RECESS

I am not impinging upon the President's prerogatives, and do not intend to waive any of our own.

Senator GREEN. Will the Senator yield for a question?

Chairman RUSSELL. I want to put the motion.

I want to say that General Bradley has had to pass on this matter. The Chair has passed on the matter.

Of course if the committee wishes to carry it over to some future date, that is a matter for the committee to decide upon, and it is perfectly within its right.

Those in favor of the motion of the Senator from Maine———
Chairman CONNALLY. What was his motion?

Chairman RUSSELL. To recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock.
All those in favor say "Aye."

Senator STENNIS. Mr. Chairman, would the Chair repeat what he said about the ruling? Is the Chair asking the committee to rule on it? Chairman RUSSELL. I am not asking the committee to do anything. The Chair is trying to carry out what he conceives to be his duty here, and I expect every member of the committee to do the same.

Senator STENNIS. Pardon me for repeating, but as I understand the situation, there is nothing before the committee to pass on with reference to the Chair's ruling. The Chair has ruled, no one has appealed from that ruling, and therefore the ruling stands as the ruling of the committee; otherwise, I am ready to vote in favor of the chairman's ruling, but I understand that is what the effect of the situation is now; so there is no objection to recessing.

Chairman RUSSELL. The Chair will again place the motion of the Senator from Maine, who moved that the committee stand recessed until 10 o'clock tomorrow.

All those in favor of that motion say "Aye." Opposed, "No." (There was a voice vote and the motion was carried.)

Chairman RUSSELL. The "ayes" seem to have it. The "ayes" have it. The committee will stand recessed until 10 oclock tomorrow morning. Be back with us, General. I don't know whether you will have an opportunity to testify or not.

(Whereupon, at 1:20 p. m. the committee recessed to reconvene at 10 a. m. Wednesday, May 16, 1951.)

MILITARY SITUATION IN THE FAR EAST

WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1951

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES AND THE
COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS,

UNITED STATES SENATE,

Washington, D. C.

The committees met, pursuant to adjournment, at 10:02 a. m. in the caucus room, Senate Office Building, Senator Richard B. Russell (chairman, Committee on Armed Services) presiding.

Present: Senators Russell (chairman, Committee on Armed Services), Connally (chairman, Committee on Foreign Relations), Wiley, George, Smith (New Jersey), Green, Hickenlooper, McMahon, Lodge, Fulbright, Sparkman, Gillette, Brewster, Bridges, Byrd, Saltonstall, Johnson (Texas), Morse, Kefauver, Knowland, Cain, Stennis, Flanders, Hunt, and Long.

Also present: Mark H. Galusha and Verne D. Mudge of the committee staff of the Armed Services Committee; Francis O. Wilcos, chief of staff; Thorsten V. Kalijarvi, staff associate, Committee on Foreign Relations.

Chairman RUSSELL. The committee will come to order.

Senator WILEY. Mr. Chairman, I would like to be recognized.

REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS

Senator SMITH. Mr. Chairman, might I before we begin today make a request that certain documents which were connected with statements that General Bradley made yesterday be incorporated in the record. My point is this: General Bradley made a very interesting analysis of three documents, one of which he called a military directive, and next the study by the Joint Chiefs, and next the letter of the President of January 13. The directive was in answer to a request from General MacArthur of January 10 for instructions. I cannot find in the record that we have the text of General MacArthur's request or the text of the military directive of January 12. I do find in the record the President's letter of January 13. The research study by the Joint Chiefs of Staff we have referred to before, and we do not need that, but I would like to request that the text of General MacArthur's request for instructions of January 10 and the text of the military directive of January 12 be made a part of the record so that the testimony of General Bradley will be clear.

Chairman RUSSELL. I thought that both of them were in the record, but, General Bradley, you will bear that in mind.

Senator Smith, I regret very much we will have to deduct 1 minute. from your time.

Senator SMITH. I will be glad to have you do that. I just wanted to make this request.

Chairman RUSSELL. It is not a procedural question.

Senator WILEY. Mr. Chairman?

Chairman RUSSELL. Senator Wiley.

PROCEDURE OF THE HEARINGS

Senator WILEY. I have a suggestion to make this morning, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee. In view of the fact that General Bradley must get away, according to his previous commitments and we want to accommodate him-and in view of the fact that it is probably very important that the committee decide the issue that I raised yesterday, I have this suggestion to make: that General Bradley go on with his testimony with those on the committee that follow me, and that tomorrow morning I raise the subject on the appeal from the decision of the chairman, and that tomorrow morning we argue out the legal phases of this subject and arrive then at a decision. Thus we will not discommode General Bradley but rather make it so he can get away to make his engagement.

I might say that I have talked this matter over with a group of my Republican associates, including Senator Bridges and others, and we arrived at that conclusion-that in order to accommodate General Bradley and not to take the whole day arguing the legal phases of this matter this might be an advisable way to pursue our course.

In the meanwhile it will give those who have a little time an opportunity to examine the precedents and go into the background of the issue that is involved.

It is not new. It has been raging back and forth over the decades since the inception days of our Republic. There has been some change in the statutory law that may have some bearing. That is a suggestion that I make at this time, Mr. Chairman, feeling that it is convenient to General Bradley, and it also gives everyone an opportunity to satisfy themselves as to what their votes should be.

