Lattimore is now, as I understand, over in the Khyber Pass. As I
say, on this your information will be a lot more accurate than mine.
I do not think he is on the payroll of the Department of State or any
Government agency. I understand that he was invited over by the
Afghanistan Government. Khyber Pass, as you know, is the one
route from Russia over to the new area. What he is doing there I
don't know. I do not think the files will show anything as of now
definitely of what he is doing, because any information they will get
on that will be after a considerable lapse of time.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 279
That is about the entire picture, that his files ā the FBI files ā I think
^yi]l just <i'ive you the one case.
Senator ]\Icj\Iaiion. Have you seen the FBI files.
Senator McCarthy. I think I know what is in them.
Senator McMahon. That is not the question. Have you seen them ?
Senator McCarthy. I will tell you. Senator McMahon, do not worry
about whether I have seen them or not.
Senator McMahon. I am worried. You will either answer or you
will not. You have or you have not.
Senator Tydings. Nobody is going to ask for your sources.
Senator McCarthy^. Senator McMahon, let me tell you this.
Senator McMahon. Do not tell me anything. I am not interested
in a single thing. That technique you have is not going to work on me.
If you cannot answer the question, that you have or you have not, then
I am not interested in anything else you are going to say. That is
the question : Have you seen the FBI file or have you not?
Senator IMcCarthy. I heard your question.
Senator Tydings. Let me say this
Senator McMahon. You refuse to answer?
Senator McCarthy. No ; I don't refuse to answer.
Senator Tydings. We do not want to know your sources. But what
I think we are entitled to know is, is this a speculation or liaA^e you
had some contact with the files in one way or another that makes you
think you have some accurate information ?
Senator McCarthy. I am about as certain as I could be of anything
as to what those files will show. As to whether I have seen them, who
might have helped me get information, or things like that
Senator Tydings. I do not want to know that.
Senator McCarthy. I know you do not.
Senator McMahon. Let me point out that that is a very material
question. I want to make my question clear. We have not had any
decision from the executive department as to whether we are going to
see the FBI files. If the Senator from Wisconsin /is permitted the
FBI files, then I do not know why this committee should not be per-
mitted to see the FBI files.
Senator Ty'dings. I would rather think, from what he has already
said, that he has talked with somebody who has seen the files in whom
he has confidence. I think it would help our investigation, and I have
no ultei'ior pur])ose to serve except frankness and honest.y as far as it is
possible, and I assure you it comes from the heart: I think you
might say, "I haven't personally seen the files, but I know a man who
has seen the files whose name I won't disclose, in which I have confi-
dence, v.iio tells me this and that and the other thing is in the files."
In other words, it will help us in our investigation if you will testify
along that line.
Senator McCarthy. I thiidc that is a very reasonable request, and
I might say that I have not seen the original FBI files.
Senator McMahon. The original FBI files. Have you seen a copy
of them ?
Senator McCarthy. I think. Senator, wliether I have seen a copy or
not, not having seen the original I would have no way of knoAving
whether I saw a copy unless I compared it with the original.
68970 ā 50 ā pt. 1 19
280 STATE DEPARTME?\T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IX\"ElSTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Have you seen what purports to be a copy, or have
you got your evidence from somebody who has seen the files? That
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this. To the best of my knowledge^
and I think it is good, I think it has been proven so far in dates and
places that I have been giving the committee, the FBI file will show
in detail not the case merely of a man who happens to favor Russia,
not the case of a man who may disagree with what we think about
Russia, but a man who is definitely an espionage agent.
Senator McMaiion. See how he goes away from the question?
Senator Tydings. He has tried to answer it. Let me say this. He
has said this : He has said he has not seen the files, but he said if we
saw the files he has reason to believe that this, that, and the other
tiling he is going to outline would be in the files. I would like him
to say that. I do not want him to give away anything: I do not Avant
him to name anybody ; I do not want to know his sources and do not
want him to do any of that.
Senator McMahon. Neither do I.
