single class in society, therefore, their organization was important,
and the j)romotion of their interests was important. I have modified
my opinions on that.
Senator-HicKEXLoopER. Do you believe the capitalists are important
now ?
Dr. DoDD. It is not the capitalists, but I believe that it is important
to unite people of all different classes in this country, in order to get
the kind of government which is going to insure the security of this
country.
Senator Hickexlooper. Tell me what kind of government you be-
lieve will insure that.
Dr. DoDD. Well, I believe in a progressive, completely democratic
country on the ]:>olitical side. By "democratic"' I mean really demo-
cratic, not curtailing the freedom of anyone. Let people talk; let
them organize, have the right of petition. I believe in the Bill of
Rights as it has been developed: from a political point of view, I
believe in extreme democracy.
On the economic front, I think we have to take serious steps toward
eliminating insecurity and want. I think the pension system which is
being established now throughout the ti'ade unions is a step in the
right direction. I think as time goes on this Government is going
656 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION"
to become involved more and more in business to prevent the economic
collapse of this Government, in this country.
Senator Hickenlooper. Do j^ou believe that they have that kind of
o-overnment in Eussia today?
Dr. DooD. You put me on the spot. You put two unlike things in
one sentence. I cannot answer yes or no to any one of them.
I believe that they do have economic security. I do not believe that
they have extended their political democracy to any degree, not to the
degree that we have.
Senator Hickenlooper. Would you say that the economic security
that you have in Eussia today is the security of the slave?
Dr. DoDD. I would not.
Senator Hickenlooper. You believe it is the economic security of
free men ?
Dr. DoDD. I believe it is the economic security of free men — yes.
Senator Hickenlooper. I think that is all. Doctor.
Senator Tydings. Senator Green?
Senator Green. Dr. Dodd, I would like to ask you a couple of
questions, to get back to the subject matter of this hearing and this
investigation, and one is this : You occupied, during those years that
you were a member of the Communist Party, very high positions^
member of the national committee, the State committee, the State
board — and what other high offices did you hold?
Dr. DoDD. I was associate editor of New INIasses. I edited the New
York State of Affairs. I was on the national committees on legisla-
tion, on politics. I functioned on education, taxation, finance.
Senator Green. Notwithstanding 3'our holding all these high posi-
tions, you have stated that you have never heard ^^Ir. Lattimore spoken
of, is that right?
Dr. DoDD. I never heard his name mentioned.
Senator Green. Would you have heard it if he had any connection
with the party?
Dr. Dodd. I certainly would have heard it because I attended many
meetings devoted to international affairs.
Senator Green. It has been stated, or charged that as editor of the
Institute of Pacific Eelations Magazine, he was directed or induced
to promote Communist writing for it, and the Communist line of
action, is that a fact?
Dr. Dodd. That could hardly be the fact, because the Institute
of Pacific Affiairs had no trace of a Communist line. As a matter
of fact, peo])le around the party did not think too highly of the Insti-
tute of Pacific Affairs.
Senator Green. And yet, some Communist writers wrote for it.
Dr. Dodd. If there were Communist writers that wrote for it, I
would not know them because I had had nothing to do with the In-
stitute of Pacific Affairs and I am sure they never mentioned Profes-
sor Latiimore's name in party circles.
Senator Green. And you would have heard if he had been active?
Dr. Dodd. Somewhere, I would have heard it, yes.
Senator Green. Thank you.
That is all.
Senator Tydings. Senator Lodge?
Senator Lodge. I would like to second the expression of hope that
Senator Hickenlooper gave, that our Mr. Morris have a chance to
STATE DEPARTMEjSiT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 657
interrogate witnesses in the future. It is a literal impossibility to
take part in tliese all-day meetings, at the same time prepare ques-
tions for these witnesses. That is too much to ask of a member of
the committee, so I hope m the future, that course will be followed,
which I think will be the orderly way to do it.
Also, it w^ould insure that we get a broad coverage of all the sub-
jects.
I just have one or two questions because the hour is getting late and
I want to have mercy on everybody.
My first question is : Do you believe that the American Commu-
nist Party, in general, follows the design of the Soviet Government
insofar as foreign policy is concerned ?
jNIr, DoDD. Yes, I do.
Senator Lodge. Do you regard this as reprehensible?
Dr. DoDD. If tlie specific items are reprehensible, I Avould regard
their following it to be reprehensible; if the Soviet Union puts forth,
say, a program of total disarmament and the Connnunist Party of
America followed that, I would not say that was reprehensible.
