and introduced in 1948, which slum-clearance bill was adopted in toto by the Democrat-controlled Senate in 1949.

When you refer to sugar, I assume you refer to my efforts to do away with your party's rationing of sugar, as I promised the housewives I would during my 1946 campaign. If that were wrong, I wonder why you have not introduced legislation in the Democrat-controlled Senate to restore sugar rationing. You have had 2 years to do so.

I thought perhaps the election might have taught you that your boss and minethe American people do not approve of treason and incompetence and feel that it must be exposed.

You refer to the above as "special interests." I personally feel very proud of having drafted the Housing Act in 1948 which passed the Congress without a single dissenting vote-a Housing Act which contributed so much toward making it possible for veterans and all Americans in the middle- and low-income groups to own their own home. Likewise, I am proud of having been able to fulfill my promise to American housewives to obtain the derationing of sugar. I proved at the time that rationing was not for the benefit of the housewives but for the commercial users.

I likewise am doubly proud of the part I played in alerting the American people to your administration's traitorous betrayal of American interests throughout the world, especially in China and Poland.

You refer to such activities on my part as "activities for special interests." I am curious to know what "special interests" you mean other than the special interest of the American people.

This letter is not written with any hope of getting an honest report from your committee. It is being written merely to keep the record straight.

Sincerely yours,

With initials.

JOE MCCARTHY.

That, sir, completes the record of the exhibits of letters in connection with the presentation of our point I.

The CHAIRMAN. Now, Mr. Chadwick, have you proceeded to examine the Congressional Record with reference to further matters pertaining to the subject or the incident referred to in category I?

Mr. CHADWICK. We have, sir, and I request the committee to take judicial notice of the Congressional Record, Senate, August 2, 1954, page 12318, with the following quotations:

Mr. HENNINGS. He was invited 5 times, but did not appear before the subcommittee upon any occasion except 1, and that was in order to testify with respect to a resolution which the junior Senator from Wisconsin himself had introduced in order to investigate another Senator, former Senator Benton of Connecticut.

That is evidence that Senator McCarthy had not appeared in reply to the invitations which have been read.

Similarly, I asked the committee

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed to read

Mr. CHADWICK. To read from the Congressional Record?

The CHAIRMAN. We will take judicial notice of the Congressional Record of the quotations you have read. Give the date and the page. Mr. CHADWICK. From the Congressional Record of the Senate, August 2, 1954, at page 12331.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman, I do not want my silence on this to be construed as an acquiescence to the general principle that excerpts can be taken from the record of Congress, statements made on the floor of the Senate by any other Senator, and introduced in this record as competent evidence; we have not objected to the particular statement involved because we feel that it is not prejudicial in any way.

But I do not want my silence to be construed as an acquiescence of the evidentiary principle.

The CHAIRMAN. You may proceed.

Mr. CHADWICK. In the interests of fairness

The CHAIRMAN. Have you given the date and page?

Mr. CHADWICK. I did, sir.

I desire to say this is read on our part in the interest of fairness and accuracy for the purpose of putting into the record Senator McCarthy's statement on the subject of the Lustron matter, lest it appear or be thought that he made no reply to the matter in any particular.

The CHAIRMAN. You may read it.

Mr. CHADWICK (reading):

Mr. MCCARTHY. So many misstatements have been made about the Lustron matter, that I wonder whether the Senator from Idaho would like to have me give him the facts in that case, if I may.

I had been writing, and I wrote, the Housing Act of 1948. I took up with the special House committee the question on whether we should do something to try to bring to the attention of the young veterans the various aids which Congress had provided for them. The committee did not manifest any enthusiasm in response to my suggestion.

I then wrote, with the aid of some very able Washington newsmen, what I thought was a complete, thorough dissertation on what aids were available and how they could be obtained.

Incidentally, I offered it to some of the magazines which today are screaming about this matter. I offered it to them free of charge if they would publish it. But they did not. I received offers from various corporations in the housing business, who wanted to publish it. Lustron made what I thought was the best offer at the time. Of course, later on Lustron went bankrupt. The Lustron offer was 10 cents a copy for the first 100,000 copies, and 5 cents a copy for each succeeding copy. The testimony of the head of Lustron Corp., when he appeared before the Banking and Currency Committee, was, as I recall, that that was one of the few projects upon which they made money. They lost money and went bankrupt on the others. But they made some money on that, at the rate of 10 cents a copy.

