.
    It is the same with General Reichelderfer.\1\ It does not 
merely concern loyalty board procedures but it has to do with 
many other things over which this committee not only has the 
jurisdiction but a duty to investigate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ General Perry Reichelderfer, former commanding general at Fort 
Monmouth.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Carr. So that Mr. Adams will know exactly what we want, 
for Monday morning, then, we want General Reichelderfer and Mr. 
Taft and Dr. Ritchie.
    The Chairman. And then if John feels that the Department of 
the Army cannot do the same as the other departments have done, 
namely, to order their people up here, then Friday have your 
subpoenas served.
    Mr. Cohn. We can only call one group of people at a time, 
and we might as well get the members of that particular panel.
    Mr. Carr. That would be Malcolm R. Sewell, and----
    Mr. Adams. You gave me nine names this morning.
    Mr. Carr. Yes, I did; I gave you the nine names. All we 
will take on Monday will be Malcolm Sewell and Lieutenant 
Colonel Hodges.
    The Chairman. That gives you how many people?
    Mr. Carr. Five people. That gives you the entire board in 
the one case.
    The Chairman. Can we dispose of five people? I do not want 
to have them sitting over here and waiting.
    Mr. Carr. We can take the four, and have the general as the 
fifth one.
    The Chairman. I want to go into this thing thoroughly. We 
could have two in the morning and two in the afternoon, and 
have the general the following morning.
    Mr. Carr. That would be Taft and Dr. Ritchie in the 
morning, and Sewell and Hodges in the afternoon. That will be 
ten o'clock in the morning.
    Mr. Cohn. We have some other things to take care of.
    The Chairman. When do you want the rest of the board?
    Mr. Carr. We will take them Tuesday, then.
    Mr. Cohn. How about General Partridge?
    Mr. Adams. I think he may have left the country.
    Mr. Cohn. Could you check that fast, and if he has not left 
the country, make sure he does not leave?
    Mr. Adams. I do not know when he is leaving.
    The Chairman. I think he is in Europe.
    Again, on General Partridge, let us make it clear we are 
not going to ask General Partridge or any of these people to 
violate any rules or regulations under which they are 
operating. We are going to ask then questions which they can 
answer and which they must answer, and they are questions which 
involve no violation of any rules that are legally in effect. I 
just want to make that clear.
    [Whereupon, at 3 p.m., an adjournment was taken.]


              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--Irving Peress, an army dentist stationed 
at Camp Kilmer, New Jersey, had been under military 
surveillance as a suspected member of the Communist party. In 
September 1953, when Captain Peress applied for a promotion 
under the Doctor Draft Act, the First Army's G-2 (intelligence) 
recommended against it. The processing officers, however, 
judged Peress' case on his professional qualifications and the 
promotion went through on October 23. Camp Kilmer's new 
commanding officer, Gen. Ralph W. Zwicker, urged that the 
dentist be relieved from active duty, and on January 18, 1954, 
the army ordered Major Peress to be discharged within ninety 
days.
    The subcommittee staff contacted Gen. Zwicker, who 
identified Major Peress as a Communist. Called to testify in 
executive session on January 30, Peress cited the Fifth 
Amendment in his refusal to answer questions (the subcommittee 
made that testimony public on March 4). Although Peress' 
discharge from the army was scheduled for March 31, he asked 
for an immediate release and received an honorable discharge on 
February 2. The day before the major's discharge, Senator 
McCarthy had written to Army Secretary Robert Stevens 
suggesting a court-martial for both Peress and whoever was 
responsible for his promotion. Peress testified again in public 
session on the morning of February 18. Following the testimony 
of Lt. Col. Chester T. Brown (1908-1992) in executive session 
that afternoon, Gen. Zwicker (1903-1991) testified. When Gen. 
Zwicker cited the executive order that forbid him from 
divulging the names of military personnel involved in Peress's 
promotion and honorable discharge, Senator McCarthy replied: 
``Then, General, you should be removed from any command. Any 
man who has been given the honor of being promoted to general 
and who says, `I will protect another general who protected 
Communists,' is not fit to wear that uniform, General. I think 
it is a tremendous disgrace to the army to have this sort of 
thing given to the public. I intend to give it to them. I have 
a duty to do that. I intend to repeat to the press exactly what 
you said.'' The senator's treatment of Gen. Zwicker served as a 
precipitating event in the Army-McCarthy hearings and a subject 
of consideration during his later censure. Gen. Zwicker's 
executive session testimony was made public on February 22, 
1954.
    Peter A. Gragis (1913-2001) testified in public on March 5 
and March 10, 1954; Leo Kantrowitz (1917-1974) on March 10, 
1954; and Frank M. McGee on March 5, 1954. Max Finestone, Lt. 
Col. Chester T. Brown, and Capt. W. J. Woodward did not testify 
publicly.]
                              ----------                              


                      THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 18, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                      New York, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 3:00 p.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 111 United States Court House, Foley Square, New York, 
N.Y., Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Daniel G. 
Buckley, assistant counsel; James N. Juliana, investigator; 
Harold Rainville, administrative assistant to Senator Dirksen; 
Robert Jones, administrative assistant to Senator Potter.
    The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
    Would you stand and be sworn? In this matter now in hearing 
before the committee, do you solemnly promise to tell the 
truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.

                  TESTIMONY OF PETER A. GRAGIS

    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn will examine.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Gragis, could we have your full name?
    Mr. Gragis. Peter A. Gragis.
    Mr. Cohn. G-r-a-g-i-s?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Gragis. Twenty-five Collector Lane, Levittown, Long 
Island, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Gragis, were you ever employed at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And did you work there from 1945 to 1950?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes, roughly that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work on any government work while you 
were there?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Gragis, were you at that time a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Gragis. Not for the full length of that time, but for a 
good period of the time.
    Mr. Cohn. You were a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. During what years were you a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Gragis. Say from about 1946 to very early in 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. You were a member of the party from 1946----
    Mr. Gragis. To rather early in 1950.
    Mr. Cohn. I see. Were any of the other people working at 
the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory members of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Gragis. Some.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you furnish us with their names?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes, I can. Harry Hyman, Al Shadowitz, Ruth 
Levine, Jack Saunders.
    The Chairman. I did not get the second name.
    Mr. Gragis. Saunders.
    The Chairman. The one after Harry Hyman.
    Mr. Gragis. Shadowitz.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Ernest Pataki?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Was he a party member?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How about Frank McGee?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Leo Kantrowitz?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Andy Castros?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings at 
Harry Hyman's home?
    Mr. Gragis. Quite a number of times.
    Mr. Cohn. At Hyman's home?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. How about at Pataki's home?
    Mr. Gragis. Quite a few times.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have any at your own house?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes. But that was not at 25 Collector Lane. 
That was when I lived in the city.
    Mr. Cohn. And while attending these cell meetings with 
people from the Federal Telecommunications Laboratory, were 
there ever any discussions of revolution and specifically of 
``State and Revolution'' by Lenin?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes. Frank McGee was the leader of the 
educational discussion.
    Mr. Cohn. He was the leader?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And had he been employed at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. Gragis. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Chairman, this Mr. Gragis obviously is a most 
cooperative witness, and he is taking a very honorable approach 
to this. I was wondering, rather than asking him anything more, 
if Mr. Buckley could talk to him later in the afternoon or 
tomorrow, and then possibly we would have Mr. Gragis later.
    I think that is it. Mr. Buckley will work along with you, 
Mr. Gragis, and we will keep in touch with you that way. We 
certainly want to thank you for taking this attitude.
    Mr. Gragis. If I might just say one word----
    Mr. Cohn. Surely.
    Mr. Gragis [continuing]. I wish to say this, that when I 
was separated from the company, FTL, I spent a good number of 
years thinking on just what I should do and before I read in 
the papers about Fort Monmouth or anything about FTL, I had 
come to the conclusion that I should voluntarily go to the FBI 
and I did. I gave them a complete history of myself for about 
twenty years back.
    The Chairman. How long ago did you do that?
    Mr. Gragis. That was around June of last year, I believe. 
Now, I might be wrong, but I think it is around then, June or 
maybe July.
    The Chairman. I think the country owes a rather deep debt 
to people who have made a mistake and who are willing to 
rectify it as well as they can by going to the FBI or to the 
committee and give then that information. I know your job is an 
unpleasant one. It would be much easier for you to come in and 
refuse to testify and that sort of thing. I would like to thank 
you very, very much for the help not only that you have given 
to the committee but for the help that we understand you have 
also given to the FBI.
    Mr. Gragis. May I say another thing?
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    Mr. Gragis. I have another fear now, too, and that is this: 
Although I went to the FBI, I knew that my appearance before 
them would be kept in the strictest confidence. Because I have 
appeared here now I have a fear that should I be publicized or 
anything, that some of these subversives might make my life 
miserable at home with my wife or daughter.
    Mr. Cohn. We will have Mr. Buckley work with you on that 
angle, and we will do everything within our power to prevent 
that. We will be mindful of the fact that that is a problem.
    The Chairman. Would you stand and raise your right hand?
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I do.

     TESTIMONY OF LEO KANTROWITZ (WITH HIS COUNSEL, VICTOR 
                          RABINOWITZ)

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name, please?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Leo Kantrowitz.
    Mr. Cohn. K-a-n-t-r-o-w-i-t-z.
    Mr. Kantrowitz. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. 69-B, Bruan Place, Clifton, New Jersey.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation now?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I am unemployed.
    Mr. Cohn. What was your last job?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Draftsman.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. At Zenith Engineering Company, Newark.
    Mr. Cohn. Do they have any government contracts?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I believe so.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you working there?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Up until Monday.
    Mr. Cohn. Up until Monday of this week, is that right?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What were the circumstances of your leaving?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I resigned.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that in connection with being subpoenaed to 
appear before the committee?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes, it was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work on any of those government 
contracts?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Well, I can't say that I know the answer to 
that question.
    Mr. Cohn. In other words, you did the type of work that 
could or could not be used in connection with those contracts?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. From what branch of the service does that company 
have contracts, do you know?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. They didn't have it directly from any 
branch of the service.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, for what branch were they subcontracting?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. They were subcontracting from Bell 
Telephone.
    Mr. Cohn. Which was doing work for what branch of the 
service, do you know?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Well, I know that they had army ordnance 
and navy.
    Mr. Cohn. Army ordnance and navy. Now, who at the Zenith 
Company would be familiar with those contracts?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I should think the employers, the owners of 
the company.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know the name?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all right. We can get that.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Kantrowitz, where did you work before you 
were at Zenith?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. At Federal Telecommunications Laboratories.
    Mr. Cohn. And for how long a period of time were you 
employed there?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. About, approximately six years.
    Mr. Cohn. Approximately six years. We just had a witness in 
here who said that while you were working at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory, you were a member of the 
Communist party. Were you?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds that under the Fifth Amendment a person may not be 
compelled to bear witness against himself.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the party today?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
same ground.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the party while working at 
Zenith on Monday?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. While at the Federal Telecommunications 
Laboratory, did you attend Communist cell meetings with other 
persons who were employed there?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Are there people still working at Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory and other places doing work for 
the Army Signal Corps who, to your knowledge, are Communists?
    You can consult with counsel, by the way, any time you want 
to, if you feel the need to.
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Would you mind repeating that question?
    Mr. Cohn. Would you read the question, please?
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss any of your work at the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory with any members of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question also, on 
the same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you discuss any of your work at Zenith with 
any members of the Communist party?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds.
    Mr. Cohn. By the way, you have had an open Communist 
record, have you not Mr. Kantrowitz? You have signed Communist 
party nominating petitions over the years, have you not?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you the Leo Kantrowitz who resided at 2368 
East 21st Street?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And did you thereafter reside at 1168 St. Marks 
Avenue?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing further, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Just one or two questions.
    Before you worked at the Telecommunications, where did you 
work?
    Let me ask you this question first: You said you worked at 
Telecommunications for six years, roughly. What year did you 
start and what year did you quit?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I started in 1946, resigned March 1952, I 
believe.
    The Chairman. Did you resign as a result of any accusations 
in regard to Communist party activities or membership?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds already stated.
    The Chairman. I think I will have to order you to answer 
that. I am not asking whether you are a Communist, I am not 
asking whether or not the accusations are true. I am merely 
asking you the facts surrounding your resignation, the reason 
for the resignation. I can see nothing incriminating about 
that. I think I will order you to answer that.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I still refuse to answer on the same 
ground.
    The Chairman. You understand that you have been ordered to 
answer?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Pardon?
    The Chairman. You understand that you have been ordered to 
answer?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes, I understand that, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you asked to resign?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question also on 
the same grounds.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer it.
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I still refuse to answer on the same 
grounds.
    The Chairman. What were the circumstances surrounding your 
resignation from Telecommunications?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds, sir.
    The Chairman. Were you handling classified material at 
Telecommunications?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes, I was.
    The Chairman. Could you tell us what classifications, 
restricted, confidential, secret, top secret?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. To the best of my knowledge, I would say 
the highest classification I ever handled was classified and 
restricted.
    The Chairman. There is nothing called classified, is there? 
It is restricted, confidential----
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Confidential.
    The Chairman. Restricted and confidential?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. That is right.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether you had secret and top 
secret clearance?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I don't know, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you have a loyalty hearing? In other 
words, were you informed of any hearing that was being held 
questioning your loyalty or your situation as a security risk?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. I don't believe you told me where you worked 
before you went to telecommunications.
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I worked for a company called Paragon 
Design and Development Corporation.
    The Chairman. How many years did you work there?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. About a year.
    The Chairman. And before that?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I worked for a company called Lloyd Rogers. 
That is in New York City.
    The Chairman. And before that?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I worked at Bell Telephone Laboratories, in 
New York.
    The Chairman. Were you handling classified material?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I can't recall.
    The Chairman. You were working in electronics, were you?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes.
    The Chairman. Are you a graduate engineer?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, I am not.
    The Chairman. Where did you go to school?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I went to high school in Brooklyn, the 
Eastern District High School.
    The Chairman. How old are you now?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Thirty-six years.
    The Chairman. Married, I assume?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Pardon?
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have any brothers and sisters who work 
either for any government agency or in any plant which is 
handling defense work?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I have a brother who is working for a 
company who I don't know whether or not does government work. 
They manufacture electrical equipment.
    The Chairman. What company is that?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I think it is called the Davon Company.
    The Chairman. The Davon Company?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes.
    The Chairman. And the Davon Company is doing a lot of 
defense work, is it not?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I am totally unfamiliar with what they are 
doing.
    The Chairman. Electrical work?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I know the thing that they make is meters, 
testing meters, like voltmeters.
    The Chairman. And what is his first name?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Joseph.
    The Chairman. And his last name is the same as yours?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Right.
    The Chairman. Do you have any other brothers?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you have any sisters working in government 
work or in defense plants?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir. I don't have any sisters.
    The Chairman. Is your brother a Communist?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds already stated.
    The Chairman. Does your wife have any sisters or brothers 
working in government work or in any defense plant?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. How many brothers and sisters does she have?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. My wife has only one sister.
    The Chairman. And that sister is not working for the 
government?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Is her husband working for the government?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Or in a defense plant?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Rabinowitz, that will be all for this man 
for today. We will want him back Tuesday morning at 10:30 in 
the morning.
    Mr. Rabinowitz. Is that a public session?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Let me ask you one question: Why did you quit when you were 
served with a subpoena? Why did you quit your job?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Well, I could be very truthful and say that 
I didn't want to have the company I worked for to be in any way 
connected with publicity that might come out of this committee.
    The Chairman. Can you tell us this: Did your present boss, 
the man who hired you, know that you had left 
Telecommunications because of Communist activities on your 
part?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. That, it seems to me, sir, is an assertion 
which I haven't made, and I haven't testified on that ground at 
all.
    The Chairman. Well, will you answer the question, then?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I don't believe I can answer that question 
in the form in which you state it.
    The Chairman. Well, let's restate it, then.
    When you got this job working on army ordnance, do you know 
whether or not the man who hired you knew that you had been 
accused of Communist activities prior to that time?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Again, sir, you assert that I worked on 
army ordnance----
    Mr. Cohn. You did, did you not?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I said that is the kind of contracts that 
they held, and I may have worked.
    Mr. Cohn. But the fact is, isn't it, that you did work on 
those contracts?
    The Chairman. Look, Mister, I am not going to waste all 
afternoon with you. I have asked you a very simple question. 
You will answer it, unless you want to take the Fifth 
Amendment. If you think it will incriminate you, you can take 
the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Restate the question.
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Sir, I never stated and do not now know 
whether I ever worked on army ordnance.
    Mr. Cohn. Your files show you did, doesn't it?
    The Chairman. When you got your present job, then, did the 
man that hired you know that you had been accused of Communist 
activities prior to the time you were hired?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I don't know what the employer who hired me 
knew about me. I gave him my references, that is all.
    The Chairman. Did you ever tell him that you were a member 
of the Communist party?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. What was his name?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. The man's name is Mr. Vasselli.
    The Chairman. Vasselli.
    Did you have to have any type of security clearance before 
you went to work for this job?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I don't know, sir.
    The Chairman. Who was your reference when you got this job?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I don't know if I understand the question.
    The Chairman. Do you know what a reference is?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes.
    The Chairman. I said who was your reference, or references, 
when you got this job.
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I didn't have any references.
    The Chairman. Did you get a letter of recommendation from 
the Telecommunications?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever engaged in espionage?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed any classified work 
with individuals whom you know of had reason to believe were 
espionage agents?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I discussed classified work at the time 
that I worked at Federal Telecommunications Laboratories with 
only those persons who were authorized to do so, and to no one 
else.
    The Chairman. Answer the question.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you know Harry Hyman personally?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds already stated.
    The Chairman. For your information, Hyman has been named as 
an espionage agent. I will ask you this question: Did you ever 
discuss classified work with Harry Hyman.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question also on 
the grounds stated.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer the question. 
First, let us have it clear. You are refusing to answer on 
invoking that part of the Fifth Amendment which provides that 
in a criminal case, no one need incriminate himself, is that 
correct? Is that the basis for your refusal?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. This is a simple question. You are invoking 
the self-incrimination part of the Fifth Amendment?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes, I am.
    The Chairman. Then you are ordered to answer it because you 
have already waived the Fifth Amendment in so far as espionage 
is concerned by the previous answer.
    [Witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I still refuse to answer on the grounds 
already stated.
    The Chairman. Did you know or have reson to believe that 
Harry Hyman was an espionage agent?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
same ground.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer that question.
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I still refuse on the same grounds as 
stated.
    The Chairman. Did you ever engage in a conspiracy to commit 
espionage?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Are you a member of the Communist conspiracy 
as of today?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
same grounds.
    The Chairman. Did you know anyone at Telecommunications 
whom you either knew was an espionage agent or thought might be 
an espionage agent?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. The answer is no? Is that the answer?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. Yes, the answer is no.
    The Chairman. And you refuse to tell whether or not you 
thought Hyman was an espionage agent?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. As I said, I refuse to answer that question 
on the grounds stated.
    The Chairman. Did you attend any meetings with Hyman at 
which there was discussed either confidential, secret, top 
secret work?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Kantrowitz. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you attend any meetings of the Communist 
party at which classified government work was discussed?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds already stated.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer. I assume you 
still refuse?
    Mr. Kantrowitz. I still refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. That will be all for today. We will want you 
back at 10:30 Tuesday morning. May I say for your information 
that I do not know whether your case will be submitted to the 
Senate for contempt or not. We have the question which was 
submitted to the Justice Department, and this is particularly 
for the benefit of Mr. Rabinowitz. I take the position--I think 
we discussed this before--I take the position that where a man 
answers a question in so far as espionage, he waives in so far 
as the entire field is concerned. If the Justice Department 
agreed with me on that, then your case will be submitted, of 
course, with a recommendation for indictment. If the Justice 
Department agrees, in view of the fact that they will be 
prosecuting, your case may not get to the grand jury. Come back 
at 10:30 Tuesday morning.
    Raise your right hand. In this matter now in hearing before 
the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the 
whole truth, and notning but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Finestone. I do.

TESTIMONY OF MAX FINESTONE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, VICTOR 
                          RABINOWTIZ)

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name, please?
    Mr. Finestone. Max Finestone.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that F-e-i-n-e-s-t-o-n-e?
    Mr. Finestone. F-i-n-e-s-t-o-n-e.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live, Mr. Finestone?
    Mr. Finestone. 3386 Decature Avenue, Bronx.
    Mr. Cohn. And do you have a telephone there?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. What is that?
    Mr. Finestone. Owenville 4-4070.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your occupation?
    Mr. Finestone. I am a freelance market research man.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have any connection with any company?
    Mr. Finestone. No.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you followed 
this occupation?
    Mr. Finestone. About four and a half years.
    Mr. Cohn. Working freelance all the time?
    Mr. Finestone. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do prior to that?
    Mr. Finestone. I was in school.
    Mr. Cohn. Which school?
    Mr. Finestone. Cornell University.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you study at Cornell, a college course? 
Engineering?
    Mr. Finestone. No, I studied industrial and labor 
relations.
    Mr. Cohn. Industrial labor relations at Cornell?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. During what years did you attend Cornell?
    Mr. Finestone. 1946 to 1949.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do prior to that?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Finestone. Prior to that I was in the merchant marine.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mr. Finestone. For about a year.
    Mr. Cohn. And prior to that?
    Mr. Finestone. Prior to that? I was in school.
    Mr. Cohn. What school?
    Mr. Finestone. Ithaca College.
    Mr. Cohn. Ithaca College?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. While you were attending Cornell, did you know a 
man named Alfred Sarant?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Sarant recruit you into the Rosenberg spy 
ring?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you engage in a conspiracy to commit 
espionage with certain persons working for the Army Signal 
Corps?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever visit Julius Rosenberg at the 
Emerson Electric Company and obtain from him material which you 
transmitted to a Soviet spy ring?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. In 1950 did you ask David Greenglass for 
classified government material, on which he was working, for 
the Communist party?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. In the year 1952, were you asked by William Perl 
to place a person working in the Army Signal Corps in contact 
with the Soviet underground in this country?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you transmit instructions to various members 
of the Rosenberg spy ring within the last eighteen months?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you pass money to various members of the 
Rosenberg spy ring during the past eighteen months?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you been in contact with any one at the 
Signal Corps Laboratories or Telecommunications within the past 
six weeks?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Have you been engaging in espionage?
    Mr. Finestone. Sir?
    The Chairman. Have you been engaging in espionage?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Are you an espionage agent as of today?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Are you in the pay of the Communist 
conspiracy as of today?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Were you born in this country?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes.
    The Chairman. How many brothers and sisters do you have?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes, one.
    The Chairman. Where does he work?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Finestone. He works in New Jersey.
    The Chairman. What kind of work?
    Mr. Finestone. He is a buyer.
    The Chairman. For whom?
    Mr. Finestone. For a department store.
    The Chairman. He is not doing any work that has any 
connection with the government?
    Mr. Finestone. No.
    The Chairman. Is your father living?
    Mr. Finestone. No.
    The Chairman. Your mother?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes.
    The Chairman. And she is not working for the government?
    Mr. Finestone. No.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes.
    The Chairman. Is your wife working for the government?
    Mr. Finestone. No.
    The Chairman. Does your wife have any sisters and brothers?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes.
    The Chairman. How many?
    Mr. Finestone. One.
    The Chairman. A brother or a sister?
    Mr. Finestone. Sister.
    The Chairman. Does that sister work either in a defense 
plant or for any government agency?
    Mr. Finestone. No.
    The Chairman. Where does she work?
    Mr. Finestone. She doesn't.
    The Chairman. Does her husband work?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes.
    The Chairman. Where does he work?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Finestone. He is a teacher.
    The Chairman. Where does he teach?
    Mr. Finestone. I don't know the name of the school.
    The Chairman. What is his first name?
    Mr. Finestone. His first name is Benedict.
    The Chairman. What is his last name?
    Mr. Finestone. Goldsmith.
    The Chairman. You do not know where he is teaching?
    Mr. Finestone. I don't know the name of the school.
    The Chairman. What school system is he teaching in?
    Mr. Finestone. It is a----
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Finestone. It is in upstate New York.
    The Chairman. What city?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Finestone. Potsdam, New York.
    The Chairman. Potsdam, New York?
    Mr. Finestone. Yes.
    The Chairman. How large a city is Potsdam?
    Mr. Finestone. It is a small town. I don't have the least 
idea of the population.
    The Chairman. Is he a Communist?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Will you have him subpoenaed, Dan?
    Mr. Buckley. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Anything else?
    Mr. Cohn. Nothing else.
    The Chairman. If there are no more questions, you will 
return Tuesday morning at 10:30 to this room.
    I have one further question: Is it correct that you are 
still in touch with the remainder of the Rosenberg ring, and 
that you and that ring are actively engaged in espionage as of 
this time?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Do you consider yourself a traitor to your 
country?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Is that a hard question for you to answer?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Finestone. No.
    The Chairman. I, of course, assume you did not consider the 
Rosenbergs traitors, either?
    Mr. Finestone. I refuse to answer that question on the 
grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. Mr. Finestone, you have been accused, and 
obviously have been guilty of, espionage, which is treason 
against your country, or otherwise you would answer these 
questions. You have had an accusation against you of being a 
part of the Rosenberg spy ring. How many deaths that spy ring, 
including you, have caused, no one will ever know, of course.
    How many more people have died because of your activities 
as a traitor, no one will know. Let me ask you this question: 
In view of the fact that the Rosenbergs were executed for the 
same crime of which you are obviously guilty, can you see any 
reason why you should not meet the same fate that they did?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Finestone. I don't believe I can answer that question.
    I don't see the relevance or the assumptions that it is 
based on.
    The Chairman. Ten-thirty Tuesday morning.
    Would you raise your right hand and be sworn, sir. In this 
matter now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. McGee. I do.

TESTIMONY OF FRANK M. McGEE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, VICTOR 
                          RABINOWITZ)

    Mr. Cohn. Mr. McGee, where do you reside?
    Mr. McGee. Monroe, Louisiana.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your address there?
    Mr. McGee. 1008 North Fourth Street.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is your occupation?
    Mr. McGee. I am a television service man.
    Mr. Cohn. For what company?
    Mr. McGee. Twin City Television Service, Inc.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there?
    Mr. McGee. Since September.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you do before that?
    Mr. McGee. Well, prior to that, for several years I taught 
at the Pierce School of Radio and Television.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is that located?
    Mr. McGee. It is now located at 52 East 19th Street, New 
York City.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever do any teaching in Louisiana?
    Mr. McGee. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. What did you teach at the Pierce School?
    Mr. McGee. Television.
    Mr. Cohn. And what did you do before that?
    Mr. McGee. Before that I worked at Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratories.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you work on government work there?
    Mr. McGee. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Up to what classification?
    Mr. McGee. Well, I cannot say exactly. I believe that at 
one time I may have handled some papers that were classified as 
secret. I can't be certain.
    Mr. Cohn. When you worked on those papers, were you a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. McGee. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. On what ground?
    Mr. McGee. On the grounds of the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. What part of the Fifth Amendment? You can talk to 
counsel any time you want.
    Mr. McGee. The answer may tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. And are you a member of the Communist party 
today?
    Mr. McGee. I refuse to answer that.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you engage in a conspiracy to commit 
espionage when you were working in the Federal 
Telecommunications Laboratory?
    Mr. McGee. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Harry Hyman?
    Mr. McGee. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him to be a Communist?
    Mr. McGee. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know him to be a spy?
    Mr. McGee. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You did not? Did you attend Communist meetings 
with him?
    Mr. McGee. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. While you were at FTL, did you hold Communist 
cell meetings at your home and at them did you teach the duty 
and necessity for the overthrow of the government of the United 
States by force and violence?
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. McGee. I refuse to answer that on the grounds of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you use ``State and Revolution,'' by Lenin, 
as your text?
    Mr. McGee. I refuse to answer that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you educational director of this Communist 
cell of FTL employees?
    Mr. McGee. I refuse to answer the question.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you on the payroll of the Communist party 
today?
    Mr. McGee. I refuse to answer the question.
    Mr. Cohn. Nothing more, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. Bring him back at 10:30 Tuesday.
    Mr. Cohn. Colonel Brown?
    The Chairman. Would you raise your hand. In this matter now 
in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God?
    Col. Brown. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF LT. COL. CHESTER T. BROWN, UNITED STATES ARMY

    Mr. Cohn. Can we have your full name, Colonel?
    Col. Brown. Chester T. Brown.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is your assignment at the moment?
    Col. Brown. Assistant chief of staff, G-2, Camp Kilmer.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you held that 
assignment?
    Col. Brown. Since the eleventh of June 1953.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you had any contacts with the case of Irving 
Peress, the late Major Peress?
    Col. Brown. Any contact I may have had with that case was a 
classified matter.
    Mr. Cohn. I didn't ask you that, Colonel; I asked, did you 
have any contact?
    Col. Brown. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. You did have contact with that case, is that 
right?
    Col. Brown. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you aware of the fact that Major Peress was 
up for promotion in the fall of 1953?
    Col. Brown. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You were not?
    Col. Brown. No.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first learn that he had been 
promoted or that there were steps being taken to promote him?
    Col. Brown. I first learned that he was promoted, I 
believe, the day the letter was received at our headquarters.
    Mr. Cohn. Pardon me?
    Col. Brown. I believe the day the letter of promotion was 
received at our headquarters.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the first time you heard anything about 
it, is that right? You did not know he was up for promotion?
    Col. Brown. Right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you submit to him at any time a 
questionnaire, or did your office submit to him at any time a 
questionnaire, concerning his status in the army?
    Col. Brown. I cannot answer that question. It is 
classified.
    Mr. Cohn. You cannot tell us whether or not you submitted a 
questionnaire?
    Col. Brown. I am not permitted to tell you, sir.
    The Chairman. On what grounds? May I say something to you, 
sir, and to the others of you officers. I will listen to 
Communists refuse to answer; I will listen to no army officer 
protecting a Communist, and you are going to answer these 
questions or your case will come before the Senate for contempt 
and I intend to shove it all the way through. I am sick of 
this, sick and tired of it. This whole case is the greatest 
scandal I ever heard. Somebody in your command--and yours, 
General--has been protecting a man guilty of treason. We are 
going to find out who. Answer the question, and you are going 
to be ordered to answer it.
    Col. Brown. I will have to refer the committee, with 
regret, to special Regulation 380-320-10, paragraph 43, which 
states: ``The disclosure of the nature, sources or even the 
existence of counter-intelligence information to persons 
mentioned in such report or to any other persons not normally 
entitled to such information, may be made only when 
specifically authorized by the assistant chief of staff, G-2, 
Department of the Army, or higher authority.''
    Under that regulation----
    The Chairman. I do not recognize that as authority to 
refuse to answer this question. You will be ordered to answer.
    Col. Brown. I respectfully must refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. All right. And I want you to know, John, that 
I am sick of this. These cases are going to be made public. I 
am going to let the public see you, sir--see what your new 
administration, John--is doing, protecting and covering up 
Communists. Let me ask you this question, Colonel: Who advised 
you not to answer these questions?
    Col. Brown. No one.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman?
    The Chairman. Just a minute.
    Col. Brown. No one advised me.
    The Chairman. You didn't discuss your testimony with 
anyone?
    Col. Brown. I have discussed----
    The Chairman. You are under oath now, Colonel.
    Col. Brown. That is correct.
    The Chairman. You did not discuss your testimony with 
anyone?
    Col. Brown. I discussed it with counsel.
    The Chairman. What counsel?
    Col. Brown. Mr. Adams.
    The Chairman. Did he advise you you could not answer these 
questions? Is that correct, Mr. Adams?
    Col. Brown. I told him I was unable to answer them for that 
reason, and he agreed with me.
    The Chairman. Did he advise you not to answer the 
questions?
    Col. Brown. No.
    The Chairman. Did he tell you you should or should not 
answer them?
    Col. Brown. He agreed with me----
    The Chairman. I would suggest you tell the truth, Colonel.
    Col. Brown. I am telling the truth, sir.
    The Chairman. You say that Adams did not advise you?
    Col. Brown. No, sir. I quoted the regulation and he agreed 
with me.
    The Chairman. Mr. Adams, will you stand and raise your 
right hand? You are more than a lawyer, you are a government 
employee. I am ordering you, Mr. Adams, to be sworn, because 
you are also an employee of the government.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully request the 
opportunity not to appear as a witness before the committee.
    The Chairman. That will not be granted.
    Mr. Adams. I appear as a representative of the secretary of 
the army at your invitation, sir.
    The Chairman. You are here as an employee of the 
government, Mr. Adams, and I intend to order you to be sworn. 
You are now ordered to stand up and be sworn.
    Mr. Adams. Mr. Chairman, may I request the opportunity to 
get instructions from the secretary of the army?
    The Chairman. You may.
    Mr. Adams. That will take me some time, and I probably 
cannot accomplish it this afternoon in time before the 
conclusion of your hearing.
    Mr. Chairman, the colonel is not lying.
    The Chairman. If you are going to testify, Mr. Adams, you 
will be sworn.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, the question, Colonel, of course is whether 
or not any questionnaire was submitted. I am not asking you for 
any loyalty or security information.
    Col. Brown. If any questionnaire was submitted, it would be 
part of a classified----
    Mr. Cohn. No, Colonel, your interpretation is entirely 
wrong. There is no foundation in law whatsoever.
    Col. Brown. I still must refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. You are wrong.
    The Chairman. I want the room completely cleared of 
everyone except the witness.
    [The chairman's request was complied with.]
    Col. Brown. I would like to clarify an earlier statement as 
to instructions which I received.
    Mr. Cohn. You aren't being frank with the committee, are 
you, Colonel?
    Col. Brown. I was not instructed. I was reminded by the 
commanding general and by the Department of the Army counsel of 
the regulation which I just quoted. I was already familiar with 
that regulation.
    Mr. Cohn. You say you were reminded?
    Col. Brown. I was reminded, yes. However, at the time I was 
familiar with the regulation. And I understood that I could not 
give the committee any classified information.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, do you think it is classified information 
whether or not a questionnaire was submitted to this man?
    Col. Brown. Any intelligence file is classified.
    Mr. Cohn. But Colonel, we haven't asked you for an 
intelligence file.
    Col. Brown. Any information I might have would be in a 
classified intelligence file, and I cannot even admit the 
existence of such a file, if there is one.
    Mr. Cohn. Colonel, is this your own decision, or have you 
received advice and instructions from superiors? If it is your 
own decision, it is an awfully bad one.
    Col. Brown. It is my own decision based on the regulations.
    Mr. Cohn. It is your own, and you received no instructions 
from a superior at all?
    Col. Brown. No. As I say, I was reminded of the 
interpretation of the regulation. May I repeat again, reading 
from the special regulation, ``disclosure of the nature, 
sources or even the existence of such counter-intelligence 
information to persons mentioned in such a report or to other 
persons not normally''----
    The Chairman. We have heard the regulations, Colonel.
    Mr. Cohn. If you will look at the wording of that thing, we 
have not asked you anything that is covered by that regulation. 
We have only asked you whether or not a questionnaire--it might 
be a questionnaire about buying potatoes or something for all 
we know, at this point. When you get to the proper point, you 
can assert the privilege.
    Col. Brown. Would you repeat that question? I assure you I 
want to cooperate as much as I can. Would you repeat the 
question about the questionnaire?
    Mr. Cohn. No, that is all right.
    Mr. Rainville. May I make a statement, Senator?
    Who pays your salary, Colonel?
    Col. Brown. The United States government.
    Mr. Rainville. Where do they get the money from?
    Col. Brown. From Congress.
    Mr. Rainville. Then the paymaster is the guy that is in 
charge of you, and you ought to realize that you don't even 
have a job if this man decides that there is going to be no 
appropriation for the army. I mean, don't you realize that the 
Senate----
    Col. Brown. I cannot see that that has a bearing on it, 
sir.
    Mr. Rainville. That certainly has a bearing on it. That 
statement says that you can only give the information to 
authorized people. Who creates your job? Who promotes you? The 
president of the United States cannot promote you unless the 
Senate agrees.
    Col. Brown. That says when specifically authorized by the 
assistant chief of staff, G-2, the Department of the Army, or 
higher authority.
    Mr. Rainville. And what higher authority is there than the 
guy that raises your dough?
    Mr. Cohn. Have you requested authorization from higher 
authority?
    Col. Brown. I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Why?
    Col. Brown. I have not had the opportunity. I only knew I 
was coming here at 5:30 last night.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see Mr. Adams yesterday?
    Col. Brown. Mr. Adams? Yes, late yesterday evening.
    The Chairman. How long were you with Mr. Adams yesterday?
    Col. Brown. I should say approximately an hour.
    The Chairman. And what did you discuss?
    Col. Brown. The fact that we were to report up here today.
    The Chairman. You know, of course, he is the legal counsel 
for the army, do you not?
    Col. Brown. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You say you did not have an opportunity to 
tell him that you wanted to come down here and tell us the 
truth?
    Col. Brown. No, sir; I didn't say that.
    The Chairman. Did you suggest to him that it might be well 
if you came down and told us the truth, if he would get 
permission for you to do that?
    Col. Brown. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you not think it would be a good idea if 
you got permission to come down here and tell us the truth 
about this Communist?
    Col. Brown. Yes, I would be very glad to, if I could get 
the permission.
    The Chairman. Why have you not asked for it?
    Col. Brown. Because, as Mr. Adams was Department of the 
Army counsel, I assumed that if permission were necessary, he 
would request from the proper authorities.
    The Chairman. Did you discuss the question of whether or 
not you should ask for permission? Did you discuss that?
    Col. Brown. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never talked about it?
    Col. Brown. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You never brought it up?
    Col. Brown. No, sir.
    The Chairman. In that hour's time, what did you discuss?
    Col. Brown. Well, we spent about, I should say, twenty 
minutes discussing the procedure of the committee, the fact 
that we would be called up, and most of the rest of the time 
was just batting the breeze, waiting for his transportation.
    The Chairman. What time did he get down there?
    Col. Brown. I don't know, sir.
    The Chairman. What time of the day did you first see him?
    Col. Brown. I believe it was shortly after five o'clock in 
the afternoon.
    The Chairman. You have no idea what time he got down there?
    Col. Brown. No.
    The Chairman. No idea?
    Col. Brown. He was already there when I went in.
    The Chairman. And when did you first learn that Peress was 
a Communist?
    Col. Brown. There, again, sir, I will have to respectfully 
refuse to answer on the grounds that that information came to 
me in classified information, if it came.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Col. Brown. I must respectfully refuse.
    The Chairman. Did you have any part in his promotion after 
you knew that he was a Communist?
    Col. Brown. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you take any action to have him removed 
from the army after you learned that he was a Communist?
    Col. Brown. Again, sir, any action I might have taken was 
part of the classified files and I am not permitted to answer.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Col. Brown. I must respectfully refuse, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever take any action to have Peress 
removed from the army?
    Col. Brown. I must refuse to answer on the same grounds.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to answer.
    Col. Brown. Again, I must respectfully refuse, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you ever call the attention of your 
superior officers to the fact that you had reason to believe 
this man was a traitor?
    Col. Brown. Would you repeat that question, please?
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    Col. Brown. I did have occasion to inform my commanding 
general that we had certain information about Peress.
    The Chairman. And you recommended his removal? Did you?
    Col. Brown. That, again, is probably in a classified file, 
if it exists, and I cannot reveal it.
    The Chairman. Do you mean to say that to recommend the 
removal of a person in the army is classified?
    Col. Brown. In a case such as this it would be, sir.
    The Chairman. What is the classification?
    Col. Brown. Confidential.
    The Chairman. Are you sure of that?
    Col. Brown. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Who classified it confidential? Did you?
    Col. Brown. No, sir; not originally.
    The Chairman. Do you know who is responsible for keeping 
this man on after it was known that he was a Communist?
    Col. Brown. No, sir; I do not.
    The Chairman. Do you have any idea?
    Col. Brown. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you think such a man should be court-
martialed?
    Col. Brown. If there is sufficient evidence to warrant 
trial, yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Say that the only evidence is you knew he was 
a Communist. Would that be sufficient in your opinion for a 
court-martial?
    Col. Brown. I am not a legal expert; I couldn't say.
    The Chairman. I want your opinion on it, Colonel. You are 
handling matters down there affecting the life and death of 
this nation. Or cannot you answer that, Colonel? Do you not 
know, do you not know whether or not----
    Col. Brown. No, sir; I don't.
    The Chairman. You do not know whether or not an officer 
that keeps on a Communist should be court-martialed? Is that 
your testimony?
    Col. Brown. No, sir; I don't mean to say that at all. If we 
have evidence of some overt act, yes, sir; certainly.
    The Chairman. What do you call an overt act?
    Col. Brown. An actual--well, it might be any one of a 
number of things.
    The Chairman. Would membership in the Communist party be 
enough?
    Col. Brown. I do not know, sir.
    The Chairman. In other words, you don't know whether or not 
membership in the Communist party would be sufficient to remove 
a man from the military, is that your answer?
    Col. Brown. No, sir; that is not my answer.
    The Chairman. Then what is your answer?
    Col. Brown. I would say membership in the Communist party 
is certainly enough to remove him from the service, but whether 
it is enough for a court-martial, I don't know.
    The Chairman. How about the man who takes part in the 
promotion of an individual, knowing he is a Communist? Would 
you say that officer should be removed from the service?
    Col. Brown. Knowing that he is a Communist?
    The Chairman. He is.
    Col. Brown. All I could give on that would be my own 
personal opinion, sir. My personal opinion would be yes.
    The Chairman. Give us a personal opinion. What is your 
answer?
    Col. Brown. My personal opinion would be yes.
    The Chairman. How about an officer who knew that a man 
refused to answer a questionnaire concerning alleged Communist 
activities and invoked the Fifth Amendment, and then such an 
officer took part in his promotion. Would you say such an 
officer should be removed? I am speaking now not of the 
Communist himself, as I am speaking of the officer who took 
part in having him promoted.
    Col. Brown. I don't know the answer to that one.
    The Chairman. Well, what do you think?
    Col. Brown. I think he would certainly be worthy of 
investigation, sir.
    The Chairman. Let's say you have investigated, now, and the 
investigation has ended. The investigation shows that Colonel 
Jones knew that Captain Peress had refused to answer questions 
about his communist activities, invoking the Fifth Amendment 
and thereafter Colonel Jones approved this man's promotion to 
major. Would you say Colonel Jones should be removed from the 
military? Let's assume all of those facts are proven 
positively.
    Col. Brown. I don't consider myself qualified to state an 
opinion on that, sir.
    The Chairman. You are ordered to. Being a servant of the 
people, sir, like I am, we are entitled to know how you are 
handling your job. One way to find out is to know how you feel 
about these Communists, especially when you, yourself, were 
part and parcel of the organization that kept on a traitor. So 
you are ordered to answer that question.
    Col. Brown. I would say, sir, that some disciplinary action 
should be taken.
    The Chairman. The question is, do you think he should be 
dismissed, and gotten out of the army?
    Col. Brown. On the basis of the other man's refusal to 
answer under the Fifth Amendment? Is that correct?
    The Chairman. You heard my question. I will restate it, if 
you want me to.
    Col. Brown. If you would, please.
    The Chairman. I said let us assume that Colonel Jones knew 
that Captain Peress had refused to answer questions about 
Communist activities and membership in his party, and Colonel 
Jones thereafter approved the promotion of Captain Peress to 
major. Would you say Colonel Jones should be retained in our 
military?
    Col. Brown. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Let us go a step further. Let us assume that 
Colonel or General Jones is aware of the fact that Major Peress 
has been before this committee, has been identified as a 
Communist, has been identified as having attended Communist 
leadership schools, that his wife has been identified as a 
Communist, and that Peress refuses to answer any questions 
asked him by this committee about Communist activity on the 
grounds of self-incrimination. Then, say, subsequent to that 
the chairman of the committee writes a letter to the secretary 
of the army urging a court-martial of Major Peress, and that 
the day after that letter is made public, Colonel Jones signs 
an honorable discharge for this man, knowing all the facts 
which I have just related. Would you say that Colonel Jones 
should be removed from the army?
    Col. Brown. Not necessarily, sir, because Colonel Jones 
would only give an honorable discharge upon a direction from 
higher authority.
    The Chairman. Well, how about the higher authority, then? 
Do you think he should be removed from the army, assuming he 
knows those facts?
    Col. Brown. If the higher authority knew all the facts, 
yes, sir; I think he should.
    The Chairman. You think he should be removed?
    Col. Brown. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you think that a committee should be able 
to get the information as to who is responsible for the 
promotion, and the honorable discharge of this man, or do you 
think that would endanger the national security if we got that 
information?
    Col. Brown. Simply as my personal opinion, as one of the 
Indians on the lower level, I think the committee might well be 
given the facts by the proper authorities.
    The Chairman. Do you know who is responsible for the 
ordering of the honorable discharge for Major Peress?
    Col. Brown. I don't know the name of any individual, no, 
sir.
    The Chairman. Have you not discussed that since he got this 
honorable discharge?
    Col. Brown. No, sir. The directive came from the Department 
of the Army. It was not questioned at our headquarters.
    The Chairman. Who signed that order?
    Col. Brown. If I may look into my file, I have a copy of 
that letter.
    The Chairman. Certainly.
    Col. Brown. I must state that this letter is not 
classified. It is purely administrative. I have only a carbon 
copy here. It does not show any name, but it does say ``by 
order of the Secretary of the Army,'' and typed under that 
``Adjutant General.'' Whether the adjutant general himself 
signed the original, I do not know, sir.
    The Chairman. May I see that?
    Col. Brown I believe the committee has probably a photostat 
of the original.
    [Document handed to the chairman.]
    The Chairman. If he had gotten a dishonorable discharge, 
would he have been entitled to payment of mileage, in other 
words travel payment, lump sum payment for unused leave?
    Col. Brown. I do not believe so, sir.
    The Chairman. So that he was financially rewarded as well 
as rewarded by this honorable discharge, is that right?
    Col. Brown. I believe that is correct, sir.
    The Chairman. I am not sure if you answered this question 
or not. Do you feel that a man with a record which Peress has 
should got an honorable discharge?
    Col. Brown. As a matter of my own personal opinion, sir, I 
would say no.
    The Chairman. Do you think somebody was derelict in his 
duty by giving this honorable discharge?
    Col. Brown. Not necessarily so. Whoever ordered the 
discharge may not have known all the facts.
    The Chairman. Colonel, may I say to you that this committee 
has a very difficult job, a job of digging up traitors. We have 
been finding some, such as Peress, with the complete 
wholehearted opposition of men like yourself, men who give no 
cooperation at all, men who like yourself are responsible for 
covering up the facts so that we can not find out who has been 
placing Communists in the army and keeping them there. For your 
information, I want you to know that this is something that we 
are going to have to bring to the attention of all the American 
people. I want them to see our army officers sitting here, 
refusing to give the facts about traitors and spies, saying 
that if they tell us about those traitors, about those spies, 
if they let the senators know, that that will endanger the 
security of the nation. I think, may I say this, that any man 
in the uniform of his country, who refuses to give information 
to a committee of the Senate which represents the American 
people, that that man is not fit to wear the uniform of his 
country. And in my opinion he is in the same category, Colonel, 
as the traitor whom he is protecting. I just want to make that 
very clear to you, so you know it will be made very clear to 
the people.
    Col. Brown. May I say, sir, as a soldier, it is my duty to 
obey my military superiors. The regulations and my military 
superiors forbid me to give you the classified information 
unless released--unless I am so authorized by G-2, Department 
of the Army, or higher authority. Not only that, but at this 
level we do not know, and have no way of knowing, what went on 
on higher levels. Furthermore, the complete information can be 
obtained from a higher level.
    The Chairman. Colonel, you have recited to us an order 
which does not apply. You are hiding behind an order which does 
not apply. You have told us that no one interpreted that for 
you, that you yourself interpreted it. I have just gotten 
through telling you that that order does not apply. You are 
hiding behind that to protect, cover up, information which this 
committee needs if we are to protect this country.
    Let us be completely clear on that. Following your line of 
reasoning, you could come in here and cite one of the verses in 
the Bible and say that prevents my giving the committee 
information. I told you before I do not recognize that as valid 
grounds for your refusal. I am going to ask the Senate to have 
you cited for contempt, for failure to give information which 
the committee is entitled to, relying upon a phoney order. I 
want it very clear also, and if you want to correct it, let us 
hear it now, that you have told us that you did not even ask or 
get the advice of the legal representative of the army, who was 
with you for one hour last night. If you were interested in 
properly interpreted legal orders, you were with the legal 
officer last night for an hour, you would have asked him that 
question. I must say I, frankly, Colonel, do not believe you 
are telling us the truth. I don't believe you spent an hour 
with Mr. Adams last night, without asking his advice, without 
getting it. I know that Mr. Adams traveled to Camp Kilmer to 
see you and other witnesses who were to come here to testify, 
and he advised you. You denied that.
    Col. Brown. No, sir; I did not. I remarked earlier that 
both my commanding general and Mr. Adams advised me about the 
regulation, with which I was already familiar.
    The Chairman. Who is your commanding general?
    Col. Brown. General Zwicker, sir.
    The Chairman. And he advised you that----
    Col. Brown. He reminded me of the regulation.
    The Chairman. Did he advise you what type of questions you 
could not answer?
    Col. Brown. He reminded me that I could not answer any 
questions with regard to classified matter in this case. I have 
also here a copy of Change I of Army Regulations 380-10, 
paragraph 55, to which has been added:

    Hereafter, no information regarding individual loyalty or 
security cases shall be provided in response to inquiries from 
outside the executive branch, unless such inquiries are made in 
writing. Where proper inquiries are made in writing, replies 
will be confined to two categories of information, as follows: 
(1) If an employee has been separated on loyalty grounds, 
advice to that effect may be given in response to a specific 
request for information concerning that particular Individual; 
and (2), if an employee has been separated as a security risk, 
replies to specific requests for information about that 
individual may state only that he was separated for reasons 
relating to suitability for employment in that particular 
agency. No information shall be supplied as to any specific 
intermediate steps, proceedings, transcripts of hearings, or 
actions taken in processing an individual on a loyalty or 
security program. No exceptions shall be made to the above 
stated policy unless the agency head determines that it would 
be clearly in the public interest to make specific information 
available as in instances where the employee involved properly 
asked that such action be taken for his own protection.

    The Chairman. Colonel, you need not read that to me. I know 
all about that order. When was that signed, incidentally?
    Col. Brown. That is dated 28 May 1952, sir, by order of the 
secretary of the army, J. Lawton Collins, chief of staff.
    Mr. Jones. Colonel, when was the first time that the 
counsel of the army discussed the Peress case with you?
    Col. Brown. Last night, sir.
    Mr. Jones. That was the first time?
    Col. Brown. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Colonel, did he advise you to stand squarely and 
unequivocally on those regulations when you appeared before 
this committee?
    Col. Brown. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. He did advise you to stand squarely?
    Col. Brown. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Did General Zwicker indicate the same position 
or suggest that you take the same position?
    Col. Brown. He did.
    Mr. Jones. Did the counsel of the army advise you not to 
discuss the Peress case?
    Col. Brown. He advised me not to discuss any classified 
matter, and if there was a file on the Peress case, it was 
classified.
    The Chairman. Mr. Jones is asking a simple question. He 
asked you if he advised you not to discuss the Peress case.
    Mr. Jones. Did he advise you not to discuss the Peress 
case?
    Col. Brown. Not in those words, no.
    Mr. Jones. You spent an hour with him last night, Colonel. 
In the period of that hour, did he say to you, ``Colonel, if 
Senator McCarthy or any member of the committee should ask you 
about any particular information regarding Captain or Major 
Peress, do not answer those questions''?
    Col. Brown. No, you left out one word. He said, ``If the 
committee or any member thereof asks you for any information 
which is classified, you will not give it.''
    Mr. Jones. And he advised you not to discuss the Peress 
case?
    Col. Brown. Not to discuss any classified matter in 
connection with the case.
    Mr. Cohn. Colonel, if it were not for these regulations, 
would you like to tell us exactly what happened in the Peress 
case and exactly what steps were taken?
    Col. Brown. As far as I know of them, I would.
    Mr. Cohn. You would?
    Col. Brown. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Why don't you request permission, as the 
regulations provide, from the assistant chief of staff of G-2, 
and tell him you want to come in here and tell us, and ask his 
permission to do that?
    Col. Brown. I don't feel that I have the authority to make 
such a request.
    Mr. Cohn. Colonel, you have the duty, under that 
regulation, of doing that, when a request is made.
    Col. Brown. I would like to point out that I am a staff 
officer. I have no command function.
    Mr. Cohn. That regulation applies to anyone who is called 
as a witness. If he wants to stand on that regulation, he will 
not give certain information unless he receives permission to 
do so from the assistant chief of staff, G-2. In other words, 
you get the request, you are asked the questions, you are told 
what is expected and then you go to the assistant chief of 
staff of G-2, and say, ``I have been asked these questions, and 
the regulations say I can not answer them unless you tell me I 
can.'' Then he answered you that you can. And you have 
permission to come in and tell us, and if he says no then you 
say, ``Pursuant to the regulations I have consulted assistant 
chief of staff of G-2, and he says I may not.''
    Then you call in the assistant chief of staff, G-2, and we 
know who is giving orders. Isn't that the sensible way of doing 
it?
    Col. Brown. Well, I believe----
    Mr. Cohn. The fact is you have been made to understand you 
are not to discuss this case. Doesn't that save a lot of time?
    Col. Brown. Yes.
    Mr. Rainville. Isn't there a further consideration if you 
do answer, you will not be protected as Major Peress was?
    Col. Brown. If I answer, I will be subjected to court-
martial.
    Mr. Cohn. For telling us who protected a Communist, you 
would be court-martialed?
    Mr. Jones. You would be court-martialed for protecting the 
country?
    Col. Brown. You can put it that way, if you wish.
    The Chairman. Colonel, you have cited to us an order which 
says that you cannot give certain information without the 
permission of the assistant chief of staff. Do you interpret 
that to mean that you cannot give us information about a 
Communist who is promoted, with special treatment, given an 
honorable discharge? Do you interpret that to mean that you 
just, to fulfill your oath, must protect people who protected 
this Communist?
    You are ordered, and in conformity with that order, to 
request of the assistant chief of staff, G-2, the right to 
answer the questions asked you today. You are ordered to do 
that within forty-eight hours, and send us a copy of the 
request for permission to answer so that we will know that the 
order has been fulfilled.
    Col. Brown. Very well, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Colonel, did any other person other than the 
counsel of the army and General Zwicker advise you not to 
discuss the Peress case here?
    Col. Brown. No, sir.
    Mr. Jones. These were the only two persons?
    Col. Brown. That is right.
    The Chairman. That will be all for the time being, Colonel. 
You will consider yourself under subpoena. You will be notified 
when we want you back. We will want you back in public session.
    Col. Brown. Right, sir. When I receive the answer to this 
request, sir, where shall I get that to you?
    The Chairman. You can call Mr. Cohn collect at the Senate 
investigating committee.
    Mr. Cohn. Call the Capitol in Washington. Extension 1145, 
collect. Anybody there will take care of it.
    The Chairman. The number is National 8-3120, Extension 
1145.
    Let me ask you this: Do you think it in a disgrace to the 
army to have the word go out to the country that army officers 
refuse to give the names of people who have been protecting 
known Communists? Do you think that is one of the most 
disgraceful things that can happen to the army?
    Col. Brown. I cannot say I am in favor of it.
    The Chairman. Pardon?
    Col. Brown. I am not in favor of it.
    The Chairman. I think when an officer comes in also and 
says ``I can't tell about a Communist who got an honorable 
discharge because it I told the truth I would be court-
martialed,'' I think that is the most disgraceful thing that I 
have ever heard. It gives the army the blackest eye 
conceivable. I think that your failure, when you are so fully 
aware of this order, to contact the assistant chief of staff, 
G-2, and ask him whether you can tell the truth about this 
case, is inexcusable.
    Col. Brown. May I say a word of explanation on that 
regulation, sir?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Col. Brown. That regulation was not written--this is just 
my own opinion--was not written with the intent of protecting 
any guilty person, but it was written to protect the security 
of classified matter in general. For example, if that entire 
file were brought out in an open session--there is more to it, 
of course, than what I have ever seen--the chances are that 
some secret investigative processes and names would be 
disclosed to the public, which would certainly hinder any 
future investigative procedure.
    Mr. Rainville. May I ask a question. In view of what you 
know and your own feelings about this case, and your 
recommendations, don't you think John Adams is quibbling when 
he says ``We do not have the facts before us''?
    Col. Brown. No, sir; we do not have facts.
    Mr. Rainville. Then why did you fire the man?
    Col. Brown. Because we were ordered to do so.
    Mr. Rainville. Somebody has the facts, and he represents 
that somebody, doesn't he? Somebody had enough facts to fire 
the man and he sits there and says, ``We don't have enough 
information, enough facts to move on, to answer your letter.'' 
You know he is quibbling?
    Col. Brown. Well, no, I won't say that, because I don't 
know that facts actually exist, proven facts.
    Mr. Rainville. If your superiors have enough facts to take 
a man's commission away and say that he can never again hold a 
commission in the army, they must have facts for that. For him 
to sit there and say they can not answer the letter because 
they do not have facts, that is something beyond quibbling.
    Col. Brown. That is something beyond me. I am just one of 
the Indians.
    Mr. Rainville. Don't answer it, then. I advise you not to 
answer it. He obviously is quibbling.
    The Chairman. You may step down, Colonel.
    The Chairman. Would you raise your right hand and be sworn?
    In the matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth?
    Capt. Woodward. I do.

     TESTIMONY OF CAPT. W. J. WOODWARD, UNITED STATES ARMY

    The Chairman. We are just going to ask you one or two 
questions about the general's health. Your name is what?
    Capt. Woodward. Dr. Woodard.
    The Chairman. And your first name?
    Capt. Woodward. William.
    The Chairman. There is a question here as to whether or not 
it would endanger the general's health if he were to testify 
before the committee today.
    Capt. Woodward. I think it would depend, Senator, on how 
much he got upset.
    The Chairman. If you sit beside him and if you see he is 
getting disturbed, if you will let us know, we will act 
accordingly. All right?
    Capt. Woodward. All right, sir.
    Mr. Jones. Has he a heart condition?
    Capt. Woodward. We are not sure of it. He came into the 
hospital yesterday complaining of some vague chest pain over 
the heart area, that actually radiated like angina pain. We 
have had two electrocardiograms on him.
    Mr. Cohn. What do they show?
    Capt. Woodward. They are just about normal. Just because of 
that, our commanding officer thought it would be wise for a 
medical officer to come up here with him.
    The Chairman. Do you want to sit here with him?
    Capt. Woodward. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. If you feel there is anything that is 
endangering his health, do not hesitate at all to call it to 
our attention.

    [Brigadier General Ralph W. Zwicker testified next. His 
testimony was made public on February 24, 1954 and published in 
Communist Infiltration in the Army, part 3 (Washington, D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, 1954).]

    [Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]


              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--In the subcommittee's August 1953 hearings 
concerning the Government Printing Office, Mary Stalcup 
Markward (1922-1972) testified that she had joined the 
Communist party in Washington, D.C. at the request of the FBI. 
At an executive session of the House Un-American Activities 
Committee on February 22, 1954, Markward identified Annie Lee 
Moss (1905-1996) as a former cafeteria worker whose name had 
appeared on the Communist party's membership roles in 1944. At 
the time of the hearings, Moss was a communications clerk at 
the Pentagon.
    Immediately following this executive session, Markward 
testified in a public hearing that as treasurer of the 
Northeast Club of the Communist party she had ``a woman by the 
name of Annie Lee Moss on the list of card-carrying, dues-
paying members,'' although she had not met Moss personally. 
Because of illness, Moss did not testify until she appeared at 
a public hearing March 11, 1954.
    Charlotte Oram and Sallie Fannie Peek (1909-1980) testified 
publicly on February 24, 1954. Genevieve Brown, William S. 
Johnson and Lamuel Belton were not called to testify in 
public.]
                              ----------                              


                       TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 23, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 357 of the Senate Office building, Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L. 
McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, 
Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Robert Francis 
Kennedy, chief counsel for the minority; Francis P. Carr, staff 
director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. I wonder if the young lady would raise her 
right hand. In this matter in hearing before the committee, do 
you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Oram. I do.

TESTIMONY OF CHARLOTTE ORAM (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, JOSEPH 
                             FORER)

    Mr. Cohn. Could I get your full name?
    Mrs. Oram. Charlotte Oram.
    Mr. Cohn. And for the information of others present, 
counsel is Mr. Joseph Forer of the Washington Bar, who has been 
before the committee on prior occasions.
    Mr. Forer. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. You have been before the committee on prior 
occasions and you know the rules?
    Mr. Forer. Yes, sir; I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mrs. Oram, in 1944 were you a member of the 
northeast branch of the Communist party with a woman named 
Annie Lee Moss?
    Mrs. Oram. I decline to answer that question on the basis 
of my privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be a witness 
against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you hold membership card 53582 in the 
Communist party during those years?
    Mrs. Oram. My answer to that question is on the same basis.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Annie Lee Moss?
    Mrs. Oram. I am sorry.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know Annie Lee Moss?
    Mrs. Oram. That name doesn't mean anything to me.
    Mr. Cohn. Can you name for us the members of the Communist 
cell to which you belonged?
    Mrs. Oram. I decline to answer that question on the basis I 
stated previously.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a Communist as of today?
    Mrs. Oram. I decline to answer that question on the same 
basis.
    Mr. Cohn. All right.
    The Chairman. Would you have the witness over to 318 at a 
quarter of eleven? I do not think we will call her but we would 
like to have her there.
    Mr. Forer. 318 at 10:45? I did not catch the last sentence.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Jackson. I had a question. What is your occupation?
    Mrs. Oram. I am a housewife.
    Senator Jackson. What is your occupation?
    Mrs. Oram. I am a housewife.
    Senator Jackson. What does your husband do?
    Mrs. Oram. He works in a drugstore.
    Senator Jackson. He works here in Washington, D.C.?
    Mrs. Oram. Well, in Arlington County.
    Senator Jackson. Did you know a Mrs. Markward?
    Mrs. Oram. I decline to answer that question on the basis 
that I have stated previously.
    Senator Jackson. That is all.
    Senator McClellan. May I ask you a question? Are you now 
employed in the government in any way?
    Mrs. Oram. No, I am not.
    Senator McClellan. Have you ever been?
    Mrs. Oram. No, I never have been.
    Senator McClellan. You are declining to answer whether you 
are a Communist or have ever been a Communist? Is that correct?
    Mrs. Oram. I am declining to answer that question.
    Senator McClellan. You are unwilling to cooperate with your 
government and its agencies to the extent of giving it any 
information that you may have that the government or its 
agencies may need in order to properly function and discharge 
its responsibilities in preserving our country, are you?
    [The witness consulted with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Oram. I decline to answer the questions for the 
reasons I gave.
    Senator McClellan. Are you an American citizen?
    Mrs. Oram. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. Do you owe any obligations to your 
country as a citizen?
    Mrs. Oram. Certainly.
    Senator McClellan. Do you regard an obligation to your 
country that protects you----
    Mrs. Oram. I don't believe I understand that.
    Senator McClellan. Yes, you know what I mean. Do you regard 
an obligation to the country in which you have citizenship to 
try to serve it?
    Mrs. Oram. Yes, of course.
    Senator McClellan. You do?
    Mrs. Oram. Certainly.
    Senator McClellan. Do you think that you are serving your 
country as a good citizen and as a patriotic citizen when you 
refuse to give information that your government needs?
    [The witness consulted with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Oram. I believe it is my duty and every citizen's duty 
to protect and uphold the Constitution and I believe that in 
relying upon my constitutional rights I am certainly carrying 
that out.
    Senator McClellan. Is there any part of the Constitution 
that you hold allegiance to except the Fifth Amendment?
    Mrs. Oram. I hold allegiance to every part, including the 
First Amendment,
    Senator McClellan. One of the parts of the Constitution is 
to preserve the United States, is it not?
    Mrs. Oram. That is right.
    Senator McClellan. Are you going to contribute anything 
towards preserving your country?
    Mrs. Oram. I believe I am doing that.
    Senator McClellan. If you are willing to do that, will you 
tell us and give us the information that has been asked as a 
good citizen of this country?
    Mrs. Oram. I give you what information I feel I can and 
should give you.
    Senator McClellan. What information you feel you can and 
should give?
    Mrs. Oram. Under the rights of the Constitution.
    Senator McClellan. Is there any information that you can, 
or that you are willing to give us, under the Constitution?
    Mrs. Oram. That is rather a broad question.
    Senator McClellan. It is a broad question, but is there 
any, and I make it broad for your benefit? If you can indicate 
any information that you are willing to give us, to help to 
this fight against communism and to preserve our country. Is 
there any, and I make it broad to cover everything? Is there 
any that you are willing to give us?
    Mrs. Oram. Well, of course.
    Senator McClellan. All right. Tell us. What is it? Mention 
one thing.
    Mrs. Oram. Well, I don't know. I would have to have a 
specific question. I can't answer anything out of the blue.
    Senator McClellan. Are you willing to help your government 
fight this conspiracy of communism?
    Mrs. Oram. I refuse to answer that question on the basis 
that I have already stated.
    Senator McClellan. You think that would incriminate you to 
say that you are willing to help fight a conspiracy against the 
United States of America?
    Mrs. Oram. I think that I have to stick to my declination 
to answer.
    Senator McClellan. Do you think that would incriminate you? 
I am not asking you; I want you to state it under oath.
    Mrs. Oram. It might.
    Senator McClellan. Do you think that it would incriminate 
you to help your government fight a conspiracy that is trying 
to destroy it?
    [The witness consulted with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Oram. I am afraid I don't understand that question, 
sir.
    Senator McClellan. You do understand the question and it is 
just as simple as it can be. Do you think that you would be 
incriminated if you gave information that would help your 
government light a conspiracy, the conspiracy of communism that 
is undertaking to destroy it? You certainly understand that.
    Mrs. Oram. I am afraid I don't.
    Senator McClellan. That is all, Mr. Chairman.
    The Chairman. You will be over to 318 at a quarter of 
eleven. Mr. Forer, do you have any more clients?
    Mr. Forer. Yes.
    The Chairman. Will you bring your witness in. Would you 
raise your right hand, please.
    In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mrs. Peek. I do.

 TESTIMONY OF SALLIE FANNIE PEEK (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, 
                         JOSEPH FORER)

    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name?
    Mrs. Peek. My name is Sallie Fannie Peek.
    Mr. Cohn. Any time you wish, you may confer with your 
counsel regarding the answers to any question or he may confer 
with you. I would like to ask you first of all whether or not 
you were a member of the city committee of the Communist 
Political Association in 1944?
    Mrs. Peek. Will you repeat that name?
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the city committee of the 
Communist Political Association in 1944?
    Mrs. Peek. I refuse to answer that question because of my 
privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be a witness against 
myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see in attendance at meetings of the 
Communist Political Association a woman named Annie Lee Moss?
    Mrs. Peek. What is the last part of the question?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you see a woman named Annie Lee Moss in 
attendance at these meetings of the Communist Political 
Association?
    Mrs. Peek. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds that I stated before.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you recruit Annie Lee Moss into the Communist 
party?
    [The witness conferred with bar counsel.]
    Mrs. Peek. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds that I before stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you attend a Communist party national 
training school in New York City in 1947?
    Mrs. Peek. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds 
that I before stated.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a Communist today?
    Mrs. Peek. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds 
that I before stated.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing further.
    The Chairman. I may say to the other senators that I know a 
lot of them have questions and I would like very much to 
dispose of the other three witnesses before a quarter of 
eleven.
    Senator McClellan. We can shorten this if we are going to 
have these witnesses to public hearings.
    Senator Jackson. This is a completely independent question. 
Do you know or do you recall Annie Lee Moss?
    Mrs. Peek. I refuse to answer that question on the same 
grounds I before stated.
    Senator Jackson. Do you know Mrs. Markward?
    Mrs. Peek. I refuse to answer that question on the grounds 
that I before stated.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, we can take this up in 
public session, but I have an idea and I may be wrong but I 
want the counsel on this staff to determine whether people can 
refuse to answer whether they know someone on the ground that 
it might incriminate them. I doubt that to a valid point. There 
may be some court decision on it.
    The Chairman. I have been into that in great detail not 
only with the staff but also with some of the people in the 
Justice Department. They take the position that the 
interpretation has been so liberal that anything which might be 
even a remote link in the chain would be applicable.
    Senator McClellan. That may be true.
    The Chairman. I think the witness could not refuse in the 
ordinary case. Where it deals with someone who has been 
identified as a Communist and identified as an undercover agent 
for the bureau, I think that she is entitled to refuse, 
unfortunately.
    Mr. Forer. What time do you want her?
    Mr. Cohn. We would like her at a quarter of eleven.
    Mr. Forer. Before you start, can I tell you something off 
the record?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. Now, will you raise your right hand? In this 
matter in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear 
to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, 
so help you God?
    Mrs. Brown. I do.

   TESTIMONY OF GENEVIEVE BROWN (ACCOMPANIED BY HER COUNSEL, 
                         JOSEPH FORER)

    The Chairman. We have a very few questions to ask you. Do 
you know Annie Lee Moss?
    Mrs. Brown. I don't recall her name.
    The Chairman. Do you recall the name at all?
    Mrs. Brown. No.
    The Chairman. As I understand, your sight is not too good 
so, perhaps, you would not be able to identify her if you had 
her before you.
    Mrs. Brown. I am sure I couldn't.
    The Chairman. Did you know a Mary Stalcup?
    Mrs. Brown. The name is not familiar to me.
    The Chairman. Now, do you know Mrs. Markward? Does that 
name ring a bell?
    Mrs. Brown. I decline to answer that question on the basis 
of the privilege granted in the Fifth Amendment.
    The Chairman. The reason we have you here this morning, I 
may say, is because we have had sworn testimony that you were a 
part of a Communist cell which also included Annie Lee Moss and 
Mary Stalcup. Would you want to tell us whether that is true or 
not?
    Mrs. Brown. I don't get the question.
    The Chairman. Would your counsel repeat it to you?
    [The witness conferred with her counsel.]
    Mrs. Brown. I refuse to answer that question for the reason 
previously given.
    The Chairman. Pardon me?
    Mrs. Brown. I refuse to answer that question for the reason 
previously given.
    [Witness excused.]
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand? In this 
matter before the committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the 
truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you 
God?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.

 TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM S. JOHNSON (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                         JOSEPH FORER)

    The Chairman. May I make it very clear that before you 
answer any question you have an absolute right to consult with 
your lawyer. You understand that?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Your full name is what, sir?
    Mr. Johnson. William S. Johnson.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a woman named Annie Lee Moss?
    Mr. Johnson. Not to my knowledge.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a woman named Mary Stalcup?
    Mr. Johnson. I decline to answer the question on the basis 
of my privilege under the Fifth Amendment not to be witness 
against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know a woman named Genevieve Brown?
    Mr. Johnson. Genevieve Brown? Yes, I know her.
    Mr. Cohn. You know her?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that right?
    Mr. Johnson. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she a Communist?
    Mr. Johnson. I decline to answer the question on the basis 
of my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Mundt. Where are you employed, Mr. Johnson?
    Mr. Johnson. Inspectors Restaurant.
    Senator Mundt. What is that?
    Mr. Johnson. Inspectors Restaurant.
    Senator Jackson. Where is that located?
    Mr. Johnson. In Silver Spring.
    Senator Jackson. What do you do?
    Mr. Johnson. I am a cook, and do a little general work 
around.
    Senator Jackson. Are you now a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Johnson. I decline to answer that question on the basis 
of my privilege under the Fifth Amendment.
    Senator Jackson. Have you ever worked for the United States 
government?
    Mr. Johnson. No. I never worked for the government.
    Senator Jackson. Did you ever work for any government 
agency, local, state, or other, or city or county?
    Mr. Johnson. I never worked for them.
    Senator Mundt. Did you ever work for any of the cafeterias 
or restaurants in government buildings?
    Mr. Johnson. I worked extra a short while in one of the 
government buildings.
    Senator Mundt. Which one? In a restaurant?
    Mr. Johnson. In a restaurant; yes.
    Senator Mundt. Which building?
    Mr. Johnson. Bolling Field.
    Senator Mundt. How long did you work there?
    Mr. Johnson. I am not certain. It was a short while; 
probably ten or fifteen days, extra work.
    Senator Jackson. For the officers' club or for the 
government directly?
    Mr. Johnson. I don't recall whether it was the officers' 
club or the government directly.
    Senator Jackson. Were you paid by government check?
    The Chairman. Do you have any brothers or sisters who are 
working for the government?
    Mr. Johnson. Do I have any brothers or sisters working for 
the government? No, not to my knowledge. I don't have any 
brothers.
    The Chairman. Does your wife have any brothers or sisters 
working for the government?
    Mr. Johnson. No.
    The Chairman. I have no further questions.
    I think you had better have him over at 318 in case we want 
to call him.
    Mr. Carr. That is all, Mr. Johnson.
    [Witness excused.]
    The Chairman. Will you raise your right hand, sir, and 
stand up if you will. In this matter now in hearing before the 
committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Belton. I do.

TESTIMONY OF LAMUEL BELTON (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, JOSEPH 
                             FORER)

    The Chairman. You understand that you can consult with your 
lawyer at any time you went to before you answer any questions.
    Mr. Belton Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you know Annie Lee Moss?
    Mr. Belton. No, not that I recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ask Annie Lee Moss to join the Cafeteria 
Workers Club?
    Mr. Belton. Beg pardon?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ask a woman named Annie Lee Moss to join 
the Cafeteria Workers Club?
    Mr. Belton. I don't recall knowing a lady by the name of 
Annie Lee Moss.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you have any connection with the Cafeteria 
Workers Club?
    Mr. Belton. What do you mean when you say Cafeteria Workers 
Club?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear of anything called the 
Cafeteria Workers Club? Were you not the chairman of the 
Cafeteria Workers Club?
    Mr. Belton. I was chairman of the education committee, but 
I don't remember.
    Mr. Cohn. I am talking about the Cafeteria Workers Club of 
the Communist party.
    Mr. Belton. No, that I refuse to answer under my privilege 
under the Fifth Amendment, not to be a witness against myself.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, now, when I spoke the words ``Cafeteria 
Workers Club,'' did that mean anything to you?
    Mr. Belton. That, I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you answering honestly when I asked you the 
question and you did not recall anything about it when I asked 
you about the Cafeteria Workers Club and whether you were a 
member of it and you did not seem to know what I was talking 
about? Was that an honest answer?
    Mr. Belton. I refuse to answer that for the same reason I 
just gave.
    Mr. Cohn. You will not tell us whether that was an honest 
answer? I asked you a little while ago and the first question 
was about the Cafeteria Workers Club and whether you asked a 
lady to join that and I asked you if you were a member of it 
and your answer was to the effect you did not know anything 
about the Cafeteria Workers Club. Now, was that an honest 
answer?
    Mr. Belton. That I refuse to answer.
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Will you have the witness over in room 318?
    Senator Jackson. For the record, I do not think you asked 
his name.
    Mr. Forer. Do you want to answer the last question?
    Mr. Belton. I am confused. I thought you were speaking of 
one of the things in the union.
    Mr. Forer. There is a Cafeteria Workers Union.
    Mr. Cohn. Was the Cafeteria Workers Union under Communist 
domination?
    Mr. Belton. That I can't say, and I don't know who was in 
the union. We have got about three thousand members in that.
    Mr. Cohn. Was that union under Communist domination?
    Mr. Belton. That I refuse, and that I can't say, and I 
don't know who is running that.
    Mr. Cohn. At the time you were connected with that union, 
were you chairman of the Cafeteria Workers Club of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Belton. That I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Kennedy. Have you ever heard of the Cafeteria Workers 
Club? Have you ever heard of it?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Mr. Belton. That, as I say before, I refuse to answer for 
the reason I gave before.
    Senator Jackson. Did you give his name?
    Mr. Cohn. What is your name?
    Mr. Belton. Lamuel Bolton.
    Senator Jackson. What is your present occupation?
    Mr. Belton. Right now, I don't know how long it will be, 
when you all get through. I won't have a job, I guess, but 
right now I am baking at the S&W Cafeteria, as of this morning.
    Senator Jackson. You are a baker?
    Mr. Belton. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Do any of your family work for the 
government?
    Mr. Belton. No.
    Senator Jackson. How long have you been a baker at the S&W 
Cafeteria?
    Mr. Belton. I have been working at the S&W for almost 
nineteen years, up to date.
    The Chairman. We will recess.
    [Whereupon, the committee recessed at 10:45 a.m.]


              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

                              ----------                              


                         MONDAY, MARCH 1, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    [On March 1, 1954, Private David LaPorte Linfield and Mr. 
Sidney Rubinstein testified in executive session during 
hearings held by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations on Army Signal Corps--Subversion and Espionage. 
This testimony was made public on March 2, 1954, by members of 
the subcommittee and was published as part 9 of the 
subcommittee's hearings on Army Signal Corps--Subversion and 
Espionage (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1954). 
Private Linfield had also testified in executive session on 
December 16, 1953.]


              ARMY SIGNAL CORPS--SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE

    [Editor's note.--At a public session on the morning of 
March 10, 1954, Peter A. Gragis (1913-2001) identified Harriman 
H. Dash (1910-1993) as a member of a Communist cell at the 
Federal Telecommunications Laboratory in New Jersey, and also 
at Local 231 of the Federation of Architects, Engineers, 
Chemists, and Technicians. Dash testified in response but also 
asked for an executive session. Senator McCarthy responded that 
``you may not like the way the committee proceeds. That is up 
to us to decide. It is very important for the public to know 
the extent of Communist infiltration over the past number of 
years. The public cannot get that information if we take a 
written statement from you in a darkroom down here.'' ``Why 
not?'' Dash asked. After some additional exchange, the chairman 
agreed to hear Dash's testimony in executive session that 
afternoon.]
                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 3:30 p.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 357 of the Senate Office building, Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Robert Francis 
Kennedy, chief counsel for the minority; Francis P. Carr, staff 
director; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel; Ruth Young 
Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. We will proceed.
    Mr. Cohn. Let us start this way: Is there anything you want 
to say first?

