ployed by the Department of State, and in the latter part of the same
resolution which Senator Hickenlooper just read, I will read that
whole sentence :
In the conduct of this study and investigation, the committee is directed to
procure by subpena and examine the complete loyalty and employment files in
the Depaitment of State and such other agencies against whom charges have
254 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY ESTVESTIGATION
Now Senator McCarthy, in his testimony under oath on the stand,
said he was not making charges. He said he was only giving us in-
formation. Should we investigate all of the information that comes
before us regardless of whether it contains a charge or not? For,
in one case I have been handed 25 names with not even one sentence
about any of them to show what the charge was.
If we are going to be technical, I would be delighted to have my
friend from Iowa right here and now tell me what he thinks the scope
of this investigation should be as outlined by the resolution which
brings us into being.
Senator Hickenlooper. I will be delighted to tell the Senator that
I think long since we should have secured the files of the nine people
who have been specifically and publicly mentioned ; that we have de-
layed overlong; that we have not been zealous or diligent in getting
those files, and that any number of things covdd happen to those files.
I do not say that they will or that they have happened. But this de-
lay is certainly mysterious to me, and I see no reason why we should
not immediately have got hold of the files, all of the files, on the nine
people mentioned, in their interest as well as in the interest of expedi-
tious investigation. That is one step, and if we take that we will
occupy our time for a while and we will be getting at the heart and
meat of this matter.
Senator Ttuings. Should we investigate people against whom no
charges have been filed ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I think it is entirely within the committee
to determine what people in the State Department should be investi-
gated. If this is to be a highly technical investigation, with the re-
fusal of this committee to look into specific cases as well as collateral
cases, then it will be a fruitless investigation, as anyone can see.
Senator Tydings. We cannot subpena any of the records except for
the files of people against whom charges have been heard. That is
what the resolution says.
Senator Hickenlooper. There haA^^e been nine specifically men-
tioned, and if I understand the English language there have been some
definite charges made against these people, and we have made no
progress so far as I know in the acquisition of the files on these spe-
cific nine people. There is a start for us.
Senator Tydings. The resolution says:
In the conduct of this study and investigation the committee is directed to
procure by subpena
Senator Hickenlooper. That's plain.
Senator Tydings (continuing) :
and examine the complete loyalty files and records of all employees against
whom charges have been heard.
With regard to Mr. Jessup, who comes before us this morning,
the sole charge so far that I have heard is that he has an affinity for
Communist organizations. I suppose that would be a charge. The
Chairman said on the floor of the Senate, in answer to an interrogation
I think from Senator Knowland, that he would extend the widest
measure of interpretation to this resolution, and that he will do. So
even the 25 cases against whom no charge has been made, being only
a list of names which Senator McCarthy gave me, without a line or
a syllable to tell us what the charge is, I have already asked for the
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 255
records on, and I happen to know that the State Department at this
very moment is trying to work out a procedure so that we can see the
records. Their fear is that if they give them up now, every time in
tlie future that somebody wuuts to use them, we will assume for pur-
poses that best suit the individual so that they can be reviewed, this
will be used as a precedent. There has been no breach of this precedent
so far and there naturally is some concern among those who are re-
sponsible for the executive branch about making a precedent now.
But I want to conclude by saying this, that I expect to get the files.
I have asked for the files as a gentleman and not as a sheriff, because
I think the President of the United States is entitled to some respect
whether he is a Democrat or Republican or what he may be, and I said
on the floor of the Senate, when I was asked whether we would issue
a subpena that insofar as I was concerned I would not issue a subpena
until I had made a proper and decent request for the files, before
resorting to any such action, which might be misinterpreted by the
person against whom it was directed.