I may say that if I were embarrassed at all regarding the Lustron deal, it would be because my efforts were worth only 10 cents a copy.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes the matters to which I and the staff presently desire to call the attention of the committee on point No. 1 of the matters which came under the notice which you gave.

With your consent, my associate will proceed with the presentation of the matters under point No. 4.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Mr. Chairman.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Williams.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Before we leave category No. 1 of the charges I would like to call certain facts to the attention of the committee which I think cast grave doubt on the relevancy, materiality of all of this evidence.

Of course, I do not propose to speak in the face of your ruling of yesterday that I should submit a legal brief on the law. I do not propose to discuss the law at all.

I propose to discuss certain facts which are now of record which cast grave doubt on the materiality of everything that has been offered.

The Benton resolution, which was Resolution No. 187, introduced in the 82d Congress calls, as I understand it, for an investigation of Senator McCarthy looking toward his expulsion from the Senate. The significant thing about that resolution is that it was never passed by the Senate.

I will stand on this statement, this is the first time in the history of the United States when a resolution looking toward the expulsion of a United States Senator was passed authorizing hearings without a

vote by the Senate. I use the term "passed." It was never passed. It was simply referred to the Rules Committee, and the Rules Committee in turn referred it to the Subcommittee of the Committee on Rules and Administration. That is significant.

The second significant thing about this resolution which in my opinion invalidates the whole proceeding pursuant thereto is this, that nowhere contained in that purported resolution, which was never acted upon by the United States Senate, but which nevertheless calls for a hearing looking toward the expulsion of a Senator, in an unprecedented form-that resolution contained no allegations, no charges, no averments of any kind against Senator McCarthy as it was in its original form.

So unconscionable did the Senate of the 83d Congress think it was, that a resolution even calling for censure of another Senator did not have specifications, allegations, and averments, that it voted 75 to 12, to require the filing of specifications and averments, and the reference of those specifications to this committee.

That was the way the 83d Congress deported itself, because it followed all of the precedents of the Senate.

The other significant thing about this resolution as it now appears of record, first of all, it was never passed by the Senate; secondly, it had no allegations or specifications against Senator McCarthy. The other significant thing is that the resolution specifically authorizes the committee to investigate Senator McCarthy from the time of his election to the Senate in 1946, and I dare say that 40 percent of the report of which this committee can take judicial notice, as I understand its rules, pertains to matters that antedated his election to the Senate, because this committee as evidenced by its own report conducted a cradle-to-1952 investigation of Senator McCarthy.

Many of the matters referred to in the report go back so far as 6, 8 years before his election to the Senate.

Therefore, the committee in its report as evidenced by the very record which has been referred to here this morning was acting outside of the scope of its authority from its first day.

Another thing was this, that it is evident now from the record as introduced here this morning, Senator McCarthy, as the record indicates, requested the right in the expulsion proceeding which Senator Benton had initiated to appear in the hearing and confront his accusers and cross-examine them.

Again I say that the history of the Senate shows that a proceeding looking toward censure and expulsion is a judicial proceeding. The precedents are so numerous that I will not bore this committee by alluding to them, but everything that has ever been written about article I, section 5, of the Constitution, every authority who has ever written a single line about it, has said that a proceeding thereunder is a judicial proceeding, and the minimum safeguards that adhere to any accused in any judicial proceeding adhere to the defendant in an expulsion or censure proceeding. And those minimal safeguards that adhere to any judicial function are the right to be apprised of the charges against the accused and the right to face his accusers, and to cross-examine them, to test their credibility in the crucible of cross-examination.

I want to point out that from the very record that has been introduced in this proceeding over the past 2 days it is evident, No. 1,

that there was no authority from the Senate for the conduct of the hearings at the start.

No. 2, there was no specification of charges.

No. 3, there was a denial of the right to cross-examine by the Gillette committee, so that the committee was operating in an unprecedented manner that flouted every case that ever had been decided by the United States Senate from 1792.

Furthermore, the resolution clearly, unequivocally, and unmistakably states that they are authorized only to expend funds to investigate Senator McCarthy from the date of his election. And yet the report, the so-called Hennings, Hendrickson, and Hayden report, shows, from even a cursory reading, that the committee was concerned with things far, far outside the scope of its resolution; so that if the statement were made that that committee was acting in an unauthorized way and that it was expending funds of taxpayers in an unauthorized fashion, that statement, by the very record that is before us, was true, and true in all respects.

