Senator Lodge. If it were essential to do this so soon, why wasn't it
done the minute Senator McCarthy made his speech on the Senate
floor? AVhy did we wait until this "particular moment ?
Senator Ttdings. Let me say this : I have no desire to delay Senator
McCarthy. I am anxious for him to get on. My first question was, Is
this individual who is accused of fraudulent conduct in the State De-
partment to be made a case number '.
Now, it seems to me that we can find out if he is, and then that's
that. And the second question is. Does the Senator know the name
of this man ? He can say "Yes'' or "No" and that would be that and
we could get on with this thing.
Senator Lodge. I hope Senator McCarthv will be allowed to pro-
ceed in the normal way.
68970 â€” 50 â€” pt. 1 2
S STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. I still leave my two questions to be answered.
I think that the most important thing before this committee is to
clear out men in high places if they are guilty of fraudulent conduct,
suppressing evidences of disloyalty in the State Department. There
is nothing we are going to do that is more important than that.
Senator Lodge. Of course I favor doing that too. We all want
to get rid of all the rotten apples in the State Department. That is
the purpose of this investigation, and simply because I object to Sena-
tor McCarthy being torn apart this way does not mean I am not in-
terested in getting these men cleared out. But this is a most extraor-
dinary and unusual procedure, to start off in this confused way.
It is not the way things are done around here.
Senator Tydings. All he has to do is answer two very simple ques-
tions : ''I don't know the name of this man, Senator," or "I do know
the name of this man. Senator. He won't be made a case subject."
Senator Hickenlooper. How will that help the investigation at
this point, if he answers ?
Senator Lodge. If he says it at 3 o'clock this afternoon, why isn't
that just as good? You have waited all this time before you brought
Senator Tydings- This is a public hearing and I do not want too
much of this in star chamber.
Senator Lodge. Let's have it in public in Senator McCarthy's own
time and own way. Give him the courtesy of letting him make the
charges to the best advantage from his viewpoint.
Senator McMahon. As I understand it, what you want is to know
the name of this man as quickly as possible, because it is conceivable,
because of what Senator McCarthy said about him, that he could
frustrate this investigation. As I understand it, that is the purpose
of the question. It is obvious that he hasn't got it with him at the
moment. It is too bad that he hasn't, because I, too, would like to
know if this rascal is in the State Department, and if that is what he
is up to, and I hope that before the end of the day we can have
the name of this person, because I think it is pertinent. Senator, at
the beginning of this investigation, to drag out this key figure, who
is apparently, if your charge is true, right down there with his hand
on the throttle, and we ought to know that as quickly as possible.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, this man has been in the
State Department, apparently, according to the statement of Senator
McCarthy, I think, on the floor, since, let us say, 1947.
Senator Tydings. And is still there.
Senator Hickenlooper. All right. He has been in the State
Department, perhaps â€” I do not know who he is â€” since Senator
McCarthy made his charges on the floor of the Senate. If he is going
to do an}^ dirty work, he has had all the time since 1947, and especially
since Senator McCarthy made his formal statement on the floor of
the Senate; he has had all that time to do whatever dirty work he
might potentially do, and I do not see that another day will add
to his potential danger very much over what he may have done in
the past, if he is guilty.
Therefore, I think Senator McCarthy ought to be able to proceed
in his own way.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 9
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. I was very hopeful that we
"Could ^et answers to these two questions. You could say "I don't
know the name of the man" or "I do know the name of the man,"
because you have said that you had photostatic copies of the files,
as I recall your testimony. And if you said you knew the man, we
weren't goin*^ to ask you to give us that name this morning. But
we just wanted to get at that the very first thing and have that man,
if he is in the State Department now, relieved of his duties pending
this investigation. We don't want to be charged with having let
him roam around the State Department where he can keep on with
doctoring the records, if he has access to them.
The first thing I asked you â€” the other proposition was the second â€”
was, Was he to be made one of the case numbers? That is, was he
to be a man against whom you were going to bring charges?
Now certainly it is very hard for the chairman to believe that a
charge of this kind would not be a case number and if it is to be a
case number, all right; say so. We will forget it. If it is not to
be a case number, then we had better look into it right away.
Senator McCarthy. May I have the chairman's copy of the reso-
Senator Lodge. It seems to me that the time to try to get this par-
ticular individual was after Senator McCarthy mentioned him on
the floor of the Senate, rather than to wait for two whole weeks and
bring it up now this morning.
Senator Tydings. How could I get him when I don't know his name ?
Senator Lodge. At this Roman holiday we are having here this
morning it looks to me as though all of a sudden we have gotten
interested in this man, when 14 days have gone by within which
Senator McCarthy could have been asked the same question, if there
was such a terrible urgency about it. I just don't see why we can't
have procedings go along in a normal way. If Senator McCarthy
is allowed to make a statement without interruption he will probably
reach this case today sometime.
