Senator, that sat on the Kenyon case?
Senator McCarthy. Undoubtedly, I would say.
Senator McMahon. All of these cases that you have brought to
the attention of the Senate, some 81 of them were heard, as far as
you know, by a committee of three chosen froni this panel of nine?
Senator McCarthy. I think that can be safely assumed.
Senator McMahox. I believe you made mention of the fact that you
would give us some further information on the members of this panel?
Senator McCarthy. I said I w'ould give you further information
upon the members of the loyalty program.
Senator McMahon. Meaning these nine gentlemen ?
Senator ISIcCarthy. I do not know what information I will give on
this particular nine.
Senator McMahon. These, however, are the nine that do hear, in
the State Department-
Senator McCarthy. That is right.
Senator McMahon. And it is your contention, Senator, as I under-
stand it, that they have not done their duty in assessing these investi-
gating reports ?
Senator McCarthy. I think when they pass a woman like case No.
1, and give- her a clear bill of health without calling her down to a^k
her about any of these agencies, obviously they have not done their
duty — obviously no.
When you find a case like case No. 2, a phenomenal case, and find
a member of this panel passed this man and said he can have top-
secret clearance, then there is something radically wrong with either
their judgment or the individual.
Senator McMahon. Can you tell us — can you identify the hearing
panel in the other cases that you are going to take up ?
Senator McCarthy'. The answer is "No" ; I cannot.
Senator McMahon, That is what I wanted to know.
Senator McCarthy. Only except by rumor. When I get curious
about some of these phenomenal cases, I try to find out; and, by
hearsay, you hear that John Jones or Pete Smith, head of that par-
ticular Board — but, I cannot give you any definite information.
Senator McMahon. Have 3'ou had occasion to investigate any of
these gentlemen on this hearing board?
62 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVElSTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. I am compiling information now which I will
present to the committee on the membership of the various loyalty
boards. I frankly do not know — I do not know what information, if
any, I have on these. The information on these that I have before
me now merely consists in their activities on these various cases, and
as I say, I do not care whether it is the Governor of your State, or the
President of the United States who is on this Board, if you find that he
passes and gives a clean bill of health to some of these cases that I give
you, then you will know that there is something wrong with his
handling of the case.
Let me make this clear. I am not saying that any of these indi-
viduals on that panel are disloyal or anything like that. I just know
there is something radically wrong with the results that come from
the State Department Loyalty Board, and I am judging this solely by
the results.
Senator McMahon. You are not charging them with being disloyal,
but being incompetent and stupid. I think that is a fair statement
Senator McCarthy. I would say the Loyalty Board that passed No.
1 and No. 2 — it is putting it very generous!}' when you say they are
merely incompetent and stupid.
Senator McMahon. You say they are not disloyal, so I took the
alternative that they were dumb.
Now, Mr. Chairman, it strikes me that this would indicate a rather
quick review by the committee of these gentlemen who have been
named, and who the Senator says, and in whose opinion have passed on
these cases — obviously, who they are and what their background is,
is quite material to this investigation.
I happen to know two of them rather well, and the rest I do not
know, and I would like to get their background, because the American
people should realize as quickly as possible, not only what the pro-
cedure is that has been adopted, but the kind of men who have been
put in by the Secretary of State to operate that procedure.
This man Conrad E. Snow, I would certainly take Senator Bridges'
testimony on his behalf, which he gave to me in the Appropriations
Committee meeting the other day, as a very outstanding citizen.
Mr. Achilles, Theodore C. Achilles, is a gentleman I know quite well,
he is my next-door neighbor. He is on this panel of nine. I think it
would be very helpful if we could get this as quickly as possible.
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon, have you any suggestion as to
how this data should be assembled? Is it your idea that we should
get a biography of each one of the men, and read it into the record ?
Is it your idea that we should bring them before us? Is it your idea
that we should proceed in some other fashion?
I agree with what you said, because the witness here, as I understand
it, has said that the investigative set-ups, on the whole, are pretty
good.
