without some charges being made, and the Senate itself put the lan-
guage in. Fortunately I was not there the night the resolution was
adopted. I only inherited it, and I have read it over six or eight
times. I think that we are perfectly at liberty to get these files by
any proper method that we can devise, because of what you are testi-
fying. But I would label them charges, because I am sure you are
charging these people with being either Communists or allied with
Communists. You called it a Communist spy ring in the State De-
pai'tment, and I think all those things are charges, and I think it is
our duty to investigate it. I think they are charges.

Senator Hickenlooper. Mr. Chairman, I take it the witness is actu-
ally charging that the people to whom he refers in these outlines of
information are bad security risks. I take it the Senator is making
that charge.

Senator McCarthy. I am convinced of that. I think any normal
man would be convinced of that. If I must do something in addition
to that to make it possible for you to get the files, you can be sure
I will do it.

Senator Ttdings. I will consider that what you said are charges.

Senator McCarthy. I will say before handing you this next doci^-
ment that it is difficult for me to understand the apparent perplexity
of my Democratic colleagues on the committee with reference to the
names that appear on these documents. I know the Senators are all
aware of the fact that if the Communists did not enlist well-meaning
and prominent persons in every phase of American life it would not
be a front organization. Wlien the FBI turned over the results of its
probe of these front organizations to the Attorney General, it was well
known that the names of prominent and reputable citizens were inter-
mingled with the Communists and pro-Communists. Despite this
knowledge he proceeded to declare without equivocation these organi-
zations that I have specified as Communist front and as subversive
and therefore dangerous to our national security ; and I might say that
the significance of these documents, Mr. Chairman, is not that this
woman belongs to one organization that the Attorney General has said
is subversive, but her long chain of activity starting from, I believe the
first document is 1935, right up to date.

Senator Tydings. To reassure you, I do not know of anything you
have said so far that we should not investigate.

Senator McCarthy. Thank you.

Senator McMahon. I gather, then, from what you have just said,
that just because a person's name is on the list of sponsors of an organi-
zation which has been declared as — what is the language, "subversive"?

Senator McCarthy. The Attorney General declares them subver-
sive. Different committees have given them a different label.

Senator McMahon. That that per se does not make a citizen suspect.

Senator McCarthy. No. I think this, though, Senator. If you
find someone in the State Department who is a member of a Commu-



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 31

nist front oroanizatioii, then you should check the amount of activity
he has had in that organization, his association with people who are
known Communists. No, definitely not. There are some fine people
who have been tricked into having their names placed on these. For
example, I would not be surprised, Senator, if some of the members
sitting at the table, who are certainly all loyal Americans, might have
at some time or another received a letter from an organization, "Will
you sponsor a dinner we are throwing for So-and-so?", and you might
write back and say "All right."

I do think, however, wdien you get to people who are on loyalty
boards, who are getting top secret clearance^ then if you find they even
belong to one Communist front organization we should go further.
I think when you find that you have a long chain such as we have here,
of 28, you haA'e an extremely bad situation.

Senator McMaiion. The point you are making is that it is cumula-
tive. One case might well be just casual and accidental, but your
opinion is that it is cumulative, and if there are — how many has she
been a member of ?

Senator McCarthy. Twenty-eight I have now. Most likely that is
not the entire list.

Senator ]\IcMaiiox. That is a great number and it is something to be
looked into, and it would be very helpful, Senator, and of course I
understand that you say you can't do it, but it would be very helpful
to me in evaluating it to find how many she joined after the Attorney
General went into them, and how many before.

This is said with no reference to this Kenyon woman, whom I never
heard of before in my life, but there are some naive people in the
country, too, that will join any old thing that comes along.

Senator McCarthy. Someone so naive is a bad security risk, so
naive that they would sponsor 28.

Senator McMahox. I am not arguing that. I am just pointing
out that it would be interesting to find out the dates this woman
joined the organizations and when they were declared subversive.

Senator McCarthy. That is one of the reasons I hope very quickly
the committee hires a staff so that these matters can be checked into.

