embarrassing position, but you were concerned with what excuses you could make in order to justify the thing that you were going to order, but you were going to order them in spite of regulations.

In the case of the hangar, it will be procured if the purchase is approved and P-2000 funds are available for the area detachment and not necessarily associated with the airfield.

So you wanted to give an excuse not associated with the airfield in order to get funds to finish the airfield and you knew it was going to be used for that purpose.

In the case of physical inspection by the Department of the Army representatives at some later date, it can be explained that this is a temporary building.

You wanted to go ahead and do it for the airstrip and then you make up an excuse to give in the future if they ever caught up with you and that is all you have been trying to do here today, give excuses of why you violated what you knew to be the law.

In case of a physical inspection by the Department of the Army representatives at some later date, it can be explained that this is a temporary building which would be moved to meet other storage requirements.

It can be explained. You weren't going to use it for that purpose, but you were going to use it in connection with your airstrip if and when no longer required at the airfield site-if and when. You knew it was going to be required at the airfield site, but it is only subterfuge to get around the law, the limitations that had been set up and knowingly done.

"Other facilities required, such as water ***." You knew water would be required. You knew power would be required and lights would be required. Those can be provided as resources become available as improvement on the landing field will be in existence. You bring it into existence in order to get these other things. By your own letter dated June 1, 1959, and signed by W. R. Ridlehuber, colonel, you knew these things. Now you would sit there and have us think what you wanted them to think after you tried to conceal it and after it has been discovered, and you still hold on to avoiding the responsibilities. You still won't face the truth and your fine answers are fitted to try to get you off the spot.

That is all. Thank you.

Col. Louis Shirley.

You do solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give the subcommittee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I do.

TESTIMONY OF COL. LOUIS H. SHIRLEY, U.S. ARMY (RETIRED), FORMER DEPUTY POST COMMANDER AND DEPUTY COMMANDER, FORT LEE, VA.

Chairman DAWSON. Were you at Fort Lee during the period covered by this report and what capacity did you occupy?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I was there most of the time and I was there as the deputy post commander and deputy commander.

Chairman DAWSON. Who was your immediate superior?
Colonel SHIRLEY. General Denniston.

Chairman DAWSON. Describe your duties there. Colonel SHIRLEY. Well, I was General Denniston's deputy. The responsibility would be to do the things he wanted me to do, carry out his instructions and work with the "G" staffs, the different chiefs of staff, G-1, G-2, G-3, and G-4. I was in the management level at Fort Lee.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Anderson?

Mr. ANDERSON. Colonel Shirley, will you describe to us what your role was in conjunction with the attempted suppression of certain papers from the GAO?

Colonel SHIRLEY. Mr. Congressman, when we heard about GAO coming down, as is usual, we get the chiefs of staff in and tell them that the GÃO is coming in and that they will be treated with respect and cooperated with and provided with the information that they ask for. I did not give any instruction to suppress evidence or destroy any papers.

Mr. ANDERSON. Did you make any remark to the effect about preparing the files or cleaning the files?

Colonel SHIRLEY. We told them that the files should be prepared for them and made available to them. That had no connotation or I didn't intend it to have any connotation that they should destroy any files.

Mr. ANDERSON. There is a statement on page 39 in Mr. Baras' statement that according to Lieutenant Colonel Jarrett he was instructed by you to notify either the post engineer or assistant post engineer to remove all embarrassing material from the 10-57 file before the arrival of GAO. Is that a correct statement?

Colonel SHIRLEY. That is not correct.

Mr. ANDERSON. At no time did you ever tell Lieutenant Colonel Jarrett to remove embarrassing material?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I wouldn't know that there was any embarrassing material in the files.

Mr. ANDERSON. If you don't know that after what you heard today--I assume you have been listening to these hearings. There was certainly some material that was capable of causing a good deal of embarrassment and it did embarrass a lot of people that were later reprimanded by the commanding general.

Colonel SHIRLEY. I beg your pardon; I meant at that particular time.

