Senator Tydings. Let the witness answer in his own way.
Senator McCarthy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am reasonably certain I know his name. I have nothing in my
files upon which I can base a definite, documented answer. There-
fore, I am not going to guess for you. Senator. I have told you this,
and let me make it clear. Unless I have seen the document showing
the name of that individual, I will not try and give it to you. Is that
Senator Green. The question is perfectly clear, but the answer is
not. The question is : Is there in your files the name of this individual ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I don't know, because I don't know
definitely what his name is. There are many names in my file. Un-
doubtedly his name is in some of those files ; but, unless I know defi-
nitely that he is this particular State Department official, I can't
Now the Senator can get that. He can find it out very simply. He
can get it in half an hour by calling Secretary Acheson.
Senator Tydings. Senator, you can proceed in a moment, but, with-
out wishing to be captious about it, I don't think the witness is testi-
fying to the accusation here by telling us over and over and over again
what we can do. 1 think the witness ought to be more responsive to
the direct question. I say this in the best of temper and with no desire
to cut him off, but I do think he ought to say "I have it" or "I haven't
it" and not how we can get it.
Senator McCarthy. I have made it very clear, Mr. Chairman. I
am sure the chairman is not dull. No one has ever accused him of
that. The chairman understands exactly what the situation is. He
knows the names in that file. I think I know them. I haven't seen
the original. I haven't seen a photostatic copy of the original so I
cannot tell this committee whether the name is John Jones or Pete
Smith, and until I can give them that information I will not attempt
to guess at it. This is not going to be any guessing contest so far as
I am concerned, gentlemen.
Senator Green. That is just what we want to avoid — a guessing
Here is an individual, a high official in the State De]:>artment, against
whom there is an accusation. I am not asking what his name is; I am
asking whether in your files his name is.
Senator McCarthy. I have just gotten through telling you that I
do not know definitely what his name is, period.
Senator Green. That is not the answer to the question.
Senator McCarthy. That is the answer you will get.
Senator Green. I am not asking you what the name is. I am asking
you whether you know the name is there — whether you know it or not.
Senator McCarthy. If I do not know definitely what his name is,
how can I know whether it is there? Your name is in my files, per-
haps ; I don't know. Not as a Communist, you understand.
Senator Green. I would not be surprised, in view of the long list
of very prominent people and people of highest position in the world.
I should judge it an honor to be on some of those lists you have put in.
Senator McCarthy. Just a minute. If you think it is an honor to be
on any of the lists that I am giving you — strike that.
STATE DEPARTAIENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 39
Senator Hickenloopek. Mr. Chairniaii, I might suggest that these
organizations have been declared subversive by the Attorney General,
^vlio is a member of the Senator's own party, and it is an official de-
termination of the Federal Government bodies that these are sub-
versive organizations. If the Senator can take comfort out of that
Senator Green. The list seemed to be bipartisan so far as I can
Senator Hickenloopek. But the organizations have been declared
to be subversive.
Senator Green. As I have said several times, and I am going to
stick to it, I haven't J'et an answer to ni}^ question. Do you know
whether the name of the individual to whom you have referred, ap-
pearing in your files, not only once but the files are replete with his
name, do you know whether his name is there or not ?
Senator McCarthy. Let's first answer the first part of your ques-
tion. We will go right through it. You will get all the answers you
want. It may not be the one you want. Can we have an agreement
that Avhen you are talking I will be quiet, and when I am talking you
will be quiet ?
Senator Tydings. The witness will proceed until he has completed
his answer, without interruption.
Senator McCarthy. Can we have that understanding?
Senator Green. I think that is an understanding.
Senator McCarthy. You are speaking about honorable people,
honorable organizations. Here is what Secretary Acheson said about
the organizations that I have cited to you. He said this 4 days ago.
