EXHIBIT No. 9

[Copy]

DECEMBER 11, 1951

Honorable JOSEPH R. MCCARTHY,

United States Senate, Washington, D. O.

MY DEAR SENATOR: I received your letter dated December 7th in which you make inquiry and request for certain specific information.

As you are a member of the Rules Committee, I feel, as you suggested, that you are entitled to the information relative to the personnel employed by the Subcom mittee on Privileges and Elections. Your first request is as to the number of people employed by the Elections Subcommittee, their salaries and the length of time they have been employed. The following is the list employed by the Subcommittee:

This completes the list of employees of the Subcommittee. Three other employees of the Rules Committee have been performing work for the Subcommittee, including Mr. John P. Moore, the Chief Counsel. You will note that three of the six employees of the Subcommittee were taken on in a temporary capacity after the middle of October and completed their assigned work within a few weeks time These men have done some work in connection with the Ohio Senatorial hearing. You make further inquiry as to what theory of the law the Subcommittee holds in connection with its investigatory work. We are not working under any "theory". All the powers that we have derived from delegated responsibilities assigned to us by the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. We do not have, and could not have, any power other than so derived as a subagency of the standing committee on Rules and Administration.

Chairman, Subcommittee on Elections,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR GILLETTE : On December 7, I wrote you as follows:
"I would very much appreciate receiving the following information:

(1) The number of people employed by the Elections Subcommittee, together with information on their employment background, the salaries they receive, and the length of time they have been employed.

(2) The names of the above individuals who have been working on the investigation of Senator McCarthy.

(3) Whether they have been instructed to restrict their investigation to matters concerning elections.

(4) If the investigators have been ordered to cover matters other that either my election or any any other election in which I took part, then the theory of the law under which you feel an Elections Subcommittee is en titled to hire investigators to go into matters other than those concerned with elections.

I am sure you will agree that I am entitled to this information.

Sincerely yours,

/8/ JOE MCCARTHY" On December 11 you wrote giving me the names of those employed by the Subcommittee, stating that two others, whom you did not name, were also doing

work for the Subcommittee. You did not give me the employment background of the investigators as I requested. Why, Senator, do you refuse to give me the employment background of those individuals?

You also failed to tell me whether the investigators have been instructed to extend their investigation beyond matters having to do with elections.

You state that the only power which your subcommittee has was derived from the full Committee. The full Committee appointed you Chairman of an Elections Subcommittee, but gave you no power whatsoever to hire investigators and spend vast amounts of money to make investigations having nothing to do with elections. Again may I have an answer to my questions as to why you feel you are entitled to spend the taxpayers' money to do the work of the Democratic National Committee.

As I have previously stated, you and every member of your Subcommittee who is responsible for spending vast amounts of money to hire investigators, pay their traveling expenses, etc., on matters not concerned with elections, is just as dishonest as though he or she picked the pockets of the taxpayers and turned the loot over to the Democrat National Committee.

I wonder if I might have a frank, honest answer to all the questions covered in my letter of December 7. Certainly as a member of the Rules Committee and as a member of the Senate, I am entitled to this information. Your failure to give this information highlights the fact that your Subcommittee if not concerned with investigating elections, but concerned with dishonestly spending the taxpayers' money and using your Subcommittee as an arm of the Democrat National Committee.

MY DEAR SENATOR: Today I received your letter of December 19th quoting former correspondence in which you had asked for some specific information which you feel was not given you in my reply to your former request.

Not only as a member of the Rules Committee, but as a member of the United States Senate, you were certainly entitled to any factual information relative to the work of our Subcommittee of Rules and Administration or with reference to the members of its staff. I shall be very glad to give you such information as I have or go with you, if you so desire, to the rooms occupied by the Subcommittee and aid you in securing any facts that are there available, relative to the employees of the Subcommittee or their work.

I am sure you will agree that this is preferable to an attempt to cover matters of this kind through an interchange of correspondence. Unfortunately, our previous correspondence concerning these matters found its way into the public press and your letters to me were printed in full in the public press even before I received them. As a former judge you will appreciate, I am sure, the impropriety of discussing matters pertaining to pending litigation in the public press. The Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, having referred the Benton Resolution to our Subcommittee, has placed us in a quasi-judicial position relative to a matter of outstanding importance involving the expulsion from the Senate of a sitting member.

Inquiry has disclosed that it would be impossible for me to call the Subcommittee together for further consideration of this resolution and its import before Monday, the 7th of January, and I am calling a meeting for that date at 10 A. M. in my office.

