taken of :SIr. Larsen. I can't recall all the things that were said.
I would require that in order to ask my questions.
Senator Tydixgs. I am going to go to my office immediately and
have whatever we have got sent around, and I ask, when they do come
to you, that they be safeguarded, and that these leaks be stopped.
Senator Hickenlooper. :Mr. Chairman, my records are kept at all
times under lock and key, and nobody else in the oilice has access to
them but me,. ^,, . . . ^ . . ,
Mr. Peltjifot. ^YivAt we want, Mr. ( hairman, if I am going to be
asked questions about the testimony of this man Larsenâ€” 1 ask that 1
be permitted to see what he said, too. . , ^ ^,, . .i . -^ t i
Senator Hickenlooper. I can say this, Mr. Chan-man, that it i have
the opportunitv or desire to interrogate ^Ir. Peniifoy on what Mr.
Larsen testified, I am perfectly willing for Mr. Peurifoy to see the
testimonv; I have no objection to that.
Senator Tyt>ixgs. All right. , ,. t. -^ i r
Senator Hickenlooper. I mav want to ask Mr. Peurifoy some addi-
tional questions after I have seen what Mr. Larsen testified to.
Senator Tydings. I will see that you get the transcript as soon as it
is available. I will have to look them up.
Mr. Morgan. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Tydixgs. On the record. ,. t i \r^A
Mr MoRGVN Mr. Chairman, m aiu)ther connection I have asked
the State Department to supply for our records a statement concerning
1248 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IjS^'ESTIGATION
the handling of this influx of employees of the emergency agencies in
1945 and 194G, and I would like to ask Mr. Peurifoy if he has pre-
pared such a statement and if he has it with him now.
Mr. Peurifoy. I do.
Senator Tydings. How long is it?
Mr. Peurifoy. About five pages. I will be glad to submit it for
Mr. Morgan. I would like to request, Mr. Chairman, that Mr.
Peurifoy read this statement into the record, because I think it is
in line with the scope of our investigation.
Senator Green. Do you want to identify the statement?
Senator Tydings. Yes. Mr. Peurifoy will now read into the record
a statement in regard to the influx of employees in various emergency
Mr. Peurifoy. I have deep and profound interest in our democratic
w^ay of life and I have, on many occasions, expressed myself both
publicly and privately that I have a vital interest in the security of
Ihese United States and particularly in the secui'ity of the Department
of State. Therefore, gentlemen, I think you should know how the
security program of the Department of State was developed and of
the action being taken to provide security to the Department and the
On February 18, 1947, General ]\larshall, who was then Secretary
of State, delegated full responsibility to me for the security of the
Department and the Foreign Service.
Eealizing the seriousness of this responsibility, I immediately under-
took to acquaint myself with the security problems of the Department
and with the facilities that were available to handle these problems.
The Department had suddenly had its staff increased by approxi-
mately 4,000 employees in the latter part of 194.5 and early 1946.
These persons had been blanketed into the Department, by Executive
orders. They came from the Office of War Information, Foreign
Economic Administration, Office of Strategic Services. Army-Navy
Liquidation and part of the Coordinator of Inter-American Affairs.
Such a wholesale blanketing of employees into the Department had
placed upon the Department's security facilities a burden which such
facilities were not capable of handling. Definite steps had been taken
by my predecessor to correct this situation and definite progress had
Surveys which my predecessor had instituted indicated that a, great
deal more would have to be done in order to provide adequate security
to the Department and the Foreign Service. There were only 47
special agents available to conduct investigations. Obviouslv ' this
number was not sufficient to investigate these employees. Further-
moi-e, there investigators, while experienced, had no operations manual
to guide them in their investgiations. While there was a security
screening committee in existence, as an emergency measure, this com-
mittee did not have any standards of security or loyalty which it
could use as a guide in making security and loyalty determinations.
Organizationally the situation did not appear to be satisfactory
inasmuch as there was doubt as to the adequacy of the security pro-
cedures both from an investigative and evaluation point of view.