I would have to examine the policy.
Senator Lodge. I mean, do you regard the blind following of the
desires of a foreign government as reprehensible?
Dr. DoDD. I think any blind following of anyone is always repre-
hensible.
If the Communist Party does that, I would condemn it.
Senator Lodge. You think it does that ; do you not ?
Dr. Dodd. I think on certain occasions it does, yes.
Spuator Lodge. Do you believe that the Communist Party is hostile
to religion?
Dr. Dodd. That question of religion is a very curious one. I my-
self do not ])arade my religion. I think it fair to ra}' that when I
joined the Communist Party everyone knew that I was a religious
person. However, the Communist Party at one time will be very
free toward religion. It will imite and function with Catholics,
Protestants, Jews, and yet at other times it will begin to get critical
of church hierarchies. As far as the Communist Party of America
is concerned, it has not followed any understandable or clear policy
on that question. I have known periods when they went out to
organize the Catholics, I have known periods w^hen they were very
critical of all Catholics.
There has not been a single general policy. If you will read the
old Marxist books, they are very critical of religion.
Senator Lodge. You do not think that the world headquarters
of communism is hostile on religion ?
Dr. Dodd. You mean the Soviet Union ?
Senator Lodge. Yes; I mean the head leadership of this world
Tnovoment, and I am asking a question about the leadership of that
-world movement, whether you do not think it is hostile toward religion.
Dr. Dodd. From the American Communist Party, I would say no.
I would say they follow no one definable policy toward religion.
The literature of communism is replete with attacks with regard to and
upon religion, Karl Marx, Lenin have some very strong things to say
about religiou, as the "opiate" of the people; but as I understand it
there are manv churches functioning in the Soviet Union today.
658 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Russian Orthodox Catholic churches, and there are others in the Soviet
Union.
Under Avhat conditions it operates, I cannot judLje because I have
not been there, and the reports are biased.' Some reports of it are
very glowing and some of them are very hard against it.
Senator Lodge. Do you think that the ahirm of religious leaders
at comnuniism is not well founded 'i
Dr. DoDD. I think that it is the function of religious leaders to make
sure, if the Soviet system is going to be extended, that freedom of
religion be protected. That is as far as I go, and I would say that
they have a right to be concerned about protecting it.
Senator Lodge. Yon think that they should be concerned, or have
a right to be concerned ?
Dr. DoDD. I think the religious leaders of this world have to look
forward, if the Soviet Union is going to extend itself and other nations
are coming under its control, they have to learn how other churches
fare.
Senator Loixje. Putting it in a hypothetical way. you do not say
that the Soviets are hostile to religion — you do not make that
statement ?
Dr. poDD. The reason for that is that there is no clear-cut policy.
There is only the crudest kind of publicity which says that communism
is against religion
Senator Lodge. Many eminent men have said it.
Dr. Dodd. Many eminent men have said it. but look at the facts.
Li the Soviet I^nion there are more churches now open than there
have been in th(^ history, since 1917. I do not know, but they func-
tioned on Easter Sunday. The New York Times, and the Herald
Tribune re])orted that. It may be that the leaders of the Russian
Orthodox Church made their peace with the Soviet Government. I
do not know.
Senator Lodge. All right. Thank you.
Senator Tydings. If there are no more questions
Senator Hickexlooper. I did not want to interrupt but I have a
question.
Dr. Dodd, Mhile you were a Communist, did you observe that Alger
Hiss was a Communist?
Dr. Dodd. No, I did not.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you hear that Chambers was a
Communist?
Dr. Dodd. Chambers — I knew Chambers. I met him back in the
old days down in Greenwich Village, when he was pretty much of a
down-and-out character.
Senator Hickenlooper. Did v< u know him as a ComniuniiL^t at anv
time? • ' "^
Dr. Dodd. I never saw his card, never saw him in the Connnunist
Party. I heard him talk a lot about communism back in 1935 and
1936, back in the old days, before I joined the Communist Party. He
used to hang around Greenwich Village a lot.
Senator Hickexlooper. Did you at any time know, through other
Communist members, or did you really believe at any time that he
was a Communist?
Dr. Dodd. Chambers?
Senator Hickexlooper. Yes.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 659
Dr. Donn. I iievor u:ive much tli()n<;lit to him. As a matter of fact,
1 foiuot all about Chamber.s until it was localled to mind by his break-
iiio- into the newsi)apers. I forirot I met him many years ago, socially.