        TESTIMONY OF HARRIMAN H. DASH (PREVIOUSLY SWORN)

    Mr. Dash. Yes, definitely.
    Mr. Cohn. I figured there was.
    Mr. Dash. I wish to apologize to this committee for some of 
the comments. I didn't at the time realize that it would appear 
as filibustering. I have been told and I heard comment that 
that is what it was. It was never my intention, and I shall try 
not to inject any opinions and stick to the facts in the 
situation.
    My intention in coming before this committee is to tell the 
truth and nothing but the truth.
    The Chairman. Let me say, I realize that a witness gets 
nervous when he comes before a committee for the first time, 
and I don't blame you at all for it.
    Mr. Dash. If the committee wishes to know what my thoughts 
were at the time, I was quite distraught. As I say, I have 
always feared economic repression for the stigma of having been 
a Communist.
    Last night I heard that Gragis and Saunders had been 
dismissed from their jobs. I have since learned this morning 
from the FTL representative that Saunders was not dismissed, 
but was suspended. It made me feel much happier, I assure you. 
I realize now that the protection of this committee will be 
offered to me.
    Mr. Carr. Mr. Dash, I don't believe we got very far this 
morning in your general background.
    Mr. Dash. Am I supposed to be under oath or not?
    Mr. Carr. You were sworn this morning.
    You joined the Communist party in what year?
    Mr. Dash. I joined, to the best of my recollection, around 
1933 or 1934.
    Mr. Carr. And you were active until when?
    Mr. Dash. I was active until 1939 at which time I dropped 
out.
    Mr. Carr. And your dropping out in 1939 consisted of 
dropping out of active participation in club activities?
    Mr. Dash. Not directly. At that time they were thinking of 
setting up small groups so that they would be able to 
participate in activities without being detected. That small 
group never materialized, and I dropped away.
    Mr. Carr. And so you just dropped out of active 
participation?
    Mr. Dash. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. But you maintained your contacts with Communist 
party members?
    Mr. Dash. I didn't maintain any contacts, sir, and I can't 
say that my ideology wasn't Communist.
    Mr. Carr. Then you became active again in 1947?
    Mr. Dash. I became active again in 1947; and the reason at 
that time during the testimony I wasn't quite clear, it wasn't 
at FTL that I joined because for a brief period in 1947, at a 
housing development in Rowville, where I got an apartment, I 
joined a cell and remained in that cell for a short period of 
time.
    There again I did it because I felt under an obligation to 
the administrator of that housing project.
    Mr. Carr. Now, to keep this as brief as possible, 
concerning this past activity, you joined the Communist party 
in 1933 when you were employed at the Bellevue Hospital in New 
York City?
    Mr. Dash. That is right, sir.
    Mr. Carr. There was an organized cell there at that time?
    Mr. Dash. At that time there was; it was called a branch, 
and as I recollect there were about five or six people in it.
    Mr. Carr. Now, the persons in this cell at Bellevue 
Hospital, were any of those government employees at the time, 
or were they all city employees?
    Mr. Dash. To my recollection, I don't know what the 
employees were. They must have been employees of the hospital, 
undoubtedly.
    Mr. Carr. Which is a city hospital?
    Mr. Dash. Which is a city hospital. And so I take it they 
must have been employees of the city. I myself was not an 
employee of the city.
    Mr. Carr. Have you given Mr. Buckley the names of as many 
of these people as you can remember?
    Mr. Dash. Whatever I recollect of that time, I gave Mr. 
Buckley.
    Mr. Carr. It is true then that the only name you could 
recall was a woman intern named Sturges?
    Mr. Dash. That is correct.
    Mr. Carr. At that time there were possibly two nurses, a 
couple of doctors, and then others were hospital maintenance 
people?
    Mr. Dash. To the best of my recollection, that was the 
make-up of it.
    Mr. Carr. Then, briefly, again, between 1934 and 1937, you 
worked on a WPA project?
    Mr. Dash. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. That is when you first joined the Federation of 
Architects, Engineers, Chemists, and Technicians?
    Mr. Dash. During the years 1934 and 1939, I was in the 
Federation of Architects organization, and they had what was 
known as a Communist party faction. That is what it was called 
at that time.
    Mr. Carr. Now, were you active in the Communist party 
faction of the FAECT?
    Mr. Dash. Yes, I was.
    Mr. Carr. Was that faction in which you were active 
entirely dominated by the Communist party?
    Mr. Dash. Yes, it was dominated by the Communist party.
    Mr. Carr. How about the----
    Mr. Dash. It was known as a Communist party faction.
    Mr. Carr. How about the whole organization, the whole 
union?
    Mr. Dash. The union, as such, was not a Communist party 
organization, but the leadership, a good part of the leadership 
was Communist party leadership.
    Mr. Carr. Now while you were working for the government----
    Mr. Dash. I would like to distinguish facts because when I 
say ``Communist party'' I don't know actually which people hold 
cards, because they also hold open meetings. Those people that 
you know hold cards are those people who work with you at the 
various places, that I have worked at.
    Mr. Carr. While you were working for the WPA, during this 
period of time, you knew two other chemists who were Communist 
party members, is that right?
    Mr. Dash. That is right, sir.
    Mr. Carr. And their names were?
    Mr. Dash. Michael Kausner and Sigmund Cuttner, to the best 
of my recollection.
    Mr. Carr. Now this WPA project was located at the Central 
Testing Laboratories----
    Mr. Dash. That is right.
    Mr. Carr [continuing]. On Canal Street, 480 Canal Street, 
New York City?
    Mr. Dash. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. Now these are the only Communists you knew in the 
WPA at the time you were active?
    Mr. Dash. That worked with me and I knew that they were.
    Mr. Carr. Now, were they members of your particular cell, 
or did you know them from some other more broader contact?
    Mr. Dash. No, they were members of this faction that I 
indicated. But I knew them to have cards because I saw them 
daily and I saw their cards; and they knew me to be a 
Communist.
    Mr. Carr. Do you know whether or not they are still 
employed by the government in any way?
    Mr. Dash. No, sir, I do not.
    Mr. Carr. You haven't had any contact with them in recent 
years?
    Mr. Dash. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. This WPA cell was it fifteen or fourteen members, 
or how large was the cell?
    Mr. Dash. The faction varied from time to time. At one time 
it was something like twenty-five of them and at another time 
something like 150.
    Senator Symington. What year was this?
    Mr. Dash. Over the years, as I said, from 1934 to 1939. It 
was 1935. It is so far back, sir, that my recollection of the 
exact date is almost an impossibility. But between the years 
1935 to 1939 was when I participated in that faction.
    Mr. Carr. Now, following that you left government 
employment?
    Mr. Dash. Well, no, after I left Central Testing 
Laboratories, I did work for a short time at Fordham University 
which was also a WPA project.
    Mr. Carr. Now, you remained there until 1939?
    Mr. Dash. Roughly, that is correct.
    Mr. Carr. While you were working with WPA at Fordham 
University, were there any other persons employed or receiving 
money from the government who were known to you to be 
Communists?
    Mr. Dash. There was one person there who was known to me to 
be a Communist and his name was Maurice Shiller.
    Mr. Carr. He is the only Communist you knew during that 
period that was employed in the WPA project?
    Mr. Dash. A member having a card, that is correct.
    Mr. Carr. Now, after that, after that period, in September 
of 1939, you left the government employ?
    Mr. Dash. That is right.
    Mr. Carr. You were no longer with the WPA and that is when 
you accepted employment with the testing laboratories at the 
Consumers Union?
    Mr. Dash. That is correct.
    Mr. Carr. Now, can you tell me what employment Maurice 
Shiller has today?
    Mr. Dash. Yes. Well I can tell you up until the time of 
1950, I believe, because after I left FTL I went to visit him, 
and he had a paint manufacturing place.
    Mr. Carr. He is not employed by the government?
    Mr. Dash. At the time I saw him at that time, no. I have 
not had any contact with him since 1950.
    Mr. Carr. In 1950.
    Mr. Dash. I did see him for a short period of time to try 
to establish a business relationship with him, and I tried to 
go to work for him.
    Senator Symington. I was not paying proper attention, but 
who was it that you tried to establish a business relationship 
with?
    Mr. Dash. This is Mr. Shiller, I went to see him, and for a 
short period of time I worked in his lab there. And at that 
time I did not know whether he was or was not a Communist; I 
strongly suspected he was not and that he had also dropped his 
connections. I had not discussed it with him at the time.
    Mr. Carr. But he was not employed or connected with the 
government in any way at that time?
    Mr. Dash. No, sir, not that I know of.
    Mr. Carr. And this firm that he was operating, you have 
given Mr. Buckley what details you can remember concerning 
that?
    Mr. Dash. I don't recall whether I gave it to Mr. Buckley. 
But as we discuss it now those are the details, sir.
    Mr. Carr. The Consumers Union for which you worked, 
beginning in September of 1939 has been cited as a Communist 
front since that time, in 1944. Were there other Communists 
employed with you at the Consumers Union?
    Mr. Dash. There was no cell that I knew of, sir; but I had 
known two members to have attended that Communist party faction 
in the union, and now whether they held cards or not I do not 
know. If you care to have their names. That is, Carl Mataneek, 
and the other one was Sidney Wang.
    Mr. Carr. You have given their latest addresses and 
background concerning them to Mr. Buckley, to the best of your 
recollection?
    Mr. Dash. I have had no contact with them since that time, 
whatsoever, except Mataneek had visited my house at one time in 
Levittown and said he was interested in getting a home there. 
And I was polite to him and I showed him the house; and he left 
there for that time.
    Senator Symington. Have you resigned from the Communist 
party yet?
    Mr. Dash. Since 1950, sir, I have had no contact with the 
Communist party; and there have been occasional contacts with 
people that I had known in the past, and that is a natural 
consequence.
    Senator Symington. When did you turn your card in?
    Mr. Dash. We did not have a card, at the FTL local, or 
cell.
    Senator Symington. How did you know you were a member then?
    Mr. Dash. Just by mutual agreement between the people.
    Senator Symington. Did you pay dues regularly?
    Mr. Dash. I paid dues, and I had attended rather 
sporadically myself.
    Senator Symington. How much did you pay?
    Mr. Dash. Sir, I don't recollect the exact amount, but I 
think in my case it was something like $2 a week.
    Senator Symington. A week?
    Mr. Dash. Yes, and it is very vague as to whether that was 
on appropriate basis or not, or whether everybody paid the same 
amount.
    Senator Symington. To whom did you pay your dues?
    Mr. Dash. Well, there was a treasurer in the group for 
awhile, and I remember Mr. Gragis being treasurer.
    Mr. Carr. That is the gentleman that testified this 
morning.
    Senator Symington. When did you go to the FBI?
    Mr. Dash. I didn't go to them, they came to me.
    Senator Symington. When did you decide you were going to 
confess?
    Mr. Dash. When the FBI came to me, and talked to me; I do 
not know for what reason they came to me, but when they came to 
me I was very reluctant to tell them anything, again because of 
the fear of being exposed as having been one. And then I 
realized that I would only be compiling perjury on top of 
perjury. And I realized the gravity of the situation, and as I 
said this morning that I could not possibly----
    Senator Symington. Did you decide to say you were perjuring 
yourself before Mr. Gragis had gone to the FBI or afterwards?
    Mr. Dash. I didn't know that anybody had gone to the FBI, 
sir.
    Senator Symington. You didn't know that Mr. Gragis had 
confessed his membership in the party at any time?
    Mr. Dash. No, at any time.
    Senator Symington. Before you decided to confess or say you 
perjured yourself?
    Mr. Dash. That is right, and as a matter of fact Mr. 
Saunders tells me now that there had been open testimony, and I 
didn't even know about it. And he told me that yesterday.
    Mr. Carr. But you were visited by the FBI during February 
after you had been subpoenaed?
    Mr. Dash. If you want me to give you the details of how it 
occurred----
    Senator Symington. Just answer the question.
    Mr. Dash. Yes, they visited me after I was subpoenaed.
    Mr. Carr. And before that you had no contact with them?
    Mr. Dash. That is correct.
    Mr. Carr. The decision to cooperate with the FBI came at 
the time they visited you?
    Mr. Dash. That is right, they came right at the time, and 
as a matter of fact, as I said, I was very reluctant; and I let 
them go out of the house without telling them, and without 
confessing to them; and I went out after them and called them 
back.
    Mr. Carr. Now, following your employment by the Consumers 
Union, you were drafted into military service?
    Mr. Dash. That is right, I was drafted; and I served in the 
army from 1942 to 1946.
    Mr. Carr. And you were finally discharged as a lieutenant?
    Mr. Dash. I was discharged as a captain in 1946, that is 
correct.
    Mr. Carr. All of the time you were in the army, did you 
maintain your membership in the Communist party?
    Mr. Dash. No, sir, I had no connection with the Communist 
party whatsoever during that time at all.
    Senator Symington. What did you say when you signed that 
thing about your question did you ever belong to an 
organization, subversive organization?
    Mr. Dash. I don't recollect, sir; but I must have denied 
belonging to any subversive organization.
    Senator Symington. You perjured yourself as far back as 
1942.
    Mr. Dash. Even before then, because I tried to get jobs; 
wherever I went, I did not want to be known as a Communist for 
economic purposes.
    Mr. Carr. Wasn't it also for the purpose of the Communist 
party that you didn't want to be known as a Communist; wasn't 
that a policy of the Communist party that your identity as a 
Communist not become known?
    Mr. Dash. No, because--at times yes, and at times no. In 
the Bellevue cell, that is correct. In the faction of the 
Communist party, in the union, that was not so. There people 
were known as Communists, generally; we invited people who were 
not known to be Communists, and they all came to that meeting. 
Unless you worked with somebody and you knew that he carried a 
card, factually speaking, those are the people who were 
Communists.
    Mr. Carr. Now, concerning your leaving the Communist party, 
Mr. Dash, isn't it known to you that following and in 1948 
there were no party membership cards and no obvious 
registration and for you to leave the party merely meant that 
you disassociated yourself with Communists in your group. Isn't 
it true that you just dropped out of activity rather than 
making any formal statement?
    Mr. Dash. That is right, and I never held any card in the 
FTL, and there was no card from the time I joined and the time 
I left; and I didn't have to give up any card.
    Senator Symington. How can you prove to us that you were a 
Communist?
    Mr. Dash. I couldn't prove to you, except if somebody else 
testified, knew that I was, and was with me and present at the 
time.
    I would have no way of proving it, sir, and if I wanted to 
prove to another Communist that I was a Communist, I would not 
be able to do it unless he knew somebody else who knew me as a 
Communist.
    Mr. Carr. Your only purpose now in telling this is to get 
the record straight as far as you are concerned?
    Mr. Dash. As far as I am concerned, I am here to tell the 
truth. I have no other intention whatsoever.
    Mr. Carr. Now, to skip over some of this time and get to 
when you first went to the Federal Telecommunications 
Laboratory, when was that?
    Mr. Dash. I am sorry, I didn't get that.
    Mr. Carr. When did you first get employment with the 
Federal Telecommunications?
    Mr. Dash. I got employment in 1947, sometime in 1947.
    Mr. Carr. You have explained how you happened to go back 
into the party at that time, this morning, and was it through 
Harry Hyman that you realized yourself with the party in active 
membership?
    Mr. Dash. Yes, the actual situation was that I went to the 
union, and people who had known me formerly as a Communist 
introduced me to him. They didn't tell me that he was a 
Communist, but just introduced me to him. He must have known 
that I was because they must have known, and they must have 
told him that I had been. And he said that there may be a job 
at FTL several weeks later, and there was.
    As I say, I think, if the right man, who wasn't a 
Communist, came along at the time, he probably would have 
gotten the job, too.
    Mr. Carr. But you did begin to associate yourself with the 
cell in which Harry Hyman was active among employees of FTL.
    Mr. Dash. He asked me to attend; I don't think I attended 
immediately, it must have been several weeks, or a few months, 
after I started to work at FTL.
    Senator Symington. When you say, therefore, in a hearing 
this morning that you were in the party and out of the party 
and back in the party, how could you define going back into the 
party? Did you start paying dues again?
    Mr. Dash. I started paying dues again.
    Senator Symington. That would be the criteria, would it?
    Mr. Dash. The criteria, that is right, sir. The criteria of 
being a party member is you have to in one way or another 
associate with a group of party members and pay dues, otherwise 
you are a party unto yourself, which I don't know what meaning 
that has.
    Mr. Carr. When you went back to FTL and back to the party 
did you know anybody in the personnel department of FTL who was 
a Communist?
    Mr. Dash. No sir, absolutely not.
    Mr. Carr. Did you know the personnel director, Mr. Warner?
    Mr. Dash. He wasn't the personnel director, he was director 
of the technical section that I worked for; I hadn't known him 
before I went to FTL at all.
    Mr. Carr. Did you know him to be a Communist?
    Mr. Dash. No sir, it would be a surprise to me. I had heard 
certain rumors, and these are purely rumors and they are not 
facts, that I wouldn't know anything about. I heard talk that 
he had served in the Spanish Civil War on the side of the 
Loyalists.
    Senator Symington. Who did you pay your dues to when you 
went back into it?
    Mr. Dash. I remember paying dues to Gragis, and I don't 
remember paying dues to anybody else.
    Senator Symington. You paid dues to him before, and then 
you paid dues to him after you were in the army?
    Mr. Dash. I am sorry, sir, I didn't get your question.
    Senator Symington. You paid dues to him before, and then 
you paid dues?
    Mr. Dash. Before, when?
    Senator Symington. Before 1942?
    Mr. Dash. No. I hadn't known Gragis until I entered the 
cell at FTL.
    Senator Symington. Who did you pay your dues to before?
    Mr. Dash. Before when?
    Senator Symington. Before you left the party?
    Mr. Dash. That was back in 1939, and in this Communist 
party faction there was a treasurer there that I must have paid 
dues to; I can't remember.
    Senator Symington. So you started paying this Gragis when 
you went back, when you went to FTL, is that right?
    Mr. Dash. When I went there, Gragis was the treasurer and 
he was the one I paid to. I hadn't known any of those people 
from previous years.
    Senator Symington. Just as a matter of interest, what was 
the job that Hyman held in the company?
    Mr. Dash. The job that Hyman held in the company, I don't 
know what job he held in the company because his job was union 
president, and I think the company gave him, by right of the 
contract, I believe, the time to function, on company time, as 
union president. Now, I couldn't be quite certain that that was 
the situation, but I do know he spent a lot of time on union 
activity.
    Senator Symington. And you also know he was the head of the 
Communist party in the plant?
    Mr. Dash. He was the head of the cell, and he was also the 
head of the union. As a matter of fact, if I remember 
correctly, he was president of the local.
    Senator Symington. How do you know he was the head of the 
Communist cell?
    Mr. Dash. He was known as the chairman of the cell.
    Senator Symington. And you would meet and he would take the 
chair?
    Mr. Dash. That is right.
    Senator Symington. And he ran the show?
    Mr. Dash. Just like any other organization, sir, it would 
be purely a cell office.
    Senator Symington. He didn't keep anything in writing?
    Mr. Dash. There were no records at all. I believe that 
Gragis may have given us receipts, if I recollect; if anything 
they had our initials only on it, and no other identification.
    Senator Symington. Say that again, I didn't get that!
    Mr. Dash. He may have given us receipts, and he may have 
kept records; I don't recollect now whether I received them or 
not. But if I did they would only contain an initial, and they 
wouldn't contain any identification with respect to its being 
dues for the Communist party.
    Mr. Kennedy. What sort of things did you discuss at these 
meetings?
    Mr. Dash. At the meetings primarily, the discussion was how 
to participate in the union activities, and how to keep control 
of the union, and what the union would do with relation to 
grievances, and so on. It seemed a little stupid to me to take 
up so much time for them to discuss it when they could do that 
right actually in the union, but apparently it was necessary 
because there were other people in the union who were against 
Commies, and at all times trying to take over the leadership.
    Mr. Carr. Would it be fair to say it was the prime object 
of your cell at FTL to maintain the Communist control of the 
union and keep Hyman in charge of the union?
    Mr. Dash. Not necessarily keep Hyman, but to keep the union 
under the control of the Communists, I would say that was the 
prime thing.
    Senator Symington. Did you ever discuss the importance of 
the Communists because of being in that type and character of 
work?
    Mr. Dash. I am sorry, I don't get the question.
    Senator Symington. The FTL was manufacturing a good deal of 
signal equipment and so forth for the IT&T. Was it the idea of 
the cell that it was important to be in communications and 
signal work as an especially good thing to have a cell in, or 
were you just Communists because it was the job there?
    Mr. Dash. The job was there, that was all.
    Senator Symington. How about Hyman? Did he ever give you 
any inkling he was an espionage agent of any kind?
    Mr. Dash. No, sir, if there was any such thing, it was not 
to my knowledge.
    Senator Symington. Do you know any way of any kind directly 
or indirectly whether there was any espionage in the FTL of any 
kind whatever?
    Mr. Dash. No, sir. I do not know of any.
    Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dash, did you discuss national affairs, in 
these cell meetings?
    Mr. Dash. Yes, we discussed the political issues of the 
day, and we received literature in the terms of political 
affairs, and if you go back on the record as to what political 
affairs contained at that time, those are the things that we 
discussed. We also received the Daily Worker and I remember 
having copies of the Daily Worker to give to a few people in 
the company. That is the extent of the activities.
    Mr. Kennedy. You discussed Russia, I suppose, did you not, 
and her relationship to the United States?
    Mr. Dash. Generally, what we discussed was the question of 
the war, inevitability of the war and whether it was inevitable 
or not inevitable, and it was felt that war was not necessarily 
to come and the efforts of the group were directed to 
maintenance of peace as they saw it.
    Mr. Kennedy. Did you discuss what your position should be 
in case a conflict came between the USSR and the United States?
    Mr. Dash. Well, yes, at times we did, and it was felt very 
definitely that people who would be in the party would 
definitely be subversive elements and they would know 
definitely that they were.
    Mr. Kennedy. And you were supposed to work for the 
interests of Russia rather than the United States?
    Mr. Dash. That wasn't discussed at all.
    Mr. Kennedy. But it was taken for granted that you were to 
work for the interests of Russia.
    Mr. Dash. I imagine everybody who was there, on their own 
had their own opinions about that.
    Mr. Kennedy. Why was it that you were going to wait until 
the time of conflict or war came before you would help Russia?
    Mr. Dash. I never considered that I would help Russia if 
war came.
    Senator Symington. How did you discuss being a subversive 
if you did not discuss that you would help the people running 
the show in Russia. What would be the concept of subversive if 
it was not to help the Soviets?
    Mr. Dash. The concept of subversive naturally or subversion 
naturally would be that if the time ever came, subversive 
activities would be discussed. But it never was at that time.
    Senator Symington. You say you never discussed any 
subversive activities?
    Mr. Dash. We never discussed any.
    Senator Symington. I thought you said----
    Mr. Kennedy. I am sure if we look back on the record, I am 
sure you said that you all took it for granted that you would 
be subversive agents.
    Mr. Dash. I said I realized that it would be subversive, 
and how the others felt, I do not know. I said each one had his 
own individual feeling.
    Mr. Kennedy. Now, you did not.
    Mr. Dash. Well, read it, sir. That is what I meant, if I--
--
    Senator Symington. What do you mean by ``subversive,'' and 
if you felt you would be subversive, what did you mean by that?
    Mr. Dash. Well, by subversive, if anybody wanted to help 
the Soviet Union, while the United States was at war with the 
Soviet Union, that would actually be treason and to my mind it 
just couldn't be. You would have to be a spy agent.
    Senator Symington. You did not feel you were subversive?
    Mr. Dash. At the time I didn't feel subversive because I 
wasn't engaging in any kind of espionage, and I never intended 
to.
    Senator Symington. Did you ever feel you would be a 
subversive?
    Mr. Dash. That is right.
    Senator Symington. You were sort of a Communist for fun, is 
that right?
    Mr. Dash. No, I wasn't a Communist for fun. I was a 
Communist for these other issues that we had talked about.
    Senator Symington. What other issues?
    Mr. Dash. The issues as I said, the political issues of the 
day, the questions of fighting for peace, as the Communists saw 
it and the question of union activities.
    Senator Symington. You thought that you could improve your 
position in this country, as a Communist and at the same time 
keep away from international communism, is that right?
    Mr. Dash. That is right.
    Senator Symington. Did you really feel that way?
    Mr. Dash. Yes, sir, I felt at the time, I felt that way, 
sir, and I would never engage in any espionage, and I never did 
and I never would and I never intended to. There is no question 
about that, sir, there was no espionage activities going on.
    Mr. Cohn. You realize handling classified material----
    Mr. Dash. Yes, definitely.
    Mr. Cohn [continuing]. And other Communists were around 
there handling it that whereas you might have high principles 
and not want to engage in espionage, the others could?
    Mr. Dash. That is correct, sir, and if that ever happened I 
don't know. It was never my intention to engage in any kind of 
espionage, and I never did, and I wrote confidential reports 
and I might say that the security regulations were pretty lax, 
and they were definitely quite lax at the time.
    Senator Symington. What was your job in the company?
    Mr. Dash. I was chief analytical chemist and I had a 
chemical laboratory under my jurisdiction, and I wrote a number 
of confidential reports for the company.
    Senator Symington. What kind of a chemist were you?
    Mr. Dash. As I say, I was chief analytical chemist.
    Senator Symington. Where did you get your training?
    Mr. Dash. I got my training, my undergraduate training was 
at the College of the City of New York, and I had attended 
Columbia for some defense training courses.
    Senator Symington. What degree did you get in chemistry?
    Mr. Dash. I got the B.S. in chemistry.
    Senator Symington. From where?
    Mr. Dash. From the College of the City of New York.
    Senator Symington. From the College of the City of New 
York?
    Mr. Dash. Yes, sir, and then I also would have a 
certificate from Chicago University.
    Senator Symington. And you would write confidential 
reports?
    Mr. Dash. Did I write confidential reports?
    Senator Symington. Yes.
    Mr. Dash. Yes.
    Senator Symington. About what?
    Mr. Dash. About the work we were doing in the laboratory, 
and it involved dielectric materials or improvement of cable 
materials and improvement generally of plastics.
    Senator Symington. How could they be confidential, if you 
write a dielectric material report about the dielectric 
strength of materials and how could that be confidential?
    Mr. Dash. Well, maybe, I am not using the term 
``confidential'' correctly.
    Senator Symington. The word ``confidential'' means 
classified.
    Mr. Dash. Yes.
    Senator Symington. I am sort of interested in that.
    Mr. Dash. I mean after the report was written and sent up 
to the release section, it was stamped confidential.
    Senator Symington. Was it confidential because you did not 
want your competitors to get a hold of it, or was it 
confidential because you thought it had military secrets in it?
    Mr. Dash. Was it company confidential, you mean?
    Senator Symington. Yes.
    Mr. Dash. That is the thing that I cannot distinguish. To 
the best of my recollection, it did not have a stamp on it 
saying, ``Property of the United States Government.''
    Senator Symington. Suppose you are testing one material and 
it has a dielectric strength of something and then you test 
another one and it has a dielectric strength of more. Is that 
what you were doing?
    Mr. Dash. And you write up a report.
    Senator Symington. Which one has the most dielectric 
strength, is that right?
    Mr. Dash. No, these reports were under government 
contracts.
    Senator Symington. What is that?
    Mr. Dash. Under government contracts.
    Senator Symington. Suppose under government contract this 
has more than that, and what is confidential about that?
    Mr. Dash. Well, to my mind the information wasn't too 
valuable to be under a classified nature, but the report as 
finally issued was stamped ``confidential.''
    Senator Symington. Have you any of those reports around?
    Mr. Dash. Do I have any of those reports?
    Senator Symington. Yes.
    Mr. Dash. No, sir, I do not have any of those reports.
    Mr. Kennedy. You are under oath now, Mr. Dash, you realize 
that.
    Mr. Dash. When you say do I have any reports, I have given 
whatever I had to the FBI.
    Senator Symington. Did you have any that showed what was 
confidential in classifying materials for dielectric strength 
in the laboratory?
    Mr. Dash. I did confidential reports and if you wish I will 
describe what those are.
    Senator Symington. We will get those, but you gave those to 
the bureau?
    Mr. Dash. I gave those to the bureau, yes. They were only 
my own work and they dealt with my own work and that was what I 
had, and I kept them merely as evidence of my own work.
    Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dash, as I say, you realize that you are 
under oath now.
    Mr. Dash. Yes, sir, I realize that.
    Mr. Kennedy. At these cell meetings, did you discuss Russia 
at all in relationship to the United States?
    Mr. Dash. We must have, but what we said about it I don't 
remember.
    Mr. Kennedy. You do not remember at all what you discussed 
about Russia?
    Mr. Dash. That is right. I remember on one or two occasions 
saying that if the United States would go to war with Russia 
and if we maintained our Communist party membership we would 
definitely be subversive.
    Mr. Kennedy. Then, you were not telling Senator Symington 
the truth when you said that was just what you thought but it 
was never discussed at these meetings, and now you said that 
under oath.
    Mr. Dash. That is what I thought and that is what I said at 
the meeting.
    Mr. Kennedy. That was said at these meetings, is that 
correct?
    Mr. Dash. That is what I said, and whether the others 
agreed with me or not, I do not know what their sentiments were 
and they must have expressed them.
    Mr. Kennedy. You got up at a meeting and said that in case 
of war you and your fellow members of the Communist party would 
become subversive, is that correct?
    Mr. Dash. Definitely, and I never intended to be a 
subversive, and I wouldn't.
    Mr. Kennedy. You said at these meetings that you would 
become a subversive?
    Mr. Dash. I didn't say that, now, you see, I didn't say 
that I would become one, I said that if I would consider 
maintaining membership under those conditions, I would consider 
myself a subversive, and now I don't intend to do that, and I 
never did.
    Mr. Kennedy. But you said--or why did you feel that the 
Communist party would be subversive?
    Mr. Dash. Well, undoubtedly if they are going to help an 
enemy, they will be subversive, and if Russia is going to be 
the enemy, they are going to be subversive.
    Mr. Kennedy. If you never discussed Russia at these 
meetings, Mr. Dash, why did you feel that the Communist party 
was going to help Russia?
    Mr. Dash. I didn't say that the Communist party was going 
to help Russia. It was general discussion around that question 
and it was, what can we best do to maintain peace, and that was 
the whole thing.
    Mr. Kennedy. Why did you feel that the Communist party 
would become subversive in case of time of war?
    Mr. Dash. Because I can't see your being a Communist and 
trying to help an international Communist organization, and not 
be subversive.
    Senator Symington. Do you not see how you are denying 
yourself, and you just said that your interest in communism was 
national, and now you say that you cannot see how you would be 
a Communist without helping an international organization.
    Mr. Dash. I wasn't interested in doing that.
    Senator Symington. All we want to know or do is to help you 
to get the record straight but I must say I am trying hard to 
follow you and it is pretty hard.
    Mr. Dash. If we should ever reach that point, that is when 
I would have considered myself, but we never reached that point 
and I never would have maintained any membership under those 
conditions.
    Senator Symington. As Mr. Kennedy pointed out, that is what 
you told the people would be the situation if you did reach 
that point.
    Mr. Dash. That is right, and I don't know whether any of 
them would want to keep any membership in any such kind of an 
organization, and I know I wouldn't, and I didn't.
    Mr. Kennedy. How could you reach the conclusion that you 
would become subversive if you never discussed Russia? And why 
did you feel that the Communist party in the United States was 
an arm of Russia?
    Mr. Dash. I don't know that it is an arm of Russia, sir.
    Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Dash, be frank with us, and it is a 
waste of time if you are not going to tell us the truth.
    Mr. Dash. I am giving you actually as I see it and as----
    Mr. Kennedy. You are not. Obviously, you are not, Mr. Dash.
    Mr. Dash. Well, if you make your question clear, I will be 
glad to answer it.
    Senator Symington. I would say the last thing in the world 
we want to do is badger you about it, but as long as you have 
confessed that you have committed perjury, that is that. For 
what it is worth, that is it. Now, in these various degrees of 
your interest, you seem to be denying yourself. What we want to 
know is whether or not these people in this cell and in this 
particular plant, were interested in becoming a subversive 
organization or were subversive----
    Mr. Dash. Definitely not, sir.
    Senator Symington [continuing]. Which was interested in 
helping Russia. As I understood it, you said that you 
definitely were not and that you were just interested in 
bettering conditions in America, but the questions that you 
answered of Mr. Kennedy you seem to completely belie that 
position that I had formed with respect to your opinion.
    Mr. Dash. Maybe, that is a misinterpretation, sir.
    Mr. Kennedy. I just have a problem and perhaps you can help 
it.
    Mr. Carr. Perhaps I can clear it up. Mr. Dash, you made a 
statement a little earlier, before we got into this, which 
seems to lead up into this: First, that you seemed to discuss 
the problem of keeping the Communist control of the union, and 
that was the first thing that you said. You then said that you 
do not recall their discussing anything other than this union, 
and then you said, ``Well, we had Political Affairs and we had 
Daily Workers come in.'' Now, is it not a fact that among or 
during the period between 1947 and 1948, or during this period 
that you were involved in this club, that you received the 
Political Affairs and you discussed the articles in the 
Political Affairs and you received the Daily Worker and you 
discussed the articles in the Daily Worker and now you said 
that you had never given too much thought to the practice of 
the Communist party in finding its place in industry?
    Now, in these Political Affairs and in these issues of the 
Daily Worker, I am sure, and I think perhaps on your 
reflection, you can recall something about it, there were 
articles which talked about the Communist party's need for 
colonization in industry. Now, if there were such articles, you 
must have discussed them. If there were in Political Affairs 
articles concerning the so-called peace movement which was just 
beginning in late 1948, you would have discussed them. So that, 
at these meetings, you did discuss a variety of subjects 
concerning Communist party aims and immediate objectives. Is 
that not right? Did you not have somebody talk to you about 
these things, and somebody make a point of that?
    Mr. Dash. There were discussions but never relating to what 
we would do if war came.
    Senator Symington. Now, you mean you could sit down and 
discuss the Daily Worker, day after day, and week after week?
    Mr. Dash. We didn't discuss it day after day.
    Senator Symington. But you discussed it week after week?
    Mr. Dash. Yes, that is right, on occasions.
    Senator Symington. And you could discuss the Daily Worker 
and not talk about international problems and the relationship 
of America to the Soviet conspiracy and the Soviet conspiracy 
to America? What point of the Daily Worker did you look at if 
you discussed it at all and didn't discuss those problems?
    Mr. Dash. We didn't read the Daily Worker at the place. It 
was just distributed.
    Senator Symington. But you just said you discussed the 
Daily Worker in the meetings.
    Mr. Dash. We must have discussed issues that were in the 
Daily Worker, sir, that is correct.
    Senator Symington. If you discussed the issues in the Daily 
Worker, did you discuss only the issues in the Daily Worker 
that did not have to do with Soviet communism, and discuss the 
ones involved?
    Mr. Dash. I don't know at this point. Right now, I don't 
recollect that there were such articles, sir.
    Senator Symington. That is not fair, do you think? I have 
read the Daily Worker.
    Mr. Kennedy. Why did you get up in the middle of a meeting 
and make a speech that if war came the Communist party and 
members of the Communist party would be subversive, and did you 
just suddenly get up, and did that bright idea suddenly come to 
you and you got up and made a speech on it? That is the first 
time it had ever been discussed at any time?
    Mr. Dash. I remember saying that only in relation to the 
sense that we could not possibly, or we should not and could 
not possibly, engage in such kind of activities.
    Mr. Kennedy. Now, Mr. Dash, that is not what you said. You 
originally said you got up and made a speech that the members 
of the Communist party would become subversives.
    Mr. Dash. Then, it is purely a misinterpretation.
    Mr. Kennedy. Nobody said anything prior to that, and you 
got up and made that statement and sat down and no one made any 
comment on it?
    Mr. Dash. My feeling is----
    Mr. Kennedy. Answer my question, Mr. Dash.
    Mr. Dash. My feeling was at that time----
    Mr. Kennedy. I just wanted you to answer the question, and 
you said Russia was not mentioned and you got up and made the 
speech and no mention had been made prior to that and nobody 
mentioned Russia after that, and so that is it. Is that right? 
You just got up and made the speech, is that right?
    Mr. Dash. We must have been talking about the question----
    Mr. Kennedy. That is what we are trying to find out.
    Mr. Dash [continuing]. Of peace and war, and, as I say, all 
of the efforts were directed towards the peace issues. I 
remember distinctly having gotten up and said that we cannot 
possibly engage in any kind of subversion.
    Mr. Kennedy. Why was it even discussed? Nobody said 
anything about that, then, Mr. Dash.
    Mr. Dash. I don't recollect what it was.
    Mr. Kennedy. I do not think that you can come into the 
committee and appear before it and have the chairman say, ``I 
am not going to make any recommendations to the Department of 
Justice about your perjuring yourself,'' and then come in and 
not be truthful with the committee when you are selling us 
these facts. You are obviously not being truthful.
    Mr. Dash. Perhaps, I don't understand you.
    Mr. Kennedy. Mr. Dash, I cannot believe that. You have a 
B.S. degree and you are a well-educated man.
    Mr. Dash. What do you want me to answer?
    Mr. Kennedy. You know what we want to find out.
    Mr. Dash. There was no conspiracy.
    Senator Symington. We want you to answer what the truth is.
    Mr. Dash. There is no conspiracy.
    Mr. Cohn. May I suggest, Mr. Chairman, that we let the 
witness think this all over and come back tomorrow?
    Senator Symington. You might give him the record so that 
you can see where you have contradicted yourself.
    Mr. Dash. Well, you virtually have got me convicted of 
conspiracy, and there is no element involved in it at all, sir.
    The Chairman. The committee will now recess.
    [Whereupon, the committee recessed at 4:20 p.m.]


               AMERICAN CITIZENS BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN

    [Editor's note.--In 1953, Senator Charles E. Potter chaired 
a series of executive sessions and public hearings of the 
subcommittee on Korean War atrocities. The following year he 
extended the inquiry to cover American civilian and military 
personnel being held prisoners in Communist-controlled 
countries. After holding two days of executive hearings in 
March, the subcommittee anticipated holding public hearings, 
until the People's Republic of China announced that it had 
sentenced eleven American airmen and two American civilians. 
The subcommittee deferred further hearings pending action by 
the United Nations Assembly.]
                              ----------                              


                        WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator Charles E. Potter 
(acting chairman), presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry M. 
Jackson, Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Donald 
F. O'Donnell, assistant counsel; Robert Francis Kennedy, 
counsel to the minority; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    Senator Potter. The committee will come to order.
    The purpose of the executive informal hearing this morning 
is for the executive branch to be given an opportunity to aid 
us in a study which we have under way to determine the people 
that are being held behind the Iron Curtain against their will, 
both military people and civilians. Senator McCarthy, the 
chairman of this committee, has authorized me to act as 
chairman of this study, and I was so authorized in December of 
last year. It is not a subcommittee of the investigating 
committee, but it is the full committee study; and I have been 
authorized to act as chairman.
    Now, as a result of the recent hearings that were held on 
the Korean War crime atrocities last December and also in 
January of this year, it was determined that about 11,500 plus 
American military personnel were captured by the Communists. Of 
that number, approximately 3,500 were returned in Little Switch 
and Big Switch.
    The information that the military gave us indicated that we 
have fairly conclusive proof that approximately 5,000 American 
prisoners of war were murdered or died in Communist prison 
camps. This leaves approximately 3,000 that are still not 
accounted for.
    Since the end of the fighting in Korea, there has been 
certain fragmentary reports that have been published in the 
press concerning Americans behind the Iron Curtain. I think 
probably, in order for you gentlemen to get a perspective of 
what we are trying to do, that we ought to relate to you some 
of the news accounts of Americans that are still behind the 
Iron Curtain. Following the citation of these news accounts we 
will ask you for whatever information you can give the 
committee.
    Therefore, if Mr. O'Donnell will briefly review or read the 
news accounts that have come to our attention and those which 
have been published concerning Americans who were held behind 
the Iron Curtain against their will, we can proceed.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Of course we do not know the sources of the 
newspaper articles, and we have taken them for what value they 
may be able to serve.
    As to American military prisoners, the exact number 
apparently being held behind the Iron Curtain countries is 
unknown. But the newspaper accounts originally carried the 
figure of around 944 Americans taken prisoner in Korea by the 
Chinese Communists. That is the number of Americans who have 
never been repatriated.
    One of the articles breaks it down as follows, and this is 
back in December of 1952: air force, 312; marines, 19; navy 3; 
and army 610. Reportedly, most of these prisoners were 
technicians.
    On February 5th of this year, a recent article appearing in 
the U.S. News & World Report, however, claims that on the basis 
of information supplied by the Department of Defense the figure 
of 944 has been scaled down to 80. Relative to civilian 
citizens in Iron Curtain countries, generally it has been 
estimated by the press that there are in the vicinity of 6,000, 
who claim American citizenship, in various countries of Europe 
and Asia. These persons technically are purportedly at liberty 
but they are unable to leave the Communist-dominated countries.
    The breakdown according to one of the articles is as 
follows: Russia, 2,000; Poland, 3,000; Hungary, 450; Rumania, 
300; Czechoslovakia, 300; Bulgaria, 80; and China, 101.
    One article indicates that approximately 1,000 of these 
persons has definitely been verified in number.
    Now as to American civilians who are held as prisoners, we 
had a breakdown in one article of 64, which ran as follows: 
China, 31, most of whom are missionaries; Russia, 31; and 
Rumania, 2. Of course, previously Czechoslovakia had about 12, 
but all were released.
    Senator Potter. I think, before we enter further 
discussion, it would be well for you gentlemen to identify 
yourselves for the record. I would suggest that the chief 
representative from the various departments would identify 
himself and his colleagues. Then we will go right down the 
line.
    First, the Department of State. Who is the chief 
representative of the Department of State?

       STATEMENTS OF BEN H. BROWN, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT

             SECRETARY FOR CONGRESSIONAL RELATIONS,

        DEPARTMENT OF STATE; MR. W. BARBOUR, DIRECTOR OF

            THE OFFICE OF EASTERN EUROPEAN AFFAIRS;

       ALYN DONALDSON, DIRECTOR OF THE OFFICE OF SPECIAL

      CONSULAR SERVICES; AND EVERETT F. DRUMRIGHT, DEPUTY

          ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FAR EASTERN

                  AFFAIRS, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

    Mr. Brown. I am Ben H. Brown, Jr., deputy assistant 
secretary for congressional relations; and on my left is Mr. W. 
Barbour, who is the director of the Office of Eastern European 
Affairs; next is Mr. Alyn Donaldson, who is the director of the 
Office of Special Consular Services; and Mr. Everett F. 
Drumright, deputy assistant secretary of state for Far Eastern 
affairs.
    Sir, I might say that this is somewhat divided up in the 
departments. We do not really have a chief representative. 
There are certain phases of it that can be covered by these 
people.
    Senator Potter. Whoever has the information will please 
feel free to testify in accordance with his own field.
    Mr. Brown. I would like to clear up one more point, if I 
might.
    Senator Potter. Would you wait until we make further 
identification; then we will be happy to have you do that.
    Is there anyone here representing the Department of 
Defense, as a Department of Defense representative?
    Lt. Col. Britton. I am liaison for the Department of 
Defense. I am here as an observer, and I am not in a position 
to testify this morning.
    Senator Potter. You are here just as an observer?
    Lt. Col. Britton. Yes, sir, and my name is John F. Britton, 
assistant secretary of defense for legislative and public 
affairs.
    Senator Potter. The air force just came in. I understand, 
also, that the navy has just entered. Will the chief spokesman 
for the army identify himself and his representatives?
    Mr. Barry. I am L. E. Barry, deputy department counselor of 
the army. I have on my left Colonel Smity, the adjutant 
general's office; Lt. Colonel Chandler, G-3; and Colonel 
Trammel, in the background here, from G-2; and Mr. D. P. Hill, 
also of the department counselor's office.
    Senator Potter. Now, the Department of the Air Force.
    Mr. Ayer. I am Frederick Ayer, Jr., and I am special 
assistant to the secretary. On my left is Colonel R. W. 
Springfield, who is of our casualty branch.
    Senator Potter. And, the Department of the Navy.
    Mr. Smith. My name is J. A. Smith, assistant secretary of 
the navy for air. I have with me Captain Smedburg, director of 
International Affairs Branch, chief of Naval Operations Office; 
Lt. Colonel Nihart, U.S. Marine Corps, head of the Casualty 
Branch, headquarters U.S. Marine Corps; and Lt. Commander 
Martz, assistant director of personal affairs, Branch of the 
Bureau of Personnel.
    Senator Potter. Secretary Smith, would you care to move up 
and take a seat here at the long table. If you need the council 
of your other representatives, you may feel free to consult 
with them at any time.
    As I stated previously, there has been a great deal of 
concern by many Americans concerning American citizens held 
against their will by the Communist-dominated countries.
    It used to be that when an American citizen was held 
against his will, we would have a battleship in the harbor the 
next day.
    We have seen in the past that the Communists have used 
American citizens as hostages in order to obtain concessions 
from us. We made great concessions for the release of Robert 
Vogeler, for example, and other American citizens.
    There is a moral principal involved as to the right that we 
have to draft Americans to fight a war; and then when they 
become captured, and are held hostages against their will after 
an armistice has been signed, we have a moral obligation not to 
forget those men. I do not think we can sweep it under the rug; 
I do not believe we can say, ``Well, we cannot talk about it.''
    The American people are conscious that Americans are being 
held against their will. And the purpose of the hearing here 
this morning is not to harass anybody.
    We are after information. You gentlemen have sources of 
information which we do not have. We are interested, and we are 
going to continue this investigation. We much prefer to do it 
with your cooperation and to utilize whatever sources you think 
would be desirable.
    During the course of our other hearing, we secured most of 
our information as to the Korean crime atrocities from the 
army. But, I think, in this case, before we hear from the 
military personnel, it would be probably desirable to receive 
an expression from the Department of State.
    If you have any questions as to the type of investigation 
that we are undertaking, feel free to comment on it at this 
time.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Chairman, I would like to first, if I might, 
state our understanding of the nature of this particular 
meeting this morning.
    I realize that it is an executive session, and I assume 
from that that in order to get information, as fully discussed 
by the committee as possible, we could feel free to talk with 
the knowledge that nothing will be published without our 
consent.
    Senator Potter. This is an executive session. The 
information that you give here will be held in confidence.
    Mr. Brown. Would you prefer us to ask to go off the record 
at certain points or not?
    Senator Potter. I would prefer if you would keep it on the 
record. But I do not want to impede your frankness in any way 
with the committee. If you feel that you can be more frank in 
certain areas off the record, bring that to our attention.
    Mr. Brown. Subject to reconsideration, if we get to a point 
where it seems to be getting too delicate, we will try to put 
it all on the record.
    We have two bureaus of the department represented here this 
morning. Is it the committee's pleasure that we start with the 
Far East?
    Senator Potter. Yes.
    Mr. Brown. Mr. Drumright?
    Mr. Drumright. Would you wish me to discuss the civilian 
side?
    Senator Potter. I would assume that that is where you have 
more information.
    However, if you have information as to military personnel, 
we would appreciate that, too.
    Mr. Drumright. Well, in my area, the Far East, our 
information is that there are American civilians held in 
Communist China. Insofar as other areas are concerned, we do 
not have information that American civilians are being held.
    Senator Potter. How many American citizens do you have or 
do you know are being held in Communist China?
    Mr. Drumright. I will discuss Communist China first. At the 
present time according to our information, there are thirty-two 
American civilians held in Communist China in prison. Apart 
from those thirty-two, there are something like sixty-eight or 
seventy, according to our records, who are in Communist China, 
but who are not being detained.
    Senator Potter. How many did you say?
    Mr. Drumright. A total altogether of about one hundred. 
That is a total of about one hundred American civilians, of 
whom about thirty-two, according to our information, are in 
prison.
    But an exact tabulation is not possible since there are 
some dual nationals and since there may be a few Americans in 
China whose presence has not been reported.
    Senator Potter. Are the seventy being held there against 
their will?
    Mr. Drumright. Not necessarily, sir. According to the best 
information that we are able to obtain, thirty-two are in 
prison and, perhaps, another fourteen are detained under what 
we might call ``house arrest.''
    Senator Potter. There are about fourteen of those?
    Mr. Drumright. For a total of forty-six who might be 
detained against their will, altogether.
    Of the others, we have no breakdown. Perhaps some are 
married to Chinese women, or vice versa; perhaps some are 
elderly retired people living in China who want to live out the 
rest of their lives there; or perhaps there are a few 
missionaries who are still able to do a little of their work 
there and who have not wanted to come out.
    In addition, there are a few other people who are being 
held because they have not liquidated debts demanded by the 
Communists or something of that sort.
    Senator Potter. What is the breakdown as to their 
professions, are most of the American citizens that are held in 
prison missionaries?
    Mr. Drumright. Most of them are missionaries, Senator.
    Senator Potter. Do you have a breakdown?
    Mr. Drumright. I have a list.
    Senator Potter. I would appreciate it if you could make 
that available for the record. Do you have extra copies of that 
list available?
    Mr. Drumright. I will give you the copy we have. We have 
other copies over in the department.
    This is a list of American citizens under arrest, and I 
have a Tab ``E'' on that. I also have under Tab ``F'' a list of 
American civilians not under arrest but retained because of 
Communist refusal to grant an exit permit. I have their names 
and their addresses there.
    Senator Potter. I do not know whether you are familiar with 
an article which appeared in the New York Times in April of 
1952 where it gave the names of the Americans that were being 
held as prisoners of Communist China. Are you familiar with 
that article?
    Mr. Drumright. No, sir.
    Senator Potter. Would you care to read some of the names in 
order to see if that is the same group of people and if we are 
talking about the same group of people? [Indicating] I notice, 
by checking this, that it is the same list that was published 
by the New York Times.
    Mr. Drumright. Yes.
    Senator Potter. I believe that was the one that was 
released after a mild controversy that the Department of State 
had with Senator Knowland.
    Mr. Drumright. I was not here then; I was in the field. 
Perhaps I might give you a little rundown of the situation by 
projecting back.
    When the Chinese Communists began their campaign southward 
late in 1948, there were approximately five thousand Americans 
in China. As a result of warnings issued by our embassy and the 
consulates out there, most Americans left China between 
December 1948 and April 1950. Americans in prison have 
uniformly been held incommunicado and kept in ignorance of the 
charges on which they are held, denied benefit of legal counsel 
and refused basic personal needs.
    In some cases, prisoners have been tortured according to 
our information, and forced to submit to Communist 
indoctrination, and in general treated in a barbarous fashion.
    Four Americans are known to have died as a result of 
maltreatment received from the Communists, and it is suspected 
that the number may be greater.
    Chinese Communists maltreatment of Americans was 
intensified after hostilities started in Korea. Of the thirty-
two Americans now detained, in jail, all but one were arrested 
after the Korean War started. In short, the situation of our 
people out there became much worse from the Chinese 
intervention and the war there.
    With the withdrawal of our representation from the China 
mainland in April of 1950, the British government agreed to 
represent us and to endeavor to protect our interests in 
Communist China. Since that time, the British government has 
endeavored, to the best of its ability, at our request, to do 
what it could to protect those Americans remaining in Communist 
China. They have made numerous representations, written 
representations, at our request, in general, and in individual 
cases.
    Senator Potter. Have we had any released as a result of 
their intervention?
    Mr. Drumright. We have people released in driblets all of 
the time, but it is difficult to say whether that stems from 
the representation of our British allies.
    In any case, not one of the British approaches has been 
officially acknowledged by the Chinese Communist authorities. 
But that is not particularly significant because the Chinese 
Communists never reply to written British inquiries.
    The British have worked very hard, however, and I think 
they are due a great deal of credit, for they have been able to 
collect a considerable amount of information, and some of this 
information that I am passing on now comes from the British. 
They have been able to provide food on occasions to 
incarcerated Americans, and vitamins, and certain other 
necessities.
    They have been able, also, to provide a certain amount of 
financial assistance to Americans stranded in China, and who 
had no way of obtaining funds.
    Senator Jackson. Do we have any other friendly allies that 
are helping in that regard?
    Mr. Drumright. Yes, I will come to that. The British have 
done their best. I do think that we owe them a debt for what 
they have been able to do under the very difficult 
circumstances which we have there.
    In September of 1951 when it became evident that the 
Chinese Communists were not responding to British efforts in 
our behalf, not as much as we would certainly like anyway, we 
asked a number of other governments which maintained diplomatic 
establishments in Communist China if they would be willing to 
approach the Chinese Communist authorities in efforts to obtain 
the release of imprisoned Americans; also, if they could use 
their good offices to have these people accorded more humane 
treatment than they had been getting.
    We asked the following countries to assist as they could, 
informally, or otherwise. Those included: Norway, Sweden, 
Denmark, Switzerland, Pakistan, Burma, Indonesia, Soviet Union, 
India, and the Netherlands.
    Senator Potter. I assume you did not get too much help from 
the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Drumright. Not as far as we know. I think most of these 
governments did speak to the Chinese Communist officials in 
Peiping, and it is possible that most of them did. We have no 
word that the Soviet Union did so, however. It may be that some 
of these representations had some little effect, maybe; there 
is no real evidence of it.
    Senator Potter. What are the charges that the Communists 
use to hold these people?
    Mr. Drumright. They have never brought any formal charges, 
according to our information. They have said to some of the 
representatives of these countries that so and so is a spy, or 
so and so had worked for the National government when it was in 
power, and so on. There is that sort of thing.
    But they have not felt any compulsion whatever to give any 
valid reasons, or to give any reasons why they are being 
detained, or to furnish them with counsel, or anything of that 
sort, or to give them a speedy trial.
    Senator Potter. Have we been put in a negotiating position 
for some of these men, have they tried to bargain with us, as 
they did in Europe?
    Mr. Drumright. No, they have not attempted that. The 
significant fact is that from time to time they do let out a 
few, and that is continuing.
    Senator Jackson. How many of this one hundred-odd are 
sympathetic with Communists?
    Mr. Drumright. I would not know, sir, perhaps a few.
    Senator Jackson. How many of them might have information of 
any kind that would be of value to the enemy?
    Mr. Drumright. Very few, because most of them are rather 
closely held. Apart from the thirty-two in prison and the 
fourteen who are under ``house arrest,'' I should say most of 
the others, barring Communist sympathizers, are not allowed to 
move around much.
    Senator Jackson. I did not mean that. How many of them, for 
instance, have a technical background or have information that 
might be valuable to the enemy?
    Mr. Drumright. I doubt if any of them have any information, 
really, that would be of much value to the Communists.
    Senator Jackson. Do you know of any?
    Mr. Drumright. I do not, offhand.
    Senator Jackson. Could anybody answer that?
    Mr. Drumright. I do not believe there are any real 
technicians; they are business people and missionaries, most of 
them. We have the two press correspondents who were picked up 
last year, and one sailor and one captain of a ship, who were 
picked up at the same time the two newspapermen were.
    Senator Potter. Then, the efforts of our government at the 
present time in order to secure their release have been 
directed in the direction of having other friendly governments 
intercede with Communist China for us, is that correct?
    Mr. Drumright. That has been going on persistently, yes, 
sir.
    Senator Potter. Has there been any direct approach by our 
government to the government of China?
    Mr. Drumright. No, sir, not directly.
    Senator Potter. Do you know whether that was discussed or 
whether we intend to take this up with the government of China 
when we meet in Geneva?
    Mr. Drumright. I do not know that for certain; but based on 
instructions we gave to Ambassador Dean, when he went to 
Panmunjom, which were that he might mention this or bring it up 
if he found a suitable opportunity. I should say that we would 
probably issue the same instructions to our representatives who 
go to Geneva. If they can find a suitable occasion there, I 
think so, yes.
    Senator Potter. Did Dean bring it up in his negotiations?
    Mr. Drumright. He did not find any opportunity, Senator, to 
bring it up in view of the way the negotiations went, with the 
acrimony and all.
    Senator Potter. Do you know whether Secretary of State 
Dulles at the Berlin Conference discussed this question with 
representatives of the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Drumright. I am not aware that he did.
    Mr. Barbour. I believe he did not; I do not know.
    Mr. Drumright. I cannot be absolutely certain, and I do not 
know anything to that effect.
    Senator Potter. Do you have any other information that you 
would like to present at this time?
    Mr. Drumright. I would like to say that our friendly allies 
who have been assisting us, and I think they have done some 
good because Americans are continuing to come out, desire that 
their rolls be kept confidential.
    Senator Potter. I can appreciate that. Do you have any idea 
as to the number of American citizens that have been released?
    Mr. Drumright. I have some figures here, Senator, which I 
would be glad to spread on your record.
    Senator Potter. Would you supply those for the record? In 
order that the record will be fairly complete, can you in round 
numbers give the number?
    Mr. Drumright. According to our information: In January of 
1948, there were 6,900 Americans in China, Communist China. By 
January 1949 that figure had gone down to 5,000; by January of 
1950 to 4,500; and by April of 1950 to 1,500. That was the 
period when we issued a strong request to our people to get 
out. That was when the Nationalist government was collapsing on 
the mainland, and we felt that it would be advisable for our 
people to get out.
    So between January and April of 1950, our record shows 
about 3,000 people left. In December of 1950, there were 1,300 
left. In September of 1951, the figure was down to 350. In 
January of 1952, it was 243. In January of 1953, the figure was 
146. And now we reckon that 100 or 101 or 102 are left.
    Senator Potter. Have any of the American citizens returned, 
were they in prison?
    Mr. Drumright. Oh, yes. They are letting some of them out. 
I have some other figures here, which I would read, if you care 
or desire?
    Senator Potter. Yes.
    Mr. Drumright. Of those in Communist China there have been 
between 25 and 50 under arrest at any given time since 1951. In 
all, 117 of the American civilians in China have been under 
arrest at various times. Of those, 85 were eventually released 
and deported. Eight of those in jail and 10 under ``house 
arrest'' were released in 1953. You see, we do have a slow 
trickle coming out all of the time.
    Senator Potter. I am wondering if you could tell the 
committee what our policy is and what the State Department's 
policy is in an effort to secure the release of these American 
citizens held behind the Iron Curtain. You have stated that we 
are working through friendly governments, and also that 
instructions were given to Ambassador Dean. And I assume that 
the Secretary of State plans on bringing it up at Geneva; but I 
do not know.
    Do you have any policy as to what you are going to do in an 
effort to secure their release?
    Mr. Drumright. Our present policy is to carry on through 
our friendly allies, chiefly the British, to play it patiently 
and slowly, and not to give publicity because we feel sometimes 
that that is derogatory to the objective which we want to 
achieve. Our policy is to just go along and try to get them 
out, a few at a time, ten, fifteen, or twenty a month. We are 
down to about one hundred now.
    Senator Potter. When the Communists do release some of our 
prisoners, do they make any statement as to why they were 
released or why they were held?
    Mr. Drumright. No, sir, they usually escort them to the 
Hong Kong border and give them a boot across and say nothing.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Have the people been interviewed to 
ascertain why they have been released?
    Mr. Drumright. They have, yes, sir.
    Mr. O'Donnell. What are their reasons for the release? What 
do they say?
    Mr. Drumright. They give a great variety of reasons.
    For example, Robert T. Bryan, an American lawyer in 
Shanghai, had been an employee of the municipal council there 
for about twenty years. Then he was with us as a legal adviser, 
after the war, for about two years. Then he was practicing law, 
but the Communists picked him up immediately, and said that he 
had done many things during his term as the municipal counselor 
and legal adviser to damage Communist interests; that he was a 
spy of the United States, and he was still an agent and all of 
that sort of thing.
    Mr. O'Donnell. He knew of no reason why he had been 
personally released, is that correct?
    Mr. Drumright. He did not know. And nobody seems to know 
specifically why he is released at any given time. It is very 
arbitrary, the whole operation.
    Senator Jackson. How many have been executed?
    Mr. Drumright. None.
    Senator Jackson. How many have died in prison?
    Mr. Drumright. We have a record of four who have died, and 
I believe that I have a list of those people here.
    Senator Jackson. You might read their names into the 
record.
    Senator Potter. I think that that would be appropriate.
    Mr. Drumright. The first is Bishop Francis Exford, whom I 
happen to know personally.
    Senator Jackson. What was he?
    Mr. Drumright. An American Catholic missionary who died in 
a Communist prison in February of 1952, after over a year of 
continuous brutal questioning. He had a starvation diet and 
constant humiliation.
    He was never accorded a trial, and he could not communicate 
with the outside world. Every attempt by the government here, 
the U.S. government, to get information about him through the 
good offices of friendly governments was ignored or rebuffed.
    Another case is that of Philip Cline, arrested in April 
1951 on charges of spying. Mr. Cline was suffering from heart 
disease and diabetes at the time of his arrest. After several 
months, he was released from prison and then rearrested and 
forced to withstand endless questioning by Communist agents. In 
October of 1951, he was again released. He and his wife were 
destitute. In mid-November of 1951, Mr. Cline died as a result 
of being denied insulin for his diabetes while in prison.
    We have two other cases of Americans who were not confined 
to prison.
    Senator Potter. You say they were not confined to prison?
    Mr. Drumright. No, but they were denied permission to leave 
China.
    Senator Jackson. Did they die of natural causes?
    Mr. Drumright. Miss Gertrude Cone, a Methodist missionary 
applied for permission to leave Communist China in January of 
1951. No action was taken by the Communist authorities. In 
August she developed cancer. When she applied for permission to 
telegraph Hong Kong for funds, she was refused. She was forced 
to go on a starvation diet. In December of 1951, she fell as a 
result of weakness from malnutrition and injured her hip. In 
early January of 1952, she again applied for permission to get 
funds from Hong Kong. This permission was refused.
    Later that month, when she was already on a point of death, 
permission was finally granted for her to leave. The 
authorities then decided that it would be more convenient if 
she died outside China. They gave her an exit permit. She was 
escorted to the border and died in Hong Kong on February 18, 
1952.
    The other case was that of Dr. William L. Wallace, a highly 
respected Protestant medical missionary who was reported to 
have died under brutal treatment, at a place in southwest 
China. That was on February 10.
    Senator Potter. Is this in a prison camp?
    Mr. Drumright. That may have been. It was in southwest 
China, on February 10, 1951. Details of his arrest and the 
exact circumstances of his death have never been obtainable on 
a reliable basis.
    But there appears to be little doubt that he died as a 
result of Communist mistreatment, which was meted out to him 
despite his years of self-sacrifice and work.
    Senator Potter. Could you know whether the thirty-two 
Americans are held in one prison or not?
    Mr. Drumright. No, sir, they are scattered about.
    Senator Potter. Do you have the names of the prison camps?
    Mr. Drumright. That record I believe shows the places where 
they are said to be incarcerated.
    Senator Potter. Could you supply that for the record?
    Mr. Drumright. That would be in the tabulation I have 
already furnished.
    Senator Potter. I see.
    Mr. Kennedy. These American business men in China, I 
presume that they are accused of not paying taxes, or does the 
American government allow money to be sent into China to pay 
those funds?
    Mr. Drumright. We have under special permits on occasion 
done that. The Treasury Department would have to clear that.
    Mr. Kennedy. We would have to get the total figure from the 
Treasury Department on that, is that right?
    Mr. Drumright. I think so, yes, sir.
    Mr. Kennedy. We cannot get it from the State Department?
    Mr. Drumright. I am not sure, I would have to check.
    Senator Jackson. How many of these people had an 
opportunity to get out?
    Mr. Drumright. Which people?
    Senator Jackson. The civilians that we have been talking 
about here this morning, the one hundred-odd people?
    Mr. Drumright. I could not say. I would say that forty-six 
or so have no opportunity. Perhaps some of the others would 
have.
    Senator Jackson. Perhaps I did not make my question clear. 
How many of these people had an opportunity to leave?
    Mr. Drumright. Previously, you mean?
    Senator Jackson. Yes.
    Mr. Drumright. I should imagine that most of them could 
have left in 1950, or 1950 would have been the best date; that 
is when most of them did leave.
    Senator Jackson. Most of these people stayed on 
voluntarily?
    Mr. Drumright. I assume that they did, yes, sir; or for 
family reasons, or business reasons, or missionary work.
    Senator Jackson. Compelling local reasons.
    Senator Potter. In answer to Counsel Kennedy's question 
about the money that we have put into Communist China, I wonder 
if you could get that information; we would like to have that 
information for our records.
    Mr. Drumright. Yes, sir.
    Senator Potter. Are there any other questions that you 
would like to ask Mr. Drumright?
    Mr. Drumright. I would like to say that as regards North 
Korea, we have no evidence that any American civilians remain 
there. At the time of the Communist attack, in June of 1950, we 
had about thirteen Americans seized, most of whom were 
missionaries who were caught on or near the border.
    Senator Potter. Have they all been returned?
    Mr. Drumright. Seven of them have returned; and according 
to our information, the remainder have died.
    Senator Potter. Could you know anything about their death; 
was it a natural death?
    Mr. Drumright. For instance, Bishop Byrne, who was a 
resident or native of Washington, died in a camp of 
malnutrition and exhaustion.
    Senator Potter. I know, we have had testimony before the 
committee before, that some civilians, particularly I know one 
was a missionary, who was thrown into a camp with military 
personnel and forced to make long forced marches.
    Mr. Drumright. Yes.
    Senator Potter. What is the Department of State's position 
concerning the release of the names of the civilians that are 
being held in Communist China?
    Mr. Drumright. I do not believe that there is any objection 
to that.
    Senator Potter. The names have been released?
    Mr. Drumright. Yes.
    Senator Potter. And, as I understand it, since the release 
of the names in April of 1952, some of the people whose names 
were mentioned have been returned?
    Mr. Drumright. Undoubtedly.
    Senator Potter. I know that Robert Bryan that you mentioned 
was one of the men. His name was published; afterwards, he was 
returned. It was the same with Reverend Thornton and Sister 
Ann.
    All right. If there are no further questions, we will 
switch over to the Western European affairs.
    The Chairman. May I say that I have to leave, not because I 
do not have a great interest in this, but I have other work 
back in the office. I came over here mainly to make sure that 
you were not running a one-man committee.
    Senator Potter. I wonder if you would also supply the 
committee with the names of the civilians that were detained in 
North Korea and the ones that were returned and the ones that 
died while in Communist hands.
    Mr. Drumright. Yes, sir; I do not have those presently 
available but I will supply those.
    Mr. Donaldson. If you wish to fill in with some of the 
reports that have come from China, the background information, 
we might be able to add a little to what Mr. Drumright has put 
on record.
    Senator Potter. We would like to have your statement on 
that.
    Mr. Donaldson. I have not heard it on the record though it 
may be there, but this government does not officially recognize 
Communist China, as you know. Because of that, we have to deal 
through powers that have the representation in China to work 
for us. Consequently, it is a very slow and tedious procedure 
at best. Because of reports that have come out, we have learned 
from prisoners that individuals have been encouraged and in 
fact exhorted by the Communist government to make so-called 
``confessions.'' On the basis of the confessions, the 
individual was picked up by the police and incarcerated in a 
jail and are then informed that if you wish to be released, 
then you in turn report your sins and the sins of those who 
have been related with you in your activities.
    That, in turn, brings in other names, and they then offer 
concessions, that they will reconsider your case, and make 
concessions on terms of seconds. These approaches and 
procedures are repeated about every quarter. It is a wearing 
down operation and eventually the individual becomes softened 
up and you have this ad infinitum of bringing in name after 
name.
    It is involved speculation and exchange which is contrary 
to the law of China, and it involved all of those things under 
the Communist code which are foreign to our code, and the 
result is that there are practically no admitted crimes under 
our code and people are picked up in China and incarcerated. It 
appears that the people's courts generally give sentences of 
two years or longer. It might be explained that some of these 
people who are released now is the result of the termination of 
sentences.
    Senator Potter. In other words, they are following the 
typical Communist pattern that they use, not only in China but 
in the Soviet Union itself.
    Mr. Donaldson. It appears to be a form of jurisprudence and 
Communist philosophy that exists behind the Iron Curtain.
    Senator Jackson. Is it that, or is it simply the means by 
which they rationalize their holding these people? The real 
objective would be to show to the rest of the world and 
particularly the satellite areas that the United States no 
longer is a powerful country, and the United States can no 
longer do anything about its citizens who have been 
incarcerated abroad. Is it not really the purpose to bring it 
locally in China, to demonstrate to the Chinese people that we 
can no longer send a gunboat up the Yangtze and get our people 
out? I mean is it not that the real reason why they are holding 
these people?
    Mr. Drumright. That would certainly be one.
    Senator Jackson. More than anything else, it is to degrade 
the United States and humiliate our country and to demonstrate 
to the people of China that Mao is now a real ruler and he is 
not a weak ruler, and he is a strong ruler and that Mao is able 
to really rule China, and that the white man is now inferior? 
That is the real reason, is it not?
    Mr. Donaldson. There seems a basis for power politics to 
apply itself in that manner, definitely.
    Senator Jackson. Now, obviously, they are not really trying 
these people in a court of law to go through the even Communist 
routine of justice. That is merely a means to an end and it is 
the real objective to utilize the Americans in China for 
propaganda purposes. I think the primary objective in that 
regard is to humiliate them locally in China and throughout the 
satellite area, Russia and in the neutral zones. If I am wrong 
in my own reasoning on this, I would like to have your opinion 
on it.
    Mr. Donaldson. There appears to be sound basis for your 
conclusions.
    Senator Potter. If they can degrade an American citizen, 
that, in turn, degrades the United States, in the eyes of their 
people.
    Senator Jackson. Yes; to the yellow people all over Asia.
    Senator Potter. Are there any other questions before we go 
on to the European end of it?
    Mr. Donaldson. There is just one other thing that you 
might, for the purpose of the record again, want to know. These 
jails are so loaded that in a nine-by-twelve jail they put in 
as many as forty people, and they cannot lie down and sleep, 
and even when they put them at the rate of three and four in 
smaller cells, they have to lay on the side like sardines in a 
can in order to sleep.
    Senator Potter. You are talking now about the civilians?
    Mr. Donaldson. Yes; I am talking about civilians actually 
in jail in the Chinese interior of Communist China. This is 
typical, and these are cases that have been reported of facts 
as they exist, and this is just background information, of 
course.
    Mr. O'Donnell. You mentioned a figure of around forty. Do 
you have any more than thirty-two that have been discussed this 
morning that have been held in prison over there?
    Mr. Donaldson. When you get into this group, you are 
getting into not only U.S. citizens, but this is the condition 
that exists in the jails entirely and it is the Americans who 
are thrown in with them.
    Senator Potter. All right, let us switch over to the 
European theater now.
    Mr. Barbour. I would like to apologize for my laryngitis. I 
may be a little difficult to understand, but I will do the best 
I can.
    Senator Potter. That is all right.
    Mr. Barbour. The situation in the Soviet Union and the 
satellites is somewhat different in that there is usually, in 
most of these cases for which the figures are quoted, a 
question of the citizenship. The large proportion of these 
people are dual nationals. That is they have American 
nationality, and Soviet or satellite nationality, or the 
Soviets are claiming or the satellites are claiming they do. 
They may or may not be justified in so claiming.
    The people that are included in these figures are largely 
made up of three categories. That is the people who have come 
over here and have been naturalized and have returned to their 
countries of origin, and children who have been born in this 
country to people who came over probably and were not 
naturalized, and have returned to their countries of origin, or 
children born in the foreign countries to people who were 
naturalized citizens of the United States and have returned.
    We have relatively few cases--and I do not have the figures 
but Mr. Donaldson may have--of American citizens having only 
American citizenship who went behind the Iron Curtain for 
business, or other reasons, or were living there for reasons 
connected with some American concern or something of that kind. 
They have been caught and cannot now get out.
    We, also, do not have figures on how many of these people 
if any, and we assume there must be some, are actually in jail, 
or how many just cannot get out of the Soviet Union. The 
figures that were quoted at the beginning did not specify they 
were in jail, and I do not think most of them are. Of course, 
we have great difficulty in getting information as to where 
these people are. Most of them are there because they cannot 
get out.
    The general Soviet attitude has undergone a certain amount 
of changes in the past several years, and up until 1947, it 
could be said, generally, although there were certain 
differences in various of the satellite countries, that the 
people who wished to return and could prove a preponderance of 
American citizenship and the Soviets did not have some 
particular reason to keep them, we were able to get them out. 
In 1947, as far as the Soviet Union was concerned, they put 
down a complete block and we have never been able to get any 
out from that time up until the death of Stalin. Since the 
death of Stalin, for Soviet political reasons, I think it is 
obvious that they wish to present to the world an appearance of 
more reasonableness without costing them anything. They have 
released a few. We have succeeded in getting a few out in 
Poland and Czechoslovakia particularly. One or two came out of 
Hungary. We have made a numerous number of representations over 
the past years in the case of these individuals, and recently 
as you all have seen in the press, we have been getting some 
information on possible new cases from prisoners of war which 
have been returned by the Soviets to Western Europe. There has 
been a process of trying in the first place to identify the 
individuals so mentioned because the information given by these 
prisoners is pretty sketchy. Then there is the problem of 
establishing the citizenship and then to get them out. We did 
establish the identity and citizenship of two which were Cox 
and Towers, and we succeeded in getting those out.
    Senator Potter. Have you been able to establish the 
identification of any others that you have not been able to get 
out?
    Mr. Barbour. We have established the identity and 
citizenship of three more which we have taken up, and we have, 
also, taken up with the Soviets more tentative basis and some 
that it looks probably like they are identifiable as American 
citizens.
    Senator Jackson. What is that total now in the Soviet Union 
that you have been able to identify as American citizens?
    Mr. Barbour. The total in the Soviet Union is usually given 
as two thousand. That is a very round figure.
    Senator Potter. Many of those have dual citizenship, is 
that correct?
    Mr. Barbour. Well, certainly I would not like to give a 
percentage figure, but, by far, the largest number.
    Senator Jackson. How many of them are natural born 
citizens?
    Mr. Barbour. That, I do not have, but it would be a 
relatively small number.
    Senator Potter. Do you have that information and could you 
secure that information?
    Mr. Barbour. We have that.
    Senator Potter. I think it would be desirable to have that 
information for our records.
    Mr. Barbour. Yes, and by that I take it you mean children 
born in this country, I believe born under the citizenship act, 
and it applies to born anywhere of American citizens. You mean 
people born in this country, or people born of American 
citizens?
    Senator Jackson. No one has ever defined that term, 
``natural-born citizen.'' That is the constitutional provision.
    Mr. Barbour. I believe citizenship uses that term in both 
ways, whether born in the United States, or obtained 
citizenship by birth any place through American citizens.
    Senator Jackson. The 14th Amendment provides, if I am not 
mistaken, that all people born in the United States or subject 
to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States 
in the state wherein they reside.
    My point is that I think it would be well, Mr. Chairman, to 
have a list of the people, who, we will say, were born in the 
United States, where the question of dual citizenship might not 
arise.
    Senator Potter. I think it would be well to have the entire 
list, and then break it down as to the ones who have dual 
citizenship and the ones where there would be American 
citizenship.
    Mr. Barbour. I can get both of those figures.
    Senator Jackson. We have also had a problem on this 
question of dual citizenship and that can arise in two 
situations; one, where a Russian migrates to the United States 
and becomes an American citizen, naturalized, and returns to 
the Soviet Union, and that is a clear case of the problem of 
dual citizenship. The next situation would be where the son of 
a Russian immigrant, or the parents come to the United States 
and the son is born in the United States, and the son returns 
to the Soviet Union. Am I correct in understanding that Russia, 
and I guess most of the countries, recognize citizenship based 
on blood, and we recognize citizenship based on blood, and we 
recognize citizenship based on place?
    Mr. Barbour. We recognize it both ways.
    Senator Jackson. Yes, but primarily that is the basic 
distinction, so that they claim the individual born in the 
United States because his parents were Soviet citizens, and you 
cannot lose it by reason of birth abroad.
    Mr. Barbour. That is correct.
    Senator Potter. I would like to have you comment on an 
article that appeared in the U.S. News and World Report, 
February 5, 1954, wherein it states, ``In Russia, 21 American 
citizens have long been known to be held in prison, or forced 
labor camps. Now, at least 10 other cases have come into 
light.'' Can you comment on that?
    Mr. Barbour. I have seen that report, sir, but I am not in 
a position to know just which cases he has in mind. I do not 
know which ten cases he is referring to. He may be referring to 
some of these cases such as the Cox and Tower cases.
    Senator Potter. He goes on a little further and he says, 
``Now at least 10 other cases have come to light based on 
eyewitness accounts from German and Austrian prisoners of war 
let loose by the Russians last year.''
    Mr. Barbour. That is what I think. In those cases, we are 
endeavoring to identify the individuals. The information from 
the German and Austrian prisoners of war is obviously very 
sketchy. They sometimes see somebody and they get the name 
probably phonetically, and probably have no idea of the place 
of birth or any other identification, and it is somewhat 
difficult to identify them.
    Senator Potter. Now, the figure of twenty-one Americans 
being held in prison is correct or not?
    Mr. Barbour. I think it probably would be very difficult at 
any given time to give a definite figure on that twenty-one. 
There may be a few or there may be more.
    Senator Potter. Have these twenty-one been identified as to 
name?
    Mr. Barbour. We have identified some of these old cases, 
Senator, several hundred of them, but where they are, we do not 
have any current information. That is whether they are actually 
in jail or whether they are free in the Soviet Union, but not 
free to leave.
    Senator Potter. Do you have knowledge of the location of 
these prisoners?
    Mr. Barbour. In most cases all we have is a last known 
address and when it was possible before the war in some cases, 
or just following the war, for these people to come to the 
embassies in Moscow and identify themselves. Since then, the 
Soviets prevented any of these people coming to the embassy, 
and have prevented the embassy staff getting any mail to them 
or going out to see them. So, it is very difficult to tell 
exactly where they may be now. We usually have an address where 
they last were.
    Senator Potter. I understand that there is a prison camp 
about two hundred kilometers from Moscow at Vladimir, I think 
it is, where some American prisoners are being held. I do not 
know whether they are civilian or military personnel. Do you 
have knowledge as to that?
    Mr. Barbour. That, also, is from the same report, sir. The 
reports of these various prisoners that the Soviets have sent 
out to Western Europe. I believe that Cox and Towers were held 
in that camp, and some of their information suggests very 
definitely that there may be some more. We are endeavoring to 
check that.
    Senator Jackson. How long have some of these people been 
held prisoners? By that I mean the longest period.
    Mr. Barbour. I do not have any information on that, sir. 
Some of the cases and some of the old cases that we have been 
trying to get back from the Soviet Union, are very old. We have 
been trying since the time of the recognition in 1935, and some 
of them we have been arguing about dual nationality.
    Senator Jackson. Are they being held for propaganda 
purposes, or are they being held for intelligence purposes, or 
just what is it?
    Mr. Barbour. I feel certain that they are held as a matter 
of general policy in the Soviet Union. That involves definitely 
the propaganda aspects which you mentioned earlier. I do not 
just see how they would be valuable from an intelligence 
standpoint. Most of these people have been there so many years.
    Senator Jackson. I realize that, but how about in the last 
few years, have they taken any prisoner in the last four or 
five years, and are most of these cases old, or what is the 
situation?
    Mr. Barbour. Well, there have been some, and there have 
been some disappearances, of course, from Western Europe, and 
there have not been any new cases that I am aware of in the 
Soviet Union in recent years.
    Senator Jackson. How many of these people might be military 
personnel from Korea?
    Mr. Barbour. That is anybody's question, sir, and I do not 
have any information on that. I have no firm information on 
that; firm information is very difficult to find. It is quite 
possible that some of them are military personnel from Korea 
who may have been taken to the Soviet Union.
    Senator Jackson. I assume the military people will cover 
that.
    Senator Potter. Are there any other questions you would 
like to ask the Department of State?
    Mr. O'Donnell. We have limited this so far to Russia, and 
we have several other European countries to go into, but 
getting back to Russian figures again, actually what is the 
number that the State Department has of American citizens who 
are being held prisoners, and do they have any firm figure of 
those actually held on the basis forever?
    Mr. Barbour. I do not think we have any figures.
    Mr. Donaldson. I think the best way we can answer that is 
that the information which has been collected is collected from 
communications, individuals returning from behind the Iron 
Curtain, and members of families in this country, and in no 
case can you say that it is a dependable census but if you wish 
to put down what has been used as a record which the department 
has worked up on the basis of information available to it--it 
appears that there is one in Albania. These are behind the Iron 
Curtain, and not in prison. Are you only interested in prisons?
    Mr. O'Donnell. At the present time, the ones being held in 
prisons or forced labor camps are the ones we are interested 
in. Do we have any estimate of probable individuals by name who 
are being held in either jail or in slave labor camps, in any 
countries behind the Iron Curtain?
    Mr. Donaldson. Listed by name? Not to my knowledge. That 
record has never been made available.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Do you have it on a figure basis?
    Mr. Donaldson. We do have a collection of figures of 
persons which we believe are still behind the Iron Curtain by 
countries.
    Senator Potter. But you do not know as to whether they are 
imprisoned or not?
    Mr. Donaldson. That is correct.
    Senator Potter. Will you give us that figure that you have, 
then? Do you have these by name?
    Mr. Donaldson. By countries and only by number.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Excuse me just a moment. Is the information 
available in this country by name as distinct from number?
    Mr. Donaldson. No.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Is it available anywhere by name as distinct 
from number?
    Mr. Donaldson. It would be available from the Iron Curtain 
countries if they would give it to us. Let me explain that, so 
that I may make myself clear. We get inquiries from a man in 
Chicago that he would like to know about his father-in-law or 
about his sons, and we will send out a whereabouts inquiry to 
our mission and sometimes we get a reply which says, ``Ask my 
father not to communicate with me, and I don't want to hear 
from him.'' We can only draw one deduction and that is in the 
best interests of the person behind the Iron Curtain to keep 
his face completely undisclosed. We have a record then that 
there is a person behind the Curtain and that is the way these 
figures have been drawn up, just as individual returning from 
abroad who said they talked to ``X'' in such and such a camp.
    That only leads us to believe that there is a person there 
who has identified himself to a former prisoner but we have no 
way of confirming that.
    Mr. O'Donnell. On the basis of probabilities, I conclude 
Cox and Towers after they were released were interviewed 
concerning other Americans who may be held in slave labor camps 
or in prison camps.
    Mr. Donaldson. That is right. Everybody who comes out is 
interviewed as they come through the U.S. forces in Germany, or 
through a mission where we have a representation.
    Mr. O'Donnell. We have a case of probabilities by name as 
distinct from those who actually have been confirmed?
    Mr. Donaldson. We could draw up those names, which have 
been reported, and in many cases, as Mr. Barbour has pointed 
out, phonetically without definition and very indistinct as to 
description.
    Senator Potter. If you will give us the numbers of persons 
that are behind the Curtain.
    Mr. Donaldson. Albania, 1; Bulgaria, 79; Czechoslovakia, 
330; Hungary, 420; Poland, somewhere between 7,000 and 10,000. 
Now, that has to be on a very broad basis, because of the 
terrible destruction of the number of people who have been 
completely lost sight of in Poland.
    Senator Potter. You do not know whether they are dead or 
whether they are alive?
    Mr. Donaldson. We have nothing at all to go on. Warsaw was 
wiped out and it is practically little if any information on 
many people. We have inquiries come in and we will go back and 
while we say that they are not living there, there are no 
records and we do not know. Further figures are Rumania, 236. 
As Mr. Barbour has pointed out, it is estimated that 2,000 are 
in USSR.
    Senator Jackson. Most of these people have been over there 
for a long, long time?
    Mr. Donaldson. Yes, a number of cases have definitely 
indicated that they do not want to come out.
    Senator Jackson. They want to stay there?
    Mr. Donaldson. We do not know. For instance, when these 
inquiries come from relatives, or from members of the 
Congress--believe me there are many, every time your 
constituents come to you and ask you for information, you come 
to us, and we go to the mission. When we go to the mission, we 
ask one of our men to go out and make an inquiry or send a 
registered letter and in Russia the procedure is to put it in 
an envelope that is registered and sometimes it is returned 
with a notation on it, ``received,'' and that is all. You hear 
nothing.
    Mr. Barbour. Your question, also, was whether they were new 
cases or not. I think that breaks down into two categories. 
Those that we are hearing about now from the returned prisoners 
may represent relatively new cases, who got behind the Curtain 
for one reason or another during the war or since the war. The 
big backlog of the two thousand cases in the Soviet Union, and 
these other figures in the other countries, by and large, are 
old cases which have gone on for ten years or more. It is 
usually pre-war.
    Senator Jackson. Out of this number, how many of them have 
been kidnaped, either taken from American zones in Germany or 
are any of them taken from any of our missions in the Soviet 
Union, or in the satellite countries?
    Mr. Barbour. That is very difficult to determine, 
unfortunately, unless we get one out. We do not know the exact 
circumstances under which he disappeared or how he happened to 
fall into their hands.
    Senator Jackson. How many are missing from our missions, 
and do you know that?
    Mr. Barbour. I was going on to say on that that I was 
talking first about going across the frontiers and things of 
that kind in Germany and Austria. But from the missions, we 
have had several dual nationals who were with the missions and 
who have disappeared. I do not happen to have the figures off-
hand, but I should say it would be, my best guess would be 
somewhere around twenty-five or thirty. That is a pretty rough 
guess, over the period of since the war.
    Senator Jackson. That would even include the Soviet Union?
    Mr. Barbour. All of the satellite countries; yes. Those are 
people who are there and not ones we have sent in.
    Senator Potter. Have we lost any that we have sent into the 
countries?
    Mr. Barbour. No, sir; we got them all out now, but we had 
lost some.
    Senator Jackson. I am trying to refresh my recollection. 
Did we not have a sergeant in an American embassy that took off 
in Moscow?
    Mr. Barbour. That is another matter. We have two people in 
Moscow who are defectionists, who went over voluntarily to the 
Russians. There is a sergeant and a girl clerk.
    Mr. Donaldson. There was an employee of the consulate at 
Bratislava, but he is out. At the time he was arrested, he left 
the employ at the time of his arrest.
    Senator Jackson. He was arrested by the Soviets?
    Mr. Barbour. He was arrested by the Czechs.
    Senator Jackson. He has previously left the mission?
    Mr. Donaldson. Yes.
    Mr. Brown. I think that we might clarify this a little bit, 
by pointing out in addition to the foreign service people who 
are sent from here to our missions, our missions employ local 
employees, clerks and people of that nature. Now, the twenty-
five to which Mr. Barbour referred were locals employed by 
missions, and we did not send them in. But they may have dual 
nationality.
    Senator Potter. They had dual citizenship, you mean?
    Mr. Brown. But they were not people we sent in as our 
representatives in that country, but they were hired like a 
resident of that country might have been hired.
    Mr. Donaldson. There is another figure that should be put 
in with that group, I believe, to make it more complete. The 
department has estimated that approximately six thousand of 
these people that are behind the curtain, are dual nationals, 
which, of course, raises immediately the sovereign right of the 
curtain country. I suppose that the committee is informed that 
leaving curtain countries requires what is known as an exit 
permit or visa and the control is exercised over people within 
the country by that procedure. How these things are all brought 
to bear is when you go in and ask for a permit and you do not 
get it, then you are in.
    Senator Jackson. I think it would be helpful if we could 
get a breakdown from all of the countries.
    Senator Potter. That would be very desirable.
    Senator Jackson. That is of those people who were born in 
the United States where there is no question raised as to dual 
citizenship and then another category of the people who were 
born in the United States but where the question of dual 
citizenship can be raised and so on down the line so that we 
can get a clearer picture. I think that unless we have that, it 
could be distorted.
    Senator Potter. It clouds it considerably, I think. Would 
you provide that?
    Mr. Barbour. We will be very happy to supply that.
    Mr. Brown. You understand, of course, Mr. Chairman, that 
some of these names or numbers will be unidentifiable as to 
their particular status.
    Senator Potter. I would say that is so.
    Senator Jackson. Status unknown, you can give that. If we 
could break it down, because when you say that there are people 
or if something should come out in the paper that there are two 
thousand in Russia, they immediately start writing to us.
    Mr. Kennedy. Do you have the numbers as far as people taken 
from this side of the Iron Curtain, over the border, for 
instance, from the American zone in Vilinia or Anson in Berlin, 
and were kidnaped or went over into the Soviet zone? Do you 
have that as far as numbers or names?
    Mr. Barbour. I suppose that could be compiled.
    Mr. Donaldson. We would have to get up a record from 
available information. To identify as positive kidnaping would 
be the big problem.
    Mr. Kennedy. Could you at least start to give us that?
    Mr. Donaldson. We could say those who disappeared.
    Mr. Kennedy. And the ones you know were kidnaped?
    Mr. Donaldson. If we can identify them as such, we would be 
very glad to do that. We will have to search the record on 
that.
    Mr. Kennedy. I appreciate your doing that.
    Senator Potter. What has been the situation there? It is 
different than in China, because we do have an embassy in the 
Soviet Union, and just what has been the procedure of the 
Department of State in securing release of these men that are 
being held in the satellite countries of Europe and the Soviet 
Union?
    Mr. Barbour. Well, the procedure has generally followed the 
line that we have taken the cases up with the foreign office 
and some of these cases we have made representations over a 
period of ten or fifteen years, and have written notes by the 
dozen, virtually, and I think in some cases we have written as 
many as two or three dozen notes over a long period, and we 
have had officers go down and argue and we have taken it up 
with the foreign minister. That is the American ambassador has, 
and we have, in other words, made all of the possible 
representations in all of these cases over a long period.
    Senator Potter. You do run into the situation there of in 
many cases having to bargain with the government, is that not 
true?
    Mr. Barbour. What is that?
    Senator Potter. You do run into the situation of having to 
bargain with the government. We had to bargain for Oatis, for 
example, did we not, and in Hungary on the aviators and for 
Vogeler.
    Mr. Barbour. In those individual cases, it is difficult to 
say that there was any particular pattern. It depends upon the 
circumstances as to how we have been able to successfully 
negotiate in getting them out. We have not made or we did not 
make any deal in the Oatis case. We negotiated a long time, and 
we exerted a lot of pressure on the Czechs by cutting off their 
trade and cutting off their airline over Western Germany, and 
eventually the Czechs for their own face-saving reasons, of 
course, ostensibly, released him on the plea from his wife.
    Senator Jackson. I thought I read in the paper that the 
Czech government announced immediately after the release of 
Oatis, that trade relations were being resumed with the United 
States.
    Mr. Barbour. They were resumed, but it was not part of a 
deal. One time we were negotiating on that basis and I would 
not wish to give that impression.
    Senator Jackson. Frankly, I think it made us look very 
silly, to say that there was no quid pro quo and the day after 
we did not announce it but the Czech government announced the 
resumption of trade, at a time when we were investigating trade 
in Red China. I was just curious how it was possible that they 
would announce it before we announced it. We apparently have 
not denied it and I guess we have resumed trade.
    Mr. Barbour. The resumption of trade, I might say, we 
resumed trade on the same basis that we trade with the rest of 
the block and it is no resumption of free trade.
    Senator Potter. Our trade prior to that time had been 
halted?
    Mr. Barbour. Yes, sir.
    Senator Jackson. All trade was cut off?
    Mr. Barbour. That is correct.
    Senator Potter. And, certainly, we gave $125,000 for the 
four aviators shot down in Hungary.
    Mr. Barbour. That is right.
    Senator Potter. Certainly, there were concessions made as 
far as Vogeler was concerned, on the part of our government?
    Mr. Barbour. That is a question, sir, and what we did there 
was to resume restitutions from Germany of Hungarian property 
which we had already been obligated to restitute under the 
peace treaty, but which we stopped when Vogeler was captured. 
So we merely resumed the carrying out of an obligation which we 
already had, and which we as an extraordinary measure of 
pressure had declined to do during his incarceration.
    Senator Jackson. We made a pretty heavy concession on 
Oatis. The announcement of the resumption of trade relations 
with Czechoslovakia, in coming from the Czechoslovakian 
government and not coming from our government, I think, was 
quite a propaganda victory for them. I must say that I do not 
think we handled it very well. I think we should have at least 
beat them to the punch. My memory does not serve me too well, 
but somehow or other I read down the corner of the paper that 
the Czech radio had announced it the day after or that day of 
the release of Oatis. I think we are just kidding ourselves, 
when we try to rationalize that there was not any quid pro quo. 
I do not know that we got any of these people out, without 
heavy concessions.
    Senator Potter. I was going to ask about the two former 
GI's that were released, Towers and Cox. Was there favorable 
trade concessions made?
    Mr. Barbour. No, nothing of the kind. Representations were 
made by our ambassador in Moscow to the Soviet foreign minister 
and in response to those requests for release, they were 
released after a relatively short time.
    Senator Jackson. But that was due to the death of Stalin, 
probably, more than anything else, was it not?
    Mr. Barbour. Of course, the whole policy of releasing any 
of these people has been as a result of the death of Stalin, 
and following the death of Stalin. That is quite true.
    Senator Jackson. Do not misunderstand me; I am not saying 
you should not make concessions, but I do not think we should 
kid anybody in saying we did not.
    Mr. Brown. On that very point, Mr. Chairman, I would like 
to try to draw a distinction here between--let us put it in 
this context, to decide whether the country had a net gain as a 
result of holding an American and then later releasing him. You 
must not overlook the fact that anything that might be agreed 
to at the time of his release which was putting the situation 
back to where it was at the time he was taken cannot be 
considered a net gain.
    In other words, if we cut off something in order to get a 
man out, and then resume it at the time he is out, then they 
have not made any net gain. We have used a bargaining weapon 
and then upon their agreeing to release him, we are back where 
we stood.
    Senator Jackson. But it must have been discussed.
    Mr. Barbour. Oh, it was.
    Mr. Brown. Definitely.
    Senator Potter. With $125,000 to Hungary, for example, for 
the fliers, it seems to me that is just plain paying hostage or 
paying tribute to a country who committed an act of violence. I 
may be wrong, and I think it is desirable to get those men 
back, but it is an embarrassing situation for our country to be 
in to have to pay tribute to the Soviet block countries.
    Now, it is twelve o'clock and I am sorry we could not get 
around a little faster this morning, but I think probably it is 
desirable for other gentlemen to listen to this, and this is a 
line in inquiry that we are going into and we will meet this 
afternoon. I am hoping that we can get permission to sit while 
the Senate is in session, and unless you hear otherwise from 
us, we will meet at two o'clock this afternoon in this room. At 
that time, I think we will continue. I think it would be best 
to hear from the air force first, and then the navy and then 
the army. I believe we will be through at this time with the 
Department of State.
    I wish to thank you.
    Mr. Donaldson. Would you mind inserting in the record then 
in the case of China that in 1950 the department undertook to 
make available a vessel at Shanghai and notified all Americans 
known to the missions that in the opinion of the U.S. 
government, they should get out, and they were warned to get 
out. We did then deliver those who came out safely to the 
United States.
    Senator Potter. Before you leave, at this particular time, 
we have no particular desire for any further discussions, but 
we would like to have you present to the committee all of the 
information that you have relating to this subject in 
unclassified material, and to go over it with our staff. If 
there is material that is classified, and you cannot get it 
released, we will request, if it is necessary for our record, 
the declassification.
    Mr. Barry. Will you need the army representatives this 
afternoon, then?
    Senator Potter. I believe not, but I believe we will let 
the army wait until tomorrow. I think probably it would be 
desirable if all of the agencies that are represented here, if 
they will have somebody here to act as liaison during the 
entire hearing. This afternoon we will hear the air force and 
navy, and I hope we can hear both.
    Mr. Smith. The type of question is primarily the numbers 
and the names of personnel?
    Senator Potter. All of the information you have we would 
like to have.
    Mr. Smith. I see.
    Senator Potter. We will recess until two o'clock this 
afternoon.
    [Whereupon, the committee recessed at 12:00 p.m., to 
reconvene at 2:00 p.m. the same day.]


                              after recess


    [The hearing was resumed at 2:30 p.m.]
    Senator Potter. The committee will come to order. As long 
as Bob Kennedy, the minority counsel, does not bring up a point 
of order that we are sitting as a one-man committee, we will 
proceed. I can assure you that all the minority has been 
invited to participate, and I assume that Senator Jackson will 
be here very soon. Now, this morning we heard from the 
representatives of the Department of State and this afternoon 
we would like to discuss this question with the air force and 
the navy. The question is to correlate as much information as 
we can as to the American citizens, military and civilian, who 
are behind the Iron Curtain against their will. I think it 
might be well if at this time I read a portion of the statement 
made by General Ridgway, chief of staff, U.S. Army, when he 
appeared before our Korean War Atrocities Committee in January. 
I quote: ``A total of 13,238 United States Army, Navy, Marine 
and Air Force personnel are known to have been either in a 
prisoner of war or missing in action status, since initiation 
of the Korean conflict on June 25, 1950. These figures show 
that a total of 4,631 have since been returned to military 
control. As may be noted, we now reach a tragic void. I believe 
most of this discrepancy between the number of people returned 
and the number of those who are still listed as missing in 
action and presumed to be dead, namely, 8,690, is directly 
attributable to Communist mistreatment in their prisons.''
    Now, in other words, General Ridgway is saying that there 
are 8,690 prisoners of war from all branches of the military 
that are missing in action, but we have apparently no knowledge 
as to whether they are dead or alive. I think that is the key 
figure in the general's statement. Now, according to testimony 
given before the committee by Colonel Todd, and Colonel Wolf, 
based upon a formula which they had devised and which held 
pretty true in their other calculations, we can presume that 
5,000 of the 8,000 and so on are dead. But that still leaves a 
total of approximately a little over 3,000 that may be 
prisoners in the hands of the Communists.
    As a result of the testimony that was given and one of the 
conclusions reached in our report, we state this: ``Several 
thousand American soldiers who have not yet been returned were 
victims of war crimes, died in action, or presently confined 
behind the Iron Curtain.'' That, gentlemen, is what we are here 
today to discuss and get as much light as we can on those that 
are still confined behind the Iron Curtain.
    I think it would be best to hear from the air force first 
on this because it is our understanding that because of the 
possible technical information that many of the personnel had 
and the nature of their military operations, the air force 
personnel were more susceptible to being taken back into 
Manchuria or China and possibly we know some are still there. 
If you would like to comment on that, I would appreciate what 
the air force has to say on that.

