Of course, Senator McCarthy will be available for full cross-examination on that subject. That is the purpose of my asking these questions now so that there can be a full cross-examination on that.

The CHAIRMAN. Of course, under the rules of this committee, it is more or less informal. Whether it is presented at all or not, the committee, might want to know about it anyhow, even if you didn't offer it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I appreciate your position, sir, and I intend to cover that ground.

Now, I ask you again whether or not this document

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment.

I take it for granted, of course, the press is very curious about this, but I hope they will not attempt to take a look at it, because if it is marked classified even though it was testified here that there were 35 copies, possibility of 35 copies circulated, we are still going to observe, do all we can to keep it from being just a momentbeing read by people who haven't any right to read it.

We are going to observe the ruling of the other committee on that and to follow their steps.

I am not reflecting on anybody, but I just wanted to make that clear.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask you whether or not the first paragraph to which Mr. Collier referred when he said that there had been changes in the contents of this document in comparison with the FBI document, that the Department of Justice does not reveal that the security information therein has been deleted.

Senator MCCARTHY. Yes, sir; that statement on the background of a certain individual has been deleted. It is a parenthetical expression.

May I say, Mr. Williams, in answer to what the Chair said, that Mr. Hoover has never classified this document. Mr. Hoover classified the 15-page document which contained the security information. This document has never been classified by Mr. Hoover.

The CHAIRMAN. The Attorney General passed on it and said it. was classified and refused to permit it to be used or disclosed. Mr. WILLIAMS. I ask you

The CHAIRMAN. And we are relying on that. We are not trying to go back of it and start all over again. We take what the other committee did as evidence.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Now, Mr. Collier's testimony-and this is a matter of record in this proceeding-is that the first four paragraphs were in all respects identical and that there was a change in paragraph 5. That is why I addressed my question to Senator McCarthy as to whether security information had been deleted from paragraph 5. Now, with respect to paragraph 6, Mr. Collier's testimony was that that was in all respects identical with the document to which Mr. Hoover compared it.

Is that right?

Senator MCCARTHY. That's right.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Now, I ask you whether or not paragraph 7 does not clearly indicate on its face that security classified information has been deleted therefrom?

Senator MCCARTHY. By paragraph 7, Mr. Williams, you refer to this section?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.

Senator MCCARTHY. Yes, it shows that all of the security information in regard to the Fort Monmouth radar employees has been deleted.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Then I call your attention, sir, to paragraphs 8 and 9 and the testimony in the hearings have been that they were in all respects identical with the paragraph in the document to which they were compared; is that correct?

Senator MCCARTHY. That's correct. And let me say this, Mr. Williams, that I hope the members of the committee examine this document. They will find that there is no security information in it. They will find that this is a warning of subversion at the radar laboratory.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I don't see, Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. Question has been raised as to the propriety of the Senator reading certain portions. It has been ruled in the other committee that it was classified. It was regarded as a classified document.

The Attorney General said it could not be made public and I do not think the committee is going to read this document under the circumstances.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Then I ask, Mr. Chairman, if at this time, this committee will not look at this, I don't see how it can pass upon whether it is spurious or not. I just don't know how to defend our charge without showing it is, showing you that it is not spurious, that it purports to be just what it is, something with the security and classified information deleted from it.

And it is clearly deleted from it and there was no attempt to indicate otherwise, because that is right on the face of it.

The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course, I say all of this I could strike out as being completely incompetent because the document itself would speak for itself, but under the peculiar circumstances pertaining to this entire transaction and the document itself, the committee does not feel it ought to do that. We allowed you to testify in a general nature with respect to it.

Now, we will take under advice the matter you have offered, if you have offered it. Evidently you are going to offer it into evidence or you are wanting to read it.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I want to read it, sir, because there is no security information in it.

The CHAIRMAN. Are you offering it in evidence?

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes.

The CHAIRMAN. At this moment I will say, on behalf of the committee,that we will take the matter under advisement.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Thank you.