Senator Tydings. I am not so certain. He said it was No. 57. He
also said he could take up only a certain number of cases today, and
we do not know when we are going to meet again. But the point is
this : I have asked two simple questions ; one, Is this man to be made
a case number ? Do you know the name of the man ? If there is any-
thing of an inquisitorial nature about getting an answer to those two
(juestions before we proceed, I do not Know what it is. The answer
is very simple, and it seems to me that we could get the answers and
dispose of it and go on with something else.
Senator McCarthy. ]N[ay I answer the chairman, and that is, that
I will be unable to give him detailed information on case No. 57 this
morning. In order to get the complete picture of that case, he will
need the files.
Senator Tydings. You have the files.
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute. I say in order to get the de-
tailed information necessary for the committee to act it will be neces-
sary that you subpena the files. Let's make this clear when we speak
of files. If the committee wants to be sure they have the complete
files, it will be necessary to subpena a number of things.
No. 1, you will have to subpena the loyalty files, both categories, the
part that vou will normally be handed plus the sub rosa section.
10 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
No. 2, you will have to subpena the personnel files, and by that I
don't mean merely the subsection of the personnel files.
No. 3, in order to check that, it will be necessary for you gentlemen
to subpena the Civil Service Commission files. I understand that the
State Department has a loose-leaf file. The Civil Service Commission
has a cop3^ of those files, a little more intricate filing system. The
FBI also has a copy of that section of the files, which was compiled by
Let me say this : Every case that I am giving you gentlemen today,
every case that you will hear about, will have in the files derogatory
information developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Merely the top half of the State Department's loyalty file will be
meaningless. I assure you of that.
Now this case No. 57, as I have told you three times, Senator, 1
cannot give j'ou information on that now. If you had called me
and told me you wanted that case developed this morning, it would
have been developed. The only contact that I have had with the com-
mittee was the day the chairman met me on the floor and said, "Come
over to the committee at 10 :30 Wednesday morning and present what-
ever you have to us."
I am here ready to do that, Mr. Chairman. As I say, I am not pre-
pared this morning in case No. 57. I am not prepared because the
Chair did not indicate he wanted me prepared. I am not prepared,
No. 2, because I do not think that is the all-important case. I do think
that is a very important case. All of the names â€” all of the names â€”
will be found in those files that I have suggested you subpena, so
yon can get to that very easily.
Now, if the chairman wants case No. 57, I assume he is meeting
tomorrow. If he meets tomorrow, if he wants that case developed, it
will be developed before the committee. If the committee wants to
meet this afternoon, if he wants to come to my office I will try and get
him all the information he desires on that case. But this morning I
cannot give the chairman the information on case No. 57 ; period !
Senator Tydings. Now let me ask you this : If we were to take a
recess for 10 minutes so the Senator could go to his office and refresh
his memory on file 57, if that is the file, could he not then come back
here and answer the question, to wit, (1), Is this individual against
whoni these grave charges are made to be the subject of a particular
case for investigation, or is he left out of the matter? (2), Does the
Senator know his name ?
If the Senator will come back and answer those two simple ques-
tions, we can go ahead with the procedures. It would only take him
5 or 10 minutes to do it.
Senator McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, let me say the Chair asks
whether I will make him the subject for investigation. I didn't know
that I was running this committee. I don't think I am by a long
stretch. I intend to submit to the committee information bearing upon
the disloyalty, the bad security risks, in the State Department. Then
it is up to the committee to investigate those particular cases. The
committee has been allowed, I believe, $25,000 or $50,000 to do that.
I do not have the investigative staff, I do not have access to the files, to
make any complete investigation and make any formal charges. All
I intend to do, Mr. Chairman, is to submit to the committee the evi-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION H
dence Avliich I have gathered over painstaking months of work, and I
hope tliat the Chair will allow me to give that tomorrow, and I assure
that chairman that there ^yill be no names, nothing kept secret from
this committee. He can be sure of that.
I say, if the Chair had informed me that he was particularly inter-
ested in case No. 57, that case would have been developed this morning.
As it is, it will not be developed this morning because I am not pre-
pared to do so, and after a 10-minute recess f would not be prepared
to do so. I have some facts which I hope the committee will allow
me to present to them this morning.
Senator Tydixgs. If the Senator will allow me to read just one sen-
tence from case 1-4, he says, "In his case a CSA" â€” what is a "CSA" ?
Senator McCarthy. That is the investigative agency, as I under-
Senator Ttdings. I don't know.
Senator ^McCarthy. Mr. Chairman, when you ask a question, let
me finish, please.
I don't understand this lettering system too well. "CSA" I believe
is â€” they change the names of the organizations over there so much
I can't keep track of them. It is the investigative agency, or some-
thing along that line.