               STATEMENT OF FREDERICK AYER, JR.,

      SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE SECRETARY OF THE AIR FORCE;

        AND LT. COL. R. W. SPRINGFIELD, CASUALTY BRANCH,

                  DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

    Mr. Ayer. Mr. Chairman, I will comment on that. I am going 
to comment very briefly because Colonel Springfield of our 
casualty branch is much more able than I am to go into detail 
on that.
    I would like to come back first of all to the figure of 312 
mentioned this morning. They were individuals who were not 
accounted for. That is to say between the list of those the 
Russians said they had and would return and the air force 
personnel that we had reason to believe, some type of reason to 
believe, had at some time or other been alive back of the 
lines. It was not a figure of people that we knew positively 
were in the hands of the Russians.
    Since that time, we have received or been able to dig up in 
interviews with returning men and other available sources of 
information, no positive evidence that any one of those 312 are 
still alive. We do have a statement which originally came, a 
series of statements, from Peiping radio which were to a 
certain degree reinforced by a statement from Wilfred Burchett.
    Senator Jackson. He is the correspondent from the Communist 
paper in Paris?
    Mr. Ayer. That is correct, that there had crashed in 
Manchuria--this is according to the Peiping statement--eighteen 
United States Air Force personnel, fourteen in one B-29 crash 
and four separately in jet crashes, and that three were dead, 
that one was in rather bad shape and might or might not live 
and that fifteen were still alive. We have been unable to 
verify that statement, but it is a reasonable presumption, I 
think, that would be a fair statement of it, that they are 
telling the truth and they do have these people. They were shot 
down while south of the Yalu. It is impossible to say whether 
they floated to earth inside the Manchurian line or came across 
and dragged them back. We have no way of knowing that.
    Of the balance, that would be 294, or whatever the figure 
is, we have pretty good evidence from interrogations of 
returnees and so on and so forth that the majority of them are 
probably dead. There are some twenty that we are not sure of or 
have no information as to whether they are dead or alive. That 
is a very broad statement.
    Senator Potter. Does the twenty include the fifteen that 
you mentioned before?
    Mr. Ayer. No, that is an additional twenty.
    Senator Potter. There are thirty-five that there are a 
possibility of?
    Mr. Ayer. That is twenty who had been seen going down in 
parachutes.
    Senator Jackson. What is the highest ranking officer out of 
this total group?
    Col. Springfield. A full colonel, sir.
    Senator Jackson. How about in the aggregate, out of the 
total of 312 that are missing, would anyone higher than a full 
colonel be involved there?
    Col. Springfield. No, sir.
    Senator Potter. Now, Colonel Springfield, can you elaborate 
a little more on the statement that has just been given?
    Col. Springfield. I can go into more detail if you would 
like.
    Senator Potter. I think that would be well. Now, there has 
been an assumption that the number is much greater than what 
you have given. Now, I assume that probably some of that data 
has been confused with the marine air rather than with the 
straight air force.
    Col Springfield. No; there are nineteen marines. They are 
not included there. The 312 figure was arrived at just at the 
same and just subsequent to the crossing of the last repatriate 
at the end of Big Switch. That figure was made up of personnel 
who by some reason or another we had reason to believe were or 
may have been in the hands of the Communists at one time. It 
has to be clarified in that if a man crossed the border and 
said, ``I knew John Jones. He was in prison camp awaiting 
repatriation,'' they put the name on that list for an 
accountable purpose, and I think rightly so.
    In checking that to find out for my own reasons and for the 
reasons of the next of kin, if this man's name was on there, I 
went back to the repatriates and said, ``You made the statement 
that this man was still in prison camp. I would like to get 
further information so I can justify one way or the other.'' In 
every instance that we ran such an interrogation, we found that 
John Jones in fact was First Lieutenant John Jones of another 
service, within the United Nations forces, and that he had in 
fact been in prison and was repatriated and sometimes we would 
find two men of the same rank and would be the same.
    Senator Potter. Every time you checked into it, you found 
that it was a different man than you had originally assumed?
    Col. Springfield. Of the names that we feel got on the list 
with no valid reason for having been there. Now, there were 
other names where there was a valid reason for being there, and 
I am talking of this 312 names which were reduced to probably a 
figure of 156 by virtue of the fact that the information was 
believed to be solid information, but we finally through 
interrogation and research resolved that in fact they had 
someone else in mind. That may sound like a big figure, but 
such was true.
    Senator Potter. But that boiled down to approximately 150, 
did you say?
    Col. Springfield. One hundred fifty-six, approximately, we 
feel were justifiable on that list. Now, of that 156, he has 
just told you the eighteen names, fifteen of whom we still have 
some reason to believe may be alive. That is from propaganda 
sources.
    Senator Jackson. Some of these officers have a certain 
amount of important technical information?
    Col. Springfield. There is no pattern from the air force 
standpoint that would lead us to believe that anyone has been 
kept for technical knowledge reasons. We have four jet pilots 
we are talking about, and we had jet pilots come through and we 
have a high-ranking colonel and still he is among the bunch and 
we had two or three high-ranking colonels who at one time were 
in positions in the air force maybe having access to more 
knowledge that came home. There is no pattern that we have been 
able to find certainly from our source of information.
    Senator Jackson. But of the ones missing out of this total 
of 312, did some of them have a certain amount of technical 
information that would not normally be available to other 
officers?
    Col. Springfield. I think we should consider the figure of 
312 in order to understand what we are discussing here. Of this 
number, as I say it was reduced to 156, and the eighteen of 
sixty-three whom we have spoken of, allegedly who landed in 
Manchuria, and fifteen of whom may possibly be alive. Quite a 
number of those we know definitely, and we have positive proof, 
that they in fact did die in prison.
    Senator Potter. But they are still part of that 156 figure?
    Col. Springfield. Yes, the Communists in the trust 
agreement agreed to furnish the list of those who died in 
prison, and that they did not do. Even though we have our own 
persons who as many as eight or ten were present at the time of 
death and actually can tell us the exact spot the body is 
buried, we still feel we have a right to an accountability and 
so on, on section nine. There was probably some of this 
reduction to 186 over all and some of those were not on the 
list, and I do not want to confuse you number-wise, but a total 
of 186 plus eleven, which would be 197, we have positive proof 
of death from our own sources.
    All of these were not on that list. So, we have those 
people on there. We have other people on that list who when 
last seen were alive and in prison but I can cite several 
cases. They were last seen and had both feet frozen and they 
had gangrene in both feet and they were receiving no medical 
attention. In one case, it was left behind in a little outhouse 
as a result of the march which you probably went into before.
    I have another captain who bailed out and lost his shoes, 
and unfortunately he landed in the wreckage of the aircraft 
which was burning and he was badly burned both by hands and 
feet and with no shoes he stayed for three days in that shape. 
His feet froze and he had gangrene and he was irrational the 
last time he was seen but the last time he was seen he was 
alive and they gave us no information, but I have at least 
eight people who saw him in that condition.
    Then, it simmers down to a possibly twenty people on this 
list, who bailed out successfully--this is the twenty he was 
speaking of before--who, according to their wingmen who were in 
the air, they stated that they bailed out successfully. They 
were never to be seen or heard of again.
    Now, those people are rather low ranking officers and I do 
not believe would come under the category of personnel that you 
spoke of Senator Jackson. The highest is a lieutenant colonel 
and there are eight captains.
    Senator Jackson. Was he a squadron commander?
    Col. Springfield. He no doubt was, and I do not have his 
position here. I believe there are about eleven captains here, 
one major; actually your highest rank is one major and the 
other a lieutenant colonel, and the other were company grade 
officers.
    There are people, of course, that circumstances surrounding 
the crash was such as to preclude survival, and we know nothing 
further than our witness statements that the airplane crashed, 
and exploded, burned, and a parachute was not seen.
    Senator Jackson. We had some B-29s that went down off 
Vladivostok.
    Col. Springfield. You are speaking of B-50s, that would not 
be considered missing in action.
    Senator Jackson. Is one of them the B-50 that landed in 
Manchuria?
    Col. Springfield. No.
    Senator Jackson. What about the B-50 case?
    Col. Springfield. As you recall, one person survived and he 
was rescued. That was Roach. The pilot, O'Kelly's body washed 
ashore on the Island of Hokkaido. Also, the engineer's body 
washed ashore on Hokkaido about three months afterwards and in 
checking with the oceanic currents we find that would 
approximately the time that it could be expected to make that 
cycle.
    The other persons aboard the B-50 we have absolutely no 
information on other than search aircraft stated they believed 
they saw, I believe it was from three to six which they dropped 
a boat to. They further stated they believed they saw PT boats 
of unknown nationality rushing to the scene and representation 
to Russia has failed to get any results whatsoever.
    Senator Jackson. What rank would they be?
    Col. Springfield. The highest aboard or all of them would 
be in the company grade, and I do not have their listings or 
airmen grade.
    Senator Potter. Were they all air force personnel?
    Col. Springfield. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. Have you included those in these figures?
    Col. Springfield. No.
    Senator Jackson. They probably should be included; they 
were last seen alive.
    Col. Springfield. Not in missing in action, but missing 
cases. That is a technicality.
    Senator Jackson. I understand but they are missing behind 
the Iron Curtain.
    Senator Potter. They would fit into the category in which 
we are interested. I do not think that there should be lumped 
in with yourselves, but I think that you should cite them.
    Mr. Ayer. They would be correctly included in a list of 
people who are missing and we do not know where they are. We do 
not know whether they are dead or not.
    Senator Jackson. I think, Mr. Chairman, that it would be 
well to have a list of all personnel that there is reason to 
believe are behind the Iron Curtain. That is with reference to 
air force personnel, without reference to the reason why they 
were taken.
    Senator Potter. Can you put them in the category of 
miscellaneous or something, or other air force personnel?
    Col. Springfield. Yes, but the word reasonable to believe 
they might be behind the Iron Curtain bothers me a little, and 
I have no information reasonably to believe the boys in the B-
50 or the B-25 are behind there.
    Senator Jackson. Is there not a justifiable presumption if 
they parachuted and PT boats were moving in to pick them up and 
there is no other evidence to indicate that they were not 
there?
    Col. Springfield. Well, O'Kelly--I still cite him--got out 
safely and he talked to Roach and they held together for quite 
some time and when the boat was dropped they separated and 
O'Kelly washed ashore but he was alive in the water.
    Senator Jackson. But how long after were the PT boats seen 
in the area?
    Col. Springfield. They were at the same time O'Kelly was in 
the water, sir. I mean it was a simultaneous operation and we 
dropped the boat to Roach and we dropped the boat to the others 
and the PT boats were seen and Roach was picked up by the navy 
and these two bodies were washed ashore, and we have reason to 
believe one of the boys aboard there was knocked unconscious 
and the word ``reasonable'' to believe they are behind the Iron 
Curtain, I think requires clarification.
    Senator Jackson. I think you have probable cause to believe 
that or let us put it this way: I think there is a presumption 
that they are alive if last seen alive and boats were in the 
area.
    Senator Potter. How many were in that flight?
    Col. Springfield. I do not recall, sir, I think it was 
eleven.
    Mr. Ayer. I think it was seven, and I think that is 
correct.
    Senator Jackson. What about the one off Hokkaido?
    Mr. Ayer. It was a full crew of eleven, I believe, sir.
    Senator Jackson. Now, all that you have on that is that a 
plane from an unknown country appeared on the radar scope and 
thereafter the B-29 disappeared?
    Col. Springfield. We have some statements from fishermen 
and this is probably classified. We have some statements from 
some fishermen who were in the harbor at the time who were 
being held by the Russians who saw the aircraft fly over and 
explode and go into the ocean. There was a knoll between them 
for a short period of time that they did not see exactly what 
did happen and they did not see any parachutes, but we do not 
know whether they went down with the plane or subsequent to the 
time they saw the plane some might have bailed out. It is an 
unknown factor. It is reasonable to presume, again, or can we 
reasonably presume something.
    Mr. Ayer. I think I would like to, on behalf of the air 
force, make this differentiation, that the total figure which 
we will include the B-29 off Hokkaido and the B-50 that we know 
was shot down.
    Certainly it should be included in the over-all figure of 
air force personnel whose ultimate we do not have any idea what 
it was. The difference is that we know or are pretty certain 
that of the 312 eventually reduced to 156, we knew there were 
156 people who were at one time in enemy territory, or in enemy 
hands, and we have no knowledge whatsoever that if there were 
any survivors after a while of those two crashes or whether any 
of those people were ever in enemy hands. It is a different 
category of fish.
    Senator Potter. How does the air force carry the men in 
those two planes? Still as missing in action?
    Col. Springfield. Just missing, sir. Just carried as 
missing.
    Mr. Ayer. There is no reason, or we have no reason, to 
believe that they are alive. We have no positive knowledge that 
they are dead, but there is no reasonable presumption, or at 
least I as a lawyer would not certainly say there was a 
reasonable presumption they were back of the Iron Curtain. That 
is stretching a point.
    Senator Jackson. I would just say that according to the 
information submitted to the committee, it would appear that at 
the time O'Kelly was in the water, that two or three others 
were likewise in the water, and that these PT boats came out 
from this unknown country.
    Col. Springfield. They were not seen in the area where 
these people were.
    Senator Jackson. How far out was that?
    Col. Springfield. They were proceeding toward the crash 
when seen.
    Senator Jackson. Well, was this at night or during the day?
    Col. Springfield. It was during the day, as I recall, and I 
believe they did go into night.
    Senator Jackson. What was the temperature of the water?
    Senator Potter. Did O'Kelly get to shore before the PT 
boats arrived?
    Col. Springfield. He, in fact, died in the water and his 
remains washed up.
    Senator Potter. How long can you remain in the water there?
    Col. Springfield. In that northern climate, it varies, I 
would have to get that for you. Sometimes it is fifteen minutes 
and sometimes it is eight hours.
    Senator Potter. That is frozen over eight months of the 
year.
    Col. Springfield. Roach remained in the water, I believe it 
was approximately eight hours and did survive and he was 
deathly sick when he was recovered. He was in the water about 
that long and he did manage to survive, but your survival point 
is a question in the water, if not picked up.
    Senator Jackson. I do not think it is unreasonable to 
presume. I do not know about it, if Roach lived and he was in 
the water eight hours and the other boats were seen coming to 
the area.
    Mr. Ayer. It is a possibility, I would admit that.
    Col. Springfield. We had a strong protest to the Russians--
and this would be the State Department's business--and one of 
the notes admitted they shot it down, but reiterated very 
strongly there were no survivors to their knowledge or 
certainly they did not have them.
    Senator Potter. What has the air force done about these 
cases where you have fairly conclusive evidence that the air 
force personnel are being kept behind the Iron Curtain, and 
what have you done in order to protest or what has been done 
through our Department of Defense or has it been turned over to 
the Department of State?
    Mr. Ayer. It has been turned over through the Department of 
Defense to the Department of State.
    Senator Potter. Were there any of the air force personnel 
who signed germ warfare confessions that are still over there 
that have not been recovered?
    Col. Springfield. The ones we know were returned.
    Senator Jackson. Do you have any reason why they might be 
holding up to twenty in one group?
    Mr. Ayer. Fifteen we know they have and twenty we do not 
know where they are.
    Senator Jackson. Can you account for any reason why they 
would be holding them?
    Senator Potter. Is there anything in the record and were 
these people susceptible to communism as individuals or was 
there any pattern as to why they might be held?
    Mr. Ayer. Correct me if I am wrong, colonel, but of the 
twenty that were seen parachuting or otherwise landing, there 
is obviously no pattern to them and they are a group of people 
that in individual instances floated to the ground. Those who 
Radio Peiping claims they have, of who fifteen are still alive 
according to their statement, I cannot out-guess the Russians 
on this or would not be as accurate as the State Department 
estimate of the situation, but I think it is a good idea in 
their mind to have something that they claimed violated the 
Manchurian border and to hold them for whatever use they may be 
able to make of them later. That is not an answer because I do 
not know.
    Senator Potter. Have you received any information from the 
returned Japanese prisoners of war that were at the end of 
World War II, recently returned--have you received any 
information as to whether they ran into any captured air force 
personnel of the Korean War in their prison camps in either 
Manchuria or China?
    Col. Springfield. No, sir. There was a statement in the 
press. They said they had heard English-speaking people in 
Siberia and that was investigated, but there was no way which 
could tie it in to any air force or military personnel. There 
was some speculation it might be of any nationality since the 
English language is rather fluently spoken among other 
nationalities.
    Senator Potter. The reason I ask is that I had some 
information from an intelligence source that indicates that 
there were four either pilots or air force personnel, and I am 
not certain whether it was air force or marine personnel, who 
were seen in a prison camp in Manchuria, and as a matter of 
fact, I think they moved three times to three different camps, 
actually, and later on they were last seen being shipped down 
one of the rivers there from Manchuria towards Siberia. Do you 
have that information?
    Col. Springfield. No, sir.
    Senator Potter. If your intelligence had it, would you have 
it?
    Mr. Ayer. Yes, we would have.
    Senator Potter. It was either air force or marine 
personnel.
    Mr. Ayer. We would have received a copy of whatever 
intelligence report that was.
    Senator Potter. You say you would have received it?
    Mr. Ayer. Yes.
    Senator Potter. Did you have any questions?
    Col. Springfield. I believe, sir, maybe it would be well to 
state here that in our interrogation and re-interrogation of 
repatriates, particularly, we did get a lot of information and 
many of them, while this would be more or less hearsay, but it 
would be from being active in the prison camp over there, would 
state that they knew this person and we would run this down and 
he was either dead or he came back or he would say if he was 
ever in prison camp. We would have known it if he was processed 
and from those names we would check and we come up with 
nothing. The thing I am trying to say is that there is a vast 
amount of information which precludes survival which cannot be 
said as a definite statement that they in fact did not survive. 
There is a vast amount of it. We have re-interrogated most of 
our patriots, as many as three times, many of them personally.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Have you interrogated all of the repatriates 
as a result of Big Switch?
    Col. Springfield. Yes, sir, and to the air force we have 
gone out second and third times and talked to them personally 
and by phone and by letter.
    Senator Potter. You are fairly confidant that you have 
about all of the information that is available, as far as the 
whereabouts of the air force personnel that are still missing?
    Col. Springfield. Yes, sir, and I feel we can only 
reasonably presume that fifteen might still be alive. That 
comes down to the figure of fifteen, sir.
    Mr. Ayer. It would be a fair statement, would it not, 
colonel, that the twenty that we added to the fifteen, we do 
not have positive evidence that they are dead?
    Senator Potter. You have no positive evidence that they are 
alive or dead?
    Mr. Ayer. That is right.
    Col. Springfield. But from our interrogation, it is no 
longer reasonable to assume that they are not still alive.
    Senator Jackson. The last bit of knowledge that you have 
been able to sift out of all of the steps that you take as 
normal operating procedure on your part was that they were last 
seen parachuting out and they made a successful drop and 
thereafter you do not know what happened?
    Mr. Ayer. We are not sure that they all landed alive.
    Colonel Springfield. We had information that one of them 
landed on a land mine.
    Senator Potter. What was the normal Communist practice as 
to their treatment of airmen?
    Col. Springfield. It was wretched. They were treated very 
poorly, sir.
    Senator Potter. Were any of them killed on the spot?
    Col. Springfield. Yes, some of them were shot.
    Senator Potter. So there is a possibility of that twenty 
that they were just murdered on the spot.
    Senator Jackson. That is by local people?
    Col. Springfield. By North Korean guards. That is what the 
evidence shows that I have.
    Senator Jackson. I would think that they would try to 
interrogate them and then shoot them.
    Col. Springfield. Some of them they shot after they 
interrogated, whether they shot them right away or not.
    Senator Potter. Are there any further questions?
    Mr. O'Donnell. Do you know whether the State Department has 
made any effort on an inquiry basis to find out if these twenty 
are alive as distinct from the fifteen?
    Col. Springfield. As distinct from the fifteen? No, sir, I 
do not.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Do you know, by any chance?
    Mr. Brown. I do not know whether we have been asked to 
because we have made a good many representations.
    Col. Springfield. I think they have not been asked.
    Senator Potter. I wonder why that is true.
    Senator Jackson. What could they really do? I am just 
trying to understand that.
    Mr. O'Donnell. To verify the fact that they are over there.
    Senator Jackson. As I understand the situation from the 
testimony this morning, the State Department could run down 
every known American to get a rumor about someone and they 
would run them down, is that not it? I believe that was stated.
    Mr. Brown. They would try to run them down.
    Senator Potter. That would be the case here and you have 
twenty that you do not know whether they are dead or alive and 
it would seem to me and I may not be correct, but you probably 
will not get much information any more than you get on the 
other.
    Col. Springfield. The army is the executive agent of the 
forces, and the commission itself over there has made certain 
steps and so on and so forth, and I believe they will tell us 
certain things that are being done and certain intelligence 
efforts trying to verify it. It has not, to my knowledge, come 
to a point yet to where it will get into diplomatic channels 
versus military channels.
    Senator Jackson. Is the army handling that information for 
the United Nations?
    Col. Springfield. They are the executive agent for the 
fighting and so a lot of things probably have gone between them 
and the people representing the Korean side. I would rather 
they would discuss that and I am familiar with many of those 
things.
    Mr. Kennedy. Have the Chinese said that these fifteen are 
the only ones that they are holding and did they say that they 
have returned everybody except the fifteen?
    Col. Springfield. Mr. Burchett made the statement.
    Mr. Kennedy. What about the Chinese themselves?
    Col. Springfield. The Peiping Radio only told us within 
twenty-four to forty-eight hours they had captured these people 
and that is the only information we have on these fifteen 
people that I am speaking of and no more.
    Mr. Kennedy. As I understand the armistice terms, it was 
agreed that they would return all prisoners of war from one 
side to the other and so I presume that they have not said that 
they are holding any back?
    Col Springfield. They have never admitted that.
    Mr. Kennedy. If they were asked about it, I presume that 
except for the fourteen which they do not consider in this 
category they would deny they held them.
    Col. Springfield. These names were on that list handed to 
the Communists for accountability and we have no satisfactory 
answer from the Communists as such, officially speaking.
    Mr. Kennedy. And, if they did admit holding any of these 
others, they would have to admit violating the armistice terms, 
would they not?
    Col. Springfield. That is right.
    Senator Potter. All right. We wish to thank you for giving 
us that information.
    Mr. Secretary, do you want to tell us what information you 
have as far as the navy is concerned, or the navy and marine 
corps?

          STATEMENTS OF JAMES H. SMITH, JR., ASSISTANT

      SECRETARY OF THE NAVY FOR AIR; CAPT. W. R. SMEDBURG,

         DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; LT. COM. T. J. MARTZ,

        DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY; AND LT. COL. NIHART AND

           COMMISSIONED WARRANT OFFICER JACK GOODALL,

              MARINE CORPS, DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY

    Mr. Smith. With your permission, I am going to ask 
Lieutenant Commander Martz to give the information with regard 
to the navy and the coast guard, and Lieutenant Colonel Nihart 
will give it for the Marine Corps.
    Senator Potter. That is perfectly all right.
    Col. Nihart. Before the Armistice occurred, Mr. Chairman, 
we had a total of 145 marines carried in a captured status. 
That is they were known to have survived the action in which 
they became captured. Most of this information we had as a 
result of interrogations after Little Switch, and they brought 
back some rosters with names and so on, some from the Peiping 
Radio broadcasts, and some from agents, I presume. One hundred 
and twenty-seven of this 145 were returned to military control 
as a result of Big Switch. That left eighteen still in the 
captured status.
    Senator Potter. Of the eighteen, were they infantry 
personnel, or airmen or both?
    Colonel Nihart. Both. At least one to my personal knowledge 
was an airman; there may have been more. Prior to the time that 
the list was submitted to the Communists by the Military 
Armistice Commission, I believe, with a demand for an 
accounting, there were a total of 944 names of all services on 
this list; we were asked to furnish names to go on this list, 
of people we had reason to believe might still be in Communist 
hands.
    We submitted our list of these eighteen names. Apparently, 
before they got out to the Far East, the Far East Command and 
the Armistice Commission submitted their own list, which 
included nineteen marine names. About half of these nineteen 
names that were submitted by the Far East Command corresponded 
to names on our list of eighteen.
    Approximately half of the nineteen either had already been 
returned to military control, or were subsequently declared 
dead based on the interrogations of the returnees.
    Senator Potter. Of the nineteen, the list submitted by the 
Far East Command----
    Colonel Nihart. Yes, sir.
    Senator Potter [continuing]. And half of them were on your 
list, and the other half either had been returned to military 
control, or were dead?
    Col. Nihart. That is right. The names on our list, that 
were not included on that first list, were added to the list at 
a later date when the names were submitted a second time, or a 
correction was submitted. Now, of this eighteen, these eighteen 
marine names, on evidence or strong circumstantial evidence of 
returnees, we have declared thirteen to be dead, either as a 
finding under Public Law 490, the Missing Persons Act, or as a 
finding, with a presumptive date, that is, if we have positive 
evidence someone saw him dead in prison camp; and the other 
with a presumptive date of death, that is, if when last seen 
alive he was in a sinking condition from illness or wounds or 
something of that nature.
    We still carry five in the captured status. One of these 
was a first lieutenant, pilot. He was shot down near the front 
lines; and he was observed both from the air and from the front 
lines to be marched off by captors at the point of a gun. He 
has never been seen nor heard from since; and he never got to 
prison camp.
    Senator Potter. He was never seen in a prison camp?
    Col. Nihart. That is right.
    And the other four were privates, infantrymen. All four 
were seen in prison camp by people who were returned to us, as 
late as April of 1953. They were never seen after April. The 
name of one was mentioned on a Peiping Radio broadcast.
    Senator Potter. How was his name mentioned, was it 
mentioned as being alive, or what?
    Col. Nihart. That I do not know, sir.
    Mr. Goodall. Quite often on propaganda broadcasts they 
would say that Private Smith, John A. Smith, sent his regards 
and he is safe and happy, or something of that nature.
    Senator Jackson. Were the four enlisted personnel in good 
health when last seen?
    Mr. Goodall. No, sir.
    Senator Jackson. They were not in good health?
    Mr. Goodall. No.
    Senator Jackson. Was there any reason to believe they might 
be dead by reason of their condition when they were last seen?
    Col. Nihart. I do not think their condition had that far 
deteriorated, or we would have declared them dead.
    Senator Potter. Then you would have presumed them dead?
    Col. Nihart. Yes, sir.
    Senator Potter. Did you have any evidence that these four 
might have been what is commonly referred to as progressives 
that stayed over because of their own will?
    Col. Nihart. Absolutely not, sir, none whatsoever.
    Senator Potter. The reason I asked that was because people 
who know considerably more about this than I, and know a lot 
more of what the Communist tactics are, claim that the fact 
that they have these twenty-one GIs that they use for 
propaganda purposes, that undoubtedly there are many more who 
have deviated and are still over there; but they use these for 
propaganda value. I assume probably that is because their names 
were known in many cases, and they were known to be captured. I 
was wondering if these four were in that category of 
progressives.
    Col. Nihart. So far as I know, they are not,
    Mr. Goodall. There is a peculiar story on one. We are 
checking now to decide whether or not he was actually a marine. 
There is some doubt in our mind as to whether he could be from 
another service.
    Col. Nihart. That is not meant the way it sounds.
    Senator Potter. That would be a dirty army trick, would it 
not?
    Mr. Goodall. There were other marines in this same prison 
camp. He cannot be identified by any other marine. He was 
identified by personnel of other services. He was a Negro boy 
and from Louisville, Kentucky. The name was the same and we 
picked him up on that basis, as captured.
    Col. Nihart. No other marines knew him. I think there were 
four soldiers reported that they knew him and he was a marine.
    Mr. Kennedy. There were no marines among the twenty-one who 
stayed over?
    Col. Nihart. No.
    Senator Potter. Then yours boils down to the fact that 
there are four which you have reason to believe may still be 
behind the Iron Curtain?
    Col. Nihart. We carried five, four infantrymen and an 
aviator. I would not go so far as to say we have reason to 
believe they are behind the Iron Curtain. When the aviator was 
last seen, he was close to the front lines being marched off at 
the point of a gun, and he was never seen or heard from since.
    The four privates were seen maybe five or four months 
before the armistice. When last seen, and they were never seen 
after that, while they were not sinking rapidly at that time, 
their health was poor.
    Senator Potter. And you carry them, I assume, as missing in 
action?
    Col. Nihart. We carry them as captured. We have others that 
we carry as missing in action, but that is a different matter.
    Mr. O'Donnell. The only thought that I have again, and it 
applied to the air force: Have you completed all 
interrogatories of returnees and marines who were prisoners?
    Col. Nihart. Yes, we have, sir.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Do you have any outstanding leads as to 
these five individuals?
    Col. Nihart. Absolutely none, sir.
    Mr. Kennedy. You have their names, do you not?
    Col. Nihart. Yes.
    Mr. Kennedy. Can you check them and find out whether the 
one that you had a question about was actually a marine?
    Col. Nihart. We have letters out now to these four men, as 
well as other people in the same count, marines in the same 
camp with him.
    Senator Potter. Will you supply the names of the five for 
the record?
    Col. Nihart. Yes, we will do that.
    Senator Potter. All right. Now, perhaps, we can hear from 
the navy!
    Com. Martz. The Navy Casualty Section maintains that we 
have a possibility of four officers, a lieutenant, a 
lieutenant, j.g., and two ensigns. Through these interrogation 
reports, telephone calls to the mother of one boy, and little 
incidents like that, we are led to believe that these men are 
held in Communist territory.
    In addition to those four, we had another incident somewhat 
divorced from that, where a patrol plane was shot down off 
Swatow, in southern China.
    The plane went down and the personnel did get away, or got 
out; and a coast guard PBY went in and crashed on take-off. 
There was another loss of personnel. It is a possibility that 
two of them got away. Someone saw a life boat with two men 
aboard, two silhouettes in that boat of men who had gotten 
away.
    And out of that incident we have one navy officer with five 
enlisted men missing; and there is one coast guard officer and 
four enlisted men missing.
    Now, they are missing. And the other four that we had 
reference to were missing in action. There is a total of 
fifteen altogether, including the five coast guard, ten navy 
and five coast guard.
    Senator Potter. Are they carried as missing in action?
    Com. Martz. The four engaged in Korean action are missing 
in action.
    Senator Potter. Were any of these men put on the list that 
we sent over to the Communists?
    Com. Martz. The four are declared missing. And the 
commander-in-chief of the Far East carried them on his list.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Have any of these fifteen ever showed up 
anywhere in any PW camp?
    Com. Martz. All of these are covered up to this moment. We 
screen the navy and the marine reports, and they screen ours; 
we have an exchange between air force and army, where they are 
screening their own and if they uncover any statement regarding 
navy personnel, they report to us, and if we uncover anything 
in our screening of the naval reports that pertain to army and 
air force, we report to them.
    There has been nothing show up on the fifteen. We did have 
a report that a newspaper in Manila and Hong Kong carried the 
story of an incident where it said that two American personnel 
were hauled up through the streets in a cage, ridiculed and so 
forth.
    And that would lead us to believe, or it ties in in such a 
manner that it would lead us to believe that the two who were 
silhouetted in the life boat may be the two that are involved.
    Senator Jackson. In all probability the ones that went down 
off the China coast would not be in the prison camps in North 
Korea, in any event.
    Com. Martz. We have no reason to believe that they are, but 
it is hard to tell.
    Senator Jackson. It would not be reasonable to assume that 
they would take them all of the way back.
    Mr. O'Donnell. They would be held as diplomatic prisoners, 
if anything.
    Com. Martz. I think Captain Smedburg can elaborate on 
these.
    Mr. Kennedy. Why do you think that the four navy personnel 
are still alive?
    Com. Martz. In the case of one ensign, we have a letter 
from his mother telling of a phone call from a Marine Sergeant 
Estes, who was one of eighteen that escaped from a prison camp. 
He reported to her that he had seen her son in a camp north of 
the 38th Parallel on the 18th of May.
    Mr. Kennedy. What year?
    Com. Martz. That would be in 1952.
    Senator Jackson. A telephone call from him after he was 
repatriated?
    Com. Martz. After he came back on Big Switch.
    Senator Jackson. After you had interrogated him?
    Com. Martz. I do not know whether the intelligence 
authorities have or have not. I wound not say for certain. 
Undoubtedly, they have.
    Senator Potter. The boy's mother received this telephone 
call?
    Com. Martz. And the letter. We have a letter from her. The 
sergeant called her by phone, and she notified us by letter.
    Then to verify it, we have his name mentioned in three of 
the interrogation reports, where the boys making the reports 
state that they had seen him at various times. Some of them 
reported that he was in bad health. But there was no one that 
saw him dead, or knew of him dying. So we have the three 
reports and the phone call from the sergeant that tells us he 
is possibly over there.
    Another man by the name of Brown is reported missing. We 
have the report from the general headquarters of the Far East 
in which they disclose that one of their commissions out there 
that inspected one of the cells or one of the prison camps 
found Brown's name freshly carved in the walls of the cell. He 
had been held there about eight days, and that tied in.
    We had him missing as of the 20th, and about the 28th or 
29th was the date they had picked him up. He had been moved to 
another camp and that is when they went into make the 
inspection. That shows us that he had been in that area, and in 
the camp, probably.
    Another one of the men, a Lieutenant Venis, navy air force, 
we have two statements of returnees wherein they said that they 
had had contact with him. Statements by two different boys. 
They had been in camp 3 and camp 5 together. They had been in 
both of those camps at different times.
    Now, we have not tied them down just what camp it was; but 
he was in one of the two because those two boys make reference 
to him. And those are the only two places that they had been 
together.
    Senator Potter. When was he last seen?
    Com. Martz. I will have to look at the case, and I have it 
with me back here. But I can find out very shortly.
    Then his name was added by the commanding general of the 
U.S. Army forces, Far East, after they had started their 
screening out there. He wired us to pick Venis up and add him 
to our list. We have done that. So that means that they 
uncovered something out there in their interrogations that 
would lead them to believe that he was out there.
    Senator Potter. Are the records in the Far East more 
complete than they are here?
    Com. Martz. I assume that they are. They do send back 
reports and tell us how their list is. And we check it against 
ours in here. But probably they do have information out there 
in their intelligence setup.
    Senator Potter. If I may digress for just a moment, is that 
true with the air force?
    Col. Springfield. No, sir.
    Senator Potter. What about the army?
    Mr. Barry. I think we will have everything here that they 
have out there; if we have not, we can get it.
    Com. Martz. Perhaps Captain Smedburg can answer that.
    Capt. Smedburg. I feel that all of the information is 
relayed back here, but not the details.
    Senator Potter. We found that pretty much true with our 
atrocity hearings, that is, that actually the raw files were 
out there. They had the information here, but it was in a 
condensed form, rather than the raw files that were out there.
    Com. Martz. I am speaking from the navy casualty section. 
What our intelligence section has I do not know. It may be that 
they do have it all.
    Our other case has to do with the lieutenant junior grade 
Chochran, who was assigned to one of the bases, or one of the 
islands, in Wonsan harbor. He had charge of a boat detail, as 
we understand it, he had two repairmen, two enlisted boys from 
a destroyer that was anchored close by. They were working on 
one of the boats that had been assigned to the island.
    Near dusk, Chochran took the boat and went out. It was the 
boat that they had been working on. While there had been one of 
the native military personnel assigned to the boat, Chochran 
felt he knew more about the trouble with the engine and he 
could render immediate repair if it broke down. Rather than 
sending the other man out alone with the boat, he accompanied 
him for the purpose of returning the two repairmen to the 
destroyer.
    A fog set in and the boat never showed up again. But in 
screening the boats that were tied up in the area, they found 
that the boat had started out after it dropped the two 
repairmen off on the destroyer. It had started out in the 
direction of enemy-held territory.
    Several mornings later, the boat was seen, but there was no 
report on Chochran or the man who was with him. Therefore, 
there is reason to believe that Lieutenant Chochran is probably 
out there in that area, that is, in Wonsan harbor.
    Senator Jackson. Of this group of four or five, do you have 
any evidence that any of them desired to stay behind the Iron 
Curtain?
    Mr. Smith. Not to my knowledge. I would have to check up on 
that. But I came here on the basis that we were going to take 
steps to get these fellows back. I never checked that 
information.
    Senator Potter. That is true. Do you have any information 
concerning military or naval personnel that might be held in 
Europe?
    Com. Martz. We have no record of any.
    Mr. Smith. I think this sums up all that we have.
    Senator Potter. Does the air force have any information on 
that?
    Colonel Springfield. No.
    Senator Jackson. Or any that are in the Soviet Union?
    Col. Springfield. No.
    Senator Potter. I think we wanted to speak with you first, 
and I have discussed this with the Department of Defense, also 
with other intelligence agencies; this is more to attempt to 
funnel our information together. We hope that we can make some 
policy to strengthen our hand in getting these men returned.
    I think we have, as I stated before, a real obligation to 
do everything in our power to get these men back who are being 
held. I realize at best our information is not concrete.
    We probably will never be able to get complete information 
on this. We do have, with the returning of Japanese and other 
prisoners of war, who have returned from Communist prison 
camps, information available which I think some of the army 
people and probably other intelligence people have seen. I 
think they have interrogated some of the returned prisoners of 
war of other nationalities. I think we want to get as much 
information as we can about this, and we are not in any sense 
trying to be critical.
    It is hard to do business with people and with a country 
which has no concept of human life, whose word means little. I 
will be very frank with you, what I hope we can do: I would 
like to see, if we can correlate this information as much as 
possible, our delegation at the United Nations present this as 
an argument to the United Nations, and say ``Now here, we know 
we are not holding any Communist prisoners against their will, 
as a result of the Korean War, nor are our allies. We invite an 
impartial inspecting team to come in here and see this 
situation for themselves. But we want to be able to do the same 
thing behind the Iron Curtain.''
    Now, I do not envision that they would ever accept that, 
but at least it would put them on the defensive. It will just 
strengthen our hand.
    In order to do that, we have to correlate as much 
information as possible. I think the public, due to so many 
newspaper reports coming out with fragments of information, is 
much concerned about it.
    I have a stack of letters which say, ``I had a son who 
fought in Korea. He was declared missing in action. Is he still 
behind the Iron Curtain?''
    I do not think it is something that we should hide. I think 
we should come out and give the public as much information as 
we can.
    Now, what has been discussed here has been off the record, 
and it will stay that way until we have further information and 
get further along.
    Certainly, you will have an opportunity to make deletions; 
we can discuss that with you. That is our purpose. We are more 
or less feeling our way.
    And I know that you gentlemen are just as much interested 
in this as the committee.
    Senator Jackson. I wonder if we could determine, Mr. 
Chairman, what type of plan is under consideration to deal with 
this problem. Is there a plan for the purpose of bringing about 
effective pressure against the Chinese and the Soviet Union?
    Senator Potter. I think that we would have to receive that 
from a higher echelon.
    Senator Jackson. I assume Mr. Brown could tell us that.
    Mr. Brown. I am afraid I am not in a position to give any 
information on that simply because I do not know.
    Senator Potter. Well, Senator Jackson, what I am hoping we 
shall be able to do is to correlate this information. Then 
possibly we can have Secretary of State Dulles and, possibly, 
Charles Wilson, or someone from the Department of Defense, 
state just what is the plan, what do they recommend, and how 
are they trying to implement an effort to get these men back.
    I do not know how well organized it is; but I think once we 
obtain the information we will then be in a position to 
determine what we are going to do about it and what we are 
doing about it.
    Senator Jackson. Before we conclude, Mr. Chairman, I have 
been reading the article in the New York Times of December 30, 
with reference to Cox and Towers. I note from the article that 
Towers disappeared in Finland after having gone ashore from an 
American vessel.
    Does anyone have the story on Towers? How did he get into 
the Soviet Union?
    Senator Potter. I believe you will find that Towers was one 
that went over of his own volition.
    Senator Jackson. Into Russia?
    Mr. Kennedy. I understand that he was a Communist.
    Senator Potter. He became disillusioned after he got in 
there, and he came back.
    Senator Jackson. All I noted from the article was that he 
went ashore in Finland, and then turned up in the Soviet Union.
    Mr. Smith. We have one other individual that might fall 
between the State Department and us, a captain in the United 
States Marine Corps Reserve, who was a civilian at the time he 
was seized by the Chinese Communists. His name is Lawrence 
Buoli and I wonder if the State Department has included him in 
their account of civilians in this category.
    Mr. Brown. I do not know, the committee has the list. We 
turned it over to the committee this morning.
    Senator Jackson. Where was he at the time of the capture?
    Col. Nihart. He was a pilot for the Chinese Nationalists 
Airways. He was captured or arrested by the Chinese Communists, 
I think it was the 15th of January 1950, before the Korean War 
started.
    Senator Potter. How do you spell his name?
    Mr. Smith. B-u-o-l. And he has been handled as a civilian.
    Senator Potter. Yes, they have him listed in their report.
    Mr. Smith. I just wanted to be sure that he did not get 
dropped somewhere.
    Col. Springfield. I would like to clarify perhaps something 
that was not entirely clear in our statement about the twenty 
in addition to the fifteen.
    They are not people that we do not have any information 
about. As a matter of fact by the end of this month, they will 
be listed on the basis of interrogation reports, and one thing 
and another, as presumed dead.
    We feel that although, as Secretary Smith has said, it our 
duty to do everything possible, it is also our duty to the 
next-of-kin not to raise hopes that there are twenty people we 
think may be still alive in North Korea, because it may not be 
true. We just have not yet gone through the statutory period or 
the evidence of March 1st to have declared them presumed dead.
    Senator Potter. I think that is a good point.
    We do not want to raise false hopes. We have to be very 
careful not to raise such hopes in people whose son or husband 
has been declared missing in action. We do not want to build 
false hopes to the effect that they are still alive because we 
do not have good evidence.
    Now, I would like to ask one question which will be 
applicable to each one of the branches. If you were to receive 
inquiry from a mother, for example, concerning one of the men 
who you have some information that he is still behind the Iron 
Curtain, what would you tell her?
    Col. Springfield. If we were to receive information from 
the mother of a man missing, and she says that she has 
information from behind the Iron Curtain, we get that 
information and thoroughly investigate it from the origin of 
its source.
    Senator Potter. What about the mother of one of the 
fifteen, what would you tell her?
    Col. Springfield. For example, we would tell her that 
Peiping Radio testified that he had been captured. We cannot 
tell her if her son was on a B-29, whether he was one of the 
three dead.
    Senator Potter. In other words, you give them the truth.
    Col. Springfield. We give them the facts.
    Senator Potter. What is the navy's position on that, Mr. 
Secretary?
    Com. Martz. I have lost your point there, sir.
    Senator Potter. What do you do when someone writes in, say 
the mother of one of the five, who you have reason to believe 
may still be alive behind the Bamboo Curtain, what do you tell 
them, the next-of-kin if they contact you about it?
    Com. Martz. We tell them that we will refer the information 
that she has to our intelligence department.
    Senator Potter. I am referring to an inquiry from them.
    Com. Martz. We furnish her any information that we have up 
to that point. If there is nothing additional to add, we inform 
her to that effect.
    Senator Potter. You give her the information that you have 
given us, is that right?
    Com. Martz. That is entirely right.
    Mr. Barry. The policy of the army has been that we are 
going to process them under Public Law 490. They will be 
presumed as dead from the missing status as the time expires on 
each one of them.
    We do not tell them that we think they are behind the Iron 
Curtain, naturally, because we do not have enough information 
to go on. We only know that there are some that at one time 
were behind the Iron Curtain, whether dead or alive now we do 
not know.
    Senator Potter. Would you report this to them then, sir, 
that you had an infantry soldier who was seen in Camp No. 5, 
for example; that he was not returned in either Little Switch 
or Big Switch? And the mother writes in. Do you tell the mother 
that this boy was seen by another man?
    Mr. Barry. We do not, because we do not have enough 
information to know what has happened to them since. And the 
fact that you have so much confusion, as the air force has 
said, some of their people turn out to be our people, and vice 
versa, therefore, we cannot tell them that they were seen. Of 
course, what was done, as you well know, we asked for an 
accounting, and all of the services did, and we got zero from 
that. They gave us no satisfaction whatsoever.
    Senator Potter. You do tell them, or you say, that they are 
still missing in action, but you are still investigating?
    Mr. Barry. And if we can find out anything and if it comes 
out that they are actually there, certainly their government 
will do everything that it can to get them back, obviously. But 
you cannot give them anything definite because you are only 
raising false hopes, and we have no reason to believe that we 
may be able to get them back.
    Now, I wonder along this line, since the army has the 
biggest problem, number-wise, on this thing. All of my 
backstoppers are not here, but I need their help so that 
perhaps we can get this information for you much faster. Are 
you going to desire to have a list by names of those that we 
had some reason to believe might still be there, and nothing 
further has happened to them?
    Senator Potter. That is right.
    Mr. Barry. We can give you that.
    Senator Potter. That will be kept as a confidential list 
for the purposes of this investigation.
    Mr. Barry. I have one step further: Over and above those 
that we had some reason to believe were at one time behind the 
Iron Curtain, are you going to want a list of all of those that 
have been listed as missing in action? We have nothing further 
on them, one way or the other. We can provide that, but it is a 
big list, there were sixty-seven hundred to start with.
    Senator Potter. I do not think it is necessary to have that 
by name.
    Mr. Barry. If there was no information at all, you mean?
    Senator Potter. The only information you have is that they 
are missing in action, is that right?
    Mr. Barry. That is right.
    Senator Potter. And there was no other information on them?
    Mr. Barry. In the case of the army, there were over thirty 
thousand statements developed from returnees, people who 
escaped, or those who were repatriated, from which this list of 
616 were definitely established as having been there at one 
time; that is the figure that we would use unless you want 
something different.
    Senator Potter. We want the names.
    Capt. Smedburg. May I make one comment, that is, in regard 
to the young officer in Wonsan harbor.
    I have been at sea for thirty-two years, and I have been 
lost in a fog many times, with good coxswains, compasses, and 
charts. This kid probably had no charts. He probably did not 
have much experience in the boat.
    I have been in Wonsan harbor myself a number of times. On 
several occasions, I could not see my own fog signal from the 
bridge. So, I know that there is every chance that that kid got 
lost.
    I just want to be sure that some time it does not get out 
that the kid probably headed for the beach.
    Senator Potter. I suggest you strike out of the record my 
reference to that. I was asking a question.
    Capt. Smedburg. There was something in there that indicated 
that he might have gone to the beach; that he was last seen 
when he was headed for the beach.
    Senator Potter. That is the reason that I asked if you had 
any information about this, and I assumed that you had no 
information, now, that would have clarified the whole thing.
    Com. Martz. He was headed in the direction of the beach, 
and I may have stated it poorly.
    Capt. Smedburg. The beach is all around there.
    Senator Potter. That was the reason I asked that, and I 
assumed that there was no information, and that was all.
    Mr. Smith. We could have that reference stricken from the 
record.
    Mr. Barry. You will want the army representatives in the 
morning, will you not?
    Senator Potter. We will have the army representatives 
later. We will notify you later. I do not believe that we will 
be able to hear you tomorrow. So probably it will be the 
following day.
    Before you gentlemen leave, you know the purpose of the 
investigation here, and we are seeking advice from you. If you 
have any suggestions, we would like to have them, that is, on 
how best to approach this problem and what can be done about 
it.
    Mr. Smith. I might suggest this: That if it were decided to 
take this matter up at the Geneva Conference, where it would be 
possible for this government to discuss it directly with the 
other governments concerned, I think we should do everything to 
have all of the facts and figures available for that so that 
the lack of facts would not prevent that.
    Senator Potter. Naturally. And that is the reason, after 
discussing this with you people today, who have the 
information, then we can take it up with the secretary of state 
and the secretary of defense. We will be in a much better 
position to say ``Here is the information that is available.'' 
And we can ask what is planned to be done with it and I assume 
the secretary will take it up if the opportunity presents 
itself.
    It may have been discussed as something to be on the 
agenda, I do not know. But I think our first job is to gather 
the information.
    I wish to thank you gentlemen. You have been most 
cooperative, and I wish to assure you, captain, I was not in 
the navy, but I was in the service a little while myself, that 
I have no intention of slighting the loyalty of anybody.
    We will stand in recess. As far as the other branches of 
the services, I think it might be desirable to have an observer 
here, if you care to. That is entirely up to you.
    [Whereupon the hearing recessed at 4:00 p.m., Wednesday, 
March 3, 1954.]


               AMERICAN CITIZENS BEHIND THE IRON CURTAIN

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, MARCH 9, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 40, 
agreed to January 30, 1953) at 10:00 a.m., in room 357, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Charles E. Potter (acting chairman), 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; 
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Donald F. O'Donnell, assistant counsel; 
Robert F. Kennedy, counsel to the minority.
    Senator Potter. The subcommittee will come to order.
    Before we start the hearing, could I ask that each person 
present identify himself for the record. Mr. Berry, suppose we 
start with you and then proceed right around the table.
    Mr. Berry. L. E. Berry, deputy department counselor, 
Department of the Army.
    Col. Chandler. Lieutenant Colonel Homer B. Chandler, Jr., 
G-3, Department of the Army.
    Com. Martz. Lieutenant Commander David J. Martz, Department 
of the Navy.
    Col. Nihart. Lieutenant Colonel Franklin B. Nihart, 
personnel department, United States Marine Corps.
    Maj. Garcia. I am Major L. R. Garcia, Office of the 
Secretary of the Air Force.
    Mr. Brown. John H. Brown, Department of State.
    Mr. Watkins. Alex S. Watkins, Jr., special agent, counter 
intelligence corps, Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2.
    Col. Trammell. Lieutenant Colonel Trammell, Charles N. 
Trammell, Jr., Office of Assistant Chief of Staff, G-2, 
Department of the Army.
    Col. Smith. Colonel Vernon M. Smith, adjutant general 
office.
    Senator Potter. Thank you, gentlemen.
    This is a continuation of a hearing that was held last week 
in an effort to determine what information our various 
government agencies have concerning Americans who are held 
behind the Iron and Bamboo Curtains against their will. I did 
not know until this morning that the Democrats were having a 
meeting at ten o'clock this morning, so they will not be 
present. However, they are ably represented by their counsel, 
Bob Kennedy.
    Wait a moment, we do have a Democrat. Senator Symington has 
just arrived.
    In discussing it with the Democrats, they had no objection 
to continuing the hearing this morning to wind up the executive 
sessions. We have heard from the air force and the navy and the 
Department of State. All we have left is the army.
    Mr. Berry, do you want to designate your spokesman for the 
army?

          STATEMENTS OF L. E. BERRY, DEPUTY DEPARTMENT

       COUNSELOR, DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; COL. VERNON M.

        SMITH, ADJUTANT GENERAL'S OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF

        THE ARMY; LT. COL. HOMER B. CHANDLER, JR., G-3,

        DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY; AND LT. COL. CHARLES M.

         TRAMMELL, JR., ASSISTANT CHIEF OF STAFF, G-2,

                     DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY

    Mr. Berry. Yes. If the committee please, we have Colonel 
Smith, who is head of the casualty branch, adjutant general's 
office, and I believe we will have him lead off.
    Senator Potter. All right.
    Col. Smith. I am the chief of the casualty branch of the 
adjutant general's office, and in such position I administer 
the missing persons act in the name of the secretary. On 
September 30, 1953, we had on our rolls 6,513 missing. That has 
been reduced to less than 500 at the present time and we are 
still working. The reason it has not been exhausted is because 
of the limitations in the number of cases that we can turn out 
per day.
    Senator Potter. When you speak of them as missing, what do 
you mean? Do you mean with no information as to their 
whereabouts?
    Col. Smith. Some of these were believed to have been 
captured at that time, but we had nothing positive.
    Senator Potter. It could be just missing in battle?
    Col. Smith. That is right, missing in action. Yes, these 
are all combat cases I am speaking of.
    When the PW's returned from Big Switch, we received from 
those returning men about--well, I will put it this way: Over 
twenty thousand statements concerning men that they had seen 
who they did not believe would come back. As each was 
interrogated--they were interrogated several times--many of 
them submitted duplicate statements and hundreds of statements 
would be submitted on one man, some particular case that was 
very evident. In sifting through those, we found that they only 
referred to a little over two thousand of the total of sixty-
five hundred. That left a great number on which we had nothing. 
It was just a void.
    Senator Potter. But the interrogation of the prisoners 
returned in Big Switch identified about two thousand, did you 
say?
    Col. Smith. Yes, sir.
    Senator Potter. And they were not returned but were in the 
hands of the Communists?
    Col. Smith. Yes, sir; or some that they knew were killed on 
the battlefield, and they told about those, too. The 610 that 
we referred to as being a part of this list that General Clark 
asked for an accounting for were included in this total figure. 
We have been working on those cases. In my office we have no 
reason to believe that any single one of those individuals is 
alive today. We have reduced that list, that is, with the 
exception of those twenty-one who were dishonorably discharged 
and the two that came back. As of this morning, the status of 
the 610 is that two returned to military control, and twenty-
one were dishonorably discharged. We have made a report of 
death on 235.
    Senator Potter. Is that based upon statements?
    Col. Smith. Yes, sir. The report of death is where we feel 
we have conclusive evidence of death. We know where he died, 
when he died, and what he died of. We have issued 275 findings 
of death. That is a presumptive finding. On those men we had 
nothing, and we feel that they are no longer living. It is 
presumed they are no longer living because we have no 
information at all.
    Senator Potter. You have no information that they are 
alive, but by the same token you have no information that they 
are dead, is that correct?
    Col. Smith. That is right. So we put it this way, sir: They 
are not presumed living, therefore they must be dead. But in 
order to administer the law and to get them off the books, as 
we might say, I have to issue a finding. I have seventy-seven 
cases left to work.
    I would like to make it clear, sir, that because I have 
seventy-seven cases it is not implied that those men are alive. 
It is a time limitation with the amount of people now. We are 
reducing that. By the end of this week, I expect I will 
practically zero out on those cases. There are a few of them 
that we have a few leads on that we are still trying to 
exploit, statements of returning prisoners that we are still 
interrogating, trying to determine for sure whether the man 
they saw was the individual referred to and whether or not he 
is dead. We prefer very much, of course, to make a report of 
death instead of a finding of death, if it is at all possible. 
But it is not implied that any of those men are alive at all. 
That is, from my office.
    Senator Potter. These seventy-seven that are left, do all 
of them have statements one way or the other?
    Col. Smith. No, sir. Yesterday I had----
    Senator Potter. It is just a matter of time?
    Col. Smith. That is right. Yesterday I had ninety left. 
Last Friday I had one hundred and some left. Last Thursday when 
we met here, I had 149 left. So it is a daily proposition. We 
are reducing it as fast as we administratively can do so.
    Senator Potter. When do you expect you will have the 
seventy-seven cases finished?
    Col. Smith. By the end of this week, I hope, except maybe 
for a few isolated instances where we are trying to get 
additional information.
    Senator Potter. As I understand, these figures of 235 and 
275 and 77 are out of the 610?
    Col. Smith. That is right. And the twenty-one and the two 
and that totals 610.
    Senator Potter. The 610 you have no statements from the 
returned prisoners of war that they were alive in prison camp 
or alive in good health when they left? Your findings, if you 
have a report of death, I assume you have fairly conclusive 
evidence to that effect, that the person died, on 235. On your 
findings of death, 275 findings of death, I assume you have no 
information, not even from returned prisoners of war?
    Col. Smith. A few isolated statements on hearsay, Senator. 
They will say, ``I heard that'' so and so ``was alive and he 
was in another camp.'' But it is so vague that we can no accept 
it.
    Senator Potter. And you make a finding of death in those 
cases?
    Col. Smith. Yes, sir; in order to administratively lose the 
case, and to close out the financial aspects of the case. It 
does not mean that the man may not come back alive some day. I 
hope they would all do that. But we can not expect it. It is 
purely the legal side of the missing persons act that I 
administer.
    Senator Potter. The seventy-seven that are left, there is 
no particular significance to the seventy-seven?
    Col. Smith. None at all. We have been able to reduce our 
cases in total about fifty a day from the over-all picture and 
these work right in with the others that have been hanging fire 
since last fall. I think I can answer your question. By the 
10th of April, all workable cases should be disposed of, and 
then we have about three hundred cases that are year-and-a-day 
cases. Under the law we cannot conclude a case until a year has 
passed. Unfortunately, last July the army suffered 208 men in 
the missing status. Those men will be carried until the 
comparable date this coming summer. Then they will be dropped. 
We have a few in April, May, June, July, which will finish it.
    Senator Potter. Are the families notified, such as in the 
case of the 275 where you have a finding of death? How are they 
notified that there is a finding of death?
    Col. Smith. By registered letter. They are notified it is a 
finding and they are furnished copies suitable for legal 
purposes to settle estates and any matters of a personal nature 
they may need.
    Senator Potter. The review of the total 610 cases including 
the seventy-seven that are left, I assume a certain review was 
made of all cases. Do you have any evidence at all that any of 
the 610 are still alive?
    Col. Smith. No, sir.
    Senator Potter. You have no statements from returned 
prisoners of war that they saw John Hones or Private John Hones 
at prison camp No. 5 and he was in good health?
    Col. Smith. Yes, sir. We had statements but nothing 
conclusive. As I mentioned, it was hearsay.
    Mr. Berry. Maybe this will clarify it: The original figure 
of 610 was composed, or the list of 610 was composed of people 
that there was some information on at one time that they were 
in enemy hands. Isn't that right?
    Col. Smith. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Berry. That is where we got the figure of 610 to start 
with. Is that what you wanted to know, Senator?
    Senator Potter. Yes, sir. I wondered what type of 
information you had. I assumed from what you stated that you 
interviewed quite thoroughly the returned prisoners of war in 
both big and little switch. I know I have had letters--I have 
letters on my desk from returned prisoners of war and they say, 
``I saw Private John Jones at prison Camp No. 5, and he was in 
good health and just before Big Switch he was picked out and 
sent to another camp. That is the last we have heard of him and 
he hasn't been returned.''
    We have had cases of that kind brought to our attention. I 
was just wondering if that hasn't been brought to your 
attention.
    Col. Smith. Yes, sir; we had some similar statements and we 
exploited them to the best of our ability by interviewing other 
returned prisoners. We have come up with zero. As far as my 
administering Public Law 490, for my purpose, I must come up 
with a solution to each case in one manner or another.
    On those findings, we have nothing conclusive at all. We 
had some little strings.
    Senator Potter. In other words, the doubt is weighed in the 
favor that the man is dead, if there is any question. Is that 
correct? Is that a correct statement or would you care to 
phrase it a different way?
    Col. Smith. I don't want to say that I am just weighing 
people off to get them off the army rolls. That is not the 
intent at all, Senator. We intended to take each case and 
administer it properly and as the law provides. We have made 
every effort to identify these individuals to find out what has 
become of them. We followed hundreds and hundreds of leads. We 
never quit even though we can determine that a man died at a 
certain place, after we have made a finding of death, we go 
back and correct those records in order to make it easier on 
the family and to make it a record for future use, if such 
should come up. But after these interrogations were made, we 
sifted through them, we weighed them carefully and where it is 
indicated, we have re-interrogated and then re-interrogated 
again. It is endless. We have sent officers all over the world 
to interview these individuals where that is deemed necessary 
and would contribute something.
    Senator Potter. It would be possible, however, that some of 
this group of 275 could be alive and in the hands of the 
Communists?
    Col. Smith. It is quite possible. By the same token, sir, 
we had thirty-four hundred that we made findings on the last 
day of December, and they have disappeared.
    Senator Potter. They would be in the same category?
    Col. Smith. They may have died on the battlefield. I am 
sure many of them did. They were killed and left on the 
battlefield in those retreats that were made and those terrible 
massacres that went on. But they may be alive. I don't know. 
But the present assumption is that they are not.
    Senator Potter. The point I want to bring out is that there 
is no evidence either one way or the other as to whether the 
person is alive or dead, but--and I think it is a sound 
position on the army's part--after that certain period of time 
and after doing all the interrogating that you can on returned 
prisoners of war, you presume them dead.
    Col. Smith. That is right. And might have been carried on 
army rolls since 1950. The law provides they be carried a 
minimum of one year and then they may be continued to be 
carried or there may be a determination or finding of death 
made at that time. So these cases have gone on and on and on 
and from the financial aspects it behooves us to conclude them, 
one way or another.
    Senator Potter. Could we get a breakdown on the 610 case as 
to why they were selected? I assume the majority of them were 
on reports from returned prisoners of war. But is there any 
other evidence that put them in that category, the 610?
    Col. Smith. I would like to pass that one to G-2, if I may. 
It was based on the Far East and the Department of the Army's 
reasons. And I don't know myself, exactly why. I would say, 
though, before he discusses it, that for the record I have a 
list of the names of those individuals.
    Senator Potter. That is of the 610?
    Col. Smith. Yes, sir. And I would like to present that to 
you.
    Senator Potter. That will be made a part of the record at 
this point.
    Col. Smith. That is just the army list.
    Mr. Berry. With your permission, I think we will go to G-3 
next, as to what was done about these people, what steps were 
taken.
    Col. Chandler. Senator, I am from the G-3 operations 
division, Department of the Army, specifically the Far East and 
Pacific Branch. It is a small organization that handles, 
exclusively, those matters that pertain to the Far East 
Command. We act for the commander in chief of the Far East, and 
his official matters which would come under scrutiny of the 
Joint Chiefs of Staff, the chief of staff of army, or in 
connection that he might have that would be of primary interest 
to the Department of State or any other governmental agency.
    Frankly, we are not policy makers. However, in any case, at 
his suggestion we do recommend actions. Mainly my work since 
the 27th of July has dealt with and in the implementation of 
the armistice agreement itself with all that that brings into 
being. The missing persons part of the thing is only a very 
small part of what we have had to handle.
    I have compiled briefly a chronological order of events 
that have transpired in the Military Armistice Commission. As 
you know, that commission has equal representation between the 
Communists and the United Nations Command, with both sides 
being equal in every effort to present demands or to request 
information from the other side. Neither side is obliged to 
comply. As you can well imagine, the Communists have been most 
reluctant to cooperate at all in the Military Armistice 
Commission.
    The thing started off around the sixth of September when 
the Communists made a statement that they had returned all 
United Nations prisoners of war. That included Americans, South 
Koreans and all other nations fighting under the heading of the 
United Nations Command.
    At that time, General Clark directed the senior member of 
the Military Armistice Commission to present on the ninth of 
September to the Communists a list of names of personnel of 
United Nations forces and republic of Korea who are known to 
have been captured by the Communists and to have been in their 
custody.
    Senator Potter. Was that the list of 900 and some?
    Col. Chandler. That is right. The reason for compiling the 
list, the names on that list, was that these individuals were 
identified as POW's through Communist reports, radio or through 
their newspaper corps, broadcasts from their own radio 
stations, supporting statements from UNC personnel already 
repatriated either in Big Switch or Little Switch and from 
letters these men had mailed while in the POW camps. The idea 
of presenting that request for an accounting to the Communists 
at that time was to avoid putting them on the spot of having to 
answer for these people after the twenty-fourth of September.
    Technically speaking, they had until the twenty-fourth to 
turn them over. So it was sort of putting them on warning that 
we were going to want to see some of these people, or an 
accounting for them. That letter was given to the Communists 
and on the ninth of September they had no comment but noted 
they had received it.
    On the twenty-first of September they replied to that 
letter. The reply essentially covered the following points: 
They stated or claimed our list contained names of 519 persons 
who have already been repatriated and 380 names of persons 
accounted for on previous rosters, in other words that were 
duplications of the 3,400 that were on the initial list, there 
they have accounted for only 899, if you accepted it on its 
face value.
    At the same time, they requested that we account for 98,742 
Chinese and Koreans that they claimed were in our custody at 
one time. That occurred on the twenty-first of September.
    General Clark's reply to that was that the Communists' 
answer was totally unsatisfactory and unacceptable.
    Senator Potter. I assume that you checked your list to make 
sure that none of them had been returned? Had any been 
returned?
    Col. Chandler. The ninety-eight thousand?
    Senator Potter. No, I mean of the American prisoners of 
war. None of them had been returned?
    Col. Chandler. Well, from the initial list there were 
corrections that were made right up to the twenty-fourth of 
September, at which time we presented a corrected list and 
indicated to the Communists that we would give them corrections 
to the initial thirty-four hundred as they occurred.
    Of course, obviously one of the corrections we all know 
about is when we deleted from our list of demands the twenty-
three Americans, two who came back and twenty-one who deserted. 
So you can see, it has been a continuing process all the way 
through.
    But the deletions have, in many cases, been offset by 
additions, so the list, essentially, today would be about the 
same as it was previously.
    Mr. Kennedy. Are you going to tell the Communists now that 
we were completely wrong about the list because these people we 
assumed now are dead?
    Col. Chandler. No, we would not.
    Mr. Kennedy. Why wouldn't we, if we say over here they are 
dead and we have no reason to believe they are dead?
    Col. Chandler. If we have reason to believe they are dead, 
we would like to get them also to make a statement that they 
are dead.
    Mr. Kennedy. I don't see how we can say on one hand that we 
are going to inform the parents and families of these soldiers 
that we have reached the conclusion that they are dead and we 
tell the Communists we think they have some.
    Col. Chandler. We would not say that until official 
notification has been sent out by the adjutant general, at 
which time we would send out a correction to our list. But the 
correction would be one where you would not only have a finding 
based on the public law, but a report that the man is dead. 
Then we would make a correction. Not on a finding of death.
    Senator Potter. Even though the family had been notified 
that there had been a finding of death. But I assume that is 
based upon law that after a year has elapsed that, for purposes 
of insurance and other things, that they will be permitted to 
do that.
    Mr. Berry. It is analysis to a presumption of death after 
seven years under civil law.
    Mr. Kennedy. It is based on fact, is it not?
    Col. Chandler. Not the presumptions. Where they make a 
report of death, then you have proof of death. Otherwise they 
say one year or more having elapsed and, no information 
developing, we presume this man is dead and we will go ahead 
and wind up his affairs.
    Mr. Kennedy. That means just information in that year. But 
what about information prior?
    Col. Chandler. No, all information together. It does not 
add up to enough to say definitely that he was dead, but enough 
time has elapsed that they wind up his record.
    Mr. Kennedy. Then there was information that these people 
were alive at one time?
    Col. Chandler. Yes. Of the 610, yes, at one time.
    Col. Smith. I believe, to answer his question, I believe I 
can clarify his mind very quickly.
    In the original request it wasn't implied that anyone was 
alive at all.
    Mr. Kennedy. To the Communists?
    Col. Smith. That is right. It was never implied that they 
were alive. They asked for an accounting, what happened to 
these people, what do you know about them. But it was never 
implied that they were alive. I think that will straighten you 
out on that part, if I may put it that way.
    Mr. Kennedy. Then when the Communists made their answer, 
the fact that they did not know anything about the majority of 
these people, wouldn't that have been a satisfactory answer?
    Col. Chandler. No, sir; that would not. Because of the 
3,400 they attempted to claim some knowledge of only 699, and 
their answer on that was extremely evasive. They did not come 
down and say, ``We will take the whole list and go through it 
and this man died here, and that man died there.'' They merely 
said that 518 have already been repatriated, but they did not 
say who. We knew that 518 had not been repatriated.
    Mr. Kennedy. How many mistakes had been made?
    Col. Chandler. Well, actually of the total number turned 
back at the end of Big Switch, none of it, shall we say, none 
of the 610 that we gave were returned in Big Switch. None were 
returned.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Could we take the breakdown this way: The 
610 which was your initial figure, what was the figure on 
September 24?
    Col. Chandler. The figure on September 24 would still be 
610.
    Mr. O'Donnell. It would remain the same?
    Col. Chandler. That is right. You see, we did not make any 
changes to that until we got their first reply. Well, to go on 
from September 24, General Clark then sent another letter 
through the Military Armistice Commission again demanding an 
accounting and replying that their first answer to our request 
was completely unsatisfactory. The Communists answered that on 
the third of October in which they again stated that they had 
accounted for everybody or had returned everybody an again 
demanding that we account for the 98,742. We simply noted that 
statement and replied that we were checking their list of 
98,000.
    Senator Potter. Did they send a list of names?
    Col. Chandler. That is right, sir. On the twentieth of 
October the Communists wanted to know had we completed our 
checking and the answer on that was no, we had not.
    From the last of October up until the first of December, 
very little discussion was made in the Military Armistice 
Commission meetings. This group meets once a week. Matters 
taken up during that particular period involved, actually, the 
explanations, charges and counter charges, involving the non-
repatriated prisoners of war in the hands of the Neutral 
Nations' Repatriation Commission. Consequently, they were 
satisfied, apparently, on the 20th of October that we would 
notify them when we completed our checking and would not reply 
until that time.
    On the seventh of December, three former ROK soldiers 
escaped from the North Korean army and crossed the 
demilitarized zone and came into custody of the United Nations 
Command. They reported that large numbers of former POW's were 
still in Communist custody and impressed into military service. 
The Military Armistice Commission, our side, made a protest to 
the Communists at a meeting. The Communists simply noted the 
statement and again demanded where are their ninety-eight 
thousand. On the tenth of December, two additional ROK soldiers 
crossed over and reported the exact unit to which they had been 
impressed and the fact that large numbers of UNC personnel were 
still under Communist control.
    Senator Potter. Did this include Americans?
    Col. Chandler. However, their statements discussed only 
former ROK soldiers. They had no knowledge whatsoever of any 
Americans, or any other UNC, other than ROK soldiers.
    On the eighteenth of December the United States delegation 
in the Military Armistice Commission proposed to the Communists 
that a joint investigation of the charges brought by the five 
ROK soldiers be made by the Neutral Nations Supervisory 
Commission, a body that is set up to investigate any alleged 
violations of the Military Armistice as requested by the 
combined commission or either side. The Communists, of course 
refused to have anything to do with it. On the twenty-first of 
December General Ridgway sent a message to the commander in 
chief of the Far East. I would like to, as a matter of record, 
indicate his statement and his personal interest in this whole 
proceeding. The cable read in part as follows:

    General Ridgway personally desires that this matter of 
demanding an accounting be vigorously pursued and that detailed 
reports be submitted to the Department of the Army concerning 
actions, new developments, or future plans.

    That is, of any actions taken by the Military Armistice 
Commission.
    Senator Potter. What is the date of that, colonel?
    Col. Chandler. The date of that cable, sir, is the twenty-
first of December. That was cabled to General Hull, from 
General Ridgway.
    My one reason for getting this in, sir, is to point out 
that our chief of staff is personally concerned about the 
matter and is attempting to take every action possible in order 
to satisfy, of course, the logical and justifiable request of 
the American people to have a final accounting.
    Senator Potter. I know that General Ridgway is very much 
interested in this whole question.
    Col. Chandler. General Hull replied to General Ridgway's 
message and on the 31st of December in which he gave us a 
round-up of all actions that had been taken to date concerning 
this particular problem. Followed a discussion he had with Mr. 
Robertson of the State Department on a visit during the early 
part of December of Mr. Robertson to the Far East, and in which 
they discussed this matter very thoroughly between them.
    At that time General Hull pointed out the difficult 
situation facing us, practically a dilemma, you might say, if 
we continued through the Military Armistice Commission to harp 
on this particular subject, for the simple fact we were now 
getting to the point where we were going to have to account for 
the 98,742, because the Communists actually had a logical 
reason to demand that accounting since we in turn had demanded 
an accounting on our own.
    Senator Potter. Before you go into that further, I assume 
that the names that the Communists submitted, most of those 
were men who refused to go back, is that correct?
    Col. Chandler. Shall we say over twenty-two thousand were.
    Senator Potter. And what were the others? Were they just 
names?
    Col. Chandler. Yes, sir. To break it down, actually the 
categories that they had submitted: Escaped from our own 
enclosures, 50 Chinese and some 26,800 Koreans. Those 26,000 in 
there are the ones that President Rhee opened the gates on.
    Senator Potter. Is that an accurate figure, about, of the 
ones that escaped?
    Col. Chandler. Yes, sir. As a matter of fact, 26,803. So 
you can see it is right down to the last man. Repatriated 
during Little Switch, Chinese 15, Korean 332. Repatriated 
during Big Switch, Chinese 4, Korean 2,219. Understand, this is 
the accounting that the Communists are demanding.
    Here are a large number of people that have already been 
returned to them. Duplication of names 668. Delivered to the 
NNRC, Chinese 14,704, Koreans 7,479.
    Senator Potter. What is the NNRC?
    Col. Chandler. That is the Neutral Nations Repatriations 
Commission. The custodial force of India would be a better 
name. Here is their effort to try to get us to type them off 
exactly as to who refused to be repatriated.
    Korean civilian internees whose status as civilians had 
been determined and they were consequently released from a 
prisoner of war status, 37,527. They never were soldiers. 
Additional Koreans not qualifying as prisoners of war and later 
released, 142. Deceased Chinese 4, Korean 250.
    The deceased, incidentally, were reported to the Communist 
side through the International Red Cross, as required by the 
Geneva Convention. Never in NC custody, no record of ever 
having seen those people: Chinese, 91, Korean 2,008. Status not 
yet determined, 6,655.
    He has a comment about this last category that I believe is 
well taken.
    Senator Potter. Who has?
    Col. Chandler. General Hull:

    Whether we shall be able to complete identification of the 
6,655 is highly problematical. Difficulties inherent in present 
records stem from the early days of the Korean conflict when 
prisoner of war registration was not fully established.
    In addition, identification has never been completely 
accurate because of deliberate switching of identities about 
the PW's.

    In many cases that was done by the non-repatriates in an 
effort to avoid identification.

    Necessity for relying upon internment serial numbers rather 
than names.

    In many cases you would find ten or fifteen of them with 
the same names, so you had to revert to numbers.

    And duplication of records occurring prior to the 
centralization of all prisoners of war on Koje-do in aid 1951.

    Which was eighteen months after the Korean conflict 
started.
    Generally speaking, he said that it is going to be 
extremely difficult, if not impossible, to make it right down 
to the last individual.
    General Hull and Mr. Robertson both expressed through this 
cable and through later discussions an extreme reluctance to 
give to the Communists a full accounting for the ninety-eight 
even if we could.

    First of all, we can expect nothing from them unless we are 
willing to provide them with the full information they have 
demanded. While we may realize some public benefit by a 
reiteration of our demands, they can produce a logical argument 
that we must do likewise. Any data that we can receive from the 
Communists is suspect at the very start. If we account for the 
98,000 they may submit additional lists with just enough 
accuracy to keep us on the defensive. If we continue to demand 
an accounting of UNC personnel they can move further to demand 
return of additional alleged PW's, and from there to civilians

    So this thing would never end. We would never get a 
completely satisfactory accounting from them. In the meantime, 
we are giving them information which is of extreme importance 
to them, extreme importance on this basis.

    They know that the bulk of the number they have requested 
are composed of civilian internees, escapees and prisoners of 
war turned over to the custodial force of India. They probably 
have barely an idea, however, of the breakdown by names in each 
category.

    They can not identify this man specifically as being a non-
repatriated prisoner of war.

    In their long-range intelligence exploitation program in 
Korea, and in any covert penetration of Formosa, additional 
information as to the identities of these 98 would be extremely 
helpful to them. There are many pressures which would be 
brought to bear on such individuals, particularly those whose 
families and relatives remain in Communist control.