Senator Tydings. But I would like to knoAv if you have seen what
purports to be a copy of the file or whether someone in whom you have
confidence has seen the file and the following things are likely to
turn up there. That is all.
Senator McCarthy. I know this
Senator Tydings. I cannot see where there is anv harm in answering
Senator McCarthy. It is the source of my information. If divulg-
ing that would actually aid in getting at the facts in the Lattimore
case you would have it.
Senator Tydings. I will not ask you for the source.
Senator McCarthy. I will stretch a point a long way if the com-
mittee thinks information will be of benefit. Even though I do not
think so, I will go as far as I can in getting the information. But
where we have something that clearly, in my opinion, will be of no
benefit to the committee in arriving at the facts, then I just think it
is a waste of time to go into those things.
Senator Tydings. Listen ; I do not want to get your sources, and I
will never ask you intentionally to disclose any of the sources that
fortify you in what you want to say.
Senator McCarthy. I appreciate that.
Senator Tydings. I do not want to know it by indirection ; I do not
want to put anybody on the trail to find out. I am not interested
Senator McMahon. Let me add that I feel the same Avay.
Senator Tydinc.s. But I am interested in knoAving whether or not
you have seen a copy of the files or whether or not somebody told you
what was in the files, simply as a means of Aveighing tlie credence of
Avhat you say. That is not goinir to stop us from looking at any files
we can get hold of. Do you understand me ?
But suppose I get hold of the files after this hearing and find
nothing in them, just to illustrate. I would want to ask why certain
papers are not in those files. Do you see my point ?
Senator McCarthy. I do ; yes.
Let me say this, and I am certainly not trying to avoid your ques-
tion. I do not knoAv if you have had any experience with the FBI
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 281
files or not. Tliev are serialized and numbered. You could take
things out of those files. It would be extremely difl'cult.
In the Kansas City case, wliich was not made public, I do not
believe, some of the FBI files were obtained, and it did appear that a
sizable number of documents had been removed. But the staff ap-
parently ā Flanagan and Rogers, I believe, were on the staff ā had no
difficulty at all detecting the number of documents that were removed.
1 think fortunateh' we did nothing about that publicly.
I was giving a picture of the files. As I recall, the evidence was
that Hoover did not know anything about any removals, and such
like. I merely mention that to show you if you get those files I do not
think you will have any trouble at all knowing what is in them,
I have not talked to Hoover about this. If I did, I do not suppose
lie would give nie the information.
Senator Tydixgs. I haven't either.
Senator McCarthy. I think if, as chairman of this committee, you
take this testimony over to him and say "Is this substantially true?"
with the respect I have for Hoover I am sure he won't lie to you.
I want to make it very clear that Mr. Hoover has not given me any
information himself of any kind from the files.
Senator Tyt)Ings. I know that.
All that I am asking you is this. I do not want to know the
source. I would appreciate it if you would tell me whether or not
you have seen ā and it is not difficult to see a great many documents
that are secret ā what purports to be a co])y of the files. You have
said, I know, you have not seen the files: or wether someone in whom
you have confidence has said, "I believe you will find this stuff in the
files." That is all I want to know, just "yes" or "no," and you can go
on with your story. There can't be any harm done by that question.
It does not say who told you. I don't want to know that. I just
would like to know the method.
Senator McCarthy. I hope 3''ou don't push that question. You
ask that question ; the next question, of course, if I were questioning
and if I did want to find out what the sources were, would be "Have
you seen a photostat?" Then, "How large a document was it?"
Senator Tydixgs. I will not ask you any of those questions.
Senator McCarthy. Anything that I would give you I think would
tend to disclose the source of my information. I do not think the
committee sliould ask for that.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask Senator
McCarthy this question : Are the sources of your information which
you have alleged here with regard to Mr. Lattimore and what is con-
tained in his file, in 3-our opinicm and judgment, of sufficient reliability
so that you rely ui)on them utterly and sincerely in basing your
Senator McCarthy. That's right, and I am absolutely convinced
beyond any doubt that if the committee sees that file they will agree
with me wholeheartedly that I have perhaps understated the case
rather than overstated it.