Senator Tydings (reading) :
In this case a CSA report of September 22, 1947, is replete with information
covering the a tempt of a hiiih State Department official to induce several indi-
viduals who had signed affidavits reflecting adversely upon the employee to
repudiate their affidavits. The file shows that that high State Department em-
ployee went out and personally contacted the individuals who signed the affida-
vits and asked them "Won't you repudiate them?"
Senator INIcCarthy. Mr. Chairman, let me say this. I have quoted
from the files in 81 cases. The President of the United States has
answered merely by saying that McCarthy is lying; it is not true.
This committee can very easily determine where the truth lies by
saying "We shall get those files.'' 'V^^len you get those files, then you
will know whether or not every word I have spoken here is true.
Now, when I get to case No. 57 I will give you all of the informa-
tion which I can on it. That will not be complete. You will have to
get four separate files to make sure you have the complete case.
Senator XiUDGe. Mr. Chairman, so far as one member of this com-
mittee is concerned, speaking for myself, I do not understand what
kind of a game is being played here, and I cannot do my work as a
member of this committee if we are going to do this picking and
choosing and jumping around all over the place. If we are going to
depart from the usual procedure of having him make his charges,
then he makes his charges and we investigate the charges, I want to
know that. But I do not understand at all what is sought to be
achieved by this business of picking first one case and then another
case and asking the witness about that before he has even had a chance
to make a single connected statement.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge, as I will try to tell you once
more â€” 1 thought I had made it plain â€” I have no disposition to inter-
fere with the witness going ahead with any statement he has before
him. I put in the record all of the proceedings, and one of the pro-
ceedings put in the record was the one to which I have just drawn
attention, and in that particular case I found this statement. I simply
12 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOIM
asked the witness, to make the record complete, whether or not this
was one of the 81 cases which he wanted investigated, to wit, that a
high State Department official had tried to cook or alter or doctor the
evidence, and if he had said "Yes'' or "No," that would liave been
Then I asked him if he knew the name of this man, thinking it
would be very desirous for the committee to get that man out of this
investigation and all contact with the papers at the earliest possible
It seems to me that if those two questions had been answered, and
I can see no reason why they could not be answered, either that they
are going to be made a case or they are not going to be made a case,
and that "I do know the name and will give it to the conunittee in
due time" or "I don't know the name and cannot give it to the com-
mittee" â€” if there is anything captious or inquisitorial or bad about,
just asking those two questions, to me they are tlie simplest kind of
thing, and they make the record which we have already made com-
plete as to whether this man is one of the 81 cases or whether he is
not, and that "I know his ]uime and in due time I will give it to the
committee" or "I don't know the name and I can't give it to the
Senator Lodge. If there was such an awful hurry about getting
this man, it seems to me the time to have done it would have been
immediately after Senator McCarthy raised the point on the floor of
the Senate. It is just a question here of orderly procedure.
Senator Ttdings. You do not see things on the floor of the Senate
you see when you read them over. Senator Lodge.
Senator LodCxE. AVe can all rend the Congressional Record, and, if
the thing is there, it is perfectly possible to go to work on it then,
instead of waiting for two whole weeks until we have this hearing.
It seems to me this is a perfectly extraordinary procedure. I have
never seen anything like it, and I have been here since 1937. You
have been here longer than I have. But I have been here since 10?>7,
and it is a perfectly amazing procedure to pick No. 57 and then to
pick No. 14, and I suppose after you are through playing wnth that
you will pick 23. In the meantime the witness sits here. He has a
prepared statement and he isn't given the common, ordinary courtesy
of telling his story in his own words. I think it is perfectly amazing.
I don't know what the purpose of it is, because I haven't been told.
Senator Tydimgs. There is nobody knows what the purpose is ex-
cept myself, because on my word of honor I have never discussed it
with any of my Democratic colleagues or Re]>ub]ican Colleagues. It
simply occurred to me that this was about the most serious thing I
had run across and I wanted simply to know whether a special case
was to be made out against this individual and whether the Senator
had his name, and if he had answered those questions "Yes" or "No"
lie would have been probably a third through with his written state-
ment. If there is any reason why they should not be answered I do
not know why the Senator does not say it, or say "Yes, they will be a
special case. They ought to be a special case, and in due time I will
give the committee his name." I can see no reason why that could
not be done. If there is a reason, I have not heard it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that in read-
ing over the Congressional Record when these cases and charges were
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 13
made by Senator McCarthy that there are quite a number of charges
of very serious importance in this whole set-up. I would not neces-
sarily pick this case as the most serious, just from reading the record.
1 tliink there are others that probably will come in for just as serious
consideration. Therefore I see no justification in picking out this
particular case for special interrogation at the moment.