Chairman RUSSELL. I appreciate the desire of the Senator to accommodate General Bradley and assist him in his arrangements. I share interest in extending to General Bradley every courtesy that this committee can properly show, but, after all, we are a committee who are taking evidence at the present time, and it is my own opinion that where a matter of this kind arises, that the committee should determine it before proceeding with the testimony, in order that all the testimony might be received in an orderly manner.

I understood yesterday, and I think that the record will support my statement, that the Senator from Wisconsin had withdrawn his appeal. I shall not rely upon any technicalities if he wishes to press it.

I will accord him that full right, but I do think that the committee, despite the fact that it might cause General Bradley to listen to a considerable legal discussion on which we were not prepared yesterday, should decide this matter now before we proceed with this testimony in order that we may tell what questions can be asked and what cannot, and preserve the coherence of this testimony.

DETERMINING PROCEDURAL MATTERS AS THEY ARISE

Where a procedural matter arises, it should be determined, I think, as quickly as possible in order that the committee might have that decision for its guidance in the future examination of all of the other witnesses.

The matter has come up twice. A question was asked General MacArthur as to what transpired, what conversations were had with the President, and he declined to answer that question. The same question was addressed to General Marshall and he declined on the grounds of confidential relations. The same matter, of course, as was asked of General Bradley but it was not pressed to the stage in which we find ourselves with respect to this issue at the same time.

Senator STENNIS. The same question was asked General MacArthur.

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes.

Senator STENNIS. You said Marshall.

PARTISANSHIP AND THE HEARINGS

Chairman RUSSELL. I regret that the Senator from Wisconsin has been having huddles with just members of his party with respect to this issue. I have tried to sit here not as a Republican or Democrat but as an American. I have devoutly hoped from the moment these hearings opened that they would not degenerate into a partisan fight where the Republicans would have huddles here and the Democrats would have huddles there.

I had hoped that we might settle these matters not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans around this table as a committee of the Congress of the United States, charged with a very definite and specific responsibility.

It seems to me that if there ever was a time in our country, or a matter before a committee, that is peculiarly unsuited for partisan handling, it is the matter that is under investigation.

I merely feel that I should here express my regrets that events have taken this turn.

Senator WILEY. Mr. Chairman-
Chairman RUSSELL. Just a moment, please. I did not interrupt

you, sir.

SETTLING THE PROCEDURAL MATTER

It is wholly up to this committee to take the steps that they feel should be taken. If the committee wishes by a majority vote to postpone this matter and have it hanging over the committee as a matter of procedure undetermined, where all of the witnesses will undoubtedly have to be marched back if the position of Senator Wiley and those whom he says are supporting him are sustained, the committee has a right so to do. But I have my own views about orderly procedure, and I shall not, under any circumstances, be drawn into any partisan fight in connection with these hearings. I care not what the other members of the committee might do. I say, I will do my duty as I see it.

I think that when there is an important matter of procedure which is raised, the committee should settle it before proceeding to the ex

amination of witnesses, and it just means that we will have to rehash all of these hearings again in the light of what might have transpired in some private conversations at the White House if we do not conclude the issue now, but I am perfectly willing to▬▬

Senator LODGE. May I ask a question?

Chairman RUSSELL. Yes.

Senator LODGE. Does the able chairman contend that if we settle this question today that we have forever foreclosed ourselves from citing any subsequent witness for contempt if we ever feel we should do it?

Chairman RUSSELL. I made a statement the other day that I thought was very much adapted to the question when I said that the Senator had been around here too long to think that such a thing could be done.

I have forgotten to what he was referring, but a man does not have to be here more than 4 weeks to know that the Senate or a committee can reverse itself at any time it sees fit.

It is not done too often; as a rule, when procedure is agreed upon the committee always pays some attention to precedent. Apparently, the committee is not bound by precedent. The committee can establish a rule today, they will compel General Bradley to answer these questions, and if he refuses they can proceed as the law indicates with a witness here; and then another witness might come along, and the same question be asked, and the issue be raised, and the committee could reverse itself and say that they recognize the rule that those conversations were privileged, and therefore they would not proceed against the witness.

The committee is not bound, of course. Neither the committee nor the Senate has rules that are as immutable as the laws of the Medes and the Persians.

Senator LODGE. Will the chairman yield for a question?
Chairman RUSSELL. Yes.

POSSIBLE CITATIONS FOR CONTEMPT

Senator LODGE. Would it not be perfectly feasible to have a practice whereby we did not do any citing for contempt at this stage of the proceeding. Toward the end if there were three or four questions that emerged which we thought were important, we could undertake that action at that time, isn't that possible?

Chairman RUSSELL. Of course.

The Chair is not the master of this committee. I am not endeavoring to impose my views on the committee. The committee can take any course it sees fit. They can overrule the Chair, and not cite General Bradley. Of course, that would be slightly inconsistent; but, the committee is wholly within its rights if it takes that position.

I wish to make it clear, of course, that this is not an ordinary citation proceeding, wouldn't be. Some of the press seem to throw this mention of a citation in the same category of some witnesses who have refused to state whether or not they have been a member of the Communist Party.

These questions have no relation whatever to such an issue as that. Of course the same issue of law would control it that does control any other witness the committee deems recalcitrant.