Mr Hoover. I think it was the most practical program that could
be adopted at the time it was adopted. Maybe there are a few kmks
in the program that could be ironed out. The President has at all
times been studying that. I know very recently he requested the
Attorney General and myself to offer any suggestions or views that
would be of assistance toward improving or tightening that program.
We have given earnest consideration to that. I think all m all it was
a very fair procedure. r. . /-. xi
In the early stages of the loyalty program. Senator Green, there
was a great hue and cry on the part of some of these pseudo liberals
that it was a so-called "thought control" or "thought policing. It
STATE DEPARTMENT EjVIPLOYEE LOYALTY IN\'ESTIGATION 331
has been found after checking,' over 2,000,000 loyalty forms that there
liave been very few abuses, if any, that have actually taken place,
either in the investigating or the hearings that have been i-eported, and
in the investigations where there was some minor slip, corrective meas-
ures have been, of course, taken.
I think it has worked very well and I think that is the consensus
of the better thinking members of the press who have had an oppor-
tunity to view it and observe it first hand.
Senator Careen. I thank you very much for that statement, be-
cause 1 think it will restore confidence on the part of a great many
people where it has been somewhat shaken.
Senator Tydings. Senator Hickenlooper?
Senator Hickenlooper. I notice again in your statement, as I
noticed in the Attorney General's statement, a repeated and con-
tinued emphasis upon the opening of files for public disclosure. It
has never been my thought as a member of this conniiittee, and I
have heard no mention on the part of the subcommittee, that any of
these fik'S were to be opened by this committee for public disclosure.
Also, the question of so-called raw files has come up in the Attorney
As you stated a moment ago, I believe that you either symbolize
or give reference by number to the source of information on the part
of those people who do not like to have their names disclosed.
Mr. Hoo\t:r. That is correct, and when we submit that report to
the Civil Service Commission in the loyalty cases it is a summary of
the investigation by the Bureau.
Senator Hickenlooper. A great many of your reports adequately
serve the purpose when they are in fact summaries of all the infor-
mation which you have gathered about an individual is that not the
Mr. HooM^R. I would assume that that is the case. We have had
very few complaints about it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Are you aware of loyalty files that havf
been made available to individual Members of Congress or to Con-
gressional committees of either the House or the Senate?
Mr. Hoover. By whom ?
Senator Hickenlooper. FBI reports or files.
]Mr. Hoo^T.R. By whom ? Just a minute. Who made the files avail-
able to Members of Congress? Not anybody in the FBI ever made
Senator Hickenlooper. I did not ask about the individual. I said,
are you aware of any occasions when FBI investigative files have been
made available by anybody to congressional committees or to indi-
vidual Members of Congress?
Mr. Hoover. I am not aware of any loyalty reports being made
available to any committee by any agency or any individual in the
Government, because there is a direct Presidential directive prohibit-
ing it. I know insofar as the Federal Bureau of Investigation is con-
cerned, no confidential reports of the Bureau have ever been made
available to anybody.
Senator Hickenlooper. What is the situation about the Senate Ju-
diciary Committee in connection with the investigation of Federal
332 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATIOJST
Mr. Hoover. In connection with the Senate Judiciary Committee^
there is again a so-called summarization of a file. The raw file is
not made available to the connnittee, by reason of the fact as the At-
torney General has explained this afternoon, that there is a difi'erent
principle involved in making available to a committee passing on the
qualifications, for confirmation, of a man to a judicial post than there
is involved in this over-all problem of internal security.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do you consider that problem more im-
portant than the question of making available information to a com-
mittee that is trying to investigate alleged subversive activities which
may go to the heart of the national defense or our whole national
Mr. Hoover. I am not endeavoring to evaluate which is the most
important or which is the least important, Senator. I am stating to
you that as Director of the Bureau, in the years I have been Director
I have consistently urged the Department not to yield access to these
raw working files or to the summaries in tlie internal-security cases,
I can be overruled in that opinion by the Attorney General or the
President. Up to the present time the Attorneys General have sup-
ported that and the various Presidents have supported that position.
I think there is a great difference between an active file; a file that is
in question before this committee upon which this committee was seek-
ing access to the records is an active working file in current investiga-
tion. I do not think that file should be made available to .yon.
Senator Hickenlooper. In the event this committee made it clear
that what the committee was seeking was an accurate summarization
of the active working file, rather than the active working file itself
Senator Green. May I draw my distinguished colleague's atten-
tion to the fact that we were directed to obtain by subpena, if neces-
sary, and examine the complete loyalty and employment files and
records of (xovernment employees in the Department of State, and so
forth? Nothing was said about summaries.