    In other words, we would have in a sense, some twenty-two 
thousand families immediately becoming hostages to the 
Communists without any question. And some of the individuals, 
as long as they feel that their identity can not be 
specifically established by the Communists, feel safe in 
remaining as non-repatriates, or now as civilians. There is 
another consideration, of course, we could expect that we would 
receive violent protest from the ROK government or from the 
Nationalist government of the Republic of China, if we were to 
turn over all of this information which we fought so hard to 
keep back.
    That, generally, is General Hull's standing on the matter.
    Senator Potter. So from that time on there has been no 
effort on our part to get the names or to follow up and find 
out if they are holding any of our prisoners?
    Col. Chandler. That is not exactly correct, sir. So go in 
and just to demand an accounting again of the thirty-four 
thousand and to give them the names of the ninety-eight 
thousand, no, that has been held in abeyance.
    Agreement was made through all three services and the State 
Department to hold up, in taking that step. As General Hull 
said, he felt that it would only result in a series of charges 
and counter charges with no real result obtainable.
    However, based on the cases of escapees, these five ROKs, 
we have again and again requested the Communists to join us in 
making an impartial investigation of these people who 
definitely have been established beyond a reasonable doubt as 
having been former members of the South Korean army. We have 
asked the NNSC to make an investigation, but once again you 
have a committee where there is no head. The Swiss and Swedes 
are willing to go north and make an investigation of any unit 
we have requested. The Poles and Czechs refuse to go. Unless 
all four are represented, you can have no meeting.
    Consequently, we have come to the stalemate now. The Poles 
and Czechs will not move, and the Swiss and Swedes, of course, 
are powerless to act.
    Senator Potter. I assume India will refuse to act, is that 
correct?
    Col. Chandler. The Indians you see, sir, are not in on 
this. This is the Neutral Nations Supervisory Commission which 
consists of the four powers, Poland, Czechoslovakia, 
Switzerland and Sweden. Their whole purpose in being in Korea 
is to investigate alleged violations of the military armistice.
    The Neutral Nations Repatriation Commission dealt only with 
the non-repatriated prisoners of war, and it was dissolved on 
the 25th of February. So we have no chairman, and you have two 
sides of the table and nobody gets any place.
    Nevertheless, we have, during the month of February, 
submitted four letters to the NNSC, requesting an investigation 
based on the five ROK soldiers and other violations of the 
Military Armistice. It is quite evident that the Polish and 
Czech representatives are not going to cooperate. It is quite 
evident that the Communist members of the commission are not 
going to cooperate. We have one action left, which we hope will 
result in some of the findings of death becoming actual reports 
of death, and that is a search and recovery program. The 
Military Armistice agreement provides that joint efforts will 
be made to investigate known dead or reported dead where there 
are indications of locations of graves. Prior to the first of 
March of this year, the majority of that work was done inside 
the demilitarized zone. It was very easy to conduct such 
search-and-recovery programs there because of the fact that we 
have as much right to go into the zone as they do. It is 
almost, you might say, our territory, the same as it is theirs. 
That work does take time. I believe you can appreciate the 
reluctance on the part of some of these teams to stomp around 
in an area that they know to be mined, and consequently it 
takes a bit of time in doing. However, we have about completed 
that program and the next step is to go north, beyond the 
demilitarized zone. To do that, we must receive permission from 
the Communist forces.
    Senator Potter. By the same token, you are allowing them to 
come south of the line?
    Col. Chandler. Therefore, negotiations on that are going to 
have to be very thorough and very painstaking to prevent them 
from conducting simply intelligence operations in South Korea 
rather than search and recovery. Our people are going up there 
solely for the purpose of attempting to find remains.
    Senator Potter. I assume that they have certain leads as to 
where bodies were buried, is that correct?
    Col. Chandler. Yes, sir, based on operational reports.
    We know, for example, that the Second United States 
Division fought quite a battle in the vicinity of Kunu-ri, that 
their sudden withdrawals subsequent to the battle, there is 
every reason to believe that there are a number of individuals 
who died on the battlefield and were either thrown into the 
ditch by the Chinese forces, were buried by local natives in 
rice paddies or in some other location.
    It is amazing, the number of individuals that you can 
account for if you can get back on to the battlefield. We have 
great hopes that a large number of these people will be 
accounted for.
    Senator Potter. This is in the process of being negotiated 
at the present time?
    Col. Chandler. That is right, sir.
    Senator Potter. Is there any reluctance on the part of the 
Communists to agree to that, or don't you know?
    Col. Chandler. They have not stated either way yet, sir, 
because it is just being brought up. If our proposals indicate 
that we will follow their instructions and limit ourselves to 
the requirements that they place on us, they may go right on 
through with it, because of the fact we in turn are giving them 
a chance to come south.
    Once again, we are going to run into difficulty, I am 
afraid, with the ROK government, on permitting these teams to 
just go an place they want to. We are not going to be able to 
permit them to do that. By the same token they are going to be 
very cautious on where our teams can operate.
    Fortunately, some of the bigger battles were fought a 
considerable distance behind their main battle position at the 
present time. So once we have crossed that, we may be in the 
back areas and they may not be quite as reluctant to let us 
look around. But that is another action that is being 
undertaken.
    Mr. O'Donnell. How would your search and recovery program 
in any way dovetail into the figure of 610? Would not that 
primarily be concerned with missing in action cases that have 
been closed?
    Col. Chandler. No, sir; it could dovetail in with the 610, 
such as there is a possibility that one of the individual in 
the 610, his squad leader said, ``I saw him captured, and 
wounded, and he was walking up the road under the guns of a 
Communist squad.'' Then we do have information that that man 
was actually captured. What happened to him afterwards, we 
don't know. But he would have been one of the 610.
    There is no satisfactory accounting for him.
    Senator Potter. If they should get him out of sight and 
shoot him and bury him in a ditch----
    Col. Chandler. The last we saw of him he was a prisoner.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Have the interrogations with Big Switch 
returnees been completed?
    Col. Chandler. Not completely. I do not believe. There are 
still re-interrogations going on, where it is indicated.
    Col. Trammell. I would say that the initial interrogations, 
as such, using that as a word of art, have been completed. But 
those interrogations have indicated additional lines of 
inquiry. That is part of the intelligence processing, which is 
still going on.
    Senator Potter. Colonel, do you have any knowledge as to 
whether the Far East Command has requested the United Nations, 
in our delegation at the United Nations to establish an 
impartial commission to investigate behind both lines as to 
whether any prisoners of war are still being held against their 
will?
    Col. Chandler. I would say that the information I have is 
of a negative nature on that. I was in the offices of the 
United States delegation to the United Nations yesterday and 
spoke to Mr. Ross. We were discussing another matter that is 
going to be presented to the United Nations.
    I just briefly mentioned the subject, and he stated no, 
there had been no contemplation on our part at this time to 
bring up the subject.
    Senator Potter. What was the reluctance, or what is the 
reluctance on our part to bring it up at this time?
    Col. Chandler. There is no reluctance, particularly, sir, 
except that the United Nations is not in meeting. Until such 
time as they meet.
    Senator Potter. I think they are supposed to meet some time 
in April, are they not?
    Col. Chandler. I believe that will probably be postponed, 
sir, until shall we say the Korean political conference in 
Geneva has concluded its meetings. Of course, there are 
advantages and disadvantages to bringing this up in the United 
Nations. If any of these people are alive, and we have, as 
Colonel Smith points out, no definite proof that they are, but 
say that they were, if somebody was alive, the Communists would 
not dare to have that evidence suddenly presented, particularly 
in the United Nations.
    Senator Potter. It has been strange in that respect, 
because from time to time they have released other prisoners, 
even after their names have been known. I believe there have 
been civilians interned over in China, for example. We had 
testimony the other day that even after this became public, 
some of those have been returned. Apparently no reprisals have 
been made against those people. Whether it might be different 
if they were taken up in the United Nations, where I assume the 
propaganda value would be much greater, whether they would act 
differently, I don't know. But I grant you that is a problem.
    Col. Chandler. It is a technicality, sir. However, if is 
enough of a technicality that were we able, with this document 
that they have signed, to be able to hold it up in front of the 
entire world and say, ``You have violated without any question 
this particular agreement,'' it then throws them on the 
defensive for the rest of the time. It would hardly be possible 
for them to defend their position. Consequently we have gone 
along with the State Department on determining some other means 
of, if a person is alive, of getting him back, or of completing 
the accounting.
    Senator Potter. I assume that the interrogation of, we will 
say ROK prisoners that escaped and got back or even some 
returned Japanese prisoners of World War II, I assume that 
probably falls in G-2 category rather than yours, is that 
correct?
    Col. Chandler. Yes.
    Mr. Berry. I think we should correct the record in one 
instance. The gentleman from the State Department informs me 
that you are correct, that India is a member of the supervisory 
commission.
    Senator Potter. I did not know whether they had a 
subcommittee.
    Col. Chandler. If they have, sir, I must admit that they 
have suddenly become a member. They are not provided for in the 
armistice agreement as a member of the supervisory commission.
    Mr. Berry. Do you know if they were added, John?
    Mr. Brown. It is the five-nation commission which is to 
supervise the armistice. The same general who was general of 
the custodial troops acted for India on this commission. There 
were several votes taken by the commission, actually, that were 
a 3-2 vote. I just called in and checked that, sir. I did not 
want to depend entirely on my memory.
    Col. Chandler. Did you say repatriation or supervisory? 
This is the document that was signed by both sides, in which 
they listed Sweden, Switzerland, Poland and Czechoslovakia. 
India is not mentioned in this particular article.
    Senator Potter. That is the supervisory commission?
    Col. Chandler. That is right. There were three bodies: The 
Military Armistice Commission which, you might say, are the co-
belligerents. Then you have the supervisory commission, and 
then you had the reparation commission.
    Senator Potter. I think probably so that our record will be 
clear, if you will check back on that, we will have it so that 
our records will be correct.
    Mr. Berry. We have Colonel Trammell of G-2 who can follow 
on from here and answer most of the other questions that have 
been brought up in the other hearings.
    Col. Trammell. I am Colonel Trammell, from G-2, army. I 
understand that the primary thing that you are interested in is 
the information supporting United States government claims that 
there might be persons unaccounted for. I will keep my remarks 
along those lines, unless you decide to expand it by questions.
    First I might say that in the Far East, the army, in an 
administrative sense, has been the executive agent for the 
three services. Therefore, a good bit of the information which 
G-2 army has collected, it has collected in that capacity, that 
is for all services. So some of the figures that I want to 
present this morning, since we have kept them on a three 
service basis including marines, I will give them that way.
    Senator Potter. I assume you have a breakdown as to the 
service?
    Col. Trammell. We can in any case tell you which service is 
involved. As executive agent, we collected as much intelligence 
information on persons who might be held as possible, and of 
course made a complete dissemination to the interested 
services. But in the Far East, and while the repatriates were 
being returned to the United States in Big Switch, we collected 
information particularly on this subject, along with many other 
subjects. We were the collecting agent in this sense for the 
adjutant general's office.
    We have an entirely different criteria than the adjutant 
general. The adjutant general, as he has indicated himself, is 
concerned with the administration of the public law, and other 
army regulations concerning the accounting of individuals. We 
are interested in any proof that would convince a reasonable 
man of the existence of a fact. G-2 as executive agent has 
compiled a list of our persons who have disappeared from United 
States control and has sent them up in three main 
classifications. In fact, this book here, we have sections 1, 2 
and 3. Section 1, to identify it for the record, are missing in 
action from all services. That really means missing in action 
in the sense of all disappearances except known captured.
    Senator Potter. Known captured are excepted?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, all disappearances except known 
captured. I want to say there is no disagreement between the 
adjutant general's office and G-2 on this figure. We agree upon 
that figure. That is applying adjutant general's standards to 
what constitutes missing in action. Then section 2 are the 
known captured, also applying adjutant general's standards. We 
have no disagreement on that figure.
    The third section are those section 1 cases----
    Senator Potter. Those missing in action?
    Col. Trammell [continuing]. Those missing in action, while 
not meeting the legal standards required by the adjutant 
general for inclusion in section 2, namely for known captured, 
but are considered by G-2 to have been in Communist hands alive 
at one time.
    We consider them to be in Communist hands alive for a 
number of logical reasons. One would be Communist admissions. 
This would include, among other things, China publications as 
the China Monthly Review, the Shanghai News, Peking News, and 
radio broadcasts.
    However, we are aware that this source might be deceiving 
because it is known that the Communists on several occasions 
have stripped battlefield dead of their dogtags, and taking 
these tags, they would be in a good position to give 
considerable details about a man's rank and serial number and 
would give the appearance publicly of having a very authentic 
record there. But at least, from a G-2 standpoint, in the 
absence of any other proof, if the Communists say they have a 
man alive, we say we will list them as being alive and in their 
hands.
    Senator Potter. How many would you have in that category, 
with Communist admissions?
    Col. Trammell. I don't think we have that particular 
breakdown.
    Senator Potter. I also assume that probably you receive 
certain information from Communist prisoners of war, that they 
were interrogated as to whether certain Americans were captured 
in certain areas?
    Col. Trammell. We exploit every source, but so few of the 
Communists captured would be able to identify individuals. They 
would be on a prominent figure, but the ordinary--but to the 
Chinese, all the Caucasians look alike. Not much was produced 
from that source. Other evidences which convinced us that the 
man was alive would be of a positive nature--in other words, it 
would not be speculation--would include, just for example, such 
things as the cooperation, that is, information produced by the 
cooperation of families who had actually received a letter from 
their son or relative, and simply informed the adjutant general 
that they had received that letter. That would be wholly by 
their cooperation that we would get that type of information.
    Senator Potter. Have there been many cases like that?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, quite a few families have actually sent 
in letters from their family where the family is willing to say 
that that was the man's handwriting and it was a genuine 
letter.
    Then we have other cases of positive proof of being alive 
but generally speaking other sources would be classified 
sources on which it would be important not to go into details 
on. But other intelligence sources would confirm this. I want 
to emphasize that we cannot say that each person whom we had 
some evidence of being alive on is alive today. All we can say 
is that the Communists had some basis which should have 
required them to account for those persons and they did not 
account for them.
    We have considerable confidence in our evidence as to these 
people being alive, because we have had a chance to test it in 
one respect. A substantial number of army personnel in Big 
Switch who were carried by the adjutant general as missing in 
action----
    Senator Potter. Finally turned up?
    Col. Trammell [continuing]. Finally were accounted for 
which meant that they should have been classified as known 
captured and the Communists should have accounted for them but 
did not. G-2 runs a little bit behind the accounting of the 
adjutant general's. Our figures cannot be as up to date as the 
adjutant general's for this reason. We accept, and we feel we 
should accept, any of the adjutant general's proof of known 
dead. When we get known dead, we eliminate the man from our 
list of our section 3 list.
    That does not, in our opinion, excuse the Communists for 
having accounted for him, but at least it removes him from 
those classes of persons who might still be there now if we 
have positive proof that he is known dead. Having in mind that 
we run somewhat behind, for all services, on the eighteenth of 
January 1954, because we had to pick a cut-off date for this 
type of evidence, G-2 considered, for all services, that there 
were 11,012 persons where there was evidence that they were 
alive, that they had been alive at one time in Communist hands. 
Also on that same day of those whom the adjutant general had 
listed as known captured, 120 of those were not accounted for.
    Senator Potter. One hundred and twenty that the adjutant 
general had classified----
    Col. Trammell. Classified as known captured were not 
accounted for. In other words, both the adjutant general and G-
2 agreed that this certain number were known captured and yet 
in Big Switch 120 of the known captured were not accounted for.
    Senator Potter. You assume that that excludes the twenty-
one----
    Col. Trammell. I have considered those in a separate 
category, because we all have public knowledge of their status 
of those that G-2 has listed in section 3 as having been in 
Communist hands alive at one time, as of the eighteenth of 
January, 892 were not accounted for. Among those we had some 
evidence as late as April 1953 which we consider a positive 
indication that the man was alive as late as that time.
    Senator Potter. As late as April 1953?
    Col. Trammell. As late as April 1953 we had convincing 
evidence that the man was alive and in Communist hands. But 
892, as indicated, were not accounted for in that group. The 
two figures which I have just given you, that is, the 120 and 
the 892 total the 1,012 which is the figure I started with as 
of January 18. Because we run behind the adjutant general, the 
figures will be revised downward materially because any time 
the adjutant general comes up with a known dead we will 
eliminate him from that list. But although he has perhaps 
another week's processing to accomplish, we have approximately 
six weeks' more work to accomplish.
    At that time we will have a figure where we can advise that 
there will be so many where there was positive evidence that 
they were held and are not accounted for. By positive evidence, 
I mean convincing evidence.
    The least convincing of that evidence, however, are those 
whom the Communists said were alive.
    Senator Potter. That is the least convincing?
    Col. Trammell. That is the least convincing, and we 
recognize that many persons could be reported by them as having 
been alive, and it could be completely false. We have no way of 
judging that.
    Senator Potter. You expect in about six weeks you would 
have a final listing?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, sir.
    Senator Potter. In other words, the known dead would be 
removed from those?
    Col. Trammell. The known dead would be removed from those 
otherwise indicated to have been held alive. Also I think I 
should emphasize that we do not necessarily say those are alive 
as of today. They could have been disposed of. But they did not 
account for them.
    Senator Potter. That you are saying is that there are 1,012 
people that you have convincing evidence on who were alive and 
in the hands of the Communists that have not been accounted 
for?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, sir; as of 18 January. Then there will 
no doubt be a substantial figure 101 when we end up.
    Senator Potter. And this includes members from all branches 
of the service, is that correct?
    Col. Trammell. This includes all the services, yes.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Could you tie this into that figure of 944 
for us now?
    Col. Trammell. I think I should say one additional thing at 
this point: The unaccounted for persons of which we are 
speaking are only those of which we had evidence that they were 
alive. If no evidence ever appeared that they were alive, there 
could be a gray area, which we don't know whether they are 
holding or not. But we consider this as a more conservative 
approach.
    Senator Potter. In other words, the figures that the G-2 
presented about persons that they have no evidence on, I mean, 
they classified them as missing in action with no evidence or 
whether they were dead or alive, wouldn't be included in your 
group?
    Col. Trammell. That is right, and we wouldn't even pick 
them up, because we would say that in the absence of that 
evidence, we wouldn't carry them either.
    Senator Potter. And the 1,012 are people that you have 
evidence on where they were alive at one time?
    Col. Trammell. Of the general categories which I gave you. 
This 944, at the time the 944 figure was announced it was 
announced by the Far East--at the time that they announced it 
we were carrying a slightly larger figure, approximately 1200, 
because we did not receive the proofs of death quite as rapidly 
as they did. However, when they received our centralized list, 
from all possible intelligence sources, they revised their 
figure upwards to meet ours, still adjusted by known deaths.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Was that new figure ever presented formally, 
say, on September 24 or prior thereto?
    Col. Trammell. Well, speaking strictly from an intelligence 
standpoint, all I can say is that we disseminated our 
information to those persons who would act. G-3 would be better 
able to say exactly which figures they would have used. We make 
the information available to them. I don't know whether I have 
answered your question exactly about that 944.
    Mr. O'Donnell. I would like to get a further breakdown, if 
I can, Colonel. I know some of the difficulties you are facing. 
But of the known captured that would be on the AG's list, you 
have 120 not accounted for. Were those 120 listed on the 
original list of 944?
    Col. Trammell. Our complete information went to them and I 
feel it would be accurate to say they must have been included, 
because they were carrying them as known captured.
    Mr. O'Donnell. In other words----
    Col. Trammell. And they did not come back.
    Mr. O'Donnell. In other words, all the evaluations based on 
figures you presented were made by another unit?
    Col. Trammell. Well, the actual figures selected for 
presentation were made by another unit. But as an intelligence 
agency, we kept them fully advised of the situation.
    Mr. O'Donnell. The only thing I would like to get clear is 
what figures were presented----
    Col. Trammell. Maybe the fact that the 944 is all services 
is causing some confusion.
    Mr. O'Donnell. No, it isn't, not in my mind, because I have 
been dealing with the 944 for the three services. But I am just 
wondering if that figure was ever revised upward. Your figures 
show 1,012 at one time, including both categories 2 and 3, and 
then at one time around 1200. I am just wondering if that 944 
figure was ever revised upward formally.
    Col. Chandler. We did revise the figure we gave to the 
Communists upward to 965.
    Senator Potter. Did you submit to the Communists the list 
as compiled by G-2?
    Col. Chandler. No, as compiled by the adjutant general. And 
we revised that based on his corrections. It went up to 965.
    Senator Potter. I see. I assume that probably the adjutant 
general was a little ahead, again, in the known dead.
    Col. Trammell. If he had more current information about the 
known dead he would have cut our figure down to 965, and that 
would be what happened.
    Senator Potter. From your experience with the known dead as 
reported by G-1, are you in a position to give any estimate of 
the approximate figure you will end up with at the end of your 
six weeks?
    Col. Trammell. The present indications, Senator, are that 
of the cases being processed by the adjutant general, roughly 
50 percent are coming up as known dead. But I don't know 
whether we could establish that as a trend. I think we will 
just have to complete our processing and then see, because 
possibly the trend might change at the last and it might make 
several hundred difference.
    Mr. Berry. You are down to 77, are you not?
    Col. Smith. Of the 610.
    Col. Trammell. Yes, but we have not processed some of those 
already completed by the adjutant general. That is simply a 
personnel problem of processing.
    Senator Potter. You have processed some of the 610, 
however, have you not?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, sir; we have processed some.
    Senator Potter. Do you have any further questions? First do 
you have anybody else, Mr. Berry?
    Mr. Berry. No, but you had some other questions the other 
day that you might want further information on as to any 
patterns, and anything like that.
    Senator Potter. Yes, sir. We have been talking pretty much 
exclusively about the Pacific theater. I would like to have, if 
possible, someone to develop what has happened in the European 
theater.
    Mr. Berry. Colonel Trammell will do that.
    Col. Trammell. Before I go to the European theater, 
Senator, for the record we might mention that the twenty-one 
are not included in any holding, because we have considered 
those in a special group.
    Senator Potter. Yes.
    Mr. Kennedy. Do you have a breakdown as to service on that 
group?
    Col. Trammell. Yes. I have the book here, but I think since 
our figures would be so much more accurate after additional 
processing, or I had hoped, I might be able to give that later.
    Senator Potter. Do you mean in six weeks?
    Col. Trammell. Six weeks, yes.
    Senator Potter. Of the 1,012 that were mentioned, do you 
have that conveniently broken down by services?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, sir. I have all the names here. It is a 
code listing.
    Senator Potter. I wonder if that could be made available 
for the record. You do not have to do it today, but I wonder if 
you could submit that to the committee by services?
    Col. Trammell. Yes.
    Senator Potter. I think it would be well if you broke down 
the 892 and then the 120 by service.
    Col. Trammell. All right, sir.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Potter. We will go back on the record, Colonel.
    Now will you give us the information concerning the 
European theater?
    Col. Trammell. I am speaking for the European theater but 
it so happens that it actually encompasses the rest of the 
world other than the Far East.
    Senator Potter. That is perfectly all right.
    Col. Trammell. All of our information, of course, is not 
entirely firm in this field, but we did have a United States 
soldier who recently returned from Iron Curtain custody and he 
advised that he had seen eight United States soldiers in East 
Germany. We are not able to say whether those eight are being 
held against their will, however. In other words, we are not 
able to say either way.
    Senator Potter. Were they interned?
    Col. Trammell. The indications are that they were residing 
there. We are not able to say whether or not there was an 
actual internment or whether they were persuaded to stay, 
perhaps.
    Mr. Kennedy. Do you have their names, colonel?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, sir; I do have their names. The 
difficulty about any widespread release of any names of this 
character is that we might be accused of creating the inference 
that the man was staying there of his own volition and 
therefore was a deserter, when the true facts might show that 
he was actually being held against his will. We hate very much 
to hurt anyone, or do any injustice to any individual. But I do 
have the names here of all of the people I am speaking of.
    Senator Potter. Are these men that were on border duty? 
These are men, I assume, that went over there or are being held 
since the war, rather than ones that were captured during the 
war?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, sir. All of these men disappeared from 
the United States control at some time after the end of the 
European conflict.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Col. Trammell. I have mentioned the one man who returned 
and who reported the additional eight.
    Senator Potter. Is that Cox?
    Col. Trammell. The man who returned was Private Carlos P. 
Johnson.
    Senator Potter. Where is he from, Colonel?
    Col. Trammell. Do you mean within the United States?
    Senator Potter. Yes.
    Col. Trammell. I don't have it right here. Of course, all 
of that is available.
    Mr. Kennedy. Colonel, were they all being held in one camp?
    Col. Trammell. They were all in the same city.
    Mr. Kennedy. And they were living in the city, or living in 
jail, or living in a camp or what?
    Col. Trammell. Well, you see, the only information we have 
about them is what Johnson has given us.
    Senator Potter. Where is Johnson now, Colonel?
    Col. Trammell. Johnson is in military custody, and under 
consideration for disciplinary action. Because of the nature of 
his departure, and the circumstances of his return, I hesitate 
to appear before the committee and say how reliable his 
testimony is. This, I hope, will not be released, because of 
the injustice to any individuals involved.
    But since there is a possibility----
    Senator Potter. Would you rather discuss this part off the 
record?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, sir.
    Senator Potter. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Potter. Are all of these men enlisted men who are 
presently in Europe?
    Col. Trammell. It is a question of classification. That is 
the only reason I am hesitating here as to just how to describe 
the people. Would you like me to refer again to the eight?
    Senator Potter. Yes.
    Col. Trammell. One of our soldiers who disappeared from 
United States control and who was absent behind the Iron 
Curtain for a considerable length of time, returned to United 
States control against his will, and reported that there are 
eight other United States soldiers in East Germany. It is not 
clear from the army's point of view whether those men are held 
against their will or not. The East Berlin radio has reported 
that there are three United States soldiers behind the Iron 
Curtain who are there for the purpose of seeking asylum. One of 
the persons mentioned on the East Berlin radio is the same as 
one named by the returning soldier which I just mentioned.
    Senator Potter. You do know that the other two are, that 
the other two soldiers existed and that they were assigned in 
that area and are now missing, is that correct, Colonel?
    Col. Trammell. Yes, sir. Is this all on the record? It is 
classified?
    Senator Potter. This is executive session and the 
information will not be released until we check with you on it.
    Col. Trammell. Well, in addition to the returned soldier 
who reported the eight, whom I mentioned, there is another 
soldier who also disappeared from United States control, who 
was absent behind the Iron Curtain and returned. I am not able 
to report at this time any specific information from him. The 
only officer involved is a second lieutenant who has 
disappeared from United States control and is now reported 
behind the Iron Curtain.
    Mr. Kennedy. Is he one of the eight?
    Col. Trammell. He is not one of the eight.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Is he in addition to the other two that we 
were talking about?
    Col. Trammell. In addition to the two enlisted men that I 
was talking about. The only difference is that they have 
returned and the officer has not returned.
    Mr. Kennedy. Do you mean in all the military personnel held 
behind the Iron Curtain, outside of the Far East, there is one 
officer, who is a second lieutenant, is that right?
    Col. Trammell. That is right.
    Mr. Kennedy. And how many are there all together?
    Senator Potter. These are all in East Germany, is that 
correct?
    Col. Trammell. These are all in East Germany or close by. 
They are behind the Iron Curtain, in that area.
    I haven't said whether these people are being held against 
their will, because we don't have enough information to base it 
on. In addition to the eight mentioned by Johnson, of having 
been seen behind the Iron Curtain, there are six additional 
enlisted personnel missing, and we do not know their 
whereabouts. But there is at least some indication that they 
might be held behind the Iron Curtain and there is no 
indication pro or con as to whether they might be there against 
their will or not.
    Mr. O'Donnell. Have any of the eight or these six had any 
specialized training in this country?
    Col. Trammell. There is no particular pattern that we have 
been able to observe. That is occupational speciality, no doubt 
you mean.
    Senator Potter. In any other areas have we lost men behind 
the iron curtain?
    Col. Trammell. None that we know of, except twenty-one in 
the Far East.
    Mr. Kennedy. Is that eight plus six plus one, the second 
lieutenant? Is that fifteen all together, or two in addition?
    Col. Trammell. Of course you are only concerned with those 
who are still missing, are you not?
    Mr. Kennedy. That is right.
    Col. Trammell. There is one officer still missing, eight 
enlisted men, based solely upon Johnson's testimony, three 
enlisted men reported by East Berlin radio as claiming asylum.
    Mr. Berry. That would be an additional two, wouldn't it?
    Col. Trammell. One of those is repeated, that is right.
    Mr. Kennedy. Then the six?
    Col. Trammell. Then there are six whom we cannot say are 
behind the Iron Curtain. They are simply missing under circum- 
stances--that is, in some casual conversation or something the 
man may have had indicated that he might be behind the Iron 
Curtain.
    Mr. Berry. The officer is in addition to those figures?
    Col. Trammell. I was including him in the first.
    Mr. Kennedy. In the eight?
    Col. Trammell. No, sir.
    Mr. Berry. There is the eight, two, six and one?
    Col. Trammell. That is right.
    Mr. Kennedy. Or seventeen.
    Are all of these eight living in the same city?
    Col. Trammell. Johnson reports that they are.
    Mr. Kennedy. What is the name of the city? Can you give us 
that?
    Col. Trammell. It is a small town in East Germany. I don't 
remember the name of it.
    Mr. Kennedy. Did he give you the addresses at which they 
were living, the respective addresses?
    Col. Trammell. Not street addresses. He said they were 
living in the town.
    Mr. Kennedy. I would think it would be fairly easy to check 
a city or town in East Germany on whether there are a number of 
Americans living there. Wouldn't it be, from intelligence 
sources?
    Col. Trammell. Well, it hasn't been.
    Mr. Kennedy. That is where I am wrong, then.
    Senator Potter. Are there any other questions?
    Mr. Berry, do you have any information as to whether there 
has been any pattern?
    Mr. Berry. I think Colonel Trammell can give that, too. The 
question arose at the hearing the other day, Colonel, after you 
had gone, as to whether or not any pattern had been developed 
concerning the people in the Far East that we cannot account 
for, as to the NOS or civilian occupation or rank or anything 
of that nature, that would indicate a reason or pattern on 
which the Communists might want to keep them.
    Col. Trammell. I can say definitely for the Far East those 
twenty-one non-repatriates you are referring to----
    Mr. Berry. Well, no, as to all we have missing. Not just 
those we have information on but all those that are just gone, 
that we cannot account for.
    Is there any pattern there that would explain in any way 
why anyone would want to keep them?
    Col. Trammell. I didn't make the study myself of that but 
the adjutant general made a study of those disappearances for 
the chief of psychological warfare. The results of that study 
showed no pattern whatsoever. It was completely a random 
grouping as far as we could learn.
    Senator Potter. Gentlemen, I want to thank the army and all 
departments for your cooperation in this study. Where we go 
from here has not been determined as yet. It will take a while 
to kind of correlate the material that has been presented. We 
will like the opportunity of contacting you from time to time.
    Mr. O'Donnell and the committee staff is working with us on 
the problem, as well as Mr. Kennedy. So from time to time they 
will be contacting you.
    I do not know, but I think it would be very desirable if we 
could wait until the G-2 has had an opportunity to go through 
all the material and catch up with G-1. But whether we can wait 
that long or not, I don't know.
    There will be some public hearings and we will endeavor to 
notify you in advance, as much as we can.
    As far as security is concerned, we will take that up with 
the proper sources so that persons who will be called will have 
no concern about the security. We will clear all questions of 
that type prior to a hearing. We are not out to embarrass 
anyone. It is a matter of great concern to many people. Our 
effort is to be helpful in respect, as many people in the 
military as well as the public in general are desirous that 
something be done.
    I am not saying that in the respect that nothing has been 
done. I think that all branches of the service have done an 
excellent job, and in presenting the case we do have what seems 
like pretty much an impossible situation when the other party 
to the bargain refuses to negotiate with us.
    It is my personal feeling that very little is gained by 
hiding facts under a bushel. I think the American people have a 
right to know, that they have a right to have as much 
information as we have concerning whether the Communists are 
holding some of our men.
    I think it will have a great deal of effect on our policies 
in the future concerning negotiations with Communist countries. 
This will conclude this phase of the hearing. We will be 
contacting you again.
    Maj. Garcia. Mr. Chairman, at your request we furnished you 
last week a list of the air force personnel. You also asked, 
with respect to the pattern, how many of them had attended the 
special weapons course. At the time we furnished you the list, 
we had checked only the personnel records here in Washington. 
However, we have gone out to Sandia, and the information which 
we furnished that is that only one had attended a special 
school, is true. Only one attended a special school.
    Senator Potter. Thank you, Major.
    Mr. Kennedy. Could I ask just one more question?
    Colonel, when you are going through this list, which you 
feel will take another six weeks until you finally finish, have 
you finished some of those names already where you reached the 
conclusion that they will definitely remain on the list?
    Are you doing it----
    Col. Trammell. I don't think you can approach it that way, 
because there could also be some positive evidence of death.
    Mr. Kennedy. Then in six weeks you won't be finished 
either, will you?
    Col. Trammell. In six weeks we will have all of the 
adjutant general's known deaths, and that is the only 
correction that will be on this list.
    In other words, we accept the adjutant general's 
determination of a known death.
    Mr. Kennedy. Won't they be finished at the end of the week, 
as I understand it?
    Col. Trammell. His will be, but we will not have processed 
those that he has then turned over to us by that time.
    Mr. Kennedy. Well, he lists so many known dead. All you 
have to do is to cross them off your list then?
    Is that the way you do it?
    Col. Trammell. He is processing them for two reasons, one 
to get the known dead and the other to determine 
administratively their disposition.
    Well, that doesn't affect our list.
    Mr. Kennedy. Only the known dead, the ones that he puts on 
his list as known dead affects your list, is that not right?
    Col. Trammell. It is the known dead.
    Mr. Kennedy. He says he will be finished with that list at 
the end of the week, right?
    Col. Trammell. That is right.
    Mr. Kennedy. Then what do you have to do once he gives you 
the list?
    Col. Trammell. We are already about five weeks behind him. 
I mean, we run constantly about that long behind him. We have 
cases right now where we have to carry them to some cross-
indexing.
    Senator Potter. Is there any way, Colonel, that that could 
be expedited?
    Col. Trammell. It is just simply an administrative problem 
of the personnel.
    Senator Potter. Can't you steal some personnel from the 
legal branch, or something like that?
    I do think it would be desirable to have that completed 
before we continue.
    Col. Trammell. I will take the question up and endeavor to 
get them. I do not have them personally available to me.
    Mr. Berry. We will convey that to General Trudeau and see 
if we cannot speed it up.
    Senator Potter. All right, gentlemen.
    The committee is now in recess.
    [Whereupon, at 12:10 p.m., the committee was recessed 
subject to call.]


                  ALLEGED THREATS AGAINST THE CHAIRMAN

    [Editor's note.--William J. Morgan (born William Mitrano, 
1911-1996) was a lieutenant-colonel in military intelligence, 
U.S. Army Reserve, who held a Ph.D. in psychology from Yale. 
During World War II he served as director of the Psychological 
Text Bureau, worked with the British in selecting agents to 
operate in Nazi-occupied territories, and parachuted into 
France to organize and train guerillas. He later published The 
O.S.S. and I (1957). From 1947 to 1957 he created tests to 
examine new recruits and employees for the CIA. Dr. Morgan did 
not testify in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met (pursuant to Senate Resolution 189, 
agreed to February 2, 1954) at 4:00 p.m., room 101, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Charles E. Potter presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Illinois; Senator John 
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas
    President also: Francis P. Carr, executive director; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; Robert F. Kennedy, chief counsel for the 
minority; Donald A. Surine, assistant counsel; James M. 
Juliana, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.

                 TESTIMONY OF WILLIAM J. MORGAN

    Senator Potter. In the matter now in hearing, do you 
solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give will be 
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help 
you God?
    Dr. Morgan. I do.
    Senator Potter. Will you identify yourself for the record, 
Dr. Morgan--your full name and your present address and your 
present occupation.
    Dr. Morgan. My full name is William James Morgan and my 
occupation is psychologist. I have specialized in psychological 
warfare and intelligence operations for the last twelve years. 
I work at the Department of the Army as deputy chief of 
research in the office of chief, psychological warfare.
    Senator Potter. Is that under General Erskine?
    Dr. Morgan. General Erskine is at the Department of Defense 
level. I am with the army. My home is Merrifield, Virginia.
    Mr. Carr. Where were you employed in September 1953?
    Dr. Morgan. September of 1953. I was with the Psychological 
Strategy Board.
    Mr. Carr. Do you specifically recall the afternoon of 
September 20, 1953, Friday afternoon?
    Dr. Morgan. Not specifically, no, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall a meeting which you attended while 
you were in that position which was attended by Mr. Horace 
``Pete'' Craig? \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ Horace S. Craig (1911-1963) served with the CIA until 1958.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Morgan. I attended many meetings with him because I was 
in the same office. As a matter of fact, he was my superior.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall any meeting with Mr. Craig in which 
a statement was made concerning Senator McCarthy?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Could you recount that meeting?
    Dr. Morgan. Well, on a number of different occasions the 
name of McCarthy came up. It is a very common term, so there 
were a number of different occasions when the name would have 
come up.
    Mr. Carr. Do you recall an occasion when you suggested that 
the agency for whom you were working at that time attempt to 
become friends with Senator McCarthy?
    Dr. Morgan. There was what might be called a hypothetical 
discussion that we were having.
    Senator Potter. This was with Mr. Craig, was it?
    Dr. Morgan. Mr. Craig. Sometime in September he asked me to 
stay over and wanted to chat with me. From time to time he 
asked me to do this. As I recall the incident, he began to talk 
about various things and made a statement to the effect that 
the survey was completed concerning our international 
operation, activities, and that conclusions had been drawn that 
Senator McCarthy's influence was the most important factor in 
negating the influence of U.S. activities abroad and that then 
kicked off the discussion. I thought he was feeling me out on 
various things.
    Mr. Carr. At that time was there any discussion as to a 
procedure to combat the influence of Senator McCarthy?
    Dr. Morgan. Well, here is the situation as briefly as I can 
remember it. The question of Senator McCarthy was raised--what 
would you do with it, and I said, ``Well, I don't know what the 
problem is.'' He said, ``You know General Donovan, what would 
his suggestion be?'' I said, ``Well, I don't know what Donovan 
would suggest.''
    Mr. Carr. You say General Donovan? \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Gen. William J. Donovan (1883-1959) served as head of the 
Office of Strategic Services during World War II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, I had been in OSS.
    I said, ``There is one thing very clear, what we are trying 
to do and what the senator is trying to do is the same.'' I 
said, ``It may be desirable to indoctrinate him concerning our 
procedure and some of our goals,'' and he stated that he didn't 
think that was a wise procedure because Senator McCarthy was a 
very clever, intelligent man and that he admitted his mistakes 
and that it would simply not lead to anything. Then, I forget--
the situation was one that I remember very clearly but exactly 
how it transpired, I don't know. I know I was very late getting 
home for dinner. I must have stayed at the office an hour or an 
hour and a half or so.
    I want to make a remark. What Dr. Craig said--the 
interpretation is always difficult because some of the things 
he may say because he wanted to add glamour to his name by 
association with a figure. That is a well known psychological 
technique. Or he may have had other motives. He said that 
somebody had recently come to see him and felt the best thing 
to do was to penetrate the McCarthy organization, which is of 
course a Communist espionage technique, and he thought they had 
a candidate for it; that they were steering him into being 
employed by the investigating committee and the man's name 
escapes me now. I may be able to bring it to mind.
    Senator Potter. Do you know whether they were successful in 
doing that or not?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir, I don't know whether they were 
successful or not. The man was apparently very well thought of, 
of good education, and had the highest recommendations. The 
point that he was concerned with at the time was that he didn't 
know how much knowledge had to be turned over to this man, 
because if you turned over too much knowledge, he might not be 
able to go through with it. One of the problems with agents, if 
you let them know too much in the beginning, it might frighten 
him, so you get him into a situation and then maneuver. I don't 
know whether or not the thing was ever successful.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Mr. Surine. To further identify Dr. Craig, could you 
administratively put on the record who his superior was at that 
time?
    Dr. Morgan. Well, I think it is a matter of public 
knowledge. In these things I have to make a decision whether it 
is security information or whether it is not security 
information. In this case this is public information because it 
has not been in anything with a stamp on it. The Psychological 
Strategy Board, of course, at that time had both a board and a 
staff; then the president's special assistant, Mr. C. D. 
Jackson, was the one who was running the Office of Evaluation, 
which was the office in which Dr. Craig was functioning.\4\ 
Things became in rather a turmoil after the new administration 
came in because psychological activities were supposed to 
continue, but actually they didn't continue and Mr. Jackson 
took charge, took certain responsibilities from PSB, as it is 
referred to, and Mr. Craig answered to Mr. Jackson because he 
worked with him before.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Charles Douglas Jackson (1902-1964), publisher of Fortune 
magazine, had organized the psychological warfare division at General 
Eisenhower's headquarters in London during World War II and served as 
special assistant to Eisenhower in the White House from 1953 to 1954.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Surine. Where is Dr. Craig now?
    Dr. Morgan. Operations Coordination Board, which is the 
successor agency to PSB.
    Mr. Surine. To your knowledge, what was the true employment 
at that time of C. D. Jackson and Mr. Craig?
    Dr. Morgan. Well, by the true employment do you mean where 
do they get their money?
    Mr. Surine. Who paid their salaries?
    Dr. Morgan. I don't know of Mr. C. D. Jackson. I just don't 
know at that time. Dr. Craig, I think he was on the CIA 
payroll.
    Right here I ought to say this--that is a question of 
security. I understand that people in CIA must not be 
identified as CIA people. I don't know just how to classify 
this. He is known publicly to be on the CIA payroll.
    Mr. Surine. You are speaking of Craig now?
    Dr. Morgan. Craig.
    Mr. Surine. What about Jackson?
    Dr. Morgan. At that time I don't know. Later I don't know.
    Mr. Surine. How about before?
    Dr. Morgan. I may have information before, but I think that 
is classified.
    Mr. Surine. Were you at that time receiving your money from 
CIA?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir. The Psychological Strategy Board is 
broken down into two echelons. Those who are GS-15s and below 
are paid by the Department of State. Those who are GS-16s and 
above are paid by CIA.
    Mr. Surine. Getting back to the conversation with Mr. 
Craig, which you have covered part of here, when you suggested 
to him that possibly CIA attempt to make friends with Senator 
McCarthy--could you fully develop that conversation as he 
related it to you and his response to your remark.
    Dr. Morgan. Well, it was very simple. He shrugged the thing 
off. He walked up and down the room and made the remark; then 
he said, ``There are madmen who would be willing to do it for a 
price,'' something of that nature.
    I kind of looked him over. My reaction was, ``Is Pete 
serious about this thing or is he sounding off? Is he trying to 
be dramatic or what is the score?'' At that time, I might add, 
that particular kind of suggestion was not made very often. 
Since then to hear that, as in connection with the Puerto 
Ricans, etc., everybody says, ``Was Senator McCarthy there?'' 
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \5\ On March 1, 1954, four Puerto Rican nationalists fired thirty 
shots into the House chamber, wounding five representatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Surine. To further identify yourself, could you relate 
your government employment, starting with roughly 1943 to the 
present time?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir. In 1943 the OSS hired me as a 
psychologist. They lost my records. I went overseas. They found 
my records in London and I managed to stay there, soliciting 
spies and saboteurs with the War Office Election Board, which 
was a British set-up working with OSS; then in 1944 I jumped 
behind the lines as a civilian, close to the French Maquis, 
where I organized a team of 150. For six weeks we had a lot of 
fun shooting, etc. I left there and went to China and operated 
in China. Fifty teams would have been sent up to the Northern 
China territory to penetrate the Communist hierarchy but Chiang 
Kai Shek and the State Department and others fell through so 
then I was doing other chores in China.
    I was S-3 and assistant operations officer in the Yellow 
River peninsula. I was the officer in charge of the important 
operation of sending people into the Communist territory and 
keeping them out of Communist hands, fighting the Japanese. 
After the war was over I went to Formosa as executive officer; 
then when the deputy left, I became deputy; then I became chief 
of SSU, the successor agency to OSS, making intelligence scoops 
on the island so we would have the information we needed; 
following that I returned to the States and became deputy chief 
of the training staff of the CIA; then I became the chief of 
the psychological assessment unit for the screening of people 
because I was applying there the techniques that were used in 
the British set-up. In 1951, I worked for a year on career 
management problems, setting up career plans, etc. In 1952 I 
went to PSB. In 1953 I went with the army.
    Senator Potter. I would like to go back to where this man 
Craig stated that he felt that Senator McCarthy should be 
liquidated. I'd like to place the date of this. When did it 
happen?
    Dr. Morgan. It happened in September.
    Senator Potter. September of what year?
    Dr. Morgan. Last year, 1953.
    Senator Potter. He stated in essence that this man should 
be liquidated, referring to Senator McCarthy?
    Dr. Morgan. It may be necessary.
    Senator Potter. And that there are madmen----
    Dr. Morgan. For a price willing to do the thing.
    Senator Potter. Did you make any comment after that?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir. I looked at him and kind of figured, 
``What gives?'' I didn't say anything.
    Senator Potter. Did he follow that up with any explanation 
of that statement?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir. I don't remember he did follow it up.
    Senator Potter. Did you take this as a possible activity 
for your agency?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir. I was quite stunned by it. I thought 
he had lost his self-control, discretion, or something had gone 
wrong with him; and that if it did reflect people with whom he 
was working that it just didn't seem to me someone was going 
mad.
    Senator Potter. Did he ever follow that up at a later date?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir. He never did, not that I can remember.
    Senator Mundt. Was this during the same conversation in 
which they were talking about penetrating the McCarthy staff?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Potter. I assume from the conversation which took 
place that he was very much opposed to activity of this 
committee. Is that correct?
    Dr. Morgan. I don't know, Senator, whether he was opposed 
to the activity of this committee or whether he was opposed to 
what Senator McCarthy was trying to do. This happened in 
September 1953. I don't know who the members of the committee 
were at that time.
    Senator Potter. He was referring more to Senator McCarthy 
than to the committee?
    Dr. Morgan. That would be my interpretation.
    Senator Mundt. You say this happened in connection with the 
discussion of penetrating the committee. Did this statement 
precede the statement about liquidation?
    Dr. Morgan. The question of penetration preceded the 
question of liquidation.
    Senator Potter. After he made the statement about 
liquidation and you registered some astonishment, what 
happened?
    Dr. Morgan. I think shortly thereafter we began to close up 
and wander out.
    Senator Potter. There was just the two of you there?
    Dr. Morgan. Just the two of us. The reason I give this 
testimony with extreme caution, my own feeling is that the 
entire interpretation is something that at the time it was a 
shock. I discussed it with my wife when I got home. I didn't 
know exactly what to do with it. It may simply have reflected 
an attempt on his part to do his thinking out loud.
    Senator Potter. Did he say who was to pay the madman to do, 
the job?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir. He made no reference as to how it was 
to be accomplished except that there were madmen who would do 
the job. He made no reference to anyone specifically.
    Senator Mundt. Did this ever come up again in subsequent 
conferences?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir. At a subsequent discussion he 
mentioned the name of the man he was talking about who was 
going on the staff, and I think it was one or two other times 
that he talked about this person. On one occasion he said he 
was having no luck and on another occasion he said something 
like he would like to find a job for him at the Department of 
Defense.
    Senator Mundt. In other words, in subsequent conversations 
he did continue to suggest the possibility of penetrating the 
McCarthy staff, but he never again referred to the possibility 
of liquidation?
    Dr. Morgan. He never again referred to liquidation. In the 
two subsequent discussions there was no discussion of 
penetration. He just simply mentioned the name and that he 
wasn't having any luck. On another occasion he said he was 
trying to make an effort to get him employed at the Department 
of Defense.
    Senator Potter. Do you know a man by the name of Matt 
Baird? \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ U.S. Air Force Col. Matt Baird (1901-1972) served with the CIA 
from 1953 to 1965 and developed the agency's officer training and 
career development program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, I do.
    Senator Potter. What is his present employment?
    Dr. Morgan. I don't know.
    Senator Potter. What was he doing when you knew him?
    Dr. Morgan. Matthew Baird was chief of the office of 
training of the CIA and this is public information because it 
has been published in the newspapers.
    Senator Potter. When was that?
    Dr. Morgan. I would say that he became chief of that about 
1951 sometime, the early part of 1951.
    Senator Potter. Did he have any personal traits that would 
be objectionable in normal society?
    Dr. Morgan. He is a handsome looking guy, but I would say 
generally speaking ``no.''
    Senator Potter. Is he known to you to be a homosexual?
    Dr. Morgan. That has a long history.
    Senator Potter. You mean by that it is well known that he 
is a homosexual?
    Dr. Morgan. If you are asking whether I have facts that he 
is a homosexual, the answer is ``no.''
    Mr. Carr. Which one are you talking about now--Craig or 
Baird?
    Dr. Morgan. Baird. I don't have any factual evidence he is 
a homosexual.
    Senator Potter. What is your knowledge in that respect?
    Dr. Morgan. Circumstantial and opinion. I don't know 
whether it is classified or not.
    Senator Potter. What information do you have to form your 
opinion?
    Dr. Morgan. Well, I think on that particular thing, in 
order to save the work of the committee, I gave information to 
two air force investigative officers who came to see me about 
Matt Baird in, I would say, early summer of 1953, around June. 
That file would contain everything I knew about that case.
    Senator Potter. Wasn't Mr. Baird discharged from a boys' 
school?
    Dr. Morgan. I understand that he was.
    Senator Potter. What information do you have as to the 
reason he was discharged?
    Dr. Morgan. I understand that he was discharged because he 
made the mistake of teaching the boys how to masturbate 
properly, but that doesn't come from any direct source.
    Senator Potter. When did he leave CIA?
    Dr. Morgan. I don't know whether he has left. For all I 
know, he may still be there.
    Mr. Surine. What is the nature of your information about 
his being discharged from the school on that grounds?
    Dr. Morgan. The information that I have is that a Mary Lee 
Fletcher, who is an employee of the agency, said that she had 
talked with some four or five persons in New York City, one of 
whom was the daughter of J. Leonard Hand, and they made the 
remark to her that it was a pity that the U.S. government had 
Matt Baird as their director of training and director of 
personnel.
    Senator Potter. That is director of CIA?
    Dr. Morgan. He had been director of training and 
personnel--in view of his record at the Arizona Desert School; 
that he was looked upon as a queer, etc.
    Senator Potter. I think that you have covered this subject 
pretty well, Dr. Morgan, and I wish to thank you for appearing 
here.
    Senator McClellan. I would like to ask a question or two. I 
didn't get Dr. Craig's initial.
    Dr. Morgan. Horace C. Craig, I think.
    Mr. Kennedy. There is a Horace S. in the telephone book.
    Senator McClellan. Where is Dr. Craig now?
    Dr. Morgan. I suppose he is with the operations 
coordinating board.
    Senator McClellan. Is he still with the government?
    Dr. Morgan. I believe so.
    Senator McClellan. He is still in the same position he 
occupied then, at the time you were testifying about, last 
September?
    Dr. Morgan. Well, there has been a reorganization, Senator. 
I don't know what position he now occupies but it is in the 
same framework.
    Senator McClellan. Is he still your boss?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir.
    Senator McClellan. He was in September?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, he was in September.
    Senator McClellan. Then you think he is still with the 
government?
    Dr. Morgan. I think he is still with the government.
    Senator McClellan. Of course, that fact can be ascertained. 
I tried to follow very closely with respect to the conversation 
you had last September when he was pacing the floor after he 
had suggested the idea--made reference to the idea of 
penetrating the committee staff, and then I think this is your 
exact language, and I want to get it accurately because you 
used some qualifying words, I think, after you used this 
language. I understood you to say and I quote,``It may be 
necessary to liquidate Senator McCarthy as was Huey Long.'' Is 
that quote accurate or substantially accurate as you recall 
what he said?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. Then you followed that by saying, if I 
got it correctly, and I quote: ``There is always some madman 
who will do it for a price.''
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. Is that substantially what he said?
    Dr. Morgan. That is substantially as I remember what he 
said.
    Senator McClellan. Did you relate those two expressions at 
the time as the second implementing the first--that there would 
always be some madman who would liquidate Senator McCarthy for 
a price? Did you relate those two statements together and think 
the second statement referred to Senator McCarthy?
    Dr. Morgan. Oh, yes.
    Senator McClellan. There was no question in your mind at 
the time about it?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir. That was the subject of discussion so 
that it was relevant to what he had been saying.
    Senator McClellan. Now, this could be a very serious matter 
and I am trying to elicit from you as of now a description or 
an expression of the emotion you felt then and the reaction you 
had to his remarks. Were you impressed at the time or did you 
believe at the time accept his remark as that of a threat or 
that of a plot that was going through his mind to actually 
develop a scheme to accomplish what he had said. How did you 
react to it at the time?
    Dr. Morgan. Well, at the time I looked over Dr. Craig and 
thought, ``He must be losing his mind. What is wrong with the 
guy.'' That was my introspective analysis. I was sufficiently 
disturbed to mention it at home when I apologized to my wife 
for being late. She said, ``He is out of his mind'' or ``What 
is wrong with him'' or something of that sort. The fact that he 
would raise it for discussion and keep me there after closing 
hours--this was the subject of discussion. We closed up at 5:30 
and we were there, I would guess, till 7:00 or thereabouts, so 
that he must have had in mind that he wanted to go over this 
thing.
    Now that I look back, I think also he was trying to find 
out whether I was tied in with the McCarthy group. I think that 
may have been one of his intents because a question he threw at 
me caused me to answer, ``I don't know him. I have never met 
him. As a matter of fact I have never seen him on TV.'' I think 
one of his intents was to feel me out with respect to my own 
affiliations.
    Senator McClellan. Is that your reflection about it now 
after the incident occurred some five or six months ago? Do you 
feel it was just a remark to feel you out, to elicit some 
expression from you? In other words, was he trying to find out 
if you were in communication with the committee?
    Dr. Morgan. I think that he was.
    Senator McClellan. What do you think?
    Dr. Morgan. I think his first intention was to find out 
whether I was tied in with the McCarthy group, so to speak.
    Senator McClellan. Would that be a technique that you use 
in this psychological warfare--whatever you call it--to make a 
statement that will lead somebody out to express themselves, 
find out what they may be thinking, their attitude, what their 
relation or connection may be?
    Dr. Morgan. It is one of the interrogation techniques. 
Whether or not he was using it on me--my impression was that he 
was feeling me out as to whether or not I was a member of the 
McCarthy group.
    Senator McClellan. In other words, he was trying to find 
out if you were leaking out information to the committee?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir. I think what he was interested in was 
to find out if I had political affiliations or connections or 
whether I was identified with the McCarthy group.
    Senator McClellan. You can only work by giving information.
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, that is so, but in government, as a 
government employee they are always interested whether you know 
Senator so and so. That is a very strong weapon for any 
government employee.
    Senator McClellan. Did you ever report the incident to any 
of your superiors?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir, I did not.
    Senator McClellan. To whom did you first report it, aside 
from your wife?
    Dr. Morgan. I think I first talked it over with possibly 
Colonel Kellis. No, he was gone by that time. He was a 
confidant of mine. The man I first talked to was you [pointing 
to Mr. Surine].
    Senator McClellan. Whom do you mean?
    Mr. Surine. Mr. Surine, me.
    Senator McClellan. You think he is the only one you talked 
to about it besides your wife?
    Dr. Morgan. He is the only one who knows about it besides 
my wife, possibly Colonel Kellis, Mr. La Venia and Mr. Surine.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. La Venia is also a member of the 
staff of this committee, is that right?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. I want to follow up and get the real 
prospective of this thing. If that was a threat, that is 
something we want to know about, if the guy is still in 
government service certainly. Of course, if it was just a 
maneuver on his part to try to elicit information from you or 
gain some impression from you, folks do that all the time and 
it would have no significance.
    I want to get you to evaluate, as of now, in the light of 
the facts, your reaction then and your sober reflection upon it 
since. How do you evaluate it as of now after five months' 
reflection?
    Dr. Morgan. My evaluation is that at the time he must have 
been concerned with the problem and that he must have held 
discussions with persons other than myself and that he was 
trying to find a solution, in his own mind, as to what ought to 
be done about McCarthyism, as it is so-called.
    Senator McClellan. That is your evaluation of it now after 
five months' reflection, that he really was concerned to 
himself at least, with what to do about McCarthyism or McCarthy 
and in meditating upon it and thinking out loud, he made these 
remarks?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes. Whether or not he would ever have enough 
courage to carry it through, I don't know.
    Senator McClellan. I know you wouldn't know that. You are 
the one involved; you heard the conversation; you know Dr. 
Craig from working with him and associating with him and you 
have had five months to reflect upon it. You are now giving 
testimony about it and you probably are the one most capable on 
evaluation on the standpoint of whether it really has substance 
that is of interest to this committee and the public or whether 
it was something that has no significance and should not be 
pursued further. I would like for you to make an expression on 
it.
    Dr. Morgan. I will say this very decidedly. I don't think 
information of this kind has public value because I don't see 
what purpose is going to be served. I think in connection with 
other items of a information, it may lead to a more clear 
picture of what is happening concerning psychological warfare, 
international operations and things of that sort. I think as an 
isolated scrap, it reflects the thinking of a person who in 
line, say with others, would be politically or other reasons. 
Not politically. I shouldn't say politically, but to what 
Senator McCarthy was doing at the time. I am not speaking of 
objectives. I think it has this. I don't know whether I have 
muddled the thing.
    Senator McClellan. I think it poses this question or 
problem for us on the committee. If that man was talking like 
that in a serious vein and it was thoughts rolling around in 
his mind, at the time, ideas he was expressing, I think the 
committee would be concerned about it. Whether it is something 
that should be given to the public or not, we might have to 
determine that later, but the question is if we have men in 
government with ideas like that and expressing ideas like that, 
I think the committee would be a little bit concerned.
    Dr. Morgan. I think it was a serious statement. He didn't 
say it in jest. He said it in a reflective sort of way. The 
reason I questioned the publicity end of it, I don't see what 
purpose that would serve.
    Senator McClellan. Aside from that, we don't want that kind 
of men in government. That would be my first reaction. A man in 
government making remarks like that, it might go to his fitness 
to continue to serve as a public servant at least.
    Dr. Morgan. I want to make a statement at the present time. 
The fact that I am testifying here jeopardizes my own stay in 
government. If I am a government employee a year from now, I 
will really be amazed. The very fact that I am here giving 
information and nobody knows what the status of the information 
is puts me in a position of jeopardy and I would like to make 
it a matter of record. I am willing to talk and talk freely and 
give my opinions, but I would like to have it put down.
    Senator McClellan. Put down. What do you mean?
    Dr. Morgan. Put down as a matter of record. I have had a 
debate with my conscience ever since last night.
    Senator Potter. Did you volunteer to appear before the 
committee?
    Dr. Morgan. I have expressed the desire to give information 
which I consider is to the national interest, and I will give 
information which is to the national interest and I have no 
reluctance whatsoever to giving it.
    Senator Potter. Did you volunteer the information that you 
have given here?
    Dr. Morgan. A substantial part of it to staff members of 
the committee.
    Senator Potter. Did they elicit that information or did you 
give it on your own initiative?
    Dr. Morgan. I volunteered it.
    Senator Potter. While you may have been subpoenaed----
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Potter [continuing.] You initially volunteered the 
information?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
    Senator Potter. How long ago?
    Dr. Morgan. The information was volunteered, oh, during the 
last six or seven or eight months--since last October, I think.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Senator Potter. When did you first mention it?
    Dr. Morgan. I think it was in October.
    Senator Potter. Within a month after the incident actually 
occurred?
    Dr. Morgan. Something like that.
    Mr. Surine. To your knowledge, do you know of any projects 
of liquidation that CIA has engaged in abroad, in a general 
way?
    Dr. Morgan. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Surine. They call them projects?
    Dr. Morgan. They may use that.
    Senator Potter. Liquidate men or persons?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir, I don't. It is a business I use to 
lecture on in CIA. I don't know of any liquidation processes 
going on abroad.
    Mr. Surine. Either in the past in your experience in 
intelligence?
    Dr. Morgan. When men are liquidated in intelligence you 
must not refer to it, but you don't ask for permission. The 
minute you ask for permission, it is denied. That is a code. 
The question of liquidation of enemy agents is never referred 
for official discussion.
    Senator McClellan. Now, there is one other thing I'd like 
to make clear here. At the time Mr. Craig had the conversation 
about McCarthy and penetration of the committee, was he 
cognizant of possible investigation or had he ever discussed 
the question of the McCarthy committee investigating CIA?
    Dr. Morgan. I don't remember accurately. He may very well 
have because everybody at the time was saying something about 
it, his investigation, and whether he expressed an opinion pro 
or con, I don't remember.
    Senator McClellan. Has there been any personal feelings, 
quarrels or misunderstandings between you and Dr. Craig at any 
time?
    Dr. Morgan. No, sir.
    Senator McClellan. No breach in your personal relationship 
any way at all?
    Dr. Morgan. No.
    Senator McClellan. Thank you very much.
    Senator Potter. Senator, before you leave--I have no other 
questions to ask Dr. Morgan--I would like to get permission to 
make public the executive hearing on Major Peress.
    Senator McClellan. I thought it had been made public 
already.
    Senator Potter. We had an open hearing. This is executive, 
so if there are no objections, this will be made public.
    Dr. Morgan, we thank you kindly.
    [Whereupon the hearing adjourned at 5:05 p.m.]


                   COMMUNIST INFILTRATION IN THE ARMY

    [Editor's note.--Dr. Marvin Sanford Belsky testified at the 
public hearing that immediately followed this executive 
session. The subcommittee later requested an opinion from the 
attorney general regarding whether there was sufficient 
evidence to indict Dr. Belsky on the basis of his testimony. 
Only July 7, 1954, Assistant Attorney General Warren Olney III 
notified Senator McCarthy that the Justice Department did not 
believe a prosecution for contempt could be sustained as to 
whether he was testifying truthfully when he refused to answer 
on the ground that his answers might tend to incriminate him. 
Olney cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Hoffman v. United 
States (1951), that ``The privilege afforded not only extends 
to answers that would in themselves support a conviction under 
a federal criminal statute but likewise embraces those which 
would furnish a link in the chain of evidence needed to 
prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.'' Olney concluded 
that ``An answer that the witness had not truthfully claimed 
the privilege as to prior questions would be a direct admission 
of the crime of perjury.'']
                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, MARCH 4, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 357 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John 
L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, 
Democrat, Washington.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis P. Carr, 
executive director; Donald F. O'Donnell, assistant counsel; C. 
George Anastos, assistant counsel; Robert Francis Kennedy, 
counsel to the minority; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. The committee will be in order. Will you 
raise your right hand. In this matter now in hearing before the 
committee, do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole 
truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Dr. Belsky. I do.

  TESTIMONY OF DR. MARVIN SANFORD BELSKY (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS 
                   COUNSEL, STANLEY FAULKNER)

    Mr. Cohn. Will counsel state his name for the record?
    Mr. Faulkner. Stanley Faulkner, 9 East 40th Street, New 
York 16, New York.
    Dr. Belsky. Mr. Senator, I have been served with a blank 
subpoena and I would like to know what is the subject matter 
under consideration by this committee, and what am I accused of 
and who has accused me?
    The Chairman. The subject we are investigating is communism 
in the army, espionage in the army, and army installations and 
defense plants or anywhere else in the government. You are 
being questioned about that this morning. Go ahead, Mr. Cohn.
    Mr. Cohn. May we have your full name for the record, 
please?
    Dr. Belsky. Marvin Sanford Belsky.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you stationed now?
    Dr. Belsky. I just want to raise two jurisdictional 
questions.
    Senator McClellan. Can we get the name for the record?
    Dr. Belsky. Murphy Army Hospital, Waltham, Massachusetts. 
There has been no clear definement----
    Senator McClellan. A little louder, please.
    Dr. Belsky. There has been no clear definement as far as 
legislation is concerned with which this committee is 
concerned, in terms of the purpose for which it functions. That 
is the one jurisdictional question I have.
    The second jurisdictional question is under Article 2, 
Section II of the United States Constitution, I am as a soldier 
only under the jurisdiction of the president of the United 
States, who is a commander in chief of the army, and this 
committee has no jurisdiction over me.
    The Chairman. Proceed, counsel.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Belsky, you say you are stationed at 
Murphy General Hospital, is that right? Does that hospital 
service patients from the Lincoln Project in Massachusetts?
    Dr. Belsky. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. You do not know whether it does or not? Does it 
service patients who are military personnel?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. From the Boston area?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. It does?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. I think, Mr. Chairman, we have been advised it 
does service patients from the Lincoln Project, which is one of 
the more sensitive radar projects.
    The Chairman. It will be developed, also, whether he knows 
that.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States in that my answer might tend to 
incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you know anything about the Lincoln 
Project?
    [The witness consulted with his attorney.]
    Dr. Belsky. I don't know anything about the Lincoln 
Project.
    The Chairman. Have you ever heard of it before?
    Dr. Belsky. Not before it was mentioned just this time.
    The Chairman. You said, ``yes''?
    Dr. Belsky. No.
    Senator McClellan. You will have to talk a little louder. I 
have difficulty hearing you. You will have to repeat it.
    Dr. Belsky. Not before you just mentioned it.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, about the project connected with MIT which 
does work on radar, did you ever hear about that?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. I read about that in the paper.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear about it? Let me ask you this 
first: Do any civilians come into this hospital, any civilians 
working on any military projects?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. Not that I know of.
    Mr. Cohn. Do your duties at the hospital ever involve 
taking any information from any of the patients, out-patients?
    Dr. Belsky. Medical information?
    Mr. Cohn. That is right. You ask them questions, do you 
not?
    Dr. Belsky. I ask the medical questions.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you ask them their names and where they work?
    Dr. Belsky. I don't ask them where they work.
    Mr. Cohn. You get their names; is that right?
    Dr. Belsky. No, I don't ask them where they work.
    Mr. Cohn. You ask them their names, and you know who you 
are talking to, do you not?
    Dr. Belsky. It is on a slip. I know who I am talking to.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know of the name of the individual you are 
interviewing? Is that right?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes, sir; I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, have you been in contact with other members 
of the Communist party in this work in the army?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. Could you repeat the question?
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been in contact with any other members 
of the Communist party while doing this work that you have 
described?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States in that my answer might tend to 
incriminate me. And, further, the question isn't clear.
    Mr. Cohn. Let me see if I can clarify it a little. Have you 
been attending Communist cell meetings while stationed at 
Murphy General Hospital?
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution 
of the United States in that my answer might tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you attempted to recruit people with whom 
you came in contact into the Communist party?
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States in that my answer might tend to 
incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you attempted to recruit people working on 
classified material in the Boston area into the Communist 
party?
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment in that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you used your post at Murphy General 
Hospital and the contacts you have made with personnel working 
on sensitive projects there to attempt to recruit them into the 
Communist party?
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
on the protection of the Fifth Amendment that my answer might 
tend to incriminate me.
    Mr. Cohn. When you entered the service, did you sign a 
loyalty oath?
    Dr. Belsky. I signed many things when I went into the 
service.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you refuse to sign anything?
    Dr. Belsky. I don't recall ever refusing to sign any form.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there any inquiry or interrogatory or form, 
written or oral, submitted to you by the army which you ever 
refused to sign or to respond to?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. I would have to see the form. Many forms came 
my way.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever claim the constitutional privilege 
to the army?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. The question isn't clear.
    Mr. Cohn. I will try to make it clear. Did you in response 
to any questions, written or oral, or in any applications, put 
to you by the army, ever refuse to furnish any information on 
constitutional grounds by invoking the Fifth Amendment?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. Do you mean to refuse to answer questions?
    Mr. Cohn. Did you refuse to furnish the information? Did 
you ever claim the Fifth Amendment to the army in connection 
with any interrogatories, written or oral, which they submitted 
to you in connection with any application form you ever 
received from them?
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment in that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. I am curious about one thing. You are a 
doctor, are you?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes.
    The Chairman. You are an M.D.?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. How long have you practiced?
    Dr. Belsky. Pardon me, Senator, what do you mean by 
practiced? How long has it been since I graduated from medical 
school or how long since I finished my internship? I never 
actually went into practice as it is known in the lay sense of 
the word.
    The Chairman. When did you graduate from medical school?
    Dr. Belsky. In 1951.
    The Chairman. And then you were an intern for how long?
    Dr. Belsky. One year.
    The Chairman. When you were drafted into the army?
    Dr. Belsky. That is correct.
    The Chairman. I am just curious to know why you do not have 
a commission. The president yesterday was quoted as saying any 
doctor who was drafted was entitled to a commission as a matter 
of form and could not be denied a commission. Were you denied a 
commission?
    Dr. Belsky. You will have to ask the army that, Senator.
    The Chairman. You do not know?
    Dr. Belsky. Senator, I went into the army under the general 
draft law and not under the doctor draft law, because I have 
been underage.
    The Chairman. Do you know why you were not granted a 
commission? Did they tell you?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. The army informed me that I didn't properly 
fill out the forms.
    The Chairman. What form?
    Dr. Belsky. They gave a number and I don't recall.
    The Chairman. What was the form about?
    Dr. Belsky. I don't remember.
    The Chairman. You don't remember?
    Dr. Belsky. No.
    The Chairman. Was it about communism?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. They didn't indicate.
    The Chairman. Well, did you see the form?
    Dr. Belsky. They cited an army regulation and they didn't 
indicate to me the form.
    The Chairman. Now, you said you did not properly fill out 
the form.
    Dr. Belsky. No, a form.
    The Chairman. What form was it?
    Dr. Belsky. A form.
    The Chairman. What is that?
    Dr. Belsky. A form.
    The Chairman. What was it about?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. They didn't tell me which one it was, and they 
said I didn't properly fill out a form.
    The Chairman. Do you have any idea what that form was 
about?
    Dr. Belsky. Not unless I had seen it or they had shown it 
to me.
    The Chairman. I am just asking you: Did you have any idea 
what the form was about as of today as you sit here in this 
chair?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. There were so many forms, they didn't indicate 
specifically.
    The Chairman. You understand my question, and the question 
to you today: Do you know what that form was about?
    Dr. Belsky. Not unless I see it.
    The Chairman. You have no idea what that form was?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. I wouldn't know unless I saw the form.
    The Chairman. You don't know, you have no idea today?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Senator Jackson. Do you recall there were a number of 
questions in connection with an application for a commission 
that you had to answer?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes, there were a number of forms.
    Senator Jackson. Did you answer all of the questions?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. Yes, I answered all of the questions to my 
recollection.
    Senator Jackson. You answered all of the questions?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. And in any of the questions did you plead 
the Fifth Amendment in response to the questions contained in 
the application?
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment in that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. I think he should be ordered to answer that. 
You will be ordered to answer that question.
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
on the protection of the Fifth Amendment in that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me. If I see the form, I could 
identify it.
    Senator McClellan. Did you make an application for a 
commission in the army when you were drafted?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. Yes, I applied for a commission.
    Senator McClellan. You applied for a commission?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. Did you have to fill out a form to apply 
for a commission?
    Dr. Belsky. I had to fill out many forms to apply for a 
commission.
    Senator McClellan. You had to fill out many forms?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. And, it is your understanding, though 
you cannot identify the specific form, but it is your 
understanding that a form that you filled out, an application 
for commission, was not adequate or not properly answered, and, 
therefore, you were declined a commission, is that correct?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. They informed me, as far as I can recall, they 
informed me that I didn't complete my application for 
commission.
    Senator McClellan. What do you mean by completed; that you 
did not answer all of the questions asked you, is that what you 
mean?
    Dr. Belsky. I don't know what they meant by it.
    Senator McClellan. That is your understanding. Did you 
answer all questions asked you?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. As far as my recollection, I did answer all of 
the questions.
    Senator McClellan. What do you mean by that, that you did 
not pursue it any further after making the application and you 
did not pursue it any further and manifest an interest in 
securing a commission? Is that what you mean?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Senator McClellan. By not completing it, is that what you 
mean?
    Dr. Belsky. I was told by my local board, I was scheduled 
for a definite date to be drafted in the regular draft.
    Senator McClellan. Was it after that, that you applied for 
a commission in the army?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. That is correct.
    Senator McClellan. Did you voluntarily apply for a 
commission in the army?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. And then you understood afterwards that 
you did not complete the form, is that correct? You did not 
complete the forms required?
    Dr. Belsky. I was informed so by the army.
    Senator McClellan. Now, you know and you were informed 
whether you completed them or not and in what respect you 
failed to complete them or failed to comply with the 
requirements, do you not?
    Dr. Belsky. They didn't indicate to me in what manner I had 
failed to complete them, and as far as my understanding was I 
had answered all questions.
    Senator McClellan. All right, then, if that is your 
position, let us get down to something else.
    Now, you have repeatedly said in answer to questions asked 
you that are pertinent to the investigation that this committee 
is conducting, and that is undertaking to ascertain about 
communism in the army and subversiveness in the army and so 
forth and in the military services, and in answers to questions 
asked you as to whether you are a Communist and whether you 
have met with Communists and questions along that line, you 
have persistently since you have been on the witness stand 
invoked the privileges under the Fifth Amendment, saying that 
you are afraid that answers to those questions might tend to 
incriminate you, have you not?
    Dr. Belsky. The record speaks for itself.
    Senator McClellan. Do you still invoke the Fifth Amendment 
in answer to those questions, the same one that you invoke it 
to when asked a few moments ago?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. If I was asked the same questions, I would have 
given the same answers.
    Senator McClellan. You still invoke the same privilege?
    Dr. Belsky. To the same questions?
    Senator McClellan. To the same questions.
    Dr. Belsky. Yes, sir.
    Senator McClellan. You are under oath, and do you believe 
that if you answered those questions truthfully, that the 
answers would incriminate you?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment in that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me.
    Senator McClellan. Let me ask you the question again, so I 
do not want any mistake about it. Do you state under oath that 
you honestly believe that if you answered those questions to 
which you have invoked the privilege under the Fifth Amendment 
here this morning, since you have been on the witness stand, 
that if you answered those questions truthfully that the 
answers would tend to incriminate you?
    Dr. Belsky. It appears to me, Senator, that question is in 
the realm of beliefs and you asked me do I believe?
    Senator McClellan. I am asking you that, and do you 
believe, under oath, stated under oath, do you state under oath 
that you believe the questions asked you to which you have 
invoked the Fifth Amendment this morning, if answered, the 
answers might tend to incriminate you?
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States in that my answer might tend to 
incriminate me.
    Senator McClellan. You fully understood the question I just 
asked you, did you not?
    Dr. Belsky. Yes.
    Senator McClellan. Do you now refuse to state under oath 
that you honestly believe that if you answered the questions 
truthfully, the answers might tend to incriminate you?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution 
of the United States in that my answer might tend to 
incriminate me.
    Senator McClellan. I respectfully ask, Mr. Chairman, that 
the witness be ordered to answer those questions under oath, as 
to whether he honestly believes that if he did answer the 
questions, the answers might tend to incriminate him. I take 
the position, and I may say to the witness and his counsel that 
if he cannot state under oath, that he honestly believes that 
they would tend to incriminate him, the answers would tend to 
incriminate him, then I question his right to invoke the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. I think Senator McClellan is absolutely 
right. If the witness refuses to say whether he thinks the 
answers might tend to incriminate him, then he has no Fifth 
Amendment privilege. He is ordered to answer the questions. You 
persist in your refusal, do you? Do you still refuse?
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment in that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you understand the order of the chair? The 
chair's order is that in view of the fact that you have refused 
to answer Senator McClellan's question, as to whether or not 
you feel your answers might tend to incriminate you, you have 
no privilege under the Fifth Amendment, and you only have a 
privilege if you will tell the committee that you feel that 
your answer might tend to incriminate you. If you refuse to do 
that, you will be ordered to answer all of the questions in 
which you have invoked the Fifth Amendment. I assume you still 
persist in your refusal.
    Dr. Belsky. I respectfully decline to answer that question 
under the protection of the Fifth Amendment in that my answer 
might tend to incriminate me.
    The Chairman. Do you know what type of work any of the 
patients in this hospital have been doing?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. Senator, as far as I know, the patients in 
Murphy army hospital are treated as sick people, who aren't 
doing any work.
    The Chairman. Did you hear my question? Do you know what 
type of work the patients have been engaged in?
    Dr. Belsky. As patients?
    The Chairman. Do you know what type of work the patients, 
any of the patients, have done before they were patients in the 
hospital?
    [The witness consulted with his counsel.]
    Dr. Belsky. I never took particular notice.
    The Chairman. Do you have any idea what type of work any of 
them were doing before they were patients? I do not care 
whether you took particular notice or not, the question is do 
you have any idea what type of work they were doing?
    Dr. Belsky. I assume they were soldiers.
    Mr. Cohn. You had some civilian personnel, did you not?
    Dr. Belsky. In that area as defined, there were also 
civilian dependents.
    Mr. Cohn. How long have you been at Murphy general 
hospital?
    Dr. Belsky. Since May 26, 1953.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, within the last four months, have you 
interviewed seven people who work at the Cambridge Research 
Center which is a part of the Lincoln Project, civilians?
    Dr. Belsky. I may have. I have treated some patients. I 
can't actually recall who was or who wasn't a part of the 
Lincoln Project of the Cambridge Research Center.
    The Chairman. Mr. Belsky, we have a public session 
scheduled for 10:30, and you will be the first witness in the 
public session. You can remain right there, if you like. We 
will have a recess for about five minutes. Will you step down 
for five minutes?
    Mr. Faulkner. May we request that there be no pictures or 
shots taken of our testimony?
    The Chairman. If you want no pictures taken, we will order 
that they not be taken. We have no control, you understand, of 
what happens outside in the hall.
    Mr. Faulkner. In the room for the public session, we ask 
that there be no pictures or shots or no movies.
    The Chairman. I will order the cameras not to be focused 
upon your witness and no pictures taken of him. How about 
yourself? Do you object to pictures?
    Mr. Faulkner. I am not photogenic and I would rather not.
    The Chairman. We will now take a five-minute recess and 
then proceed to public session.
    [Whereupon, at 10:40 a.m., the committee recessed to 
reconvene in public session.]


                   COMMUNIST INFILTRATION IN THE ARMY

    [Editor's note.--Lt. Oscar Roy Weiner, of the army medical 
corps, did not testify in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                         FRIDAY, MARCH 5, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator Joseph R McCarthy 
(chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis P. Carr, 
executive director; Robert Francis Kennedy, counsel to the 
minority; Daniel G. Buckley, assistant counsel; James Juliana, 
investigator.
    Present also: L. E. Berry, deputy department counsel, army; 
Col. John F. Britton, USAF, Office of Assistant Secretary of 
Defense, Legislative and Public Affairs.
    The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
    Lieutenant Weiner, first let me ask you if you desire to 
have a lawyer, we will adjourn this hearing to give you a 
chance to make arrangements.

               STATEMENT OF LT. OSCAR ROY WEINER,

               MEDICAL CORPS, UNITED STATES ARMY

    Lt. Weiner. Yes, sir, I would. I was under the impression 
that I would not need a lawyer today.
    The Chairman. I do not know whether you need one or not. We 
intend to ask you questions about the background of alleged 
Communistic activities on your part. Every man who appears here 
is entitled to have a lawyer if he thinks he needs one. That is 
entirely up to you.
    Lt. Weiner. I would feel better if I had a lawyer. I 
questioned the colonel, and he told me that there would be no 
need for a lawyer at this time, that this would not be a 
hearing.
    The Chairman. As I say, I could not tell you whether you 
need one or not. I do not know whether you intend to answer the 
questions or whether you intend to refuse to answer. I think 
normally it is a good thing to have a lawyer. Would you not 
think so?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    The Chairman. Why do you not talk to a lawyer, and you 
decide whether you want a lawyer here with you or not. How 
about coming back here Wednesday morning at ten o'clock?
    Lt. Weiner. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. That will be all for today.
    [Thereupon at 10:10 a.m., a recess was taken until 
Wednesday, March 10, 1954, at 10:00 a.m.]


                   COMMUNIST INFILTRATION IN THE ARMY

    [Editor's note.--Lt. Oscar Roy Weiner, of the army medical 
corps, did not testify in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                       WEDNESDAY, MARCH 10, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 357, Senate Office Building, Senator Charles E. Potter, 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; 
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis P. Carr, 
executive director; Robert Francis Kennedy, counsel to the 
minority; James Juliana, investigator; Ruth Young Watt, chief 
clerk.
    Senator Potter. The committee, will come to order.
    Lieutenant Weiner, will you stand and be sworn? Do you 
swear the testimony you are about to give this committee will 
be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God?
    Lt. Weiner. I do.

TESTIMONY OF LT. OSCAR ROY WEINER, MEDICAL CORPS, UNITED STATES 
                              ARMY

    Senator Potter. Will you identify yourself for the record?
    Lt. Weiner. I am First Lieutenant Oscar R. Weiner, in the 
United States Army Reserve, the medical corps, stationed at 
Walter Reed Army Hospital.
    Senator Potter. Lieutenant, I notice you are here without 
counsel. You know that you have the privilege of having counsel 
if you so desire?
    Lt. Weiner. I have consulted counsel.
    Senator Potter. You have consulted counsel but it is not 
your desire to have counsel with you this morning?
    Lt. Weiner. No.
    Senator Potter. Mr. Carr?
    Mr. Carr. Lieutenant, first for the record may I ask you 
where you were born?
    Lieutenant Weiner. I was born in Philadelphia, 
Pennsylvania.
    Mr. Carr. Born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and what 
date?
    Lt. Weiner. The 20th of January 1924.
    Mr. Carr. And your parents' names?
    Lt. Weiner. Joseph and Ida Weiner.
    Mr. Carr. And when did you enter the army, Lieutenant?
    Lt. Weiner. On active duty?
    Mr. Carr. Yes.
    Lt. Weiner. The first of July 1953.
    Senator Symington. Could I ask who the gentleman is over 
behind the witness?
    Senator Potter. That is Mr. Berry, deputy counsel for the 
army.
    Senator Symington. Deputy counsel in the army?
    Mr. Berry. Deputy counsel for the army.
    Senator Symington. Who do you report to?
    Mr. Berry. To John Adams, department counsel.
    Senator Symington. He is department counsel?
    Mr. Berry. That is right.
    Senator Potter. He is here as an observer.
    Mr. Carr. Lieutenant, you say you entered the army on 7-1-
53?
    Lt. Weiner. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Were you drafted under the Doctor's Draft Law?
    Lt. Weiner. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Carr. Had you been in the reserve?
    Lt. Weiner. I had been in the reserve as of the 12th of 
May, 1953, when I received my commission.
    Mr. Carr. And when you entered the army, did you sign a 
loyalty oath?
    Lt. Weiner. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Carr. To the effect that you were not and had never 
been a member of any subversive organization?
    Lt. Weiner. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Carr. Was that oath true?
    Lt. Weiner. Yes.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever been a member of the Communist 
party?
    Lt. Weiner. No, I have not.
    Mr. Carr. Have you ever heard of the organization known as 
the Edison Club, the Garden Club, the 24th Ward Club, the Youth 
Club, and the American Youth for Democracy Club, all of the 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania area?
    Lt. Weiner. No, I have not heard of them.
    Mr. Carr. You have never heard of them yourself?
    Lt. Weiner. Let me qualify that.
    Senator Symington. Could I interrupt a minute? I have heard 
of a lot of youth clubs. I wouldn't want you to say you have 
never heard of a youth club.
    Lt. Weiner. That is what I mean. I may have heard of them, 
but I have never been affiliated in any way.
    Senator Symington. Being a politician, I have heard of a 
lot of ward clubs. You wouldn't want to say you never heard of 
a ward club.
    Lt. Weiner. There was a 24th Ward Club of the Democratic 
party.
    Mr. Carr. But you never were associated with any of these 
clubs named?
    Lt. Weiner. No, sir.
    Mr. Carr. And you never have been associated with the 
Communist party or any branches of the Communist party to your 
knowledge?
    Lt. Weiner. No, I have not.
    Mr. Carr. Do you have a brother named Leon?
    Lieutenant Weiner. Yes, I do.
    Mr. Carr. Is he associated with the Communist party?
    Lt. Weiner. I am not in a position to tell whether he is or 
not. He has never told me or anything, and as I told Mr. 
Juliana before, I have heard that there is something irregular 
about his activities, something that he has been involved in, 
but I cannot say positively of anything that he has done.
    Mr. Carr. Have you heard this from any source? You say you 
have not heard it directly from him. What is the source of your 
information?
    Senator Symington. Could I ask what the question of the 
man's brother has to do with the man himself? There is no guilt 
by association, is there? What is the point in that?
    Mr. Carr. No, there is no attempt to do that. We have had 
information which indicated that this man, Lieutenant Weiner, 
had been a member of these clubs. We have other information 
which indicated that this man, Lieutenant Weiner, had been a 
member of these clubs. We have other information which 
indicates that it is his brother who is a member of this club, 
and that is Lieutenant Weiner's contention in his interview 
with Mr. Juliana. We are merely trying to give Lieutenant 
Weiner a chance to state off the record and under oath that 
this is his brother rather than himself. We are not trying to 
associate by guilt.
    Senator Symington. Thank you.
    Mr. Carr. I have forgotten the question exactly, but the 
question is you have not heard of this from your brother 
directly, but have you heard of it from any other source?
    Lt. Weiner. Well, the only thing that I have heard, as I 
told Mr. Juliana, was that somebody has some information 
regarding my brother that is unfavorable. This was told to me 
by my mother when she obtained her citizenship papers. Other 
than that, I have no way of knowing what my brother has done.
    Senator Potter. Does your brother live in Philadelphia at 
the present time?
    Lt. Weiner. No, he does not. I might as well make this 
clear for the record: My brother and I have not been very close 
since I was approximately twelve. At that time there was a 
family quarrel between my brother and my parents and I sided 
with my parents and he has not been living consistently at home 
from the age of sixteen on. He has been away and married. I 
have had very little to do with him.
    Senator Symington. Could I ask for the record that the 
information with respect to the reason why they feel that 
Lieutenant Weiner's brother might be Lieutenant Weiner be put 
into the record at this point? It does not have to be done at 
this time, but just make it a part of the record as to why 
there may be a misunderstanding as to which Weiner we are 
talking about?
    Senator Potter. Without objection, the counsel will put it 
into the record. That is, believing that there might be a mix 
up on the names.
    Mr. Carr. Lieutenant Weiner, we have received information 
from a highly reliable source that you were a member of these 
clubs which I have enumerated, the Edison Club, et cetera. We 
have also received information from a highly reliable source, I 
should say a usually reliable source, that the information 
concerned a brother of yours named Leon. The question of your 
association with your brother is not one that we intended to go 
into deeply, but we would like to know what your association 
with your brother has been in the past years.
    In other words, are you close to your brother, or could 
this be a mistake? That is what we are trying to get.
    Lt. Weiner. Well, actually I have been very busy. I have 
been leading--I have my own family and I have been going to 
school since 1941 until I graduated in 1951. I then interned 
and spent a year in practice and then went into the army. We 
just haven't seen such of each other, other than at family 
gatherings at my parents' house or occasionally at his house 
when I went down with his parents. Other than that, I have had 
very little to do with him.
    Senator Symington. When was the last time you saw him?
    Lt. Weiner. It was when I came back from Texas, I think. I 
may have seen him once since. But it has been at my mother's 
house.
    The Chairman. When did you come back from Texas?
    Lt. Weiner. In November. Well, actually I left in November. 
I came back the beginning of December.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever discussed communism with 
him?
    Lt. Weiner. No. I haven't discussed much of anything with 
him.
    Senator Symington. Have you ever talked about anything that 
you considered subversive?
    Lt. Weiner. No.
    Senator Symington. Never? So what his thinking is, you have 
had no interest in or discussion about with him, is that right?
    Lt. Weiner. Yes.
    Senator Symington. Thank you.
    Mr. Carr. Lieutenant Weiner, has this information 
concerning your brother been the source of any inquiry or 
investigation of you in the army, since you have been in the 
army? Have you been questioned about him?
    Lt. Weiner. No, I have not.
    Senator Potter. Lieutenant, from the questioning that has 
taken place this morning, I think that it should be clear that 
you stated under oath that you have not been a member of any 
Communist party unit, and the fact that you have been 
questioned should in no way reflect upon your loyalty or upon 
your service.
    I do not know what other information the committee has, but 
apparently certainly at this time, from the statements you have 
made, which were under oath, I would say that probably the 
information is the result of a mix-up in identification between 
you and your brother, and the questioning, as has been stated, 
has not been to try to indict you by the activities of your 
brother, but more or less to clear up any false identification 
that might have been made. I hope I am stating that clearly.
    Mr. Carr. I might say, Senator, if I may, to the 
lieutenant, that we appreciate the fact that he has been so 
open with us in connection with this inquiry that we have made.
    Senator Potter. Certainly the army representative is here 
and he has heard your testimony. So you have nothing to worry 
about.
    Thank you kindly.
    Lt. Weiner. Thank you.
    Senator Potter. The committee will now recess subject to 
call.
    [Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m. the committee was recessed 
subject to call.]


                    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

    [Editor's note.--This executive session was called at the 
request of Senator Charles E. Potter to examine charges and 
countercharges between the subcommittee chief counsel, Roy M. 
Cohn, and the counsel to the army, John G. Adams. Senator 
McCarthy announced that he would not sit as chairman for 
further discussion of the ``Cohn-Adams matter,'' which became 
better known as the Army-McCarthy Hearings. Senator Karl E. 
Mundt assumed the chair.]
                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, MARCH 16, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:30 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
executive session in room 357 of the Senate Office Building, 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy (chairman of the subcommittee) 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Henry 
C. Dworshak, Republican, Idaho; Senator Everett McKinley 
Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator Charles E. Potter, 
Republican, Michigan; Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, 
Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, Washington; and 
Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.

    [The transcript of this executive session was made public 
on May 12, 1954 and published in Special Subcommittee on 
Investigations of the Committee on Government Operations, 
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, Part 1 (Washington, D.C.: Government 
Printing Office, 1954).]


                    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

    [Editor's note.--The father of G. David Schine, Junius Myer 
Schine (1890-1971), held extensive business interests in real 
estate, hotels, theaters and broadcasting. He had made his 
apartment at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York City 
available to the subcommittee and had entertained both Senator 
McCarthy and Army Secretary Robert Stevens. In 1957 he turned 
the presidency of Schine Enterprises over to his son. Florence 
D. Torrey (1905-1988) served as assistant secretary and 
assistant treasurer of all Schine operations. Neither Myer 
Schine nor Florence Torrey testified in public. Roy M. Cohn 
testified at public hearings on May 26-28, and June 1-4, 8-9, 
15, 1954.]
                              ----------                              


                         MONDAY, APRIL 19, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met at 3:30 p.m., in the office of Senator 
Mundt, Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota.
    Also present: Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel to the 
subcommittee; and Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel.
    Senator Mundt. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you are 
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth so help you God?
    Mr. Cohn. I do.
    Mr. Schine. I do.
    Mrs. Torrey. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF J. MYER SCHINE

    Mr. Jenkins. You are Mr. J. Myer Schine?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. What is your age, Mr. Schine?
    Mr. Schine. I am sixty-two.
    Mr. Jenkins. Your address?
    Mr. Schine. Gloversville, New York.
    Mr. Jenkins. You are the father of G. David Schine?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. What business are you engaged in?
    Mr. Schine. I am in the theater business and the hotel 
business.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you own a chain of theaters?
    Mr. Schine. I am the principal stockholder.
    Mr. Jenkins. The principal stockholder?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Those theaters are owned by a corporation?
    Mr. Schine. By a corporation.
    Mr. Jenkins. What is the name of the corporation?
    Mr. Schine. Schine Chain Theaters.
    Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Schine, does the Schine Chain Theaters own 
all of the theaters in which you are interested?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, I would say so.
    Mr. Jenkins. Is there any other affiliate corporation of 
Schine Theaters?
    Mr. Schine. Schine Theaters, you mean in the theater field?
    Mr. Jenkins. We are talking about the theaters and not the 
hotel.
    Mr. Schine. Well, it is a broad question. There are some 
where we own half interest and others own the other half, if 
that is what you would call it.
    Mr. Jenkins. Are they corporations?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you individually own any theaters?
    Mr. Schine. No, I don't.
    Mr. Jenkins. All of the theaters in which you have an 
interest, then, are theaters that are owned by the corporation 
whose name you mentioned?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Or other affiliate or subsidiary corporations?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Is that correct?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Jenkins. Will you name all of the affiliate or 
subsidiary corporations owning theaters, besides the Schine 
Theater Corporation?
    Mr. Schine. Well, there are not many, but I could not 
remember the names. There are maybe three of four. I would say 
we own one corporation in which we own two thirds, and it is 
known as the--let me see, Worcester Theaters. We own half; in 
Tiffin Theaters we own three fourths, and Shelby, Ohio, we own 
one half, and let me see--pardon me, what is the name--Norwalk 
Theaters, we own three fourths, and then we own a half interest 
in--let me see, what is the name of the Kentucky town. Harlan. 
That is right. And I don't know of any others.
    Mrs. Torrey. There are many subsidiary corporations.
    Mr. Jenkins. Will Mrs. Torrey be able to answer that 
question?
    Mrs. Torrey. I am more familiar with some of the details.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do all of the corporations that own any 
theaters and in which corporations you own stock, will she be 
able to give me that information?
    Mr. Schine. She will be better able to answer it.
    Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Schine, in addition to the corporations 
owning theaters throughout the country, are you likewise 
interested in hotels or a chain of hotels?
    Mr. Schine. Yes.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you own any----
    Mr. Schine. Pardon me. I personally am not interested in 
any hotels.
    Mr. Jenkins. You personally own no interest in any hotel?
    Mr. Schine. The Schine Chain is interested in several, I 
would say.
    Mr. Jenkins. What is the name of the corporation that owns 
the hotels?
    Mr. Schine. Well, each hotel has a separate corporation.
    Mr. Jenkins. Is owned by a separate corporation?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you know how many hotels there are?
    Mr. Schine. Owned by the Schine Chain?
    Mr. Jenkins. Yes.
    Mr. Schine. I believe that is the stock in those 
corporations you refer to.
    Mr. Jenkins. Correct.
    Mr. Schine. Well, they own a controlling interest in--
pardon me----
    Mrs. Torrey. Just recently one was sold.
    Mr. Schine. Only two do we own the controlling interest.
    Mr. Jenkins. You know Mr. Roy Cohn, the gentleman sitting 
here?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. How long have you known him?
    Mr. Schine. I would say six or seven years.
    Mr. Jenkins. Has he visited in your home?
    Mr. Schine. He has.
    Mr. Jenkins. Have you visited in his home?
    Mr. Schine. No, I never did.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you know Senator Joseph R. McCarthy?
    Mr. Schine. I do.
    Mr. Jenkins. How long have you known Senator McCarthy?
    Mr. Schine. About two years, I would say.
    Mr. Jenkins. Has he visited in your home?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, he has.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you know Mr. Frank Carr?
    Mr. Schine. I do.
    Mr. Jenkins. How long have you known him?
    Mr. Schine. About a year.
    Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Schine, have you ever personally paid or 
given any money to Mr. Roy Cohn?
    Mr. Schine. Definitely not.
    Mr. Jenkins. Have you ever given him anything of any 
monetary value, property or cash or stocks or bonds?
    Mr. Schine. I gave him a birthday present of a necktie or 
something like that.
    Mr. Jenkins. I don't mean that.
    Mr. Schine. You don't mean that?
    Mr. Jenkins. No.
    Mr. Schine. I never gave anything of any value.
    Mr. Jenkins. Anything of any substantial value.
    Mr. Schine. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Is he an attorney or one of the attorneys for 
you or any corporation in which you are interested?
    Mr. Schine. He is not.
    Mr. Jenkins. He is not?
    Mr. Schine. No.
    Mr. Jenkins. Or has any member of this firm ever 
represented you or any corporation in which you are interested?
    Mr. Schine. They have not.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you know the name of Mr. Cohn's law firm?
    Mr. Schine. I don't know the name.
    Mr. Jenkins. Have you ever paid that firm any fee?
    Mr. Schine. No.
    Mr. Jenkins. Or any money, or anything of any value?
    Mr. Schine. Never.
    Mr. Jenkins. Anything that ever passed from you to that 
firm?
    Mr. Schine. I never paid anything to Mr. Cohn's law firm.
    Mr. Jenkins. Let me ask you, Mr. Schine, whether or not any 
corporation owning any of these theaters has to your knowledge 
paid to Mr. Cohn or Mr. Cohn's law firm any money?
    Mr. Schine. We never paid anything.
    Mr. Schine. By gifts or otherwise.
    Mr. Schine. No.
    Mr. Jenkins. Has any corporation owning the theaters in 
which you are interested to your knowledge paid to Mr. Cohn or 
any member of his firm any money or thing of value?
    Mr. Schine. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. You have not.
    Mr. Schine. No.
    Mr. Jenkins. Now, have you ever contributed any money to 
Senator McCarthy's campaign?
    Mr. Schine. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Or has any money or anything of value ever 
passed from you to Senator McCarthy?
    Mr. Schine. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Or from any corporation in which you are 
interested to Senator McCarthy?
    Mr. Schine. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Or from any member of your family to Senator 
McCarthy.
    Mr. Schine. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. I have been asking you those questions in so 
far as your knowledge is concerned. If a payment was made to 
Mr. Cohn by any of these corporations, would you know it, or 
not?
    Mr. Schine. I would positively know it.
    Mr. Jenkins. You positively would?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Would it have to clear through you before such 
a thing occurred?
    Mr. Schine. Definitely so.
    Mr. Jenkins. Are you or are you in conjunction with other 
members of your family controllers of the stock in those 
respective corporations, that is a majority of the stock in 
each and every one?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. And do you have an annual audit furnished you 
of the affairs and condition of these respective corporations?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, we have a quarterly audit.
    Mr. Jenkins. You brought with you none of the books or 
papers or documents?
    Mr. Schine. We have our chief auditor living in this town, 
and he can come here and testify, and he has records here that 
are here.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you have any knowledge of your son, G. 
David Schine, ever paying Mr. Cohn or Mr. Carr or Senator 
McCarthy any money?
    Mr. Schine. No.
    Mr. Jenkins. Is your son a stockholder in these 
corporations you have mentioned?
    Mr. Schine. No
    Mr. Jenkins. How is that?
    Mr. Schine. No, he is not. He is indirectly as a minor. He 
got some stock but he never had control of it.
    Mr. Jenkins. Is he an officer in any of those corporations, 
to your knowledge?
    Mr. Schine. Yes, he is.
    Mr. Jenkins. Could he have made any payments without your 
knowledge?
    Mr. Schine. No, he could not. I might say that Mrs. Torrey, 
it must pass through Mrs. Torrey's hands, any payment to be 
made.
    Mr. Jenkins. Now, what is her position with you and the 
Schine Corporation?
    Mr. Schine. She is manager of our office in charge of 
finances, and any payments must pass through her hands.
    Mr. Jenkins. I see. Senator, do you want to ask any 
questions?
    Senator Mundt. No.
    Mr. Jenkins. Did you have any questions?
    Mr. Cohn. No.