Senator Hickenlooper. Then do I understand, Mr. Chairman,
that this subcommittee must, at a time to be prescribed at the con-
venience of the State Department, go with hat in hand and stand
outside of some door until they, in their own good time, will open that
door and, under certain regulations, restrictions, and surveillance,
watch over the deliberations of this committee and say, at certain
points, "Uh-uh, you can't go any further than that ; you must do this" I
In other words, are we to investigate this under the direction of the
State Department or are we to investigate it under the direction and
the power and the authority of a Senate committee that is set up under
Senator Tydings. You know just as well as I do that if the Presi-
dent refuses to give us these files there is no way in the world that we
can get them. I am going to proceed upon the premise that we want
the files, although I have some doubts about that in some quarters.
Nevertheless, I want the files.
Seantor McMahon. I am not so sure, Mr. Chairman, that they want
the files. What they want is a refusal of the files.
Senator Tydixgs. I am not going to say that, but that inference is
clearly drawn. I am going to get those files if it is humanly possible
for me to do it, and I am going to do it in a way that I think will
bring success and not bring controversy and smear up this issue when
it ought not to be smeared up but clarified.
I think we ought to give the witness now a chance to be interrogated
by Senator Hickenlooper, and I will say that I will call a meeting of
this connnittee at their earliest convenience to go into all the proceduies
that are now before us.
Senator Hickexlooper. At the outset, Mr. Chairman, Senator
McCarthy, who is in the room, just came up a moment ago and gave
me some Avhispered information in my ear, and I said, "Have you got
the papers there?" and he said "Yes, he had," so he brought them up.
I was handed what is alleged to be â€” I have no personal knowledge of
this at all â€” a receipt for a registered letter mailed Saturday afternoon,
March 18, at 5 : 20 p. m. to Senator Tydings. It bears a Washington
post office stamp showing the fees. Its register number is 342589.
256 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
It lias a copy of a letter of March 18 addressed to Senator Millard
Tydings, chairman, Foreign Relations Subcommittee, Washington,
D. C, signed by Joe McCarthy, which is as follows :
Dear Senator Tydings : Enclosed are the names which you as chairman of the
subcommittee demanded that I furnish in connection with tlie 81 cases cited on
the Senate floor. They are being submitted as part of the record in executive
session. I believe you will find complete and detailed reports on each in the
\arious files which I indicated to the committee the other day, namely State
Department, Civil Service, and FBI. I would, however, like the right to present
to the committee additional documentation in cases of bad security from time
Attached to that â€” may I complete the exhibit, because I am going
to offer this whole business here in the record
Senator Tydings. The names too?
Senator Hickenlooper. Senator McCarthy desires that I offer the
names in executive session. I will hand them to the Chair, and he may
do what he wishes.
Attached thereto is a list of 81 names. Then another letter attached
to this file, a copy of a letter alleged to be signed by R. H. Hillenkoetter,
lear admiral, Director of Central Intelligence, to Hon. Joseph
McCarthy. Senator McCarthy has just whispered in my ear that he
prefers that that not be made public, that copy of that letter. I shall
hand the entire file to the chairman. The first page has the registered
receipt for the letter containing the 81 names.
Senator Tydings. I am certainly glad to get them. It is exactly 1
month to the day since the 81 cases were brought before the attention
of the Senate. This is the first time I have had the names in my
hand, and I shall request, before the day is over, from appropriate
officials in the State Department, to get these files available to the
committee at the earliest possible date.
Senator Hickenlooper. One other thing, Mr. Chairman. I think it
is very important, in the interests of complete examination of this
matter at this moment and ineffective as I think any examination of
this kind can be without full access to the files, that a decision be made
on whether or not Senator McCarthy, who is the moving force in con-
nection with Mr. Jessup. be permitted to interrogate Mr. Jessup at this
time, when they can confront each other.
Senator Tydings. I am sorry ; I did not get your request. I was con-
ferring with Senator Green.