Referring to the security files, he said :
Participation in one or more of tlie parties or movements referred to above,
or in organizations whicli are fronts for, or are controlled by, any such party
or movement, either by membership therein, taking part in its executive direction
or control, contribution of funds thereto, attendance at meetings, employment
thereby, registration to vote as a member of such party, or signature on petition
to elect a member of such party to political office or to accomplish any other
purpose supported by such a party, or by written evidences or oral expressions
by speeches or otherwise, or political or economic or social views —
he lists those people as bad security risks. I am giving you the names
of organizations that come within the purview of that. If you think
these are honorable organizations you are entitled to that opinion.
Now you asked the next question. Now you say, "Is there in your
file the name of the State Department official referred to in the secret
files of case No. 14?" I have told you that I have a strong suspicion
as to who the individual is. I have no way of definitely knowing.
There is in my file the names of individuals whom I suspect of being
mentioned in that particular file, but not being able to say definitely
it is John Jones or Pete Smith, I cannot tell you whether he is in the
file or not.
Senator Tydings. I would like to interject for a moment. Inas-
much as a charge has been made by a witness now on the stand that
attempts have been made to doctor the record in the State Depart-
ment, I would like to serve notice on the witness now that we may
subpena or ask him to deliver his own files, so that we can check as
to whether the information that he has obtained in his photostatic
copies ties in with the loyalty and other files that we will, I hope, in
the course of time examine, and I wnll ask the Senator now to keep
68970—50 — pt. 1 4
4U STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY DsWESTIGATION
those files intact, with all the papers in them, so that we may make the
comparison at the proper time to see whether or not the State Depart-
ment files and the photostats which he allegedly had of them contain
Senator McMahon. ]\Ir. Chairman, as I understand it, yesterday
you notified Senator McCarthy that this case was to be the subject
of discussion today.
Senator Tydings. That's right.
Senator McMAHoisr. I take it. Senator, that you have prepared your-
self and brought with you everj^thing that you have on case 14 ?
Senator McCarthy. Everything of anv moment that I have on case
14 has been read into the Congressional Record.
Senator McMahon. Will you show me what you have on case 14 ?
Senator McCarthy. Just read the Congressional Kecord.
Senator McMahok. Will you produce for my inspection what you
have on case 14 ?
Senator JNIcCarthy. I am telling you what I have is in the Congres-
Senator McMahon. Or do I have to get a subpena for it, Senator?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I have gotten through telling just now
that what I have in case 14 is in the Congressional Record.
Senator McMahon. Just a minute. Senator, if you please.
Senator McCarthy. May I finish?
Senator Tydings. Quiet, first.
Senator McCarthy. May I finish the answer?
Senator McMahon. I have a question pending, and I insist upon
an answ^er to it.
Senator Tydings. Will the reporter read the pending questions ?
The Reporter (reading) : "Will you produce for my inspection
what you have on case 14?"
Senator McCarthy. If somebody will hand me the Congressional
Record I will produce for you all I have on case 14. It is a very com-
plete case in the Congressional Record. That is what I have on case 14.
Senator McMahon. Senator, you have brought with you your file on
case 14 and all related papers, according to your own statement, of
any consequence. Will you or will you not produce them for my in-
spection right now?
Senator McCarthy. I will produce for your inspection everything
I have in case 14. It is all in the Congressional Record. That Con-
gressional Record refers to secret State Department files. The infor-
mation with regard to what is in those files is in the Congressional
Record. If the Senator questions the accuracy of what I have put into
the record, the only way he can determine — the only way he can deter-
mine — whether that is accurate or not is by getting the State Depart-
ment, the FBI, and the Civil Service Commission files.
So there is no question in your mind, all of the information, all of
the information, which I have on case No. 14 is in the Congressional
Record. If the Senators wants that produced, I will have to ask him
to ask one of his clerks to get me a copy of the Record, turn to page
2050 and 2051, and he will find everything.