                TESTIMONY OF FLORENCE D. TORREY

    Mr. Jenkins. Please state your full name.
    Mrs. Torrey. Florence D. Torrey.
    Mr. Jenkins. And your address?
    Mrs. Torrey. 27 Poole Avenue, Gloversville, New York.
    Mr. Jenkins. What official position do you hold with, we 
will say for the present, the Schine Corporation?
    Mrs. Torrey. I am assistant secretary and assistant 
treasurer of I think all of them, offhand.
    Mr. Jenkins. All of them?
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes, sir, and I am officer manager of the home 
office in Gloversville.
    Mr. Jenkins. Now, Mrs. Torrey, let us take these up one by 
one.
    Is there a corporation known as the Hildemark Corporation? 
Is that at 40 North Main Street, Gloversville, New York?
    Mrs. Torrey. That is the business office.
    Mr. Jenkins. What is the nature of the business of that 
corporation?
    Mrs. Torrey. Hildemark Corporation is a management 
corporation for hotels mainly.
    Mr. Jenkins. It is a management corporation for the hotels?
    Mrs. Torrey. That is right.
    Mr. Jenkins. How many hotels are there involved?
    Mrs. Torrey. Six
    Mr. Jenkins. Just a moment.
    Mrs. Torrey. If we count the Gulfstream, as a hotel, it is 
really an apartment house, but it is a hotel.
    Mr. Jenkins. That would be seven.
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Is each hotel owned by a separate and distinct 
corporation?
    Mrs. Torrey. Most of them are, and some of them may be 
owned by one and operated by the same corporation. It is a 
little difficult to explain without going into detail.
    Mr. Jenkins. But the Hildemark Corporation is a management 
corporation?
    Mrs. Torrey. That is correct.
    Mr. Jenkins. And what is your official position with the 
Hildemark Corporation?
    Mrs. Torrey. I am assistant treasurer and assistant 
secretary.
    Mr. Jenkins. As such assistant treasurer, do you have in 
your possession all of the records showing all payments by this 
management corporation to all persons, firms and corporations?
    Mrs. Torrey. By the management corporation, yes to all 
persons.
    Mr. Jenkins. We will go back to the management corporation 
shortly.
    What is the Schine Chain Theaters, Inc?
    Mrs. Torrey. The Schine Chain Theaters, Inc., is the parent 
corporation for the theaters. It has many subsidiaries. I don't 
know the exact number, but something over eighty, most of which 
are 100 percent subsidiaries of Schine Chain Theaters, Inc. 
There are a few in which there are other interests, the ones 
that Mr. Schine mentioned, outside interests.
    Mr. Jenkins. Very well. What is the Schine Service 
Corporation?
    Mrs. Torrey. That is a booking corporation for the buying 
and booking of film for these theaters.
    Mr. Jenkins. What is the Schine Theatrical Company?
    Mrs. Torrey. That operates a theater in Syracuse.
    Mr. Jenkins. What is Schinebro, it seems to be, Inc.?
    Mrs. Torrey. Schinebro is a corporation owned by Mr. J. 
Myer Schine and Mr. Louis W. Schine, and it in turn owns the 
stock of Schine Chain Theaters, Inc. I think you would call it 
a personal holding corporation.
    Senator Mundt. The two Schines are brothers, are they?
    Mrs. Torrey. They are.
    Mr. Jenkins. What is the Schine Circuit, Inc.?
    Mrs. Torrey. Well, it is mostly a trade name and it does 
not actually operate, or own any theaters, but we use it on 
stationery, because everybody always used to write in to us, 
Schine Circuit, and so we incorporated the name.
    Mr. Jenkins. It is a trade name.
    Mrs. Torrey. It is a trade name.
    Mr. Jenkins. What is the Schine Hotels, Inc.?
    Mrs. Torrey. That is the same sort of corporation for the 
hotels.
    Mr. Jenkins. Schine Theatrical Company, Inc., what is that?
    Mrs. Torrey. You asked me that before. That operates a 
theater in Syracuse.
    Mr. Jenkins. And I have asked you about Schine Enterprises, 
Inc.?
    Mrs. Torrey. No. That is a booking corporation for another 
group of theaters.
    Mr. Jenkins. Who owns the Boca Raton Hotel and Club?
    Mrs. Torrey. The stock of the Boca Raton Club, Inc., that 
is the corporation, is owned by Hildemark Corporation.
    Mr. Jenkins. About which we spoke a little while ago?
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. What if anything, Mrs. Torrey, do you know 
about the Roney Plaza, 23rd and Collins Avenue, Miami Beach, 
Florida?
    Mrs. Torrey. The Roney Plaza Hotel is operated by Boca 
Raton Club, Inc., the same corporation that operates the Boca 
Raton Club.
    Mr. Jenkins. Have I mentioned all of the corporations that 
either own all of the theaters in which Mr. Schine is 
interested, or all of the hotels in which he is interested, or 
are there others?
    Mrs. Torrey. Well, you have mentioned all of the parent 
corporations.
    Mr. Schine. Save one, the McAllister Corporation.
    Mrs. Torrey. I said he has mentioned all of the parent 
corporations, and now all of the others are subsidiaries of 
either Hildemark Corporation, or of Schine Chain Theaters, Inc. 
As I said, on the theaters, there are eighty-some corporations 
involved, and I would not be able----
    Mr. Jenkins. We don't want you to mention eighty.
    Mrs. Torrey. I could not recall all of them, but I could 
send you a list if it is necessary, if it is pertinent.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do all disbursements of either the parent 
corporation or the subsidiaries, or the affiliates, go through 
your office?
    Mrs. Torrey. All of the major disbursements do. For 
instance, each theater has what we call a manager's account, 
from which he pays weekly the invoices for that particular 
theater, the operating invoices, and the advertising and the 
film rentals, and the payroll to his staff, and so on, and then 
at the end of the week he sends in whatever he has left over 
toward his capitol expenditures, rent, and carrying charges, 
and we pay those from Gloversville.
    Mr. Jenkins. Now, you say that all major expenditures go 
through your office.
    Mrs. Torrey. That is right, all management expenses, shall 
I say.
    Mr. Jenkins. Would or would not all attorneys' fees paid by 
either Mr. Schine individually, or by any of these parent or 
subsidiary corporations, clear through your office and be 
reflected by your books?
    Mrs. Torrey. The only ones that might not be would be, let 
us say, a small legal fee.
    Mr. Jenkins. What do you call a small legal fee.
    Mrs. Torrey. I mean a couple of hundred dollars for legal 
work, and I recall now one of the hotels once had a small labor 
consultant fee, but normally legal expenses go through our 
office.
    Mr. Jenkins. Assuming that it were a fee of say $1,000 or 
more?
    Mrs. Torrey. It would go through our office.
    Mr. Jenkins. It would go through your office?
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you personally check each and every item of 
disbursement?
    Mrs. Torrey. I do. I sign every check that goes out of the 
office.
    Mr. Jenkins. How do you do it?
    Mrs. Torrey. Well, it is too much time, I will tell you 
that, but what I mean is we make the major expenses, and the 
small operating expenses are taken care of by the branches, but 
when it comes to major expenditures, those are taken care of, 
top salaries and rents and taxes and insurance, and so on.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you have any personal knowledge of either 
Mr. Schine individually, or any one of these eighty or ninety 
corporations, either parent or subsidiary, ever making any 
payment of any money or any gift or any money to Mr. Roy Cohn?
    Mrs. Torrey. I do not have any such knowledge.
    Mr. Jenkins. Or to Mr. Frank Carr?
    Mrs. Torrey. I have no such knowledge.
    Mr. Jenkins. Or to Senator Joseph R. McCarthy?
    Mrs. Torrey. No, I have no such knowledge.
    Mr. Jenkins. I ask you whether or not such a payment has 
ever been made as reflected by your books?
    Mrs. Torrey. No, not to the best of my knowledge, and I 
have been with the Schines for more than thirty years, and I 
have probably as extensive a knowledge of their affairs as any 
one person could possibly have.
    Mr. Jenkins. Then you have no books, papers, records or 
data, documents or checks, or canceled checks, or receipts or 
memoranda of any kind of character, whatsoever, that reflect 
any payment or gift or anything of value, including money, to 
Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr or Senator McCarthy.
    Mrs. Torrey. I have no such.
    Mr. Jenkins. Are you positive about that?
    Mrs. Torrey. I am positive about any of the books that I 
have.
    Mr. Jenkins. If this committee in its wisdom should see fit 
to ask that an auditor go to your office and audit your books, 
would you make available to him all of your books and records 
that I have mentioned?
    Mrs. Torrey. Absolutely.
    Mr. Jenkins. Of every kind?
    Mrs. Torrey. Of every kind that are in the Gloversville 
office. I might add what Mr. Schine said originally, that the 
firm of Forrest E. Ferguson and Company, who are located at 
1246 Connecticut Avenue, here in Washington, have audited our 
books, all of the Schine records since before I came with the 
firm, and their files are complete so far as any records are 
concerned.
    Mr. Jenkins. And that firm has audited your books, and they 
are now your auditor?
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. What is the name of that firm?
    Mrs. Torrey. Forrest E. Ferguson and Company.
    Mr. Jenkins. Here in Washington?
    Mrs. Torrey. 1346 Connecticut Avenue.
    Mr. Jenkins. Does that firm have in its possession now your 
latest financial statement?
    Mrs. Torrey. They do.
    Mr. Jenkins. And what is your latest financial statement, 
the date of it?
    Mrs. Torrey. That latest annual one is August 31, 1953.
    Mr. Jenkins. August 31, that is the end of your fiscal 
year?
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes, sir. They are now auditing our books for 
February 28, which is a six month audit.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do they get out a monthly audit?
    Mrs. Torrey. Not an official monthly audit, no; quarterly 
only.
    Mr. Jenkins. Their latest quarterly audit is dated what?
    Mrs. Torrey. November 30, 1953.
    Mr. Jenkins. Have you seen that latest quarterly audit?
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes, I have.
    Mr. Jenkins. Does it reflect any payments of any money to 
any of the parties mentioned, Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr or Senator 
McCarthy?
    Mrs. Torrey. In no way that I saw.
    Mr. Jenkins. Senator, do you care to ask Mrs. Torrey any 
questions?
    Senator Mundt. I can think of no questions.
    Mr. Jenkins. I think it might shorten this, and Roy is 
here, and he has kindly and graciously volunteered to testify 
and it may shorten the things hereafter. Will you come around, 
Roy?
    Now Senator, may she go back to Gloversville, and she wants 
to go this afternoon and I am through with her and with Mr. 
Schine.
    Let me ask you this other question just for my protection, 
Mrs. Torrey. Does David Schine draw a salary from----
    Mrs. Torrey. From Gloversville, yes.
    Mr. Jenkins. Well, from what, from all of these 
corporations?
    Mrs. Torrey. No, he draws a salary from Schine Theaters, 
Inc.
    Mr. Jenkins. Does he draw a salary from any other 
corporation?
    Mrs. Torrey. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you mind telling what salary he draws?
    Mrs. Torrey. I sign the check every week, and I should 
know, but it has the deductions taken off for withholding taxes 
and so on, but it is in the neighborhood of $300. And now I 
can't recall the exact amount.
    Mr. Jenkins. $300 a week?
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you know of any other income that David 
Schine has, in addition to that salary?
    Mrs. Torres. No, I don't.
    Mr. Jenkins. Very well. Roy, come around for just about a 
moment.
    Senator Mundt. If you care to go, Mr. Schine----
    Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Louis Schine is a brother of Mr. J. Myer 
Schine, and I asked Mrs. Torrey if Mr. Louis Schine was 
likewise a stockholder in these parent, subsidiary and 
affiliate corporations, and your answer is yes?
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Does Mr. Louis Schine, is he interested in any 
other corporation besides the one that Mr. J. Myer Schine is 
interested in?
    Mrs. Torrey. No, they are in together.
    Mr. Jenkins. Would Mr. Louis Schine in your opinion have 
any additional knowledge that you do not have with respect to 
what the books reflect?
    Mrs. Torrey. He would not.
    Mr. Jenkins. That covers Louis, I think.
    I will say that unless directed otherwise by the committee, 
I will not want either Mrs. Torrey or Mr. Schine here as 
witnesses.
    Mr. Prewitt. All of the subpoenas are directed to any of 
Mr. Schine accounts.
    Mr. Jenkins. Let us not make an agreement about it, but I 
think that will be our agreement, and do not have them here 
tomorrow. If I want any of them, Roy here will see that they 
are made available, and they can come at their convenience.
    Mrs. Torrey. Mr. Jenkins, there is one thing I would like 
to supplement, because I almost forgot about it, and that is 
that we have, I think there are four or five what we call 
television corporations, which are owned by the Schine family 
as individuals, which purchase television sets for the hotels 
and lease them to the hotels, and inasmuch as you are talking 
about corporations in which they are interested, and those are 
also Schine corporations, but when you asked if they were 
interested in anything outside, these are, all of these 
corporations are in some manner connected with either the 
theaters or the hotels. Schine Chain Theaters also own stock in 
a radio station in Albany.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you likewise keep the books of those 
corporations?
    Mrs. Torrey. Yes.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do they reflect any payments to any of the 
parties I asked you about?
    Mrs. Torrey. No.
    Mr. Jenkins. Then is it your honest and candid and firm 
conviction that no money and nothing of any monetary value has 
passed from either Mr. J. Myer Schine, Mr. Louis Schine, or any 
of the corporations, both parent, affiliate and subsidiary, to 
Mr. Cohn, Mr. Carr or Senator McCarthy?
    Mrs. Torrey. That is my honest belief. I don't see how it 
could have.

                    TESTIMONY OF ROY M. COHN

    Mr. Jenkins. What is your full name?
    Mr. Cohn. Roy M. Cohn.
    Mr. Jenkins. And you of course are with the Senate 
investigating subcommittee as its attorney.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Cohn, you know G. David Schine?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. How long have you known him, Roy?
    Mr. Cohn. I would say I have known Dave about four years or 
five years.
    Mr. Jenkins. Has he been with your committee that long?
    Mr. Cohn. No, I came with the committee, Mr. Jenkins, when 
Senator McCarthy became chairman of the committee, in January 
of last year, so I have been with the committee a few months 
over one year. Dave Schine came with the committee after I did.
    Mr. Jenkins. Has David Schine ever paid you any money or 
paid any gift or contribution to you of any character 
whatsoever?
    Mr. Cohn. Other than Christmas or birthday gifts, or 
payment of one half of a dinner check or something along those 
lines, the answer is no.
    Mr. Jenkins. Well, by Christmas or birthday, do you mean 
the normal presents?
    Mr. Cohn. This is the birthday gift, a ball point fountain 
pen.
    Mr. Jenkins. Has any substantial money or anything of any 
substantial value ever passed from him to you?
    Mr. Cohn. No, sir, nothing that is not an ordinary gift, 
such as ties or a pen, and I think cigars, and the maximum 
would be a small portable radio, and I have reciprocated, I 
might add.
    Mr. Jenkins. Has Mr. J. Myer Schine ever paid you any money 
or any money ever passed from him to you by gift or for 
services or otherwise?
    Mr. Cohn. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Has any member of his family ever paid you any 
money or has anything of any value ever passed from any member 
of his family to you?
    Mr. Cohn. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. As a gift or as compensation or otherwise?
    Mr. Cohn. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you know anything about the various Schine 
corporations?
    Mr. Cohn. I can't say that I do. I know that----
    Mr. Jenkins. You have heard Mrs. Torrey's testimony.
    Mr. Cohn. I know, and I have known they own theaters and 
hotels.
    Mr. Jenkins. Did you know the names of those corporations 
until today?
    Mr. Cohn. I did not know the exact names, no.
    Mr. Jenkins. Have any of those corporations, either the 
parent corporations or their affiliates, ever paid you a legal 
fee, or a fee or any money or anything of value?
    Mr. Cohn. No, sir, and when I answer I mean not only for 
myself, Mr. Jenkins, but for any member of my law firm, to my 
knowledge, and if there had been such payments, I would have 
known.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you examine the books of your law firm from 
time to time to get from whom your fees are paid?
    Mr. Cohn. Frankly, Mr. Jenkins, I don't. I don't think that 
I have ever seen any books of my law firm. My arrangement with 
my law firm is that I am a partner, but I draw a certain 
percentage of such business as I might bring in, a fixed 
percentage, or a fixed percentage of business, legal business 
on which I work, even though I did not bring it in. I have 
implicit faith in my partners to keep the record straight and 
give me that amount to which I am entitled, and I have never 
looked at any books or records of any kind. But I do know that 
neither I nor any partner of mine has ever received any fee 
directly or indirectly from any one of the Schine family or any 
of the Schine interests.
    Mr. Jenkins. Or any one of these various corporations that 
have been mentioned, and that includes that also.
    Mr. Cohn. Yes, I make this as broad as I possibly can.
    Mr. Jenkins. And you state that as a positive fact, Roy?
    Mr. Cohn. I would state it as a positive fact that while I 
have been here, or as long as I have been with the firm, in any 
capacity, the firm itself or any of the partners therein have 
not received any fees from any one of the Schine family or any 
of the Schine interests or corporations directly, indirectly, 
or in any way, shape, manner, form or means.
    Mr. Jenkins. Do you have any knowledge whatever, or 
information, directly or indirectly, that either David Schine 
or the Mr. Schine sitting here with us, or his brother, or any 
of the corporations in which any of the Schines are interested, 
have ever made any payment, contributions, or gifts to either 
Senator McCarthy or to Mr. Carr?
    Mr. Cohn. I have no such knowledge of any such gift or 
payment ever having been made.
    Mr. Jenkins. Have you ever heard of such a thing?
    Mr. Cohn. I have never hard of such a thing.
    Mr. Jenkins. Senator, do you care to ask him any questions?
    Senator Mundt. No, I think not.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to add one sentence. I would say I 
certainly appreciate the obligation on the part of Mr. Jenkins 
and the committee in inquiring about these matters with 
reference to my firm and my fees, but I do want the record to 
note though my objection to the fact that the army suggested 
that such an inquiry be made, because they could have had no 
possible basis in fact for asking that it be done. But in 
saying that, I say that I fully appreciate the responsibility 
Mr. Jenkins has in this matter, and he would not have carried 
it out properly unless he made those inquiries.
    [Thereupon at 4:00 p.m., the executive session was 
concluded.]


                    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

    [Editor's note.--At a closed meeting of the subcommittee on 
March 16, 1954, members agreed to hold a full inquiry into the 
Army-McCarthy conflict, and to postpone other investigations 
until that inquiry was completed. Senator McCarthy agreed to 
step aside temporarily as chairman of the subcommittee and to 
allow Senator Karl Mundt to preside. At Senator McCarthy's 
request, the subcommittee would hold public hearings and hire a 
new counsel and staff for its duration, with Roy Cohn and other 
staff members remaining on the subcommittee's payroll.]
                              ----------                              


                        TUESDAY, APRIL 20, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met at 4:25 p.m., pursuant to notice, in the 
office of the Secretary of the Senate, Senator Karl E. Mundt 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Henry C. Dworshak, Republican, Idaho; Senator Everett 
McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator Charles E. 
Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator John L. McClellan, 
Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, 
Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Walter L. Reynolds, chief clerk, Government 
Operations Committee.
    Senator Mundt. The committee will come to order.
    Let me say first of all that as ranking Republican member 
of the Committee on Government Operations, and in conformity 
with the memorandum which is herewith submitted in this record, 
I have at the request of Senator Joseph McCarthy called this 
meeting today for the purpose of confirming his nomination to 
the subcommittee on investigations, to replace him during the 
current investigation, and to take action on the rules which 
have been recommended to the full committee by the unanimous 
vote of the subcommittee.
    [The memorandum of Senator McCarthy is as follows:]

    I would appreciate it if you would call a meeting of the 
Committee on Government Operations and act as Chairman thereof 
for the purpose of presenting to that Committee the 
Subcommittee rules and the confirmation of another Republican 
to take such part as set forth in those rules during the 
current hearing. You are authorized to vote my proxy in favor 
of the rules which you read to me over the phone and also for 
the confirmation of Senator Henry C. Dworshak.
    I respectfully request that the purpose of the meeting be 
limited solely to the purposes as set forth above and to rules 
and other matters that are taken up at that time,
    I further request that the meeting be held either today or 
tomorrow so that this matter may be disposed of before the 
hearings begin.

    A quorum is present, consisting of Senator Symington, and 
Senator McClellan of Arkansas, Senator Dworshak of Idaho, 
Senator Dirksen of Illinois, Senator Potter of Michigan, 
Senator Jackson of Washington, and Senator Mundt of South 
Dakota.
    The meeting is open for business.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, I think as a first order of business, 
Mr. Chairman, I move that the committee empower the 
subcommittee, known as the temporary subcommittee of which 
Senator Mundt of South Dakota is chairman to proceed with the 
conduct of the hearings in response to the controversy which 
has developed.
    I move that the committee authorize the special 
subcommittee to conduct the hearings with respect to the 
controversy in which we are presently engaged.
    Senator McClellan. I second the motion.
    Senator Mundt. You have heard the motion made by Senator 
Dirksen, and seconded by Senator McClellan. Is there any 
discussion? All in favor say ``aye''; contrary minded ``no.'' 
It is a unanimous vote.
    Senator McClellan. Now, I move that Senator Mundt, as the 
ranking Republican member on the subcommittee since Senator 
McCarthy has stepped down from the committee, for the purposes 
of these hearings, be the chairman of this subcommittee for the 
purposes of these hearings.
    Senator Dirksen. Second the motion.
    Senator Mundt. You have heard the motion made by Senator 
McClellan and seconded by Senator Dirksen. Is there any 
discussion? Those in favor signify by saying ``aye.'' Contrary? 
The chair votes present. It is unanimously carried except for 
the chairman's vote of ``present.''
    Senator McClellan. I move that the actions taken by this 
subcommittee to date with respect to employing counsel and 
requiring bills of particular and specifications and charges 
and so forth be ratified by the full committee. I will add that 
the full committee authorizes the subcommittee to employ 
counsel and to ratify the actions taken by the counsel thus 
far, and to validate all actions taken and obligations incurred 
with respect to the committee staff.
    Senator Potter. That includes issuance of subpoenas?
    Senator Dirksen. Yes.
    I second that motion, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Mundt. It is moved by Senator McClellan and 
seconded by Senator Dirksen and you have all heard it. Is there 
any discussion? Those in favor signify by saying ``aye''; 
contrary ``no.'' The motion is unanimously approved.
    Senator Dirksen. Now, Mr. Chairman, I move that the rules 
which have been under consideration and perfected by the 
deliberations of the subcommittee which were unanimously 
presented and recommended to us by the subcommittee be 
approved, and adopted.
    Senator Mundt. Is there a second?
    Senator Jackson. Seconded.
    Senator Mundt. Is there any discussion? Those in favor 
signify by saying ``aye''; contrary ``no.'' It is carried.
    [The rules are as follows:]

    1. For all purposes of these hearings, Senator McCarthy 
will not participate in any of the deliberations of the 
Subcommittee; in any of its votes; or in the writing of the 
report; and he will nominate some other Republican member of 
the Committee on Government Operations to replace him on the 
subcommittee during these hearings for such purposes. It is the 
understanding and the rule of this subcommittee that during 
these hearings Senator McCarthy or his counsel and counsel for 
Messrs. Stevens and Adams (or Messrs. Stevens and Adams 
themselves), or other principals involved in the controversy, 
shall have the same right to cross-examine as the members of 
the subcommittee. These same rights shall also prevail for the 
new Republican member of the subcommittee to be nominated by 
Senator McCarthy and confirmed by the Committee on Government 
Operations, and for Messrs. Cohn and Carr, or other principals, 
or any counsel selected by them.
    2. During the course of these hearings, it is the rule of 
this Subcommittee that counsel for the Subcommittee will first 
complete his questioning of all witnesses without interruption 
or limitation as to time, then the Chairman will proceed with 
questions for a maximum of ten minutes without interruption, 
then alternating from Democratic to Republican sides of the 
table and from senior members down the line, each Senator shall 
proceed with questions without interruption for a maximum of 
ten minutes. At the conclusion of these questions, Senator 
McCarthy and Mr. Welch, or those associated with them, shall 
proceed with questions for a maximum of ten minutes to each 
side, after which, starting with counsel for the subcommittee, 
the same procedure will be repeated until all those having 
questions to ask shall have concluded their interrogatories.
    3. All examinations in each case shall proceed without 
interruption except for objections as to materiality and 
relevancy.
    4. If in the course of the proceedings any motion is 
presented or any objection is raised by anyone competent to 
make an objection, and it is submitted to the Committee for its 
determination and there is a tie vote as to whether the motion 
will be adopted or the objection sustained, such motion or 
objection will not prevail.
    5. There shall be no votes by proxy except where the absent 
Senator files with the Chairman of the Committee a wire or 
letter stating his position upon the specific issue before the 
Committee and in which he asks that his vote be recorded and 
directing the Chairman to record it accordingly.
    6. Any matter or issue that may be presented during the 
course of these hearings not specifically covered by the 
special rules adopted for these hearings, or covered by the 
standing rules of the Subcommittee, shall immediately be 
Submitted to the Subcommittee for its determination by a 
majority vote.
    7. Any member of the Committee may at any time move that 
the Committee go into executive session for the purpose of 
discussing any issue.
    8. Where these special rules of the Subcommittee do not 
apply, the standing rules of the Subcommittee, where 
applicable, shall control; provided, however that, where these 
special rules may conflict with the regular standing rules of 
the Subcommittee these special rules shall prevail.
    9. Because of the peculiar nature of the current 
controversy and the unusual problems created because of the 
positions of the individuals involved, these procedural rules 
are not in any way intended to establish a precedent.

    Senator Dirksen. Now, Mr. Chairman, I move you that the 
vacancy temporarily occasioned by the action of Senator 
McCarthy in stepping down for the purposes of these hearings be 
filled by Senator Dworshak who is nominated by Chairman 
McCarthy to replace himself.
    Senator McClellan. Seconded.
    Senator Mundt. It is seconded by Senator McClellan and 
moved by Senator Dirksen. Is there any discussion? Those in 
favor signify by saying ``aye''; contrary ``no.'' Let the 
record show that the six members have voted ``aye''; Senator 
Dworshak voted ``no.''
    If there is no further business, we can adjourn.
    Senator Dirksen. I move the committee do now adjourn.
    Senator Symington. Seconded.
    Senator Mundt. It is moved and seconded that the full 
committee now adjourn. Those in favor signify by saying 
``aye''; contrary ``no.''
    We are adjourned.
    [Whereupon, the committee adjourned at 4:40 p.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

    [Editor's note.--George E. Sokolsky (1893-1962), a 
columnist for the Hearst newspapers, had written for an 
English-language newspaper in Russia during the 1917 
revolution. He later grew disillusioned and shifted his 
political views from radical to conservative. Sokolsky had 
recommended Roy Cohn for the job as chief counsel of the 
subcommittee and strongly supported the subcommittee's 
investigations in his columns. During the investigation of the 
Army Signal Corps at Fort Monmouth, on November 17, 1953, 
Sokolsky had joined Cohn, Senator McCarthy, and Army Secretary 
Robert Stevens for lunch at the Merchants Club in New York. 
Army records later indicated that the columnist had contacted 
Stevens and John G. Adams on behalf of Private David Schine, 
recommending a reduction in Schine's required basic training to 
enable him to enter the Counter Intelligence Division (CID) 
school at Camp Gordon, Georgia. Sokolsky did not testify in 
public session.]
                              ----------                              


                         FRIDAY, APRIL 23, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met in executive session at 5:20 p.m., 
pursuant to notice, in the office of Senator Mundt, Senate 
Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator John L. McClellan, Democrat, Arkansas.
    Also present: Ray E. Jenkins, chief counsel; Thomas R. 
Prewitt, assistant counsel; Roy M. Cohn, one of the principal 
participants.
    Senator Mundt. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Sokolsky. I do.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Tom Prewitt, associate counsel for the 
subcommittee, will inquire.

                TESTIMONY OF GEORGE E. SOKOLSKY

    Mr. Prewitt. For the record will you state your name, 
please?
    Mr. Sokolsky. George E. Sokolsky. The ``E'' stands for 
Ephrium, if you want it in full.
    Mr. Prewitt. Your residence?
    Mr. Sokolsky. 300 West End Avenue, New York.
    Mr. Prewitt. And your occupation?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Journalist and radio commentator.
    Mr. Prewitt. Do you know Senator Joseph R. McCarthy?
    Mr. Sokolsky. I do.
    Mr. Prewitt. For how long have you known him?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Why, I suppose as long as he has been a 
senator. I would not remember when I first met him. I have 
always known him.
    Mr. Prewitt. In recent years, have you been closely 
associated with him?
    Mr. Sokolsky. The word ``associated'' is a difficult word. 
I have known him during this whole period.
    Mr. Prewitt. Well, just give me an idea of the extent of 
your association with him.
    Mr. Sokolsky. I would say we are good friends.
    Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Sokolsky, has it come to your attention 
that you were present on November 17, last, at the Merchants 
Club in New York City, wherein there was a meeting with Senator 
McCarthy, Mr. Cohn and Mr. Carr, Secretary Stevens, Mr. Adams, 
and a Colonel O'Leary?
    Mr. Sokolsky. That is Colonel [Tom] Cleary.
    Mr. Prewitt. Is that true?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Yes, that is true, but it was not a meeting.
    Mr. Prewitt. What was this?
    Mr. Sokolsky. It was a party, a luncheon party, a very gay, 
hilarious, convivial luncheon party.
    Mr. Prewitt. Were the gentlemen whom I have just indicated 
present on that occasion?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Yes, they were present.
    Mr. Prewitt. And will you tell us what time this party 
commenced, or when you first arrived?
    Mr. Sokolsky. I would like to state how I happened to be 
there.
    Mr. Prewitt. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Sokolsky. Because I was not a party to the meeting at 
all. I had a luncheon engagement set for that day with Senator 
McCarthy. He was supposed to have somebody telephone to me to 
say where we were to meet. He failed to have anybody telephone 
so I went elsewhere for lunch. When I arrived at the hotel in 
New York, the headwaiter accosted me and said that my office 
wanted me to call immediately.
    I called and I was told that Senator McCarthy's office or 
staff had phoned and asked whether I would care to lunch with 
him and Secretary of War Stevens that day. If so, I was to 
proceed to the Merchants Club in New York. As I never had met 
Mr. Stevens, I thought this would be a good occasion and went 
there.
    I arrived late. I should say maybe half past one, maybe a 
little earlier than that. They did not wait for me. They were 
eating. In a very good mood and very cheerful and very gay. All 
were very friendly.
    I was presented to those whom I did not know, and I did 
know I was there, and I did not know why I was there, and I had 
no idea at all, except it might have been Senator McCarthy's 
way of keeping a luncheon engagement.
    My host was at that moment not Senator McCarthy, but 
Secretary of War Stevens, whom I had never met before. That is 
how one gets into a picture.
    The question under discussion at the moment that I arrived 
was a document of twenty or more pages purporting to be an 
interview, as Mr. Stevens said, by the left-wing press with 
him, to which Senator McCarthy objected strenuously as unfair. 
Mr. Adams showed me the document. I did not read the document. 
But I commented that it was very foolish for any man to permit 
himself to be involved in an interview of those dimensions, 
because no newspaper would publish the whole document of that 
size, and therefore any excerpts would lead to distortions. So 
that the distortions were inevitable, and to be expected.
    Mr. Prewitt. Before we get too far here, Mr. Sokolsky, this 
document that you spoke of, how did you describe it?
    Mr. Sokolsky. It was described to me by Mr. Stevens and Mr. 
Adams as the transcript of an interview with the left-wing 
press.
    Mr. Prewitt. I see, sir. Now, on that occasion how long 
were you at the Merchants Club in the presence of the 
gentlemen, that I mentioned?
    Mr. Sokolsky. We were there several hours, because there 
was a television show and Attorney General Brownell and J. 
Edgar Hoover were testifying that day concerning Harry Dexter 
White, and all of the proceedings stopped and we watched that 
show. It was while that show was being watched by all of us 
that Senator McCarthy and Mr. Stevens and Mr. Cohn and Mr. 
Adams attempted to write a joint interview.
    Mr. Prewitt. Or press statement, is that right?
    Mr. Sokolsky. A press statement, a joint interview to be 
given to the press and radio and all kinds of people that came 
there with cameras, and I think they set up, well, I don't know 
what that was, whether it was a television show, or a newsreel, 
but they had klieg lights, and I looked at this thing and I saw 
that, well, a newspaper man can't keep his hand off a pencil, 
and so I kind of corrected what they wrote.
    Mr. Prewitt. There was discussion there about a joint 
statement to give to the press, is that right?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, tell me if you heard any statement by 
Secretary Stevens or by Mr. Adams on that occasion during any 
of the time when you were present, in substance or to the 
effect that you should go after the air force or navy or other 
branches of the defense establishment.
    Mr. Sokolsky. I would like to state that in my own words so 
as not to tax my memory beyond what is strictly recollection, 
because I kept no notes, and this was just a high jinks part to 
me, and I had no idea it would amount to anything.
    Mr. Prewitt. State what occurred to your best recollection.
    Mr. Sokolsky. At one point Secretary Stevens said, ``Why do 
you pick on me? Why do you always pick on us? Why don't you 
pick on some other branch of the government?''
    Whereupon they got into a dispute about some plants, I 
think, in Schenectady, if I am not mistaken. Now, whether he 
actually said navy or army, I have been taxing my memory 
considerably on that, and I am not prepared to say specifically 
army or navy, but I am prepared to say other branches of the 
government. ``Why do you pick on us? Why did you pick only on 
the army?''
    Whereupon Senator McCarthy threw his arms around him, his 
shoulder, and he said, ``That is the trouble with having 
friends. If you and I were not friends, I could proceed with 
this investigation much more effectively.''
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, by this investigation do you know what 
the senator meant?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Prewitt. Do you know for a fact that Fort Monmouth was 
under investigation at that time?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Yes.
    Mr. Prewitt. By Senator McCarthy?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Prewitt. And members of his staff?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Prewitt. And had there been prior to the occasion of 
Secretary Stevens making that statement or asking the 
questions, as you put it, discussion about the Fort Monmouth 
investigation?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Yes, there was considerable discussion about 
that. Fort Monmouth, and I would say the whole discussion was 
on Fort Monmouth at that moment.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, the remark of Secretary Stevens, that you 
just mentioned, was that made during the course of the 
discussion around this press statement?
    Mr. Sokolsky. No, this was made as we were leaving the 
table, to go into the television show, and the press statement 
was discussed while the television show was on. That I remember 
clearly.
    Now, on this question of army and navy, I was of the 
impression that the army and navy was discussed, but I am being 
punctilious in not saying so because I am taxing my memory 
without any notes or anything for recollection. But that it was 
other branches of the government which are words I am 
substituting for what might have been the exact words.
    Mr. Prewitt. And that statement or question of Secretary 
Stevens was just before you went into the television room?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Into the room where the television was, yes. 
I would like to add that I did not take the remarks of either 
gentleman seriously in the circumstances of the party and the 
general atmosphere.
    Mr. Prewitt. Well, was the secretary's statement or 
question made in a facetious vein?
    Mr. Sokolsky. I would say that in the atmosphere in which I 
found myself, I took none of it seriously. I took none of the 
conversation.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was the statement or question made in a jovial 
manner?
    Mr. Sokolsky. It was all made in a jovial manner, yes, sir, 
the whole conversation, and there was no quarrel when I was 
there.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, what was this statement or question of 
Secretary Stevens again, so that I can be absolutely clear on 
it?
    Mr. Sokolsky. As far as I am willing to state it now, 
repeat it now, without any means for refreshing my 
recollection, and guarding myself against being influenced by 
what I have heard since, and by what I have heard in testimony, 
I would say that he said, ``Why do you pick on me all of the 
time? Why do you only pick on the army? Aren't there other 
branches of government to investigate?''
    Mr. Prewitt. Who else was in a position, if you can 
remember, to hear that statement?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Well, I should imagine, anybody would be. You 
are really asking me to visualize how the party was divided up.
    Mr. Prewitt. Just to the best of your ability.
    Mr. Sokolsky. I would not know how to do that.
    Mr. Prewitt. You don't know whether the other members of 
the party heard it or not?
    Mr. Sokolsky. No, I will tell you why. If it were a serious 
occasion, and if I had known I was attending a serious meeting 
I probably would have memorized the whole environment but I 
went to a lunch and I did not know I was getting into anything 
like this. So I did not pay too much attention to the whole 
thing. Since this quarrel started, I have been trying to tax my 
memory for some precision about that occasion. This is the best 
I got out of it.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was any statement made by Secretary Stevens on 
that occasion to the effect that he would supply any 
information on that he would supply for Senator McCarthy to 
investigate the other branches of the service?
    Mr. Sokolsky. No, not in my hearing.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did Mr. Adams make any such statement?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Not in my hearing. They were very friendly 
toward each other, and as a matter of fact, Adams and Roy were 
palling up on that great occasion, and I don't think either of 
them were at that end of the room when we were walking about.
    Mr. Prewitt. Beginning on February 1 of this year, did you 
have any conversations with Mr. Adams about any disagreements 
between Mr. Adams and Mr. Stevens, and Senator McCarthy?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Oh, I think you have to go back a little 
before that.
    Mr. Prewitt. All right, sir, go back to whatever it was.
    Mr. Sokolsky. I go back to November 24.
    Mr. Prewitt. All right, sir.
    Mr. Sokolsky. On the occasion of November 17, Mr. Stevens 
seemed to be very pleased with me. He asked me to come see him 
the next time I am in Washington. I agreed to do so. I was in 
Washington on November 24. So I went to see him. It was about 
four o'clock in the afternoon. On that occasion he told me that 
he was in great difficulties in this whole situation and--am I 
talking loud enough for you?--that he was embarrassed by it, 
and it might ruin his career. When I say this situation, I mean 
the whole picture of the relationship with McCarthy, and that 
again he made the point that while McCarthy seems to be 
extraordinarily friendly to him, he seems only to pick on him, 
and that he is constantly troubling him, and that there are 
other things to do, and he thought that even if there were a 
continued investigation of the army, McCarthy could do some 
other things in between, like investigating the GE plant, or 
some other departments of government, so that it was spread out 
and it does not seem to be so concentrated on the army, which 
was great embarrassment to him.
    We also on that occasion discussed David Schine, and he 
said the point that Cohn was of the impression that he had 
promised that Schine would only have eight weeks of basic 
training, and that he probably said that, but he was in error, 
and he, Stevens, was in error, and he could not arrange for 
Schine to have only eight weeks of basic training. That Schine 
had to have sixteen weeks of basic training, and that there was 
no way of getting out of that.
    He said that if they would only have sense enough to let 
him alone, and not put pressure on him, he at the end of the 
sixteen weeks would arrange for Schine to have a satisfactory 
job, possibly in New York, but that it was made difficult for 
him to do anything by the constant activities in Schine's 
behalf.
    So I had commented on that, and I don't suppose my comments 
are of any importance.
    Mr. Prewitt. Yes, go ahead.
    Mr. Sokolsky. It was first to the effect that I didn't care 
whether Schine had eight or sixteen weeks, and secondly that my 
son had gone into the navy and had to do all of his boot camp 
training, and he said that his son had to do the usual, and he 
showed me a letter from his son, who I think at that moment had 
been promoted to corporal, or I think it was corporal or maybe 
it was sergeant, I don't recall whether it was corporal or 
sergeant, without his assistance and the first he knew of it 
was the notation before the name on the letter. And so then 
when we reached this point of Schine possibly getting something 
at the end of that period, I had said that I thought that 
anything should be done to avoid this kind of quarrelsome 
relationship, and it was not good for the party, or the country 
or for any of the parties involved, and that I did not think 
anybody was worth this type of unpleasantness.
    Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Sokolsky, I want to get your conversation 
with Secretary Stevens in proper perspective. Now, it was on 
November 24?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Prewitt. Is that correct?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Yes.
    Mr. Prewitt. Were you in Washington?
    Mr. Sokolsky. I was in Washington and I had come down to 
hear the president make a speech before the B'nai Brith the 
night before.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did I understand you to say that Secretary 
Stevens invited you?
    Mr. Sokolsky. He had invited me on November 17.
    Mr. Prewitt. On that occasion, November 17, was it made 
known to Secretary Stevens that you were a close friend of 
Senator McCarthy?
    Mr. Sokolsky. I don't know, but it should have been 
obvious. I mean I don't know what Senator McCarthy said to him 
when the arrangement was made for my inclusion at this party, 
but I do know that when I arrived everybody was cordial to me 
and it immediately became a George-Bob relationship.
    Mr. Prewitt. What I am getting at, to try to understand why 
Secretary Stevens was divulging this information to you.
    Mr. Sokolsky. There is no question. There was no question 
in my mind as to why that was being done.
    Mr. Prewitt. All right, you tell what it was.
    Mr. Sokolsky. It was being done for repetition. Men don't 
always say, ``You go back and tell him.'' It was perfectly 
evident to me that I, who could not make any difference in this 
situation, was being given a picture in the hope that I would 
repeat what I heard to the parties concerned, and perhaps 
influence them to pursue the course indicated.
    Mr. Prewitt. All right, sir. Now, I did not know that you 
had contacted Secretary Stevens or vice versa, at such an early 
date. Now, will you go ahead in details for us and detail all 
telephone conversations or personal contacts with Secretary 
Stevens and Mr. Adams, of course?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Now, I might just give you a little index on 
that, so that we have it clear. There were two personal 
contacts with Secretary Stevens, one on November 17 and one on 
November 24. There was one personal contact with John Adams on 
November 17. To the best of my recollection there were three 
telephone calls with John Adams.
    Now, the first of the telephone calls has to be undated, 
and I don't know the date of it. I telephoned to Senator 
McCarthy. Subsequent to November 24, I don't remember the date 
it was. I was in New York and I was calling him and he was very 
cheerful. He said, ``I would like to put a friend of yours on 
the telephone,'' whereupon he puts John Adams on the telephone, 
and John Adams and I have a conversation which left no 
impression on me, which was a general conversation about all 
the problems here.
    I give that just as the incident, and I can give you no 
more about it because I have no recollection of the 
conversation except that it was general, and had no meaning to 
me.
    Two days before the Zwicker case, and what is the date of 
the Zwicker case? I think it was Thursday.
    Mr. Carr. The first one was the thirtieth of January.
    Mr. Sokolsky. This was the open session; It was on a 
Thursday.
    Mr. Carr. That is the eighteenth of February.
    Mr. Sokolsky. I don't remember that one. February 18, you 
say it was February 18?
    Mr. Cohn. Zwicker was an open session on February 18.
    Mr. Sokolsky. On February 16 or 15, I think it was the 
sixteenth, John Adams called me in New York, and he said that 
he would like to read to me a letter which the secretary of the 
army had addressed to Senator McCarthy on the Peress case. I 
listened to the letter and told him that in my judgment the 
senator will blow his top, that the letter was offensive in 
several places to the ideas of the senator, and I would suggest 
that it be changed in places, which I indicated. He then said 
that he had already sent the letter and I said, ``Well, what is 
the use of telephoning me after you have sent it? I supposed 
you wanted me to make some suggestions. If not, I can read it 
in the newspapers the same as anybody else.''
    So he said ``Well, it has gone.'' I said, ``If you don't 
want to start a fight, telephone Frank Carr and tell him that 
you have sent a letter to him which you don't want him to open, 
and that he should return the letter to you and you send him 
another.
    At that point he said that the intercom, that the secretary 
was calling him on the intercom, and he would like to talk to 
me further, but he has to go to the secretary and he will call 
back.
    That in the end of the second conversation.
    I waited an hour or an hour and a half and finally I called 
him, and I said. ``I have no time to wait, I have got to go 
off. I have something to do.'' So he said he was sorry, and we 
got into a discussion of course 95 and course 96 concerning 
Dave Schine. This conversation I remember pretty clearly 
because I did not know what course 95 was, or what course 96 
was, and so we got that clear. One was in February and one was 
in April. Those courses were in a school in Georgia, and I know 
the name of the school, it is CID or CD, or something.
    Mr. Cohn. It is CID.
    Mr. Sokolsky. CID. Now, he said he could not get into 95, 
but that he probably would succeed in putting him in 96. He 
gave me the impression that he was cooperative, but the 
secretary was not cooperative, but that he would get him in 96.
    Well, I said I could not see very much difference between 
95 and 96 and I thought it a very good thing for Schine to be 
down there and get hardened up, and he said he wished he were 
in Iceland, and I said, ``Well, are you going to send him 
somewhere? Better send him to Paris or France.'' And with that 
the conversation closed. That is all the contact I have ever 
had with the man.
    Now, it may be that he called me another time, but I have 
no recollection of it, and none whatsoever, I never called him.
    Mr. Prewitt. On any of those calls with Mr. Adams were you 
calling on instructions from Senator McCarthy or at his 
request? Did Mr. Adams always initiate the calls to you?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Mr. Adams always--well, now, you see, let us 
take the last two calls as an interrupted first call, or one 
call, and that was initiated by Mr. Adams. The other call, I 
was calling McCarthy, and I never called Adams.
    Mr. Prewitt. He was the motivating caller.
    Mr. Sokolsky. I would say so, yes, sir.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, in any of the calls of Mr. Adams, did you 
say that unless, or words to this effect, that unless Dave 
Schine gets into course 95, Senator McCarthy will continue to 
investigate you?
    Mr. Sokolsky. No.
    Mr. Prewitt. Or words of that import?
    Mr. Sokolsky. No. I did stress whether in this conversation 
or in any other conversation, this fact, that I did not believe 
that Dave Schine or anybody else was worth this type of fight, 
and that if a way could be found to eliminate the fight by any 
means whatsoever, I was for it. But the exact wording of that I 
would not know, or whether I said it on this occasion or any 
other occasion, because I said it all of the time.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you suggest to Mr. Adams that if a special 
assignment were given Mr. Schine, that in all probability 
Senator McCarthy's investigations of the army would be 
terminated or limited?
    Mr. Sokolsky. I never spoke for Senator McCarthy.
    Mr. Prewitt. Well, that was not exactly my question.
    Mr. Sokolsky. No, no, but the answer must be that, that 
never under any circumstances did I speak for Senator McCarthy, 
or for Roy Cohn or for Frank Carr. Anything I may have said, I 
said as an opinion of my own.
    Now, whether on this occasion I continued saying what I 
have always said, that a way must be found to eliminate this 
fight, or not, I don't recall.
    Mr. Prewitt. Do you know whether Mr. Adams' calls to you 
were prompted by suggestions from Mr. Carr, that Mr. Adams call 
you?
    Mr. Sokolsky. I know nothing about that.
    Mr. Prewitt. You do not know why Mr. Adams happened to call 
you on these two or three occasions that you have indicated?
    Mr. Sokolsky. I presumed when I received the call that the 
only reason could be that they hoped that I would speak to the 
senator or to Roy about these matters. Otherwise, why call me? 
I mean my friendship was not with them. I had only met them on 
this one occasion.
    Mr. Prewitt. Well to get the record clear, Mr. Sokolsky, 
and I am not trying to confuse you----
    Mr. Sokolsky. Oh, no.
    Mr. Prewitt. It is not our purpose, as I understand it, 
with Mr. Jenkins, to confuse anybody.
    Mr. Sokolsky. Your last question interests me very much 
because it implies to me that it has been suggested that I was 
attempting to negotiate a deal.
    [Senator Dirksen entered the room.]
    Mr. Sokolsky. I am now explaining my four contacts with 
Stevens and Adams.
    Senator Dirksen. In pursuance of what, a letter or 
newspaper article?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Why does Adams call me? He assumes that 
McCarthy and I are friends, and he is setting a picture for me 
to carry to McCarthy.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did Mr. Adams on the occasion of his calling 
you state that Mr. Carr suggested that he call you?
    Mr. Sokolsky. Not to my recollection at all. Now, I would 
like to know why that is asked, if I may. Is there such a 
statement?
    Mr. Prewitt. There may be. This is an investigative 
function, that we have underway here, and that is the purpose 
of this.
    Mr. Sokolsky. No, I don't think so. I have no recollection 
of anything like that, nor have I any recollection of Mr. Carr 
telling me that. That is, that he had told Adams to call me. I 
don't think I talked to you during that period.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, I am sure that you are familiar with the 
overall issues that are involved in this present controversy. 
Do you know anything else that might bear light on these 
issues, which you haven't stated?
    Mr. Sokolsky. You mean of my own knowledge?
    Mr. Prewitt. Yes, with reference particularly to any 
telephone conversations that you had with either Secretary 
Stevens or Mr. Adams, or with reference to any personal 
interviews that you might have had with either of them?
    Mr. Sokolsky. No, that is four; that is all.
    Mr. Prewitt. You have had four?
    Mr. Sokolsky. That is, shall we count----
    Mr. Jenkins. It is really two conversations.
    Mr. Sokolsky. Or three conversations; that is all.
    Mr. Jenkins. And a personal contact in New York.
    Mr. Sokolsky. And let us put it November 17, November 24, 
and an undated telephone call, and that is all I can recollect.
    Mr. Prewitt. You have had no further contact?
    Mr. Sokolsky. No further contact.
    Mr. Jenkins. May I ask him one question? Mr. Sokolsky, did 
you ever at any time, either in a personal conversation with 
Adams, or in a telephonic conversation with Adams, tell Adams 
in substance that if Stevens would take care of Dave Schine, 
all of his troubles would be ended, and there would be no 
further embarrassment in so far as the activities of the 
committee in making this investigation were concerned? Or words 
to that effect?
    Mr. Sokolsky. No, sir.
    Mr. Jenkins. That is all, Tom.
    [Thereupon at 5:45 p.m., the executive session was 
concluded.]


                    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

    [Editor's note.--In his book, McCarthy (New American 
Library, 1968), Roy Cohn reproduced a memorandum by Willard 
Edwards, a Chicago Tribune reporter who, on the evening of May 
25, 1954, had helped Cohn prepare for his forthcoming 
testimony: ``Frank Carr revealed that the committee has 
subpoenaed and questioned Miss Iris Flores, a stunning young 
brunette, who is one of Dave Schine's girl friends, No. 1 on 
the list at the present time. She is the one to whom Dave made 
several phone calls a day during his Ft. Dix stay and the 
committee obtained her name thru subpoena of the telephone 
records. The Army has insisted upon questioning her to 
determine if Dave misused his pass privileges for feminine 
entertainment when he was supposed to be engaged on committee 
business. There was much discussion of whether her testimony 
would help or harm the McCarthy case. She was Dave's companion 
on New Year's eve and her testimony would be that she fretted 
the evening away while Dave pored over committee records in 
preparation for the annual report. This was fine but would 
anyone believe it? During the evening a call came from Senator 
Mundt and McCarthy reported that Mundt thought the girl's 
testimony not pertinent. This, however, was undecided and the 
beauteous Iris was present in the hearing room this morning. 
From what I heard, if she testifies it will be a field day for 
the press.'' Iris Flores did not testify in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                        SATURDAY, APRIL 24, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to call, 
in the office of Senator Mundt, Senator Mundt presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota.
    Also present: John Kimball, Jr., army counsel; Thomas R. 
Prewitt, assistant counsel; Sol Horowitz, assistant counsel.
    Senator Mundt. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you 
are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and 
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
    Miss Flores. I do.

                    TESTIMONY OF IRIS FLORES

    Mr. Prewitt. Miss Flores, this is a private hearing, an 
executive hearing of the subcommittee. You were subpoenaed by 
counsel for the subcommittee. This is in the nature of an--I 
use the phrase pretrial hearing for investigative purposes. 
That is the reason why we subpoenaed you, with the idea in mind 
that we want to dispose of all extraneous matters, that is, 
matters that might not bear on the issues of this controversy 
in advance of any open hearing.
    I understand that through your letter to us that you have 
taken the position that you do not want to testify in an open 
hearing which is televised; is that correct?
    Miss Flores. That is correct.
    Mr. Prewitt. And that matter can be disposed of at a later 
date.
    Miss Flores. I also said at a public hearing. Do you 
remember my letter?
    Mr. Prewitt. Those matters can be disposed of later because 
this is not a public hearing.
    Miss Flores. I understand.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, you do not have counsel with you?
    Miss Flores. No, I do not.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, will you state your name for the record?
    Miss Flores. Iris Flores.
    Mr. Prewitt. Your residence?
    Miss Flores. Twenty-third East 64th Street, New York City.
    Mr. Prewitt. And your occupation?
    Miss Flores. I am an inventor.
    Mr. Prewitt. Are you employed by any person or concern?
    Miss Flores. No. I sold an invention to I. Newman and 
Company, and it has to do with brassieres and it is a gadget 
and DuPont has been working on it, a man from DuPont, and a 
brassiere designer for them. I have been working closely with 
them for working models. We hope to bring it out in a few 
months.
    Mr. Prewitt. What is your age?
    Miss Flores. Twenty-nine.
    Mr. Prewitt. Do you know one G. David Schine?
    Miss Flores. I do.
    Mr. Prewitt. For how long have you known him?
    Miss Flores. For about three and a half years. 
Approximately four years. 1951 I met G. David Schine.
    Mr. Prewitt. Has your association with him been on a casual 
basis, or a closer basis?
    Miss Flores. I have had a great friendship for Mr. Schine 
and it certainly has been always proper.
    Mr. Prewitt. Miss Flores, are you familiar with the fact 
that Private Schine was inducted into the army last November?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I am.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you know of that fact at the time?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you know that he was assigned to Fort Dix, 
New Jersey?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Prewitt. Can you recall, if you know, the approximate 
date when he was assigned to Fort Dix?
    Miss Flores. Everyone knows, the third of November.
    Mr. Prewitt. I will ask you if you received any telephone 
calls from Fort Dix from Private Schine?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Prewitt. Subsequent to November 3 last?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you receive many, or few calls?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember how many calls. I don't 
remember how many.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you receive calls daily?
    Miss Flores. Perhaps. I don't know. I don't remember more 
or less whether it was daily.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you receive more on the average of one 
call a week?
    Miss Flores. Yes I did.
    Mr. Prewitt. Will you give us your best estimate of the 
number of calls which you received weekly?
    Miss Flores. I don't know. I am in and out of my house so 
much that I miss a great many calls. I am on these inventions 
and many things I do. I don't know if I could have been home 
when he called or if I had a message. You know, it is hard to 
say. I don't quite remember that far.
    Mr. Prewitt. Without going into the details of these 
various telephone calls from Private Schine to you while the 
latter was at Fort Dix, tell us what the purpose of the calls 
were, if they had any particular purpose?
    Miss Flores. No, just to say hello I suppose, and what he 
was doing. He was in the army, he was very happy the way things 
had turned out. I suppose he was busy. That is all. Just 
social. It was purely a social call.
    Mr. Prewitt. During the period when Private Schine was at 
Fort Dix, did you see him socially?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Prewitt. On many or few occasions?
    Miss Flores. Well, they were sort of few, because I went 
away part of November. I was in Florida. I went to Palm Beach. 
I believe I saw Private Schine a few times. I don't know; we 
had a quick dinner, and very late at night because he was 
always busy with things to do, and Roy Cohn. I imagine he was 
sort of annoyed because he never made a special----
    Mr. Prewitt. Tell us if Private Schine called you on any 
occasion while he was at Fort Dix and made a prearrangement to 
see you?
    Miss Flores. What was that question again? I don't 
understand.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did he make any engagement with you over the 
telephone to see you while he was at Fort Dix?
    Miss Flores. I don't know. He may have. If he didn't, he 
would say, ``I would love to see you if I am not tied up, if I 
am not busy, if I have a chance I will call.''
    Mr. Prewitt. I am not trying to confuse you, Miss Flores.
    Miss Flores. No, but there was no definite, anything 
definite, I never had a definite commitment or definite date 
because he always seemed so terribly tied up with all kinds of 
things.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did Private Schine after calling you from Fort 
Dix ever have an engagement with you?
    Miss Flores. After calling me from Fort Dix?
    Mr. Prewitt. Yes, on the same day of the call, or shortly 
thereafter?
    Miss Flores. Possibly, but it might have been at the last 
minute, very late like I say. I dined with him once or twice, 
dinner quickly. You know, it was always hurried.
    Mr. Prewitt. Where did you dine with him?
    Miss Flores. I believe at Pen and Pencil one day, about an 
hour. That was all. And one evening at the Drake Hotel. I don't 
remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. That was while he was stationed at Fort Dix?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you ever go to Trenton, New Jersey and 
meet Private Schine?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Senator Mundt Did you see Private Schine while you were in 
Florida?
    Miss Flores. No, I saw no one that knows Private Schine. 
This is a different group of people in Palm Beach.
    Mr. Prewitt. Miss Flores, we have information that Private 
Schine on December 8, 1953, telephoned you four different 
times. Now, is that true or not, or do you remember it?
    Miss Flores. December 8? Frankly, to tell you the truth, I 
do not remember it.
    Mr. Prewitt. Do you remember whether Private Schine on any 
one day called you as much as four times from Fort Dix?
    Miss Flores. To the best of my recollection, I don't 
remember. It might have been so. I don't remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you see Private Schine while the latter 
was at Fort Dix at any time during any week from Monday to 
Friday, that is, any week day?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I did. Christmas Day, on the twenty-
fifth, he had a gift for me and it was very late. He called me 
and told me he had just come in from Fort Dix. I spent a great 
deal of time in bed in December because I had laryngitis, I was 
sick, and I remember it.
    I saw him on the twenty-fifth, but it was very late in the 
day. He said he had things to do and he would call me when he 
was through.
    Then I saw him again on the thirty-first, at Mr. Cohn's 
house, on New Year's eve. He called me and said, he asked me if 
I would not mind going to Mr. Cohn's because he had several 
things he had to talk to Mr. Cohn about and I wouldn't want to 
spend New Year's there. I said no. I had been so sick. I had 
engagements during December. I went to some and others I 
couldn't get there. I was very sick. So I didn't have plans for 
New Year's. I made no definite plans.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did I understand you to say you did have an 
engagement with him on New Year's?
    Miss Flores. No, I did not have a definite engagement with 
him on New Years. I had made no plans for the holidays.
    Senator Mundt. But you did see him New Year's eve at Mr. 
Cohn's house?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Prewitt. When was that invitation extended to you?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember when it was extended. I am 
almost sure it was the last minute, it was ``Will you have 
dinner at Roy's house?''
    Mr. Prewitt. Who asked you, Mr. Schine or Mr. Cohn?
    Miss Flores. Mr. Schine. It was very late.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was it by means of a telephone call from Fort 
Dix, or from New York, or where?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember where the call came from. I 
really don't. I believe he called me from New York and he said 
he had committee work, but that he would probably pick me up 
late, after he finished whatever it was. We had a cold supper 
and they did have work there. They were reading all kinds of 
papers. Mr. Cohn gave him lots of things to read.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you remain with those two gentlemen while 
they were working?
    Miss Flores. No, there was another couple there and I 
talked to him while they were looking at papers. He gave him 
something to read which he had to look over.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, let us go to the period before Christmas, 
1953. Did you have any engagements with Mr. Schine between 
November 3 and Christmas?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I did.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, will you tell us as best you can remember 
when and where you met him and how he invited you and the 
circumstances under which you met Mr. Schine?
    Miss Flores. Well, I don't remember exactly when or where, 
but I know this for a fact, that the few times I dined with him 
was just dinner, you know for dinner, and very, very late, 
after he had been here I suppose all the time he was in New 
York. I don't know because I don't know what he was doing, you 
know. But I met him very, very late. He picked me up very late. 
We would have something to eat and talk.
    I must tell you this: I went out to Fort Dix twice with him 
I believe once or twice. Correctly I think it was twice. I 
drove out to Fort Dix because it was the only time that I had a 
chance to talk to David Schine really, because he was always so 
indefinite and so terribly, terribly tied up, so he told me, he 
was busy.
    So the times I saw him were the times, the few times for 
dinner and very late. I do remember driving to Fort Dix with 
him, when I came back from Palm Beach, I believe it was a 
Sunday I came back.
    Mr. Prewitt. Can you give me the date that you came back 
from Palm Beach?
    Miss Flores. It was the last day of November. The thirtieth 
day of November.
    Mr. Kimball. Did you say it was the last day?
    Miss Flores. It was a Sunday. I am not sure what it was.
    Senator Mundt. The last day of November was the thirtieth, 
that would be the thirtieth. The twenty-eighth was the last 
Sunday in November. The thirtieth is the last day of November. 
That was a Tuesday. Are you quite sure it was a Sunday?
    Miss Flores. It was a Sunday because he had to go back to 
Fort Dix, he had to go back right away.
    Senator Mundt. Wait a minute. I have a 1954 calendar.
    Miss Flores. It was a Sunday.
    Senator Mundt. Yes, I was thinking this year. It was the 
last Sunday in November.
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Prewitt. You drove back to the base with Mr. Schine?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you drive the car, or someone else?
    Miss Flores. It was a chauffeur-driven car. I had to come 
back.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you dine with him that night?
    Miss Flores. No, I don't think so. I had just arrived from 
Palm Beach. I had just gotten home and I called him because he 
had called and left a message that he had called. It was a 
social thing.
    Mr. Prewitt. When did you leave New York to go to Palm 
Beach?
    Miss Flores. I don't know. It might have been the twenty-
second or the twenty-third. I am not sure.
    Mr. Prewitt. Do you remember what day in the week it was?
    Miss Flores. I don't know what day in the week it was.
    Mr. Prewitt. Do you recall how long you were absent from 
New York City?
    Miss Flores. Until the end of the month.
    Mr. Prewitt. What period of time, a week, or ten days? How 
long?
    Miss Flores. I was away over Thanksgiving. It might have 
been the twenty-third. I am not sure it was the twenty-second 
or twenty-third. You understand I am not sure of that date.
    Mr. Prewitt. You were absent possibly a week?
    Miss Flores. Possibly a week, yes, because I came back on 
that and I know it was a Sunday definitely.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, you went to Palm Beach somewhere around 
the twenty-third?
    Miss Flores. Possibly. I am not sure.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, before you went to Palm Beach and after 
November 3, in other words, in the approximate twenty-day 
period between November 3 and November 23, before you went to 
Palm Beach did you see Mr. Schine?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I saw him on those occasions that I told 
you about. I dined once or twice, and very late, very late.
    Mr. Prewitt. Can you give us the approximate date when you 
dined with him before November 23?
    Miss Flores. I don't know. It might have been a Saturday or 
a Sunday. I don't really remember the dates.
    Mr. Prewitt. During that approximate twenty-day period I 
have just indicated, did you see him on any week day, that is, 
not including Saturday or Sunday?
    Miss Flores. On the twenty-fifth, which was a week day 
wasn't it? Christmas was----
    Mr. Prewitt. I am talking about the period between November 
3 and November 23.
    Miss Flores. I really don't remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. You just have no recollection?
    Miss Flores. I have no recollection. I can't remember that 
far.
    Mr. Prewitt. You understand I am not trying to confuse you?
    Miss Flores. No, you are not confusing me. I am trying to 
think of the periods if I possibly can. I want to tell you 
everything you want to know.
    Mr. Prewitt. It is not our function to do anything except 
to develop the facts. That is all I am trying to do now.
    Miss Flores. Yes, surely.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, on these few occasions that you did see 
Private Schine between November 3 and November 23, or 
approximately that period, did he call you in advance from Fort 
Dix for the purpose of making an engagement with you?
    Miss Flores. He may have. I don't remember my conversations 
with him, you know. I don't remember. If he did I was always 
more than sure he would probably be very busy. He would get 
very involved with Mr. Cohn in New York, so I just couldn't 
say, I couldn't tell you, I don't remember my conversations on 
the phone. I had so many.
    Mr. Prewitt. Can you tell us now whether----
    Miss Flores. Not with Private Schine, but I have thousands 
of calls all day and I just don't remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. Can you tell us now either yes or no whether 
Private Schine, while he was at Fort Dix, ever called from Fort 
Dix and made an arrangement over the phone whereby he was to 
see you after he got off the post?
    Miss Flores. I wish I could answer you, but I don't 
remember. I really don't remember whether he did or didn't. I 
am terribly sorry. I would like to answer yes or no. I just 
can't tell you because I don't know. I don't remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, tell me this: On the occasion when you 
saw Private Schine while he was at Fort Dix, were you ever 
alone with him?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I was alone with him when I dined with 
him once, and I was not alone with him when I dined at the 
Drake Hotel. Mr. Cohn was along. And some girls and some 
models. I don't know. Nancy something. I don't remember her 
last name.
    Mr. Prewitt. You told us about the first ride back to Fort 
Dix. Now, when was the second ride, if you can remember?
    Miss Flores. I can't remember that. I don't know when it 
was, but I drove back because I--we rode back. I believe he 
fell asleep on the way. He was quite tired.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was it after Christmas, or before Christmas?
    Miss Flores. I don't know that. I do know about one on the 
thirty-first. I don't remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was it before the ride--I will call it the 
Palm Beach ride, because that was after you returned from 
Florida----
    Miss Flores. It sounds horrible, doesn't it, the Palm Beach 
ride?
    Mr. Prewitt. Was it before that ride or afterwards?
    Miss Flores. I don't know. I honestly don't know. I don't 
know whether it was before or after. I am not sure when that 
was, driving back.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was it on a weekday night, or weekend night?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember.
    Senator Mundt. Do you have any questions, sir?
    I wanted to inquire whether you had seen David Schine any 
place at any time other than in New York during the time he was 
at Fort Dix.
    Miss Flores. No.
    Senator Mundt. Except of course, the two times you have 
mentioned.
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. Do I understand you returned the same night 
at Fort Dix?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I came right back. That is why he got the 
car, I had to go right back. I don't have a New York driving 
license. I have a California driving license, and I can't park. 
So I haven't taken the test until I thoroughly know what I am 
doing.
    Senator Mundt. Except for the times you were with him 
driving back to Fort Dix, you did not see him any time or any 
place while he was at Fort Dix except in New York City; you are 
quite sure of that?
    Miss Flores. He is a very quiet boy and he doesn't like 
night clubs and this business of newspapers is ridiculous. He 
likes--if he dines quietly it is very quiet, and it was always 
dinner. After all one has to eat you know. That was the only 
time I saw him, very late, after he had completed his business 
but he always was very busy, so he told me.
    Senator Mundt. Very late, you mean late in the night?
    Miss Flores. Very late in the evening, after he had 
completed what he had to do with Mr. Cohn. There were always 
dinner with people he had to work with. He called me to tell me 
this on the telephone. I understand these things. I understand 
people have to work. I work very hard myself and sometimes I 
never get to places and I have to keep calling and telling 
people I will be there after I finish.
    Senator Mundt. Do you have any questions, Mr. Kimball?
    Mr. Kimball. Well, sir, I am a little in doubt as to 
whether I should ask questions or--as I understand it, the 
decision has not been made yet as, is it Miss deFlores?
    Miss Flores. Let us say Flores. Strike it for the record. 
DeFlores is in my family name. I got the subpoena under 
deFlores and I wrote the letter under deFlores. It is properly 
my name, but Iris Flores is right.
    Mr. Kimball. I was going to say, as I understand it, the 
decision has not been made as to whether or not Miss Flores 
will appear at the hearing.
    Senator Mundt. That is correct. This is simply a 
preliminary interrogation to determine whether she would have 
any information that might be pertinent or relevant or 
material.
    Mr. Kimball. I might ask a few questions, then.
    Senator Mundt. That will be perfectly correct.
    Do you not think so, Mr. Prewitt?
    Mr. Prewitt. I think so.
    Miss Flores. Certainly it is perfectly all right. If this 
is a private hearing, I will answer all your questions.
    Senator Mundt. We do not need to call you in a public 
hearing unless somebody should dispute things.
    Mr. Prewitt. This is not a public hearing.
    Miss Flores. Yes, I understand.
    Mr. Prewitt. So if you have something you would like to ask 
to satisfy yourself, Mr. Kimball, you may do so.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Kimball is counsel for Mr. Stevens and 
Mr. Hensel and for Mr. Adams.
    Mr. Kimball. Not for Mr. Hensel, sir. I believe Mr. Prewitt 
said he had another question to ask.
    Mr. Prewitt. Tell us how your engagements with Mr. Schine 
were arranged. You can address yourself to particular 
occasions.
    Miss Flores. I don't remember different occasions. I mean, 
unless you ask me, I can try to remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. Let us go to the period between November 3, 
1953, and November 23, or whatever the date was that you left 
to go to Florida. You stated that you saw him on a few 
occasions late at night. Did he call you and make an 
engagement, or just how was your engagement made?
    Miss Flores. He called me and said if I possibly could get 
away from my work and whatever it was, what I am doing, I will 
call you back.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did he call you in the daytime, at night, a 
short time before you saw him?
    Miss Flores. Rather late in the day, six, seven, sometimes 
eight or nine o'clock. Very late.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did he ever call you early in the day to make 
an engagement with you?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember. I frankly really can't say 
because I don't remember. I doubt very much that because I 
remember that it was always very late.
    Senator Mundt. Are you usually in your apartment or home 
during the day?
    Miss Flores. No, I go out all the time a great deal. I am 
in and out all the time. Half the time I don't get my messages.
    Senator Mundt. Do you have members of your family or a 
maid, somebody there who answers the phone?
    Miss Flores. I have a roommate, but she is in and out all 
the time. I don't have a maid.
    Senator Mundt. So if a phone call comes in and you are not 
there, there is nobody to take it.
    Miss Flores. That is right.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you ever have an engagement with him where 
he did not call you in advance, that is, during the period when 
you, when he was stationed at Fort Dix?
    Miss Flores. Yes, many times he called me at the last 
minute, then nine o'clock, ten o'clock. I am not sure about 
those hours, but it was very late.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did he during the period while he was at Fort 
Dix ever on any occasion call you considerably in advance to 
make an engagement with you. By that I mean several hours?
    Miss Flores. He may have, I am not sure. I really am not 
sure. If he did most of the time it would be late because he 
was always tied up.
    Mr. Prewitt. Can you give me your best estimate of the 
number of times that you saw David Schine while he was 
stationed at Fort Dix?
    Miss Flores. I don't know. We dined a couple of times, a 
few times, very late.
    Mr. Prewitt. You saw him a few times between November 3 and 
November 23; is that correct?
    Miss Flores. Are you referring to November when you asked 
me last?
    Mr. Prewitt. My first question was, approximately how many 
times did you see David Schine while he was stationed at Fort 
Dix? I will break it down and ask you now how many times did 
you see him before you went to Palm Beach, Florida, and after 
he was inducted into the army?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember, possibly a few times.
    Mr. Prewitt. What do you mean by a few times?
    Miss Flores. It might have been twice, three times. I don't 
remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was it at least twice?
    Miss Flores. I couldn't say with certainty. I don't 
remember. It might be three times. I can't quite remember. I 
know there were a few times I saw him, but it wasn't 
frequently.
    Mr. Prewitt. After you returned from Palm Beach the latter 
part of November and before Christmas of 1953, did you see him 
at any time?
    Miss Flores. I might have seen him once. We dined together. 
I remember correctly because I told you I was sick and I had 
some obligations which I had to attend on the thirteenth and 
sixteenth, and I didn't see him from about the thirteenth, I 
suppose, to the sixteenth. I had some parties I had to go to 
and they were sort of must, and I had to get there, and I 
didn't see him for a period there. That I remember. And the 
twenty-fifth and thirty-first----
    Mr. Prewitt. Let us take the period immediately after you 
returned from Florida. As I understood it, on the day you 
returned you drove back to Fort Dix with Mr. Schine?
    Miss Flores. Yes, right away, quickly, because he was 
preparing to go back to Fort Dix and we drove back as soon as 
he was ready.
    Mr. Prewitt. In the week that immediately followed that 
occasion did you see him?
    Miss Flores. In the week that followed, no.
    Mr. Prewitt. You did not?
    Miss Flores. I did not see him within the week.
    Mr. Prewitt. In the two-week period that followed your 
return?
    Miss Flores. During the week, you mean? I did not see him 
during the week.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you see him at all in the period of two 
weeks that followed your return from Florida?
    Miss Flores. I believe I did see him once.
    Mr. Prewitt. Do you remember where you saw him?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember. I don't remember if we had 
dinner before he went back to camp, or whether it was later. I 
am not sure. It was in the evening, very late, or else dinner, 
I am not sure which.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was Mr. Cohn present?
    Miss Flores. I don't believe so. I don't remember Mr. Cohn.
    Mr. Prewitt. How long were you with him on that occasion?
    Miss Flores. I dined with him.
    Mr. Prewitt. What period of time transpired while you were 
with him?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember, a few hours.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you go anywhere other than to eat dinner?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you go dancing?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Prewitt. During any of these times that you saw David 
Schine while he was at Fort Dix, did you go dancing with him?
    Miss Flores. Not at all except on one occasion, and it 
was--and this I am not sure of--when he was through with Fort 
Dix, I believe completely finished, whatever they call it when 
the training was finished and he had a furlough in between a 
few days. I suppose he was going to be transferred, and I am 
not sure when that was. It was the Plaza Hotel. It was a very 
quiet evening. Senator McCarthy was there and his wife. They 
had come back from a speaking trip, I believe, and were leaving 
right away.
    Mr. Prewitt. That is all I have.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Kimball.
    Mr. Kimball. You said, Miss Flores, that you were absent 
from your apartment quite a bit during the day; is that 
correct?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. Did you have a place of business?
    Miss Flores. No, I have been working closely with I. Newman 
on my invention, which is called a brassiere shaper.
    Mr. Kimball. What is I. Newman?
    Miss Flores. I. Newman and Sons is a girdle company.
    Mr. Kimball. They are located in New York?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. Where are they located?
    Miss Flores. Two hundred Madison Avenue. I don't go there 
every day. I have had lots of meetings with Mr. Robert Hall, 
luncheon meetings in which we discussed the brassiere shaper, 
the people working on it, how we are going to promote its 
ideas, to go ahead with it as soon as it comes out. They have 
been working on it a whole year now.
    Mr. Kimball. Mr. Hall is a representative of I. Newman?
    Miss Flores. Mr. Robert Hall is vice president of I. Newman 
and Company.
    Mr. Kimball. When you are absent you are either, for 
instance, at I. Newman, or in conference with----
    Miss Flores. No, I am not at I. Newman. I am having 
meetings with whoever calls me from I. Newman. I have been 
working on another thing that I have now. I spend a great deal 
of time doing research and reading about it. It is a plastic 
bra.
    Mr. Kimball. What I was trying to find out was, do you have 
an office any place?
    Miss Flores. No, I do not. I work at home. I have dedicated 
the last three years to working on my inventions. I have two 
patents right now. One is for a complete line of brassieres, 
which is patented under Juliet Koller and Iris Flores and the 
other is the I. Newman, which I have licensed to them, it is a 
brassiere shaper. We hope it doesn't get out because it is 
something new and they are going to bring it out as soon as the 
last working model is ready right now.
    Mr. Kimball. I think you said that you had known Private 
Schine, or Mr. Schine, for about three and a half to four 
years; is that correct?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. And you said you were very good friends with 
him?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. Would you say you were engaged to him, or 
anything of that nature?
    Miss Flores. I don't think so. That is so terribly private, 
I don't even know about it.
    Mr. Kimball. I assume if you were you would know about it.
    Miss Flores. I would know about it.
    Mr. Kimball. In other words, you don't consider yourself 
engaged to Mr. Schine?
    Miss Flores. I don't have a ring.
    Mr. Kimball. Could you tell me when you have most recently 
seen Mr. Schine?
    Miss Flores. Most recently? Just before he came to 
Washington.
    Mr. Kimball. Within the past week, you mean?
    Miss Flores. No, he was on his way to Washington. We dined 
together, with his brother. He had to come to Washington, be in 
Washington. I believe he had a furlough.
    Mr. Kimball. As I say, that was within this past week?
    Miss Flores. Yes. I have not seen him since.
    Mr. Kimball. I believe he got into Washington the day the 
hearings opened. That would have been Wednesday, this past 
week.
    Miss Flores. I don't know.
    Senator Mundt. You mean of the present week, Mr. Kimball?
    Mr. Kimball. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. Two or three days ago.
    Miss Flores. No, I have not seen him two or three days ago.
    Senator Mundt. Have you seen him this week?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Senator Mundt. Not this week at all?
    Miss Flores. No, not at all. When was Good Friday, 
Passover? Good Friday evening, and he was on furlough.
    Senator Mundt. The last time you saw him was Good Friday 
evening?
    Miss Flores. Yes, he was supposed to report to Washington. 
I believe he told me he had to leave, he was going to Florida, 
he had leave to go to Florida, but instead of that he was asked 
to report to Washington, so he came right in. He didn't have to 
be here I think so he came to New York. I don't really know 
what his business----
    Senator Mundt. We are trying to find out the last time you 
saw him.
    Miss Flores. Good Friday evening. We had dinner with his 
brother and a little friend of mine.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you know where he came from at that time?
    Miss Flores. From Georgia.
    Mr. Kimball. How did he arrange that meeting?
    Miss Flores. He called me on the telephone.
    Mr. Kimball. When did he call you, if you remember?
    Miss Flores. He called me late afternoon, possibly in the 
middle of the day. I don't know.
    Mr. Kimball. That same day, though?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. And you dined with him?
    Miss Flores. I am sorry. I made a mistake. It was not Good 
Friday. It was Saturday.
    Mr. Kimball. It would be the Saturday between Good Friday 
and Easter?
    Miss Flores. Saturday.
    Senator Mundt. The day before Easter?
    Miss Flores. The day before Easter, Saturday; that is 
right. I am terribly sorry I made a mistake. You start thinking 
of dates and I know it was Saturday.
    Mr. Kimball. Saturday evening.
    Miss Flores. Saturday evening.
    Mr. Kimball. At that time did you talk about this case at 
all with him?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. Did he say that he was coming to Washington 
about this case?
    Miss Flores. Yes, he did, but he didn't talk about it.
    Mr. Kimball. He didn't ask you whether or not you had been 
served with a subpoena or anything like that?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you know Mr. John Adams? Have you ever met 
him?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I met Mr. Adams once.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you recall where that was?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember when it was, but I believe I 
had just returned from California.
    Mr. Kimball. Would that have been last fall sometime?
    Miss Flores. I returned from California in September, 
sometime in September, and I don't remember when. I was 
downtown and I called David Schine and said hello and we 
talked. He told me he was working down there. I said, ``You 
have to have lunch, so why don't you lunch with me.'' I was 
down there on some business. So I waited there and we had a 
quick lunch together and Mr. Adams.
    Mr. Kimball. You lunched with him?
    Miss Flores. No, it was finished. I believe they had to 
break for lunch. I really don't know what, but we had lunched 
nearby there, a block or so.
    Mr. Kimball. Was that the only occasion you met Mr. Adams?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. To your best recollection?
    Miss Flores. It was the only occasion I ever met Mr. Adams.
    Mr. Kimball. Have you ever seen him, not to talk to, but 
just seen him other than that occasion?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you recall if that occasion was during the 
Fort Monmouth hearings?
    Miss Flores. What?
    Mr. Kimball. Do you recall if that occasion was during the 
Fort Monmouth hearings?
    Miss Flores. I don't know what hearings they were.
    Mr. Kimball. It was during some hearing?
    Miss Flores. When they were downtown?
    Mr. Kimball. In Foley Square.
    Miss Flores. In Foley Square?
    Mr. Kimball. Do you recall where you ate?
    Miss Flores. Some cafeteria.
    Mr. Kimball. Down near Foley Square?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. Was it in the cafeteria you met Mr. Adams?
    Miss Flores. No, I met Mr. Adams--Mr. Adams walked out with 
Mr. Cohn and Mr. Schine. They all walked out together.
    Mr. Kimball. Out of where?
    Miss Flores. From wherever--I waited upstairs in the lobby 
or the foyer.
    Senator Mundt. The Federal Building at Foley Square, you 
mean?
    Miss Flores. Yes. I remember I waited a very long time.
    Mr. Kimball. In other words, you met Mr. Adams before you 
went to lunch with Mr. Schine?
    Miss Flores. That is right. He introduced me and I met him.
    Mr. Kimball. You and Mr. Schine ate lunch and Mr. Cohn and 
Mr. Adams did not eat with you?
    Miss Flores. No, they left us.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Cohn and Mr. Adams left together; is 
that right?
    Miss Flores. I don't know if they left together or not. 
They said goodbye to us and we left.
    Senator Mundt. You and Mr. Schine left together?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. Did you yourself ever attend any of those 
hearings?
    Miss Flores. There?
    Mr. Kimball. Well, any of the hearings that Mr. Schine 
worked on.
    Miss Flores. I attended two here in Washington, but I came 
to Washington quite often. I have many friends here.
    Mr. Kimball. Did you attend any in New York?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you recall approximately when those 
hearings were in Washington that you attended?
    Miss Flores. They might have been, I don't remember whether 
it was before I left for California or after I came back. I 
don't remember. I know what it was. It was Robeson, it was the 
singer, Paul Robeson.
    Mr. Kimball. He was the person being examined?
    Miss Flores. No, it was his wife, it was a woman. Then the 
other one was Mrs. Moss.
    Mr. Kimball. That was fairly recently?
    Miss Flores. I don't know when it was, but I was in 
Washington at the time and I was staying with my friend, Miss 
Paden. I had nothing to do and I came to the hearings.
    Senator Mundt. Was Mr. Schine at either of those hearings?
    Miss Flores. I believe the first one, but the second one 
no, I didn't see Mr. Schine at all while in Washington.
    Mr. Kimball. Did you ever go to a hearing which dealt with 
the subject of Fort Monmouth at all?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. You said you never attended any hearing in New 
York.
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you know the other members of the 
subcommittee staff? Do you know Mr. Carr?
    Miss Flores. I don't know Mr. Carr, no.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you know Mr. Juliana?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. Or Mr. La Venia?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. Or Mr. Buckley?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. If possible, just for my own chronology here, 
I would like to just try to find out--you went to California 
sometime apparently late last summer?
    Miss Flores. I left for California around maybe the fifth 
of August, because my birthday is on the eighth and I wanted to 
be with my family. They wanted me there on the eighth of 
August.
    Mr. Kimball. You come back sometime----
    Miss Flores. September. I don't remember when.
    Mr. Kimball. Near the end, do you think?
    Miss Flores. I really couldn't tell you because I don't 
remember.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you think possibly I could help you? Was it 
before Labor Day?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember.
    Mr. Kimball. You just don't remember?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember.
    Mr. Kimball. But it was in September sometime?
    Miss Flores. I might have been in California seven or eight 
weeks. I don't really remember. I am not sure of that time at 
all, but it might have been that length of time.
    Senator Mundt. Do you recall when you returned?
    Miss Flores. No, I don't recall.
    Mr. Kimball. It was before the first of October, you think?
    Miss Flores. Yes, it was. This was September sometime.
    Mr. Kimball. Then you were in New York, am I correct in 
this, you were in New York from your return from California 
until you went to Palm Beach sometime around the 22nd or 23rd 
of November?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. You came back to New York about the end of 
November?
    Miss Flores. I came back at the end of November.
    Mr. Kimball. Then did you leave New York again during the 
next month, during December?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. Or January?
    Miss Flores. January, yes, but December I did not leave New 
York.
    Mr. Kimball. Could you tell me where you went in January?
    Miss Flores. Well, if it is important to this hearing, but 
I don't know if you are concerned with that. Are you?
    Mr. Kimball. I think we might be.
    Miss Flores. Why, may I ask?
    Mr. Kimball. If it has no materiality after you give the 
answer I am perfectly willing to drop it.
    Miss Flores. Must I answer it?
    Mr. Prewitt. What is the question?
    Miss Flores. You are concerned with the time at Fort Dix, 
or you are concerned with what? I don't understand.
    Senator Mundt. The question was where she had gone in 
January, that is the question.
    Mr. Kimball. That is right.
    Miss Flores. When in January?
    Mr. Kimball. Any time in January.
    Mr. Prewitt. Unless you have some particular objection to 
answering, I would suggest that you do.
    Miss Flores. I can't remember where I went in January. I 
really don't. I am sorry. I would state it to you, but I don't 
remember.
    Mr. Kimball. Did you go back to California?
    Miss Flores. No.
    Mr. Kimball. Florida?
    Miss Flores. I go to California once a year.
    Mr. Kimball. Yes.
    Miss Flores. No. I didn't go to Florida. Greenwich and 
places around New York.
    Mr. Kimball. You did go somewhere in January?
    Miss Flores. I went to Greenwich. If that is what you mean. 
I am in the country all the time.
    Mr. Kimball. I am more interested in any extended stay.
    Miss Flores. No, I haven't made any extended stays.
    Mr. Kimball. Can you answer this: Did you go to Florida at 
all in January?
    Miss Flores. No, I did not.
    Mr. Kimball. Or February?
    Miss Flores. No, I did not.
    Mr. Kimball. You mentioned that you dined several times 
with Mr. Schine. I am not trying to put words in your mouth. 
You did say that you dined with him in New York?
    Miss Flores. On one or two occasions.
    Mr. Kimball. I believe you said where you dined. Will you 
tell us where that was again?
    Miss Flores. At the Pen and Pencil.
    Mr. Kimball. Where is that located?
    Miss Flores. I don't know exactly.
    Senator Mundt. You will be able to ascertain that from the 
directory.
    Miss Flores. I don't know where it is.
    Mr. Kimball. Is it a night club or restaurant?
    Miss Flores. It is a restaurant.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you recall on that occasion whether anyone 
else was present? You may have answered this before.
    Miss Flores. I don't recall.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you recall when you were there as far as 
time of day?
    Miss Flores. It was late.
    Mr. Kimball. Was that the occasion when Mr. Schine called 
you at a late hour, if you remember?
    Miss Flores. I don't remember. It was pretty late.
    Mr. Kimball. By late----
    Miss Flores. Late for me because I usually have made 
engagements two or three days in advance. I hate anybody to 
call me at the last minute. I consider it late, but I just 
didn't have any plans.
    Mr. Kimball. Would eleven o'clock be appropriate?
    Miss Flores. I don't know. I don't think so.
    Mr. Kimball. Would you regard that as late for you?
    Miss Flores. I don't regard anything as late.
    Mr. Kimball. I mean just previously you said it was late 
for you. I am just trying to find out approximately the time.
    Miss Flores. Late? It depended. I suppose people would 
regard it late. I don't regard anything as late. It depended on 
how I felt. If I want to go out I will go out.
    Mr. Kimball. On those particular occasions you regard it as 
late?
    Miss Flores. Yes.
    Mr. Kimball. Now, could you tell me why you regarded it as 
late? Were you tired or did you have a busy day scheduled the 
next day, or what?
    Miss Flores. Yes, I always have a busy day. I have lots of 
thing to do. I always have busy days. I regard it as late, I 
don't know why I regard it as late. I suppose because if people 
are working then they can make an engagement very early. But 
Mr. Schine said he had committee meetings and that he couldn't 
make it sooner. So that is why I regard it as late I suppose.
    Mr. Kimball. Do you work Sundays?
    Miss Flores. No, sometimes. I don't make it a habit to work 
any day.
    Mr. Kimball. Would it be safe to say, then, that this would 
not be a Saturday night?
    Miss Flores. I don't know when it could have been. I don't 
really remember when it might have been.
    Mr. Kimball. Your telephone is--what is your telephone 
number?
    Miss Flores. Rhienlander 4-5984. Sometimes I work Sundays. 
I sketch a great deal and I am working on this plastic bra and 
sometimes I like to work a couple of hours. It depends on how I 
feel. I work in a very strange way. Most of my work is ideas 
and putting them down. I just have different hours of working.
    Mr. Kimball. I think that is all.
    Senator Mundt. Do you have anything further, Mr. Prewitt?
    Mr. Prewitt. No.
    Senator Mundt. Is there anything else you want to say, Miss 
Flores?
    Miss Flores. No. I have said it.
    Senator Mundt. Thank you very much.
    That is all.
    [Thereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]


                    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

    [Editor's note.--James B. Reston (1909-1995), 
correspondent, columnist, and Washington bureau chief for the 
New York Times (1953-1964), described Senator McCarthy's 
investigative and public relations techniques in his memoir, 
Deadline (Random House, 1991), as ``desperately bold and 
cunning.'' The senator, he wrote, ``knew that big lies produced 
big headlines. He also knew that most newspapers would print 
almost any outrageous charge a United States senator made in 
public, provided he put his name on it.'' As bureau chief, 
Reston assigned Times reporters to cover McCarthy ``day by day 
and keep a careful record on him, being sure to report anything 
he said that was new but to avoid repeating his undocumented 
charges.'' Reston himself wrote numerous news dispatches and 
analyses regarding Senator McCarthy. Reston did not testify at 
a public hearing.]