Senator Hu'KKNLOorEK'. 1 will renew my question. Did yoii at any
time come to the conclusion or become convinced through informa-
tion that you had from any source, tliat Chambers was a Conununist ^
Dr. DoDi). At which time?
Senator IIickenlooper. At any time.
Dr. Donn. As I said, I never gave it any thought until his name be-
gan to be Hashed in the newspapers, relatiiig to Alger Hiss.
Senator Hickexlooper. Now, may I return to my ([uestion? Did
you at any time in the past become aware of, or convinced through
information of any kind, that Chambers was a Communist?
Dr. DoDD. Well, I have heard man}' people refer to him as a Com-
numist, but not peo])le in the apparatus. I have heard them talk about
his being Communist.
Senator Hickexloopeu. Did you at any time in the past, yourself,
believe he was a Communist?
Dr. DoDD. During the trial ?
Senator Hickenlooper. I mean at any time in the i)ast, at an}-
period ?
Dr. DoDD. I want to answer that truthfully. The answer is, I did
not give nnich thought to it. The newspapers said he w'as, so I as-
sumed he was.
Senator Hickenlooper. Well, now, may I retiirn to my question,
and I hope it is one that can be answered by "Yes" or "No" — that you
either did or did not at some time in the past believe Chambers to be
a Communist, and I will ask you if at any time you believed him to
be a Communist?
Dr. DoDD. Well, when the stories began to appear in the papers,
I assumed he was a Communist.
Senator Hickenlooper. At any time before the story began — these
articles in the papers?
Dr. DoDD. No. I had forgotten that such a man existed as Cham-
bers.
Senator I1[ickexlooper. When was the first time that you had given
consideration to or perhaps believed that Alger Hiss was a Com-
munist ?
Dr. DoDD. I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth.
Senator Hickenlooper. I did not mean to ask you a "have you
stopped beating your wife" sort of question. I do not mean that.
But have you at any time from this date past, ever believed Alger
Hiss was a Connnunist ?
Dr. Doni). Alger Hiss was convicted of perjury. He is on trial or
on appeal befoi'e the courts of this country. I do not believe it is right
for me to comment on the Alger Hiss case. What my beliefs are
would have really no probative value in any court, or before the
Senate.
Senator Hickenlooper. I will ask you, did you ever know Alger
Hiss or accept him as a Communist in the Communist xVssociations?
Dr. DoDD. T never knew Alger Hiss.
Senator Hickenlooper. Never met him ?
Dr. DoDD. No.
660 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Hickenlooper. Did you ever meet Mrs. Hiss?
Dr. DoDD. I am not conscious of ever having met his wife, although
she was a school teacher, they tell me, and I met many teachers in my
life, and it may be that she was at a meeting Avhen I was at a meeting,
but I am not conscious of ever having met her.
Senator Hickenlooper. That is all, thank you.
Senator Tydtngs. We have two other witnesses. Thank vou. Dr.
Dodd.
You may remain in the audience, if a'ou wish.
Who is the next witness?
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Lawrence Kerley.
Senator Tydings. Will you stand, please and raise your right hand?
Do you solemnly promise and swear that the evidence which you
shall give in the matter before this committee shall be the truth, the
whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God ?
Mr. Kerley. I do.
TESTIMONY OF LARRY E. KERLEY
Senator Tydings. Give us your full name.
Mr. Kerley. My name is Larry E. Kerley.
Senator Tydings. Your residence or post-office address?
Mr. Kerley. 35-30 Eighty-first Street, Jackson Heights, Long
Island, N. Y.
Senator Tydings. Your age ?
Mr. Kerley. Thirty-five.
Senator Tydings. Your present occupation ?
Mr. Kerley. I am on the editorial staff of the New York Journal-
American.
Senator Tydings. All right, Mr. Morgan.
Mr. Morgan. Mr. Kerley, I believe all of us are familiar with the
general nature of the proceedings here, and of the inquiry into the
charges of disloyalty in the State Department ; and I believe you are
acquainted with one of the witnesses who has been given to the staff
of the committee by Senator McCarthy, Mr. John Huber; is that
correct ?
Mr. Kerley. That is correct, sir.
Mr. Morgan. Before going on to your acquaintnnce with Mr. Huber,
I would like to ask a little of your background. Will you please trace
your employment for our committee? I would appreciate it.
Mr. Kerley. From 1937 to 1941 1 was a clerk in the Federal Bureau
of Investigation. From 1941 until 1945, October of 1945, I was a
special agent in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since that time
I have had my own business in Kentucky, and in the past 2 years on
the editorial staff of the Journal-American.