Senator McCarthy. That is my opinion.
Senator Tydings. In his opinion, he called them pretty good, he paid
them a pretty good compliment, as I recall ; he said that the trouble
was at the top, where the final decision was reached, and that obviously
would be this Board in this particular Department. So, therefore, I
think it is very pertinent that if these men had been the means of
letting people hold jobs in the State Department, who are allegedly
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 63
disloyal, the public oiiglit to know the caliber of these men, as you
suiigest.
What is 3'our thought about it?
Senator McMahon. My thought was that I would have them up
here en masse, and line them up here, one by one, and I would take
a look at them and I would examine them, each one, as to how long
he had served in the Department, whether his educational background
and competency was sufficient to sit as a judge on these matters.
I think it would be very helpful, ]SIr. Chairman. I hope we do it
just as quickly as we can.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, would that be satisfactory
to you, if we were to do that ?
Senator McCarthy. That method, Mr. Chairman, would be com-
pletely ridiculous. You can bring the men up and look at them and
find out how long they have served, and have witnesses come in who
would testify that they had been kind to their wives and families,
that they are well respected.
But, that is not the point. The only way you can determine whether
or not that Board is competent to sit, whether or not we are wasting
the money we are paying on the loyalty program, is to take the file,
let us say in case Xo. 1 first, bring the file in, and in that file you
will find^ a vast number of subversive organizations to which this
individual has belonged. Then, you should say, "Gentlemen, who
sat on that Board? Wlio was the Chairman of that Board?" And
the next thing you will want to ask them is, "Why did not you call
this individual in and have her explain these connections?"
You will say to them — and let me finish, if I may — you will say to
them, "Here is what Dean Acheson himself said, he said that anyone
connected with these organizations, even remotely, may be a bad
security risk."
You say to them, "Here are more than 28, on which you have an
FBI report. What made you think you could pass upon that case
and give a clean bill of health without even bringing the individual
in, without writing a letter on the matter? How do you explain
this?"
There is the documentation.
Then, you go to case No. 2, and say, "Here is a phenomenal indi-
vidual. '\Ylio passed on that case? Who said this man, who is one
of the top"
Wait until we get to the case, strike that part of it.
I have the cases, which I think you should take, one by one, and
bring in the Board who sat on each particular case, don't find out
whether the men are kind to their wives and families, whether the
neighbors think they are fine people, but examine them to see whether
or not they are competent for this particular job, because, you see,
all through this Government we have a vast number of individuals
who are great golf companions, great individuals, but who are doing
a very, very bad job.
This idea of bringing them up here and lining them up, and bring-
ing in their neighbors to testify that they are fine fellows and are
not disloyal is a waste of time, and is ridiculous.
Senator McMahon. I move that the committee who passed on this
matter, these nine gentlemen, be brought before this committee to
64 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
tell US what their procedures have been. We will talk with them later
on any cases that might come into question by reason of the Senator's
testimony, but I formally move that these nine members be brought
here for testimony bearing upon the procedure that they have adopted.
This is a timely point in the proceedings for that to be done.
Senator Tydings. Any comment, Senator Green?
Senator Green. No comment.
Senator Tydings. Any comment, Senator Hickenlooper ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I move to amend the motion by making a
requirement that we get the files, all of them, in case No. 1, so that we
will be able to interrogate these men who sat on the panel, in the light
of the decision on file No. 1, and the information contained in file No.
1; and in that way really be able to explore their processes of clear-
ance or nonclearance of individuals.
Senator McCarthy. Not as a witness, but as a Senator, might I
ask the committee if they will consider allowing me to sit in at that
time? I think I can be helpful to the committee, I can find out who
was chairman of the various boards, find out why the results that have
come from the Board have been so unusual. I would like to find out,
for example, when Richardson's Board considered a post audit and
said that it was bad for this, that, and the other reason, and sent it
back to them, what they have done, further, and what action they
have taken.
