Senator IMcCartiiy. I have about 24 documents which have not
Senator Tydings. That is what I was going to ask you about.
Is it your intention to put these other documents in the record now,
so as to have them in connotation with case No. 1 ?
Senator ]\IcCaktiiy. I think that is very important.
Senator Tytuxgs. Put them in now, if you will.
Senator McCarthy. I will, if the Chair has no objection.
Senator Tydings. I haA'e no objection. I think the documents sup-
})ortin.g each case, if placed in the record while that case is before us,
would hei]) us to further consider it, rather than having them put in
at a later date.
Senator McCarthy. I agree fully.
Senator Tydixgs. Have you the documents now ?
Senator ]\IcCarthy. May I finish my reading here ?
Senator Tydixgs. I thought you were on case No. 2 now^
Senator McCarthy. No; talking about the Loyalty Board. The
Senator interrupted, and wanted to ask a question. '
Senator Green. If I may ask a question here â€” you referred to the
Loyalty Board of the State Department, made several references to it.
Senatory McCarthy. That is correct.
Senator Green. About its actions and the way it acted. Do joii
know who the head of the Board is ? ?
Senator jNIcCarthy. There is a panel of about nine. Senator. They
are pulled in, two or three at a time, so you never who the head of
an}^ particular Loyalty Board is.
The head -of the Board as a whole is a Mr. Snow, but
Senator Tydings. Give us his full name.
Senator McCarthy. I cannot give you his full name.
Senator Green. Gen. Conrad Snow.
Senator McCarthy. That is right ; but, you uderstand, he may or
may not be on 10 consecutive panels. You see, if a particular case is
being considered. Snow may be on this; he may not be. You have, I
think, nine individuals. I think you raise a good point. I think it is
very important. Take, for example, in this case and the next case I
cite, that w^e find what specific individuals were on that panel or were
sitting as the Loyalt}' Board. Undoubtedly, there are some fine indi-
viduals in that panel of nine, but there is something radically wrong
with the individuals who will take a case where there are 28 â€” or more
than that, according to the FBI file, in that case â€” 28 Communist-
front connections and passed like that, without even calling upon the
individual for an explanation.
54 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
I doubt very much that Mr. Snow was on that. I do not know.
I might say that I do not know him personally ; I know very little
about him. I am doing this, however â€” at the appropriate time I will
give the committee some very interesting information about some of
the members of the Loyalty Board.
Senator Green. I may help you explain that temporary lack in your
General Snow's father was formerly president of the New Hamp-
shire State Senate, and New Hampshire State Supreme Court, and he
is now the head and therefore the responsible head of the Loyalty
You referred to the Appropriations Committee, and to Senator
Bridges. I happened to be on it and was there when Senator Bridges
was being asked about General Snow, and you have not given what
he said about him. I thought you might like to know it.
My colleague. Senator McMahon, asked Senator Bridges what
Conrad Snow's reputation was, and Senator Bridges replied
I will not go any further, because if I do you will accuse me of
bringing politics into that, but
Senator McCaetht. I would not accuse you of that.
Senator Green. I asked him about that, and he seems to be of the
same politics as Senator Bridges.
Senator McCarthy. I would not accuse you of playing politics.
Senator Hickeni coper. That would contribute to the proof that he
was a man of excellent ability.
Senator Green. I came to the defense of the Loyalty Board and,
I will not say accusation, but information that everything was not
Senator Tydings. I do not think Senator McCarthy said that the
loyalty board was unpatriotic or disloyal or Communist-ridden. He
has not made any charge like that so far.
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman : That, if the
verj^ able Senator sat on a case such as this, or especially the next case,
and gave this man a clean bill of health, I wmild say that he was in-
competent from then on to sit on a Loyalty Board. I can only judge
by the results that come from the Board. As I say, I do not know
whether your ISIr. Snow sat on the board in this case or not.
Senator Green. Again, my point is-
Senator McCarthy. Let me say this, if Mr. Snow
Senator Tydings. General Snow.
Senator ISIcCarthy (continuing). Was one of the men who gave
a clean bill of health to the next case, then I would say that Snow,
or anyone else on tliat Board is incompetent to sit further.
Senator Green. Let me comment tliat he is not "my" Mr. Snow ; and,
furthermore, I do not tliink he has done anything yet to be reduced in
rank from "General" to "Mr."