The CHAIRMAN. And in the meantime, before we decide whether to read it or not, the possession of the document will be left where it came from, Senator McCarthy, in his possession.

Now, if the committee has another view on that after our deliberations in executive session, we will make that known.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I may say to you, Senator, and it seems to me that I am making an admission that nobody else made, that I have the document in my possession, and I have to say to you that I have read it because I knew not how to defend this document against the charges,

nd I can tell you that everything that is of a classified or security ature is manifestly deleted herefrom, and I urge you with all the ower in my command to look at it.

I do not, of course, ask you to drop the charges of the spuriousness f the document because the committee cannot look at it. I hope you ill look at it so that this thing can be cleared up.

The CHAIRMAN. We have great respect for your judgment and your ncerity and honesty, Mr. Williams, in saying that we are not going o take a look at it even though you have made that statement. I hope ou will not think we are reflecting on you.

Senator ERVIN. I want to say this to Mr. Williams. I think somemes folks have got to know what a word means, in what sense they se the word. You used the word "classified." In other words, it ight be susceptible to two meanings. The first is, it might be rericted to the method by which intelligence is obtained or it might ean both that and the information which is obtained as a result of . In what sense do you use the word "classified" so that I can underand your position?

Mr. WILLIAMS. There are no investigative techniques revealed erein. There are no informants revealed here. There is no informaon here that in my opinion can in anywise affect the security of the ountry.

Senator ERVIN. Well, suppose the Intelligence Service, either the "BI or the Central Intelligence Agency, conducted an investigation y their techniques and discovered that John Doe in the Government as a Communist. Would that fact that John Doe was a Communist e classified information, or would merely the technique which they ave used, by which they made that discovery, be classified informaion? I want your understanding.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I wouldn't say that the fact as to whether John Doe was a Communist would be classified.

I would agree with you, Senator Ervin, that the document and the BI files which contained that information might well be classified. Senator ERVIN. Do I understand you to mean, then, that the part of the document or report or data collected by the FBI that John Doe vas a Communist would not be classified information?

Mr. WILLIAMS. No, sir. I say I will certainly readily agree with he position you are taking, Senator, that a document in the FBI files vhich contained the facts of Communist affiliation of Joe Doe or William Roe might very well be classified, and I would accede to hat proposition.

Senator ERVIN. Is it your position that if I were a governmental mployee and I had access to such a document and I copied a statenent from the document that John Doe has been discovered to be a Communist, is it your position that what I said about it, that would not be classified information? I admit that the paper would be classiied, but would the information be classified?

Mr. WILLIAMS. I will not make that statement. Certainly if I have access to information, as a Government clerk, to classified information, and I copy what is in fact classified information, it does not become less classified by reason of the fact that I simply copied it. Senator ERVIN. Just explain it to me. Maybe my impression of it is not correct. Explain to me what you mean by classified information, so that I may comprehend it.

52461-54-21

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think you and I mean the same thing. We mean information which affects the national security which has been restricted by Executive order and illustrative of which would be information containing investigative techniques, names of informants. names of individuals whose identity might thus not be known for one reason or another in the context of our national security considerations.

Senator ERVIN. In other words, what I am trying to get concrete, and an understanding of because I am not certain that I understan. myself, but I have to understand your meaning to understand your position.

I understood from the testimony that was offered that some of these paragraphs were identical with paragraphs in some original docu ment in the FBI.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. And that those paragraphs made some statements with reference to persons, alleged Communists, in the installation at Fort Monmouth.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Senator ERVIN. Then you use the word to mean that the result of the technique, when divorced from the technique, is not classified' Mr. WILLIAMS. I think maybe I can say it this way simplest; I agre pretty much with Vice President Nixon in his statement wherein he said that he did not regard a certain FBI letter which was not con plete and from which certain portions had be excerpted, when he said he did not regard it as classified because the investigative technique, the names of the informants, the modus operandi of the FBI was in no way revealed as a result of the excerpts which were taken from it I think I pretty much subscribe to his view on that.