Senator Tydings, I am as sincei'e as any man can be in this case.
This man is the top of the Avhole ring of which Hiss was a part. I
think you will find this: I think you will find that Stephen Brun-
auer ā and as I say I do not have the definiteness about this that I have
about the others ā is tied up with that ring, and the No. 1 case that I
282 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION
gave 3-011, Herbert Fierst, That was the No. 1 case of the 81. He, in-
cidentally, was post-audited by the Civil Service Commission the same
as Service, and they sent it back to the State Department, I under-
stand ā the State Department Loyalty Board. Just what they re-
quested I don't know, but they expressed dissatisfaction, and I under-
stand the State Department Loyalty Board shortly after marked
the case "Closed.'-
As I say, I do not feel my source of information on this is as re-
liable as the stuff on Lattimore. I believe, however, that you will
undoubtedly find that Fierst and Brunauer are tied up with Latti-
more in this case.
Senator McMahon. Can I ask a question : You apparently thought
what I was trying to do w^as to get your source, in which I am not
interested at all. I wish to point out to you that if the files are open
to you as a Senator, as apparently they must be, because you tell us
what is in the FBI files, it is very material for us to know that in
making our I'equest for a look at the same files, because if they are going
to be opened to Senator McCarthy they certainly ought to be open
to a Senate connnittee. So much for that.
Now let me ask you this question about Lattimore:
Senatoi' Tydings. Before you leave that, I want to serve notice here
on every man in this committee, and in your presence, that I am going
to do everything that I can do to get every file that is requested.
The reason I am proceeding as I am is that the precedents show clearly
that if I issue a subpena they can turn it down and there is nothing I
can do about it. What I want to do is get the files. Anything that you
can say or do that puts me in a position to get those files is going to
help 3'ou to prove 3^our case, assuming that these facts as you allege
them are true.
Now, if you do not give me something to go on, if I want to go to
Hoover and show hiui this testimony, if I say "I want you to read
this," I want to ask you if you can devise a way wliei-e I can verify
this or not. Unfortunately Mr. Hoover, for this hearing, has taken
the position, so I am well advised although I have not talked with him,
that the minute he ever discloses one of the FBI files in the future if
he goes to somebody for an interview about John Smith, the person,
knowing that the files were subsequently opened, is going to refuse
to be as frank with him as he would otherwise be, and he is scared
I understand by the grapevine ā I have nothing fi-om the White
Llouse and nothing from any source except general gossip ā that
Hoover is protesting against tiie opening of any of these files, because
FBI reports are in the loyalty files.
Senator McMahon. But Mr. Hoover certainly will have to recog-
Senator Tydings. Hoover is no softv, and he isn't "oino- to do this
unless we can show him a particular circumstance that will justify
him in making an exception. Mark my words !
Senator McMaiion. But mark my words on this: If Mr. Hoover's
files are going to be divulged to Senator McCarthy, and by him the
contents of them to the press, then certainly the reason why we
should not get them falls to the ground, because the Senator has
made this charge against Lattimore. True, he did not attach his
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 283
name to it last nig:ht, but he has made this charge. He has made it
on the basis of the FBI files.
NoAv, so louo- as a charge has been made on the basis of the files,
I don't see how they are going to keej) that FBI file away from ns.
Therefore it is very material to find out whether the Senator from
"Wisconsin actually did have access to those files.
Now, whethei- he physically had the file in his office or in his hands
does not make a bit of dilTerence. But did somebody read the file,
somebody in a position of trust in the FBI, and give it' to the Senator,
or did he show him copies of the files?
That is why I thought it was very material to us to know the
answer to that question.
Senator Tydings. I agree with you.
Senator McMahon. I would like to ask the Senator one further
question right along that ]K)int.