                              ----------                              


                         WEDNESDAY, MAY 5, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 4:50 p.m., pursuant to recess, in 
room 248, Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota.
    Also Present: Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel; James 
N. Juliana, investigator; and Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel.
    Senator Mundt. We will come to order.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Reston. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF JAMES B. RESTON

    Senator Mundt. Let the record show that Tom Prewitt, Jim 
Reston, Roy Cohn and Jim Juliana are in the room.
    Mr. Prewitt. Will you state your name, please?
    Mr. Reston. James B. Reston.
    Mr. Prewitt. You are a reporter for the New York Times, is 
that correct?
    Mr. Reston. That is right.
    Mr. Prewitt. Have you had time to refresh your memory from 
reading a photostat of your paper dated February 26 and 
containing an article purportedly written by you? \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ In a front-page story in the New York Times, February 26, 1954, 
Reston had reported that before attending a luncheon with members of 
the subcommittee, Army Secretary Robert Stevens had met with H. Struve 
Hensel, general counsel to the army, to review the types of questions 
he would likely be asked at the televised hearing the next day. When 
Stevens returned from the Capitol, he met Pentagon officials, including 
Hensel, to report that the hearing had been canceled after the luncheon 
group drafted a ``Memorandum of Agreement.'' When the group advised him 
that the press saw the memorandum as a surrender, Stevens issued a 
public denial and the agreement collapsed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Reston. I have, sir, yes, sir.
    Mr. Prewitt. You also refreshed your recollection by 
referring to a portion of your paper dated May 4, containing an 
article by Mr. Arthur Krock? \8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ In his New York Times column on May 4, 1954, Arthur Krock noted 
that in testimony about his movements on the day of the luncheon, 
Stevens had said: ``As a matter of fact, I went back to the office and 
then I went home. And I don't think I saw anybody, except some of my 
own staff that afternoon after I got back from this meeting.'' Krock 
pointed out that this assertion clashed with Reston's dispatch 
describing Stevens' meeting with H. Struve Hensel, Gen. Ridgway, and 
other high-level officials, and he added: ``Not included in the 
dispatch was an answer made to the reporter by a member of the group 
when asked why he had not advised Stevens that the statement to which 
he agreed would be taken as a surrender. It was a reference to the old 
story that, if Casey had already had his drink, there was no point in 
whether his credit for it was good. Compared with this dispatch, which 
was never contradicted, Stevens' answer today suggests at least very 
faulty recollection.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Mr. Reston. I have, sir.
    Mr. Prewitt. We have called you in, Mr. Reston, because of 
Mr. Krock's article in particular, because it called attention 
to an alleged discrepancy in the statement of Mr. Stevens. We 
are particularly interested in Secretary Stevens' statement to 
the effect that on the night of February twenty-fourth last, 
after Mr. Stevens had consulted with certain Republican members 
of this committee, that he did not talk to Mr. Hensel. Your 
article indicates that he did. Will you tell us the source of 
your information and elaborate in any way you see fit to clear 
us up on that point?
    Mr. Reston. Well, I will tell you what I know about the 
incident. I will not tell you the source of my information.
    Senator Mundt. You will not be asked to.
    Mr. Cohn. I certainly won't ask you.
    Mr. Prewitt. I will strike that from my question.
    Mr. Reston. Would you want us to go ahead?
    Mr. Prewitt. Yes, sir. Just tell it.
    Mr. Reston. Well, the facts as I remember them are 
precisely as reported in that particular article in the Times. 
I was naturally trying to put together a chronological story of 
what had taken place before and after the secretary of the army 
came to the Hill, and I talked to some of the people on the 
Hill and some of the people at the Pentagon about what took 
place.
    I was told that Mr. Hensel had a meeting just before lunch. 
That is before the day of the famous memorandum of 
understanding; that the purpose of that first meeting was for 
Mr. Hensel to discuss with the secretary of the army the type 
of questions that the secretary of the army might be asked it, 
as we then thought, the television hearings were going to go 
on. I was told secondly that after about half an hour of 
discussion of the subject, the secretary of the army excused 
himself and said he had another date, and left the room.
    I was given the impression that Hensel did not know where 
he was going, where the secretary of the army was going, indeed 
that the secretary of the army did not tell him where he was 
going, but that Hensel then found out later that the secretary 
of the army had come up here to have luncheon with some of the 
senators.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you mean by later, before he returned?
    Mr. Reston. Yes. Yes. I don't know how Hensel got back into 
the secretary's office, but I was told that after the meeting 
there were gathered in the secretary of the army's office 
several persons, including Mr. Hensel, I believe Mr. Kyes, the 
chief of staff of the army, Mr. Ridgway, and I believe the 
assistant secretary of defense, Mr. Seaton. I was then told 
that the secretary of the army reported to this group what 
happened on the Hill and had given them the impression that he 
was satisfied with the results of that meeting.
    I was also told, however, that one of the men in the 
meeting sat there with a copy of the ticker which carried the 
text of the meeting, the text that was put out by the senators 
and by the secretary of the army. And there was in the mind of 
the man who had the text, in his opinion this was a very 
damaging communique from the secretary of the army's point of 
view, and quite at variance with the interpretation which the--
--
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know who that was?
    Mr. Reston. Yes. It was Hensel. It was Hensel.
    I then was told that--I asked the question as to whether or 
not anything had been said to Mr. Stevens about the 
interpretation he was putting on the communique and the 
interpretation which Hensel had himself of what the communique 
meant. I was told that nobody in that meeting mentioned, the 
discrepancy at all. And I asked why this question had not been 
raised, why it had not been argued out right there, and the 
response was to tell me the story not of Casey's drinks, as I 
remember the story it is Finnegan's drinks. Do you know the 
story about Finnegan?
    Mr. Cohn. No.
    Mr. Reston. It is the story of Finnegan being down below 
the bar, full of booze. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Reston. That was the answer to give to me. In other 
words, why raise it, it was over, there was nothing to do; 
therefore, why go into the question of Hensel's interpretation 
versus the secretary of the army's.
    I think the only other germane point was that as I remember 
the story, the secretary of the army said he had got what he 
wanted, namely, that he had defended the integrity of the army; 
and that General Ridgway, at that point, rose and walked over 
to him, and shook his hand and thanked him for this fight he 
had made on behalf of the army.
    Then the only other thing I know about is that I believe 
there was another meeting then held in which Hensel, the 
secretary, a deputy under-secretary, Mr. Kyes and Seaton got 
together to decide what they would do about this.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Reston, did you, on that occasion, hear any 
discussion about this so-called Schine incident?
    Mr. Reston. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You had not heard about it at all at that time?
    Mr. Reston. I had heard about the Schine incident. We were 
chasing the story separately. But I heard nothing about the 
Schine incident.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you first hear that that incident was 
going to be incorporated in a report to be released, if you can 
give that to us.
    Mr. Reston. I don't know, but not to be released--I don't 
know. I knew about the preparation of the report some days 
ahead of time, before it finally came out. As a matter of fact, 
I had been queried from New York about reports up there, that 
there was a detailed report being made.
    Mr. Cohn. About how long before it came out, would you 
estimate?
    Mr. Reston. I would say at least two weeks. Because I 
remember feeling--I remember being a little upset. I did at 
that time talk to Elie Abel, who was on the Pentagon force, and 
I mentioned it to Bill Lawrence at the time, and I remember 
feeling that we had not been as vigilant as we might have been 
in chasing the story, until finally on the night that the thing 
began breaking loose all over the town.
    Mr. Cohn. Now, Mr. Reston, would you consider your source 
on the fact that Hensel was in Stevens' office on Stevens' 
return and that they discussed this meeting a reliable source?
    Mr. Reston. Yes, sure.
    Mr. Cohn. A highly reliable source?
    Mr. Reston. Yes. I have no doubt about that. I have no 
doubt whatsoever as to the source or I wouldn't have published 
the information.
    Mr. Cohn. Very good, sir.
    Jim, can you think of anything which I have not covered 
with Mr. Reston?
    Mr. Juliana. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Tom, have we about covered it?
    Mr. Prewitt. I think so. Have you any questions, Senator?
    Senator Mundt. Several people had sent me the Krock 
article.
    Mr. Cohn. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Mundt. On the record. Thank you very such, Mr. 
Reston.
    [Whereupon, at 5:12 p.m., the committee recessed subject to 
the call of the chair.]


                    SPECIAL SENATE INVESTIGATION ON

                 CHARGES AND COUNTERCHARGES INVOLVING:

                    SECRETARY OF THE ARMY ROBERT T.

                     STEVENS, JOHN G. ADAMS, STRUVE

                   HENSEL, AND SENATOR JOE McCARTHY,

                    ROY M. COHN, AND FRANCIS P. CARR

    [Editor's note.--On February 24, 1954, Secretary of the 
Army Robert Stevens attended a luncheon at the Capitol office 
of Senator Everett Dirksen, together with Senators Dirksen, 
McCarthy, Mundt, and Potter. At the end of the two-hour lunch, 
at which fried chicken was served, Senator Mundt typed a 
memorandum of agreement by which Secretary Stevens agreed to 
permit Gen. Ralph Zwicker to testify and provide the 
subcommittee with the names of those responsible for the 
promotion and honorable discharge of Irving Peress. The 
agreement, which made no reference to Stevens' demand for 
courteous treatment of witnesses, was then released to the 
press. After Stevens left, Senator McCarthy boasted to waiting 
reporters that the army secretary could not have surrendered 
more if he had crawled on his hands and knees. That afternoon 
and the next day, newspapers uniformly portrayed the ``chicken 
luncheon'' as a surrender on Stevens' part. Stunned by that 
interpretation, Stevens announced at a press conference that he 
would ``never accede to the abuse of army personnel under any 
circumstances, including committee hearings.''
    Frederick A. Seaton (1909-1974), a Nebraska newspaper 
publisher, had been appointed as a Republican to fill a vacant 
Senate seat from Nebraska in 1951, but did not stand for 
reelection in 1952. During the Eisenhower administration he 
served as assistant secretary of defense, 1953-1955; assistant 
to the president, 1955-1956; and secretary of the interior, 
1956-1961, and was regarded as an able troubleshooter for the 
White House.]

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 6, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 10:10 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 248, Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota.
    Also present: Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel; James 
N. Juliana, investigator; Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel.
    Senator Mundt. We will be in order.
    Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to 
give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Seaton. I do.
    Senator Mundt. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Mundt. You may proceed with your hearing.

                  TESTIMONY OF FRED A. SEATON

    Mr. Prewitt. State your name.
    Mr. Seaton. Fred Seaton.
    Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Seaton, you are assistant secretary of 
defense?
    Mr. Seaton. That is right; one of them.
    Mr. Prewitt. I will direct myself to the date February 25, 
1954, Mr. Seaton, and I will ask you if you are familiar with 
the fact that on that date Mr. Secretary Stevens conferred with 
certain Republican members of this subcommittee, including 
Senator Joseph R. McCarthy?
    Mr. Seaton. Yes, I believe that is right. That was, as I 
recall it, the date of the meeting that he had over here with 
Senator Mundt and others.
    Mr. Prewitt. Yes. After which, I believe, a memorandum 
which is now known as--what is it, Roy?
    Mr. Cohn. Variously known as the memorandum of 
understanding, or memorandum of misunderstanding.
    Senator Mundt. We prefer the first name, memorandum of 
understanding.
    Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Secretary, after that conference, did you 
meet with Secretary Stevens?
    Mr. Seaton. Yes. As I recall it, I got a telephone call 
through the girls in the office around 4:30 that afternoon, and 
was told that a meeting was in progress in Secretary Stevens' 
office, and would I please come down.
    I got there some minutes later, I think there was a little 
delay because of someone in the office, and when I got to 
Secretary Stevens' office there was a meeting in progress.
    Mr. Prewitt. Tell us who else was present.
    Mr. Seaton. There was quite a number of military people 
there, all of whom of course, I can't remember, and Mr. [Roger 
M.] Kyes, who was the deputy secretary of defense at the time, 
and Mr. Hensel. They were both there when I got there.
    Mr. Prewitt. That is Mr. Struve Hensel?
    Mr. Seaton. That is correct.
    Mr. Prewitt. Now, will you state, in a general sort of way 
first, what, if anything, was discussed among the various 
persons there present?
    Mr. Seaton. Well, at the time I arrived, the secretary of 
the army was discussing or describing the so-called memorandum 
of understanding, and as I remember it he expressed the opinion 
that this memorandum had achieved the purposes of proper 
treatment of army witnesses, military witnesses, whichever the 
case may be. And as I said, he had already been talking by the 
time I got there, and he talked for some minutes after I got 
there, and, subsequently, the meeting was over and it broke up 
and I started out of the door.
    Some aide, whose name I no longer remember, came to me and 
said the secretary would like to see me, if I would stay. I 
went back. There was Mr. Kyes, Mr. Hensel, Mr. Stevens and 
myself, and there may have been some of the aides present. I 
don't remember that. It was a very short discussion about the 
memorandum. But that time, someone brought in some material off 
of the news ticker, the newspaper reports of it, and there was 
a short discussion about the congressional and public reaction 
to it. I don't think it took more than five minutes or 
something like that. The three of us then, Kyes, Hensel and 
myself, walked back to our offices.
    Mr. Prewitt. Approximately how long were you in the company 
of Mr. Stevens and Mr. Hensel?
    Mr. Seaton. Do you mean the entire time, including the time 
when all the military officers were in the room?
    Mr. Prewitt. Yes.
    Mr. Seaton. I would guess that would be somewhere around a 
half-hour. That is a sheer guess.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was Mr. Hensel present in Secretary Stevens' 
office when you arrived there?
    Mr. Seaton. Yes, he was, in company with a great many 
others.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was there any discussion about Mr. David 
Schine or Private Schine in your presence?
    Mr. Seaton. No, sir.
    Mr. Prewitt. Was any mention made by Mr. Hensel or by any 
other person at that meeting concerning the issuance of an army 
report?
    Mr. Seaton. No, not so far as I remember.
    Mr. Prewitt. That is, derogatory to Senator McCarthy or any 
member of his staff.
    Mr. Seaton. No, not to the best of my memory. The 
conversation, if I may volunteer this, all that I remember was 
about this so-called Zwicker incident, you see. And that sort 
of thing.
    Senator Mundt. I would like to ask about one part of it, 
more or less to satisfy my own personal curiosity, Fred, 
because I had a lot to do with that luncheon. I have the memo 
of understanding which I had typed, as Bob said on the stand 
the other day. I just wondered what in the dickens could have 
happened, because when he left there, he certainly left there 
in the friendliest of moods, and we had all the difficulties 
patched up, and we had a big area of understanding both on the 
record and off the record. The memo of understanding had 
incorporated a meeting of the minds and had been read by him 
very carefully, changed a part at his suggestion, and a part at 
ours.
    A memorandum is not always a complete report of anybody's 
thinking. When the clouds opened up and the hailstones started 
coming down, I could never understand what in the dickens could 
have happened down at your shop. I was wondering at this 
meeting if it was suddenly decided to tear that memorandum into 
shreds and come out swinging or what in the world did happen.
    Mr. Seaton. No, there was no discussion of it in that way, 
Senator. The only thing that I remember about it, these early 
press reports took a very dim view of it, you see----
    Senator Mundt. That is what I was going to ask you about.
    Mr. Seaton. But there was no material discussion about 
them, no decision was reached, or anything else. As I 
understand it, Mr. Stevens left either when Kyes, Hensel and I 
left his office or very shortly afterwards. The three of us 
walked down the hall, Kyes went into his office, Hensel into 
his, and I went into mine.
    Senator Mundt. Looking from outside the Pentagon, through 
its heavy walls, see if this is what happened, in your opinion, 
because it is my opinion. When Stevens went down there, 
reported that this was a perfectly legitimate memorandum of 
understanding, that we had accomplished the purpose of the 
meeting----
    Mr. Seaton. That is my understanding.
    Senator Mundt [continuing]. The thing was triggered off by 
newspaper comments who waited a long time because the left-wing 
press didn't seem to know how to play this, they were very late 
getting it on the wires, and finally by concert it appeared to 
me, they said this is a gross capitulation on the part of the 
secretary, he has surrendered everything, he came up there and 
lost everything. They took that general attitude in reporting 
it. I just wondered if it wasn't the reaction of the newspaper 
boys rather than the reaction of those in the memorandum of 
understanding that caused him to say the memorandum is off and 
the war is on.
    Mr. Seaton. I don't know about that, Senator, because you 
are talking about something that happened in Stevens' mind. It 
is true that the press reports that I saw immediately were 
altered and gave an unfavorable view of it.
    Senator Mundt. But prior to the receipt of those, however, 
he was talking in support of the memorandum of understanding, 
was he not?
    Mr. Seaton. Yes. I would imagine you would call it support. 
He was explaining he thought it was a satisfactory conclusion. 
Of course, I didn't know there was a meeting being held or 
anything else, that is, either in your office or in Stevens' 
office.
    Senator Mundt. It was in Dirksen's office.
    Mr. Seaton. I mean the meeting that you and the other 
senators attended, I didn't know that was taking place, and I 
didn't know this meeting in Stevens' office that afternoon was 
taking place until I was called. I was the last man there.
    Senator Mundt. I wanted you to confirm or deny it, and all 
I wanted is the truth, that he was talking about it in terms of 
being a satisfactory settlement until the newspaper boys 
started coming in, and at that point he changed, very 
understandably, I suppose, because the press was playing it in 
such a way that he was capitulating. Now, is that the best of 
your knowledge?
    Mr. Seaton. Well, I can hardly call it knowledge. That is 
the best of my assumption.
    Senator Mundt. Your observations, we will say.
    Mr. Seaton. Yes.
    Senator Mundt. Go ahead.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Hensel has said in his specifications here 
that he heard there was discussion about the Schine matter on 
February 24. Were you present at any such discussion, at any 
time when there was any mention of that made?
    Mr. Seaton. No, I certainly don't recall it, Roy.
    Mr. Cohn. And when did you first learn that this report was 
in the works? This report charging improper means on my part 
and on the part of Senator McCarthy concerning Schine?
    Mr. Seaton. Well, I can't exactly pinpoint it. The first 
knowledge that I had that any report existed, the best of my 
memory would be the weekend around March 1, or something, if 
that is a weekend.
    Mr. Cohn. From whom did you get that knowledge, Mr. Seaton?
    Mr. Seaton. I believe----
    Mr. Cohn. If you don't want to put anything on the record--
--
    Mr. Seaton. I don't have any clear memory of that. I might 
be able to check back and see.
    Mr. Cohn. Whose idea was it to keep this report?
    Mr. Seaton. Well, to the best of my knowledge, it was Mr. 
Adams, John Adams' idea. Of course, I frankly don't know very 
much about it and what I do know is hearsay.
    Mr. Cohn. Whose idea was it to issue the report?
    Mr. Seaton. Well, let me see. At Mr. Wilson's press 
conference, which was in the week prior to the time of the 
issuance of the report, some reporter asked him pinpoint blank 
that if any senator asked he, Mr. Wilson, for information 
concerning these allegations which had been made about Dave 
Schine, you, and others, would the secretary see to it the 
information was furnished and he said yes. Then Senator Potter 
subsequently wrote a letter to the secretary, the contents of 
which I don't remember at the moment, but it had to do with 
that general subject, and a report was then sent to Senator 
Potter.
    Mr. Cohn. I want to come back to that in a minute, Mr. 
Seaton, but I want to ask you this: You recall Senator McCarthy 
telephoned you the day that report was sent over to him?
    Mr. Seaton. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And asked you, sir, to see that it was held up in 
fairness to all concerned so that the other side of the story 
could be told at the same time.
    Mr. Seaton. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Then I think you told him that it was out of your 
control and it was up to the army, and they were not willing to 
have it held up. Is that accurate?
    Mr. Seaton. I don't think I used that phrase. I do remember 
saying to the senator that it was beyond my control, that 
requests were in for it. He asked me if I would transmit to the 
army his desire that his side of the story go in the report, 
and I told him I would, which I did.
    Mr. Cohn. To whom in the army did you transmit that?
    Mr. Seaton. Well, I don't remember specifically.
    Mr. Cohn. Who would it be, I mean one of two or three 
people, Stevens, Adams----
    Mr. Seaton. Well, it might have been John Adams. It may be 
that I could recall that. I might have a note on that, I don't 
know, Roy. I really don't know. I think I did say to the 
senator, half seriously and half facetiously, that to the best 
of my knowledge no senator had asked for Senator McCarthy's 
report, they had asked for the army's report, but I was going 
to pass it. Then he wanted to know if I would undertake to 
notify him when the report went to the Hill, and I said, ``Now, 
that is a request that I can comply with,'' and I did. I had a 
little trouble getting to him, as you may remember.
    Mr. Cohn. This account you gave, Mr. Seaton, about Senator 
Potter's letter and the receipt of that, don't you have 
knowledge, sir, that the issuance of this report was planned 
well in advance of Senator Potter's letter, and I think as 
Senator Potter has explained publicly that letter was merely 
written to see that the Republicans on the committee, 
subcommittee, got the report before the warning to send it over 
to the Democrats, to various members including Democrats, had 
been carried out by the army.
    Mr. Seaton. I know this: I know that certain senators on 
the Hill had written requests to the army prior to that time, 
asking for information about these allegations. I know that, 
and I know that the letters were acknowledged and they were 
promised a report when it was ready, because I have seen that 
file there sometime past. I do know that under Mr. Hensel's 
direction, the chronological report was prepared, but I do not 
know, sir, that Mr. Hensel had anything to do with the report 
in its genesis. I am certain he didn't.
    Mr. Cohn. When did Mr. Hensel begin preparation of the 
report?
    Mr. Seaton. It would have been sometime after that date or 
dates around March 1, because it was at that time that he told 
me that there was in existence a memorandum or a file of 
memoranda which Mr. Adams had prepared, and sometime after that 
he showed us a copy of it. Whether it was on that day or a day 
or two later, I don't know. As far as I know, that is the first 
time Mr. Hensel knew anything about the report.
    Mr. Cohn. Who is this Mr. Brown of Mr. Hensel's office who, 
according to Stevens, prepared this report?
    Mr. Seaton. He is one of Mr. Hensel's staff.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his full name, do you know, his first 
name?
    Mr. Seaton. I believe it is Frank.
    Mr. Cohn. I might ask you this, too, so I cover everything 
and will not have to call you back. Does the secretary of 
defense sanction monitoring of telephone calls without 
notifying the party on the other end?
    Mr. Seaton. Well, not to my knowledge, no, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Sir, is there not a directive from Mr. Wilson?
    Mr. Seaton. He did issue a recent directive, a copy of 
which was requested by Senator McCarthy's office; my office 
provided it and it was sent over. So far as I know that is the 
only directive Mr. Wilson has ever issued on the subject.
    Mr. Cohn. As far as you know, he has not authorized the 
monitoring of telephone calls of United States senators without 
notifying them that there is someone on the line taking it 
down?
    Mr. Seaton. Not so far as I know.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that done in your office or in Mr. Wilson's 
office?
    Mr. Seaton. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. It is not?
    Mr. Seaton. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know whether or not Mr. Adams followed 
that practice?
    Mr. Seaton. No, I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Would he have authority to do so? Well, I will 
withdraw that. That is not fair. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever hear any discussion in the Defense 
Department or particularly with Mr. Stevens or Mr. Adams, or 
Mr. Hensel, or any of them, concerning the fact that the 
issuance of this report would result in discrediting Senator 
McCarthy?
    Mr. Seaton. No, I can't say that I did, Roy.
    Mr. Cohn. Why were they getting out this report, Fred? They 
weren't doing it----
    Mr. Seaton. Are you talking now with reference to the 
report which was sent to the Hill?
    Mr. Cohn. That is right. You and I both know----
    Mr. Seaton. My understanding is that was gotten out in 
order to satisfy the request from members of Congress who had 
demanded the report.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, now, do you have any knowledge of the fact 
that any of those demands were made in conjunction with Mr. 
Stevens and Mr. Adams prior knowledge as an avenue of getting 
out publicly this report?
    Mr. Seaton. No, I don't recall any. I am thinking now about 
a conversation I had with one member of the Senate, who asked 
me what I knew about the report. That was sometime in February, 
and I told him I knew nothing about the report, which I didn't. 
And he went on to say that he understood he was to get a copy 
of the report. He is one of the senators, incidentally, whose 
letter was in the file, which I asked the army to furnish me as 
to the number of requests that they had gotten. But I don't 
remember any of that.
    Mr. Cohn. About how many requests have they gotten, by the 
way?
    Mr. Seaton. Well, to the best of my memory, it was some 
place between fifteen and ten.
    Mr. Cohn. How many of those requests had been made on the 
solicitation of Mr. Stevens, Mr. Adams or anyone from the army?
    Mr. Seaton. I wouldn't know any that were, but I know 
nothing about that, Roy.
    Mr. Cohn. I can't think of anything else at the moment, 
Tom.
    Mr. Prewitt. Do you have any other questions?
    Senator Mundt. No, I think not. I was interested primarily 
when I found you were going to be a witness, to find out 
whatever happened to the memo of understanding, which provided 
peace for a few sweet hours.
    [Whereupon, at 10:29 a.m., the committee was recessed 
subject to the call of the chairman.]


                    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

    [Editor's note.--John E. Pernice did not testify at a 
public hearing.]

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, MAY 27, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 5:50 p.m., pursuant to call, in 
room 248 Senate office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota.
    Also present: Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel; Roy M. 
Cohn, chief counsel; Francis P. Carr, staff director.
    Senator Mundt. The hearing will be in order.
    Mr. Cohn. I had better make a brief explanation here.
    We have Mr. Alesandrini and Mr. Pernice here. We just want 
to ask them a few questions about the charts, I had 
communicated with the office and asked them to call Tom, here, 
and say that we wanted Mr. Pernice, who is a lawyer over in the 
army, to come in, and we were going to get him in for tomorrow, 
but we find he is here representing Mr. Alesandrini.
    I think if it is all right with Mr. Pernice I have very few 
questions to ask Mr. Pernice. They are about General Lawton.
    Senator Mundt. Will you stand and be sworn, please.
    Do you solemnly swear, Mr. Pernice, the testimony you are 
about to give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Pernice. I do.

TESTIMONY OF JOHN E. PERNICE, CHIEF, LEGAL DIVISION, OFFICE OF 
                    THE CHIEF SIGNAL OFFICER

    Mr. Prewitt. Mr. Cohn will have to question him.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your title, Mr. Pernice?
    Mr. Pernice. I am chief of the legal division, office of 
the Chief Signal Officer.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know General Lawton?
    Mr. Pernice. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there ever a time in October or November or 
December of 1953 that you communicated with General Lawton?
    Mr. Pernice. During those three months I communicated with 
him quite frequently in that I was in one sense liaison between 
the department counselor's office through the Office of the 
Chief Signal Officer to General Lawton at Fort Monmouth.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Pernice, the committee has information--not 
quite definitely information--that there was a time first of 
all in October, I believe, when you communicated with General 
Lawton that it might be better if he did not attend the 
subcommittee hearings in New York. Is that correct, sir? In 
October or----
    Mr. Pernice. The concept that you state comes to my 
recollection. I can't recall specifically the time that I did 
it or whether it was said in a casual vein or whether it was--I 
do recollect something along those lines. I would have to sit 
back and think.
    Mr. Cohn. Who would have told you to say that to General 
Lawton? Obviously this wasn't your decision.
    Mr. Pernice. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Who would have given you that instruction?
    Mr. Pernice. It was not a decision of ours. When I say 
ours, I mean the Office of the Chief Signal Officer. I must 
have gotten a feeling transmitted by contact with the office of 
the department counselor.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. John G. Adams?
    Mr. Pernice. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you talk to General Lawton on the phone about 
this or in person? Do you recall?
    Mr. Pernice. No, I am sorry, I can't say that I recall. It 
was either on the phone or obviously in person.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Adams was not happy with General Lawton, is 
that a fair statement?
    I don't want to be unfair. I realize your position.
    Mr. Pernice. Off the record.
    Mr. Cohn. Off the record any time you want to. [Discussion 
off the record.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Pernice I am just going to sum up.
    Mr. Pernice, you were sort of a liaison between Mr. John G. 
Adams, the department counselor, and General Lawton, the 
commanding general at Fort Monmouth, is that correct?
    Mr. Pernice. Yes, sir; that is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. Did there come a time when from conversations 
with Mr. Adams you sensed some displeasure on his part with 
General Lawton, and if so, when was that time?
    Mr. Pernice. I won't term it displeasure with him. I didn't 
see any evidence of displeasure. There were times when Mr. 
Adams questioned whether suspensions were being taken too 
hastily or whether they were taken in proper due course, with 
proper consideration being given to all the factors involved in 
each case.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you transmit these questions raised by Mr. 
Adams to General Lawton?
    Mr. Pernice. I did, sir.
    Senator Mundt. About what time was that?
    Mr. Pernice. That was in the area of the latter part of 
October or the early part of November.
    Senator Mundt. 1953?
    Mr. Pernice. 1953.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you get the further sense from talking with 
Mr. Adams that he would be just as well pleased if General 
Lawton would no longer attend personally sessions of the Senate 
subcommittee investigating Fort Monmouth?
    Mr. Pernice. I got that sense, sir, and I felt that as it 
was conveyed to me the reason for the desire--rather, the 
thought that the post commander should not personally attend 
these hearings every day was that the hearings had gone on for 
some period of time and that the probability was that he could 
learn as much of what was going on at the hearings from reading 
the record.
    Mr. Cohn. Sir, if he were not at the hearing of course he 
couldn't submit questions, could he, to be asked the witnesses?
    Mr. Pernice. No, he could not.
    Mr. Cohn. And he could not have the benefit of observing 
the witnesses, the demeanor of the witnesses?
    Mr. Pernice. No, he could not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you transmit to General Lawton the sense that 
you would obtain from John Adams that it would be pleasing to 
Mr. John Adams if General Lawton no longer attended the 
sessions of the subcommittee?
    Mr. Pernice. I conveyed the thought that he would probably 
get as much from the hearings if he read the record as it was 
printed and that since undoubtedly he had many other duties he 
might just as well be back at the post performing his other 
duties.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Adams suggest any duty which might be 
more important than getting security risks out of the radar 
laboratory?
    Mr. Pernice. No, he did not.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know of any that were more important than 
that?
    Mr. Pernice. I would say that that is one of the most 
important, but there are other very important missions and 
functions performed by a post commander.
    Mr. Cohn. Had you ever served under General Lawton 
yourself?
    Mr. Pernice. I have, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long?
    Mr. Pernice. Approximately four years.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Adams ever ask you your opinion of 
General Lawton?
    Mr. Pernice. He did.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you give it to him?
    Mr. Pernice. I did.
    Mr. Cohn. Will you give it to us now as you gave it to him?
    Mr. Pernice. In so far as subordinate can pass judgment on 
his superior, I feel that he is a very fine officer and is most 
loyal and performs all of his duties in a most efficient 
manner.
    Mr. Cohn. Off the record. [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Pernice, did you get from Mr. Adams at any 
point the sense, or however you would want to term it, that Mr. 
Adams would be just as happy if our committee stopped its 
investigation and left it to the army?
    Mr. Pernice. Yes, I must conclude that I did gather that 
feeling.
    Mr. Cohn. About when?
    Mr. Pernice. In the latter part of October of 1953.
    Mr. Cohn. That is all around this same period, right?
    Mr. Pernice. That is when my memory tells. I would have to 
sit back and reflect on that, but it is all around that same 
time. That as far as Mr. Adams could see from his attendance, 
not too much now was being developed and the army could 
undoubtedly handle the problem if given time.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you think as a personal proposition in his 
capacity as department counselor that Mr. Adams was pleased 
with the fact that the subcommittee was conducting this 
investigation? I will withdraw that.
    [Off the record.]
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Pernice, did there ever come to your 
attention the fact that Mr. Stevens was considering relieving 
General Lawton of his command?
    Mr. Pernice. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. From whom?
    Mr. Pernice. From General Back.
    Mr. Cohn. General Back is the chief signal officer?
    Mr. Pernice. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Did General Back tell you that Mr. Stevens had 
sent for General Back and from a paper in Mr. Stevens' hand had 
read to General Back certain things purportedly said by General 
Lawton at Fort Monmouth which disturbed the secretary?
    Mr. Pernice. That is correct.
    Mr. Cohn. One of these things dealt with universities?
    Mr. Pernice. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did one of them deal with McCarthy in some way?
    Mr. Pernice. I believe it did.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Mr. Prewitt. As I understand it, you acted as liaison 
between Mr. Adams and General Lawton and you went to General 
Lawton and suggested to him that he not attend the meetings of 
the McCarthy committee investigation, but that he merely read 
the record?
    Mr. Pernice. That would be one way of keeping him apprized 
of what was going on at the hearings.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did General Lawton get the record promptly 
after each day's hearings?
    Mr. Pernice. No, sir; he didn't got them that promptly. 
They would come in, and as fast as they were made available to 
us we would--they were made available to him and later a copy, 
a complete copy, was made available to three or four elements 
in the First Army area who might need them.
    Mr. Prewitt. Did you suggest that to General Lawton on the 
request of Mr. Adams?
    Mr. Pernice. I believe I did suggest that to him. I don't 
know whether I was instructed. I doubt that I was instructed to 
do so. But as a good liaison man I pass along to the field 
elements that which I gathered from the Washington end.
    Mr. Prewitt. As I get it, it was your purpose to prevent 
General Lawton from going to these public hearings?
    Mr. Pernice. Purpose is a strong word. I can't prevent 
General Lawton from going anywhere.
    Mr. Prewitt. Wasn't that the object of your mission, your 
liaison activity?
    Mr. Pernice. No, sir; by no means. My mission was to act as 
liaison with respect to the testimony, many points----
    Mr. Prewitt. I am directing it to this business of General 
Lawton's staying away from the hearings.
    Mr. Pernice. It was suggested that the hearings had been 
going on--it was suggested by Mr. Adams that the hearings had 
been going on for some time--
    Mr. Prewitt. When was it that you went to General Lawton 
and suggested or advised him or whatever word you want to use, 
that he read the record instead of going to the hearings?
    Mr. Pernice. It was some time late in October or early 
November.
    Mr. Prewitt. Had these hearings taken a disproportionate 
amount of the general's time?
    Mr. Pernice. They had been going on since the early part of 
October. I don't like to question what you mean by 
disproportionate.
    Mr. Prewitt. That is all right. We will go on to something 
else. Is it true that Mr. Adams didn't want the general 
attending these hearings in person?
    Mr. Pernice. He suggested that he need not attend if he 
could get the same amount of information from the written 
record.
    Mr. Prewitt. Isn't it unusual for a department counselor to 
be advising a major general what he should do with his time?
    Mr. Pernice. Normally, if the problem or issue were on a 
military matter I doubt that the department counselor would 
assume to have any opinion on the matter, but the department 
counselor was deeply involved in acting as counselor to Mr. 
Stevens and his functions did require close contact with the 
committee. He himself was there at all times, as I understand 
it. I don't know. I gather that he attended the hearings and 
represented the department. So it didn't shock me, if that is 
what you mean.
    Frankly, I don't care who attended, but I assume--and now 
you are asking me to interpret Mr. Adams' complete thoughts, 
and they were not all made available to me--but I just assumed 
that since he was present and representing the department that 
it would not be necessary for too many other people to be 
sitting there doing the same thing.
    So it didn't shock me at all, and I do know that General 
Lawton has a tremendous post and that he does have----
    Mr. Prewitt. What did General Lawton say to you when you 
suggested that he read the record rather than go to these 
hearings?
    Mr. Pernice. It was his thought that he could gain, that he 
could learn more from being there, that he could view the 
witnesses and estimate their truthfulness by seeing them 
testify.
    I believe he said he would rather be there, but we thought 
he shouldn't be there and I believe at that point I told him 
that neither Adams nor I could tell him what to do. It was 
merely a suggestion which, if he wished to accept, it was up to 
him.
    Mr. Prewitt. That is all.
    Mr. Pernice. I would like to clarify one point. I was asked 
a question concerning indications that Adams had given me with 
respect to whether there were too many suspensions or whether 
they were being too hastily made. Since that question has been 
asked and elicited, and I gave my answer, I must also point out 
that Mr. Adams told me that as far as he and the secretary were 
concerned that any doubtful cases must be resolved in favor of 
the government and that while they wanted to do justice to 
individuals and wanted cases to be carefully considered and 
action taken without heat and pressure generated in the press, 
they were very mindful of the fact that if there were any 
security risks or if there was any doubt as to whether or not 
an employee was a security risk, that the doubt would be 
resolved in favor of the government.
    Mr. Cohn. Why was he complaining, then?
    MR. Pernice. The use of the word ``complain'' is yours, Mr. 
Cohn. I will say that he did question whether or not 
precipitous action was being taken.
    Mr. Cohn. In what cases?
    Mr. Pernice. He had no specific cases. He may have 
mentioned some names as examples.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember if he did?
    Mr. Pernice. I remember he did.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you remember those names?
    Mr. Pernice. I don't remember the names.
    Mr. Cohn. I have nothing more.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    [The hearing adjourned at 6:35 p.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

    [Editor's note.--Senator Karl Mundt opened the public 
hearing that followed this executive session by observing that: 
``Many have asked about the executive committee meeting which 
we had this morning. One motion was made and carried, to the 
effect that the transcript of the executive committee meeting 
on May 17 is to be typed and a copy delivered to each of the 
members of the committee and each of the principals and their 
counsel, and of the meeting today, which virtually means the 
people who were in attendance at the meeting of May 17. The 
Chair has asked the reporter, in view of the action of the 
committee, to write across the top of those hearings, which are 
for distribution to the people mentioned, `Confidential--
executive committee session--not for attribution or 
publication.' Those who receive it will receive it with that 
understanding.''
    Senator McCarthy had accused Assistant Secretary of Defense 
for International Security Affairs H. Struve Hensel (1901-1991) 
of having improperly organized a ship supply company while he 
was in charge of naval procurement during World War II. Hensel, 
who denied the accusation, was not called to testify in public 
session. He left the Defense Department and returned to private 
practice in 1955.]

                              ----------                              


                         THURSDAY, JUNE 3, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met at 9:45 a.m., in room 357, Senate Office 
Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. 
Dworshak, Republican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, 
Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, 
Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel to the subcommittee; Thomas R. 
Prewitt, assistant counsel; Charles Maner, assistant counsel; 
Sol Horowitz, assistant counsel.
    [The opening discussion was off the record, during the 
course of which Senator Mundt read the following letter from H. 
Struve Hensel:]

                    Assistant Secretary of Defense,
                            International Security Affairs,
                                      Washington, DC, May 31, 1954.
Hon. Karl E. Mundt,
U.S. Senate,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Senator Mundt: I have seen a copy of the letter dated May 28 
to you from Senator McCarthy in which he states that when he takes the 
stand, he will be ready and willing to answer any questions put to him 
with respect to what he calls the ``Hensel matter.'' I assume by this 
reference that he means the charges which he made against me before 
this subcommittee in his answer, filed on April 20, 1954, and which 
were dismissed on the merits by the subcommittee on May 26, 1954 
without objection by him.
    I have branded as false and malicious each and every one of the 
charges made against me by Senator McCarthy and I repeat that statement 
again. This applies first to the charges that I tried to impede this 
subcommittee's investigation and discredit it, and that I was motivated 
in so doing by a desire to block a purported investigation of me by 
Senator McCarthy. It applies equally to the charge made with respect to 
my business activities in World War II, which this subcommittee and its 
counsel have ruled (see Record, p. 1830) is incompetent, irrelevant and 
immaterial in this proceeding, and as to which it has been stated that 
the subcommittee will not permit any testimony.
    Despite the fact that the charges against me have already been 
dismissed, it is my earnest hope that the subcommittee will compel 
Senator McCarthy fully to disclose the fact that his charges against me 
have no foundation. If he testifies concerning them, either under 
direct or cross examination, I request that Mr. Frederick P. Bryan, my 
counsel, shall have the right to cross examine him on this subject in 
the interests of fairness and justice.
    As stated to this subcommittee by Mr. Bryan on May 26, I am ready 
and willing to appear and testify as a witness at any time in this 
proceeding. If, after the conclusion of Senator McCarthy's testimony, 
this subcommittee does not again dismiss the charges against me on the 
ground that they are without foundation, or Senator McCarthy does not 
withdraw such charges with a confession of error, I demand the right to 
take the witness stand so that I can demonstrate under oath the falsity 
of such charges. I assure this subcommittee that there is nothing in 
the letter from the President of the United States to the Secretary of 
Defense (see Record, pp. 3090-92) which will prevent me from testifying 
as to all relevant facts.
    Finally, I am advised that, at the executive session of this 
subcommittee held on May 17, 1954 in Room 357 of the Senate Office 
Building, Senator McCarthy made statements which were stenographically 
recorded and which indicate that there is no basis for his charges 
against me. I request that I be supplied with a copy of the minutes of 
that executive session. If for any reason, the subcommittee does not 
care to make public the entire proceedings of that Session, I earnestly 
request that I be supplied with a transcript of all remarks made by 
Senator McCarthy with respect to his charges against me, including the 
information behind, and the basis for, such charges. It is only fair 
that I should be entitled to at least this portion of such minutes.
            Very truly yours,
                                                  H. Struve Hensel.

    Senator McClellan. I say that any man who will permit the 
action taken by this committee without protest, with his 
attorney present, comes in with very poor grace to start 
anything now--period. Put it in the record.
    Senator Jackson. I join in it. He had his day in court and 
he was there with his counsel. He knew what was going on. I 
think his lawyer had a law degree.
    Senator Potter. And a big voice, too.
    Senator Jackson. He seemed to understand better than some 
of us what was going on.
    Senator McClellan. Put it in the record and give him a copy 
of it.
    Senator Mundt. I think at this point I should read my reply 
to Mr. Hensel:
                                                      June 2, 1951.
Hon. H. Struve Hensel,
Assistant Secretary of Defense,
Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Hensel: Your letter of May 31 was delivered by hand to my 
office yesterday morning but due to the pressure of our committee 
activities, I did not have an opportunity to go over it until I read it 
in the afternoon issue of the Evening Star. Since it was in the nature 
of a public letter, it is of course unnecessary for me to call it to 
the attention of the other members of the subcommittee since I am sure 
that they also read the news release.
    The fact that our subcommittee has dismissed you as a principal in 
the controversy which we are now endeavoring to adjudicate does not, of 
course, mean that you are prohibited from appearing before us as a 
witness. Certainly, if sworn charges are made against you by Senator 
McCarthy or anybody else during the course of this investigation, your 
counsel will not only be given the opportunity to interrogate such 
witnesses, but if you so desire, you can also appear as a witness. It 
is my understanding, however, that none of the scheduled witnesses have 
in mind making any sworn charges which would involve you as an 
important entity in this controversy.
    It was on this basis and upon the recommendation and with the 
concurrence of your counsel, Mr. Frederick P. Bryan, that the committee 
voted to dismiss you as a principal and a witness so that you could 
devote yourself to your important duties in the Department of Defense 
without the necessity of having to follow the hearings and be 
represented at the committee table by your counsel.
    As you correctly state, the committee had previously agreed that 
the charges made against you which related to certain of your business 
activities during World War II were not an appropriate or relevant 
matter to be brought before our special investigating sub-committee 
since such charges involved factors which are in no manner connected 
with the specific controversy which we have been called upon to 
adjudicate. Consequently, we have ruled them out as irrelevant to the 
dispute before us.
    I can well appreciate your desire to defend yourself against those 
charges, of course, and would respectfully suggest that if you want to 
correct and clarify that situation, you might appeal either to the 
House Committee on Government Operations or to the Senate Armed 
Services Committee with a request that they give you the opportunity to 
answer those charges in the event Senator McCarthy should elect to 
present them officially before such a committee. Since they are not 
part of the material with which we are engaged, our committee cannot 
appropriately pass upon them, and since Senator McCarthy, himself, is 
chairman of the regular Senate investigating subcommittee, it would 
seem that one of the two committees I have suggested could more 
consistently be called upon to deal with that specific problem.
    I shall present your request at an executive session of our 
subcommittee indicating you would like to have a copy of the 
conversations recorded at the executive session of our subcommittee 
which was held in Room 357 on May 17. I do not recall from memory just 
what was or what was not said in your connection at that meeting, but I 
can assure you as one member of the subcommittee, I shall vote to make 
public the transcript of what transpired at that meeting. Senator 
McCarthy has previously requested in open session that the transcript 
of the executive session of May 17 should be made public and the 
Republican members of my subcommittee indicated at that time that they 
favored such action. In view of the request made by both you and 
Senator McCarthy, I feel confident that our Democratic colleagues will 
also support these requests by voting to make the transcript of this 
executive session public. You will understand, of course, that as 
chairman of the subcommittee, I do not have the authority to make the 
executive session conversations public unless and until I am authorized 
to do so by a vote of my sub-committee. You have my assurance, however, 
that I shall vote favorably on your request.
            Cordially yours,
                                       Karl E. Mundt, U.S. Senator.

    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, his lawyer in open 
hearings made a statement that was tantamount to accepting a 
four-to-three vote of this committee as complete vindication.
    Senator Mundt. That is right.
    Senator McClellan. I didn't agree with him then. I don't 
agree with him now. But if there is any stigma on him because 
of these charges and because of the action the committee took, 
it is there by the acquiescence of his duly appointed counsel 
who was present at the hearing at which time the proceedings 
took place, and instead of them taking place over his protest 
they took place with his acquiescence and actually his urging 
the committee to do it.
    Senator Mundt. He plead and urged, and this was the third 
time it happened. It wasn't the first time.
    Senator Symington. If this fellow has now gotten religion, 
you might say, seeing what this might do to his government 
service record, I think this committee ought to be willing to 
have him come up and deny the charges.
    Senator Potter. But the charges that are made are something 
that we can't take up in this committee. If I were to answer, 
yes, I would ask the Armed Services Committee or some other 
committee to give him a hearing.
    Senator Jackson. Might I add this----
    Senator Mundt. I quite agree he should go to some other 
committee which is involved.
    Senator Jackson. To make the record complete at this point, 
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Hensel was present at the hearings for 
several days. Subsequently his counsel appeared for him and was 
present at all times up to and including the time when the 
motion was made to dismiss Mr. Hensel and Mr. Carr. As Senator 
McClellan pointed out, he accepted it as complete vindication. 
He accepted it as a final judgment of the committee.
    The only basis on which Mr. Hensel can come before this 
committee at this time, as I see it, is on the basis that he 
has some new evidence, that some new element has come in by 
which he can justifiably claim the right to appear. I know of 
no new evidence. Everything that he now requests he had full 
and complete knowledge of, or his counsel had that knowledge, 
prior to the determination by the committee by a four-to-three 
vote to dismiss both people.
    I see no basis on which he can make claim now to appear. If 
there is anything new that was not known at the time when the 
decision was made by the committee, then on that basis and that 
basis alone, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, he should make his 
claim.
    Senator Mundt. I would like to say that I think Senator 
Jackson makes a very good point, to which I would like to add--
--
    Senator Jackson. There comes a time when you have to end 
these things.
    Senator Mundt. Right. This wasn't anything new to him.
    Gentlemen, we haven't very much time.
    Senator Symington. I will be a minority of one on this 
thing.
    Senator Mundt. I had the floor, but the colloquy got so 
loud I couldn't continue my remarks. I would like to say I 
agree with Senator Jackson, there has been nothing new 
developed. Certainly this discussion we had in public was 
nothing new to Mr. Bryan, because he had participated in two 
previous executive sessions, and we had gone into all these 
various matters.
    When the Dirksen matter came up, you will recall that he 
then said that it would be perfectly all right as far as he, as 
counsel, was concerned to have it dismissed. I voted with the 
Democrats, and we kept him in by our vote at that time. He then 
was willing.
    Then a couple of weeks later it came up again. He was 
willing again, and he not only acquiesced but he urged that and 
he put a very vigorous and fulsome argument in its support. The 
chair agrees entirely with Senator McClellan's attitude that he 
comes now pretty late with this idea that he would like to come 
back as a witness. Of course, if you read the letter carefully, 
he doesn't say that. He says that if there are some charges 
made against him under oath he would like the right to counter, 
which of course we would give him.
    Senator McClellan. I would like to make this statement: I 
am not precluding him; and I am not precluding myself from 
voting for it. I am stating how I feel now. If something comes 
up in the course of the hearings, I might change my view.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, may I say that the statement 
that I have made is not inconsistent with the point you just 
raised in connection with his letter, if something new comes 
up.
    Senator Mundt. Right.
    Senator Jackson. If a charge is made, yes.
    As I understand our rules, every witness will have that 
right. Obviously if he wants to change his mind based on the 
decision of his counsel, I am against that.
    Senator McClellan. For the present, I want to go on with 
what we have.
    Senator Mundt. Did you want to say something, Senator 
Symington?
    Senator Symington. Yes. I will be very frank, I thought his 
counsel was extraordinarily stupid. Sure I want it on the 
record. That is the way I feel.
    Senator Mundt. I think Symington almost told him that in 
public session.
    Senator Symington. Regardless of that, if the man feels 
that he needs to testify now to clear himself, I think that we 
ought to give him a hearing. If we don't give him a hearing, 
inasmuch as the thing is certainly in the public, if a majority 
of this committee recommends that he doesn't get a hearing 
here, I would hope that this committee would vote to turn the 
whole matter over to Armed Services.
    Senator Mundt. I told him in my official letter that he has 
this recourse. All he has to do is ask the House Committee on 
Government Operations.
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, could I have a word here?
    Senator Mundt. Just a second.
    Senator McCarthy. I would like to--I think it might be 
important so you know my position on this thing.
    Senator Symington. May I complete what I was going to say?
    Senator McCarthy. Stu, this might change what you were 
going to say.
    My position is that motive is extremely important here. Mr. 
Jenkins I think rightly advised that we could not try out the 
facts in the Hensel case; that we could show he was under 
investigation; whether or not he knew that, whether or not that 
motivated him. But we could not try out whether he made half a 
million dollars with East-West trade last year when he went to 
Europe, whether he falsified his passport, whether or not back 
in 1944----
    Senator Jackson. You want this record made public?
    Senator McCarthy. I don't mind.
    Whether or not back in 1944 he illegally made money when he 
was counsel for the purchasing department of the navy.
    In other words, Mr. Jenkins, and I think rightly so, 
advised the chair that we could not go into the facts in that 
case. We could only prove that there was an investigation and 
motive.
    That being the case, and the president having issued his 
directive, I felt Hensel could not give us his conversations 
with other people in the executive and I had no desire then to 
continue him in the case.
    This had nothing to do with the accuracy of the charges. I 
think Senator Symington has a good point when he says this man 
deserves a day in court. I think he should have somebody who is 
completely impartial as chairman. I don't think that he would 
be satisfied with me as chairman.
    What I intended to do, if it meets with the committee's 
approval when we get a meeting of our regular investigating 
committee, I am going to propose Senator Symington as a 
committee of one to investigate those charges and to hold 
whatever hearings he finds necessary.
    Senator Symington. My answer to that is that that is very 
cute of you, but you are not going to put any of your hot 
bricks in my lap. I want that right on the record, too.
    Senator Jackson. In order to expedite----
    Senator Symington. Wait a minute. I was interrupted.
    Senator Potter. I second that motion. I think that is a 
good one.
    Senator Mundt. Senator Symington, when are you going to 
have your first meeting?
    Senator Symington. He suggested that I be a one-man 
committee to investigate aviation and I told him about the same 
thing then. The issues weren't quite as pointed up as they are 
today. Therefore I refused that, in saying he is the chief 
lawyer in the Pentagon, I was wrong. He used to be, but not any 
more. Now he is in charge of the thing Styles Bridges and I 
were looking at in Europe where we found American companies 
getting 8\1/2\ percent on cost-plus-fixed-fee contracts. I cite 
that to give an illustration of how serious this thing might 
get, if the man who is handling it for Mr. Wilson has any cloud 
on him. Therefore, I don't care what committee it goes to. You 
decide that. That is not my prerogative, and I am ignorant of 
those things compared to you people who have been around here 
longer than I have if we decide we won't give this fellow what 
he thinks is justice not only from his standpoint but also from 
the standpoint of the operation of the Pentagon building, which 
is taking a pretty heavy beating in the press these days, I 
think we ought to recommend that these charges be pursued by 
some other body.
    Senator McCarthy. I think that is a good suggestion.
    Senator Mundt. I suggested that in my letter to him, as you 
remember.
    Senator Jackson. May I bring this to your attention, Mr. 
Chairman?
    Mr. Chairman, I move that the transcript of May 17 be made 
available to Mr. Hensel. Is it the wish that the committee have 
it made public?
    Senator Mundt. I think it should be because everybody else 
is involved, too.
    Senator Jackson. I have a further motion that I want to 
bring up. I may want to change the language.
    Senator Mundt. May 17 and the one today.
    Senator Jackson. Let us look at it before. I want to change 
the motion to read subject to correction.
    Senator McCarthy. Subject to correction.
    Senator Jackson. Subject to the right of members to make, 
not substantive changes but any minor corrections, minor 
substantive matters.
    Senator Mundt. Is there a second to the motion?
    Senator Dirksen. Second.
    Senator Mundt. It is moved and seconded that the transcript 
of May 17 and the transcript of today shall be made public.
    Senator Jackson. This record and May 17 that he requested.
    Senator Mundt. You have heard the motion made by Senator 
Jackson.
    Senator Dworshak. I offer an amendment, Mr. Chairman, that 
the minutes of all the executive committee meetings be made 
public.
    Senator Symington. I second the motion.
    Senator Mundt. That is quite all right. It has been moved 
and seconded that the minutes of all executive meetings be made 
public.
    Senator McClellan. Cleaned up or go in the raw?
    Senator Mundt. I suppose subject to the same cleansing 
process.
    Senator Symington. What do you mean by that?
    Senator Mundt. If somebody says a cuss word. I don't swear 
much, so it suits me all right.
    Senator Jackson. I don't care.
    Senator Mundt. Let it stand as is. It is all right with me.
    All right, I will restate the motion, then: The motion now 
before us is that all of the executive sessions of the 
committee which we have held and the hearings be made public.
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, very quickly I would like 
to suggest: Number one, I can see no objection that I have to 
that. However, I think, Henry, that you are making a sort of 
blanket motion which is establishing an unusual precedent. I 
think that you should decide which ones are important to the 
public and which ones should be made public. You have motion 
for two particular days. I question the wisdom of a blanket 
motion that all executive sessions be released.
    Senator McClellan. I think we should withhold this motion 
until we get them transcribed.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I was going to make a motion 
which I think----
    Senator Mundt. Wait a minute. We have one motion before us.
    Senator Jackson. My thought is, let's dispose of these 
first two meetings.
    Senator Mundt. I think so.
    Senator Jackson. My next motion will be to ask the chair to 
have transcribed and made available to the members of the 
subcommittee first, so we can look at the testimony taken in 
executive session. I am serving as one member of this 
subcommittee. I don't want someone later to tell me that 
testimony was taken in connection with this hearing that I knew 
nothing about not that I may not have had an opportunity, but I 
just couldn't go to all these hearings.
    Senator Mundt. May the chair suggest to Senator Dworshak if 
he will withdraw his amendment I think that would be a much 
better procedure. None of us knows in the last two months 
exactly all the executive motions we have made. Maybe we don't 
want them released. We don't know.
    Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman, Senator Jackson just proved 
my point by saying that he didn't want any proceedings of an 
executive session made public without having an opportunity to 
determine whether he was present and what took place.
    Senator Jackson. Let me invite this to your attention. You 
realize that there has been a lot of testimony taken, and very 
properly so, in the presence of the chairman in many cases 
alone, of witnesses who have come in.
    Senator Potter. It is not fair to them.
    Senator Jackson. No. I want to know what they testified to. 
I don't want someone to come to me three months from now or 
four months from now, saying, ``Did you know that certain 
testimony was taken and such was said?''
    Senator Dworshak. You want to reserve the right to check 
the minutes of every executive committee meeting in order to 
determine whether you personally think----
    Senator Mundt. No, that isn't the point.
    Senator Jackson. First of all, I want the notes 
transcribed. They are in raw form. They haven't even been 
reduced to writing yet.
    Senator Mundt. I would suggest if you will withdraw your 
amendment, Henry, we can get on with Hensel's request. We can 
either grant or deny it now, and we can do the other thing by 
separate motion.
    Senator Symington. I don't know law, but from the 
standpoint of equity, I think that the proper thing to do would 
be for every member of the committee to be given every 
executive hearing testimony that there is. Then he could come 
before the committee and ask that certain things be left out, 
and then the committee could decide whether they thought that 
it should be left out. I don't want to hurt anybody unfairly, 
either a witness or a member of the committee.
    If that isn't done then I will go right along with Senator 
Dworshak's substitute motion. The facts are that there have 
been witnesses who have been called here before the committee 
that we don't even know about. I am not criticizing anybody, 
but I found out recently one witness was called, suggested by 
probably a dozen newspapermen, and we should have that. 
Therefore, if we are going to play this game, I think anything 
the chairman knows and the majority knows, the minority and the 
majority members should know.
    I would lay it right in front of the committee and then go 
from there.
    Senator Mundt. It is seven minutes after ten. If you will 
withdraw yours, Henry, we can do both things.
    Senator Dworshak. I don't agree or associate myself one bit 
with the inconsistency, displayed by the subcommittee, but in 
order to have some degree of harmony I will withdraw my 
substitute.
    Senator Jackson. Henry----
    Senator Mundt. Very well. The chair will recognize----
    Senator Dworshak. I disapprove of what is being done.
    Senator Mundt. The chair will recognize Senator Jackson for 
his second motion.
    Senator Jackson. Let me say for the record I want all this 
made public, but first of all I want to be fair to people who 
have been called in executive session who may have been--this 
is important now--who may have been advised that this will not 
be made public prior to consultation.
    Senator Dworshak. Were there any people like that?
    Senator Jackson. I don't know.
    Senator Mundt. If you will let the chair----
    Mr. Jenkins. Yes, there are.
    Senator Jackson. Just as a matter of equity, and I am 
trying to be fair to everybody in this
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, could I have one word?
    Senator Mundt. May we have order, please? Let us have 
order. We are way behind time.
    Mr. Counsel, Senator McClellan, this is much worse than 
when we are under the lights. Let's do this thing in orderly 
procedure. We have a motion before us, and the chair is going 
to state it.
    Before he recognizes anybody, the chair is going to state 
the motion. The motion made by Senator Jackson and seconded by 
Senator Dirksen is that the executive sessions of today and of 
May 17 shall be made public subject to the usual grammatical 
corrections.
    Senator Symington. I won't vote for that. I don't think we 
should make anything public before it is seen by the committee. 
Let's make it all public. I am perfectly willing to have it all 
laid in front of us.
    Senator Mundt. I am not telling you how you are going to 
vote. I am stating the motion.
    Now, Senator McCarthy, I agreed to recognize you.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Jackson. In order that we can get some agreement, 
Mr. Chairman, I am willing to modify my motion, that the 
minutes of the May 17 meeting be made available to Mr. Hensel 
pursuant to his request and to the party litigants to this 
controversy and the committee.
    Senator Mundt. The chair would seriously recommend, if you 
are going to make it available to fifteen or seventeen people, 
who will leak it to the press, I would much rather do it in a 
clean way and give it to the press. It is certainly going to 
leak out.
    Senator Jackson. I was trying to get unanimous action.
    Senator Mundt. It is bound to leak out with all those 
people having it in their possession. You know that as well as 
I do, the clean way is either to turn it down or make it 
public.
    Senator Potter. Part of it they will leak, and other parts 
they won't.
    Senator Mundt. It will be tainted. We are all going to be 
in trouble that way. That means about fifteen copies going out. 
You know this town as well as I do. You might better do it 
right than do that.
    Senator McCarthy. You are right. It would be leaked out 
anyway.
    Senator Mundt. Let's make a motion of some kind. I will do 
whatever you say, but I want seriously to say that if you make 
fifteen copies, which in what you are talking about, it will 
leak out.
    Make it public or don't make it public, either way.
    Senator Jackson. Let's vote on my motion. I move, Mr. 
Chairman, that the minutes of the May 17 hearings be made 
available to the members of this subcommittee, to the counsel 
of the subcommittee, and to the principals to this controversy.
    Senator McClellan. May 17 hearing? You are talking about an 
executive session instead of a hearing.
    Senator Jackson. Executive session.
    Senator Symington. I would like to make a substitute 
motion.
    Senator Jackson. Mine hasn't been seconded.
    Senator Symington. If it is made available to the committee 
members alone----
    Senator Jackson. The people who are at the hearing.
    Senator Symington [continuing]. It is going to leak.
    Senator Mundt. We can make it public--that is the only fair 
way to do--or turn it down entirely.
    Senator Potter. I offer an amendment to your motion, that 
the thing be made public.
    Senator Mundt. Let's vote and decide where we stand. We 
have a motion before us. We have a motion before us which says, 
again, that the hearing of today and of May 17 be released to 
the public.
    Senator Jackson. That was my original motion.
    Senator Mundt. Let's see where we stand on that.
    Senator McClellan. I will vote against that but I will vote 
to make them available to the parties. If anybody leaks them, 
that is their responsibility.
    Senator Jackson. I will withdraw my previous motion and 
restate again what I said just a moment ago. I now move----
    Senator McClellan. I think the parties are entitled to it.
    Senator Jackson. I think the May 17 is the critical one; 
the one today is not so important. I now move, Mr. Chairman, 
that the hearings in the executive session of May 17 be made 
available and that today's executive session be made available 
to all members of this subcommittee, to the counsel to the 
subcommittee, and to the principals to this controversy.
    Senator McClellan. Including Mr. Hensel.
    Senator Jackson. Including Mr. Hensel.
    Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute.
    Senator Jackson. Wait. There has to be a second.
    Senator McClellan. I second that motion.
    Senator Potter. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute motion. 
I move that the hearings of the executive session of today and 
of May 17 be made public.
    Senator Mundt. Is there a second to the substitute?
    Senator Symington. Could I hear that motion?
    Senator Potter. I move that the executive hearing of today 
and of May 17 be made public, as a substitute to the Jackson 
motion.
    Senator Jackson. Mine was to make it available to the 
members of the subcommittee, the principals, the counsel, 
including Mr. Hensel.
    Senator Symington. I am going to vote against both because 
I think----
    Senator Mundt. Does the chair hear a second to the 
substitute offered by Mr. Potter?
    Senator Symington. I think what we ought to do, if we are 
going to do anything, is make every one of them available to 
the public except the ones which we agreed we wouldn't make 
available because committee counsel can't break faith. I would 
hope that he would say who those witnesses were that he called 
whose testimony he can not release.
    Senator McClellan. We are not talking about the taking of 
testimony.
    Senator Jackson. This is just the hearing of May 17, Stu, 
and the one today.
    Senator Symington. My position is that all executive 
hearings be made public, or none.
    Senator McClellan. I think you are confusing the taking of 
testimony with executive sessions where we wrangle.
    Senator Jackson. Let's dispose of this and then go on.
    Senator Mundt. Is there a second to the substitute motion 
by Senator Potter?
    The chair hears none.
    It dies for the want of a second.
    We have Senator Jackson's motion.
    Senator Symington. Can you make them public until you read 
them?
    Senator Jackson. To the parties alone.
    Senator Mundt. This motion is to make available to the 
committee members, all of the principals and to Mr. Hensel and 
his counsel, to those who sat in this room, including committee 
counsel--those who were present at the meeting.
    Senator Jackson. All the principals.
    Senator Mundt. They were all here.
    To type up and make it available to them these two 
sessions. Those in favor say ``aye''; contrary ``no.''
    The motion prevails.
    Senator Jackson. I have another motion to make. I move that 
the chairman be authorized and directed to have the present 
stenographic notes in connection with the taking of all 
testimony relating to these hearings appropriately typed up and 
made available.
    Senator Mundt. In the office of the counsel.
    Senator Jackson. Be made available to the members of the 
committee so we can look at them.
    Senator Mundt. On that point of sending it out to all the 
committee members I would have to vote against it for this 
reason----
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I now move that the 
stenographic notes----
    Senator Mundt. Everything I have in my drawer----
    Senator Jackson [continuing]. Taken in connection with any 
hearings by any member of this committee.
    Senator Mundt. Why don't you say all stenographic notes in 
the custody of the chairman?
    Senator McClellan. No. Let me make the motion.
    Senator Jackson. All right.
    Senator McClellan. The motion is this: I move, Mr. 
Chairman, that of all testimony taken in executive hearings one 
transcript be made and deposited with the counsel of this 
committee, available to all members of the committee to see, 
including our counsel, who will have to do most of the leg work 
for us. That is all we want, just the opportunity, so we won't 
be presented----
    Senator Mundt. I am not going to object to that conclusion, 
but I think it is a conclusion which is unwise. If you have a 
right to have a counsel, I should have the right to have a 
counsel. It is broadened out again. I think it should be 
limited to committee members.
    Senator Jackson. Do you think each one of us individually 
is going to have to go down there nights and start going 
through this? Man alive!
    Senator McClellan. I withdraw the counsel.
    Senator Mundt. You have an advantage there because you have 
a counsel and we don't have, which is certainly not a fair 
situation.
    Senator McClellan. If I want to see the thing, I am going 
to see it.
    Senator McCarthy. Gentlemen, how about----
    Senator Mundt. Scoop, by what reason should you have an 
advantage over us? We don't have a counsel. Your counsel is not 
a member of this staff. You have a counsel to help you, but why 
should you have an advantage we don't have? That doesn't make 
sense to me. We don't have a special counsel.
    Senator Dworshak. Why don't we?
    Senator McClellan. You have about fifteen. We have but one.
    Senator Mundt. We don't have any counsel.
    Senator Jackson. I think our agent ought to be able to go 
through it.
    Senator Mundt. I don't see----
    Senator Symington. You and Mr. Jenkins have interviewed 
most of these witnesses. Let's get right to the facts. He is 
our counsel, but he is also your counsel. He works a lot more 
with you than he does with us. If you think there is any reason 
Bob Kennedy shouldn't see them, you should tell us so. If you 
don't, I think he is a pretty good boy and saving us a lot of 
work.
    Senator Mundt. In any event someone on your side has been 
present at all times. Just to be perfectly fair, if you insist 
on it I will vote, but it seems to me the Democrats should be 
willing to play on an equal basis. You have a counsel, and we 
don't have one. If you want to put that in the record and 
spread it out, that is one thing. That isn't fair.
    Senator McClellan. If you want to designate any member of 
the staff of this committee----
    Senator Mundt. We don't have a counsel and don't want to 
designate one. We want to work as a team.
    Senator Jackson. Let's be realistic. Let's be forthright 
about this. One copy is going to be made available. Are some of 
us going to come at six in the morning and start reading 
through all this?
    Senator Mundt. Through the noon hour.
    Senator Jackson. Oh, Karl, noon hour! What are you going to 
do--eat lunch in the office? We can't take it from the office, 
according to your own request. What are we going to do--sit 
down there munching sandwiches and reading that?
    Senator Mundt. By what reasons do the Democrats have 
available to them what Henry doesn't have available to him?
    Senator Jackson. You have several counsel.
    Senator Mundt. We don't have anyone. They are committee 
employees.
    Senator Jackson. I am talking about the regular committee 
staff.
    Senator Potter. We can't use them.
    Senator McClellan. They are working all the time.
    Senator Mundt. They are not our counsel.
    Senator Jackson. Aren't you the majority? Who are they 
counsel to, then?
    Senator Mundt. To the committee. The only special counsel 
is the one we designated.
    Senator Jackson. Then you can have your administrative 
assistant.
    Senator Mundt. If you want to take an unfair advantage, I 
want it to be in the record. It is unfair.
    Senator McClellan. I don't want to take an unfair 
advantage.
    Senator Mundt. It is no different from what you are putting 
on the rest.
    It is moved and seconded.
    Senator Jackson. If you want to play that way.
    Senator Mundt. The motion is made and seconded that we get 
a transcript of all the testimony which has been taken and give 
it to Mr. Jenkins, to be made available to all the members of 
the committee.
    Senator Jackson. I am going to insist on some other rules 
being made.
    Senator McClellan. The testimony of witnesses.
    Senator McCarthy. Does that include Senator McCarthy?
    Senator Mundt. That includes all. Those in favor say 
``aye.''
    Senator Jackson. Wait a minute. No. Just members of this 
committee.
    Senator Mundt. I thought you said any testimony at which he 
was present.
    Senator Jackson. Just members of this committee. If you 
want to play this way.
    Senator McCarthy. It would be completely unfair to have 
this available and to all members of the committee and not to 
me. After all, I think that I have a pretty heavy interest. I 
am the man who has been accused----
    Senator McClellan. Let's adjourn without doing anything. 
Let's go.
    Senator McCarthy. How about permission, Mr. Chairman, to 
hold hearings----
    Senator McClellan. Let's move.
    Senator Mundt. Shall I put the motion or not?
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman. How about permission to 
hold hearings on infiltration in defense plants?
    Senator McClellan. I will vote for that if you will make it 
to start at one o'clock in the morning.
    [Adjourned at 10:20 a.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

    [Editor's note.--In public testimony on June 4, 1954, the 
appointment clerk to the secretary of the army read into the 
record a transcript of a monitored telephone conversation on 
February 20, 1954, in which Army Secretary Robert Stevens 
advised Senator Stuart Symington that he had decided not to 
permit Gen. Zwicker to testify publicly before the 
subcommittee. Stevens said he ``did not intend to have this 
abuse of our professional officer corps continued.'' He 
reported that Senator McCarthy had angrily told him to expect 
to be subpoenaed to appear before the subcommittee the 
following Tuesday. Senator Symington planned to leave for 
Europe that day, and he advised Stevens not to testify until he 
returned. The senator added: ``Let me talk to Clifford about it 
and I will call you.'' Later that day, Senator Symington called 
Stevens to report that he had talked ``to our legal friend'' 
and had written to the chairman asking that the hearing be 
postponed until his return. Symington further urged Stevens not 
to act until he had talked ``with my friend.''
    Presented with this information, Senator McCarthy charged 
that Symington had allowed Clark Clifford, ``one of the top 
aides to President Truman to run the show.'' McCarthy called on 
Symington to disqualify himself from further service on the 
subcommittee. Senator Symington dismissed this demand as ``just 
another diversion.'' He explained that when the secretary of 
the army had appealed to him for help, he had ``recommended him 
to Mr. Clifford.''
    During the public hearing on June 7, McCarthy accused 
Symington of having ``got Clark Clifford to mislead a fine, 
naive, not too brilliant Republican Secretary of the Army,'' 
and demanded that both Symington and Clifford be subpoenaed to 
testify under oath. Democrats then offered a motion in 
executive session to call Clifford to testify. This was 
defeated by a Republican substitute motion. Clark Clifford 
(1906-1998), who served as secretary of defense from 1967 to 
1969, did not testify in public.]