I give the committee exhibit 4, a letterhead of this organization
dated November 16, 1938, going back 12 years. The members will
note that over 11 years ago Dorothy Kenyon was a sponsor of this
organization which held a conference in Washington on December 10
of the same year.

Her Communist associates in this enterprise included Langston
Hughes, Rockwell Kent, Lewis Merrill, Mervyn Rathborne, and Dirk
J. Struick.

Senator Tydixgs. Put in all the names, Mr. Recorder, in addition to
those the Senator has named.

(Note. — Other names on the letterhead marked exhibit 4 are as
follows:)

Prof. Donald ^IcConnell Algernon Black

Dr. David Efron Bruce Bliven

Louis Adamic Dr. Franz Boas

Dr. Wallace W. Atwood Heywood Broun

Eleanor Copenhaver Anderson Erskine Caldwell

Prof. Hugo Fernandez Artucio Charlotte Carr

Eunice Fuller Barhard Bennett A. Cerf

Alfred M. Bingham Evans A. Clark



32



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION



Max Lerner

Marine Lopes

Jeau Lyons

George Marshall

Lewis Merrill

Dr. Clyde R. Miller

Prof. Gardner Murphy

William Pickens

A. Phillip Randolph

David Saposs

Prof. Margaret Schlauch

Adelaide Schulkind

Guy Emery Shipler

James T. Shotwell

Upton Sinclair

George Soule

Isobel Walker Soule

Maxwell Stewart

Isidore F. Stone

William Wachs

Prof. Goodwin Watson

Roy Wilkins

Dr. Max Winkler

Dr. Stephen S. Wise

Max Yergan



Gifford A. Cochran

Dr. Gilberto Concepcion De Gracia

Prof. George Counts

Malcolm Cowley

Prof. Horace Davis

Prof. Jerome Davis

R. E. Diffendorfer

Bail<?y W. Diffie

Dr. William K. Dodo

Prof. Paul H. Douglas

Dr. Henry Grattan Doyle

John L. Elliott

Prof. Henry Pratt Fairchild

Prof. Irving Fisher

Prof. Eugene Forsey

Margaret Forsythe

Frances R. Grant

Alberto Grieve

Sidney Hillman

Prof. Arthur H. Holcombe

John Haynes Holmes

Quincy Howe

Rev. William Lloyd Imes

Stanley M. Isaacs

Gardner Jackson

Prof. Chester L. Jones

Senator McCarthy. The Senator will note this, that yon have the
names of the same men who have been pnblicly labeled as Communists
on practically each one of these Communist-front organizations as a
sponsor or one of the top officers. You will note also that the re-
spectable names that you will find on one or two of these do not perme-
ate the whole file.

Senator Tydings. Go ahead, Senator. Conclude that page, and
then we will try to quit ; before you get to the next exhibit.

Senator McCarthy. It might be of interest to the committee to
knoAv that Mervyn Rathborne, a consponsor with Miss Kenyon, has
just testified for the Government at the trial of Harry Bridges, stating
under oath that he was a member of the Communist Party at the
time of this conference and that he was frequently a visitor at the
White Plouse.

I think it is important that the committee know that the Communist
activities of Miss Kenyon are not only deep-rooted but extend back
through the years. Her sponsorship of the doctrines and philosophy
of this ruthless and Godless organization is not new.

It is inconceival^le that this woman could collaborate with a score
of organizations dedicated to the overthrow of our form of govern-
ment by force and violence, participate in their activities, lend her
name- to their nefarious purposes and be ignorant of the whole sordid
and un-American aspect of their work.

Senator Tydings. That finishes exhibit 4. The committee will
stand in recess until 10 : 30 tomorrow morning, in this place.

Senator McCarthy. May I ask the Chair before you adjourn how
long you p]i\n on proceeding tomorrow ?

Senator Tydings. I would imagine Ave would go for probably an
hour and a half for certain, and maybe 2 hours.

Senator McCarthy. In other words, to 12 : 30 or 1 o'clock.

(Whereupon, at 12:40 p. m., the hearing was adjourned, to re-
convene at 10 : 30 a. m. of the following day, Thursday, March 9,
1960.)