Senator McCarthy. Tliank you. Senator.
Mr. Chairman, I have here information which I think the committee
We have first, if I may label it "Exhibit No. 1"
Senator Tydings. What did yon put in yesterday? You had better
go on from there.
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 55
Senator JNIt (Ivrtiiy. Well noAv, how many did we have in yesterday ;
do you Tenieniber ?
Senator Tvdixgs. Start from the back of the alphabet.
Senator jNIcCartiiy. Let me hand those to the chairman, and mark it
as you like.
The lirst exhibit is a list of all the Department loyalty boards. The
second is a memorandum which I will give the Chair, and which is a list
of all the regional boards.
Senator Tydtngs. Will the Senator desist just a moment until we
get a chance to look at these ?
Senator Greex. I think it ought to be put in testimony.
Senator Ttdings. You mean, it ought to be read ?
Senator Green. Yes.
Senator Tydixgs. A^liat is your wish on this? To put it all in
testimony with or without reading ?
Senator McCarthy. That was gotten from the Civil Service Com-
mission. You might want to know^ the source before you decide that ;
it was gotten from the Civil Service Commission. I called the Civil
Service Commission. I believe it is a Mr. Malloy or something like
that, and he sent it over. So, I cannot vouch for its accuracy, but
assume the Commission can.
Senator Greex. I think we should have somebody who can vouch
for its accuracy.
Senator Tydixgs. The question before us now is : The Senator from
Wisconsin has offered this ; does the committee want it read ?
Senator McMahon. What is it ?
Senator Tydixgs. It is a list of the different, I suppose, inves-
Senator McCarthy. Let me withdraw it, if you are going to read
that long document.
Senator Greex. Tell us how many there are.
Senator ^McCarthy. I would say there are about 50 pages there.
Senator Greex^. I mean, how many loyalty boards are there through
which individuals are screened â€” how many ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, every agency has one. I can go over
this and count them.
Senator Greex. The State Department
Senator McCarthy. One loyalty board is in the State Department.
Senator Greex^. There are screenings below, lower than the Loyalty
Boards ; are there not ?
Senator McCarthy. There is one loyalty board in the State De-
Senator Greex. Yes, but are there not screenings below that level?
Senator McCarthy. By "screenings," I am not sure if I know what
Senator Hickenlooper. ^Yhat they have been burning the last 3
Senator Greex^. Examinations of the record and character of indi-
viduals, whether they are good security risks.
Senator McCarthy. I believe a man's superior would have the
right to examine his record.
Senator Greex^. The FBI has one, and the Civil Service Commis-
sion has one.
Senator ^McCarthy. Let's get clear on the FBI.
68970 â€” 50 â€” pt. 1 5
56 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. That shows how justified my question is.
Senator McCarthy. Let's get clear on the FBI. The FBI does no
screening;. The FBI has taken the sixteen thousand-odd names, and
they run them through what is known as a name check ; and if a man
has been previously investigated, if there is something in the record
on him, then his name comes out; and then, if the State Department
wants an investigation of that man, they get it.
The FBI then sends the information over the State Department.
The FBI makes no recommendations. They do not say, "Discharge
this man," or "Do not discharge him."
They give all the information, and that is the last power they have
over this individual. So, these people will say that the FBI is re-
sponsible and that is entirely wrong.
You see, take in the Kenyon case, the FBI conducted an excellent
examination. Apparently the Loyalty Board just disregarded it. I
think we should make it clear that the FBI is in no way responsible
for security risks in the State Department.
Senator Tydings. Senator McCarthy, one of the papers I hold in
my hand is "United States Civil Service Connnission, Washington,
D. C." and it is signed by Seth W. Richardson, Chairman of the Loy-
alty Review Board. My question is : Is it your information that all
the employees of the State Department, in one way or another, have to
go by this loyalty board?
Senator McCarthy. No; that is incorrect.
Senator Tydings. They do not?
Senator McCarthy. No; they do not.
Senator Tydings. Wliich ones do?
Senator INIcCarthy. They go by this Board. Shall I read their
Senator Tydings. Does this Boai'd at any i^lace pass on any of the
qualifications of the peo|)le who work in the State Department?