That is the only way you can determine whether or not that is a
competent board. Otherwise, this will just be window dressing.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I
Senator McCarthy. I do not mean to say, and I hope I am not
understood as saying that I would be the only one to delve into that
and determine those facts, but I would like to sit with you.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, in order to amplify my
statement, the procedures have been well outlined, the Secretary of
State outlined the procedures and laid out the pattern of alleged pro-
cedures, I am not so concerned about the form of the procedure which
has already been laid out, and we understand that, at least I think
I do, but simply the actions taken by any board under the procedures
that have already been prescribed, and I think it is very important,
if you are going to interrogate these people, that we be in possession
of all the facts.
Senator Tydings. Senator McMahon ?
Senator McMahon. If there is any objection to the procedure
requested, I would prefei- to do it with Senator Lodge present, any-
way. I would be glad, if the Senator from Wisconsin objects to hav-
ing these men brought up, to have the request deferred until a later
time. That is quite all right with me.
It seems to me that it would be of interest both to him and to us,
to take a look at the kind of men and get the background of the men
who are accused of having done an incompetent job in this respect.
I do not press it.
Senator Tydings. If the motion is not pressed, the Chair will tell
the witness to proceed.
I think where we were, at the time we got off on this idea, was that
the Senator was about to offer in evidence the supporting material to
sustain the statements he made yesterday, as far as I can recall.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 65
Senator McCarthy. Senator, the Senator from Connecticut just
said if the Senator from Wisconsin objects to having them, having
the men brought up, so let's make it clear: I think they should be
brought up, brought before you, but in such a fashion that some
purj)ose will be served. I objected, not to their being brought up, I
think they should be brought here, I objected to the procedure you
outlined, bringing the men up and saying "We will look at them and
find out whether they are nice-looking people."
Senator Tydixgs. We will talce that up later and bring the witnesses
up at an appropriate time. I do not think we need any further ex-
planation. I think we have to get on with the evidence, or we will be
here after the next election.
I might say some of us are hopeful that that will be a prophecy.
Senator McCarthy. Where was I, Mr. Reporter?
( The record Avas read by the reporter.)
Senator McCarthy. I objected to bringing the men up and saying
that they are nice-looking people, and finding out whether
Senator Tydixgs. You have said that before.
Senator ]McCarthy. Let me finish, ]\Ir. Chairman.
Senator Tydixgs. It takes you so long, you make so many speeches
in the course of giving the testimony, the chairman does not want to
cut you off. but we have had so many speeches rather than evidence,
that we are getting along at a snail's pace.
. Senator McCarthy. I hope the Chair is not intimating that this
is being delaved bv the witness.
Senator Typings. I think the witness will have to share at least part
of the blame.
Senator Green. If the witness could learn there were two words in
the English language, "yes" and "no," he might use them more fre-
quently and it would be very helpful.
Senator McCarthy. As I started to say, so that we may know
whether or not it means anything when it is said that a certain individ-
ual "has been cleared by the loyalty board," I do think they should be
brought up at the earliest moment, but only when the files in the
specific cases are available.
Senator Tydings. That is in the record three times now.
We will ^o on with the testimony.
Senator McCarthy. With the Chair's permission, I shall proceed
in my own'f ashion, as best I can.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator McCarthy. I believe, before the committee started the
discussion, I had said the next case which I shall present to the com-
mittee is infinitely worse than this one, but the loyalty board still
placed its stamp of approval on him.
Senator Tydings. Just a moment, please.
Did I understand that you were going to put the supporting testi-
mony in on case No. 1 before you took up case No. 2 ; and, did not you
say that would be a good thing to do ?
Senator McCarthy. I have told that to the chairman several times.
Senator Tydings. You mean, you do not have it now but you will put
it in later?
Senator McCarthy. I am putting it in, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. I thought you were on case No. 2.
Senator McCarthy. Wait a minute, will you I
66 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'E6TIGATI0N
Senator Tydings. Let me get it straight.
Senator McCarthy. I did not r
Senator Tydings. Just a minute ; are you on case No. 1 or case No. 2
now?