Mr. Morgan. You are acquainted with ]Mr. John Huber?
Mr. Kerley. I am.
Mr. Morgan. Will you give the committee the benefit of the nature
of your acquaintance and association with him?
Mr. Kerley. When I was employed in the Bureau about 1939, I
set Mr. Huber up as a confidential informant in the New York City
office of the FBI. At that time he had a code name, and had joined
the Communist Party, to serve as an undercover agent for the FBI
in that party.
STATE dp:partment employee loyalty investigation 661
Mr. Morgan. That was when?
Mr. Kerley. 1939.
IMr. ]\roR(;AX. Did you maintain the contact with INIr. Huber dur-
in<)- this time ;'
Mr. Kkrley. No. I recall that I set him up as informant and I
worked as mana<ier foi- an office in the United States, and as a matter
of fact never met Mr. Hul)er personally nntil 1940 or 1947.
JNIr. JNIoROAN. Are you in position b}' reason of your FBI associa-
tions or otherwise to comment on Mr. Ruber's reliability as an in-
formant ?
Mr. Kkrley. Well, apparently from the fact that he was in the
employment for the period of 8 j'ears and a member of the Com-
munist Party, and on their payroll. I would say that his services
were satisfactory during- that time.
^h: Morgan. Now, knowing the nature of this inquiry, Mr. Kerley,
do you have any information of pertinence that you would like to
lav before this committee now?
^fr. Kerley. Well, Mr. Huber, whom I have known these 2 or 3
yeai-s, and came to my office about a week after the charges had
originally been brought against Professor Lattimore that he was a
Connnunist agent in this country, and IMr. Huber advised me that he
bad seen Mv. Lattimore and had been in. his company at a party in
the early part of 1946, in the home of Frederick Vanderbilt Field,
who was one of the directors of the Committee for a Democratic Far
Eastern Policy.
Now this is one of the front organizations of the Communist Party
that has been named as subversive by the Attorney General.
T asked IVfr. Huber if known Communists had attended the party
and he said that as far as
Mr. Morgan. What I had in mind — I do not want to curtail your
testimony, but I think that aspect of it must best come from Mr.
Huber.
What I wanted, since you are here today, was whether or not you
had any other information of pertinence to this committee in con-
nection with this inquiry apart from Mr. Huber's testimony.
Mr. Kerley. Well, I do not know whether or not Mr. Huber is
present, and that is why I was going to relate to you some of the
conversations.
Senator Tydings. Would you mind if I ascertained whether he was
since it might have something to do with the length of your ex-
amination?
Is Mr. Huber present ?
Is Mr. John Huber present ?
(There was no response.)
J*^enator Tydtngs. He does not seem to be here. Mr. Morgan.
Mr. ]\I()RGAN. I would say, Mr. Chairman, for the record that my
information is that ^Ir. Huber was served with a subpena to appear
before the committee at this time, and at the same time you were
served : is that correct?
Mr. Kerley. Yes, sir.
Mr. MoROAN. Do you have any information for our benefit as to
where ^Mr. Huber may be?
]\rr. Kerley'. He came down from New York this morning and
checked into a hotel about noon, and I assumed then — as a matter of
662 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
fact, we came down together. I came on to the Hill and he was to
follow in an hour or so, and I have not seen him since.
Mr. Morgan. Do you know Avhere he may be in Washington at
this time?
Mr. Kerlf.y. He was checking at the Carlton Hotel.
Mr. Morgan. The Carlton?
Mr. Chairman, in view of this circumstance, unless Mr. Kerley has
some further information that may have a bearing on our inquiry, I
think we must necessarily ascertain Mr. Ruber's whereabouts and en-
deavor to have him before the connnittee at the earliest possible time.
Senator Tydings. By all means, and how do you suggest that we
go about getting Mr. Huber as quickly as possible, Mr. Morgan?
Mr. Morgan. Well, with Mr. Kerley 's cooperation, I would appre-
ciate say 10 minutes with the thought of possibly locating him at the
hotel. I think we might well try to do tliat at this time and then if
we are unsuccessful in that regard, I think we have no alternative but
to postpone his appearance until some future time, and, of course.
let the committee take such consideration as it wants of the fact that
he is not here, and is the person named pursuant to the snbpena.
Senator Tydings. I would like to ask Mr. Kerley, if you will bear
with me a moment or two, two or three questions.
You say you came down together on the train ?
Mr. Kerley. On the plane.
Senator Tydings. Did yon go together to the hotel ?
Mr, Kerley. Yes.