Senator Hickenlooper. Personally I have no knowledge of these
files. I say that I think it is very important that Senator McCarthy
confront Mr. Jessup. He is here ; Senator McCarthy is here. I know
nothing about this matter. I have no particular or specific questions
that I can ask Mr. Jessup. I don't know Mr. Jessup. I have never
seen any information on him of any kind. I think it is very important
that Senator McCarthy, who has generated this matter, be permitted
to bring up whatever matters he has with Mr. Jessup. Mr. Jessup has
come up here, I assume, at his own request, and I would like to urge
that, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Tydings. We will lay this question before the committee
and decide on procedure. I do not want to be precluded from passing
on it in the committee. However, I think this is a fair observation,
that Mr. Jessup did not know he was to be accused, I presume, until
he heard about it through the press. Mr. Jessup was not invited to
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 257
be here to cross-examine Senator McCartliy. The Constitution of the
United States, in the bill of rights, says â€” and this is a pretty serious
case â€” that every man accused of any offense is entitled to be con-
fronted Avith the witnesses against him. I do not think it gives a
comparable right to his accuser. So if we are going to go along in the
democratic process, at least, I think Mr. Jessup might be entitled to
interrogate Senator McCarthv.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is utterly fair.
Senator Tydings. Further than that, the committee itself has had
no opportunity to interrogate Senator McCarthy up to now. We did
have some discussion about a collateral matter the first 2 days, when
the chairman wanted to get the name of a man who was accused of
attemi)ting to fix the State Department records, but other than that,
in the Ken>'on and all the other cases, outside of asking for the date
of a document or something of that sort, there has been no chance for
the connnittee to ask Senator McCarthy any questions, and certainly
the committee is going ahead asking Mr. Jessup questions when they
have not even had a chance to ask Senator McCarthy any questions
Senator JNIcCaRtht. Mr. Chairman, I will be glad to let Mr. Jessup
ask me any questions he cares to.
Senator Tydings. Just a minute. We have not asked you as yet,
Senator McCarthy. I think it would have been fair if these people
against whom charges are brought might have been notified so that
they might have at least been here and heard the charges against them.
But that has not been done, and therefore I think we have got to be
as fair to one side as we are to the other in this matter, and you your-
self asked that you not be interrupted, finally, until you could completer
your statement, and the committer sat more or less mute. Up to the
present time it has had no chance to ask you questions and I would
like to ask you several questions, particularly about the discrepancies
that have appeared in various statements that you have made con-
cerning the number of people who are card-carrying Communists now
in the State Department, and known to the Secretary of State.
So far as I read your debate on the Senate floor and your charges
before this committee, you have not charged a single person, so far
as I can recall, with being a card-carrying Communist now in the
State Department. Nevertheless, according to the press, those charges
have been printed all over the United States and there has been no
evidence before this committee from you, sir, or from anybody else,
that assert any of the individuals named are card-carrying Com-
munists or members of the Con:wnunist Party.
Go ahead. Senator Hickenlooper.
Senator Hickenlooper. I take it that the committee at this time
says that Senator McCarthy cannot confront Mr. Jessup.
Senator Tydings. Not until we pass on it as a committee, and one
of your colleagues is absent. We want his version of what should be
done. I will call a meeting this afternoon, if we can get the full com-
mittee together, and lay this matter before them. It is all one with
me. I have no preconceived ideas, except tluit I am going to be fair
to both sides so far as I am able.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think Senator Lodge, who had a very
unfortunate situation at his home, will not be here today and perhaps
258 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INA^ EST I CATION
not tomorrow. I do not know. I checked with his office this morn-
ing and they are not certain whether he will be here tomorrow. He
is not in town today.
Then, Mr. Chairman, I have just a few questions, and I feel that
I am moving utterly in the dark in this matter. I have no particular
things to ask of Mr. Jessup that could possibly be generated by any
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper, if you will pardon an in-
terruption, it is now 5 minutes to 12. If it meets with your approval,
the chairman would be glad to have a recess whenever you wish it, and
meet again at 2 oVlock or 2 : 30, during which time you might confer
with Senator McCarthy and get such data as he has, so that you
can use those data to cross-examine Ambassador Jessup. I would be
delighted to do that. .