Senator McMahon. Mr. Chairman, I again direct a simple question
to the Senator from Wisconsin, and I ask the Senator whether or not
he will produce for my inspection and the committee's inspection every-
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 41
thing that he has on case No. 14 in his possession. I am not interested
in looking at the Congressional Record; I am interested in what infor-
mation the Senator has in his possession, and I would lilce to see it. I
would like to see it now. 1 f he won't give it to me, that is his privilege.
Senator McCarthy. I am glad to give it to you, Senator.
Senator McMaiion. Let me have it, Senator.
Senator McCarthy. Let me finish, please.
Senator Tydings. Let the witness answer.
Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to give it to you. I gave the
Senator all of the information I had on case No. 14. That is the
extent of the file. It is all in the Congressional Record. Now, if the
Senator questions the truthfulness of that, the only way he can deter-
mine it so far as I know is by supenaing the files. All the information
is in the Congressional Record.
Senator Tydings. Maybe I can, by being an observer to the colloquy
that is going on, help to clear it up by asking one question. Have
3^ou in your possession evidence, papers, photostatic copies, or other
matters which wall support what you put in the Congressional Record ?
Senator McCarthy. Kave I in my possession evidence, papers,
photostatic copies, on everything that is in the Congressional Record?
Senator Tydings. I didn't ask you that.
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer, will you, Senator ?
Senator Tydings. Let me state the question again. Senator. Have
you in your possession any paper, memorandum, photostatic copies,
affidavits, other materials, which will support the charges in whole
or in part that you put in the Congressional Record in case 14, to wit,
that a high official in the State Department has attempted to doctor
the records of the loyalty committee passing on applicants for office
and those who held office ?
Senator McCarthy. Everything in the Congressional Record, in-
sofar as I know, is absolutely true. There is no doubt about that.
If the Senator questions that he can determine it very easily. As to
slips of paper, notes, and such like, there are none that I can give
Senator Tydings. I didn't ask you that. I didn't ask you whether
there were any you could give me. In order to end the controversy,
I asked you if you had in your possession any material, memoranda,
affidavits, photostats, or other papers or evidence, to support any or
all of the charges made by you in case 14. The answer is you either
have them or you don't have.
Senator McCarthy. All of the supporting evidence, all of it and
plenty of it, documents, affidavits, what liaA^e you, all of that evidence,
is in the files and not in my office. By the files I mean a combination
of the four files, State Department loyalty files; personnel files, the
Civil Service Commission files, and the FBI files. That is where all
of the supporting documents are. They are not in my office.
Senator Tydings. I didn't ask you that, but I will go back to Senator
McMahon, and I ask his pardon for interrupting. I thought maybe
that one question might bring it to a head.
Senator, I apologize.
Senator McMahon. That's all right. Senator.
I am left with the unfortunate opinion that the Senator has material
in his possession on this case which lie refuses to turn over to the com-
jnittee. He again and again has stated that we can go to other places
42 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVEiSTIGATION
to get it. He again says that everything he has he has put in the
Record. But I tliink if I were in the Senator's place, what I would
do is say, "Yes, here is what I have on case 14" and turn it over to
us. I am very much disappointed, Mr. Chairman, that the Senator
takes the attitude that he does, and won't give the committee the mat-
ters that are in his possession which bear upon this very serious case.
I regret very much that the Senator takes that attitude.
Senator McCarthy. May I answer that, Mr. Chairman?
And I regret very much, Senator, that this committee seems so
vitally interested in find out whether they can get the names of anyone
in the State Department, good, loyal Americans, who may have given
me information. You are not fooling me, Senator. I know what you
want. I know what the State Department wants. They want to find
out who is giving out information on these disloyal people so their
heads will fall, and so far as I am concerned, gentlemen, no heads of
any loyal people in the State Department will fall, none of those heads
will fall, because of their having possibly imparted information to me.