Senator McCarthy. Wlien you say "this Board," that is a list of
regional boards, plus-
Senator Tydings. You did not set-
Senator McCarthy. I am sure I know what you mean.
Plus the Civil Service Commission's Loyalty Board, headed by
Seth W. Richardson.
Senator Tydings. I am asking you whether the head board of the
United States Civil Service Commission, headed by Seth W. Rich-
ardson, Chairman, Loyalty Review Board, former Assistant Attorne)'
General of the United States, under President Hoover I tliink it was,
is the head board and do the employees of the State Department â€”
does their fitness come under this Board in whole or in part for review ?
Senator McCarthy. I will answer that: No. 1 here is the Appeals
Board; No. 2. the only time a case comes officially before that Board,
speaking of the State De])artment, is when the State Department's
Board says this man is unfit, and they discharge him. Then he can
appeal to the Richardson Board. That Board then has the right to
either affirm or overrule the State Department's Loyalty Board.
If, on the other hand, the State Department's Loyalty Board gives
a man a clean bill of health, then it never officially gets to the Richard-
son Loyalty Board. However, that Board does, on occasion, pick
up a man's name in what is knoAv as a postaudit. and takes a look-see
STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 57
and if tliey are dissatisfied, to the best of my information, if they are
dissatisfied, then the extent of their authority, as I understand it, is to
send the name back to the State Department Loyalty Board, indicat-
ing that they feel the State Department Loyalty Board made a mistake
and tliat they let by a bad security risk.
There are a number of those cases, you understand. Then, the
State Department Board, if they want to close the file on that indi-
Senator Tydings. Do you know whether or not the case that you
have just finished reading, and the cases that you read about on the
floor of tlie Senate, have been passed on, in whole or in part, by the
Loyalty Board of which Mr. Seth W. Richardson, former Assistant
Attorney General, was the Chairman?
Senator McCarthy. I have just gotten through telling you. Sen-
ator, that until a man has gotten an adverse ruling from the Sta^^e
Department Loyalty Board, it never gets to Mr. Richardson's Board
officially. Mr. Richardson's Board has no jurisdiction. They do not
pass through that Board.
I will, however, give you the names of some individuals who were
picked up, I do not know, by the Richardson Review Board which took
a look at them and sent the names back and said, "You made a mistake
in this man's case."
One of those cases is my case No. 1. The State Department's
Loyalty Board merely closed its file, however, and he is still there,
even though tlie Richardson Board said this man should not be in
the State Department.
Senator Tydings. I again ask the question : Do you or do yon not
know whether the cases that you read on the floor of the United
States Senate, or any of the cases you are about to bring before us,
other than the one you have just finished, have been passed on, in
whole or in part, by the Loyalty Board headed by Mr. Seth W. Rich-
ardson, former Assistant Attorney General of the United States?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I am trying to tell you that only in
those cases in which the State Department's Loyalty Board has failed
to give clearance, do they go to the Richardson Board; and, I think in
almost each of the cases the State Department's Loyalty Board has
given clearance, the first No. 1, the case of Judge Kenyon â€” the State
Department Loyalty Board I understand gave lier a completely clear
bill of health so that naturally she would not appeal to the Richardson
Do you follow me on that?
Senator Tydings. Yes. Leave her out. Take up the others.
Senator McCarthy. The same is true of these cases as I will go
throug]i them, my cases, so that unless the State Department Loyalty
Board said they are out, they do not come before Seth Richardson. I
do not tliink. that is. as far as I know, I do not know of any case in
which Richardson's Board reversed a decision of the Loyalty Board
in which they said John Jones is disloyal and should go out.
That is the only time they have authority.
Senator Tydings. I understand when they have authority and when
they do not have authority.
Senator McCarthy. So that then the only cases that will get before,
or go before the Richardson Board, will be those cases that the State
58 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Department says are' disloyal, as far as I know, according to wliat's-
his-name's testimony, Mr. Peurif oy the other day, who .said they only
discharged one man since 1947, and under the loyalty program, he
said 200 resigned, so that there would be occasion for only one review,
if we take his testimony.
Senator Tydings. I will ask you once more to try to make it plainer :
Do you, yourself, know of your own information
Senator McCaetiiy. I do not think any of these cases were ap-
pealed to Richardson's Loyalty Board. I clo not think any cases that
I gave on the Senate floor were, because if they had been, they would
not have been in the State Department.