Senator ERVIN. My understanding of it is this: Suppose the FBI had documents, the first paragraph of which states that Joe Doe, a Communist, held a certain governmental position, and the second paragraph said that we found out that John Doe, a Communist, held an important position by tapping his wires.

According to your understanding, the first paragraph would not be classified information, but the second paragraph would.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I can well imagine that situation obtaining. We have a document and the conclusion of that document that is reache is that John Doe is a Communist, and then the background of the information on which the investigation had obtained is set out. We know this because we have interviewed A, B, C, D, E, and G, his neighbors. A says this; B says this; C says this; D says this; E says this; and then we have tapped his wires. We have put a mail cover on him. We have had him under surveillance.

I would wholeheartedly agree that all that would be classified in formation by any concept of the term. I think that the conclusion that is stated is an area which is more of a twilight zone by far. Id not think you can say with any certitude that that would be classified information on just the facts that you set out.

Senator ERVIN. Notwithstanding the fact that a document containing the two paragraphs might be so stamped by the FBI?

Mr. WILLIAMS. The document as a whole would be certainly class fied, say, as confidential.

Senator CASE. I have in my hand the printed copy of Senate Report No. 2507 of the 83d Congress, 2d session, which is entitled "Report of the Special Subcommittee on Investigations for the Committee on Government Operations, United States Senate."

It is a report of the committee in the Army-McCarthy matter, and in the part of the report which is signed above the dated signature of August 21, 1954, signed by Senator Karl E. Mundt, as chairman; Senator Everett M. Dirksen; Senator Charles E. Potter; Senator Henry C. Dworshak; Senator John L. McClellan; Senator Henry M. Jackson; and Senator Stuart Symington. In other words, the part of the report which was signed or appears above the signatures of all members of the committee, I note this paragraph, and I present it to the attention of the counsel, because the counsel has been talking about the question of the spuriousness or the alleged spuriousness of the document.

Mr. WILLIAMS. What page are you reading from, sir?

Senator CASE. Page 76. This is the first full paragraph on page 76, the fifth line from the top of the page. It reads as follows:

The next morning Mr. Robert A. Collier, a member of Counsel Jenkins' staff, testified that he had been to see Mr. J. Edgar Hoover, who had examined the copy of the letter proffered by Senator McCarthy. On the basis of that examination, Mr. Hoover informed Mr. Collier that the McCarthy "copy" was "not a carbon copy or a copy of any communication prepared or sent by the FBI to General Bolling on January 26, 1951." (May 5, 1954) The FBI did have a copy of an interdepartmental memorandum prepared and sent to General Bolling on that date, but that copy and the McCarthy copy were “materially different in form." The FBI copy was a 15-page document; the McCarthy copy was 24 pages. The substance of the FBI copy and the McCarthy copy "contained information relating to the same subject matter and *** in some instances exact or identical language appears in both documents." (May 5, 1954) Indeed, the McCarthy copy was identical in words and paragraphs and in the listing of names with the FBI copy. However, the FBI 15-page document made no evaluation of the information about these individuals, while the 24 page document did so.

That is the end of the paragraph. One question in my mind: I was hoping, while counsel was dealing with this question of authenticity of the document, that he would take up the question of the form of the document as bearing upon whether or not it was a true copy of an original true document prepared by the FBI or by any other competent investigative body.

Mr. WILLIAMS. I think that probably appears of record in the hearings. I, of course, have not seen the other document that has been referred to, but my recollection of the testimony is quite clear, that in form the document to which so much reference has been made, the 15-page document instead of being in letter form, is in memorandum form to Major General Bolling, Department of the Army, Assistant Chief of Staff, Washington, D. C., from J. Edgar Hoover, Director, FBI.

I am just giving you the form from my memory now. Whereas the 15-page document has that form, this document has the form of a letter. In other words, it has "Major General Bolling, Department of the Army, Assistant Chief of Staff, Washington, D. C., Sir:" and