You are not fooling me. Senator. You know the information — let
me finish. You know the information is in tlie file. You know you
can get it. You know that if you want any of those names you can
I know — I have been informed and I am sure of it — that the State
Department is very curious to know whether or not someone in that
Department is telling me who has communistic activities, who belong
to these Commie-front organizations. I know they want those names.
I am very surprised and disappointed. Senator, that this committee
would become the tool of the State Department, Senator, not to get
at the names, the information, of those who are bad security risks, but
to find out for the Department who may have given me information so
those people can be kicked out of their jobs tomorrow.
Senator Tydings. I am not going to ask a question. I just want to
say that the chairman of this committee, and I am sure with the sup-
port of all members of the committee, is going to get every scrap of
evidence in any files, any place, that have to do with any charges
brought before this committee. I said this investigation is going to
be thorough, and I don't mean maybe. So far as that is concerned,
the investigation will go to the -nth degree on every scrap of evidence
that is available.
But that has nothing to do with the immediate matter before the
Senator McMahon. Now, Mr. Chairman, I am profoundly shocked
by the irresponsible speech that has just been made by the Senator
from Wisconsin. His imputation of me, of the members of this com-
mittee, of any such motive in asking that question, is something I
repudiate and denounce. It is unworthy of any Senator of the United
We are engaged in responsible business. If there is to be this kind
of irresponsible talk, it won't be in the best interests of the United
States. I say to you. Senator, when you start making charges of that
kind against me you had better reflect on it more than once.
Senator McCarthy. Senator, you can be sure that everything I
say has been very carefully reflected upon.
Senator McMahon. I doubt it.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 43
Senator jNIcCartht. And I think that that attempt — I know — is
going to continue through this hearing, the very clear-cut, obvious
attempt, not to get at the facts, not to find out what is in the files. You
know you can find it out. But this obvious attempt to try and find
the name of some State Department official, some loyal person who
has come down to a Senator and said, "Now here are facts. Here are
things that should be brought to the attention of the Senate" — to
try to get their names so their heads will fall I think is shameful. I
think it is.
Senator Tydings. The questions which I directed to you, and I as-
sume that the questions which other members of the committee have
directed to j'ou, are not calculated by any stretch of the imagination to
ask you where you got this matter and I had no thought of that in the
question. My question simply was. Did you. have the matter and
would you be willing to tell the committee what that matter is? I
don't want to know who gave it to you. I don't want to know how
you got it. But I would like to know what it is so that we can have
evidence here upon which to proceed.
Now, the question that I asked was simply this : Have you in your
possession any memorandum, any affidavit, any papers, any photo-
stats or other material, which would tell us who this individual is —
not where j'ou got it, not how you got it, not who gave it to you, but,
have you the material ?
Senator McCartht. Let me answer the first half of your question
first. You say it isn't your intention, it is not your desire to find out
where I have gotten this information. The Senator from Connecticut,
Mr. McMahon, has just ordered me to produce my file and give the en-
tire file to him so he can check and see who did give me this informa-
Now, No. 2, you have asked whether T have in my possession photo-
stats, affidavits, and such like. I again tell you that all of the affidavits,
all of the photostats
Senator Tydings. Why don't you say you haven't got it or you have
got it ?
Senator McCarthy. Let me say all the photostats are easily acces-
sible to you. You can get them without any trouble at all. They are
all in those files.
Senator Tydings. If we subpena those records, which I hope we
will never "do, we would get the names of the people who gave the
information to you, if that is in your file. I am not after that at all.
I am after the memoranda and the photostats of the State Department
and other loyalty agency files that might be in your records, not who
gave them to you. Do you or do you not have that information in your
Senator McCarthy. Senator, if you are after the material in the
State Department files don't come to my office. Go to the State De-
partment. You will get it there. Senator.