There were indications that the security function was divided among
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN'VESTIGATION 1249
too many divisions and offices and that there was a very definite need
for an inij)rovod t'orei<rn security i)r<)<irani as well as a need for im-
jn-ovinir tlie security consciousness of every employee both.at home and
abroad. At this point, let me assure you that the conditions which
I have just mentioned do not exist today. Corrective measures have
One of the first steps which I took was to request the Federal
Bureau of lnvestioati(m to make a complete survey of the security
operations and inform me not only of the adequacy of the existing
procedures but also to make reconunen<hitions for improvement. The
Federal Bureau of Invest ijj;at ion furnished me a repoit on April 28,
11)47. Their recommendations have been acted ui)on. The report,
the recommendations and the actions taken on tlie recommendations
have recently been made available to a member of the subconuuittee
of this committee.
In June 1047 I abolished the security screening committee on per-
.sonnel, which was a secret connnittee. At the same time I announced
to all employees the establishment of the Personnel Security Board
and the procedures under which it would operate. Loyalty and se-
curitv standards were established as a guide for the operations of
this Board. "When the Government's loyalty program went into ef-
fect the name of the Personnel Security Board was changed to the
Loyalty Securitv Board and it was given authority to act as the De-
partment's Loyalty Board. I appointed Gen. Conrad E. Snow of
New Hampshire as Chairman of the Board. Today this Board has
nine members, all of whom have been carefully selected by me after
receivinir recommendations from the security people of the De])art-
ment. these men are outstanding, thoroughly competent, and fully
capable of discharging their responsibilities.
I want to add in here that I do not personally go out and pick
these people Avho serve on this Board. I ask my security officer to
make recommendations to me as to who should serve on these boards.
In order to expedite the screening of the persons who had been
blanketed into the Department, a strong evaluation unit Avas estab-
lished which directed, on a priority basis, the investigations of the
individuals on whom there was any security question. This security
screeninii- has been completed. All of those i)ersons on whom some
quest ion'~existed have either left the Department or have been cleared
and processed mider the Govermnent's loyalty program. Inciden-
tally, I might mention that all employees of the Department are
screened for securitv and ])rocessed through the lovalty program.
Inasmuch as the security responsibilities of the Department were
divided among several organizational units, I determined that a
reorganization of the entire set-up was necessary. Several organiza-
tional changes were made. This reorganization has been completed.
Today the present Division of Security under the direction of D. L.
Nicholson, an attorney and former FBI agent, is the only organiza^-
tional unit having responsibility for directing the ])ersonnel jind
phvsical securitv pro<iram of the Department and the Foreign Service.
It "has been strengthened by recruitment of thoroughly experienced
and competent professional security personnel. The present investi-
gative staff has been provided with a complete manual of operations, is
trained by means of periodic conferences, and is kept up to date on all
new investigative techniques.
1250 STATE DEiPARTMENT EiT^IPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
All employees have been given security indoctrination. This has
been accomplished through motion pictures, lectures, posters and a
system of unit security officers in each operating unit throughout the
Department. Physical security regulations have been revised and re-
issued for both the Department and the Missions in foreign countries.
The foreign security program has been reorganized during the past
year and a sound foundation has been laid upon which an expanded and
improved program can be developed.
The need to provide adequate technical equipment such as safes,
locks, alarm systems, et cetera, is constant. Today, facilities exist
Avithin the Division of Security to adequately provide for and develop
such equipment to insure the physical protection of classified
Certainly I need not tell you gentlemen that the maintenance of
adequate personnel and physical security is continuous. Therefore,
â– we have provided for continuous screening of personnel and this
program is well established and is in operation today.
There has been tremendous progress made by the Department of
State in the security field and I have full and complete confidence in
the people associated with the program.
Recently a subcommittee of this committee has investigated our
policies and procedures and in a spirit of helpfulness has submitted
their recommendations for improvement. At the moment a thorough
analysis of these recommendations is in process. Wlien the analysis is
completed I will furnish this committee with my comments on the
Senator Lodge. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Peurifoy made reference to one
member of the committee having questioned the FBI recommendations
as to the administration security of the State Department. I am a
member of that subcommittee and I am studying the report now, and,
as soon as I have finished it, studying it, I will send it to you.