Senator McCarthy. I intend to put in the docmnents on case No. 1
before we touch case No. 2, and put them in on case No. 2 before we
go to case No. 3.
May I finish my statement?
Senator Tydings. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. I think this very day the President has a re-
sponsibility to call this loyalty board before him and find out why
the individual I named yesterday was declared loyal. It is his duty
to find out why this loyalty board declared her loyal — without even
questioning her — when they had a report from the FBI showing that
she belonged to considerably more than 28 Communist-front organi-
zations.
Senator Tydings. That is not testimony in this case at all, it is
nothing but an opinion of wliat the President of the United States
ought to do. Let's get on with the evidence. I am tired of having
these speeches of what the President ought to do. Let us see what
we ought to do, which is get into this evidence.
Senator McCarthy. The Chair has the right to order stricken any
testimony I give, and I am making a statement I think is important.
It is difticult, with the constant repeated interruptions and hecklii^
by the Chair
Senator Tydings. We are here to hear evidence of disloyalty of
employees in the State Dej^artment. We are not here to hear what
the President of the United States ought to do. That is something
we can debate in another place, and I would thank the witness to con-
fine himself to the matter under investigation.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, I believe I was up to page 4,
yesterday, and, I think, to exhibit 5.
Let us now consider exhibit 5. The committee will note that on
January 18, 1935, over 15 years ago, Judge Kenyon was a sponsor of
the Political Prisoners Bail Fund Committee.
This outfit had its headquarters in room 1200, at 154 Nassau Street,
in New York.
The Political Prisoners Bail Fund Committee was a subsidiary of
the International Labor Defense, which has been cited as subversive
by the House Un-American Activities Committee, the California
Un-American Activities Committee, and the Attorney General.
This exhibit, wliich I now hand to the chairman, employing the
well-known jargon of the Communist Party
Senator Tydings. Just a moment. The matter will be inserted in
the record in full.
Senator McCarthy (continuing). Sets forth the noble purpose of a
common bail fund for those arrested in the struggle of the working
class, for the rights of oppressed minorities, in the fight against war
and fascism.
The Chairman of the Political Prisoners Bail Fund Committee was
Paul P. Crosbie, the recently deceased leader of the Communist Party
in Queens County, New York.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 67
Recently in the Federal court in New York, 11 men were convicted
of conspiracy to overthrow our Government. Among them was Ben-
jamin J. Davis, Jr. Benjamin J. Davis, Jr., was one of the trustees
of the committee under discussion.
Other ''great" Americans on this melancholy and malodorous aggre-
gation were Corliss Lamont, Carol Weiss King, and Charles Krum-
bein, who was the late treasurer &f the Communist Party of the
United States.
Again we find the lady in familiar company.
Now, if I may, I would like to discuss exhibit 6, which I now hand
to the committee.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, of course all the names will
be printed into the record, and the names are very numerous. You
always read, as I recall, a few of the names.
It would be very helpful, I am sure, to the press, if we could find
the medium of letting the press have all the names on these exhibits,
rather than just a few of them.
Senator McCarthy. I would suggest we make all of the exhibits
available to the press.
Senator Tydixgs. I will state to the press now, that it is going to
take a long while to number them and go through a list like that, if you
want to see it, because there is probably on this list two or three hun-
dred names, and I want to accommodate the press but I am a little at
odds as to how we can give you all these names, unless the time is taken
to read them. It will take quite a little while.
I think the fair way to do it would be to present the evidence, if a^ou
allow me to suggest it, I have no desire to alter your testimony, but
present the thing without comment in part of names, unless you put all
the names in so that the document may have the full comiotation before
the people of the country. *
Senator McCarthy. I thank the Chair for its suggestion. May I
say this
Senator Tydings. I hope the Senator will comply with it. I think it
is in the interest of fairness and would not detract from anything he
has to say.
