Copyright
United States. Dept. of State. Office of Public Co.

Department of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) online

. (page 24 of 116)
Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 24 of 116)
Font size
QR-code for this ebook


ecute an adverse decision of the Board.



Civil Service Review

Every loyalty determination by a panel of the
Board goes from the Administrative Office to the
Loyalty Review Board of the Civil Service Com-
mission for post-audit. The Review Board per-
mits itself any one of four actions :

(a) It may affirm the determination of the
Loyalty Security Board.

(b) In case the Loyalty Security Board has
decided the case without preferring charges, it
may remand the case for charges and a hearing.

(c) In case the Loyalty Security Board has
decided the case without interrogation, it may re-
mand the case for an interrogatory.

(d) It may hold a hearing itself and either af-



April 17, J 950



621



fii-m or reverse the decision of the Loyalty Security
Board.

Since 1947, as of March 1, 1950, the Loyalty Se-
curity Board of tlie State Department has deter-
mined 246 loyalty cases ; 199 of the cases have been
post-audited by the Loyalty Review Board. Out
of the 199 cases post-audited, three cases have been
remanded for an interrogatory, one case has been
remanded for a hearing, and no cases have been
reversed. The Board has held 30 loyalty hearings.
Of the 246 loyalty cases, it has found two employ-
ees to be security risks ; and five have resigned with
charges pending.

I have served continuously as chairman of the



Board and have participated as a member of the
panel in 85 percent of the cases. I have sat on
most of the hearings. I have tried to give every
case my most careful and judicial consideration; I
am sure that the other members of the Board have
done likewise. If there are any Communists in
the State Department, the Loyalty Security Board
is uninformed of their existence.

It would not be appropriate for me to discuss
the individual cases mentioned by Senator Mc-
Carthy in view of the fact that the President has
committed the entire list to the Loyalty Review
Board for a re-review. Any discussion by me or
by my Board of individual cases would presume
on this function of the Loyalty Review Board.



The President Refuses To Disclose Confidenitial Loyalty Files

[Released to the press iy the White Souse April S]



The President today sent the following letter to Sena-
tor Millard E. Tydings, Chairman, Siihcommittee on Loy-
alty of State Department Employees, Committee on
Foreign Relations:

Dear Senator Tydings : The Secretary of State,
the Attorney General, and the Chairman of the
Civil Service Commission have referred to me the
matter of the subpoenas which have been served on
them, directing them to appear on April 4, 1950,
before the Subcommittee established by the Com-
mittee on Foreign Relations of the Senate, pursu-
ant to S. Res. 231, 81st Congress, and to produce
various documents and papers relating to a number
of persons whose names appear on a confidential
list attached to each subpoena.

In my letter to you of March 28, 1950. I stated
the reasons why the confidential loyalty files of
Government employees should not be produced. I
should like at this time to restate those reasons
brieflj'.

The disclosure of these files would seriously
prejudice the future effectiveness and usefulness of
the Federal Bureau of Investigation as an investi-
gative agency ; the embarrassment, and even dan-
ger, to those who have given confidential informa-
tion cannot be overemphasized. Disclosure Avould
not only deprive the Federal Bureau of Investi-
gation and other investigative agencies of the Gov-
ernment of the availability of those confidential
informants in tlie future, jjut would also gravely
impair their ability to gathei- confidential informa-
tion from other sources as well.

The employee loyalty program depends upon
the investigative services of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation. The disclosure of the files would,



therefore, result in serious harm to that program.
Such disclosure, instead of helping to keep disloyal
people out of the Government service, would im-
pair the very effective means we now have for
accomplishing that purpose.

The investigative files of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation do not contain proven information
alone. They include any unverified charges and
allegations, leads and suspicions. Disclosure of
the files would, therefore, result in serious injustice
to, and damage to the reputations of, many inno-
cent persons.

The reasons wliy disclosure of the files would be
contrary to the public interest were more fully
stated by the Director of the Federal Bureau of In-
vestigation when he testified before your Subcom-
mittee on March 27, 1950. The Attorney General
at the same time not only fully stated the reasons
of public policy which compel the maintenance of
the confidential nature of the files, but also dis-
cussed the Constitutional precedents which sup-
port without any question my authority to take the
position I have in this matter.

The authority of the President in this regard
has been recognized since the beginnings of our
Government. Our first President and his Cabinet,
in considering the first request made by a House of
Congress for Executive papers, concluded that
while the Congress might call for papers generally,
the Executive ought to comnnuiicate only such pa-
]">ers as the public good would ])ermit. and ought
to refuse those the disclosure of M-hich would be
contrary to the public interest.