Senator Hickenlooper. Getting back to the question that I was ask-
ing you, Mr. Hoover
Mr. HooAHER. I will answer the question, Senator, that I would cer-
tainly recommend to the Attorney General that any summarization not
be made available to the committee in an active internal security case,,
for the very reason that even though we summarize tlie file, the person
reading that summary could very readily draw certain conclusions and
deductions therefrom as to where the information might have been ob-
tained. It might be to the embarrassment of informants, and again it
is a matter of principle and one of degree. I have the utmost respect
for this committee and for its integrity, but if we yield in this one
case we break a precedent that will plague the Department and cer-
tainly, I think, materially interfere with the efficient operation of the
FBI in future years to come. Other committees will ask for it. It is
entirely within the realm of possibility, maybe not probability, that
there might be a committee in which we would not have the same con-
fidence we have in this committee. There have to be certain principles
set and adhered to or the floodgates will be opened.
Senator Hickenlooper. May I ask you, Mr. Hoover, a question I
asked the Attorney General, which he said j^ou were better qualified to
answer, and I believe that is true. How many clerks and stenographic
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 333
])ersoiiiiel and other people have access to the information, or at least
substantial parts of the information, tluit are contained in these files,
by way of compilation?
Mr. HoovEK. I would say. Senator, that there would be ])robably not
more than half a dozen. That would be a maximum number, a half
dozen employees of the Bureau who would have access to the entire,
whole workino' file. There are many clerks who will file certain papers
into a certain file and will make an index card, but the file is restricted
to requests from a particular supervisor or supervisors who are super-
vising- that case, and from the Assistant Director in charge of that
division and myself. The file is not allowed to be examined by any
clerk or em[)loyee just for the purpose of curiosity.
I ma}' also say. Senator, that each one of those employees of the
Bureau has been thoroughly investigated as to their integrity, their
loyalty, and as to their security risk, and we have never had a leak
from those files. I don't mean to infer that any committee on the Hill
or any of its staff may not be as good a security risk as our employees,
but I do not know whether they have been investigated, I do not know
whether they have been checked as thoroughly as our people, and
again, as I say, the danger of a leak from the Bureau â€” and I do not
say it is beyond the possibility of a leak in an organization that has
10.000 employees, but to date we have never had that occur to us.
Senator Hickenlooper. I might suggest, Mr. Hoover, that there are
at least two or three members of this committee, I think, that have had
access to a great many files. The Senator from Connecticut and I
have had access to many files of the Atomic Energy Commission that
are investigative files. I believe the Senator from ^laryland has had
access to certain files and information, and I do not believe any of us
as a result of that have leaked any information. I do not know about
Senator Green or Senator Lodge.
Senator Tydings. Just for the record in case there is a leak, the
Senator from Maryland has not read any of these summaries, pur-
Mr. Hoover. I want to make it very clear that I am not insinuating
any lack of security on the part of this committee. As I tried to treat
the point in my statement, it is a matter of principle. If we yield in
this particular request of this committee, which probably has members
equally as secure as any high officials in Government, you are setting
a precedent and opening a floodgate that is going to plague the Depart-
ment of Justice and materially interfere with the security work of the
Senator Hickenlooper. I can understand your zeal, Mr. Hoover, in
the inviolate protection of your files and your investigative procedures.
But I do want to observe that this committee has been specifically
charged with investigating certain allegations and charges. It is
beyond my conception as to how this committee can investigate the
subject matter of the individuals charged, in their own interest and
in the interest of the public, now that the charges have been made,
if we are denied and have the door shut in our faces on information,
pro or con, which is officially in the hands of the Government, but
which we cannot see and which we cannot use in evaliuiting the merits
or the demerits of this investigation. That is the impasse to which
we seem to have come, and I would be the last one â€” I am not perhaps
334 STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
the last one ; I do not mean to discredit anyone else. There are a great
many other people that would defend the integrity of your files and
the integrity of your investigative system to the utmost. I am per-
fectlv willing to do that. But I am anxious for someone to tell me
how I can discharge my responsibilities as a member of this subcom-
mittee when I do not have access to information in the hands of the
Government upon which to make up my own independent judgment
as to the merits or the demerits of these charges. That is the impasse
that confronts me as a member of this committee, and I personally feel
that there is not only no intention, but no possibility, of any disclosure
of specific information in any of these files that would be made by this
subcommittee unless and until full consultation and agreement with
the proper authorities had been later had that such disclosure was all
Mr. Hoover. I agree with you in that conclusion. On the first I
cannot give you any assistance, as to how to break that impasse.
Senator Hickenlooper. I sadly agree that you cannot give me any
assistance on that.