The subject interests me very much.
Now, I would like to ask Mr. Peurifoy this : Is it broadly true that
in the fall of 1945 and the early part of 1940 there were blanketed into
the State Department by Executive order some 4,000 persons without
Mr. Peukttoy. That is correct, sir.
Senator Green. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me it would be wise to
have copies of that report available for all members of the committee.
I think tliere is only one copy available. Could we have copies made ?
Senator Tydinos. Off the record.
(Discussion off the record.)
Senator Lodge. As soon as I finish reading the report, I will send it
to you, in a day or two.
Senator Tydixgs. If you make a thorough studv, we would not
liavetogo into it.
Senator Lodge. I will send it over to you today.
Mr. INIoRGAN. Some time ago, in a discussion on the Senate floor,
Senator McCarthy introduced a one-page photostat copy of a paper
or a document which was prepared in the State Department, appar-
ently, relative to this problem of the screening of emplovees and con-
tinuing appropriate investigation with respect to them. "
I liave made a request to the State Department for that document
and I wonder if it will be made available to us and, if so, when.
STATE DEPARTMENT EAIPLOYEE LOYALTY I]Sr\^ESTIGATION 1251
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, ISIr. Morgan. I think the full document should
be made available to you. There was a report made in August of
194G and submitted to my then predecessor.
Senator Tydixgs. You "will make it available ?
Mr. Peurtfoy. I will make it available.
Senator Tydixgs. All right. Go ahead.
Mr. Peukifoy. But, for one thing, I will probably strike the name
from the report, that is, the names mentioned in it.
Senator Tydings. All right.
Mr. ]\IoRGAN. INIr. Peurifoy, we have in our record now the proceed-
ings before a subconmiittee of the House Appropriations Committee
in 1948, when you appeared.
Senator Tythngs. You better make that specific, in that there were
three of them.
Mr. INIoKGAN. This is a subcommittee of the House Appropriations
Committee, dealing with the appropriation for the State Department.
Senator Tydixgs. That is right.
Mr. Morgan. And, as Mr. Peurifoy stated, he appeared before that
committee and testified with respect to certain cases identified by
^lumbers, as I remember.
Mr. Peurifoy, have you made any analysis whatever of those cases
discussed before the subcommittee of the House Appropriations Com-
mittee, in the light of the cases discussed on the Senate floor on
February 20, 1950, by Senator McCarthy ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir ; we have.
Mr, ]\IoRGA^r. And what was the result of your study ?
Mr. Peurifoy. The speech of the Senator from Wisconsin on Feb-
ruary 20 was concerned with the report of the investigators of the
House Subcommittee on Appropriations factually, the factual in-
formation ; the nonf actual â€” it is perfectlj^ clear that these names came
from that report, as far as we can determine.
Senator Tydix'GS. Are they the same cases ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Those that he factually described; yes, sir; there
were several cases.
Senator Tydixgs. All right.
Mr. MoRGAX. Eeference was made, Mr. Peurifoy, to the fact that
you have been overruled at various times with respect^ to security cases,
or loyalt}^ cases, in the State Department.
Have you, or have you not, on occasion, been so overruled ?
INIr. Peurifoy. Not by the present Secretary of State.
;Mr. IMoRGAX. Is there anything else you care to say on that subject ?
Mr. Peurifoy. Well, some time ago I was overruled on cases that I
had acted on several j^ears ago. I returned to New York from a trip
to Europe, accompanying a group of Senators to Europe. The day
I returned to New York, before I reached Washington, the pa]:)ers
indicated that the action I took had been reversed, notwithstancling
that I had exercised the McCarran rider, and they were permitted to
Mr. IMoRGAx. There have been some references treated rather ex-
tensively in the press to the effect that the loyalty files now available
to review by the members of this subcommittee have been doctored,
tampered with, altered, changed, as the case may be.
Have you any information, Mr. Peurifoy, that such has been done
with respect to the loyalty files ?
1252 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Peurifot. I want to say to you, sir, that I specifically gave
orders that nothing in the files be deleted and no file should be re*
moved, should not be tampered with, notes should not be erased, and
everything in our files should be made available to this committee.