No President has ever comjilied with an order of
the Legislative Branch directing the Executive



622



Department of State Bulletin



Branch to produce confidential documents, the
disclosures of which was consiilered hy the Presi-
dent to be contrary to the public interest. Tlie
Presidents who have had to meet that issue are
numerous, and they have uniformly rejected such
encroacliments on the Constitutional power of the
President. George Washington, James Monroe,
Andrew Jackson, and Grover Cleveland are only
a few of the Presidents who have followed this
course. In our own lifetime, William Howard
Taft, in his book "The Chief Magistrate," allirmed
his faith in the Constitutional power of the Presi-
dent on this issue. And also within this century,
Attorneys General serving in the Cabinets of Pres-
idents Tlieodore Roosevelt, Taft, Wilson, Coolidge
and Franklin D. Roosevelt, have restated the re-
sponsibility of the Executive Branch to maintain
the integi'i'ty of confidential information when its
disclosure would be contrary to the public interest.
I would be derelict in my duty if I failed to do so.

I have felt obliged, therefore, to direct the Sec-
retary of State, the Attorney General and the
Chairman of the Civil Service Commission not to
comply with your subpoenas.

As I have already informed you, I wish to coop-
erate with j'our Subcommittee in every reasonable
way, and for that reason I have asked the biparti-
san Loyalty Review Board to make an independ-
ent review of the loyalty cases before your
Subcommittee.

Sincerely yours,

Harry S. Truman



Ambassador Jessup Answers
McCarthy's Charge on Field's
Donations to Learned Society

Statement hy Philip C. Jessup ^
[Released to the press April 3]

I believe a comment is appropriate on Senator
McCarthy's latest insinuations that the American
Council of tlie Institute of Pacific Relations, in ac-
cepting donations from Frederick Vanderbilt
Field, had shown that it was being paid to peddle
the Communist Party line.

But first, it is again necessary to correct a mis-
statement of fact by Senator McCarthy. Senator
McCarthy said tliat the American Council of the
Institute of Pacific Relations "was largely con-
trolled by Mr. Jessup." Actually, during the years
in which these donations were made, 1942 and 1943,
I had ceased to be chairman of the American
Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations. I



was still a member of the Board of Trustees which
had about ;вЦ†")() members.

At tliat time. Dr. Robert Gordon Sproul, presi-
dent of the University of California, was chair-
man of the American Council of the Institute of
Pacific Relations; Francis Harmon was treasurer;
and AVilliani R. Herod, now president of the Inter-
national General Electric Company, was chairman
of the Finance Committee. During that period,
Juan Trippe, i)residentof Pan American Airways,
and Henry Luce of Ti?ne and Life were sponsors
of a drive for funds on behalf of the American
Council of the Institute of Pacific Relations.
Surely these gentlemen would never have accci)ted
payments from Mr. Field or anyone else for "sell-
ing the Communist Party Line." Neitlier would
I if I had been in control.

Tliese contributions, according to Senator Mc-
Carthys own figures, total only $3,.'500 as com-
pared with total expenses for the 2-year period of
approxmiately $200,000. About half of the
amount was met by contributions from the Rocke-
feller Foundation and Carnegie Corporation.
Generous donations by large industrial concerns
made up a large portion of the remainder.



Ambassador Steinhardt Killed
in Plane Crash in Canada

Statement by Secretary Acheson
[Released to the press March 28]

I was deeply shocked and saddened to hear of
the death this morning of the Honorable Laurence
A. Steinhardt, the United States Ambassador to
Canada, in a plane crash near Ottawa.^

Mr. Steinhardt served witli distinction at a
number of important diplomatic posts since 1933,
and, at the time of his death, was ably representing
the United States in Canada. His devotion to
duty and his keen intelligence enabled him to make
a most valuable contribution to the conduct of our
foreign relations in the critical years during which
he served his country. In his last assignment, he
worked conscientiously for the maintenance and
strengthening of the bonds of friendship between
the United States and Canada.

Throughout our association, I had a profound
admiration for his sincerity and his integrity. I
know that my sorrow in his untimely death is
shared by his many friends both in this country
and abi-oad who recognized and appreciated his
ability.



' Made in response to a telejrram dated Apr. 1, 1950,
from Senator .Joseph McCarthy to Secretary Acheson.



' For texts of condolences from L. f. St. Laurent,
Canadian Prime Minister, to the President and from
H. H. Wrong, Canadian Ambassador to the United States,
to Secretary Aclieson, see Department of State pre.ss re^
leases 201 ami 292, Mar. 28, lOfjO, respectively.



April 17, 1950



623



^



Online LibraryUnited States. Dept. of State. Office of Public CoDepartment of State bulletin (Volume v. 22, Apr- Jun 1950) → online text (page 24 of 116)