Senator Tydings. I am going to defer to my colleagues in asking
questions and save mine until the last, but I would like to ask you one
question about something you have touched on with reference to
I would assume that one reason these summaries of the FBI files
are made known in the case of an applicant for appointment to be a
United States judge, wliether it be for one of the lower United States
courts or the highest, would be predicated on the fact that once he
has assumed office, he cannot be gotten off the bench except by death,
retirement, or impeachment, whereas in the case of all other indi-
viduals who work for the Government who are not elected, they can
be discharged or released without that situation requiring impeach-
ment. Is that one of the reasons, in your opinion, for this exception to
what might be called the strictness of the FBI in not disclosing the
Mr. Hoover. I think the Attorney General can answer that prob-
ably better than I.
Attorney General McGrath. It goes beyond that. The applicant
for the job knows in advance that the FBI is going to make an investi-
gation and the results of that investigation are going to be made
known to proper officials. He is in a much different position when
he seeks that position than is the non-innocent or innocent employee
who is suddenly subjected to an investigation of his personal affairs
without any desire on his part so to be investigated. I think that
makes a big difference.
Senator Tydings. Furthermore, the judge sits with the power of
life and death in many cases of the citizens of the comnmnity, and I
am reminded that after the Punic Wars, when Solon was commissioned
to write the laws for ancient Greece, for the first time he gave the
people the right to vote only for the judges who would sit upon their
crimes and misdemeanors, for the reason that that is one thing above
all others that must have every security thrown about it, and if people
elect their own judges, obviously they must have confidence in their
integrity, and that was the reason that was done.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 335
Attorney General McGrath. May 1 say to you that the record of
the Federal Bureau of Investiaation and the l)ei)artnient with respect
to prosecaiticMi of all those auaiust whom suHicient evidence has been
secured is a sjilendid one, but this is not the time to discuss that
undertakinc:. There are facts built up from day to day that this
connnittee is not aware of as a whole, and it may be before j^ou con-
clude the work of this committee I should like to come back and review
with you everything that has been (h)ne in this field by the Department
of Justice, because I think it is a splendid record. That record is so
oood that if any Member of the United States Senate thinks there are
a lot of spies running around the United States, if he will tell us their
names and a little information, we will soon bring them to justice.
Senator Tydixgs. Thank you.
Senator McMaiion. When was the loyalty program commenced,
Mr. Hoover. In 1947, I think.
Senator McMaiiox. And under it all of the 2,000,000 employees of
the Government have been checked?
Mr. Hoover. About 2,700,000 now, I think ; that is, all of them have
had a name check against the files of the Bureau. Of course, they have
not been investigated unless some indication of disloyalty was present.
Senator Mc]\Iahon. Can you tell us by whom this loyalty program
Mr. Hoo\'ER. Originally the President named a committee, headed
by Mr. Vanech. Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Jus-
tice, and upon that committee was Secretary of the Navy Sullivan and
Under Secretary of the Treasury Foley and representatives of various
other branches of the Government, who conferred at great length and
made recommendations to the President as to the procedures to be fol-
lowed in this particular program. Then there was a consultation with
the appropriate committees of the Hous.e for the granting of the ap-
propriations on it.
Senator McMaiiox. I remember there was about a 4 months' delay
before the money was appropriated after the program was formulated,
if I am not mistaken.
Mr. Hoover. I think that is correct. The committees of the Con-
gress gave it very careful study before the money was appropriated. I
appeared before several of them on the House side.
Senator McMahox. Mr. Attorney General, you have just stated
you do not consider it appropriate at this time to give us a review of
the Department's Avoi'k. I shall defer to your opinion as to its suita-
bility at this time. It does seem to me, however, that since it is in
this connnittee that charges have been made which have tended to
shake confidence in the diligence of the Govermiient's pursuit of wrong-
doers, that it woidd be proper for you to briefly review some of the
activities of the Department. I have in mind the 11 Communists in
New York: I have in mind the successful prosecution of Alger Hiss;
I have further in mind the prosecution of Mr. Bridges. I do not
know whether that case is successfully concluded. And also of those
persons who were in contempt of the committees of Congress for re-
fusing to answer questions concerning their communistic affiliations.
I do not wish to press you on it, but those thoughts do occur to me,
336 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
and it did seem appropriate to me that this was a phice and a time in
which proper reference to them could be made. However, if you feel
that you wish to come back again, I do not press it.
Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I might say for the benefit
of the Attorney General that there are a number of questions collateral
perhaps to his statement today that I would like to discuss with him.
I refrained from asking those questions because his statement was con-
fined to a certain limited area, and if the matter is to be opened up I
merely wanted to say that I would have a great many questions to ask.
Attorney General McGrath. Senator Hickenlooper, that is exactly
what I meant when I said I didn't think that it was appropriate today.
We are here to discuss one question, the (][uestion of these files. But
there is a very splendid story that ought to be known, because I think
it would give confidence to the Members of Congress, I think it would
give confidence to the public at large.