Senator Tydings. Wliat time of day was that ?
Mr. Kerley. About noon.
Senator Tydings. About noon?
INIr. Kerley. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. How long did you stay at the hotel ?
Mr. Kerley. I stayed only about an hour.
Senator Tydings. Do you know whether ]Mr. Huber was there at
the hotel when you left ?
Mr. Kerley. No ; he had stepped out.
Senator Tydings. You do not know where he liad gone?
Mr. Kerley. For lunch.
Senator Tydings. Did you see him when he came back?
Mr. Kerley. No.
Senator TnnNGS. Do you know with whom he has gone ?
Mr. Kerley. No ; I do not.
Senator Tydings. We will have to try our hand on our own hook.
If there is no objection on the part of" the committee I suggest that
we take a recess for 5 minutes and give everyone a chance to stand
up a little while.
(A short recess was taken.)
Senator Tydings. Mv. Kerley, will you take the stand again, please?
While we are still thinking about Mr. Huber, Ave might go on with
questioning you.
You first were a clerk in the FBI ?
Mr. Kerley. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydings. What year did you start?
:Mr. Kerley. 1937.
Senator Tydings. What year did you become an agent ?
Mr. Kerley. 1941.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 663
Senator Tydin(;s. WIumi did you ai)point Mr. Huber for the work
^ou have described^
Mr. Kr.RLEY. I think, as I best recall, it was 1939. I did not ap-
point him. I merely set up the records indicatinj; that he was on
there serviuii'.
Senator Ivdixgs. So that you were here, I assume, to show that you,
as the clerk in the FBI, set up the record that Mr. Huber was an
informer for the FBI, connnencing in the year 1939, was it?
Ml'. IIkiu F.v. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. And tluit was a couple of years before.
Xow, who appointed Mr. Huber actually, as far as you can tell in
that re^jard, to be the informer?
Mr. Kerlj:y. The agent in charge of the New York Division.
Senator Tydixgs. Do 30U remember who that was?
Mr. Keijley. I do not recall. They shift a great deal.
Senator Tydixgs. To whom did Mr. Huber report ?
Mr. Kp:rley. To specified agents assigned to him.
Senator Tydixgs. A\'ould he report to the New York office?
Mr. Kerley. Yes, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. He would not report to the Washington office?
Mr. Kekley. No, sir.
Senator Tydix^gs. During the time that he was reporting, were you
in the New York office ?
Mr. Kerley. I was.
Senator Tydixgs. Did you see any of his reports, yourself?
Mr. Kerley. No, sir.
Senator Tydixgs. Then, from the time he went in, up until the pres-
ent, I assume, while he reported to the New York office, you had no
further contact with him?
Mr. Kerley. No; not until I left the service.
Senator T-ituxgs. What year ?
Mr. Kerley. I believe 1947.
Senator Tydixgs. '\Miat contact were you in with him after that?
Mr. Kerley. Simply that he came into the Journal- American and
was referred to me.
Senator Tydixgs. Was it a social visit?
Mr. Kerley. No. I did not know him, and it was concerning in-
formation that he had on the Communist apparatus in this country,
and that is my work on the paper as an editorial worker.
Senator Tydixgs. Did he give you information that he was hired
by the P"BI to get and to turn over to the FBI ?
Mr. Kerley. Well, he gave me information that he had learned in
the course of that employment.
Senator Tydixgs. Was that a proper procedure?
Mr. Kerley. I know of nothing improper about it.
Senator Tydixgs. The FBI would not mind that; would it?
Mr. Kerley. I cannot speak for them. Senator.
Senator Tydixcjs. You v>ere a former agent, and pretty familiar with
their agent methods. Would they condone that practice?
Mr. Kerley. I do not know.
Senator Tydixgs. What would be your opinion of that ?
Mr. Kerley. I imagine if it would interfere with an active investi-
gation, they would not condone it.
68970 — oo — pt. 1 43
664 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Tydings. Was not tlie investigation of communism an
active investigation?
Mr. Kerley. Well, of course, it is continually an active thing.
Senator Tydings. Then the summation of what you are saying is,
the information he gave you, he should not have given you, according
to the FBI standards.
Mr. Kerley. I am not saying that at all, because I think much of
this information which is being filed in miles of steel file cabinets
should be brought out to the American people so they can know what
is happening with the Communists and the international conspiracy
in this country where that is concerned.
Senator Tydings. Suppose the FBI thought it would not be advis-
able to impart this information to any person until they could move
in more closely and get the people they wanted, would you say it was