Senator McCarthy. I thank the Chair for his suggestion, and it is
entirely possible the Chair might present the evidence in a different
fashion than I do, perhaps in a better fashion, I don't know. I think
it is important to show the well-known Communist names that appear
quite all the way through this case. There are individuals who — may
1 say that the purpose of a front organization
Senator Tydings. Rather than argue, proceed in your own way.
Senator McCarthy. That is what I am doing now, Mr. Chairman.
There are individuals who are fine Americans who have been in-
duced to put their names on a few of these documents, but I think
it is important to show the company these individuals have kept all
the way, and particularly the company this individual has kept all
the way through the picture.
Senator Tydings. I would like to tell the press that the date of the
last exhibit, or the next to the last exhibit — what was that ?
Senator McCarthy. It was January 8, 1935. I read it.
Senator Tydings. And the date of the present exhibit, is — New
York Times of October 9, 1944.
68 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. The Chair will note that these exhibits are
dated all the way from 1935 up to the present date.
It will be noted that exhibit 6 is a paid political advertisement
inserted in the New York Times of October U, 1944, on page 12.
Morris U. Schappes is a man who was convicted in the State court
of New York for perjury. This is the organization which was formed
to defend him, this organization .called the Schappes Defense Com-
mittee, with headquarters at 12 Astor Place. I was sponsored by
Judge Kenyon.
Senator Tydixgs. You mean she was one of the sponsors, do you
not?
Senator McCarthy. One of the sponsors.
Senator Tydings. You do not want to leave the impression that she
was the motivating influence.
Senator McCarthy. I do not know who the motivating influence
was, Senator.
Judge Kenyon was a sponsor of this organization. But lest there
be any doubt of the Communist character of this group, let me
quote from a report of the House Un-American Activities Committee,
which said on page 1555, of appendix 9 :
Morris U. Schappes admitted in sworn testimony before the Rapp-Coudert
committee that he joined the Communist Party in the summer of 1934. He
further admitted tliat he was a memher of the Communist Party's educational
commission. He told the Rapp-Condert committee that he used the name Alan
Horton in tlie Communist Party, and that under tliat alias he had delivered the
report of the educational commission at the tentli convention of the Com-
munist Party in 1938.
Schappes was on the teaching staff of the College of the City of New York
for a period of 13 years. In 1936 his superior on the college faculty refused
to recommend him for reappointment. This action led to prolonged agitation
by the Communist Party and its front organizations on behalf of Schappes.
The following organizations •participated in this agitation: The Communist
Party, the Young Communist League, the American Student Union, the League
of American Writers, the American League Against War and Fascism, and
the International Worliers Order.
In 1937 the borough president of the New York County in the city
of New York, Mr. Stanley M. Isaacs, appointed as an assistant on
his staff a reporter for the Communist Daily Worker named Simon
W. Gerson.
Almost immediately, the patriotic citizens of New York, led by
the American Legion and other equally reputable organizations,
entered a vigorous protest on the naming of an avowed Communist
to a responsible city position.
The Daily Worker wrote a letter, ranting and screaming against
this "witch-hunting campaign" and "injustice," and launched a vio-
lent and intemperate tirade against any and all who felt that the city
might better be served by a 100 percent American.
They sought the aid of fellow Communists, fellow travelers, suckers,
and just plain dopes. The latter two categories are found frequently
in the Communist manifestos, but they do not remain long.
The test of a real Red, Fascist, or fellow traveler is a constant adher-
ence to the rapidly shifting Communist Party line over a long period
of years. Here again we have this prominent State Department
official. Judge Kenyon, crying aloud in her anguish for a fellow
red, and I call anyone who gets $12,000 a year of the people's money,
very prominent.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 69
Senator Greex. May I ask a question? That $12,000 a year is a
little misleadiiiu'. Did she get $12,000 a year?
Senator ^McCarthy. Senator, the information I aave the rommit-
tee is from the Federal Ke«:ister. Tliat, I believe, shows she received
$12,000 a year. I understand the State Department said last night
that this woman was not receiving payment for the full year, that slie
only received payment for the time she worked, at the rate of $12,000