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