Mr. Morgan. Are you in a position to say everything in the files
pertaining to loyalty has been made available to this committee?
Mr. Peurifoy. Insofar as a human being can. I issued an order to
that effect. I can so state.
Senator Lodge. At this point, I may say that I have read a repre-
sentative cross section of those files, and, in their present state, or
unfinished state, they do not furnish the basis for me to reach any
firm conclusion. I do not challenge the statement that everything on
the case is in the file, but I do say that the allegations are not followed
up in many cases, neither confirmed nor denied. To expect a Senator
reading one of those files to reach a conclusion, it is a very difficult
procedure. I am not criticizing you at all but inasmuch as the ques-
tion of the adequacy of the files came up I want the record to show
in my opinion that the files are inadequate.
Mv. Peikifoy. I don't think you asked if they are adequate.
Senator Lodge. I did not ask it.
Senator Tydings. I woidd like to put in the record and will furnish
for the record a statement tliat immediately upon the charge of
Senator INIcCarthy that the files were tampered with I wrote to the De-
partment of Justice and asked them to make a thorough examination as
to whether the material furnished by the FBI for these files was in-
tact, whether any of it was missing, and so on, and I was advised yes-
terday that all files liave been examined and there was no erasing or
tampering or altering of the records according to the FBI. There
is no evidence in any way, shape, or form that the files are different
now from any time when they were created other than to add new
material and they are intact and their integrity is not questioned. I
will put that statement in the record.
Mr. Peurifoy. IVIay I revert to the question asked when I will make
the report available and say that in the report there was a chart
prepared by the FBI. This morning I received clearance from Mr.
Hoover to read into the record a letter he wrote on this subject.
Senator Tydings. Go ahead. It may be read in the record.
]\Tr. Peurifoy. This is a letter from the United States Department
of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, D. C, under
date of June 14, 1950. It is marked "Personal and confidential, by
special messenger." It reads as follows :
Hon. .Tames E. WioTtn,
Under Secret anj of State, Depart iiient of State,
Washinf/ton, D. C.
r)B;AK Mil. AVehh: Recent newspaper articles have come to my attention con-
taining statements made by Senator .Tosepli R. McCarthy, wherein he quoted
excerpts from the State Department report prepared by Mr. Samuel Klaus of
your department, which referred particularly to an alleged FBI chart.
The comments made by Mr. Klaus in his report concerning this alleged FBI
chart, as they appeared in the newspapers, were completely erroneous. This
Bureau did not send any such chart to the State Department, and, of course,
made no evaluation of information as was indicated in the report. The author
of the report took occasion to criticize the FBI in its report. This Bureau does
not claim to be infallible; however, it appears that, if the State Department had
any questions concerning the report, the matter should have been discussed with
us at that time. I want to point out that the erroneous statements made by Mr.
Klaus were highly embarrassing and prejudicial to the FBI.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN'VESTIGATION 1253
As yon ;ire ;nv:iro. this* 'Rnrean ooopreates fully with your Department
thronsh estalilisluMl liaison channels. I thought you wonkl he interested in
knowing tlie true facts in this matter, and they are being furnished to you for
whatever action you may deem desirable.
J. Edgar Hoov'er, Director.
Mr. MoKRis. Was that a State Department document which you
referred to (
Mr. Pkuripot. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mouias. Was tliat a State Department document, that FBI
Mr. Peurifoy. Yes, sir.
iSIr. Morgan. Do you have any other documents or observations
concerning security factors in the Department other than the state-
ment you liave read, sir?
Mr. Peurifot. I don't think so. I think anyone in this job of mine
would be always conscious of the fact that the Soviet Union and its
satellites perhaps prefer to penetrate the State Department over any
other agencies in the Government.
Senator Tydings. Outside of the Department of Defense, probably.
Mr. Peurifoy. That is right. Well, there are other agencies as for
example the Atomic Energy Commission.
Senator Tydixgs. I would assume they would rather get in the De-
partment of Defense.