Senator Tydings. Were they passed on, as far as you know, whether
they were appealed, or not appealed, by the Board headed by Seth
W. Richardson ?
Senator McCarthy. Senator, I â€¢
Senator Tydinos. I say, in event they were not appealed.
Senator McCarthy. I told you, as far as I know, the Richardson
Board has no jurisdiction over a case that has not been declared dis-
loyal by the Loyalty Board.
Senator Tydings. Did not you say, in addition to the cases not ap-
pealed, that they occasionally picked up a case and examined that?
Senator McCarthy. Tliat is right.
Senator Tydings. Then, I am asking you, in addition to the ap-
peals, whether or not any of these cases were passed on, so far as you
know, by the Richardson Loyalty Appeals Board.
Senator McCarthy. I have give you cases, I cannot give you the
numbers now, I will give you cases in which the Appeals Board in a
postaudit, suggested that the Loyalty Boaid ci. id job.
I just got througli telling you the only one I could give you definitely
was case No. 1. As we go through, I will give you cases
Senator Tydings. You are not certain at this moment that any of
Senator McCarthy. Yes; I am. I told you I know some were
post-audited and sent back with unfavorable comments. I tell you
I know that. I tell you that the only case I can give you definitely
now, is case No. 1 ; but as I go through the cases, where I know, I will
give you the information. I do not have all that information. Senator.
Senator Tydings. I would like to ask you then, at your earliest
convenience, if you will give to this committee
Senator McCarthy. You know I will, Senator. You know I
Senator Tydings. Just a moment. If you will give to this com-
mittee the names of any witnesses against whom information, or
charges of disloyalty have been brought by you, either on the Senate
floor or before this committee â€” in what number, or part of the cases
you have recited has the Richardson Loyalty Board made an adverse
or a favorable or any other kind of a recommendation or finding?
Will you do that when you have an opportunity ?
Senator McCarthy. First, let's you and I understand each other.
I do not claim to know â€” I do not claim to have any access to the files
and know specifically what
Senator Tydings. Senator Green would like to ask you a question.
Senator McCarthy. Wait until I finish my answer to this ques-
""^ STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION 59
Senator Tydings. All rifrlit, go jilioad.
Did you â– want to ask a question ?
Senator McCarthy. Let me answer the chairman's question.
Senator Gkeen. Certainl}^ I thouo:lit you had finished.
Senator JMcX-artiiy. Let me me make this clear, Mr. Chairman: I
would t^ive you the information on any of those that I have. I do
not have access, do not have information as to the action taken on
a oi-ent number of these cases. Some cases, I definitely know that
on a postaudit there was an adverse recommendation, I cannot call
it re])ort, but adverse information, and they were turned back to
the State Department and obviously, as I get to the cases, I will give
them to y(m.
Senator Tydings. Do the best you can.
Senator Green, what is your question ?
Senator Green. IMy question is, to get on the record the method of
screening these individuals in the State Department. Several ref-
erences have been made to that, and in the first place I do not know
whetlier j^ou call it screening, or what your definition is, but the FBI
makes an examination and a record of the man, and what all they can
find about him
Senator McCarthy. Not in all cases. Senator.
Senator Green. This is the ordinary process.
Senator McCarthy. That is not the ordinary process.
Senator Green. Then, let us get it straight what it is.
Senator McCarthy. The vast number of cases are never touched
by the FBI.
Senator Green. Where they are, the FBI is first, when they are.
Senator McCarthy. Let me give you the picture.
The State Department, as I understand, has its own investigator.
Senator Green. Then, after that, there is the head of the State
Department Investigation Branch, that comes after the FBI, in a
case where the FBI does any investigating.
Senator McCarthy. Is that a question or a statement ?
Senator Green. I am asking you whether you agree.
Senator McCarthy. I do not know the sequence of the investiga-
tions. Let me make it clear
Senator Green. Then, in that case-
Senator McCarthy. The 16,000 names were sent over to the FBI,
I understand, when the President's so-called loyalty program was
commenced. Those names were run through what is known as a
name check. Whether that is done by card index or how, I do not
know. If there had been a previous investigation of any of those
16,000, then his name would be pulled out, and in those cases, there
was an investigation by the FBI, at least some of them.