Senator, in all of this information regarding Lattimore, which you
say is so patent, which demonstrates him to be a bad egg, is there
anything in your information to indicate that the Federal Bureau
of luA^estigation turned over his case to any district attorney or to
the Attorney General or to the Assistant Attorney General for prose-
Senator McCarthy. I frankly do not know what the top men of
the Department think on the subject of whether or not the case
is ready for criminal action. I know this. I know that there are
some who are aware of at least some of the facts ā at least this is
my best information ā who feel that the case is ready for prosecution.
I think you will find some in the Department who feel that the
evidence is gotten in such a fashion that while it proves the guilt, it
may not be in such shape that it could be presented in court.
Senator Tydixgs. The answer is "No," that you do not know it has
been turned over to anj^body for prosecution up to now ?
Senator McCarthy. Here is my thought on that, and I do not know
too much about the procedure. I do not believe that they ever turn
a case over. I think it is discussed with the Justice Department and
somebody in Justice who is interested is kept apprised of the facts
as they develop, and I believe that the attorneys over in Justice, in
the Justice Department, are the ones who decide when they will take
the case and start prosecution.
Senator McMahon. That is not entirely true. It is sort of a mixed
question. I mean by that that it is a mixed decision. It is true that
in some cases the daily reports or weekly reports go forward to the
Criminal Division. In other cases, according to my memory ā of
course this is 10 years ago or more- ā they go through as they finish a
The Justice Department, at least while I was there, did not under-
take a prosecution unless the investigative department said "We have
completed the investigation and we are through. In other words, we
have done all we can."
If you did not have that system in force you would find that you
would be springing cases with only half of the case being investigated,
springing them publicly, and I think it is very material to me to
know, you see, and very important to know, whether this case has been
turned over to the Criminal Division by the FBI as a. completed
284 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE, LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
matter, or whether it is still in process between the Division and the
Senator Tydings. That w^ould be a matter of record, and all you are
asking Senator McCarthy is. Does he know whether or not the matter
has been put in tlie hands of the Department of Justice or any branch
thereof for prosecution, and I take it from his answer that so far as
he is advised, he does not know.
Senator McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator McMahon. You do not charge any dereliction in the prose-
cution forces of the Department? Do you charge any dereliction,
from your present knowledge of the case, in the nonprosecution of
the case ?
Senator McCarthy. The answer to that is "No,"' for the reason that
I do not know what the men in charge consider sutRcient evidence to
prosecute. One of the reasons why I wanted to take this in executive
session is that it is entirely possible when you talk to Mr. Hoover or
someone you may find that they feel they have a case that they could
prosecute but they want this man, for all I know, left in the Depart-
ment so they can follow up other leads.
Senator McMahon. You see, that is very important to our inves-
tigation, to know^ whether there is any charge
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Senator Tydings. Wliat we want to know is this : Why do you think,
in addition to what you have told us, that this man Lattimore is a bad
fellow and the head of a spy ring, and so on ? Wliat makes you think
that yourself ?
Senator McCarthy. I think this :
(Discussion was continued off the record.)
Senator Green. I ha^e been trying to listen and find out, but I have
not yet found out, what the charge is.
Senator McCarthy. I think he is one of the top espionage agents.
This man, I think, is one of the top espionage agents. If it is neces-
sary ā it may be, under your resolution ā for you to charge him with
being that, I will be glad to do it. In my opinion he is, and I don't
know wdiat kind of charge I should make, but I will be glad to make
any charge that is necessary.
I am very serious about this. One of the reasons I hope you get this
file is that I think it will dispel in the minds of some of the members
of the committee this feeling: Some of them, I believe, have had the
honest feeling that this was being done for political purposes. I
think if I did not bring this forth I would be completely derelict in my
duty, and I think after you see this case then we will be able to sit
down and just man-to-man across the table discuss the other cases
a lot more freely. In other words, if you get this, this will prove that
I am completely wrong or it will prove I am 100 percent riglit. If it
proves I am lOO percent right, I know in your mind no longer will
there be any suspicion, as I think you have had that and most likely
honestly so, that this was being done for political purposes. If you
find I am right about Lattimore, then I think that a lot of the suspicion
we have had flowing back and forth in this committee will be com-
pletely dispelled and I think we can go ahead and do a good job.