Mr. Peurifoy. But I say on that problem I think it is a problem
which requires vigilance on our part continuously. We must be con-
stantly on our toes, and insofar as humanly possible I am trying to do
Mr. Morgan. To your knowledge, Mr. Peurifoy, are any members of
the Communist Party employed in the State Department?
Mr. Peurifoy. No, sir.
Mr. ^Morgan. What under existing regulation would be the pro-
cedure in the event it was ascertained members of the Communist
Party were employed in the Department?
Mr. Peurifoy. If I knew a member of the Connnunist Party was
there, I would exercise the right that we have in firing him
Mr. Morgan. Suppose there is a complaint, what happens then?
Mr. Peurifoy. It depends on the seriousness of it. The employee
would be suspended. Of course, I would obviously consult with the
security people, and the chances are I would take their recommenda-
tions on it. They are dealing with it all the time. They would know
whether there are other activities going on. They may not want
to move right away on a certain case which might lead to somewhere
else. It was just a matter of consultation. If they said a certain
man was dangerous, he would be out.
Mr. Morgan. What I want to know under existing regulations is it
mandatory to dismiss a member of the Communist Party if it is
established and then proven that he is a member of the Communist
.Mr. Peurifoy. Not absolutely ; but whether mandatory or not, I
don't care whether mandatory or not I would get rid of him, but it is
Mr. Morris. Mr. Puerifoy, what standard do you use to determine
whether or not the man is a Communist ?
1254 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
Mr. Peltrifot, We have the security standards which General
Snow put in.
Senator Tydings. They are all in the record. I do not know
whether you saw them or not. They were put in when we had the
Loyalty Board before us.
Mr. Peurifoy. But there miglit be other ways of expressing it. I
would exercise my judgment in a matter of that kind.
Senator Hicivenlooper. Mr. Peurifoy, I formed the impression
from various sources and from various, i-easons that it is almost im-
possible to produce nowadays actual proof of membership in the
Communist Party except in a few cases because the Communist Party
has gone underground and physical proof is usually very difficult to
find. I am also of the opinion that security risks, while it is a matter
of judgment, it is far easier to establisli a case of security risk. I think
the exercise of that judgment in protecting the public interest is fully
as important as trying to establish that an individual is an actual active
member of tlie Communist Party or is not. The suri-oundings, cii'cum-
stances, conduct, or associations or historical activities of individuals
finally decide the question of whether or not in good judgment that
person is a security risk.
I frankly am of the opinion in our Government departments, which
is the State Department as well as other departments, that we have
leaned over backward in the exercise of that judgment to protect
individuals, and we have done it to the prejudice of the interests of the
public. In other words, our Loyalty Boards have held too rigidly to
the "proof beyond all reasonable doubt"' theory, which is tlie way we
use in criminal cases. They have demanded a gi'eater degree of proof
than is often possible to produce, and frankly in some of the depart-
ments they are very sensitive and they have kept people on where
the evidence seems strong that they are a bad security risk. Even in
your own Department you have kept them on because of the failure
to be able to produce unquestioned proof of overt acts of disloyalty or
unquestioned proof of membership in the Communist Party. I think
we have gone on this pseudo-liberal philosophy in this country and
all the things that this raises when a hue and cry is raised about it to
the poiut where we are not vigorous in many cases in safeguarding the
over-all, overriding public interest.
I am not throwing that solely to the State Department, but I have
read some of these files. I haven't been able to read them all, and I
don't hesitate to say on this record that the ones I read I would say
almost without exception I would not keep them in the State Depart-
ment. I would not have them around. They just did not smell good
to me based on the evidence and their associations, as a matter of
individual attitude and judgment. Maybe I am going too far on that
line; T do not know. I realize there are administrative problems that
are difficult to meet. That is true, but we are dealing with a pretty
big thing here in the administrative part of the Government, which
is very, very important.
I have reached the conclusion that in protecting the public we have
got lost in the woods of confusion through thinking about private
i-ights. All of us have constitntional rights, but there is no over-all
]mblic clearance in th*' ]n!blic interest. I can't avoid that conclusion
in manv cases.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 1255