If this name check disclosed no previous bad record, then as far as
I know the FBI would make no investigation unless the State De-
partment sent M'ord over that they wanted a particular individual in-
So that this is clear, no matter how bad a man's record was, unless
there had been a previous investigati(m or information in the file of
the FIjI, the FBI on its own would not commence an investigation.
Is that clear?
60 STATE DEPARTMENT EMPLOYEE LOYALTY INVESTIGATION
Senator Green. We agree entirely on that, and after this prelim-
inary investigation by the FBI, then the first investigation by the State
Department itself is by their Investigation Branch, of which Mr.
Fletcher, formerly special agent of the Department of Justice, is the
head. Is that right ?
Senator McCarthy. You are asking for the sequence of investiga-
Senator Green. Yes.
Senator McCarthy. I cannot give it to you, Senator.
Let me say, the reason I have not gone into that, I have been perfectly
satisfied that the investigative work was well done. That is not where
the difficulty started. It was the use made of tlie information.
Senator Green. I think this is correct, and if 1 am incorrect in my
statement, I wish you would correct me
Senator McCarthy. I am not sure I can correct you.
Senator Green. If you do know that I am wrong
Senator McCarthy. I will be glad to correct you, if I do.
Senator Green. Tlien, after the FBI, then comes the investigation
by the Investigating Branch of the State Department, and Mr.
Fletcher, I think, has charge of it, and he was formerly special assist-
ant of the Department of Justice; then, after that it goes up to the
Division of Security and that is under Donald L. Nicholson, formerly
an FBI man, and then, after that it goes to the State Department's
office, the Evaluation Personnel ; and after that, it goes to the Depart-
ment's Loyalty and Security Board â€” that is what you have made
reference to â€” and after that, it may, in certain cases, go to the Loyalty
Review Board under Mr. Eichardson, and the loj^alty of the
Senator McCarthy. May 1 interrupt you there. Senator?
Again, I think I should make it clear, it only goes to the Loyalty
Review Board if the State Department Board adversely finds.
Senator Green. That is what I said, in certain cases ; but in other
cases, in addition to tlie FBI, there are five different departments that
it goes through â€” in this screening?
Senator McCarthy. As I said, the investigative process is excellent.
I think they develop plenty of information. That is why the files are
so good. It is not the investigative agency that is to be criticized.
It is what is done with the information after it is received.
As I stated on the first case I have given you, yesterday and today,
in that case they have turned up more information than I have, con-
siderably more. They have the names of more subversive activities
in the files than I have.
Senator Green. I am glad to get your O. K. of the Department's
Investigating Department in all its grades. That is what I wanted
to get on the record.
Senator McMahon. May I ask a question, Senator?
Senator Tydings. You may, Senator McMahon.
Senator McMahon. Senator, have you the names of the members of
the Loyalty Committee that passed on this, what is her name, the
Senator McCarthy. No ; I do not, Senator. I do not know which
of them â€” I think it is a panel, I believe it is a panel of nine.
Senator Tydings. Is this it [exhibiting document] ?
Senator McCarthy. No; I believe it is the other one.
Senator Tydings. You took one of them back with you.
STATE DEPARTMENT EIVIPLOYEE LOYALTY IXVESTIGATION 61
Senator McCarthy. Yes; here it is. Here is the panel, Senator,
and I can give you the entire panel, if yon like.
Senator McMaiion. I would like to have each
Senator JNIcCartiiy. Conrad E. Snow, assistant leaal adviser; the
nienibors are named Bertram Barnes, career minister; Dariel St. Clair,
legislative assistant; David A. Robertson, special assistant, Office of
Near Eastern Affairs ; Theodore Achilles â€” I am reading what I read
after the names, indicating what the individual is doing in the State
Department â€” Theodore Achilles, Chief of the Division of Western
European Aifairs; Arthur G. Stevens, special assistant to the Assist-
ant Secretary of Economic Affairs; William F. Baker, Chief of the
Division of Central America and Panama Affairs; John D. Bell,
Associate Divisional Chief for European Affairs; John W. Sykes,
Legislative Service Division, Congressional Legislation ; and the con-
tact is listed as Mr. Snow, room 4013, Department of State, extension
Senator McMahox. It was three of these gentlemen, presumably,