STATE DEPAETMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY
INVESTIGATION



THURSDAY, MARCH 9, 1950

United States Senate,
Committee on Foreign Relations,
Subcommittee Appointed Under Senate Resolution 231,

Washington^ I). C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 :30 a. m. in room 318
Senate Office Building, Senator Millard E. Tydings, chairman of the
subcommittee, presiding.

Present : Senators Tydings (chairman of the subcommittee) , Green,
McMahon, Hickenlooper.

Also present : Senators Connally (chairman of the full committee) ,
McCarthy, Lucas, and Knowland.

TESTIMONY OF HON. JOSEPH K. McCARTHY, UNITED STATES
SENATOR PROM WISCONSIN— Resumed

Senator Tydings. Senator, at the opening of yesterday's hearing I
asked you, or sometime during the hearing I asked you, if you could
be in position this morning to give us the name of the individual that
caused so much controversy yesterday. Would you care to respond to
that request now ?

Senator McCarthy. I am very happy to do so, ]Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I understand you would like me to answer the fol-
lowing questions in case No. 14. We are referring yesterday to case
No. 57. I learned afterward you meant case No. 14,

Senator Tydings. I said No. 14, but I did not know what connota-
tion you had.

Senator .McCarthy. Question No. 1: "Will you give the name of
this individual ?" The answer is yes. I now hand you that name, with
a copy for each of the individuals on the committee.

Senator Tydings. Just a moment. Senator.

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish the statement : Can I give you the
name of the State Department official mentioned in the secret files in
that case, and am I making any charge against that official ?

The answer is no.

Senator Hickenlooper. Would you repeat what you said. Senator?
I was busy looking here and did not hear what you said. You handed
in the name of the individual.

Senator McCarthy. Let me read you both of them. I understand
the chairman wants me to answer two questions this morning. No. 1 :
"Will you give the name of the individual in case No. 14 ?*' The answer
to that is yes, and I have now handed him the name, with a copy for
each member of the committee.

33



34 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INrVESTIGATION

No. 2, can I give him the name of the State Department official men-
tioned in the secret files in that case, and am I making any charge
against that official? The answer is no. The committee can make
snch charge against this or any other individual in this case or any
other case as it sees fit. That is the task delegated to the committee by
the Senate. Only those whom I name am I charging as bad security
risks. However, the committee undoubtedly will find many whom it
desires to charge in like manner.

If the chairman, now that he has the name of case No. 14, desires
the name of the particular State Department official whom he referred
to yesterday, I can tell him how to obtain it in a very simple and easy
manner. That is by subpenaing the files. However, to get the com-
plete story in this case, it undoubtedly will be necessary to get not
merely the State Department's — and this is important, Mr. Chair-
man — loose-leaf loyalty and personnel files, the two files of the State
Department, but also the files of the Civil Service Commission and the
FBI.

If tlie chairman considers this morals case more important than the
other cases, I have no objection whatsoever to recessing the hearings
until the committee obtains the files.

Senator Ttdings. Senator, might I ask you whether the name of this
individual is in your files?

Senator McCarthy. No.

Senator Tydings. It is not?

Senator McCarthy. No.

Senator Tydings. It is not in the file in case No. 14?

Senator McCarthy. I have given the chairman all of the informa-
tion in case No. 14 on the Senate floor. There are a great number of
names in the secret files, in the FBI files, and the Civil Service Com-
mission files. He wdll find those names by, as I say, subpenaing and
getting the files.

Senator Tydings. Wlien you testified in this case — and I just want
to clear it up — you said :

In this case —

that is case No. 14 —

a CSA report of September 2, 1947, is replete with information concerning the
attempt of a high State Department official —

and so forth.

Now I assume that the information which is so replete did not con-
tain the name of this high State Department official.

Senator McCarthy. I am sure the chairman will find all the names
he is interested in in that file. I tell the chairman those are the secret
files to which I have not access. I have the information. I am sure
the chairman will find that every word, every single word, that I have
stated on the Senate floor in 'regard to this case is true. If the
chairman wants the name, he can get the name. I can't. I do not
have subpena powers. If the chairman is interested in this case, he can
now test the authority of the committee and, as I say, if the chairman
thinks this particular morals case — this is principally a morals case,
understand — is of sufficient import, I have no objection whatever to
recessing — not that my objection would be controlling, understand —
letting the chairman subpena the files ; and, if upon examination of
those files he finds that he wants to investigate some individual other



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 35

than those I have named, obviously that is completely up to the chair-
man.