Senator Tydings. You think Lattimore is one of the biggest?
Senator McCarthy. By far and away.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEISTIGATION 285
Senator Green. What do you claim he has done to show that?
Why do you tliink so ?
Senator McCarthy. I think he is the top Russian spy.
Senator Greex. Why do you think so 'i I thought you were going
to give us some evidence.
Senator Tydixgs. Let me just say this
Senator Green. If you do not want me to pursue my question, I
Senator McCarthy. Because I think the files will show he has
been contacting and giving material to Russian espionage agents as
part of an espionage ring.
Senator Green. I want to know if that is anything more than a
suspicion on your part.
Senator McCarthy. There is a firm conviction from all of the in-
formation that I can get that that will be in the files. If, when you get
that file, it is not there, you will know that there is not too much to
Senator Green. You suspect that there is information in the file,
but you do not know what, which shall sustain your belief ?
Senator McCarthy. No; that is not right, Senator.
Senator Green. Correct me. I am trying to find out what you
Senator McCarthy. I do not suspect. I am firmly convinced that
I know that the Lattimore file, the FBI file, will convince you the
same way I am now convinced, that you are dealing with the top
Senator Green. Have you any facts that convince you of that ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes ; I think you will find in that file
Senator Green. They are in your mind, too ; aren't they, now ?
Senator McCarthy. I am giving you the benefit of all my investi-
Senator Green. Yes, but you are just giving me the conclusions.
Your conclusions must be based on certain facts that have been brought
to your attention, and I was wondering whether you were going to
give us those facts.
Senator McCarthy. I am trying to give them to you. Can we have
an agreement that I can complete my answer before I am interrupted?
(Tlie reporter reread the pending question.)
Senator McCarthy. The fact is that to the best of my knowledge
the file will show the complete workings of an espionage ring. That
is the best I can give you, Senator. I have not been able to run down
till the vast amount of work that the Government investigative agen-
cies have been doing. I am telling you tluit this is the one case in
which I think we can easily have a determination by this committee
.'is to whetlier or not my charges are well-founded or not. I think for
the balance of tlie investigation you should know that. If I am com-
])letely mistaken on this case, then you can assume that many of the
Senator Tydings. This is the key ?
Senator McCarthy. Yes, sir; and when you see that file. Senator
Oreen, I am sure that you will agree with me wholeheartedly.
Senator Green. Let me ask the question again in another way.
Have you any evidence that ]iroduces conviction in 3'our mind that he
delivered confidential papers to an enemy ?
286 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY rNVESTIGATION
Senator McCarthy. I frankly cannot even come remotely complete
in giving you the case yon would have in the file. I think you have
simply got to get that file. I don't think I can give you enough ma-
terial to make out a criminal case with the investigation I have. All
I can tell you, Senator, is ^Yhat, to the best of my knowledge, is in
Senator Green. If that is all, it seems to me that my designation
of it as suspicion is in your mind a conviction. It seems to me you
must have some facts upon which to base it.
Senator McCarthy. You might call it a suspicion ; I call it a con-
viction. We have a different name for it, apparently.
Senator Tydings. What I get out of it is this: That you have a con-
viction, based on certain things that you have seen or heard, which
lead you to the conclusion that if these files are examined, evidence
will be found to show that this man is the keyman in a Russian es-
Senator McMahon. He is a traitor.
Senator McCarthy. That is putting it pretty well. I think he is.
Senator Tydings. Furthermore, I get this out of the combined col-
loquy that has gone on, that without disclosing how you have that
conviction, information has come to you which leads you to that
The next thing I get out of it is that the information has come to you
in a way you do not care to disclose ā information which supports the
position that you have taken.
Senator McCarthy. Yes.
Senator Tydings. The next thing I get out of it is that you yourself
said you have not seen the files, which I would assume to be true with-