I may say that there is no instance in which the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has completed a report involving disloyalty or subver-
siveness and referred it to the Attorney (general where court action
has not been instituted. And you may add to those you suggested
that it was Mr. Hoover's organization that got the leads which re-
sulted in the capture and arrest and conviction of Mr. Fuchs. Today
we were successful in the prostH'ution of the Dennis case. We have
a splendid record, and I think the countr}^ is entitled to know it, but
I do not believe that while we are here to discuss this question of rec-
ords that I ought to impose on the committee to talk about these
matters, and I would like to come back at some future time and talk
to the committee about what has been accomplished and to answer
any questions that Senator Hickenlooper may have with respect to
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge, have you some questions ?
Senator Lodge. Yes. There is one point that I think ought to be
definitely elucidated for the record. Let me say I think you made
a very convincing exposition of your reasons foi' not setting a prec-
edent, and for what you describe as a matter of principle. I think
I heard you say that these raw files had not been made available to
anybody. I think I am quoting you correctly.
Mr. Hoover. That is correct.
Senator Lodge. That prompts me to ask the question. Has the raw
file not been made available to the courts in certain cases?
Mr. Hoover. There has been one instance last year where certain
very limited portions of the raw file were made available to the court
in the Coplon case. Certain re]:)orts were sealed for examination by
the judge in the last trial in New York City in the Crubichev and
Coplon case. In the trial in the District of Columbia there was in-
troduced into that trial certain copies of reports that had been for-
warded to the Department of Justice, and abstracts had been made
from them by Judith Coplon, and were found in her possession at
the time we arrested her in New York City.
That again showed the evil of making certain portions of that
available to the court, because in those files, just 1 or 2 reports taken
out of a file of maybe 5,000 re[X)rts, there were mentioned the names
of certain individuals. The president of a New England univerisity
was mentioned, and there were other very prominent people men-
tioned, upon whom there was cast an aspersion of subversive activities
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY IN^'ESTIGATTON 337
Avliich had never been established or verified by the FBI, because we
Avere not investio;ating that particular subject. Those reports were
introduced in the court at the direct ruling of the judge who presided,
fludge -Keeves in that case, and it was over the objection of the Attor-
ney General and the Department of Justice representatives. That
is the only case I know of.
Senator LoixiE. The Attorney General did not make the raw file
]Mr. HoovKR. He did not make the whole file available. He made
available only the reports which Miss Coplon made reference to in the
abstract sli))s. That occured in the District of Columbia case. In the
New York case there was made available for the judge certain reports,
as you know, and sealed for the judge, for the examination of certain
information obtained by wire tapping, in order that the judge might
determine whether tliat evidence had been used to develop the case.
The judge ruled it had not been.
Senator Lodge. Did you approve of those two instances ?
Mr. Hoover. I did not.
Attorney General McCtratii. May I say that the decision in the
Coplon case had to be made by the Attorney General as to either pro-
ducing those files or dismissing the case against her, and against Mr.
Hoover's recommendation, the Attorney General, who is to proceed
with the case, made information from the file available under such
restrictions as. we could secure from the court.
Senator Lodge. Is it true that when those files were made available
the7v' were made available for public disclosure?
Mr. Hoover. The portions of the reports that were made available
in XcAv York City were sealed. Judge Ryan presided in this case â€”
tliose reports were sealed, and he examined them in chambers. He did
have some discussion, I think, with both the prosecuting Lmited States
attorney and defense counsel. They were not made available in open
court. The particular portions were sealed for the examination of the
Senator Lodge. Were not parts of the raw file put in in the Wash-
Mr. Hoover. There were portions of the raw material that had been
used in the Washington trial that were printed in the papers. On the
excerpts that were made the court ruled that the whole report from
which she had abstracted information had to be introduced for the
information of the court.
Senator Lodge, That was the only part that was available?
Mr. Hoover. The raw files in thatVase I think ran to 1(),()()0 or 12,000
pages, and all that was produced was some 2G reports, to my recol-
Senator Tydings. If you will allow me to pursue one or-two ques-
tions, in your prepared remarks, on page 2, I see this sentence in the
middle of the second paragraph :
A file is maintained in each case because tlie FBI has received information
allegations, or a complaint which if proven comes within the sphere of our
responsibility, in pursuance of either congressional or Executive directives.
Then this :
After the investigation is completed, when indicated by Department procedure
or judgment, a summary of the facts developed is furnished to the Department
of Justice and to United States attorneys.
338 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
In other words, I imagine when yon think yon have completed a file
and have made out a case that violates any of the laws of onr country,
that file is then sent by you automatically to the Attorney General or
the United States attorneys, wherever the jurisdiction may lie, for
proper action by the courts.
Mr. Hoo^^R. Not the raw file. There is what is called a summary
report made from the raw file, and there will be withheld from that
report the sources and other confidential information that we do not