Senator Tydings. I would like to say, Senator McCarthy, we will in
due time, I am sure, attempt, and I believe obtain, access to all these
files. A-NHiat I was trying to ascertain this morning was whether or not
your photostatic copies, whicli you said you had, of a great many of
these cases — I assumed all of them — had the name of this person in
j'our own files, and I understand that you say it is not there.

Senator McCarthy. I do not have the name of the individual. Un-
doubtedly his name will show up from time to time in my files, but I as
of now cannot identify the individual to whom you refer. But there is
nothing mysterious aljout any of these names, Mr. Chairman. If the
Chair is so anxious to get that name, he can recess this very minute and
go over and say to the Secretary of State, "Let me see the file in case
No. 14. I want tlie names." Then, if the Secretary of State says you
cannot see them, that that is a secret from you, the Chair has the power
to subpena. Mr. Chairman, don't expect me to give you all the minute
details of these files.

Senator Greex. Apparently Senator Tydings has not made clear the
point. It isn't that we want to know the names, but we wanted to know
whether you knew the names.

Senator McCarthy. I have told you that I cannot give you the
name. I do not know it at this time. I can try and get it for you.

Senator Hickenlooper. I may say that the point certainly has not
been made clear to me as yet. 1 don't know what the purpose of this
persistent inquiry on a matter which this committee can readily find
out if we just subpena the files and get hold of the information is.
I think the Senator has made clear that he does not have all the minute
details, and I take it that it is a part of the duty of this committee to
get hold of those files and to get hold of the intimate and detailed
information. So, I agree with the Senator from Ehode Island that
the point probably hasn't been made clear.

Senator McCarthy. I might say I have a very strong suspicion as
to the name of the individual. I will not give the Chair any suspicions.
1 understand that certain other — in fact, one of the members of one
of the investigating committees called me and told me he thought
lie knew the name of the individual. He might be able to help you.
I can give you that. But it is much simpler to get the name definitely
and certainly by calling and getting the FBI file in this case.

Senator Tydings. Thank you. Senator. We will endeavor to get
the names of all people who are involved in this case from all of the
files that are pertinent to this case. But I don't want to pursue the
matter unduly. I simply wanted to ascertain whether or not the
name of this man was in file 14 of your own records, and I under-
stand from your statement that the answer is "No."

Am I correct or wrong ?

Senator McCarthy. The name of the individual is not in my file
No. 14, period ; at least, not that I know of. When you ask do I know
his name, I have a strong suspicion as to what his name is, but the
Chair can find out definitely.

I am very curious, incidentallv-



5, im^n^ciiLtiii V f



Senator Tydings. I want to get on with the testimony, but I would
like to tell you that the reason I have asked you this question again



36 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

was this : You say, "In this case a CSA report of September 2, 1947,
is replete — is replete — with information covering the attempt of a
high State Department official to induce several individuals who had
signed affidavits reflecting adversely upon the employees to repudiate
their affidavits," and it occurred to me that if you could make that
statement, obviously, the name of the individual would be in your hies,
and I thought we could get it very quickly that way and act on it
very quickly in accordance therewith.

But now that you have testified that the name of this individvial
is not in case 14, although you say it is replete with information, there
is nothing else for us to do but look elsewhere for the name, as you
obviously do not have it.

Senator Green. Mr. Chairman, I do not think that necessarily
follows. The witness has several times limited his reply to saying,
when asked about the source of his statement that you have read,
that he did not have the name in file 14. I would like to ask hmi
whether he has it in any other files.

Senator McCarthy. Let me put it this way, so there is no doubt in
jour mind : I think I know the name of the individual. I have
naturally written that name down. It is in my files. I have seen no
original, no document, upon which I can definitely state the name is
John Jones or Pete Smith. That is available to you, gentlemen. I
do have papers, any number of them. I have information from indi-
viduals indicating various names. I do not have any documentary
proof of that, and I am sticking to that. Do you understand me now,
Senator ?

