MILITARY SITUATION IN THE FAR EAST WEDNESDAY, MAY 16, 1951 COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES AND THE COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN RELATIONS, 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. 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 sugges tion 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, s 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 Rould 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 pecific 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. ChairmanChairman 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 hould 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 comittee 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 ty 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 Tuty as I see it. I think that when there is an important matter of procedure which raised, the committee should settle it before proceeding to the ex 83797-51-pt. 2- -5 amination of witnesses, and it just means that we will have to reha all of these hearings again in the light of what might have transpir in some private conversations at the White House if we do not ca clude 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 th question today that we have forever foreclosed ourselves from citi any subsequent witness for contempt if we ever feel we should do it! Chairman RUSSELL. I made a statement the other day that I thoug was very much adapted to the question when I said that the Senal had been around here too long to think that such a thing could done. I have forgotten to what he was referring, but a man does not ha to be here more than 4 weeks to know that the Senate or a commit can reverse itself at any time it sees fit. It is not done too often; as a rule, when procedure is agreed up the committee always pays some attention to precedent. Apparent the committee is not bound by precedent. The committee can establ a rule today, they will compel General Bradley to answer these qu tions, and if he refuses they can proceed as the law indicates with witness here; and then another witness might come along, and same question be asked, and the issue be raised, and the commit could reverse itself and say that they recognize the rule that those c versations were privileged, and therefore they would not proce against the witness. The committee is not bound, of course. Neither the committee the Senate has rules that are as immutable as the laws of the Me and the Persians. Senator LODGE. Will the chairman yield for a question? POSSIBLE CITATIONS FOR CONTEMPT Senator LODGE. Would it not be perfectly feasible to have a pr tice whereby we did not do any citing for contempt at this stage the proceeding. Toward the end if there were three or four qu tions that emerged which we thought were important, we could und take 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 endeav ing to impose my views on the committee. The committee can t any course it sees fit. They can overrule the Chair, and not General Bradley. Of course, that would be slightly inconsistent; b 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 c tion proceeding, wouldn't be. Some of the press seem to throw t mention of a citation in the same category of some witnesses who h refused to state whether or not they have been a member of the Co munist Party. ob no These questions have no relation whatever to such an issue as th Of course the same issue of law would control it that does eonl any other witness the committee deems recalcitrant. This is a matter of privilege, wherein General Bradley has not iled to state his own views with respect to the subject under conderation, but has declined to disclose a private conversation ocirring between himself and the President of the United States, and ther conversations, when he was serving in the capacity of confiential adviser to the President. Senator HICKENLOOPER. May I interrupt, Mr. Chairman? ROLE OF PRESIDENT TO BRADLEY TESTIMONY Senator HICKENLOOPER. I might suggest the possibility that the ontroversy might be eliminated. I don't know, but yesterday it emed to me that General Bradley said he thought he should contact President, and if it was all right with the President, he might feel at it was O. K. to discuss the matter, and answer questions; and erhaps he has that authority now. If he does have, I would assume that would automatically make e question before us moot at the moment, as far as those questions re concerned. Chairman RUSSELL. I agree completely with the Senator. Of urse, it would. I don't know whether General Bradley wishes now answer the question. Chairman CONNALLY. I want to register my protest against any ach action referring to the President the question whether a witness fore this committee shall answer or not. I think the question is uuch deeper than that. It goes to the very integrity of confidential munications between the President and his trusted and confitential adviser. If you adopt this practice, there can't be any confidential conferces any more, because they cease to be confidential when they are ivulged or even when they call the President in. You might as well put the President on the stand and let him testify - to what took place if you are going to send the witness back the President and ask his permission or consent to divulge a private onversation in a confidential relationship. I just wanted that to be on the record. Senator GEORGE. Mr. Chairman. Chairman RUSSELL. Senator George. Senator GEORGE. I think fundamentally and basically it is a rivilege that General Bradley has, whether he will divulge anything of a confidential nature; and even though the President might excuse im, it would still be a matter for him to decide, whether or not he ould divulge it, whether or not he would make answer. If there is a confidential relationship and if the question goes to hings that occur growing out of that relationship, it then becomes a rivilege for the witness himself as well as the President. So I think that if General Bradley had an express green light, so speak, from the President, it would still be up to him to decide whether or not he wished to disclose what took place in a conference of the nature and character we are discussing. Chairman RUSSELL. I did not intend, of course, to submit the queson of whether or not the President had released General Bradley. |