Furthermore, from even a cursory reading of this proceeding, it is clear that although Senator Benton

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, Mr. Williams. You referred to that report a number of times; and since you have been and are considering it as a base, I think probably we will consider the matter of having the whole report made a part of the record.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The part that I am alluding to, sir

The CHAIRMAN. Is the report on S. 183 of the 82d Congress, as I recall.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir.

Now, may I say this: Although there are no charges, and although there were no specifications, and although there was not a single allegation against Senator McCarthy in the original resolution looking toward his expulsion, Senator Benton did appear before the HaydenGillette committee-I believe he appeared on September 28, of 1951, if my memory serves me-and he did in fact outline 10 cases on Senator McCarthy to that committee.

The significant thing about the report is that on all the sworn evidence that that committee heard only four pages of this volume are devoted to it. The rest of this volume that I hold in my hand, which is the Hayden report, the Hennings report, and the Hendrickson report, if you will, is devoted to unsworn hearsay statements, never taken under oath, of staff investigators. That was the kind of judicial proceeding that that committee conducted, looking toward the expulsion of a United States Senator.

The CHAIRMAN. Mr. Williams—

Mr. WILLIAMS. And it is our position, sir

The CHAIRMAN. Just a moment, Mr. Williams.

I do not mind giving you the time to make the statement, but we are not trying over again the matters that were set forth in the so-called Hayden report and Senate Resolution 187. I stated at the outset that we were not concerned with whether those charges contained in that resolution were true or false. The matter we were conducting our investigation on is the charge of contempt with respect to the Senate committee; whether it made any report or not or whether the Senate had done anyhing about it is not at issue here.

But I call your attention also-if I can comment on that while you are at it-the Senate did pass without a dissenting vote on April 8, 1952, Senate Resolution 300, which, in effect, as we construe it, confirmed and approved the activities of the committee to that point, and also confirmed the jurisdiction.

Mr. WILLIAMS. My point is this, Mr. Chairman

The CHAIRMAN. And that, as I understand, was submitted for the very purpose of testing out the things we have just been talking about, and the committee takes judicial knowledge of the fact the Senate by a unanimous vote has in effect apparently passed upon what you were talking on.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Let us assume that that, sir, is in all respects correct. If you can concede that the Senate's action on the date which you just recited was a retroactive authority to this committee, nonetheless it does not give the committee wider authority than the Benton resolution originally gave it, and the Benton resolution originally authorized an investigation of Senator McCarthy only from the time that he was a Senator, whereas the report shows that this committee was concerned with matters that antedated by 6 to 8 years his senatorial

career.

The CHAIRMAN. Let me ask you this question: As I recall, much of the investigation-now that is not in evidence yet, and, of course, you are talking about something that is not even in evidence, that report-but as I recall, there were quite a large number of matters mentioned in that same report with respect to which the committee investigated that postdated the election of Senator McCarthy in 1946. Mr. WILLIAMS. May I have just a minute, Mr. Chairman?

Mr. Chairman, if I may conclude my thought, the vote on the Senate floor, which I understand was 60 to nothing, can in no way as I understand it be construed as a ratification of what the committee had theretofore done.

It may have been a ratification of the original resolution under which they purported to operate, but I direct your attention, sir, to the fact that the original resolution carefully delimits and delineates the scope of the investigation which the committee far, far exceeded. The CHAIRMAN. Well, of course the resolution itself is in the record, and that will be considered by the committee in going over the evidence which is submitted. It was placed in the record, and I indicated at the beginning, it was done so whether it helped or hurt.

Mr. WILLIAMS. Yes, sir; that is why we want all the facts to come out, too.

The CHAIRMAN. They are in the record, sir.

Mr. WILLIAMS. The sole purpose of my remarks, Mr. Chairman, was to call the committee's attention to all of this evidence, because I feel, whether or not the committee was operating validly or invalidly, within or without the scope of its authority, has a great deal to do with the relevancy and germaneness of what has been offered heretofore, and my only purpose in calling these facts to the attention of the committee in this way was to show as best I could in a very cursory way the fact that this whole proceeding was invalid, sir, because it contravened all the precedents of the Senate.

They conducted a judicial proceeding with unsworn testimony. They included in the record things on which they had no evidence. They put in the record reports, hearsay reports of staff reporters, and