Sentaor Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I sort of reserve the right
to make up my own mind on what questions I ask.
Senator Ttdixgs. I am only suggesting it.
Senator Hickenlooper. And I would like to have the information
on which to pass my own judgment on the questions I ask, rather
than to be spoon-fed information from the State Department or from
Senator McCarthy or anybody else. ,r ^ i i
Senator Tydings. I only said that because Senator McCarthy has
been handing you information. I thought you might want time to
get it all. ^ . _ . -
Senator Hickenlooper. Senator McCarthy did hand me some very
definite information about the registered letter he sent you.
Senator Tydings. Also, in the Kenyon case, as I recall, he gave you a
list of a great many propositions to put to Judge Kenyon.
Senator Hickenlooper. And incidentally, in the Kenyon clise, mav
I suggest that the day after Judge Kenyon was on the stand I learned
some very pertinent information about Judge Kenyon which I think
would have been very important had I known it at the time she was
on the stand so I could have interrogated her about that particular
matter, but I did not have access to any files, and I have some reason
to believe that this information which I did not have is contained m
Judge Kenyon's files, and therefore that examination was not only ot
the most cursory nature, but I had nothing particularly to go on.
Mr. Jessup, I apologize for attempting to interrupt you when 1 tirst
sat down. I was about 7 minutes late here and I found the hearing
was already under wa}^ j. j +
On pao-e 2 of your statement there is the matter that i wanted to
mention at that time. You say in the next to the last paragraph, about
the fourth line:
However, I do not believe in tlie concept of guilt by association.
I am using the mimeographed copy.
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir. ^ , . , â– ,- j
Senator Hickenlooper. Then, a little later on I think you discussed
the legal philosophy of guilt by association as not necessarily being
an accepted doctrine in American jurisprudence.
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. You are, of course, aware ot the doctrine
that is accepted generally in American jurisprudence, of circumstan-
tial evidence ; are you not ?
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 259
Ambassador Jessup. Yes, sir.
Senator Htckenlooper. And that comes pretty close to the doctrine,
when it is nsed to convict, of fyiiilt by association; does it not?
Ambassador Jessup. I think tliere is quite a difference, Senator,
Senator Hickexlooper. I tliink tliere are some legalistic differ-
ences, yes, indeed; but circumstantial evidence is nevertheless, when
it is used for conviction, evidence which is produced by circumstances
rather than b}^ actual proof or visible witnesses of the commission of
the actual crime. Is that roughly the concept?
Ambassador Jessup. I should think that would be sufficient, sir.
Senator Htckenlooper. So there would be elements of guilt by as-
sociation in our concept of circumstantial evidence; would you agree
with that ?
Ambassador Jessup. I think there is quite a difference between what
is commonly called guilt by association and the doctrine of the ad-
mission of circumstantial evidence in a criminal trial.
Senator Hickenlooper. I assure you, Dr. Jessup, that I shall avoid
at all costs getting into a legalistic dispute with a law professor. I
respect your judgment and ability and I do not feel that I can cope
with you on the finer points of the law.
Ambassador Jessup. Thank you, sir.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you believe that there is anything to the
doctrine that I might describe as "risk through association"? We
have heard a great deal about guilt by association, and that seems
to come up every so often â€” guilt by association. But is there some-
thing to risk by association, especially where people are in sensitive
positions of importance in the Government? Is it well to look into
their associates to determine whether or not there is a risk involved
in the positions those people hold?
Ambassador Jessup. I stated, Senator, in my statement, and I would
like to repeat that part :
Although I cannot claim to have any detailed knowledge of the process, I
wholeheartedly support the efforts of those whose official responsibility it is to
see that Communists or Communist sympathizers are kept out of our Govern-
I understand that part of the process involves an investigation of
the kind that you have referred to. What I would suggest. Senator, is
that in connection with the so-called doctrine of guilt by association
there seems to be a tendency to select the existence of one name,
coupled with another name, in some list, in some undefined context,
and to assume that that means that the coexistence of those names
reflects the attitude and position of the person in question.