I have a very strong suspicion. I think I know the name, but it is.
too easy for you gentlemen to find it out for me to start giviiig my'
suspicions, to give you hearsay of what John Jones or Pete Sinith
has told me. When I say I do not have the name, I have seen no
original document stating what his name was. I have not seen the
original file giving his name. I have not seen a photostatic copy
of that file giving his name.

You, gentlemen, apparently know his name also. I think I know
the name. If you Icnow the name, which I assume you do, you can
j^roceed to make any charge you care to against this individual.

The Senator has referred to this as a "mystery" case. I don't think
there is anything mj^sterious about the case to the Senator. I am
slightly mystified as to the importance of this particular individual.
I think that case is important, you understand, or I Avould never have
mentioned it on the Senate floor. I think it is important. But let
me repeat that, while I feel I am reasonably certain I know his name,
I think the Senator who is now addressing me knows it just as well
as and better than I do.

I have no documentary proof, no original file, upon which I can
say definitely "The name is John Jones" or "Pete Smith." I have
given you the name of the individual in case No. 14. In his file you
will find documented everything which I said on the Senate floor,
everything I have said about this man, and I intend to stick to facts
that are completely documented. I hope that is clear. Senator.

Senator Green. I don't think your answer is responsive to my ques-
tion. You mistake the purpose of it. The purpose is not to find
the name of the individual ; it is to find out how accurate the founda-
tion is for your charges.



STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 37

Senator McCarthy. That .you can find out by obtaining the files.

Senator Tydings. Let the Senator finish his question.

Senator Greex. The question is not of the fact, but whether your
charges are based on facts. This is an illustration that I would like
to follow up.

I do not yet understand from your answer whether or not this
charoe, where you say the files are replete with references to this
individual and yet you cannot say whether you have his name or not.
And I want to know AA'hether there is, not in file 14 alone but in any
otlier file on which your charges are based, the name of this individual.

Senator jNIcCakthy. Senator, if you want to know whether or not
my charges are true or false, the best way in the world to find out is
to get the file. I have told you what is in the files. That file can be
subpenaed by you. You understand that, Senator. And that is the
best way in the world that you can determine whether every word I
have spoken here is true or false. We have given you the subpena
power. The entire Senate said to this committee, "We want this
committee to go into those files and find out whether or not what
McCarthy said is true," and the easiest way to do that is to get those
files. If I am saying a single word that is not true, I know that many
in the administration will enjoy proving it. The best way they can
prove it is to bring down all those files.

Now let me make this clear : I and the public will not be satisfied
with a loose-leaf State Department file in which you can shove in and
take out material. Unless you get all the files, so you are sure you
have them, and I will tell you how to do that without any difficulty,
when you do that, then you will find that every word, every word, that
I have given you as to what those files contain is, so far as I know,
absolutely true.

Now, the simplest and easiest way to find that out is to get those
files.

Senator Green. As I have stated to you several times, the object
of this question is not to find out whether it is true or false; it is to
find out how far 3'ou relied on facts in your possession for making
the charges.

You have said that your files are replete with references on which
you based an accusation against a high official of the State Depart-
ment.

Senator McCarthy. Not my files. I said the State Department files.
I didn't say copies of files in my possession. If the Senator will read
that statement, he will see that I said "the files'' — referring to the
State Department files, the FBI files, the Civil Service Commission
files — "are replete with that information." I repeat it now. I repeat
it. Senator, that every Avord that I have given you, every piece of
evidence as to what those files contain, you will find is there if you
will get the files.

Senator Green. I am going to be persistent, and I am going to get
an answer out of this or else get your refusal to answer. My question
is whether there is in your files the name of this individual.

Senator McCarthy. I think I know the name of the individual.

Senator Green. That isn't what I asked.

Senator McCarthy. Let me finish. Senator, please. I am reason-
ably certain I know his name.

Senator Green. That isn't what I asked.



38 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION

Senator McCarthy. You be quiet until I finish.