                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JUNE 8, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 9:40 a.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 357 of the Senate Office Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt, 
presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. 
Dworshak, Republican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, 
Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, 
Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel; Thomas R. 
Prewitt, assistant counsel; Charles Maner, assistant counsel; 
Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    Principal participants present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, 
Republican, Wisconsin; Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Joseph N. 
Welch, special counsel for the army; James D. St. Clair, 
special counsel for the army.
    Senator Mundt. The meeting will come to order.
    Mainly why we have this meeting this morning is that Mr. 
Jenkins suggested that we ought to have a meeting and decide to 
cast up the dimensions of this case as far as the witnesses are 
concerned so we can all begin to make some plans now as to who 
has to be heard and if there are any prospects of getting it 
over in a designated amount of time, or whether it is going to 
go on interminably with a constantly increasing cast of 
characters.
    We ought to find out from all hands who they want to have 
heard, how many witnesses, and what they think the program 
should be, because all of us are going to have to start making 
plans as to what is going to happen, at least, during July, if 
we are not going to do anything during June.
    I have no ideas on the subject, but I do think, as 
intelligent people, we have gone far enough now so that we can 
sit down and sort of figure out the length of the road ahead.
    We are the ones that have it in our control. This is to me 
the kind of thing that if we do not begin exercising some 
guidance in it pretty soon, it could conceivably go on all 
summer, because every day different people get mentioned.
    Mr. Jenkins, I will be glad to hear from you or Mr. Welch, 
or any member of the committee.
    Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Chairman, and gentlemen of the committee: 
Mr. Welch and Mr. St. Clair and I conferred yesterday. After 
that conference I conferred with Senator McCarthy and Mr. Cohn.
    Mr. Welch advised me at the time that he felt--that he felt 
that the army would be satisfied if, after the cross 
examination of Mr. Cohn is concluded, Senator McCarthy and Mr. 
Carr were put on the witness stand, and end the hearings with 
their testimony.
    Pursuant to that, I conferred, as I said, with Senator 
McCarthy and Mr. Cohn. After some discussion, they stated that 
they would be agreeable to that formula.
    Mr. Welch was of the opinion, I think a little optimistic, 
we can stay at night until it is concluded.
    Senator Jackson. Before there can be any decision on that, 
Mr. Chairman, I want to revert to the testimony that has been 
taken in executive sessions of witnesses who have appeared 
before the committee. I do think, as I pointed out earlier, 
that we should have that information.
    I do not want to conclude these hearings and have someone 
tell me later that so and so testified and ``do you mean to 
tell me you knew nothing about it?'' I feel very deeply about 
that.
    I presume from what I have been told that there is nothing 
in it. But I do want, as a matter of conscience, to be able to 
say that we have gone through it. I think those transcripts or 
notes should be typed up without delay. I think it makes the 
committee look difficult.
    Senator Mundt. We almost arrived at our last meeting at a 
formula and then the bell rang.
    Senator Jackson. If we could allow our assistants to look 
at it, it would be helpful. It is impossible for me to go down 
during the lunch hour and at nights to try to read through 
transcripts. It is ridiculous. I will do it under one 
stipulation, that everybody be required to look at it starting 
at five in the morning, or six. But I don't like to do it at 
night. I dislike to get up early and do it, but I will do it 
under that stipulation. I am still in good health.
    Mr. Jenkins. A young man like you----
    Senator Jackson. I think that should be disposed of 
readily, Karl.
    Senator Mundt. Personally, I would like to have everybody 
on the committee read that stuff and hear it. I am a little bit 
under obligation to guys like Joe Alsop, and Jim Reston, and 
some of those fellows.
    Senator McClellan. You are not under obligation to them as 
a committee.
    Senator Mundt. No, but to release it to the public. It 
seems to me if you are going to turn over all the 
administrative aids, etc., you are going to be going into 
public.
    Senator Jackson. I have no desire to make it public, but I 
do believe we would be derelict in our duty if we do not look 
at the sworn testimony.
    I am not talking about interviews that the staff has had. 
But when you call someone in, in executive session, and take 
notes in the presence of a senator, I feel very strongly we are 
shirking our duty; at least I am.
    Senator Potter. Why don't you do this: After you have 
concluded with the witnesses for this week, set a day aside, or 
a morning, to take it up in executive session.
    Senator Jackson. Charlie, it should have been done a long 
time ago. You see, you need it in case there is something 
relevant you need on cross-examination. You don't want to read 
this at the end of the thing.
    Senator Mundt. Suppose, Scoop, we have it all typed up and 
delivered to Mr. Jenkins' office.
    Senator Jackson. All right.
    Senator Mundt. I have not had it typed.
    Senator McClellan. Did you say something about whether we 
see it or not?
    Senator Mundt. To give it to Mr. Jenkins and let people go 
there and look at it.
    Senator Jackson. Let us get it typed up right away. Is that 
agreeable?
    Senator Mundt. Yes. By unanimous consent--I haven't done 
it--if there is no objection, we will get it typed up right 
away and have one full set delivered to Mr. Jenkins.
    Senator Jackson. Let us get it typed up. We can delegate 
one person to look at it for the three of us.
    Senator Mundt. Without objection that will be done.
    Mr. Jenkins. Let me get this straight. If you delegate 
somebody, Scoop, I know it will be my friend Bob Kennedy. It is 
all right for Mr. Kennedy to look at it or Senator Jackson, 
Senator Symington and Senator McClellan?
    Senator Mundt. They will have to assume that 
responsibility.
    Senator Jackson. We will have to assume it, we will assume 
it, and it will be in accordance with the rules.
    Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, did I correctly state your 
position?
    Mr. Welch. First may I make a comment on this last item. I 
think it must be apparent to everyone in the room. We don't 
know what has been testified to in these sessions. We couldn't 
know, since there was no transcription. It seems to me entirely 
proper that that material should be before this committee.
    Now on the other point, it is true that Mr. Jenkins and I 
talked yesterday and on earlier occasions.
    Senator McCarthy. Before you go into that, could I ask, is 
it understood that we also have a chance to see those 
transcripts?
    Senator Jackson. I would assume so.
    Mr. Jenkins. And, of course, Mr. Welch.
    Senator McClellan. The parties in interest certainly have a 
right to see it.
    Mr. Jenkins. I think so, Senator.
    Senator McClellan. Of course.
    Senator Mundt. All right. It is so understood. Go ahead, 
Mr. Welch.
    Mr. Welch. Here is the thing about these hearings that 
begins to somewhat appal me.
    Looking at you, Senator McCarthy, you have, I think, 
something of a genius for creating confusion, throwing in new 
issues, new accusations, and creating a turmoil in the hearts 
and minds of the country that I find troublesome. And because 
of your genius, sir, we keep on, just keep on, as I view it, 
creating these confusions. Maybe I am over-impressed by them. 
But I don't think they do the country any good.
    Not only that, we on this side of the table began the 
hearings with the feeling that there were certain witnesses or 
parties that were indispensable, and we know what we have been 
talking about. That really meant the parties.
    And the president said he thought those people should be 
heard.
    It is now quite clear that they are going to be heard. Mr. 
Cohn, of course, is on the stand. Mr. Carr and the senator in 
some order, are going to take the stand.
    When you have heard those witnesses, if you start bothering 
the field thereafter to rebuttal and additional witnesses, 
etc., I must say I just don't see where the dickens the case 
ends. We could put on witnesses and the senator could put on 
witnesses for a long, long time.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, I think it is quite clear that this 
hearing cannot actually resolve and solve some of the things 
that have been presented in it, to wit, the constitutional 
issue, as I view them, which can only be revealed to the 
public, and thought about, and settled in the course of the 
next year or five years or ten years or our lifetime.
    Those constitutional issues have actually been revealed, 
there is no doubt about it.
    Lawyers and senators and executives--members of the 
executive--can differ as to what the result ought to be, but 
the issues are revealed.
    As to the personal conflicts here of who is saying what, I 
hesitate to say this but as a lawyer it would seem to me that 
neither side is bound to have a 100 percent clear cut victory 
in that. That is going to be left in some kind of balance from 
the way the committee looks and acts, and probably the way the 
country reacts.
    It follows that looked at from the viewpoint of the United 
States of America, that I think we do no good in continuing the 
hearings beyond the point that Mr. Jenkins has suggested.
    I am therefore prepared to say, and have said to Mr. 
Jenkins, unofficially--and in view of what he has now said I 
say it officially--that if the two witnesses we have in mind 
take the stand in any order, that the other side wishes, and 
are content at that, we would be content. And there, I think, I 
have all.
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch, may I ask a question? If we move 
on that formula, would you be able to have in mind clearly 
enough questions or the type of questions and the length of 
questions you would want to ask so we could couple with that a 
target date for conclusion?
    Mr. Welch. On that point, Senator Mundt, I would hope, 
Senator Potter, I would hope that we wouldn't try for night 
sessions and Saturday sessions.
    Senator Potter. I will grant you it is not particularly 
desirable. But I think if we don't have a target--for example, 
Roy is on the stand. I, for the life of me, do not have another 
question to ask Roy if he is there for six months. But I assume 
that you do have. I do not know how long. For example, if you 
cut out the senator's time, how long would it take?
    Mr. Welch. On that point, I am certainly prepared to say 
that we have no slightest ambition, Mr. Cohn, to retain you on 
the stand in any sort of marathon.
    Senator Mundt. I did not hear you.
    Mr. Welch. I was saying to Mr. Cohn that we have on this 
side of the table no desire to keep him on the stand for any 
sort of a marathon. If the senators are out of the way, so to 
speak, or get out of the way, so that he comes steadily to Mr. 
St. Clair and to me, and we will split our cross-examination, 
it seems to me, granted steady work on the things we want to 
ask, that it is only a matter of hours. Neither St. Clair nor 
Welch have ever been noted for long cross-examinations.
    Senator McCarthy. What is that?
    Mr. Welch. I said neither St. Clair nor Welch have ever 
been noted for long cross-examination. I think we have had just 
about thirty or forty minutes, not very much.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, about forty minutes.
    Mr. Welch. That is pretty trivial.
    Mr. Cohn. Much more than we took on Mr. Adams.
    Senator Jackson. How about Stevens? How long were you on 
Stevens?
    Mr. Cohn. I don't think you will find we took too much time 
on Stevens.
    Senator Mundt. Let us stick to the subject.
    Mr. Welch. In any event, to talk about a target date, I 
would not think it would be wise to fix a date like next 
Tuesday and crowd it in, if it kills us. I would personally 
think, and let us say a word about Mr. Carr, also, the things 
that interest me about Mr. Carr's testimony are quite limited.
    If he does not have a broad direct by you, Mr. Jenkins, and 
a broad cross by you, I should think Mr. Carr would be a short 
witness.
    As to the senator, I know your plans about a direct and 
cross, Mr. Jenkins, which you have promised will be vigorous, 
and after a vigorous cross by you I would say that there would 
be very few passes by us, with a rather modest pair of lawyers 
and a United States senator.
    I have also predicted, as you gentlemen have known, that 
once we could get the case rolling, it would go. I must say my 
prediction has never to this moment come true as to any 
particular witness, but I still think the case ought in some 
way to be gotten rolling and moving.
    Mr. Jenkins. It rolled yesterday, Joe. We got all the 
monitored calls in.
    Mr. Welch. I will admit that, but we didn't do much after 
that.
    Senator Symington. It was five o'clock at that point. How 
much do you want to work?
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Welch, if you don't have the 
compulsion of the target, you are just out in the middle of a 
deep blue sea, almost.
    Senator Mundt. The trouble is, Mr. Welch, if there is no 
time target, I could sit here and ask questions of Cohn or any 
of these witnesses on the basis of twenty-eight days of 
testimony. I suppose I could ask questions for a week. Or if I 
thought I could only have a couple of cracks at him, I would 
pick out the ones that I thought were good and get done with 
him in twenty minutes.
    Mr. Welch. But if you have a target and the senators take 
big cracks at these witnesses, we would get almost no chance.
    Senator Mundt. We would have to divide up the time, I quite 
agree with you on that. It would not be fair to have a target 
and then limit you, say, to thirty minutes.
    Mr. Jenkins. Mr. Welch, as far as I am concerned, you are 
bound to have known for several days that I am through with Mr. 
Cohn. So I will consume none of your time. You can eliminate 
me. Now it is a question of the senators and you.
    Mr. Welch. Mr. St. Clair says to me it is fair enough to 
talk about a target and aim for it, and we will help aim for 
it, but we don't think we ought to have a curtain fall when the 
clock reaches a certain time.
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, just so my position is 
completely clear in this: Mr. Jenkins is right when he says he 
talked to me the other day in regard to limiting the time of 
the witnesses. I gave that some thought later and called back 
and told Mr. Prewitt that I believed--I would not consent to 
limiting the witnesses unless there was a limitation on time. 
If there is a limitation on time then I would be frankly 
willing to not call some of the witnesses that I feel should be 
called. If there is to be no limitation on time, then I will 
want, for example, General Lawton, Clark Clifford. I will want 
Senator Symington.
    I felt all along motive was the all-important thing here. 
We find now that Mr. Symington----
    Senator Symington. Let us get off all that and get on the 
issue. You know that is just a lot of bunk. Why don't you get 
on the issue and talk about the time element?
    Senator McCarthy. We find out from the record that Stevens 
was, the day before the charges were made----
    Senator Symington. Why go into all of that? You said it all 
yesterday. This is an executive hearing and it is ten o'clock.
    Senator McCarthy. Don't interrupt me.
    Senator Symington. I stated my position. You can talk for 
an hour.
    Senator McCarthy. So the chair can have my position. Mr. 
Chairman, I have always felt that motive was all-important. We 
now find that this thing has apparently been directed by the 
very competent political adviser of the opposite party, that 
Mr. Symington was trying to--he wanted to hold his coat while 
he had a fight with me. If there is a target date, if there is 
a definite cut-off date, so we can get back to the Communist 
issue, then I think I would consent to the type of limitation 
of the witnesses that Mr. Jenkins mentions.
    If there is no cut-off date so we can start planning our 
work, I would consent to no limitation of the witnesses.
    Mr. Welch. Mr. Chairman, could we approach it from another 
way, which would seem to me the same thing?
    Senator Mundt. Mr. Welch?
    Mr. Welch. That is that we guaranteed a certain number of 
passes--that we be guaranteed a certain number of passes at 
these witnesses and a certain amount of time.
    Senator Potter. I think you should.
    Senator Mundt. I think that would be fair. I see your 
point.
    If you are working with long-winded senators who are going 
to do some talking, I certainly see your point.
    May I have your attention, Stu, and Mac? The chair would 
appreciate some kind of a routine, because I am up against this 
proposition. As you know, I told all sides all the way through 
that I would subpoena anybody where there was a legitimate 
reason to subpoena, providing the request was channeled through 
the counsel. I subpoenaed a witness yesterday at the request of 
Mr. Welch. As Mr. Welch points out and Joe points out, I think, 
in new witnesses there have been an awful lot of them.
    Senator Symington. Did you subpoena the rest of them 
without telling the rest of the committee about them?
    Senator Mundt. I haven't told the committee about them. We 
are going to make all of these hearings available so you can 
see everybody who has been subpoenaed. I know you are going to 
agree that on most of them you do not want to sit around all 
summer and hear them.
    Senator Symington. You have to discuss these charges and 
you don't know anything about who has been seen or what has 
been said. It makes it difficult.
    Senator Mundt. You are going to get the hearings, and you 
can read them or have Mr. Kennedy read them.
    The point I am making is this: I am up against a deadline. 
Am I going to serve a subpoena on Clifford or not? If we are 
going to different issues, I have no basis for not doing it. I 
didn't do it yesterday. I haven't done it yet. I am hopeful 
that we can agree on a bunch of witnesses. I am hopeful that 
the one Joe gave me yesterday is not going to--I am hopeful 
that he is not going to insist on calling him up in public.
    Senator Symington. Who is the witness that you are not 
going to insist on calling up in public? We are not having 
secrets, are we?
    Mr. Welch. No. Are you talking about a witness we asked for 
yesterday?
    Senator Mundt. Yes.
    Mr. Welch. It is a former chauffeur for Private Schine.
    Senator Dworshak. Are you planning to call Schine?
    Senator Jackson. Schine is not proposed to be called. There 
are just two more witnesses, as I understand the agreement.
    Senator Mundt. If you don't give me some kind of 
dimensions, then I have to keep standing on subpoenas. Are we 
going to have Schine as a witness or not? That involves more 
subpoenas and more characters. Are we going to have General 
Lawton? If you do, you have to have his aide, Captain Core. So 
where do we end? It is like you said yesterday, when you and 
Joe were having your altercation, I tried to keep it in balance 
the best I could, but it is pretty hard to end the thing.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, first, all of this is new 
to me. I didn't know what had been planned. I am hearing it 
here for the first time.
    Senator Mundt. Nothing has been planned.
    Senator McClellan. I am going to say to you now that I am 
not going to agree prematurely to any motion that would set a 
deadline date to terminate these hearings. I am ready to 
cooperate and move along here and call those that you know you 
want to call, get them in here. I will try to do as I think I 
have done in the past, help to expedite it. I haven't too many 
questions to ask any of them.
    This thing about other witnesses, now, is next. We have an 
executive session here and there has been a lot said in public 
about another witness or two. I suggest this is the time, if 
anybody wants them, to make the motion and let us vote on it 
right here in executive session as to whether they will be 
called or not. I am ready to vote on it, if the motion is made, 
but I am not going to vote here this morning for any deadline 
and to limit witnesses until you have gotten these principals 
through.
    I just don't think we can do that.
    So far as working to a deadline for next Friday or Tuesday, 
I will work with you every way in the world. But I am not going 
to tie my hands here this morning,
    Senator Mundt. Let me find out from you, then, are there 
some witnesses that you want to have called?
    Senator McClellan. I have no other witnesses to call, Mr. 
Chairman. I haven't asked for a subpoena for a witness since I 
have been in the matter. But I say if there is anybody that 
wants a witness called, this is the time and place to make the 
motion for a subpoena, while we are all here.
    Senator Mundt. Are we talking about Cohn and McCarthy and 
Carr?
    Stu, are there any witnesses that you want to have called?
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman?
    Senator Mundt. Just a minute.
    Stu, are there any other witnesses that you want to have 
called?
    Senator Symington. I don't see why you ask me. People have 
asked about witnesses. Let's get it on the table.
    I want everybody called that can add any influence or 
rather, add any light to this controversy.
    Senator Mundt. Have you any in mind?
    Senator Symington. I will be glad to consider and make up a 
list of those witnesses that I think ought to be called.
    Senator Mundt. Can't you tell us now?
    Senator Symington. I don't think I know right now the 
details of the list. I would like to have my counsel look 
through the testimony and see what the record shows and put a 
list up based on the record.
    Senator Mundt. Scoop?
    Senator Jackson. No, I haven't anyone that I personally 
want to call at this point. I just assumed that certain people 
would be called, and I am still assuming it.
    Senator Symington. Would you yield to me a second?
    I am sure of this. I want some more witnesses called, and I 
will give you a carefully delineated list. But I would like to 
have Bob Kennedy look the testimony over. I am operating here.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, requests have been made by 
other people to this controversy for witnesses, and I am ready 
right now to vote on those requests.
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say----
    Senator Mundt. I am coming down the line, Charlie, have you 
any witnesses that you want?
    Senator Potter. No.
    Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak?
    Senator Dworshak. I think in view of the inability to agree 
or any procedural methods that we ought to recess until a few 
days after Congress adjourns, and then take it up. We can then 
stay here until Christmas.
    Senator Dirksen. Ray, how long would you take with Roy and 
Carr and Joe?
    Mr. Jenkins. Senator Dirksen, I am through with Roy.
    Mr. Welch and I discussed the length of time that we 
anticipated it might take, with the senator and with Mr. Carr. 
Necessarily their testimony will be shorter than that of Mr. 
Cohn. I would say that as far as I personally am concerned, I 
will get through with the senator certainly in a day's time, 
less time, perhaps, no more than a day--if I took, say, a day 
with the senator and Mr. Welch and the committee a day, Mr. 
Carr's testimony is shorter, I think, than the senator's. If 
the hearings were concluded at the conclusion of the testimony 
of those respective witnesses, I would say that these hearings 
would be concluded by no later than Saturday of this week. If 
you had night sessions--no, that is out, Mr. Welch. I wouldn't 
say any more about it.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Welch, how long will you take, first 
on Mr. Cohn?
    Mr. Welch. I was just putting down here my own estimate.
    It seems to be these are maxima. I would think that Mr. 
Cohn's cross-examination would be bound to be finished in two 
days, and I think less. The senator, direct and cross, in two 
days, likely less, and Mr. Carr, I would like to say a day, but 
if you want to talk about maxima all along the line, you would 
have six days on these maxima, which would mean four days left 
this week and two next.
    Mr. Cohn. You want me two days more?
    Mr. Welch. I don't know. I don't think so.
    Senator Mundt. How many days did you say as a maximum?
    Mr. Welch. A maximum of six days. Mr. Cohn just asked if I 
wanted him two days more. The answer would be if Mr. St. Clair 
and I had you without interruption, it would be a lot more like 
one day than two.
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Mundt. Are you through?
    Senator Dirksen. Well, I was trying to get a picture here, 
in so far as the junior senator from Illinois is concerned. 
There are no questions that I want to ask of Roy or Frank. I 
might take ten minutes to praise the senator from Wisconsin, 
but that is about as far as I would go. Mr. Chairman, I want to 
say to you very frankly that after Friday this committee is 
probably going to have to dispense with my services because we 
have some very important matters coming up in Appropriations. 
Foreign aid hearings are going to begin very soon. I have to 
start hearings on the District of Columbia appropriations bill 
early next week. I will be the only one there. I will have to 
run them and take all the testimony myself. That is my job, and 
I intend to do it.
    Senator Mundt. I have a very real problem coming up. I am 
the chairman of the Legislative and Judicial Appropriations 
Subcommittee. They have been deferring their hearings and 
deferring their hearings, and I have to run them.
    Senator Dirksen. There are going to be hundreds of bills, 
and whatever you do, I guess you are going to be without my 
services, because these other things must be done at the same 
time.
    Senator Dworshak. Could we eliminate day sessions and run 
only evening sessions?
    Senator Mundt. Joe?
    Senator McCarthy. Mr Chairman, I think unless the Democrats 
agree to a target date, I think it would be a mistake to have a 
four to three vote, or anything like that, cutting off the 
hearings. I think if the Democrat side wants to continue these, 
I think frankly we have no choice to continue them, number one. 
Number two, Mr. Welch made a statement that I want to comment 
on. He said Mr. McCarthy had a genius for creating confusion. I 
assume by that he means a genius for bringing out the facts 
which may disturb the people, for example, showing up that 
phoney chart, showing up the change in date of the letter. I 
think that confuses people showing up that Mr. Symington and 
Mr. Clifford were behind this. That may create confusion, but I 
have no choice but to bring out those facts.
    Mr. Chairman, I think that if we do not limit this as to 
witnesses, and I frankly hope that we don't, although I go 
along with whatever the committee does, I think it is 
imperative that Senator Symington take the stand. He has 
advised on the record the Republicans should do that. It now 
appears that he played a much bigger part than the Republicans 
did in this. I have gone over the parliamentary situation 
there, Mr. Chairman. I find that apparently this committee has 
no way of forcing him to do it. The Constitution says that a 
senator will be made to answer for his actions only on the 
floor of the Senate. That has been construed to mean that he 
cannot be subpoenaed.
    I think, however, in view of the fact that Mr. Symington--I 
mean from all the mail I get, people are confused. They know 
that Stu--Mr. Symington, I mean, and Mr. Clifford, were 
engineering this deal which called off the hearings of the 
Communists. I am going to continue urging that he take the 
stand. I hope that finally public opinion, public pressure, 
makes him do what he so sanctimoniously told the Republicans 
they should do, namely, put all the facts on the table.
    So I may say, I will go along with whatever the committee 
does, if they call a target date, so we can get back to our 
work. Otherwise, I would not go along with any limitation of 
witnesses, number one. Number two, Friday of this week Mr. Cohn 
is being called into service. He is going to be called to two 
weeks duty down, incidentally, under General Zwicker. He is one 
of the very important principals in this case.
    Senator Dworshak. Going when?
    Senator McCarthy. Friday of this week.
    Mr. Cohn. Saturday.
    Senator McCarthy. I don't know how the committee can 
continue while one of the principals is away. Whether you will 
take a recess or what you will do, I am just giving you that 
fact now, so you will know.
    Senator Symington. Have you finished?
    Senator McCarthy. Obviously, we cannot ask for any 
deferment, because that would be asking for special favors, and 
we do not want any investigation of this committee for granting 
special favors for Mr. Cohn.
    Senator McClellan. There would not be any harm in doing 
that, would there? Not a bit.
    Senator Symington. Have you finished?
    Senator McCarthy. For the time being, yes.
    Senator Symington. I will make a deal with you. I will go 
on the floor of the Senate and make a speech, and then I will 
take the stand, see, and I will go under oath and let this 
committee examine me, if you will make a speech and if you will 
go on the stand on the charges you never answered in 1952. 
There is your deal, and I will make it with you right now.
    Senator McCarthy. Let us first get the record straight. The 
senator made a misstatement yesterday when he said I was asked 
to go on the stand in 1952. That is incorrect.
    Senator Symington. You were invited to answer charges.
    Senator McCarthy. I was told that I could go on the stand.
    Senator Symington. You were invited to answer the charges.
    Senator McCarthy. Let us not have any of this phoney stuff.
    Senator Symington. Any time you want to pull me, going on 
the stand--I will make a deal with you right now. I will get on 
the floor of the Senate and I will give my position in this 
matter, and I will go under cross examination by this 
committee, which would be a very unusual thing for a senator to 
do, if you will go under cross examination with respect to the 
charges that were made against you by a committee which was 
unanimously signed by Democrats and Republicans in 1952.
    There is your deal. I will make it here, and if you want 
to, I will make it on television, whichever way you want to do 
it, or both.
    Senator McCarthy. Your deal is to retry the 1952 case.
    Senator Symington. There was no retrial, because he never 
appeared.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Symington. I am going to answer you just that way 
so long as you feel he understands.
    I make a motion that these minutes be published today, that 
they be written up and published today, so everybody will know 
what we are talking about.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I respectfully suggest there 
is a motion to adjourn, which is not debatable.
    Senator Symington. Just a minute.
    Senator McClellan. We have a request before the chairman to 
call a witness. Are we going to do it? It is made in public. Do 
you want a motion?
    Senator Mundt. I don't want a motion on that.
    Senator McClellan. Let us settle it. He was injected in 
here yesterday. Let us settle it. Are we going to call that 
witness or not?
    Senator Mundt. Which one are you talking about?
    Senator McClellan. I am talking about Mr. Clifford. Do you 
want him? The motion was made, the request was made in public. 
Let us settle it here this morning. Does anybody want to make a 
motion to call him?
    Senator Symington. Don't you want to make a motion to call 
him? That is what you told the chair yesterday.
    Senator McCarthy. I am not making a motion. The chair has 
the request.
    Senator Symington. Let us put it to a vote now.
    Senator Mundt. It will be the first time you subpoenaed 
anybody by a vote. You can if you want to.
    Senator McClellan. It was played up before the public. Let 
the committee vote on it.
    Senator Potter. Is there a motion before the chair on 
subpoenaing Clifford?
    Senator Mundt. Not that I know of.
    Senator Jackson. I move that we call Mr. Clifford.
    Senator Mundt. Is there a second?
    Senator Potter. I move it be placed on the table.
    Senator McClellan. I will second the motion.
    Senator Mundt. The move has been seconded, that we call Mr. 
Clifford. You have a motion to place it on the table.
    Senator Dworshak. Mr. Chairman I think this is out of 
order. I think Everett Dirksen made a motion to adjourn.
    Senator Jackson. There was no second to that motion.
    Senator Symington. Wait a minute. Here is a motion that has 
been made, moved and seconded, to call Mr. Clifford. How are we 
going to vote?
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, may I say that up until now 
the chair has called all witnesses requested by Mr. Welch. I 
assume the chair will follow the same procedure in so far as 
witnesses requested by me are concerned?
    Senator Mundt. The chair has already announced that if we 
are going to run this hearing on interminably----
    Senator Dworshak. I will second the motion to lay on the 
table.
    Senator Mundt. Very well. I think the appropriate thing to 
do is to lay it on the table.
    Senator Symington. It is not to lay it on the table, and 
you know it, because everybody in the American public thinks 
that Senator McCarthy has asked Mr. Clifford to come before 
this committee and testify now due to a lot of this, that and 
the other, and we are running out on the fact of whether we 
even take a vote on it. That is a fine way to run a committee.
    Senator Mundt. Stu, at least you should control yourself, 
no matter how angry you feel about it----
    Senator Symington. I am not angry at all.
    Senator Mundt. Then let us act like senators. You cannot be 
popping off all the time.
    Senator Symington. I beg your pardon.
    Senator Mundt. You don't have to beg my pardon.
    Senator Symington. I will apologize for that.
    Senator Mundt. You don't have to apologize. I was going to 
say I think it is appropriate to lay this on the table until we 
can have a meeting to determine how many witnesses you want to 
have. You have the promise of the chair if these hearings 
continue, he is certainly going to subpoena Mr. Clark Clifford 
in conformity with the regular practice. But you have the 
Lawton thing and the same situation. You have a lot of other 
witnesses.
    I think you have a good point. You have a right to read 
these hearings and see how many you want to call in public.
    Senator McClellan. Yesterday you had a big play about 
Clifford. You have had it before millions of people. Do you 
want to take the responsibility of doing nothing about it? The 
motion is made here to try to take it off of you, and let the 
committee decide. I am ready to vote on it. Let us settle it.
    Senator Jackson. And two Democrats have made the motion to 
call him.
    Senator Dworshak. Will you yield?
    This is my approach. I can see no consistency in deciding 
whether we call one witness. I think we have tried 
unsuccessfully to outline a plan for a target date, and call 
all witnesses or no more witnesses than the principals who have 
been in the picture heretofore. I think we ought not to 
approach this in a piecemeal manner, but determine how far we 
want to go or how far we want to restrict the hearings in the 
future.
    Senator Mundt. Very well. I think we all recognize that 
parliamentarians are debating a motion which should not be 
debatable, a motion to lay on the table.
    Senator McClellan. All right, if the chair wants to rule it 
out.
    Senator Mundt. I am not ruling it out. I am pointing out 
that it is 10:20.
    Senator Symington. Charlie, do you want to be in a position 
where you are blocking this vote?
    Senator Potter. Let me say this. If you are going to call 
Clifford, then you are going to call fifteen other people.
    Senator Symington. But the big play was made yesterday that 
Clifford and Symington were the ones which had done this, which 
is totally and completely false.
    Senator Potter. I will be frank with you. I would like to 
see what Clifford has to say.
    Senator Symington. Then why do you throw the block at it? 
What are you afraid of?
    Senator Potter. I am not afraid of anything.
    Senator Symington. Let us vote, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Potter. I will withdraw my motion.
    Senator Dworshak. I will withdraw my second.
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, it is completely unfair to 
the Cohn-Carr-McCarthy side of this if you call all witnesses 
requested by Mr. Welch, and then whenever I ask for a witness, 
the Democrats try to vote it down. The chair has a power to 
subpoena. That is the committee rule. Unless you change the 
rules during the middle of this proceeding, which I was 
promised you would not do, I was promised at the time I got off 
this committee that the rules would remain the same all during 
the hearing. Now, for some reason or other there seems to be 
some deathly fear on the part of Mr. Symington that Mr. 
Clifford may be here under oath. He knows that he can't invoke 
the type of senatorial immunity that Mr. Symington has.
    Mr. Chairman, I ask the chair not to entertain that motion 
because it would be changing the rules, it would be a 
violation, a complete violation of the agreement made with me 
at the time I stepped off the committee.
    This one final word, Mr. Chairman. The chair will remember, 
both over the phone from Arizona, and before the committee, I 
said I will step off with the understanding I shall depend on 
the honor of the senators that they not change the ground rules 
after I am off the committee. And that would be changing the 
ground rules, if you could block the witnesses that I want 
called.
    Senator Symington. Do you want to call Mr. Clifford?
    Senator McCarthy. Of course I do.
    Senator Symington. We have a motion here to call him.
    Senator McClellan. The Democrats are trying to help you.
    Senator Mundt. May the chair make this suggestion? The 
chair will give you his word, if you will withdraw your motion, 
that he will call Mr. Clifford. It is very unusual that you 
have a motion for one particular witness.
    Senator McClellan. Since when can not a committee move to 
call a witness?
    Senator Mundt. Certainly you can.
    Senator McClellan. That is not violating any rule. That is 
just voting on it.
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, if you do that, then 
whenever I request to have Lawton called or anybody, it means--
well, so far, and Mr. Welch, I think, will confirm the fact, 
whenever he wanted a witness called, that witness was called, 
and if after he was called Mr. Welch found that his testimony 
was of no value, he did not ask to have him called in public. 
That has been the procedure.
    Now, Mr. Chairman, it is grossly unfair to put me in a 
position where each time I want a witness the Democrat members, 
and Mr. Symington voted--Mr. Symington, you cannot get away 
from the fact----
    Senator Symington. Let's not make speeches here. You are 
not on television. Stick to the facts. Don't get all excited. 
You are not on television. We are in executive hearings.
    Senator McCarthy. Now you are trying to block my calling 
witnesses. It is the most grossly dishonest thing I have seen 
in ages.
    Senator Symington. The worst you have ever seen. Everybody 
is upset. Everybody is upset. Let us vote.
    Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I ask the chairman not to 
entertain that. That is changing the rules.
    Senator Symington. It is the same result anyway.
    Senator McCarthy. The chair has an absolute duty to call 
the witnesses we request.
    Senator Mundt. Has anybody a copy of the ground rules?
    Senator Symington. Do you want to vote or not on calling 
Mr. Clifford?
    Senator Mundt. I want to find the rules.
    Senator McClellan. Do you mean we have a rule that the 
committee cannot call a witness?
    Senator Jackson. We are trying to comply with his request.
    Senator Symington. You have said a lot of things to me, and 
I don't like them. Don't bluff; say them.
    Senator McCarthy. I am going to say over and over, Mr. 
Senator. If you have any honesty, you will appear on the 
witness stand under oath.
    Senator Symington. You better be worried about what I am 
going to say.
    Senator McCarthy. I am not worried about what you are going 
to say.
    Senator Symington. You will not intimidate me about 
anything.
    Senator McCarthy. I just want you to give the facts, Mr. 
Symington.
    Senator Symington. I have never lied yet. I will give them.
    Senator McClellan. Do you rule us out of order, that we 
can't make a motion?
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I make a motion that that 
last altercation be stricken from the record by Mr. McCarthy 
and me.
    Senator McCarthy. It should be left in.
    Senator Symington. All right, leave it in. You said there 
was a lot more than you had to say about it, and so on. If you 
want to leave it in, leave it in.
    Senator McCarthy. I am going to question you in detail Stu, 
as to what part you took in playing in calling this one.
    Senator Mundt. I don't find it in here either way. Do you 
want to vote?
    Senator Jackson. Let us vote and have it in.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, I offer a substitute.
    Senator Symington. Let us vote, Ev. It is half past ten.
    Senator Dirksen. I offer as a substitute motion, Mr. 
Chairman, that the chair, after consultation with counsel, 
shall call and subpoena any witness requested by the principals 
to these proceedings if such witness is deemed to be material 
to a resolution of the issues.
    Senator McClellan. Mr. Chairman, I raise the point of order 
that is not a proper substitute. It isn't relevant to this. 
That motion could prevail without defeating the other.
    Senator Mundt. I believe it is a proper substitute.
    Senator McClellan. It isn't a proper substitute. It isn't 
in lieu of it.
    Senator Dirksen. It is a proper substitute Mr. Chairman, 
because it goes to the basis of the substance of the earlier 
motion.
    Senator Jackson. It doesn't give the members of the 
committee a right to call witnesses.
    Senator Mundt. Is there a second to that motion?
    Senator McClellan. All right, vote on the substitute. You 
have overruled the point of order.
    Senator Mundt. Is there a second?
    Senator Potter. Would you include members of the committee?
    Senator Dirksen. No, I included only the principals to the 
proceeding.
    Senator McClellan. That denies to the committee the right. 
If that is the way you want to have it----
    Senator Mundt. The chair will declare the motion lost for 
want of a second.
    Senator Potter. If you include the members of the 
committee, or a member of the majority committee, I will second 
it.
    Senator Dirksen. Very well, Mr. Chairman, I will be willing 
to include not only those who may be requested by the 
principals.
    Senator Mundt. Restate the motion so we know what we are 
talking about.
    Senator Dirksen. I move that the chair, after consultation 
with counsel, call and subpoena any witness who may be 
requested by the parties in interest, and the principals in 
interest, and the members or the subcommittee, if such 
witnesses are deemed to be material to a resolution of the 
issue.
    Senator Potter. I second it.
    Senator Mundt. You have heard the motion made and seconded, 
in the nature of a substitute. Is there any discussion?
    Senator Dworshak. What is that?
    Senator Mundt. Read it, Mr. Reporter.
    [Portion of the record read by the reporter.]
    Senator Mundt. It is moved by Senator Dirksen and seconded 
by Senator Potter.
    Senator Dworshak. Commenting on that, Mr. Chairman, it 
seems to me we are opening the door wide with absolutely no 
possibility of ending the hearings under another month or more.
    Senator Mundt. This keeps it in control----
    Senator Potter. Actually, this is what it is now. It is the 
very same thing we have been operating under.
    Senator Mundt. The chair has said over and over again that 
he believes Clifford should be called and a lot of others 
should be called if we are going to protract the hearings. If 
we can agree among ourselves on limiting the number of 
witnesses, very good. I can assure you, with or without this 
motion, I will follow the practice I have followed all the way 
through of calling the witnesses requested.
    Senator Dworshak. Does that mean no end in sight?
    Senator Mundt. I don't know. As I understood Senator 
McClellan's position, and Senators Jackson and Symington, if I 
understand their position, they do not want to vote now to stop 
the hearings of Cohn, McCarthy and Carr, until they have read 
the witnesses of the executive session.
    Senator Dworshak. I think we should have a target date.
    Senator Mundt. I think it is a reasonable point. I think 
they want to see any testimony taken in executive session, to 
see if there is something they would like to see spread on the 
public record. I think that is a reasonable request. I don't 
think we should change the rules at this late stage of the 
game, because I don't think there is any justification in our 
not calling witnesses. We have called everybody they wanted. 
Any further discussion?
    Senator McClellan. Call the roll, Mr. Chairman.
    Senator Mundt. Senator Dirksen?
    Senator Dirksen. Aye.
    Senator Mundt. Senator McClellan?
    Senator McClellan. No.
    Senator Mundt. Senator Potter.
    Senator Potter. Aye.
    Senator Mundt. Senator Jackson.
    Senator Jackson. No.
    Senator Mundt. Senator Dworshak.
    Senator Dworshak. Aye.
    Senator Mundt. Senator Symington.
    Senator Symington. No.
    Senator Mundt. The chair votes aye. The motion prevails.
    We better reassemble upstairs now. It is 10:30 and a little 
late.
    [Thereupon at 10:30 a.m., the executive session was 
concluded.]


                    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

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JUNE 10, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met at 5:55 p.m., in room 357, Senate Office 
Building, Senator Karl E. Mundt presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry C. 
Dworshak, Republican, Idaho; Senator John L. McClellan, 
Democrat, Arkansas; Senator Henry M. Jackson, Democrat, 
Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Ray H. Jenkins, chief counsel to the 
subcommittee; Thomas R. Prewitt, assistant counsel; Charles 
Maner, assistant counsel; Sol Horowitz, assistant counsel.
    Principal participants present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, 
Republican, Wisconsin; Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel to the 
subcommittee; Francis P. Carr, staff director of the 
subcommittee; Joseph N. Welch, special counsel for the army; 
James D. St. Clair, special counsel for the army.

    [The subcommittee voted to make the transcript of the 
executive session on June 10, 1954 public. It was published in 
Special Subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on 
Government Operations, 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, part 61 
(Washington, D.C: Government Printing Office, 1954).]


                    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

                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
             Special Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The special subcommittee met at 3:00 p.m., July 15, 1954, 
room F-82, the Capitol, Senator Karl E. Mundt presiding.
    Present: Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; 
Senator Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator 
Charles E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry M. 
Jackson, Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, 
Democrat, Missouri.
    Also present: Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    Senator Mundt. We are sitting now as the special 
subcommittee on investigations, of which Senator Mundt is 
Chairman.
    Early in the course of our investigations of the so-called 
Army-McCarthy hearings, we passed a resolution, which is in my 
mind, to the effect to pay for the cost of these hearings out 
of our regular investigations funds, or the Committee on 
Government Operations funds; then ask the Senate to reimburse 
us the exact amount rather than make a request before we knew 
what the amount would be. We now have the exact amount 
calculated--$24,605.67. We have supporting estimates here if 
anybody wants to see the breakdown.
    Senator Symington. I'd like to have it sent to me.
    Senator Jackson. Karl, let me make this statement. I think 
it ought to be made very clear that these expenses relate 
directly to the cost of the hearings by the special 
subcommittee. I think the meeting and resolution should spell 
it out. I think on the face of the resolution it should define 
the exact nature of the expenditure, also in conformity with 
the motion adopted so it will be all clear.
    Senator Mundt. Ruth, make those changes, and submit it to 
us first.
    This was a commitment that we had made and had a definite 
understanding.
    Senator Potter. When are we going to get the summary from 
Jenkins?
    Senator Mundt. He told us it would be about the 22nd or 
23rd of July. That will be next week.
    Now, Ruth has pointed out that unless this resolution is 
passed, all talk about staff is moot. We have run out of money. 
The whole staff will be off the payroll. I don't think we will 
have any trouble in the Senate if we make it unanimous with the 
committee. When we agreed to ask for the money, we didn't know 
how much we needed. There was talk of $50,000. This is less 
than half of that.
    I do agree with Senator Jackson that on the face it should 
be spelled out so anybody looking at it will know what it 
means.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, may I suggest that the 
modified resolution as suggested here, together with the bill 
of particulars as to expenses, be submitted to each member of 
the special subcommittee prior to a formal vote of the 
resolution.
    Senator Mundt. Yes, that will be done.
    [Whereupon the committee adjourned at 3:15 p.m.]


                 CONFIRMATION OF SUBCOMMITTEE PERSONNEL

    [Editor's note.--In response to accusations made during the 
Army-McCarthy hearings, that members of the subcommittee staff 
had manufactured and backdated memoranda and doctored 
photographs, Senator Charles Potter called for an overhaul of 
the staff and recommended that the Justice Department explore 
whether perjury had been committed. Democrats on the 
subcommittee further pointed out that assistant counsel Donald 
Surine and investigator Thomas La Venia had never received 
security clearances from the Department of Defense.
    Senator McCarthy publicly expressed his intention to 
conduct additional hearings in Boston, but Senate Republican 
Leader William Knowland refused to grant permission for the 
subcommittee to hold any public hearings for the remainder of 
the session. Roy Cohn resigned from the subcommittee staff on 
July 20; and Francis Carr followed on October 8, 1954. Donald 
Surine transferred from the subcommittee to Senator McCarthy's 
personal staff. Assistant counsels Daniel Buckley and George 
Anastos, and investigators Thomas La Venia and Thomas Hurley 
all left the subcommittee at the end of the Congress.]
                              ----------                              


                        THURSDAY, JULY 15, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., July 15, 1954, pursuant 
to notice, in room F-82, Capitol, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy 
presiding.
    Present: Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; Senator 
Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator Everett 
McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator Charles E. 
Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry M. Jackson, 
Democrat, Washington; Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, 
Missouri.
    Also present: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Francis P. Carr, 
executive director; Ruth Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. We have a number of things I want to take up. 
I think we should not take up any question.
    Senator Dirksen. Before we do, I want to make one 
suggestion about this meeting this afternoon, Mr. Chairman. I 
wanted to say with reference to the fact that the meeting was 
adjourned from this morning until this afternoon, that last 
night at a dinner which Senator Symington and I both attended, 
I indicated to him that I was in some difficulty about getting 
to this meeting this morning because of a meeting of the 
Judiciary Committee, at which we were going to consider the 
important alien property bill. I first called on the 
committee's time and manifested I would have to go; then 
Senator Symington said he was having something of the same 
dilemma; that the Armed Services Committee was meeting and 
testifying was Secretary of Defense Charles Wilson on the 
loyalty issue and he wanted to be present.
    Stu, I was just making an explanation of the conversation 
we had last night; that you were in a dilemma and I was in a 
dilemma as to how I was going to the Judiciary meeting and you 
were going to the Armed Services, and when the chairman called 
this morning, I indicated to him what the difficulty was and it 
was agreed then that we could try for 2:30 this afternoon. That 
is the reason for the delay. I was the prime mover in it 
because the two of us were in some difficulty about being 
present this morning.
    Senator Mundt. I would like to say that I am in somewhat of 
the same dilemma because I had a meeting this morning of the 
Senate Agriculture Committee. I told them I had to attend the 
Government Operations Committee, so they started making 
suggestions. The meeting is now scheduled for this afternoon 
and I have to be there in fifteen minutes. I want to explain 
that because I especially had them to change it from this 
morning to this afternoon.
    Senator Potter. Karl, before you leave----
    Senator Symington. Charlie, will you yield to me? If there 
was any delay, I wanted it to be his proposition and not mine.
    Senator Jackson. I don't think there was any problem about 
the meeting being held over until 2:30.
    The Chairman. Could I suggest to Karl that if you have got 
that meeting down there, while the rule is that you have got to 
have a proxy in writing, could we agree that if a vote comes 
up, Ruth will call you and explain what the vote is and we will 
use your proxy.
    Senator Mundt. I will be in F-39.
    The Chairman. Is that agreeable?
    Senator Mundt. Yes.
    Senator Potter. Before you leave, Karl, I am going to make 
a motion. This is the motion.
    Senator Dirksen. Charlie, let me ask, in fairness to you, 
do you want the staff present?
    Senator Potter. I don't care. This is nothing tricky.

    Whereas, the Rules of the subcommittee as amended January 
1954, provide for confirmation by a subcommittee majority of 
all staff appointments, and
    Whereas, no such confirmation has been effected,
    Therefore, I move that as of July 31, 1954, all present 
staff appointments shall automatically terminate except in 
those individual instances where a Subcommittee majority in 
formal session shall have voted such specific confirmation 
prior to that date.

    The Chairman. May I say two things: Most of the staff 
members have been confirmed. I think the minority counsel has 
not been confirmed. I got a call from Senator McClellan to put 
him on. I think you may find two or three other members who 
have not been confirmed. Could I suggest this----
    Senator Jackson. The rule provides that the present staff, 
as well as the future staff, had to be approved by a majority 
vote of the subcommittee.
    The Chairman. Could we do this? Why not do this; if there 
are some staff members that anyone has objection to, then I 
would say move that they be removed. It has the same effect. 
There is nothing to be gained by taking up the time of this 
committee to go over the list of secretaries on the committee, 
for example, or go over the investigators where there is no 
question.
    Charlie, let me say this: As far as I am concerned, 
whenever any member of the committee wants to make a motion to 
remove a member of the staff, there will be a meeting for that. 
If you pass this motion, we may be in the position of not 
having a staff after the thirty-first.
    Before we decide that, could I take up another matter that 
I have which shouldn't take more than five minutes at the most. 
I have a couple of contempt cases that I would like to dispose 
of if I could. The attorney general has given an opinion on 
them, hasn't he, Frank?
    Mr. Carr. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. I wonder if you and Roy will very quickly 
give the committee the set-up.
    Mr. Cohn. They cover Professor Furry of Harvard and 
Professor Kamin. Both of them refused to answer certain 
questions before this subcommittee up in Boston. They admitted 
having been members of the Communist party, but it gets down to 
the fact that they refused to name people who had been in the 
Communist party with them.
    Professor Furry went a little further and said that some of 
the people were presently working in atomic installations or 
had been, but he still declined to name them.
    These two cases plus a third involving Belsky, which I 
think was a private in the army, who wouldn't answer the 
question--wouldn't say whether or not he thought his refusal 
was predicated on the proposition that a truthful answer would 
tend to incriminate him.
    On the Belsky case, the attorney general said he didn't 
think we had a good case. On Furry and Kamin, he sent a formal 
communication to the committee saying he believes they are 
well-founded.
    The Chairman. To add to that further--Stu is interested in 
this--he was asked, for example, whether or not there were 
Communists working in this installation having to do with 
atomic work a number of years ago. He said, ``Yes, I think five 
or six.'' We said, ``Will you name them?'' He said, ``No.'' I 
said, ``You know who they are?'' I am not quoting verbatim but 
roughly his testimony. There was strong indication that he knew 
who they were. There were indications also in his testimony 
that they were still working, Karl, in atomic energy work. We 
brought this matter up before and I think Bob Kennedy or 
someone suggested we get an opinion from the attorney general. 
We have that. My thought is, in view of the fact the attorney 
general says the case against Belsky is not strong, there would 
be nothing gained by voting contempt for Belsky. In view of the 
fact that he says Furry and Kamin are good cases, I would like 
to vote contempt for Kamin and Furry.
    Senator Potter. The attorney general says you have got a 
good case?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Senator Jackson. The attorney general says: ``Assuming 
authority for the investigation generally, I believe that the 
record of the testimony of Wendell H. Furry and Leon J. Kamin 
would support prosecutions of each of them for contempt of 
Congress.''
    With reference to Dr. Belsky, Mr. Olney's letter states as 
to Dr. Belsky, and I quote: ``however, I do not believe that a 
prosecution for contempt could be sustained. In Blau v. United 
States . . .'' etc.
    Senator Mundt. On the basis of the attorney general's 
opinion, I move we take whatever steps necessary to cite Furry 
and Kamin for contempt and drop Belsky.
    Senator Potter. I second that.
    Senator Jackson. I suggest we make the letter part of the 
record.

                                     Department of Justice,
                                          Washington, July 7, 1954.
Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
    Dear Senator McCarthy: This is in response to your letter to the 
Attorney General dated June 16, requesting an opinion as to whether 
there is sufficient evidence to indict and convict Wendell H. Furry, 
Leon J. Kamin and Dr. Marvin S. Belsky for contempt of Congress on the 
basis of their testimony before the Subcommittee on Investigations of 
the Committee on Government Operations.
    Before discussing the particular facts in each case, I should like 
to call your attention to the fact that there are presently pending 
before the Supreme Court for argument in October three cases, all 
stemming from investigations by the House Un-American Activities 
Committee, which may involve questions as to the scope of Congressional 
investigations generally. The three cases are Emspak v. United States, 
No. 8, which was argued last term, but set down for re-argument, Quinn 
v. United States, No. 9, and Bart v. United States, No. 117. While 
there are several issues in these cases which have no significance to 
the matters about which you seek my opinion, the Supreme Court did, on 
the previous argument of the Emspak case, exhibit some interest in the 
question of the degree of specificity required in a resolution 
authorizing investigations by a committee of Congress. It is therefore 
possible that the decision in these cases will have some bearing on the 
whole general question of prosecutions for contempt of Congress, which 
may in turn affect these cases. My opinion on the facts submitted to me 
in your letter should therefore be considered subject to this caveat.
    Assuming authority for the investigation generally, I believe that 
the record of the testimony of Wendell H. Furry and Leon J. Kamin would 
support prosecutions of each of them for contempt of Congress. The 
record makes it clear that each witness was told by the Committee that 
he was ordered to answer and that he nevertheless declined to do so. 
Each of them specifically stated that he was not relying on the 
privilege against self-incrimination and declined to answer on the 
ground that he did not wish to divulge the names of others. The Supreme 
Court held in Rogers v. United States, 340 U.S. 367, 371, that ``a 
refusal to answer cannot be justified by a desire to protect others 
from punishment, much less to protect another from interrogation by a 
grand jury.'' The same reasoning would apply to a desire to protect 
others from interrogation by an authorized committee of Congress.
    I think that there can also be no serious question but that the 
questions which these two witnesses refused to answer, which are 
summarized in your letter, were ``pertinent to the inquiry'' within the 
meaning of 2 U.S.C. 192, and that such pertinence can be proved at the 
trial, within the ruling of the Court of Appeals for the District of 
Columbia Circuit in Bowers v. United States, 202 F. 2d 447. Dr. Furry 
testified that he knew six communists who had been employed by the 
government on radar work, but refused to divulge their names. The 
identity of communists who had been employed by the government on 
secret work seems on its face clearly within the scope of an 
investigation into the operations of government. Similarly, the 
question which Leon Kamin refused to answer, ``whether or not 
individuals known to you have been members of the Communist Party are 
now working in defense plants'', seems to be a legitimate inquiry into 
the operation of the government's defense establishments and therefore 
pertinent to the inquiry. So also the questions, taken together, asked 
of Kamin as to whether he knew Emmanuel Blum and whether Blum had 
contacts with people handling classified government material fall 
within an inquiry into the operations of government. Your letter does 
not refer to some other questions which the witnesses refused to 
answer, the relevancy of which to the operations of government is not 
so apparent on their face and which would therefore support a 
prosecution for contempt only if their pertinence to matters within the 
committee's jurisdiction could clearly be shown at the trial.
    As to Dr. Belsky, however, I do not believe that a prosecution for 
contempt could be sustained. In Blau v. United States, 340 U.S. 159, 
the Supreme Court held that a witness may invoke the privilege against 
self-incrimination to refuse to answer questions concerning his 
membership and activity in the Communist Party. I believe that the 
witness would also be held entitled to claim the privilege to refuse to 
answer questions, such as those to which you have directed any 
attention on pages 176 and 177 of the hearings, as to whether he was 
testifying truthfully when he refused to answer on the ground that his 
answers might tend to incriminate him. The general rule with respect to 
the privilege was stated by the Supreme Court in Hoffman v. United 
States, 341 U.S. 479, 486, as follows:
    The privilege afforded not only extends to answer that would in 
themselves support a conviction under a federal criminal statute but 
likewise embraces those which would furnish a link in the chain of 
evidence needed to prosecute the claimant for a federal crime.
    An answer that the witness had not truthfully claimed the privilege 
as to prior questions would be a direct admission of the crime of 
perjury.
            Sincerely,
                                          Warren Olney III,
                     Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division.

    The Chairman. A motion was made and seconded.
    [A vote was taken.]
    The motion was unanimously carried.
    Senator Potter. Joe, can I open on this, speak on it a 
moment?
    Now, as I recall, when we had the meeting when the 
Democrats came back on the committee, that it was agreed that 
the committee could, by majority vote hire and fire members of 
the staff. Questions of certain members of the staff have been 
current in the press as the result of the past hearings, and, 
in all fairness to the staff and in fairness to the 
subcommittee, and in fairness to the public which we serve, I 
think the staff should have but affirmative vote. Now, rather 
than the suggestion that the chairman has made, I would like to 
take them up individually. There are members of the committee 
staff that I don't know. One man, whose name I have seen in the 
paper, I don't think I would know him if I saw him. I 
understand he has done a good job with the committee. I assume 
there are others that way. I assume there are other members of 
the committee in the same position as I. There is nothing 
tricky with this move.
    I know Senator McClellan, the ranking Democrat, is 
conducting a campaign down in Arkansas and I think his primary 
is next week. After that I would like to suggest a little--
maybe you have it now--background material on each member of 
the staff submitted, at that time. I am not speaking of girls.
    Senator Jackson. Your motion wouldn't single out anyone.
    Senator Potter. There have been lots of charges made in the 
press. It has put the staff and the committee in an 
embarrassing position until that is cleared up. The staff 
should have the confidence of a majority of the members of the 
committee.
    Senator Dirksen. I see some objection to the motion.
    Number one, you see today comes at the most awkward time 
for staff members. It seems to me if I were a member of the 
staff, if this motion were adopted, I would feel that from that 
point on my service was in jeopardy; there would be no 
assurance that I would be hired back.
    The second objection I see is, it would constitute 
something of a reflection on hard-working, obscure members of 
the staff whose names never get in print, and as you say, whose 
names even we as members of the committee do not know because 
this would be a reflection upon these people.
    The third thing I see, Charlie, is this: I don't want to be 
illegalistic. In the eyes of the law, the doctrine of estoppel, 
if you don't assert your right, you are stopped from doing 
something after a given period. These folks served faithfully, 
no doubt, for a long time, the question had never been raised, 
and out of the clear sky we raise the question, and I just 
wonder whether we are on good ground taking an action like that 
with respect to the staff generally. When I say that, I don't 
mean preclude any member of the committee voicing his protest, 
opposition, objection to continuance of service of any 
individual. I don't know how many we have. How many do we have?
    The Chairman. Twenty-five.
    Senator Dirksen. In addition you have this problem. The 
chairman just mentioned you may find yourself without a staff. 
To what extent that would be true, I don't know. I do know 
this. Two members of the staff came down to see me the other 
morning and said, ``Mr. Dirksen, we have an opportunity for a 
good job that was offered.'' Both were in the government 
incidentally. One involved a fancy trip over in Europe to do 
work over there. They said, ``What do you think?'' I said, 
``That is very difficult for me to counsel you on, but I don't 
believe I would quit now. In all fairness, you ought to stay on 
the committee as it needs you.''
    Secondly, there is a continuity about this work that can 
only be done by people who have some skill and experience. Now, 
you see, I talked them out of it. After all, they were not 
identified with the investigation in any way, but those girls 
certainly wouldn't think kindly of me if I supported a 
resolution like this. Those are just humble people and I 
wouldn't want to cast any reflection on them.
    Senator Potter. If the senator will yield, the very purpose 
of this motion is the fact--it is not a reflection on the 
staff, but the staff has a right to have the confidence by the 
committee expressed in them, and that is the reason I put in an 
early date. I said, ``July thirty-first.'' That is fifteen days 
from now. During that time if we could get the two names that 
have been in the press of late about security risks, we might 
as well bring that on the table. I haven't the slightest idea 
what the reason for the lack of security clearance is. If it is 
so, I haven't seen the documents on it.
    Now, you are going to single out people who are on the 
spot, Roy, or whoever it may be. We have other people we don't 
even know. I think we owe it to them, to ourselves, and to the 
public. I can very frankly say there would be no reflection on 
the staff.
    Senator Dirksen. But Charlie, what would you say to a staff 
member if he came to your office and said, ``Mr. Potter, I 
don't think this is at all fair. I worked for the committee for 
two years and you never raised your voice about my services in 
any way. I have a right at least to imply that my services were 
good. Now, you introduce and approve a resolution to terminate 
my service without offering a single shred of testimony or 
specific evidence that my services were unsatisfactory; that I 
am under a loyalty cloud.'' I think any staff member could make 
a good case against any member of the committee on that ground. 
If there is evidence, reason, that is a different thing, but 
you would have to single the out it seems to me.
    The Chairman. Also, you have this Charlie. You have got the 
question of time of rights. Some of these women and some of the 
investigators worked under Clyde Hoey, worked under me. Some 
may even go back as far as Truman. If we terminate their 
employment as of a certain date, I don't know what effect that 
would have on their retirement rights.
    Number two, I would suggest this. There would be nothing 
coy or delaying about any attempt to remove a staff member. I 
would call a meeting whenever they wanted. Stu asked for this 
meeting some fifteen days ago, a little delay which may seem 
rather lengthy. I think you all know the circumstances, I was 
out of town. I would suggest instead of putting them under a 
cloud, I would like to give you this. I would like to get up a 
report and background sketch so each one of you will know who 
is working where; what their duties are; who hired them; did 
they come in under a Democrat or Republican; and then if any of 
you want to meet to remove someone, you take my word for it, 
you will have a meeting immediately. I just think that is a 
much fairer way. Here, if you are working on a committee and 
you have got a wife and three or four kids, and word comes out 
that you have been ordered removed, unless you are proved 
within two weeks-our skins may be really thick; we have been in 
politics-some of these people working on the committee don't 
have the background of toughening up. I would think-just let us 
give you all the information we have about these individuals 
and then if you want to remove anyone, I will hold a meeting 
and there can be a motion to remove them.
    Senator Mundt. I would think that would be better. I would 
be willing to make a motion to fix the date certain on fixing 
staff members and vote on anybody singled out. If you have any 
doubt about that, I will support it. Some of these people I 
wouldn't know if I saw them walking across the street. This 
barefoot girl, I wouldn't know her if I saw her, but this will 
be interpreted by people in her hometown----
    Senator Symington. Wouldn't a compromise be suspension?
    The Chairman. You have Pete Smith or Nellie Grey, who has 
been doing a great job. They were hired by--even go back as far 
as Truman. Let's say Nellie Grey was employed by Truman and she 
has worked under Brewster, Ferguson, Hoey, McCarthy.\9\ Why 
suspend a girl like that, Charlie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ Subcommittee chairs Ralph Owen Brewster, Homer Ferguson, Clyde 
Hoey, and Joseph R. McCarthy.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Senator Potter. You don't. You have a date in here, before 
July thirty-first. You can be assured a meeting would be called 
and you can have the background material. I think we have an 
obligation to the committee, to ourselves, if nothing else. 
There should be no reflection.
    Senator Mundt. That way we find them guilty until we vote 
them innocent.
    Senator Potter. We could have a meeting at two o'clock and 
take them back at four o'clock. Six months ago we said this was 
what we were going to do. Now, we are actually repudiating what 
we said we were going to do six months ago.
    I feel there should be no exception made to every member of 
the staff, rather than go out and select two men who have been 
in the press and there may be some guy on the staff, I don't 
know, who is not nearly as able and qualified as one of those 
mentioned. To go out and pick out two, I don't know about the 
other fellows, but I don't think it is fair to them. This is 
not a blanket firing; this is setting a target date for the 
committee to go over staff problems and that way we will have 
an affirmative act for and approve the members of the staff.
    The Chairman. Would you yield? Wouldn't you like to first 
have the background material on each one of these people, what 
their jobs are, what they are doing.
    Charlie, may I suggest this: There is no reason why we 
should suspend people about whom, as you say, we know nothing. 
Frankly, there are some girls working on that staff whose names 
I don't know. They are the carry-overs from the previous 
administration. Ruth Watt here has assured me we have a 
competent staff. Frank Carr has. Now, Charlie, I just think it 
is wrong.
    Senator Mundt. Charlie, it seems to me you are indicting 
them in the minds of their hometown people.
    Senator Potter. You are expressing confidence in them.
    Senator Mundt. I don't like to automatically assume they 
are all bad.
    Senator Potter. There is no suspension, just setting a 
short target date to act affirmatively on members of the staff.
    The Chairman. Charlie, why don't you do this? I will get 
you all the information we have on each member. I will want it 
myself. I frankly learned a lot more about the staff during the 
investigation. Let me get you that information for you and then 
if you feel somebody is incompetent, you have my positive 
assurance, and this is strictly on the record, that I will 
immediately call a meeting and let you or anyone who wants to 
move to remove any staff member. There is nothing tricky about 
that.
    Senator Mundt. You say this, Charlie. I move all present 
staff are automatically terminated except in those individual 
cases where we have voted such specific confirmation. It 
certainly is an implication on a lot of people I don't know. As 
I say, if you want to set a definite meeting and there is 
anybody you want to get off and somebody else takes the same 
vote, you haven't deliberately hurt somebody in their hometown.
    Senator Potter. Of course, I don't believe that implication 
is there. I envisioned with this we would have to have a 
committee meeting, as Joe mentioned with background on the 
staff, individual members of the staff, just as Joe mentioned. 
Now, rather than us take the position of firing them, we are 
approving them.
    Senator Mundt. Firing them all.
    Senator Jackson. The rule says we must approve them. The 
rule adopted in January provides that the present staff must be 
approved--past and present is the way it was worded.
    The Chairman. Scoop, let me say, I think you and I see 
pretty much eye to eye on this. We will get you background of 
every staff member. Why in the devil have twenty-four or 
twenty-five people have a story in their hometown paper that 
they have been fired. Call the roll off. If there is no motion 
to remove them, then confirm them. Don't serve notice that they 
are all under suspicion.
    Senator Jackson. This is not a clear service on the staff. 
You proceed to approve the ones you approve.
    The Chairman. You would get the same results without 
throwing in all the hometown papers that maybe these people are 
under some veil of suspicion, as I am sure in the vast majority 
of instances is not the case. I think we will get the same 
results. We will have a vote and confirm them if there is no 
objection.
    Senator Jackson. But this resolution really carries out the 
rule. This sets a stage for carrying out the rule.
    The Chairman. I say set the stage for carrying out the rule 
without this blanket implication of indictment.
    Senator Potter. What you say doesn't set the stage----
    The Chairman. I think we can set the stage for carrying out 
the rule without indicting the staff with a blanket resolution.
    Senator Mundt. We are going to meet here and go through the 
whole staff, read the names off, and if anybody objects we will 
have a vote. We will confirm in block those left. In other 
words, you can go through this without the implication that you 
think maybe the whole staff ought to go.
    The Chairman. It is a hell of an insult to the chairman. We 
could take steps to adopt the rule without this obnoxious step 
in between.
    Senator Potter. It seems to me, when we met in January, I 
will be frank with you, I didn't care for the rule. I didn't 
want the responsibility. We agreed the individual member had to 
assume that responsibility for members of the staff. At that 
meeting we said the committee had to approve members of the 
staff, presently on and after they came on. Now, that has never 
been done. I am not crying about that.
    If this hadn't come up as a result of the hearings, where 
you have members of the staff who may have been mentioned in 
the press, I think it is wrong for us to go and say, ``All 
right, we are going to fire you and going to fire you because 
you have been mentioned unfavorably in the press.'' I don't 
think that is being fair. I think the staff has a right to have 
affirmative action in approving them by this committee. I think 
they have that right.
    Senator Mundt. Suppose we have a meeting Wednesday or 
Thursday of this week, by which time we have got a little 
biographical data for study; then call them up and get 
acquainted with them, at which time the secretary will give the 
staff names and any member can move to remove them; then I can 
say, ``all right, I am against this motion;'' then we take a 
vote; then somebody moves we approve the staff in block, and we 
will accomplish the same result without intermediary steps 
which will cause heartaches and distress.
    Senator Symington. I don't see it that way. It is this 
first step I object to.
    Senator Potter. This step, the confirmation has to be done 
before certain date, before adjournment. That is the reason I 
put that in there.
    The Chairman. Number one, the staff has been approved by 
the committee with a few exceptions. Some of the recent 
appointees have not been, but the vast majority have been 
approved.
    Number two, may I say this off the record.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    The Chairman. I think Karl Mundt's suggestion will 
accomplish everything that could be accomplished when he says, 
give the members of the committee the background of all staff 
members; then have a meeting and go down that list and if there 
is anyone there that you don't want, disapprove them; if there 
is someone there we do want, approve them. There is nothing to 
be gained by going out here today and saying we are firing 
everybody on the committee. It is a fantastic thing. We have 
got people who came in under the Democratic regime and the 
Republican regime. We have got people whose honesty and 
integrity have never been questioned by anyone, even remotely.
    Let me tell you, if you live back in Centerville, Iowa, and 
have been down here working on this committee and the local 
papers carry the headlines that you have been discharged by the 
committee and will not be put back on unless we have a meeting 
and decide to put you back on, you are going to make it 
embarrassing for his family, and it would be a tremendous 
insult to you. It is an insult to the chairman who hires you, 
whether me Hoey or whoever it was. There will be nothing gained 
by it. You will get the same results, exactly the same results, 
by doing what Karl suggested. Why the devil press for that type 
of action? I will give you a meeting whenever you want it. You 
know that. You can have it next Monday, Tuesday, next 
Wednesday. How long will it take to get resumes of people on 
the staff, their background.
    Mr. Carr. It depends on how much you want. It shouldn't 
take long.
    The Chairman. You could have that by, Monday morning, 
couldn't you?
    Mr. Carr. [Nods affirmatively.]
    The Chairman. Well, Charlie, how about having a meeting 
Wednesday morning.
    Senator Jackson. I second the motion by Senator Potter.
    Senator Potter. If I am out voted, that is that.
    Senator Dirksen. Mr. Chairman, is the committee going to 
vote on that today?
    Senator Jackson. Sure.
    Senator Dirksen. I would offer this as a substitute.
    Senator Symington. I have a proxy from Senator 
McClellan.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Telegram: ``Hon. Joseph R. McCarthy, care Senator Stuart 
Symington, room 254, Senate Office Building: I hereby give to Senator 
Symington and authorize him to use my proxy and vote same in connection 
with approving, disapproving, or suspension and any other appropriate 
action relating to the staff of the Senate Permanent Investigating 
Subcommittee. John L. McClellan, U.S. Senator.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The Chairman. You don't have a proxy for this because you 
don't know what he is going to submit.
    Senator Symington. Here is one written to you. Mine is a 
copy, but is the same as yours.
    I hereby give to Senator Symington and authorize him to use 
my proxy and vote same in connection with the approving, 
disapproving, or suspension and any other appropriate action 
relating to the staff of the Senate Permanent Investigating 
Subcommittee. John L. McClellan, U.S. Senator.
    The Chairman. I think in order for a proxy to be used, it 
has to state specifically what it is for.
    Senator Jackson. It states on the staff. I don't know how 
specific you can be.
    Senator Potter. I am not going to argue the question.
    The Chairman. My thought is that Senator McClellan should 
not be denied the right to vote, number one. Number two, we 
took great pains to make sure that there wouldn't be any type 
of blanket proxy. Senator Dirksen, for example, couldn't call 
me saying he was sending a wire saying, ``I will authorize you 
to vote my proxy on questions of staff'' or questions of 
legislation or that sort of thing. I just hope we don't get to 
the point of denying John the use of his proxy. I would say 
this: If someone could contact him by telephone and explain to 
him what the motion is, then he wants to express himself on it, 
that is what I intend to have my proxy on, he should have a 
right.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, I discussed this with 
him--not this particular point, which I hadn't discussed with 
Senator Potter. I am certain he will approve of Senator 
Potter's resolution, which was seconded by Senator Jackson and 
I would vote for it myself, and I would like to register his 
proxy as also voting for it.
    The Chairman. Stu, do me a favor. Don't put us in a 
position of denying him the right to vote. If he wants to vote 
that way, get him on the telephone. You can get him on the 
telephone in a matter of ten minutes. Make sure he knows what 
he is voting on. I don't think he will vote that way, and I 
will tell you why. When John McClellan took over the committee 
from George Aiken, and I hesitate reciting these facts as it 
was a number of years ago, there was the question of whether or 
not all staff members should be asked to resign. At that time 
we were very much concerned with, as I recall, the retirement 
benefits, retirement rights of members of the staff. We worked 
it out finally, I believe, with a request that they submit 
their resignations but that they not be accepted.
    Now, this is not a new subject that has come up. Senator, 
if we are to be fair about this, there is no reason on earth 
why you can't come in here next week, any day you want to, and 
move that Nina here, for example, Ruth, Roy, Frank Carr, 
anybody else be removed from the staff. There is no reason why 
we should say to the public now that we don't have any 
confidence in what the chairman has done. If I have hired 
someone who is an improper person to act, then any member of 
the committee should have the absolute right to come in and 
say, here are the facts on this, call me to the stand, or call 
whoever you want to the stand and resolve this, but Charlie, 
may I ask this; then I will quit beating this horse. What do 
you gain by this preliminary action when you can do absolutely 
the same thing next week.
    Senator Potter. I will tell you the reason for it----
    The Chairman. May I interrupt. I think we should put in the 
record Senator McClellan's telegram and will you copy that in 
toto, Nina, and also will you copy at that point the rule of 
the committee adopted January 14, 1953, as pertains to proxy. I 
will mark that for you.

    Rules of Procedure Adopted by the Committee on Government 
Operations
    Extract from the Minutes, Meeting of Committee on 
Government Operations, January 14, 1953
    When a record vote is taken in committee on any bill, 
resolution, amendment, or other question, a majority of the 
members being present, a member who is unable to attend the 
meeting may submit his vote by proxy, in writing.
    Such proxy shall be addressed to the Chairman and filed 
with the Chief Clerk. It shall contain sufficient reference to 
the bill, resolution, or motion as is necessary to clearly 
identify the proposal, and to inform the committee as to how 
the member wishes his vote to be recorded thereon. Such proxy 
shall then be counted officially in the final tabulation of 
that vote.
    The Chief Clerk shall be required to insert such proxies in 
the minutes of such meeting as a permanent record.

    The Chairman. I want to say this. There is no question 
about this as far as I am concerned even though in my opinion 
the wire does not conform with the proxy rule. I think that it 
would be highly improper to deny Senator McClellan the right to 
vote on this. I assume he is available by telephone in a matter 
of ten or fifteen minutes.
    Senator Symington. He isn't, Mr. Chairman. He really isn't. 
That is the problem. I couldn't be more sincere. He is going 
from little town to little town. I talked to him every day for 
the last four days. One day it took ten minutes--one day I 
didn't get him at all. You have done it. You know what the 
problem is, and the telephone service.
    Senator Jackson. Let him send a wire in on the specific 
points if there is a question about it.
    Senator Dirksen. I have a motion----
    The Chairman. Senator Dirksen, would you take this about 
fifteen minutes?
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Senator Symington. In connection with this meeting, with 
the approval of Senator Mundt, I would like to file for the 
record the first paragraph of his letter of June 30th to 
Senator McCarthy because there have been some reports that this 
meeting was called at my request only.
    Actually, it was called at the request of all the members 
of the special committee, as Senator Mundt's letter shows.

    As Chairman of the Special Senate Committee on 
Investigations, the members of our group authorized and 
instructed me at our meeting today to write you this letter, to 
hand you the specified enclosures, and to secure you, as 
Chairman, at your earliest convenience once you have returned 
from your current vacation.

    Senator Dirksen (Acting Chairman). Without objection, that 
will be approved.

    Senator Symington. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    [The Chairman, Senator McCarthy, returned to the meeting.]
    Senator Dirksen. I will present my motion.

    On or before July 22, 1954, the Chairman shall call a 
meeting of the Subcommittee and the individual names of all 
staff members of the committee shall be submitted to the 
Subcommittee for confirmation, and in the case of those members 
where confirmation may be denied, such action shall not be 
final and conclusive without a hearing before the subcommittee, 
if a hearing is demanded.

    The Chairman. Very good.
    Senator Dirksen. I make this brief representation. I find 
it very difficult to go along with Charlie's resolution. First, 
I don't want to hurt anybody who shouldn't be hurt. I think the 
committee amended its rules in January, six months ago, and 
there was never any question raised until now. After all, there 
is some implication we were satisfied and no questions were 
raised to the chairman, so I don't want to hurt him now in that 
respect.
    Third, Henry raised this question about giving the staff 
members a hearing. I don't think that strange. All in all, they 
served on the committee and we are getting ready to terminate 
them and I think, in the good old American tradition, if we are 
going to terminate their services, we ought to let them know 
why and if they have got something to say, let them have an 
opportunity to say it before the action by the committee shall 
be conclusive. I think it is the essence of fair play. I never 
like to get put up on a stool I can't defend myself on good 
legal or moral grounds. This is an affirmative substitution. It 
will accomplish what everybody wants to accomplish. Henry 
raised the question that suppose there should be no meeting. If 
there is no meeting it is only because the members of the 
committee do not respond. This makes it mandatory on the 
chairman of the committee; it makes it mandatory to call a 
meeting before next Thursday.
    The Chairman. I can say there definitely will be.
    Senator Dirksen. It gives us time to get briefs on the 
staff members.
    Senator Mundt. If Henry seriously thinks we will not call a 
meeting, we could put the date of the meeting.
    Senator Jackson. I think Charlie's motion is preferable as 
it ensures positive action prior to July 31st, number one. 
Number two, it does not single out any member of the staff. It 
means that the committee will have to go through the members of 
the staff and approve or disapprove affirmatively each member 
of the staff in accordance with the rules. I think it is the 
fairer of the two proposals, at least that is my----
    Senator Mundt. Henry, there is the same voting procedure 
under Dirksen's motion as Potter's. Take the staff members and 
either vote them up or vote them down. The preferential feature 
of Dirksen's motion quite apart from this other is the hearing, 
which I am not so much concerned with, but I think anybody is 
entitled to that. The preferential feature is not to slander 
anybody who ultimately will be accepted by the committee.
    Senator Jackson. I think there is one thing also for the 
record that should be corrected. It is my recollection after 
the rule with reference to majority approval of the committee 
was passed the latter part of January, Senator McClellan did 
speak to the chairman about the same situation at that time. He 
has so stated in public hearings and elsewhere. It is my 
understanding, if the facts bear me out, it wasn't very long 
after we came back to the committee that the now famous Army-
McCarthy dispute came into being and made it impossible to 
implement this rule. I think everybody agrees we didn't have an 
opportunity, and it would have prejudiced people involved in 
the hearing.
    The Chairman. Number one, Scoop, you were in a peculiarly 
pleasant position because you had no monitored phone calls, 
number two, McClellan did not testify.
    Senator Jackson. I didn't say he testified. I said he 
stated.
    The Chairman. The testimony that he was visited six days 
before he came back on the committee by one of a group who took 
part in a conclave which resulted in the thirty-six days of 
hearings, so that there is no testimony by McClellan, as far as 
I know, and just in complete fairness to McClellan, I don't 
want to make this unqualified unless I would check, I don't 
think McClellan ever told me before he came back on the 
committee that he was going to try and get rid of staff 
members.
    Senator Jackson. I didn't say that. I said this. I want to 
make the record clear. I said this: When he came back and at 
the hearing or shortly after the meeting at which we came back, 
I recall his having stated to you that there were some staff 
matters which he wanted to speak to you about. I believe that 
statement you referred to now was made during what is now known 
as the Army-McCarthy hearings. I believe he did tell you there 
were some matters he had been informed about he wanted to speak 
to you about and bring to your attention in connection with the 
staff. If I am wrong, I stand corrected.
    The Chairman. I think you may be right. At this particular 
moment I don't remember. I don't think Senator McClellan would 
misstate the facts.
    Senator Symington. I think Scoop is right on that. I know 
that is what Senator McClellan told me. I believe somewhere in 
the record, that is my recollection that he mentioned that in 
the hearings. Whether it was in an executive meeting, or 
public, I don't know.
    Senator Mundt. To me, as far as my sentiment, I would like 
to have a meeting next week for the purpose of confirming the 
staff; for the purpose of looking at the biographical data, 
finding out what their jobs are and deciding to continue or not 
continue them. To me, the Potter motion contains a blanket 
indictment of people I don't know and I don't want to embarrass 
them. Senator Dirksen's motion serves the same purpose--to have 
a subcommittee meeting next week and we have to confirm or 
disapprove them. That way we do it affirmatively and not hurt 
innocent people that we are subsequently going to keep on in 
our employment. We will get the same results. I think in all 
common decency we should retain the staff and not put them 
under suspicion for a couple of weeks and then say the 
subcommittee has reconsidered and accepted them.
    Senator Potter. Will the Senator yield at that point?
    The Chairman. I don't believe that----
    Senator Potter. Under the Dirksen motion you are putting 
the committee in the position of firing members of the staff. 
Now, I believe that the committee has every right and the staff 
has every right to expect the committee's approval of them as a 
staff member. Now, the only thing, I have been on other 
committees where you vote on staff members----
    The Chairman. May I say, here is the thing that bothers me. 
If you insist upon a vote on your motion, under the rules 
governing proxies, I would have to, with the greatest 
reluctance, rule out John McClellan's wire, which does not 
mention your position. I don't want to do that. I think John 
has an absolute right to vote on any matters that come up.
    I think he should know what is coming up. I don't like to 
leave this room with a three and three vote, which means that 
the motion would lose, lose because we don't recognize the 
improper form of proxy.
    Senator Jackson. Is it agreed that he can submit his proxy 
in specific terms relating to this motion?
    The Chairman. No, his proxy does not cover this.
    Senator Jackson. I am not saying that. I thought it was 
understood that he could submit a proxy covering this.
    The Chairman. Yes, he certainly should be entitled to do 
that.
    Senator Jackson. We have never done this before, Mr. 
Chairman. We are invoking rules which have never been invoked 
before.
    The Chairman. Senator Dirksen has a motion accomplishing 
everything you want, a motion to hold a meeting next Thursday. 
There is certainly no delay about that.
    Senator Potter. As I understand, you will rule the proxy 
out of order.
    The Chairman. I think I would have to until John wired us 
or wrote us and told us what he wanted done. In doing that, I 
want to write McClellan myself. Senator Dirksen, Senator Mundt, 
Senator Jackson, I tried to get an opinion from the disbursing 
officer as to what effect this would have upon the retirement 
rights of these people. I don't have that opinion yet. I would 
want to write John McClellan exactly what effect that would 
have upon their retirement rights. We discussed that, Scoop, in 
great detail when John took over from Aiken and I just want to 
have McClellan know what he is voting on. It would be a matter 
of a couple of days. I will quite beating this horse, Senator 
Dirksen. Why doesn't Senator Dirksen's motion completely cover 
your situation. Every member would be up for you to vote for or 
against.
    Senator Potter. Because I think Senator Dirksen's motion is 
more of a reflection on the staff; however, if you are not 
going to recognize the proxy, I will accept Senator Dirksen's 
substitute.
    Senator Symington. I think I know how Senator McClellan 
feels about this.
    Senator Jackson. Senator McClellan should certainly have 
the right to wire in his vote.
    Senator Symington. I am certain he will approve Potter's 
motion. Senator McClellan should be given the opportunity to 
vote on this.
    The Chairman. Just one previous question: We have right 
now, we have some 130 people in defense plants who have 
Communist records. I think we should start holding hearings 
immediately. I would like to know in what way your motion would 
affect that. That has nothing to do with the army. I think it 
is pretty generally agreed among the senators that it would be 
improper to proceed with this investigation of any improper 
conduct on the part of army officials until the final report is 
submitted to the Senate, except I would like to know, Charlie, 
how you anticipate this would affect defense plant hearings. I 
would like to, and unless the committee votes me down on it, I 
will proceed to bring in Communists from defense plants, 
starting at the earliest convenience. I am going to ask the 
senators on the committee, Potter, Jackson, Dirksen, Mundt, 
McClellan and Symington, in view of the fantastic amount of 
work involved, in view of the fact it would be impossible for 
me to sit as chairman of all these committees, I think this is 
something we can all agree on; I don't think there will be any 
dispute by the Democrats or Republicans. I would like to ask 
all senators to take a spell chairing the committee. We have 
got 133, roughly. It means about five months of steady work.
    May I say, and I don't want to take your time up, but the 
heads of defense plants have taken the position they can't fire 
these people unless and until they are called in and take the 
Fifth Amendment, Communists committing subversion, espionage, 
sabotage, what have you. I would just like to know if there is 
any indication, any inclination on the part of members to try 
to keep us from holding hearings, number one. Number two, under 
the rule, or proposed rule, while the Democrat members could 
prevent any new public hearings being started, it was agreed 
completely and fully that would not apply to any hearings in 
progress. In other words, the chairman, once he had authority 
to conduct a certain line of investigation, would not have to 
call the committee not together each day and say, ``Can I hold 
hearings?'' My proposal is not to start those hearings. They 
have nothing to do with the army loyalty set-up, nothing to do 
with Stevens, nothing to do with Adams. There has been no claim 
by anyone that Carr, McCarthy, or Cohn, who were the principals 
on one side of this case, in any way improperly handled those 
defense plant hearings. I am just curious to know, Charlie, how 
your motion, in your opinion, would affect that?
    Senator Potter. Joe, my motion could be all cleared away by 
Tuesday of next week, if Frank got together the biographical 
sketches, and it would be completely out of the way.
    The Chairman. I want to hold hearings Saturday. Frankly, 
there are some pretty urgent matters.
    Senator Symington. We have waited four weeks today or 
tomorrow, and I don't think we should have hearings before we 
get the staff situation clarified.
    The Chairman. Stu, let me tell you something. You and I had 
gotten along very well until we got into these hearings. There 
is no reason, as far as I know, Stu Symington, why you should 
keep us from exposing Communists in defense plants. If the 
Democrats want to keep me from exposing Communists in defense 
plants, I am inclined to think they can perhaps do it.
    Senator Jackson. We have been waiting four weeks to hear 
from you.
    The Chairman. I have been hearing it from the press every 
day----
    Senator Symington. What did you hear from the press?
    The Chairman. I have been hearing that you have taken the 
position there can be no exposure of Communists until after the 
report is written, a report involving five million words, 
roughly. Make that two million. I read that in the papers.
    Senator Symington. You never read that statement, not from 
me.
    Senator Jackson. Or from me.
    The Chairman. I have yet to hear one of my Democrat 
colleagues say, ``We want to help expose some Communists.'' We 
have got in their files, Karl, we have got the most fantastic 
amount of work, months and months of it. It doesn't have 
anything to do with Stevens, McCarthy, or Adams hearing. There 
is no reason on earth why we shouldn't go ahead.
    Senator Jackson. We haven't been able to have a meeting of 
the committee for a month.
    The Chairman. Scoop, if you are going to hold it up until 
you can vote on each little girl on the committee, and each 
investigator, I just want to make--I just want to know it, 
number one, if that is your intention.
    Number two, I just want to make that clear to the country 
because that is awfully important. That has nothing to do with 
Charlie Potter's motion.
    Senator Jackson. We haven't held up anything. We requested 
a meeting of the committee dated June 30th; then I will go 
ahead with the hearings.
    The Chairman. There has been a meeting today, July 15th.
    Senator Jackson. Not on any member of this committee.
    The Chairman. Then do I understand that there is no 
objection if I proceed to start holding hearings Saturday.
    Senator Jackson. Well, I think staff matters should be 
disposed of first.
    Senator Symington. We have been waiting four weeks since 
the hearings closed to have a meeting. Taking Senator Potter's 
thought, he says that the staff problem can be cleared up by 
next Tuesday evening under his motion. As I understand it, I 
believe that is right. I would wait four more days, which 
includes Saturday and Sunday, until we clear up this staff 
situation before we go ahead with any hearings. That would be 
my recommendation and vote.
    The Chairman. Just so I can't be accused by members of the 
committee of deceiving you, unless the committee votes to deny 
me the right to do it, I intend to start exposing Communists in 
defense plants on Saturday. Now, I won't do all that work 
myself. I want every member of this committee to take a part in 
chairing those committees, and I think maybe some of us may 
have a better picture of this threat than we have now. I just 
want to say that. My position is that if there were a new 
hearing being held, I would have to get permission of the 
senators and the three Democrats could block it; it being a 
current hearing, they cannot, except by a motion on the part of 
a senator, if you want to make a motion to deny me the right, 
if that is carried, obviously I can't hold the hearings. I am 
bound by the majority rules of the committee. When I leave this 
room, I want the press outside to know who is going to hold up 
the hearings.
    Senator Jackson. I think the record should disclose that a 
whole month has elapsed since the conclusion of the Army-
McCarthy hearings.
    Senator Mundt. I can't understand why we have a meeting 
which lasts a couple of hours about a problem which we say we 
all want to solve by having a meeting to vote on confirmation 
of the staff members. The vote is going to be the same way. 
This is just a question of approach shots. We have got 
Charlie's motion, which I take exception to on two scores 
mentioned, first the intermediate step, which in the hometown 
papers of every employee will cast a shadow of suspicion on 
them automatically, that they are suspended July 31st unless 
the committee votes them back in; and second, it denies them 
any possibility of a hearing. To me, that isn't the way of 
operation. In the first place, I don't believe in belittling 
people, and in the second place, we get the same results by 
Dirksen's resolution, plus giving them a hearing.
    Senator Dirksen. You can't separate the humblest civil 
service worker under the federal laws without giving them a 
hearing. I don't want to bring myself into that position.
    Senator Jackson. Let's vote.
    The Chairman. Senator Potter says that he would like a 
ruling from the chair on the proxy of Senator McClellan.
    The chair is prepared to rule on that. I will have to rule 
that under the rules of procedure, adopted by the Committee on 
Government Operations on January 14, 1953, which provides that 
the proxy must be in such details so that it clearly appears 
that the member voting the proxy knows what he is voting on 
relating to the specific subject. This proxy does not. I would 
have to rule the proxy out.
    Senator Jackson. Wherein does the proxy fail to comply?
    The Chairman. Let me rule first. I would say this: That is, 
if Senator Symington wanted to contact Senator McClellan or 
Senator Jackson wanted to contact him, and if they told me--I 
wouldn't have to talk to McClellan myself if I had the 
assurance from either one of you that you had given him the 
details of what this motion was--and he said, ``My proxy still 
applied,'' I would perhaps be leaning away over backwards, but 
I would recognize the proxy unless the committee outvoted me.
    I understand that Senator Potter's position is that he 
feels this matter is rather urgent and that if we rule out 
Senator McClellan's proxy, that Senator Dirksen's motion will 
perhaps accomplish the desired results. Therefore, I gather, 
Charlie, that you will go on and support that, not because you 
feel your motion is not better; you feel your motion is more 
desirable, but because of the time limit----
    Senator Jackson. Can we recess until tomorrow on that, so 
Senator McClellan can vote on these two specific resolutions?
    Senator Symington. We have Senator McClellan's proxy on 
that vote. We have never denied a member of a committee----
    The Chairman. Let's be a little frank about this thing. You 
are Stu Symington--and let's make this completely clear--you 
are doing the most unfair job on the staff members that anyone 
could do. Let's get this clear, and this is on the record. You 
were not trying to take action which will remove any employee 
guilty of improper conduct from the committee; you are trying 
to stay action, Senator Symington, which is strictly 100 
percent political, and you are entitled to do that. I don't 
accuse you of any dishonesty in this matter, but let's have it 
clear, I know what you are doing. You just go right ahead as 
far as I am concerned. I am going to call for a vote.
    Senator Symington. Mr. Chairman, you have expressed your 
opinion. May I express mine? I did not know the details of 
Senator Potter's resolution. I believe that it is a wiser and 
kinder resolution to the staff than any other and we can have 
an honest difference of opinion on that. I believe that 
represents the thinking of Senator McClellan because of that. I 
want to assure you I have no political thinking of any kind 
whatever. The motion was made by one of your colleagues and 
supported by the Democrats. It is not a political action on my 
part of any kind whatever.
    Senator Mundt. I have another substitute motion if Senator 
Dirksen's motion loses, which I want to offer.
    Senator Jackson. We are granted the right to vote by proxy 
and I think it is most unfair to Senator McClellan. I don't 
object at all to an adjournment until tomorrow.
    [Off-record discussion.]
    Senator Potter. Let me say one thing. I am offering my 
motion as an individual member of the committee. I hope it 
prevails, but if it doesn't carry, then I am going to vote for 
the next best motion offered to get action. I don't want to 
delay it. This thing has been hanging fire a long time, and in 
all fairness to the staff, the committee, and the public, it 
should be out of the way.
    Senator Dirksen. Joe, let's not vote now. May I 
respectfully suggest, I think not only the chairman but the 
committee is inviting a good deal of hostility if a proxy is 
disqualified. I would prefer--I know it is your prerogative to 
rule it out, but I would prefer if you did consider the proxy 
valid for the purpose here. Let Senator Potter make his motion 
and I have one or two other motions I would offer which would 
come within the exception clause in Potter's motion.
    The Chairman. I will defer it to the judgment of my very 
able neighbor senator, if he insists. However, I think this, 
Senator Dirksen.
    We had this question come up, the question of discharging 
all staff members and then rehiring them. That was up when John 
McClellan took over the chairmanship of the Government 
Operations Committee from Aiken, either that or vice versa. It 
is a very important question. I would like to get the opinion 
from the Disbursing officer, Senator Dirksen--I would like an 
opinion from the Disbursing officer as to how that would affect 
the pension rights of these employees. You see, they all have 
pensions. If there is a gap in employment, I understand their 
pension rights are affected. I would like to strongly urge, 
Charlie, if you would do this, just so we don't have to worry 
and it will accomplish the same results. Take the Dirksen 
resolution, and we could have a meeting earlier than the one 
called for on the 22nd.
    Let me say this, Senator Dirksen. I don't like to accept a 
proxy unless I know that the man voting it knows how it will 
affect the young ladies on the committee. Take for example, 
Ruth Watt----
    Senator Dirksen. Let me make an inquiry. In Charlie's 
motion he says, ``except in those individual instances where a 
subcommittee majority in formal session all have voted such 
specific confirmation prior to that date.'' I offer a motion 
that all names of staff members shall be submitted to the 
subcommittee on or before the 22nd of July for specific 
confirmation in accordance with the exception in the Potter 
motion.
    Senator Potter. I see nothing wrong with that.
    Senator Dirksen. That will take care of any possibility of 
endangering their retirement rights or pension rights or 
annuity rights.
    Senator Mundt. That still leaves in the objectionable 
language----
    Senator Jackson. I think that these various proposals ought 
to be put in writing and made available by Saturday morning. In 
the meantime, Senator Symington or myself can get in touch with 
Senator McClellan and we can reconvene on Tuesday. I think it 
is a dangerous precedent if you are going to turn down a proxy. 
I think it is a pretty fair statement of the subject matter 
before the committee, and I do believe that in fairness to any 
member, I don't care if he is a Republican or Democrat, that 
such member of the committee should have an opportunity to vote 
by proxy.
    [Off-record discussion as to next meeting.]
    The Chairman. Can we do this? In the meantime, Stu, so we 
don't have a fight about this, can you get an opinion from the 
disbursing officer. I will get one also.
    Senator Symington. You get it.
    The Chairman. Let John know what effect it has before he 
casts a ballot. I will ask for that jointly under my name and 
your name,
    Senator Symington. May I make this observation? If you had 
the 31st, or any particular day, those would be off and back on 
all on the same day, so from the standpoint of the Disbursing 
Office, it would not be a problem.
    The Chairman. I will give you a copy of the letter I write 
to him.
    Senator Jackson. One point before we meet on Tuesday. I 
think the chairman should be requested to get all necessary 
biographical and background data on all members of the staff in 
the meantime.
    The Chairman. Senator Jackson, we will try and get that to 
you Monday, so you will have that twenty-four hours ahead of 
time. There is only one problem. Whenever I get a name check 
from the FBI it is marked personal and confidential to me 
personally. I think there has been some violation of that. I 
let the former chief of staff, Flanagan, look at those. It may 
be I won't be able to incorporate that, but I will call Hoover 
and ask him if I can incorporate that FBI name check in that 
thing.
    Number two, we have got the press waiting, and I think, 
Stu, even though you and I exchange rather rough language, I 
think we substantially----
    Senator Symington. In this case all the roughness was on 
your side, not mine.
    The Chairman. Let me say there that I can see no reason on 
earth--we have got Communists in defense plants, so why 
shouldn't we go ahead and hold hearings, unless somebody makes 
a motion to deny me the right.
    Senator Dirksen. That has been authorized by the committee 
before.
    Senator Symington. I want to say this for the record. I 
know, Senator McCarthy, this I am sure of, that there is going 
to be no further investigatory action on the part of the 
committee until the staff matters have been cleared up. I want 
to make that for the record with respect to how I feel on that 
point. Does that differ from the way you feel?
    Senator Dirksen. Well, it runs in my mind that the only 
controversy is over the language in the record at one hearing 
that said there should be no regular function of the committee 
pursued until the investigation had been concluded. Well, the 
investigation has been concluded. I assume from that we could 
go ahead with the hearings and have it authorized. I see the 
point, of course, of any new investigations.
    The Chairman. I have something really urgent which I have 
to attend to, so if you don't mind, I will adjourn the meeting 
until Tuesday at twelve o'clock noon.
    [Thereupon, the committee adjourned at 5:00 p.m.]


           MATTERS OF STAFF ORGANIZATION AND COMMITTEE FUNDS

    [Editor's note.--At the executive session on July 15, 1954, 
Senator Charles E. Potter introduced a resolution terminating 
all present staff appointments except for those whom a majority 
of the subcommittee voted to retain. The resolution was aimed 
primarily at removing chief counsel Roy Cohn. Anticipating that 
Potter, a Republican, would vote with the subcommittee's three 
Democrats to form a 4-3 majority, Senator McCarthy offered to 
transfer Cohn to his personal staff as his administrative 
assistant or to find him a job with another committee. Cohn 
chose to resign. ``I feel that my helpfulness to the 
subcommittee has been brought to the vanishing point,'' he 
wrote in his letter of resignation. ``In any future 
investigation in which I appeared as chief counsel, all the 
slanders voiced against me would be repeated to minimize the 
evidence presented.'']
                              ----------                              


                         TUESDAY, JULY 20, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The subcommittee met at 12:30 p.m., pursuant to notice, in 
executive session in room F-65, the Capitol, Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy (chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin; 
Senator Karl E. Mundt, Republican, South Dakota; Senator 
Everett McKinley Dirksen, Republican, Illinois; Senator Charles 
E. Potter, Republican, Michigan; Senator Henry M. Jackson, 
Democrat, Washington; and Senator Stuart Symington, Democrat, 
Missouri.
    Also present: Francis P. Carr, staff director of the 
subcommittee; Robert Kennedy, counsel to the minority; Ruth 
Young Watt, chief clerk.
    The Chairman. The subcommittee will come to order.
    I think at this time I should announce that Don Surine has 
resigned from the staff, and I am taking him on my personal 
payroll. And this is Roy Cohn's resignation, which I have 
accepted. I have accepted Don Surine's resignation and have put 
him on my personal pay roll.
    Senator Dirksen. Do you wish a motion to accept his 
resignation?
    The Chairman. I don't think it is necessary. I have already 
done it.
    Senator Mundt. As long as they were never confirmed, you 
don't need a motion.
    Senator Potter. What about the other one, Mr. La Venia?
    The Chairman. Well, on Tom, if there is any dispute about 
him, I would like to have him come in here and just tell us 
what it is.
    Senator Symington. May I make a suggestion on that? I think 
the army ought to come in and tell us in executive hearing, or 
the Defense Department.
    The Chairman. They refused to do it. I have asked them to 
do it.
    Senator Symington. I think that they ought to.
    The Chairman. I wrote Charlie Wilson about it.
    Senator Jackson. The thing to do at this point would be, 
Mr. Chairman, to vote on the resolutions, the substitute and 
the one offered by Senator Potter. I think that in view of the 
La Venia situation, so that we not single anyone out, that we 
have a twenty-four-hour waiting period here so that these 
people can come in and we can talk with them, and find out the 
story. In other words, if we approve all but some here today, 
those names will be hanging fire, and it would single them out 
in the press.
    Senator Dirksen. Now Roy Cohn's resignation is here. And 
Surine's resignation has been accepted.
    The Chairman. Yes, and he is no longer on the committee 
payroll and he is now on my office staff.
    Senator Dirksen. That is Surine. Now, is the resignation a 
matter of record, or will it be here?
    The Chairman. It should be here right now.
    Senator Potter. You have stated it and it is a matter of 
record.
    The Chairman. You can make that a matter of record that Don 
Surine is no longer on the committee payroll, and he has been 
removed from the committee payroll and he is now on my office 
staff payroll.
    I have accepted Roy Cohn's resignation.
    Senator Dirksen. That leaves Tom La Venia for the moment.
    Senator Potter. I think in order that we be working in 
orderly fashion, let us act on my motion now, and I so move.
    The Chairman. I think we have a good thought here, but I 
think that Senator Dirksen has an amendment to it which might 
be well. If you could go ahead and approve all of the staff and 
if some other member of the staff is not agreeable we will get 
rid of them later.
    Senator Dirksen. I would like to outline for everybody 
here, number one, I am going to withdraw my substitute, and 
that leaves your motion before the committee. Number two, I am 
going to move to insert the words ``without prejudice.''
    Senator Potter. I will accept that.
    Senator Dirksen. Number three, the action comes on your 
motion. Number four, I shall then move that we confirm all 
members of the staff except Tom La Venia. We must accept the 
resignations first.
    The Chairman. I have accepted those, and that is out of the 
way.
    Senator Dirksen. We can formally accept them.
    The Chairman. There is no reason to accept it because Don 
Surine is no longer on the payroll and Roy Cohn is no longer on 
the payroll.
    Senator Dirksen. It might be well to just make formal 
recognition of the matter.
    The Chairman. Except they are no longer on the payroll. I 
have taken them off.
    Senator Mundt. To obviate that problem, I move we confirm 
the following members of the staff
    Senator Jackson. Then you single him out.
    Senator Potter. That has already been done.
    Senator Jackson. I would rather that you let this thing go 
over, and adopt the motion.
    Senator Mundt. When do we ever decide about La Venia?
    Senator Jackson. If you bring him over now, I want to make 
my position clear for the record.
    The Chairman. He wants to come over, and he wants to be 
voted in or out. Let me say this: Tomorrow we will have no more 
information about La Venia than we have today. I have begged 
the Defense Department to give us information about him. I have 
gotten the FBI report, and I can give you exactly what is in it 
and I would like to got rid of La Venia's case today, and 
either vote him off the committee or on the committee.
    Senator Potter. It puts the members of the committee in an 
embarrassing position to vote confirmation, when you don't have 
security clearance.
    The Chairman. I do not care whether you vote him on or off, 
Senator, I shouldn't say that, because I do care, but you will 
have more information tomorrow or the next day. The FBI will 
give us no further information, and they say all they have 
against him is this meeting he attended.
    Senator Jackson. We can find out from him what derogatory 
information he can give us about himself. We can ask the FBI or 
security and Defense Department, ``Do you have any other 
information than that which we have?''
    The Chairman. The Defense Department will give us nothing 
at all, and I think what we should do--if this is proper, 
Senator Dirksen--see if this is proper that on La Venia we gain 
nothing by waiting a week or two weeks, and why not bring him 
over and put him under oath, and let him be sworn here and tell 
us what these facts are.
    Senator Dirksen. Why the hurry about it today?
    The Chairman. Because if he isn't confirmed today, we have 
that thing hanging over our head.
    Senator Jackson?
    Senator Jackson. If you follow my suggestion that problem 
won't exist, that we act on the Potter resolution with the 
Dirksen amendment, and approve that. Then we can interview La 
Venia and go into this thing and find out about it. Then 
confirm the staff tomorrow or the next day.
    Senator Dirksen. If we don't confirm, then you have a 
hiatus, of course, and as I indicated in the earlier meeting, I 
didn't think that that was fair. I don't want to hurt him, but 
I can see that this is a special case because it has been on 
the front page, the clearance was sought and it wasn't gotten 
and it does put it in a special class. I would be the last to 
hurt Tom La Venia, but on the other hand I don't want to hurt 
him further by precipitate action.
    Senator Potter. I will renew my motion and accept the 
Dirksen Amendment.
    Senator Dirksen. First of all, if we want to take action on 
the resignation, all right, although normally I respect that 
the resignation goes to the chairman and he accepts it.
    Senator Mundt. Why not someone move that we approve the 
action of the chairman?
    Senator Dirksen. I don't think it is quite the proper thing 
to do.
    Senator Jackson. It is whatever the chairman wants to do, 
but let us not get into a committee action.
    Senator Dirksen. I am going to ask unanimous consent to 
withdraw my substitute, so if there is no objection, Mr. 
Chairman, then the substitute motion which I offered is 
withdrawn.
    Now I offer an amendment to the motion submitted by Senator 
Potter, to include the words ``without prejudice'' after the 
word ``termination.''
    Senator Potter. I will accept the amendment.
    The Chairman. It will be so amended then.
    Senator Potter. Now, the action is on agreeing to the 
motion.
    [The motion follows:]

    Whereas, the Rules of the Subcommittee as amended January 
1954, provide for confirmation by a Subcommittee majority of 
all staff appointments, and
    Whereas, no such confirmation has been effected,
    Therefore, I move that as of July 31, 1954, all present 
staff appointments shall automatically terminate without 
prejudice except in those individual instances where a 
Subcommittee majority in formal session shall have voted such 
specific confirmation prior to that date.

    The Chairman. All in favor say ``aye.'' Opposed? It is 
unanimously carried.
    Senator Symington. At the right point could I make Senator 
McClellan's proxy a part of the record?
    The Chairman. It will be accepted.
    [The proxy follows:]

Hon. Joe McCarthy,
Chairman, Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, Senate 
        Office Building, Washington, DC.
    Dear Mr. Chairman: I hereby give to Senator Stuart Symington my 
proxy, and authorize and direct him to use and vote same in favor of 
the resolution now pending by Senator Potter, which in substance reads 
as follows:
    ``Whereas the rules of the Subcommittee as amended January, 1954, 
provide for confirmation by a subcommittee majority of all staff 
appointments, and whereas no such confirmation has been effected, 
therefore I move that as of July 31, 1954, all present staff 
appointments shall automatically terminate except in those individual 
instances where a subcommittee majority in formal session shall have 
voted such specific confirmation prior to that date.''
    I also give to Senator Stuart Symington my proxy, and authorize and 
direct him to vote same against any substitute for the Potter 
Resolution, including the one offered by Senator Dirksen which is now 
pending, and which read in substance as follows:
    ``On or before July 22, 1954 the Chairman shall call a meeting of 
the Subcommittee and the individual names of all staff members of the 
Committee shall be submitted to the Subcommittee for confirmation, and 
in the case of those members where confirmation may be denied, such 
action shall not be final and conclusive without a hearing before the 
Subcommittee if a hearing is demanded,''
    And against any other substitute which may be offered therefor, and 
I direct him to vote for or against any amendment that may be offered 
to the Potter Resolution according to his discretion.
                                            /s/s John L. McClellan.