And then, another thing, it seems to me that this committee will
make the cases, not necessarily Senator McCarthy. Senator Mc-
Carthy gives his evidence and gives his conclusions, and furnishes
this committee with what he believes to be facts or the sources of
the facts for investigation, and then it is up to this committee to dif-
ferentiate and to examine and to make the cases.
I strongly urge that a perfectly normal, sound procedure is to let
Senator ISIcCarthy, mIio has originated these charges, go ahead and
make his charges and canvass his situation, and then let's question
him about the individual cases if we want to.
Senator Tydings. The Chair will try to comply with the requests
of the two Republican members of the committee and he will simply
iinish this phase of the matter by asking Senator McCarthy, the next
time he comes before the committee, to be in a position to answer two
questions : First, is the "high State Department official'' Avho allegedly
attempted to doctor the loyalty records in the State Department to be
made the subject of a special case in the information and charges that
he will bring before us? Secondly, does he know the name of this
individual, and will he give it to the committee in executive session?
So, with those two things in the Senator's mind, if he will furnish
them at the next meeting, I will be glad to have him go ahead with his
statement. I am sorry we could not get them this morning.
Senator Hickenlooper. I have a question that I would like to sug-
gest to Senator McCarthy -at this time which I may ask him later â€” ^I
clon't know â€” along this same line . I may see fit to ask Senator Mc-
Carthy if he believes, based upon what knowledge and investigation
he has had, that the high State Department official which has been
referred to here might well be, upon the evidence developed, the
subject for investigation and further inquiry by this committee. I
say I may ask the Senator that question at a later date, when he is
prepared to canvass the particular case that involves this allegedly
high State Department official.
Senator Tydings. I will ask the Senator if he will be good enough to
try to bring the answers to those two questions of the committee at the
next meeting of the committee. I think I have conformed to his wish
to postpone and give him time. I would rather have had them this
morning. I think they are very important. I think it is the most
important thing in the whole investigation, and I am sorry that, it
being so important, he hasn't that evidence available.
Now, Senator, we will be glad to hear your statement.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. McCAETHY, UNITED STATES
SENATOR FROM WISCONSIN
Senator McCarthy. I thank the chairman, and so there is no doubt
in the committee's mind let me say this : I think this is so important
that I do want to stick to the cases as I document them and develop
14 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
tliem SO there can be no question about the absolute truth of every-
Let me say this also : I hope that every witness' testimony, includ-
ing mine, is gone through with a fine-tooth comb. There are some
very important witnesses down here, and I am very happy the chair-
man swore them all. We have found, you recall, back in the case
of the famous racketeers of Capone that the Government could not get
them for their crimes, but they finally discovered a way of getting
them. They got them for income tax evasion.
We find where Communists are concerned they are too clever. They
work underground too much. It is hard to get them for their criminal
activities in connection with espionage, but a way has been found.
We are getting them for perjury and putting some of the worst of
them away. For that reason I hope every witness who comes here
is put under oath and his testimony is gone over with a fine-tooth
comb, and if we cannot convict some of them for their disloyal activi-
ties, perhaps we can convict them for perjury.
Senator Tydings. Are you going to relate to cases in the same order
before the Senate, so I can follow them here?
Senator McCarthy. I intend to give the committee additional
Senator Tydings. If you refer to case 1 or case 2, that will be case 1
or case 2 as you referred to it in the Senate?
Senator McCarthy. When I refer to a case, I will also identify it by
the case number if it was referred to in the Senate.
Now, the chairman made a statement that I think he would like to
retract, because he said: "McCarthy will be subject to the most thor-
ough investigation in the history of this Republic." I think he meant
that the disloyal people in the State Department will be subject to
Senator Tydings. I did not say "McCarthy," I said this. I said:
"This, Senator McCarthy, will be one of the most thorough investiga-
tions * * *." I did not make it personal.
Senator McCarthy. Some people in the room got the impression
he said that.
Senator Tydings. If they got that impression they got something I
did not intend.
Senator McCarthy. I did not think he did.
Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the committee for its invitation to
appear here today, and make available information which has come
to me from a variety of sources bearing on the security of our Nation.
Certainly we are all in accord on the premise that every possible
precaution should be taken to protect the national welfare and time
and experience has shown us that subversive and un-American actions
cannot stand the light of day.
To that end, I shall make available to this committee the names and
background of persons wlio are, or have been, in the service of the
Government who, by virtue of their background and activities, do not
deserve the confidence and trust placed in them.
The fair security risk does not exist. Every man or woman in the
employ of the United States Government is a bad or good security
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 15
AVe have had, through our courts, our oovernmeiital investigatiEg
bodies, our public press and radio, a shocking and frightening serios
of reports on men and women in liigh and low places in our Govern-
ment who transferred their allegiance to a foreign and dangerous
It is obviously impossible for me, without investigative personnel,
funds, and authority and without full and free access to the volumi-
nous and comprehensive files of numerous Government agencies, to