Mr. ANDERSON. That fact is further corroborated on page 39 by the fact that Major Swartz says that-It says that Major Swartz corroborated the fact that he received instructions from Lieutenant Colonel Jarrett to remove embarrassing materials from the file. Would I understand you then to say that if such an order was given that it was generated by Colonel Jarrett?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I wouldn't know, sir, who generated the order. Mr. ANDERSON. Who was his immediate superior at the time? Colonel SHIRLEY. Colonel Ridlehuber.

Colonel RIDLEHUBER. No, I wasn't.

Colonel SHIRLEY. Colonel Connor. I beg your pardon.

Mr. ANDERSON. As I recall it, Colonel Connor testified you were present at the time there was some discussion of the coming of the

81951-62-7

GAO of the necessity of removing some embarrassing material. Do you recall being present?

Colonel SHIRLEY. Yes. When we heard the GAO was coming, we had a meeting and I am sure there were more there than indicated here because we bring in all of the G staff and advise them, including the controller, when we hold these meetings. This is done as a matter of course, and includes the Chief of Staff. Now I can't tell you what Colonel Jarrett and Colonel Swartz felt about the particular files but I certainly did not tell them to destroy anything out of the files.

Mr. ANDERSON. Not destroy, but did you tell them to remove? Colonel SHIRLEY. I did not tell them to remove things from the files either.

Mr. ANDERSON. There is a statement on page 40 of this report that Colonel Connor told the staff of this committee that he told you that he would not be a party to the removal of any material from the files. Is that a correct statement?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I don't recall that, but he could have done that. Mr. ANDERSON. Well, if it is possible then that he said that and could have done that, doesn't that logically infer that somebody told Colonel Connor that he was supposed to removed that material from the files? Colonel SHIRLEY. I don't think so, sir. I don't think so.

Mr. ANDERSON. That doesn't carry that implication to you? Why would he feel it necessary to tell the committee staff that he told you that he wouldn't be a party to something if nobody told him he should do it?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I don't remember Colonel Connor telling me that he would not be a party to the destruction of any files. I wouldn't be a party to it either.

Mr. ANDERSON. In other words, you are not sure whether that conversation took place or not; is that right?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I am not familiar with this, nor do I have any recollection of it.

Chairman DAWSON. I guess they all have bad memories on those questions that would show knowledge on their part. That is the only time their memories get bad; when something comes up that would make them a party to this seeking to avoid the limitations by Congress.

Colonel SHIRLEY. I am not seeking to avoid it.

Mr. ANDERSON. You were aware of the law existing as to the limitation of the $25,000 in 1 year, were you not?

Colonel SHIRLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDERSON. Is it a fact you were not aware this occurred until after the GAO divulged this information after their visit to the post? Colonel SHIRLEY. That is right.

Mr. ANDERSON. Yet you were the direct person in reporting to the general as to what the G-4 was doing here at Fort Lee, weren't you? Colonel SHIRLEY. Mr. Congressman, in the organization there are management people that have responsibility for management of certain phases of the operations at the post. That responsibility is delegated to them, the different G staffs. They have a program; they develop it and they are supposed to carry it out and they are given the latitude and authority to do that and this is the way it is operated. I could not possibly, nor did I, supervise their activities.

Mr. ANDERSON. You knew this airfield was one of the projects that were going on, didn't you?

Colonel SHIRLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. ANDERSON. You had some very serious doubts as a matter of fact as to whether or not that could be constructed under the $25,000 limitation, didn't you?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I had some doubts about that.

Mr. ANDERSON. Don't you think if you had doubts of that kind that being the immediate superior of Colonel Ridlehuber you would have taken some steps to find out what was going on during the progress of the construction, as to whether or not it was exceeded? Wasn't your curiosity being excited a little bit on that?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I must answer that by saying we had the confidence of Colonel Ridlehuber and the G-4 program chairman to carry out their particular program and we depended upon them to carry out that program,

Mr. ANDERSON. I note from page 42 the statement that you recalled you approved two purchase requests for materials used in this airfield shown on the record as being required for other purposes. In other words, while this was going on you knew materials for airfields were being charged to a project other than this project; is that correct?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I knew about these, but I had no indication or was I advised that it exceeded $25,000 límitation.