    Senator Dirksen. Now I move you that all of the staff 
positions, and the incumbents with the exception of Thomas La 
Venia, who has the status of assistant counsel, be confirmed by 
the committee.
    The Chairman. Is there any second on that motion?
    Senator Mundt. Second the motion.
    Senator Jackson. Chairman, I find myself perhaps in rather 
an unusual role, but I do believe that the better course to 
follow at this point would be to defer action implementing the 
Potter Resolution, which was just passed, until a regular 
meeting of the committee, say tomorrow afternoon. In the 
meantime I would like to suggest that the committee at another 
place free from unnecessary publicity, interview Mr. La Venia. 
With all due deference to my friend from Illinois, I think the 
effect of the pending motion would be to single Mr. La Venia 
out. It does disturb me, and I wouldn't want to single him out 
when it is not necessary to do so.
    Senator Potter. There is no place where you can have a 
quiet meeting.
    Senator Dirksen. I was going to move after this motion that 
the chairman be directed to call a meeting as quickly as 
possible, for the purpose of hearing Mr. La Venia.
    Senator Mundt. The committee could officially request the 
FBI and the Defense Department to give us that information if 
they will. I think it should be committee action.
    Senator Potter. They have already turned us down twice.
    Senator Mundt. We have never voted. I did it on my own, as 
chairman of the other committee, twice, and our chairman did it 
and we can send him a copy of the resolution.
    Senator Potter. Why cannot someone in the Department of 
Defense come to us in executive session and tell us what it is.
    Senator Dirksen. My motion is pending.
    The Chairman. Your motion has been made and seconded and I 
find myself in the unusual position of both agreeing with you 
wholeheartedly, and also agreeing with Senator Jackson.
    Senator Jackson. I think we ought to exhaust it anyway. 
This problem is going to come up again, and I see no harm in 
doing it, because I do not want to do any harm to anyone on the 
staff, and the worst thing that you could do today would be to 
bring him over here. They are going to have his picture all 
over, and he has been mentioned along with some other names.
    Now you will single him out.
    Senator Mundt. You could sneak him into the room through 
one of the doors here.
    Senator Symington. I don't want to vote on a fellow to stay 
on the committee who hasn't been cleared. I agree with Senator 
Dirksen on that. I don't want to vote on anybody who hasn't 
been cleared, but I think that we have the right to consider 
it.
    Senator Mundt. Will you vote for my amendment to request 
him to bring it up?
    Senator Symington. All right.
    Senator Mundt. That isn't going to hurt La Venia any more 
than he has been hurt.
    Senator Symington. I think that we have a right to demand 
of the War Department or the Department of Defense, in an 
executive hearing they give this committee any information they 
have.
    Senator Jackson. I think he is entitled to this.
    Senator Symington. Then we might decide whether we wanted 
to lay the facts before the public, and keep the man on, and 
you might want to make some special regulation about special 
papers.
    The Chairman. Here is the thing about his case that is very 
unusual. He had security clearance from the Defense Department 
in 1952, which was seven years after the incident, when he was 
with OPS. Why they would give him security clearance with OPS 
and then suddenly decide to deny it with our committee is 
rather difficult to understand. I think that we should ask them 
to explain that.
    I will go along with your motion, Senator Dirksen.
    Senator Mundt. Can't you stick in an amendment to your 
motion which will say about La Venia the same as these other 
men, ``except La Venia, who is passed over without prejudice''?
    Senator Jackson. What is the harm of letting this thing go 
over until tomorrow? I will vote as far as I am concerned, for 
approval of all of them except La Venia at this time.
    Senator Mundt. I think there is a lot of merit in what 
Senator Dirksen says, as far as the rest of the staff members 
are concerned.
    The Chairman. What you should do, somehow, in that motion, 
I wish you could amend it to make it clear that you are not 
making any adverse decision against La Venia.
    Senator Mundt. ``Except Tom La Venia, who is passed over 
without prejudice until further investigation.''
    Senator Dirksen. I move you, Mr. Chairman, that all staff 
members with the exception of Mr. Thomas La Venia, assistant 
counsel, be confirmed, and that in the case of Thomas La Venia 
the committee take action upon him as quickly as information in 
response to committee inquiry has been obtained from the 
appropriate sources in government.
    Senator Mundt. Seconded.
    The Chairman. Is there any further discussion?
    Senator Jackson. I think we ought to talk to La Venia and 
ask him about it.
    Senator Potter. That would be part of the information. You 
plan on talking to La Venia.
    The Chairman. Can I put it to a vote now?
    Senator Jackson. Why don't we ask him whether he has any 
objection to being singled out on this thing? I think you ought 
to call him in.
    The Chairman. He would like to come up today, and to be put 
under oath and have this voted up or down.
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I will say this: if you feel 
that La Venia's rights are being properly protected under this 
motion, I will go along with it. My own personal judgment is 
that looking at this resolution and this notion realistically 
devoid of the verbiage in it, that he is going to be singled 
out unnecessarily. However, if the chairman feels that this 
procedure is all right, I will go along on it. But I have great 
reluctance in doing so.
    The Chairman. May I say this, Senator Jackson and Senator 
Dirksen, that I have great reluctance also because I am afraid 
it is singling La Venia out.
    However, if we do not pass the Dirksen motion, it means 
that all of the staff are up in the air and do not know what 
they are doing. I don't know what you can put in there, but 
could you make it very clear that this is no reflection upon La 
Venia?
    Senator Dirksen. I move that with the exception of Mr. 
Thomas La Venia, assistant counsel to the committee, all staff 
members be confirmed, and in the case of Thomas La Venia that 
he be passed over without prejudice until such time as the 
committee can hear him and develop whatever information may 
have a bearing upon the controversy that arose in connection 
with Mr. La Venia.
    Senator Mundt. I second the motion.
    The Chairman. Are you ready for a vote on this?
    All those in favor say ``aye.'' Opposed?
    It is passed unanimously.
    Senator Symington. Could we say there that Senator 
McClellan did not participate in the vote?
    The Chairman. Let us leave it open so that he can send in 
his proxy if he wants to.
    It is unanimously agreed that Senator McClellan can vote 
his proxy on this particular motion, if he cares to do so.
    Senator Mundt. The same understanding can prevail for this 
motion. I move that the chairman write a letter to Mr. 
Secretary Wilson, and to Attorney General Brownell, briefly 
reviewing the situation concerning Tom La Venia, and requesting 
that they send representatives to appear before us in executive 
session to give us detailed information which led to the 
failure to give defense clearance to Tom La Venia.
    Senator Dirksen. Second the motion.
    The Chairman. The motion has been made and seconded that we 
request the FBI and the Defense Department to give us the 
information which they have, which might bear upon any reason 
for refusal of security clearance for Mr. La Venia.
    Senator Dirksen. ``And such background as may be available 
to explain why in connection with his employment in the Office 
of Price Stabilization in 1952 he apparently received 
clearance, whereas subsequently clearance was withheld.''
    The Chairman. The motion is made and seconded. All those in 
favor say ``aye.'' Opposed, ``no.''
    The motion is unanimously carried.
    Senator Jackson. I have a motion I want to make. I move 
that only those employees who have been approved by the 
subcommittee shall work on the subcommittee, and only those 
employees shall have access to the files and information of the 
subcommittee.
    The Chairman. Would you re-state the motion, please?
    Senator Jackson. Mr. Chairman, I move that only those 
members of the staff who have been approved by the subcommittee 
shall serve on the staff and have access to files and 
information of the subcommittee on investigations. This motion 
is being made with the understanding that it is in no way to be 
construed as prejudicial to the pending case of Thomas La 
Venia.
    Senator Mundt. Second the motion.
    The Chairman. The motion is made and seconded.
    Before you vote on it, let me make it clear that I do get 
information, and I get advice, and I get assistance by way of 
letter from other people.
    Senator Jackson. I construe that to be a personal matter 
that you refer to. That is entirely different. I am talking 
about people who are covered in that motion.
    It is any type of investigating work, or any kind of work 
that comes within the supervision of the director of the staff 
and work on the staff. It is not intended to be directed at 
anybody.
    The Chairman. This would not prevent someone in your office 
from having the right to go down and represent you and inspect 
the files, and from Senator Dirksen's office, and so on.
    Senator Symington. It should be.
    Senator Jackson. I don't want anyone from my staff to go 
down.
    The Chairman. I just wonder, I don't feel strongly about it 
at all, but I just wonder if you will find that if Senator 
Dirksen, for example, wants to send Mr. Rainville to a hearing, 
as he has done so often before, and if Senator Potter wants to 
send his man as he has so often before----
    Senator Potter. That would not preclude that, and I send 
them as an observer.
    Senator Jackson. I don't think that they ought to go to 
executive sessions. Anybody coming to a public hearing.
    Senator Symington. The whole basis of your security picture 
is that people who are not cleared can not see the material and 
people who are cleared can see the material.
    Senator Mundt. I think it is a good resolution. In the 
other meetings, while I had an administrative assistant I would 
not let him stay in the executive sessions.
    Senator Symington. I had to have carried to me and carried 
away from me certain documents because my girl was not yet 
cleared, and when she was cleared then she could stock them for 
me.
    The Chairman. Unfortunately, we cannot get clearance for 
the staff.
    We could add, ``This shall not preclude the qualified 
administrative assistant of a member of the committee from 
attending such a hearing.''
    Senator Jackson. Let me comment on that. If you send 
someone to a subcommittee meeting, and it is an executive 
session, and something comes up that is of a classified nature, 
and your assistant is not cleared, where are you? I am not 
going to be put in that position.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    Senator Mundt. This is on the proposed resolution for 
funds.
    [The resolution follows:]

  Proposed Resolution for Reimbursement of Funds Proposed by Special 
                              Subcommittee

    Whereas the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
of the Committee on Government Operations has incurred 
extraordinary expenses as a result of the recent inquiry 
conducted by a Special Subcommittee of such Permanent 
Subcommittee with respect to certain charges made by the 
Secretary of the Army suggesting improper influence on the part 
of the Chairman of such Permanent Subcommittee, and certain 
members of the staff of such subcommittee, and certain counter 
charges made by said Chairman suggesting coercion on the part 
of said Secretary, and certain other personnel of the 
Department of the Army, to halt the work of such Permanent 
Subcommittee; and
    Whereas such extraordinary expenses as a result of such 
hearing make necessary additional funds in order that the 
Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations will be able to 
carry out its functions; and
    Whereas it was unanimously agreed by such Special 
Subcommittee headed by Senator Mundt, that it would ask the 
Senate to reimburse the Committee on Government Operations for 
the exact amount of the expenditures necessitated by its 
special investigation growing out of such charges and counter 
charges rather than to request in advance a separate fund to 
meet the estimated costs of the Investigation; Now therefore be 
it
    Resolved, That the Committee on Government Operations, or 
any duly authorized subcommittee thereof, is hereby authorized 
to expend from the contingent fund of the Senate $24,605.67, in 
addition to the amount, and for the same purposes and during 
the same period, specified in Senate Resolutions 189, Eighty-
third Congress, agreed to February 2, 1954.

  Expenses Incurred During Investigation and Hearings of the Special 
                        Investigation Committee

    Amplifier used in Caucus Room.............................   $450.00
    Salaries for special staff................................ 13,880.25
    Recording Proceedings.....................................  9,592.50
    Open and executive--5 copies..............................        --
    Witness fees..............................................    198.67
    United States Marshal (Serving Subpoenas).................     40.90
    Stationary Supplies.......................................    250.00
    Pads, pencils, stencils, mimeograph paper and 
      addressograph plates....................................        --
    Photostats................................................    100.00
    Telephone and Telegraph Charges (estimated)...............     93.35
                    --------------------------------------------------------------
                    ____________________________________________________

            Total.............................................$24,605.67

    Senator Dirksen. I move its adoption.
    Senator Mundt. Seconded.
    The Chairman. All in favor say ``aye.'' Opposed, ``no.''
    It is carried.
    I move Senator Mundt be authorized to introduce the 
resolution as a unanimous resolution of the subcommittee.
    Senator Dirksen. Seconded.
    The Chairman. All in favor say ``aye.'' Opposed?
    It is carried unanimously.
    Senator Jackson. Is it understood that the motion I made 
will be acted on or brought up for vote prior to the 
adjournment of Congress?
    The Chairman. With the further understanding that you will 
try and refine the language of that so that during the recess 
if a senator wants his representative present at a meeting, 
that he will be allowed to have him present.
    Senator Jackson. Provided that individual can get the 
clearance required for the meeting.
    Senator Dirksen. This is an anomaly, to have a non-cleared 
member sit with cleared members. It is a little difficult to 
explain, and I think that we have got to work out some kind of 
a mode of operation there to meet that.
    The Chairman. Could we pass a resolution here today 
requesting the attorney general to have the FBI give clearance 
or deny clearance to all members of the staff, and submit that 
as a Senate resolution?
    Senator Dirksen. I wouldn't do it that way.
    Senator Symington. Let me see if I haven't got an answer to 
that. We now have clearance of every member of the staff except 
La Venia by the Department of Defense.
    Senator Jackson. That is members of the staff that need it. 
There are some who don't need it.
    Senator Symington. I believe every member is cleared. From 
the standpoint of the thought that I am trying to make, I 
believe that is a little bit in semantics.
    The Chairman. I have instructed the staff to quit 
requesting clearance from the Defense Department since we are 
investigating the Defense Department. I felt that it was 
ridiculous to ask the Defense Department to clear people who 
were investigating the Defense Department.
    Senator Jackson. I wouldn't disagree with you on part of 
that. I think we are in an anomalous situation. The Mundt-
Jackson bill will solve the problem.
    Senator Symington. Will you let me finish my thought? If 
you have a Defense Department clearance, or any other second-
best clearance to the FBI, whatever the clearance is that you 
get for your staff people certainly you have the right to get 
for your own personal people, the people who see the same 
papers. And therefore, if you do not get an FBI clearance for 
your own office and you don't get it for your staff, but you do 
get it for your staff from Defense, certainly you have the 
right to have it for your personal office people. Then you are 
entirely protected because you can say I got from the executive 
department all of the clearance that the executive department 
would give on these people.
    In other words, if you can't get it from the FBI, for 
either, and you can get it from defense for both, then you are 
in as good a position as the executive department will let you 
be, from the standpoint of secret papers. I don't see how there 
could be any criticism.
    Senator Dirksen. This is an individual matter, and I think 
every member of the committee who wants to send somebody, and 
has a particular person in mind, ought to take the trouble to 
send a letter and get clearance.
    Now, I have never bothered to get clearance.
    The Chairman. You cannot get it.
    Senator Dirksen. I think that I should do it if I ever want 
to use it.
    The Chairman. You can't get clearance. Mr. Brownell takes 
the position that they don't have the facilities to grant 
clearance to the members of office staffs, or committee staffs. 
I cannot get them to give me a field investigation of someone 
that we asked to have hired on this committee, which is awfully 
bad.
    I think the Mundt-Jackson bill will take care of that.
    Senator Dirksen. I don't think that there would be any 
objection to this, and I will ask Senator Jackson to listen to 
this: I move you that the chairman be directed to address a 
letter to the attorney general, and to the secretary of 
defense, asking them whether it is possible for them to work 
out a method whereby individual senators can secure clearance 
for at least one member, particularly an administrative 
assistant, who would then be qualified to sit in on the 
hearings of the committee.
    When we have that information, we will be in far better 
condition.
    Senator Mundt. I wish you would make it two members instead 
of one.
    Senator Dirksen. Make it members without specifying.
    Senator Jackson. I would make it two. That would be the 
administrative assistant or an executive secretary.
    Senator Mundt. Seconded.
    The Chairman. All in favor say ``aye.'' Contrary ``no.''
    It is carried unanimously.
    The Chairman. We will adjourn now.
    [Whereupon, at 2:00 p.m., the committee recessed subject to 
call.]


   SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE IN DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENTS AND INDUSTRIES

    [Editor's note.--In November 1953, the subcommittee began 
investigating Communist activity at a General Electric plant in 
Schenectady, New York, which did contract work for the Army 
Signal Corps. Testifying in public on November 19, former GE 
employee William H. Teto had said that the FBI asked him to 
join the Communist party in 1941, and that he had observed 
Communist efforts to ``colonize all the General Electric 
plants'' during the war. Senator McCarthy then demanded that GE 
immediately fire any employee who took the Fifth Amendment 
while testifying before a congressional committee. On December 
9, GE announced that it would ``discharge all admitted 
Communists, spies and saboteurs and will suspend employees who 
refuse to testify under oath to such matters when queried in 
public hearings conducted by competent government authority.'' 
Among those whom the company discharged were Victor Boyls, 
Theodore Pappas, and Alexander Gregory.
    On December 17, 1954, a Boston grand jury indicted Harvard 
physics professor Wendell H. Furry (1907-1984) and a research 
assistant in social relations, Leon J. Kamin, for refusing to 
identify Communists they knew who were employed in defense 
work. Senator McCarthy was subpoenaed to testify at Kamin's 
trial, but when crowds cheered the senator's arrival, federal 
judge Bailey Aldrich (an Eisenhower appointee) dismissed the 
jury and heard the case himself. Judge Aldrich ruled that the 
subcommittee had no right to engage in a ``fishing expedition'' 
in the hope that something discreditable might turn up and 
acquitted Kamin on January 5, 1956. In June 1956, the 
government dropped its prosecution of Furry, who remained at 
Harvard until his retirement in 1977. Kamin later chaired the 
psychology department at Princeton University.
    Leon Kamin, Theodore George Pappas (1925-1977), Alexander 
Gregory (1907-1981), Victor Boyls; Benjamin Alfred (1906-1993), 
and Wendell Furry testified in public session on January 15 and 
16, 1954. Executive session testimony by Kamin and Furry was 
made public on March 31, 1955. Executive session testimony by 
Pappas, Gregory, Boyls, and Alfred were made public on November 
17, 1955. Karl T. Nabeshka, Simon Pallet (1912-1988), Lewis B. 
Thomas (1896-1970), Edwin Allen Cassano, Renaldo Cavalieri, 
Rodney Avram Brooks, and George Frederick Moore (1923-2001) did 
not testify at a public hearing.]

                        FRIDAY, JANUARY 15, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                        Boston, MA.
    The subcommittee met at 10:00 a.m. (pursuant to Resolution 
40, agreed to January 30, 1953), in Court Room 3, Federal 
Building, Boston, Massachusetts, Senator Joseph R. McCarthy 
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; Donald F. 
O'Donnell, assistant counsel; C. George Anastos, assistant 
counsel; Francis P. Carr, executive director.
    The Chairman. The committee will come to order.

    [The testimony of Leon J. Kamin was made public on March 
31, 1955 and published in Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, Subversion and Espionage in Defense 
Establishments and Industry, part 9 (Washington, D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, 1955).]
    [Whereupon, at 10:20 a.m. the committee recessed, to 
reconvene at 10:30 a.m. in public session.]


                           afternoon session


    2:35 p.m.

    [Testimony by Theodore Pappas, Alexander Gregory, and 
Victor S. Boyls were made public on November 17, 1955 and 
published in Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, 
Subversion and Espionage in Defense Establishments and 
Industry, part 10 (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing 
Office, 1955).]

  TESTIMONY OF KARL T. NABESHKA (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, 
                      HOWARD S. WHITESIDE)

    The Chairman. Mr. Cohn?
    Mr. Cohn. I think you better spell your name.
    Mr. Nabeshka. K-a-r-l Thomas N-a-b-e-s-h-k-a.
    Mr. Cohn. N-a-b-e-s-h-k-a?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Could we have counsel's name for the record?
    Mr. Whiteside. Howard S. Whiteside, 30 State Street. 
Capitol 7-7515.
    The Chairman. Mr. Whiteside, I do not think you have 
appeared before the committee before.
    Mr. Whiteside. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Just to explain the rules of the committee, 
your client may consult with you at any time. If he does not 
indicate he wants to consult with you, if you think he needs 
your advice you may so indicate to him and discuss any matter 
at any time you care to. We do have a rule that counsel cannot 
take part in the proceedings themselves. In other words, if you 
want to make any objection, if you want to make any statement, 
it will have to be done through your client.
    Mr. Whiteside. Understood.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work at General Electric?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I think it was in March or April 1941.
    Mr. Cohn. And from that time until the present time have 
you ever done any work on air force jet contracts?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I did work for a period of four or five 
months, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. On jets?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Jets, that is right; 1944.
    Mr. Cohn. That was classified work, I assume?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Yes. I was a turret lathe operator, by the 
way.
    Mr. Cohn. At that time were you a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Nabeshka. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I was, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When were you in the Communist party?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I left in 1938, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you join, sir?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I joined the YCL, the Young Communist League 
after I got out of high school, I think it was in 1934 or 1935. 
The meetings they had there, they were composed of Marxist 
theory, mostly, and then I think they changed it to the 
Communist party afterwards. That is going back a long ways.
    Mr. Cohn. Then when that came to the party, you joined the 
party, is that correct?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Well, I still thought it was the YCL, do you 
know what I mean? But it was still the same thing as Marxist 
theory.
    Mr. Cohn. Where was this?
    Mr. Nabeshka. This was in Central Avenue and Lynn.
    Mr. Cohn. In Massachusetts?
    Mr. Nabeshka. West Lynn, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Did any of the people who were in this, who 
attended these meetings with you, subsequently go to work at 
General Electric?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I know of two, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are they there now?
    Mr. Nabeshka. One is out in Detroit, now. She got married. 
She worked in Building 74. She got married three or four years 
ago and went out to Detroit.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there classified work going on in that 
building?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I don't know. I imagine there was. She worked 
on motors, not jet motors but the electrical motors.
    Mr. Cohn. What was her name?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Helen G-a-l-u-b-u-r-d-a.
    Mr. Cohn. How about the second one?
    The Chairman. Do you know her married name?
    Mr. Nabeshka. No, I don't, sir.
    The Chairman. You don't know----
    Mr. Nabeshka. She married some refugee or DP. I forget now.
    The Chairman. Do you know whether she is working on 
government work now or not?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I don't know, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Who was the second person?
    Mr. Nabeshka. His name is Simon Pallet.
    Mr. Cohn. And he is working at General Electric now, isn't 
he?
    Mr. Nabeshka. That is right. He works with me on the same 
job, street lighting and rectifier.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody else?
    Mr. Nabeshka. To the best of my knowledge, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Is Mr. Pallet still a member of the Communist 
party? Do you know?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I don't know, sir. Like I said, I left in 
1938 and I haven't attended a meeting or anything since. I have 
had nothing to do with them.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you discussed your testimony here today with 
Mr. Pallet?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Well, we have talked a little bit out in the 
hallway, but that is all.
    Mr. Cohn. Was there anybody else who you knew in the 
Communist movement who went to work for any other defense 
plant?
    Mr. Nabeshka. No, sir, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Anybody else who went to work for the government 
or any kind of sensitive position?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Gee, you got me. I don't know.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever talked to the FBI?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Yes, sir; I talked to the FBI in the General 
Electric probably about a month or two before I was subpoenaed 
on November 18.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you furnish the FBI with this information?
    Mr. Nabeshka. They did not ask me.
    Mr. Cohn. If the FBI were to ask you now, would you be 
willing to give them all the information you have about the 
Communist movement, when you were in it, to assist them?
    Mr. Nabeshka. May I talk to the counsel, please?
    Mr. Cohn. Sure.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. Nabeshka. Anything that is pertinent to the General 
Electric, I will be glad to give any information whatsoever, or 
anything to do with government contracts, which I don't know 
anything of. But like I said before, I have been out of the 
party since 1938 and I don't know anything.
    Mr. Cohn. You cannot tell anything you don't know, but what 
you do know you now feel it is your obligation as an American 
citizen which you are willing to fulfill?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When you came in last time, you claimed the Fifth 
Amendment, is that right?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Since that time----
    Mr. Nabeshka. I didn't have any counsel, if you remember 
correctly.
    Mr. Cohn. You have now talked with counsel and you consider 
the proper course for you to follow as an American citizen 
would be to furnish whatever information you have about this 
movement you were in, and are out of now, to legally 
constituted authorities, is that right?
    Mr. Nabeshka. As far as defense work and the plant is 
concerned. But like I said before, there are a lot of names I 
don't remember or anything like that. 1938 is a long ways off.
    Mr. Cohn. Anything you cannot remember you obviously cannot 
tell. All you can do is tell what you can remember, and as I 
understand now, you are willing to do that. Is that right?
    Mr. Nabeshka. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. And you have given that information to us and you 
will give that to any other proper government body when you are 
asked, is that right?
    Mr. Nabeshka. That is right.
    The Chairman. Without searching the record, do you recall 
whether he claimed the Fifth Amendment as to communism as of 
that day?
    Mr. Cohn. Right.
    The Chairman. Had you consulted a lawyer before you 
appeared last time?
    Mr. Nabeshka. No, sir. Well, I did, I am sorry. I did talk 
to--yes, he was a lawyer. He was the UE lawyer at the time at 
the Union Hall, and I asked him a few questions.
    The Chairman. Did he advise you to take the Fifth 
Amendment?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Well, he didn't exactly advise me, but the 
way it looked then to me was that I should use the Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. May I just say for your benefit, the thing 
that puzzles me a bit and disturbs me somewhat is this: You 
certainly appear, on the surface, to be a truthful young man.
    Mr. Nabeshka. I try to be, sir.
    The Chairman. But we cannot judge men by their appearance. 
You were here the last time and you refused to tell us whether 
you were a Communist the day you appeared on the ground that if 
you were to tell us it might tend to incriminate you. GE 
thereafter said ``We will fire anyone who takes the Fifth 
Amendment on Communism.''
    You come in today and change that testimony. Do you change 
it in order to protect your job?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Sir, my family comes first, and my country 
and family come first as far as I am concerned. I figured at 
that time that my claiming the Fifth Amendment would be 
protecting somebody that is overseas behind the Iron Curtain, 
namely my sister.
    The Chairman. I understand.
    Mr. Nabeshka. I figure that any information I might give 
might become public or this and that, and they might do 
something to her. I haven't seen her since 1932.
    The Chairman. You have a sister behind the Iron Curtain 
now?
    Mr. Nabeshka. Yes, sir. She was brought up and born in this 
country. The last letter my mother got from her was she was 
living in Saransk, Mordovia, wherever that is--near the Ural 
mountains, I guess.
    The Chairman. You have been naturalized yourself?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I was born here and so was my sister.
    The Chairman. When did she go back?
    Mr. Nabeshka. She didn't go back. She went there to study 
music in 1932, sir.
    The Chairman. And she has been in Russia since 1932?
    Mr. Nabeshka. That is right.
    The Chairman. And one of the reasons, then, why you took 
the Fifth Amendment was you felt if you would start to give out 
names of Communists and that sort of thing, you might endanger 
the life of your sister?
    Mr. Nabeshka. That is right.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: I want to strongly 
advise you to either tell us the truth or refuse to answer. You 
were not at a Communist meeting in 1941?
    Mr. Nabeshka. No, sir.
    The Chairman. To be specific, November 14, 1941.
    Mr. Nabeshka. No, sir.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Nabeshka. To the best of my knowledge.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: Do you feel if you were 
called here in a public session that might possibly endanger 
the life of your sister?
    Mr. Nabeshka. It might. Then again, I want to spare my 
family any undue publicity. I am willing to cooperate in any 
way I possibly can. You understand what I mean, sir. I got a 
family. I have nothing to do with the party since 1938.
    The Chairman. Mr. Nabeshka, under the circumstances I do 
not think we will call you back. However, I wish you would be 
available here tomorrow morning at 10:30, in case we do want to 
call you. No one will know you are here, you understand, unless 
you tell them. You understand that?
    Mr. Nabeshka. I understand that.
    The Chairman. So I wish you would be back at 10:30. I think 
we can avoid calling you on that.
    Mr. Nabeshka. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. Mr. Pallet, would you raise your right hand. 
In this matter now in hearing before this committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes, sir; I do.

 TESTIMONY OF SIMON PALLET (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, HOWARD 
                         S. WHITESIDE)

    Mr. Cohn. Your name is spelled P-a-l-l-e-t?
    Mr. Pallet. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Simon?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And you reside at 83 Rockaway Street?
    Mr. Pallet. My address has been changed. It is 21 West 
Green Street.
    Mr. Cohn. And you have been with General Electric since 
1940?
    Mr. Pallet. I was hired the last day in 1940.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. When?
    Mr. Pallet. Back in 1937.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time?
    Mr. Pallet. About a year.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you belong to the Communist party?
    Mr. Pallet. In Lynn.
    Mr. Cohn. In Lynn. Who were the other members of the 
Communist party with you?
    Mr. Pallet. That is quite a long time for me to remember 
them all.
    Mr. Cohn. Give us as many as you can.
    Mr. Pallet. Well, this fellow you just saw.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Nabeshka?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes. And a fellow by the name of Cosores.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is he now?
    Mr. Pallet. I don't know. I don't believe he is in Lynn.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work was he doing the last you heard 
of him?
    Mr. Pallet. He was a Fuller Brush man, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. Did he ever work at General Electric?
    Mr. Pallet. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else?
    Mr. Pallet. His daughter.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else? What was Cosores' first name?
    Mr. Pallet. I think it was Herman.
    Mr. Cohn. Herman?
    The Chairman. How old a man was he, about?
    Mr. Pallet. Well, I would say probably he was around fifty 
or fifty-five.
    The Chairman. About fifty or fifty-five. And this was not 
the YCL, this was the Communist party?
    Mr. Pallet. That is right.
    The Chairman. Did Mr. Nabeshka belong to the Communist 
party with you?
    Mr. Pallet. Well, I can't say that he actually belonged. I 
have seen him at meetings. I would assume that he probably did.
    The Chairman. What were your duties in the party?
    Mr. Pallet. My duties? I was a rank and file member.
    The Chairman. All the members, of course, have some duties, 
so I understand. Did they distribute literature, solicit 
subscriptions?
    Mr. Pallet. I was asked to, but I never was the type that 
would do those things. I mean, they asked me to sell tickets. I 
am not the type of person that can sell tickets. Sometimes I 
would buy a few myself and turn in the money, but I wouldn't go 
out and sell them, because I wouldn't have the nerve to ask 
somebody.
    The Chairman. Do you have any relatives in the old country?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes.
    The Chairman. Whereabouts?
    Mr. Pallet. Well, I have an aunt, my mother's aunt, in 
Turkey. She is a nun in an infirmary, and I have another one 
the same way, but I think she is dead now.
    The Chairman. You have no relatives behind the Iron 
Curtain?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes, I have relatives behind the Iron Curtain, 
too. I had an uncle that died during the war and I have an 
aunt, I don't know where she is. I know she is in Russia. That 
is all. I also have another aunt, and she is in Persia, Iran.
    The Chairman. Where were you born?
    Mr. Pallet. I was born in Turkey.
    The Chairman. And you have been naturalized, of course?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes.
    The Chairman. What year were you naturalized?
    Mr. Pallet. I believe my mother was naturalized in 1929, 
and I became a citizen as a result of hers.
    The Chairman. Were you ever paid by the Communist party, 
ever paid money?
    Mr. Pallet. No, I was never paid.
    The Chairman. You paid dues, I assume?
    Mr. Pallet. Well, I think I did, yes.
    The Chairman. Why did you drop out of the party?
    Mr. Pallet. Well, that is kind of a hard question to 
answer. I just wandered off, I suppose. I can't give you a 
definite exact reason, I can't even tell you the exact time, 
but I just stopped going a little at a time. I mean, I did not 
tender a resignation or anything like that, if that is what you 
mean.
    The Chairman. How old were you when you joined?
    Mr. Pallet. About, I suppose twenty-seven or twenty-eight.
    The Chairman. And then you belonged to that for a couple of 
years and just let it lapse, is that it?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes. Well, I didn't belong quite two years, I 
don't believe it was a little over a year, probably closer to a 
year than two.
    Mr. Cohn. You have given us the name of Mr. Cosores and his 
daughter. What was his daughter's first name?
    Mr. Pallet. Rose.
    Mr. Cohn. And has she worked any place that you know of?
    Mr. Pallet. Well, she worked in a shoeshop with me back in 
1937.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did she go after that, do you know?
    Mr. Pallet. I don't think she worked after that.
    Mr. Cohn. Does she have a married name?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes she got married. It is either Apple or 
Applebaum, I don't know which.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did she reside?
    Mr. Pallet. She was in Lynn up until I think a couple of 
years ago.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else?
    Mr. Pallet. Well, her husband, that is, this Applebaum.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work did he do?
    Mr. Pallet. He used to work in GE up until about two years 
ago, I believe.
    Mr. Cohn. What has he been doing since then?
    Mr. Pallet. I don't know. They moved out.
    Mr. Cohn. Is he working at another GE plant now?
    Mr. Pallet. I don't know. I don't believe so. I am not 
sure.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't know one way or the other?
    Mr. Pallet. They moved away.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know to where they moved?
    Mr. Pallet. Well, I understand in California.
    Mr. Cohn. They are in California. Do you know if he is 
working in a defense plant in California?
    Mr. Pallet. I don't know if he is working at all. I don't 
know what he is doing.
    Mr. Cohn. What is his first name?
    Mr. Pallet. Sam or Samuel.
    The Chairman. Sam Applebaum?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. And who else?
    Mr. Pallet. Well those are the ones that I can remember 
definitely. I cannot exactly remember. If you give me a lot of 
time I might be able to think some, perhaps.
    The Chairman. Mr. Pallet, will you sit down tonight, if you 
would, and try to think of the names of anyone else who 
belonged to the Communist party with you? Keep in mind that 
perhaps in your opinion they were casual party members, as your 
testimony would indicate you were, who may have drifted in and 
drifted out. On the other hand, sometimes the names of 
individuals who used to belong to a cell with you ties in with 
evidence that the same individual was active, we will say, in 
Detroit or some place else. You can be of benefit to the FBI at 
times, and sometimes completely useless. What I wish you would 
do is to sit down tonight and try to think of the names of any 
other individuals who were in the party with you. We will not 
ask you to give their names publicly. The information will be 
given over to the bureau. Would you come back tomorrow at 
10:30? I do not think we will call you in public session, but 
we may want to. In any event, I want you to talk to my 
investigators tomorrow and get any additional information you 
may have. But the important thing is to sit down and try to 
think of the names of anybody in the party with you.
    Will you do that?
    Mr. Cohn. As the chairman indicated, if we do call you in 
public session, we will not have you name names publicly.
    Mr. Pallet. Will I be on television?
    The Chairman. No one need appear on television if they 
object to it. That is the general rule. You need not have your 
picture taken in the committee room or in any area over which 
the committee has jurisdiction. You need not appear on 
television if you object.
    I say I do not think you will be called in public session. 
Before you are called, your counsel can tell us whether you 
object to having your picture taken, whether you object to 
having your face on television, and if you object, you will not 
be on television. But I don't think that question will come up 
as I do not think we will need you. I want you to be here, 
though, to discuss any additional names which you may be able 
to think of overnight, with the staff. And as I say, though you 
may think it is completely unimportant, you never know when 
some names may be an important link in a chain of evidence 
which the bureau is developing. In other words, you may think a 
man is completely innocent as a dupe in 1938, but in 1948 he 
may be an espionage agent. So it is important information for 
us to have. Okay?
    Mr. Pallet. Yes. Are you referring to people that I know in 
the GE or in general, do you mean?
    The Chairman. Any Communists at all, anyone who was a 
member of the Communist party with you. I assume you do not 
follow them through, you do not know where they are today, you 
do not know whether they are in GE, or in the radar laboratory 
or where they are at. You do not know, I assume, whether they 
are all reformed, whether they have changed, or whether they 
are still active members of the Communist party. So if you will 
just sit down and try to think of the names of all of those who 
are members of the Communist party with you, we will talk to 
you tomorrow.
    You may step down. Be here tomorrow morning at 10:30.
    Would you stand up and raise your right hand? In this 
matter now in hearing before this committee, do you solemnly 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Thomas. I do.

                  TESTIMONY OF LEWIS B. THOMAS

    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Thomas, what is your full name, please?
    Mr. Thomas. Lewis B. Thomas.
    Mr. Cohn. That is L-e-w-i-s?
    Mr. Thomas. Right.
    Mr. Cohn. And may we have your address?
    Mr. Thomas. No. 11 Summit Circle.
    Mr. Cohn. I did not get that. Summit Circle?
    Mr. Thomas. Summit Circle.
    The Chairman. In view of the fact that you do not have a 
lawyer here, may I give you some advice. Number one, your name 
wasn't just picked out of a hat, you know.
    Mr. Thomas. A lawyer? I don't need any lawyers.
    The Chairman. Wait until I finish. In view of the fact that 
you do not have a lawyer here, let me advise you to either tell 
us the truth or refuse to answer.
    Mr. Thomas. If I tell you the truth, won't that be 
accepted?
    The Chairman. That certainly will be.
    Mr. Thomas. Okay.
    Mr. Cohn. You work at General Electric?
    Mr. Thomas. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there? About ten years?
    Mr. Thomas. Since 1943.
    Mr. Cohn. About ten years?
    Mr. Thomas. 1943.
    Mr. Cohn. 'Forty-three to 'fifty-three. Have you been 
cleared for classified work at any time?
    Mr. Thomas. Once. Do you mean defense work?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Thomas. Once.
    Mr. Cohn. That is when you were working in building 32?
    Mr. Thomas. Right.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Thomas. No.
    Mr. Cohn. You never have?
    Mr. Thomas. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever have a Communist party meeting at 
your home?
    Mr. Thomas. Not in my home, no.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever go to a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Thomas. If I did, I don't know about it. I have been to 
house parties, but I haven't had them at my house. You know to 
get together like.
    The Chairman. Mr. Thomas, I am not going to advise you how 
to testify.
    Mr. Thomas. I beg your pardon.
    The Chairman. Will you listen to me? I am not going to 
advise you how to testify. We are not anxious to have any more 
perjury cases to submit to the grand jury. Day after day we 
have men who come in here who think the committee does not know 
anything about their past activities. They come in here guilty 
of no crime. They leave guilty of the crime of perjury.
    Now, we have evidence before this committee that you have 
been a Communist, that you have had Communist party meetings at 
your home, that you have attended them. I want you to know 
that. I am going to advise you not to try to play with this 
committee. Either tell us the truth, or refuse to answer. You 
have the right to refuse to answer. Do not try to lie to us.
    Mr. Thomas. No.
    The Chairman. With that advice, we will just go right 
ahead.
    Mr. Thomas. I am not going to lie.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Thomas. If I have, I didn't know about it. I have been 
to parties.
    Mr. Cohn. Did anybody ever ask you to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Thomas. No, nobody ever asked me to join.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anybody who is a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Thomas. I don't know them by name. I know some fellows, 
but I don't know them by name.
    Mr. Cohn. Where does this fellow work?
    Mr. Thomas. I don't know, in Lynn somewhere.
    Mr. Cohn. How do you know he is a Communist?
    Mr. Thomas. Well, I just hear them talk. I don't know if 
they are Communists or not. I know I don't belong to it and 
that is all I know.
    Mr. Cohn. Does this fellow work at General Electric?
    Mr. Thomas. I think he does.
    Mr. Cohn. You think he does. And can't you think of his 
name for us?
    Mr. Thomas. Really, I can't.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you ever know his name?
    Mr. Thomas. Did I ever know his name?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Thomas. No, I don't know it.
    Mr. Cohn. Where did you hear him talk this way?
    Mr. Thomas. Well, I see him some time. I go out to taverns 
like.
    Mr. Cohn. Which tavern is this?
    Mr. Thomas. I go there some time and I hear him talk.
    Mr. Cohn. What is the name of this tavern?
    Mr. Thomas. They call it Finkel's, it is on the corner of 
Sheppard and Summit.
    Mr. Cohn. In Lynn?
    Mr. Thomas. In Lynn.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you see him last?
    Mr. Thomas. Really, I don't know. It has been a long time. 
I ain't been out much now. Maybe it is a couple of years or 
something.
    The Chairman. Mr. Thomas, if the information which we have 
is correct, you are not an important member of the Communist 
party. In fact, you are very unimportant if you are a member. I 
am not accusing you of being one. You see, we don't have any 
way of knowing whether you are telling the truth or whether the 
other witnesses who come and name you as a Communist are 
telling the truth. I do think that there is no reason as far as 
I can see that any one would come in and say you are a 
Communist, that Lewis Thomas is a Communist, unless they have 
seen him at meetings. Why would anyone come in here and tell us 
that you are a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Thomas. I would tell you. A man has a right sometimes 
if he wants to go some place. You can come to my house if you 
want to. And if I have something to drink or something to eat, 
you don't have to be a Communist if you come to my house, do 
you?
    The Chairman. No.
    Mr. Thomas. That is what I am talking about. I go places.
    The Chairman. Did you ever pay any dues to the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Thomas. I have not done that.
    The Chairman. Did you ever have a card issued to you by the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Thomas. No, I haven't.
    The Chairman. Did you obtain the Daily Worker over a period 
of time?
    Mr. Thomas. You mean did I get the paper?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Thomas. No, I never got the paper.
    The Chairman. Did it not come to your home?
    Mr. Thomas. I have seen it, but I never got it myself. 
Because I can't read myself, I don't need the paper.
    The Chairman. What kind of work do you do?
    Mr. Thomas. I can't help it, but I just can't read and I 
don't need no paper.
    The Chairman. What kind of work do you do in GE?
    Mr. Thomas. I work on motors, painting.
    The Chairman. What kind of motors?
    Mr. Thomas. Motors like they use in the shops.
    The Chairman. You do not know any technical work. What do 
you do, paint the motors?
    Mr. Thomas. Yes.
    The Chairman. How old are you?
    Mr. Thomas. Fifty.
    The Chairman. Are you married?
    Mr. Thomas. I am married, yes.
    The Chairman. You say you are married?
    Mr. Thomas. Yes.
    The Chairman. A family?
    Mr. Thomas. No. I have a daughter but she is married.
    The Chairman. Where does your wife work?
    Mr. Thomas. She is home with her mother now in Virginia.
    The Chairman. You say you are not now and never have been a 
member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Thomas. No, no.
    The Chairman. As far as you know you have never attended 
any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Thomas. As far as I know, I haven't been. I have been 
to house parties and things like that, and had fun, but just 
going for that I ain't never been, just going intentionally for 
that. You can believe me, I would not belong to it and I would 
not join it.
    The Chairman. You are excused from the subpoena. You are 
excused. You will not be called any further.

    [The testimony of Benjamin Alfred was made public on 
November 17, 1955 and published in Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, Subversion and Espionage in Defense 
Establishments and Industry, part 10 (Washington, D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, 1955).]

                TESTIMONY OF EDWIN ALLEN CASSANO

    Mr. Cohn. What is your full name?
    Mr. Cassano. Edwin Allen Cassano.
    Mr. Cohn. C-a-s-s-a-n-o?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you living out at 62 Howard Street in 
Haverdale?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And you have been with General Electric since 
1942?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And you have been cleared for classified work, 
particularly when you are working in Building 32?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. And our records indicate that you have been a 
subscriber to the Daily Worker, is that true?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. That is true?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. When did you subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Cassano. I would say it was either in 1946 or '47.
    Mr. Cohn. Who asked you to subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Cassano. Nat Mills.
    Mr. Cohn. Mr. Mills was working at General Electric until 
he was called before this committee and then suspended?
    Mr. Cassano. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. That is the Nat Mills you mean?
    Mr. Cassano. That is right.
    Mr. Cohn. Did Mr. Mills ask you to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Cassano. I don't think he ever asked me to join it 
outright.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't recall?
    Mr. Cassano. I don't recall.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't that the kind of thing one usually 
remembers?
    Mr. Cassano. No, I don't think so.
    Mr. Cohn. How many people have asked you to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Cassano. How many?
    Mr. Cohn. Yes.
    Mr. Cassano. None that I remember.
    Mr. Cohn. If Mr. Mills did, would it be true that you have 
read that?
    Mr. Cassano. I possibly would have.
    Mr. Cohn. Just possibly. Did you ever attend any Communist 
meetings with Mr. Mills?
    Mr. Cassano. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. We have some testimony here that Mr. Mills asked 
you on a number of occasions to join the Communist party. Is 
that testimony false?
    Mr. Cassano. I would say it was false.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you sure that Mr. Mills never asked you to 
join the Communist party?
    Mr. Cassano. I am pretty sure of it.
    Mr. Cohn. What other Communist activity besides subscribing 
to the Daily Worker did you do at the suggestion of Mr. Mills?
    Mr. Cassano. None.
    Mr. Cohn. Is that the only thing he asked you to do?
    Mr. Cassano. That is the only thing I did.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: The Daily Worker has 
been named under oath as the telegraph agency of the Communist 
party on a number of occasions, and named as the instrument of 
the Communist party. When you subscribed to it, did you know 
that was a Communist publication?
    Mr. Cassano. I knew it was a Communist party publication, 
yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Why did you subscribe to it?
    Mr. Cassano. I wanted to see what it was about. I heard so 
much about it and I never saw it.
    Mr. Cohn. Couldn't you have read it in the public library 
or something without contributing the money to it by 
subscribing to it?
    Mr. Cassano. I possibly could. I never knew it was in the 
library.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you subscribing to the Daily Worker in 
connection with any government work you were performing?
    Mr. Cassano. What was that again?
    Mr. Cohn. Why did you subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Cassano. I wanted to see what it was. I heard so much 
about it I wanted to see what it was.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know Mr. Mills was a Communist?
    Mr. Cassano. He said he was.
    Mr. Cohn. There was no secret about that?
    Mr. Cassano. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else in General Electric did you know to be a 
Communist besides Mr. Mills?
    Mr. Cassano. He is the only one I heard actually admit it. 
I have heard of others.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else do you believe is a Communist on the 
basis of what you heard?
    Mr. Cassano. Goodwyn.
    Mr. Cohn. Who else?
    Mr. Cassano. Riekskarsky.
    Mr. Cohn. So far you have named all people who have 
appeared before the committee and claimed the Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cassano. I have heard that Don Tommie was.
    Mr. Cohn. He is not working at GE any more, is he?
    Mr. Cassano. I don't know. I don't know the fellow.
    Mr. Cohn. Did you know he was a UE organizer at GE?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, I heard he was, in the papers.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of UE?
    Mr. Cassano. No, IUE.
    Mr. Cohn. You are a member of IUE?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you ever a member of UE?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. While it was a plant in the union?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. Then you changed over then to the IUE when it 
became the plant union?
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. When did IUE go in?
    Mr. Cohn. The last time it won was just a few weeks ago. 
1950 was the first time IUE came into the plant.
    The Chairman. Could I ask this: Over what period of time 
did you subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Cassano. I don't know. It was just a short time. I 
don't know whether it was three months, six months or whatever 
it was.
    The Chairman. You understand this committee does not 
consider it any crime to subscribe to a Communist publication. 
If you are subscribing to it to find out what the party line is 
and what they are standing for. Many people do that. It is 
another thing, of course, if you are engaged in Communist 
activities, if you are subscribing to it so that you will know 
what the party line is so that you can follow that party line. 
So when we ask you whether or not you have subscribed to the 
Daily Worker, that is no indication on our part that we think 
you have or have not been engaged in any improper conduct.
    However, when we find a man handling classified material, 
find him on the roll of a Daily Worker, naturally we want to 
call him in here and get some information. Is it your testimony 
that you have never joined the Communist party?
    Mr. Cassano. That is right.
    The Chairman. Never contributed any money to it?
    Mr. Cassano. That is right.
    The Chairman. Never were asked to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Cassano. Not that I recall.
    The Chairman. What was the occasion of your leaving the UE 
to join the IUE?
    Mr. Cassano. Well, they got defeated in the election and I 
got into the IUE.
    The Chairman. Have you ever discussed any classified 
material with anyone known to you to be a member of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Cassano. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cassano, I will have to ask you to come 
back tomorrow morning. We have testimony from other witnesses 
under oath which is in direct contradiction to yours. I don't 
know whether they are telling the truth or not, and I don't 
know whether you are telling the truth. Somebody here is not 
telling the truth. It is directly contradictory. I will have to 
take their testimony and yours and submit that to the Justice 
Department. It is not our job to determine who is lying.
    Mr. Cassano. What is that going to be, public?
    The Chairman. I don't know. I would suggest this, however: 
Keep in mind that to merely be a member of the Communist party 
is no crime under our laws.
    Mr. Cassano. I am not a Communist.
    The Chairman. Let me finish. I am not saying you are at 
all. I have never seen you before. It is not a crime if you 
were a member, unless you know that the party stands for the 
overthrow of this government by force and violence. I would 
suggest that you very carefully think over your testimony, and 
if, tomorrow morning your memory is refreshed, and you want to 
change it----
    Mr. Cassano. In which way?
    The Chairman. You just think over all of them, any 
questions about any Communist activities on your part.
    Mr. Cassano. I haven't had any Communist activity.
    The Chairman. I am not saying you have. I don't know.
    Mr. Cassano. I want to answer you now on everything.
    The Chairman. You understand as the chairman of the 
committee it is not my job to decide whether John Jones or Pete 
Smith is lying, but when the two witnesses come in and tell 
stories that are directly contra, I have no choice but to 
submit the testimony to the Justice Department.
    Mr. Cassano. Yes, I understand that, but I mean I don't 
want to get in front of no cameras or anything. I would rather 
settle everything.
    Mr. Cohn. Let's settle it now. Do you want to change any of 
the answers you have given?
    Mr. Cassano. No, sir. That is what I say.
    The Chairman. I am not trying to keep you in the dark about 
anything. We have witnesses who have testified that they were 
present on a number of occasions when you were solicited to 
join the Communist party.
    Mr. Cassano. That is what I can't remember. I don't know 
what you mean. To come right out and say join the Communist 
party? Nobody that I can recall ever asked me that.
    The Chairman. In any event, come back tomorrow morning and 
our investigator Mr. O'Donnell then will talk to you. You may 
or may not be called as a witness. I don't know. But he will 
want to talk to you in the morning. Make it 9:15 or 9:25.
    Mr. Cassano. 9:15?
    The Chairman. If you have difficulty----
    Mr. Cassano. I can make it. There are earlier trains.
    The Chairman. The time is not terribly important. If you 
would rather get a later train, we will make it later. Would 
you rather it be a later time?
    Mr. Cassano. No, any time, to get it over with.
    The Chairman. As I say, I do not know if we will call you 
tomorrow as a witness or just have the investigator talk to 
you. If you are here by eleven o'clock, that will be all right. 
And when you come in, see Mr. O'Donnell, will you?
    Mr. Cohn. He is the fellow who talked to you this 
afternoon.
    The Chairman. He is the same investigator you talked to 
before. You talk to him. He will tell you whether or not we 
want you to testify or whether he merely wants to get further 
information from you.
    In this matter now in hearing before this committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Cavalieri. Yes, sir; I do.

                 TESTIMONY OF RENALDO CAVALIERI

    Mr. Cohn. Can we have your full name?
    Mr. Cavalieri. Renaldo Cavalieri.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside?
    Mr. Cavalieri. 39 Senate Street, Malden, Massachusetts.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you work for General Electric?
    Mr. Cavalieri. Yes, sir; I do.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long?
    Mr. Cavalieri. Since 1948.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been a Communist?
    Mr. Cavalieri. No, sir; I have not ever been a Communist.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever attended a Communist meeting?
    Mr. Cavalieri. No, sir; I have not.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been asked to attend a Communist 
meeting?
    Mr. Cavalieri. Have I ever been asked to attend? Not within 
my recollection I have never been asked.
    Mr. Cohn. You don't recall?
    Mr. Cavalieri. No, sir; I do not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know any Communists working at General 
Electric?
    Mr. Cavalieri. The only ones that I know are those who have 
been mentioned in the newspapers. Other than those I don't know 
of any Communists in the General Electric.
    Mr. Cohn. No evidence of Communists at the General Electric 
plant has ever come to your attention?
    Mr. Cavalieri. No, sir.
    Mr. Cohn. By the expression of views on the part of anyone 
or anything like that?
    Mr. Cavalieri. I didn't hear you.
    Mr. Cohn. I say you haven't heard anybody say anything 
which would lead you to believe he was a Communist?
    Mr. Cavalieri. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Mr. Cavalieri, may I say that the fact that 
you were called here does not indicate, or should not indicate 
to you that the committee feels that you have been guilty of 
any misconduct of any kind. In the course of an investigation 
such as this, we receive a report that John Jones or Pete Smith 
or someone has given us information. We have had any number of 
good, loyal Americans here. We frankly do not have any 
information that you ever have been engaged in any Communist 
activities. We have received reports from several people to the 
effect that you might be able to give us some information about 
other individuals who are Communists. I just want to make that 
clear to you, that you have not been accused of any misconduct. 
You are sure at this time that you cannot give us any 
information?
    Mr. Cavalieri. I can honestly say, Senator, that the only 
information I know is that which I have ever seen in the 
newspaper.
    The Chairman. And you have never been asked by Mills or 
anyone else out there to join the Communist party?
    Mr. Cavalieri. No, sir. I don't even know him.
    The Chairman. I think that is all. You will be excused from 
the subpoena. Mr. Anastos here will tell you how to get your 
witness fees. No one will know you are here, unless you tell 
them you are here.
    Mr. Cavalieri. Thank you.
    The Chairman. The reason we do not give out the names of 
witnesses is that some people think merely because you are 
called indicates you are guilty of some misconduct, which is 
not true. Therefore, no names are given out.
    Mr. Cavalieri. Thank you very much.
    The Chairman. You will be excused from the subpoena.
    Would you raise your right hand and be sworn. In the matter 
now in hearing before the committee, do you solemnly swear to 
tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 
help you God?
    Mr. Brooks. I do.

                TESTIMONY OF RODNEY AVRAM BROOKS

    Mr. Cohn. What is your full name?
    Mr. Brooks. Rodney Avram Brooks.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside, Mr. Brooks?
    Mr. Brooks. At the present I am living at 33 Breed Street, 
in Lynn.
    Mr. Cohn. And what is your occupation?
    Mr. Brooks. Physicist.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you hold degrees?
    Mr. Brooks. I do.
    Mr. Cohn. From what university?
    Mr. Brooks. The University of Florida.
    Mr. Cohn. What year?
    Mr. Brooks. 1953.
    Mr. Cohn. And by whom are you employed?
    Mr. Brooks. General Electric Company.
    Mr. Cohn. At which plant do you work?
    Mr. Brooks. I am at present working in the River Works 
Plant.
    Mr. Cohn. What?
    Mr. Brooks. River Works Plant.
    Mr. Cohn. And have you worked at any other General Electric 
plant?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Where?
    Mr. Brooks. I have worked at the Schenectady works, I have 
worked at the Research Lab, and I have worked at Electronics 
plant.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have access to classified information?
    Mr. Brooks. I have.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you have a confidential clearance?
    Mr. Brooks. I don't know much about the status of my 
security right now.
    Mr. Cohn. Isn't it a fact that you have a confidential 
clearance and you are now being processed for secret clearance?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I don't believe so. I know that I had a 
clearance of some form. I don't know whether I still have a 
clearance or not.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know you are being processed for secret 
clearance?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I don't.
    Mr. Cohn. Well, you are. Let me ask you this: Have you ever 
resided at 1009 Cumberland Avenue, Syracuse?
    Mr. Brooks. I have.
    Mr. Cohn. With whom have you resided there?
    Mr. Brooks. The other residents there were Mrs. Lillien 
Reiner, Mr. Howard Reiner and Larry Reiner.
    Mr. Cohn. Was Mrs. Lillien Reiner a member of the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Brooks. I don't have enough information to answer that 
question.
    Mr. Cohn. What is your belief?
    Mr. Brooks. To my knowledge she is not.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she chairman of the American Labor party 
section in that community?
    Mr. Brooks. I don't know the answer to that question.
    Mr. Cohn. Is she active in the American Labor party in that 
community?
    Mr. Brooks. I don't know the answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Your testimony under oath is that you don't have 
any information on that.
    Mr. Brooks. I am saying I do not know whether or not she is 
active in the American Labor party.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know anything about her current 
connections with the American Labor party?
    Mr. Brooks. No real factual information, no. I have heard 
the party mentioned.
    Mr. Cohn. By her?
    Mr. Brooks. I believe so, and by--I believe so.
    The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact that the American 
Labor party split several years ago and the anti-Communist 
liberals left the party, leaving it in complete control of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Brooks. I am not aware of that fact.
    The Chairman. Had you ever heard of that?
    Mr. Brooks. I had not.
    The Chairman. Wasn't there a great deal of publicity at the 
time of this ALP, which had been named as a liberal party, when 
it broke up and the anti-Communists said ``We are leaving it 
and it is controlled by the Communist party''? Are you aware of 
that?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I wasn't aware of that fact.
    The Chairman. Are you aware of the fact that it had been 
named officially as the front for and doing the work of the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Brooks. I think I have seen its name on subversive 
lists.
    The Chairman. You say you had no reason to believe that the 
Reiners with whom you lived, were Communists?
    Mr. Brooks. That is what I said.
    The Chairman. As of today, you have no reason to believe 
they were Communists?
    Mr. Brooks. Would you repeat the question?
    The Chairman. I will be glad to.
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    Mr. Brooks. I have no reason to believe that that is 
correct.
    The Chairman. In other words, there was never any 
indication to you----
    Mr. Brooks. None whatsoever.
    The Chairman [continuing]. That they were Communists?
    Mr. Brooks. None whatsoever.
    The Chairman. Any indication that they were Communist 
sympathizers?
    Mr. Brooks. None whatsoever.
    The Chairman. Did you think it at all significant that Mrs. 
Reiner was an officer in an organization which had been named 
officially as completely controlled by the Communist party?
    Mr. Brooks. I am not sure of the fact she was an officer. I 
believe you asked me if she is now the chairman of the American 
Labor party and I said I don't believe so. It might be that she 
was at one time chairman of the American Labor party, although 
I would not swear to it, and it did not strike me as--well, I 
forget the word you used, but whatever that word was, it did 
not strike me that way.
    The Chairman. Significant?
    Mr. Brooks. Significant.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: As you know, the 
security officer at GE has a very difficult job. You know the 
definition of the classification of secret. I am sure you will 
agree with me that the handling of secret material is not a 
privilege that every American is entitled to, but it is a right 
accorded to those who are above suspicion. Under the definition 
of secret, any secret material that got into unauthorized hands 
could endanger this nation. Do you feel that an individual, 
let's say John Jones, instead of Rodney Brooks, let's say John 
Jones who is living with people who are active and one of them 
an officer, in an organization which is named, in effect, as an 
arm of the Communist party, do you think that such an 
individual should have access to our military secrets?
    Mr. Brooks. I see no reason why any person who has been 
judged trustworthy should not have access to any information 
which he pledges to safeguard.
    The Chairman. Well, you said judged trustworthy. Would you 
judge a man trustworthy to handle secrets if he were living 
with a person who is not only a member but an officer of an 
organization named as an arm of the Communist party, publicly 
named, over and over, since 1944? Would you say that he was 
trustworthy to handle secrets?
    Mr. Brooks. It would depend upon the person involved. I 
would not make a statement one way or the other just on that 
evidence.
    The Chairman. Would you consider that evidence against him 
or for him?
    Mr. Brooks. I would say that that evidence might imply that 
it should be looked into further, that the case should be 
looked into further, but I wouldn't say that that evidence 
should be used one way or the other.
    The Chairman. In other words, you would not consider that 
evidence for or against him.
    Mr. Brooks. I would not.
    The Chairman. What if he were living with a Communist? 
Would you consider that for or against him?
    Mr. Brooks. I don't think that the company a person keeps 
determines, necessarily determines his trustworthiness. If he 
were living with a Communist, he certainly should be 
investigated, but I don't see why he still could not be found 
trustworthy even though his friends are Communists.
    The Chairman. Let's say the investigation shows he is 
living with a Communist.
    Mr. Brooks. If that is all it shows, then I don't think he 
should be declared untrustworthy.
    The Chairman. Let's say in addition to that, in addition to 
living with a Communist, the investigation shows that he spends 
time writing in defense of a convicted espionage agent. Would 
you consider that evidence against him?
    Mr. Brooks. If you are referring to Morton Sobell, I don't 
believe that he was ever convicted as an espionage agent.
    The Chairman. He was convicted of conspiracy to commit 
espionage.
    Mr. Brooks. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Would you consider a man who lives with a 
Communist, who spends his time writing in defense of a man who 
was convicted of a conspiracy to commit espionage, as the type 
of individual who should be handling secret material, material 
affecting the life or death of this nation?
    Mr. Brooks. Since I can think of at least one case where 
that should not stand in his way of handling such information, 
I don't see any reason why that alone should preclude his 
handling security information.
    The Chairman. Just to get your thought on this, your 
thought is that if there is an investigation, if the 
investigation shows that Rodney Brooks, we will say, has been 
living with a Communist, and Rodney Brooks has been writing in 
defense of Sobell, who was convicted of conspiracy to commit 
espionage, you would say that is insufficient to bar him from 
handling secret material?
    Mr. Brooks. I would say that such a decision should be 
reached on the merits of the individual and not on the company 
he keeps.
    The Chairman. What else would you want? What would you want 
to find him doing before you would bar him?
    Mr. Brooks. That wouldn't be my job, to decide that.
    The Chairman. Well, we have to rely upon your judgment, you 
see, somewhat, if you are handling secret material. How many 
communists would you want him to be associated with before you 
would bar him?
    Mr. Brooks. That isn't material.
    The Chairman. It isn't material whether he associates with 
Communists?
    Mr. Brooks. I think that a person should not be allowed to 
handle security information if it can be proven or clearly 
shown that such information would be unsafe in his hands. The 
mere fact that he associates with Communists does not mean that 
he is going to turn that information over to Communists.
    The Chairman. In other words, you would have no objection 
to giving secret material to someone living with Communists, 
defending convicted espionage agents, is that correct?
    Mr. Brooks. I have no objection to the person, no.
    The Chairman. I think that states your position rather 
clearly. You were rather active in the defense of Sobell after 
he was convicted, were you not?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I was not.
    The Chairman. Did you write a number of times in his 
defense?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever write in his defense?
    Mr. Brooks. One letter I wrote could be construed as being 
in his defense, but I would not interpret it that way.
    The Chairman. Only one?
    Mr. Brooks. Only one.
    The Chairman. Did you ever write more than one letter in 
regard to Sobell?
    Mr. Brooks. I wrote two letters in regard to Sobell.
    The Chairman. Who did you write them to?
    Mr. Brooks. Editor of the Post Standard, Syracuse, New 
York.
    The Chairman. Did you write any other letters?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes, I wrote one other letter.
    The Chairman. Actually, you wrote more than three letters, 
did you not?
    Mr. Brooks. To the editor of the Post Standard?
    The Chairman. No, to anyone.
    Mr. Brooks. I thought you were talking about letters to the 
editor of the Post Standard. I have written many letters, yes.
    The Chairman. You wrote many letters in defense of Sobell, 
have you not?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I have written many letters. Would you 
repeat the question?
    The Chairman. How many letters have you written in regard 
to Sobell?
    Mr. Brooks. Two letters.
    The Chairman. Only two?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes.
    The Chairman. I am not talking about letters to newspapers, 
I am talking about letters to Communists or to non-Communists, 
or to newspapers, or to anyone else.
    Mr. Brooks. To the best of my recollection, I have never 
written any letters to any Communists and I have never 
mentioned the name Sobell in any letter other than the two in 
question. Although I would not swear to that fact. This is just 
the best of my recollection.
    The Chairman. Have you ever been asked to join the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Chairman. Did you think Sobell was innocent?
    Mr. Brooks. I have not reached any concrete opinion on it.
    The Chairman. Were you disturbed about the Sobell 
conviction?
    Mr. Brooks. I thought--yes.
    The Chairman. You felt what? You were disturbed about it?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes, I was.
    The Chairman. Were you disturbed about the Rosenberg 
conviction?
    Mr. Brooks. Somewhat.
    The Chairman. In other words, you didn't think they should 
have been convicted?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I didn't say that.
    The Chairman. Did you think they should be convicted?
    Mr. Brooks. I think the manner in which they were convicted 
was not according to the best American tradition.
    The Chairman. What did you object to in the manner of their 
conviction?
    Mr. Brooks. I felt that they were convicted during an era 
of hysteria, and it is no completely fair trial that can be 
held under such conditions.
    The Chairman. What did you want to do, wait and hold their 
trial later? How long did you want them to wait?
    Mr. Brooks. I didn't want them to wait.
    The Chairman. You said you objected because they were tried 
in an era of hysteria.
    Mr. Brooks. It is the hysteria I objected to.
    The Chairman. Do you think we are still in an era, do you 
think they would get a fair trial today?
    Mr. Brooks. I think the fact that this committee is in 
progress today is a good indication of the fact that we are in 
an era of hysteria.
    The Chairman. So that today you do not think they would get 
a fair trial?
    Mr. Brooks. It would depend upon the people conducting the 
trial, but under normal circumstances, I don't think anyone in 
that situation would stand a really fair chance of getting a 
fair trial.
    The Chairman. Judge Kaufman conducted the trial. Do you 
think he was unfair?
    Mr. Brooks. I would hesitate to condemn him. I read 
portions of the court record and there were places where I 
thought that he was perhaps being a little bit unfair.
    The Chairman. Before you condemned the conviction of the 
Rosenbergs, did you read the entire transcript?
    Mr. Brooks. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you not think that before you condemn a 
judge as being unfair----
    Mr. Brooks. I have not condemned him as being unfair.
    The Chairman. Do you think he was unfair?
    Mr. Brooks. I have not--would not want to say one way or 
the other. I do not censure him for being unfair and I wouldn't 
go out of my way to say he was fair. I don't know enough about 
his conviction of the trial to have a definite opinion.
    The Chairman. You said you thought because this committee 
was sitting in this investigation, I believe if I understood 
you correctly, that the Rosenbergs could not get a fair trial 
as of today. In what way do you think this committee could 
affect the Rosenberg trial?
    Mr. Brooks. I didn't say that, I don't believe.
    The Chairman. Maybe I misunderstood you.
    Mr. Brooks. I said I think the fact that this committee is 
operating at the present time is evidence of the fact that 
there is still an era of hysteria. I don't think I mentioned 
the Rosenbergs in connection with this committee.
    The Chairman. In other words, you think the fact that this 
committee is sitting is evidence of hysteria?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to that thought, certainly. 
Do you feel it is improper for senators who are elected to 
represent the American people, that it is improper for those 
senators to dig out and expose communism, espionage?
    Mr. Brooks. Since you asked, the answer is yes, because 
that isn't what they were elected for, according to the 
Constitution of the United States.
    The Chairman. You are entitled to that thought, certainly. 
Do you still live with the Reiners?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I don't. I live in Lynn, Massachusetts.
    The Chairman. Who do you live with now?
    Mr. Brooks. I am staying at a house owned, I believe, by 
Mr. William Pollard. I am not sure of the name.
    The Chairman. Mister what?
    Mr. Brooks. Mr. William Pollard. It is just a rooming 
house.
    The Chairman. A rooming house?
    Mr. Brooks. That is right.
    The Chairman. Who are your roommates?
    Mr. Brooks. I have no roommates. I have a single room.
    The Chairman. Who else lives in the house?
    Mr. Brooks. I don't know any other names of residents.
    The Chairman. How long have you lived there?
    Mr. Brooks. Approximately two months.
    The Chairman. How long since you left the Reiners?
    Mr. Brooks. Approximately two months.
    The Chairman. How do you spell that name Reiner?
    Mr. Brooks. R-e-i-n-e-r.
    The Chairman. How far from your place of work is the 
Reiners' residence?
    Mr. Brooks. A good ways. I don't know in miles, but--I 
believe it was three-quarters of an hour by bus.
    The Chairman. Would you care to tell us how come you made 
this connection with the Reiners?
    Mr. Brooks. I made the connection about twenty-one years 
ago. She is my aunt.
    The Chairman. She is your aunt?
    Mr. Brooks. That is right.
    The Chairman. And you say you do not know whether she is a 
Communist or not?
    Mr. Brooks. I do not have any factual information on the 
facts, although my belief is that she is not.
    The Chairman. Has she discussed communism with you?
    Mr. Brooks. No, she has not discussed communism with me.
    The Chairman. Did you know whether she ever attended any 
Communist meetings?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I don't. I don't believe she has.
    The Chairman. Did you ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Brooks. I have not.
    The Chairman. Has any member solicited you to join the 
party?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Chairman. Did you read the Sobell transcript?
    Mr. Brooks. Are you referring to the court record of the 
Rosenberg-Sobell case?
    The Chairman. Yes.
    Mr. Brooks. I read the portion pertaining to Sobell, yes.
    The Chairman. Did you read all of it?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I did not.
    The Chairman. You were urging a new trial for Sobell, you 
say a new trial for Morton Sobell would be a major step in 
restoring American prestige.
    Mr. Brooks. In Europe.
    The Chairman. Did you urge that without reading the 
transcript?
    Mr. Brooks. No. When I wrote that I had read the transcript 
pertaining to Sobell.
    The Chairman. I thought you said you did not read the 
entire transcript.
    Mr. Brooks. I did not read the entire transcript. I read 
the portion of the transcript pertaining to Sobell.
    The Chairman. I read the transcript. I am just curious as 
to how you could separate it. A great number of witnesses 
testified about both the Rosenbergs and the Sobells. How did 
you separate that testimony?
    Mr. Brooks. As I understand it, I believe there was only 
one witness who testified directly to any subversive activities 
of Sobell, and that portion of the testimony I read.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you refer to Max Elitcher?
    Mr. Brooks. That is correct.
    The Chairman. Is that all you read?
    Mr. Brooks. I glanced at other parts and read isolated 
portions in addition to that.
    The Chairman. And on the basis of that, you made a public 
attack?
    Mr. Brooks. No, not entirely upon the basis of that, but on 
the basis of other general information I had received.
    The Chairman. Did you get disturbed at the time the Nazi 
spies were executed back in 1942?
    Mr. Brooks. I don't believe I was old enough at that time 
to be disturbed. I certainly do not remember it very well.
    The Chairman. How old are you now?
    Mr. Brooks. Twenty-one.
    The Chairman. Did you ever get disturbed about any other 
trials, and make any public attacks on them?
    Mr. Brooks. I have never made any public attacks at all, 
previous to this. I have never made any public statements 
previous to this.
    The Chairman. In other words, the only trial that you 
became interested in was the conviction of the Rosenbergs and 
the Sobells?
    Mr. Brooks. Well, I would say it is the first trial that I 
became interested in.
    The Chairman. I think we should let the witness identify 
these documents. I will hand you two letters allegedly signed 
by Rodney Brooks. Will you glance at them and tell us whether 
or not you wrote those two letters?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes, I haven't checked them over in their 
entirety, but I would say they were.
    The Chairman. Did the Reiners help you write them?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Chairman. Did you get any help in writing them?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Chairman. No one helped you write those letters?
    Mr. Brooks. No, sir.
    The Chairman. Did you do the typing yourself?
    Mr. Brooks. I really don't remember--I believe both of them 
were typed, in which case I typed them myself.
    The Chairman. Where did you obtain the transcript of the 
Rosenberg-Sobell trial?
    Mr. Brooks. Mrs. Reiner has one.
    The Chairman. So you read her transcript?
    Mr. Brooks. I read portions of her transcript.
    The Chairman. Is that the transcript published by the 
National Committee to Free The Rosenbergs?
    Mr. Brooks. I don't believe so. I think it was published by 
some government agency, whichever one is in charge of 
publishing court records, but I don't remember clearly looking 
up the publisher.
    The Chairman. I think the record should show that the 
chairman is advised by counsel that the transcript was not 
published by any government agency, that the only publication 
was by the National Committee To Free the Rosenbergs.
    Do you know if Mrs. Reiner was a member of that committee?
    Mr. Brooks. No, I do not know.
    The Chairman. Did she ever tell you she was?
    Mr. Brooks. If she had told me, and I had read it, I would 
know. I don't remember her telling me.
    The Chairman. Did you ever join the committee?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Chairman. Ever contribute money to them?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join them?
    Mr. Brooks. I never asked to join it, no.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join it?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    The Chairman. As of today you think you should be given 
access to secret material?
    Mr. Brooks. If my work requires that, yes.
    The Chairman. We will want you at 10:30 tomorrow morning. 
Just a second.
    Mr. Anastos. Mr. Brooks, did you, in addition to the two 
letters that referred to the Sobell case, write any other 
letters concerning other defendants in subversive cases?
    Mr. Brooks. To the Post Standard?
    Mr. Anastos. To anybody.
    Mr. Brooks. That is a difficult question.
    Mr. Anastos. So far as you can remember.
    Mr. Brooks. Well, I might have recently mentioned some such 
people in some letters, but nonce that I can recall right now. 
I wouldn't want to say definitely under oath that I had.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you help Mrs. Reiner prepare any papers or 
letters that concerned her activities in the American Labor 
party?
    Mr. Brooks. No.
    Mr. Anastos. Did you help her prepare any of her activities 
in connection with the movement that was going on in Syracuse 
in favor of Gerhardt Eisler?
    Mr. Brooks. I hardly recognize the two names to which you 
referred.
    The Chairman. Answer the question. Answer yes or no.
    Mr. Brooks. No, I did not assist in any such work.
    The Chairman. Just one more question: Since you wrote the 
letters in defense of Sobell and Rosenberg, did you write any 
letters in defense of any other individuals accused of 
Communist activities?
    Mr. Brooks. In that connection, I wish to protest the fact 
that I wrote in defense of the Rosenbergs. I never have.
    The Chairman. Well, let's put it this way: Since you wrote 
letters in which you mentioned the Rosenbergs and Sobell, have 
you written any letters to any newspapers or periodicals in 
which you mentioned the names of other individuals accused of 
espionage activities or Communist activities?
    Mr. Brooks. I have not.
    The Chairman. You are sure of that?
    Mr. Brooks. Yes, because I have only written one letter 
since then and I remember it.
    The Chairman. Okay. We will want you back at 10:30 tomorrow 
morning.
    In the matter now in hearing before this committee, do you 
swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the 
truth, so help you God?
    Mr. Moore. I do.

              TESTIMONY OF GEORGE FREDERICK MOORE

    Mr. Cohn. Give your full name, please.
    Mr. Moore. George Frederick Moore.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you reside, Mr. Moore?
    Mr. Moore. Pardon?
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you live?
    Mr. Moore. I live at 7 Linden Street, Everett, 
Massachusetts.
    Mr. Cohn. Where do you work?
    Mr. Moore. Everett Steel Foundry, in Everett.
    Mr. Cohn. For how long a period of time have you worked 
there?
    Mr. Moore. I have worked at the Everett Steel Foundry for 
thirty-five months, that is give or take a couple of days.
    Mr. Cohn. Since 1945?
    Mr. Moore. Since 1951
    Mr. Anastos. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. Moore. No, I am not.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever belonged to the Communist party?
    Mr. Moore. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever been asked to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Moore. No, I haven't.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you ever supported the Communist party, 
knowingly?
    Mr. Moore. I have not.
    Mr. Anastos. Are you sympathetic to the Communist party?
    Mr. Moore. I have no sympathy for the Communist party 
whatsoever.
    Mr. Anastos. What clearance do you have in your work? Are 
you cleared for classified material?
    Mr. Moore. Well, as far as clearing for classified material 
is concerned, they run a check on you when you come to work for 
GE. But in 1951, because of some--I don't know whose idea it 
was--some crackpot, I presume, they ran a check on me, that is, 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and obviously I was 
cleared, and I have at various times, since I became a steward 
for Local 201 of the IUE-CIO, taken non-Communists oaths, and 
as a steward for Local 201 IUE-CIO we in Everett Steel Foundry 
have fought the Communist party and its lackeys right down to 
the ground.
    The Chairman. What kind of a badge do you have, a blue one, 
with a blue band on it?
    Mr. Moore. Right now at Everett Steel Foundry they have 
suspended the badges for security reasons.
    The Chairman. But as far as you know, you have access to 
what, confidential or secret?
    Mr. Moore. Well, as a matter of fact, I could, within a 
limited range, have access to classified material. We have 
worked on navy orders and gears and so forth that were, I 
presume, classified, although we were never instructed that 
they were classified material.
    The Chairman. Let me ask you this: As you know, I have 
never seen you before, I know nothing about you, except what we 
get from reports from other witnesses. But in this 
investigation, if we get any information at all we must call 
the man in. The fact that you are here does not mean that we 
think there is anything improper in your conduct. We just have 
the task of calling in all the witnesses where we receive any 
adverse information. Can you think of any reason why any of 
your coworkers out there would try to label you as a Communist?
    Mr. Moore. Yes, and this is almost laughable. I don't think 
that this committee in any sense would try to restrict a man 
from reading other than out-and-out subversive literature. I am 
a great reader. I like to read. I will read anything. Even 
advertisements on the back of serial packages. But at any rate, 
at the library in Everett in 1951 I got my hands on a book 
entitled Siberia. I don't know who the author was, but some 
obscure individual. It was on the shelves. There was nothing 
subversive about it. It was almost strictly a geography book, 
written by an Austrian prisoner of war in the last world war, 
World War I. I read the book and found it quite interesting. It 
went into great detail about the geographical features of 
Siberia, and the last few chapters were devoted to the 
collectivization of farming in Siberia with the advent of the 
Communists. I was in the habit of reading this book during the 
lunch periods at work and so forth. A friend of mine, who is 
also an avid reader, requested the book, and I let him read it. 
The foreman came into the locker room, spotted the title of the 
book, Siberia, and said to him, ``Why are you reading that 
Communist trash,'' without knowing the content of the book,
    At that time the General Electric Company and I were having 
difficulties, who have never seen eye to eye on working 
conditions, I was up their throats, and the first thing I knew 
they were running a check on it, the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation. They called my friends down and questioned them. 
And the people in my neighborhood. I am not a mixer in the 
sense that I go out of the way to make friends with my 
neighbors. It gave me a black eye in my neighborhood and I had 
a black eye in the shop until the people understood me. I think 
that is where it stems from. I pin the fact on the foreman and 
I attribute it right to that particular fact that I just 
brought out.
    The Chairman. In other words, that is the only book of a 
Communist nature that you have had around your apartment or 
around the shop, is that right?
    Mr. Moore. That is absolutely correct.
    The Chairman. You don't subscribe to the Daily Worker?
    Mr. Moore. I do not.
    The Chairman. You have never joined the Communist party?
    Mr. Moore. No.
    The Chairman. Nor the Young Communist League?
    Mr. Moore. No.
    The Chairman. Ever attend any Communist meetings?
    Mr. Moore. No.
    The Chairman. Were you ever asked to join the Communist 
party?
    Mr. Moore. I was not.
    The Chairman. Did you ever contribute any money to the 
Communist party?
    Mr. Moore. I have not.
    The Chairman. Anything further?
    Mr. Anastos. You say you are an avid reader. Have you read 
the works of Marx and Lenin?
    Mr. Moore. No, not in its entirety. I have read excerpts 
from different books. I have read excerpts from the Communist 
Manifesto or Das Capital. But I, myself, I believe it is a 
little outdated right now. I don't believe it has any place in 
this day and age.
    Mr. Anastos. Have you been particularly critical of the 
role of the United States government in Korea?
    Mr. Moore. No. In fact, there, again, I am at loggerheads. 
I believe that the right steps were taken in Korea at the time, 
in 1950, and I still believe it today, that the only way was we 
had to draw the line somewhere, and I believe that Korea was 
the place.
    The Chairman. You will be excused from your subpoena. You 
will not be called. No one will know you are here unless you 
yourself tell them you were here.
    Mr. Moore. Well, Senator, for a good purpose I would like 
it known that I am here because I believe that the original 
attempt on the part of General Electric to intimidate me is 
being carried on today and I want them to know that it was 
their doing that I was intimidated in the first place.
    The Chairman. May I say that you are not here as a result 
of any request on the part of GE.
    Mr. Moore. Well, I think----
    The Chairman. Let me just tell you for your own 
information: You are one of hundreds of witnesses we have 
called. We have the very tedious and at times unpleasant task 
of calling everyone handling secret work about whom we have 
adverse information. It develops that many of them are 
apparently good, loyal Americans. For that reason we do not 
give out the names of witnesses. However, the witness himself 
is at perfect liberty to say he was here, to tell what went on, 
to talk as freely as he wants to about it. In other words, you 
are under no prohibition in so far as your appearance here is 
concerned. The only people who cannot talk about your 
appearance are the other people in the room who, under the 
danger of contempt, must not discuss a witness' testimony in 
public. So when you go out, you can tell the newspapers you are 
here, if you like, you can tell them anything you want to, as 
freely as you care to. You can discuss what you think either 
about General Electric or this committee.
    Mr. Moore. Thank you very much.
    May I elaborate for the record on my connections with the 
IUE and efforts to dispel it?
    Mr. Cohn. That does not concern us.
    Mr. Moore. For once and for all----
    Mr. Cohn. That has nothing to do with this investigation 
and does not concern us. Why clutter up the record?
    Mr. Moore. I just wondered. I was musing on this fact when 
I was out in the other room, that in view of my being called by 
this committee I wondered if it left me open to being called by 
the state committee. I, myself, cannot afford it. I am not a 
rich man and I am not on a well-paid job. I cannot afford to 
take days off from work.
    Mr. Cohn. You will paid your witness fee and given your 
transportation expenses.
    Mr. Moore. I hear that that is inadequate.
    Mr. Cohn. That is what is allowed.

    [The testimony of Wendell H. Furry was made public on March 
31, 1955 and published in Permanent Subcommittee on 
Investigations, Subversion and Espionage in Defense 
Establishments and Industry, part 9 (Washington, D.C.: 
Government Printing Office, 1955).]

    [Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m. the committee was recessed, to 
reconvene at 10:00 a.m. the following day, Saturday, January 
16, 1954, in open session.]


   SUBVERSION AND ESPIONAGE IN DEFENSE ESTABLISHMENTS AND INDUSTRIES

    [Editor's note.--As a result of his citing the Fifth 
Amendment in refusing to answer the subcommittee's questions, 
Louis Passikoff was discharged from General Electric.
    Cyril Sille testified in public on February 20, 1954; Louis 
Passikoff (1915-1971) on August 12, 1954; and Dante DeCesare 
and Robert E. LaFortune (1892-1983) on January 3, 1955. Helen 
Quirini (1910-1998), Lillian Garcia Krummel, William Vincent 
Delos (1921-1970), Allan E. Townsend, Michael Riggi (1914-
1987), and Charles Rivers did not testify in public session.]
                              ----------                              


                       FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 19, 1954

                               U.S. Senate,
           Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations
                 of the Committee on Government Operations,
                                                        Albany, NY.
    The subcommittee met at 2:30 p.m., pursuant to notice, in 
room 424, Federal Building, Albany, New York, Senator Joseph R. 
McCarthy (chairman) presiding.
    Present: Senator Joseph R. McCarthy, Republican, Wisconsin.
    Present also: Roy M. Cohn, chief counsel; C. George 
Anastos, assistant counsel; James N. Juliana, investigator.
    The Chairman. The committee will come to order.
    May I say for the record, this is an executive session 
today, and we have a number of people in the room who are 
authorized to be here by the chairman. I want them all to 
understand that it being an executive session, you cannot 
repeat any of the testimony you hear today. Is that all right? 
Who do you want to call first? Would you raise your right hand. 
In this matter now in hearing before the committee, do you 
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing 
but the truth, so help you God?
    Mr. DeCesare. I do.

TESTIMONY OF DANTE DeCESARE (ACCOMPANIED BY HIS COUNSEL, H. E. 
                           BLODGETT)

    Mr. Cohn. Could we get your full name?
    Mr. DeCesare. Dante DeCesare.
    Mr. Cohn. And where do you reside?
    Mr. DeCesare. 88 Broderick Street.
    Mr. Cohn. Where is that?
    Mr. DeCesare. Colonie, New York.
    Mr. Cohn. Where are you employed now?
    Mr. DeCesare. General Electric.
    Mr. Cohn. And for how long a period of time have you been 
there?
    Mr. DeCesare. Almost seven years.
    Mr. Cohn. What kind of work have you been doing out there?
    Mr. DeCesare. Battery truck operator, handyman and tool 
grinder.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you been on the premises for about seven 
years?
    Mr. DeCesare. Almost, yes.
    Mr. Cohn. Are you a member of the Communist party?
    Mr. DeCesare. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you ever been?
    Mr. DeCesare. I refuse to answer, using my ground of the 
Fifth Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party last 
year?
    Mr. DeCesare. No.
    Mr. Cohn. The year before?
    Mr. DeCesare. [No response.]
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Communist party in 1949?
    Mr. DeCesare. I refuse to answer, using----
    Mr. Cohn. In 1950?
    Mr. DeCesare. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. 1951?
    Mr. DeCesare. No.
    Mr. Cohn. Have you served as chairman of the Youth Club of 
the Communist party?
    Mr. DeCesare. I refuse to answer, using the Fifth 
Amendment.
    Mr. Cohn. Were you a member of the Schenectady County 
Committee of the Communist party in 1949?
    Mr. DeCesare. I refuse to answer.
    Mr. Cohn. Do you know people now working at General 
Electric who you knew in the Communist party?
    Mr. DeCesare. I refuse to answer.
    The Chairman. You will be ordered to answer.
    He stated he is not a member of the Communist party now, 
and he has no Fifth Amendment privilege as to other members of 
the Communist party.
    You will be ordered to answer that question.
    You can consult with counsel if you care to.
    Mr. Blodgett. May I have the question, please?
    Mr. Cohn. Read the question, please.
    [The reporter read from his notes as requested.]
    The Chairman. Off the record.
    [Discussion off the record.]
    The Chairman. On the record.
    You refuse to give us the names of any individuals known to 
you as members of the Communist party at this time, is that 
correct?
    Mr. DeCesare. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. You are invoking the Fifth Amendment on that?
    Mr. DeCesare. Yes, sir.
    The Chairman. Do you feel differently about the Communist 
party now than you did in 1949?
    Mr. DeCesare. Yes.
    The Chairman. Will you speak a little louder? I am having 
difficulty hearing you.
    Mr. DeCesare. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. Do you feel as of today----
    Mr. DeCesare. Well, first of all, are you referring to me 
as a Communist party member in 1949 or are you referring to me 
as----
    Mr. Blodgett. He just asked you.
    Mr. DeCesare. Yes, I do feel different about the party, 
yes.
    The Chairman. And the question or the answer will put it 
this way. Neither the question nor the answer carries any 
implication of Communist party membership, you understand.
    Mr. DeCesare. It doesn't, does it?
    The Chairman. No, it carries no such implication, although 
I may say for your information we have testimony under oath 
that you were a very active member of the Communist party. Do 
you feel as of today that the Communist party is a menace to 
this country?
    Mr. DeCesare. Yes, I do.
    The Chairman. May I make a suggestion to you, if you feel 
that way? You could help your country a great deal. It would 
take some courage on your part. It would take a lot of 
backbone. But you could help your country by giving the FBI, 
giving this committee, the names of all individuals known to 
you to be part of the Communist conspiracy. You see, every man 
has a right to reform. We know you were a Communist. I do not 
know whether you are today or not. I cannot help but question 
the sincerity of your reform if you sit here and protect 
individuals handling the secrets of this nation by invoking the 
Fifth Amendment. Keep in mind, you have an absolute right to do 
it, you can do it if you want to, but if you feel the Communist 
party is a menace to this country, you could do what the young 
man did this morning. As I say, it will take a lot of courage. 
This took a great deal of courage, more courage than a great 
number of men have.
    Is there any inclination on your part to give either this 
committee or the FBI--First let me----
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Is there any inclination on your part to give 
either this committee or the FBI, or a grand jury, all the 
information you have? It would be valuable. If you would want 
some time to think that over, we will give you all the time you 
want, days, weeks, or as much time as you want.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. DeCesare. I already talked partly to the FBI, but on 
your question, I would still like to assert my Fifth Amendment 
rights.
    The Chairman. Have you given the FBI the names of any 
members of the Communist party?
    Mr. DeCesare. I would like to still invoke my Fifth 
Amendment.
    The Chairman. You cannot invoke the Fifth on that. I just 
asked you whether you had given the FBI any information. You 
cannot be incriminated by giving the FBI information, so I will 
have to order that you answer the question.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    Mr. DeCesare. I still invoke the Fifth.
    The Chairman. You are invoking the Fifth Amendment as to 
whether or not you gave the FBI information, is that correct?
    Mr. DeCesare. Yes.
    The Chairman. Now, isn't it a fact that as of today you 
have never given any intelligence agency, including the FBI, 
the full story of the part you played in the Communist 
conspiracy? Is it not a fact that as of today you are still 
loyal to the Communist party?
    Mr. DeCesare. I already answered that question. I thought I 
answered it pretty clearly.
    The Chairman. Is it your answer that you have given some 
intelligence agency all the information you have?
    Mr. DeCesare. I told you I talked to them.
    The Chairman. Pardon?
    Mr. DeCesare. I already talked to them.
    The Chairman. Of course you have talked to them. Every 
Communist we know has talked to them. They have come out and 
interviewed them. I am asking you a simple question, as to 
whether or not you have given the FBI the information about the 
other members of the conspiracy.
    [The witness conferred with his counsel.]
    The Chairman. Mr. Counsel?
    [Discussion off the record with witness' counsel.]
    The Chairman. You will be excused for the time being. You 
are still under subpoena. I am going to give your lawyer a 
chance to talk to you. You will be excused for today. We will 
tell your lawyer when we want you back. We may want you 
tomorrow morning. I do not know, but we will get in touch with 
your counsel.
    One more question of the witness: How many brothers do you 
have?
    Mr. DeCesare. Three.
    The Chairman. Are they working in an