When the Benton Resolution was first referred to the Subcommittee it developed that there was a difference of opinion among the members as to our responsibility under the reference and the terms of the resolution. The Subcommittee ordered its staff to make study and report of the legal phases and precedents pertaining to the questions raised by the resolution and also to report as to certain allegations of fact contained in the resolution. We are awaiting these reports and, on the date of the meeting, which I have called for January 7th, it is expected that the Subcommittee will make a decision as to what further action, if any, it will take on the resolution.

As I have told you before, if you care to appear before the Subcommittee, we should be glad to make the necessary arrangements as to time and place. Your letter and this reply will be made available to the members of the Subcommittee by copy and you will be promptly advised as to what action the Subcommittee decided to take.

In the meantime, as I have stated above in this letter, I shall be glad to confer with you personally as to matters concerning our staff and its work.

In closing, may I again assure you that as far as I am personally concerned, neither the Democratic National Committee, nor any other person or group other than an agency of the United States Senate has had or will have any influence whatever as to my duties and actions as a member of the Subcommittee and I am Just as confident that no other member of the Subcommittee has been or will be so influenced.

With warm personal greetings and holiday wishes, I am

Senator GUY M. GILLETTE,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Elections and Privileges,

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR GILLETTE: Your letter of December 21 has just been called to my attention. As you know, this was in answer to my letter to you of December 19, in which I asked for certain information.

I can easily understand that you might have some difficulty answering some of my questions without first consulting the other members of the subcommitteefor example, the question as to the theory of the law under which investigators are being hired and money being spent to investigate matters having nothing whatsoever to do with elections. There is, however, one simple question which you could easily answer and I am sure you will agree that I am entitled to the answer. It is the simple question of whether or not you have ordered the investigators to restrict their investigation to matters having to do with elections, or whether their investigations extend into fields having nothing whatsoever to do with either my election or the election of any other Senator.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

MY DEAR SENATOR: This is an acknowledgment of the receipt of your letter of January 4th which has just been brought to my attention. Your letter makes inquiry as to whether the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections "ordered the investigators to restrict their investigations to matters having to do with elections, or whether their investigations extend into fields having nothing whatever to do with either my election or the election of any other Senator." In reply, you will recall that the Senate Committee on Rules and Administra tion received from the Senate the Benton Resolution calling for a preliminary investigation relative to ouster proceedings. The Rules Committee referred the Resolution to our Subcommittee, as any other piece of legislation would be referred to a Subcommittee. The Subcommittee met and directed its staff to make a preliminary study both of the legal phases and precedents pertaining to this type of action and also a preliminary investigation of the factual matter charged in the resolution. They were instructed to make these preliminary

The

studies and report to us at as early a time as possible. The report on the legal questions has been received by the Subcommittee and we advise that the report on the factual charges will be available to us by the end of this week. Subcommittee then would study the reports and determine what action, if any, they wish to take in making their report to the Rules Committee on the resolution. The above satement covers the question you asked as to what instructions were given to the Subcommittee staff relative to the Benton Resolution.

United States Senate, Washington, D. C.

DEAR SENATOR HAYDEN: Some days ago you handed me a letter from Senator Gillette, chairman of the Senate Elections Subcommittee, to you as chairman of the full committee. At that time you informed me that a majority of the full committee had adopted the Subcommittee's resolution requesting that I bring to the floor of the Senate a motion to discharge the Elections Subcommittee. You further stated that the purpose of this motion would be to test the jurisdiction and integrity of the members of the Subcommittee.

As I stated to you the other day, I feel it would be entirely improper to discharge the Elections Subcommittee at this time for the following reasons: The Elections Subcommittee unquestionably has the power and, when complaint is made, the duty to investigate any improper conduct on the part of McCarthy or any other Senator in a Senatorial election.

The Subcommittee has spent tens of thousands of dollars and nearly a year making the most painstaking investigation of my part in the Maryland election, as well as my campaigns in Wisconsin. The Subcommittee's task is not finished until it reports to the Senate the result of that investigation, namely whether they found such misconduct on the part of McCarthy in either his own campaigns or in the Tydings campaign to warrant his expulsion from the Senate. I note the Subcommittee's request that the integrity of the Subcommittee be passed upon. As you know, the sole question of the integrity of the Subcommittee concerned its right to spend vast sums of money investigating the life of McCarthy from birth to date without any authority to do so from the Senate. However, the vote on that question cannot affect the McCarthy investigation, in that the Committee for a year has been looking into every possible phase of McCarthy's life, including an investigation of those who contributed to my unsuccessful 1944 campaign.