One might just as well say, in my opinion, that if one had a photo-
graph of the GI's who shook hands with the Russian soldiers when
the American and Russian Armies first met in Germany one might
charge that the GI who was shaking hands with the Russian was
guiltily associated with communism. I think there is nothing in
that kind of attempt to associate persons or events which has any
validity, and it is that which I object to, sir.
Senator Hickexlooper. Then I take it that you discard any idea
that the membership of an individual in one organization wliich is
determined to be subversive or pro-Communist is, of course, not much
evidence of that person's sympathy for the Communist or subversive
260 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Ambassador Jessup. I think tlie important thing, Senator, is
whether he knowingly belongs to an organization which is support-
ing Communist objectives and, with that knowledge, continues his
Senator HiCKENLOorER. Let us say that one case makes not a very
strong case. Would you say that two or three instances where the in-
dividual is a member or a sponsor of organizations that have been
declared to be subversive, or afterward are found to be subversive,
were such as to strengthen a suspicion that this person has a leaning
toward that kind of philosophy ?
Ambassador Jessup. I think not necessarily, Senator, and I think
that was brought out in the testimony of Judge Kenyon.
Senator Hickexlooper. Would you say 15 such cases would
add cumulatively to the question as to whether or not that person
had leanings toward the philosophy of these subversive organizations?
Ambassador Jessup. Obviously, sir, that is cumulative, but I do
not think it atfects the principle.
Senator Hickenlooper. And suppose twenty-five cases occurred
where this person was a member of organizations either declared or
iound to be subversive. Would you think that that would be cumu-
lative evidence which might raise a question for reasonable inquiry ?
Ambassador Jessup. I think it is necessary in those cases, Senator,
to do two things: First, to find out whether the organization was
publicly branded and known to be subvei^ive at the time of the in-
dividual's contact with it. and in the second place, what was the
nature of the contact of the individual with the organization. The
fact that you had 25 or 50 such cases
Senator Hickenlooper. I was going to suggest, suppose there were
Ambassador Jessup. I would say, sir, whether there were 25 or
50 or 56, unless one pays some attention to the other two factors which
1 have just referred to ,, . .i p ^ j;
Senator Hickenlooper. But would you say that the tact ot mem-
bership in a large number of organizations which either have been
declared or have been found by official bodies to be Communist front,
that the membership of an individual in a substantial numberâ€” let
us say 25 or 30, or 40, or as many as 50â€” would be sufficient grounds
to inquire, then, into the further activities of that individual or the
organizations involved, in order to arrive at a proper judgment on
the attitude of this individual? _ u . ^i
Ambassador Jessup. If you mean, sir, whether it would be the
duty of those officially charged with examining into the loyalty ot
an individual to determine whether that person should be appointed
to a position of trust or any position under the Government of the
United States, I would say "yes". If it is merely the basis for mak-
ino- a public charge without an investigation of those facts, I say no.
^Senator Hickenlooper. Now, then, putting another hypothetical
question, if the record of such an individual did disclose member-
ship in a large number of organizations which had been declared or
found to be subversive, and if the persons in charge of the appoint-
ment of that individual, knowing that, then failed to make any fur-
ther inquiry or examination into the attitude or other activities ot
this individual along those lines, would you say that they had failed
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEtSTIGATION 261
to do wliat the preliminary information should properly indicate in
connection with security risk matters?
Ambassador Jessip. My understanding of an investigation of that
kind, Senator, is that the investigator is to look into all affirmative
and negative evidence. I assume that is done whether they find 1 case
or 50 such cases. It is their duty to look into the question.
Senator TTicKEXLOorER. Would you consider membership in such
organizations to be negative evidence as original evidence as a basis
for further investigation?
Ambassador Jessup. I should say that without an investigation of
the facts to which I have referred it is still very slight evidence. In
other words, as I have said before, it seems to me necessary to know
whether at the time of this hypothetical association of an individual