Mr. ANDERSON. But you knew that materials were being used and being charged to other projects and being used on the airfield? Colonel SHIRLEY. This I must answer yes.

Mr. ANDERSON. Coupled with the fact that originally you said. you doubted whether or not the thing could be constructed for $25,000. Shouldn't that have aroused a certain degree of suspicion as to what was going on here?

Colonel SHIRLEY. Not having the knowledge that it exceeded it, I never considered it.

Mr. ANDERSON. In other words, as you sit there now you don't feel that you were lax in any way in your capacity as the Chief of Staff for General Denniston, knowing what was going on with respect to this project?

Colonel SHIRLEY. Maybe I was. I don't know. Maybe I was.

Mr. ANDERSON. Well, I would think you would give us a somewhat franker answer, frankly, than that after looking at this record. I have no further questions.

Chairman DAWSON. Mr. Brown?

Mr. BROWN. I am sorry I was late but we had a rule on the floor.
Did you ever discuss this matter with General Denniston?
Colonel SHIRLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN. Did he know that these things were going on?

Colonel SHIRLEY. He knew about the same facts I knew, that I indicated to you, sir.

Mr. BROWN. And did he know that you had signed these orders for the use of materials that would go to a different operation, or for a purchase other than originally designated?

Colonel SHIRLEY. As I recall, I told him that; yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN. What did he have to say about that; do you remember?

Colonel SHIRLEY. He took the same position that I did, that this was a matter which was the responsibility of the particular area and we had no reason to or we felt we had no reason to take any other action on it.

Mr. BROWN. Let me ask you this: Is it customary for men in your position, or for different divisions or departments or agencies, whatever you want to call them in the military, to use materials or charge materials for one purpose when they are designated under the law to be used for another purpose? Is that generally the way you handle business?

Colonel SHIRLEY. No, sir.

Mr. BROWN. You know what would happen if that were done with an appropriation by a business executive?

Colonel SHIRLEY. He would probably get fired.

Mr. BROWN. What else might happen to him?

Colonel SHIRLEY. Well, it all depends on what he did with the money. In this particular case, no one has got any money. Everybody thought they were doing something to protect the great interests of the Government.

Mr. BROWN. There is only one thing that does become apparent, and that is that the taxpayers don't have the money that they did have. Colonel SHIRLEY. Sir, that hits me, too.

Mr. BROWN. What?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I am also a taxpayer.

Mr. BROWN. It has occurred to you that the taxpayers lost this money and it was taken away from them illegally?

Now when you get right down to the moral question, what is the difference between taking the taxpayer's money away from him this way, in violation of the law, and taking it away from him at the point of a gun?

Colonel SHIRLEY. I don't think anybody really wanted to violate the law. It could be they morally violated the law. Morally they probably violated the law, but I don't think there was any intention of it.

Mr. BROWN. Now, you don't think there was any intention involved in this connection when you cover up transfers of material, when you do some of these other things, when these records are taken out of the files so they can't be found to show what is being done? Colonel SHIRLEY. Well, it is not right.

Mr. BROWN. Now you and I are grown up.

Colonel SHIRLEY. Yes, sir. It is not right to do it.
Mr. BROWN. You know it is not right.

Colonel SHIRLEY. It is not right.

Mr. BROWN. You know something was done there that is not right and you know now, since this investigation started, that it was absolutely illegal, if you didn't know it before, and in direct violation of the law?

Colonel SHIRLEY. Yes, sir.

Mr. BROWN. Let me ask you this question: We sit here as Members of the Congress, in positions that are not always easy to fill, any more than some occupied by the military officers, and we have certain responsibilities to meet. What can a Member of Congress do as to cases like this one, other than explode and perhaps demand prosecution, if