Senator IIickenlooper. ]\Ir. Chairman, may I suggest that there
has been reference to legal procedure here in the past. There is such
a rule, of course, which is well known to all members of this com-
mittee, as best evidence, and the courts without exception recognize
that hearsay or copied documents are not available when the best
evidence, which is the original and fountainhead of information, is
available. I suggest that the files are available which the Senator
44 STATE DEPARTMEIN^T EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
says will substantiate his cliarges, and the best evidence is the files
which are the property of the United States Government. I think all
he is sno-gesting is that we get the files, which is the fountainheacl
of information, and I hope we do get them.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green?
Senator Green. ]\Ir. Cliairman, in reph^ to what my distinguished
colleague has just said and to remind him, these cases, in spite of the
obvious attempt of the witness, are not being answered on the basis
Mdiich he assumes. "We are not asking for the best evidence as to
what has happened. We are seeking to know tlie basis that he had
for his charges on the floor of the Senate.
Senator PIicKENLOOPEPt. That is exactly what disturbs me.
Senator Green. I would like to finish my statement, if I may. May
Senator Tydings. Go ahead.
Senator Green. The point is, what basis has the Senator for his
charges on the floor of the Senate ? Or was it simply guesswork in the
hopes that it might start a general investigation of the State Depart-
ment files? He did not limit himself to a simple general statement
that he suspected the State Department of having certain papers and
doing certain things. He made specific charges, and my questions
were directed to finding out what was the basis that he had for making
the charges, or whether he had any. He has made the charges, and he
says now, as I understand it, if my understanding is correct — perhaps
my mind doesn't follow his; perhaps he doesn't wish to give it — but
however, he has not answered the question, which was to find out
•whether he had or had not a basis for the charges.
He says, "Go elsewhere and prove if my charges are false or true."
That isn't the point. The point isn't getting the best evidence of the
facts of whether there has been disloyalty or not. The point is whether
the Senator had any basis for his charges which he has made, and
which he said he was ready to prove before this committee.
Senator Tydings. Senator SfcCarthy, I want to repeat again
Senator McCarthy. May I first ansvrer the Senator's question?
Senator T^iT)iNGS. There is no answer. He was making an observa-
tion to Senator Hickenlooper's proposition. Pie didn't ask you a
Senator McCarthy. I thought it was a question.
Senator Tydings. I would like to say again and again and again
and again and again and again that this committee will exhaust every
avenue, investigate, request, and I feel sure obtain, all the files that
are in question.
Senator McMahon. Except his.
Senator Tydings. Just a moment.
That we will do. The pertinency of this particular question grows
out of your own testimony, where you say :
In this case a CSA report of September 2. 1947, is replete with informatiou
covering the attempts of a high State Department official to induce several
individuals who had signed affidavits reflecting adversely upon the employees
to repudiate their affidavits.
Now, inasmuch as the charge is here made that there have been
attempts to alter these records which we will in due course examine, it
is important for us to know when we do examine them whether they
are all there, whether the things that you have asserted we will find
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 45
are all there, without any alteration, and if 3'ou have photostats that
were made prior to this hearing and prior to the time you made your
testimony on the floor, it is important for us to know that the same
record is still there, and the only way we can be sure of that is to
compare your photostats that were taken before you spoke on the
floor of the Senate on February 20 with what we shall hnd in those
tiles, otherwise we shall never know whether they have been tampered
with, which you A^ourself, in your own testimony, say was the result
of an attempt, at least, to alter them.
So therefore you can see, as a good lawyer and judge yourself, the
pertinency of making sure that the best evidence is all there. It is
right. The Senator from Iowa is perfectly right. We must have the
best evidence to draw our conclusions upon. But we must proceed
so that we know that when we get to the best evidence the best
evidence has not been altered or changed during the course of the
So, therefore, I would like you to see the pertinency of this
matter and tell us whether or not you have in your possession photo-
stats or other material that will substantiate the charge made in
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer that, Senator — and we are not
fooling each other in this case, you understand.
Senator Tydings. I am not fooling anybody. I am out in the open
Senator ^McCarthy. You say it is important to know what photo-
stats I have, if any. I know there is nothing that the State Depart-