As you know, I wrote Senator Gillette, chairman of the Subcommittee, that I considered this a completely dishonest handling of taxpayers' money. I felt that the Elections Subcommittee had no authority to go into matters other than elections unless the Senate instructed it to do so. However, it is obvious that in so far as McCarthy is concerned this is now a moot question, because the staff has already painstakingly and diligently investigated every nook and cranny of my life from birth to date. Every possible lead on McCarthy was investigated. Nothing that could be investigated was left uninvestigated. The staff's scurrilous report, which consisted of cleverly twisted and distorted facts, was then "leaked" to the left-wing elements of the press and blazoned across the nation in an attempt to further smear McCarthy.

A vote of confidence in the Subcommittee would be a vote on whether or not it had the right, without authority from the Senate, but merely on the request of one Senator (in the case Senator Benton) to make a thorough and complete investigation of the entire life of another Senator. A vote to uphold the Subcommittee would mean that the Senate accepts and approves this precedent and makes it binding on the Elections Subcommittee in the future.

A vote against the Subcommittee could not undo what the subcommittee has done in regard to McCarthy. It would not force the subcommittee members to repay into the Treasury the funds spent on this investigation of McCarthy. A vote against the Subcommittee would merely mean that the Senate disapproves what has already been done in so far as McCarthy is concerned, and therefore, disapproves an investigation of other Senators like the one which

was made of McCarthy. While I felt the Subcommittee exceeded its authority, now that it has established a precedent in McCarthy's case, the same rule should apply to every other Senator. If the Subcommittee brought up this question before the investigation had been made, I would have voted to dis charge it. Now that the deed is done, however, the same rule should apply to the other 95 Senators.

For that reason, I would be forced to vigorously oppose a motion to discharge the Elections Subcommittee at this time.

I hope the Senate agrees with me that it would be highly improper to discharge the Gillette-Monroney Subcommittee at this time, thereby, in effect, setting a different rule for the Subcommittee to follow in case an investigation is asked of any of the other 95 Senators.

Mr. HAYDEN (for himself, Mr. HAYDEN, Mr. GILLETTE, Mr. MONRONEY, Mr. HENNINGS, and Mr. HENDRICKSON) submitted the following resolution; which was ordered to.lie over under the rule

RESOLUTION

Whereas S. Res. 187, to further investigate the participation of Senator Joseph R. McCarthy in the Maryland 1950 Senatorial campaign and other acts, to deter mine whether expulsion proceedings should be instituted against him, was introduced in the Senate by the Senator from Connecticut (Mr. Benton) on August 6, 1951, and was referred by the Senate to the Committee on Rules and Administration; and

Whereas, on August 8, 1951, said resolution was referred by the Committee on Rules and Administration to its Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections; and Whereas, in a series of communications addressed to the chairman of said subcommittee during the period between December 6, 1951, and January 4, 1952, the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCarthy) charged that the subcommittee lacked jurisdiction to investigate such acts of the Senator from Wisconsin (Mr. McCarthy) as were not connected with election campaigns and attacked the honesty of the members of the subcommittee, charging that, in their investiga tion of such other acts, the members were improperly motivated and were "guilty of stealing just as clearly as though the members engaged in picking the pockets of the taxpayers"; and

Whereas, on March 5, 1952, the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections adopted the following motion as the most expeditious parliamentary method of obtaining an affirmation by the Senate of its jurisdiction in this matter and a vote on the honesty of its members:

"That the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration request Senator McCarthy of Wisconsin to raise the question of the jurisdiction of the Subcommittee on Privileges and Elections and of the integrity of the members thereof in connection with its consideration of S. Res. 187 by making a formal motion on the floor of the Senate to discharge the committee; and that Senator McCarthy be advised by the chairman of the Committee on Rules and Adminis tration that, if he does not take the requested action in a period of time to be fixed by stipulation between Senator McCarthy and the chairman of the Com mittee on Rules and Administration, the committee (acting through the chair man of the standing committee or the chairman of the subcommittee) will Itself present such motion to discharge for the purpose of affirming the jurisdiction of the subcommittee and the integrity of its members in its consideration of the aforesaid resolution ;" and

Whereas, on March 6, 1952, the said motion was also adopted by the Com mittee on Rules and Administration and the chairman of said committee sub